New Interpretation of the Analects - Series by Qian Mu (New)

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 Confucians. 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 treasury 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. The title New Interpretations does not mean that this book creates new meanings to overshadow previous scholars. It actually collects various interpretations, seeks a balanced truth, and particularly explains 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 Confucians. 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 treasury 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 people who read the Analects 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, but Qing Dynasty scholars' textual research and etymology surpassed their predecessors, correcting all the mistakes 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 lose their way. The corrections they made 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 main 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 where to go. 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 there have been many annotations throughout the generations, there is still a lack of a widely accessible annotation today. This is why I wrote my New Interpretations.
Creating new interpretations of the Analects involves two difficulties. First, with so many conflicting views, it is essential to find 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 of the Analects 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 from two thousand five hundred years ago while staying close to the truth, allowing people of all eras to understand and appreciate them?
The title New Interpretations does not mean that this book creates new meanings to overshadow previous scholars. It actually collects various interpretations, seeks a balanced truth, and particularly explains 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 focus on one interpretation and claim it as the definitive one, readers will be unaware of the differences between past and present views, limiting their intellectual growth and understanding of the infinite depths of meaning. Moreover, the truth of one interpretation is not limited to one person's view. Some may grasp only a part of it, while others may grasp more. Some may understand a third and others a seventh. There are also cases where we must combine the views of three or four scholars to reach a consensus. Since this book collects various interpretations, it is appropriate to record the names and sources of the selected views, both to show the origins of the words and to avoid taking credit for others' work. For readers, however, the focus should be on directly connecting the annotations to the original meaning of the Analects. Once the main ideas are understood, deeper reflection is necessary. If annotations list every name and title, it will inevitably require copying the original text, which may still lack clarity and require further explanation. When reconciling different views, it is necessary to list them first and then provide a cohesive explanation afterward. This may demonstrate the author's diligence in research but offers little benefit to the reader's deep understanding.
The aim of New Interpretations is to be accessible, seeking to be a widely readable annotation. The style is concise and the language clear, requiring a departure from the conventions of traditional annotations to focus on directly explaining the original meaning of the Analects. While this may deviate from the norm, it is done with good intentions. Additionally, as many interpretations and textual references are based on Han Dynasty scholars, they are not individually cited. Only when citing Song Dynasty views are the names included to show that they represent a specific interpretation. This book does not aim to establish a new school of thought but merely to make the Analects more accessible. Therefore, specific citations are unnecessary. If readers wish to trace the origins, the three major works mentioned earlier, along with Cheng Shude's Collected Explanations, are available, and following these traces should provide a clear understanding. Even if someone tries to take credit for the ideas, there is no basis for it.
Moreover, my New Interpretations also include some unique insights that go beyond the views of previous scholars. However, without understanding all the different interpretations, it is difficult to gain new insights. The views of different scholars are like water and milk blending together—no need for further distinction. 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 omitted.
The manuscript of this book was first drafted in spring 1952. At the time, I aimed for accessibility, using only colloquial language. However, less than one-fourth of the manuscript was completed before I reconsidered. 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, lacks depth. Moreover, striving for simplicity may seem easy at first but is like feeding someone chewed food, losing both flavor and nutrition. I thought that using classical language, while still aiming for simplicity, would be more precise. Although it may require more effort from readers, it can help concentrate their minds and cultivate deeper 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 lighter teaching duties, I decided to revise and completed the first draft. After returning to China, I continued to revise it for three years, finally settling on the current version. However, the format remains the same as the original: 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 million words. Can it truly be a widely readable annotation? Can it truly reconcile all views and reach a consensus? With my limited abilities, I humbly await the readers' judgment.
The title New Interpretations does not mean that this book creates new meanings to overshadow previous scholars. It actually collects various interpretations, seeks a balanced truth, and particularly explains 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 focus on one interpretation and claim it as the definitive one, readers will be unaware of the differences between past and present views, limiting their intellectual growth and understanding of the infinite depths of meaning. Moreover, the truth of one interpretation is not limited to one person's view. Some may grasp only a part of it, while others may grasp more. Some may understand a third and others a seventh. There are also cases where we must combine the views of three or four scholars to reach a consensus. Since this book collects various interpretations, it is appropriate to record the names and sources of the selected views, both to show the origins of the words and to avoid taking credit for others' work. For readers, however, the focus should be on directly connecting the annotations to the original meaning of the Analects. Once the main ideas are understood, deeper reflection is necessary. If annotations list every name and title, it will inevitably require copying the original text, which may still lack clarity and require further explanation. When reconciling different views, it is necessary to list them first and then provide a cohesive explanation afterward. This may demonstrate the author's diligence in research but offers little benefit to the reader's deep understanding.