2017 年“陈六使中华语言文化教授基金”柯马丁教授公开演讲概述

“Tan Lark Sye Professorship in Chinese Language and Culture” Public Lectures
by Professor Martin Kern

From Performance to Text: Poems and Their Authors in Early China

Ong Yun Mei
Nanyang Technological University (Chinese Program)

The Tan Lark Sye Professorship in Chinese Language and Culture had the honor of having
Professor Martin Kern, the inaugural Greg (’84) and Joanna (P13) Zeluck Professor in Asian Studies at
Princeton University as the Endowed Professor. Professor Kern was invited to deliver a Chinese public
lecture titled “From Performance to Text: Poems and their Authors in Early China”.

The lecture was held on August 12th 2017 and was chaired by Associate Professor Yow Cheun
Hoe, Director of Centre for Chinese Language & Culture, Director of Chinese Heritage Centre and Head
of Chinese Program, NTU. It was jointly organized by the Centre for Chinese Language and Culture,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Chinese Program (NTU), the Association of Nanyang
University Graduates and Singapore Lianhe Zaobao.

The lecture started with Professor Kern invoking dictums of Chinese Poetry from Chinese
Classical literatures and excavated manuscripts. Professor Kern then pointed out that these dictums did
not render definitions of the specific historical circumstances that provided the poems with an original
compositional context, historical date or specific authorship or on the poetic dictions or circulation of the
poems, but admitted its premises of the theory that poems posed nature and emotion, with a didactic
functionality that sought hermeneutic approaches. He continued to draw examples from “Guanju” from
the “Mao Poetry” （《毛诗 • 周南 • 关雎》）, “The Moon Comes Out” from the “Airs of Chen”
《毛诗 • 陈风 • 月出》and Recitations of Chu “Mountain Spirit” of the “Nine Sings” 《楚辞 • 九歌 •
山鬼》to exemplify the broad usage in the meaning of the term “yaotiao”（窈窕）. He went on further
to draw reference to a text in the “Confucius’ Discussion of the Poetry”（《孔子诗论》竹书）from
Shanghai Museum collection that the transformation of “Guanju” [ 《 关 雎 》 之 改 （ 妃 ） ], the
timeliness of “Jiumu” [《求木》之时（持）], the wisdom of “Hanguang” [《汉广》之知], the
marriage of “Quechao” [《鹊巢》之归], the protection of “Gantang” [《甘棠》之保], the longing of
“Lüyi” [《绿衣》之思], the emotion in “Yanyan”, [《燕燕》之情] —what of these? （曷？） 1

This text characterizes each poem with a single word instead of determining the meaning of
specific work and thus could be call upon in a wide range of situations with no emphasis on the origins
nor the authors of these poems, thereby lending credence to the point raised by Professor Kern.

Professor Kern then continued to introduce the phenomena of composite texts and textual
repertoires. In his opinion, poems were just the manifestations of a type of textual repertoire and every

1
Translation from, Martin Kern, “Lost in Tradition: The Classic of Poetry We Did Not Know,” Hsiang Lectures on Chinese
Poetry 5 (2010): 29-56.
poem title was constituted with a distinctive set of meaning, conveyed in a set of expressions that
presents its relevance to other similar poems. Therefore, a poem could be co-created by more than one
person, forming a composite text with no need to place an emphasis on its specific authorship. To
further prove his point, two poems bearing the same title, “Cricket” （蟋蟀）were then drawn in
comparison from “Airs of Tang” in “Mao Poetry” （《毛诗 • 唐风 • 蟋蟀》）and “Qinghua
bamboo slips Qiye” （清华简《耆夜• 蟋蟀》）, to show the similarities in terms of the poems’ form
and structure and its words choice. Professor Kern then went on to expound on the fact that it was
needless to debate on the dates of which both poems were composed or on the authenticity or credibility
of these poems. He suggested that these two poems should instead be classified as two separate forms of
manifestations contained within a same textual repertoire, as an exemplification of the adaptability of
these poems to change. To further prove his point, Professor Kern continued to draw reference from “Da
Wu” in “Zuo Zhuan” （《左传 • 大武》）and “Da Wu” in “Zhou Song” （《周颂 • 大武》）to
further exemplify that these poems and their meanings too were continuously open to change and
situational adaptation.

Finally, Professor Kern drew a series of conclusion to his lecture:

I. Poetry in early China had no definitive author or origins and were hence open to change and
situational adaptations;
II. Poems with different forms or structures do not belong to a single standardized original text
and instead contribute to the phenomena of textual variants;
III. Variations in Poetry did usually have oral or textual histories of its circulation;
IV. The structures and forms in Poetry and its hermeneutics change according to historical
circumstances;
V. Poetry and its interpretations were reciprocatively related and interpretations or
commentaries should not be secondary to it;
VI. Poetry was a collective text and not an individualized text;
VII. The affective dispositions of Poetry did not reflect subjective emotions but that of a
collective emotion of the society;
VIII. Every poem was not an independent text but a single textual manifestation within a textual
repertoire;
IX. Every poem was usually a composite text;
X. The authoritativeness of a poem did base itself in the identity of the author of the historical
circumstances leading to its origins;
XI. “Mao Poetry”《毛诗》was not another“Classic of Poetry”《诗经》but a collection of
manifestations of Poetry in early china.
XII. Poetry in the Pre-Qin belonged to a highly malleable performative culture and not of a highly
stable textual culture and hence could never be properly defined.

In his lecture, Professor Kern drew references to and invoked texts from various Chinese
Classics and had provided new perspectives on ancient Chinese authorship, textual composition, and
performance. Participants were also given a chance to engage in a discussion with Professor Kern at the
end of the lecture.