Appendix 1: Glossary for Chinese and Japanese Names and Terms

Home , Cheng Yanqiu, GAI (musician), Han Mei, Liu Tianhua, Mei Lanfang, Mei Shaowu

A p p e n d i x 1 : G l o s s a r y f o r C h i n e s e and Japanese Names and Terms

C H I N E S E

A J i a 棎䟁 gewuju 㷛咭⓶ A i S i q i 唍㊬⯖ G u o J i a n y i n g 捼ㆉ喀 banxiang 㓽䦇 guodu xi 扖䂰㒞 C a o J u r e n 㦈勩⅐ G u o j u X u e h u i ⦌⓶ⷵ↩ Chen Dabei 棗⮶㍁ G u o j u Y u n d o n g ⦌⓶扟┷ Chen Duxiu 棗䕻䱏 guzhuang xinxi ♳孔㠿㒞 C h e n J i a n g 棗䠕 H a n S h i h e n g 橸∜㫐 C h e n Y a n h e n g 棗ㇵ嫰 H o u F e n g ∾㨺 Cheng Changgeng 䲚栎ㄩ H u J i n x u 印⅙壩 C h e n g Y a n q i u 䲚䪩䱚 H u S h i 印抑 chengshihua 䲚㆞▥ huadan 啀㡵 chuan shen ↯䯭 H u a n g F a n c h u o 煓㡨兿 dan 㡵 H u a n g S h a n g 煓宂 daomadan ⒏泻㡵 H u a n g Z h i g a n g 煓唬⼦ D a t o n g Y u e h u i ⮶⚛⃟↩ (or Huang Su 煓侯) D i y i W u t a i 䶻₏咭♿ H u a n g Z o n g j i a n g 煓⸦㻮 D u H e n g 㧫嫰 H u a n g Z u o l i n 煓⇟⃃ fayunei, xingyuwai ♠ℝ␔, ㇱℝ⮥ huashan 啀嫺 F a n g Z h i z h o n g 㡈⃚₼ Ji Yun 儹㢏 F e n g G e n g g u a n g ␾勎⏘ jiadingxing ⋖⸩㊶ F e n g X i a o y i n ␾⺞椟 J i a n g M i a o x i a n g ⱫⰨ氨 F u S i n i a n ⌔㠾㄃ jianlixiaoguo 梃䱊㟗㨫 F u Y u n z i ⌔啇⷟ J i a o X i c h e n 䎵導房 G a i J i a o t i a n 䥥♺⮸ J i a o X u n 䎵㈹ gailiangxinxi 㟈哾㠿㒞 jiaxianghuiyi ⋖廰↩㎞ Gao Langting 浧㦦ℼ jingju ℻⓶ G e G o n g z h e n 㒗⏻㖾 jingxi ℻㒞 224 Mei Lanfang and the International Stage

kunqu 㢕㦁 S h i s a n d a n ◐ₘ㡵 kunju 㢕⓶ (or Hou Junshan ∾≙⼀) laosheng 劐䞮 shizhuang xinxi 㢅孔㠿㒞 L i F e i s h u 㧝㠟♣ S u n H u i z h u ⷨ㍯㪀 L i J i n s h e n 㧝㾴愺 T a n X i n p e i 庼曺⪈ L i K a i x i a n 㧝㆏⏗ T a n g X i a n z u 㻳㣍䯥 Li Shizeng 㧝䪂㦍 tangma 怮泻 L i T a o h e n 㧝䀪䡤 T i a n H a n 䞿㻘 L i a n g Q i c h a o 㬐⚾怔 Wang Guangqi 䘚⏘䯗 liangxiang ℽ䦇 W a n g J i d e 䘚洴㉆ Lin Baishui 㨦䤌㻃 W a n g J i n g w e i 㻹位◺ Lin Chuanding 㨦↯熝 Wang Xiaoyin 䘚⺞楀 L i n M o 㨦照 Wang Yaoqing 䘚䜅☎ L i n Y u t a n g 㨦幼⪑ W a n g Y o u y o u 㻹↧䃇 L i u B a n n o n g ⒧◙␫ (or Wang Zhongxian 㻹ↁ徳) (or Liu Fu ⒧⮜) W a n g Z h o n g s h e n g 䘚朮⭿ Liu Chunhua ⒧㢴◝ Wang Zijia 䘚侺䳋 Liu Haisu ⒧䀆伮 W e i C h a n g s h e n g 淞栎䞮 L i u T i a n h u a ⒧⮸◝ Wu Nanru ⛃◦Ⱁ L i u Y i z h o u ⒧唉咮 W u Y i n g ⛃扝 L i u Y u n q i u ⒧檄䱚 wusheng 㷵䞮 L u X u n 漐扔 Xia Zhengnong ⮞㈐␫ M a E r 氻ℛ xian shen shuo fa 䘿愺広㽤 (or Feng Shuluan ␾♣烍) xianggu ⍞Ⱡ M e i D a n g 㬔⏩ xiangzhengzhuyi 廰㈐⃊⃘ M e i L a n f a n g 㬔⏿啂 xiaosheng ⺞䞮 M e i Q i a o l i n g 㬔ぶ䙁 xieyi ␨㎞ “ M e i x u e ” 㬔ⷵ xieyizhuyi ␨㎞⃊⃘ M e i Y u t i a n 㬔楷䞿 xingge hua M e i Z h u f e n 㬔䶈唻 biaoyan ㊶㫋▥嫷䆣 moshenghuaxiaoguo 棛䞮▥㟗㨫 xingsi ㇱ⇋ nandan 䟆㡵 xinju 㠿⓶ Nie Gannu 勑兏ㆸ (or Erye 勂勅; Xiong Foxi 䐙⇪導 Zang Qiren 呶␅ⅉ) “ x i o n g f u r e n ” 楓Ⱆⅉ O u y a n g Y u q i a n 㶶棂℗⊸ xiqu 㒞㦁 qi 㺣 Xu Beihong ㈟㍁烎 Q i R u s h a n 營Ⱁ⼀ Xu Chengbei ㈟⩝▦ Q i n S u 䱵侯 X u D a c h u n ㈟⮶㯎 qingyi 槡嫲 Xu Muyun ㈟㏤℠ S h a n g X i a o l i n g ⟕⺞䙁 Xu Zhuodai ㈟◢⛕ Shanghai Xin Wutai ₙ䀆㠿咭♿ (or Xu Banmei ㈟◙㬔) she shen chu di 幍愺⮓⦿ X u n H u i s h e n g 嗏㏶䞮 shensi 䯭⇋ Y a n H u i q i n g S h i Z h e c u n 㡌奿ⷧ (or W. W. Yen) 欫㍯ㄕ Appendix 1 225

Y a n R o n g 欫⹈ Z h a n g M i n g q i ㆯ炲䚵 Yang Longshou 㧷椕⺎ Zhang Pengchun Y a o H s i n - n u n g Ⱪ嘧␫ (or P. C. Chang) ㆯㇼ㢴 Y a o Y u f u Ⱪ䘘唨 Z h a o T a i m u 怄⮹䓮 Y e G o n g c h u o ⚅㋼兿 Z h a o Z u n y u e 怨⺙が yijing ㎞⬒ Zhengyue Yuhua Yu Cai ℝ摖 H u i 㷲⃟十▥↩ Y u S h a n g y u a n ⇨ₙ㼔 Z h e n g B o q i 捠↾⯖ Y u Z h e n f e i ≭㖾歭 Zheng Yiqiu 捠ℵ䱚 yuan ⦕ Zheng Zhenduo 捠㖾杝 Yuan Muzhi 嬐䓶⃚ (or Xi Yuan 導䄟) Y u a n zaju ⏒㧑⓶ Zhonghua Xiqu Yinyue yuanchang ⦕⧉ Y u a n ₼◝㒞㦁檂⃟棱 yunshou ℠㓚 Z h o u Y a n ⛷ㇵ Z a n g M a o x u n 呶㑚㈹ Z h o u Z u o r e n ⛷⇫ⅉ Zhai Guanliang 剮␂ℽ Zhuang Jingke ㄓ㣾䙑 Z h a n g H o u z a i ㆯ☩戌 Z o u T a o f e n 捈橻⯚ (or Liaozi 廑⷟) zouyuanchang 忿⦕⧉

J A P A N E S E

A k i t a T s u y u k o 䱚䞿槁⷟ iroko 唁⷟ Akita Ujaku 䱚䞿楷楏 I t ō Nobuhiko ↙塳偌ㇵ A k u t a g a w a R y ū n o s u k e 唴ぬ爜 jigei ⦿塬 ⃚⅚ “joyū mondai” Ⰲ⎹⟞櫛 A o k i M a s a r u 槡㦷㷲⏡ J ū g a t s u S h ō ◐㦗䞮 B a n dō Tamasaburō V ⧑㨀䘘 kabuki 㷛咭↝ ₘ捝 K a n d a K i i c h i r ō 䯭䞿⠫₏捝 F u k u c h i N o b u y o 䰞⦿≰₥ (or Kanda Chōan 䯭䞿涾䥵) G o t ō Asatarō ㈛塳㦬⮹捝 Kan ō Naoki 䕸摝䦃⠫ H a j i S e i j i ⦮ズ䂔ℛ K a w a i T a k e o 㽂⚗㷵楓 H a m a d a K ōsaku 䊀䞿劤⇫ K a w a k a m i O t o j i r ō ぬₙ檂ℛ捝 (or Seiryō Sei 槠椄䞮) K a w a t a k e S h i g e t o s h i 㽂䶈僐≙ hanagata 啀ㇱ Kinoshita Junji 㦷ₚ檕ℛ H a n a k o 啀⷟ K i n o s h i t a M o k u t a r ō 㦷ₚ㧱⮹捝 H a n a y a g i S h ōtarō啀㪂䵯⮹捝 K ō y ō a n 㾹则䥵 Hatsuse Namiko ⒬䊻㿹⷟ K u b o T e n z u i ⃔≬⮸椷 I b a r a k i N o r i k o 喷㦷ቑቭ⷟ Kume Masao ⃔伂㷲楓 I c h i k a w a S a d a n j i I I ゑぬふ⦧㶰 K y ū r y ū b a n 䘥䚘䥳 I c h i m u r a U z a e m o n X V ゑ㧠剌 M a s a m u n e H a k u c h ō 㷲⸦䤌潴ふ嫪栏 M a s u d a T a r ōkaja 䥙䞿⮹捝␯劔 I h a r a S e i s e i e n ↙☮槡ᇰ⦡ Matsumoto K ōshirō VII 㨍㦻ㄇ I k e d a D a i g o 㻯䞿⮶↜ ⥪捝 226 Mei Lanfang and the International Stage

michiyuki 拢嫛 O s a n a i K a o r u ⺞⼀⏶堿 mie 尚㈦ R a k u y ō a n 囌囘ㅄ M i y a k e S h ūtarō ₘ⸔⛷⮹捝 S a d a Y a c c o ( o r S a d a y a k k o ) 弭Ⰳ M i y a m o t o Y u r i k o ⸽㦻䤍⚗⷟ S a w a m u r a S ō j ūrō VII 䈳㧠⸦ Mizuki Tatsunosuke I 㻃㦷房⃚┸ ◐捝 Mori Ritsuko 㭽㈚⷟ S e n d a K o r e y a ◒䞿㢾⃮ M o r i t a K a n ’ y a X I I I ⸗䞿╧㇛ “ S h i n a s h u m i ” 㞾挲怲✂ M o r i t a K a n ’ y a X I V ⸗䞿╧㇛ shingeki 㠿┖ M u r a t a K a k u k o 㧠䞿⢘⃔⷟ shinpa 㠿㿍 M u r a t a U kō 㧠䞿䍞㻮 S h i r ō Uno ⸖摝⥪捝 (or Ukō Sanjin 䍞㻮㟲ⅉ) S u z u k i T o r a o 擃㦷壝楓 Naba Toshisada 挲㽱Ⓒ弭 (or Hyōken Chinjin 弈慡椂ⅉ) Nagai Kaf ū 㻇ℤ嘆欷 Takarazuka Shōjo Kagekidan ⸬ “ n a i m e n k a ” ␔槱▥ ⫩⺠Ⰲ㷛┖⥲ N a i t ō Konan ␔塳䃥◦ Takarazuka (or NaitōTorajirō␔塳壝㶰捝; Daigekij ō ⸬⫩⮶┖⫃ Fuchi Fukei Sei ₜ䣰ₜ㏶䞮) T a n a k a K e i t a r ō 䞿₼㐅⮹捝 N a i t ō Meisetsu ␔塳澃楹 (or Tenjaku ⮸烙) Nakagi Teiichi ↁ㦷弭₏ T a n i z a k i J u n ’ i c h i r o 廆⾝䇳₏捝 (or Nakagi Seiↁ㦷䞮) T e i k o k u g e k i j o ガ⦌┖⫃ N a k a m u r a F u k u s u k e I V ₼㧠䰞┸ (or Teigeki ガ┖) Nakamura Fukusuke V ₼㧠䰞┸ T e i k o k u J o y ū Yōseijo ガ⦌ N a k a m u r a Ⰲ⎹殙㒟㓏 K a n ’ e m o n I I I ₼㧠剺⚂嫪栏 T o k u d a S h ū s e i ㉆䞿䱚匁 N a k a m u r a T s u b o u c h i S h ō y ō ⧹␔抜拨 Utaemon V ₼㧠㷛⚂嫪栏 T s u j i C h ō k a 扊匃啀 N a k a u c h i C h ō j i ₼␔娅ℛ (or Chōka Sanjin 匃啀㟲ⅉ; N a n b u S h ū t a r ō ◦捷≽⮹捝 Tsuji Takeo 扊㷵楓) nanori ⚜⃦ T s u t s u i T o k u j i r ō ䷡ℤ㉂ℛ捝 Nishihara Daisuke 導☮⮶憣 Uemura Kichiya I ₙ㧠⚘㇛ “ N i s s h i s h i n z e n ” 㡴㞾尹⠓ wakaonnagata 啴Ⰲㇱ N o g a m i Y a e k o 摝ₙ㇛䞮⷟ wakashu kabuki 啴嫕㷛咭↝ noh 厌 Y a m a m o t o K y ūzaburō ⼀㦻⃔ₘ捝 O b a t a Y ū k i c h i ⺞ヰ揘⚘ Y o s a n o A k i k o ₝嶬摝㤅⷟ O k a k u r a K a k u z ō ⼰⊘屉ₘ Yoshida Toshiko ⚘䞿䤊㉦⷟ (or Okakura Tenshin ⼰⊘⮸㉒) Y o s h i k a w a K ō j i r ō ⚘ぬㄇ㶰捝 Ōkura Kihachir ō ⮶⊘⠫⏺捝 Yoshikawa Misao ⚘ぬ㝜 onnagata Ⰲㇱ Y o s h i n o S a k u z ō ⚘摝⇫抯 O n o e B a i k ō V I ⻍ₙ㬔ㄇ Yoshizawa Ayame I 啂䈳ሥቧቤ O s a k a C h ū ō Kōkaidō (⮶梹₼⮽ (or ⚘㼱噥坁) ⏻↩⪑) Z e a m i ₥棎ㆴ A p p e n d i x 2 : Chinese and Japanese Historical Newspapers and Magazines

C H I N E S E

Banyue pinglun ◙㦗幓幉 Shehui xinwen 䯍↩㠿梊 Beijing huabao ▦℻䟊㔴 Shen bao 䟂㔴 Beiyang huabao ▦㾚䟊㔴 Shenghuo 䞮㿊 Beiping chen bao ▦㄂㣷㔴 Shi bao 㢅㔴 Chen bao 㣷㔴 Shidai gonglun 㢅ⅲ⏻幉 Chen bao fukan 㣷㔴⓾⒙ Shijie ribao ₥䟛㡴㔴 Chun liu 㢴㪂 Shishi xinbao 㢅ℚ㠿㔴 Da wanbao ⮶㣩㔴 Shuntian shibao 欉⮸㢅㔴 Dagong bao ⮶⏻㔴 Sin Chew Jit Poh 㢮㿁㡴㔴 Dongfang zazhi ₫㡈㧑㉦ Tai bai ⮹䤌 Gu geng 洷漯 Weinasi 冃兂€ Guowen zhoubao ⦌梊⛷㔴 Wenxue shidai 㠖ⷵ㢅ⅲ Jinbu ribao 扪㷴㡴㔴 Wenxue zhoubao 㠖ⷵ⛷㔴 Jing bao ( T h e P e k i n g Wenyi huabao 㠖唉䟊㔴 Press) ℻㔴 Wuhan ribao 㷵㻘㡴㔴 Jing bao ( T h e C r y s t a l ) 㤅㔴 Xi shijie 㒞₥䟛 Juxue yuekan ⓶ⷵ㦗⒙ Xian dai 䘿ⅲ Liang you 哾♚ Xianshi 䘿⸭ Liyuan gongbao 㬷⥼⏻㔴 Xiao jing bao ⺞℻㔴 Lun yu 幉幼 Xiju congkan 㒞⓶₪⒙ Lüxing zazhi 㡔嫛㧑㉦ Xiju yuekan 㒞⓶㦗⒙ Mang zhong 唡䱜 Xin qingnian 㠿槡㄃ Minjian zhoubao 㺠梃⛷㔴 Xin sheng 㠿䞮 Minguo ribao 㺠⦌㡴㔴 Xinmin bao 㠿㺠㔴 Minzhong jiaoyu banzhoukan 㺠↦ Xinwen bao 㠿梊㔴㟨十◙⛷⒙ Yong bao ㅇ㔴 Qinghua fukan 䂔◝⓾⒙ Yu si 幼€ Rensheng xunkan ⅉ䞮㡻⒙ Zhonghua ribao ₼◝㡴㔴 Shehui ribao 䯍↩㡴㔴 Zhongyang ribao ₼⮽㡴㔴 Shehui yuebao 䯍↩㦗㔴 Zhongwai pinglun ₼⮥幓幉 228 Mei Lanfang and the International Stage

J A P A N E S E

Chuo koron ₼⮽⏻嵥 Osaka asahi shinbun ⮶梹㦬㡴㠿勭 Engei gahō 䆣塬䟺⫀ Shin engei 㠿䆣塬 Engeki shinchō 䆣┖㠿䇽 Shin kōron 㠿⏻嵥 Hototogisu ኸእእኋኖ Shūkan asahi 拀⒙㦬㡴 Jiji shinpo 㣑ℚ㠿⫀ Tokyo asahi shinbun 㨀℻㦬㡴㠿勭 Josei Ⰲ㊶ Tokyo nichinichi shinbun 㨀℻㡴 Kageki 㷛┖ 㡴㠿勭 Kokumin shinbun ⦌㺠㠿勭 Yomiuri shinbun 帏彲㠿勭 Miyako shinbun 掌㠿勭 Yorozu chōhō 嚻㦬⫀ N o t e s

INTRODUCTION

1. For a more detailed account of Mei’s life and career, see Scott 1971. 2. See Tian 2008, 147–50. 3. See the advertisements of Mei Lanfang’s first appearance in Shanghai, Shen bao , November 4 and December 17, 1913. 4. Quoted in Leung 1929, 66. For more contemporary descriptions of aspects of Mei Lanfang’s acting, see the same work, 66–71. 5. In an interview, Mei Lanfang made this statement of his view on the reform of traditional Chinese theatre. See Zhang 1949. 6. In an official forum on the reform of traditional Chinese theatre, following Mei Lanfang’s previous statement, Mei Lanfang was forced to renounce his original position. See Zhang and Wang 1949. 7. See Tian 2008, 159–73. 8 . S e e M e i 1 9 6 2 e , 8 2 – 8 4 . 9. For studies of the early and modern history of jingju , see Mackerras 1972; Goldstein 2007. 10. See Tian 2000. 11. For an examination of the photographic representation of Mei Lanfang, see Kim 2006. 12. For example, Xu Chengbei, a leading specialist on Mei Lanfang, has argued that one of the main reasons for Mei’s superiority is his contact with world culture on the international stage that embraced Mei unques- tionably and inevitably as the most outstanding contemporary representative of China’s time- honored theatre and culture (Xu 2000, 144). 13. See Huang 1962; 1981, 14–29, and Sun 1982; 1987. Recently, Huang Zuolin’s and Sun Huizhu’s views in question have been challenged by a few Chinese critics (See Fu 2010). 14. Huang Zongjiang’s neologism was endorsed by Mei Shaowu, Mei Lanfang’s son, who used it to cover global studies of Mei Lanfang (Mei Shaowu 2006b, 498–504). 15. See Banu 1986; Risum 2001; and Saussy 2006. 16. These two articles have since been revised and expanded in Tian 2008, 39–59, 61–82; 2010, 215–69, 271–334. 230 Notes

1 REDEFINING A CULTURAL NATION AND REIFYING A THEATRE TRADITION: MEI LANFANG’S INTERNATIONAL DEBUT IN JAPAN

1. For Japanese studies, see Itō 1981 and Yoshida 1986; 1987. Itō Nobuhiko’s and Yoshida Toshiko’s investigations document different aspects of Mei’s performances in Japan, but they are far from being thorough and miss out some of the most important documents. Even more significantly, they do not amount to an in- depth and critical study of their subject. 2. Some of these sketches were published under the title “Butai no Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang on stage) in Tokyo asahi shinbun , October 23, 1924, 5. 3 . S e e Yomiuri shinbun , May 2, 1919, 1. 4 . S e e Tokyo asahi shinbun , April 26, 1919, 5; Tokyo asahi shinbun (Evening edition), October 15, 1924, 2; Yomiuri shinbun , October 15, 1924, 2; Miyako shinbun, October 15, 1924, 10; Kokumin shinbun, October 19, 1924, 6. 5 . S e e Yomiuri shinbun , May 1, 1919, 1; Tokyo asahi shinbun , May 1, 1919, 6; Yorozu chōhō , May 1, 1919, 4. 6. “Manjō no kanshū o misu” (The packed audience is spellbound), Osaka asahi shinbun , May 20, 1919, 7. 7. See Matsuda 1919; Li 1919; Shōkaiko 1919. 8 . S e e Miyako shinbun, October 13, 1924, 11; Miyako shinbun, October 15, 1924, 10; Chōka 1924. 9 . S e e a l s o Yomiuri shinbun , October 15, 1924, 2. 10. For a Chinese translation of the forum minutes, see Jin Fengji 1996. 11. Also see the Imperial Theatre’s advertisement, Yomiuri shinbun , April 29, 1919, 1. For a complete list of Mei Lanfang’s 1919 and 1924 performances at the Imperial Theatre and other venues, see Yoshida 1986, 102–5. 12. For a list of these plays, see Tokyo nichinichi shinbun 1919a; Shuntian shibao , April 17, 1919, 5. 13. For example, Tanaka Keitarō (1880–1951), a sinophilic bibliophile, was extremely angry that Ōkura Kihachirō and the Imperial Theatre blindly altered the programs Mei had prepared for his tour, without regard to Mei’s studied intention and conscientious care to demonstrate to the Japanese audience all aspects of his artistic achievements (Tenjaku 1919, 106–7). 14. For a critical account of Tanizaki’s experience of the Chinese theatre as part of his Orientalist fantasies of China, see Nishihara 2003, 162–65, 169–70, 174–79; 2005, 140–47, 151–55. 15. Similarly, Naba Toshisada (1890–1970), sinologist specializing in ancient Chinese history and culture, argued that it was naive for people who became accustomed to Japanese and foreign theatres to use the simplicity of scenery and props on the Chinese stage as evidence to completely belittle and Notes 231

denigrate the Chinese theatre as backward and inferior. For him, there are two positions to stage and observe a play: one from an objective position, and the other from a playwright’s, or a practitioner’s, subjective position. The objective position necessitates realistic scenery and props. According to Naba, the Chinese theatre belongs to the subjective position and thereby it is characteristic of the Chinese theatre to use the actor’s gestures and movements as well as simple props to suggest or imply the subjective mood of the scenes without the use of realistic scenery and elaborate props. Naba further stressed that it is also the life of the Chinese theatre (Naba 1919, 161–69). For Suzuki Torao (1878–1963), sinologist specializing in classical Chinese literature, it is simply not feasible to judge the Chinese theatre against modern theatre, Western or Japanese. He argued that since the Chinese theatre like Tiannü san hua was centered on singing and dance, anyone who looks at it with the attitude of modern drama that focuses on spoken speech and portrayal of characters will be disappointed from the very beginning (Hyōken 1919, 67–68). 16. Japanese scholar Yasushi Nagata has also recently reminded us of the pre–war Japanese interest in assimilating traditions and cultures of Asian theatre as part of Japan’s colonialist agenda of controlling other Asian countries (Yasushi 2010, 295). 17. Another reviewer even observed that Mei’s superb presentation of the goddess’ travel in the air was the most brilliant part of his performance in Tiannü san hua (Bonchō 1919). 18. Uemura Kichiya I (date unknown; in the 1670s) was a celebrated onnagata actor for his dances, in particular, for his influence on contemporary women’s fashions. 19. Ayame was said to have criticized Tatsunosuke for his lack of ability in the presentation of jigei (Yoshizawa 1969, 56). 20. See Chapter 3 . 21. See Tian 2000; Morinaga 2002, especially 255–65. 22. See Murata 1919, 61–63. 23. See Kano 2001, 15–24; Edelson 2009, 15–20. 24. See Chōka 1919b. 25. See Maruo 1924, 28–29. 26. For a photo showing Akita Tsuyuko in the role of Yang Guifei, see Kageki 59 (February 1925): n.p. 27. For more on actresses on jingju and kabuki stages, see Tian 2000, 78–97; Isaka 2006, 105–31. 28. Mei’s interest in modern Japanese theatre was also known to the Chinese theatre circle, as one critic noted that because of his trip to Japan, Mei was said to have shown a great interest in the new theatre ( xinju ) and to have been particularly enthusiastic about Li Taohen’s proposal to build a new theatre in Beijing, following the style of modern Japanese theatre (Ma 1919b). 29. See speeches by Yamamoto Kyūzaburō and Shirō Uno at the forum on Mei’s performance (Mei, Yamamoto et al. 1924, 7–8). 232 Notes

30. See Liu Huogong 1920, Part 8, 6–7. 31. See also Ishiyama 2009.

2 “THE GENTLEMANLY ‘LEADING LADY’” AS “AMBASSADOR IN ART”: MEI LANFANG’S 1930 TOUR OF THE UNITED STATES

1. See Leung 1929, 58–59. Hedges, however, warned Mei against “one great danger” that Mei would introduce foreign elements and ideas into Chinese theatrical art when he saw foreign dramas, which would make his “stately dancing and exquisite singing”— “worthy representatives of the Chinese stage”— lose “their purity.” Mei agreed and vowed to strive to preserve “the purity” of his art. 2. For an examination of the role of Qi Rushan as a “cultural broker” in the planning and organization of Mei’s American tour with a view to brokering glory for the Chinese nation, see Guy 2001. 3. See Moy 1929; 1930a. These programs include short introductions to Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre, history and importance of female impersonation, character types, pantomime and acting, costumes, stage properties and symbolism, musical instruments, and Mei’s repertoire (plays and dance pieces). 4. See Lai 1930. 5. See Tian 2008, 141–43. 6. Otis Skinner’s correspondence with MacMurray, October 15, 1927, Dance Collection, New York Public Library, quoted in Rao 2000, 137. 7. But when Mei left the city, this enthusiasm was greatly tempered as Mei was said to have displeased the local Chinese American communities by allegedly neglecting them and refusing to give charity performances (See Letian 1930a). 8 . S e e Q i R u s h a n ’ s l e t t e r s , Jing bao (Peking Press), April 20 (1930): 5; see also Qi 1964d, 12–14. 9. See Wainscott 1997, 91–140. Wainscott does not mention the productions of The Yellow Jacket. For a study of the American productions of this play, see Harbeck 1996. 10. See Qi 1964c, 39. 11. Without a full consideration of the conditions of contemporary American stage and without an in-depth look at the American critical reception of Mei’s performances, some critics overstress the role of the West’s or America’s Orientalist interest in the exotic—and the Chinese response to it—in the success of Mei’s American tour. Joshua Goldstein considers Mei’s tour an exploitation of “tactical Orientalism” (Goldstein 1999, 415; 2007, 270–80); Nancy Yunhwa Rao attributes Mei’s success to American elite society’s lasting exotic and aesthetic interest in chinoiserie Notes 233

