論清人古詩選集對鍾嶸《詩品》的接受與批評－以王夫之《古詩評選》與陳祚明《采菽堂古詩選》為例

On the Acceptance and Criticisms of Zhong Rong's "Shi Pin" of the Ancient Poems Anthology in Qing Dynasty-A Case Study of Wang Fuchih's "Selection of Old Poems and Critiques" and Chen Zuoming's "The Selective Ancient Poems Written in the Cai Shu House"

10.6973/CJ.201206.0001

呂光華(Kuang-Hua Lu)

鍾嶸 ； 詩品 ； 王夫之 ； 古詩評選 ； 陳祚明 ； 采菽堂古詩選 ； 總集與詩話 ； Zhong Rong ； Shi Pin ； Wang Fuchih ； Selection of Old Poems and Critiques ； Chen Zuoming ； The Selective Ancient Poems Written in the Cai Shu House ； The selection of Poetry and Poetry Critique

國文學誌

24期（2012 / 06 / 01）

1 - 30

繁體中文

清代《詩品》學的研究，過去只著重《詩品》的版刻、校注與相關的詩話上，都忽略了在總集選集方面，清代學者對鍾嶸《詩品》研究所呈現的意義與價值，筆者以為鍾嶸《詩品》學在清代的研究上，如果能把研究視野擴大到詩選總集，則清代的《詩品》學的研究應仍十分可觀，鍾嶸《詩品》在清人的心目中，並不像表面所看到的那麼孤獨寂寞。本文以清初著名的詩選集王夫之《古詩評選》與陳祚明《采菽堂古詩選》為例，說明清人所編選的古詩選集，在研究清代鍾嶸《詩品》學所具有的價值與意義。王夫之《古詩評選》評詩很少引用前人著作文獻，包括鍾嶸《詩品》，也不見他對任何一個三品中詩人評論的全文引錄。雖然如此，並不表示他沒有注意到《詩品》這部最早評論漢魏以迄齊梁古詩的專著。在《古詩評選》中他對鍾嶸《詩品》的意見，有接受，也有批評。接受的部分，他肯定了鍾嶸對諸多漢魏以迄齊梁詩人的評價，批評的部分，則充份顯示了他個人的好惡。陳祚明《采菽堂古詩選》於鍾嶸《詩品》幾乎全文引錄，惟其引錄皆錄自馮惟訥《古詩紀》，而非《詩品》原書。就他引錄之後另加批評詮釋者而言，對鍾嶸的批評意見，否多可少，這種反鍾的意見與態度，對晚清陳衍撰《詩品平議》有很大的影響，陳衍批評鍾嶸《詩品》的意見，有不少都直接間接來自陳祚明《采菽堂古詩選》。陳祚明對鍾嶸的批評主要集中在幾個部分：一是體源問題，二是詩人風格技巧問題，三是詩人成就的比較問題。陳氏的這些反對鍾嶸的批評，雖未必言之成理，但也自有他的立場和看法，而有些則實為誤讀、誤解，當分別看待。

