A Study On The Writers And Calligraphers Of The Epitaphs As Well As The Realtive Culture Of The Tang Dynasty

Based on a systematic investigation of the compositions and calligraphy of the epitaphs of the Tang Dynasty, this thesis studies the writers and the calligraphers of the epitaphs, and the institutions and customs in epitaph-making.In the introduction, we discuss the significance of the research, review the literature, and outline our research methodology. So far, there has been extensive research on the epitaphs of the Tang Dynasty, with significant findings. However, comprehensive studies on the totality of the more than 7,000 epitaphs and their writers and calligraphers are rare. We believe that such studies are fundamental in the research of epitaphs. In our research, we touch upon many unresolved issues in the study of epitaphs. And we believe our results could provide valuable insights for related research. Our study is based on thorough investigation, statistical evidence, and literature reference.In Chapter 1, we analyze the prevalence of signatures on epitaphs during each period of the Tang Dynasty. Our major reference on statistical data is QiHeZeBaoGui's Total Catalog of the Place of the Epitaphs of Tang Dynasty. In addition, we include Chapters 8 and 9 of the Addendum, part of the reference, supplemented with information on the writers and the calligraphers. In the end, this research is based on 7,125 epitaphs from a variety of sources (pagoda epigraphs are excluded). Statistics show a dynamic pattern in the numbers of epitaphs across each period in the Tang Dynasty, reflecting economic and social conditions in each period. Further statistics show 37.5% of the epitaphs bear writer signatures. From the establishment of Tang until GaoZhong, very few epitaphs have writer signatures. Since late GaoZhong period, the percentage of epitaphs with writer signatures began to increase and reached a plateau during the period of WenZhong. The percentage then experienced small declines during the mid to late Tang. The dynamics in calligrapher signatures on epitaphs mirror that of writer signatures, with smaller rates of change. Overall, 10.6% of epitaphs bear calligrapher signatures. Apparently, ZhuanGai signatures were not common in the Tang Dynasty, with signatures on only 1.4% of the epitaphs.In Chapter 2, we discuss funeral culture during the Tang Dynasty, as expressed through epitaphs. As one of the five "li" s, Xiongli was the most important among Tang scholars. Existence of spirits was widely believed among Tang people. Burial was believed to be related to general well-being. A proper burial could pacify the spirits of the dead and at the same time alleviate the emotional sufferings of the living. As a result, "ZangDiShu" came into existence. Anything related to funerals had to be consulted in the books, with majority concerning the place, the time, and the luck of the funeral. Funerals were considered the most important affair of a family, resulting in the prevalence of elaborate funerals. As shown in both the literature and epitaphs, such funerals pushed many families into tremendous hardships. Such practice was more common after the period of TianBao. It was considered the consummate funeral if being buried properly initially. However, if situations prevented such burials, families would spare no cost in ensuring a later elaborate funeral. Such importance of funerals in Tang's family life laid the foundation for the prosperity of epitaphs.Chapter 3 expounds the purposes and functions of the epitaphs during the Tang Dynasty. First, epitaphs serve as a marker to facilitate future identification. Second, merits and virtues are recorded on in hope of immortality. Epitaphs presented an easy way to satisfy the need to seek immortality among Tang people. Third, respect of and devotion to parents can be expressed through epitaphs. As shown in epitaphs, people during Tang Dynasty developed a new interpretation of showing respect to parents. That is, respect can also be expressed by recording good deeds on epitaphs. As a result, epitaphs became the single most important item in showing respect to parents, laying the foundation for epitaph-making during the Tang Dynasty. Fourth, epitaphs serve as family trees for future generations. Last, epitaphs could pacify the spirits of the dead and relieve the pains of the living. These aspects are inter-related and integral to the characteristics of Tang epitaphs. They led to the unprecedented development of epitaphs during the Tang Dynasty.In Chapter 4, we first probe the institutional aspect of epitaphs during the Tang Dynasty. Epitaph writing was institutionalized as an official duty of ZhuZuolang during Tang Dynasty. We argue that such institution was not faithfully implemented, directly due to the fact that ZhuZuoLang rid themselves of the duty of history recorders. Then we discuss the practice of epitaph writing by official history recorders, by the order of kings. We believe that the very role of history recorder was the primary reason they were designated epitaph writers. Employing history recorders as epitaph writers was a way for kings to reward their courtiers. The practice eventually became customary, officially and privately. From TianBao to ShuZhong, epitaph writers came from diverse backgrounds, including history recorders and literary officials. After JinZhong, epitaph writing became the domain of HanLinXueShi exclusively.In Chapter 