Jonathan D. Spence (simplified Chinese: 史景迁; traditional Chinese: 史景遷; pinyin: Shǐ Jǐngqiān, August 11, 1936– ) is a British-born historian and public intellectual specializing in Chinese history. (wikipedia.org)

Introduction:

JONATHAN D. Spence, Sterling Professor of History at Yale University and President of the American Historical Association (AHA), visited the Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia State University in April, 2004.

During his visit, I had the opportunity to ask for his views (as the Chinese would say, qingjiao) on various issues related to Chinese history and historiography. We had mutually agreed that this was not to be a formal interview but rather a series of “chats.” Our conversation, however, did touch upon a wide array of topics: history and literature, narrative and theory, social history and daily life, tradition and modernity, the policy implications of historical writing and its impact on popular knowledge, Chinese historians in the U.S., the future of China, and so on.

Although most of the questions asked reflected my own interests, Professor Spence’s insights on the subjects discussed no doubt will be of benefit to a broad spectrum of China scholars and historians.

In what is a rare achievement for a historian, Jonathan Spence has attained an eminent status in academia while enjoying great popularity among the educated general public. This is particularly remarkable considering that Chinese history is, to be blunt, marginal in American historiography. Spence’s dual feat of historiography is self-evident in the fact that his books have occupied a prominent place in the catalog of Barns & Noble for decades and that, in 2004, he has been elected as the AHA president, the first Yale professor to serve in that post in more than thirty years and one of only three China historians ever to have been accorded that honor (the other two being John K. Fairbank and Frederic Wakeman, Jr.). His remarks on various issues recorded here, if I may summarize, constitute a record of a historian’s wisdom on the art of history.

Since Professor Spence’s Chinese name, Shi Jingqian (史景迁), might be translated — or rather interpreted — as “A historian who admires Sima Qian,” our conversation starts with the great Chinese historian, Sima Qian (司马迁), and the issue of historical writing as a literary tradition.

Download The Art of History: A Conversation with Jonathan Spence

PDF format, 179KB, 22Pages.

HANCHAO LU
THE CHINESE HISTORICAL REVIEW, VOL. 11, NO. 2 (FALL 2004): 133−154

Lu: China has a literati tradition that does not clearly distinguish literature from history. Sima Qian’s Shiji, for example, is a history as much as a work of literature. China’s rich literary notes and sketches (biji xiaoshuo), for another example, are valuable historical materials. It seems to me that most of your work can also be seen as both historical and literary. The Death of Woman Wang and God’s Chinese Son, for instance, are as riveting as a detective novel and a tragic epic. They are nevertheless most solidly crafted history. I see this style without parallel in the field of Chinese history today, but in some ways it can be related to the Sima Qian tradition of “wen shi bu fenjia” (no divisions between literature and history). Could you please comment on that?

Spence: My feeling about this is that saying that history and literature come together is immensely different from saying history and fiction come together. So, by using the word “literature,” whether you call it wen or wenxue and in that sense, literature and history, you are using the word “literature” as something like a quality, judgment, or category of a certain kind of approach to words. When you say a word like “fiction,” you are talking about a methodology, which needs have no relationship to truth, except for some kind of broader storytelling truth.

Lu: It seems to me that literature in the sense we are using the term could also include fiction.

Spence: Well, xiaoshuo (novel) is usually rather different from wenxue (literature), isn’t it? I would say wenxue is linked more to a philosophical tradition. The word “literature” is also linked to an artistic tradition, and in that case to say that I link literature and history doesn’t put me necessarily in the same tradition as the scholars as great as Sima Qian — I mean, how could I have any possibility of that level? But it does means that I care passionately about the writing style of history. So the only way I would accept this kind of definition is if you say that among historians it seems that I try to write to a more conscious effect, that I try to structure a book so that the words used at one level will be accurate, but at another level they will convey emotion and they will give a richer background to a topic.

It’s like using art: you’re trying to approximate art, in order to make a deeper impact. I think that is self-conscious with me because I love these literary figures from the Western tradition.

Lu: Shiji also created a literary tradition. It has been the source of literary quotations and allusions. It has become part of the culture.

Spence: Right. So much input puts a huge amount of pressure on the modern reader, particularly the Western reader, because we don’t know enough history. People like me do not know enough history. So reading Sima Qian I always need lots of notes to explain it. But a Chinese scholar from a classical tradition could read Sima Qian entirely for fun.

Lu: Yes. Lots of proverbs and idioms originally came from Shiji.

Spence: Well, the stories are so rich. But the idea of verisimilitude doesn’t worry Sima Qian too much. He was trying to make a moral point. And so he was interested in using his language in order to make an effect as well. ...

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment