Department of Literature and Cultural Studies

This essay, beginning with the proposition of Confucius being born with knowledge, aims to illustrate the sacred imagination Zhu Xi has on Confucius, as well as how the former utilizes specific hermeneutical strategies to maintain the image of the latter. The essay first places in order theories from scholars in the past, regarding “sages being born with knowledge”, then goes on to examine the exegesis Zhu had on the fact that Confucius has “Inborn Knowledge”; followed by a revelation on how Zhu has made use of the concept “Expression of Modesty” to resolve textual conflicts caused by the affirmation of such knowledge. Finally, limitations of Zhu’s hermeneutical strategies are critically examined, so as to exhibit the correlation between commentators of the Classics and the time they live in. The investigation can deepen our understanding on the hermeneutical tradition of Confucianism, hence producing a complementary effect on recent studies.

"Wen zhi" (Form and Content) is a term widely used in traditional Chinese literary criticism. Informed by Occidental literary studies, modern Chinese scholars specialising in literary theories, Chinese literary criticism, the dynastic history of literature, and even the history of literary ideas often tend to interpret the term, which is found in the Analects and other classical texts, as a duality of textual “form” and “content.” Such an understanding inaccurately presumed that there was a fixed and single meaning within "wen zhi", which not only misinterprets the ancient texts but also underestimates the complex journey in which the term has undergone in the field of literary criticism. By analysing various textual resources from the Pre-Qin to the Six Dynasties, this article attempts to delineate the genealogy of "wen zhi" and demonstrate how this terminology, which originated in the Analects, has traversed the realms of political etiquette, human morality, polemic expositions, historical writings, Buddhist scripture translation, and ultimately become a paramount idea in Chinese literary criticism. The genealogy of "wen zhi" reveals a complex and discontinuous array of meanings associated with it, which vary across different texts and contexts. As such, it defies simple categorization as the antithesis of form and content.

「文質」是中國傳統文學批評常見的用語。受到西方文學研究的影響，現代從事文學理論、中國文學批評史、斷代文學史，以至文學觀念史研究的學者，經常把這組術語直接理解為文本「形式」與「內容」的對立，並以此解讀《論語》及其他古籍原文。這類說法誤以為文質有固定單一的意義，不但錯誤詮釋古代典籍，還忽略了文質進入文學批評範疇的曲折歷程。有見及此，本文試圖綜合先秦至六朝各種文獻材料，辨析文質的系譜，縷述這個術語如何從《論語》出發，穿越禮儀制度、道德人格、說理文字、歷史書寫、佛經翻譯等領域，最終成為中國文學批評的重要觀念。此一誕生過程揭示文質的涵義充滿各種不連續性，會因應上下文義而出現不同的變化，不能機械化地解讀為形式和內容。

Throughout the past two thousand years, the Lunyu has been unanimously regarded as the most original and essential materials for the studies of Confucius. The extreme transparency of the Analects tends to conceal the textual nature of its own, which almost makes the “textual Confucius” in the Analects identical to the “historic Confucius”. However, since the discovery of many unearthed documents in the last few decades, the central status of the Analects has been undermined, and its textual and narrative attributes have drawn much more attention. From a hermeneutical point of view, the present Analects inevitably reflects the editors’ understanding of Confucius’ doctrines because they could selectively extract related materials in the compilation process and thus construct their own Confucian doctrines. Furthermore, the aphoristic style of extraction tacitly altered the meaning of Confucius’ discourses, which restricted and guided scholars of the later generations in interpreting the book. Given that these issues are not yet fully addressed, this article will compare similar narratives arising in the Analects and other extant or unearthed documents. Through the analysis of the subtle similarities and differences among them, which includes the length of narratives, their academic ideas and the themes in the discussion, the article will illustrate how the compilation of the Analects shaped the characteristics of Confucian doctrines and examine the interpretative significances derived from such kind of genre.

過去兩千多年以來，《論語》一直被公認為是研究孔子最原始和最重要的材料。《論語》這種高度的「透明性」很容易令人忽略了它自身的文本性質，「《論語》中的孔子」與「歷史上的孔子」幾乎可以劃上等號。然而隨著近數十年出土文獻的發現，《論語》的中心地位漸漸動搖起來，其文本敘述的性質亦開始受到關注。從詮釋的角度看，今本《論語》多少滲透著編者對孔子的理解，因為編纂的過程不免對孔子學說有所別擇與剪裁，呈現出編者企圖建構的孔子學說。除此之外，《論語》箴言式的引錄形式亦令書中所述孔子話語出現獨特的意義轉化，制約及引導著後世學者對該書的解讀。鑒於這方面的問題尚未得到充分的討論，本文擬通過《論語》與其他傳世及出土文獻中相似記述的比較，從敘事詳略、學術觀念和論述重點等細微異同的分析中，闡明《論語》以輯記編纂的方式所建構的孔學特徵，並且探討這種文體所衍生的各種詮釋效果。

The approach of allegorical interpretation was widely used by Chinese traditional scholars in novel studies. However, since the rise of modern Chinese scholarship at the beginning of the 20th century, the long-prevailing allegoresis approach was unprecedentedly faced with challenges and queries. Hu Shi strongly criticized the research approach of ‘covering “the Journey to the West” with a robe of Confucian, Buddhist or Taoist’, and advocated confining the studies of this masterpiece exclusively to the field of textual research, such as evidential studies on the authors or textual sources of stories, etc. In comparison with the positivistic research of authorship and bibliology, allegorical interpretations are inarguably full of controversy and difficult to judge which of them is a better one. They are thus soon driven out of the mainstream of academic realm. That being said, it is worthy to note that allegoresis has never been suspended entirely, as this approach is tacitly adopted by some modern scholars who consider allegorical interpretations important evidence in the studies of the main theme of the novel. We do not believe in any kind of monism claiming that there is only one single correct interpretation of literary work, nor any kind of hermeneutical anarchism suggesting that all interpretations are equally true. In view of the pluralistic interpretations of the novel, we attempt to articulate some criteria of evaluation that can reasonably assess the appropriateness of different explanations. To sharpen the focus of the discussion, this article will first give an overview of some major allegoresis studies in the past, with a concentration on the five sages and their relationship with the main theme of “the Journey to the West ”. A theoretical framework will also be introduced for evaluating the validity of different interpretations afterwards. Though a relatively comprehensive and reasonable interpretation will be provided at the end, the ultimate goal of the author is solely to construct a common platform for academic dialogue, in the hope of enhancing the accountability of allegoresis.

寓意解讀是中國傳統文人學士研治小說的重要方法，然而自 20 世紀現代中國學術興起後，這種解讀方法面臨前所未有的挑戰。胡適大力批評過去數百年來的評點家「把一部《西遊記》罩上了儒、釋、道三教的袍子」的讀法，認為《西遊記》的研究範圍應限制在以文獻版本為基礎的作者考證和故事源流一類問題之內。與作者、版本等實證研究相比，寓意解讀不免言人人殊，難以判分高下，因而亦逐漸退出嚴肅的學術舞台。然而必須注意的是，寓意解讀並沒有因此而完全中斷，而是隱約地滲進現代學者有關《西遊記》的主題研究之內，成為證立論點的重要手段。面對各種分歧的寓意解讀，我們既不接受文本只有唯一一種正解，亦不相信文本可以毫無限制地任意解釋，因而試圖建立評量寓意的準則，希望以理性的方式說明不同解讀的合理程度。為了令討論的焦點更為明晰，文章先從《西遊記》五聖的象徵意義入手，回顧過去各種寓意解讀及其與《西遊記》主題的關係，繼而引入評估效度的理論框架，分析及比較各種說法的有效程度。文章雖然亦會嘗試展示較為完整和合理的解讀，但其最終目的並不是要提出正解，而是要建立共同討論的平台，提升寓意解讀的說服力。

Chen Yinke's research focuses on ancient and modern, as well as Chinese and foreign scholarship. Throughout his tenure as a professor in the Tsinghua University Departments of Chinese and History starting in 1931, he was constantly concerned with the exegesis of literary works. During his late years, he even categorized his related research exclusively into the studies of classical and contemporary allusion and developed a unique critical framework. His emphasis on allusion directly opposed the voices against the use of allusion that arose at the outset of the New Culture Movement. In advocating his “Eight-Don’ts-ism” against allusion, Hu Shi frequently quoted Chen Sanli’s poems as negative examples. Qian Xuantong even placed allusion as the antithesis of vernacular Chinese and urged the complete repudiation of all allusions. Despite their diminishing use in vernacular Chinese, however, allusion still had its place in the field of literary theory. During the early 1930s, Qian Zhongshu, a gifted student in the Department of Foreign Languages of Tsinghua University, still emphasized the positive sides of allusion. Nevertheless, Chen Yinke’s emphasis on allusion in his research was still considered a revolt against the general trend at the time.
In consideration of this particular background, this paper investigates how Chen Yinke reestablished the value of allusion in the fields of literary creation and practical criticism through the interpretation of classical and contemporary allusion. It starts with integrating Chen Yinke’s studies of allusion into the context of literary criticism and reorganizes and reconstructs the formation process, conceptual significance and evaluation framework of his methods. Then the common theoretical assumptions underlying both classical and contemporary allusion are delineated from the perspective of literary and practical criticism so as to deepen our understanding of the allusive criticism. In the last section, this paper provides an objective assessment of the shortcomings and limitations of Chen Yinke’s research methods. It also evaluates the validity of Chen Yinke’s arguments against the challenges and criticisms of allusion popularized by the May Fourth Movement.

陳寅恪博涉古今中外學術，然而自1931年擔任清華大學中文系及歷史系「合聘教授」以來，詩文箋釋一直是他念茲在茲的研究課題，晩年更以今典、古典兩類考釋總結相關研究，發展出一套獨特的批評架構。他對典故的重視與新文化運動以來各種反對用典的聲音正是背道而馳，胡適的「八不主義」提倡不用典，並且屢以陳三立的作品為反面教材，錢玄同更把用典與白話文對立起來，主張全盤摒棄典故。然而典故在白話文中的消退，不等於它在文學理論層面上的失敗，出身外文系的錢鍾書在1930年代便仍多次強調典故的作用。在這種背景下，陳寅恪對典故的重視實有濃厚的翻案意味。
本文正是循此思路著眼，考察陳寅恪如何通過對今典與古典的詮釋，重新確立典故在文學創作和實際批評中的價值。文章首先把陳寅恪的典故研究安置在文學批評的脈絡，全面整理和重構這種方法的形成過程、觀念義蘊和評鑑架構；繼而從文學理論及實際批評的角度闡明今典與古典考釋的共同學術預設，深化大家對典故批評的瞭解；最後會對這套方法的漏洞和詮釋局限作出客觀的評析，反思陳寅恪的論述是否足以回應五四以來有關用典的批評。

Chen, Yin-ke’s distinctive approach, which is called mutual verification between literature and history, has extensive and far-reaching influence on Chinese literary studies. However, since Qian, Zhong-shu’s harsh criticism of his works, many scholars tended to emphasize that Chen’s voluminous works were only studies of history, which has nothing to do with literature. Almost none of them seriously consider his views on literature and literary criticism. Isolating Chen from the field of literature is not only inconsistent with his own understanding of his works, but also obscures his standing in the history of Chinese literature studies in the 20th century. With regard to such kind of opinions, this paper first reviews the comments made by Qian, Zhong-shu, then examines the positioning of literature and history in Chen's study, and explores the relationship between history and textual interpretation as well as literary appreciation, so as to comprehensively and objectively evaluate Chen, Yin-ke’s significance and contribution in the field of literature.

陳寅恪別樹一幟的文史互證法，在中國文學研究的領域內一直有廣泛而深遠的影響。然而自錢鍾書對他的著作提出尖銳的批評後，不少學者開始強調陳寅恪所做的只是歷史研究，與文學無關，鮮有認真正視陳氏對文學和文學批評的看法。割裂陳寅恪與文學的關係，不但不符合陳氏對一己著述的理解，還模糊了他在20世紀中國文學研究史上的實際位置。針對這種偏頗的意見，本文首先回顧錢鍾書的評論，繼而考察文學與歷史在陳氏研究中所佔的位置，並逐一探討歷史與文本解讀、文學鑑賞之間的關係，以期全面和客觀地評估陳寅恪在文學領域內的意義和貢獻。

Hu Shi, being praised as “the Father of Chinese Renaissance”, always juxtaposes the Chinese New Culture Movement and the European Renaissance. Scholars thus tend to review this analogy from the perspective of comparative history, evaluating the appropriateness of Hu’s view by the examination of the similarities and the differences between these two cultural movements. However, the recent Orientalistic studies remind us that Hu’s narration of the Renaissance is not only a historical fact that took place in Europe in a certain period of time, but also an imaginary metaphor, which constitutes Hu’s own experience about the New Culture Movement. With the scrutiny of the origin, meaning and function of this metaphor, the research gap due to comparative historical studies can be undoubtedly filled.
In view of this, this article attempts to elucidate the process of how Hu constructed the discourse of the Chinese Renaissance, as well as the narrative function of such a discourse. It will first revisit Hu’s experience in reading the book written by Edith Sichel, analyzing his hermeneutical approach to acquiring the European Renaissance; then, it will explore the academic interactions of Hu and Philippe de Vargas, with a focus on their different views towards Chinese Renaissance. The research can clarify the meaning and function of Hu’s notion, and hence deepen the investigation of related studies.

胡適經常把中國的新文化運動與歐洲的文藝復興運動(Renaissance)相提並論，更被推許為「中國文藝復興之父」。不少學者因而從歷史研究的角度檢討這個類比，審視中西這兩場文化運動的異同，藉此評論胡適的說法是否恰當。然而近年的東方主義研究提醒我們，胡適經常提及的文藝復興，除了表示歐洲某一特定時期的歷史事件外，同時也是一個想像性的比喻(imaginary metaphor)，是胡適本人的新文化運動經驗的其中一個組成部分。考察這個喻體的來源、內涵和作用，無疑可以從另一個角度補充過去比較史學研究的不足。
有見及此，本文試圖闡述胡適建構其中國文藝復興論述的過程，以及這些論述所產生的作用。文章首先會回溯胡適早年閱讀薛謝兒(Edith Sichel)相關著作的經驗，分析胡適接收歐洲文藝復興時的詮釋傾向；繼而揭示胡適與王克私(Philippe de Vargas)之間的學術互動，重點抉發二人在觀點上的分歧，藉此說明胡適的中國文藝復興的涵義及其作用，深化現有的相關研究。

Two mutually exclusive views concerning the relationship between Lunyu and Confucius have dominated academia for decades, which can be named the “Correspondence theory” and “Separation theory,” respectively. The correspondence theory holds that the contents of Lunyu are the cumulative result of a long tradition, and hence constitute the most important and original source of Confucius’ life and teachings. Yet, the separation theory emphasizes the process of compilation and circulation of Lunyu in the Han dynasty and tends to defer the dating of the book to a later time, with the conclusion that the “textual Confucius” described in the Lunyu is not the same as the “historic Confucius.” Both views are well-grounded and have supporters. Regrettably, neither party is willing to engage in dialogue with the other, with the result that no basic consensus can be reached. The studies of Lunyu thus seem to split into two parallel universes, whereby each side conducts its own other research with no regard to the efforts of the other side. In view of this, this article aims to analyze the justifications and limitations of the two theories and reconsider the issue of the dating of Lunyu’s contents in light of the concept of author-function. Taking the doctrine of ren (仁) as an example, the last section of this article offers a preliminary demonstration of the possibility of adopting a sort of diachronic typology in the study of Confucius’s life and teachings, with the hope of synergizing the merits of the two theories and using a new method to reaffirm the pre-Qin origins of the Lunyu, so as to overcome the prevalent dilemmas in the field.

The central idea of Lushi Chunqiu is an important issue that has been debated for centuries. The main reason for such divergent views is that this book is so rich in material, allowing researchers to find supporting evidence for almost any claims, which are not necessarily in full accord with the entire book. As a result, there is still much room for scholars to propose different amendments or even entirely new thoughts. To overcome this dilemma, researchers must become more conscious of the scope of materials to be used so that they can objectively compare the validity of each relevant concept in the interpretation of texts and subsequently identify the dominant idea. It is along these lines that this paper aims to review the doctrine of “Guisheng” advocated by Hu Shi, clarify its connotations and expressions, and hence provide a viable way out of the present state of disagreement.
          The paper first reviews the previous discussion about the Miscellaneous School and the problem of the central idea. Through Hu Shi and D. C. Lau’s different exposition of the idea of “Guisheng”, we demonstrate the relationship between the scope of citation and the validity of interpretation and then illustrate the hierarchical structure of the materials we use. Based on the original text of the Chapter of ‘Guisheng’, we subsequently proceed to elucidate the meaning of “six desires”, their regulating method, as well as the scope of application. By delineating the different understandings of “life” and “desire”, we resolve several difficult points of interpretation over the years. During the discussion, the paper also reveals the functions of similar contents and keywords, by which the idea of “Guisheng” permeates into the chapters of ‘Twelve Chronicles’, thus correcting the inappropriate understanding of the textual organization and narrative logic of Lüshi Chunqiu suggested by a few scholars. The intertextual structure shows that the thoughts found in Lüshi Chunqiu are neither a physical “aggregation” nor a chemical “synthesis,” but are akin to “welding” in engineering. Only when we perceive the so-called central idea from a pluralistic perspective can we fully recognise the characteristics and value of this book.

Clustering analysis, a method used to reveal the hidden structure of texts through unsupervised machine learning algorithms, has been widely emplolyed in various types of data mining. In view of the fact that the study of pre-Qin and Han texts largely remains at the level of one-way search through databases, with little attention given to the various tools of artificial intelligence, this article attempts to use clustering analysis to re-examine the themes and structure of the Twelve Chronicles in "Lushi Chunqiu", a long-standing and controversial issue, so as to demonstrate the possibility of interplay and dialogue between digital humanities and ancient texts. We first revisit different views concerning the main themes and structural organizations of the Twelve Chronicles over the past few hundred years and then introduce the principles of cluster analysis, as well as the digital tools and parameters used in this study. In order to illustrate the validity of this approach, a comparison is made between the clustering results of the Four Chronicles and previous studies. We then focus on the heterogeneous elements of the text and analyze their unique connecting functions, thereby revealing the structural patterns of the Twelve Chronicles. The findings of this article demonstrate that text mining can indeed open up new horizons for the study of ancient Chinese texts. It not only help identify the new problems but also offers solutions to the old ones, with abundant opportunities for further development.

聚類分析(Clustering analysis)能夠通過非監督式機器學習算法(unsupervised machine learning algorithms)揭示文本的隱藏結構，已被廣泛地應用在不同類型的文本探勘(data mining)中。鑑於現時先秦兩漢文獻的研究主要停留在資料庫的單向檢索層次，對人工智能的各種工具還未有足夠的重視，本文嘗試運用聚類分析法重新考察《呂氏春秋．十二紀》的主題和結構這個聚訟紛紜的老問題，藉此展示數位人文與上古文獻之間的相互作用(interplay)和對話的可能性。文章首先回顧近數百年來有關《十二紀》內容主題和結構編排的不同意見，繼而介紹聚類分析的原理，以及本文選用的數位工具和參數設定，並把〈四紀〉的聚類結果與過去的研究加以比對，說明此一方法的效度。接著文章會聚焦在異質性文本的元素，分析其獨特的連接功能，揭示《十二紀》的結構模式。本文的成果顯示文本探勘確能為古代文獻研究開拓嶄新視野，不但有助發現新問題，亦能夠解決舊有問題，尚有不少空間值得繼續開發。

This chapter builds on the results of a collaborative, interdisciplinary project involving Toby Miller, Hamid Naficy, Faye Ginsburg, Rod Stoneman, Mike Pokorny, and John Sedgwick, among others. The purpose of the collaborative project, the results of which appear in the edited volume entitled Film and Risk, 1 is to demonstrate that thinking about risk provides an opportunity for further concept development in the area of Film Studies, and a means of deepening our understanding of a wide range of well-established topics, including cinematic authorship, film spectatorship, film festivals, film and cultural policy, and screen acting. My aim here is to explore the extent to which focusing on risk can help to sharpen ongoing debates about small-nation filmmaking. Part of the specificity of small-nation filmmaking, I believe, is that it is both "risk diverse" and "risk intensive", and this for reasons that are worth spelling out.