郭建：Bookreview：Allegoresis：Read

　　Comparativeliteraturehaswonitsbattlesatacostofidentity，writesHaunSaussyinadecennialreportonthestateofthedisciplinehepreparedonbehalfoftheAmericanComparativeLiteratureAssociationwhichappearsasaleadarticleinComparativeLiteratureinanAgeofGlobalization（Baltimore，MD：JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress，2006）。Ontheonehand，theteaching，andthestudy，orrather，inthepastfiftyyearssincetheSecondCongressoftheInternationalComparativeLiteratureAssociationheldattheUniversityofNorthCarolinainChapelHillinSeptember1958，adefiningmomentinwhichagroupofprominentNorthAmericanscholars，someofthempolyglotmigrsfromEurope，arguedforcefullyforacomparativestudyofliteratureembracingtransnationalcategoriesandinterdisciplinaryapproachesinreactiontowhattheysawasrigidlyhistoricist，positivistic，andculturallynationalistictendenciesoftraditionalcomparativismrepresentedbycontributorstotheFrenchjournalRevuedelittraturecompare。Today，literaryandcriticalworksoriginallywritteninforeignlanguagesaretaughtindepartmentsofEandcrossculturalandinterdisciplinaryperspectivesarewidelyrespected。Thetriumphofcomparativeliteratureissuchthat，inSaussy’swords，“Ourconclusionshavebecomeotherpeople’sassumptions”（p。3）。Ontheotherhand，however，thesubtleandquietlytransformativeinfluencethusachievedhasalsocontributedtoanidentitycrisisofthediscipline。Whilethoseinthehumanitiesadoptingtheoriesandmethodologiespioneeredbycomparatistsrarelyidentifythemselvesasprimarilycomparatists，literaryscholars，includingpractitionersofcomparativeliteratureitself，movesofarintoaspaceofinterdisplinaritycalled“culturalstudies”thattheyalmostgiveupliteratureitself。Inthemeantime，comparativeliteratureprogramsoncollegecampuses，usuallyofinterdepartmentalandinterdisciplinaryformation，theyareactuallyshrinkingincorrelationwithahostofshortages：jobsinthefield，andhencestudents，andhenceinstitutionalsupport。Asaresult，comparativeliteraturehasincreasinglybecomemarginalandphantomlike。
　　Therehasbeennolackofspeculationandprophesiesaboutcomparativeliterature’ssupposeddecline，andevendemise，inrecentyears，towhichSaussy’smoresubstantiveandcautiousassessmentisawelcomecorrective。Forthehealthofthediscipline，so，too，ishispatientarticulationofthecentralityofliterarinessinthetraditionofcomparativeliteraturetotheurgeforgoingculturalasreflectedinthepreviousdecennialreport（CharlesBernheimer，ed。，ComparativeLiteratureintheAgeofMulticulturalism。Baltimore，MD：JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress，1995）。Asforthediscipline’swidelyperceivedlossofidentity，onemaydifferalittlebypointingoutthat，one，theproblemcouldbeinnateinthefirstplaceduetothedifficultyoffeelingathomecomplacentandcontentwithanationalliteratureforsomeonealreadywellversedinseverallanguagesandliteraturesand，asSaussyhimselfobserves，tothecomparatist’sbeingidentifiedwiththe“processesofinterchange”andmoreinvestedinmethodsthaninsubjectmatter（p。11）。Two，therehasbeenaslowthoughsteadyoutputofsolidworksofscholarshipthatnotonlymostfittinglybelongtobutalsocontinuetosetnewstandardsandmarknewterritoriesforcomparativeliterature。OnesuchworkisZhangLongxi’srecentbookentitledAllegoresis：ReadingCanonicalLiteratureEastandWest（Ithaca，NY，andLondon：CornellUniversityPress，2005）。
　　AcomparativestudyofallegoricalinterpretationsofcanonicaltextsEastandWest，mostnotablytheancientChineseBookofPoetry（Shijing詩經theConfucianclassicmorepopularlyknowninEnglishtranslation，toArthurWaley’scredit，astheBookofSongs）andtheBiblicalSongofSongs，AllegoresisexemplifieswhatClaudioGuillndefinesasathirdmodelofsupranationalityinTheChallengeofComparativeLiterature（Cambridge，MA：HarvardUniversityPress，1993），anexaminationofphenomena“geneticallyindependent”thatis，beyondhistoricalcontacts，linguisticaffinities，andsharedsocioculturalconditionsthatmayleadtomostinterestingandmostsignificanttheoreticalconclusions（Guilln，p。70）。Withpossibletheoreticalaffinities，ratherthanpositivelytraceableevidenceofreceptionandinfluence，asgroundsforcomparison，Guillnseesintoday’sEastWeststudies“especiallyvaluableandpromisingopportunities”forthe“or。
　　。。ofourknowledgeofpoetrysupranationalpoetrywithpoetics”（pp。7071）。WhilethepostcolonialcritiquechampionedbyscholarslikeEdwardSaidandGayatriChakravortySpivakmayhaveachieveditsgoalsbrilliantlyinchallengingadominantEurocentriccomparativismfromthepositionoftheperipheral，the“Other，”andthesubalternbutalsoencountereditsownlimitations，especiallyinanageofglobalizationsomuchsothatSpivakhasonlyrecentlyresortedtoanidiomofclinicalemergency（“thelastgaspofadyingdiscipline，”forinstance）toexpresshopeinher2003WellekLibraryLecturesonanew，“planetary”comparativeliterature（G。C。Spivak，DeathofaDiscipline。NewYork：ColumbiaUniversityPress，2003）asupranationalperspectiveadoptedforamorelevelplayingfieldinEastWeststudies，anapproachpioneeredbyQianZhongshu（Guanzhuibian管錐編〔TheTubeandAwlChapters〕，1979；Tanyilu談藝錄〔DiscoursesontheLiteraryArt〕，1984）andJamesJ。Y。Liu（ChineseTheoriesofLiterature，1975；LanguageParadoxPoetics：AChinesePerspective，1988）andmagisteriallydemonstratedbyZhangLongxiinAllegoresisandinhisearlierworkTheTaoandtheLogos：LiteraryHermeneutics，EastandWest（DLondon：DukeUniversityPress，1992），isbreakinganewgroundforcomparativeliterature。
　　ThepointofdepartureforAllegoresisistheauthor’skeenobservationthatcertaintexts，particularlycanonicalonesliketheBibleandtheConfucianBookofPoetry，aretraditionallyinterpretedasmeaningsomethingotherthanwhatthetextsliterallymean。TakeawellknownimagefromtheSongofSolomon，forinstance：thetwobreastsofthebeloved，“liketwofawns，twinsofagazelle，thatfeedamongthelilies”areidentifiedinsomeoftheJewishmidrashicexegesesasMosesandAaron，andthethemeofloveandunionbetweenbrideandbridegroomdepictedwithallitssensualbeautyisgenerallyunderstoodasthedivinelovebetweenYahwehandIsrael，andlater，inChristianallegorization，aslovebetweenChristandtheChurch。Likewise，“Guanju，”thefirstpoemintheChineseShijing，ortheBookofPoetry，alovelylittlesongaboutthebeautyofagirlandthejoyandlovesicknessofagentlemancourtingher，istheprimetargetofelaboratemoralpoliticalexegesisinovertwothousandyearsofChinesecanonicalcommentariesandhaslongbecome，amongmanyotherinterpretations，anencomiumofthevirtuousqueenoftheConfucianidealrulerKingWenoftheZhouDynasty（d。1027BCE）。Why，then，arethesecanonicaltexts，differentinthemselvesanddivergentintheirculturalorigins，read，ormisread，inasimilarway？Whatarethemoral，political，andreligiousframeworkswithinwhichsuchreadingtakesplace？Andisitpossibletotranslatetheconceptoftheallegoricalacrosslinguisticandculturalboundaries？ThesearesomeofthequestionsthatdrivethetheoreticalventureofAllegoresis。ThelastquestionisespeciallyimportantnotonlybecauseitpointsdirectlytothethesisofthebookbutalsobecauseZhang’sfullandpositiveanswertothisquestion，alongwithhisinsightfulnoteonreadingandpolitics，makesAllegoresisoneofthefewmostinformedandmostforcefulcritiqueoftheintellectualandtheoreticalfashionstillreigningintheacademytoday。
　　Itmayappearcounterintuitive，evencounterproductive，toraisesuchaquestionwhenexamplesseemalreadytospeakforthemselves。Anyway，QianZhongshufinishedthemonumentalGuanZhuiBianbringingtogetherdivergenttextsfromdistantcornersoftheworldwithouteveraskingthequestionabouttranslatabilityorcomparability。But，inanageofculturalrelativisminwhichaphilosophyofdifferencehaseffectivelydeconstructedtheconceptofcommonalityand，alongwithit，thegroundsforcomparison，ZhangLongxinolongerhadthatluxury，whichiswhyhebeginsthebookwithalongintroductionvalidifyingcrossculturalunderstanding。InvokingthesophistryofZhuangzi“Youarenotme，howdoyouknowthatIdonotknowaboutfish’shappiness？”ZhuangziasksHuizi，askepticandarelativistalongwiththerelevantideasofAristotle，HansGeorgGadamer，MarthaNussbaum，andothersabouthowoneknows，especiallyhowoneknowstheother，Zhangrejectstherelativist’sunreflectivecertaintyinhisnegativeknowledgeabsolutizingdifferenceandarguesfromapositionlikeZhuangzi’s，atonceuniversalistandegalitarian，that“thebeliefinthepossibilityofcommonknowledgeandcrossculturalunderstanding，intheavailabilityofconceptualtoolsfortheinterpretationofhumanbehavioracrosstheboundariesoflanguage，geography，culture，andtime，canindeedcomefromagenuineappreciationoftheequalcapabilitiesofdifferentindividuals，peoples，andnations”（p。11）。Toclearthegroundforanexplorationofsuchknowledgeandunderstanding，ZhanggoesontodisputeseveralwellknownpositionsinthefieldofChinastudiesthatinsistondrasticpolaritiesanddichotomiesbetweenEastandWest。
　　TheseincludeStephenOwen’sviewthat，incontrasttothefictionalityandcreatednessofWesternliterature，theChinesewrittenlanguage“isitselfnatural，”andtheclassicalChinesepoetonly“participatesinthenaturethatis”（p。22）；PaulineYu’ssenseofChinesepoeticimageryas“aliteralreactionofthepoettotheworldaroundhimandofwhichheisanintegralpart”andhencefreefrom“disjuncturesbetweentruerealityandconcretereality”or“fundamentalontologicaldualism”characteristicofWesternart（pp。2223）；andFranoisJullien’sideaofthefundamentalincommensurabilityofChineseandWesternliteraturesculturesasrepresentingnaturalmanifestationontheonehandandhumancreationontheother。Moreinfluential，andcertainlybeyondthefieldofsinology，isErnestFenollosaandEzraPound’sreadingoftheChinesewrittencharactersas“shorthandpicturesoftheoperationsofnature，”whichwaswelcomedbyJacquesDerridaasabreakfromthephonocentrictraditionoftheWestandmadeJuliaKristevawonderaboutthepossibilitythattheChineselanguagemighthavepreservedthepreOedipalorpresymbolicsemioticregister。Fruitful，andeveninspiring，asthesemythsmayhavebeentoaWesternerbattlingtheperceivedlimitationsofhisherownculture，theyaremyths，nevertheless，asZhangconvincinglydemonstrates。Acaseinpointcentraltohisargumentaboutasharedsensibilityandcommonknowledgebeyonddifferenceis，ofcourse，thefactthattheChineselanguage，as“symbolic”asanyotherlanguage，isarichmediumformetaphor，fictionality，andaboveall，allegory，adoublestructureoftextandmeaning。
