Reexamining the Classification of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons in Terms of the Traditional Learning–Knowledge Categorization

Wu Genyou

Abstract： In traditional book catalogues， it poses no great problem to classify The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a work of literary criticism under the literature category. From the perspective of traditional learning–knowledge categorization， however， it can also be regarded as a piece of writing modeled on the Confucian classics. If we approach the study of the classics as an extension to that of masters and philosophers， then The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons falls under the new category of masters， compiled from the Wei–Jin period onward that approach the Way and manifest his will， make an eclectic study of various texts， and offer literary theory and some metaphysical ideas. This paper is a reflective examination on the four-category bibliographic system （namely， categories of Confucian classics， history， masters， and literature） by the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， not so much to overturn its principles of division， but to rediscover the internal creativity in the traditional study of Confucian classics and to offer a remedy to overly rigid impressions of the Chinese classics.

Keywords： The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， learning–knowledge， study of Confucian classics， study of masters and philosophers

Admittedly there is good reason for Liu Xies 刘勰 （465–520） The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons [文心雕龙] to be listed in the “Literary Criticism” subset of the literature category of the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature [四库全书总目]. However， from the Tang dynasty （618–907） down to the modern era， many scholars have insisted that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons should be considered a work of zixue 子学 （study of masters and philosophers） in its own right， despite there being some resistance to this idea. In the scope of the present authors knowledge， no critique has yet named it as a work of jingxue 经学 （study of Confucian classics）， though many scholars have discussed Liu Xies interest in basing his work on Classic texts.i Based on previous studies， this paper discusses the issue of classifying The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons from a learning–knowledge approach， rather than bibliographic categorization and proposes that it is not only a creative work intended to imitate and derive knowledge from the Confucian classics in mid–ancient Chinese society， but also a writing of xin zixue 新子學 （new studies of masters） that tried to follow pre-Qin philosophers in discussing topics such as the Way （dao 道）， revealing ones will， and integrating varied opinions. Further discussion is then made of the internal logic demonstrated in the four-category approach of the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， reexamining the significance of traditional learning–knowledge categorization for the modern era.

Similarities and Differences between Bibliographic Classification and the Learning–Knowledge Categorization

[Refer to page 63 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]

As todays Chinese academia show renewed interest in guoxue 國学 （traditional Chinese cultural studies）， issues with bibliographic divisions of traditional writings， names， categorization into jing 经 （Confucian classics）， shi 史 （historiography and statecraft）， zi 子 （masters and philosophers）， and ji 集 （belles-letters and collections） are brought once more within the researchers purview. Scholarly discussions are held around topics of xin jingxue 新经学 （new studies of the classics） and new classics， but what exactly is meant by the categories jing， jingxue， and zixue？ii Moreover， what books or writings are to be included in the study of Confucian classics？ As far as The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is concerned， especially when judged by the subject matter in terms of its learning–knowledge， the work exhibits a striking creativity of thought. In this regard， it satisfies the criteria to be regarded as a work of masters and philosophers. However， if the structure of the book is examined further， one may see that the underpinnings and associations of ideas are closely related to those of the Confucian sages and canonical writings. Of the five core chapters in The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， the first three， “Tracing the Origin to the Dao” [原道]， “Venerating the Sage” [征圣]， and “Modeling on the Classics” [宗经] take their direction from the sages and adopt the classics as standards. Therefore， the book could well be regarded as a piece of writing modeled on Confucian classics. If we further inquire into the specific content of the Way that Liu Xie dwells on， we can see certain departures from ideas that Confucian thinkers held during the Han （206 BCE–220 CE）， Tang， and Song （960–1279） dynasties， for his notion of dao integrates concepts from many sources like Daoism， “Commentaries on the Book of Changes” [易传]， and the Xunzi [荀子]. Thus， from the view of tracing the origin to the dao， it is reasonable to say that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons characterizes a new study on masters since the Wei–Jin period （220–266）， when ideas of various schools were integrated and literary principles were scrutinized. Composing far-reaching theorems， the author sought to demonstrate his resourcefulness of creative thought in approaching the Way and manifesting his will. He still wished， as the pre-Qin masters had done， to make a name for himself by composing memorable writings， and indeed his writings might be deemed a new take on the knowledge of the pre-Qin masters， a genre of the non-canonical texts that came into vogue， during the Wei–Jin period.

Traditional Chinese learning–knowledge categorization is quite a complex issue of scholarly interest， as it was derived from the four-category system used by imperial libraries and mainly dealt with the relationship between Confucian classics and non-canonical texts by philosophers other than Confucian masters， and certainly included some works that fall between the Confucian classics category and the history and literature categories. Taking for example the “Records of Arts and Literature” [艺文志] of the History of the Former Han Dynasty [汉书] and “Bibliographic Treatise” [经籍志] of the History of Sui [隋书]， a crucial change could be seen between their ways of regarding the categorization of traditional learning–knowledge in bibliographies. Though Liu Xiangs 刘向 （77–6 BCE） Seven Bibliographical Records [七录] and Liu Xins 刘歆 （50 BCE–23 CE） Seven Bibliographical Summaries [七略] are no longer extant， the cataloging principle of the latter has been retained in the “Records of Arts and Literature” as a clue. The “General Summary” [輯略] section of Seven Bibliographical Summaries， as a general treatise of the work， does not concern itself with classification of specific categories of learning–knowledge. The “Summary of the Six Classics” [六艺略] actually consists of Confucian classics and other works of a similar kind， including some books on history， such as Sima Qians 司马迁 （145–90 BCE） Record of the Grand Historian [史记]. The “Summary of Rhapsodies and Poetry” [诗赋略] covers the literature category. Entries in the “Summary of Masters and Philosophers” [诸子略]， “Summary of Military Works” [兵书略]， “Summary of Divination” [术数略]， and “Summary of Medicine and Alchemy” [方技略] were all assigned to the masters category. These four categories， to some extent， represent a system for classifying learning–knowledge as well as for bibliographic cataloging. The “Summary of Military Works” mainly covers books of military learning–knowledge， while the “Summary of Divination” and “Summary of Medicine and Alchemy” correspond to a broad coverage of what is regarded as the natural sciences in modern times， most of all medical science. Judging from the bibliographies of “Records of Arts and Literature，” they chiefly consist of entries that fall into the categories of Confucian classics， philosophy， and literature. The history category was included as a subset of the classics category. The philosophy division of the “Records of Arts and Literature” covers pre-Qin masters and philosophers， such as the Military and Yin–Yang schools， but excluding rhapsody and poetry. They constituted the bulk repertory of learning–knowledge in ancient China.

By surveying the learning–knowledge categorization of the “Records of Arts and Literature，” we could discern that it was not an entirely neutral process， and it showed evident biased in favor of Confucianism and its classics. In contrast， it offered negative comments on sayings by non-Confucian philosophers or non-canonical texts：

The Masters subtle words were heard no more with the death of Confucius， and his great principles were distorted after his seventy disciples died off. . . . During the Warring States period （475–221 BCE）， as the states were drawn into conflict and war， contentions ran amok for truth and falsity， and the words of the master philosophers came into confusion. They were later feared to be persecuted by Qin rulers and the classics were put into the flames， so that the commoners could never be enlightened. （“Records of Arts and Literature”）

The “Bibliographic Treatise” of the History of Sui did not continue with such a bias against non-Confucian philosophers in their appraisal of the classics， but the bibliographic catalogue and learning–knowledge categorization of the day were also full of their own value-judgments. They heaped praise on works of history and historiography for their great value in the domain of learning–knowledge.

The historiographer must be a well-informed and insightful scholar-official， who perceives connections and sees farther than the average person. If such a person is appointed to office， the hundred officials and multiple offices will know none better than him. For that reason， he is able to see through all past words and deeds， to observe all phenomena of the heavens and earth， and to explain all human affairs and social rules. Inside the court he holds the eight powers to assist in the kingly rule， and externally he invokes the six codes to regulate government officials. He writes down the virtuous to exemplify the good but also records any evil deeds in order to caution and warn.

The “Records of Arts and Literature” did not provide a separate division for works on history until Xun Xus 荀勖 （d. 289） Revised Catalog of Imperial Collection Books [中經新簿]， which listed books in a four-fold catalogue. He divided them with labels jia 甲， yi 乙， bing 丙， and ding 丁 （the equivalent to A， B， C， D for lists）， which was revised by Li Chong 李充 into the four categories of classics， history， masters， and literature. The “Bibliographic Treatise” followed this method of division and established it as a standard cataloging system that continued to be used into the Qing dynasty （1644–1911）. The history category of the “Bibliographic Treatise” listed 817 books in 13，264 volumes， and it was placed before the philosophy category. This represented an important turning point in the evolution of Chinese bibliographic classification and learning–knowledge categorization. The “Bibliographic Treatise” also combined the summaries of “Records of Arts and Literature” into the masters category and， remarkably， gave rather positive evaluation to the new school of philosophers.

