Reading Politics in Calligraphy

Abstract

This article examines the 1965 debate over the authenticity of Wang Xizhi’s “Preface to the Lanting Collection” (Lanting ji xu). It argues that the seemingly academic debate in fact provided an opportunity for Mao Zedong and his associates to launch the Cultural Revolution. Although the Lanting Debate eventually failed its political mission, it created a false polyphony that encouraged intellectuals to engage in the subsequent debate over Yao Wenyuan’s class-struggle reading of Wu Han’s play, The Dismissal of Hai Rui, that marked the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. The failed Lanting Debate thus contributed to the onset of the Cultural Revolution in its indirect and unique way and demonstrated the vulnerability and complexity of the revolutionary scholarship during the 1960s.

本文旨在考察1965年學術界著名的「蘭亭論辯」（《蘭亭集序》真偽之爭），並提出這一看似學術性的論爭其實為毛澤東及其追隨者提供了一個發動文化大革命的可能契機。雖然「蘭亭論辯」最終未能演變成爲這場政治運動的導火索，但論爭本身卻給知識分子造成了一種對別有用心的學術論辯的容忍，從而鼓勵他們參與到之後的姚文元對《海瑞罷官》的批判的討論中。文革的發生是包括《海瑞罷官》批判等一系列文化和政治領域事件的直接後果，「蘭亭論辯」在其中也扮演了特殊的角色。此外，「蘭亭論辯」也展示了在1960年代革命學術的脆弱性和複雜性。

Keywords:

• Lanting Debate
• Cultural Revolution
• intellectuals
• politicization
• Guo Moruo
• revolutionary scholarship

關鍵詞:

• 蘭亭論辯
• 文化大革命
• 知識分子
• 政治化
• 革命學術

Notes

1 Weigelin-Schwiedrzik 2014, pp. 155–177.

2 Wang Pu 2018.

3 Wagner 1990.

4 Please note that throughout this article traditional characters are used with the exception of book and article titles of publications in simplified characters or quotations from these sources.

5 Lanting, usually translated as “Orchid Pavilion,” is located in the mountains near Kuaiji, in modern day Shaoxing 紹興, Zhejiang province. David Knechtges, inspired by Xiao Lianggan 蕭良幹 (jinshi 進士 in 1571), argues that “Lan” is the name of a local rivulet and “ting” should be understood a “precinct” or “commune,” an administrative division and administrative building established in the Han dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE). After Han, “ting” gradually changed from an administrative building to a “pleasure lodge” where local elites gathered for entertainment. See Knechtges 2006, pp. 399–403. For English studies of the Lanting gathering, see, for example, Holzman 1997, pp. 306–311; Richter 2010, pp. 370–407; W. Swartz 2012, pp. 275–300.

6 For English studies of the Lanting poems see Bischoff 1985; see also W. Swartz 2012. For a Japanese translation of the Lanting poems, see Hasegawa Shigenari 1994, pp. 261–373 (I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this reference). For a study of the early transmission of the Lanting Preface, see Harrist 2001, pp. 176–196. See also De Laurentis 2021.

7 For legends concerning the transmission of the Lanting Preface, see He Yanzhi 1983, pp. 3058b–3061b; Sui Tang jiahua, p. 115; Hanmo zhi, vol. 2, p. 3a. See also De Laurentis 2021, pp. 44, 78.

8 See Sui Tang jiahua.

9 For more on the tradition of engraving calligraphy, see McNair 1995, pp. 106–114.

10 This opening sentence of Mi Fu’s preface was hand-written on his collection of Chu Suiliang’s copy of Lanting xu (Chu Suiliang Lanting xu bazan 褚遂良摹蘭亭序跋贊). The piece is currently preserved in the Gugong bowuyuan in Beijing.

11 For example, Zhang Huaiguan 張懷瓘 (fl. mid-8th c.) criticizes Wang Xizhi’s semi-cursive script for being too soft and lacking a masculine air (女郎才，無丈夫氣); the Song calligrapher Huang Tingjian 黃庭堅 (1045–1105) mocks that vulgar calligraphers are fond of imitating the Lanting Preface style (俗書喜作蘭亭面). See Pan Yungao 1999, p. 31. See also Huang Tingjian’s poem, “Ti Yang Ningshi shu” 題楊凝式書, in Shangu ji, vol. 10, p. 33.

12 See Lanting kao, j. 6, p. 1a. See also Jiang Kui 1983, p. 213, and “Ba Fengshi Lan­ting,” p. 2957. For a summary of Song scholars’ discussions on the authenticity of the Lanting Preface, see Lu Hui-Wen 2017, pp. 211–222.

13 See Guochao shuren jilüe, vol. 4, j. 6, p. 34b.

14 The Linhe Preface is found in Liu Xiaobiao’s 劉孝標 (462–521) commentary to Shishuo xinyu 世説新語. See Shishuo xinyu jiaojian, vol. 2, p. 346. For an English translation of Shishuo xinyu, see Mather 2002, pp. 344–345.

15 They are from the eminent Cuan clan of Yunnan who controlled the area from the 320 to 769. Cuan Baozi (384–405) was the appointed governor of the Jianning 建寧 commandery by the Jin. Cuan Longyan’s stone was erected in 458. For information on the Cuan family, see Herman 2009, pp. 241–286. For a study of the Cuan Baozi stele inscription, see McNair 2012, pp. 53–74.

16 See Guo Moruo 1973a, pp. 11–12.

17 For more on the tiexue school, see Ledderose 1998, pp. 189–207.

18 The Four Cleanups Campaign, with cleanups in the political, economic, social, and ideological fields, began in 1963 and ended in 1966, and was designed to better the government’s work by targeting problematic cadres’ style of work and economic management. The campaign was quickly overtaken by leftist extremism, and many cadres were wronged. For an early observation of the Four Cleanups, see Baum 1969, pp. 92–119. See also Brown 2015, pp. 51–76.

19 Guo Moruo, “You Wang Xie muzhi de chutu lundao Lanting xu de zhenwei” 由王谢墓志的出土论到《兰亭序》的真伪, hereafter “On the Authenticity of the Lanting Preface.” Guo’s article was written on March 31, 1965 and then revised on May 13 and May 22, 1965. It was published in Wenwu 文物, in June 1965.

20 Xie An was from the eminent Xie clan in Eastern Jin (317-420) whose father and cousin held both civil and military positions. Xie An was famous for his Pure Talk (qingtan 清談) when he was young but later served as a stateman entrusted with several important positions at the court. He helped defeat Huan Wen's 桓溫 (312–373) attempt of usurpation in 373 and, although lack of military skills, led the Eastern Jin through a major crisis by defeating the Former Qin's (351–394) attack.

21 See Guo Moruo 1997a, pp. 19–20. Five of the references in Guo Moruo’s article were provided by Kang Sheng 康生 (1898–1975), a point that I will discuss below.

22 Different purposes required different handwriting styles in Eastern Jin. Sha Menghai 沙孟海 (1900–1992) discussed the difference between handwriting and stele inscription carving during the 3rd to 6th centuries in his “Liang Jin Nanbeichao shuji de xieti yu keti: Lanting tie zhenglun de guanjian wenti” 两晋南北朝书迹的写体与刻体——兰亭帖争论的关键问题. See Sha Menghai 2010. Wang Yuanjun argued that in the Eastern Jin, elites considered handwriting in notes and letters demonstrations of their artistic style and looked down upon calligraphy in stele inscription, as these inscriptions were carved by artisans. Wang Yuanjun concluded that the inscriptions Guo Moruo cited were not considered real calligraphy by the elites at that time so they cannot be used as reliable evidence. See Wang Yuanjun 1998.

23 Guo Moruo wrote: “Therefore, I take delight in confirming that the Lanting Preface and its handwriting were forged by Zhiyong” 因此，我乐于肯定，《兰亭序》的文章和墨迹就是智永所依托. See Guo Moruo 1973a, p. 17.

24 For research on Guo Moruo’s involvement with politics, see, for example, Chen Xiaoming 2007 and Wang Pu 2018.

25 For example, Zhang Shizhao lamented that if indeed the Lanting Preface was a forgery, “I sincerely did not know, after this major damage, how one could write an appropriate outline for Chinese calligraphic history” 夫如是，吾誠不知中國書史，經此一大破壞，史綱將如何寫法而可! See Zhang Shizhao 1971, p. 1919.

26 Guo Moruo’s theory and Gao Ershi’s criticism are briefly mentioned in Hua Rende 1997, pp. 30–88. For a more recent study of Gao Ershi, see Cao Yang 2021.

27 Compared to Gao Ershi, Zhang Shizhao was much older and had been a cultural celebrity for decades. Zhang appreciated Gao’s classical poetry and calligraphy, so he had recommended Gao to the Jiangsu Provincial Institute of Literature and History. Zhang thought highly of Gao, and Gao certainly benefited from Zhang’s influence.

28 For a study of calligraphy in Cultural Revolution in general and Mao’s use of calligraphy as a power tool in particular, see Kraus 1991.

29 See Mu Xin 1994, p. 146.

30 See Guo Moruo 1973b, pp. 33–41; 1973c, pp. 42–45.

31 See Guo Moruo 1973a, pp. 18–19. For Kang Sheng’s support of Guo Moruo’s article, see Ru Wenxuan 2017, p. 24.

32 Guo Moruo included a section titled “If Tang Emperor Taizong Lived Nowadays” (如果唐太宗生在今天) to criticize Gao Ershi’s reference to the emperor’s favoring of Wang Xizhi. Guo compared the Qing calligrapher Zhao Zhiqian’s 趙之謙 (1829–1884) criticism of the blind worship of Wang Xizhi caused by Emperor Taizong’s excessive praise with Gao Ershi’s “absolute worship” (juedui xinyang 绝对信仰) of the emperor’s words, implying that Gao was not even as progressive as the Qing calligrapher Zhao Zhiqian who had dared to question rulers in imperial times. Guo Moruo further cited Mao’s poem “Qinyuanchun, Xue” 沁園春・雪 to prove that the Tang emperor “had no literary mind or artistic form” (shaoxun fengsao 稍遜風騷). See Guo Moruo 1973c, pp. 38, 40–41.

33 See Jin Xingyao 1965.

34 See Yan Beiming 1965, pp. 64–69. In August 1965, Huang Junshi published an article in a Hong Kong journal and pointed out that the term lishu had already referred to kaishu in Wang Xizhi’s time. Because Huang’s article was published in Hong Kong, it was not involved in the debate. See Huang Junshi 1965.

35 See Xu Senyu 1973, pp. 83–90; Zhao Wanli 1973, pp. 91–92.

36 See Li Changlu 1973, pp. 94–107; Shi Shuqing 1973, pp. 115–120.

37 See Shang Chengzuo 1973, pp. 11–25. Shang’s article was later also included in Lanting lunbian without Shang’s consent.

38 For the adaptation of Marxist theories in the 1950s and 1960s, see Weigelin-Schwiedrzik 2014, p. 156.

39 For Guo Moruo’s fondness of fan’an, see Wang Pu 2018, p. 230.

40 Gao asked Zhang to invite Mao to comment on his review so that it could be published, saying this was his biggest hope. Cf. Jia Zhenyong 2013, p. 288.

41 See Mu Xin 1994, p. 145.

42 Zhang sent Mao the letter together with his book Liuwen zhiyao 柳文指要. Mao’s reply admonished Zhang Shizhao for the lack of a materialistic historical view and warned him of possible criticisms. It seems that at that moment Mao was more interested in Zhang’s book than in Gao Ershi’s article. See Mu Xin 1994, p. 146.

43 See Mu Xin 1994, p. 147.

44 These are “A Discussion on Counterargument” and “The Lanting Preface and the Thoughts of Laozi and Zhuangzi” mentioned above.

45 Mao’s words read: 过分崇拜帝王将相者到现在还不乏其人 … 是要准备对付的. See Mu Xin 1994, p. 148. This seemed to be Mao’s target during the 1960s. On December 12, 1963, Mao complained about the literature and art fields in which “[t]he ‘dead’ still dominate in many departments” (许多部门至今还是“死人”统治着). See Mao Zedong 1967, p. 10.

46 MacFarquhar – Schoenhals 2006, pp. 15–19.

47 Guo had written flattering poems and essays praising Mao, and some of these fawning writings were requested by Kang Sheng. For example, on Chinese New Year Day in 1964, 1965, and 1966, the Guangming ribao published Mao’s poems in his own calligraphy on the front page, followed by Guo Moruo’s praising essays on the second page, which, for instance, exalted Mao’s poems as the “peak of poetry” and Mao’s handwriting as the “peak of calligraphy.” See, for example, Guangming ribao, February 2, 1965.

48 Ru Wenxuan’s 2017 M.A. thesis describes how Kang Sheng masterminded the debate. See Ru Wenxuan 2017, pp. 20–25.

49 Xie Kun’s tomb was found on September 10, 1964. Wang Xingzhi’s tomb was unearthed on January 19, 1965. Considering the fact that Gong Weizhen spent most of his career in the military and was not a scholar, it was clearly Kang Sheng who requested the copies from Gong. (This is my own theory.)

50 Bai Huawen 2006, p. 44.

51 See Guo Moruo 1973a, pp. 18–19.

52 See Jia Zhenyong 2013, p. 285. Qi Gong also confirmed this in his memoir, see Qi Gong koushu lishi 启功口述历史, in Zhao – Zhang 2004, p. 212. Luo Peiyuan 羅培元 (1935–2007), however, said that he bought a woodblock printed Dingwu Lanting Preface that contains Li Wentian’s essay; Guo visited Luo’s house, saw the print and read Li Wentian’s essay for the first time. The problem with Luo Peiyuan’s story is that he recalled that Guo Moruo had visited his home and seen Li Wentian’s essay in 1963. In Guo Moruo’s “On the Authenticity of the Lanting Preface,” Guo mentioned that he “recently” learned of Li Wentian’s essay. See Guo Moruo 1973a, p. 11. For Luo Peiyuan’s story, see Mao Tiangan 2005, pp. 9–14.

53 Wagner 1990, p. xii.

54 兰亭论辩康生起了很大的作用，这是没有问题的. See Ji Hong 2001, p. 24. See also Mao Tiangan 2005, p. 11. Chen Mingyuan was the son-in-law of the famous film actor Zhao Dan 趙丹 (1915–1980) and a godson to the opera performer and actress Xin Fengxia 新鳳霞 (1927–1998) and the playwright Wu Zuguang 吳祖光 (1917–2003). Chen was much younger than Guo but the two were pen pals. Chen was jailed during the Cultural Revolution, accused of forging Mao’s poems. In 1989, Chen made a famous speech at Beijing University, encouraging students to continue their political protest.

55 Huang Miaozi also said that A Ying 阿英 (1900–1977) mentioned that Long Qian’s article represented Kang Sheng’s view. See Ji Hong 2001, p. 24. Feng Xigang also believed that Kang Sheng, Chen Boda, and even Mao were behind Guo Moruo’s article (郭沫若撰文发起这场辩论，确实有背景，那就是与康生、陈伯达乃至更高一级政要的“所见略同”), see Feng Xigang 2004, p. 284.

56 Ji Hong 2001, p. 25.

57 See Zheng Zhong 1998.

58 In his memoir, Qi Gong provided more detail and mocked himself by saying that he had to become more “active” (huopo 活潑) in order to complete the assignment. Qi Gong considered this article a stain on his life and admitted that his friends later ridiculed him for being “active” in this way. Qi Gong mentioned that Guo Moruo also wanted Qi’s mentor, the historian Chen Yuan 陳垣 (1880–1971), to write a supporting article but Chen declined. See Ji Hong 2001, pp. 25–26. See Zhao – Zhang 2004, pp. 212–215.

59 Mu Xin 1994, pp. 151–153.

60 Guo Moruo said that Pei Shaozi was aware of Kang Sheng’s opinion but dared only to ridicule him. See Mu Xin 1994, pp. 153–154.

61 The chapter is later included in the Lanting lunbian, see Lanting lunbian, vol. 2, pp. 1–4.

62 See Mu Xin 1994, pp. 155–156.

63 See Huang Chunhao 1992, p. 159. There are, however, doubts on the authenticity of many of the letters Chen Mingyuan provided. Both Guo Moruo’s daughter and his secretary condemned Chen for forging these letters. They believed that Guo stopped writing to Chen in 1963, so any letter dated after that year must be fake. See Wang Rongsheng 2005. See also Guo Pingying 1996.

64 Wagner 1990, p. xii.

65 See Kraus 1991, pp. 78–79, 90.

66 上边又要搞一次大的政治运动，又需要找一个切入口或突破口。经历过这段历史的人都知道，最后是选择了批吴晗的《海瑞罢官》，以致“文化大革命”。但在最初没最终确定目标前，曾多次在其他题目上试探过，其中之一就是1965年发动的对王羲之《兰亭序》真伪的论辩上. See Zhao – Zhang 2004, p. 212.

67 These three journalists are Deng Tuo 鄧拓 (1912–1966), Wu Han and Liao Mosha 廖沫沙 (1907–1990). For how the Cultural Revolution was incited by Yao Wenyuan’s article, see, for example, Fisher 1982, pp. 1–35. For the campaign against the “Three Family Village,” see Uhalley 1966, pp. 149–161. See also MacFarquhar 1997, pp. 249–258.

68 Zhao – Zhang 2004, p. 216.

69 For the stories of these three and the persecutions they suffered during the Cultural Revolution, see Xu Linling 2018.

70 See Lanting lunbian, vol. 1, p. I.

71 After the Cultural Revolution, there occurred several waves reevaluating the Lanting Debate and the issue of the authenticity of the Lanting Preface. Recent scholarly works include the publication of Lanting lunji 兰亭论集 after the international conference on the Lanting Preface at Suzhou University in 1999, as well as several books edited by Mao Wanbao. See Hua – Bai 2000. See also Mao Wanbao 2011, and 2019a. The Lanting xue dangdai wenxuan 兰亭学当代文选, in five volumes, edited by Mao Wanbao, is so far the most comprehensive collection of scholarly studies in Chinese concerning the authenticity of the Lanting Preface from the 1960s to the early 21st century (see Mao Wenbao 2019b).

72 See Bourdieu 1993, p. 162; see also D. Swartz 1997, p. 118. Chen Yafei’s 陈雅飞 “Zhongguo dalu Lanting xu zhenwei lunbian huigu” 中国大陆兰亭序真伪论辩回顾, cited Bourdieu’s emphasis on the importance of scholarly independence when facing political pressure. See Chen Yafei 2004, p. 109.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

He Jianjun 何建軍

He Jianjun is an associate professor of Chinese in the Department of Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures and Cultures at the University of Kentucky. His research primarily focuses on early China, especially early Chinese historiography and intellectual history. He has also published articles on Tang history and Late-Imperial vernacular literature. His recent publications include The Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue: An Annotated Translation of Wu Yue Chunqiu (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2021) and “Anxiety over the Filial Body: Discussions on Xiao in Early Confucian Texts,” Journal of American Oriental Society 140 (2020) 2: 301–315.