Favorite Traditional Asian Literature

[DonQuigleone]

I tried reading 3 kingdoms a while back, but I found it hard going. It's not actually that dense, but I think what really did me in was the density of names, both people's and geography.

The geography is particularly difficult as not only am I not great on Chinese geography, but all the names are for China as it was 2000 years ago, which I have no idea about. So if I read that Liu Bei did a grand flanking march from Liaozhou through to Yanzhou it makes little sense to me.

Furthermore, all the footnotes (which are a necessity to make the book understandable for a foreign reader) are all at the back, and flipping back and forth makes for a very fractured reading experience.

I think that RoTK would probably be an excellent candidate for being an interactive EBook, where you can instantly look up footnotes and maps at the touch of a button.

I'd imagine a similar setup would be useful for a Chinese person trying to read the Iliad.

[Irenicus]

Oooh, necro.

Yeah, I always thought that proverb was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying who the real audiences are. Like how you shouldn't make Princes read Il Principe.

DonQuigleone: This is a pretty good thread. The first map is particularly epic. As for all the -zhou (provinces), try this.

Basically, most of the action happens in the North, where most of the population was, until around the Jingzhou episodes (= Red Cliff).

As for the Iliad, I think you'd probably need it less. Just a map of the Aegean with the general pointer to where the Achaeans are, where Troy is [generally agreed to be], and that's that. I mean, I know more than many and while I can point to Ithaca [general area, not precisely which island is Odysseus' kingdom, which people can't seem to agree on], Sparta, Mycenae, Argos, and even Aulis, there's not much point knowing which mighty king of a thousand epithets come from which tiny village and Cyclopean stone houses.

Thucydides, on the other hand, is a much more apt comparison of why we need maps in ROTK and why, with them, you could probably try again. Where is Pylos of Nestor's fame where Athens kicked Spartan butt; where is Argos and why it's pro-Athenian; where are the Ionian cities; where's Corcyra; where's Amphipolis where the dear author lost a battle and got exiled; where's poor Melos; where is Aegospotami where Athens finally lost the war, and so on. Heck, how Athens looked like greatly enriched understanding (most people don't really think about what the "Long Walls" really were). I'm not even counting all the generals and politicians, though admittedly they're a much thinner crowd than in ROTK. But still, so many name drops if you really think about it, no?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Oooh, necro.

Yeah, I always thought that proverb was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying who the real audiences are. Like how you shouldn't make Princes read Il Principe.

Actually, compared to RoTK, the Prince is a fairly easy read. For one thing it's quite short.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Actually, compared to RoTK, the Prince is a fairly easy read. For one thing it's quite short.

Nah, the point is that they teach deviant behavior. If a Prince truly follows the tenets of The Prince...well, he'd be a pretty deadly opponent. Just like an old man who emulates Cao Cao may become an able minister and an unscrupulous hero, while a young man who reads Water Margin -- a story about heroic bandits -- may become a revolutionary. Hm, I wonder what Mao thought of the two Classics.

[There's actually a remarkable amount of debate from luminaries on what would actually happen if someone perfectly emulates the idealized virtù. Rousseau thought Machiavelli was trying to teach people how evil a prince really is, while some modern thinkers believe he was the great subversive, and if a Medici truly followed his tenets, they'd be thrown out of Florence in no time to his delight. We'll ignore that, though.]

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Oooh, necro.

Yeah, I always thought that proverb was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying who the real audiences are. Like how you shouldn't make Princes read Il Principe.

the book wasn't written for the nobility since most of them were already thinking like that. The ones who didn't have knives sticking out of their back.

[RichardFromMarple]

I did read and abridged translation of Journey to the West, which is a fairly easy read with only the odd footnote to explain an untranslatable phrase or play on words.

I've heard that Naomi - A Fool's Love is supposed to be a good read, has this ever had a Manga or Anime adaptation? I know it's been filmed a few times.

[DonQuigleone]

If you're sociopathic aristocrat, you don't really need to read the Prince. Perhaps it was intended to teach good men how to be bad?

Though I have heard the parody theory quite a lot about it.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Nah, the point is that they teach deviant behavior. If a Prince truly follows the tenets of The Prince...well, he'd be a pretty deadly opponent. Just like an old man who emulates Cao Cao may become an able minister and an unscrupulous hero, while a young man who reads Water Margin -- a story about heroic bandits -- may become a revolutionary. Hm, I wonder what Mao thought of the two Classics.

According to one Pyotr Vladimirov, the communists at Yan'an didn't read Marx but instead studied, among other things, Mao's interpretations of DoRC.

