Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1895

In the history of cultural development, massive changes in language have often occurred, especially in times of ideological transition and cultural upheaval. These changes can for instance be seen in the Renaissance and the Japanese Meiji period. Similar occurrences have also been noted in China. The vernacular (baihua ) movement initiated by Hu Shih (1891–1962)¹ in 1917 proposed the adoption of spoken Chinese in formal writing, in place of the traditional, archaic form (wenyan ). This later triggered confrontation and debate among proponents of the new and old literary schools. Due to then-prevailing educational policies adopted by the Chinese government, the propagation of vernacular Chinese writing quickly gained the upper hand, so that between 1920 and 1921, vernacular writing was officially adopted as standard for the Chinese national language (guoyu ).

In contrast, the Taiwanese experience in this regard was more arduous, the island being still under Japanese rule in this period. It was not until the Kuomintang government took power in Taiwan that vernacular Chinese finally gained the absolute upper hand. Major reasons for this include the fact that Japanese was then the official lingua franca, a situation that prevented both vernacular and archaic Chinese from becoming the mainstream written form in Taiwan. This scenario, different from that of China, made the Taiwanese experience in regard to the competition between vernacular and archaic Chinese, as well as the debate between proponents of the New and Old Literatures, take a different turn, compared to what transpired in China. In fact, the Taiwanese experience was far more complicated than the Chinese.

This confrontation between vernacular and archaic writing, and between New and Old Literatures, is termed the “New-Old Literatures Debate,” which took place between 1924 and 1942. Because of this prolonged time period, the author has divided it into three phases for greater ease of observation of the events and conditions related to the controversy. These phases roughly coincide with ten-year periods of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. This controversy is historically significant, for it brought new opportunities for the emergence of Taiwanese New Literature (Taiwan xinwenxue ), and its later development, as a third force after the New and Old Literatures mentioned above.

Although this issue has been well studied, scholars had two blind spots in their approach to it. One was that they started from the vantage point of New Literature, and for this reason often gave negative views of the old school, notably its adopted methods and conclusions. They failed to make correct assessments of the mentalities of old school proponents, and the situation they were in at that time. The second blind spot was their failure to make a wider, comprehensive observation of the controversy from 1924 to 1942. Instead, the focus was usually only on the period of the 1920s. As a consequence, scholars omitted the introspections and reflections of the two sides made after more than ten years had passed since the controversy first erupted.

Having taken note of this mistake, I started from the perspective of the old school. In addition to probing the various bones of contention related to the controversy, the author has also taken into consideration how proponents of the old school reacted, as well as their thinking after the dust of the controversy had settled. The author has tried to delve into the interactions between literature and culture, in the context of the debate. Furthermore, because the Taiwan New Literature movement has often been viewed as an anti-Japanese cultural endeavor, the author has also tried to emphasize the movement’s cultural significance. For this reason, as relevant issues centering on the debate are studied, attention is likewise placed on their cultural implications. Only when this is done can it be possible to direct the spotlight onto the opposing viewpoints and the underlying motivations.

The controversy mainly centered on the literary canon. For this reason, the author has utilized the old school’s canonical reflections and the cultural thinking behind them as a foundation on which to reconstruct the complex relationships that existed between the two camps in the repressive politico-cultural atmosphere created by the Japanese colonial government. The author has tried to probe into the issue of whether there existed any collaboration between the opposing sides during the confrontation. Furthermore, the author has also reexamined the positions and roles of proponents of both the old and the new schools in Taiwan literature during the colonial period.

PRE-CONTROVERSY LITERATURE REFORM AMONG TRADITIONAL WRITERS

The period between the launching of Taiwan Youth (Tai oan chheng lian ) in July 1920 and the publication of Zhang Wojun ’s (1902–1955) “A Letter to Taiwan’s Youth” in April 1924 marked the eve of the birth of the Taiwan New Literature movement. Many expressed their opinions through publications like Taiwan Youth, Taiwan, and Taiwan People’s Daily (Taiwan minpō ), in which they voiced support for vernacular Chinese literature, especially its role in social reform.

In his “Literature and Duties,” published in Taiwan Youth on July 12, 1920, Chen Xin (1893–1947) discussed literature from the perspective of society and culture. This was the earliest published work advocating New Literature. Another work, “The Past, Present, and Future of Chinese New Literature,” by Xiu Chao and published on July 15, 1923, in Taiwan People’s News, criticized conservatism in Taiwanese society and culture, and called it a threat to the rise of New Literature. On December 21, 1923, Runhui sheng ’s article “On Literature” appeared in the Taiwan People’s News. He pointed out that Old Literature represented the mainstream in Taiwan at that time, and that any attempt to promote literature in the vernacular was bound to meet obstacles. In the same work he predicted a clash between the old and the new schools. A mere four months later, this came true when fierce debate erupted between the two camps, following Zhang Wojun’s article that appeared in Taiwan People’s Daily.

When he initiated the debate in 1924, Zhang, like many contemporary Taiwan intellectuals, linked literature with culture. Many of his writings, including “A Letter for Taiwan’s Youth,” “Awful Taiwanese Literary Circles,” and “Let’s Clean Up the Temple Ruins Lying in the Wild,” Zhang basically wrote from the perspective of culture in lambasting Old Literature and its advocates, which he branded as backward. He portrayed Old Literature proponents as decadent citizens who enjoyed special privileges. He attacked them for clandestinely collaborating with the colonial government, and, in so doing, touched on the sensitive issue of national identification.

During both the Pre- and Post-Controversy periods, New Literature intellectuals always viewed the old school and its advocates in a dually opposed way. A question then arose as to how the traditionalists viewed the cultural impact they had jointly created with the modernists, and the everyday modernizing society. Were they oblivious to the emergence of a new society? And were they so insensitive that they failed to think about the functional significance and the roles of Old Literature in the new era?

In fact, even before the controversy erupted, calls for reform had been heard in the Old Literature circles. Lian Heng (1878–1936) proposed reform in the poetry circles. He offered his criticisms against Jiboyin poetry reading societies and berated poets for reading far too little and for their personal character. In his writings, Lian urged introspection. Similar opinions have been observed in “Taiwan Poetry Collection” (Taiwan shihui ). Other writers, like Wei Qingde (1888–1964), who was director of the Chinese department of the Taiwan Daily News (Taiwan nichinichi shinpō ) for many years and an important member of the Taipei Ying Society (Yingshe ), also offered his views on instituting reforms in Taiwan’s Chinese literary circles.

