Pathways and Methods: The Dissemination and Reception of Li Yu's Plays and Theater Theories from the Standpoint of German Sinology
WEI Chenlin, KOU Weimiao
Abstract
In the 1930s and 1940s, Alfred Forke (1867–1944) translated Bimuyu (Die Schollen, A Couple of Soles in English), which remains the first and only complete German translation of Li Yu’s play to date. In 1966, Helmut Martin (1940–1999) published Li Li-weng über das Theater (Li Li-weng on Theater), marking the beginning of the investigation and discussion of Li Yu’s theater theories in Western sinology. However, current scholarship on the overseas dissemination of Li Yu’s plays and theories predominantly focuses on their translation, research, and reception in the English-speaking world, with scant attention paid to these topics in German-speaking academia. In reality, the spread and reception of Li Yu’s works and theories have evolved paralleled with the development of German sinology, reflecting the discipline’s shifting research priorities, methodological turns, and dynamic engagement with classical Chinese literature. This paper seeks to periodize the century-long process in which Li Yu’s plays and theater theories have been disseminated and received in German sinology, critically examining the characteristics and challenges of this process conceptualized in the broader evolution of German sinology. Building on this foundation, the study explores innovative strategies to enhance the global dissemination of classical Chinese literature and to foster cross-cultural dialogue and mutual learning between civilizations.
Keywords: Li Yu, German sinology, theater studies, cross-cultural dissemination and reception
Li Yu (1611–1680), a renowned writer, playwright, and theater theorist of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, holds a pivotal position in the history of Chinese drama. His plays are described as “all unfailingly crafted for the stage,”[1] while his theatrical theories in Xianqing ouji (Leisure Notes) have been hailed as “the pinnacle of their time” and “a milestone in the history of classical Chinese theater theory.”[2] In recent years, Li Yu’s theatrical achievements have increasingly become a subject of scholarly attention in international sinology, as we witness some scholars have extensively examined the translation, research, and dissemination of his plays and theories in the Anglophone world.[3] Yet, to date, Chinese scholarship has paid very little attention to the dissemination and reception of Li Yu’s oeuvre in the German-speaking world.[4] In fact, Li Yu’s plays entered the purview of German sinology even earlier than they did in the English-speaking academia.[5] Between the 1930s and 1940s, Alfred Forke translated Bimuyu into German, Die Schollen. In 1966,
[1] 郭英德：《明清传奇史》，人民文学出版社2011年版，第466页。
[2] 杜书瀛：《李渔美学心解》，中国社会科学出版社2010年版，第25页。
[3] 魏琛琳《李渔戏剧理论英译及接受史研究》(2021)《跨文化阐释的路径整合：李渔曲论在英语世界的传播与接受》(2020)，魏琛琳、袁楚林《从陌生到会通：〈笠翁十种曲〉在英语世界的传播与接受》(2019)，李昭蓉《李渔〈闲情偶寄〉戏剧理论的英译传播研究》(2018)等。
[4] 范劲曾简要谈及德国对李渔的戏剧接受，但其研究重点在李渔的经典化历程中德国汉学家的“抗”与“辩”。详见范劲：《中国文学史的世界文学起源——基于德国19世纪以来世界文学史书写的系统论考察》，《文艺研究》2020年第2期。
[5] 在英语世界，美国汉学家恒慕义（Arthur W. Hummel, 1844-1975）最早在1943年出版的Eminent Chinese of the Ching Period（1644—1912）中论及李渔的戏曲创作与导演经验。详见魏琛琳：《李渔戏剧理论英译及接受史研究》，《中国文学研究》2021年第1期。
the renowned German sinologist Helmut Martin (1940–1999) wrote his doctoral dissertation on Li Yu’s theater theory. Martin’s study, titled Li Li-weng über das Theater: Eine Chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts (Li Li-weng on Theater: A Seventeenth-Century Chinese Dramaturgy), predated the representative Anglophone work Li Yü (1977), co-authored by Nathan K. Mao (1942–2015) and Liu Ts’un-Yan (1917–2009).[1] This article seeks to provide a diachronic overview and comprehensive synthesis of the translation and dissemination of Li Yu’s plays and theater theories in the German-speaking world over the past century. By situating these developments within the broader intellectual trends, shifting research priorities, and disciplinary transformations of German sinology across different historical periods, this study proposes a periodized history of the reception of Li Yu’s theatrical works in Germany. It analyzes how German sinologists have perceived, represented, and embraced Li Yu’s identity as a “dramatist” over time. Furthermore, it explores the opportunities, conditions, pathways, characteristics, and underlying reasons for the transmission and reception of Li Yu’s writings in the German context. Ultimately, this investigation aims to uncover more diverse interpretive frameworks and perspectives of a cultural “other,” and to reflect on the broader implications of Li Yu’s case for the transnational circulation of classical Chinese literature.
1. Pre-1940s: Alfred Forke and the First German Translation of Bimuyu
Previous scholarship has often hailed Helmut Martin as the “first Western scholar” to initiate the study of Li Yu’s dramas.[2] However, Alfred Forke, one of the founding figures of modern German sinology, also played an indispensable role in the transmission and reception of Li Yu’s works in Germany. In the 1930s and 1940s, Forke translated Li Yu’s chuanqi play Bimuyu, publishing it under the German title Die Schollen. To this day, Die Schollen remains the only complete German translation of Li Yu’s plays.[3]
During his lifetime, Forke translated a wide range of Yuan, Ming, and Qing dramas, including Bimuyu,[4] although most of these translations remained unpublished. It was not until the 1970s through the 1990s that Martin Gimm (b. 1930), professor at the University of Cologne, revisited, edited, and published Forke’s manuscripts in two volumes: Chinesische Dramen der Yüan-Dynastie (1978) and Zwei Chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie (1993). The translated version of Bimuyu, included in the latter, was thus officially published for the first time. Overall, Forke’s translation was relatively accurate and detailed, adhering closely to the original text. At the same time, Forke made deliberate adjustments to accommodate Western readers’ interests, comprehension, and aesthetic preferences. These modifications, evident in his introductory commentary as well as his additions and revisions to the text, demonstrated a pronounced scholarly awareness.
First, Forke authored an overarching and scholarly introduction to Die Schollen, revealing his discovery and appreciation for the distinct originality of Li Yu’s plays. On the one hand, he contended that Ming-Qing drama often resembles “dramatized novels” (dramatisierte Romane), highly favored by literati
[1] Mao, N.K, T.Y. Liu. Li Yü, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977.
[2] When discussing the overseas reception of Li Yu, scholars across the globe generally acknowledge Helmut Martin’s pioneering contributions to Li Yu studies in Germany and, more broadly, in Western academia. See, for example, 羽离子, 《李渔作品在海外的传播及海外的有关研究》，《四川大学学报》（哲学社会科学版）2001年第3期；Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S. 258.
[3] Wolfgang Kubin (2009) noted in Das traditionelle chinesische Theater that Forke’s Die Schollen remains “the only complete translation [of a Li Yu play] in any Western language” (zur vollst?ndigen ?bersetzung, wohl der einzigen in einer westlichen Sprache). See Kubin, Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, 266. A more recent English translation, A Couple of Soles: A Comic Play from Seventeenth-Century China, by Jing Shen and Robert E. Hegel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2019), has since replaced Die Schollen as the most up-to-date Western rendering of Bimuyu. Nonetheless, Die Schollen remains the only complete German version to date.
[4] In the preface to Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie, Martin Gimm notes that Forke’s translation manuscript was “completed in the 1930s and 1940s” (in den drei?iger und vierziger Jahren angefertigen), although he does not specify the exact completion date of the translation of Bimuyu.
yet “unsuitable for stage performance” (für die Bühne nicht geeignet).[1] By contrast, he asserted that Li Yu’s dramas “can be performed, recited, and even sung,” and that “his writing marks the apex of Chinese drama… and usher in a new era for a truly popular theater.”[2] On the other hand, Forke compared Bimuyu to canonical works of Western literature, remarking that it “calls to mind the plays of Shakespeare.”[3] This observation notably predates the well-known American sinologist Arthur W. Hummel’s comment on Li Yu as “the Chinese Shakespeare.”[4] Second, Forke emphasized that certain features, such as the blending of vernacular and literary registers, and the appeal to both elite and popular audiences, make Li Yu’s works stand out from other Ming-Qing plays. In Forke’s rendition of all thirty-three scenes of Bimuyu, he strived to preserve the plot while using accessible language. Forke aimed to “achieve the colloquial style, a feature of Chinese theatrical language, in the aspect of structure, rhetoric, and style”[5], thus avoiding unnecessary artifice and promoting accessibility for the Western audience.
Furthermore, recognizing that German readers might be unfamiliar with certain conventions of Chinese drama—such as jiaose (role types), chumu, and kejie (stage directions) —Forke provided explanations and adjustments in his translation to aid comprehension. For instance, regarding jiaose , he provided a character list at the beginning of the text, identifying each figure by name, social status, how they are referred to, and their corresponding role type. One example is the protagonist Tan Chuyu, listed as “a xiucai-scholar who later becomes an official,” referred to as “Tan xiansheng (Master Tan)” and assigned the role type sheng. Role types of the major characters appear primarily in stage directions, while in the dialogue and narrative sections, they are replaced by proper names, surnames, or respectful titles. For example, the character of Tan Chuyu, a sheng role type, is rendered directly as “Tan,” “Tan Chuyu,” or “Herr Tan” to underscore his status as the central protagonist, whereas supporting characters are referred to by their respective role types. Forke also provided interpretive translations of scene titles whose meanings might otherwise be obscure. For example, the title of Scene Two, “Er ’re” (Hot Ears), is translated as “Gro?e Erwartung” (Great Expectations), and Scene Nine, “Caozha” (Drafting A Letter), is rendered as “Das Liebesbriefchen” (Love Letter).
In addition, Forke detected the stylistic distinction between quci (lyrical verse) and binbai (spoken prose) in classical Chinese drama with keen insights, so he adjusted both the content and formatting of his translation accordingly. In terms of content, Forke rendered the arias, poems, and lyrics using the Knittelvers meter, a rhymed verse meter characterized by four stresses per line and rhyming couplets[6] (also known as “iambic tetrameter”). By contrast, the binbai was translated into straightforward, unadorned prose, thereby creating a contrast with the lyrical sections. In terms of formatting, Forke explicitly indicated transitions between a lyrical verse and a spoken prose by inserting phrases such as “he sings” (er singt) or “he speaks” (er spricht). The lyrical verse passages were typeset as stanzas composed of several short, rhymed lines, while the prose sections were arranged in unified paragraphs.
Moreover, Forke appended 244 annotations to his translation of Bimuyu. On the one hand, the annotations supplement the plot, increasing the readability of the translation while mitigating the distance between the unfamiliar source material and the target German audience. For example, in Scene Ten, “Gai sheng (Becoming Leading Man),” Forke inserted a note explaining how Liu Miaogu and Tan Chuyu, under the pretense of rehearsing a script, are in fact using it as a medium to exchange romantic sentiments. Such commentary helps Western readers grasp the subtle and veiled plotting that may otherwise remain opaque. On the other hand, the annotations serve as a vehicle for cultural mediation and interpretation, thereby elevating the academic value of the translation. Rather than functioning merely as a translation of a theatrical text, the work becomes a model for the study of cultural otherness. Some notes elucidate the socio-cultural background and customs of traditional Chinese theater, for instance, the historically low social status of actors or the convention of male performers playing female roles. Other notes introduce specific theater works and literary classics referenced in the play, such as Jingchai (The Thorn Hairpin), Xixiang (The Western Chamber), and other Chinese literary classics. Still others explain literary allusions and idioms, including expressions like jiaolu meng (the dream of a dead deer), taoyuan di (peach blossom spring), Qin Jin zhi hao (marriage alliance between Qin and Jin Kingdoms), and xuanliang cigu (tying one’s hair on the house beam and stabbing one’s thigh to keep oneself awake).
Forke was widely praised for “his fresh, unencumbered style” (in ihrer frischen, unbeschwerten Art)，[7] a quality that also characterizes his translation of Bimuyu.
[1] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), übersetzt von Alfred Forke, bearbeitet und erg?nzt von Martin Grimm, . Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993, S. 492.
[2] Ibid., S. 493–494.
[3] Ibid., S. 496.
[4] Arthur W. Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ching Period, Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1943, Vol.1, S.495–497.
[5] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), S. 9.
[6] 张威廉：《从德译元曲谈到元曲翻译》，《中国翻译》1989年第5期。
[7] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), S. 8.
Combined with his objective and precise handling of the text and his properly placed annotations, the translation is of finest quality. For this reason, when Martin Gimm re-edited the manuscript in 1993, he sought to preserve the original version as much as possible. At the same time, he corrected outdated information due to the long lapse of time between the manuscript’s creation and its publication, and he “revised and supplemented some details in accordance with contemporary German reading habits and available materials.”[1] Gimm’s editorial efforts and revisions are reflected in several key areas:
First, Gimm wrote a preface for his edited volume. This preface provides essential background information on the lives and works of Li Yu and Alfred Forke, offers a concise overview of Western scholarship on Li Yu, and reorganizes Forke’s annotations about the transliteration, translation, and functional descriptions of the role types. Second, Gimm “corrected evident errors in expression and linguistic ambiguities” found in the original translation, and systematically standardized the transliteration of names and terminology according to the pinyin system adopted in the People’s Republic of China.[2] Furthermore, Gimm transliterated certain gongdiao (modes and keys, or musical modes) and qudiao (melodies) previously omitted by Forke. With full awareness of the Ming-Qing chuanqi’s convention of combining “Southern” (nanqu) and “Northern” (beiqu) musical styles within a single drama, he added labels “Southern style” (im Süd-Stil) and “Northern style” (im Nord-Stil) to respective tunes. For instance, in Scene Twelve titled “Fei dun” (Luxuriant Escape), Murong Fu’s aria, “Northern xinshuiling,” is explicitly rendered as “nach der Melodie Xin Shui Ling im Nord-Stil,” while the subordinates’ chorus, “Southern Bu Bu Jiao,” is correspondingly indicated as “nach der Melodie Bubu Jiao im Süd-Stil.”
