唐代古文運動與史學之交涉

Abstract

本論文以八至九世紀古文運動參與者的學術論述與文學作品為核心，試圖探究其與唐代史學發展之間的關聯。事實上，唐代古文家對於史學的強烈關心，以及在創作時結合文、史的努力，亦即是將文學獨立後，與經、史、子等學術漸行漸遠，流於形式的「文」再次與「道」及聖人之學接軌的嘗試。本文的研究取徑順著古文運動之發生背景及傳承情形，首先討論史學與文章在漢至唐代約七百年間，由合而分，又由分而合之大勢；復及不同時期古文家在寫作歷史題材上的旨趣與表現；最後，自史學發展層面反觀古文家帶來的影響。藉三種不同的視角觀察，有利於釐清古文與史學的關係，以及古文運動之學術史意義。 根據追溯「文」概念演變得到的若干線索，魏晉至六朝學術流變的主要趨向，包括經、史、子、集分立架構的底定，以及抒發個人心靈，不以著述、立言為目標的狹義「文章」盛行於世。唐代建立後，文士階層中一直存在反省文弊，恢復古人著述精神的聲浪，至中唐而趨於高峰。同時，官方積極扶植史學，建立完整的史館制度，雖使士人崇尚作史，但國家修史的權威性及對學術的控制力，卻反使魏晉時期昌盛的私家撰史受到壓抑。文士希冀充實「文」之內容，與實踐修史之志的期待交融，導致唐人傳述、考證、評論史事的文章較前代增加，內容也大幅開拓，地位甚至有比肩史乘的傾向。唐代古文運動大致就在這樣的背景下展開。 本文主要分三階段探討古文運動的發展及古文家對史家精神、義理之發揚：由蕭穎士、李華等古文先驅推動的「文章中興」風潮、韓愈、柳宗元領導文學改革的古文運動顛峰，與韓愈後學瞻仰前哲，續作古文之時期。以文章宗經、復古、明道的訴求，在蕭穎士、李華等人已始其端，而韓愈、柳宗元所以為古文宗師，且對後世史學有最深遠之影響，乃因二人將原屬應用性質，不涉學術，不以抒情的短篇散文寫作開發出無窮變化，並能重新結合古人經、史、子著述的內容，促使「文」獲得新生。韓、柳皆對史學有濃厚興趣，在他們以學術思想入文的過程中，常有意藉古文作品發揮史籍褒貶善惡，導揚諷諭的價值，復興聖人作《春秋》之旨。李翱、皇甫湜、沈亞之、孫樵、皮日休諸家的文學理念承自韓愈，也頗能掌握韓愈好尚古道而不泥古的精神，秉持相近的明道觀點，化為各具特色的文史書寫。最後指出，唐代古文家寓褒貶於敘事、窮究聖人之心，以及點綴情感、文采等撰作手法，看似是文士之筆意，卻得以回應唐人熱議的修史問題，乃至遠抽宋代史學新變之端緒。

Guwen Movement was a central topic in the cultural history of Tang China, involving the literary and other intellectual aspects; nevertheless, most modern scholars explored this issue from the perspective of literary criticism or concentrated on Guwen writers’ discourses on the Way and their learnings to achieve the sagehood. To enrich our understanding of Guwen Movement, this thesis analyzed the connections between the strategies of Guwen Writers’ literary and historical writing and the historiography in Tang China. This thesis first argues that, in medieval China, the meaning of wen gradually changed and referred mainly to short essays that were expected to be highly decorated; meanwhile, historiography became an independent subject. Some literati participating in Guwen Movement, however, intended to rectify the over-embellishment of literature and even to infuse the spirit of historiography into it. At the same time, the writing style of Guwen also impacted on the works by Tang historians, which ushered in the new era of Chinese historiography. The precursors of Guwen Movement consisted of two groups, the first of which included Xiao Yingshi 蕭穎士 and Liu Mian 柳冕. They devoted to the compilation of annuls and imitated the ways in which Springs and Autumns demonstrated the doctrines of sages. The crucial members of the second group were Li Hua 李華, Dugu Ji 獨孤及, and Liang Su 梁肅. Despite their same respect for the spirit of Springs and Autumns as the first group, they inclined to demonstrate this spirit in short essays. This implied that historiography began to play a pivotal role in the transformation of the style of Tang literature. Of course, the leading literati of Guwen Movement were Han Yu 韓愈 and Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, engaged in conceiving of a new style of essays by which they clarified or illuminated the Way like the ancient classics and pre-Qin masters’ works did. Importantly, to reach the goal, they wrote some true stories in narrative style, discoursed on the history of institutions, and even became involved in the compilation of contemporary history, all of which represented the reconnection between literature and historiography. This thesis, then, explores how the followers of Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan in Tang China further developed their ideas about literary and historical writing. For example, Li Ao 李翱 and Huangfu Shi 皇甫湜, on the one hand, stressed the critical spirit of Springs and Autumns; on the other hand, they preferred the genre of biographies in series to that of annuals. Shen Yazhi 沈亞之 traveled extensively and used the elements he gathered during the journey to replenish the historical works; Sun Qiao 孫樵 placed much emphasis upon the techniques of historical compilation; Pi Rixiu 皮日休 was extremely eager to reveal moral doctrines in his various historical writing styles. Finally, this thesis contends that, to some extent, the course of the historiography in Song China was shaped by the Tang Guwen writers. For instance, New Historical Record of Five Dynasties 新五代史 and History as Mirrors 資治通鑑 as the most significant works of the Song historiography both extensively cited the works of Guwen writers. Moreover, in addition to Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 and Sima Guan 司馬光, an array of intellectuals and historians in Song China earnestly supported the ideas about historiography proposed by the Tang Guwen writers. In conclusion, this thesis contends that the complexity of the connections between Guwen Movement and the Tang historiography was far beyond the understanding of most modern scholars and the Tang Guwen writers’ impact on the Song historians should be further appreciated.