Changes of Gu-wen Writers’ View on Literary Forms in the Middle and Late Tang Dynasty: Focusing on Collected Works of Pi-ling, Collected Works of Master Chang-li, and Collected Works of Fan-chuan

• Main Authors: Kit-Ing Goh, 吳潔盈
• Other Authors: Chi-Peng Ho
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2013
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/p29g49

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 中國文學研究所 === 101 === The revolution and evolution of literary forms is of paramount importance to the study of the Gu-wen (Ancient Prose) Movement during Dynasty Tang. One of the ways to observe such changes and following impact, is to analyses the literary works, and the compilation of literary collections by gu-wen writers, to compare the similarities and differences of the view on literary forms of gu-wen during Middle and Late Tang Dynasty. Tang literature uses literary form to determine a work’s placement in literary collections. Intact literary collections from the period are already rare indeed, however collections which are strongly affiliated with the Gu-wen Movement make up the majority of the surviving collections. The major ones being Dugu Ji’s Collected Works of Pi-ling, Han Yu’s Collected Works of Master Chang-li, and Du Mu’s Collected Works of Fan-chuan. Of these three, the one that has been given the most attention for its association with the Ancient Prose Movement is doubtless Han Yu, a principle proponent and progenitor of the movement. Those collections connected with the Gu-wen Movement are most important when examining the changing concept of literary form via the changing principles of collection arrangement. Due to Han Yu’s diligent attempts to break the mold of literary form, he is of signal importance. Dugu Ji was a pioneer in literature looking to Han Yu for inspiration. Though Du Mu was not Han Yu’s disciple, he promoted Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan’s works, and became one of the remarkable Gu-wen writers in the Late Tang period. Both of them respectively belong to the period before and after Han Yu, their representative value is undoubted. The collection assembled by Li Han the Collected Works of Master Chang-li is of central importance; after this comes Liang Shu’s Collected Works of Pi-ling and finally Pei Yanhan’s Collected Works of Fan-chuan. The view of these three authors and these three editors toward literary form, both in points differing and resembling, can serve be used to observe the former, middle, and later periods of literary collections. This thesis places greatest emphasis on the views of the three original authors and then uses the viewpoints of the collection editors for reference in order to better explain the process of change that occurred in the Gu-wen Movement- as well as examine Han Yu’s contribution to and influence on the Gu-wen Movement. Dugu Ji’s literary works most often adhere to the rules of literary genre. His epitaphs such as ‘Epitaph of the Junior Chamberlain of the Grand Court of Revision and Censor of Tang, Master Du gu from Henan’ adhere to the rules for the genre, individually and in the established order listing the subject’s name, family, and life events. His gift prefaces, for instance, the ‘Preface presented to Li Bai departing for Cao-nan’ are filled with a passionate style but are still in keeping with the demands of genre laid down in previous generations; it has no major deviations from established form. His prefaces for literary collections such as the ‘Preface of Collected Works of the Deputy Rectifier of Tang, Huangfu Ran’ emphasizes the principles of the Gu-wen Prose Movement and did not deviate from literary tradition. Liang Shu was Dugu Ji’s student who compiled the Collected Works of Pi-ling after his death. The arrangement of literary forms in this collection is clear and organized; the order of the collection is rational and shows the influence of Zhao Ming Selected Works, placing rhapsodies and poetry first followed by essays. Every section is divided into first public then private works and first those works regarding the temporal world followed by those works about death. The section for every literary form is chronologically ordered. Several sections are additionally ordered by the elegance or vulgarity of the content, as well as the principles of base position or high position, close or distant relationships, etc. The sections thus tend to be ordered internally by content and then by year. At the same time Liang Shu also considered the author during the editing process. Liang made certain modifications to the ordering that adhere to Dugu Ji’s ideal principles on gu-wen writing. Han Yu was not constrained by traditional standards of writings. He managed to grasp the essence of the changes and development of literature, so as to the basis of his innovative reform movement. Han Yu’s ‘za-zhu’ (雜著), such as ‘The Five Discourses’ (五原), ‘Miscellaneous Talk’ (雜說), ‘Epilogue of the Bibliography of the vice censor-in-chief, Zhang Xun’ (張中丞傳後敘), and ‘Account of a Painting’ (畫記) are examples of his genre-breaking works. He has been accused of “making literature a game”, “filling his works with fluff and not substance”- but this only highlights the history-making nature of his ideal literary standard. His deconstruction of form to create literature can be seen as a sort of literary game, as an experiment in breaking old forms in traditions. This way of writing certainly attacked the traditional Tang understanding of literary form and its purpose- and Li Han’s understanding of literature reflects this. Li Han was the son-in-law of Han Yu’s eldest daughter. He compiled a collection for the Han Yu works, while his way of going about it was appropriately unique. Although Li Han also followed the accepted pattern of rhapsody, poetry, and composition, it’s also obvious from his organization that his concept of literary form was already quite different from Liang Shu’s. He put all the unique ancient prose, ‘za-zhu’ written by Han Yu and placed it after rhapsodies and poetry at the head of the composition section. This sort of organization in a literary collection was unheard of and far-reaching in its consequences. His wild and unclear organization of sections and the material organized into each section was the subject of much debate by scholars for years after. Many believed that though he was Han Yu’s student he did not understand the true nature of Han Yu’s gu-wen and this was the cause of such reckless organization. This is reflective of the change in thinking that Han Yu’s Gu-wen Movement caused in literary forms. Li Han’s view of literary forms had already loosened and caused began to cause him difficulty in determining into which category each work should be sorted. As scion of a noble house, Du Mu was a Confucian master, skilled in the military theories, an accomplished poet. He set out to be the glory of his house and the reformer of his nation. His admiration for Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan’s literary style influenced his literary style. His work with ancient prose literary forms spanned numerous genres, many of which were similar to the ones that Han Yu had worked in, for instances, ‘Record of a General in Yen’ (燕將錄), ‘Bibliography of Lady Dou’ (竇烈女傳), and ‘Preface of Sun Tzu with Annotations’ (注孫子序 ). Many of his works like ‘Discourse on the Imperial Guards’(原十六衛) and ‘Argument on Face Reading’ (論相) can be seen as literary form breaking, but his focus was not on deconstructing the forms and neither was it on literature as a game. But compared with Dugu Ji, who was previous to Han Yu, his concept of literary form is already greatly loosened. Pei Yanhan was Du Mu’s nephew and was asked by Du Mu to compile his literary works. The result of Pei’s labor was the Collected Works of Fan-chuan. Compared with Li Han, Pei’s ordering is quite tidy. The traditional system of rhapsodies and poetry followed by composition is followed in Du Mu’s collection. The editor tends to follow accepted practice as well using the social status and kin relationships of the recipients of each work to determine its placement in the collection- and of course finally putting this system into chronological order. The Collected Works by Fan-chuan also has another important point. Du Mu once burned his manuscripts which he considered extraneous, which implies his remaining works are much more representative of his literary views than they would otherwise be. However, Du Mu’s editor placed all those works which defied classification at the head of the collection- a move similar to Li Han’s, and this also shows that Pei Yan-han was well aware of both the classic concept and gu-wen concept of literary form and knew how to strike a balance between them in the ordering of Du Mu’s literary collection. By comparing and contrasting these three collections- their editors and authors- we can understand the values of the ancient prose movement and its aesthetic system more clearly. This comparison furthermore provides an invaluable chance to see the true extent of Han Yu’s influence on the Tang dynasty concept of literary forms.