Gimm’s editorial revisions and refinements not only brought Forke’s translation of Bimuyu out of obscurity after more than half a century, but also significantly enhanced its scholarly value, transforming it into an important textual resource in the West for understanding, studying, and researching Chinese theater, especially the Ming-Qing chuanqi plays. The historical difficulties confronting German sinology at the time, as well as the field’s limited perception of Chinese literature contributed to the obscurity Forke’s valuable translation of Bimuyu languished in for decades. Firstly, from the 1930s onward, German sinology encountered considerable obstacles under Nazi rule, followed by further disruption of teaching and research activities during World War II. One might argue that German scholarly interest in Li Yu’s theater had barely begun to take root before being abruptly curtailed by wartime devastation. Although the discipline began to recover in the 1950s, the prevailing “lack of historical relatability” during that period “led to the neglect and eventual forgetting of earlier translation achievements.”[3] Secondly, traditional German sinology long held Yuan-era zaju in great esteem, resulting in a certain degree of disregard toward the literary value and significance of Ming-Qing drama.[4] Under these conditions, it is hardly surprising that Forke’s translation of Bimuyu remained marginalized and overlooked for so long.
Martin Gimm’s renewed attention to Forke’s translation was likewise closely tied to broader developments within German sinology. On the one hand, during the latter half of the twentieth century, the reception and research on Li Yu in Western sinology became increasingly rigorous and comprehensive. As scholars have noted, “In contemporary Western discourse, Li Yu has already become a highly renowned figure in the history of Chinese Literature; both domestic and international studies have affirmed his significance as a playwright, theater theorist, stage director, and man of letters.”[5] On the other hand, Gimm himself held Li Yu’s literary achievements in high regard, portraying him as a polymath who embraced the principle of xing le (the pursuit of pleasure) and championed a spirit of innovation. He particularly emphasized the value of Li Yu’s unorthodox theatrical theory.[6] For those reasons, Gimm re-organized and edited Forke’s translation of Bimuyu.
The publication of Gimm’s edited volume was met with widespread acclaim in academic circles. German scholar Hartmut Walravens (b. 1944) praised
[1] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), S. 21-23.
[2] Ibid., S. 21.
摆3闭&苍产蝉辫;摆德闭马汉茂主编：《德国汉学：历史、发展、人物与视角》，大象出版社2005年版，第36页。
[4] The neglect and bias toward Ming-Qing drama in early German Sinology is exemplified in the literary histories authored by German scholars of the period. Wilhelm Grube’s Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur (1902), long regarded as “the most authoritative history of Chinese literature written by a German Sinologist before the 1960s,” strongly emphasizes the status of Yuan zaju as the pinnacle of Chinese theater, while asserting that Ming-Qing drama had “declined from its former artistic heights.” See Wilhelm Grube, Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur, Leipzig: C. F. Amelangs Verlag, 1902, S. 361-405.
Similarly, Eduard Erkes (also known as Ye Naidu, 1891–1958), in his Chinesische Literatur (1922), devoted a discussion solely to Yuan drama, without mentioning Ming or Qing plays at all. See Eduard Erkes, Chinesische Literatur, Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt Verlag, 1922, S. 70-73.
Even Alfred Forke himself did not entirely escape the prevailing orthodoxy. Although
he stated that his work focused exclusively on textual analysis and refrained from
judging whether Yuan zaju or Ming-Qing chuanqi was superior, his remarks suggest a tacit endorsement of Grube’s position in Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur—that “Yuan zaju was the more accomplished form,” particularly because of its greater “unity of plot.”
See Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), übersetzt von Alfred Forke, bearbeitet und erg?nzt von Martin Grimm, . Stuttgart:
Steiner, 1993, S. 496.
[5] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), übersetzt von Alfred Forke, bearbeitet und erg?nzt von Martin Grimm, . Stuttgart:
Steiner, 1993, S. 12.
[6] Ibid., S. 13.
Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie for “rescuing Forke’s translation from oblivion,”[1] while Dutch sinologist Wilt L. Idema (b. 1944) commended it for “filling an important gap in Western scholarship on Chinese theatrical literature.”[2] Its significance lies not only in its status as the first and only complete German translation of Li Yu’s play, but also in its enduring academic value for subsequent research in German sinology. Although long overlooked, the translation proved remarkably resilient to time: over fifty years after its original completion, it remained relevant to both contemporary and present-day scholarship. Its importance as a textual and historical source can hardly be overstated.
II. The 1960s–1970s: Helmut Martin’s Groundbreaking Research and Systematic Translation of Li Yu’s Theatrical Theory
While Forke’s translation of Bimuyu remained little known due to the wartime upheaval and the resulting impoverishment in sinology, during the same period, Li Yu’s short stories reached a broader German audience thanks to Franz Walter Kuhn (1884–1961)’s translation of the vernacular fiction collection Shi’er lou (The Twelve Towers). Kuhn’s efforts helped solidify Li Yu’s reputation in the German-speaking world, where his fiction had already begun circulating as early as the 1920s.[3] As a result, prior to the 1960s, translations of Li Yu’s short stories had become the primary channel through which German-speaking readers engaged with his work. It was not until 1966 that Li Yu’s theatrical theory formally entered the field of German sinology with the publication of Helmut Martin’s seminal work Li Li-weng über das Theater (Li Li-weng on Theater). Structured in four main sections, the dissertation comprised: an overview of Chinese theatrical traditions and Li Yu’s theatrical theory; German translations of the “Ciqu bu” (Playwriting) and “Yanxi bu” (Performance) chapters from Xianqing ouji (Leisure Notes); a biographical sketch of Li Yu; and appendices. Drawing extensively on classics from past dynasties, the core of the dissertation offered not only a summary of the traditions of Chinese drama but also an original synthesis of the conceptual foundations, characteristics, expressive forms, and theoretical legacy of Li Yu’s theatrical thought. Martin’s dissertation represented a pioneering contribution (bahnbrechende Studie) to the study of Li Yu in the West.[4] At the same time, it opened up new topics and directions, providing a platform for future research, the discovery of new materials, and the development of emerging lines of inquiry. More specifically, the scholarly value of Li Li-weng über das Theater may be understood in four key aspects analyzed in the following paragraphs.
First, Helmut Martin’s research built upon the methodological legacy of traditional German sinology, which emphasized approaches such as translation, textual criticism, and philological annotation. He not only translated the major parts of the “Ciqu bu” and “Yanxi bu” sections of Xianqing Ouji (Leisure Notes), chapter by chapter, but also traced the theoretical lineage of Chinese drama preceding Li Yu. Martin argued that Li Yu’s theatrical theory “had a clear origin and did not emerge by chance.” He further elucidated how Li Yu both followed the footsteps of Wang Jide’s 蚕耻濒ü (Prosody of Qu) and also introduced significant innovations to it. In doing so, Martin clarified “the tradition from which Li Yu’s plays emerged, and how they inherited from it.”[5] In addition, Martin engaged with literature indexes and historical sources to investigate the authorship of several disputed works by Li Yu. In the appendices, he discussed whether Li Yu had written or edited the following five works: Chuanqi bazhong (Eight Types of Chuanqi), Jinpingmei (The Plum in the Golden Vase), Huiwen zhuan (The Legend of a Palindrome Poem), Rouputuan (The Carnal Prayer Mat), and Wanbao quanshu (The Complete Compendium of Ten Thousand Treasures). Grounded in textual research method, this approach also reflects a feature of traditional German sinology: the view that Chinese literature is inseparable from Chinese classics studies, historiography, and philosophy.
