|
|
|
| The Essence of Concepts: The Interconnection of the Eight-legged Essay and the Regulated Verse in the Examination |
| Wang Tao |
| The Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the 22nd year of the Qianlong reign (1757), after the imposition of the imperial decree on the examination system for poetry, the study and practice of regulated verses in the sphere of scholars became essential. However, the hasty reform of the system led to the inadequate preparations of both the imperial court and the public. There was no consensus about the poetic characteristics, developments, and changes related to regulated verse in the poetic examinations. During the early Qing period, only the scholars of the Hanlin Academy’s Shuchang Hall were involved in monthly examinations and examinations for the positions in different departments to test the regulated verses. As most scholars at a later time often served as examiners for the imperial Provincial Examinations, they naturally became the key figures in determining the standards of poem writing. These scholarly examiners initially aimed to enhance the value of regulated verses in the examination. The literary discussions of poems in the Ming and Qing dynasties largely adhered to the traditional approach, which considered expressing personal feelings as the primary function of poetry, but the prescribed topics of poems in the examination contradicted this tradition. Although there were examining poems since the Tang dynasty, they were not highly valued by literary critics. To transform this situation, the scholarly examiners tried to broaden the range of poetry. In addition to expressing personal sentiments, they reintroduced traditional poetic education and emphasized the praise of the prosperous era, and all these features should be essential parts of the examining poem. However, there was an obstacle in elevating poems to the status of other poems. Once a topic was assigned, writers had to revolve around the given theme, which made poems prone to forced sentences and repetitive meanings. To address this, scholars found it convenient to establish the writing rules by drawing inspirations from the eight-legged essay format. While using the eight-legged essay format to guide poem writing in the examination, examiners had different interpretations of the relationship between the eight-legged essays and the examining poems. In the early Qing dynasty, some scholars like Mao Qiling, considered examining poems in the Tang dynasty as the origin of the eight-legged essay based on the chronological order and believed that the format of introduction-development-turn-conclusion of eight-legged essay came from poems in the examination, suggesting that examining poems did not need to follow the eight-part essay format completely. Instead, writers should learn from past masters of poetic writing, become proficient in various poetic forms, and naturally master the skills of the poem writing. However, scholars like Jin Shen, who represented the officials of the Shuchang Hall, thought the poem in examinations was a branch of the eight-legged essay. They argued that examinees could write a successful poem by breaking down the topic and elaborating on it as per the rules of the eight-legged essay. From his perspective, ordinary learners did not need to understand other poetic forms. These seemingly contradictory views resulted from the effects of using the eight-part essay format to guide the poem writing. Mao Qiling believed that poetry and essays had inherent differences. Even though referring to the eight-part essay format, it should serve the essence of poetry, focusing more on contemplating words and sentences and creating a poetic image than presenting arguments in a sequential pattern like an essay. On the other hand, Jin Shen argued that examining poems should stick to the rules of the eight-legged essay, contributing ideas in line with the essay format and determining the quality based on the precise topic exploration and skilled use of techniques such as comparisons and allusions. Later, Ji Yun eliminated the confusion caused by these two conflicting views, integrating their superior strengths. Building on accurate topic exploration, he focused on creating the “spirit” of examining poems, establishing a new standard for poem writing. This demonstrates that, although there were some criticisms of the writing format of introduction-development-turn-conclusion in the examination, the format as the writing knowledge was unaffected by the concepts and became increasingly popular in the poetic examination. It became an effective means of deriving enjoyment from poems.
