清代“诗文相通”说

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2020.02.231

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1429 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Verse and prose as two major literary forms have differed from each other since their birth， but the issue regarding the distinction between verse and prose is not discussed as a significant conceptual question until the Song Dynasty. The Ming literati inherited and continued this discussion: they examined the differences between verse and prose in terms of their stylistic dispositions, emphasizing the importance of observing the stylistic regulations of literary forms, arguing against using prose elements in verse writings, and thus bringing the criticism of stylistic distinctions to a climax. On the contrary, most of the Qing theorists believed that prose and verse share some common features. Those theorists probed into this issue by investigating the stylistic characteristics, origins, functions, objectives, art skills, aesthetic goals of both literary forms. They also applauded those who broke the dividing line between verse and prose and used prose elements in verse writing. Though these theories may not have originated from the Qing scholars, it is through the Qing scholars’ repeated efforts of theorization and discussion that they gradually prevailed over the theory of verse-prose-distinction, and turned into the mainstream literary thought. This turn is not a return to the ancients of literary ideas, or a manifestation of conceptual degradation, that is, going back to the Pre-Qin and Han Periods when literary production was not yet independent and literary forms were not clearly formulated. As a matter of fact, it is some new elements, which are not available in early periods that helped bring about the change of the theories of criticism. Specifically, it refers to the background of literary history that the long-standing discussion about the superiority of Tang or Song poetry and the continuous improvements of the status of the Song poetry that made the difference. Tang poetry, with all its unrivaled accomplishments, is labeled as top model of verse writing. However, theoretically, this model is established by the way of stylistic criticism, identifying stylistic characteristics, distinguishing between orthodox and alternative styles and discriminating literary works hierarchically. Accordingly, since the Song Dynasty, scholars arguing for strict differences between verse and prose were generally steadfast followers of the Tang poetry. They argued against using prose elements in verse writing, and depreciated and even went so far as to drastically deny the values of the Song poetry. While those who advocated the commonness of verse and prose were generally dissatisfied at the bias of the Tang poetry followers, on the basis of the theory that verse and prose have some commonality connotatively and technically, they were in favor of breaking the line between verse and poetry, and regarded the value and status of the Song poetry as positive. In other words, the core issue of the Tang-Song debate is whether to emphasize the distinction, or to seek the commonness between verse and prose. This is also a touchstone of poetical standpoint for a scholar. During the period of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the followers of the Tang poetry were generally criticized for their narrow-mindedness and inadequacy in theory and formalistic practice of imitating ancient writings. Song poetics now became a vogue. Thus, in this background, not just the Song advocators, the Tang followers also, to a certain extent, accepted the Song poetry and agreed with using prose elements in verse writing. And that is the main reason why the theory of Verse-Prose-Commonness could prevail over that of Verse-Prose-Distinction in the Qing Dynasty. Besides, the academic atmosphere in the Qing Dynasty is generally filled with erudition and against sectarianism, which allowed scholars to be more broad-minded to accept the changes of literary criticism and the beauty of heterogeneous writings. And the expression of this academic atmosphere and ideological change in the relationship between verse and prose indicates that the Qing scholars were able to see the distinction while they paid more attention to the commonness and the connection between verse and prose, with the aim of breaking the barriers and making full use of the advantages of different literary forms, which infused new vigor into the highly mature art of poetry. These factors also promoted the popularity of the theory of Verse-prose-Commonness in the Qing Dynasty.

Received: 23 February 2020

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2020.02.231 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2021/V51/I1/187

