欧阳修的“穷而后工”论在得到宋人肯定之余,也引起一些异说与质疑。异说的提出者有张耒、周必大、吴子良、刘克庄等人,他们或举出“达”而后“工”的例子,或强调以诗文“鸣国家之盛”的价值。由此可以看出,宋代的文学批评者对文人处境、内心体验与文学之间关系的理解变得更加宽泛、更具发散性。像陆游、刘克庄对“穷而后工”或不“工”的看法并不是稳固的,而多采取知人论世的方式,对某一诗人的生活经历与社会身份作出界定,由此推导其对文学的影响,属于情境化的诗学批评。宋人对以寒窭为诗的苦吟诗派的不以为然与“穷而后工”异说的频繁出现,应是出于同一心理机制。此外,对“穷而后工”的质疑与宋人面临的不同文化环境与文化心理有关,也是宋人不以前说为信的异质性思考的体现。这种由共同的文化心理引起的文学批评的变化,也反映出宋代诗学批评的某种群体自觉。 Ouyang Xiu “poor and later ” theory in the affirmation of the Song people, also caused some differences and questioned. The prophets of different sayings are those examples of Zhang Hsuan, Zhou Bida, Wu Ziliang, Liu Kezhuang and others who cited “workers” and “poems” the value of. It can be seen from this that the literary critics of the Song Dynasty understood the relationship between literati position, inner experience and literature more broadly and more divergent. Such as Lu You, Liu Kezhuang “poor and then ” or not “work ” view is not solid, and more to know the world on the way to a poet’s life experience and social status to define, from which To deduce its influence on literature belongs to contextualized poetics criticism. The frequent appearances of the Songs on the displeasure of the bitter poetry school based on the poem of the cold and that of the “poor and later workers” should come out of the same psychological mechanism. In addition, the question of “poor and later workers” is related to the different cultural environments and cultural psychology that the Songs face. It is also the embodiment of the heterogeneous thinking that the Songs never said before. This change of literary criticism caused by the common cultural psychology also reflects some group consciousness of poetic criticism in the Song Dynasty.