Abstract
The connotation of suwenxue 俗文學 has an inextricable relationship with a particular view of literature. Different views of literature have their respective prescribed values, which bring different understandings of suwenxue and different evaluations of its status in literary history. Rather than defining suwenxue based on its external features, this article examines it from three representative literary views: the Chinese traditional literary view, the literary view under the Tang-Song transition hypothesis, and Zheng Zhenduo's 鄭振鐸 (1898–1958) literary view. The Chinese traditional literary view centers on articulating Confucian emotions and conveying the Confucian Dao. Accordingly, suwenxue falls within the scope of unorthodox literature and has a lower literary status. The progressive historical view of the Tang-Song transition hypothesis—that suwenxue originated from poetry and prose— represents the direction of literary development and should be accorded high status. Finally, Zheng Zhenduo takes suwenxue as a literary discipline, a fresh and original view that expands the territory of Chinese literature.
Introduction
The emergence of the study of suwenxue 俗文學1 in early twentieth-century China is related to the discovery of the Dunhuang 敦煌 manuscripts and the foundation of the Folk Ballads Research Association (Geyao yanjiuhui 歌謠研究會) at Peking University (Gao 1987: 114–24; Wang Wenbao 2004: 354–55).2Suwenxue was established as a discipline around the 1930s, and many works specializing in the study of suwenxue were published at that time. The earliest is A Brief History of Chinese Folk Literature (Zhongguo minsu wenxue shilüe 中國民俗文學史略, 1934) written by Hong Liang 洪亮 (1912–1970), while the most famous is Zheng Zhenduo's 鄭振鐸 (1898–1958) History of Chinese Suwenxue (Zhongguo suwenxue shi 中國俗文學史, 1938).3 In China, the study of suwenxue experienced a boom in the 1940s but came to a halt in the 1950s and 1960s. It has risen again since the mid-1980s (Zhongguo Suwenxue Xuehui 1987; Tan Fan 2007).
Although the study of suwenxue has existed for over a century, the question of what suwenxue is has never received a satisfactory answer. In Chinese academia, the delineation of suwenxue is always entangled with that of folk literature (minjian wenxue 民間文學), mass literature (minzhong wenxue 民眾文學, or dazhong wenxue 大眾文學), common people's literature (pingmin wenxue 平民文學), popular literature (tongsu wenxue 通俗文學), and vernacular or colloquial literature (baihua wenxue 白話文學) (Hong 1934: 1–4; Duan 1987: 46–59).4 There are many difficulties and disputes around how to define suwenxue, which results in much confusion.5
The root of the confusion is that scholars attempt to define suwenxue from extrinsic features and try to locate it in contradistinction to “elegant/refined literature” (yawenxue 雅文學). However, the distinction between su 俗 and ya 雅 cannot be reduced to external features.6 In other words, the dichotomy of su and ya is not a distinction in fact but a distinction in value. Perhaps we should not seek a universal definition of suwenxue based on its extrinsic features.7 Indeed, such a definition may not exist at all. The meaning of suwenxue has an inextricable relationship with a particular view of literature, whether this view is expressed explicitly or unconsciously. Different views of literature have their respective presuppositions of values and thus will engender different understandings of suwenxue and yield different determinations of its status in the history of literature.
For the above reasons, this article's aim is not to define suwenxue in general based on external features but to examine what it relates to and what status it possesses in the context of a specific literary view. Of course, due to length constraints, we cannot analyze all literary views in this article. Here we focus on three significant and representative views of literature: the Chinese traditional literary view, the literary view under Naitō Konan's 内藤湖南 (1866–1934) Tang-Song transition hypothesis, and Zheng Zhenduo's 鄭振鐸 (1898–1958) literary view.
Through the lenses of these three views, we can observe clearly how suwenxue has been understood, constructed, and evaluated. First, the traditional Chinese literary view distinguishes between orthodox and unorthodox literature. Suwenxue is usually regarded as unorthodox literature by default. Accordingly, we can obtain an appropriate starting point for studying suwenxue based on Chinese cultural tradition. It is worth noting that the literary view of Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927) is also considered in this context because Wang is significant in bridging traditional and modern scholarship, and his view of literature has indirectly promoted the status of suwenxue. Second, the attempts to define suwenxue and the difficulties in its English translation demonstrate that suwenxue is indeed a topic with Chinese characteristics. Chinese scholars usually rely on an indigenous research paradigm and tend to get bogged down in details, failing to observe literary phenomena from the view of “longue-durée history.” However, Naitō Konan provides another perspective and, more importantly, a grand historical frame within which to locate and evaluate suwenxue. Third, Zheng Zhenduo's literary view cannot be overlooked by researchers of suwenxue due to his pioneering contribution to this field. Additionally, his view of suwenxue offers the chance to compare a modern view with the traditional orthodox one.
Suwenxue and Its Status under the Chinese Traditional Literary View
The Chinese traditional literary view centers on principles of articulating Confucian feelings and intentions (shi yan zhi 詩言志) and conveying the Confucian Dao 道 (wenyi zaidao 文以載道). These principles were even elevated as necessary conditions for poetry and prose.
