孔子与孟子《诗》学的特点及文化阐释

孔子<诗>学与孟子<诗>学奠定了儒家诗教的基础,但在价值取向、用<诗>实践及理论价值上却存在很大的差异.孔子用<诗>基于修身的目的,注重<诗>的社会功效.而孟子则把<诗>当作论据来使用,并扩大了用<诗>的领域;孔子<诗>论注重诗的本体特征,认识到了诗歌的美学特质.而孟子引<诗>为用,亦常常能阐发并丰富诗的义蕴,并开启了把诗歌作品与作家的生活实践相联系的认识论;孔子<诗>论留给后人的是修身、达政的诗教.而孟子<诗>论留给后人的则是对艺术品的接受与鉴赏的审美原则.     

王维山水田园诗的地域色彩

在王维的山水田园诗中,以关中地区的自然景色、风土人文为题材,体现关中地域特色的诗占有显著的比例。关中水深土厚的自然环境使其诗具有高远空阔的地貌特点;安土乐生、自给自足的农耕文明使其诗具有朴澹安恬的风土人情;开放包容的时代文化氖围与平和安宁的个性又使其诗具有了廓落雍和的胸怀气度。     

红笺小字走天涯--薛涛诗英译的文化意义

唐代著名女诗人薛涛,以女性特有的笔触,在其诗中浸入中国文化的玉乳琼浆.对她诗歌英译的探讨,足见薛涛诗中中国文化的涓涓细流已经或将会怎样渗入译语国家.她诗中的"同心结"、"合欢扇"等文化内涵以及她的"松花笺"、薛涛井等所富含的文化魅力无不让译诗读者倾倒.薛涛诗英译能促进中国文化快速广泛的传播.     

论五世达赖的诗学著作《诗镜释难妙音欢歌》

《诗镜》传入西藏后,七个多世纪以来,在不同的历史时期都不断有名家的注释及许多以《诗镜》为基本依据而写的诗例和作品问世。列为小五明之一的诗学,做为一门独立学科,其研究和实践始终不曾中断过。这个过程实质上是把古代印度的文学理论著作《诗镜》逐步民族化的过程.到了十七世纪中叶以后一个时期,在藏族地区,诗学的研究达到了一个新的高峰。这个时期主要代表人物和著作有五世达赖阿旺·罗桑嘉措的《诗镜释难妙音欢歌》(snyanngag melong gi dkavgreldbyangs can dgyespavi gludbyangsKyi mchanvgrel);米庞·格列囊杰     

深沉庄重、意趣悠远--论《流沙河诗集》的艺术特色

<流沙河诗集>是诗人流沙河的代表作,辑录了流沙河20世纪40年代末至80年代初的诗作,比较全面地反映了诗人的思想艺术特点.他的诗具有历史的纵深感与现实的空间感兼具、古典的韵味与民歌的情调杂糅、深邃的哲理韵味和率直的情感抒发融和等艺术特色.     

《布洛陀经诗》与区域秩序的构建——以田州岑氏土司为中心

在广西左右江地区,布洛陀是最重要的民间信仰,其仪式唱本为<布洛陀经诗>.本文透过对这一信仰及<经诗>形成的历史背景、叙述结构的分析,讨论布洛陀信仰与宋明期间左右江地区历史变迁的关系,认为其背后折射出了这一时期左右江社会的区域格局,是地方土司在重构地方社会秩序过程中的重要文化资源.     

拒斥与认同:安南阮攸《北行杂录》文献价值审视

安南文豪阮攸,为区域互动历史中越关系产物,其汉文诗集<北行杂录>撰于1813～1814年出使清廷期间.从边缘看中心,诗中阮攸以一介蛮夷身份,从想象中华与现实清廷的差距、东汉及明朝与安南关系出发,于政治层面拒斥了两国间宗主与附属国关系;同时,经对中国历史上儒、道、释三家人物及唐宋文坛杰出文人的批评赞颂,认同了两国间文化与文学层的传承关系.<北行杂录>为考察安南文人看待两国关系提供了一个参照,其最大文献价值在此.     

