【作者】 郭素媛；

【导师】 王平；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 中国古代文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 《三国演义》是我国历史演义小说的开山之作,博大精深、包罗万象。自其成书以来,距今已有六百多年的历史,其间,历代读者由于身份、学养、思想观念、文化心理及其诠释的立场、角度、理论、方法等不同,对《三国演义》的思想内容和人物形象作出了形态各异的诠释,从而使《三国演义》实现了文本意义的创生,并围绕《三国演义》形成了一个丰富的文学和文化景观。可以说,《三国演义》的诠释史,就是它的存在史。诠释学理论是西方关于理解与解释的理论,以“意义”为中心,对诠释活动的目标以及作者、文本、读者等因素在诠释活动中的作用都有所阐述,对人们理解、解释文学作品具有启发意义。本文在诠释学理论的启发之下,以科学理论为指导,采取点面结合的研究方法和横纵交错的论述结构,以读者为重点考察对象,对《三国演义》的诠释历史进行梳理,并在此基础上,探寻这些不同诠释背后的历史、政治、思想、文化等方面的原因。论文的写作以期今天的读者对《三国演义》的诠释历史有更加全面、立体的了解,从而进一步丰富和深化对《三国演义》的诠释;为此后《三国演义》的诠释提供一些可资借鉴的经验、教训。论文共分为三大板块:第一部分,导论。我们将简要介绍论文的选题背景及意义,选题的研究现状及研究方法,界定论文所涉及的诠释者及诠释文本,并指出论文的创新与不足;简要回顾西方诠释学理论的发展演变过程,即前诠释学、“作者中心论”诠释学、“读者中心论”诠释学和“文本中心论”诠释学;从四个方面思考诠释学理论与古代文学经典诠释的关联,并对如何将诠释学理论应用于古代文学经典诠释这一问题作出初步解答。上编《三国演义》诠释史总论。第一章《三国演义》何以成为古代文学经典。本章从三个方面分析了《三国演义》成为古代文学经典的原因,即漫长的成书过程和广泛的题材来源、作者视域的宽广、历代读者的诠释。第二章,明清时期《三国演义》诠释。本章首先分析了《三国演义》在明清时期的诠释情境:尊经崇儒、表彰理学、为专制皇权服务的文教政策,明代中后期兴起的思想解放运动,清代的实学思潮,《三国演义》在明清时期的传播阅读情况。在此基础上论文分析了明清时期对《三国演义》的诠释:小说评点中,余象斗评本是“书商型”评点,李卓吾评本(叶昼伪托)偏重于“文人型”评点,毛宗岗评本、李渔评本则偏重于“综合型”评点;文人序跋和笔记主要从伦理教化意义和历史真实性两个角度对《三国演义》作出了不同的解读和评价;清代文人的序跋和笔记较明代表现出态度上的谨慎性,这主要与清代的文化专制政策有关。第三章,近现代《三国演义》诠释。本章第一节论述了新文化运动之前《三国演义》的诠释情况。清末,在外来思想的冲击之下,社会思想和文学观念都发生了前所未有的变化。在社会变革的关键时期,资产阶级维新派和革命派文人从社会政治需要出发,肯定和抬高《三国演义》的社会意义和价值,同时对“拥刘反曹”思想开始提出质疑。新文化运动之前对《三国演义》的诠释是由古典形态向现代形态的转型阶段,充满了新与旧、近代与传统之阎的矛盾纠葛。第二节论述了新文化运动影响下《三国演义》的诠释情况。新文化运动时期,胡适、钱玄同等人对《三国演义》持批判、否定态度,这与他们对统文化的批判态度有关。整理国故运动中,胡适等人对《三国演义》的作者、成书、版本等情况进行了考证。这一时期,马克思主义传入中国,并开始被用于《三国演义》的诠释当中。第四章,建国以后《三国演义》诠释。本章第一节在分析建国十七年的政治思想斗争和毛泽东文艺思想的基础上,认为这一时期研究者对《三国演义》的诠释带有浓重的政治色彩,阶级性和人民性是这一时期解读、评价《三国演义》的两大标准。第二节通过分析新时期以来开放、自由、宽松的社会环境,认为这一时期研究者以新的视角、理论、方法对《三国演义》的思想内涵、人物形象进行了解读,主题诠释呈现出多元化局面,文化学诠释是这一时期的诠释重点。下编《三国演义》诠释史分论。第一章,《三国演义》“拥刘反曹”思想诠释。本章分析了五个不同时期“拥刘反曹”思想的诠释情况:明代小说评点者余象斗、叶昼并没有表现出鲜明的“拥刘反曹”思想倾向,而同时期的小说序跋则具有鲜明的“拥刘反曹”思想倾向。清初毛宗岗加强了《三国演义》“拥刘反曹”思想倾向,使它的正统色彩和伦理道德观念更加浓厚。关于毛氏父子评改《三国演义》的动机,我们认为主要是受到明末清初小说评点繁盛局面的影响,而不是为了某种政治目的。“五四”时期,胡适等人对《三国演义》“拥刘反曹”思想是彻底批判的。建国初期,研究者主要从民族意识、爱国主义和人民性角度对“拥刘反曹”思想进行解读和评价。新时期以来,研究者一方面追溯“拥刘反曹”思想的历史渊源;一方面从文化学角度对“拥刘反曹”思想进行诠释。第二章,《三国演义》“实用”诠释。首先,我们认为,《三国演义》蕴藏着诠释不尽的智慧、权谋,具有广阔的“实用”诠释空间。在此基础上,我们重点分析了《三国演义》“实用”诠释的三个重要阶段:明清时期《三国演义》“实用”诠释:一是封建统治者和文人士大夫出于维持封建统治秩序的需要,对《三国演义》伦理教化功能的应用;一是明清之际的军事斗争中,各方力量对《三国演义》智谋、兵法的借鉴和应用。在现代和当代中国历史上,毛泽东对《三国演义》的“实用”诠释和实践应用,为《三国演义》意义的丰富和拓展作出了重要贡献。八十年代中期以后,有些学者在现实需要的召唤下从人才学、军事学等角度发掘《三国演义》中的智谋,从而使它在新的历史时期得到极大的丰富和发展。第三章,关羽形象诠释。明清时期对关羽形象的诠释是与关羽信仰、崇拜纠缠在一起的。统治者崇祀关羽,民间信仰关羽,主要是围绕其“义”。封建统治者标榜的是其“忠义”,民间则从朋友情义、重信守约、义气等方面理解其“义”。清初,毛宗岗对关羽形象的评价极高,认为他是理想中的完美武将。毛宗岗如此崇尚关羽的原因,一是他以儒家伦理道德规范为准则,将关羽视为儒家理想的武将形象;二是与其文学典型观有关。20世纪初,钱玄同、胡适等对关羽形象作出了否定评价。特别是钱玄同将关羽与孔子并列,认为封建社会中的关羽信仰与孔子的儒家学说一样,都是愚昧人民的罪魁祸首、腐朽落后的封建毒瘤,都是应当铲除的。20世纪五六十年代,研究者主要对关羽持肯定态度,而对于关羽的“义”,则进行了两面性分析,分别予以肯定和否定。新时期以来,研究者对关羽形象的诠释逐渐深入,特别是对关羽形象的文化诠释,充分挖掘了关羽形象的文化内涵。第四章,曹操形象诠释。清初,毛宗岗认识到了曹操形象的两面性,肯定他的才智、用人、功业;否定他的道德和人格。但在儒家伦理道德观和文学典型观的双重作用下,毛宗岗将“奸”定性为曹操形象的主导因素,对他持否定态度。20世纪初,以胡适、钱玄同为代表,一反历史上对曹操形象的批判态度,对曹操形象作出了较高的评价。