-
Publication date： 2026-06
Professor Jao Tsung-i (1917-2018) was an internationally renowned polymath whose achievements spanned history, literature, philology, and the arts. Accomplished in scholarship, literature, and artistic creation alike, he may aptly be described as embodying “three perfections in one person.” A defining feature of Jao’s calligraphic art lies in his mastery of diverse script styles and his exceptional stylistic versatility. In the author’s view, few contemporary calligraphers rivaled Jao in the breadth of scripts he commanded.
This article examines the rich variability of Jao’s calligraphic art from several perspectives. First, Jao’s theory of calligraphy emphasized the principles of “weightiness,” “archaic simplicity,” and “grandeur,” while advocating an approach to learning calligraphy that proceeds “from the higher tradition downward.” Second, his oracle-bone script calligraphy displayed remarkable stylistic diversity: while preserving the robust strength of incised inscriptions, it also incorporated brush techniques derived from bronze inscriptions, small-seal script, and clerical script, at times even revealing cursive linearity, thereby generating fresh creativity within an archaic aesthetic. Third, his bamboo- and silk-manuscript calligraphy reinterpreted ancient models through the adaptation of Chu and Qin bamboo slips as well as the Mawangdui silk manuscripts, fusing archaic simplicity with originality. Fourth, across seal, clerical, regular, running, and cursive scripts, Jao drew extensively upon the traditions of major calligraphers from the Jin, Tang, and Song dynasties through the Ming and Qing periods, while avoiding rigid formal imitation and establishing a distinctive personal style. Finally, the article argues that in his later years Jao achieved a masterful synthesis of diverse script traditions, attaining the highest realm of artistic transformation. His calligraphic art is marked by remarkable richness and vitality, uniting archaic simplicity with innovative elegance.
Page：
1-82
Keywords：
Jao Tsung-i, Chinese Calligraphy, ingenious novelty (Xinqiao), Bamboo and Silk Manuscript Studies, Epigraphy
The terms “zao 皁” and “li 隸”, frequently attested in the Zuozhuan and the Guoyu, denote social groups that were neither “state subjects” (guoren 國人) nor slaves; moreover, the status of zao was slightly higher than that of li. According to the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou), specifically the “Xiaguan Sima: Jiaoren” (the Ministry of Summer Officers) and the “Xuguan,” (the Preface to Official Ranks) the concrete duty associated with zao corresponds to the unranked position of “yushi” (stable master) within the “Xiaguan Sima,” responsible for instructing slaves in horse husbandry. By contrast, li refers to those subject to labor service. The Zuozhuan records li engaged in tasks such as cleaning guest quarters and storing ice, while the term “yi” in the “Zaishan” ode of the Mao Shi: Zhou Song and the “li nong” in the Guoyu: Jinyu I both denote hired agricultural laborers, likewise reflecting the occupational scope of li.
During the Spring and Autumn period, the sons, kinsmen, and household retainers of high ministers (Qingdafu) were not administered by the state and thus did not possess the status of either “state subjects” or “commoners of the countryside.” Should such aristocratic lineages decline or collapse, their members—including sons, kinsmen, and retainers—were barred from engaging in the four occupational categories (scholar, farmer, artisan, and merchant) and could only assume the roles of zao and li.
During the Spring and Autumn period, the sons, kinsmen, and household retainers of high ministers (Qingdafu) were not administered by the state and thus did not possess the status of either “state subjects” or “commoners of the countryside.” Should such aristocratic lineages decline or collapse, their members—including sons, kinsmen, and retainers—were barred from engaging in the four occupational categories (scholar, farmer, artisan, and merchant) and could only assume the roles of zao and li.
Page：
83-116
Keywords：
Zuozhuan, Guoyu, Zhouli, zao, li
Recent scholarship has revisited the so-called distinction between Hua and Yi (hua–yi zhi bian) and the ethos of Hua–Yi differentiation, noting that beneath this seemingly rigid boundary lies the potential for transformation and intermixture (hua–yi zhi bian as change). Taking this issue as its point of departure, this article turns to representations of alterity in Six Dynasties zhiguai narratives. It focus on depictions of foreign peoples, foreign individuals, and foreign lands, moving beyond mere textual compilation to examine the multiple layers and internal logic of “otherness.”
