从《直斋书录解题》看陈振孙的诗学观  

Analyzing Chen Zhensun’s Poetic View from His Zhizhai Content Explanation

作　　者：聂飞 郝永[1] NIE Fei;HAO Yong(School of Literature,Guizhou Normal University,Guiyang Guizhou,550025)

机构地区：[1]贵州师范大学文学院,贵州贵阳550025

出　　处：《山西大同大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第4期66-71,共6页Journal of Shanxi Datong University(Social Science Edition)

摘　　要：陈振孙《直斋书录解题》发凡目录、点论诗词,不仅仅是一部目录学巨著,亦蕴涵着独特的诗学思想。《直斋书录解题》中所蕴含的陈振孙之诗学观表现出三个特点:一是崇尚儒家思想,将人格修养作为评判诗歌的重要标准,提出"诗格"一词,认为"人格"决定"诗格",不以诗人身份地位的高低来评价诗歌,不因名高而誉,不因名低而贬,具有一定积极意义,但同时亦导致因人废言的产生,有偏颇之失。二是深受"崇陶"时代风气及儒家正统观念影响,以"风""气""清""澹"论诗。三是推崇"风雅精神",极力赞扬《诗经》及与之相承的建安文学,称赞"陶谢"诗风,反对怪劣矜饰的诗歌创作。Embodying the overview of bibliography and poetry criticism, Zhizhai Content Explanation is a masterpiece which benefits academia. As a great work of bibliography, it’s also imbued with Chen Zhensun’s unique poetic view, three characteristics of which can be concluded from this book. First, as an advocator of Confucianism, Chen regarded poets’ personal cultivation as a significant standard of poetry criticism. In poetry theory, He proposed "shige", poem format and style, and deemed it’s decided by author’s personality. Undeniably it played a positive role in making objective remarks because his comments never were influenced by poets’ social statuses or their reputation. However, it also caused biased results with paying too much attention to poets’ personalities rather than their works. Second, with the effect of worshiping Tao Yuanming(427-365 BC, a Jin poet) and orthodox Confucianism,Chen remarked poetry based on four standards, namely "feng", "qi", "qing" and "dan". Third, he advocated a spirit which embodies enthusiasm to the reality, a strong political and moral consciousness and a genuine and positive attitude towards life, and lavished praise on the Book of Songs and Jian-an literature. Besides, he admired the poetry style of Tao and Xie Lingyun(433-385 BC, a poet in Northern and Southern Dynasties). Meanwhile, Chen was opposed to creating poems in a weird, shoddy or overstated manner.

关 键 词：《直斋书录解题》 陈振孙 诗学观 

分 类 号：K235.2[历史地理—历史学]