BEYOND THE LYRIC: EXPANDING THE LANDSCAPE OF EARLY AND HIGH TANG LITERATURE by XIAOJING MIAO B.A., Minzu University of China, 2011 M.A., Minzu University of China, 2014 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Asian Languages and Civilizations 2019 This thesis entitled: Beyond the Lyric: Expanding the Landscape of Early and High Tang Literature written by Xiaojing Miao has been approved for the Department of Asian Languages and Civilizations Dr. Paul W. Kroll, Professor of Chinese, Committee Chair Dr. Antje Richter, Associate Professor of Chinese Dr. Ding Xiang Warner, Professor of Chinese Dr. Matthias L. Richter, Associate Professor of Chinese Dr. Katherine Alexander, Assistant Professor of Chinese Dr. David Atherton, Assistant Professor of Japnanese Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Miao, Xiaojing (Ph.D., Asian Languages and CivilizationEnglish) Beyond the Lyric: Expanding the Landscape of Early and High Tang Literature Thesis directed by Professor Paul W. Kroll This dissertation investigates what Tang (618-907) literature was in its own time, as opposed to how it has been constructed at later times and for different critical purposes. The core of this dissertation is to diversify and complicate our understanding of Tang literature, including Tang poetry, from the perspective of self-(re)presentation, and by bringing out certain genres, works, and literati that have been overlooked. Prevailing narratives of Tang literature usually present it as a uniform phenomenon that went through four clear developmental stages, and are often restricted to shi-poetry, for the Tang is dubbed as the “golden age” of the shi. Such narratives may sound very neat, but they present one particular view of the Tang literary landscape, and conceal various other aspects and features that contributed to Tang literature. To remedy this situation, my dissertation offers a new historical narrative of Tang literature, one that is neither restricted to shi-poetry nor bounded by its traditional fourfold periodization, but presents Tang literary history as more multifaceted than has previously been portrayed. More specifically, I have considered in detail four literary forms that were both prevalent and important in the Tang period—the occasional preface, the self-recommendation letter, the fu, and autobiographical verse in various forms (including encomium, entombed epitaph, and shi). Through the discussion of these genres in four chapters, I show that the conventional fourfold periodization of Tang literature obscures the fact that High Tang literature is often similar to the work of the early Tang, that Tang literati did not view literature as “pure” literary composition but as an integral part of their socio-political life, and that a conscious, public self-(re)presentation grew to be a critically prominent feature of Tang literature. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This dissertation would not have been written had it not been for the guidance and encouragement of my advisor, Professor Paul W. Kroll. In the past five years, he often inspired me during our weekly meetings, filled the margins of my dissertation chapters with perceptive comments, and supported my research with his knowledge and patience. I could not ask for a better mentor. I am also very grateful to Professor Antje Richter. She carefully read drafts of chapters and offered me invaluable suggestions, especially on how to make my writing more inviting and relatable to readers. Professor Matthias Richter has always been very supportive of my project and often shared his insightful opinions with me. I also own Professor Ding Xiang Warner at Cornell University a great debt of gratitude, not only for her willingness to serve on my committee, but also for all the advice and encouragement she has given me over the years. I am equally grateful to Professor David Atherton for staying in my committee even after he had moved on to Harvard. Thanks are due as well to many friends, colleagues, and scholars for their assistance, inspiration, encouragement, and criticism. Among them, I would like to mention Professors Ronald C. Egan, David McMullen, Alexi Ditter, Katherine Alexander, Terry Kleeman, and Rahul Parson, Kangni Huang, Zhuming Yao, and Ann E. Roddy. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support I received from different institutions. A predissertation travel grant from American Council of Learned Societies in the summer of 2015 allowed me to gather materials from major libraries in China and discuss in person with several important scholars in the field. Thanks to two summer fellowships and several graduate student travel grants from the Center for Humanities & the Arts at the University of Colorado Boulder, I was able to continue my research in summers, attend academic conferences, and took a trip to the British Library to examine some Dunhunag manuscripts, without starving or bankrupting myself. Elling Eide Center generously offered me a two-week scholarly residency in the summer of 2017, so I was able to work in the private library owed by the late great scholar Elling Eide. A dissertation fellowship from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder exempted iv me from teaching responsibilities for the 2018-19 academic year, which was a great help in bringing this dissertation to completion. Finally, I thank my parents. Receiving a Ph.D. degree and pursing academic career in the U.S. is not two traditional Chinese parents’ expectation for their daughter. They do not often agree with my choices, but they support me nonetheless and are always there for me. It is a true blessing to be their daughter. v CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1 CHAPTER I. A DISPLAY OF ME, AND A FAREWARE GIFT TO YOU: THE OCCASIONAL PREFACE IN THE EARLY AND HIGH TANG LITERTURE…………………………………………………………………...20 The Occasional Preface Prior to the Tang…………………………………...21 Now You See Me…………………………………………………………...24 Presenting Words as a Farewell Gift………………………………………...47 II. SEEKING POLITICAL PATRONAGE: THE ART OF THE SELF- RECOMMENDATION LETTER……………………………………………..61 The Justification for Patronage Seeking……………………………………..62 The Praise or Criticism of the Recipient…………………………………….73 The Self-display of the Speaker……………………………………………...90 The Plea for Patronage…………………………………………………….101 III. A GENRE OF IMPORTANCE: REAPPRASING TANG FU-POETRY……115 An Emperor’s Self-justification…………………………………………….116 Presenting Fu to Win Imperial Favor……………………………………....123 Fu-poetry to Express One’s Mind………………………………………… 132 Shi or Fu? ………………………………………………………………….140 Self-fashion in the Fu………………………………………………………145 IV. A PORTRAIT OF ME: SELF-REPRESENTATION IN TANG AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL VERSE………...…………………………………..157 The Contemporary Sage…………………………………………………....164 The Disillusioned Recluse………………………………………………….170 The Virtuous Victim……………………………………………………….185 The Concerned Talent……………………………………………………..192 FINAL REMARKS……………………..…………………………………………....………216 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………..…………………………………………....………..219 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………230 “You Shanmiao xu” 遊山廟序…………………………………………….230 “Muchun Jiangxia song Zhang Zu jiancheng zhi Dongdu xu” 暮春江夏送張 vi 祖監丞之東都序………………………………………………………….232 “Shang Silie Taichangbo qi” 上司列太常伯啟………….…………………233 “Shang Zhongshu Yao linggong Yuanchong shu” 上中書姚令公元崇書...242 “Weifeng fu” 威鳳賦……………………………………………………...247 “Chaoyuange fu” 朝元閣賦………………………………………………..250 “Sima fu” 死馬賦…………………………………………………………..255 “Jing luanlihou tianen liu Yelang yi jiuyou shuhuai zeng Jiangxia Wei Taishou Liangzai” 經亂離後天恩流夜郎憶舊遊書懷贈贈江夏韋太守良宰……...257 vii FIGURES Figure 1. A map of the Huanqing Palace………………………………………………………...126 2. Dunhuang manuscript P. 3619 (partial)………………………………………………...145 viii Introduction Rewriting History Ernest: Gilbert, you treat the world as if it were a crystal ball. You hold it in your hand, and reverse it to please a willful fancy. You do nothing but re-write history. Gilbert: The one duty we owe to history is to re-write it. That is not the least of the tasks in store for the critical spirit.1 In his essay “The Critic as Artist,” Oscar Wilde had the fictional Gilbert announce loud and clear the legitimacy of rewriting history, and claim it to be one of the tasks “in store for the critical spirit.” Wilde’s statement accords with the so-called “crisis of historicism,” which developed during the last third of the nineteenth century and undermined “the confidence in history’s claim to ‘objectivity,’ ‘scientificity,’ and ‘realism.’”2 This crisis carried on to the twentieth century and persists to this very day, as modern Western scholars—including Valéry, Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault—have stressed the fictive character of historical reconstructions. This “fictive character” is most conspicuous when history is presented in narrative form. Yet on the other hand, Croce tells us that where there is no narrative, there is no history,3 and Hayden White illustrates with eloquence that the meaning of history derives from narrative.4 Therefore, with regard to David Perkins’s question “Is literary history possible?”5 my answer is, yes, if by “possible” we do not mean a literary history free 1 Oscar Wilde, Intentions (London: Leipzig, Heinemann, and Balestier Ltd, 1891), 106. 2 Hayden White, Metahistory: The