The Alter Ego Perspectives of Literary Historiography: A Comparative Study of Literary Histories by Stephen Owen and Chinese Scholars

202 Pages·2013·3.68 MB·English

by  Min Wang (auth.)

Min Wang
The Alter Ego
Perspectives
of Literary
Historiography
A Comparative Study of Literary
Histories by Stephen Owen and
Chinese Scholars
The Alter Ego Perspectives of Literary
Historiography
Min Wang
The Alter Ego Perspectives
of Literary Historiography
A Comparative Study of Literary Histories
by Stephen Owen and Chinese Scholars
123
MinWang
Department of EastAsianLanguages and Civilizations
Harvard University
Cambridge,MA
USA
ISBN 978-3-642-35388-8 ISBN 978-3-642-35389-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-35389-5
SpringerHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013935256
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2013
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purposeofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserof
thework.Duplicationofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsofthe
CopyrightLawofthePublisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbe
obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
ClearanceCenter.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Foreword
Literary historiography has been dominated by nineteenth century historicism
from the beginning until the 1960s. The first Chinese literary history was written
by a Japanese sinologist at the end of the nineteenth century (in 1898). Likewise,
Chineseliteraryhistory writing has followedbasicallythe same mode interms of
literaryhistoriography. The past twodecadeshave witnesseda boom of rewriting
Chinese literary histories by the sinologists in the West, especially in the US.
Among them, the latest one is The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature
(2010) compiled by Kang-i Sun Chang and Stephen Owen.
This book is an attempt to gain insight into the “alter ego” perspectives of
literary historiography in the field of Western sinology. It will also focus on the
latest accomplishments of Stephen Owen, including The Norton Anthology of
Chinese Literature, The Late Tang: Chinese Poetry of the Mid-Ninth Century
(827–860). Specifically, the present study aims to investigate the theoretical,
methodological, and empirical implications of their practices on literary histori-
ography. The research is focused on the new notions of the Cultural Tang and
discursive communities proposed by Stephen Owen.
ThepresentstudyhasselectedtwocasestudiesintheCulturalTang:thefirstis
a combination of the diachronic and synchronic analyses of discursive commu-
nitiesinthesubgenreofhuaigupoems,or“PoemsofMeditationsonthePast”;the
second is an investigation into the interrelationships between temple visiting
poemsandthenotionoftheCulturalTang,differentfromtheconventionalliterary
historical categorization. In light of stylistics and corpus linguistics for the first
case study, the linguistic conventions are associated with the inertia of the Tang
literary tradition diachronically. Based on this, the trio methodological mode is
proposed, e.g., the stylistic, textual, and socio-cultural dimensions. In the case of
temple visiting poems, the reconstruction of the Cultural Tang is investigated
amongdifferentdiscursivecommunitiesandpowerrelationsinthefieldofliterary
production. The shared literary values are interrelated with the discursive com-
munities among which texts are produced, circulated, and transmitted synchroni-
cally. Diachronically, the changing literary values and literary reconstructions are
v
vi Foreword
coordinated with the roles of poets, the institutions, and dispositions of the social
forces in the Cultural Tang.
The major findings of the present study are as the following: (1) The Chinese
literaryhistoryhasmovedfromthemimichybridmodetothepredominantmodes
of genre evolution (the “autonomy” or intrinsic mode) and socio-historical
determinism (the “heteronomy” or extrinsic mode), and on to exploring new
perspectives(theintegratedmode)withintheoldparadigm(thenineteenthcentury
historicism). It can be grouped into four periods, three modes, and one paradigm.
(2) In comparison to domestic literary histories, Chinese literary histories in
English have mutated from the sinologist encyclopedic trans-cultural type to the
literature-based deductionistic mode, to a Chinese American sinologists period,
and finally to a new boom since the 1990s. Mair’s “iconoclastic” kaleidoscope or
miscellaneousviewofChineseliteraturehasgonebeyondthetraditionalclassical
literature scope. Owen’s representation of the Cultural Tang has surpassed the
dynastic history and the conventional teleological mode. (3) The single narrative
mode of literary historiography is related to the nineteenth century historicism
paradigm, whether it to be with respect to the autonomous, heteronomous, or
integrated mode. The new modes in the West are influenced by the diverse ten-
denciesinintellectualhistory.Therewasafusionofthetheoreticalparadigms,the
multi-dimensions of linguistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction,
cultural studies, and new historicism. The paradigm of literary historiography is
moving from macro tomicro, fromgeneral todiversified, from static todynamic,
fromteleologicaltonon-teleological.(4)StephenOwen’sliteraryhistoriographyis
influenced by new historicism, linguistics, semiotics, and sociology. He has pro-
posed the notions of “the Cultural Tang” and “Discursive Communities”. The
Tang literary culture is transferred from court-centeredness to outside-the-court,
getting out of the confines of dynastic periodization. It is not a single narrative
story,butamultifariousoneaddressingthemultiplicity,diversity,andintricacyof
the Cultural Tang—the history of literary culture.
