ReflectionsinFrontoftheGatesofHell：PrefacetoAstudyofTwoClassics

Lin Gang trans.by Yunzhong Shu

ReflectionsinFrontoftheGatesofHell：PrefacetoAstudyofTwoClassics

Lin Gang trans.by Yunzhong Shu

As a scholar，Liu Zaifu was in his prime when he left China in 1989.While many of his friends felt sorry for his departure he himself was faced with an unprecedented trial in life.However，like a reborn phoenix，he has gone through an intellectual and spiritual change as he has endured ups and downs in foreign lands.For twenty years his mother tongue has connected him to his homeland.Neither time nor space has prevented him from building a cultural and spiritual relationship with his country through the use of language.Following in the footsteps of illustrious scholars and philosophers on a tortuous path，he has drawn sustenance from China’s legacy，searched for the spirit of humanity，expressed himself，and explored history and reality in alien lands.He has worked very hard in creative writing and literary criticism，just as he did in the 1980s.His creative works，filled with feeling and wisdom，have continued the tradition of literature. But in a different discipline，his scholarly works，characterized by traditional emphases on breadth，investigation，clarification，and careful thinking，have searched for truth fearlessly.The essays he wrote in the past twenty years have been collected in ten volumes bearing the following titles：Notes in a Drifting Life，Journeys in Faraway Places，Looking for the Homeland in the West，Soliloquies at the Edge of the Sky，Wandering on a Plateau，Joint Reflections on the World，Reading America，Thoughts on Changes in the World，Solitary Meditations，and Reflections on the Grand View.As ascholar working in the fields of intellectual history，literary history，and literary criticism，he has published four books onThe Dream of the Red Chamber—Reflection on The Dream of the Red Chamber，Joint Reflections on The Dream of the Red Chamber，Interpretations of Thirty Kinds of Characters in The Dream of the Red Chamber，and Philosophical Notes on The Dream of the Red Chamber—as well asDiscussions on Some Modern Chinese Writers，Banishing the Gods，An Essay on Gao Xingjian，and Crime and Literature.The publication of his conversations with Li Zehou，under the titleFarewell to Revolution，has received wide attention.In addition，he has also published Eighteen Topics for a ThinkingMan，a collection of interviews conducted overseas.As a scholar，Liu Zaifu has explored his fields more deeply and broadened his intellectual scope after he left China.As a result，his scholarship has become more sophisticated.Having read his recently completed work AStudy of Two Classics，I feel that his views are as penetrating as ever.

1

The two classics referred to in the title areThe Water Margin and The Romance of the ThreeKingdoms，two masterpieces of Chinese literature. In his critique，Liu Zaifu focused his criticism on two traditional Chinese novels that are most popular and most widely praised by readers and the mass media，two novels that have been read and worshipped in China for hundreds of years.I believe that if one sets aside the question of quality and only counts the number of copies ever printed，these two classics are the most widely circulated traditional works in China，more so thanThe Dream of the Red Chamber，The Journey to theWest，andThe Plum in the Golden Vase.If literary critics venture beyond the field of fiction and take a look at old and new media adaptations such as clapper songs，drum songs，ballads，films，TV dramas，cartoons，and Internet games，they will find the circulation of these two novels is even more amazing.As they influence generation after generation of their fans and turn generation after generation of people into their followers，these two classics have given rise to a cultural phenomenon in which the two literary texts are revered by readers，praised by critics，and exploited by the mass media.In pitting himself against this widespread phenomenon inA Study of Two Classics，Liu Zaifu has shown that he is not deterred by the two novels’massive popularity.Shocking as it is，his basic argument comes as a sudden awakening for fans ofThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Margin：

For five hundred years these two classics have exerted the most widespread，most pernicious moral influence in China.What is frightening is that，as part of the Chinese psyche，they continue to influence and damage the morals in China unobtrusively.As a result，we see everywhere followers ofThe Romance of the Three Kingdomsand The Water Margin，namely people saturated with the cultural values ofThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Margin.We may say that these two novels constitute the gates of hell in China.

