3.8 Article

Nonhuman Self-cultivators in Early Medieval China: Re-reading a Story Type

Journal

EARLY MEDIEVAL CHINA
Volume 2023, Issue 29, Pages 24-46

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15299104.2023.2240127

Keywords

animism; shapeshifters; self-cultivation; bedchamber arts; anecdotal literature

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper re-examines early medieval stories of shapeshifting animals and other beings from the perspective of the shapeshifters. It argues that understanding the actions of these creatures within the framework of self-cultivation provides a meaningful interpretation. The paper also highlights the cultural context of these narratives, which reflects a worldview that sees nonhuman beings as co-participants with humans in self-transformational projects.
Historians of literature are well acquainted with early medieval stories of shapeshifting animals and other beings seducing unsuspecting men and women. This paper re-reads such narratives from the shapeshifters' point of view. This requires escaping the customary disciplinary boundaries and viewing these creatures' depictions against the backdrop of concurrently circulating arts of the bedchamber (fangzhong zhi shu ?(sic)(sic)?), one of several classes of techniques for nurturing life (yangsheng ?(sic)). I argue that the shapeshifters' actions make sense when understood within the framework of this mode of self-cultivation. This in turn implies a view of nonhumans as selves striving to realize aims-among them health, longevity, the acquisition of enhanced capabilities, and, ultimately, metamorphosis into higher species on the ladder of beings. The tales emerged, then, in a culture to some extent shaped by a worldview of the sort often termed animistic, one that saw nonhuman beings as co-participants with humans in self-transformational projects grounded in a common cosmology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available