Second, Helmut Martin approached Li Yu’s plays and theatrical theory through the lens of comparative literature. On the one hand, he praised Li Yu’s theater works as
[1] Walravens, H. “Review of Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie”, Monumenta Serica, 1996(44), pp. 515–516.
[2] Wilt L. Idema. “Reviewed Work(s): Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan) by Alfred Forke and Martin Gimm”, T’oung Pao,1994, Second Series, Vol. 80, pp. 194–196.
[3] In 1827, the French Sinologist Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat (1788–1832) published a three-volume collection titled Contes Chinois, which was subsequently translated into German by the Leipzig-based publishing house Ponthieu, Michelsen & Company under the title Chinesische Erz?hlungen. This volume included translations of three stories from Li Yu’s Shi’er lou (The Twelve Towers), marking the earliest appearance of Li Yu’s work in the German language. Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, the German translator Franz Walter Kuhn produced a series of new translations of selected stories from The Twelve Towers, which were published both as standalone editions and as parts of collected volumes. These translations were met with considerable enthusiasm and acclaim, gaining recognition not only among general Western readers but also within the field of Sinology. See Hatto Kuhn, Dr. Franz Kuhn (1884–1961): Lebensbeschreibung und Bibliographie seiner Werke, Unter Mitarbeit von Martin Gimm, Geleitwort von Herbert Franke. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, 1980, S. 73, 77–80.
[4] Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S.258.
[5] Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater: eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 18.
“masterpieces produced by an independent tradition” (das letzte in einer unabh?ngigen Tradition entsandene Werk),[1] comparing them to the theatrical traditions of India, Japan, and Euro-America. With an emphasis on their cosmopolitan values, he argued that Li Yu’s works “broadened the Western understanding of the essence of drama” and “clearly presented the art of the Chinese stage, thereby adding to the West a category of drama worthy of translation and dissemination.”[2] On the other hand, Martin undertook comparative analyses between Li Yu’s theatrical theory and the ideas of famous Western dramatists, setting them in dialogue. For example, he noted that Horace advised playwrights to “select subjects already established in history, in order to avoid difficulties in portraying new characters on stage,” while Lessing maintained that “the traits of a theater character may be freely altered from the historical record” so as to present them in “their best possible form.” Li Yu, by contrast, “took precisely the opposite position”: he pursued innovation and rejected the use of purely historical facts as theatrical material.[3] Through such parallel comparison, Martin sought to use Li Yu as a bridge between Chinese and Western traditions of literary theory and standards of aesthetic criticism, highlighting the creative value of Li Yu’s theatrical theory in enriching and supplementing Western artistic production.
Third, the book offers an in-depth examination of Li Yu’s dual identity as both a drama “theorist” and a “practitioner.” On the theoretical side, Martin summarized Li Yu’s contributions in three main areas: the missions of drama, the selection of subject matter, and the principles of form and structure. First, Li Yu emphasized the literary value of drama over its social functions. Martin acknowledged that Li Yu could not entirely free himself from the influence of the Confucian tradition. This influence sometimes led his theatrical theory to repeat the conventional moralizing dictum of “promoting virtue and punishing vice.”[4] Nevertheless, the underlying chuanqi element of his work reveals a deeper artistic aspiration: “to bring the audience pleasurable comic entertainment” (die kom?diantische Unterhaltung zur Freude der Zuschauer).[5] Second, Li Yu prized the novelty of subject matter, maintaining that only “events that are strange and exceptional” could capture the audience’s attention. Third, in contrast to the shortcomings of traditional expansive narrative and fragmented plotting of Chinese drama, Li Yu pursued a “theatrical unity” of form and structure. He set formal standards for the composition of ciqu and binbai, for the in-play and final closings, and for the opening verses.[6] He also strongly advocated the “one person, one event” principle, reducing excessive subplots and minimizing overly complex casts to achieve a clear and coherent plot structure.[7] On the practical side, Martin placed particular emphasis on Li Yu’s role as a “director” beyond his theoretical contributions and on his practical experience in managing theater troupes. He regarded Li Yu both as an “acting coach” responsible for training performers and as a “director” overseeing theater operations.[8] According to Martin, Li Yu’s “practical theatrical experience undoubtedly made a major contribution to the development of Chinese drama,” and the productions mounted under his direction “captivated the audience” with their splendid costumes, dialogues, singing styles, and stage movements.” In Martin’s view, it was precisely through the organic integration of theory and practice that Li Yu’s plays acquired “coherence, force (expressiveness), and texture,” enabling them to continue circulating “despite official prohibitions, stylistic shifts, and the gradual turn of stage art toward Western models.”[9]
Finally, Martin directly confronted the long-standing stereotypes surrounding Li Yu, rejecting the earlier Western tendency to depict him solely as a hedonist or even as an unabashed
[1] Helmut Martin argued that Chinese theatrical theory and playwriting began to come
under the influence of Western literary currents and theatrical models after Li Yu.
See Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater: eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 76–78.
[2] Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater : eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 78.
[3] Martin observed that Li Yu may have believed “it was precisely the distortion
and misuse of history that led to misunderstandings of the truth,” and Martin went
on to describe the negative consequences of such historical dramatization—which Li
Yu argued against—as the “accumulation effect” (Kumulationseffekt). (Li Li-weng über das Theater : eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. 1966: 59.)
[4] Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater: eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 53.
[5] Ibid., S. 54.
[6] Ibid., S. 67.
[7] Ibid., S. 69.
[8] Ibid., S. 37.
[9] Ibid., S. 38.
[10] Ibid., S. 72.
libertine.[1] Instead, he interpreted Li Yu’s philosophy of xing le, his delight in life and his creative ideals, as an expression of “an aestheticist tendency,” and characterized him as “a model of the Ming literatus” (Vorbild der Ming-Literaten).[2] Martin also paid close attention to Li Yu’s multiple roles within the sphere of artistic life. Situating his analysis within the broader historical context and Li Yu’s own life experiences, he examined Li Yu’s achievements and reflections in diverse domains, including fiction writing, the aesthetics of everyday life, his attitudes toward women, garden and pavilion design, the art of tea, and culinary practice. He praised Li Yu for finding, in both literature and life, a sense of fulfillment in harmony with his own nature—one marked by “sincere charm, playful humor, and a satirical bent.”[3]
Motivated by his interest in, identification with, and admiration for Li Yu, Helmut Martin’s research extended well beyond the realm of drama. In 1970, he edited a fifteen-volume Li Yu quanji (The Complete Works of Li Yu), published by Chengwen Publishing House in Taipei,[4] a project completed twenty-one years before the 1991 mainland edition. In 1995, he collaborated with Martin Gimm to translate four stories from Li Yu’s Shi’er lou (The Twelve Towers),[5] thereby filling in the chapters that Franz Walter Kuhn had left untranslated.[6] Martin’s scholarly contributions were equally substantial. His extensive preface for Li Yu quanji boasts great scholarly value and his essays such as “Li Li-weng and Silent Operas”[7] carry significant academic weight. These rich textual resources provided a solid foundation for subsequent studies of Li Yu in German sinology and indeed in the entire Western sinological circle, opening new windows of inquiry. As “the first breakthrough in post-war German sinology,”[8] Martin’s discovery and study of Li Yu was undeniably pioneering. He brought Li Yu squarely into the sinological research in Germany, both as a “playwright” and a “theater theorist,” breaking with the earlier practice which introduced Li Yu mainly through the translation of his novels, and kept his plays in the shadow. In doing so, Martin opened new directions and expanded the scope for research, dissemination, and reception of Li Yu’s works in both Germany and the broader Western academic world.
