|
|
|
| Misalignment in the Canonization Process of the Orchid Pavilion Poems |
| Qiu Shi |
| School of Art and Archaeology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract It has been believed for a long time that the Orchid Pavilion Poems, which were considered playing a significant role in the pivotal shift in the history of poetry, maintained their original appearance in the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In reality, this proposition is actually based on a misunderstanding of the textual appearance. Only by re-examining the development process and internal causes of the changes of these poems can we reveal their true nature and reassess their significance in literary history. The earliest existing manuscript is The Orchid Pavilion Poems attributed to the Tang Dynasty calligrapher Liu Gongquan. It transcribes 37 poems by 26 authors, with each poem consisting of either 4 or 8 lines. As noted in the manuscript, its purpose was to “select the best lines”, and thus it is not a complete representation. The most complete single version that exists today is the Five-Character Orchid Pavilion Poem by Wang Xizhi, attributed to the Tang Dynasty calligrapher Lu Jianzhi. It consists of 5 chapters with a total of 52 lines, and its original manuscript is likely a copy of Wang Xizhi’s original work.During the process of copying and transmission, as the medium of the manuscript changed, the original information was subject to additions and deletions. This led to misunderstandings and biases in the understanding of the Orchid Pavilion Poems. Representative works in this regard include A Collection of Local Works in Kuaiji (《会稽掇英总集》) and An Investigation Around Orchid Pavilion (《兰亭考》) in the Song Dynasty. The Orchid Pavilion Poems included in these works are essentially consistent with the version attributed to Liu Gongquan, but they differ in order and have relatively more accurate wording. In fact, both are the results of reorganizing the text attributed to Liu Gongquan. There are instances where annotations have been inserted into the main text, and the textual contradictions thus created have not been completely eliminated even after revisions.Beyond textual correction, the adjustment and expansion of “paratextual” elements such as author information and the order of poems and prefaces have made the new texts appear even more ancient and reliable. By examining the age of Wang Xianzhi, who was newly added and considered not to have written poetry, as well as the titles of the authors Xie An and Sun Tong, it can be determined that the information about the attendees recorded in the A Collection of Local Works in Kuaiji and An Investigation Around Orchid Pavilion did not originate from the old collections of the Jin Dynasty, but rather was fabricated by people from the Tang and Song Dynasties. Such textual forgery and pseudographia were common during the Song Dynasty. However, regardless of this, the information about the authors, together with the preface and the poetic texts, has created a complete new cultural memory of the “Orchid Pavilion Poetry Collection”. This has become an important basis for Song and Yuan literati to reconstruct the literature and culture of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In the realm of art, the 42 figures, including those who were pseudographically added, became the main subjects of paintings themed on the Orchid Pavilion. In literature, the “Continued Orchid Pavilion Gathering” presided over by Liu Renben in the Yuan Dynasty and the poems inscribed in Zhao Zhong’s Orchid Pavilion Painting demonstrated a close imitation of the textual structure and discourse of the Orchid Pavilion poems that had been established since the Song Dynasty. This directly reflects that the misperception of the appearance of the Orchid Pavilion Poems was fully solidified during this period and has continued to influence to this day.The phrase文多, which appears twice in the annotations of the manuscript attributed to Liu Gongquan, is used to explain the reason for the excerpt. By examining the meaning in its historical context, it is clear that it specifically refers to the abundance of literary expressions. From this, it can be inferred that the original form of the Orchid Pavilion Poems should not be far from the 52-line structure of Wang Xizhi’s Five-Character Orchid Pavilion Poems attributed to Lu Jianzhi, rather than the 4-line or 8-line versions. Given the strong correlation between the forms of poems in the context of gift-giving and poetic exchanges during the medieval period, the structure of the 52-line work can serve as a benchmark to attempt a reconstruction of the positions of the existing Orchid Pavilion Poems within their original compositions.Overall, the literary historical significance of the Orchid Pavilion Poems in poetics, especially in terms of poetic form, does not point to the era in which they were created, but rather to the era in which they were received.
|
|
Received: 14 November 2024
|
|
|
|
1 祁小春：《实物文献中所见的〈兰亭序〉》，《中国书法》2012年第1期，第148-151页。
2 刘义庆：《世说新语笺疏》，刘孝标注，余嘉锡笺疏，周祖谟等整理，北京：中华书局，2015年。
3 毛万宝：《兰亭学谈论》，上海：上海书画出版社，2023年。
4 欧阳询：《艺文类聚》，汪绍楹校，上海：上海古籍出版社，1999年。
5 徐邦达：《两种所谓柳公权书的讹伪考辨》，《故宫博物院院刊》1982年第2期，第26-35页。
6 杜娟：《以〈书兰亭诗并后序〉为例看明清时期法书鉴藏的错判与书史想象》，《故宫博物院院刊》2017年第2期，第37-55页。
7 故宫博物院编：《唐柳公权行书兰亭诗》，北京：紫禁城出版社，2008年。
8 王连起：《陆柬之和他的兰亭诗》，《文物》2010年第2期，第77-86页。
9 张彦远：《法书要录》，范祥雍点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
10 桑世昌：《兰亭考》，白云霜点校，见桑世昌、俞松：《兰亭考 兰亭续考》，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2019年。
11 邹志方：《〈会稽掇英总集〉点校》，北京：人民出版社，2006年。
12 萧良干、张元忭、孙鑛：《万历绍兴府志》，明万历十五年（1587）刻本。
13 房玄龄等：《晋书》，北京：中华书局，1974年。
14 梁少膺：《王羲之“兰亭诗会”与会人员考辨》，《书法》2017年第11期，第60-64页。
15 张淏：《云谷杂记》，张宗祥校录，北京：中华书局，1958年。
16 叶盛：《水东日记》，魏中平点校，北京：中华书局，1980年。
17 唐朝晖：《元末续兰亭诗会及其文学史意义》，《兰州学刊》2010年第3期，第173-175页。
18 邱江宁、宋启凤：《论元代“续兰亭会”》，《江苏社会科学》2013年第6期，第185-190页。
19 刘仁本：《续兰亭诗序》，见陶宗仪编：《游志续编》，民国十四年（1925）武进陶氏萼园影印明嘉靖四十年（1561）钱穀抄本。
20 朱右：《白云稿》，明初刻本。
21 朱彝尊：《静志居诗话》，黄君坦校点，北京：人民文学出版社，1990年。
22 阮福编：《两浙金石志补遗》，见阮元编：《两浙金石志》，杭州：浙江古籍出版社，2012年。
23 孙宝文、申新仁编：《柯九思本定武兰亭序》，长春：吉林文史出版社，2009年。
24 黄彻：《?溪诗话》，汤新祥校注，北京：人民文学出版社，1986年。
25 周密：《齐东野语》，张茂鹏点校，北京：中华书局，1983年。
26 王德华：《兰亭诸诗的诗体特征及成因》，《浙江社会科学》2005年第2期，第184-189页。
27 孔颖达：《毛诗正义》，见阮元校刻：《十三经注疏》，北京：中华书局，2009年。
28 何晏、邢昺：《论语注疏》，见阮元校刻：《十三经注疏》，北京：中华书局，2009年。
29 吴承学、何志军：《诗可以群——从魏晋南北朝诗歌创作形态考察其文学观念》，《中国社会科学》2001年第5期，第165-174页。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
