The Poetics of Sovereignty
Page 25
to Confucius, from the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Duke Xiang, that
was discussed earlier in this chapter. Just as the Classic of Changes views
human patterns as supplementary to the natural state of things, the Zuo
—————
79. This is a paraphrase of the “Great Preface.”
80. See Zuo zhuan, Duke Xi, 24th year / Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu, pp. 418–19.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
137
zhuan statements lay out a theory of rhetorical patterning as supplemen-
tary to speech. While language may serve to represent the speaker’s self
and as such lodge the self within a symbolic register, it nevertheless re-
quires “patterning” if the speaker is to imbue his words with lasting reso-
nance and suasive force. This raises the question of whether ordinary
speech is incomplete without rhetorical inventio or poetic ornamenta-
tion—and foreshadows the literary presence of wen already implicated
within the social realm.
The relationship between normative patterns and rhetorical logic re-
curs in the next pair of examples. The preface’s description of Yao as
modeling himself upon Heaven is based upon a passage from the Analects:
The Master said, “How great was the way that Yao acted as sovereign! How ex-
alted and grand—only Heaven is great, and only Yao modeled himself upon it!
How vast and far-reaching—the people could not find a name for it! How ex-
alted and grand were the great deeds he accomplished! How radiant were the
civilized regulations he established!”
子曰：“大哉，堯之為君也！巍巍乎，唯天為大，唯堯則之。蕩蕩
乎！民無能名焉。巍巍乎，其有成功也。煥乎，其有文章.
By paraphrasing the Analects, the authors of the preface continue to call
attention to the canonical sources of wen. While the argument seems once
again simply to affirm the correlation between celestial patterns ( wen) and
human patterns—in this case, the ritual regulations for government
( wenzhang 文章) credited to Yao—the preface also introduces an in-
stance of rhetorical patterning in following Yao’s transmission to the
Duke of Zhou, who “makes abundant his virtue” in order “to manifest
praise for ‘how radiant [Yao was].’” The authors metonymically substi-
tute the Analects’s exclamation of “how radiant!” for Yao’s name, requir-
ing that the reader hear the reverberation of the passage’s initial allusion.
The sense of parallelism between Yao and the Duke of Zhou no longer
stands, with the interweaving of the two sagely rulers through the words
of Confucius now creating a more integral sense of sagely tradition.
The final part of the first paragraph introduces what clearly is a notion
of wen as literature, rehashing the theory of poetry found in the “Great
Preface,” as well as in other aspects of Han literary thought. The general
position may be summarized as follows: If the sovereign uses poetry to in-
fluence his subjects, his subjects use poetry to make their sentiments
known to the sovereign. However, the circulation of poems along the ver-
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
138
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
tical axis of the empire is not symmetrical. What the people voice in
song—and what form their songs take—is predicated upon the sover-
eign’s adherence to moral and literary exemplarity. It is the sovereign who
determines the prevailing style of poetic writing, as he should promulgate
correct literary models for his subjects to imitate. It is, therefore, also the
sovereign who is responsible for ensuring that the literature of the age
harmonizes the empire in correlation with the cosmological patterns of
heaven and earth.
In the next section of the preface, one finds a shift from the cosmic and
sovereign orders of literature to the specific situation of the literary writer.
The idea of literary creation as the expression of individual frustration is
derived from the concept of poetry as articulated in the previous section:
At times there will be officials who encounter slander or are banished, and gen-
tlemen without means of advancement or of humble status. For them, the road is
hard to travel and [success] will not be met; with regard to their aims, they are
gloomy and suppressed. Yet they passionately rise up from within aggrieved
straits and send aflight writings from below the imperial gates; they forcefully
soar up from the muck, reaching up to the clouds, shaking off drowning despair
in a single morning and passing down their songs for all time—often this has oc-
curred. Thus, of all such gentlemen, none did concern themselves with this!
或離讒放逐之臣，塗窮後門之士，道轗軻而未遇，志鬱抑而不申，憤
激委約之中，飛文魏闕之下，奮迅滓，自致青雲，振沈溺於一朝，流
風聲於千載，往往而有。是以凡百君子，莫不用心焉。
The standard figure of the frustrated official who uses literature to make
public his thoughts is Qu Yuan,81 the loyal official whose advice was not
valued by King Huai of Chu 楚懷王 (r. 328–299 bc), and who is said to
have then composed the “Li sao.” This theory of literary creation is predi-
cated on the following argument: Even if no direct redress is possible in the
immediate moment, and even if the entrusting of one’s thwarted feelings to
literary expression does not reach the emperor’s ear, the resulting work
will nevertheless stand as a testament to the writer’s aims, allowing him to
be remembered in the ages to come. This last issue points to a historical di-
mension that does not figure prominently in the sovereign model of liter-
—————
81. For the biography of Qu Yuan, see Shi ji, 84.2481–91.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
139
ary writing, since the frustrated official’s compositions can serve to de-
nounce the failures of kingship in the memory of later generations.
Since the writing of the preface is concerned with historical record,
one might say that it is precisely from the perspective of a later generation
that the narrative is composed. From this point onwards, the preface dis-
cusses the history of literary writing from the Han dynasty leading up to
the end of the Period of Division. The literary history may be divided into
two parts, the first part covering the period from the Eastern Han to 519
in the south, and the second part covering the period from that point on
until 585 in the north. I will treat each of these sections in turn. The first
section reads:
From the Han and Wei to the Jin and Song, literary styles underwent many suc-
cessive changes; previous erudites have disc
ussed this in great detail. Reaching the years bounded by the Yongming and Tianjian reigns,82 and between the Taihe
and Tianbao reigns and in the Luoyang region and the lower reaches of the
Changjiang,83 literary elegance was particularly abundant.84 The writers of this
time, such as Jiang Yan of Jiyang, Shen Yue of Wujun, Ren Fang of Le’an, Wen
Zisheng of Jiyin, Xing Zicai of Hejian, and Wei Boqi of Julu and others, all ex-
haustively studied the garden of writings and thoroughly pondered the patterns
of humanity.85 Resplendent colors were gathered from rosy clouds; untrammeled
sounds were produced from bells and chimes. Flowers blossomed in magnificence,
and waves sent flooding swells; their pens had energy to spare, and their words
did not exhaust the source. Comparing them with Zhang [Heng], Cai [Yong],
—————
82. The Yongming reign of Wudi of the Southern Qi 南齊武帝 lasted from 483 to 493,
while the Tianjian reign of Liang Wudi lasted from 502 to 519.
83. The Taihe reign of Xiaowendi of the Northern Wei 北魏孝文帝 lasted from 477 to
499. The Tianbao reign of Mingdi of the Later Liang 後梁明帝 lasted from 562 to 585.
84. The use of the phrase “literary elegance” ( wenya 文雅) in this passage refers to the profusion of literary talents, rather than to its other, more normative sense of literature in the style of the canonical Confucian writings.
85. Jiang Yan 江淹 (444–505) of Jiyang 濟陽 prefecture was a poet whose life spanned the Southern Song, Qi, and Liang dynasties. Shen Yue’s life spanned the Song, Qi, and Liang dynasties. Ren Fang 任昉 (460–508) of Le’an 樂安 prefecture was a parallel-prose stylist and poet whose life spanned the Southern Qi and Liang dynasties. Wen Zisheng 溫子昇
(495–547) of Jiyin 濟陰 prefecture was a poet and parallel-prose stylist who lived during the Northern Wei dynasty. Xing Shao 邢邵 (style-name Zicai 子才; b. 496) of Hejian 河
間 prefecture was a poet and parallel-prose stylist of the Northern Qi. Wei Shou (style-name Boqi 伯起) of Julu 鉅鹿 prefecture was a historian (compiler of the Wei shu), parallel-prose stylist, and poet of the Northern Qi.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
140
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
Cao [Cao], and Wang [Can], they likewise were each the elect of a single age.86
Others who heard of their fame admired their sounds and imagery, but however
much they may have esteemed one another, between them there were differences.
The
gong and shang notes of the region south of the Yangtze were loftily sounded; they esteemed clarity and elegance. The lyrics and moral principles of
the region north of the Yellow River were upright and hard; they valued charac-
ter and substance. If the writing has character and substance, then content pre-
vails over diction; if it has lightness and elegance, then patterning will exceed
meaning. Works in which the content is deep are suitable for state occasions;
works in which the patterning is florid are fitting for chanting in song. This is a
general comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the literary writers during
the Northern and Southern Dynasties. If one plucks out the clear tones of one
and culls the problematic verse of the other, ridding each of their shortcomings
and combining both of their strengths, then patterning and substance will be
equally excellent, the “utmost in goodness and utmost in beauty.”87
自漢、魏以來，迄乎晉、宋，其體屢變，前哲論之詳矣。暨永明、天
監之際，太和、天保之間，洛陽、江左，文雅尤盛。于時作者，濟陽
江淹、吳郡沈約、樂安任昉、濟陰溫子昇、河間邢子才、鉅鹿魏伯起
等，並學窮書圃，思極人文，縟綵鬱於雲霞，逸響振於金石。英華秀
發，波瀾浩蕩，筆有餘力，詞無竭源。方諸張、蔡、曹、王，亦各一
時之選也。聞其風者，聲馳景慕，然彼此好尚，互有異同。
江左宮商發越，貴於清綺，河朔詞義貞剛，重乎氣質。氣質則理勝
其詞，清綺則文過其意，理深者便於時用，文華者宜於詠歌，此其南
北詞人得失之大較也。若能掇彼清音，簡茲累句，各去所短，合其兩
長，則文質斌斌，盡善盡美矣。
The preface names the writers Zhang Heng, Cai Yong, Cao Cao, and
Wang Can—all writers of the Eastern Han or Three Kingdoms period—
as standards for literary excellence. Then, it goes on to narrate how, in the
period of political dissolution that followed, new talents arose in both the
north and the south, and it singles out for praise the northern writers
Wen Zisheng, Xing Shao, and Wei Shou, and the southern writers Jiang
Yan, Shen Yue, and Ren Fang. While the preface identifies literary history
with political and moral trends, its account of literary evolution is not
—————
86. Zhang Heng 張衡 (78–139) was an Eastern Han poet and scientist. Cai Yong 蔡邕
(133–92) was an Eastern Han prose writer, fu composer, and scholar. Cao Cao, in addition to his political achievements, was also a skilled yuefu poet. Wang Can 王粲 (177–217) was one of the Seven Masters of the Jian’an.
