@article{ART001669982},
author={AN CHANSOON},
title={The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory},
journal={The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China},
issn={1738-0502},
year={2012},
number={29},
pages={61-78},
doi={10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004}
TY - JOUR
AU - AN CHANSOON
TI - The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory
JO - The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China
PY - 2012
VL - null
IS - 29
PB - Korean Society of Study on Chinese Languge and Culture
SP - 61
EP - 78
SN - 1738-0502
AB - In China's Tang dynasty, predecessors recognized Li'ao（李翱） and Huangfushi（皇甫湜）are inheritors of Hanyu（韩愈） paleography(古文) and evaluated that “Li'ao succeeded to the purity and Huangfushi was initiated into unique, too.
On the other hand, Guoshaoyu（郭绍虞） was also succeeded to Hanyu's paleography by two following of disciples who are Li'ao and Huangfushi.
Moreover, the literature and creation of Huangfushi was focused on language's unique and Li'ao's literature was emphatic on the’ wenyimingdao（文以明道）’ or simple language（平易）, etc.
However, after our examining conscientiously on Li'ao & Huangfushi's main opinions about their literature & theory, we find that two scholars are confident they was initiated in different characteristics of Hanyu's archaic literature each other, but we know predecessors evaluated that two scholars made big contribution in comparative evaluation. In general, two scholars's literature and theory have something in common that they are overly weighted toward Wen(文) than Tao（道）. As Guoshaoyu mentioned, the literature & theory of Li'ao have been recognized that he emphasized the ’ wenyimingdao（文以明道）’ or simple language（平易）, etc. but when I examine carefully, there is no such insistence or emphasis. Therefore, I guess Guoshaoyu misunderstand that the creation trend of Li'ao insisted on the literature & theory itself.
Generally, two scholars are sure of different two trends of the literature, but they was surely interested in archaic writers' literature & theory in Sung dynasty rather than succeeded to Hanyu's literal arts opinions.
KW -
DO - 10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
ER -
AN CHANSOON. (2012). The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory. The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China, 29, 61-78.
AN CHANSOON. 2012, "The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory", The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China, no.29, pp.61-78. Available from: doi:10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON "The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory" The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China 29 pp.61-78 (2012) : 61.
AN CHANSOON. The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory. 2012; 29 : 61-78. Available from: doi:10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON. "The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory" The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China no.29(2012) : 61-78.doi: 10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON. The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory. The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China, 29, 61-78. doi: 10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON. The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory. The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China. 2012; 29 61-78. doi: 10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON. The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory. 2012; 29 : 61-78. Available from: doi:10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
AN CHANSOON. "The specific characteristics of Li'ao(李翱)and Huangfushi(皇甫湜)’s Guwen(古文) theory" The Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China no.29(2012) : 61-78.doi: 10.16874/jslckc.2012..29.004