　　Inthechapterthatfollowstheintroduction，ZhangdrawsonabreathtakinglywiderangeofsourcesfromHebrew，Greek，medievalandmodernEuropean，andChinesehermeneutictraditionsandconductswithconsiderabledepthsasensitive，nuanced，mutuallyilluminatingparallelstudyoftheallegoricalreadingsoftheBiblicalSongofSongsandtheChineseBookofPoetry。OntheJudeoChristianside，fromRabbiAquibatoFatherOrigen，fromJewishmidrashtoChristianallegorization，theSongofSongshasalwaysbeeninterpreted，Zhangnotes，asanallegoryofdivinelove。The“strong”readingtendstorelatethescripturaltexttothedoctrinesofJudaismorChristianity，sublimatethecarnal，andforceuponitaspiritualmeaning。IntheChinesecommentarytraditionsinceConfucius，history，andwhatthecommentatorsmakeofhistoryinamoralandpoliticalsense，playstherolereligiondoesintheWest。Withdetailedtextualanalyses，ZhangshowshowhistoricalratherthanreligiouscontextualizationhasbeenusedasamajorwayofreadingtheShijingpoemsallegorically，assigningthem，especiallytheeroticones，moralandpoliticalmeaningsthata“nave”readingwillneveryield，andhencejustifyingthepoems’canonicity。AtthecenterofsuchallegoresisisthemythofalostGoldenAge，thereignofKingWenthatConfuciusheldtobeamaterializationofthetao，aparadigmofmoralperfectionandpoliticalharmonyinhishistoricalrestorationprogram。HerethesecularhasalmostbecomethesacredinahistoricalimaginationthatprojectsalostEdenicpastintothedistantfutureasthehumandestiny。Apparently，theliteralsenseofthebeautifulpoemsinboththeSongofSongsandtheShijinghasnothingtodowithsuchavision。Butthemagicofallegorization，especiallywiththecrucialstrategyofdisplacementasZhangillustratesitawaytoidentifyanelementoracharacterinthetext（say，thebrideorthebridegroomintheSong，orthespeakerinaShijingpoem）withsomethingorsomeonetotallydifferentfromwhatthetextliterallyreferstoeffectivelychangestheruleofthegamesothatthecanonicaltextcanberidofcarnal，erotic，or“improper”elementsandisreadorrather，misreadassignifyingsomethingotherthanitsliteralor“intended”sense。
　　Aftercontemporarycriticaltheoryhasmadeuskeenlyawareofthepossibleendlessnessofthetracesofwordswovenintoatextontheonehandand，ontheother，theunreliabilityofourjudgmentasreaders，giventheculturalandideologicalassumptionsandbiasesthatunderlieourownperspective，canwestilltalkabouttheliteralsenseofatextandourgraspofitifthereissuchathing？Or，asZhangasksinchapter3ofAllegoresis，“havingacknowledgedourownhistoricityandblindness，whichareperhapsinseparablefromourinsight，dareweyetjudgeandevaluate，darewesaythatthereare，afterall，misreadingsandmisinterpretations？Shouldrealizationofourownlimitationsinknowledgecompletelyparalyzeoursenseofrightandwrong，ourabilitytodistinguishareasonablyvalidreadingfromaglaringlymistakenorwillfullydistortedone？”（p。153）AgreeingwithUmbertoEcoonthe“intentionofthetext，”theideathat“theinternaltextualcoherencecontrolstheotherwiseuncontrollabledrivesofthereader，
　　”Zhangemphasizestheimportanceofourrespectfortextualintegrityandlinguisticnormalityandseestheliteralsenseembeddedinthe“totalstructureofthetext”asthelegitimatebasisforallegorizationandasafeguardagainstwillfulideologicalinterpretations（pp。126127）。Here，aseverywhereelseinthebook，Zhang’sanalysisofthetensionbetweentextandmeaning，betweentheliteralsenseandtheallegorization，isnuancedandbroadlyreferential，bringingtogetherhistory，criticism，andtheory。Forinstance，hisdiscussionoftheconceptoftheliteralsenseisrarelyjusttheoreticalandformalistic，butmostlysituatedinthehermeneutictraditionsEastandWest。HenotesthetraditioninChristianhermeneuticsfromAugustinetoAquinastoLutherthatseestheBibleasselfexplanatoryi。e。“HolyScriptureisitsowninterpreter，”asLutherfamouslyputitandemphasizestheimportanceoftheliteralsenseforanyallegorization，thougheachofthetheologiansisboundtohavehisownassumptionsforthesenseoftheliteral。Similarly，intheChinesecommentarytradition，scholarsfromZhuXi（11301200）oftheSongdynastydowntoGuJiegangandZhengZhenduoofthe20thcenturyseriouslychallengedtheauthorityofthemoralisticreadingsoftheHandynastycommentatorsandpaidmoreandmoreattentiontotheliteralsense。