English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 43312/67235
Visitors : 2020638      Online Users : 2
RC Version 5.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU/NCHU Library IR team.
National Chung Hsing University Institutional Repository - NCHUIR > 文學院 > 中國文學系所 > 依資料類型分類 > 碩博士論文 >  跨界書寫:蔣士銓《銅弦詞》對詞之文化、賦化與曲化的繼承與新創

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nchuir.lib.nchu.edu.tw/handle/309270000/151705

標題: 跨界書寫:蔣士銓《銅弦詞》對詞之文化、賦化與曲化的繼承與新創
Cross-Genre Writing: Essay, Fu and Qu Inheritance and Innovation Of Shih-Chuan Ciang’s Tung-Hsien Ci
作者: 蕭琬茹
Siao, Wan-Ru
Contributors: 林淑貞
Shu-Chen Lin
中國文學系所
關鍵字: 蔣心餘;銅弦詞;以文為詞;以賦為詞;以曲為詞
Shih-Chuan Chiang;Tung-Hsien Ci;writing Ci in prose;writing Ci in Fu;Writing Ci in Qu
日期: 2013
Issue Date: 2013-11-07 11:57:12 (UTC+8)
Publisher: 中國文學系所
摘要: 中文摘要
本文欲探討蔣士銓《銅弦詞》在詞之文化、賦化與曲化之間的跨界書寫。在以文為詞方面,追溯稼軒詞如何在豪放詞風之下融和散文句法,以及南宋辛派詞家對以文為詞的繼承,並析論蔣士銓以文為詞的抉擇;在以賦為詞方面,選擇以南宋典雅詞派與《銅弦詞》相較,兩者雖風格迥異,但多詠物之作,詠物詞則是最能體現詞之賦化手法的題材,南宋詠物詞著重在神韻的捕捉,並將詩人自身情感與所詠對象巧妙冥合,不僅是將物象當作客觀實體描摹而已,蔣士銓的詠物詞則隨興所至,直接將情感投遞其中,對物象的描繪則較少,著重在主觀情感的抒寫;以曲為詞則是以明詞與《銅弦詞》為例,探析詞曲之間的跨界書寫是否有其文學價值,明詞因諸多因素而導致詞曲不分的現象尤為明顯,以曲入詞對於詞體是另闢蹊徑或是殘害詞體生命力,都值得一探究竟。最後欲總結《銅弦詞》在文學史上的意義,根據以文為詞、以賦為詞、以曲為詞的創作手法,評析《銅弦詞》的缺漏,並因此歸納《銅弦詞》於詞史上敬陪末座之因,同時也參照蔣士銓的其他文學創作,意圖發掘出《銅弦詞》有別於詩文戲曲的可貴之處。
本文第二章為探討以散文句式填詞的特色與價值,然而大多數詞評家仍認為以文為詞並非正聲,且難以詮釋詞之沉鬱、幽婉的風格,即便天縱之才如稼軒,亦時有非難。陳廷焯與況周頤等人雖懾服於稼軒詞之氣魄與精煉,卻也將之視為少數特例,認為才學不深厚者,不可輕易學稼軒,尤其是陳廷焯點名蔣心餘學稼軒,學的盡是皮毛,所得皆是糟粕,職是之故,吾人特意將稼軒詞與《銅弦詞》同列一章,並以詞之文化的角度切入,辨析《銅弦詞》的特質與其不足之處。第三章則是著重在蔣心餘賦筆的手法,其中《銅弦詞》的題材多詠物詞與題畫、題小照之作,此類題材最能展現詩人刻畫、摹寫的功力。吾人將《銅弦詞》與梅溪、夢窗、碧山等的詠物詞相較,足見兩者體物賦物,何以前人略勝一籌。前人能掌握「有生動之可狀,須神韻而後全」,神韻如物象之靈魂,神韻未具,賦物則難成佳作。蔣心餘的詠物詞往往與人遊戲筆墨之感,尤其他常用軼事、傳說等事蹟為典故,這方面與南宋詞人相似,但心餘用典稍嫌不夠渾成,特別是吾人在搜尋其典故來源時,發現其出處多為史書與野史,其次是前人所撰的奇聞軼事,頗有一點掉書袋的疑慮。第四章則留意於蔣心餘以曲子填詞的風格,心餘本為戲曲名家,與明代施紹莘、湯義仍、李漁等人同樣,他們填詞多少有些曲味,但吾人認為術業有專攻,曲家填詞因而使得詞曲相互混淆,文學創作若失去其文學意義,此舉恐怕本末倒置,雖說明代以來便時時有曲子參透倚聲的趨勢,但清初經過詞壇諸老與竹垞等人大刀闊斧改革明詞俗曲化,心餘詞作卻仍走上以曲入詞的道路,不免讓人聯想是否因身兼曲家之故而有此特色。第五章整合《銅弦詞》諸多特色,並梳理出文學史上的貢獻及指出其缺失,期盼本論文對《銅弦詞》的批評能更公允。
英文摘要
This dissertation aims to investigate the cross-genre writing of 《Tung-Hsien Ci》 among prose, Fu (poetry) and Qu (poetry). In terms of turning the prose into “Ci (poetry),” it discusses the grand style of Chia-Hsuan Ci, mixed with prose syntaxes. As for the turning from Fu to Qu, this article chooses the Ci of Elegant Cial School in Song Dynasty as a contrast to Tung-Hsien Ci. Although there are differences in terms of the style between the two, both of them are mainly chant.
Dealing with the turning of Ci to Qu, taking the Ci of Ming Dynasty and Tung Hsien Ci for example , this essay also explores that whether the writing between Ci and Qu was valuable or not. There were many factors result in the confusion between Ci and Qu, for Ming Dynasty. Writing Ci in Qu was another way, or it would injure the vitality of Ci, which would be worthy of investigating.
