by Chen Jack W
102. See Yu Shinan’s biography in Jiu Tang shu. For a discussion of Yu Shinan and his works, see Owen, Poetry of the Early T’ang, pp. 42–51; and Li Jun, “Chu Tang gongting shifeng biange de xiansheng.”
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
148
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
with Taizong’s compliment. The application of the term zhiyin (the one
who knows the tone) to Yu Shinan places Taizong in the primary role of
Bo Ya and relegates Yu, the major poet of Taizong’s age, to the secondary
role of Zhongzi Qi. Moreover, Taizong is not exactly faithful to the role
of Bo Ya, since he does not quit poetic composition following Yu’s death,
but instead goes on to write a poem that his official will never get to read.
And lastly, by having the poet Chu Suiliang burn the poem as a spirit of-
fering to Yu Shinan, Taizong ensures that no one else will ever read the
poem. That is, the emperor thus ignores the implied advice of his sup-
posed zhiyin, which was to provide a morally proper model of poetic
composition that the world might imitate, and through imitation, be-
come rectified.
This anecdote, like others involving Taizong, is centered on a scene of
instruction, one that is performed consciously as a means of demonstrat-
ing imperial virtue. Taizong needs to be corrected so that he may perform
his virtue, taking back the problematic gongti poem and substituting the
morally proper huaigu poem instead. At the same time, the anecdote also
shows the lingering power of the southern poetic mode, one that pos-
sessed cultural capital within the northern-based court of the Tang. Tai-
zong desires to be like Yu Shinan, a master of the southern style, and it is
with a sense of pride that he shows the poem to his courtier. The rhetori-
cal form of the scene of instruction necessitates that any inherent contra-
diction be resolved in one way or another, but it is worth keeping the
double intention of the anecdote in mind. To advocate simply restoring
literary plainness and historical didacticism as a solution to the question
of dynastic style is the response of the moralistic scholar or the literary in-
quisitor; it ignores the critical power of wen that was acknowledged even
in the early Confucian tradition. For Taizong, who understood the at-
tractions of the southern courtly style, the solution would have to be
more nuanced and less parochial than the position taken by Li E.
The Jin shu and Its Literary Preface
Near the end of his life, in 646, Taizong ordered the compilation of the
Jin shu, whose supervision was assigned to his trusted minister Fang
Xuanling. In his edict, Taizong states:
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
149
Now, when the dynastic house of the Jin responded to the change of cycle, they
took command of the Central Plain. The ancestral emperors had announced this
in the designs of their funerary steles and the later successors took their place under the yellow star’s virtue.103 When the cauldron of the imperial court began to
seethe, an heir restored the dynasty within the lower reaches of the Changjiang.
All received shelter within the royal domain;104 all flew the insignia of the
imperial banner.105 This was enough to send blossoms aflight from splendid
brushes, comparable in beauty with the writing of official documents.106
唯晉氏膺運，制有中原。上帝啟玄石之圖，下武代黃星之德。及中
朝鼎沸，江左嗣興，並宅寰區，總垂徽號，足以飛英麗筆，埒美
方書。107
The Jin dynasty is traditionally divided into the Western Jin, which brief-
ly united the empire, and the Eastern Jin, which was founded south of the
Yangtze River following the sack of Luoyang by Xiongnu forces in 311.
Taizong notes the fall of the Western Jin and the southward move of the
Eastern Jin, but he does so within a rhetoric of restoration, rather than re-
treat or failure. Indeed, the Eastern Jin, despite the loss of the north, is
portrayed as retaining the hearts of its subjects, all flying the Jin banner to
demonstrate their support for the displaced dynasty. Taizong asserts that
such benevolence in government is deserving of commemoration in a new
historiographic project, and in the rest of the edict, passes judgment on
how prior histories of the period had failed to do justice to the Jin. Beyond
the unexpectedly positive evaluation of a dynasty that began with a treach-
erous usurpation and ended in impotence, what is most striking is the
—————
103. Wu Yun and Ji Yu note in the Tang Taizong quanji jiaozhu that shangdi 上帝 refers to the ancestors of the Jin house. The term xuanshi can mean gravestone ( mubei 墓碑), so I have interpreted tu 圖 (“design”) as referring to the design on the funerary steles. The term xiawu 下武 refers to the title given to the greater ode “Foot-tracks Below” (Poem 243) in the Classic of Poetry. Here, wu 武 is glossed as ji 繼. See Mao Shi zhengyi, 15.5.257b–
58a, in Shisanjing zhushu, pp. 525–26. The “yellow star” is an auspicious portent.
104. The term huanqu 寰區 refers to the one-hundred li radius around the capital.
105. Here, I follow the Cefu yuangui text, which reads zong chui 總垂 (with the alternate character for zong, for which I have substituted the standard character).
106. I follow the Cefu yuangui, which reads lie 埒, instead of jiang 將. Fangshu 方書 refers to the official documents of the government.
107. For texts, see Songben Cefu yuangui, 556.1571b–71d; Cefu yuangui, 556.6681c–82b; and Tang da zhaoling ji, 81.422. The text is also included as an appendix in Jin shu, pp. 3305–6; and Tang Taizong quanji jiaozhu, pp. 525–28. For a complete translation of this edict, see Fairbank, “Ssu-ma I,” pp. 259–61.
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
150
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
praise that Taizong lavishes upon Jin literature: “This was enough to send
blossoms aflight from splendid brushes, comparable in beauty with the
writing of official documents.”
As noted before, Taizong would himself write four zonglun or “sum-
mations” for the Jin shu, each appended as a postface to the subjects’ bio-
graphical chapters. Two of these would be discussions of Jin Xuandi and
Jin Wudi. The other two would discuss the great calligrapher Wang Xizhi
of the Eastern Jin and the great Western Jin poet Lu Ji. It is not entirely
clear why the compilation of the Jin shu would have occupied Taizong’s
thoughts in the waning years of his reign, though Anthony Fairbank has
suggested that the new historiographic project might have been Taizong’s
attempt to restore a sense of cultural achievement at a time when the
memory of his failed Korean military campaigns loomed heavily over the
court and empire.108
Whatever the case, it would seem that Taizong and his court were in-
terested in reevaluating the status of Jin lite
rature, which had been given
scant attention in the Sui shu. And, as with the Sui shu, the Jin shu would contain a collective biography of literary men, in this case titled the “Biographies from the Garden of Literature” 文苑列傳. The Jin shu preface
begins as the Sui shu preface does, with the articulation of general princi-
ples about the importance of literature. Following this, the focus turns to
the Jin dynasty proper:
When the phase of metal succeeded in the cycle and reached its limit, literary ele-
gance was abundant.109 Zhang Zai claimed for himself the beauty of inscribing
mountains,110 and Lu Ji won prominence with the extraordinary matter of burn-
ing the inkslab.111 Pan and Xia[hou] were joined in brilliance, equal in talent and
—————
108. Fairbank, “Ssu-ma I,” pp. 257–58, 270–78. At the time, there were eighteen extant or partially extant earlier histories of the Jin. See Lien-sheng Yang, “Notes on the Economic History of the Chin Dynasty,” p. 119.
109. The Jin dynasty was governed by the phase of metal in the Five Phases cosmological cycle.
110. When the poet and scholar Zhang Zai 張載 (d. ca. 304) went to pay his respects to his father, who was Governor of Shu Commandery, he wrote an inscription about the pass at Mount Jiange 劍閣山. The “Inscription on Jiange” 劍閣銘 is preserved in Zhang Zai’s
biography, in Jin shu, 55.1516. For a translation and discussion of the piece, see Kroll, “The Road to Shu,” pp. 246–51.
111. This refers to a comment by Lu Ji’s younger brother, Lu Yun 陸雲 (262–303), who
once wrote Lu Ji, saying, “When [Cui] Junmiao saw my elder brother’s writing, he wanted 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
151
renowned among their generation; in concert they gathered from all over what
was delicate and fine, weaving together the pure blossoms, exhausting the black-
silk volumes of the imperial archives and collating the beauteous tunes of Ping-
tai.112 Their fine sounds and flowering traces are set forth in individual biogra-
phies.113 As for Jifu and Taichong, they were the gifted heroes of the upper
reaches of the Yangtze.114 Cao Pi and Yu Chan were the contemporary talents of
the restoration.115 Indeed, they were “golden visages” with “jade-like gloss,”116 like forests luxuriant or streams cascading, equal in beauty to the cultivated gentlemen of past ages, transmitting wealth for their descendants to come. At present,
we have written of the grand styles of those refined scholars and made them
known in the “Garden of Literature.”
及金行纂極，文雅斯盛，張載擅銘山之美，陸機挺焚研之奇，潘夏連
輝，頡頏名輩，並綜採繁縟，杼軸清英，窮廣內之青編，緝平臺之麗
曲，嘉聲茂迹，陳諸別傳。至於吉甫、太沖，江右之才傑；曹毗、庾
闡，中興之時秀。信乃金相玉潤，林薈川沖， 埒美前修，垂裕來葉。
今撰其鴻筆之彥，著之《文苑》云。
Though Taizong well understood that the Sima clan had founded the Jin
through treachery and usurpation, the rhetoric of elemental succession
within Five Phases cosmology gives legitimacy to the Sima clan’s rise to
power. Moreover, the writing of the literature of the Jin is presented as
the flourishing of “civilized” or “literary elegance” ( wenya 文雅), the
proper and upright style of writing that can transform the moral customs
of the world.117 What the Jin shu preface does is to craft a narrative that
—————
to burn his brush and inkslab [and never compose again]” [崔]君苗見兄文，輒欲燒其
筆硯. Jin shu, 54.1481.
112. Pan Yue and Xiahou Zhan 夏侯湛 (243–91) were Western Jin writers and officials.
They became friends when both serving in Luoyang. After Xiahou’s death, Pan wrote a
dirge in his memory.
113. For the biography of Zhang Zai, see Jin shu, 55.1516–24; for Lu Ji, see Jin shu, 54.1467–
81; for Pan Yue, see Jin shu, 55.1500–7; and for Xiahou Zhan, see Jin shu, 55.1491–99.