The discussion is organized as follows. It first analyzes portrayal of temperament and corporeality attributed to foreign peoples and individuals, along with the symbolic mechanisms of abjection and stigmatization they entail. It then considers representations of foreign lands and heterotopic spaces in contrast to normative, ordinary spatial orders. Given the fragmentary, concise, and stylistically accessible nature of zhiguai anecdotes, this study employs key concepts from contemporary sociology and philosophy—such as abjection, stigma, and heterotopia—to reinterpret these texts from a modern theoretical perspective.
In its analytical framework, the article seeks not only to address binary divisions such as Hu and Han or Hua and Yi, but also to foreground internal differentiations among “foreign” groups—such as Man, Yi, Wu, and Southerners—constructed at various levels of subjectivity. This approach underscores the fluidity of boundaries between distinction and transformation, interior and exterior. While the dictum “those not of our kind must differ in mind” posits a clear demarcation, the processes by which alterity defined, by which parts of the self are rendered other, or by which the other is assimilated into the self, constitute the central problematic this study aims to clarify.
The discussion is organized as follows. It first analyzes portrayal of temperament and corporeality attributed to foreign peoples and individuals, along with the symbolic mechanisms of abjection and stigmatization they entail. It then considers representations of foreign lands and heterotopic spaces in contrast to normative, ordinary spatial orders. Given the fragmentary, concise, and stylistically accessible nature of zhiguai anecdotes, this study employs key concepts from contemporary sociology and philosophy—such as abjection, stigma, and heterotopia—to reinterpret these texts from a modern theoretical perspective.
In its analytical framework, the article seeks not only to address binary divisions such as Hu and Han or Hua and Yi, but also to foreground internal differentiations among “foreign” groups—such as Man, Yi, Wu, and Southerners—constructed at various levels of subjectivity. This approach underscores the fluidity of boundaries between distinction and transformation, interior and exterior. While the dictum “those not of our kind must differ in mind” posits a clear demarcation, the processes by which alterity defined, by which parts of the self are rendered other, or by which the other is assimilated into the self, constitute the central problematic this study aims to clarify.
Page：
117-150
Keywords：
Six Dynasty zhiguai, foreign peoples, abjection, stigma, heterotopia
Viewed across the full arc of Bai Juyi’s life and writings, his thoughts and poetry exhibit a distinct transformation: in his early period, he inclined toward “improving the world,” centering his creative energy on “satirical poetry”; in his later years, he turned toward “self-cultivation,” expressed primarily through the poetry of “leisurely ease.” This shift indicates that Bai Juyi experienced a significant “turning.” Existing scholarship has largely focused on delineating the temporal boundary of this transition. In contrast, this paper seeks to examine the underlying cause of Bai Juyi’s “turning,” arguing that it stemmed from his existential awareness of unfreedom, derived from being-in-the-world and beingin-the-official.
The discussion unfolds in three parts: first, a discussion of the ancient usage of the Chinese word “freedom,” particularly its use in Bai Juyi’s poetry; secondly, based on Bai Juyi’s life experience, analyze the basic existential situation that led him to experience unfreedom; and finally, an exploration of Bai Juyi’s pursuit of freedom through his garden dwellings, health preservation, and self-writing, as well as the construction of a leisurely self-reflected in these practices.
The discussion unfolds in three parts: first, a discussion of the ancient usage of the Chinese word “freedom,” particularly its use in Bai Juyi’s poetry; secondly, based on Bai Juyi’s life experience, analyze the basic existential situation that led him to experience unfreedom; and finally, an exploration of Bai Juyi’s pursuit of freedom through his garden dwellings, health preservation, and self-writing, as well as the construction of a leisurely self-reflected in these practices.
Page：
151-190
Keywords：
Bai Juyi, freedom, leisurely ease, moderate hermitage, fundamental question
This paper takes Xu Guixin’s Qieyun Zhinan as its primary subject of study, examining its phonological features and analyzing its structural arrangement as well as the prototype of its rime table framework. The study aims to clarify the relationship of inheritance between Qieyun Zhinan and Zhao Peizi’s Tibi Guangzeng Fenyun Wufang Yuanyin, and to further synthesize the phonological phenomena reflected throughout Qieyun Zhinan.
The paper first elucidates the circumstances behind the compilation of Qieyun Zhinan and its editorial principles, highlighting the differences between Xu Guixin’s original work and Ai Shaoquan’s annotated edition. It then employs statistical analysis of the rhyme-chart example characters to summarize the phonological characteristics of Qieyun Zhinan and to observe the intent behind its revisions. Finally, it evaluates the various phonological phenomena presented in the work, interpreting features of both the literary reading pronunciation shown in Yuanyin Fendeng Shiershe and the local Shandong Jiyang dialect reflected in “Qieyun Zhinan Bei Kao.”
The paper first elucidates the circumstances behind the compilation of Qieyun Zhinan and its editorial principles, highlighting the differences between Xu Guixin’s original work and Ai Shaoquan’s annotated edition. It then employs statistical analysis of the rhyme-chart example characters to summarize the phonological characteristics of Qieyun Zhinan and to observe the intent behind its revisions. Finally, it evaluates the various phonological phenomena presented in the work, interpreting features of both the literary reading pronunciation shown in Yuanyin Fendeng Shiershe and the local Shandong Jiyang dialect reflected in “Qieyun Zhinan Bei Kao.”
Page：
191-230
Keywords：
Xu Guixin’s Qieyun Zhinan, Tibi Guangzeng Fenyun Wufang Yuanyin, Jilu Mandarin, Jiyang dialect
Hu Shi, as a pioneer of the New Literature Movement, has consistently attracted significant academic attention to his literary concepts. However, previous explorations into the sources of his literary thought have primarily focused on his 1917 essay, “Tentative Suggestions for Literary Reform,” and his subsequent writings on vernacular Chinese and related memoirs. These studies have often adopted various Western “isms” as their starting point, tracing the origins of Hu Shi’s literary propositions. Regrettably, the extensive nature of Hu Shi’s works has led scholars to draw upon disparate source materials. Moreover, these various “isms” can be inherently conflicting, and Hu Shi, in his use of these concepts, often cited them flexibly, adapting them to his own needs rather than strictly adhering to their original Western academic forms. Consequently, most of these explorations may not adequately elucidate the origins of Hu Shi’s literary thought.
To move beyond the debate of abstract “isms,” this paper, adopting a chronological approach and utilizing newly discovered historical materials on Hu Shi from the past two decades, focuses on Hu Shi’s academic journey and literary thought between 1906 and 1916. It examines the influence of his early knowledge and prejudices on his understanding of Western scholarship and literature, thereby reconstructing the historical context of his literary revolution. This paper will begin with Hu Shi’s early academic concerns, systematically collating his literary viewpoints and practical criticisms scattered throughout various works to depict a more complete pre-history of the literary revolution. Furthermore, by analyzing the evolving and enduring elements therein, this study offers a comprehensive understanding of Hu Shi’s literary views and their relationship with traditional Confucian thought.
To move beyond the debate of abstract “isms,” this paper, adopting a chronological approach and utilizing newly discovered historical materials on Hu Shi from the past two decades, focuses on Hu Shi’s academic journey and literary thought between 1906 and 1916. It examines the influence of his early knowledge and prejudices on his understanding of Western scholarship and literature, thereby reconstructing the historical context of his literary revolution. This paper will begin with Hu Shi’s early academic concerns, systematically collating his literary viewpoints and practical criticisms scattered throughout various works to depict a more complete pre-history of the literary revolution. Furthermore, by analyzing the evolving and enduring elements therein, this study offers a comprehensive understanding of Hu Shi’s literary views and their relationship with traditional Confucian thought.
Page：
231-276
Keywords：
Hu Shi, Literary Revolution, literary thought, literary criticism, prejudice
