Multidimensional Interpretation of the Division of Poetry into Tang and Song Schools in Notes on the Art of Poetry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/ptk9vp67Keywords:
classical poetry, poetic criticism, aesthetic types, literary aesthetics, poetic styleAbstract
At the very beginning of Notes on the Art of Poetry, Qian Zhongshu puts forward the core proposition of "dividing poetry into Tang and Song schools." This division, however, is by no means equivalent to treating "Tang" and "Song" as mere designations of historical dynasties. Breaking through the rigid framework of traditional poetic criticism, this view significantly deepens the arguments earlier presented in Yuan Mei's Suiyuan Remarks on Poetry and offers a brand-new perspective for the study of classical poetry—one fundamentally based on "aesthetic types" rather than strict "dynastic periodization." Grounded in the comprehensive exposition found in Notes on the Art of Poetry, this article systematically draws on contemporary research, including foundational analyses of Qian Zhongshu's theoretical frameworks and critical distinctions between name and reality in poetics. Furthermore, it connects the underlying poetic tenets of Suiyuan Remarks on Poetry with the practical critical analyses demonstrated in Annotated Selected Poems of the Song Dynasty. By synthesizing these diverse literary sources, the present study aims to elucidate the profound implications of "dividing poetry into Tang and Song schools" from three distinct dimensions: "refuting the dynastic thesis," "transcending the limits of time and era," and ultimately "returning to the foundation of individual nature." Through this multidimensional interpretation, the research highlights how this methodology revolutionizes our understanding of classical poetics, emphasizing intrinsic artistic temperament over chronological boundaries, thereby enriching the broader discourse on literary aesthetics and historical criticism.References
1. R. J. Lynn, "Yan Yu’s Canglang shihua and the Chan–Poetry Analogy," Comparative Literature: East & West, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 2000.
2. S. Wu, *Classical lyric modernities: Poetics, gender, and politics in modern China (1900–1937)*, University of California, Los Angeles, 2004.
3. H. Hennessy, "The Dial: Its Poetry and Poetic Criticism," New England Quarterly, pp. 66–87, 1958.
4. E. Asmis, "Crates on poetic criticism," Phoenix, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 138–169, 1992.
5. B. Rusk, Critics and Commentators: The Book of Poems as Classic and Literature, vol. 81, BRILL, 2020.
6. E. R. Schwinge, The Origins of Criticism. Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece, 2005.
7. M. Murrin, "Poetry as Literary Criticism," Modern Philology, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 202–207, 1968.
8. A. Ford, Classical criticism, 2016.
9. D. A. Russell and M. Winterbottom, Eds., Classical literary criticism, Oxford University Press, 1998.
10. G. Schoeler, "The genres of classical Arabic poetry classifications of poetic themes and poems by pre-modern critics and redactors of dīwāns," Quaderni di studi arabi, pp. 1–48, 2010.
11. T. S. Eliot, *The use of poetry and the use of criticism: Studies in the relation of criticism to poetry in England*, vol. 39, Harvard University Press, 1986.
12. A. Ford, The origins of criticism: literary culture and poetic theory in classical Greece, 2009.
13. W. R. Keast, R. McKeon, N. Maclean, E. Olson, and B. Weinberg, Critics and criticism: Ancient and modern, vol. 1, R. S. Crane, Ed., University of Chicago Press, 1952.
14. M. Arnold, Study of poetry, Bibliobytes, 2000.
15. G. Zanker, "Enargeia in the ancient criticism of poetry," Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, vol. 124, no. 3/4, pp. 297–311, 1981.
16. P. Murray, Ed., Classical literary criticism, Penguin UK, 2000.
