左思《三都赋》研究
|
摘要
左思《三都赋》是京都大赋名篇,自其流传,赞誉之外亦时生出疑问与责难,如撰年、诸家序注的真伪、对征实赋论的贯彻、比为类书、结构疏漏以及流传中不可避免的文字之脱衍讹误等等。目前学界除对撰年有专文讨论外,其他问题则未见有专文讨论。有鉴于此,本文从三方面综合探讨以上问题。
其一,《三都赋》撰年考察,包括诸家序注的真伪问题。《三都赋》的撰年是一桩千年疑案,前人及今人的研究所得结论大致有七种之多。本文在清理诸家研究得失的基础上,对判定《三都赋》初成之年的两条主要依据即《晋书》所载皇甫谧为《三都赋》作序而卒于太康三年(282)、左思为作《三都赋》访吴事于陆机而陆机于太康十年(289)入洛二事时间的相互抵牾作了详悉考察,论证了徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考》提出的《晋书·皇甫谧传》“太康三年卒”之“太康”为“元康”之误为是、《陆机传》“太康末入洛”之载不误,破解了这桩疑案的症结所在及争论不休的皇甫谧《序》真伪问题,得出《三都赋》初成于元康元年(291)左右的结论,这桩疑案似可了结。
其二,《三都赋》批评辨析。前人对《三都赋》的批评主要有三点,皆值得再商榷。批评之一:《三都赋》有夸张、想像、失于考信之辞,有违左思的征实主张。对此,本文仔细分析左思提出征实赋论的原因、契机、具体所指与具体标准,由此发现《三都赋》的实际创作的确贯彻了左思的征实赋论。批评之二:《三都赋》博物征实有如类书。对此,钱钟书《管锥编》“以能文为本”(用萧统《文选序》语)、“兼具类书之用”之说甚有见地。本文从社会背景、实际创作与作品解读三方面论述“以能文为本”乃左思用心所在,也符合《三
Fu on Three Capitals by ZuoSi is one of the most famous Fu among its kind. Since its spreading, besides appraises, many kinds of doubts and criticisms, such as the doubts on its exact writing time, on the faithfulness of the prefaces and notes by many scholars, on implementing the theory of realistic aspect of Fu, on being regarded as catalogues, as well as mistakes in its structure and wording , have always accompanied it. At the present time , the academic circle only discussed its writing time, leaving others untouched. So the author of this thesis wants to analyze all the aspects of it in three parts.The first part is the research on its exact writing time, including the faithfulness of its kinds of prefaces and notes. Its exact writing time has remained as a myth. So far, there are seven kinds of conclusions on it. In this thesis, two pieces of evidence support the author's conclusion on the bases of comparing the advantages and weak points of different kinds of theories. One is the fact that Huangfu Mi once wrote a preface for it and died in 282A.D., which was recorded in the History of Jin . The other is the fact that ZuoSi once got help from LuJi when he intended to write Fu on Three capitals. However, it was in 289A.D. that LuJi went to LuoYang. This means the above two facts are in contradiction to each other. After detailed analysis, it can be concluded that XuChuanwu's claim in his paper New research in Huangfu Mi Death Year that YuanKang was mistaken as TaiKang
in the History of Jin is right, which can confirm the description that LuJi went to LuoYang at the end of reign of TaiKang. Then it can be concluded that Fu on Three Capitals was accomplished in 291 A.D ,which may resolve the problem of its exact writing time.The second part of this thesis is the analysis of the criticisms against Fu on Three Capitals. There are three main viewpoints from all these criticisms and all of them are worth being discussed again. The first one is that Fu on Three capitals are full of exaggerations and imaginary descriptions which violates his own ideas. As to this, the author of this paper carefully analyzed the reason why ZuoSi put forward the theory of some realistic aspects of Fu, the background, concrete referents and criteria. The results confirm that Fu on Three Capitals in fact carries out Zuo's theory. The second one is that it is like a catalogue and full of blank descriptions. As to this, Qian Zhongshu claims in bis Guan Zhui Bian that it owns literary nature while it can be used as a catalogue. In this thesis, the author argues from three angles, that is, social background, writing and the analysis of the works, that literary nature is Zuo's intensions which conforms to the real situation of it. The third one is that there is no mention of the appearance of Mr. WeiGuo and so it is a structural error. As to this, it can be pointed out that it is the structural arrangement of emphasizing the central position of the Wei kingdom and praising the Western Jin Dynasty. It is also a breakthrough in the structure of Fu of the Han Dynasty. Meanwhile, there are some signs that Mr. WeiGuo would appear from the title Fu on Three Capitals.The third part of this thesis is on the collation of it. Within the framework of the Selected Readings, some scholars had done much work in the annotation and textual criticism of it. However, with the appearance of some ancient editions of the Selected Readings, it is necessary to recollate Fu on Three Capitals. In this thesis, Hu's edition which is the popular one among its kind is selected as the basis of comparison, supplemented by seven other editions such as You's, Mao's editions, etc.. On the basis of this, this thesis provides a detailed collation of different editi-
ons of Fu on Three Capitals and the work of these scholars is either corrected or supplemented.There are careful and detailed discussions on the research of other scholars' work on Fu of Three Capitals in the above three parts of this thesis. This can be used as a reliable basis for further research.
