曹植文学的批评史略

【作者】 杨贵环；

【导师】 古风；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 文艺学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文是对于“专人文学批评史”建构的尝试。自魏晋至明清时期,历代批评者对曹植诗文推崇备至者有之,贬抑者亦有之,从而形成了一个动态的文学批评史。后代批评者的批评又与前代的批评在不同程度上存在着承传与新变,这与不同时期的审美观念、审美趣味的变化,以及文化思潮、批评标准等密切相关。本文试图在研读相关历代批评典籍的基础上,对从魏晋至明清时期批评者关于曹植诗文的批评情况与一些选本选录情况进行个案研究,并结合不同时代的批评观念与批评标准等,厘清曹植诗文批评的历史发展脉络,揭示一定的诗文批评规律及发展过程,并探究其成因,从而建构“专人文学批评史”。这对于丰富整个古代文学批评史将具有一定的学术意义。本文认为,魏晋南北朝时期批评者侧重于对曹植文才与文辞的激赏、且评价颇高,并对其诗文声律与文辞优劣及其多种文体体制的辨析等方面也给予较多关注;隋唐五代时期批评者对曹植诗的批评远远多于对其赋、表与颂等其他文体的批评,并对其诗的诗格、诗势与诗法,以及乐府诗源流等方面给予了较多关注;宋金元时期复古主张者对曹植诗予以肯定,但文人对渐趋平淡的诗文风格的崇尚,又体现为对曹植诗关注的热情有所减退,对曹植诗文的批评呈下降趋势;明清批评者在对文体流变予以总结时,对于曹植诗在诗歌演变中的调高格正给予审美肯定,批评者对曹植文学的批评仍主要体现为对其诗、乐府诗的批评,而清代又主要体现为两种批评态度:一是对曹植诗文褒扬的态度,如王士祯等;二是对曹植诗文的贬抑态度,如王夫之等。本文除“绪论”部分外,共分五章,分别从魏晋南北朝时期、隋唐五代时期、宋金元时期、明代及清代等五个历史时期对曹植诗文的批评做了探讨。“绪论”部分旨在对曹植诗文以及“批评”概念等进行界定,在文献综述的基础上,说明本文的选题、基本思路、创新点及其研究意义。第一章,魏晋南北朝时期对曹植文学的批评。此时期,玄学兴起,佛教盛行,士人思想逐渐摆脱经学的束缚,文学创作渐趋自觉,注重文采、声律等审美特质,文体分类也更加细密。《文心雕龙》等品评诗文的专著出现,文学批评呈现出由外部批评逐渐扩展至内部批评的趋势。这些也体现在曹植文学的创作与批评中。此时期批评者对曹植文学最突出的批评特点是,对曹植文才与文辞的总体评价较多、且评价颇高,对其诗文声律和文辞优劣及其多种文体体制的辨析等方面给予较多关注。钟嵘、刘勰等人对曹植诗的批评奠定了曹植诗批评的崇高地位,对曹植章表“体赡而律调”等给予肯定和赞誉的同时,对其书、论等文体也指出瑕疵。这一方面体现出曹植文学创作的优劣得失以及对某些文体的突破与开拓,另一方面,也体现出批评者对曹植文学的批评标准的新变与发展。第二章,隋唐五代时期对曹植文学的批评。魏晋南北朝的诗文创作注重辞藻华丽、讲究声律等自觉追求审美特质,为隋唐五代时期诗文的发展奠定了丰厚的基础,出现了唐诗艺术的高峰,缘于此,隋唐五代时期的诗学批评也更注重诗格、诗式等审美因素的批评。此时期批评者对曹植文学最突出的批评特点是,对曹植诗的批评远远多于对其赋、表与颂等其他文体的批评,对其诗的诗格、诗式与诗法,以及乐府诗源流等方面给予了较多关注。对曹植诗的批评主要体现在王昌龄《诗格》与皎然《诗式》等中。批评者结合曹植的人品对其文章之典丽、声律与“风骨”予以肯定,但对其辞藻的绮丽有所贬抑。吴兢《乐府古题要解》对曹植多篇乐府诗、以及相关乐府古题源流等问题进行了批评。此外,还对批评者关于曹植的赋、表及颂等其他文体的批评做了探讨。第三章,宋金元时期对曹植文学的批评。宋金元时期诗文革新运动的推进以及大量诗话的涌现,促进了诗文批评的空前繁荣。针对晚唐五代至宋初骈体文盛行和气格卑弱,与晚唐诗派、西昆体徒事藻饰和模拟剽窃的末流之弊,北宋欧阳修等人推行了诗文革新运动,提倡古文,提倡诗文创作自由、旷达与平淡的艺术追求。南宋时期,理学兴盛,它上承北宋的古文运动,又为元代的诗文发展开辟道路。金、元时期,文学批评相对冷落,其受科举与理学的束缚有所减弱。宋金元时期批评者对曹植诗文的批评,仍主要体现为对其诗的批评,复古派对曹植诗予以肯定;但另一方面,士人对平淡诗文风格的渐趋崇尚,又体现为对曹植诗关注的热情有所减退,批评者对曹植诗文的批评呈下降趋势。批评者在对曹植诗的用韵、用事、直写其事及其文才等给予肯定的同时,又对其诗的源流有所批评,对曹植其他文体的批评还包括对其乐府诗、赋、七与表等文体创作的批评等,此外,也涉及到对曹植具体诗文的内容、文体体制的源流等方面的批评。第四章,明代对曹植文学的批评。明代对曹植文学的批评,仍主要体现为批评者对曹植诗、乐府诗的批评,明人在对文体流变予以总结时,对于所处汉魏时期的曹植诗在诗歌演变中的调高、格正给予审美肯定,也有对曹植诗文在文体发展中的定位与审美评价,具体体现在:对曹植诗文流变及其用辞藻饰等的批评,结合曹植人品与政治境遇评其诗;而自然冲淡的审美追求使得评者对其诗文的贬抑在延续。此时期批评者对曹植诗的批评主要体现在胡应麟《诗薮》和许学夷《诗源辩体》中。《诗薮》对曹植诗在诗之渊源流变予以较高的肯定;在对曹植诗的批评中,又体现出其重视汉魏古诗和盛唐律诗,注重“体以代变”与“格以代降”的诗学观点,认为从无意为诗到有意为诗的优劣俱见;提倡“本色”辨体与诗之格调,并认为本色乃是祖于古诗中的体制、格调,然而曹植诗重于发端,工于辞藻,亦是诗风之一变,虽稍稍偏离诗之本色,但别开生面,另具情态。并且胡氏认为气运等时代因素与人事等个人因素是造成文体与文风改变的原因,其中前者起着非常关键的作用,有些是非人力所及的,胡氏诗学观念中不能排除有非进化论思想的倾向。而许学夷《诗源辩体》也认为在曹植诗与汉人古诗的比较中有作用之迹,他主要认为自曹植五言诗起,体皆敷叙,而语皆构结;乐府诗一改汉乐府的自由体制,语言也渐有作用之迹,但仍无刻意于诗句对偶骈俪的工巧,亦多引事而非用事。此外,其他批评者对曹植赋、书、七体等文体也有批评。他们的批评涉及到对曹植诗法、句法的承袭、语言藻饰以及文体源流等的批评,并有结合曹植政治际遇对其作品进行的批评。第五章,清代对曹植文学的批评。