114. Jifu was the style-name of the Western Jin writer Ying Zhen 應貞 (d. 269). Taichong was the style-name of Zuo Si 左思 (ca. 250–ca. 305). “Jiangyou” 江右 was a term used by
the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties to refer to the Western Jin and the Northern Dynasties.
115. Cao Pi 曹毗 (style-name Fuzuo 輔佐) and Yu Chan 庾闡 (style-name Zhongchu 仲
初) were both fourth-century Eastern Jin writers.
116. The phrase “golden visage” is a figure for the beauty of outward appearance; the phrase
“jade gloss” is a figure for the beauty of inward virtue.
117. For example, in the Xin yu 新語 ( New Discourses) by Lu Jia, one finds the following sentence: “[The later sage, or Confucius] set forth the music of bell and drum and song and 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
152
The Reception of Literature in Tang Taizong’s Court
presents the Jin reunification as a return to the normative patterning of
wen claimed by the Confucian classical tradition.
The preface then moves to a selection of eight representative authors.
The first set of authors (Zhang Zai, Lu Ji, Pan Yue, and Xiahou Zhan) all
have individual biographies in the Jin shu, though it is worth noting that
three of the biographies (Xiahou Zhan, Pan Yue, and Zhang Zai) are ac-
tually included in the same fascicle, as if constituting another collective
biography. The second set of authors (Ying Zhen, Zuo Si, Cao Pi, and Yu
Chan) have their biographies collected in the “Garden of Literature.” Of
these, all but the last two are identified with the Western Jin. Crucial to
the argument that the Jin represented a return to sagely norms is the ab-
sence of criticism regarding the Jin’s failure to sustain a unified empire.
The retreat of the Jin across the Changjiang is simply given the euphe-
mism of a “restoration” ( zhongxing 中興), as if the glory days of the Jin
had been recaptured, while the writers of both periods are compared to
“cultivated gentleman of past ages.”
The narratival decision to recast the imperial failure of the Jin in the
language of restoration recalls the larger question of why the early Tang
chose to undertake this historical compilation in the first place. This is, in
part, a consequence of narrative form, since the Jin shu preface to its col-
lective literary biographies does not look beyond the literary history of the
Jin to discuss later implications or developments. By contrast, the Sui shu
preface had identified the divergence of northern and southern literary
traditions as the failure of the sagely project of wen. The Sui shu literary preface did not address the Jin except in the most passing of mentions;
however, elsewhere in the Sui shu, in the “Treatise on Bibliography” 經籍
志, there would be a more specific discussion of literary trends under both
halves of the Jin:
Thus, upon reaching the years under the Jin dynastic house, it was Pan Yue and
Lu Ji who received wide acclaim. Their axe-cut ornamentation cast radiance up-
on one another, and the gong and shang notes arose between them. Pure r
hetoric shone brighter than metal and jade, and refined principles were subtler than the
clouds in the sky. But after the Yongjia reign, when the winds of obscure learning
were stirred up, rhetoric became rather insipid and literary writing lacked
—————
dance in order to restrain extravagance, correct popular customs, and spread civilized elegance” 設鐘鼓歌舞之樂，以節奢侈，正風俗，通文雅. See Lu Jia, Xin yu jiaozhu, 1.18.
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
153
force.118 And in coming down to the period after the move east of the Chang-
jiang, [literary writing] could not overcome its exhaustion.
爰逮晉氏，見稱潘、陸，並黼藻相輝，宮商間起，清辭潤乎金石，精
義薄乎雲天。永嘉已後，玄風既扇，辭多平淡，文寡風力。降及江
東，不勝其弊。119
This is a narrative that more closely matches what we might expect of a
Tang narrative on the Jin loss of the Chinese heartland and its relocation
southward. While Lu Ji and Pan Yue of the Western Jin still stand as wor-
thy of praise, the “winds of obscure learning” ( xuanfeng 玄風) would
sweep away the former glories of Jin literature. All that would follow the
Jin reestablishment of their capital in Jiankang is presented as cultural and
dynastic “exhaustion” ( bi 弊), thus foreshadowing the politically ineffec-
tual Southern Dynasties.
Taizong’s Essay on Lu Ji
If Taizong saw reason for praise and censure in the Jin promise of im-
perial unification and its subsequent failure to sustain that unity, his ad-
miration for the achievement of Western Jin literature was unambiguous.
The writer that Taizong praised most effusively was Lu Ji. In his summa-
tion ( zonglun) to Lu Ji’s biography, Taizong begins by stating,
A person of ancient times said, “Although Chu may possess the talent, it is Jin that truly makes use of it.”120 When We examine Lu Ji and Lu Yun, they indeed are the
fine timber of Jing and Heng, lifting up jade-like virtue upon reaching maturity
—————
118. The Yongjia reign lasted from 306 to 313. The “winds of obscure learning” refers to the tradition of xuanyan shi 玄言詩 (“obscure language poetry”) that arose in the Eastern Jin.
