ENQUIRE PROJECT DETAILS BY GENERAL PUBLIC

Project Details
Funding Scheme : General Research Fund
Project Number : 18603320
Project Title(English) : 典範與世變:慶曆至熙豐年間的頌詩、誥令和禮書——以北宋詩文革新人物為中心 Model and Changes: the Hymns, Imperial Edicts, and Writings on Etiquette and Rites between Qingli and Xifeng --- with a Focus on Figures of Northern Song Reform of Poetry and Prose  
Project Title(Chinese) : 典範與世變:慶曆至熙豐年間的頌詩、誥令和禮書——以北宋詩文革新人物為中心 
Principal Investigator(English) : Dr Fung, Chi Wang 
Principal Investigator(Chinese) :  
Department : Department of Literature and Cultural Studies
Institution : The Education University of Hong Kong
E-mail Address : chiwang@eduhk.hk 
Tel :  
Co - Investigator(s) :
Panel : Humanities, Social Sciences
Subject Area : Humanities and Arts
Exercise Year : 2020 / 21
Fund Approved : 108,000
Project Status : Completed
Completion Date : 30-6-2023
Project Objectives :
本計畫建基申請人所獲「大學教育資助委員」撥款資助,探究「北宋古文家鬼神觀念與祭文」課題的基礎上,拓展對北宋文人撰作「公文」及其「斯文」觀念關係的研究。聚焦慶曆至熙豐「世變」之際,所建構的「斯文」典範。總而論之,則從撰作頌詩、制誥、禮書(包括編修禮儀和注釋禮經)的角度,呈現北宋文人文學觀念與公文著作的關係,剖析他們能否/如何通過「寫作」和「著述」,以建構「斯文」;以及能否/如何兼顧他們「士」和「文人」的雙重身份,以實踐「道」。 本研究並不假設北宋文人的斯文「理念」和「實踐」必然一致——這正是本計畫的研究對象——而非研究前設。本計畫先作分題式探討,分別撰寫四篇論文,再歸納現象,結合微觀及宏觀的視野把握北宋文人的文、道觀念及其具體實踐,亦將回答北宋政治與文體革新何以同時發生的問題。最後全部成果將出版成書,回饋學界。
就頌詩文體言之,學界已廣泛注意到歐陽修批評那些自謂「吾文士也,職于文而已」、「棄百事不關于心」的態度——另一方面,范仲淹謂「斯文也,既格乎雅頌」;孫復、石介均主張寫作「太平之頌聲」、 「洋洋治世音」;歐陽修亦說「美者美之,惡者刺之」,梅堯臣說「雅章及頌篇,刺美亦道同」;歐、梅、曾鞏、王安石在慶曆至熙豐年間撰作了不少頌詩(包括頌美時政詩歌、祭祀樂章、讚、挽辭),本計畫從北宋當時人對「美刺」的理解和實踐出發,呈現北宋文人如何在坦承時政問題仍亟待解決的同時,按建構「斯文」的尺度,頌美王政?
就誥令文體言之,探析北宋文人的公文寫作和私人著述的關係、異同及意義。如歐陽修說「白麻(按:制書)詔令追三代,青史文章自一家」,他在其〈《外製集》序〉中盼願「盡導天子難諭之意,而復誥命於三代之文」,文中又說「常遺恨於斯文也」;這裡的「斯文」顯然包括「誥命」。嘉祐三年(1058)歐陽修進言朝廷編輯宋朝誥令,毋使「聖宋之盛,文章詔令廢失湮淪」,朝廷從其請。歐陽修何以如此重視編修有宋誥令以傳後世?另外,歐陽修說北宋「禁浮華,使近古道」,是從天聖六年(1028)陳從易、楊大雅知制誥開始的;宋人又說蘇軾、王安石的四六文(主要是制誥)風格明顯不同——這反映了這些文章大家如何理解「制誥」之於立「王言之體」,建立典範的意義?