其一,《三都赋》撰年考察,包括诸家序注的真伪问题。《三都赋》的撰年是一桩千年疑案,前人及今人的研究所得结论大致有七种之多。本文在清理诸家研究得失的基础上,对判定《三都赋》初成之年的两条主要依据即《晋书》所载皇甫谧为《三都赋》作序而卒于太康三年(282)、左思为作《三都赋》访吴事于陆机而陆机于太康十年(289)入洛二事时间的相互抵牾作了详悉考察,论证了徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考》提出的《晋书·皇甫谧传》“太康三年卒”之“太康”为“元康”之误为是、《陆机传》“太康末入洛”之载不误,破解了这桩疑案的症结所在及争论不休的皇甫谧《序》真伪问题,得出《三都赋》初成于元康元年(291)左右的结论,这桩疑案似可了结。
其二,《三都赋》批评辨析。前人对《三都赋》的批评主要有三点,皆值得再商榷。批评之一:《三都赋》有夸张、想像、失于考信之辞,有违左思的征实主张。对此,本文仔细分析左思提出征实赋论的原因、契机、具体所指与具体标准,由此发现《三都赋》的实际创作的确贯彻了左思的征实赋论。批评之二:《三都赋》博物征实有如类书。对此,钱钟书《管锥编》“以能文为本”(用萧统《文选序》语)、“兼具类书之用”之说甚有见地。本文从社会背景、实际创作与作品解读三方面论述“以能文为本”乃左思用心所在,也符合《三
Fu on Three Capitals by ZuoSi is one of the most famous Fu among its kind. Since its spreading, besides appraises, many kinds of doubts and criticisms, such as the doubts on its exact writing time, on the faithfulness of the prefaces and notes by many scholars, on implementing the theory of realistic aspect of Fu, on being regarded as catalogues, as well as mistakes in its structure and wording , have always accompanied it. At the present time , the academic circle only discussed its writing time, leaving others untouched. So the author of this thesis wants to analyze all the aspects of it in three parts.The first part is the research on its exact writing time, including the faithfulness of its kinds of prefaces and notes. Its exact writing time has remained as a myth. So far, there are seven kinds of conclusions on it. In this thesis, two pieces of evidence support the author's conclusion on the bases of comparing the advantages and weak points of different kinds of theories. One is the fact that Huangfu Mi once wrote a preface for it and died in 282A.D., which was recorded in the History of Jin . The other is the fact that ZuoSi once got help from LuJi when he intended to write Fu on Three capitals. However, it was in 289A.D. that LuJi went to LuoYang. This means the above two facts are in contradiction to each other. After detailed analysis, it can be concluded that XuChuanwu's claim in his paper New research in Huangfu Mi Death Year that YuanKang was mistaken as TaiKang
in the History of Jin is right, which can confirm the description that LuJi went to LuoYang at the end of reign of TaiKang. Then it can be concluded that Fu on Three Capitals was accomplished in 291 A.D ,which may resolve the problem of its exact writing time.The second part of this thesis is the analysis of the criticisms against Fu on Three Capitals. There are three main viewpoints from all these criticisms and all of them are worth being discussed again. The first one is that Fu on Three capitals are full of exaggerations and imaginary descriptions which violates his own ideas. As to this, the author of this paper carefully analyzed the reason why ZuoSi put forward the theory of some realistic aspects of Fu, the background, concrete referents and criteria. The results confirm that Fu on Three Capitals in fact carries out Zuo's theory. The second one is that it is like a catalogue and full of blank descriptions. As to this, Qian Zhongshu claims in bis Guan Zhui Bian that it owns literary nature while it can be used as a catalogue. In this thesis, the author argues from three angles, that is, social background, writing and the analysis of the works, that literary nature is Zuo's intensions which conforms to the real situation of it. The third one is that there is no mention of the appearance of Mr. WeiGuo and so it is a structural error. As to this, it can be pointed out that it is the structural arrangement of emphasizing the central position of the Wei kingdom and praising the Western Jin Dynasty. It is also a breakthrough in the structure of Fu of the Han Dynasty. Meanwhile, there are some signs that Mr. WeiGuo would appear from the title Fu on Three Capitals.The third part of this thesis is on the collation of it. Within the framework of the Selected Readings, some scholars had done much work in the annotation and textual criticism of it. However, with the appearance of some ancient editions of the Selected Readings, it is necessary to recollate Fu on Three Capitals. In this thesis, Hu's edition which is the popular one among its kind is selected as the basis of comparison, supplemented by seven other editions such as You's, Mao's editions, etc.. On the basis of this, this thesis provides a detailed collation of different editi-
ons of Fu on Three Capitals and the work of these scholars is either corrected or supplemented.There are careful and detailed discussions on the research of other scholars' work on Fu of Three Capitals in the above three parts of this thesis. This can be used as a reliable basis for further research.
