下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
First came Yan Ying
晏婴 — the person. Years later, after he had long passed away,
came Yanzi 晏子 — the eponymous protagonist of
The
Spring and Autumn Annals of Master Yan
晏子春秋. Reliable evidence
about the life and times of Yan Ying as a historical figure who lived in Qi齐 during the 6th century BCE is scarce and cannot be accurately assessed.
Through the fifth and fourth centuries BCE his identity, nevertheless,gradually coalesced into a distinctive portrait. Initially, Yan Ying was briefly mentioned in the
Analects
论语, in which he was succinctly praised by Confucius as a person who excelled at social relationships.
Next, he made his debut as an historical figure in the
Zuozhuan
左传.
This text contains several anecdotes about him, centering on the pivotal events of the waning of the ruling house in Qi and the rise of the Tian 田 clan to supremacy during the second half of the sixth century BCE. These anecdotes, taken together, form an appealing personal portrait of Yan Ying as a minister who both delivered eloquent remonstrations and played a principled and courageous role in the service of three failing rulers.
Subsequently, during the second half of the fourth century BCE, the presence of Yanzi’s figure in the literature began to make a mark, as he received both praise and critique. Chunyu Kun 淳于髡 (c. 340 BCE), a member of the Jixia 稷下 patronage community,
cited him with admiration in the remonstrations he delivered to Duke Wei of Qi 齐威王 (c. 378–320 BCE).
Mencius 孟子 (c. 372–c. 289 BCE), on the other hand, was offended when his disciple, Gongsun Chou 公孙丑 from Qi, persisted in weighing the abilities of his master Mencius against those of Guan Zhong管仲
and Yanzi.
Mencius responded to the notion condescendingly by denying the importance of both Guan Zhong and Yanzi as two great ministers in Qi, characterizing them instead as two state functionaries whose value was strictly limited to their own immediate time and place.
The same dismissive attitude towards Yanzi and Guan Zhong was recorded a bit later in the preserved philosophical writings of Xunzi 荀子 (ca. 310–235 BCE;alt. ca. 314–ca. 217 BCE). A certain “Master,” points that both Yan Ying and Guan Zhong are presented as ministers of major accomplishments; he then indicates that the accomplishments of Guan Zhong were superior to those of Yan Ying; finally, he concludes the section by calling Guan Zhong “a rustic boor” who did not properly fulfill the post of minister to his ruler, the Son of Heaven.
By implication, what is one to think of Yan Ying, whose achievements were claimed to be inferior to those of Guan Zhong?
Between the years 300 BCE and 200 BCE the Yanzi figure gradually underwent a change. His character evolved into a more central figure,both in narrated episodes in which he played a role, and in textual records that bore his name. Until the middle of the third century BCE his deeds, admired or dismissed, were always overshadowed by the general historical circumstances that framed his place in the text, and his character served a broader purpose than the limited scope of his pronouncements. However,around 250 BCE, the Yanzi figure moved from the periphery to occupy center stage in the narrated episodes. In the following years, his figure became a source for full references and attracted increasing critical attention. His image became more complex — sometimes exemplary, sometimes dubious — and eventually gave rise to a body of characteristic anecdotes that focused not only on his public deeds but also on his personality as an individual with a unique thought process. This shift towards the center is reflected in the following three major texts of the era: In
Mozi
墨子
Lüshi
chunqiu
吕氏春秋,
and
Hanfeizi
韩非子.
In
Mozi’
s 墨子 chapter thirty-nine, “Against the Confucians” 非儒,Yanzi no longer plays a subsidiary character role, but rather emerges as a dominant figure on the “anti-Confucian,” Mohist stage. He is portrayed as a close confidant and advisor to the Duke of Qi, whose Mohist agenda against the Confucians elicits from Yanzi a series of hostile views against the Confucians’ worldview and excessive practices.
His attitude is harsh;he not only denounces Confucius personally as a rebellious and even murderous figure, but also strips Confucianism of its core values, presenting its advocates as practitioners of useless showmanship. From this point in the text onwards, the Yanzi figure becomes identified in several other texts an references as well, not only as a Mohist but also as a torchbearer against Confucius and Confucians alike.
In the
Lüshi chunqiu
吕氏春秋, the Yanzi figure functions authentically as a unique paradigm of a moral, self-critical, and courageous individual. The text contains three episodes that portray him acting in desperate and life-threatening situations. In the first, his benevolence and moral authenticity is so exemplary and inspirational for others that those he encounters devotedly sacrifice their lives for him.
In the second, his act of benevolence demonstrates his rare ability to be self-critical and selfdemanding — a perfectionist’s awareness of the implications of the entire scope of his actions and conduct.
In the third, he is presented as a model of great authentic courage, as he faces imminent execution.
The
Hanfeizi
韩非子 contains three sections on Yanzi pointedly directed against his reasoning regarding governmental concerns, against his humane approach to relief efforts, and against his psychological considerations in regard to harsh and lenient punishments. It seems as if the
Hanfeizi
considered the Yanzi figure a threatening embodiment of a world view that had to be challenged and refuted on Legalist grounds. The Yanzi figure is therefore met in the text with sharp philosophical criticism,and at one point he is even branded “insincere,” with respect to his own argument. The first among these three sections attacks Yanzi’s famous traits of frugality and abstemiousness. The text not only argues against the senselessness of these two values, insofar as they can result in a complete lack of motivation amongst ministers to succeed, but also claims that Confucius himself had previously voiced this particular criticism against Yanzi.
The second section claims that Yanzi’s humane and generous approach towards officialdom and the people shows that he lacked the ability to remove troubles and thereby exposed his ruler to grave disaster.
Finally, in the third episode, the text attacks Yanzi’s lenient approach to punishment, claiming that Yanzi himself did not believe his own argument.For the
Hanfeizi,
Yanzi’s lenient approach shows that Yanzi failed to understand clearly the meaning of governance.
All these textual examples suggest that around 200 BCE, the Yanzi figure not only played a more central role in narrated episodes that bear his name, but also most likely constituted the inspiration for several distinctive texts that focused entirely on his legacy — some of which included his name in the title. In 139 BCE, this stage in the evolution of the Yanzi figure became evident. In that year, the imperial kinsman Liu An 刘安 presented to Emperor Wu 武帝 an encyclopedic philosophical text known as the
Huainanzi
. The text’s twenty-first chapter, entitled “An Overview of the Essentials 要略,”
aims to summarize and analyze the entire preceding twenty chapters and concludes by reviewing and explaining the genesis of important texts written by significant advisors and thinkers who played an influential role in the past. The text reads:
Duke Jing of Qi
enjoyed music and sex while inside his palace
and enjoyed dogs and horses while outside his palace.
When hunting and shooting, he would forget to return home.
When enjoying sex, he did so indiscriminately.
He built a terrace over the Road Bedchamber
and cast a grand bell.
When it was struck in the audience hall,
the sound [was so thunderous that] all the pheasants outside the city
walls cried out.
In a single morning [i.e., one court session] he distributed three thousand bushels of grain as largesse.
Liangqiu Ju and Zijia Kuai
led him about from the left and the right. Therefore,
The Remonstrations of Yanzi
晏子谏 were born.
To sum up: First, the
Huainanzi
discusses the circumstances that gave rise to a text that it refers to as
The Remonstrations of Yanzi
; second,“remonstrations” voiced by Yanzi against Duke Jing are not only one of the core subjects of the entire bulk of the received version of the
YZCQ
but also the title name that Liu Xiang 刘向 (77–6 BCE) gave to the first two chapters of his definitive text of
Yanzi
third, the
Huainanzi
’s description of the seven circumstances that gave rise to this
The Remonstrations of Yanzi
match their corresponding items in four of the eight chapters of the received version of the
YZCQ
. We may thus conclude with relative confidence that around 139 BCE a text existed whose title identified it with Yanzi and whose contents shared a great similarity to the received version of the
YZCQ
. And indeed, some fifty years later, this stage of textual development was clearly defined when Yanzi’s legacy was sealed as an outspoken and courageous minister and as the author of a popular, circulating text, entitled
The Spring and Autumn Annals of Master Yan
晏子春秋. This legacy was
secured among other unforgettable biographical narratives in Sima Qian’s(c. 145 – c. 86 BCE)
Shiji
史记.
Yanzi’s biography appears in chapter 62 of the
Shiji
, following that of Guan Zhong, which constitutes the first part of the Chapter
It consists of four parts: the first two deal exclusively with Yanzi, while the third and fourth focus on him and Guan Zhong together. A number of biographical sketches of both Yanzi and Guan Zhong, mostly drawn from the
Zuozhuan
,are scattered throughout the preceding chapter 32 of the
Shiji
.
Readers should note, however, that Sima Qian does not include in chapter 62 any of those biographical sketches previously related to Yanzi — only those of Guan Zhong’s are recapitulated in the latter’s biography. They should also note at the outset the concluding line of Yanzi’s biography, before commencing to read this piece regularly from beginning to end. In this line,Sima Qian expresses his own profound admiration for Yanzi’s personality in the following emotive statement:
If Yanzi were still alive, though I were only holding the whip for him, I would be pleased and longing to serve him.
Now, as the readers return to the opening lines of the biography, they may notice that this concluding statement of admiration actually resonates throughout the entire memoir, shaping its choices regarding contents. Sima Qian first weaves the two memoirs together by establishing an historical link between Guan Zhong and Yanzi with the following words:
After Guan Zhong died, the state of Qi followed his governmental policies and Qi was regularly stronger than the other feudal states. Over one-hundred years later, Yanzi was there.
Both the convergence and divergence between the biographies of Guan Zhong and Yanzi are thus established, bringing together chapter 62 as one historical unit. Readers are now compelled to examine and evaluate from a comparative perspective two figures of unequal historical magnitude: Guan Zhong, a minister whose brilliant policies are now pronounced to have shaped over 100 momentous years in Qi history; and Yanzi, a brilliant and outspoken minister, but a complete failure in saving the ruling house of Qi from its eventual demise. The first part of Yanzi’s biography reads
Yan Pingzhong 晏平仲, Ying 婴, was a native of Yiwei 夷维 in Lai莱.
He served Duke Ling 灵 (r. 581–554), Duke Zhuang 庄 (r. 553–548),and Duke Jing 景 (r. 547–490) and because of his frugality
and vigor, he was esteemed in Qi. Even after he became Prime Minister of Qi, he did not have two servings of meat, and his concubines did not wear silk. At court,if the Duke addressed him, he would speak audaciously; if the Duke did not address him, he would act audaciously.
If the Way prevailed in the country,he would follow orders. If it did not, he would weigh the consequences of the orders. For these reasons, he was renowned among the princes in his service during three reigns.
After reading this first part of Yanzi’s biography bearing in mind the preceding biography of Guan Zhong, readers see that Guan Zhong is presented in chapter 62 as a remarkable figure who helped shape the history of Qi and who was personally involved in major turning points of its history.However, no similar narration is provided in the presentation of Yanzi’s life.The first part of Yanzi’s biography contains only a succinct record of names, place of residence, rank, and an approximate count of the years he spent in his official service to three dukes. Readers are offered no information regarding any major historical achievement of Yanzi in Qi; the text describes neither any important incidents nor any significant developments in his personal life by which readers might form a judgment. In contrast, the text itself does provide judgment in the form of a detailed list of observations regarding Yanzi’s traits, virtuous conduct, and personality, as if he were a protagonist in a book whose story-line was somehow missing. Thus, after finishing reading the first part of Yanzi’s biography, readers might well conclude that Yanzi played a much lesser role in the history of Qi than did Guan Zhong. Moreover, except for general background, readers receive no substantial information about the actual events and major developments of Yanzi’s life. That said, they would most likely be attracted to his personality as a protagonist whose frugality, vigor, courage, honesty, integrity, and audacity were evident throughout his life, having made him eminently famous among the people of his time.
At this point, readers may find themselves perplexed by Sima Qian’s selection of different types of biographical data for the two parts of the chapter. However, in light of the concluding line, they may resolve this discrepancy in view of Sima Qian’s admiration of Yanzi’s personality and his attempt to minimize the significant gap between the historical impacts of these two ministers on the fate of Qi. Sima Qian achieved this by posing Guan Zhong’s historical achievements against Yanzi’s finest virtues,thereby avoiding a direct comparison between the former, whose historical significance was great, and the latter, who bore almost no historical status but instead was a unique individual with rare qualities.
The second part of the biography
consists of two consecutive episodes about Yanzi, which appear in the received text of the
YZCQ
.
The first among the two narrates in concise form an episode strikingly similar to Item 5.24 [134]. It tells the story of Yanzi’s ransoming a certain Yue Shifu from captivity by selling one of his four horses, but failing, afterwards, to treat Yue Shifu with the proper respect. The ransomed prisoner reacts in protest against Yanzi’s neglect of the proper rites, which brings Yanzi to immediately repent and treat him as an honored guest. The second episode is identical, word for word, with Item 5.25 [135]. It narrates the episode of the wife of Yanzi’s eight-foot tall charioteer who is seeking to divorce her husband on the grounds that he drives Yanzi’s chariot in a pompous manner.Yanzi, she argues, is not even six-feet tall
and acts modestly, even though he is a renowned prime minister. Her argument brings the charioteer to immediately repent and change his manner driving and Yanzi, who notices the change, recommends him for a high governmental post.
The two episodes are subtle, focusing on one implicit question: what does authentic identity consist of? In that regard, the two episodes can be analyzed from both philosophical and psychological perspectives. However,regarding Yanzi’s biography, they contain no information about his life except for giving indirectly the detail that he was a person of diminutive stature. It seems that this part of Yanzi’s biography again merely illustrates his set of virtues by narrating two accounts that lead the readers to realize two aspects of Yanzi’s character: that he spared no effort to save a fellow person from a life-threatening predicament; that he was self-critical and thus able to change attitude in a complex personal situation; and that he had a profound ability to go beyond the outward appearances and fathom the inner reality of the people who surrounded him.
What was Sima Qian in incorporating these two episodes into Yanzi’s biography? Again, in light of the “admiring” concluding epilogue, and given that Guan Zhong’s biography in chapter 62 consists of 525 words while Yanzi’s (at this point) consists of only 75, it appears that Sima Qian needed to lengthen Yanzi’s biography in order to create a more balanced proportion between his discussions of Yanzi and Guan Zhong.
The third part of the biography
is mainly a literary assessment focusing on the respective writings of Guan Zhong and Yanzi. It reads:
“I have read through Mr. Guan Zhong’s [1] ‘Shepherding the People,’[2] ‘Mountains on High,’ [3] ‘Chariots and Horses,’ [4] ‘Light and Heavy,’ and [5] ‘Nine Bureaus’
as well as the [6] ‘
Spring and Autumn
Annals of Master Yan.
’ Their words are expressed with such detail that having seen the books they wrote I wanted to examine their actions and therefore have attached their biographies. As for their books, many people today have copies of them and therefore I have not selected from them but instead have selected some neglected stories.”
The third part of the biography entails a major stage in the history of the Yanzi’s text. Sima Qian clearly states that he read five titles attributed to Guan Zhong as well as an additional sixth text, entitled
The Spring
and Autumn Annals of Master Yan
晏子春秋 attributed to Yanzi. He also
states that these texts were finely written and very popular in his time. This statement provides solid evidence that by around 100 BCE, Yanzi’s text had assumed its textual identity as an authentic biography. Further confirmation for this status is offered by its metonymic title (春秋
given in the
Shiji
,and also by its broad circulation in the Han intellectual milieu.
The last, fourth part of chapter 62 is the epilogue of the two combined biographies of Guan Zhong and Yanzi.
Sima Qian presents the hidden tension between the historical memories of the two Qi ministers that he combined in chapter 62 to its culmination by issuing an implied harsh judgment against Guan Zhong:
Guan Zhong was what the world refers to as a worthy official, but Confucius belittled him. Could it be because he considered the Way of the Zhou to be in decline and [because] Duke Huan was worthy, yet Guan Zhong did not exhort him to become king, but rather proclaimed himself Overlord?
With these words, all of Guan Zhong’s previously narrated achievements as a figure who shaped the history of Qi are reduced to mediocrity, with the metaphor Confucius had coined about him: “Guan Zhong was a vessel of small capacity” 管仲之器小哉.
As for Yanzi,however, Sima Qian brings the epilogue to its end with words of strong praise that show his great admiration for him as a personal idol:
“When Yanzi fell down upon the corpse of Duke Zhuang, he would not leave until he completed his ritual duties for his lord.
Could we say that he was ‘one who regards seeing what was right but not doing it as cowardice’
When it came to remonstrating, he was not afraid to brave his ruler’s displeasure, and he was one whom we might refer to as ‘exhausting his utmost in how to be loyal as he advances, and in how to correct his ruler’s faults as he withdraws.’
