七缀集经典读后感10篇

　　《七缀集》是一本由钱锺书著作，生活·读书·新知三联书店出版的平装图书，本书定价：12.00元，页数：186，文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《七缀集》读后感(一)：Qian Zhongshu's place in the History of Sinology

　　至今為止，錢鐘書好像一直沒有被漢學家或者所謂的“中國專家”認真看待，這也許是他的大幸。不過我很欣賞他，又要交作業，所以有了以下這篇essay。

　　ynaesthesia

　　“Synaesthesia” is one of the seven essays included in Patchwork, or 七綴集 (literally seven stitched together collection). As the title suggests, though first came to print in 1984, this collection was a patchwork of Qian’s much earlier essays published almost entirely before 1949. Unlike his other scholarly works such as On the Art of Poetry and Limited Views both composed in refined literary Chinese, essays in Patchwork were all written using the vernacular language. Nevertheless, idiosyncratic to Qian’s works, quotations from both classical Chinese sources as well as European writings in Greek, Latin, German, French, Italian and English features heavily in all the essays. Hence, although Patchwork was written using the “modern” vernacular language in the “modern” essay format, its style resembles more to the traditional form of biji-style commentaries than that of the modern literary criticism.

　　The essay “Synaesthesia” is one of the more apparent example of Qian’s ongoing endeavours to bring forth a new perspective on Chinese thinking and aesthetics through alignments with Western terminologies and concepts. Starting with the famous line from the lyric verse “To the Tune ‘Jade Tower Spring’”玉樓春 by the Song dynasty poet Song Qi 宋祁:

　　Upon red apricot branchtips, spring’s ardour clamours[1]

　　紅杏枝頭春意鬧

　　Qian first lists the disputes between men of letters on using the term “clamour” to describe “spring’s ardour”, and then proceeds to quote from various writings in the Song dynasty to illustrate that it is not uncommon for Song Qi’s contemporaries to use the term “clamour” in a way as to indicate “the soundless aspect of objects as if they gave off waves of sounds”.[2] See for instance Yan Jidao’s 晏幾道 “To the Tune of ‘Immortal at the River’”臨江仙:

　　The breeze wafts, plum buds clamour,

　　The rain drizzles, apricot blossoms perfume the air.[3]

　　風吹梅蕊鬧，雨細杏花香

　　Or a verse by Huang Tingjian黃庭堅:

　　Carts fly by, horses gallop, lamps begin to clamour,

　　till the earth, idle the men, the moon beautiful of its own record. [4]

　　車馳馬驟燈方鬧，地靜人閑月自妍

　　After listing fifteen similar usages of the term “clamour” in the Song dynasty alone, Qian pauses for a moment and draws the readers’ attention to the fact that this seemingly illogical usage of perception in Chinese poetry, an area understudied by previous Chinese men of letters, has found its doppelganger in Western psychology and linguistics, appearing under the name “synaethesia” and “transference of senses”.

　　In his usual manner, Qian goes on to list an impressive range of textual evidence from Chinese and Western writings, ancient and modern, that he believes may “assist our understanding of the usage of this word ‘clamour’ in ancient Chinese poetry”. [5] From the meanings of common words such as “loud”, “criard”, “chiassoso”, “chillon”, and “knell”, which were originally used to indicate noisy sound, but can also describe colours that are too bright or strong to Aristotle’s claim that “sound was to be divided into the ‘sharp’ and the ‘heavy’, as ‘used by analogy from the sense of touch”. [6] A line by John Donne—“A loud perfume…cryed,/ even at thy father’s nose” — reminds Qian of “clamorous fragrance”, “fragrant sound in uproar”, and “secluded scent clamours” found in Chinese poetry.[7] The Tang dynasty poet Bo Juyi’s deｓｃｒｉｐｔion of the sound of Pipa “like pearls large and small cascading on a plate of jade” in Qian’s mind, appears not so different from Modern Western textbooks on piano techniques that speak much of playing pearl like notes (la note perlee, perlend spielen).[8] Such exhaustive and often times convoluted parallelism goes on for pages, until it finally reaches an abrupt ending.

　　It should be stressed here that Qian’s interpretation of verbal usages in Chinese poetry according to principles of Western psychology and linguistics should not be mistook as a form of Orientalism. Far from it, what Qian seeks to achieve through such overwhelming juxtaposition of “a sentence or two from texts both ancient and modern, Chinese and Western, prosodic and poetic, discursive and fictional”, is to “to strike a connection” between literary, intellectual and historical traditions so as to “light upon new meanings” 打通而拈出新意.[9] As Qian once declared in a lecture:

　　All objects of study in the humanities, are mutually interconnected, and often reflect upon each other. Not only do these connections straddle national borders and link together different historical periods, they also thread through separate intellectual disciplines. [10]

　　This statement inevitably prompts one to question the validity of Qian’s universalism (with good reason), more will be said in the following section.

　　On Reading Laokoon

　　Unlike “Synaesthesia” where one concept was singled out and given extensive treatment, “On Reading Laokoon” was essentially Qian’s reading notes on Laokoon by the eighteen century German art critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Characteristic of Qian’s writings, the essay is made up of quotations of various languages linked by a nearly invisible expository logic and often interrupted by long digressions. For instance, while this is mainly an essay on the aesthetic functions of painting and poetry, Qian went from Lessing’s statement that “A painter must certainly never paint the ‘climatic’ scene of the story”, to a lengthy discussion on literary techniques, drawing examples from Dante’s “Inferno”, Chekhov’s short stories, Jin Shengtan’s commentaries on The Romance of West Chamber, The Water Margin, the nineteenth century German dramatist Otto Ludwig’s theory “tension of curiosity”, and Italian Renaissance poet Matteo Maria Boiardo who’s poems according to Qian “embodies the demonic quality of both the Journey to the West and the Investiture of the Gods” where he concludes almost every canto with phrases such as “If you wish to know of something interesting or miraculous, then listen to the next canto I beg you”.[11]

　　erhaps as a form of self-justification, for his own writings often seem like a patchwork made up of fragmented pieces of information, Qian devotes the first section of “On Reading Laokoon” to the discussion of the value of fragmented insights found in poetry, lyric verse, occasional writings, novels, dramas, popular ballads and proverbs or critical exegesis.[12] Defending the value of fragmentary Qian writes:

　　ome will perhaps argue that such bits and pieces amount to nothing and are thus unworthy of our picking out and glorifying. They will go on to claim that as such insights are at best both isolated and spontaneous they cannot pass muster as systematic and self-conscious theory. Yet precisely because such fragmentary and trifling things are so easily overlooked and forgotten that they require even more that we garner them up and give them our care and attentions…we only need to reflect for a moment upon the processes of intellectual history. Although a great many closely argued and comprehensive philosophical and ideological systems have not survived the vicissitudes of time and have already lost their integrity, various specific insights once contained within these systems have remained to be taken up by later generations without losing any of their initial effectiveness…inevitably, those things of value that do remain after the collapse of complete theoretical systems are but partial ideas. [13]

　　Having made his case, Qian proceeds to list a rich collection of short and fragmented text in classical Chinese as well as serval Western languages to support Lessing’s thesis that painting is more suitable for the expression of “bodies” (Korper) or forms, whereas poetry is more suitable for the expression of “actions” (Handlungen) or situations, and that “poetic picture” (ein poetisches Gemalde) cannot be transmuted into a “material painting” (ein materielles Gemalde) for words and language can describe the development of a series of actions over time while colour and lines can only depict the layout of a certain scene in space. [14]

　　What’s more, Qian argues, is that some of the fragmented ideas found in classical Chinese writings helps to expand on Lessing’s discussions on the temporal limitations of painting, the many sensory perceptions or different scenes and moods found in Chinese poetry for example, are extremely difficult to depict. “Hidden scent” 暗香, “airy greenness” 空翠, and “dreaming of home”思鄉, just to name a few.

　　What I find most interesting in “On Reading Laokoon”, was that during his discussions on the limitations of painting, Qian suddenly drew our attention to the fact that in poetry and prose, colour words could be separated into “real” and “nominal”, just as going to war requires the use of false feints as well as true ambushes. To give one example, a line from Bo Juyi’s “The Crape-myrtle” (紫薇花) reads:

　　Alone at dusk I stand, who my companion,/ A purple crape-myrtle faces the lad of the Palace of Purple Tenuity[15]

　　獨立黃昏誰是伴，紫薇花對紫薇郎

　　It is obvious that the purple of flower is real whilst the purple of the lad is nominal. Similar incidents can also be found in Western writings. The English word “purple” for example, is sometimes used with its Latin root meaning (purpureus), which indicates not a particular colour, but rather “bright-hued, brilliant”. [16] In the line “One white empurpled shower of mingled blossoms” by the eighteenth century poet James Thomson, “white” is the real colour while “empurpled” is the nominal colour. [17]

　　Again and again, Qian is alluring us to the common tendencies found in literature, aesthetic principle, and thought between East and West. We have, for good reasons, to be wary of such “human universals”, but on the other hand, it is perhaps more dangerous to be confined to an isolated “discipline” narrowly conceived in terms of a self-contained “model” or “system”. As the American sinologist Benjamin Schwartz warned his colleagues at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Association of Asian Studies, the study of a culture whether contemporary or “traditional” by those of limited culture may lead to “sterile and even preposterous results”. [18]

　　The relevance of Qian Zhongshu’s scholarship in sinology therefore in my opinion, depends on our own understanding of sinology. If we see sinology as the end product, a study of China whether modern or ancient through Chinese sources, then Qian’s fragmented arguments and lack of systematic approach is irrelevant.[19] However, if we see sinology as a means to an end, that is, a way of understanding the world using Chinese text and ideas as a vantage point, then Qian’s knowledge of East and West, his dazzling insights, and strong belief in the affinities of ideas should be taken seriously. Qian does not stand alone in this tradition of sinology. Apart from Professor Benjamin Schwartz, Qian’s student Professor Zhang Longxi has spent most of his academic career in the U.S. propagating the study of “world literature” incorporating ideas and literature from East Asia. In Britain, Professor David Hawkes spent over a decade on his translation of 紅樓夢, his goal, as I was told, is to bring this classical Chinese novel to the stage of world literature. In Australia, we are fortunate to have the late Professor Pierre Ryckmans, who expressed his admiration for Qian in an interview: “There is no one like Qian Zhongshu today in China, not even the world” and “his knowledge of Chinese literature, of the Western tradition, and of world literature is immense.”[20] The same could also be said for Pierre of course.

　　Cited Works

　　[1] Zhongshu Qian, Patchwork: Seven Essays on Art and Literature, Ducan Campbell trans., (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 114.

　　[2] Ibid, 118.

　　[3] Ibid, 115.

　　[4] Ibid, 116.

　　[5] Ibid, 119.

　　[6] Ibid, 119-120.

　　[7] Ibid, 134.

　　[8] Ibid, 121.

　　[9] Ibid. 18.

　　[10] Qian Zhongshu, Limited Views : Essays on Ideas and Letters, Ronald Egan trans, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 21-22.

　　[11] Qian, Patchwork, 102; 109-112.

　　[12] Ibid, 79.

　　[13] Ibid, 79-81.

　　[14] Ibid, 87.

　　[15] Ibid, 92.

　　[16] Ibid.

　　[17] Ibid.

　　[18] Benjamin Schwartz, “The Fetish of the "Disciplines”, Journal of Asian Studies, 23.4 (Aug 1964): 537.

　　[19] Actually I would argue it’s a new form of orientalism, but that’s the topic of another discussion.

　　[20] Pierre Ryckmans, “Fou de chinois”, Le Monde, June 10, 1983, 15.

　　《七缀集》读后感(二)：本文不多,但贪想略读这本是较难办的,分享些略读心得

　　[本文不多,初估约略7~9万字,算是短篇 ( 后补注 : 章节一不错 , 主谈新旧间怎样风范 , 是否除旧 布新？ ,有点五四之感 , 可供参考) ]

　　用了非常大量的东方文化西方文化古典书籍词语,旁徵博引, 抓重点颇困难,

　　特别是一个概念刚形成 , 又举了四五六个例子.

　　是不是有点过度 . 让人感叹脑容量缺乏记忆体 (内存不足呢)

　　(蛮腦人的就是大量英文字参杂其中,就像喝粥,

　　看似红豆,后似绿豆,最后原来是八宝,

　　可以感觉八宝糯米熬煮蛮熟透的 ,

　　不过确实没想喝那麽甜 )

　　此次略读心得 , 只锁定主要的人和事 , 西方替除 ,

　　然后简短点记下各个其他文学家对他的评论

　　其他文学家 就当是 猫咪说,

　　xx维 如何如何 , 李x白 多麽多麽 , 杜甫有磨豆腐吗 ,

　　不知天上宫阙 这样的词句 给外国人甚麽启发和感想呢 ,

　　神韵派 南宗 北宗有甚麽奇特之处

　　类似等等 , 记个心得 , 表示很粗浅的读过 , 以后有机会再翻翻看.

　　对于刚说的那些 , 若有觉得有点意思 , 可以翻翻

　　《七缀集》读后感(三)：关于《通感》最后一段的考察

　　钱钟书《通感》一文最早发表于《文学评论》，后收录于《旧文四篇》（1979）和《七缀集》（1984、1993、2002）。此文最后一段驳斥了庞德（Ezra Pound）将“闻香”解释为“听香”的行为，并援引“近来一位学者”以支持自己的批评意见。

　　先看钱氏原文——“美国诗人庞特（Ezra Pound）看见日文（就是中文）‘闻’字从耳，就把‘闻香’解释为‘听香’（listening to incense），大加赞赏；近来一位学者驳斥了他的穿凿附会，指出‘闻香’的‘闻’字正是鼻子的嗅觉。……我们不能责望那位诗人懂得中国的‘小学’，但是他大可不必付出了误解日文（也就是中文）的代价，到东方语文里来猎奇，因为香气和声音的通感在欧洲文学里自有传统。”

　　《七缀集》中的文字与此相差无几，只是这段文字的开头略有不同——“庞特对混乱感觉的词句深有戒心，但他看到日文（就是汉文）‘闻’字从耳，就自作主张，混鼻子于耳朵，把‘闻香’解为‘听香’（listening to incense），而大加赞赏……”

　　首先，两段文字的细微差别处之一在于钱钟书将“日文即中文”改成了“日文即汉文”，前者过于绝对，与事实不符，后者虽然仍然难称准确（因为中文的“闻”与日文的“闻”虽然外型相同，但意义等并不完全对等），但至少严谨度有所提升。

　　其实，庞德见到的“闻”字在日语里有两层意思：听，听说（うわさを聞く【听到传言】）；用鼻子嗅（お香りを聞く【闻到香味】）。但是，二者不能混用，即“闻到传言”或“听到香味”之类的表达是不存在或者说是不规范的。总之，钱先生对庞德的批驳固然在理，但庞德的阐释并非空穴来风，毫无基础，庞德明显是有意“误读”。

