曹學佺《湘西紀行》的探究

The Cultural Trip in Cao Xue-quan's《Notes from the Xiang-xi Excursion》

啟二年(1622)曹學佺授命為廣西布政使司右參議，次年四月十二日出發，自福建福州啟程，取道江西、廣東，再到廣西桂林。七月四日抵達公館，歷時 83 天，全程約 5340 里。途中所見所聞、交遊酬唱或交通情景，均紀錄於《湘西紀行》之中，途中並整理了《閩中通志雜論》。曹學佺身處於公安、竟陵詩派流行之際，已別樹一幟，隱然成為晚明詩學主張與文化活動的領袖，因晚明政爭與明清易代之際，文獻散失，未為文學史的論述者所注意。本篇論文利用曹學佺的路程記錄，核對驛站與方志地理，以及路途中的人際交誼來探討此次行旅。由於古人在詩文記述中，喜歡使用人物字號、官銜代稱、古地名，以至於在還原真相時，需要判讀考證。透過曹學佺由福建福州動身到廣西桂林 83 天的過程，從中了解晚明此段交通動線與路況，同時作為晚明一般官員宦遊期間生活、遊歷、寫作與交遊酬酢的一個例證。曹學佺文化訪古、詩文著述，反映出晚明文人對家國意識與文化傳承的展現。他的旅遊書寫「以文記事，以詩敘情」，在袁宏道抒情性靈小品與徐弘祖科學考察之外，反而是一般文人記述行旅的傳統模式。

In the year of 1622 , Cao Xue-quan was appointed to be the consoler of the Guang-Xi government. He set forth on the journey to the post from Fu-Zhou (Fu-jian) on April, 12 the following year and, after 83 days and 5430 li via Jian-Xi and Guang-Dong, arrived at Gui-Lin(Guang-xi) on the fourth of July. Cao recorded his visits of places and people on the trip in Notes from the Xian-xi Excursion（《湘西紀行》), and at the same time revised his Essays on General Information of The Central Fukian （《閩中通志雜論》）Cao Xue-quan was a leading figure in poetic and other cultural activities in the late-Ming period, his poetry being distinctly different from that of the then prevailing Jing-ling（竟陵）school in style. He was inconspicuous in literary history simply because most of his oeuvre were lost in the chaos of the late Ming's political struggles and later the change of the dynasty to the Qing. This paper recovers the trip by verifying the notes in the book in accordance with local records and by observing Cao's social engagements on the way. Efforts are also made on investigation of alias, official titles and ancient names of places. The condition of the route and what happens on the trip typify an ordinary official's experiences of business travel in the late-Ming period, including those of sightseeing, impromptu writing, social transactions, as well as other daily activities. Cao's notes and literary writings, largely recording cultural experiences on visiting sites of antiquity, reflect late Ming literati's general sense of the empire's destiny and their cultural heritage. Unlike Yuan hong-dao（袁宏道）與 Xu Hongzu（徐弘祖）, who were noted for their lyrical prose and scientific article respectively, Cao wrote by following the convention of “prose to narrate events and poetry to express feelings,” evinced yet another mode of travel writing popular among literati at the time.