《史通》叙事觀的文學史意義

The Significance of the Narrative Perspective of Shitong in Literary History

Abstract

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

中國文學有悠久深厚的抒情傳統，也有悠久深厚的叙事傳統。但對後者，以往的研究較弱，亟需加强。唐劉知幾《史通》是一部史學理論著作，但因中國自古文史不分，而且史述本身也是一種叙事文體，故《史通》所論多與文學，特别是文學叙事有關。當我們從叙事角度重審中國文學史，不能不十分重視《史通》的一系列觀點。概括而言，《史通》之叙事觀有三個方面，即對叙事行爲的尊崇、對求真原則的强調和以切實尚簡爲叙事文字之高標。這些觀點雖針對史學而發，但在文學史上也產生過巨大而持久的影響。本文著重論述其與叙事文學有關者數點，以闡明其在中國文學史上的意義。一、《采撰》、《載文》等篇指出史書必含文章的事實，進而討論了史書載文的標準等問題，具體地肯定史述與文學不可分的深刻因緣關係。二、以《曲筆》篇爲主，並涉及《直書》、《品藻》、《鑒識》、《探賾》等篇，探討了史述失真的種種弊端和惡果，却又允許“避諱”，從而爲文史寫作中的虚構叙事留下了餘地。三、《言語》、《浮詞》、《叙事》等篇對叙事語言時代性、地域性的論述，给文學創作提供了直接的指導性意見。四、《叙事》篇論“用晦”，對詩詞與小説創作均有深刻影響。《史通》所論與文學有關者，尚不止此，但僅上述已足以使其在中國文學史和批評史上佔據重要地位。

Chinese literature enjoys a time-honored and profound tradition of lyricism and narrative, but past research has scarcely addressed the latter and further study is required. Shitong (Generality of Historiography) is a work of historiography criticism written by Liu Zhiji in the Tang dynasty, but thanks to China’s age-old tradition of non-separation of literature and history, and the fact that history writing itself is a genre of narrative, much discussion in the book revolves around literature, especially literary narrative. When we re-examine the history of Chinese literature in terms of narratology, we can hardly ignore the significant views illustrated in Shi-tong, which consist of three aspects: valuing the conduct of narrative, emphasizing the principles of seeking truth and giving priority to accuracy and conciseness. Despite the fact that these views were originally directed at historiography, they have exerted enormous and lasting influence on the history of literature. This paper aims to illustrate the significance of the narrative perspective of Shitong in Chinese literary history by emphasizing its direct bearing upon narrative literature. First, chapters of Caizhuan (Selection and Composition) and Zaiwen (Recording Documents) reveal the fact that historical books necessarily involve literariness, and proceed with the discussion of the criteria for incorporating literariness into historical writing, and finally confirm the deeply entangled relationship between the two. Second, mainly in Qubi (Unfaithful Recording) but also in Zhishu (Objective Recording), Pinzao (Judgment and Evaluation), Jianshi (Examination and Appraisal) and Tanze (Distinguishing the True from the Untrue), Liu Zhiji discusses the shortcomings and negative effects caused by deviation from truth in historical writing while allowing “bihui” (purposeful selection and omission), which leaves room for fiction. Third, Yanci (Words and Speeches), Fuci (Decorative Description), Xushi (Narrative) and some others expound the diachroneity and locality of narrative language and provide literature with direct guidance. Fourth, “yong-hui” (expressing the most with the least), illustrated in Xushi, produced profound effects on poetry, Ci poetry and fiction writing. Not all the relevant literature in Shitong is mentioned above, but this is enough to secure its important position in the history of Chinese literature and literary criticism.