The “Great Preface” to the Book of Songs (Shijing 詩經) states, “The poem is that to which what is intently on the mind goes. In the mind it is ‘being intent’; coming out in language, it is a poem” 詩者,志之所之也。在心為志,發言為詩 (Chen Zizhan 1992: 1).8 Liu Xie 劉勰 (ca. 465–532), the literary critic and author of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons (Wenxin diaolong 文心雕龍), says in “An Exegesis of Poetry” (Mingshi 明詩) that “poetry means discipline; it disciplines human feelings” 詩者,持也,持人性情 (1989: 171).9 Zhu Ziqing 朱自清 (1898–1948) points out explicitly that the feelings and intentions articulated in poems refer to those recognized by Confucianism (1990: 130). In other words, the zhi 志 articulated by literary works is not the arbitrary feelings and intentions of individuals but feelings and intentions that align with Confucian ethics and teachings. In the following pages, we call those feelings and intentions recognized by Confucianism “Confucian emotions” for short. The primary function of poetry is to articulate Confucian emotions and regulate other human feelings and intentions. Meanwhile, literary works should transform those below (huaxia 化下) and prod those above (cishang 刺上) (Saussy 1993: 92). These are the core tenets of traditional Chinese poetics.10
The principle of conveying the Confucian Dao as the function of literature was espoused by Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017–1073) during the Northern Song dynasty (960–1127) (2018: 136–37). According to Zhou Dunyi, sincerity (cheng 誠) is the Dao of heaven. At the same time, it is also the highest goodness; thus, it is the Dao of humans and where the sage abides. Therefore, the Dao of heaven and humans unite as one (114).11
To sum up so far, in the traditional view, poetry and prose composition should take Confucian emotions and Dao as their ultimate subject. Those works not conflicting with Confucianism, such as works of entertainment, social intercourse, and literary training, could also be accepted and disseminated. In other words, in a society dominated by Confucianism, all literary genres should give the highest priority to “articulating Confucian emotions and conveying Confucian Dao.”
However, not all literary genres were equal in status. More specifically, poetry and prose were considered more suitable for conveying Confucian ideology, and both genres comprised the main body of orthodox literature. Lyrical songs (ci 詞) were lower in status than poetry (shi), while traditional dramas (xiqu 戲曲) and novels (xiaoshuo 小說)12 eventually fell into the category known as unorthodox literature. In other words, unorthodox literature, regarded as suwenxue by default, included within its scope literary works not qualified to be included in official collections. Its status was far lower than that of orthodox literature. “In the eyes of the traditional scholars, only writing poetry and prose is something eternal, and only then can scholars’ names remain forever” (Li 2003). Yuan zaju 元雜劇,13 commended as “first-rate literature” by Hu Shi (2019: 171), had no place in orthodox literature until the late Qing dynasty.14 Similarly, vernacular songs and popular narratives in the late imperial period, such as works composed by Feng Menglong 馮夢龍 (1574–1646) and Cao Xueqin 曹雪芹 (1715–1763),15 which gained renewed prominence in the New Cultural Movement in twentieth-century China, were also excluded from orthodox literary treatises.
However, the idea of wenyi daibian 文以代變 brought a new perspective to traditional Chinese literature. Wenyi daibian means that literary genres vary along with changes of dynasty—we can call it “genre variation” for short. The idea of genre variation probably appeared first in the literary criticism of the Yuan dynasty (1260–1368) and prevailed in the Ming and Qing dynasties (Hu Yinglin 2005: 2491), holding that every dynasty had a particular flourishing literary style. This idea has a corresponding paraphrase in “yidai you yidai zhi wenxue” 一代有一代之文學, which means each dynasty has its representative form of literature (Jiang Yin 1994: 11–13; Wang Qizhou 2002: 50–58).
The flourishing of particular genres and their corresponding dynasties is usually presented like this: shi pairs with the Tang dynasty (618–907), ci with the Song dynasty (960–1279), qu 曲 with the Yuan dynasty (including both the poetic form of sanqu 散曲 and the dramatic form of xiqu), and novels with the Ming-Qing dynasties. In addition, the phrase geyi daijiang 格以代降 was another judgment accompanying the idea of genre variation. The Ming dynasty (1368–1644) literatus Hu Yinglin 胡應麟 (1551–1602) writes: “The Book of Songs degraded [jiang 降] to sao 騷; sao degraded to Han fu 漢賦16; . . . pianwen 駢文17 of the Six Dynasties degraded to shi of the Tang dynasty. This is geyi daijiang” (Hu Yinglin 2005: 2484). Geyi daijiang means that a literary genre's value degrades with a change of dynasty. In other words, the literary genre that flourished in the later dynasty is accorded lower status. For the convenience of exposition, we call geyi daijiang “genre degradation” for short. Under the view of genre degradation, a retrogressive view of literary history within traditional Chinese literature arises.
If all literary genres aim at articulating Confucian emotions and conveying the Confucian Dao, why is the status of dramas and novels deemed to be relatively lower? It seems that this view can be traced back to the idea of chonggu 崇古 (worship of the ancient classics). “Worshipping the ancient” has a long history in Chinese thought. It is reflected not only in The Analects (Lunyu 論語) but also in the works of the Qing literatus Ye Dehui 葉德輝 (1864–1927) (Zhang Jingping 2011; Zhou Yan 2020). In Chinese literary criticism, Liu Xie's “Evidence from the Sage” (Zhengsheng 征聖) and “The Classics as Literary Sources” (Zongjing 宗經) in The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, along with Hu Yinglin's poetic monograph Shisou 詩藪 are all representative works that feature “honoring the ancient.” According to this idea, ancient Confucianists were superior in Confucian teachings, so the literary forms and genres they mastered must be of a higher status too. All that posterity can do is learn from the ancients. As Wang Qizhou 王齊洲 states, “The judgment of genre degradation reserves enough room for the idea of literary restoration, such that restoration movements have always occupied a significant position in the history of Chinese literature” (2002: 50–58). This opinion further demonstrates that the literary genres after Yuan sanqu, such as Yuan zaju, Ming-Qing chuanqi 明清傳奇, and Ming-Qing xiaoshuo, are all excluded from orthodox literature and will logically be classified as suwenxue.