Inalargelysecularcontext，theprominentneoConfucianZhuXiwhoinsistedthat“thewordsofsagesareclearandeasytounderstand，”wasapparentlyfreerthanLutherinthereformingmood：onceZhuXi，basinghisjudgmentontheliteralsense，recognizedthesongsclassifiedas“airs”intheBookofPoetrytobe“mostlyfolksongsandballadswhichoriginatefromthestreetsandlanes”and，beingamoralisthimself，dismissedquiteanumberofthemasvirtually“licentiouspoems。”Inotherwords，Zhangwrites，“ZhuXiwasreadytoacknowledgethatnoteverytextintheBookofPoetryenjoyedthestatusofcanonicity”（p。140）。Thequestioningof，andthedisputeover，thecanonicityofcertaintextsiscertainlycommontothedevelopmentsofanycanoninanyculture。Here，acanon，oftheEastortheWest，seemstobedutyboundtobothdistortandpreserve：apoem，liketheSongofSongsortheonesintheShijing，especiallyonesdedicatedtoearthlylife，canhardlyescapethefateofallegorizationonceitiscanonized，whichoftenmeansbeingreadasmeaningsomethingotherthanitsliteralsense。Andyet，asthesametime，withouttheprotectionofacanonwithitsallegoricalarmor，thepoemisverylikelytobeforgottenandtodisappear。The20thcenturyChineseliteraryhistorianZhengZhenduonotedthattheBookofPoetry“haslongbeenburiedbylayeruponlayerofexegeticaldebris，”fromwhichitisthetaskofthemodernscholartorescuethepoetictextandbringittothelightofnewliterarystudies（p。148）。ZhengwasamongthefirsttonoticethesimilarfatesthattheShijingandtheSongofSolomonhadsufferedinthehandsofcommentators。AniconoclasticscholaroftheMayFourthgeneration，Zhengisconfidentthatmodernscholarsarenowinapositiontograspthe“truenature”oftexts，whileZhangLongxi，whovaluesZhenghighly，takesamuchmoresophisticatedandmoregenerousapproachtoallegoresis，withadistinctGadamerianfeel。Fromtimetotime，though，Zhangmaystrikethereaderasbeingabittoogenerous，apointIshalldiscusstowardtheendofthisreview。
　　NowIwouldliketoturntoZhangLongxi’snoteonreadingandpoliticsthatIhavementionedearlier。“ReadingandPolitics”isthetitleofhisconcludingchapter，butthethemeasreflectedinhismentionofcasesofliteraryinquisitioninCthatis，casesframedonthebasisofallegoricalreadinglurksinthebackgroundfromtheintroductorychapterallthewaythroughthebook，somuchsothatZhang’scritiqueofdifferencecenteredculturalrelativismandhisethicalconcernoversubversivenesshuntingpoliticalallegorizationformadualthesisofthebook。Consideringthefactthatoverthousandsofyearsitwastherulersandthoseonthesideofimperialandinstitutionalpowerwhotendedtosuspectwritingtobepoliticalallegoryandhencereadfortracesofsubversiveness，itisrathercuriousthatsupposedlyleftleaning，authoritychallengingcritics，especiallythoseofthenewhistoricistpersuasion，haveembracedthattendencyandmadesubversivenesshuntingavoguetoday。Onemaytracetheonsetofthisrenaissance，asZhangLongxidescribesintheconcludingchapter，tothepublicationofThePowerofFormsintheEnglishRenaissance（ed。StephenGreenblatt。Norman，Oklahoma：PilgrimBooks，1982）。Inhisintroductiontothebook，GreenblattattemptstodistinguishnewhistoricismfromoldhistoricalscholarshipinacritiqueofDoverWilson’s1939essay，
