發(fā)布時間：2018-01-11 02:08

  本文關鍵詞：唐宋派《史記》接受研究　出處：《西南大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 唐宋派 《史記》接受 史記精神 史記筆法 史記風神

【摘要】：明代中期文學復古思潮高漲,復古革新成為這一時期的時代精神,涌現出了文學復古流派。以王慎中、唐順之、茅坤、歸有光為代表的散文家因師法唐宋文而被稱為唐宋派,與由前后七子組成的秦漢派相互對立。唐宋派是一個以宗法唐宋文為主的散文流派,《史記》則是秦漢文的典范,是主張復古的秦漢派的斗爭武器,在明中期復古的背景下二者由此而產生聯系。唐宋派對《史記》推崇備至,不僅于散文中多次論及,且都對《史記》進行了評點或選錄,他們師法唐宋文,其實是欲借唐宋文之門徑入秦漢文堂奧,進而以窺六經之旨,上溯古文之道。從明代中后期文學與文化的整體視野上看,唐宋派與秦漢派皆推崇《史記》,都肯定《史記》的文學價值,重視《史記》的審美藝術,體現出二者在復古上的殊途同歸。而從取法內容看,秦漢派專學《史記》句法、章法,模擬其文辭,唐宋派則透過文字滲透到《史記》的內在神理,由此發(fā)掘出“史遷風神”,比之秦漢派更加深入。與此同時,唐宋派的流派性質和《史記》的文學性質也決定了該派接受《史記》的獨特性質,即他們對《史記》的接受是理學性質的作家對情感主義文學的接受,是經過文學思想過濾和改造之后的主動接受,這與秦漢派的被動接受有所區(qū)別。唐宋派超越淺層面的文辭句法,以“風神”論《史記》,著力發(fā)掘《史記》作為傳記文學的敘事藝術,探尋唐宋文與《史記》一脈相承的風神精神,由此開辟出一條從唐宋文上溯秦漢文的復古路徑,也為后來的復古開辟了新的方向。他們的接受既是對《史記》文本的解讀,又反過來影響了該派的散文創(chuàng)作,使他們在散文創(chuàng)作中借鑒史記精神,學習史記筆法,在追求風神的同時兼重文章的情感表達,從而形成了具有流派特色的審美規(guī)范,而他們的散文也因生動自然、情感真摯而輝耀于明代文壇。
[Abstract]:In the middle of the Ming Dynasty, the trend of thought of restoring the ancient times was high, and the reform of the ancient literature became the spirit of the times of this period, resulting in the emergence of literary retro schools. Wang Shenzhong, Tang Shunzhi, Mao Kun. The essayist represented by Gui Youguang is called Tang and Song school because of his teaching style, which is opposite to the Qin Han school which is composed of seven sons. The Tang and Song Dynasty school is a prose school mainly composed of patriarchal style and Tang and Song languages. The Historical Records is the model of Qin and Han languages and the struggle weapon of the Qin and Han schools who advocated the restoration of ancient times. Under the background of the restoration of the ancient times in the middle of Ming Dynasty, the two were related. Not only in prose, but also in the history of the commentary or selection, they learn from the Tang and Song languages, in fact, they want to use the path of the Tang and Song languages into the Qin and Han dynasties, and then to see the purpose of the six Classics. From the view of literature and culture in the middle and late Ming Dynasty, both Tang and Song dynasties and Qin and Han dynasties respected the Historical Records, affirmed the literary value of the Historical Records, and attached importance to the aesthetic art of the Historical Records. From the point of view of the content of the method, Qin and Han schools studied the syntax, composition and imitation of its writings, while the Tang and Song schools infiltrated the inner deities of the Records of the History through the characters. At the same time, the genre nature of Tang and Song dynasties and the literary nature of the Book of History also decided the unique nature of the school to accept the Book of History. That is, their acceptance of the Book of History is the acceptance of sentimental literature by the writers of Neo-Confucianism and the active acceptance after the literary thought has been filtered and reformed. This is different from the passive acceptance of the Qin and Han schools. The Tang and Song schools transcended the superficial lexical syntax and took "Wind Spirit" on the Book of History as the narrative art of biographical literature. In order to explore the spirit of the wind and spirit in the Tang and Song dynasties and the Records of the History, we can find a way to go back to the Qin and Han languages from the Tang and Song dynasties. Their acceptance is not only the interpretation of the text of the Historical Records, but also the influence of the prose creation of this school, so that they can learn from the spirit of the Historical Records in the prose creation. The study of Shi Ji's style of writing, while pursuing the spirit of the wind and emphasizing the emotional expression of the article, formed the aesthetic norms with the characteristics of the genre, and their prose was also vivid and natural, sincere in emotion and shining in the literary world of the Ming Dynasty.
【學位授予單位】：西南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：I206.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 王曉紅;;茅坤《史記抄》文學價值探微[J];社會科學輯刊;2015年03期

2 張新科;;《史記》文學經典化的重要途徑——以明代評點為例[J];文史哲;2014年03期

3 張新科;;《史記》文學經典的建構過程及其意義[J];文學遺產;2012年05期

4 余來明;;唐宋派與明中期科舉文風[J];武漢大學學報(人文科學版);2009年02期

5 蔣鵬舉;;唐宋派與后七子關系新論[J];陜西師范大學繼續(xù)教育學報;2006年04期

6 鄧國光;;古文批評的“神”論——茅坤《史記鈔》初探[J];文學評論;2006年04期

7 王齊;《歸評史記》對《史記》的接受[J];文藝研究;2005年06期

8 宋克夫,余瑩;唐宋派考論[J];湖北大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2005年03期

9 熊禮匯;唐宋派新論[J];文學評論;2000年03期

10 廖可斌;唐宋派與陽明心學[J];文學遺產;1996年03期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 劉尊舉;唐宋派文學思想研究[D];首都師范大學;2006年

2 貝京;歸有光研究[D];浙江大學;2004年

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 薛瑾;《史記》與復古派盟主王世貞[D];西南大學;2010年

2 張荃;《史記鈔》研究[D];北京語言大學;2008年

，

本文編號：1407680