元朝祕史 佚名 鲍思陶 校【正版图书】 pdf epub azw3 2024 下载

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

元朝祕史卷一

元朝祕史卷二

元朝祕史卷三

元朝祕史卷四

元朝祕史卷五

元朝祕史卷六

元朝祕史卷七

元朝祕史卷八

元朝祕史卷九

元朝祕史卷十

元朝祕史卷十一

元朝祕史卷十二

元朝祕史卷十三

元朝祕史卷十六

附录

张跋

金跋

元祕史注跋

校点”

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：元朝祕史 佚名 鲍思陶 校【正版图书】在线阅读

在线听书地址：元朝祕史 佚名 鲍思陶 校【正版图书】在线收听

在线购买地址：元朝祕史 佚名 鲍思陶 校【正版图书】在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

编辑推荐

《元朝祕史》记载十三世纪蒙古兴起时的真实史料，从成吉思的族系身世、称汉经过，包括十三翼战争和卯温都儿大决战，以及征服十一部、建立统一国家。全书大量运用诗歌、格言、谚语，以极强的表现力简捷生动地再现了众多人物的性格特征。

• 作者： 激进女肘主义者 发布时间：2024-01-31 11:00:56

  插图画得好可爱

• 作者： 芥川の无花果 发布时间：2018-02-01 19:58:07

  这本书为我们展现了不同的人

• 作者： Faustito 发布时间：2022-10-04 08:34:58

  生活在不断折磨苦人们，在眼泪中倔强地活下去

• 作者： 流白 发布时间：2011-10-10 15:48:21

  荒唐：跟着你的“错”觉走

• 作者： 何中野 发布时间：2021-10-21 00:40:25

  感受越是真实，写出的小说就越是让人感同身受

• 作者： 临江仙 发布时间：2011-04-16 21:32:20

  哎，文献学，我瘸腿，到南大好去死了。

• 《牡丹亭》的浪漫与现实

  作者：冬日沐昀 发布时间：2012-04-21 01:55:45

  《牡丹亭》的基本情节来自于明代话本小说《杜丽娘慕色还魂》。你假如看今天的昆曲演出——演得最多的是惊梦、寻梦、拾画叫画这几出折子戏，许多完整的剧目也只演到杜丽娘回生——那么可能会认为汤显祖在剧情方面并无多大根本性的创新。或许，你会发现些许人物身份上的不同，比如，话本小说里的杜丽娘并非家中独女，而是有个面貌清秀的弟弟；柳梦梅并非落魄寒儒，而是个“官二代”，他爸是杜丽娘之父杜宝的继任者，于是这样才住到了杜丽娘原来住的地方；他的名字之所以叫“梦梅”也并非因为自己梦到“梅花树下，立着个美人”，而是其母“梦见食梅而有孕”。这些都是非常有趣的差别，从中我们可以感悟到汤显祖在塑造人物时的一些考虑。当然，话本小说里也没有穷生陈最良、石道姑、胡判官、李全、杨娘娘等这些个性独特、有血有肉的人物，甚至连伶俐可爱的小春香也没有。

  然而，两者最大的不同在于，话本小说的内容终是在儿女私情里打转，而汤显祖却将其置于金兵南侵、淮扬争战的宏大历史背景之下，顿时将故事的格局提升了不止一点半点。剧情发生的地点也扩展到岭南、南安、扬州、临安多地，几乎覆盖了整个南宋的疆域，于是就有了家破人亡、妻离子散、颠沛流离，而家愁之外更添国仇，整个儿将原来的一段奇闻异事改编成了一部年代大戏。而从戏剧的角度来看，话本小说只有文戏，汤显祖创作的新剧情更多的是武戏，文武之道，一张一弛，这也就使得这出戏的可看性大大增强。

  昆曲青春版《牡丹亭》的男主角俞玖林说，《惊梦》一出中的柳梦梅不是生活中的真实人物，而是杜丽娘梦里的白马王子，所以他必须是一个完美的形象，不能有任何瑕疵。也就是说，《牡丹亭》里其实是有两个“柳梦梅”，一个是杜丽娘梦到的，一个是真实生活中的。两者即使相貌一样，但品性恐怕不同。前者是杜丽娘读了《诗经》，动了春情，自己虚构出来的，而令我颇觉疑惑的是，当杜丽娘见到真实的柳梦梅时，竟对其没有半点考察，也没有任何心理上的落差，难道杜丽娘是个彻头彻尾的“外貌党”？当然，也许这是属于较真了，又也许是因为在阴曹地府时杜丽娘已经知道自己将来定是要和柳梦梅成婚的，所以不必思量许多。而汤显祖早已浪漫主义地给出了回答：“情不知所起，一往而深。……梦中之情，何必非真？天下岂少梦中之人耶！”这几句颇有庄周梦蝶的意思，总之就是让你不要详问了，何况实际生活又怎样呢？到底什么才是真实的？又有多少人其实是活在自己的想象里？这种人生哲学在汤显祖后来的作品《邯郸记》中表现得更为明显，荣华富贵终究是黄粱一梦。

  “天下女子有情，宁有如杜丽娘者乎！”这是汤显祖的评价，也因此他几乎将所有最美丽的辞藻就付诸于杜丽娘这个人物。——当然，这个时候还没有林黛玉。叶朗老师说后来的《红楼梦》深受《牡丹亭》的影响，特别在“情”这个主旨上，可以很明显地看到一种一脉相承——林黛玉是“情情”，贾宝玉是“情不情”。

  汤显祖塑造的杜丽娘在情感上十分细腻，比如很经典的这段“步步娇”：“袅晴丝吹来闲庭院，摇漾春如线。停半晌，整花钿。没揣菱花，偷人半面，迤逗的彩云偏。步香闺怎便把全身现！”说的是，阳光明媚的春天，杜丽娘对着镜子梳妆打扮。明明是自己要照镜子，可偏偏还要这么说：“没想到这镜子偷偷地照见了我，害得我羞答答地把头发都弄歪了。我这闺秀怎么能随随便便现身呢？”——这是有何等的自恋啊！今天所有号称自恋的人看到这几句恐怕都要“跪了”。但是转眼一想，又不得不叹服，汤显祖怎么能想出这样的话来？如此美丽而含蓄的语言！戏曲作品中很大部分是人物的内心独白——把心里想的给唱出来说出来——，但心理描写如同《牡丹亭》这般用词精巧的实在不多见。

  如果说杜丽娘在“情”字上表现出浪漫主义的极致，那么他的父亲——南安太守杜宝则是情感上的现实主义者。虽然因为只有一个独女没有子嗣而非常郁闷，但也极少显露出来，即使夫人建议为他娶个小妾，他也以战事紧急而加以推脱。说到为杜丽娘请先生教书，也是为了“他日嫁一书生，不枉了谈吐相称”。得知杜丽娘回生后，他的第一感觉是自己的女儿“成精作怪”了，后来二人相见时，他还说“此必花妖狐媚，假托而成”，不肯相认。——可见这父女之间只有人伦，没有人情，否则情感怎么能“假托”得了呢？若不是皇上下旨，恐怕还圆驾不成。

  徐朔方先生评论说：“杜宝是封建统治者的所谓正派人物。在他看来封建礼教是天经地义的，他不相信人可以有自己的思想感情。”这当然是唯物主义那一套分析逻辑，事实上在他为《牡丹亭》所做的注中，也常常看到这种政治色彩很浓的评述，不得不说是一种遗憾。在我看来，杜宝这个人物虽然在儿女私情上确实有点“存天理，灭人欲”，但在事业上却是一个理想主义者。“到来只饮官中水，归去惟看屋外山。”——这是何等的自我要求！“清名惠政”，对他来讲，永远是第一位的。从这个人物身上，我们或许一方面可以看出汤显祖对情感禁锢的批判，另一方面也可以读出他对为官从政的理想图景，是另一种浪漫主义了。

  《劝农》这一出戏现在很少在舞台上表演，因为离柳杜这条情感主线太远。这出戏讲的是春天来了，太守杜宝轻车简从，下乡劝课农桑。——徐朔方先生解释完“劝农”的意思后还不忘加上一句：“在多数场合，这仅是一种形式主义的措施，往往使农民受到骚扰。”实在令人捧腹！我倒是很喜欢这出戏，里面有很多“小清新”的田园诗。“红杏深花，菖蒲浅芽，春畴渐暖年华。竹篱茅舍酒旗叉，雨过炊烟一缕斜。提壶叫，布谷喳。行看几日免排衙。休头踏，省喧哗，怕惊他林外野人家。”——生机盎然、其乐融融的乡野生活跃然纸上！还有这段：“平原麦洒，翠波摇翦翦，绿畴如画。如酥嫩雨，绕塍春色䖃苴。趁江南土疏田胜佳。怕人户们抛荒力不加。还怕，有那无头官事，误了你好生涯。”——前几句描写春景凝练简洁，后面短短几句则勾勒出一个勤政爱民的父母官形象。在这一出里，还有大量官民同乐的场景描写，我们或许能从这里头找到汤显祖当年担任县令时的样子？又或者，这只是他的一种美好憧憬，不然又怎会挂印而去？

  读了全本以后，就会发现《牡丹亭》不是只有“游园惊梦”，而是非常饱满的“大故事”，跌宕起伏不亚于一部长篇小说。这里头还有许多幽默的元素，常常使人忍俊不禁，比如汤显祖总爱拿孔孟的话来插科打诨，比如石道姑、小道姑、陈最良之间的相互猜忌，比如《淮泊》一出当中“可笑一场闲话”，“诗书万卷”和“笔蕊千花”都换不到一口酒。

  最后，还有几个问题值得讨论。杜丽娘对柳梦梅的“情”真的是一种爱情吗？倘若汤显祖不是这般落入俗套地让柳梦梅高中状元，他们这种私定的婚姻能得到认可吗？就算在一起了，能幸福吗？——这和最近大家对《泰坦尼克号》的讨论很像有木有！也许，杜丽娘、Rose她们都一样，有一种对未曾历经的生活的向往和新鲜感，而柳梦梅、Jack不过是载体罢了。与其说《牡丹亭》是对“情”的颂扬，不如说是对自由的讴歌。又或者，这其实是等价的？我不懂。

• The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½

  作者：snowsun 发布时间：2013-11-02 10:44:57

  The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters, E.P. Thompson` Witness against the Beast and Roland Barthes` The Death of the Author

  Julian Barnes seems to be ambitious in trying to conclude the history of the whole world in ten and a half chapters, but if we understand that he is just using a literary way to express his historical view and the truth of human history he values, this length is enough for use. In Barnes` account, he raised a vital question of the authority in interpreting history, or the authority of interpreting the literary works, which are considered to bear history. Who has the authority to interpret the text, the reader or the author? What`s the responsibilities of the reader and the author respectively in bringing meanings to a text? Is there an absolute truth in the interpretation? Who should we trust if there is not?

  By discussing about how novelists, El Greco, poets and prose writers produce their art , Barnes seems to argue that the authors are responsible for bringing the text to the reader, but they lack control of the interpretation to it, just like the metaphor of the lonely sea-captain directing a ship without engine-room and rudder, although he spares no effort to direct the ship, it actually listens to the winds and tides instead of him. The author`s effort to control his work will probably come to a similar result, as his process of producing the artistic work is influenced by the social ideology, his past, the economic factors and many other mysterious issues nobody could possibly know. The author may hold his own interpretations to the artistic work, as El Greco painted himself in his ‘Burial of the Count of Orgaz’, he is showing his authority of production and interpretation of the work; however, the author could not master the reader`s interpretation to the artistic work, as the reader has his own interpretations basing on his life experience, world view etc., and he does not need to accept the author`s interpretation. It appears that the more flexibility the author has, the more control he has to turn his work into what he want, but at the same time more interpretation and ambiguity of the work are produced. The example of poets and prose writers has illustrated this point, as poets own the flexible ‘I’ and have the ability to turn bad love into good love poetry, while prose writers can only turn bad love into prose about bad love, poetry are less trustworthy than proses to the reader.