If Yanzi were still alive, though I were only holding the whip for him, I would be pleased and longing to serve him.”
These final words with which Sima Qian imagines himself playing the role of Yanzi’s old driver during the dangerous time surrounding the assassination of Duke Zhuang
conclude Chapter 62 of the
Shiji
. Sima Qian expresses his longing to serve Yanzi and admiration for him, leaving the reader to reflect upon the two memoirs and ponder who among their two heroes ascended to a greater dominance in the history of Qi. However, the link between the two memoirs has been cleverly achieved and, indeed, in the years immediately following the composition of the
Shiji
, Guan Zhong and Yanzi were referred to jointly and evaluated in comparative judgment as equals.
The Yanzi figure continued to make a mark in the Han intellectual sphere during the first century BCE. The
Yantie lun
盐铁论 by Huan Kuan桓宽 (fl. 81–60 BCE) refers to him several times not only as a historical personage
ut also as the source of a quoted text.
Moreover, toward the end of the century, his figure took on unforgettable proportions in a definitive text that Liu Xiang collated, prefaced, and entitled
Yanzi
.”
In 26 BCE, Emperor Cheng 成帝 (r. 33–7 BCE) ordered Liu Xiang刘向, the great Han bibliographer, to collect and collate canonical scriptures, traditional narratives, and philosophical and literary works of diverse kinds from all over the empire, along with those stored in the repositories of the palace.
Subsequently, Liu Xiang collected over eight hundred anecdotes that focused on the life and time of Yanzi and with much effort turned them into a set of 215 glued items which exhibit an apparent thematic and faint chronological order, that form the definitive text from which Yanzi’s distinctive personal legacy was fashioned. This was a legacy of an exceptional personality of self-defined vocation and of diminutive body stature; an epitome of thriftiness and generosity alike;a master of psychological manipulation and comic, theatrical gestures; a profound scholar of vast knowledge and pragmatic reasoning, and a strong advocate against slavishly following the supernatural; a moral authority and courageous role model for the people of his era, who made Sisyphean efforts to lead the absurdly corrupt rulers he served towards just rulership;an equal to Guan Zhong and a match — even a rival — to Confucius.
Above all, however, the definitive text of 215 items that Liu Xiang produced was the first literary biography in ancient China that focused exclusively on one leading protagonist — Yanzi — a rare individual, a minister of the Altars of Soil and Grai
a master without a disciple, who was a true hero of his life.
For almost each of his collated works, Liu Xiang presented a memorial to the Emperor consisting of a table of contents; an account of the textual material that was used in forming the collated text; a short narrative of the life, time, and works of the eponymous author; and a discussion of the value, authenticity, and authorship of the presented text.
Liu Xiang’s report on
Yanzi
晏子,
follows the exact same pattern: It opens with a table of contents which consists of eight
pian
. The first six are named “Inner Chapters” (内篇) and are respectively entitled “Remonstrations” 1 and 2(谏上下), “Queries” 1 and 2 (问上下), and “Miscellany” 1 and 2 (杂上下). The seventh and eighth
pian
are designated “Outer chapters” (外篇) and are respectively entitled “Repetition cum Difference” (重而异者) and“Incompatible with Classical Learning” (不合经术者).
After the table of contents, it opens with the project he set himself to accomplish, in which he recounts the main points surrounding the process involved in collating the different texts of
Yanzi
, and acknowledges the people who, under his editorial leadership, contributed to bringing the definitive text into existence.In the second part, he draws a lucid biographical sketch documenting recurring themes in Yanzi’s legacy. Finally, in the third and last part of his report, he critically evaluates the literary and philosophical value of
Yanzi
,providing some answers regarding the authenticity and the authorship of the text and justifying his bold editorial decision to include anti-canonical items in the text. The Report reads:
The Commissioner of Water Management of the Eastern Part of the Metropolitan Area and Counsellor of the Palace, Your Servant [Liu]Xiang says: The royal copies of
Yanzi
晏子, which Your Servant has collated, consisted of eleven
pian
篇. Together with [Fu] Can 富参,
the Commandant of Changshe 长社, Your Servant has carefully collated and compared them with the five
pian
text used by the Grand Astrologer, with Your Servant’s own one-
pian
text, and with the thirteen-
pian
text used by[Fu] Can. The entire corpus of royal copies and private copies of
Yanzi
formed a set of thirty
pian
, comprising 838 items 章. I discarded twenty-two
pian
that duplicate the same material comprising 638 items, and established a definitive text of eight
pian
comprised of 215 items. Thirty-six items in the definitive text were absent from the private copies, while seventy-on items were absent from the royal copies. The royal and private copies were incorporated into the definitive text after comparing each of the variants and fixing the text on this basis. The royal copies had the character
yao
夭for
fang
芳; the character
you
又 for
bei
备; the character
xian
先 for
niu
牛; and the character
zhang
章 for
zhang
长—and many other occurrences of this kind.
I have combined and pruned them with great care and after having transcribed everything into the definitive text, I inscribed it on dried bamboo slips cured over fire so that fine copies may be made from them.
Yanzi’s personal name was Ying, his posthumous name Pingzhong 平仲. He was a native of Lai — today’s Donglai 东莱. He was a person of broad learning and retentive memory, and possessed a thorough understanding of ancient and modern learning. He served Dukes Ling,Zhuang, and Jing of Qi, and carried out his activities with parsimony.
He exhibited supreme loyalty and remonstrated relentlessly in leading the state of Qi. On the strength of his efforts, these rulers were able to rectify their conduct and the people were able to keep their family together. When he was not in government service, he retired and plowed in the countryside;when he was in government office, he never violated his principles. He could not be intimidated by evil; even when a naked blade was placed upon his chest, he did not relent to Cui Zhu’s 崔杼 intimidation. He presented his remonstrations to the dukes of Qi; his words were elusive but telling,rhetorically pleasing but cutting. When he served as an envoy to the state sovereigns, no one could contravene his arguments. Such was the extent of his broad knowledge and thorough understanding. He was virtually equal to Guan Zhong 管仲. Within his family, he treated his relatives with proper affection; towards others, he treated the worthy generously. He served in the position of Prime Minister and received an emolument of tenthousand
zhong
钟.
Therefore, there were more than five hundred family members and relatives that depended upon his emolument in order to buy clothing and food, and the number of scholar-recluses who depended upon his emolument in order to receive their daily bread was great. Yanzi wore coarse clothing and covered himself in deer pelts; he drove a worn out nag and a broken down chariot. He exhausted his entire emolument on family,relatives, and friends. Because of all this, the people of Qi treated him with honor. Apparently, Yanzi was a person of diminutive height.
All the text’s first six
pian
are loyal remonstrations presented to his rulers; their literary style is remarkable, their moral principles can serve as paradigms, and all of them accord with the principles of the Six Classics. In addition to these six
pian,
there were duplicate items of somewhat different words and phrases that I dared not omit but rather rearranged them into one additional
pian
. There were also items that were somewhat not in accord with the learning of the Classics. They do not seem to be the words of Yanzi. I suspect that they were the product of masters of rhetoric of a later age. Once more, I did not dare omit them and have arranged them in one
pian
. Altogether the text consists of eight
pian
; the first six should always be available at your majesty’s side for your royal perusal. I have carefully arranged the text according to its proper sequence. Your Servant, [Liu]Xiang, hereby presents them to your Majesty, at the risk of my own life.
Certainly, the first part of Liu Xiang’s Preface is exclusively based on a body of various pericopae laid before him as the chief editor, and collator of the text. Only he could authentically tell future readers how the process of producing the definitive text of
Yanzi
had evolved. His personal involvement with this process is also reflected in the third and last part of the Preface,in which he expresses not only his scholarly views regarding the value of the text but also his misgivings about setting off the items of the six“Inner Chapters” — which he thought authentically recorded Yanzi’s own words — from the spurious items cited by masters of rhetoric of later times,in the eighth, “Outer Chapter,” that he decided to retain. As for the second, biographical part of the Preface — readers who examine it in comparison to the biography of Yanzi in the
Shiji
will notice that Liu Xiang shares with Sima Qian the same admiration for Yanzi. Nevertheless, while Sima Qian was very careful not to draw extremely from the text that he, according to his own statement, had carefully read —
The Spring and Autumn Annals
of Master Yan,
Liu Xiang borrowed heavily from his collated
Yanzi
in drawing up his version of Yanzi’s biography.
