Wén biān 文編
Compilation of Prose by 唐順之
About the work
A 64-juǎn mid-Míng prose anthology running from the Zhōu through the Sòng, compiled by Táng Shùnzhī (唐順之, 1507–1560, zì Yìngdé 應德, of Wǔjìn 武進 / Chángzhōu) — the leading mid-Míng prose critic and one of the Three Masters of TángSòng gǔwén (TángSòng pài, alongside Guī Yǒuguāng 歸有光 and Wáng Shènzhōng 王慎中). The compilation is organised by literary form (制策, 對, 諫疏, 論疏, etc., in 64 juǎn); selection drew loosely on Zhēn Déxiù’s KR4h0064 Wénzhāng zhèngzōng as a model — though Zhēn’s principle was lǐ (Confucian principle), Táng’s is fǎ (literary technique). Táng’s own preface (signed Jiājìng bǐngchén / 1556, 5th month jìwàng) makes the position explicit: prose has fǎ (method) just as Heaven has gāngrǒu jiāocuò (interplay of hard and soft); the anthology is “a craftsman’s pattern-book for prose-method”.
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Wénbiān in 64 juǎn — the Míng Táng Shùnzhī edited it. Shùnzhī has the KR2t0010 Zuǒbiān — already catalogued. This compilation takes the prose from Zhōu through Sòng, arranging by literary form. Chén Yuánsù’s 陳元素 preface says: “using Zhēn Déxiù’s Wénzhāng zhèngzōng as base-copy”. But Zhēn’s book is primarily about lùnlǐ (discussing principle), while the present book is primarily about lùnwén (discussing literary technique) — their zōngzhǐ (cardinal purpose) is completely different; Chén’s statement appears incorrect.
Among the inclusions: placing Zhuāngzǐ, Hánfēizǐ, Sūnzǐ pieces among the lùn (discussions) is qiánglì míngmù (forcing the categorisation). Further: not recording from the Shǐjì and Hànshū lièzhuàn, but taking only the HòuHànshū’s Huáng Xiàn biography and placing it at the head — both progress and retreat appear unjustified. Probably the gathering is too broad, the yìlì (editorial principle) too many, and the chuǎnbó (irregularities) are unavoidable.
But Táng Shùnzhī is deeply versed in 古文 gǔwén (ancient prose); his discernment of merit-and-fault is xīnzhī (heart-knowing). What he selects all has fine intent. Looking at his self-preface: “If literature cannot be without method (fǎ) — this compilation is the craftsman of literature and the perfection of method (fǎ zhī zhì yě)“. His daily-saying further: “Hàn and prior prose was not without method, yet not having method — fǎ was lodged in wúfǎ (no-method) — so the fǎ was mì (subtle), could not be peeped at. Táng and Sòng prose could not be without fǎ, and could maintain fǎ without losing a hair’s breadth — so the fǎ is yán (strict), cannot be transgressed”. His words are all subtle understanding of wénlǐ (literary principle). So although the records are all familiar pieces, the biāojǔ màiluò (mark out the bloodlines), the pīdǎo kuǎnhuì (cleave the joints, point out the knots) — make later readers see the marvellous opening-and-closing, forward-and-reverse, vertical-and-horizontal interweaving (kāihé shùnnì jīngwěi cuòzōng zhī miào). To study QínHàn prose, one should seek the ménjìng (door-way) through TángSòng; to study TángSòng, one should take this Wénbiān as the ménjìng.
Since Zhèngjiā (Zhèngdé / Jiājìng), Běidì (Lǐ Mèngyáng 李夢陽) and Xìnyáng (Hé Jǐngmíng 何景明) — voices weighed down a whole age. Tàicāng (Wáng Shìzhēn 王世貞) and Lìxià (Lǐ Pānlóng 李攀龍) — schools spread further. The longer time goes, the more lùndìng (judgement-settling) those who speak of gǔwén converge on Táng Shùnzhī plus 歸有光 Guī Yǒuguāng and Wáng Shènzhōng as the three houses — is this not because to study the Seven Masters is like “painting a tiger and resembling a dog”; to study the Three Houses is like “carving a swan and still resembling a duck”?
Yán Ruòqú’s Qiánqiū zhájì records his letter to Dài Tángqì, quoting Sòng Shíyǐng that “Jīngchuān [Táng Shùnzhī’s hào] is cái dà rú hǎi (talent vast as the sea); his commentary on books has both xiáng (detailed) and lüè (brief). Only the Wénbiān that came out of Chén Yuánsù is not the original — both texts are at our house, and we will reveal them” etc. But today only this one circulates; whether it is the original or Chén’s recension cannot be ascertained. Yet its main thrust certainly comes from Táng Shùnzhī.
Reverently submitted, third month of Qiánlóng 43 (1778). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Táng Shùnzhī’s preface is dated Jiājìng bǐngchén (1556), 5th month. Táng died four years later in 1560.
Significance. (1) The work is the canonical mid-Míng prose-method anthology, articulating the TángSòng gǔwén school’s principles against the qiánhòu Qīzǐ (Earlier and Later Seven Masters: Lǐ Mèngyáng, Hé Jǐngmíng, Lǐ Pānlóng, Wáng Shìzhēn) who advocated QínHàn imitation. Táng’s program: QínHàn was great because its fǎ was implicit; TángSòng was great because its fǎ was explicit; learn TángSòng’s explicit fǎ as the gateway to QínHàn’s implicit fǎ. (2) The biāojǔ màiluò (marking out blood-lines) — i.e. structural analysis of paragraph-flow in each piece — was Táng’s distinctive editorial contribution; the Wénbiān is the first major Míng prose anthology with systematic structural annotation, anticipating Qīng Tóngchéng pài prose pedagogy (Yáo Nài 姚鼐, Liú Dàkuí 劉大櫆). (3) The work, together with Mào Kūn’s KR4h0115 TángSòng bādàjiā wénchāo (Wàn-lì-era), constitutes the canonical late-Míng curriculum of TángSòng gǔwén. (4) The Sìkù editors prefer Táng/Guī/Wáng over the Qīzǐ — a Qīng-era preference that helped consolidate the Tóngchéng pài tradition.
Translations and research
- Susan Daruvala, Zhou Zuoren and an Alternative Chinese Response to Modernity (Cambridge MA, 2000) — discusses the Táng-Sòng pài and its modern reception.
- 章學誠 Zhāng Xué-chéng, Wén-shǐ tōng-yì — Qīng meta-commentary on Táng-Sòng gǔ-wén tradition.
- 郭紹虞 Guō Shào-yú, Zhōng-guó wén-xué pī-píng shǐ — Chinese literary criticism, classic study of Táng-Sòng / Qī-zǐ debate.
- 黃毅 Huáng Yì, Míng-dài Táng-Sòng pài yán-jiū — focused Míng Táng-Sòng pài monograph.
Other points of interest
The work is the principal Míng anthological monument to the TángSòng gǔwén school’s program that Táng Shùnzhī, Guī Yǒuguāng, and Wáng Shènzhōng championed against the QínHàn imitationism of Lǐ Mèngyáng and his successors. The text-historical question — whether the surviving text is Táng’s original or Chén Yuánsù’s later edition — remains unresolved; but the Sìkù editors note that the main thrust certainly comes from Táng’s hand.
Links
- ctext
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §32, §44.