Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation and Persuasion in Classical Chinese Literature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 39))

Abstract

This article analyses the two main rhetorical techniques of “argumentation” (biàn) and “persuasion” (shuì) employed in politico-philosophical debates recorded in early Chinese argumentative texts of the Warring States period (ca. 5th–3rd cent. B.C.). Through the analysis of pertinent case studies drawn from the received literature, the contribution explores the formal, structural, and grammatical features of these techniques, with attention paid to the wide selection of rhetorical and literary devices they make use of. It also further provides an overview of the historical and socio-cultural background against which such techniques developed among so called “wandering persuaders” (yóushuì), who were travelling from court to court to offer their services as political advisors and diplomats to the local rulers of the time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    *I would like to thank Wolfgang Behr and James Weaver for their insightful comments on previous drafts of this article. This article is based on the paper I presented at the conference “Argumentation in Classical Antiquity: dialectic, rhetoric & other domains,” Humboldt University of Berlin, 23–25 June 2016.

    For an introduction to early Chinese rhetoric and the techniques of “argumentation” and “persuasion” in early Chinese politico-philosophical discourse, see [75]; [20] and [21]; [81]; [119]; [37]; [41] and [42]; [89]; [90]; [48] and [49]; [31]; [52]; [60].

  2. 2.

    While the study of transition terms is a rather well attested practice in Classical and Biblical studies, a systematic and exhaustive analysis and classification of this kind of markers in early Chinese literature still remains a desideratum. A few promising articles have been published especially on this specific use of the particle fú 夫, which is otherwise commonly employed as a topic marker at the very beginning of a sentence, see [32]; [141]. On this topic, see also [39, esp. pp. 33, 39, 44], [2, p. 237], and [106].

  3. 3.

    The use of the term “feudal” applied to the ancient Chinese Warring States period should be understood in a fairly loose manner. It has known a progressive decline—and for very well-founded reasons—in most recent sinological studies, as it is considered somewhat improper and culturally patronizing in the light of the substantial differences existing between the early Chinese and the Western Medieval historical contexts. For a more transparent and updated historical overview of the period, see for instance [87]; [146].

  4. 4.

    For a detailed account of the Zhōu ritual, sacrificial and kinship system, see for instance [123]; [147]; [6]; [140]. On rites and state organization, see [30].

  5. 5.

    For a problematization of the legitimacy and the limits of the use of the term “rhetoric” as applied to a non-Western context in general, and to the Chinese specific case in particular, see [55] and [61].

  6. 6.

    See the still relevant [50]. See also [111] and [112].

  7. 7.

    [75, p. 126]. Oliver [108, p. 84] classifies wandering persuaders into three categories: storytellers, professional persuaders, and diplomatic agents. On this topic, see also [89]; [81, p. 52]; [127, p. 20].

  8. 8.

    As Bruce E. Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks point out, it is highly unlikely that such strong claims as, for instance, Mencius makes in certain passages of the eponymous text, could have been possible at all in real life in front of a ruler [13, p. 277, footnote 2], at least not without risking one’s own head to be cut off.

  9. 9.

    [75, p. 12].

  10. 10.

    Kai Vogelsang [139] has recently provided an interpretation of the role of the minister/advisor in this kind of dialogues in terms of “Politikberatung” (political consultation).

  11. 11.

    Early Chinese manuscript texts were characterized by a rather fluid nature. Before the spread of silk and the invention of paper as material carriers in the early imperial period, manuscript texts were composed of more or less bulky bundles of bamboo or wooden slips held together by strings of different materials. Such bundles could comprise one individual text, sections or chapters of a longer text, or, at times, more than one text that had been copied together on the same bundle. Slips could vary greatly in size and number, and so did the number of graphs per slip. Fairly consistent conventions regulating the length of strips according to the content and genre of the written text were established only later in the imperial period, see [136] and [35]. Due to the malleability of the material carrier and these “modular” structural characteristics, it was relatively easy to modify or replace individual slips, or to replace, add and insert new “chapters” within a larger textual unit. As a result, texts underwent a gradual process of growth and “accretion” that lasted several centuries and included also later editorial additions and integrations during the major enterprise of the reorganization of the holdings of the imperial library during the Hàn 漢 Dynasty (206 B.C.–220 A.D.). For these reasons, scholars talk about the “composite nature” of early Chinese texts. See [11] and [12]. See also [95]; [120]; [77]; [98].

  12. 12.

    The conventional translation “Master” is problematic to a certain extent. For an alternative interpretation of the term as a designation for social rank (“squire,” in the original German text “Juncker”), especially with reference to the Mèngzǐ, see Gassmann’s recent publication [38, pp. 153–155].

  13. 13.

    [10]; [65]; [120].

  14. 14.

    On text production in pre-imperial China, see [95] and [96]; [65]; [82]; [85].

  15. 15.

    On the issue of authorship and the concept of “composite authorship” in early China, see [103]; [64] and [65]; [5]; [125].

  16. 16.

    See [95] and [96]; [73] and [74]; [113].

