論牛運震《詩志》之評判問題及其對《詩序》之依違與文學詮釋

On Niu Yunzhen's Poetic Intent and his Adoption, Rejection and Interpretation of the 'Preface' to the Classic of Poetry

牛運震為清代《詩經》評點之學的代表人物之一。相關之研究，近年雖有數篇專文研討，而皆聚集於此書掘發《詩經》文學藝術之成就，蓋因此書歷來被歸類於評點之書的原因。然此書實有數事不可不究，本文擬為相關之兩大題，並各自涵攝數小題，以補當前對《詩志》研究之不足。分別為：一、牛鈞〈詩志序〉與《續修四庫全書總目提要》之相關問題辨析。此題擬欲探討之問題包涵《詩志》書名疑義蠡探、論牛鈞「前注之未安者，正之；未備者，補之」之語與《續修四庫全書總目提要》對牛運震之評價商榷。此題深究「詩志」命名之得失及評議《續修四庫全書總目提要》對牛書之臧否，務得牛書之具體情實。二、牛運震《詩志》對《詩序》之依違及其文學詮解。此題分別從牛運震對《詩序》之取捨依違，各舉四例，結合其對全詩之分析，嘗試梳理牛運震對《詩序》之態度及其依違之衡量標準，肯定牛運震對各詩之解讀，無論是詩旨之確立、內涵之勾稽與藝術技巧之分析，皆有其統系。經由以上兩題之討論，期能對當代對《詩志》的研究面向之外，再行深入討論《詩志》之具體問題，俾能對牛運震《詩志》有更全面的認識。
In recent years, scholars have published many articles investigating Niu Yunzhen's 牛運震critical annotation of the Classic of Poetry 詩經. These studies have all focused on Niu's elucidation of the literary and artistic achievements of the classic. This is because Niu's critical annotation, titled Poetic Intent 詩志, has traditionally been classified as a commentary. However, there are several characteristics of Niu's text that argue against this traditional classification. This article focuses on two major topics, each of which is further subdivided into subtopics, with the intention of remedying several deficiencies in our current understanding of Poetic Intent. The first topic concerns several issues related to Niu Jun's 牛鈞 preface to Poetic Intent and the Sequel to the Annotated Catalog of the Complete Books of the Four Treasuries. Under this topic, I explore the following matters: 1) the differences between Niu Yunzhen's and Niu Jun's annotations; 2) the meaning of Niu Jun's statement, 'I correct the former annotations that have not been fixed and supplement the ones that have not been completed;' and 3) the evaluation of Niu Yunzhen set forth in the Sequel to the Annotated Catalog. The second topic concerns issues related to Niu Yunzhen's adoption, rejection and interpretation of the 'Preface' to The Classic of Poetry. In this section, I analyze four examples each of Niu Yunzhen's adoption and rejection of positions advanced in the 'Preface.' This analysis is combined with a discussion of the entire text, and it attempts to sort through Niu Yunzhen's attitude towards the 'Preface' and determine his standards of judgement regarding the adoption or rejection of its positions. It further includes two subtopics: 1) the adoption of the arguments in the 'Preface' with additional comment; and 2) the correction of the arguments in the 'Preface' with additional comment. Through an in-depth discussion of the above two issues, this article goes beyond current studies of Poetic Intent and achieves a more comprehensive understanding of the work.

In recent years, scholars have published many articles investigating Niu Yunzhen's 牛運震critical annotation of the Classic of Poetry 詩經. These studies have all focused on Niu's elucidation of the literary and artistic achievements of the classic. This is because Niu's critical annotation, titled Poetic Intent 詩志, has traditionally been classified as a commentary. However, there are several characteristics of Niu's text that argue against this traditional classification. This article focuses on two major topics, each of which is further subdivided into subtopics, with the intention of remedying several deficiencies in our current understanding of Poetic Intent. The first topic concerns several issues related to Niu Jun's 牛鈞 preface to Poetic Intent and the Sequel to the Annotated Catalog of the Complete Books of the Four Treasuries. Under this topic, I explore the following matters: 1) the differences between Niu Yunzhen's and Niu Jun's annotations; 2) the meaning of Niu Jun's statement, 'I correct the former annotations that have not been fixed and supplement the ones that have not been completed;' and 3) the evaluation of Niu Yunzhen set forth in the Sequel to the Annotated Catalog. The second topic concerns issues related to Niu Yunzhen's adoption, rejection and interpretation of the 'Preface' to The Classic of Poetry. In this section, I analyze four examples each of Niu Yunzhen's adoption and rejection of positions advanced in the 'Preface.' This analysis is combined with a discussion of the entire text, and it attempts to sort through Niu Yunzhen's attitude towards the 'Preface' and determine his standards of judgement regarding the adoption or rejection of its positions. It further includes two subtopics: 1) the adoption of the arguments in the 'Preface' with additional comment; and 2) the correction of the arguments in the 'Preface' with additional comment. Through an in-depth discussion of the above two issues, this article goes beyond current studies of Poetic Intent and achieves a more comprehensive understanding of the work.