The Book of Changes says， “In the world there are many different roads but the destination is the same. There are a hundred deliberations but the result is one.” Books by philosophers of Confucianism， Daoism， and even story writers contain instructions by the sage though they lay emphasis on their own province. The military and medical works contain rules of government by the sage， though they do it in their own ways. Good governance of the world comes with a multitude of assignments， and if there is disorder among the lower people， it is the fault with the malfunction of the governor. It may be advisable if they could persuade the regional rulers with what they are good at and divide the work among themselves. If the total is kept with nothing left， so that the final result conforms to the Middle Way， it might bring about education and good government. The summaries of works on philosophy， military tactics， divination， and medication， which had been separately catalogued in the History of the Former Han Dynasty， are now given together in fourteen divisions， under the masters category.

Though works by the master philosophers were understood to benefit government and social education in the “Bibliographic Treatise，” they were catalogued after the bibliography of history works. At any rate， it shows that the four-category system for library cataloging and division of learning–knowledge centering on the principle of governance was formally established in the “Bibliographic Treatise.” The principles behind the ancient system provide a basis for us to inquire into the learning–knowledge category of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， its relationship with the study of Confucian classics and the study of masters， as well as its own content of learning–knowledge. Lacking such a basis， it would be perplexing to talk of the The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a work that belongs both under the study of classics and with that of masters and philosophers， which brings added confusion to the study of Liu Xies work.

The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a Work Modeled on Confucian Classics [65]

Liu Xie says， “a classic interprets the abiding laws of nature and a commentary interprets a classic” （The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， “Summarizing the Art of Writing” [總术]; Yang）.iii But what is meant by jingxue？ The traditional study of Confucian classics never seemed to give a clear definition. We might， however， find some clues from Xiong Shilis 熊十力 （1885–1968） division of the Confucian scholars. In his Essentials for Reading the Classics [读经示要]， Xiong distinguishes Confucians who “interpret the classics” from those who “model on the classics as sources.” He said，

Some Confucians wrote after the style of the classics， but they also formulated their own doctrines by contributing creative ideas （i.e.， they had an autonomous system of thoughts）. For example， the eight Confucians exemplified by Han Fei 韩非 （ca. 280–233 BCE）， as well as the works by Mencius and Sunzi whose works were still extant. They all offered original ideas to establish their fame， only they took the Six Classics as sources of ideas. Scholars that were Confucians that modeled their work on the classics are nowadays known as philosophers. They were solely engaged in the study and exegesis of the classics. Connotations and commentaries were only instruments to their chief work on the classics. Classicism， therefore， ought not be designated by the job of making commentaries.

We would not accept Xiongs rejection of the commentaries and sub-commentaries on Confucian classics as part of their study， if it were not for his particular way of categorizing the works of Confucianism. The “classics” as they were known after the Han dynasty actually fall into two categories. One includes various interpretive works that annotate and elucidate the canonical texts of Confucian classics. The other includes works that methodically expound and develop the ideas of the Six Classics， on the basis of which they produce original academic or conceptual ideas. In terms of its domain of learning–knowledge， The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons could be rightly categorized as the latter， a work modeled on Confucian classics.

In fact， Xiong Shili is not the only scholar who included such philosophical modeled works in his study of Confucian classics. Zhou Yutong 周予同 （1898–1981）， a renowned expert on the history of Confucian classics studies， included the entirety of Song dynasty scholarship in the study of Confucian classics when addressing problems with the category. He concludes that Song scholarship regarded Confucius as a philosopher and the Six Classics as the “vehicle to transmit the Way of Confucius，” and Song scholarship in itself was “in favor of studying the mind （xin 心）， human nature （xing 性）， principle （li 理）， and vital force （qi 气）.” The only difference is that Xiongs theory is more inclusive， differentiating Confucianism into two schools of interpretive and modeled after classics， whereas Zhou， considering the temporal factors and the methods of classic interpretation， makes a triple division of the study of new text of Confucian studies in the Western Han （206 BCE–25 CE）， the study of old text of Confucian studies in the Eastern Han （25–220）， and Song scholarship. As far as Song scholarship is concerned， the Commentary on the Book of Changes by Cheng Yi [程氏易傳] and The Basic Meaning of the Book of Changes [周易本义] were clearly interpretive works of classics， while the Sayings of the Two Cheng Brothers [二程语录]， Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi [朱子语类]， and Instructions for Practical Living [传习录] were writings modeled after the classics.

In terms of quantity of works in the whole history of study of the Confucian classics， traditional commentaries， sub-commentaries， annotations， and exegeses of the classics， the commentaries （whether inner， outer， or broad）， records， explanations， and citations and concordances， formed the bulk of the classic-interpreting corpus， while classic-modeled works such as Dong Zhongshus 董仲舒 （179–104 BCE） Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals [春秋繁露] constitute a smaller proportion. Some philosophical works that show insight and original ideas can also be included in the classic-modeled works of study of Confucian classics， such as the Outer Commentary on the Book of Changes [周易外傳]， Broad Commentary on the Book of Poetry [诗广传]， and Citing Meanings in the Book of History [尚书引义]， authored by late Ming philosopher Wang Fuzhi 王夫之 （1619–1692）. These creative writings of Confucian classics stand more in line with independent works by pre-Qin philosophers in their form and content as they also show the virtue of intellectual independence. There seem to be fewer classic-modeled works in absolute number， but it is owing to these few that traditional study of Confucian classics has kept its striking originality and intellectual vitality. If we realize and discard the restrictions of traditional categorization of classic works， but instead survey the texts of Confucian classics from a learning–knowledge perspective， a fresh panorama of classical studies comes into view.

Different from other classic-modeled works like the Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals， Outer Commentary on the Book of Changes， and Citing Meanings in the Book of History， The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is not based on a single classic for its creative interpretation. Therefore， contra to the formal criteria of book classification， to put The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons into the study of Confucian classics would infinitely stretch the limits of Confucian classics and would break up the defining concept of Confucian classics per se. On the other hand， in consideration of its tenets from chapters like chapter 50 “Preface： My Intentions” [序志]iv， chapter 1 “Tracing the Origin to the Dao，” chapter 2 “Venerating the Sage，” and chapter 3 “Modeling on the Classics，” as well as the fact that every chapter contains statements or evidence of drawing source material from the Confucian classics， it would be unquestionable to take The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a classic-modeled subtype that draws source material from Confucian classicism. There are， broadly speaking， three reasons for us to take this view.

First， it is based on the Way of Confucianism， in particular on the “Commentaries on the Book of Changes，” the Xunzi， and philosophies of the Han Confucians， which served as its fundamental tenets and essential spirit of the wider literature.

Second， it takes the sage philosophers of the Confucian lineage as authors of a literary paragon of the Way that all writers ought to take after their ethos in literary production.

Third， Liu Xie takes the Confucian canonical texts as the highest standard for literary creation and the code of virtue and beauty for all literary works.

The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is an extremely original work representative of the study of Confucian classics， displaying the authors profound ideas and excellent scholarship as well as literary refinement. In the study of Confucian classics from the Han to Tang dynasties， there were few works of its kind to compete with The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons except possibly for the Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals [公羊傳]， Guliang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals [穀梁传]， and Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals. At the turn of the Ming （1368–1644） and Qing dynasties， only Wang Fuzhis Outer Commentary on the Book of Changes， Citing Meanings in the Book of History， and Broad Commentary on the Book of Poetry， as well as Fang Yizhis 方以智 （1611–1671） Extra Words on the Book of Changes [易余] and Reasons for Nature [性故]， might be lesser candidates to compare. In comparison with The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， the later works are all inferior in terms of their systematic rigor and completeness， autonomy and breadth of intellectual scope， or poetic beauty of language.

Why Regard The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a Representative Work on Masters  [66]

How should we understand the statement that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is a work on masters？ The academic circle is currently divided in opinion. Some think that it ought to be classified as a work of a non-Confucian philosopher from the perspective of bibliographical studies; others would put it in a subtype of the masters category. Some researchers， who have examined its points of departure from the works of philosophers during the medieval period， deem Lius book as a new work on masters， which is devoted to “intensive study of one principle.” There are certainly objections to such classifications. Gao Hongzhou 高宏洲， for example， maintains that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is not all that “concerned with a comprehensive elucidation of all things，” nor “instructive in government，” and despite its “integration of varied opinions，” it is not an “intensive study of one principle” but is simply a treatise on literature. The present author agrees with the conclusion from previous and current research that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is a work on masters， providing additional arguments on the relationship between the study of Confucian classics and that of masters and philosophers， as well as its specific features of the study of masters and philosophers.