A sensible scholar，Liu Zaifu did not want to attract attention with a sensational argument or deliberate defiance to the countless fans ofThe Water Margin and The Romance of the Three Kingdomsin China.What he wants is to express his honest opinions and to make people think.Oneshould not dismiss his arguments even if one disagrees with them.Instead，one should try to ascertain，in a reasonable manner，if the issues he has raised should prompt one to a discussion of the basic cultural values endorsed by the two classics. Literary works influence their readers in a subtle manner，as Liang Qichao made clear when he used the words“soak，”“perfume，”“rouse”and“goad”to describe how literature functions.If a work is artistically sophisticated and verbally intricate but advocates inhumane cultural values，it will become all the more poisonous.As one reads it one will unknowingly absorb its poison，just as one would only taste sweetness were one to take a sugar-coated poison pill.The Water Margin and The Romance of the Three Kingdoms are such works.Though critical of the two classics，Liu Zaifu does not deny their artistic value.Instead，he recognizes the need to call attention to their harmful cultural values by separating those values from their artful packing. To quote him，the most serious problems of the two novels lie in that“whereas one worships violence，the other worships trickery.”

Proceeding from the perspective of cultural criticism，Liu Zaifu explored the long historical journey the two novels have taken and raised the issue of false culture.Inspired by Spengler’s analysis of the false form of Arab culture in The Decline of the West，he points out the false form of Chinese culture in history.However，he differs from Spengler in that，whereas Spengler believed the invasion of religion to be the cause of the false form in Arab culture，Liu takes a further step and argues that the cause for the false form in Chinese culture is not the invasion of a foreign culture but“internal troubles，particularly the sufferings caused by wars and political instabilities.”To me，this is indeed a compelling argument about Chinese history.

During the late Qing period，Chinese intellectuals，under the widespread influence of evolutionism，believed that life and society could reach a state of perfection as human beings strove for progress.Initially a believer of evolutionism，Zhang Taiyan later began to have doubts and came up with the notion of“separate evolutions”as a counterargument against“scientific optimism”coming from the West.Calling into question the view that evolution would inevitably result in a state of perfection，he held that“as goodness goes through evolution，evil also goes through evolution.”Despite the difference in wording，what Zhang meant by the“evolution of evil”in fact directs one to the false culture discussed in Liu Zaifu’s A Study of Two Classics，because the false form has been historically constituted and affected by the sediments of evil in human nature and human culture.If one looks back on the whole history of human civilization in the last several thousand years，one will have no reason to believe that history only moves toward a state of moral perfection.As goodness in human nature develops itself in the historical process，evil in human nature develops simultaneously and，as a result，human suffering is increased—in China as well as in the West.Just like stains in a teacup that has not been cleaned，false culture will keep building up over time and，as a result，people will get used to it without realizing its falsity.In the history of Europe，persecutions of heresies have been a kind of false culture，as with the forcing of unrepentant Christians to fight wild animals with their bare hands in the amphitheater during the reign of the Roman Empire，the burning of witches and heretics on stakes during the Middle Ages，and the streamlined killings of Jews—with the help of modern industrial technology—during World War II.This evolution of evil is indeed shocking.

Liu Zaifu pointed out that the two classics’worship of violence and trickery has historical origins in China.Pre-Qin philosophers advocated“circumstantiality”and“maneuvering”and taught rulers how to use trickery cleverly to accomplish difficult tasks.Then the unification of China creat－ed a vast political stage on which all kinds of rulers and officials put their political skills to full use.As wars，man-made disasters，and dynastic changes took place，political actors ascended and descended the stage in quick succession and countless acts of cruelty and deceit were committed.Finally，during the transitional period between the Yuan and the Ming dynasties，this downward evolution crystallized into a literary text focused on tricks，a text that，as an embodiment of a false culture，became a popular textbook for life in China. In light of Chinese history，nobody can deny the connection betweenThe Romance of the Three Kingdomsand its cultural andhistorical background.This close connection was also a necessary condition for the popularity of the novel.In hisA New History of the Five Dynasties，the Northern Song historian Ouyang Xiu wrote about Feng Dao，a courtier who served nine kings from five different royal families before he died at the age of seventythree.Remarkably similar in personality to the characters inThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms，the historical Feng was equally as shameless as his fictional counterparts.Not surprisingly，Ouyang Xiu made the following statements in his preface to his Biography of Feng Dao：

A corrupt person will grab everything.A shameless person will do everything.If people behave this way，disturbances，crimes and troubles will all come.How can the world not be plunged into chaos or a government not collapse if high officials grab everything and do everything?When I read how Feng Dao took pride in himself in his‘An Account by an Old Man from Changle’I knew he had no sense of shame and，consequently，I could figure out what would happen to the world and to his country.

