Comment

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 26, 2021 at 4:10pm

（con't）Tourism typically involves some encounter with the "Other." Theteeper the experience sought by the tourist, the more strongly, will he tend to embrace this "Other," and to turn it into his "elective center." But, since the salience of that Other-turned-Center thereby increases for the tourist, his concern with its authenticity will grow proportionately. This, in turn, will induce the tourist to adopt stricter criteria for the judgement of authenticity than do those tourists for whom the experience is less salient. It follows that"existential" tourists (Cohen 1979a:189-192), who tend spiritually to abandon modernity and embrace the Other as their elective center and, as it were, "switch worlds" (Berger and Luckmann 1966:144), or "go native" (Redfoot 1984:299 ff) will be the most "purist" of tourists. They will strive to move furthest away from the beaten track and to get in most closely with the natives (e.g., Blakeway 1980; Schneebaum1970). In that, they resemble the anthropologist, curator, and ethnog-rapher. However, unlike the latter, they do not take up the attitude of subjective detachment (Redfoot 1984:299) to the cultural products they encounter. While their experience may thus be fuller and more sponta-neous, they also lack the professional attitude and critical capacity necessary to determine whether the traits by which they determine the "authenticity" of an object or an attraction are genuine or false. Hence they will more easily fall prey to sophisticated forms of covertly "staged authenticity" (MacCannell 1973). Here, the locals or the tourist estab-lishment "stage" precisely those aspects of the cultural product which serve the existential tourists as marks of authenticity, according to their own, strict criteria. Indeed, authenticity-eager tourists like Holland-er's (1981) "political pilgrims," may tend to idealize the destination, and thus eagerly embrace as genuine the very prevarications with which they are served. This kind of staging is particularly insidious, because it acts upon the profound will to believe of serious tourists, and not on the make-believe attitude of the more frivolous ones. The disenchant-ment of such existential tourists may therefore be particularly bitter (cf. Cohen 1979a:196).The further one moves down the scale of modes of touristic experi-ences, the less strict the criteria of authenticity employed by the tourist will tend to become. The criteria of "experimental" tourists who experi-ment with various potential elective centers (Cohen 1979a:189) will still resemble those of existential tourists. "Experiential" tourists (Cohen 1979a:186-8), who seek to participate vicariously in the authentic life of others, will also tend to employ fairly strict criteria of authenticity, close to those of "existential" tourists. However, "recreational" tourists (Cohen 1979a:183-5), who seek in the Other mainly enjoyable restora-tion and recuperation, and hence tend to approach the cultural prod-ucts encountered on their trip with a playful attitude of make-believe (Cohen 1985), will entertain much broader criteria of authenticity. Indeed, they might well be prepared playfully to accept a cultural product as authentic, for the sake of the experience, even though "deep down" they are not convinced of its authenticity (Cohen 1985:295: cf. also Goldberg 1983:485). Hence, a less ingenuous "staging of authen-ticity" will be sufficient to make this kind of tourist accept a product as authentic— though their conviction of its authenticity will also-be less deep than that of "existential" tourists. Finally, "diversionary" tourists (Cohen 1979a:185-6) who seek mere diversion and oblivion on their trip, will remain totally in equanimity and unconcerned with the prob-lem of authenticity of their experiences.

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 22, 2021 at 9:46pm

(Con't) In the view of some experts on ethnic art (e.g., Willett 1976), authenticity and falseness are not a dichotomous pair of concepts. Rather, there exists a continuum leading from complete authenticity, through various stages of partial authenticity, to complete falseness. The question therefore arises: Which are the diacritical traits which, for a given individual, in particular a tourist, Make a cultural product acceptable as "authentic"? The question here is not whether the individual does or does not "really" have an authentic experience in Mac Cannell's (1973) sense, -but rather what endows his experience with authenticity in his own view. Thus one can follow Gottlieb's approach: she " . . . assumes that the vacationers' own feelings and views about vacations are 'authentic,' whether or not the observer judges them to match the host culture" (Gottlieb 1982: 168). However, while Gottlieb does not make any further inquiries into the bases of tourists' feelings and views, it is proposed here to open these to investigation. According to the approach developed above, tourists will differ in the number and kinds of traits necessary to their mind to authentic cultural product.

As the preceding section notes, for tourist professional expert, only a cultural product which appear authentic in all of its varied aspects, would be acceptable as "authentic." This may also be the case with deeply concerned tourists. Thus, on one of the trekking lips in which this author participated in the course of his study of the penetration of tourism into the hill-tribe area of northern Thailand, a French tourist, a teacher by profession, complained about the fact that the people in a tribal village, which had been opened to tourism only a few weeks earlier, used industrially produced plastic cups instead of indigenously produced bamboo cups. The mere adoption of plastic cups, although unrelated to the penetration of tourism, already offended his sense of cultural authenticity.

While this kind of tourist often serves as the prototype of the ideal tourist, he is, statistically speaking, a minority among the huge population of contemporary mass tourism. Such a demand for "total authenticity" will be most prominent among "existentia," or "experimental" tourists, seriously concerned with the Other, as/at least a potential elective center.

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 21, 2021 at 5:23pm

(Con't) The vast majority of tourists do not demand such a "total authenticity!" Even "experiential" tourist , though seriously concerned with the authenticity of their experience, entertaining strict criteria for judgments of authenticity, will often fo us in such judgments on some traits of the cultural product and, disregard others. Hence, they will be prepared to accept a cultural *duct as authentic, insofar as traits, which they consider to be diacritical, are judged by them to be authentic. These traits are then considered sufficient for the authentization of the product as a whole. One could say that they symbolize metonymically the authenticity of the tourist-oriented cultural product as a whole. °Therefore, such tourists will accept a commercialized object as "authentic," insofar as they are convinced that it is indeed ornamented with "traditional" designs and "hand made" by members of an ethnic group (even though it may have been made of different materials or, in a different form than the "traditional" product and was produced expressly for the market). They may similarly accept as "authentic" a commercialized replication of local customs, such as a dance or a ritual, in so far as it is performed identically by members of the local group, as is its non-commercialized counterpart. A recent

study by Moscardo and Pearce (1986) provides some empirical evidence on this point. They have studied visitors perceptions of Australian historic theme parks. Since such parks "preserve or restore some aspects of a nation's or a region's heritage" (1986:471), they are almost by definition not "authentic" in Mac Cannell's sense. However, the visitors generally did perceive them as "authentic"— in the sense of being accurate reconstructions of Australia's past (1986:474-6), rather than genuine historical remains. Contrary to the authors' claim (1986:472), park operators— and some tourists— appear thus to be using the word "authenticity" differently from social scientists. However, the point of this. argument is that by accepting a particular trait of the site, namely "verissimilitude," as authenticating the site as a whole, the tourists become neither superficial fools satisfied with the spurious, in Boorstin's (1964) sense, nor victims of a prevaricating touristic establishment which "stages" authenticity in Mac Cannell's (1973) sense.

Recreational tourists, whose concern with authenticity is relatively low, may well accept even a substantially staged product and experience as "authentic." This would not be necessarily because they have been misled by the staging, but because even the faintest vestige of, or resemblance to what experts would consider an "authentic" trait of the product, may suffice for them to play the make-believe game of having an "authentic" experience. Therefore, such tourists may playfully consent to buy fake products or experiences as if they were genuine, merely because their resemblance to the genuine thing gives these tourists an inkling of authenticity. The recreation which Gottlieb's (1982) tourists derive from being a "King for a Day" or a "Peasant for a Day," one may argue, derives from their feeling "how it must have been to be a king (or a peasant)"; even though they are perfectly aware of the fact that their own, purchased experience has been staged for their benefit.

Finally, diversionary tourists may enjoy touristic products even if these are, in their own view, completely contrived, insofar as they appeal to them merely as "funny," "cute," or "lovely." A good example of such a product is a pair of embracing monkeys with sun-glasses, made of coconut shells, which are sold in touristic destinations all over southern Thailand, but are totally unrelated to any aspect of local Thai culture, except perhaps that monkeys serve as coconut-pickers in that part of Thailand.

