論《詩(shi)品》對《詩(shi)經》傳統(tong)的(de)接受

　　清人章學誠評論《詩(shi)品(pin)》“深從六藝(yi)溯流別”，非常(chang)精(jing)確地揭示了(le)《詩(shi)品(pin)》與《詩(shi)經(jing)》的關聯。雖然(ran)《詩(shi)品(pin)》主要品(pin)評的是(shi)漢魏(wei)至齊梁間(jian)文人五言(yan)詩(shi)的創作成就，但離開了(le)《詩(shi)經(jing)》的傳統(tong)，就無從談(tan)起。那么(me)，鐘嶸《詩(shi)品(pin)》到底是(shi)如何接受和發揚《詩(shi)經(jing)》傳統(tong)的呢？

　　首先，鐘嶸在突(tu)出(chu)五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)體(ti)(ti)制優勢的(de)(de)同時，并未(wei)(wei)否定《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》的(de)(de)典(dian)范價值。他(ta)(ta)在《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)品(pin)》總序中(zhong)曰：“夫四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)，文(wen)(wen)約意(yi)廣(guang)，取效《風》《騷》，便可(ke)多(duo)(duo)得(de)(de)。每苦文(wen)(wen)繁(fan)而(er)(er)意(yi)少，故世罕習焉。五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)居文(wen)(wen)詞之要，是(shi)眾(zhong)作之有(you)滋味者也，故云會于流俗。”此(ci)處四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)，即指《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》。鐘嶸所論“文(wen)(wen)約意(yi)廣(guang)”與下文(wen)(wen)“文(wen)(wen)煩而(er)(er)意(yi)少”并不矛盾(dun)，前者就《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》特(te)(te)點而(er)(er)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)，后(hou)(hou)者乃評漢(han)魏以來的(de)(de)四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)創作。他(ta)(ta)認(ren)為(wei)以四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)句為(wei)主(zhu)的(de)(de)《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》，具有(you)語(yu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)精約而(er)(er)意(yi)蘊深厚的(de)(de)特(te)(te)點，而(er)(er)其(qi)后(hou)(hou)的(de)(de)四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)創作，本該(gai)“取效《風》《騷》，便可(ke)多(duo)(duo)得(de)(de)”，然(ran)(ran)而(er)(er)與《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》創作成就比較相(xiang)差甚遠，文(wen)(wen)繁(fan)意(yi)淺，內蘊不足(zu)，再加上(shang)五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)(de)興起(qi)，故漢(han)末以來文(wen)(wen)人多(duo)(duo)轉而(er)(er)進(jin)(jin)行五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)(de)創作。民國學(xue)者葉長(chang)青闡(chan)釋鐘嶸這段(duan)話(hua)說(shuo)(shuo)：“蓋四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)體(ti)(ti)制，率(lv)備《葩經》，至矣(yi)極矣(yi)，蔑(mie)以加矣(yi)。窮極生變，自四(si)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)而(er)(er)五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)，乃時敘之演進(jin)(jin)，亦趨勢之所必然(ran)(ran)也。”（葉長(chang)青《鐘嶸詩(shi)(shi)(shi)品(pin)集釋》導言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)）韓愈(yu)《進(jin)(jin)學(xue)解》說(shuo)(shuo)“《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)》正而(er)(er)葩”，《葩經》即《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》。雖(sui)然(ran)(ran)鐘嶸更強調五(wu)言(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)是(shi)“指事(shi)造(zao)形，窮情寫物(wu)，最為(wei)詳切(qie)者”，是(shi)“眾(zhong)作之有(you)滋味者”；然(ran)(ran)而(er)(er)他(ta)(ta)并未(wei)(wei)將“風詩(shi)(shi)(shi)”“文(wen)(wen)約意(yi)廣(guang)”的(de)(de)特(te)(te)點抹殺掉(diao)。

