Abstract
This chapter examines the potential interpretative difficulties that may happen when applying the rubric of “Confucian” in reading the Classics. It argues that early anecdotes about Confucian authorship and editorship of the Classics are untenable. However, Confucius’ roles limited the interpretative possibilities that the “Confucian” Classics could only be interpreted in moral and political ways, as can be seen in pre-modern commentarial traditions. Centering on the “Guanju,” this chapter also argues that the diversity of rujia or Confucianism urges us to ask which Confucian interpretation is better than others. The Confucian orthodoxy in pre-modern China, however, was more a result of the power dynamics between each historical actor than of the interpretative accuracy. In addition, the interpretative hegemony of Confucianism also prevents us from appreciating other interpretations that are beyond the Confucian interpretative sphere. In the contemporary world, when the studies of the Classics are no longer relevant to politics and one’s officialdom, we have no reason to assert that those non- “Confucian” interpretations are inferior to any Confucian interpretations.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As Lionel M. Jensen maintains, the term “Confucianism” is largely a Western invention and should not be equivalent to the Chinese term rujia, “[Confucianism] supposedly representing what is registered by the complication of terms rujia (ru family), rujiao (ru teaching), ruxue (ru learning), and rushe (the ru)…. I proposed that we resist the reflex to treat these entities, Confucianism and ru, as equivalent and consider rather that what we know of Confucius is not what the ancient Chinese knew as Kongzi…. I suggest instead that Confucius assumed his present familiar features as the results of a prolonged, deliberate process of manufacture in which European intellectuals took a leading role. Our Confucius is a product fashioned over several centuries by many hands, ecclesiastical and lay, Western and Chinese” (Jensen, 1997: 5).
- 2.
Unless otherwise indicated, all translations in this chapter are my own.
References
Asselin, M. L. (1997). The Lu-school reading of “Guanju” as preserved in an Eastern Han Fu. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 117(3), 427–443.
Brooks, E. B., & Brooks, A. T. (1998). The original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and his successors. Columbia University Press.
Cai, L. (2010). Who said, “Confucius composed Chunqiu”? The genealogy of the “Chunqiu” canon in the pre-Han and Han periods. Frontiers of History in China, 5(3), 363–385.
Cheng, Y. M. 程元敏. (2018). Han jingxue shi 漢經學史. Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nylan, M. (2003). Constructing lineages and inventing traditions through exemplary figures in early China. T’oung Pao, 89(1), 1–41.
Dubs, H. H. (1928). Did Confucius study the Book of Changes? T'oung Pao, 25, 82–90.
Fan, Y. 范曄. (1965). Hou Hanshu 後漢書. Zhonghua shuju.
Gao, H. 高亨. (1980). Shijing jinzhu 詩經今注. Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Henderson, J. B. (1991). Scripture, canon, and commentary: A comparison of Confucian and Western exegesis. Princeton University Press.
Hu, S. 胡適. (1982). Tan tan Shijing 談談詩經. In J. Gu 顧頡剛 (Ed.), Gushibian 古史辨 (Vol. 3). Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Hunter, M. (2017). Confucius beyond the analects. Brill.
Jensen, L. M. (1995). Wise man of the wilds: Fatherlessness, fertility, and the mythic exemplar, Kongzi. Early China, 20, 407–437.
Jensen, L. M. (1997). Manufacturing Confucianism: Chinese traditions & universal civilization. Duke University Press.
Jensen, L. M. (2002). The genesis of Kongzi in ancient narrative: The figurative as historical. In T. Wilson (Ed.), On sacred grounds: Culture, society, politics, and the formation of the cult of Confucius (pp. 175–221). Harvard University Asia Center for the Harvard-Yenching Institute and Harvard University Press.
Ji, X. S. 季旭昇. (Ed.) (2004). Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu (yi) du ben 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書 (一) 讀本. Wanjuanlou tushu youxian gongsi.
Jiang, F. 江藩. (2006). Ya Song ge de qisuo jie 雅頌各得其所解. In Y. Qi 漆永祥 (Ed.), Jiang Fan ji 江藩集. Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Kern, M. (2007a). Excavated manuscripts and their socratic pleasures: Newly discovered challenges in reading the “Airs of the States.” Études Asiatiques/asiatische Studien, 61(3), 775–793.
Kern, M. (2007b). Beyond the Mao Odes: Shijing reception in early medieval China. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 127, 131–142.
Kern, M. (2018). Kongzi as author in the Han. In M. Hunter, & M. Kern (Eds.), The Analects revisited: New perspectives on the dating of a classic (pp. 268–307). Brill.
