Far Orientalism?

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 12:48:52 -0500 (EST) From: Nicholas Clifford <clifford@panther.middlebury.edu>

Can anyone point me to any studies of the applicability or non-applicability of E. Said's theories of Orientalism to what he calls the "Far Orient," and particularly to China and Japan? He, of course, makes it very clear that he's restricting himself to the Arabs and Islam (the "Near Orient") seen through British, French, and American spectacles, leaving the "Far Orient" out. But he does seem to imply that the techniques he's used to study European representations of the "Near Orient" should also be applicable to the "Far Orient." Though there's a useful article in a recent issue of _History and Theory_ called "Orientalism Now," by Gyan Prakash, looking at the current state of Said's theories, it doesn't engage this particular question.

I raise it because, for all his extraordinarily valuable insights, I'm not at all sure that Said's version of "Orientalism" works very well for Western representations of China and Japan, though how far my disquiet comes from a general discontent with the theories themselves (from a historian's point of view, for instance, there's too much generalization from literary study, perhaps) and how far from a sense that China and Japan were differently perceived and described, and thus do not fit neatly into his theories, I'm not sure.

Nick Clifford clifford@panther.middlebury.edu

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:03:47 +1030 (CST) From: J. Makeham <jmakeham@arts.adelaide.edu.au>

For the case of China, you might check Simon Leys' essay, "Orientalism and Sinology", The Burning Forest", Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1986.

John Makeham
University of Adelaide

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 20:12:25 EST
From: Dale Smith <drsmith@ccs.carleton.ca>

In _Culture and Imperialism_ (1992), Said expands his analysis to parts of the Far East, writing that he sees these discourses as part of "the general European effort to rule distant lands and peoples and, therefore, as related to Orientalist descriptions of the Islamic world..." As Said goes on to say, "what are striking about these discourses are the rhetorical figures one keeps encountering in their descriptions of 'the mysterious East', as well as the stereotypes about 'the African [or Indian or Irish or Jamaican or Chinese] mind..."

"Introduction" p. xi

Carleton University

Email address: drsmith@ccs.carleton.ca

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 13:03 EST
From: On-cho Ng <OXN1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

"Far Orientalism"

Nick C, may want to take a look at Paul Cohen's _Discovering History in China_ (Columbia U. Pr., 1984). Cohen does not use Said's language but he endorses his epistemological position. Another work of interest appeared in _Philosophy East and West_ 45.3(Jul. 95) by Arran Gare: "Understanding Oriental Cultures." This piece essentially rejects Said's theoretical and espistemic positions, and interestigly enough, endorses Joseph Needham's "comparative approach."

On-cho Ng (History, Penn State)

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:51:52 -0500 (EST) From: marie-pa <marie-pa@HUMANITIES1.COHUMS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

I share Nicholas Clifford's view that discussions of Orientalism are often limited to the Middle East i.e. the Islamic world. Far Orientalism, when discussed, is centered chiefly on India. What are the reasons (ideological, political, or professional) for these choices? Currently, I am working on the representation of China, Indochina and Japan by French writers (Malraux, Duras, Segalen, Claudel, Barthes, Michaux and a large number of Indochinese colonial writers). I would like some input from those interested in the subject.

Marie-Paule Ha
French Department
The Ohio-State University

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:00:42 +9:00
From: Chris Hill <hill@twics.com>

Nicholas Clifford <clifford@panther.middlebury.edu> asked: > Can anyone point me to any studies of the
> applicability or non-applicability of E. Said's theories of
> Orientalism to what he calls the "Far Orient," and particularly
> to China and Japan?

I'm not aware of any studies that ask the question of whether Said's analysis of Orientalist scholarship on the Near East "applies" to scholarship on East Asia, but since the 1970s there has been a lot of discussion among Americans working in the field about its political position. Since the 1980s, Said's work has figured prominently. In the '70s, criticism of the field focused mainly on its cold-war affiliations (an issue Said treats in the third part of _Orientalism_); since then it has focused more on discursive and epistemological issues, a change prompted not only by Said but also by the work of Foucault, the Subaltern Studies group, and others.

