查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 新舊批評觀念的交鋒:黃節與朱自清的樂府「清商三調」討論
- 「絸齋詩談」中的詩論
- 文學的審美者--文學批評
- 詩與樂的交融: 「清商三調」新探
- 簡評《文學批評術語》[Critical Terms for Literary Study. Eds. Frank Lentricchia & Thomas McLaughlin. 2nd ed. (Chiago UP, 1995);《文學批評術語》。張京媛等譯。(香港:牛津文學出版社, 1994年)]
- 王充文學主張探析
- 朝向宏觀綜合的文學研究--論文學史與文學理論、文學批評、暨比較文學的結合
- [(宋)葛立方著]《韻語陽秋》研究
- 看文人妙語生花,讓生命得到舒暢--評沈謙《林語堂與蕭伯納》
- 立足本土,胸懷傳統,放眼天下--二十世紀臺灣文學批評的考察
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 新舊批評觀念的交鋒:黃節與朱自清的樂府「清商三調」討論="Qingshang Sandiao": Establishing the Paradigm of Literary Criticism in Modern China |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 孫瑩瑩; | 書刊名 | 師大學報 |
卷期 | 63:1 2018.03[民107.03] |
頁次 | 頁21-40 |
分類號 | 831.2 |
關鍵詞 | 文學批評; 朱自清(1898~1948); 清商三調; 黃節(1873~1935); 樂府研究; Literary criticism; Zhu ziqing (1898~1948); Qingshang Sandiao; Huang Jie (1873~1935); Yuefu poetry studies; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 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 |
英文摘要 | 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 Their discussion on “Qingshang Sandiao” was fi rst analyzed by Liang Qichao (1873-1929) in an unpublished manuscript.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 |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。