Gao Fengfeng (Zhang Jingyi)
Gao Fengfeng, Professor and Head of the Department of English at the School of Foreign Chinese, Peking University, is mainly engaged in the research of Western classical literature and the history of the reception of the Bible. He is the author of "Classical Echoes" (2012), "Classical Echoes II" (2016), and translated western philological works "Examination of the Origin of the Booklet" (2015). Recently, Peking University Press published Gao Feng's new work, History and Politics in Virgil's Epic.
The ancient Roman poet Virgil's epic poem Aeneas tells the story of the Trojan prince Aeneas who led the remnants of his people to drift at sea for many years, and finally arrived in Italy, laying the foundation for the future Roman Empire. History and Politics in Virgil's Epics synthesizes the research results of Western classical scholars, analyzes and criticizes some of the existing explanatory tendencies of the Aeneid, and on this basis, deeply analyzes the historical and political problems in epics. Focusing on the interpretation methods of the Aeneid texts, the way Roman monarchs and scribes get along, the Greek origins of Latin literature, the translation of Western classics, and the significance of Chinese intervention in Western classics, the Shanghai Review of Books interviewed Gao Feng.
History and Politics in Virgil's Epics, by Gao Feng, Peking University Press, October 2021, 382 pp. 75.00 yuan
History and Politics in Virgil's Epic begins by saying that Virgil's Latin proverbs exist on the U.S. National Seal and U.S. dollar notes. The German thinker Haeckel said that Virgil was the "father of the West." What do you think Virgil means to Western culture? What was your origin in writing this book?
Gao Feng: Virgil poetry belongs to the fundamental classics of the West. As long as there are people who teach Latin and ancient Roman literature, then they will certainly teach Virgil's poetry. During the Middle Ages, Greek knowledge was basically lost in Europe, but Latin has always been responsible for cultural transmission, and Roman poets represented by Virgil and Ovid have always occupied the center of the classroom. If we discuss the continuity of the dissemination of classical texts, we can say that from Virgil's death in 19 BC to the present day of the twenty-first century, his poetry has been continuously taught by teachers in Western classrooms, memorized and copied by students. His Pastoral, Agricultural Poems, and Aeneas form the core of an uninterrupted continuum of cultural inheritance. If we take a rough estimate of the number of readers throughout the ages, then the total number of readers of Virgil's poetry among the intellectual class from antiquity to the nineteenth century should be second only to those who have read the Bible. In terms of its continuing influence in education and literature, Virgil may have surpassed Homer's epics, for his poetry was read and taught in the West without interruption. We do not need to discuss Virgil's influence on early Christian writers, Dante and others, but this continuous inheritance deserves our attention. To put it bluntly, for two thousand years, Western writers and thinkers, as long as they have seriously read books and schools, must have read Virgil.
The back of the Seal of the United States: the first two words are annuit coeptiis, taken from the 625th line of Virgil's epic poem Aeneas, volume IX, which means "he supported the cause that has been opened"; the three words below are novus ordo seclorum, from the fifth line of virgil's Pastoral, which means "a new age".
Beginning in 1935, both sides of the U.S. National Seal were printed on the back of a one-dollar note.
I wrote this book in relation to my own PhD thesis. In the mid-1990s, I started my PhD at Berkeley. When I was a student at Peking University, I was very interested in the various literary theories that became popular since the 1970s, and the academic idol rankings at that time were about the top of the list of (then) influential figures like Roland Barthes. After going abroad, I want to learn something that I can't learn at home, especially I want to study topics that can touch the core of the Western literary and historical tradition. After some fumbling, it was decided to study several early Christian Latin biblical epics of the fourth to fifth centuries. An important issue I discussed in my doctoral dissertation was the citation, borrowing, appropriation, and appropriation of Virgil by these Christian poets. Later, after returning to Peking University to teach, I gradually felt that Virgil's poetry itself was worthy of in-depth study, and I had made a lot of preparations. The domestic academic community has always been less interested in Virgil, which makes me feel very quiet. I have found that many people are willing to talk about some mysterious political and philosophical issues, as if they understand something that is not understood, and they are not afraid of repetition or fragmentation. I think it's a pity because a lot of talent is wasted. I myself am willing to study and study topics that are more closely related to history and literature, and I am willing to write articles that I can understand myself and that others can understand.