  17. 17.

    On the value of and the contribution provided by “Masters texts” in this kind of inquiry, see [28]; see also [135].

  18. 18.

    See [61, esp. pp. 906–908]; a list of occurrences in early Chinese received literature can be found at p. 906, footnote 56; see also [75, p. 122]: “The Warring States topos of the itinerant philosopher intent on persuading a prince to accept his teaching was related not just to persuasion but to disputation as well.”

  19. 19.

    For a detailed analysis of the use of the terminology for “rhetoric” in early China and a comparison between the two Chinese terms for rhetoric, see [55] and especially [61, pp. 906–908].

  20. 20.

    As Kroll points out, “the arts of “disputation” (pien) [biàn 辯] and “persuasion” (shui) [shuì 說], were ascribed to the same person as mutually connected skills” [75, p. 126].

  21. 21.

    My interpretation is partially indebted to Lu Xing’s threefold classification [89, pp. 64–65] of what I define here as “polemical scenarios.” Lu claims that “the first (setting for rhetorical activity) was the political realm where you shui [游說, persuaders] or bian shi [辯士, debaters] served as advisers to the kings. […] [T]the second arena for rhetorical activities was the realm of education where intellectuals taught their students various subjects using a lecture and discursive format.” Lu postulates also a third possible scenario, the (Jìxià 稷下) “Academy.” However, increasing doubts have been raised in the past years about the possibility that a structured and organized institution recognizable as a proper “Academy” might have actually existed in the pre-imperial period. Therefore, I prefer to leave this latter potential setting aside. For a recent account of the alleged activities of the Jìxià Academy, see [145].

  22. 22.

    On the teaching scene or “scene of instruction,” see [144]; see also [28, Chapter 2].

  23. 23.

    There are several publications available that focus on individual examples of these two kinds of metaphors. As an in-depth analysis of this topic goes beyond the scope of the present article, I am quoting here only a selection of recent studies for further reference. For a theoretical treatment of the use of metaphors in early Chinese philosophy, see [128] and [129]; on the use of metaphors specifically in the “Masters text” Zhuāngzǐ 莊子, see [143], [16], and [70]. On natural metaphors, and especially the predominant water metaphors, see for instance [1]; [91]; [17]. On the relatively still understudied animal metaphors, see [132]; [114]; [92]; and [58]. On tool metaphors, see [138]; [25]; [47]; [27], to quote just a few.

  24. 24.

    [71, 14/5/52, p. 209].

  25. 25.

    On the psychological dimension of persuasion, see [37]; [36]; [46]; and [122].

  26. 26.

    [37, p. 112].

  27. 27.

    “Motivated by the self-interested desire for profit, you shui employed utilitarian appeals in persuading their audiences. In speeches they made to the kings of the various states, for example, they would spell out the material gain, in terms of land, beautiful women, horses, food, and clothing. The ruler could expect benefits he would gain by adopting the proposed plan” [89, p. 119]. See also [41, p. 5] and [42]; [63, p. 230].

  28. 28.

    On framing devices in cases of “persuasion,” see [20] and [21]; [63]; [89]; [41] and [42].

  29. 29.

    On the role of the audience and its influence on how a “persuasion” is developed and delivered, see [26, p. 96]; [37]; [89]; [81].

  30. 30.

    The term jiā 家 (literally, “household,” “family,” but also “expert, person with an expertise in a certain field”) has long been used rather inappropriately to translate the names of six philosophical trends of thoughts or groups of experts of the Warring States period as “schools” of thought. These were first identified and described by the Grand Historian and Astronomer Sīmǎ Tán 司馬談 (c. 165–c. 110 B.C.) in his treatise “The Cardinal Principles of the Six Trends of Thought” (‘Liùjiā zhī yàozhǐ’ 六家之要旨), included in Chapter 130 of his son Sīmǎ Qiān’s 司馬遷 (c. 145–c. 86 B.C.) historiographical work Shǐjì 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian). These six trends of thought are the Cosmologists (yīn-yáng 陰陽), the Confucians (Rú 儒), the Mohists (Mò 墨), the Logicians or experts on names (míng 名), the Legalists or experts on laws and standards (fǎ 法), and the Daoists (dàodé 道德). However, this taxonomy should rather be considered as a bibliographical classification rather than any meaningful attempt at categorizing more or less loosely organized philosophical groups active during the Warring States period. Actually, these labels were created to classify “Masters text” into different subcategories during the process of systematization and reorganization of the holdings of the Imperial Library (see pp. 4–5 above). Recent archaeological manuscript findings over the past forty years have radically altered our views on early Chinese culture and society, urging the need to rethink traditional interpretive categories. According to these newly excavated manuscripts, ideas and philosophical concepts seems to have been circulating in a much more fluid fashion than it was once believed, allowing several cases of transversal “contamination,” see [95] and [96]; [28]; [73]; [69]. In consideration of this, the existence of clear-cut boundaries between allegedly antagonistic, organized entities that might be identified as “schools” has been largely disproved, with the exception of only two cases, the Confucians and the Mohists, who apparently managed to establish proper structured teaching institutions.

