The literature of the later stage always steps on the head of the literature of the previous stage.
For example, if there were no Book of Songs and Songs of Chu, how could there be Yuefu?
The history of the development of novels is the most representative historical inheritance of literature. Starting from the Yuefu poems telling stories, to the novels about people and strange things in the Han and Jin Dynasties, to the romances of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, to the storybooks of the Song Dynasty, to the scripts telling the stories of the Yuan Dynasty, to the four major novels of the Ming Dynasty, then to the Qing Dynasty, and finally to modern times. Fiction in Contemporary Literature.
In terms of performance, first of all, genre, secondly, subject matter, and finally, aesthetics.
The periodization of Chinese literary history is a very important topic in the current academic research field. Over the past few months, everyone has been discussing this issue enthusiastically, and several senior researchers in literary history have also expressed outstanding and specific opinions. However, since this issue involves the comprehensive evaluation and understanding of the motherland's literary heritage, it is extremely complicated and difficult to draw appropriate conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a more extensive and in-depth discussion. As Mr. Li Changzhi said, this is a theoretical issue and a practical issue. If you don't put in hard work, it will be difficult to achieve full success.
Here I would like to put forward some different opinions on each company’s staging opinions, and hope to receive corrections.
(1)
At the beginning of the discussion, in order to facilitate the explanation of the problem, it is necessary to outline the outline of each company's staging.
Mr. Li Changzhi only proposed large periods: the first period from ancient times to the Western Han Dynasty (ancient times); the second period from the Eastern Han Dynasty to the prosperous Tang Dynasty (the middle ages); the third period from the Mid-Tang Dynasty to the Opium War (modern times); the fourth period From the Opium War to May Fourth (modern times).
Mr. You Guoen only proposed a large periodization: the first period from ancient times to the late Spring and Autumn Period (eighteenth century BC - fourth century BC); the second period from the Warring States Period to the Eastern Han Dynasty (third century BC - - second century AD); the third period from Jian'an to the prosperous Tang Dynasty (third century to the eighth century); the fourth period from the Mid-Tang Dynasty to the late Northern Song Dynasty (ninth century to the early twelfth century); the fifth period from the Southern Song Dynasty to the Opium War (twelfth century Early period - mid-nineteenth century); Sixth Opium War to the May Fourth Movement (mid-nineteenth century - 1919).
Mr. Lu Kanru and Feng Yuanjun proposed six paragraphs and fourteen periods in two articles, "Some Issues About Writing the History of Chinese Literature" and "Discussions on the Periodization of the History of Chinese Literature". The six sections are: (1) Before Zhou Dynasty; (2) Zhou Dynasty; (3) Qin to Southern and Northern Dynasties; (4) Sui to Yuan Dynasty; (5) Ming and Qing Dynasties; (6) After the Opium War. The fourteen periods are: (1) from ancient times to the Yin and Zhou Dynasties (before the 11th century BC); (2) from the Western Zhou Dynasty to the Spring and Autumn Period (from the 11th century BC to the 6th century BC); (3) from the late Spring and Autumn Period to the Warring States Period ( From the fifth century BC to the third century BC); (4) Qin and Han Dynasties (from the late third century BC to the late second century BC); (5) Jian'an to the unification of Sui Dynasty (from the late second century BC to the late sixth century); (6) Sui and early The prosperous Tang Dynasty (late sixth century to the middle and late century); (7) Middle and late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties (late eighth century to mid-10th century); (8) Northern Song Dynasty (mid-10th century to early 12th century); (9) Southern Song Dynasty and Jin (early 12th century to mid-13th century); (10) Yuan Dynasty (mid-13th century to mid-14th century); (11) Early Ming Dynasty (mid-14th century to mid-16th century); (10) 12) Late Ming Dynasty (mid-16th century to mid-17th century); (13) Early Qing Dynasty to the Opium War (mid-17th century to 1840); (14) Opium War to the May 4th Movement ( 1840-1919).
