鳳梨、林投或釋迦？試探臺灣詩文中的「番梨」與「鳳梨」

Fan li, Pandanus, Pineapple? A Study of Fan li and Pineapple in Classical Taiwan Texts

本文研究除了爬梳文字之外，在研究方法上，還加入了物產圖像資料的比對，由文學跨到植物學的知識領域，推原詩文所指的物象。本文由臺灣文獻當中，檢視「番果」、「番梨」後，發現可能指涉臺灣的三種水果，亦即「鳳梨」、「林投」、「釋迦」，常因讀者一時不察而混同三者。透過岩崎常正《本草圖繪》與豐子愷的漫畫中的「鳳梨」，可以驗證臺灣詩文當中描寫的「鳳梨」，可能是與「鳳梨」長相類似的「林投」。植物學發展到今天，已經可以確定「鳳梨」、「林投」、「釋迦」三種「番梨」各自不同，然而，在臺灣方志與詩歌中的記載與描寫，則仍停留在摸索階段的混淆不清。
筆者認為，「番」字除了一般所指「番邦」外，臺灣方志中所指涉，是與中原「內地」相對而言的「番地」，亦即「臺灣」、「臺郡」而言。這種用圖像來研究文獻，發現這些失誤並不是個人一時一刻的誤寫誤記，而是整個時代在摸索與認識一片新的土地，新的物種時，所難免犯下的認知錯誤，也是個人與時代的局限。

Beyond textual analysis, this study undertakes a cross-disciplinary investigation that integrates literary interpretation with botanical comparison. By incorporating visual data drawn from local produce, it seeks to identify the actual referents of imagery found in classical Taiwanese texts. Given the frequent ambiguity surrounding the terms fan guo (番果) and fan li (番梨) in Taiwanese literature——terms that often perplex contemporary readers——this research aims to clarify their meanings by examining three fruit species potentially referenced: pineapple (Ananas comosus), pandanus (Pandanus tectorius), and sugar apple (Annona squamosa).
Through an analysis of illustrations from Iwasaki Tsunemasa’s Honzo Zufu and Feng Zikai’s depictions of pineapples, the study proposes that the term“pineapple”in Taiwanese poetry may, in fact, refer to the pandanus plant, whose physical appearance closely resembles that of the pineapple. Although modern botany clearly distinguishes among pineapple, pandanus, and sugar apple as separate species, historical records and poetic descriptions in Taiwanese local chronicles often conflate these fruits, reflecting a broader lack of botanical precision in earlier textual traditions.
Furthermore, this study argues that the term fan (番) in Taiwanese gazetteers does not merely denote“foreign lands,”but more accurately refers to peripheral or marginal regions in contrast to the Chinese mainland——specifically pointing to Taiwan and its administrative territories.
Ultimately, the synthesis of visual and textual analysis reveals not merely isolated instances of misidentifications, but rather the broader cognitive frameworks and epistemological limitations of the era in which these texts were produced.