Validity in Intercultural Interpretation of Romanticism: A Case Study of Qu Yuan’s Lisao

1 Possibility versus Validity in Intercultural Interpretation

Prior to the discussion of this issue, the first question we are faced with is: Can Romanticism be applied to interpret Qu Yuan and his works? Since the term “Romanticism” originated from the West, given the differences between Chinese and Western cultures, whether it can be used to interpret Chinese literary texts has become a debatable topic. For example, in recent discussions on the modern transformation of traditional Chinese literary theory in 1990s, Cao Shunqing argues that Chinese and Western cultures, their knowledge forms as well as their discourse systems are completely different. Therefore, applying Western theoretical models to the study of Chinese literary texts will lead to a fracture in traditional Chinese culture, and “research on traditions in this way is to deconstruct Chinese traditions and conventions.”^[4] Therefore, he advocates that heterogeneous Western theories cannot be employed to interpret Chinese literary texts. As opposed to Cao’s view, Yang Naiqiao supposes that “the evaluation of Qu Yuan’s and Li Bai’s literary thoughts by means of Western Romanticism is a successful convergence of Eastern and Western scholastic perspectives.”^[5] Of the two views, which is right or wrong is hard to decide.

According to Fang Ming, the writing and compiling of the history of Chinese Literature has been existing for a long time. Examples include, but are not limited to An Outline of Chinese Literature by German Wilhelm Schott in 1854, An Outline of Chinese Literature History (Очерки истории китайской литературы) by Russian В.П. Василиев in 1880, A History of Chinese Literature by British Herbert Giles in 1901, and A History of Chinese Literature by German W. Grube in 1902. These works do not take Qu Yuan’s poems or Chuci 楚辭 (Odes of Chu) as literary texts characterized by “Romanticism,” nor do they mention any literary movements or literary creations related to European “Romanticism” in the course of Chinese literature development. The earliest connection between Chinese literature and the European literary movement is seen in the book Zhongguo wenxueshi jieti 中國文學史解題 (Solving Problems in the History of Chinese Literature) by Xu Xiaotian 許嘯天 (1886–1946), published by the Qun Xue Society 群學社 in 1932. Xu regarded Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–1072) instead of Qu Yuan as a “Romantic lyricist”^[6], who is probably the first Chinese scholar adopting the Western conception of romanticism to introduce Chinese literary texts.

After the 1950s, with the introduction of Soviet literary theory to China, the Program of Chinese Literary History, which was developed with the help of Soviet scholars, used “Revolutionary Romanticism and Revolutionary Realism” as the two norms of Chinese literary writing methods. You Guoen 游國恩 (1899–1978) et al., in The History of Chinese Literature published in 1963, suggests that “Lisao is a Romantic work with profound realism. It develops Romanticism in Chinese mythology, the oral creation of ancient Chinese people, and becomes the direct source of Chinese literary Romanticism.”^[7] Since then, Qu Yuan has generally been accepted as father of Chinese literary Romanticism.

To sum up, why Lisao is regarded as a Romantic poem by You Guoen, et al. is based on two aspects: firstly, in terms of the spiritual essence, Lisao shapes a great, pure-minded lyrical protagonist. In virtue of his noble ideal, pure personality, and intense feelings, this image far transcends vulgarity and reality. Throughout Lisao, the poet exhibits his indomitable spirit of rational transformation of reality. When the cruel situation finally disillusions him, he shows his resolute volition to give his life for the sake of his political ideal. All of these reflects the Romantic nature of Lisao. Secondly, in terms of the expressive techniques in Lisao, the poet’s imagination runs riot, which creates a fantasy by combination of myths and legends, historical figures, and natural phenomena. He often employs exaggerated literary techniques to highlight the characteristics of things, which portrays the poet’s noble integrity and thus endows him with the nature of Romanticism.^[8] In short, Lisao is recognized as a Romantic poem due to its idealistic content as well as its imaginative and exaggerated literary techniques.