|
|
Received: 03 August 2023
|
|
|
|
1 蒋寅：《起承转合：机械结构论的消长——兼论八股文法与诗学的关系》，《文学遗产》1998年第3期，第65-75页。
2 刘洋：《清代科举试诗的历史原因与制度意义》，《清史研究》2021年第2期，第90-101页。
3 宋荦：《漫堂说诗》，见丁福保辑：《清诗话》上册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2015年。
4 冒春荣：《葚原诗说》，见郭绍虞编选：《清诗话续编》第三册，富寿荪校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2016年。
5 步际桐：《九家试帖约选》，清咸丰四年（1854）抄本。
6 张明晶：《〈本朝馆阁诗〉的编选及其诗学价值》，《文艺评论》2021年第3期，第85-91页。
7 阮学浩等编：《本朝馆阁诗》，清乾隆二十三年（1758）刻本。
8 黄鹏程：《论清初“台阁”“山林”文学的关系形态》，《文学评论》2020年第6期，第115-123页。
9 沈德潜：《归愚文钞》，清乾隆年间写刻本。
10 张殿鼎选注：《国朝应试排律金针》，清乾隆二十三年（1758）刻本。
11 许英编注：《本朝五言近体瓣香集》，清乾隆二十八年（1763）心逸堂藏板刻本。
12 李因培：《唐诗观澜集》，清乾隆二十四年（1759）本衙藏板刻本。
13 周大枢编：《应试排律鲸铿集》，狄之武、申赞皇注释，清乾隆二十三年（1758）安迎堂藏板刻本。
14 胡应麟：《诗薮》，见陈广宏、侯荣川编校：《明人诗话要籍汇编》第七册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2017年。
15 许学夷：《诗源辨体》，见陈广宏、侯荣川编校：《明人诗话要籍汇编》第九册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2017年。
16 韦居安：《梅磵诗话》，见丁福保辑：《历代诗话续编》中册，北京：中华书局，2006年。
17 杨万里：《周子益训蒙省题诗序》，见曾枣庄、刘琳主编：《全宋文》第238册，上海：上海辞书出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2006年，第251-252页。
18 吴乔：《围炉诗话》，见郭绍虞编选：《清诗话续编》第二册，富寿荪校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2016年。
19 薛雪：《一瓢诗话》，见丁福保辑：《清诗话》下册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2015年。
20 沈德潜：《说诗晬语》，见丁福保辑：《清诗话》下册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2015年。
21 胡震亨：《唐音癸签》，见陈广宏、侯荣川编校：《明人诗话要籍汇编》第十册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2017年。
22 鲁之裕：《唐试帖细论》，清雍正年间本衙藏板刻本。
23 梁章钜：《试律丛话》，见《制艺丛话 试律丛话》，陈居渊校点，上海：上海书店出版社，2001年。
24 朱琰：《唐试律笺》，清乾隆二十二年（1757）刻本。
25 毛奇龄：《西河文集》，清康熙年间李塨《西河合集》刻本。
26 旧题王昌龄：《诗格》，见张伯伟：《全唐五代诗格汇考》，南京：江苏古籍出版社，2002年。
27 旧题杨载：《诗法家数》，见张健辑：《元代诗法校考》，北京：北京大学出版社，2001年。
28 陆机：《陆机集校笺》（典藏版），杨明校笺，上海：上海古籍出版社，2020年。
29 陈绎曾：《文章欧冶》，见王水照编：《历代文话》第二册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2007年。
30 林联桂：《见星庐馆阁诗话》，见张寅彭选辑：《清诗话三编》第六册，吴忱、杨焄点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
31 金甡：《今雨堂诗墨》，清嘉庆五年（1800）萃精堂重刻本。
32 赵尔巽：《清史稿》，北京：中华书局，1977年。
33 朱珪：《知足斋文集》，清光绪年间刻《畿辅丛书》本。
34 吴烺、程梦元：《应制扶轮集》，清乾隆二十五年（1760）五云堂藏版刊本。
35 郑光策：《西霞文钞》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第437册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
36 梁章钜：《归田琐记》，于亦时点校，北京：中华书局，1981年。
37 方汝翼、贾瑚修，周悦让、慕荣幹纂：《增修登州府志》，清光绪年间刻本。
38 王泽泩：《试帖最豁解》，清乾隆二十五年（1760）刻本。
39 纪昀：《唐人试律说》，见《纪晓岚文集》第三册，孙致中等校点，石家庄：河北教育出版社，1995年。
40 毛奇龄：《唐人试帖》，清乾隆年间书带草堂刻本。
41 周裕锴：《宋代诗学通论》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2019年。
42 纪昀：《河间试律矩》，清嘉庆七年（1802）六有斋刻本。
43 纪昀：《馆课我法诗笺》，郭斌笺注，王涛校点，见陈维昭编：《稀见清代科举文集选刊》第五册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2022年。
44 周作人：《周作人代表作选》，张均辑，上海：全球书店，1938年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
