A Study on the debate between Zhou Zuoren and Qian Zhongshu on the evaluation of Late Ming Essayist Zhang Dafu

Abstract

<p>Zhou Zuoren and Qian Zhongshu have very different evaluations of Zhang Dafu, a writer of familiar essay during the late Ming Dynasty. Zhou believed that Zhang was only a pseudo-literati and had a low evaluation of him, while Qian believed that Zhang was on par with Zhang Dai in terms of being among the best in the Gong’an and Jingling schools. The difference in their evaluations stems from a debate between them. Zhou used the literary thought of Gong’an School as a theoretical resource and the familiar essay as a textual material, to construct a familiar essay tradition with the core of lyricism. This attracted criticism from Qian, who pointed out the shortcomings of this argument from a stylistic perspective and proposed the concept of the familiar style. They had different perspectives, which led to different evaluations. However, if we look beyond the framework of the familiar essay tradition, Zhang Dafu's classical prose was also highly praised during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Huang Zongxi believed that he was one of the continuities of the classical prose and maintained the orthodox style of Ming Dynasty classical prose tradition. The differences in evaluations show that Zhang Dafu's image and position in literary history deserve to be redefined. This paper intends to use the debate and construction of the familiar essay tradition by Zhou and Qian as an entry point and based on their specific evaluations of Zhang Dafu to point out the shortcomings of Zhou Zuoren's evaluations by comparing Zhang Dafu with Zhang Dai and Yuan Hongdao. Meanwhile, return to the critical context of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Zhang Dafu's classical prose is explored to reveal the subtle relationship between familiar essay and classical prose, and to reflect on the limitations of the familiar essay tradition in understanding Zhang Dafu's literary history image. </p>

周作人和錢鍾書對晚明小品文家張大復有著截然不同的評價，前者以爲張不過是假風雅，山人之流，評價很低，後者以爲張可以與張岱平分「集公安、竟陵二派之大成」的榮譽，評價極高。二人評價的差異源於一場論爭。周作人以晚明公安派的性靈思想為理論資源，以小品文為文本材料，建構了以言志抒情為核心的小品傳統，論述古典散文的發展，引來了錢鍾書的批評。錢從文體的角度指出了這一論述的不足之處，並提出了家常體的概念。一從思想內容立論，一從風格形式切入，角度不同，評價故不同。然而如果跳出小品傳統的論述框架，張大復的古文在明清之際亦受到很高的評價，黃宗羲以為是接續文脈，維繫有明文章正宗的一員。古今評價差異，顯然張大復在文學史形象和位置值得重新釐定。本文擬從周作人、錢鍾書小品傳統的論爭和建構切入，並依循二人對張大復的具體評價，通過和張岱、袁宏道的比較，指出周作人評價的不足之處。同時回到明清之際的批評語境，探討張大復的古文，揭示其時小品與古文兩種文體的微妙關係，反思小品傳統的論述對理解張大復文學史形象的侷限。