Table Of Content i
Body,RitualandIdentity
© KoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,2016 | doi10.1163/9789004318731_001
ii
Sinica Leidensia
Edited by
BarendJ.terHaar
MaghielvanCrevel
In co-operation with
P.K.Bol,D.R.Knechtges,E.S.Rawski,
W.L.Idema,H.T.Zurndorfer
VOLUME132
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedat brill.com/sinl
iii
Body, Ritual and Identity
A New Interpretation of the Early Qing Confucian
Yan Yuan (1635–1704)
By
Jui-sungYang
LEIDEN|BOSTON
iv
Coverillustration:ThePortraitofYanYuan.ReproducedfromYeYanlan葉衍蘭&YeGongchuo葉恭綽
eds.,Qingdai xuezhe xiangzhuan清代學者像傳(The Illustrated Biographies of the Qing Scholars),
Shanghai:Shanghaishudienchubashe,2001.Vol.2,394.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Yang,Jui-sung,1963-
Title:Body,ritualandidentity:anewinterpretationoftheearlyQing
ConfucianYanYuan(1635-1704)/byJui-sungYang.
Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,2016.|Series:SinicaLeidensia,ISSN
0169-9563;volume132|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
Identifiers:LCCN2016008445(print)|LCCN2016013213(ebook)|ISBN
9789004315457(hardback:acid-freepaper)|ISBN9789004318731(e-book)|
Subjects:LCSH:Yan,Yuan,1635-1704.|Yan,Yuan,1635-1704--Politicaland
socialviews.|Yan,Yuan,1635-1704--Criticismandinterpretation.|
Philosophers--China--Biography.|Confucianists--China--Biography|
Radicals--China--Biography|Zhu,Xi,1130-1200--Adversaries.|Elite
(Socialsciences)--China--History.|Civil
service--China--Examinations--History.|China--History--Qingdynasty,
1644-1912.
Classification:LCCB5234.Y464Y3652016(print)|LCCB5234.Y464(ebook)|
DDC181/.112--dc23
LCrecordavailableathttp://lccn.loc.gov/2016008445
WantorneedOpenAccess?BrillOpenoffersyouthechoicetomakeyourresearchfreelyaccessible
onlineinexchangeforapublicationcharge.Reviewyourvariousoptionsonbrill.com/brill-open.
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn0169-9563
isbn978-90-04-31545-7(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-31873-1(e-book)
Copyright2016byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopiand
HoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,
or transmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite 910,Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
ContentCsontents v
Contents
Foreword vii
Benjamin A. Elman
Acknowledgements xii xiv
1 Introduction: Why Yan Yuan? 1
1 TheProblem 1
2 AppraisaloftheConventionalWisdomofYanYuan 3
3 YanYuaninContexts:DoubleMarginalStatus 8
A The “Cultural Gap” Between Northern and Southern China 8
B The Early Qing Intellectual Center in North China: The Sun Qifeng
School 15
4 ResearchAgenda 22
2 The Formation of a Radical Anti-Zhu Xi Confucian 28
1 TheProblem 28
2 Crises 31
A The Beginning 32
B The Young Man Zhu Bangliang 38
C Conversion: Embodying the Confucian Way 44
D The Crisis 52
E The Interpretations 55
F Turning Against “Zhu” 57
G Epilogue 59
3 Conclusion 60
3 Discontent with “Culture”: Yan Yuan’s Reconfiguration of Confucian
Learning 63
1 Introduction 63
