晚明詩話中的詩經學初探

Shijing Study of the Commentary on Poetry in the Late Ming

本文擬就晚明時期的詩話著作做一探討，以胡應麟《詩藪》、陳第《讀詩拙言》、郝敬《讀詩》、《藝圃傖談》、許學夷《詩源辯體》、鄧雲霄《冷邸小言》、謝肇淛《小草齋詩話》、馮復京《說詩補遺》、費經虞《雅倫》、方以智《通雅詩話》等為底本。明代從萬曆以後的七十年期間，隨著《詩經》研究的勃興，詩話中關於《詩經》的討論也有所增多，頗值得一探究竟。但詩話著作對於《詩經》的態度並不等同於經學家的態度，也不盡然等同於講章、評點各派，他們不是為士子科考揣摩經義作八股，也不是為了承擔傳道解經的責任，他們擺脫功利的目的，純粹把《詩經》當作文學經典來解讀。換言之，詩話中《詩經》的見解，往往是對《詩經》的文學見解。雖說詩話著作往往片言隻字，缺乏系統的解讀，但能對這部文學經典提出深造有自得的文學見解，如《詩經》在中國文學史的地位、意義、風格、以及對「賦比興」不同的見解等問題，各自從不同的角度提出自己的見解，對明代的《詩經》學提出了必要的補充。根據筆者考察晚明的詩話著作，歸納綜合之後，探討的方向大抵有六，並分為六個節次來討論：一為注重《詩經》文學史的地位；二為注重情性；三為尊序與廢序；四為對「賦比興」不同的見解；五為朱熹讀詩法的繼承；六為注意古音古韻的問題。

The discourse of this paper is on the Shijing Study (詩經學) of the Commentary on Poetry (詩話) in the Late Ming Dynasty.(晚明) The text which is discussed on contains Hu Ying Lin, Shi-Sou, (胡應麟，《詩藪》) Cheng Ti, Du-Shi-Zhao-Yan, (陳第，《讀詩 拙言》) Hao Ching, Du-Shi, Yi-Pu-Cang-Tan, (郝敬，《讀詩》、《藝圃傖談》) Xu Xue Yi, Shi-Yuan-Bian-Ti, (許學夷，《詩源辯體》) Deng Yun Xiao, Leng-Di-Xiao-Yan, (鄧雲霄，《冷邸小言》) Xie Zhao Zhi, Xiao-Cao-Zhai-Shi-Hua, (謝肇淛，《小草齋詩話》) Feng Fu Jing, Shou-Shi-Bu-Yi, (馮復京，《說詩補遺》) Fei Jing Yu, Ya-Lun, (費經虞， 《雅倫》) Fang Yi Zhi, Tong-Ya-Shi-Hua.(方以智，《通雅詩話》) While the Shijing Study raised during the Late Ming period, there was much worthy discussion increasingly on it in the Commentary on Poetry. The attitudes of the authors writing down the Commentary on Poetry were different from those of Confucian, for imperial examination and of the annotation. They wrote down those commentaries on poetry purely for the literary interests rather than for interpreting the Confucian cannon, as well for the imperial examination. In another word, the discourse on Shijing in the Commentary on Poetry is the literary comprehension. Although the Commentary on Poetry provided the unsystematic opinion, it did the different comprehension on Shijing. Those comprehension was not only the status, meaning and style of Shijing in the history of Chinese literature but also the difference on Fu, Bi, Xing.（賦比興） Meanwhile those commentary was well supplied with difference on Shijing Study in their ways and the necessary supplement on this academic area. In my conclusion, there would be six dimensions to probe into this topic. First of all, they emphasized the Shijing’s status in the history of the Chinese literature. Secondly, they accentuated the importance of the disposition in Shijing. Thirdly, they discussed the question whether we should venerate Shijing Xu（詩序） or not. Fourthly, there was different comprehension on Fu, Bi, Xing. Fifthly, they also discussed the problem whether we would inherit the Zhu Xi’s（朱熹） way of reading Shijing. Finally, they had paid attention to the historical linguistics phonology in Shijing.