Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:57:18.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DELINQUENT FATHERS AND PHILOLOGY LUN YU 13.18 AND RELATED TEXTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2014

Oliver Weingarten
Oliver Weingarten*
Affiliation:
Oliver Weingarten 韋禮文, Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Investigating textual parallels between pre-Qin writings such as Han Feizi and Lüshi chunqiu and Confucius's statement in Lun yu 13.18 that “a father covers up for his son and a son for his father,” this article argues that the Lun yu passage is most likely derived from the version in Lüshi chunqiu or a closely related version. This has several consequences for scholarly interpretations of the Lun yu. It serves as a reminder that the Lun yu is a heterogeneous collection of textual units drawn from sometimes unexpected sources. It also demonstrates that the Lun yu should be read not in isolation but against the widest possible background of pre-Qin and Han parallels.

In the final part, the article reviews some of the comparisons between Confucius in Lun yu 13.18 and Socrates in Plato's “Euthyphro,” cautioning against over-interpretations of the extremely terse statement attributed to Confucius. A more fruitful way of reading Lun yu 13.18, it is argued, would be to historicize the passage by contextualizing it within the social and legal history of the late Warring States and Han periods.

提要

本文探討《論語．子路》「父為子隱，子為父隱」章與諸如《韓非子．五蠹》、《呂氏春秋．當務》等先秦文獻之間所存在的互文性關係，下論「父為子隱」章蓋由《呂氏春秋》中的一篇軼聞衍生而來。這對《論語》的學術詮釋而言會有兩重意義：其一、證明《論語》所收諸篇章極為博雜，其來源未必限於純粹儒家文獻；其二、同時也表明欲研讀《論語》，則應以同時代文獻中重出語句為研究重點。

此後，本文討論學界以往對「父為子隱」章與柏拉圖《游敘弗倫》篇的比較研究，提出「父為子隱」章雖與後者有相似之處，然因文筆過簡，故其異同到底何在卻難以說明。因此，與其比孔子於蘇格拉底，寧以「父為子隱」章與先秦兩漢法律史、社會史之關係為研究對象。

Keywords

ConfuciusSocratesPhilologyIntertextuality孔子蘇格拉底文獻學互文性
Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 37 , 2014 , pp. 221 - 258

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On the history of Confucianism and the Confucius figure including modern and contemporary discourse see Nylan, Michael and Wilson, Thomas, Lives of Confucius (New York: Doubleday, 2010)Google Scholar; for a recent compendium see also Anxian, Luo 羅安憲, ed., Zhongguo Kongxue shi 中國孔學史 (Beijing: Renmin, 2008)Google Scholar.

2. Goldin, Paul R. for instance confirms this view in his recent Confucianism (Durham: Acumen, 2010), 1Google Scholar.

3. For an exception see Weber, Ralph and Barden, Garret, “Rhetorics of Authority: Leviticus and the Analects Compared,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 64.1 (2010), 173–240Google Scholar.

4. A crucial document on this movement's origins is Gu Jiegang's 顧頡剛 (1893–1980) intellectual autobiography that describes his views of Chinese antiquity at the time the Gushi bian 古史辨 series was compiled; see Hummel, Arthur, trans., The Autobiography of a Chinese Historian: Being the Preface to a Symposium on Ancient Chinese History (Ku shih pien) (Leiden: Brill, 1931)Google Scholar. For a succinct summary of the movement's background see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Guodian Manuscripts and Their Place in Twentieth-Century Historiography of the Laozi,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 65.2 (2005), 428–32Google Scholar.

5. For instance Xueqin, Li 李學勤, Zouchu yigu shidai 走出疑古時代 (Shenyang: Liaoning daxue, 1994)Google Scholar, 16, states that insights gleaned from excavated texts—including scapula and plastron inscriptions as well as manuscripts on bamboo, wood, and silk—tend to contradict the skepticism of the “doubters of antiquity.” For an overview see Shaughnessy, “Guodian Manuscripts,” 436–44. See also Liangshu, Zheng 鄭良樹, Zhuzi zhuzuo niandai kao 諸子著作年代考 (Beijing: Beijing tushuguan, 2001), 265–75Google Scholar, who draws attention to some of the more problematic claims put forward by the “doubters” while counseling against a complete reversal of the critical attitude that formed the underpinnings of their scholarship.

