從「始倡韓歐之學」到「以小說入古文」－侯方域古文評價的轉變與明清之際古文發展

對侯方域古文地位的評價，一般以重倡唐宋古文，開清初散文風氣，以及善用小説技巧稱之。從現代的學術觀點看，這個評價固然允當。但若回到明清之際的批評語境中，則這一評價不無矛盾之處：古文傳統與小説技巧存在緊張關係。然這兩種評價卻為何能同時存在於侯方域身上？兩種評價的轉變和明清古文發展又有怎樣的關係？本文首先梳理侯方域古文受到的兩種截然不同的評價，一種認為其「始倡韓、歐之學於舉世不為之日」，以古文雄視一時，一種則以為是以小說入古文，「取炫世目，不慮傷品，豈足名家」，並指出這兩種評價存在一個由肯定到批判的轉變過程。繼而通過黃宗曦、汪琬等人對古文筆法與小説伎倆的討論，結合侯方域自身的文論和創作，揭示這兩種評價內部存在的矛盾關係。最後本文通過考索侯方域的文道觀念與師法主張，説明侯方域與傳統古文家強調惟道為有力，宗法唐宋的論述雖一致，但他所學習的唐宋古文的精粹恰是後來古文家所批評的小説伎倆，批評家著眼點不同，因而出現了兩種不同的評價。同時，本文指出，侯方域古對唐宋古文的理解與後來批評家的理解之間的落差，正體現出了明清之際的文道論從道決定文演變到文道並重，強調形式本身也要符合雅正的審美，對文法要求越趨嚴謹。

關鍵字

古文；小說；侯方域；晚明；清初

並列摘要

Hou Fangyu's 侯方域 (1618-1654) classical prose, or guwen 古文, has always been praised, firstly, for its resuscitation of Tang-Song guwen tradition, and thus set the tone for guwen literature development during the early Qing period; and secondly, it received acclaim for its artful incorporation of techniques concerning novel writing. From the perspective of a modern scholar, this assessment is indeed appropriate. However, upon revisiting the context of the late Ming and early Qing period, this appraisal becomes problematic, if not contradictory: a significant gap existed between Tang-Song guwen and novel writing due to their diverging associations with formality and informality, as well as other reasons. Hou Fangyu, nonetheless, embodied and embraced said contradiction. So how should we understand him and his guwen writings? In this paper I gather and analyze the criticisms regarding Hou's guwen writings during the late Ming and early Qing period and identify a change in opinion from one of praise to disparagement. During the transitional period, he was crowned as the best guwen writer in his time who ＂advocated for the studies of Han韓 and Ou歐 when nobody else did.＂ When it came to the early Qing, his incorporation of techniques for writing novels into classical prose was criticized as ＂attention seeking and harmful to morals,＂ and Hou as a writer simply did not qualify as a master -a pejorative view which continued well into the late Qing. Furthermore, I analyze the tact and ploys utilized in Hou's guwen writing. In light of his own theories on guwen literary writing, I demonstrate that the very tact he had learned from guwen was understood by some critics as being borrowed from novel writing. Thus, this disparity, or misunderstanding, led to the contradictory appraisals of Hou's works. Finally, this complexity found within the criticisms of Hou closely relates to the shifts in guwen writing during the early Qing period.