　　而钱先生引为同路的“一位学者”实际上是美国著名学者厄尔迈纳（E.Miner），他既是弥尔顿研究专家，又是东亚文学（尤其日本文学）研究者，在比较文学界（尤其比较诗学方面）也有一定影响。他的这本《英美文学中的日本传统》是一本研究日本（古典）文学在西方的传播与影响的力作。此书确实指出了庞德的错误——“……one means ‘listen’, and the other ‘taste’ or ’smell’.”，但是紧接着，迈纳着重指出，庞德虽然犯了个大错，但是这个“误读”却无疑扩大了庞德早期意象主义式技法的表现力，这个错误的代价却换回了不小的回报。迈纳主要还是肯定了庞德的误读的价值，而非尽如钱先生所说那样似乎只有“驳斥”。

　　总结：钱先生《通感》最末一段对于庞德的非难固然颇有道理，但是如果我们从日语的角度重新思考以及回溯原典，我们能够发现：庞德的错误并非一个绝对的错误，而更近于“失误”；迈纳对于庞德虽然也有“驳斥”，但更有褒奖，这是我们这些后学应该注意的。

　　【说明】迈纳的原文我只在google book上查到片段，但我有这本书的日译本，所以相关文字是根据这个日译本的。

　　更重要的是庞德的原文出处，只知道是《Guide to Kulchue》一书中的某处，我大致翻了几遍，还没找到。

　　《七缀集》读后感(四)：粗读《七缀集》有感

　　本书名取自古代“五缀衣”、“七缀钵”等名目，意为拼凑而成，在钱老的书集中，当属认知度、影响力较小的。然而书中文章多有古今中西的旁证博引，行云流水的起承转合。更让人敬仰钱老的学富五车。鉴于本人腹中空空，读来甚是吃力。

　　《中国诗与中国画》意在阐明中国传统批评对于诗和画的比较估价，诗中的神韵派在旧诗史上不算正宗，而画中的南宗却在旧画史上却占有统治地位。而大家熟知的王维，作为诗人兼画家的他却在这两方面的表现和地位是截然不同的。而这也是由于中国传统文艺对于诗与画的评判标准不一致的原因所致。诗画禅有南北宗之分却没有在世人眼光中一律，使得“诗画是孪生姐妹”一说不是那么适合了。但个人认为，“野渡无人舟自横”的意境若要浓墨重彩刻画恐难以言表。

　　《读<拉奥孔>》是钱老的读书心得，“史笔善记事，画笔善状物”，画更多的是定义静态的场景，而诗则可以把整个过程原原本本，有头有尾地表达出来。所谓作为空间艺术的绘画、雕塑只能表现最小限度的时间。也许这也是钱老更钟爱诗的缘由。

　　《通感》是个人较喜欢的一篇，古诗中的通感所在往往也是诗眼，好些描写通感的词句都直接采用了日常生活里表达这种经验的习惯语言。五官本该各有所司，但越俎代庖后却别有一番情趣。当真是“眼如耳，耳如鼻，鼻如口，无不同也，心凝形释”。

　　《林纾的翻译》确实说出了译者与读者的心声，好的译本会引导读者去跟原作发生直接联系，起到“媒”的作用，但当读者具备能阅读原文能力的时候，往往会毫无恋惜地过河拆桥。开始对译者吹毛求疵。可这怎么也比看到一个坏的译本而摧毁了读者的兴致要强得多。

　　《诗可以怨》是否可以引申为悲剧是崇高的，而喜剧则是平庸的？大多中西古今人士认为，苦痛比快乐更能产生诗歌，也更能让听者感同身受。然而若要生活在今天的我们以诗言志，以文表情时都要带上怨气，那这样的生活该将多么无趣。若要生活在今天的我们都要以悲剧作为命运之旅的结局，那我们誓要抗争不止。