建国初期,以阶级性和人民性为标准,研究者认为曹操是封建统治阶级的化身,集中了封建统治阶级的一切罪恶。五十年代末“替曹操翻案”的讨论引发了如何评价曹操问题的热烈争鸣,对于人们更加客观、准确地认识和评价曹操形象起到了积极意义。文革期间,“评法批儒”运动中,曹操被作为法家的代表人物而受到肯定。新时期以来,研究者继续就曹操形象的评价问题进行讨论,分析了曹操的复杂性格,从文化精神方面对曹操形象进行文化诠释。第五章,诸葛亮形象诠释。清初毛宗岗认为,诸葛亮是一个才智超群、德行无双、气质风度一流的古今第一贤相。与毛宗岗不同的是,生活于明朝末年的叶昼虽对诸葛亮的智谋、忠贞等持赞赏肯定态度,但对诸葛亮的个人品质、治国大略等提出了尖锐批评。两人对诸葛亮形象的不同态度令人深思:叶昼批评诸葛亮一方面与他面对的文本有关,一方面与他所处时代的社会思潮和他本人狂放不羁、特立独行的性格有关;毛宗岗之所以对诸葛亮如此崇尚,对其形象如此维护,主要与其文学典型观有关。建国初期,研究者主要是围绕诸葛亮形象中的智慧和忠贞两大因素,认为诸葛亮形象是具有人民性的。新时期以来,研究者对诸葛亮形象的文化诠释和悲剧诠释,抓住了其特质,深化了对这一形象的理解。结语。论文通过对《三国演义》诠释史的梳理、分析,认为诠释者、文本、作者在小说文本意义的生成中具有不同作用:诠释者是诠释主体,是起主导作用的因素;文本是诠释对象,对意义具有客观规定性;作者是诠释的重要参考,是避免误解、曲解的因素。三者在诠释活动中不可偏废:要尊重诠释者的主体地位,给诠释者充分的自由诠释空间;要重视小说文本对意义的客观规定性,防止诠释的主观随意性;要兼顾作者及小说产生的历史文化背景,在对小说正确理解的基础上,作出科学、合理的诠释。同时,诠释者对身处其中的历史情境(意识形态、政治因素等)要有清醒的认识,避免受外界影响而造成的“过度诠释”。更多还原

【Abstract】 The book of Romance of the Three Kingdoms is the first historical novel in old China , which has the most achievement and effect. It is a broad and deep, all-inclusive novel, in which there were full of life- like people who had various deeds and famous fames. Since it was written, it has influenced greatly during Ming and Qing Dynasty, as caused many people to rush off to the front to copy it so as to read. Since then it affected for a long time till today. The novel was written six hundred years ago from Ming to today, when various of readers have made different interpretation because of their different status, learning, methods, cultural mentality or the ideas, theory of the interpretation, which created a influent literary and cultural scene. The history of the novel’s interpretation is one existence history.The Method of the Interpretation is one theory about the western comprehension and interpretation, which had great effect on the modern human studies. It was centered by Meanings that interpreted the aims and the affection of the author, text and the readers, which inspired the people’s comprehension and interpretation. Enlightened and instructed by the theory, it adopted the study method of some point or aspect combined and the structure of crisscross interpretation. It is important to study for readers in order to research the cause of its history, politics, ideas and culture.It is divided into three parts including introduction, the summaary historical interpretation of the novel and its separate interpretation.Introduction. It includes three parts, its writing including the article’s background and meanings,studying situation and methods, interpreter and textual interpretation, its reform and shortcomings; its summary theory of interpretation retrospecting the history of the theory including theory of annotation, author or readers or text centered theory. The theory of author and text centered are epistemology; however readers are thing-in- itself annotation; its theory and ancient classics annotation.The first volume is summary historical interpretation in which there are four chapters. In the first chapter, why the novel became one ancient classic which including three causes, a long edition and extensive material sources, the author’s broad visual threshold and various of readers’ annotation.The second chapter is annotation in Ming and Qing Dynasty. Firstly we annotate the situation in Ming and Qing when Classical Confucian texts respected, the culture and education serving the imperial power, ideology liberated in the end of Ming, and the novel read or spreaded. Secondly, we will annotate the development of the novel’s annotation. At that time ,there were three forms that were mainly novel annotation, prefaces and notes. Yu Xiangdou was like a merchant,but Li Zhuowu or Ye Zhou was like a scholar. Mao Zonggang and Li Yu were more synthesized. The prefaces and notes annotated the novel with civilization and historical truth. But the prefaces and notes in Qing Dynasty were more prudent because of its cultural autocratic policy.The third chapter is annotation in the modern times. Firstly we summed up the annotations before the New Culture Movement. Bourgeoisie reformers and revolutionary scholars praised the novel for the need of the social politics, and questioned the idea of supporting Liu Bei but opposing Cao Cao. During the period it was full of present or ancient, modern or classical contradiction and in the transformation from classical to modern form. Secondly, we studied annotation after the New Culture Movement. Hu Shi and Qian Xuantong criticized the novel because of their critic cultural ideas.In the fourth chapter, it is the annotation for the novel after the liberation. In the first seventeenth years the researchers annotated it with great political standards that were class and human nature. During the new social environment, they annotated its ideas and portrait with new methods so that there were various subjects. Cultural annotation was very important for the novel.In the second volume, we will annotate the novel separately.In the first chapter, it is the annotation for the idea of supporting Liu but opposing Cao. Yu Xiangdou and Ye Zhou had little ideas about it, but the preface at the same time had clear idea about it. In the beginning of Qing , Mao Zonggang had strong idea so as to make it more traditional and ethical. In the beginning of the foundation, the scholars annotated the idea with various points; however, now the researchers are studying the source of this idea and annotating it with cultural points.The second chapter is practical annotation, which includes two kinds of persons. One kind is the feudalistic rulers and scholar-bureaucrats for their ruling rules, the other is various martial persons who adopted the military experiences between Ming and Qing. Till immediate time, Mao Zedong annotated and practiced military theory in the novel so as to enrich and develop its practical