Onthebasisofthepresentfindings,thestudyreachedfourconclusions.First,a
comparative analysis of the major Chinese literary histories in China and in the
West brings to light the alter ego perspectives of Stephen Owen in literary his-
toriography. The alter ego perspectives among the Western sinologists represent
transcultural and comparative approaches as otherness of Chinese literary histor-
iography.Owenhasadvocatedmicroliteraryhistories,virtualhistoryofhistorical
moments, and a history of literary culture, etc., which Chinese literary historians
tendtodisregard. Owen’sliteraryhistoriography isrepresentedintheconceptsof
“the Cultural Tang” and “Discursive Communities”. On the other hand, literary
historiography in China remains in the framework of socio-political determinism.
Second,themethodologicalandempiricalimplicationsforwritingChineseliterary
histories lie in the literary historical reconstruction in the interrelationships
between literary history and other histories. Yet, literary history is gaining
autonomyandindependencefromexternalhistories,suchasdynasticandpolitical
histories. The tendency is fragmentization–transforming from the macro per-
spective to the micro perspective. Three dimensions of methodology in literary
Foreword vii
historiography are proposed, e.g., the stylistic dimension, the textual dimension,
and the socio-cultural dimension. Third, an overview of the literary histories
reveals the accomplishments and limitations of the modes of literary historiogra-
phy in China and in the West. They fall into the taxonomy of literary historiog-
raphy, including five aspects—the scope, depth, format, scheme (or figura), and
purpose (or intention). Fourth, the underlying interrelationships between the
modes of literary historiography and the intellectual history have been investi-
gated. Literary history, as part of intellectual history, has changed from the
national histories of nineteenth century historicism, to histories influenced by
formalism and Marxism, and still to new literary histories. The single narrative,
teleological history is replaced by bottom-up non-teleological history. Despite
some limitations, the present study mayprovideuswith abetterunderstandingof
the paradigm of literary historiography, help us gain insight into the different
modes and perspectives of literary historiography, and provide some theoretical,
methodological,andempiricalimplicationsforrewritingChineseliteraryhistories.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and immense thanks to my
supervisor Prof. Pan Wenguo, whose insightful comments, enlightening support,
keen editorial eye, and enthusiastic guidance gave me the strength I needed to
completethisbook.Hiseffectiveandencouragingsupervisionhelpedmefacethe
challenges and difficulties in the whole process of completing this book. Most of
this book was written between 2009 and 2010, during the academic year I was a
visitingscholarwiththeDepartmentofEastAsianLanguagesandCivilizationsat
Harvard University. My debt to my sponsor at Harvard, Prof. Stephen Owen, is
absolute, for his generosity, patience, and his insight into the Chinese literary
history writing. We had weekly discussions about my project for two semesters.
Prof. Owen also read part of the manuscript with scrupulous care.
I am additionally grateful to Prof. Victor H. Mair at the University of Penn-
sylvania for having conversations with him about his invaluable contributions to
Chinese literary history at Philadelphia in 2009. My thanks go also to Prof. Tian
XiaofeifromHarvardUniversity,Prof.DavidDamroschfromHarvardUniversity,
Prof.FengShengli,Prof.TuWeimingfromHarvardUniversity,andProf.PaulW.
Kroll from University of Colorado. I owe also intellectual debtsto Prof. Geoffrey
Leech,Prof.MickShort,andProf.ElenaSeminoatDepartmentofLinguisticsand
the English Language in Lancaster University in UK, where I was a visiting
academic researcher in 2008.
Part of Chap. 3 has been presented at the 126th Annual Convention of the
Modern Language Association of America (MLA) held at Los Angeles between
January 6 and 9, 2011. I am indebted to Prof. Marshall Brown, Editor-in-chief of
The Modern Language Quarterly for his advice on my presentation. My special
thanks go to three friends from Harvard University, University College London,
and Northeastern University who have helped me polish the language.
Preface I
The first Chinese literary history was An Outline of the History of Chinese
Literature written by the Russian sinologist V. P. Vasil’ev, published by Peters-
burg Press in 1880. In 1882, A Brief History of Ancient Sino Literature by the
JapanesesinologistSuematsuKentyo(末松谦澄)waspublished.ThefirstChinese
literaryhistoryintheEnglish speakingworldwaswrittenbyHerbert AllenGiles,
published in 1901. According to the latest scholarship, the first Chinese literary
history by Chinese scholars was A Dynastic Literary History written by Dou
Shiyong (窦士镛) in 1897 and published in 1906. Giles proclaimed that his
History was “the first attempt made in any language, including Chinese, to pro-
duce a history of Chinese literature.” It can be inferred that these scholars were
unaware of others’ work in other countries and that their individual research was
representativeoftheirownnationalscholarships.Forexample,theresearchofDou
Shiyong followed the traditional categorization of jin, shi, zi, ji and the format of
Chinesepoeticcriticism,whichisdifferentfromtheworkofotherssuchasGiles.
Afterthe1911Revolution,thetraditionalmodeofscholarshiphadceasedtobethe
conventionand,instead,Westernmodesofliteraryhistoryweregaininggroundin
the field of Chinese literary historiography. A negative consequence of this
development is that it curtailed the Chinese tradition of doing literary history and
soincreasedtheobstaclestoformulatinganindependentsystem.Morepositively,
however, it diversified the perspectives and methodologies of literary historiog-
raphy, promoting the scale, breadth, and depth of the study and research of
Chinese literary history.
From the twentieth century onwards, Western academia in the Arts and
Humanitieshasbeencharacterizedbyitsfocusontheoreticalissues,awarenessof
theoretical construction, and the occurrence of new paradigms. These character-
istics applied in many subjects alike, so literary historiography was no exception.
Consequently, Chinese literary historiography assumed a new mode within a few
decades, these being influenced by the underlying historical forces driving trans-
formationsintheanalyticalframeworksusedinmanyscholarlydisciplines.Onthe
one hand, Chinese scholars were trying to adjust to Western trends; on the other
hand, they were embedded within the confines of Chinese thoughts of
ix
x PrefaceI
Confucianism,Buddhism,andDaoism—“literaturecarryingTao/morality”(“文以
载道”),“poemsexpressingwills”(“诗言志”),“understandingthewritersandtheir
times(“知人论世”),and“Without aword,asfarasdissolute.”(“不著一字,尽得
风流”) They were struggling and becoming entwined with the new traditions of
Western ideas, presenting a dynamic panorama.
RegardingtheabundantcollectionofChineseliteraryhistoriespublishedinthe
past 100 years, I have assumed that it is worthwhile to do a comparative study
from the perspective of the history of literary history. I have accumulated much
relevantmaterialfrombothChinaandabroadforsuchaproject,butwithtoomany
responsibilities,couldnotspareenoughtimetoproceedwiththispartialdeparture
frommymainareaofexpertise(thatistosayLinguisticsandTranslationStudies).
Fortunately, among my Ph.D. candidates, I found a young scholar–Min Wang
who has taken great interest in Chinese classical literature. Her expertise in this
area and her excellent proficiency in English made her a most suitable researcher
for this project. Even more fortunately, during her doctoral years, she went to
Harvard University to pursue her research as a visiting scholar. With Stephen
OwenashersponsorattheDepartmentofEastAsianLanguagesandCivilization,
she met many sinologists and collected abundant first-hand documents in the US.
She also had access to the manuscript of The Cambridge History of Chinese
Literature, then in the process of being published, which brought a new light to
her research.
Intheprocessofreviewingandresearchingtheliterature,wefoundtheproject
too vast to be covered in a single dissertation. As work proceeded, the topic was
further refined, from what would have been a comparative literary history study,
encyclopedic in scale, to a study of the influence of Western paradigms and
perspectives on the study of Chinese literary studies crystalizing around the key
issues that emerge from this examination of this diverse set of intellectual
traditions.
Among these emergent concepts, Min Wang focused on two: the “Cultural
Tang”;thenotionof“DiscursiveCommunities”.Thesetwoconceptsarecentralto
thereflectionsofOweninthefieldofclassicalChineseliterature,especiallyTang
poetry. They characterize his unique perspective. Min Wang applied these con-
cepts to produce a fascinating analysis of two subgenres—“poems of meditations
on the past” and “temple visiting poems”, subgenres which are rare in Western
poetry.
Through detailed theoretical and textual analysis, she argues the need for new
understandings of the paradigms employed when “doing” literary historiography.
Sheproposedatriomethodologicalmodewhichemploysthestylistic,textual,and
socio-culturaldimensions.Themodesofliteraryhistoriographyareclassifiedinto
fiveaspects—scope,depth,format,scheme(orfigura),andpurpose(orintention).
These are her new contributions to literary historiography. She also argued that
“The single narrative, teleological history should be replaced by bottom-up
non-teleologicalhistory.”Herinvestigationofthealteregoperspectivesofliterary
historiography identifies a number of theoretical, methodological, and empirical
implications for Chinese literary history studies.
PrefaceI xi
MinWangwaswell-appraisedforherdissertationdefenseandawardedherPh.D.
ShereceivedagrantfromtheNationalHumanitiesandSocialSciencesFoundation
forherresearchprojectinliteraryhistoryin2012.Now,theworldfamousSpringer
Pressisgoingtopublishherbook,introducingherresearchtotheWesternworld.
Iamwritingthisprefacetoexpressmycongratulations.
Wenguo Pan
Professor of International College of Chinese Studies
East China Normal University
Shanghai
People’s Republic of China