First， works on the Confucian classics are principally different from those of pre-Qin philosophers. The Six Classics became the canonical texts of Confucianism after selective revisions by Confucius. After the Han， there were， in fact， only five classics left. The annotations， commentaries， and records of these classics， in old or new texts， were called works on Confucian classics. By the Han dynasty， Confuciuss Analects and Classic of Filial Piety [孝经] gained status as quasi-classics. Other designations were given， such as the “Nine Classics，” “Eleven Classics，” and “Thirteen Classics，” when some works on masters were promoted to rank amongst the existing Confucian classics. As a result， the classics as well as study of Confucian classics historically included the study and works on masters and philosophers. Granting Xiong Shilis classification， we could go further to regard works that are modeled on Confucian classics as philosophical writings in terms of their learning–knowledge content. There is no question in regarding the Mencius and the Xunzi as works of masters， and there is good reason to take Dong Zhongshus Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals and Cui Shis 崔寔 （ca. d. 170） On Government [政论] as works modeled on Confucian classics， as well as seeing them as works of philosophers. Now we may further develop the aforementioned proposition that “the study of Confucian classics is part of the study of masters and philosophers”： those works modeled on Confucian classics owe the origins of their ideas to the pre-Qin philosophers. In terms of ideological origins then， therefore， we have reason to categorize The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a work on masters.

There are three additional aspects in terms of the specific features of masters and philosophers on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.

First， as creative subject of masters， Liu Xie was ranked among the literati and scholar-officials in imperial China and his social standing was no less than those recognized philosophers after the Qin and Han dynasties. At the very least he could stand equal to Wang Chong 王充 （27–ca. 97） and Cui Shi in social influence.

Second， Liu Xie defines a philosophical work by comparison with a discourse in the “Speculative Writings” [諸子] chapter： “a philosophical work concerned with a comprehensive elucidation of all things.” The “elucidation of all things” by the pre-Qin philosophers did not include what a naturalist is interested in in the modern age， but chiefly dealt with social， political， or governmental affairs. Liu Xie rightly recognizes the treatise by Cui Shi and others as philosophical writings in the Han dynasty：

Some works that explicate Confucian classics or discuss political issues are occasionally labeled as treatises， but are actually philosophical writings. Examples are Lu Jias 陸贾 （ca. 240–170 BCE） New Sayings [新语]， Jia Yis 贾谊 （200–168 BCE） New Book [新书] . . . Zhongchang Tongs 仲长统 （180–220） Frank Sayings [昌言]， and Du Yis 杜夷 （258–323） Book of You Qiuzi [幽求子]. Why should we regard these as philosophical works instead of treatises？ A philosophical work is concerned with a comprehensive elucidation of all things whereas a treatise is restricted to the explication of one principle. Since all these works ramble into the realms of miscellaneous subjects， we call them philosophical writings. （“Speculative Writings”; Yang， 235）

This shows that the Han dynasty works on masters had changed in their patterns of writing from those of pre-Qin philosophers， but in originality of thought they still kept to the genre of discourse or treatise. Since The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is also “concerned with a comprehensive elucidation of all things，” it is a good representative of the style of philosophical treatises after the Han dynasty， works on masters in their new form.

Third， Liu Xie takes works of philosophy as books to approach the Way and reveal the authors intent， believing that literary creations and their appreciation in the broad sense may “follow the principles of the Five Classics，” which may serve the purpose in military and state affairs. Against this criterion， what is discussed in The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons may be taken to be relevant to political governance and statecraft. So at least to Liu Xie himself， he believed that what he wrote served to benefit government of the state rather than being simply a treatise presenting different literary styles. He said，

The function of literary writings is such that they really constitute a category in the study of the classics. Through the use of writing， the five rites are enacted， the six codes are performed， the sovereigns and ministers are distinguished， and the army and the state are glorified. An examination of the origins of these different kinds of writing shows that they all derive from the classics. （“Preface： My Intentions”; Yang， 713）

It can be assumed that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is not only an unprecedented work aiming at approaching the Way in the history of Chinese literary aesthetics， but also a new genre of speculative writing after the philosophers to “govern the state by literature.” As for revealing ones intent， both the self-introductory postscript and the relevant “Preface： My Intentions” show Liu Xies pursuit for spiritual immortality in human existence. Therefore， it is justifiable to classify The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a philosophical writing， for both traditional bibliographic reasons and on grounds of its learning–knowledge content.

