Concise Comparative Literature: The Path of Self and Other Cognition

Author: Sun Jingyao
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-07-01
Features: Regarding "Kuangyi," it differs from "Geyi" and is a comparative study that interprets ancient Chinese Confucian concepts using Western religious and cultural thought through the comparative exploration of similarities and differences in matters and principles. In the terminology of Western missionaries, it was called "" (correcting Confucianism with Western teachings) or "" (transforming Confucianism with Western teachings), while in the Chinese Western scholars, it was referred to as "" (enlisting the help of the (i.e., Catholicism) to supplement Confucianism). Xu Guangqi believed that Western "sacred learning" was "in harmony with the principles of Chinese Confucianism" and could be "mutually examined and cross-referenced." Li Zhi, in the preface to "," also stated: "The way of Western sages differs greatly from that of the Buddhist and Taoist sages, yet it aligns closely with the teachings of Yao, Shun, Zhou, and Confucius." In his memorial "," he further remarked that Western writings "in terms of their principles and reasoning, can be mutually illuminating with the sages of our land," even asserting that "to revere the Lord in heaven is akin to the Confucian service of God."
The "Seven Kinds of Vices" (), published in 1614, is an important work by the Spanish missionary Pomdieu. Yang Tingyun, in the preface to "·," compared and evaluated it: "All love bestowed is pure Dao, and the Dao is the heart of heaven. Step by step, it guides one closer to the truth. This kind of learning aligns with the Confucian principle of self-cultivation, resonating deeply. The profound insights and enlightening wisdom of this book are captivating, leaving one unable to put it down. It transcends mere enlightenment, sparking sudden insights and fostering a divine connection." The transition from "profound insights" to "divine connection" in the phrase "" to "" exemplifies this typical "Kuangyi" comparative study, along with the translation and interpretation of the term "Lord" (), which evolved from the transliteration "Tousi" to the ancient term "" (Lord in the Six Classics) and was later equated with the Confucian "" (serving God). The fundamental difference between "Kuangyi" and "Geyi" lies in the use of Western Christian theology to interpret pre-Qin Confucianism, transforming it into theological thought. "Kuangyi" was indeed the title of a translated work, specifically the Chinese translation of "Aesop's Fables" by the French Jesuit Jean Nicolas Audoin, dictated by him to the Chinese scholar Zhang Geng in 1625. The postscript by Xie Maojing, written after the book, clearly explains: "Having read Mr. Zhang's 'Kuangyi,' I asked him, 'What does the title 'Kuangyi' signify?' He replied, 'It means comparison.'" Xie further elaborated: " (yi) means appropriateness; it also means meaning. To understand its meaning is to grasp its appropriateness." This implies that comparison of terms reveals their appropriateness, and one must "emulate its meaning" to fully understand its significance. The translation and style of the book reflect this Sino-Western fusion. After translating the stories of "Aesop's Fables," the text concludes with "" (Commentary by Yi) to provide insights, always interpreting the themes of the fables through the lens of traditional Confucian concepts. For example, after translating the story of "The North Wind and the Sun," it summarizes: ": Governing people with punishments is inferior to governing them with virtue." This succinctly captures the Confucian idea from the Analects·Government: "To govern by law and discipline with punishments will make the people avoid punishment but without shame; to govern by virtue and regulate with rites will make the people ashamed but reform." Similarly, in the ninth story, "The Crow and the Fox," after narrating the tale, it concludes: ": Flattery may hide ulterior motives. To reject flattery is to reject foolishness." This reflects the Confucian teaching from the Analects: "Flattering words and pleasing appearances are rarely benevolent." The other stories follow the same pattern. Thus, from the title "Kuangyi" to the postscript, from the translated content to the style of expression, the book clearly embodies the characteristics of this new comparative literary study. Its influence on the introduction of Western learning to China was significant, as Liang Qichao noted, "it deserves a prominent place in the history of Chinese scholarship."
The revisiting of history serves present needs. This reflection on the past is also to provide a historical reference and valuable resource for the development of comparative literature in China today. As Mr. Qian Zhongshu said: "Perhaps some may argue that these scattered fragments lack significance and are merely isolated, spontaneous insights, not worthy of systematic, conscious theory. However, precisely because they are overlooked and forgotten, they are all the more deserving of attention and preservation; spontaneous simplicity is the foundation of deliberate thoroughness."
### IV. The "Birth" of Comparative Literature as a Discipline
The ultimate formation of comparative literature as a discipline did not occur in China, a land with specialized terminology and a long tradition, but in modern capitalist Europe—a coincidence. As mentioned earlier, the origins and developmental factors of comparative literature as a discipline exist in both China and Europe. However, as an independent discipline, comparative literature, due to the international nature of its subject matter and the global scope of its perspective, emerged closely tied to the development of capitalism.
Europe, having experienced the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, as well as the Age of Discovery, had its worldview shift from a Mediterranean-centric vision to a global "spherical vision." Simultaneously, major scientific advancements such as Newton's mechanics, Galvani and Volta's electricity, and Watt's mechanics not only promoted material production and capitalism but also revolutionized social sciences and modes of cognition. Scientific observation and experimentation on the real world shattered the monopoly of scholastic theology and its deductive logic, while the theory of causation and evolution replaced the "divine providence" explanation. These developments laid a solid foundation and necessary conditions for the formation of modern European comparative literature in terms of perspective, cognition, modes of thinking, and research methods.
In 18th- and 19th-century Western Europe, with the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, as Marx and Engels noted in The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: "The scope of mutual influence among various activities has been expanding ever more, and history has increasingly become a history of the whole world." Comparative literature also entered its formative period at this time.
In the Western comparative literature tradition, the discipline is generally believed to have emerged in the 19th century, alongside studies on the influence of literature between European nations. The renowned French comparative literature master Victor Hugo, in his widely regarded introductory work Introduction to Comparative Literature, stated that the "first paper" on comparative literature appeared "in the early 19th century, when German literary histories began to give some attention to true comparative literature." Even in the 1980 book The Literary Handbook, edited by Professor Homans of the United States, it was still written that "in the 19th century, alongside comparative religious studies, European scholars began to develop theories and methods for comparative literary research between different countries and languages."
In reality, this traditional view, which confines comparative literature to "Europe" and "influence studies," does not align with historical facts. For by the 18th century, not only had parallel studies between Central European literatures emerged but also the first papers on the influence of European literature on one another had appeared. As mentioned earlier, after the 17th century, missionaries and merchants such as Ricci, Schall von Bell, Verbiest, and Wang T'ingchen brought not only numerous Chinese books and exquisite artifacts to Europe but also began translating and introducing Chinese classics. As the specific objects of comparative literary study—Chinese literature and texts—came to be presented to them, the product of the intersection between Chinese and European literatures—Sino-European parallel studies—was born.
The earliest translation and publication of Chinese drama in Europe was the Yuan Dynasty play "The Orphan of Zhao." The translator, Joseph de Prémare, was a French missionary in China, and the translation was first published in the 1735 edition of The General History of the Chinese Empire in Paris. Soon after, Voltaire, whose influence on modern thought was profound, compared "The Orphan of Zhao" with similar European plays in an article included in Voltaire's Complete Works, Volume 5. Voltaire believed that Chinese literature, like that of European nations, though differing due to climate, politics, and religion, shared many "rational and humanistic" principles and was always imbued with "rationalism." In his comparison, he remarked: "The story of 'The Orphan of Zhao' is both bizarre and fascinating; complex yet clear. Compared to contemporary French or European plays of the same period, it is undoubtedly far superior." While praising China, he did not hesitate to India and Persia: "The most developed and earliest drama poetry was undoubtedly the great China (though distant and often neglected) and Athens. Rome only flourished four hundred years later. Although both India and Persia were nations of great invention, you will never find such things there."
Of course, Voltaire was a classicist, and even his evaluation of Shakespeare was not entirely fair. He sometimes acknowledged Shakespeare's "great and rich talent," yet other times called him a "village clown," lacking "any good aesthetic sense" and "completely ignorant of rules," even going so far as to call him "Shakespeare's dung."
Because of his classicalism, Voltaire, when comparing Chinese and European drama, concluded that Chinese dramatic techniques were coarser and more naive than those of European classicism: "We can only compare 'The Orphan of Zhao' to tragedies from 16th-century England and Spain. Only those across the and beyond the Pyrenees can appreciate it." He even arbitrarily declared that Chinese drama was merely a "strange farce" or "a pile of irrational stories."