The second chapter is to investigate the features and value in prose sentence Cis. However, most critics still think that it is unorthodox to writing Ci in prose, and difficult to interpret the gloomy and mildly style of Ci. Even the genius such as Chia-Hsuan has still been blamed. Although Ting-zhuo Chen and Zhou-yi Kuang admire the verve and refining of Chia-Hsuan Ci, they treat him as a special case. They think that no profound scholarship is enough to learn Chia-Hsuan Ci, especially Shih-Chuan Chiang, who is considered to imitate Chia-Hsuan Ci, but only dross. Therefore, I will arrange Chia-Hsuan Ci and Shih-Chuan Chiang’s Ci to the same column in the chapter, and analyse the characteristics and defects of Tung-Hsien Ci from the point of view of writing Ci in prose. The third chapter is to emphasize the technique of Fu by Shih-Chuan Chiang. There are many chanting things Ci and written on paintings Cis in Tung-Hsien Ci, this themes most can show the skill of the poet’s depiction and description. I will compare Tung-Hsien Ci and Mei-Xi, Meng-chuang, Bi-shan’s chanting things Cis, this shows that both Chanting Things, why predecessors slightly better. Predecessors master the soul of Ci, without it, depiction is poor. Shih-Chuan Chiang’s chanting things Cis giving people a frivolous impression, especially he often uses anecdotes and legends as allusions, this is similar to the South Song poets, but Shih-Chuan Chiang use allusions incongruously. Most of the allusions he has used come from history books and unofficial history. This means that he may show off the intent of learning. The fourth chapter pay attention to Shih-Chuan Chiang’s style of writing Ci in Qu. Shih-Chuan Chiang is a drama writer, he is just like Shao-Xin Shi, Xian-Zu Tang and Yu Lee. They write Ci accompanied by Qu style, but I think that industry specializing in surgery. A drama writer writing Ci in Qu causes people to be confused with Ci and Qu. If literature loses its significance, this behavior is putting the cart before the horse. Although, since the Ming Dynasty, there is a tendency that Qu is often merged into Ci in the early Qing Dynasty. After worthies and Yi-zun Zhu drastic reforms, Shih-Chuan Chiang still writes Ci in Qu. This makes me associate to his identity as a drama writer. The fifth chapter will integrate the features of Tung-Hsien Ci , and will induct contribution and missing to the history of literature, looking forward to the fair criticism of Tung-Hsien Ci.
Appears in Collections:[依資料類型分類] 碩博士論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
index.html0KbHTML111View/Open


 


學術資源

著作權聲明

本網站為收錄中興大學學術著作及學術產出,已積極向著作權人取得全文授權,並盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益。如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員,將盡速為您處理。

本網站之數位內容為國立中興大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用。

聯絡網站維護人員:wyhuang@nchu.edu.tw,04-22840290 # 412。

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU/NCHU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback