From: lix@thames.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Resend- FWD for Mr. H. Anonymous: Learn from Geshu (5)
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:41:41 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Distribution: cmh
Organization: Boston University

Due to some network problem, many netters failed to get Mr. H. Anonymous'
series #5 and #6. This is a reposting of (5). Sorry if your site has
got it already.

=======================================================
  Re: Learn from Geshu (V)

Shu4 Yu4 Jing4 er Feng1 Bu4 Zhi3:

>   Let's have a KISS - Keep It Simple and Straightforward.  After much
>digression, what prevents you to give the year of Old Du's Chariot Ballad
>(Bing Che Xing) and when Geshu Han began to attack Tibetans?  Feel a bit
>uncomfortable or what?

>   The majority opinion (among Du experts) is that this poem was written
>right after Geshu's disastrous attack on Sci Cheng (the Rocky City) thus
>forced Tang empire to send enforcement to Qinghai (see Note).

First I feel perfectly comfortable.  Indeed I'm getting more and more
comfortable after noticing that you now appear to agree that

>    You may say Du Fu changed his mind later,

if you recall the major problem I had with your original "correction"
was:

ME> But to quote Du's earlier poem to "correct" what he wrote later?

which, no doubt, was inspired by Michael J. Fox as in _Back to the
Future_.

Okay, I'll let you have your KISS by stating that what I was hinting at 
in my previous post on which you were commenting is a SIMPLE fact.  It
is that the "Geshu-flattering" poem was written AFTER _Bing Che Xing_, 
period.  Nothing can be simpler and more straightforward.

Not much "KaoJu" is needed.  You would certainly not dispute that the 
title "KaiFu" in Du's "flattering poem" would not in any likelihood have
been bestowed on the General "right after Geshu's disastrous attack on
S[h]i Cheng.."?

It seems that my "mother-orphan" metaphor did not get across.  Let me 
give it a little elaboration if I may:  Simply put, it is perfect human 
nature to point fingers at failures and those allegedly responsible for 
them (e.g. Tang's repeatedly failed attempts to stop the advancing/invading 
TuFan/TuBo forces), and to sing praises, if not to claim credit, for the 
eventual success (and its agents).   In the case under discussion, it
is Geshu's final victory (and his subsequent titles like "KaiFu YiTong 
SanSi") in halting TuFan/TuBo expansion.

If you are aware that QingHai was lost in the Third Year of Long2 Shuo4
(of Gao1 Zong1, 663 CE) and was only recovered because of Geshu's
victories more than 80 years later, you will understand why Tang 
Ming-Huang, the grandson of Gao Zong and Wu Ze-tian, was so thrilled
with his top TuFan/TuBo handler.  You will also understand why the title
KaiFu YiTong SanSi was conferred on him in the year 752 CE (TianBao
11 zai3), which could be roughly "translated", following standard
PRC/CCP terminology, as Zong3Li3 Ji2 (Prime minister-level) Dai4Yu4..   

Likewise, if you realize that Du Fu attached a great deal of importance 
to the coveted "KaiFu YiTong SanSi" title, as clearly indicated by his 
reference to the great (Xiao)Liang-and-(YuWen)Zhou literary bigshot Yu Xin 
as Yu KaiFu, you will think at least three times before going out on a 
limb by claiming that Du Fu might have written some criticism of Geshu Han 
after 752 CE. See the Old Tang Shu for a better understanding of Geshu's 
extraordinary prestige subsequent to his final victory over the TuFan/TuBo 
Kingdom and recovery of QingHai for the Tang realm.

I would respectfully advise you to turn to other topics.  For you have
really been painting yourself to a corner, from which it would be harder 
and harder to have a dignified retreat.  After all, in terms of
military science and history, nothing is more risky and difficult than an 
opposed retirement under hostile fire.  Should you insist on claiming the 
patently false, namely _Bing Che Xing_ represents Du Fu's "true feelings" 
about (or against) Geshu KaiFu,  I would cite a tell-tale encounter between 
Du Fu and a certain "Lao Jiu(9)".  It would prove beyond any doubt that 
you are absolutely wrong.  Think hard before you reply.

Incidentally, all readers seem to have missed any comments on or 
"correction" of my "Geshu-Yan Wu-Du Fu" argument?  No?

(To be continued)

--