从《史记评林》看明代文人的叙事观  

Ming Scholars' Views of Narrative in Forest of Comments on Shiji

作　　者：周建渝[1] 

机构地区：[1]香港中文大学中文系

出　　处：《复旦学报（社会科学版）》2010年第3期86-97,共12页Fudan Journal（Social Sciences）

基　　金：中国香港特别行政区研究资助局(RGC)资助项目(项目批准号:CUHK4555/06H)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：《史记评林》诸家评点中"文章之法"与"叙事之法"两种批评焦点的并行运用,或可被视作叙事文学批评史上从传统的"文章之法"向"叙事之法"转变的过渡性特征。它后来发展成为金圣叹、毛纶及毛宗岗父子、张竹坡那样较为成熟的"叙事之法"。其中对于《史记》"正体"、"变体"之分判,体现出明代评点者对于叙事文文体性质的关注,亦显示出他们对于何为"正体"、何为"变体"有着自觉的认识。更为重要的是,在此"正"、"变"分判中,确立了传统叙事文写作之典范,此为明人评点《史记》在文学批评意义上的重要贡献。由于这样的发现和关注,《史记》作为传统叙事文之典范,其文学性质及意义得到了有效的彰显,同时也丰富了我们对《史记》所代表的中国叙事文学传统及其性质的理解。就这一点而言,《史记评林》在传统中国文学批评史上有着重要意义。This article discusses the so-called Pingdian, the commentaries that consist ot comments attached closely to and in accordance with the text of Shiji made by various scholars of the Ming period. It explores what these commentaries focus on, what narrative stances and viewpoints they present, what relationships may exist between them and the commentaries by Jin Sheng-tan, the father and son of Mao, and Zhang Zhu-po, as well as how to assess their value and significance in traditional Chinese criticism of narrative. This paper points out that the dual focuses on the techniques of essay and narrative applied in the comments in this book represent a transition from a concern with techniques of essay to that of narrative that was developed into more mature theories of narrative by Jin and Zhang. Its division of so-called orthodox genre and changed genre demonstrates critics＇ conscious concern with the nature of narrative genre. More importantly, by this division, the critics established a paradigm of traditional narrative. This is a significant contribution of Ming scholars. Because of these concerns and contributions, the significance of Shiji was intensified. This enriches our understanding of Shift.

关 键 词：《史记评林》 文章之法与叙事之法 凌稚隆 叙事文体 

分 类 号：I206.2[文学—中国文学]