6. For an attempt to assess previous textual studies and the methodological issues involved see Oliver Weingarten, “Textual Representations of a Sage: Studies of Pre-Qin and Western Han Sources on Confucius (551–479 BCE)” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2010).

7. His biography is a different matter entirely. Sima Qian's vita of the Master (Shi ji 47) is the earliest account that approaches the format of a conventional biography. It is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, but for a lack of alternatives, it is still used as a source on Confucius's life that would otherwise be impossible to reconstruct from the Lun yu alone.

8. Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962), 30.1717Google Scholar.

9. Lun yu 15.6. All references to the Lun yu are to Lun yu zhuzi suoyin 論語逐字索引, ed. Lau, D.C. (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

10. On the basis of formal observations, Simson, Wojciech Jan, Die Geschichte der Aussprüche des Konfuzius (Lun yu) (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2006), 31–39Google Scholar, summarizes arguments for oral communication in a school-type environment as the most likely origin of the Lun yu.

11. The contemporary historian Zhu Weizheng 朱維錚 estimates that only a few out of four to five hundred research articles on Confucius published between 1949 and the middle of the 1980s in Mainland China are based on source materials other than the Lun yu; see his Zhongguo jingxue shi shi jiang 中國經學史十講 (Shanghai: Fudan daxue, 2002), 98Google Scholar.

12. For an overview of recent scholarship see Weingarten, , “Recent Monographs on Confucius and Early Confucianism,” T'oung Pao 97 (2011), 160–201Google Scholar. See also Stumpfeldt, Hans, “Thinking beyond the ‘Sayings’: Comments about Sources Concerning the Life and Teachings of Confucius (551–479),” Oriens Extremus 49 (2010), 3–27Google Scholar. The publication of the papers presented at the conference “The Analects: A Western Han Text?,” held on November 4–5, 2011, in Princeton may contribute to discussions about the date and authenticity of the Lun yu.

13. Brooks, E. Bruce and Brooks, A. Taeko, The Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

14. Weingarten, “Textual Representations,” ch. 1, discusses the problem in detail. Misgivings about the concept of “schools” in ancient Chinese thought have been repeatedly voiced over the last one or two decades in Western Sinology; see Smith, Kidder, “Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism,’ et cetera,” Journal of Asian Studies 62.1 (2003), 129–56Google Scholar; Csikszentmihalyi, Mark and Nylan, Michael, “Constructing Lineages and Inventing Traditions through Exemplary Figures in Early China,” T'oung Pao 89.1–3 (2003), 59–99Google Scholar. The polemical rather than scholarly nature of Han doctrinal classifications is emphasized in Queen, Sarah A., “Inventories of the Past: Rethinking the ‘School’ Affiliation of the Huainanzi,” Asia Major (Third Series) 14.1 (2001), 51–72Google Scholar. Denecke, Wiebke, The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2010), 32–89Google Scholar, discusses the development from Warring States polemical doxography to Han bibliographic taxonomies. Goldin, , “Persistent Misconceptions about Chinese ‘Legalism’,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38.1 (2011): 88–104Google Scholar, specifically argues against the use of the term “Legalism,” one of the retrospectively reconstructed schools.

15. See, e.g., Stumpfeldt, Hans, “Was der Meister so sprach,” in Festgabe für Professor Dr. Ulrich Unger zum 60. Geburtstag (Münster: Ostasiatisches Seminar der Universität Münster, 1990), 167–75Google Scholar; Stumpfeldt, , “Gesänge vom Staate?,” Drachenbote 6 (1990), 47–53Google Scholar; Stumpfeldt, , “Ein verschollener Konfuzius-Kommentar? Notizen zu elf Anekdoten in der spätklassischen chinesischen Literatur,” in Über Himmel und Erde: Festschrift für Erling von Mende, ed. Kolb, Raimund Theodor and Siebert, Martina (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 419–30Google Scholar; Stumpfeldt, , “Ein Lied der ‘Lieder’? Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu einem Passus in Erh-ya 3,” Oriens Extremus 46 (2007), 29–47Google Scholar; Shaughnessy, “Guodian Manuscripts,” 433–36, on Lau's Laozi translation; Boltz, , “The Structure and Interpretation of Chuang Tzŭ: Two Notes on Hsiao Yao Yu,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43.3 (1980), 532–43Google Scholar; Boltz, , “Notes on the Textual Relation between the Kuo Yü and the Tso Chuan,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53.3 (1990), 491–502Google Scholar; Boltz, , “Myth and the Structure of the Shyy Jih,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 56.3 (2002), 573–85Google Scholar; Boltz, , “The Composite Nature of Early Chinese Texts,” in Text and Ritual in Early China, ed. Kern, Martin (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005), 51–78Google Scholar.

16. One of the earliest advocates of a strong concept of textual fluidity was Maeder, Eric, “Some Observations on the Composition of the ‘Core Chapters’ of the Mozi,” Early China 17 (1992), 27–82Google Scholar. On the influence of manuscript studies on changing concepts of ancient textuality and especially of the Lun yu see Scarpari, Maurizio, “Zi yue, ‘The Master Said ...’, or Didn't He?,” in Guru: The Spiritual Master in Eastern and Western Traditions, Authority and Charisma, ed. Rigopoulos, Antonio (Venice: Venetian Academy of Indian Studies; New Delhi: Printworld, 2007), 437–69Google Scholar; and Scarpari, , Il confucianesimo: i fondamenti e i testi (Turin: Einaudi, 2010), 31–37, 40–45Google Scholar. For a few remarks on the relationship between the Lun yu and the stock of fluid maxims and other small textual units in pre-imperial times see also Ling, Li 李零, Sangjia gou: wo du Lun yu 喪家狗─我讀《論語》 (Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin, 2007), 35–36Google Scholar; and Li, , Qu sheng nai de zhen Kongzi: Lun yu zongheng du 去聖乃得真孔子─《論語》縱橫讀 (Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 2008), 477–78Google Scholar.

17. Fischer, Paul, “Authentication Studies (辨偽學) Methodology and the Polymorphous Text Paradigm,” Early China 32 (2008–09), 1–44Google Scholar.

18. Matthias L. Richter, “Manuscript Formats and Textual Structure in Early China” (forthcoming).

19. Zhenxin, Zhao, “Lun yu jiujing shi shui bianzuan de” 《論語》究竟是誰編纂的, Beijing shifan daxue xuebao (shehuikexue ban) 1961.4, 11–24Google Scholar; Weizheng, Zhu, “Lishi de Kongzi he Kongzi de lishi” 歷史的孔子和孔子的歷史, in Kongzi yanjiu lunwenji 孔子研究論文集, ed. yanjiusuo, Zhonghua Kongzi (Beijing: Jiaoyu kexue, 1987), 168Google Scholar; Makeham, John, “The Formation of Lun yu as a Book,” Monumenta Serica 44 (1996), 1–24Google Scholar.

20. For a recent introduction to and summary of research on the historical Jesus see, e.g., Webb, Robert L., “The Historical Enterprise and Historical Jesus Research,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Bock, Darrell and Webb, Robert L. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 9–93Google Scholar.

