This conservative trend carried over into the early Qing, as scholars otherwise diverse in their interests looked to Zhu Xi for their intellectual grounding and moral bearings. Even Confucian scholars identified with significant new trends, such as Gu Yanwu, a progenitor of the evidential research largely identified with Han Learning, looked up to Zhu Xi as a scholar and was strongly critical of Wang Yangming’s subjectivism. Of Wang Fuzhi the same was true, though he exercised far less influence on the course of Qing scholarly thought than did Gu. Likewise turning to Zhu Xi were leading figures in the movement that stressed “practical” or “substantial” learning (shixue) in the early Qing (for instance, Chen Hongmou [chapter 26]), as were scholars in the closely related trend that advocated the practice of Confucian “rites” as models of political and social organization.
A central figure in all this was the Kangxi emperor (1662–1722), generally credited with high intelligence, wise judgment, and benevolent intentions. He took a special interest in Zhu Xi’s teachings and had as advisers some of the leading Neo-Confucians of the day, including Lu Longji (1630–1693), the one Qing scholar esteemed enough to be enshrined in the official Confucian temple and himself an ardent champion of Zhu Xi. The continuity with late Ming neo-orthodoxy is also shown by Lu Longji’s admiration for and acknowledged indebtedness to Lü Liuliang, whose radical Zhu Xi orthodoxy has been discussed above.
Yet the difference between official and scholarly orthodoxies, as well as the potential conflict between them, was sharply drawn in the next reign (Yongzheng, 1723–1735). When Lü Liuliang’s challenge to dynastic rule became exposed in the course of a local revolt in 1728 inspired by Lu’s ideas, Lu’s works were later suppressed and even Lu Longji’s collected writings were expurgated of their many favorable references to Lu Liuliang. Here the demands of dynastic loyalty overrode fidelity to Neo-Confucian tradition, while the greater tolerance of Lu shown in the Kangxi reign did not carry over to his successors.
Meanwhile, steps were taken to establish Zhu Xi as the supreme scholarly authority among the successors to Confucius and Mencius. By imperial order in 1712, his tablet was installed in the main hall of the Confucian temple along with those of Confucius’s own disciples. A definitive edition of his writings (The Complete Works of Master Zhu, 1714) and of his recorded conversations (The Classified Sayings of Master Zhu) was prepared and published under imperial auspices, as well as an anthology, The Essential Ideas of Human Nature and Principle (1715), a selective abridgement of the official Ming collection of Neo-Confucian texts, Great Compendium of Human Nature and Principle.60
Another major project to codify orthodox teaching was undertaken by one of the Kangxi emperor’s prime advisers, Zhang Boxing (1652–1725), who compiled a set of authoritative Neo-Confucian writings in The Collected Works of the Hall of Correctness and Propriety. As with Essential Ideas, referred to above, it was understood that even in such an encyclopedic collection, economy of space and selectivity of materials was called for. The perpetuation of tradition could not be achieved by indiscriminate addition and accumulation, lest the burden of received culture become unmanageable and stultifying. Hence the need for strict criteria in refining the selection, which meant, to some degree, repackaging and redefining the canon, as Zhu Xi himself had done.
In addition to these efforts to promote a scholarly orthodoxy, other major projects were undertaken in the Kangxi reign to record, preserve, and codify the larger legacy of traditional scholarship. One of these, started by an independent scholar but patronized by the court and eventually published with imperial sponsorship, was the encyclopedia Synthesis of Books and Illustrations from Past and Present (Gujin tushu jicheng, 1778). Another such was the project carried out in the Qianlong era, from 1772 to 1783, to prepare a manuscript library that would provide authoritative copies of extant works gathered throughout the empire, the Imperial Manuscript Library known as the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries (Siku quanshu).
Here, too, opportunity was taken to criticize or censor some offending works, while bestowing a kind of seal of approval upon others, and thus in a way defining a canon. Still, it was a vast, capacious canon, and the compilers’ critical comments, many influenced by the new text criticism of the Evidential Learning, did not spare even would-be imperial sages like the Yongle emperor of the Ming, whom they castigated for promulgating his own version of authoritative “sagely learning” when this would better have been left to qualified scholars.
