【摘要】：本文以裴松之《三國志注》具有的濃郁文學(xué)色彩為切入點(diǎn),以裴松之本人對史學(xué)與文學(xué)的看法和文史分野的發(fā)展及相互關(guān)系為線索,深入探討裴松之作《三國志注》的根本原因。對于裴松之《三國志注》,自其產(chǎn)生之日起就有學(xué)者對之從不同角度進(jìn)行解讀或闡釋,可謂碩果累累,但這些研究主要集中在史學(xué)、文獻(xiàn)學(xué)、語言等幾方面,對裴松之為何作注及裴注為何與傳統(tǒng)史注有根本的區(qū)別則缺乏深入探討。陳寅恪先生等雖做了一些工作,但有學(xué)者也對之提出了質(zhì)疑,而胡寶國先生另辟蹊徑,提出從時(shí)代學(xué)術(shù)風(fēng)氣變化的角度進(jìn)行探討,取得了極大成果。但筆者以為對陳壽為何將《三國志》寫的如此簡練,而裴松之不避繁瑣征引如此多的史料來注釋《三國志》這一問題,尚可進(jìn)行深入探討,本文正是在這一方面做了一些努力,力圖從文史分野的發(fā)展、時(shí)代思想的影響等方面揭示裴松之作注的根本原因,拓寬研究的視野,為史學(xué)與文學(xué)的交叉研究提供一個(gè)新的視角,具有較強(qiáng)的學(xué)術(shù)價(jià)值。陳壽《三國志》完成后,受到了時(shí)人的一致稱贊,但至劉宋時(shí),宋文帝首先指出《三國志》存在簡略的缺點(diǎn),令裴松之為之作注。裴松之為此補(bǔ)充了大量史料,顯示了與傳統(tǒng)史注完全不同的特點(diǎn),并受到了宋文帝的贊譽(yù),可知時(shí)人對史學(xué)的看法與陳壽時(shí)完全不同了。因此首先分析與《三國志》相比,裴注具體在哪里表現(xiàn)了完全不同的地方:注重對歷史事件和歷史人物進(jìn)行活化描寫,為此對歷史場景和歷史人物進(jìn)行生動(dòng)細(xì)致的刻畫,并采用了種種文學(xué)藝術(shù)手法,以突出人物的個(gè)體特征,展示歷史人物在生活中的真實(shí)表現(xiàn)和社會(huì)舞臺(tái)上的獨(dú)特的風(fēng)采,將原本扁平的人物變得更加豐滿、生動(dòng)、形象、真實(shí)、栩栩如生。從這方面來說,裴松之是以注的形式在書寫他對歷史的看法。裴松之之所以將注文寫的如此博贍,人物特征如此突出,與其史學(xué)觀有根本關(guān)系,他顯示了與陳壽的史學(xué)觀的差異:陳壽是以史學(xué)家的身份,按照史學(xué)學(xué)科的話語權(quán)來書寫歷史,而裴松之作為世家大族的人物之一,深受時(shí)代思想的影響,如士人個(gè)體意識(shí)的覺醒等,使得裴松之看待歷史人物與陳壽完全不同,在他眼中,歷史也是有血有肉、有眼淚有痛苦、有生命有歡樂的,因此如何活化這段歷史,還原它的生動(dòng)、靈性是極為重要的,由此顯示了二人在史學(xué)觀上的不同。文學(xué)與史學(xué)在魏晉時(shí)期開始脫離經(jīng)學(xué)的束縛而各自走向獨(dú)立,顯示了各自學(xué)科的不同特點(diǎn),陳壽即是按照史學(xué)科學(xué)的要求來敘述這段歷史,力求以平實(shí)、質(zhì)樸的語言,客觀地、盡量不帶主觀色彩地將三國這段動(dòng)蕩而復(fù)雜的歷史刻畫出來;但文學(xué)與史學(xué)的獨(dú)立之路是極為曲折的,在這期間,文學(xué)與史學(xué)又發(fā)生了關(guān)聯(lián),其對史學(xué)的影響和輻射遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于史學(xué)對文學(xué)的影響,因此受此特點(diǎn)影響,裴松之看待歷史的角度也發(fā)生了改變,因而在敘述歷史的過程中,在注重客觀、真實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上,有義務(wù)、有責(zé)任從文學(xué)的角度去揭示這些歷史人物的本色,揭示他們的個(gè)性、內(nèi)涵,反映他們的風(fēng)度、氣質(zhì),這就使二人對歷史的描述產(chǎn)生了不同,在他看來,陳壽對三國歷史的記載并沒有真正地反映其內(nèi)涵,而這種對內(nèi)涵的反映往往是通過生活細(xì)節(jié)來表現(xiàn)的,這恰恰是《三國志》所缺乏的東西,這應(yīng)該是裴松之認(rèn)為《三國志》簡略的根本原因,也是裴注繁富的根本所在,同時(shí)還是裴松之作注的根本原因。
[Abstract]:Based on the strong literary color of Pei Songzhi's Annotations to the Three Kingdoms and the development and interrelationship of Pei Songzhi's views on history and literature, this paper probes into the fundamental causes of Pei Songzhi's Annotations to the Three Kingdoms. Although Mr. Chen Yinke and other scholars have done some work, some scholars have questioned why Pei Songzhi wrote notes and why Pei Notes are fundamentally different from the traditional historical notes. But the author thinks that why Chen Shou wrote the Three Kingdoms so concisely and why Pei Songzhi did not evade so many historical materials to annotate the Three Kingdoms can be further discussed in this paper. Some efforts have been made to reveal the root causes of Pei Songzhi's annotations from the development of literary and historical divisions and the influence of the times, broaden the horizons of research, and provide a new perspective for the cross-study of history and literature, with strong academic value. Pei Songzhi first pointed out the shortcomings of the Three Kingdoms