Did the culture of trickery reach its climax inThe Romance of the Three Kingdomsafter it began with pre-Qin philosophers’discussions of“circumstantiality”and“maneuvering”and continued with the expert tricks of people like Feng Dao in the Five Dynasties？The answer to this question is negative because in contemporary China such practices have been further perfected.InA Study of TwoClassics Liu Zaifu discussed his painful personal experiences during the Cultural Revolution and how he came to learn the three principles of political struggles：“there is no place for honesty in political struggles，”“the importance of forming one’s own faction，”and“the necessity of a smear campaign against one’s enemies.”Liu Zaifu’s summation is a more condensed and modern form of what is reflected inThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms.Unfortunately，modernity in thisinstance does not lead to a civilized state in politics but to a bottomless abyss or，in other words，a false culture that collects the sediments of China’s five-thousand-year history.The worship of trickery preserved in this continuous evolution of evil is nothing but cultural trash.

Similarly，the unconditional worship of rebellious violence is also part of a national legacy arising from historical and cultural change.A tendency toward violence is a phenomenon that has accompanied humanity thus far and will perhaps accompany humanity forever.The unqualified moral and ethical endorsement of rebellious violence in Chinese culture，however，is rarely seen in other major cultures.Whereas in the West the ethical endorsement of rebellious violence began with the French Revolution，in China it started，in my opinion，at the beginning of Chinese mythology and culture.If this can be seen as an ethical breakthrough，then Chinese culture certainly wins first prize.Unfortunately，this breakthrough has brought terrific suffering to Chinese society and has left behind a heavy ethical burden.In this short preface I will not be able to provide an adequate assessment of the significance of rebellious violence in Chinese history.One can，however，be certain that worship of rebellious violence was a disastrous ethical breakthrough that，with the suffering it has caused throughout history，should prompt one to examineethics in Chinese politics.One should question the historically unquestioned justification of rebellious violence from the perspective of modern political ethics.

Knowing that two sage kings in ancient China，King Tang and King Wu，had served，or pretended to serve，as Jie’s and Zhou’s subjects，respectively，King Xuan of Qi challenged Mencius in a discussion of King Tang’s banishment of Jie and King Wu’s attack on Zhou with a question：“Is it all right for a subject to kill his king？”Mencius gave him an unexpected answer：“One who harms benevolence is pernicious.One who harms righteousness is destructive.A pernicious and destructive king is called a‘dictator.’I see the cases as executing dictators，not as killing kings.”This discussion was a milestone in the history of political ethics in China.While it still remains debatable whether a dictator deserves to be executed，Mencius’s view has，since his time，provided a strong moral justification for the killing of kings by subjects，the killing of officials by common people，the killing of superiors by subordinates，or even the killing of one’s equals.Mencius’s view indicates not only his argumentative tendency but also a time-honored collective belief.“Carrying out righteousness on behalf of Heaven”was even more widely used in ancient China than the justification of“executing dictators，”given that acting as an agent of Heaven would enhance one’s appeal and reputation much more than to serve as a dictator’s executioner.In modern times“it is right to rebel”has surpassed“carrying out righteousness on behalfofHeaven”in popularity.The adventof modernity was accompanied with the disappearance of the belief in the righteousness of Heaven and because nobody believes in Heaven any more，it becomes necessary to justify rebellion on its own terms.As a slogan，“it is right to rebel”carries with it a kind of modernity distinguished by its undaunted aggressiveness，which makes it unnecessary to explain why it is right to rebel.During the Cultural Revolution，all Chinese learned by heart the following“supreme instruction”：“There are thousands of lessons in Marxism，but they can all be boiled down to one sentence：it is right to rebel.” As to why it is right to rebel，Chairman Mao did not ever explain this.Perhaps，to his way of thinking，the right to rebel should simply be taken for granted by everyone.If the essence of Marxism can be summed up in one sentence，shouldn’t one regard the summation as common knowledge?

