venerdì 29 marzo 2013


REVISITING ANALECTS 20

by Umberto Bresciani

Foreword

In recent decades, abundant discoveries of archeological materials, including written documents, throughout China have greatly increased our ability to understand the ancient Chinese. Another interesting contribution has come from the West. Numerous Western scholars have been working on Confucius’ Analects and analyzing them in the light of a Western cultural background, often according to exegetical criteria coming from Western exegesis, traditionally used to study the Bible or other classical books. Such endeavors of course are worth our appreciation. Undoubtedly, they can yield interesting results, i.e. new insights, the same way as when a Chinese or Japanese scholar reads some famous page from the Bible and, thanks to his/her cultural background, brings forth some novel insight, which Western people never thought of. In certain cases, however, these new results leave us perplexed, because they are built on shaky ground or on circular arguments.

        Hereby, I especially feel the urge to express my disagreement with the view of several authors regarding the last book of Analects (Analects 20). The purpose of this article is not to offer a detailed and exhaustive commentary of Analects 20, something that would require much more space and work. I just wish to express the reasons for my disagreement with the opinions of certain Western exegetes about this chapter, which they downgrade to “the aborted beginning of a chapter” (The Brooks)[1], or to a “hodgepodge of archaic quotations and a reiteration of trite sayings.”[2] On the contrary, after careful reading of the book in question, and aided by the annotations of numerous valuable Chinese scholars, I have become convinced that Analects 20 deserves to be viewed in a totally different light. It is not the aborted beginning of a chapter; on the contrary, despite its brevity, it is a very rich and meaningful book, and undoubtedly a worthy (and meditated) conclusion to Analects.

   
A Commonly Held View

        It is a fact that Book 20 consists of three chapters only, as compared with twenty or thirty chapters on average for the other books.[3] From this fact to asserting that there is something very wrong about it, or better that it is incomplete, the step is quite easy. In fact, even though the Brooks’ is certainly the most detailed and sophisticated downgrading of Analects 20, the idea that Book 20 is an insignificant beginning of a further chapter that was never written is not new.

In his annotated edition of Analects, Robert Eno notes that Book 20 “is a short, atypical book that many regard as a late appendix of miscellaneous material.”[4] This, after all, is an idea coming from earlier commentators. Simon Leys wrote – attributing the comment to D.C. Lau – that “for the most part, section 20.1 is a patchwork of ill-connected archaic fragments, which are somewhat related in their language and contents to the Book of Documents.” (p. 211)

In recent years, the most large-scale work on Analects was done by the duo of American scholars E. Bruce Brooks and A. Takeo Brooks (here below just called “the Brooks”).[5]

In a Prefatory Note, dated 2001, the Brooks thus describe their view:

Our present LY 20 is really two chapters. One is a composition in the style of an ancient Shu document (LY 20:1), which, whatever its original purpose may have been, was not meant to be an Analects chapter. It was probably bundled with the Analects text when it was hastily hidden in the wall of Confucian Headquarters in the year 0249. In TOA, we have treated this extraneous piece as an interpolation in LY 19 (see p192). Here, for simplicity of reference, it and the following LY 20:2-3 are brought together. The Analects text, as later recovered from the Headquarters wall, did begin a new chapter at our LY 20:2, and thus, counting 20:1 as a separate unit, had 21 rather than 20 chapters. This distinction is important for the history of the text, though it is something of a problem for a smooth translation of the text. The other is the few remaining passages, our 20:2-3, which were the beginning, albeit the abortive beginning, of a chapter which the School did not last long enough to see realized.[6]

20:3. This passage was added to the school text (and hence was found in that text when it was recovered in Han from the wall of the Analects Headquarters in Lu), but it had not been memorized by the school's students (and hence was not included in the Analects as taken down from the memory of one of those students in early Han). These, then, were the last moments in the life of the Confucian School of Lu. How shall we imagine these last lines to have been written? The acceptance of Fate might be a realization of how constrained were the possibilities of the Analects group under imminent threat of extinction, along with Lu itself, by Chu armies. The emphasis on li could be an accommodation to life as it would have to be lived under the Age of Sywndz, the philosopher of li, an age which even before the final conquest was already upon them. But the final clause, about interactions among colleagues, seems to suggest that we have here just one more guideline for the standard virtues in standard situations. We should probably conclude, then, that Confucian thought ended not with a bang of new ideas, whether efficacious or not, but with a whimper of reiteration. Our original note pointed to the degree of advancement over the position taken in the earliest Confucius saying, LY 4:1. We now ask about its adequacy to the challenge of the year 0249. It was not enough; nothing would have been enough. But the end might have had more intellectual distinction than we feel safe in attributing to this saying.

        Simply stated, according to the Brooks’ conclusions:

a)     Analects 20 is not one book, but two.

b)  What is now chapter 1 (20.1) was a separate book; it has nothing to do with Analects.

c)  Chapters 2 and 3 were the aborted incipit of a new book, interrupted by a military and political upheaval – the invasion of the Chu army - that destroyed the School of Confucius in his home town of Qufu forever (249 BCE). Faced with the imminent invasion of the Chu army, the teachers and pupils of the school (according to the Brooks’ surmise) hid their works – up to what had been written down at that moment – inside the walls of Confucius’ house.

I strongly disagree with all this downgrading of Analects 20. My disagreement is based on considerations about its structure and content, as well as about its essential message. I express here below, in a few brief points, my opinion first on the general structure of Analects, and then on Analects 20.

 
General Considerations
         
An ancient book                                                                                                                    
Analects is very ancient; it is 400-500 years older than the Four Gospels. Due to this fact, it is already somewhat impressive that we can understand most of it. It is often quite difficult to make sure the exact meaning of each single word or sentence and the exactness of each historical detail. This is no reason to doubt everything.[7]         Due to such a long stretch of time, and so many historical vicissitudes, nobody is willing to exclude the presence of copying mistakes, interpolations, or mishaps in the transmission of the text. This is no ground for suggesting that large portions of it were written at a much later age, or that the order of the text should be totally overhauled and rearranged, or that most of it has nothing to do with the historical Confucius.

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we should cherish the information ancient writers left to us. Nearness in time is not guarantee of superior reliability; however, nobody can ignore the fact that, say, Han scholars had in their hands numerous written materials, which we do not have, or which came down to us only in fragments. The relative bibliographical statement by Ban Gu (Hanshu yiwenzhi) might be the closest to reality, when he says that: “Analects (Lunyu) is made up of replies of Confucius to queries of his disciples or other contemporaries, or of conversations among his disciples, where one hears them reporting words of their master.”[8] Consequently, except for some isolated characters or cases, I would be for considering the materials of Analects as belonging to the first two generations after Confucius (i.e. his disciples and/or his disciples’ disciples), even though the actual final compilation of a complete book perhaps was completed another bit later.[9]

Disorderly order                                                                                                                           
The content of Analects is disorganized on purpose. Whoever takes the Lunyu in his hands and starts reading, will immediately realize that its content is disorganized. Any attempt to find a connecting logic among the various books and chapters has defied all efforts. This has given reason for certain exegetes to suspect the interpolation of passages (i.e. chapters) or even of large lumps of material into a previous archaic composition. Last of these has been the work of the Brooks, with a total reorganization of Analects and the attribution of most of its content to much later authors (for the Brooks, gradually along a span of around 230 years), definitely not to Confucius’ immediate disciples and their own disciples.             
In my opinion, the disorganized nature of Analects can, on the contrary, be seen as a strong proof of its antiquity and authenticity. It seems obvious to me that whoever in later centuries added big lumps of materials, or shifted chapters back and forth, could and would have for sure rearranged the material in a more logical and ideological order, instead of keeping the original hodge-podge collection of sayings, many unrelated with each other, with numerous repetitions or quasi-repetitions.[10] The content of Analects was preserved in such a condition exactly because of the deep reverence those people felt for the original arrangement of the collection (a collection of written notes or oral recollections, or both, from various disciples), and especially for the actual words of Confucius.
 
The accretion theory is just a hypothesis
For their research on Analects, the Brooks have declaredly relied on Cui Shu (1740-1816), the Qing Dynasty scholar famous for large scale research on Analects, who considered that around 70% of the content of Analects was spurious (Lau 161). Cui Shu was viewed with veneration by the like of Hu Shi (1891-1962) and Gu Jiegang (1893-1980). However, the age of the Antiquity Doubters is long gone, and Cui Shu has also been known as a “compulsive doubter.”[11] We certainly need to take a new, not so heavily suspicious, approach to that ancient piece of writing called Analects.[12]

The fact that Analects has reached us in its state of disorganization of content is in itself a strong proof that it was done in that way. The various disciples, witnesses to Confucius’ daily lectures and conversations, contributed their notes and recollections, and their contributions were collected as they were. There was of course some criterion, which now we can only guess.[13] Out of veneration for the sayings of Confucius, nobody in later times dared to touch them, or eliminate repetitious passages.[14] If, as Brooks would have us to believe, so many people later in time did put their hands and freely shifted passages and added materials at leisure, why was not its content arranged in a logical and easily intelligible order? It would have been an easy job for someone of the supposed compilers of later ages, even easier if an abundant portion of the materials came from their hands. If large portions of Analects are late accretions, and numerous chapters were moved forward or backward, for sure somebody would have done it, would have straightened up their logical order. On the contrary, in my view, in later generations veneration for Confucius was so high, that nobody dared to alter the original arrangement of chapters and sentences (except for isolated instances [i.e. probable interpolations] and obvious copying mistakes).[15]