III. From the 1980s to the Present: The “Outside-In” Turn in the Studies in Li Yu’s Drama
Following Helmut Martin, German scholars gradually came to recognize the distinctiveness and significance of Li Yu’s plays. This shift is reflected most prominently in how his identity as a dramatist has been written about and evaluated in Chinese literary histories compiled in German during this period. Representative examples include Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer’s Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur (History of Chinese Literature, 1990), Reinhard Emmerich’s Chinesische Literaturgeschichte (Chinese Literary History, 2004), and Wolfgang Kubin’s Das traditionelle chinesische Theater (The Traditional Chinese Theater, 2009). The interpretations and reception of Li Yu’s identity as a dramatist by these three German scholars evolved from an earlier mode of advocacy—marked primarily by praise and admiration—toward a critical reassessment featuring reflection and questioning. This transition showed that the deepening engagement of German sinology with Li Yu’s theater had been shaping the ongoing transformation of his identity in the West through continual processes of deconstruction and reconstruction.
Acclaimed as “one of the three greatest European sinologists,” Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer (born in 1948), Professor of Sinology at the University of G?ttingen, was the first to address in literary history Li Yu’s long-overlooked achievements in theater. He was fully aware that Li Yu had once occupied an awkward position in Chinese literary history, stating that “despite his prolific accomplishments in drama,
[1] Ibid., S. 220.
[2] Ibid., S. 254.
[3] Ibid. S. 254.
[4] [清]李渔撰，马汉茂（Helmut Martin）辑：《李渔全集》，成文出版社1970年版。
[5] Li Yu. Der sch?nste Knabe aus Peking. Vier Novellen aus der frühen Qing-Zeit, zsgest. und übers. von Martin Gimm und Helmut Martin, Dortmund: Project Verlag,
1995.
[6] Between 1939 and 1947, Franz Walter Kuhn translated eight of the stories from
Shi’er Lou. The four stories he did not translate were “Sanyu Lou,” “Wenguo Lou,” “Shijin Lou,”
and “Cuiya Lou.” See Franz Kuhn. Der Turm der fegenden Wolken : altchinesische Novellen,
Freiburg i Br: H. Klemm-Verlag, 1951.
[7] 羽离子：《李渔作品在海外的传播及海外的有关研究》，《四川大学学报》（哲学社会科学版）2001年第3期。
[8] 范劲：《从个体阐释到系统阐释——比较文学的方法论转向》，《探索与争鸣》2022年第12期。
he remained underappreciated for a long time because of his disregard for social mores.”[1] Schmidt-Glintzer thus sought to uncover, from an “outsider’s perspective,” those features of Li Yu’s drama that “remain obscured when observed from within” (eine Betrachtung von innen verbogen bleiben).[2] He reexamined literary genres that had long been undervalued in German sinology, such as Ming-Qing huaben stories and chuanqi plays. He also analyzed Li Yu’s unique contributions to the theater set in the political, social, and cultural contexts of his time, describing him as “one of the most legendary figures of the period.”[3] First, he paid particular attention to Li Yu’s special status as a writer, living his turbulent life in a dynastic transition. Taking Li Yu’s marginalized position into consideration, Schmidt-Glintzer summarized Li Yu’s aesthetic ideals of everyday life, literary and artistic principles, and creative works. Second, he emphasized Li Yu’s accomplishments as both a “playwright and dramaturg” (Theaterautor und Dramaturg),[4] highlighting his achievements and contributions in theoretical innovation, playwriting, performance direction, and stage practice. This marked Li Yu’s debut as a dramatist (rather than a novelist) within the system of Chinese literature constructed by German sinology.[5] Schmidt-Glintzer’s recognition and discovery of Li Yu’s identity as a “heterodox” writer and his theater achievements constituted a dual act of rebellion against both the Western interpretive tradition and the Chinese literary system. On the one hand, he adopted an unconventional literary-historical approach that underscored his own “de-authorization” stance, which challenged the bias of previous German scholars who dismissed Ming-Qing literature. On the other hand, he sought out and foregrounded marginalized literary exemplars within a foreign literary history, thereby asserting a distinctive “Other’s” understanding of the attributes and connotations of Chinese literature. In this sense, Schmidt-Glintzer’s attention to Li Yu’s plays and theatrical theory served as a compelling confirmation of the unique research value of Li Yu when seen from an “outsider’s” perspective.
Since its publication, Schmidt-Glintzer’s Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur has been well received by both Chinese and international scholars, and at the time was regarded as “the most detailed monograph on the comprehensive history of Chinese literature ever written in German.”[6] Nevertheless, even Schmidt-Glintzer himself admitted that his narrative inevitably contained elements of subjective exaggeration and that many of his views were derived from secondary sources.[7] Given the limitations of Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur and the fact that “at that time there was only one single-volume history of Chinese literature written in German”[8] failed to meet the diverse needs of different audiences. Reinhard Emmerich, Professor of Sinology at the University of Münster, argued that “editors and contributors have an obligation to take into account the different interests of readers.”[9] He therefore compiled and published Chinesische Literaturgeschichte (History of Chinese Literature), a work aimed at the general reading public and also suitable for beginning students of Sinology. In this volume, Emmerich devoted an entire section to Li Yu under the title “Zwischen Konvention und Kreativit?t: Li Yu” (Between Convention and Creativity: Li Yu).
[1] Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer. Geschichte Der Chinesischen Literatur: Die 3000j?hrige Entwicklung Der Poetischen,
Erz?hlenden Und Philosophisch-religi?sen Literatur Chinas Von Den Anf?ngen Bis Zur
Gegenwart. Bern: Scherz Verlag, 1990, S. 476.
[2] Ibid., S. 13.
[3] Ibid., S. 475.
[4] Ibid., S.420.
[5] In his Die chinesische Literatur (History of Chinese Literature), the renowned twentieth-century German Sinologist and translator Richard Wilhelm
(1873–1930) briefly mentioned “the famous dramatist Li Yu of the Ming dynasty,” describing
him as “displaying the hand of a true master.” However, Wilhelm’s remarks were confined
to only a few sentences and did not offer any sustained discussion of Li Yu’s contributions
to drama. As such, his work cannot be regarded as a genuine incorporation of Li Yu’s
identity as a “dramatist” into the writing of Chinese literary history within the
framework of German Sinology. (Richard Wilhelm. Die chinesische Literatur. Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, herausgegeben von Oskar Walzel, Wiledpark-Postdam: Akademische Verlag, 1930. S.
