English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 78728/78728 (100%)
Visitors : 34268357      Online Users : 1535
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/4258

    Title: 《文心雕龍》的「作者」理論;The “Author” Discourse in Wenxin Diaolong
    Authors: 賴欣陽;Hsin-yang Lai
    Contributors: 中國文學研究所
    Keywords: 理想寫作;環境;;;;文心雕龍;反作者中心文論;中國古典文學批評;作者;;;;;
    Date: 2006-06-07
    Issue Date: 2009-09-22 09:15:29 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 國立中央大學圖書館
    Abstract: 本論文探討《文心雕龍》的「作者」理論,主要是針對「作者」問題進行反思。漢朝以後的中國古典文學批評,無論那一種批評方式,大體上而言都蠻重視「作者」,批評的目的也常在於指導寫作,為了訓練出一個好作者。 十八、九世紀時期的西方文學批評也以作者為中心,然而到了二十世紀,文學批評家們將焦點放在作品意義的解讀上,所以開始檢討甚至挑戰長久以來文學批評研究「作者」的傳統,幾十年間,漸漸形成一股反作者中心傾向的文論。拿這套文論來與中國古典文學批評對照,則可以了解大部分中國古典文學批評家的目的是要了解作品背後那個寫作的人,作品或文本只是工具;而現代西方文論家的目標在詮釋作品或文本的意義,當然作者就被邊緣化了。然而無論中、西文學批評論述,對於「作者」內涵及其所關涉的各方面問題都很少深入而全面地分析探討,因此無論是反對或支持以作者為中心的文論,都應該以對「作者」的認知為基礎,如此方能進行有效的討論。 《文心雕龍》雖非以「作者」為主之論著,然而劉勰在其論述內容中却已經表述了他對「作者」內涵的認識及對相關問題的了解。在此書中,作者指的是執筆為文者。而應具備的基本條件,則有「才」、「氣」、「學」、「習」、「思」、「情」、「志」七者,皆以「心」主導。「思」代表「心」的思考運作,「情」代表「心」的感受知覺,「志」代表心的意圖及方向。這三個維度交互影響,有時相互增強,有時相互節制,而它們都是「心」的基本功能。其餘四者或具於內,或由外凝塑,分別決定了作者寫作能力的高下及其作品的特質。而劉勰也注意到環境與作者的關係,並論述作者所處環境如何看待作者。並進一步提出了他心目中理想的寫作,包含了做為典範的理想風格類型、進行寫作應注意的原則,以及進行理想寫作的心理歷程。對關於「作者」各方面問題的探討,都有相當深入的見解。 從劉勰所論,可知中國古典文學批評對「作者」曾有過清楚的探究描述,只是後來的文論家對此往往從道德情操、歷史研究、風格印象來討論,罕有自創作活動本身而論者。《文心雕龍》所提出的「作者」理論相當深入而周延,可以此為基礎建構屬於中國文學批評的「作者」理論。而對照西方文論,亦可讓人了解中、西文論各有不同的立場與背景;《文心雕龍》的「作者」理論或可使現代西方反作者中心文論者換個角度來看待及思考「作者」問題。 In this dissertation, I try to analyze the ”author” discourse in Wenxin Diaolong. Mainly review to the question about ” author” in this thesis. After Han dynasty, in classical literary criticism of Chinese, no matter what kinds of criticism manner, critics have paid attention to “author” on the whole. To guide the writing is the purpose of criticism, in order to train a good author. The Western literary criticism of the 18 , 19th century regards “author” as an important part in literary criticism too. But in the 20th century, the Western literary critics focus their work on analyzing and interpreting the meaning of the works, so they begin to challenge the tradition of “author centre” in literary criticism. During the decades, they develops and shape up discourses of anti “author centre” gradually.As contrast with Chinese classical literary criticism , the discourse will make us understand that the purpose of most Chinese classical literature critics is to comprehend the person of writing behind the works , works or the text are only tools, The goal of the Modern Western literary critics is to interpret the meanings of the works or the text ,“author” is certainly marginalized in literary criticism. But both Chinese and Western literary criticism , is neither concerned about the connotation of “author” and it’s related problems. So no matter object to the discourses of regarding author as the centre or support it , both should be based on their cognition of the “author”. Thus we can carry on the effective discussion .Although Wenxin Diaolong isn’t a treatise about “author”, but Liu Hsieh had expressed his cognition about the connotation of “author” and present his understanding of “author”’s related problems in his discourses. In this treatise, “author” means writer. And the basic seven conditions about it are “Cai”,”Qi”,”Xue”,”Xi”,”Si”,”Qing”,”Zhi”,they are included in “Xin”. “Si” is “Xin”’s thinking, “Qing” is “Xin”’s feeling, “Zhi” is “Xin”’s intention. The three dimensions interact, they are the basic functions of “Xin”. The rest four conditions decide the “author”’s ability of writing and the characters of works. Liu Hsieh had also paid attention to the relations between environments and “author”s, and discourse on how environments regard “author”. And further he described the ideal writing in his mind, it included paragon style type, the principles in writing and the psychoprocess in ideal writing.According to Wenxin Diaolong, we can realize the “author” had been clearly described and studied in classical literary criticism of Chinese. But the critics in the later period often discuss it from moral character, history research, style impressions, rarely from writing action. The discourse about the “author” in Wenxin Diaolong is quite deep and complete. Based on it, we can probably construc the “author discourse” in Chinese literary criticism. As contrast with the discourses of anti “author centre” in Modern Western literary criticism, it makes researcher realize the Chinese literary criticism is distinct from the Modern Western literary criticism in grounds and backgrounds. The ”author” discourse in Wenxin Diaolong can provides a different point of view from the discourses of anti “author centre” in Modern Western literary criticism in “author” problems.
    Appears in Collections:[中國文學研究所] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 隱私權政策聲明