Fang Ming disagrees with You Guoen, et al. As Fang points out, “[a]lthough the ideas, literature, and arts of the Warring States period show striking similarities with those of the Romantic movement in Europe since the 18th century, there are obvious differences in their time of emergence, representation forms, and cultural traditions.” So he comes to the conclusion that “Qu Yuan does not possess the fundamental characteristics of European Romanticism,” and “European Romanticism is unsuitable for interpreting Qu Yuan’s works and Chinese literature.”^[9]

We believe that the debate over whether Western theories can be applied to interpret Chinese literature texts is of little academic value. In fact, no matter how many prejudices we have against Western theories, refusing to start a dialogue with the Western academia is tellingly unrealistic and contrary to the original intention of maintaining and promoting Chinese traditions in the context of ever-increasing globalization. Firstly, cultural differences cannot be the primary excuse for the refusal of interpretation. As a matter of fact, interpretation results from differences. If the subject and object of interpretation are completely the same, it is likely to arrive at a circular reasoning and is thus pointless. As the saying goes, “Of Mountain Lu we cannot make out the true face, for we are lost in the heart of the very mountain.” Secondly, when it comes to the meaning, a literary work in itself is polysemic, polyphonic and equivocal. If Western theories can provide us with a new perspective to enrich our understanding of a work, we might as well take advantage of them.

Therefore, the key issue is not whether Western theories can be adopted to interpret Chinese texts or not, but how to interpret them. Admittedly, there are cases where we hold a blind attitude towards Western theories with an unclear idea of them: either generalize Western theories infinitely, remove the boundary of theoretical interpretation, or view Western theories as omnipotent and completely applicable to specific Chinese historical contexts. We should take precautions against this misconception. However, it should never be a justification for disapproving interpretation and refuse dialogues with the West. Such case does not necessarily mean that Western literary theory is unsuitable for interpreting Chinese literary texts, but it only indicates that it violates the proper principles that interpretation should conform to.

For the topic of this article, we do not simply deny that Western Romanticism theory can be used to interpret Qu Yuan, but we are discussing the validity in this interpretation, that is, how should we make use of the Western Romanticism theory to interpret Qu Yuan’s works? Whether it can be interpreted and whether the interpretation is effective are actually two different issues, which should not be mixed up. To say Qu Yuan’s works can be interpreted via Romanticism does not necessarily mean that the interpretation must be effective, and to say the works cannot be interpreted in one way does not mean that they cannot be expounded in another way. For instance, a table is not a chair, but a table can be used to explain a chair. If we conclude that a table is a chair because it can explain a chair, or if we infer that a table cannot explain a chair because it is not a chair, both views are obviously incorrect. We perhaps cannot say that Qu Yuan is a Romanticist, but we can explore the relationship between Romanticism and Qu Yuan.

2 Is Romanticism a Creative Method?

Furthermore, when discussing the validity of Western Romanticism in interpreting Qu Yuan’s works, we also face the predicament that the meaning of Romanticism in itself has gradually become unclear after its long-term development. A scholar even suggests that “[i]t has ceased to perform the function of a verbal sign.”^[10] Using a vague word to define an object is obviously impracticable. In view of this, we cannot help but wonder: What it implies to say that Qu Yuan is a Romantic poet? If we cannot define the term Romanticism, the conclusion of the proposition is obviously meaningless. Therefore, before using the “critical weapon” of Romanticism, we necessarily elucidate the exact meaning of “Romanticism”. That is, we need to carry out “the criticism of weapons” in the first place.

In common usage, the term Romanticism is either used as a “literary movement” or as a “creative method”. As Zhu Guangqian 朱光潛 (1897–1986) points out, “[a]s a literary movement, Romanticism, like Realism, is a product of the Western capitalist society in the 18th and 19th centuries, with its own specific historical context and the background of class.”^[11] It is closely related to the European Enlightenment movements in the 18th century and is a “refutation” of the 17th-century French Neoclassicism. Therefore, it is evidently impossible to employ Romanticism to illustrate and interpret Qu Yuan’s poems in this sense of “literary movement,” just as it is apparently impossible to dress up Qu Yuan as an 18th or 19th-century European Romanticist.

