This is the familiar sort of text which is produced by an essentially single impulse on the part of an author or some other text-producing agent.Chinese Examples
LY 4:3. "It is only the rvn who can like others, or who can hate others." This striking saying of Confucius, not surprisingly, was remembered by the follower to whom he said it, c0490. It is a typical gnomic remark, seemingly paradoxical (the rvn or other-centered man might be expected to like others, so what is this about "hate?"). In the Analects, it is now paired with another saying, which in effect resolves the paradox. Wisdom teaching is typically done in such small disconnected units, which of themselves are an invitation to reflect, not a command to memorize.
Mu Tyendz Jwan 1-4. Whether it was a veritable account of a Jou King's journey, scribally recorded in the 08th century, or (as we prefer to conclude) a fabulous romance composed de novo by some court literatus for the amusement of Lyang Syang-wang in c0315 (it was recovered from the latter's tomb), this text was probably written at a single time by a single person. Mathieu (Loewe 342f) rightly distinguishes MTJ 5 and 6 as later additions. MTJ 1-6, if considered as a unit, would thus have to be put in the Extended category.
Lu Mu-gung. This Gwodyen text (buried in c0288) consists of a single anecdote about Dz-sz and Lu Mu-gung, and makes the point that the minister is most loyal who remonstrates with his ruler. As it stands, this is a unitary composition, and it undoubtedly has a single author. It might be an extract from another work, but the only text in which Dz-sz stories occur is the Mencius, and in the Mencius, Dz-sz is not associated with the need for policy remonstrance.
Dz Yi. This ritual essay, which was later included in the Li Ji (see under Repertoires), circulated independently, as is shown by the copy discovered in the Gwodyen 1 tomb of c0288. We mention it here in order to later contrast it with the Mawangdwei version, which illustrates a special text-handling process (see under Rearranged).
Jyou Bai (Gwandz 4G). A separate named entity, the 7th of 8 such entities which are presently grouped as Gwandz 4. Unlike any of the others, it has its own commentary (GZ 65) elsewhere in the Gwandz corpus. For GZ 4 itself, see under Assembled.
Vergil: Aeneid.The internal structure of this large work has been much argued, but of its intentionality there is no doubt. Vergil meant the Aeneid as an epic of Rome, nativizing the Greek epic as his friend and fellow court poet Horace nativized the Greek lyric. Augustus was much interested in the work, and wished to see it completed when Vergil died before reaching that point, in 019. Vergil had left instructions that it should be burned if he died before he had completed it, but Augustus won out. The posthumous completion of the work took three years.
2 Peter. All the non-Pauline epistles are doubtful, but none more rampantly so than this short work, which flourishes its Petrine credentials at every turn. It explicitly claims authorship of the less dubious and certainly older 1 Peter, but it has a very different prose style. As Barnett notes, "this zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence." The external evidence is also damning: Irenaeus (c185) knows and cites only 1 Peter, the Muratorian canon omits 2 Peter, Tertullian and Cyprian are silent as to 2 Peter. Eusebius implies that Clement of Alexandria knew 2 Peter, but Clement's own writings do not confirm that implication. The earliest clear reference to it is by Origen (217-251), who knows 1 Peter and asserts that Peter wrote only one epistle, thus implying that there was a second and false claimant; Origen thus presumably did not think much of the claims of 2 Peter. Having first became popular among the churches, 2 Peter finally sidled into canonicity (it is included in the NT as reported by Eusebius, c0325) on that basis of general, rather than scholarly, acceptance. 2 Peter is obviously pseudonymous, and evidently of the early 2c.
From the contents, we can say that the author of this document was concerned to combat heresy, and invoked the high authority of Peter to do so. Forgeries are very important historical documents, once they are restored to their right place in the chronological scheme of things, and cease to trouble and confuse the corpus of the name they have borrowed.
Copa Surisca. This delightfully secular little poem ("Copa Surisca, caput Graeca dedimita mitella") is not by Vergil, and nobody had ever thought otherwise before Servius in the 4th century. The remark of Mackail, that that the poem is so unlike Virgil that he may well have written it (thus quoted by Waddell 280), is mere flatulence. But it is by somebody. That an author happens not to be known does not impugn the authorial nature of a text.
Philology is Copyright © 2001- by E Bruce Brooks
Comments to The Author / Exit to Typology Page