Abstract：As pivotal figures in China’s scholarly transition period from the Late Qing Dynasty to the early Republican China, Zhang Taiyan and Liu Shipei’s conceptual divergence regarding Wen (“文”, literary expression) and their contrasting critiques of Fu (ode) epitomize the intrinsic tensions during traditional scholarship’s modernization. Both of them constructed their literary critical systems based on xiaoxue (philology), yet their fundamental divergence in understanding the nature of wen significantly influenced their judgments on the origins, genres, and aesthetic standards of Fu, resulting in distinctive critical paradigms.Central to Zhang Taiyan’s theory was zhiyan (“质言”, substantive discourse), prioritizing word’s materiality and etymological authenticity, he claimed wen was supposed to trace the signifier to ascertain the signified. He redefined wen as objective linguistic signs,proposing that “all inscriptions on bamboo and silk are wen”, extending the category to non-literary texts like legal codes and table-stemma.This proposition grounded in his philological methodology emphasizing character configurations and semantic,advocating “truth-seeking through classical exegesis”. In contrast, Liu Shipei developed Ruan Yuan’s wenyan (“文言”, literary elegance) theory by foregrounding limei (“丽美”, ornate beauty) as wen’s essence,defining it as “rhythmically patterned discourse with ordered brilliance”. He expanded wen to encompass all aesthetically patterned expressions—from folk ballads to literary expressions—thereby legitimizing aesthetic properties and formalistic characteristics as the core of pianwen (parallel prose)’s core.These divergent conceptions of wen led to fundamentally different interpretations of Fu’s origin, canonical models, and generic characteristics. Zhang traced Fu’s genesis to strategists’ persuasions, diplomatic rhetoric with lexical opulence is incipient Fu and he canonized Han-Fu as orthodoxy as well. It’s elaborate exposition differentiated itself from lyrical poetry. Liu Shipei adopted a synthetic hermeneutics, acknowledging the Book of Songs-Li Sao poetic tradition’s influence while emphasizing the synergistic roles of ritual invocations,diplomatic rhetoric and strategists’ persuasions. Nevertheless, his analysis ultimately privileged wen’s rhetorical constitution, positing Fu’s genesis as inextricably intertwined with the aesthetic tradition of rhythmically patterned discourse. Championing Six Dynasties-Fu as the genre’s apogee, he asserted pianwen’s status as the orthodox literary form. His formalist paradigm foregrounded lexical virtuosity, tonal cadence, and antithetical parallelism as constitutive elements, interpreting Fu’s evolution as the formalization of the genre and progressive refinement of phonics and lexis.Zhang Taiyan constructed his literary ontology and media theory through the zhiyan perspective, proclaiming that “the decline of philology leads to the demise of Fu”, thereby incorporating Fu studies into linguistic and evidentiary research. Conversely, Liu Shipei’s wenyan theory synthesized pianwen traditions, catalyzing a paradigmatic shift toward aesthetic-formal analysis in literary criticism. Their intellectual confrontation not only perpetuated the Qing-Dynasty Hanxue (evidential learning) and pian-san (ode and prose) stylistic controversies, but more significantly, amidst the early 20th-Century clash between traditional and the New Literature movements, epitomized traditional scholars’ endeavor to safeguard cultural authenticity.
孙福轩, 王倩龄. “文”义之争与章太炎、刘师培的辞赋批评[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2025, 55(8): 93-105.
Fuxuan Sun, Qianling Wang. Debate over the Meaning of “Wen” and the Criticism of Zhang Taiyanand Liu Shipei’s Poetry and Prose. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2025, 55(8): 93-105.
2025, Vol. 55 
