The Great Civilized Conversation: Education for a World Community

6. See Van Doren’s Anthology of World Poetry (New York: Halcyon House, 1939) and his “Great Books, East and West,” in Approaches to the Oriental Classics, 7–10. Also see A. N. Whitehead’s Religion in the Making (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1926).

7. Van Doren, Liberal Education, 127.

8. Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College (Washington, D.C.: Commission on International Understanding, Association of American Colleges, 1964), 11.

9. Report of the Commission on the Humanities (New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1964), 86.

10. Excerpts from this paragraph appeared in a letter to the New York Times (September 27, 1964) in support of the Moorhead Bill for a national humanities foundation.

11. Cf. Nason et al., The College and World Affairs, 1, “A New Strategy of Liberal Learning.”

12. W. T. de Bary and A. T. Embree, eds., Approaches to Asian Civilizations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), xiii.

13. Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College, 40.

14. de Bary and Embree, eds., Approaches to Asian Civilizations; E. P. Boardman, ed., Asian Studies in Liberal Education (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1959); W. Morehouse, ed., Asian Studies in Liberal Arts Colleges (Washington, D.C.: Association for Asian Studies, 1961).

15. de Bary and Embree, eds., Approaches to Asian Civilizations, xiii.

16. Salvador de Madariaga, Swiss Review of International Affairs (September 1964): 10.

17. Analects 4:17.

Title adapted from John Erskine’s novel The Start of the Road (1938), about Walt Whitman.

1. John Erskine, Classics of the Western World (Chicago: American Library Association, 1927), 11.

2. Timothy P. Cross, An Oasis of Order: The Core Curriculum at Columbia College (New York: Office of the Dean, Columbia College, 1995), 29.

3. Erskine, Classics of the Western World, 13–14.

1. See their views as expressed in my Confucian Tradition and Global Education (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 2007).

2. See W. T. de Bary, A. T. Embree, and A. V. Heinrich, eds., A Guide to Oriental Classics, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989).

1. See the topics for discussion suggested for each major work included in W. T. de Bary and I. Bloom, eds., Eastern Canons: Approaches to the Asian Classics, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989).

1. W. T. de Bary et al., Classics for an Emerging World (New York: Columbia University Heyman Center for the Humanities, 2008), 28–68.

The three main sections in this chapter are drawn from chapters 3, 16(b), and 17 of W. T. de Bary, ed., Finding Wisdom in East Asian Classics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).

1. Proceedings of the Conference on Classics for an Emerging World, Columbia University, January 19–20, 2008 (New York: University Committee on Asia and the Middle East, 2008).

2. Murasaki Shikibu, The Tale of Genji, trans. Arthur Waley (New York: Modern Library, 1935), 23; The Tale of Genji, trans. Royall Tyler (New York: Viking, 2001), 22–23. References to Genji will hereafter be to the Waley translation.

3. Nippon Gaku Jutsu Shinkō Kai (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

4. W. T. de Bary, Sources of Japanese Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 1:244, 1:398, 1:418–419.

5. Ivan Morris, The Pillow Book of Sei Shōnagon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), xii–xiv.

6. Ivan Morris, The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan (New York: Knopf, 1964), 198.

8. Ibid., 106–107.

9. W. T. de Bary, Sources of Japanese Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 1:155.

10. Bulletin of the Institute of Eastern Culture, ACTA Asiatica, no. 97 (Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai, 2009).

Excerpted from W. T. de Bary, The Liberal Tradition in China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

1. See my “Neo-Confucian Cultivation and the Seventeenth-Century Enlightenment,” in The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), 162.

2. Cheng shi jing-shuo, in Er Cheng quanshu (SBBY ed.; Taipei: Zhonghua, 1976), 5:1a, 3a–b, “Mingdao xiansheng kaizheng Daxue,” “Yichuan xiansheng Daxue.”

3. W. T. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 46–47, 141–143. The important account of his self-reformation by Wu Yubi (1392–1469) was originally entitled Rixin pu (Account of Daily Renewal), based on this approach to self-cultivation in the Great Learning. See M. Theresa Kelleher, Personal Reflections on the Pursuit of Sagehood: The Life and Journal of Wu Yü-pi (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1982), 105.

4. Cheng Yi, Yichuan wenji, 7:6a–b, 7b, in Er Cheng quanshu.

5. Zhu Xi, preface to Zhongyong zhangju (hereafter abbreviated as ZGZXMZJC ed.; Taipei, 1979), 18:39–41.

6. Wing-tsit Chan, “Chu Hsi’s Completion of Neo-Confucianism,” in Études Song—Sung Studies in Memoriam Etienne Balazs, ed. Françoise Aubin, ser. 2, no. 1 (Paris: Mouton, 1973), 76, 78.

7. Zhen Dexiu, Xishan wenji (Guoxue jiben congshu), 26:449, “Nan Xiong zhou xue si xiansheng citang ji.”

8. Ibid., 24:409–410, “Mingdao xiansheng shutang ji.”

9. Xishan wenji, 26:449.

10. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 9–13.

11. Charles Frankel, Liberalism and Liberal Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 3–11.

12. Mingru xuean, vol. 6, 32:93.

13. Zhu Xi, Huian xiansheng Zhu Wengong wenji, Zhuzi daquan (SBBY ed.), 11:3b, “Renwu yingdao fengshi.” Hereafter abbreviated as Wenji.

16. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 27–37, 91–98.

17. Chen Changfang, Weishi ji (Siku quanshu zhenben., 1st series; Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1935), 1:1a–3b, “Di xue lun.”

18. See de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 129, 189, 211.

19. Zhu, Zhongyong zhangju, 45; cf. also Wenji, 11:35b–36a.

20. Tang Junyi, “The Spirit and Development of Neo-Confucianism,” Inquiry 14 (1971): 59–60.

21. Huang Zongxi and Quan Zuwang, Songyuan xuean (Taipei: Heluo tushu chubanshe, n.d.), 1:26. Peter Bol, a specialist in these matters, believes that Hu Yuan’s follower Liu Yi may have been attributing his own views to his master, but that does not affect the point being made here.

22. Zhen, Xishan wenji, 26:448–449.

1. Zhu Xi, Huian xiansheng Zhu Wengong wenji, Zhuzi daquan (SBBY ed.), 74:1b. Hereafter abbreviated as Wenji.

2. Mao Xinglai, Jinsilu jizhu (Siku shanben congshu, first series ed.; Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, n.d.), 2:13b.

3. Mencius, 4B:14; translation adapted from D. C. Lau, Mencius (London: Penguin, 1960), 130.

4. Jinsilu jizhu, 2:32a; Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Reflections on Things at Hand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 68. Hereafter abbreviated as Things at Hand, or, following references to Jinsilu, simply as “Chan.”

5. Lunyu jizhu (ZGZXMZJC ed.), 7:17a.

6. Lunyu jingyi (Zhuzi yishu ed.), 7B:22a–b.

7. Jinsilu jizhu, 6:1a; cf. Chan, 171.

9. Abe Takeo, Gendai no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1972), 45–57.

10. Makino Shūji, “Gendai no jugaku kyōiku,” Tōyōshi kenkyū 37, no. 4 (March 1979): 71–74.

11. Martina Deuchler, “Self-Cultivation for the Governance of Men,” Asiatische Studien 34, no. 2 (1980): 16.

12. Chan, Things at Hand, 154; Ye Cai, Jinsilu jijie, Kinsei kanseki sōkan, 3rd series (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1979), 297.

13. See my introduction to The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), 16–17.

14. Er Cheng waishu, 3:1b; Jinsilu jizhu, 5:14a; translation adapted from Chan, 165.

15. See Ren Jiyu, “Rujia yu rujiao,” Zhongquo zhexue 3. See also his “Confucianism as a Religion,” Social Sciences in China 2 (1980): 128–152. See also Fung Yu-lan, “Lüelun daoxue de detian, mingcheng he xingzhi,” Shehui kexue zhanxian (1982–1983): 35–43.

16. Robert M. Hutchins, Education for Freedom (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1941), 19–64.

17. Mark Van Doren, Liberal Education (New York: Holt, 1943), 119–122.

18. Uno Seiichi, Shogaku (Tokyo: Meiji shoin, 1965), 2; Daxue zhangju (ZGZXMZJC ed.), 2a–b; Zhongyong zhangju, 17a; Daxue huowen, 4b–5a, 29b–30a; Wenji, 94:20a, “Xuexiao keju siyi”; W. T. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 54–55, 125.

19. Luzhai quanshu, Kinsei kanseki sōkan, 2nd series (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1975), 5:15a–b, “Yuzi shike.”

20. Luzhai quanshu, 4:25b–28a.

21. Uno, Shogaku, 139–140.

23. Yanping dawen, Kinsei kanseki sōkan, 1st series (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1972), 34–35.

24. See Conrad Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi as an Administrator,” Études Song—Sung Studies 1, no. 3 (1976): 208–219.

25. Wenji, 100:5b–7a, “Quan yu bang.”

26. Ibid., 74:23a–29b.

27. Shimizu Morimitsu, Chūgoku kyōson shakai ron (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1951), 540–549.

28. Kimura Eiichi, “Sitte to Shushi no gaku,” in Chūgoku tetsugaku no tankyū (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1981), 280.

29. Wenji, 100:6a–7a; Kimura, “Sitte,” 282–287; Sakai Tadao, Chūgoku zensho no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1969), 39–40.

30. For instance, Wada Sei, Shina chihō jichi (Tokyo: Kyūkōshoin, 1939; rev. ed., 1975), 51–52, 119–145, 224–230; Shimizu, Chūgoku kyōson shakai ron, 339–349; Sakai, Chūgoku zensho no kenkyū, 34–54.

31. See Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Instructions for Practical Living and Other Neo-Confucian Writings by Wang Yang-ming (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 298–306. Hereafter cited as Instructions.

32. Sakai Tadao, “Ri Rikkoku to kyōyaku,” in Higashi Ajia no shisō to bunka (September 1979), 134–154.

33. Mencius, 3A:4.

34. Shujing, “Shun dian,” in James Legge, Chinese Classics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1893), 3:44.

35. Zhongyong, 20; Wing-tsit Chan, Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), 107.

36. Analects, 15:5.

37. Changes, hexagram no. 41; see R. Wilhelm and C. F. Baynes, The I-ching or Book of Changes (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), 159.

38. Hexagram no. 42; ibid., 163.

39. Dong Zhongshu, as quoted in Han shu, 56:21b.

40. Analects, 12:2; 15:23.

41. Wenji, 74:16b–17a; “Bailu dong shuyuan jieshi.”

42. Xiangshan quanji (SBBY ed.), 34:24a; trans. Julia Ching, “The Goose Lake Monastery Debate,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1, no. 2 (1974): 165.

43. Qisong, Xinjin wenji (SBBY ed.), 3:2a–4a, “Yuan xiao.”

44. Tianmu Mingben chanshi zalu, A:366a, “Jing xiao,” in Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō, 2.27.4. The passage quoted is from Mingben’s “Admonition on Filial Piety” (Jing xiao), trans. Chun-fang Yu as an appendix to her paper on Mingben in Yuan Thought, ed. Hok-lam Chan and W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 459–460.

45. Wenji, 74:17b.

46. Ibid., 12:2a–b, “Yiyu nishang fengshi.”

47. See de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 29, 86.

48. See W. T. de Bary, Self and Society in Ming Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 154–206.

49. Jennifer Robertson, “Rooting the Pine: Shingaku Methods of Organization,” Monumenta Nipponica 5, no. 34 (1979): 311–332.

50. See Tileman Grimm, “Ming Educational Intendants,” in Chinese Government in Ming Times, ed. Charles Hucker (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 135.

51. Sakai, Chūgoku zensho no kenkyū, 46–54.

52. Wenji, 69:18a–26a, “Xuexiao gongju siyi.”

54. Qian Mu, Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshu shi, 4–5; Takeuchi Yoshio, Takeuchi Yoshio Zenshū (Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten, 1979), 4:207–208.

55. Wenji, 69:22a.

1. Analects 2:7; 17:21.

2. Ron Guey Chu, “Rites and Rights in Ming China,” paper presented to the Conference on Confucianism and Human Rights, East-West Center, Honolulu, August 14–17, 1995.

4. Thomas Berry provides a broad conspectus of Western and Chinese views of the individual and person, bringing out both their contrasting and complimentary features, in his “Individualism and Wholism in Chinese Tradition: The Religious Cultural Context,” a paper prepared for an ACLS/NEH-sponsored conference, “Individualism and Holism in Chinese Thought,” held at the Breckinridge Center in York, Maine, June 24–29, 1981.

5. Anthony C. Yu, “Altered Accents: A Comparative View of Liberal Education,” remarks delivered at the fortieth anniversary of Hong Kong Baptist University, April 17, 1996. In Criterion 35, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1996): 10.