Before the Brooks, D. C. Lau also took the lead from Cui Shu for saying that the last 5 books of Analects belong together in a group definitely later in time than the other 15 books. Noting that in Cui Shu this was just a succinct statement, D. C. Lau wishes to face it in greater detail, so as to finally show that Cui Shu’s conclusion is “incontrovertible.” (Lau 222) Lau then spends several pages (pp. 222-227) on various philological arguments, however interspersed with numerous “if this is the case”, “probably”, and many other “if”, which evidently point to a chain of conjectures. In fact, his conclusion is not laid down in “incontrovertible” words, since he writes (underlines are mine): “We have now examined a number of features which link parts of the last five books to one another and which show that they probably shared a common origin, and we have seen that some of these features signify a later date.” (p. 227)

To sum up my opinion, I would say that the accretion theory is not the ultimate truth about the structure of Analects. It is an interesting hypothesis, but just a hypothesis to work on in the future. The Brooks have brought to it a good deal of historical data, but also a good deal of guesswork, so that in the end it is hard to feel persuaded by it.
 
Structure and Content of Analects 20
        Even though the structure of Analects is purposely disorganized, and there must have been, as I just suggested, practical or ideological, external or internal, criteria for the arrangement of the material, it is reasonable to suppose that some kind of suitable ending was foreseen and considered. This is in my opinion the role played by Analects 20.

It might have been that the contributions of Zizhang were appended exactly at the end because the last portion of them was quite suitable for playing the role of a conclusion to the whole work. In fact, Book 19 is (in large part) coming from Zhizhang. Analects 20 as well, as An. 20.2 openly mentions.

Analects 20 is made up of three chapters:

CHAPTER ONE is a series of quotations from the Book of Documents (Shujing). As we know, the Book of Documents is itself a book on political matters. It is not strange that it shows up here with a flood of quotations. The Book of Documents was arguably the most important textbook in the school run by Confucius (we could name it Confucius’ Institute of Political Science). The basic political doctrine of Confucius is drawn from these ancient documents. It is therefore not surprising to find here a collection of quotations from it.[16]

        When reading one of the first lines of the Records of the Historian by Sima Qian (who himself aspired most to emulate Confucius) “Instead of recording it in empty words...,” one feels like entering the mind of Confucius. Confucius did not like to talk about ming (human destiny); he preferred to speak of it through historical records and historical facts, such as these reported here in the Book of Documents. If viewed under this light, the list of quotations of this page of Analects come alive and become more meaningful.

        Moreover, the five passages from the Book of Documents listed in this place should not even be considered Confucius’ favorite passages, those passages, which Confucius – especially in his old age – would cherish to repeatedly recite and comment upon. In my opinion, they rather should be considered as ‘reference quotations’, i.e. as cues for whole pages or sections of the captioned Classic.[17]
        Analects 20.1 touches on an extremely important part of the teachings of Confucius, the section dealing with the origin of political power. The first chapter in a treatise on political philosophy would be: where does power come from? Why certain people happen to rule over the human community? It is a political question involving philosophical and theological views, involving the whole weltanschauung of a person. As I already mentioned, it is not my plan to write a commentary of Book 20; but I cannot refrain from pointing out that the harvest of political concepts and doctrines to be gathered from those pages of the book of Documents is simply enormous. It includes at least the following main points:

1.       Political power comes from Heaven. Whoever is at the head of a country is in that position due to the appointment of Heaven.

2.       The appointment of Heaven to rule a country comes to a human being through various ways. One may be chosen to succeed in ruling by the reigning monarch, or else by family inheritance, or through a revolution, military invasion, etc.[18]

3.       Confucius did not hide his preference for the succession through choice from the previous monarch, who at a certain point decides to abdicate and hand the position to a chosen person (chosen because of his outstanding virtue).[19] [20]

4.       Two concepts dominate the passages (and the Book of History itself). One is the “stewardship” concept as the foundation of the very existence and meaning of rulership. The second concept is that “Heaven sees through the eyes of the people, Heaven hears through the ears of the people.” So, in Confucius mind, everything comes from Heaven. Political power as well as the social organization of government is something that is Heaven-ordained.

5.       In such a world-view, we do not find ourselves in a theocratic system of government, but in a highly religious attitude toward life and politics. We are not at the level of modern Western style democracy, but we find the minben (people-first) principle clearly stated.

