中国古代文学考研，中国古代文学考研考哪些科目
龚鹏程对话海外学者第一百一十二期：在后现代情境中，被技术统治的人类社会，只有强化交谈、重建沟通伦理，才能获得文化新生的力量。这不是谁的理论，而是每个人都应实践的活动。龚鹏程先生遊走世界，并曾主持过“世界汉学研究中心”。我们会陆续推出“龚鹏程对话海外学者”系列文章，请他对话一些学界有意义的灵魂。范围不局限于汉学，会涉及多种学科。以期深山长谷之水，四面而出。
马丁·柯恩教授（Professor Martin Kern）
美国普林斯顿大学亚洲研究教授，美国哲学学会院士。
龚鹏程教授：您好。您可以描述一下中国文学体系的形成和中国诗歌的起源和早期发展吗？
马丁·柯恩教授：龚教授，您好。中国文学体系和”诗歌”的起源可以追溯到西周时期，当时还没有 “诗歌”或 “文学”的独特概念。青铜器铭文为宗教和政治仪式的特定场合使用了诸如韵律、节奏和节拍等特征。这种强化的、具有美学特征的言语形式——当时在《尚书》的演讲、《诗经》的诗歌和《周易》的诗句中也有比较系统的体现——靠着我们通常所说的 “诗 “的语言特征，在形式上与日常言语有所区别。
然而，这种”诗 “并不符合现代的 “诗 “的概念；在中国早期没有一个单一的 “诗 “字，也没有关于个别 “诗人 “和他们独特的、原创的创作形式的成熟概念。相反，中国早期的 “诗 “是由共同的思想和表达方式组成的，也就是说，是由每一个这样的话语中有限的、重复的词汇组成。它的主要形式特征延伸到所有早期的非语录性话语（铭文、演讲、颂歌和其他歌曲、占卜规则等）。
因此，虽然不同类型的《诗经》”诗”（”颂”、”雅”和 “风”）彼此不共享相同的词汇和修辞，但它们都属于超越《诗经》文本本身的大话语。将这些话语结合在一起的是它们对文化身份的表达、稳定和传播。韵律、节奏、节拍和其他美学特征以两种方式发挥作用：它们标志着什么是最重要的，而且它们是表演和记诵的记忆工具。
The origins of the Chinese literary system, and of “poetry,” are found in the Western Zhou dynasty, when no distinct concept of “poetry” or “literature” existed. Bronze inscriptions deployed features such as rhyme, rhythm, and meter for specific occasions of religious and political rituals. This form of intensified and aesthetically marked speech—then also found more systematically in the receivedShangshu speeches, Shijing poetry, and verses in the Zhou Yi—was formally distinguished from everyday speech by its linguistic features we commonly call “poetry.” Yet this “poetry” does not correspond to modern ideas of “poetry”; there is no a single word for “poetry” in early China, and there is no developed idea of individual “poets” and their unique, original forms of composition. Instead, early Chinese “poetry” is composed from shared repertoires of ideas and expressions, that is, from limited, repetitive lexicons within each such discourse. Its principal formal features extend across all early non-quotidian utterances (inscriptions, speeches, hymns and other songs, divination formulas, etc.). Thus, while the different types of Shijiing “poems” (the “Eulogies,” “Court Hymns,” and “Airs of the States”) do not share the same lexicon and diction with one another, they each belong to larger discourses that transcend the text of the Shijing itself. What unites these discourses is their commitment to the expression, stabilization, and transmission of cultural identity. Rhyme, rhythm, meter and other aesthetic features functioned in two ways: they marked what was centrally important, and they served as mnemonic devices for performance and memorization.
