史家看文人:文史关系下的身份认同及批评史意义
|
摘要
史家对文人的身份批评是在文史关系下展开的。文史分离的迹象在东汉时期就已出现。魏晋六朝时期,辞采之文备受关注,重视辞采的创作倾向影响到史书的修撰,激发了史家的自我意识。史家由此开始强调文史分离,产生"耻为文士"的身份认知。自唐以来,史家的身份意识愈发强烈,他们一方面反对文人修史,另一方面强调先秦文史合一的状态,把"史"当作"文"的历史源头和价值体现,从而使"史家能文"成为潜在的观念。在传统价值观念的影响下,史家与文人的身份级差极为稳固,由此产生的批评话语蕴含着"以高行卑"的原则,对深入探究身份化文学批评具有启示意义。
It is often under the relationship between literature and history that historians undertake the identity criticism at literati.Separation between literature and history appeared in the Eastern Han Dynasty. In the Wei Jin and Six Dynasties, the style of diction attracted much attention, and the tendency to emphasize rhetoric influenced the compilation of history books and stimulated the consciousness of historians. From then on, historians began to emphasize the separation of literature and history, resulting in the identity recognition of "shame as a Literati". Since the Tang Dynasty, historians have become increasingly aware of their identity.They opposed the compilation of history by literati on the one hand and on the other hand traced back to the state of the unity of literature and history in the pre-Qin period, regarding "history" as the historical source and value embodiment of "literature" so that it became a potential concept for historians to write. Under the influence of traditional values, the distinction between literati and historians was stable, resulting in the critical discourse which embodied the principle of "from the higher to the lower " and had inspiring significance for further exploring identity literary criticism.
It is often under the relationship between literature and history that historians undertake the identity criticism at literati.Separation between literature and history appeared in the Eastern Han Dynasty. In the Wei Jin and Six Dynasties, the style of diction attracted much attention, and the tendency to emphasize rhetoric influenced the compilation of history books and stimulated the consciousness of historians. From then on, historians began to emphasize the separation of literature and history, resulting in the identity recognition of "shame as a Literati". Since the Tang Dynasty, historians have become increasingly aware of their identity.They opposed the compilation of history by literati on the one hand and on the other hand traced back to the state of the unity of literature and history in the pre-Qin period, regarding "history" as the historical source and value embodiment of "literature" so that it became a potential concept for historians to write. Under the influence of traditional values, the distinction between literati and historians was stable, resulting in the critical discourse which embodied the principle of "from the higher to the lower " and had inspiring significance for further exploring identity literary criticism.
引文
[1]谢保成.中国史学史[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2006.
[2]黄晖.论衡校释[M].北京:中华书局, 1990.
[3]刘劭.人物志[M].北京:红旗出版社, 1996.
[4]沈约.宋书[M].北京:中华书局, 1974.
[5]姚思廉.梁书[M].北京:中华书局, 1973.
[6]萧统.六臣注文选[M].北京:中华书局, 2012.
[7]杨朝明,宋立林.孔子家语通解[M].济南:齐鲁书社, 2013.
[8]葛晓音.八代诗史[M].北京:中华书局, 2012.
[9]范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局, 1965.
[10]刘知几.史通[M].上海:上海古籍出版社, 2008.
[11]潘耒.遂初堂文集[C]//续修四库全书:第1417册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[12]沈钦韩.汉书疏证[C]//续修四库全书:第266册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[13]黄溍.金华黄先生文集[C]//续修四库全书:第1323册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[14]刘昫.旧唐书[M].北京:中华书局, 1975.
[15]董诰.全唐文[M].上海:上海古籍出版社, 1990.
[16]章学诚.文史通义[M].刘公纯标点.北京:古籍出版社,1956.
[17]曾枣庄,刘琳.全宋文:第56册[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,合肥:安徽教育出版社, 2006.
[18]郑樵.郑樵文集[M].北京:书目文献出版社, 1992.
[19]王士骕.中弇山人稿[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第32册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[20]吴肃公.街南续集[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第148册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[21]吴高增.玉亭集[C]//四库未收书辑刊:第10辑第20册.北京:北京出版社, 1998.
[22]邓绎.藻川堂谭艺·三代篇[C]//王水照.历代文话.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[23]曹鹏程.宋代纪传、编年二体优劣论[J].史学史研究, 2011(1):35-41.
[24]刘炎.迩言[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第703册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[25]章如愚.群书考索续集[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第938册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[26]胡应麟.少室山房笔丛[M].北京:中华书局, 1958.
[27]黄汝亨.寓林集[C]//续修四库全书:第1368册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[28]于若瀛.弗告堂集[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第46册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[29]孙承泽.藤阴札记[C]//续修四库全书:第944册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[30]赵汝譡.水心文集序[C]//叶适集.北京:中华书局, 1961.