2 MasculineProtest:BodilyLearningVersusLiteraryLearning 63
A Confucian Warriors? 66
B Embodying the Way: Ritualization and Body Discipline 69
C Quiet-sitting & Book-reading 72
D Yan Yuan’s “True” Confucian Learning 76
3 Againstthe“Culture”ofPoetry,Prose,Calligraphy,Painting:TheFour
VerminintheWorld 82
4 Conclusion 92
vi Contents
4 Yan-Li School Reconsidered: Li Gong as “Disciple” 95
1 Introduction 95
2 InSearchofConfirmation 98
3 ADiscipleofMaoQiling 106
4 Conclusion:The“Yan-LiSchool”inPerspective 114
5 From Oblivion to Glory: The Revival of Yan Yuan in Modern China 117
1 Introduction 117
2 TheBeginning 118
3 FromaConfucianReformertoaGreatChineseThinker 121
4 LastConfucian?ChineseDewey! 138
5 Conclusion 147
6 Conclusion: Body, Ritual and Identity 150
1 ConfucianRitualismandWenrenCultureReconsidered 151
2 TheIdealofManhoodandHealthyCulture 156
3 IdentityCrisisandIntellectualTransformation 161
Bibliography 165
Index 178
185
4141313AC1C34BBIICPPCIACDG3D2BD3Y12F234512CCC2BT2ABEFCCCCnnnarrrhiiHoHHooHHHo ibboddteensennnnrAAAAAAcffmllee-oiiaatttcoFLxxooPPPPPPeeedccloniuOggnnnTTTTTTeeurStrrstttEEEEEEbmceaacissstoRRRRRRnlpphiianvothho123456ti:nwiyyoooB:lninoWtRhdtoeohy“cf,yCGoaRuYnlRioalsttarnuiudydarY:eileTcur”aeaha:ndlYnedA:a?RLnnIeidtYvGeiu-inZovatanhniltug’ysoaXfRsiYe“CacDnoo11111vvvv1TAYTRTCCTTTEC6IMQYAC9IIAC1ITFLC1CTIT2TTCE1in7766155nnnndnsY8iiaa35raupmhhhhhhhhhhe7rooooooopguii77c00f44oaeDtttfnnuissrSiaieeeeeeeeeennnnnnnuprrriisnsgmltbnepaeooioeieovccccffYYccrYP“EPBCIBIusntaConituualdddasCndellllguiuucion-errareersuuuuraadtrccoirsuuuueitoolacuaai”uitgyrsggcnpsssssiiiyeinsnCacccehtlbbannnaatlniihtiiiiiiyirlaCitnntltttooooof hlsnnnoe’lloMepgusuiAiiigieeoo rQnnnnnnnonoooenngnrraocimmWP“RMgffof::iie5nnngsafiTi“iftnnrCeoiTunEiCM5ndat9Clthartoas&Mnagghf2cnohgmuGeusoruentt aaditeCrnr?eeaeniIaaBlannWbinoatZ“nsl”toCoonCfp“ouZidhoet3nihtYsCnCra:rohoxr2ehQdoR”mssamuIyBfeohnktli ?uynouBenli:n”:no-v iBeliad”ftacReDrn-ionedeof ectLnae5intuiasfaingaotlirw6ant5igoedllucmnnuPtuey5d6StgneiiaDhdocaW7bacoilLeLelnitleenhlenraHneieuCeetgzwonaCaatnrLa eeaNMooylrrgleoerantn,nWlo eTiyaanla”Pt7oiitnr!rrenrnfi2hGrtinanungr3sohggCynriid8ciasennPeuVnsCioenraaeagfle,nmuodNtntr lrCuslrsSCaotBWmpraouutnr7ehoelafstr6laadidchtRieYnLytgutySaie iieCrostvoncaDsenheoupe4rYiinthsanT4uhcsryahaeyii,:pdniraTLnlenniehkrn61321191182699111123691dCea315106114ee21883385520e7748dr86r67h1P Sniauniin6nnag9 tQini8fge:nTghSec“hFoooulr Ve1r5min”intheWorld 8611252311
ForewoFrodreword vii
Foreword
Inthelateeighteenthcentury,theQingdynasty(1644–1911)classicalscholar
ZhangXuecheng(1738–1801)announcedthatthe“SixClassicsareallHistories.”
Fortwomillennia,theConfucianClassics,asopposedtothe“Medical”and
“Mathematical”classics,werepubliclycalled“sacredClassics,”despitesome
doubtsabouttheirindividualauthenticity,whichmanyConfucianscholars
hadraisedsincetheearlyempire.Alongwiththe“FourBooks”(Great Learning,
Doctrine of the Mean, Analects,andMencius),the“FiveClassics”(Change,Doc-
uments,Poetry,Rituals,andAnnals)becametheliterarycoreofaclassical
educationforeliteChinesemales.
Moreover,thecivilserviceexaminationsrequiredmasteryoftheConfucian
Canonastheeducationalprerequisiteforbecominganofficial.InZhang
Xuecheng’stimes,however,theClassicsslowlybegantolosetheirdominant
intellectualandculturalpositionas“sacred.”Insteadtherevivalofhistorical
studies,bothculturalandinstitutional,graduallygainedscholarlymomentum
intheeighteenthcentury.Althoughconceptuallystillalongdistancefrom
laterMay4th“historicism,”Zhang’sfamousannouncementrepresentedanim-
portanttransitionintheevolutionofChineseacademicscholarship.Inthe
twentiethcentury,ChineseintellectualhistoryandConfucianphilosophyhave
irrevocablyreplacedclassicalstudiesasthedominantresearchagendasfor
modernChineseeducation.ThroughtheinfluenceofHuShi,QianMu,Tang
Junyi,MouZongsan,Wing-tsitChan(ChenRongjie),LiuShuxian,LiZehou,
andWei-mingTu(DuWeiming),Confucianphilosophyisnowthedominant
concernamongChineseandWesternscholarsofChineseintellectualhistory.
IfZhangXuechenglivedtoday,sometwohundredyearslater,hemightsay
instead:“TheTwenty-fiveDynasticHistoriesareallliterature.”Manycriticsof
historianshaveappealedtopost-modernliterarycriticismasthewaveofthe
future.Theyquestionedtheprofessionalauthorityandpurportedtruthfulness
ofintellectualhistory,sayingforexample:“Historiansandnovelistsareindis-
tinguishable.”Or,“Factsareunknowableinthemselvesandallfactsaredeter-
minedbythetheoriesthatmanufacturethem.Justasfactsaretheory-laden,so
tooalltheoriesareculturally-laden.”Or,“Novelistsmakeupliestotellthe
truth;historiansusethefactstotelllies.”Inotherwords,post-modernistshave
dissolvedhistory,particularlyintellectualhistory,intoliterature,justastwo
hundredyearsagoZhangXuechengandothersdissolvedtheClassicsintocul-
turalandinstitutionalhistory.Modernhistoriansreplythattheirdisciplineis
basedon“objective”texts,whichinessencearedifferentfromthenovelsand
viii Foreword
storiesthatnovelistsandwritersinventoutoftheirimaginations.Post-modern
critics,however,gainsaytheclaimthathistoricalstudiesareobjective.Instead,
theyconflatenovelsandintellectualhistoryintothesameliterarystreamof
consciousnessof“subjective”humancreations.
Unfortunately,premodernChineseclassicalscholarssuchasYanYuan
(1635–1704),forexample,haveserveduswellas“modern”cannonfodder.
Loadeddownbyourowncontemporarypresuppositions,wehaveusedearlier
Chinesescholarsasammunitionto“fireup”ourownunspoken,subjective
agendas.WehavestillnotputbehindusthemisleadingimageofHuangZongxi
asthe“RousseauofChina.”NorhaveweovercometheerroneousimageofYan
YuanasaJohnDewey-styleAmericanpragmatist.InChina,andJapan,Wang
Fuzhi(1619–1692)remainstrappedasthepioneerof“materialism”inearly-
modernChinesethought.Thingsdonotgetmuchbetterinourmostrecent
studies.Inthe1990stheclassicalDaoistZhuangZhouhasbecomeaDerridean
deconstructionist.InPierreBourdieu’sHomo Academicus,LiZhi(1527–1602)
appearsasaBourdieu-likeanti-academicacademic.
EarlierConfucianssuchasYanYuanandWangFuzhireactedtothefallof
theMingdynasty(1368–1644)andtheManchutriumphdifferentlyfromothers
suchasGuYanwu(1613–82)orHuangZongxi(1610–95).Yettheyallexperi-
encedanageofturmoilandchangetowhichtheyrespondedinvariousways.
