|
|
|
| “Two Elders of the Southeast” and the Inheritance and Change of Poetics During the Kang-Qian Era |
| Huang Pengcheng |
| School of Literature, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The Kang-Qian Era marked a crucial transitional phase in Qing Dynasty poetics. Shen Deqian and Qian Chenqun, known as the “Two Elders of the Southeast”, held prominent political positions and were important poets and literary scholars during this period. They both exerted significant influence in the poetic community during that period.During the Kang-Qian Era, there was a call to reveal the true and new visage of poetry. The discourse examined the relationship between personal creativity, poetic tradition, and past exemplars. This discussion sought to uncover the true essence of the ancients by investigating the evolution of poetic history while also addressing the landscape of contemporary poetry to establish a new perspective. This approach emphasized the poet’s subjectivity and transcended the boundaries of the era, replacing the focus on the periodization with an emphasis on the individual. Shen Deqian believed that individual temperament and poetic visage should be integrated, resulting in each poet having their unique artistic styles. He argued for a balanced relationship between the poet’s own creation and the traditional models, achieving a natural fusion of visage and spirit. Qian Chenqun, with his extensive and comprehensive poetic style, broke free from the limitations of poetry periodization. He believed that poetry should be based on the wide range of knowledge and penetrate beyond superficial and hollow expressions. The relevant discourse encompassed topics such as style, temperament, and techniques, reflecting the multidimensional changes in poetry during the Kangxi and Qianlong periods.Firstly, there was an active exploration of diversified poetic styles. The Shenyun (神韵) style had leaned towards the influence of Wang Wei and Meng Haoran, resulting in a later phase of monotonous style. Shen Deqian believed that the visage of poetry was rich and diverse, with each style having its own merits. Contemporary poets, in his view, should broaden their horizons, encompass various aesthetic types, and explore widely. The incorporation of Shenyun into “gentle and kind” poetry teaching became an integral part of Shen Deqian’s poetic theory. Qian Chenqun demonstrated a diverse poetic style through his creative practice, advocating an open-minded aesthetic perspective that surpassed the boundaries of Tang and Song Dynasties’ poetry. The style discussed by the “Two Elders of the Southeast” not only referred to the external aesthetic appearance but also emphasized the relationship between poetic style and the author’s experiences and temperament. The promotion of diversified poetic styles also respected and embraced the diversity of poets’ emotions and personalities.Secondly, there was an emphasis on the social and individual aspects of poetry based on temperament and literary criticism. On the social dimension, the “Two Elders of the Southeast” combined their ideas of temperament and poetic teaching, highlighting the educational function of poetry and its relevance to social values, which aligned with the political and cultural trend of the Qing Dynasty. On the individual dimension, the discourse called for sincerity and genuine emotion, hoping that poetry would be relevant to the individual’s time, context, and true experiences, pursuing the essence of poetry through a personal connection. However, the social aspect of temperament-focused poetry leaned towards politicizing poetry, while the individual aspect leaned towards personal sentiments, resulting in distinctive tendencies.Finally, the analysis of “using prose for poetry” deepened the discussion of the differentiation between poetry and prose. The influence of Han Yu poetic styles had challenged the dominance of the Shenyun style and led to the practice of breaking the poetic form. One aspect of this exploration involved Fu, Bi and Xing. Shen Deqian emphasized the use of Bi and Xing and praised implicit poetic style, which integrated Bi and Xing with the “gentle and kind” poetry teaching. Qian Chenqun believed that Fu, Bi and Xing could coexist without deliberate separation. Another aspect involved exploring the discursive function of poetry. Shen Deqian advocated discursive poetry that aligned with the poetic charm and form, while Qian Chenqun emphasized the harmonious relationship between the discursive function of poetry and its structural progression. Finally, the discussion also involved the identity of the poetic subject. The rise of “scholarly poetry” reflected a close connection between poetry and scholarship and the evolving relationship between poetry and scholarship and the evolving relationship between poetry and prose.The “Two Elders of the Southeast” consciously pursued a new visage for poetry, which entailed adjusting and reconstructing the relationship between creation and exemplars. Qing Dynasty poets recognized their position in poetic history, driving the deepening and refinement of poetic theory. Throughout the process of this poetic transition, they constantly sought new motivational forces to compose poetry.
|
|
Received: 12 October 2023
|
|
|
|
1 沈德潜：《沈德潜诗文集》，潘务正、李言校点，北京：人民文学出版社，2011年。
2 袁枚：《小仓山房诗集》，见王英志编纂校点：《袁枚全集新编》，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2015年。
3 李调元：《雨村诗话校正》，詹杭伦、沈时蓉校正，成都：巴蜀书社，2006年。
4 李元度：《国朝先正事略》，易孟醇校点，长沙：岳麓书社，2008年。
5 蒋寅：《王士禛、叶燮与乾隆诗学的逻辑起点》，《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2019年第3期，第1-9页。
6 钱谦益：《牧斋初学集》，钱曾笺注，钱仲联标校，上海：上海古籍出版社，1985年。
7 钱谦益：《牧斋有学集》，钱曾笺注，钱仲联标校，上海：上海古籍出版社，1996年。
8 叶燮：《原诗》，霍松林校注，北京：人民文学出版社，1979年。
9 沈德潜：《说诗晬语》，霍松林校注，北京：人民文学出版社，1979年。
10 沈德潜：《清诗别裁集》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
11 王士禛：《蚕尾文集》，见袁世硕主编：《王士禛全集》，济南：齐鲁书社，2007年。
12 钱陈群：《香树斋诗集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第261册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
13 钱陈群：《香树斋文集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第262册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
14 何世璂：《然镫记闻》，见王夫之等：《清诗话》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1978年。
15 姜宸英：《姜宸英全集》，雍琦整理，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2016年。
16 沈德潜：《唐诗别裁集》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
17 王士禛：《带经堂诗话》，张宗柟纂集，戴鸿森校点，北京：人民文学出版社，2006年。
18 钱陈群：《香树斋诗续集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第261册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
19 钱陈群：《香树斋文集续钞》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第262册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
20 吴仰贤：《小匏庵诗话》，见张寅彭选辑：《清诗话三编》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
21 张玉书：《文贞公集》，见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编：《清代诗文集汇编》第159册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
22 纪昀：《纪晓岚文集》第1册，孙致中等校点，石家庄：河北教育出版社，1995年。
23 边连宝：《病余长语》，见刘崇德主编：《边随园集》，北京：中华书局，2007年。
24 袁枚：《随园诗话》，见王英志编纂校点：《袁枚全集新编》，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2015年。
25 袁枚：《小仓山房尺牍》，见王英志编纂校点：《袁枚全集新编》，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2015年。
26 翁方纲：《复初斋文集》，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。
27 赵执信、翁方纲：《石洲诗话》，陈迩冬校点，北京：人民文学出版社，2019年。
28 赵翼：《瓯北诗话校注》，江守义、李成玉校注，北京：人民文学出版社，2013年。
29 袁宏道：《袁宏道集笺校》，钱伯城笺校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2018年。
30 吴乔：《围炉诗话》，见郭绍虞编选：《清诗话续编》，富寿荪校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2016年。
31 潘务正：《作为讽喻的事件——沈德潜时事讽喻诗考论》，《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2022年第3期，第149-160页。
32 爱新觉罗·弘历：《唐宋诗醇》，乔继堂整理，上海：上海科学技术文献出版社，2020年。
33 黄宗羲：《南雷诗文集》，见吴光编：《黄宗羲全集》第19册，杭州：浙江古籍出版社， 2012年。
34 陈衍：《石遗室诗话》，郑朝宗、石文英校点，北京：人民文学出版社，2004年。
35 翁方纲：《苏斋笔记》，见《复初斋文集》第27册，台北：文海出版社，1974年。
36 章学诚：《〈韩诗编年笺注〉书后》，见仓修良编注：《文史通义新编新注》，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2005年，第583-584页。
37 杨钟义：《雪桥诗话全编》，雷恩海、姜朝晖校点，北京：人民文学出版社，2011年。
38 钱锺书：《谈艺录》，北京：商务印书馆，2011年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
