Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2014 That wonderful composite called author: Authorship in East Asian literatures from the beginnings to the seventeenth century Edited by: Schwermann, Christian ; Steineck, Raji C DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279421 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-97692 Edited Scientific Work Originally published at: That wonderful composite called author: Authorship in East Asian literatures from the beginnings to the seventeenth century. Edited by: Schwermann, Christian; Steineck, Raji C (2014). Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279421 V CONTENTS Preface...................................................................................................................VII Raji C. Steineck and Christian Schwermann Introduction.............................................................................................................1 Christian Schwermann Composite Authorship in Western Zhōu Bronze Inscriptions: The Case of the “Tiānwáng Guĭ” Inscription.....................................................37 Alexander Beecroft Authorship in the Canon of Songs (Shi Jing).........................................................69 Simone Müller The Compiler as the Narrator: Awareness of Authorship, Authorial Presence and Author Figurations in Japanese Imperial Anthologies, with a Special Focus on the Kokin wakashū........................................................................................................111 Marion Eggert Fluidity of Belonging and Creative Appropriation: Authorship and Translation in an Early Sinic Song (“Kongmudoha Ka”).........................................Fehler: Referenz nicht gefunden Roland Altenburger Appropriating Genius: Jin Shengtan's Construction of Textual Authority and Authorship in his Commented Edition of Shuihu Zhuan (The Water Margin Saga)............Fehler: Referenz nicht gefunden Raji C. Steineck Enlightened Authorship: The Case of Dōgen Kigen.......................................217 VI Index......................................................................................................................244 PREFACE This volume on authorship exemplifies one of its modes that re- ceives repeated attention in it: collective, or, in our case, even col- laborative authorship. While we, the editors, came up with the ini- tial idea – or, to say it more modestly, the initiative to treat this sub- ject matter – whatever was in that idea grew with the help of many people, not all of whom appear as authors of single contributions in this volume. Like all scholars, we are standing on the shoulders of those who worked on our (and neighbouring) subjects before us, and our gratitude is not restricted to the giants among them. The ideas expressed in this volume, and especially the methodological part of its introduction, are also the result of fruitful conversations with colleagues who participated in the process of its making, but abstained from presenting a written contribution to it. We would like to especially mention those among them who presented pertin- ent work at a symposium held at University of Zurich's Institute of East Asian Studies in February 2009: Paul van Els (“Texts, Authors, Pseudonyms: The Case of the Two Wenzi’s”) , Konrad Klaus (“Con- cepts of Authorship in Ancient India”), Matías Martínez (“Inspired Authorship. A Survey of Variants and Functions in the European- Christian Tradition”), and Jörg Quenzer (“Concepts of Authorship in Heian period monogatari literature”). As the titles of their presenta- tions show, we had initially envisioned a volume that would have stretched over the whole Eurasian continent, but this idea proved impractical in the end, and we have now confined ourselves to East Asian literatures from the beginning to early modernity (i.e., 17th century China). Even so, we are painfully aware that we can cover only small and disconnected parts of this ground. It is our hope, however, that we help with this volume to keep the issue of author- ship in East Asia on the map, and that we provide useful ideas and concepts for expanding it. Both the symposium and the preparation of the volume were made possible through financial support from our home institutions, Uni- versity of Zurich and Bonn University, and through the work of many people. Esther Fischer was crucial in organising and running the symposium in 2010, Felix Herrmann copy-edited and formatted the volume to make it presentable to our publisher and reviewers, two anonymous peers provided helpful insights and criticisms, and 2 RAJI C STEINECK CHRISTIAN SCHWERMANN Qin Higley guided us safely through the publishing process at Brill. We are deeply grateful to all of