Abstract
The rise of Chinese–Western comparative literature studies, which is part of Eastern–Western comparative literature studies, expanded the focus of comparative literature from the age-old Eurocentrism to one with a more global orientation. This achievement owes considerably to three European and North American scholars: René Étiemble (1909–2002), Douwe Fokkema (1931–2011), and Earl Miner (1927–2004). Given the historical significance of their contributions, it is no exaggeration to regard these three scholars as the Troika from the West in the field of CWCLS. This article’s focus is on Earl Miner and his contribution toward the merge of sinology with comparative literature through a non-Orientalist’s approach that secured an equal opportunity for both Chinese and Western literatures. Earl Miner’s success owes much to the paradigm shifts in sinology that happened in the later half of the twentieth century. These shifts also played a role in the rise of New Sinology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Étiemble was, in addition to his familiarity with sinology, also a major European promoter of other literatures in the East.
Refer to Étiemble (1974).
Étiemble (1986, pp. 9–12).
The differences between a sinologist and a scholar of Chinese Studies are crucial to my research here and I will elaborate them in the following section of this paper.
Refer to Fokkema (1965).
Fokkema (1971, p. v).
Hendrix et al. (1996, p. xii).
Hendrix et al. (1996, p. xi).
Hendrix et al. (1996, p. xii).
Refer to Fokkema (2011).
Chen (2009, pp. 171–186). This essay was written in Chinese and published with Disquisitions of the Past & Present, an Academia Sinica journal in Taiwan modeled, in a certain way, on the Cambridge based Past & Present in the UK. I have summarized in English the key points of the above-mentioned essay in the next section of this paper.
For more details regarding my theory of paradigm shift in sinology as described in this section, refer to Chen (2009).
Refer to Polo (1993). This reprinted edition of The travels of Marco Polo was published in 1903 by Sir Henry Yule with annotations and revised further in 1920 by Henri Cordier with notes, the former is a reputable orientalist and the latter a renowned sinologist; for more details regarding this version, see also to Pelliot (1959–1973).
Refer to Mungello (1985).
Of course, only part of the Westerners who arrived in China, but not all of them, during this period of time were missionaries. The term “missionary sinology” here mainly refers to the “amateur” status of the scholarship produced at that time.
François (2008, pp. 810–811).
Pelliot’s achievement was generally regarded as the climax of the “Paris School” of sinology; and Pelliot was in fact Étiemble’s teacher and mentor, when the latter was a young student.
Legge served as the first chair in sinology between 1876 and 1897 at Oxford University. One of his main contributions is a massive translation project of major Chinese classics in five volumes, entitled The Chinese classics: With a translation, critical and exegetical notes, prolegomena, and copious indexes (Hong Kong: Legge; London: Trubner, 1861–1872), which is still consulted by scholars even today.
Wade served as the first chair in sinology between 1888 and 1895 at Cambridge University. One of his main contributions is the creation of (with Herbert Giles), in the nineteenth century, the Wade–Giles system of romanization for the Chinese language, which had been used as a mainstream one until the 1990s.
Schlegel served as the first chair in sinology between 1877 and 1902 at Leiden University. One of his main contributions is the founding of T’oung Pao (with Henri Cordier), an authoritative journal for sinological studies.
De Groot was the first chair in sinology between 1912 and 1921 at Berlin University. One of his main contributions is the publication of The religious system of China, its ancient forms, evolution, history and present aspect, manners, customs and social institutions connected therewith (Leyden: Brill, 1892–1910) in six volumes, which is regarded as a monumental work in the history of sinology.
Franke served as the first chair in sinology between 1910 and 1923 at Hamburg University. One of his main contributions is the five volume Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1930–1952), which is generally regarded as the most comprehensive history of China prior to the publication of Cambridge History of China in fifteen volumes edited by Denis Twitchett and John Fairbank.
Taking a leadership role in the second paradigm shift in sinology for half a century, Fairbank has published more than 50 authored and edited books (including co-authored and co-edited). For detailed information regarding Fairbank’s contributions, see his own memoir and Paul Evans’ study, refer to Fairbank (1982) and Evans (1988).
Charles Seymour Professor of History at Yale, Wright, whose major field was Sui (581–618) and Tang (618–907) dynasty history, is generally regarded in the US as one of the leading figures for the area of pre-modern Chinese history and civilization.
Founder of pre-modern Chinese studies at Princeton, Mote was a leading scholar of Ming dynasty studies in the US after World War II.
Born in China from a missionary family, Goodrich later became Dean Lung Professor of Chinese Studies at Columbia University and served as the president of Association for Asian Studies.
Creel, who served at Chicago as full professor from 1949 to 1964 and as Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor of Chinese History from 1964 to 1974, have asserted a strong influence upon the development of Chinese Studies at the university after World War II.
Liu, serving as full professor at Indiana between 1961 and 1976, was the founding chair of the university’s department of East Asian languages and literatures. His academic interests included premodern and modern Chinese literature and have educated a number of today’s well known scholars, for instance, Eugene Eoyang (Chinese–Western comparative literature studies), Howard Goldblatt (modern Chinese literature), and Charles Hartman (premodern Chinese literature), to name only a few.
Chow served as full professor of Chinese literature at University of Wisconsin, Madison, between 1964 and 1994. His academic interests, like Wu-chi Liu, went across the boundary of premodern and modern Chinese literature and history, with a pioneering work on the May Fourth Movement of China in 1919.
Schafer served as full professor at Berkeley from 1958 to 1969, and then Agassiz Professor of Oriental Languages and Literature between 1969 and 1984. He has contributed much to the promotion of Chinese Studies on Berkeley campus.
Demiéville is regarded as the last master of the glorious “Paris School” of sinology, and has made important collaborations with scholars in China.
Walfgang Franke continued Otto Franke’s tradition of the “Hamburg School” of sinology, and is regarded as a representative of that School in the post World War II period.
Together with Wolfgang Bauer, Herbert Franke was one of the founders of the department of sinology at University of Munich after World II, which has become an important center of Chinese Studies in Germany since then.
Edema (2014, p. 97).
Prior to becoming a professor of Chinese literature at Harvard, James Hightower received his Ph.D. in comparative literature from Harvard and his study of Chinese language and literature started at Heidelberg and the Sorbonne, an experience in some way similar to that of Étiemble’s. Hightower was among the first generation of professors of Chinese literature in the US after World War II, and his renowned publications include Topics in Chinese literature: Outlines and bibliographies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950) and The poetry of T'ao Ch'ien (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970).
Credited by his colleague Kang-I Sun Chang as a “a pioneering figure in the field of Chinese literature” in the US, Hans Frankel’s major publication The flowering plum and the palace lady: Interpretation of Chinese poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) is highly regarded by the scholarly community.
Yu-Kung Kao and Andrew Plaks have taught at Princeton for decades together, the former is a principal authority in the field of Chinese poetry while the later is a major figure in the field of Chinese narrative studies.
One of Chih-Tsing Hsia’s major contributions is the publication of his ground-breaking book, entitled A history of modern Chinese fiction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), which has opened up the field of modern Chinese fiction studies in the US.
Shih Hsiang Chen was a renowned scholar of Chinese literature and comparative literature at University of California, Berkeley after World War II (between 1945 and 1971), and contributed much to the establishment of the Berkeley program on comparative studies between Chinese and Western literatures.
James J.Y. Liu’s scholarship covers different areas in Chinese literary studies, from poetry to literary theory, and one of his most influential books is Chinese theories of literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975).
Miner (1990, p. 10).
