New Interpretation of the Analects

Author: Qian Mu
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-03-01
Features: Since the Western Han Dynasty, the Analects has been a must-read for literate Chinese. To read the Analects, one must also read its annotations. Generations of scholars have continuously annotated it, and three major works have been compiled. First, He Yan's Collected Explanations, which compiles the old interpretations of Han scholars. There is also Huang Kan's Commentary, which extensively gathers the views of scholars from the Wei to the Liang dynasties. Together, these two books can be considered the treasure trove of ancient annotations on the Analects. Second, Zhu Xi's Collected Annotations, which largely reflects the views of Song Dynasty Confucian scholars. Third, Liu Bao'an's Rectification of the Analects, a compilation of the textual research of Qing Dynasty scholars. This book is titled New Interpretations, not to claim the creation of new meanings that overshadow the predecessors, but to comprehensively gather various views, seek a balanced truth, and particularly to elaborate on them with the language and concepts of the modern era.
The Analects have been a must-read for literate Chinese since the Western Han Dynasty. To read the Analects, one must also read its annotations. Generations of scholars have continuously annotated it, and three major works have been compiled. First, He Yan's Collected Explanations, which compiles the old interpretations of Han scholars. There is also Huang Kan's Commentary, which extensively gathers the views of scholars from the Wei to the Liang dynasties. Together, these two books can be considered the treasure trove of ancient annotations on the Analects. Second, Zhu Xi's Collected Annotations, which largely reflects the views of Song Dynasty Confucian scholars. Third, Liu Bao'an's Rectification of the Analects, a compilation of the textual research of Qing Dynasty scholars.
He Yan's Collected Explanations is included in the Annotations and Commentaries of the Thirteen Classics. Before the Song Dynasty, most people who read the Analects would read this book. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, Zhu Xi's annotations were used to select officials, so reading the Analects also required reading Zhu Xi's annotations, which has been the case for eight hundred years. Zhu Xi's annotations cannot be without errors, and Qing Dynasty scholars' textual research and etymology surpassed their predecessors, correcting all the errors in Zhu Xi's annotations. However, Qing Dynasty scholars were too strict in their Han-Song factionalism, and some deliberately differed from Zhu Xi's annotations, only to deviate further. Their corrections were also diverse, with no single consensus. Moreover, textual research is verbose and not concise, making it a daunting task for readers. Therefore, in modern society, Zhu Xi's annotations remain the primary reference. Since the Republic of China, Cheng Shude of Min County compiled Collected Explanations of the Analects, citing over four hundred eighty books in ten categories, with conflicting views, making readers feel like they are lost at sea, overwhelmed and unsure of their direction. While the collection is extensive, the selection is not precise, which is a drawback. Thus, although the Analects are a must-read for all Chinese, and although many scholars have annotated them, there is still a lack of a widely accessible annotation today. This is why I wrote my New Interpretations.
Creating a New Interpretations of the Analects involves two challenges. First, with so many conflicting views, it is essential to seek a balanced interpretation. Second, the Analects are over two thousand years old, with He Yan's Collected Explanations dating back over one thousand seven hundred years, Zhu Xi's annotations over eight hundred years, and Liu Bao'an's Rectification over one hundred sixty years. As times change, so do people's concepts and language. How can we use modern language and concepts to explain the teachings of Confucius two thousand five hundred years ago while remaining close to the truth, enabling people of all eras to understand each other?
This book is titled New Interpretations, not to claim the creation of new meanings that overshadow the predecessors, but to comprehensively gather various views, seek a balanced truth, and particularly to elaborate on them with the language and concepts of the modern era. However, it is impossible to list all the views. Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations exceeds two million words and still leaves much out. The selections in this book also go beyond Cheng's work. Yet, if we advocate for a single view and insist on it as the only truth, readers will not understand the differences between ancient and modern interpretations, nor will it broaden their minds or help them see the infinite depth of the meaning. Moreover, the truth of a single view is not limited to one person's interpretation. Some may grasp only a part of it, while others may grasp more. Some may understand a third, while others may understand six or seven. There are also cases where we must combine the views of three or four scholars to reach a consensus. Since we have gathered various views, it is reasonable to record the names and sources of the selected interpretations, both to show the origins of the words and to avoid taking credit for others.