On April 5, 1915, Wei delivered a speech entitled “Poetry and Citizen’s Character” (Wei), in which he spoke about what poetry could accomplish in the effort to reform a citizen’s character. He urged poets to take on the duty of emphasizing the building of citizen’s character in their writings, in ways that could nurture them as better citizens. This bestowing of a reforming role to traditional poetry is, to some extent, similar to New Literature advocates’ goal of using their writings to educate the masses in the face of a rapidly modernizing society. Having said this, it is easy to see why the fierce debate took place between proponents of both camps on literary canon. For the traditional writers, Old Literature already had a reformative function and assigning such a role to New Literature was therefore unnecessary.

In addition to these views from traditional writers, there were two important publications that advocated reforms in Taiwan’s poetry circles on the eve of the controversy period. They include Lian Heng’s Taiwan Poetry Collection (February 1924 to October 1925) and Taiwan Poetry News (Taiwan shinpō , February 1924 to April 1925), which was jointly edited by Huang Chunchao (1884–1959) of the Taipei Star Society (Xingshe ), Zhang Chunfu (1888–1941), and others.

In the preface of the first issue of Taiwan Poetry Collection, Lian Heng touched on the increasing influence of the West and the relative decline in Chinese studies. He urged poets to give up their self-mandated embellishing roles and instead take concrete steps to help in nation building. Calls for introspection also appeared in another poetry publication, the Taiwan Poetry News. In one of its prefaces, Lin Shiyai cited China’s Book of Songs (Shijing ), and the works of Leo Tolstoy and Rabindranath Tagore to illustrate his view that noble works of literature are always inseparable from society, and are written with the goals of educating people’s minds and reforming then-existing conditions, not merely nitpicking about words and phrases. Lin’s views and his aspirations for Taiwan Poetry News reveal his familiarity with foreign literature, which he believed the Taiwanese could learn from. He suggested that Taiwanese Old Literature works must seek to showcase “social character.”

In view of the above, it is easy to see that even before the controversy started, Taiwan’s old writers had already realized the need to adjust to the challenges brought by the advent of the new society. The views expressed by Wei, Lian, and Lin share a common point: Writers must not take as their goals the mere writing of beautiful words and phrases. Instead, reform must be accomplished through what they wrote about. They all proposed that this type of poetry should be given priority in publication.

The question of how the writing of prose and poetry can be made to follow world trends and reach the goal of nurturing citizens arose next. The challenge of infusing new spirit into their works by imbibing world civilization was also crucial. Today, scholars usually praise new writers for adopting Western ideas and artistic theories to promote the New Literature movement. However, before and after the controversy erupted, proponents of the old school had also studied Western ideas. By the time the trailblazing Taiwan Youth was launched in 1920, old writers were already familiar with the vicissitudes of Western civilization. Clearly, Zhang Wojun’s criticism of the Taiwanese literary circles as otherworldly, ignorant, cold, and conservative in his article “Awful Taiwanese Literary Circles,” published on April 26, 1924, finds no substantial basis.

In 1920, Chen Xin, in his “Literature and Duties,” wrote:

Present conditions compel us to exercise self-awareness and to fulfill our duties, to uproot bad practices and awaken the lazy and the dormant. Let us realize that today’s civilized thoughts must serve as our guide toward widespread reforms. On this, Taiwan’s literary society, already with a shining record just more than year after its establishment, has to make great contributions.

These words reveal that Chen never totally denied the significance of the old school. He even looked to the “Taiwan literature society” to exercise its leading role in the tasks of instilling self-awareness in the literary circles, the assimilation of new ideas, and the institution of reforms.

In fact, other poetry societies—such as the Taiwan Literature Association (Taiwan wenshe ), which was founded by twelve members of the Oak Club (Lishe ), one of the three largest poetry societies in Taiwan’s colonial history, including Lin Youchun (1880–1939), Cai Huiru (1881–1929), Chen Cangyu (1875–1922), Lin Xiantang (1881–1956), and others—set as their foundational objective greater assimilation of ideas from both East and West without being limited by geographical boundaries. The association’s publication Taiwan Literature Collective Journals (Taiwan wenyi congzhi ), thus included foreign topics, such as introductions to Western civilization and works by foreign literary figures. For instance, the first issue included the British author John Finnemore’s work on the history of Germany, translated by Lin Shaoying (1878-?). Another of Lin’s translations, Lucy Cazalet’s “History of Russia,” was published later, in the fourth issue. In the following year, Xu Sanlang ’s Chinese rendition of Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life” appeared in the fourth issue. All these helped opened the vista of the Taiwanese reading public at that time, making them aware of what was happening in the rest of the world. It is interesting to note that this publication was launched on January 1, 1919, by a group of traditional writers. Using a quaint blend of the old and the new, this magazine was ahead of Taiwan Youth in carrying out the task of educating the Taiwanese people at that time.

In the above paragraphs, the author has illustrated how writers of the old school started a reflection on the literary canon long before the Old-New controversy broke out. These writers sensed the changes occurring abroad and for this reason worked to familiarize themselves with the civilization of the West, as well as its artistic-literary creations, which they later dipped into for inspiration. Furthermore, they proposed reform in prose and poetry by way of a change in content. It is therefore certain that old writers believed that with the advent of the new age, Old Literature did have a role to play, with or without the initiation of a vernacular literature movement. It was precisely for this reason that the more influential old writers at that time, such as Lin Youchun, Fu Xiqi (1876–1946), Xie Xueyu (1871–1953), and others, did not participate in the debate. Most of those who expressed views were members of local poetry societies and avid followers of Jiboyin. In fact, even more prominent writers who were involved in the controversy, such as Lian Heng and Wei Qingde, wrote on the issue only on a limited scale.

Zhang Wojun was noted for having commented that old writers had never reacted to his critical writings.² Again, this reveals the fact that old writers were fully confident in the canon of the Old Literature. They believed that the educative goals outlined by proponents of New Literature were all achievable by using Old Literature methods. This being said, it is easy to understand why both sides remained adamant about their views and why the controversy raged on for a protracted period of time. In fact, the fires of controversy repeatedly died out and rekindled during the period lasting from 1924 to 1942.

THE FIRST PHASE OF THE DEBATE: TRADITIONAL WRITERS’ INSISTENCE ON THEIR CANON AND THEIR CULTURAL THOUGHTS

From the above, we see that even before the controversy began, traditional writers had already thought of how they could adjust to the changing conditions, besides the issue of how reform could be instituted, in view of the different malaise of Old Literature accumulated over a long period of time. Despite the similarity of their ideas, both sides failed to jointly tackle issues of reform. Instead, they clashed with Zhang Wojun and others in a long unsolved confrontation. The critical reason is no other than the debate on canon.