清代从明末清初对重经世致用、标榜人品名节传统儒家诗文观的提倡,经清代前期“神韵”说的提倡,注重清幽淡远、典雅含蓄的诗文风尚,发展至清代中期,出现了“格调说”、“肌理说”以及“性灵说”的诗文理论,审美趣味体现为崇尚畅达痛快、质实厚重审美趣赏的转变,这些也势必会影响到此时期批评者对曹植诗文的批评。本章探讨了此时期批评者对曹植文学的批评特点,仍主要体现为对曹植诗、乐府诗的批评,且又主要体现为两种批评态度:一是对曹植诗文褒扬的态度,如王士祯等;二是对曹植诗文的贬抑态度,如王夫之等。清代批评者对曹植诗文文体渊源流变的批评,主要包括对曹植诗与乐府诗、赋、表及书等文体渊源流变的批评情况,与明代相较,比较明显的批评特点便是在较多的比较批评中,赞誉曹植的同时,又有所贬抑,在崇尚平淡蕴藉的审美趣赏下贬抑之辞犀利,曹植在批评史上的地位又有所下降。对曹植诗文的具体批评体现在对文辞、韵律及章法等形式因素的批评,诸如对曹植诗文辞精炼、质朴自然,赋、比、兴等手法的批评、用意不用字、工于起调等诗法的批评以及对其诗文句义、主旨等层面的批评。与以往所不同的是清代批评者体现出以“厚”为批评标准的批评特点。本文围绕曹植的诗文对其相关的批评资料,进行了较全面的梳理和史的建构,对历代关于曹植诗文作品的批评用统计的方法相对量化,曹植的创作经验是当时文学批评的一个重要典范,本文建构了曹植文学的批评史,其目的是在拓展中国文学批评史研究范式上有所贡献。更多还原

【Abstract】 From Wei to Ming, Qing Dynasties, CaoZhi’s literatures have been highly recognized by some scholars, while they have also been denounced severely by some other scholars, and the criticism on CaoZhi’s literatures is a dynamic process of aesthetic formation. Though the criticism of the later scholars are based on their precursors’there exist some new changes to some extent, and it is due to the different aesthetic concept, taste, cultural trends and critical standards in different time. Based on the criticism on Cao Zhi’s poetry and indexed articles in some classical anthology in different literature period, and combining criticism concept and standards of different times, this paper attempts to clarify the context of the development of Cao Zhi poetry criticism, and reveal some poetry criticism regularity and their development, and explore the causes of those regularities. All those work will enrich the academic meaning to the whole ancient literature criticism history.In WeiJin, researchers focus more on the overall evaluation of CaoZhi’s literary talent and good diction, also pay some attention on the poetry’s tone and multi-style literary form; In Tang dynasty, scholar criticize CaoZhi’s poetry more than his other literature style. And they pay more attention to the poetry rule, poetry style ,writing method of poetry, and the origin of Yue Fu poetry. In Song, Jin and Yuan dynasty the scholars who want to restore the ancient style made affirmative recommendation to Cao zhi’s poetry, but tend to favor flat style, while others show decreased enthusiasm to his poetry and the amount of the criticism is dropping.And in Ming, Qing dynasty, people summarize the becoming of the literature style, and Caozhi’s Yue Fu poetry has been criticized more in this period. Two main opinions exist. The appreciative attitude can be found in Wang Shizhen’s article and the depreciated attitude can be found in Wang Fu-zhi’s article.There are five sections in the thesis with the introduction include, which discuss the criticism to Caozhi’s poetry in five history period, Wei Jin & South and North dynasties, Sui & Tang dynasties, Song Jin & Yuan dynasties, Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty.In introduction, we define the concept of criticism and scope of CaoZhi’s poetry. And the review of Caozhi’s poetry criticism has been reviewed also in this section. The study method is explained here. In the paper, a brief sorting out of Caozhi’s literature criticism since Wei Jin dynasty has been made, and a deep insight will be done at some key points. This kind of method on making criticism history based on given scholars is seldoml seen and so it is a quite new try.Chapter one is mainly about the criticism on CaoZhi’s literature in WeiJin dynasty. In this period, along with the rise of metaphysics and flourished of buddhism, scholars gradually emerge from the ideological shackles of Confucian classics, literature become more lyrical, focusing on literary grace, rhythm and other aesthetic qualities, style and literature classification becomes more detailed. In this period, some monographs on criticism of literature such as Wen xin diao long etc have been pressed. In this period, the most prominent feature on Cao Zhi’s literary criticism is overall evaluation of diction, and a high praise of his literature. And at the same time, flaws on some other literature types such as Shu, Lun etc has been pointed out. Those two kinds of trends indicate advantage and disadvantage of CaoZhi’s literature creation, and also indicate the criticism standard changes on CaoZhi’s literature criticism.Chapter two is mainly about the criticism on CaoZhi’s literature in Tang dynasty. Tang poetry is one highlight in Chinese literature, which roots in rhetorical emphasis, conscious pursuit of the aesthetic qualities on literary creation in WeiJin dynasty. The criticism on CaoZhi’s literature in this period pays more attention to poetry, especially on poetry rule, poetry style etc. The typical cases are Shi Ge of Wang Chang-ling and Shi Shi of Jiao Ran. Combining Cao Zhi’s character, Critics highly praised his writing’s rhythm, cultured and beautiful and Feng Gu. In Explain for Ancient Problem of Yue Fu, Wu Jing Criticize some Yue Fu poetry of Cao Zhi and also point out the origin of those Yue Fu.Chapter three is mainly about the criticism on CaoZhi’s literature in Song Jin and Yuan dynasty. Along with the development of poetry innovation and spring up of large numbers of notes on poetry, the criticism on literature is booming in this period. To rectify the Ping Poetry’s weak style in later Dang to early Song, and to correct the too much modification style and plagiarism in later Tang’s poetry and Xikun Style, Ou Yangxiu in North Song advocate poetry innovation, encourage