(Rao 2000, 137–46); Cecilia J. Pang goes even further by concluding that “Mei Lanfang’s success in the United States can be credited entirely to the management and brokering of cultures by Qi Rushan, who helped tailor Mei’s entire tour to the foreign taste for the exotic” (Pang 2005–6, 375). All these arguments attest to the limits and excesses of a postcolonial approach to the subject. For a more balanced account of the role of culture brokering in Mei’s success, see Guy 2001. 12. According to Eric Bentley, Young’s theatre criticism rests on two principles: “the autonomy of art” and “the autonomy of each of the arts,” and for Young, what unites the autonomy of the theatre art is “a single idea,” the “singleness of intention in the mind which will draw all else with it” (Bentley 1982, 48–50). 13. Young’s essay on Mei Lanfang has been considered one of his best critical reviews—“a tour de force” (Isaacs 1942, 261). In a letter dated April 23, 1930, Young wrote that “Mei Lan- fang said few articles in China had ever understood his art as I did, and sent copies all over China” (Pilkington 1975, 315). Young met and talked to Mei about the latter’s performances. In a letter dated May 2, 1930, Young noted that “I saw much of him, he used to spend hours here” (Pilkington 1975, 319). According to Qi Rushan, Young came to Mei’s hotel at least once to exchange his experience of Mei’s performances and his comments were approved by Mei and Qi (Qi 1964c, 31–36). 14. In a letter dated April 23, 1935, Young said that “I can get fighting wild over Mei Lanfang, Duse or Plato” (Pilkington 1975, 606). 15. See Atkinson 1930a; Collins 1930a. 16. Some similar statements are as follows: “The actor, as a man, is merged completely in the design he is creating” (Ruhl 1930b); “you never behold him as aught but the feminine characters that he plays upon the stage. This celebrated Chinese actor kept the illusion of his portrayals ideally intact . . . His creations of character are . . . both artistic and singularly real” (Schallert 1930); Mei’s “assumption of feminine moods and actions is complete” (Warren 1930). 17. See Tian 2000. It should be noted that Charles Collins, drama critic of the Chicago Tribune, in fact called Mei Lanfang “the Chinese marvel of hermaphroditism in acting”—implying the homosexual appeal in Mei’s acting (Collins 1930b, 21). 18. In 1986, the International School of Theatre Anthropology, directed by Eugenio Barba, organized an international congress in Denmark on the subject of “The Female Role as Represented on the Stage in Various Cultures.” The congress was dedicated to Mei Lanfang. Susan Bassnett and Erika Munk, two participants of the congress, later questioned the congress’ assumptions and perceptions of the representation of female roles by female impersonators from different traditions and cultures. Munk has made this observation in particular reference to Mei: “For its publicity 234 Notes

poster, ISTA used an old photograph of Mei Lan-Fang, robes blowing in the wind, holding two swords, the face a perfect mask of androgyny . . . No matter how much Mei contributed towards modifying a repressive tradition, however, making him an emblem of the representation of women on stage holds us firmly within that tradition” (Munk 1986, 36. See also Bassnett 1987). 19. In his introduction of Mei Lanfang for his American tour, Hu Shi again speaks of the Chinese drama as being “historically an arrested growth” (Hu 1929, n.p.). 20. See “The Idol of the Orient Who Has Captivated N.Y.,” program for Mei’s engagement at Philharmonic Auditorium. 21. Mark Cosdon has noted how Mei’s success that made America more familiar with the exotic art of the Chinese theatre may have negatively affected America’s reception of the 1936 Broadway production of a classical Chinese play, Lady Precious Stream (Cosdon 1995, 186). 22. See Tian 2008, 142–43. 23. For example, Seigei Eisenstein cautioned Mei Lanfang and his Chinese colleagues against any modernization of the art and technology of their traditional theatre (Kleberg 1992, 137; VOKS 2010, 176). 24. See Tian 2008, 147–49; 175–91. 25. See, in particular, Haberman 1967, 84–87; Lifton 1995, 190–97; Lifton 1998, 76–85; Lee 2000, 82–99; and Chen 2002, 108–12. 26. See, for example, Lee 2000, 84; Lifton 1998, 78–81. 27. For a detailed description of the company’s presentation of the piece, see Sherman 1979, 145–48. 28. St. Denis noted that in her studies of the different forms of Oriental dancing, she was not concerned with their traditional methods and fixed forms but with “revealing certain visions and convictions” of her “spiritual progress” and with “what message of beauty” she might bring back from those ancient lands that “will give clarity and calm and a deeper meaning to our unrhythmic lives” (St. Denis 1925). 29. Anne Douglas acknowledged that she had never practiced so hard in her life as with Mei’s “sword dance” she tried to learn for her performance (Sherman 1983, 72). 30. See also “Meiguoren yanli de Mei Lanfang ji Zhongguo ju” (Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre in American eyes), Dagong bao, May 2 and 9 (1930): 13; “Zhuiyuxuan you Mei zalu” (Miscellaneous notes on Zhuiyuxuan’s [Mei Lanfang’s] tour of America), Shen bao, March 3, 4, 29, 31 (1930); April 1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (1930); “Mei Lanfang zai Mei shi zhi suoji” (Miscellaneous notes on Mei Lanfang’s stay in America), Liyuan gongbao, December 8, 11, 14, 17 (1930): 1; “Haiwai Mei xun” (Overseas news on Mei), Liyuan gongbao , March 2, 11, 14, 17, 26, 29 (1930); April 7, 11 (1930); May 11, 17, 23 (1930); Beiyang huabao , April 5, 19, 26 (1930); May 3, 17, 27, 29 (1930); June 5, 10, 12, 21, 28 (1930); Notes 235

July 5, 17, 19 (1930); Beijing huabao (The Peking Pictorial News), May 10 (1930); June 27 (1930); July 6, 9, 24 (1930); August 11 (1930); Qin 1930. 3 1 . Beiyang huabao juxtaposes three pictures showing respectively Tan Xinpei, the late Great King of Actors, traveling in a carriage in Beijing on his way to pay a New Year call; Shang Xiaoyun, one of the four great actors of female roles, riding on a donkey on his way to meet and marry his second wife; and Mei Lanfang driving with the mayor of San Francisco on a parade honoring the Chinese actor. The pictorial presentation shows unmistakably Mei’s superiority over his predecessors and his contemporary colleagues, as one of the captions sums up in a satirical note: “All being said, in the end Dr. Mei is rightfully Dr. Mei” ( Beiyang huabao 1931). About the American invitation to Tan Xinpei to perform in the United States prior to Mei’s 1919 visit to Japan, see Liu Yunqiu 1935. Speaking of the Mei Lanfang Troupe’s propagation of Mei’s success in Russia, Liu Yunqiu argued that Mei’s trip was not worthy enough to gain glory for the Chinese nation, still less to spread the Oriental art and culture. Even if his foreign trip had the potential to do so, Liu continued, Mei did not supersede Tan Xinpei in that regard, given Tan’s great reputation—and thereby the American invitation to him— as “the only renowned artist in the world today” with his aria recordings in great demand both in Japan and in America. 32. Zhao’s (signed as Zhi) letter was also published in Shen bao (Zhi 1930). 3 3 . S e e Shenghuo 5 (29) (June 1930): 490–93. 34. According to an American reporter, Mei’s visit served not only as “a pur- veyor of the most finished and modern in the theatrical art of China” but also a reminder of “the amusing fact” that despite its compromises with American influences, the Chinese theatre in New York’s Chinatowns “adheres more rigidly to the old classical traditions in its methods of production than did the offerings of Mei Lan-fang,” who “has banished his musicians from the stage to behind the setting” and whose music “is much softer, with only an occasional percussion instrument,” in contrast to the Chinese theatre in Chinatowns, which still used “the noisy brasses and continuous accompaniment of music in a scale strange to Western ears” (Lynn 1930).

3 GLORY OR SHAME TO THE CHINESE NATION: THE CHINESE DEBATE ON MEI LANFANG’S 1935 VISIT TO THE SOVIET UNION

1. For a detailed account of the Soviet sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway, see Wu 1950, 234–47. 2. On the premise of the Sino-Soviet cultural cooperation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kuomintang government sent special telegrams to Zhang Pengchun and the president of Nankai University where Zhang 236 Notes

was a professor, asking the president to allow Zhang to accompany and support Mei Lanfang during his visit to Russia. In response to the official request, the president gave Zhang a period of special leave and Zhang, who had previously declined Mei’s initial request of support because of his teaching responsibility, agreed to travel with Mei (See Dagong bao 1935a). Zhang, educated in the United States, was a noted educator and one of the pioneers of modern Chinese theatre. He had previously assisted Mei Lanfang during his 1930 tour in the United States. 3. See the directive issued by the Executive Yuan on February 6, 1935 (Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan 2001b, 12–13). 4. See Mei Lanfang’s telegram to Wang Jingwei (Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan 2001b, 18). 5. See the Chinese Embassy’s telegram (Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan 2001b, 10–11). 6. See the telegram by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan 2001b, 12). 7. Se e Y u a n M u z h i ’ s r e s p o n s e t o H u J i n x u ’ s a c c u s a t i o n (Zhonghua ribao , October 14, 1934, sec. II, 4). 8. Tretyakov contended that it is not entirely difficult for the Chinese to address contemporary themes with the methods of the Chinese theatre. He singled out the performance of Fisherman’s Revenge , a play he called “a revenge of the oppressed,” for its ideological resonance with the Soviet audience (Kleberg 1992, 133; VOKS 2010, 167). 9 . S e e C h a p t e r 5 . 10. Here Fu used directly the English word, “symbolism,” unsure of its Chinese translation. 11. Here Fu used directly the English word, “formalism,” in addition to his Chinese translation of the word. Fu’s argument appears self- contradictory as he attacked, at the same time, the “formalism” of the Chinese theatre as one of its drawbacks that makes it totally devoid of any “aesthetic value” (Fu 1918a, 326–27). 12. For more about the National Theatre Movement, see Tian 2008, 147–51. 13. Mei’s use of the term “patternism” may have been influenced by Zhang Pengchun’s understanding of the conventional style of the Chinese theatre. Zhang stated with the presence of Mei at a tea party in New York on February 18, 1930, that Mei’s acting “was not symbolic or realistic, but ‘stylistically patternistic’” (New York Times 1930b). Later in his essay included in the brochure prepared for Mei’s Russian tour, Zhang explains and summarizes what he calls “the process of patternisation”— the process of formalizing and making “aesthetically satisfying” the actor’s observation of actual ways of doing things from which the actor’s conventional movements are taken (Zhang 1935a, 42). According to a report in Moscow Daily News, Zhang spoke of the actor’s use of “the conventionalized pat- terns of movements” as “a vital point in understanding the Chinese theater” ( Moscow Daily News 1935e). Notes 237

14. Xia’s editorial was a response to the questions put forward by a reader who was troubled by Han Shiheng’s attack on the Chinese theatre and who demanded Shen bao for an answer (see Li Ruhui 1934). 15. Stanislavsky’s letter was included in Clark 2007, 221–22. 16. Here it is interesting to note that Qin cites the case of Ichikawa Sadanji II who remained untransformed and entrenched in the remains of feudal kabuki even after he had once participated in the shingeki movement under the influence of Osanai Kaoru and later performed in the Soviet Union in 1928. 1 7 . S e e Da wanbao 1935c; Moscow Daily News 1935a and 1935d. 18. The cartoon was signed by Sapajou. Sapajou was the professional name of Georgii Avsent’ievich Sapojinikoff, a former Lieutenant in the Czar’s Imperial Russian army. He worked for the North-China Daily News, a venerable bastion of the British establishment in Shanghai, as a prolific and accomplished cartoonist. 1 9 . S e e Moscow Daily News 1935c; Da wanbao 1935d; Pishi 1935b. 2 0 . S e e Izvestiia , May 20, 1933 (cited in Wu 1950, 239). 2 1 . S e e Shen bao 1935b; Da wanbao 1935a, 1935b, and 1935f; Yong bao 1935a and 1935b; Chen bao 1935; Bo 1936; Xiaoshan 1935. In his essay, “To the Magician of the Pear Orchard,” Eisenstein calls Mei “the first bearer of the perfected images of Chinese classical culture” and “the great master who represents the best that Chinese culture has created” (Eisenstein 1996a, 67. See also Eisenstein 1935b, 28). 2 2 . S e e Liang you 1935; Dongfang zazhi 1935; Dagong bao , April 12 and 18, 1935, 9; Weinasi (Venus) 1 (1) (August 15, 1935): 12; Xin Sheng (New life) 2 (14) and 2 (16) (1935): n.p. 23. See Mei 1935c; Dagong bao 1935d; Rensheng xunkan 1935. 24. Writing for Zhongyang ribao about Zhang Pengchun’s speech, one critic likewise claimed that the success of Mei’s Russian tour decided the value of China’s old theatre and that his own appraisal of the value of the old theatre was validated by Zhang’s (Ni 1935). 25. See Tian Han 1934a. 26. According to Cao Juren, who was present at the conversation between Shaw and Mei, Shaw put the question to Mei in a meeting with Chinese writers on his 1933 visit to Shanghai. Shaw said to Mei: “As a playwright I know that the audience wanted to listen quietly to the actors performing on stage. Why does the Chinese theatre, on the contrary, like the beats of big drums and gongs? Is it that the Chinese audience enjoys listening to the theatre with great noise and excitement? A British child listening to the show would have been terrified and gone mad.” Mei answered: “There were also quiet moments in the Chinese theatre. Kunju , for example, does not use drums and gongs from beginning to end.” Not satisfied with Mei’s brief and opportune answer, Cao later wrote both Shaw and Mei, accounting for the use of drums and gongs in the Chinese theatre (See Cao 1985, 92–93). 238 Notes

4 LEARNING THE “PRACTICAL LESSON”: THE INTERPRETATIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS OF MEI LANFANG’S ART BY THE SOVIET THEATRE

1. For official correspondence on the arrangements for Mei Lanfang’s visit, see Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan 2001a, 8–11. 2. For Vassiliev’s introduction to Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre, see also Vassiliev 1935b; 1935c. 3. In a letter to Qi Rushan upon the arrival of the Chinese troupe in Moscow, Guo Jianying, an actor of the troupe, mentioned that he saw many posters in Moscow streets and markets (Dagong bao , April 12, 1935, 12). 4. Several Chinese newspapers ran headlines, reporting from Moscow that all the tickets were sold out ten days ahead of Mei Lanfang’s first public performances and that according to VOKS’s estimate, as many as five hundred thousand people were eager to purchase tickets for Mei’s performances (See Shi bao [The Eastern Times], March 23, 1935, 7; Xinmin bao [New citizen], March 23, 1935, 1; Yong bao , March 24, 1935, 1; Chen bao , March 23, 1935, 2). 5. The date (1933) Filippov gave for Mei Lanfang’s performance in the Club was obviously incorrect. 6. “Fei Chen- o” and “Tiger General” are two titles of one same play ( Cihu ). 7. Stanislavsky was reported to have spoken “enthusiastically” of Chinese theatrical art, “comparing it with ancient Greek art” ( Moscow Daily News 1935g). 8. See Mei Lanfang’s letter to Qi Rushan, written from Russia at the end of his performances in Moscow and Leningrad. This letter was published in Dagong bao, May 15, 1935, 12. See also Mei 1962f, 40–49. Mei Lanfang’s note was partially confirmed by Edward Gordon Craig who recorded his contact with Mei Lanfang during his stay in Moscow (see Tian 2007, 162–66; 2008, 84–88). 9. Mei Lanfang noticed that in a dark box on the second floor of the Grand Theatre, Stalin was possibly watching him perform. Like Mei, Li Feishu and other members of the Chinese troupe were keen on the possibility of Stalin’s presence at Mei’s last performance. But long afterward they remained puzzled and wondered whether Stalin actually attended the performance (Li 1939). 10. Mei Lanfang’s letter to Qi Rushan was published in Dagong bao , May 15, 1935, 12. As indicated in his letter, Mei Lanfang was pleased that in so many press reviews that could be amassed into a whole collection, not a single unpleasant word was said about his performances. 11. In his account of the Russian and Chinese preparations for his trip, Mei Lanfang cited Percy Chen’s report and the latter’s interviews with Eisenstein and Meyerhold as evidence of the Soviet understanding of the significance of his visit (Mei 1986, 127–32). 12. For more information, see Chapter 5 . Notes 239

13. But at the same time, Nemirovich-Danchenko added that “by itself the Chinese performing art is not so meaningful that could compel attention for long” (Nemirovich-Danchenko 1979, 441). 1 4 . Xiqu is a generic term that refers to various forms of traditional Chinese theatre. For convenience I use the Chinese term, in this chapter and occasionally elsewhere, to refer to forms (primarily kunqu and jingju ) of China’s “old,” “traditional,” or “classical” theatre. 15. Meyerhold’s experience of a kabuki performance testifies to the significance of such direct contact. After watching the performance of a kabuki theatre troupe in Paris in 1930 Meyerhold reflected in 1931: “I know the kabuki theatre by way of theory. I know the techniques of kabuki theatre from some books and iconographic materials, but when eventually I have attended one of its performances, it seems to me that I had not read anything, that I did not know anything about it” (Meyerhold 1980, 99). 16. See Mei Shaowu 1981, 63. In his autographed dedication to Mei Lanfang of his article, “The Principles of Film Form,” published in the English journal Close Up (8 [3] [September 1931]: 167–81), Eisenstein called the Chinese actor “the greatest master of form.” The autographed journal sur- vived the Cultural Revolution thanks to Mei Shaowu’s brave act of hiding it—under his bed—from being looted and destroyed by the Red Guards (Mei Shaowu 2006a, 295). 17. For this particular reason, Mei Lanfang, in his first address to the Soviet community after his arrival in Moscow, felt obliged to explain, apologeti- cally, that because classical Chinese theatre speaks in an ancient language inaccessible to the masses, the viewer pays more attention to the skill of the performer than to the theme of the play (See Tretyakov 1935c). 18. This passage was not included in the published version (Eisenstein 1935a). Eisenstein’s view was shared by Chang Peng-chun (Zhang Pengchun), director of the Chinese troupe, who stated in his introduction: While the subject matter of the traditional plays contain ideas of traditional values that are no longer suitable for the present era, we venture to suggest that the consummate art of the actor may contain elements both suggestive and instructive, not only for the new theatre emerging in China but also for modern experimentation in other parts of the world. For it is a fact that the modern theatre is everywhere reacting against the photographic realism predominating a generation ago, and modern experiments in theatrical art are being directed toward simplification and synthetization. (Moscow Daily News 1935e; Zhang 1935a, 45) 19. Almost a decade ago, Tretyakov had spoken of the Chinese theatre being “one of the most powerful forms of aesthetic narcosis” or “an aesthetic- religious hypnosis” for the Chinese masses and had considered Mei Lanfang who specialized in female roles was the ideal feminine beauty representing the manners and ways for each Chinese girl in a stable and conservative petty-bourgeois family (Tretyakov 1982, 245–46). 240 Notes

20. See Meyerhold 1978b, 97; 2010, 145. This piece is a different version of Meyerhold’s speech delivered at the forum on Mei Lanfang’s performance, organized by the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries and held on April 14, 1935, after Mei’s final performance in Moscow. As I will show later, some parts of the speech were not included in the minutes of the forum (VOKS 2010; Kleberg 1992). 2 1 . “ Uslovnost’ ” (“convention” or “conventionality”) and “ Uslovnyi” (“conventional”) (Meyerhold 1968, 123–42). Edward Braun’s translations of the Russian words are “stylized” or “stylization,” as in “stylized theatre” and “conscious stylization” (Meyerhold 1969, 36–39, 49, 58–63); Beatrice Picon-Vallin’s are “convention,” as in “théâtre de la convention” and “convention consciente” (Meyerhold 1973, 105–9, 119–23); Nina Gourfinkel’s are “théâtre stylisé,” “stylisation,” or “théâtre de convention consciente” (Meyerhold 1963, 31–33, 275); George Petrov’s are “relativistic” or, occasionally, “conditional” (Rudnitsky 1981, 138–41). Chinese translations read as “jiadingxing ” (hypothetical or suppositional). In this article, “convention” and, correspondingly, “conventional,” “conventionality,” and “conventionalized” are adopted throughout. 22. Vladislav Ozerov was the author of a number of tragedies in the style of French neoclassicism. See also Meyerhold 1992, 369; Gladkov 1997, 167. Note “convention” and “stylization” instead of “conventionality” in Picon- Vallin’s and Law’s translations, respectively. 23. See Meyerhold, “The New Theatre Foreshadowed in Literature,” “The Theatre- Studio,” “First Attempts at a Stylized [Conventional] Theatre,” and “The Stylized [Conventional] Theatre” (Meyerhold 1969, 34–64). 24. The French translation is slightly different: “the Chinese spectator pene- trates the content of the pieces played by Mei Lanfang; he comprehends the feminine personages created by the actor, because the actor uses a language which is habitual to this country, to this nation” (Meyerhold 1980, 234). 25. An English translation of this Pravda editorial, “Muddle Instead of Music: Concerning the Opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District,” was included in Platt and Brandenberger 2006, 136–38. The unsigned editorial was attributed to P. M. Kerzhentsev, Chairman of the Committee on Arts Affairs under the Council of People’s Commissars of USSR. It was also said to have been reputedly written by Andrei Zhdanov (See Fitzpatrick 1992, 187). In her letter to Stalin, Zinaida Raikh, Meyerhold’s wife, said that “Kerzhentsev cursed Meyerhold as practically an ‘enemy of the people’” (An English translation of Zinaida Raikh’s letter was included in Clark 2007, 328–30). Indeed, Meyerhold “was in some respects probably the hidden target in the Lady Macbeth affair” (Fitzpatrick 1992, 200). 26. An English translation of the Politburo’s resolution on the closure of the Meyerhold Theatre was included in Clark 2007, 247–48. 27. Like Meyerhold and Eisenstein, Tretyakov defended the Chinese theatre from being labeled as merely conventional and formalistic. For him, one Notes 241

important achievement of the Chinese theatre’s visit is that it finished off a very unpleasant fantasy of the Chinese theatre as being “conventional from beginning to end.” He emphasized the “quantitative and qualita- tive potential for realism” in the Chinese theatre and he believed that “its future lies precisely in this potential”: “This theatre with such prodigious history and such historic sedimentation is predisposed to even petrify, and no doubt it has its own difficulties. But within these sumptuous fossils beat so many living pulses, any ossification fractures” (Kleberg 1992, 133; VOKS 2010, 167). 28. Mei Lanfang expressed his high regard of the genius of Meyerhold in a talk with the Soviet press ( Vecherniaia moskva 1935b; Da wanbao 1935g). 29. See also Meyerhold 1968, 225. Meyerhold cited from Pushkin’s draft of a letter to N. N. Raevsky in 1829, which became part of the drafts of his preface to his tragedy, Boris Godunov . The letter was originally written in French and Pushkin used directly the French word “vraisemblance” and the French phrase “invraisemblance de convention” (See Pushkin 1928, 63; the French text was also included in Pushkin 1998, 246–47): While writing my Godunov I reflected on tragedy . . . it is perhaps the most misunderstood genre. They have tried to base its laws on verisimilitude, and that is precisely what the nature of drama excludes. Not to speak of time, place, etc.—what the devil verisimilitude is there in a hall cut in two parts, of which one is occupied by 2000 people, sup- posedly unseen by those on the boards? . . . Isn’t all that only a conventional unverisimilitude? The true geniuses of tragedy never troubled themselves over any verisimilitude other than that of characters and situations. (The English translation is from Pushkin 1963, 367) In a draft note on tragedy at the time when he was working on Boris Godunov , Pushkin wrote: Of all forms of composition the ones most lacking in verisimilitude (invraisemblables) are the dramatic, and of dramatic works, the tragic, as the spectator must forget, for the most part, the time, the place and the language; must accept, by an effort of the imagination, poetry and ideas expressed in an accepted idiom. (Pushkin 1998, 130) Meyerhold continued to write: In Pushkin’s short play set in the age of chivalry the mowers flail with their scythes at the legs of the knights’ horses: “some horses fall injured and others run wild.” Pushkin . . . who welcomed such “stylized improbability” [conventional unverisimilitude], is hardly likely to have expected real horses, previously schooled to fall injured and run wild, to be brought on to the stage. In writing this stage direction Pushkin might almost have foreseen the actor of the twentieth century riding on to the stage on a wooden steed . . . or on the caparisoned wooden frames with papier maché horses’ heads. (Meyerhold 1969, 140) 242 Notes

Meyerhold might have considered Pushkin’s (and his) modernity primitive had he known that as early as the thirteenth century, the staging of Chinese Yuan drama had begun to use a bamboo horse, or simply a whip, to represent a real horse. As I have investigated elsewhere, the presence of horses and other animals on the Yuan stage is suggested by “a combina- tion of stage props, narratives of speech and song, appropriate gestures and movements of the player, and the imagination of the playgoers” (See Tian 2005/2006, 416). 30. These paragraphs were not included in the minutes of Meyerhold’s speech at the forum on Mei Lanfang, although Nemirovich- Danchenko mentioned “Meyerhold’s Pushkin reference” in his concluding speech. Aleksandr Pushkin’s original statement is: “Verisimilitude [ pravdopodo- bie ] is still presumed to be the primary condition and basis of dramatic art. What if it were demonstrated that the very essence of dramatic art distinctly precludes verisimilitude? . . . Where is the verisimilitude of a building divided into two parts, one of which is filled with spectators who have agreed, etc.?” (Pushkin 1981, 9. The Russian text of the essay can be found in Pushkin 1949, 211–21). 31. This version of Eisenstein’s essay was translated from a 1939 typescript in Eisenstein’s archive. The convention in question was listed as “Ma Pen [sic ]” ( ma bian or ma pien — horse whip). It was also listed in another version (Eisenstein 1935a, 765). The 1935 version included in the VOKS brochure (1935b)—written prior to Mei Lanfang’s visit—does not list this convention. It was most likely added to the later versions by Eisenstein after he saw the demonstrations and performances by Mei Lanfang and his colleagues. A Moscow press report of Mei Lanfang’s appearance in the Masters of Art Club on March 20 carries a photo of Mei Lanfang demonstrating the acting convention of horse-riding ( Vecherniaia moskva 1935a). 32. See also Meyerhold 1975, 129, 141. 33. See Tian 1997, 214–15. 34. For examples, see Chapter 5. 35. For an analysis of the grotesque in the commedia dell’arte and the work of Hoffmann, Wedekind, and Gogol, see Kayser 1981, 37–40, 68–76, 105–6, 131–33, 124–28; for a discussion of Meyerhold’s debt to the commedia dell’arte, see Moody 1978; for Meyerhold’s notes on Callot and Goya, see Meyerhold 1969, 139, 141, 285; for an examination of “the car- nivalesque grotesque” in Meyerhold’s work, see Picon- Vallin 1990, 83–85, 335–37. 36. Later Meyerhold seemed to have contradicted himself by asserting that “The grotesque isn’t something mysterious.” Nevertheless he emphasized that it is— perhaps not “simply,” to me— “a theatrical style that plays with sharp contradictions and produces a constant shift in the planes of perception” (Gladkov 1997, 142). 37. Michael Chekhov noted that Meyerhold “saw everything from its evil side”: “He dug the cruelest things out of human beings and qualities, Notes 243

made archetypes of them and put them on the stage for all of us to recog- nize some of our baser natures within them” (Chekhov 1963, 41). 38. This part of Meyerhold’s speech is slightly different from that recorded in the minutes of the forum: “We have spoken a great deal about the so-called rhythmic construction of performance. But whoever sees the work of Dr. Mei Lanfang appreciates the great power of rhythm this ingenious master of the stage displays” (Kleberg 1992, 134; VOKS 2010, 169). 39. This part of Meyehold’s speech is not included in the minutes. 40. It should be noted that ancient Chinese and Japanese theatres did not feature a “director” in the modern sense. 41. For works available in English see Wichmann 1991; Pian 1971; 1979. 42. See Eisenstein 1983, 217–18. Eisenstein quotes from Lin Yutang 1935, 292.