[rantaid]

do people will easily get influenced? for me without proper background culture of said literary work you won't be able to appreciate said book.


for machiavellian the prince will be hard if you don't know the cultural or political situation of ... where is it? venice?

because when i read part of ... let just say the comparison of the prince which is han fei zi, guan zi and shang jun shu.... it is hard without proper knowledge of the political situation of that era.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by rantaid

for machiavellian the prince will be hard if you don't know the cultural or political situation of ... where is it? venice?

Florence, actually. However, when I read it as a teen, I didn't have any great difficulty, there are a fair number of anecdotes, but the exact locations and names are not really relevant to the central thrust of the book (how to be a "good" prince). Reading the Wikipedia page on Italy's renaissance history, along with a cursory knowledge of Greek/Roman history should suffice, if you get a decent edition, most of the background information you would need would be in the introduction.

It's a bit like "The Art of War" in that respect. You don't need to know anything about Ancient China to be able to read Sun Tzu.

[rantaid]

well what i grasped based on my experience... when reading the prince without knowing their political situation is hard, at least when you don't even know about renaissance. this part i agree with your opinion. florence.... is that near firenze where da vinci come from?

for sun zi i disagree. there is many part where you need prior knowledge on chinese history and culture.

for example chapter xi 9 situations

"asked if an army can act like serpent shuairan , i say yes! for the man of wu and yue are enemies , yet if they are crossing river in same boat and caught in storm, they will assist each other as if left hand and right hand."

first you need to know who sun zi is. sun zi goes by the name sun wu, a general (recommended by wu zixu) of state of wu. at his time (spring autumn period) , the state of wu launched numerous military campaign to reach hegemony.

however during the campaign to state of yue, the king of wu, helu died in the battle. his son fuchai was then enthroned and waged war against state of yue as vengeance. hence the hatred between men of yue and men of wu.

but in regard to confucian value of virtue the hatred were put aside to assist each other to keep the boat sailing without drowning.


chapter 13 use of spies requires you to know lu shang (jiang taigong) and yi yin.

[Irenicus]

Florence is Firenze. Yes, Machiavelli served the center of the Renaissance. You could just look up the map of Renaissance Italy, you know. Plenty of them on the internet.

However, I think you underestimate the human ability to draw conclusions based on limited evidence and/or knowledge. The stock market, and academia (*cough*), runs on it. (What, you think I read that book that I pontificated authoritatively on?)

There are a lot of background things that will help your understanding in just about every major work of literature, philosophy, theology, or a treatise on the Wonders of the Spinach. Just about nobody knows all of them, yet we pass on knowledge and wisdom just fine.

A complex understanding of Greek society and geography during the Classical Age can add to a much more complete understanding of Thucydides, yet most people smart enough to read Thucydides, including those who sometimes don't even have a clear pinpoint of where Greece is on a world map, tend to grasp his political philosophy easily.

Nor do I think anybody, with the caveat of anybody with half a brain, really missed what Machiavelli said about the nature of the Prince even if everybody disagrees on what he really meant, or if they have no clue who the heck is Cesare Borgia or the political situation of the King of Aragon/Spain Ferdinand's takeover of Naples. Sure, it helps if you realize figures like Borgia and Francesco Sforza, the great condottieri, are not always of old nobility, and even if they are tend to lack the Medieval notion of legitimacy to rule the lands they win in wars and intrigues -- that helps guide Machiavelli's dismissal of legitimacy over force -- but you don't have to. You'll get either way what he's trying to recommend rulers to do.

Sun Tzu is like that. Yes, maybe observing the verdant hills and rivers of Wu would give a better understanding of his tactical recommendations, but you don't really need to.

[rantaid]

i agree. however by that i get the message that you advise to just read and imagine the rest. we can interprete it as however we can. but is not this just being complacent and deceiving yourself?

raising candle is just raising candle there is no subtle meaning (han fei zi).

about the prince... is it written when the italy is still a federal state which occassionally warring against each other? my information about machiavellian is kind of lacking.

[fukarming]

for those who think ROTK is too complicated, maybe you can start with the game first? First you play dynasty warriors, you will know all the important people (who cares about the ones that come out and get kill in 1 turn?), then you play the strategic games (also from KOEI), then you will know the geography, and how the warlords move from one place to another.

[Irenicus]

Spoiler for Because Florence is not, sadly, Asian:

Originally Posted by rantaid

i agree. however by that i get the message that you advise to just read and imagine the rest. we can interprete it as however we can. but is not this just being complacent and deceiving yourself?

You can think of it this way: Sun Tzu can be read as an introductory background into the world of, oh, Warring States China, upon which you read the Dao De Jing, and then some work from Confucius' students, and so on and so forth. You have to start somewhere after all. Or some curious reader could start from the Dao and go to Sun Tzu later, however they want to do it.