The Classification of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons in the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature [68]

It may seem surprising that the Qing imperial library did not catalogue The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons in either the Confucian classics category or the philosophy category， but into the literature category， under the subdivision of literary criticism. In present times， we should not simply dismiss such classification by the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature as erroneous. Rather we should try to understand the why behind the how， the basic principles of bibliographic division into four categories.

In the opinion of the editors in charge of compiling the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， the classics are standard calibers to gauge all things and affairs for all times. They are not subject to change and people in posterity are in no position to make comments on their ideas except for through etymological exegesis and glossing of terms. Comments on the content or ideas， if necessary， are to be made only to previous classic exegesis and in the order in which they occur throughout history. The classics were held as tantamount to absolute truths that are to be held as public instruments to gauge the acceptability of various opinions. It serves as a standard and generally-acknowledged principle.

In contrast， all other writings outside the Six Classics belong in the category of philosophy. The books by philosophers， though serving to illuminate the principles of the Way， too， are subject to the “orthodox learning” from Confucian classics for defining these principles： “Scholars who study principles in Confucian classics may give judgment to what is right and wrong in the world. Those who examine events from books on history may account for success or failure in past and present dynasties. All the rest of scholarship falls into the category of miscellaneous learning.”

This remark， in terms of relevance to the Way of governance， philosophical works are considered inferior and are placed after the history category. Even within the blended corpus of the masters category there are works considered superior and inferior， as the Confucian masters of the Six Arts come closest to the Confucian classics category. Therefore， amongst philosophical works， Confucian works come first.

The Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， as the imperially sponsored and official bibliography， is strictly and rigorously selective for political and ideological reasons in the entry either of ancient works or of subjects of knowledge. In this regard， greater tolerance is given only to the Confucian works among the miscellaneous subset of the masters category.

In the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， the literature category covers ancient writings of both poetry and prose， equivalent to present-day literature in its broad sense. “Men of letters wrote brilliant articles only to vie for fame and honor， and so they had little to do with the imperial court， and they would do less harm， if any whatsoever.” Such assessment of the literature category is much based on their distance from the Way of governance. “Ancient men never wrote to make a name for themselves， and so no writings before Qin praised Qu Yuan 屈原 （ca. 340–278 BCE） or Song Yu 宋玉 （ca. 298–222 BCE） for their excellence in rhapsody.” It shows the disdain of the reviewer from a historical narrative on the literary genre of writing.

From the cataloging viewpoint of library catalogues， there is some reason for The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons to be put into the subset of Literary Criticism in the literature category of the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， and we make no comment on that. From the learning–knowledge perspective， however， it is quite clear that The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons meets the three criteria to be placed within the masters category—for its comprehensive elucidation of all things， approaching the Way and revealing ones intent， and， consequently， belonging in the philosophical writings in spite of its appearance as a treatise. It is also reasonable to regard The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons as a work of literary criticism in the sub-category of classic-modeled writings if we judge it against the three criteria of thought—taking the Way as its source of ideation， the Confucian sages as its model of thinking， and the classics as themes of writing.

Feng Youlan 馮友兰 （1895–1990） in his two-volume History of Chinese Philosophy [中国哲学史] divides the development of Chinese philosophy into two periods： the study of masters and philosophers and the study of Confucian classics. He claims that Chinese philosophy after the Han relied too much on the classics to merit much creativity， thus leaving credit to pre-Qin philosophers as representatives of the most original Chinese intellectual production. After the New Culture Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century， scholars who believed in the virtues of Western scholarship began to deem study of the classics as a national sickness stemming from ancient Chinese culture. Zhou Yutong， who once rebuked the rule of the Northern Warlord （1912–1928） for advocating worship of Confucius and the classics， later studied the classics himself and restored the true value of the study of new text and old text of the Confucian studies. The questioning-antiquity school， however， by way of historical evidential research and textual criticism， attempted a historical reading of the classics to cast doubts on the authenticity of historical records and certain textual documents， and eventually the cultural and spiritual value of the classics and of the study of the classics was completely undermined. These negative views of the study of the classics in China were certainly subject to the intellectual and political sways of history， but were mainly due to a narrowed conception of the study of the classics. By introducing The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons into the genealogy of the study of the classics in medieval China， we could expand the definition and works of the classics and reconsider their content and change our ideas of the study of the classics.

