Some further notes on Confucianism, Its Terminology, Its History and Its Archaeology

Early Confucian texts continue to be dug up today that also continue to add to our knowledge of Confucianism. Many of the most recent finds have occurred in what was the Qu kingdom. Confucian texts such as the ones I’ve mentioned in earlier posts have now been studied for around two-thousand five-hundred years so this is really ancient stuff. We have to be aware of the potential impact of the vagaries of the copying and editing process over literally millennia. Mencius already appears to have misread Kong’s ideas concerning the lessons contained in the Book of Songs and we believe this because of recent analysis of recently dug up tomb manuscripts that contain interesting quotes from Confucius concerning the sexual mores and actual lessons indicated by the ancient work. Archaeologists continue to find other works by early Confucian disciples especially in South and Central China (mainly in tomb libraries). Funerary objects such as bells and other musical instruments are also yielding information about the earliest Confucianism.

To Confucian texts I’ve already mentioned I should add The Book of Changes, a treatise on metaphysics not particularly associated with Confucianism but certainly an ancient text treated seriously by Confucians. The Book of History (containing didactic models of good and bad behaviour) and (allegedly) Confucius’ Spring and Autumn Annals are also considered classic Confucian texts. The Annals (of Confucius’ home kingdom of Lu) are actually a quite brief historical work. It is mainly read by Confucians with the aid of an ancient commentary on it by Zuo. Confucians also adopted the Book of Songs or the Book of Odes as a useful exposé of how the people had historically reacted to bad rule and what problems they had faced from the earliest times especially when badly ruled. It is a very human text that includes love songs and morality tales.

There are elements in the ideas contained in the texts that are seen today as religious, philosophical, political and etiquette-related so Confucianism is certainly multifaceted in today’s terms and perhaps ambiguous in a way reminiscent of early Islamic writing. Confucianism was first really taken up as a formal imperial policy by a seriously powerful ruler immediately after the short and basically legalist Qin imperial Dynasty by rulers of the following Han Dynasty.

Now let’s examine some special Confucian terms and some of their relations to their Chinese contexts. The name for a scholar-knight, Ru, came to refer especially to a Confucian scholar but it also had a non-Confucian meaning as today Fu Zi refers specifically to a Confucian Master but began with Kong Fu Zi (Confucius) when Fu Zi also had a less specialised meaning. Confucius spoke of De (德), charisma and a kind of magnetism. He also spoke of the way (Dao) of the wise rulers of the Zhou (the alleged sage-kings) with the De but Dao, of course, has non-Confucian meanings. In Confucian thought, not possessing the De the true Dao was something that ordinary mortals could no longer ordinarily follow, not being ancient enough (atavistic much?) The next best things (and important things, of course) were Ren (仁 - benevolence) and doing good works for their own sake. But with Kong’s help and doing all of the above to the best of our ability as a Confucian, we can get De (so all isn’t lost). Rituals were important as was doing one’s best (Zhong – 忠). Zhong came only later to specifically mean something synonymous with loyalty to one’s superiors. Also especially important were wisdom (Zhi - 智), courage (Yong - 勇), integrity (Xin - 信) and reverence (Jing).

More on the Legalists

Lord Shang Yang of the Qin (mentioned in an earlier post) was an early advocate of legalism. Apart from setting up his 31 Xian, Shang also abolished serfdom and gave incentives for people to settle in his lands. He saw in the Xia, Shang and early Zhou dynasties excellent models of the centralised form of rule he encouraged the king of Qin to adopt. Shang’s words have come down to us today in an eponymously titled collection of writing. He proposed that wise men could produce good laws and was certain that then the less wise must then follow them unquestioningly. He was less certain (in a twist reminiscent of the Gnostic-style ideas of various religions) that wise men should equally be required to abide by these laws.

The other major legalist well known today was Han Fei Zi (also mentioned in an earlier post). He had begun as a pupil of Xun Zi but eventually opposed his Confucianism. He thought rulers who trusted their subjects were foolish and that rulers also needed to be devious in order to keep the upper hand. They should manipulate the competition of their underlings specifically in order to keep them weak (i.e. adopt a ‘divide and rule’ strategy). Much of this is actually not out of keeping with the less humanist Confucian ideas of Xun Zi. He broke with him especially in that while he recognised the value of ritual in the past he now saw it as less relevant.

When it came to ordinary subjects, love was also the wrong emotion to either feel for them or inspire in them for you (but also paradoxically less deviousness and thus more lovely behaviour was called for in actual law-making (as I discussed in an earlier post). The law had to be crystal clear at all times, no exceptions). Ordinary people are lazy, stupid and like children, he argued. Only fear of the certainty of terrible authority was what worked. The law should therefore be clear, codified, certain, simple and simply inflexible. Nothing short of complete loyalty to the sovereign from these 'children' was acceptable. An aspiring hegemon required, in addition, a strong army to first gain and then retain hegemony.

This schizophrenic and psychopathic view of politics is clearly quite limited but many of the psychopaths who ruled in the China of Han’s day approved of it. One can easily imagine the bitter arguments Confucians would have had with this view. They might for example suggest politely that a king might allow himself to experience the back-breaking work and limited calorie intake of a peasant and see if he too didn’t feel a little ‘lazy’ sometimes.

