Gǔfù biàntǐ 古賦辯體
Discrimination of Genre in Ancient Fù by 祝堯
About the work
A 10-juǎn anthology-treatise (8 juǎn main + 2 juǎn outer) covering the history and theory of the fù genre from the Chǔcí through Sòng, compiled by Zhù Yáo (祝堯, zì Jūnzé) of Shàngráo (Jiāngxī), jìnshì of Yányòu 5 (1318). Each dynasty’s fù is represented by a handful of canonical specimens followed by historical and stylistic analysis distinguishing their tǐgé (genre-shape). Main juǎn coverage:
- Juǎn 1–2: Chǔcí style — Qū Yuán (Lísāo, Jiǔgē, Jiǔzhāng, Yuǎnyóu, Bǔjū, Yúfù), Sòng Yù (Jiǔbiàn), Xúnqīng (Lǐ, Zhì, Yún, Cán, Zhēn — the five fù of the Xúnzǐ).
- Juǎn 3–4: Two-Hàn — Jiǎ Yì (Diào Qūyuán, Fúfù), Sīmǎ Xiàngrú (Zǐxū, Shànglín, Chángmén), Bān Jiéyú (Zìdào, Dǎosù), Yáng Xióng (Gānquán, Hédōng, Yǔliè, Chángyáng), Bān Gù (Xīdū, Dōngdū), Mí Hèng (Yīngwǔ fù).
- Juǎn 5–6: Three Kingdoms / Six Dynasties — Wáng Càn, Lù Jī, Zhāng Huá, Pān Yuè, Chénggōng Suí, Sūn Chuò, Xiè Huìlián, Xiè Xīyì, Bào Zhào.
- Juǎn 7–8: TángSòng — selected specimens.
- Outer collection (juǎn 9–10): imitations of the Sāo and the qíncāo (lute-pieces), gēshī (song-poems) and other genres that the fù tradition produced in liúbié (subsidiary lines).
The central theoretical thesis, summarised by the Sìkù editors: Sīmǎ Xiàngrú’s Zǐxū and Shànglín fù originate in the wèndá (problem-and-answer) format of the Bǔjū and Yúfù. Sòng Yù et al. developed this; in Hàn it flowered. The head and tail are prose, the middle is fù. As tradition extended, fù successively transformed: the central fù sections — taking display as ornament, concentrating on diction — became the QíLiángTángchū páitǐ (parallel-prose) style; the head-and-tail prose sections — taking argument as convenient, concentrating on principle — became the late-Táng and Sòng wéntǐ (prose) style. The zhèngbiàn yuánliú (orthodox-and-variant origin-and-flow) is identified with precision.
Tiyao
(From the Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào; the WYG text begins with table of contents only — no transmitted tíyào preface.)
Your servants respectfully submit: the Gǔfù biàntǐ in 8 juǎn with outer collection 2 juǎn. The Yuán Zhù Yáo compiled it. The Jiāngxī tōngzhì records Yáo as a Shàngráo man, jìnshì of Yányòu 5; magistrate of Jiāngshān; later transferred to Vice Prefect of Wúxīzhōu. The Guǎngxìn fǔzhì records Yáo’s zì as Jūnzé — matching what this book inscribes — only saying his office was Vice Prefect of Píngxiāngzhōu — divergent from the Jiāngxī tōngzhì.
The book — from the Chǔcí downward, covering Two-Hàn, Three-Kingdoms, Six-Dynasties, Táng, Sòng dynasties’ fù, each dynasty selecting several pieces, to biàntǐ (differentiate the genre-shape) — in 8 juǎn. The outer collection’s 2 juǎn are NǐSāo, Qíncāo, Gē etc. pieces — these being the fù-house’s liúbié (subsidiary lines).
The collecting-and-quoting is gāibèi (comprehensive). His discussion of Sīmǎ Xiàngrú’s Zǐxū and Shànglín fù says: the wèndá tǐ — its source is from the Bǔjū and Yúfù; Sòng Yù et al. described it; in Hàn it flourished. The head-and-tail are prose; the middle is fù. As the world has transmitted long, it transformed and transformed again. Its central fù — taking displaying as ornament, concentrating in cí — flowed into the QíLiángTángchū páitǐ style. Its head-and-tail wén — taking yìlùn as convenient, concentrating in lǐ — flowed into the Tángmò Sòng wéntǐ style. On zhèngbiàn yuánliú (orthodox-and-variant origin-and-flow), this is the most accurate.
Hé Zhuó’s Yìmén dúshū jì once criticised: his discussion of Pān Yuè’s Jítián fù differentiates fù and sòng — citing Mǎ Róng’s Guǎngchéng sòng as evidence — saying gǔrén fùsòng tōngwéi yīmíng (in antiquity fù and sòng shared one name). However, wéntǐ has transformed repeatedly; branches and tributaries have diverged — just as clans-of-one-source spawn a hundred families. Since he calls it “biàntǐ”, he cannot help-but-not unify them. Hé Zhuó’s words, though well-grounded, are pursuing the original: knowing that they share one source under different names is enough. To say Zhù Yáo arbitrarily insists on differentiation as dùzhuàn (fabrication) — this also is not a generalist’s argument.
Abstract
Date. Yuán dynasty, c. 1320–1340, after Zhù Yáo’s 1318 examination success. The work is undated; internal evidence and provincial-gazetteer reference confirm the Yuán mid-period.
Significance. (1) The single most-influential YuánMíngQīng fù anthology with critical apparatus. Zhù’s biàntǐ approach — combining anthology with genre theory — established the late-imperial model for fù-pedagogy and fù-criticism.
(2) Founding statement of fù-historical theory. Zhù’s identification of the wèndá structural pattern as the deep grammar of the Hàn fù — with prose frame and fù middle — anchored all subsequent discussion of fù-history. The two-line divergence (QíLiáng páitǐ vs. TángSòng wéntǐ) became the canonical schema.
(3) Inclusion of imitations (nǐzuò). The outer collection’s preservation of imitative-Sāo, qíncāo, and gē texts gathers materials marginal to the main fù canon — an unusual and influential editorial choice that broadened the genre’s documentary basis.
Translations and research
- David R. Knechtges, The Han Rhapsody: A Study of the Fu of Yang Hsiung (Cambridge, 1976) and his three-volume Wen Xuan translation (Princeton, 1982–1996) — for the Hàn fù.
- Burton Watson, Chinese Rhyme-Prose (New York, 1971) — translations.
- 程章燦 Chéng Zhāng-càn, Fù-xué gài-lùn (Shanghai, 2005) — survey including Zhù Yáo.
- 何沛雄 Hé Pèi-xióng, Fù-huà liù-zhǒng — Sòng-Yuán fù-theory.
Other points of interest
The work’s significance for the Chinese theory of literary form extends beyond fù: Zhù Yáo’s biàntǐ (genre-differentiation) method became the template for later-imperial biàntǐ studies of prose, verse, cí, and qǔ — culminating in Wú Nà 吳訥’s Wénzhāng biàntǐ 文章辨體 (Míng) and Xú Shīzēng 徐師曾’s expansion thereof.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §31.4.
- ctext