Chronicles, which made it a note. Pei Songzhi added a lot of historical materials, showing the characteristics completely different from the traditional historical notes, and was praised by Emperor Wendi of the Song Dynasty. In order to highlight the individual characteristics of the characters, to show the real performance of the historical figures in life and the unique style on the social stage, various literary and artistic techniques have been adopted. In this respect, Pei Songzhi wrote his view of history in the form of notes. The reason why Pei Songzhi wrote the notes so extensively and the characters so prominent is fundamentally related to his view of history. He shows the difference between Chen Shou and his view of history. Difference: Chen Shou wrote history as a historian in accordance with the right of discourse in the discipline of history, and Pei Songzhi, as one of the great families of the family, was deeply influenced by the ideas of the times, such as the awakening of the individual consciousness of scholars, which made Pei Songzhi treat historical figures totally different from Chen Shou. In his eyes, history is flesh and blood, and tears are painful. So how to activate this period of history, restore its vividness and spirituality is very important, which shows the difference between the two in the view of history. Literature and history in the Wei and Jin Dynasties began to break away from the bondage of Confucian classics and become independent, showing the different characteristics of their respective disciplines, Chen Shou is in accordance with the importance of historical science. In order to narrate the history of the Three Kingdoms in a plain and simple way, and objectively depict the turbulent and complicated history of the Three Kingdoms as far as possible without subjective color, the independent road of literature and historiography is extremely tortuous. During this period, literature and historiography are related again, and their influence and radiation on historiography is far greater than that of historiography on literature. Influenced by this characteristic, Pei Songzhi's view of history has also changed. Therefore, in the process of narrating history, he has the duty and responsibility to reveal the true nature of these historical figures from a literary point of view, reveal their personality, connotation, reflect their demeanor and temperament on the basis of objectivity and truthfulness. In his opinion, Chen Shou's records of the history of the Three Kingdoms do not really reflect their connotation, and this kind of reflection of the connotation is often expressed through the details of life, which is precisely what the Three Kingdoms lacks. This should be the basic reason why Pei Songzhi thinks that the Three Kingdoms is brief, and it is also Pei's annotation. The root of prosperity is also the fundamental reason for Pei Songzhi's annotation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：曲阜師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：K236
，

本文編號(hào)：2183871