Julia K. Murray's Response to Deborah Del Gais Muller's Review of Ma Hezhi and the Illustration of the "Book of Odes"

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 Julia K. Murray's Response to Deborah Del Gais Muller's Review of Ma Hezhi and the Illustration ofthe "Book ofOdes" A reviewer for a journal that is a major medium for communication among disciplines has a particular responsibility to characterize the book under review accurately , in order to give people in other disciplines a fair notion ofwhat it's about. A review that takes the author to task for not writing a different book or that is fundamentally motivated by a desire to attack the author for personal reasons belongs , ifanywhere, to a specialized journal in the book's discipline, where its readers may be familiar with the larger context ofthe points ofcontention. With these thoughts in mind, I wish to register my dissatisfaction with Deborah Del Gais Muller's review ofmy book, Ma Hezhi and the Illustration ofthe "Book of Odes," in the Fall 1994 issue of China Review International. My purpose in writing the book, as I believe is clearly stated in the opening y mversity pages>was t0 sort out me j^gelymisunderstood, often misidentified, and now thoroughly scattered group ofhandscrolls containing texts and illustrations ofthe poems in the Mao arrangement ofthe Book ofOdes. While I am pleased that Müller found my art-historical methodology "excellent," I am vexed by her claim ofHawai'i Press 384 China Review International: Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1995 that there is no "general historical and analytical framework" in the book. It is not, as she implies, just an exercise in connoisseurship; I use techniques of connoisseurship as a necessary step for clarifying the nature of the Odes enterprise in order to position the scrolls within the political and cultural contexts ofthe Southern Song dynastic revival, on the one hand, and within traditions ofpainting (including that ofthe Northern Song literati, despite her assertions to the contrary), on the other. Of the two, I am more interested in the former, and Muller's summary of this aspect ofmy studies seems particularly inadequate. For example, Song Gaozong did not imitate Huizong, although he welcomed artists who had served at Huizong's court; his purpose was to restore a façade ofnormalcy after the great rupture ofthe Jin conquest, and his relationship with court artists was quite unlike Huizong's. Gaozong consciously presented himself, through his deliberate choice ofcalligraphy style as well as patronage activities, as belonging to the mold of strong, successful emperors, especially Tang Taizong and Song Taizong. This can hardly be called "co-opting the role of the scholar-elite." Müller herselfis far more interested in the history of "poetic illustration" and devotes several paragraphs to criticizing my discussion ofthe Odes paintings in this context. However, my subject is not really "poetic illustration" but rather "illustrations ofpoetry"—indeed, quite a heterogeneous collection ofpoetry. When I use the term "poetic illustration," it is clear from context that I refer to pictures that particularly evoke a "poetic feeling." Throughout the book, my terminology is carefully chosen to indicate distinctions among...