自古以來，學界都認為《楚辭》對漢賦的影響甚鉅。筆者同意劉勰的論點：在使用文字營造視、聽臨場感，令讀者能被引導進入作者欲傳達的氛圍、情緒這點上，漢賦繼承了《楚辭》這項文學技巧上的成就。除此之外，一般所說《楚辭》對漢賦影響甚鉅的諸論點，則恐怕有待商榷。 本文先指出：按照漢人的觀點，在文學類屬的發展歷史上，賦這種文類先出現，《楚辭》被視為賦這文類下的一種次文類，所以許多《楚辭》中的作品往往被漢人稱為賦。只是在賦的文類分支中，《楚辭》最早自成一系統，因此，應說是賦孕育了《楚辭》，而非《楚辭》影響了漢賦的成熟。至於《楚辭》之所以被認為是可自成一系統，因為按照漢人的觀點，必須出自屈原筆下，或者是屈原的代言人按照屈原的立場、情感所寫的作品，才能納入《楚辭》，並非一篇作品使用《楚辭》的句式或常見的名物，或者作品風格近似，即可當之。因此，《楚辭》可謂是屈原人格各項面透過文字方式的呈現，而屈原也可謂是《楚辭》這本作品集的血肉化身，《楚辭》與屈原乃一體兩面。既然如此，若要檢視《楚辭》對漢賦有無影響，當分別從漢賦家對屈原這作者的欽慕程度，以及沿襲《楚辭》這作品集中的題材、精神等兩方面入手。 就作品這面來看，《楚辭》各篇中許多題材在漢賦中驚人地少見，而漢賦作者經常選用的題材，且為歷世共許為漢賦特色者，於《楚辭》中亦杳然無痕。既如此，不悉《楚辭》如何發揮它的影響力。至於雙方作品都會涉及到的少數題材，如士不遇，漢賦家處理這問題時的態度與《楚辭》作者迴然有別。而這種迴別反映在文類上，即自東漢以來，按照漢人態度專門處理士不遇這問題，而成為漢賦中的次文類者： <七口>、設論，作品數量甚多，而按照《楚辭》模式處理這問題，可視為《楚辭》體制代表的 <九口> 這類作品極少見。換言之，《楚辭》與漢賦極有限的交集部分，也表現出精神上的分道揚鑣，後者不復接受前者的處理態度。 就作者這面來看，當我們進行全面文獻耙梳後，即會發現：漢代雖然確實有兩三段尊仰屈原的材料，但在兩漢文壇學界，訾議屈原之聲實居主流地位，屈原於漢代的評價並不如後世揣想得那麼高。如果再將視野放廣一點，審視兩漢至魏、晉作家選取古代、近代人物所寫的頌讚，我們更可發現：屈原極少被選取，縱使被選取作為頌讚對象，也是作為當時真正心儀的第一流人物的陪襯者出現。為了強化上述論斷，筆者且檢視兩漢至魏、晉作家對屈原所欽慕者 (如伯夷)，或時人視為與屈原同類者 (如嵇康) 的評價高下。那段時期的人們所以對屈原式的心態、行徑評價不高，社會情況變動恐為主因，波及人們面臨屈原同樣的兩難困境，必須抉擇時，雙方對各價值間的高下看法以至取捨不同。而這與屈原的思想、感情、行徑究竟是受儒家還是道家浸染較深、當時居主導地位的價值系統是儒學或玄學無關，因為不論哪家當令，兩漢與魏、晉人的價值取捨都有相當高的一致性，玄學當令，並未動搖原先對屈原不滿的主流意見，唯更形不利而已。

　　　　　Since ancient times, it has always been held that Chuci had exerted great influence on Hanfu. While agreeing with Liu Xie's viewpoint that Hanfu carried on Chuci's various literary achievements in building up an ethos that enables readers to appreciate the works more fully, this author argues that the influence Chuci had on Hanfu may not be as great as had always been accepted. First, this paper tries to show that in the historical development of Chinese literary genres, according to the Han people's perspective, the emer- gence of Fu took precedence over that of Chuci, which was a mere sub-genre under it. It was Fu that impregnated Chuci, rather than the other way around. The general misconception that Chuci had influenced Fu, especially Hanfu, has much to do with the fact that at a very early stage Chuci devel- oped into a system of its own. Since the Han people only classified works penned by Qu Yuan himself or by authors showing empathetic understanding with the poet's viewpoints or emotions under this title, it is fair to say that while Qu Yuan impersonates Chuci, Chuci re-presents various dimensions of Qu Yuan's personality. If this is the case, we cannot decide whether Chuci has exerted great influence on Han Fu without considering the following two questions: (1) How Hanfu writers embraced Qu Yuan, the central figure of Chuci; (2) How their works emulated the themes and aspirations such as appeared in Chuci. Insofar as literary works are concerned, many themes of Chuci are mis- sing in Hanfu. Similarly, in Chuci there is no trace of themes generally as- sociated with Hanfu or considered congenial to the literary tastes of the Hanfu writers. As for the limited number of common themes that authors of both camps occasionally touched upon, their approaches were distinctly divergent. The question of disappointed literati unable to impress them- selves with the rulers provides a good example. As for the embracement of Qu Yuan, a thorough examination of all materials concerned shows that apart from very few pieces praising Qu Yuan, the mainstream Hanfu writers were critical of him. In other words, Hanfu writers did not admire Qu Yuan as profusely as posterity think they did. If we put Qu Yuan in a broader historical perspective and see how liter- ary critics during the Han, Wei and Jin dynasties received him and those in the category (such as Buo Yi and Ji Kang), we find that he was at best a marginalized figure rather than one in the center stage. Although as a result of drastic social changes people of those periods were caught up in similar moral straits and faced hard choices such as Qu Yuan did, their lukewarm reception of his ideas and action betrayed a different value system and codes of conduct. This has little to do with whether Confucianism or Taoism had more influence on Qu Yuan's thoughts, emotions, or action. Nor is it a rele- vant question whether Confucian or Metaphysic (Xuan) School constituted the major influence of those periods. Whichever school dominated the scene; the values and moral choices expressed through the Han, Wei, Jin literary works remained unchanged and did not have much impact on contempo- raries' critical views of Qu Yuan.