Abstract
The article studies the image of Guan Zhong, a historical figurehead from the Spring and Autumn period China, in East Asian Confucian discourse on humaneness (ren 仁, “benevolence”) and related political questions. It traces the development of Confucian discourse on Guan Zhong from its beginnings in the Analects of Confucius and in the thought of his later disciple Mencius, to later discourses on humaneness in Chinese, Joseon Korean and Tokugawa Japanese Confucian thought. In so doing, it establishes a comparative perspective of how Guan Zhong’s humaneness (or inhumanity) was interpreted in socio-political environments of individual East Asian countries, establishing a correlation between their interpretational tendencies and overall intellectual tendencies of local Confucianisms—as, for instance the philosophy of Practical Learning in Joseon Korea and Tokugawa Japan. Concurrently, the article also illuminates the special characteristics of the notion of humaneness which also gained its expression throughout East Asian Confucian ethical evaluations of Guan Zhong’s political achievements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See: Huang (2019).
For a detailed study on the concept of “humane governance” see (Huang 2018, pp. 270–291).
That the work Guanzi probably had not been written by Guan Zhong was suspected already by Zhu Xi, who noted that: “Guanzi was not written by [Guan] Zhong … I think that it was a work in which the people from the Warring states period gathered and collated [Guan] Zhong’s deeds, sayings and so on; and to which some other documents were also added”. See: Zhu (1986, p. 3252). Luo Genze (羅根澤) and Allyn W. Rickett also both advocate that the majority of chapters in Guanzi were written in the Warring states period. Cf.: Luo (1966); Rickett 1965, pp. 9–10. Guan Feng (關鋒) and Lin Yushi (林聿時) (1963, p. 137), however, suggest that: “All parts of the ‘Canonical Statements’ (Jingyan 經言) in the Guanzi, as well as all other parts of the ‘Outer Statements’ (Waiyan 外言) apart from ‘The Five Aids’ (Wu fu 五輻), and all parts of the ‘Inner Statements’ (Neiyan 内言), in part explain and elaborate on Guan Zhong’s thought, and in part record his opinions and doings. Moreover, in that regard, these represent authentic and reliable sources. Therefore, both parts, and especially the latter part, can serve as an important reference material for the study of Guan Zhong’s thought.” See: Guan and Lin (1963, pp. 137–189). In other articles Guan Feng advocates the view that Guan Zhong’s thought was a form of “naïve materialism”. He promotes the view that the concept of nature is inherent in Guan Zhong’s “naïve realism,” and speaks about its dialectics, political theory etc. It appears to me that through numerous examples of such theses, too much modern meaning was read into the book Guanzi, a form of modern sense which in the above-named work is hard to establish. (Cf.: Guan and Lin 1963, pp. 76–136).
For a study on the thought of Guanzi, cf.: Kanaya (1987, pp. 95–300).
According to Huang Kan’s (皇侃, pp. 488–545) preface to the Commentary on the Meaning of the Analects (Lunyu yishu 論語義疏). (See: Huang 1923, p. 5) This book is included in: Takeuchi 1987, Vol. 1. The Lunyu yishu 論語義疏is mentioned in Southern Song dynasty in You Yanzhi’s (尤延之, 1127–1194) Suichutang shumu 遂初堂書目 (Catalogue of the Hall of Entering Seclusion), but as a text it was nonextant in China. Later it was rediscovered at the Ashikaga School (Ashikaga Gakkō 足利學校) in Japan, edited, carved and returned to China. It was included in the Siku quanshu 四庫全書 as well as in: Bao (1966).
See “Appendix 1”.
Luo Genze’s (羅根澤, 1900–1960) textual research shows that this chapter “makes up a collection of Warring states period folklore on Guan Zhong.” See: Luo (1966, pp. 108–111).
Luo Genze maintained that this part of text was “a late Warring states period work, where Confucianism and Daoism were blended together.” See: Ibid, pp. 74–76.
Zi Gong’s dates of birth and death according to Qian Mu’s research. See: Qian 1994–1998a, Vol. 5, p. 693.
Inoue Masamichi’s (井上順理, 1915–2009) textual research has shown that: in the seventh year of the Tenchō (天長) era (827), in his Keikokushū (經國集) Shigeno no Sadanushi (滋野貞主) already quoted some passages from the book Mencius. By the middle of the Kanpyō (寬平) era (890s), the book Mencius was already recorded in the catalogue of Chinese books, Nihonkoku genzaisho mokuroku 日本國見在書目錄. During the Kamakura (鐮倉, 1185–1333) and Nanboku-chō (南北朝時代, 1336–1392) periods—or the Muromachi bakufu (室町), the book Mencius was disseminated widely across Japan, so that in the end not only the local scholars were researching and studying it, but Mencius was talked about even at the court, the bakufu and in the circles of nobility, and thus passed on. (Cf. Inoue 1972, p. 214) On the conditions of dissemination of Mencius in Japan, cf.: (Sekio 1973).
See “Appendix 2”.
Zhu Xi also pointed out that Confucius and Mencius pertained to different time-related background: “During the time of kings Ding and Ai in the Spring and Autumn period, there still was the house of Zhou. By the time of Mencius, the heavenly mandate has already parted from the mind of human”. According to Zhu Xi this was also the reason why Confucius and Mencius did not deliver the same evaluation of Guan Zhong’s persona.
Hirose Gyokusō (廣瀨旭莊, 1807–1863) also remarked: “In the time of Mencius, the followers of Shang Yang’s and Hanfei’s doctrine of utility argued over Master Guan as the founder, the sole originator of the entire school of thought. Thus, if Mencius wanted to make the great way publicly known to the whole world, he had to dismiss Guan Zhong as a person of small capacity, since at the time this was also the right thing to do”. See: Hirose (1978), p. 27.
I discuss this question in Huang (2017, pp. 99–134).
A thorough analysis of Jeong Dasan’s and Zhu Xi’s theory on Guan Zhong was conducted by Tsai Chen-feng. Cf.: Tsai (2010, pp. 45–61).
As a matter of fact, a disciple of Zhu Xi already called into question Zhu Xi’s views, saying that: “If Guan Zhong did not already have a humane mind, how could he then have the meritorious deeds (achievements) of a humane person?” Zhu Xi listed emperors Gaozu of Han and Taizong of Tang dynasty as examples of monarchs “who cannot be called humane people,” but who nonetheless brought peace to the nation, stability to the state, and wellbeing to the common folk. Therefore, “how could the achievements of these two rulers not be those of a humane person! If, however, we speak about their minds (xin 心), only by them alone they would have in the first place accomplish outstanding works. Hence, can we [because of that] call their achievements inhumane? Guan Zhong’s meritorious achievements were also like that”. (Zhu 1986, p. 1128).
See Huang (2017, pp. 331–348). The English translation of the text is going to be published in the next volume (Vol. 11) of the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia.
On another occasion king Jeongjo also claimed that Confucius “praised [Guan Zhong’s] humanity, but not as a complete virtue. He described his [merit], to have extended the benefits and aid to the people, an achievement of humanity. He further reproved Guan Zhong for not knowing ritual propriety calling it an ignorance about the way of the sage, due to his inability to put one’s mind straight and cultivate inner virtues, and for having reverted to extravagance and having offended against propriety. On one side, Confucius [assessed] him with regard to the results of his undertakings, and on the other pointed out that his capacities were narrow and low”. (Jeongjo 1978b, p. 753).
The Japanese monk Yamashita Ryūji pointed out that: Zhu Xi’s teaching on Guan Zhong was closer to an ethicist position, whereas Ogyū Sorai’s theory on Guan Zhong was much closer to a position of politicism. However, the connotations of Zhu Xi’s ethicist reading of the Analects were nevertheless also endowed with a strong political reform agenda. (Yamashita 1990, pp. 307–316) Albeit Yamashita Ryūji’s differentiation between “ethicism” and “politicism” possesses a research-related accessibility, however, in East Asian Confucianism the moral and the political usually permeate each other and blend into one.
Throughout ages, scholars have widely discussed the question: which one of the brothers Duke Huan of Qi and Prince Jiu was the younger and which one the older brother? The Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi both maintained that the older brother was Duke Huan of Qi. Those who did not follow this explanation were: the Qing dynasty scholar Gu Yanwu (顧炎武, 1613–1682) in his work Rizhilu 日知錄 (Daily Records of Knowledge) (See: Gu (1936), p. 158) and the scholar Mao Qiling (毛奇齡, 1623–1716) in his work Sishu gaicuo 四書改錯 (Corrections of Mistakes in the Four Books). Korean Confucian Jeong Dasan further elaborated on the proposition that Duke Huan was the younger brother and Prince Jiu the older. See: Jeong 2012c, Vol. 7; Cf. Tsai (2010, pp. 49–50).
What I call “the principle of conduct” refers to the value of moral conduct per se as the ultimate principle. On the opposite, the “principle of rank and position” denotes the principle that, within the framework of interpersonal relations, a person who occupies a certain office or position is obliged to carry out activities that correspond to his office. (Cf. Huang and Wu 1993, p. 5).
In one of my former writings I have already extensively discussed Japanese Confucians’ propensity towards “utilitarian ethics”. See: Huang (2016, pp. 79–100).
Here it ought to be further explained that, in my opinion, the Japanese Confucians tolerated Guan Zhong’s transgression and esteemed his deeds and accomplishments, because in their interpretation of the concept of humaneness there existed a philosophical propensity towards a consequentialist ethics. But such were only the views of those Confucians, who were directed against the Kogaku school of thought and Zhu Xi school of thought. As a matter of fact, because in the intellectual community of Edo the majority of people who studied Confucianism were descended from samurai families in consequence of which the ethics of loyalty to one’s ruler was deeply rooted in their minds, therefore, even though the Tokugawa bakufu had strictly prohibited the custom of junshi 殉死 – committing hara-kiri in order to be buried together with one’s master, at the time, the Edo still had a high incidence of jinshi. Thus, we can see that in the country of samurai the Confucian learning really retained both a relation of considerable pluralism as well as a relationship of tension between the concepts of “loyalty” and “humanity”.
Cf. Tillman 1981. In the note no. 34 (p. 27) of this paper, Tillman cites an important remark raised by the philosopher Herbert Fingarette in relation to the same topic. Fingarette said: “A Western philosopher might ask whether the Confucian–Mencian relationship between virtue and results was logical or causal? If we look at it from the perspective of Western philosophy, this indeed is an extremely interesting question. However, Confucius and Mencius would have probably considered this question unnecessary and irrelevant, because in Confucian philosophy the “logical” (luojide 邏輯的) and the “historical” (lishide 歷史的) as well as what “ought to be” (yingran 應然) and what “is” (shiran 實然) are usually blended into one”.
