《人间词话》英译（一百二十九）

去岁夏，王君静安集其所为词，得六十余阕，名曰《人间词甲稿》。余既叙而行之矣。今冬，复汇所作词为《乙稿》，丐余为之叙。余其敢辞？<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

乃称曰：文学之事，其内足以摅己，而外足以感人者，意与境二者而已。上焉者意与境浑，其次或以境胜，或以意胜。苟缺其一，不足以言文学。原夫文学之所以有意境者，以其能观也。出于观我者，意余于境，而出于观物者，境多于意。非物然无以见我，而观我之时，又自有我在，故二者常互相错综，能有所偏重，而不能有所偏废也。文学之工不工，亦视其意境之有无，与其深浅而已。

自夫人不能观古人之所观，而徒学古人之所作，于是始有伪文学。学者便之，相尚以辞，相习以模拟，遂不复知意境之为何物，岂不悲哉！苟持此以观古今人之词，则其得失，可得而言焉。温，韦之精艳，所以不如正中者，意境有深浅也。《珠玉》所以逊《六一》，《小山》所以愧《淮海》者，意境异也。美成晚出，始以辞采擅长，然终不失为北宋人之词者，有意境也。南宋词人之有意境者，唯一稼轩，然亦若不欲以意境胜。白石之词，气体雅健耳。至于意境，则去北宋人远甚。及梦窗、玉田出，并不求诸气体，而惟文字之是务，于是词之道熄矣。自元迄明，益以不振。

至于国朝，而纳兰侍卫以天赋之才，崛起于方兴之族。其所为词，悲凉顽艳，独有得于意境之深，可谓豪杰之士，奋乎百世之下者矣。同时朱陈，既非劲敌；后世项、蒋，尤难鼎足。至乾嘉以降，审乎体格韵律之间者愈微，而意味之溢于字句之表者愈浅，岂非拘泥文字，而不求诸意境之失欤？抑观我观物之事自有天在，固难期诸流俗欤？余与静安，均夙持此论。

静安之为词，真能以意境胜。夫古今人词之以意胜者，莫若欧阳公。以境胜者，莫若秦少游。至意境两浑，则惟太白、后主、正中数人足以当之。静安之词，大抵意深于欧而境次于秦。至其合作，如《甲稿》《浣溪沙》之“天末同云”、《蝶恋花》之“昨夜梦中”，《乙稿》《蝶恋花》之“百尺朱楼”等阕，皆意境两忘，物我一体。高蹈乎八荒之表，而抗心乎千秋之间。骎骎乎两汉之疆域，广于三代，贞观之政，治隆于武德矣，方之侍卫，岂徒伯仲。此固君所得于天者独深，抑岂非致力于意境之效也。

至君词之体裁，亦与五代、北宋为近。然君词之所以为五代北宋之词者，以其有意境在。若以其体裁故，而至遽指为五代、北宋，此又君之不任受。固当与梦窗、玉田之徒专事摹拟者，同类而笑之也。

光绪三十三年十月，山阴樊志厚叙。

Last summer Wang Ching-an gathered together his tz’u, some sixty-odd poems, into a book called Jen-chien tz’u, Series A. I then wrote some remarks about them and circulated them. This winter he again gathered together some tz’u into Series B, and when he asked me to write some comments, how could I dare refuse?

In the writing of literature only meaning and state are capable of expressing one’s feelings internally and moving others externally. In the finest works of literature the meaning and state are blended; in lesser works one or the other is dominant. But if one of the two is completely lacking, it cannot be called literature. Basically it is because the poet has the gift of keen observation that literature possesses meaning and state. Those works which are produced from observation of the poet himself are richer in meaning while those produced from observation of external objects are richer in state. However, there is no way to see oneself except in the context of external objects and in observing objects the self is also naturally present. Therefore the two are constantly interwoven; it is possible to find works in which one assumes a more important place than the other, but it is not possible to do away with either one altogether. The success of a literary work is evident from the presence in it of meaning and state and the extent of their profundity.

False literature had its inception when men should no longer observe at firsthand what the ancients had observed but could only study what they had written down. Students emulated them in writing and practiced their style in direct imitation, with the result that they lost all conception of meaning and state. What a pity! One can ascertain the success or failure of tz’u written by ancients or moderns by applying this principle. There is an exquisite sensuality in the tz’u of Wen T’ing-yun and Wei Chuang but they cannot be compared with Feng Yen-ssu simply because their poetry lacks his profundity in meaning and state. The Chu-yu tz’u collection [of Yen Shu] must yield place to Ouyang Hsiu’s collection, Liu-yi tz’u, and yen Chi-tao must bow to Ch’in Kuan, all because their meaning and state are different. Chou Pang-yen appeared rather late on the scene. At first flowery rhetoric was his forte, but in the end he gained a place as a Northern Sung poet on the basis of having meaning and state. The only Southern Sung poet to possesses them was Hsin Ch’i-chi, and yet one might infer that he did not have a desire to excel in this quarter. In Chiang K’uei’s tz’u both the vital force and form (ch’i-t’i) are elegant and well made, but in terms of meaning and state he is a far cry from the Northern Sung poets. And when Wu Wen-ying and Chang Yen came along they were not interested in vital force or form but simply applied themselves to diction. And thus tz’u died. In the Yuan and Ming dynasties there was no change.

In the present dynasty Na-lan Hsing-te, with heaven-endowed talent, came to prominence. His tz’u are sad and extremely moving. He alone achieved depth of meaning and state. He was a truly unrestrained, brave poet, towering over lesser men for generations without end. His contemporaries, Ch’en [Wei-sung] and Chu [Yi-tsun] were no match for him, while Hsiang Hung-tso and Chiang Ch’un-lin found it even more difficult to form with him three legs of a tripod. From the eighteenth century on, the study of form and prosody has become even more abstruse while superficiality has become even more prevalent as meaning and flavor have become submerged in the overt display of words and lines. Is this not the unfortunate result of adhering too closely to rules of rhetoric and not making an effort to find meaning and state? Or is it that the matter of observing the inner self and outside world is divinely inspired and cannot be expected of the ordinary man? I used to discuss this with Ching-an all the time.

Ching-an’s tz’u truly excel in meaning and state. Now of all tz’u poets, ancient and modern, the most outstanding in meaning was Ouyang Hsiu while in state the greatest was Ch’in Huan. And for a blending of both meaning and state one can only mention Li Po, Li Yu, and Feng Yen-ssu. Generally speaking in Ching-an’s tz’u the meaning is more profound than in Ouyang Hsiu’s but the state is inferior to Ch’in Kuan’s. where they are combined together, such as ‘Black clouds massed on the horizon’ to the tune of ‘Huan ch’i sha’, ‘Last night in dreams’ to the tune of ‘Tieh lien hua’ from Series A, and ‘Hundred-foot red tower’ to the tune of ‘Tieh lien hua’ from Series B, the meaning and state are forgotten as separate entities, external objects and the self have become one. They stride high over all directions of the world, elevate the mind over the span of a thousand autumns, gallop swiftly beyond the borders of the Earlier and Later Han, are more encompassing than the government of the Hsia, Shang, and Chou or that of T’ang T’ai-tsung, and are more magnificent than the first emperor of the T’ang, Kao-tsu. In comparing him with Na-lan Hsing-te it is not merely a question of older and younger brother. Either heaven endowed him with singular profundity or he applied himself with unstinting energy to achieving results in meaning and state.

In poetic style and form Ching-an is close to the Five Dynasties and Northern Sung. The reason for this lies in his having meaning and state. If one were to point suddenly to his tz’u as Five Dynasties or Northern Sung tz’u on the basis of style and form he would strongly demur. He would laugh and say he should be considered a disciple of Wu Wen-ying and Chang Yen, in the same category as those who made it a business of imitating others.

                                1907. 10^th month

                                Shan-yin, Fan Chih-hou