　　“ThePoliticalBackgroundofShakespeare’sRichardIIandHenryIV。”AmajordifferencebetweenthetwoishighlightedastheyinterpretaremarkQueenElizabethmadeonAugust4，1601，onaperformanceofShakespeare’splaythatdramatizedthedeposingandkillingofKingRichardII。“IamRichardII。Knowyenotthat？”thequeenrespondedtotheplaywhichwasstagedonedaybeforetheabortiveEssexrising。Wilsonsawthequeenasbeingoversensitivesincetheplaywasnotatallpoliticallysubversive。ForGreenblatt，however，QueenElizabeth’sremarkisamuchmoreadequateresponsethanWilson’stothepoliticalsignificanceofShakespeare’sheunderstoodthemasa“politicalallegory”（219）。Later，inhisdiscussionofThomasHarriot’sevangelicalcolonialism，hisreputationasanatheist，andthechargeofatheismbroughtagainstChristopherMarlowe，Greenblattcommentsona“strangeparadox”ofpowerthatbothproducesitsownsubversionandisactivelybuiltuponit。However，suchaparadox，Zhangwrites，“appearsstrangeonlytouswhoarenot，ornolonger，directlyunderthecontrolofthatpower，whereastheparadoxmaywellremainablindspotinthepoliticalvisionofthosewhoaresubjecttothatcontrol，orwhohaveaninterestinkeepingthatparadoxunexploredandinvisible”（pp。224225）。What，then，wouldbethesignificanceofthenewhistoricist’sintellectualdetectiveworkdonefromasafedistance，thecelebratedresultofwhichsooftenindicatesthat，afterall，theElizabethanroyalpolicehadgoodreasontoconcludethatHarriotandMarloweandotherslikethemwereindeedguiltyascharged？Wouldn’titbealsoaparadoxthatthenewhistoricistseemstohaveinadvertentlysidedwiththepowerhelikestoseesubverted？Zhang’sethicalconcernaboutpoliticizedreadingisfurtherheightenedwithanexistentialurgency：“whathappensifthesubversivenessisfoundinourtime，ormoreexactly，whatifitisperceivedtoposeathreattothepowerofapoliticalestablishmentthatexiststoday，inourownsociety？”（p。227）
　　TheexampleZhangofferstoillustratethisquestionisapieceofsubversivenesshuntingpoliticalallegoresisthatliterallylaunchedChina’sCulturalRevolution（19661976）。Briefly，hereisthestory。AtatoplevelmeetingoftheChineseCommunistPartyheldinApril1959，ChairmanMaoZedongspokefavorablyofHaiRui（15141587），alegendaryuprightofficialoftheMingdynasty（13681644）。Muchconcernedwiththewidespreadfearofspeakingthetruthabouttheparty’sdisastrousGreatLeapForwardandPeople’sCommuneprograms，MaoadvisedthatoneshouldlearnfromHaiRui’sunbendingcharacterandforthrightcouragetospeak。Atanothertoplevelmeetingthreemonthslater，however，MarshalPengDehuai，thenministerofdefense，wascriticizedanddenouncedbecausehehadwrittenacandidpersonallettertoMaoabouttheproblemsofthepartypolicies。Betweenthesetwomeetings，HuQiaomu，oftheCCPPropagandaDepartment，suggestedtoWuHan，afamedMinghistoriananddeputymayorofBeijing，thathewriteaboutHaiRuiinsupportofMao’scallforhonestyandtruthfulness。WusoonpublishedtwoarticlesonHaiRuiandwroteaplayentitledHaiRuiDismissedfromOfficeforthePekingOperaCompanyofBeijing。TheplaywasfirstperformedinBeijinginJanuary1961。Between1962and1964，someofMao’sideologicalalliesbegantotalkaboutWuHan’splayasapoliticalallegorywithasubversiveintentanddemandedthattheplaybecriticizedassuch。ButtheirdemandwaslargelyignoredinBeijing。Finally，inearly1965，JiangQing（Mao’swife）andtwoMaoistintellectuals，ZhangChunqiaoandYaoWenyuan，startedtoplananattackonWuHanfromtheirbaseinShanghai。ForabouteightmonthsasYaoWenyuanwasworkingonthearticle，thewritingwaskeptsecretfromtoppartyleadersinBeijingexceptMao，whoreadthreedraftsofthearticlebeforeitwaspublishedinShanghai’sWenhuiDailyonNovember10，1965。Makinganumberoffarfetchedparallels，thearticleaccusesWuHanofdisparagingthepresentwithastoryofthepastandcallshisplaya“poisonousweed。”Meanwhile，MaopressuredhisrankingcolleaguesinBeijingforareleaseoftheYaoarticleinthecapitalaswellasnationwideandmanagedtosetthestagefortheCulturalRevolution’sinitialphaseoneagainst“reactionaryacademicauthorities”byfurtherallegorizingWuHan’splay：YaoWenyuan’sarticlewasgoodbutdidnotquitehitthevitalpart，MaosaidinlateDecember，1965。“Thevitalpointisdismissal。EmperorJiaqingdismissedHaiRui。We，in1959，dismissedPengDehuai。PengDehuaiisalsoHaiRui。”SoontheattackonWuHan’splaywasrecordedintheofficialhistoryoftheCCPasthe“blastingfuse”oftheCulturalRevolution。Andthepoliticalallegoresisbecamethemostcommonlyusedstrategyfor“unearthingclassenemies”intheongoingliteraryinquisitionandpoliticalpersecution。