180.)
[6] 何寅、许光华编：《国外汉学史》，上海外语教学出版社2002年版，第539页。
[7] For example, his discussion of Li Yu’s plays and theatrical theory draws heavily
on Helmut Martin’s Li Li-weng über das Theater, while his discussion on Li Yu’s fiction is based primarily on Patrick Hanan’s The Invention of Li Yu. See Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer. Geschichte Der Chinesischen Literatur: Die 3000j?hrige Entwicklung Der Poetischen,
Erz?hlenden Und Philosophisch-religi?sen Literatur Chinas Von Den Anf?ngen Bis Zur
Gegenwart. Bern: Scherz Verlag, 1990, S. 9.
[8] Reinhard Emmerich. Chinesische Literaturgeschichte, Stuttart: Metzler, 2004, IX.
[9] Ibid.
Placing Li Yu within the socio-political arena of the Ming-Qing dynastic transition, he conducted a nuanced analysis of the subtle distance between Li Yu’s individual creative style and the conventional Chinese literary traditions. Taking this as a point of departure, Emmerich explored and articulated the unique qualities of Li Yu’s theater works.
In Emmerich’s view, the key to Li Yu’s theater achievement lies in his capacity for “self-invention” (Selbsterfindung),[1] cultivated by the following two contributing factors. On the one hand, although endowed with extraordinary talent, Li Yu failed to secure an official position and was thus compelled to earn a living through writing. He adopted “literary and personalized strategies” to respond to the “impact of social change on the traditional self-image of the literati” during the Ming-Qing transition. On the other hand, his lifelong dedication to playwriting and stage direction, coupled with his dual identity as both dramatist and director and his extensive experience in managing theatrical groups, provided the foundation for his creative self-renewal.[2] Firstly, Li Yu’s inventiveness was reflected in his pursuit of theatrical art that was both enjoyable and accessible. In terms of subject matter, he regarded human emotions and interpersonal relationships as “the most original materials,” emphasizing on the accurate observation and portrayal of love and desire. He also opposed prolixity, advocating the shortening of plays to fit a more coherent plot logic and structure.[3] A second manifestation of his inventiveness was the integration and mutual adaptation of theatrical and fictional forms. Emmerich observed that Li Yu consciously sought to blur the boundary between drama and fiction: when writing fiction, he incorporated theatrical concepts; when composing dramas, he drew upon material adapted from his own fictions. His plays and fictions thus share notable similarities in plot construction, characterization, and narrative voice. In sum, Emmerich concluded that while Li Yu’s self-invention operated within a “predetermined traditional framework,” he “enriched this framework with brilliant and vitality” uniquely his own, ultimately establishing himself as a veritable “literary multitalent” (als literarisches Multitalent) in Ming-Qing literature.[4]
Compared with Schmidt-Glintzer’s synthetic overview, Emmerich’s study focused on the keyword of “creativity,” offering a more detailed and nuanced discussion of Li Yu’s plays. However, both scholars approached Li Yu’s plays and theatrical theory from the perspective of a broader historical and cultural context, without fully engaging with the interpretive space within the texts through microanalysis. Wolfgang Kubin’s ten-volume Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur (History of Chinese Literature) addressed this gap.[5] Kubin observed that, compared with Hong Sheng and Kong Shangren, Li Yu was more favored in Western sinology as a figure who “combined in one person the roles of playwright, actor, director, instructor, and critic.” Yet, paradoxically, his achievements in theater had not received due attention, and his plays “have hardly been translated into Western languages.” This led Kubin to pose several questions: “Is it perhaps that sinologists have been too demanding of Li Yu (as a dramatist)? Or is he considered solely a great prose writer and a significant aesthetician? Or is it because his plays do not engage with the ‘spirit of the age’?”[6] In response to these questions, Kubin authored Volume Six in Das traditionelle chinesische Theater himself, devoting a special section titled “Li Yu (Li Li-weng, 1611–1680): Die chinesische Kom?die” (Li Yu: Chinese Comedy) to an in-depth examination of Li Yu’s plays.
Overall, Kubin departed from the traditional approaches to Chinese drama that relied primarily on plot summary or philological exegesis.[7] Combining close textual analysis with an internal interpretation of the plays, he re-examined the ways in which Li Yu had been interpreted since his entrance to the Western discourse system. Kubin thus put under scrutiny the validity of reinforcing Li Yu image as a “comedian” willing to subvert and innovate.
On the one hand, Kubin affirmed the significance of Li Yu’s achievements in theater. He acknowledged Li Yu as “a great dramatist,”[8] and pointed out that the current limitation in Western scholarship lies in its exclusive focus on Li Yu’s theatrical theory while neglecting the interpretive possibilities within his plays: “people often take a diversionary approach,
[1] Ibid., S. 262.
[2] Ibid., S. 262–264.
[3] Ibid., S. 263.
[4] Ibid., S. 262.
[5] Since 2002, Wolfgang Kubin had served as editor-in-chief, bringing together leading
contemporary German Sinologists such as Karl-Heinz Pohl, Monika Motsch, Thomas Zimmer,
and Rolf Trauzettel to collaborate on the compilation of the Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur. The ten-volume series was completed in 2021.
[6] Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S. 259. (The book was translated into Chinese and published in 2011 as [德]顾彬著，黄明嘉译：《中国传统戏剧》,
East China Normal University Press.)
[7] “I believe that, in the study of Chinese drama, one should move beyond mere plot
summary and purely philological research… At times, one must even have the courage
to make substantive judgments—an approach that is often avoided by most colleagues.”
(Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, 2009: VIII.)
[8] Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S. 279.
i.e. speaking not of his plays but only of his theater theory, as if that was his sole achievement.”[1] Consequently, in his own analysis Kubin devoted particular attention to the content of Li Yu’s plays, conducting a close reading of the only Li Yu play available in German sinology, Forke’s translation of Bimuyu, in order to assess Li Yu’s creative strengths as a dramatist. Kubin observed that Bimuyu presents a narrative conflict through the confrontational relationship between its characters. For example, the interaction between the heroine Liu Miaogu and her mother Liu Jiangxian stages the opposition of the “chaste maiden” and the “wicked mother,” in which the mother exchanges “feigned affection” for “tangible financial gain,” whereas the daughter treatsthe “nominal marriage” enacted on stage as if it were a “real marriage.”[2] Such blending of reality and pretense produces a threefold “play-within-a-play” effect. The first is the play viewed by the audience; the second is the play performed by the actors; and third is the play in which the actors perform roles in alignment with their own will.[3] With a concentration on the character portrayal and plot development in the play, Kubin offered a detailed and nuanced textual analysis.
