Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T04:00:25.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confucian Commentary and Chinese Intellectual History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2010

Daniel K. Gardner
Get access

Extract

As early as the han dynasty, exegetes of the texts in the Confucian canon were preparing written commentary on them, and by the dynasty's end they were interspersing their glosses in the body of these texts as interlinear, running commentary. From this time on, few Chinese would have read any classic from the canon without commentarial companion. And, as Confucianism came to be identified over the course of the imperial period with the Chinese cultural tradition par excellence, the writing of interlinear commentary on the canon of texts became a standard, even dominant, mode of scholarly and philosophical discourse for Chinese literati. It was in commentary that these men would offer their reflections on the meaning of Confucian doctrine as it had evolved through the centuries and attempt to construct a philosophical or moral vision meaningful in a world far removed from that of the classical age.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , May 1998 , pp. 397 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Balazs, Etienne. 1964. “Nihilistic Revolt or Mystical Escapism.” In Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy, translated by Wright, H. M.. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brokaw, Cynthia J. 1994. “Tai Chen and Learning in the Confucian Tradition.” In Education and Society in Late Imperial China, 1600–1900, edited by Elman, Benjamin and Woodside, Alexander. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cherniack, Susan. 1994. “Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54(1):5–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung-Shu, Chin. 1964. “Pei-Sung k'o-chü chih-tu yen-chiu (shang).” Hsin-ya hsueh-pao 6(1):205–81.Google Scholar
Chung-Hsin, Cho. 1969. Lun-yü Ho-shih chi-chieh Chu-tzu chi-chu pi-chiao yen-chiu. Taipei: Chia-hsin shu-ni kung-ssu.Google Scholar
Yü-T'ung, Chou. 1983. Chou Yü-t'ung ching-hsüeh shih lun-chu hsüan-chi. Shanghai: Jen-min ch'u-pan she.Google Scholar
Chu-tzu yü-lei. 1880. Ch'uan ching t'ang ed.Google Scholar
Chung-yung. References are to standard chapter and verse numbers. See Legge 1871, vol. 1, The Doctrine of the Mean.Google Scholar
Chung-yung chang-chii. In Ssu-shu chi-chu. Ssu-pu pei-yao.Google Scholar
CTYL. See Chu-tzu yü-lei.Google Scholar
Cutler, Norman. 1992. “Interpreting Tirukkural: The Role of Commentary in the Creation of a Text.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112(4): 549–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bary, Wm. Theodore. 1981. Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
De Bary, Wm. Theodore. 1989. The Message of the Mind in Neo-Confucianism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
De Bary, Wm. Theodore, ed. 1975. The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraade, Steven D. 1991. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Daniel K. 1986. Chu Hsi and the Ta-hsueh: Neo-Confucian Reflection on the Confucian Canon. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Gardner, Daniel K. 1991. “Modes of Thinking and Modes of Discourse in the Sung: Some Thoughts on the Yü-lu (‘Recorded Conversations’) Texts.” The Journal of Asian Studies 50(3):574–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, L. Carrington, ed. 1976. Dictionary of Ming Biography. Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gruenwald, Ithamar. 1993. “Midrash and the ‘Midrashic Condition’: Preliminary Considerations.” In The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, edited by Fishbane, Michael. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Guy, R. Kent. 1987. The Emperor's Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch'ien-Lung Era. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Han shu. Pan Ku. 1962. Peking: Chung-hua shu-chü.Google Scholar
Henderson, John. 1991. Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hervouet, Yves, ed. 1978. A Sung Bibliography. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
Holtz, Barry W. 1984. “Midrash.” In Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, edited by Holtz, Barry W.. New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
Hou Han shu. Fan Yeh. 1965. Peking: Chung-hua shu-chü.Google Scholar
Hui-an hsien-sheng Chu Wen-kung wen-chi. Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an.Google Scholar
Kermode, Frank. 1975. The Classic. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Kieschnick, John. 1992. “Analects 12.1 and the Commentarial Tradition.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112(4):567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramers, R. P. 1986. “The Development of the Confucian Schools.” In The Cambridge History of China, edited by Twitchett, Denis and Loewe, Michael. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramers, R. P., trans. 1950. K'ung Tzu Chia Yü: The School Sayings of Confucius. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas. 1985. Government Education and Examinations in Sung China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
Legge, James, trans. [1871] 1960. The Chinese Classics. 5 vols. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Legge, James, trans. 1885. The Li Ki. Vol. 2 (Vol. 28 In The Sacred Books of the East, edited by Müller, F. Max). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Li chi. 1815. Shih-san ching chu-shu ed.Google Scholar
Lun-yü. [1940] 1966. Harvard-Yenching Sinological Index Series, supplement no. 16. Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center.Google Scholar
Lun-yü chi-chieh. 1815. Shih-san ching chu-shu ed.Google Scholar
Lun-yü chi-chu. In Ssu-shu chi-chu. Ssu-pu pei-yao.Google Scholar
Lynn, Richard, trans. 1994. The Classic of Changes: A New Translation of the I Ching as Interpreted by Wang Bi. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
McMullen, David. 1988. State and Scholars in Tang China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Makeham, John. 1994. Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Makeham, John. 1997. “The Earliest Extant Commentary on Lunyu: Lunyu Zheng shi zhu.” T'oting Pao 83: 260–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsung-Huo, Ma. 1972. Chung-kuo ching-hsüeh shih. Taipei: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Meng-tzu. [1941] 1966. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, supplement no. 17. Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center.Google Scholar
Nylan, Michael. 1994. “The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy in Han Times.” T'oung Pao 80:83–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P'u-Hsien, P'ei. 1969. Ching-hsüeh kai-shu. Taipei: K'ai-ming shu-tien.Google Scholar
Hsi-Jui, P'i. 1974. Ching-hsüeh li-shih. Reprint, Taipei: Ho-lo t'u-shu ch'u-pan she.Google Scholar
Sailey, Jay. 1978. The Master Who Embraces Simplicity: A Study of the Philosopher Ko Hung, A.D. 283–343. San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center, Inc.Google Scholar
Shang shu. 1815. Shih-san ching chu-shu ed.Google Scholar
Smith, Kidder Jr, et al., eds. 1990. Sung Dynasty Uses of the I Ching. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. 1980. “The True Meaning of Scripture: An Empirical Historian's Nonreductionist Interpretation of the Qur'an.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 11(4):487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sui shu. Wei Cheng, et al. 1973. Peking: Chung-hua shu-chü.Google Scholar
Ta-hsüeh. References are to standard chapter and verse numbers. See Gardner 1986 and Legge 1871, Vol. 1, Confucian Analects.Google Scholar
Chün-Jen, Tai. 1981. “Huang K'an Lun-yü i-shu te nei-han ssu-hsiang.” In Lun-Meng yen-chiu lun-chi, edited by Mu, Ch'ien. Taipei: Li-ming wen-hua shih-yeh kung-ssu.Google Scholar
Van Zoeren, Steven. 1991. Poetry and Personality: Reading, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics in Traditional China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hui-Min, Wang. 1981. “Ho Yen Lun-yü chi-chieh k'ao-pien.” In Lun-Meng yen-chiu lun-chi, edited by Mu, Ch'ien. Taipei: Li-ming wen-hua shih-yeh kung-ssu.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Howard J. 1985. Offerings of Jade and Silk: Ritual and Symbol in the Legitimation of the T'ang Dynasty. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, H. R. 1937. Wang An Shih: Chinese Statesman and Educationalist of the Sung Dynasty. Vol. 1. London: Arthur Probsthain.Google Scholar