　　WuHan，likemanyotherwritersandartistsunderattackduringtheCulturalRevolution，wasnotonlyverballyabusedbutalsobeatenandtorturedatnumerousmassrallies。Afteroneofthosebeatings，onOctober11，1969，Wudied，withabrokenliverandbladder。
　　CitingAyatollahKhomeini’sfatwaagainstSalmanRushdieasyetanotherexampleofthe“hermeneuticsofterror，”ZhangLongxiconcludeshisbookwithathoughtfulcautionarynoteonpoliticaloverinterpretationandtheethicsofreading：“Whencriticaldiscoursetendstoprivilegeandcelebrate‘subversiveness’inliterature，letusnotforgetthequestionoftakingsides，themoralresponsibilityofmakingclaimsaboutthepoliticalintentionofawriteroratext。Ironically，thepoliticizationofinterpretationandthecelebrationofsubversiveforceinliteraturebecomepossibleonlywhenliteratureandliteraryscholarshipareeffectivelyinsulatedfromthepowerofthestateandcandiscourseonthesubversivefromasafedistance。Thatinsulation，letusbearinmind，isalsoanimportantaspectofthepoliticsandinterpretation”（p。238）。Suchinsulationdistinguishesacomparativelyopen，tolerantdemocraticsocietyfromaheavilycensoring，repressivetotalitariansystem。ItisthisdistinctionthatZhangurgesreaderstobearinmindastheyread，sincemanyconcepts“donottravelacrossboundariesbetweendemocracyandtotalitarianismwithoutfundamentallychangingtheirmeaningandsignificance，”anditisbetweensocialsystemsanywhereonearth，notbetweentheEastandWest，that“differenceratherthansimilaritybecomescrucialforadequateunderstanding”（pp。216217）。
　　Wellversedincontemporaryhermeneuticswithaheightenedawarenessofthetensionbetweentextandreading，oftheinteractionbetweentextandreader，Zhangbringscrossculturalstudiesofallegoricalinterpretationstoanewleveloftheoreticalrigorandconceptualcomprehensiveness。Questions，meanwhile，mayariseatthislevel，too。Traditionally，intheformercase，adoublestructureofwordsandmeaningis“deliberatelyandsystematicallybuiltintothetextitself”bytheauthor，whileinthelatter，asimilarkindofstructureisimagined，“constructedandformulatedinthereader’sresponsetothetext”（pp。6263）。Zhang，ontheotherhand，arguesthatthecompositionalandinterpretivesidesoftheconceptoftheallegoryareinseparablebecause“thetextisalwaysthereasthenecessarymediumbetweenanauthor’sparticulararrangementofwordsandthereader’sinterpretation”（p。63）。Thisviewoftheinterrelatednessofallegoryandallegoresis，incombinationwithanemphasisontheintegrityofthetext，theliteralsense，leadsZhangtoaconclusionaboutallegoricalreading，andreadingingeneral，asadynamic，“openendedprocessofexchangeandcommunicationinwhichourpreconceivednotionsarebeingchallengedbythetext，constantlyrevisedandadjusteduntilwecometoabetterandmoreadequateunderstanding”（p。214）。Interestingly，allegoresishasbeenperformedmostlyontextsthatarenotinthemselvesallegorical，asdemonstratedinbothChineseandWesterntraditionsofallegoricalreading，whileallegoresisisthemostlimitedwhenappliedtoatruecompositionalallegory。