Abstract
He Yan was a highly regarded thinker for his metaphysical explorations of Dao that focused on discovering and analyzing the fundamental nature of existence and its ethical and political applications; it marks a radical departure from the Yin-Yang correlative philosophy of the Han dynasty that was grounded on the cosmology of primal energy. Modern scholars almost unanimously credit him for initiating a new trend of philosophical thinking that was retrospectively identified as Xuanxue. He Yan was also well known for the Collected Commentaries on the Analects that he co-edited. This chapter will examine He’s overall understanding of the Analects based on the anthology and analyze in particular the sixty-six commentarial snippets and glosses attributed to him as they offer an unusual window to He’s unique philosophical insights. It argues that despite his new metaphysical departure from Han scholars’ pragmatic reading, He Yan’s deceptively Daoist interpretation of the Analects does not warrant the misnomer of Xuanxue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For more, see Lo 2019.
- 2.
Guo Xiang also wrote a commentary on the Analects. For more, see Richard Lynn’s chapter in this Companion.
- 3.
See HeYan zhuan 何晏傳 (Biography of He Yan) in Chen 1982: 1.9.292.
- 4.
This episode was not included in any of the surviving records about He Yan and it appears that it was excluded because it could compromise the condemning image of He Yan portrayed in them.
- 5.
See Makeham 2003: 23–47.
- 6.
It was at least rumoured that Ruan Ji 阮籍 (210-263 CE) was the ghost-writer of the document (Xu 1987: 135).
- 7.
According to the History of the Song Dynasty (Songshu 宋書), Cao Fang became a diligent young man who studied the Classics and lectured on them himself. Every time after he finished lecturing, he would order that sacrifice be paid to Confucius in the Imperial Academy, though he did not do it himself. See Shen1974: 2.14.367.
- 8.
For princely education in the Analects in the Han period, see Csikszentmihalyi in Van Norden 2002: 134–162.
- 9.
Zheng Chong in fact tutored Cao Mao 曹髦 in the Documents when he succeeded Cao Fang to the throne at the age of thirteen.
- 10.
Cao Fang, then about ten years old, probably needed guidance, and He Yan might have been his assistant on the occasion. Shen 1974: 2.14.485. The History of the Jin Dynasty (Jinshu 晉書) states that Cao Fang later lectured on the Documents in 243 CE and on the Book of Rites in 245 CE. See Fang 1974: 4.33.991–992.
- 11.
Bao’s son, Fu, also tutored Emperor He 漢和帝 (r. 88–106 CE) on the Analects, presumably using his father’s commentary.
- 12.
He Xiu’s Preface to his commentary can be found in Ruan 1976, volume 5: 4.
- 13.
There are other similar examples and at least one of them involves a gloss credited to Kong Anguo. Some scholars consider the discrepancy to be misidentification of sources and attribute it to He Yan’s oversight. While this is not entirely impossible, it assumes that Zheng Xuan wrote his own annotations and ignored the growing popularity of the new norm in exegesis.
- 14.
He Xiu also wrote commentaries on the Classic of Filial Devotion, the Analects, as well as fortune-telling arts of “wind quarters” (fengjiao qifen 風角七分). He was famous for not blindly adhering to the letters of the text yet understood the original meaning of the Gongyang Commentary. He also defended the Commentary against its rival texts of the Zuo Commentary and the Guliang Commentary. See Fan 1971: 9.69b.2583.
- 15.
John Makeham falsely claims that “the editors [of the Collected Explanations] pioneered the collected commentary genre.” See Makeham 2003: 51.
- 16.
Even when Fan Ye 范曄 (398–445 CE) wrote about the scholars of Confucian Classics in the Later-Han, he was careful enough to differentiate the various forms of exegesis still in practice. He said, “Du Lin 杜林 (d. 47 CE) of Fufeng transmitted the Old-Text version of the Shangshu 尚書 (Documents), Jia Kui from the same commandery composed a xun gloss commentary to it, Ma Rong wrote a zhuan 傳 commentary to it, and finally Zheng Xuan annotated it with a zhujie 注解 commentary. As a result, the Old-Text version of Shangshu gained prominence everywhere” (Fan 1971: 9.79a.2566).
- 17.
Makeham 2003: 373.
- 18.
Indeed, Wang Chong in the late first century already complained that “Confucian scholars today are fond of trusting their teachers and endorsing what came from the past, and they dedicated themselves to practice what they learned without ever knowing how to raise any questions 世儒學者, 好信師而是古, 以為賢聖所言皆無非, 專精講習, 不知難問.” See Liu 1958: 181.
- 19.
He Yan evidently removed as much as he found inappropriate interpretive commentaries that explicitly revealed the view of the exegete he quoted. This is what John Makeham calls “commentarial control” and he illustrates it very well with the example of Zheng Xuan. See Makeham 2003: 53–58.
- 20.
Eight works entitled jijie on virtually each of the Confucian Classics including at least four on the Analects were listed in the “Bibliographical Treatise” in the History of Sui Dynasty(Suishu 隋書). Of course, the record was far from complete as many books were lost during the chaotic and war-ridden years prior to the unification of China under the Tang dynasty when the Treatise was compiled.