them. Zurich and Bonn, August 2013 Raji Steineck and Christian Schwermann INTRODUCTION 3 INTRODUCTION Raji C. Steineck and Christian Schwermann The author: a theoretical vexation The author was declared dead forty years ago, with a French fan- fare.1 This polemical announcement, echoed since the 1990s by en- thusiasts of digital culture2, was not the end, but rather the begin- ning of a theoretical discussion that has served to differentiate and clarify our notions of authorship.3 By now, it seems safe to say that the author, as a concept, has returned for good. He has proved an inevitable category for interpretation, and not only a necessary evil, but also “useful” in many respects. The author that needed to “die” was the author with a capital A, the figure of an omnipotent source of the text and its meaning. This author concept has been demon- strated to be a product of a specific cultural discourse.4 Far from be- ing universal, it is firmly embedded in European classical modern- ity.5 1 Roland Barthes, “La mort de l‘auteur”, in: Œuvres complètes II: 1966–1973, ed. by Éric Marty, Nouvelle édition, Paris: Seuil, 2004: 491-95; Julia Kristeva, “Le mot, le dialogue et le roman”, in: Sēmeiōtikē: recherches pour une sémanalyse, Collection Points 96 Paris: Seuil, 1978: 82–112. 2 George Landow, Hypertext 3.0 : critical theory and new media in an era of globalization, 3rd ed. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006; Sadie Plant, Zeroes ones : digital women, the new technoculture, 1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 1997. 3 For a critical review of this discussion, see Seán Burke, The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Pres, 2008. With respect to the discussion of digital culture, see also Michael Betancourt, “Hz #10 – The Valorization of the Author” Internet-Journal, <http://www.hz-journal.org/n10/betancourt.html>. 4 Michel Foucault, Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur? : séance du 22 février 1969, Paris: Colin, 1969; Michel Foucault, “What Is an Author”, in: Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, ed. by Seán Burke. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995: 233–46. 5 Donald E. Pease, “Author”, in: Burke, ed.: Authorship: From Plato to the 4 RAJI C STEINECK CHRISTIAN SCHWERMANN The deconstruction of the author as a given unit and safe anchor for validity in interpretation and the subsequent reconstruction of authorship as a valuable category for analysis have opened up new avenues for research. This is especially true for the fields of pre- modern and non-European literature, where the author paradigm had often been more of a hindrance to the appreciation and inter- pretation of the texts in question.6 Reconstructed models of author- ship have thus been greeted with some enthusiasm, and have been applied to various works and corpora, from the Chinese Book of Changes (Yijing 易經)7 to the Old Testament’s Book of Kings8, from Chaucer9 to the Tale of Genji (Genji monogatari 源氏物語).10 This volume seeks to build on this development, and to provide a survey of forms, models and concepts of authorship in traditional Asian literatures. Authorship, revisited: Results from the theoretical dispute In the following paragraphs, we would like to summarise some es- sential points from the critical discussion of authorship, and syn- thesise these into an operational model. The aim of this model is not to formulate a new theory or even philosophy of authorship, but rather to provide a tool for the description and differentiation of specific forms of authorship through textual and contextual analys- is. Postmodern, 263–76. 6 Horst Wenzel, “Autorenbilder. Ausdifferenzierung Von Autorenfunktionen in Mittelalterlichen Miniaturen”, in: Autor und Autorschaft im Mittelalter, ed. by Elisabeth Andersen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1998: 1. 7 William G Boltz, “The Composite Nature of Early Chinese Texts”, in: Text and ritual in early China, ed. by Martin Kern. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005: 50–78. 8 Barbara Schmitz, Prophetie und Königtum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. 9 Seth Lerer, Chaucer and his readers: imagining the author in late-medieval England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. 10 Uehara Sakukazu 上原作和 et al., Tēma de yomu Genji monogatari ron テーマで読 む源氏物語論, vol. 3. Bensei shuppan, 2009. INTRODUCTION 5 1) The author is not a simple, given unit, but rather the index of a congeries of problems relating to the text. As Burke remarks in his critical assessment of the critique of the author: “So far from con- solidating the notion of a universal or unitary subject, the retracing of the work to its author is a working-back to historical,