NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR Lucas Klein is assistant professor of translation in the School of Chinese of the University of Hong Kong, where he is an executive editor of the Journal of Oriental Studies. Correspondence to: Rm. 851, Run Run Shaw Tower, Centennial Campus, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Email: LKlein@hku.hk NICHOLAS MORROW WILLIAMS University of Hong Kong NAGATA TOMOYUKI 永田知之, Tōdai no bungaku riron: “fukko” to “sōshin” 唐代の文 学理論:「復古」と「創新」 . Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku gakujutsu shuppankai, 2015. viii + 552 pp. Serious research on Tang poetics has barely begun. The traditional scholarship of imperial China placed the rise of Tang poetry in a moralizing framework that obscured the distinction between spiritual orthodoxy and literary technique. In the 20th century, this mode was widely rejected, yet research was instead inhibited by recourse to conceptions of Chinese exceptionalism, reducing Tang poetics to one phase in a monolithic narrative of literary tradition continuous with the Book of Songs. Yet the finest scholarship of our time has already shown that the highest achievements of Tang poetry must be understood first of all in light of contingent and singular facets of that extraordinary epoch, such as its burgeoning cultural influences from Central Asia, the requirements and biases of the civil service examinations, the ongoing transformation of the Buddhist and Daoist religions, specific innovations in tonal prosody, the interregnum of Empress Wu, and the texture of Lady Yang’s stockings. The task that remains for us must be to continue exploring the specific ideological factors that inspired the flourishing of Tang poetics in its own time. In this unusually well-researched and well-documented new study, Nagata Tomoyuki of the Institute for Research in Humanities at Kyoto University has made a major contribution to the historical interpretation of Tang poetics. This is one of the most thorough treatments so far of the simple question: what did Tang people think of their own poetry? The difficulty of answering this previously has been that so little literary theory per se seems to have been written in the Tang, in striking contrast to the Six Dynasties. Professor Nagata’s solution has been to focus singlemindedly on the authentic discussions of literary values in the Tang that do remain extant. Thus the riron / lilun 理論 of the title does not really mean “theory” but should probably be understood literally as “ordered discourses” about literature. According to Nagata’s research, these texts consist essentially of two kinds: firstly, discourse evaluating the legacy of Chen Ziang 陳子昂 (659–700)1 and upholding archaicist (fugu 復古) ideals; and secondly, the poetry manuals (shige 詩格), foremost 1 Nagata’s dating of Chen’s life follows the chronology of Xu Wenmao 徐文茂, Chen Ziang lunkao 陳子昂論考 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2002), 129–34. 128 BOOK REVIEWS among them the writings of monk-poet Jiaoran 皎然 (720–ca. 795), which advocate originality and transformation. Whereas a good deal of English-language scholarship has treated Chen Ziang already,2 the poetry manuals and Jiaoran have been relatively slighted.3 Professor Nagata follows his mentor Zhang Bowei 張伯偉 in taking the latter seriously, and his book demonstrates convincingly that there existed in the Tang an estimable alternative to archaicist views of literature. The first few chapters of the book examine the discourse that developed surrounding Chen Ziang. These proceed chronologically, treating first the compiler of his collection , Lu Cangyong 盧藏用 (n.d.), then the views of later Tang writers, particularly in the High Tang and Mid-Tang, and thirdly the codification of these views in the reception of Chen’s work in the Song dynasty. Throughout this trajectory Nagata emphasizes the formative role of Lu’s preface to Chen’s collected works, essentially arguing that this was primary text in Chen Ziang’s canonization, surpassing Chen’s own works. Through careful documentation of sources including the Dunhuang manuscript P. 3590, Nagata shows that Chen’s collection circulated widely together with Lu’s preface and biography (“Biezhuan” 別傳). Tang readers interpreted his poems in light of the archaicist principles enunciated in Lu’s preface, as well as in terms of Chen’s career frustration described in the biography (p. 26). Views of Chen Ziang later in the Tang continued to recapitulate the same points, particularly the assertion that...
Read full abstract