A look at the past tells one that rebels throughout history all used the notion of“heaven”to justify their violence.Chen Sheng and Wu Guang，the first rebel leaders in Chinese history，raised the slogan“Are emperors，kings，generals，and ministers born to be what they are？”to prepare the way for their rebellion.They then wrote the words“the great state of Chu will flourish and Chen Sheng will become its king”on a piece of silk，stuffed the piece of silk into the belly of a fish，sold it to a fish store，and sent someone to get the fish，open it up，and fool people with the“intention of Heaven”inside the fish.To further fabricate the mandate of Heaven that they bestowed on themselves，they sent a trusted underling to shout out the words“the great state of Chu will flourish and Chen Sheng will become its king”in the voice of a fox at night.When Zhang Jiao started his Society of Five Pecks of Rice at the end of the Eastern Han dynasty he himself wrote a ditty：“A new heaven will rise as the old one dies.The time will be the year 184 and everything under the sun will be fine.”He then sent his followers out to spread the song.Before the Red Turbans started their rebellion at the end of the Yuan dynasty，some instigators carved a one-eyed stone statue and inscribed on it the words；“Do not ignore this oneeyed stone statue.As soon as it appears the world will rise in revolt.”They then buried the statue one evening in a place where a canal would soon be constructed and spread a children’s song that said，“a one-eyed stone statue coming out of theYellow River will provoke a revolt in the world.”When the workers dug out the statue，the rebels told everyone the inscription represented both the intention of Heaven and the desire of the people and，with that，they started a string of revolts that shook the country.Both Chao Gai and Song Jiang，the two rebel leaders inThe Water Margin，are very good at using this time-honored ruse to justify gathering bandits in a hideout and staging an armed rebellion.When discussing how to loot a caravan carrying expensive birthday gifts for a minister，Chao Gai tells six of his friends about a dream he had：

In a dream I had last night I saw the Big Dipper fall straight onto the roof of my house.Then a small star on the handle streaked away in a flash. Since the stars shone on my house，how can our plan run into any trouble？

Disguised as a dream，what is in fact a robbery becomes a glorious act performed on behalf of Heaven.When the bandits gathertogetherat Liangshan and agree on their rankings after some discussion，Song Jiang happily talks about a song that got him into trouble：

“The state will be worn down because of jia〔“family”〕and mu〔“wood”〕，”doesn’t that mean someone named Song，with a roof radical over the word“wood”，will wear down government resources？“Swords and soldiers will dot shui〔“water”〕and gong〔“work”〕，”doesn’t that mean the person provoking an armed uprising will have a water radical next to the word“work，”or Jiang，in his name？The song refers precisely to Song Jiang.

Hearing that，his lackey Li Kui jumps up with this response：“Right!Brother Song is destined to carry out the mandate of Heaven.” Whether they appeared in the guise of the mandate of Heaven in the old days or were justified as righteous rebellions in modern times，I believe the grassroots desire for revenge and primitive hatred among the oppressed do not fully explain why rebellious violence in Chinese history has been so bloodthirsty and cruel.In an explanation one should also take into consideration the power of political ethics，because，as part of ideology，political ethics provide grounds for people’s actions.When a violent act is believed to be an act on behalf of Heaven or a justified act of rebellion，its agent will see only its justification，not its cruelty or bloodthirstiness. When people get together under this banner of justice in times of chaos，the tendency toward violence in human nature will be organized and disasters of violence will reach ever-higher levels. Completely overwhelmed by this ideology，kindness and sympathy will disappear.As one examines violent acts in history，what appears terrifying is not violence itself but rather the ideology that justifies violence and rebellion as a mandate of Heaven.Tracing the historical roots of contemporary violence will help one realize the continuous intensification of a false culture，an evolution of evil，that has resulted in the worship of rebellious violence in Chinese culture.

2

It is not surprising to find that tricks exist wherever there are human beings.In The Romance of the Three Kingdoms，tricks are expressed in a vivid，popular manner and，with its pervasive influence on what people see and hear，the novel has created countless followers.Similarly，rebellion has been justified as a way to seize political power in The Water Margin，a novel that inspires the courageous to“strike at the right moment”and emboldens the timid to“rage through the whole country.”Characterized by their inferior cultural values and their popularity among all people，old and young，The Romance of the Three KingdomsandThe Water Marginhave become for the Chinese the most accessible，most appealing introductions to the lore of“thick skin and black heart.”Historically，the most outstanding student of the lore of thick skin and black heart were the first rulers of theQing，the last dynasty in China.The Romance of the Three Kingdomsplayed an undeniable role in the Qing conquest of China，given that the Qing entry into China would have been unimaginable if Emperor Taizong of the Qing had not imitated Zhou Yu’s deception of Jiang Gan，described in the novel，and tricked Emperor Congzhen of the Ming into killing Yuan Conghuan，the Ming border commander feared by the Manchus.Had Emperor Taizong not learned the lesson，the world would probably only have the Later Jin rather than the Qing dynasty in history.To say that a popular novel inspired the founding of a new dynasty is more or less an exaggeration，but the fact is that appreciative political practitioners are grateful to popular fiction and know its value.Indeterminate as it is，the value of literature cannot be quantified or verified.That，however，does not mean the role of literature is negligible.A look at the popularity of the two classics demonstrates how powerful they are in their subtle influence.

The worship of trickery and the worship of violence can become serious problems；one should therefore sort out the detrimental legacies of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Margin，especially at a time when China is embarked on a journey toward a modern culture and a modern life.In A Study of Two Classics，Liu Zaifu offered a valuable hypothesis：“It would have been better if the May Fourth New Culture Movement had focused its attack onThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms andThe Water Margin，not on Confucius.”O(jiān)f course a hypothesis is just a hypothesis and what happened in history cannot be altered.Some hypotheses，however，can help one to understand history，to tell the good from the bad，and to figure out the ways of the world.The May Fourth New Culture Movement took a crucial step in its effort to transform China into a modern，civilized society.It was，in Hu Shi’s view，an intellectual movement that reassessed all the values in Chinese culture.However，while it subjected Confucius and Confucianism to a harsh critique，it overlookedThe Romance of the Three KingdomsandThe Water Marginin its cultural reevaluation. Ninety years later，one realizes the oversight was indeed a“strategic mistake，”a mistake probably stemming from the mentality of the cultural rebels who indiscriminately overvalued everything rooted in the folk culture and everything enjoyed by the ordinary people.The“Three Isms”advocated by Chen Duxiu for the literary revolution included“simplicity”and“accessibility”as future goals. Judging by the standards set by Hu Shi for vernacular literature and the standards of Chen Duxiu’s“Three Isms，”The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Marginare not incompatible with the new May Fourth literature.The only difference between them is that the two classical novels are part of China’s traditional literature.However，one should not go too far in one’s criticism of this failure to reevaluate the two classics.In China，modernization is a long process and no cultural reevaluation can be accomplished at one stroke. Because it fills a gap left by the May Fourth Movement，Liu Zaifu’s critique of the two classics in a new historical environment can be seen as a continuation of the May Fourth reevaluation of all Chinese values.

As Liu Zaifu pointed out in A Study of Two Classics，Lu Xun became acutely aware of the close connection between the two novels and the Chinese national character many years ago，as shown in his statement that：“IndeedThe Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Marginare still very popular in China.They are popular，however，because the mindset of The Three Kingdoms and the mindset ofThe Water Marginstill exist.”No work of fiction can become popular without being supported by the people.Because the mindset of The Three Kingdoms and the mindset of The Water Margin still exist，it is not surprising that these two classics continue to have followers.Unfortunately，Lu Xun did not go any further.Nor didhe clarify what he meant by the“mindset of TheThree Kingdoms”and the“mindset ofThe WaterMargin.”Simply put，the“mindset of TheThree Kingdoms”is the mindset of trickery and the mindset of thick skin and black heart，whereas the mindset ofThe Water Marginis，in fact，the mindset of thugs and bandits.These mindsets constitute a dark，evil side of the Chinese national character and a dark side of human nature.With its humanist perspective and its advocacy of the goodness in human nature，A Study of Two Classicsshines a spotlight on the problems inThe Romance of the Three KingdomsandThe Water Margin.As it exposes these problems in the stories and the narrative approaches in the two novels it moves the discussion initiated by Lu Xun to a higher level.In my opinion，the three issues Liu Zaifu raised about the two classics，namely，the issues of trickery，violence and the treatment of women，deserve serious attention.