In textbooks of the history of Chinese literature, the second meaning of Romanticism is prevalent, namely, Romanticism is regarded as a “creative method” and a literary method along with Realism from time immemorial. This view is conspicuously influenced by the “РАПП” (The Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) theory of the former Soviet Union. In a speech at the 1929 “РАПП” Congress, the famous writer Aleksandr Fadeyev (1901–1956) classified all previous literature genres into two major schools based on their creative methods: Realism and Romanticism. He also juxtaposed these two creative approaches with Materialism and Idealism in philosophy respectively. This is the so-called “creative method of Dialectical Materialism,” which also holds in esteem Realism and disparages Romanticism. This theoretical viewpoint was accepted and passed on to China by Chinese Left-Wing Literary representatives such Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白 (1899–1935), Feng Xuefeng 馮雪峰 (1903–1976) at the time. “РАПП”’s belittling attitude towards Romanticism was later corrected in 1958, especially with the initiative of combining Revolutionary Realism and Revolutionary Romanticism, to wit, the “Two Combinations,” through which Romanticism was elevated to a considerable status; but the concepts of Realism and Romanticism, having existed down through the ages, have neither been seriously nor further expounded nonetheless.

Arguably, the notion of “creative method” is contradictory to literary creation in reality. According to general experience of literary creation, there is no fixed method to be employed before or during the creation process. If so, literary creation is likely to be mass-produced. As Kant once proposed, “[f]or beautiful art, there is thus only a manner (modus), not a way of teaching it (methodus).”^[12] Especially the Romantic creative method is a contradictory concept in itself. Generally speaking, the creations of Romantic writers are mostly based on their inspirations, and their creations are fundamentally against norms and fixed patterns. It is obviously absurd and theoretically untenable to view Romanticism as a creative method that has existed since ancient times. This practice is observably an infinite generalization of this term. If a literary term has no boundaries or specificity, it is literally next to expunging it from literary theory.

When we argue that Qu Yuan is a Romanticist, crucial evidence is that his works contain strong feelings and prolific imagination. Admittedly, compared with Western Romanticism, emotions and imagination are indeed two common denominators of Qu Yuan’s poems as well as Western Romanticism. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of folklores and myths in Qu Yuan’s works is also similar to the literature conventions of Western Romanticism which laid emphasis on medieval folk literature. However, all of these can be seen as common characteristics of Romantic literature, but not its nature. The nature of an object is the fundamental attribute which distinguishes it from other objects. Emotion and imagination are common to almost all literary works, and attaching importance to folk literature is not a privilege of Romanticism. Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussions alone, it is impossible to define the nature of Romanticism. When we argue that Qu Yuan is a Romantic poet, we have actually made an assumption that he belongs to Romanticism from the outset, and then look for the emotional and imaginative characteristics in his works to conclude that Qu Yuan is a Romantic poet. This kind of argumentation also turns out to be a circular argument.

In effect, the characteristics of the articulation and representations of emotion and imagination in Qu Yuan’s works can be explained from an alternative perspective. In 1906, Wang Guowei 王國維 (1871–1927) explains the aforesaid two features in Qu Yuan’s works based on the different characteristics of the northern and southern cultures in his article “Quzi wenxue zhi jingshen” 屈子文學之精神 (The Literary Spirit of Qu Yuan). He holds that Northerners are good at articulating emotions but weak at imagination, while Southerners are good at imagination but weak at expressing emotions. Qu Yuan’s merits lie in blending the emotions of the Northerners with the imagination of the Southerners. Wang remarks that “[t]he emotions of the Northerners in poetry are fettered by their scarcity in imagination, which explains why their poems are usually short. On the contrary, the imagination of the Southerners is limited by their lack of profound emotions in poetry, which explains why their imagination is desultory with no beauty, resulting in the absence of poems proper. Great poetry emerges from the integration of the emotions of the Northerners and the imagination of the Southerners. Qu Yuan is such a representative.”^[13] This explanation of the two characteristics of Qu Yuan’s works from the perspective of cultural integration between the North and the South may be more in line with literary reality and is thus more convincing. As a corollary, Qu Yuan’s emotions and imagination do not necessarily have to be explained from a Romantic perspective, or rather, to put it logically, the explanation cannot make him a Romanticist.