In addition, Mr. Lin Geng also published "Some Issues in the Study of the History of Chinese Classical Literature" on "Literary Heritage", in which he succinctly put forward his opinions on the issue of periodization. (1)
(2)
It should be said that the above-mentioned staging opinions are the result of hard work, and each has its own incisive reasons and basis. But after studying the articles of the elders, I also feel that there are several more important issues that can be raised and discussed. In order to facilitate analysis and research, I first boldly propose the outline of the stages I am trying to propose:
(1) Ancient times to the Yin and Shang Dynasties; (2) Zhou and Qin; (3) Han Dynasty; (4) Wei, Jin to Sui Dynasty; 5) The early Tang Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty; (6) The Southern Song Dynasty to the early Ming Dynasty (Zhengde); (7) The mid-Ming Dynasty (Jiajing) to the Opium War; (8) The Opium War to the May Fourth Movement.
Here, I briefly outline my personal opinions on the basis of the above-mentioned staging.
First, whether we should pay attention to the budding literary phenomenon in ancient times and organize and explain it is closely related to the understanding that literature and art originated from labor and the development of literature, and also related to when the history of literature began. Issues of perception even involve attitudes towards dealing with literary heritage. Regarding this, there are differences in the periodization of literary history. Regarding the budding literary phenomenon before the Zhou Dynasty, Messrs. Lu and Feng paid more attention to classify it as a stage from ancient times to the Yin and Shang Dynasties and narrated it independently, while Messrs. You and Li did not treat it this way. In particular, Mr. Li Changzhi also believed that: “As far as real achievements in literature are concerned, there are no important works before the Book of Songs, so the so-called ancient works mainly begin with the Book of Songs.
"This may not seem like a big problem on the surface, but in fact it is not simple as mentioned above. In particular, Mr. Li Changzhi's opinion seems to mean that the narrative of literary history only starts from the "Book of Songs", which is even more debatable. In the past, some researchers also There have been debates about whether the history of literature begins with the Yin and Shang Dynasties or with the Book of Songs. They either think that works before the Zhou Dynasty are not credible, or think that the works before the Zhou Dynasty were mostly oral creations and lacked written pure literary and artistic works, so they do not pay attention to them and do not make systematic and detailed analysis. In fact, this is debatable. Here we propose that literary history should start from ancient times, and the literary phenomenon from oral creation to written creation before the Zhou Dynasty must be carefully organized and elaborated. It is difficult to collect and organize the information in the first stage, and many of the records left later are forged by later generations. However, we have found in "Lu's Spring and Autumn Ancient Music Chapter", "Book of Rites", "Tianwen", and "Postscript of Lu Shi" , "Huainanzi", "The Classic of Mountains and Seas", "Wuyue Spring and Autumn" and other ancient books, as well as oracle bone inscriptions and lines of the Book of Changes, you can still find a lot of credible materials for selection and refinement. Even as Gorky said, real-time archeology The original materials and reflections of ancient religious rituals are also materials of primitive culture (2). Moreover, before we find the exact basis, we casually conclude that the literary materials from before the Zhou Dynasty left in ancient books are false and false. This attitude is also not prudent enough. I think that the so-called ancient forgeries that researchers have casually dismissed in the past are worthy of reconsideration. It would be even more wrong to ignore them because there were few purely literary creations before the Zhou Dynasty. In fact, in the materials cited above, we can discover quite a few short songs and simple and moving myths that reflect social life. These are the sources of China’s rich literary heritage, from which we can learn about our How our ancestors created material wealth and spiritual wealth, we can also understand how our literature and art breed, grow and develop. Gorky is discussing the value of labor-created culture and the oral literature of working people, ancient stories and myths. At that time, he once lamented that none of the historians who studied primitive and ancient cultures used the materials of folk songs, the oral literature of the people, and the statements of myths, and pointed out: If you do not know the oral creations of the people, it is impossible to know the true story of the working people. History, this kind of people's oral creation has continuously and decisively influenced the creation of these greatest literary works (3). Lu Xun even brilliantly believed that the ancient working people issued "Hang Yu Hang Yu" when they were working. Screaming is creation; everyone must admire and apply it, which is equivalent to publication (4). What's more, there were no written creations that were budding and matured before Zhou Dynasty. For example, there are "Zhongfu" and "Zhongfu" in the lines of the Book of Changes. "Gui Mei" and "Mai Xiu Ge" of Ji Zi appeared in the Xia and Shang Dynasties. Even in the "Book of Songs", there may be a small part of it that was produced before the Zhou Dynasty. Therefore, we have no reason to ignore it and simply ignore it. At the same time, from the perspective of literary history, the literary fermentation before Zhou Dynasty took a long time to mature, and the earliest poetry appeared epoch-makingly in the Zhou Dynasty. Collection - "The Book of Songs", so we should treat the period before Zhou Dynasty as a stage with caution. For example, literature from ancient times to the Yin and Shang Dynasties should be the spire and the first layer of the pagoda body, and should not be regarded as just the tip of the pagoda. In my humble opinion, I think the attitude of Mr. You and Mr. Li in merging ancient times to the Yin and Shang dynasties into the Zhou Dynasty is inappropriate. I especially disagree with Mr. Li Changzhi’s opinion of using the Book of Songs as the starting point of literary history.
The first step in everything should be taken cautiously, and the beginning of literary history should not be treated hastily.
Second, I feel that the periodization of literary history should not be restricted by dynasties, but at the same time, there is no need to deliberately avoid periodization by dynasty. Because these two different approaches will also affect the correct explanation of literary history. However, from the several existing staging opinions, we can see these two relatively questionable divisions.
First of all, I feel that the installment opinions of Mr. Lu and Feng seem to be restricted by the dynasty.
One example: When dealing with the literary periodization of the Tang and Song Dynasties, the flesh-and-blood Middle and Late Tang Dynasty and the Five Dynasties and the Northern Song Dynasty are divided into two periods. In fact, dividing the middle and late Tang Dynasties, the Five Dynasties and the Northern Song Dynasty into two parts due to different dynasties is not in line with the actual development of literature. Here, we can discuss it in detail based on reality: (1) Looking at the ancient prose movement, among the main leaders, Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan were from the Tang Dynasty, and the other six were from the Northern Song Dynasty, and the Eight Great Masters of the Tang and Song Dynasties have been an inseparable concept that has been circulated for a long time. . Moreover, the development of the ancient prose movement is closely linked with the period from the Middle Tang Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty: at first, Xiao Yingshi, Li Hua, Liang Su, Yuan Jie, Dugu Ji and others in Tianbaojian advocated prose and rejected parallel style, and then Han and Liu Denggao became popular. In the Northern Song Dynasty, Wang Anshi, Ouyang Xiu, Zeng Gong and Su's father and son followed suit. The ancient prose movement developed rapidly and occupied the orthodox position. By the Southern Song Dynasty and the Jin and Yuan Dynasties, except for Chen Liang and Zhu Xi Shang, there were no outstanding prose writers. (2) Regarding the relationship between the rise, development and maturity of Ci, it is almost universally recognized that Ci "originated in the mid-Tang Dynasty, developed in the Five Dynasties, and was especially popular in the Song Dynasty".
Ci poetry started from Bai Juyi, Liu Yuxi, and Yuan Zhen's attempts to write lyrics in the Middle Tang Dynasty, and developed through Wen Tingyun, Wei Zhuang, and Li Yu to the Northern Song Dynasty. The number of professional poets increased day by day, and the scope of poetry expanded day by day. This all confirms that the lyrics we proposed were originated from young people in the Middle Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties. The popular saying that the Northern Song Dynasty has reached its prime (or golden age) is completely appropriate. It can be seen that the rise and development of Ci also closely tied the literary development stages from the Middle Tang Dynasty to the Song Dynasty. (After the Ci arrived in Jingkang, it took a new turn due to the changes in the struggle of the times, so I will ignore it here.) I think that "Tang and Song Ci" is not only a popular concept, but its continuous development is indeed clear and identifiable. , difficult to cut off. (3) The rise and development of legends and poems can also be said to be closely related to the social reasons of urban economic prosperity, commercial development, and the rise of the urban class in the Middle Tang and Northern Song Dynasties, and it is difficult to separate them. (4) Looking at the development of poetry and lyrics, legends, scripts and prose during the Tang and Song Dynasties, we can also see that their branches and leaves are intertwined and their branches are indistinguishable.
To sum up, we can clearly see the cohesiveness and uniqueness of literary phenomena in the period from the Middle Tang Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty. If we try to cut it apart, it will have the disadvantage of fragmentation.