meanings. After the middle 80^th of the twentieth century, some scholars studied the resourcefulness in the novel for the need ofstrategics and human talents and developed it.The third chapter is annotation of Guan Yu. During Ming and QingDynasty, they sacrificed and adored him for his Yi. The rulers boosted his Loyalty and common people adored his loyal to friends and his faithfulness. In the beginning of Qing, Mao Zonggang praised him and looked upon him as a ideal military talent. But in the beginning of the twentieth century, Qian Xuantong and Hu Shi negated him. People in the fiftieth and sixtieth century praised him but praised or negated his Yi. Since the eightieth century they annotated the novel step by step, especially his cultural annotation.The fourth chapter is the annotation of Cao Cao. Mao Zonggang found a two-sided personality of him, so Mao praised his talent and achievements but negated his moral or personality for his bad faith. Hu Shi and Qian Xuantong praised Cao Cao in the beginning of the twentieth century. Later, the scholars looked on him as a soul of his class and evil of feudalists. In the end of fiftieth century, a talking of Reversing a case for Cao Cao aroused a contend about how to judge him, which is very necessary for us to learn and judge him more impersonally and exactly. In the Cultural Revolution, they talked about the problem how to judge Cao Cao. They analyzed his perplex personality and annotated him with cultural or psychic aspect.The last chapter is the annotation for Zhuge Liang. Mao Zonggang thought him as a talent, excellent and personable prime minister in the ancient or now. Ye Shi praised his resourcefulness and loyalty but negated his personality or governing methods. Later ,the researchers thought he had national character because of his wisdom and loyalty. Now they are annotating him with cultural and tragic ideas which are the most important trait for us to study him. Conclusion. The development of annotating the novel tells us that it is different for the explicators, text and authors to present in the meaning-making, in which the explicator is the object that is the leading role, and the text is the subject that is the prescriptive object for the meaning, while the author is the important consult for the annotation who is the factor that is against misunderstanding and contort. Those three factors are all very important so we should respect the explicators and give them more freedom to annotate, value the objective meaning of the text and against the subjective arbitrariness, give historical and cultural consideration to the authors and the text so as to find the scientific or reasonable annotation, In the same time the explicators should have a sober thought for their historical situation such as ideology and political factors in order to be against excessive annotation because of the external influence.更多还原