【作者】 徐美秋；

【导师】 常思春；

【作者基本信息】 四川师范大学 ， 中国古代文学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 左思《三都赋》是京都大赋名篇,自其流传,赞誉之外亦时生出疑问与责难,如撰年、诸家序注的真伪、对征实赋论的贯彻、比为类书、结构疏漏以及流传中不可避免的文字之脱衍讹误等等。目前学界除对撰年有专文讨论外,其他问题则未见有专文讨论。有鉴于此,本文从三方面综合探讨以上问题。 其一,《三都赋》撰年考察,包括诸家序注的真伪问题。《三都赋》的撰年是一桩千年疑案,前人及今人的研究所得结论大致有七种之多。本文在清理诸家研究得失的基础上,对判定《三都赋》初成之年的两条主要依据即《晋书》所载皇甫谧为《三都赋》作序而卒于太康三年(282)、左思为作《三都赋》访吴事于陆机而陆机于太康十年(289)入洛二事时间的相互抵牾作了详悉考察,论证了徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考》提出的《晋书·皇甫谧传》“太康三年卒”之“太康”为“元康”之误为是、《陆机传》“太康末入洛”之载不误,破解了这桩疑案的症结所在及争论不休的皇甫谧《序》真伪问题,得出《三都赋》初成于元康元年(291)左右的结论,这桩疑案似可了结。 其二,《三都赋》批评辨析。前人对《三都赋》的批评主要有三点,皆值得再商榷。批评之一:《三都赋》有夸张、想像、失于考信之辞,有违左思的征实主张。对此,本文仔细分析左思提出征实赋论的原因、契机、具体所指与具体标准,由此发现《三都赋》的实际创作的确贯彻了左思的征实赋论。批评之二:《三都赋》博物征实有如类书。对此,钱钟书《管锥编》“以能文为本”(用萧统《文选序》语)、“兼具类书之用”之说甚有见地。本文从社会背景、实际创作与作品解读三方面论述“以能文为本”乃左思用心所在,也符合《三更多还原

【Abstract】 Fu on Three Capitals by ZuoSi is one of the most famous Fu among its kind. Since its spreading, besides appraises, many kinds of doubts and criticisms, such as the doubts on its exact writing time, on the faithfulness of the prefaces and notes by many scholars, on implementing the theory of realistic aspect of Fu, on being regarded as catalogues, as well as mistakes in its structure and wording , have always accompanied it. At the present time , the academic circle only discussed its writing time, leaving others untouched. So the author of this thesis wants to analyze all the aspects of it in three parts.The first part is the research on its exact writing time, including the faithfulness of its kinds of prefaces and notes. Its exact writing time has remained as a myth. So far, there are seven kinds of conclusions on it. In this thesis, two pieces of evidence support the author’s conclusion on the bases of comparing the advantages and weak points of different kinds of theories. One is the fact that Huangfu Mi once wrote a preface for it and died in 282A.D., which was recorded in the History of Jin . The other is the fact that ZuoSi once got help from LuJi when he intended to write Fu on Three capitals. However, it was in 289A.D. that LuJi went to LuoYang. This means the above two facts are in contradiction to each other. After detailed analysis, it can be concluded that XuChuanwu’s claim in his paper New research in Huangfu Mi Death Year that YuanKang was mistaken as TaiKangin the History of Jin is right, which can confirm the description that LuJi went to LuoYang at the end of reign of TaiKang. Then it can be concluded that Fu on Three Capitals was accomplished in 291 A.D ,which may resolve the problem of its exact writing time.The second part of this thesis is the analysis of the criticisms against Fu on Three Capitals. There are three main viewpoints from all these criticisms and all of them are worth being discussed again. The first one is that Fu on Three capitals are full of exaggerations and imaginary descriptions which violates his own ideas. As to this, the author of this paper carefully analyzed the reason why ZuoSi put forward the theory of some realistic aspects of Fu, the background, concrete referents and criteria. The results confirm that Fu on Three Capitals in fact carries out Zuo’s theory. The second one is that it is like a catalogue and full of blank descriptions. As to this, Qian Zhongshu claims in bis Guan Zhui Bian that it owns literary nature while it can be used as a catalogue. In this thesis, the author argues from three angles, that is, social background, writing and the analysis of the works, that literary nature is Zuo’s intensions which conforms to the real situation of it. The third one is that there is no mention of the appearance of Mr. WeiGuo and so it is a structural error. As to this, it can be pointed out that it is the structural arrangement of emphasizing the central position of the Wei kingdom and praising the Western Jin Dynasty. It is also a breakthrough in the structure of Fu of the Han Dynasty. Meanwhile, there are some signs that Mr. WeiGuo would appear from the title Fu on Three Capitals.The third part of this thesis is on the collation of it. Within the framework of the Selected Readings, some scholars had done much work in the annotation and textual criticism of it. However, with the appearance of some ancient editions of the Selected Readings, it is necessary to recollate Fu on Three Capitals. In this thesis, Hu’s edition which is the popular one among its kind is selected as the basis of comparison, supplemented by seven other editions such as You’s, Mao’s editions, etc.. On the basis of this, this thesis provides a detailed collation of different editi-ons of Fu on Three Capitals and the work of these scholars is either corrected or supplemented.There are careful and detailed discussions on the research of other scholars’ work on Fu of Three Capitals in the above three parts of this thesis. This can be used as a reliable basis for further research.更多还原