From that moment onward, the historical legacy of Yanzi has been primarily represented and judged by the text (and preface) that Liu Xiang produced and introduced to his peers. Almost all other recorded echoes of Yanzi that have been found to date in other texts have been dimmed within the historical recollection.
After the death of Liu Xiang (d. 8 BCE), from the first century CE through the Tang, Yanzi’s text, entitled either Yanzi or YZCQ , was listed,quoted and evaluated in the following 15 stages in its textual transmission:
It was probably listed under the title
YZCQ
in the section devoted to Confucian writings in Liu Xin’s 刘歆 (d. CE 23) bibliographical catalogue —
Qilue
七略 (
Seven Summaries
), as a text of 7
pian
.
It was listed under the title “
Yanzi
” in the section devoted to Confucian writings in Ban Gu’s 班固 (32–92 CE) bibliographical chapter of the
Hanshu
汉书 —
Yiwenzhi
’s 艺文志 (
Treatise on Literature
), as a text of 8
pian
.
The
Lunheng
论衡, by Wang Chong 王充 (27–100 CE), referred to both Yanzi and Guan Zhong as “successful writers;”
it also quoted various statements pronounced by the Yanzi figure, almost all of which appear in parallel in the received text of the
YZCQ
.
The
Fengsu tongyi
风俗通义, by Ying Shao 应劭 (d. ca. 204 CE),quoted the entire item 6.6 [146] of the
YZCQ
, identifying it as drawn from the
YZCQ
.
The
Kongcongzi
孔丛子, a work written by Wang Su (195–256 CE) in his youth,
noted that the title
Chunqiu
春秋 was included in the title of the “Book of Yanzi.”
It also strongly attacked the notion that Yanzi was an anti-Confucian who subscribed to Mohist views.
Liu Xie 刘勰 (465–522) stated in his
The Literary Mind and the
Carving of Dragons
文心雕龙 that Yanzi’s and Guan Zhong’s writings are characterized by clarity in their factual accounts through their refined language style.
The
Shuijing zhu
水经注, by Li Daoyuan 郦道元 (d. 527), quoted a section from Item 2.24 [49] of the
YZCQ
, specifying Liu Xiang’s prefaced text of the
YZCQ
as the source of the citation.
The Tang encyclopedia (类书),
Beitang shuchao
北堂书钞, completed by Yu Shinan 虞世南 (558–638) before 618, quotes the
Yanzi
and the
YZCQ
dozens of times,
all of which appear throughout the eight
pian
of the received text of the
YZCQ
.
The Tang encyclopedia,
Yiwen leiju
艺文类聚, completed by Ouyang Xun 欧阳询 (557–641) between the years 622 and 624, quoted the
Yanzi
and the
YZCQ
dozens of times, all of which appear scattered throughout the eight
pian
of the received text of the
YZCQ
.
The
Qunshu zhiyao
群书治要, an anthology of canonical and early historical statecraft, completed in 631 by Wei Zheng 魏征 (580–643),contains, listed under the authorship of Yan Ying, a collection of 38 full items entitled
Yanzi
,
all of which appear throughout the eight
pian
of the received text of the
YZCQ
.
These 38 intact items consisted of 7,047 characters, which amount to no less than 17% of the entire bulk of 41,324 characters of the received text. The items are rearranged, sometimes in slightly different sequence, to form a
Yanzi
anthology of six parts. Although they are titled identically as the six “Inner Chapters” of Liu Xiang’s
Yanzi
:“Remonstrations,” (1 and 2), “Queries” (1 and 2), and “Miscellany” (1 and 2), they also include several items from the 7th and the 8th “Outer Chapters” of the text as well.
The bibliographical monograph of the
Suishu Jingji zhi
隋书经籍志from 656 listed the
YZCQ
in the section devoted to Confucian writings as a seven-
juan
卷 text, authored by Yan Ying.
This bibliographical monograph is the only one compiled between the Han and the Tang, which is still preserved intact, and includes features from several now lost pre-Tang catalogues including Ruan Xiaoxu’s 阮孝绪 (479–
5
49)
Qilu
七录.
The official dynastic history of Tang, the
Jiu Tangshu
旧唐书 by Liu Xu 刘昫 (887–946), was later recompiled by the Song scholars Ouyang Xiu欧阳修 (1007–1072) and Song Qi 宋祁 (998–1061) as
Xin Tangshu
新唐书. The two “histories” listed the
YZCQ
in the section devoted to Confucian writings as a seven-
juan
卷 text, authored by Yan Ying.
The Li Shan 李善 (d. 689) commentary to the Wen Xuan 文选注quoted the YZCQ about 40 times. All these references appear in the eight pian of the received text of the YZCQ .
The Tang encyclopedia
Chuxueji
初学记 by Xu Jian 徐坚 (659–729) quoted the
Yanzi
and the
YZCQ
dozens of times, all of which appear throughout the received text of the
YZCQ
.
The philosophical anthology Yilin 意林, authored by Ma Zong 马总 (d.823), listed the text under the title
Yanzi
, as an eight-
pian
text, comprising 16 items, all of which appear in the received text of the
YZCQ
.
To sum up, during the period under discussion:
1. The Yanzi text was listed, recognized, and transmitted under two titles: Yanzi and YZCQ .
2. Liu Xiang’s prefaced Yanzi was circulated and directly referred to as a source of citation.
3. All the text’s Inner Chapters’ titles were known and referred to by their names.
4. Yan Ying was ascribed with the authorship of the text.
5. The text was classified as a Confucian text.
6. The literary value of the text was highly appreciated.
7. A considerable part of the text appeared in encyclopedias and compendia alike.
8. The text’s two Outer Chapters were sometimes reduced to one “Outer Chapter.” Occasionally, in the reduction of these two chapters, items from them were scattered under the names of the six “Inner Chapters.” Thus, we may reasonably assume that the outer chapters’ text subdivision to either pian or juan was somewhat flexible.
This stable transmission of a highly regarded text, ascribed to its ancient author and bearing a preface by its historical imperial collator,was suddenly disrupted. The fixed status that the text enjoyed until the end of the eighth century — its repeated listings in all dynastic bibliographies and major catalogues alike as a Confucian text, as well as the extensive quotations as a source of traditional lore in the most celebrated encyclopedias — ended rapidly. It was the great poet and statesman of the Late Tang, Liu Zongyuan, whose short essay “Discussing YZCQ ” placed the exalted status of the text into doubt. His essay reads:
Sima Qian read the YZCQ and highly valued it, but he did not know how this text came to be. Some say: “Yanzi wrote it and others carried it forward.” Others say: “It was written by the descendants of Yanzi.” All of them are wrong. I suspect that it was someone among the followers of Mozi in Qi who wrote it. Mozi loved frugality and Yanzi was famous for this trait in his generation. Therefore, the followers of Mozi wrote his deeds with great respect in order to promote their own methods.
At this point, Liu Zongyuan summarizes basic features in Mohist philosophical agendas, concluding that the
YZCQ
shares basic traits with them.
He then continues:
Ever since Liu Xiang and Liu Xin, Ban Biao (3–54) and Ban Gu,fathers and sons all classified the text among Confucian works. It is extremely regrettable that all these scholars did not examine it more closely.Had the author not been a man from Qi, he could not have recounted Yanzi’s deeds; had the author not been a follower of Mozi, he could not have rendered it the way he did. Henceforth, when classifying the text amongst philosophical books, it should be classified Mohist. It is not that Yanzi was a Mohist, but those who wrote the book were followers of the way of Mohism.
This concluding line is a bombshell in disguise — it disassociates the historical, “non-Mohist” Yan Ying from the Mohist-oriented text that bears his name. Furthermore, given the previous statement that Yanzi’s descendants likewise did not author the text, it implies that the text was not authentic. The upshot of this contention is that it did not represent authentically what it presumes to represent but serves as a vehicle to advance a hidden agenda of some Mohists from Qi to promote their own ideas.
To summarize: Liu Xiang had stated previously that the 8th
pian
of the
Yanzi,
which he created, contained problematic material that did not reflect the words of Yanzi but was probably the product of masters of rhetoric of a later age. Subsequently, the young Wang Su made a stupendous effort throughout the whole 18th chapter of the
Kongcongzi
to persuade his readers that Yanzi was not an anti-Confucian who subscribed to Mohist views identical to those he himself pronounced in the 8th
pian
of the
YZCQ
.But it was rather Liu Zongyuan’s blunt and unsparing criticism that changed the course of the entire text of
YZCQ
’s trajectory — its authenticity, date,authorship, and philosophical vision henceforth always would be subject to debate
— and almost each of these debates will always echo Liu Zongyuan’s iconoclastic views of the text, at least in spirit.
