鍾嶸《詩品》陸機「文劣於仲宣」析論

本文從鍾嶸《詩品》評論陸機「文劣於仲宣」之批評觀念入手，細究鍾嶸對陸機與王粲之比較，反映出鍾嶸批評觀中的哪種面向？其中「文」所指的是哪一個層面？「劣」又是從哪一個角度出發所作的評價？而在鍾嶸《詩品》的品評體系中，陸機與王粲分別佔有怎樣的地位？陸機之「美」與王粲之「秀」，又反映出怎樣的審美批評觀之細微差異？探究後認為「文劣於仲宣」乃是強調陸機麗辭之美缺少王粲秀辭之自然生命力。而王、陸兩人之比較，進一步可以看出在《詩品》的架構中，「國風體」的「華美」詩人與「楚辭體」的「文秀」詩人，在文（丹采）表現上的差別，這與鍾嶸《詩品》體源論與分品品評之理論架構密切相關，而「美」與「秀」之差異更與批評術語的傳承運用有關。

關鍵字

詩品；陸機；王粲；美；秀

並列摘要

This article discusses the critical discourse about ＂Lu Chi's pattern(文) was inferior to Wang Can＂ in Chung Jung's Shi-Pin. Probing into those questions about what kinds of significance which the pattern means, and what kinds of importance which the different between Lu Chi and Wang Can was, and what kinds of critical structure which the critical terms of Lu Chi's Mei(美) and Wang Can's Xiu(秀) were reflected in the system of Chung Jung's Shi-Pin. The conclusions drawn forth in this essay are as below: the critical discourse about ＂Lu Chi's pattern(文) was inferior to Wang Can＂ stressed the difference that the Mei(美) of Lu Chi's poetry was shortage of the vitality of the work of Wang Can's Xiu(秀). The aesthetic tendency which the two famous poets presented differently was deeply affected by the scheme of Chung Jung's critical thoughts. The difference between the critical terms Mei(美) and Xiu(秀) was absolutely related with the historical and traditional usages of critical terms and cultural inheritance.