A bibliography of His 2002 phD thesis (Vergil and Biblical Exegesis in Early Christian Latin Epic) submitted to the University of California, Berkeley
Your book can be seen as a work of debate with the "Harvard" reading of the Aeneid. The introduction, first chapter, and conclusion of the book, the modern pessimistic interpretation of the "Harvard school", and its new critical approach to heavy words, light history, and authorial intent, present systematic criticism, while the fourth and fifth chapters of the analysis of the image of Aeneas can be regarded to some extent as a demonstration and unfolding of your rebuttal. Why, in your opinion, is the reading of "Harvard" both "depoliticized" and "highly politicized"? Is your own attitude to take an "intermediate" approach in the "Augustus" and "Harvard" interpretations, or between tradition and modernity, Europe and the United States?
Gao Fengfeng: The criticism of the "Harvard School" does run through this book. When this school emerged in the 1960s, it was a useful reminder and complement to traditional interpretations. Previous mainstream Western interpretations have one-sidedly argued that Virgil praised the Roman ancestors in his epics, indirectly praising Augustus. The early scholars of the "Harvard School" paid more attention to the sad, gloomy, and miserable passages in the epic, allowing us to see the less bright side of the epic. However, later scholars became more dogmatic, portraying Virgil as a "duplicitous" poet, deliberately planting various nails in the poems of the main theme, secretly criticizing and opposing Augustus. This interpretation increasingly feels inconsistent with historical truth. When I say "Harvard" the interpretation is "depoliticized," I mainly mean that they subvert the traditional "Augustan" interpretation; when I say "highly politicized," I mean that they deliberately portrayEd Virgil as an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-Augustian poet. That is, they eliminate the orthodox political interpretation of history and introduce a political interpretation that is more in line with a certain modern spirit.
The Founding Work of the Harvards, Adam Parry's 1963 The Two Voices of Virgil's Aeneid
Summarizing the history of Virgil research, many scholars will use the words "European", "optimism", and "Augustus" to refer to interpretations that are closer to tradition, and "American" and "pessimism" to refer to "Harvard". Mature scholars never understand Virgil in terms of simple opposites of "pessimism"/"optimism", "Harvard"/"Augustus", but on the other hand, even in recent years, academic papers showing all the weaknesses of the "Harvard school" can still be read, which shows that reflection on this school is still insufficient. A more balanced and in-depth interpretation must be to find a suitable point between the two extremes, because for an epic of the size of the Aeneids (nearly ten thousand lines), and the work of a brilliant ancient who spent ten years painstakingly creating, how can it be reduced to a single theory? Therefore, the "middle way" is an inevitable choice, but the absolute midpoint between the two poles does not make sense. Each scholar needs to find the right point according to his own research, which may be left or right, but certainly not impartial. The key is to be able to incorporate more details of the epic into its own explanatory framework.
The work of Michael C. J. Putnam, the most viable and controversial scholar of the "Harvard School."
Throughout the book, your interpretation of the Aeneid chronicle seems to have a set of evaluation mechanisms, corresponding to two sets of adjectives: bad interpretation, "too deeply chiseled", "paranoid", "dogmatic", "coercive", "mechanical", "closed", "arbitrary", "simplified", "modern", "fashionable", "exalted", "pretending to be profound", "overcorrected"; good interpretation, "reasonable", "accessible", "comprehensive", and even your book falls at the end of the two words "appropriate and reasonable". You value the reading experience, reading horizons, and reading expectations of the "first" Roman readers, and this perspective is used in Chapter 6, which is used in Chapter 6, which analyzes the relationship between Queen Dido and Carthage and Cleopatra. Do you think accepting aesthetics is a good interpretation? Can you tell us more about your views on the relationship between history and literature?
