:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:謝靈運山水詩有別於抒情傳統的情景關係
書刊名:東海大學文學院學報
作者:朱我芯 引用關係
作者(外文):Chu, Wo Hsin
出版日期:2005
卷期:46
頁次:頁45-69
主題關鍵詞:情景交融謝靈運山水詩玄言抒情Fusion between emotion and sceneLandscape poetryXie LinyunLyric tradition of poetryXuan YanReception theory
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:315
  • 點閱點閱:49
中國詩歌以抒情為傳統主流,情景交融則為抒情的經典手法,詩中景語多為情境而設,以烘襯詩情為目的。晉宋之際的謝靈運,作為提升山水題才成為詩歌主題的第一人,其誠中景物卻多客觀呈現,少見主觀點染以烘托其情的意圖,以致詩中情、景多分立而少有聯繫,既不求相映成趣,亦未從反面視托,與抒情傳統著意於情景交融的手法大異其趣。本文詳析詩例,以明謝靈運山水詩與抒情傳統在情景聯繫上的審美追求不同,並遲帶論析了謝詩多歷時性結構、多用賦而少比興、以遊覽觀景為主而抒情為輔、景物其物審美對象而非情感觸媒等特色,俱與抒情卜統有別。這些差異,顯示謝詩偏離抒情傳統的事實。本文認為,謝誠對傳統的偏離,乃因其作思維主要承繼自「兩晉玄言詩歌系統」。此系統歷經詠懷詩、招隱詩、遊仙詩,以至玄言詩一脈相承的發,園現出共同的特徵有四:第一,山水伴隨玄理的內容組合;第二,先敘山水而末言感悟的公式化結構;第三,抒情性微弱淺談;第四,如實客觀的寫景視角。凡此特徵皆與謝詩的特色相符,可知此系統即謝靈運山水詩脫胎所自的文學背景。至於陶淵明田園誠,與謝誠約當同時自玄言詩中走來,卻何以未脫情景交融的抒情典型?本文藉由堯斯的「讀者接受」理論,解釋其日在於謝誠的接受影響主要來自清談盛關的當代文學環境,而陶詩則受抒情傳統習制約較深,二人的情景書寫策略因此不同。本文據此,又對文學史中以陶詩為「正始系」,謝詩為「太康系」的舊說提出商榷,分析陶詩的特點實近於「太康系」,謝誠則近於「正始系」。
The tradition of classical Chinese poem is lyrical. “Fusion between Emotion and Scene” is a classical tactic of this lyric tradition. The paragraphs which described scene in poem were usually designed and regarded from lining with the feeling. Xie LinYun in the Jin to song Dynasty was the first one who composed poetry with the subjects of landscapes. But most of the scenery in his poetry was so unemotional that feeling and scene were discrete and there were just few connections between them. This study analyses poem examples in details in order to present the differences between Xie LinYun’s landscape poetry and traditional lyric. Those differences indicted that Xie diverged from the track of traditional lyric. The primary reason causing the diverging was that Xie’s composing tactic was been given birth by “the poetry system of XuanYan” in Jin Dynasty instead of lyrical tradition which come along from ShiJing. There are four raptures can prove that Xie’s landscape poetry inherited from “the poem system of XuanYan”. However, at the same era as Xie, why was Tau YuanMing close to the lyrical tradition instead of “the poetry system of XuanYan”? The “Reception theory” introduced by Hans Robert Jauss can explain this contradiction. Besides, this study also controverts an accepted opinion in the history of Chinese literature that Tau should belong to “the poem system of ZhengShi” and Xie should belong to “the poem system of TaiKang”.
期刊論文
1.林文月(19820600)。蓬萊文章建安骨--試論中世紀詩壇風骨之式微與復興。中外文學,11(1),4-41。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.林庚(1961)。山水詩怎樣產生的。文學評論,3,95。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.謝榛。四溟詩話。  延伸查詢new window
2.羅立乾、李振興(1996)。新譯文心雕龍。臺北市:三民。  延伸查詢new window
3.王夫之(1972)。古詩評選。自由出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.郭銀田(1975)。田園詩人陶淵明。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
5.袁行霈(1999)。中國文學史。高等教育出版社。  延伸查詢new window
6.王國瓔(199607)。中國山水詩研究。臺北:聯經出版社。  延伸查詢new window
7.莊周、郭慶藩、王孝魚(1985)。莊子集釋。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
8.Jauss, Hans Robert、Bahti, Timothy(1982)。Toward an Aesthetic of Reception。Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press。  new window
9.歐陽詢(1974)。藝文類聚。臺北:文光出版社。  延伸查詢new window
10.葛曉音(1998)。詩國高潮與盛唐文化。北京大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
11.蔡英俊(1986)。比興、物色與情景交融。大安出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.王瑤(1982)。中古文學風貌。中古文學風貌。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(宋)姜夔。白石詩詞集。  延伸查詢new window
2.(梁)鍾嶸(1986)。詩品,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
3.(宋)范晞文(1983)。對牀夜語,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
4.(明)王夫之(1963)。薑齋詩話,上海。  延伸查詢new window
5.(梁)蕭統(1987)。文選(第4冊),臺北。  延伸查詢new window
6.檀道鸞。續晉陽秋,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
7.(南朝宋)劉義慶(1984)。世說新語,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE