中晚唐古文家文體觀變化之研究——以《毘陵集》、《昌黎先生集》、《樊川文集》為考察核心

Changes of Gu-wen Writers’ View on Literary Forms in the Middle and Late Tang Dynasty: Focusing on Collected Works of Pi-ling, Collected Works of Master Chang-li, and Collected Works of Fan-chuan

吳潔盈(Kit-Ing Goh)

指導教授 ： 何寄澎·

國立臺灣大學/文學院/中國文學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.01052

摘要

文體的改革與整頓乃是論及唐代古文運動之時無法避開的核心課題。要觀察改革文體所帶來的影響的其中一個方法，就是通過分析古文的寫作、古文家文集的文體分類與編次，去探索、比較中晚唐人古文家的文體觀在古文運動前後的異同。而唐代以文體作為編次體例，得以保留原貌的傳世文集已不多見，但恰恰以與古文運動關係密切之文人文集居多，主要為獨孤及《毘陵集》、韓愈《昌黎先生集》、杜牧《樊川文集》這三家文集。其中在古文方面最受矚目者，當屬元和古文運動領袖，韓愈無疑。因此，要從文集編集的角度去視察文體觀念的演變，與唐代古文運動的關聯及其重要性，革新文體、積極打破文體規範的韓愈是最為關鍵的標誌。獨孤及作為古文運動先驅人物，對韓愈啟發良多；杜牧雖非韓門弟子，但推崇韓、柳文，是晚唐古文成就較豐厚者，兩者分別處於在韓之前後，極具代表意義。以李漢編《昌黎先生集》為中心，其前有梁肅編獨孤及《毘陵集》，其後有裴延翰編杜牧《樊川文集》，這三位編者與上述三位作者的文體觀可作為觀察古文運動前、中、後期三個階段文體觀變化的代表人物。藉此，本文以韓、獨、杜三人的文體觀為主，梁、李、裴三人的文體觀為輔，釐清古文運動前後文體觀的變化，檢視韓愈改革古文文體的貢獻與影響。

觀獨孤及所作諸文，多恪守文體規範。其墓誌銘的撰寫，如〈唐故大理寺少卿兼侍御史河南獨孤府君墓誌銘〉按照一般墓誌寫法，一一交代墓主姓名、家世、生平等；其贈序寫作，如〈送李白之曹南序〉雖加入抒情筆調，但仍以贈人以言的舊有寫法下筆，並非變體；其詩文集序之作，如〈唐故左補闕安定皇甫公集序〉，意在強調宗經復古之文學主張，不脫此前的詩文集序之格局。梁肅乃獨孤及門生，於獨孤及死後著手編次《毘陵集》。此文集的編輯體例清晰分明，篇章的文體歸類合理有致，主要參《文選》先賦、詩後文的體例編排，而各文體再以先公後私、先生後死之標準編次。各文體內部均按照寫作年代排序，部分文體內部更出現按照體裁內容之雅俗、主次、尊卑、親疏等原則，先分組再編年的方式。同時，梁肅也將作者列為考量因素，在文集的編次裏作出符合獨孤及古文理念的調整。

韓愈不受傳統文體觀的規範，精準捉住文體通變的要義，以之為革新文體的基礎。而韓之「雜著」如「五原」、〈雜說〉、〈張中丞傳後敘〉、〈畫記〉等，是他破體為文的表現。他被指責是「以文為戲」，「多尚駁雜無實之說」，正好反映出他空前的、新穎的文體觀。他的破體為文可以看成是以戲的方式為文，做一種打破文體體製與範疇的實驗。而這樣的作法，確實衝擊了唐時固有的文體觀，李漢的文體觀就能反映出這一點。他是韓愈門生兼長女女婿，其為退之編《昌黎先生集》，所採用的編次手法十分特別。雖然李漢仍按賦、詩、文的慣例編排文集，但是他在編次概念上已經與梁肅有很大的差異。他將退之極具特色的古文歸入「雜著」一體，列其於賦、詩之後，為眾文之首，是前所未有的，連帶影響其他文體的先後排序。他紊亂不明的文章分類原則以及文章歸類方法，引發後世學者廣為討論，認為他既為韓愈門生，卻不知韓愈為古文之深義，而致有如此多的疏失。這反映韓愈古文運動所帶來的文體觀念改變，李漢的文體觀已有所鬆動，進而使得他面臨在辨體上進退失據的窘境。

出身名門的杜牧尚儒學、習兵術、工詩文，自負經緯才略，以光耀家門、振興國家為志。他喜好韓柳古文，進而影響其文體觀。他多創作古文，用不同的文體如制誥、傳、序，進行議論，如〈燕將錄〉、〈竇烈女傳〉、〈注孫子序〉，也有「雜著」類作品，如〈原十六衛〉、〈論相〉等，都可視為破體為文的表現，可見其志雖不在破體、亦不以文為戲，但文體觀與韓愈之前的獨孤及相比，已經大為鬆動。裴延翰為杜牧外甥，受杜牧所託，為之編《樊川文集》。相對李漢，裴氏的編次十分整煉，條理清晰。先賦、詩而後文的編次舊例依舊出現在杜牧集當中，而編者也多依照傳統手法，主要以寫作對象官職之高低、與作者關係之親疏為排序原則，再以文章的編年次第為輔。《樊川文集》編次的另一重點，在於杜牧曾自毀文稿，焚餘篇章理應更能表現杜牧文學指標之依歸。而延翰刻意將難以歸類的杜牧古文置於眾文體之前，與李漢標舉雜著的手法類似，表現裴氏在編集上對傳統體例與新式手法的吸收，在舊有的文體觀和韓愈的新文體觀之間作出他自己的調適。

通過對照上述三者，我們得而觀察他們的文體觀，理解他們對於古文創作的價值取向、功能定位與審美標準，將此與古文運動的發展和文集作者的文學思想作對照，也就能從中了解韓愈所引領的古文運動對唐人文體觀所帶來的衝擊與影響。

關鍵字

唐代古文運動 ； 文體觀 ； 《毘陵集》 ； 《昌黎先生集》 ； 《樊川文集》

並列摘要

The revolution and evolution of literary forms is of paramount importance to the study of the Gu-wen (Ancient Prose) Movement during Dynasty Tang. One of the ways to observe such changes and following impact, is to analyses the literary works, and the compilation of literary collections by gu-wen writers, to compare the similarities and differences of the view on literary forms of gu-wen during Middle and Late Tang Dynasty. Tang literature uses literary form to determine a work’s placement in literary collections. Intact literary collections from the period are already rare indeed, however collections which are strongly affiliated with the Gu-wen Movement make up the majority of the surviving collections. The major ones being Dugu Ji’s Collected Works of Pi-ling, Han Yu’s Collected Works of Master Chang-li, and Du Mu’s Collected Works of Fan-chuan. Of these three, the one that has been given the most attention for its association with the Ancient Prose Movement is doubtless Han Yu, a principle proponent and progenitor of the movement. Those collections connected with the Gu-wen Movement are most important when examining the changing concept of literary form via the changing principles of collection arrangement. Due to Han Yu’s diligent attempts to break the mold of literary form, he is of signal importance. Dugu Ji was a pioneer in literature looking to Han Yu for inspiration. Though Du Mu was not Han Yu’s disciple, he promoted Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan’s works, and became one of the remarkable Gu-wen writers in the Late Tang period. Both of them respectively belong to the period before and after Han Yu, their representative value is undoubted. The collection assembled by Li Han the Collected Works of Master Chang-li is of central importance; after this comes Liang Shu’s Collected Works of Pi-ling and finally Pei Yanhan’s Collected Works of Fan-chuan. The view of these three authors and these three editors toward literary form, both in points differing and resembling, can serve be used to observe the former, middle, and later periods of literary collections. This thesis places greatest emphasis on the views of the three original authors and then uses the viewpoints of the collection editors for reference in order to better explain the process of change that occurred in the Gu-wen Movement- as well as examine Han Yu’s contribution to and influence on the Gu-wen Movement.

Dugu Ji’s literary works most often adhere to the rules of literary genre. His epitaphs such as ‘Epitaph of the Junior Chamberlain of the Grand Court of Revision and Censor of Tang, Master Du gu from Henan’ adhere to the rules for the genre, individually and in the established order listing the subject’s name, family, and life events. His gift prefaces, for instance, the ‘Preface presented to Li Bai departing for Cao-nan’ are filled with a passionate style but are still in keeping with the demands of genre laid down in previous generations; it has no major deviations from established form. His prefaces for literary collections such as the ‘Preface of Collected Works of the Deputy Rectifier of Tang, Huangfu Ran’ emphasizes the principles of the Gu-wen Prose Movement and did not deviate from literary tradition. Liang Shu was Dugu Ji’s student who compiled the Collected Works of Pi-ling after his death. The arrangement of literary forms in this collection is clear and organized; the order of the collection is rational and shows the influence of Zhao Ming Selected Works, placing rhapsodies and poetry first followed by essays. Every section is divided into first public then private works and first those works regarding the temporal world followed by those works about death. The section for every literary form is chronologically ordered. Several sections are additionally ordered by the elegance or vulgarity of the content, as well as the principles of base position or high position, close or distant relationships, etc. The sections thus tend to be ordered internally by content and then by year. At the same time Liang Shu also considered the author during the editing process. Liang made certain modifications to the ordering that adhere to Dugu Ji’s ideal principles on gu-wen writing.

Han Yu was not constrained by traditional standards of writings. He managed to grasp the essence of the changes and development of literature, so as to the basis of his innovative reform movement. Han Yu’s ‘za-zhu’ (雜著), such as ‘The Five Discourses’ (五原), ‘Miscellaneous Talk’ (雜說), ‘Epilogue of the Bibliography of the vice censor-in-chief, Zhang Xun’ (張中丞傳後敘), and ‘Account of a Painting’ (畫記) are examples of his genre-breaking works. He has been accused of “making literature a game”, “filling his works with fluff and not substance”- but this only highlights the history-making nature of his ideal literary standard. His deconstruction of form to create literature can be seen as a sort of literary game, as an experiment in breaking old forms in traditions. This way of writing certainly attacked the traditional Tang understanding of literary form and its purpose- and Li Han’s understanding of literature reflects this. Li Han was the son-in-law of Han Yu’s eldest daughter. He compiled a collection for the Han Yu works, while his way of going about it was appropriately unique. Although Li Han also followed the accepted pattern of rhapsody, poetry, and composition, it’s also obvious from his organization that his concept of literary form was already quite different from Liang Shu’s. He put all the unique ancient prose, ‘za-zhu’ written by Han Yu and placed it after rhapsodies and poetry at the head of the composition section. This sort of organization in a literary collection was unheard of and far-reaching in its consequences. His wild and unclear organization of sections and the material organized into each section was the subject of much debate by scholars for years after. Many believed that though he was Han Yu’s student he did not understand the true nature of Han Yu’s gu-wen and this was the cause of such reckless organization. This is reflective of the change in thinking that Han Yu’s Gu-wen Movement caused in literary forms. Li Han’s view of literary forms had already loosened and caused began to cause him difficulty in determining into which category each work should be sorted.

As scion of a noble house, Du Mu was a Confucian master, skilled in the military theories, an accomplished poet. He set out to be the glory of his house and the reformer of his nation. His admiration for Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan’s literary style influenced his literary style. His work with ancient prose literary forms spanned numerous genres, many of which were similar to the ones that Han Yu had worked in, for instances, ‘Record of a General in Yen’ (燕將錄), ‘Bibliography of Lady Dou’ (竇烈女傳), and ‘Preface of Sun Tzu with Annotations’ (注孫子序 ). Many of his works like ‘Discourse on the Imperial Guards’(原十六衛) and ‘Argument on Face Reading’ (論相) can be seen as literary form breaking, but his focus was not on deconstructing the forms and neither was it on literature as a game. But compared with Dugu Ji, who was previous to Han Yu, his concept of literary form is already greatly loosened. Pei Yanhan was Du Mu’s nephew and was asked by Du Mu to compile his literary works. The result of Pei’s labor was the Collected Works of Fan-chuan. Compared with Li Han, Pei’s ordering is quite tidy. The traditional system of rhapsodies and poetry followed by composition is followed in Du Mu’s collection. The editor tends to follow accepted practice as well using the social status and kin relationships of the recipients of each work to determine its placement in the collection- and of course finally putting this system into chronological order. The Collected Works by Fan-chuan also has another important point. Du Mu once burned his manuscripts which he considered extraneous, which implies his remaining works are much more representative of his literary views than they would otherwise be. However, Du Mu’s editor placed all those works which defied classification at the head of the collection- a move similar to Li Han’s, and this also shows that Pei Yan-han was well aware of both the classic concept and gu-wen concept of literary form and knew how to strike a balance between them in the ordering of Du Mu’s literary collection.

By comparing and contrasting these three collections- their editors and authors- we can understand the values of the ancient prose movement and its aesthetic system more clearly. This comparison furthermore provides an invaluable chance to see the true extent of Han Yu’s influence on the Tang dynasty concept of literary forms.

並列關鍵字

Ancient Prose Movement in Dynasty Tang ； literary forms ； Collected Works of Pi-ling ； Collected Works of Master Chang-li ； Collected Works of Fan-chuan

參考文獻

52. 清•嚴可均輯：《全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文》（北京：商務印書館，1999年）。

28. 郭英德：《中國古代文體學論稿》（北京：北京大學出版社，2005年）。

29. 郭英德：《中國古代文體學論稿》（北京：北京大學出版社，2005年）。

1. 兵界勇：《唐代散文演變關鍵之研究》（臺北：國立臺灣大學中國文學系博士論文，2005年，何寄澎教授指導）。

2. 兵界勇：《韓文「載道」與「去陳言」的研究》（臺北：國立臺灣大學中國文學系碩士論文，1995年，何寄澎教授指導）。