ancient literature, promote free writing and pursue simple and broad-minded style. In South Song, Li Theory is prevailing, which inherit ancient style movement in North Song, and pave the way of poetry development in Yuan Dynasty. In Jin and Yuan, literature criticism is neglected due to the influence of Civil Servant Examination and Li theory. The critism to Caozhi’s poetry is the main trend, and the affirmative recommendation came from the school of returning to the ancient, while the attenuation arises in the school of plain writing. The rhythm, events, talent, origin, content and style and so on are found in the critical literature.In chapter four, criticism on CaoZhi’s literature in Ming dynasty is studied deeply. The Criticism on CaoZhi’s literature still focus on his poetry and Yue Fu poetry. The typical cases are Hu Ying-lin’s Shi Sou and Xu Xue-yi’s Shi Yuan Bian Ti. In Shi Sou, the origin of CaoZhi’s poetry is paid more attention to in this period。Shi Sou made a hign appreciation to the origin and verified development of Caozhi’s poetry, and the author think that the history and personnel factors cause the change in style and literature. The former is the key factor, which is beyond individual influence. The evolutionary proness can be detected in Hu’s poetry opinion. Shi Yuan Bian Ti insist that Caozhi’s poetry reveals the comparation of poetry in Han Dynasty, and the poetry method, sentence method, expression method and literature origin are discussed by Xu Xue-yi, and the political up and downs of Caozhi to his poetry influence are also studied.Chapter five is mainly about the Caozhi’s literature criticism in Qing dynasty. In this chapter, the characteristics on CaoZhi’s literature criticism are studied. There are two main opinions, one is appreciation, the other one is depreciating CaoZhi’s poetry. In this period, critics emphasize not only on the poetry’s origin, but also on the origin of FU, Biao and Shu etc. Compared with criticism in Ming dynasty, depreciating on CaoZhi’s literature is a typical characteristic. The detailed criticism on CaoZhi’s literature is on the diction, rhythm and writing method of those literatures. Compared with those in others dynasty, the difference of the criticism standard in Qing dynasty is it takes heavy as the first thing of criticism standard.Basing on the material about CaoZhi’s literature citicism, adopting statistical methods, and using relative value, the paper conducts a more comprehensive criticism history on CaoZhi’s literature, and then constructs the history of CaoZhi’s literature criticism, to some extent, this will contribute to the ancient chinese history of literary criticism.更多还原