【作者】 陈国安；

【导师】 钱仲联； 杨海明；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 中国古代文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 诗经学至清朝一崛而中兴,本文以1644——1840诗经学为研讨主体。下限述论时扩展至1976,若以上限前伸明遗民生活时空计算,则本文所述论诗经学史近四百年。本文分为绪论、上编、下编及附论四部分。绪论述本文研究方法。本文以《诗经》存活于另一时代(清代)为论域,以学术史视角之清代诗经学史为主体,综合系统考察《诗经》存活于清代学术、清代文学、文学理论发展轨迹中之情状。本文以生态考察为基点,以心态考察为手段,以形态考察为视角,将关涉诗经学诸命题还原至当时代作全景式描述。第一章概述清前诗经学发展轨迹、清代诗经学研究现状及清代诗经学发展概况。本章述及清前诗经学虽扼要亦有异于诗经学通史成说,以文献综述方式详述清代诗经学研究之发展,分类条析清代诗经主流派著述。第二章论清初诗经学,以个案与总论结合之法述清初诗经学学术思想不主一家,兼采众说,情感上时有亡国之痛故国之思。本章特列节论清初遗民诗经学。个案研究所论者:孙承泽、陆奎勋及姚际恒。第三章分两节论乾嘉诗经学,其总体特征:诗经学成就“大”、学问“精”者在小学文献;汉学宋学交互影响,攻讦激烈多意气,借鉴补足为“求真”,在朝者或汉或宋皆由圣意出,在野者不汉不宋多独立。个案研究所论者:戴震、惠栋、焦循。第四章亦分两节论道光朝过渡期之诗经学,道光朝诗经学为传统诗经学中兴期之“夕照”,绝绚烂极斑斓。汉学毛郑诗经学于此间集大成,诗经学著作之汇刻,《诗经》文字之校勘刊印普及,诗经学汉宋之融合,今文诗经学之崛起,皆道光朝过渡特征也。个案研究所论者:胡承珙、陈奂及陈乔枞父子。斯为上编。第五章将清代诗经学置于清代文学发展背景中述其发展,清代诗经学发展之特征为:经学发展政治需求之压力张力消长更迭。此特征具体体现为:汉学宋学之交互影响,古文今文之嬗变融合。继之研讨清代诗学风气与清代诗经学发展之关联。第六章以清代各体文学中之《诗经》为论述对象,从取神至袭貌,描述清代文学对《诗经》之接受,着重讨论清代诗词文赋用“诗三百”语典,分两节详论清代四言诗十家,为此领域之新创。附论韩国中世闺阁女史三宜堂金夫人诗文中之“诗三百”,可作侧面见得“诗三百”之影响。第七章分别自清诗话、清人论诗绝句两端论述清代诗经学与清代文学理论发展之关系。斯为下编。第八章为附论,亦分两节分别以个案研究方法述论晚近现代诗经学名家之著述成就,论晚近诗经学家:魏源、方玉润、王先谦、皮锡瑞,现代诗经学家:梁启超、闻一多及朱自清。力求虽论人即论史。更多还原

【Abstract】 Poetics, long dormant under the Chinese literary landscape, went for an eruption starting the Manchu reign, experiencing the greatest thrust during the 1644-1840 revival, leaving repercussions felt as late as 1976. Taking such a resurrection as polemics for this dissertation against a social-cultural backdrop spanning 400 years, the author presents the major arguments through a quadruple structure featuring Introduction, Section One, Section Two, and Supplementary Argumentation.The Introduction offers the working methodologies adopted throughout this undertaking. The methodological economy, in substance, is the view of the Book of Songs in the Manchu times as a relived body poetic. Literature with its manifold representations brought into creative life within the focal literary history are then projected in three dimensions: an eco-survey as grounding, an psychic description as means, and typological analysis as perspective, so that a panoramic picture comes to the eye that looks to a myriads of poetic propositions.The 5-chapter long Section One begins with an overview of the development paths for pre-Manchu era poetics, followed by broad brush strokes about the accumulative poetic findings about the Book of Songs during the Manchu reign. Scholarly attention in this chapter falls on literature review with particular reference to masterpiece writings.Subjects under treatment for Chapter Two feature a combination of case studies( Sun Chengze, Lu Kuixun, and Yao Jiheng, ect.) and holistic arguments, to theeffect that the understanding is reached of the existence of both complementary andcontradictory propositions on Book of Song rhetorics during the formative years of thesaid revival.Qualities undergirding the poetics developed over the Qain-Jia part of the Manchu China history, as the author makes clear in Chapter Three, are ground-breaking achievements pertaining to Book of Songs scholarship on the one hand and, meticulous enterprises in the land of such scholarship’s pragmatics on the other. Generally speaking, Han-scholarship and Song-scholarship interplayed with each other, producing both novel discoveries and fault-finding at the person behind the idea. Nevertheless, truth seeking dominated the scene, although, to be granted, while those in the corridors of power exhibited much borrowing from the kind of sage wisdom recorded in the Han or Song times, those politically disadvantaged displayed awesome individual person-born insights. Scholars receiving most attention for case study purposes here are Dai Zhen, Hui Dong, and Jiao Xun.Also a 2-part package as is the case of the previous chapter, Chapter Four has under its spotlight the transitional poetics under the Daoguang reign. Traditional Chinese poetics enjoyed its most magnificent and grandiose representation in this transitional stage. The Han-scholarship styled Book of Songs poetics in the Mao and-Zheng tradition reached it summit. Virtually, varied exegeses and commentaries on the Book of Songs were documented for a wider critical readership. Equally noteworthy, the conventions of Han scholarship and Song interpretative tradition were made more compatible to each other. And, not the least significant, Book of Song scholastics in the post-Han script charged forward with all might. Hu Chenghong, Chen Huan, and Chen Qiaozong, among others, merit, and truly do a full treatment for case analysis.Chapter Five traces the growth of Manchu era poetics against the background of parallel literary developments. Among its manifested signs is the tug of war between scholasticism and politics, encompassing the interplay between Han and Song scholarships, as well as that between ancient and modern script writings.The multiple representations of the Book of Songs emerging from a variety of literary genres during the Manchu reign are separately studied in Chapter Six. Specifically, literary allusions in the many different modes of poetry that surfaced to the so-called 300 poems arrest most heed of the author. To exemplify the gravity of these allusions, the author brings to the critical eye 10 poets known for their 4-character poems, an in-depth look into the intrusion of the 300 poems into whose creative artistry reveals, the first time ever, the deep impact these poems exercised, something also well attested to by the poetry composed by a well-known Korean female poet in Korea’s Middle Dynasty period.After finishing Chapter Seven which is a vigorous attempts at a clarification of the relationship between poetics and literary theory over the Manchu times, the author closes the dissertation, in Chapter Eight, with a supplementary exploration into the critical achievements made by such early modern Book of Songs interpreters as Wei Yuan, Fang Yurun, and Wang Xianqian, as well as those contributed by turn-of-the-century scholars such as Liang Qichao, Wen Yiduo and Zhu ZiQing.更多还原