【作者】 郭艳珠；

【导师】 徐新民；

【作者基本信息】 内蒙古师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 关于《文心雕龙》,林杉和徐复观提出了各自的文体观,主要分歧在于:一、在《文心雕龙》是何种性质的理论著作这一问题上,林杉认为是一部写作学专著,徐复观则认为是文学理论批评专著。二、林杉提出的“文体”被徐复观称作“文类”,徐复观的“文体”在林杉那里大致相当于“格调”或“风格”一类的义界。三、林杉把文体论当作《文心雕龙》的局部或一个方面的理论;徐复观则说从广义上理解,《文心雕龙》全书可视作中国古代文论的文体论著作。两位学者在此问题上的各执一词原因肇自刘勰在文体观的两方面的诉求,即形而上的本体论诉求和形而下的方法论诉求。唐代古文运动兴起之后,文体论逐渐向后者倾斜。到明代文章选家那里,热衷于文体论方法论的探究蔚成大国,进入到它的全盛时期。而明代文章选家对文体学的树功,给近现代中国古代文体学的研究提供了范本,指明了方向,包括对《文心雕龙》的研究也以它为依归。林杉的文体观也接其余响,庚其余绪,表现出重法术、重写作实践的特征。徐复观则坚持了《文心雕龙》形而上学的一路,把探讨其文体的文学本体论当作终极目标,这一选择与他固守汉魏六朝文体论的理论阵地、与他新儒学大师的学术背景以及深受西洋文论濡染的学养是分不开的。笔者无意在两位学者的文体观之间置轩轾之较,他们二人的文体观都各有其合理性,也都有其片面性,要在又各有其适合的语境。我们既要看到其对立的表面,又要看到其能够共存,可以兼取的潜在可能性。两位学者的文体论皆构成中国古代文体学研究不可或缺的组成部分。更多还原

【Abstract】 About the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon, Lin Shan and Xu Fuguan bring forward their own stylistic eye individually. The primary difference between them is the following.Firstly, on the issue about which characteristic theoretical treatise the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon is. Lin Shan considers it as a composition monograph. But Xu Fuguan thinks it is a literary theoretical monograph.Secondly, Lin Shan’s style is considered as genre by Xu Fuguan. And Xu Fuguan’s style is different from Lin Shan’s. Thirdly, Lin Shan regards the stylistics as an aspect or a part theory of the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon. But,Xu Fuguan says it must be understood generally. The whole book of the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon can be looked upon as a stylistic monograph of Chinese classical literary theory. The cause of Lin and Xu’s difference comes from Liu Xie’s two new requests of stylistic eye, which is the new superorganic ontological request and the new subsurface methodology request.From the classical literary movement in Tang Dynasty , the stylistics inclines to the second one gradually. the author of anthology in Ming Dynasty is wild about stylistics and methodology.Of course, the research is entering its golden ages. And the author of anthology in Ming Dynasty’s contribution to stylistics provides a pattern to the study on Chinese classical stylistics in contemporary and up-to-date times, demonstrating the direction,including the study on the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon. Lin Shan’s opinion of the stylistics,with the characteristic of paying attention to the law and method,the writing practice,comes from them,too. Xu Fuguan is always sticking on the superorganic view of the Literary Mind and Carving Dragon. He thinks it is his ultimate aim to probe into the stylistics literary ontology. The choice has something to do with his adhereing to Han Wei and the Six Dynasty’s literary theory position, his new Confucian master’s learning background ,his wisdom of the western literary theory’s influence.I never want to have the judgement between their stylistic eyes. Both of their stylistic eyes aren’t only rational,but also unilateral.And their theories each can fit for their own lingual territory. We shouldn’t only see their opposite facts,but also their coexistence and their compatible latent probability. Both of their stylistics are necessary parts of study on Chinese classical stylistics.更多还原