This is a question originally raised by Joseon king Yeongjo. When Yeongjo was reading the part of the Analects which mentions Guan Zhong’s failure to sacrifice his life out of loyalty of his ruler, he raised the following remark: “It was the case that, because Guan Zhong had the capacity to unify the realm, it was permissible for him not to sacrifice his life. If not in this way, how else should a scholar understand righteous conduct?” (Yeongjo sillok 1955–1958, Book 41, Vol. 3, p. 468).
Borrowing from Master Cheng, Zhu Xi remarked that: “Duke Huan was the elder and Prince Jiu the younger brother. Out of his private ambitions Guan Zhong served and assisted [the latter] in his struggle for control over the kingdom. This was not righteous at all. Even if it was wrong of Duke Huan to execute him, it was still proper that Prince Jiu met his death. If, in the beginning, Guan Zhong conspired together with Jiu, then it would be permissible for him to die together with Jiu as well. However, if one recognizes that supporting Jiu’s struggle was not righteous, [for Guan] it would also be permissible to take exemption [from dying] in order to make plans for his future meritorious achievements”. (Zhu 1983b, p. 153).
For a detailed discussion on the humanistic spirit of East Asian Confucianism see Huang (2010, pp. 81–96).
References
Bao, T. (鮑廷博) 1966. ed. Zhibuzuzhai congshu 知不足齋叢書 (A Collection of Writings from the Zhibuzu Study). Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan.
Cheng, Y. (程頤) 2004. “Yichuan xiansheng yu ba” 伊川先生語八 (Sayings of Master Yichuan-Part 8). In: Henan Chengshi yishu 河南程氏遺書 (Posthumous Writings of the Cheng Brothers from Henan). Vol. 22. In: Ercheng ji 二程集 (Collection of the Works of Cheng Brothers). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Dazai, S. (太宰春臺) 1754. Rongo kokun gaiden 論語古訓外傳 (External Transmission of Ancient Explanations of the Analects). Edo (Tokyo): Kobayashi shinbe.
Fang, Y. (方穎嫻) 1996. Xian-Qin zhi ren yi li shuo 先秦之仁義禮說 (Pre-Qin Doctrine on Humanity, Righteousness and Ritual Propriety). Taibei: Wenjian chubanshe.
Geng, Z. (耿振東) 2011. Guanzi yanjiushi (Zhanguo zhi Songdai) 管子研究史(戰國至宋代) (History of the Research on Guanzi (From the Warring States to the Song Dynasty)). Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe.
Gu Yanwu (顧炎武) au. & Huang Rucheng (黃汝成) coll. (1936). Rizhilu jishi日知錄集釋 (Collected Annotations on Daily Records of Knowledge). Shanghai: Guoxue zhenglishe.
Guan, F. (關鋒) & Lin Y. (林聿時) 1963. Chunqiu zhexueshi lunji 春秋哲學史論集 (Collected Essays on History of Philosophy in the Spring and Autumn Period). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe.
Guan, Z. (管志道) 1997. Meng yi dingce 孟義頂測 (A Revision and Survey of the Meaning of Mencius). In: Siku quanshu cunmu congshu 四庫全書存目叢書 (The Index of the Four Treasuries Series). Tainan: Zhuangyan wenhua shiye chuban gongsi.
Hara, T. (原貴史) 2009. “Sorai gakuha no Kanchū hyōka-Rongo geshaku o megutte” 徂徠學派 の管仲評價-論語解釋をめぐって (On Evaluations of Guan Zhong in the Sorai School-Concerning the Interpretation of the Analects). Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers, 8, 1–20.
Heo, G. (許筠) 1996. “Dok jeja gagje gihu (byeong-in)” 讀諸子各題其後(並引) (After Reading all Titles of the Various Masters). In: Seongso bubugo 惺所覆瓿藁 (Collected Simple Works of Seongso). Vol. 13. Seoul: Seong-gyungwan daehaggyo Daedong munhwa yeonguwon.
Hio, Y. (日尾瑜) 1978. Kanchū hijinsha ben-“Jo” 管仲非仁者辨-序 (A Discourse on Guan Zhong’s Nonhumaneness-“Introduction”). In: Nihon Jurin sōsho 日本儒林叢書 (Japanese Confucianism Book Series). Book 5. Tokyo: Ho shuppan, pp. 1–2.
Hirose, G. (廣瀨旭莊) 1978. Nurisetsu 塗說 (Street Discussions). In: Nihon Jurin sōsho 日本儒林叢書 (Japanese Confucianism Book Series). Book 2. Tokyo: Ho shuppan.
Hsiao, K. (蕭公權) [Xiao Gongquan] 1982. Zhongguo zhengzhi sixiang shi 中國政治思想史 (History of Chinese Political Thought). Taibei: Lianjing chuban gongsi.
Hayashi, R. (林羅山) & Kyoto shisekikai (ed.) 1979. Hayashi Razan bunshū 林羅山文集 (Collected Works of Hayashi Razan). Tokyo: Perikansha.
Huang, C. (黃俊傑) 1977. Chunqiu Zhanguo shidai shang xian zhengzhi de lilun yu shiji 春秋戰國時代尚賢政治的理論與實際 (Theory and Practice of the Politics of Esteeming the Worthy in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Period). Taibei: Wenxue chubanshe.
Huang, C. (黃俊傑) & Wu, K. (吳光明) 1993. “Gudai Zhongguoren de jiazhiguan: jiazhi quxiang de chongtu jiqi jiexiao” 古代中國人的價值觀: 價值取向的衝突及其解消 (Value-Systems of the Chinese People: Conflicts Between Different Value-Orientation and their Dissolutions). In: Vincent (Qingsong) Shen沈清松 ed. Zhongguoren de jiazhiguan-Renwenxue guandian 中國人的價值觀──人文學觀點 (Value-Systems of the Chinese People: A Humanist Perspective). Taibei: Guiguan Tushu gongsi.