Gao Fengfeng: Thank you for reading so carefully, this is indeed a question that I care about. Not only in Virgil research, but in other areas of interest to me, whenever it comes to textual interpretation, I have found similar problems. The deepest experience is that the interpretation of the text lacks certain norms and rules. We are more familiar with some modern oral clichés, such as "interpretation is open", "the key is to be able to justify itself", "good interpretation must be able to combine reality" and so on. I hope to have the opportunity to refute these observations in the future, including the non-existent pseudo-aphorism "There are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand readers." Specific to my book, I can give an example. The more dogmatic scholars of the "Harvard School" usually make a big fuss about the keywords that Virgil repeatedly uses in different volumes and paragraphs. If a rich adjective was used in book IV to describe Queen Dido, and book XII, six thousand lines later, was used to describe the protagonist Aeneas, then someone would think that Virgil was trying to imply some similarity between the two, at least to make some comparisons. Such an approach, if not fully justified, if used without restriction, seems to me to be a very arbitrary and willful approach. The premise of this approach is that the repetition of important words and phrases cannot have other reasons, must be deliberately arranged by the author, and the purpose can only be to make the reader aware of the possibility of an analogy between the two scenarios before and after.
Dido Meets Aeneas, painted by the English painter Nathanieel Dance-Holland, exhibited in 1766.
What I mean by "appropriate and reasonable" is the opposite of "blunt" and "far-fetched." My idea, if a text has a profound meaning, but we don't see it, this is of course a simplification and misreading of the text, and it is disrespectful to the text, because we are not capable enough to discern the deep meaning contained in it. But conversely, if the setting of a text is likely to be for some very practical consideration, and there is not necessarily a particularly esoteric reason, and we are eager to show off our own "profundity", so we are not willing to adopt a more plain approach to research, we will impose the mysterious and even mysterious theories on the original relatively simple texts. This is one of the phenomena I have observed in various text interpretations. One might think that "losing one's footing" is a felony when interpreting a text, and that "chiseling too deeply" may be an oversight of a master. Therefore, in some people's judgment system, "losing to shallowness" is the most faceless thing, as if there are no eyes and no pearls, and there is no sight. I think that "chiseling too deeply" is the same felony, because you see things that may not exist at all, so it is better not to see anything for the time being. For now, I think that "chiseling too deeply" is more harmful than "losing it to shallowness". "Losing to shallow" is a mistake that beginners will make, not to be ashamed, you can gradually improve your level and make your vision sharper. And if "chiseling too deeply" becomes a habit, It will be Said by Ying Shuyan, and even in order to flaunt his intelligence, he will assign false opinions to the text.
I think that the first readers of a classic text, or the one who is closest in time to the formation of the text, is an important factor in understanding the text. These early readers, who are more familiar with the classical and modern texts in the text, can at least help us to circle the general scope of the text's interpretation, if not the original intention of the text. Some scholars will think that there is no absolute advantage or disadvantage between the past generations of readers, and the early readers may not necessarily better understand the author, these opinions may be theoretically possible, but when they are operated, they will find that the reader is not equal in the face of time. I do not want to say that the ancient reader must have better understood Virgil, but I would like to say that some of the advantages of the ancient reader are not easily dismissed by several modern theories.
Aeneas and Turnus, by Luca Giordano (1634-1705).
I have a lot to say about history and literature. Let's start with a few brief remarks. To interpret complex texts (not limited to literature), we are accustomed to talking about "historical context" first. I don't like the name because "background" means it doesn't matter. The background music is to set off the atmosphere, the atmosphere is created, the protagonist jumps out, and the music can be forgotten. When we talk about historical background, we usually go through a formality and then we do what to do. But history is by no means the "background" of a complex text, not that the meaning of the text jumps out of the background under the background. On the contrary, I feel that the text has no meaning independent of history, and that the text is part of history. If history is a mosaic, then the text is a piece of marble or a piece of glass embedded in it, not a special object protruding from the picture.
Virgil's relationship with Augustus is a topic you will focus on. By combing through the multifaceted historical sources, you conclude that Virgil was neither a court poet nor a dissident poet, and that his attitude toward the monarch was complex, a game or disagreement under the affirmation of the whole. Can you compare the way Roman aristocrats and scribes got along with the ancient Chinese adopters?
Gao Fengfeng: I wrote this book for a long time. This topic is extremely important, but unfortunately I don't have time to delve into it further. Because this requires a comparison of the relationship between other poets and monarchs in Augustus's time, and each person's situation is slightly different. If I could have studied Horace, Propertius, or Ovid more, I would have understood Virgil's situation better. In February 2021, I had an online discussion with a few friends because I asked about the issue of artists receiving funding from dignitaries, dignitaries, and businessmen, which is called patronage. At that time, Wang Ding, Liu Zheng (Jonathan), Zheng Guodong, Hu Wenhui, Ai Junchuan and several other friends answered some of my questions, and I later wrote down some of the main points of discussion. For example, it has been said that Chinese adopters and late doormen's staff are mostly a master-servant relationship, not unconditional sponsorship. And I understand the relationship between Augustus and Virgil, although it is also a relationship of top to bottom, strong and weak, but there is a layer of close friendship. The stronger side expresses goodwill first, and of course secretly hopes for a certain return. There are gifts, but they are not equal to paying wages, not taking money to do things. Some of the Roman poets were called in, but they refused to make a gesture of "surrender" too obviously, and were only willing to make partial compromises within the scope of self-esteem and etiquette. The staff and guests have the meaning of staff officers, and the staff seems to be formal subordinates, and the curtain guests may have a more polite meaning. The lord will not force him to do things, everything is based on self-consciousness (industry rules) and morality.
Virgil with two muses, a mosaic of Roman North Africa (now Tunisia) in the third century AD, is said to be the earliest surviving image of Virgil.
Speaking of Virgil and Augustus, I think Virgil is definitely not a role like a guest, a pilgrim, or a master. He didn't follow Augustus around, but he had frequent intimate encounters, such as my book, when I say he twice recited his poems in front of Augustus and his family. I feel that the monarch and the poet, the benefactor and the patron, both follow some of the rules that everyone tacitly accepts, and do their work together, without coercion, mostly based on friendship. The lord is very polite, and the poet is grateful, but he refuses to do cheap propaganda, but is quite sincere, but also wants to convey the political message that he also agrees with in a dignified and unassuming manner. This is very different from the ancient Chinese tradition of raising priests. Hu Wenhui and Liu Zheng also gave me a lot of bibliographies, but I was too busy finishing the manuscript to concentrate on reading before handing it in. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank once again a few of the friends mentioned above.
At the end of Book VI of the Aeneidian recitation of Augustus by Virgil, Augustus' sister Octavia faints. Jean-Baptiste Wicar (1762–1834) painted.
The Aeneid, the pinnacle of Roman culture, was influenced by Greek culture in both form and content. You say that it is a parody of Homer's epic, bound by the latter and related annotated traditions, and the selection of the second figure of the Trojan army in the Iliad as the initiator of the founding myth also has the consideration of the Roman nation's cultural accession. But on the other hand, this is a true Roman epic. How important are Greek sources to the Aeneids?
Gao Feng: The Aeneid is clearly a Roman epic created by reference to and imitation of Homer's epic. A cursory look at some basic research readings reveals that the first six volumes of the epic are modeled after the Odyssey, which chronicles Aeneas's encounters on the run. Book III is especially like a travelogue, writing about the Trojans drifting from one place to another. The last six volumes of the epic depict Aeneas' conquests with the locals after his arrival in Italy, apparently a compressed version of the Iliad. Therefore, Virgil's incorporation of the themes of the two Homeric epics (war and wandering) into one work is a continuation and condensation of Homer. Virgil's intention was to continue the homeric tradition and create a work in the Roman world that could compete with Homer's epic. Because Homer's epic is the basis and model of Virgil's creation, the more you know about Homer's epic, the more you will know about Virgil's intentions.
In the twentieth century, some scholars marked out the places where Virgil imitated and borrowed Homer's epic poems, and we can see Homer's influence on Virgil, from the structure of the chapter to the small words and sentences, which can be said to be all-round penetration. After the eighteenth century, Virgil's place in European literature began to decline, because more people admired Homer's epics as original (and because people at that time did not understand the influence of ancient Near Eastern traditions on Homeric epics), folk, fierce and wild poetry, as if closer to the origin of literature. Virgil's poems, on the other hand, were considered derivative, imitative, elegant (non-folk), contrived (non-spontaneous), and thus degraded. This, of course, is the result of a momentary literary climate that has led to different evaluations of classic works. According to such a romantic, nationalist literary view, Virgil's imitation of Homer seems to have become his original sin. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, there was a new understanding of literary imitation, and the imitation and revision of literary models and mother texts were themselves regarded as a creative activity, and creative rewriting and subversive rewriting constituted the main means of wrestling writers with literary traditions. Thus, Virgil's imitation was not a copy, but a literary way of expressing his Roman position. Instead of starting a new story and re-establishing a whole set of plot patterns and poetic vocabulary, he used the example of Greek literature to erect a literary monument in Latin that was very different from Homer's epic. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to his Homer prototype from time to time in order to fully understand Virgil's creation.
Raphael paints Homer and Virgil in Mount Parnasus (1509-1511).
Everyone's familiarity with Homer is different, so it affects Virgil's interpretation. Let me give you an example. As soon as Aeneas appeared in Volume 1, he sighed for fear of being buried in the storm at sea. Most scholars can see that this is a parody of Odysseus' official appearance in the sixth book of the Odyssey. However, a few scholars believe that there is a more obscure dictionary, because Achilles said something similarly frustrating in the plight of the twenty-first book of the Iliad. Therefore, the appearance of Aeneas is equivalent to pinching the two characters of Odysseus and Achilles. Scholars who see only the archetype of Odysseus tend to see the frustrated, frustrated side of Aeneas and ignore his martial qualities. So, strictly speaking, the depth of understanding of Virgil depends on familiarity with Homer's epics.
As far as the chapter layout of "History and Politics in Virgil's Epic" is concerned, it seems that there is an arrangement from man to god, and after discussing Aeneas, the sixth chapter points out that the love of Queen Dido was interfered with by the gods, and the final seventh chapter directly analyzes the Roman god Jupiter. Virgil's god differed from Homer's god in part because of the influence of the philosophical and rational spirit. You also mention in the book that Virgil, who "contains everything", has the shadow of the Epicureans. Can you talk about the theology and philosophy of the Aeneid?
Gao Fengfeng: The appearance of the gods, the intervention and arrangement of the gods in the human world, are the standard of ancient Western epics. Whether it is the plot design, or the religious view and the concept of destiny contained in the poems, it is inseparable from the discussion of the gods. But scholars understand the role and role of the Roman gods in the epics differently. If they are purely regarded as literary characters, as the iconic, stylized settings of the epic tradition, then these gods are merely literary means and rhetorical methods controlled and used by poets, and have no substantive significance. In the second half of the twentieth century, some Western scholars believed that Virgil did not really believe in the Roman gods of these traditions, but only used them as literary props to satisfy the most basic conditions of traditional epics (epics do not write gods, just as there is no love in Hollywood blockbusters). Other scholars argue that these deities are both literary characters and expressions of Virgil's understanding of traditional religions, especially his understanding of the roman fortunes of traditional gods.
The theology and philosophy expressed in the Aeneids are complex. Because Virgil does not stand up and express his position directly, but puts various opinions in the voice of the epic voice, or in the mouth of the characters. Therefore, the explicit philosophical or theological assertions that have appeared in the poem may only express the thoughts and emotions of a certain character, and may be suitable for the development of a certain plot. These passages with distinct philosophical and theological views, are Virgil's words of character to meander and express his beliefs? Or are different points of view assigned to different characters in order to suit the needs of the plot development? It is not very reliable to try to guess and restore Virgil's personal thoughts solely on the basis of the philosophical and theological lines of poetry in the epic. For example, Queen Dido often expressed opinions with Epicurean tendencies. In Book VI, when the ghost of Aeneas's father recounts the origin of the universe to his son, he basically follows the teachings of Stoic philosophy.
Illustrations on the manuscript of the poetry of Late Virgil in Late Antiquity, Feast scenes of Dido and Aeneas, late fifth century.
Some scholars who emphasize that the protagonist bears the burden of humiliation, emphasize that the predetermined fate is even higher than the gods, they will think that the tone of the epic is Stoic philosophy. Instead, when other scholars emphasized the cruelty and ruthlessness of the gods and their indifference to the human world, they would have argued that Virgil himself was firmly committed to Epicurean thought. We know very little about Virgil's personal information, but it is confirmed that when he was young, he did indeed follow the giants of the Epicureans at that time. Nor can we simply assume that the poet's late epics must have fully demonstrated the philosophical and religious ideas that were deeply influenced by his youth. I myself feel that if we do not understand Virgil as a staunch Epicurean, if we believe that he still has some respect for the traditional Roman gods that Augustus strongly admired, then his understanding of the gods and destiny may be closer to Stoic philosophy. Christian writers later held Virgil in high esteem, perhaps to show that they did not consider him a covert atheist. I think this is the difficulty of talking about philosophical or religious ideas in classical literary texts, because the poet is not speaking directly, but through characters and stories. We cannot reduce the "ideological" passages of the characters to the philosophical manifestos of the author.
Before the advent of History and Politics in Virgil's Epics, you also translated Campo's Introduction to Virgil's Aeneas, published half a century ago. Comparing the two books, the similarity is that both "pay special attention to the relationship between Virgil's epics and Roman politics and history", the obvious difference is that camp has two chapters dedicated to the layout structure and poetic language of the Aeneid. Can you talk about the style of this epic and Virgil's Latin?
Introduction to Virgil's Aeneas, by W. A. Kemp, translated by Gao Feng, Peking University Press, March 2020, 216 pp. 45.00
Gao Feng: The reason why I like Kemp's little book is because it is solid, old-school, has a lot of hard knowledge, and pays special attention to history. And it was written before the "Harvard School" became popular. Later British scholars highly regarded the book. Kemp also wrote small books about Homer's epics, which are especially suitable for students. When it comes to Virgil's epic style, I am very hesitant, because it is difficult to explain clearly without knowledge of Latin. If I use some of the words that are used in traditional poetry, I think the meaning is vague and the meaning is not great. Virgil's style is "majestic" and "elegant"? These words don't convey anything other than pleasing to the ear and the eye. Virgil's Latin verses are often very contrived and sculpted, which is related to the linguistic characteristics of Latin, such as flexible word order, so that sometimes a fully meaningful unit needs to skip several lines to find a verb. In Campo's little book, there are many Examples of Latin, and I am the most painful when I translate. In addition, I learned Latin myself very late, and I only started to learn it after I went abroad. When I was an undergraduate or a master's student at Peking University, I didn't find anyone teaching Latin (even if someone did, I probably wouldn't have thought of learning it at that time). Therefore, I read Latin poetry very late, and the meaning of the verses can be read through, but I have no experience in the aspects of grammar, rhyme, and rhythm. Now students at Peking University and other schools have the opportunity to learn classical languages as undergraduates, so scholars who are interested in poetry research may better appreciate the characteristics of "poeticity".
Let me talk about a small matter, Quan Chong's answer to this question. When I first started reading the original virgil epic, I was basically looking up the dictionary all the time. Readers who have studied classical languages will understand what I mean. In the beginning, some lines of poetry even look up a dictionary for every word, and then find out the mutually modified ingredients like a collage, and then guess what a semantically coherent unit says. In this way, it can only be a turtle speed reading. I can't read a few lines in an hour. We use R. R. for classes. A two-volume concise annotated version of the Aeneid, edited by D. Williams, with brief notes. I remember that in the middle of the semester, I probably mastered more words, and Virgil reused more vocabulary and sentence patterns. Entering Book VI, Aeneas prepares to enter the underworld and pay homage to his father's ghost. At this time, the narrator of the epic begins with the 264th line and suddenly shouts, "The gods who rule over the undead!" Dumb ghosts! A sea of fire in chaos and the underworld! The silent earth in the dark night of the vast desert! ......”（Di, quibus imperium est animarum, umbraeque silentes / et Chaos et Phlegethon, loca nocte tacentia late ... Reading the next four lines of the second hundred and sixty-fourth line, my heart was moving, and I suddenly felt that I was reading moving poetry, not doing scrabble and looking up dictionaries. Of course, this does not mean that I will be able to read Virgil's poetry fluently from now on, but the important thing is that I have finally experienced the thrill of crossing from grammar practice to poetry reading. It was the first time I found an epic sense in the language.
Echoes of Classics contains an article you published in the Shanghai Review of Books in 2010 criticizing the "impossible comparison" made by Western scholars about Paul and Virgil. But you also mentioned that the early church adopted the strategy of quoting the Roman poet laureate as a fellow, and there is room for discussion as to the influence of the New Testament on classical literature. An important topic of your doctoral dissertation was "Imitation and Rewriting of Virgil's Verses by Christian Writers", can you tell us about this?
