北宋戰和詩研究

Abstract

本文所謂「戰和詩」，爲詩人主張或討論國家面對他國、異族時應該採取或實際執行「戰爭」、「和平」抑或折衷策略的詩作。由於北宋面對的時代環境之特殊，宋人須重新辨識、確立「我者」，並思考如何與其他國家、民族互動——「戰和詩」即爲宋人重要的論述。本文以「戰／和」爲討論框架，闡釋各論述在「戰和光譜」的位置及影響，試圖呈顯詩人既具連續性也具歧異性的論述圖景。 本文以遼（契丹）、夏（党項）爲主要討論對象：就對遼之戰和詩而言，本文先討論贊成與反對澶淵之盟的兩造意見，由此開展主和派與主戰派的論述，前者包含仁德思想與文治策略，後者包含詩人對自身、他人及國家的期許；就對夏之戰和詩而言，本文先指出詩人在得勝以後心態與策略的差異，由此討論主和派與主戰派的論述，而留意其中堅持立場與搖擺游移之情形。 本文發現詩人對遼的戰和立場較爲穩固，對夏則較搖擺不定，應與彼此關係的穩定程度、往來時長，乃至遼夏的漢化程度有關。對遼的戰和詩有許多「使北詩」，而使論述以「主和」爲多數，對夏的戰和詩則有相當數量的「赴邊詩」與「紀戰詩」，而以「主戰」爲多數。戰和詩的用典受文學傳統、贈詩對象影響，而在文學表現與立場選擇上有所傾向。藉由用典，詩人可回應、延續、反思歷史，顯現今日之事於歷史長河中的意義，「詩」的文體特色亦使豐富、未定乃至矛盾的意念得以容納。 詩人多以「虎豹豺狼」描述契丹和党項，對於交趾則言「猿猴」與「蟒蛇」。至於高麗，詩人雖同以「虎」爲喻，但對壓制高麗仍有信心。爲達戰和策略的不同目標，詩人在政治實踐過程遭遇許多變動，而與其論述密切相關。但「政爭」雖爲重要的影響因素，卻未主宰詩人的戰和立場，可見詩人論述的自主性與複雜性。

This paper defines “war and peace poetry” as poetic compositions in which poets advocate or discuss for the adoption or execution of warfare, peace, or compromise strategies by the state in its interactions with foreign states and ethnic others. Due to the distinctive geopolitical context of the Northern Song period, Song intellectuals were compelled to reidentify and reaffirm the concept of the “self” while reconsidering the modes of engagement with other states and peoples. “Poetry on war and peace” thus emerged as a critical discursive site for negotiating these concerns. This study adopts the binary of “war/peace” as its analytical framework to examine the placement and influence of different positions along a “war-peace spectrum,” aiming to reveal both the continuities and divergences within the poets’ discursive landscape. The paper focuses primarily on the Liao (Khitan) and the Xia (Tangut) as its main objects of inquiry. In examining poetic discourse on the Liao, it first analyzes the opposing views surrounding the Treaty of Chanyuan, which provides the foundation for pro-peace and pro-war camps. The former encompasses ideals of benevolent governance and civil strategy, while the latter articulates poets’ aspirations for themselves, their peers, and the state. In the case of the Xia, the paper begins by identifying the differing mindsets and strategic inclinations that arose in the aftermath of military victories. It then explores the pro-peace and pro-war discourses within that context, paying particular attention to the persistence or vacillation of ideological positions. The study finds that poets’ stances on the Liao were relatively stable, whereas their positions on the Xia were more fluid. This discrepancy may be attributed to the varying degrees of bilateral stability, length of interaction, and the extent of Sinicization in each case. A considerable number of poems concerning the Liao take the form of “Northern Envoy poems,” in which pro-peace discourse predominates. In contrast, poems addressing the Xia include a significant number of “border deployment poems” and “battle commemoration poems,” where pro-war sentiments are more common. The allusions and tropes employed in these poems are shaped by literary tradition and the identity of the poem’s recipient, thus influencing both literary expression and ideological stance. Through classical allusions, poets engage with, perpetuate, and reflect upon history, thereby situating contemporary events within a broader historical continuum. The poetic form itself, with its aesthetic flexibility, allows for the coexistence of unresolved or even contradictory ideas. Poets frequently use metaphors such as “tigers, leopards, wolves, and jackals” to characterize the Khitan and Tangut. In contrast, references to “monkeys” and “pythons” appear in depictions of Jiaozhi (Annam/Đại Việt). As for Goryeo (Korea), although poets similarly invoke the image of the tiger, they generally express confidence in the state’s ability to subdue it. In the pursuit of divergent strategic goals regarding war and peace, poets encountered numerous shifts within the realm of political praxis—shifts that were intimately tied to their discourses. Nevertheless, although political factionalism was a significant factor, it did not dictate the poets’ stances. This indicates both the autonomy and complexity of their rhetorical positions.