        In English, some places to start would be:
        John W. Dower, "E.H. Norman, Japan, and the Uses of History," in Dower, ed.,

_Origins of the Modern Japanese State: Selected Writings of E.H. Norman_, NY: Pantheon, 1975;

Masao Miyoshi, "Against the Native Grain: The Japanese Novel and the "Postmodern" West," Miyoshi and H.D. Harootunian, eds., _Postmodernism and Japan_,Durham: Duke UP, 1989;

Miyoshi, _Off Center: Power and Cultural Relations between Japan and the United States_, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard UP, 1991, and "back of the book" essays in the journal _positions: east asia cultures critique_, which began publishing in 1993. These essays generally deal with methodological and theoretical issues.

Stefan Tanaka has written on the appropriation of orientalist discourse in Japan and its use in Japanese historians' representations of China beginning in the late nineteenth century. _Japan's Orient: Rendering Pasts into History_, Berkeley: U. of Calif. P., 1993.

Chris Hill

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 18:26:08 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Reinders <6500rein@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>

Regarding Nicholas Clifford's question about the extention of Said's Orientalism discussion to East Asia,

I think Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed., Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism (U. of Chicago press, 1995) has some relevant discussion; The editor says the extention of Said's project Eastward was the starting point of this book.

I particularly liked the chapter by Bob Sharf, "the Zen of Japanese nationalism"; and one by Gustavo Benavides, "Giuseppe Tucci, or Buddhology in the Age of fascism."

Eric Reinders, UCSB

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 14:45:34 -0600 (CST) From: ZARROWPG@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu

A book that says much, at least indirectly, about Orientalism applied to China (and to some extent India) is: Prasenjit Duara, _Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China_ (Univ. of Chicago, 1995). This is a high convincing study of how and why conflicting representations of the nation were worked out in particular ways, ways which were part of a global discourse of modernity.

Peter Zarrow
Vanderbilt Uinv.

Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 18:32:37 -0500 (EST) From: LEIBO@cnsvax.albany.edu

This is cross-posted from H-ASIA; although it is long, it is quite informative on one of our issues(David Bailey, editor) Date: March 3, 1996

R. Nicholas Clifford's query re. Said's Orientalism

For a brief and rather withering review of the non-applicability of Said's theories to the field of sinology, one might read the essay on the subject By Simon Leys [Pierre Ryckmans] in his collection entitled " The Burning Forest " [ " La foret en feu " in the original ].

Edward C. Fields
Dept. of History
University of California at Santa Barbara fields@humanitas.ucsb.edu
2)******************************************************************** subj:RE: H-ASIA: Said's Orientalism
From: rlynn@pop.srv.ualberta.a (Richard Lynn)

The following is part of an exercise I completed some months ago--already done and easy to cut and paste in here:

Significant scholarly critiques of Said's Orientalism include: Robert A. Kapp, ed., =review Symposium: Edward Said's Orientalism, in Journal of Asian Studies 39:3 (May 1980), pp. 481-517. Peter Gran, review of Orientalism by Edward Said, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 100:3 (July-October 1980), pp. 328-331. Simon Leys (Pierre Ryckmas), Orientalism and Sinology in The Burning Forest: Essays on Chinese Culture and Politics New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), pp. 95-99. [originally published as La foret en feu (Paris: Hermann, Editeurs des sciences et des arts. 1983).] Jonathan D. Spence, Chinese Roundabout: Essays in History and Culture (New York and London: Norton & Company, 1992), p. 90 (short notice).

A brief synopsis of one other conference devoted to Said's Orientalism and its application (or not) to (in part) East Asia:

