Introduction to Part 2 Introduction to Part 2

166 Introduction to Part 2 Introduction To Part 2

Introduction to Part 2

How did the European missionaries interpret ancient Chinese history? The second part of this essay focuses on this question through the lens of intercul- tural hermeneutics. One of the major sources for interpretation in the Chinese textual tradition is the commentaries. Since the Han dynasty (206 BC–AD 220), Chinese classics have been interpreted through authoritative commentaries and these have been of tremendous importance for centuries. The relationship between the interlinear commentaries and the main text of Chinese classics can also be compared to a “texture”: The text is interwoven with commentaries, and it is due to the centuries-long weaving of such internal dialogues that, like in a tap- estry, the “texture” becomes clearer.1 When one seeks to understand texts in a culture with as strong a commen- tarial tradition as China, interpretation concerns the choice between two options: should one seek the meaning of the text as composed by its original author(s) and/or its original audience, also called “historical meaning”? This search necessitates that one primarily focuses on the original text. Or should one seek the meaning as realized in the subsequent historical trajectory of that text, also called “scriptural meaning.”2 This implies a reading strategy that strongly takes into account the commentaries written about the original text. The Chinese interpretative tradition often vacillates between these two options. The arrival of European missionaries resulted in a new hermeneutical stance. Until then the stance of the Chinese interpreters was determined by a question within the same cultural tradition: Could the interpreters project themselves onto the horizon of Chinese historical others? With the mission aries reading Chinese texts, there was a transfer of the conversation within the Chinese tradition to a conversation with European tradition in which the hermeneutical situation turned into a question external to the cultural tradition: Could the (European) interpreters project themselves onto the horizon of Chinese cultural others? If so, the subsequent question was whether the missionaries were allowed to give a new interpretation to the ancient Chinese

1 For the image of intertextual interweaving, see also Cheng (1997), p. 27: “Ce qu’on a voulu montrer ici est le tissage au cours du temps d’une tapisserie de ‘dialogues internes’ qui finis- sent par laisser apparaître des motifs en relief.” and p. 30: “Le plus souvent, le texte constitue au sens propre un tissue qui suppose chez le lecteur une familiarité avec les motifs récurrents.” 2 For “historical” and “scriptural” meaning, see Makeham (2003), p. 9ff.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/9789004316225_006 Introduction to Part 2 167 texts or should they merely follow the Chinese interpretations? If they fol- lowed the Chinese interpretation, which strategy should they adopt: should they return to the “original” meaning of the texts (“historical meaning”)?; or should they adopt and stick to the Chinese commentary’s tradition (“scriptural meaning”)? These are questions that will be discussed in this part of the essay, by focusing on the interpretation of early history. Early history is particularly apt for interpretation and one of the reasons for it is that there are ambiguities or gaps in texts. Possible ambiguities appear in narratives of “marvellous births” – births that occurred not primarily as the result of human intercourse but through a marvellous intervention, such as the divine intervention, the appearance of a dragon, the bestowing of a bird’s egg, as happened to the three concubines of Emperor Ku. When dealing with such stories while using Western language, there are unavoidable terminological problems, by calling them “marvellous,” “miraculous,” or “auspicious,”3 I have opted for the more general term “marvellous,” though other terms can and may be used as well. The marvellous births that will be discussed in this part concern the births that occurred to three of the four concubines of Emperor Ku. The first concubine was called Jiang Yuan 姜嫄, who gave birth to Hou Ji 后稷, after having offered a sacrifice together with the emperor to Shangdi. The next concubine was called Qingdu 慶都, who gave birth to Yao 堯, the pre-dynastic model ruler, after having received the omen of a red dragon and a pregnancy of fourteen months. The third concubine was called Jiandi 簡狄, who gave birth to Xie 契, after having prayed to the god of fertility Gaomei 高禖 and having received the omen of a flying swallow, dropping an egg that she ate. The last one was called Changyi 常儀, who gave birth to Zhi 摯, the (brief) successor of Emperor Ku; this birth, which was said to have occurred first of all, was not considered marvellous in the Chinese tradition. The order in which the concubines are mentioned vary between different texts, depending on the time they became concubines, or the birth dates of their sons. These three marvellous births will guide us through the research.

3 In this regard, Erik Zūrcher pointed out that “in a Western, Judaeo-Christian context such signs have always been interpreted as cases of divine intervention in the ‘normal’ course of nature, and as a demonstration of God’s omnipotence. In that sense, they are literally supernatural. God overruling, as it were, the natural laws that he has imposed upon his creation, and ‘commanding’ the sun to stand still. In the Chinese perspective, portenta are by no means supernatural. The signs and happenings reported may be amazing, exceptional, and charged with the deep significance, but they are very much part of the natural order of things.” See Erik Zürcher, “Foreword,” in Lippiello (2001), p. 11.