On the other hand, Kubin was cautious with the labels previous sinologists in the West had given to Li Yu’s plays: “innovative” and “comedic” among others. He reflected on the tensions and contradictions between Li Yu’s theatrical theory and his creative practice, undertaking a process of “disenchantment” of the Li Yu constructed and perpetuated by earlier scholars. First, Kubin argued that Li Yu was not a traditional “rebel,” but someone only introduced limited innovations. In his view, Li Yu’s theoretical innovations were often constrained in practice due to various factors. Discrepancies between theory and execution were thus inevitable.[4] For example, although Li Yu insisted that theater lyricism should xidi kejiu (wash away clichés),[5] Kubin found his characters to be stereotypical.[6] Even the heroine Liu Miaogu—whose “rebellious personality runs throughout the play” and who “differs from the other female figures who permissively accepted their fates in Li Yu’s other works”[7]— remains bound to the formulaic caizi jiaren (“talented scholar and beautiful lady”) model. Likewise, in Naihetian (You Can’t Do Anything about Fate), the comic role chou of Que Li Hou reverses the convention in which the male sheng is the protagonist; yet, this subversive experiment, Kubin argues, fails to bring the audience enjoyment.[8] Second, Kubin boldly questioned the established Western identification of Li Yu as a “comedian.” The conception of comedy in Western traditions is “to construct an apparent theater conflict, expose human weaknesses in a humorous manner, and resolve that conflict.” Measured against this definition, the so-called Chinese “comedy” could at most be classified, in Kubin’s view, as “situational farce” rather than true “comedy,” and Li Yu’s plays are no exception.[9] Kubin sought to employ a “modern” critical discourse to dismantle the “comedian” identity ascribed to Li Yu by earlier Western narratives. Yet at the same time, his understanding of “comedy” rested on a Eurocentric cultural perspective and logic. Nevertheless, Kubin’s re-examination of Li Yu’s identity as a dramatist and of his artistic accomplishments signaled new interpretive possibilities in the study and reception of Li Yu’s drama within German sinology.
Thanks to the writings and reassessments done by multiple sinologists on Li Yu’s significance in literary history, German sinology has increasingly devoted greater attention to his theater works when discussing his oeuvre. This shift reflects a move from a primary emphasis on theatrical theory to a balanced focus on both theory and theatrical texts, with particular attention to scene structure, character design, and the staging of plot, clearly demonstrating a “inward turn.” It has also stimulated the emergence of an ever-growing body of specialized
[1] Ibid., S. 271–261
[2] Ibid., S. 271–273.
[3] Ibid., S. 275.
[4] Ibid., S. 265.
[5] [清]李渔：《李渔全集》（第三卷），浙江古籍出版社1991年版，第10页。
[6] Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S.268.
[7] Ibid., S. 270.
[8] Ibid., S. 265.
[9] Ibid., S. 278–279.
studies.[1] Since the 1980s, research progress has led to broader recognition and affirmation of Li Yu’s dual identity and achievements as both “dramatist” and “drama theorist.” In German sinology, the study of Li Yu’s drama has undergone a transition “from the outside in,” shifting from theoretical exposition to a balanced emphasis on both theory and plays. The research and reception of Li Yu in Germany have entered a new stage of diverse and abundant voices, as we began to see the three histories of Chinese literature compiled by Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, Reinhard Emmerich, and Wolfgang Kubin, respectively representing the first appearances, gradual affirmation, and renewed critical reflection on Li Yu as a dramatist.
IV. Opportunities, Key Research, and Takeaways from the Reception of Li Yu’s Drama in Germany
From Forke’s translation of Bimuyu to the present, the translation, study, and dissemination of Li Yu’s drama in Germany have spanned nearly a century, undergoing a long process of reception that has evolved from one-way translation to a multiplicity of interpretations, identity constructions, and value reassessments. Examining the dissemination of Li Yu’s plays and theatrical theory in Germany therefore offers valuable lessons for reflecting on the broader project of introducing Chinese culture abroad.
First, the reception of Li Yu’s drama in the German-speaking world has exhibited distinct, stage-specific characteristics shaped by the dual influence of socio-historical changes in Germany and transformations in sinology. Since the 1930s, under Nazi rule, many sinologists were politically persecuted and were unable to pursue academic work, leading to a marked stagnation and regression in German sinology. During the Second World War, the field suffered a severe loss of personnel, the destruction of facilities, and the loss or burning of books. In the postwar years, the division and confrontation between East and West Germany further
compounded the obstacles towards recovery and revitalization. Under such harsh historical conditions, Forke’s translation of Bimuyu remained unpublished at the time of his death in 1944. From the 1960s onward, German sinology gradually revived. With the publication in 1966 of Helmut Martin’s Li Li-weng über das Theater as a landmark, German scholars deepened their investigations on Li Yu, shifting from research primarily focused on his fictions to an expanded interest in other aspects, thereby bringing his achievements in theater into scholarly view. Following the establishment of diplomatic relationship between China and the Federal Republic of Germany, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed closer political contacts, economic trade, and cultural exchange between the two countries, rekindling a “China fever” in German society.[2] During this period, research on Li Yu’s drama in Germany experienced an exponential growth. Newly edited and revised by Martin Gimm, Forke’s translation manuscript was finally published, becoming the only and most important German translation of Li Yu’s plays to date. Leading sinologists such as Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, Reinhard Emmerich, and Wolfgang Kubin took up the task of rewriting Chinese literary history, uncovering, and reinterpreting the value of Li Yu’s drama, thereby advancing the scholarship on Li Yu to new levels.
Second, researchers in the German-speaking world were among the first to acknowledge Li Yu’s identity as an “unorthodox” and “nonconformist” writer, thereby directing sustained attention to his theatrical works and theories. They attempted to discover, reveal, and even construct the Chinese literary canon that lay concealed behind “objective knowledge” through the scholarly perspective and methodology of the Other. First, they repeatedly noted the discrepancies between Li Yu’s actual literary contributions and his marginalized position given in literary history by the Chinese traditional scholarship on account of his politically sensitive status as a writer straddling two dynasties and his moral laxity.[3] Thus, the German scholars’ interest was, in essence, an effort to uncover the value of Li Yu’s “heretical” identity, obscured within the traditions of Chinese literary criticism. Second, German sinologists attached particular importance to Li Yu’s dual role as both playwright and theater director,
[1] For example, Stephan Pohl’s study on the influence of Li Yu’s theatrical theory
on his fiction (Das lautlose Theater des Li Yu: eine Novellensammlung der frühen Qing-Zeit, Walldorf-Hessen: Verlag für Orientkunde Dr. H. Vorndran, 1994), and Andrea Stocken’s
interpretation of Li Yu’s plays through the lens of his life-aesthetic philosophy
(Die Kunst der Wahrnehmung: Das ?sthetikkonzept des Li Yu (1610–168) im Xianqing ouji im Zusammenhang von Leben und Werk, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005). A detailed discussion of these works lies beyond
the scope of this article and will be addressed in future publications.
