|
|
|
| Sentiments vs. Ethics: An Overview of the Three Major Critical Approaches to Jin Ping Mei |
| Yang Bin |
| College of Humanities, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Jin Ping Mei (The Plum in the Golden Vase), China’s first significant novel portraying worldly affairs, has inspired three major critical approaches: the Chongzhen critique, the Zhang Zhupo critique, and the Wen Long handwritten critique. These critiques reflect evolving interpretations of the novel’s purpose and social thought shifts from the late Ming through the Guangxu Period (1875-1908) of the Qing Dynasty.Although drawing on the critical language used by early critics such as Ye Zhou (Li Zhi) and Jin Shengtan, these three critiques focus on the tension between “worldly sentiments” and ethics, and the various attempts to reconcile the two from different perspectives. The primary distinction among these approaches lies in their stance on whether Jin Ping Mei should be regarded as an erotic book. The Chongzhen critique, rooted in the late Ming evaluative principle of “respecting human sentiments”, draws a distinction between sentiments and eroticism, rejecting the classification of Jin Ping Mei as an erotic work. Highlighting the novel’s exploration of worldly and human affairs, Zhang Zhupo proposes his “Theory of Bitter Filial Piety”, arguing that it was written out of a filial son’s grief and indignation, thereby rejecting the notion that it is merely an erotic novel. In contrast, the Wen Long critique marks a clear shift from “worldly sentiments” to ethics. Rooted in his understanding of “heavenly principle”, Wen Long dismisses the novel’s portrayal of worldly affairs and supports the argument that it is an erotic book.The three critiques, emerging sequentially, reveal the evolving reception of Jin Ping Mei and each critic’ response to the views of their predecessors. Zhang Zhupo’s “Theory of Bitter Filial Piety” naturally extends the Chongzhen critique’s focus on worldly affairs. Additionally, Zhang’s emphasis on human sentiments serves as a bridge between the Chongzhen and Wen Long critiques. However, Wen Long’s interpretation of Zhang’s critique largely takes the form of opposition. By accepting the view of Jin Ping Mei as an erotic novel, Wen Long concludes that “it is inevitable that those who are licentious are devoid of genuine feeling”. This stance leads Wen Long to focus on moral and ethical criticism of the novel, bringing his conception of the novel into alignment with traditional literary standards.This shift mirrors the intellectual climate of the time. The Chongzhen critique, grounded in the affirmation of “respecting human sentiments”, embraces the views of early Confucian and Late Ming thinkers who valued natural human emotions and sought to integrate sentiments with ethics. However, during the transition from the Ming to the Qing Dynasty, intellectuals began to reassess Wang Yangming’s philosophy and renewed their focus on the principles of Song Confucianism. This shift gave rise to an Early Qing ethos that emphasized pragmatism and rationality, placing Neo-Confucianism at the center of literary discourse. Novel writing and criticism were increasingly expected to serve ethical and didactic purposes. It was during this intellectual transformation that Zhang Zhupo’s critique emerged. By contrast, in the Late Qing Period, Wen Long’s critique was deeply influenced by the revival of Neo-Confucianism, which upheld traditional and conservative moral values. This shift is particularly evident in the differing critiques of the beginning and end of the story “Wu Song Kills His Sister-in-Law” by the three critics.It follows from the analysis above that the distinction between sentiments and ethics divides the three critiques of Jin Ping Mei into left, center, and right camps, with the “left” emphasizing sentiments and the “right” emphasizing ethics. Spanning several centuries, this critique pattern highlights the complex and ongoing struggle between sentiments and ethics in the history of Chinese novel writing and criticism, reflecting broader intellectual shifts in literary history. These critiques not only reveal differing philosophical perspectives but also trace the evolution of moral and ethical values in Chinese society, with each critique offering a distinct vision of the novel’s role in reflecting and shaping these values.
|
|
Received: 24 May 2024
|
|
|
|
1 黄霖：《〈新刻绣像批评金瓶梅〉评点初探》，《成都大学学报（社会科学版）》1983年第1期，第67-72页。
2 杨彬：《“尊情观”与崇祯本〈金瓶梅〉批评 》，见中国《金瓶梅》研究会（筹）编：《金瓶梅研究》第八辑，北京：中国文史出版社，2005年，第391-405页。
3 黄霖、吴建民、吴兆路：《原人论》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2000年。
4 黄霖：《文龙手批〈金瓶梅〉的发见及其特色》，《人文研究》2021年第203期，第17-29页。
5 美］浦安迪：《瑕中之瑜——论崇祯本〈金瓶梅〉的评注》，见徐朔方编：《金瓶梅西方论文集》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1987年，第301-302页。
6 刘廷玑：《在园杂志》，见黄霖编：《金瓶梅资料汇编》卷三，北京：中华书局，2012年，第252-255页。
7 叶朗：《中国小说美学》，北京：北京大学出版社，1982年。
8 林岗：《明清之际小说评点学之研究》，北京：北京大学出版社，1999年。
9 罗烨：《醉翁谈录·舌耕叙引》，见黄霖、韩同文编：《中国历代小说论著选》，南昌：江西人民出版社，1990年，第87-98页。
10 施耐庵：《第五才子书水浒传》，金圣叹评点，见《古本小说集成》编委会编：《古本小说集成》第四辑第三册，上海：上海古籍出版社，1994年。
11 程树德：《论语集释》第一册，程俊英、蒋见元点校，北京：中华书局，1990年。
12 赵岐、孙奭：《孟子注疏》，北京：北京大学出版社，1999年。
13 黎靖德编：《朱子语类》，北京：中华书局，2007年。
14 日］沟口雄三：《中国的思维世界》，刁榴、牟坚等译，孙歌校，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2014年。
15 刘勇强：《〈金瓶梅〉本文与接受分析》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》1996年第4期，第68-76页。
16 王夫之：《张子正蒙注》，同治四年（1865）曾氏金陵刊本。
17 余英时：《中国思想传统的现代诠释》，南京：江苏人民出版社，1998年。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
