Men of the Cliffs and Caves: The Development of the Chinese Eremitic Tradition to the End of the Han Dynasty.

• Author: Berkowitz, Alan

PAINTING AND POETRY HAVE IMMORTALIZED the image of reclusion in China as a solitary retreat in a tranquil and beneficent wilderness, a timeless moment beyond the dust and din of the mundane world. This ubiquitous image has suffused the tapestry of traditional China, and indeed adorns the tasteful dustjacket of the book here under review; but is it verisimilar? Will a study of the "Chinese eremitic tradition" reinforce this familiar stereotype, or will it compel us to reevaluate our perceptions about reclusion, challenge us even about what we thought was a straightforward, commonplace portrayal in painting or poem? Aat Vervoorn's Men of the Cliffs and Caves is a critical study of a phenomenon that was, prima facie, concerned with politics and personal integrity, at least during the period encompassed in this study.

Reclusion has played a significant role in China for well over two millennia, and Vervoorn's broad utilization of both primary and secondary writings, coupled with generally perceptive analysis, provides readers with the best published introduction to the subject in any language to date. His study should be of considerable value to students of early and early medieval China, as well as to a broader audience of students of Chinese history, thought, culture, and institutions. One might not agree with all of his conclusions, and indeed with some of his most basic assumptions, but, criticisms notwithstanding, his investigation and presentation of the subject will bring discussion of reclusion in China away from generalized cliche and vapid romanticism, to a level of critical discourse befitting an aspect so important in the Chinese cultural tradition.

Vervoorn brings together advantageously, in a basically historical and chronological framework, most of the relevant but disparate data on reclusion in China from the earliest times through the Han, and clearly articulates most of the political and philosophical rationales that underlie the ethos of reclusion in traditional China. To a disconcerting degree, however, his study conflates two distinct phenomena: bona fide reclusion and topoi of reclusion conspicuous in the political and intellectual culture of the scholar-official. Vervoorn writes about "hermits" and "eremitism," in his terminology, but most of his conclusions are in terms of officialdom and the role of the "eremitic tradition" in political culture; indeed, a very substantial number of the "hermits" he treats, in point of fact, were office-holders. I do not fault his approach so much, for he actually is treating a topic much broader and more pervasive than reclusion itself and indeed most of his conclusions are considered and worthy of attention. However, I am uneasy that readers will believe that they are being brought to an understanding of reclusion in traditional China: caveat lector, this is not so.

My point is not merely semantical. The study does not disambiguate reclusion per se from virtuous withdrawal on an occasional or purely noetic basis, its consanguineous counterparts, and thus does not differentiate between: a) practitioners of reclusion, and b) scholar-officials who at particular junctures in their careers might be envisaged within one or more of the many abstract topoi of reclusion. If this is a study of reclusion (this ostensibly is its raison d'etre), it has a major flaw; for it fails to perceive that the practice of reclusion in traditional China is a phenomenon unto itself, that it has a real and essential nature, that it is distinct from, even antithetical to, the taking up of office.

This study has blurred the distinction; men in reclusion and men who take up office are commingled in the "eremitic tradition." In so doing, the study undermines the very raison d'etre of reclusion and its practicing individuals. It was conduct and personal integrity manifest in the unflinching eschewal of official capacity which constituted the cause for public acclaim: men in reclusion did not surrender their integrity, nor did they compromise their resolve. Approbation of men in reclusion led many of the scholar-official class to assume, simulate, or affect the conduct and rationale of such exemplars, and led to the recognition of "exemplary eremitism" within the official recommendatory system; the sanctioning of "exemplary eremitism" in turn fostered the entrenchment of topoi of reclusion in the scholar-official ethos. Vervoorn's homogenizing of reclusion and officialdom in the "eremitic tradition" is the most subtle problem with Men of the Cliffs and Caves, but not the most visible problem. There are several, though of lesser consequence. Vervoorn refers to reclusion (yin or yinyi) as "eremitism" and men in reclusion (yinshi) as "hermits," and devotes several pages justifying his choice of words, in order to "mollify those terminological watchdogs". Still, while China certainly has had its hermits, and while there is a considerable amount of poetry portraying the eremitic life, these are profoundly misleading terms when applied to the general phenomenon of reclusion in China, especially so when applied to occasional withdrawal. Even qualified usage cannot but reinforce misapprehensions of the stereotypical relationship between reclusion and the idyllic life. Yet it is evident from Vervoorn's reasoning and from his focus on the philosophical and political bases of reclusion that the terms "hermits" and "eremitism" are being used as expedients, even while being faux-amis. Early and medieval sources are rather discriminating in the use of the terms yinyi and yinshi: these terms virtually never were applied to situations other than substantive reclusion. (On the other hand, even while usually referring to men in reclusion, the terms "men of the mountains and forests" and "men of the cliffs and caves", and to a degree chushi as well, were also often applied to soon-to-be scholar-officials of lofty mien, including both the temporarily withdrawn and the aspiring candidate.) While the word "reclusion" also is in many senses a misnomer, I would suggest rendering yinyi as "reclusion"(1) and yinshi as "men-in-reclusion," or, when referring to an individual for whom reclusion was a way of life, "practitioner of reclusion." Yinshi in earlier times usually stood for yin de zhi shi, as in the Zhuangzi, implying that the virtuous worthiness of such a man was not overtly manifest in worldly conduct within the public, political sphere--hidden, as it were, from appropriation by temporal authority: these were men in reclusion. Vervoorn has opted for the terms "disengaged scholar" and "men in retirement" for chushi and yimin, respectively; these are apt choices.(2)

Other minor problems concern translation. On the whole, Vervoorn is a good translator. But occasionally his translations also are faux-amis, in that they seem to reflect what is written in the original even while misconstruing the purport, if not the words, of the text. This sometimes leads to faulty conclusions. An obvious example concerns the Former Han worthy Li Hong (written in the Gaoshi zhuan) of Shu (byname Zhongyuan), who earned the praises of Yang Xiong (53 B.C.E.-18 C.E.). Vervoorn misconstrues both the point and the syntax of a passage (as well as the meaning of a particular word) from Yang's Fa yan, wrongly assigning as attributes of Li Hong the reactions of others. And in missing a literary allusion or two, he is led to assert that Li Hong was a teacher of Yang Xiong, which is totally without support. The passage reads:(3) Vervoorn (pp. 111-12) translates:

|Li~ Zhongyuan is a teacher to the age. See his bearing and it is dignified, listen to his speech and it is solemn, observe his conduct and it is majestic. I have heard of him bending others to his virtue, I have never heard of him, in the name of virtue, bending to others. Zhongyuan fills men with awe. . . . He will not look upon what is not correct, will not listen to what is not correct, will not say what is not correct, will not do what is not correct. It is this ability to correct his sight and hearing, speech and conduct, that fills me with awe for my former teacher.

In the first part of this passage, what Yang Xiong is describing is the effect on observers of (not the nature of) Li Hong's bearing, words, and conduct. The second part of the passage actually is part of a separate response in Fa yan's interlocutor format, meant to elucidate the nature of. Instead of referring to Li Hong, Yang is asserting that correctness in sight and hearing, speech and conduct, is something that awed "that former teacher of ours from the past," i.e., Confucius. I would suggest the following translation:

Zhongyuan is a teacher to the age. Those who see his bearing are respectful; those who hear his words change expression (i.e., are moved); those who observe his conduct are solemn. I have but heard of his subduing others with his virtue; I have not heard of his yielding to others on account of virtue. Zhongyuan inspires awe in people. . . .

Unless correct, one does not look on it; unless correct, one does not listen to it; unless correct, one does not say it; unless correct, one does not do it. Being able to keep one's sight and hearing, speech and conduct correct was what awed that former teacher of ours from the past (Confucius).(4)

As Men of the Cliffs and Caves actually is an important, groundbreaking study, I do not wish to give undue attention to its shortcomings. Criticism should not be construed as disparagement, and readers will be treated in this book to much cogent discussion and analysis of the historical settings in which "eremitism" evolved. Vervoorn's scholarship is, for the most part, meticulous; and his ranging comments cover the intellectual, political, social, and economic history of the period. He also provides much bibliographic information for reference, as...