8. Liji, yueji 1; Legge, Li chi (New York: University Books, 1967), 2:97.

9. Burton Watson, trans., Hsün tzu: Basic Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 89.

10. As shown by the later examples of Huang Zongxi and Lu Liuliang.

11. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1961), citing M. R. Cohen.

12. W. T. de Bary, “Individualism and Humanitarianism in Late Ming Thought,” in Self and Society in Ming Thought, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 145–247.

13. In its etymology, zi is said by Karlgren (no. 1091) to be associated with “nose” and “breath” and thus is perhaps akin to the Sanskrit atman, “self” deriving from “breath.”

14. See W. T. de Bary, ed., The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), 169; Linquan Wu Wengong ji, Wanli 40 (1612) ed. in National Central Library, Taipei, Waiji, 2:10b–11a.

15. E.g., Zhuangzi: Harvard-Yenching Index ed. 22/8/31, 77/28/7, 78/28/54; Burton Watson, Complete Works of Chuang Tzu (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 102–103, 310, 317.

16. Cf. Zhu Xi, Sishu jizhu, commentary on Mencius, 4B:4; Jinsilu jizhu, 2:22b, no. 41; and Cheng Hao, Yishu, 11:4a. My translation follows in part the rendering and annotation of Yamazaki Michio in Shushigaku taikei [SSGTK], vol. 9, no. 41, rather than that of Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Reflections on Things at Hand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 57–58. Hereafter abbreviated as Things at Hand, or, following references to Jinsilu, simply as “Chan.”

17. Hu Guang et al., Xingli daquan (Siku zhenben ed., 5th series; Taipei: Commercial Press, 1974), 43:9b, citing Er Cheng yishu, 6:6b.

18. Yishu, 2A:2a, Jinsilu jizhu, 4:6b, no. 14; SSGTK, vol. 9, 4:129, 310; cf. Chan, Things at Hand, 128. Here and in the passage that follows my translation benefits from Prof. Chan’s but differs somewhat in the handling of the key terms at issue in my discussion of the problem.

19. Analects, 8:2.

21. Yishu, 2A:16a; Jinsilu jizhu, 4:7a–b, no. 16; SSGTK ed., 4:130, 310; Chan, Things at Hand, 128.

22. For a near analogy in the Buddhist tradition, one might compare this with the jinen honi of the Pure Land “saint” Shinran in Japan or with the problem of moral effort (kufū; gongfu) in the Zen master Dōgen. See W. T. de Bary et al., ed., Sources of Japanese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 212–218, 249–251.

23. Zhu, Zhongyong zhangju (ZGZXMZJC ed.), 49, commentary on chap. 1.

24. Wing-tsit Chan, “Chu Hsi’s Completion of Neo-Confucianism,” in Études Song—Sung Studies in Memoriam Etienne Balazs, ed. Françoise Aubin, ser. 2, no. 1 (Paris: Mouton, 1973), 76; on Chen Changfang, see Song Yuan xue’an (SYXA), 29:9–10.

25. See Wing-tsit Chan, Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), 465ff.

26. Jinsilu jizhu, 2:1a–b; Chan, Things at Hand, 37.

27. Yichuan wenji, 4:1a–2a; Chan, Source Book, 547ff.

28. Chan, Source Book, 473.

29. Yichuan wenji, 4:1a; Chan, Source Book, 548.

30. Yichuan wenji, 4:1b–2a.

31. Uno, Shogaku, 3:139.

32. Zhuzi yulei (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1979), 93:9a; cf. Chan, Things at Hand, 204–205.

33. Zhuzi yulei, 94:8a–b.

34. Chan, Things at Hand, 2.

35. Uno, Shogaku, 3:139.

36. Mingdao wenji, 2:1a, in Er Cheng quanshu (SBBY ed.).

37. Mencius, 4A:20.

38. Dong Zhongshu, in Han shu, 56:6b; and Dongzi wenji (Jifu congshu ed.), 1:51.

39. Yishu, 15:17a; Jinsilu jizhu, 8:16b–17a; Chan, 213.

40. Yichuan wenji, 1:3a.

41. Zhu, Wenji, 11:4b.

42. Cf. Robert Hartwell, “Patterns of Settlement, the Structure of Government, and the Social Transformation of the Chinese Political Elite, ca. 750–1550,” paper presented to the Columbia University Seminar on Traditional China (September 9, 1980), 9, 18–19.

43. Fan Zuyu, Dixue (ZGZXMZJC ed.), 3:6b–7a.

44. See Saeki Tomi, Sō no shinbunka (Tokyo: Jimbutsu ōraisha, 1967), 372.

45. Ibid., esp. 373ff. On the expansion of schools, rise in scholarly population, and increased participation in examinations, see John W. Chaffee, Education and Examinations in Sung Society (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1979), 338ff.

46. There has been extensive scholarly discussion of this question. Those not already familiar with the literature may wish to consult E. Balasz, Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974), chap. 4, esp. 53–54; and Hartwell, “Patterns,” 32–33.

47. C. Schirokauer, in Confucian Personalities, ed. A. Wright (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1962), 165–166. The conclusion of Wing-tsit Chan, based on many years’ study of Chu’s life and work, is that he lived in extremely modest circumstances and managed to support himself partly from a small printing business on the side. See Wing-tsit Chan, “Zhuzi guqiong,” in his Zhuxue lunji (Taipei: Xuesheng, 1982), 205–232.

48. See, for example, Wei-ming Tu, “Toward an Understanding of Liu Yin’s Confucian Eremitism,” in Yuan Thought, ed. W. Chan and W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 259; and John Dardess, “Confucian Doctrine, Local Reform and Centralization,” in ibid., 357.

49. Yishu, 19:9a–b.

50. Mencius, 2B:2.

51. Cheng Yi, Yichuan wenji, 4:21b; Jinsilu jizhu, 7:8b; Chan, 190. See also Franklin Houn, “Rejection of Blind Obedience as a Traditional Chinese and Maoist Concept,” Asian Thought and Society 7, no. 21 (1982): 266–269.

52. Yishu, 15:3b–4a; Jinsilu jizhu, 7:11a; translation adapted from Chan, 193.

53. Julia Ching, “The Goose Lake Monastery Debate,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1, no. 2 (1974): 175.

54. L. C. Goodrich and C. Y. Fang, Dictionary of Ming Biography (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 426–433, 474–479.