If emotion and imagination are not the essence of Romanticism, what, then, is the nature of Romanticism? In fact, if we pay attention to the original meaning of “Romanticism,” this question is not difficult to answer. In Western literary theory, Romanticism originally refers to a historical type of literature. In 1830, Goethe confirmed in a conversation with Eckermann that “[t]he idea of the distinction between classical and Romantic poetry, […] came originally from Schiller and [himself].”^[14] In Goethe’s perspective, Romanticism is something different from Classicism. As he told Eckermann, “I call the Classic healthy, the Romantic sickly.”^[15] Goethe obviously used the term in the sense of typology.

Schiller combined the meaning of this typology with the concept of historicity. In his book On Naive and Sentimental Poetry, Schiller clearly identified two different types of poetry as being historical: simple and unadorned poems are created in ancient times, while sentimental ones are written in modern times when humans enter into a civilized society. He remarks that “[s]o long as man is pure—not, of course, crude—nature, he functions as an undivided sensuous unity and as a unifying whole. Sense and reason, passive and active faculties, are not separated in their activities, still less do they stand in conflict with one another. […] Once man has passed into the state of civilization and art has laid her hand upon him, that sensuous harmony in him is withdrawn, and he can now express himself only as a moral unity, i.e., as striving after unity.”^[16] Schiller has indicated the important role of social history (civilization) in the transformation process from ancient poetry to modern poetry. What he refers to as simple poetry and sentimental poetry are essentially Classical poetry and Romantic poetry. He also adds that “[t]he former move us by nature, by sensuous truth, by living presense; the latter by ideas.”^[17] By this token, he placed unadorned poetry and sentimental poetry in the specific historical contexts of ancient and modern times, thus completing his definition of historical typology for Romanticism.

Wellek strongly approved of this definition. When discussing the definition of Romanticism in his article “The Concept of Romanticism in Literary History,” he points out: “We must take them, not as arbitrary linguistic labels nor as metaphysical entities, but as names for systems of norms which dominate literature at a specific time of the historical process.”^[18] “This broad historical conception” was later “combined with a new meaning: the typological.”^[19] This definition of historical typology is the original meaning of the term “Romanticism.” It is clearly distinct from defining Romanticism as a literary genre or viewing it as a creative method.

Based on such a principle, we can specifically define Romanticism as a literary form that exists in a specific historical period and possesses a specific structural pattern, rather than being inherent from ancient times. Its essential attributes are primarily opposition and subjectivity. Opposition mainly refers to essential contradictions between the individual and society, sensibility and reason, ideal and reality, emotion and rationality. In aesthetics, it manifests as the pursuit of sublime beauty, which is directed against the harmonious beauty of ancient times. This is what Schiller describes as the “splitting of sensibility and reason from their respective functions,” leading to the dissolution of internal harmony. The subjectivity of Romanticism is first manifested as individuality and personality. Individualism represents a kind of extrication from the individual’s sensuous desires and life-will against ancient ethical norms and cosmic laws.

Although opposition and subjectivity are distinct, they are interrelated and define the nature of Romanticism together, of which, opposition is the foundation. The subjectivity of Romanticism is established on the basis of the absolute opposition between subject and object, and subjectivity is the key to the understanding and mastery of Romanticism. For example, while both involve emotion, the emotion in Romanticism differs from that in Classicism. In Chinese classical aesthetics, “emotion” and “reason” are unified, which pursues “regulating emotion with reason,” “emotion within reason,” and “emotion returning to reason.” This type of emotion is actually an ethical and social one; whereas modern Western Romantic aesthetics completely opposes emotion and reason, advocating emotion while rejecting rationality, and strongly opposing regulations and constraints of social ethics and morality on people’s natural emotions. Therefore, this type of emotion is actually a natural and personal feeling rooted in human sensuous desires.

3 Can Lisao be Read through the Prism of Romanticism?

Based on such an understanding of Romanticism, it is not difficult to discover that Qu Yuan’s works do not possess the essential attributes of Romanticism mentioned above. In Qu Yuan’s works, there exist conflicts between the poet and his society, but these conflicts are still confined within ancient ethics. Qu Yuan highly praises sagacious ancient rulers such as Emperor Yao 堯 (2324–2255 BCE), Emperor Shun 舜 (?–? BCE), Yu the Great or King Yu of Xia 禹 (?–? BCE), King Tang of Shang 湯 (1617–1588 BCE), King Wen of Zhou 文王 (1113–1056 BCE) and wise ministers such as Gao Yao 臯繇 (2220–2113 BCE), Fu Yue 傅說 (1335–1246 BCE), Lü Wang 呂望 (?–1015 or 1036 BCE), Ning Qi 寧戚 (686–669 BCE), while he criticizes the foolish kings and traitorous ministers such as King Qi of Xia 夏啟 (?–2117 BCE), King Tai Kang 太康 (265–290 BCE), five brothers of King Tai Kang 五子, Yi—a legendary King 羿, King Jie of Xia 夏桀 (1728–1675 BCE), King Zhou of Shang 後辛 (?–1046 BCE). His political ideal was “[r]ecommending the virtuous and capable men to government / Following the rules without favoritism.” (Lisao)^[20] He does not aim to destroy, but rather strengthen and rebuild the social order of his time. He was very persistent in his political ideals, as expressed in the line “So distant was my journey, / And I wanted to go up and down seeking my aspirations.”^[21] However, this pursuit of political ideals is intertwined with his great concerns for reality. His works boast both the enchanting perceptual flavors of the Chu culture as well as pragmatic rationality of Confucian culture in Central China. He lamented the formidable situation he was in as follows: “Heaving a long sigh, I wipe away my tears, / Feel sorry for the common people’s hard and miserable life.”^[22] “Since none is worthy to work with in making good government / I shall retire to Peng Xian’s residence.”^[23] This kind of lamentation and complaint differs radically from the motifs and sentiments of revenge and resistance in modern times. Thus in his groundbreaking (and seminal) treatise “Moluo shi li shuo” 摩羅詩力說 (On the Power of Mara Poetry), Lu Xun 魯迅 (1881–1936) speaks highly of Qu Yuan, complimenting that among all poets of ancient China, only Qu Yuan was able to “express himself fearlessly,” and dared to voice what others dared not do. That being said, he also points out that in Qu Yuan’s works, “[m]any were the strains of Rococo pathos, but defiance was never there.” (“Moluo shi li shuo”).^[24] If we understand Lu Xun’s comments by juxtaposing Qu Yuan with Western “Romantic poets,” rather than regarding them as an intentional depreciation of Qu Yuan, Lu Xun’s view is still pertinent to this day.

In terms of aesthetic quest, Qu Yuan pursues a harmonious unity of content and form, which is also very different from the sublime beauty pursued by Western romanticists. The first canto of Lisao reads, “Having from birth this inward beauty / I added to it fair outward adornment.”^[25] Speaking of “inward beauty,” Wang Yi 王逸 (89–158 BCE) interprets it as “[h]e said that he has the inward beauty endowed by the heaven and the earth”,^[26] while Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200 BCE) explicates it as “born with the blessings of the moon and the sun, which is the inward beauty endowed by nature.”^[27] In short, both renditions refer to the inherent beauty endowed by nature. Interpretations of “cultivating ability” have always been diverse. Some hold that “cultivating ability” refers to outward decoration and appearance corresponding to “inward beauty”.^[28] For example, Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892–1978) takes this point in his book Qu Yuan Fu Jin Yi 屈原賦今譯. Wang Yuan 汪瑗 (1862–1908) holds an opinion that “cultivating ability” refers to acquiring knowledge and cultivation. Wang points out that “inward beauty is obtained from birth, while cultivating ability means developing one’s capacities, both of which make a well-rounded talent.”^[29] Hu Wenying 胡文英 (1723–1790) proposes that “inward beauty is the nature, while cultivating ability is the learning ability.”^[30] However, whether it is outward appearance or acquired cultivation, both of them no doubt refer to outward beauty. Here, Qu Yuan actually reveals his aesthetic ideal, namely he possesses both inward as well as outward beauty, which is the harmony of inward and outer beauty, a kind of harmonious beauty. Of course, in light of the relationship between “inward beauty” and “cultivat [ed] ability,” Qu Yuan places greater emphasis on “inward beauty.” Compared with outward beauty, the former is conspicuously more important. He also proposes that “I thought that orchid was one to be trusted, / But he proved a sham, bent only on pleasing his masters. / He abandoned his goodness and conformed to evil counsels, / He no more deserves to rank with fragrant flowers.”^[31] By this line, he shows tremendous disappointment and dissatisfaction with the orchid’s speciosity and abandonment of its true beauty to follow the worldliness.

