Palatial Form and the Rhapsodic Imagination

SIX Palatial Form and the Rhapsodic Imagination There is no question that the rhapsody (fu 賦) stands alongside the lyric poem (shi) as a leading poetic form of the medieval period. Yet, as Paul W. Kroll has noted, the attention given to shi poetry within the post-Han Chinese literary tradition has often been at the expense of the fu.1 This is perhaps due in part to the lexical difficulty often associated with fu, as well as to the determinative logics of literary historical narratives that seek to identify specific epochs with specific literary genres—or perhaps even to how aesthetic tastes and conceptions of poetry have been shaped through critical discourse. However, the rhapsody was important not only in terms of literary history, but also as the (arguably) primary genre through which articulations of imperial power were made in the early days of empire. That is to say, although the lyric poem would stand as a kind of sacred speech within the ideological imagination of empire, the rhapsody was a literary form that often dealt much more directly with the subject and themes of sovereignty, not only from the perspective of imperial representation, but also in terms of the court imaginary. ————— 1. See Kroll, “Significance of the fu,” pp. 87–105; and his comments on Tang rhapsody in Kroll, “Poetry of the T’ang Dynasty.” 268 Palatial Form and the Rhapsodic Imagination Sima Xiangru and the Poetry of Imperial Representation Such issues were central to the “grand” or “epideictic rhapsody” (dafu 大賦), particularly as it developed during the Western Han dynasty. Surviv- ing early examples of Han rhapsody (and proto-rhapsody) are often framed by fictional dialogues between a famous rhetor (such as Song Yu), who would be the rhapsody’s speaker, and a king, who served as the audience.2 Generally, the dialogue begins with a scene of instruction, with the king asking the rhetor to expound on a particular topic. In the rhetor’s re- sponse, one then finds the lengthy exposition on the topic, using tropes and schemes such as catalogues, parallelism, and lexical obscurity to help create the illusion of comprehensiveness.3 This fictional relationship between rhetor and king provided a model for the actual relationship between the rhapsodist and his royal audience. Despite, however, the precedent of Warring States rulers who patronized men with literary and sophistical talents, the first Han emperors did not show any interest in literary men. It was not until the year 135 bc, when Han Wudi invited the poet Sima Xiangru to Chang’an, that one actually finds the beginnings of an imperial court literary tradition.4 As David Knechtges has observed, Wudi “was eager to invite poets, especially fu writers, to his court.”5 Sima Xiangru came to the emperor’s attention through his “Rhapsody of Master Emptiness” 子虛賦, which the poet had composed at the court of Liu Wu 劉武, the King of Liang 梁王. Ac- cording to the historical records, when Han Wudi chanced to read a copy of the rhapsody, he cried out, “Will We alone not get to meet this person ————— 2. On proto-rhapsodies and the influence of the early rhetorical tradition, see Knechtges, Han Rhapsody, pp. 12–43. 3. Knechtges has a detailed discussion of rhapsodic rhetoric in Han Rhapsody, pp. 35–38. 4. There are various datings for the arrival of Sima Xiangru at the imperial court. Gong Kechang gives a possible date of 135 bc in his Studies on the Han Fu, p. 135. (This work was originally published in China as Han fu yanjiu.) Yves Hervouet argues that the date could not have been prior to 138 bc, in his Un Poète de cour sous les Han, p. 49, n5. Knechtges argues that Jian Zongwu presents the most convincing case for a date in Jian, “Shanglin fu zhuzuo niandai zhi shangque,” pp. 260–62. See Knechtges, trans., Wen xuan, vol. 2, pp. 73n, 75n. 5. Knechtges, “Emperor and Literature,” p. 53. Also see Long Wenling, Han Wudi yu Xi Han wenxue, pp. 97–142. .

Load more