Well, Let's Talk About Ye Jiaying
好吧，說說葉嘉瑩
By Luo Xiaohu (罗小虎)
【Editor’s Note: Ye Jiaying (叶嘉瑩) is often celebrated as a "scholar of Chinese classical literature and poet," but her academic contributions are debatable. Critics argue that her work lacks the rigorous methodology of both traditional and modern scholarship. Traditional Chinese scholarship emphasizes moral principles (义理) or textual criticism (考证), valuing classical studies over poetry. Similarly, modern scholarship requires clear research questions, comprehensive reviews of previous studies, and original arguments—standards her work does not consistently meet. While Ye’s interpretations, such as those on Wang Guowei (王国维), Du Fu (杜甫), and Wu Wenying (吴文英), have garnered attention, critics claim she adds little originality and fails to deeply engage with ideological or historical contexts. Her works often appear as personal aesthetic reflections rather than substantive analyses. Despite her poetic finesse, her interpretations are seen as superficial compared to foundational scholarly texts. Nevertheless, her evaluation of Wang Jingwei’s (汪精卫) poetry stands out as uniquely daring.】
With the passing of Ye Jiaying (叶嘉莹), many refer to her as a "scholar of Chinese classical literature and poet." I have some doubts about this designation because I believe that Ye Jiaying hasn't truly entered the realm of academic scholarship; she's more of an appreciator. Why do I say this? 】
From the perspective of traditional scholarship, one either focuses on moral principles (义理) or textual criticism (考证), or both. In traditional academia, writing is meant to convey the Dao (道), and classical studies (经学) are the true path. Poetry and lyrics are merely for expressing emotions and are not considered scholarly pursuits. Some even believe that poetry can hinder serious academic work. For instance, in Dream of the Red Chamber (《红楼梦》), Jia Zheng scolds Jia Baoyu precisely for this reason: he spends his time on "licentious verses and seductive songs." Therefore, although Wang Guowei (王国维) wrote Renjian Cihua (《人间词话》), his reputation as a scholar is established by his works in paleography, such as Yin-Shang Systematic Studies (《殷商制度考》), not by Renjian Cihua. So, people from the May Fourth era or those who received traditional education might indeed reject Ye Jiaying's work, feeling that it's all about trivial sentiments.
From the perspective of modern scholarship, do Ye Jiaying's works count as academic? The basic norms of modern scholarship require identifying a research question, summarizing previous studies, and finally presenting one's own viewpoints and research methods, followed by argumentation. Research in ancient literature also follows these standards. Let me give a simple example: What does "xing" (兴) mean in the "Six Arts" of the Book of Songs—"Feng" (风), "Ya" (雅), "Song" (颂), "Fu" (赋), "Bi" (比), and "Xing" (兴)? From Confucius and Zhu Xi to the present, there have been many interpretations. Today, Zhu Xi's explanation is widely accepted: "Xing is to first mention other things to introduce what is being sung." A contemporary scholar, starting from paleography (小学), uses etymology and the usage of "xing" in pre-Qin texts to prove this point. In comparison, do Ye Jiaying's works pose questions, review previous research, and offer her own insights?
Therefore, her works are not scholarly but rather appreciative.
Of course, with the introduction of Western aesthetics, appreciation, and commentary are also considered aesthetics and can now barely count as scholarship. But unfortunately, she doesn't have her own unique insights.
As a remnant of the Qing dynasty and a representative of conservative thought, Wang Guowei (王国维) harbored deep sorrow over the fall of the nation. Ye Jiaying first became famous for interpreting Wang Guowei, but it seems she didn't understand the thoughts behind Wang's poetry and lyrics. Instead, her interpretations of Wang Guowei are quite poor, often using grand and abstract terms like the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of free and independent spirit to describe Wang Guowei—tantamount to saying nothing. Such words are too vague. I even think she may not have considered the relationship between Wang Guowei's conservative ideology and Renjian Cihua.
The second thing people praise is Ye Jiaying's interpretation of Du Fu (杜甫). I can only say that contemporary scholars haven't read the Qing dynasty scholars Qiu Zhaoa'o (仇兆鳌) and Yang Lun's (杨伦) interpretations of Du Fu. You should know that over a thousand years, many have interpreted Du Fu. Qiu Zhaoa'o's Detailed Annotations of Du Fu's Poems (《杜诗详注》) and Yang Lun's Mirror and Annotation of Du Fu's Poems (《杜诗镜铨》) are required readings for graduate students studying Du Fu. Ye Jiaying merely extracted some vernacular explanations and didn't offer her own insights; sometimes, she didn't even provide sources.
Some also praise Ye Jiaying's work on the ci poetry of Wu Wenying (吴文英), claiming she has cleared biases and argued for its modern beauty. Chinese textbooks have long praised the formal beauty of Wu Wenying's ci, the so-called "seven-colored tower" (七宝楼台), and have analyses that include modern psychological descriptions. This is not Ye's original contribution. Why do some people have biases against Wu Wenying? For example, Wang Guowei's evaluation of Wu Wenying in Renjian Cihua is quite low, saying that Wu's ci has the flaw of being "obscure" (隔). He further disparages his ci as "superficial" and "withered" and describes him as a person of "limited talent." In fact, Wang Guowei was deeply dissatisfied with the late Qing "Zhexi Poetry School" (浙西诗派), which revered the Southern Song dynasty (especially Jiang Kui). He dismissed Wu Wenying, Shi Dazu, Zhang Yan, Zhou Mi, and Chen Yunping as "hypocrites" (乡愿), completely negating their ideological value. Why did Wang Guowei detest the "Zhexi Poetry School" so much? Because the "Zhexi Poetry School" believed that ci "should be used for banquets and leisurely enjoyment, to sing the praises of peace." To the remnant subject Wang Guowei, this was simply the sound of a fallen nation. In contrast, he highly praised Xin Qiji (辛弃疾), who bravely resisted the Jin invaders: "Since the Northern Song, there has been only one person." Therefore, evaluations of Wu Wenying have long varied in history. Understanding why requires analyzing the thoughts of the evaluators. As the saying goes, "The Six Classics annotate me; I annotate the Six Classics." Interpreting ancient literature (ancient poetry and ci) also requires understanding the author's classical thoughts.
Looking at Ye Jiaying's interpretations of ancient poetry and her so-called aesthetics, they are more or less about her own trivial sentiments. The people being interpreted appear vague and indistinct. This is somewhat like Jiang Xun (蒋勋), who is also in mainland China fervently discussing the aesthetics of classical literature. While beautiful, unfortunately, it's superficial and filled with lice.
I have no patience for reading the popular collections of classical poetry appreciation. They are extremely verbose, and all their content doesn't go beyond Guo Shaoyu's (郭绍虞) History of Chinese Classical Literary Criticism (《中国古代文学批评史》), Xu Zhongyu and Qian Gurong's (徐中玉, 钱谷融) Literary Works of Past Dynasties (《古代历代文学作品》), and Wang Li's (王力) Ancient Chinese (《古代汉语》). These few books are just introductory courses for undergraduate students in Chinese departments.
The only somewhat original thing Ye Jiaying has done is her evaluation of Wang Jingwei's (汪精卫) poetry (The Jingwei Complex in Wang Jingwei's Poetry and Ci [《汪精卫诗词中的精卫情结》]). It's not that her evaluation is particularly good, but that others can't discuss it, and she did—you know why.
Finally, I want to point out that the beauty of Chinese poetry and ci lies primarily in the beauty of artistic conception. This kind of beauty is actually difficult to express in words and can only be experienced personally. Attached are two of Ye Jiaying's poems:
In 1976, before the end of the Cultural Revolution, Ye Jiaying was in Canada. She wrote an elegy for Mao Zedong (毛泽东), published in the September 22 issue of the American Chinese Daily (《美洲华侨日报》):
On Jinggang Mountain, you built the army; at Zunyi County, you held meetings,
Traversed the Long March of twenty-five thousand li.
In "Ode to the Plum Blossom," you expressed your will; in "Niannujiao"poem， you questioned the birds,
Endured eighty-two years.
You opened a new era, saved the nation in peril,
Your strategies surpass those of Han Wudi and Qin Shi Huang.
Your writings fill volumes; your fame overshadows the world,
Your thoughts, like high mountains, will last forever.
Again, in 2019, to cooperate with the promotion of Xi Jinping's Thought, she published this poem, "Composed for the Learning Platform of the Central Propaganda Department's 'Study Strong Nation'":
Chinese poetic teachings spread across the seas,
We are permitted to climb the peaks of Li Bai and Du Fu.
We have already seen the new atmosphere of the old nation,
Ready to wield colorful brushes to write about the rivers and mountains.
Additionally, here's Qian Zhongshu's (钱锺书) evaluation of Ye Jiaying:
"Ms. Ye Jiaying has kindly visited twice and favored me with her Collected Essays on Ci Poetry (《迦陵论词集》), along with a mimeographed copy of her critique on Wang Jing'an's (Wang Guowei) commentary on Dream of the Red Chamber as accompaniment. She has read quite a bit and possesses some literary sense, but ultimately, it's like 'looking at peach and plum blossoms on the flower peddler's shoulder poles.' Just compare her essay on the 'Changzhou School' in her collection and the one on 'Wang's Commentary on "Dream of the Red Chamber"' with pages 79–83 and 117–122 in my Also Collection (《也是集》). Then she will see how my humble scholarship reaches the roots and goes straight to the subtlety; a few thousand words surpass her tens of thousands. As for Western books, she hasn't yet read Schopenhauer's original works, let alone others; her citations of T.S. Eliot and Empson are nearly patchwork. Although she has spent half her life in America, her knowledge of Western studies is quite superficial. When young European and American scholars come to lecture, it also seems they haven't read their own country's classics; they merely parrot their professors' lecture notes, making frequent mistakes and errors. The old imperial tutor Johnston once said that in conversations with Hu Shi, he realized that Hu hadn't actually read Kant. This trend is widespread, just like Chinese scholars who have never read Du Fu or Han Yu but have grandly discussed Tang literature. Such wild talk is not for outsiders."
—See Qian Zhongshu's letter to Song Qi dated November 1, 1984, included in Letters from Qian Zhongshu and Yang Jiang to Friends (《钱锺书杨绛亲友书札》), page 117, published by the Sanlian Bookstore in May 2024.
This translation is authorized by the original author and undertaken by the China Thought Express editorial team. The original text can be found here:
Kindly attribute the translation if referenced.
NOV 29, 2024