"Classical Echoes", by Gao Feng, Zhejiang University Press, January 2012, 199 pages, 29.00 yuan
Gao Feng: Thank you for thinking about this article. I began writing for the Shanghai Review of Books in 2008, when it was still on paper. In those years, I wrote some articles similar to satirical literature, and also commented on some English books that I read at that time. The so-called "impossible comparison" refers to the far-fetched, blunt, and pull-and-pull comparative study, which is full of such examples in comparative literature. I reviewed an English book in 2001, and the author found that the Gospel of Mark had many details that secretly imitated the Odyssey. Such research is exciting, but it is also difficult to sit on, and later American scholars have systematically refuted the book. But Virgil's influence on early Christianity is a concrete historical phenomenon, not a matter of conjecture. Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD to stop religious persecution, which was a major event in Western history. Soon, a priest named Juvencus wrote a four-volume biblical epic in Latin, expressing the main plot of the Gospel in poetic form. In this epic, there are a large number of words and phrases, all taken directly from Virgil's poetry. Because Latin Christianity has no literary tradition of its own, it is necessary to express new religious themes and emotions with the help of classical literature, that is, the literary language that the author himself was familiar with when he was in school. This creates a strange combination: the epic is at its core the New Testament story, a religious concept and experience that is very foreign to classical culture, but externally it needs to be matched with the ornate, established language of classical literature. Juwincus's bold attempt actually opened up a tradition of blending Christianity with classical literature. Since then, in the fourth and fifth centuries, other Christian poets have emerged, and the clever use of Virgil's verses was a key step in establishing its own literary tradition for this new religion. If conditions permit, I hope that research in this area will be published shortly. The works written by these early Christian poets on the theme of the Bible and the language of classical literature can be regarded as an important event in the history of the reception of Virgil poetry, and can also be regarded as a precursor to Christian literature. In this sense, Virgil made a great contribution to the Christian literary tradition.
Whether it's History and Politics in Virgil's Epics or your translation of Introduction, there are many quotations from Virgil's poetry and Roman history, and you use your own translation. I am impressed by the fact that your translation of the account of Queen Dido in the ShiLuo is in the vernacular, and that you translate "hubris" as "a word from Zhuangzi" (a word still in use today from Zhuangzi) rather than the "recklessness" favored by some translators. Can you tell us what you think of Virgil and Western classical translation?
Gao Fengfeng: Since I wrote Virgil, I had to quote the key lines of poetry in the epic, so I could only reluctantly translate it myself. I don't know how to write poetry, and I'm particularly afraid to translate Western poetry, mainly because I can't find a suitable Chinese language. Modern Chinese seems to lack a full and powerful poetic language that balances both ancient and modern. I have the impression of foreign poetry translations, mostly in a greasy, delicate, cookie-cutter tone, about the product of the translation of modern Western poetry in the 1980s with obscure poetry. Such a poor and weak Chinese language to translate Western classical poetry made me feel even more uncomfortable. Therefore, I can only deal with some lines of poetry that have to be translated in a restrained way, as long as it sounds less like modern poetry, less bourgeois, less bourgeois, less literate, even if the task is completed. Some non-rhyming translations in the book, such as ancient notes and historical books such as "Shi Luo", in order to reflect the ancient works, can only strive to translate a little ancient taste. But I can't write words, and polishing these translations is a job I can't do.
I am a complete layman in literary translation. It can only be said that as a former Wenqing, I think that I still have some tasting ability for the quality of Chinese. I myself envision that if I were to forge a Chinese language suitable for translating Western classical literature, I might need to think more about the English translations of Homer or Virgil's poetry, refer to the English translation tradition (or other Western languages that everyone is familiar with), and see how to establish and maintain a poetic language that is both easily recognizable and does not feel frivolous. Furthermore, it may be necessary to look for and reference some established language model in Chinese (such as Bible translation). In any case, it is not feasible to rely solely on the empty, weak, and one-sided language of modern poetry.
Virgil looked like he was young and wrote late.
