Milton in China

Abstract

In this significant contribution to Milton scholarship, Hao Tianhu 郝田虎 (1974–) provides a most detailed survey of Milton’s reception in China since the poet’s debut in the 1830s. As Hao indicates at the outset, this study aims to present a systematic exploration of the “cross-cultural journey” (2) that Milton has enjoyed in China. In this regard, Hao’s research not simply chronicles the historical facts about Milton but, more importantly, highlights the cultural engagement that Chinese intellectuals of different periods have had with the English poet. With its emphasis on Hans-George Gadamer’s “Vorurteil” (prejudice) and William James’ “selective attention” (52), this cross-cultural approach seeks to reveal how a multifaced Milton has gradually been portrayed in the Chinese context. Hao’s work, in this sense, pushes the genre expectations of a literary study by an infusion of the Chinese Milton, as a case study, into an original theoretical model that exemplifies the cross-cultural knowledge production at work. As such, this monograph stands as the first of its kind.What characterizes the production mechanism that converts source knowledge into target knowledge, as Hao insightfully argues, hinges on the producer’s subjectivity, who both decontextualizes and recontextualizes the knowledge in question. Such subjectivity, in the current case, finds its embodiment in the Chinese perspective (275). Far from being static, this perspective has evolved into many forms at the hands of different people, which, in its individual expression, reflects the distinct aspiration of each social group and contributes to a complex yet variegated picture of Milton’s reception in China. It is in these pluralistic forms of the Chinese perspective that we now see the multifacedness of the Chinese Milton.Hao’s elaboration of the Chinese perspective begins with the introduction of Milton into China by Western Christian missionaries. According to Hao’s study, Milton landed in China earlier than Shakespeare, when two missionary periodicals Chinese Repository 中国丛报(1832) and Eastern Western Monthly Magazine 东西洋考每月统记传(1837), started by Elijah Coleman Bridgman (1801–1861) and Karl Friedrich August Gützlaff (1803–1851,) respectively, presented not merely Milton’s name, but also a few remarks in Chinese. What makes this introduction striking consists as much in its chronological precedence as in the forces that made Milton’s debut possible. The missionary preference for Milton, as Hao rightly observes, partly rests on Milton’s identity as a Christian poet whose name carries their “cultural authority” (21) and whose words deliver the biblical truth. Hao suggests that Milton’s priority may also arise from the missionaries’ urge to assert their literary culture because their remarks on Milton are couched in terms borrowed from the Classical Chinese critical discourse, apparently with a view to catering to the taste of the Chinese literati who might have condescendingly deplored the “scarcity of poetry” (24) in European culture.As Hao sufficiently shows, the missionary endeavor did produce its intended effect to some extent, for many Chinese intellectuals in the late-Qing period (1840–1912), such as Xu Jiyu 徐继畬 (1795–1873), Liang Tingnan 梁廷枏 (1796–1861), and Yang Xiangji 杨象济 (1825–1878) had read Eastern Western Monthly Magazine and were influenced by it in different degrees. In their acknowledgment of Western poetry, they nevertheless betray a sense of complacency about traditional Chinese culture, with their “aversion, resistance and criticism of Christianity” (27). This perspective is similarly articulated in their immediate predecessors like Lin Zexu 林则徐 (1785–1850), Wei Yuan 魏源 (1794–1857), and Yao Ying 姚莹 (1785–1853), who advocated “shiyi changji yizhiyi 师夷长技以制夷 (learning the advanced technologies from Western barbarians in order to conquer them).” Their introduction of Western literature, including Milton, might be part of this larger argument in the sense that they saw literature simply as a way to know about the West without necessarily regarding Western literature as being superior or even equal to Chinese literature. Such “ingrained cultural complacency and long-held prejudice” (32), as Hao accurately points out, have fatally distorted their cultural vision and, therefore, resulted in a fragmentary and simplified understanding of the West.This form of the Chinese perspective did not shift until the early twentieth century when a group of visionary intellectuals, particularly Liang Qichao 梁启超 (1873–1929) and Lu Xun 鲁迅 (1881–1936), turned to Western poetry for inspiration. Milton, according to Hao’s careful analysis, fitted into the then Chinese intellectual landscape in two ways. For Liang Qichao, Milton was predominantly a poet, who could be appropriated to launch a revolution in the field of poetry. As Hao notes, Liang Qichao felt constrained to admit that Chinese literature, in terms of long narrative poems, compared unfavorably with Western literature, but nevertheless celebrated Homer and Milton, among other great poets, as models to innovate Chinese poetry. Hao