21. Van Norden, Bryan W., “Introduction,” in Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, ed. Van Norden (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 13–18Google Scholar, engages with the Brookses' work. Scarpari, Il confucianesimo, 58–60, outlines the tension between critical philological approaches and a basic trust in the unity of the Lun yu's philosophical outlook. For a recent attempt to reconcile philological criticism with a belief in the fundamental usefulness of the Lun yu as a source see Slingerland, Edward, “Classical Confucianism (I): Confucius and the Lun-yü,” in History of Chinese Philosophy, ed. Mou, Bo (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 107–9Google Scholar. Despite the numerous unresolved historical and philological problems, to Slingerland “it seems best to stick to whatever facts we might glean from the Analects itself” (107). A number of scholars, of course, explicitly restrict their comments to groups of chapters in the book they consider authentic.

22. Instructive studies involving the analysis of parallels are Richter, Matthias, “Self-Cultivation or Cultivation of Others? A Form-Critical Approach to Zengzi Li Shi,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 56.4 (2002), 879–917Google Scholar, and Richter, Guan ren: Texte der altchinesischen Literatur zur Charakterkunde und Beamtenrekrutierung (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2005)Google Scholar. Jens Østergaard Petersen has presented an insightful analysis of parallel narratives according to text critical principles in his “The Zuozhuan Account of the Death of King Zhao of Chu and Its Sources,” Sino-Platonic Papers 159 (2005), 1–47Google Scholar. For an example from the Lun yu see Weingarten, , “Confucius and Pregnant Women: An Investigation into the Intertextuality of the Lunyu,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129.4 (2009), 597–618Google Scholar. For useful editions that record textual parallels to the Lun yu see Shuda, Yang 楊樹達, Lun yu shuzheng 論語疏證 (Beijing: Kexue, 1955)Google Scholar; Taisuke, Hayashi 林泰輔, Rongo genryū 論語源流 (Tōkyō: Kyūko, 1971)Google Scholar; Kan, Chan Hung (Chen Xionggen 陳雄根), Ho Che Wah (He Zhihua 何志華), ed., Citations from the Zhouyi, Lun yu and Mengzi to Be Found in Pre-Han and Han Texts, (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2007)Google Scholar. Furthermore, Michael J. Hunter has made his exhaustive database of Lun yu parallels available on the website of the Chinese Text Project (http://ctext.org/analects; accessed on February 27, 2013).

23. See the parallel to Lun yu 13.2 in the manuscript text “Zhonggong” 中弓 [= 仲弓] held by the Museum of Shanghai (for the textual evidence see Tongsheng, Chen 陳桐生, “Kongzi yulu de jieben he fanben: cong Zhonggong kan Lun yu yu qishi zi houxue sanwen de xingshi chayi” 孔子語錄的節本和繁本─從《仲弓》看《論語》與七十子後學散文的形式差異, Kongzi yanjiu 2006.2, 116–22Google Scholar). Another case of manuscript parallels is discussed in Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Yucong yu Lun yu” 《語叢》與《論語》, Qinghua daxue sixiang wenhua yanjiusuo 2 (2002), 3–7Google Scholar.

24. In “Sayings of Confucius, Deselected” (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 2012), Hunter demonstrates on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of all available testimonia the absence of any substantial evidence for the existence of the Lun yu or its authoritative status prior to the Han. Textual attestation is not the only criterion in dating, however, and the case is far from being closed as Paul R. Goldin argues in his “Confucius and His Disciples in the Analects: The Basis for the Traditional View” (forthcoming).