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 20, 2021 at 3:25pm

Emergent Authenticity

Since authenticity is not a primitive given, but negotiable, one has to allow for the possibility of its gradual emergence in the eyes of visitors to the host culture. In other words, a cultural product, or a trait thereof, which is at one point generally judged sa contrived or inauthentic may, in the course of time, become generally recognised as authentic, even by experts, as Cornet's (1975:54) equivocation quoted above demonstrates. Thus, for example, an apparently contrived, tourist-oriented festival (such as the Raymi Festival Cuzco, a "revival" of an ancient Incaic custom) may in due time accepted as an "authentic" local custom. Similarly, craft products only produced merely for sale to visitors and tourists, may eventually become "authentic" products of an ethnic group or region — as happened with, for example, the Eskimo soapstone carvings (Graburn 1976b) or the Haida argillite carvings (Kaufmann 1976). Greenwood (1982:27) remarked that "all viable cultures are in the process of 'making themselves up' all the time." One could call this process "emergent authenticity," just as a parallel process in the ethnic realm was termed "emergent ethnicity" (Yancey et al 1976).

"Emergent authenticity" stresses one aspect or refers to one manifestation, of the wider phenomenon of "invention of tradition," whose ubiquitousness has been so impressively documented in Hobsbawm and Ranger's (1983) volume. In principle it is possible for any new-(angled gimmick, which at one point appeared to be nothing but a staged "tourist trap," to become over time, and under appropriate conditions, widely recognized as an "authentic" manifestation of local culture.

One can learn about this process of gradual "authentication" from the manner in which the American Disneylands, once seen as the supreme example of contrived popular entertainment-, became over time a vital component of contemporary American culture (e.g., Johnson 1981; King 1981). They will, no doubt, in the future be perceived even by historians and ethnographers, as an "authentic" American tradition (cf. Moore 1980).

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 20, 2021 at 3:23pm

One further point, closely related to the concept of "emergent authenticity" ought to be noted. The new, "external public" (Graburn 1976a; Shiloah and Cohen 1983:237) provided by the tourists, may offer an opportunity to the producers of cultural products to incorporate in them novel but "authentic" messages, differing from those incorporated in cultural products intended solely for the "internal" local or ethnic public. Thus, Silver (1979) claims to have detected such messages hidden in the apparently exaggerated, "exotic" features of commercialized African sculptures. This author also found such messages explicitly  stated  in  the  commercialized  figurative embroideries of Hmong (Meo) refugees from Laos (Cohen 1982b:41; Forthcoming). The Hmong from whose "traditional" arts fi   rative represent#tions were absent, nostalgically depict in these embroideries the richness of their traditional customs to the world at large, a as seek to  r w its attention to their sufferings in recent history and to  heir present dire predicament. Such messages thus become new cul ural exp  ssions, which are recognized as "authentic" even by experts such as anthropologists or ethnographers interested in cultural change.

COMMODITIZATION

"Commoditization" is a process by which things (and activities) come to be evaluated primarily in terms of their exchange value, in a context of trade, thereby becoming goods (and services); developed exchange systems in which the exchange value of things (and activities) is stated in terms of prices form a market. Though trade systems and gift systems were apparently even in the past less unequivocally segregated than previously claimed, markets have expanded throughout the world in the modern era, bringinA,about the commoditization of an ever wider range of things and actin ties (cf. Appadurai 1986). The principal question in ,this context is, what happens to the other meanings (particularly religious, cultural, and social) of things (and activities) once they become commoditized, particularly under the impact of tourism.

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 20, 2021 at 3:10pm

(Con't) It is generally the case that "Dealings with strangers . . . provide contexts for the commoditization of things that are otherwise protected from commoditization" (Appadurai 1986:15). Tourists in the modern world are particularly ubiquitous types of strangers, notorious for their propensity to precipitate, directly or indirectly, the commoditization of an ever wider range of things (and activities), many of which have been kept out of the domain of the market prior to the penetration of tourism, by rigorous normative prohibitions and taboos.

According to Greenwood (1977), who made one of the first studies of commoditization of culture through tourism, the commoditized cultural products lose in the process their intrinsic meaning and significance for the local people, who in turn lose their enthusiasm for producing them. Thus, Greenwood argues, as the public ritual of the Alarde in the Spanish-Basque town of Fuenterrabia became a major touristic attraction, and the authorities declared that it should be performed twice on the same day to accommodate the large number of visitors, the local participants lost interest in it. Consequently, " . . . the municipal government was considering payments to people for their participation in the Alarde? . . . just as the gypsies are paid to dance and the symphony orchestra is paid to make music. The ritual has become a performance for money. The meaning is gone" (Greenwood 1977:135). In other words, the once "authentic" public ritual became a staged performance, a cultural "commodity."