Huang, C. (黃俊傑) 2010. Humanism in East Asian Confucian Contexts. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Huang, C. (黃俊傑) 2016. Sixiangshi shiye zhong de Dongya 思想史視野中的東亞 (East Asia in the Perspective of Intellectual History). Taibei: Taida chuban zhongxin.
Huang, C. (黃俊傑) 2017. Dongya Rujia Renxue Shilun 東亞儒家仁學史論 (A Historical Study on the Discourse on Humaneness in East Asian Confucianisms). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press.
Huang, C. 2018. Humane Governance’ as the Moral Responsibility of Rulers in East Asian Confucian Political Philosophy. In Morality and Responsibility of Rules: European and Chinese Origins of a Rule of Law as Justice for World Order, ed. Anthony Carty and Janne Nijman, 270–291. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, C. 2019. Discourse on “Humanity” in East Asian Confucianisms: Zhu Xi’s “Treatise on Humanity” and its Reverberations in Tokugawa Japan. Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia 10: 13–41.
Huang, K. (皇侃) 1923. Lunyu yishu 論語義疏 (Commentary on the Meaning of the Analects). Osaka: Kaidokudo kaipon.
Inoue, M. (井上順理) 1972. Honpō chūsei made ni okeru Mōshi juyōshi no kenkyū 本邦中世までにおける孟子受容史の研究. Tokyo: Kazama Shobō.
Itō, J. (伊藤仁齋) 1901–1903a. Dōjimon 童子問 (Inquiries from a Child). In: Inoue Tetsujirō井上哲次郎 and Kanie Yoshimaru 蟹江義丸 (ed.). Nihon rinri ihen 日本倫理彙編 (Japanese Writings on Ethics). Book 5. Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Itō, J. (伊藤仁齋) 1901–1903b. Gomō jigi 語孟字義 (The Meaning of Terms in Analects and Mencius). In: Nihon rinri ihen 日本倫理彙編 (Japanese Writings on Ethics). Book 5. Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Itō, J. (伊藤仁齋) 1984. “Mōshi susu shook itsu ōdō ron” 孟子勸諸侯行王道論 (A Treatise on Mencius Persuading Feudal Lords to Practice the Kingly Way). In: Kogaku sensei bunshū 古學先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Kogaku). Vol. 2. Tokyo: Perikansha.
Itō, J. (伊藤仁齋) (1985). “Jinsetsu” 仁說. In: Kogaku Sensei shi bunshū 古學先生詩文集 (Collected Writings of the Master of Ancient Learning). Vol. 3. In: Tōru Sagara 相良亨(ed.) et al. Kinsei Juka bunshū shūsei 近世儒家文集集成 (Series of Literary Corpus of Early Modern Confucians). Vol. 1. Tokyo: Perikansha.
Itō, T. (伊藤東涯) 1978. Kanki hitsuroku 閒居筆錄 (Reflections of a Life in Leisure). In: Nihon Jurin sōsho 日本儒林叢書 (Japanese Confucianism Book Series). Book 1. Tokyo: Ho shuppan.
Jang, Y. (張維) 1996. Gyegok manpil 谿谷漫筆 (Stray Notes of Gyegok). In: Jo Jongeob 趙鍾業 (ed.). Hangug sihwa chongpyeon 韓國詩話叢編 (Collectanea of Korean Poetry). Vol. 1. Seoul: Taehagsa.
Jeong, Y. (丁若鏞) 2012a. Maengja yo-ui 孟子要義 (Essential Meaning of Mencius). Vol. 1. In: Gyogam pyojeom jeongbon Yeoyudang jeonseo 校勘標點定本與猶堂全書 (Collated and Punctuated Standard Edition of the Entire Works of Yeoyudang). Book 7. Seoul: Dasan hagsul munhwa jaedan.
Jeong, Y. (丁若鏞) 2012b. Munjip 文集 (Collected Writings), Vol. 12. In: Gyogam pyojeom jeongbon Yeoyudang jeonseo 校勘標點定本與猶堂全書 (Collated and Punctuated Standard Edition of the Entire Works of Yeoyudang). Book 2. Seoul: Dasan hagsul munhwa jaedan.
Jeong, Y. (丁若鏞) 2012c. Noneo gongeum ju 論語古今注 (Ancient and Contemporary Commentaries on Analects). Vol. 7. In: Dasan hagsul munhwa jaedan (ed.). Gyogam pyojeom jeongbon Yeoyudang jeonseo 校勘標點定本與猶堂全書 (Collated and Punctuated Standard Edition of the Entire Works of Yeoyudang). Seoul: Dasan hagsul munhwa jaedan.
Jeongjo (正祖) 1978a. “Dab gungyo” 答宮僚 (Answering a Court Official). In: Chunjeonok 春邸錄 (Records from the Crown Prince’s Palace). Vol. 3. In: Hongjae jeonseo 弘齋全書 (Complete Works of Hongjae). Hanseong: Munhwa jaegwan igug jangseo gagsamuso.
Jeongjo (正祖) 1978b. “Nolon hajon” 魯論夏箋 (“Summer Notes on the Analects of Confucius”). In: Hongjae jeonseo 弘齋全書 (Complete Works of Hongjae). Hanseong: Munhwa jaegwan igug jangseo gagsamuso.
