Fascinating discourse on a controversial historical figure and his (excellent) poetry. As food for thought, this is a 5/5.
————————————————
For nearly every form of expression, whether political (speeches, debates, op-eds) or artistic (novels, plays, documentaries etc), we have learnt to be cautious of underlying agendas and intended effects. And yet classical Chinese poetry largely escapes this skepticism, thanks to the deep tradition of 诗言志, where the poet and the lyric “I” portrayed in their poetry are seen as one and the same.
Sympathizers and critics of Wang both use their existing judgment of the person to interpret his writing. The very same poem can be read as evidence for martyrdom or treachery, respectively, and taken as self-evident either way. Such circular reasoning is blindingly obvious, now that Yang laoshi has pointed it out. “A poem is a palimpsest, painstakingly written and rewritten, and a composite text of various forms of memory.” Yang ls draws attention to the performative aspect of WJW’s poetry. For eg,《舟夜》was dated differently in publications for a Chinese and for a Japanese audience. Sincere or otherwise, his poems were meant to portray a subjective image and deliver a message.
————————————————
All that aside, reading his beautiful, consistently idealistic poetry*, I couldn’t help sighing at Wang Jingwei’s Luciferian fall from grace.
生慚鄭國延韓命
死羨汪錡作魯殤
“Had he died in 1910, he would have already gone down in history as another Jing Ke. Instead, he is alive, graying, and the object of patriotic anger. For him, life and death are equally unenviable.”
In recent years, I’ve developed a fascination with China’s Republican era. So much turbulence -- best of times, worst of times, age of wisdom, age of foolishness. People experimented with and moved fluidly between ideologies. Friends could hold starkly different views and, well, remained friends all the way to the very end, after their paths had diverged so much. People glorified by the official historical narrative wrote grief-stricken eulogies for those subject to damnatio memoriae. People championing language reform, to whom “不用典” was rule #1, had endearing exchanges with their friends, who were very into the 典s. Hu Shih crossed path with Wu Chien-Shiung extensively (the random things I learned from 话剧九人).
100 years later, how will the tides of history churn this time?
————————————————
This is the best thing I’ve read recently. Still, I have some minor-ish gripes:
- The English translation for the poems can be better (granted, translating this stuff is very hard).
- The sections on history are at once too verbose and not clear enough. I enjoyed the sections on literature analysis quite a bit more.
- The language is a tad stilted and academese at times.
- The sections of the book can feel a little disjointed, like a collection of academic papers on Wang Jingwei as opposed to a coherent whole (I didn’t mind, though). The epilogue on damnatio memoriae deserves its own section.
————————————————
(*) Also looking at his sad, expressive eyes. “Superficial charm charms just as well.” Amen.