Thisparadox，especiallythefirsthalf，certainlysupportsZhang’snotionoftheinseparabilityoftheallegoricalcompositionandinterpretation，andyet，atthesametime，italsochallengessuchanotionwithquestionsaboutthelimitofallegoresis：Canwesaythatcertaininterpretationsaresofarfetched，soforced，anddosomuchviolencetothetextforwhateverreasonastobedifferentfromotherinterpretationsnotjustindegree，butinkind？Shouldwedismissthemassimplywrongonthebasisoftheinternaltextualcoherenceandintegrity，even，orespecially，inthecaseofanallegoryofdivinelovethatseesinErosanembodimentofAgapeinanapparentlyearthlysongofhumanpassion，orinthecaseofanodetoqueenlyvirtuemadeoutofafolksongofcourtship？ThereaderofAllegoresismayfindlurkinginthebackgroundanimpulsetoanswerthesequestionsinthepositive。Buttheauthor’sgenerosity，tolerance，openness，humility，andrespectfortradition，aswellashistheoreticalthoroughness，havedictatedhisarticulatedanswer：usefulandimportantasitisforseparatingastronglyideologicalreadingfromalessstronglyideologicalreading，thedistinctionamongdifferentinterpretationsisstill“amatterofdegree，notofkind”（p。152）。Againstanurgecharacteristicofourageforrelentlessdeconstructionandrejectionoftradition，Zhang，inreadingcanonsEastandWest，aimsforabalancebetweenwhatthetextliterallysaysandwhatitsaysasacanonicalandsacredtext，andinthereconciliationofthelatterwiththeformerheenvisionsamoreconstructivewayofinterpretation，
　　afertileunionofwordsandmeaningbeyondthewastelandoffreefloating，untraceable，ungraspablesignifiers。Apossible“healthyreunionoftheletterandthespirit”tobeachievedbythe“truecatholicityofhermeneuticprinciples”revivingtheletteragainstPaul’sdictum，”theletterkilleth，butthespiritgivethlife，”isjustasymbolofZhang’soptimisticvisionofthefuture（p。153）。
　　Allegoresisalsoincludesafinechapteronutopia。Asagenreinspiredby，andgivingexpressionto，anideaoridealofagoodsociety，utopiaisapoliticalfantasy，inherentlyallegorical。InhisinformedandinsightfuldiscussionoftheChineseandWesternvariationsofutopianwriting，Zhangemphasizesthecloserelationshipbetweenutopiaandsecularthinking，thebasisoftheutopianvisionthathumanbeingscouldbuildaperfectsocietyhereandnowwithoutdivineintervention。Hiscommentsonthedystopiaofourtimes，thenightmarishnegativemirrorimageofutopia，asanallegoryoftotalitarianismisalsohighlyinteresting。However，utopiaasacompositionalallegorytrulydeservesamorethoroughtreatment，perhapsinaseparatebooklengthstudyratherthanachapterinabookfocusedmainlyonallegoricalinterpretation。Ontheotherhand，thediscussionoftheutopianvisionEastandWestdoesofferaresoundingproofforthecrossculturaltranslatabilityoftheconceptofallegory。
　　AsacomparativestudyofChineseandWesternallegoricaltraditions，Allegoresisisagroundbreakingwork，thefirstofitskind。Brilliantinconceptionandbroadinscope，itisamostwiderangingandmostintellectuallystimulatingdiscussionoftheintricateanddynamicrelationshipbetweentextandreader，betweencanonicityandideology。Approachingtheissuefromacrossculturalandsupranationalperspective，Allegoresisoffersfreshconceptualframeworksandmethodologiesnotonlyforhermeneuticsbutforstudiesofliteratureandreligioningeneral。Greatisitscontributiontothefieldofcomparativeliterature，andgreatertoliterarytheoryandcriticismatlarge。ItmaytakesometimeforreaderstodigestZhang’sincisivecritiqueofdifferenceorientedculturalrelativismandhiscontemplationoftheethicsofpoliticizedreading，bothbasedonsolidscholarshipaswellasonlivedexperience，buttheseideaswilleventuallytakeholdandhavealonglastingimpactonwaywethinkofcanonandtradition，wordsandmeaning，readingandcrossculturalunderstanding。