Thehistoricalcontextdidnotdeterminetheiractions,butitdoeshelpusun-
derstandwhytheywrotewhattheydid.Increasingly,intellectualhistorians
suchasJui-sungYanginTaiwan,aredissatisfiedwithaWestern-inspired“mod-
ernizationnarrative”fortheirhistoricalresearch.EarlierstudiesofChinese
thoughttendedeithertodismisspremodernChineseintellectualhistory,par-
ticularlythehistoryofConfucianism,asadismalexerciseinrotelearningbe-
forethecomingoftheWest.Recentstudiestendtoover-determinepositively
thephilosophicalidealsofNeo-Confucianismastheculturalbasisofmodern
Chinese“liberal”historicaldevelopment.
Jui-sungYangnotesthatmoderninterpretationsofYanYuanasa“liberal”
statecraftscholarareanexampleoftheintriguinglinkageofYanYuan’sseven-
teenth-centurystatecraftideastohisso-called“liberal”socialvision.Inacuri-
ousway,modernscholarshiponYanYuan,whichnowstresseslesseningthe
importanceoftheWesternimpactinmodernChinesehistory,hasnowlinked
upwiththeearlier“liberal”pictureofthe“unfoldingofNeo-Confucianism.”In
thisinterestingweddingoftworesearchagendasnowtyingtheknotbetween
theminmodernintellectualstudies,YanYuanthusappearsbothasa“liberal”
Neo-Confucianandaprogressivestatecraftthinker.Translationsofportionsof
YanYuan’seditedwritingspresenta“Whiggish”portraitofYan.Theahistorical
portraitofYanYuanstillpresentshimasa“liberal,”statecraft-orientedNeo-
Foreword ix
Confucianwhorepresentstheearlymodern“mind”ofQingChina.Jui-sung
Yang’spioneeringstudyofYanYuan,however,showsincreasingepistemologi-
calvigilanceandgrowingmethodologicalsophistication,whichhasleftbe-
hindthesocialsciencemethodologiesandthe“coldwar”politicalcontextof
precedinggenerations.Jui-sungYangdemonstrateshowteleologymeasures
thepastaccordingtotheyardstickofthepresent.Asthepresentchanges,that
yardstickalsochanges.Inanearlier“present,”whenChinawasvisiblyeconom-
icallybackwardandmilitarilyweakwhencomparedwithWesternEuropean
nation-states,Confucianismwassingledoutandblamedforthatbackward-
ness.NowthatChina’s“present”isfardifferentfromits“past,”soalsotheper-
ceptionofConfucianssuchasYanYuanhaschangedfromviewingthemas
traditionalliteratitoviewingthemasfacilitatorsofmodernity.
Post-modernshavesuccessfullyexposedtheahistoricalbiasesinherentin
thisoveremphasisonthe“present”(called“modernity”)asthemeasureforthe
“past.”ModernizationremainsanimportantobjectofinquiryinChinesehis-
toryafter1860,butithasoutliveditsusefulnessastheoverallframeworkfor
evaluatingChinesecultureandsocietybeforetheTaipingRebellion.Although
therehavebeenwelcomeWeberian-stylechangesintroducedbyYuYing-shih,
thehistoryofYanYuan’sthoughthasremainlargelyseparatedfromitssocial,
political,andeconomiccontext.Theresulthasbeenanarrativeaccountof
Chineseintellectualhistorylongonphilosophybutshortonhistoricalorpo-
liticalsetting.
AfurtherexampleofJui-sungYang’sprowessasahistorianisthecurrent
debateinAmericanChinesestudiesconcerningtheapplicationofHabermas’
notionsofa“publicsphere”and“civilsociety”tomodernChinesehistory.Pro-
ponentsofaChinese“publicsphere”arguethatthegentry-managerialelitein
urbancentersinthelate-Minghadfavoredanautonomouspoliticalandeco-
nomicspherevis-à-visthestate.Opponentscontendthattheuseof“public
sphere”inChinesehistoryuncriticallyappliesHabermas’bourgeois“civilsoci-
ety”ineighteenth-centuryEuropeasthemeasuringstickforChinesegentry
society,therebymissingtheuniquepoliticalandsocialcompromisesworked
outbetweentheimperialstateanditselitessincetheSongdynasty.