By such official patronage of scholarship on a grand scale, the Manchu regime, especially during the long Kangxi reign (1662–1722), enlisted the services of many Confucian scholars, who, though Chinese, were more humanist than nationalist in their basic outlook and, as earlier in the Mongol period, under Khubilai, were prepared to accept non-Chinese rulers who met their universalist criteria. One of the Manchu rulers who presided over this long antecedent period of consolidation, growth, and prosperity received the posthumous title of Humane (or Benevolent) Emperor (Renzong), and if even European thinkers of the Enlightenment spoke of China in these years as a “benevolent despotism,” it was in part a tribute to the success of the Manchus in carrying out policies that were no less effective in the cultural domain than in the military and political.
If this much be granted to the success of Qing policy and official ideology, even Neo-Confucian scholars who collaborated in this enterprise knew that it fell short of the ideals of Confucius and Zhu Xi. The aforementioned Zhang Boxing, who could be identified as well as anyone with the Qing state orthodoxy, remained conscious that the examination system, even with Zhu Xi’s Four Books and commentaries installed as basic texts, failed to achieve the goals for learning set by Zhu Xi himself. In the following passage, Zhang’s opening reference to the ancients evokes Confucius’s, and later Zhu Xi’s, basic premise that true learning should be “for the sake of one’s self” and not for the pursuit of political and social success:
In ancient times it was easy to develop one’s talents to the full; today it is difficult. In antiquity scholar-officials were chosen for their [moral] substance; today they are chosen for their literary ability. In ancient times the village recommended scholars and the town selected them, so men engaged in substantial learning (shixue) and outdid each other in the practice of humaneness and rightness, the Way and virtue. At home they were pure scholars; at large they were distinguished officials. Today it is different. Men are chosen for their examination essays. What fathers teach their sons, and elder brothers their younger brothers, is only to compete in the writing of essays. It is not that they fail to read the Five Classics or Four Books, but that they read them only for such use as they have in the writing of the examination essays, and never incorporate them into their own hearts and lives.61
Thus even the official orthodoxy carried with it some seeds of its own self-examination, self-criticism, and possible renewal. Moreover, apart from, and even within, the Qing establishment there were independent scholars carrying on the critical scholarship that called into question some of the texts and doctrines closely identified with the official orthodoxy.
Yet it remains a central fact of cultural history in late imperial China, as in the educational history of East Asia as a whole, that Zhu Xi’s basic texts continued to serve as the mainstays of the school curriculum down into the late nineteenth century, and to persist as the most influential force in the intellectual and moral formulation of the educated elite of China, Japan, and Korea.
VILLAGE LECTURES AND THE SACRED EDICT
The “Sacred Edict” refers to a set of moral and governmental instructions promulgated by imperial authority for use in local rituals conducted throughout the Qing empire. First instituted by the Kangxi emperor (r. 1662–1722), it was expanded and given definitive form in Sixteen Maxims by his successor, the Yongzheng emperor (r. 1723–1735). Much ceremony attached to the recitation of these instructions, and an effort was made to popularize them through explanations in the vernacular, the telling of moral
tales, and the conducting of dramatic performances to illustrate the main points of instruction.
So widespread was this educational practice that it early came to the attention of foreign observers, who noted its official character, its emphasis on compliance with the authorities, and the fact that it had tended to become a ritual routine, dutifully performed by mandarins as an official function but not taken too seriously by anyone.
What few realized was that this custom, also known as the Village Lectures, derived from the practice instituted long before by the founder of the Ming62 and earlier spoken of as the Six Maxims [of Ming Taizu], whose “sage instructions” became increasingly thought of as a Sacred Edict, reflecting the theocratic character of the monarchy and the process of official ritualization by which the performance became endowed with a quasi-religious aura.
What fewer still realized was how this had come about as a transformation of Zhu Xi’s original Community Compact promoting such communitarian values as the leadership responsibility of the local elite, consensual agreement among the members at village meetings (i.e., the “compact”), popular moral uplift, neighborly cooperation, and mutual aid, with ceremonial respect shown for age and superior wisdom but otherwise no distinctions made of rank or class. This original character is still reflected in the preservation of Zhu Xi’s Six Maxims among the later Sixteen, and by the fact that, despite the aggrandizing of imperial authority in the official Ming and Qing versions, priority is still given to the family values of filiality and brotherliness (especially as dramatized in later popular tales of heroic filial piety), while the virtue of loyalty to the throne (not mentioned in Zhu Xi’s version, or even in the early Ming version, out of respect for Zhu’s original formulation) is again striking for its absence from this otherwise markedly theocratic ritual.
By contrast to the Six Maxims, the Sixteen, as given below, add many items of an authoritarian and bureaucratic character that are quite foreign to the spirit of Zhu Xi’s original community compact—e.g., matters pertaining to law as administered by the territorial agents of state administration; to collective security units; to the ostracizing of deserters and miscreants; to the prompt payment of taxes; to the suppression of heterodoxy—none of which are mentioned by Zhu Xi. Also striking here is the attention to scholarly achievement, which the accompanying commentary and popular expositions clearly connect with advancement through the examination system, the prime means of official recruitment. Ironically, Zhu Xi, the great scholar himself, had said nothing whatever about scholarly training in his compact; here, however, it ranks well ahead of Zhu’s instructions to the young in general (item 11), which had been oriented toward moral conduct in the family, neighborhood, and village community, not to success in the state bureaucracy.
THE SACRED EDICT
Esteem most highly filial piety and brotherly submission, in order to give due importance to human moral relations.
Behave with generosity toward your kindred, in order to illustrate harmony and benignity.
Cultivate peace and concord in your neighborhoods, in order to prevent quarrels and litigations.
Give importance to agriculture and sericulture, in order to ensure a sufficiency of clothing and food.
Show that you prize moderation and economy, in order to prevent the lavish waste of your means.
Foster colleges and schools, in order to give the training of scholars a proper start.
Do away with errant teachings, in order to exalt the correct doctrine.
Expound on the laws, in order to warn the ignorant and obstinate.
Explain ritual decorum and deference, in order to enrich manners and customs.
Attend to proper callings, in order to stabilize the people’s sense of dedication [to their work].
Instruct sons and younger brothers, in order to prevent them from doing what is wrong.
Put a stop to false accusations, in order to protect the honest and good.
Warn against sheltering deserters, in order to avoid being involved in their punishment.
Promptly remit your taxes, in order to avoid being pressed for payment.
Combine in collective security groups (baojia), in order to put an end to theft and robbery.
Eschew enmity and anger, in order to show respect for the person and life.
[Adapted and revised from Legge, “Imperial Confucianism”—dB]
1. The Chinese title is not susceptible of literal translation; we give the general sense of it as indicated by Huang’s preface to the work.
2. Legendary Daoists who refused the throne when it was offered to them.
3. Yu (or the Great Yu). During the reign of Shun he saved the country from a great flood, for which service he was ennobled and made a minister, eventually succeeding Shun on the throne as first ruler of the Xia dynasty.
4. The term zhu (master) could also be translated “host,” but in China, as in the West, the relationship between host and guest most often suggests that the former is obliged to accommodate the latter, in accordance with long-standing traditions of hospitality. Yet Huang obviously means that the guest has no rights, being at the mercy of the host’s generosity, and thus “master” conveys better the idea of primacy, superiority, or sovereignty as Huang intends it here and “tenant” the dependence of the people on the ruler.
5. Mencius 4B: 3.
6. Shang shu, Taishi B, SBCK 6: 5b, and Mencius 1B: 8 in reference to the last ruler of Shang. See n. 10.
7. The original quotation is from Zhuangzi, Renjian shi, SBCK, Nanhua zhenjing 2: 16b. It is also found in the Surviving Writings of the Cheng Brothers (Er Cheng yishu 5: 77, Er xiansheng yu in Er Cheng ji [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1981]), where it has a different meaning, i.e., the constant relation between prince and minister is a mutual commitment to moral principle, not an inescapable obligation to serve. If prince and minister do not agree on principles, according to Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi, the minister should leave the prince’s service. See Cuiyan, Jun chen pian, 2: 1242–1247.
