Paper short abstract:

Radically different conceptions of period and periodization are possible when focus is shifted from political and military power to a perceived status of writing. This paper uses the early ninth-century anthology Keikokushū to explore alternative definitions and assessments of historical periods.

Paper long abstract:

Of the three early Heian royal anthologies of writings in Chinese, Keikokushū, the third, was most ambitious: its retrospective girth spanned more than a century (707-827); its compilers gathered works by 178 writers; its diversity of genres, including fu, shi, prefaces to poems, and a substantial number of examination essays, was, in the Heian court, unprecedented. Although only a fraction of these materials survive, the sizable architecture of Keikokushū indicates that its sponsor and compilers intended it to be a grand monument to early Heian achievements in the writing of Chinese. Befitting such a conception, the Keikokushū preface, even more than the prefaces of the two previous royal anthologies, has things to say on issues beyond simply poetry composition at the Heian capital. Its depiction of Han and Six Dynasties literary history, though highly abbreviated, contains judgments that are surprisingly critical, a tone that differs greatly from the enthusiastic early reception of Cao Pi during the same early decades of the Heian period. The work of Yang Xiong, for example, is characterized as foolish and detrimental to the Way, and entire periods (Qi, Northern Zhou, Sui) are renounced for allowing the principles of good writing perish. Nonetheless, as prefaces to anthologies are apt to emphasize, writing prevails, even if it must "pass through murky waters to become clear." This presentation will explore the following questions: 1) how do the evaluations purveyed by Keikokushū correlate with transformations in literary historiography of the Tang period? 2) what tensions arise between the sweeping references to Chinese literary history in the Keikokushū preface and the precise local functions of the anthologized prose and poems? 3) Might the Keikokushū conception of era suggest a counterpoint to the conventional period demarcations relied upon by historians and archaeologists?