  31. 31.

    On the misuse of the term “school” as applied to the Chinese pre-imperial period and other possible, more suitable interpretations of the term jiā 家, see [110]; [121]; [103]; [22]; [23]; [130].

  32. 32.

    About the structure of speeches in the Zhànguó cè, see [89, pp. 116–126, in particular 124]; [41] and [42]; [20] and [21].

  33. 33.

    See [20] and [21]. See also [117, pp. 117–122]; [41] and [42].

  34. 34.

    See [14], and in particular [13]; [78]; and [116].

  35. 35.

    [13].

  36. 36.

    The so-called Sān Huáng Wǔ Dì 三皇五帝, the Three Sovereigns (usually Fúxī 伏羲, Nǚwā 女媧 and Shénnóng 神農, but there are other possible variants of this triad) and Five Thearchs (Huángdì 黃帝, Zhuān Xū 顓頊, Yáo 堯, Shùn 舜, and Yǔ 禹). According to the tradition, these are a set of eight legendary pre-dynastic kingly figures, endowed with superhuman powers. They are considered epitomes of moral rectitude and superior knowledge, and, in some cases, they also act as cultural heroes. In virtue of their superior moral qualities and discernment, they are capable of enacting and ideal government. See [93]; [62]; [9]; [15]; [79]; [8]; [83] and [84]; [80].

  37. 37.

    See for instance [45]; [100]; [126]; [76]; [51]; [28].

  38. 38.

    On transition terms, see footnote 2 at p. 1.

  39. 39.

    The present analysis has been carried out on a cluster of dialogues in the Mencius (“court speeches”) that present the same stylistic and structural characteristics. It is therefore not necessarily indicative of the use of transition terms at large in the whole text.

  40. 40.

    An interesting term of comparison is the use of similar transition terms is the later highly formalized and stylized rhetoric of the eight-legged essay during the Míng 明 (1368–1644) and Qīng 清 (1644–1911) dynasties. This suggests a fairly high degree of consistency and continuity in the use of certain rhetorical structures across the ages, hinting at a much more solid foundation of such structures in the literary tradition also for the earlier periods than it is usually acknowledged. See [29, in particular p. 398].

  41. 41.

    For an updated analysis of fú as a transition term, see [141].

  42. 42.

    I am talking here of canonical texts because the quotations employed in this cluster of dialogues are all known and can be easily tracked in the Five Classics (Wǔjīng 五經), and specifically in the Classic of Odes (Shījīng 詩經) and the Classic of Documents (Shūjīng 書經). These quotations are evidently part of an already codified and well-established corpus of literature, contrary to what happens with similar intertextual references that were still circulating rather fluidly in the Warring States period [124], as recent archaeological manuscript findings prove. See [95] and [97]; [120]; [66], [67], and [68]; [73]. This seems to support a later composition or at least editing of the Mencius during the late Western Hàn or Eastern Hàn period, when the gradual process of canonization of the Confucian Classics started to take place. See [101]; [102]; [104]; [105] and [107]; [86].

  43. 43.

    In the received literature, the use of quotations taken from the Confucian Canon as a framing or internal structuring device is a distinctive feature that is often used especially to stress the words of those characters that are more closely associated with the Confucian tradition, though the texts in which they appear are not necessarily nor exclusively included in Confucian texts.

  44. 44.

    Ode n. 272 我將 Wǒ jiāng.

  45. 45.

    Ode n. 241 皇矣 Huáng yǐ.

  46. 46.

    The quotation is drawn from Tàishì shàng 泰誓上, with slightly different wording.

  47. 47.

    Translations in this article are mine.

  48. 48.

    In Old Chinese [i.e. the varieties of Chinese spoken in China approximately until the foundation of the Qín 秦 Dynasty (221–207 B.C.), see [3, pp. 1–8], 辯 *brenʔ (“to debate,” “to dispute,” “to argue”) is phonologically identical with 辨 *brenʔ (“to distinguish,” “to discriminate”), hence the interchangeability of the two graphs and the broader semantic spectrum of the term. For the phonological reconstruction, see [3, p. 229]. See also [4]. For a definition of biàn that keeps into consideration both aspects and nuances, see [89, p. 88]. See also [37].

  49. 49.

    [37, p. 107].

  50. 50.

    [33]. To my knowledge, Alfred Forke is the first to have employed the label of “Chinese Sophists” to described the Logicians.

  51. 51.

    [75, p. 126].

  52. 52.

    Paolo Valesio has defined this strategy as “a sophisticated rhetorical mechanism […] employed to convey a message that attacks ‘rhetoric.’ […] This rhetorical structure manifests itself both at the semantic level (in the ideological contrast that is set up) and at the level of the syntactico-semantic (or synctatico-lexical) form of the message: that is respectively both at the level of the topic and at the figurative level […],” in which “praise of plain speech is couched in a rhetorically sophisticated language” [137, pp. 41–42].

