陳寅恪論錢謙益「推崇曹能始踰越分量」考辨

On Historian Chen Yinke's Argument that Qian Qianyi's Literary Criticism on Cao Xuequan Was Motivated by Political Considerations

清朝建立不久，發生黃毓祺（1579—1648）謀反案。錢謙益（牧齋，1582—1664）受黃案牽累，逮訊南京。陳寅恪《柳如是別傳》對此案之考辨特為詳盡，逾六萬言。陳氏考論牧齋於黃案期間所作詩文，其中比較意外的是牽連及牧齋對已故詩人曹學佺（能始，1575—1646）的評價：「據此足見牧齋亦深知能始之詩文無甚可取。其請為母作傳，並序初學集者，不過利用之以供政治之活動耳。」又云：「綜觀牧齋平生論詩論文之著述，大別可分二類。第壹類為從文學觀點出發⋯⋯。第貳類為從政治作用出發，如前論推崇曹能始踰越分量及選錄許有介詩，篇章繁多等。」今欲檢討陳氏此牧齋「推崇曹能始踰越分量」之說，亟須考論二事：（一）能始對牧齋究竟有無政治利用價值？（二）牧齋是否欣賞能始之詩文？執此二端，本文上半，考述能始、牧齋在晚明政壇上的經歷，評估能始是否為牧齋可以利用之政治資本。本文下半，論文事。筆者將論證，陳氏用以論述牧齋談論能始之材料頗有闕遺，其僅據牧齋所為能始小傳中數語，即斷言牧齋不甚欣賞能始。本文考論的範圍擴展至牧齋作於崇禎十三年之〈姚叔祥過明發堂共論近代詞人戲作絕句十六首〉、順治五、六年間《列朝詩集小傳》之〈金陵社集諸詩人〉，以及若干關涉能始文事、舊事之文章片段，此皆牧齋直接述及能始於其時詩壇地位之文獻，陳氏不援據徵之，其說難謂允洽。復次，筆者將指出，牧齋書寫能始最獨特之處，非在中晚明詩派發展史的脈絡中，而在萬曆以降更宏闊的文化場域、文人交遊情況中，吾人對牧齋賦予能始的意義有重新認識的必要。本文將探論牧齋如何在萬曆盛世與金陵詩社之「極盛」的特殊語境中描畫能始。

The acclaimed modern historian Chen Yinke argues that Qian Qianyi's (1582- 1664) literary criticism on poetry and prose writings consists of two types: One can be considered as literary criticism in the strict sense of the term. Another is, however, infused with political purpose, such as the unjustifiable commendation of the late-Ming poet Cao Xuequan (1573-1646). Chen holds that Qian's praise of Cao was motivated by political considerations, i.e., to help bring about his release from custody in Nanjing from 1647 to 1649 because of his suspected involvement in an anti-Qing uprising led by Huang Yuqi (1579-1648). This paper unfolds in two parts. First, it conducts a historical investigation of the official career of the chief personages concerned, to critically assess the assumed plausibility of a political bonding among them. When Qian was arrested by the authorities, Cao had already died two years earlier. What was the political use of a dead poet for Qian's legal defense in the lawsuit? Being intrigued by Chen's theory, I examine and illustrate the true nature of Qian and Cao's friendship and their writings on each other. The second part of this paper tries to reconstitute the circumstances in which Qian lauded Cao's achievements. I argue that Chen's assertions are problematic, and that Qian had, throughout his long life, admired Cao as a wonderful poet from the Wanli (r. 1572-1620) era. Furthermore, scholars in the past have paid attention only to the role that Cao played in the development of the so-called Min (Fujian) School of Poetry in the late Ming. I nevertheless maintain that Qian's admiration of Cao should be understood in the light of Cao's contribution to Nanjing's extraordinary blossoming of literary clubs and societies in the Wanli era.