25. Lun yu 13.18. The “Master of She” is Shen Zhuliang 沈諸梁, adult name Zigao 子高. According to Zuozhuan, “Ai” 16.5: Chunqiu zuozhuan zhu 春秋左傳注, ed. Bojun, Yang 楊伯峻 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981)Google Scholar, 1704, he “was simultaneously in charge of two offices” (jian er shi 兼二事) in his native state of Chu, that of “chancellor” (lingyin 令尹) and that of “marshal” (sima 司馬), both of which he yielded to other men in 479 b.c.e. He also served as administrator of She, today's City of She (She cheng 葉城) in Henan, ca. 30 miles to the south of the District of She (She xian 葉縣). The Zuozhuan records several more events involving him: Chunqiu zuozhuan zhu, 1552 (“Ding” 5.5), 1626 (“Ai” 4.2), 1714 (“Ai” 19.2). The Lun yu mentions him in 7.19 and 13.16, and both of these passages are embedded in an historical setting in Shi ji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1963)Google Scholar, 47.1928, where Confucius is said to have entered She from the state of Cai 蔡 (Chavannes, Edouard, Les Mémoires Historiques de Se-Ma Ts'ien: Tome Cinquième (Chapitres XLIII–XLVII) [Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1967], 360–61Google Scholar, dates this event to 489 b.c.e.). Different views exist as to whether the use of gong 公 as the title of a local or regional administrator was an arrogation of rank that paralleled the use of wang 王 by the rulers of Chu, or whether it was a common designation for such officials in this state (see Lun yu zhengyi 論語正義, ed. Baonan, Liu 劉寶楠 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1990], 270–71Google Scholar). Scholars disagree over whether zhi gong zhe 直躬者 is a description or a nickname, “a certain ‘straight Gong’” (see Goldin, , After Confucius: Studies in Early Chinese Philosophy [Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2005], 8Google Scholar). I assume that it is the former and have chosen a literal translation to differentiate it from the following zhi zhe 直者. Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200 c.e.) gives the name (ming 名) of the son as Gong 弓 [kwəŋ] instead of Gong 躬 [kuŋ] (quoted in Lun yu zhengyi, 536–37; all reconstructions in this article are from Schuessler, Axel, Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa [Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2009]Google Scholar). For a conversation between Confucius and the Master of She about the dangers of diplomatic missions see Zhuangzi jiaoquan 莊子校詮, 3rd. ed., ed. Shumin, Wang 王叔岷 (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, 1999), 136–42Google Scholar (“Ren jian shi” 人閒世 4).

26. Han Feizi xin jiaozhu 韓非子新校注, ed. Qiyou, Chen 陳奇猷 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2000), 49.1104–5Google Scholar.

27. Csikszentmihalyi, Mark, Material Virtue: Ethics and the Body in Early China (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), 115Google Scholar; see also Csikszentmihalyi, “Severity and Lenience: Divination and Law in Early Imperial China,” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 21 (1999), 113Google Scholar.

28. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi 呂氏春秋新校釋, ed. Qiyou, Chen 陳奇猷 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2002)Google Scholar, 603 (“Dang wu” 當務 11.4); cf. Knoblock, John and Riegel, Jeffrey, trans., The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 251–52Google Scholar.

29. This is based on the commentaries reproduced in Lun yu zhengyi, 536–38; Lun yu jishi 論語集釋, ed. Shude, Cheng 程樹德 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1990), 924–26Google Scholar; Lun yu huijiao jishi 論語彙校集釋, ed. Huaixin, Huang 黃懷信 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008), 1194–98Google Scholar. Among the writings quoted are commentaries and philological notes by He Yan 何晏 (c. 190–249 c.e.), Huang Kan 皇侃 (488–545), Xing Bing 邢昺 (932–1011), Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), Wang Fuzhi 王夫之 (1619–92), Zhai Hao 翟灝 (d. 1788), Song Xiangfeng 宋翔鳳 (1779–1860), and Yu Yue 兪樾 (1821–1907).

30. Lun yu shuo yi 論語說義 (Huang Qing jingjie xubian 皇清經解續編, juan 395), 7.4b–5a. Lun yu zhengyi, 536, quotes this erroneously under the title of Song's Guo ting lu 過庭錄, a collection of scholarly reading notes. On the Shaozheng Mao anecdote see Xu Fuguan 徐復觀, “Yi ge lishi gushi de xingcheng ji qi yanjin: Lun Kongzi zhu Shaozheng Mao” 一個歷史故事的形成及其演進─論孔子誅少正卯, in Zhongguo sixiang shi lunji 中國思想史論集 (Taibei: Xuesheng shuju, 1974), 118–32Google Scholar.

31. Song treats gong as a personal name in his note.

32. See Loewe, Michael, ed., Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide (Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China; The Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1993), 324Google Scholar.