Wu-chi Liu’s achievements are part of the intellectual environment of the time on Indiana campus. That environment was very much in debt to Horst Frenz (1900–1981), who served as the chair of Department of Comparative Literature between 1949 and 1977. As Miner points out, “Horst Frenz and the leadership of his colleagues at Indiana University were the first in the United States to bring the engagement of American comparatists with Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean literature,” see Miner (1990, p. 10).
Wai-lim Yip’s dissertation, Ezra Pound’s Cathay, was later published with Princeton University Press, refer to Yip (1969).
The symposium papers published in the journal in Chinese include the following: Jue Chen (Tsing Hua University, Taiwan), “Organizer’s preface” and “Earl Miner’s sinological legacy: From the perspective of comparative literature”; Chaoyang Liao (Taiwan University), “The transformation of comparative literature”; Zhangcan Cheng (Nanjing University, “Overseas sinology and comparative literature: The significance of Arthur Waley”; Te-hsing Shan (Academia Sinica), “Comparative literature in Taiwan: A brief historical survey”; Yuehong Chen, “A methodological illustration of Qian Zhongshu’s comparative poetics”; Pin-chia Feng, “Comparative studies of (post)colonial women’s writing”; Ning Wang, “Earl Miner: Beyond comparative poetics”; see Chung Wai Literary Quarterly (42.2), 185–238. Jue Chen’s paper outlined Miner’s contributions to CWCLS, and they were further elaborated in this section.
When the second paradigm shift went across Europe and America in the 1960s and 1970s, Mainland China was within the historical period of “Cultural Revolution” and scholars in Mainland China during this period of time were not subject to the influence of the development of sinology at all. Therefore, the majority of the participants of China in this symposium were comparatists instead of sinologists/comparatists.
Refer to Miner (1990).
The Princeton encyclopedia of poetry and poetics, originally co-edited by Alex Preminger and T.V.F. Brogan, was published in 1965, with an aim “to provide a comprehensive, comparative, reasonably advanced, yet readable reference for all students, teachers, scholars, poets, or general readers who are interested in the history of any poetry in any national literature of the world, or in any aspect of the technique or criticism of poetry”, see Preminger and Brogan (1993, p. vii). The success of the first edition (1965) and the second edition (1974) of this encyclopedia made the editors decide to launch a new edition to be published in 1993. In this new edition, “over 90 % of the original entries have been extensively revised. Most major entries have been rewritten altogether”, and 162 entirely new entries were added, see Preminger and Brogan (1993, p. viii). In order to achieve this large scale revision, three associate editors joined the editorial team, and Miner was the one who was responsible for Asian poetry and poetics.
Refer to Miner (1958).
Refer to Miner (1972).
Miner (1972, p. xi).
Miner (1972, pp. xi–xii).
Refer to Konishi (1984, 1986, 1991). This enterprise was originally designed in five volumes but only the first three volumes (volume one: the archaic and ancient ages; volume two: the early middle ages; volume three: the high middle ages) were published. The editor of these published volumes was Earl Miner, with the main translator as Aileen Gatten. The editor to take care of the fourth and fifth volumes was originally expected to be J.T. Rimer, who was the former chief for Asian Division, Library of Congress and is now professor emeritus of Japanese literature at University of Pittsburg, but this plan of arrangement seems to be never materialized.
Konishi (1984, p. xv).
Konishi (1984, p. xvii–xviii).
Refer to Miner (1996).
The order of the these five chapters are: “Naming Properties,” “First Steps,” “Under the Way,” “The Journey’s End” and “Giving and Recalling Names”, refer to Miner (1996). Within Miner’s above arrangement, neither Bashô and Sora nor Johnson and Boswell sound to be more important than the other. Both sides belong to the realm of “home” and none of them is the “other”.
Refer to Chen (1997).
References
Cai, Z. (1991). The art of Chinese pentasyllabic poetry from the first to the third century. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Cai, Z. (1996). The matrix of lyric transformation: Poetic modes and self-presentation in early Chinese pentasyllabic poetry. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.
