23

Preface to the Korean Edition of “The Methods andPractice in the Research of East Asian Sinitic Literature”
ZHANG Bowei*

From 1985, in Hong Kong, when I first encountered works of Korean
research on Sinographic material, suddenly more than thirty years havepassed. When the ancients wanted to describe the fleeting passage of time,they said, “A white horse galloping by, as viewed through a crack in afence.”（白駒過隙）In retrospect, this saying is no exaggeration at all. During
these thirty or more years, I have visited Korea many times; sometimes
friends ask me, “Where have you visited in Korea?” I often answer, “It would
be better if you would ask me where in Korea I haven’t visited.” In this way,from the historical culture of Korea to its landscape and populace presently, I
have unconsciously augmented my sensitivity as well as rational understanding and knowledge; moreover, have given form to many research
insights in my writings. The essays collected together here are a portion ofthese contents.
I graduated from the Chinese Department and have always worked in the
Chinese Department. As a Chinese scholar, sometimes I think about whatkind of professional responsibility I bear towards research into KoreanStudies, and what kind of contribution can I make towards it. Now that thisbook of mine is about to appear for Korean readers, perhaps this simple
response of mine to these questions will assist the reader to sympathize andunderstand the “heart of the author.”As everyone knows, before the great powers of the western countries
forcibly invaded East Asia in the last part of the nineteenth century, there wasa “Sinographic Sphere” that had existed for a long time in the East Asian
region. In such a cultural sphere, even though different ethnicities lived
different lives, their cultures were united. When I say “united,” this is not apure concept, and even less does it ignore the differences of different peoples;using the words of the Japanese scholar Nishijima Sadao（西嶋定生）, “The
	  * ZHANG Bowei 張伯偉 is professor of Classical Chinese Literature at School of
Liberal Arts, Nanjing University.

24

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

features of ethnicity were mediated by Chinese civilization and thus wereendowed with commonality” (The Ancient Chinese State and the East AsianWorld,《中国古代国家と東アジア世界》, 1983). Setting off from the viewpointof Euro American scholars, they also could see a similar situation. For
example, the French scholar Léon Vandermeersch has pointed out, “The entire
Han cultural sphere is actually the domain of Chinese characters. The uniformity of the Han cultural sphere is just the uniformity of the signs of Han
characters.” (Le Nouveau Monde Sinisé, 1986). The American scholar William
Theodore de Bary, in East Asian Civilization (1988) sees Chinese, Japaneseand Korean cultures as “representing the common civilization of East Asia, atthe same time permitting, through the redundancies of these common traditions, the insistent hold of the local cultures.” According to Rhoads
Murphey’s views, this “shared tradition” still persists today: “Although eachpart of East Asia presents different material and cultural features, they nonetheless obviously form a whole, and their commonalities exceed their individual differences; they are the largest area of common culture and common
economy the world has seen until today” (East Asia: A New History, 4th
Edition, 2007). The promotion of culture is based on education. In the Three
Kingdoms period of the Korean Peninsula, no matter whether it was the“National Studies”（國學）of the Ministry of Rites, or the Gyeongdang（扃堂）schools among the people, the curriculum they used was entirely from
Chinese classical literature. And in the educational system of the Chosun era,no matter whether it was the university teaching “Official Learning”（官學）,
the Sibu（四部）Academy [Academy of the Four Divisions of Scholarship] or
the rural schools, or no matter whether it was the academies of “Private
Learning”（私學）, their curriculum always consisted of the four divisions ofChinese writings (classics, histories, individual masters and collections); or
perhaps the curricula came from selected Chinese classical literature which
had undergone annotation and explication by Korean Confucians. They not
only did not view “Chinese characters” as “foreign” writing, nor view thecontents of the Chinese classical literature as “foreign” culture; at the sametime, they still used Chinese characters and wrote such types of documents
which belonged to their own literature, history, thought, religion, science andart, etc. For this reason, in such a cultural sphere, even if everybody usedcommon characters to write, the flowers of the spiritual civilization which
they created—their form, character and atmosphere—were actually variations
on common themes as well as commonalities amidst discrepancies. To
become aware of these differences, it is not necessary to wait until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Jeong Yak-yong（丁若镛） uttered his
representative statement, “I am from Chosun, and am pleased to write
Chosun poetry”; in the fifteenth century, when Seo Geo-jeong（徐居正）Preface to the Korean Edition of “The Methods and Practice in the Research of East Asian Sinitic Literature” 25compiled Dongmunseon（東文選）, he knew with total self-awareness, “This is
the literature of the east [Korea]. It is not the literature of the Song（宋）or theYuan（元）, nor is it the literature of the Han（漢）or the Tang（唐）. It is mycountry’s literature, the literature that is suited to the historical age and practiced between sky and earth.” It is not only literature that is like this. From aholistic view of culture, there is also such a perspective. At the beginning of
the eighteenth century, Jo Gwi-myeong（趙龜命）said, “It has been a long timethat we in the east [Korea] have been called mini-China. People just know weare similar to China, but do not know that in the midst of our resemblances
to China there are also discrepancies with China.” However, what is this
“Chosun poetry”? What is the literature of the “east [Korea]”? What are the“discrepancies” existing in the midst of the “resemblances”? Even thoughmany scholars have carried out sustained research on these questions, to datethere is no certain answer. And to offer conclusive traits extracted from theHan cultural sphere into the culture of the Chosun peninsula, as far as I cantell, perhaps is the professional responsibility and locus for potential contribution of a Chinese scholar towards research into Korean studies.
Historically, although it could not be said that Chinese scholars minimalized their interest in East Asian research including Korean studies, still there
were problems in their guiding conceptions. From the time of Shi ji [Recordsof the Historian，史記] and Han shu [History of the Han，漢書], the official
histories of China recorded information about areas such as the Chosun
peninsula and Japan, and included a kind of “view of the world.” However,the “view of the world” of those times was self-centered, which is to say,sinocentric. According to such a concept, when people viewed the image of
the world, other than oneself, there was only the shadow of oneself projected
upon others. When one makes use of such a concept to research East Asia,
what one is in firm control of and knows of the cultures of Korea, Japan,
Vietnam, or other countries, is just a kind of “local expression” of Chinese
culture projected on various East Asian places. It lacks unique values and its
research significance is accordingly greatly reduced. Fortunately, from theonset of the twentieth century, as Chinese scholars made efforts to break“western-centered theory,” they gradually mastered their “sinocentricism.”
This is especially true in research dealing with the historical cultures of East
Asia and the study of the relevant classical texts. In 2009, I wrote an article
entitled “Zuoweifangfa de Han wenhuaquan” [“the Sinographic Sphereprovides a method for itself”，“作爲方法的漢文化圈”]; in 2011, I published abook called “Zuoweifangfa de Han wenhuaquan” [“the Sinographic Sphere]; in 2013, I wrote an《作爲方法的漢文化圈》
provides a method for itself”，
article entitled “Zai tan zuoweifangfa de Han wenhuaquan” [Revisiting ‘the
Sinographic Sphere provides a method for itself’，“再談作爲方法的漢文化圈”].

26

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

These collected writings expressed a common wish and purpose: to advocate
and implement a kind of research credo and path, which is “to provide amethod for the Sinographic Sphere.”
As far as my thoughts presently can discern, the research credo andpathway just mentioned basically consists of the following main points: first,
take documents written in Chinese characters as a whole. Even though it isnecessary to classify them, do not do it by country, ethnicity, or region, butinstead classify according to their actual contents. For example, documents in
Chinese characters that transmit Buddhist teachings include the whole ofChinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and other areas’ documents, rather
than grouping them as Chinese Buddhist, Korean Buddhist, Japanese Buddhist
and Vietnamese Buddhist documents. No matter which country’s documents
are being researched, one always needs to keep the entirety of the document
base in mind. Secondly, within the Sinographic Sphere, no matter whether it
is cultural shifts or conceptual traveling, these activities rely upon the freecirculation of texts. It is through people’s reading or misreading texts that,
directly or indirectly, prompts the formation of a multiplicity of cultures
within a unified region of East Asian culture. Thirdly, take the inner experience and spiritual world of humans as one’s goal, to establish intercommunication between the center and periphery, and place the Sinographic documents from each locality on an equal status, searching for the inner associations between them; also, emphasize the mutual influence and mutuallyconstructing relations between people of different regions. Fourth, pay attention to the explications of cultural meanings; within similar documents, pay
attention to different meanings of different regions, different levels, different
genders, different eras, different linguistic zones. Through mastery of various
relations of similarities and differences, one may improve one’s understandingof Chinese culture, and finally do more to promote the contribution of East
Asian civilization to humanity. In fact, in order to grasp firmly the special
characteristics of each cultural region within East Asia, it is only from avision of the whole of the Sinographic Sphere, as it is embodied in comparison with cultures of other countries, that allows a true knowledge andunderstanding. The essays collected in this book, to a certain extent, reflect
the efforts of the author in these respects.
Of the research pathways discussed above, the core factor is to approach
documents written in Chinese characters in a holistic way. Even if historically, each country of East Asia has supported its own continuous writing
system, such as Eonmun（諺文）in Korea, Kana in Japan, or Vietnamese Chu
Nom（喃） script, the perspective of intellectuals has been that the Chinesecharacters are the “real” writing: highly elegant, proper and grand, masculine;
relative to this, one’s local, “inauthentic” writing is provincial, lowly andPreface to the Korean Edition of “The Methods and Practice in the Research of East Asian Sinitic Literature” 27