[31]李耆卿.文章精义[C]//王水照主编.历代文话.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[32]姜宸英.湛园集[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第1323册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[33]蒋寅.中国古代文体互参中“以高行卑”的体位定势[J].中国社会科学, 2008(5):149-167.
(1)如李少雍《中国古代的文史关系--史传文学概论》(《文学遗产》1996年第2期)论述古人对文史关系的认识,目的在于解释为何历代史传都有一定程度的文学性。李洪岩《中国古代史学文本的理论与实践》(《文史哲》2006年第5期)也讨论了史著的文学化现象以及反文学的史学文本思想。吕海龙《〈史通〉与刘知几文史观研究》(上海大学2011年博士学位论文)叙述了文史分合的轨迹,并着重分析了刘知几的文史分合观念。
(2)刘炎《迩言》又记载:“或曰:‘纪传不及编年,然则班、马皆非欤?’曰:‘班、马未可全贬也。文皆近古,事皆见闻,法皆家传。’”(见刘炎《迩言》,《景印文渊阁四库全书》第703册,第545页。)盖班、马影响太大,其意义与地位不可抹杀,但“未可全贬”四字,已表明以纪传为体的《史记》《汉书》有可指摘之处。
[2]黄晖.论衡校释[M].北京:中华书局, 1990.
[3]刘劭.人物志[M].北京:红旗出版社, 1996.
[4]沈约.宋书[M].北京:中华书局, 1974.
[5]姚思廉.梁书[M].北京:中华书局, 1973.
[6]萧统.六臣注文选[M].北京:中华书局, 2012.
[7]杨朝明,宋立林.孔子家语通解[M].济南:齐鲁书社, 2013.
[8]葛晓音.八代诗史[M].北京:中华书局, 2012.
[9]范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局, 1965.
[10]刘知几.史通[M].上海:上海古籍出版社, 2008.
[11]潘耒.遂初堂文集[C]//续修四库全书:第1417册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[12]沈钦韩.汉书疏证[C]//续修四库全书:第266册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[13]黄溍.金华黄先生文集[C]//续修四库全书:第1323册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[14]刘昫.旧唐书[M].北京:中华书局, 1975.
[15]董诰.全唐文[M].上海:上海古籍出版社, 1990.
[16]章学诚.文史通义[M].刘公纯标点.北京:古籍出版社,1956.
[17]曾枣庄,刘琳.全宋文:第56册[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,合肥:安徽教育出版社, 2006.
[18]郑樵.郑樵文集[M].北京:书目文献出版社, 1992.
[19]王士骕.中弇山人稿[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第32册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[20]吴肃公.街南续集[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第148册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[21]吴高增.玉亭集[C]//四库未收书辑刊:第10辑第20册.北京:北京出版社, 1998.
[22]邓绎.藻川堂谭艺·三代篇[C]//王水照.历代文话.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[23]曹鹏程.宋代纪传、编年二体优劣论[J].史学史研究, 2011(1):35-41.
[24]刘炎.迩言[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第703册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[25]章如愚.群书考索续集[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第938册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[26]胡应麟.少室山房笔丛[M].北京:中华书局, 1958.
[27]黄汝亨.寓林集[C]//续修四库全书:第1368册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[28]于若瀛.弗告堂集[C]//四库禁毁书丛刊:集部第46册.北京:北京出版社, 1997.
[29]孙承泽.藤阴札记[C]//续修四库全书:第944册.上海:上海古籍出版社, 2002.
[30]赵汝譡.水心文集序[C]//叶适集.北京:中华书局, 1961.
[31]李耆卿.文章精义[C]//王水照主编.历代文话.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2007.
[32]姜宸英.湛园集[C]//景印文渊阁四库全书:第1323册.台北:商务印书馆, 1986.
[33]蒋寅.中国古代文体互参中“以高行卑”的体位定势[J].中国社会科学, 2008(5):149-167.
(1)如李少雍《中国古代的文史关系--史传文学概论》(《文学遗产》1996年第2期)论述古人对文史关系的认识,目的在于解释为何历代史传都有一定程度的文学性。李洪岩《中国古代史学文本的理论与实践》(《文史哲》2006年第5期)也讨论了史著的文学化现象以及反文学的史学文本思想。吕海龙《〈史通〉与刘知几文史观研究》(上海大学2011年博士学位论文)叙述了文史分合的轨迹,并着重分析了刘知几的文史分合观念。
(2)刘炎《迩言》又记载:“或曰:‘纪传不及编年,然则班、马皆非欤?’曰:‘班、马未可全贬也。文皆近古,事皆见闻,法皆家传。’”(见刘炎《迩言》,《景印文渊阁四库全书》第703册,第545页。)盖班、马影响太大,其意义与地位不可抹杀,但“未可全贬”四字,已表明以纪传为体的《史记》《汉书》有可指摘之处。