Here, the term “canon” refers to “a generally accepted standard in literary creation and reading.”³ The Old-New Literatures Controversy was a debate on literary canon. While new writers proposed the adoption of vernacular literature in place of the original archaic or classical form, traditional writers protected the orthodoxy of Old Literature. For the proponents of traditional literature, the outcome of the debate would influence conditions then existing in Taiwan’s literary world, including their right of control and their voice. In fact, the literary laurels monopolized by traditional writers at that time were at stake. The final outcome of the debate would decide the way in which resources—both literary and cultural—then in the hands of the traditionalists would be reallocated. It is understandable that with all this hanging in the balance, traditional writers chose not to remain passive.

Besides the risks of changes in the literary world, traditional writers also had reservations on the use of vernacular Chinese, especially its capability to replace Old Literature. To cite an example, Men Hulu Sheng writes in “Deliberation on New Literature”: “Taiwan’s so-called vernacular literature merely uses ordinary Chinese characters, with the insertion here and there of active words one cannot find in the dictionary” (Men). By this, he took “vernacular Chinese literature” as a mere play on words. In his “A Letter to Zhang Yilang,” Zheng Kunwu , a writer from Kaoxiong, wrote: “The so-called vernacular Chinese advocated by Zhang Wojun is actually based on the Peking dialect. Taiwan already has a common form of writing understandable throughout China. It is the language in which the Annals of the Three Kingdoms (), Journey to the West (), Rouge Chamber (Fenzhuang Lou ), and other classics were written. It is enough for a language” (Zheng).

The views cited above all considered the Peking dialect to have nothing special to offer; Taiwan’s common language was closely similar to it, and therefore a change was not all that necessary. In his “Letter to Luo Hequan,” Zhang Chunfu, a member of both the Taiwan Ying Society and the Star Society, also wrote to voice his doubts about the vernacular form. His opinions can be summarized as follows: (1) Proponents of vernacular language find it easier to express, but archaic form can likewise be used to achieve goals in communication. (2) Different dialects are spoken in China’s many provinces. Vernacular Chinese, being just one of them, would not have a unifying role. Besides, archaic Chinese had once been the vernacular in ancient China. (3) Although vernacular Chinese is easy to learn, it is not succinct, and tends to be wordy. For this reason, readers have to spend longer amounts of time to read, straining the eyes ever further. It is far from being economical. Traditional writing had been in use for a long time, with the depth or shallowness of the linguistic register differing from writer to writer. As such, it is more “commonplace.” From his words, we see that Zhang Chunfu identified more with the traditional than with the vernacular, while also taking into consideration the vernacular form’s suitability for Taiwan.

Regarding poetry, both sides held differing views on its canon, and therefore insisted on their own choices. The most contentious issue was the necessity of rhythm. Most poets considered “traditional literature to use rhythm in poetry … while New Literature been freed from the use of meter, which serves as its distinct feature” (Yi, “Comparison”). To illustrate this, Lian Heng cited classical Chinese poetry, pointing its tradition of using rhythm. He stated further that even the relatively vernacular folk poetry also employed meter, and he thus expressed disfavor with the new poetry’s lack of rhythmic character (Lian, “Remnant”). For him, the lack of rhythm was a challenge to the orthodoxy of poetry. As heated debate took place even on an issue like rhythm, it is easy to see that traditional writers were far from ready to accept the composition methods favored by advocates of new poetry.

Despite their insistence, followers of the old school had to make some adjustments as New Literature gradually became more common. In his “Refined Words” (Ya Yan ), published in the 1930s, Lian Heng showed a stance different from what he had taken in the 1920s. His thoughts on oral and written forms were rich and varied. He believed that simple Chinese was more appropriate for the transmission of academic and philosophical ideas, an attitude that revealed his insistence on the traditional canon. He likewise concluded that easier words must be used in materials designed for education of the masses. Evidently, this was an adjustment intended to address criticisms from the New Literature camp. He also believed during that period of debate that the Taiwanese people had to conserve their native language while also learning languages from foreign lands, which were necessary to keep them well informed. He proposed that except novels and letters, which he said could be written in the vernacular, other works must be in standard Chinese, Japanese, or other languages, and even in some romanized form of vernacular Chinese. These views attest Lian Heng’s flexibility on the use of language at a time of changing trends.

After the 1930s, old writers began a shift toward more vernacular, common language in poetry writing. They picked up previously neglected composition methods while at the same time injecting a more ethnic Taiwanese character into their works. This will be further discussed later.

In addition to the issue of canon, the controversy also featured both camps’ insistence and interpretation of cultural issues in the context of the changing times. Much effort was devoted to debates on this issue. Before we begin a discussion of these debates, let us recall the origins of Taiwan’s New Literature movement. Basically, it emerged because traditional Chinese was deemed unable to meet the challenges of the changing society and culture. As such, right from the very start, proponents of New Literature advocated a reform of the citizen’s spirit and the assimilation of the emerging new world culture, as discussed above. Traditional literature and its supporters were branded as conservative and inflexible, and were compared to tomb-guarding hounds oblivious to the necessity of reform (Zhang 5–6).

The old writers’ firm stand on tradition and the new writers’ pursuit of modern, world civilization together made the Old-New Literatures Debate appear like a clash between modern and traditional cultures. One point that must receive our attention is the reason behind people’s perception that the traditionalists rejected modern world culture and held on stubbornly to tradition.

The debate between Lian Heng and Zhang Wojun in 1924 allows us a glimpse into how the controversy transformed itself from the field of literature into the realm of culture. When the controversy erupted, traditional writers chose not to quickly adopt a defensive attitude, although they were much blamed at that time. It was not until Lin Xiaomei (1893–1940), descendant of the prominent Lin clan of Banqiao , published poetry distinct from the conventional that Lian made his critical comment. He writes:

Lin is well grounded in classical Chinese culture, besides his excellent grasp of the English language. For this reason, Lin is not swayed by the ongoing trend. His sincere words, “when it comes to literature, Chinese is the most beautiful, no one gets tired of it,” spring forth from his heart. The scholars of today call for “abolishing classical Chinese” even before they have read the six classics. They propose New Literature, and promote new poetry … As for the so-called new, they refer to Western novels and drama, although they actually know so little about them. They feel elated, unknowing that they resemble toads inside a water well, oblivious to the vastness of this world. (Lian, Taiwan Poetry Collection, no. 10)

These accusing words were meant for someone else, for not long after their publication, Zhang Wojun wrote in response his “Shedding Tears for the Taiwanese Literary World”:

Reading this fine article makes us realize right away that this great poet, although not knowing what it is, disfavors New Literature. I’m least happy when he identifies “abolition of classical Chinese” with “advocating New Literature.” … Let me ask this great poet what made him conclude that those advocating New Literature and promoting new poetry also meant the abolition of classical Chinese.