Although the idea of genre variation is widely received, it does not mean that different literary genres cannot coexist in the same dynasty. For instance, the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) was not regarded as an era of shi, ci, or qu, but literati in the Ming dynasty still wrote works in these genres, and some of them even endeavored to revive poetry in the Tang style. The amount of poetry left by the Ming dynasty is even larger in volume than that of the Tang and Song dynasties (Ning and Li 2003: 8).
Such being the case, why the assertion that the Ming dynasty is no longer an era of poetry? The answer lies in the Chinese traditional belief of tijin shuo 體盡說. Tijin shuo claims that the vitality and efficacy of each genre is gradually exhausted with the passing of its allotted time. A genre in later dynasties exists merely as an empty form, dead in spirit. In the following pages we render tijin shuo as “genre exhaustion.”18 Because of the belief in genre exhaustion, poetic works of the Ming dynasty possessed only formal similarities with earlier poetry, as the spirit of poetry was thought to have declined after the Tang and Song dynasties. Such a literary view sees a desperate situation in literary production for future generations.19
Wang Guowei plays a significant role in bridging traditional thought and modern literary views. His literary view, represented by his works Poetic Remarks in the Human World (Renjian cihua 人間詞話) and History of the Drama of the Song and Yuan Dynasties (Song Yuan xiqu Shi 宋元戲曲史), has indirectly promoted the status of suwenxue. As an intellectual deeply immersed in Chinese tradition, Wang Guowei did not object to the views of genre variation and genre exhaustion. He wrote that “each dynasty has its representative literary genre: sao of the Kingdom of Chu,20fu of the Han dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE), pianwen of the Six Dynasties (222–589), shi of the Tang dynasty, ci of the Song dynasty, and qu of the Yuan dynasty, are all the so-called genre of its dynasty, and no one in later dynasties can surpass them” (2010: 2). However, he did not combine the views of genre degradation and genre exhaustion. He stated: “I do not believe that a later genre is not as good as the previous. However, this statement is correct for a specific genre” (Wang Guowei 2009: 477).21 He had a more reasonable explanation concerning genre exhaustion and genre variation: “If a genre has been popular for a long time, many writers devote themselves to its composition; thus, stereotypes are generated during this process. It is difficult even for masters of literature to innovate. Thus, they avoid the genre and write with other genre variants in order to extricate themselves from the stereotype” (2009: 477).
Accordingly, Wang Guowei no longer agreed that poetry was superior to dramas and novels, which means he rejected the idea of genre degradation. Influenced by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) and other Western philosophers (Wang Guowei 2020), Wang Guowei explicitly stressed that dramas and novels were, in fact, superior to poetry. He wrote in Brief Comments on Literature (Wenxue xiaoyan 文學小言): “The production of lyrical poems does not need to wait for dedicated poets. However, creating narrative works takes a long time and needs profound materials. Writers without genius and leisure time are not competent for such creation. This is why countless poets can write lyrics, but the number of writers of narrative literature amounts to less than one percent of the former” (Wang Guowei 2018: 73). From Wang Guowei's perspective, writing lyrical works is easier because creating narrative opuses, such as dramas and novels, requires greater talent, richer materials, and more time. Wang Guowei significantly enhanced the status of dramas and novels, although he did not use the notion of suwenxue to refer to these genres.
Suwenxue and Its Status under the Tang-Song Transition Hypothesis
Naitō Konan was a famous Japanese Asian historian. He visited China several times and had frequent interactions with influential Chinese intellectuals of his time, such as Feng Guifen 馮桂芬 (1809–1874), Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉 (1866–1940), Dong Kang 董康 (1867–1947) and Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929) (Huang 2021; Su and Li 2023). Naitō also served as an editorial board member of the Sequels to “The Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature” (Xuxiu Siku Quanshu 續修四庫全書, 1931–1945) initiated by the government of the Republic of China (Zhonghua Minguo 中華民國) (Zhongguo Shekeyuan 1996: 6). Naitō Konan was deeply immersed in Chinese history and culture. His collection of books on traditional Chinese drama greatly benefits modern Chinese and Japanese researchers. Zheng Zhenduo was also one of the beneficiaries of Naitō’s classical Chinese collections (1985: 491).
The Tang-Song transition hypothesis proposed by Naitō Konan challenges earlier periodizations and offers a new paradigm of historical research to East Asian and Western scholars. Moreover, contemporary Chinese scholars have attempted to study traditional Chinese literature under the paradigm of the Tang-Song transition hypothesis (Yu 2010; Tian 2012). Naitō sketched the general transformation of Chinese literature as follows:
In literature as well, prose of the four-six character style reigned from the Six Dynasties through the Tang, but from the mid-Tang, Han Yu 韓愈 (768–824) and Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 (773–819) began a revival of writing in the “ancient style.” All their writings took the sanwen 散文 or free-verse essay form. In other words, literary forms were transformed to freer styles of expression. In shi 詩 poetry, five-character line poems of the style found in the Selections of Refined Literature (Wenxuan 文選) predominated through the Six Dynasties, but in the High Tang this changed completely with the great poets Li Bai 李白 (701–621), Du Fu 杜甫 (712–70), and others, who strove to break down past stylistic forms. Aside from shi, the late Tang witnessed the development of shiyu 詩餘 or ci 詞, which broke down the poetic style of five-character and seven-character lines and changed to a thoroughly free style, which grew to fullness in its musicality. As a result, a change occurred in drama from the Song through the Yuan, from the earlier descriptive short style to a more complex form. The ci in these dramas did not emphasize ancient language with classical precedents but came to express themselves freely in the popular language. Thus, aristocratic literature was thoroughly transformed into common people's literature. (1983: 97)22
Naitō’s assumption of a literary transition during the Tang and Song dynasties is a part of his larger Tang-Song transition hypothesis. Given the importance of this hypothesis across humanities and social science research, Naitō’s assumption of a literary transition in the Tang-Song dynasties deserves researchers’ attention.
As seen from the above quotation, Naitō distinguished the evolution of prose (wen 文) from the evolution of poetry (shi). Prose became a “free-verse essay form” with emphasis on “freer styles of expression,” while poetry also acquired a freer style, and shiyu (ci) became more developed. This trend led directly to the flourishing of Yuan sanqu and the emergence of Yuan zaju. Compared with shi, the works of ci, sanqu, and zaju were written freely in vernacular and colloquial language. Therefore, Naitō concludes that when literature developed to the stage of the Tang and Song dynasties, it no longer belonged to aristocratic literature but had already transformed into common people's literature. Japanese historian Miyazaki Ichisada 宮崎市定 (1901–1995), a student of Naitō Konan, also considered that the ci of the Song dynasty adopted the vernacular more freely than the shi of the Tang dynasty (1992: 229–30). According to the views of Naitō and Miyazaki, this vernacularization of classical Chinese literature—that is, the freer use of popular and vernacular language in writing—is a fundamental reason for the popularity of dramas and novels in the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. Thus, these newly emerged genres should all be considered as belonging to common people's literature.
According to Naitō’s hypothesis of the Tang-Song literary transition and its necessary logical succession, it can be inferred that dramas and novels evolved from poetry and prose. Meanwhile, they both belong to common people's literature, not aristocratic literature. Furthermore, if common people's literature is derived from orthodox literature albeit a freer and richer variation, it means that it is more highly regarded than orthodox literature. In other words, the status, from lowest to highest, would be shi, ci, qu, zaju, and xiaoshuo. In this case, Naitō turns the traditional Chinese literary ranking of the genres completely on its head.
This brings us to an important question: Is Naitō’s common people's literature the same thing as suwenxue? Though Naitō does not explicitly employ the concept of suwenxue, we have seen from the above quotation that he does point out the characteristics of colloquialization (“free use of colloquial language”) and popularization (“common people's literature”) of literature in the Tang and Song dynasties. Miyazaki reiterates his tutor's point of view from an empirical perspective based on the discovery of the ancient manuscripts in Dunhuang. He writes, “The vernacular texts that began to appear at the end of the Tang dynasty are colloquial literature. In recent years, the existence of colloquial literature in the Tang dynasty has been confirmed by the ancient manuscripts discovered by British, French, and other expeditions in Dunhuang of Gansu Province” (1992: 229–30). Based on these same ancient manuscripts, Kano Naoki 狩野直喜 (1868–1947) published a series of articles entitled Materials for the Study of the History of Chinese Suwenxue (Zhongguo suwenxue shi yanjiu de ziliao 中國俗文學史研究的資料) in 1916 (2017: 41–42). The concept of “Chinese suwenxue” consciously put forward by Kano Naoki is consistent with the notion of “common people's literature” in Naitō’s sense. It is worth mentioning here that the study of Chinese suwenxue, which originated at the beginning of the twentieth century, was influenced by Japanese scholars (Zhang Zhen 2021).
Based on the above analysis, we can infer two crucial conclusions from Naitō Konan: first, common people's literature is the same thing as suwenxue; second, suwenxue originates from the Tang dynasty.
More important, we can see that Naitō adhered to a progressive view of literary history—one opposed to the traditional Chinese literary ideas of worship of the ancient classics and genre degradation. Under Naitō’s progressive historical view, suwenxue develops from orthodox literature, and its status must be considered higher than the orthodox. The influence of this judgment on suwenxue in Naitō’s sense persists to the present day. It is on the basis of Naitō’s views that Jiang Bin distinguishes suwenxue in the broad sense from its narrower sense. In Jiang's opinion, suwenxue, in the narrow sense, expresses the common people's consciousness and is a product of the development of Chinese urban industry and commerce to a certain extent (1987: 28).
Naitō’s literary view combines genre variation with a progressive view. By contrast, the traditional Chinese view mostly combines genre variation with a view of regression (genre degradation). Naitō’s literary view actually contains the idea of “genre ascendance.” It is worth mentioning that genre variation itself implies neither progress nor regression; it can even coexist with a circular view of history.
Suwenxue and Its Status under the Literary View of Zheng Zhenduo
In the study of Chinese suwenxue, Zheng Zhenduo is an unrivaled figure. In the first half of the twentieth century, China's social structure and culture experienced a dramatic change. As a diligent editor, scholar, and social activist, Zheng Zhenduo was deeply involved in this change. He had close contacts with Marxist intellectuals such as Chen Duxiu 陳獨秀 (1879–1942), Li Dazhao 李大釗 (1889–1927), Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白 (1899–1935), and Geng Jizhi 耿濟之 (1899–1947). Working with Marxist intellectuals like Qu Qiubai and Geng Jizhi, Zheng founded the first Chinese sociological magazine, the New Society (Xin shehui 新社會), and translated the widely sung left-wing anthem “The Internationale” (Guoji ge 國際歌) from Russian into Chinese. Meanwhile, he translated many foreign literary works and contributed academic works, such as A Brief History of Russian Literature (E'guo wenxue shilüe 俄國文學史略, 1924) and The Outline of Literature (Wenxue dagang 文學大綱, 1927).
In 1927, Zheng moved to England and traveled to France, Italy, and other European countries. During this period, he became interested in archeology and compiled the Excavation History of Ancient Cities and Tombs over the Past Hundred Years (Jin bainian gucheng gumu fajue shi 近百年古城古墓發掘史, 1928). It was the first book to introduce the world's major archeological discoveries to Chinese academia. From this period on, he was deeply influenced by the study of cultural anthropology and folklore in Europe and actively participated in collating and studying the Dunhuang suwenxue manuscripts (Zheng 1985: 467–500). The History of Chinese Suwenxue and The Catalog of the History of Chinese Printmaking (Zhongguo banhuashi tulu 中國版畫史圖錄, 1940–1941) were both reputable achievements in the research fields mentioned above.
It is no exaggeration to say that under Zheng's effort and influence, the study of Chinese suwenxue was successfully established as a discipline. Only by understanding the relationship between Zheng's literary views and suwenxue, as well as how he evaluated the status of suwenxue, can we clarify the difficulties and critical aspects in the current study of suwenxue in China.
In his landmark work History of Chinese Suwenxue, Zheng defines suwenxue as follows: “Suwenxue is popular literature, folk literature, and the literature of the masses” (Zheng [1938] 2005: 1). Furthermore, he concludes with six characteristics of suwenxue: popularity, anonymous collective creation, orality, freshness combined with vulgarity, unrestrained imagination, and boldness to introduce new things (3–4). Specifically, Zheng divides Chinese suwenxue into five categories according to style and genre, and each category contains subdivided classes.
The first category is poetry, including folk songs (minge 民歌), ballads (minyao 民謠), and early lyrics (chuqi de ciqu 初期的詞曲). The second is the novel, which refers mainly to scripts for story telling (huaben 話本). Literary tales of the Tang dynasty (Chuanqi xiaoshuo 傳奇小說) and literary sketches (biji xiaoshuo 筆記小說) do not fall into this category.23 The third is traditional drama and the fourth chantefable (jiangchang wenxue 講唱文學). Members of this category are extremely complex but of similar nature; for example, plays in all Gong and Diao modes (zhugongdiao 諸宮調), precious scrolls (baojuan 寶卷), strum lyrics (tanci 彈詞), drum lyrics (guci 鼓詞), and so on. The fifth is parody (youxi wenzhang 遊戲文章) (2005: 5–9).
Since Zheng has defined suwenxue straightforwardly, we will focus on the status of suwenxue from his point of view; namely, how Zheng evaluated suwenxue. Zheng seems to have advocated a neutral attitude in dealing with suwenxue; that is, neither to deify it nor to ignore it. He wrote: “Suwenxue has numerous merits and plenty of defects. It is not so supreme that all the works are masterpieces as one group of people wishes, nor is it undesirable and thus worthless as another group believes” (2005: 4).
Zheng criticizes two types of opinions and regards neither of them as appropriate. From Zheng's point of view, Naitō Konan's view of suwenxue can be classified as the first type. Based on Naitō’s progressive historical view, suwenxue must be regarded as superior to so-called orthodox literature. Therefore, all suwenxue works should be taken as excellent. By contrast, those who believe in the traditional Chinese view of literature and accept the idea of genre degradation will be assigned to the second type.
Zheng's attitude toward suwenxue is not as neutral as he claims because he advocates that suwenxue should be the main body and centerpiece of Chinese literary history (1). If suwenxue occupies the central position in Chinese literature, its status must be elevated. Zheng says that suwenxue should be at the center of Chinese literary history for two reasons. First, the scope of Chinese orthodox literature is limited mainly to poetry and prose, which is too narrow and thus needs to be expanded. Zheng deems that the current concept of literature has changed, and the traditional concept must be displaced. Besides, according to the conventions of writing literary history in Western countries, whose history writings include folk songs, dramas, and novels, suwenxue must be included in the history of Chinese literature. Second, the genres of orthodox literature are in fact upgrades from suwenxue, such as most of the poems in the Book of Songs and Han yuefu 漢樂府,24 as well as many instances of ci and qu (1–2). From this perspective we see that the history of Chinese literature would be very “thin” without suwenxue. Furthermore, if the history of Chinese literature rejects suwenxue, we can hardly decipher the origins of the orthodox literary genres and styles.
Aside from these two reasons for the historiography of suwenxue, Zheng also stresses that suwenxue is lively, while orthodox literature derived from suwenxue is decrepit and stiff (3). Although Zheng claims that the genres of orthodox literature are “upgrades” from suwenxue, the word “upgrade” refers mainly to the standardization and refinement of literary form rather than to the enrichment of content. The works of suwenxue, which are on the waitlist to become orthodox literature, as it were, are bound to be adapted, rectified, and reinterpreted by Confucianism and lose much of their liveliness.
Following the logic of Zheng Zhengduo's exposition, some works cannot be upgraded to orthodox literature—not because they cannot be refined in form but because they contain contents that are unacceptable to the conventional Confucian literary view. Due to Confucius's maxim that “the Master would not discuss prodigies, prowess, lawlessness, or the supernatural” 子不語怪力亂神 (Zhu Xi 2011: 95),25 works not in accord with the Confucian Dao must be resisted from the very beginning, no matter how fresh and imaginative they might be. However, in Zheng's view, it is precisely such works about “prodigies, prowess, lawlessness, or the supernatural” that are livelier and more imaginative.26 In this sense, Zheng also greatly raised the status of many literary works that were hitherto completely marginalized under the traditional literary view.
Comparison of the Three Literary Views
The traditional Chinese view of literature does not admit any progress. At most, the following views would be supported. On the one hand, some works of orthodox literature come from suwenxue. For example, some poems in the Book of Songs originate from folk songs. On the other hand, some genres of suwenxue imitate orthodox works. For example, the Yuan zaju created by Confucian literati utilize many elements of orthodox literature in content and form (Tan and Bao 2022). What is essential for the conventional Chinese view is that orthodox literature is always higher in status than suwenxue, regardless of whether suwenxue lies at the headwaters or in the lower reaches of orthodox literature.
However, according to Zheng Zhenduo, suwenxue does not originate from orthodox literature: quite the opposite. In Naitō’s literary view, suwenxue is the freer and richer development of orthodox literature. On this point, Zheng and Naitō disagree completely.
Zheng's view of literature has a less theoretical burden. Based on common sense, suwenxue must originate before the Tang dynasty because folk songs and ballads already existed in ancient times, at least before the Warring States Period (475–221 BCE) (Zheng [1938] 2005). Based on the orality of suwenxue, Zheng can convincingly assume that suwenxue existed long before the Book of Songs, regardless of how few materials of ancient literature are still extant. By contrast, Naitō’s literary view will face more difficulties. The ancient Dunhuang manuscripts alone cannot affirm the origins of suwenxue in the Tang dynasty. One cannot assert that there was no suwenxue before the Tang dynasty simply due to the lack of positive excavated materials.
However, Naitō’s literary view does have its merits. From his theoretical perspective, we can fully understand why Yuan zaju might fall into the category of suwenxue. Naitō’s suwenxue has features of “colloquial” and “popular” but has nothing to do with “vulgarity and obscenity.” Accordingly, the dramatic pieces written by Confucian literati, such as by Wang Shifu 王實甫 (ca. 1260–ca. 1336), Guan Hanqing, Bai Pu 白樸 (1226–ca. 1306), and Ma Zhiyuan 馬致遠 (ca. 1250–ca. 1324) can be classified as suwenxue without any problem. However, these dramas do not seem to be entirely in accord with suwenxue as defined by Zheng.
Naitō Konan and Zheng Zhenduo promoted suwenxue from different viewpoints, but both oppose the traditional Chinese literary view. Naitō was opposed to the conventional bias of genre degradation. In his view, the progressive transition took place during the Tang and Song dynasties, including transitions in the fields of politics, economics, and social structures; literature was also bound to make a positive change in line with this transition. Thus, suwenxue represents the direction of literary development and must possess a high status in literature. Zheng directly pointed out the narrowness and rigidity of Chinese orthodox literary scope. In this sense, suwenxue takes on the mission of expanding the ambit of Chinese literature and enlivening it as fully as possible. Therefore, the status of suwenxue must rise. It is worth noting that Naitō’s literary view is closer to the traditional Chinese literary view of genre variation, but in Zheng's eyes, suwenxue is passed on to each generation: there is always the possibility it will be accepted by (and as) orthodox literature.
Though deeply rooted in traditional Chinese poetics, Wang Guowei opposed the idea of genre degradation for yet another reason. Wang agreed with the presupposition of the Western literary view that drama was higher in status than lyric poetry; thus, he lamented that Chinese literature was underdeveloped in terms of tragedy (the highest genre of Western literature). He wrote: “As an oriental country with a long history of literature, no work can compete with Western Europe in the highest literary genre” (Wang Guowei 2018: 72). This statement reveals that Wang simply wished Chinese literature had more achievements in the genre of tragedy, without pointing out the inevitability of the emergence of traditional dramas and novels as Naitō did. In any case, Wang's advocacy does enhance the status of traditional drama.
Although Wang Guowei, Naitō Konan, and Zheng Zhenduo all elevated the status of suwenxue, their views present significant differences in details. If tragedy is the highest form of literature, it is doubtful whether drama still belongs to suwenxue in Wang Guowei's sense. The logical consequence is that Wang would not consider traditional dramas and novels to be suwenxue. Following Wang's view of literature, people should eventually include dramas and novels in orthodox literature. According to Wang, it certainly makes no sense for literature of higher status to be expelled from the orthodox literary system.
Suwenxue, in Naitō’s view, should be officially recognized and get more respect as serious literature. However, the officially accepted idea of suwenxue is no longer suwenxue in the traditional sense. Therefore, according to Naitō’s logic, the authority that presumes to recognize and promote suwenxue should not be influenced by Confucianism but should be more liberal and democratic. Suwenxue is thus closely related to the development of society, economics, and politics. Researchers must examine suwenxue as according to Naitō, considering it in the broad context of a progressive historical view in which social, economic, and political aspects are all considered equally.
Zheng implies that suwenxue and orthodox literature coexist in parallel. Every generation has its own suwenxue; orthodox literature is continuously adapting and assimilating suwenxue rather than being replaced by it. Here, Zheng provides us with a panoramic literary history: general literature starts out as a fresh and crude form, and after being influenced by orthodox literature, finally becomes orthodox itself but in a rigid sense. In principle, this process happens in every era. How to keep the freshness and liveliness of suwenxue but stave off vulgarity and superstition is perhaps the biggest issue that Zheng intends to address.27 This may be one of the reasons Zheng shows his inclination to a Marxist literary view (Chen Fukang 1984: 253–70).
Conclusion
Suwenxue has been described in various ways throughout history, and the appropriateness of the different terms used to describe it can only be justified if they are limited to a short historical period and a certain region. In other words, they are the products of a specific historical context, are closely related to social change and the transformation of academic paradigms, and have their implied objects of dialogue. In a given context, it is safe to use certain specific terms. However, from a historical point of view, these terms are based on external features (which themselves can also change) and appear one-sided. In this article, we take suwenxue as the primary focal point and expound on it from the perspective of value and in light of different literary views.
Generally speaking, the traditional Chinese literary view underlines the function of political and moral teaching (zhengjiao 政教). People use Confucian emotions and the Dao to measure the “elegance” or “vulgarity” of literature and distinguish between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. The interpretation and acceptance of literature never rest in simple entertainment or pure aesthetic experience but in self-education and self-discipline. In this perspective, works of Chinese suwenxue that have not been regulated by Confucian political and ethical principles consequently experience difficulty in “ascending the hall of elegance” (see Wu 2016).
Naitō Konan's method of discussing literature is more scientific than the traditional Chinese literary view and intends to demonstrate the inevitability of the emergence and development of suwenxue. In other words, Naitō’s value judgment of suwenxue is based on a progressive historical view. Under such a view, suwenxue must become something worthy of full promotion.
Zheng Zhenduo's intent is elucidated chiefly from the perspective of taking suwenxue as a literary discipline. It is precisely such disciplinary construction that endows suwenxue with significance. Aside from this, suwenxue possesses the merit of freshness and liveliness. However, it still needs to be improved and refined due to its vulgarity and superstition.
The authors would like to thank Prof. Ross King and all the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.
Notes
No agreement has been reached on the definition of suwenxue in academia. Suwenxue has various translations in English by different scholars, for example, “vernacular literature” (Ge 2001; Bender 2003), “popular or vernacular literature” (Mair and Bender 2011: 5), and “popular literature” or “folk literature” (Børdahl and Wan 2010; Idema 2012). We can see that it is impossible to grasp the concept of suwenxue with only one translated term in English. In addition, the above English translations of suwenxue also lead to confusion. Due to the crucial position of the concept of suwenxue in this article, we keep its Romanized pinyin rendition as an ad hoc designation.
The Folk Ballads Research Association was organized under the guidance of the New Cultural Movement (Xinwenhua Yundong 新文化運動), which promoted common people's literature, opposed aristocratic literature, and advocated the assimilation of the so-called progressive culture of the West. There were at least three types of scholars in the association: first, scholars who were influenced by Western anthropology, who integrated later with the study of Chinese folklore and anthropology; second, scholars focusing on the study of literature, later merged with the study of Chinese suwenxue; third, scholars involved in local and vernacular study, who in the end turned to the study of folk literature. The myriad research projects and intentions of these scholars are mainly why there is so much confusion in the study of suwenxue today. See Liu Xicheng (2004).
Chinese and English scholars widely cite Zheng's Zhongguo suwenxue shi. However, different understandings of the meaning of suwenxue surface in the English translations of this book by different scholars. At least five translations are commonly seen: (1) A History of Chinese Popular Literature: see Berezkin (2013: 109), Hegel (1994: 423), McLaren (1996: 416), and Lei (1999: 279); (2) A History of Chinese Popular Culture: see Guo (2019: 12); (3) A History of Popular Chinese Literature: see Zhang Yingjin (1994: 377); (4) A History of Chinese Vernacular Literature: see Shepherd (2011: 68); (5) A History of Folk Literature in China: see Wu (2016: 114).
For non-Chinese language specialists, these notions and expressions seem interchangeable. However, each notion or expression closely relates to specific times and ideologies in China. For example, baihua wenxue 白話文學 has been used as a weapon against classical Chinese language literature (wenyan wenxue 文言文學) and to revolutionize the old social structure and culture, which does not equate to “vernacular literature” or “colloquial literature” in English (Hockx 1999: 113–33); by contrast, minjian wenxue 民間文學 does not possess such social revolutionary purpose. Constrained by the length of this article, we will not distinguish these terms one by one but remind our readers to remain alert to their appended historical context.
For example, folk literature characterizes collectivity in creation, orality in circulation, and popularity among the people. These features overlap with those of suwenxue defined by Zheng Zhenduo. So those literary works written in a vernacular style by a specific author must be excluded from the scope of suwenxue. Given this difficulty, many researchers advocate the separation of suwexue from folk literature (e.g., Tan Fan 2007).
Su has many meanings in Chinese, such as fengsu 风俗, meaning customs and culture; shisu 世俗, meaning profane, mainly in contrast to religious contexts; and tongsu 通俗, stressing the masses and popularity. However, the connotation of su in suwenxue has no necessary connection with these three meanings. For example, the poems from the Tang dynasty may describe social morals, customs, and secular things, and are also popular among the people. Nevertheless, according to the traditional Chinese literary view, Tang poems belong to orthodox and elegant literature rather than popular literature. Therefore, our analysis of suwenxue in this article will concentrate on the discrimination of the value judgment attached to the term su.
Many scholars have tried to identify suwenxue from external features such as language use (refined versus vernacular), orality, authorship, target audience (elite versus commoner), nation-state construction, and so on. However, they end up understanding suwenxue from value aspects (Chen Pingyuan 2004). Using these external features to define suwenxue is effective only if they are examined in a relatively short historical period. However, measured over the longue durée, these features themselves are changing, so are not useful when striving for an ahistorical and universal definition of suwenxue.
The English translation relies on Owen (1992: 40), with some changes.
For the English translation, we refer to Vincent Yu-chung Shih's translation with minor changes. See Liu Xie (1959: 32).
James Liu summarizes four traditional Chinese views on poetry, including the didactic view (poetry as moral instruction and social comment), the individualist view (poetry as self-expression), the technical view (poetry as literary exercise), and the intuitionalist view (poetry as contemplation). See James Liu (1962: 61–87). These four views do not conflict with the abovementioned traditional Chinese literary view and can even be regarded as the exposition of the traditional literary view from four different aspects. It is evident that didacticism is at the core of the traditional literary view. In terms of the second view, self-expression must be consistent (or kept in balance) with one's xing 性 (nature) in the Confucian sense (1962: 71). Confucianism does not object to individual and subjective expression, but to yu 慾 (desire) that is not under the control of Confucian teachings. The third view is also compatible with Confucian teachings because traditional poetic criticism attaches great importance to literary training and skills. The fourth view is significant. It highlights the important role played by Daoism and Buddhism within the tradition dominated by Confucianism. Daoism and Buddhism (esp. Zen Buddhism) influence the creation and understanding of poetry by bringing new elements (e.g., intuitionism) to traditional poetics. However, the intuitionalist view does not oppose the traditional Chinese literary view. On the contrary, it integrates well with later Confucianism. Besides, as James Liu points out, the intuitionalist view has always been in the minority (1962: 81).
To put it simply, the Dao 道 in Confucianism coheres to the view of the Heavenly Mandate and the idea of the unity of man and nature, which holds that there is a correspondence between heaven and man. To be precise, there is a causation between people's good/evil deeds and natural phenomena. Confucian ethics, such as sincerity, loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, righteousness, etc., judges between good and evil. For example, loyalty means loyalty to the country and the king and filial piety refers to obedience to one's parents. An insincere, unloyal, or unfilial person will be punished by heaven and man.
“Novel” here mainly refer to fictional narratives with long prose style that flourished in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Pre-Qin fables (yuyan 寓言) and the short literary sketches (biji xiaoshuo 筆記小說) are not included in this category. Therefore, we use “novel” instead of fiction to translate “xiaoshuo.”
Zaju is a new dramatic genre that emerged in the latter half of the thirteenth century; it literally means miscellaneous drama. It flourished during the Yuan dynasty.
The relationship between Yuan zaju and the officially compiled Treatise on Literature (Yiwen zhi 藝文志) offers an excellent example of how suwenxue is treated and evaluated under the traditional Chinese literary view. The Treatise on Literature is usually regarded as the retroactively confirmed literary collection of the previous dynasties. Throughout the Qing dynasty, many scholars compiled and supplemented the Treatise on Literature of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties. However, the fact is that, within all these supplements, the stand-alone work related to Yuan zaju was The Register of Ghosts (Lu Gui Bu 錄鬼簿, ca. 1330). The focus of all the supplementary treatises is on collecting poetry and prose; the proportion of ci and qu 曲 is minimal, while the section on qu comprises mainly works of sanqu 散曲 but not zaju. The Register of Ghosts was accepted only due to its records of sanqu because sanqu was regarded as a genre closer to poetry. The Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (Siku Quanshu 四庫全書, compiled from 1773–1784) does not list any collection of Yuan zaju, and even The Register of Ghosts fails to appear here. Before the mid-Ming period, the theatrical performance of zaju prevailed throughout the empire, whether at the court or in the countryside, and the court library also collected dramatic scripts. Qing scholars regarded Yuan zaju as so despicable and obscene that they disdained to record them in the history of orthodox literature. Therefore, no matter how elegant the text of a Yuan zaju might be, it would still be excluded under the orthodox view.
For example, Feng Menglong's folk song collection entitled Shan'ge 山歌 and the three significant collections of novellas known as the San yan 三言, and Cao Xueqin's novel Red Chamber Dream (Honglou Meng 紅樓夢).
Fu is a highly epideictic poetry style and may be translated as rhapsody.
Pianwen is a form of highly stylized prose. It literally means “parallel writing.”
Genre exhaustion does not appear as a term in existing literary theory and criticism. However, this idea prevails in all sorts of influential works. See Hu Yinglin (2005: 2485) and Wang Guowei (2009: 476–77).
For example, the Yuan literati are famous for their zaju compositions; however, according to the view of genre degradation, the value of zaju must be lower than that of poetry. Meanwhile, for the Yuan literati, the era of poetry was gone, as was the spirit of poetry. Based on this logic, Yuan literati could not write good poetic pieces. Under this logic, they had a slim chance of surpassing their predecessors, no matter how hard they might try.
Refers to the state of Chu (Chuguo 楚國) during the Warring States Period (475–221 BCE).
The original Chinese reads: “故謂文學後不如前，余未敢信。但就一體論，則此說固無以易也.” See Wang Guowei (2009: 477).
The English translation referred to here is Joshua Fogel's, but the romanizations have been changed from Wade-Giles to pinyin 拼音. See Naitō (1983). In addition, Joshua Fogel translated “庶民的の文學” in Naitō’s Japanese as “popular genres,” which is not appropriate according to Naitō’s view. Naitō’s “庶民的の文學” is the counterpart to “貴族的の文學” “aristocratic literature” (Naitō 1922) and is the result of the downward movement of power and the rise of common people's literacy. Thus, we translate Naitō’s “庶民的の文學” as “common people's literature.”
Most literary tales of the Tang dynasty and literary sketches were written by literati and did not have the characteristics of collectivity in creation and orality in circulation. Thus, Zheng excludes them from suwenxue.
Han yuefu refers to the songs and poems collected and compiled under imperial order during the Han dynasty.
The English translation refers to Soothill (1910: 353).
It should be noted that because Zheng Zhenduo opposes superstition, he insists that the superstitious contents of suwenxue need to be purified.
In early twentieth-century China, superstition was regarded as completely negative and as a counterpart of science to be abandoned under progressive ideologies. Today, however, there is much more reflection on science and so-called superstitions. Therefore, modern folklorists may not appreciate Zheng's use of superstition as an evaluative benchmark.