　　其(qi)次，鐘(zhong)(zhong)嶸重(zhong)視“詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)之風(feng)(feng)(feng)”的傳統。他批評(ping)(ping)漢代(dai)(dai)文(wen)人(ren)(ren)(ren)五言詩(shi)(shi)(shi)創(chuang)作就是以此為標(biao)準，所謂(wei)：“自王、揚、枚、馬之徒，詞賦(fu)競(jing)爽(shuang)，而吟詠(yong)(yong)靡聞。從李都(dou)尉迄班(ban)婕妤，將百(bai)年間，有婦人(ren)(ren)(ren)焉，一人(ren)(ren)(ren)而已。詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)之風(feng)(feng)(feng)，頓(dun)已缺喪(sang)。東京(jing)二百(bai)載中，惟有班(ban)固《詠(yong)(yong)史》，質木無文(wen)致。”鐘(zhong)(zhong)嶸十分痛(tong)心地指(zhi)(zhi)出漢代(dai)(dai)的文(wen)人(ren)(ren)(ren)士大夫熱衷于詞賦(fu)，而喪(sang)失了(le)“詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)之風(feng)(feng)(feng)”，《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)經》時代(dai)(dai)創(chuang)作詩(shi)(shi)(shi)歌的傳統。另(ling)外，從他對班(ban)固《詠(yong)(yong)史》詩(shi)(shi)(shi)“質木無文(wen)致”的評(ping)(ping)語來看(kan)，其(qi)隱含(han)的評(ping)(ping)價標(biao)準是《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)》委婉含(han)蓄的審(shen)美趣味，所謂(wei)“詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)之風(feng)(feng)(feng)”，還(huan)指(zhi)(zhi)漢代(dai)(dai)文(wen)人(ren)(ren)(ren)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)已經失去了(le)意(yi)在言外的“風(feng)(feng)(feng)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)”傳統。

　　更(geng)重要的(de)是，鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)將(jiang)兩(liang)漢魏(wei)晉南北朝文(wen)人(ren)的(de)五(wu)言詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)推源(yuan)(yuan)到《風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》《雅(ya)(ya)》上。據鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)的(de)推源(yuan)(yuan)溯流，大體有(you)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》派(pai)(pai)、《小雅(ya)(ya)》派(pai)(pai)和(he)《楚辭(ci)(ci)》派(pai)(pai)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)分。其(qi)中，《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》派(pai)(pai)是鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)格外(wai)傾心的(de)。他(ta)(ta)論(lun)上品之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)《古詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)》“意(yi)悲(bei)而(er)遠，驚心動魄，可謂幾(ji)乎一字(zi)千金”，故源(yuan)(yuan)于(yu)(yu)(yu)“文(wen)約意(yi)廣(guang)”的(de)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》。鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)又論(lun)上品之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)曹植(zhi)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)亦“源(yuan)(yuan)出(chu)于(yu)(yu)(yu)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》”。他(ta)(ta)對曹詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)有(you)“情(qing)(qing)兼雅(ya)(ya)怨”之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)評。何謂“雅(ya)(ya)怨”？有(you)學者(zhe)(zhe)認(ren)為(wei)曹詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)“雅(ya)(ya)”源(yuan)(yuan)于(yu)(yu)(yu)《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)經(jing)(jing)》，“怨”出(chu)于(yu)(yu)(yu)《楚辭(ci)(ci)》；有(you)學者(zhe)(zhe)認(ren)為(wei)“雅(ya)(ya)怨”之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)評，指曹詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)兼具《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》與《小雅(ya)(ya)》的(de)“哀而(er)不(bu)(bu)傷，怨而(er)不(bu)(bu)怒”的(de)情(qing)(qing)感特質。筆者(zhe)(zhe)則認(ren)為(wei)，“雅(ya)(ya)”即正，“雅(ya)(ya)”“怨”之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)情(qing)(qing)皆(jie)符(fu)合《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)經(jing)(jing)》傳統，皆(jie)符(fu)合性情(qing)(qing)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)正。就文(wen)體風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)格而(er)言，鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)評曹詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)“體被文(wen)質”，曹詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)情(qing)(qing)感表(biao)達既含蓄蘊藉而(er)又鮮(xian)明爽(shuang)朗；而(er)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》相較(jiao)于(yu)(yu)(yu)《小雅(ya)(ya)》，語言更(geng)為(wei)質樸，又往(wang)往(wang)意(yi)在言外(wai)，不(bu)(bu)失于(yu)(yu)(yu)委婉。鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)認(ren)為(wei)曹植(zhi)五(wu)言詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)無論(lun)是情(qing)(qing)感性質，還是藝術風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)格都達到了(le)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》的(de)高度。