6.       The importance of this page of Analects is not to be underestimated. It was a crucial source of political debate for centuries and millennia in China. We can recall a page from the Records of the Historian (Shiji) by Sima Qian. It reports an argument between Master Yuan Gu, a Confucian scholar appointed an erudite at the court of the Han Emperor Jing, and a certain Master Huang (a Daoist scholar) in the presence of Emperor Jing:
“King Tang, the founder of the Shang Dynasty, and King Wu, the founder of Zhou, did not receive any ‘mandate of Heaven’ to do what they did,” declared Master Huang. “They simply assassinated their sovereigns and set up their own dynasties!” “That is not so!” protested Master Yuan Gu. “Jie, the last ruler of the Xia, and Zou, the last ruler of the Shang, were both cruel tyrants, and the people of the empire turned away from them in their hearts and gave their allegiance to Tang and Wu. Tang and Wu were acting in accordance with the hearts of the empire when they overthrew and punished Jie and Zhou. The subjects of Jie and Zhou refused to serve them any longer, but gave their allegiance to Tang and Wu, who had no other choice than to set up their own dynasties. Is this not what it means to receive the mandate of Heaven?”    

Hereby, it appears that the content of Analects 20.1 is at the center of the debate. The argument continues further, with lively notes from both sides, until the Emperor himself puts a stop to it, saying that such an argument is dangerous.[21]
 In all the above, I find enough ground to reject the idea that this portion of Analects 20 was bundled together with the Analects text by mistake, as the Brooks would have us believe. It was just a too important witness and proof of the content of Confucius’ political teachings not to be brought out in Analects, yet at the conclusion of it.

II. CHAPTER TWO is a double list (of do and don’t) of the typical virtues and policies of an ideal ruler. In Analects one can find all of them, scattered through the various conversations. Here they are recapped and forming a condensed list: the Five avoid, and the Four Pursue.
 
Zizhang asked Confucius: “How does one qualify to govern?” The Master said: “He who cultivates the five treasures and eschews the four evils is fit to govern.” Zizhang said: “What are the five treasures?” The Master said: “A gentleman is generous without having to spend; he makes people work without making them groan; he has ambition but no rapacity; he has authority but no arrogance; he I stern but not fierce.” Zizhang said: “How can one be ‘generous without having to spend’?” The Master said: “If you let the people pursue what is beneficial for them, aren’t you being generous without having to spend? If you make people work only on tasks that are reasonable, who will groan? If your ambition is humanity, and if you accomplish humanity, what room is there left for rapacity? A gentleman treats equally the many and the few, the humble and the great, he gives the same attention to all: has he not authority without arrogance? A gentleman dresses correctly, his gaze is straight, people look at him with awe: is he not stern without being fierce?”

Zizhang said: “What are the four evils?” The Master said: “Terror, which rests on ignorance and murder. Tyranny, which demands results without proper warning. Extortion, which is conducted through contradictory orders. Bureaucracy, which begrudges people their rightful entitlements.”

It would be worthwhile to analyze all the words of this text and to compare them with the other similar content of Analects. Hereby, I simply wish to stress that this is a general recap of Confucius’ teachings. These same teachings appear in numerous other passages in Analects, numerous enough to consider this passage as almost a kind of summary. For a better understanding of this section of Analects it would also be useful and important to examine further who Zizhang was.

III. CHAPTER THREE is made up of just three lines, which happen to be also the last three lines of Analects. It is a finale of the final chapter. The three lines seem to me to be a meditated conclusion (a grand finale!) to the whole work of Analects. There could not be a more concise – but yet more profound and suitable - recap of the whole contents of Confucius’ teachings than the final three lines of Analects 20:

·           Confucius said: He who does not understand fate is incapable of behaving like a gentleman.

·           He who does not understand the rites is incapable of taking his stand.

·           He who does not understand words is incapable of understanding men. (transl. Simon Leys, p. 101)

On this very concise chapter, the Brooks’ opinion, as mentioned above, is that it was added in “the last moments in the life of the Confucian School of Lu,” in 249 BCE.[22] I find no reason to attribute these last three lines to a later age (yet, to over two centuries later), when they fit so well at the end of Analects! Again, contrary to the Brooks’ opinion, I find no reason to imagine that they were not memorized by the school’s students, given that they are powerfully dense in meaning, but extremely simple and parallel sentences. If there ever was a passage suitable for memorizing, this was it!
 
20.3.1  The first of the three lines concerns fate: He who does not understand fate is incapable of behaving like a gentleman. The Brooks comment: How shall we imagine these last lines to have been written? The acceptance of Fate might be a realization of how constrained were the possibilities of the Analects group under imminent threat of extinction, along with Lu itself, by Chu armies. In my opinion, it is not the case here to imagine hearing the sad sighs of the Confucian School’s headmaster facing the demise of the Lu state and of the School as well, and hearing armed soldiers pressing at the gate of his compound. Fate (ming) is a basic component of Confucius’ weltanschauung. It was a great personal inner achievement for him, when he finally – at age 50 - understood it (An. II, 4). It was also a basic part, and a leitmotiv, of his teachings. Fate involves the whole religious and political thought of Confucius. Think of Tianming (Heaven’s will); think of the decree of Heaven about who should become ruler, about which is the mission entrusted to a ruler, and so forth. Why relegate thic concept to a later age, to two centuries later?

In other words, Confucius states that a man who does not know ming (fate) -- i.e. who does not know that the throne belongs to a person due to Heaven’s will, and that the charge is accompanied by a serious responsibility and mission (to distinguish between good and bad, and to rectify human behavior in order to bring about a just and happy social life) -- is not adequately prepared (is not fit) for a role in politics.

In this line, actually, one finds not one but two key words of the Confucian weltanschauung, namely fate (ming) and gentleman (junzi). The gentleman (junzi) is the human ideal espoused by Confucius. In the line of the political training offered by Confucius, it is the ideal character of a person qualified for political responsibility. To be a junzi is the prerequisite for a person to be qualified to occupy a political position.
 
20.3.2      Now comes the second line, which concerns rites or propriety (li): He who does not understand the rites is incapable of taking his stand. This is another backbone of Confucius’ teaching activity. He was a rite specialist. He had traveled near and far to learn about the correct rites of antiquity (and the correct political and religious ideology, inherited from the ancients, going together with them).

Regarding this line, Brooks notes: The emphasis on li could be an accommodation to life as it would have to be lived under the Age of Sywndz, the philosopher of li, an age which even before the final conquest was already upon them. Everybody knows that Xunzi (Sywndz in Brooks’ graphs) stressed the importance of rites. Is this a sufficient reason to sell this line as belonging to the age of Xunzi? Not really. Rites are a dominating theme in Xunzi’s philosophy, but they were equally important two centuries earlier, when Confucius was alive.

20.3.2 states that whoever is not cultivated in rituals is not able to rule. In Confucius’ mind, rites were not just external perfunctory actions. Knowledge of rituals implied knowledge of correct human behavior, ethics, political institutions, laws. It can be read also with a meaning closer to personal character, such as An. VIII, 8: “Steady your course with ritual.” Yang Bojun interprets: “Rites make me stand (li) in social life.” Chichung Huang translates the sentence as “Establish yourself with Rituals,” to mean that Confucius here is mentioning the Book of Rites. This is quite pertinent; it even leads us to think that the last three lines of Analects could well be a reference to the three main textbooks used in Confucius’ school: the Book of Documents, the Book of Rites, and the Book of Poetry. An interesting consideration indeed!
 
20.3.3      Then we come to the last line (the last line of ch. 20, and also last of the whole Analects!), that about ‘knowing words’: He who does not understand words is incapable of understanding men. Understanding men is an important quality in a candidate, a must for a person entering a political career. If one does not understand words, he cannot understand men. If one cannot understand men, how would he/she be a capable political leader? How will he/she be able to evaluate what people tell him/her? How could he/she take the right decisions? How could he/she understand which man is suitable for which job or responsibility in the government of a country?

In this sentence, for ‘understanding words’ Confucius implies a good degree of humanistic culture, of literary ability, so as to be able to understand words (either spoken or written), knowledge of humanae litterae which would empower a man (a junzi) to understand his subjects as well as all other fellow human beings.

Brooks views this final line as trivial and insignificant. Confucian thought should have ended “in a bang of new ideas.” Instead, “The final clause, about interactions among colleagues, seems to suggest that we have here just one more guideline for the standard virtues in standard situations. We should probably conclude, then, that Confucian thought ended not with a bang of new ideas, whether efficacious or not, but with a whimper of reiteration. Our original note pointed to the degree of advancement over the position taken in the earliest Confucius’ saying, LY 4:1. We now ask about its adequacy to the challenge of the year 0249. It was not enough; nothing would have been enough. But the end might have had more intellectual distinction than we feel safe in attributing to this saying.[23]

No need to recall that “knowing words” (zhi yan) is an important goal in Confucius’ teaching. Literary education, rhetoric, logic are all precious preconditions to knowing “what is in man,” so that “one who does not know speech has no way of knowing men.” (transl. Chichung Huang). Hereby, what is meant is not “knowing the language” (that too of course needs to be known, it is a preparatory step). The point is the ability to know what is in people’s minds. In the Confucian logic vocabulary, yan means judgments, propositions. But this is still the rudimentary step; in the Confucian way of speaking, understanding words and sentences/statements of people is just a way to reach an understanding of the character of the person who is speaking (what kind of human being is he/she? what is in his/her heart?).