就禮書編修言之,結合北宋文人「知制誥」、擔任禮官的身分,分析「文」在時局世變中所產生的迴響。如歐陽修知太常禮院,「奏禮院文字多散失,請差官編修」,此即後來的《太常因革禮》。歐陽修親自主領其事,蘇洵、姚闢等參與編輯工作。蘇、姚都不是以「通禮制」聞名的人物——朝廷何以委二人擔此重任?蘇洵在〈議修禮書狀〉屢次強調《太常因革禮》「是史書之類也」、「是史之體也」;這除了反映藉禮書「鑑古知今」的傳統論調外,還能見出「禮書」、「史著」之於斯文的何種意義?藉此是否能透視以歐陽修為首的北宋詩文領袖,更整全的「斯文」觀念?
就禮經注釋言之,如學界對王安石《周官新義》的研究不少,大部分聚焦討論他的「字說」、「一部《周禮》理財居其半」思想、以及該書與熙豐變法的關係。除此以外,學界(劉子健)早已提出王安石變法更根本的目標是建立理想的社會風尚(social customs)和秩序(order),那麼如果從〈《周禮義》序〉「其法可施於後世,其文有見於載籍」的準則看,配合王安石知制誥,一直到他闡述《周禮》之義的歷程,能否見出王安石——以及熙豐變法之際的文道和禮文觀? (798 words in total for the project objectives in English version.)
Abstract as per original application
(English/Chinese):
  慶曆至熙寧、元豐年間(1041-1085)的政治變革與文體革新,幾乎是同時發生的,如何解釋這個現象?北宋最負盛名的「文人」不僅是「文學」人物,也是當時的思想領袖;他們以「士」自居,任職朝廷,如歐陽修、王安石、曾鞏先後在這一時期負責撰作誥令(「王言之體」)、梅堯臣參與了《新唐書》的編撰,他們寫作了為數不少的雅頌詩篇;歐陽修、蘇洵等編修《太常因革禮》;王安石著《周官新義》──那他們如何理解這些著作與「斯文」的關係?換句話說:他們如何在「世變」的時代,通過更廣泛的「文」的形式,按自己的理念承傳「斯文」,並立天下之「典範」?   針對上述問題,本研究在申請人所獲「大學教育資助委員」撥款資助,探究「北宋古文家鬼神觀念與祭文」課題的基礎上,進一步把研究領域拓展至北宋詩文革新人物所編撰的頌詩、誥令和禮書,以探討「文道觀念」和「王言之體」以及「禮」的聯繫。在這主題下的分題包括: 一. 慶曆至熙豐時期,古文家所撰的制誥文書,呈現了怎樣的褒貶尺度和涵意?其文體有何特色?其誥令是否/如何呼應了時局世變?古文家如何處理個人政見與禮文規範的差異? 二. 這一時期詩文領袖所撰作,頌美王道時政的詩篇有何特色?所頌何事?其所揭示的「美」與「道」的觀念與時政關係謂何? 三. 慶曆至熙豐年間的「文人」如何從「修文」的角度,編撰禮書,以及詮釋禮經?這呈現了他們對「文」和「禮」(包括禮文、禮書、禮儀)關係怎樣的認識? 四. 綜合「一至三」,說明這一時期不同文體中,「文人」、「文道」、「禮文」、「文風」、「復古」、「革新」等觀念的異同。在全面整理「文人」所撰頌詩、公文、禮書以及上述觀念的研究以後,配合學界既有成果,是否能整合出更完整的──「斯文」觀念的全圖;藉此更有助闡述北宋中期政治變革與文體革新何以同時發生的現象? (397 words in English version)
1. Based on the PI’s previous project funded by the UGC, which explored the ‘Conception of ghosts and spirits and ritual texts of Northern Song Gu-wen 古文 writers’, this research expands the scope of study of ‘official writings’ and that’s relationship with ‘Siwen’ 斯文, focuses on studying the setting-up of a model of Siwen amid the changes occurred during Qingli to Xifeng, presents how the Wenren 文人 of Northern Song constructed ‘Siwen’ through ‘writing’ and ‘compiling’ from the perspectives of composing odes, edicts, and writings on etiquettes and rites, as well as interpreting Book of Rites. It also presents the relationship between the conception of literature of Wenren of the Northern Song and their official works, analyzing whether they could / how could they construct Siwen through "writing" and "compilation" "; and whether they could / how could they practiced “Dao” 道 in-between the identities of “Elite” 士 and “Wenren”. This research DOES NOT assume the "conception" and "practice" of Siwen by Wenren of the Northern Song is necessarily consistent – On the contrary, this is the research object of this project - not the research presupposition. The PI will write 4 academic papers, each focusing on a sub-theme, then summarize phenomena, grasp the Northern Song Wenren’s perceptions and practice of Wen-Dao 文道from both micro and macro perspectives, and find out why the political and literary reforms took place simultaneously. Finally, all the works will be published as book, as a contribution to the academic field. 