- 21.
I use D.C. Lau’s translation to illustrate how Bao Xian read the text differently. Indeed, as far as I know, Bao’s reading is not followed by any modern scholars but was favored by the Neo-Confucian master Zhu Xi (1130–1200) in his definitive commentary, which became the stipulated text for civil service examinations since 1313.
- 22.
Although qiao and ling may indeed function as adjectives to modify speech and facial expression, even in Confucius’ remarks elsewhere, they were used as causative verbs in Analects 1.3. I have argued elsewhere on both philological and philosophical grounds that Bao Xian’s reading was indeed faithful to the original meaning of the Analects. See Lao 2018: 132–140.
- 23.
Jia Kui wrote a jiegu commentary for the Zuo Zhuan 左傳 (Zuo Commentary), Guo Yu 國語 (Discourses of Various States) and Zhouguan 周官 (Institutions of Zhou, aka, Rites of Zhou).
- 24.
Zhai Pu 翟酺 (fl. first half of second century CE) composed two jiegu commentaries on the Classic of Filial Devotion. See Fan 1971: 6.48.1606.
- 25.
It is well-known that Wang Su regarded Zheng Xuan as his academic rival and was keen on attacking all of Zheng’s works. Yet, He Yan included the commentaries of both (Zheng Xuan was cited 105 times and Wang Su 36 times).
- 26.
John Makeham argues that the Collected Explanations tried to present Confucius as a transmitter rather than a creator, and he was “a sage whose actions were in complete harmony with the way revealed through heaven and to reconcile Confucius’ lack of worldly success with this claim.” Makeham 2003: 73.
- 27.
That is, four on the Changes, three each on the Songs and Documents, and two each on the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Etiquettes.
- 28.
John Makeham claims that: “Even when the editors (of the Collected Explanations) compromised their role as mere ‘transmitters’ by citing passages from the Book of Changes in the editorial commentaries, their purpose was to bolster the status of the Analects as a Classic (jing 經) by securing a cosmological grounding for Confucius as sage, a grounding not explicitly present in the Analects.” See Makeham 2003: 26. It is not evident that the editors were motivated to bolster the status of the Analects, much less as a Classic because it was not one in the first place.
- 29.
The above account was given by He Yan in his Preface to the Collected Explanations. In fact, according to Lu Deming’s 陸德明 (556–627 CE) Jingdian Shiwen 經典釋文, Zheng Xuan consulted more than these three recensions such as the Bao (Xian) and (Mr.) Zhou zhangju. As it turns out, Zheng might have used the Old-Text recension as his base text. Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927) argued that Zheng Xuan actually used the Old-Text recension as his base text, but since we do not know what the Old-Text recension looked like, nor do we have the complete text of Zheng’s annotations, Wang’s view cannot be considered conclusive. In fact, it has been challenged. See the texts of Wang Guowei, Kanaya Osamu 金谷治, and Wang Su 王素 in Wang 1991: 157–161, 237–243, and 244–249 respectively; see also Makeham 2003: 378–381.
- 30.
See Lo 2014: 265–291.
- 31.
- 32.
Makeham mentions initiating no action, emptiness, one-many, root-branches, and emotional responses and pattern. See Makeham 2003: 35–47.
- 33.
Translation of the Analects and the commentary are Makeham’s.
- 34.
Wang Bi wrote a selective commentary to the Analects called Lunyu shiyi 論語釋疑 (Dispelling Doubts about the Analects), which survives only in fragments but they clearly demonstrate Wang’s keen interest in extrapolating the Confucian text into Xuanxue thinking.
- 35.
In Analects 5.13, he cited the Yijing without naming the work. See Huang 2013: 110–111.
- 36.
Analects 3.26, 4.9, 5.28, 7.37, 11.3, 11.8, 12.16, 13.13, 13.16, 14.10, 14.27, 14.28, 14.41, 15.13, 15.24, 15.30, 15.31, 15.41, 16.10, 17.21, and 17.23.
- 37.
Legend has it that Xiang Tuo was a seven-year-old child prodigy and Confucius had sought advice from him.
- 38.
The quotation was meant to tell the reader the word wei 畏 also appears in Mencius 2A1.
- 39.
He Yan planned to write a commentary on the Daodejing but before he finished, he happened to read Wang Bi’s commentary and was so impressed that he decided to drop his project, and wrote two essays on Dao and its power (Daode er lun 道德二論) instead. See Xu 1987: 107. It was suggested that He Yan actually wrote only one essay as the graph er 二 (two) was added by mistake. Two excerpts were quoted in his name titled “Discourse on Dao” (Dao lun 道論) and “Discourse on the Nameless” (Wuming lun 無名論) respectively in Zhang Zhan’s 張湛 Commentary on the Liezi 列子注, which was completed in the fourth century. They seem incomplete in their content and too short for an essay. As their contents are closely related, it is possible that the excerpts actually came from one essay in spite of their different titles. For more, see Chan and Lo 2010: 23–52. Also see Paul D’Ambrosio’s chapter in this Companion.
- 40.
See Liu 1958: 558.
- 41.
- 42.
See the text by Kanaya in Wang 1991: 204–243, esp. 218–237.
- 43.
- 44.
For a detailed discussion of Analects 11.19, see Lo 2014: 265–291.
Bibliography
Ban, Gu 班固. 2002. History of the Han Dynasty 漢書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Cai, Zhenfeng 蔡振豐. 2004. “The Philosophical Characteristics and Position of He Yan’s Collected Explanations on the Analects 何晏論語集解的思想特色及其定位.” In Junjie Huang 黃俊傑, ed., A Preliminary Exploration of Interpretations of the Four Books in China and Japan 中日四書詮釋傳統初探, 81-107. Taibei: Taiwan Daxue Chuban Zhongxin.
Chan, Alan K.L. and Yuet Keung Lo, eds., 2010. Philosophy and Religion in Early Medieval China. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chen, Shou 陳壽. 1982. Records of the Three Kingdoms 三國志. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Cheng, Shude 程樹德. 1997. Collected Annotations on the Analects 論語集釋. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mark. 2002. “Confucius and the Analects in the Han.” In Bryan van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, 134-162. New York: Oxford University Press.
Duan, Yucai 段玉裁. 2000. Commentary on the Shuowen Jiezi 說文解字注. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
Fan, Ye 范曄. 1971. History of the Later-Han Dynasty 後漢書. Hong Kong: Zhonghua Shuju.
Fang, Xuanling 房玄齡. 1974. History of the Jin Dynasty 晉書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Guo, Qingfan 郭慶藩. 1985. Collected Annotations on Zhuangzi 莊子集釋. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Huang, Kan 皇侃. 2013. Subcommentaries on the Analects 論語義疏. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Jiao, Xun 焦循. 1996. Correct Meaning of Mengzi 孟子正義. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Jin, Peiyi 金培懿. 2016. “Elaborating Lao-Zhuang Philosophy? Interpreting Classics in Neo-Daoist Terms? Turning Confucian Classics Learning into Neo-Daoism? Revaluation of the Philosophical Position of He Yan’s Collected Explanations on the Analects 祖述老莊? 以玄解經? 經學玄化? 何晏論語集解的重新定位,” Literature and Philosophy 文與哲, 16: 45–98.
Lau, D.C., trans. 1979. The Analects. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Liu, Pansui 劉盼遂. 1958. Collected Explanations on Lunheng 論衡集解. Taibei: Shijie Shuju.
Lo, Yuet Keung 勞悅強. 2010. “On the Analects line ‘young maids and male servants are the most difficult of people to treat’: The Evolution of Annotated Interpretations from the Han to Song Dynasty 論語唯女子與小人為難養: 漢至宋的詮釋演變.” In Yuet Keung Lo, Intratextual and Extratextual: Interpretations of Classics in Chinese Intellectual History 文內文外:中國思想史中的經典詮釋, 309–340. Taibei: Taida Chuban Zhongxin.
Lo, Yuet Keung 勞悅強. 2014. “Impoverished or Intermittently Empty? A New Interpretation of Analects 11.19 論語先進篇屢空辨,” Chinese Studies 漢學研究, 32.2: 265–291.
Lo, Yuet Keung 勞悅強. 2018. “How Should We Read the Analects Today?” In Winter Sun on One’s Back: Record of Speeches on Literature, History, Philosophy in the Lion City 背上冬陽:文史哲獅城演講錄, 132–147. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Lo, Yuet Keung. 2019. “Qingtan and Xuanxue.” In Albert Dien and Keith Knapp eds., Cambridge History of China, volume 2: The Six Dynasties, 511–530. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makeham, John. 1997. “The Earliest Extant Commentary on Lunyu: Lunyu Zheng Shi Zhu,” T’oung Pao, 83: 260–299.
Makeham, John. 2003. Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the Analects. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ngoi, Guat-Peng 魏月萍. 2017. “The Characteristics of Late-Ming Confucian Interpretations of ‘Lü Kong’ and ‘Lü Zhong’ 悟道之機: 晚明儒者屢空, 屢中的詮釋特色.” Chinese Studies 漢學研究, 35.2: 129–158.
Ruan, Yuan 阮元. 1976. Commentaries and Subcommentaries on the Thirteen Classics 十三經注疏. Taibei: Yiwen Yinshuguan.
Shen, Yue 沈約. 1974. History of the Song Dynasty 宋書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Wang, Su 王素. 1991. Tang Dynasty Manuscripts of Mr. Zheng’s Commentary on the Analects and Related Studies 唐寫本論語鄭氏注及其研究. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Xu, Zhen’e 徐震堮. 1987. Critical Annotations of Shishuo Xinyu 世說新語校箋. Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lo, Y.K. (2020). He Yan’s Collected Explanations on the Analects. In: Chai, D. (eds) Dao Companion to Xuanxue 玄學 (Neo-Daoism). Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49228-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49228-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49227-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49228-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)