從「迷樓」的敘事研究可投射出「享樂」與「匠藝」的兩大圖像。本論文的論述分成兩個層次，一個層次從唐宋期間各種不同類型的文本和文體來探討「迷樓」典故中的欲望與當時的話語現象的關係，涵蓋唐宋時二元對立的一系列價值如節制／放縱、儉／奢、自然／人工。另一個層次則是以「迷樓」的欲望與技術，來比擬文學創作意識中的欲望與技巧的問題，後者觸及詩學中的自然風格與人工技術或「工巧」之間的辯證關係。 迷樓不見於任何官方正史及私家撰述的史籍，它主要見於詩、詞、賦、小說逸史、方志和筆記或札記。根據方志，揚州被認為位於揚州，但在文學作品中，卻有迷樓位在揚州、長安、洛陽之說，本文認為，從唐宋詩詞的空間意象來看，迷樓其實更近於一種散佈於汴淮流域的想像空間，顯見「迷樓」有傳聞異辭的性質。雖然這篇論文有探究方志與文學文本中迷樓地點所在的問題，然而目的並非志在斷定迷樓「實體」存在與否、或存在於何處，而是在提供一種背景來理解唐宋時期人們對迷樓所在的認同差異與相關的空間敘述。 根據小說《迷樓記》的敘述，迷樓是煬帝所建的一座結構宛若迷宮的宮殿，它也是一個承載「極樂」想像的空間。「極樂」在宋代的養身論與主張節制的話語之中是需被抑制的一種禁忌。故此，有關「迷樓」中的「極樂」敘述是在尋回如同拉康所言的某種早已被排除出去的「愛欲」或原初已經失落的「歡爽」，人們對這種「極樂」的境界充滿想像，對於「極樂」的渴求威脅著主體賴以生存的經濟制度與權力體制乃至耗竭個人的身體。在此也參考巴塔耶的色情史理論，來說明主體也會渴求某種迷失自我的欲望。本文也將隋煬帝在迷樓內「浪費的技術」（即同時耗損自身精氣、浪費「發明」的技能、揮霍國家的財富）也延伸到詩學裡詩歌藝術裡一種創作技術上的魅力，來回扣宇文所安《迷樓：詩與欲望的迷宮》中以迷樓作為論述結構的「比擬」。本文也試圖以「迷樓」來「比擬」唐宋期間勾連自然與技巧的文學觀念，詩人為此心搖神馳，對文學技巧追求完美的「欲望」，使得欲望從現實空間「逃遁」到文學空間裡來，追求天工般技巧所造的詩境。 中國人傾向於將政權興亡與自然現象互比相連，使得興、亡循環成為必然發生且無可避免的現象，這種對於興亡循環有其必然性的觀念反而削弱了諷喻文學規勸帝王的實質功能。這正是迷樓作為諷喻的典故所盤結的重重矛盾與衝突之所在。意識到「諷喻」在啟悟他人功能上的侷限，詩歌作為高度創作與獨立自足的藝術性質更受重視，如唐宋詩學中有頗多詩話與詩評大量闡述詩歌創作的理想，崇尚以不鑿痕跡的技巧，來達到完美「自然」的詩境。 在唐宋兩代，可以發現在歷史處境的衝擊下，迷樓典故亦有所衍異，並被詩人加以部署以訴說個人的生命情境。唐宋兩代旅人在揚州岸外的長江與運河水道上曲曲折折的移動經驗，這種移動經驗也賦予迷樓遺址特殊的意象，無論是在遠離或接近揚州，蜀岡上的迷樓遺址都被包裹在迂回曲折的路線地圖裡，從迂迴到昇華，迷樓成為想像中登高地點的所在。在有意託諷之下，迷樓的敘事並不純粹只是過往歷史的回顧，同時也是當代歷史的指涉。 除了作為社會性敘事的諷喻功能之外，本論文最後也在兩個層次上回扣宇文所安以迷樓作為文學論述與詩學上的「比擬」：一、迷樓作為個體欲望縷織下與群體相隔離的藝術空間；二、傳聞中迷樓是一座在技術上巧奪天工的宮殿，在詩歌中「迷樓」經常被強調作為一種人工成果，與自然對立。通過這種自然──天工對比的論述，本文也嘗試指出迷樓足可比擬文學裡透過崇尚自然風格征服人工鑿痕的觀念。 / Through the variety of texts and genres from Tang to Sung, the narration of “Milou” had projected the figure of pleasure and exquisite craftwork. The inquisitions of this essay consist of two layers. First, to addresses the relation of the desire and the discursive phenomena at the time of Tang to Sung, especially on the binary aspect of temperance and pleasure, frugality and luxury, nature and craftsmanship. Secondly, to mate the dazzling craftwork of Milou correspondent with the desire and pleasure of the attentive craftwork in literary world, in which the dialectical relation between the Nature and craftsmanship was deeply concerned. Neither the official nor the private historical texts have any record on Milou. However, the allusion and narration of Milou was found in variety of texts including poets, rhapsodies, lyrics, novels, geographical documents and notes. According to the novel “The Tales of Milou”(Milou Ji, 迷樓記), Milou was a labyrinthine palace built by Shui Yang Ti, a space loaded with the imagination of “utmost enjoyment”(Ji Le, 極樂). The utmost enjoyment had been known as a forbidden state in the discourse on regimen, it was also considered as a dangerous force which threatening to the nation. The inquisition of “utmost enjoyment” has been linked to the “technique of waste”, which provoke the exhaustion of the King’s body, and also the waste of accumulative wealth of the kingdom, and brought huge chaos and doom to the dynasty. My argument of the “technique of waste” has extended to the discussion of creative technique involved in literary writing, which had been gaining a lot of attention in late-Tang and Sung, poets were aware of the poor efficacy of “critical allegory” (feng yu諷喻) due to the paradox of flourish and fading which had been seen as nature mechanism, as has been pointed out by Stephen Owen. Poetry had gained its own sovereignty; poetic commentators had discussed the technique of creation enthusiastically and pursued for the perfect poetic scene(境). There are two layers of discussion which closely interrelated with each other: 1. Milou was a symbol of pleasure and crafty achievement, and thus contradictory to the Nature. 2. This essay has further elaborated the relation of the crafty image of Milou with the “clever technique” (巧工) in the poetic notion from Tang to Sung. However, to achieve perfect work for poetry that look like the work of nature(天工), it definitely had to be created through superb technique that can smooth away any crafty traces.