Interpretations of the Four Books by East Asian Confucian Scholars

Author: Huang Junjie
Publisher: Lianjing Press
Publication Date: 2005-06-01
Features: The essays in this book are compiled into three parts. Part "Chinese Four Books Studies" has 4 essays, Part "Japanese Four Books Studies" has 5 essays, and Part "Korean Four Books Studies" has 2 essays. At the end, there is a symposium discussing the connotation and significance of the concept of "East Asian Four Books Studies." The academic backgrounds of the authors of this book cover fields such as history, education, Chinese philosophy, Chinese literature, and the history of Japanese thought. Scholars have published studies on the schools or scopes of "Four Books Studies" in China, Japan, and Korea. In China, there is a focus on Qing Dynasty scholars, such as the interpretation of the Analects by the Qing Dynasty Confucianist Liu Fenglu (e.g., Xu Xuetao), and observations on the transformation of Qing Dynasty rationalist thought from Liu Baonan's Commentary on the Analects and Jiao Xun's Commentary on the Mencius (e.g., Zhang Lizhu). There are also essays on contemporary scholars' interpretations of the Four Books, such as discussing the historical evolution of the Great Learning thought from Feng Youlan's "The Great Learning as Xunzi's Interpretation" (e.g., Liu Youming); in addition, there are essays exploring the "wisdom" thought in Zhu Xi's Four Books studies (e.g., Tang Gelu). In Japan, there are discussions on how Tokugawa-era scholars absorbed and resisted Four Books studies from the perspective of Tokugawa publishing media (e.g., Watanabe Masashi); there are also studies focusing on the Tokugawa-era Kogaku scholar Itō Jishū, who opposed Song Dynasty Confucianism's centrality to the Four Books by upholding the thoughts of the Analects and Mencius (e.g., Hirashita Naokiaki); there are analyses of the unique interpretations of the Great Learning and Doctrine of the Mean from the perspective of Ogyū Sorai's classical literary methodology (e.g., Tani Takeichi); there are also studies examining the Confucian critique of Andō Shōei and further exploring his anti-Confucian thought through his comments on the Four Books (e.g., Zhang Kunjiang); there are also discussions on the interpretation of the Analects by Hayashi Seiichi, who found that Hayashi Seiichi followed the traditional interpretation of the Analects from a "practical learning" perspective since the Tokugawa era, playing a significant role in the popularization of the Analects in Japan in the 20th century (e.g., Huang Junjie). The two Korean essays include one analyzing the physiological theory of the Korean non-traditional Confucian Yangming scholar Zheng Xagyu, who demonstrated a strong grasp of the original meaning of Gaozi and combined the ideas of both Mingdao and Yangming, making his arguments distinctive (e.g., Yang Zuhàn); the other compares the interpretations of the Doctrine of the Mean by the Japanese Kogaku master Itō Jishū and the Korean Confucianist Ding Ruyong, analyzing the differences in their so-called "ancient meaning" (e.g., Cai Zhenfeng). At the end of the book, there are discussions by four scholars—Huang Junjie, Yang Rubin, Hirashita Naokiaki, and Watanabe Masashi—on the connotation and significance of the concept of "East Asian Four Books Studies."