So bravely read on and pretend you actually know what you're reading. Generally you probably "get" a lot more things than you thought you did, and at some point the puzzle fits, you stop and realize, oh, I'm an expert.

about the prince... is it written when the italy is still a federal state which occassionally warring against each other? my information about machiavellian is kind of lacking.

It was written when "Italy" existed in three forms: geographically, the peninsula; culturally, the people of that peninsula with all the flavors and dialects therein; and as a title, the northern part of the peninsula, above the Roman Papal States, being a sub-kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire and the German emperors consider the title "King of Italy" one of theirs. This did not mean they had actual power over any of the Italian states beyond what they can enforce with the might of their armies.

The nation-state did not exist. Machiavelli -- transitional figure that he is -- was actually one of the first thinkers of the post-Medieval era to speak openly of the need to establish a free Italy against the "foreigners," and in The Prince he claimed that he desired a savior for Italy, an ideal figure capable of great virtù (this should not be interpreted as morally good, rather, it meant talent, fortune, boldness -- and results) who could unite the disparate Italian states and successfully maneuver against the many powerful invaders the peninsula faced.

That, at least, is what he wrote explicitly. His true intentions are one of the great debates about this work.

Anyway, Italy during Machiavelli's time was indeed a divided peninsula dominated by minor city-states, republics, noble polities, dukedoms, the Papal States, and the Kingdom of Naples/Sicily to the South. It was also dominated by the condottieri, mercenary captains who had a strong hold on organized warfare in the peninsula, and whose captains had asserted their monopoly on force to establish various personal fiefdoms. The greatest of these condottieri before Machiavelli's time was Francesco Sforza, who served the Visconti dukes of Milan and, when they were overthrown, he maneuvered successfully against a young republic there and claimed the dukedom as his own. Sforza was, again, just one of many, though the most successful.

Florence, the greatest city in Tuscany and the center of the Renaissance, was Machiavelli's hometown, and he loyally served the Republic there as a capable diplomat operating primarily in France. His long service coincided with the time when the city leaders threw out the Medici who dominated the city for much of the 1400's, and he bore witness to the return of the Medici with the aid of Papal arms and who, quite reasonably, distrusted him as a loyal partisan of the Republican cause. He wrote The Prince to try to regain their favor, with limited success.

More importantly, Italy in his time also witnessed the greatest series of foreign incursions since the time of the Hohenstaufen emperors in the Middle Ages. To the North, France invaded in force and Florence became allied to her out of politics and survival (at least for much of the time -- Italian politics shifted ridiculously fast). France's invasion provoked intervention from the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, who brought his own Germans down the peninsula. The Swiss served both sides -- and others -- as capable mercenaries. To the south, the recently united Spanish (they remained legally separate as a personal union of kingdoms, but Machiavelli called Ferdinand -- the King of Aragon, husband of Isabella, Queen of Castile and sponsor of Columbus -- the Spanish king) used the turmoil in Naples to establish control over the kingdom. It is conceivable that an Italian statesman would view this time as one of great crisis and foreign invasion.

So what does all this background teach about the work of The Prince? Well, you didn't need to know all this to get the universal renown, or infamy, of Machiavelli's advice -- appear good, but do whatever it takes, and value force over love and empty legitimacy. What one can learn from this background, however, are several things:

One, the Italian states were experiencing upheaval. "Legitimate" rulers in the Medieval European sense -- nobles with bloodline claims -- were being thrown out of their petty thrones by local men of force and by foreign invaders with mighty armies. It's not surprising Machiavelli would be scornful of the traditional Medieval legitimacy when they did nothing to prevent defeat and often destruction. And the people's love? Worthless. No matter how much the populace of a city loved their kind and pious ruler, when the French were at the gates, they knew what really counted.

Two, "legitimacy," respect for leadership, can be forged by sheer talent and a generation or two of stable leadership, as happened with the Sforza of Milan and, eventually (ironically), the Medici. His book's hero, Cesare Borgia, was the son of an infamously corrupt pope and the Borgia's -- plenty of delicious drama to their name -- came from Spain, were probably merchants, and their opponents even claimed they had Jewish ancentry (a point of infamy in those dark times). No one will ever consider Cesare Borgia legitimate for anything except what he could conquer and hold by force, intrigue, and charm. Had he survived the vengeance of the Borgia's many enemies when his Papal father died, he might have established a similar dynastic regime in the Romagna as the Sforza did in Milan and the Medici in Florence.

[As a side note, the later Machiavelli work would argue that this is why a Republic is superior -- the people are the rulers, so legitimacy is inherent.]

In one sense Machiavelli was writing of universals, given how his work resonates to this day with equal fame and infamy. In another sense, despite some of our members' straightforward claims that the nobles of the time already knew in their hearts what he wrote (they probably did, to some levels), he was writing against the prevailing Medieval "wisdom" that a "pious" and "virtuous" ruler would lead successfully. He saw these platitudes for the empty moralist Church-spawn BS that they were, and he saw an Italy both full of potential and full of devastating internecine warfare. If it wasn't all satire after all, he might as well meant it when he asked for a great leader to arise out of the Italian states and put things in order.

