Notes on Reading Wen Xuan
Mu Ke
Abstract
Mu Ke
Abstract
Three important issues are under discussion in the field of Wen Xuan as a literary genre. First, it traces back to thirtyseven literary forms as demonstrated in Xiao Tong′s Wen Xuan as a point of departure, among which Form Seven (qi), that is, any literary form started with Chinese numerical seven becomes the center of discussion. In addition, it places Form Seven in the historical context and discusses its influence on the latter writings. Second, it tries to do meticulous textual criticism about Wen Xuan Pang Zheng and finds it as a serendipitous discovery the original author of the text, Liang Zhangju. Third, it reassesses the views by Su Shi's comments on Wen Xuan: on one hand, Su Shi pointed out the errors made by Xiao Tong; on the other, Su Shi's comments, inevitably tinged with his biases, failed to offer a fair and judicious review.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Three important issues are under discussion in the field of Wen Xuan as a literary genre. First, it traces back to thirtyseven literary forms as demonstrated in Xiao Tong′s Wen Xuan as a point of departure, among which Form Seven (qi), that is, any literary form started with Chinese numerical seven becomes the center of discussion. In addition, it places Form Seven in the historical context and discusses its influence on the latter writings. Second, it tries to do meticulous textual criticism about Wen Xuan Pang Zheng and finds it as a serendipitous discovery the original author of the text, Liang Zhangju. Third, it reassesses the views by Su Shi's comments on Wen Xuan: on one hand, Su Shi pointed out the errors made by Xiao Tong; on the other, Su Shi's comments, inevitably tinged with his biases, failed to offer a fair and judicious review.
Key concepts: Literature, Reading (process), Context (archaeology), Point (geometry), Criticism, History, Textual criticism, Field (mathematics)