Example 2: Messrs. Lu and Feng divided the literature from the Southern Song Dynasty to the Ming Dynasty into four periods: the Southern Song Dynasty and the Jin Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty, the early Ming Dynasty, and the late Ming Dynasty. This seems to be inconsistent and is especially worthy of discussion. Yes, should the Yuan Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty (that is, from the early Ming Dynasty to Zhengde) be separated? I think the only way to discuss it is through the analysis of the literary phenomena at that time: (1) In terms of prose, except for Chen Liang and Zhu Xi in the Southern Song Dynasty, Yu Ji, Yuan Haowen, Yao Sui, Zhao Bingwen and others in the Yuan Dynasty all Without outstanding contributions, it seemed mediocre. Later, in the early Ming Dynasty, there were seven scholars who advocated that "literary literature should be compared with Qin and Han Dynasties", and the literary fortunes worsened. It was not until the emergence of the Gong'an and Jingling factions after Jiajing that the decline of the previous generation resumed and new vitality emerged. Therefore, the period from the Yuan Dynasty to the Zhengde Period of the Ming Dynasty happened to be the rest period following the ancient prose movement of the Tang and Song Dynasties. (2) The Zaju and legends of the early Ming Dynasty basically inherited the colors of Southern Opera of the Song and Yuan Dynasties and Northern Zaju of the Jin and Yuan Dynasties. Although due to language relations, the Yuan Dynasty gave more priority to Beiqu operas, and the Ming Dynasty seemed to be dominated by Nanqu legends, in fact, the Zajus in the early Ming Dynasty still mostly used Beiyou opera. In the middle period of the Ming Dynasty, when the late kūn＠① tune appeared, Nanqu began to become more prosperous, and According to Ye Ziqi's "Cao Muzi" records, there was a period when Southern opera was popular in the Yuan Dynasty. From this, it can be seen that the spread and rise and fall of legendary operas in the Yuan Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty are basically similar in appearance. At the same time, the legendary dramas of the early Ming Dynasty were different from those of the late Ming Dynasty in terms of materials and techniques, but were quite similar to those of the Song and Yuan Dynasties. (3) Chapter novels in the early Ming Dynasty, such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, and Song and Yuan scripts, are closely related to the stories in Yuan operas. They are also closely related to Journey to the West and Plum in the Golden Ping that appeared in the late Ming Dynasty. different.
After this rough analysis, we can see that it is completely appropriate to use Jiajing as the boundary to separate the early and late Ming Dynasty, but there is little reason to divide the Yuan Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty into two. Although there were great changes in the history between the Yuan and the Ming Dynasty, the literature before Jiajing still inherited the previous dynasty, and new vitality in the literary world did not appear until after Jiajing.
We can say that the above two examples fully reflect the fragmentation of the complete phenomenon in the development of literature due to rigid dynasties.
Secondly, I think Mr. Li Changzhi’s intention of separating the literature of the two Han Dynasties and merging them into the early and later periods was to avoid being restricted by the dynasty. However, in reality, this division is worthy of reconsideration. . Mr. Lu and Feng once pointed out that it is difficult to describe the literature of the two Han Dynasties separately. For example, it is difficult to distinguish which ancient Yuefu poems of the Han Dynasty belong to the Eastern Han Dynasty and which belong to the Western Han Dynasty. It is also difficult to see any major changes in the poetry of the Eastern and Western Han Dynasties. I also feel that this is the case, and I also feel that there is no significant change in the literary landscape of the Eastern and Western Han Dynasties, and there seems to be no need to describe it separately. To forcefully separate them would appear to be neither fish nor fowl.
From a historical perspective, although the rulers of the early Eastern and Western Han Dynasties implemented some measures to develop production, and each had a prosperous stage of several decades, the economic measures of the two Han Dynasties all caused Big and small bureaucrats and big businessmen embezzled and accumulated wealth and land. Due to the external expansion of the rulers of the Han Dynasty, there have been frequent wars, and the people were under the heavy oppression of military service and taxes, and they were in great pain. Therefore, no matter in the Western Han Dynasty or the Eastern Han Dynasty, there were people's resistance struggles; rulers and local princes competed for power and profit. , and have been in constant conflict for a long time. It can be said that the entire Han Dynasty was a turbulent and painful era. Although there was a gap between the two Han Dynasties when Wang Mang reformed the system, it was a regression that violated the laws of social development, not progress. Therefore, historical evolution did not lead to a significant difference in the literature of the two Han Dynasties. From a literary perspective, we can examine all the literary content of the Han Dynasty: Ci Fu, Yuefu ballads and ancient poems, biographical literature and prose. The poems and poems of the two Han Dynasties mainly praise the rulers and reflect the corrupt and extravagant palace life. Only a few of them can still expose the healthier reality. Looking at the whole picture, these two types of works can be found in the early, middle and late periods. Although the content and form gradually became healthier after the middle of the Eastern Han Dynasty, there were very few significant changes in the first and middle periods, so it is difficult to divide the entire Han Dynasty Ci and Fu into two halves. If we look at outstanding figures, although the thinker Wang Chong appeared in the Eastern Han Dynasty, Sima Qian in the Western Han Dynasty was not inferior. The prose of both Han Dynasties has practical significance and positive value in the history of literature. Although its styles are different from gorgeous and simple, they are almost cross-developed, and it is difficult to distinguish the different characteristics of the earlier and later periods.
Most of the extant Yuefu of the Han Dynasty are works of the Eastern Han Dynasty. However, judging from the fact that the Yuefu of the Western Han Dynasty was established in the Western Han Dynasty to collect folk songs as recorded in the "Yiwenzhi" of the Han Dynasty, it is difficult to conclude how much of the Yuefu of the Western Han Dynasty has been lost and how much has been preserved. As for ancient poetry, there are also occasional works by Meicheng in the early period, Zhang Heng in the middle period, and Cai Yong in the later period.
It can be seen that for the stalemate in the literary phenomena of the two Han Dynasties, we have not yet separated the necessity and possibility of describing them separately. It is better to discuss the two Han Dynasties together, and there is no need to forcefully separate them to avoid dynastic constraints.
Mr. Li Changzhi advocated the separation of the two Han Dynasties, probably to take care of Jian'an, because Jian'an belonged to the Eastern Han Dynasty. In fact, Jian'an was already at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty, and the literary activities of Cao and his son, important figures in Jian'an, mainly began in the early Wei Dynasty. Therefore, it is better to incorporate Jian'an literature into the Wei and Jin phases. In order to take care of the integrity of the two Han Dynasties and the specialness of the Jian'an period, Mr. You Guoen adopted a compromise method and classified it as "Warring States to Eastern Han" and "Jian'an to Tang Dynasty". This is absolutely understandable, but I personally It is still believed that it is appropriate to describe the stage when Jian'an was merged into the Wei and Jin Dynasties. Some people may think that this is only in line with literary development and not in line with historical reality. In fact, there is no problem. Mr. Lin Geng said it well: "In the past, the Jian'an era was regarded as the end of the Han Dynasty. This was an illusion confused by history; but in fact, after the Yellow Turban Uprising, Dong Zhuo hijacked Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty, and the Han Dynasty actually The emperor no longer existed; at that time, Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty became a piece of meat that you and I were fighting over, and then Li jué@③ snatched Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty away again, and finally fell into the hands of Cao Cao. This was the first year of Jian'an; this Where was the Han Dynasty at that time? So Cao Cao was actually Emperor Wu of Wei, so Jian'an was not the end of the Han Dynasty, but the beginning of the Three Kingdoms era, the unveiling of a new era; and at this time a new literary era also began. Unveiling. The pace between the development of literary history and social development should be said to be very tight."
The above two staging opinions have inherent flaws, but it is certain that the author's good intentions are to try their best. Accurately explain the nature of the object of your study. However, the problem lies only in the lack of thorough and realistic investigation of the actual development of literature, so the result is also the same as cutting one's feet to fit the shoes. How to divide literary history into periods without being bound by dynasties, and without deliberately avoiding the constraints of dynasties and dividing the literary phenomenon, is of course a rather difficult and complicated subject, but in essence it is not so mysterious that it is unimaginable. Chairman Mao has repeatedly used Lenin's words to teach us: The most essential thing of Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, lies in the concrete analysis of specific situations. I think that realistic investigation can be used as a magic weapon to solve these problems.
Third, everyone believes that literary development and social development have a dialectical and organic relationship, but the two cannot be equated. Marx also pointed out long ago when discussing the issue of artistic production and material imbalance: "As for art, everyone knows that some of its prosperous times are not consistent with the general development of society, and therefore are not in line with that so to speak. The social material foundation that forms the backbone of social organization is compatible with it..." (5) However, when we face the long and ups and downs of literary history and want to divide it into several paragraphs, we have to wonder what objective criteria we should use to deal with it. What about installments?
Regarding this, Mr. Lu and Feng recently proposed in the article "Discussions on the Periodization of Chinese Literary History" that periodization should take into account both literary standards and historical standards, and the specific treatment should be based on the former and supplemented by the latter. , this formulation makes me very sad. However, putting this principle into practice is not easy at all. I feel that although Mr. Lu and Mr. Feng have made quite incisive and clear theoretical expositions, in their specific treatment, they still treat history and literary development equally and ignore the particularity of literary development.
We can put this issue into the discussion of the specific treatment of the long-popular concepts of periodization: "Zhou and Qin literature", "Qin and Han literature", and "Sui and Tang literature". Messrs. Lu and Feng advocated making a discussion of "Qin and Han" together in one issue. The reason is: "Although the literature of these four hundred years had some connections with the literature of the previous period at the beginning, the more it developed later, it became different from the previous period. The distance is getting farther, not only in terms of content, but also in style. At the same time, literary creation is becoming increasingly prosperous, there are more and more writers with testable deeds, and the styles of works are becoming more diverse. Of course, it is still inferior to the situation after the Sui and Tang Dynasties. But it has obviously begun to embark on the road of prosperity, multitude and diversity. For this reason, the scope of the literary history we should describe is also wider and narrower than in previous periods. Before this time, the scope may be slightly narrowed. Relaxation, whether it is the biography of Jingzi, is often mentioned in the history of literature; starting from this issue, we should gradually become stricter, and generally no longer include it except for more prominent works such as historical records. "Of course, this formulation is not included. Not without reason, but it is not entirely in line with the actual development of literature. In the case of the Qin Empire, although its emergence was of epoch-making significance in history, it only lived for a short period of fifteen years. Moreover, under the tyrant's brutal policy of destroying culture, in the Qin Dynasty, except for some eulogies written by Li Si, There is almost no literature at all. Mr. Lu and Feng's "History of Chinese Literature" published in "Literature, History and Philosophy", in the section "Prose of Qin and Han Dynasties", they can only cite one Li Si, and they can only cite Li Si's "Admonishment". "Guest Book" was brought out as specific material.
Therefore, the Qin Dynasty cannot really be regarded as a rising stage in literature, but can only be regarded as a declining stage in literature following the pre-Qin period when "all scholars arose and a hundred schools of thought contended" and Qu Yuan. After the beginning of the Western Han Dynasty, from the replacement of severe torture with cultural control (rituals and laws) to the promotion of Confucianism and the establishment of doctors of the Five Classics, literature gradually gained ground. As Mr. Lu and Feng said, "Literary creation is becoming more and more prosperous, and there are more and more writers with testable deeds. The style of works has also become more and more diverse." In fact, it can only start from the Western Han Dynasty, not from the Qin Dynasty. Based on these circumstances, we should call the Qin Dynasty "Zhou Qin" before the Qin Dynasty, and should not call it "Qin Han" after the Han Dynasty. The second is "Sui and Tang literature", a concept that has been circulating for a long time. Last year, at the preparation meeting for the Chinese Classical Literature Syllabus Symposium in Normal Colleges and Universities, it was mentioned: Where should the literature of the Sui and Tang Dynasties be placed more appropriately? Is it included in the literature of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties? Or should it be moved down and placed in the literature of the Tang and Five Dynasties? Now, Messrs. Lu and Feng combine the Sui Dynasty and the early Tang Dynasty into an independent stage. My humble opinion is that the weak Sui Dynasty literature, which only lasted for more than thirty years, can only be regarded as a declining stage in the history of literature. It should not be regarded as the beginning of a literary stage as a turning point or source of development. Mr. Yu Guanying's opinion is that Sui Dynasty literature should be "raised up" and should not be "moved down" (6). I completely agree with it. Because the Sui Dynasty literary world was still filled with the flamboyant and gorgeous atmosphere