一般的中國文學批評史，論侑明代前後七子多概括為復古派，或將謝榛置於擬古主義之列。一般學者，對於謝榛詩論，多高其對於「情、景」之論，認為這是謝榛見解獨到之處，少有學者專就謝榛詩論中「模擬」的觀點加以討論。本文擬自前人的論述基礎上，進一步梳理出謝榛對「模擬」的看法，並試圖就此論釐清謝榛同於明代前後七子，及特出前後七子之處。由此可進而檢視其歧出及超時人所論之復古模擬論。本文試圖由其對於「模擬」的看法中，重新檢視其詩學點：可以發現謝榛將模擬古人當作是創作的入門法則，其最終目的在於超越古人，所以他並不是擬古主義者。今日重新審視其模擬之論，由此或可梳理明代前後七子復古理論中精微差異處。

In most critical histories of Chinese Literature, when it concerns the seven scholars before and after Ming Dynasty, they were generally viewed as School of Restoring Ancient Classics, and Shai Jien was viewed as part of the society which imitated the ancient classics. On Shai Jien’s poetic theories, most scholars spoke highly of his viewpoints on feelings and landscapes, and belived that these were Shai Jien’s most outstanding theories. So far few scholars seriously put the main focus on Shai Jien’s idea of imitation. On the basis of former theoretical results, in this essay we are going to focus on Shai Jien’s idea of imitation, and on this standpoint compoare and contrast Shai Jien and the seven scholars before and after Ming Dynasty. From this angle we will furthermore examine Shai Jien’s idea of imitation, which is different and unique in comparison with School of Restoring Ancient Classics. Eventually we would like to re-discus Shai Jien’s poetic theories. We find out that imitating the ancient classics is the first step of his creative practices, but his ultimate aim is to transcend the ancient ways. Therefore he does not belong to the school of Restoring Ancient Classics. Through our rethinking on Shain Jien’s poetic imitation, we may figure our the delicate differences in the theories of the seven scholars before and after Ming Dynasty.