The best explanation of what “knowing words” means is to be found in the book of Mencius:
 
Gongsun Chou asks Mencius: “What do you mean by saying that you understand words (zhi yan). He replies: “When words are one-sided, I know how the mind of the speaker is clouded over. When words are extravagant, I know how the mind is fallen and sunk. When words are all-depraved, I know how the mind has departed from principle. When words are evasive, I know how the mind is at its wit’s end. These evils growing in the mind, do injury to government, and, displayed in the government, are hurtful to the conduct of affairs.” (Transl. Legge, 2A, 2:17)

As one can see, “knowing words” is a basic requisite for a candidate to a position of leadership in a nation.
So, the last three sentences bring us to view a recollection of the whole curriculum of Confucius’ subjects of teaching. We know that Confucius was competent, to a certain degree, in all the six subjects of the ancient aristocratic learning curriculum: theology-philosophy (ming), rites-laws-institutions (li), and literary-oratorical ability (yan). At the same time, they refer to the textbooks used by Confucius. Ancient traditions credited Confucius with compiling the Book of Documents (Ming), the Book of Rites (Li), and the Book of Odes (Yan). From the rich (and perhaps seriously disorganized) collection of documents inherited from antiquity, he selected the most meaningful of them and used them to expound what he considered the most precious core of ancient wisdom, either in the field of government (Book of Documents), or of rituals (Book of Rites), or of refined literary accomplishments (Book of Odes). We are not sure Confucius did all these compilations, but we are sure that he was teaching these subjects to his disciples.

Conclusion

If Analects consist of a collection of random notes taken by the best students of the political science course taught by Confucius, Analects 20 (the last chapter) is a good summary of that course. It is made up of three parts, which correspond to the three sections of the content of the course.

The first part (quotes from the Book of Documents) deals with the origin of political power. Where does political power come from? Confucius’ doctrine is that power is invested in an individual, but originates in Heaven. Political power is Heaven-ordained. It comes to an individual through the choice-decision of a former ruler, as in the case of Shun and Yu, or through fighting (military invasion, revolution, and the like), as a felt mission to redress wrong situations.

The second part deals with the actual exercise of power. What policies are to be implemented in order to attain good government? The four things to do and the four things not to do, things that are mentioned passim in many places of Analects.

The third part is the shortest, but also the most pregnant with meaning. It can be viewed also as a final recap in itself of the whole studying curriculum in Confucius’ school. Three bare-boned but quite concise and complete sentences describe the three fundamental qualities every promising young aspiring politician must have in order to qualify for his job: understanding of Heaven’s ordinances; knowledge of rituals (the li), of those wise policies consecrated by laws and traditions, which however may be changed when circumstances require it for the well-being of the people; knowledge of words (literary culture and others), which enables a man to grasp the meaning of the speech of various people (and avoid mistakes in the choice of officials and in other momentous decisions).

        After all the observations of the previous pages, it should be clear enough that Analects 20 appears to me as a rich summary of the whole ideology attributed to Confucius. Therefore, it cannot be considered a worthless collection of senseless quotations; neither do we find any ground to envision it as a doomed beginning of a normal-length book of Analects, truncated by the sudden invasion of the Chu army in 249 BCE.[24]

As the other 19 books, Analects 20 is a contribution from some disciple or disciples, from notes taken down while learning from Confucius (or remembered from his lessons and jotted down after Confucius’ death). I believe it was put at the end of Analects just because it works as a marvelous recap of Confucius’ teachings. In my opinion, Analects 20 is a recap not just of the book titled Analects, but also of the whole teaching career of Confucius. What Confucius loved to explain and hand down to his disciples is recorded throughout all the 19 books of Analects, and is recapped again in its essence in Book 20, a summary presentation, which is quite well-rounded and complete in itself. It goes from the theory of the origin of political power (Heaven mandate, human responsibility) to the actual practice of the art of rulership; it ends with three concise but powerful lines about the basic qualities (three musts) needed to enter political office in a worthy and dignified way. Even though we have no way to prove it, the last three lines of Analects are a final note for his pupils, a note so powerful in its concision that one is tempted to think of them as ipsissima verba from Confucius’ mouth.
  

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL HINTS

Ames, Roger T. and Rogemont, Henry Jr., The Analects of Confucius, A Philosophical Translation, New York, Ballantine Books, The Random House, 1998.

Brooks, E. Bruce, and Brooks, A. Taeko, The Original Analects, Sayings of Confucius and His Successors, New York, Columbia University Press, 1997.

Huang, Chichung, The Analects of Confucius, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.

Leys, Simon, The Analects of Confucius, New York: Norton & Co., 1997.

Qian, Mu, Lunyu xin jie (a new explanation of Analects), Taipei, San Min Book Co., 1978 (4th ed.)

Van Norden, Bryan, ed., Confucius and the Analects, New Essays, Oxford University Press, 2002.

And also works by James Legge, D. C. Lau, Makeham, John Robert Eno, Arthur Waley, Xiao Gongquan, etc.
 