龚鹏程教授：中国人传统上会认为《尚书》在文学体系中的地位，至少不比《诗经》差，可是西方学者比较重视或更多地讨论诗。您认为这种差异是如何产生的？
马丁·柯恩教授：中国两千年来的《诗经》学术书目至少是《尚书》学术书目的两倍。在帝制中国之前的资料中，几乎看不到《尚书》（尤其是公认文本），而《诗经》的诗句却被到处引用。
在帝制中国时期，《尚书》和《诗经》都是五经的一部分，但只有后者还享有广大的文学读者群。即使像朱熹（1130-1200）这样的经典学者也写过《诗经》的注释，但没有写过《尚书》的注释。
尽管如此，西方学者对《尚书》的研究仍然非常有限。对大多数现代汉学家来说，《尚书》的文本是困难的、枯燥的，而且在历史上是存疑的。似乎很少有人喜欢读它；更少有人认为其中表达的思想有趣或互相关联（与战国政治思想相比）。简而言之，虽然《诗经》仍能触动我们的诗情画意，并成为中国文学史的一部分，但对大多数西方汉学家来说，《尚书》仅仅具有古人的兴趣。
这是不幸的，因为《尚书》作为一个与其说是历史，不如说是政治神话的文本，应该对整个古代世界的文化比较具有重要意义。与《诗经》的部分内容一样，《尚书》中有关周朝征服的言论仍然是思考中国政治起源和文化身份的核心参考点。仅就这一点而言，该文本就值得从比较的角度进行研究。
然而，与此同时，即使是现代中国的政治学家，在寻找与我们这个时代相关的古代政治思想时，也从未求助于《尚书》。
Chinese bibliographies ofShijing scholarship across two millennia contain at least twice as many titles as those of Shangshu scholarship. In pre-imperial sources the Shangshu (especially the received text) is barely visible, while Shijing poetry is quoted everywhere. In imperial China, both Shangshu and Shijing were part of the Five Classics, but only the latter also enjoyed a broad literary reception. Even a canonical scholar like Zhu Xi (1130–1200) wrote a Shijing commentary but not a Shangshu commentary. That said, Western scholarship on the Shangshu remains woefully limited. To most modern Sinologists, the text is difficult, dull, and historically dubious. Few people seem to enjoy reading it; and fewer still find the ideas expressed there interesting or relevant (compared to, say, Warring States political thought). In short, while the Shijing continues to speak to our poetic sensibilities and is part of Chinese literary history, for most Western Sinologists the Shangshu holds merely antiquarian interest. This is unfortunate, because the Shangshu—as a text less of history than of political mythology—should be of great relevance to cultural comparisons across the ancient world. Together with parts of the Shijing, its speeches related to the Zhou conquest are still a central reference point for reflecting on China’s political origins and cultural identity. For this alone the text is worth studying from comparative perspectives. Yet meanwhile, even modern Chinese political scientists, when searching for ancient political ideas relevant to our time, never turn to the Shangshu.
龚鹏程教授：可以谈谈您的“语文学的全球实践和对古代进行比较研究”吗？
马丁·柯恩教授：这里有两个问题：一个是关于全球语文学的实践，另一个是关于古代的比较研究。
几千年来，语文学的实践在不同的文化中并存；有些与周围的人互动，有些则大多保持独立。
佛教到来之前的中国语文学是后者的一个例子，而在许多语言文化中，或与其他语言文本密切接触的文化中，翻译始终是语文学的一个核心实践。
然而，”独立”并不等于 “独特 “或 “无法比拟”。因此，我目前正在共同编辑一个大型项目《语文学实践》。该项目涵盖了大约20种不同的语言学文化，有来自世界各地的数百名学者参与，以确定和描述具体的语文学实践。
西方也有许多比较语文学研究的中心，特别是比较手稿研究，但在中国还没有。
另一方面，古代的比较研究本身就是一门在欧洲有数百年历史的学科，但也是最近变得特别有活力的学科。它的意义不在于对两种或更多的文化进行比较以确定其相似性和差异性。相反，它提议根据彼此的情况来看待不同的文化，通过观察其他文化中的重要问题来发现一种文化的新问题。
从根本上说，对古代的比较研究试图使熟悉的东西变得不熟悉。如果不了解其他文化，就无法完全理解”自己的 “古代文化。
There are two questions here: one on global practices of philology, the other on the comparative study of antiquity. Practices of philology have existed side by side for thousands of years in different cultures; some have interacted with those around them, others have remained mostly separate. Chinese philology before the arrival of Buddhism is an example of the latter, while in many multilingual cultures, or cultures in close contact with texts in other languages, translation was always a core practice of philology. Yet “separate” does not equal “unique” or “incomparable.” Thus, I am currently co-editing a large project,Philological Practices: A Comparative Historical Lexicon, that covers some twenty different philological cultures and involves hundreds of scholars from around the world to identify and describe specific philological practices on their own terms. There also exist many centers for comparative philological study—especially comparative manuscript studies—in the West, though none yet in China. The comparative study of antiquity, on the other hand, is itself a discipline with a centuries-long history in Europe, but also one that recently has become particularly dynamic. Its relevance lies not in the comparison of two or more cultures to identify their similarities and differences. Instead, it proposes to view different cultures in light of one another, to discover new questions about one culture by looking at the important questions in other cultures. Fundamentally, the comparative study of antiquity seeks to defamiliarize the familiar. One cannot fully understand “one’s own” ancient culture without also understanding others.
龚鹏程教授：近年，对中国古代诗歌之口传与书写问题，已成为一个新的热点或争论。对于夏含夷（Edward L.Shaughnessy）、张万民等人的意见，您有最新的回应吗？
马丁·柯恩教授：这种关于《诗经》的所谓辩论是适得其反的。我对驳斥关于”书写和口述 “的简单化误解和错误的对立并不感兴趣。
自2002年以来，我多次撰文分析早期手稿中的文字变体，描述了绝大多数情况下，这些变体是基于声音的相似性，而不是视觉外观。
我的结论是，大多数早期文学或哲学手稿，不仅是关于《诗经》的手稿，都是根据记忆或背诵写成的。我认为，这种单独的写作行为——有很多——通常是相互独立的，没有一个书面文本控制着《诗经》诗歌的实际传播时间。
相反，即使是”同一首 “诗，在不同的朗诵场合也会有不同的即兴发挥，然后被写下来。因此，这些诗在声音上基本稳定，但在字形上却不稳定，因此，对其文字的解释仍有不同的可能性。
这正是《毛诗》和后来的注释经常将某些字形解释为”借来的字形（假藉） “的原因，这些字形不应该从表面上看，而应该作为声音相似的字形的不规则替代品来阅读。
长话短说，我对《诗经》诗歌的”口头或书面性质 “不感兴趣；我关注的是写作和口头表演中诗歌传播的交错过程。从证据来看，包括被掠夺的安徽大学手稿，我认为情况很清楚。也许有些学者误解了有关的论点。
This so-called debate about theShijing is counterproductive. I am not interested in refuting simplistic misunderstandings and false antagonisms about “writing and orality.” Since 2002 I have repeatedly written on the analysis of textual variants in early manuscripts, describing how overwhelmingly, these variants are based on similarity in sound, not in visual appearance. I concluded that most early literary or philosophical manuscripts, not only those regarding the Shijing, were written from memory or recitation. I suggested that such individual acts of writing—of which there were many—were usually independent from one another and that no single written text controlled the actual transmission of a Shijing poem over time. Instead, even “the same” poem could be improvised differently on different occasions of recitation and then be written down as such. As a result, the poems were largely stable in their sounds but not in their graphs, and hence still open to different interpretations of their words. This is precisely the reason why the Mao Shi and later commentaries frequently interpret certain graphs as “loan graphs” that should be read not at face value but as irregular substitutes for graphs of similar sound. Long story short, I am not interested at all in the “oral or written nature” of Shijing poetry; I am concerned with the intersecting processes of poetic transmission in both writing and oral performance. Looking at the evidence, including the looted Anhui University manuscript, I think the case is clear. Perhaps some scholars misunderstand the argument in question.
龚鹏程，1956年生于台北，台湾师范大学博士，当代著名学者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。
办有大学、出版社、杂志社、书院等，并规划城市建设、主题园区等多处。讲学于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、台北、巴黎、日本、澳门等地举办过书法展。现为中国孔子博物馆名誉馆长、台湾国立东华大学终身荣誉教授、美国龚鹏程基金会主席。
中国古代文学考研(中国古代文学考研考哪些科目)