33. Shi ji 63.2147; see Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts, 116–17.

34. These are: (1) LY, HFZ, LSCQ; (2) HFZ, LY, LSCQ; (3) LSCQ, HFZ, LY; (4) LY, LSCQ, HFZ; (5) HFZ, LSCQ, LY; (6) LSCQ, LY, HFZ.

35. See Li, Qu sheng nai de zhen Kongzi, 133, on this methodological principle which sometimes appears to be neglected in Chinese textual scholarship.

36. On this issue see Vankeerberghen, Griet, “Family and Law in Former Han China (206 b.c.e.–8 c.e.): Arguments Pro and Contra Punishing the Relatives of a Criminal,” Cultural Dynamics 12.1 (2000), 111–25Google Scholar.

37. Huainan zi jiaoshi 淮南子校釋, ed. Shuangdi, Zhang 張雙棣 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 1997), 1402Google Scholar.

38. Zhuangzi jiaoquan, 1199 (“Dao Zhi” 盜跖 29).

39. Absence of overt references can be used to argue two mutually exclusive hypotheses: (1) that the quoted text was considered irrelevant, or (2) that it was sufficiently well known so as not to demand a reference by title. See for instance Runciman, Steven, Byzantine Civilization (London: Methuen, 1961), 224Google Scholar, on unattributed Homeric quotations in Byzantine literature.

40. See Makeham, , trans., Balanced Discourses: A Bilingual Edition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press and Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2002), 80–83Google Scholar.

41. Hanshi waizhuan jianshu 韓詩外傳箋疏, ed. Shouyuan, Qu 屈守元 (Chengdu: Ba Shu, 1996), 4.397–98Google Scholar; the quote is from Mao Shi no. 222, trans. by Legge, James, The She King; or, The Book of Ancient Poetry (London: Trübner & Co., 1876)Google Scholar, 271. Cf. the translation in Hightower, James Robert, Han Shih Wai Chuan: Han Ying's Illustrations of the Didactic Application of the Classic of Songs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952), 143–44Google Scholar. Hightower suggests to emend ai 愛 to the graphically similar shou 受 [duʔ] but seems to translate it like shou 守 [hjuʔ] (“jên is not being adhered to”), possibly because of the homophony of the two words in modern pronunciation.

42. Hanshi waizhuan jianshu, 2.160–61; Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 1256 (“Gao yi” 高義 19.2).

43. Csikszentmihalyi, Material Virtue, 116.

44. Xinxu jiaoshi 新序校釋, ed. Guangying, Shi 石光瓔 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001), 7.949–53Google Scholar; see Shi ji 119.3102 for the anecdote and Shi ji 119.3103 for Sima Qian's brief appraisal of Shi She. It is not clear which version of the anecdote Sima Qian used.

45. The end of the Lüshi chunqiu version reads: 正法枉必死。父犯法而不忍 [nənʔ]，王赦之而不肯 [khêŋʔ]，石渚之為人臣 [gin] 也，可謂忠且孝矣。 “When the proper laws are bent, death inevitably follows. [Shi She's] father violated the law, but he did not bear [to punish him]; the king pardoned him, but [he] did not accept – as a subject, one may call Shi Zhu [= She] both loyal and filial.”

46. Gu lienü zhuan zhuzi suoyin 古列女傳逐字索引, Institute for Chinese Studies Concordance (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1993), 5.13/49/26Google Scholar.

47. Chun qiu fanlu jiaoshi 春秋繁露校釋, ed. Zhaopeng, Zhong 鍾肇鵬 (Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin, 2005), 25.500Google Scholar.

48. Liji jijie 禮記集解, ed. Xidan, Sun 孫希但 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1989)Google Scholar, 165 (“Tan Gong shang” 檀弓上 3.1). The extant version of the Liji might have been compiled as late as the first century c.e., but very likely contains older materials (see Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 293–95).