[1] See here below, note 6 (Brooks, LY20 Supplement).
[2] A. Waley states that Book 20 “has not necessarily anything to do with the beliefs of Confucius,” (The Analects of Confucius, Introduction, p. 18), and that “it (the first part of Book 20) has no intrinsic connection with the rest;...it consists of stray sentences from works of the Shujing type.” (p.21)
[3] Apart from Book 20, Book 18 is the shortest with 11 chapters. Book 16 has 14 chapters. Book 1 has 16 chapters. Books 14 and 15 are the longest, with 44 and 42 chapters respectively. All the other books have between twenty and thirty chapters, while Book 9 has 31 chapters, and Book 7 has 38 chapters.
[4]
[5] See their main work: The Original Analects, Sayings of Confucius and His Successors, New York, Columbia University Press, 1997, and subsequent supplements and publications from the institution they have set up (The University of Massachusetts Warring States Project).
[6] Supplement to the Original Analects, by E. Bruce and A. Taeko Bruce, see http://www.umass.edu/wsp/toa/chapter/20.html#p3 of December 25, 2010.
[7] Without serious evidence, we are not allowed to attribute passages or even chapters to a later age. One example: the appellation used for Confucius (zi, or fuzi, or Kongzi, or Zhongni) has sometimes been used as a decisive criterion for assigning each passage to a different age in history and of course to a different hand. The criterion is not totally but fairly groundless, given that all these appellations were in use when Confucius was alive, perhaps with some slightly different nuance of meaning that escapes today’s readers. Appellations may vary from a person to another, even of the same age; words used by a person may be different from those used by another person. One should not forget that Analects is a collection of the contributions of several disciples (several hands).
[8] History of the Former Han Dynasty, .... (Hanshu yiwenzhi)
[9] It is hard to determine when exactly the written collection (or collections) was finally terminated, but it is not convenient to put it at a much later date. If it belongs to a later age, definitely it would have been written in another way.
[10] The book of Guanzi is a typical case for this. It belongs with clear evidence to different ages, even though some original core was from the times of Guan Zhong (720-645 BCE), the famous minister of Qi. This book is arranged in neatly completed chapters, each with a title.
[11] See, for instance, the comments of Qian Mu in Kongzi zhuan [The Biography of Confucius], Zonghe yuekan she, Taipei, 1975, pp. 127-135. I would consider compulsive doubters those who, when approaching ancient documents, start from the assumption that everything in those documents is problematic, if not utterly false.
[12] The conclusions reached by the Brooks are hardly acceptable, given that they are grounded, as I said, on abundant historical data materials unfortunately combined together with conjectures and circular arguments. One example: The Brooks’ main opus (The Original Analects) starts by mentioning that numerous ancient books, such as the Guanzi or the Zhuangzi, have widely been acknowledged as works of accretion (they were neither from the same hand, nor from the same age, but built up along several centuries). Ergo (this is the Brooks’ conclusion, which becomes an axiom for further inferences), also Analects is a work of accretion, the result of at least two centuries of additions. My impression is that Analects is, on the contrary, at least to a certain extent, a work of decretion: originally there were numerous contributions from disciples, recollecting sayings from their Master. These were collated in longer or shorter editions. The edition that came down to us is in 20 books. The Qi Lunyu had twenty-two books. There might have been other, even longer, editions, we do not know of. The present 20-book work that came down to us as compiled by Yan Shu during the Han Dynasty is itself an instance of decretion.
[13] A possible criterion might have been the time order of delivery of the contributions, or else the seniority or status of the various disciples who contributed, or some other reason. I strongly appreciate the opinion of Bryan Van Norden, who believes that there could have been a clear ideological purpose on the side of Confucius: “Kongzi is not interested in giving us a neat, tightly organized worldview, because he does not think that reality is neat and tightly organized.” (“The Dao of Kongzi” in Asian Philosophy, Gale Group, November 2002, p. 157).
[14] Repetitious passages (or quasi-repetitious ones) are a further proof for the antiquity of the text. One can refer to the exegetical work on the Synoptic Gospels, in order to study the reasons for the presence of repetitious passages. In the case of the three Synoptic Gospels, the repetitions are found in three separate texts, where variants hint at a different writing purpose, audience, or place of compilation. In the case of Analects, repetitions are found in the same work, due to respect for the text, and of course as a witness to different authors (recollections of the same saying by different disciples of Confucius, etc.). A study of the difference between the compilation of the Synoptic Gospels and Analects could yield interesting observations.
[15] Truly, the accretion theory creates more problems than it solves them. In fact, if the theory is true, it would mean that many portions of Analects were not Confucius’ sayings, but other people’ sayings. This would just shift the problem: who was the author (or who were the authors) of the other sayings? Were there numerous other persons endowed with the same moral character as Confucius (something hard to believe, except perhaps for Zengzi, said to be also the author of the Great Learning). It becomes a literary case somewhat similar to the Homeric Question.