Significance of Reconsidering Traditional Learning–Knowledge Categorization in the Modern Era [70]

In the modern system of knowledge， traditional studies of the classics， including those on ancient science and technology， fall into the category of the humanities. However， against the context of a sci-tech centered and economy-benefit orientated society， the broad discipline of the humanities has slumped in social status and practical value. The traditional Chinese learning–knowledge system epitomized in the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature [四庫全书] has been abandoned for its incompatibility with the requirement of modern industries and commerce. Even some of its core values， like centrality of the Way of governance， have not really been absorbed by modern Chinese intellectuals.

The ordering of Confucian classics， history， philosophy， and literature categories， in the Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Categories of Literature， is not simply an arrangement like ordinal numbers， but rather reflects the priority of values associated with each respective category of learning–knowledge. The Confucian classics and history categories are put in the foremost places because the learning–knowledge of their kind is decisive to the maintenance of social order and dynastic continuity， whereas the masters and literature categories are more distant from the center of power.

If we give preference to academic originality and creativity of traditional works as we do in modern scholarship， we would see the creative value of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons far excels the many conventional commentaries， sub-commentaries of classics， exegetical works that follow and repeat one another. It may even be better than some of the banal works in the categories of history and masters. However， in the mainstream ideology of traditional society in imperial history， The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons was regarded as no more than a work of literary criticism， much too far removed from the concerns of the Way of governance. According to findings by historical researchers of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons， the work had scarcely received any attention since its emergence till the end of the Qing dynasty. It is only in the modern era that it began to draw attention from academic circles， when the Chinese people had drastically changed their way of categorizing knowledge under the influence of Western academic ideas. It is noteworthy that Liu Xies pursuit for approaching the Way and revealing his will， as well as for spiritual immortality， which had been cherished by literary men in high antiquity China， was virtually forsaken by the whole of society after the imperial civil service examinations became the sole aim of education and the only gateway into officialdom， and the scholar–officials were absolutely obedient to imperial state power. This is， unfortunately， a painful fact of traditional Chinese culture.

Through our learning–knowledge perspective， we put The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons into the categories of Confucian classics and masters， and this is not meant to gainsay traditional bibliographical methods or just to seek some new reading for its own sake. We hope to reflect on problems with the relationship between ancient Chinese bibliographic classification and the learning–knowledge categorization， so as to see the value of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons in a new light. In the meantime， it is an attempt to break the stereotypical mindset since the modern era that framed Chinese study of the classics as a hindrance to intellectual creativity. If we earnestly wish to reconstruct a new study of the classics in modern China to be a normative framework for moral life， we must open our eyes to a modern system of knowledge， where a broader horizon of knowledge and scope of thought will bring us better choices of classics to study， rather than simply relying on traditional divisions of Confucian classics. For that purpose， selections may be made not only from traditional Chinese works on masters， but also from some Western classical works， to be included into a corpus for the study of classics in modern China.

Contemporary research into masters should not be confined to pre-Qin and Han philosophers， but should cover the whole body of learning–knowledge of the masters category. It is on that basis that we can study traditional learning of masters from the dual perspectives of knowledge and thought， to explore the evolution of ancient Chinese science and technology in the light of modern scientific knowledge， and finally to reconstruct a genealogy of knowledge progress throughout Chinese history.

Bibliography of Cited Translations

Owen， Stephen， ed. and trans. An Anthology of Chinese Literature： Beginnings to 1911. New York： W. W. Norton & Company， 1996.

———， ed. Readings in Chinese Literary Thought. Cambridge， MA： Harvard University Press， 1992.

Shih， Vincent Yu-chung， trans. The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons. Rev. ed. Hong Kong： The Chinese University Press， 2015.

Yang， Guobin 楊国斌， trans. Dragon-Carving and the Literary Mind [文心雕龙] （Chinese–English version）. 2 vols. Library of Chinese Classics [大中华文库]. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press， 2003.

Translated by Wang Keyou