NOTES

Introduction

1. See James J. Y. Liu, Chinese Theories of Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975).

2. George Steiner, Language and Silence (New York: Atheneum, 1967), P. 9.

3. James J. Y. Liu, Elizabethan and Yuan (London: China Society Occasional Papers No. 8, 1955).

4. James J. Y. Liu, The Art of Chinese Poetry (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962).

5. James J. Y. Liu, “Towards a Chinese Theory of Poetry,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, No. 15 (1966). Reprinted with slight revisions in The Poetry of Li Shang-yin (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969).

6. Liu, The Art of Chinese Poetry, p. 96.

7. Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 202.

8. Ibid.

9. Mikel Dufrenne, Le Poétique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963), p. 6; Language and Philosophy, trans. H. B. Veatch (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963), p. 80; Phénoménologie de l’expérience esthétique (2d ed., Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967), p. 679; English translation as The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience by Edward S. Casey et al. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), p. 554.

10. Roman Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, trans. George G. Grabowicz (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), p. 357. Similar ideas have been expressed by others, e.g., Georges Poulet, “Phenomenology of Reading,” New Literary History, Vol. I, No. 1 (1969), pp. 53-68.

11. Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 202.

12. Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, pp. lxxix-lxxxiii.

13. For further discussions, see A. C. Graham, “‘Being’ in Classical Chinese,” in John W. M. Verhaar, ed., The Verb ‘Be’ and Its Synonyms (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1967).

14. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 4 (1977).

Chapter 1. The Tetradic Circle

1. This diagram is a modified version of the one I used in Chinese Theories of Literature. D. W. Fokkema, in his review of this book in Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Letters, Vol. 8 (1978), and in his article “Chinese and Renaissance Artes Poeticae,” Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. XV, No. 2 (1978), questioned why I adopted M. H. Abrams’s model for the analysis of theories of literature rather than Roman Jakobson’s as developed in his well-known “Linguistics and Poetics,” in Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960). Actually, since I have rearranged the four elements in a circular diagram instead of Abrams’s triangular one, I am not really following his model. As for Jakobson’s, for one thing I think the terms “message” and “code” tend to revive the old dichotomy between “content” and “form,” and there are other questionable points such as those raised by Mary Louise Pratt in her book, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).

2. For the theory that literature is imitation speech act, see Richard Ohmann, “Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 4 (1971); and his “Literature as Act” in Seymour Chatman, ed., Approaches to Poetics (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1973). For arguments against Ohmann’s use of fictionality as criterion for literature, see Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse, pp. 91-96.

3. The locus classicus of “locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts” is J. L. Austin’s How To Do Things with Words (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962). Austin’s theory has been elaborated by others, e.g., John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Samuel Levin, “Concerning What Kind of Speech Act a Poem Is,” in T. A. Van Dijk, ed., Pragmatics of Language and Literature (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1976).

4. Wang Youcheng ji zhu, juan 7, 6b.

5. See Stanley E. Fish, “How Ordinary is Ordinary Language?” New Literary History, Vol. V, No. 1 (1973); John M. Ellis, The Theory of Literary Criticism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1974), p. 27; and Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse, pp. 3-37.

6. Tzvetan Todorov in his article “The Notion of Literature,” New Literary History, Vol. V, No. 1 (1973), concludes by saying, “perhaps literature does not exist?” (p. 16).

7. See William P. Alston, Philosophy of Language (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 88-95.

8. For “occasion,” see Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, trans. D. F. and L. M. Swanson (London: Oxford University Press, 1946), I, pp. 193-95.

9. Renjian cihua, with notes by Xu Tiaofu (Peking, 1955), p. 3.

10. Liu, The Art of Chinese Poetry, p. 99.

11. M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp. 272-85.

12. R. G. Collingwood, The Principles of Art (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), pp. 128-30.

13. Ibid.

14. Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, p. 243.

