Foundations of Confucian Thought

FOUNDATIONS OF CONFUCIAN THOUGHT FOUNDATIONS OF CONFUCIAN THOUGHT Intellectual Life in the Chunqiu Period, 722–453 b.c.e. Yuri Pines university of hawai‘i press honolulu © 2002 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 07 06 05 04 03 02 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pines, Yuri. Foundations of confucian thought : intellectual life in the Chunqiu period, 722–453 b.c.e. / Yuri Pines. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8248-2396-6 (alk. paper) 1. China—Intellectual life—To 221 b.c. 2. China— History—Spring and Autumn period, 722–481. I. Title. DS741.65 .P55 2002 931—dc21 2001046286 University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources. Designed by Integrated Composition Systems Printed by The Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group Contents Acknowledgments vii Notes on Translation, Terms, and Quotations ix Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Sources of Chunqiu Thought 13 Chapter 2. Heaven and Man Part Ways: Changing Attitudes Toward Divine Authority 55 Chapter 3. The Universal Panacea: Ritual and Preserving Hierarchical Order 89 Chapter 4. The World Falls Apart: A Futile Search for International Order 105 Chapter 5. When a Minister Mounts the Ruler: Chunqiu Views of Loyalty 136 Chapter 6. Nobility of Blood and Spirit: Chunqiu Ethical Thought 164 Chapter 7. The Chunqiu Legacy 205 Appendix 1: Grammatical Change in the Zuo: Case Studies of the “Yu” and “Qi” Particles 217 Appendix 2: Zhanguo Data in the Zuo 221 Appendix 3: Comparing Scribal Accounts in the Zuo 227 Appendix 4: Spurious Speeches and Interpolations in the Zuo 233 Notes 247 List of Chunqiu Personalities 309 Glossary 333 Bibliography 343 Index 373 Acknowledgments This book has developed from my Ph.D. dissertation, written under the guidance of Professor Irene Eber from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. No words are sufficient to express my deep gratitude for her careful support, tireless scrutiny of my work, invaluable suggestions, and criticism. I owe further gratitude to two distinguished scholars, teachers, and friends, who supervised and guided my work during my stays at the Nankai Uni- versity of Tianjin and UCLA, Professors Liu Zehua and Lothar von Falken- hausen. Both became scholarly models for me due to their remarkable ability to integrate careful scrutiny of the sources with bold conclusions and generalizations, and I benefited enormously from their guidance and support. Limited space does not allow me to thank all those who helped me at various stages of my research project. I benefited greatly from the Zuo zhuan–related discussions with the members of the Warring States Work- ing Group. Aside from those participants, whose studies are cited in my book, I would like to point out the important contributions of Terry Klee- man, Paul Goldin, Martin Kern, and, of course, E. Bruce Brooks, whose relentless criticism of my views helped me to modify and refine many of my arguments. Other friends, colleagues, and teachers helped me enormously through their critical comments to my dissertation, the book manuscript, and related research publications. I particularly thank (in alpha- betical order) Michal Biran, Stephen Durrant, Donald Harper, Eric Henry, David Keightley, Michael Nylan, Adrews Plaks, Sato Masayuki, Harold Schiffrin, Gideon Shelach, Yitzhak Shichor, David Shulman, and anony- mous reviewers for the journal Early China and those associated with the University of Hawai‘i Press. Other colleagues generously shared with me their research materials, which allowed me to improve many of my arguments; I am particularly indebted to Barry Blakeley, Carine Defoort, Ge Quan, Jens Petersen, Edwin Pulleyblank, Naomi Standen, Melvin Thatcher, Wang He, Zhang Rongming, and Zhao Yanxia. Especially warm thanks should be given to David Schaberg, whose insightful critical comments remain for me a source of constant stimulation to ask questions and search for answers. Doron Narkis carefully read most of the manuscript and improved my English style, for which I am deeply indebted. Finally, I must thank my friends in Israel, China, and the United States, who assisted me throughout various stages of my work: Zvi Ben-Dor, Zhang Huaitong, Zhang Xiangming, and Zhang Zhicheng. I am deeply indebted to all those who generated a supportive atmosphere throughout the long years of my research: my parents, Anatoly and Raya, and my friends Jaber, Maha, Wang Yu, and others whom I cannot name here, but who remain in my heart. Notes on Translation, Terms, and Quotations 1. The precise translation of terms is one of the major problems of this kind of study. The protagonists of the Zuo zhuan and Guoyu were using a living language that allowed for overlapping and interchangeable usage of various terms. To avoid confusion, however, the translation has been unified whenever possible according to the following principles. a. Kinship terms are translated as follows: xing—clan or clan name zong—high-ordered or “trunk lineage” (which consists of several indepen- dent lineages) shi Û—lineage or branch lineage (basic kinship unit in the Chunqiu period) jia and shi «—family / household or “house,” if it is the ruling house Zhu Fenghan’s study indicates that in certain cases these terms were used interchangeably.1 In choosing the English translation, the dominant meaning of each term will be used. In each case, an attempt will be made to discern the intention of the speaker. Thus, “Jisun jia,” referring to the Jisun shi, will be translated as “the Jisun lineage.” b. Social status terms are translated as follows: qing—[high] minister. The lineage whose head has the hereditary position of qing will be referred to as a “ministerial lineage” (following Hsu 1965). dafu—noble; “noble lineage” in the case of a lineage headed by a petty official qing dafu—aristocracy. This is a generic term for all those between the overlord and the shi stratum. shi is simply transliterated. The terms “retainer,” “knight,” or “scholar” may be an appropriate translation in certain cases, but they cannot be a substitute for shi as a generic term of the lowest stratum of the ranked aristocracy. min—people (includes aristocrats and commoners alike) shumin—commoners 2. The proper names of Chunqiu personalities are most problematic. Aristocrats generally had at least two surnames: the clan name (xing), and the lineage name (shi). Unlike the clan name, a lineage name could change several times, even within the life of one generation. Moreover, each noble had a personal name (ming), a cognomen or “polite name” (zi), a seniority name (bo or meng—“the elder”; zhong— “second-born”; shu—“younger”; and ji—“the youngest”), and a posthumous name (shi). Throughout the narrative, each person may be referred to by any of these names or their combinations. For example, Fan Wuzi, Shi Ji, Sui Hui, and Mr. Ji are not four different persons, but four different names of a single Jin minister in the late seventh to early sixth century b.c.e. In the List of Chunqiu Personalities the names of persons mentioned throughout the present study will be unified. 3. Hanyu pinyin is used for all transliterations except personal names of those scholars who write in English and who use different transliterations (i.e., Hsu Cho- yun, not Xu Zhuoyun). 4. When pre-twentieth-century Chinese sources are cited in this study, numbers divided by a colon indicate the scroll (juan) or chapter (pian) and page for the particular edition of this work mentioned in the bibliography. In some cases, for the sake of convenience, I supply also the name of a chapter and / or the number of the paragraph (zhang), which then follows the pian number separated by a period. References to the Shi jing also include in parentheses the poem’s se- quence number according to the standard Mao edition. In most cases I have used a short form of the title, with the full title in the bibliography. 5. Unless otherwise indicated all translations are my own. Introduction The three centuries following the time of Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.)1 are commonly regarded as the most creative period in Chinese intellectual history, an age of an “intellectual breakthrough.”2 What is unclear, however, is how this breakthrough occurred. What preceded it? Did Con- fucius and his followers spontaneously give rise to the flowering of Chi- nese thought, or rather did they inherit and improve upon the ideas, con- cepts, and views of their predecessors? And if the latter, how can we define the legacy of the preceding generations? Confucius defined himself as a “transmitter,” not a creator, of the new thought.3 Was this only modesty on his part? If not, what did he transmit? Who influenced him? These questions have been raised by both traditional Chinese and modern scholars. Some regard Confucius as a demiurgic figure who created his thought ex nihilo. Others have argued that Confu- cius transmitted the wisdom of his sage predecessors (the founders of the Zhou dynasty), the roots of his thought being the classical books of the Western Zhou period (1046–771): the Shi jing, the Shu jing, and the Zhouyi. The intellectual life of the Chunqiu period (“Springs and Autumns,” 722– 453), however, has so far received only fragmentary and unsystematic attention, even though it directly preceded and partially overlapped Con- fucius’ lifetime. What was the role of the Chunqiu period in the genesis of Chinese thought? The answer lies somewhere in the obvious gap between the West- ern Zhou and the Zhanguo (“Warring States,” 453–221) worlds of thought.

Load more