Speaking of which, what's the point when the [TLDR] tag can't accommodate all the texts of a TL;DR? I was going to use the fancy tag, but it rudely cut my text short...

[rantaid]

@fukarming.

well... i read the rotk-manga based by yokoyama mitsuteru, ryuroden and shin ryuroden and finally ravages of time by chan mou.


and .. kinda play koei's rotk xi .

@irenecus:

actually no. your writing tell me a lot of thing which clouded me for years. i always thought of italy at the machiavellian was kind of single monarchy that is why i questioned why would machiavellie wished for an anti hero (like cao cao) to arise.

for your explanation i am really grateful and thankful.

the simpson during the episode when sideshow bob become mayor of tuscany explain that homer cursed italy hoping that they remain as federal state occasionaly warring against each other....

while i thought with italy were single monarchy with church political interference (vatican) binding them like england pre hendry viii.

medici..... is this lorenzo de medici whom donald duck and scrooge mc.duck discuss during the search for alexandria library? i thought they are just rich aristocracy who funded colombus from genoa during the exploration war.... never thought they are influental warlord..

also asking, do the machiavellian setting of italy is also the time setting of the opera titled 'tosca'? because angellotti is a revolutionary faction member

well i stressed the need to understand the background due to my own experience.

when i read rotk i only know the character, then my friend talked to me about a tale from ming dynasty

feng menglong's sima mao disturb the order of the underworld.

it then explain many important things for me.

[DonQuigleone]

If you're not from Europe, I could see how you might get confused over Italian history (misunderstanding that there was no "Italy" prior to 1860), the divided nature of Italy is covered in most European history classes, and likely isn't outside of it.

That said, due to the nature of The Prince as an instructional text, rather then a history book or novel, you can get most of it's point by reading it (though you may miss the subtexts). However, any good edition of the book should include an introduction to give you the background you would need to understand it, and it's further easy to understand because all the locations it refers to still exist today and by those names (except the Holy Roman Empire, though it's basically Germany).

Everything Irenicus wrote is correct. When I read the Prince, however, I knew less about Italian history then I knew about Chinese history when reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and 3 kingdoms was much harder.

Sun Tzu, I would still maintain is easy, as most English editions are annotated with many notes. In fact, I imagine it might be easier to read English editions of it then Chinese, because the Chinese editions likely have no notes, and are in Classical Chinese (while the English translations are in modern English). For instance, my edition has the following for chapter VIII section 8:

There are occasions when the commands of the Sovereign need not be obeyed.
Ts'ao Ts'ao: When it is expedient in operations the general need not be restricted by the commands of the sovereign.
Tu Mu: The Wei Liao Tzu says: 'Weapons are inauspicious instruments; strife contrary to virtue; the general, the Minister of Death, who is not responsible to the heavens above, to the earth beneath, to the enemy in front, or to the sovereign in his rear.'
Chang Yu: Now King Fu Chai said: 'When you see the correct course, act; do not wait for orders.'

[rantaid]

i admit many printed sun zi comes with annotated which though helpful lacked the essences.


actually your quotation of mengde is much closer to sima fa. the record of grand historian (shi ji) alluded the event entirely about general need not be restricted by the commands of the
sovereign.

this is why in wei liao zi , decree and command are being compared of their differences.

but i recall that in introductory word of sun zi art of war, mengde read the sima fa and compared it altogether alomg with other treatise like wuzi, bingfa, sima fa. perhaps he took the lesson there.

also he was said to know about sun bin art of war, while record noted that the said treatise has already lost during the eastern han period....

and for your quotation of du mu and wei liao zi... i supposed it is close to dao de jing . perhaps wei liao agrees to principle of no attacking?


i always interested.with european history alas i was not lucky to unable know it better.

[LeoXiao]

Chinese versions of classical texts usually come with the original passages and then something called a "clarification", which in practice amounts to a vernacular translation. If you were to sell an edition of The Art of War with only the original text included, it would be about 20 pages.

[willx]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Chinese versions of classical texts usually come with the original passages and then something called a "clarification", which in practice amounts to a vernacular translation. If you were to sell an edition of The Art of War with only the original text included, it would be about 20 pages.

I find the "Art of War" to be incredibly repetitive and at other times contradictory. It reminded me of a notebook someone kept of smarmy comebacks..

I know we're talking about Asia, but I see someone above mentioned Machiavelli -- please note that Project Gutenberg did (what I'm told) is an excellent translation that can be found online for free. Fascinating read!