From these excerpts, we can see that Lian Heng considered New Literature to be leftover crumbs of Western literature and classical Chinese poetry to be linked with classical Chinese culture. Lian believed that because new writers wanted to replace old poetry with new poetry, they considered classical Chinese and culture as things that can be abandoned. The question here is to define the relationship existing between new writers and classical Chinese, as well as Chinese culture. From Zhang’s rebuttal, we realize that his advocacy of New Literature was not tantamount to the abandonment of classical Chinese. Although Zhang’s cultural thinking was founded on world trends, he also identified with Chinese tradition, its culture, and its spirit. To him, however, Taiwan could learn from the experience of Chinese new culture and literature (Chen 1996: 149–150) after the Chinese Republic was founded, in establishing a culture of its own. This differed from the view of Taiwan’s old writers, who looked up to tradition.

At this point, we must examine why old writers held the misconception that new writers wanted to abandon classical Chinese, a grim situation about which they expressed great anxiety. The main reason was classical Chinese’s feeble influence in that period in history. When he wrote “Congratulations to the Taiwan Literature Society on Its First Issue” in 1919, the Tainan writer Lin Xiangyuan (1870–1923) stated that the arrival of the new era had made the Taiwanese people aspire for modernity, and this had led to a gradual decline in the popularity of classical studies. A year earlier, in 1918, Tainan’s Xu Ziwen wrote an article entitled “Maintaining Policies on Classical Studies” in which he observed that during the early Japanese colonial period, Taiwan had been faced with a scenario in which there was a clamor for new studies, usually equated with Western culture. The rise of new studies meant Westernization and thus the dislocation of colonial Japanese culture (Xu 32). He expressed concern about the repercussions of this trend. In 1927, a writer from Jiayi, Huang Maosheng , wrote the preface to the one hundredth issue of the Congwen Literary Society, in which pointed out that the very nature of new studies and Western culture clashed with the morality and ethics enshrined in classical studies and Japanese culture. The rise of new studies meant a decline in classical Chinese philosophical and ethical teachings. In the long run he wrote, the Chinese traditional culture handed down from their forebears would vanish. This possibility made old writers feel threatened by the rise of new studies and Western culture.

Furthermore, old writers’ recognition of Japanese culture clashed with new writer’s penchant for Western culture. This clash is best illustrated by Zhang Wojun’s “A Send Off to Prof. Gu,” published on November 23, 1924. He writes:

He [Gu Hongming ] traveled to Taiwan and Japan with a new sense of mission: That of advocating Japanese civilization and promoting the Japanese spirit in Taiwan and in Japan … in other words, a rejection of Western spirit and civilization. This is what we are not happy about. … After all, the Japanese civilization shows a lot of defects as seen from today’s society, and is therefore not suitable for modernday life. This is a widely accepted fact that saddens everyone. … Already, there is too much Japanese spirit and civilization in Taiwan today!

Again, the above excerpt tells us that Zhang favored Western culture. It is therefore easy to understand why an uneasy, confrontational relationship existed between the two camps.

The confrontation between proponents of Western civilization and of Japanese civilization, and between classical Chinese studies and new studies, created much anxiety among those who strongly favored keeping classical Chinese as the language of the mainstream. This anxiety was exacerbated by the Japanese colonial government’s attitude of favoring a gradual phase out of classical Chinese. In 1918, when the Japanese amended existing regulations governing public schools, only two hours per week were allotted for classical Chinese classes. In 1922, when the “Taiwan New Education Decree” was promulgated, classical Chinese classes became mere elective courses. Some schools abolished classical Chinese studies from their curricula altogether, a move that drew much anger and great anxiety. Some Taiwanese started a protest movement, although to a certain extent they were swayed by anti-Japanization sentiments (Wu 1995:335–336).

Under high-handed colonial policies on education, the Taiwanese were forced to study the “national language.” If they could not perfect their command of the “national language” over the course of their lives, how could they find time to study classical Chinese (“Objectives”)? With classical Chinese facing the threat of abolition, some Taiwanese failed to realize that they should resist Japanization. They instead felt that classical Chinese was something unnecessary. In the eyes of traditional writers, therefore, keeping classical Chinese was no longer just an issue of maintaining traditional norms on morality and ethics—it further symbolized the conservation of traditional culture and the Han Chinese spirit.

From the above, we see that the Old-New Literatures Debate occurred at a time of competition between new and classical studies, of confrontation between the cultures of the East and the West, of a struggle between the Japanese and Chinese spirit, and of a clash between the Japanese and Chinese languages. In such a complex cultural milieu, the debate attained a wider social repercussion. What was once a purely literary issue was given an expanded cultural connotation.

For old writers, New Literature was synonymous with Western literature and culture. One reporter made a comparison between Old and New Literature in an article that appeared in the Taiwan Daily News. He cited various differences: In linguistic expression, Old Literature used various classical phrase endings while New Literature adopted more colloquial replacements, with the added adoption of Western quotation marks. While Old Literature was printed in vertical lines, New Literature adopted Western horizontal printing. In structure, Old Literature kept the flow and tonal qualities of classical Chinese, while New Literature brimmed with Western linguistic characteristics, and read like translations from a Western-language original (Yi 1926).

A writer with the pseudonym of Laosheng Changtan (“Lengthy Discourse of the Old One”) also wrote similar comments in his “On the So-Called New Poetry.” He wrote about how “new poets, unwilling to learn, were oblivious to the exquisite points of Old Literature. They curse classical Chinese culture, wishing for its early demise. … They say Old Literature is like a spittoon, as though unknowing that this spittoon is an heirloom from their ancestors, which is much better than the Western spittoon that is their New Literature” (Laosheng 1926). If one were to accept this, then advocating New Literature would be allowing the demise of classical culture, something old writers would never do. This led Lian Heng into writing in “Taiwan Poetry Collection” (no. 17) that in their works new writers had abandoned a beautiful national treasure, unknowingly becoming foreigners in so doing. The struggle between the Chinese and the foreign, and the competition between the old and the new, had made this literary debate no longer a mere controversy on literary canon—it had now overflowed into the realms of culture and ethnicity.

In such a situation, the differences grew as the days went on. Lai Ho (1894–1943) observed:

The New Literature movement was born as a result of the influence of Western studies, which explains why it has an undeniably Western character. … Although Taiwan’s new literature is not creative, it is openly imported, not stolen. Let the glory be shared by old writers, who, by their hard work, have created this rotten Taiwanese culture, and nurtured people who are condescending. (Lai 1926)

As he argued in favor of New Literature and Western culture, Lai insinuated that Old Literature was to blame for the “rotten culture” at that time. His writings not only highlighted the clash between the two sides’ values on contemporary and traditional cultures, but also convinced old writers to associate New Literature with Western culture and to believe that new writers were exploiting the idea of modernity to overcome tradition.