　　阮籍(ji)是鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)(rong)認定的(de)(de)唯一的(de)(de)《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》派詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人。阮籍(ji)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)列于上品，鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)(rong)評(ping)其“洋(yang)洋(yang)乎(hu)會于《風》《雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》”，雖兼有(you)《風》《雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》之(zhi)特(te)點，而(er)(er)更近于《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》。司馬遷《史記》引劉安語(yu)(yu)曰“《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》怨誹而(er)(er)不(bu)亂(luan)”，朱熹《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)集傳》認為(wei)變(bian)《雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》“亦皆(jie)一時賢(xian)人君子(zi)，閔時病(bing)俗之(zhi)所為(wei)”。阮籍(ji)《詠(yong)懷詩(shi)(shi)(shi)》“每有(you)憂生(sheng)之(zhi)嗟”“志在譏刺(ci)”的(de)(de)內(nei)容，與《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》大(da)旨(zhi)(zhi)相(xiang)當契(qi)合(he)。鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)(rong)又從(cong)言意關系角度，評(ping)《詠(yong)懷詩(shi)(shi)(shi)》“言在耳目(mu)之(zhi)內(nei)，情(qing)寄八荒之(zhi)表”“厥旨(zhi)(zhi)淵放，歸(gui)趣(qu)難求(qiu)”。《文心雕(diao)龍》亦曰“阮旨(zhi)(zhi)遙深(shen)”。鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)(rong)的(de)(de)評(ping)價自(zi)然(ran)帶有(you)玄學色彩，然(ran)而(er)(er)，他(ta)又重(zhong)視阮詩(shi)(shi)(shi)與《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》的(de)(de)聯系。晚明詩(shi)(shi)(shi)論家許(xu)學夷在《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)源辯(bian)體(ti)》一書(shu)中(zhong)，論變(bian)《雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》詩(shi)(shi)(shi)風格曰：“正(zheng)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)坦蕩整(zheng)秩(zhi)，而(er)(er)語(yu)(yu)皆(jie)顯明；變(bian)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)迂回參錯(cuo)，而(er)(er)語(yu)(yu)多(duo)深(shen)奧。”從(cong)語(yu)(yu)境可以判斷，許(xu)論變(bian)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)為(wei)變(bian)《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》，而(er)(er)阮籍(ji)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)風顯然(ran)與變(bian)《小(xiao)(xiao)雅(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)(ya)》風格頗為(wei)一致(zhi)。鐘(zhong)嶸(rong)(rong)所評(ping)不(bu)誤。

