清华简中有三篇诗类文献：《耆夜》《芮良夫毖》《周公之琴舞》，其中的诗作展现了古诗的原始面貌，为探讨相关的历史、礼制以及诗乐关系等一系列重大问题提供了线索。对文本的系联和梳理是解决这些问题的前提。本文运用西方史诗研究“口头程式”理论的文本分析方法，从套语的角度梳理了这些诗作与其他文献的联系，辨析了这些诗作的时代特点，推测了这三篇文献的底本性质。又从得出的认识出发，探讨了相关问题。经过对《耆夜》的分析，我们对比了《耆夜》五诗与今本《唐风?蟋蟀》的套语成分比重，认为《耆夜》前四诗与《蟋蟀》不是一个时代的作品；结合前四诗中的时代痕迹以及《蟋蟀》的用韵，判断《耆夜》大约是在战国早期编纂的。其主旨在于劝戒，整篇文章以《蟋蟀》为点睛。前四诗很可能是时人为了烘托《蟋蟀》而创作出来的。最后从这个角度出发，解释了《耆夜》中的武王八年、戡黎/耆以及礼制上的问题。通过对《芮良夫毖》的分析，我们总结出了《诗》类、《书》类、诸子类、金文类四种套语成分，证明了毖文与《雅》诗（尤其是《小雅》）关系密切。又发现其非《诗》类套语成分和《诗》类套语成分的比重十分接近，说明《芮良夫毖》既具有“诗”的特点，又具有“散文”的特点。并通过与《大雅?桑柔》的对比，结合传世文献，认为《芮良夫毖》是在献诗讽谏制度下芮良夫呈进的一篇规谏作品，创作时间应该在国人之变以前。通过对《周公之琴舞》的分析，我们发现其中两篇“儆毖”虽然文辞古奥，但套语成分接近总诗句数的一半（比重46.2%）。亦将其套语成分划分为《诗》、《书》、诸子、金文四类，并与《芮良夫毖》比较，发现《琴舞》之儆毖与《尚书》中的周初文献以及西周金文最为接近，其文本很可能产生于周初，从而验证了简文自身的说法。又根据其参差之韵读和谨严之形式的反差，认为《琴舞》是后人为了配以乐舞而对周初诗作所做的汇集、编排。从这一认识出发，探讨了成王儆毖在结构上的特点，以及传世文献中《大武》诸乐的名实问题。
Three documents in the Tsinghua bamboo manuscripts are in the style of poem, which present the original forms of poem in pre-Qin era and provide clues for the research in history, rituals and the relationship between poem and music.The foundation of those researches is the analysis of texts, as well as its connection with existing pre-Qin documents. This thesis adopts the text-analyzing method of the “oral-formulaic” theory-a theory originated in the study of western epics like Iliad and Odyssey–and explores these poem’s relationship with other texts, including passed-down documents and bronze inscriptions, based on which we extract the poems’ characteristics of specific period and make judgments about their origins. Then several problems in the category of history, literature are re-examinated.Through the analysis of “Qiye”耆夜, we compare the formulaic proportions in the five poems of “Qiye” with that proportion in the “Xishuai”蟋蟀 of “Tangfeng”唐风. The difference shows that the first four poems were not created in the same era with the last one. Based on the rhythms of “Xishuai” and several specific features, we hold that the text of “Qiye” was compiled in the early Warring States period. Then we clarify the confusion about “the eighth year under King Wu’s reign”, the attack of Qi耆 and ritual problems.Through the analysis of “Ruiliangfu bi”芮良夫毖, we summarize four types of formulas: the type of Shi诗, the type of Shu书, the type of scholars’ work in Eastern Zhou, and the type of bronze inscriptions, by which the close relationship of “Ruiliangfu bi” with “Ya”雅 poems is proved. It is also found that the proportions of prose formulas surpasses that of poem formulas, which shows the Bi毖 is in the style of poem, as well as in the style of prose. According to comparison with “Sangrou”桑柔 of “Daya”大雅 and other relative records, we suppose that “Ruiliangfu bi” is a work of remonstrance under the poem-presenting system in late Western Zhou period.Through the analysis of “Zhougong zhi Qinwu”周公之琴舞, we realize that nearly half of the verses are in formulaic style, which can be also divided into four types as “Ruiliangfu bi”. We compare the proportions of these four types of formulas in “Zhougong zhi Qinwu” and “Ruiliangfu bi”, and find the “Zhou” is much more close to the “Zhoushu”周书 of Shang Shu尚书, especially those chapters believed to be recorded at the beginning of Zhou Dynasty, as well as the bronze inscriptions of Western Zhou. Regarding its irregular rhythms and symmetrical forms, we believe that the “Zhou” is a collection and re-organization of early-Zhou poems by later people. Under this assumption, we also explain the forms of King Cheng’s poems, and discuss the formal ritual music “Dawu”大武 in passed-down documents.