[2] 张国刚：《德国的汉学研究》，中华书局1994年版，第112页。
[3] Schmidt-Glintzer observed that “owing to his unrestrained attitude toward questions
of custom and morality, he was for a long time neglected, and it was not until after
the founding of the Republic in 1912 that he was once again recognized as one of China’s
most important theater directors and playwrights” (Geschichte der chinesischen Literatur, 1990, p. 476). Emmerich referred to Li Yu’s “luxurious lifestyle and liberal moral
views” (Chinesische Literaturgeschichte, 2004, p. 262), while Gimm went further in affirming his “non-Confucian, anti-religious
attitude toward life” (Zwei Chinesische Singspiele der Qing-Dynastie, 1993, p. 13).
a distinction that sets him apart from other Chinese dramatists. In the German theatrical tradition, the positions of playwright and director have always been considered central, whereas in Chinese drama they are often diminutive. As Chen Quan remarked, “Most Chinese playwrights’ names are unknown… exactly the opposite of the situation in Germany.”[1] Li Yu broke with this tradition, taking on the responsibilities of both writing and directing. He not only possessed exceptional literary talent, which enabled him to produce plays of refreshing originality, but also had extensive experience in stage production, leading the performance group to tour across the country. In this sense, Li Yu stood out as a singular figure in the literary history of the Ming-Qing period. For this reason, German scholars viewed him as a noteworthy exception. Helmut Martin was the first to recognize Li Yu’s “dual contribution” in theory and practice.[2] Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer praised him as “an unquestionably competent theater manager”.[3] Emmerich likewise noted the nationwide success of his theatrical tours.[4] Third, the German scholars often emphasized the “novelty” and “creativity” of materialized in Li Yu’s literary works in his pursuit of leisure and entertainment. Even Wolfgang Kubin, who cautioned against uncritically labeling Li Yu as an “innovator,” could not help but praise the imaginative originality of Bimuyu’s ending, in which Liu Miaogu and Tan Chuyu are “revived” together as a couple of soles.[5] Taken together, these three aspects of German scholarship on Li Yu’s drama illustrate that the discourse of the Other deliberately or inadvertently departs from, and even challenges, the established Chinese literary system. They also demonstrate that the encounter and negotiation between Chinese and Western literary cultures created a mutually generative, heterogeneous space of interaction, one that has facilitated the dynamic exchange and ongoing mutual enrichment of both literary systems.
Finally, in contrast to Li Yu’s fiction, which had entered the German-speaking world as early as the 1820s and enjoyed wide dissemination and reception, the acceptance of Li Yu’s plays by German sinologists was delayed by more than a century and remained largely confined to the research, translation, and dissemination in the academia. Most of the researchers involved were professors, literary critics, or professional translators within the German sinological community, whose approaches tended to be highly academic, specialized, and methodologically rigorous. Adhering to the principle of “interpreting China from a Western perspective,” they not only emphasized the cultural commonalities between Chinese and Western theaters but also sought to uncover the national characteristics of Li Yu’s drama. Forke, for example, interpreted Li Yu’s plays through the lens of the Western traditional definition of Singspiel,[6] underscoring their audiovisual nature and artistic effect as a stage art. Helmut Martin used comparative analysis to juxtapose Li Yu’s theater theory with the theatrical traditions of Japan, India, and Europe, asserting that “his theories have been no less influential upon other authors and actors than those of any dramatist in any country.”[7] Emmerich, Kubin, and others evaluated the literary value of Li Yu’s plays measured against the concept of comedy shaped by the Western discourse. At different stages, German scholars have adopted multi-layered, wide-angled, and broad-ranging perspectives and methodologies characteristic of overseas sinology. In the early period, Forke’s translation employed a popularizing approach to address the linguistic challenges qu and bai pose in Li Yu’s plays, thereby showing that as a translator and researcher, he has a keen eye for critical issues in drama translation. Scholars such as Helmut Martin relied on translation, exposition, and commentary as their primary methods, following the philological and textual-critical tradition of German sinology established in the 1920s. Contemporary sinologists such as Schmidt-Glintzer, Emmerich, and Kubin, motivated by a “search for the depth and history of Chinese thought,”[8] have situated Li Yu within Chinese literary and intellectual history, using research on the individual to stimulate new historical interpretations. Their critical work, with an explicit skeptical edge, took a different pathway from the largely affirmative and positive assessments of Li Yu prevalent in the English-speaking world.[9] In sum, the interpretations and critiques offered by German researchers from the vantage point of the “Other” have endowed sinological studies on Li Yu’s drama in Germany
[1] 陈铨：《中德文学研究》，商务印书馆1936年版，第71页。
[2] Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater: eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 38.
[3] Schmidt-Glintzer, Helwig. Geschichte Der Chinesischen Literatur: Die 3000j?hrige Entwicklung Der Poetischen,
Erz?hlenden Und Philosophisch-religi?sen Literatur Chinas Von Den Anf?ngen Bis Zur
Gegenwart, Bern:. Scherz Verlag, 1990, S. 476.
[4] Reinhard Emmerich. Chinesische Literaturgeschichte, Stuttart: Metzler, 2004, S. 263–264.
[5] Wolfgang Kubin. Das traditionelle chinesische Theater, München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 2009, S.269.
[6] Zwei chinesische Singspiele der Qing-dynastie (Li Yu und Jiang Shiquan), übersetzt von Alfred Forke, bearbeitet und erg?nzt von Martin Grimm, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993, S. 7.
[7] Helmut Martin. Li Li-weng über das Theater : eine chinesische Dramaturgie des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Inaugraldissertation von Ruprecht-Karl University in Heidelberg, 1966, S. 4.
[8] [德]顾彬著，黄明嘉译：《中国传统戏剧》，华东师范大学出版社2011年版，第2页。
[9] 魏琛琳：《李渔戏剧理论英译及接受史研究》，《中国文学研究》2021年第1期。
with a vibrant plurality—one marked by competing viewpoints and flourishing diversity—and have generated a steady stream of new insights through the dialogue, contestation, and mutual engagement between German sinology and Chinese scholarly discourse.
Insights have been gained by using German sinology as a “mirror of the Other” to examine the overseas dissemination and reception of Li Yu. This approach facilitates our exploration of the channels and strategies for the global circulation of Chinese classics, as well as our reflections on how such works should “go out” in ways that enable deeper understanding and broader acceptance abroad. At the same time, this perspective allows us to identify the overarching characteristics and distinct stages of German sinologists’ assessments of Li Yu’s drama, the distortions and transformations that have occurred in the process, and the departures from Chinese cultural contexts (as in some views expressed by Wolfgang Kubin), all of which reveal the cultural divergences and aesthetic differences faced by Chinese literature in its global outreach. Such an approach not only enables the scholarly community to adopt a more rational and prudent stance toward the dialectical relationship between the “self” and the “Other” in cross-cultural transmission, but also urges us to consider how Chinese literary classics in world canon can speak more authentically and precisely from within its own traditions. We must also foreground the outstanding issues such as the local perspective in cultural transmission on the basis of a global vision.
(Edited by Zhao Jianxin)
This article was first published in Chinese in 2024.
魏琛琳,寇惟妙.路径与方法:德国汉学视域下李渔剧作与剧论的传播与接受摆闯闭.戏曲艺术,2024(6):106-118.&苍产蝉辫;
Translator: Yanhui Jiang
Proofreaders: Chenqing Song, Xi Wang