Reply to Martin Powers

382 China Review International: Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1995 friends and students to follow these principles. For his sons, this shrine was proof oftheir filial devotion and enhanced their public reputation." 8.To be fair, the temple-to-tomb thesis was first proposed by Yang Shuda in 1932, while Wu Hung does a thorough job ofexploring its implications. See Yang Shuda, "Handai sangzang zhidukao," Qinghua xuebao 8 (1) (1932): 139. 9.Zhang Daoyi, Xuzhou han huaxiangshi (Nanjing, 1985), fig. 102; notes, p. 6. 10.Patricia Berger and Peter Harris implied that my views on omens derived from Wu Hung's; Jonathan Hay suggested that my use of "rhetoric" recalled Wu Hung's book. Wu Hung (pp. 64 and 104) makes it clear that his use ofthis term comes from the 1983 article, where it appears, in fact, eleven times. See Patricia Berger, Journal ofAsian Studies 51 (November, 1992): 903-904; Jonathan Hay, The Art Bulletin 75 (March 1993): 169-174; Peter Harris, Arts ofAsia 23 (November/December, 1993): 122-123. 11.In 1983, 1 summarized the relationship between Yin/Yang rhetoric and omens in the form ofa syllogism. Wu Hung did so as well in a manner that is clearly in dialogue with mine. Compare: "Hybrid Omens," (1983), p. 19: "The argument may be reformulated in this very rough syllogism," and Wu Liang Shrine (1989), p. 105: "The Confucian argument can be formulated in a simple syllogism." Wu Hung's syllogism addresses different aspects ofomen rhetoric but, like mine, shows that the legitimacy ofthe government is contingent on omens and that the appearance ofomens is contingent upon good government. 12.For a discussion ofthis issue, see Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in Ashley Montagu, ed., Science and Creationism (Oxford, 1984), pp. 118-121. Reply to Martin Powers First let me thank Professor Powers for his careful and fair discussion ofmy review , a review that surely caused him some pain. The meaning of Han funerary iconography in its social, political, and religious ( e.g., having to do with the afterlife ) contexts is the issue we must address. Our paths diverge immediately. My own views have been published in a number ofarticles in Oriental Art, beginning in 1979 and continuing to date. I hope that no one who is conversant with the literature dealing with Han art is unaware ofmy interpretation ofit. Where Professor Powers and I part company is precisely on the issue ofmethod; he belongs to the "new" art history and I unashamedly to the old. So I have not, I think, misperceived his methods and claims; I simply do not agree with them. I confine my own readings of Han art to its contexts, meanings, and uses, never forgetting the purposes tomb art was intended to serve and not neglecting the importance of shrine art as a vehicle for demonstrating the orthodoxy of the families who built them and, especially, the virtuous lives ofthose honored by the building and appropriate decoration of an offering shrine. Responses and Replies 383 There will always be differences in interpretation ofthe monuments ofthe past. Those concerned with Han pictorial art, that is, with Han funerary art—for little else save grave goods survives—are free to choose their methods and draw their own conclusions about the meaning and significance ofthe legacy of Han tomb and shrine art. I would, however, offer one caveat: though the families paid for tombs and offering shrines, save shrines built by friends and colleagues ofthe departed, the primary beneficiaries of tomb and shrine art were the dead. The glory oftheir reputations, as reflected in the carvings on the walls of their shrines, also redounded to the benefit of their filial families and friends. In tombs, the service ofthe souls ofthe dead accomplished by grave goods and by pictures on the walls—whether painted or carved—that alluded to the careers ofthe departed and offered symbolic support to their souls in the afterlife is the foundation of the meaning and significance oftomb art. At least it is to this art historian. So let the schools ofthought contend and further our understanding of the very interesting pictorial art ofearly China. Jean James The University of Iowa...