Warren I. Cohen, ed., Reflections on Orientalism: Edward Said (East Lansing, Michigan: Asian Studies Center, 198), Warren, Introduction (pp.= 1-2):
Edward D. Graham began with the reminder of Chinese attitudes toward Western =barbarians,=94 noting that "otherness" was not a peculiarly= Western idea about Orientals. He looked at an early 18th century play by Voltaire, describing the characters as verbalized chinoiserie . . . . Although Graham expressed some reservations about Said's =unrelenting= reductionism, his own analysis leaves no room for complacency about Western understanding of the East-West relationship.=94 Donald Lammers focused on several 20th century pre-World War II novels about Japan. He argued that to take a non-Western people =seriously=94 suggested freedom from the unself-critical "orientalism" of which Said wrote and spoke. Lammers concluded that among the writings he discussed, there was a substantial body of accurate sociological and psychological observation, acquired first hand and rendered with imaginative sympathy. Unwilling to challenge Said's general argument on the basis of so slim a sample, Lammers nonetheless presented important evidence to the contrary.=94 Roger Bresnahan turned to the image of South Sea islanders in American literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. He stressed the difference between American and European versions of "orientalism" --the Americans perceiving themselves as a people who were saving the islands and islanders from Europe. Bresnahan called attention to the preparation Americans had for assuming racial superiority over Asians in their justification for the enslavement of Africans and their ruthlessness toward American Indians.=94 = Surjit Dulai looked at George Orwell's Burmese Days. . . . [and concluded that] Orwell's writings illustrate why Said so seriously doubts the possibility of one culture knowing another apolitically or without= hostility.=94
As Lammers said most eloquently, Said's elaborate construct would not be undermined with a few essays. Moreover, the authors were all sympathetic to Said's argument and purpose. Readers of this volume will find several questions to explore further, reservations that must be considered and ample evidence that Said's orientalism does indeed apply to non-Muslim parts of the Orient."
Edward D. Graham himself said (page 42): finally, Said makes such a strong case for "orientalism" as a prejudicial mode of knowing, that we can never again be quite sure that our understanding of China (or whatever) is not tainted. The massive, unrelenting reductionism of his attack on what we think we know, and why we want to know it, is upsetting and infuriating. It is also, I suspect, a source of some healthy skepticism about our status as pundits.=94

My own feeling is that Said's Orientalism fits Western studies of East Asia poorly because it depends for its validity on the notion of the "Other" "Sinologists" and other students of East Asia have to remain trapped in= the straitjacket of their own Western culture and so be incapable of viewing China, Japan, Korea, etc. honesty, non-aggressively, accurately, etc. but only as an alien "Other" about which they can only make false,= self-serving constructs (to paraphrase what Said says about Western approaches to the Islamic Near East). This notion of "Other" seems to fall apart when we consider how many scholars of East Asia prominent in the Western world during the last almost century have been themselves from East Asia, where they also often have been at least as influential as they have been in the West. I know the field of Chinese studies better, s observe that Scholars such as Yang Lien-sheng =B7=A8=C1p=B0=A5 and William Hung (Hong Ye x=B7~)= at Harvard, Chao Yuen-ren =BB=AF=A4=B8=A5=F4 at University of California at Berkeley,= Fang Chao-ying =A9=D0=A5=FC=B7=AD at Columbia, Hsiao Kung-ch'=FCan =BF=BD=A4=BD=C5v at the= University of Washington, Teng Ssu-y=FC =BEH=E0=EA (Harvard and Indiana University), and Wing Tsit-ch'an =B3=AF=BAaB1 at Dartmouth, all shaped Chinese studies in the West in absolutely fundamental ways during the 1930s and 1940s. Somewhat later, they were joined by T'ang Yung-t'ung =B4=F6=A5=CE=A7=CD at the University of Pittsburgh, Liu Tzu-chien =BCB=A4l=B0=B7 (Stanford and Princeton), Ho Ping-ti =A6=F3=B1= =B4=D0 at the University of Chicago, and, among many others, James J. Y. Liu (Liu Jo-y=FC =BCB=ADY=B7M), who had a fascinating international career, from Fu-jen and Tsing-hua universities in Beijing, to Oxford, to University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of Hong Kong, University of Hawaii, University of Pittsburgh, University of Chicago, and finally Stanford University. Liu was my own teacher. He would have been outraged if anyone suggested that he had somehow "sold out" the study of Chinese literature to "Western cultural imperialism"! Liu, however, was well aware of the pernicious doctrine and practice of "Orientalism"--lng before Said came along. Earlier Western scholars of China (and a few contemporaries) often came in for his wrath for their China "Orientalism" (they shall remain unnamed here), and any student of his who tried such nonsense himself would have been dead in the water in no time! I suspect that Western studies of East Asia during the past three generations or so have been spared "Orientalism" because of such teachers: There is no "Other" if one so identifies with, feels affection for, and identifies with the subject of his study, research, and analysis--regardless of the discipline. I feel that I have been blessed with the greatest good fortune in the kind of teachers I have had, and I'd bet that many subscribers to this List justly feel the same way! It is due to our teachers that the field of East Asian Studies has become and stayed so free of "Orientalism." Let us all work to ensure that it remains so.

