Daxue and Zhongyong: Bilingual Edition

General Introduction

General Introduction The Daxue 大學 and the Zhongyong 中庸 are two short texts of particular and enduring importance in Confucian philosophy. Despite the vicissitudes of social upheaval and philosophical fashion, they have retained their relevance for almost two millennia and remain, arguably, no less relevant today than when they were first written. They have been variously titled in translation but are probably most familiar in English as “The Great Learning” and “The Doctrine of the Mean” dating from Legge’s translations which first appeared in 1861.1 There have been four distinct periods in the history of these two texts: 1. From their original composition, possibly some time during the Zhou/Warring States period, to their incorporation into the Li ji 禮記 (Rites Record) which probably occurred sometime during the Later or Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 CE).2 2. From their inclusion in the Li ji redaction to their “elevation” to form the “bookends” of the Four Masters or Four Books (the Daxue, the Lunyu or Analects of Confucius, the Mencius and the Zhongyong) by Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) in 1190. 3. From their inclusion in the Four Books, which became the foundation of the official examinations, until the end of the Imperial period: that is, from the end of the twelfth century to the end of the nineteenth century. 4. From the end of the traditional examinations until the present day: that is, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 1 See James Legge, The Chinese Classics, 5 vols. (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 1960), 1:355–81 and 382–434 respectively. Legge subsequently changed the title of the “The Doctrine of the Mean” to “The State of Equilibrium and Harmony” in his 1885 translation of the Li ji (Book of Rites). For a list of other translations of both titles, see Appendix 2, Table 1. 2 A brief account of views on the origin of the Li ji is given in Appendix 1. It must be recognized that there are those who think the initial composition of the two tracts dates from the Han period—see the specific introduction to each text. 2 Daxue and Zhongyong The distinctive features of their existence during each period will be considered before turning to an examination of their content and relevance. The first stage might be deemed a period of obscurity. A traditional, and widely accepted, account of their authorship did emerge but this has remained without either significant supporting evidence or compelling contrary evidence. The putative author of the Daxue is the first generation Confucian disciple Zeng Shen 曾參 (Zengzi, c. 505–437 BCE). This attribution is particularly associated with Zhu Xi. It was Zhu Xi who divided the text into an opening statement by Confucius himself followed by a series of sections of commentary supposedly written by Zengzi. There is, however, no real evidence to support this attribution. Neither of the Li ji commentators makes any mention of Zengzi as the author. The putative author of the Zhongyong is Kong Ji 孔伋 (Zisi, c. 483–402 BCE), the grandson of Confucius and disciple of Zengzi. In this case there is some early written evidence of Zisi’s role, both from the historians Sima Qian 司馬遷 (c. 145–86 BCE) and Ban Gu 班 固 (32–92) and from the Li ji commentators. Although both Zengzi and Zisi have works listed in the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” (Catalogue of Literature),3 neither entry can be identified with, or even certainly linked to the two tracts in question. Further, the recent discoveries of ancient manuscripts at Mawangdui and Guodian, which have particular relevance for the writings of Zisi, have not helped resolve the issue of authorship of either of these two tracts.4 Finally, the problems associated with the identification of Zisi in early writings have recently been examined in detail by Csikszentmihalyi who highlights the complexity of attributing specific works to him.5 In short, the matters of authorship and dating of these two texts remain more or less completely unresolved. What is clear, however, is that readers of the Zhu Xi edition post-1200 are likely, for the most part, to have accepted his views on these points whilst earlier readers presumably at least accepted Zisi’s role in preparing the Zhongyong. The second stage began with the definitive redaction of the Li ji in the Later Han period. Quite quickly commentary was added in the interlinear form, said to have been introduced by Ma Rong 馬融 (79–166) who himself may have prepared a commentary for...