朱熹和陳獻章文學觀點之比較

Abstract

Because neo-Confucianism flourished in the Song and the Ming dynasties it is often called ‘Song-Ming neo-Confucianism.’ From its rise in the Song up to the late Ming, a great many neo-Confucian scholars of many intellectual persuasions emerged, and these thinkers advanced many different scholastic views. In actuality these thinkers not only differed in their scholastic views – their approach to, and views on literature also varied on account of the influences of their respective academic and literary environments.Added to these were differences in their scholastic lineages, their position on scholarly controversies, their factional/school affiliations, as well as individual tastes/preferences. Hence while they all operated within the broader boundaries of neo-Confucianism, the attitude of each were both similar and different in some respects – it is only logical that this would be the case.However, in the author’s view, studies on the literary thought of these neo-Confucian thinkers are often guilty of neglecting this diversity and of being too simplistic. Based on the findings of my research over the last few years, I would argue that there have been numerous occurrences of differences having emerged between the views expressed by a single individual on different occasions, let alone differences between thinkers, or between the neo-Confucian thinkers of different periods. As such, I feel that many studies on neo-Confucian literary theory could at best be described as studies on general trends, or partial accounts that do not completely accord with the textual evidence that is available.If we are to paint a more complete picture of the actual substance of these views we need an approach that builds on a close reading of the views expressed in individual texts. Because of the very large number of Song and Ming neo-Confucian thinkers, this would be a project that would extent well beyond the confines of what can be addressed in this article. In line with this, the author has written on this topic on the basis of the following considerations: 1.Regardless of one’s approach, it should not be a matter for debate that Zhu Xi can be regarded as a representative of Song neo-Confucianism as a whole. He was also the most active of all the Song neo-Confucian scholars in various areas of literary endeavor including literary composition, literary criticism. Because Zhu Xi not only composed a large compilation on Song neo-Confucianism, but also compiled a large anthology of Song neo-Confucian scholar’s writings on literary theory, many of his ideas on literature pertain to the field of literary studies. This is different from the case of thinkers such as Zhou Dunyi and the Cheng brothers whose writings in literary criticism were not strictly from a literary studies viewpoint, but were rather criticisms on literature from the viewpoint of neo-Confucian learning. 2.The middle Ming period featured a turning point for Ming neo-Confucianism – in the early Ming Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucianism was the mainstream, however after the middle Ming, while Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucian continued to be transmitted, developments focused on Wang Yangming’s School of Mind. Chen Xianzhang was a figure that was active in this turning period.His role in effecting the transformation of Ming neo-Confucianism, and his contribution to Song-Ming neo-Confucianism more generally, has been widely acknowledged by classical and modern scholars alike. 3.Although no one can compare with Zhu Xi’s status as the most important contributor to neo-Confucianism, Chen Xianzhang’s contribution cannot be neglected.It should also be noted that while Zhu Xi was a prolific composer of poems and songs at a scale that, among neo-Confucians, comes second only to Shao Yong, Chen often liked to discuss poetics in poetic form, and the poems and songs that he composed were no less in volume than those of Zhu. As is now generally understood, Song-Ming neo-Confucians were, with few exceptions, aspiring to strive to ‘become sages,’ so most were not interested in talking about poetry and prose. Like Zhu Xi, Chen Xianzhang liked to compose poetry and also liked to discuss poetry and prose – this makes him rare and valuable among neo Confucian thinkers.　 In view of the above, the author aims to focus on the two neo-Confucian scholars Zhu Xi and Chen Xianzhang, and through a comparison of their views on literature, proceed to investigate issues such as the causes/reasons that led them to ascribe to these views. The author holds that adopting this approach will enable us to more effectively observe a trajectory in the development and evolution of the views on literary theory of Song-Ming neo-Confucians.