英文摘要
|
This study primarily focuses on the works of Qu Dajun, although it also makes reference to other Ming loyalist poets such as Fu Shan, Hanke, or Gu Yanwu. The study examines how individual speech habits, or parole, developed in response to changes in climate and the social environment during the Ming and Qing dynasties, and the effect of these developments on the word "snow" in the poetry of the period. This study is predicated on the assumption that China entered a cooling period after the mid-seventeenth century, during the Little Ice Age. In the late Ming Dynasty, the term "the spirit of ice and snow" gained currency in Chinese literary circles as an aspect of literary criticism, but during the Ming-Qing transition period, loyalist poets turned the meaning of the phrase on its head. Ming loyalist poets often referred to themselves as snow. Qu Dajun was from Guangdong. For Cantonese people, snow is often linked with rain. But by the Ming-Qing transition period, the effects of the Little Ice Age had extended to Guangdong, and snow and ice in their various forms fell there as well. As a result, Qu's poetry always equated snow with damp, cold, and hardship. Interestingly, even though Qu traveled twice to the north, this symbolic association never changed.In contrast to loyalist poets such as Fu Shan, Hanke, or Gu Yanwu who identified with snow, Qu Dajun associated snow with the Manchurian Qing. For example, Wengshan Poems contains the line "the snow oppressing the country continues to blow." Qu even regarded snow as coming from hell. When he needed a metaphor for loyalist poets, he used "plum blossoms" instead. But how is it that such different signifiers can correspond to the same signified? Our findings show that Qu's poems carry out a valeur exchange between the meanings of the two symbols "plum blossoms" and "snow." Qu used the concept of "water born of heaven" ("Tian Yi Sheng Shui", 天一生水) to expound on the essential sameness of snow and plum blossoms. This shows that while Qu expressed himself in his own unique style, he nonetheless took the tropes used in loyalist cultural circles into account.
|
参考文献
|
-
陳美朱(2004)。論明清之際「布衣詩人第一」之爭。高雄師大學報,17,213-231。
連結:
-
嚴志雄(2002)。體物、記憶與遺民情境——屈大均一六五九年詠梅詩探究。中國文哲研究集刊,21,43-87。
連結:
-
(宋)朱熹(1980).詩經集註.臺北:華正書局.
-
(明)張岱,夏咸淳(校點)(1991).張岱詩文集.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
明‧陸雲龍(1628)。《翠娛閣行笈必攜小札簡》。北京:北京國家圖書館電傳資料。
-
明‧衛泳編,沈亞功點校(1935)。《冰雪攜》。上海:中央書店。
-
(梁)蕭統(編),(唐)李善(注)(1994).文選.臺北:華正書局有限公司.
-
(清)函可,嚴志雄(點校),楊權(點校)(2008).千山詩集.臺北:中央研究院中國文哲研究所.
-
(清)屈大均,陳永正(編)(2017).屈大均詩詞編年箋校.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(清)屈大均,歐初(編),王貴忱(編)(1996).屈大均全集.北京:人民文學出版社.
-
(清)傅山,劉貫文(編),張海瀛(編),尹協理(編)(1991).傅山全書.太原:山西人民出版社.
-
(清)顧炎武,王冀民(箋釋)(1998).顧亭林詩箋釋.北京:中華書局.
-
(漢)班固,(唐)顏師古(注)(1962).漢書.北京:中華書局.
-
Barthes、 Roland,李幼蒸(譯)(2008).符號學原理.北京:中國人民大學出版社.
-
Mote、 Frederick W.,Twitchett, Denis,張書生(譯),黃沫(譯),楊品泉(譯),思煒(譯),張言(譯),謝亮生(譯)(1992).劍橋中國明代史.北京:中國社會科學出版社.
-
王富鵬(2008).嶺南三大家研究.北京:人民文學出版社.
-
何大安(1996).聲韻學中的觀念和方法.臺北:大安出版社.
-
何天杰(2006).清初愛國詩人和學者——屈大均.廣州:廣東人民出版社.
-
汪宗衍(1984).明末剩人和尚年譜.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
林尹(1972).訓詁學槩要.臺北:正中書局.
-
林淑貞(2002).中國詠物詩「託物言志析論」.臺北:萬卷樓圖書有限公司.
-
侯文正(1985).傅山文論詩論輯注.山西:山西人民出版社.
-
胡楚生(1990).訓詁學大綱.臺北:華正書局有限公司.
-
孫立(2003).明末清初詩論研究.廣東:廣東高等教育出版社.
-
許靖華,甘錫安(譯)(2012).氣候創造歷史.臺北:聯經出版事業公司.
-
陳新雄(1994).聲韻學.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
-
趙園(1999).明清之際士大夫研究.北京:北京大學出版社.
-
劉昭民(1992).中國歷史上氣候之變遷.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
蔡英俊(2009)。典故、物象與符號化的生活世界:關於明清詩文研究在方法上的思考。清華中文學報
-
嚴迪昌(2002).清詩史.杭州:江蘇古籍出版社.
|