淺議桐城文派的韓、柳古文比較論
A Critical Analysis of Tong-cheng Literary School’s Comments on the Prose Writings of Han Yu and Liu Zong-yuan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24112/sinohumanitas.132481Keywords:
桐城文派, 韓愈, 柳宗元, 方苞, 劉大櫆, 曾國藩, 吴汝綸, 賀濤, 文氣, 義法, Tong-cheng Literary School, Han Yu, Liu Zong-yuan, Fang Bao, Liu Da-Kui, Zeng Guo-fan, Wu Ru-lun, He Tao, Wen-qi, Yi-faAbstract
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.
韓、柳古文的優劣,自來是文評家討論的焦點。而在衆多的評論中,以桐城文派的看法最值得注意。方苞將道德與文章看成同一回事,并以此爲基礎,建立起“義法”之説。方苞對柳宗元文多方挑剔,幾於吹毛求疵,甚而大肆詆毁,不過是實踐其理論罷了。在桐城文派的流傳過程中,對柳宗元的這種成見,儘管不能説是定調,却也是主流意見,難怪给人留下“桐城始於排柳,终於排柳”的印象。桐城中人評論柳文,特别是談到他的文氣時,就一直受到這種成見的干擾。方苞以文氣不充譏貶柳文,并認爲是自反不縮所造成。後來的劉大櫆,甚至是賀濤等,皆沿用其説。但不容忽視的是,劉大櫆以後,桐城中人評論柳文,受到成見的干擾已有減少的迹象,已開始自覺地從文學的角度來評析柳文。這種微妙的轉變,不能不説是一種進步。這跟他們逐漸把道德與文章離析爲二是分不開的。從曾國藩的懷疑,到吳汝綸明確判别義理與文章爲二事,他們對文學獨立性的認識漸趨清晰,創作如此,評論也如此,觀念上的這種轉變,就反映在吳汝綸等人對柳文的評價上。
Comparing the works of Han Yu (韓愈) and Liu Zong-yuan (柳宗元) has been a focal point of critics. Among the many discussions, the point of view of the Tong-cheng Literary School (桐城文派) deserves special notice. Fang Bao (方苞) regarded morality and literary works as the same thing and established the concept of "Yi-fa (義法)”. He attempted to put this theory into practice by criticizing Liu’s works harshly and unfairly. During the spread of the Tong-cheng Literary School (桐城文派), Fang’s preconceived notion about Liu might not be the final conclusion but certainly the mainstream opinion, and hence no wonder the impression of “Tong-cheng Literary School starts and ends on attacking against Liu” was made. In fact, Tong-cheng Literary Schools” discussions on Liu's works, especial on his style of writing, have been interfered with by such kind of prejudice. Fang commented that the Wen-qi (文氣) of Liu’s works were not strong enough due to the defect in his moral character. His descendants, such as Liu Da-kui (劉大櫆) and even He Tao (賀濤), continued to adopt this approach toward Liu’s works. Yet, the critics after Liu Da-kui (劉大櫆)had made a fine adjustment consciously that their discussions became less biased and they started to evaluate Liu’s works from a literal perspective. The change, which could be attributed to the gradual development of the mentality of dividing morality and literary works could be regarded as a kind of progress and should not be ignored. From Zeng Guo-fan (曾國藩) with doubt to Wu Ru-lun (吳汝綸) with certainty, Tong-cheng Literary School (桐城文派) regarded moral and literary works, including literary writing and literary criticism, as two different matters. The change of the point of view of Wu Ru-lun (吳汝綸) and the other critics toward Liu’s works is a result of the recognition of the independent features of literature.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2007 人文中國學報
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and not used for commercial purposes. Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s) and the publisher(s).