新舊批評觀念的交鋒：黃節與朱自清的樂府「清商三調」討論
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2018-03-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學
National Taiwan Normal University
National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
1933年，黃節（1873～1935）與朱自清（1898～1948）討論漢樂府相和與清商聲調的關係的文章在《清華週刊》刊出。黃節因不同意梁啟超（1873～1929）《中國之美文及其歷史》將清商與相和調分類論之的觀點，因而撰文加以駁斥。同在清華大學中文系任教的朱自清對黃節的意見表示懷疑，援引樂府史料支持梁啟超的看法。最終，這場討論以黃節未正面回應朱自清關於樂府音樂性的提問告一段落，但關於相和與清商分類問題的討論延續至今。本文認為此次「清商三調」論爭是現代中國古典詩學研究觀念新舊之爭的表現。通過解讀黃節與朱自清的論辯依據及批評立場，可以剖析雙方批評方法與批評觀念的差異。這場「清商三調」討論反映了民國初年新舊批評觀念的交錯衝突，亦表現出古典詩學批評現代化進程的曲折特色。
In 1933, a discussion related to “Qingshang Sandiao” (the three tones of Qingshang) was published in a university journal (Tsinghua University Weekly). Two famous scholars were involved in this debate, namely Huang Jie (1873-1935) and Zhu Ziqing (1898-1948). Their discussion on “Qingshang Sandiao” was fi rst analyzed by Liang Qichao (1873-1929) in an unpublished manuscript. Huang Jie did not agree with Liang’s viewpoint, and Zhu supported Liang’s argument by employing historical evidence. This discussion was completed by Huang’s reply, which did not answer Zhu’s core doubt on the division of “Xianghe Diao” and “Qingshang Diao.” Huang believed that studies on “Yuefu” poetry should concern its content and political impact on society. However, Zhu focused on the musicality and literary nature of “Yuefu” poetry. The current study explored the evidence, arguments, and infl uences of both parties in this discussion, concluding that the discussion in 1933 indicated a confl ict between various paradigms of literary criticism in modern China.
In 1933, a discussion related to “Qingshang Sandiao” (the three tones of Qingshang) was published in a university journal (Tsinghua University Weekly). Two famous scholars were involved in this debate, namely Huang Jie (1873-1935) and Zhu Ziqing (1898-1948). Their discussion on “Qingshang Sandiao” was fi rst analyzed by Liang Qichao (1873-1929) in an unpublished manuscript. Huang Jie did not agree with Liang’s viewpoint, and Zhu supported Liang’s argument by employing historical evidence. This discussion was completed by Huang’s reply, which did not answer Zhu’s core doubt on the division of “Xianghe Diao” and “Qingshang Diao.” Huang believed that studies on “Yuefu” poetry should concern its content and political impact on society. However, Zhu focused on the musicality and literary nature of “Yuefu” poetry. The current study explored the evidence, arguments, and infl uences of both parties in this discussion, concluding that the discussion in 1933 indicated a confl ict between various paradigms of literary criticism in modern China.