Between literary and intellectual---the everlasting dilemma
Parts 1 and 2 of this book show how Rulin waishi engages with elite ritual and historiographical discourses; parts 3 and 4 focus on the novel’s narrative innovation and its relation with literati identity. I’ll focus on part 1 in this note.
This book demonstrates an appreciable effort to connect intellectual history and literature. Regarding the former, the author borrows from Elman and Chow’s studies to identify a main “paradox”: apparently the more effectively the scholars undermined the integrity and authenticity of the Confucian texts, the more devoted they became to the ritualistic order those texts prescribed.(6-7) Regarding the latter, he refers to Plake and Hanan and others to identify a parallel paradox in literati novels: irony and moralization. “Rulin waishi forces us to re-examine the relationship between the ironic and the moralizing tendencies in the intellectual culture of the eighteenth century.”(11)
Why would there be such paradoxes in both intellectual history and literature? The answer lies in the keyword of this book---“cultural transformation.” How does the author define this transformation? “At the heart of the cultural and intellectual transformation of eighteenth entury China lies the rivalry between Confucian ritualism and Song Neo-confucianism.”(11) In other words, the world order of the Song Neo-confucianism declined. As a result, literati in the early Qing resorted to Confucian ritualism/evidential scholarship to rebuild the order. Thus the transformation.
The author analyzes Rulin waishi to illustrate how this transformation really happened through the medium of li. According to the author, Rulin waishi devises two types of li, dualistic and ascetic, respectively in resonance to Neo-Confucianism and Confucian ritualism. The first 30 chapters of the novel depicts the falling apart of the dualistic system of li: it is sacred in word but mundane in practice; it was the unification of the sacred and the mundane within it that facilitated constant verbal negotiation with, and consequently the compromise of the ritualistic obligations.(15) That’s so-called 言行不一,名實不符. To counteract it, the novel provides ascetic ritual, which emphasizes “practice” rather than “discourse” (scholarship on li is just part of the evidential scholarship in the early Qing).
Accordingly, the irony in Rulin waishi is irony against the empty and deceptive Neo-confucian ritual, while the moralizing part of it refers to a new system of ritual featuring practice. So rendered, li does connect the novel and the intellectual history. In part one of this book the author analyzes the Taibo temple in Rulin waishi, to reveal how the novel depicts the efforts and failure to rebuild a ritualistic order.
Logically this argument makes good sense. One also tends to agree with the author’s reading of the ritual theme in Rulin waishi. The only drawback is that one tends to feel that the author places too much weight upon one chapter about ritual performance. It is true that Rulin waishi presents the situation of 禮崩樂壞, but conceivably, there should be many similar depictions in other literary works. The “transformation” itself is significant, but is Rulin waishi alone adequate for such a gigantic topic? There seems to be more stuffs to fill in the gaps between literary work and intellectual history. Exactly what I know not.
The second part of the book moves from ritual to history, which connection is not quite persuasive. “Since the Confucian dualistic order of li is constructed through narrative discourse, it is no surprise that in scrutinizing the dualistic li Wu Jingzi questioned the narrative of official history.”(129) Simply because of its narrative nature, the author wants to connect historical writing with dualistic ritual (of Neo-confucianism) as targets of criticism. Using waishi and navigating a new horizon of worldly experience, Rulin waishi defies the inherited mode of zhengshi and the expectations that accompany it. In other words, the book moves on from ritual to genre to continue the analysis of transformation from Neo-confucianism to Confucian ritualism, using history as a bridge. The last two parts of the novel deal with narrative and literati self.
These several parts all address important topics, especially the first one about ritual. It shows a Chinese scholar’s concern about the values in Chinese literature and culture, which does not usually appear in “sinologist” works by scholars of Western origin. Meanwhile, the study builds upon traditional reading of Rulin waishi as a masterpiece of satire, and upon previous scholar’s study on the ritual elements in it, for example, studies by Hu Shi, Lin Shunfu, Gao yougong, David Rolston, etc.
Unfortunately, reviews have criticized it for overstating the important of both ritual and history in the novel itself, and at the same time, neglecting other features of the novel. How THE HELL can we study literature against intellectual history? Shang Wei’s efforts and ambition are undoubtedly appreciable, but this book is not really a model for interdisciplinary study. Alas!
This book demonstrates an appreciable effort to connect intellectual history and literature. Regarding the former, the author borrows from Elman and Chow’s studies to identify a main “paradox”: apparently the more effectively the scholars undermined the integrity and authenticity of the Confucian texts, the more devoted they became to the ritualistic order those texts prescribed.(6-7) Regarding the latter, he refers to Plake and Hanan and others to identify a parallel paradox in literati novels: irony and moralization. “Rulin waishi forces us to re-examine the relationship between the ironic and the moralizing tendencies in the intellectual culture of the eighteenth century.”(11)
Why would there be such paradoxes in both intellectual history and literature? The answer lies in the keyword of this book---“cultural transformation.” How does the author define this transformation? “At the heart of the cultural and intellectual transformation of eighteenth entury China lies the rivalry between Confucian ritualism and Song Neo-confucianism.”(11) In other words, the world order of the Song Neo-confucianism declined. As a result, literati in the early Qing resorted to Confucian ritualism/evidential scholarship to rebuild the order. Thus the transformation.
The author analyzes Rulin waishi to illustrate how this transformation really happened through the medium of li. According to the author, Rulin waishi devises two types of li, dualistic and ascetic, respectively in resonance to Neo-Confucianism and Confucian ritualism. The first 30 chapters of the novel depicts the falling apart of the dualistic system of li: it is sacred in word but mundane in practice; it was the unification of the sacred and the mundane within it that facilitated constant verbal negotiation with, and consequently the compromise of the ritualistic obligations.(15) That’s so-called 言行不一,名實不符. To counteract it, the novel provides ascetic ritual, which emphasizes “practice” rather than “discourse” (scholarship on li is just part of the evidential scholarship in the early Qing).
Accordingly, the irony in Rulin waishi is irony against the empty and deceptive Neo-confucian ritual, while the moralizing part of it refers to a new system of ritual featuring practice. So rendered, li does connect the novel and the intellectual history. In part one of this book the author analyzes the Taibo temple in Rulin waishi, to reveal how the novel depicts the efforts and failure to rebuild a ritualistic order.
Logically this argument makes good sense. One also tends to agree with the author’s reading of the ritual theme in Rulin waishi. The only drawback is that one tends to feel that the author places too much weight upon one chapter about ritual performance. It is true that Rulin waishi presents the situation of 禮崩樂壞, but conceivably, there should be many similar depictions in other literary works. The “transformation” itself is significant, but is Rulin waishi alone adequate for such a gigantic topic? There seems to be more stuffs to fill in the gaps between literary work and intellectual history. Exactly what I know not.
The second part of the book moves from ritual to history, which connection is not quite persuasive. “Since the Confucian dualistic order of li is constructed through narrative discourse, it is no surprise that in scrutinizing the dualistic li Wu Jingzi questioned the narrative of official history.”(129) Simply because of its narrative nature, the author wants to connect historical writing with dualistic ritual (of Neo-confucianism) as targets of criticism. Using waishi and navigating a new horizon of worldly experience, Rulin waishi defies the inherited mode of zhengshi and the expectations that accompany it. In other words, the book moves on from ritual to genre to continue the analysis of transformation from Neo-confucianism to Confucian ritualism, using history as a bridge. The last two parts of the novel deal with narrative and literati self.
These several parts all address important topics, especially the first one about ritual. It shows a Chinese scholar’s concern about the values in Chinese literature and culture, which does not usually appear in “sinologist” works by scholars of Western origin. Meanwhile, the study builds upon traditional reading of Rulin waishi as a masterpiece of satire, and upon previous scholar’s study on the ritual elements in it, for example, studies by Hu Shi, Lin Shunfu, Gao yougong, David Rolston, etc.
Unfortunately, reviews have criticized it for overstating the important of both ritual and history in the novel itself, and at the same time, neglecting other features of the novel. How THE HELL can we study literature against intellectual history? Shang Wei’s efforts and ambition are undoubtedly appreciable, but this book is not really a model for interdisciplinary study. Alas!
有关键情节透露