The transmission of the YZCQ during the Song splits into two inconsistent lines of transmission: the encyclopedic, which manifests the impression of a stable transmission of the text; and the bibliographical,which seems to undermine this impression.
The incorporation of many direct and indirect quotations from the
YZCQ
into the major encyclopedic compilations of the Song establishes an image of stable transmission of a single text over a period of 300 consecutive years throughout the Song.
The following list of 122 directly quoted items demonstrates the scope of the text’s popularity and its unchanging transmission-status as a source of ancient lore during the Song:
When all the Song encyclopedia quotations of the
YZCQ
are digitally assembled to form an integrated database together with all the
YZCQ
quotations that appear in the Tang encyclopedias and anthologies, the appearance of identical items repeatedly quoted from the two eras suggests a continuous line of stable transmission of the
YZCQ
text that starches from the early Tang to the end of the Song.
One specific item in this database,however, deserves a privileged status in evaluating the transmission of the text. The last, 215th item in the received text of the
YZCQ
is not only first directly quoted in two Tang anthologies,
Qun shu zhi yao
(631) and
Yilin
(ca. 823), but is then subsequently quoted in the Song encyclopedia
Taiping yulan
(938), and finally is quoted in the Ming encyclopedia
Tian
zhong ji
天中记 (1569). However, this passage can also be traced back to its ancient origin as bamboo strips no. 624-630, which comprises the sixteenth item in the Yinqueshan
Yanzi.
The stages that these seven bamboo strips have traversed in their journey from Tomb #1 in Yinqueshan(140 BCE), through the Tang anthologies and the Song and Ming encyclopedias, up to the formation of the received text from the various printed editions, can therefore be specified, and can enhance the impression of the stable transmission of the entire text of the
YZCQ
throughout the ages.
From the 1st century CE through the Sui and the Tang, the
Yanzi
text was persistently transmitted under the titles
Yanzi
or
YZCQ
as either an 8
pian,
7
pian
or 7
juan
text. Throughout this period, all ascribed the authorship of the text to Yan Ying himself, except for Liu Zongyuan (773–819), who argued in his “Mohist” essay that the text was a product of a follower of Mozi from Qi.
In the Song, however, many sources began to list the text as a 12
juan
one.
Some scholars argued that Yanzi’s 8
pian
text of the Han was no longer extant, and several major bibliographers denied to Yan Ying the authorship of the text.
Wang Yaochen 王尧臣 (1001–1056) was probably the first to record in his catalogue,
Chongwen zongmu
崇文总目, a 12
juan
text of the
YZCQ
. He placed the text in the section devoted to Confucian writings, stated that the 8
pian
text of the Han was no longer extant, and determined that it would be wrong to ascribe the authorship of the text to Yan Ying because, as he argued, the text was written by later authors.
Following Wang Yaochen, Chao Gongwu 晁公武 1105–1180 also listed the
YZCQ
as a 12
juan
text in his private library catalogue
Junzhai
dushu zhi
郡斋读书志. However, he incorporated a large quotation from Liu Zongyuan’s “Mohist” essay, explicitly adapted Liu’s argument, and placed the text in the section devoted to Mohist writings.
Somewhat later, Chen Zhensun 陈振孙 (fl. 1211–1249) added in his Zhizhai shulu jieti 直斋书录解题 a detailed reference to the YZCQ, in which he tried to incorporate all possible bibliographical worlds. He placed the text back in its traditional section devoted to Confucian writings and then made the following comment:
YZCQ
in 12
juan
. Written by Yan Ying Ping Zhong, a High Officer from Qi. The
Hanshu
states that the text consists of 8
pian
but the reference is to a text entitled
Yanzi
. In the Sui and Tang, the text was listed as 7
juan
text and began to be entitled
YZCQ
.
Now the number of
juan
differs so I do not know if this text is indeed the original text or not.
At the end of the Song era, Wang Yinglin 王应麟 (1223–1296),commenting on the section devoted to Confucian writings in the
Hanshu
Yiwenzhi
, adapted Liu Zongyuan’s “Mohist” view of the text. He also proffered an awkward explanation concerning the discrepancy regarding whether the text involves 8
pian
or 12
juan
. He followed Wang Yaochen’s argument according to which later authors compiled the text and thereby arrived at the conclusion that later textual accretion of material altered the inner division of the text from 8
pian
to 12
juan
.
It is worth noting that, as late as the end of the Qing, Liu Shipei 刘师培 (1884–1919) added another convoluted explanation in order to deal with the conflicting bibliographical references to the text of the
YZCQ
as either 8
pian
or 7 or 12
juan
text. He suggested that during the Sui and the Tang, the two “Miscellany” (杂) chapters (
pian
5 and 6) were combined to form one
juan
and that afterwards, in the Song, the first 5
juan
of this “new” 7
juan
edition were divided into two
juan
, forming a set of 10
juan
that together with the “Outer” 2
juan
(which remained intact) gave rise to the 12
juan
edition of the
YZCQ
.
It seems, however, that the elegant way in which the editors of Siku quanshu (1782) dealt with this puzzle of divergent bibliographical references, approximately 100 years before Liu Shipei, should have resolved this confusion. Toward the end of the “Synopsis” (提要) of their textual version of the YZCQ, they added the following short section in which they discussed the bibliographical discrepancies of the text:
The
Hanzhi
[
Hanshu Yiwenzhi
] and the
Suizhi
[
Suishu Jingjizhi
] listed
the text as an 8
pian
text. Then, in the bibliographies of Chen Zhensun and Chao Gongwu it was listed as a 12
juan
text. It turned out that by then, the arrangements of the text’s chapters have already been considerably altered.
In these few short lines, the Siku Quanshu ’s editors first acknowledge the existence of the bibliographical discrepancies recorded from the Han throughout the Song. They then suggest the obvious. Namely, they claimed that these discrepancies were the result of the considerable changes in the arrangement of chapters that the text had undergone over the decades; that is, that all these discrepancies were purely technical in nature, and nothing more. Simply stated, the entire uncertainty boils down to the confusion surrounding the transmission and editing of the text over the years.
It is entirely reasonable to infer that a woodblock edition of the
YZCQ
already existed in the Song; however, evidence to that effect is quite paltry,almost nonexistent. Therefore, any such assumptions remain a matter of conjecture.
In any event, two of the notably earliest woodblock and moveable type editions of the
YZCQ
whose existence has been verified are:
(1) A woodblock edition stored in the family collection of Zhang Jinwu’s 张金吾 (1787–1829) in Zhao-wen 昭文 — today’s Changshu City (常熟) in Jiangsu Province (江苏).
It was comprised of 8
pian
and included a table of contents for each chapter and explanatory headings that were inserted at the beginning of all 215 items of the text.
(2) A movable type edition produced in the Ming, and preserved in Ding Songsheng’s 丁松生 (1832–1899) Library of 8,000
juan
of Movable Type Editions in Renhe County (仁和) in Zhejiang Province (浙江省).
This edition also consisted of 8
pian
and included a table of contents for each chapter and explanatory headings that were inserted at the beginning of all the 215 items of the text. Years later, this Ming movable type edition was reproduced in the 20th century in the
SBCK
series and then became the text on which the text of the
YZCQ ICS Ancient Chinese Text
Concordance Series
was based.
The
Siku Quanshu
editors classified the
YZCQ
in the sub-category of “Biographical Works” (传记) in the “History Branch” of their monumental collection of texts. In doing so, they avoided the need to determine whether the
YZCQ
comprised a Confucian or a Mohist text.
Their textual version,as previously noted, was based on the Li family Mianmiaoge woodblock edition of the late Ming and therefore included neither a table of contents nor item headings, as did the late Ming movable type edition that was based on the Yuan woodblock edition. Their Synopsis (提要), which is printed as a preface to the text, begins by condensing into a few lines over 1,000 years of bibliographical history, from the late Han through the Song. They then characterize the contents of the text as similar to those of two famous Tang admonishment texts,
and then render their judgment concerning the text’s authorship problem. They hold that the name of the text’s compiler was missing from the original text and that therefore Yan Ying was named as its author in order to give the text credibility. The editors then point to an absurd item that could not have possibly been included in the original text.
They continue to present the historical debate between those scholars who considered the
YZCQ
a Confucian text and those who thought the text was Mohist. They conclude that Yan Ying, the person, lived a bit before Mozi, at the time the wandering scholar Shi Jue (史角), whose disciples eventually became Mozi’s teachers, was staying in Lu,
o Yan Ying might have known him and been introduced to “Mohist” ideas even before Mozi himself. The Synopsis then refers to the fact that the text was listed under two titles —
Yanzi
and
YZCQ
— and determines that the use of the title
YZCQ
was appropriate because some texts such as
Lüshi chunqiu
and others were not chronologically arranged by years and months and nevertheless bore in their title the metonymy
Chunqiu
春秋 (“spring and autumn”). The Synopsis ends by presenting the divergent bibliographical references to the text and explains their editorial choice for the adapted Ming edition.
Sun Xingyan’s 7-
juan
commentary edition contained 8
pian
.
By interweaving
pian
and
juan,
Sun Xingyan managed to resolve the historical problem of the bibliographical discrepancy that arose from the bibliographical references to the Han 8-
pian
text and the Tang 7-
juan
text.His edition, which was based on two Ming editions, included neither a table of contents nor any item headings. He appended a long set of philological notes, entitled
Yinyi
音义,
of textual variations and clarifications, many of which were based on extracts from major encyclopedias such as
Yiwen leiju,Chuxue ji,
and
Taiping yulan,
as well as from the commentary to the literary anthology
Wen Xuan
. His edition included Liu Xiang’s Preface to the text,as well as his own Preface,
in which he made the following important statements:
1. Based on internal textual and external bibliographical evidence —the text could not possibly have been considered a forgery.
2. The text was created during the Warring States period after Yanzi’s death by the hands of guest retainers who collected stories about his deeds and activities from the official annals of the state of Qi.
3. The censorship performed by some Ming publishers against the anti-Confucian items that appear in the last Outer Chapter of the text is unjustified.
4. The textual material in the six Inner Chapters of the text justifies its traditional inclusion under the section devoted to Confucian writings.
5. The explanation provided in the Yuhai for the discrepancies in the number of juan in the text is “preposterous.”
6. Scholars, such as Liu Zongyuan, who considered the
YZCQ
a Mohist text, are ignorant and lacking in understanding.
7. The material contained in the last Outer Chapter of the text in no way harms the “great Way” of Confucianism. Liu Xiang likewise referred to the last Outer Chapter of the YZCQ as containing inauthentic material written by later people, and that in contrast to the authentic “inner chapters,”half of all ancient textual “outer chapters” always served as a platform for inauthentic writers seeking credibility.
During the last several decades of the Qing, the continuing textual scholarship on the
YZCQ
did not register any major breakthrough providing new insights into the text. Notable during this period is the celebrated late Qing and early Republican scholar Liang Qichao 梁启超 (1873–1929),who, together with scholars such as the aforementioned Liu Shipei 刘师培 (1884–1919), focused on the central questions related to the
YZCQ
.Liang’s view of the text is a composite of many of the previous insights that Chinese scholarship had produced over the preceding two millennia.
Liang first offered the daring bibliographical observation according to which the
Yanzi
text listed in the
Hanshu
was not only the same text to which Sima Qian referred in the
Shiji
,
ut probably the same text Liu An referenced in his
Huainanzi
; that is, the
Remonstrations of Yanzi
.
He then followed Liu Zongyuan’s view that the
YZCQ
was written by followers of Yanzi in Qi but nevertheless simultaneously stressed, in light of the
Siku
Quanshu
editors’ perspective, that these followers from Qi did not know Mozi (alluding to the fact that although the
YZCQ
might have a Mohist flavor, it had nothing to do with Mozi the person). Liang concluded his short piece by stating that the
YZCQ
acquired the celebrated name of “Yanzi”in its title only in later times, and that the actual date of its composition might be stretched beyond the Warring States period into the beginning of the Han dynasty. As for the received version, Liang expressed doubts as to whether the version is identical to the text referred to by Sima Qian and Liu An, but simultaneously averred that the received version is most probably the same text Liu Xiang compiled and is thus by no means a later product.
Towards the end of the Qing, one of the earliest scholarly references to the
YZCQ
in a Western language appeared in Shanghai. The British missionary Alexander Wylie in 1867 followed the
Siku Quanshu
classification and listed the text in the section devoted to bigraphical works of his
Notes on Chinese Literature.
He then added a short comment saying that the
YZCQ
was written some centuries before the Christian era and that it was “a personal narrative” of Yan Ying, “a reputed disciple of” Mozi.
In summary: at the end of the Qing and during the early Republic years, the decisive questions about the authenticity and philosophical characteristic of the YZCQ remained suspended in air — the ongoing textual scholarship of the YZCQ was in need of a broader circle of contributors and committed readers of the text in order to create a space in which new alternative voices could cope with the unsettled questions surrounding the text. Indeed, as it turned out, during the 20th century, the YZCQ ’s scholarly circles of committed readers and contributors did expand significantly—westwards.
The discovery of 102 “Yanzi” bamboo strips and fragments, excavated at Yinqueshan in 1972, shook up the long history of textual scholarship of the
YZCQ
.
Prior to that, during the first seven decades of the 20th century,several Western and Chinese scholars made the
YZCQ
more accessible to students of Chinese philosophy and provided new perspectives regarding the problem of the text’s authorship, date, and authenticity. These scholars include Alfred Forke (1867–1944); Henri Maspero (1883–1945); George Kao (1912–2008); Richard L. Walker (1922–2003); and Burton Watson(1925–2017). In China the most prominent
YZCQ
scholars were, among others, Zhang Chunyi 张纯一 (1871–1955); Wu Zeyu 吴则虞 (1913–1977);and Wang Gengsheng 王更生 (1928–2010).
Alfred Forke’s pioneering 1923 essay on the
YZCQ
still resonates to this day with important insights.
Forke argued that the
YZCQ
was an authentic — that is, an ancient — text, which he dated to the fifth century BCE.
He claimed that the text’s chief protagonist, Yanzi, dedicated his life to the service of his ruler and his people based on a set of pragmatic values.For Forke, Yanzi was a politician and not a pathbreaking theoretician immersed as Confucians had been — in his view — in a world of abstract knowledge and profound learning. Nor was he, in Forke’s eyes, a great statesman of Guan Zhong’s caliber; however, as a “charakter,” Forke argued, Yanzi outstripped the latter. Forke’s essay was comprised of several parts including a fully reconstructed biography of Yanzi drawn from various traditional sources; a detailed discussion of the history of the text; and a lengthy analysis of the text’s philosophy regarding topics such as ethics,thrifty, human relationships, and the interaction between the ruler and the people. Notable among these points is Forke’s groundbreaking analysis of the text’s advocacy of a kind of “natural religion” that makes it “ganz rationalistisch” in comparison to Confucius’ and Mozi’s religious beliefs.Finally, the essay presented an insightful examination of the authenticity of the first few items of the eighth chapter of the
YZCQ,
which contain aggressive attacks on Confucius and Confucianism.
Henri Maspero’s 1927 discussion of the
YZCQ
in his
La Chine antique
was less than two pages long; yet it comprised a masterful characterization of the entire text.
Maspero dated the
YZCQ
to the middle of the fourth century BCE and identified it, among other texts of that era, as a “historical romance”; that is, as a text whose writer mixed genuine historical facts with his own imagination. Maspero was the first to observe that the text exhibits in addition to its Mohist inclination a contrarian attitude not only towards Confucius but also towards the
Guanzi
. He nevertheless maintained that the
YZCQ
’s philosophical ideas, for all their intellectual value, were uninteresting and banal. Regarding literary style, however, Maspero expressed his admiration for the liveliness with which many of the scenes were staged. His long bibliographical note
in which he traced references to the authentic
YZCQ
in various sources from Han through the Tang — that is, references to the text before it underwent editorial changes during the Song and Yuan — still serves as a persuasive argument that a great part of the original
YZCQ
text was authentically transmitted through the received version.
George Kao’s 1946 anthology
Chinese Wit & Humor
included English translation of twelve relatively long items of the
YZCQ
. The anthology not only introduced the witty Yanzi to the Western reader but also granted Yanzi equal footing, as far as “wit” was concerned, with such monumental figures in Chinese history as Confucius, Mencius, Zhuangzi, Liezi and Hanfeizi.
Richard Walker’s 1952 weighty sinological analysis of the
YZCQ
introduced the text to academic circles in the English-speaking world and explored many of the text’s complexities long discussed by Chinese scholars.
To this day, Walker’s essay still provides a roadmap that sinologists should take into account when constructing their own critical studies of a text such as the
YZCQ
. Walker’s primary goal was to elevate the status of the
YZCQ,
“which has remained outside the pale of the extensive research,” and to see how Forke’s 1923 essay “stood the test of time” 25 years after it was published. In doing so, Walker suggests to replace the dignified title
Annals of the Philosopher Yen
” with a more casual title such as “
Speeches”
or
Aphorisms”
of Yanzi. At the same time, he characterizes Yanzi’s ability as it emerges from the text as merely “to extricate himself from ticklish situations by verbal gymnastics.” Thus, the reader is left perplexed as to the essayist Walker’s real intention. Obviously, one cannot elevate a long-ignored text like the
YZCQ
to the status of the most celebrated text of ancient China by deflating its title and by characterizing its protagonist as proficient in nothing more than the mediocre art of “verbal gymnastics.” And indeed, as the opening statements of the essay and all its introductory comments conclude, Walker actually aims at the heart of his real target: Forke’s 1923 essay. He begins by recording a few agreeable words concerning Forke’s “great amount of spadework” on the history of the text and its surrounding scholarship, and then launches an attack on Forke’s philosophical over-reading of the text and on his sinological methodology by listing flaws, culminating in the following somewhat disparaging statement: “Thus, while we may agree with Professor Forke on an early date for the
YTCC
[
YZCQ
], it is not alone for the reasons which he gives”.
Walker then critically examines the political milieu surrounding the composition of the text, grammatically analyzes the language of the text in comparison to other texts that exhibits similar contents, and brilliantly evaluates what is included and what is “not included” in the multi-layer text to reach the following conclusion:
The
YTCC
[
YZCQ
] is an authentic text most probably pre-dating the
Tso-chuan
[
Zuozhuan
]. A likely date of composition is sometime two or three generations after the death of Yen-tzu [Yanzi] when stories about him had become legendary, and not so long after his death for impossible fabrications to have entered in or for the text to have been formalized,philosophically or institutionally. This would probably place it some time before 400 B.C.
In 1962, Burton Watson’s excellent short subchapter on the
YZCQ
paved new directions for understanding and exploring the text, especially on psychological levels.
Watson placed the
YZCQ
in the “Philosophy” section of his survey of early Chinese literature and portrayed its chief protagonist,Yanzi, as a dour Mohist who advocated frugality and made the life of his indulgent ruler very difficult as a result of his “ubiquitous carpings.”Offering a fresh perspective on a story that for almost two millennia was championed as a rare example of a minister of great integrity who delivered honest remonstrations against his self-indulgent ruler, Watson took the Duke’s “side.” Watson’s new approach contravened the pious moralizing the text had as its core for millennia, and transformed it into a modern theatrical drama that the audience is invited to interpret freely. Furthermore,Watson drew the attention of future readers of this drama to its portrait of a static world that allows neither progress nor breakthroughs. The world and the main protagonists of the
YZCQ
remain unmoved from their original positions; indeed, in Watson’s words: “Almost invariably the Duke admits his folly and agrees to reform. Yet in the following anecdote we find him back at his old mischief.” No doubt, Watson’s view of the
YZCQ
gave the text a flare of Godot absurdity— “Nothing to be done.”
Between 1930 and 1962, two new annotated editions appeared in China that made the
YZCQ
much more accessible to potential readers everywhere. In 1936, Zhang Chunyi 张纯一 published an annotated edition entitled:
Yanzi chunqiu jiaozhu
晏子春秋校注 (preface, 1930).
This extremely rich and detailed commentary dealt with the textual difficulties of the text by first referring the reader to Sun Xingyan’s commentary of 1788 and then by making extensive comparative references to commentaries dealing with similar textual difficulties in other classical texts.
Then, in 1962, what still ought to be regarded as the most comprehensive edition of the
YZCQ
, was published in China. Wu Zeyu’s 吴则虞
Yanzi
chunqiu jishi
晏子春秋集释
offered an encyclopedic work containing everything worth knowing about the text itself and the surrounding circumstances of its composition and transmission. Nearly all of significance that had been stated about the text — every quote and every interpretation over a period of almost two millennia — can be found in Wu Zeyu’s edition.Not only is his own commentary instructive and altogether enlightening regarding almost every textually difficult passage — to which he attached a myriad of textual references from many other commentaries
—but he also provided appendices that gave the reader an extensive array of references to historical scholarship that had accumulated throughout the ages.
In his “Preface”
he developed a five-point argument in which he traced the authorship of the text to such Academicians as Chunyu Yue 淳于越 (ca. 214 BCE) from Qi, who relocated to Qin 秦 and served the First Emperor after the unification of China
The first three of Wu Zeyu’s fiv arguments were contextually external and therefore did not carry much weight; however, his fourth and fifth arguments provided a new dimension for the discussion of the authorship of the text. They pointed to some striking value-based ideas and stylistic similarities between Chunyu Yue’s recorded remonstrations and those pronounced by Yanzi in the
YZCQ
.Unfortunately, the number of items in this list of compared similarities presented by Wu Zeyu was too small to derive a definitive conclusion that Chunyu Yue was behind the compilation of the text. Nevertheless, until now,these stylistic arguments should stir enough sinological interest to prompt the formation of a digital database of such similarities, a mosaic of “clues,”which could point at the direction of the identity of the “hands” which weaved the proto-text of the
YZCQ
. To conclude, Wu Zeyu’s monumental achievement as commentator, as bibliographer and as innovator of textual comparative research, is such that any future study of the
YZCQ
will have to regard his edition as the proper point of departure.
In 1966, Wang Gengsheng 王更生 completed his PhD dissertation“Yanzi chunqiu yanjiu 晏子春秋研究” (“Research on the
YZCQ
”) at the Taiwan National Normal University.
This was his first contribution to the study of
YZCQ,
which was subsequently followed by several other excellent works and two
baihua
translatio
of the text, which garnered for him a central place in the historical scholarly study of
YZCQ
. The dissertation and its subsequently revised book edition constitute a concise summary of material that had already appeared in Wu Zeyu’s work of traditional Chinese scholarship concerning the authorship, authenticity, and date of composition of the
YZCQ
. The revised book also included a fully detailed biography and chronology of Yanzi’s life, as well as a thorough exposition and analysis of the text’s views on both philosophical and linguistic matters such as metaphysics, the spirits, life and death, ethics, political philosophy,finance, diplomatic affairs, self-cultivation, literary style, syntax, and the use of analogies.
Indeed, during the several decades prior to 1972, the YZCQ became much more accessible to readers and scholars in China and in the West alike.It was due to the continuous scholarly efforts in the study, commentary and partial translation of the text. In 1972, however, the discovery of bamboo strip fragments excavated at Yinqueshan forced the long history of textual scholarship of the YZCQ to reevaluate its own convictions in light of 102 bamboo strips.
In 1972, in the course of a construction project, 4,942 bamboo strips and fragments were excavated at Tomb #1 and Tomb #2 at the Yinqueshan银雀山, a small hill southeast of the city of Linyi 临沂 in Shandong Province, located, by some estimates, within the southern reaches of the state of Qi. The period of burial for both tombs has been dated to approximately 140/134 BCE and 118 BCE, but the 21,728 characters
written in Clerical Script (隶) on the 4,942 unearthed bamboo strips were probably written somewhat earlier.
Members of The Committee for the Reconstruction of Yinqueshan Han Dynasty Bamboo Strips divided the 4942 bamboo strips excavated at Tomb #1 into two groups. The first group consisted of bamboo strips that bore textual material comparable to extant traditional texts, and the second group consisted of textual materials that otherwise have been lost. Within the first group, 102 strips arranged in a continuous sequence (numbers 528-630) formed sixteen distinct textual sets,which comprise at least one item from each and every one of the eight
pian
of the received version of
YZCQ
, corresponding in content and phraseology,with very similar strings of wording. Notably, the 102 Yinqueshan Bamboo Strips of
Yanzi
consisted of 2,970 characters, which amount to no less than 7.2% of the entire bulk of 41,324 characters of the received text.
Two tables are presented below. Table 1 demonstrates the nearly exact textual correspondence between the first set of the Yanzi bamboo strips (No.528-531) and the corresponding Item 3 in the received version of the YZCQ .Table 2 lists all the 102 Bamboo Strips, grouped in sixteen sets arranged in continuous order, alongside their corresponding items and chapter numbers in the parallel Items in the received version of the YZCQ .
Table 1: Textual correspondence between the first set of the Yanzi bamboo strips
(No. 528-531) and the corresponding Item 3 in the received version of the YZCQ .
1st row: Yinqueshan zhujian 银雀山汉墓竹简
Yanzi
2nd row: Transcribed copy
3rd row: YZCQ , Chapter 1.3 [Item 3]
Table 2: The bamboo scripts and their corresponding items and chapter numbers in the parallel items in the received version of the YZCQ
Yinqueshan zhujian Yanzi YZCQ ’s Received version
续表
续表
续表
Furthermore, between 1972 and 1977, other archeological findings such as bits of fragments of the
Yanzi
text dated from 179–49 BCE were excavated at Pochengzi 破城子 in Gansu 甘肃 (1972–1974), Dingxian 定县 in Hebei 河北 (1973), and Fuyang 阜阳 in Anhui 安徽 (1977). All these scripts, however, were too fragmented to allow a reconstruction of even one full coherent passage of the earliest text.
To conclude: Striking textual similarities exist between the sixteen“Yanzi” sets of the 102 Yinqueshan Han Bamboo Strips and their corresponding items in the
YZCQ
’s received version. In light of all the other archeological findings of bits of fragments of the
Yanzi
text that were excavated in China between 1972 and 1977, and the internal textual evidence of the
Huainanzi
(according to which a text identified as
The
Remonstrations of Yanzi
was known in 139 BCE, whose contents were notably similar to those of the received version of the
YZCQ
),
it would be quite reasonable to establish that around 200 BCE or maybe even earlier,several bamboo strip versions of a certain
Yanzi
text were circulating throughout the intellectual world of the early Han dynasty. And, in light of this conclusion, we may now turn to examine one exciting hypothesis positing the composition of a proto-
Yanzi
text took place at an even earlier date.
the “Jesters” 滑稽, and the Jixia 稷下 Patronage Community Connection
In 1936, as Luo Jun 罗焌 (1874–1932) was concluding his survey on the historical scholarship of the
YZCQ
,
he introduced a, new, staggering idea. Luo proposed his own personal view of the text: that the recorded deeds and remonstrations in the
YZCQ
show great affinity to those recorded about jesters like Chunyu Kun from Qi, Jester Meng 优 孟 from Chu,and Jester Zhan 优 旃 from Qin.
Clearly, this idea was too abrupt and unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, it introduced a new perspective on the longheld view of the text in that it stripped the text of its distinctive historical and philosophical status and replaced the underlying identity of its chief protagonist, Yanzi, from that of a profound scholar-statesman to that of a mere master of rhetoric or jester.
Forty years later, in 1976, Wang Gengsheng tossed a similar idea into the arena of
YZCQ
scholarship. Wang Gengsheng suggested that such nonsense appears several items in the text,
indicating that it must have been written by jesters, like Chunyu Kun and his likes, and it must reflect the imprint of the sophists of the Jixia patronage community.
Then, in 1986, the “Chunyu Kun hypothesis” was reinforced by Lü Bin 吕斌.
Lü presented a five-point argument showing that various elements in Chunyu Kun’s recorded sayings and life history suggest a strong affiliation with the
YZCQ
and hence an authorial connection. Specifically, he argued that Chunyu Kun’s remonstrations were based on admiration for Yanzi
that he had direct access to the Qi archive from which he could derive information concerning Yan Ying; that he, like Yanzi, did not strictly follow any school of philosophy; and that echoes of his ideas and his facetious style resonate throughout the
YZCQ
. Finally, Lü pushed the “Chunyu Kun hypothesis”a step further by pointing out that both Chunyu Kun and Yanzi were portrayed as extremely short people. This striking physical resemblance,Lü argued, in conjunction with all the other evidence, suggests that an author with a biographical profile akin to Chunyu Kun projected his own personal experiences, philosophical ideas, and body image into a text that bore the name of an honored figure — Yanzi — and thus the proto
YZCQ
was born.
Gradually, the “Chunyu Kun hypothesis” became one of the dominant theories of
YZCQ
authorship. Tao Meisheng 陶梅生,in his 1998
Baihua
translation of the
YZCQ,
raised the possibility that the followers of Chunyu Kun compiled the text.
Lin Xinxin 林心欣, in her master’s thesis of 2000, after discussing questions of classifying the text as Confucian, or Mohist, or biographical, she added a whole new classification to the
YZCQ
entitled “Jesters” (俳优 ), in which she discussed the connection between Chunyu Kun and the authorship of the
YZCQ
.
Then, in 2005, Zhao Kuifu 赵逵夫 presented an eight-point, detailed and annotated argument largely replicating that of Lü Bin in 1986, in support of the hypothesis that the diminutive Chunyu Kun compiled the
YZCQ
,an account of the diminutive Yanzi, in order to gain respect for himself despite his short stature.
Finally, in 2011, Andrew Meyer published a stimulating, comprehensive paper in which he persuasively showed, inter alia, that the
YZCQ
was a product of Qi state patronage of the Tian 田rulers (379–221 BCE) and that the “proto-
Guanzi
and
YZCQ
served (among other things) as extended pleas to intellectuals to think of themselves not as‘Confucians’ or ‘Mohists’ but as ‘Qi-ists.’”
The notion that Chunyu Kun or his followers were the compilers of the
YZCQ
became quite commonplace in recent sinological writings, as well as on several internet sites.
However,the scope and the in-depth analysis of Meyer’s paper paved the way for future sinological research that may bring together his insights with those revealed by other researchers regarding the Jixia patronage community,the life and time of Chunyu Kun, and the jesting tradition in ancient China.
Such research possibly yield a concrete image of the first author or compiler of the proto- YZCQ .
Ever since the Yinqueshan Han Dynasty bamboo strips were reconstructed, analyzed and circulated after 1974, the
YZCQ
became the focus of renewed sinological interest. Many scholars shared their insights and expertise, exploring new avenues to investigate textual aspects and historical issues connected with the study of the
YZCQ
.
Notable among these scholars are Rainer Holzer who, in 1983, translated the six Inner Chapters of the
YZCQ
into German, to which he added a learned introduction, detailed textual comments, and many other valuable notes.
In 1993, Stephen Durrant contributed an elegant roadmap to the text and its history in Michael Loewe’s bibliographical guide on early Chinese texts,thereby creating an invaluable aid for any student of the
YZCQ
.
In China, in addition to the appearance of dozens of new
baihua
annotated translations of the text, no less than 280 scholarly articles have been published about the
YZCQ
in academic journals between 1974 and 2010. Moreover, 30 theses and dissertations have been presented at various Chinese universities and colleges between 1995 and 2010.
It seems, however, that unless a “new” set of bamboo strips of
Yanzi
or any other relevant text
is uncovered from some future archaeological site,the study of the birth of the proto-text of the
YZCQ
may have exhausted itself and cannot proceed beyond the achievements of the scholarly work of the past decades. Future study of the origins of the
YZCQ
must therefore be conducted “algorithmically” with tools recently developed by scholars of Digital Humanities. At present the title “晏子春秋” yields a massive approximately 400,000 results in Google search.
Websites such as the Chinese Ancient Texts Database (CHANT); the Chinese Text Project (Ctext),the Digital Resources of Sinology of the Academia Sinica, and many others,provide millions upon millions of searchable characters representing the vast ocean of Chinese texts from ancient times to the present, including canonic, marginal, broadly circulated, and rare texts. Text mining methods will definitely enable analysis of the big database of these millions of characters and suggest when certain names, words or idioms appear for the first time, and how they are utilized afterwards, allowing researchers to successfully answer questions concerning the time of composition of texts.
Furthermore, websites like Harvard’s China Biographical Database Project(CBDB) and Fairbank Center’s Digital China already bear potential for an academic undertaking in which stylometric analysis and data extraction techniques play a major sinological role. Indeed, stylometric programs will learn the patterns of a certain author and calculate the probability that this author wrote a given text whose authorship is yet unknown, thereby solving questions regarding the authorship of particular documents. As recently reported,
two researchers from the University of Texas at Austin learned the patterns of 54 dramatic works of a certain author and calculated the probability that this author wrote a given text previously attributed to someone else. Their stylometric analysis identified
Double Falsehood
, a play previously attributed to the Shakespearean scholar Lewis Theobald(1688–1744), as being the work of William Shakespeare himself. This discovery, which has shaken the Shakespearean scholarly community,provides every reason to imagine that a similar disruption in the near future is possible in the world of scholarship of the
YZCQ
.