陶渊明写作《桃花源记》的生活及思想基础

任何成功的文艺作品都是植根于现实生活,一味胡编乱造、虚构的作品,不可能有其长久的生命力.<桃花源记>之所以具有历久不衰的无限魅力,究其源,皆因其植根于现实生活--<桃花源记>绝非虚构.后人把陶诗归为三大类:饮酒诗、咏怀诗、田园诗,这些诗全系诗人有感而发的作品.<桃花源记>是<桃花源诗>的序,<桃花源诗并记>应归为田园诗.不同的是,其余田园诗皆是陶渊明亲历田园生活感怀之作,而<桃花源诗>则是记叙武陵渔所见所闻的田园诗.     

人类学视野下的文学人类学(下)

(续上期) 三、人类学诗及诗学 诗与诗学一直是文学或文艺学的一项研究领域.但亚里士多德概念中的诗却具有一般的意义,即艺术.因此诗学实际上包含了诗论,也包含了一般的文艺理论与美学原理.作为其重要研究领域的比较诗学,则是以文学理论为核心,涵盖了不同国家、不同民族诗学的影响研究和平行研究,以及跨学科、跨文化诗学的比较研究.显然,这与人类学所擅长的文化比较研究有很大的相关性.     

"诗"与"画"边界研究:以王维诗为中心

新时期"诗"与"画"关系的研究,可以分为否定者和肯定者两个派别.否定者认为,诗的表现力远比画强,所以"诗中有画"这样的说法欠妥;肯定者认为,画的表现力与诗相当,这在中国诗与中国画关系中更是如此,所以,"诗中有画"是不可轻易否定的真知灼见.     

豪迈强劲 意气风发 自成一家——元代蒙古族汉文诗歌的创作先河者伯颜及其创作

伯颜作为元代早期学习汉字进行创作的诗人,原系成吉思汗近亲家族人,一生于军旅中,其汉文诗歌主要描写自已的亲身经历。他以得天独厚的军旅统帅生活为基础,创造了《奉使收江南》,《鞭》等不少内容充实,气势雄浑的诗歌与散曲作品。他的诗歌与散曲风格雄健,情调高昂,阔大豪放,气势雄浑,粗犷豪爽,他是元代蒙汉诗歌交流的先河者。     

中国首批留埃学生林仲明

林仲明是源远流长的沙甸林姓之佼佼者,少有志于留学,以宏造就。在留埃期间,他积极投入抗日救国宣传工作,颇有成绩,颇多贡献,受埃及朝野人士赞赏;勤奋学习伊斯兰文化,成绩显著;学成归来服务祖国,为中阿文化交流和阿拉伯人才培养作出毕生贡献。     

匈牙利藏学家乌瑞学术生平及其藏学研究初探

乌瑞（Uray Géza，1921-1991），匈牙利著名藏学家、语言学家，他在藏语言、藏族历史研究领域享有盛誉。乌瑞的学术生平大致可分为三个时期：藏学启蒙时期（1940-1948），藏学研究初级阶段（1949-1973），全身心投入藏学研究阶段（1973-1991）。其对藏族方言、古藏文的研究包括对藏文动词结构、藏文词后缀的探究；其对藏族的研究主要通过对古藏文历史文献的考证，以探讨吐蕃时期的历史制度等。乌瑞的研究成果体现其丰富的文献基础和扎实的文学功底。他对古西藏文献学的一些难题和有争议问题有着颇为审慎的判断力，这使他成为一代典范。目前，国内学界对乌瑞的研究不多，还有待进一步深入。     

论岑毓英

年轻时的岑毓英就以自己所学报效祖国.22岁开始,岑毓英就走上了保家卫国的道路,并开创了自己辉煌的人生.历史选择了岑毓英,他肩负起历史的重任挽救云南省于危亡之中.他除掉的只是少数的暴乱者,却拯救了广大的劳动人民.重整台湾防务,抚恤民情,他的一言一行都体现了他强烈的爱国主义精神.在中法战争中,他率部在临洮赢得了重大胜利,给法国侵略者沉重的打击,这极大地鼓舞了士气并为镇南关大捷奠定了基础.他依图勘界,为维护我国边疆完整和祖国的尊严做出了贡献.在西南民族地区,他兴建学校促进少数民族地区的发展.     