For readers, the key is to directly understand the original meaning of the Analects through the annotations. Once the main ideas are grasped, deeper reflection is needed. If every annotation cites names and titles, it will inevitably require reproducing the original text. Since the original text's meaning is not fully conveyed, further elaboration is necessary. When reconciling different views, we must list all the interpretations first and then provide a cohesive explanation afterward. This may demonstrate the author's diligence in research and breadth of knowledge, but it is of little help to readers in deep understanding.
The aim of this New Interpretations is to be accessible to everyone, striving to be a widely readable annotation. The style is concise, and the language is clear, so it is necessary to break free from the conventions of traditional annotations and focus on directly clarifying the original meaning of the Analects. Although this deviates from the old path, it carries a subtle intention. As for annotations, many meanings and references are based on Han Dynasty scholars, and they do not need to be individually cited. Only when citing Song Dynasty views must the names be included to show that they represent a specific interpretation. My goal is not to establish a new school of thought but to make the book easy to read and understand. Therefore, specific citations are unnecessary. If readers insist on tracing the origins, the three major works mentioned earlier and Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations are available, and following these traces should lead to a good understanding. Even if someone tries to take credit, there is no basis for it.
Moreover, my New Interpretations also includes some unique insights that go beyond the views of previous scholars. However, without understanding all the interpretations, it is impossible to gain new insights. Since the views of different scholars are already well-integrated, there is no need for further distinctions. Moreover, the purpose of annotations is to catch the fish and the rabbit, but once the fish and rabbit are caught, the traps can be discarded. Therefore, individual citations are also unnecessary.
The manuscript of this book was first drafted in the spring of 1952. At the time, I aimed for accessibility and used only colloquial language. However, only about one-fourth of the manuscript was completed, and I regretted it. I realized that the difficulty of interpreting the Analects lies in their profound meaning, not in the language. Using colloquial language to explain profound ideas, even if verbose, fails to capture the essence. Moreover, striving for simplicity may seem easy at first but is like feeding someone with chewed food, losing both flavor and nutrition. I thought it better to use classical language, aiming for simplicity and precision. Although it may require more effort from readers, it can help concentrate their minds and deepen their wisdom. However, the language was too cumbersome, so I put it aside. Later, in 1960, I went to the United States to teach at Yale. With no pressing academic duties, I decided to revise and completed the first draft. After returning to China, I continued to revise it for three years, and it was finally finalized. However, the format remained the same as the original: first, the original text, then explanations of each word and sentence, followed by a summary of each chapter's main ideas, and finally a colloquial translation of the Analects. The entire book should not exceed three million words. Can it truly be a widely readable annotation? Can it truly reconcile all interpretations and reach a consensus?
Limited by my abilities, I humbly await the readers' judgment. This book is titled New Interpretations, not to claim the creation of new meanings that overshadow the predecessors, but to comprehensively gather various views, seek a balanced truth, and particularly to elaborate on them with the language and concepts of the modern era. However, it is impossible to list all the views. Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations exceeds two million words and still leaves much out. The selections in this book also go beyond Cheng's work. Yet, if we advocate for a single view and insist on it as the only truth, readers will not understand the differences between ancient and modern interpretations, nor will it broaden their minds or help them see the infinite depth of the meaning. Moreover, the truth of a single view is not limited to one person's interpretation. Some may grasp only a part of it, while others may grasp more. Some may understand a third, while others may understand six or seven. There are also cases where we must combine the views of three or four scholars to reach a consensus. Since we have gathered various views, it is reasonable to record the names and sources of the selected interpretations, both to show the origins of the words and to avoid taking credit for others.
For readers, the key is to directly understand the original meaning of the Analects through the annotations. Once the main ideas are grasped, deeper reflection is needed. If every annotation cites names and titles, it will inevitably require reproducing the original text. Since the original text's meaning is not fully conveyed, further elaboration is necessary. When reconciling different views, we must list all the interpretations first and then provide a cohesive explanation afterward. This may demonstrate the author's diligence in research and breadth of knowledge, but it is of little help to readers in deep understanding.