Abstract：In the critical discourse of the ancient Fu studies, it is a classic narration that ″Fu originated from The Book of Songs.″ Sima Qian in West Han Dynasty first proposed this notion in his critical study of Fu in The Book of History. Liuxiang and Bangu developed this view which was finalized in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, making Fu one of the Liu Yi（six principles） which originated from The Book of Songs and leading to a universal proposition in the Chinese history of Fu criticism. Under the traditional framework of Confucian classics since Han Dynasty, the theory that ″Fu originated from The Book of Songs″ (henceforth the ″origination theory″) has always had the connotation of statecraft, which attaches great importance to political consciousness and the expression of ethics and morality rather than to the detailed stylistic and ontological explanations. This tendency was quite obvious in the origination theory between Han Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. The general acceptance of the origination theory resulted in the prolonged dependence of the ancient Fu studies on political ideology. The critical reaction to this theory demonstrated itself as the revelation and advocacy of such features as puchen (description at great length)， limei(beauty） and shuqing(lyricism) and its transformation from political consciousness to the poetic dimension, or specifically, from the origination theory to the ″prosody theory.″ This process started in the awakening period of Six Dynasties, developed in Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty, and reached its peak in Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. It was best represented by ″emulating the styles of Chu and Han″ and ″Style built on refined emotions ″ in Zhu Yao's My View of Gufu Style and by Li Dongyang's idea that ″Fu is part of The Book of Songs.″ They both advocated the expression of emotion in Fu and demanded that works of Ci and Fu should express emotions. This marked the comparative independence of the ″poetic style″ of Fu and was closely related with a strong consciousness of distinctive styles since Song Dynasty, with the criticism of Sao Style since the middle of Tang Dynasty, and with the changing cultural systems. Only when we view the origination theory and prosody theory in terms of the history of literature and art studies, can we expose its important value. 〖JP+1〗Based on the holistic perspective of history of Fu studies, the paper has made the following breakthroughs: First, it attempted a further analysis of the origination theory. Although literati of the past did a lot of research, this paper holds that the origination theory is the embodiment of Fu researchers' political consciousness rather than the root of text. This is the reason for the definitive conclusion offered here. Second, the paper discusses the poetic development of origination theory as well as the critical transition of prosody theory. At present, the academic circle has not provided too much new insight into the theory that ″Fu is part of The Book of Songs.″〖JP〗 The paper takes a stylistic and ontological perspective and points out the transition from ″Fu originating from The Book of Songs″ to ″Fu is part of The Book of Songs,″ which is a contribution to the research on Fu. The third is the innovation in methodology. Taking a twofold perspective of cultural politics and stylistics, the paper interprets the complete transition of Fu studies from a political to a poetic dimension and exposes the big transition in the history of Fu studies. The advantage is a broader perspective with a full view of the critical history of Fu. The paper still has much room for improvement. For example, the transition of Fu studies was not completed overnight, the clues were sometimes vague, and there are still uncertainties in determining the transition time and orbit. We look forward to comments from readers.
孙福轩 周军. “源于诗”与“属于诗”——赋学批评的政治内涵和诗学维度之发覆[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2014, 44(6): 153-165.
Sun Fuxuan Zhou Jun. ″Fu Originated from The Book of Songs″ versus ″Fu Is Part of The Book of Songs″: The Political Connotations and Poetic Dimension of Fu Criticism. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2014, 44(6): 153-165.