Even if one were to narrow the focus and direct attention only to attacks on “poetry-society culture,” much reviled by the new writers as boring, pleasure-seeking, and currying to the Japanese, it is easy to discern the prejudice with which new writers viewed their opponents. According to research by the author, Taiwan had as many as 370 poetry societies during the Japanese colonial period. The reasons for this flowering—auguring well with accusations made by new writers—included both poets’ boredom and their quest for fame. Some old writers also believed that poetry societies worked to propagate classical Chinese culture and spirit. The popularity of jiboyin was also swayed by people’s belief that it played a role in improving literacy. Thus, despite the negative impressions of poetry societies and jiboyin in the colonial period, they were worthy of preservation in the eyes of proponents of traditional literature. Evidently, the two sides also held opposite views on the cultural “positioning” of poetry societies and jiboyin.

THE SECOND PHASE OF THE DEBATE: TRADITIONAL WRITERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE NATIVIST LITERATURE MOVEMENT

During the debates of the 1920s, new writers also criticized old poets’ work, in addition to branding them as backward. In 1926 Chen Xugu (1896–1965) published an article entitled “Crying for Taiwan’s Poetry” in which he insulted Taiwanese poets for welcoming the newly installed Japanese governor-general of Taiwan. In 1929 Ye Rongzhong (1900–1978) wrote an article entitled “Decadent Poets” for the 242nd issue of Taiwan People’s News in which he mocked old writers for their decadent ways.

At this point in time, under the influence of socialist ideas, people identified aristocracy as the culprit behind Old Literature’s lack of synchrony with the times (Yi 1927). These critical views led old writers to examine the issue of Old Literature’s dissociation from society, and to find ways to give Old Literature a more popular appeal, in a manner that could benefit society at large. These introspections stimulated old writers to work toward this goal in the decade that immediately followed.

The debates overflowed into the 1930s. In 1934 the wenyan classical Chinese revivalist Jiang Kanghu (1883–1954) arrived in Taiwan to promote a cultural renaissance movement. He found enthusiastic support from many old writers, and his arrival further fanned the flames of the debate. At this point in time, although old writers insisted on their literary canon, some of them were already pondering the question of how reforms could be started.

Through Taiwan Arts Garden (Taiwan yiyuan ), a publication he had founded, Zheng Kunwu introduced the term “Taiwan national style” (Taiwan guofeng ) in 1927. He collected Taiwan folk songs, such as “Spring for All Seasons.” This move inspired Xiao Yongdong (1897–1964), Chan Hong (Hong Tietao , 1892–1947), and others to serialize folk songs in the 369 Journal () during the 1930s. These songs were popular vernacular pieces that had mass appeal, and that met the new writers’ criteria for vernacular poetry. These folk songs in the Taiwanese dialect, different from the Chinese vernacular proposed by Zhang Wojun, better reflected the culture and psyche of the Taiwanese at that time. Besides, they were “traditional” in the sense understood by proponents of Old Literature. Zheng’s approach was an adjustment to Zhang Wojun’s objective, which stressed the idea of viewing Taiwanese literature from the perspectives of the Chinese. Zheng’s work of arranging and collecting folk songs was praised by Huang Shihui (1900–1945), who is commonly mistaken as the originator of nativist Taiwan literature, as a pioneer work. Huang commented that Zheng was not motivated by the idea of class difference (Huang 1930). The new trend of emphasizing Taiwan folk literature later fused with the nativist literature movement and new writers’ efforts to use the Taiwan vernacular in creating a theme on Taiwan culture. Interestingly, this phenomenon marked a rare collaboration between proponents of Old and New Literature.

In August 1930, Huang Shihui, an old writer who enjoyed a friendly relationship with Zheng Kunwu, initiated the topic of nativist literature in his article “How Not to Advocate Nativist Literature.” In July of the following year, he, together with Guo Qiusheng (1904–1980), launched the Taiwan vernacular movement. This literary movement, focused on Taiwan, gained the immediate support of old writers like Zheng Kunwu, Huang Chunqing , Lian Heng, and others.

Soon after the nativist literature and Taiwan vernacular movements started, Zheng Kunwu published an article entitled “A Few Words on Nativist Literature” on February 4, 1931. He cited the good points of nativist literature. The following excerpt shows his reasons for favoring nativist literature, as well as his recommendations:

How should we promote nativist literature at a time when people are emphasizing international language? … Everything goes on a cycle. … Nobody can make a claim on the benefits of a unified language, or whether the fragmentary nativist literature is superior. … The nativist literature I favor is narrow in scope. Confucius’ Book of Poetry and the poet Qu Yuan’s Lisao too were once nativist literature. Nobody has dared to deny their value. If we in Taiwan advocate our nativist literature, one day it will attain the level of the Chinese classics. It would be even better if we create phonetic symbols that can supplement what Chinese characters are found to be inadequate in terms of transcribing the Taiwanese dialect. The creation of these phonetic characters (or what I call “auxiliary characters”) has repercussions on the future of Taiwan nativist literature. … In the future, Taiwan’s distinct vernacular poems and melodious folk songs can no longer be looked down upon as it has been for hundreds of years. By then, it will join the ranks of the world literatures, to the fulfillment of our dreams. (Zheng 1931)

In this article, Zheng outlined the value of nativist literature as he discussed problems in transcribing the Taiwanese dialect. He even suggested the adoption of the 50 Japanese sounds for this purpose, the latter in consideration of Taiwan’s status as a Japanese colony and the growing usage of the Japanese language on the island. From Zheng’s later writings on this issue, it is evident that he had linked theory with creation, especially in his attempt to create his “zailai” Chinese, which embraced both vernacular Chinese and Taiwanese, as well as the infusion of Japanese words. Works using this language combination were published in Poetry News (Shibao ), Wind and Moon News (Fengguebao ) and Southern (Nanfang ).

In addition to Zheng, another who identified with the nativist and Taiwan vernacular movement was Huang Chunqing (1875–1956). Huang’s article on the vernacular literature movement, “Theories on Reform of the Taiwan Dialect,” appeared in Taiwan News. He expressed agreement with Guo Qiusheng on the latter’s advocacy of unity between written and spoken language, and the adoption of the Amoy (Xiamen ) tone as standard for pronunciation and the use of simple Chinese for the Taiwanese dialect.⁴ Huang favored the “bamboo branch” (zhuzhi ci ) structure for writing nativist literature. On this, he writes:

Taiwan’s scenery and flora differ from those on the mainland. Since the Qing dynasty, officials visiting Taiwan have so marveled at the foreign scenery that they wrote in the zhuzhi structure. … Things are changing: political reforms, changes in customs, and the advent of new things and events. … We are born in these times and all around us are materials for zhuzhi. In other words, zhuzhi has a unique literary value, for poetry, for mass literature, and for the so-called nativist literature. I strongly believe so. (Huang, “Theories” 35)

The article emphasized the idea that Taiwan’s local color made an ideal topic for bamboo-branch writing. He thought that this form of writing was close to local conditions and the general populace and might thus be lumped together with nativist and mass literature. Huang was convinced that zhuzhi writing had a traditional character while also possessing folk appeal, and thus was worth the support of old writers as the ideal best literary form for nativist and mass literature.

Among old writers, Lian Heng too was one of those who voiced support for nativist literature and the Taiwan vernacular movement. This is shown in his “Refined Words” (Ya Yan), serialized in the 369 Journal from January 1931 onward. On the reasons for writing, he says:

In recent years there have been proposals calling for a nativist literature and for reforming the Taiwanese dialect. I have the same ideas in mind. But they are better said than done for reasons that those who speak may not necessarily be capable and those capable may not always be willing. In fact, this is the reason for the decline in Taiwan literature. For one to call for nativist literature, he must first act on the native language. … I’m a Taiwanese and therefore know how difficult this task is. But I have not dared to dwell too much on how difficult the task at hand is. I have therefore worked on a “Taiwanese Dictionary” since my return. Once completed, this book will help conserve the Taiwanese dialect, besides contributing considerably to the propagation of Taiwan literature. (Lian 1992:1)

Lian’s words reveal his support for nativist literature. He even believed that Taiwan’s native dialect should form the basis for a nativist literature, and that for this reason, arranging a system for the dialect was necessary. In fact, before Huang Shihui and Guo Qiusheng proposed the Taiwan vernacular movement, Lian had already started work on systematizing the Taiwanese native language. In November and December of 1929, Lian published two articles in Taiwan People’s News, “Outlines on Arranging the Taiwanese Dialect” and “The Duty of Arranging the Taiwanese Dialect.” It is clear that Lian Heng was motivated by his desire to keep the national spirit at a time when the Japanese language was making inroads and the native tongue on a steady decline in importance.

It is interesting to note that during the 1920s debate between Lian and Zhang Wojun, the latter criticized the Taiwanese dialect for its lack of sophistication. Much later, Lian made the following statement in the preface of his dictionary: “The Taiwanese tongue possesses an elegance that escapes the eyes of the undiscerning.” This reveals that the compilation of the dictionary was partly a reaction to Zhang’s derogatory remarks on the Taiwanese dialect. To further rationalize the use of the Taiwanese dialect in nativist literature, Lian adopted the title “Refined Words” (Ya Yan) as a way to defend the language’s reputation. Lian cited Chinese historical examples of the infusion of dialects into tradition. He expanded interpretation of the word “dialect” beyond the Taiwanese tongue to include foreign dialects, just like the way European words were transliterated, a practice sometimes adopted around that time (Lian 1992 4). Lian urged the preservation of native tongues and the learning of foreign languages as the world became a global village and as academic ideas increasingly became borderless. This reflects his practice of not limiting his vision to the Taiwan dialect alone.

Compared to the Taiwan vernacular movement, nativist literature received far more recognition and support from traditional literary writers. In 1935 Lai Ziqing adopted as criteria for publication a literary piece’s geographical value, historicity, and vision in portraying Taiwan and its native character (Lai 1935). Evidently, nativism had become a standard for poetry collections in that period in history. The growth of nativist literature influenced the works of traditional writers. In his critique of Zhang Chunfu’s poetry collection, Huang Chunchao writes: “His works shifted from the superficial to the realistic, to the Foukienese, then to the nativist and finally, the classical” (Huang 1941). With these adopted as the aesthetic and structural standards of poetry, we can see how deep the nativist literature movement has influenced traditional Taiwanese literature.

As mentioned above, several old writers participated in the collection of folk literature and in the creation of native poetry, while others voiced support for the Taiwan vernacular. All these reveal a collaborative relationship with new writers in this period in the development of Taiwan’s literature.

THE THIRD PHASE OF THE DEBATE: CONFRONTATION AND COLLABORATION UNDER GREATER EAST ASIAN LITERARY POLICIES

After April of 1937, several newspapers and magazines removed their classical Chinese columns, a move that greatly affected publication of classical literature and reduced their discussion forums. However, several publications continued to allot space for articles in classical Chinese, such as Poetry News (Shipō), Confucius’ Teachings (Kongjiao bao ), Wind and Moon News, and the Chinese-Japanese bilingual Taiwan Arts (Taiwan yishu ). Wind and Moon News was renamed Southern (Nanfang) in July 1941. The third phase of the debate was centered on Wind and Moon and later Southern.

In 1941, a writer from Taipei’s Wanhua district, Huang Wenhu , using the pen name “Yuan Garden Promenader” (Yuanyuan ke ), published “The Seven Maladies of Taiwan’s Poets.” This piece was well received by Lan Ying (or Lin Jingnan , 1915–1998), Yi Zu , Pangguan Sheng , and others. But another group, consisting of Xiao Jingyun , Rui Feng , Kaoshi Houren , and Zheng Kunwu had an opposite reaction. They believed that Huang’s seven maladies, such as plagiarism and imitation, were unavoidable, in consideration of then-prevailing conditions. They further said that at a time when classical studies were experiencing a decline, Taiwan writers should join hands to preserve Old Literature instead of staging attacks on each other. Opinions differed and a debate ensued. Between 1941 and 1942, groups separately led by Lin Jingnan and Zheng Kunwu attacked and blamed each other, using Wind and Moon and Southern as their forum. This marked the start of the third phase of the debate between proponents of Old and New Literature.

This phase can further be divided into two stages. The first stage started with the publication of Huang’s “Seven Maladies” on July 1, 1941, in the 131st issue of Wind and Moon. The second stage began when Huang Shihui’s article “Reviewing Old Records: Taiwan Poets’ Maladies” appeared in the 150th issue of Southern on April 15, 1942. The debate drew the participation of Zhu Dianren (1903–1949), Lin Kefu , and Liao Hanchen (1912–1980), who had had encounters with Huang in the 1930s debate. As many as one hundred twenty relevant articles were published during these two stages.

The quarrel in this period of debate was centered on the new writers’ insistence that only New Literature could meet the demands of the times, a stance they had adopted following ideas derived from Darwin’s theory of evolution, which was popular around that time. They emphasized contact with the rest of the world, giving importance to the future and keeping up with the times. Old writers paid attention to self-initiated changes within Taiwanese literature and cherished historical tradition, while taking note of the realism demanded by the times. On the issue of the decreased importance of classical studies in postwar Taiwan, new writers blamed long-term irregularities in classical poetry circles for the phenomenon. They advocated reform through the adoption of a new literary canon to replace the old. Old writers believed that because decline was already the case in classical studies, leniency must be exercised despite imitative and plagiaristic acts. They thought that only in this way could classical Chinese studies be conserved. As conservatism and reformism exchanged fire, old and new writers juggled with idealism and realism. As the two sides differed on how the classical studies crisis should be defused, the gap between the two grew wider and more unbridgeable.

Old writers launched a defensive attack against reform by insisting that the “new” in “New Literature” should refer to reform in content, not in literary format. Old writers believed that they too could institute such a reform. The question of which side would win this war between literary canons was to be decided by historical events around that time. After the end of the Pacific War, which side could conform to literary policies adopted for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere () would be deemed the most appropriate canon. Thus, those who fully understand the scenario were quick to express their opinion. Huang Chunqing, though he didn’t participate in the debate, published the foundational goals of the “Society for Research in Classical Chinese Poetry” early after the debate erupted. He writes:

Loyalty and filial piety are the virtues treasured most in the Orient. Thus, classical poets can dwell on these virtues even more. … Since the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, poetry recitation meetings have been growing in popularity. What better way can the virtues of loyalty and filial piety be propagated? … I have lately read Southern magazine and came to know the ongoing discussion on poetry studies. … Why don’t we take advantage of this opportunity to recruit more members and organize classical poetry associations through which we can promote these virtues? Isn’t that a chance for poets to fulfill their duty of writing as a service to the nation? (Huang 1943:2)

Huang believed that although academic discussion helped propagate poetry studies, it would have been better to use the opportunity for promoting unity and doing great service to the country. On the one hand, Huang’s idea appeared to be an attempt to reconcile the opposing sides, and on the other it looked like a suggestion to solve problems besetting Taiwan at that time. His idea was thus well received. In his “Reflections on the Foundation of Classical Poetry Societ But another group, consisting of Xiao Jingyunies,” Lin Demo elaborated on Huang’s idea. He writes:

I have read your 143rd issue, which included the article written by Mr. Huang Chunqing. His calls for the establishment of classical poetry societies as a means for poets to serve the nation are most timely. … The island is a crucial center point of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. If the men of letters of Taiwan heed the calls of Mr. Huang to set up loyalty-filial piety poetry societies, which would focus on fomenting these virtues, then poets can fulfill their responsibilities as subjects of the empire. (Lin 1942)

The emphasis on loyalty and filial piety, be it in the form of classical poetry or loyalty-filial piety poetry, thus became the sole standard for ultimate literary creation. This reveals the fact that the aesthetic standard of being “politically correct” had by then overtaken the content-form controversy between the old and the new schools, and had become the highest literary canon. Finding themselves in such a situation, both sides of the debate realized the importance of being in conformity with official policies. Proponents of New Literature attempted to stress that New Literature was far more capable of fulfilling the new goals than classical literature. On this, Lin Kefu writes in his “Our Mission in the Literary Debate”:

Old poets are so obsessed with classical literature that they reject calls for reform. Any suggestion toward that is alienated. It comes as no surprise that Taiwan literature, the so-called vernacular literature, cannot develop with the times. After the war in Greater East Asia broke out, we expect impacts on culture, the economy, science and society. … How then can we fulfill our mission once the East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere becomes a reality? (Lin 1942)

Lin noticed the close proximity between literature and the times, and called for attention to the role of literature in building the Co-prosperity Sphere.

An article by Lin Jingnan, “For Mr. Kunwu,” further outlines the mission of New Literature. He writes:

The Japanese empire is currently building the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. We have no idea how many new writers are participating in this task, both here and abroad. How many old poets are involved in this task? In Taiwan, we use New Literature to write articles beneficial to the Co-Prosperity Theory through creation, translation, introduction, and stage performance. How much contribution are you making with your old poetry and literature? Local newspapers are allocating space for you. And what have been the benefits of doing so? From now on, stop writing those irrelevant works and instead focus your writing on issues with literary value. For it will benefit the building of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and the reading public alike. (Lin 1942)

In this article, Lin extolled fellow new writers to make contributions to the Co-Prosperity Sphere, and he took advantage of this opportunity to question the value of Old Literature.

Another article, Liao Hanchen’s “Responsibilities of Taiwan’s Writers,” which was the last of its kind published in 1942, voiced similar opinions. Liao writes:

Since the war broke out in China, the idea of a Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere … has gradually become a reality. For the sake of cultural communication between China and Japan, the importance of the Chinese language needs no further elaboration. The government is deeply aware of this. At this point in time, local writers must work toward the mission … of promoting cooperation from the people for the sake of the Co-prosperity Sphere. This is the only path for Taiwan writers in the near future. A task so great as that cannot be accomplished by just one person. How could we be talking about who advocates New Literature and who insists on the old? (Liao 1942)

Before this article was published, the editors of Southern had announced that they would not print a word on the topic of the debate again after the publication of Huang Xizhi ’s “Preface to the Collection of Discussion on the Maladies of Taiwan’s Poets.” Yet a month later the ban was lifted for Liao’s article. This was a confirmation of Liao’s ideas on the sole mission of writing being for the benefit of the Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In view of the above, we see that under totalitarian government policies, political interference in matters of culture is inevitable. It is interesting to note that Huang Chunqing’s opinions augured well with old writers’ goal of writing to attain Nationalistic goals, but could not avoid the common accusation that old writers enjoyed especially cordial relationships with the colonial government. The positions of Lin Jingnan, Lin Kefu, and Liao Hanchen, who had always been branded as new writers, had changed to conform with official policies as seen through articles they separately published in Southern. In contrast with the debate in the 1920s, during which new writers advocated anti-Japanese goals, this was an evident shift in opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of the history of Taiwanese literature is biased in favor of New Literature. This is the case both in Taiwan and in China, where little attention has been given to Old Literature and its writers. The harsh criticisms made by new writers in the 1920s are often repeated, and old writers are rarely viewed and assessed with objectivity. In fact, Taiwan’s old writers and literati played important roles in the history of Taiwan literature. The author has made this observation by taking the Old-New Literatures Debate as focal point. Using the perspective of the old writers, the author had here carried out an analysis of the debates with the use of relevant records, which help in better understanding the psyche of old writers and the situation they were in at that time.

In this article, the author has made a chronological and synchronized analysis of relevant events during the period of the debate from 1924 to 1942. Findings show that the debate during the Japanese colonial period, though apparently related to literary canon, had deep cultural underpinnings. Both sides had differing interpretations and evaluations of issues like traditional and modern, Western and Japanese, and classical and new studies, and thus the resulting confrontation worsened as time went by. However, if we look at the debate in its various phases, we realize that from the 1920s to the 1930s, both sides had similar views on the use of literature to counteract Japanization and to preserve Chinese culture. In the final analysis, then, they held almost overlapping views when it came to national identity. In the 1940s, practical considerations made the debate using Southern as a forum acquire a more adaptive stance vis-à-vis official policies.⁵ This was more evident among new writers like Lin Jingnan and marked a change in attitude from their anti-Japanese stance in the early stage of the debate in the 1920s.

The issues of “being universal” and “being Taiwanese” triggered much debate in the 1930s. Old writers, including Lian Heng, Zheng Kunwu, Huang Chunqing, and Zhang Chunfu, tried to shed the image of nobility for which they had been much criticized by new writers since the 1920s. Like the new writers, they too participated in promoting the Taiwan vernacular and nativist literature. They were involved in the collection of folk literature and in literary creation using the bamboo branch structure as well as other works rich in native color. This collaboration illustrates the fact that there were opportunities for cooperation for the two sides despite the confrontation.

In view of the above, although the Old-New Literatures Debate that had dragged on from 1924 to 1942 appeared as a confrontation, there were in reality opportunities for cooperation and actual collaboration between the opponents. The wide scope of the debate—ranging from literary canon to the Taiwanese vernacular and nativist literature movements, as well as the relationship between literature and national identity—contributed to the great complexity of the issues. Understanding the confrontation and collaboration between the opposing sides is necessary for a reevaluation of the history of Taiwanese literature, as well as of the roles and contributions of new and old writers of that period.

NOTES

1. Authors’ years of birth and death will follow their names when they appear for the first time in this paper. This will be omitted if the information is unavailable, especially in the case of those using pen names.

2. In response to challenge from old writers, Zhang Wojun wrote an article entitled “Solving the Riddle” (Jiepo menhulu ). He writes: “It’s been two months since the publication of my article ‘Awful Taiwan Literary Circles.’… I have not received any response so far and I sometimes think I lobbed a grenade into a mud pit.”

3. The usage of the word “canon” is expanding in both its object and scope. It may now refer to legal or church decrees, biblical chapters recognized by the Protestant Church, and even literature teaching materials used in schools. In this paper, the word is used following David Wang Der-wei’s definition, i.e., canon is “a generally accepted standard in literary creation and reading.” Please see “The Birth of Canons” (Dianlu de shengcheng) in the book “How To Be Modern and Literature?” published by Wheatfield Publications (Maitian chubanshe) (Taipei, 1998), 30.

4. There are no extant copies of this writing by Huang Chunqing. For more on Huang’s views on the Taiwan vernacular, see Yang 1931.

5. It is worth noting that the pro-Japanese opinion expressed in Southern by new writers did not represent the views of all new writers at that time. Some new writers with strong anti-Japanese sentiments, like Yang Lu, Lu Heruo, and others, did not participate in this phase of the debate.

REFERENCES

Chen Mingrou . 1996. “Old and New: Transformation in the Meaning of the Term ‘Motherland.’” In Collection of Papers on the Fortieth Anniversary of the Death of Zhang Wojun . Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs.

Chen Xin . 1920. “Literature and Duties.” Taiwan Youth (), July 12.

Huang Chunchao . 1941. “Mourning the Poet Zhang Chunfu.” Poetry News (), February 28.

Huang Chunqing . 1941. “Society for Research in Classical Chinese Poetry.” Southern (Nanfang ) 143.

———. 1934. “Theories on Reform of the Taiwan Dialect.” Lead Troops (Xianfa budui ) 1.

Huang Mei-Er , ed. 1998. Complete Collection of Zhang Chunfu’s Works (Zhang Chunfu quanji ). Xinzhu: Xinzhu Cultural Center.

Huang Shihui . 1930. “How Not to Advocate Nativist Literature.” Our News (), 16 August 16–September 1.

———. 1942. “Reviewing Old Records: Taiwan Poets’ Maladies.” Southern, April 15.

Lai Ho . 1926. “Reflections Upon Reading ‘Comparison Between Old and New Literatures.’” Taiwan People’s News, January 24.

Lai Ziqing . 1935. “Preface to Taiwan Poetry.” Taiwan Mellow Wine Poetry (Taiwan shichun ).

Laosheng Changtan. 1926. “On the So-Called New Poetry (Part 1).” Taiwan Daily News (), February 25.

Lian Heng . 1992. Refined Words: The Complete Collection of Lian Yatang. Nantou: Taiwan Province Literature Reference Commission.

———. “Remnant Ink.” Taiwan Poetry Collection (Taiwan shihui) 170.

Liao Hanchen . 1942. “Responsibilities of Taiwan’s Writers.” Southern, November 1.

Lin Demo 1942. “Reflections on the Foundation of Classical Poetry Societies.” Southern, January 15.

Lin Jingnan . 1942. “For Mr. Kunwu.” Southern, September 1.

Lin Kefu . 1942. “Our Mission in the Literary Debate.” Southern, August 15.

Men Hulu Sheng . 1925. “Deliberations on New Literature.” Taiwan Daily News, January 5.

“Objectives on the Establishment of Taiwan Literary Societies.” Taiwan Literary Magazine (Taiwan wenyi congzhi) 1.

Runhui sheng . 1923. “On Literature.” Taiwan People’s News, December 21.

Wang Der-wei David . How To Be Modern? and What Literature? (Ruhe xiandai? Zen-yang wenxue?). Taipei: Wheatfield Publications, 1998.

Wei Qingde . 1915. “Poetry and Citizens’ Character.” Taiwan Daily News, July 8.

Wu Wenxing . 1995. A Study of Taiwan’s Leading Class During the Japanese Colonial Period. Taipei: Zhengzhong.

Xiu Chao . 1923. “The Past, Present, and Future of Chinese New Literature.” Taiwan People’s News, July 15.

Xu Ziwen . 1927. “Maintaining Policies on Classical Studies.” Collection of the Congwen Literary Society 1:32.

Yang Shuopeng . 1931. “Problems on Taiwan Dialect Reform.” Poetry News (Shipō) 24 (November 15).

Yi Jizhe . 1926. “Comparison Between Old and New Literatures (Part 1).” Taiwan Daily News, January 3.

———. 1927. “Random Notes on My Casual Thoughts.” Taiwan People’s News, April 10.

Zhang Guangzheng . Complete Works of Zhang Wojun (Zhang Wojun quanji). Beijing: Taihai Publications, 2000.

Zhang Wojun . “Awful Taiwan Literary Circles.” Taiwan People’s News, February 24.

———. “Shedding Tears for the Taiwanese Literary World.” Taiwan People’s News, February 26.

Zheng Kunwu . 1925. “A Letter to Zhang Yilang.” New Tainan News (), January 29.

———. 1932. “A Few Words on Nativist Literature.” Southern Voice (Nanyin ) 1:2.