桐城派「山谷觀」及其詩學意義

「桐城山谷觀」討論桐城派對黃庭堅詩學的理解，為清代古典主義詩學的一頁。自錢基博、錢鍾書父子提出「桐城亦有詩派」後，該命題隱隱與胡適的文學進化論形成「遺形物－不變者」2種傳統觀的對峙。本文承二錢遺緒，聚焦「三祖－四傑」，通過「描述－解釋－評價」，梳理該派師法山谷的事實、原因，並具論得失。　　通過「文學功能」、「風格境界」、「理想創作主體」及「學詩方法」等提問，本文揭示：桐城立足《詩經》學，強調教化的「詩之用」；因「伸剛絀柔」，而求偏於雄奇的「詩之神」；一脈相承「不自命為詩人」的創作主體觀；「才－學」辯證的學詩之法及「以性代才」的後來轉向。昭彰其所以悅納山谷詩學的根本原因，且呈現其發展轉變的軌跡。　　桐城師法山谷，旨在上窺杜甫，欲藉「由宋返唐」，成就「鎔鑄唐宋」，對抗「惡俗競起」。其「山谷觀」奠基觴於「山谷質地」的認識，延伸出「蘇黃之別」與「山谷學杜」的論爭，再昇華至「學古脫化」的理念。由於「以奇為尚」的「詩之神」，桐城偏好前中期的「山谷體」；又受「李白才勝，杜甫學勝」的觀念影響，「以李比坡，以杜擬谷」，致使取谷而去坡；更從「山谷學杜而不似」中，提出先「求與俗人遠」、再「求與古人遠」的「學古脫化」。　　然而，亦由於該派之審美傾向，桐城並未領略山谷的「晚造平淡」與「自然法度」。「李才杜學」的框架，更導致其偏離「不自命為詩人」的主張；在「山谷學杜」上，也忽略山谷僅得杜詩韌瘦一體的事實；參照黑格爾的「質量互變規律」，更發現桐城學詩理論無法說清由力學而增益才能的「特限度」。儘管桐城未必實現「鎔鑄唐宋」的理想，但其竭力回應時弊、承繼古典的奮鬥歷程，仍對當代人省思傳統具有深刻的啟示意義。

關鍵字

桐城派；黃庭堅；學古；宋詩學

並列摘要

“The Tongcheng School from the Perspective of Huang Ting-jian's Poetics” is a remarkable classical poetic issue of the Qing dynasty. Since the “Tongcheng involving Poetics” brought up by Qian Ji-bo and Qian Zhong-shu, the subject has somehow established a view to examine whether realism exists in the process of Hu shi’s literary evolution theory. To prove the gains and losses, the dissertation inherits Qians’ thoughts, and focuses on the “3 Masters: 4 Outstanding Inheritors” by organizing the facts and reasons of Tongcheng’s acquisition from Huang Ting-jian through “Description, Explanation and Judgment”. “Literary function,” “Ideal literary style,” “Ideal author” and “Methods of learning poetry” are performed while reasoning. The dissertation reveals the trajectory of transformation based on The Book of songs, putting emphasis on the “Shi-zhi-yong” for moral education, masculine overcomes feminine, the pursuit of best poetic style, the notion of subjectivity while creating, a same strain of not being isolated as simply a poet, “Gift vs. Learning,” a way of discrimination on poetic acquisition and “personality thus replaced gift,” a post transformation. The dissertation finally reveals the fundamental reason of adopting Huang Ting-jian’s poetics as a preference and presents the trajectory of its development. Acquiring Du Fu from Huang Ting-jian, Tongcheng adopted the achievement of “integrating Tang and Song Poems” with “the retrospect from Song to Tang Poems” to cope with the “contemporary poor values”. “Huang Ting-jian's poetic viewpoints” were based on the acquaintance of “Huang Ting-jian's poetic traits,” and the argument was then aroused against “the differences between Su-shi and Huang Ting-jian” and how “Huang Ting-jian learned from Du Fu;” therefor, a “Personal new manner set from tradition” was elevated. Due to the preference of taking “masculine as the best poetic style,” Tongcheng prefer Huang Ting-jian’s poems in the prior mid period. The concept that “Li bai is talented and Du Fu is knowledgeable,” “Li Bai as Su Shi and Du Fu as Huang Ting-jian,” has made Tongcheng choose Huang Ting-jian instead of Su Shi. Since “Huang Ting-jian’s learning of Du Fu was not completely a copy,” Tongcheng considered “uniqueness in advance is a must,” and a “stereotype should be avoided” while acquiring from classic. Nevertheless, Tongcheng’s preference on aesthetic conception had made it impossible to realize the nature of Huang Ting-jian’s poems. The frame that “Li bai’s is talented and Du Fu is knowledgeable” has resulted in the deviation of “not being isolated as simply a poet”. Moreover, “how Huang Ting-jian learned from Du Fu” has ignored the tedious and rigid styles that Huang Ting-jian gained from Du Fu’s poems. Referring to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s “law of mutual change of quality and quantity”, Tongcheng’s poetics was unable to clearly depict the “Specific Quantum” while toning up by mechanics. In spite of the ideal of “Integrating Tang and Song Poems” may not achieved, the processes striving to respond to the malady and struggling against the inherited classics have enlightened the examination and reflection for the contemporary people towards tradition.