After reading "History and Politics in Virgil's Epics", you can't help but marvel at the depth of Western classical scholarship and the breadth of your reading of the research results of Western dynasties. This book is part of the "Studies in Western Classics" series of books that you co-edited, which aims to "become a knowledge and spiritual garden for classical learners and researchers". In the face of the vast sea of Western research results, what do you think is the significance of Chinese intervention in Western classics? What can I contribute to this Oeuvre? Is the so-called "making European and American scholars regret not being able to speak Chinese" still a fantasy?
Gao Fengfeng: Classical studies is the "national studies" of the West, so scholars from Western countries have been constantly cultivating, and a large amount of wisdom has been poured into this field, accumulating amazing results. Chinese scholars have initially entered the field that others have been deeply cultivating for many centuries, and the prudent approach is to learn as much as possible about the achievements of Western scholars, what work they have done, what topics they have focused on, and what research methods they have adopted. First of all, we can find out the family background of others, investigate and evaluate the academic heritage of others, which is the serious attitude that should be adopted when entering a new field. I advocate reading the research literature widely, whether it is the theories and ideas you like or the theories and ideas you don't like, you must understand clearly, and you must be able to clearly explain the advantages and disadvantages of each theory. As far as reading the research literature is concerned, the more you read and see more research ideas, and you will be more relaxed and confident when talking about problems. And if you read less and are only familiar with one family's words, of course you can only parrot to learn the tongue, because you have not learned the other "tongues".
Chinese intervene in the "meaning" of Western classics, the question can be divided into two parts. If "meaning" means "why", that is, "why Chinese study Western classics", then I think this "why" can not be asked. If we ourselves feel that China is a big cultural country (not only an ancient civilization), if we still have some confidence in China's scholarship and culture, then all civilizations in the world, regardless of time and space, as long as they are civilizations created by earthlings, we need to study and understand, and we do not need special reasons. I think that's a kind of "atmosphere" in culture. What's more, the West we face also has a long cultural tradition. Whether as opponents or as friends, their cultural roots, of course, we want to find out.
If the "meaning" here indicates whether we can make a contribution that Western academia can recognize, then my answer is: don't care too much. In this regard, I am more Buddhist. Academia is not a sports competition, Chinese study western classics, not to train a "classical national team" to participate in the imaginary "International Classical Studies Olympic Games". If you always have a competitive mentality, then your job becomes to find ways to snatch back a pennant and a medal from Western scholars. I prefer the leisurely, slow, leisurely, leisurely way of swimming. I study Western classics because I am curious and interested in this field, and the more I study, the more interesting and exciting I find it. I don't want to go into the track of classics as a sprinter, I just want to be a researcher from a cultural country, interesting to study another strong cultural tradition.
This brings us back to the last question. "It makes European and American scholars regret not being able to speak Chinese", the impression is that this is what Mr. Chen Kang said many years ago. I understand that I hope that Chinese scholars will study Western classics and reach the point where European and American scholars can be convinced. What is the specific background of this sentence, I don't quite understand. My understanding of this matter is slightly different. According to my Buddhist understanding, this sentence still has some negative and victorious meanings. Whether one country studies the academic achievements of other countries can be accepted and recognized by other countries involves a series of complex factors. If your own academic level is high enough, and scholars from other countries can evaluate you fairly and impartially, it is of course the ideal situation. Sometimes, your own academic level is not too high, but the country or civilization you are in happens to be in a political and culturally dominant position, then those who are at the bottom will blindly promote research from the "upper country". At present, many works of Western sinologists have been translated in China, which is an example, because some works are obviously of a low level and really cannot be translated. There are also times when your own level is not high, and the civilization you live in is also weak, so others are reluctant to understand you, and you actually have nothing worth knowing. Some of these factors are within our control and some beyond our control. I don't think you need to think too much about it, first make your academic level as good as possible. Your own level is high, your country's cultural status in the world is high, and foreign scholars can comment on you equally and objectively, and these conditions are sufficient, and you may be able to realize the academic dream of "making European and American scholars regret not being able to speak Chinese". But there is no need to hang this sentence as a hoof, because whether others regret it or not is after all someone else's business. I think in fact, it can be said that "making European and American scholars regret not knowing Chinese" is not a problem we should be concerned about, what we should care about is "making Chinese academic circles regret not understanding Western classical studies."
Finally, thank you so many good questions that I feel like I have something to say and that I don't have enough to say.