引文
1.《毛诗注疏》毛亨传 郑玄注 孔颖达疏 中华书局影印阮刻《十三经注疏》本
2.《史记》汉·司马迁撰 中华书局点校本1959
3.《汉书》汉·班固撰 中华书局点校本1962
4.《晋书》唐·房玄龄等撰 中华书局点校本1974
5.《隋书》,唐·魏征 等著 中华书局点校本1973
6.《全晋文》清·严可均编 中华书局影印清光绪刻本1985
7.《九家旧晋书辑本》汤球辑 杨朝明校补 中州古籍出版社 1991
8.《太平御览》宋·李昉等撰 中华书局影印本1960
9.《十七史商榷》王鸣盛撰 北京市中国书店1987
10.李善注《文选》 中华书局影印胡刻本1977
11.《唐钞文选集注汇存》周勋初辑 上海古籍出版社影印2000
12.李善注《文选》 北宋国子监天圣刻本 台湾故宫博物院藏 复印本
13.六臣注《文选》 明宣德三年朝鲜活字翻北宋元祜秀州编刻本 韩国奎章阁藏韩国影印本1996
14.六臣注《文选》约南宋初明州编刻本 日本金泽文库藏 日本足利学校影印本日本昭和49年
15.五臣注《文选》 南宋绍兴建阳陈八郎刻本 台湾影印本
16.李善注《文选》 南宋淳熙八年尤袤池阳郡刻本 国家图书馆藏 中华书局影印本1974
17.李善注《文选》 清康熙钱士谧翻明末毛晋汲古阁藏宋本
18.《文选集释》 清 朱王存 撰 光绪元年泾川朱氏刊本
19.《文选旁证》 清·梁章钜撰 光绪八年吴下重刊本
20.《文选考异》 清·胡克家撰 中华书局1977年影印胡刻本《文选》后附
21.《文选考异》 清·孙志祖撰《丛书集成初编》本(《读书斋丛书》本)
22.《文选笺证》 清·胡绍煐撰《丛书集成续编》本(《聚学轩丛书》本)
23.《文选笔记》 清·许巽行撰《丛书集成续编》本(《文渊楼丛书》本)
24.《文选纪闻》 清·余萧客撰《丛书集成续编》本(《芋园丛书》本)
25.《选学胶言》 清·张云璈撰《文渊楼丛书》本上海文瑞书局 北京直隶书局影印1928
26.《读书杂志》清·王念孙撰 北京市中国书店1985
27.《义门读书记》清·何焯撰 崔高维点校 中华书局1987
28.《文选平点》黄侃撰 黄焯编次 上海古籍出版社影印本1985年
29.《文选李注义疏》高步瀛撰 曹道衡、沈玉成点校本 中华书局1985
30.《说文解字注》汉·许慎撰 清·段玉裁注 浙江古籍出版社1998
31.《广雅疏证》魏·张辑撰 清·王念孙疏证 钟宇讯点校 中华书局影印本1983
32.《古书疑义举例五种》 清·俞樾等撰 中华书局1956
33.《世说新语》 刘宋·刘义庆撰 朱铸禹彙校集注 上海古籍出版社2002
34.《文心雕龙》南齐·刘勰撰 周振甫注 人民文学出版社1981
35.《经传释词》清·王引之撰 岳麓书社1984
36.《古书虚字集释》裴学海撰 中华书局1954
37.《随园诗话》清·袁枚撰 人民文学出版社1982
38.《余嘉锡论学杂著》余嘉锡撰 中华书局1963
39.《陆平原年谱》姜亮夫撰 古典文学出版社1957
40.《中古文学系年》陆侃如撰 人民文学出版社1985
41.《陆侃如古典文学论文集》陆侃如撰 上海古籍出版社1987
42.《汉晋学术编年》刘汝霖撰 中华书局1987
43.《管锥编》钱钟书撰 中华书局1986
44.《中国思想史》(第一卷)葛兆光撰 复旦大学出版社1998
45.《魏晋南北朝辞赋史》程章灿撰 江苏古籍出版社1992
46.《魏晋南北朝文学批评史》王运熙、杨明撰 上海古籍出版社1989
47.《六朝辞赋史》王琳撰 黑龙江教育出版社1998
48.《左思左芬研究》徐传武撰 中国文联出版社1999
49.《太康文学研究》姜剑云撰 中华书局2003