Kong, Y. D. 孔穎達. (1980). Mao Shi zhengyi 毛詩正義. In Y. Ruan 阮元 (Ed.), Shisan jing zhushu: Fu jiaokan ji (shang) 十三經注疏: 附校勘記(上). Zhonghua Shuju.
Li, X. Q. (2014). Walking out of the “Doubting of Antiquity” Era. Contemporary Chinese Thought, 34(2), 26–49.
Makeham, J. (1996). The formation of Lunyu as a book. Monumenta Serica, 44, 1–24.
Nylan, M. (1994). The chinwen/kuwen (new text/old text) controversy in Han. T’oung Pao, 80, 83–145.
Nylan, M. (2001). The five “Confucian” classics. Yale University Press.
Nylan, M., & Wilson, T. A. (2010). Lives of Confucius: Civilization’s greatest Sage through the ages. Random House/Doubleday.
Owen, S. (1992). Readings in Chinese literary thought. Harvard University Press.
Riegel, J. (1997). Eros, introversion, and the beginnings of Shijing commentary. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 57(1), 143–177.
Shaughnessy, E. L. (1992). Sources of Western Zhou history: Inscribed bronze Vessels. University of California Press.
Shaughnessy, E. L. (in his Chinese name Xia H. Y. 夏含夷). (2012). Xing yu xiang: Jianlun zhanbu he shige de guanxi ji qi dui Shijing he Zhouyi de xingcheng zhi yingxiang 興與象: 簡論占卜與詩歌的關係及其對《詩經》和《周易》的形成之影響. In H. Y. Xia (Ed.), Xing yu xiang: Zhongguo gudai wenhuashi lunji 興與象: 中國古代文化史論集 (pp. 1–19). Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
Sima, Q. 司馬遷. (1959). Shiji 史記. Zhonghua shu ju.
Smith, K. (2003). Sima Tan and invention of daoism, legalism, et cetera. The Journal of Asian Studies, 61(1), 129–156.
Sun, S. 孙奭. (1980). Mengzi zhushu 孟子注疏. In Y. Ruan 阮元 (Ed.), Shisan jing zhushu: Fu jiaokan ji (shang) 十三經注疏: 附校勘記 (上). Zhonghua Shuju.
Tillman, H. C. (1992). A new direction in Confucian scholarship: Approaches to examining the differences between neo-Confucianism and Tao-hsueh. Philosophy East and West, 42(3), 455–479.
Van Ess, H. (1994). The old text/new text controversy: Has the 20th century got it wrong? T’oung Pao, 80(1/3), 146–170.
Van Ess, H. (1999). The apocryphal texts (ch’en-wei) of the Han Dynasty and the old text/new text controversy. T’oung Pao, 1, 29–64.
Van Zoeren, S. (1991). Poetry and personality: Reading, exegesis, and hermeneutics in traditional China. Stanford University Press.
Wilson, T. A. (1995). Genealogy of the way: The construction and uses of the Confucian tradition in late imperial China. Stanford University Press.
Wong, S. K., & Lee, K. S. (1989). Poems of depravity: A twelfth century dispute on the moral character of the Book of Songs. T’oung Pao, 75(4), 209–225.
Xing, B. 邢昺. (1980). Lunyu zhushu 論語注疏. In Y. Ruan 阮元 (Ed.), Shisan jing zhushu: Fu jiaokan ji (shang) 十三經注疏: 附校勘記 (上). Zhonghua Shuju.
Xu, W. Y. 許維遹 & Han, Y. 韓嬰. (1980). Hanshi waizhuan jishi 韓詩外傳集釋. Zhonghua shuju.
Yu, P. R. (1983). Allegory, allegoresis, and the Classic of Poetry. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 43(2), 377–412.
Zheng, Z. D. 鄭振鐸. (1982). Du Maoshi xu 讀毛詩序. In J. Gu 顧頡剛 (Ed.), Gushibian 古史辨 (Vol. 3). Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Zhou, B. Q. (2020). Virtue as desire: Mengzi 6A in light of the Kongzi Shilun. Philosophy East and West, 70(1), 196–213.
Zhu, X. 朱熹. (1983). Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注. Zhonghua Shuju.
Zhu, X. (2002). Shi ji chuan 詩集傳. In J. R. Zhu 朱杰人, Z. Z. Yan, 嚴佐之, & Y. X. Liu 劉永翔 (Eds.), Zhuzi quanshu 朱子全書 (Vol. 1). Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chik, H.M.F. (2022). Why Must the Classics Be “Confucian”? Some Reflections on Reading the “Confucian” Classics in the Contemporary World. In: Chan, K.K.Y., Garfield Lau, C.S. (eds) Cross-Cultural Encounters in Modern and Premodern China. Chinese Culture, vol 3. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8375-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8375-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8374-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8375-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)