申請者執行科技部一百零六年度計畫〈錢謙益寫校本《李商隱詩集》研究〉（106-2410-H-008 -064 -）期間，慮及：以錢氏之李商隱詩學造詣，親炙其學的門人，當深受沾溉，實情如何？循此，乃聚焦「海虞二馮」：馮舒、馮班。二馮詩學立場容或與錢氏有異，然為其衣缽傳人，卻是定論。馮班尤奉李商隱詩為法式，惜未見箋註本，蓋二馮主要通過評點闡述詩學見解；而其評點，特表彰《才調集》，以此教學，更促使該集風行海內。《才調集》收李商隱詩四十首，二馮逐首評點，已不啻一部小型的李商隱詩選註。此後，亦精於李商隱詩的紀昀，又取該書評點，進而刪正；刪正後的李商隱詩，存詩十首，數量躍居全集第二，毋論其動因為何，紀氏也藉《才調集》傳達了對李商隱詩、二馮論李商隱詩的看法。要之，二馮、紀昀都以《才調集》為場域，表述其李商隱詩論，並形成接受意義。學界對此罕見討論。透過本計畫，能探究以下問題：一、二馮的李商隱詩實際批評；二、二馮與錢謙益的李商隱詩學關係；三、二馮與紀昀李商隱詩實際批評的異同。合此三點，可更細緻地編織李商隱詩接受史圖像，揭明《才調集》參與李商隱詩經典化的過程，這也將提醒我們：接受史研究，須將視野放寬到不同的議題脈絡底下，所得會更全面且更深刻。 ;I am executing the 106th Annual Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology “A Study of Qian Qian-Yi’s Written and Collated Edition of A Collection of Li Shang-Yin’s Poems” (106-2410-H-008 -064 -). During this period, I considered the real situations where Qian’s direct students have deeply been affected by Qian’s learning on Li Shang-Yin’s poetics. In this direction, this project is focused on “The Two Fengs of Haiyu,” Feng Shu and Feng Ban. The two Fengs may have different poetic standpoints from Qian but they are indeed his successors. Feng Ban especially respectfully regards Li as the standard, though it is a pity that they have not published any commentary to Li’s poem collection but only elaborated on their poetic insights through comments on it. They especially honor The Collection of the Tunes of Talent with their comments and their use of these comments in teaching prompt the popularization of this collection in the whole country. The two Fengs have commented on each of the forty of Li’s poems that The Collection of the Tunes of Talent records. This collection with these comments can actually be counted as a small-scale selection of Li Shang-Yin’s poems with annotations. After this, Ji Yun, who is also proficient in Li’s poetry, also edits The Collection and reduces the number of Li’s poems to 10, which is the second highest in this book. Ji also expresses his views of Li Shang-Yin’s poems and the Two Fengs’ comments on Li Shang-Yin’s poems through The Collection, regardless of his motivation. In short, the two Fengs and Ji take The Collection as the space to demonstrate their arguments about Li’s poems and form a meaning of acceptance, and this is rarely discussed in academic circles. The following questions can be explored through this project: (1) the actual criticism of Li’s poems by the two Fengs, (2) the relationship between this actual criticism and Qian’s poetic studies on Li, and (3) the similarities and differences between the actual criticisms of Feng and Ji. With these three points, we can weave a more detailed image of acceptance of Li’s poems and reveal the process of The Collection’s participation in the classicization of Li’s poems. This reminds us the fact that to construct a history of acceptance, we must broaden our horizons to diversified contexts of issues so that our thoughts can become more abundant and profound.