50.《四川省志·农业志》四川省地方志编纂委员会编纂 四川辞书出版社1996
51.游国恩《居学偶记·三都赋序注》 《文史》第5辑1978年
52.傅璇琮《左思写作年代质疑》 《中华文史论丛》1979年第2期
53.牟世金、徐传武《左思文学业绩新论》 《文学遗产》1988年第2期
54.牟世金《<三都赋>撰年及其它》 《文史哲》1992年第5期
55.杨合林《左思(三都赋)新探》 《吉首大学学报》1995(2)。
56.徐传武《左思左棻行年考辩》 《中国文哲研究通讯》(台湾)第五卷第3期
57.徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考》 《中国文哲研究集刊》(台湾)第10期1997年
58.徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考补证》 《中国文哲研究集刊》(台湾)第14期1999年
59.徐传武《皇甫谧<三都赋序>的真实性》 《社科纵横》1999年第6期
60.冷卫国《左思<三都赋>及其辞赋观》 《西北师范大学学报》(社科版) 1997年第5期
61.姜剑云《<三都赋>撰年疑案新断》 《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版) 2002年第6期
62.许结《论赋的学术化倾向——从章学诚赋论谈起》 《四川师范大学学报》 (社会科学版)2005年第1期
63.杨明《读<文选集注>札记二则》见《文选与文选学——第五届文选学会论文集》(685-688页)中国文选学研究会编 学苑出版社2003
64.王梦鸥《关于左思<三都赋>的两首序》见《台湾学者中国文学批评论文选》(14-26页)毛庆其编 人民文学出版社1986
65.李长之《西晋大诗人左思及其妹左芬》见《中国文学史选集》(第二册,523-524页)罗联添编 台湾学生书局1984
2.《史记》汉·司马迁撰 中华书局点校本1959
3.《汉书》汉·班固撰 中华书局点校本1962
4.《晋书》唐·房玄龄等撰 中华书局点校本1974
5.《隋书》,唐·魏征 等著 中华书局点校本1973
6.《全晋文》清·严可均编 中华书局影印清光绪刻本1985
7.《九家旧晋书辑本》汤球辑 杨朝明校补 中州古籍出版社 1991
8.《太平御览》宋·李昉等撰 中华书局影印本1960
9.《十七史商榷》王鸣盛撰 北京市中国书店1987
10.李善注《文选》 中华书局影印胡刻本1977
11.《唐钞文选集注汇存》周勋初辑 上海古籍出版社影印2000
12.李善注《文选》 北宋国子监天圣刻本 台湾故宫博物院藏 复印本
13.六臣注《文选》 明宣德三年朝鲜活字翻北宋元祜秀州编刻本 韩国奎章阁藏韩国影印本1996
14.六臣注《文选》约南宋初明州编刻本 日本金泽文库藏 日本足利学校影印本日本昭和49年
15.五臣注《文选》 南宋绍兴建阳陈八郎刻本 台湾影印本
16.李善注《文选》 南宋淳熙八年尤袤池阳郡刻本 国家图书馆藏 中华书局影印本1974
17.李善注《文选》 清康熙钱士谧翻明末毛晋汲古阁藏宋本
18.《文选集释》 清 朱王存 撰 光绪元年泾川朱氏刊本
19.《文选旁证》 清·梁章钜撰 光绪八年吴下重刊本
20.《文选考异》 清·胡克家撰 中华书局1977年影印胡刻本《文选》后附
21.《文选考异》 清·孙志祖撰《丛书集成初编》本(《读书斋丛书》本)
22.《文选笺证》 清·胡绍煐撰《丛书集成续编》本(《聚学轩丛书》本)
23.《文选笔记》 清·许巽行撰《丛书集成续编》本(《文渊楼丛书》本)
24.《文选纪闻》 清·余萧客撰《丛书集成续编》本(《芋园丛书》本)