  E.P. Thompson however, holds a quite different view towards the authority of the reader and the author. In his Introduction to Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law, he tries to analyze William Blake in a historian`s way, which is, knowing who Blake actually was by ‘placing Blake`s thought within the political and cultural context of his times’ and ‘the very particular intellectual tradition which Blake formed his mind in’ . In his opinion, the academic way of studying Blake is too isolated and ex parte, the readers are welcome to bring meanings to Blake`s words, but at least they need to know what he really want them to discuss about. Therefore to precisely understand Blake`s poetry, proses and paintings, we should first know who he was and why he made his works that way, hence it is necessary to understand what tradition guided his reading and writing and painting.

  In this essay Thompson is in fact arguing that the author has the absolute right to interpret his work, while the reader can only follow and should not have entirely different interpretations basing on their own experience, ideology etc. Thus a fixed direction of explanation has been set for all kinds of artistic works, as ‘Baudelaire`s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh`s his madness, Tchaikovsky`s his vice’ . At this circumstance the text becomes the very narrowed ‘unique one’ with no potential to be further explained or developed; for the readers, they have only got the right to accept or reject the text; therefore both the reader and the text have been restricted. To solve this dilemma, Roland Barthes (1977) suggested a solution at the cost of ‘the death of the author’. According to him, only by cutting down the natural relationship between the writer and the text and giving the readers the right to interpret can the text be given new lives.

  In The Death of the Author, Barthes identified the relationship between the author and the reader as ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author’ . As stated by him, writing begins when ‘a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively’ , but it does not necessarily happen to the Author. In the ethnographic societies a mediator conducts writing, and the Author is a modern product of the capitalist society, as a result of the discovery of ‘human person’ . Consequently, ‘it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality to reach the point where only language acts, ‘performs’, and not ‘me’’ , and the author is removable. As a result of the removal of the Author, the text could be change. The Author, if believed in, will be considered father of his work in temporality, but if he is substituted to a position of a modern scriptor, he will exist at the same time with his text and writing can no longer represent a process of recording, notation etc. Hence he only writes for no origin, or if any origin, it is language itself. A text at this sense is ‘a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.’ Thus, once the Author is removed, trying to decode a text will become meaningless. The Author puts limitations to the text and closes the writing, while reading can become the origin of new interpretations and give the text new life. The reader, who produces the space to hold together all the traces constructed the text, is the real solution to a restricted text.

  In summery, Barthes is maintaining that to interpret a text only through the text itself by destroying the instrumental function of language (recording, representing etc.), denying the stability of a text (Author-God interpretation) and cutting down the author-to-text and author-to-reader approaches in the author-text-reader relationships, the diverse explanation of the text could be achieved. His opinion is completely opposite to that of Thompson`s, who claims that the author has the absolute authority to interpret his work, and the readers can only choose to accept or reject it. Barnes looks to stand in the middle, or maybe the side closer to Barthes, as he believes, although the author wants to keep control of his work, he cannot manage it. He may want to get rid of the sway from his past and the environment but could not handle it, and there are many other factors changing his direction while he does not actually know. Even so the author still has the right to put himself in his work, but the reader may not accept it. And the more flexible the work is, the more interpretations the reader may bring to it. Both the author and the reader give the work meanings, but neither of them are dominate, hence the text has large freedom to speak for itself, which is also one of the goals Barthes wants to achieve at the sacrifice of the author.

  [Word count: 1362]

  References:

  Barnes, Julian. A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. London: Vintage, 2009

  Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. London: Fontana, 1977

  Thompson, E.P. Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law. Cambridge: the University Press, 1994