15. Ibid., p. 218. Original italics.

16. Ibid., p. 221. Original italics.

17. Jean-Paul Sartre, The Psychology of Imagination (New York: Philosophical Library, 1948), p. 278.

18. Mikel Dufrenne, Phénoménologie de l’expérience esthétique, p. 244; English translation, p. 186.

19. Ibid., p. 235; English translation, p. 178.

20. Jiang Kui, Baishi shishuo (Lidai shihua ed.), p. 1.

21. Yan Yu, Canglang shihua (Lidai shihua ed.), pp. 3, 18, 19.

22. Wang Guowei, Renjian cihua, pp. 5, 18, 19.

23. Dufrenne, Phénoménologie de l’expérience esthétique, p. 235; English translation, p. 177.

24. Baishi shishuo, p. 4; quoted in Liu, Chinese Theories of Literature, p. 45.

25. Liu, Chinese Theories of Literature, pp. 43-45.

26. Jacques Maritain, Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry (New York: Pantheon Books, 1953), pp. 141-45.

27. Lu Ji, Wenfu, in Lu Shiheng ji (Sibu beiyao ed.), p. 2; quoted in Liu, Chinese Theories of Literature, pp. 72-73.

28. Li He, Li Changji geshi (Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1958), p. 154.

29. Xie He, Siming shihua (Lidai shihua ed.), juan 3, p. 2; quoted in Chinese Theories of Literature, pp. 40-41.

30. Ye Xie, Yuan shi (Qing shihua ed.), p. 2.

31. John Dewey, Art as Experience (New York: Minton, Balch & Co., 1934), p. 54.

32. Paul Ricoeur, “The Model of the Text,” New Literary History, Vol. V, No. 1 (1973), p. 96. See also his The Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974).

33. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 7-9.

34. James J. Y. Liu, Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 6.

35. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr., The Verbal Icon (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1967), pp. 69-83.

36. Western Humanities Review, March 1970, p. 355.

37. Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (New York: Atheneum, 1970), pp. 73-82.

Chapter 2. The Critic as Reader

1. John M. Ellis, The Theory of Literary Criticism, pp. 20-22.

2. Wolfgang Iser, “The Reading Process: a Phenomenological Approach,” New Literary History, Vol. III, No. 2 (1972), reprinted in his The Implied Reader (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). For further discussions, see his The Act of Reading (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).

3. Edmund Husserl, Logical Investigations, trans. N. Findlay (New York: Humanities Press, 1970), pp. 314-15, quoted in Robert Magliola, Phenomenology and Literature (W. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1977), p. 103.

4. Ibid. Paul Ricoeur echoes Husserl on this point in his Interpretation Theory (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), p. 13.

5. Yuxisheng shi jianzhu (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 2, 35a.

6. Translation adapted from Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 152.

7. Ibid.

8. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, Harvard-Yenching Sinological Index Series, Supplement 14, p. 54.

9. Translation reprinted with slight revisions from James J. Y. Liu, Essentials of Chinese Literary Art (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1979), pp. 20-21.

10. Li Taibo shiji (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 6, 12b. Translation published for the first time.

11. Cf. Bernhard Karlgren, The Book of Odes (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1974), No. 94. For the interpretation of the last word, zang, as “hide,” see Qu Wanli, Shijing shiyi (Taibei, 1953), p. 63.

12. Translation reprinted from Liu, Essentials of Chinese Literary Art, p. 16.

13. Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, pp. 246, 250, 280, 331, 338, 341.

14. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 80.

15. It should be noted that jimo here means “unheard of” or “obscure” and modifies shen (“person” or “life”), not shi (“affair”). Despite William Hung’s correct paraphrase of the last line as “Will rise after an unappreciated life is past” in his Tu Fu: China’s Greatest Poet (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 134, subsequent translators have persisted in rendering jimo as “forlorn,” “lonely,” or “paltry,” and regarding it as modifying shi. There is no reason why Du Fu should think of posthumous fame this way; he is lamenting the lack of fame during his lifetime. See David Hawkes, A Little Primer of Tu Fu (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 97; A. R. Davis, Tu Fu (New York: Twayne, 1971), p. 148; Eugene Eoyang’s translation in Wu-chi Liu and Irving Yucheng Lo, eds., Sunflower Splendor (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1975), p. 129; Wai-lim Yip, Chinese Poetry: Major Modes and Genres (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1976), p. 392. In fact, Du Fu’s use of jimo here is similar to Li Bo’s in the line gulai shengxian jie jimo (Li Taibo shiji, juan 3, 13b)—erroneously translated by Arthur Waley as “The Saints and Sages of old times are all stock and still” in his The Poetry and Career of Li Po (London: Allen and Unwin, 1950), p. 46, but correctly though freely rendered by A. C. Graham as “They lie forgotten, the sages of old,” in Cyril Birch, ed., An Anthology of Chinese Literature, Vol. I (New York: Grove Press, 1965), p. 232. Li Bo is also using jimo in the sense of “unheard of,” in ironic contrast to the next line, wei you yinzhe liu qi ming, “Only drinkers have left their names behind.”

