Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115861


Title: 題寫名勝:從黃鶴樓到鳳凰臺
Writing on Landmarks: From Yellow Crane Tower to Phoenix Terrace
Authors: 商偉
Shang, Wei
Keywords: 題壁詩;即景詩;占領名勝;互文性;模仿與競爭
poems written on walls, occasional poetry, occupying (or possessing) a landmark site, intertextuality, simulation and competition
Date: 2017-12
Issue Date: 2018-02-06 16:25:58 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本文從李白的〈登金陵鳳凰臺〉入手,考察他對崔顥的〈黃鶴樓〉詩所做的不同回應,並將前後相關的一系列詩作串聯起來加以解讀,由此探討唐代題寫名勝的詩歌實踐、與之相關的批評話語及其核心議題。首先,圍繞著題寫名勝,出現了先行者以一篇詩作「占據」一處名勝的現象。這一現象是如何形成的,又意味著什麼?其次,名勝被占領之後,後來者該怎樣題詩?李白以模仿、挪用和改寫為手段,屢次與崔顥犄角相爭,或易地再戰,必欲反賓為主,後發制人,其結果是參與構造了一個「互文性」的名勝風景。互文性的風景是可以移動的風景,不受制於某個特定的地點,因此與題寫名勝的即景詩大異其趣。作為強力詩人,李白回應壓力,挑戰前作,甚至訴諸語言的、象徵的暴力。但他並沒有真正顛覆前作的範本,或改弦易轍,另起爐灶,而是憑藉無懈可擊的圓熟技藝,在互文風景的既成模板中完成了句式結構的調整和詩歌意象的延伸性替換。他不僅回應崔顥,還向崔顥的先行者沈佺期致敬,並因此將崔顥的〈黃鶴樓〉詩也納入了同一個互文風景。換句話說,這不只是一個關於強力詩人個人的故事,也不僅僅是告訴了我們,他如何與先行者或當代詩壇的佼佼者捉對廝殺,並且後來居上。重要的是,李白憑藉模仿和改寫來收編前作,將其編入一個它們共同從屬的文字結構的網絡之中。這一網絡具有自我衍生與自我再生產的機制和潛力,既可能導致重複模仿,也可能產生像李白回應〈黃鶴樓〉詩這樣的精彩系列。其三,自李白以下,詩人對此做出了各自的回應,包括他們自詡的「江山含變態,一上一回新」和「缺席寫作」的方式。從他們的回應中,我們讀到了不同的答案,也可以看到中國詩歌古典主義範式的基本屬性,它的所為與不為,潛力與極致。具體來說,我們不僅藉此反省即景詩的範式及其前提與內涵,還重溫了一系列與此相關的問題,包括模仿與創造、因循與競爭、經驗與虛構,以及文字書寫與物質文化,詩歌與題詠對象之間的關係。
This paper begins with a close reading of Li Bai’s “Ascending Phoenix Terrace in Jinling” to explore his varied responses to Cui Hao’s “Yellow Crane Tower.” Tracing a series of poems related to the same subject, it examines the poetic practice of writing about scenic spots or landmark sites during the Tang dynasty, with reference to the literary discourse on this practice and other pertinent topics. First, the literary community of the time seems to have reached a consensus that one poet is capable of making an exclusive claim to a landmark with one defining poem that, in retrospect, comes to shape how the very site is perceived and represented for generations to come. Therefore, questions arise: How is the phenomenon of “occupying a landmark site with one poem” made possible in the first place, and what are its implications and ramifications for literary practice and discourse? Second, once a landmark site is deemed to have been occupied by a precursor, what does this mean for the latecomers who are expected to continue to compose poems on the same site? Li Bai seeks to overcome his sense of belatedness and reverse his relationship with Cui Hao as his precursor through simulation, reappropriation, and rewriting, while composing his own poems on Yellow Crane Tower and other places. As a result, he participates in constructing what may be described as an “intertextual landscape,” which is by definition movable rather than permanently associated with a specific site, thereby deviating from the model of occasional poetry written on landmark sites. A strong poet, Li Bai manages to incorporate his precursor’s poem into the intertextual landscape by revealing the latter’s indebtedness to his own predecessor. Third, from Li Bai onward, a number of poets come up with their own strategies to cope with their belatedness in writing on the landmark sites. A critical survey of their deliberate responses allows us to further reflect on the premises of occasional poetry while reviewing a cluster of interrelated issues, including simulation and competition, experience and fiction, writing and materiality, and the occasional poems and their relationship with the physical sites they apparently take as their subjects.
Relation: 政大中文學報,28,5-62
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[政大中文學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
028-05-62.pdf3775KbAdobe PDF925View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing