A History of Chinese Literature?

It is difficult enough to write the history of a national literature where this history is relatively short, as in Russian or American literature. The problem becomes exponentially larger with a national literature that spans three millennia, and, measured by sheer volume of text, might well be larger than all other national literatures combined. Yet writing a history of Chinese literature is not impossible. Over the last century, a number of efforts have been made in various languages: many in Chinese, a good number in Japanese, and about twenty in European languages, including a few in English (none of which are mentioned in the book under review). Writing yet another history of Chinese literature has to take this fact into account because each new such history is built -not always consciously on previous efforts. To a greater extent than is sometimes acknowledged, our own limitations are inherited. In some particular instances we might be successful in transcending this heritage; but for the larger part, we remain confined to it. Each new history of literature inevitably joins the process of canonizing, anthologizing, and tradition-making that is, to no small extent, the very subject under study. Thus, the conventional version of Chinese literary history that matches particular genres with particular dynasties--Han fu ,i, Tang shi * , Song ci *I-J, Yuan qu -iP, Ming-Qing xiaoshuo KAV /J\TR--is the direct result of such history-cum-canonization. This scheme simultaneously mirrors and confirms the prevalent research interests in Chinese literature, perpetuating the limitations of past inquiry as expectations for future work. Once accepted in a scholarly community, the reproduction of the conventional version reigns as a matter of convenience for all.