魏泰：《临汉隐居诗话》，见何文焕辑：《历代诗话》上册，北京：中华书局，1981年。2 陈师道：《后山诗话》，见何文焕辑：《历代诗话》上册，北京：中华书局，1981年。3 张戒：《岁寒堂诗话》卷上，见丁福保辑：《历代诗话续编》上册，北京：中华书局，1983年。4 严羽：《沧浪诗话》，见何文焕辑：《历代诗话》，北京：中华书局，1981年。5 李梦阳：《空同集》卷五二，见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第1262册，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1986年。6 江盈科：《雪涛诗评》，见蔡镇楚编：《中国诗话珍本丛书》第12册，北京：北京图书馆出版社，2004年。7 黄宗羲编：《明文海》卷一六一，北京：中华书局，1987年。8 袁宗道：《白苏斋类集》卷七，上海：上海古籍出版社，1989年。9 杨慎：《升庵诗话》卷一一，见丁福保辑：《历代诗话续编》中册，北京：中华书局，1983年。10 费锡璜：《汉诗总说》，见王夫之等：《清诗话》下册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1978年。11 冯班：《钝吟全集·游仙诗》卷首，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第20册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。12 吴乔：《围炉诗话》卷一，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第1册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。13 陈善：《扪虱新话》卷九，见《续修四库全书》第1122册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2000年。14 宋濂：《宋学士全集》卷七，见《丛书集成初编》第2114册，北京：中华书局，1985年。15 谢榛：《四溟诗话》，宛平点校，北京：人民文学出版社，1961年。16 徐枋：《居易堂集》卷二○，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第81册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。17 吴甫：《虞圃山人文集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第53册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。18 陈廷敬：《午亭文编》卷三七，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第153册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。19 李邺嗣：《杲堂文钞》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第77册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。20 戴明说：《定园诗集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第21册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。21 姚莹：《东溟文集·外集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第549册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。22 纪昀：《纪文达公遗集》卷九，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第354册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。23 王懋竑：《白田草堂存稿》卷一四，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第220册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。24 韩菼：《有怀堂文稿》卷五，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第147册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。25 姜宸英：《姜先生全集·湛园未定稿》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第107册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。26 钱谦益：《牧斋有学集》卷一五，见《钱牧斋全集》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2003年。27 翁方纲：《复初斋文集》卷四，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第382册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。28 朱庭珍：《筱园诗话》卷一，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第4册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。29 叶夑：《原诗》，霍松林校注，北京：人民文学出版社，1979年。30 叶燮：《已畦集》卷一三，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第104册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。31 戴名世：《潜虚先生文集》卷二，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第185册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。32 钱谦益：《牧斋有学集》卷四九，见《钱牧斋全集》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2003年。33 萧正模：《后知堂文集》卷二二，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第187册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。34 王士禛：《带经堂诗话》卷二九，张宗柟纂集，戴鸿森校点，北京：人民文学出版社，1963年。35 程恩泽：《程侍郎遗集》卷七，见《丛书集成初编》第2213册，北京：中华书局，1985年。36 庞垲：《诗义固说》下卷，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第2册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。37 庞垲：《丛碧山房文集》卷三，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第155册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。38 方东树：《昭昧詹言》卷一一，汪绍楹校点，北京：人民文学出版社，1961年。39 冒春荣：《葚原诗说》，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第3册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。40 祝允明：《祝子罪知录》卷九，见《续修四库全书》第1122册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2000年。41 胡寿芝：《东目馆诗见》卷一，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第352册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。42 永瑢等：《四库全书总目》卷一七三下册，北京：中华书局，1965年。43 乔亿：《剑溪说诗》卷下，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第2册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。44 蒋寅：《王渔洋与清初宋诗风之兴替》，《文学遗产》1999年第3期，第82-97页。45 陈衍：《石遗室诗话》卷一四，北京：人民文学出版社，2004年。46 戴明说：《定园诗集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第21册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。47 永瑢等：《四库全书总目》卷一九七下册，北京：中华书局，1965年。48 金衍宗：《思诒堂诗稿》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第533册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。49 黄宗羲：《南雷文定·后集》卷一，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第33册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。50 邵长蘅：《邵子湘全集·青门剩稿》卷四，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第145册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。51 赵翼：《瓯北诗话》卷五，霍松林、胡主佑校点，北京：人民文学出版社，1963年。52 田雯：《古欢堂集·杂著》，见郭绍虞选编：《清诗话续编》第2册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1983年。53 沈德潜：《说诗晬语笺注》卷上，王宏林注，北京：人民文学出版社，2013年。54 徐乾学：《憺园文集》卷一九，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第124册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。55 黄宗羲：《南雷文定·前集》卷八，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第33册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。56 章学诚：《文史通义校注》上册，叶瑛校注，北京：中华书局，2014年。57 王国维：《王国维文集》第一卷，北京：中国文史出版社，1997年。58 张舜徽：《清代扬州学记》，扬州：广陵书社，2004年。59 章学诚：《文史通义校注》下册，叶瑛校注，北京：中华书局，2014年。60 阮元：《揅经室集·一集》卷二，见《续修四库全书》第1478册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2000年。61 阮亨：《瀛舟笔谈》卷一，嘉庆二十五年（1820）刻本。62 姚鼐：《惜抱轩诗文集·文集》卷七，嘉庆十二年（1807）刻本。63 王士禛：《渔洋山人文略》卷二，康熙三十四年（1695）刊本。