【作者】 项念东；

【导师】 胡晓明；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2009， 博士

【副题名】以岑仲勉、陈寅恪为中心的“20世纪诗学考据学”之研究

【摘要】 援引考据方法以研治中国古典诗歌的“诗学考据”,堪谓中国诗学中一个存在已久且影响广远的学术类型。然考据主真,诗艺求美,如何将此二者融汇于一体,始终为一难题。二十世纪学者中多有措手“诗学考据”者,本文仅以唐诗学研究最为代表的陈寅恪与岑仲勉为例,藉论析各自诗学成果中考据进路表现之不同,以尝试探讨真正将考据与诗美发现贯通一体的“诗学考据学”何以可能。二十世纪以来,种种偏见之下,考据之学往往易被狭隘化、固定化为一资料之学、文献之学。梳理上世纪初叶刘师培、胡适、梁启超等对清儒考据之学内在进路的辨分,陈垣、严耕望、顾颉刚等对史料研究与史学研究的析理,斑斑可见考据进路不同则学术关注点自有偏向。此一点,犹为明显的体现于岑仲勉与陈寅恪的唐史研究实践之中。从岑仲勉对陈寅恪之学术批评可以清晰看出,岑氏侧重于史源追查下的文献考据,与陈寅恪建立在史料整理基础上而又不乏“史料超越”视野的历史考据,堪谓现代文史考据之学不同学术进路的集中体现。就学术研究方法而言,两种考据进路本未可强作轩轾。然施之于诗学,则前者更凸显为对有唐一代诗学文献之整理,而陈寅恪的诗学考据则更多一份诗性眼光与诗美发现。由此来看二十世纪以来的“诗学考据学”,有三个问题不容忽视。一是尽管考据型诗学研究在中国诗歌研究史上渊源已久,但作为一种现代学术的“诗学”之所以要讲考据,还有其不得不如此的必然理由;二是作为一种独特学术类型的“诗学考据”,实有文字考据、文献考据与历史考据三种不同进路,各自皆有其需要关注的内在问题;三是岑仲勉与陈寅恪所标识的文献考据与历史考据,可谓20世纪诗学考据的两大范式,其对后此学者的影响呈显一种交互性。综此而言,尽管诗学研究素无“定法”,但着意于发现“中国诗”艺术特性、于逻辑实证研究中灌注一份鲜活艺术感发力的陈寅恪式的“诗学考据学”,应该成为此下学者不应忽略的一种诗学批评“方法”取向。更多还原

【Abstract】 The textual criticism of poetics which study the Chinese classical poetry by the textual criticism method,is an academic type which has a long history and a profound influence.However, textual criticism pursuits truth while poetry is aesthetic.So it’s always been difficult to merge the two together.There were some scholars who worked on the textual criticism of poetics in 20^th century and we can see the difference between them.Therefore,the dissertation takes Cen Zhongmian and Chen Yinque the two who study the Tang Poetics as examples to analyze the difference between their textual criticism methods.And thereby we discuss how to achieve the true study of textual criticism of poetics which merge the textual criticism and aesthetic study together.From the beginning of 20^th century,the textual criticism was always considered by prejudice as a study of data and documentation.By sorting out the differences-seeking studies on Qing Dynasty scholars’textual criticism methods by Liu Shipei,Hu Shi and Liang Qichao,and by analyzing Chen Yuan,Yan Gengwang and Gu Jiegang’s historical data study and historical study, we can easily find that their different textual criticism methods led to different academic study focuses.And the difference shows very clearly in Cen Zhongmian and Chen Yinque’s practice in Tang Dynasty historical study.In Cen Zhongmian’s criticism to Chen Yinque,it’s easily seen that Cen placed extra emphasis on documentary textual criticism which focuses on origin-seeking while Chen not only sorted out historical data but also transcended historical data.That’s the concentrated reflection of different methods in modern textual criticism.As academic methods,we cannot say which one is better.However,to poetics,Cen’s method focuses on sorting out the documentation of Tang Dynasty poetics while Chen’s method is more of poetic perspective and aesthetic discovery.Therefore,there are three questions which cannot be ignored in the study of textual criticism of poetics since 20th century:1) the original question why we do textual criticism in poetics;2)the internal questions in literal textual criticism,documentary textual criticism and historical criticism; 3)the interaction between documentary textual criticism and historical textual criticism labeled to Cen and Chen.In conclusion,although there’s no settled method in poetics,Chen Yinque’s study of textual criticism of poetics,which emphasize the discovery of aesthetic features of Chinese poetry and artistic feeling in logical demonstration,is an important approach which should be used as a source of reference by today’s poetics scholars.更多还原