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