Abstract

Legend is prevalent in a Tang Dynasty literati novel. In the eyes of future generations of scholars, its entertainment features, is almost to be "line volume" of the replaced. However, this situation should be seen in the Southern Song Dynasty, Zhao Yan Wei, "notes Yunlu Man" after. Because, before the book has not been found in the same or similar records. More strange is that after Zhao, after nearly seven hundred years, has never been mention of the legendary line volume argument. Until seven years before the Republic, Mr. Liu Shipei again mentioned in Zhao's view, is certainly among the semantics. Years later, Mr. Chen Yinke in , not only are quoted Zhao's statement, more as a basis for further literary movement made ​​play a stimulating role on the legendary view. Because Liu, Mr. Chen Erwei have high academic status, their academic views of this natural affect future generations is very huge. Still, some scholars disagree and rebut deep. I also hold opposing views in an attempt to repair the previous objections based, then add personal point of view, from the "Legend of the relationship between science and Shichuan Wen", "legend has nothing to do with the literary movement", "legend has nothing to do with the subjects at the volume of" three point of view, to clarify the truth of the history of literature. Chuanqi was a kind of scholar's novel prevailing in Tang Dynasty. In the eyes of scholars of the later period, its function of recreation has been almost substituted by the use of "fashionable examination papers". But such a situation shouldn't have happened until the book "Yun Lu Man Tan" by Zhao Yan Wei was published in South Sung Dynasty. For such a statement as that of Zhao's has never been found in any book which was antecedent to "Yun Lu Man Tan". What is more curious is that there have been no scholars to ever mention the statement of "using chuanqi for examination papers" for almost seven hundred years since the death of Zhao Yan Wei. Until about 1905, Liu Shi Pei quoted Zhoa's statement in his article "Lun Wen Za Ji "and seemed to believe in it firmly. Many years later, Chen Yin Ke in his article" Han Yu and Ancient Prose Movement ", not only quoted Zhoa's statement but also basing on which inferred a conclusion that Ancient Prose Movement gave an impetus to Chuanqi . Owning to supreme academic statuses, Mr. Chen and Mr. Liu had a huge effect on scholars of the later period. But there have been still many scholars writing articles to express an oppositional opinion. I am also on the opposite side and try to make clear this historical phenomenon in three directions as follows: "the relation between Chuanqi and Historical Biography Literature", "Chuanqi irrelevant to Ancient Prose Movement", and "Chuanqi irrelevant to fashionable examination papers of Imperial Examination"