　　那么，為(wei)(wei)何鐘(zhong)嶸建構的(de)五(wu)言(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)源流(liu)體(ti)系(xi)中無《大(da)(da)雅(ya)》詩(shi)(shi)(shi)派呢？《大(da)(da)雅(ya)》言(yan)天子之政(zheng)。正(zheng)《雅(ya)》，言(yan)王政(zheng)之大(da)(da)體(ti)，為(wei)(wei)正(zheng)經；而(er)變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)《雅(ya)》，漢(han)鄭玄《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)譜序(xu)》曰(yue)“始于(yu)厲王”。唐孔穎達(da)《毛詩(shi)(shi)(shi)正(zheng)義(yi)》曰(yue)“王政(zheng)既衰(shuai)，變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)《雅(ya)》兼作”。宋朱熹(xi)《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)集傳》亦認為(wei)(wei)“《雅(ya)》之變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)者，亦皆一(yi)時賢人(ren)君(jun)子，閔時病(bing)俗(su)之所為(wei)(wei)”。明許學夷(yi)《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)源辯體(ti)》則(ze)又(you)論變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)風(feng)(feng)(feng)、變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)雅(ya)風(feng)(feng)(feng)格之別曰(yue)：“變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)風(feng)(feng)(feng)、變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)雅(ya)，雖并(bing)主諷刺(ci)，而(er)詞有不(bu)同。變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)雅(ya)自宣王之詩(shi)(shi)(shi)而(er)外，懇切者十(shi)之九，微婉者十(shi)之一(yi)。變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)風(feng)(feng)(feng)則(ze)語語微婉也。”從語境(jing)推斷，許氏所論變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)《雅(ya)》指變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)《大(da)(da)雅(ya)》。兩(liang)漢(han)魏(wei)晉(jin)南北朝文(wen)人(ren)五(wu)言(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)確絕少變(bian)(bian)(bian)(bian)《大(da)(da)雅(ya)》之類的(de)直言(yan)告誡君(jun)王之作，因而(er)鐘(zhong)嶸無從分出《大(da)(da)雅(ya)》一(yi)派；另一(yi)方面，鐘(zhong)嶸不(bu)喜好詩(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)過度用典，也說明了(le)他更傾心(xin)于(yu)《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)》情感表達(da)委婉含蓄而(er)又(you)不(bu)隱晦一(yi)類的(de)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)風(feng)(feng)(feng)。

　　同樣重(zhong)要的(de)是，《詩(shi)(shi)品》以(yi)“干之(zhi)(zhi)以(yi)風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)力(li)，潤之(zhi)(zhi)以(yi)丹(dan)采”作(zuo)為(wei)五言(yan)詩(shi)(shi)創作(zuo)的(de)標準，這也(ye)與《詩(shi)(shi)經》聯(lian)系(xi)密切(qie)。“風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)力(li)”的(de)內涵接近于(yu)劉(liu)勰(xie)《文(wen)心雕(diao)龍(long)》提出的(de)“風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)骨(gu)”，而“風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)骨(gu)”又與《詩(shi)(shi)》教不(bu)無關(guan)聯(lian)。《文(wen)心雕(diao)龍(long)·風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)骨(gu)》開篇即論：“《詩(shi)(shi)》總六義，風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)冠其首，斯乃化(hua)感之(zhi)(zhi)本源，志氣(qi)之(zhi)(zhi)符契(qi)也(ye)。”劉(liu)勰(xie)很(hen)重(zhong)視《詩(shi)(shi)大序》“上(shang)以(yi)風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)化(hua)下，下以(yi)風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)刺上(shang)”的(de)儒家教化(hua)作(zuo)用(yong)，認為(wei)“風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)骨(gu)”的(de)藝術感染力(li)與《國風(feng)(feng)(feng)(feng)》的(de)化(hua)感作(zuo)用(yong)之(zhi)(zhi)間，具(ju)有不(bu)可分割的(de)聯(lian)系(xi)。