The essential view was that peace and order were achieved by violence (of one sort or another – like fucking for virginity?) Han simply held that strong rulers made stronger states than good rulers did. He saw ‘slanders’ against kings everywhere in the political context of his day and thought that kings ought to brook or have truck with none of it. In Five Vermin, part of the Han Fei Zi, his exposition approaches its zenith in its erudition.

Mencius, Xun Zi and Further Confucian Texts

Mencius (Meng Zi (孟子) – Master Meng) lived from around 370 BCE to around 300 BCE and reputedly studied with or under Kong’s grandson. Meng proposed the now famous idea of a Mandate of Heaven being given to a dynasty and finally removed from it in the event of serious misrule as an historical agent. This suggests that ‘good’ rule is ultimately more important to heaven in this view than family – again merit trumps connections in early Chinese philosophy even while the importance of family is not unstressed.

Meng still supported an hereditary system for the appointment of senior public servants, for example, on the basis that it promoted ministerial independence. Meng’s words and deeds, too, were collected in one volume (named for him) for posterity. Meng is reported to have addressed rulers directly with suggestions for better rule. For example he told King Hui of Wei and later of Liang, who thought he was a benevolent ruler, that he could always rule more benevolently and should attempt to do so and, somewhat enigmatically perhaps, that if he sought gain he was more likely to achieve it via selflessness than via selfishness. To King Xüan of Qi he remarked that true kingship required serious application. So there was, for him, no easy way to rule properly. He also intimated to Duke Wen of Teng that good rulers at least could expect to be supported by the ruled hinting at the intended cooperative mutuality of the relationship envisaged in the scheme of Confucianism. Mencius spoke of benevolence, sensible rule and moral setting of examples being more important than military matters.

Meng saw rule as a kind of zero-sum game in which proper material shares were a virtuous circle – a harmony – that could be disrupted, however, by the excess greed of a ruler (which might be satisfied only at the expense of some of the ruled (and perhaps also some neighbouring ruler and his subjects, too)). This harmony/greed/disharmony zero-sum ideology extended beyond examining political forms of domination to noticing problems with economic forms of misuse of hegemony.

Master Xun (荀子) is the third of the major early Confucians with his words and deeds finally collected in a written work for posterity and named for him. He lived from around 310 BCE to around 220 BCE and focused his philosophy more on the impartial nature of heaven and less on humanism or even human concerns. The key to Confucianism for him was that the orderly propitiation of heaven by the continuation of traditional ritual forms was required of everyone. At the same time, he appears to have been the Confucian most concerned with opposing superstition as he saw it. He stressed that education in the required Confucian virtues was essential to the social health and socially responsible practices to which it would inevitably lead.

The Great Learning (Da Xue – 大學) and the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhong Yong –中庸) round out the greatest of the Confucian texts and continue Xun Zi’s theme of moral self-improvement via Confucian learning (I‘ll mention other major Confucian texts in a later post).

A little more on Confucius

Confucius (Kong Zi or Kong Fu Zi) defended the decaying Zhou order. He also talked about essentially loving, duties, the “Golden Rule” and benevolence. Kong’s words and deeds were collected by a follower or followers into one work (the Lun Yu – Arranged Sayings) usually called in English today “the Analects”. He was called Kong Zi (Master Kong - 孔子) but his actual name was Kong Qiu (孔丘). His philosophy was mostly but not exclusively moral. He thought proper conduct was dictated mainly by adherence to courtly and other Zhou traditional roles and rituals as he idealised Zhou traditions somewhat. In a sense he was therefore somewhat like the Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab of Zhou China in being a relatively uncritical traditionist (though probably not as completely uncritical as the Arabian jurist). In valuing Zhou traditions he inevitably valued shamanistic-formed legal precedents. His preaching utilised and thus valued earlier collections of ideas that he traditionally collected as texts including what came to be called the Book of Songs or the Book of Odes and the Book of Documents or the Book of History and some ritual texts (some of which he may have produced himself). Heated scholarly argument continues as to whether he actually existed or was perhaps a composite of more than one person.

Kong’s ideal social formation was a hierarchy that he valued on the basis of a form of utilitarianism. He extolled sincere filial piety (really reverence of a son towards his parents especially). What he called Ren (仁) (we usually translate it into English as benevolence or nobility) he considered to be both superior to and encompassing of all other kinds of goodness in his philosophy.

Now to some further illustrative references to the Analects:

The gentleman understands moral duty; the petty person knows about profit (Duties ought to be considered before rights).

You can be of service [to your superior] by remonstrating with them tactfully. [After that, they must decide what to do and you must] work hard [and] do not murmur against them (essentially a form of the ‘Golden Rule’ and an abjuration to work hard in a Chinese context. Much of this ‘Golden Rule’ kind of thing is contained in the Analects).

Eliminate the army (Confucianism was actually rather pacifist).

When Kong refers to the Book of Songs he often suggests that it contains examples of misrule worthy of study and stresses to rulers especially that their subjects are not their playthings. There is in fact, he asserts, a kind of noblesse oblige linked to a Mandate of Heaven.