復古派雄踞有明一代詩壇百餘年，惟創作實踐「摹擬太甚」的疑雲，歷來非議者眾。這一常見的標籤是否可能流於簡化？本文聚焦復古派內部的自我省察，結合詩歌文本的證析，當可提供系統性的解答。文中首先梳理復古派文獻中「摹擬」相關詞彙的用例，其次確認復古派自我省察摹擬之弊時，所指向的作家、作品。文中尤側重於釐定復古派摹擬之弊的四種類型：餖飣雜湊、略換字句、盲目仿語、承複古語。最後指出復古派期於漫長學古歷程中，由仿語而深化、昇華，整體解悟古人藝術軌則，而臻於一種「得神型摹擬」。故綜觀之，復古派對於「摹擬」，既有多元反思，亦具深層堅持、高遠之理念，其觀念思維重層而立體，洵非簡化的負面標籤所能收編殆盡。

Remaining influential for more than a century, the dominant Revivalist School in the Ming dynasty proved an indisputably significant poetic tradition with its myriad adherents—except for a suspicion of “overindulging in imitation,” which it had frequently provoked to ignore such a negative label. By reviewing the Revivalist poetics with a special attention paid to its self-examination, in combination with in-depth reading and analyses of related poetry, this article attempts to investigate into the topic systematically. The article begins with a survey of the use of the term “imitation” and other related phrases in the Revivalist literature, and manages to identify the very “authors” and “works” criticized by the Revivalists for their flaw of imitation. The flaw, categorized into four types: “farraginous verbiage,” “minor modification,” “blind mimicry” and “repetitive paraphrase.” This article argues throughout the history of its imitation of classical writings, the Revivalist School had gone beyond superficial mimicry to reach a higher sphere, which features a harmonious absorption of the classics both corporeally and spiritually. Finally, it may be termed “spiritual imitation” which is in this imitation at a higher level that the greatest value of Revivalist poetry lies. In summary, the Revivalist view in imitation consisted not only of a strict vigilance but of a persistent pursuit of its lofty ideal, mapping a manifold and multifaceted structure of conception, which overran the scope of any simple stigmatizing labeling.