  53. 53.

    See [56].

  54. 54.

    For a recent, detailed overview and tentative explanation of most famous paradoxes preserved in the early Chinese literary tradition, see [57]. See also [131]; [133]; [117] and [118]; [48]; [24]; [16]; and [34].

  55. 55.

    On the fictionality of these figures, see [23]; [130]; [110].

  56. 56.

    See [61].

  57. 57.

    The Dàozàng 道藏 (Daoist Canon) version is largely considered the most reliable existing edition of the Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ, excerpts from the text included in this contribution are taken from this version. On different editions of this text and the alleged superiority of the Dàozàng edition, see [53] and [54]. For an updated analysis and a partial translation of the “white horse argument,” see [59]. For a complete analysis, see [53].

  58. 58.

    For a detailed study and translation of the text, see the still actual [44]; [94]; [72]; [109].

  59. 59.

    On the theory of the “rectification of names,” see for instance [88].

  60. 60.

    See [59, esp. pp. 7–8].

  61. 61.

    [44, p. 169]. A summary of the key points made by the persuader in each exchange is given by Cheng Chung-ying [19, pp. 150–151).

  62. 62.

    This is the only line in which the verb yuē is missing. Since all the other lines are consistently introduced by yuē, we can add it here with confidence.

  63. 63.

    See [134, p. 26].

  64. 64.

    rú 如 = ér 而. [142, p. 12, footnote 2]; [134, p. 26]; [44, p. 188].

  65. 65.

    Following Qián Mù [115, p. 49] and [18, p. 65], I add the negative copula fēi 非 [“not to be (the same as)”] that is used as negation for nominal sentences before “horse” mǎ 馬. It is highly likely that the sentence is corrupted and that a few characters are missing here. See [44, p. 188], [72, p. 33, footnote 3].

  66. 66.

    [48, p. 307].

  67. 67.

    [44, p. 188].

  68. 68.

    “To compound the name ‘white horse’ for horse and white joined together is to give them when combined their names when uncombined” [43, p. 146].

  69. 69.

    Christoph Harbsmeier remarks the importance of this only apparently frivolous “triumphantly flowery rhetorical picture,” suggesting that “the stylistic flourish is rather important, because it shows that the dialogue as we have it is not entirely thought of as an algebraic disputation but as related to a real situation at court” [48, p. 309].

  70. 70.

    [61].

  71. 71.

    [99].

  72. 72.

    [75].

  73. 73.

    [120].

Bibliography

  1. Allan, S. (1997). The way of water—The sprouts of virtue. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baxter, W. H. (1998). Situating the language of the Lao-tzu: The probable date of the Tao-te-ching. In L. Kohn & M. LaFargue (Eds.), Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching (pp. 231–253). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baxter, W. H., & Sagart, L. (2014a). Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baxter, W. H., & Sagart, L. (2014b), Baxter-Sagart old Chinese reconstruction version 1.1. http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/BaxterSagartOCbyMandarinMC2014-09-20.pdf.

  5. Beecroft, A. (2010). Authorship and cultural identity in early Greece and China: Patterns of literary circulation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Behr, W. (2008). Reimende Bronzeinschriften und die Entstehung der chinesischen Endreimdichtung. Projekt Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Behr, W., & Gentz, J. (Eds.). (2005). Komposition und Konnotation – Figuren der Kunstprosa im alten China, special issue, Bochumer Jahrbuch für ostasiatische Forschung, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Birrell, A. M. (1993). Chinese mythology: An introduction. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bodde, D. (1961). Myths of ancient China. In S. N. Kramer (Ed.), Mythologies of the ancient world (pp. 369–408). Doubleday & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boltz, W. G. (1997). Manuscripts with transmitted counterparts. In E. L. Shaughnessy (Ed.), New sources of early Chinese history: An introduction to the reading of inscriptions and manuscripts (pp. 253–283). Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boltz, W. G. (1999). The fourth-century B.C. Guodiann manuscripts from Chuu and the composition of the Laotzyy. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 119, 590–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boltz, W. G. (2005). The composite nature of early Chinese texts. In M. Kern (Ed.), Text and ritual in early China (pp. 50–78). University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks, E. B., & A. Brooks, A. T. (1998). The original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and his successors. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan, A. K.-L. (Ed.). (2002). Mencius—Contexts and interpretations. University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chang, K.-C. (1976). A classification of Shang and Chou myths. In K.-C. Chang, Early Chinese civilization: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 149–173). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chen, D. (2005). Three meta-questions in epistemology: Rethinking some metaphors in the Zhuangzi. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 32(3), 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, G.-M., & Holt, R. G. (2002). Persuasion through the water metaphor in the Dao De Jing. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chén, Z. 陳柱 (1937). Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ jíjiě 公孫龍子集解 [Collected explanations of Master Gongsun Long]. Shāngwù Yìnshūguǎn.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng, C.-Y. (1997). Philosophical significance of Gongsun Long: A new interpretation of theory of zhi as meaning and reference. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 24(2), 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Crump, J. I., Jr. (1964). 戰國策 Intrigues: Studies of the Chan-kuo Ts’e. The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Crump, J. I., Jr. (1979). Chan-kuo Ts’e. Chinese Materials Center Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Traditional taxonomies and revealed texts in the Han. In L. Kohn & H. D. Roth (Eds.), Daoist identity—History, lineage, and ritual (pp. 81–101). University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nylan, M. (2003). Constructing lineages and inventing traditions through exemplary figures in early China. T’oung Pao, 83, 59–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. De Reu, W. (2006). Right words seem wrong: Neglected paradoxes in early Chinese philosophical texts. Philosophy East and West, 56(2), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. De Reu, W. (2010). How to throw a pot: The centrality of the potter’s wheel in the Zhuangzi. Asian Philosophy, 20(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Defoort, C. (2005–06). Argumentation and persuasion in ancient Chinese texts—Introduction. Oriens Extremus, 45, 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Defoort, C. (2015). Heavy and light body parts: The weighing metaphor in early Chinese dialogues. Early China, 38(3), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Denecke, W. (2010). The dynamics of Masters literature—Early Chinese thought from Confucius to Han Feizi. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Elman, B. A. (2000). A cultural history of civil examinations in late imperial China. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Elman, B. A., & Kern, M. (Eds.) (2010). Statecraft and classical learning—The Rituals of Zhou in east Asian history. E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  31. van Els, P., Graziani, R., Pines, Y., & Sabattini, E. (Eds.). (2012). Political rhetoric in early China/Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, special Issue, Extrême Orient-Extrême Occident, 34. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