　　鐘嶸亦(yi)很重(zhong)視五(wu)言(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)作(zuo)者(zhe)對《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)經(jing)》諷(feng)喻精(jing)神的(de)(de)(de)繼承(cheng)與發揚。如他(ta)評(ping)(ping)(ping)西晉左(zuo)思詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)源出(chu)于(yu)同列(lie)于(yu)上品(pin)的(de)(de)(de)建安劉(liu)楨(zhen)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)，論(lun)左(zuo)思詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)“文典以(yi)怨，頗為(wei)(wei)清(qing)切，得(de)諷(feng)諭之(zhi)致(zhi)”，諷(feng)諭即委婉(wan)喻示之(zhi)意。劉(liu)楨(zhen)的(de)(de)(de)《贈從(cong)弟》、左(zuo)思《詠(yong)史詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)》等均(jun)體現(xian)了一定的(de)(de)(de)批(pi)判(pan)現(xian)實(shi)與反(fan)(fan)思歷史的(de)(de)(de)寫實(shi)精(jing)神。鐘嶸將正始名(ming)士(shi)何晏(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)列(lie)為(wei)(wei)中(zhong)(zhong)品(pin)，評(ping)(ping)(ping)其(qi)《鴻鵠》之(zhi)篇“風(feng)(feng)規見矣”，“風(feng)(feng)規”乃“諷(feng)諫”之(zhi)意。何晏(yan)《言(yan)(yan)志詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)》有(you)曰“鴻鵠比翼(yi)游(you)，群飛(fei)戲(xi)太清(qing)。常恐夭網(wang)羅，憂禍一旦并(bing)”，對當時的(de)(de)(de)社會(hui)政治(zhi)狀況有(you)所(suo)反(fan)(fan)映(ying)與諷(feng)規。鐘嶸又論(lun)應(ying)璩(qu)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)出(chu)于(yu)曹丕(pi)，評(ping)(ping)(ping)其(qi)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)“得(de)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)激刺(ci)之(zhi)旨(zhi)”，其(qi)說(shuo)近于(yu)《文心雕龍·明詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)》所(suo)評(ping)(ping)(ping)“獨立不(bu)(bu)懼(ju)，辭譎義貞，亦(yi)魏之(zhi)遺直(zhi)也”，《文選(xuan)》李(li)善(shan)注引李(li)充《翰林論(lun)》曰：“應(ying)休璉五(wu)言(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)百(bai)數十篇，以(yi)風(feng)(feng)規治(zhi)道，蓋有(you)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)人(ren)之(zhi)旨(zhi)焉。”諸家(jia)均(jun)言(yan)(yan)應(ying)璩(qu)《百(bai)一詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)》得(de)《詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)經(jing)》作(zuo)者(zhe)正得(de)失(shi)、移(yi)風(feng)(feng)俗(su)之(zhi)旨(zhi)。鐘嶸又評(ping)(ping)(ping)陶淵(yuan)明詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)“其(qi)源出(chu)于(yu)應(ying)璩(qu)，又協(xie)左(zuo)思風(feng)(feng)力”，陶詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)(de)(de)“田家(jia)語(yu)”不(bu)(bu)無暗含(han)與應(ying)璩(qu)、左(zuo)思一致(zhi)的(de)(de)(de)對現(xian)實(shi)官場的(de)(de)(de)批(pi)判(pan)。不(bu)(bu)過，由(you)于(yu)鐘嶸非常重(zhong)視五(wu)言(yan)(yan)詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)的(de)(de)(de)文采，往(wang)往(wang)以(yi)“丹(dan)采”作(zuo)為(wei)(wei)區分上中(zhong)(zhong)下三品(pin)的(de)(de)(de)重(zhong)要(yao)標準之(zhi)一。鐘嶸將語(yu)言(yan)(yan)相(xiang)對質樸的(de)(de)(de)應(ying)璩(qu)、陶淵(yuan)明詩(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)，均(jun)置于(yu)中(zhong)(zhong)品(pin)；而劉(liu)楨(zhen)、左(zuo)思等人(ren)雖“氣過其(qi)文”，然尚不(bu)(bu)失(shi)于(yu)典雅(ya)，故列(lie)為(wei)(wei)上品(pin)。

　　鐘(zhong)嶸倡導風骨與(yu)文采(cai)并重，到了(le)唐代，陳子(zi)昂、李白等更高舉《詩(shi)(shi)經》的(de)傳統；比較而(er)言，這不(bu)僅(jin)反(fan)映了(le)詩(shi)(shi)評家、詩(shi)(shi)人的(de)個性差異，也體現了(le)時代、社會環(huan)境、詩(shi)(shi)歌自(zi)身(shen)的(de)發展(zhan)對詩(shi)(shi)論(lun)的(de)影響。盡管(guan)如此(ci)，考察鐘(zhong)嶸對《詩(shi)(shi)經》傳統的(de)繼承(cheng)與(yu)發揚(yang)，不(bu)失為(wei)我(wo)們解讀《詩(shi)(shi)品》的(de)一個重要視(shi)角(jiao)。（作者：汪(wang)群紅，系江西(xi)師范(fan)大學文學院教授）