Such processes of commoditization of culture for touristic purposes are doubtlessly quite common all over the Third World and in the ethnic areas of both Western and Communist countries. Rituals, ceremonies, costumes, and folk arts may all be subjected to commoditization. Moreover, since the process is frequently initiated by culture brokers and touristic entrepreneurs from outside the local community, it may well lead to the exploitation of the locals and of their cultural resources by outsiders. Finally, the process of commoditization also tends to affect the cultural products themselves. As they become increasingly oriented to an "external public," rituals may be shortened, embellished, or otherwise adopted to the tastes of the tourists (cf. Boorstin 1964:103). Art and craft products may also be changed in form, materials, or colors (cf. Cohen 1983), " . . . in response to the impositions or temptations from large-scale and sometimes far-away consumers" (Appadurai 1986:47) such as in the case of "indirect tourism" (Aspelin 1977). Indeed, the emerging genre of "tourist arts" (Appadurai 1986:47; Cohen 1983; Graburn ed. 1976) is perhaps the most salient example of the commoditization of a range of cultural products through tourism.

All these developments and sometimes radical changes in the form and content of the commoditized goods and services notwithstanding, however, Greenwood's categorical assertion that, once a cultural product is commoditized "the meaning is gone," appears to be an over-
generalization. Counter-examples may be easily found. For example, folk musicians, who play for money Iv an external audience, may be excited by the opportunity to present-their art and proud to display their competence.

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 17, 2021 at 1:58pm

(Con't) There is no reason to assume that their music lost all meaning for them, merely because they have been paid for performing it. It would be absurd to argue that all popular music is meaningless for the artists merely because it is commercialized. Greenwood appears to have assumed that the immediate negative reaction of the local population to the commoditization of the Alarde will become its permanent attitude to the festival. This assumption, however, contradicts an implication of his own later insight regarding "emergent authenticity," cited above. For, just as a new cultural product can become with time widely accepted as "authentic," so it can, although changed through commoditization, acquire a new meaning for its producers. Thus, what used to be a religiously meaningful ritual for an internal public, may become a culturally significant self-representation before an external public. Moreover, the two kinds of meanings are not necessarily mutually exclusive but could be additive: new meanings may be added to old ones, which persevere into the new situation. According to McKean (1976:241-3), Balinese ritual performances have three separate audiences, a divine, a local, and a touristic. :This last one does not necessarily spoil the meaning of the performance for the two others)"The touristic audience is appreciated for the economic assets it can bring . . . but its presence has not diminished the importance of performing competently for the other two audiences, the villagers and the divine realm" (1976:244). Moreover, if Balinese performances are staged specifically for tourists, " . . the funds, as well as the increased skills and equipment available have enriched the possibility that the indigenous performances will be done with more elegance, in effect conserving culture" (1976:244).

One has to bear in mind that commoditization often hits a culture not when it is flourishing, but when it is actually already in decline, owing to the impingement of outside forces preceding tourism. Under such circumstances, the emergence of a tourist market frequently facilitates the preservation of a cultural tradition which would otherwise perish. It enables its bearers to maintain a meaningful local or ethnic identity which they might otherwise have lost.   his is particularly the case in the sphere of folk arts and crafts, many o ich are in decline in Third World countries owing to the penetration o  industrial goods and Western consumer tastes— but some of which ha e been salvaged or revived through demand by the tourist market/ (cf. Graburn ed. 1976). Finally, even where a cultural tradition still flourishes, its cornmoditization may well be emically perceived by its members as less of a change than it appears to an external an . While to the external observer, commoditization may appear to involve a complete transformation of meaning as a cultural product s being reoriented to a new, external audience. In many situations of commoditization, the performers themselves do not necessarily perceive that such a transformation had in fact occurred. Rather, despite the changed context, they may perceive an often astonishing degree of continuity between the old and the new situation. Thus, performers of tourist-oriented Voodoo shows in Haiti, do still go into a trance (Goldberg 1983:488); and tourist-oriented prostitutes in Bangkok bring many traditional attitudes towards Thai men into their relationships with tourists (Cohen,  in press a). Local people frequently interpret novel situations in traditional terms, and thus perceive a continuity of cultural meaning which may escape the observer (cf. Smith 1982). 

