試論兩宋豪放詞之發展與風格差異

Preliminary Investigation on the Development and Style Differences of Hao-Fang Poetry in the Two Song Dynasties

黃彩勤(Tsai-Chin Huang)

豪放詞 ； 蘇軾 ； 辛棄疾 ； 兩宋 ； Hao Fang poetry ； Su Shi ； Xin Qiji ； Two Song Dynasties

東海中文學報

30期（2015 / 12 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文

早在詞體以婉約本色興起之初，按樂填詞的歌詞就已經不是清一色的側豔之詞，而自從明代張綖在《詩餘圖譜．凡例》中首先將婉約與豪放對舉之後，詞體的發展便逐漸被強加區隔為婉約與豪放兩大流派，近代文學史在撰寫上更沿襲此風，總是試圖削足適履的將歷代詞家進行婉約與豪放的分別歸屬，這樣的態度不但漠視了文學創作的多樣性，更無法明確掌握婉約與豪放所指涉的具體意涵，以及時代與時代、詞家與詞家之間所存在的風格差異。就豪放詞的發展而言，北宋與南宋分別代表了豪放詞興起與達於巔峰的兩個重要階段，前者在於初步確立了對詞體發展具有革新意義的豪放詞風，後者在於革新精神在創作上更具體的實踐，而蘇軾與辛棄疾正分別代表了豪放詞在這兩個階段的發展指標，二者既具有相同的革新精神與豪放風格，又各以其性情襟抱而判然獨立、自成一家。本文即以這兩大詞家作為論述主軸，分別呈現北宋與南宋在豪放詞發展上的地位與價值，並根據不同的時代背景與創作條件，區別兩宋之間豪放風格的基本差異，體察各家詞作雖共同籠罩在豪放詞派的概念之中，卻又能憑藉各自不同的性情襟抱，展現足供辨識的豪放精神與特質，期能呈現出豪放詞在兩宋期間發展流變的全貌，而不再只是文學發展史上的一個籠統概念。

With the rise of Wan Yue (gracefulness and restrainedness) poetry in early Song Dynasty, the lyrics for music were no longer the identical rhetoric. Ever since Chang Yen in the Ming Dynasty firstly compared Wan Yue with Hao Fang in ＂Shi-yu-tu-pu - General Examples,＂ the development of poetry was divided into two schools: Wan Yue and Hao Fang. Modern literature also follows this trend, and always attempts to falsely divide the poets over the past dynasties into these two schools. Such an attitude not only disregards the diversity of literature creation, but also fails to fully grasp the specific meanings of Wan Yue and Hao Fang, as well as the differences existing in styles of different poets of different eras. In the development of Hao Fang poetry, Northern Song Dynasty and Southern Song Dynasty represented the two important stages of Hao Fang poetry, respectively: rise and climax. The former initially extablished the revolutionary meaning of Hao Fang style in poetry development, while the latter specifically fulfilled the revolutionary spirit in creation. Su Shi and Xin Qiji were the representative figures in the two development stages of Hao Fang poetry, respectively. They shared the same revolutionary spirits and Hao Fang style. However, they were different from each other in their own temperament and ambition. Therefore, they formed their own genres. This study focused on these two great poets to reflect the position and value in the development of Hao Fang poetry in the Northern Song and Southern Song, respectively, and distinguished the basic differences in Hao Fang style between two Song Dynasties based on the background and creation conditions of different eras. This study found that, although poets shared the common concept of Hao Fang poetry, they reflected independent Hao Fang spirits and features based on their own different temperament and ambition. It is hoped that this study can reflect the full changes in development of Hao Fang poetry during the two Song dynasties, not just a vague concept in history of literature development.

1. (1966)。百部叢書集成。臺北:商務印書館。
2. (1987)。樂府指迷箋釋詞源注、樂府指迷箋釋合訂本。臺北:木鐸出版社。
3. (1966)。百部叢書集成。臺北:商務印書館。
4. (1963)。宋六十名家詞。臺北:復華書局。
5. (1983)。景印文淵閣四庫全書。臺北:商務印書館。
6. (1959)。介存齋論詞雜著、復堂詞話、蒿庵論詞合訂本。北京:人民文學出版社。
7. (1963)。宋六十名家詞。臺北:復華書局。
8. 宋王灼、岳珍校正(2000)。碧雞漫志校正。成都:巴蜀書社。
9. 宋朱敦儒、鄧子勉校注(2010)。樵歌校注。上海:上海古籍出版社。
10. 宋辛棄疾、鄧廣銘箋注(1983)。稼軒詞編年箋注。臺北:華正書局。
11. 宋晁補之、喬力校注(1992)。晁補之詞編年校注。濟南:齊魯書社。
12. 宋張元幹(1973)。蘆川歸來集。臺北:商務印書館。
13. 宋張孝祥、宛敏灝校箋(2011)。張孝祥詞校箋。北京:中華書局。
14. 宋陳亮撰、夏承燾校箋、牟家寬注(1982)。龍川詞校箋。上海:上海古籍出版社。
15. 宋賀鑄、黃啟方箋注(1971)。東山詞箋注。臺北:嘉新水泥文化基金會。
16. 宋劉辰翁(1973)。須溪集。臺北:商務印書館。
17. 宋劉宰(1979)。漫塘文集。臺北:商務印書館。
18. 宋蘇軾、龍榆生箋(1990)。東坡樂府箋。臺北:華正書局。
19. 南朝宋劉勰、周振甫注(1984)。文心雕龍。臺北:里仁書局。
20. 後蜀趙崇祚編、蕭繼宗評注(1996)。花間集評校。臺北:學生書局。
21. 清王國維(2009)。人間詞話。南京:鳳凰出版社。
22. 清何文煥(1983)。歷代詩話。臺北:漢京文化事業有限公司。
23. 清況周頤、屈興國輯注(2000)。蕙風詞話輯注。南昌:江西人民出版社。
24. 清陳維崧、陳振鵬標點、李學穎校補(2010)。陳迦陵集。上海:上海古籍出版社。
25. 清劉熙載(1985)。藝概。臺北:漢京文化事業有限公司。
26. 王水照(1994)。蘇軾論稿。臺北:萬卷樓圖書。
27. 宛敏灝(2009)。詞學概論。北京:中華書局。
28. 唐圭璋編(2009)。全宋詞。北京:中華書局。
29. 唐圭璋編(2005)。詞話叢編。北京:中華書局。
30. 葉嘉瑩、缪鉞(1993)。靈谿詞說。臺北:正中書局。
31. 劉石(1992)。蘇軾詞研究。臺北:文津出版社。
32. 龍沐勛輯(1971)。唐宋名家詞選。臺北:開明書局。