On the Self-evaluation in the Ci-poetry Criticism of the Qing Dynasty

Ou Mingjun

Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) ›› 2013, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (4) : 77-84.

PDF(1960 KB)
PDF(1960 KB)
Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) ›› 2013, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (4) : 77-84.
Orignal Article

On the Self-evaluation in the Ci-poetry Criticism of the Qing Dynasty

  • Ou Mingjun
Author information +
History +

Abstract

This article looks into self-evaluation as a significant yet long-neglected mode in the Ci-poetry criticism of the Qing Dynasty. The Ci-poetry critics who applied this mode used to have their own instead of other Ci-poets’ works as the objects of their criticism. The features of their self-evaluative comments evolved with time passing by and varied from one school of criticism to another. Rhetorically speaking, the mode of criticism in question could be classified into a number of types, of which the important ones were the self-appreciatory, the self-depreciatory, and the self-reflexive. The nomenclature of the Ci-poetry criticism, to a large extent, was a pioneering meta-evaluation with its originality and creativity and enjoyed a “patent” for invention.Due to the fact that the mode of criticism in question was found only in the Ci-poetry criticism of the Qing Dynasty, this argues for the irreplaceable value and prestigious status that it ought to be accorded. It’s of great necessity to show the full realization of and rudimentary respect towards the self-assessment by the participants of history.Without paying close attention to this unique mode of criticism, no historical account of the Ci-poetry criticism of the Qing Dynasty could claim to be appropriate. And it deserves deeper introspection in the aspect of scientific principle or law.

Key words

self-evaluation / meta-evaluation / nomenclature / originality / realization

Cite this article

Download Citations
Ou Mingjun. On the Self-evaluation in the Ci-poetry Criticism of the Qing Dynasty[J]. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2013, 50(4): 77-84
PDF(1960 KB)

3686

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/