董文渙《聲調四譜圖説》辯疑

A Criticism of Tung Wen-huan's Four Charts of Tones Sequence

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.

唐人近體，有固定之平仄及粘對：古體則未聞有固定之平仄、粘對，有之自董文涣《聲調四譜圖説》始。清人王文簡、趙秋谷、翁方綱等人均有古詩平仄之説，但基本上只強調某字宜平、某字宜仄；而董文渙《聲調四譜圖説》則強調古詩一如近體，有固定之平仄、粘對，而且七言出自五言，五言出自四言，而「四言為詩法之祖」，「即聲調之法，亦實為五、七言之權輿」；且近體平仄、粘對，實緣於古體平仄粘對。

董氏云云，殊昧於事實。蓋平、仄四聲，緣出於六朝，永明體、齊梁體實由古入律之漸，前此之古詩，實無平、仄四聲之説，亦無語可言；董氏倒果為因，以為近體平仄出於古體；再者，唐人古體與唐以前之古體，不盡相同，但董氏所謂之古體，但指唐人律化之古風，其謬可知。尤有甚者，近體、字數、句數有一定之規律，不可增減；而古體無一定字數、句數之規定，甚且不必全然齊言，偶亦可見雜言，如此纷雜，如何定出固定之圖譜？足見董氏之説，在在不合事實，其説之謬誤，已不辯而自明矣。

It is generally agreed that there are ping-tse (fixed tone sequence in each line) and nien-tui (repetition and conast of tone sequence between lines) in the modem style poetry of T’ang Dynasty. As for the old style poetry, there seems to have neither fixed ping-tse nor nien-tui. But Tung Wen-huan of the Ch’ing Dynasty insisted, in his Four Chart of Tones Sequence, that the old style, just like the modern style, required both fixed ping-tse and nien-tui. He regarded seven-syllabic poetry as being derived from five-syllabic poetry, and five-syllabic poetry from four-syllabic poetry. He therefore declared that four-syllabic poetry is the ancestor of all later poetry, and the ping-tse and nien-tui of the modern style were derived from those of the old style. What Tung declared is absolutely wrong. The four tones division are establised in the Six Dynasty. What so called “yung-ming style” and “chi-liang style” were examples of old style poetry which started to have regulated requirement. Before that there was no such idea of tone sequence in poetry. Tung has mistaken the effect as cause. Tung’s misjudgement seems to be derived from his mistaking the regulated old style poetry of the T’ang Dynasty as the original old style poetry. There are some obvious difference between these two kind poetry. Anyway, since old style poetry requires neither fixed syllable in a line nor fixed lines in a poem, it is impossible to establish any chart of tone sequence. Tung’s work is obviously a failure.