Scholars have reached a consensus that，contrary to what the most popular editions ofThe Romance of the Three KingdomsandThe WaterMargin have claimed，the two novels were not entirely written by Luo Guanzhong and Shi Nai’an respectively.Instead，they originated from a host of stories and texts by unknown storytellers before they were collated，revised，corrected，edited，and polished into their final forms.Perhaps as a result of this complicated compositional process，these two novels contain different，or even contradictory，cultural values.However，at their most fundamental level，most of their stories undeniably convey messages from a false culture.When he sums up these messages as the worship of violence，the worship of trickery，and discrimination against women，Liu Zaifu is not being unfair in his assessment of the two classics.As everyone knows，The Water Margin consists of stories about the rebellions of various bandits，whereas The Romance of the Three Kingdoms has stories about competition for power among different political contenders at the end of the Han dynasty.The cultural values embedded in a story are not necessarily determined by the subject matter of the story.One can argue along that same lines that the worship of violence and the worship of trickery in the two classics，elements of a false culture，are not the results of the authors’ choices of subject matter but are the results of the authors’ethical viewpoints，as demonstrated in the ways they endorse，promote，or at least enjoy the characters’cruel and evil actions in the process of telling the stories.Unlike propaganda，literature does not impose its messages on the reader.Instead，it subtly merges its narrative ethics within its stories，thus allowing readers to absorb certain messages without fully realizing what they have taken in.When traditional scholars argued that poems，songs，and works of fiction could change people’s character，they were，in fact，referring to this phenomenon.In the final analysis，what is wrong with the worship of violence and the worship of trickery in the two classics lies in the narrative ethics embraced by the authors，narrative ethics that stands in opposition to civilization and humanity.

Macbeth，one of Shakespeare’s four great tragedies，is the story of a subject’s murder of his king to seize power.Macbeth’s murder of the innocent old king is not much different from what the Liangshan outlaws do and，in terms of deviousness and duplicity，he matches the political contenders ofThe Three Kingdoms.As far as the subject matter is concerned，the story in Macbeth has more to do with bloodthirstiness，deception，and dishonesty than the two Chinese classics.With court intrigues as his subject matter，Shakespeare，however，produces an immortal tragedy in which violence and deception are condemned.What makesMacbethfundamentally different from the two Chinese classics is its author’s narrative ethics，which in turn result in fundamental differences in moral，spiritual，and aesthetic perceptions.As a literary work，Macbethdeserves to be described as great，where－as the two Chinese classics can only be described as mediocre and vulgar.To prove my point，I will use a quotation from Macbeth.In Act II，Macbeth，having murdered the king in his sleep，hears a knock on the door.Shakespeare then made this power-hungry rebel deliver the following soliloquy:

Whence is that knocking？

How is’t with me，when every noise appalls me？

What hands are here？Hah!They pluck out mine eyes.

Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand?No；this my hand will rather

The multitudinous seas incarnadine，

Making the green one red.①Macbeth，ed.Eugene M.Waith （New Haven：Yale University Press，1954），2.2.55–61.References are to act，scene，and line.

Greed and hunger for power lead to a terrible crime and then the terrible crime leads to endless fear and confusion，which in turn confirm the crime beyond any doubt.Macbeth’s soliloquy not only demonstrates what goes on in Macbeth’s mind，it also shows how the playwright condemned the character without making this explicit.A similar approach is used in the following poetic statement Macbeth makes when，in Act V，he learns of Lady Macbeth’s suicide and realizes his own days are numbered:

Tomorrow，and tomorrow，and tomorrow，

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day，

To the last syllable of recorded time；

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death.Out，out，brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow，a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage，

And then is heard no more.It is a tale

Told by an idiot，full of sound and fury，

Signifying nothing.②Macbeth（Waith），5.5.18–28.

Here one sees not just Macbeth’s lament that hisgreed-triggered crimesofregicide and usurpation will end in failure but also a philosophical reflection on greed and a condemnation of Macbeth’s crimes.Alerted to the clear distinction Shakespeare made between his subject matter and his attitude，the audience can feel Shakespeare’s condemnation of the crimes and his consistent prioritization of his moral judgment over his subject matter.Macbeth is a dark story，but it is lightenedwith philosophical reflections and praise of humanity.Instead of sanctioning，enjoying or simply describing a bloody plot without passing any judgment，this drama is suffused with harsh condemnation，witty mockery，and moral judgment in such a way that the condemnation，mockery，and judgment are dissolved into the characters’stories and actions.

In contrast，the two Chinese classics show inferior moral perception in obvious ways.Take Wu Song in The Water Margin as an example.After his conviction for killing his sister-in-law，Wu Song is banished to a prison in Mengzhou.Shi En，the warden’s son，takes good care of him.To take revenge on Jiang the Door God for seizing Shi En’s property by force，Wu Song massacres Jiang’s whole family in the Duck and Drake Bower.At first glance this story of revenge seems to convey a sense of justice.However，when one considers the details of this story，one realizes Shi En himself is a thug，just like Jiang and Jiang’s backers Commandant Zhang and General Zhang.The rise of Shi En’s family shows how some people in China get rich by resorting to the threat of violence and by seeking business monopolies under the protection of political forces.When Wu Song gets drunk and beats up Jiang，he renders his service for this evil social force.Courageous as he is，he has no conscience.The author，however，presented Wu Song’s story as one of revenge on evil and portrayed Wu Song as a towering hero.How callous he was when he showed this lack of moral judgment!One can argue that Wu Song’s“righteousness”is absolutely worthless because，stripped of the narrator’s praises，what he does is exactly what a hooligan or a local despot would do.Wu Song’s story is certainly vividly told，but the regrettable fact is that because of his callousness and lack of moral judgment，the author，with all his talent in storytelling，could only conceive of a street fight.As for the massacre in the Duck and Drake Bower，Wu Song’s conduct there is even more bloodcurdling.Of the fifteen people he knifes to death one by one，only three have anything to do with Jiang’s seizure of Shi En’s property.The rest are all innocent.After describing the indiscriminate massacre，the narrator added，with self satisfaction，the following final touch：“Wu Song then cut a piece of cloth from a gown on a dead body，dipped it in the blood and wrote the following big characters on a white wall：‘They are slaughtered by the tiger killer Wu Song.’”O(jiān)f course，what is portrayed here is a character’s action that shows the character’s fearlessness.But the narrator’s approval of and praise for the action also comes through.Here what the narrator wants to highlight is not the action of killing—the knifings are done quickly and not many details are given.Instead，the narrator highlights how righteous，justified，and guilt-free the killer is，which in turn reveals the author’s callousness and lack of moral judgment.In A Study of Two Classics，Liu Zaifu made the following statement:

Seeking only to satisfy their desires，Chinese critics and readers forget to use the standards of life，namely the standards of humanity，to evaluate the actions of a hero.Of course it is more accurate to say they are simply not aware of the standards，since the abnormal trait of bloodthirstiness has become part of the nation’s collective unconscious. Lu Xun repeatedly criticized the Chinese for liking to watch their countrymen being decapitated.What he criticized was their deeply rooted selfishness and heartlessness，characteristics the Chinese themselves，unfortunately，did not realize.To this day Wu Song still remains a great hero to the Chinese，while his bloody killings of people such as maidservants，young girls and grooms are taken as unimportant.

At first glance，the ethical standards in The Romance of the Three Kingdoms，a novel seemingly focused on differentiating the loyal from the disloyal and the honest from the dishonest，appear to be quite different from those inThe Water Margin，a novel seemingly confused in its judgment of good and evil.In spite of this apparent difference，the two novels are in fact very similar in terms of their narrators’shallow，base values.In contrast toThe Water Margin，a novel that does not make any distinction between good and evil，The Romance oftheThree Kingdomsremains intent on offering guidance as if it wanted to show off its treasured tricks one by one so that people would know about them.The author’s approach is that of a teacher.Of course one has to admit that the author is an exceptionally effective teacher.What did he teach? He taught the lessons of trickery and of having thick skin and a black heart.The following statement inA Study of Two Classicspoints out the fatal problem of the novel：

The Romance of the Three Kingdomsis an encyclopedia of political tricks in China，collecting all the political schemes，strategies and subterfuges and demonstrating all their forms.All the political，military，diplomatic and social affairs described in the novel are centered on deception and all the tricks are tricks of deception.

In regarding Liu Bei，the founder of the kingdom of Shu，as good and Cao Cao，the founder of the kingdom of Wei，as evil，it inherits a standard judgment.However，both the good and the evil characters adhere to the principle of deception and practice deception in their political contention.Most of the successful schemes in the novel，such as the sworn brotherhood formed by Liu Bei，Guan Yu，and Zhang Fei at the peach garden；the use of the beauty Diaochan as a ploy；Zhuge Liang’s three triumphs over Zhou Yu；Zhuge Liang’s acquisition of arrows with thatched boats；Jiang Gan’s theft of a forged letter；Zhou Yu’s feint flogging of Huang Gai；Liu Bei’s tossing his son on the ground；and Sima Yi’s pretending to be sick to mislead Cao Shuan，are not recorded in standard histories at all.Some episodes in the novel，such as Liu Bei’s three visits to Zhuge Liang’s thatched hut，Cao Cao’s discussion of heroes with Liu Bei over wine and Liu Bei’s growing of vegetables in his garden，are fanciful expansions，either of brief stories in standard histories or baseless rumors in unofficial histories.In calling attention to the fabrications in the novel I do not mean to say that a novelist cannot imagine or create things that do not exist in standard histories.What I want to point out is how the author endowed the characters with personality traits he distills from Chinese officialdom and Chinese society.What the author added to the standard histories is precisely an emphasis on schemes and deceptions.With this emphasis，the author highlighted all kinds of tricks in life so that people can imitate them.This intention might not necessarily be evil，but it is，to say the least，rather vulgar and shallow，lacking in concern for the well being of humanity.Besides，the author’s understanding of history was also rather shallow，far inferior to the understanding of history inA Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms and A History of the Jin Dynasty.

