Daxue and Zhongyong: Bilingual Edition

4. Introduction: The Zhongyong

Introduction: The Zhongyong The Zhongyong 中庸 is the longer and more complex of the two chapters taken from the Li ji 禮記 to join with the Lunyu 論語 of Confucius and the Mencius 孟子 in the Four Books. It constitutes the end point for scholars embracing the Confucian canon as defined by Zhu Xi. Wing-tsit Chan has described it as “ . . . a philosophical work, perhaps the most philosophical in the whole body of ancient Confucian literature.”1 As befits such a work of acknowledged complexity and significance, the Zhongyong has attracted a considerable amount of attention and analysis over the many centuries of its existence. Some idea of the extent of this attention may be gained from the section on commentaries in Appendix 2. Moreover, issues do not only involve the understanding of its content. They also concern the title of the work, its authorship and date of composition, its arrangement, and the terminology used to express the teaching it contains. These matters will be briefly addressed in what follows. The Title: Of the titles of the two works, the Zhongyong and the Daxue, the former is by far the more problematic, not only for translators, as evidenced by the much greater variety of renderings, but also for Chinese commentators. There are two aspects to the problem: what the term zhong yong actually means and why it does not occur at the start of the work as might be expected. On the question of meaning the difficulty is primarily with yong 庸 but also involves, to a lesser extent, the relationship between the two characters. There is also the subordinate question of the relationship between zhong he 中和, used in the first section (ZY1) but not subsequently, and zhong yong 中庸, used from the second section (ZY2) onward. We shall consider each of these three issues in turn. First, on the meaning of yong 庸 the possibilities are as follows: 1 Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 96. 182 Daxue and Zhongyong 1. That yong 庸 is to be understood as its homophone yong 用.This is what is given in the ancient dictionary, the Shuowen 說文2 and is the position taken by the Li ji commentators in their introductory remarks. 2. That yong 庸 is to be equated with chang 常 in the sense of “constant” (i.e. like heng 恆) which is the position taken by Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107) in particular. 3. That yong 庸 is to be understood as pingchang 平常 in the sense of “ordinary,” “commonplace” or “quotidian,” which is probably Zhu Xi’s final position, although he does quote Cheng Yi’s view in his opening statement to the tract in the Sishu zhangju 四書章句 (SSZJ—The Four Books in Chapters and Sentences).3 There is also variation in the reading of zhong 中—as “centre/central” or “middle” most obviously, but also as “moderation” or (commonly) “Mean,” extending to “balance” or “equilibrium,” and as “inner” referring to the inner attributes of the individual person.4 Second, on the relationship between the two characters, there are again several possibilities: 1. That zhong 中 is nominal and yong 庸 is verbal with an anteposed object—for example, “Using the Centre,” “Using the Middle [Way],” “Application of the Inner” or “The Mean in Action” (Hughes). 2. That zhong 中 is verbal and yong 庸 is nominal in the sense of either “ordinary” or “commonplace”—for example, “Centering on the Commonplace” or “Focusing the Familiar” (Ames & Hall). 2 See Xu, Shuowen jiezi zhu, 129. 3 Wing-tsit Chan, in his translation of Chen Chun’s 陳淳 (1159–1223) Beixi ziyi 北溪 字義 (Neo-Confucian Terms Explained), has: “Master Cheng (Cheng Yi) said, ‘By yong 庸 is meant what is unchangeable.’ What he said was of course good but does not fully express the meaning. It is not as clear and complete as Wen Gong’s (Zhu Xi’s) interpretation of it as ‘ordinary.’ The idea of ordinary includes that of unchangeability but unchangeability does not include the idea of the ordinary. In reality, they are but one principle. You Dingfu 游定夫 (i.e. You Zuo) said that zhong he 中和 refers to nature and feelings, thus making the distinction between substance and function and between action and tranquility, while zhong yong 中庸 refers to moral activity, combining both activity and affairs.” See Chan, Neo-Confucian Terms Explained (The Pei-hsi tzu-i) (New York: Columbia University Press), 126. 4 Riegel renders the title “Application of the Inner” where “inner” indicates “one’s own, individual, inborn character.” See Jeffrey Riegel, “The Four ‘Tzu Ssu’ Chapters of the ‘Li Chi...