5 THE EFFECT OF DISPLACEMENT: BERTOLT BRECHT’S INTERPRETATION AND REFUNCTIONING OF MEI LANFANG’S ART

1. For a slightly different version of Brecht’s essay translated by Eric Walter White, see Brecht 1936; Brecht 1993c. For Eric Bentley’s translation of the essay, see Brecht 1949b; 1961. A close look at the English translations of Brecht’s essay by Eric White and Bentley, which were apparently based on one same German text yet to be published, and the German text published in 1957 and translated by John Willett shows that Brecht had made some more revisions before it was first published in German. What is missing is the German text both White’s and Bentley’s translations were based on. In these English translations, “Verfremdungseffekt” has been translated as “Effect of Disillusion” (Eric White), “Alienation Effect” (Bentley and John Willett; for one time, Bentley translated it as “effect of estrangement”). Willett’s translation has given currency to the widespread use of “Alienation Effect,” but some other writers (Fredric Jameson, Silvija Jestrovic, Douglas Robinson, and others) have argued against Willett’s translation and have instead proposed “Estrangement Effect.” In French translation, the term is rendered as “Effet de distanciation” (Brecht 2000b). Chinese translations of the term are “ moshenghua xiaoguo ” and “jianli xiaoguo ,” the first of which means the effect of estrangement or defamil- iarization while the second conveys the effect of both alienation and distancing. The choice of these different terms in different languages—none of which adequately conveys the full meaning(s) of Brecht’s neologism, if taken out of the context of Brecht’s writings, may lead to unnecessary misreadings. However, it does not alter in any significant degree Brecht’s interpretation of Chinese acting as seen in the context of Brecht’s writings and viewed from the perspective of the Chinese theatre. 2. See Tian 1998, 86–97; 2008, 175–91. 244 Notes

3. Br e c h t m u s t h a v e s e e n M e i L a n f a n g ’ s i m p r o m p t u d e m o n s t r a t i o n s a n d / or performances sometime between March 12 and April 13, 1935, not in May 1935, as John Willett mistakenly noted (1964b, 99). 4. According to Mei Lanfang’s recollection, he performed in six playlets: Yuzhou feng (The Cosmic blade, or Beauty defies tyranny, or Madness by pretence), Fenhe wan (By the Fen River bends, or The suspected slippers), Cihu (Killing the Tiger, or Fei Chen- o and the “Tiger” General, or The death of the Tiger General), Dayu shajia (The fisherman’s revenge, or Revenge of the oppressed), Hongni guan (The rainbow pass), and Guifei zui jiu (The drunken beauty). He also performed six dances from six other plays, including Xishi (Xishi), Mulan cong jun (Mulan joins the army), Sifan (or Nigu sifan— Nun longs for the mortal world), Magu xian shou (Magu offers her birthday gift), Bawang bie ji (The King’s farewell to his concubine), and Hongxian dao he (Hongxian steals the box) (Mei 1962f, 44). In his letter to Qi Rushan noted previously, Mei provided a list of plays and dances he and his troupe performed. This list includes all six short plays and the dances Mei performed with the notable exception of Bawang bie ji that was not listed. Nor was it included in the program prepared for the Chinese troupe’s visit to Russia that includes synopses of the plays and dances from Mei’s repertoire (See Performances of Mei Lan-Fang in Soviet Russia: Synopses of Plays and Dances from His Repertoire [n.p., 1935]). 5. This “document” was published in Chinese in Zhonghua xiqu (Chinese traditional theatre) 7 (1988): 1–34, and was reprinted in Mei Lanfang yishu pinglun ji (An anthology of reviews on Mei Lanfang’s art), edited by Zhongguo Mei Lanfang Yanjiu Xuehui and Mei Lanfang Jinianguan (Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe, 1990), 709–43. 6. It is interesting to note that Kleberg’s otherwise brilliant dramatic presentation of the different views of these Soviet and European artists on Mei Lanfang and Chinese acting has caused considerable confusions that have led scholars not only in China but also in Germany to the misidentifica- tion of Kleberg’s fictional work as the original document or protocol that records the minutes of the Russian forum on Mei Lanfang’s performance. Kleberg’s work was published in German in Lettre International (3 [1988]: 75–81) as “Die Zauberlehrlinge” with a misleading subtitle, “Protokoll einer Diskussion vom 14 April 1935 in Moskau aus Anlaß des Gastspiels des chinesischen Schauspielers Mei Lan- fang in der Sowjetunion.” The editors of the journal must have published it as the real thing instead of a fictional work as it is grouped together with four scholarly articles on theatre. In her biography on Helene Weigel, Sabine Kebir mistakes Kleberg’s work for the original protocol and gives a lengthy summary of the fictional debate, in particular, the speech delivered by Brecht (Kebir 2000, 142–45). Unfortunately, in his work on Brecht’s dramatic theory, John White further cites from Kebir’s work in regard to Brecht’s participation in “a debate after Mei Lan-fang’s 1935 exhibition performance of Chinese acting,” in Notes 245

which “Brecht became the main target of an anti-formalist polemic, in the presence of Stanislavsky himself” (White 2004, 70). These confusions occurred in spite of the fact that Kleberg himself had clarified the issue in 1992 when he edited and published the original minutes in Russian (Kleberg 1992) and again in 1996 with the publication of the minutes in German (Kleberg 1996a), and that my article in 1997 has detailed the issue for the first time in an English publication (Tian 1997, 200–222). 7. See the English translation of the full original minutes (VOKS 2010). I would like to thank Professor Lars Kleberg for providing me a copy of the original minutes. See also Kleberg 1992; 1993; 1996a. Craig, however, met Mei Lanfang and Yu Shangyuan in Moscow on some other occasions (Tian 2007, 162–66; 2008, 84–88). In his recollection, Yu Shangyuan also recorded his meetings with Craig (Yu 1935). 8. See Bertold Brecht, “Über die Zuschaukunst,” “Theater und Publikum,” “Über das Theater der Chinesen,” “Über ein Detail des chinesischen Theaters,” “Die Beibehaltung der Gesten durch verschiedene Generationen,” “Theater” (Brecht 1993a, 124–29); “Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst” (Brecht 1993b, 151–55). The last piece was not included in previous collections of Brecht’s work. 9. Svend Borberg’s play, Circus Juris, was premiered in March 1935, at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark. Brecht studied Borberg’s work and the Danish theatre in 1935 through Ruth Berlau, a Danish actress and one of Brecht’s close collaborators. 10. White’s translation of “Einfühlung” was a paraphrase; Bentley and Willett directly translated it as “empathy.” In his short pieces on Stanislavsky, Brecht specif ically notes that what he means by the word is “Identif ikation” (identification) (Brecht 1993a, 175, 178–80). 11. In my study of the twentieth- century Chinese- Western intercultural theatre, including Brecht’s interpretation and inculturation of the Chinese theatre, I have presented my view of intercultural theatre as a site, and a process, of displacement and re-placement of culturally specific and dif- ferentiated theatrical forces (Tian 2008, 2, 11). 12. See Frye 1976, 36; 2006b, 416; 2006a, 480; 1957, 365. 13. For a detailed reconstruction of Brecht’s staging of the play, see Fuegi 1987, 132–67; for a photograph illustration of the production, see Hurwicz 1964. 14. See Figure 59 in Fuegi 1972, 316. 15. For studies in the performance of Yuan drama, see Crump 1980; Tian 2005. 16. It should be noted that in Chinese acting, characters are distinguished by makeup, not by masks (in White’s and Bentley’s translations, “Masken” is translated as “makeup,” not “masks”). In 1942, in an essay on film music, Brecht wrote again that “The Chinese theatre produces these types of effects with masks” (Brecht 2000c, 15). The German word “Maske” also 246 Notes

means “makeup.” It is not clear if Brecht used the word to convey the exact meaning of “makeup,” although his remark is followed immediately by a phrase: “i.e. simply by painting” (But a mask can be painted, too). In his play, The Horatians and the Curiatians , Brecht also instructs his actors to follow “a convention of the Chinese theatre” that “the elements of those armies can be indicated by little flags which the Generals wear on wooden shoulder frames” (Brecht 1997, 290). Brecht’s description is not accurate. In fact, in Chinese acting, the general always wears four flags, regardless of the number of regiments he commands. 17. Both White and Bentley translated “Selbstentfremdung” as “self- estrangement” (Brecht 1936, 118; 1949b, 70). 18. In Willett’s translation of Brecht’s essay the woman is misidentified as the wife; in White’s and Bentley’s versions the identification is correct. 19. It is interesting to call attention to Jean-Paul Sartre’s experience of the performance of traditional Chinese theatre. Sartre saw a performance of Beijing Opera in Paris in 1956. The French playwright describes in his lecture on Brecht’s Epic Theatre how the Chinese actors conjure up the illusion of a river and a boat or create the illusion of night in the full blaze of the footlights solely by their pantomimic actions without the assistance of properties (Sartre 1976, 103–4). 20. The German word, “Haltungen,” also means “attitudes.” In his essay, Brecht talks about the “attitude [Haltung]” of the Chinese artist as expressed in his body and his self- observation (Brecht 1964b, 92–93). 21. Brecht most likely saw Mei Lanfang’s impromptu demonstration of this acting convention (see Note 31 of Chapter 4). 22. See Tian 2000. 23. For an English translation of Tretyakov’s article, see Tian 2010, 161–64. 24. Here Brecht refers to Stanislavsky’s theory. In his short studies of Stanislavsky, Brecht likewise considers “the complete conversion” “a difficult thing” (Brecht 1993a, 180). 25. See Huang 1990, 257–58. 26. For an English translation of Jiang’s article, see Tian 2010, 79–84. 27. For an English translation of Yu’s article, see Tian 2010, 85–89. 28. In Brecht’s German text as translated by Willett, this quotation reads: “The coldness comes from the actor’s holding himself remote from the character portrayed, along the lines described. He is careful not to make its sensations into those of the spectator. Nobody gets raped by the individual he portrays; this individual is not the spectator himself but his neighbour” (Brecht 1964b, 93). The contrast of the Asian star and stage is, however, included in Brecht’s early essay (“Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst,” Brecht 1993b, 154). It is interesting to note that in his short notes on Stanislavsky, Brecht is also against the European bourgeois stage for its central interest in individuality that for Brecht undermines the Notes 247

authority of Stanislavsky’s method of empathy or identification (Brecht 1993a, 175). 29. White’s translation, “a startled cry at one of the actor’s gestures escaped from a spectator sitting by me” (Brecht 1936, 120), or Bentley’s, “a spectator sitting near me let out a startled cry at one of the actor’s gestures” (Brecht 1949b, 73), conveys without ambiguity the involuntariness of the spectator’s reaction. 30. White’s translation: “In the first place, it is difficult when watching Chinese actors to rid ourselves of the feeling of estrangement that they excite in us as Europeans. But we must remember that their acting has the same effect on their Chinese spectators” (Brecht 1936, 120–21); Bentley’s translation: “In the first place it is difficult, when watching the Chinese act, to rid ourselves of the feeling of strangeness that they arouse in us because we are Europeans. One must be able to imagine they achieve the alienation effect also in their Chinese spectators” (Brecht 1949b, 74). 31. Brecht’s emphasis. Willett’s translation does not mark the emphasis nor does White’s or Bentley’s. 32. There is a handwritten note under the text: “This attempt has as a subject the transport of a foreign technology” (Brecht 1992a, 751). 33. The English translation is from Brecht on Film and Radio (Brecht 2000c, 162). This collection includes an English translation of the full text of “The Threepenny Lawsuit.” John Willett translated “Umfunktionierung” as “transformation” in his translation of parts of the text (Brecht 1964a, 48). 34. In his “Short Organum for the Theatre,” Brecht writes again that “the social aims of these old devices were entirely different from our own” (Brecht 1964a, 192). 35. White’s translation reads “the realm of illusion” (Brecht 1936, 121). In Willett’s translation, this passage differs from White’s and Bentley’s and does not include the line “If one has learned to think dialectically . . . can be used to combat magic with.” John White has suggested that the passage in White’s translation—“Only those who have leaned to think dialectically will hold it possible that a technique derived from the realm of illusion can be used as a weapon in the struggle against illusion” (Brecht 1936, 121)— may have been added at the German end of the proofreading process (White 2004, 93). But the evidence that Bentley’s translation includes the same passage with a slightly different wording and a close comparison of Bentley’s and White’s translations all point to the fact that the German text Bentley used was the same one used by White. This indicates that the two identical German texts must have been approved by Brecht and, therefore, the passage cited previously must have been in the original text, not added in the proofreading stage of White’s English translation. While the German text used by White and Bentley was never 248 Notes

published, the German text used by Willett for his translation was first published in 1957 (not in 1949 as mistakenly noted by Willett [Brecht 1964a, 99]. Willett may have confused Brecht’s full-length essay with his early essay published in 1949, “Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst”—see my previous discussion). Thus the omission of the passage from the 1957 text must have been made by Brecht himself. By the way, it is surprising to me that John White does not mention Bentley’s translation, given his pointed discussion on the dilemma Brecht’s trans- lators have to deal with (White 2004, 93) and the fact that it is Bentley who first translated the “Verfremdungseffekt” as “alienation effect” throughout his translation with the exception of one time as “effect of estrangement.” 36. This passage is not included in Willett’s translation. 37. Quoted in Jameson 1998, 84. Jameson’s translation. 38. Brecht called his “Short Organum for the Theatre” “a description of a theatre of the scientific age” (Brecht 1964a, 205). It is worth noting that in White’s and Bentley’s translations, there is no such clear characteriza- tion of Chinese acting as “the artistic counterpart of a primitive technology, a rudimentary science” (Brecht 1964b, 96). It must have been added later by Brecht to underline the difference between Chinese acting and his epic theatre and to stress the modernity and scientific superiority of his system. 39. For a critical examination of the Chinese interpretations and reinventions of traditional Chinese theatre from the perspective of the Stanislavsky system, see Tian 2008, 159–73. 40. For instance, some critics have even argued, “the most important source from which Brecht derived his concept of the alienation effect seems to have been the acting style of Mei Lanfang” (Bai 1998, 428), and Brecht’s “creative” interpretation of Chinese techniques—even though “idiosyn- cratic” and mistaken—became “a cornerstone of his theory of Epic theatre” (Weber 1989, 17; Bai 1998, 428).

C O N C L U S I O N

1. For instance, in his materialist take on Mei’s approach, A Jia, a leading director and theoretician, criticized particularly Meyerhold (“a formalist director,” as A Jia called him) for his praise of Mei’s hand gestures which, according to A Jia, were designed to portray those idle and morbid women of the feudal aristocratic class, not the working women of the laboring masses (A Jia 2005, 21–22).

B i b l i o g r a p h y

A Jia. 2005. “Tan Mei Lanfang de jiuju gaige guan” (On Mei Lanfang’s view of the reform of the old theatre). In A Jia xiju lunji (A collection of A Jia’s essays on theatre), edited by Li Chunxi, 19–26. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Achilles. 1924. “Mei Lan Fang: China’s Foremost Actor.” The Living Age , May 31, 1053–55. Ai Siqi. 1934. “Zhongguo xi yu xiangzhengzhuyi” (The Chinese theatre and symbolism). Shen bao , November 29, 16. Akita Ujaku. 1965. Akita Ujaku nikki (Akita Ujaku’s diaries), vol. 1. Tokyo: Miraisha. ———. 1987. Ujaku jiden (Ujaku’s autobiography). Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Senta. Akutagawa Ryūnosuke. (1927) 1964. Shuju no kotoba (Words of the Unitelligent). In Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū, vol. 5, 70–115. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. ———. (1925) 1965. Shina yūki (Travels in China). In Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū , vol. 6, 3–106. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. ———. 2007. Zhongguo youji (Travels in China). Translated by Qin Gang. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Aoki Masaru. 1919. “Meirō to konkyoku” (Mei Lanfang and kunqu). In Ōshima 1919, 1–26. Arosev, A. 1935. “Welcome to the Great Artist.” In The All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (VOKS), Mei Lan-Fang and the Chinese Theatre: On the Occasion of His Appearance in the U.S.S.R. , 7. Moscow and Leningrad. Artaud, Antonin. 1976. Antonin Artaud, Selected Writings. Edited by Susan Sontag and translated by Helen Weaver. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Atkinson, J. Brooks. 1930a. “China’s Idol Actor Reveals His Art.” New York Times , February 17, 18. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lan- fang, Ambassador in Art.” New York Times , February 23, sec. 8, X1. ———. 1930c. “Japanese Players in Realistic Drama.” New York Times , March 5, 26. 250 Bibliography

Babcock, Muriel. 1930. “China’s Idol to Be Here.” Los Angeles Times, April 20, part 2, 9. Bai, Ronnie. 1998. “Dances with Mei Lanfang: Brecht and the Alienation Effect.” Comparative Drama 32 (3): 389–433. Baishui (Lin Baishui). (1925) 2006. “Fandui Mei Lanfang chuyang” (Against Mei Lanfang going abroad). Shehui ribao (Social daily), April 21 (1925). Reprinted in Lin Baishui wenji (Collected works of Lin Baishui), edited by Lin Weigong, vol. 2, 878. Fuzhou: Fuzhoushi Xinwen Chubanju. Banu, Georges. 1986. “Mei Lanfang: A Case Against and a Model for the Occidental Stage.” Translated by Ella L. Wiswell and June V. Gibson. Asian Theatre Journal 3 (2): 153–78. Barba Eugenio. 1986. “The Female Role as Represented on the Stage in Various Cultures.” In the 1986 ISTA Program, compiled and edited by Richard Fowler. Holstebro, Denmark. ———. 1988. “Eugenio Barba to Phillip Zarrilli.” The Drama Review 32 (3): 7–14. ———. 1995. The Paper Canoe: A Guide to Theatre Anthropology. Translated by Richard Fowler. London: Routledge. ———. 1996. “Eurasian Theatre.” In The Intercultural Performance Reader , edited by Patrice Pavis, 217–22. London: Routledge. ———. 2003. “Grandfathers, Orphans, and the Family Saga of European Theatre.” New Theatre Quarterly 19 (2): 108–17. Barnes, Ralph W. 1935. “Mei Lan Fang Ends His Tour among Soviets.” New York Herald Tribune , sec. 5, April 28, 6. Barthes, Roland. 1977. “Diderot, Brecht, Eisenstein.” In Image, Music, Text , selected and translated by Stephen Heath, 69–78. New York: Hill and Wang. Bassnett, Susan. 1987. “Perceptions of the Female Role: the ISTA Congress.” New Theatre Quarterly 3 (11): 234–36. Bauer, Marion, and Flora Bauer. 1930. “The Music in New York: Mei Lan- Fang Closes Engagement.” The Musical Leader , March 27, 14. Beiyang huabao (The Pei-Yang Pictorial News). 1930a. “Mei Lanfang di Niuyue zhi shengkuang” (A grand occasion for Mei Lanfang’s arrival in New York). April 19, 3. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lanfang yuman Falanxi” (Mei Lanfang’s fame has spread over France). May 31, 3. ———. 1931. “Ti lao Tan cheng jiaoche tu” (A note on a picture of the revered Tan traveling in a carriage). January 1, 3. Benchley, Robert. 1938. “Two at Once.” The New Yorker , February 12, 26. Benjamin, Walter. 1983. Understanding Brecht . Translated by Anna Bostock. London: Verso. Bentley, Eric. 1982. “Stark Young.” Theater 14 (1): 47–53. Bigemowu Zhaizhu [pseud.]. 1934. “Jingju sheng dan liang gemin jia— Tai Xinpei yu Wang Yaoqing” (Two revolutionaries of jingju sheng and dan — Bibliography 251

Tan Xinpei and Wang Yaoqing). Juxue yuekan (Theatre studies monthly) 3 (7): 1–12. Bloch, Ernst. 1970. “Entfremdung , Verfremdung : Alienation, Estrangement.” The Drama Review 15 (1): 120–25. ———. 1991. Heritage of Our Times . Translated by Neville and Stephen Plaice. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bo Mu. 1936. “Mei Lanfang you E ji” (Mei Lanfang’s visit to Russia). Wuhan ribao (Wuhan daily), May 25. Bolitho, William. 1930. “Mei Lan-fang.” The World (New York), February 20, 15. Bolton, Whitney. 1930. “The Cream of China: Mei Lan- Fang’s Magic.” The Morning Telegraph, February 18, 3. Bonchō [pseud.]. 1919. “Tenhin no geifū o miseta: Mei Lanfang no shonichi” (A show of superbly refined style of art: Mei Lanfang’s opening day). Kokumin shinbun , May 3, 5. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature . Edited by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press. Brecht, Bertolt. 1936. “The Fourth Wall of China: An Essay on the Effect of Disillusion in the Chinese Theatre.” Translated by Eric Walter White. Life and Letters Today 15 (6): 116–23. ———. 1949a. “Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst.” Theater der Welt: Ein Almanach , edited by Herbert Jhering, 76–79. Berlin: Bruno Henschel und Sohn. ———. 1949b. “Chinese Acting.” Translated by Eric Bentley. Furioso 4 (Fall): 68–77. ———. 1955. “Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst.” Sonntag (East Berlin), January 2, 5. — — —. 1 9 6 1 . “ C h i n e s e A c t i n g . ” T r a n s l a t e d b y E r i c B e n t l e y . Tulane Drama Review 6 (1): 130–36. ———. 1963. “Uber das Theater der Chinesen.” In Bertolt Brecht, Schriften zum Theatre, 1933–1947 , vol. 4, edited by Werner Hecht, 53 –58. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. ———. 1964a. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Edited and translated by John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang. ———. 1964b. “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting.” In Brecht on Theatre , 91–99. ———. 1975. Collected Plays, vol. 7. Edited by Ralph Manheim and John Willett. New York: Vintage Books. ———. 1990. Letters 1913–1956. Translated by Ralph Manheim and edited by John Willett. London: Methuen. ———. 1992a. Werke: Große Kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe , edited by Werner Hecht et al., vol. 21. Berlin und Weimar: Aufbau; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 252 Bibliography

———. 1992b. “Über die japanische Schauspieltechnik.” In Brecht, Werke , vol. 21, 391–92. ———. 1993a. Werke: Große Kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe , edited by Werner Hecht et al., vol. 22. ———. 1993b. “Bemerkungen über die chinesische Schauspielkunst.” In Brecht, Werke , vol. 22, 151–55. ———. 1993c. “The Fourth Wall of China: An Essay on the Effect of Disillusion in the Chinese Theatre.” Translated by Eric Walter White. In Brecht, Werke , vol. 22, 960–68. ———. 1993d. “Verfremdungseffekte in der chinesischen Schauspielkunst.” In Brecht, Werke , vol. 22, 200–10. ———. 1993e. “Theater und Publikum.” In Brecht, Werke , vol. 22, 125. ———. 1997. Collected Plays , vol. 3, part 2. Edited by John Willett. London: Methuen. ———. 2000a. Écrits sur le Théâtre . Edited by Jean- Marie Valentin et al. Paris: Gallimard. ———. 2000b. “Effets de Distanciation dans L’art Dramatique Chinois.” In Brecht 2000a, 818–29. ———. 2000c. Brecht on Film and Radio. Translated and edited by Marc Silberman. London: Methuen. Briusov, Valery. 1986. “Against Naturalism in the Theatre (from ‘Unnecessary Truth’).” In The Russian Symbolist Theatre: An Anthology of Plays and Critical Texts , edited and translated by Michael Green, 25–30. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Brown, John Mason. 1930. “Mei Lan-Fang Presents Chinese Plays.” New York Evening Post , February 17, 12. ———. 1936. “The Unreality of Realism.” The North American Review 242 (1): 105–16. Buss, Kate. 1922. Studies in the Chinese Drama . Boston: Four Seas. Caishuang [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Lang fu dong wenti” (Question about Mei Lanfang’s trip to Japan). Jing bao (The Crystal), March 9, 2. Cao Juren. 1935. “Ying Mei” (Welcome Mei). Shen bao , August 9, 15. ———. 1985. Tingtaoshi ju hua (Talks about theatre from Tingtaoshi). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Carter, Edward C. 1930. “Mei Lan- fang in America.” Pacific Affairs 3 (9): 827–33. Chekhov, Michael. 1963. Michael Chekhov’s To the Director and Playwright . Compiled and written by Charles Leonard. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row. Chen bao (The morning post). 1935. “Mei Lanfang yu Sulian yulun” (Mei Lanfang and the Soviet public opinions). March 16, 5. Chen Dabei. 1930. “‘Guohua’— Mei Lanfang chuyang” (Mei Lanfang the national flower going abroad). Zhongwai pinglun (China and foreign reviews) 17: 22–23. Bibliography 253

Chen Duxiu (San Ai). (1905) 1960. “Lun xiqu” (On traditional Chinese theatre). In Wanqing wenxue congchao: xiaoshuo xiqu yanjiu jue (Collected sources of the late Qing literature: studies of novels and xiqu), edited by A Ying, 52–54. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Chen Guying. 1984. Lao Zi zhuyi ji pingjie (Lao Zi with notes, translations and comments). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Chen Jiang. 1934. “You Mei Lanfang fu E tandao pihuang, xin geju, huaju” (From Mei Lanfang’s trip to Russia to Beijing opera, new opera, and spoken drama). Yong bao , June 11, 9. Chen, Percy. 1935. “High Spots of the Recent Visit of Mei Lan- fang to the Soviet Union.” The China Weekly Review 72 (12) (May 18): 394. Chen, Xiaomei. 2002. Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post- Mao China . 2nd. ed. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield. Chen Yanheng. 1965. Jiuju congtan (A series of discussions on the old theatre). In Qingdai yandu liyuan shiliao (Historical sources of the theatre in the capital of Qing dynasty), edited by Zhang Cixi, vol. 3, 1555–617. Beiping, 1934–1937. Reissued, Taipei: Xuesheng Shuju. Cheney, Sheldon. 1914. The New Movement in the Theatre. New York: Mitchell Kennerly. ———. 1917. The Art Theatre . New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ———. 1930. The Theatre: Three Thousand Years of Drama, Acting, and Stagecraft . London: Longmans, Green. Cheng Yanqiu. 1932. “Zhi Liyuan Gongyihui tongren shu” (Letter to the colleagues at the Association for the Common Welfare of the Players). Juxue yuekan (Theatre study monthly) 1 (3): 1–3. ———. 2003. “Zai Beiping Zhuiyuxuan Mei Lanfang wei Cheng Yanqiu fu Ou youxue juxing de huansonghui shang de zhixieci” (Speech at the send- off meeting held by Mei Lanfang at his Zhuiyuxuan in Beiping to celebrate Cheng Yanqiu’s research travel to Europe). In Cheng Yanqiu xiju wenji (A collection of Cheng Yanqiu’s essays on theatre), 19–20. Beijing: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe. The China Critic. 1930. “The American Reception of Mei Lan-fang.” 3 (16): 365–66. The China Weekly Review. 1930. “Mei Lan-Fang’s Successful American Tour!” 52 (6) (April 5): 203–6. ———. 1935. “Paris Exposition in 1937 to Include Chinese Performances.” 72 (12) (May 18): 394. Chōji (Nakauchi Chōji). 1919. “Mei Lanfang o miru” (Watching Mei Lanfang). Yorozu chōhō (Evening edition), May 3, 2. Chōka (Tsuji Chōka). 1919a. “Song Mei Lanfang fu Riben xu” (Words to send Mei Lanfang off to Japan). Shuntian shibao (Shuntian times), April 20, 5. ———. 1919b. “Riben zhuming kunling zhi Mei juping” (Review of Mei’s performance by a noted Japanese actress). Shuntian shibao , May 13, 5. 254 Bibliography

———. 1921. “Zhongguo ju yu Riben ren” (Chinese theatre and the Japanese). Shuntian shibao , June 29 and 30, 5. ———. 1924. “Mei Lanfang chong you Dongying zhi ganxiang” (Mei Lanfang’s thoughts on his second trip to Japan). Shuntian shibao , October 24, 5. Chōka Sanjin (Tsuji Chōka). 1919. “Mei Lanfang jo” (Foreword to Mei Lanfang). In Murata Ukō 1919, n.p. Clark, Katerina et al. 2007. Soviet Culture and Power: A History in Documents, 1917–1953 . New Haven: Yale University Press. Claudel, Paul. 1930. “Modern Drama and Music.” The Yale Review 20 (1): 94–106. Clayborough, Arthur. 1965. The Grotesque in English Literature . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Collins, Charles. 1930a. “Mei Lan-fang.” Chicago Daily Tribune , April 7, 37. ———. 1930b. “The Season in Chicago.” In The Best Plays of 1929–30, edited by Burns Mantle, 18–23. New York: Dodd, Mead. Comœdia. 1930. “L’acteur chinois Mei Lan Fang vient de triompher à New York.” April 23, 1. Cosdon, Mark. 1995. “‘Introducing Occidentals to an Exotic Art’: Mei Lanfang in New York.” Asian Theatre Journal 12 (1): 175–89. Craig, Edward Gordon. 1919. “Sada Yacco.” In The Theatre Advancing , 232–36. Boston: Little, Brown. Crump, J. L. 1980. Chinese Theater in the Days of Kublai Khan . Tucson: University of Arizona. Da wanbao (The China evening news). 1934. “Su E dangju chengyi yaoqing Mei Lanfang fu Su E” (The Soviet Russian authorities sincerely invite Mei Lanfang to the Soviet Russia). May 28, 3. ———. 1935a. “Zhong E daibiao relie huanying Mei Lanfang deng di E. E ming daoyan fabiao lunwen jili zanmei” (Chinese and Russian representatives warmly welcome Mei Lanfang and others to Russia. A noted Russian director published an article lavishing his praises). March 13, 5. ———. 1935b. “Sulian zuojia lun Mei ju wei weida yishu zhi biaoxian?” (A Soviet writer on Mei’s performances as representative of great art?). March 18, 2. ———. 1935c. “Mei Lanfang tan pian” (Mei Lanfang’s brief statement). March 19, 1. ———. 1935d. “Mei Lanfang zai Sulian: wo dashiguan sheyan zhaodai” (Mei Lanfang in the Soviet Union: our embassy gave a banquet in honor of him). March 20, 1; ———. 1935e. “Sulian peng Mei Lang” (The Soviet Union sings the praises of Mei Lang [Mei Lanfang]). March 24, 2. ———. 1935f. “Guan Mei Lanfang biaoyan hou Ladike ganxiang” (Radek’s impressions upon seeing Mei Lanfang perform). March 25, 1. ———. 1935g. “Meishi fabiao yanshuo” (Mei Lanfang gave a talk). April 16, 4. Bibliography 255

Dagong bao (L’impartial). 1930. “Zhongguo xiju wenti” (Chinese theatre problem). August 5, 2. ———. 1935a. “Nanda jiaoshou Zhang Pengchun fu E kaocha xiju” (Professor Zhang Pengchun of Nankai University will travel to Russia to investigate the Russian theatre). February 14, 6. ———. 1935b. “Yan dashi kangyi Zhongdonglu feifa maimai” (Ambassador Yan made his protest against the illegal sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway). March 26, 4. ———. 1935c. “Mei Lanfang.” August 5, 4. ———. 1935d. “Mei Lanfang yanshuo: gaijin Zhongguo xiju” (Mei Lanfang’s speech: improving the Chinese theatre). August 17, 4. ———. 1935e. “Mei Lanfang zuo ye Wang” (Mei Lanfang called on Wang yesterday). September 3, 3. Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and Difference. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1981. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1982. Margins of Philosophy . Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dodane, Claire. 2000. Yosano Akiko: Poète de la passion et figure de proue du féminisme japonais . Paris: Publications Orientalistes de France. Dongfang zazhi (The Eastern miscellany). 1935. “Mei Lanfang zai Mosike” (Mei Lanfang in Moscow) 32 (10): 1. Du Heng. 1934. “Mei Lanfang dao Sulian qu” (Mei Lanfang goes to the Soviet Union), Wenyi huabao (Literature and art pictorial) 1 (1): 1–2. Durnell, Hazel B. 1983. Japanese Cultural Influences on American Poetry and Drama . Tokyo: Hokuseido Press. Eagleton, Terry. 2002. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London and New York: Routledge. Eaton, Katherine Bliss. 1985. The Theatre of Meyerhold and Brecht . Westport: Greenwood Press. Eaton, Walter Prichard. 1916–1917. “Acting and the New Stagecraft.” Theatre Arts Magazine 1: 9–12. Edelson, Loren. 2009. Danjūrō’s Girls: Women on the Kabuki Stage . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Eisenstein, Sergei M. 1935a. “The Enchanter from the Pear Garden.” Theatre Arts Monthly 19 (10): 761–70. ———. 1935b. “The Magician of the Pear Orchard.” In VOKS 1935, 19–28. ———. 1949. “The Unexpected.” In Film Form: Essays in Film Theory , edited and translated by Jay Leyda, 18–27. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. ———. 1983. Immoral Memories: An Autobiography . Translated by Herbert Marshall. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 256 Bibliography

———. 1991. “Unity in the Image.” In Towards a Theory of Montage , vol. 2 of Selected Works. Edited by Michael Glenny and Richard Taylor and translated by Michael Glenny, 268–80. London: British Film Institute. ———. 1995. Beyond the Stars: The Memoirs of Sergei Eisenstein, vol. 4 of Selected Works . Edited by Richard Taylor and translated by William Powell. London: British Film Institute. ———. 1996a. “To the Magician of the Pear Orchard.” In Writings 1934–47 , vol. 3 of Selected Works , edited by Richard Taylor and translated by William Powell, 56–67. London: British Film Institute. ———. 1996b. “Teaching Programme for the Theory and Practice of Direction. How to Teach Direction.” In Writings 1934–47, vol. 3 of Selected Works , 74–90. ———. 1996c. “Lecture on Biomechanics, March 28, 1935.” In Law and Gordon 1996, 204–23. Er [pseud.]. 1931. “Jiuju you shijie de jiazhi” (Old theatre has cosmopolitan value). Liyuan gongbao (The player), August 26, 2. Ernst, Earle. 1956. The Kabuki Theatre. New York: Oxford University Press. Esslin, Martin. 1961. Brecht: The Man and His Work . New York: Doubleday. Excelsior . 1930. “Un Grand Acteur Chinois: Mei Lan Fang.” April 23, 5. Fang Zhizhong. 1934. “Mei Lanfang fu E yanju zhi wo jian” (My opinion on Mei Lanfang’s performance in Russia). Da wanbao , June 21, sec. 2, 2. Feichan [pseud.]. 1919. “Jiuxi buneng shiyong xinshi wutai ji beijing” (Old plays are incompatible with modern stage and scenery). Chen bao, March 3, 5. Feng Xiaoyin. 1920. “Mei Lanfang zhi yanjiu” (A study of Mei Lanfang). Jing bao (The Crystal), April 30, 2. Filippov, Boris. 1977. Actors without Make-Up . Translated by Kathelene Cook. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Fitzgerald, John. 1930. “Mei Lan- Fang Brings the Chinese Theatre to Broadway.” New York Evening Post , February 15, M6. Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1992. The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Flanagan, Hallie. 1938. “Introduction.” In Federal Theatre Project, Federal Theatre Plays , edited by Pierre de Rohan, vii- xii. New York, Random House. Fogel, Joshua A. 1996. The Literature of Travel in the Japanese Rediscovery of China, 1862–1945 . Stanford: Stanford University Press. Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ———. 1976. The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 2006a. “Response to Papers on ‘Northrop Frye and Eighteenth- Century Literature.’” In The Secular Scripture and Other Writings on Critical Bibliography 257

Theory 1976–1991, edited by Joseph Adamson and Jean Wilson, vol. 18 of Collected Works of Northrop Frye . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. — — —. 2 0 0 6 b . “ M y t h , F i c t i o n , a n d D i s p l a c e m e n t .” I n The Educated Imagination and Other Writings on Critical Theory 1933–1963, edited by Germaine Warkentin, vol. 21 of Collected Works of Northrop Frye . Fu Jin. 2010. “‘Sanda xiju tixi’ de zhengzhi yu wenhua yinyu” (The political and cultural metaphor of “the three great theatrical systems”). Yishu baijia (Hundred schools in arts) 1: 85–90. Fu Sinian. 1918a. “Xiju gailiang gemian guan” (Aspects on theatre reform). Xin qingnian (New youth) 5 (4): 322–41. ———. 1918b. “Zailun xiju gailiang” (More on theatre reform). Xin qingnian 5 (4): 349–60. Fuchi Fukei Sei (Naitō Konan). 1919. “Mei Lanfang ni tsuite” (On Mei Lanfang). In Ōshima 1919, 55–62. Fuegi, John. 1972. The Essential Brecht . Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls. ———. 1987. Bertolt Brecht: Chaos, According to Plan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fukuchi Nobuyo. 1919. “Shina no shibai no hanashi” (A talk about the Chinese theatre). Chuo koron (The central review) April: 87–103. ———. 1924. “Mei Lanfang no ‘Kōgei seki’ o mitama” (Watching Mei Lanfang’s The Rainbow pass ), Engei gahō (Performing arts pictorial) October: 31–33. ———. 1943. “Shina no shibai no hanashi” (A talk about the Chinese theatre). In Fukuchi Nobuyo: ikō , 121–37. Tokyo: Fukuchike. Gai Jiaotian. 1980. Fenmo chunqiu: Gai Jiaotian wutai yishu jingyan (Years of stage life: Gai Jiaotian’s experience of the art of acting on stage). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Ge Gongzhen and Ge Baoquan. 1984. “Mei Lanfang zai Sulian” (Mei Lanfang in the Soviet Union). Guowen zhoubao (China news weekly) 12 (22) (June 10, 1935): 1–14. Reprinted in Ge Gongzhen, Cong Dongbei dao Shulian [Sulian] (From northeast China to the Soviet Union), 211–36. Changsha: Hunan Renmin Chubanshe. Gendlin, Leonard. 1986. Perebiraia starye bloknoty . . . (Looking over the old writing pads . . . ). Amsterdam: Izd- vo “Gelikon.” Gladkov, Aleksandr. 1980. Teatr: vospominaniia i razmyshleniia (Theatre: reminiscences and reflections). Moscow: Iskusstvo. ———. 1997. Meyerhold speaks/Meyerhold rehearses. Translated and edited by Alma Law. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Goldstein, Joshua. 1999. “Mei Lanfang and the Nationalization of Peking Opera, 1912–1930.” Positions: East Asian Cultures Critique 7 (2): 377–420. ———. 2007. Drama Kings: Players and Publics in the Re-creation of Peking Opera, 1870–1937 . Berkeley: University of California Press. 258 Bibliography

Gorchakov, Nikolai A. 1957. The Theatre in Soviet Russia . Translated by Edgar Lehrman. New York: Columbia University Press. Gotō Asatarō. 1924. “Mei Lanfang to Shina no josei” (Mei Lanfang and Chinese women). Josei (Women) 6 (5): 256–64. Guo Jianying. 1935a. “Mei Lanfang Jutuan jinkuang” (Recent activities of the Mei Lanfang Troupe). Dagong bao , April 12, 12. ———. 1935b. “Mei Jutuan fu E yanju zhi jingguo ji geren ganxiang” (The progress of the performances of the Mei Troupe in Russia and my personal impressions). Xi shijie (The theatre world), May 22–24, 1. Guo’s report was also published in Zhongyang ribao (Central daily), May 23, 1935, sec. 2, 2 and Yong bao, May 25, 1935, 12. Guy, Nancy. 2001. “Brokering Glory for the Chinese Nation: Mei Lanfang’s 1930 American Tour.” Comparative Drama 35 (3–4): 377–92. Haberman, Donald. 1967. The Plays of Thornton Wilder: A Critical Study . Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. Haji Seiji 1924. “Mei Lanfang.” Shūkan asahi , November 16, 26. Han Shiheng (Shiheng). 1934. “Mei Lanfang fu Su yanju wenti” (Question on Mei Lanfang’s performance in the Soviet Union). Da wanbao , June 17, 7. Hanayagi Shōtarō. 1964. Yakusha baka (Actors are fools). Tokyo: Sangatsu Shobō. Harbeck, James. 1996. “The Quaintness—and Usefulness—of the Old Chinese Traditions: The Yellow Jacket and Lady Precious Stream.” Asian Theatre Journal 13 (2): 238–47. Hazlitt, Henry. 1930. “Quarterly Comment.” The Century 120 (2): 168. Hecht, Werner. 1961. “The Development of Brecht’s Theory of the Epic Theatre, 1918–1933.” Tulane Drama Review 6 (1): 40–97. Hong Shen. 1962. “Cong Zhongguo de xinju shuodao huaju” (From China’s new theatre to spoken drama). Quoted in Hong Shen’s introduction to Zhongguo xinwenxue daxi (A series of Chinese new literature), vol. 9, edited by Zhao Jiabi, 12–13. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Wenxue Yanjiushe. Hou Feng. 1934. “Mei Lanfang fu E yanju de wenti” (Question on Mei Lanfang’s performance in Russia). Shehui yuebao (Social monthly) 1 (2): 119–20. Hsich Ho (Xie He). 1967. “The Six Techniques of Painting (Preface to Ku Hua-p’in Lu ).” In The Chinese Theory of Art: Translations from the Masters of Chinese Art, translated by Lin Yutang, 34–38. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Hu Jinxu. 1934. “Dui jingxi touxiang shi xinju yundongzhe de chiru” (To surrender to Peking Opera is a shame on the activists of the new theatre movement). Zhonghua ribao (The Central China Daily News), October 14, sec. 2, 4. ———. 1935. “Mei Lanfang zai Sulian” (Mei Lanfang in the Soviet Union). Zhonghua ribao , March 31, sec. 1, 4. Bibliography 259

Hu Shi. 1918. “Wenxue jinhua guannian yu xiju gailiang” (The idea of literary evolution and the reform of theatre). Xin qingnian 5 (4): 308–21. ———. 1929. “Mei Lan-fang and the Chinese Drama.” In Mei Lan-fang: Chinese Drama , edited by Ernest K. Moy. New York: n.p. Huang Fanchuo. 1959. Liyuan yuan (The pear garden essentials). In Zhongguo Xiqu Yanjiuyuan 1959, vol. 9. Huang Shang. (1954) 1990. “Shilun Mei Lanfang de Yuzhou feng ” (A tentative view of Mei Lanfang’s Cosmic blade). In Zhongguo Mei Lanfang Yanjiu Xuehui and Mei Lanfang Jinianguan 1990, 255–70. Huang Zhigang. 1935a. “Song Mei Lang fu Su E” (Sending- off Mei to the Soviet Russia). Tai bai 2 (3): 126–28. ———. 1935b. “Xin jiu ju lunzheng de zong pipan” (An overall critique of the debate on the new and old theatres). Mang zhong 8: 292–95. Huang Zongjiang. 1999. “Mei tu, Mei zhuan, Mei xue” (Mei pictures, Mei biography, Meirology). In Huang Zongjiang, Ju ren ji (A collection of essays on people in the theatre), 21–22. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe Huang Zuolin. 1962. “Mantan xiju guan” (A talk on the idea of theatre). Renmin ribao (People’s daily), April 25. ———. 1981. “Mei Lanfang, Stanislavsky, Brecht—A Study in Contrasts.” in Wu Zuguang, Huang Zuolin and Mei Shaowu 1981, 14–29. Hurwicz, Angelika. 1964. Brecht inszeniert: Der kaukasische kreidekreis . Velber bei Hannover: Friedrich. Hyōken Chinjin (Suzuki Torao). 1919. “Kan Mei zakki” (Miscellaneous notes on seeing Mei Lanfang). In Ōshima 1919, 63–84. Ibaraki Noriko. 1969. “Ushirometai hakushu: Mei Lanfang ni” (Guilty applauses: to Mei Lanfang). In Ibaraki Noriko shishū , 63–65. Tokyo: Shichōsha. Ichikawa Sadanji. 1924. “Shinageki to Mei Lanfang” (Chinese theatre and Mei Lanfang). Tokyo asahi shinbun , October 23, 5. Ihara Seiseien (Seiseien). 1919a. “Mei Lanfang no tennyo” (Mei Lanfang’s goddess). Miyako shinbun , May 3, 3. ———. 1919b. “Butai niokeru Mei Lanfang no gigei” (Mei Lanfang’s stage art). Shin kōron June: 15–20. Ikeda Daigo. 1924. “Mei Lanfang no gei” (Mei Lanfang’s art). Tokyo nichinichi shinbun , October 25, 6. Irwin, Will. 1909. “The Drama in Chinatown.” Everybody’s Magazine 20 (6): 857–69. ———. 1921. “The Drama That Was in Chinatown.” The New York Times Book Review and Magazine . April 10, 3, 17. Isaacs, Edith J. R., ed., 1927. Theatre: Essays on the Arts of the Theatre . Boston: Little, Brown. ———. 1942. “The Theatre of Stark Young.” Theatre Arts 26 (4): 257–65. 260 Bibliography

Isaka, Maki. 2006. “Women Onnagata in the Porous Labyrinth of Femininity: On Ichikawa Kumehachi I.” U.S.- Japan Women’s Journal 30–31: 105–31. Ishiyama Toshihiko. 2003. “Bandō Tamasaburō, kyōgeki o kataru: Mei Lanfang, Yokihi no koto nado” (Bandō Tamasaburō’s dialogue with jingju: Mei Lanfang, Yang Guifei and such things). Gekkan shinika (Sinica monthly) 14 (3): 50–57. ———. 2009. “‘Nihon no Mei Lanfang’ Tamasaburō no kongeki ga Chūgoku o miryōshita” (“Japanese Mei Lanfang” Tamasaburō’s kunqu opera enthralled Chinese audience). Wochi kochi 29 (June/July): 31–35. Itō Nobuhiko. 1981. “1919- nen to 1924- nen no Mei Lanfang rainichi kōen nitsuite” (About Mei Lanfang’s public performances in Japan in 1919 and 1924). In Nakajima Satoshi Sensei koki kinen ronshū (Essays in com- memoration of Professor Nakajima Satoshi’s seventieth birthday), edited by Nakajima Satoshi Sensei Koki Kinen Jigyōkai, vol. 2, 669–98. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin. Jameson, Fredric. 1998. Brecht and Method . London: Verso. Jestrovic, Silvija. 2006. Theatre of Estrangement: Theory, Practice, and Ideology . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ji Zi. 1934. “Mei Lanfang fu E yanju wenti” (Question on Mei Lanfang’s performance in Russia). Da wanbao , June 12, 7. Jiang Miaoxiang. 1962. “Tan Mei Lanfang de Daiyu zang hua ” (About Mei Lanfang’s Daiyu buries flowers ). Guangming ribao (Guangming daily ), August 7. For an English translation, see Tian 2010, 79–84. Jiao Xichen. 1934. “Qu E zhiqian wo duiyu Mei Lanfang zhi xiwang” (My hope for Mei Lanfang ahead of his trip to Russia). Shi bao (The Eastern times), September 12, 4. Jiao Xun. 1959. Ju shuo (On drama). In Zhongguo Xiqu Yanjiuyuan 1959, vol. 8. Jiji shinpo. 1919. “Butai no Mei Lanfang he” (Mei Lanfang on stage). May 2, 9. Jin Fengji, trans. 1996. “Mei xin yuan liu yinghua guo” (Fragrance of plum [Mei Lanfang] flows far into the country of flowering cherries). Xin wenhua shiliao (Historical materials on new culture) 1: 53–59. Jing bao (The Crystal). 1919a. “Mei Lang zai dong zhuangkuang” (Mei Lanfang’s state of affairs in Japan). May 3, 2. ———. 1919b. “Dong bao zhi Mei Lanfang ping” (Reviews of Mei Lanfang on Japanese newspapers). May 12, 2. ———. 1919c. “Mei Lang zai dong jinzhuang” (Mei Lanfang’s recent situa- tion in Japan). May 24, 2. ———. 1919d. “Mei Lang zai Daban qingxing” (Mei Lanfang’s activities in Osaka). May 27, 2. Jiu Zhi. 1929. “Churi youhuai Mei Lanfang” (Thinking of Mei Lanfang on New Year’s Eve). Wenxue zhoubao (Literature weekly) 8 (3): 80–82. Jowitt, Deborah. 1988. Time and the Dancing Image. New York: William Morrow. Bibliography 261

Jūgatsu Shō [pseud.]. 1919a. “Mei Lanfang no san” (Singing the Praise of Mei Lanfang). Jiji Shinpo , May 4 and May 6, 10. ———. 1919b. “Mei Lanfang no san” (Singing the Praise of Mei Lanfang). Jiji Shinpo , May 7, 10. Kageki (Opera). 1924. “Mei Lanfang ichiza Takarazuka kōen yokoku” (Announcement for the public performance of Mei Lanfang and his troupe in Takarazuka). Kageki 56 (November): 63–64. Kanda Chōan (Kanda Kiichirō). 1919. “Mei Lanfang o mite” (Watching Mei Lanfang perform). In Ōshima 1919, 90–97. Kano, Ayako. 2001. Acting like a Woman in Modern Japan: Theatre, Gender, and Nationalism . New York: Palgrave. Kanō Naoki. 1919. “Shinageki o dō miruka: Shibai no shikumi” (What to see in the Chinese theatre: the structure of the plays). Osaka asahi shinbun , May 1, and May 2, 3. Kawatake Shigetoshi. 1964. “Sekai no meiyū Mei Lanfang” (The world- renowned actor Mei Lanfang). In Kawatake Shigetoshi, Nihon engeki to tomoni (Together with the Japanese theatre). Tokyo: Tōto Shobō. Kayser, Wolfgang. 1981. The Grotesque in Art and Literature. Translated by Ulrich Weisstein. New York: Columbia University Press. Ke’an [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Lang dong you xiaoxi” (News on Mei Lanfang’s trip to Japan), Jing bao (The Crystal), March 12 and 15, 2. Kebir, Sabine. 2000. Abstieg in den Ruhm: Helene Weigel: Eine Biographie . Berlin: Aufbau. Kim, Suk- Young. 2006. “From Imperial Concubine to Model Maoist: The Photographic Metamorphosis of Mei Lanfang.” Theatre Research International 31 (1): 37–53. King, Eleanor. 1978. Transformations: the Humphrey-Weidman Era, a Memoir . Brooklyn, N.Y.: Dance Horizons. Kinoshita Junji. (1956) 1974a. “Kyōgeki: Tokyo kōen o mite” (Seeing the public performance of Beijing opera in Tokyo). In Kinoshita Junji hyōronshū , vol. 4, 63–65. Tokyo: Miraisha. Kinoshita Junji. (1957) 1974b. “Ōshū kotengeki kara Shingeki ga manabu mae ni” (Before the new theatre learns from European classical theatre). In Kinoshita Junji hyōronshū , vol. 4, 93–95. ———. 1976. “Shingeki ni tsuite” (On the new theatre). In Kinoshita Junji hyōronshū , vol. 7, 122–56. Tokyo: Miraisha. Kinoshita Mokutarō. (1917) 1981a. “Shina no geki” (Chinese theatre). In Kinoshita Mokutarō zenshū , vol. 9, 278–83. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. ———. 1981b. “Mei rei shō Su San” (Player Mei sings Su San). In Kinoshita Mokutarō zenshū , vol. 9, 341–42. Kitchen, Karl K. 1930. “Karl Kitchen on Mei Lan-Fang.” The Sun (New York), February 24, 16. Kleberg, Lars, ed. 1992. “Zhivye Impulsy Iskusstva” (Live impulses of art). Iskusstvo Kino (Cinema Art) 1: 132–39. 262 Bibliography

———, ed. 1993. “Yishu de qiangda dongle” (Live impulses of art). Translated by Li Xiaozheng. Zhonghua xiqu (Chinese Traditional Theatre) 14: 1–18. This is a Chinese version of “Zhivye Impulsy Iskusstva.” ———, ed. 1996a. “Lebendige Impulse für die Kunst.” Balagan 2 (2): 85–100. This is a German version of “Zhivye Impulsy Iskusstva.” ———. 1996b. “The Story of a Stenogramme.” Balagan 2 (2): 101–03. ———. 1997. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentices.” In Starfall: a Triptych, translated by Anselm Hollo, 23–49. Evanston, Illinois.: Northwestern University Press. Konggu Shanren [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Hua xiaoxi” (News on Flower Mei). Chen bao , May 4, 7. Kōyōan [pseud.]. 1919. “Meigeki ikken ki” (Notes from watching Mei Lanfang’s performance). In Ōshima 1919, 112–25. Kubo Tenzui. 1919. “Mei Lanfang no Tennyo sanka ” (Mei Lanfang’s Tiannü san hua ). Tokyo asahi shinbun , May 5, 6 and 7, 7. Kui Fu and Wu Yuhua, ed. 1992. Gudian xiqu meixue ziliao ji (Anthology of sources of the aesthetics of traditional Chinese theatre). Beijing: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe. Kume Masao. 1919. “Reijin Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang the beauty). Tokyo nichinichi shinbun , May 19, 4. Reprinted in Kume Masao zenshū , vol. 13 (Tokyo: Honnotomosha, 1993), 604–5. ———. 1993. “Reijin Mei Lanfang.” In Kume Masao zenshū, vol. 13, 604–5. Tokyo: Honnotomosha. Kyūryūban [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Lanfang geki kenbutsu” (Watching Mei Lanfang’s performance). Osaka asahi shinbun (Evening edition), May 23, 25, and 28, 3. ———. 1924. “Takarazuka no Mei Lanfang” (Takarazuka’s Mei Lanfang). Osaka asahi shinbun (Evening edition), November 11, 3. Lai [pseud.]. 1930. “Zhuiyuxuan you Mei zalu” (Miscellaneous notes on Zhuiyuxuan’s [Mei Lanfang’s] tour of America). Shen bao , March 29, 19. Law, Alma and Mel Gordon, ed. 1996. Meyerhold, Eisenstein and Biomechanics: Actor Training in Revolutionary Russia . Jefferson: McFarland. Lee, Sang-Kyong. 2000. East Asia and America Encounters in Drama and Theatre . Sydney: Wild Poeny. Lei, Daphne Pi-Wei. 2006. Operatic China: Staging Chinese Identity across the Pacific . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lenin, V. I. 1966. “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues.” In Collected Works , vol. 31, 283–99. Moscow: Progressive Publishers. Letian [pseud.]. 1930a. “Liu Mei huaqiao bu manyi yu Mei Lanfang” (Overseas Chinese in America are not happy with Mei Lanfang). Beiyang huabao , June 10, 2. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lanfang fu Mei chengbai lun” (On Mei Lanfang’s success or failure in America). Beiyang huabao , May 17, 3. Leung, George Kin. 1929. Mei Lan- Fang: Foremost Actor of China. Shanghai: Commercial Press. Bibliography 263