87. This is an allusion to Lunyu 3.25 translated above, in which Confucius discusses of the
"Shao.". See Lunyu jishi, 6.222.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
141
simply an intemperate condemnation of Southern Dynasties poetry, but a
more balanced assessment of the entire post-Han period.
The focus shifts somewhat in the second part of the historical narrative,
which discusses the Liang dynasty and the conjoined failures of political
sovereignty and literary culture before turning back to the north. This
section reads:
Since the Datong reign of the Liang dynasty,88 the way of elegance has fallen into
imperfection, gradually perverting canon and rule, and competing to chase after
the new and the ingenious. Emperor Jianwen and the Prince of Xiangdong opened
up [this road to] depraved abandon, and Xu Ling and Yu Xin took separate roads
and urged their horses onwards.89 Their concepts were shallow and convoluted;
their patterning obscure and gaudy. In their diction, they esteemed the frivolous
and difficult; in their emotional moods, there was much sorrow and yearning.
Even if one were to take Yanling’s ears as one’s standard, perhaps this also would
be [considered] the tones of a doomed state!90
When the Northern Zhou swallowed up [the lands of] Liang and Jing, their
culture was spread to the lands within the pass.91 What was rash and unrestrained,
—————
88. The Datong reign lasted from 535 to 545. The Yutai xinyong 玉臺新詠 ( Recent Songs from Jade Terrace) was compiled during this period, in the last decade or so of Liang Wudi’s reign.
89. This refers to the palace-style poetry begun during the Liang dynasty within the circle of poets around Xiao Gang 蕭綱 (503–51; Liang Jianwendi 梁簡文帝, r. 549–51). The
Prince of Xiangdong 湘東王 refers to Xiao Yi 蕭繹 (508–54), later Liang Yuandi 梁元帝
(r. 552–54). Xu Ling 徐陵 (507–83) and Yu Xin
庾信 (513–81) are described here as creat-
ing different literary trends, but their names would become linked together as the “Xu-Yu style” 徐庾體.
90. In the Springs and Autumns period, Yanling was the capital of the state of Wu. Here,
“Yanling” is being used as synecdoche for Jiangnan. The compilers are saying that this kind of literary style would be considered excessive and decadent even for a poet of Jiangnan.
91. Liang 梁 and Jing 荊 were two of the ancient Nine States, mentioned in early texts such as the Classic of Documents. After the Sui reunified China, it divided the country into nine provinces, using the ancient names. Here, the compilers are anachronistically using the Sui designations to describe the areas that the Northern Zhou had conquered. See Zizhi tongjian, 168.5208. Liang would be located approximately in modern-day Sichuan; Jing would be approximately in modern-day Hunan. What I translate as the “lands within the pass” (the old capital region of the Qin and Han) is literally “the lands to the right of the pass” ( guanyou 關右). For a Northern Zhou discussion of “Guanyou,” see Zhou shu, 15.246.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
142
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
but possessing of literary brilliance, became the commonplace, heedlessly flowing
in and forgetting to return [to the source]; there was no means of curtailing it.92
梁自大同之後，雅道淪缺，漸乖典則，爭馳新巧。簡文、湘東，啟其
淫放，徐陵、庾信，分路揚鑣。其意淺而繁，其文匿而彩，詞尚輕
險，情多哀思。格以延陵之聽，蓋亦亡國之音乎。
周氏吞併梁、荊，此風扇於關右，狂簡斐然成俗，溜宕忘反，無所
取裁。
The historian sees the rise of palace-style poetry in Xiao Gang’s literary sa-
lon as causing the literary and moral decline of the Southern Dynasties.
This may be considered part of the early Tang’s literary conservatism,
which was articulated through the neoclassicist critique of literary formal-
ism and moral indifference. Significantly, the preface does not discuss any
concurrent literary failure in the Northern Dynasties, foreshadowing the
eventual reunification of the political world by the north that will mark