While the past studies of Shi Pin in Qing dynasty only focused on the versions of printing, annotations and relevant critiques of poetry, ignoring the meaning and value which the Qing scholars had contributed in the aspect of poetry selections; this study believes that if the vision of related study can be expanded to poetry selections, the result should be very significant. In the eyes of Qing people, Zhong Rong's Shi Pin wasn't as solitary as it seemed. This study aims to clarify the meaning and value of the ancient poem anthology edited by Qing scholars while doing research about Qing people's study about Zhong Rong's Shi Pin; by using the cases of the famous selections in the early Qing dynasty, Wang Fuchih's Selection of Old Poems and Critiques and Chen Zuoming's The Selective Ancient Poems Written in the Cai Shu House.In Wang Fuchih's Selection of Old Poems and Critiques, he rarely quotes works written by former scholars, including Zhong Rong's Shi Pin; neither do we see he cites any of the poet commentaries that are included in the ”Three Pin” in Shi Pin. Even though, it does not show that he didn't notice Shi Pin, the earliest critique which comments on ancient poems from Han Wei to Chi Liang. There are both acceptance and criticism judging from his opinions to Zhong Rong's Shi Pin in Selection of Old Poems and Critiques. As acceptance, he acknowledges Zhong Rong's evaluation on various poets from Han Wei to Chi Liang; while as criticism, he clearly shows his personal likes and dislikes.Chen Zuoming's The Selective Ancient Poems Written in the Cai Shu House nearly quotes all the articles in Zhong Rong's Shi Pin; only that they are quoted from Fen Wei Ne's Gu Shi Ji, not the original Shi Pin. From his criticism and interpretation after the quotation, his opinions of Zhong Rong are more of depreciation rather than appreciation. This altitude and opinion of anti-Zhong had great impact on Chen Yan's Shi Pin's Common Discussion in the late Qing dynasty. Much of Chen Yan's criticism of Zhong Rong's Shi Pin comes from Chen Zuoming's The Selective Ancient Poems Written in the Cai Shu House directly or indirectly. Chen Zuoming's criticism of Zhong Rong focuses on several parts; first being the origin of the poetry style; second being the skill and style of poet; third being the contrast between achievements of the poets. Although these criticisms from Chen do not seem all reasonable, they do possess his own viewpoint and stand. However, some of them are in fact results from misreading or misunderstanding, and thus are required to consider separately.

1. (1983)。文淵閣四庫全書。台北:台灣商務印書館。
2. 《古詩紀》，卷56，冊1379，頁464、卷149，冊1380，頁598。
3. 宋李昉編、夏劍欽校點(2000)。太平御覽。石家莊:河北教育出版社。
4. 宋劉義慶、余嘉錫箋疏(1984)。世說新語箋疏。台北:仁愛書局。
5. 唐魏徵(1990)。新校本隋書。台北:鼎文書局。
6. 梁江淹、俞紹初校注、張亞新校注(1994)。江淹集校注。鄭州:中州古籍出版社。
7. 梁劉勰、王利器校箋(1982)。文心雕龍校證。台北:明文書局。
8. 梁蕭子顯(1990)。新校本南齊書。台北:鼎文書局。
9. 梁蕭統編、唐李善注(1987)。文選。台北:文津出版社。
10. 梁鍾嶸、曹旭集注(1994)。詩品集注。上海:上海古籍出版社。
11. 清永瑢(1985)。合印四庫全書總目提要及四庫未收書目禁燬書目。台北:台灣商務印書館。
12. 清何文煥輯(1983)。歷代詩話。台北:漢京文化事業有限公司。
13. 清陳沆(1981)。詩比興箋。上海:上海古籍出版社。
14. 魏阮籍、陳伯君校注(2004)。阮籍集校注。北京:中華書局。
15. 魏曹植、趙幼文校注(1984)。曹植集校注。北京:人民文學出版社。
16. 《船山全書》編輯委員會編校(1996)。船山全書。長沙市:嶽麓書社。
17. 《續修四庫全書》編纂委員會編(2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
18. 《續修四庫全書》編纂委員會編(2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
19. 王夫之、郭紹虞輯(1979)。清詩話。台北市:西南書局。
20. 王叔岷(1992)。鍾嶸詩品箋證稿。台北:中央研究院中國文哲研究所。
21. 吳彩娥(2009)。詩話研究─詩學與文化。彰化:彰師大國文系。
22. 車柱環(1961).鍾嶸詩品校證（續完）.亞細亞研究,4(1),213.
23. 首都師範大學文學院編(2007)。文學前沿。北京:學苑出版社。
24. 張伯偉(1993)。鍾嶸詩品研究。南京:南京大學出版社。
25. 曹旭(1998)。詩品研究。上海:上海古籍出版社。
26. 許文雨(1983)。鍾嶸詩品講疏 人間詞話講疏 附補遺。成都:成都古籍書店。
27. 郭紹虞(1979)。宋詩話考。北京:中華書局。
28. 楊家駱編、唐李延壽(1991)。新校本南史。台北:鼎文書局。
29. 楊家駱編、梁沈約(1990)。新校本宋書。台北:鼎文書局。