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 15, 2021 at 9:21pm

(Con't) Erik Cohen, Authenticity & Commodization in Tourism Conclusion
This analysis leads to a conclusion which is, in the main, the opposite of that deduced from the basic assumptions prevalent in much of the contemporary literature on tourism, as presented at the beginning of this paper. Commoditization does not necessarily destroy the meaning of cultural products, neither for the locals nor for the tourists, although it may do so under certain cottons.

Tourist-oriented products frequently acquire new meanings fah the locals, as they become a diacritical mark of their ethnic or cultural identity, a vehicle of self-representation before an external public. However, old meanings do not thereby necessarily disappear, but Tay remain salient, on a different level, for an internal public, despite commoditization — as the case of Balinese ritual performances exemplifies.

Neither does commoditization necessarily destroy the meaning of cultural products for the tourists, since these are frequently prepared to accept such a product, even if transformed through commoditization, as "authentic," insofar as some at least of its traits are perceived as "authentic." Such traits can then be taken to authenticate, metonymically, the product as a whole. The breadth of such authentic traits necessary to satisfy the tourist will, in turn, depend on the depth of the touristic experience to which each individual tourist aspires. Since most rank-and-file tourists do not aspire to much depth, a few traits of a cultural product which appear "authentic" will in most cases suffice for its acceptance as an "authentic" product.

Hence, mass tourism does not succeed because it is a colossal deception, but because most tourists entertain concepts of "authenticity" which are much looser than those entertained by intellectuals and experts, such as curators and anthropologists. Indeed, for many tourists, tourism is a form of play (Cohen 1985), which like all play, has profound roots in reality, but for the success of which a great deal of make-believe, on part of both performers and audience, is necessary. They willingly, even if often unconsciously, participate playfully in a game of "as if," pretending that a contrived product is authentic, even if deep down they are not convinced of its authenticity.


This re-examination of some of the assumptions prevalent in the tourism literature has some important implications for the study of the social and cultural impacts of tourism. In particular, rather than assuming the destructive impact of commoditization on the authenticity and meaning of cultural products, such impact should be submitted to a detailed empirical examination, if possible within an emic, processual, and comparative framework (Cohen 1979b:31-32). Such an approach will make it possible to gauge over time the permutations of meaning and authenticity as perceived by locals and tourists alike; it will also make it possible to determine the conditions under which cultural meanings are preserved or newly emergent, and distinguish them from those under which they are practically destroyed through the impact of tourism.

Such an examination will, in turn, forge the intellectual instruments necessary for the formulation of a prudent policy approach to tourism, as both a branch of economic development and as a major cultural manifestation of the modern world, which will avoid the extremes of a total condemnation of tourism as well as of its uncritical approbation. (Erik Cohen, 1988, Authenticity & Commodization in Tourism, Annals of Burtsm &march, Vol. 15, pp. 371-386, 1988)

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 15, 2021 at 2:13pm

旅行方程式—經典遊記的想像與建構

今年(2016)適逢《徐霞客遊記》自清乾隆四十一年（1775年）正式刊印二百四十周年紀念，為讓大眾欣賞國家圖書館相關古籍典藏，國圖特自館藏文獻中挑選具有代表之文獻與圖像四十餘種。

展覽自105年6月1日起至12月31日。另外，為推廣中文古籍經典閱讀，今年秋季經典系列講座亦以「旅行方程式：經典遊記的想像與建構」為主題，於8月27日至10月29日舉辦八場講座，邀請到相關領域重要研究者與作家，分別為讀者導讀介紹隋唐、明清時期遊記、外國人眼中的臺灣之旅，以及臺灣人環遊世界觀、旅行與閱讀，飽覽經典中的文化形象視角。

一、館藏古籍展覽

東亞文化圈早在《詩經》年代(西元前十一世紀至前六世紀)，已有人類出遊記錄，如「鶴鳴於九皋，聲聞於野」。至孔子周遊列國，則又將旅行與出遊融入「遊必有方」的教育信念。所謂「父母在，不遠遊，遊必有方」，大抵透露出遊行為與儒家價值觀的高度互動性。

