• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Menu
  • HSE University
  • Publications of HSE
  • Articles
  • Жанры диалога "дуйвэнь" и "дуй" в трактате Лю Се "Резной дракон литературной мысли". Перевод XIV и XXIV глав трактата Лю Се.

Article

Жанры диалога "дуйвэнь" и "дуй" в трактате Лю Се "Резной дракон литературной мысли". Перевод XIV и XXIV глав трактата Лю Се.

The article aims at verification of one of one of the hypotheses of the literary interpretation of the traditional concept of “wen” (“elegance”) in early medieval Chinese literature. Treatise “Wen xin diao long” (“The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons”) by Liu Xie (ca. 460‒522) occupies an exceptional place among the sources for studies of traditional Chinese literature typology and, in particular, its early medieval period. It is generally accepted that in 20 chapters of the treatise Liu Xie described contemporary literature as an ordered system of genres based on aesthetic principles of elegance (“wen”) and plainness (“bi”) that could be consequently interpreted in terms of their form. The translation of the two chapters was made to verify this thesis, and the descriptions of the two dialogue genres in “Wen xin diao long” were compared. They are “duiwen” (answer to a question) in Chapter XIV “Za wen” (“Mixed Works”) presumably from the category of “the fine literature” (“wen”) and “dui” (examination answer to the question posed in a special imperial decree) in Chapter XXIV “Yi dui” (“Meeting and answer”) from the ordinary, or plain literature (bi) category. To identify features of the genres, historical material and preserved texts were used. The analysis revealed that stylistic features of the works (rhyme, parallel phrases) were not essential for their attribution to one or another genre. Other significant genre features have been indicated. The author of the article notes the shortcomings of the modern interpretation of some passages from the text of Liu Xie, which either indicate the inconsistency of his approach, or the imperfection of existing translations into modern languages.