論〈離騷〉作者與敘述者的差異所引起的閱讀問題

On the Author and the Narrator of Li-sao

傳統對〈離騷〉的研究經常將其視為屈原的自傳性陳述，作者之思想、情感，馴至生平際遇等，皆可從中略窺梗概。唯《史記•屈原賈生列傳》所記之屈原與〈離騷〉敘述者的名字不同，遂令研究者必須重新思考將〈離騷〉看成「作者」史料的作法，是否依舊屬於當然且無可質疑？若從文學解釋的角度來看，這個「作者」與「敘述者」的差異，究竟對文本的閱讀產生如何的影響？有何為示？如果將作者概念化，脫離歷史考證的糾纏，那麼他在文本中的意義何在？本論文提出上述的問題供研究者重新思索，並認為這組名字的差異導出作者、敘述者、讀者、世界等四者間的交互作用，對文本的釋義產生無限且深遠的為發，並且是〈離騷〉悲劇基調構成的關鍵，吾人似不應僅將眼光專注於「作者因素」而已。

Ssu-ma Ch'ien (author of the Historical Records) said that Ch'u Yuan was the author of Li-sao (Encountering sorrow). Connecting this record to Li-sao as a kind of autobiographical narrative, most scholars have understood Li-sao as a definite reflection of Ch'u Yuan's real life and thought. In fact, the name and style of the narrator of Li-sao are Cheng-tse and Ling-chun and not Ch'u Yuan, to whom Ssu-ma Ch'ien attributed authorship. This difference indicates that Li-sao is a literary work with a fictional character, not a true representation of the author's life. Meanwhile, this difference between the narrator and the author of Li-sao has thrown readers into complete confusion, but has also brought about an interesting turn in reading. This discussion tries to discover the ''poly-mean'' that came from this difference.