早期中文典籍紀錄出遊主要集中在帝王與士大夫階層，如創作於戰國時期，記周穆王巡遊事《穆天子傳》、最早的遊記文學創作-屈原《離騷》。漢唐時代以後，部分士人或因擔任地方官員，或參軍佐幕，甚至是流放邊疆，寫作不只是單純記錄風土，也成為書寫個人記憶與想像時代的媒體，如柳宗元撰《永州八記》，於是各類遊記與雜記大量出現。宋元以後，隨著社會經濟脤動，加上科舉所帶來的壓力，士人雅慕嶽遊，一覽山水之勝，逐漸成為風尚。至明代以後士人旅遊風氣更為蓬勃，凡遇佳山水必遊，遊必有詠歌。其中《徐霞客遊記》其成就不僅記錄明代經濟生活蓬勃，也彰顯遊記體裁的多樣風貌。這些風雅朝士緩步尋幽、野徑蒐奇，遐想策足所留下的遊記與雜記，不僅提供後世瞭解古代地方文化的第一手資料包括風俗習慣、生態環境、經濟民生，甚至軍事國防範疇。

為使民眾認識展覽古籍及其所代表之文化內涵，展覽主題區分為以下五項：徐霞客遊記、經典遊記、明代遊記、旅遊文化、域外與臺灣遊記。以下即介紹本次展覽具有代表性之書籍：


(一) 古今遊記之最：《徐霞客遊記》徐霞客（1587-1641），名弘祖(後世因避清高宗弘曆諱，改為宏祖），字振之，號霞客，明南直隸江陰（今江蘇江陰市）人。為5百年來中國最重要旅行家、探險家、地理學者及遊記作家。

他從22歲自江陰出遊開始，33年之間遊歷了中國19個省區，足跡遍及半個中國大陸，並寫下日記體裁遊記。徐氏去世前託塾師季夢良整理原稿，後由季氏與王忠紉編輯成書稿。然因時局動盪，文稿散失。清初徐氏後人曾收集殘存的抄本並增補部分內容再編輯成書稿，此為「李介立本」，被譽為「諸祖之本」。康熙四十八年（1709）江陰人楊名時（1661-1737）從劉開南處得《徐霞客遊記》，翌年又自友人處得令一抄本，遂進行互校。《四庫全書》所收即楊名時重加編訂。

乾隆年間，江陰人陳泓又對《徐霞客遊記》李寄、楊名時等諸多版本進行校讎。乾隆四十一年（1776），徐鎮根據「李介立本」將《徐霞客遊記》刊刻成書，正式出版。（黃文德 國家圖書館特藏文獻組編輯「旅行方程式—經典遊記的想像與建構」系列活動策劃與執行 BIBLID 1026-7220（2016）105:4 p 1-7）（下續）

Comment by 陳老頭 on November 10, 2021 at 9:22pm

(二)古人旅遊方程式—中國古代文人自明代自嘉靖（1522-1566）中期以後，社會旅遊風氣漸盛。對文人而言，旅遊不只是一種空間的移動，還代表著融入「以性靈遊，以軀命遊」群體價值觀。根據《千頃堂書目》所載晚明時期遊記書目與作者，總計有五十七位作者，六十五部作品。大部分作品所描述的內容，多屬「淺遊」，像徐霞客那樣以長程冒險的「壯遊」，實非主流。到了萬曆年間（1573-1620），從文人日記、遊記可以觀察到他們頻繁地出遊。旅遊已兼具休閒娛樂及社交功能，當時甚至已有類似今日旅行團包套的「套裝旅遊」，即將旅遊活動商品化。

明代文人受到社群出遊風氣的影響，往往藉覽天下之名，規畫出遊，但實際上受制於經濟能力，對於典籍上所載眾多景點，多半只能桌遊。

根據巫仁恕、狄雅斯（Imma Di Biase）《遊道——明清旅遊文化》的研究，明人出遊內容之豐富，與當時西方相較，有過之而無不及。特別是與旅行、旅遊相關的設備逐漸商品化，包括美酒佳餚、游船肩輿、旅遊導覽、遊伴相隨，皆讓旅途可以更舒適、更盡興。士大夫更是明清旅遊文化興盛的一大推手，旅遊也成為明清士大夫文化的重要一環。

