《列朝詩集》編纂體例及其敘事性長期為學者所忽視。通過綜合詩人籍貫、職官、交遊、選詩數量等證據，可以逐卷歸納順治刻本各卷的編旨，並將全書八十一卷概括為五十四個作者類型。編類原則可以用政治身分、詩派身分、地域身分三個概念加以解釋：政治身分或以士人的政治認同而論，或以職位、品位而論，或以重大政治事件而論；詩派身分或以文人並稱而論，或以交遊而論，或以師承而論；地域身分，處士以其籍貫而論，仕宦者更以其交遊關係或文學聲譽而論。這一類型體系就是《列朝詩集》的「分卷體例」。由此重審過去對作者意圖的研究，其證據方式多有偏頗之失：錢謙益的政治意圖不局限於甲集前編，而主要體現在各集選錄功臣將相的卷目，通過「以詩證史」的方法切入政事；其文學史意圖不局限於批評文字，也蘊含於分卷體例之中，還應注意文學史宏大敘事的存在，它將看似分散的流派整合為一個多元互動的文學生態；其文化地理學意圖不局限於鄉邦吳中，其文學版圖更有閩詩派、金陵詩派等地域傳統，且與文學史意圖、政治意圖深度糾葛。總之，體例研究是從證據底層發動的史料批判，對於反思其上層的理論建構，如錢謙益研究、元明文學經典化研究等具有重要意義。

This paper comprehensively investigates the compilation principles of the Liechao shiji and its narrative, which have received insufficient scholarly attention. By synthesizing the evidence of the poets’ ancestral homes, official titles, social networks, number of selected poems, and other aspects, I reconstruct the compilation principles of each volume, and classify the 81 volumes into 54 author types. Classification of the author types is based on three concepts: political identities, poetry schools, and regional identities. Political identities were constructed based on literati’s political allegiance, position in the bureaucracy, or participation in significant political events. Poetry schools were centered on poets whose names were mentioned together, or who shared social connections or literary lineages. Regional identities were tied to the ancestral homes of poets who were not employed by the government and to the social connections or literary reputation of officials. This typological classification of the Liechao shiji by volume brings into question previous scholarship on the author’s intention. First, Qian Qianyi’s political intention is not limited to the Jiaji qianbian volume, but mainly manifests itself in the volumes on senior officials or generals who rendered outstanding services, and in Qian’s interpretative approach to political events, namely utilizing poetry to interpret history. Second, Qian’s intention in composing literary history is revealed not only through his literary comments, but also embodied in the compilation principles by volume. Scholarly attention thus should also be paid to the grand narrative of literary history that integrates seemingly scattered literary schools into a diverse and interactive literary ecology. Third, Qian’s cultural geography goes beyond the Wuzhong poetry school: regional schools such as the Fujian poetry school and the Jinling poetry school are parts of Qian’s geographic focus that are deeply entangled with his literary history and political intention. In sum, my investigation of the compilation principles with a focus on textual criticism can further theoretical construction based on historical sources, the study of Qian Qianyi, and the canonization of Chinese literature in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties.