The junzi (Gentleman) in the Shiji and the question of authorial intent* Dorothee Schaab-Hanke Introduction This essay scrutinizes references to a junzi 君子 (Gentleman, hereafter: G.) in the book which later came to be called the Shiji 史記.1 These references will be analysed and interpreted pri- marily with regard to what they convey to an attentive reader about the basic tenets and incli- nations of the author, or, as we shall have to take into account, possibly the authors of the Shiji. The question of how probable a dual authorship is will, however, be postponed to the last section of this essay and it will, for sake of convenience, until then only neutrally be referred to “the author” or “the author’s intent”. The analysis will be based on a typification of all the G. references in the Shiji text.2 The primary criteria for the classification of the G. entries will be the degree of what may be called the author’s “intellectual digest”, reaching from references which seem to have been directly transported to the Shiji from earlier sources to remarks which can safely be identified as genu- ine (or at least to a great degree genuine) reflections of the Shiji author himself. Especially those passages, in which we find traces of a conscious choice by the author, at times even discussing several judgements made by authorities in earlier sources, enable an attentive reader to find out much about the underlying standards of the person responsible for the record. The method I propose to follow here is thus to start out from the angle of “ideology” and to relate the results in a second step to other pieces of evidence and thus contribute to the finding of answers regarding the difficult question of Shiji authorship. As far as I know, a closer scrutiny of the G. entries in the Shiji, other than that of those contained in Zuozhuan, has hitherto not yet been undertaken.3 Probably the main reason for this is that the ultimate authorial judgement which corresponds to what is represented in the * This paper was originally prepared for publication in WSP (Warring States Papers). But since that publication seems to be delayed incalculably, I decided to provide it here for readers who might be interested in the topic. 1 There have been many different proposals as to how the term junzi should be rendered most aptly. James Legge, Chunqiu Zuozhuan (Chinese Classics, Oxford: Oxford, 1893–95, vol. V), translated the term with “the superior man”, John Knoblock in his translation of the Xunzi (Stanford: Stanford, 1988–94) prefers “Gentleman”. Stephen W. Durrant, The Cloudy Mirror: Tension and Conflict in the Writ- ings of Sima Qian (New York: New York, 1995) chose the term “True Gentleman”. In this paper, I have decided to use the term “gentleman”, as the probably most often applied and also quite neutral term. 2 In spite of the deficiencies of this edition, this research has been based on the Zhonghua shuju 中華 書局 edition (repr. of Beijing, 1959). All references hereafter are to this edition. 3 A careful study of the entries of the formula “G. says” (junzi yue 君子曰) in the Zuozhuan is that of Eric Henry, “‘Junzi Yue’ Versus ‘Zhongni Yue’ in Zuozhuan”, HJAS 59.1 (1999): 125–161. 2 Dorothee Schaab-Hanke formula “the G. says” (junzi yue 君子曰) in the Zuozhuan is replaced by the formula “Taishigong yue 太史公曰 (The Lord The Grand Scribe says, hereafter: TSG judgement) in the Shiji.4 But although in the Shiji it is thus distinctly marked that the ultimate authority here is now represented by the judgement of a (Grand) Scribe rather than by that of an anonymous G., there are still plenty of references to a G. in the Shiji, notions of how a G. did or would behave in a given situation, which apparently play, as will be shown, an enormous role in this work and should thus no longer be underestimated in its interpretative value for the question of authorial intent. 1 Typification of the G. passages in the Shiji The Shiji text, as in the Zhonghua shuju edition, contains altogether 152 passages in which a G. is referred to.5 The range of these entries is wide. Taking the above indicated criteria of an author’s “intellectual digest” into account, I propose to distinguish four main categories of junzi passages: 1. Passages in which the references to a G. are explicitly marked by the Shiji author as either part of a direct speech or quoted from an earlier source (marked in the typification in the appendix by the letter “A”) 2. Passages in which references to G. in the Shiji have a direct parallel in an earlier source (marked in the typification in the appendix by the letter “B”). 3. Passages in which references to a G. have a precedent in an earlier source, either in the form that the earlier source refers to a concrete historical person who expresses criticism or praise, or in the form that the judgement expressed by the author/ compiler of the ear- lier source himself is transmitted by the Shiji author (marked in the typification in the ap- pendix by the letter “C”) 4. Passages in which references to a G. are either by themselves part of the TSG judgement section of the Shiji or can plausibly be interpreted as the genuine (or to a great degree genuine) reflections of the Shiji author himself (marked in the typification in the appendix by “D”. Apart from these four main categories, I have distinguished four types of entries which are mostly, but not necessarily, accumulated in one of the four main categories. These are: 1. Entries of the Acting G. type, focussing on the way a G. behaves (a) 2. Entries of the Designated G. type, in which certain persons are addressed as G. (b) 3. Entries of the Reflecting G. type (c), expressed in one of the following formulae: (c1) G. says (junzi yue 君子曰) (c2) G. criticizes (s.th.) (junzi jizhi 君子譏之) (c3) G. knows it (junzi zhi zhi 君子知之) (c4) G. alarmed about s.th. (junzi ju yan 君子懼焉) (c5) G. speaks of (junzi wei 君子謂) (c6) G. estimates s.th. highly (junzi chang zhi 君子長之) 4 See, e.g., Li, Wai-yee, “The Idea of Authority in the Shih chi (Records of the Historian)”, HJAS 54.1 (1994): 345–405. 5 This number includes both the doublet to Shiji (hereafter: SJ) 28/1404: SJ 12/486 and the G. pas- sages in those parts for which Chu Shaosun by way of his Chu xiansheng yue formula signed responsi- ble: SJ 20/1059, 58/2091, 60/2114-15, 2116, 2119, 126/3208, 3211, 127/3221 (altogether 8 pas- sages). The junzi (Gentleman) in the Shiji and the question of authorial intent 3 4. Entries of the Future G. Addressed type (d) 1.1 Junzi references as listed in category A Examples of this category comprise, as above defined, those passages in which the references to a G. are explicitly marked by the Shiji author as either part of a direct speech or quoted from an earlier source. The altogether 78 passages of this category make up 51,3% of the total. Of this category, 69 of the passages can be subsumed under the subtype (a), 8 under (b) and 1 under (c1). Regarded from the aspect of the author’s “intellectual digest”, this group is the one which has the least value for the question in focus, as it is especially difficult and risky to draw any safe conclusions from statements made in a direct speech which the author has possible transmitted from an earlier source, as to the author’s intent proper. Included in this group, though already of higher interest for the present study, are, of course, cases in which a G.’s judgement is again encapsulated in a dialogue or a context which can be identified as taken from an earlier source, as already the choice to include this - and not an other - passage into the work may be interpretable as the author’s conscious choice. In the “House of Wu”6 chapter of the Shiji, the diplomat Ji Zha is reported to praise Zizang for his decision to decline the throne offered to him after the death of Duke Xuan of Cao, saying that a G. would call him to be someone who upheld the rites (junzi yue neng shou jie yi 君子曰 能守 節矣, SJ 31/1450). A wholly parallel passage of Ji Zha’s speech including his reference to the judgement of a G. is contained in the Zuozhuan7 (ZZ, Xiang 14.2). Here, the words of a G. are not only explicitly marked by the Shiji author as part of a direct speech, but become also dis- cernible as taken from an earlier source. It is, however, the fact that the judgement is part of Ji Zha’s speech which justifies subsuming the whole entry among cat. A, regardless whether in addition to this, the passage as a whole can be found in an earlier source or not. 1.2 Junzi references as listed in category B This group comprises passages in which references to G. in the Shiji have a direct parallel in an earlier source, i.e. the passage in which a G. is referred to is identified to correspond to a pas- sage in at least one earlier source, but without the author’s direct mentioning of such an earlier source. The altogether 26 passages of this category make up 17,1% of the total.