地點的選擇與參考指南：明代坊刻本已經出現類似今日旅遊手冊的出品，如(明) 高應科摘略田汝成所撰，《西湖遊覽志》，改編為《西湖志摘粹補遺奚囊便覽》，並邀請11位名人背書推薦。另外，在旅遊路線方面如徽商黃汴所編《天下水陸路程》，在各路程後面附有景點簡介，顯示這類書籍已兼具觀光旅遊手冊功能。



今年適逢《徐霞客遊記》自清乾隆四十一年（1775年）正式刊印二百四十周年紀念，為讓大眾欣賞國家圖書館相關古籍典藏，國圖特自館藏文獻中挑選具有代表之文獻與圖像四十餘種。

展覽自105年6月1日起至12月31日。另外，為推廣中文古籍經典閱讀，今年秋季經典系列講座亦以「旅行方程式：經典遊記的想像與建構」為主題，於8月27日至10月29日舉辦八場講座，邀請到相關領域重要研究者與作家，分別為讀者導讀介紹隋唐、明清時期遊記、外國人眼中的臺灣之旅，以及臺灣人環遊世界觀、旅行與閱讀，飽覽經典中的文化形象視角。

一、館藏古籍展覽

東亞文化圈早在《詩經》年代(西元前十一世紀至前六世紀)，已有人類出遊記錄，如「鶴鳴於九皋，聲聞於野」。至孔子周遊列國，則又將旅行與出遊融入「遊必有方」的教育信念。所謂「父母在，不遠遊，遊必有方」，大抵透露出遊行為與儒家價值觀的高度互動性。

早期中文典籍紀錄出遊主要集中在帝王與士大夫階層，如創作於戰國時期，記周穆王巡遊事《穆天子傳》、最早的遊記文學創作-屈原《離騷》。漢唐時代以後，部分士人或因擔任地方官員，或參軍佐幕，甚至是流放邊疆，寫作不只是單純記錄風土，也成為書寫個人記憶與想像時代的媒體，如柳宗元撰《永州八記》，於是各類遊記與雜記大量出現。宋元以後，隨著社會經濟脤動，加上科舉所帶來的壓力，士人雅慕嶽遊，一覽山水之勝，逐漸成為風尚。至明代以後士人旅遊風氣更為蓬勃，凡遇佳山水必遊，遊必有詠歌。其中《徐霞客遊記》其成就不僅記錄明代經濟生活蓬勃，也彰顯遊記體裁的多樣風貌。這些風雅朝士緩步尋幽、野徑蒐奇，遐想策足所留下的遊記與雜記，不僅提供後世瞭解古代地方文化的第一手資料包括風俗習慣、生態環境、經濟民生，甚至軍事國防範疇。

為使民眾認識展覽古籍及其所代表之文化內涵，展覽主題區分為以下五項：徐霞客遊記、經典遊記、明代遊記、旅遊文化、域外與臺灣遊記。以下即介紹本次展覽具有代表性之書籍：

(一)古今遊記之最：《徐霞客遊記》徐霞客（1587-1641），名弘祖(後世因避清高宗弘曆諱，改為宏祖），字振之，號霞客，明南直隸江陰（今江蘇江陰市）人。為5百年來中國最重要旅行家、探險家、地理學者及遊記作家。他從22歲自江陰出遊開始，33年之間遊歷了中國19個省區，足跡遍及半個中國大陸，並寫下日記體裁遊記。徐氏去世前託塾師季夢良整理原稿，後由季氏與王忠紉編輯成書稿。然因時局動盪，文稿散失。清初徐氏後人曾收集殘存的抄本並增補部分內容再編輯成書稿，此為「李介立本」，被譽為「諸祖之本」。康熙四十八年（1709）江陰人楊名時（1661-1737）從劉開南處得《徐霞客遊記》，翌年又自友人處得令一抄本，遂進行互校。《四庫全書》所收即楊名時重加編訂。

乾隆年間，江陰人陳泓又對《徐霞客遊記》李寄、楊名時等諸多版本進行校讎。乾隆四十一年（1776），徐鎮根據「李介立本」將《徐霞客遊記》刊刻成書，正式出版。

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page