    Google Scholar 

  32. van Ess, H. (2005–06). Argument and persuasion in the first chapter of the Huainan zi and its use of particles. Oriens Extremus, 45, 250–270.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Forke, A. (1901–02). The Chinese sophists. Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 34, 1–100.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fraser, C. (2020). Paradoxes in the school of names. In Y.-M. Fung (Ed.), Dao companion to Chinese philosophy of logic (pp. 285–307). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Galambos, I. (2006). Ortography of early Chinese writing: Evidence from newly excavated manuscripts. Department of East Asian Studies, Eötvös Lórand University.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Galvany, A. (2012). Sly mouths and silver tongues: The dynamics of psychological persuasion in ancient China. In P. van Els, R. Graziani, Y. Pines, & E. Sabattini (Eds.), Political rhetoric in early China/Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, special issue, Extrême Orient-Extrême Occident, 34 (pp. 15–40). Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Garrett, M. M. (1993). Classical Chinese conceptions of argumentation and persuasion. Argumentation and Advocacy, 29(3), 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gassmann, R. H. (2016). Menzius. Eine kritische Rekonstruktion mit kommentierter Übersetzung. Welten Ostasiens, 22 (1–3). de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gentz, J. (2005). Zwischen den Argumenten lesen. Doppelt gerichtete Parallelismen zwischen Argumenten als zentrale Thesen in frühen chinesischen Texten. In W. Behr & J. Gentz (Eds.), Komposition und Konnotation—Figuren der Kunstprosa im alten China, special issue, Bochumer Jahrbuch für ostasiatische Forschung, 29, 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gentz, J., & Meyer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Literary forms of argument in early China. E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Goldin, P. R. (1993). Miching mallecho: The Zhanguoce and classical rhetoric. Sino-Platonic Papers, 41, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goldin, P. R. (2005). Rhetoric and machination in Stratagems of the Warring States. In P. R. Goldin, After Confucius—Studies in early Chinese philosophy (pp. 6–89). University of Hawai’i Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Graham, A. C. (1964–65). Two dialogues in the Kung-sun Lung Tzu: ‘White horse’ and ‘Left and right.’ Asia Major, 11, 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Graham, A. C. (1986). Studies in Chinese philosophy and philosophical literature. The Institute of East Asian Philosophies, National University of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical argument in ancient China. Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Graziani, R. (2012). Rhetoric that kills, rhetoric that heals. In P. van Els, R. Graziani, Y. Pines, & E. Sabattini (Eds.), Political rhetoric in early China/Rhétorique et politique en Chine ancienne, special issue, Extrême Orient-Extrême Occident, 34 (pp. 41–78). Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Graziani, R. (2014). Of words and swords: Therapeutic imagination in action—A study of chapter 30 of the Zhuangzi ‘Shuo jian’ 說劍. Philosophy East and West, 64(2), 375–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Harbsmeier, C. (1998). Language and logic. In J. Needham (Ed.), Science and civilization in China (Vol. 7). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Harbsmeier, C. (2002). The rhetoric of premodern prose style. In V. Mair (Ed.), The Columbia history of Chinese literature (pp. 881–908). Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hsu, C.-Y. (1965). Ancient China in transition: An analysis of social mobility, 722–222 B.C. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Huang, C.-C., Paul, G., & Roetz, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Book of Mencius and its reception in China and beyond. Harassowitz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hunter, M. (2013). The difficulty with the ‘Difficulties of persuasion’ (“Shuinan” 說難). In P. R. Goldin (Ed.), Dao companion to the philosophy of Han Fei. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Indraccolo, L. (2010). Gongsun Long and the Gongsun Longzi—Authorship and textual variation in a multilayered text. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. Open access publication: http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/922.

