The Poetics of Sovereignty
Page 26
the revival of literary and moral virtues.
Between these two halves of the historical account, we have a critical
evaluation of the northern and southern styles. Where “character and
substance” ( qizhi 氣質) was the primary aim, the content of the work
took precedence over its formal presentation—which is to say, over dic-
tion, rhetorical sophistication, and euphony. Where “lightness and ele-
gance” ( qingqi 清綺) was the primary aim, such formal concerns then
displaced the depth of content—which is to say, moral and political sig-
nificance. The preface further notes that works emphasizing character
would be useful for public occasions, while works of beauty are for private
enjoyment. However, there is a recognition here that neither of these two
styles is complete in itself, but needs to be balanced by the other in order to
reach true literary and moral perfection. By ending with an allusion to the
passage where Confucius compares the perfectly beautiful and perfectly
moral “Shao” of Shun to King Wu’s perfectly beautiful but not perfectly
moral “Wu,” the text not only points to the relative strengths of the north-
ern and southern traditions, but more importantly, suggests the possibility
—————
92. This is an allusion to Lunyu 5.21, in which Confucius, when travelling in the state of Chen, said, “Let me return! Let me return! The disciples of my school have rash and unrestrained ambitions; though they excel at literary composition, they do not know how to curtail themselves!” 歸與歸與，吾黨之小子狂簡，斐然成章，不知所以裁之. See
Lunyu jishi, 10.343.
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
143
of restoring a sagely tradition to literature. That is, if the split between
northern moralism and southern aestheticism could be bridged, then the
perfected music of Shun could once again be realized in the world.
With this possible resolution in mind, the preface turns to the reunifi-
cation of empire by the Sui dynasty, and with it, the brief return of a pub-
lic-minded conception of literature:
When Gaozu [Sui Wendi] first took charge of the king’s business,93 he constantly
sought to “chop away the ornamental and adopt simplicity,”94 issuing orders and
enacting commands to eliminate all excessive decoration. However, the literary
language of the age was still rather decadent and florid, therefore the office of the censorate repeatedly sent the “frosty slips” flying.95 When Yangdi first practiced
arts and letters, he made an argument for getting rid of the frivolous and unor-
thodox, but when he ascended to the throne, he completely changed his manners.
His “Letter to the Duke of Yue” and “Decree on Establishing the Eastern Capi-
tal,” and his poems “In Winter, Going to Receive Court,” and “Imitating ‘Water-
ing Horses by the Great Wall’ ” all preserved elegance of style and returned to
norms of law and institution.96 Although his thoughts may have been arrogant or
lascivious, his words were not dissolute. Therefore, gentlemen of that time who
composed writings were able to find support and attain rectitude. It is said that
those who are good at words are not necessarily good at conduct; this is perhaps
also, “A gentleman does not reject a person’s words because of his character.”97
—————
93. The term wanji can literally be translated as “myriad triggers,” referring to the various and sundry matters requiring the attention of the emperor.
94. This phrase “chopping away the ornamental and adopting simplicity” 斲彫為樸 is an
allusion to Han Guangwudi. In its original context (and written as “斲彫為朴”), it does
not refer to literary simplicity, but to imperial frugality. See Hou Han shu, 10.400.
95. The “frosty slips” refer to the documents used by the censorate to impeach high-
ranking officials.
96. Sui Yangdi’s “Letter to the Duke of Yue” 與越公書 probably refers to the handwrit-
ten decree he wrote to Yang Su 楊素 (enfeoffed as “Duke of Yue” 越國公), honoring him
for his meritorious service; see Yang Su’s biography in Sui shu, 48.1289–91. For Yangdi’s
“Decree on Establishing the Eastern Capital” 建東都詔, see Sui shu, 3.60–62. “In Winter, Going to Receive Court” 冬至受朝詩 should read “In Winter, Going to Ganyang Palace
to Receive Court” 冬至乾陽殿受朝詩; see Wenyuan yinghua, 311.1599. I will discuss his
“Imitating ‘Watering Horses by the Great Wall’” 擬飲馬長城窟行 in Chapter 4.
97. The line, “A gentleman does not reject a person’s words because of his character,” is an allusion to Lunyu 15.21: “The Master said, ‘A gentleman does not raise up a person just because of his words, and does not because of his character reject his words’” 君子不以言舉
人，不以人廢言. See Lunyu jishi, 32.1106.
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
144
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
高祖初統萬機，每念斲彫為樸，發號施令，咸去浮華。然時俗詞藻，
猶多淫麗，故憲臺執法，屢飛霜簡。煬帝初習藝文，有非輕側之論，
暨乎即位，一變其風。其《與越公書》、《建東都詔》、《冬至受朝
詩》及《擬飲馬長城窟》，並存雅體，歸於典制。雖意在驕淫，而詞
無浮蕩，故當時綴文之士，遂得依而取正焉。所謂能言者未必能行，
蓋亦君子不以人廢言也。
The preface ends the literary historical narrative by giving qualified praise
to the Sui. Wendi is compared here to Han Guangwudi, who also sought
to “chop away the ornamental and adopt simplicity” 斲彫為樸, though
this was not to be attained during Wendi’s reign. When the text turns to
Yangdi, it notes that Yangdi’s words and his behavior are two different
things. Though the Sui shu elsewhere criticizes Yangdi for the Sui’s even-
tual political and social failures, here it acknowledges that Yangdi did
compose several outstanding works in the mode of a public-minded, mor-
ally orthodox literature. These contribute to the literary and moral health
of the empire because they allow other writers “to find support and attain
rectitude” by using Yangdi as their literary model. The legacy of the or-
thodox poetics thus did not die out in the Sui, but was able to be pre-
served and transmitted into the Tang.
Two Anecdotes about Taizong and Literature
The Sui shu literary preface is perhaps the most prominent of documents
that assert the Zhenguan conception of literary writing, but there are other,
less “official” pieces of evidence that provide a window into the discussions
on literature by Taizong and his officials. Of course, these are no less public,
in a sense, since Taizong was quite aware of the performative aspect of his
role, but they do, at the very least, provide entry into a different register of
discursive representation. For example, consider the following anecdote:
In the eleventh year of the Zhenguan re
ign, the Assistant Director of the Edito-
rial Service Zheng Long memorialized the emperor, requesting to compile Tai-
zong’s literary writings into a collection. Taizong said to him, “We order affairs
[of state] and issue commands in this way, and what is of benefit to the people
the histories will then record—this will be enough for [Our fame] not to decay.
In regard to these affairs, if We do not take the ancients as Our teachers, but
recklessly govern and bring harm to things, then even if we have works of poetry,
in the end We will be ridiculed by later ages—this is not what should be done.
Take, for example, [those rulers] from Liang Wudi and his son [Jianwendi] to
Chen Houzhu and Sui Yangdi, who also had large literary collections but in their
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
145
behavior generally did not act according to propriety; their ancestral temples and
altars of grain were felled in a short time. All rulers of men should be concerned
only with virtuous behavior, so why should We bother with literary works?” In
the end, he did not allow it.
貞觀十一年，著作佐郎鄧隆，表請編次太宗文章為集。太宗謂曰，朕
若制事出令，有益於人者，史則書之，足為不朽。若事不師古，亂政
害物，雖有詞藻，終貽後代笑，非所須也。秖如梁武帝父子，及陳後
主、隋煬帝，亦大有文集，而所為多不法，宗社皆須臾傾覆。凡人主
惟在德行，何必要事文章耶。竟不許。98
For Tang Taizong, the writing of literature carried with it both the sagely
power of moral transformation and the potentially destructive lure of im-
perial self-indulgence. Literature—and poetry in particular—may have
been elevated to a position of political, historical, and ethical significance,
but it was never entirely free from the suspicion that it was an activity of
leisure, an activity that one practiced while avoiding or neglecting more
pressing matters.
In this manner, the question of whether to retain a literary collection
cannot be taken lightly. Even though Taizong might be a decent poet,
there is the issue of appropriateness. Taizong argues that the appropriate
genre for the immortalization of imperial fame is not literary works, but
historical works. He goes on to point out how the southern poet-rulers
may have won literary fame but did not manage to govern for long.99 This
point is similar to the one Taizong made about Qin Shihuang, who may
have performed the Feng and Shan rites but did not gain the reputation of
a virtuous ruler. Here, it is the extravagance of literature that takes the
place of the extravagance of rites.
By refusing to have a literary collection compiled, Taizong is making
two different points. The first is relatively straightforward: merely that
literature is a minor concern compared to the truly significant matters of
imperial governance. Of course, this position would contradict a number
of assumptions that form the basis of Wei Zheng’s argument above, and
the poetics of significance in general. To explain this possible contradic-
—————
98. Zhenguan zhengyao, 7.345.
99. To be sure, his inclusion of Liang Wudi is unfair, as he ruled for nearly fifty years, longer than any of the other southern or northern emperors. This point is made forcefully in Tian, Beacon Fire and Shooting Star, pp. 15–76.
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
146
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
tion, we should turn to the second (and what I would argue is the more
important) point of the argument: Taizong’s desire to elevate historical
writing over literary writing. In the previous anecdote, we had seen Tai-
zong’s desire to keep historical writing free from the taint of decadent lit-
erature, as well as his conception of history as an instrument for moral
remonstrance. History is important to Taizong because it claims to be an
impartial observer of events, thereby bearing the responsibility of an accu-
rate representation of the sovereign’s reign. Though we have already seen
the vulnerability of the historical record in respect to the sovereign’s de-
sire to be represented in a flattering light, the ideological principle still
remains. Historiography is not written by the emperor, unlike poetry; it is
perfectly gong, or public, in a way that a literary work could never be.
Therefore, for history to praise the sovereign means that his deeds and ac-
complishments are actual ( shi 實) facts and not merely words, which,
however beautiful, are ultimately empty ( xu 虛).
Yet Taizong would seem to recognize how the actual and the rhetorical
are categories that permeate one another, how representation cannot be
separated from reality. Even his comments praising the work of historians
may be seen as part of a rhetorical strategy, as Taizong was himself more
than willing to intervene in the historiographic process to suit his political
needs. It would be a mistake, then, to take Taizong’s unilateral criticism
of literature at face value. Rather, the argument against literature is a met-
onymic rejection of the Southern Dynasties and of Sui Yangdi’s reign, an
attempt to signal Taizong’s own position in relation to what might be
called the literatures of significance and insignificance. There was much at
stake in one’s poetic identity, and because Taizong was himself a poet, he
would have to articulate on which part of the literary divide he fell.
However, it is one thing to state one’s political and literary principles
in prose; it is quite another to embody them in literary form. The ques-
tion is resolved in one direction in one of the most interesting literary an-
ecdotes from the Zhenguan period. The anecdote is found in the Tang shi
jishi 唐詩紀事 ( Recorded Occasions of Tang Poems):
Once, the emperor composed a palace-style poem, and asked Yu Shinan to write
a matching poem. Shinan said, “What Your Sageness has composed is indeed
skillful, but the style is neither elegant nor upright. If those above have something of which they are fond, those below will inevitably take it to excess. Your subject
fears that once this poem is circulated, the popular customs of the empire will fol-
low suit—so I dare not receive the command.” The emperor said, “We were only
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
147
testing you.” Some time later, the emperor wrote a poem that narrated the flour-
ishings and declinings of the ancient past. When he finished, he sighed and said,
“When Zhongzi Qi died, Bo Ya never again played his zither. To whom could
We show this poem!”100 He commanded Chu Suiliang to go to Yu Shinan’s spirit
seat and burn the poem there.
帝嘗作宮體詩，使虞世南
賡和。世南曰，聖作誠工，然體非雅正，上
有所好，下必有甚。臣恐此詩一傳，天下風靡，不敢奉詔。帝曰，朕
試卿爾。後帝為詩一篇，述古興亡，既而嘆曰，鍾子期死，伯牙不復
鼓琴，朕此詩何所示耶。敕褚遂良即世南靈坐焚之。101
The anecdote tells of an exchange between the emperor and Yu Shinan,
the leading southern poet in Taizong’s Academy for Exalting Literature.
Yu Shinan first came to notice when Xu Ling—the compiler of the pal-
ace-style anthology Yutai xinyong—praised him as his literary heir.102 It is a telling moment, then, that despite Yu’s impeccable southern courtly
credentials, he criticizes Taizong for writing in such a style. What Yu dis-
cerns is the connection between poetic composition and political conse-
quence: because the ruler’s poetic style will be imitated by his subjects,
Taizong must carefully consider how he is to represent himself. Chas-
tened by his official’s rebuke, Taizong claims that he was just “testing” ( shi
試) Yu. Later, he writes in a subgenre more befitting a responsible sover-
eign—a huaigu shi 懷古詩, a poetic meditation on the past, usually occa-
sioned by a visit to a historical site.
The interval between Taizong’s first poem and his second is significant,
and it is during this time that Yu Shinan dies. Taizong is not able to show
the more appropriate huaigu poem to his minister, and in his sorrow, cites
the story of Bo Ya, who destroyed his zither upon the death of his ideal
listener, Zhongzi Qi, as a means of praising Yu. Yet there are problems
—————
100. For the legend of Zhongzi Qi 鍾子期 and Bo Ya 伯牙, see Yang Bojun, ed. and an-
not., Liezi jishi, 5.178.
101. Tang shi jishi, 1.6. The passage is also translated in Wilhelm and Knechtges, “T’ang T’ai-tsung’s Poetry,” p. 3; and partially, with discussion, in Owen, Poetry of the Early T’ang, pp. 42–52. Two other versions of the same anecdote are preserved in Liu Su 劉肅 (fl. 742–
755), comp., Da Tang xinyu, 3.41–42; and Cefu yuangui, 40.450b–51a (this fascicle is missing from the Song edition). Xiaofei Tian translates and discusses the Da Tang xinyu version in Beacon Fire and Shooting Star, pp. 186–88.