《史记》《汉书》的叙述学及其研究史

【作者】 曾小霞；

【导师】 王锺陵；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 中国古代文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 《史记》、《汉书》是中国史学和文学的两座丰碑，它们开创并奠定了中国正史的写作规范，并深深影响了后世文学创作。《汉书》于汉初到汉武帝太初年间这一段史实基本因袭《史记》，两书既存在明显的相同之处，又有着显著的不同。有关《史记》和《汉书》的各自研究已浩如烟海，然而系统地对两书作研究和比较的却极少，本文即以《史记》、《汉书》为研究对象，采取文史结合的办法，着力探讨两书的研究史及其叙述之异同。全文分为引言、正文、结语三大部分。引言部分主要为中国早期以史传为主的叙事传统的形成、综述以及本文写作的意义和主要研究方法。结语部分概括总结全文。正文分为上、下两编，上编即《史记》、《汉书》的研究史，下编为《史记》、《汉书》的叙述学建构，上编是本文的研究基础，通过对古代的研究进行梳理，全面了解古代人的叙事研究，以便更好地开展下编的叙述学建构。上编分为四章。此编旨在了解古代学者是如何研究、如何学习《史记》和《汉书》的，通过历时性研究，探讨《史》、《汉》地位之沉浮。此部分以年代为顺序，对唐前、唐宋、明清、近代等历代学者的《史》、《汉》研究及其研究特色进行汇总，以便比较全面地见出两书的研究状况，并考察不同时期不同文学领域对两书叙事艺术的借鉴。唐前《史》、《汉》研究集中于“史汉优劣论”；唐宋时期一方面对唐前评论作辨析，一方面又有新的阐发，唐宋古文运动促进了人们对《史》、《汉》文本的研究和学习，古文家们对《史记》的提倡导致了《史记》地位的提升；明代的研究以评点为主，清代研究以考据为主，文学家们在各个领域学习《史》、《汉》。近代研究为传统与现代研究的过渡，既有宏观研究，又有微观研究，不同于明代评点的注重感发或清代逐字逐句的考据，近代的研究更有系统性。下编分为七章。此编运用中西叙述理论分别从叙述体例、叙述视角、叙述时空、叙述结构、叙述思想、叙述语言、叙述特色等七个方面来论述两书的叙述艺术，侧重研究两书叙述上的异同，从两书叙述比较中看史传文学的发展。在叙述体例上，《史记》开创纪传体形式，《汉书》进一步整齐纪传体体例，将通史改为断代史；两书都贯彻“实录”的叙述思想，但《史记》比《汉书》更富有小说性，司马迁尚奇，因而作品中多想象和代言；在叙述视角上，两书作为史学著作，其要求客观写实的原则决定着其叙述视角必然以全知视角为主；在叙述时空上，两书都采取了顺叙、逆叙、插叙等众多叙事手法；叙述结构上都注重整体性原则；两书的叙述语言风格迥异，《史记》晓畅、不避繁复、多散句，《汉书》古雅、力求简洁、尚骈偶，《史》、《汉》语言之不同可见出汉代文学由散而骈的演绎轨迹；两书总体叙述特色不同，《史记》借史抒情，《汉书》含蓄内敛；《史记》“圆而神”，《汉书》“方以智”；《史记》为性情之作，《汉书》为伦理之书。更多还原

【Abstract】 Shiji and Hanshu are two monuments in Chinese historiograghy and literature.They created Chinese official history writing style, and deeply influenced later Chineseliterary. Hanshu followed Shiji in the history period from the beginning of Han Dynasty toEmperor Wudi of Han Dynasty, so the two books exist obvious similarities, but also havesignificant differences. Shiji and Hanshu in their respective studies have multitudeachievements, however systematical research on the two books are rare. This papercombines literature and history methods, focus on the history of Shiji and Hanshu’s studiesand their narration. The whole paper is composed of three parts: sub-introduction, text andconclution.The sub-introduction part mainly discusses the forming of China’s history narrativetradition, overview, and the significance and research approaches of this paper. Theconclusion part summarizes the whole paper. The text part is composed of two series,namely, the history of Shiji and Hanshu’s studies, and the narrative research of the twobooks.The first series is divided into four chapters. This part aims to research how did theancient scholars study and learn Shiji and Hanshu, and discuss the ups and downs of thetwo books through diachronic study. Generally speaking, the research of before the TangDynasty focused on their advantages and disadvantages; The research of Tang and SongDynasty developed, and the ancient prose movement promoted the study of the two books,Shiji’s status enhanced. The research of Ming Dynasty focused on comment, and QingDynasty on the textual criticism. Writers learned the two books in various fields. Modernresearch combined macroscopic and microcosmic study, becoming more and moresystematic.The second series is divided into seven chapters. This part adopts Chinese andwestern narratology theory to research Shiji and Hanshu’s similarities and differences. Shijistarted biograghy style, it’s general history. Hanshu followed Shiji, but is dynastic history.Both of Shiji and Hanshu record real history, but Shiji is more like a novel in some instent.As historical works, the requirement of objective reality determines their narrativeperspective mainly is the omniscient narration. Both of Shiji and Hanshu pay attention to the principle of entirety. Shiji and Hanshu’s narrative language is also different. Shiji iseasy to read, it used a lot of repeated words and the sentences are not in order. However,Hanshu is hard to read, it looks much more neat. From the two books we can discover thetendency of Han’s literature. The narrative feature of Shiji and Hanshu is also different,Shiji is full of passion, and Hanshu is implicit. Shiji is full of changes, and Hanshu is neat.Shiji demonstrates people’s temperament, and Hanshu is full of ethics.更多还原