一个史学家谈文学修养--读《白寿彝史学论集》的一点启示

中国史学史上有重视史书文字表述的传统,历史学家白寿彝先生是一位自觉地提倡、发扬这一传统并身体力行的学者,他在很多论著中强调了史家要重视史书文字表述、加强文学修养的问题.他的许多精辟见解在<白寿彝史学论集>中有突出的反映,总结他在这方面的思想和实践,对当前的史学工作有重要的启示和实践意义.     

李绍明先生的彝族研究

李绍明先生自幼生活在彝区,很早就对彝族文化感兴趣。1953年,他毕业于四川大学历史系民族学专业,在学习和以后的工作中先后得到陈宗祥、吴泽霖、冯汉骥、马长寿、林耀华等先生的帮助和指导,他在民族识别、社会性质研究等关于彝族的历史和现状方面的研究中,硕果累累,弄清了凉山彝族在民主改革前奴隶社会的状况以及历史发展脉络,对彝族族源、族属及文化对比等方面的研究也有重要价值,所主持的横断山区"六江流域"民族综合考察,开创了藏彝走廊民族综合研究的先河,在国内外有重大影响。李绍明先生还积极参与了关于中国民族学地位的交流和对话,对学术进行了反思,在此方面也发表了不少学术成果。     

黑暗里的光明与光明里的黑暗(上)——诗人朱湘与顾城的比较

诗人朱湘和顾城之死，在中国新诗史上震动较大，曾经是评论界关注的两个热点。作为纯粹诗人和童话诗人对艺术的追求和执著，朱湘与顾城有相似之处，而他们之间的差别又是相当明显朱湘把生命的意义沉醉在诗歌创作中，至于顾城，却将生活等同于诗歌。朱湘和顾城都是十分相信艺术功能的诗人，而他们的艺术世界又存在着一个本质的区别诗歌之于朱湘，是梦想的港湾，精神的支柱，希望的寄托。而顾城，却因他对“个人主体”的沉迷和对自然的发现，力图营造一个脱离现实的幻型大厦。     

论马骏的历史贡献

马骏是五四运动时期卓越的革命活动家,杰出的学生领袖,东北党组织的创始人,作为爱国主义者和共产主义者,他以自己的鲜血和生命去殉自己的祖国、殉自己的信仰.     

白寿彝先生与朱熹研究

白寿彝先生不仅在交通史、民族史、宗教史、中国通史以及史学史等方面取得突出成就,其早期的朱熹研究亦非常值得重视.他不仅以实事求是的原则对朱熹撰述进行严密精审的考证,而且超越了单纯的考证层面,反映出通贯的历史意识和划分历史阶段的思想;不仅具有强烈的创新意识,而且通过全面、深入地分析第一手资料,准确把握朱熹著作的思想核心和主...     

