近十年《招魂》作者及魂主论争述评
|
摘要
《招魂》作为《楚辞》中最有争议的作品之一,其作者及魂主问题向为学界论争之焦点。与前期相比,近十年来相关研究论文有所减少,作者说仍以主宋、主屈为主,且持论者约各占一半。而由作者说衍生出的数种魂主说,则以宋玉代屈原自招与屈原自作自招二说最具代表性。综观诸论,宋玉代屈原自招说之考辨系统深入,论证缜密透彻,为众说之最优。
As one of the most controversial works in Chu Ci, the issues of Zhao Hun's author and the soul owner are the focuses of academic debate. Compared with the previous period, related research papers have decreased in the past decade. However, it is still dominated by the proposition of Song Yu and Qu Yuan, and the claimants of the two claims are about half each. Among the several statements of soul owners derived from the different authors, the views that Song Yu wrote and evoked the spirit of Qu Yuan and Qu Yuan wrote and evoked the spirit of himself are the most representative. In summary,the view of Song Yu wrote and evoked the spirit of Qu Yuan is the most convincing because of it's examination is systematic and in-depth and the argumentation is thorough.
As one of the most controversial works in Chu Ci, the issues of Zhao Hun's author and the soul owner are the focuses of academic debate. Compared with the previous period, related research papers have decreased in the past decade. However, it is still dominated by the proposition of Song Yu and Qu Yuan, and the claimants of the two claims are about half each. Among the several statements of soul owners derived from the different authors, the views that Song Yu wrote and evoked the spirit of Qu Yuan and Qu Yuan wrote and evoked the spirit of himself are the most representative. In summary,the view of Song Yu wrote and evoked the spirit of Qu Yuan is the most convincing because of it's examination is systematic and in-depth and the argumentation is thorough.
引文
[1][2]钟其鹏.关于《招魂》著作权与魂主问题---近20年《招魂》聚讼焦点问题研究述评之一[J].云梦学刊,2009(5):53.
[3]刘刚.宋玉作《招魂》说新证[J].鞍山师范学院学报,2001(6):54.
[4][6]力之.《楚辞》与中古文献考说[M].成都:巴蜀书社,2005:166.
[5][14]常森.《招魂》:屈原而非宋玉营构的奇诡世界[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(6):51,44.
[7]班固.汉书[M].颜师古,注.北京:中华书局,1962:1747.
[8]力之.《招魂》作者之再探讨[A].程本兴,等.宋玉及其辞赋研究---第二届宋玉国际学术研讨会论文集[C].北京:学苑出版社,2010:159.
[9]熊人宽.论《招魂》的作者和争议[J].职大学报,2015(4):19.
[10]胡念贻.楚辞选注及考证[M].长沙:岳麓书社,1984:268.
[11]赵昌智,顾农.第八届文选学国际学术研讨会论文集[C].扬州:广陵书社,2010:271.
[12]袁世硕.中国古代文学史(上)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2016:134.
[13]杨义.屈子楚辞还原(下册)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2016:1072.
(1)相关问题,力之先生已有详细论证。详参力之:《〈楚辞〉与中古文献考说》,巴蜀书社2005年版。
(2)《史记·殷本纪》中有太史公曰:“孔子曰:‘殷路车为善,而色尚白’。”《索隐》:“《论语》孔子曰‘乘殷之辂’,《礼记》曰‘殷人尚白’,太史公为‘赞’,不取成文,遂作此语,亦疏略也。”此例并非个案,类似情况尚可见于《史记》其他篇章。太史公行文之疏而不密,于此可见一斑。(此材料力之先生《〈招魂〉考辨补说》一文已引用)
(3)有关文章风格能否准确判定作者的问题,拙文《〈九辩〉乃“汉人的作品”说驳议---兼论“用汉语词汇史鉴定古籍时代”之适用度问题》(《广西师范大学学报》2018年第6期)有专门探讨,可参。
[3]刘刚.宋玉作《招魂》说新证[J].鞍山师范学院学报,2001(6):54.
[4][6]力之.《楚辞》与中古文献考说[M].成都:巴蜀书社,2005:166.
[5][14]常森.《招魂》:屈原而非宋玉营构的奇诡世界[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(6):51,44.
[7]班固.汉书[M].颜师古,注.北京:中华书局,1962:1747.
[8]力之.《招魂》作者之再探讨[A].程本兴,等.宋玉及其辞赋研究---第二届宋玉国际学术研讨会论文集[C].北京:学苑出版社,2010:159.
[9]熊人宽.论《招魂》的作者和争议[J].职大学报,2015(4):19.
[10]胡念贻.楚辞选注及考证[M].长沙:岳麓书社,1984:268.
[11]赵昌智,顾农.第八届文选学国际学术研讨会论文集[C].扬州:广陵书社,2010:271.
[12]袁世硕.中国古代文学史(上)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2016:134.
[13]杨义.屈子楚辞还原(下册)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2016:1072.
(1)相关问题,力之先生已有详细论证。详参力之:《〈楚辞〉与中古文献考说》,巴蜀书社2005年版。
(2)《史记·殷本纪》中有太史公曰:“孔子曰:‘殷路车为善,而色尚白’。”《索隐》:“《论语》孔子曰‘乘殷之辂’,《礼记》曰‘殷人尚白’,太史公为‘赞’,不取成文,遂作此语,亦疏略也。”此例并非个案,类似情况尚可见于《史记》其他篇章。太史公行文之疏而不密,于此可见一斑。(此材料力之先生《〈招魂〉考辨补说》一文已引用)
(3)有关文章风格能否准确判定作者的问题,拙文《〈九辩〉乃“汉人的作品”说驳议---兼论“用汉语词汇史鉴定古籍时代”之适用度问题》(《广西师范大学学报》2018年第6期)有专门探讨,可参。