In Qu Yuan’s view, however, such inward beauty is not genuine, and it must be accompanied by outward beauty. Not only does it require the appearance and adornment of outward beauty, but also spending time on constant self-cultivation. “I dressed in selinea and shady angelica, / And twined autumn orchids to make a garland. / Swiftly I sped as in fearful pursuit, / Afraid time would fly on and leave me behind.” (Lisao) ^[32] The first sentence means to adorn oneself with beautiful plants, while the second one means to make the best use of one’s time to diligently improve oneself. There are a great many cases of Qu Yuan’s paying attention to his own appearance and adornment in his works. For example: “I could not go in to him for fear of meeting trouble, / And so, retired, I would once more fashion my former raiment. / I made a coat of lotus and water-chestnut leaves, / And gathered lotus petals to make myself a skirt. […] / Higher still the hat now that towered on my head, / And longer the girdle that dangled from my waist.”^[33] “When I was young I loved those rare apparel; / And now I am old in years, the passion has not abated; / At my belt a long sword swinging, / On my head a ‘cleave-cloud’ hat up – towering.” (Jiu Zhang: She Jiang).^[34] There are also many examples of cherishing time and valuing self-cultivation. For instance, “The days and months hurried on, never delaying; / Springs and autumns sped by in endless alternation. / And I thought how the trees and flowers were fading and falling, / And feared that my Fairest’s beauty would fade too.”^[35] “For old age comes creeping and soon will be upon me, / And I fear I shall not leave behind an enduring name.”^[36] Through tempering and unswerving pursuit, inward beauty are bespoken outwardly, the so-called “The flower and the fragrance come from within my breast”, “Suffusing my frame within and wafting outside me”, “Though I dwell unseen and obscure, my fame can yet be bright.” (Jiu Zhang: Si Mei Ren),^[37] Qu Yuan pursues the harmonious beauty of unity between content and form, and resists strongly the beauty of disunity and disharmony between content and form, morality and appearance. As he remarks: “With proud disdain she guarded her beauty, / Passing each day in idle, wanton pleasures. Though fair she may be, she lacks all seemliness. / Come! I’ll have none of her; let us search elsewhere!”^[38] Although the Goddess of Luo River is very beautiful, she is of moral degeneration, which is not what he is seeking. This aesthetic ideal is obviously very different from the aesthetic pursuit of Western Romanticism. Unlike Qu Yuan, Western Romanticists seek after an inconsistent and disharmonious beauty between content and form, which is rejected by Qu Yuan. In “Preface to Oliver Cromwell,” which is known to be the manifesto of Romanticism, Hugo declares that modern poetry “will realize that everything in creation is not humanly beautiful, that the ugly exists beside the beautiful, the unshapely beside the graceful, the grotesque on the reverse of the sublime, evil with good, darkness with light.”^[39] Here, Hugo contrasts sublimity and elegance, good and evil, and thus puts forward the famous principle of contrast. His Notre-Dame de Paris is a practice of this principle. He deliberately goes after formal ugliness and even expresses ugliness with beauty, such as Quasimodo, who is physically ugly but in spirit the most beautiful creature. This is quite distinct from the “likened kind birds and fragrant plants to loyalty, / evil fowl and malodorous objects to crafty sycophant” in Qu Yuan’ s works.