25.《选学胶言》 清·张云璈撰《文渊楼丛书》本上海文瑞书局 北京直隶书局影印1928
26.《读书杂志》清·王念孙撰 北京市中国书店1985
27.《义门读书记》清·何焯撰 崔高维点校 中华书局1987
28.《文选平点》黄侃撰 黄焯编次 上海古籍出版社影印本1985年
29.《文选李注义疏》高步瀛撰 曹道衡、沈玉成点校本 中华书局1985
30.《说文解字注》汉·许慎撰 清·段玉裁注 浙江古籍出版社1998
31.《广雅疏证》魏·张辑撰 清·王念孙疏证 钟宇讯点校 中华书局影印本1983
32.《古书疑义举例五种》 清·俞樾等撰 中华书局1956
33.《世说新语》 刘宋·刘义庆撰 朱铸禹彙校集注 上海古籍出版社2002
34.《文心雕龙》南齐·刘勰撰 周振甫注 人民文学出版社1981
35.《经传释词》清·王引之撰 岳麓书社1984
36.《古书虚字集释》裴学海撰 中华书局1954
37.《随园诗话》清·袁枚撰 人民文学出版社1982
38.《余嘉锡论学杂著》余嘉锡撰 中华书局1963
39.《陆平原年谱》姜亮夫撰 古典文学出版社1957
40.《中古文学系年》陆侃如撰 人民文学出版社1985
41.《陆侃如古典文学论文集》陆侃如撰 上海古籍出版社1987
42.《汉晋学术编年》刘汝霖撰 中华书局1987
43.《管锥编》钱钟书撰 中华书局1986
44.《中国思想史》(第一卷)葛兆光撰 复旦大学出版社1998
45.《魏晋南北朝辞赋史》程章灿撰 江苏古籍出版社1992
46.《魏晋南北朝文学批评史》王运熙、杨明撰 上海古籍出版社1989
47.《六朝辞赋史》王琳撰 黑龙江教育出版社1998
48.《左思左芬研究》徐传武撰 中国文联出版社1999
49.《太康文学研究》姜剑云撰 中华书局2003
50.《四川省志·农业志》四川省地方志编纂委员会编纂 四川辞书出版社1996
51.游国恩《居学偶记·三都赋序注》 《文史》第5辑1978年
52.傅璇琮《左思写作年代质疑》 《中华文史论丛》1979年第2期
53.牟世金、徐传武《左思文学业绩新论》 《文学遗产》1988年第2期
54.牟世金《<三都赋>撰年及其它》 《文史哲》1992年第5期
55.杨合林《左思(三都赋)新探》 《吉首大学学报》1995(2)。
56.徐传武《左思左棻行年考辩》 《中国文哲研究通讯》(台湾)第五卷第3期
57.徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考》 《中国文哲研究集刊》(台湾)第10期1997年
58.徐传武《皇甫谧卒年新考补证》 《中国文哲研究集刊》(台湾)第14期1999年
59.徐传武《皇甫谧<三都赋序>的真实性》 《社科纵横》1999年第6期
60.冷卫国《左思<三都赋>及其辞赋观》 《西北师范大学学报》(社科版) 1997年第5期
61.姜剑云《<三都赋>撰年疑案新断》 《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版) 2002年第6期
62.许结《论赋的学术化倾向——从章学诚赋论谈起》 《四川师范大学学报》 (社会科学版)2005年第1期
63.杨明《读<文选集注>札记二则》见《文选与文选学——第五届文选学会论文集》(685-688页)中国文选学研究会编 学苑出版社2003
64.王梦鸥《关于左思<三都赋>的两首序》见《台湾学者中国文学批评论文选》(14-26页)毛庆其编 人民文学出版社1986
65.李长之《西晋大诗人左思及其妹左芬》见《中国文学史选集》(第二册,523-524页)罗联添编 台湾学生书局1984