Chen, J. (1997). Poetics of historical referentiality: Roman à clef and beyond. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Chen, J. (2009). Denis Twitchett and the European–American sinological paradigm shift in the twentieth century: A preface to the Chinese edition of Cambridge studies in Chinese history, literature and institutions. Disquisitions of the Past & Present, 20, 171–186.
Chen, J. (2013). Earl Miner’s sinological legacy: From the perspective of comparative literature. Chung Wai Literary Quarterly, 42(2), 232–238.
Edema, W. (Ed.). (2014). Chinese studies in the Netherlands. Leiden: Brill.
Étiemble, R. (1966a). The crisis in comparative literature. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Étiemble, R. (1966b). Les Jésuites en Chine (1552–1773): la querelle des rites. Paris: R. Julliard.
Étiemble, R. (1974). Essais de littérature (vraiment) générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Étiemble, R. (1982). Quelques essais de littérature universelle. Paris: Gallimard.
Étiemble, R. (1986). Knowledge of the orient: An imaginative publishing project in partnership with UNESCO. The Courier, 1, 9–12.
Étiemble, R. (1988–1989). L’Europe chinoise. Paris: Gallimard.
Evans, P. (1988). John Fairbank and the American understanding of modern China. New York: B. Blackwell.
Fairbank, J. (1982). Chinabound: A fifty year memoir. New York: Harper & Row.
Fokkema, D. (1965). Literary doctrine in China and Soviet influence, 1956–1960. The Hague: Mouton.
Fokkema, D. (1971). Report from Peking: Observations of a western diplomat on the cultural revolution. London: C. Hurst.
Fokkema, D. (2011). Perfect worlds: Utopian fiction in China and the West. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Fokkema, D., & Ibsch, E. (1978). Theories of literature in the twentieth century: Structuralism, Marxism, aesthetics of reception, semiotics. London: C. Hurst.
Fokkema, D., & Ibsch, E. (1984). Literary history, modernism, and postmodernism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
François, P. (Ed.). (2008). Dictionnaire des orientalistes de langue française. Paris: Iismm-Karthala.
Hendrix, H., et al. (Eds.). (1996). The search for a new alphabet: Literary studies in a changing world in honor of Douwe Fokkema. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Konishi, J. (1984). A history of Japanese literature (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Konishi, J. (1986). A history of Japanese literature (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Konishi, J. (1991). A history of Japanese literature (Vol. 3). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levy, D. (1982). A study of Chinese narrative poetry from the late Han through T’ang dynasties. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Levy, D. (1988). Chinese narrative poetry: The late Han through T’ang dynasties. Durham: Duke University Press.
Li, W. (1988). Rhetoric of fantasy and rhetoric of irony: Studies in Liao-chai chih-i and Hung-lou meng. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Li, W. (1993). Enchantment and disenchantment: Love and illusion in Chinese literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lu, T. (1988). Desire and love: A comparative study of narrative. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Lu, T. (1991). Rose and lotus: Narrative of desire in France and China. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Miner, E. (1958). The Japanese tradition in British and American literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Miner, E. (1972). English criticism in Japan: Essays by younger Japanese scholars on English and American literature. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Miner, E. (1990). Comparative poetics: An intercultural essay on theories of literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Miner, E. (1996). Naming properties: Nominal reference in travel writings by Bashô and Sora, Johnson and Boswell. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mungello, D. (1985). Curious land: Jesuits accommodation and the origins of sinology. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Pelliot, P. (1959–1973). Notes on Marco Polo. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Polo, M. (1993). The Travels of Marco Polo: The complete Yule-Cordier edition. New York: Dover Publications.
Preminger, A., & Brogan, T. V. F. (Eds.). (1993). The new Princeton encyclopedia of poetry and poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Yip, W. (1969). Ezra Pound’s Cathay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, J. Earl Miner: New Sinology through comparative literature. Neohelicon 41, 427–443 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-014-0259-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-014-0259-4