16. See Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, pp. 138-43.

17. Shuen-fu Lin, The Transformation of the Chinese Lyrical Tradition: Chiang K’uei and Southern Sung Tz’u Poetry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 65-93.

18. Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi (Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), p. 282. Translation published for the first time.

19. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, pp. 78 ff.

20. For an example, see J. R. Hightower, “The Wen Hsüan and Genre Theory,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 20, Nos. 3-4 (1957).

21. Benedetto Croce, Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic, trans. Douglas Ainslie (London: Macmillan & Co., 1929), p. 38.

22. See Liu, Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung, pp. 121 ff.

23. For the yuefu, see Hans H. Frankel, “Yüeh-fu Poetry,” in Cyril Birch, ed., Studies in Chinese Literary Genres (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 69-101.

24. Hong Shunlong, Xie Xuancheng ji jiaozhu (Taibei, 1969), p. 194. New translation.

25. Ibid.

26. E.g., in the Tang shi sanbaishou.

27. Li Taibo shiji, juan 5, 12a. New translation.

Chapter 3. The Critic as Translator

1. Jan W. Walls has made a similar distinction between “poet-translator” and “pedagogical-literary translator” in his article “The Craft of Translating Poetic Structures and Patterns: Fidelity to Form,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, No. 24 (1975).

2. James J. Y. Liu, “Polarity of Aims and Methods: Naturalization or Barbarization?” ibid.

3. Quoted with approval by Achilles Fang in “Some Reflections on the Difficulty of Translation,” in Reuben A. Brower, ed., On Translation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 133.

4. Quoted in Paul Selver, The Art of Translating Poetry (Boston: The Writer, Inc., 1966), p. 26.

5. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, ed. with an introduction by Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968), pp. 80-81.

6. Arthur Cooper, Li Po and Tu Fu (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 49.

7. Review of Burton Watson’s Chinese Rhyme-prose, in Asia Major, Vol. XVIII, Pt. 2 (1973), p. 253.

8. See Wai-lim Yip, Chinese Poetry: Major Modes and Genres, Introduction.

9. Liu, The Art of Chinese Poetry, pp. 40-41.

10. This line occurs in two anonymous ancient poems.

11. Wu-chi Liu and Irving Yucheng Lo, eds., Sunflower Splendor, p. 131.

12. Wang Youcheng ji zhu, juan 7, 11b.

13. For a somewhat fuller discussion, see Liu, Essentials of Chinese Literary Art, pp. 26-27.

14. Elizabeth Closs Traugott, “On the Expression of Spatiotemporal Relations in Language,” in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, eds., Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978).

15. Li Taibo shiji, juan 23, 10a. New translation.

16. Burton Watson, Chinese Lyricism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 7.

17. Wang Youcheng ji zhu, juan 13, 2a.

18. The Art of Chinese Poetry, p. 40.

19. Shakespeare, Macbeth, I, vii, 25-28.

20. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, II, i, 15-18.

21. Roman Ingarden, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, trans. Ruth Ann Crowley and Kenneth R. Olson (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. 50-52.

22. A notable exception is Eugene Eoyang, who emphasized the importance of “tone” in his article “The Tone of the Poet and the Tone of the Translator,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, No. 24 (1975).

Chapter 4. The Critic as Interpreter

1. Peter Szondi, “Introduction to Literary Hermeneutics,” New Literary History, Vol. X, No. 1 (1978), pp. 17-28.

2. D. W. Fokkema, “Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature,” Tamkang Review, Vol. III, No. 2 (1972), p. 60.

3. Quoted in Wellek, Concepts of Criticism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), p. 12.

4. Ibid.

5. For a somewhat different definition of historicism, see Fokkema, “Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature,” p. 59.

6. Wellek, Concepts of Criticism, p. 7.

7. Roy Harvey Pearce, Historicism Again (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 19.

8. For the terms “presentism” and “presenticentrism,” see Fokkema, “Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature,” p. 60.

9. J. D. Frodsham, New Perspectives in Chinese Literature (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1970).

10. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 4.

11. René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3d ed. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962), p. 43. This use of the term “perspectivism” differs from Hirsch’s, which refers to psychological and historical skepticism. See The Aims of Interpretation, p. 27.

12. Wellek, Concepts of Criticism, pp. 16-17.

13. Fokkema, “Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature,” p. 63.

14. Wellek, Concepts of Criticism, p. 19.

15. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, ch. 2.

16. As every linguist knows, though perhaps not every Sinologist, the distinction between langue and parole was first made by Ferdinand de Saussure.

17. Hans Robert Jauss, “The Alterity and Modernity of Medieval Literature,” New Literary History, Vol. X, No. 2 (1979), p. 182.

18. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, p. 8.

19. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation, p. 19.

20. Yuxisheng shi jianzhu, juan 6, 31b.

21. Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 160.

22. It is interesting that the anonymous compilers of Li Shangyin shixuan (“Selected Poems of Li Shangyin,” Peking, 1978) also prefer a more general interpretation to an allegorical one (p. 206).

23. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, p. 74.

24. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation, p. 32. John M. Ellis describes a similar process, which he calls “interpretative cycle,” in The Theory of Literary Criticism, pp. 194-210.

25. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 63. For an unpunctuated text, see the Sibu beiyao edition, juan 2, 1a-b.

26. Qiu Zhao’ao, Du shi xiangzhu, juan 4, 24a.

Chapter 5. The Critic as Arbiter

1. Fokkema, “Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature,” p. 65.

2. Wellek, Concepts of Criticism, p. 17.

3. Ingarden, “Artistic and Aesthetic Values,” in Harold Osborne, ed., Aesthetics (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 46.

4. Ibid., pp. 48-52.

5. Dufrenne, Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience, pp. 61-63.

6. Ibid., p. 62.

7. Collingwood, The Principles of Art, pp. 109-11.

8. T. S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949), p. 118.

9. Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 205.

10. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 409.

11. Han Yu, Han Changli quanji (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 16, 11a.

12. Zhao Yi, Oubei shihua (Peking: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1963), pp. 19, 31, 32, 38, 39, 63, 184-86.

13. Liu, Chinese Theories of Literature, pp. 36-37, 90-92.

14. Ibid., pp. 79-81.

15. The second character in Li Bi’s name is usually given as , with the “jade” radical beneath, but according to the Siku quanshu zongmu, juan 153, 44a, it should be written , with the “earth” radical.

16. Wang Anshi, Linchuan xiansheng wenji (Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1958), p. 310. I published a slightly different translation of this poem in Renditions, No. 1 (Hong Kong, 1973).

17. Qian Zhongshu, ed., Song shi xuanzhu (Peking: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1958), pp. 25-26.

18. Ibid.

19. Wang Youcheng ji zhu, juan 13, 7b. New translation.

20. The title of Monk Xianzhong’s poem is partially homophonous with Wang Wei’s, though not written with identical characters.

21. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, pp. 71-72.

22. See note 6 to chapter 2.

23. Victor Erlich, “Limits of the Biographical Approach,” Comparative Literature, Vol. VI (1954), p. 133.

24. See Liu, Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung, pp. 48-49; Essentials of Chinese Literary Art, pp. 18-19.

25. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation, pp. 124-45.

26. George Steiner, “Critic/Reader,” New Literary History, Vol. X, No. 3 (1979), pp. 436 ff.

Chapter 6. A Critical Exercise

1. Elizabeth Closs Traugott, “On the Expression of Spatiotemporal Relations in Language,” in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, eds., Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978).

2. Li Taibo shiji, juan 18, 13b. Also in Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 66.

3. Shakespeare, Macbeth, V, v, 19-20.

4. Guillaume Apollinaire, “Le Pont Mirabeau,” in Alcools (Paris: Éditions de la Nouvelle Revue Française, 1920), p. 16.

5. Yuxisheng shi jianzhu, juan 3, 30b.

6. Reprinted with slight revisions from Liu, The Poetry of Li Shang-yin, p. 150.

7. Christina Georgina Rossetti, “Song,” in Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, ed., The Oxford Book of English Verse (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939), pp. 964-65.

8. Han Changli quanji, juan 1, 22b.

9. Stephen Owen, The Poetry of Meng Chiao and Han Yü (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975), p. 258.

10. Shakespeare, Sonnet CIV.

11. Shakespeare, Sonnet XVIII.

12. In Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 54. New translation.

13. Henry Vaughan, “The Retreat,” in The Oxford Book of English Verse, p. 407.

14. Dongpo ji (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 1, 4b. New translation.

15. Ibid. New translation.

16. Cf. Burton Watson, trans., Su Tung-p’o: Selections from a Sung Dynasty Poet (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1965), p. 26.

17. Andrew Marvell, “To His Coy Mistress,” in The Oxford Book of English Verse, p. 399.

18. Jingjie xiansheng ji (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 4, 5b. New translation.

19. J. R. Hightower, trans., The Poetry of T’ao Ch’ien (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 191.

20. The Poems of Emily Dickinson, ed. Thomas H. Johnson (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1955), Vol. III, p. 1131 (No. 1656).

21. Jingjie xiansheng ji, juan 4, 6b. New translation.

22. Hightower, The Poetry of T’ao Ch’ien, p. 198.

23. Jingjie xiansheng ji, juan 2, 2a-b. New translation.

24. Hightower, The Poetry of T’ao Ch’ien, p. 44.

25. Liu, Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung, p. 155.

26. Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 290. New translation.

27. Jingjie xiansheng ji, juan 4, 12a.

28. Cf. Hightower, The Poetry of T’ao Ch’ien, p. 224, and James J. Y. Liu, The Chinese Knight-Errant (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 78.

29. Li Changji geshi, p. 54. New translation.

30. Cf. A. C. Graham, trans., Poems of the Late T’ang (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 100.

31. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 472. New translation.

32. Cf. Hans Frankel, The Flowering Plum and the Palace Lady (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), p. 117.

33. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 415. I have adopted the variant reading for in line 6 and for in line 8.

34. This version differs somewhat from the one I made jointly with Irving Lo in Sunflower Splendor, p. 143.

35. David Hawkes, A Little Primer of Tu Fu, p. 202.

36. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 1.

37. Cf. William Hung, Tu Fu: China’s Greatest Poet, pp. 56-57.

38. For a perceptive discussion of this poem in a different context and from a different point of view, see Shuen-fu Lin, The Transformation of the Chinese Lyrical Tradition, pp. 100-106.

39. Luo Cheng Ji (Congshu jicheng ed.), juan 4, 73.

40. Reprinted with slight revisions from Liu, The Chinese Knight-Errant, P. 79.

41. Li Taibo shiji, juan 22, 20b. Also in Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 170. New translation.

42. Wang Youcheng ji zhu, juan 3, 4b. Also in Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 150.

43. Cf. Wai-lim Yip, Chinese Poetry: Major Modes and Genres, p. 252, where the translation omits the words for chu and shi.

44. I am using the terms “dynamic image” and “static image” with regard to semantics only, irrespective of whether a word is a noun or a verb. In this I differ from Kao Yu-kung and Mei Tsu-lin, who appear to identify the former with verb and the latter with noun. See their article, “Syntax, Diction, and Imagery in T’ang Poetry,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 31 (1971).

45. Yu Shouzhen, Tang shi sanbaishou xiangxi, p. 214. New translation.

46. A Concordance to the Poems of Tu Fu, p. 411.

47. Ibid., p. 472. New translation.

48. Hawkes, A Little Primer of Tu Fu, p. 177.

49. Frankel, The Flowering Plum and the Palace Lady, p. 117.

50. Sunflower Splendor, p. 140.

51. Li Taibo shiji, juan 2, 9a.

52. I published a different translation of this poem in Oriental Art, Vol. III, No. 4 (Oxford, 1951).

53. I owe the idea for this interpretation to a former student of mine, Dr. Cynthia Chennault.

54. Paul Ricoeur, “The Model of the Text,” New Literary History, Vol. V, No. 1 (1973), p. 96.

Epilogue

1. In William Tay, Ying-hsiung Chou, and Heh-hsiang Yuan, eds., China and the West: Comparative Literature Studies (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1980).

2. In Tamkang Review, Vol. X, Nos. 1 and 2 (1979).

3. See note 1 above.

4. Ibid., p. 13.

5. Ibid., p. iii.

6. “The Study of Chinese Literature in the West: Recent Developments, Current Trends, Future Prospects,” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. XXXV, No. 1 (1975), p. 28.

7. Ibid.