中国古代散文史撰述研究

On the Historical Writing of Ancient Chinese Prose

中国古代散文史的撰述,散文发展演变阶段或时期的划分,应注意从作家创作、散文自身和散文文体三个角度审视,其中从作品自身的状态体认散文发展演变的规律较为适当;对散文内容的安排,应当循序渐进而不是跳跃性的内容缺失;散文史作家选择的不一导致散文史撰述作家层面上的不平衡,影响对散文史流变的体认;散文史引用的作品,谁最具代表性的问题没有解决,客观上形成散文史撰述不同的文本走向,继而有了作品层面的不平衡;散文作品艺术特色的评价见仁见智实属自然,但或东或西及同一文本的不同评价易让读者迷惑,撰述者需寻求评价的客观性;散文流派的论述,分论不见流派中人的创作共性,合论不见流派中人的创作个性,显然需要将分论与合论综合在一起考察彼此之间的联系;辞赋与骈文入散文史素有分歧,它本是不同散文观念的结果,而文体限定性的影响也是深刻的,使撰述者的论说往往有一定的程式,缺乏活力。因此,重写散文史成为新的期待。

In writing the history of ancient Chinese prose, as well as dividing phases or periods of prose development, we shall pay attention to three angles, namely literature creation, prose itself and pose style. It is thought appropriate to appreciate the law of prose development from the perspective of prose itself. In arranging the content of prose, however, we shall follow in proper sequence instead of make such mistakes of content deficiency by skipping certain details. In selecting the writers of prose history, choosing different writers may lead to the imbalance in terms of level of writers in prose history writing. Thus, appreciation of development and change of prose history may be affected in the process. In citing works of prose history writing, the unresolved problem of representativeness may result in different directions of a text and then cause the imbalance in terms of level of literary works. It is nature that comments on artistic characters of prose differ from person to person, but readers may be confused by different comments or comments from unrelated angles. Hence, objectivity of comments by the writer is in high demand. In discussing different prose schools, we can find neither common character of people from the same school in sub-pandect nor individuality in pandect. Obviously, we shall view pandect and sub-pandect integrally and attach certain importance to their connection. Because of different notions on prose and profound influence of stylistic limitation, people always have divarication in classifying Ci Fu and parallel prose into prose. Moreover, such styles are lack of vitality and have formula in writing. For all the reasons mentioned above, rewriting of prose history is a new expectation for us all.