《沧浪诗话》非严羽所编——《沧浪诗话》成书问题考辨

《沧浪诗话》无论是在中国文学批评史上还是在中国美学史上都具有极高的地位，其所提出的理论对于后来时代的诗学理论及诗歌创作都产生了长期而深远的影响。不仅如此，这部著作还被认为是诗话从以资闲谈的笔记体著作走向具有完整理论体系的严肃理论著作的标志，被视为宋代诗话的集大成之作，是诗话发展史的一个高峰。《沧浪诗话》是严羽生前亲自编定的一部完整的诗话著作，这乃是学术界的定论，从来没有引起过人们的怀疑。但笔者经考证认为，《沧浪诗话》并非严羽所编。《诗辩》等五篇原本并不是一部诗话，而只是一些单篇的著作，这些著作由严羽的再传弟子元人黄清老汇集在一起，到明代正德年间才被胡冠以《沧浪诗话》之名，而其定名为《沧浪诗话》则是在明末。由于《诗辩》等五篇原本并不是一部诗话著作，所以学术界关于《沧浪诗话》在诗话发展史上地位的论断乃至整个诗话发展史就有重新认识之必要。由于通行本《沧浪诗话》的文本为元人所辑，故其文本价值就要重新认识，由文本差异所引出的对于该书的理解及评价的歧异也有重新认识之必要

Canglang Poetry Talks Was Not Compiled by Yan Yu

After examining the different editions of Canglang Yinjuan and Canglang Poetry Talks , the author argues that Yan Yu had not written the poetry talks entitled Canglang Poetry Talks, the five parts of Canglang Poetry Talks being originally irrelevant essays written by Yan Yu, and not compiled by him. Huang Qinglao of the Yuan Dynasty collected and compiled the five essays, and Hu Qiong of the Ming Dynasty entitled the five essays Canglang Poetry Talks and published it. Because the five essays were not originally a book of poetry talks, the position of Yan Yu in the Poetry Talks history should be reconsidered.