Jiang, Q. (蔣秋華) 2010. “Fan Ruanyou Lunyu yu’an xilun-Yi dui Guan Zhong de piping wei lie” 范阮攸 “論語愚按”析論──以對管仲的批評為例 (Pham Nguyen Du’s Humble Commentaries on the Analects—With an Example of Criticism of Guan Zhong). Presented at: International scientific symposium on “East Asian Thought and Culture–Maritime Culture and Vietnamese Confucianism” (Dongya de sixiang yu wenhua–Haiyang wenhua ji Yuenan Ruxue東亞的思想與文化──海洋文化及越南儒學), organized by Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Zhongguo wen-zhe yanjiusuo 中央研究院中國文哲研究所 et al., from 29. 9. to 1. 10. 2010.
Kaibara, E. (貝原益軒) 1973. Shinshiroku 慎思錄 (Record of Careful Thought). In: Ekiken zenshū 益軒全集 (Entire Works of Ekiken). Book 2. Tokyo: Kokusho kankokai.
Kanaya, O. (金谷治) 1987. Kanzu no kenkyū-Chūkuni kodai schisō no ichi sokumen 管子の研究—中国古代思想の一側面 (A Study of Guanzi-One Aspect of Ancient Chinese Thought). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Kim, C. (金昌協) 1999. “Dab Eo Yubong” 答魚有鳳 (An Answer to Eo Yubong). In: Nongam seonsaeng munjib 農巖先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Nongam). Book 3. In: 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Vol. 250. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Kim, S. (金尚憲) 1999. Jocheonlog-Gwa Gwanjung myo 朝天錄‧過管仲墓 (Records of Audiences with the Emperor-Passing by Guan Zhong’s Tomb). In: Cheongeum seonsaeng munjip 清陰先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Cheongeum). Book 1. In: 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Vol. 241. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Koyasu, N. (子安宣邦) 2004. Itō Jinsai no sekkai 伊藤仁齋の世界 (The World of Itō Jinsai). Tokyo: Perikansha.
Koyasu, N. (子安宣邦) 2006. “Zhuzixue yu jindai Riben de xingcheng” 朱子學與近代日本的形成 (Zhu Xi Learning and Formation of Modern Japan). In: Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑, Wei-chieh Lin 林維杰 (ed.). Dongya Zhuzixue de tongdiao yu yiqu 東亞朱子學的同調與異趣 (Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi Learning in East Asia). Taibei: Taida chuban zhongxi, pp. 155–168.
Liu, X. (劉向) au. Xiang, Z. 向宗魯 ed. 1987. Shuo yuan jiaozheng 說苑校證 (Collations of the Garden of Persuasions). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Lu, L. (魯綸) 1997. Sishu tongyi 四書通義 (Comprehensive Meaning of the Four Books). In: Siku quanshu cunmu congshu 四庫全書存目叢書 (The Index of the Four Treasuries Series). Tainan: Zhuangyan wenhua shiye chuban gongsi.
Luo, G. (羅根澤) 1966. Guanzi tanyuan 管子探源 (Searching for the Origin of Guanzi). Hong Kong: Taiping shuju.
Matsumura, S. (松村栖雲) 1978. Kanchū Mōshi ron 管仲孟子論 (A Discussion on Guan Zhong and Mencius). In: Seki Giichirō 關儀一郎 ed. Nihon Jurin sōsho 日本儒林叢書 (Japanese Confucianism Book Series). Vol. 12. Tokyo: Ho shuppan, pp. 1–17.
Ogata, N. (緒形暢夫) 1987. Shunjū jidai kakuchi ni okeru shisō-teki keikō 春秋時代各地における思想的傾向 (Ideological Tendencies in Various Parts of the Country During the Spring and Autumn Period). Tokyo: Kyūko shoin.
Ogyū, S. (荻生徂徠) 1922–1926. Rongo chō 論語徵 (Commentary on the Analects). In: Seki Giichirō 關儀一郎 (ed.). Nihon meika Shisho-chūshaku zensho 日本名家四書註釋全書 (Complete Works of the Annotations of the Renowned Japanese Scholars). Tokyo: Toyo tosho kankokai.
Ogyū, S. (荻生徂徠) 1901–1903. Bendō 辨道 (Distinguishing the Way). In: Nihon rinri ihen 日本倫理彙編 (Japanese Writings on Ethics). Vol. 6, Section on “The Kogaku School” I. Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Phạm, N. (范阮攸) 2011. Luận Ngữ Ngu Án論語愚按 (Humble Commentaries on the Analects). Taibei: Taida chuban zhongxin.
Qian, M. (錢穆) 1994–1998a. Xian-Qin zhuzi jinian 先秦諸子繫年 (A Chronology of Pre-Qin Masters). In: Qian Binsi xiansheng quanji 錢賓四先生全集 (The Complete Works of Mr. Qian Binsi). Vol. 5. Taibei: Lianjing chuban gongsi.
Qian, M. (錢穆) 1994–1998b. Guoshi dagang 國史大綱 (Outline of the History of China). In: Qian Binsi xiansheng quanji 錢賓四先生全集 (The Complete Works of Mr. Qian Binsi). Vol. 27. Taibei: Lianjing chuban gongsi.
Rickett, A. (trans.) 1965. Kuan-tzu: A Repository of Early Chinese Thought. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Rosen, S. 1976. In Search of the Historical Kuan Chung. Journal of Asian Studies 35 (3): 431–440.
Sekio, T. (關尾富太郎) 1973. “Mōshi denrai to sono shūhen-Inoue Masamichi shiru Honpō chūsei made ni okeru Mōshi no kenkyū o yomite” 孟子傳來とその周邊──井上順理著本邦中世までにおける孟子受容史の研究を讀みて. Shujitsu ronso, Vol. 3, pp. 1–12.
Shi, S. (史少博) 2012. “Jianghu shiqi de Songcun Jiushan ‘Guan Zhong Mengzi pian’ zhi sixiang” 江戶時期的松村九山 “管仲孟子篇” 之思想 (“On the Thought of ‘The Writing on Guan Zhong and Mencius’ by Edo period Confucian scholar Matsumura Kyuzan”). Guanzi xuekan, Vol. 3, pp. 9–12.
Sima, Q. (司馬遷) 1959 & 1963. Shiji 史記 (Records of the Historian). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Song, S. (宋時烈) 1999. “Gi Son Sunseog” 寄孫淳錫 (Sending a Letter to Son Sunseog). In: Yongam seonsaeng munjip 龍菴先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Yongam). Book 11. In: Hanguk yoktae munjip chongso 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Vol. 1541. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Song, S. (宋時烈) 1985. “Gyeongyeon gangui-Hyojong musul” 經筵講義‧孝宗戊戌 (“Lectures from the Imperial Classics Colloquium-King Hyojong Year 1539). See: Songseo seupyu 宋書拾遺 (Gleanings of the Remains of Song’s Books). Vol. 9. In: Songja daejeon 宋子大全 (The Great Compendium of Master Song). Book 7. Seoul: Pokyong munhwasa.
Su, X. (蘇洵) 1993. “Guan Zhong lun” 管仲論 (“A Treatise on Guan Zhong”). In: Jiayou ji 嘉祐集 (Collected Works of Jiayou). Vol. 9. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Sukjong sillok 肅宗實錄 (Veritable Records of King Sukjong) (1955–1958). In: Gugsa Pyeonchan Wiweonhoe (ed.). Joseon wangjo sillok 朝鮮王朝實錄 (Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty). Book 40. Seoul: Donggug munhwasa.
Sun, Z. (孫志祖) 2012. Dushu cuolu 讀書脞録 (Miscellaneous Notes on Reading Books). In: Wenxue shanfang congshu 文學山房叢書. Book 14. Chengdu: Bashu shushe.
Takeuchi, Y. (武內義雄) 1987. Takeuchi Yoshio zenshū 武內義雄全集 (Complete Works of Takeuchi Yoshio). Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten.
Tillman, H. 1981. The Development of Tension between Virtue and Achievement in Early Confucianism: Attitudes toward Kuan Chung and Hegemon (pa) as Conceptual Symbols. Philosophy East and West 31 (1): 17–28.
Tōjō, I. (東條一堂) 1922–1926. Rongo chigen 論語知言 (Understanding the Words of the Analects). In: Seki Giichirō 關儀一郎 (ed.). Nihon meika Shisho chūshaku zensho 日本名家四書註釋全書 (Complete Works of Annotations and Commentaries on the Four Books by Japanese Renowned Scholars). Tokyo: Ootori shuppan.
Tsai, C. (蔡振豐) [Cai Zhenfeng] 2010. Chaoxian Ruzhe Ding Ruoyong de Sishuxue: yi Dongya wei shiye de taolun 朝鮮儒者丁若鏞的四書學: 以東亞為視野的討論 (Joseon Confucian Jeong Yagyong’s Learning on the Four Books: A Discussion from the Perspective of East Asia). Taibei: Taida chuban zhongxin.
Wang, A. (王安石) (s.d.). “Wang-ba lun” 王霸論 (A Treatise on the King and the Hegemon). In: Liuchuan xiansheng wenji 臨川先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Liuchuan), Vol. 67.
Watanabe, H. 1990. “Jusha, Literati and Yangban: Confucianists in Japan, China and Korea.” In: Tadao Umesao, Catherine C. Lewis and Yasuyuki Kurita (eds.). Japanese Civilization in Modern World V: Culturedness. (Senri Ethnological Studies 28). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 13–30.
Yabu, K. (藪孤山) (1929). Sū Mō崇孟 (Worshiping Mencius). Tokyo: Subunin.
Yamashita, R. (山下龍二) 1990. “Shushi-Sorai no Kanchūron-Rinrishugi to seijishugi” 朱子-徂徠の管仲論──倫理主義と政治主義 (Zhu Xi’s and Jinsai’s Doctrine on Guan Zhong–Ethicism and Politicsm). The Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Languages of the Nagoya University, Vol. 1, pp. 307–316.
Ye, Shi (葉適) (1997). Xixue jiyan xumu 習學記言序目 (Preface and Headings of the Records and Observations on Practicing Learning). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Yeongjo sillok 英祖實錄 (Veritable Records of King Yeongjo) (1955–1958). In: Joseon wangjo sillok 朝鮮王朝實錄 (Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty). Book 42. Seoul: Donggug munhwasa.
Yi, I (李珥) 1999a. “Dongho mundab” 東湖問答 (Catechism at the Eastern Lake). See: Yulgok seonsaeng jeonjip 栗谷先生全集 (Complete Works of Master Yulgok). Book 3. In: Hanguk yoktae munjip chongso 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Book 212. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Yi, I (李珥) 1999b. “Eonog ha” 語錄下 (Recorded Conversations 2). See: Yulgok seonsaeng jeonjip 栗谷先生全集 (Complete Works of Master Yulgok). Book 5. In: Hanguk yoktae munjip chongso 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Book 214. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Yi, I (李珥) 1999c. “Non gundo” 論君道 (On the Way of the Ruler). See: Yulgok seonsaeng jeonjip 栗谷先生全集 (Complete Works of Master Yulgok) Book 3. In: Hanguk yoktae munjip chongso 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Book 212. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Yi, S. (李穡) 1999. “Gwanjung” 管仲 (“Guan Zhong”). In: Mogeun seonsaeng munjip 牧隱先生文集 (Collected Works of Master Mogeun). Vol. 2. In: Hanguk munjip pyeonchan wiwonhoe. Hanguk yoktae munjip chongso 韓國歷代文集叢書 (An Anthology of Korean Historical Works). Vol. 216. Seoul: Gyeongin munhwasa.
Zhai, H. (翟灝) 1829. Sishu kaoyi 四書考異 (Study of Variants to the Four Books). S. l.: Guandong Xuehaitang.
Zhang, K. (張崑將) 2004. Riben Dechuan shidai Guxuepai zhi wangdao zhengzhilun: yi Yiteng Renzhai, Disheng Culai wei zhongxin日本德川時代古學派之王道政治論: 以伊藤仁齋, 荻生徂徠為中心 (Political Theory of the Kingly Way in Tokugawa Japanese Kogaku School of Thought: Focusing on Itō Jinsai and Ogyū Sorai). Taibei: Taida chuban zhongxin.
Zhao, J. (趙紀彬) 1962. “Ren-li jiegu: Linyu xintan bubian chugao zhiyi” 仁禮解故: “論語新探” 補編初稿之一 (Explaining Humaneness and Ritual Propriety: A Manuscript of the Supplement to A New Interpretation of the Analects). In: Zhexue yanjiu bianjubu 哲學研究編輯部 (ed.). Kongzi zhexue taolun ji 孔子哲學討論集 (An Anthology of Discussions on Confucian Philosophy). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, pp. 412–445.
Zhu, X. (朱熹) 1983a. Mengzi jizhu 孟子集注 (Collected Commentaries on the Mencius). In: Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 (Collected Commentaries on the Chapters and Sentences of the Four Books). Vol. 3. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhu, X. (朱熹) 1983b. Lunyu jizhu 論語集注 (Collected Commentaries on the Analects). In: Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 (Collected Commentaries on the Chapters and Sentences of the Four Books). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhu, X. (朱熹) 1986, Li Jingde 黎靖德 ed., Wang Xingxian 王星賢 comm. Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Classified Conversations of Master Zhu). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhu, X. (朱熹) 2001. Mengzi huowen 孟子或問 (Questions and Answers on Mencius). In: Sishu huowen 四書或問 (Questions and Answers on the Four Books). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe; Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe.
Zuo, Q. (左丘明) 1978, Wei Zhao 韋昭 comm. Guoyu 國語 (Discourses of the States). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Author notes
The article is an abridged translation of the Chapter 9 of Chun-chieh Huang’s book Dongya Rujia Renxue Shilun 東亞儒家仁學史論 (Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2017, pp. 377–414).
Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑—Huang Chun-chieh [Huang Junjie 黃俊傑] is the Distinguished Chair Professor of National Taiwan University and a member of Academia Europaea.
- Chun-chieh Huang
Translated and abridged by Jan Vrhovski—Jan Vrhovski is a research fellow at University of Ljubljana, working on history of formal logic, philosophy and intellectual history of modern China.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Ethical statements
I hereby declare that this manuscript is the result of my independent creation under the reviewers' comments. Except for the quoted contents, this manuscript does not contain any research achievements that have been published or written by other individuals or groups. I am the only author of this manuscript. The legal responsibility of this statement shall be borne by me.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Author contributions
The only author.
Additional information
The article is an abridged translation of the Chapter 9 of Chun-chieh Huang’s book Dongya Rujia Renxue Shilun 東亞儒家仁學史論 (Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2017, pp. 377–414).
Translated and abridged by Jan Vrhovski—Jan Vrhovski is a research fellow at University of Ljubljana, working on history of formal logic, philosophy and intellectual history of modern China.
Appendices
Appendix 1: On the meaning of the character jiu 九 in Analects “Xian Wen”, 17
Zhu Xi explained the character jiu 九 (‘nine’) in Confucius’ words “jiu he zhuhou 九合諸侯” as “jiu 糾” (‘gather together’ or as the name Jiu). Zhai Hao (翟灝, ?-1788), a scholar from the Qing dynasty, believed that “the character jiu designated an actual number”. Zhai Hao said: “From Gongyang’s and Guliang’s Spring and Autumn Annals on, without exception, the character jiu 九 designated an actual number. Zhou and Han, two Han dynasty persons, often used the word in the phrase jiu hekuang 九合匡 (‘the nine unified’). There are numerous examples like that. In the Textual Interpretations (Jingdian shiwen 經典釋文) the character jiu 九 has got no sound. Thus, all Confucian scholars before Zhu Xi read it as if it was a word. Because it was not consistent with the Zuo zhuan, they wanted to alter the text and change it into the character jiu 糾. In the Zuo Zhuan we can also often see the combination jiuhe 九合. In the 11th year of Duke Xiang’s reign, the marquis of Jin spoke to Wei Jiang (魏絳), saying: ‘In the eight years you have been instructing me, I have assembled the feudal lords nine times.’ Now, it happens to be the case that in the time of Duke Dao of Jin there indeed were nine assemblies. This [use] is also confirmed by numerous commentaries of former Confucians. Guoyu records that Duke Dao of Jin told Wei Jiang to organize seven assemblies of the feudal lords. In the first year of Duke Zhao’s rule, Qi Wu (祁午) told Zhao Wenzi (趙文子): ‘It has been seven years since you serve as a minister of Jin and have become the lord of covenants. Two times you have assembled feudal lords, three times you have assembled the great officials. Two times, three times and seven times.’ [This means that the character jiu] must have had denoted a number. Consequently, it has to be doubted that the character jiu 九 used to represent a noun” (See: Zhai 1829. The text can also be found in: Huang Qing jingjie皇清經解 (Imperial Qing Exegesis on the Classics) (Wushi shanfang wenku 烏石山房文庫 (The Wushi shanfang Collection)), Case 64, No. 464: p. 9) Zhao Jibin (趙紀彬, 1905–1982) has created a complete list of assemblies of feudal lords in the Spring and Autumn period, which indicates that that from the Winter of 13th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu (5th year of Duke Huan’s reign, 681 BCE) down to Autumn of Duke Xi of Wei’s 7th year of reign (33rd year of Duke Huan, 653 BCE), Duke Huan altogether held 9 meetings of the feudal lords. Thus, we can concur with the explanation of the character jiu 九 as a character denoting an actual number. (See: Zhao 1962, pp. 436–437) Furthermore, for many successive dynasties, the three characters “ru qi ren 如其仁” from the Analects (“Xian Wen”, p. 17) have also caused quite a few controversies among Confucian scholars. Sun Zhizu (孫志祖, Yigu 貽谷, 1737–1801) from the Qing dynasty noted: “I suspect that the words “ru qi ren 如其仁” are not words of praise. They were not repeated in order to make the praise profounder. How could the master have so easily praised Guan Zhong for being humane? Since Kong Anguo’s misunderstood [Confucius], and because the [commentators] all focused on him, the later generations of Confucians consequently suspected that the arguments of the sage were slanted and that [in comparison] with the chapter, which says that [Guan Zhong is a person (vessel)] of small capacity (qi xiao 器小) [the master had] moderated his views and changed his mind” (See: Sun 2010, pp. 17–18). I concur with this last explanation.
Appendix 2: on the meaning of the character and concept Xiang 相
In the above text, where Sorai said “by serving as a first minister (xiang 相) to the feudal lords, he governed over all under the heaven”, the character xiang 相 requires some further clarification. It was namely that in the ancient Chinese society xiang 相 was originally a person in charge of the sacrificial ceremonies. As Qian Mu (錢穆, Binsi 賓四, 1895–1990) once said: “A xiang 相 was a person from the feudal nobility, who directed the ceremonies; also, he was a trusted aide of the monarch. When taking part in a sacrifice, he would have taken the role of the one directing it. In the rituals at audiences, banquets, meetings there also existed a title called xiang 相. When a clan turned into a dynasty, the xiang of the clan became the xiang of the state”. See: Qian 1994–1998b, p. 180. Sorai’s doctrine must have been based on the records of “the 7th year of Duke Cheng” (成公) in the Zuo zhuan, in which Bao Shu (鮑叔) suggests to the Duke Huan of Qi that he “could make Guan Yiwu his first minister, because his talent for governance is greater than Gao Xi’s”, upon which the Duke of Huan is said to have followed his advice. Now, what in the early period was called xiang 相 cannot be mentioned on equal terms with the meaning “first minister” of the Warring States period at all. As Zuo zhuan further records (Zuo zhuan, “12th year of Duke Xi”), in the year 648 AD, Guan Zhong said to the king of Zhou: “Your servant (Guan Zhong) is a petty functionary. And there are two vice governors [appointed by the] Son of Heaven: Guo and Gao”. This passage confirms that Guan Zhong’s official position in the country was lower from that of Guozi and Gaozi. The book Hanfeizi (韓非子) (“Outer Compendium of Explanations, Lower Left” Waichu shuo zuoxia 外儲說左下) tells that the Duke Huan of Qi “ordered Xi Peng to govern internal affairs, and Guan Zhong to govern the external affairs so as to match the former”. In this way, the last passage confirms that whilst serving in the office of the first minister, Guan Zhong focused mainly on the foreign affairs. Liu Xiang’s (劉向, 77–76 BCE) work Garden of Persuasions (Shuo yuan 說苑) chapter “Venerating Noble Talent” Zun xian 尊賢records that Duke Huan of Qi intended to let Guan Zhong take over the governance of the country, upon which Guan Zhong responded: “the lowly cannot approach the noble” (賤不能臨貴), “the poor cannot be treated as those who are rich” (貧不能使富) and “those who are distant cannot control those who are close” (疏不能制親). (See: Liu 1987, Vol. 8, p. 198) All these examples prove that Guan Zhong’s was of lower-class origin. A few among the contemporary scholars go even as far as to point out that in the time, when the hegemony of Duke Huan of Qi was flourishing (685–662 BCE), Guan Zhong’s name does not appear in the Zuo zhuan at all. Based on this fact, they inferred that the power and influence of Guan Zhong could not have been as great as maintained in the folklore of the later generations. See: Rosen 1976, pp. 431–440, 432 ff.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, Cc. Between humane governance and hegemony: a study on East Asian Confucian discourse on Guan Zhong and related questions. Int. Commun. Chin. Cult 7, 411–443 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-020-00197-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-020-00197-8