知識、疆界與想像：中晚唐「南方」地記研究

Abstract

唐代士人與文人的南向移動，一方面帶來了文化的傳播，另一方面，亦塑造著其遷居之所的文學地理。過往學界對於唐代「南方」書寫的研究，大多聚焦於貶謫或宦遊士人的創作，探析其文學作品在不同於中原的異地所展示出的空間構設與流寓心境。本文肯認文士的詩文書寫，對於理解唐代「南方」是一支重要的線索，卻也反思其權威與經典性，是否掩蓋了其他觀看「南方」的方式？本文主要選擇段公路《北戶錄》、樊綽《蠻書》與莫休符《桂林風土記》三部「南方」地記作為主要研究對象，試圖探勘這一批歷來或被忽略，或被單純視為地志史料的著作。一方面，是為了補足學界對於唐代「南方」書寫研究的不足之處，並試圖另闢蹊徑，展開新的研究向度。另一方面，則是持續思索身處於「華夏邊緣」的書寫者，如何觀看、描述乃至於建構其眼前的「南方」。 經過本文的研究，唐代「南方」地記顯然不只是「如實」、「客觀」的記述，而更必須關注寫作主體對地方的認知與想像。進一步說，這些「南方」地記絕不只是地方的文獻史料，而更透顯著人們對於華夷的辯證，地方的理解，乃至於自我的定位。從段公路《北戶錄》的個案，我們看見了「北戶」視野下，嶺南的奇花異草、怪禽異獸，如何被收納進文獻和歷史記憶的編碼，成為可供理解、掌握的「國境之南」。而樊綽在南詔叛亂、甚至交趾城破的時代背景中，為其未曾涉足的雲南寫下《蠻書》。樊綽一再回返失去的「故地」，召喚馬援、諸葛亮等大漢英雄，使此書便不只是山川城邑的紀錄，更是一部帶有戰爭陰影和悼念意味的劫餘之書。而《桂林風土記》則展示了西南邊陲的不同面目。莫休符通過桂林詩跡、史跡與神跡的銘刻，不只鋪排了桂林的山水勝景，更勾連出一幅文人視野下的園林圖像。綜而言之，這些遠離中心的異地書寫，不只讓我們重新發現未曾注目的「他者」，更可藉此回頭審視並辯證中心的內涵。於此意義上，「地記」的知識建構，固然有其地理史料價值，然更重要的是，其直接展示了唐人們對於南方的觀看角度與認知框架。

The scholar-officials and literati immigrating south in Tang Dynasty not only contributed to the spread of culture, but also mapped the literary geography of their settlement region in southern China. The majority of researches in the literature of southern China in Tang Dynasty has mainly focuses on the works of relegated officials or the officials far away from home. These researches explore how the space was presented and mental state was depicted in a non-Central Plain region in the literature. This study supports the notion that those poetic writing of the literati was an important clue to understand the nature of southern China in Tang dynasty. This study, however, also examines its authoritativeness and canonicity, considering whether it excludes the other ways to perceive the “South”? Three geographical descriptions in the mid-and late Tang period – Beihulu by Duan Gonglu, Manshu (literally means “Barbarous Document”) by Fan Chuo, and Guilin fengtu ji ('Land and people of Guilin') by Mo Xiufu – are selected as the subjects for this study. The study looks into the three books which have long been neglected or simply considered to be historical resources of local gazetteers. The purpose is to complement the deficiency of the researches in the literature of southern China in Tang Dynasty and try to create a new dimension of research perception. One the other hand, it also explores how those writers on the edge of “Hua-Xia” – the territory of Han Chinese culture – perceive, depict, and even construct the “South” in their sight. This study has indicated that the texts of the geographical descriptions for “South” in Tang Dynasty were not merely objective observations but the authors’ recognition and imagination of the local. To be more specific, these geographical descriptions for “South” were not just historical documents, they also showed the dialectics of Hua–Yi distinction (Sino–barbarian dichotomy), the understanding of the local, and people’s self-positioning.In Duan Gonglu’s Behulu, we can see how those unusual, exotic and precious plants and animals in Lingnan region were recorded in the literature, being decoded and interpreted comprehensively as the elements of the “Territory of South” in the memory of history under the sight of “Beihu”. And Fan Duo even finished Manshu for Yunnan, which he had never been to, in the background of the war between Tang and Nan Zhao. He traced back to the “old land” they’d lost, summoning the heroes of Han, such as Ma Yuan and Zhuge Liang, in his writing. The book, consequently, was just not a local gazetteer for geographical record but one in mourning the victims under the shadow of war. And “Guilin fengtu ji” presented another aspects of the border area of southwestern China. Through the literature record of the heritage of poems, history and gods, Mo Xiufu not only presented the astonishing natural scenery of Guelin, but also portrayed the image of Chinese garden from literati's vision. To sum up, these writings for non-central plain areas of China in Tang Dynasty made us not only rediscover “the others” that we’ve overlooked, but also examine and argue the essence of “the center”. In this sense, these geographical descriptions and their knowledge construction, no doubt, has value as geographical documents. The most important point, however, is that these geographical descriptions exhibit how “the South” was like under the Tang people’s perception and cognitive frames.