55. Zhu, Wenji, 69:18b.

56. Robert Hartwell, “Patterns”; and Shiba Yoshinobu, Commerce and Society in Sung China, trans. Mark Elvin (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1970), esp. 45–50, 202–213; Saeki Tomi, Sō no shinbunka, 141–168, 370–392.

57. Saeki, Sō no shinbunka, 381–385.

58. Zhu Xi, Wenji, 47:17b, letter to Lu Zuqian.

59. Saeki, Sō no shinbunka, 370ff. On the crisis in education from the lack of a sense of any higher purpose, see Thomas H. C. Lee, “Life in the Schools of Sung China,” Journal of Asian Studies 37 (1977): 58–59.

60. Zhongyong huowen (Kinsei kanseki sōkan shisō sampen ed.; Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1976), 82. Translation adapted from Chan, Things at Hand, 69.

61. Yishu, 22A:14a; Jinsilu jizhu, 3:10b–11a; Chan, 97.

62. Yishu, 15:19b; Jinsilu jizhu, 11:7a. Translation adapted from Chan, 264.

63. Yichuan wenji, supplement, 3a, letter to Fang Daofu; Jinsilu jizhu, 2:14a, no. 15; translation adapted from Chan, 47–48.

64. Yishu, 19:11a; Jinsilu jizhu, 3:14a, no. 30; Chan, 100.

65. Yishu, 19:11a; Jinsilu jizhu, 3:16b, no. 38; Chan, 103.

66. Yishu, 2A:21a, 6:6b, 19:11a, 22A:2a, 6b; Waishu, 3:1a, 5:1b, 12:4b, 6a.

67. Waishu, 5:1b; Yishu, 11:4a.

68. Zhang Zai as quoted in Jinsilu, 3:10b; Chan, 97.

69. Waishu, 11:2b; Chan, 94.

70. Zhangzi quanshu (Kinsei kanseki sōkan ed.), 7:5a.

71. Zhu, Wenji, 47:30a–b, letter to Lu Zuqian; and Jinsilu jizhu, 3:10a; Chan, 96.

72. See his Jukyō no mokuteki to Sōju no katsudō (Tokyo: Taishūkan, 1926), 798.

73. de Bary, ed., Unfolding, 143–147.

74. W. T. de Bary et al., ed., Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 492–509; James T. C. Liu, Ou-yang Hsiu (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967), 90–102; and Hok-lam Chan, “‘Comprehensiveness’ and ‘Change’ in Ma Tuan-lin’s Historical Thought,” in Yüan Thought, pp. 41–45.

75. Cf. Chan, Things at Hand, 88–122.

76. Yishu, 24:7b; Wenji, 5:11b.

77. Zhuzi yulei, 4:12b, 112.

78. Ibid., 67:6b, 2628.

79. Ibid., 12:9b, 334.

80. Xishan wenji, 24:410.

81. Siku tiyao (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1933), 36:742.

82. See Christian Murck, Chu Yün-ming (1461–1527) and Cultural Commitment in Su-chou (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1979), 2:311–312.

83. Zhangzi quanshu, 7:5a.

84. Murray, Liberality and Civilization, 30–31.

1. Li Jingde, comp., Zhuzi yulei (repr; Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1979), 49:5a; translation from Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Reflections on Things at Hand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 94; hereafter cited as Things at Hand.

2. Thomas Carter and L. C. Goodrich, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward (New York: Ronald, 1955), 83.

3. See ibid., 26–28, 38–51, 57–58, 63–65.

4. See W. T. de Bary, ed., The Buddhist Tradition (New York: Modern Library, 1969), 208.

5. Qian Mu, Zhuzi xin xue’an (Taipei: Sanmin shuju, 1971), 1:160–167.

6. See Jan Yunhua, “Chinese Buddhism in Ta-tu,” in Yuan Thought, ed. Hok-lam Chan and W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 388, 397; and Chun-fang Yu, “Chung-fen Ming-pen and Chan,” in ibid., 448–449; also “Introduction,” 15–22.

7. See Okada Takehiko, “Shushi no chichi to shi,” in Chūgoku shisō ni okeru risō to genjitsu (Tokyo: Mokujisha, 1983), 391–392.

8. See W. T. de Bary, Liberal Tradition in China (Hong Kong/New York: Chinese University of Hong Kong/Columbia University Press, 1983), 21–24.

9. Mary C. Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957), 4.

10. Zhu Xi, Daxue zhangju, in Sishu zizhu, (Zhongguo zixue mingzhu jicheng ed., Taipei, 1979), preface, 1, 2.

13. See de Bary, Liberal Tradition, 24–27.

14. Lunyü jizhu, in Sishu jizhu, 3:19b (216).

15. Morohashi Tetsuji, Daikanwa jiten (Tokyo: Taishūkan, 1955), 4:10478–73.

16. Mao Xinglai, Jinsilu jizhu (Siku shanben congshu, 1st series; Taipei, Yiwen yinshuguan, n.d.), 9:5b. Excerpted and abridged from Mingdao xiansheng wenji, 2:2b–3a, in Er Cheng quanshu 55 (Kinsei kanseki sōkan ed.), 485; Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Reflections on Things at Hand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 219.

17. See Chan, Things at Hand, chap. 14.

18. Zhu Xi, Zhongyong zhangju, preface in Sishu jizhu, 37–43.

19. Zhu Xi, Daxue zhangju, preface 2b (4).

20. Liji, 36 xue ji (Shisanjing zhushu fujiaokanji) (Yiwen yinshuguan reprint of Jiaqing 20 [1815 ed.]), 36:3a (649), trans. adapted from James Legge, Li chi: Book of Rites (repr; New York: University Books, 1967), 2:83.

21. Mao, Jinsilu jizhu, 9:4b–6a.

22. Zhu Xi, Daxue zhangju, 2b–3a (10–11).

24. Ibid., 6a–6b (17–18).

25. Liu Shuxian, “The Functions of Mind in Chu Hsi’s Philosophy,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 5 (1978): 204.

26. To To, Song shi (Peking: Zhonghua shuju, 1977), 432:12837–12838. Huang Zongxi and Quan Zuwang, Song Yuan xue’an (Taipei: Holo tushu chubanshe, n.d.), 1:25–26. In the SYXA account there is some question as to whether Liu Yi may not be attributing his own views to Hu Yuan, but that does not affect the issue here because Zhu Xi and Lü Zuqian appear to have accepted both the attribution and the idea.

27. Song shi, 334:10729.

28. Mao Xinglai, Jinsilu jizhu, 11:4b–5a; quoting Er Cheng yishu, 2:7a; trans. Chan, 262–263.

29. Mao Xinglai, Jinsilu jizhu, 11:5a.

30. On the relationship of schools to Cheng Hao’s political philosophy, see Ishida Hajime, “Tei Meidō shōkō—jiseki, shimpō, gakkō kyōiku,” in Rekishi ni okeru minshū to bunka (Tokyo, 1982).

31. See W. T. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 59–60.

32. Wu, of course, may also have had access to the original sources from which these excerpts were drawn. See Wu Wenzheng gong quanji (Chongren Wan Huang jiaokanben, 1756), juan shou 34b, suppl. juan 1:1a–8b; de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 59; David Gedalecia, Wu Cheng: A Neo-Confucian of the Yüan (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1971), 369, 382.

33. Zhu Xi, Huian xiansheng Zhu Wengong wenji (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1977), 74:18a (1368); hereafter cited Wenji. “Bailudong shuyuan jieshi.” See also John W. Chaffee, “Chu Hsi and the Revival of the White Deer Grotto Academy, 1179–1181,” T’oung Pao 61 (1985): 40–62.

34. de Bary, Liberal Tradition, 37.

35. Zhu Xi, Wenji, 74:18b (1368).

36. Ibid., 74:18b–19a.

37. Zheng Duanmeng (1143–1191), native of Jiangxi and disciple of Zhu Xi, for whom the latter wrote, besides this postscript, several letters and a funerary inscription. See Zhu, Wenji, 90:16a (6367); SYXA, 69:13; and Buyi, 69:34. Wing-tsit Chan, Zhuzi menren (Taipei: Xuesheng shuju, 1982), 245–246; Dong Zhu (1152–1214), a disciple of whom Zhu Xi was particularly fond; SYXA, 69:14; Bui, 69:47; Chan, Zhuzi menren, 276–277.

38. Zhu Xi, Cheng Dong er xiansheng xueze (CSJC ed.), 3–4.

40. Cheng Dong er xiansheng xueze, postscript of Rao Lu, 5.

42. Zhu, Wenji, 69:20–28b (2269–1273).

47. Ibid., 69:24a; de Bary, Liberal Tradition, 41–42.

48. Zhu, Wenji, 24b.

49. Ibid., 69:25a, 26a.

52. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 38–44.

55. This side of Zhu’s career emerges with particular clarity in Conrad Schirokauer’s account of “Zhu Xi as an Administrator,” Études Song 1, no. 3 (1976): 207–236.

56. Cheng Duanli, Chengshi jiashu tushu fennian richeng (CSJC ed.), 1–43; hereafter cited as Chengshi … richeng. Summarized and excerpted in John Meskill’s Academies in Ming China: An Historical Essay (Tucson: Monograph Series of the Association for Asian Studies, University of Arizona Press, 1982), 160–166.

57. Meskill, Academies, 61. See also Makino Shūji, “Gendai no jugaku kyōiku,” in Tōyōshi kenkyū 37, no. 4 (March 1979): 71–74; and Chaffee, “Revival,” 18.

58. Cheng Duanli, Chengshi … richeng, 1:9; SYXA, 87:62.

59. See the discussion of the Daily Schedule that follows.

60. Cheng Duanli, Chengshi … richeng, 1:14; SYXA, 87:65.

61. Ibid., 1:1–2, 3:110–118.

62. Ibid., 1:1–2, preface of Cheng Quanli.

63. Ibid., 1:1–2, 2:23.

64. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 52–53, 59–60.

65. Zhang Boxing, personal preface to the Chengshi … richeng, Zhengyitang quanshu (Fuzhou zhengyi xueyuan ed. of Tongzhi 7 [1868]), 1:1.

66. Song shi 423:12638; SYHA, 87:1.

68. Song Lien, et al., Yuan shih (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976), 190:4343.

70. Zhu, Wenji, 99:2b (1758). See Wing-tsit Chan, “Zhu Ziguqiong,” in Zhuxüe lunji (Taipei: Hsüehsheng shuchü, 1982), 205–232.

71. Cheng Duanli, Chengshi … richeng, 3:45.

72. Ibid., 1:9; 3:120. “Jiqing lu jiangdong shuyuan jiangyi.”

73. See Theresa Kelleher’s chapter in Neo-Confucian Education.

74. See Zhu, Wenji (Kyoto: Chūbun), 14:11a–14a (204–206). Xinggong biandian zoujiaer; 74:25a–26a, “Dushu zhi yao,” Zhuzi yulei (repr; Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1979), juan 10–11, pp. 255–316; Cheng Duanli, Chengshi . . . richeng (CSJC ed.), 1:9, 3:120; Hu Guang, Xingli daquan (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1981), juan 53–54, pp. 818–842; Li Guangdi, ed., Xingli jingyi (ed. of Daoguang 30, 1850), 8:31b–44b. Qian Mu, Zhuzi xin xue’an, 4:613–687.

75. Mao Lirui et al., comps. Zhongguo gudai jiaoyushi (Peking: Beijing shifan daxue, 1980), 398–400.

1. Cf. Hu Shi, The Chinese Renaissance (repr. of 2nd ed., New York: Paragon Book Reprint Co., 1963), 66–70.

2. Tinglin shi wenji 3/1a–2a. As translated in W. T. de Bary et al., eds., Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 608–609.

3. Cui Shu, Kaoxin lu tiyao (CSJC ed.), A/22, as translated in Sources of Chinese Tradition, 623.

4. Liang Qichao, Intellectual Trends in the Qing Period, trans. Immanuel Hsü (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 28.

5. To cite only two prominent examples among many, there are Wang Yangming in his Instructions for Practical Living, trans. by Wing-tsit Chan (New York: Columbia Universty Press, 1963), 119–120, passim; and Huang Zongxi in his Mingyi daifang lu (as excerpted and translated in Sources of Chinese Tradition, 593). Cf. also David Nivison, “Protest Against Conventions and Conventions of Protest,” in The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur F. Wright (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960), 177–201.

6. As one apt example we might cite the discussion of the “discriminating” mind (so deprecated by Gu Yanwu) by He Xinyin, one of the most original and “progressive” thinkers of the late Ming and one who suffered martyrdom for his opposition to the established regime. Cf. Rong Zhaozu, He Xinyin ji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960), 33.

