陈衍的宋诗观之检视
|
摘要
同光体诗人陈衍提出"三元"说,主张唐宋并举,兼取汉魏六朝。承认"江西诗"与杜甫、韩愈一脉相承的统系,但他所宗宋诗并不包括江西派诗,指出黄庭坚、陈师道诗艰深费力,造成槎牙、生涩之弊。倡导学人之诗与诗人之诗合,即必具学人之根柢与诗人之性情,才力与怀抱才能激发表现出来,才能写出好诗来。批评黄庭坚"以才学为诗"的学人诗,学问有余,性情不足,使人读之难晓。先诗人之诗而后学人之诗,最终是学人之诗,且关注更多的是诗艺等形式,这是陈衍诗论的局限。
Chen Yan is a classical poet of ″Tong-guang Style″,and he put forward that there were ″Three Times in the Prosperity of Poetry″: Kaiyuan Times,Yuanhe Times and Yuanyou Times. He integrated the advantages of the Tang and Song Dynasties,learned widely from others' strong points,and recognized ″Jiangxi Poetry″ as a descendant of Du Fu and Han Yu. However,the Song poems which he promoted excluded the″Jiangxi Poetry″. He pointed out that the poetic style of Huang Tingjian and Chen Shidao is obscure abstruse. Chen Yan advocated the integrate of ″Scholar's Poetry″ and ″Poet's Poetry″,good grounding in basic knowledge and pure poet disposition so that good poetry can be written. He criticized Huang Tingjian for his ″writing poems with wits″,his poetics emphasizing knowledge being difficult to understand. Chen Yan asserted ″ Scholar' s Poetry″ and ″ Poet' s Poetry″,but his target is ″Scholar's Poetry″,and his focus is on the art form. This undoubtedly exposed shortcomings of his poetics.
Chen Yan is a classical poet of ″Tong-guang Style″,and he put forward that there were ″Three Times in the Prosperity of Poetry″: Kaiyuan Times,Yuanhe Times and Yuanyou Times. He integrated the advantages of the Tang and Song Dynasties,learned widely from others' strong points,and recognized ″Jiangxi Poetry″ as a descendant of Du Fu and Han Yu. However,the Song poems which he promoted excluded the″Jiangxi Poetry″. He pointed out that the poetic style of Huang Tingjian and Chen Shidao is obscure abstruse. Chen Yan advocated the integrate of ″Scholar's Poetry″ and ″Poet's Poetry″,good grounding in basic knowledge and pure poet disposition so that good poetry can be written. He criticized Huang Tingjian for his ″writing poems with wits″,his poetics emphasizing knowledge being difficult to understand. Chen Yan asserted ″ Scholar' s Poetry″ and ″ Poet' s Poetry″,but his target is ″Scholar's Poetry″,and his focus is on the art form. This undoubtedly exposed shortcomings of his poetics.
引文
[1]钱仲联.陈衍诗论合集[M].福州:福建人民出版社,1999.
[2]陈衍.石遗室诗话:第一册[M]∥张寅彭.民国诗话丛编.张寅彭,戴建国,校点.上海:上海书店出版社,2002.
[3]沈曾植.与金潜庐太守论诗书[M]∥金蓉镜.滮湖遗老集.民国十七年刊本.
[4]方东树.昭昧詹言:卷十二[M].汪绍盈,校点.北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
[5]黄庭坚.黄庭坚诗集注:第一册[M].任渊,等,注.刘尚荣,校点.北京:中华书局,2003.
[6]范温.潜溪诗眼:上册[M]∥郭绍虞.宋诗话辑佚.北京:中华书局,1980.
[7]严羽.沧浪诗话·诗辨[M]∥郭绍虞.沧浪诗话校释.北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
[8]文津阁四库全书:第372册[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[9]黄庭坚.山谷题跋[M].屠友祥,校注.上海:上海远东出版社,1999.
[10]陈师道.后山诗话:上册[M]∥何文焕.历代诗话.北京:中华书局,1981.
[11]苏轼.书鲁直诗后二首[M]∥东坡题跋:卷二.北京:人民美术出版社,2008.
[12]陈衍.宋诗精华录[M].曹旭,校点.南昌:江西人民出版社,1984.
[13]黄霖.近代文学批评史[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1993.
(1)代表性观点主要有黄霖所著《近代文学批评史》,上海:上海古籍出版社,1993年版;吴淑钿:《近代宋诗派的诗体论》,《华东师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)1996年第2期;魏泉:《论陈衍的“学人之诗”说》,《文艺理论经研究》2006年第4 期;林东源:《陈衍〈石遗室诗话〉论“同光体”》,《闽江师院学报》(社会科学版)2006年第4期;宁夏红、魏中林:《论学人之诗》,《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版)2009年第3期;王友胜:《论〈宋诗精华录〉的编选宗旨与诗学思想》,《中南大学学报》(社会科学版)2010年第2期;马卫中:《陈衍“三元说”与沈曾植“三关说”之理论差异》,《徐州师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2011年第1期;吴中胜:《翁方纲与近代宋诗派:以陈衍为中心的讨论》,《中国文学研究》2012年第4期。这些研究成果,都将陈衍视为宋诗派的代表,但均未辨析陈衍亲炙宋诗并不包括以黄庭坚、陈师道为代表的江西派诗。可见,陈衍对宋诗并非全盘接受,而是有鲜明的取舍。
(1)陈衍将“学人之诗”的“江西诗”也视作苦吟:“清末季不知始于何人,极力崇拜黄、陈二家,而后生之厌伪体(谓赝体汉魏六朝),能苦吟者,靡然从之。”(陈衍撰,张寅彭、戴建国校点:《石遗室诗话续编》卷六,张寅彭主编《民国诗话丛编》,上海书店出版社2002年版,第一册,第679页。
[2]陈衍.石遗室诗话:第一册[M]∥张寅彭.民国诗话丛编.张寅彭,戴建国,校点.上海:上海书店出版社,2002.
[3]沈曾植.与金潜庐太守论诗书[M]∥金蓉镜.滮湖遗老集.民国十七年刊本.
[4]方东树.昭昧詹言:卷十二[M].汪绍盈,校点.北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
[5]黄庭坚.黄庭坚诗集注:第一册[M].任渊,等,注.刘尚荣,校点.北京:中华书局,2003.
[6]范温.潜溪诗眼:上册[M]∥郭绍虞.宋诗话辑佚.北京:中华书局,1980.
[7]严羽.沧浪诗话·诗辨[M]∥郭绍虞.沧浪诗话校释.北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
[8]文津阁四库全书:第372册[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[9]黄庭坚.山谷题跋[M].屠友祥,校注.上海:上海远东出版社,1999.
[10]陈师道.后山诗话:上册[M]∥何文焕.历代诗话.北京:中华书局,1981.
[11]苏轼.书鲁直诗后二首[M]∥东坡题跋:卷二.北京:人民美术出版社,2008.
[12]陈衍.宋诗精华录[M].曹旭,校点.南昌:江西人民出版社,1984.
[13]黄霖.近代文学批评史[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1993.
(1)代表性观点主要有黄霖所著《近代文学批评史》,上海:上海古籍出版社,1993年版;吴淑钿:《近代宋诗派的诗体论》,《华东师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)1996年第2期;魏泉:《论陈衍的“学人之诗”说》,《文艺理论经研究》2006年第4 期;林东源:《陈衍〈石遗室诗话〉论“同光体”》,《闽江师院学报》(社会科学版)2006年第4期;宁夏红、魏中林:《论学人之诗》,《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版)2009年第3期;王友胜:《论〈宋诗精华录〉的编选宗旨与诗学思想》,《中南大学学报》(社会科学版)2010年第2期;马卫中:《陈衍“三元说”与沈曾植“三关说”之理论差异》,《徐州师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2011年第1期;吴中胜:《翁方纲与近代宋诗派:以陈衍为中心的讨论》,《中国文学研究》2012年第4期。这些研究成果,都将陈衍视为宋诗派的代表,但均未辨析陈衍亲炙宋诗并不包括以黄庭坚、陈师道为代表的江西派诗。可见,陈衍对宋诗并非全盘接受,而是有鲜明的取舍。
(1)陈衍将“学人之诗”的“江西诗”也视作苦吟:“清末季不知始于何人,极力崇拜黄、陈二家,而后生之厌伪体(谓赝体汉魏六朝),能苦吟者,靡然从之。”(陈衍撰,张寅彭、戴建国校点:《石遗室诗话续编》卷六,张寅彭主编《民国诗话丛编》,上海书店出版社2002年版,第一册,第679页。