論李維楨的文學史觀

Wei-zhen Li's View of Literary History

10.6973/CJ.201006.0269

謝旻琪(Min-Chi Hsieh)

王世貞 ； 末五子 ； 李維楨 ； 胡應麟 ； 晚明 ； 復古 ； Shi-zhen Wang ； last pentaschool ； Wei-zhen Li ； Ying-lin Hu ； the late Ming dynasty ； returning to the ancient

國文學誌

20期（2010 / 06 / 01）

269 - 298

繁體中文

復古派文人，非常重視對文學傳統的省察。本文所要探討的李維楨，為王世貞晚年所選定的「末五子」之一。因此，他的論點既既指出晚明文人的時代議題，也代表復古派後期詩史觀的走向。本文分三個層次來討論：一，詩與史的關係。在辨體的要求下，敘事可能傷害詩之體，但李維楨從「詩以觀政」的角度來談，詩與史的關係是密不可分的。二，「代變」的歷史觀。李維楨一方面從政治上的興衰，來說明詩之「格以代降」；另一方面卻也承認「一代即有一代之詩」，每個時代文學各有擅場。雖然以不同的觀點來看待文學史發展，有兼容的意義，但其理論也不可避免地有所矛盾。三，明代文學的地位。李維楨從盛衰循環的規律，歸納出明代為文學發展極盛的時代。但事實上，他也提出許多憂心之處。他所建構出的歷史，正是要對治他所見詩道衰頹的景象。

This Thesis focuses on Wei-zhen Li, who was chosen by Shi-zhen Wang as a member of the Last Pentaschool. Since all the members of Classiscist School paid attention to review literary traditions, Li's viewpoints represent both the agendas of the certain epoch which litterateurs of late Ming Dynasty would concern and the direction of the historical angle advocated by the late Classiscist School.Three layers as follow are suggested to discuss:1. The relationship between poet and history. Under the aspect of formalism, describing a fact maybe harmful to the formality of poet. Li, on the other hand, observed this with the idea ”understanding politic via poet.” This idea broke the boundaries between poet and history.2. The historical angle of ”style/character shifting by era.” Li explained the phenomenon ”the character is always lower in the later era”, but he also admitted that ”each era got its own poet,” which means there were nothing about moral value but only differences between poets from eras. He tried to balance his opinion by treating the expansion of literature history in two different ways, but, unavoidable, this made his theories self-contradictory.3. The historical value of Ming Literature. Based on the concept ”the rise and decline of eras is a circle,” Li considered that the Ming Dynasty's Literature would be on the high peak on history. But he also pointed out a lot of phenomenon should be worried about. The history which Li constructed represents the effort he had done to rescue the weakness of Ming Literature.

1. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。台南:莊嚴文化事業公司。
2. (1970)。弇州山人續稿。台北:文海出版社。
3. 王遜、周群(2009)。論李維楨詩論的「折衷」特色。長江論壇，2009(4)，76-80。
4. 李聖華(2004)。鍾惺與李維楨詩歌之比較研究。鄭州大學學報（哲學社會科學版），37(1)，126-130。
5. 周維德集校(2005)。全明詩話。濟南:齊魯書社。
6. 周維德集校(2005)。全明詩話。濟南:齊魯書社。
7. 周維德集校(2005)。全明詩話。濟南:齊魯書社。
8. 查清華(2000)。李維楨對明代格調論的突破與創新。中國韻文學刊，2000(1)，69-73。
9. 袁宏道(1964)。袁中郎全集。台北:世界書局。
10. 陳文新(2007)。明代詩學的邏輯進程與主要理論問題。湖北:武漢大學出版社。
11. 陳國球(1987)。胡應麟詩論中「變」與「不變」的探索。鏡花水月，台北:
12. 陳國球(2007)。明代復古派唐詩論研究。北京:北京大學出版社。
13. 鄧新躍(2007)。明代前中期詩學辨體理論研究。上海:上海古籍出版社。
14. 龔鵬程(1993)。詩史本色與妙悟。台北:臺灣學生書局。

1. (2023)。中國古代原生性「代變文學史觀」詮釋模型之重構。淡江中文學報，49，1-70。