Forexample,anthropologistsandsociologistshaveseenpremodernChi-
neselineageorganizationsasaparticularisticanddivisivefeatureofgentry
societyorasanimpedimenttoa“civilsociety”capableofassumingmodern
politicalform.ButJui-sungYangexplainshowimperialrulersandConfucians
suchasYanYuansawinsteadtheconvergenceofkinshiptiesandpublicinter-
ests,whichwereincorporatedthroughthelegalizedinstitutionalizationof
charitableestatesandthattherebyfulfilledtheegalitarianidealofequitable
distributionofwealthandresourcesthroughoutsociety.Wheregentrypoliti-
x Foreword
calassociationsbasedonnon-kinshiptiesduringtheSong,MingandQing
dynastiesweredefinedbythestateas“private/selfish”andthereforewere
bannedasillegitimate,socialorganizationsbasedondescentwerepromoted
as“public,”theexactoppositeofmodernWesternnomenclature.
ThereasonrulersandConfucianssuchasYanYuansupportedkinship
groupsisnotdifficulttounderstand.TheConfucianpersuasion,conceptual-
izedasasocial,historical,andpoliticalformofdailypracticeorganizedaround
ancestorworship,encouragedkinshiptiesastheculturalbasisformoralbe-
havior,whichwerethoughttoredoundtothestate.Consequentlywecannot
assume,asadvocatesofthe“publicsphere”inChinaoftendo,thattherewas
aninversecorrelationbetweenthepowerofthestateandthedevelopmentof
kinshipgroups.Chineselineagesbefore1900didnotdevelopin“private”an-
tagonismtothestatebutratherevolvedasaresultofthe“public”interaction
betweenthestateanditselites.
ForJui-sungYang,the“publicsphere”debaterequiresustoavoidsimple-
mindedlinkagesbetweenConfucian/Neo-Confucianphilosophyandthede-
velopment of a “civil society” in late imperial China. The tendency to
concentrateonindividualssuchasYanYuaninChineseintellectualhistoryhas
longobscuredtheimportantrolesplayedbyfamilyandlineageinChina’scul-
turalhistory.YanYuanandotherChineseintellectualsbeforethetwentieth
centurydidnotconstructavisionoftheirpoliticalandsociallifeex nihilo.
Theirliveswereimbeddedinlargersocialstructurespremisedonthecentral-
ityofkinshipties.Moreoftenthannot,culturalresourceswerefocusedonthe
formationandmaintenanceoflineagesforfamilysuccessintheacademicand
politicalworlds.
AsJui-sungYangshowssowellinthisstudyofYanYuan’slifeandwritings,
theMing-Qingtransitionwasstillsociallypremisedonfamiliesandlineages.
YanYuan’seffortstorediscoverhisHanChinese“familyroots”inNorthChina
duringtheManchuconquestisacompellingstoryofbothsocialcontinuity
andculturalchange.YanYuan’sidentitycrisiswastriggeredbyhisexperience
ofsufferingduringhisgrandmother’sfuneral,awomanwhomhelaterlearned
washisfostergrandmotherfromtheZhufamily.Afterthatdiscovery,hecame
tohaveanewunderstandingofthepressuresimposeduponhimbyhisau-
thoritarianfostergrandfatherZhuShengxuan.Yang’saccountthushasclearly
articulatedtheintensiveandenstrangedrelationshipbetweenYanYuan,
whosenextofkinwerefromtheYanfamily,andZhuShengxuanfromtheZhu
family.Itprecipitatedhisquestioningthevalueofancestorworshipforfoster
parents,inthefaceofnotperformingfamilyritualsforone’sauthenticnext
ofkin.