of Qi, Liang and Chen literature. During the reign of Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty, Li E, the censor, wrote a letter requesting to stop the growth of flashy and whitewashed writing style. However, this was only a passive attempt to reverse the literary movement with administrative orders, and failed to put forward positive literary ideas or literary works to influence the literary world to become a trend. Moreover, after Emperor Wen promulgated Li Er's letter to the world, although it had a blow to the remaining winds of the Six Dynasties, once it came into the hands of Emperor Yang of the Sui Dynasty, he promoted obscene words and songs and filled the literary world. Therefore, the literature of the Sui Dynasty can basically only be regarded as Qi Dynasty. The aftermath of Liang and Chen’s anti-realist literature (palace poetry). In the field of Sui Dynasty literature, the works of Lu Sidao, Xue Daoheng, Yang Guang and others are still inherited from Qi and Liang Dynasties. Even if there are occasionally some relatively simple and healthy poems, they have not become a trend. Therefore, Sui Dynasty literature does not It cannot mean the rise of a new literary tendency. As for the literature of the early Tang Dynasty, although "the difference from the literature of Liang and Chen is still not obvious" (Mr. Yu Guanying said), changes were brewing in the early Tang Dynasty from the Four Masters to the Shen Song Dynasty. By Chen Ziang's more conscious revelation of the banner of realism, Therefore, the literature of the early Tang Dynasty can be seen as the rise of a new literary trend, and it should not be shrouded behind the literature of the Sui Dynasty.
The two examples here fully demonstrate that: although the emergence of a unified face of the Qin Empire and the unification of the Northern and Southern Dynasties by the Sui Empire meant development and progress in history, they did not follow suit in literature. This is because literature and art are different from the superstructure of political institutions, laws, and economic policies. Those superstructures directly serve the lower foundation, so they often keep pace with the development of the lower foundation. However, this is not necessarily the case for literature and art. For example, the poems of Du Fu and Bai Juyi, as well as the Water Margin and Romance of the West Chamber, and other works that are full of rich and strong people's character, are "not included and cannot be included in the superstructure created by the reactionary ruling class to defend its own foundation" ( 7). Marx's genius argument becomes particularly dazzling once it is proven in practice.
I think that as long as we carefully examine the qualitative and quantitative development of literary phenomena, it is not difficult to find natural paragraphs and boundaries. For example, as long as we clearly identify the ups and downs of literary development, we will also be able to detect the most natural and appropriate paragraph boundaries. Of course, if you want to master these properly, you must first truly and thoroughly understand the objective criteria, which are mainly literary standards and supplemented by historical standards.
Fourth, Mr. Li Changzhi proposed that after the literary history is divided into periods, the narrative must be allowed to cross boundaries. This approach is more pragmatic and I fully support it. However, here I would like to add two comments on how to deal with "cross-border" narratives and give full play to their role: (1) When dividing the period, we should not only take into account the important turning points in the entire literary development process, but also take into account not to arbitrarily cut off a certain period. It is of course very difficult to determine the spread of major works or tendencies in the literary development stage and the integrity of their development. Whether this can be remedied by the method of cross-border narration; (2) The method of cross-border narration should be "advance" narration Combined with the "retrospective" narrative, it is done cross-wise, and one end is determined to be the main one.
The use of cross-border narrative methods can not only remedy the separation of literary phenomena in periodization and actual narrative, but also actively solve many related problems. For example, the literature of the Song Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty are each one dynasty. However, Jingkang and Jiajing divided the literature of the Song and Ming Dynasties into two distinct halves, which does not allow us to discuss them together. Then, in addition to narrating in installments, we can use cross-border narratives that combine "advance" and "retrospection" to organically connect their previous and later literary phenomena. Although the poetry of the two Song Dynasties is separated into two literary stages by the Jingkang boundary, when we describe the poetry world of the Northern Song Dynasty, we might as well first expand the role and connotation of poetry as it became poetic and prose in the hands of Su Shi. Let me describe in advance the conditions that created conditions for the transformation and emergence of Southern Song Ci and Xin Qiji. When describing the Southern Song Ci world, we might as well trace the inheritance, influence and development relationship between Su Shi and Xin Qiji. In this way, we will take into account the turning point of the times, and Song Ci There are still clues to be found for its complete development.
Here are two more examples.