  54. Indraccolo, L. (2013). Textual criticism of the Gongsun Longzi: The Daozang and Shuofu editions. T’oung Pao, 99(4–5), 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Indraccolo, L. (2014). What is rhetoric anyway? Briared in words in ancient China. Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques, 68(1), 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Indraccolo, L. (2015). Words not to be spoken, measures not to be taken—The ‘rhetoric of anti-rhetoric’ in early Chinese literature. Paper presented at the 26th Conference of the German Association for Chinese Studies (Deutsche Vereinigung für China Studien) (under review for publication).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Indraccolo, L. (2016a). The ‘white horse’, the ‘three-legged chicken’ and other paradoxes in classical Chinese literature. Antiquorum Philosophia, 10, 67–88.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Indraccolo, L. (2016b). Be smart, be like a larva! Insects and invertebrates in classical Chinese analogical thinking. Paper presented at the Joint East Asia Studies Conference 2016, SOAS, London, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Indraccolo, L. (2017). The white horse argument. Philosophy Compass, 12(10), 11 pp. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12434.

  60. Indraccolo, L. (2020). Argumentation (biàn 辯). In Y.-M. Fung (Ed.), Dao companion to Chinese philosophy of logic (pp. 171–180). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Indraccolo, L., & Behr, W. (2014). Introduction. In L. Indraccolo & W. Behr (Eds.), Masters of disguise? Conceptions and misconceptions of ‘rhetoric’ in Chinese antiquity” special issue. Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques, 68(4), 889–913.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Karlgren, B. (1946). Legends and cults in ancient China. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 18, 199–365.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kern, M. (2000). ‘Persuasion’ or ‘treatise’? The prose genre shui 說 and shuo 說 in the light of the Guwenci leizhuan of 1779. In L. Bieg, E. von Mende, & M. Siebert (Eds.), Ad Seres et Tungusos – Festschrift für Martin Gimm zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 25. Mai 1995 (pp. 221–245). Harassowitz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kern, M. (2002). Methodological reflections on the analysis of the textual variants and the modes of manuscript production in early China. Journal of East Asian Archaeology, 4(1–4), 143–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kern, M. (Ed.). (2005). Text and ritual in early China. University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kern, M. (2005). The Odes in excavated manuscripts. In M. Kern (Ed.), Text and ritual in early China (pp. 149–193). University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kern, M. (2005). Quotation and the Confucian canon in early Chinese manuscripts: The case of ‘Zi yi’ (Black robes). Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques, 59(1), 293–332.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kern, M. (2015). Speaking of poetry: Pattern and argument in the ‘Kongzi Shilun.’ In J. Gentz & D. Meyer (Eds.), Literary forms of argument in early China (pp. 175–200). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kern, M., & Meyer, D. (Eds.). (2017). Origins of Chinese political philosophy—Studies in the composition and thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kim, C. C. (2006). Zhuangzi and the nature of metaphor. Philosophy East and West, 56(3), 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Knoblock, J. (1990). Xunzi: A translation and study of the complete works—Vol II, Books 7–16. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kou, P.-K. I. (1953). Deux sophistes chinois – Houi Che et Kong-Souen Long. Bibliothèque de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, Imprimerie Nationale.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Krijgsman, R. (2014). Travelling sayings as carriers of philosophical debate: From the intertextuality of the *Yucong 語叢 to the dynamics of cultural memory and authorship in early China. Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques, 68(1), 83–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Krijgsman, R. (2016). The textualization of cultural memory in early Chinese manuscripts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kroll, J. L. (1985–86). Disputation in ancient Chinese culture. Early China, 11–12, 119–145.