Richard John Lynn
Professor of Chinese Studies and
Chair, Department of East Asian Studies University of Alberta
3)*********************************************************************** Subj:Said's Orientalism in the "Far East" From: Michael Chang <mgchang@sdcc3.ucsd.edu>

In response to Nicholas Clifford's query as to the applicability of ideas put forth in Said's *Orientalism* to China and/or Japan:

Stefan Tanaka's *Japan's Orient* (UC Press, 1993) is one attempt to bring Said to the "Far East." Although I think this work has some major contradictions and problems, it is the first work that explicitly takes cues from Said. I should also note that, all in all, I think Tanaka's effort was an admirable one.

Michael Chang
Dept. of History
UC, San Diego
4)*********************************************************************** Subj:H-ASIA: Re: Said's Orientalism
From: Carol C Chin <ccchin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Nick Clifford asked about studies of the applicability of Said's Orientalism to China and Japan. I haven't read the following articles, but you might try:

Journal of Asian Studies 39:3 (1980) review symposium; includes an article by Richard Minear on Orientalism and Japan.

Xiaobing Tang, "Orientalism and the Quest of Universality: The Language of Contemporary Chinese Literary Theory," _Positions_ 1:2 (1993).

I found these in the notes to a fascinating book that might or might not be related to what you're looking for:

Chen, Xiaomei. Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post-Mao China. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Chen describes Occidentalism as produced by "a particular combination of the Western construction of China with the Chinese construction of the West" (p. 5). She sets it up as a "counter-discourse" to Orientalism, and she too draws heavily on literary theory.

Carol Chin
Ohio State University
5)******************************************************************** From:IN%"rhorowit@husc.harvard.edu" "Richard Horowitz" To:IN%"H-ASIA@msu.edu"

In response to Nicholas Clifford's posting about works applying Said's analysis of Orientalism to East Asia, I have not run across anything of interest on China or Japan but I highly recommend a book on western perceptions of Tibet: Peter Bishop, _The Myth of Shangri-la_. Bishop draws very effectively on Said and Foucault.

Richard Horowitz
Harvard University
6)******************************************************************** subj:Far Orientalism?
From: Bill Watkins <wewatkins@ucdavis.edu>

A Chinese language article about ow well Edward Said's notion of orientalism applies to China, which first appeared in _Liaowang_, was repinted in _Hua Xia Wen Zhai_. I read it in late January or early February this year, and I believe the issue in question was first broadcast shortly before then. The author's chief revelation from his reading of Said is that the Western understanding of China is imperfect and is subject to the political pressures of the time. If that is the chief lesson one learns from Said, this reader at least feels little regret for not having read _Orientalism_.

Bill Watkins
Dept. of Pediatrics and Program in International Nutrition University of California, Davis

7)********************************************************************** From: George Pruden <George_Pruden@mailgate.Armstrong.EDU> Subject: Re: Said's Orientalism

The May 1980 issue of _The Journal of Asian Studies_ (Vol. 39, No. 3) carried a review symposium on this subject, consisting of an Introduction by Robert A.
Kapp and articles by Michael Dalby, David Kopf, and Richard A. Minear. Benjamin I. Schwartz's Presidential Address, printed in the Nov. 1980 issue (Vol. 40, No. 1) also contains some remarks on Said's _Orientalism_ (pp. 16 and 21 ff).
8)************************************************************************ Subj:RE: Said's Orientalism in the "Far East" From: "J. Moffett" <jm10019@cus.cam.ac.uk>

Wit regard to Orientalism and the "Far Orient", there is (or was) an ongoing debate in NIAS-nytt, the Nordic Newsletter of Asian Studies, especially in the two issues of 1994, and 1995. If it is not in a library near you, I'm sure if you write to the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies they will send you a set:

Nordic Institute of Asian Studies
Leifsgade 33
DK-2300 Copenhagen S


John Moffett
East Asian History of Science Library
Needham Research Institute
8)************************************************************ Subj:RE: H-ASIA: Said's Orientalism
From: Jon Thares Davidann <david010@maroon.tc.umn.edu> In reference to Said's approach:

There is Stefan Tanaka's "Japan's Orient", which is a book about Japan's attitudes toward China. He takes his basic approach from Said, but this time it is not Western attitudes toward the East, but some Easterners attitudes toward other Easterners.

My own work includes a short section on Western missionaries assumptions about Japanese Christian: Jon Thares Davidann, "A Wold of Crisis and Progress: Christianity, National Identity and the American YMCA in Japan, 1890-1930" Ph.D. diss. U. of Minn, 1995, to be published by Lehigh Press, hopefully in 1997. I borrowed from William Hutchison's book on American missionaries "Errand to the World" in constructing this section.

There are many other books on East Asia which use Said's general approach. The general approach of looking at Western discourse about Easterners is an illuminating and powerful form of scholarship. And Said pioneered this approach. So any criticisms made must take this into account.

That being said, there are criticisms that can be made about the approach. First in its original form it leaves a huge gap where there ought to be indigenous response or some representation of Eastern acceptance or rejection of these stereotypes. Second, it gives to the imperialist the monolithic power to define subject peoples, which I do not think the imperialist in reality has.
Third, I found in my own work American missionaries who operated outside of the boundaries of the basic discourse American missionaries had constructed about Japan. So Said's approach also seems too monolithic in its assumptions about Western agreement on these stereotypes. But those who did move outside this discourse were under immense pressure to return to the fold.

But in Said's defense, he and those who have studied under him readily admit at least that those being represented by Westerners themselves need representation. Said's latest "Culture and Imperialism" gives some space to Eastern responses.

My own interests are in looking at the interaction of Westerner and Easterner more as an open-ended dialogue, and in assuming that the Western change-maker is also changed by the experience of contact with non-Westerners.
To that end, I am interested in Akira Iriye's, intercultural ideas and Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogic theory. Hope this longish reply helps.

Jon Thares Davidann
University of Minnesota

9)********************************************************************* Subj:Said's Orientalism

Simon Leys (Pierre Ryckmans) has a brief but characteristically witty and cutting commentary on the relevance of Orientalism for Chinese studies, entitled 'Orientalism ad Sinology', in his The Burning Forest (Paladin, 1988). It was originally published together with other similar comments by scholars working on different areas of Asia in Asian Studies Association of Australia Review (Aug 1984), but I've never bothered to look at these. His final assessment of the book: 'three hundred pages of twisted, obscure, incoherent, ill-informed and badly written diatribe ... [which reaches] at last one sound and fundamental truism'. Many of my students also take a course in post-colonial literature, and treat Said as gospel truth, so there is always a great discussion when I assign this reading. But it doesn't so much address the arguments as dismiss them out of hand.

Though it's dated, I found re-reading Raymond Dawson's The Chines Chameleon to provide some new insights in the light of Orientalism. But I too would love to hear of something which tackles the question directly and in more detail

PS to Prof. Clifford: Just started your novel, a great help in getting through the dark Montreal winter.

Mike Szonyi
Department of History, McGill University 855 Sherbrooke St. W, Montreal,Canada H3A 2T7 tel: 514-398-4865

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 23:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: LEIBO@cnsvax.albany.edu

>From David Bailey:More cross-postings from H-Asia

Date: March 6, 1996
1)******************************************************* (December): 17-27.

2) Leys, Simon (1985) "Orientalism and Sinology." In th Burning Forests (by same author), pp. 95-99.

3) Hershattter, Gail (1993) "The Subaltern Talks Back," Positions, 1.1: 103-130

4) Zhang Longxi (1988) "the Myth of the Other," Critical Inquiry 15: 108-131.

5) Chen, Xiaomei "Occidentalism as Counterdiscourse: 'He Shang' in Post-Mao China, Critical Inury (Summer 1992): 687-712.

Carol Benedict
Dept. of History,
Georgetown University
3)******************************************************************** From: "Xu, Xiaoqun (David)" <XXu@ACS2.FMRION.EDU> Subject: Said's Orientalism

One book that has not been mentioned but I think is relevant here is John M. MacKenzie, _Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts_ (Manchester UP, 1995). The book does not specifically answer the question posed by Professor Clifford, but contains critique of Said and "discourse theorists" in general, from the point of view of a historian, like Clifford. The author speaks of Said's historicism that is ahistorical. Said and others committed the most fundamental of historical sins--"the reading back contemporary attitudes and prejudices into historical periods." A main argument of the book is that historically speaking, there was no rigid essentialising of West (Self) and East (Other). By examining oriental influence in European art, architecture, design, music, and theatre, the author argues that "western arts in fact sought contamination at every turn, restlessly seeking renewal and reinvigoration though contacts with other traditions. And both Self and Other were locked into processes of mutual modification,...." (p.209). He also notes a complex range of Others in late-nineteenth century Europe-- Orientialism was "one of several cultural courts of appeal." Another point is that the example of the Orient can become the means for a counter-western discourse, and that the Orient or its discourse "has the capacity to become a legitimizing source of resistance to those who challenge western conventions, introspection and complacency." (p.10)

Xiaoqun Xu
Dept. of History
Francis Marion U.
3)******************************************************************** From:IN%"humann@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us" "William Alexander Mann" subj:RE: H-ASIA: Said's Orientalism

Prof. Leibo is right on the money: Said is useful in a broad sense. His most basic point, that Europeans and Americans have created images in their writing which represent Euro/Am ideas as much or more than they reflect Asia, is not bound to th Middle East.

It seems only logical to accept that Western writing about Asia has not been absolutely objective scholarship. Instead it naturally is a combination of Asia and the "West;" this "discourse" in Said's Orient. Perhaps some people do not necessarily accept this basic point. If you believe that European and American writers have created an image (or images) of Asia (East or otherwise) which reflects European and American ideas, it is logical that this image is different from Asian perceptions of self or from actual interaction among Europeans and Asians. European and lately American ideas have had and continue to have a tremendous amount of influence on the world, and the power of these ideas can limit the way one analyzes any part of the world which has distinctly different cultural and social traditions.

For a view of Said's place in the history of criticism of "Western" views of history, see Alan Young, _White Mythologies_. There is also a thin volume published by Michigan State which is a collection of papers by Asian historians who considered Said's application to E. Asia at a small conference in E. Lansing. Paul Cohen, _Discovering History in China, and John Dower, in the intro to E.H. Norman's collected work have considered the problem of American historians creating a problematic and false image of East Asia (China and Japan specifically) and the early volumes of the CCAS bulletin also discussed the same situation. All the writers contend that American historians have been too concerned with American problems when they study E. Asia, and that their work has reflected American problems and concerns as much or more than they have expanded understanding of Asian history. There are many different ways to approach the problem of writing about one's own or another culture, and Said's work has been useful precisely because some of it has provided a common point of reference for many people concerned with writing ad representation 4)********************************************************************** From: m.d.mehl@stir.ac.uk (Margaret Mehl {Japanese}) Subject: orientalism

I don't know whether its has been mentioned, but recently I found a book by John M. MacKenzie, Professor of Imperial History at Lancaster: Orientalism. History, theory and the arts. Manchester UP, Manchester and NY, 1995

Japan and China are not in the index, but briefly looking at the book, I found a mention in passing. The focus is on Britain and India in the 19th and early 20th centuries and Mackenzie describes his work as an "essay in cultural history". There are chapters on the Orientalism debate, the Orient and culture and imperialism, Orientalism in art; in architecture; design, music and the theatre. Illustrations include he railings of the Glasgow School of Arts by Charles Rennie Mackintosh to illustrate M's adoption of Japanese heraldic forms. I've not got much beyond the preface yet, but it looks like a stimulating book.

Margaret Mehl, University of Stirling, mdm1@stir.ac.uk

Return to Menu