49. Yantie lun jiaozhu 鹽鐵論校注, ed. Liqi, Wang 王利器 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992)Google Scholar, 584 (“Zhou Qin” 周秦 57). The translation of wenxue as “literati” follows Gale, Esson M., Discourses on Salt and Iron: A Debate on Commerce and Industry in Ancient China, Chapters I–XXVIII (Leiden: Brill, 1931)Google Scholar.

50. Han shu 8.251; see Dubs, Homer H., trans., The History of the Former Han Dynasty: Translation, Volume Two. First Division: The Imperial Annals, Chapters VI–X (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1944), 224Google Scholar. On this edict and the wider problem see also Csikszentmihalyi, “Severity and Lenience,” 114; Hinsch, Bret, Women in Early Imperial China, second ed. (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011), 88–89Google Scholar.

51. Vankeerberghen, “Family and Law,” 114, 120–21.

52. Yantie lun jiaozhu, 584.

53. Baihu tong shuzheng 白虎通疏證, ed. Li, Chen 陳立 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1994), 196Google Scholar (“Wu xing” 五行 4) and 241 (“San jun” 三軍 5).

54. Han shu 80.3322.

55. Quoted in Citations from the Zhouyi, under Lun yu 13.18.

56. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 609n20.

57. Apud Lun yu jishi, 924.

58. See his “Sayings of Confucius, Deselected.”

59. All references in the following are to the translation by G.M.A. Grube in Plato, Complete Works, ed. Cooper, John M. and Hutchinson, D.S. (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett, 1997), 2–16Google Scholar.

60. Murphy, Tim and Weber, Ralph, “Confucianizing Socrates and Socratizing Confucius: On Comparing Analects 13:18 and the Euthyphro,” Philosophy East and West 60.2 (2010)Google Scholar, 187; emphasis in the original.

61. Goldin, “Han Law and the Regulation of Interpersonal Relations: ‘The Confucianization of the Law’ Revisited,” Asia Major (3rd. Ser.) 25.1 (2011), 14Google Scholar.

62. Murphy and Weber, “Confucianizing Socrates,” 193.

63. Murphy and Weber, “Confucianizing Socrates,” 194.

64. See Henderson, John B., Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), ch. 4Google Scholar.

65. See Van Norden, “Introduction,” for observations on the structure and contents of Lun yu chapters.

66. One may, of course, hold further reservations about whether the Confucians should be viewed as a single, clearly definable social group. The status of this group, however, can be treated as a separate issue from the state of textual testimonies about early Confucianism. Only the latter shall be addressed here.

67. For recent statements that stress the unity of its philosophical outlook see Slingerland, “Classical Confucianism,” and Goldin, Confucianism. Boltz, “Word and Word History in the Analects: The Exegesis of Lun Yü IX.1,” T'oung Pao 69.4–5 (1983), 261–71Google Scholar, offers a linguistic solution for problems posed by the interpretation of Lun yu 9.1, a paragraph that has long been considered paradoxical within the context of the book as a whole.

68. The rhetorical multivalence of anecdotes whose meaning at each use depends strongly on their contextualization has recently been demonstrated by Paul van Els in a study of parallel versions of the same anecdote; see his “Tilting Vessels and Collapsing Walls: On the Rhetorical Function of Anecdotes in Early Chinese Texts,” Extrême-Orient, Extrême Occident 34 (2012), 141–66Google Scholar.

69. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in, but not restricted to, anecdotal literature. See, e.g., Qu Shouyuan's meticulous annotations in his Hanshi waizhuan.

70. See for instance the examples from Zhai Hao's Study of Variants to the Four Books (Sishu kaoyi 四書考異) in Huazhong, Zhu 朱華忠, Qingdai Lun yu xue 清代論語學 (Chengdu: Ba Shu shushe, 2008), 141–47Google Scholar. Rui, Li 李銳, Xinchu jianbo de xueshu tansuo 新出簡帛的學術探索 (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue, 2010), 19–35Google Scholar, highlights the relevance of parallels for textual criticism.