    Google Scholar 

  76. LaFargue, M. (2003). More ‘Mencius-on-human-nature’ discussions: What are they about?—Review article of Adam Kam-leung Chan, editor, Mencius: Contexts and interpretations. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002. Chinese Review International, 10(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Lai, G. (2017). Textual fluidity and fixity in early Chinese manuscript culture. Chinese Studies in History, 50(3), 172–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lau, D. C. (Trans. and Ed.). (2004 [1970]). Mencius. Penguin Books Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Le Blanc, C. (1985–86). A re-examination of the myth of Huang-ti. Journal of Chinese Religions, 13–14, 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Le Blanc, C., & Mathieu, R. (Eds.). (2007). Approches critiques de la mythologie chinoise. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Levi, J. (1992). L’art de la persuasion à l’epoque des Royaumes Combattants (Ve–IIIe Siècles a.v. J.C.). Extrême Orient-Extrême Occident, 14, 49–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lewis, M. E. (1999). Writing and authority in early China. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lewis, M. E. (2006). The flood myths of early China. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Lewis, M. E. (2009). The mythology of early China. In J. Lagerwey & M. Kalinowski (Eds.), Early Chinese religion. Part one: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD) (pp. 543–594). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Li, F., & Prager Branner, D. (Eds.). (2011). Writing and literacy in early China—Studies from the Columbia early China seminar. University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Loewe, M. (2012). ‘Confucian’ values and practices in Han China. T’oung Pao, 98(1–3), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Loewe, M., & Shaughnessy, E. L. (Eds.). (1999). The Cambridge history of ancient China—From the origins of civilizations to 221 B.C. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Loy, H.-C. (2014). Language and ethics in the Analects. In A. Olberding (Ed.), Dao companion to the Analects (pp. 137–158). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century B.C.E.—A comparison with classical Greek rhetoric. University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lu, X., & Frank, D. A. (1993). On the study of ancient Chinese rhetoric/bian 辩. Western Journal of Communication, 57(4), 445–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Ma, R. (2000). Water-related figurative language in the rhetoric of the Mencius. In A. Gonzales & D. V. Tanno (Eds.), Rhetoric in intercultural contexts (pp. 119–129). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Major, J. S. (2014). Animals and animal metaphors in Huainanzi. In S. A. Queen & M. J. Puett (Eds.), The Huainanzi and textual production in early China (pp. 133–151). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Maspero, H. (1924). Légendes mythologiques dans le Chou King. Journal Asiatique, 204, 1–100.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Mei, Y.-P. (1953). The Kung-sun Lung Tzu with a translation into English. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 16(3–4), 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Meyer, D. (2011). Philosophy on bamboo: Text and the production of meaning in early China. E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Meyer, D. (2017). Recontextualization and memory production: Debates on rulership as reconstructed from ‘Gu ming’ 顧命 (Testimonial charge). In M. Kern & D. Meyer (Eds.), Origins of Chinese political philosophy: Studies in the composition and thought of the Classic of Documents (pp. 106–145). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Meyer, D. (Forthcoming). Documentation and argument in early China: The Shàngshū 尚書 (Venerated Scriptures) and the “Shū” traditions. de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Meyer, D. & Indraccolo, L. (2021). Sentences, paragraphs, and sections. In J. W. Chen, A. Detwyler, X. Liu, C. Nugent, & B. Rusk (Eds.), Literary information in China—A history (pp. 113–118). Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Mittler, B., & Wuthenow, A.-B. (2008). Rhetoric and stylistics in East Asia. In U. Fix, A. Gardt, & J. Knape (Eds.), Rhetorik und Stylistik, Ein internationales Handbuch historischer und systematischer Forschung 1 (pp. 2027–2039). de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Nivison, D. S. (1996). The ways of Confucianism—Investigations in Chinese philosophy. Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Nylan, M. (1997). Han classicists writing in dialogue about their own tradition. Philosophy East and West, 47(2), 133–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Nylan, M. (1999). A problematic model—The Han ‘orthodox synthesis,’ then and now”. In K.-W. Chow, O.-C. Ng, & J. B. Henderson (Eds.), Imagining boundaries—Changing Confucian doctrines, texts, and hermeneutics (pp. 17–56). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Nylan, M. (2000). Textual authority in pre-Han and Han. Early China, 25, 205–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Nylan, M. (2001). The five “Confucian” Classics. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Nylan, M. (2009). Classics without canonization: Learning and authority in Qin and Han. In J. Lagerwey & M. Kalinowski (Eds.), Early Chinese religion—Part one: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD) (pp. 722–776). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Nylan, M. (2014). Logical connectives in the Huainanzi. In S. A. Queen & M. J. Puett (Eds.), The Huainanzi and textual production in early China (pp. 225–266). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Nylan, M. (2016). Han views of the Qin legacy and late Western Han ‘classical turn.’ Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 79–80, 51–98.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Perleberg, M. (1952). The works of Kung-sun Lung-tzu. LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Petersen, J. Ø. (1995). Which books did the first emperor of Ch’in burn? On the meaning of pai chia in early Chinese sources. Monumenta Serica, 43, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Pines, Y. (2009). Envisioning eternal empire – Chinese political thought of the Warring States era. University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Pines, Y. (2012). The everlasting empire—The political culture of ancient China and its imperial legacy. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  113. Pines, Y., Goldin, P. R., & Kern, M. (Eds.). (2015). Ideology of power and power of ideology in early China. E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Pitner, M. G. (2012). The wasp and the worm: Getting inside the body of the sage. In B. Gardenour & M. Tadd (Eds.), Parasites, worms, and the human body in religion and culture (pp. 41–64). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Qián, M. 錢穆 (1934). Huì Shī Gōngsūn Lóng 惠施公孫龍 [Hui Shi and Gongsun Long]. Shànghǎi Shūdiàn.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Qián, M. 錢穆 [1986 (1935)]. Xiān Qín zhūzǐ jìnián 先秦諸子繫年 [Dates of Pre-Qin philosophers]. Dōngdà Chūbǎn.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Raphals, L. (1992). Knowing words—Wisdom and cunning in the classical traditions of China and Greece. Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  118. Raphals, L. (1998). On Hui Shi. In R. T. Ames (Ed.), Wandering at ease in the Zhuangzi (pp. 143–161). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Reding, J.-P. (1985). Les fondements philosophiques de la réthorique chez les sophistes grecs et chez les sophistes chinois. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Richter, M. L. (2013). The embodied text—Establishing textual identity in early Chinese manuscripts. E.J. Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  121. Ryden, E. (1996). Was Confucius a Confucian? Confusion over the use of the term ‘school’ in Chinese philosophy. Early China News, 9(5–9), 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Schaberg, D. (2016). The ruling mind: Persuasion and the origins of Chinese psychology. In P. Varsano, (Ed.), The rhetoric of hiddenness in traditional Chinese culture. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Schwartz, B. I. (1985). The world of thought in ancient China. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  124. Schwermann, C. (2005). Collage-Technik als Kompositionsprinzip klassischer chinesischer Prosa: Der Aufbau des Kapitels ‚Tāng wèn‘ (Die Fragen des Tāng) im Liè zǐ. In W. Behr & J. Gentz (Eds.), Komposition und Konnotation – Figuren der Kunstprosa im alten China, special issue, Bochumer Jahrbuch für ostasiatische Forschung, 29, 125–160.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Schwermann, C., & Steineck, R. C. (Eds.). (2014). That wonderful composite called author—Authorship in East Asian literatures from the beginning to the seventeenth century. E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Shun, K.-L. (2000). Mencius and early Chinese thought. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Sivin, N. (1995). The myth of the naturalists. In N. Sivin (Ed.), Medicine, philosophy and religion in ancient China—Researches and reflections (pp. 1–33). Variorum, Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Slingerland, E. (2003). Effortless action: Wu-wei as conceptual metaphor and spiritual ideal in early China. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Slingerland, E. (2011). Metaphor and meaning in early China. Dao, 10, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Smith, K. (2003). Sima Tan and the invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism’ et cetera. The Journal of Asian Studies, 62(1), 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Solomon, B. (1969). The assumptions of Hui-tzu. Monumenta Serica, 28, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Sterckx, R. (2002). The animal and the daemon in early China. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Stevenson, F. W. (1991). South has (no) limits: Relative and absolute meaning in Hui Shih’s ten points. Tamkang Review, 21(4), 325–346.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Tán, J. 譚戒甫 [2006 (1956)]. Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ xíngmíng fāwēi 公孫龍子形名發微 [Subtleties about the theory of “forms and names” in the Gongsun Longzi]. Wǔhàn Dàxué Chūbǎnshè.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Tian, X. (2006). The twilight of the Masters: Masters literature (zishu) in early Medieval China. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 126(4), 465–486.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Tsien, T.-H. (1962). Written on bamboo and silk: The beginnings of Chinese books and inscriptions. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Valesio, P. (1980). Novantiqua—Rhetorics as a contemporary theory. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Vankeerberghen, G. (2005–06). Choosing balance: Weighing (‘quan’ 權) as a metaphor for action in early Chinese texts. Early China, 30, 47–89.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Vogelsang, K. (2019). The smart, the stupid, and the enlightened—On the origin of political consultation in ancient China. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Chinese Philosophy, University of Berne, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Vogt, P. N. (2012). Between kin and kings: Social aspects of Western Zhou ritual. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Wagner, R. G. (2015). A building block of Chinese argumentation: Initial fu 夫 as a phrase status marker. In J. Gentz & D. Meyer (Eds.), Literary forms of argument in early China (pp. 37–66). E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Wáng, G. 王琯 [1992 (1988)]. Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ xuánjiě 公孫龍子懸解 [Explanations of unresolved issues in the Gongsun Longzi]. Zhōnghuá Shūjú.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Wang, Y. (2004). The strategies of ‘goblet words’: Indirect communication in the Zhuangzi. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 31(2), 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Weingarten, O. (2014). The sage as teacher and source of knowledge: Editorial strategies and formulaic utterances in Confucius dialogues. Asiatische Studien/Ètudes asiatiques, 68(4), 1175–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Weingarten, O. (2015). Debates around Jixia: Argument and intertextuality in Warring States writings associated with Qi. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 135(2), 283–307.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Wilkinson, E. (2018). Chinese history—A new manual. Fifth Edition. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series. Harvard University Asia Center. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Zhū, F. 朱凤瀚 (2004). Shāng Zhōu jiāzú xíngtài yánjiū 商周家族形態研究 [A study on the structure of the clans in the Shāng and Zhōu dynasties]. Tiānjīn Gǔjí Chūbǎnshè.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Humanities, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

    Lisa Indraccolo

Authors
  1. Lisa Indraccolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Indraccolo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Joseph Andrew Bjelde

  2. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    David Merry

  3. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christopher Roser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Indraccolo, L. (2021). Argumentation and Persuasion in Classical Chinese Literature. In: Bjelde, J.A., Merry, D., Roser, C. (eds) Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity. Argumentation Library, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70817-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation