「文學史」是隨著新式教育體制之建構而出現的一種書寫類型。最初雖然是作為特定學科教材之用，然而隨著對於「文學」與「文學『史』」之觀念的日益明晰，加上外在時代社會種種複雜因素使然，其書寫型態及內蘊的文化政治與個人寄託，也益趨繁複多元，並引發學界關注。所涉及的，既有「文學」與「歷史」的相互辯證，更有時代思潮、教育體制、政治環境與個人才氣識見的多重對話。黃得時的《臺灣文學史》與臺靜農《中國文學史》，分別完成於杌隉動盪的四○年代前後，並因皆對於法國學者泰納（Hippoiyte Adolphe Taine, 1828-1893）學說進行轉化而產生微妙牽連，二者因對照而生的問題性，亦值得深究。本文以日本之文學史書寫對於泰納三要素說的承衍情形為切入點，進而探討：黃得時為何要以「歷史」取代泰納的「時代」說？我們如何循此「重讀」黃得時的《臺灣文學史》並開展不同的觀照面向？臺靜農為何會有〈中國文學史方法論〉之作？放在晚清以來的《中國文學史》書寫脈絡之中，我們如何為臺靜農的文學史書寫尋找定位？當然，更重要的是，如果說，「史識」與「詩心」分別是中國傳統「史學」與「文學」書寫的核心要素，那麼，作為「文學史」的作者，黃得時與臺靜農將如何以其「史識」與「詩心」的交融辯證，為「文學史書寫」留下不同的典型？

Literary history, with the rise of modern educational system, emerges as a new mode of writing. Though literary history was originally written to facilitate teaching, the cultural politics and personal feelings that stand behind it become more and more complex along the notions of “literature” and “literary ‘history’” that get increasingly clear. What literary history touches on is not only the dialogue between literature and history but the multi-faceted encounter among the zeitgeist, educational system, political environment, and personal background. It is therefore noteworthy that, similarly finished around the 1940s and influenced by Hippolyte Adolphe Taine’s approach to literary criticism, Huang Deshi’s History of Taiwan Literature and Tai Jingnong’s History of Chinese Literature have what commonality and particularity to share with each other. This article intends to weigh in the aforementioned problematic from the perspective of Japan’s acceptance of Taine’s three principle motives, exploring: Why did Huang re-conceptualize Taine’s theory by emphasizing the role of history? How does this adjustment inspire our rereading of Huang’s History of Taiwan Literature? What does it drive Tai to propose “Methodology of the History of Chinese Literature”? Tracing the genealogy of History of Chinese Literature since the late Qing, how shall we position Tai’s writing of literary history? Most importantly, if historical and poetic consciousness are the two core values of Chinese traditional historiography and literary writing, how do Huang’s and Tai’s writings of literary history break through the historical constraints of Taine’s discourse?