Author

何梓慶

Year of Award

8-29-2018

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

中國語言文學系.

Principal Supervisor

張宏生, 1957-

Keywords

Chinese literature ; Tang dynasty, 618-907 ; History and criticism ; Song dynasty, 960-1279

Language

Chinese

Abstract

現時對於「唐宋派」的研究,學者往往以流派論爭的角度,把唐宋派置於復古派的對立面,認為四人的文論主要都是針對「前、後七前子」而發。此說固有道理,問題是,王、唐、茅、歸都是獨當一面的作家,但在流派的框架下,則只著重他們的一致性,以及與「復古派」針鋒相對的情況,而四人的差異,及其現實關懷,都在此大敘述中隱而不見了。故本文將把四人的文學主張,結合社會、政治制度及生平經歷加以考察,希望呈現出他們文學思想的差異性。並以此為基礎,說明王、唐、茅、歸四人當時是不同角度出發,希望在「文必秦漢」的風氣下,建立一道從「唐宋」上達「秦漢」的學文路徑。全文分成六章。第一章是緒論,說明研究動機及價值。第二章則先說明歸有光不與王、唐、茅三人結交的原因,並藉以呈現歸有光與王、唐、茅三人在文壇的不同佔位,以此為基礎,重新探討「唐宋派」作為一個流派的特質,提出以「陣營」取代「流派」來描述四人的關係,從而說明「唐宋派」文論主張的產生,除了為回應擬古風氣,其實還針對著當時八股文衰落的問題。第三章則討論唐宋派四人的主張,如何建構從「唐宋」到「秦漢」的復古路徑。第四章則討論唐宋派「以古文為時文」的理論內涵,探討四人從不同的角度理解時文的衰落,何以最後都得出「以古文為時文」的結論。第五章則討論唐宋派如何面對當時古文創作的困境,到了明中葉,明代立國已近百年,但古文創作一直較為沉寂,台閣文人及「復古派」先後領導文壇,但是問題始終未能解決。「唐宋派」各人為了提升古文創作的水平,提出師法唐宋,希望把古文從剽竊的困境中解救出來,由於各人對古文問題的定性不同,故以不同的策略嘗試提升古文創作的水平,本章即以此為中心,旨在呈現出四人文論主張的差異性。第六章為餘論,旨在討論文學史的撰寫方式與及唐宋派文論的局限。 In the field of researching "Tang-Song School" (唐宋派) now, scholars tend to view the object via an angle that they are just debate and struggle between schools, juxtaposing "Tang-Song School" with "Classical school" (復古派) in a binary opposition and thinking that literary claims of four leaders' are pinpointed on the "Classical school". This discourse undoubtedly has its plausible proof yet the main overlook is that Wang(王慎中), Tang(唐順之), Mao(茅坤) and Gui(歸有光) are independent writers and literary theorists whose differences and human concerns are neglected in such a grand narrative which only puts emphasis on their homogeneity and their countering role against "Classical school". This thesis, hence, is going to examine the four's literary claims altogether with their relations to the society, the institution and the individual life respectively so as to show the difference of literary claims among the four. With the foundation of knowing their differences, it is proved that amidst the social atmosphere of "QinHan is the best for learning prose"(文必秦漢), Wang, Tang, Mao and Gui indeed aspired to found a literary learning path that approaches QinHan's level through studying Tang-Song prose from their respective angles. The thesis is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter 1 is introduction which shows the motive and value of this research. Chapter 2 will firstly discuss why Gui You Guang does not make acquaintance with Wang, Tang, Mao so as to show the different nature and occupations of theirs in the Ming literary community. Based on this clarification, the features of Tang-Song School as a school is called into re-examination that "a camp which shares similar belief" is more suitable to define their relationship, and subsequently, it is hoped to show that claims of Tang-Song Camp also aim to react to the decline of "Eight-part Essay" (八股文) except echoing to the literary trend of imitating the ancient classics. Chapter 3 discusses the fours' claims of how to construct a renaissance path from TangSong to QinHan. Chapter 4 discusses the theoretical idea of Tang-Song Camp's "regarding classic work as present work" (以古文為時文), telling how four theorists view the decline of "Eight-part Essay" in their respective angles and why they finally too share this same conclusion. Chapter 5 discusses how Tang-Song Camp faces the plight of classical prose writing. Until the period of Mid-Ming, Ming Dynasty has been found for almost a hundred year, classical prose writing however remains silent and is not actively embraced. Taige School (台閣派) and "Classical school" have led the literary community once but the problem of decline have never been solved. For levitating the level of classical prose writing, Tang-Song Camp then raises the idea of learning Tang-Song prose with the hope of saving classical prose writing from the plight of plagiarism. Due to the four have their own understandings and perspectives on the decline issue, they suggest different strategies to enhance the quality of classical prose writing. This chapter then focuses on these strategies to manifest the differences among four literary claims. And lastly, Chapter 6 is remark which aims to discuss ways of writing literature history and limits of Tang Song Camp's theories.

Comments

硏究論文呈交中國語言文學系 ; 指導老師: 張宏生教授 ; 論文(哲學博士)--香港浸會大學, 2018.

Bibliography

Includes bibliographical references (pages 178-183).

Available for download on Wednesday, November 06, 2019



Share

COinS