论文部分内容阅读
陈平原的《中国散文小说史》和顾彬的《中国文学史?中国古典散文》都设有欧阳修散文论的章节。两家所言实际上反映出古代散文研究的两种普遍存在的突出倾向,即一是从研究现代散文的经验出发来研究古代散文;一是从西方美文的观念出发来研究中国古代散文。前者看重古代散文中和现代散文面目相似的作品;后者径直以所谓边缘性、附带性、分散性、私秘性作为中国古代散文的特性。这些似乎都有悖于从古代散文创作实际、批评实际出发研究古代散文的基本原则,因而,所得结论未必尽能深中肯綮。
Chen Pingyuan’s “History of Chinese Prose and Fiction” and Gu Bin’s “History of Chinese Literature-Classical Chinese Prose” all contain chapters of Ouyang Xiu’s prose theory. The two statements actually reflect two ubiquitous and prominent tendencies of ancient prose research: one is to study ancient essays from the experience of studying modern prose; the other is to study ancient Chinese essays from the perspective of western-American prose. The former values ancient writings and modern essay looks similar to the works; the latter straight to the so-called marginalization, incidental, dispersive, secretive as the characteristics of ancient Chinese prose. All of these seem to contradict the basic principles of studying the ancient prose from the actual creation of ancient prose and criticizing the reality. Therefore, the conclusions drawn may not be as deep as they can be justified.