[16] (According to the Qi Analects, which are arranged in 21 Books, this chapter was apart from the rest of Analects 20; it was a book in itself. To reserve a separate book for it was it perhaps an act of respect due to the sacredness of the ancient Classic)? It could be.
[17] The situation is very much like numerous quotations from the Old Testament as found in the New Testament. They are not meant to be simple quotation; they rather are ‘reference quotations.’ For instance, when Jesus Christ at his last trial is asked: ”Are you the Messiah?”, he replies by quoting a line from the book of the prophet Daniel: “I tell you that from this time onward you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.“(Matthew, 26: 64; Daniel, 7: 13). Hereby, Jesus Christ obviously is not referring to that exact line of Daniel; he is referring to the whole chapter 7 of Daniel (if not to the whole section of the chapters 7-12 of Daniel, which are a unit by themselves, and describe at length the eschatological coming of the Messiah). Another similar instance is that of the last words of Jesus Christ on the cross before dying: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew, 27: 46; Mark, 15: 34) Far from a sudden cry of despair, they are just the first line of Psalm 22, a long psalm, which Jesus Christ, as any other devout Jew of his time, knew by heart and often recited as a prayer. Putting the first line of this psalm on Jesus’ mouth is very intentional. In fact, that psalm ends in a note of hope in the power of God, who will not abandon his chosen one and will give him eternal life. It is to be noted that eternal life after death was a recurrent theme in Jesus’ teachings.
[18] This is implied in the listing together of the earlier sage emperors Yao (who chose his successor) and Shun (who in his turn also chose his own successor), with Yu the Great (who was succeeded by his son (not of his choice, but by will of the people), and then Tang and Wu the founders of the Shang and Zhou (who achieved the throne by means of a war of conquest).
[19]We of course would object that such a system has a serious flaw: it tends to perpetuate tyrannical regimes, where a tyrant chooses one who will continue his line and his grip on the population. For Confucius, this is out of the question. In fact, in his frame of thought (illustrated even more openly in Mencius’ theory of tyrannicide), a man who rules irresponsibly is already unpopular with the community and hated by Heaven. He is already illegitimate, nothing else but a usurper. He has no right to rule.
[20] The first of the quotations from the Book of Documents refers to Yao. Confucius always shows a total approval of Yao, who started succession by appointment (An. VIII, 19) On the contrary, regarding Wu, the founder of the Zhou Dynasty who acquired power through force (military conquest) Confucius is not critical, but less enthusiastic, as drawn from his total admiration for the Coronation Hymn of Yao and partial admiration for the Military Hymn of Wu (An. III, 25)
[21] See Records of the Grand Historian of China, transl. by Burton Watson, vol. II, pp. 403-404, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. The book of Zhuangzi mentions a conversation (perhaps imaginary) between Zigong, an outstanding disciple of Confucius, and Laodan (i.e. Laozi): Zigong said: “The Three August Ones and the Five Emperors ruled the world in ways that were not the same, though they were alike in the praise and acclaim they won. I am told, Sir, that you alone do not regard them as sages. May I ask why?” Lao Tan said, “Young man, come a little closer! Why do you say that they ruled in ways that were not the same?” “Yao ceded the throne to Shun, and Shun ceded it to Yu. Yu wore himself out over it, and Tang even resorted to war. King Wen obeyed Zhou [of the Shang] and did not dare to rebel; but his son King Wu turned against Zhou and refused to remain loyal. Therefore I say that they were not the same.” Lao Tan said, “Young man, come a little closer and I will tell you how the Three August Ones and the Five Emperors ruled the world...” In several places, the book of Zhuangzi looks like the author was musing on some passage from Confucius’ Analects. In this place it could be that the author was meditating on An. 20.1, that is on Confucius’ theory of Heaven’s destiny and how political power is invested in various cases in different ways in history. The page continues by expounding Zhuangzi’s theory about it, which is as usual quite apart from the doctrines of Confucius, until at the end “Zigong, stunned and speechless, stood wandering which way to turn.” (The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, Transl. by Burton Watson, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970, p. 164)
[22] This passage was added to the school text (and hence was found in that text when it was recovered in Han from the wall of the Analects Headquarters in Lu), but it had not been memorized by the school's students (and hence was not included in the Analects as taken down from the memory of one of those students in early Han). These, then, were the last moments in the life of the Confucian School of Lu.
[23] Supplement to the Original Analects, Op. cit.
[24] By the way, did the invasion of the Chu army really affect the center of Confucian studies, as not just suggested but taken for granted by the Brooks? What is the historical evidence? Ancient relics of Analects have been found in the reign of Chu, yet in the tomb of the royal instructor. This is something that should tell us that the Chu rulers valued Analects highly. Why should they feel the need to destroy the school run in the Lu capital by the descendants of Confucius?

Nessun commento: