英文摘要 |
Remaining influential for more than a century, the dominant Revivalist School in the Ming dynasty proved an indisputably significant poetic tradition with its myriad adherents-except for a suspicion of “overindulging in imitation,” which it had frequently provoked to ignore such a negative label. By reviewing the Revivalist poetics with a special attention paid to its self-examination, in combination with in-depth reading and analyses of related poetry, this article attempts to investigate into the topic systematically. The article begins with a survey of the use of the term “imitation” and other related phrases in the Revivalist literature, and manages to identify the very “authors” and “works” criticized by the Revivalists for their flaw of imitation. The flaw, categorized into four types: “farraginous verbiage,” “minor modification,” “blind mimicry” and “repetitive paraphrase.” This article argues throughout the history of its imitation of classical writings, the Revivalist School had gone beyond superficial mimicry to reach a higher sphere, which features a harmonious absorption of the classics both corporeally and spiritually. Finally, it may be termed “spiritual imitation” which is in this imitation at a higher level that the greatest value of Revivalist poetry lies. In summary, the Revivalist view in imitation consisted not only of a strict vigilance but of a persistent pursuit of its lofty ideal, mapping a manifold and multifaceted structure of conception, which overran the scope of any simple stigmatizing labeling. |