Ritual, Legend, and Metaphor: Narratives of the Willow in Yuan Zaju

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submission provides an overview of the uses of 'willow' (or the word 'willow') in zaju texts. The categorisation seems sound, and I learnt something, but the connection to religion is rather tenuous and the overall argument (that how willows feature in folk beliefs bears on how they feature in drama) not very enlightening. It seems a bit of a stretch to call them "willow narratives" when in many cases it seems rather passing. Two of the two key categories ("delivering a willow" and "shooting a willow") remain opaque--I still don't really understand what they mean. The third--conventional terms about willow in descriptions of women is interesting to trace. The result is that it is an interesting compendium of the 'willow' in zaju, but I don't think it hangs together as an argument.    

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: The connection to religion is rather tenuous and the overall argument (that how willows feature in folk beliefs bears on how they feature in drama) not very enlightening.

Reply: In the revised paper, the connection between drama and religion is strengthened with further discussions of how folk beliefs were translated into secular forms including, for example, the activity of willow shooting.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper sets out to examine three usages of willows in Yuan zaju dramas that are rooted in centuries-old traditions. The manuscript is well-researched and abounds with vivid examples from a variety of sources that overall work well in supporting its line of analysis. However, there are a few basic issues with the paper’s argumentation that should be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication. First, although the author ties all three types to “religious” practices or “ritual” traditions at the beginning, the paper only successfully ties the first two types to religious/ritualistic/cultic practices, whereas the third type is simply a prevalent metaphor describing  the aesthetic female ideal of beauty in premodern China that was adopted by dramatists during the Yuan (as in other periods). Second, the author indirectly claims in section 1 (page 2, lines 50-53) that the three usages of willows in Yuan zaju dramas are interrelated, but the rest of the paper does not explore these connections. Moreover, as it stands now, the overarching argument of the paper only addresses the first two types of willow-referencing. Third, in order for the paper to substantiate an argument about three types of “willow narratives,” the paper should explain clearly the centrality of willows in these dramas, the literary or dramatic functions of the willows in these dramas, and the effects of the usages of willows on the entire work. Lastly, the main argument of the paper should be clarified and its significance and contribution to the field should be further established.

Section 2 is stronger and better-articulated than the other sections. One thing that should be explained in further depth in section 2 is the role of the willow-shooting ritual/ceremony (both terms are used in the paper) in the dramas. In other words, what is the significance of this ritual to the narratives of the dramas? How much space do they occupy in the dramas as a whole? What literary or dramatic functions do these rituals have in the dramas? The paper describes the inclusion of these scenes but not their effects, or importance, to the dramas’ content and form. In addition, the vast majority of readers would not be familiar with the details of this ritual, and therefore it would be best to describe briefly at the very beginning of the article what takes place in these rituals, the setting of the ritual, etc. Moreover, the author uses the terms “ritual” and “ceremony” interchangeably, and throughout most of section 2 the author describes it essentially as a communal activity akin to state-sponsored sport events. What makes it “ritualistic” / “ceremonial”? The terminology here should be considered.

Section 3 offers interesting and overall well-constructed discussion of the trope of Lu Dongbin delivering willow spirits, though it would benefit from more contextualization. In particular, it would be productive to compare Lu Dongbin’s delivering of willow spirits to the many other legends of Lu Dongbin delivering non-human entities (including plants) and legends of other immortals besides Lu Dongbin who deliver willows (and other non-human entities).

Section 4 sits uncomfortably with the previous sections due to the abovementioned issue of incompatibility with the first two usages of willows in Yuan zaju dramas.

Furthermore, while the conclusions argue that folk beliefs about willows shaped the narratives of zaju dramas, the body of the paper demonstrates that folk beliefs about willows shaped their presentation and cultural meanings in zaju dramas, but it does not explicate how this presentation shaped the narratives themselves. In other words, the author should describe in further depth how these depictions – informed by folk beliefs – contribute to the making of the dramas more generally.

I list here more specific issues:

• Lines 24-40: this paragraph does not read very well as an opening paragraph. It offers mostly bibliographical information and supporting information (frequency of trees in zaju dramas, for instance) that would be more suited for footnotes.
• Lines 36-40: it would be better to rephrase and summarize the information here; the direct quote does not add much to the discussion.
• Lines 46-47: why is the usage of willows significant? Why should it be explored in depth here?
• Last line of the table on page 2: “Willows as comparisons to persons” – I am not sure that this is the best way to address this usage. The author seems to include in this category dramas that use common references to willow in describing elements of the female ideal of beauty (concerning eyebrows and waists). As far as I can see, there are no other types of comparisons to humans or anthropomorphizing women as willows in the rest of the paper.
• Lines 53-59: the critique of Wang Zheng’s research here is that Wang only focuses on two plays. However, these are the same two plays mentioned in the table on page 2. If these are the only two plays that describe this willow-shooting ritual, what exactly is the critique here?
• Lines 229-231: as for “shamanism,” it would be best to state that this is the working definition that the author is using, rather than arguing that this definition is the consensus in religious studies as a field.
• Lines 251-252: be careful when using theoretical conceptions such as Eliade’s notion of hierophany. Perhaps it could be claimed that willows take on this function in the Khitans’ folk beliefs, but they did not “have this concept” (this would be a somewhat artificial projection of this concept on the Khitans).
• Lines 273-277: what is the significance of the shamanic, or ritualistic roots of the willow-shooting activity in Yuan dramas? If, as the paper states, “in the Yuan plays, willow shooting was a secular activity; it was part of a play’s plot without any sacredness as a belief,” what then is the importance of the “religious” background of this activity as described in the preceding paragraphs?
• Lines 306-307: it would be interesting here to compare this trope of harmful willow-spirits to similar narratives of animal- and plant-spirits who are subdued or converted by an immortal or saint.
• Line 428: this is the first mention of Quanzhen Daoism in the paper. How does Lu Dongbin’s role as a Quanzhen patriarch contribute to these narratives?
• Lines 486-487: the use of willow as metaphor in describing Princess Iron Fan is the same usage as the previous examples, i.e. describing a beautiful woman. What role does her demonic status plays in this use of the willow?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: This paper sets out to examine three usages of willows in Yuan zaju dramas that are rooted in centuries-old traditions. The manuscript is well-researched and abounds with vivid examples from a variety of sources that overall work well in supporting its line of analysis. However, there are a few basic issues with the paper’s argumentation that should be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication. First, although the author ties all three types to “religious” practices or “ritual” traditions at the beginning, the paper only successfully ties the first two types to religious/ritualistic/cultic practices, whereas the third type is simply a prevalent metaphor describing  the aesthetic female ideal of beauty in premodern China that was adopted by dramatists during the Yuan (as in other periods). Second, the author indirectly claims in section 1 (page 2, lines 50-53) that the three usages of willows in Yuan zaju dramas are interrelated, but the rest of the paper does not explore these connections. Moreover, as it stands now, the overarching argument of the paper only addresses the first two types of willow-referencing. Third, in order for the paper to substantiate an argument about three types of “willow narratives,” the paper should explain clearly the centrality of willows in these dramas, the literary or dramatic functions of the willows in these dramas, and the effects of the usages of willows on the entire work. Lastly, the main argument of the paper should be clarified and its significance and contribution to the field should be further established.

 

Reply: In the third part, the revised paper stresses the connection between the literary representation of the willow as a metaphoric element of female beauty and its religious origin. The Han people believed that the willow was sacred, and this sacredness was extended to parts of the tree, including the parts used to describe female beauty. A clearer statement of the overall argument is added to the beginning part of the paper.

 

Point 2: Section 2 is stronger and better-articulated than the other sections. One thing that should be explained in further depth in section 2 is the role of the willow-shooting ritual/ceremony (both terms are used in the paper) in the dramas. In other words, what is the significance of this ritual to the narratives of the dramas? How much space do they occupy in the dramas as a whole? What literary or dramatic functions do these rituals have in the dramas? The paper describes the inclusion of these scenes but not their effects, or importance, to the dramas’ content and form. In addition, the vast majority of readers would not be familiar with the details of this ritual, and therefore it would be best to describe briefly at the very beginning of the article what takes place in these rituals, the setting of the ritual, etc. Moreover, the author uses the terms “ritual” and “ceremony” interchangeably, and throughout most of section 2 the author describes it essentially as a communal activity akin to state-sponsored sport events. What makes it “ritualistic” / “ceremonial”? The terminology here should be considered.

Reply: The term used is now unified, and details about the rituals are described. A discussion of the exact time, function, and ritualistic significance of the willow-shooting ritual in the history of  the Jin, Liao, and Yuan dynasties is included, in order to better establish the religious feature of the activity. More concrete descriptions of the literary texts are added to show the centrality of the willow shooting ritual to the plays’ plotting and setting.

Specific suggestions:

Edits are made in the revision in response to these suggestions. Added further discussion of Wang Zheng’s work; defined the concept of shamanism used in this paper; deleted unrelated details; made other minor changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: In section 2, these two plays are only cited by titles, without any actual discussion. The author should at least add brief outlines of their plots. Since the plot of willow shooting does not imply any religious-ritual function in these plays, the author also needs to more clearly explain how it was connected to the religious-ritual origin of willow shooting.

Reply: A concrete description and discussion of the texts is added; the connection between literary text and the religious origin is included in the revision.

Point 2: There are different records of the months and dates in which the willow shooting was held from Song to Yuan. The author needs to give a clear summary on this.

Reply: A paragraph detailing the dates of the ritual, based on official historical records, is now provided.

Point 3: In section 4, willow leaf-shaped eyebrow and willow-like waist are clichés that have been criticized by many researchers. These clichés had long become traditional images. It is incorrect to say they present “collective aesthetics” of Yuan writers or “the most fundamental reason was the non-Han shamanic and the Han Chinese beliefs in the willow tree as a sacred object.”

Reply:  The revised text corrected some of the expressions related to this question.

Specific suggestions about translation and language usage:

The manuscript has been revised according to the suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The edits have somewhat sharpened the argument. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Lines 33-35: the terms “Confucian scholar-official” and “studies Confucianism” are out of date with current scholarship on the premodern gentry class and scholars-literati.
2. The phrasing on pages 6 and 7 needs to be clarified to avoid making what seems like a self-contradictory claim. In lines 199-200 the authors argue that the willow-shooting rituals described in Yuan zaju dramas is similar to the Jin dynasty rituals, and in lines 240-243 they argue that the Yuan zaju drama depictions differ from the Liao rituals. However, in lines 260-261 the argue that the Yuan zaju dramas are actually traced back to the Liao rituals. This needs to be clarified.
3. In lines 313-314, if the willow-shooting ritual lost its sacred connotations by the time in was incorporated into Yuan zaju dramas, what it the significance of this earlier connection? In other words, what is the point in highlighting the earlier ritualistic nature of the ceremony here if this aspect is lost in Yuan zaju? Why is this lost sacredness relevant when studying these zaju dramas?
4. In lines 335-336, the phrase “In the Chinese view of the supernatural, it is at the same time the process of transformation between different life forms” requires rewriting; it is vague and generalizing and does not add much to this paragraph.
5. In lines 418-419, this divide between “Buddhist belief” and “folk belief” is problematic; numerous popular beliefs, deities, and religious practices can be traced back to Buddhism. This dichotomy is misleading.
6. In regards to Guanyin, the authors should refer to the large corpus of existing scholarship on Guanyin, such as Yu Chun-fang’s Kuan Yin, Glen Dudbridge’s Legend of Miaoshan, Mark Meulenleld’s “Death of a Bodhhisttva,” Wilt Idema, Victor Mair, and Rostislav Bereskin’s works on Guanyin.
7. In regards to Lu Dongbin, the authors should consult articles by Isabelle Ang, Stephen Eskilsden, Paul Katz, and Farzeen Baldrian-Hussein.
8. In lines 626-639: what is the connection you are trying to draw between the sacredness of the willow and the use of the willow as a current motif in describing female beauty? This needs to be clarified. In addition, the use of the term “Han ethnic group” here is woefully uncritical; do you imply that the use of the willow motif as metaphor for female beauty is limited to this particular group? And how would you define “ethnic Han” in the Yuan dynasty? There is a great deal of current scholarship that deals with issues of ethnicity and the problems associated with the notion of ethnicity in premodern China; this should be addressed here.
9. The paper still does not offer a literary analysis of the usage of the willow motif in Yuan zaju dramas. What is the significance of this motif to the overarching structures and content of these plays? What ties the three different usages together? They seem to be referring to three completely different narrative functions in these plays.
10. The conclusion should clearly explain what these three usages of willows in zaju dramas have in common. Moreover, statements like those made in lines 643-644 are obvious and do not contribute much (well, of course Yuan zaju playwrights used the folkloric repertoire that informed their own cultural world!). In addition, the conclusion should explain what is the significance of the usage of willows in Yuan zaju dramas, and reflect comparatively about this usage – does it differ from the usage of other similar motifs in Yuan zaju dramas? If yes, why, and if not, what does it tell us about this motif? At the moment, the conclusion does not offer any critical reflection or any profound insights about this motif.    

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Lines 33-35: the terms “Confucian scholar-official” and “studies Confucianism” are out of date with current scholarship on the premodern gentry class and scholars-literati.

We’ve deleted this mention.

2. The phrasing on pages 6 and 7 needs to be clarified to avoid making what seems like a self-contradictory claim. In lines 199-200 the authors argue that the willow-shooting rituals described in Yuan zaju dramas is similar to the Jin dynasty rituals, and in lines 240-243 they argue that the Yuan zaju drama depictions differ from the Liao rituals. However, in lines 260-261 the argue that the Yuan zaju dramas are actually traced back to the Liao rituals. This needs to be clarified.

The concerned paragraphs have been revised to clarify the statement.

3. In lines 313-314, if the willow-shooting ritual lost its sacred connotations by the time in was incorporated into Yuan zaju dramas, what it the significance of this earlier connection? In other words, what is the point in highlighting the earlier ritualistic nature of the ceremony here if this aspect is lost in Yuan zaju? Why is this lost sacredness relevant when studying these zaju dramas?

The part has been rewritten to address the relationship between zaju and the Khitans’ beliefs.

4. In lines 335-336, the phrase “In the Chinese view of the supernatural, it is at the same time the process of transformation between different life forms” requires rewriting; it is vague and generalizing and does not add much to this paragraph.

5. In lines 418-419, this divide between “Buddhist belief” and “folk belief” is problematic; numerous popular beliefs, deities, and religious practices can be traced back to Buddhism. This dichotomy is misleading.

The above two points: we’ve rewritten and condensed the discussions.

6. In regards to Guanyin, the authors should refer to the large corpus of existing scholarship on Guanyin, such as Yu Chun-fang’s Kuan Yin, Glen Dudbridge’s Legend of Miaoshan, Mark Meulenleld’s “Death of a Bodhhisttva,” Wilt Idema, Victor Mair, and Rostislav Bereskin’s works on Guanyin.

7. In regards to Lu Dongbin, the authors should consult articles by Isabelle Ang, Stephen Eskilsden, Paul Katz, and Farzeen Baldrian-Hussein.

The above two points: we’ve added two paragraphs that help situate our discussion in the scholarly dialogues.

8. In lines 626-639: what is the connection you are trying to draw between the sacredness of the willow and the use of the willow as a current motif in describing female beauty? This needs to be clarified. In addition, the use of the term “Han ethnic group” here is woefully uncritical; do you imply that the use of the willow motif as metaphor for female beauty is limited to this particular group? And how would you define “ethnic Han” in the Yuan dynasty? There is a great deal of current scholarship that deals with issues of ethnicity and the problems associated with the notion of ethnicity in premodern China; this should be addressed here.

9. The paper still does not offer a literary analysis of the usage of the willow motif in Yuan zaju dramas. What is the significance of this motif to the overarching structures and content of these plays? What ties the three different usages together? They seem to be referring to three completely different narrative functions in these plays.

10. The conclusion should clearly explain what these three usages of willows in zaju dramas have in common. Moreover, statements like those made in lines 643-644 are obvious and do not contribute much (well, of course Yuan zaju playwrights used the folkloric repertoire that informed their own cultural world!). In addition, the conclusion should explain what is the significance of the usage of willows in Yuan zaju dramas, and reflect comparatively about this usage – does it differ from the usage of other similar motifs in Yuan zaju dramas? If yes, why, and if not, what does it tell us about this motif? At the moment, the conclusion does not offer any critical reflection or any profound insights about this motif.    

The above three points: we’ve added discussions that address these important questions. See highlighted text.