2. As for the stylistics of odes, scholars have noticed Ouyang Xiu’s criticism against the self-proclaimed Wenshi 文士who regarded writing as their only duty; Mei Yaochen said ‘laudatory texts accord with Dao no matter they are written for the purpose of praising or ridiculing’ 雅章及頌篇,刺美亦道同. Ouyang, Mei, Zeng Gong, and Wang Anshi composed many hymns (including poems praising the political condition, ritual eulogies, etc.) from Qingli to Xifeng. This approach starts from Northern Song people’s understanding and practice of praising or ridiculing, which explores how the praising in the imperial court in line with the standard of constructing Siwen while admitting the urgent need of social problems for solutions? 3. For the stylistics of edicts, exploring and analysing the relations, differences, and similarities between the official writings and personal works by Northern Song’s Wenren as well as the significance of those works. Ouyang said ‘imperial edicts should be comparable to those of Xia-Shang-Zhou’; in the preface of Waizhi-Ji 外製集, he disclosed his wish ‘to restore the earliest style in imperial edicts’. In 1058, to ‘avoid the loss of imperial edicts during the prosperous Song dynasty’, Ouyang initiated editing the Song edicts. Why were the editing and passing on of Song edicts important to him? Song people said Su Shi’s edict style differed from Wang Anshi’s --- how do their edicts reflect their perceptions of ‘the emperor’s style of writing’ 王言之體 as for setting up a model for the world? 4. For the redaction of etiquettes and rites, combined with the roles of Special Drafting Officials of the Secretariat 知制誥 of the Northern Song, as well as the Secretariat and Protocol Officers 禮官 of Wenren, analyzing the repercussions of this kind of "Wen" written by the literary figures in the age. For example, Ouyang served at the Bureau of Sacrificial Ritual 太常禮院where he ‘requested commissioners to recover and edit the lost texts’, resulting in the publication of Taichang-Yinge-Li 太常因革禮. He led the project while Su Xun and Yao Bi provided editing service. However, Su and Yao were not famous for their knowledge of the code of etiquette and rites --- why would the imperial court assign to them this important task? Su stressed that Taichang-Yinge-Li ‘fell within the category of history books’ 是史書之類and was written ‘in the style of historical writing’ 是史之體. What is the significance of such works and history books to Siwen? Will the answer enable us to study out a more comprehensive concept of Siwen perceived by the leading figures of Northern Song literature headed by Ouyang? 5. For Interpretation of the Book of Rites, James Liu suggested that the primary objective of Wang’s reform was to establish ideal social customs and order. Based on the principle of Wang’s preface of Zhouliyi 周禮義--- ‘to form a standard and writing style that could be passed on to later generations’ --- as well as Wang’s experience drafting imperial edicts and illustrating the meanings in Rites of Zhou, could we see the Wen-Dao and Liwen 禮文concepts in Wang’s mind during the Xifeng reform?
Realisation of objectives: 本計劃順利按所定下目標,圍繞課題切入點慶曆至熙豐年間的頌詩、誥令和禮書,以北宋詩文革新人物為中心,完成並發表四篇論文(Objective 1)。以下分就慶曆至熙豐觀念研究(Objective 1)、頌詩(Objective 2)、誥令(Objective 3)、禮書與禮經注釋(Objective 4 & 5),報告研究成果。 慶曆至熙豐觀念研究(Objective 1 / Research Output 8.2) 研究成果指出:1. 熙豐變法時期宋人從未直接比較范、王的改革主張、也不曾認為慶曆、熙寧更革是可比的對象——這些聯繫待朱熹而後始。今人或曰熙豐變法之時,慶曆革新派趨於保守——卻非宋人認識;2.徽宗朝以後卻出現慶曆之治說法,其內涵又被簡化或提升為諸如仁宗能「開納直言,善御羣臣,賢必進,邪必退」。這些說法無法揭示慶曆之政的真正特色,又故意忽略慶曆改革主事者因「眾訾成波,擠落在外」的事實,卻有利於范仲淹作為名臣、忠義第一人形象的建立;3. 宋人從不曾認為慶曆之政有違祖宗之法,這是宋人不言慶曆「新」政的根本原因。 頌詩研究(Objective 2 / Research Output 8.1) 研究成果指出:1. 宋詩中陳述上帝與個人關係者較唐詩多,惟宋詩中上帝並非可茲批評或開玩笑的對象,於是人與主宰爭辯,甚者嘲諷創造者的內容,常藉天公、造物的形象呈現,蘇軾是其中佼佼者;2. 宋代禮樂、宗教關於何謂上帝的複雜討論,對宋詩中主宰的形象幾無影響;3. 蘇軾是自唐迄宋運用天公、造物意象的集大成者,藉此豐富了宋詩對鬼斧神工之奇與美的想像,他云「造物豈不惜,要令工語言」,又以「勞心以耗神,盛氣以忤物」解釋何以詩人固窮。 誥令研究(Objective 3 / Research Output 9) 研究成果指出:1.典重温雅是宋詔令最推崇的文學風格;一生未曾知制誥者,就算抒發個人感懷的作品如何出色,他們的名字亦罕見於詔令。2.「文質彬彬」、「無尚空言」是北宋詩文革新人物,以及王言文體均一致肯定的文學追求,這也是唐宋古文革新與傳統典雅文觀相通之處。宋人又認為北宋更革文體的歷程,與詔令文風嬗變的幾個階段大致對應。3.北宋中葉以後詔令,已可見韓愈作為大儒、文宗的地位不可動搖,其言行常在王言中被引用,以之作為先朝典範;到了南宋,歐陽脩、蘇軾之典範的建立也類此,並出現了「韓歐」、「脩軾」等合稱,標誌着唐宋古文復興的意義得到絕對權威(天子)的認可。 禮書與禮經注釋研究(Objective 4 & 5 / Research Output 8.3) 研究成果指出:1.王安石主張「天人一氣」,並轉化《黃帝內經》、《難經》觀念,認為人若「養其氣體」,達精明之至,可通神明;2.王認為禮是溝通天人之道的中介:「外作器,以通神明之德;內作德,以正性命之情」,至誠之人與鬼神交通,鬼神必有所應;3.天道「任理而無情」是因為這符合「天地之大德」,王安石筆下的皇天與上帝顯具道德意志,能賞善罰惡;當刻意比較「天道」和「神」之別時,他更強調天道是相對於地道而言之,非如「神」能大能小,妙於萬物。4.王安石謂「人死為鬼,物死為物,物出為鬽」,他不否認鬼怪作祟之事,並非常可能和其子王雱一樣,認為聖人能廓其志氣,不累於形,其精氣與天地相通,故「聖人死曰神」。
Summary of objectives addressed:
Objectives Addressed Percentage achieved
1.Objective 1Yes100%
2.Objective 2Yes100%
3.Objective 3Yes100%
4.Objective 4Yes100%
5.Objective 5Yes100%
Research Outcome
Major findings and research outcome: 1. 「范仲淹變法」之說首見於明代,「慶曆新政」概念之使用不及百年。宋代語彙並非無「新政」等用語;宋人不言慶曆新政的現象,在於他們從不認為慶曆之政有違祖宗之法,南宋以後論者以范仲淹為「守我宋之家法者」,進一步確立這觀點。 2. 「文質彬彬」、「無尚空言」是北宋詩文革新人物,以及詔令文體均一致肯定的文學追求,這也是唐宋古文革新與傳統典雅文觀相通之處。宋人又認為北宋更革文體的歷程,與詔令文風嬗變的幾個階段大致對應。 3. 今存蘇軾詩(包括其頌詩)中含天公、造物者的數量超過了《全唐詩》相關用語的總和,也遠超蘇軾之前任何一位宋人。蘇軾是自唐迄宋運用天公、造物意象的集大成者,豐富了宋詩對鬼斧神工之奇與美的想像。 4.王安石主張「天人一氣」,並在詮釋禮經中結合《黃帝內經》、《難經》「精神魂魄意」觀念,與《易》「精氣為物,遊魂為變」思想,提出「禮」是溝通天人之道的中介:「外作器,以通神明之德;內作德,以正性命之情」的觀點。
Potential for further development of the research
and the proposed course of action:
建基是項計劃及申請人同樣獲大學教育資助委員撥款資助,探究「北宋古文家鬼神觀念與祭文」課題的基礎上,進一步把研究領域拓展至宋代各體文中的思想史。初步計劃下一研究項目聚焦宋詔令中的思想觀念,在這主題下採個案研究,分論: 1. 宋詔令中上帝/天帝/玉帝/天/道的涵義及形象 2. 論析王言對孔子之靈神及其形象 3. 探討天子之「文」中,佛教和道教的思想內涵及其與政權的關係 綜合上述,以深化對宋代王權與思想史關係課題的認識。
Layman's Summary of
Completion Report:
是項計劃成果能聯繫中國古代「文體」與「思想」研究,尤其是不囿於過去通常「以哲學史等同思想史」的成見,重新發現詩歌、詔令、禮經中的思想觀念,因而豐富了論者對於宋代 1. 天人關係、2. 王權運作、3. 文體本色、4. 禮文意義等課題的認識。其中最有意義的是首次辨明了蘇軾詩歌「天之主宰」的形象、首次條分縷述地考析了自宋迄今對於范仲淹「慶曆之政」的詮釋歷程,以及首次釐清了王安中的鬼神觀,及其與之相關的「天—禮—人」觀念。
Research Output
Peer-reviewed journal publication(s)
arising directly from this research project :
(* denotes the corresponding author)
Year of
Publication
Author(s) Title and Journal/Book Accessible from Institution Repository
2022 馮志弘*  詩化的主宰:蘇軾詩中的上帝、天公、造物——兼論其頌美與怪奇書寫  Yes 
2023 馮志弘*  宋人不言慶曆「新政」、「新法」、「變法」考——基於觀念史的個案研究  Yes 
2023 馮志弘*  天道.人道.禮法——王安石之鬼神及祈祭觀  Yes 
Recognized international conference(s)
in which paper(s) related to this research
project was/were delivered :
Month/Year/City Title Conference Name
Hong Kong 宋代詔令中的文學觀念:兼論王言之體與韓歐蘇典範的確立  蘇港澳學者古代文研討會——文致太平 :漢與唐宋的制度文學 
Other impact
(e.g. award of patents or prizes,
collaboration with other research institutions,
technology transfer, etc.):

  SCREEN ID: SCRRM00542