vulgar, feminine. In Chosun times, not a few scholars made it known thatthey did not understand Eonmun. For example, in the 16th century, Kim Jangsaeng（金長生） “had never learned Eon script.” In the 17th century, Park
Se-chae（朴世采）said of himself that he “did not understand Eon script.” In
the 18th century, Park Ji-won（朴趾源）even said, “All my whole life I havenever learned a single word in Eon script.” Therefore, whatever document
was important, proper or solemn would always be executed in Chinese characters. We can say of the documents in Chinese characters that have been
passed down until today that they are voluminous. In the 20th century, thewestern scholars W.T. Swingle and Kenneth S. Latourette calculated that in
the 18th and 19th centuries the number of pages in Chinese copy books andprint books exceeded the number of pages of all the books collected in allother languages in the world combined. If one were to add in all the books
written with Chinese characters from Korea, Japan and Vietnam, the resulting
astronomical number would be incredible. And corresponding to this is thefact that, since the end of the 19th century the power of the west has steadily
encroached upon East Asia, steadily awakening the consciousness of nationstates, and after the middle of the 20th century, East Asian countries besides
China have to various degrees reduced or even eliminated their use ofChinese characters in their daily lives, to the point that ordinary people nolonger have the ability to read the records of their own country’s history;
moreover, specialists with the ability to do research tend to be growing
progressively fewer. From this fact, it can be said that Chinese scholars reallyhave a duty that cannot be ignored, actively to participate in the organization
and research into the documents concerning East Asia written in Chinesecharacters.
No matter whether one is speaking about Chinese scholars or aboutscholars from other East Asian regions, it is true that they do not especiallyconcern themselves with the documents written in Chinese characters fromoutside their own countries. For this reason, they can really be considered asa kind of new resource. In this new resource are incubated new problems, forwhich the use of previously elaborated methods will not necessarily beadequate as solutions. And through reading and research into the new material, and through refinement of new questions, we have the possibility of a
new method of human sciences, which will have invaluable significance forscholarly activity in East Asia. A hundred years ago, at the time when the
East Asian scholarship turned from tradition to modernity, as far as “method”
was concerned, almost everyone turned to learn from the “scientific method”
of Euro American cultures. Among them, Japan was the most advanced in thisrespect. For example, the historian of East Asia, Kuwabara Jitsuzou（桑原隲, at the beginning of the 20th century, said, “Our country seems still to be藏）28

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

unable totally to use the scientific method to research sinology; so-called
scientific method is not only to be used for western scholarship: it is necessary to make use of it in the knowledge of China and Japan”(Chunkokugakukenkyuusia no ninmu [The responsibility of sinologists]). And
not only that! The entire research compass of oriental studies (touhougaku) isexactly like this. In that year when Hu Shi（胡適） read this article, hecompletely agreed with it. Chinese scholars also viewed the results ofJapanese sinological research with the same orientation. Fu Sinian（傅斯年）,
in 1935, said, “In the past twenty years, the progress of Japanese oriental
research is due to following the Paris School.” (Lun Bo Xihejiaoshou [OnProfessor Paul Pelliot]). The situation in Korea was similar. In the 1980s,
Professor Im Hyeong-taek（林熒澤） stated that when he began attending
university, he often heard a “disgusting” view that, “Although our country has
literary works, we do not have the appropriate standards to evaluate them.
Therefore, it is not incorrect that we must borrow foreign criteria.”(Guowenxue: Zuoshenme, zenmezuo《國文學：做什么，怎么做》[What and how
to do about national literature studies]). Here, what is called “foreign” refers
to Euro American. For this reason, until this very day, it is not only necessary
but it is also possible for East Asian humanities scholars to expend theirefforts exploring what belongs to East Asia or the Asian mode of production.
And the methodology itself has different levels. “To make the Sinographic
Sphere a methodology” is mentioned in order to advocate a kind of research
credo: it even more resembles an attitude of orientation or an approach,rather than a concrete method. The latter is grounded in solving differences inproblems, and using ways that correspond to them. Recently, as I have been
editing the ‘Yeonhaengnok’ yanjiulunji [Collected research papers on the], in its “Preface,” I have《“燕行録”研究論集》
Records of Travel to Beijing，
mentioned ten aspects of research that must be taken into account. That is:
first, research on documents and sources; second, historical research; third,
research on intellectual history; fourth, ethnographic research; fifth, research
into the history of religions; sixth, linguistic research; seventh, literary
research; eighth, imagistic research; ninth, research into the history of texts;
tenth, comparative research. The character of each specialized discipline isdifferent, and their problematiques are different; the concrete methods each
use are also not the same. Taking “imagistic research” for example, it should
use the method of the study of images. Even if “foreigners write about China
or Korea,” it is not necessarily the case that they are “disinterested,” nor is it
necessarily true that “they can have a rather veracious view” (JinYufu’s [金毓], 1933). No
黻] words, in Liaohaicongshu [Liaohai compilation,《遼海叢書》
matter whether dealing with writing or with graphic material, the “image”
that is reflected by the brush is always replete with subjective selectivity andPreface to the Korean Edition of “The Methods and Practice in the Research of East Asian Sinitic Literature” 29

evaluations, so in the end the “image” that is presented is always somethingaltered and “other.” “Image” is not a practical copy; what people see isalways what they want to see. For this reason, when facing the same
scenario, different people will see different images. The image of China in theeyes of Koreans will also be dynamic and changing, but over a long period oftime, the variations are minor and difficult to become aware of; placed in a“longue durée,” one can discover the significance of some “small events” inthe “long history.” If one wishes to accomplish this point, it is still necessary
to view the “Sinographic Sphere” as a holistic domain, and connect Korea,
Japan and Vietnam, as well as the travel notes of western people concerning
China; not only to have the concept of developments over time, but also havethe concept of spatial transformation. Similar research into Korean studies
will not only charm and fascinate people, causing us to be so attached that weforget to return, but also continuously produce new discoveries that willcontinuously stimulate us.
The world of East Asia today is neither pacific nor calm. Under suchcircumstances, it is extremely important to strengthen our acquaintance andunderstanding of East Asia. More than two hundred years ago, in 1801, Chen
Zhan（陳鱣）, the practitioner of evidential research, was inspired to say, “A
mountain of rain is going to come and the wind will fill the buildings”; andhe once said to Yu Deuk-gong（柳得恭）of Chosun, “The world will become
totally chaotic!” However, Yu Deuk-gong lacked a holistic view of East Asia,
so he replied, “I am a foreigner, what difference does it make to me?” Yet hehad not considered the saying that “When the nest overturns, how can theeggs hatch?” Within a few decades, the East Asian world met with a colossal
and unprecedented change. The American scholar Samuel P. Huntington, in
his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order(1996) statedthat after the end of the cold war, the resistance and conflict caused by ideological attitudes would gradually attenuate, but that in their stead would very
likely arise the “conflict of civilizations.” I very much agree with
Huntington’s recognition and understanding of the importance of civilizations,but I do not agree with him in attributing the source of chaos in the world tothe “conflict” between different civilizations. As I see it, the discussion andcooperation between different civilizations might very well be far greater than
any conflict and resistance. In today’s world, the source of conflict is over theunremitting fight and seizure of “profit.” Mencius said, “When the high andlow squabble about profits, the country is endangered.” These days it could
be paraphrased as, “When each country quarrels about profit, the world isendangered.” Therefore, as a scholar in the present world, one even moreshould “narrate the past and think of what is to come.” Keep the present andwait for the subsequent. With such a background, to strengthen the research

30

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018about different cultural units, perhaps will be helpful for the human species todevelop world peace. This, perhaps, is also one significant position for a
Chinese scholar who takes part in Korean studies research.
I thank Professor Sim Gyeong-ho（沈慶昊）, whose kind expenditure ofmind and energy assisted my still unfinished essay to become translated into
Korean, so that it might receive the abundant criticism and guidance of
Korean scholars. I am honored and full of eager expectation. More thantwenty years ago, I greatly benefited when I read Professors Sim’s great
article “Chaoxianshidai Du shi de kanxing” [Publications on the poems of Du
Fu during the Chosun period]. When afterwards, I was fortunate to meet him,
I learned more of the enormity and profound refinement of his erudition, hissincere kindness to others, the humor of his discussions. It has left a deep
impression on me. Particularly following the strong connections between theInstitute for the Study of Sinographic Texts and Culture, of Nanjing
University, and the Chinese Character and Writing Research Center, of Korea
University, these relations are even closer, with even more opportunities topursue learning. Ji Yun（紀昀）of the Qing dynasty presented a poem to Park
Je-ga（朴齊家）, which said, “Eager to receive the scholars of the world/I recite
poetry that most recalls the man of the east sea.” In the late years of Chosun,
Kim Taek-yeong（金澤榮）his own late years stayed at Nantong, China; once
he said to Zhang Jian（張謇）and his brother, “For the good brothers of theZhang household,” “Nantong hereafter is my home.” The interaction between
people of China and Korea is the deep, thick knot most worthy of prizing;from ancient times to the present, it cannot be severed. I earnestly wish that
this book can be published in Korea and can achieve the goal that Confucius
described: “meet friends with civility, and use friendship to strengthen
civility”: allowing the cultural exchanges of China and Korea to become likethe name of the national flower of Korea, the “inexhaustible flower”（無窮花）—flower forever without wilting.