Li Feishu. 1930. “Jiujinshan li zhi Mei Wanhua” (Mei Lanfang in San Francisco). Beiyang huabao , June 5, 2. ———. 1939. “Shitailing yu Mei Lanfang” (Stalin and Mei Lanfang). Xianshi (Reality) 1: 72–73. Li Jinshen. 1935. “Cong Mei Lanfang chuguo shuodao Zhongguo jiu ju” (From Mei Lanfang’s trips abroad to China’s old theatre). Qinghua fukan (Qinghua supplement) 43 (7): 22–23. Li Kaixian. 1959. Ci xue (Teasing thoughts on poetry). In Zhongguo Xiqu Yanjiuyuan 1959, vol. 3. Li Ran. 1934. “Zai Mei Lanfang Ma Lianliang Cheng Jixian Ye Shenglan de huanyanxi shang” (At the Banquet in honor of Mei Lanfang, Ma Lianliang, Cheng Jixian, and Ye Shenglan). Da wanbao , September 8, 7. Li Ruhui. 1934. “Mei Lanfang yu zhongguo jiu ju de qiantu” (Mei Lanfang and the future of China’s old theatre). Shen bao , June 30, 15. Li Wenquan. 1919. “Shinageki zadan” (A conversation about the Chinese theatre). Engei gahō 6: 112–14. Liang you (The young companion). 1935. “Mei Hu zai E” (Mei and Hu in Russia) 105 (May): 4–5. Liaoweng [pseud.]. 1930a. “Mei Lanfang jiang guiguo yi” (Mei Lanfang is about to return to China). Liyuan gongbao , July 2, 2. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lanfang you Mei zatan” (Random thoughts on Mei Lanfang’s tour of the United States). Liyuan gongbao , July 5, 2. Lichte, Erika Fischer. 1995. “What are the Rules of the Game? Some Remarks on The Yellow Jacket.” Theatre Survey 36 (1): 21–36. Lifton, Paul. 1995. “Vast Encyclopedia”: The Theatre of Thornton Wilder . Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ———. 1998. “Thornton Wilder’s Minimalist Plays: Mingling Eastern and Western Traditions.” Theatre Symposium 6: 76–85. Lin Chuanding. 1935. “Eguo ren duiyu Zhongguo jiu ju de renshi” (The Russians’ understanding of China’s old theatre). Beiping chen bao (Beiping morning post), December 1, 11. Lin Mo. 1934. “Cong mai gudong shuodao nanbannü shi xiangzhengpai” (From the sale of antique to the convention of men playing women’s roles as belonging to the school of symbolism). Zhonghua ribao, September 11, sec. 2, 4. Lin, Yutang. 1935. My Country and My People. New York: Regnal & Hitchcock. Literary Digest. 1924. “The Gentlemanly ‘Leading Lady’ of China.” 82 (8) (August 23): 34–40. Literary Digest . 1925. “The Chinese John Barrymore.” 86 (11) (September 12): 42. ———. 1930. “The Idol of China, Mei Lan- Fang.” 104 (10) (March 8): 15–16. Littell, Robert. 1930a. “An Evening in China.” The World (New York), February 17, 13. 264 Bibliography

———. 1930b. “Mei Lan- Fang.” The World , February 23, M2. ———. 1930c. “The New Play.” The World , March 5, 15. Liu Chunhua. 1935. “Mei Lanfang fu E” (Mei Lanfang’s trip to Russia). Xinwen bao (News), January 22, 14. Liu Huogong, ed. 1920. Mei Lang ji (Writings on Mei Lanfang). Shanghai: Zhonghua Tushu Jicheng Gongsi. Liu Tianhua (Liu T’ien-Hua), ed. 1930. Mei Lanfang gequ pu (Selections from the repertoire of operatic songs and terpsichorean melodies of Mei Lan- fang, recorded in both Chinese and European notation). Peiping: n. p. Liu Yi. 1919. “Zizi bujuan zhi Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang’s diligence), Shen bao , July 22, 14. Liu Yunqiu. 1935. “Cong Tan Xinpei tandao Mei Lanfang fu E” (From Tan Xinpei to Mei Lanfang’s trip to Russia). Xi shijie , June 14, 1935, 1. The Living Age . 1935. “Mei Lan- Fang in Moscow.” 348 (May): 272–73. Lockridge, Richard. 1930a. “Out Front: Through Western Eyes.” The Sun (New York), February 17, 16. ———. 1930b. “From Old Japan.” The Sun , March 5, 20. Los Angeles Times. 1926a. “Symbols Important in Dances.” December 6, part 2, 7. ———. 1926b. “ST. Denis Return Is Applauded.” December 8, part 2, 9. ———. 1927. “Chinese Star Coming Here.” July 17, part 3, 13, 14. ———. 1930. “Mei Lan- fang Address Lauded.” May 31, part 1, 6. Lu Xun (Chang Geng). 1925. “Lun zhaoxiang zhilei” (On photography). Yu si 9 (January 2): 1–3. Reprinted in Lu Xun quan ji (The complete works of Lu Xun), vol. 1, 181–90. Beijing: Renmin Wenxue Chubanshe, 1981. ———. 1934a. “Shei zai moluo?” (Who is becoming decadent?). Zhonghua ribao , June 2, sec. 2, 4. Reprinted in Lu Xun quan ji , vol. 5, 487–88. ——— (Miao Ting). 1934b. “‘Shashibiya’” (‘Shakespeare’). Zhonghua ribao , September 23, sec. 1, 4. Reprinted in Lu Xun quan ji , vol. 5, 559–60. ——— (Zhang Pei). 1934c. “Lue lun Mei Lanfang ji qita (shang)” (A brief discussion on Mei Lanfang and other issues [part one]). Zhonghua ribao , November 5, sec. 2, 4. Reprinted in Lu Xun quan ji , vol. 5, 579–81. ——— (Zhang Pei). 1934d. “Lue lun Mei Lanfang ji qita (xia)” (A brief discussion on Mei Lanfang and other issues [part two]). Zhonghua ribao , November 6, sec. 2, 4. Reprinted in Lu Xun quan ji , vol. 5, 582–83. ———. 2010. “On Mei Lanfang.” In Tian 2010, 65–73. This is an abridged English translation of Lu Xun’s previously listed essays and his other pieces on Mei Lanfang. Lynn, Grace. 1930. “Mr. Mei and the Local Chinese Drama.” New York Times , April 6, sec. 9, X4. Ma Er (Feng Shuluan). 1919a. “Mei Lang zhibie zhi han” (Mei Lanfang’s parting letter). Jing bao (The Crystal), April 21, 2. ———. 1919b. “Nan bei jiang you zuixin zhi wutai chuxian” (The most modern stage will appear in the South and the North). Jing bao (The Crystal), June 21, 2. Bibliography 265

Macgowan, Kenneth. 1921. The Theatre of Tomorrow . New York: Boni and Liveright. ———. 1927. “The Living Scene.” In Theatre: Essays on the Arts of the Theatre , edited by Edith J. R. Isaacs, 143–54. Boston: Little, Brown. Macgowan, Kenneth, and Robert Edmond Jones. 1922. Continental Stagecraft . New York: Harcourt, Brace. Mackerras, Colin. 1972. The Rise of the Peking Opera, 1770–1870 . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Magarshack, David. 1950. Stanislavsky, A Life . London: Macgibbon & Kee. Mangmang [pseud.]. 1930. “Lingjie Lianhehui huanying Mei guanzhang zhi sheng” (The Actors Association’s grand welcome of President Mei). Liyuan gongbao, July 23, 2. Mantle, Burns. 1930a. “Introduction.” In The Best Plays of 1929–30, edited by Burns Mantle, v- x. New York: Dodd, Mead. ———. 1930b. “The Season in New York.” In The Best Plays of 1929–30 , 3–17. ———. 1930c. “Welcome China’s Chief Actor.” Daily News (New York), February 17, 29. Martin, John. 1930a. “The Dance: an Exotic Art.” New York Times, February 23, sec. 8, X11. ———. 1930b. “The Dance— Japanese art.” New York Times , March 9, sec. 9, X8. ———. 1936. America Dancing: The Background and Personalities of the Modern Dance . New York: Dodge Publishing. Maruo Chōken. 1924. “Mei Lanfang to Akita Tsuyuko sono hoka” (Mei Lanfang, Akita Tsuyuko and the others). Kageki 57 (December): 28–29. Marx, Karl. 1975. “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood.” In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, 224–63. New York: International Publishers. Masamune Hakuchō. 1984. “Ipusen to Mei Lanfang” (Ibsen and Mei Lanfang). In Masamune Hakuchō zenshū, vol. 29, 205–211. Tokyo: Fukutake Shoten. Matsuda Takenoshimabito. 1919. “Shina haiyū Mei Lanfang” (Chinese actor Mei Lanfang). Engei gahō 6: 11–15. Matthews, Herbert L. 1930. “China’s Stage Idol Comes to Broadway.” New York Times , February 16, sec. 9, X2. Mayor, A. Hyatt. 1942. “Mei Lan- fang.” Dance Index 1 (7): 107–9. Mei Lanfang. 1919. “Mei Lan daci” (Mei Lanfang’s reply). Shuntian shibao , April 18, 5. ———. 1935a. “Moi privet!” (My greetings). Izvestiia , March 14, 2. ———. 1935b. “Mei Jutuan zai E chuyan gaikuang” (A brief account of the Mei Lanfang Troupe’s performances in Russia). Dagong bao , May 15, 12. ———. 1935c. “E xing de ziwo pipan” (A self- criticism of my Russian trip). Xi shijie , August 21, 22, and 23, 1. 266 Bibliography

———. 1957. Dong you ji (Voyage to the east). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. ———. 1959a. “Zai Hefei tong Anhui xiqujie zuotan shi de jianghua” (A Talk at the forum of Anhui opera community in Hefei). In Mei Lanfang xiju sanlun (Mei Lanfang’s miscellaneous writings on theatre), 43–55. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. ———. 1959b. “Huiyi Sitannisilafusiji he Niemiluoweiqi- Danqinke” (In memory of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko). In Mei Lanfang xiju sanlun , 201–5. ———. (1955) 1959c. “Tantan jingju de yishu” (A talk about the art of jingju). In Mei Lanfang xiju sanlun, 25–30. Mei Lanfang. 1961a. “My Life on the Stage.” Chinese Literature 11 (November): 3–35. ———. 1961b. “My Life on the Stage.” Eastern Horizon 1 (15): 11–29. ———. (1953) 1962a. “Jinian Sitannisilafusiji” (In memory of Stanislavsky). In Mei Lanfang wen ji (Collected works of Mei Lanfang), 342–45. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. ———. (1955) 1962b. “Riben renmin zhengui de yishu jiejing: gewuji” (Kabuki: a crystallization of the treasured art of the Japanese people). In Mei Lanfang wen ji , 391–95. ———. 1962c. “Xijujie canjia Xinhai Geming de jijian shi” (A few things about the theatrical community participating in the 1911 Revolution). In Mei Lanfang wen ji, 178–210. ———. 1962d. “Zhongguo jingju de biaoyan yishu” (The performing art of China’s jingju). In Mei Lanfang wen ji, 14–40. ———. 1962e. “Wo zenyang paiyan Mu Guiying guashuai” (How I rehearsed Mu Guiying takes command ). In Mei Lanfang wen ji , 80–93. ———. 1962f. Wo de dianying shenghuo (My cinema life). Beijing: Zhongguo Dianying Chubanshe. ———. 1981. “Reflections on My Stage Life.” In Wu Zuguang, Huang Zuolin, and Mei Shaowu 1981, 30–45. ———. 1986. “Mei Lanfang you E ji” (An account of Mei Lanfang’s tour of Russia). In Wenshi ziliao xuanbian (A selection of sources in culture and history), edited by Zhongguo Renmin Zhengzhi Xieshang Huiyi Beijing Shi Weiyuanhui Wenshi Ziliao Yanjiu Weiyuanhui, no. 27, 93–132. Beijing: Beijing Chubanshe. ———. (1952–1981) 1987. Wutai shenghuo sishi nian (Forty- year life on stage). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. ———. 2010. “Befriending Eisenstein on My First Trip to the Soviet Union.” Translated by Anne Rebull. The Opera Quarterly 26 (2–3): 426–34. Mei Lanfang, Yamamoto Kyūzaburō et al. 1924. “Engeki shinchō danwakai” (Forum at Engeki shinchō ). Engeki shinchō (New currents in theatre performance) December: 1–16. For a Chinese translation of the forum minutes, see Jin Fengji. Bibliography 267

Mei Lanfang and Yu Shuyan. 1932. “Guoju Xuehui yuanqi” (An account of the founding of the Society for National Theatre). Xiju congkan (A collection of theatre publications) 1: 10. Mei Shaowu. 1981. “Mei Lanfang as Seen by His Foreign Audiences and Critics.” In Wu Zuguang, Huang Zuolin, and Mei Shaowu 1981, 46–65. ———. 1984. Wo de Fuqing Mei Lanfang (My father Mei Lanfang). Tianjing: Banhua Wenyi Chubanshe. ———. 2006a. Wo de fuqin Mei Lanfang (My father Mei Lanfang), vol. 1. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. ———. 2006b. Wo de fuqin Mei Lanfang , vol. 2. Meyerhold, V. E. 1963. Le théâtre théâtral . Translated and edited by Nina Gourfinkel. Paris: Gallimard. ———. 1968. Stat’i, pis’ma, rechi, besedy (Articles, letters, speeches, conversa- tions), vol. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo. ———. 1969. Meyerhold on Theatre. Edited by Edward Braun. New York: Hill and Wang. ———. 1972. “Meyerhold Speaks.” In Novy Mir: A Selection 1925–1967 , edited by Michael Glenny, 156–201. London: Jonathan Cape. ———. 1973. Écrits sur le Théâtre, vol. 1. Translated and edited by Beatrice Picon- Vallin. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme. ———. 1975. Écrits sur le Théâtre , vol. 2. ———. 1976. Perepiska 1896–1939 (Correspondence 1896–1939). Compiled by V. P. Korshunova and M. M. Sitkovetskaia. Moscow: Iskusstvo. ———. 1978a. Tvorcheskoe nasledie Vs. E. Meierhol’da (The creative legacy of V. E. Meyerhold). Edited by L. D. Vendrovskaia and A. V. Fevral’skii. Moscow. ———. 1978b. “O gastroliakh Mei Lan- Fana” (On Mei Lan- fang: artiste on tour). In Meyerhold 1978a, 95–97. For an English translation, see Meyerhold 2010. A Chinese version (translated by Tong Daoming) of Meyerhold’s speech was published in Chunfeng yicong (Chunfeng translations) 3 (1981): 288–89. This speech was also included in Meyerhold 1992, 379–80. ———. 1980. Écrits sur le Théâtre , vol. 3. ———. 1981. “Russian Dramatists.” In Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists: An Anthology, translated and edited by Laurence Senelick, 200–209. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 1992. Écrits sur le Théâtre , vol. 4. ———. 2010. “On Mei Lan- fang: Artiste on Tour.” In Tian 2010, 143–45. Mitchell, Stanley. 1974. “From Shklovsky to Brecht: Some preliminary remarks towards a history of the politicisation of Russian Formalism.” Screen 15 (2): 74–81. Miyake Shūtarō. 1924. “Otogibanashi no koku no shin teigeki” (The new Imperial Theatre, a land of fairy tale). Tokyo nichinichi shinbun , November 1, 6. Miyako shinbun. 1919a. “Teigeki ni miru Mei Lanfang” (Watch Mei Lanfang at the Imperial Theatre). April 24, 5. 268 Bibliography

———. 1919b. “Teigeki ni miru Mei Lanfang” (Watch Mei Lanfang at the Imperial Theatre). April 24 and 25, 5. ———. 1919c. “Meiyū Mei Lanfang no nyū kyō” (The arrival of the famed actor Mei Lanfang in Tokyo). April 26, 5. ———. 1919d. “Mei Lanfang sakuya no Teigeki kenbutsu” (Mei Lanfang’s playgoing at the Imperial Theatre last night). April 27, 5. ———. 1919e. “Utaemon Mei Lanfang no taimen” (Utaemon meets Mei Lanfang). April 28, 5. ———. 1919f. “Gogatsu kyōgen sujigaki: ‘Tennyo sanka’” (A synopsis of plays for May: Tiannü san hua ). May 1, 3. ———. 1924a. “Joyō no hanataba ni umatta Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang buried by actresses’ flowers). October 15, 10. ———. 1924b. “Maku no kan” (Intermission). October 19, 7. ———. 1924c. “Nisshi ryōgoku no onnagata no geidan” (Japanese and Chinese onnagatas talk about art). October 27, 9. ———. 1924d. “Mohanteki no ni fūfu Sadanji Mei Lanfang” (Model hus- bands and wives: Sadanji and Mei Lanfang). October 28, 7. Miyamoto Yuriko. 2003. Miyamoto Yuriko zenshū, vol. 27. Tokyo: Shin Nihon Shuppansha. Moody, C. 1978. “Vsevolod Meyerhold and the ‘Commedia Dell’arte.’” The Modern Language Review 73 (4): 859–69. Moore, Douglas. 1935. “Music and the Movies.” Harper’s Magazine 171 (June– November): 181–88. Morinaga, Maki Isaka. 2002. “The Gender of Onnagata as the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity, Performativity, and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity.” East Asia Cultures Critique 10 (2): 245–84. Moscow Daily News . 1935a. “Mei Lan- fang Arrives in Moscow.” March 14, 4. ———. 1935b. “VOKS Gives Reception for Chinese Actor.” March 20, 4. ———. 1935c. “Mei Lan- fang at Embassy Reception.” March 21, 4. ———. 1935d. “Theatre Notables Welcome Mei Lan-fang and Troupe.” March 22, 1. ———. 1935e. “Director of Mei Lan- fang Theater Describes Traditions and Methods of Chinese Drama.” March 23, 4. ———. 1935f. “Fine Moscow Reception for Mei Lan-fang: Brilliant Performance before Packed Audience.” March 24, 4. ———. 1935g. “Mei Lan- fang Visits Stanislavski.” April 1, 1. Moscow News. 1935a. “Mei Lan Fan [ sic] Will Act in Moscow This Month.” March 14, 10. ———. 1935b. “Mei Lan-fang, Noted Chinese Actor, Wins Warm Applause.” March 28, 7. ———. 1935c. “Foreign Producers and the Soviet Stage.” April 4, 4. Moy, Ernest K., ed. 1929. Mei Lan- fang: Chinese Drama . New York. ———, ed. 1930a. The Pacific Coast Tour of Mei Lan- Fang . San Francisco. ———, comp. 1930b. Mei Lan- fang: What New York Thinks of Him . n.p. Bibliography 269

Mu Chengong. 1917. Ling shi (History of actors). Beijing: Xuanyuange. Mu Tao. 1935. “Ying Mei za gan” (Random thoughts on welcoming Mei), “Mei Lanfang guiguo zhuanji” (Special issue on Mei Lanfang’s return to his country). Xi shijie , August 3, 1. Munk, Erika. 1986. “The Rites of Women.” Performing Arts Journal 10 (2): 35–42. Murata Ukō. 1919. Shinageki to Mei Lanfang (Chinese theatre and Mei Lanfang). Tokyo: Genbunsha. Naba Toshisada. 1919. “Rei geki manshi” (A random record of listening to theatre). In Ōshima 1919, 126–69. Nagai Kafū. 1951. Danchōtei nichijō (Diaries from the heartbreaking pavilion). In Kafū zenshū , vol. 19. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha. Naitō Konan. 1919. “Shinageki o dō miruka: Mei Lanfang to Shina gekikai” (What to see in the Chinese theatre: Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre world). Osaka asahi shinbun , April 30, 3. ———. 1971. Enzan sosui (The mountains of north China and the rivers of south China). In Naitō konan zenshū , vol. 2. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō. ———. (1919) 1972. “Mei Lanfang ni tsuite” (On Mei Lanfang). In Naitō konan zenshū , vol. 6, 205–8. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō. ———. 2007. Yanshan Chushui (The mountains of north China and the rivers of south China). Translated by Wu Weifeng. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Naitō Meisetsu. 1919. “Teikoku gekijō gogatsu kyōgen” (Plays for May at the Imperial Theatre). Hototogisu 22 (9): 15–19. Nakagi Sei (Nakagi Teiichi). 1919a. “Mei Lanfang no kabugeki” (Mei Lanfang’s song- dance drama). Yomiuri shinbun , May 3, 6. ———. 1919b. “Mei no ‘Gohi tei’” (Mei’s Yubei ting ), Yomiuri shinbun , May 14, 6. Nakamura Kan’emon. 1974. Engi jiden (Autobiography on acting). Tokyo: Miraisha. Nakamura, Ryoko M. 2009. “Reviving nandan.” The Japan Times (Tokyo, Japan). March 13. Nakauchi Chōji. 1924. “Teigeki o mite: yomono ha Mei Lanfang” (Watching at the Imperial Theatre: Mei Lanfang is the main attraction). Yorozu chōhō (Evening edition), October 30. Nanbu Shūtarō. 1924. “Mei Lanfang no Taigyoku sō hana” (Mei Lanfang’s Daiyu buries flowers ). Shin engei (New performing art) December: 2–7. Nemirovich- Danchenko, V. I. 1979. Izbrannye pis’ma v dvuh tomah (Selected letters in two volumes), vol. 2. Moscow: Iskusstvo. New York Evening Post. 1930. “Soo Yong, Mistress of Ceremonies for Chinese Players, Has Two Ambitions.” February 20, 10. New York Times . 1923. “The Chinese Stage and the Dark Lady of Its Sonnets.” January 21, sec. 4, 11. ———. 1927. “Denishawns in Pantomime.” April 5, 30. 270 Bibliography

———. 1930a. “Sponsors of Mei Lan-fang.” February 4, 29. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lan- fang Guest at Tea Party Here.” February 19, 22. ———. 1930c. “Mei Lan- fang and Troupe in Equity.” February, 28, 20. ———. 1930d. “New Tulip to be Shown.” March 9, sec. 2, N1. ———. 1930e. “Mei Lan- fang Gives a New Program.” March 10, 24. ———. 1930f. “Mei Lan- fang Urges Wide Art Sympathies.” March 12, 32. ———. 1930g. “Tea for Mei Lan- fang.” March 18, 31. ———. 1930h. “Mrs. Campbell Honors Mei Lan-fang.” March 19, 23. ———. 1930i. “Mei Lan- fang Praises American Cordiality.” March 23, 31. ———. 1930j. “China Society Honors Mei Lan- fang.” April 20, sec. 2, N7. ———. 1932. “Chinese Group Seek Reform in Theatre.” October 30, sec. 2, E7. Ni Yi [pseud.]. 1935. “Mei Lanfang fu E jueding le jiu ju de jiazhi” (Mei Lanfang’s Russian trip decided the value of the old theatre). Zhongyang ribao, June 23, sec. 3, 3. Nie Gannu (Erye). 1934a. “Tan Mei Lanfang” (On Mei Lanfang). Zhonghua ribao , September 16, sec. 1, 4 and September 17, sec. 2, 4. ——— (Zang Qiren). 1934b. “Weida de shenli” (A great victory). Zhonghua ribao , October 26, sec. 3, 4. Nishihara Daisuke. 2003. Tanizaki Jun’ichirō to orientarizumu: Taishō Nihon no Chūgoku gensō (Tanizaki Jun’ichiro and orientalism: the Taisho Japanese fantasies of China). Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha. ———. 2005. Guqi Runyilang yu dong fang zhu yi: Dazheng Riben de Zhongguo huanxiang (Tanizaki Jun’ichiro and orientalism: the Taisho Japanese fantasies of China). Translated by Zhao Yi. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Nogami Yaeko. 1986. Nogami Yaeko zenshū , the second issue, vol. 1. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Noma Sei. 1919. “Teikoku Gekijō gogatsu kyōgen: Shinageki” (Plays for May at the Imperial Theatre: Chinese plays). Miyako shinbun , May 3–10, 1. Okakura, Kakasu (Kakuzō). 1903. The Ideals of the East, with Special Reference to the Art of Japan . London: John Murray. Okhlopkov, Nikolai. 1959. “Ob uslovnosti.” Teatr 11: 58–77; 12: 52–73. A Chinese version (translated by Yao Dengfo)— “Lun jiadingxing”— of Okhlopkov’s essay was published in Xiju lilun yiwen ji (Collected translations of theories of theatre and drama), edited by Zhongguo Xijujia Xiehui Yanjiushi, vol. 9, 235–319 (Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe, 1963). An abridged version of Okhlopkov’s essay—“On Convention”—was included in Socialist Realism in Literature and Art: A Collection of Articles, edited by M. Parkhomenko and A. Myasnikov and translated by C. V. James, 103–26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971). Onoe Baikō. 1924. “Watashi no shitteiru Mei Lanfang: Watashi no Ibaraki to Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang as I know: My Ibaraki and Mei Lanfang). Shūkan asahi , October 26, 28. Osaka asahi shinbun. 1919a. “Daininki no Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang’s great popularity). April 26, 7. Bibliography 271

