《四库总目》茶陵派批评中需要矫正的几种观念

以台阁体为明代文学之正统即“台阁正统”说，是《总目》明代文学批评的一个基本思想。台阁正统说，对明初以来直到明中期的文学坚持的是从宋濂到“三杨”再到李东阳的文学中心论，依此脉络在《四库全书》明人别集及提要所构建的明代文学体系中，台阁体中心以外的作家就不可避免地被四库馆臣作了淡化和边缘化的处理。《四库全书总目》虽然称茶陵为“派”，但并不把茶陵派看作一个独具创作风格的文学流派，而是把它归入台阁体在后三杨时代的一种代表。茶陵派归属台阁体之说，其可取之处是注意到了该派多数作家所共具的艺术风格及其渊源，但其缺憾和问题实非少有。《四库全书总目》所持的“立异起衰”说，与钱谦益的看法不尽相同，但都将茶陵派与复古派对立起来则是无异的。

Some Concepts about the Chaling School Criticism in the Imperial Collection of Four Divisions to be Corrected

The theory of ＂The orthodox of secretariat style＂, regarding the secretariat style as literature or- thodox of the Ming dynasty, is a basic thought of literary criticism in the Imperial Collection of Four Divisions of the Ming dynasty. Since the beginning of the Ming dynasty until the middle of Ming dynasty literature, the the- ory of ＂the orthodox of secretariat style＂, persisted from SONG Lian to ＂three Yang＂ and to LI Dong-yang in academic literature, According to this clue, literature system of the Ming dynasty was built by an anthology of the writers＇ works in the Imperial Collection of Four Divisions, and writers outside the secretariat style were marginalized by imperial officials. The Chaling School was not regarded as a unique literary creation style but classified as representative of the secretariat style in the times of post ＂three Yang＂ period although it is called ＂School＂ in the Imperial Collection of Four Divisions. The Chaling School was attributed to the secretariat style because most writers have same artistic style and origin but it has some defects and problems. Different points of view are held by the Imperial Collection of Four Divisions and QIAN Qian-yi but it is not good to oppose the Chaling School against Literary Restoration School.