adds that Liang Qichao carried on the Chinese poetic tradition of “wen yi zai dao 文以载道(literature as a means to convey the Tao/Way)” by emphasizing its function for social improvement; it follows that he appropriated Milton in his own political novel The Future of New China 新中国未来记for the poet’s unbending pursuit of liberty.This political appropriation of Milton came to prominence in Lu Xun’s creative misreading of Satan for an ideological revolution. Hao convincingly argues that Satan’s rebellious spirit underlies Lu Xun’s pursuit of spiritual freedom, which receives a full discussion in its relation to poetry by Lun Xun in his “Moluo shili shuo 摩罗诗力说(On the Power of Mara Poetry),” an article that justifies the ways of Satan and elaborates on the power of Satanic poets. The emphasis on Satan’s defiance serves to arouse the revolutionary spirit in the submissive Chinese people to fight for their freedom. For Lu Xun, literature is not simply belles-lettres, but more of an instrument to address both national and cultural crises. This sustained (mis-)interpretation of Satan has inaugurated what Hao ingeniously terms the “Lu Xun tradition,” later to be inherited by Gao Changnan 高昌南 (birth and death dates unknown), Yi Zhen一真 (birth and death dates unknown), Wang Pingling 王平陵 (1898–1964) and Yan Jieren 严杰人 (1922–1946), and Jin Fashen 金发燊 (dob. 1920, death date unknown).The revolutionary discourse continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s and even persisted into the early 1980s when Chinese literary studies were dominated by Soviet influences. Milton in this time, as Hao quotes his late colleague Donald Stone’s (1942–2021) witty phrasing, has become “Miltonovski” (5). Remarks on Milton conformed to the prevailing discourse by highlighting him as a staunch revolutionary. In Hao’s view, this interpretive model of Milton from the ideological perspective evinces the prescriptiveness of the mainstream ideology in cross-cultural knowledge production. Yet, from the fissure of the revolutionary discourse has nonetheless emanated minor streams of criticism that touched upon Milton’s humanism and religion; Hao singles out Yin Baoshu’s 殷宝书commemorative essay (1958) for the 350th anniversary of Milton’s birth, which, though following the mainstream discourse in general, pinpoints Milton’s humanistic thought in a position somewhat contradictory to Puritanism and different from the Renaissance humanism.However, it was not until the twenty-first century when Chinese Milton studies saw an extensive (re)emergence of emphasis on Milton as a literary and religious figure. As Hao observes, Shen Hong’s 沈弘 (1954–) monograph Milton’s Satan and the English Literary Tradition 弥尔顿的撒旦与英国文学传统(2010) contextualizes the composition of Paradise Lost in the English native literary landscape while laying stress on Milton’s religious and moral characterization of Satan. Likewise, Qi Hongwei’s 齐宏伟(1972–) article (2009) attempts to clear those political readings that have clouded the image of Satan. As Hao rightly notes, these two studies, among others, have disentangled themselves from what Zhang Longxi 张隆溪(1947–) incisively calls the “vulgar sociological criticism” (Social Sciences in China, no. 2 [1983]:227–31), and have become “more academic and more objective” (82).Apart from the line of criticism of Milton the poet, which was started by Liang Qichao, Hao also makes a detailed survey on Milton’s reception in China as an educator and a political philosopher. Hao carefully draws a distinction between the educational value in Milton’s works and his role as an educational reformer. Since the early twentieth century, Miltonic aphorisms, anecdotes, and selections have been adapted to celebrate such virtues as self-help, diligence, and self-respect. Milton the educator has also been noted as early as 1903 by the late-Qing intellectual Zhang Jingliang 张竞良(birth and death dates unknown) and by many others in the Republican era (1912–1949). Most of them value humanistic realism over elitism in Milton. Hao contextualizes the reception of Milton’s educational philosophy in the transitional period of Chinese education and concludes that Milton plays “an important role that cannot be ignored” (50) in the formation of the Chinese modern educational system. A similar case is made of the reception of Milton’s political philosophy. It was first noted in 1903 by The New People’s Gazette 新民丛报, started by Liang Qichao, which again in 1904 exalted Milton as a representative of the social contract theory. Such early attention to Milton’s political thought, as Hao explains, is “inseparable from the historical context” (108). With regard to his educational ideas and political philosophy, Milton’s reception in China undergoes a similar trajectory of an eclipse under Soviet dominance, followed by a revival after the 1980s.As an important form of cross-cultural practice, the translation of Milton comes under examination as well. Hao regretfully sighs for Ku Hung-Min g辜鸿铭(1857–1928), who, as an early Chinese reader of Milton, translated few English poems but always attempted to civilize Westerners with Confucianism. By contrast, Wu Mi 吴宓(1894–1978) has rendered several short Miltonic pieces into Chinese; however, what Wu Mi has produced, as Hao analyzes, comes closer to “transwriting” (128) than mere translation, which Hao characterizes as being too liberal and domesticated. This liberal style becomes fully exemplified in Fu Donghua’s 傅东华(1893–1971) translation of the first six books of Paradise Lost, which Hao contrasts against Zhu Weiji’s 朱维基(1904–1971) overforeignized translation of the entire epic. Both of these extremes, as Hao rightly points out, should be avoided, and the proper way of translation lies somewhere in between. Having surveyed the existing Chinese versions of Paradise Lost, Hao applauds them for their merits, especially Jin Fashen’s rendition with its strategy of replacing metrical feet with phonetic pauses, but argues for the necessity of a retranslation since the available translations still remain unsatisfactory with such insufficiencies as flawed understanding and awkward poetic forms.Hao’s discussion of teaching Milton in China stands among the most distinctive parts of the book. In this respect, Hao seems the ideal scholar to make this survey, for he is not only an outstanding Miltonist but also a successor of this teaching tradition. Peking University, Hao’s alma mater, was among the first Chinese universities that offered Milton courses. The teaching faculty during the Republican era included Ku Hung-Ming, Wu Mi, Wen Yuanning 温源宁(1899–1984), Liang Shiqiu 梁实秋(1903–1987), and William Empson (1906–1984), who was the most prominent among the foreign teachers. Since the 1950s, teaching of Milton had been reduced to an underprivileged position due to Soviet influences. Fortunately, the 1980s saw a return of Milton courses taught by Yang Zhouhan 杨周翰 (1915–1989) in Beijing and Loh Bei-Yei 陆佩弦(1916–1996) in Shanghai, later joined by Barbara Lewalski in Beijing Foreign Studies University and John Rumrich in Peking University; now this teaching tradition has been inherited by Shen Hong and Hao himself.As a prominent Miltonist, Hao has done very well in what the Chinese Miltonic tradition has entrusted him to do. Not only has Hao tutored a younger generation of students interested in Milton, but he has also produced many influential studies on Milton. The second part of this monograph, as a sketch of Hao’s academic achievements, offers five essays on Milton written by Hao, all of which have been published in academic journals, both domestic and overseas. These articles are cross-cultural (“John Milton’s idea of kingship and its comparison with Confucianism”; “On Milton’s first sonnet On His Blindness and its early China connections”), interdisciplinary (“Scientific Prometheanism in Paradise Lost, Frankenstein, and Ex Machina”), and creative and enlightening for Chinese Milton studies (“On Milton’s Commonplace Book”; “Lines Per Page, Engravings, and Catchwords in Milton’s 1720 Poetical Works”). Giving prominence to comparative research and relationship with China, Hao’s work carries forward what previous generations of scholars have done, and showcases how a Chinese Miltonist can contribute to the world of Milton scholarship.Since the whole book comes out from Hao’s constant focus on Milton’s studies for more than two decades, the first part that depicts Milton’s cross-cultural journey is naturally established on Hao’s previous research, including those five exemplary articles already published. Some repetitions, consequently, between the two parts seem inevitable, though sometimes verbatim; for example, a few remarks about Milton’s political philosophy (109) are the same as those in the discussion on Milton’s idea of kingship (208); the parts about missionary introduction of Milton’s “On His Blindness” (27–28) and Wu Mi’s translation of this sonnet (128–29) are obviously taken from the essay about the early China connections of the selfsame poem (224–28). Besides, the theory of cross-cultural knowledge production, as abstracted from this case study of Milton, is loosely scattered in various places and, therefore, calls for a systematic integration as well as further improvement.These insufficiencies apart, this book is to be recommended for its rich material, close readings, careful analyses, and deft arguments. Due to the partially survey nature of this book, the part about Milton’s reception in China entails a vast amount of historical material, some of which are not even readily available, but Hao exhibits strategic skills of a high order to analyze, critique, and incorporate them into his own arguments. Moreover, Hao provides in the appendix a most informative list of Chinese translations of Milton’s works, whether they be prose excerpts, selected poems, or the entire epic, which he can possibly find published from 1854 to 2019. Anyone interested in this area will find the book illuminating, and will probably be encouraged to undertake the further exploration of “fresh woods and pastures new” in the field of Milton in China.This review is supported by the National Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation, China (authorization: 19ZDA298).