Study Of The Cambridge History Of Chinese Literature

The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature is gloried as "the standard accounts of Chinese literature for decades to come"2 for international Chinese studies, and has been studied by Chinese classic literature scholars. Currently, reviewers focus on its compilation format, comparative studies, and commentary of writers and texts, while systematical and integrated studies on its western literature historical view, commentary method and its understanding of Chinese lyrical literature are ignored. On the basis of the intensive reading of this book, the understanding of western conceptions and methods for compiling literature history, this essay examines the book from three integrated aspects:its theory and practice of "the history of literary culture", its "discursive formation" mode, and its understanding of Chinese lyrics and aesthetics.First of all, this book moves towards "a more integrated historical approach, creating a history of literary culture". Therefore, it traces back to the intermediations between texts and culture to rebuild the cultural ecology with tiers, clues and arguments. "Tiers" refer to textual culture, social conscience, and material basis, in which the "textual culture" includes the reading and writing conditions, circulating environment, and assistant texts. The "social conscience" includes the ideologies in the palace, among scholars and among common people, as well as religions. The "material basis" includes geographical and ecological conditions while "clues" refer to the political and cultural trends; technical progress-especially printing technology; and the changing role of women within female literature. The intermediation among "tiers" and "clues" can reveal the external reasons and rules of literature development. Literature history is different from world history or intellectual history. Therefore, The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature as a book of literature history, uses varied arguments to support the underlying connection between literature and culture, the historical judgments placed on writers and texts (namely using the popular western method of "deconstruction" to doubt the preoccupations), introduce cultural phenomenon, and explain specific genres while focusing on the internal and external causes of literature evolution. With the integration of tiers, clues, and arguments, this book has broken through the traditional literature history narration, once divided by genre or by dynasty, creating a new terminology method known as "culture-orientation"Secondly, this book is also an intertexture of the social communication behind literature activities, applying a narrative and commentary mode which can be called "discursive formation." This mode resonates with the domestic trend of combining different review methods, which are suitable for Chinese cultural content which puts more emphasis on groups rather than individuals. Within this mode, literature history is seen as interaction among texts and persons, namely between texts, authors and reality. The texts are attributed to "author groups", namely to the discursion along their evolution, and discursion around the author. The editors’theories and judgments are embodied in the process of choosing and allocating texts, authors and phenomenon.With that said, this book tends to emphasize narrations and analyses while ignoring lyrics and aesthetics. Chinese lyrics are not only an expression of the author, but also a reflection of the humanism concept of understanding others, and the "Tao" being an epitome of "syncretism between heaven and man". This is ignored in many chapters of this book, which can lead to a misunderstanding of Classic of Poetry, the lyric genre of Tz’u, and natural lyrics. Chinese aesthetics place emphasis on intuition rather than logic, which is reflected in the Chinese language, rhetoric (such as rhyme and antithesis), writing, and reading approaches. The authors of this book didn’t pay much attention to lyrics, which is the cause of this deficiency. The chief author Stephen Owen has explained and confronted this issue in his book, Traditional Chinese Poetry and Poetics. He explores the aesthetic graphical representation of "syncretism between heaven and man", the western approach of understanding Chinese lyrics, as well as the rhetoric and literary reception issues behind rhyme and antithesis.Overall, the main difference between this book and domestic studies lies in the view towards "literature history". Western scholars clearly draw a boundary between literature histories, literature critiques, and literature anthologies while domestic scholars consent that literature history should focus on literature texts. The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature and other literature histories compiled by west thought are more of a reference and aid for literature studies. Furthermore, the difference between Chinese and western aesthetic traditions has led to the emphasis of the narration and logical processes while neglecting lyrics and integration scenarios. In addition, the different literature history compiling theories and methods have also lead to new understandings of external laws underlying Chinese literature history.This essay is based primarily on intensive reading and parallel reading. To form these arguments, this essay has referred to both the latest domestic and foreign studies and methods such as traditional poetics and criticism, comparative study, deconstruction, discursive construction and linguistics. On one hand, this essay tries to explain the western Chinese literature study theories, methods, and modes behind The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, as well as its insights. On the other hand, this essay also tries to point out and analyze its deficiencies in order to inspire further studies. By analyzing this book to reveal the differences between domestic and international Chinese studies, the author hopes it can make a little contribution to Chinese literature history studies and promote cultural communication.