|
|
|
| The Stylistic Features of Zhuan Zhu and Jiao Xun’s Statement of “No Text Is More Important than the Commentary” |
| Fu Xu |
| The Center for Literary Theory and Aesthetics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Modern anthologies and works on literary genres have broken through the traditional literary concepts since the late Qing Dynasty, extending the scope of “Wen” from “Ji” (miscellaneous works) to “Sibu” (the Four Categories in ancient China). In Zeng Guofan’s Miscellaneous Selections from Classics, Histories and Philosophical Works, the prefaces and postfaces of the “Writings” section mainly feature selected texts such as Zhouyi: Wenyan, Xici, and Liji: Guanyi. Although it did not regard the style of “Zhuan Zhu” (commentary and annotation) as an independent literary genre, Wang Baoxin and Gao Buying, influenced by the literary classification system of Miscellaneous Selections from Classics, Histories and Philosophical Works, both considered the commentary and annotation as an independent literary style.They categorized it under the broader categories, such as the “Writings” section or the “Arguments and Discussions” section, along with the related genres such as argumentative writing, prefaces, and postscripts. However, in terms of specific research methods, it should not limit the study to purely conceptual research. Instead, the stylistic characteristics of commentary and annotation should be discussed from both structural form and stylistic function of the text. By comparing annotations with related literary styles, it is possible to a certain extent to “restore” the rationale behind the modern scholars’ identification of annotations as a literary genre. “Zhuan Zhu” (commentary and annotation) includes not only “Zhuan” that is relatively independent from classical texts, and “Zhu” that is attached to classical texts, but also “explanatory essays” in the name of “Du” (reading), “Yi” (discussing), “Jie” (interpreting), “Bian” (distinguishing) and other prefaces, postscripts and argumentative proses since Tang and Song dynasties. As a typical exegetic text, it is inevitable that the research on the stylistic characteristics of commentary should be compared with similar texts such as preface, postscript and argumentation. On the one hand, Wenyan of the Book of Changes and Xici are relatively independent from the main text, and their expression modes and structural features are in some way analogous to the prefaces of some historical and philosophical works, such as Sima Qian’s “Taishi Gong Zixu” (Preface to the Records of the Grand Historian). These prefaces, which are characterized by “proper order”, are the closest examples to annotations and commentaries. On the other hand, although the “explanatory essays” in Tang and Song classical proses tended to focus on the philosophical and doctrinal aspects rather than sentence interpretation and etymology, heir subject matter and specific argumentative approaches often reflect a subjective intention to uphold the classics, or they are written with a tendency to elaborate on a topic by taking liberties with the original text. or to convey their political ideas, thus deviating from the original texts and tended to be superficial. In this sense, the “explanatory essays” are closer to general argumentative essays. Jiao Xun’s statement of “no text is more important than the commentary” represents a typical view in the discussion among scholars of the Qian-Jia era regarding whether textual research and commentaries belong to the category of “wen”. This view also implies a value judgment on what constitutes the ideal “explanatory essays”: Jiao Xun not only regarded the “explanatory essays” as the “texts for all ages”, pointing out its value above that of “the texts for imperial examinations” and “the texts for social interactions”, but also upheld the writing standard and ideal style based on “yi jing” (refined ideas) and “shi shi” (factual accuracy), providing a possible way for classical proses to achieve the integration of principles, textual research, and literary style. This is another important contribution that classical studies have made to classical Chinese literary theory, beyond the propositions of “text as a vehicle for the Dao” and “text as the scripture” in the study of classics.
|
|
Received: 23 November 2023
|
|
|
|
1 袁枚：《小仓山房诗文集》第3册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1988年。
2 刘勰：《文心雕龙注》，范文澜注，北京：人民文学出版社，1958年。
3 刘咸炘：《刘咸炘学术论集·文学讲义编》，黄曙辉编校，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2007年。
4 吴承学：《中国古代文体学研究》（增订本），北京：中华书局，2022年。
5 黄佐：《六艺流别》，见《四库全书存目丛书》集部第300册，济南：齐鲁书社，1997年。
6 王葆心：《古文辞通义》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008年。
7 高步瀛：《文章源流》，见余祖坤编：《历代文话续编》下册，南京：凤凰出版社，2013年。
8 章太炎：《章太炎的白话文》，陈平原编，贵阳：贵州教育出版社，2001年。
9 王弼：《王弼集校释》，楼宇烈校释，北京：中华书局，1980年。
10 姚鼐：《古文辞类纂》，见《续修四库全书》第1609册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2002年。
11 曾国藩：《经史百家杂钞》，长沙：岳麓书社，2015年。
12 司马迁：《史记》，裴骃集解，司马贞索隐，张守节正义，北京：中华书局，2013年。
13 汪荣宝：《法言义疏》，北京：中华书局，1987年。
14 王符：《潜夫论笺校正》，汪继培笺，彭铎校正，北京：中华书局，2014年。
15 吴讷：《文章辨体序题疏证》，凌郁之疏证，北京：人民文学出版社，2016年。
16 徐师曾：《文体明辨》，见《四库存目丛书》第312册，济南：齐鲁书社，1997年。
17 张相：《古今文综评文》，见王水照编：《历代文话》第9册，上海：复旦大学出版社，2007年。
18 焦循：《雕菰楼文学七种·雕菰集》上册，陈居渊主编，南京：凤凰出版社，2018年。
19 韩愈：《韩昌黎文集校注》上册，马其昶校注，马茂元整理，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
20 柳宗元：《柳河东集》上册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2008年。
21 欧阳修：《欧阳修诗文集校笺》上册，洪本健校笺，上海：上海古籍出版社，2009年。
22 苏轼：《苏轼文集》第1册，孔凡礼点校，北京：中华书局，1986年。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
