For 100 years our idea of literary history
our judgments of works and writers
have been shaped by a single man:
Mr. Hu Shih
Hu Shih was part of the May 4th movement
but you need to remember
his idea of literary history is still influential
We'll take our time in this class
to make things clear for you
I still remember last year
We were talking about Bai Juyi
No one usually asks me questions
but after one class someone did
A student came up and asked:
Why are your lectures on Bai Juyi
so unlike what I was taught before?
All I could say was
I don't know how you were taught
but I guess the same as me
We were taught that Bai Juyi
was a concerned patriot
Didn't he write satirical allegories?
Like 'The Old Cripple from Xinfeng'
or 'Buying Flowers'?
Do you know these poems?
I think you must
At any rate,
Bai Juyi is Du Fu's successor
and he's really great, et cetera
But in literary history
perhaps Bai Juyi isn't so great.
If we consider his personality
he doesn't seem so great
So when I get asked this kind of question
I don't know what to say
I mean,
the view of literature you've been taught
is relatively new
It was shaped by the May Fourth movement
The views of May 4th intellectuals
still affect our judgments of literary works
What is the May 4th take on literature?
That's easy
In that era (the 1910s and 1920s)
ideologies were spreading globally
At the time, China
was a former semi-colony
In order to build a strong army
and revive the nation's fortunes
everything was politicized
Even literature was politicized
Literature was read politically
To put it simply,
Hu Shih's idea of vernacular literature
is typical of the May 4th Movement
For example, Hu Shih claimed
that literature"evolves"
Why write in vernacular Chinese?
He said, because
Chinese literature had evolved
from classical to modern vernacular
He thought the vernacular was progressive
and innovative
Belletristic classical forms
like parallel prose
were meaningless word games
the literati played
and so forth
I'd like to draw your attention
to the theory behind all this.
Please remember
the theory came from the west
It's called Social Darwinism.
And what they did…
In short
I think Darwin was a genius
Visiting the Galapagos Islands
Darwin was only 26 years old
He laid the basis for his theory of evolution
He was a genius
I really admire him
But we can't apply evolution to the arts
Natural history is not literary history
Evolution is natural science, not the humanities
Unfortunately, in the West
evolution was applied to cultural history
especially by Herbert Spencer
Spencer embraced evolution
but his emphasis was different
He believed natural evolution
progresses from simple to complex
In this way,
evolution is progress
Such phrases as 'later generations are better'
and 'the pupil surpasses the master'
evince a faith in "evolutionary" progress
Hu Shih applied evolution to literature
He asked why literature had evolved
from past to present
from Xie Lingyun to Du Fu?
He applied evolution to literature
and assumed literature had a certain orientation
and that thought
was progressing towards a goal
as if literature had for 2000 years
been drawn towards some unseen goal
Hu Shih thought vernacular would triumph
Did I make that clear?
That was Hu Shih's idea
Proponents of "literary evolution"
thought authors of literary history
should describe or prove:
how "the spirit of literature" evolved
what obstacles people confronted
how the human spirit developed
how we overcame obstacles
how the great goal was achieved
how the common man won out
why the vernacular is best
It's best because everyone can use it
unlike regulated poetry or parallel prose
Hu Shih started using the vernacular
and the rest is history
The earliest Chinese literature is pre-Qin
Some literary histories
spend the first chapter
on bronze inscriptions
but I don't think these things
are works of literature
so we won't discuss them
Instead we'll discuss
written texts
in an organic context
and adopt a literary perspective
to understand them
Let's take a look, shall we?
The handouts come in two types
Take a look
With regard to pre-Qin writings
the 1st category is not "semi-literary"
the 2nd category is "literary"
Those are the two main categories
But think about it
What does "semi-literary" mean?
It's like I just said
some texts are not purely literary
they just have literary elements
and had an influence on literary history
We should discuss them
and give an account
Please note
myth are semi-literary
Strictly speaking, myths aren't literature
But they have characters and plot
and basic imagery
and a worldview or cosmology
and myth has shaped literature
Even the Hongloumeng uses a myth
in its narrative structure
which shows how important myth is
Myth is the first semi-literary genre
The second is historical writings
Histories are part of historiography
But early in the history of writing
literature and history weren't distinguished
Histories include "characters"
events and descriptions
History is a form of narrative literature
so we should include history
as part of pre-Qin literature
We must include history
Let's return
to myth, another semi-literary genre
In fact, myth
existed before writing
Myth belongs to pre-literate society
It was passed down orally
So what does myth record?
Early man's concept of the world
and the challenges they faced
Myths include explanations of nature
and address humanity's destiny
Myths expressed people's views
Myth is pre-literate
and transmitted orally
Myth is semi-literary
Of semi-literary forms
myth emerged first
When writing was invented
myths could be recorded
Myths were written down
Where were they written?
One book of myth
was the Shanhaijing
Another was Chuang Tzu
And the Chu Tzu [Songs of the South]
Tale of King Mu, Son of Heaven
Huainanzi and Liezi
are the 6 most important works
in which myths are recorded
But be careful
The Chuci is a work of literature
It's not a book of myth
I mention the Chuci here
because the Chuci contains myth
and myth is semi-literary
Does that make sense?
Myths are semi-literary
and might appear in semi-literary works
or in purely literary works
Does that make sense?
No questions?
Let's look at the definition of myth
It's like this
There are different definitions
I'll explain a few of them
for your consideration
Okay!
The first definition of myth
is probably the most useless
It goes like this:
"A myth is a story about gods"
This is the earliest type of myth
But it doesn't consider the value of myth
Myths aren't just stories about gods
We should discard this definition
but keep it in mind
Myth is not studied as divine story
To put it simply
scholars have studied myth
and they have another definition of myth:
myth is ideology
It is an interpretation of the world
It is an encyclopedia, a knowledge-system
It also expresses human desire
But please note:
Don't assume
that "primitive" minds
produced "primitive" myths
and are backwards
or shallow
or superstitious
That would be a mistake
The best scholars in the west
including Claude Lévi-Strauss
Ernest Cassirer
and many others
tell us myths actually contain
a rigorous logic and structure
We moderns think we are advanced
But the rigor of our logic is the same
If you don't understand myth
you'll think it's nonsense
Myths aren't nonsense
They have a strict structure
and they also represent
how fascinating our minds are
Myths don't distinguish temporal priority
and don't assume linear progress
For example, the story of Pan-gu tells you
why there's sky, earth, mud…
and the sun, moon, and constellations
You've heard the story
Pop quiz!
Pan-gu "died"
or whatever happened
from a western perspective
After Pan-gu died, his body changed
into heaven and earth and the universe
I'll ask you some questions
then tell you the answers
What did Pan-gu's bones become?
His teeth?
His eyes?
His muscles and skin?
What about his blood vessels?
Even more amusing
What happened to his hair?