After the Song Dynasty, the gradual decline of poetry was very obvious. Not only is the Song Dynasty inferior to the Tang Dynasty, but also the poems of Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties inferior to the Song Dynasty, as many people say, "each generation is inferior to the next".
0 1 Why did poetry decline from the Song Dynasty? In this regard, there is a general view that the most fundamental reason is that the feudal society has been declining since the Tang Dynasty, and the feudal thought itself has not developed new, but has increasingly become an obstacle to the development of various undertakings, and so has poetry.
However, this "inference" does not seem to "reasonably explain" the basic problems in the history of China literature. First, the above argument only illustrates the relationship between poetry and feudal social system and feudal thought; Secondly, because the feudal society has been going downhill since the Tang Dynasty, the feudal thought itself has no new development, and it has increasingly become an obstacle to all undertakings. This is not only an obstacle to the development of poetry, but also the whole literary career. This means that literature in all aspects of feudal society should reach its peak in the Tang dynasty, while literature after the Tang dynasty can only decline with feudal society?
According to this "inference", is it true that the history of China literature after the Tang Dynasty is "worse from generation to generation" and has become a "history of decline" rather than a "history of development"?
In fact, as far as stylistic forms are concerned, four-character poems, fu, parallel prose and even modern poetry all had their heyday after the Tang Dynasty, but they all declined with the development of history (some declined, but they did not die out). But this is only one aspect of the history of literature, and the more important aspect is that "Jiangshan produces talents" and "literature is passed down from generation to generation".
For example, the decline of Qi Yan's modern poetry, the rise of miscellaneous words and songs, the decline of verse and the development of traditional Chinese opera novels; Classical Chinese declined, and vernacular literature developed ... Don't these people know the fact of the development of ancient literature in China? Isn't this important trend in the development of China's ancient literature the opposite of the decline of "feudal society" and "feudal thought" and the lack of new development?
China's ancient literature did not and could not become a victim of feudal society. On the contrary, Cao Xueqin, born in the last days of feudalism, sang an elegy for the dying feudal society with his masterpiece A Dream of Red Mansions, which pushed the development of the novel to a new peak and added new brilliance to the history of China literature.
As far as the development of poetry is concerned, if the above-mentioned "inference" is used to explain the decline of poetry after the Tang Dynasty, we will naturally wonder: What is the indissoluble bond between poetry and feudal society or feudal thought, so that there must be * * * brilliance between them, life and death and * * *?
Is it because poetry has always been regarded as one of the orthodox literature by feudal rulers, and may be more bound by the feudal ruling class? But before the Song and Yuan Dynasties, among the outstanding literary works of past dynasties, was it not poetry that achieved the highest achievement, criticized feudal rule and had the strongest anti-feudal thought?
The narratives of some scholars and poets tell us that compared with other styles, feudal rulers of past dynasties really paid special attention to poetry. For example, Hanshu Yiwenzhi says:
"In ancient times, there was a poetry collector, and you could observe the customs, know the gains and losses, and test yourself."
Bai Juyi also said in "Nine Books with Yuan":
"Frequency live up to Qin Xing, poets are waste. In the world, they didn't use poetry to make up for the current politics, didn't use songs to guide people's feelings, and even didn't use the wind of stuffing to save the lost road. At that time, they started their life in the mainland. "
In the Song Dynasty, it was said in "On Qin's Death by Poetry" that Qin died of "ignorance of poets". It is said that there were poetry collectors in the Zhou Dynasty, but the Zhou Dynasty finally perished. The Qin and Sui Dynasties without poetry collectors also perished. Since poetry dies, so does poetry, so what is the relationship between the rise and fall of dynasties and poetry?
In ancient society, literature and art could not play such a big role. For example, the Chen Guang Uprising, the Yellow Scarf Uprising and even the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Uprising, most of the spiritual weapons they used were religious superstitions. In feudal society, the poems "Hungry people sing about their food, laborers sing about their things" and "Feeling sad and happy, starting from things" really "can observe customs, know gains and losses" and "can supplement current events", and their social functions cannot be denied.
However, if poetry is improperly exaggerated to the point where it can prosper the country and destroy the country, isn't it as absurd as the so-called "femme fatale" that Mr. Taoist said in those days?
Poetry was born before the feudal society, and it was not a literary style exclusive to the feudal society (even if it was born in the feudal society, such as novels, it was not exclusive to the feudal society).
Before the Tang Dynasty, the feudal society in China was on the rise, and poetry just reached its peak in the Tang Dynasty. After the Tang Dynasty, the feudal society in China began to decline, and so did poetry. This phenomenon is just a historical coincidence. The rise and fall of a certain style is not necessarily related to the rise and fall of a certain social system.
Although a certain culture is an ideological reflection of the politics and economy of a certain society. But this reaction may be different. Marx told us:
"The mode of production of material life restricts the whole process of social life, political life and spiritual life. It is not human consciousness that determines human existence. On the contrary, it is human social existence that determines human consciousness. "
On the other hand, he also pointed out that:
"For example, the relationship between the development of material production and artistic production is unbalanced." "As for art, as we all know, its certain prosperity period is by no means proportional to the general development of society, so it is by no means proportional to the general development of the material foundation of social organizations."
According to the above two aspects, it can be said that the development of material production and artistic production is relatively balanced and unbalanced.
Recognizing the relative balance between material production and artistic production development does not mean that material production can directly lead to artistic production, but the level of material production directly determines the level of artistic production. The view that the rise and fall of poetry has an inevitable causal relationship with the rise and fall of feudal society may coincide with this empirical view.
Although material production is the foundation, it is not directly related to artistic production, but works through various intermediary factors. The two are not absolutely proportional, and the situation is often very complicated.
As far as feudal society is concerned, it is generally believed that the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period is the period of China's transition from slave society to feudal society. At that time, the world was in chaos, material production was still on the eve of great development, but academic culture was unprecedentedly prosperous.
The Han Dynasty was the period when feudal society in China began to flourish. Material production has advanced by leaps and bounds, but artistic production is far less than that in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period.
During the Wei and Jin Dynasties in the Three Kingdoms, the material production was not as good as that in the Han Dynasty in troubled times, but literature and art still made great progress. The Tang Dynasty was the peak of the rise of feudal society in China, with a high degree of economic prosperity and unprecedented prosperity of literature. It can be seen that accidental coincidence is often based on some historical inevitability.
After the Song and Yuan Dynasties, the feudal society in China began to enter the later period, but the political economy still developed, especially the prosperity of the urban economy and the growth of the citizen class. New changes have also taken place in literature, such as the rise of ci and opera, and the emergence of Guan Hanqing, a great dramatist comparable to Shakespeare.
The Ming and Qing Dynasties were the aging period of China feudal society, and literature did not age with it, especially novels and operas, which showed great vitality.
The unbalanced relationship between material production and artistic production development is also manifested on the other hand. In the history of China literature, "every generation has a generation of literature, such as Chu Ci, Han Fu, the madness of the Six Dynasties, Tang Poetry, Song Ci and Yuan Qu, all of which are called the literature of one generation, and later generations cannot succeed."
The so-called "literature handed down from generation to generation" is undoubtedly correct if it is understood that every important historical stage has its specific literary content and form. In this way, from a vertical perspective, in all important periods of social development, all literature that truly and vividly reflects the social life and people's ideological aspirations at that time in a specific form has special artistic charm.
Feudal dynasties replaced each other or the latter denied the former. The inheritance relationship of literature is different. This is neither to deny Chen and Chen's career, nor is it that a successor must deny the former. Generally speaking, there is inheritance, and more is development and change.
Not only the childhood literature developed by human beings should have permanent charm, but also the excellent literature of other times must have permanent charm. Just as Three Hundred Poems can't be used to belittle Han Yuefu, so can Tang poetry be used to deny Song poetry. Because they are the products of their own times and reflect the characteristics of a specific historical period, no one can replace anyone.
Mr. Qian Zhongshu once said in "Talking about Art Records":
"Tang poetry is good at rich expression and rhyme, and Song poetry wins with thinking." "In life, teenagers are well-developed, so it is Tang poetry, and deep thinking in the evening is a tune."
The so-called "less fond of Yune, more inclined to Song tune" is the embodiment of the characteristics of their respective times. They have their own strengths, because they don't understand the unique charm of literature in different periods, and praise or criticism is really not enough.
In fact, there are many famous works widely circulated in the Song Dynasty, and it is untenable to say that the Song Dynasty is "tasteless" in general.
In the above argument, the relationship between the development of poetry and the new development of feudal thought is also involved. Mr. Zhang Zhiyue elaborated on this issue in more detail:
"China's feudal society, starting from the Tang Dynasty, gradually declined. Feudal thought itself has not made any significant new development, and it has increasingly become an obstacle to the development of various undertakings, especially the performance of poetry. Before the formation of the bourgeois ideology, it was impossible for poets to absorb important new development factors from the feudal ideology itself, nor could they reflect the characteristics of the times higher than those of the Tang Dynasty in their works, so no one could catch up with Li Bai and Du Fu's achievements in the ideological height of democratic essence. "
This passage can be summarized as two points:
1, because the ideological height of the democratic essence of poetry is determined by the new and more important development factors in the feudal ideological system;
2. Therefore, in the final analysis, there is no new major development in feudal thought itself, and poetry is bound to decline.
His view that "the essence of democracy" is equivalent to "a new and more important development factor in the feudal ideological system" is obviously wrong. Because in the system of feudal thought itself, no matter how it develops and how important the new factors are, its qualitative provisions can only be feudal thought. Democratic thought comes from the matrix of feudal autocratic society, not from the feudal ideological system.
Generally speaking, the class foundation of democratic thought is the oppressed and exploited working people, and so is the democratic thought in feudal society. "The essence of democracy" is not a general essence, but refers to the most valuable part of the essence created by working people. Such essence and feudal thought are simply incompatible, how can they complement each other?
However, although the relationship between "democratic essence" and "feudal factors" is not so inseparable, it cannot be considered that all "essences" must be "democratic" or "feudal factors" can never be "essences".
For example, in the early days of feudal society, opposing the remnants of the slave-owning class was of historical significance, but it was not "democratic". In the mid-Tang Dynasty, it was also of historical significance to oppose the separatist regime of the buffer region and maintain centralization, but it was also not "democratic".
In addition, people-oriented thought, benevolent government and loving the people, and respecting the people by the monarch all belong to the category of feudal thought, and literary works that reflect these thoughts can become the essence. It can be seen that not all essences are "democratic", and literary works that reflect some parts of feudal thoughts can also become essences.
Of course, the key to the problem is to admit that poems reflecting some feudal thoughts can become the essence. Does it mean that the development of feudal thought determines the rise and fall of poetry? No, the conclusion is still negative.
For example, Mencius, the founder of satirical literature, pleaded for the people, had the spirit of honest and frank, and sharply criticized the monarch. His chapter "I would like to teach in peace" comes from Du Fu's later "Drunk wine and meat in Zhumen, frozen bones on the road", but in tone, the latter can't keep up with Mencius' fierceness. "Jie, cutting Zhou" is a radical way, completely denying the qualification as a "monarch", which is equivalent to giving a blow to feudal rulers.
Mencius also put forward the idea of benevolent government and the proposition that "the rich can help the world, and the poor can be immune to it." Zhuangzi, the founder of "Rebellious Literature", yearns for no monarch or minister, pursues freedom and liberation, denies reality, is cynical and intervenes in life.
These thoughts developed to the Tang Dynasty, and Li Bai and Du Fu's "Yin Rebellion, Chu Huai also fainted" and "When the blood is like a sea and the heart of Emperor Jude is fighting" satirized and despised Tang Xuanzong, which can be said to be bold, but compared with Mencius's "I heard that I was widowed, but I didn't hear that I killed a king", isn't it not as good as the feudal ruler?
It can be said that Li Bai and Du Fu are well-deserved as great poets. However, their spirit of daring to criticize the emperor and despising the powerful reached the peak allowed by feudal poets' cultivation, which is not necessarily true.
They compare themselves to the idea of "applying the strictness of the customs, seeking the skills of emperors", "making the monarch Yao and Shun, and then making the vulgar pure", and "being quick is beneficial to the world, and being poor is immune to it". They are all old weapons borrowed from traditional feudal ideas, only occasionally mixed with a little religious color. Compared with the brilliant example set by Zhuangzi, especially Mencius, they are far from exceeding.
This reason is not that the author's world outlook can't absorb new factors from the development of feudal thought itself, but that the development of feudal thought itself can only become increasingly decadent.
Li Bai and Du Fu did not absorb these things, but absorbed the nutrition of thought and art from the people, which was closely related to the people in their thoughts and feelings. Among the poets in feudal society, it can be said that they reached the peak allowed by the education of feudal poets, which is the main reason why they became great poets, but it was not their thoughts that reached the new peak of feudal thought that made them great poets.
It is a fact that the thought and art of Song poetry did not surpass that of Tang poetry. But this involves a common question: does high ideological level mean high artistic skills, and low ideological level means low artistic skills? This is obviously confusing thought with art.
It is an objective fact that there will be contradictions between a writer's world outlook and his creation. The general artistic skill itself has no class nature, and it is also recognized by everyone. Thought is not equal to art, and the relationship between art and thought is not subordinate or dependent, although artistic creation is restricted by thought to some extent.
In fact, the relationship between thought and art is neither directly proportional nor inversely proportional, but inseparable, at least in feudal society. Song people did not surpass Tang people in poetry art, and there may be a shadow in their thoughts, but this is certainly not inevitable or the only reason.
Others say that most people in the Song Dynasty were inferior to those in the Tang Dynasty, largely because the world did not understand poetry and thought in images. Is this credible?
Before figuring out whether most people in the Song Dynasty understood poetry through thinking in images, let's first look at what thinking in images is: thinking in images, as the name implies, is also a kind of thinking, and it is another kind of thinking in parallel with logical thinking or imagination in artistic creation. As long as a person with normal mind and a certain cultural accomplishment and edification, he should be able to master and use it. There is no problem with understanding, but the mastery and application may vary from person to person.
Regarding when thinking in images began to be used in literary creation, some people think that in literary creation, the use of thinking in images coexists with the origin of literature; It is also said that it was not until Li Heshi in the Tang Dynasty that he further grasped the law of thinking in images. No matter what it is, there is no doubt that you have mastered the thinking in images before the Song Dynasty.
Besides, what kind of "poet" is a poet who doesn't understand thinking in images? For these poets who can't even walk the path of a poet, how can they talk about going up and down the mountain? Since most of these "poets" in the Song Dynasty don't understand thinking in images, that is, they don't know what poetry is, and they are not born with "artistic cells" to write poetry, isn't that equal to letting the rooster lay golden eggs?
These so-called poets are "poetry-blind". No matter how magnanimous your ruler is, no matter how clear and free your political and ideological background is, they will not be excited about poetry.
The previous Tang Dynasty was the peak of the rise of feudal society, and the Song and Yuan Dynasties were the beginning of decline, and literature naturally declined a lot. Since the Ming Dynasty, it is generally believed that capitalism has sprouted, so the Song and Yuan Dynasties can't compare with it.
In the cultural history of China, several dynasties were compared: literature refers to the Tang and Song Dynasties, painting refers to the Song and Yuan Dynasties, and academic thought refers to the Han and Song Dynasties, all of which have to be counted as the Song Dynasty. Yuan Zaju is unique in the times, and the great dramatists Guan Hanqing and Shakespeare are called immortal. Why can't this image thinking of "most Song people don't understand" have a satisfactory explanation?
This is, of course, because this statement itself is inappropriate and does not fully conform to the historical reality of Song Dynasty literature. Of course, in the case of extremely prosperous Tang poetry, Song people must make greater efforts to get by going up one flight of stairs.
Mr. Qian Zhongshu said in the preface of Selected Poems of Song Dynasty:
"It is fortunate and unfortunate for poets to follow the example of Tang poetry. Poets in Song Dynasty saw this good example, learned to be good, and will strive for perfection in skills and language. At the same time, with this good example, they also stole laziness and indulged the randomness of imitation and dependence ... Song people could extend the roads built by the Tang people and deepen the sparse rivers, but they never ventured to open up wasteland or discover new lands. In the aspect of literary criticism in Song Dynasty, the writers of Song Dynasty made many inventions and successful attempts in the "packaging" of poetry with the help of Tang poetry. For example, a certain meaning is written more thoroughly than that of the Tang Dynasty, and a certain word or syntax is written more stably than that of the Tang Dynasty. However, the Grand Judgment or the whole artistic direction has not changed in any particular way, although the style and artistic conception have not been parasitic on Du Fu, Han Yu, Bai Juyi or Jia Dao and Yao He.
In view of the questions raised by the title of the article, although this discussion is not a "Millennium unsolved case", it can be said to be incisive and profound
However, we can also make a little supplement, not to write poems visually, "violating the laws of the Tang Dynasty", "taking words as poems, learning as poems, and discussing as poems", which can probably be called the "adventure land reclamation" of the Song people.
It's just that the wasteland they chose is really not suitable for reclamation, so although it took a lot of effort, it was not worth the loss, but it was a bit of a gain. Since the Southern Song Dynasty, the evaluation of Song poetry has become a public case in the history of literature. In the Southern Song Dynasty, Jin writers thought that Song poetry was "not as ancient" ... so it was contemptuous and ignorant, and even some of them thought it was "admirable".
Since then, Song poetry has also tasted the indifference of the world or the fluctuation of market price. If the Song people have gods in the sky, even if they are unwilling, they still have to taste this taste now. Because on the whole, the achievements of Song poetry are better than those of Yuan poetry and Ming poetry, and also exceed those of Qing poetry.
Of course, this is not to say that literature in Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties is inferior to that in Song Dynasty, nor that they don't understand thinking in images, nor is it because of the relationship between social system and thought, but because their main interests and achievements have shifted to drama and novels.