8. Zhuangzi, “Autumn Floods,” SBCK, Nanhua zhenjing 6: 28a; Burton Watson, The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), p. 188.
9. Zhuangzi, Quqie pian, SBCK 6: 15b; Watson, Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, p. 107.
10. A transposition of an expression found in the Liji, Quli, SBCK 1: 6a, which according to the commentator Zheng Xuan enjoins upon the filial son a constant attentiveness to the behests of his parents. Legge translates it: “He should be [as if he were] hearing [his parents] when there is no voice from them, and as seeing them when they are not actually there” (Li Ki 1: 69). Here it cannot be translated as “not actually there,” because it is clear from the passage following that this is a question of discerning desires that are actually there but are simply unexpressed, unformulated.
11. Liji, Sangfu sizhi 63: 22b.
12. Zuozhuan, 25th Year of Duke Xiang, Chunqiu jingzhuan jijie, SBCK 17: 11a.
13. Mencius 3B: 5.
14. Huainanzi, SBCK, sec. 1, 12: 2a.
15. Reading gong (together) for qi (their). Cf. Haishan xianguan ed. 5a, line 8.
16. In the classics the relation of minister (chen) to prince, and son to father, are frequently linked, as in the Liji: “The ceremonies . . . of mourning and sacrifice . . . illustrate the kindly feelings of minister and son” (Legge, Li Ki 2: 258–259. This usage is akin to the Confucian emphasis on the Five Moral Relations—between parent and child, sovereign and minister, husband and wife, elder and younger brothers, and friends (cf. Mencius 2B: 2 and 3A: 4; Great Learning 20: 8). Mencius, however, insisted on the virtual parity of prince and minister because of their shared commitment to rightness (yi) and said a minister should leave a prince if they had no such agreement on what is right (2B: 5, 14; 4B: 3; 5B: 9).
17. Mencius 4B: 3: “When the prince regards his minister as a mere dog or horse, the minister regards the prince as any other man of the country.” Zhu Xi renders “man of the country” as “anyone met on the road” (luren)
, and Huang uses Zhu’s term, not Mencius’s. Cf. Mengzi jizhu 4B: 3, Zixue ed. 10: 15a, p. 781.
18. Zhuangzi was often quoted for his attribution to Confucius of the view that the relationship of prince and minister was as unalterable and inescapable as that of parent and child ( Zhuangzi 2: 16b). Zhu Xi agreed that the principle of a mutual commitment to rightness (yi) was unalterable, but there was no such relation based on blind personal loyalty. Further, he agreed with Mencius that if the ruler lacked such a commitment, the minister should leave. In other words, the underlying principle was changeless, but the personal relationship was contractual and became void if there was no agreement in principle. Huang agrees with Zhu Xi (Mengzi jizhu 4B: 3, Zixue ed. 10: 15a, p. 781. See also 2B: 5, 14, and 5B: 9. Zhuzi wenji 82: 9b–10a. Ba Song jun zhongjia ji and Er Cheng yishu (Zhonghua ed.) 5: 76–77, where Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi affirm the invariable principle of being in accord on what is right, but with it the obligation to withdraw if there is no such agreement.
19. The Two Emperors—Yao and Shun; the Three Kings—Yu of Xia, Tang of Shang, and Wen and Wu of Zhou together.
20. Zhuangzi, Dazong shi, SBCK 3: 9a; Watson, Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, p. 81.
21. Yanzi qunqiu, SBCK 6: 19b.
22. Xianzhang means to uphold the laws and institutions established by the founder of the dynasty; an expression applied to Confucius, who “elegantly displayed the regulations of Wen and Wu [founders of the Zhou dynasty], taking them as his model” (Legge, Doctrine of the Mean, 30: 1).
23. Liji, Quli, Shisanjing zhusu 2: 9a.
24. Xunzi, Jundao pian, SBCK 8: 1a.
25. In Xunzi’s discussion of the “Way of the Ruler,” he says, “It is men that govern, not laws” (Wang Xianqian, Xunzi jijie 8: 1a), and Zhu Xi implicitly amended this when he said in his Commentary on the Great Learning that it is by self-cultivation and self-discipline that the governance of men is accomplished. See ch. 21.
Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2 Page 12