清代「李詩學」研究

Abstract

本文以「清代『李詩學』研究」為題，嘗試將李白從依附杜甫的論述中獨立出來，討論清代文人對李白及其詩歌的接受、詮釋與批評，並從李詩批評的歷時發展軌跡中，找出清人評論的洞見與侷限。全文共分六章：

第一章為「緒論」，說明本論文的研究背景及目的，提出論文主題「李詩學」之義界，同時回顧學界相關議題的研究成果，並在前人的研究基礎上，確立以箋注、詩選本、詩話三個面向為研究範疇。

第二章為「清代詩學中的『李詩學』發展脈絡及其意義」，試圖從清代各階段的詩學發展中，找到李詩批評的相應位置。清初文人一方面以實學考證李詩，同時也以比興解讀李白詩中的飲酒、遊仙，而王士禎以李白〈夜泊牛渚懷古〉作為神韻詩學的典範，則為此時研究的轉折。清中葉由官方編纂的《四庫全書總目》，對李白集注的討論偏向版本考據，而由沈德潛、袁枚、翁方綱領導的各家詩學，分別從格調、性靈、肌理等角度詮釋李詩，豐富「李詩學」的內涵。清代後期受到宗宋詩潮的影響，李詩批評幾為掩蓋，然亦見文人透過與傳統對話而提出新聲：方東樹分析李詩章法，指出學習的門徑；劉熙載以「放言實是法言」詮釋李詩表、裡之別；龔自珍提出「併莊、屈以為心」，突顯李白不受羈縛的自由靈魂等。這些突破重圍、自成一格的論說，使清代「李詩學」展現熠熠光彩。

第三章為「王琦輯注《李太白全集》的詮釋與空白」，以清代唯一的李詩注本為討論核心。首先梳理清以前李集的輯佚、編纂與注本得失，接著討論王琦的輯注動機、序跋內藴與箋注體例的選擇，從而得出王琦輯注《李太白全集》的詮釋觀點，並非官方認可的主要路線。然而他區分「闡釋詩旨」與「釋事忘意」兩種注解方式，以及適時保留空白不注的詮釋策略，均能有效彰顯李詩特質。本文也因此確認「注李寥寥」與「抑李揚杜」之間沒有必然的關係。

第四章為「清代唐詩選本對李白詩的揀選與評釋」，依據編選者與閱讀者的身份及目的，分帝王、士人與童蒙三層級進行討論。其中，帝王與士人皆有意透過選詩樹立詩教範本，所選李詩卻不盡相同。前者或反映王朝盛世之音，或鎖碼詩人的忠愛情操；而以沈德潛《唐詩別裁集》為代表的士人選本，在不違背政教價值的前提下，審美並樹立典範，呈現更為多元的詩學觀。相較之下，童蒙讀本較不受朝廷權力支配，主要選錄明白曉暢、貼近尋常生活體驗的詩篇，而規避李白諷刺時政、言多諷興之作。此外，本章也透過與清以前唐詩選本的比較，梳理李白14首名篇受關注的時機與緣由。

第五章為「清代詩學中的李白詩歌體式批評」，分析清人對李詩各體批評的審美標準與詩學意義。古詩著意闡釋李白〈古風〉與古題樂府的內涵，七古於縱橫變化之中，亦掌握深遠藴藉，此皆反映清人崇實的學風；絕句以李白學習樂府民歌，且言盡意不絕的特質，而推為唐人第一；律詩以詩意高妙勝於對偶精工的標準，肯定李白「以古為律」之作。整體而言，清人透過與前朝詩學的對話，抬高李白復古詩人的地位，展現更為開放、多元的詩學觀。

第六章為「結論」，一方面統整全文研究心得，同時總結出清人建構「李詩學」的三個基本框架：崇尚實學考證、進行政教倫理解讀，以及提出抒情審美批評。此外，對於尚未觸及而值得進一步深耕、思考的議題，提出簡單的分析與展望，作為日後研究的指標。

The aims of my dissertation entitled “Poetics of Li-Bai in Qing Dynasty” are to discuss the poetics of Li-Bai independently outside of the traditional concept of “Li-Tu (李杜)”, and to discuss the reception, interpretation, and criticism of Li-Bai and Li-Bai’s poetics by Qing literati, and to delineate the perspective and limitation of Qing literati’s evolutionary commentaries on Li-Bai’s poetics. The dissertation contains six chapters:

The first chapter “Introduction” revealed the background and aims of this dissertation and proposed the definition of the main theme of “Poetics of Li-Bai” based on reviewing the literature of previous studies. The research topic mainly focused on the annotations, anthologies, and the critics of poets (Shi-Hua, 詩話).

The second chapter “The relationship between Qing Poetics and Li-Bai, and its implication in poetics” aimed to correlate the poetics of Li-Bai and the popular poetics by analyzing the development of poetics in different stages of Qing Dynasty. The early Qing literati textual critically studied Li-Bai’s poetics, and interplayed the imagery of drinking and “Yo-Xian (遊仙)”. In the mean while, Wang, Shi-Zhen (王士禎) highlighted that Li-Bai’s “Ye-Bo-Niu-Zhu-Huai-Gu (夜泊牛渚懷古)” as the paradigm of “Shen-Yun (神韻)”, which was considered as a transition point of the poetic discourses on Li-Bai. In the middle Qing Dynasty, the official publication “The annotated catalog of books in the imperial library”(四庫全書總目) seems not able to cover and represent the value of Li-Bai’s annotation collection. Whereas the mainstream poetics lead by Shen, De-Qian (沈德潛), Yuan-Mei (袁枚), and Wong, Fang-Gang (翁方綱), criticized Li-Bai’s poetry via the point of views of style of format and tonality (Ge-Diao, 格調), character and spirit (Xing-Ling, 性靈), and the structure (Ji-Li, 肌理), which enriched the intension of Li-Bai’s poetics. In the later Qing, the Li-Bai’s poetry criticism was marginalized due to the preference of Song poetry (宗宋詩潮). Qing literati, however, proposed new concepts different from traditional. Fang, Dong-Shu (方東樹) analyzed the grammar of Li-Bai’s poetics and indicated the way to study; Liu, Xi-Zai (劉熙載) proposed how to differentiate the inside and outside of Li poetics; Gong, Zi-Zhen (龔自珍) proposed that “Bing Zhuang Qu Yi Wei Xin (併莊、屈以為心)”, which highlighted the unrestrained spirit of Li-Bai.

The third chapter “The interpretation and empty in Wang-Qi (王琦)’s “Li-Tai-Bai-Quan-Ji”《李太白全集》” discussed the only annotation of Li-Bai’s poetry in Qing Dynasty. I first sorted out the annotations of Li-Bai’s poetry before Qing Dynasty, and then discussed Wang-Chi’s aims, the contents of introduction and postscript, and the format of annotation when writing the annotation, which lead to the conclusion that the perspective view of Wang-Chi’s “Li-Tai-Bai-Quan-Ji”《李太白全集》was not the mainstream opinion in the period. However, he differentiated the different annotation ways: “Chan-Shi-Shi-Zhi (闡釋詩旨)” and “Shi-Shi-Wang-Yi (釋事忘意)”. He also manifested the characteristics of Li-Bai’s poetry by keeping blank without annotations. This study confirmed that there was no definitely correlation between number of annotations and the judgments.

The fourth chapter “The collection and commentary of Li-Bai’s Poems in Tang poetry anthologies in Qing dynasty” discussed the classes and aims of the anthologist including the Qing emperor, literati, children and folks. The Qing emperor and literati were trying to establish the template of “Shi-Jiao(詩教)” by selection of specific poems whereas the selected Li-Bai’s poems are not the same. The emperor’s selection may reflect the condition of the strong empire, or promotion of the patriotism of the poets. In comparison with the emperor, the representative anthology by the Qing literati “Shen, De-Qian (沈德潛)” represented an poetic view with diversities and unaffected by the emperor’s power and influence. The anthologies for children mainly focus on collecting the simple and popular poetry, and avoid the political poetry, which showed the difference in style between the folks and literati. Beside, this chapter also interpreted the reason and when Li-Bai’s fourteen popular poems became popular by comparing the Qing anthologies and the anthologies before Qing Dynasty.

The fifth chapter “Genres criticism of Li-Bai’s poetry in Qing Dynasty” analyzed how the Qing literati appreciated and criticized Li-Bai’s poetry and the significance in poetics. The Qing literati commented that Li-Bai’s “Gu-Shi(古詩)” explained Li-Bai’s “Gu-Feng (古風)” and the connotation of “Gu-Ti-Yue-Fu (古題樂府)”, which reflected the traditional style of Qing literati. The Qing literati commented that Li-Bai’s “Jui-Ju (絕句)” are the best in Tang Dynasty by showing that Li-Bai learned “Yue-Fu-Min-Ge (樂府民歌)” and showing the characteristic of “Yan-Jin-Yi-Bu-Jue(言盡意不絕)”. The Qing literati also approved that Li-Bai’s “Lu-Shi (律詩)” used the style of “Yi-Gu-Wei-Lu (以古為律)” and that Li-Bai’s style to express the content of the poem (Shi-Yi, 詩意) is better than using the complimentary style (Dui-Ou, 對偶). Overall, the Qing Literati provided an open view of poetics and also highlighted the position of Li-Bai as a traditional poet through the conversation with the poetics in previous dynasties.

The sixth chapter “Perspective” summarized the findings of this study and proposed the three frameworks of poetic discourses on Li-Bai: textual criticism, moral principles, and esthetics. This chapter also provided some perspectives of the unaddressed issues that worthwhile for further study.