5, we focus our discussion on the phenomenon of relatives as the epitaph writers. Among 2,672 signed epitaphs,1,088 (40.7%) epitaphs were written by relatives. As such, we believe that there exists an obvious bias toward relatives as epitaph writers. Such writers came mainly from the ranks of WuFu-relatives, with more relatives from the closest three generations such as grandparents, grandchildren, parents, spouses, siblings, cousins, etc. The phenomenon was mainly driven by changing perceptions on epitaph writing. One of these perceptions is that epitaphs by relatives are more believable. Another is that this would avoid omissions by others. In addition, the practice of relatives as epitaph writers had been there for quite some time. What is more important is the fact that emotions could be better expressed if epitaphs were written by relatives. Of course, such practice sometimes was due to the lack of resources to hire a writer. In this chapter, we also give examples of epitaphs being written by the subjects themselves.In Chapter 6, we study cases where writers are not relatives. Among the 2,672 signed epitaphs from Tang Dynasty,399 (14.9%) could be classified into this category. The writers in these cases were mainly friends or fellow officials. Among some basic considerations in choosing such writers are whether the writer is a history recorder, good at writing, or an intellectual. After KaiYuan, famous people as epitaph writers became more evident, with clear concentration in a few names. The compensation for epitaph writing was an important aspect. Sometimes, the compensation was beyond comprehension. This clearly led many writers to view epitaph writing as a business opportunity. The contents of such writings were not much different from those written by relatives. The only difference is who the writer was. In these cases, the writers were famous.Chapter 7 presents statistics and a nalysis of epitaph calligraphers during the Tang Dynasty. Epitaphs calligraphed by relatives represent 50.3% of 758 signed epitaphs in our sample. Compared to the case of epitaph writers, the bias toward relatives is more evident. Three cases of relatives as calligraphers emerged, same person as both writer and calligrapher, division of the roles of writer and calligrapher among relatives, non-relatives as writer but relatives as calligraphers. Since most of the epitaph writers were HanLinDaiZhao, we discuss their characteristics in this chapter. HanLinDaiZhao could serve as calligraphy teachers for royal families. They could be calligraphers of epitaphs for royal families and courtiers. Or they could act as scribes. The scribes usually came from humble backgrounds, especially after YuanHe. HanLinDaiZhaos rank from third Pin to ninth Pin, with promotion potentials varying from person to person. Most HanLingShuDaiZhao were relatively unknown.In Chapter 8, we study the writing, calligraphy, and carving of the official epitaphs during the Tang Dynasty. Based on evidence from epitaphs, literature and historical accounts, the phenomenon of government-supported funerals concentrates around the period of TianBao, with very few afterwards. Its decline was inevitably ties to the state of central government finance at that time. Our research indicates that state-supported funerals and state-provided epitaphs are not equivalent. Even though state-provided epitaphs automatically imply state-supported funerals, it is not necessarily the other way around. There were 4 special cases of state-supported funerals, and only one of them carries state-provided epitaphs. This could explain why we see a lot of state-supported funerals but very few state-provided epitaphs.Chapter 9 discusses the manufacturing process and model of non-state-provided epitaphs during the Tang Dynasty. Very few epitaphs reveal the manufacturing process, but some valuable information could be garnered from a few epitaphs. We believe the process includes the purchase of the materials, hiring of craftsmen, calligraphy by relatives or others, and the carving. The manufacturing process thus gives a peek into the relationships among the dead, families, merchants, craftsmen, writers, and calligraphers. At the same time, it offers clues for us to evaluate a substantial number of unsigned epitaphs from the Tang Dynasty.In Chapter 10, we attempt to analyze non-signed epitaphs. We will try to revolve around three questions. First, those epitaphs could be evaluated on the basis of their contents. Second, some epitaphs have the same or nearly the same content. Similar epitaphs can be grouped, with each group from one person. It is clear that there existed very specialized epitaph writing and calligraphy during Tang Dynasty. Judging from the social status of the dead and the period of those similar epitaphs, the phenomenon was closely related to prosperity of then society. Lastly, we discuss the proposition "the writer is the calligrapher". Based on our comprehensive inspection, we found clear evidence to support our proposition in many examples. We sum up this thesis in the Conclusion. We believe that there exists close dependence relationship between epitaph writers and calligraphers during the Tang Dynasty. The selection of writers and calligraphers was rooted in the prevailing epitaph culture. We hope that our research on the totality of the Tang epitaph culture, including writers and calligraphers, provides valuable insights and spurs further research in this area.