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？有何啓示？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啓發，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 Ch5u Yuan's real life and thought. In fact, the name and style of the narrator of Li-sao are Cheng-tse and Ling-chiin and not Ch5u 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 nanator 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.

離騷;敘述者;作者;閱讀反應;虛構

Li-sao;Encountering sorrow;The author;The narrator;Ch'u Yuan;Chu-ci;A collection of poems complied by liu hsiang;