———. 1919b. “Manjō no kanshū o misu” (The packed audience is spellbound). May 20, 7. ———. 1919c. “Nihon no shibai ni kanshin shita: Mei Lanfang shi ha kataru” (Admiring Japanese theatre: Mr. Mei Lanfang talks). Evening edition, May 28, 2. Ōshima Tomonao, ed. 1919. Hinbaiki (Records of plum tasting, or Records of appraising Mei Lanfang). Kyōto: Ibundō Shoten. Ouyang Yuqian. 1930. Zi wo yanxi yilai (Since I performed on stage). Shanghai: Shenzhou Guoguang She. Pang, Cecilia J. 2005–6. “(Re)cycling Culture: Chinese Opera in the United States.” Comparative Drama 39 (3–4): 361–96. Pian, Rulan Chao. 1971. “The Function of Rhythm in the Peking Opera.” In The Musics of Asia , edited by José Maceda, 114–31. Manila. ———. 1979. “Rhythmic Texture in the Opera, ‘The Fisherman’s Revenge.’” Asian Culture Quarterly 7 (4): 19–25. Picon- Vallin, Beatrice. 1990. Meyerhold . Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Ping Qun. 1935. “Zhengfu zizhu Mei Lanfang Jutuan fu E gongyan pingyi” (A comment on the government’s financial support to the Mei Lanfang Troupe’s performance in Russia). Banyue pinglun (Fortnightly review) 2 (3): 8–10. Pilkington, John, ed. 1975. Stark Young: A Life in the Arts, Letters 1900–1962 , vol. 1. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Pishi (Percy Chen). 1935a. “Su E xiju jie qidai Mei Lanfang fu E” (The theatre circles of the Soviet Russia look forward to Mei Lanfang’s visit to Russia). Dagong bao , February 22 and 23, 4. ———. 1935b. “Mei Lanfang Jutuan zai E biaoyan xiangji: Su E gejie yizhi zanshang jingtan” (A detailed record of the Mei Lanfang Troupe’s performance in Russia: various circles of the Soviet Russia unanimously expressed their praise and admiration). Dagong bao , April 10, 4. ———. 1935c. “E Guoji Wenhua Xiehui dui Zhongguo xiju zhi jia ping” (Positive comments on the Chinese theatre by the Russia’s All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries). Dagong bao , May 6, 4. Platt, Kevin M. F. and David Brandenberger, eds. 2006. Epic Revisionism: Russian History and Literature as Stalinist Propaganda. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Pu Shui. 1929. “Jiujiu guoji shang de mingyu ba” (Save [China’s] international reputation). Wenxue zhoubao 8 (3): 77–78. Pushkin, Aleksandr. 1928. Pis’ma , vol. 2. Edited by B. L. Modzalevskogo. Moscow. ———. 1949. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v desjati tomach (Complete works in ten volumes), vol. 7. Moscow. ———. 1963. The Letters of Alexander Pushkin , vol. 2. Translated by J. Thomas Shaw. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, and Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 272 Bibliography

———. 1981. “On National-Popular Drama and the Play Martha the Seneschal’s Wife.” In Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists: An Anthology, translated and edited by Laurence Senelick, 8–15. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 1998. Pushkin on Literature . Selected, edited, and translated by Tatiana Wolff. Evanston, ILL.: Northwestern University Press. Qi Fan. 1929. “Mei Lanfang yangming haiwai zhi yi kaocha” (An investiga- tion of Mei Lanfang’s overseas fame). Wenxue zhoubao 8 (3): 72–76. Qi Rushan. (1933) 1964a. Mei Lanfang you Mei ji (Mei Lanfang’s tour in America), vol. 1. In Qi Rushan quan ji (The complete works of Qi Rushan), vol. 2. Taipei: Chongguang Wenyi Chubanshe. ———. (1933) 1964b. Mei Lanfang you Mei ji, vol. 2. In Qi Rushan quan ji , vol. 2. ———. (1933) 1964c. Mei Lanfang you Mei ji , vol. 3. In Qi Rushan quan ji , vol. 2. ———. (1933) 1964d. Mei Lanfang you Mei ji, vol. 4. In Qi Rushan quan ji , vol. 2. ———. 1964e. “Lun guoju buke yong bujing” (On the inapplicability of scenery in China’s national theatre). In Qi Rushan quan ji , vol. 8, part 2, 10–14. ———. 1998. Qi Rushan huiyi lu (Qi Rushan’s memoirs). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Qin [pseud.]. 1930. “Mei Lanfang: qing kan Meiguoren zhi piping” (Mei Lanfang: a look at Americans’ criticisms), Shijie ribao (World daily), April 25, 7. Qin Su. 1934. “Mei Lanfang boshi dao Sulian qu de jiantao” (An examination of Dr. Mei Lanfang’s visit to the Soviet Union). Zhonghua ribao, December 2, sec. 2, 4. Radek, Karl. 1935. “Staryy kitay govorit o novom” (Old China speaks new), Izvestiia , March 23, 4. For a Chinese translation, see Da wanbao 1935f. Rakuyōan [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Lanfang geki o mite” (Watching Mei Lanfang’s performance). In Ōshima 1919), 98–105. Rao, Nancy Yunhwa. 2000. “Racial Essences and Historical Invisibility: Chinese Opera in New York, 1930.” Cambridge Opera Journal 12 (2): 135–62. Rensheng xunkan (Life). 1935. “Mei Lanfang Yu Shangyuan shouyou ge guo ji” (Mei Lanfang’s and Yu Shangyuan’s tour of European countries) 1 (4): 12–13. Risum, Janne. 2001. “Mei Lanfang: A Model for the Theatre of the Future.” In Meyerhold, rezhissura v perspektive veka / Meyerhold, la mise en scène dans le siècle , edited by Béatrice Picon- Vallin and Vadim Shcherbakov, 258–83. Moscow: OGI. Robinson, Douglas. 2008. Estrangement and the Somatics of Literature: Tolstoy, Shklovsky, Brecht . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rudnitsky, Konstantin. 1981. Meyerhold the Director. Translated by George Petrov and edited by Sydney Schultze. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Bibliography 273

Ruhl, Arthur. 1930a. “Mei Lan-fang, China’s Noted Actor, Seen by Invited Audience at 49th Street Theater.” New York Herald Tribune , February 17, 10. ———. 1930b. “Second Nights.” New York Herald Tribune, February 23, sec. 8, 1. Salzmann, Erich Von. 1922. “A Presidential Reception in China.” The Living Age , May 20, 479–81. Sapajou (Georgii Avsent’ievich Sapojinikoff). 1935a. “A Connoisseur.” The North- China Daily News , March 26. ———. 1935b. “Yige jianshangjia” (A Connoisseur). Lun yu , April 16, 759. Sartre, Jean- Paul. 1976. “Epic Theater and Dramatic Theater.” In Sartre on Theater , edited by Michel Contat and Michel Rybalka and translated by Frank Jellinek, 77–120. New York: Pantheon Books. Saussy, Haun. 2006. “Mei Lanfang in Moscow, 1935: Familiar, Unfamiliar, Defamiliar.” Modern Chinese Literature and Culture 18 (1): 8–29. Sauvage. 1932–1933. “The Path of Beauty.” The Theosophical Quarterly 30: 317–22. Schallert, Edwin. 1930. “Chinese Star’s art Unique.” Los Angeles Times, May 15, part 2, 19. Schmidt, Paul, ed. 1980. Meyerhold at Work. Austin: University of Texas Press. Scott, A. C. 1971. Mei Lan- Fang: The Life and Times of a Peking Actor . Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Scott, Barbara E. 1930. “We Bow to Mei Lan- fang.” The North American Review 229 (1): 572–75. Seiryō Sei (Hamada Kōsaku). 1919. “Wagahai no iwayuru ‘kansō’” (My so- called “impressions”). In Ōshima 1919, 48–55. Senda Koreya. (1956) 1959. “Mei Lanfang no inshō” (Impressions of Mei Lanfang). In Watakushi no engeki technō , 200–205. Tokyo: Chikumashobo. ———. (1979) 1991. “Mei Lanfang no omoide” (Memory of Mei Lanfang). In Senda Koreya engeki ronshū , vol. 8, 128–29. Tokyo: Miraisha. Shawn, Ted. 1929. Gods Who Dance . New York: E. P. Dutton. Shawn, Ted, with Gray Poole. 1960. One Thousand and One Night Stands . New York: Doubleday. Shehui xinwen (Social news). 1935. “Wanliu Mei Lanfang jun” (Mr. Mei Lanfang urged to stay in China) 10 (4): 127. Shen bao . 1930a. “Mei Lanfang huansonghui jisheng” (A summary of Mei Lanfang’s grand farewell meeting). January 17, 15. ———. 1930b. “Dahua ying Mei shenghui” (A grand gathering welcoming Mei at Dahua). July 20, 15. ———. 1934. “Eguo Duiwai Wenhua Xiejinhui yaoqing Mei Lanfang fu E biaoyan” (Russia’s All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries invited Mei Lanfang to perform in Russia). August 9, 12. ———. 1935a. “Huansong Mei Lanfang fu E chahui” (A tea party for seeing off Mei Lanfang to Russia). February 19, 15. 274 Bibliography

———. 1935b. “Mei Jutuan zai E da huo chenggong” (The great success of the Mei Troupe in Russia). March 26, 7. Sherman, Jane. 1976. Soaring: the Diary and Letters of a Denishawn Dancer in the Far East 1925–1926 . Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. ———. 1979. The Drama of Denishawn Dance. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. ———. 1983. Denishawn: the Enduring Influence . Boston: Twayne Publishers. Shi bao (The Eastern times). 1935. “Zhongdonglu feifa maimai: Ri E Wei sanfang jinri zai Dongjing zhengshi qianzi” (The illegal sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway: Japan, Russia, and the puppet state of Manchuria offi- cially signed on an agreement today in Tokyo), March 23, 7. Shi Zhecun. 1934. “Wo yu wenyanwen” (I and traditional Chinese). Xian dai (Les contemporains) 5 (5): 680–83. Shidai gonglun (Public reviews of the times). 1934. “Sulian qing Mei Lanfang yanju” (The Soviet Union invites Mei Lanfang to perform) 130: 5–6. ———. 1935. “Mei Lanfang fu E” (Mei Lanfang travels to Russia) 150: 3. Shian [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Lanfang.” Minguo ribao (The Republican daily), April 12, 8. Shishi xinbao (The China Times). 1930. “Meiguoren zhi Zhongguo juping” (American reviews of Chinese theatre), sec. 4, May 28, 2. Shōkaiko. 1919. “Shinageki kōgai” (Synopses of Chinese plays). Engei gahō 6: 115–17. Shuntian shibao (Shuntian times). 1919. “Yuhuahui huansong Mei Wanhua fu Ri songci” (Complimentary address by the Association for Entertainment Reform and Citizen Education to send off Mei Lanfang on his trip to Japan). April 18, 5. Simonson, Lee. 1931. “Consider Gordon Craig.” New York Times , January 25, X3. Sin Chew Jit Poh (Sin Chew daily). 1935a. “Wo yitan liang dianxing Mei Lanfang Hu Die ying yao yu shehuizhuyi guojia de shiming zai lianluo bangjiao” (The mission of Mei Lanfang and Hu Die, two models of our artistic circles invited to the socialist country, was to improve the diplo- matic contacts), April 27, sec. 5, 20. ———. 1935b. “Sulian zhaodai Mei Lanfang juyou zhongda zhengzhi yiyi” (The reception of Mei Lanfang by the Soviet Union has great political significance), April 30, sec. 5, 20. Skinner, R.D. 1930. “The Art of Mei Lan-fang.” The Commonweal 11 (20) (March 19): 562. St. Denis, Ruth. 1925. “The Orient: a Dream and a Reality.” The Denishawn Magazine 1 (4): 1–3. ———. 1939. Ruth St. Denis, an unfinished life; an autobiography. New York: Harper & Brothers. Bibliography 275

Stanislavsky, Constantin. 1924. My Life in Art . Translated by J. J. Robbins. Boston: Little, Brown. ———. 1936. An Actor Prepares . New York: Theatre Arts. ———. 1958. Stanislavsky’s Legacy: A Collection of Comments on a Variety of an Actor’s Art and Life . Edited and translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books. Sun Huizhu. 1982. “Sanda xiju tixi shenmei lixiang chutan” (A preliminary exploration into the aesthetic ideals of the three great theatrical systems). Xiju yishu (Theatre arts) 1: 86–96. Sun, William Huizhu. 1987. “Mei Lanfang, Stanislavsky and Brecht on China’s Stage and Their Aesthetic Significance.” In Drama in the People’s Republic of China , edited by Constantine Tung and Colin Mackerras, 137–50. Albany: State University of New York Press. Symons, James M. 1971. Meyerhold’s Theatre of the Grotesque. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. Tairov, Alexander. 1969. Notes of a Director. Translated by William Kuhlke. Coral Gables, FL.: University of Miami Press. Takarazuka Shōjo Kagekidan. 1924. Mei Lanfang ikkō shinageki kaisetsu oyobi sujigaki (Explanations and synopses of Chinese plays performed by Mei Lanfang and his troupe). Osaka: Hanshinkyūkōdentetsu. Tang [pseud.]. 1935. “Mei Lanfang you chu guo xian chou” (Again Mei Lanfang wanted to go abroad to make a fool of himself). Minjian zhoubao (Folk weekly) 97: 1–2. Tang Xianzu. 1982. Tang Xianzu shiwen ji (Collection of Tang Xianzu’s poetry and essays). Edited by Xu Shuofang. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe. Tanizaki Jun’ichiro. 1919. “Shinageki o miru ki” (A record of watching Chinese theatre performance). Chuo koron (The Central Review) June: 43–46. Reprinted in Tanizaki Jun’ichiro zenshū , vol. 22, 70–74. ———. 1977. In Praise of Shadows. Translated by Thomas J. Harper and Edward G. Seidensticker. New Haven: Leete’s Island Books. ———. 1983. Tanizaki Jun’ichiro zenshū , vol. 22, 70–74. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha. Taofen (Zou Taofen). 1930. “Mei boshi de gongxian” (Dr. Mei’s contribution). Shenghuo (The Life Weekly) 5 (27): 441. Taohen (Li Taohen). 1919a. “Mei Lanfang heyi neng xiang shengming” (Why Mei Lanfang was able to enjoy great popularity). Chun liu (Spring willow) 7: 1–2. ———. 1919b. “Mei Lanfang dao Riben hou zhi yingxiang” (The impact of Mei Lanfang’s visit to Japan). Chun liu 5: 8–10. ———. 1919c. “Mei Lanfang dongdu jishi” (An account of Mei Lanfang’s trip to Japan). Chun liu 6: 1–6. ———. 1919d. “Mei Lanfang dongdu jishi.” Chun liu 7: 1–11. 276 Bibliography

Tatlow, Antony. 1977. The Mask of Evil . Bern: Peter Lang. Tenjaku (Tanaka Keitarō). 1919. “Mei Lanfang.” In Ōshima 1919, 106–11. Thomson, Philip 1972. The Grotesque . London: Methuen. Tian Han (Bo Hong). 1934a. “Zhongguo jiuxi yu Mei Lanfang de zai pipan: Mei Lanfang fu E yanju wenti de kaocha zhi yi” (More critique of China’s old theatre and Mei Lanfang: the first examination of the questions concerning Mei Lanfang’s guest performance in Russia), Zhonghua ribao , October 21, sec. 2, 4. Reprinted in Tian Han wen ji (Collected works of Tian Han), vol. 14, 416–34. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe, 1983. ———. 1934b. “Sulian wei shenme yaoqing Mei Lanfang qu yanxi: Mei Lanfang fu E yanju wenti de kaocha zhi er” (Why the Soviet Union invited Mei Lanfang to perform there: the second examination of the questions concerning Mei Lanfang’s guest performance in Russia). Zhonghua ribao , October 28, sec. 2, 4 and November 4, 11, 18, 25, sec. 2, 4. Reprinted in Tian Han wen ji , vol. 14, 435–54. ———. (1935) 1983. “Duiyu xiju yundong de jige xinnian” (About some beliefs in the theatre movement). In Tian Han wen ji , vol. 14, 459–61. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Tian, Min. 1997. “‘Alienation-Effect’ for Whom? Brecht’s (Mis)Interpretation of the Classical Chinese Theatre.” Asian Theatre Journal 14 (2): 200–22 ———. 1998. “Who Speaks and Authorizes: the Aftermath of Brecht’s Misinterpretation of the Classical Chinese Theatre.” Theatre Symposium 6: 86–97. ———. 1999. “Meyerhold Meets Mei Lanfang: Staging the Grotesque and the Beautiful.” Comparative Drama 33 (2): 234–69. ———. 2000. “Male Dan : The Paradox of Sex, Acting, and Perception of Female Impersonation in Traditional Chinese Theatre.” Asian Theatre Journal 17 (1): 78–97. ———. 2005/2006. “Stage Directions in the Performance of Yuan Drama.” Comparative Drama 39 (3–4): 397–443. ———. 2007. “Gordon Craig, Mei Lanfang and the Chinese Theatre.” Theatre Research International 32 (2): 161–77. ———. 2008. The Poetics of Difference and Dispalcement: Twentieth-Century Chinese- Western Intercultural Theatre . Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ———, ed. 2010. China’s Greatest Operatic Male Actor of Female Roles: Documenting the Life and Art of Mei Lanfang 1894–1961. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1993. On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism, and Exoticism in French Thought. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Tokyo asahi shinbun. 1918. “Mei Lanfang: Shina no onnagata” (Mei Lanfang: China’s onnagata ). January 5, 5. Bibliography 277

———. 1919a. “Mei Lanfang no degei jin” (People greeting Mei Lanfang). April 26, 5. ———. 1919b. “Mei Lanfang ni kyōhakujō ga mai ko mu” (Threatening letters dropped to Mei Lanfang). May 8, 5. ———. 1919c. “Nihon gekikai ni shigeki sarete shinageki no kairyō o” (The Japanese theatrical world has stimulated reform of the Chinese theatre). May 28, 5. ———. 1924a. “Mei Lanfang no taimei gyōretsu: Nihon e no tabida ni sōtō no betsuen (Mei Lanfang’s parade of great honor: his setting off for Japan and the president’s farewell party). October 11, 7. ———. 1924b. “Hanataba no nakani: Mei Lanfang no miyakoiri” (Among bouquets of flowers: Mei Lanfang arrives in the capital). Evening edition. October 15, 2. Tokyo nichinichi shinbun. 1919a. “Mei Lanfang no nyūkyō ha” (Mei Lanfang’s arrival in the capital on 26 of this month). April 11, 6. ———. 1919b. “Teigeki ni uijin no . . . Mei Lanfang” (Mei Lanfang’s first performance at the Imperial Theatre). May 2, 7. ———. 1919c. “Mei Lanfang ni kyōhakujō” (Threatening letters to Mei Lanfang). May 8, 5. ———. 1919d. “Nisenmei no Shina ryūgakusei teito o sawagasu” (Two thousand Chinese students riot in Tokyo). May 8, 5. Tretyakov, Sergei. 1935a. “Five Hundred Million Playgoers.” In VOKS 1935, 29–35. ———. 1935b. “Mei Lan-Fan— nash gost” (Mei Lanfang—our guest). Pravda 70 (March 12), 4. For an English translation of this article, see Tian 2010, 157–60. ———. 1935c. “Mei Lan-fan v Moskve” (Mei Lan-fang in Moscow). Pravda 71 (March 13), 6. ———. 1935d. “Velikoe masterstvo” (Great mastery). Pravda 81 (March 23), 4. For an English translation of this article, see Tian 2010, 161–64. ———. 1935e. “Novyy teatr starykh form” (New Theatre of Ancient Forms). Pravda 84 (March 26), 4. ———. 1935f. “Polmilliarda zritelei” (Half a billion viewers). Literaturnaia Gazeta (Literary gazette) 15 (March 15): 2. ———. (1924) 1982. “Le Théâtre asiatique.” In Hurle, Chine! et Autres Pièces , 245–46. Lousanne: L’Age d’homme. Tsubouchi Shōyō (Tsubouchi Yūzō). (1919) 1927a. “Kabukigeki no tetteiteki kenkyū” (A thorough study of the kabuki theatre”). In Shōyō senshū , vol. 10, 41–93. Tokyo: Shun’yōdō. ———. (1921) 1927b. “Mukashi no wakaonnagata” (Young onnagata in former times). In Shōyō senshū , vol. 10, 131–47. ———. (1921) 1927c. “Onnagata no zento to kabuki no zento” (The future of onnagata and the future of kabuki). In Shōyō senshū , vol. 10, 149–72. 278 Bibliography

———. (1921) 1927d. “Onnagata yūtai ron” (On the better treatment of onnagata). In Shōyō senshū , vol. 10, 173–214. Tsuji Chōka. 1919. “Mei Lanfang to Shinageki” (Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre). Jiji shinpo , April 25 and 26, 10. ———. (Tsuji Takeo). 1920. Zhongguo ju (Chinese theatre). Beijing: Shuntian Shibao She. ———. 1923. Shina shibai (Chinese theatre), vol. 1, 1–10. Beijing: Shina Fūbutsu Kenkyūkai. Tynan, Kenneth. 1968. Tynan Right and Left . New York: Atheneum. Tyrrell, Henry. 1903. “The Theatre of New York’s Chinatown.” The Theatre Magazine 3 (29): 170–72. Ukō Sanjin (Murata Ukō). 1919. “Mei Lanfang jo” (Foreword to Mei Lanfang). In Murata Ukō 1919, n.p. Vakhtangov, Eugene. 1963. “Fantastic Realism.” In Directors on Directing , edited by Toby Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy, 185–91. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill. Vassiliev [Vasiliev], B. 1935a. “Mei Lan-Fang, Great Master of the Chinese Stage.” In VOKS 1935, 9–18. ———. 1935b. “Mei Lan-Fan i Kitaiskii teatr” (Mei Lanfang and the Chinese theatre). Izvestiia , March 12, 6. ———. 1935c. “Kitaiskii klassicheskii teatr: na spektakliakh Mei Lan-Fana” (Chinese classical theatre: a performance by Mei Lan-fang). Rabochii i Teatr (Workers and theatre) 8: 5–7. Vecherniaia moskva (Moscow evening). 1935a. “Predislovie” (Preface). March 21. ———. 1935b. “Porazhaet rost kultury! Beseda s doktorom Mei Lan-fanom” (Amazing growth of culture! A talk by Dr. Mei Lanfang). April 13. VOKS (The All- Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries). 1935. Mei Lan-Fang and the Chinese Theatre: On the Occasion of His Appearance in the U.S.S.R. Moscow and Leningrad. ———. 2010. “An Evening for the Final Conclusion of the Visit of Mei Lan- fang’s Theatre in the USSR, April 14, 1935.” In Tian 2010, 165–82. Wainscott, Ronald H. 1997. The Emergence of the Modern American Theater 1914–1929 . New Haven: Yale University Press. Wang Jide. 1983. Qulü (Rules of sung verse). Edited by Chen Duo and Yan Changhai. Changsha: Hunan Renmin Chubanshe. Wang Xiaoyin. 1930. “Zhongguo ju zhi yishu diwei yi queding hu?” (Has the artistic standing of the Chinese theatre been defined). Beiyang huabao (The Pei- Yang Pictorial News), August 30, 3. Wang Zhongxian (Wang Youyou). 1920. “Ju tan” (Talks about theatre). Chen bao , November 2 and 4, 7. Warren, George C. 1930. “Mei Lan-Fang Playing at Capitol.” San Francisco Chronicle , May 1, 12. Bibliography 279

Watkins, Mary F. 1930. “Some Observations Upon the Art and Methods of Mei Lan-fang, China’s Foremost Dancer-Actor.” New York Herald Tribune , February 23, sec. 8, 9. Weber, Carl. 1989. “AC/TC: Currents of Theatrical Exchange.” Performing Arts Journal 11 (3)–12 (1) (PAJ 33/34): 11–21. Weibin [pseud.]. 1930. “Piping Mei Lanfang jiqi zougou” (A criticism of Mei Lanfang and his lackeys). Minzhong jiaoyu banzhoukan (Mass education semiweekly) 1 (33): 3–4; 1 (34): 3–4; 1 (35): 3; 1 (36): 3; 1 (37): 3–4; 1 (38): 3–4. Whang, Paul K. 1930. “Mei Lan- Fang and His Trip to the United States.” The China Weekly Review 51 (6): 214–15. Whitaker, Alma. 1930a. “Chinese Peace Gesture Made.” Los Angeles Times , May 8, part 2, 9. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lan-fang Scorns Reality.” Los Angeles Times, May 18, part 3, 11, 19. White, John J. 2004. Bertolt Brecht’s Dramatic Theory . New York: Camden House. Wichmann, Elizabeth. 1991. Listening to Theatre: the Aural Dimension of Beijing Opera . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Wilder, Thornton. 1979. American Characteristics and Other Essays . Edited by Donald Gallup. New York: Harper & Row. ———. 1992. Coversations with Thornton Wilder. Edited by Jackson R. Bryer. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. ———. 2008. The Selected Letters of Thornton Wilder. Edited by Robin G. Wilder and Jackson R. Bryer. New York: HarperCollins. Willett, John. 1983. Brecht in Context . London and New York: Methuen. Wu, Aitchen K. 1950. China and the Soviet Union: a Study of Sino- Soviet Relations . New York: John Day. Wu Zuguang, Huang Zuolin, and Mei Shaowu. 1981. Peking Opera and Mei Lanfang: A Guide to China’s Traditional Theatre and the Art of Its Great Master . Beijing: New World Press. Wyatt, Euphemia Van Rensselaver. 1930. “Dramatic Rhythme and Mei Lan- fang.” The Catholic World 131 (781): 77–78. Xia Zhengnong. 1934a. “Mei Lanfang yu zhongguo jiu ju de qiantu” (Mei Lanfang and the future of China’s old theatre). Shen bao , July 1, 17. Xia Zhengnong’s essay in two parts (see also Xia 1934b) was not signed. But elsewhere in a response to Tian Han (Bo Hong), Xia confirmed his author- ship (see Xia 1934c). ———. 1934b. “Mei Lanfang yu Zhongguo jiu ju de qiantu” (Mei Lanfang and the future of China’s old theatre), Shen bao , July 2, 16. ———. 1934c. “Zhi Bo Hong xiansheng: guanyu Mei Lanfang fu E yanju wenti” (To Mr. Bo Hong: about Mei Lanfang’s performance in Russia). Zhonghua ribao , November 11, sec. 2, 4. 280 Bibliography

Xiao Tiedi Daoren [pseud.]. 1965. Rixia kanhua ji (Notes on watching flowers in the sun). In Qingdai yandu liyuan shiliao , vol. 1, 173–288. Xiaolin [pseud.]. 1928. “Ling jie da wang Mei Lanfang xiao shi” (A short history of Mei Lanfang, the Great King of Actors). Xiju yuekan (The theatre monthly) 1 (6): 1–8. Xiaoshan [pseud.]. 1935. “Mei Lanfang dao Sulian” (Mei Lanfang arrives in the Soviet Union). Xin sheng (New life) 2 (15): 311. Xiong Foxi. 1927. “Mei Lanfang.” Chen bao fukan (The morning post supplement), October 28, 46; October 29, 47–48. Xiyuan (Zheng Zhenduo). 1929. “Dadao nanban nüzhuang de danjue; dadao danjue de daibiao ren Mei Lanfang” (Down with the dan actors in women’s clothes; down with the representative dan actor Mei Lanfang). Wenxue zhoubao 8 (3): 62–65. For an English translation, see Tian 2010, 75–78. Xu Chengbei. 2000. Mei Lanfang bainian ji (A centennial memorial of Mei Lanfang). Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Xu Muyun. 1935. “Yin Mei Jutuan fu E lianxiang dao guoju zhi jiji zhengdun” (My thoughts on the active rectification of China’s national theatre in the wake of the trip by the Mei Lanfang Troupe to Russia.” Chen bao , March 28, 3 and March 29, 8. Xuebu [pseud.]. 1919. “Mei Hua xiaoxi” (News on Flower Mei). Chen bao, May 21, 7. Xueli [pseud.]. 1930a. “Mei Lanfang chenglun guiguo mingri ke di Shanghai” (Mei Lanfang returns on ship and is expected to arrive in Shanghai tomorrow). Liyuan gongbao , July 17, 2. ———. 1930b. “Mei Lanfang qianri di zhi shengkuang” (A grand occasion for Mei Lanfang’s arrival the day before yesterday). Liyuan gongbao, July 20, 2. ———. 1930c. “Ling Lianhui huanying Mei Wanhua sui jin lu” (Titbits of the Actors Association’s welcome of Mei Wanhua [Mei Lanfang]). Liyuan gongbao , July 23, 2. Yao, Hsin- nung 1935. “Exit Lady Precious Stream.” The China Critic 11 (11): 249–52. Yasushi, Nagata. 2010. “The Future Possibilities of Inter-Asian Theatre Research.” Theatre Research International 35 (3): 295–96. Yen, W. W. 1974. East-West Kaleidoscope, 1877–1946: an Autobiography . New York: St. John’s University Press. Ying Yi. 1929. “Fanchang shehui de chanwu (Product of an abnormal society).” Wenxue zhoubao 8 (3): 66–72. Yomiuri shinbun . 1919a. “Wakai utsukushii Shina no meiyū Mei Lanfang chaku kyō su” (The young and beautiful Chinese star actor Mei Lanfang arrives in Tokyo). April 26, 5. ———. 1919b. “Shina shibai kōgai” (Synopses of Chinese plays). May 5, 6. Yong bao. 1934a. “Mei Lanfang fu E” (Mei Lanfang’s trip to Russia). June 1, 11. Bibliography 281

———. 1934b. “Sue yao Mei yanju zhenxiang” (The truth of the Soviet Russia’s invitation of Mei to perform). June 2, 11. ———. 1935a. “Mei Lanfang di Su E. E bao songyang wenzhang” (Mei Lanfang arrives at the Soviet Russia. Russian newspapers publish articles singing his praises). March 18, 9. ———. 1935b. “Nuhou ba Zhongguo de zuozhe yi zhuwen songyang Mei Lanfang shi” (The author of Roar China! also writes in praise of Mr. Mei Lanfang). March 22, 9. Yosano Akiko. (1919) 1976a. “Mei Lanfang ni” (To Mei Lanfang). In Yosano Akiko zenshū , vol. 8, 221–22. Tokyo: Bunsendō Shuppan. ———. (1919) 2002. “Saikin no kansō” (Recent thoughts). In Yosano Akiko hyōron chosakushū , vol. 18, 212–14. Tokyo: Ryūkei Shosha. ———. (1921) 1976b. Taiyō to bara (The sun and the roses). In Yosano Akiko zenshū , vol. 3, 103–211. ———. (1922) 1976c. Kusa no yume (Grass dreams). In Yosano Akiko zenshū , vol. 3, 213–317. ———. (1930) 1976d. Man-Mō yūsō (Manchuria and Mongolia travel notes). In Yosano Akiko zenshū , vol. 4, 413–65. Yoshida Toshiko. 1986. “Mei Lanfang no 1919- nen 24- nen rainichi kōen hōkoku” (A report on Mei Lanfang’s 1919 and 1924 public performances in Japan). Nihon engeki gakkai kiyō (The Journal of Japanese Society for Theatre Research ) 24: 73–105. ———. 1987. “Mei Lanfang 1919, 1924 nian lai Ri gong yan de baogao” (A report on Mei Lanfang’s 1919 and 1924 public performances in Japan). Translated by Hosoi Naoko. Xiqu yishu (The art of xiqu ) 1: 80–85; 2: 88–94; 3: 78–82; 4: 94–98. Yoshikawa Kōjirō. (1956) 1970a. “Mei Lanfang no chii” (Mei Lanfang’s status). In Yoshikawa Kōjirō zenshū , vol. 16, 589–90. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō. ———. (1956) 1970b. “Minamiza kangeki zekku” (Poems on playgoing at Minamiza). In Yoshikawa Kōjirō zenshū , vol. 16, 591–94. Yoshikawa Misao. 1924. “Shinageki” (Chinese theatre). Miyako shinbun , October 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 5. Yoshino Sakuzō. 1996. Yoshino Sakuzō senshū, vol. 14. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Yoshizawa Ayame. 1969. “The Words of Ayame.” In The Actors’ Analects, edited and translated by Charles J. Dunn and Bunzō Torigoe, 49–66. New York: Columbia University Press. Young, C. Walter. 1931. “The Theatre in China.” Theatre Guild Magazine 8 (4): 36–40. Young, Stark. 1930a. “Mei Lan-Fang.” The New Republic 62 (796) (March 5): 72–75. ———. 1930b. “Shall We Have the Horse?” The New Republic 62 (799) (March 26): 152–53. 282 Bibliography

———. 1930c. “Mei Lan- Fang.” Theatre Arts Monthly 14 (4): 295–308. ———. 1931. “Little Asides: II.” The New Republic 66 (848) (March 4): 74–75. Yu Shangyuan. 1927. “Jiu xi pingjia” (An evaluation of the old theatre). In Yu Shangyuan, Xiju lun ji (A collection of essays on theatre), 17–25. Beijing: Beixin shuju. ———. 1935. “Ji Gedeng Kelei” (A note about Gordon Craig). Wenxue shidai (Literary times) 1 (2): 70–79. Yu Zhenfei. 1985. “Wuxian shenqing Du Liniang” (Du Liniang in deep and boundless love). In Yu Zhenfei yishu lun ji (A collection of Yu Zhenfei’s essays on art), edited by Wang Jiaxi and Xu Yin, 197–202. Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chubanshe. For an English translation, see Tian 2010, 85–89. Yuan Fang. 1935. “Song Mei Lanfang boshi fu E” (Sending off Dr. Mei Lanfang to Russia). Xin sheng (New Life) 2 (5): 102. Yuanzai [pseud.]. 1919. “Duiyu Mei Lanfang dong du zhi beiguan” (A pessimistic view of Mei Lanfang’s trip to Japan). Xiao jing bao (Small Peking press), March 4, 2. Yunzi (Fu Yunzi). 1930. “Mei Lanfang zai Mei zhi chenggong” (Mei Lanfang’s success in America). Beijing huabao (The Peking pictorial news). May 10. Zaizheng [pseud.]. 1935. “Mei Lanfang zai Su E yanju” (Mei Lanfang’s performance in the Soviet Russia). Gu geng 60: 2. Zarrilli, Phillip. 1988. “For Whom Is the ‘Invisible’ Not Visible?: Reflections on Representation in the Work of Eugenio Barba.” The Drama Review 32 (1): 95–106. Zeami. 1984. On the Art of Nö Drama: The Major Treatises of Zeami. Translated by J. Thomas Rimer and Yamazaki Masakazu. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Zhai Guanliang. 1935. “Mei Lanfang you E ji” (Mei Lanfang’s tour of Russia). Lüxing zazhi (China traveler) 9 (6): 5–11. Zhang Houzai (Liaozi). 1918a. “Wo de Zhongguo jiuxi guan” (My view of China’s old theatre). Xin qingnian 5 (4): 343–48. ———. 1918b. “Mei Lanfang zhi moli” (The magic power of Mei Lanfang). In Mei Lanfang , edited by Meishe, 28–33. Shanghai: Zhonghua Shuju. ———. 1919a. “Bujing yu jiuxi” (Scenery and the old plays). Chen bao, March 2 and March 4, 7. ———. 1919b. “Duiyu Mei Lanfang fu Ri de ganxiang” (Thoughts on Mei Lanfang’s trip to Japan). Chen bao , April 24, 7. Zhang Mingqi. 1934a. “Guanyu Mei Lanfang fu E” (About Mei Lanfang’s trip to Europe). Yong bao , June 3, 2. ———. 1934b. “Zai lun Mei Lanfang fu E shi” (More on the issue of Mei Lanfang’s trip to Russia). Yong bao , June 9, 9. Bibliography 283

Zhang Pengchun (Peng- Chun Chang). 1935a. “Some Aspects of Chinese Theatrical Art.” In VOKS 1935, 36–45. ———. 1935b. “Zhang Pengchun jiaoshou jiangyan jiu ju yu xin guo: fu E ganxiang” (Professor Zhang Pengchun’s speech on China’s old theatre and new nation: reflections on his trip to Russia). Beiping chen bao , May 28–29, 9. ———. (1935) 2003. “Su E xiju de qushi” (The trend of the Soviet Russian theatre). In Zhang Pengchun lun jiaoyu yu xiju yishu (Zhang Pengchun on education and theatre art), edited by Cui Guoliang and Cui Hong, 581–87. Tianjin: Nankai Daxue Chubanshe. Zhang Songjia. 1949. “‘Yibu er bu huanxing’: Mei Lanfang tan jiuju gaige” (“Moving forward does not require change of form”: Mei Lanfang speaks of the reform of traditional theatre). Jinbu ribao (Progressive daily), November 3, sec. 1, 3. Zhang Songjia and Wang Kaizeng. 1949. “Xiang jiuju gaige qiangtu maijin: ji Mei Lanfang li Jin qianxi Jinshi Xiqu Gongzuozhe Xiehui yaoji de jiuju zuotanhui” (Stride forword towards the reform of traditional theatre: a report on the forum on traditional theatre called by the Association of Traditional Theatre Workers in Tianjin on the eve of Mei Lanfang’s depar- ture from Tianjin). Jinbu ribao , November 30, sec. 1, 1. Zhao Taimu. 1927. “Guoju” (National theatre). In Guoju yundong (National theatre movement), edited by Yu Shangyuan, 7–20. Shanghai: Xinyue Shudian. Zhao Zunyue. 1930. “Guanyu Mei boshi de wenti” (Question about Dr. Mei). Shenghuo 5 (29): 487–90. Zhdanov, A. A. 1977. “Soviet Literature— The Richest in Ideas. The Most Advanced Literature.” In Maxim Gorky et al., Soviet Writers’ Congress 1934: The Debate on Socialist Realism and Modernism in the Soviet Union , 15–24. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Zheng Boqi. 1930. “Zhongguo xiju yundong de jinlu (The future for the Chinese theatre movement). In Xiju lunwen ji (Collected essays on theatre), edited by Yishu Jushe, 1–24. Shanghai: Shenzhou Guoguangshe. Zheng Yiqiu. (1959) 1990. “Mu Guiying guashuai paiyan suibi” (Notes on the rehearsals of Mu Guiying takes command ). In Zhongguo Mei Lanfang Yanjiu Xuehui and Mei Lanfang Jinianguan 1990, 275–78. Zhi (Zhao Zunyue). 1930. “Guanyu piping Mei Lanfang zhi yi han” (A letter about the criticism of Mei Lanfang). Shen bao , June 20, 17; June 21, 19; June 22, 17. “Zhong Ri ming ling yanhui zhi shengkuang” (A grand banquet for famous actors of China and Japan). In Mei Lanfang , edited by Zhuang Zhujiu et al. Shanghai, 1926, n. p. Zhongguo Dier Lishi Danganguan (China’s Second History Archives). 2001a. “Mei Lanfang fang Su dangan shiliao (yi)” (Archives for Mei Lanfang’s 284 Bibliography

visit to the Soviet [part one]). Minguo dangan (The archives of the Republic of China) 3: 8–11. ———. 2001b. “Mei Lanfang fang Su dangan shiliao (er)” (Archives for Mei Lanfang’s visit to the Soviet [part two]). Minguo dangan 4: 9–23. Zhongguo Mei Lanfang Yanjiu Xuehui and Mei Lanfang Jinianguan, ed. 1990. Mei Lanfang yishu pinglun ji (An anthology of reviews on Mei Lanfang’s art). Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Zhongguo Xiqu Yanjiuyuan, ed. 1959. Zhongguo gudian xiqu lunzhu jichen (Collection of China’s classical works on traditional Chinese theatre), 10 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo Xiju Chubanshe. Zhou Boxun. 1934. “Mei Lanfang xiansheng fangwen ji” (An interview with Mr. Mei Lanfang). Zhonghua ribao , September 16 and 23, sec. 2, 4. Zhou Yan. 1934. “Sulian qing Mei Lanfang yanju shi weile xuexi Zhongguo jiu ju de chengshi yu guilü ma” (Was the Soviet invitation of Mei Lanfang for the purpose of learning from the conventions and laws of China’s old theatre?). Yong bao , June 7, 9. Zhuodai (Xu Zhuodai). 1920. “Mei Lanfang zhi jiepou” (A dissection of Mei Lanfang). Jing bao (The Crystal), May 24, 2. Zucker, A. E. 1924. “China’s ‘Leading Lady.’” Asia (New York) 24 (8): 600– 604, 646–47.

I n d e x

A Jia, 248n1 Aoki Masaru, 33 Actors Association (Lingjie Lianhehui), Appia, Adolphe, 160 , 162–63 96–97 appropriation, 121 , 178 , 212 , 217–18 Actors’ Equity Association, 67 Aristotelian, 178 , 196 , 206 aestheticism, 2 , 47 , 118 Arosev, A. Y., 136–37 Ah Chic, 63 Artaud, Antonin, 80–81 Ai Siqi, 119 Association for Entertainment Reform Akita Tsuyuko, 50 , 231n26 and Citizen Education Akita Ujaku, 38–39 (Zhengyue Yuhua Hui), 19–20 Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, 24 , 28–29 Atkinson, Brooks, 74–75 , 84–85 , 87 , Alienation, 146 , 148–49 , 153 , 159–60 , 90 , 96 169 , 171 , 180–81 , 183 , 185 , avant-garde, 2 , 12 , 14 , 62 , 69 , 80 , 90 , 190 , 193 , 196 , 202 , 205–206 , 113 , 115 , 141–43 , 153 , 155 , 243n1 158 , 216 , 219 , 220 see also defamiliarizing ; distance ; estrangement ; Verfremdung Bai, Ronnie, 248n40 Alienation eff ect (A-eff ect), 171 , 175 , Baker, George Pierce, 60 177 , 180 , 182–92 , 194 , 196–97 , Bandō Tamasaburō V, 55–56 203 , 205–208 , 211–13 , 218 , banxiang , 169 243n1 , 247n30 , 248n35 , Barba, Eugenio, 218–21 , 233n18 248n40 Barnes, Ralph W., 139 see also distancing eff ect ; eff ect of Barrymore, John, 66 disillusion ; estrangement eff ect ; Barthes, Roland, 197 jianli xiaoguo ; moshenghua Bassnett, Susan, 233n18 xiaoguo ; Verfremdungseff ekt Bauer, Marion, 81 American Association for Better Bawang bie ji ( King’s farewell to his P hotoplays, 68 c oncubine ), 10 , 67 , 94 , 244n4 Andreev, Leonid, 154 Beauty defi es tyranny , 111 , 202–203 , anti-illusionism, 90 , 92 , 148–49 , 244n4 153–54 , 159 , 189 , 194 see also Cosmic blade, Th e ; Yuzhou see also antirealism feng antirealism, 2, 14 , 47–48 , 62 , 69–71 , Beiyang huabao , 99–101 , 235n31 73 , 79 , 92 , 115 , 153 , 217 Bel Geddes, Norman, 71 see also anti-illusionism Belasco, David, 63 , 68 286 Index

Benchley, Robert, 93 Callot, Jacques, 157 , 242n35 Benjamin, Walter, 177–78 , 186 Campbell, Mrs. Patrick, 68 Bentley, Eric, 179 , 212 , 233n12 , Cao Juren, 132 , 237n26 243n1 , 245n10 , 245n16 , Cao Kun, 23 246nn17–18 , 247nn29–31 , Carter, Edward C., 69 247n35 , 248n38 Caucasian Chalk Circle , Th e , Bernhardt, Sarah, 155 185–87 , 208 Biomechanics, 138 , 143 , 155–56 , 161 , Chang’e ben yue (Chang’e fl ies to 163–64 , 168–69 the moon), 7 , 29 Bloch, Ernst, 185 , 187 , 190 , 210–11 Chaplin, Charles, 68 Blok, Alexander, 157 Chekhov, Michael, 157 , 242n37 Bogdanov, Alexander, 112 Chen, Percy, 127 , 136 , 140 , 192 , Bolitho, William, 88 , 95 238n11 Bolton, Whitney, 78 Chen bao , 53–54 , 126 Booth, Edwin, 63 , 68 Chen Dabei, 4 , 61 Borberg, Svend, 245n9 Chen Duxiu, 2 , 80 Boris Godunov , 152 , 165, 241n29 Chen Jiang, 112–13 , 122 Bourdieu, Pierre, 179 Chen Kaige, 13 Braun, Edward, 150 , 240n21 Chen Yanheng, 200 Brecht, Bertolt, 14 , 76 , 113 , 153 , Cheney, Sheldon, 69–70 , 72 , 83 159 , 170–71 , 218–21 , 243n1 , Cheng Changgeng, 201 244n3 , 244n6 , 245nn9–11 , Cheng Yanqiu, 116 245n16 , 246nn19–21 , 246n24 , chengshihua , 152 246n28 , 247nn29–35 , 248n38 , see also conventionalization ; 248n40 s tylization ; xieyi Genesis of his essay on Mei Lanfang China Institute, 67 and Chinese acting, 176–80 China Society of America, 68 history of his concept of the A-eff ect, Cihu , 60 , 110 , 238n6 , 244n4 180–85 see also Death of the Tiger General, interpretation of Mei Lanfang’s art Th e ; Tiger General and Chinese acting Claudel, Paul, 78–79 against Stanislavsky, 178–80 , Clayborough, Arthur, 158 195–96 , 198; Th e fourth wall Collins, Charles, 78 , 81 , 233n17 and the A-eff ect, 188–89; commedia dell’arte , 90, 157 , 242n35 quotation and identifi cation, Comoedia , 101 197–205; “Self-Observation” Constructivism, 2 , 118 , 147 , 169 and “Self-Alienation,” 190–97; Conventional Th eatre, 143–46 , spectating, 205–208 148–49 , 152–54 , 159–61 , refunctioning, 209–13 163–67 , 170 , 218 , 240n23 use of Chinese elements, 185–87 see also stylized theatre ; Th eatre of Briusov (Bryusov), Valery, 144 Convention Brown, John Mason, 68 , 73–74 , 76 conventionalism, 6 , 12 , 28 , 36 , 38 , 92 , Bubus the Teacher , 154 , 162 113 , 116 , 120 , 130 , 140 , 217 Buss, Kate, 64 see also xieyizhuyi Index 287 conventionality, 143–45 , 148–49 , 89–90 , 92–94 , 96 , 151 , 159 , 151–52 , 171 , 240nn21–22 173 , 175 , 179–80 , 183–85 , see also jiadingxing 187 , 190–91 , 209 , 212–13 , 216 , conventionalization, 6 , 53 , 72 , 74 , 84 , 218–22 , 245n11 94 , 113 , 116 , 131 , 144–46 , see also placement ; re-placement 152 , 155–56 , 166 , 216 , 220 , distance, 150 , 155 , 171 , 180 , 185 , 236n13 , 240n21 189–90 , 194 , 204–207 , 221 , see also chengshihua ; stylization; xieyi 243n1 Copeau, Jacques, 69 see also Alienation ; defamiliarizing ; Coquelin, Constant-Benoît, 155 estrangement ; Verfremdung Cornell, Katharine, 68 distancing eff ect, 185 , 243n1 Cosdon, Mark, 234n21 see also Alienation eff ect ; eff ect of Cosmic blade , Th e , 111 , 202 , 244n4 disillusion ; estrangement eff ect ; see also Beauty defi es tyranny ; jianli xiaoguo ; moshenghua Yuzhou feng xiaoguo ; Verfremdungseff ekt Craig, Edward Gordon, 45 , 69 , 72 , Douglas, Anne, 94–95 , 234n29 137 , 139 , 176 , 238n8 , 245n7 Drunken beauty , Th e , 8 , 202–204 , 244n4 Crane, Charles R., 60 see also Guifei zui jiu Du Heng, 109–10 Da wanbao , 103–104 , 115 , 117–18 , Dullin, Charles, 219 126 , 130–31 Duncan, Isadora, 162 Dagong bao , 99–100 , 126–27 Duse, Eleonora, 155 , 233n14 Daiyu zang hua (Daiyu buries fl owers), 7 , 24–25 , 29–30 , 40 , 64 , 204 Eagleton, Terry, 209 dan , 4 , 8 , 12 , 110 , 129 , 201 e ff ect of disillusion, 243n1 see also female impersonation ; men see also Alienation eff ect ; d istancing playing women’s roles ; nandan ; eff ect ; estrangement eff ect ; onnagata jianli xiaoguo ; moshenghua daomadan , 12 xiaoguo ; Verfremdungseff ekt Datong Yuehui (Great Harmony Music Eisenstein, Sergei, 68 , 115 , 120 , Society), 97 126–28 , 130–31 , 136–42 , Dayu shajia , 110–11 , 244n4 154 , 156 , 161 , 166 , 176 , see also Fisherman’s revenge, Th e 213 , 217–19 , 221 , 234n23 , Death of the Tiger General , Th e , 73 , 75 , 237n21 , 238n11 , 239n16 , 83 , 88 , 176 , 195 , 206 , 244n4 239n18 , 240n27 , 242n31 , see also Cihu ; Tiger General 243n42 defamiliarizing, 185 , 243n1 on Mei Lanfang’s art and the see also Alienation ; distance ; Chinese theatre, 146–47 , e strangement ; Verfremdung 155 , 161 Deng Xia gu (Lady Deng Xia), 4 on the Th eatre of Imagery Denishawn Dancers, 94 as seen in Mei Lanfang’s art and Derrida, Jacques, 81 , 183–85 the Chinese theatre, 166–67; Dewey, John, 60 in contrast to Mei Lanfang’s art displacement, 14 , 30–31 , 36 , 45 , 55 , 86 , and the Chinese theatre, 168–69 288 Index

Elizabethan theatre, 63 , 65 , 74 , 89 , Feng Xiaoyin, 53 92 , 144 Fenhe wan (By the Fen River bends), Eltinge, Julian, 79 244n4 emotional experiencing, 11 , 155 , 157 see also Suspected slippers, Th e see also inner experiencing Filippov, Boris, 138 , 238n5 empathy, 181 , 187–90 , 202 , 205–206 , Fisherman’s revenge , Th e (or Revenge of 245n10 , 247n28 the oppressed ), 110 , 176 , see also identifi cation ; she shen chu di ; 236n8 xian shen shuo fa see also Dayu shajia epic theatre, 180–84 , 186 , 188–91 , Flanagan, Hallie, 90 196–97 , 207 , 209 , 211 , Fogel, Joshua A., 34 246n19 , 248n38 , 248n40 formalism, 2 , 8–9 , 47 , 113 , 116 , 130 , see also non-Aristotelian 133 , 141–42 , 144–47 , 183 , Esslin, Martin, 185 , 208 201 , 209–10 , 212 , 217 , 221 , estrangement, 181 , 185 , 193 , 205–206 , 236n11 , 240n27 , 248n1 213 , 246n17 , 247n30 Frye, Northrop, 185 see also Alienation ; defamiliarizing ; Fu Sinian, 2 , 6 , 116 , 236nn10–11 distance ; Verfremdung Fu Yunzi, 97 estrangement eff ect, 185–86 , 196 , Fuchs, Georg, 69 , 160 243n1 , 248n35 Fuegi, John, 185–86 see also Alienation eff ect ; distancing Fukuchi Nobuyo, 21 , 51–52 eff ect ; eff ect of disillusion ; jianli Fuller, Loie, 162 xiaoguo ; moshenghua xiaoguo ; futurism, 2 Verfremdungseff ekt Eurasian Th eatre, 219–20 Gai Jiaotian, 153–54 , 193 Excelsior , 101 gailiang xinxi , 3 Exception and the Rule , Th e , 187 Gao Langting, 199 exoticism, 26 , 67 , 84–86 , 101 , 121 , Garin, Erast, 162–64 132 , 137 , 185 , 195 , 216–17 , Ge Gongzhen, 103 , 126 , 128 232n11 , 234n21 Gensō no kokoromochi , 50 Expressionism, 2 , 70–71 , 90 , 92 , 217 Gensō to Yō Kihi , 50 Gladkov, Aleksandr, 144 Fairbanks, Douglas, 60 Gogol, Nikolai, 157 , 242n35 Fang Zhizhong, 109 Goldstein, Joshua, 232n11 Federal Th eatre Project, 90 Good Person of Sezuan , Th e , 185 , 187 female impersonation, 17 , 39 , 46–47 , Good Soldier Schweik , Th e , 191 49 , 61–63 , 68 , 77–80 , 83 , 106 , Gorchakov, Nikolai, 150 109 , 113–15 , 117 , 122 , 128 , Gordon, Mel, 168 132 , 140 , 194–95 , 217 , 232n3 Gotō Asatarō, 47 see also dan ; men playing women’s Gourfi nkel, Nina, 240n21 roles; nandan ; onnagata Goya, Francisco, 157 , 242n35 feminism, 12 , 32 , 80 Gozzi, Carlo, 144 Feng Gengguang, 60 Graham, Martha, 78–79 , 95 Index 289

Greek theatre, 74 , 76 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 144 , huadan , 12 , 40 , 48 166 , 220 , 238n7 Huang Fanchuo, 200 grotesque, 146 , 148–50 , 156–60 , Huang Zhigang (Huang Su), 108 , 165–66 , 169–70 , 172–73 , 208 , 129–30 217 , 221 , 242nn35–36 Huang Zongjiang, 14 , 229n14 see also Th eatre of the Grotesque Huang Zuolin, 221 , 229n13 Guangzhou Ballet Troupe, 13 huashan , 12 Guifei zui jiu (Th e imperial concubine Hurwicz, Angelika, 186 gets drunk), 8 , 10 , 24–25 , 30– 32 , 48 , 55 , 100 , 202 , 244n4 Ibaraki Noriko, 11 see also Drunken beauty, Th e Ichikawa Sadanji II, 22 , 46 , 237n16 Guo Jianying, 128 , 238n3 Ichimura Uzaemon XV, 22 , 40 guodu xi , 6 identifi cation (Einfühlung, Guoju Xuehui (Society for National Identifi kation), 10–11 , 154 , Th eatre), 98 156 , 160 , 171 , 179 , 182 , 187 , guzhuang xinxi , 7 189–90 , 193–94 , 197–98 , 200 , 202–203 , 205–208 , 245n10 , Haji Seiji, 48 247n28 Hamada Kōsaku, 37 see also empathy ; she shen chu di ; xian Hampden, Walter, 68 shen shuo fa Han Shiheng, 118–19 , 237n14 Ihara Seiseien, 40 , 51 hanagata , 40 Ikeda Daigo, 40 Hanako, 162 illusionistic eff ect, 92 , 114 , 159 , 194–95 Hanayagi Shōtarō, 39 Imperial Th eatre, 1 , 15 , 17 , 20–25 , 27, Hara Takashi, 20 29 , 30–31 , 44 , 48 , 51–52 , 55 , Hatsuse Namiko, 49–50 230n11 Hauptmann, Elisabeth, 211 Inkinzhinov, Valery, 143 Hazlitt, Henry, 76 , 78 inner experiencing, 10 , 150 , 155–57 , He Who Said Yes/He Who Said No , 211 159 , 201–202 , 206 Hecht, Werner, 183 see also emotional experiencing Hedges, Frank, 58 , 232n1 Inspector General , Th e , 165 historicization (Historisierung), 177 , 191 International School of Th eatre H o ff mann, E. T. A., 157 , 242n35 Anthropology (ISTA), 218 , Hong Shen, 2 , 98 233n18 Hongni guan (Th e Rainbow pass), 21 , iroko , 44 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 140 , 244n4 Irwin, Will, 63 Hongxian dao he (Hongxian steals Isaacs, Edith J. R., 72 the box), 244n4 Itō Nobuhiko, 230n1 Hopkins, Arthur, 63 , 71 Hou Feng, 123 Jameson, Fredric, 213 , 243n1 Hu Jinxu, 108 , 130–31 , 236n7 Jaques-Dalcroze, Emile, 160 , 162 Hu Shi, 2 , 80 , 82 , 86–87 , 97 , 108 , Jestrovic, Silvija, 243n1 234n19 Ji Yun, 199 290 Index

jiadingxing , 240n21 Kitchen, Karl K., 79–80 see also conventionality Kleberg, Lars, 176 , 244n6 , 245n7 Jiang Miaoxiang, 22, 204 , 246n26 Kōyōan, 46 , 49 jianli xiaoguo , 243n1 Kubo Tenzui, 46–47 see also Alienation eff ect ; d istancing Kume Masao, 23–24 , 30 , 51 eff ect; eff ect of disillusion ; kunqu (or kunju ), 7–8 , 12 , 30 , 33–37 , estrangement eff ect; moshenghua 56 , 97 , 108 , 237n26 , 239n14 xiaoguo ; Verfremdungseff ekt Kyūryūban, 46–48 Jiao Xichen, 110–11 Jiao Xun, 199 Lao Zi (Lao Tse), 153 Jiji shinpo , 21 laosheng , 5 , 201 Jing bao (Th e Crystal), 53 Last Mile , Th e , 74–75 jingju (Beijing opera), 3 , 7 , 11–13 , 25 , Law, Alma, 168 , 240n22 29–30 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 45 , 50 , 51 , Lei, Daphne Pi-Wei, 64 53 , 56 , 60 , 99 , 108 , 110 , 114 , Lenin, Vladimir, 120 115–16 , 161–63 , 165 , 168 , Li Feishu, 68 , 238n9 200–201 , 229n9 , 231n27 , Li Jinshen, 127 239n14 , 246n19 Li Kaixian, 198 see also jingxi Li Shizeng, 58–59 , 60 , 97 jingxi , 114 , 119 Li Taohen, 18–19 , 24 , 231n28 see also jingju Liang Qichao, 47 jiuju , 216 liangxiang , 53 , 168–69 Jones, Robert Edmond, 70–71 Lin, Yutang, 166–67 joyū mondai , 49 Lin Baishui, 61 Jūgatsu Shō, 48 , 51 Lin Chuanding, 131 Lin Mo, 118–19 kabuki , 26 , 37–46 , 49–50 , 53 , 56 , 112 , literary heritage, 112 , 120–22 140 , 143 , 166–68 , 218 , 220 , Littell, Robert, 57 , 81–82 , 84–85 , 231n27 , 237n16 , 239n15 87–88 , 90 Kanda Kiichirō (or Kanda Chōan), Litvanoff , Maxim, 125 35–37 , 51–52 Liu Bannong, 59 Kanō Naoki, 21 Liu Chunhua, 110 Kawai Takeo, 22 , 50–51 Liu Haisu, 103 Kawakami Otojirō, 162 Liu Tianhua, 59 Kawatake Shigetoshi, 39 Liu Yizhou, 3–4 Kayser, Wolfgang, 148–49 , 169 Liu Yunqiu, 235n31 Kebir, Sabine, 244n6 Living Age , Th e , 64 , 135 Kihi suishu , 50 Living Newspaper, 90–91 King, Eleanor, 95 Liyuan gongbao , 96 King’s farewell to his concubine (or Lockridge, Richard, 78 , 84–85 Th e King’s Parting with His Lorre, Peter, 182 F avorite ), see Bawang bie ji Los Angeles Times , 66 , 84 Kinoshita Junji, 11 , 221 Lu Xun, 2 , 45 , 107 , 109 , 114 , 117–19 , Kinoshita Mokutarō, 27–28 123 , 218 , 221 Index 291

Luoshen (Th e goddess of the River experience and perception of the Luo), 7 , 109 Japanese theatre, 50–53 Lynn, Grace, 64 fame in contemporary China, 13–14 on identiﬁ cation as the highest realm Ma Er (Feng Shuluan), 19 of Chinese acting, 201–04 Macgowan, Kenneth, 70 , 83 impact on American modern dance, Maeterlinck, Maurice, 160 94–96 Magu xian shou (Magu oﬀ ers her innovations in Chinese acting, 12 b irthday gift), 25 , 244n4 interested in Stanislavsky, 8–11 Man Is Man , 182 , 185 in Japanese media, 21–24 Mantle, Burns, 76 , 81 performing in guzhuang xinxi , 7 Martin, John, 85 , 87 , 95 performing in kunqu , 7–8 Marx, Karl, 209 performing in shizhuang xinxi , 4–7 Masamune Hakuchō, 41 , 46 , 49 political irony of his Soviet visit, Masuda Tarōkaja, 54 124–26 Matsumoto Kōshirō VII, 24–25 reception in America, 67–69 Matthews, Herbert L., 84 on selecting plays for his Soviet May Fourth Movement, 2 , 16 , 80 , 116 tour, 111 Mayor, A. Hyatt, 79 , 89 on the symbolism of Chinese Mei Baojiu, 12 , 55 theatre, 115–17 “Mei Clique” (Mei Dang), 19 , 53 and theatre reform, 8 Mei Lanfang and theatrical modernity, 86–89 as actor-dancer-singer, 80–82 third guest performance in Japan, 11 antithesis to realism, 73–77 urged to learn from the Soviet art of female impersonation, as seen theatre, 123–24 by American critics, 77–80; viewed by Akita Ujaku, 39; Brecht, Brecht, 194; Chinese critics, 176 , 190–91 , 194–96 , 198 , 61–62 , 114–15 , 132; 205–206 , 221; Brooks Atkinson, Eisenstein, 146; Japanese 74 , 84–85 , 87 , 90; Chen Dabei, writers and critics, 46–50; 61; Du Heng, 109; Eisenstein, Mei Lanfang, 77–78 , 114; 120 , 146–47 , 155 , 161 , 166 , M eyerhold, 140 , 142; 221 , 239n16; Eugenio Barba, Tairov, 171; Tretyakov, 142; 219 , 221; Fukuchi Nobuyo, T subouchi Shōyō, 41–45 51–52; Haji Seiji, 48; Hamada art of synthesis, 82–83 Kōsaku, 37; Han Shiheng, 118; on Chinese and American theatres, Hanayagi Shōtarō, 39; Hu Shi, 73 , 77–78 97; Huang Zuolin, 221; Ibaraki Chinese responses to his American Noriko, 11; Ihara Seiseien, 40; tour, 96–100 Ikeda Daigo, 40; John Martin, Chinese responses to his Japanese 85 , 87 , 95; Kanda Kiichirō, tours, 53–54 35–36; Kawatake Shigetoshi, early career, 1–3 39; Kinoshita Junji, 11 , 221; exoticism in his art, 64 , 66 , Kinoshita Mokutarō, 27; Kubo 83–86 , 132 Tenzui, 46–47; Kume Masao, 292 Index

Mei Lanfang—Continued 217–20 , 238n11 , 239n15 , 30; Lu Xun, 107 , 109 , 114 , 240n27 , 241nn28–29 , 242n30 , 117–18 , 123 , 221; Martha 242nn35–37 , 243nn38–39 , G raham, 79; Masamune 248n1 Hakuchō, 41 , 49; M eyerhold, appropriation of Pushkin, 149 , 151 , 140–44 , 151–52 , 160 , 164 , 167 , 241n29 220–21; Miyake Shūtarō, 39; on Mei Lanfang, 140–42 Mori Ritsuko, 49; Nagai Kafū, on the Th eatre of Convention and 31; Naitō Konan, 34–35; N akagi the Th eatre of the Grotesque Teiichi, 39–40; Nakamura and his concept of the g rotesque, Kan’emon, 38–39; Nakauchi 148–50; as seen in Mei’s art and Chōji, 39; Nanbu Shūtarō, the Chinese theatre, 143–44 , 29–30; Nemirovich-D anchenko, 151–52; in contrast to Mei’s art 141–42 , 147 , 239n13; Onoe and the C hinese theatre, 148 , Baikō VI, 48–49; Paul Claudel, 152–60; in contrast to 79; Qi Rushan, 25 , 58 , 98 , 221; Stanislavsky’s concept of the Senda Koreya, 11 , 38; Stark grotesque, 150; its development, Young, 57 , 75–76 , 78 , 82 , 120 , 144–45; its Russian and Western 220 , 233n13; T airov, 170–71 , roots, 157; its underlying 218; Tanizaki Jun’ichiro, 28; principles, 145–50 Ted Shawn, 94–95; Tian Han, on the Th eatre of Imagery 107–108 , 119–21 , 123 , 221; as seen in Mei’s art and the T retyakov, 121 , 125–26 , 142 , Chinese theatre, 167; tied to 196 , 221 , 236n8 , 239n19 , his Constructivist vision of 240n27; Tsubouchi Shōyō, the theatre and his idea of the 41–46 , 220; Xia Zhengnong, grotesque, 169–70 111–12; Xiong Foxi, 61; Yosano on the Th eatre of Rhythm Akiko, 31–32; Zhang Houzai, as seen in Mei’s art and the 19; Zhang Pengchun, 129 C hinese theatre, 160–64; Mei Lanfang Grand Th eatre, 13 in contrast to Mei’s art and Mei Lanfang Jingju Troupe, 12 the Chinese theatre, 164–66 Mei Lanfang Memorial Museum, 13 on the usefulness of Chinese and Mei Qiaoling, 1 Japanese theatre, 140–42 Mei Shaowu, 176 , 229n14 , 239n16 michiyuki , 39–40 “Mei xue” (Meiology), 14 mie , 53 , 168 Mei Yutian, 1 Mitchell, Stanley, 184 Mei Zhufen, 1 Miyake Shūtarō, 39 men playing women’s roles, 109 , 112 , Miyako shinbun , 22 , 25 114–15 Miyamoto Yuriko, 31 see also dan ; female impersonation; Mizuki Tatsunosuke I, 41 , nandan ; onnagata 231n19 Meyerhold, Vsevolod, 69 , 109 , 115 , modernism, 37 , 69 , 71 , 74 , 121 , 126–28 , 130 , 137–38 , 79–80 , 87–89 , 120 , 122 , 140 , 167 , 170–73 , 176 , 158–59 , 210 , 213 , 216 , 218 Index 293

modernity, 2 , 26 , 35–37 , 74 , nandan , 1 , 15 , 42 , 46–47 , 50 , 56 , 107 79–80 , 86–87 , 89 , 116 , 120 , see also dan ; female impersonation; 133 , 213 , 218 , 221 , 242n29 , men playing women’s roles; 248n38 onnagata Mondorf, Harry J., 66 National Th eatre Movement (Guoju Moore, Douglas, 83 Yundong), 116 , 236n12 Mori Ritsuko, 49 nationalism, 16 , 37 , 42 , 109 , 118–19 , Morita Kan’ya XIII, 24–25 , 121 , 132 , 173 , 221 38–39 , 55 naturalism, 2 , 14 , 69 , 70–71 , 80 , 82 , Morita Kan’ya XIV, 55 130 , 140 , 141 , 143–44 , 146 , Moscow Art Th eatre, 57, 90, 115, 149 , 151–53 , 155 , 158–59 , 144, 150 161 , 163 , 165 , 167–68 , Moscow Daily News , 138 , 236n13 171–72 , 180 , 189 , 194–96 , Moscow News , 137 , 139–40 198 , 205 , 211 , 213 , 218 moshenghua xiaoguo , 243n1 Neighborhood Playhouse, 68 , 71–72 see also Alienation eff ect ; d Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vladimir, istancing eff ect ; eff ect of 9 , 137 , 141–42 , 147 , 176 , disillusion ; estrangement 239n13 , 242n30 eff ect ; jianli xiaoguo ; New Stagecraft, 69–71 , 217 Verfremdungseff ekt New York Times , 65 , 74 , 84 , 87 Mother Courage , 208 Nie Gannu, 110 Mother , Th e , 177, 182 Nie hai bolan (Great waves on the sea Moy, Ernest K., 67 of evil), 4 Mu Guiying guashuai (Mu Guiying Nigu sifan (Nun longs for the mortal takes command), 9 , 12 world), 30 , 34 , 244n4 Mudan ting (Th e peony pavilion), 56 , Nishihara Daisuke, 26 198–99 , 204 Nogami Yaeko, 31 Mulan cong jun (Mulan joins the noh , 26–27 , 33 , 35–36 , 40 , 52 , 143 , army), 110 , 244n4 163 , 211 Munk, Erika, 233n18 non-Aristotelian, 179 , 188 Murata Kakuko, 49 see also epic theatre Murata Ukō, 17–18 , 21–22 , 28 nonrealistic, 35 , 71–72 , 75–76 , 90 , 154 , 216–17 Naba Toshisada, 230n15 Norman, Karyl, 79 Nagai Kafū, 31 Nü qijie (Su San sent Naitō Konan (or Naitō Torajirō), 21 , under escort), 27 33 , 36–37 , 51–52 Naitō Meisetsu, 31–32 Obata Yūkichi, 17 , 19 Nakagi Teiichi, 39 Occidentalism, 36 , 113 Nakamura Fukusuke V, 22 Okakura Kakuzō, 37 Nakamura Kan’emon, 38 Okhlopkov, Nikolai, 139 Nakamura Utaemon V, 22 , 40 Ōkura Kihachirō, 16–17 , 19 , 23 , 30 , Nakauchi Chōji, 25 , 39 62 , 230n13 Nanbu Shūtarō, 29–30 , 51 O’Neill, Eugene, 71 294 Index

onnagata , 15 , 23 , 38–39 , 41 , 43–46 , qi yun sheng dong , 164 48–50 , 55 , 216 , 220 , 231n18 Qin Su, 122 , 124 , 237n16 see also dan ; female impersonation; qingyi , 3 , 12 , 27 men playing women’s roles; Qintiao , 35 , 46 nandan Onoe Baikō VI, 25 , 48–51 raccourci , 168 Orientalism, 26 , 72 , 216 , 230n14 , Radek, Karl, 125–27 , 131 , 135 232n11 Rakuyōan, 46–47 , 49 , 51 Osaka asahi shinbun , 21 , 33 Rao, Nancy Yunhwa, 232n11 Osanai Kaoru, 22 , 53–54 , 237n16 realism, 2–3 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 37 , 43–44 , Our Town , 91–93 47–48 , 51 , 55 , 69 , 70–71 , Ouyang Yuqian, 3 73–76 , 78 , 86 , 90 , 92 , 104 , Ozerov, Vladislav, 144 , 240n22 114–18 , 130 , 133 , 136 , 140 , 144–47 , 186–87 , 216–17 , 221 , Pang, Cecilia J., 233n11 241n27 Petrov, George, 240n21 see also photographic realism ; photographic realism, 73 , 75–76 , 92 , psychological realism ; socialist 167 , 239n18 realism Pickford, Mary, 60 refunctioning (Umfunktionierung), Picon-Vallin, Beatrice, 148 , 240nn21–22 113 , 209–13 Piscator, Erwin, 176 , 178 , 183 , 191 Reinhardt, Max, 69 , 71 placement, 14 , 30 , 86 , 89 , 110 , 113 , Reinsch, Paul S., 58 126 , 173 , 179–80 , 190 , 221–22 re-placement, 30 , 36 , 89 , 183–84 , 221 , see also displacement ; re-placement 245n11 Platonic, 76 , 92 , 220 see also displacement ; placement Players, 68 Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny , Pravda , 121 , 138 , 145 , 240n25 182 , 207 pre-acting, 143 , 153–54 Robinson, Douglas, 243n1 primitive (primitivity), 26 , 30 , 36 , 40 , Ruhl, Arthur, 78 , 84–85 , 88 42 , 48 , 52 , 74 , 80 , 86–87 , 89 , 118–19 , 194–95 , 208 , 211–13 , Sada Yacco (Sadayakko), 45 218 , 242n29 , 248n38 Said, Edward, 26 Provincetown Players, 71 Salzmann, Erich Von, 64 psychological realism, 144 , 156 , 158 , Sapojinikoﬀ , Georgii Avsent’ievich, 172 , 195 , 218 237n18 Pushkin, Aleksandr, 146–47 , 149 , Sartre, Jean-Paul, 246n19 151–52 , 171 , 241n29 , 242n30 Sawamura Sōjūrō VII, 22 Scott, Barbara, 68 qi , 167–69 Seldes, Gilbert, 81 Qi Rushan, 5 , 7 , 18 , 20 , 25 , 58–60 , Senda Koreya, 11 , 38 98 , 108 , 127–28 , 139 , 221 , Shakespeare, William, 63 , 90–91 , 232n2 , 233n11 , 233n13 , 98–99 , 106 , 113 , 122 , 187 238n3 , 238n8 , 238n10 , 244n4 Shang Xiaoling, 199 Index 295

Shang Xiaoyun, 235n31 Steffi n, Margarete, 177–78 Shanghai New Stage (Shanghai Xin stylization, 3 , 5 , 74 , 90 , 95 , 148 , 161 , Wutai), 2–3 186–87 , 194 , 240n21 , 240n22 Shaw, George Bernard, 130 , 237n26 see also chengshihua ; Shawn, Ted, 94–95 c onventionalization; xieyi she shen chu di , 156 , 201–202 stylized theatre, 172 , 240n21 see also empathy ; identifi cation ; xian see also Conventional Th eatre ; shen shuo fa Th eatre of Convention Shehui xinwen , 114 Sun Huizhu, 229n13 Shen bao , 4 , 99 , 104 , 119 , 121 , 126 , Suspected Slippers, Th e , 67 , 139 229n3 , 237n14 see also Fenhe wan sheng , 12 Suzuki Torao, 231n15 shensi , 165 , 169 , 189 symbolism, 2 , 28 , 35–37 , 63 , 90 , 104 , Sherman, Jane, 95 109 , 115–20 , 128 , 130 , 133 , Shi bao , 124 141 , 146 , 218 , 232n3 , 236n10 Shi Zhecun, 122–23 see also xiangzhengzhuyi Shidai gonglun , 106 , 122 Symons, James M., 148 “Shina shumi,” 26–27 , 29–32 , 36 , 54 , 216 Tairov, Alexander, 137–38 , 141–42 , shingeki , 3 , 26 , 37–38 , 50–51 , 53 , 216 , 218–19 237n16 on the Th eatre of Synthesis shinpa , 18 , 35–39 , 50–52 as seen in Mei’s art and the Shirō Uno, 24 , 52 , 231n29 Chinese theatre, 170–72; shizhuang xinxi , 3–7 as d iff erentiated from Shklovsky, Viktor, 183–84 S tanislavsky’s and M eyerhold’s Shostakovich, D. D., 145 ideas of the theatre, 172–73 Shuntian shibao , 17 Taizhen waizhuan (Th e unoffi cial Simonson, Lee, 71–72 biography of Taizhen), 110 Sin Chew Jit Poh , 127 Takarazuka Girls’ Opera Company, Skinner, Otis, 66 , 232n6 24 , 50 Skinner, Richard Dana, 78 , 84 , 116 Takarazuka Grand Th eatre, 24 socialist realism, 117–20 , 136 , Tan Xinpei, 5 , 12 , 97 , 201 , 235n31 140–42 , 217 Tanaka Keitarō, 230n13 St. Denis, Ruth, 79, 94–96 , 234n28 Tang Xianzu, 198 Stalin, Joseph, 109 , 120–21 , 124 , 139 , tangma , 192–93 238n9 Tanizaki Jun’ichiro, 26–27 , 29 , 230n14 Stanislavsky, Constantin, 8–10 , 121 , Tatlow, Antony, 187 137 , 139 , 149 , 150–51 , 154 , Th eatre Anthropology, 219 158 , 172 , 175–79 , 189 , 195–96 , Th eatre of Convention, 91–92 , 143 , 200 , 203 , 219 , 237n15 , 238n7 , 148 , 170 , 240n21 245n10 , 246n24 , 246n28 see also Conventional Th eatre ; Stanislavsky system, 9 , 11 , 14 , 180 , stylized theatre 189 , 198 , 213 , 218 , 221 , 248n39 Th eatre of Imagery, 166–67 296 Index

Th eatre of Synthesis, 70 , 82–83 , Verfremdung , 183–84 , 190–91 149–50 , 170–72 see also Alienation ; defamiliarizing ; Th eatre of the Grotesque, 143 , 148–49 , distance 157 , 160 , 166 , 169 , 172 , 218 Verfremdungseff ekt , 177 , 179 , 185–86 , see also grotesque 190 , 213 , 243n1 , 248n35 Th omson, Philip, 149 see also Alienation eff ect ; distancing Th reepenny Opera , Th e , 182 , 210 eff ect ; eff ect of disillusion ; Tian Han, 45 , 107 , 119–20 , 121 , estrangement eff ect ; jianli 123 , 221 xiaoguo ; moshenghua xiaoguo Tiannü san hua (Th e heavenly maiden verisimilitude, 75 , 92 , 146 , 149 , 151 , scatters fl owers), 7 , 22 , 24–25 , 168 , 199 , 241n29 , 242n30 30–31 , 34–35 , 38–40 , 44–46 , VOKS (Th e All-Union Society for 48 , 51–52 , 54 , 73 , 231n15 , Cultural Relations with Foreign 231n17 Countries), 103–104 , 121 , Tiger General , 67 , 139 , 238n6 124 , 136 , 138 , 141 , 238n4 , see also Cihu ; Death of the Tiger 240n20 , 242n31 General, Th e Todorov, Tzvetan, 85–86 Wagner, Richard, 63 , 160 , 162–63 , Tokuda Shūsei, 23 207–208 Tong nü zhan she (A maiden kills a Wainscott, Ronald H., 70 , 232n9 snake), 4 wakaonnagata , 41–43 , 220 Tretyakov, Sergei, 130–31 , 135 , 137–39 , Waley, Arthur, 211 141 , 147 , 196 , 219 , 221 Wang Guangqi, 114–15 on Chinese theatre, 236n8 , 239n19 , Wang Jide, 161 240n27 Wang Jingwei, 105 , 236n4 on Mei Lanfang, 142 , 221 , Wang Xiaoyin, 100 239n19 Wang Yaoqing, 201 on the signifi cance of Mei Lanfang’s Wang Youyou (Wang Zhongxian), 4 , 6 visit, 121 , 125–26 Wang Zhongsheng, 3 on the use of the Chinese Wang Zijia, 47 theatre, 142 Washington Square Players, 71 Tsubouchi Shōyō, 23 , 41–46 , 51 , 220 Watkins, Mary F., 88 , 95 Tsuji Chōka (Chōka Sanjin), 17–18 , Weber, Carl, 248n40 21–22 , 28 , 55 Wedekind, Franz, 157 , 242n35 Tsutsui Tokujirō, 76 Wei Changsheng, 199 Tyrrell, Henry, 63 Weidman, Charles, 94 Weigel, Helene, 176 , 181 , 244n6 Uemura Kichiya I, 41 , 231n18 Wenxue zhoubao , 61 unverisimilitude, 149 , 171 , 173 , Wexley, John, 75 241n29 Whitaker, Alma, 73 , 78 White, Eric Walter, 177–79 , 212 , 243n1 , Vakhtangov, Eugene, 150 , 154 245n10 , 245n16 , 246nn17–18 , Vassiliev, B., 137 247nn29–31 , 247n35 , 248n38 Index 297

White, John, 178 , 183 , 244n6 , Xu Muyun, 104 247n35 , 248n35 Xu Zhuodai (Xu Banmei), 53–54 Wilder, Th ornton Xun Huisheng, 28 his idea of the theatre in contrast to Mei Lanfang’s art and the Yamamoto Kyūzaburō, 24 , 52 , 231n29 Chinese theatre, 92–94 Yan Huiqing (or W. W. Yen), 104 , infl uenced by Mei Lanfang’s art and 125 , 136 the Chinese theatre, 91–92 Yan Rong, 198 Willett, John, 177 , 180 , 243n1 , Yang Longshou, 1 244n3 , 245n10 , 246n28 , Yao Hsin-nung, 132 247n31 , 247n33 , 247n35 , Yao Yufu, 22 248n36 Yasushi Nagata, 54 , 231n16 Wilson, Mrs. Woodrow, 60 Ye Gongchuo, 97 Woe from Wit , 152 Yellow Jacket , Th e , 71 , 91–94 , 232n9 Wu Nanru, 103 Yi lü ma (A thread of hemp), 4 Wu Ying, 198 yijing , 169 , 189 wusheng , 1 , 153 Yokihi , 56 Wyatt, Euphemia Van Rensselaver, 83 Yong bao , 105 , 115 , 126 Yosano Akiko, 31–32 Xi shijie , 127 Yoshida Toshiko, 230n1 Xia Zhengnong, 111–12 , 119 , 121–22 , Yoshikawa Kōjirō, 33 237n14 Yoshikawa Misao, 22 xian shen shuo fa , 156 , 201 Yoshino Sakuzō, 25 see also empathy ; identifi cation ; she Yoshizawa Ayame, 46–47 , 231n19 shen chu di Young, C. Walter, 89 xianggu , 44 , 79 Young, Stark, 57 , 75–76 , 78 , 82–83 , xiangzhengzhuyi , 116 96 , 98 , 120 , 196 , 206 , 220 , see also symbolism 233nn12–14 xiaosheng , 204 Youyuan jingmeng (Wandering in the gar- Xie He (Hsieh Ho), 164 den, waking from a dream), 25 xieyi , 92 , 116 , 221 Yu Cai, 198 see also chengshihua ; Yu Shangyuan, 116 , 245n7 conventionalization; stylization Yu Zhenfei, 204 , 246n27 xieyizhuyi , 116 yuan , 168 see also conventionalism Yuan drama (Yuan zaju ), 40 , 187 , 198 , xingge hua biaoyan , 201 242n29 , 245n15 xingsi , 165 Yuan Muzhi, 108 , 236n7 xinju , 3 , 231n28 Yubei ting (Th e pavilion of royal Xiong Foxi, 61 monument), 23–25 , 28 , 40 , 46 Xisi , 109–10 , 244n4 yunshou , 192–93 Xu Beihong, 103 Yuzhou feng , 111 , 202 , 244n4 Xu Chengbei, 229n12 see also Beauty defi es tyranny ; Cosmic Xu Dachun, 163 , 199 blade, Th e 298 Index

zaju , 40 Zhdanov, A. A., 120–21 , 240n25 Zang Maoxun, 198 Zheng Boqi, 117 Zarrilli, Phillip, 219–20 Zheng Yiqiu, 10 Zeami Motokiyo, 47 Zheng Zhenduo, 61 Zhai Guanliang, 127 Zhonghua ribao , 107–108 Zhang Houzai, 19 , 115–16 Zhongyang ribao , 237n24 Zhang Mingqi, 112–23 Zhou Yan, 112 , 122 Zhang Pengchun (or P. C. Chang), Zhou Zuoren, 2 60 , 68 , 129 , 235n2 , Zhuang Jingke, 20 236n13 , 237n24 , Zichai ji (Th e story of the purple 239n18 hairpin), 198 Zhao Taimu, 116 Zou Taofen, 98 Zhao Zunyue, 98–99 Zucker, A. E., 65