nav emailalert searchbtn searchbox tablepage yinyongbenwen piczone journalimg journalInfo searchdiv qikanlogo popupnotification paper paperNew
2025, 04, v.40 26-32
论秦观“真”词与周邦彦“雅”词之别
基金项目(Foundation): 湖南省哲学社会科学基金项目“明代骚体乐府研究”(编号:23YBA178)
邮箱(Email):
DOI:
摘要:

秦观词“真”而周邦彦词“雅”,秦观其词情感迸发、悲情难拔、靠意境传情,可用“真”来概括;周邦彦则情感克制、善用技巧、借画面传情,可用“雅”来总结。通过二人词作题材内容、情感内涵、艺术技巧三方面的比较研究可看出秦观“真”词与周邦彦“雅”词之别。两位词人都是北宋词坛上的大家,以自己的艺术力量引导着词的发展方向,通过对二人词的比较研究可以进一步了解北宋词坛和词的新变。

Abstract:

Qin Guan's Ci is "true",while Zhou Bangyan's Ci is "elegance",Qin Guan's poetry is full of emotions, with sadness that is difficult to dispel, and relies on artistic conception to convey emotions, which can be summarized as "true";Zhou Bangyan's emotional restraint, skillful use of techniques, and use of visuals to convey emotions can be summarized as "elegance".Through a comparative study of the subject matter, emotional connotations, and artistic techniques of the two poets' works, it can be seen that there is a difference between Qin Guan's "true" poetry and Zhou Bangyan's "elegant" poetry.Through a comparative study of the subject matter, emotional connotations, and artistic techniques of the two poets' works, it can be seen that there is a difference between Qin Guan's "true" poetry and Zhou Bangyan's "elegant" poetry.

参考文献

[1]陈廷焯.白雨斋词话[M].彭玉平,导读.上海:上海古籍出版社,2009.

[2]王国维.人间词话[M].彭玉平,评注.北京:中华书局,2014.

[3]张炎,沈义父.词源注乐府指迷笺释[M].夏承焘,校注,蔡崇云,笺释.北京:人民文学出版社,2018.

[4]叶嘉莹.唐宋词名家论稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2014.

[5]汪鑫.秦观与周邦彦恋情词比较研究[D].信阳:信阳师范学院,2012.

[6]陈皓钰.秦观、周邦彦同中有异的沉郁词风比较[J].河南机电高等专科学校学报,2013,21(5).

[7]秦观.秦观词笺注[M].杨世明,笺注.北京:中华书局,2021.

[8]周邦彦.清真集校注[M].孙虹,校注,薛瑞生,订补.北京:中华书局,2007.

[9]秦观.秦观词选[M].姚蓉,王兆鹏,选注.北京:中华书局,2006.

[10]徐志华.论秦观词[D].兰州:西北师范大学,2001.

[11]杜牧.杜牧诗集[M].冯集梧,注,陈成,校点.上海:上海古籍出版社,2015.

[12]魏庆之.诗人玉屑[M].北京:中国书店,2018.

基本信息:

DOI:

中图分类号:I207.23

引用信息:

[1]万紫燕,陈诗曼.论秦观“真”词与周邦彦“雅”词之别[J].豫章师范学院学报,2025,40(04):26-32.

基金信息:

湖南省哲学社会科学基金项目“明代骚体乐府研究”(编号:23YBA178)

检 索 高级检索

引用

GB/T 7714-2015 格式引文
MLA格式引文
APA格式引文