What do you think?
Rate this book
Harvard East Asian Monographs #228
Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the Analects
The Analects ( Lunyu ) is one of the most influential texts in human history. As a putative record of Confucius’s (551–479 B.C.E.) teachings and a foundational text in scriptural Confucianism, this classic was instrumental in shaping intellectual traditions in China and East Asia until the early twentieth century.
But no premodern reader read only the text of the Analects itself. Rather, the Analects was embedded in a web of interpretation that mediated its meaning. Modern interpreters of the Analects only rarely acknowledge this legacy of two thousand years of commentaries. How well do we understand prominent or key commentaries from this tradition? How often do we read such commentaries as we might read the text on which they comment? Many commentaries do more than simply comment on a text. Not only do they shape the reading of the text, but passages of text serve as pretexts for the commentator to develop and expound his own body of thought.
This book attempts to redress our neglect of commentaries by analyzing four key works dating from the late second century to the mid-nineteenth century (a period substantially contemporaneous with the rise and decline of scriptural Confucianism): the commentaries of He Yan (ca. 190–249); Huang Kan (488–545); Zhu Xi (1130–1200); and Liu Baonan (1791–1855) and Liu Gongmian (1821–1880).
But no premodern reader read only the text of the Analects itself. Rather, the Analects was embedded in a web of interpretation that mediated its meaning. Modern interpreters of the Analects only rarely acknowledge this legacy of two thousand years of commentaries. How well do we understand prominent or key commentaries from this tradition? How often do we read such commentaries as we might read the text on which they comment? Many commentaries do more than simply comment on a text. Not only do they shape the reading of the text, but passages of text serve as pretexts for the commentator to develop and expound his own body of thought.
This book attempts to redress our neglect of commentaries by analyzing four key works dating from the late second century to the mid-nineteenth century (a period substantially contemporaneous with the rise and decline of scriptural Confucianism): the commentaries of He Yan (ca. 190–249); Huang Kan (488–545); Zhu Xi (1130–1200); and Liu Baonan (1791–1855) and Liu Gongmian (1821–1880).
480 pages, Hardcover
First published March 15, 2004
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 7, 2007
So the ru have different Analects reading strategies throughout the centuries - big whoop. It's still cool to watch Makeham trace out how four dudes in four periods (Han, Liuchao, Song, Qing) who wrote four popular commentaries for the Analects, read and respond to the past. A lot of Gadamer citation, if you're into that.
Pretty technical stuff. A over-simplified summary for myself:
1) He Yan of the Han was a conservative. He compiled the previous commentaries and decided which ones spoke the best, and mostly chose the commentators who parroted exactly what Confucius just said.
2) Huang Kan of the Six Dynasties was a conservative. He wanted to make Confucius real by talking to him and resurrecting other commentatorial voices to let the reader talk with him.
3) Zhu Xi was a conservative. He cut through that commentarial shit because he had a mindlink with the master. Meaning exists before the text and so philosophy controls the text and your reading of it.
4) Liu Baonan of the Qing was a conservative. Philology got big again around the Qing, and they thought the Han commentaries were the most reliable because they were closest in time to when the Analects were actually supposedly compiled. Hence an attempt to be like Ricoeur: read the text to verify the context, read the context to verify the text.
Pretty technical stuff. A over-simplified summary for myself:
1) He Yan of the Han was a conservative. He compiled the previous commentaries and decided which ones spoke the best, and mostly chose the commentators who parroted exactly what Confucius just said.
2) Huang Kan of the Six Dynasties was a conservative. He wanted to make Confucius real by talking to him and resurrecting other commentatorial voices to let the reader talk with him.
3) Zhu Xi was a conservative. He cut through that commentarial shit because he had a mindlink with the master. Meaning exists before the text and so philosophy controls the text and your reading of it.
4) Liu Baonan of the Qing was a conservative. Philology got big again around the Qing, and they thought the Han commentaries were the most reliable because they were closest in time to when the Analects were actually supposedly compiled. Hence an attempt to be like Ricoeur: read the text to verify the context, read the context to verify the text.
Displaying 1 of 1 review