UMass Amherst
Re-Dating the Sources

This paper was read at a meeting of the New England branch of the Association for Asian Studies on 28 October 1995, three years before the publication of The Original Analects, as the first item in a panel designed to introduce the work of the Project to the scholarly community. In this slightly expanded version, footnotes have been parenthesized or inset; short citations are expanded in the Works Cited list at the end.

Taeko

Introduction

Basic to history are the sources for history, and basic to the proper understanding of the sources is an accurate idea of their chronology. We thus cannot investigate the history of China's formative Warring States or classical period without an accurate picture of the dates of the Warring States texts. Before showing how we have approached the problem of Warring States text chronology, I should first say why we think that there is a problem: one that is not solved in Michael Loewe's 1993 survey, Early Chinese Texts (ECT). One reason is that the book's conclusions are not entirely consistent with each other. A second is that some are indeterminate, quoting conflicting opinions but not deciding among them. A third is that some fail to address all the problems in the texts, and to that extent can only be tentative suggestions. In other words, a fully coherent chronology of these texts has not yet emerged.*

*For a fuller statement of the position, see the long review of Loewe, with alternate suggestions for some key texts, in Brooks Prospects (1994).

The existence of conflicting opinions about the date of a text may indicate mere confusion on the part of modern scholars, but it may also indicate that the text itself includes diverse material. The solution in such cases may be to recognize different portions as different layers, and assign each layer its proper date. This approach is exemplified in Allyn Rickett's work on Gwandz (Rickett Guanzi 14-15). Rickett recognizes each of the 86 Gwandz chapters as potentially a different layer, and assigns to the individual chapters dates ranging from the 04th to 02nd centuries (4th to 2nd centuries BC).

More generally, some scholars, both before and after Rickett, have recognized that the authorial or single-date model may not apply to certain classical Chinese texts, but they have not allowed that perception to influence their interpretations of those texts. For example, Fung Yu-lan notes (History 1/20, with a reference to Jang Sywe-chvng, 1738-1801) that "the writings of any school were the collective work of that school rather than . . . of any one individual," but he then proceeds to ignore this factor in his own description:

"In treating the philosophy of the ancient period, therefore, the present work will simply try to indicate that, during this period, there existed certain schools of philosophy and systems of thought, but it will not attempt to determine absolutely whether these systems are always actually representative of the individuals by whom they were founded, or have been affected by later modifications" (Fung History 1/20, my emphasis).

The "later modifications" in such a text as the Analects, I suggest, are not random, and not trivial; rather, they systematically reflect the ideological evolution of the Confucian school of Lu. So also for the texts representing other points in the spectrum of classical political opinions.*

*For an extensively worked-out picture of Analects evolution, see now Brooks Analects.

A true history of philosophy, as distinct from a mere inventory of philosophical schools, surely needs to consider such differences, and to be alert to the possibility of such evolutions.

Similarly, A C Graham in Disputers of the Tao notes that the Analects shows signs of layering, but then continues: "With inadequate criteria at our disposal for distinguishing the voice of the original teacher, it is convenient to accept it as the record of the earliest state of Confucianism, without asking how much of it was the actual words of the Master." (Graham Disputers 10, my emphasis). Life can be complex, and texts can also be complex, and correct solutions for complex texts may be difficult to reach. But we feel that a merely "convenient" solution does not do justice to the historical importance of the subject.

Methodology

Given that there is a problem, and one worth solving, how do we approach it? We begin by discarding all traditional assumptions about these works. We examine them de novo, analyzing them only on the basis of what is in the texts themselves, as though they had come to light through some recent archaeological discovery. Our strategy, in fact, for the whole Warring States text corpus, is somewhat similar to that used in archaeology:

Our initial clues for identifying strata are internal differences. These differences are noted simply as differences, not with a presumption that a particular idea or artifact has a directly known absolute date. We also emphasize formal and linguistic evidence, to further avoid the circularity that can arise in a content-based approach. Among the useful formal criteria are:

We also, as we proceed, note any indications of absolute date, such as posthumous name usages or references, whether open or indirect, to known historical events.*

*Within each layer or text, one must begin by eliminating interpolations. For an example of this process, see now Brooks Analects Appendix 1.

Only at the end do we consider content in the usual sense: the substantive historical picture implied by our findings about the text. Do the conjectured layers imply a plausible progression of ideas and material culture? If so, we consider that the hypothesis is to that extent confirmed. If not, it is refuted.

The Example of the Analects

All this is in general, and it will be helpful to cite an example in detail. I have chosen the Analects.

Defining Layers. Like many earlier commentators, we find significant differences between chapters of the Analects (Lun Yw). We therefore conjecture that the chapter is the major module of accretion in this text. We then apply the method outlined above, with the following result:

Sequence of Layers. Of the Analects chapters, LY 4 has several archaic features, and may be the core of the work. With exceptions which are limited to two passages, which thus may be later interpolations: (a) its average passage has 19 words, the shortest in the book (the overall average is 30 words); (b) uniquely among the Analects chapters, it uses no narrative devices, rather, all sayings are isolated quotes introduced by the formula "The Master said;" (c) also uniquely among the Analects chapters, it contains no dialogues, rather, the Master is the only speaker; (d) also uniquely among the Analects chapters, it mentions no proper names, rather, the focus is entirely on the Master; and finally (e) it contains among other details a linguistic archaism, the full verb yw "to be in relation with" [see above], which is known in Warring States in general only as a coverb "in relation to," and may thus be a survival of an earlier usage from the Spring and Autumn period, in which period Confucius's lifetime entirely falls.

These suggest an early relative date. As to absolute date: Since it refers to Confucius in the third person, LY 4 is unlikely to have been written by Confucius himself. At earliest, it will most likely date from sometime after his death in 0479 (479 BC), and consist of sayings remembered, but editorially framed, by his protégés.

In subsequent chapters, we may note the following limitations on absolute date:

These are the principal indications of absolute date in the Analects. It will be obvious that they form a chronological sequence, beginning with LY 4 and ending abruptly with LY 20. The simplest theory that will cover these details is that the Analects chapters from LY 4 through LY 20 were compiled in that chronological order between an earliest date of 0479 and a final date of 0249, a total time-depth of 230 years. Schematically:

It will be noted that the above list of dates gives to the late layer noticed by Tswei Shu a chronological interpretation which Tswei did not himself suggest. That layer, the five chapters LY 16-20, which Tswei Shu defined by their many anomalies of procedure as compared with the rest of the Analects, turns out to be simply the 03rd century portion of the Analects.

By a similar argument, which I shall not here repeat in detail (see now Brooks Analects 206), LY 1-3 can be fitted into this plan as a separate and parallel sequence of preposed chapters. These chapters seem to have been added to the LY 4 core in reverse order, LY 3 first and LY 1 last. Their placement at the beginning of the text as it then stood may have been to legitimate the doctrinal shifts which they imply, the clearest being the new emphasis on the theory of ritual which is extensively worked out in LY 3.

Test by Content. If we test this proposed sequence by examining the content of these passages, we find many examples of plausible development. Thus,

Over the same span, we may also observe, in the culture at large, hints of the following:

(For such developments in real time, see further Brooks Analects Appendix 3). The plausible character of these developments, plus the fact that no developments implied by the Analects layer theory are notably implausible, tends to confirm that theory.

The Larger Picture

The above is an argument from within the Analects itself. Independent evidence as to the soundness of the Analects theory is available from the seeming contacts between the Analects and other Warring States texts (or the points of view which those texts preserve). As we read the Analects chapters in the sequence here proposed, we may ask ourselves the question: Of what other texts (or viewpoints) is this text aware? The answer changes as we move along the sequence of Analects chapters. Avoiding preposed chapters, as requiring a separate argument which is not practical to give in this brief space, the resulting list looks, in part, something like this:

There are some important implications in the above data for the dating of other texts:

None of these inferences about the dates of other early texts is unprecedented in the literature, but together, they form a coherent system of datings which generally, and for the first time consistently, support the findings of critical scholarship as against the position maintained by older tradition.

The most general observation to be made about these textual contacts of the Analects is that they begin about the middle of the 04th century, reach a sort of peak at about 0320, and continue strong thereafter. Together, they amount to a dialogue of opposition carried on between groups of people holding competing views of public policy. Such a dialogue has been often asserted, but it has not previously been visible in the texts. The relationship between these contemporary but adverse viewpoints which the above data set suggests demonstrates the existence, and documents in some detail the nature, of the "Hundred Schools" debate. All this gives point and substance to the common term "Hundred Schools."

There are also larger implications for social history. Not only does the sequence of the Analects material imply an increasing textualization of the Confucian school itself, it implies an increasing use of writing by the proponents of other public philosophies, and the gradual transformation of society in the direction of wider literacy. This is a supremely plausible development, one which we can scarcely imagine as proceeding in the opposite direction, and also one whose tendency is confirmed by a continued process of increasing textuality in the better-documented Chin and Han periods. With these undoubted Chin/Han developments, the Warring States picture as revealed by our redating of the texts makes a smooth and comprehensible link.

Conclusion

In this way, the conclusions which we reach about individual texts can adjudicate some longstanding disputes over the chronology of those texts, and lead to a better understanding of the various positions taken in the classical period itself. They can also confirm, and more fully reveal, the evolution of those viewpoints, and the larger intellectual movements of the time. Finally, they may provide a fruitful basis for further investigations into the dynamic of the classical Period, and to an understanding of how the multi-state pre-Imperial period led to, and was lost within, the foundation process of Imperial China.

Works Cited

 

Return to Project Index Page



This Page © 2007 University of Massachusetts Amherst. Site Policies.
This site is maintained by the Warring States Project.