　　《汉译第一首英语诗<人生颂>及有关二三事》书写了几段中西文化传播中的逸事，且看西洋诗篇是如何进入中国的，对那个消逝了的时代的风气可以增进些理解。

　　《一节历史掌故、一个宗教寓言、一篇小说》，近乎雷同的故事情节让佛经和古希腊史结下文字因缘。莫非冥冥中真有轮回？抑或道听途说把故事从中国传到了希腊？

　　总体来看，《七缀集》虽是杂文集，名头亦不十分响亮，但从中仍有许多东西可以去学习体会，实在佩服钱老做学问的态度，文中论点论据均有出处；实在佩服钱老做学问的资本，大经大典均藏腹中。

　　《七缀集》读后感(五)：莫见其涯

　　读钱鍾书是种很奇特的体验。一来，就像余英时所说的，他很受晚清遗老（如陈衍陈石遗）的影响，走了博雅考订的考据癖的路子，黄河流到哪儿他不很关心，偏要追溯到星宿海去。二来，人之才质，万变不同，钱的照相机式的记忆力和颠沛造次必于读书的书痴个性，让他的脑袋好像一个地涵海负的须弥山，遇事睹物，应景即情，不自觉就逗了出来，非谓露才扬己，是势使之然也。以此苛评“散钱无串”，是不足以与论也（其实他在《读〈拉奥孔〉》开头一节已经有所声明了）。三来，钱的文学天赋甚高，兼具“词气豪放、思力深刻、议论畅快、比喻络绎”（页16）这四个前缀，不特施之散文小说，就连一向紧张枯淡的学术论文也有此风味了，能以瑰伟跌宕的比喻句推进论文论证而不至于肤浅潦倒的，现当代学者中我实在想不出第二个例子（而且时常还有高级黑的吐槽，比如谈林妤一篇）。面对这样百年一见的渊博有趣的头脑，就像登览飞流直下的悬河瀑布，且自抱着欢喜不尽的态度悦读即可，何必指摘这溅珠落玉的声音吵到你脆弱的耳朵了呢。（另，页118“语气下像”应为“语气不像”）

　　《七缀集》读后感(六)：钱锺书对“体系”的态度这一段里有很好的说明

　　在考究中国古代美学的过程里，我们的注意力常给名牌的理论着作垄断去了。不用说，《乐记》、《诗品》、《文心雕龙》、诗文话、画说、曲论以及无数挂出牌子来讨论文艺的书信、序跋等等是研究的对象。同时，一个老实人得坦白承认，大量这类文献的探讨并无相应的大量收获。好多是陈言加空话，只能算作者礼节性地表了个态。叶燮论诗文选本，曾慨叹说：“名为‘文选’，实则人选”（《己畦集》卷三《选家说》）。一般“名为”文艺评论史也“实则”是《历代文艺界名人发言纪要》，人物个个有名气，言论常常无实质。倒是诗、词、随笔里，小说、戏曲里，乃至谣谚和训诂里，往往无意中三言两语，说出了精辟的见解，益人神智；把它们演绎出来，对文艺理论很有贡献。也许有人说，这些鸡零狗碎的东西不成气候，值不得搜采和表彰，充其量是孤立的、自发的偶见，够不上系统的、自觉的理论。不过，正因为零星琐屑的东西易被忽视和遗忘，就愈需要收拾和爱惜；自发的孤单见解是自觉的周密理论的根苗。再说，我们孜孜阅读的诗话、文论之类，未必都说得上有什么理论系统。更不妨回顾一下思想史罢。许多严密周全的思想和哲学系统经不起时间的推排销蚀，在整体上都垮塌了，但是它们的一些个别见解还为后世所采取而未失去时效。好比庞大的建筑物已遭破坏，住不得人、也唬不得人了，而构成它的一些木石砖瓦仍然不失为可资利用的好材料。往往整个理论系统剩下来的有价值东西只是一些片段思想。脱离了系统而遗留的片段思想和萌发而未构成系统的片段思想，两者同样是零碎的。眼里只有长篇大论，瞧不起片言只语，甚至陶醉于数量，重视废话一吨，轻视微言一克，那是浅薄庸俗的看法——假使不是懒惰粗浮的藉口。

　　——《读拉奥孔》