First: The opposition between the Seven Sons and the Gong'an and Jingling factions in the Ming Dynasty originally meant the struggle between anti-reality retroism and realism tendencies in the field of prose in the Ming Dynasty. However, the Jiajing boundary divided them into two stages. Here, we can make full use of cross-border narration: first, when explaining the seven disciples before and after, we will briefly hint at the inevitability of their eventual decline. Later, when describing the activities of the Public Security and Jingling faction and their propositions, we can retrospectively criticize the seven disciples before and after, from which Comparing two different literary tendencies can also reflect the contradictions and developments within literature. Second: Jian'an belongs to the Eastern Han Dynasty in name, but in literary history it is described in the Wei and Jin stages, which seems difficult to deal with at first glance. In fact, we can also use "advance" and "retrospect" to solve the problem: at the end of the narration of the literature of the Han Dynasty, we will briefly describe the emergence of Jian'an in conjunction with the turmoil in the late Eastern Han Dynasty. The early literary activities of the son and the son, in this way, can take into account both historical and literary characteristics without the disadvantage of separation.
China’s literary trends over the past thousands of years have been colorful and ups and downs. Our periodic narrative should certainly reflect the qualitative and quantitative differences in literary phenomena at each stage and the very obvious color of the times. At the same time, It must also clearly show the "historical continuity and development" of Chinese literary realism or positive romantic tradition, and periodization does not mean isolated narrative. Even if we use the Anshi Rebellion as a turning point to narrate Tang Dynasty literature in stages or even use this as a boundary to divide the entire feudal era literature into two, we cannot ignore the influence, inheritance and development of Chen Ziang, Li Bai, Yuan Zhen and Bai Juyi in the actual narrative. Relationship. Even if we describe Li Bai and Du Fu in two stages, we cannot ignore the influence of these two close comrades on each other's personality and style.
In the past, the reason why we often expounded the literary landscape in each stage in isolation when writing literary history, and did not show enough how the realism or positive romantic tradition spread in the development of literature, is mainly because Because it only focuses on periodic narration, it lacks a bird's-eye view of the entire literary history. Now I would like to propose that the two focuses of staging and cross-border narration should be put on the research agenda at the same time. That is to say, when considering staging, we should combine the study of cross-border narration and carefully examine the division of stages and their interactions. The hook between. I believe that cross-border narrative is not a negative remedy for the shortcomings of periodization, but should be regarded as a long-lasting positive red line that embodies the history of literature. Therefore, while we are passionately discussing the issue of staging, it is beneficial to put more details of cross-border narratives on the specific work schedule for study.
The above-mentioned superficial opinions may seem trivial and trivial, but they are closely related to the compilation of literary history. I believe that the complexity of the periodization of literary history cannot be solved by roughly dividing it into a few paragraphs and summarizing some situations. Instead, it should be developed in depth and more specific issues should be explored for more in-depth discussion. Some of the opinions here are certainly They are rough and superficial, but they all start from the perspective of provoking ideas, hoping to lead the discussion of issues into a deeper realm.
As for the outline of the stages that I personally boldly tried to draw up, it was originally used as a basis for expressing opinions, and I do not dare to claim to be accurate. At the same time, it must be stated that the reasons and basis for my proposing this phased outline have been separately described in the discussion of the above four issues, so I do not intend to introduce the situation phase by phase. It’s just my initial feeling that this kind of periodization: (1) roughly conforms to the ups and downs of literary trends, and is not too different from the principle of focusing on literary standards and supplementing historical standards; (2) basically takes care of the history of literature There are several important dividing lines such as Jian'an, Anshi Rebellion, Jingkang, Jiajing, etc.; (3) Although the periodization is not limited to dynasties, in practical treatment, due consideration is given to major major points in literary history such as Tang poetry, Song lyrics, Yuan opera, Tang and Song legends, and ancient prose movements. Completeness of works and tendencies.
Of course, this kind of periodization is not without its problems. For example, I regard "Zhou and Qin" and "Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties to Sui" as two independent units. As for the turn of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, and the period between the Southern and Northern Dynasties, How to properly divide the transformation of literary styles into small paragraphs within large paragraphs remains to be discussed. However, I have a rough understanding in practice that it is more important to seek truth from facts when solving the periodization of literary history, and all debates should start from this point.