ELICITING ETYMO-SINOGRAPHY: ERNEST FENOLLOSA’S TREATISE THE CHINESE WRITTEN CHARACTER AS A MEDIUM FOR POETRY
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The article puts forward a thesis that has never been discussed before, articulating Ernest Fenollosa as a pioneer in the field of etymological analysis of sinographs. Sinograph is a recently coined synonym for Chinese characters.
After many years of neglect, the time has come to rehabilitate his authority in the field of discovering the “aesthetic synthesis” in sinogram as a medium for poetry. Fenollosa’s lingvo-aesthetic treatise is often studied not as an independent and important work in the field of comparative poetics, but as reference material for understanding the origins of Imagism and Vortiсism in Western poetry. Hence, there is the danger of Americanization and – even more – of “Poundization” of his work. We have to regret that the legacy of this orientalist, who stood at the origin of the comparative historical study of languages, literatures, and cultures, remains not only underestimated but also continues to provoke unwarranted criticism of sinologists-linguists. It is important to emphasize that linguistic sinology at that time was only in its swaddling bands, and Fenollosa’s fascination with Far Eastern culture could find only a broad lingvo-aesthetic rather than strictly scientific embodiment.
Debunking the “Fenollosian myth” about the pictorial nature of Chinese calligraphy, researchers ignore the quintessential idea of his treatise – the understanding of the linguistic and aesthetic nature of the Chinese written language as the substance of poetry itself. Poetry, in Fenollosa’s view, is inseparable from language. Not surprisingly, he chooses the word “medium” to denote this “substance” and the embodiment of poetic ideas in sinographs.
Moreover, his approach to the study of Far Eastern culture, art, and literature embraced not only the verbal meaning proper, but was focused on the etymological analysis of the fluid and ill-defined semantic boundaries of sinographs. Recently, such a study of sinography was designated by cover-tern as “etymosinology”. This term points to the embodiment of cultural roots in sinograms (Chinese characters) and it corresponds to Merleau-Ponty’s resonant theory – the phenomenology of embodiment.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Chinese language, embodiment, Ernest Fenollosa, etymosinology, Poetry, sinogram
Cai Zong-qi (2002), Configurations of Comparative Poetics. Three Perspectives on Western and Chinese Literary Criticism, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824861964
Eliot T. S. (1928), “Introduction”, in Ezra Pound and Eliot T. S., Selected Poems, Faber & Gwyer, London.
Emerson R. W. (1965), Selected Writings, Gilman William H. (ed.), New American Library, New York.
Fenollosa E. and Pound E. (2008), The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry, in The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry: A Critical Edition, Saussy H., Stalling J. and Klein L. (eds), Fordam University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13wzvkk
Handel Zev J. (2019), Sinography: The Borrowing and Adaptation of the Chinese Script, Brill, Leiden and Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004352223
Jung H. Y. (2005), “Vico and Etymosinology Revisited”, Rivista di Studi Italiani, Vol. 23, pp. 119–146.
Liu James J. Y. (1962), The Art of Chinese Poetry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Malyavin V. V. (1982), “Kitayskiye improvizatsii Paunda”, in Vostok – Zapad. Issledovaniya. Perevody. Publikatsii, Issue 1, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 246–277. (In Russian).
Merleau-Ponty M. (2012), The Phenomenology of Perception, Transl. by Landes D. A., Routledge, London and New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720714
Rogers Lawrence (1979), “Rags and Tatters: The Uzuragoromo of Yokoi Yayū”, Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 279–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/2384200
Tateishi Kahori (2008), Ideograms in Modern Perspective: The Reconfiguration of Textual Places in Anglo-American and Japanese Modernisms, A Dissertation in Comparative Literature, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Welsh A. (1978), Roots of Lyric: Primitive Poetry and Modern Poetics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
REFERENCES
Cai Zong-qi (2002), Configurations of Comparative Poetics. Three Perspectives on Western and Chinese Literary Criticism, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824861964
Eliot T. S. (1928), “Introduction”, in Ezra Pound and Eliot T. S., Selected Poems, Faber & Gwyer, London.
Emerson R. W. (1965), Selected Writings, Gilman William H. (ed.), New American Library, New York.
Fenollosa E. and Pound E. (2008), The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry, in The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry: A Critical Edition, Saussy H., Stalling J. and Klein L. (eds), Fordam University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13wzvkk
Handel Zev J. (2019), Sinography: The Borrowing and Adaptation of the Chinese Script, Brill, Leiden and Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004352223
Jung H. Y. (2005), “Vico and Etymosinology Revisited”, Rivista di Studi Italiani, Vol. 23, pp. 119–146.
Liu James J. Y. (1962), The Art of Chinese Poetry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Malyavin V. V. (1982), “Kitayskiye improvizatsii Paunda”, in Vostok – Zapad. Issledovaniya. Perevody. Publikatsii, Issue 1, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 246–277. (In Russian).
Merleau-Ponty M. (2012), The Phenomenology of Perception, Transl. by Landes D. A., Routledge, London and New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720714
Rogers Lawrence (1979), “Rags and Tatters: The Uzuragoromo of Yokoi Yayū”, Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 279–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/2384200
Tateishi Kahori (2008), Ideograms in Modern Perspective: The Reconfiguration of Textual Places in Anglo-American and Japanese Modernisms, A Dissertation in Comparative Literature, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Welsh A. (1978), Roots of Lyric: Primitive Poetry and Modern Poetics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.