InA Study of Two Classics，Liu Zaifu also raised the question about the historical reception of the two classics.The current versions ofThe Romance of the Three KingdomsandThe Water Margincame into wide circulation more than four hundred years ago.Since then，worship of violence and the〔SYZ：Remove“the.”〕worship of trickery have always dominated the reading and interpretation of the two novels.This long tradition，of course，has a lot to do with the cultural values of the two classics and the false culture they represent.However，the commentators living between the Ming and the Qing dynasties also played a significant role in forming this tradition.As a historical legacy，their unqualified，irresponsible praises have conditioned the future generations’understanding of the two classics.Knowingly or unknowingly influenced by this tradition，uncritical readers have accepted the commentators’views.The continuous praises of Wu Song and Li Kui and the endless publication of books such asStrategies for Commercial Competition from the Three Kingdoms and Strategies for Officialdom from the Three Kingdomsindicate that many people still follow in these commentators’footsteps.Of all the comments onThe Water Margin，those attributed to Li Zhuowu in the Rongyutang edition and those made by Jin Shengtan in the Guanhuatang edition have been most influential and have had the most pernicious impact.Liu Zaifu correctly pointed out that in his comments onThe Water MarginLi Zhuowu made a fatal mistake with his admiration for Li Kui，an embodiment of violence.Afterwards Jin Shengtan continued the admiration for violence while holding up Wu Song for admiration，bestowing upon Wu Song the superlative title“heavenly being，”in distinction to the superlative title“l(fā)iving Buddha”Li Zhuowu bestowed upon Li Kui.

It is simply ridiculous to bestow the titles of“heavenly being”and“l(fā)iving Buddha”on Wu Song and Li Kui，the two fully developed characters inThe Water Marginthat convey the author’s liking for violence.In praising the wanton killings by these two characters’，the Ming and Qing commentators can be said to have lost their moral bearings in an attempt to flaunt their unconventionality，showing the spiritual malady of their era just as those late Ming eccentrics did who indulged themselves in drinking and prostitution.It should be pointed out that Jin Shengtan was aware of thecruel nature of the stories inThe Water Margin，as shown in the following comment on the 108 leaders in the novel from his second foreword to the Guanhuatang edition of the novel：“They all resemble wild animals in their youth，kill and rob in their prime，suffer all kinds of mutilations afterwards and die as defeated rebels.”In spite of this negative assessment，his appraisals of individual characters remain positive，except in the case of Song Jiang.In other words，his specific comments do not bear out the aforementioned assessment. One does not know if，for some reason，he had to make a gesture to conceal what he truly liked.One does know，however，that what he tried to hide should not be hidden and that the two characters he praised the most，Wu Song and Li Kui，do not deserve to be praised because they are just two killing machines in the novel.Setting a bad precedent for future critics，Jin Shengtan’s irresponsible comments remain part of a legacy one needs to reckon with.

When I worked in Beijing in the 1980s，I found out that Liu Zaifu planned to write a history of cultural reflection in China since the introduction of Western learning in the late Ming era.His plan was，undoubtedly，related to the May Fourth project of reevaluating all cultural values and to criticism of the Chinese national character.In this area，the May Fourth Movement initiated a new tradition and offered some insights，but it did not examine or reject all the harmful elements in Chinese culture.Even now，the long-term project of cultural reflection it initiated is not yet finished.AStudy of Two Classicsis an attempt to continue this project.It also shows how Liu Zaifu has determinedly pursued his academic interests after he left China and started wandering around the world. Having been asked by him to write a preface to his new work，I offer my thoughts here in the hope of sharing my enjoyment ofA Study of Two Classicswith other readers.

林崗，中山大學(xué)中文系教授。

【譯者簡介】舒允中，美國紐約皇后大學(xué)東亞系教授。