論及中國古代的藝術發展時，近人即便是以歷代書目的子部〈藝術類〉為考察對象，卻往往是基於當代對「藝術」的認知，進而尋檢與藝術相關的著作在歷代書目中的著錄情況，從而建構當代視野下的中國古代藝術發展情形。這誠然亦是一種切入此論題的角度，但從當代視角出發，卻可能忽略當今所謂的「藝術」與古代所謂的「藝術」二者指涉意義並不相同，因而作出有悖於文獻的詮釋。因此本研究嘗試回到目錄本身，論述子部〈藝術類〉之流變情形。 本文首先辨析南朝宋‧王儉《七志》〈術藝志〉之「術藝」一詞，與後世書目〈藝術類〉所謂的「藝術」之區別。其次，書目中出現以「藝術」為名的類別，其時代正好與正史列傳的〈藝術傳〉改稱〈方技傳〉的時間約略同時，因此從正史列傳的〈藝術傳〉、〈方技傳〉同實異名關係切入，發現在列傳層面上，「藝術」與「方技」二者之內涵有重疊之處。再次，根據《舊唐志》〈雜藝術類〉到《四庫全書總目》〈藝術類〉之演變，得知在書目所顯示的〈藝術類〉發展脈絡下，書目中的「藝術」涵義其實異於列傳層面上的「藝術」涵義。並且，儘管目錄被視為考辨學術流變的依據，列傳層面的「藝術」涵義在書目所架構的「藝術」演變脈絡中，卻是付之闕如的。最後，以書畫為例，就近人依目錄分類情形所論之藝術定位提升，提出相對觀點，並略論目錄學應用上可能面臨的盲點。 When it comes to “Yi-shu” in “mulu” during the period from Tang dynasty to Qing dynasty, researchers in nowadays often define it as “art”. Although “art” the word in Chinese has the same meaning as “Yi-shu” at the present time, it causes a problem that researchers have neglected “Yi-shu” in “mulu” is actually different form “art”.
This study shows that what “Yi-shu” means and how the meaning changes from Tang dynasty to Qing dynasty. To begin with, it discriminates between “Shu-yi” in Qizhi by Wang Jian in Liu Song dynasty and “Yi-shu” in “mulu” after Northern and Southern dynasties. Secondly, “Yi-shu” appeared in Old Book of Tang, and at the same time “Yi-shu” in liezhuan of Standard Histories transferred to “Fang-ji”. Before that, the fact that “Yi-shu” and “Fang-ji” have different names but the same essentials in liezhuan represent what “Yi-shu” means in “mulu” is similar to that in liezhuan but not exactly the same. Thirdly, according to the transition from “Za-yi-shu” in “jingji” of Old Book of Tang to “Yi-shu” in Siku Quanshu, what “Yi-shu” means in liezhuan hardly ever exists in “mulu”. Finally, this study leads to the conclusion that “Yi-shu” as a category of “zibu” is not the core in “mulu” by explaining what the position of painting and calligraphy in society. Furthermore, there would be some problems occurred while researchers have some misunderstanding about “mulu”.
