王士禛《池北偶談》卷十八〈談藝八〉「汾陽孔文谷天胤云：詩以達性，然須清遠為尚」條，為歷來「神韻說」研究者所重視的資料，但卻從無學人針對本條資料裡的孔天胤語之原出處、文本原貌、歸屬權、斷句標點等問題，進行考辨的工作。為了釐清此等問題，本文由基礎的資料查考、比對工作出發，逐步地解決了某些文獻上的問題，並在此一基礎上，透過相關文本的解讀，以蠡測「清遠」與「神韻」間的可能聯繫。 筆者在本文裡指出，王士禛《池北偶談》卷十八〈談藝八〉「汾陽孔文谷天胤云：詩以達性，然須清遠為尚」條，乃原出於孔天胤《文谷集》雜卷十三的〈詩以達性〉一文；而孔天胤之語，實則又摘錄、揉雜薛蕙《西原遺書》卷下〈論詩〉七、九兩則而成。本文在此研究成果上，針對《池北偶談》卷十八〈談藝八〉「汾陽孔文谷天胤云：詩以達性，然須清遠為尚」條，提出一個較合理的標點方式，並同時討論了薛蕙如何以「清遠」詮釋「神韻」等幾個重要問題。

The item“Kong Wen-Gu Tian- Yin of Fenyang Said:“Even Though The Poetry Is The Expression of Writer's Emotions, The Climax of One's Is The“Qing-Yuan”Style.”in (On Art 8), Volume 18, Chi Bei Ou Tan by Wang Shi-Zhen is the material thought highly by scholars who research“ Shen-Yun”, but no one does the textual researches for the origins, the original states of the text, the rights to own, and the punctuation of what is said by Kong Tian- Yin in the mat erial. This article tries to clarify some problems in the text step by step on the basis of the textual researches and the comparison of the materials in order to examine the possible connection between“Qing-Yuan”and“ Shen-Yun”. In the article the author points out that the item“Kong Tian- Yin said:“Even though the poetry is the expression of writer's emotions, the climax of one's is the“Qing-Yuan”style.”in (On Art 8), Volume 18, Chi Bei Ou Tan By Wang Shi-Zhen was quoted from Volume 13, Wen Gu ji by Kong Tian- Yin, and what he said was quoted and combined from 7th and 9th items of“On Poetry”Volume Xia, Xi Yuan Wei Shu by Xue Hui. On the basis of these achievements, the article raises a reasonable way to punctuate, and talk some important questions about how Xue Hui explained“ Shen-Yun”by“Qing-Yuan”.

王士禛;孔天胤;薛蕙;池北偶談;神韻;清遠

Wang Shi-Zhen(王士禎); Kong Tian-Yin(孔天胤); Xue Hui(薛蕙); Chi Bei Ou Tan(池北偶談); Shen- Yun(神韻); Qing-Yuan(清遠)