New Interpretation of the Analects -- Qian Mu Works Series

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 Confucian scholars have continuously annotated it, and three major works have been compiled. First, He Yan's Collected Explanations, which gathers the old interpretations of Han Confucianism. There is also Huang Kan's Explanatory Notes, which extensively collects 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 rationalists. 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 Confucian scholars have continuously annotated it, and three major works have been compiled. First, He Yan's Collected Explanations, which gathers the old interpretations of Han Confucianism. There is also Huang Kan's Explanatory Notes, which extensively collects 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 rationalists. 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 readers of the Analects relied on this work. 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, a practice that has continued for eight hundred years. Zhu Xi's annotations are not without errors, but Qing Dynasty scholars, with their advanced textual research and etymology, have corrected these mistakes. However, Qing scholars were overly strict in their Han-Song dichotomy, and some deliberately differed from Zhu Xi's annotations, only to deviate further from the truth. Their corrections also varied widely, with no single consensus. Moreover, textual research is often verbose and daunting for readers, so it remains popular in modern society primarily due to Zhu Xi's annotations. 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, presenting conflicting views and leaving readers lost in a sea of information. While extensive in scope, it lacks precision, making it difficult to grasp the essence. Thus, despite the Analects being a must-read for all Chinese, and despite numerous annotations, there is still a lack of a universally accessible one. This is why I wrote New Interpretations.
Creating New Interpretations of the Analects presents two challenges. First, with so many conflicting views, it is essential to seek a balanced interpretation. Second, the Analects, written over two thousand years ago, with He Yan's Collected Explanations dating back to seventeen hundred years ago, Zhu Xi's annotations to eight hundred years, and Liu Bao'an's Rectification to one hundred sixty years, reflect changing times and perspectives. How can we use modern language and concepts to explain the teachings of Confucius two thousand five hundred years ago while remaining true to their essence, enabling mutual understanding across generations?
Titled New Interpretations, this book does not claim to create new meanings that overshadow the predecessors. Instead, it comprehensively gathers various views, seeks a balanced truth, and particularly elaborates on them with the language and concepts of the modern era. However, it is impossible to list all views. Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations, with over two million words, still leaves much out. This book includes many views beyond Cheng's work. Yet, if it were to focus on a single interpretation, readers would miss the diversity of views across history, limiting their intellectual growth. Moreover, the truth of a single interpretation is not confined to one person. Some may grasp only a part, while others may understand more. Sometimes, the truth emerges only by comparing and synthesizing the views of three or four scholars. Since this book gathers various interpretations, it should cite the names and sources of the views it includes, both to trace their origins and to avoid claiming credit unfairly. For readers, the goal is to directly connect the annotations to the original meaning of the Analects. Once the main ideas are grasped, deeper reflection is necessary. If annotations list every name and title, they would inevitably reproduce the original text, which still requires further explanation. When synthesizing multiple views, the book must first list all interpretations before providing a cohesive analysis. While this demonstrates the author's diligence, it offers little benefit to readers seeking deeper understanding.
The aim of New Interpretations is to be accessible, aiming to be a universally readable annotation. It seeks simplicity and clarity, thus breaking free from the conventions of traditional annotations to directly clarify the original meaning of the Analects. Though it deviates from the norm, it does so with good intentions. Additionally, since many interpretations rely on Han Dynasty scholars, they are not individually cited. Only when citing Song Dynasty views are names included to show they represent a specific interpretation. This book does not seek to establish a new school of thought but merely aims for accessibility. Therefore, it does not cite sources extensively. If readers wish to trace origins, the three major works mentioned earlier, along with Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations, are available, and following these traces should lead to a clear understanding. Even if someone tries to claim credit, there is no basis for it.
In writing New Interpretations, I have also offered some unique insights that go beyond the views of previous scholars. However, without considering all perspectives, new knowledge cannot be inspired. Since all views are now integrated like milk and water, further distinctions are unnecessary. Moreover, annotations are like fishing nets—they are meant to catch the fish but can be discarded once the fish is secured. Therefore, individual citations are omitted.
The manuscript of this book was first drafted in spring 1952. At the time, I aimed for accessibility, using only colloquial language. However, only about one-fourth of the work was completed before I regretted it. I realized that the challenge of interpreting the Analects lies in their profound meaning, not in language. Using colloquial language to explain deep philosophical ideas, though extensive, lacked flavor. Moreover, striving for simplicity might seem easy at first but would be like feeding someone chewed food—losing both taste and nutrition. I thought using classical language, while still aiming for simplicity, would be more precise. Though it might require more effort from readers, it could sharpen their minds and deepen their wisdom. However, the process was cumbersome, so I set it aside. Later, in 1960, I went to the United States to teach at Yale. With lighter teaching duties, I decided to revise and completed the first draft. After returning, I continued to revise for three years, though the final version remains largely unchanged in structure: first, the original text, then explanations of each word and phrase, 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 hundred thousand words. Will it truly be a universally readable annotation? Will it truly synthesize all views into a single truth? With my limited abilities, I humbly await the readers' judgment.
Titled New Interpretations, this book does not claim to create new meanings that overshadow the predecessors. Instead, it comprehensively gathers various views, seeks a balanced truth, and particularly elaborates on them with the language and concepts of the modern era. However, it is impossible to list all views. Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations, with over two million words, still leaves much out. This book includes many views beyond Cheng's work. Yet, if it were to focus on a single interpretation, readers would miss the diversity of views across history, limiting their intellectual growth. Moreover, the truth of a single interpretation is not confined to one person. Some may grasp only a part, while others may understand more. Sometimes, the truth emerges only by comparing and synthesizing the views of three or four scholars. Since this book gathers various interpretations, it should cite the names and sources of the views it includes, both to trace their origins and to avoid claiming credit unfairly. For readers, the goal is to directly connect the annotations to the original meaning of the Analects. Once the main ideas are grasped, deeper reflection is necessary. If annotations list every name and title, they would inevitably reproduce the original text, which still requires further explanation. When synthesizing multiple views, the book must first list all interpretations before providing a cohesive analysis. While this demonstrates the author's diligence, it offers little benefit to readers seeking deeper understanding.