此處的「清詞史」係指清代各時期詞人詞作發展的歷程。此一歷程的建立，固然有賴於清代詞人詞作發展歷程的客觀事實；然而，更重要的是，在某種特定的史觀下，這些詞人詞作才會形成一個有意義的發展脈絡。這種特定的觀點，本文稱為「解釋取向」。基此，那種只求完備地蒐集清代詞人詞作，卻不對這些史料施以特定「解釋取向」的成果，不能算是建構「清詞史」。 晚清譚獻、陳廷焯二人，繼承前期「常州詞派」論詞的特定觀點，形成他們對「清詞史」的「解釋取向」。此一「解釋取向」，並非透過具有明確章節、論述文字特徵之「論述文學史」的操作方式予以體現；而是藉由編選、評論作品之「文本文學史」的操作方式加以呈現。基此，本文將對譚獻《篋中詞》以及陳廷焯《詞則》有關清代的部分，詳加討論。 本文將透過下列步驟，進行論述：一、解析譚、陳二人透過選集而建構的「文本清詞史」；二、詮釋譚、陳二人建構「清詞史」不同的「解釋取向」；三、詮釋兩人「解釋取向」的同異，其間所涵具常州詞派對於「詞史」解釋權的延續或轉向的意義。此一逆證式的研究進路及成果，一來可以補充前行研究偏重由詞論的史料，去研究「清詞史」之進路的不足；二來可以突顯建構「清詞史」的史觀問題。最後，可以呈現「常州詞派」晚期，所存在流派變遷的問題。

The “history of Ci (poem) in the Qing Dynasty” specified here refers to the developing process of Ci poets and Ci itself in every period of the Qing Dynasty. There is no doubt that the establishment of such a process shall depend on the objective fact of the development of Ci and Ci poets of the Qing Dynasty. However, what is more important, it was only from a particular historical perspective that these Ci and Ci poets were able to formulate a meaningful development sequence. Such a particular perspective is referred to as “explanatory inclination” in this paper. On this basis, previous studies which only collected the complete Ci written by Ci poets in the Qing Dynasty but failed to provide a specific “explanatory inclination” towards these historic materials can not be considered as having contributed to the construction of “the history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty”. Tan Xian and Chen Ting Zhuo in the late Qing Dynasty inherited the particular perspective of discussing Ci from the early “School of Chang Zhou Ci”, thereby forming their “explanatory inclination” towards “the history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty”. This “explanatory inclination” was not put forth by means of the method adopted by a“history of theoretical literature” which had explicit chapters and discussion, but rather by the method adopted by a “history of literary discourse” which selected and evaluated a piece of Ci. In the light of this, this paper will provide detailed discussions on the Qing Dynasty with respect to Tan Xian’s “Qie Zhueng Ci” and Chen Ting Zhuo’s “Ci Ze”. The discussion will first analyze the “discourse of history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty” constructed by Tan and Chen through the selection and gathering of Ci, followed by the various “explanatory inclinations” of “the history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty” formulated by Tan and Chen. Finally, an interpretation of the similarities and differences of the “explanatory inclinations” of the two Qing scholars and the extension or transfer of meanings that the School of Chang Zhou Ci gave to the explanation of the “history of Ci” will be provided. The progression and results of such proofs by a critical research method can on the one hand supplement previous studies devoted to “Ci in the Qing Dynasty” which tended to focus on historical materials of Ci theory and on the other hand it can make manifest the problems of constructing a historic perspective of “the history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty”. Finally, the results obtained from this research will shed light on the problems of changes of “School of Chang Zhou Ci” in its late period.

清詞史、解釋取向、常州詞派、篋中詞、詞則、譚獻、陳廷焯

history of Ci in the Qing Dynasty, explanatory inclination, School of Chang Zhou Ci, Qie Zhueng Ci, Ci Ze, Tan Xian, Chen Ting Zhuo