鲍德温•斯宾塞与后维多利亚时代的古典人类学

The post-Victorian anthropologist Baldwin Spencer was the first to investigate the central and northern aboriginal tribes of Australia. His ethnographic works in this area have greatly in-fluenced related disciplines and studies in fields such as kinship, totem worship, and primitive reli-gions. In the field of classics and anthropology, Spencer’s academic heritage has received wide-spread respect and recognition, and has made sub-sequent academic discussion possible. In order to present Spencer’s personal experiences and aca-demic ideas clearly and comprehensively, it is nec-essary to return to the post-Victorian context, and comb Spencer’ s life history and academic history. Taking important clues from various times an e-vents in his life, the paper introduces three peri-ods:Spencer’s early training in the discipline and his epistemic background, his medium-term eth-nographic investigations and works, and the later investigations of Tierra del Fuego. Textual study, based on Spencer’s life history and academic histo-ry, is very useful to understand his ethnographic investigations. Sir Walter Baldwin Spencer ( 1860 -1929 ) was born on 23 June, 1860 in Lancashire, Eng-land. Spencer was educated at Old Trafford School and at the Manchester School of Art. His interest in art and sketching was lifelong, and would reveal itself in his competence as a scientific draftsman and illustrator ( D. J. Mulvaney,1990 ) . Entering Owens College ( Victoria University of Manchester) in 1879, Spencer intended to study medicine. In-spired by Milnes Marshall, a disciple of Darwin disciple, he became a committed evolutionary biol-ogist, soon abandoning conventional religion. He entered the University of Oxford in 1881 to study
science under Professor H. N. Moseley, who com-bined an enthusiasm for evolutionary biology with ethnological interests. Spencer grasped Oxford ’ s diverse opportunities, which included lectures by Ruskin and E. B. Tylor. In 1887, Spencer ar-rived at Melbourne University . With his colleague Professor David Masson, Spencer helped to trans-form university standards and they co-operated as entrepreneurs of Australian science. Spencer was recruited as zoologist and photog-rapher in the 1894 Horn scientific exploration ex-pedition to central Australia. His anthropological interest was rekindled when he met F. J. Gillen, the Alice Springs postmaster, during the expedi-tion. In 1896 Spencer joined Gillen for the most intensive fieldwork then attempted in Australia. The Native Tribes of Central Australia ( 1899 ) , which resulted, was to influence contemporary theories on social evolution and interpretations of the origins of art and ceremonial practices. Spencer and Gillen drove a buggy from Oodnadatta to Borroloola in 1901-02 . Their research resulted in The Northern Tribes of Central Australia ( 1904 );Haddon had written that the names of Spencer and Gillen are familiar to every ethnologist in the world, and probably no books on ethnology have been so wide-ly noticed and criticized as have The Native Tribes of Central Australia and The Northern Tribes of Central Australia (A. C. Haddon ,1902). To assist the Government of the Common-wealth, Spencer was appointed Special Commis-sioner for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, and also their Chief Protector. He also led three other scientists, including J. A. Gilruth, on the 1911 Preliminary Scientific Expedition. Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia (1914)
described his ethnographic observations and the ex-tensive collections made on the expedition. At the government ’ s request, Spencer visited Alice Springs and Hermannsburg in 1923 . He published The Arunta: A Study of a Stone Age People ( 2 vols, 1927 ) to respond to the criticisms derived from Carl Stretlow and defend his work. A popular rewrite of previous books followed—Wanderings in Wild Australia ( 2 vols, 1928 )—this time under his sole authorship. Spencer retired as emeritus professor in 1919 . His nerves and his judgments were impaired from the strain of continuous overwork, the virtual disin-tegration of his marriage, and he was finally hospi-talized in 1921 . His health improved and within two years he resumed anthropological activities and rebuilt his art collection. He sailed to Tierra del Fuego together with Jean Hamilton to undertake anthropological studies early in 1929. Spencer, with an unrivalled record of anthropological field-work in Australia, undertook this journey to fill a gap in our knowledge, and compare very different and remote races of mankind (A. C. H. ,1931). However, his gallant attempt was prematurely frus-trated by his death from angina pectoris, at which point he had been only two months in the field. His notes were organized and published as Spencer’s Last Journey (1931). His achievements were recognized. Elected as a fellow of the Royal Society in 1900 , he was ap-pointed C. M. G. in 1904 and K. C. M. G. in 1916 . Manchester University conferred him with an honorary doctorate of science, while Melbourne a-warded him a doctorate of letters. Exeter College, Oxford, elected him to an honorary fellowship in 1907 , and stained glass in its hall commemorates his contribution. James Frazer’s letter to Spencer in 1899 was prophetic: books like mine, merely speculative, will be superseded sooner or later ( the sooner the better for the sake of truth) by bet-ter induction based on fuller knowledge;books like yours, containing records of observations, will nev-er be superseded ( John M. Cooper, 1932 ) . Therefore, the sense and value of reading and un-derstanding Spencer and his books today goes with-out saying.