7. Mingru xuean (Wanyou wenku ed.), 1/Fan lie.

8. That this was the case from the outset of the Ming is admirably illustrated by Frederick Mote’s study of Gao Qi’s relations with the founder of the Ming dynasty and Gao’s tragic end. Cf. The Poet Kao Ch’i, 1336–1374 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962), esp. chap. 9.

9. The confrontation between Ming despotism and the Confucian conscience is well delineated in Charles Hucker, “Confucianism and the Censorial System” in Confucianism in Action, ed. David Nivison and Arthur Wright (Stanford: Stanford Universtiy Press, 1959), 199–208. Cf. also R. B. Crawford et al., “Fang Hsiao-ju in the Light of Early Ming Society,” Monumenta Serica 15: 303–327.

10. Cf. Jiang Fan, Hanxue shicheng ji (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1934), 13, Fan lie.

11. Cf. Ping-ti Ho, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 216.

12. For a brief resumé of these changes and the nature of the Ming examinations, see Nivison, “Protest Against Conventions,” 193–194.

13. Obviously, this is not a question of numerical minorities but of an organized group capable of acting in opposition to the dominant power or of representing some social segment or class. Any such alignment was condemned as factionalism, and while a Confucian could claim to speak in the general interest, he dared not identify himself as spokesman of a party or organized minority.

14. Cf. Ping-ti Ho, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China, 212–214, 255–256, 258–259, 261.

15. Cf. Saeki Tomi, Sō no shin bunka (Tokyo: Jinbutsu Ōraisha, 1967), 384. There are already signs of it in Lu Xiangshan; cf., S. C. Huang, Lu Hsiang-shan (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1944), 32, 58, 62.

16. Chuanxi lu (in Wang Yangming quanjiah, Datong ed.; Shanghai, 1935), 1/22; Wing-tsit Chan, Instructions for Practical Living (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 62–63.

17. Chuanxi lu, 1/22 [Cai] Xiyüan wen; trans. adapted from Chan, Instructions, 60–61.

18. Ming shi (Guofang Yanjiuyuan ed.; Taipei, 1962), 195/2277 can.

19. Cf. Conrad M. Shirokauer, “Chu Hsi’s Political Career,” in Confucian Personalities, ed. Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1962), 162–188.

20. Baishazi quanji (Temple edition of 1771), V, 6/2b; see also Ren Yuwen, “Chen Xianzhang’s Philosophy of the Natural,” in Self and Society in Ming Thought, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 56–57, 61, 79–80.

21. Ming shi 282/3171; 283/3181–3182. To say that they were reclusive does not imply that their philosophies were necessarily quietistic: my point is simply that the retreat from book learning was a common response to a common problem among Confucians whose engagement with life took different forms.

22. Baishazi quanji, 3/22b–23a.

23. Nianpu A/6 Zhengde 3, in Wang Yangming quanji, vol. 1.

24. Cf. Wing-tsit Chan, “How Buddhistic Is Wang Yang-ming?” Philosophy East and West 11, no. 3–4; Kusumoto Fumio, Ōyōmei no zenteki shisō kenkyūa (Nagoya: Nisshindo Shōten, 1958).

25. Cf. Shimada Kenji, Chūgoku ni okeru kindai shii no zasetsu (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1949), 19–35.

26. Translated by Wing-tsit Chan in Sources of Chinese Tradition, 524–525; and in his Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), 497.

27. Among innumerable other references one might cite Wang Yangming’s eloquent statement of the idea in the opening lines of his “Inquiry on the Great Learning” (Daxue wen)ak (see Chan, Instructions, 272n). Cf. also Shimada’s extensive discussion of this theme in “Subjective Idealism in Sung and Post-Sung China: The All Things Are One Theory of Jen,” Tōhōgakuho 28 (March 1958): 1–80. Shimada sees this theory not only as a powerful force in Ming thought but as an influence on reformist thought at the end of the Qing, especially in Tan Sitong.

28. Baishazi quanji, V, 6/2a.

29. Ibid., III, 3/62b.

30. I.e., in his famous dictum that the noble man should be “first in worrying about the world’s troubles and last in enjoying its pleasures.” For the significance of this motto in relation to the Buddhist ideal of the Boddhisattva, see my article “Buddhism and the Chinese Tradition,” Diogenes 47 (1964): 120–122.

31. Analects II/4.

32. Cf. his “The Heavenly Ordinance in Pre-Ch’in in China,” Philosophy East and West 11, no. 4; 12, no. 1; and his more recent Zhongguo zhexue yuan lun (Hong Kong: Jiulong: Rensheng chubanshe, 1966), 508–521.

33. See C. T. Hsia, “Time and the Human Condition in the Plays of T’ang Hsien-tsu,” in Self and Society in Ming Thought, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 249–290.

34. See my “Individualism and Humanitarianism in Late Ming Thought,” in Self and Society in Ming Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 145–247.

1. See Taga Akigoro, ed., Kinsei Ajia kyōiku shi kenkyū (Tokyo: Bunrui shoin, 1966), appendix 2, article in Japanese by Lothar Knauth, “Meishin hōgan no ryūtsū to Hispania Yaku no mondai [The Myŏngsim pogam: its diffusion and translation into Spanish],” 851–879. See also Sakai Tadao, Chūgoku zensho no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1960), 451, 483; Kim Chung-Kuk, Myung-Sim-Bo-Kam: Mirror of Clear Mind (Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University, 1959), 1–11; Kosŏ mongnok (Seoul: Sŏnggyn’gwan University, 1979), 50; Richard Rutt, “Chinese Learning and Pleasures,” Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 36 (April 1960): 37. Despite its syncretic character as a popular morality book, quotations from Cheng-Zhu schoolmasters down to Zhen suggest that it was an outgrowth of the spread of Neo-Confucianism from Yuan China to Korea, in which Zhen’s writings figured prominently.

2. See Wing-tsit Chan, “Chu Hsi and Yüan Confucianism,” in Yüan Thought, ed. H. L. Chan and W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

3. See W. T. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 1–66.

4. Fung Yu-lan, History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 2, trans. Derk Bodde (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953); Carsun Chang, The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought (New York: Bookman Associates, vol. 1, 1957; vol. 2, 1962); Alfred Forke, Geschichte der neueren Chinesischen Philosophie (Hamburg: Cram, De Gruyter, 1964), book 1, chap. 1.

5. Fung Yu-lan, Zhongguo zhexue shi (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1934), vol. 2, chaps. 10–15.

6. Fung, History, 2:631.

7. Shimada Kenji, “The Thought of Miura Baien,” Tōyōshi kenkyū 38, no. 3 (December 1979): 23–24.

8. See Conrad Schirokauer, “Neo-Confucianism Under Attack: The Condemnation of Wei-hsüeh” in Crisis and Prosperity in Sung China, ed. John W. Haeger (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1975), 163–198.

9. See chapter 11 in this volume.

10. Cf. W. T. de Bary and Irene Bloom, eds., Principle and Practicality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 5–15; and W. T. de Bary et al., eds., The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), 15–22.

11. In the explanatory note (fanli) of the Mingru xuean.

12. See his “Personal Proposals for Schools and Examinations” in Huian xiansheng Zhu Wen-gong wenji (SBBY ed.), 69:24ab. For Chŏng To-chŏn, see herein, Chung Chai-sik, in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, ed. W. T. de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 59–87.

14. Yi T’oegye chŏnjip (Tokyo: Ri Taikei kenkyūkai, 1975), 2:260–261.

15. Fung, History, vol. 2, chap. 14.

17. Zhu Xi, Sishu jizhu (Taipei: Zhongguo zixue mingzhu jicheng zhenben chubian, 1978), 18. Daxüe huowen, Kinsei kanseki sōkan, 3rd series (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1976), 20b–21a (40–41).

18. Fung, Zhongguo zhexue shi, 2:938.

19. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 28–35, 91–98.

20. Zhen Dexiu, Xishan wenji (GXJBS ed.), 24:409–410.

21. Yi T’oegye, Songgye Wŏn Myŏng ihak t’ongnok in T’oegye chŏnjip (Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University, 1959), 3:249–551, esp. 254, 513.

22. Takahashi Tōru, “Richō-jugakushi ni okeru shuriha shukiha no hattatsu,” in Chōsen Shina bunka no kenkyū (Keijō [Seoul]: Keijō teikoku daigaku, 1934), 141–281.

23. Yamanoi Yū, in Onozawa Seiichi et al., Ki no shisō (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1978), 355–513; and his Min-shin shisōshi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1980), esp. 149–199.

24. See Martina Deuchler, “Neo-Confucianism: The Impulse for Social Action in Early Yi Korea,” Journal of Korean Studies 2 (1980): 80, 94; and Han Young-woo, Chosŏn chŏn’gi ŭi sahoe sasang (Seoul, 1976), 53–61.

25. See my introduction and article in de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality, 12–13, 132–135, 141, 178–179.

26. Zhen, Xishan wenji, 25:425.

27. Kusumoto Masatsugu, Chūgoku tetsugaku kenkyū (Tokyo: Kokushikan daigaku, 1975), 353–390.

28. Yiguan wenji (SBBYed.), 5:12b.

29. Zhu Xi, Yenping zawen, in Kinsei kanseki sōkan, shisōhen (Kyoto: Chūbun shuppansha, 1972), 70, 89–92, 99–103, 111.

30. Xu Heng, Xu Lu zhai xinfa (Ming ed. of 1522), 1b.

31. See de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality, 93–96, 129, 131, 165, 273–275, 286–287, 421, 433.

32. Cheng Hao, Er Cheng yishu (SBBY ed.), 24:2a.

33. Okada Takehiko, “Practical Learning in the Chu Hsi School,” in de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality, 283.

34. Cf. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 44–47, 54–55, 125.

35. de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality, 26; R. Tsunoda, W. T. de Bary, and D. Keene, Sources of Japanese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 348–350.

36. Martina Deuchler, “Self-Cultivation for the Governance of Men: The Beginnings of Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy in Yi Korea,” Asiatische Studien 34, no. 2 (1980): 9–39.

37. de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality, 32.

38. See JaHyun Kim Haboush, “A Heritage of Kings: One Man’s Monarchy in the Confucian World” (Ph. D. diss., Columbia University; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1978), 36–40.

39. Proceedings of the 2nd Academic Conference for Asiatic Studies (Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University, 1980), 82–99, 273–288.

40. Yi T’aejin, “The Socioeconomic Background of Neo-Confucianism in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Korea,” draft prepared for the Conference on Korean Neo-Confucianism (August 1981), 27–28.

41. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 136–141.

42. Makino Shūji, “Gendai no jugaku kyōiku,” Tōyōshi kenkyū 37, no. 4 (March 1979): 64–76.

43. Caolu xiansheng [i.e., Wu Cheng], Wu wenzheng gong quanji (1756 ed.), juan shou 34b; suppl. chap. 1:1a–8b.

44. Kyŏngguk taejŏn (repr; 1934), 212, 214.

45. Ming Xuanzong shilu, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan ed. 22:4b Xuande, 10th mo., xinwei.

46. Kosŏ mongnok, Catalogue of the Central Library, Sŏnggyun’gwan, (Seoul, 1979), 205. Lee Choon-hee, Yijo sŏwŏn mun’go ko (Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan, 1969), 8, 60, 80, 110.

47. See Wing-tsit Chan, “The Hsing-Li Ching-i and the Ch’eng-Chu School of the Seventeenth Century,” in de Bary, ed., Unfolding, 543–579.

48. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 61, 134–135.

49. Deuchler, “Neo-Confucianism,” 86.

50. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 188–191.

51. See Lee Choon-hee, Yijo sŏwŏn, passim.

52. Deuchler, “Neo-Confucianism,” 87–88, 90–91.

53. The foregoing are discussed in de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 28–35, 93–94.

54. This is a main theme in Ray Huang’s 1587, a Year of No Significance (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980).

55. Chŏng Tojŏn, Chosŏn kyŏnggukchŏn, in Sambongjip (Seoul: Kuksa p’yŏn-ch’an wiwŏnhoe, 1961), 227.

56. These are discussed extensively in Kusumoto Masatsugu, Chūgoku tetsugaku kenkyū, 327–352, 359–360.

57. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 24, 133.

58. Edward W. Wagner, The Literati Purges: Political Conflict in the Early Yi Dynasty (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), 2.

59. Uno Seiichi, ed., Shōgaku (Xiaoxue), sec. 6, Shinshaku kambun taikei, 3 (Tokyo: Meiji shoin, 1965), 377.

60. See Martina Deuchler, “The Tradition: Women During the Yi Dynasty,” in Virtues in Conflict, ed. Sandra Mattielli (Seoul: Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1977), 1–47.

61. Jinsilu jizhu (Taipei: Yiwen reprint, Siku shanben congshu), 9:72a–73b; Wing-tsit Chan, trans., Reflections on Things at Hand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 237.

62. E.g., the Kōrakuen Park in Okayama.

63. Huang Zongxi and Quan Zuwang, Song Yüan xüean (Taipei, Holo tushu ed., n.d.), 1:26.

64. Cf. Etienne Balazs, Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1964), 278–286.

65. Cf. Hermans Ooms, “Neo-Confucianism and the Formation of Early Tokugawa Ideology: Contours of a Problem,” in Responses to Neo-Confucianism in Tokugawa Japan, ed. Peter Nosco (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984).

66. In the Korean case, it is obviously not a question of original legitimization but of the Confucian sense that a dynasty’s mandate must be constantly renewed by moral effort and political reform if it is to survive. On the Chinese case, see the important studies of John Dardess on the Yuan and Ming respectively: Confucians and Conquerors (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973); and Confucianism and Autocracy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).

67. See my Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 41.

69. See Sakai, “Yi Yulgok and the Community Compact,” 332–334.

70. To the extent that Neo-Confucians promoted local interests in the academies, it would presumably derive from their preference for political decentralization, emphasizing the dispersion and sharing of power, not from any common rural background or personal identification with the local landed aristocracy. Edward Wagner in “The Social Background of Early Yi-Dynasty Neo-Confucianists” calls into question their having a common social background and emphasizes instead, as the defining characteristic of the sarim group, their common outlook as Neo-Confucians. See the proceedings of the Ninth International Seminar, October 1981, entitled Neo-Confucianism (Taegu: Kyungpook National University, 1982), 155–175.

71. See my Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 31–37.

72. See JaHyun Kim Haboush, “A Heritage of Kings,” 92.

73. See Lee Ki-moon, “Foundation of Hunmin chŏngŭm,” Korea Journal 23, no. 6 (June 1983): 4, 8.

74. See Tu, “Yi T’oegye’s Perception of Human Nature,” 244, 260.

75. See Julia Ching, “Yi Yulgok on the ‘Four Beginnings and the Seven Emotions,’” 318–319.

76. The earliest text reported by Professor Eikemeir is dated 1475. See D. Eikemeir, “Some Thoughts Surrounding the Community Pacts in Korea,” draft prepared for the Conference on Korean Neo-Confucianism, August 1981.

77. Deuchler, “Reject the False and Uphold the Straight,” in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, 376.

78. Ibid., 388, 392.

79. See de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy, 9–13.

80. Deuchler, “Reject the False and Uphold the Straight,” 392–393.

81. “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, 427–433.

Excerpted from W. T. de Bary, ed., Confucianism and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 1–26.

1. Howard French, “Africa Looks East for a New Model,” New York Times (February 4, 1966).

2. By Ho Shen, wife of Liu Shipei, founder of the Anarchist movement in China. Ho Chen, “Nuzi fuchou lun,” Tianyi bao 3, no. 10: 7–13. Trans. Peter Zarrow.

3. Lawrence G. Thompson, Ta T’ung Shu: The One-World Philosophy of K’ang Yu-wei (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958), 183.

4. See Twiss’s article and Tu’s epilogue in W. T. de Bary, ed., Confucianism and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998, for elaboration of this point.

5. See the article by the prominent liberal philosopher Morris Cohen, in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences.

6. Mencius, trans. D. C. Lau (London: Penguin, 1970), IB:8, 68.

8. W. T. de Bary, Waiting for the Dawn (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 117–141.

9. See de Bary, ed., Confucianism and Human Rights, 1–24, and chapter 1 in this volume.

11. Ibid., 117–137.

12. Ibid., 142–153.

13. Ibid., 154–168.

14. Ibid., 168–178.

15. Ibid., 179–192.

16. See W. T. de Bary et al., eds., Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 1:735.

17. de Bary, ed., Confucianism and Human Rights, 193–208.

18. Ibid., 209–233.

19. Ibid., 234–250.

20. See de Bary et al., eds., Sources of Chinese Tradition, 1:735.

21. de Bary, ed., Confucianism and Human Rights, 261–269.

22. Ibid., 270–296.

This chapter is taken from W. T. de Bary, The Liberal Tradition in China (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1983), 91–108.

1. On Wu Han, see Fang Zhaoying, in Goodrich and Fang’s Dictionary of Ming Biography (New York: Columbia Universty Press, 1976), 478–479; and H. L. Boorman, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Republican China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 425–430; James R. Pusey, Wu Han, Attacking the Present Through the Past (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969).

2. See Wu Han, Hai Rui Dismissed from Office, trans. C. C. Wang, with an introductory essay by D. W. Y. Kwok (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1972); Clive Ansley, The Heresy of Wu Han: His Play Hai Jui Dismissed from Office and Its Role in China’s Cultural Revolution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971). For a fuller discussion of issues involving Wu, see Merle Goldman, China’s Intellectuals: Advise and Dissent (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), 26–27, 32–37, 118–124, 233–234.

3. W. T. de Bary, ed., Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 925–928.

4. Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings, the Origins of Cultures (New York: Vintage, 1977), 240; see also Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1957).

5. Inge Morath and Arthur Miller, Chinese Encounters (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979).

6. Orville Schell, in the New York Times Book Review (October 14, 1979): 43.

7. Mingshi (Peking: Chung-hua Book Co., 1974), 174:5927–5933. Cf. also Ernst Wolff, “A Preliminary Study of Hai Rui: His Biography in the Ming shi,” Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia 7, nos. 1–2 (December 1970).

8. See biography and bibliography by Frederick Mote in Dictionary of Ming Biography, 426–433.

9. Zhang Boxing, Zhengyi tang quanshu, Tongzhi 5 (1866) edition, Fang Zhengxue ji 7 juan; Hai Gangfeng ji 2 juan; Rong Zhaozu, Mingdai sixiang shi (Taipei: Taiwan Kaiming Bookstore, 1962).

10. Neil G. Burton and Charles Bettelheim, China Since Mao (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978), 9–13, 37–116.

11. The conflicted nature of this relationship is ably discussed by Goldman in China’s Intellectuals.

12. See Yamanoi Yū, Min-Shin shisōshi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1980), 223ff.

13. de Bary, ed., Sources of Chinese Tradition, 814–818.

14. Ibid., 768–770, 809.

15. I have already pointed this out in relation to developments in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thought in Tokugawa Japan and extend the discussion to China in W. T. de Bary, “Sagehood as a Spiritual and Secular Ideal in Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism,” in Principle and Practicality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 139–172.