71. Duyvendak, review of Confucius: The Man and the Myth, by Creel, H.G., T'oung Pao (2nd. Ser.) 39.4–5 (1950), 364Google Scholar.

72. A case in point might be the extensive discussion among Mainland Chinese scholars about whether it is “corrupt” (fubai 腐敗) or justified for “relatives to cover up for each other” (qin qin xiang yin 親親相隱). The initial contributions to the debate have been published in the volume Qiyong, Guo 郭齊勇, ed., Rujia lunli zhengmingji: yi “qin qin hu yin” wei zhongxin 儒家倫理爭鳴集: 以 “親親互隱” 為中心 (Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu, 2004)Google Scholar. Several critical reactions by Xiaomang, Deng鄧曉芒 are collected in his Rujia lunli xin pipan 儒家倫理新批判 (Chongqing: Chongqing daxue, 2010)Google Scholar, which spawned a second round of debate documented in Qiyong, Guo, ed., “Rujia lunli xin pipan” zhi pipan “儒家倫理新批判”之批判 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2011)Google Scholar. The discussion involved allegations of purported misreadings of classical texts, including “Euthyphro,” and reflections on historicism (see Deng, Rujia lunli xin pipan, 3–42), but the underlying concerns are doubtless contemporary. Regrettably, such intellectual debates fall outside the scope of the present article.

73. For broad historical overviews of these topics see T'ung-tsu, Ch'ü, Law and Society in Traditional China (Paris and La Haye: Mouton & Co., 1961), 78–87Google Scholar and 170–200; see also van Ess, Hans, Politik und Gelehrsamkeit in der Zeit der Han (202 v.Chr. – 220 n.Chr.): Die Alttext / Neutext-Kontroverse (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993), 258–75Google Scholar. For two recent studies on filial piety and revenge in the Warring States and Han periods see Cheng, Anne, “Filial Piety with a Vengeance: The Tension between Rites and Law in the Han,” in Filial Piety in Chinese Thought and History, ed. Chan, Albert K.L. and Tan, Sor-hoon (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), 29–43Google Scholar; Zufferey, Nicolas, “Debates on Filial Vengeance during the Han,” in Dem Text ein Freund: Erkundungen des chinesischen Altertums, Robert H. Gassmann gewidmet, ed. Altenburger, Roland, Lehnert, Martin and Riemenschnitter, Andrea (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2009), 79–90Google Scholar. On the distinction between guilt and responsibility in Qin law see Goldin, “Han Law,” 12.

74. Note for instance the abolition and reintroduction of collective legal responsibility in the first decades of the Western Han, which was reminiscent of Qin rule (T'ung-tsu, Ch'ü, Han Social Structure, ed. Dull, Jack [Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1972], 264–66 [no. 16–17]Google Scholar). While some Han scholars contended that relatives should shield each other from the legal consequences of their actions, numerous cases are documented in which heads of families personally exercised their patriarchal privilege to punish family members, sometimes in reaction to actual misdeeds, sometimes to discipline their offspring for their perceived moral frailty (see Ch'ü, Han Social Structure, 262–63 [no. 14], 273–75 [25], 278 [29], 281–82 [33], 284–85 [37–38], 292–93 [46], 296 [50], 305–6 [64 (a case of suicide), 65]). In some cases, however, a father would refrain from punishing his son when alerted to the immorality of his own behavior (Ch'ü, Han Social Structure, 317–18 [75]), and sometimes, historiographers assert, silent reprimands were sufficient to make sure that family members behaved themselves (Ch'ü, Han Social Structure, 308–9 [68]). Under Qin law, fathers could not kill their sons with impunity, but they could report them for being “unfilial” (bu xiao 不孝) and have them executed by the authorities; see Goldin, “Han Law,” 14.

75. This point has been emphasized by Stumpfeldt, , “War für Konfuzius eine Frau kein Mensch? Einige offene Fragen bei der Lektüre von Lun-yü 8.20,” Oriens Extremus 47 (2008), 66–80Google Scholar.