清词自注字音现象中的声律学实践及得失

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.12.111

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (5)

Download: PDF (1011 KB) HTML (0 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract In the Qing Dynasty, textual criticism flourished, and phonological (pronunciation and rhythm) theory in Qing Literature was thriving. Poetic rhythm in Ci poetry was of cardinal importance in Ci scholarship during this period. During the Yuan and Ming Dynasties, Ci musicality had faded, and late-Ming and Qing Ci theorists tried to reconstruct the musical attributes in Ci and to use it to guide individual writing practice. Theorists such as Wan Shu and Ge Zai went through Ci poems from the Song Dynasty and summed up a set of rhythmic rules. With impetus from their work, Ci went from a “minor art” to a literary style that mobilized a variety of systems of knowledge. This elevated the status of Ci and facilitated it to evolve into a specialized area of study, increasingly elaborated in successive constructions of Ci writers. As the system of rhythmic rules in Ci developed, it became common practice to strictly use the rules of four tones when writing Ci. However, Ci theorists including Wan Shu often referred to the tones of Chinese opera and phonology, advocating levels of flexibility, such as “checked tone replacing level tone” and “falling-rising tone replacing level tone” and so on, to further refine their theories. Many examples they cited were influenced by the dialects, which though likely to have been over-interpreted, nevertheless created a doorway to future adaptation as Ci writing became more and more strict and rigid. Since it was extremely difficult to abide by four tones at all times, Ci writers often needed to use such rules as “checked tone replacing level tone” and “falling-rising tone replacing level tone” to rigidly conform to four tones. For this reason, though many Ci writers deemed it best “not to involve operatic rules” when writing Ci, they could not get rid of the influence of Chinese opera in poetic rhythm. In order to avoid the criticism of the readers, Ci writers often self-annotated their pronunciation when they used adapted rules. By doing so, they not only showed the conscientious conservation of four tones, but also achieved a level of freedom, which objectively became the manifestation of Ci turning academic. But of course, such scholarship was not integrated internally, and this led to clumsy writers changing tones willfully, countering the intention of elevating the status of Ci. In the end, the phenomenon of self-annotated pronunciation in the Ci of Qing Dynasty was the product of strictly abiding by the rules of four tones. In the face of complicated rhythmic rules, and in order to avoid criticism, some Ci writers strove to conform to the four tones as they appeared in famous Ci poems of Song Dynasty, which at first abided by the four tones only in epigrams, but gradually came to adopt four tones throughout entire works. Though such pursuits in poetic rhythm produced excellence for many Ci writers, it often conflicted with the writers’ natural instincts and prevented them from giving full play to their intelligence. Therefore, many Ci writers of the rhythm-abiding school made adaptations according to their predecessors’ work, promoting further exploration of poetic rhythm. It may well be said that the phenomenon of “self-annotated pronunciation” in the Ci of Qing Dynasty occurred in the process of specialization in the poetic rhythm of the Ci during the period. In this process, Ci writers made great efforts to keep a balance between “abiding by the rules” and “doing away with the style”, which reflected the Ci writers’ views on poetic rhythm and the style of the age. Only by achieving this delicate balance can we have a more comprehensive understanding of the specific structure and application of the poetic rhythm of the Ci in the Qing Dynasty, while the phenomenon of self-annotated pronunciation itself also provides a new perspective in the study of the poetic rhythm of Ci.

Key words： the Ci poems of Qing Dynasty self-annotation pronunciation poetic rhythm gains and losses

Received: 11 December 2021

	Service

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

Cite this article:

Zhao Wangwei,Shen Songqin. The Phenomenon of Self-annotated Pronunciation in the Ci Poems of Qing Dynasty: Gains and Losses in Poetic Rhythm Practice[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(5): 72-84.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.12.111 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2022/V52/I5/72

1 吴熊和：《彊村丛书与词籍校勘》，见《唐宋词通论》（附录），北京：商务印书馆，2003年，第412-425页。
2 邓乔彬、夏令伟：《论宋词自注》，《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2008年第1期，第94-100页。
3 夏承焘、吴熊和：《读词常识》，北京：中华书局，1962年。
4 陈匪石：《声执》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第5册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
5 戈载：《词林正韵》，见戈载等：《佩文诗韵·词林正韵·中原音韵》，田松青编校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2011年。
6 万树：《词律》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1984年。
7 况周颐：《蕙风词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第5册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
8 张炎：《词源》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第1册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
9 沈义父：《乐府指迷》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第1册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
10 谢章珽：《赌棋山庄词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第4册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
11 詹安泰：《詹安泰词学论稿》，广州：中山大学出版社，2018年。
12 吴梅：《霜厓词录》，见王卫民编：《吴梅全集（作品卷）》，石家庄：河北教育出版社，2002年。
13 张茂炯：《艮庐词自序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第4册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第2123-2124页。
14 向迪琮：《柳溪词话》，见付优编著：《现代（1912—1949）话体文学批评文献丛刊（词话卷）》，南京：凤凰出版社，2021年。
15 许之衡：《守白词自序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第4册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第2104-2105页。
16 汪曾武：《味莼词乙丙稿序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第4册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第1836-1837页。
17 周学濂：《荔墙词评》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第3册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第1384页。
18 叶德辉：《郋园读书志》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2019年。
19 法］罗兰·巴特：《文之悦》，屠友祥译，上海：上海人民出版社，2009年。
20 蔡嵩云：《柯亭词论》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第5册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
21 张尔田：《彊村遗书序》，见朱祖谋辑：《彊村丛书》第9册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1989年，第7119-7124页。
22 蒋敦复：《芬陀利室词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第4册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
23 夏敬观：《致陈锐函》，见陈锐辑：《袌碧斋箧中书》第4卷，清宣统三年（1911）铅印本，第13-14页。
24 陈永正：《诗注要义》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2017年。
25 王嘉禄：《桐月修箫谱》，见《丛书集成续编》第160册，上海：上海书店出版社，2002年。
26 龙榆生：《唐宋词格律》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
27 朱绶：《桐月修箫谱序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第2册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第856-857页。
28 龙榆生：《词曲概论》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1980年。
29 沈传桂：《清梦盦二白词》，见《续修四库全书》1726册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2002年。
30 曹辛华编纂：《全民国词》第一辑，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2018年。
31 俞樾：《绿竹词序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第2册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第924-925页。
32 胡适：《词选序》，《小说月报》1927年第1期，第53-56页。
33 李重华：《贞一斋诗说》，见丁福保编：《清诗话》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1978年。
34 刘大櫆：《论文偶记》，见刘大櫆、吴德旋、林纾：《论文偶记·初月楼古文绪论·春觉斋论文》，北京：人民文学出版社，1998年。
35 邵瑞彭辑：《元明曲萃》，卢前校，民国二十四年（1935）刻本。
36 杜文澜：《憩园词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第3册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
37 蒋敦复：《香禅精舍集词序》，见冯乾编校：《清词序跋汇编》第3册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年，第1345-1346页。
38 张尔田：《再与榆生论苏辛词》，《词学季刊》1935年第2卷第3号，第187-188页。
39 陈锐：《词比》，见张璋、职承让、张骅等编：《历代词话续编》，郑州：大象出版社，2005年。
40 陈运彰：《双白龛词话》，见付优编：《现代（1912—1949）话体文学批评文献丛刊（词话卷）》，南京：凤凰出版社，2021年。
41 丁绍仪：《听秋声馆词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第3册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
42 张德瀛：《词征》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第5册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
43 王易：《词曲史》，长沙：岳麓书社，2011年。
44 王骥德：《曲律注释》，陈多、叶长海注释，上海：上海古籍出版社，2012年。
45 樊增祥：《耐充室词话序》，《国艺》1940年第2卷第3期，第9页。
46 夏承焘：《“阳上作去”“入派三声”说》，见《唐宋词论丛》，上海：古典文学出版社，1956年，第8-13页。
47 陈声聪：《闽词谈屑》，见《填词要略及词评四篇》，广州：广东人民出版社，1986年，第147-165页。
48 杨缵：《作词五要》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第1册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
49 夏敬观：《忍古楼词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第5册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
50 谭献：《复堂词话》，见唐圭璋编：《词话丛编》第4册，北京：中华书局，1986年。
51 刘大白：《旧诗新话》，长沙：岳麓书社，2012年。
52 夏仁虎：《枝巢四述》，沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1998年。
53 王鹏运：《致冯永年》，见杨传庆编：《词学书札萃编》，天津：南开大学出版社，2015年，第78-79页。