In terms of subjectivity, Romanticism pursues the liberation of human personality, which is the individual self of human beings. However, allegiance and patriotism are pervasive in Qu Yuan’s works. Although he was repetitively afflicted with injustices, he had never been regretful and always cared about the rise and fall of the Chu Kingdom and the wellbeing of the people. He always linked his personal destiny with that of his country’s. When he was politically frustrated, he had the thought of leaving the state against his will, but when he was parting on horseback and looking back at his beloved homeland, he was in deep, mournful mood. “Borrowing the time to make a holiday. / But when I had ascended the splendour of the heavens, / I suddenly caught a glimpse below of my old home. / My groom’s heart was heavy and the horses for longing / Arched their heads back and refused to go on.”^[40] When he learned of the destruction of his country, he could not help but compose a poem Ai Ying to express his profound laments and sorrows: “But my soul within me longed to be returning. / Ah! when for one moment of the day have I not longed to go back? / I turned my back on Xia-pu, and my thoughts went speeding westwards, / And I grieved that the Old City grew daily farther from me”; “To think that its palace walls should be mounds of rubble, / And its two East Gates a wilderness of weeds! / It is now a long time since my heart has known happiness; / Grief comes following sorrow and sorrow following grief.”^[41] Finally, he was determined to return to his country even if at the expense of losing his life, “The birds fly home to their old haunts where they came from; / And the fox when he dies turns his head towards his earth.”^[42] As Sima Qian 司馬遷 (206–8 BCE) narrated in “Biographies of Qu Yuan and Master Jia”, “Though exiled, he still cared for the state of Chu, missed King Huai of Chu, and never forgot to return to the imperial court, hoping that the king of the state would come to his senses all of a sudden and that his bad habits would be completely changed. His desire to keep the king in mind, to revitalize the country, and to change the poor and weak situation of Chu was expressed many times in one poem.”^[43] This sentiment is undoubtedly sincere and awe-inspiring, but it has nothing to do with Romantic subjectivity, or even goes against the grain with its fundamental intention. Romantic subjectivity manifests individual consciousness, while there is a collective and altruistic touch in Qu Yuan’s patriotic loyalty. His subjectivity is dissolved in the community, just as Marx proposed: “The further back we go into history, the more the individual and, therefore, the producing individual seems to depend on and constitute a part of a larger whole.”^[44] All of this shows that the statement “Qu Yuan is a Romanticist” is a pseudo-proposition. This proposition imposes some characteristics on Qu Yuan’s works, which actually does not quite hold water and turns out to be an “overinterpretation” and thus an invalid elucidation.

It is contestable at the outset that Qu Yuan should be deemed as a Romanticist, but this does not necessarily prevent us from interpreting Qu Yuan from a Romantic perspective. In this case, we should probably switch the proposition from “Qu Yuan is a Romanticist” to “Qu Yuan and Romanticism.” The argument above that “Qu Yuan is not Romantic” is a comparative study of Qu Yuan and his works from the perspective of Western Romanticism, which is also a comparative study of “Qu Yuan and Romanticism” per se.

According to the principles of comparative poetics, interpretation involves different levels, which at least includes influence research, parallel research, and cross-cultural research. Influence research is not suitable for this topic, because there is no evidence showing that Qu Yuan has an intrinsic connection with Western Romanticism. However, Qu Yuan’s works can be interpreted from the perspectives of parallel research and inter-cultural research. Through comparison, the similarities and differences can be highlighted between Qu Yuan’s works and Western Romantic literature, and mutual dialogue and understanding can be achieved in diverse cultural contexts. In this light, this comparative research is also an interpretation of Qu Yuan’s works. Moreover, this comparative research avoids the suspicion of applying Western theories to Chinese texts mechanically, which is more conducive to preserving the original features of Chinese tradition. Therefore, it is a more effective interpretation.

Last but not least, through this approach, we can also achieve mutual interpretation of Western and Chinese literature, by which we can interpret Qu Yuan’s works via Western Romanticism, and also interpret Western Romantic literature by means of Qu Yuan’s poems so as to make possible “intertextual interpretation.” In addition, such research can obviously broaden our scholastic horizons, equip us with “world academic” perspective, and make Chinese tradition walk out of history and step into the modern world, thus inheriting and further carrying forward Chinese traditions.