Consulting the Elder: Intertextuality in the “Lord Ai Asked” Confucian Dialogues

Abstract

This article focuses on passages in which Confucius is portrayed in dialogue with Lord Ai of Lu (r. 494–468 bce), found scattered throughout a range of early texts, most centrally in the Li ji, the Da Dai Li ji, and the Xunzi. Examining intertextual connections among these dialogues and related texts, both received and excavated, it seeks to adduce evidence to determine whether their particular shared narrative frame might be original and integral to the content of these texts, as well as to reveal their close links with other early Confucian texts that hold important implications for the dating of all these interrelated texts.

顧史考

拜問耆老：論⟨哀公問⟩諸篇的互文關係

本文以孔子與魯哀公（前494—468年在位)的假設對話為主要對象，亦即散見於⟪禮記⟫、⟪大戴禮記⟫及⟪荀子⟫的「哀公問」諸篇，探討其間及其與其他相關傳世文本與出土文本之間的互文性關係。目的在於判定這幾篇所共見的敘述框架是否與其所論內容息息相關而本來即有的，同時也揭示其與若干其他先秦儒家文本間的密切關聯，進而推論諸種相關文本的著作年代。

孔子、哀公問、禮記、大戴禮記、荀子、中庸、孔子閒居、仲尼燕居、民之父母、緇衣、表記、坊記、戰國思想史

As perhaps the leading authority on ritual matters of his time and the man who, possessing the knowledge, wisdom, and charisma necessary to attract large numbers of disciples to his gates, effectively established the dominant tone for all discourse on ritual from his time forward, the figure of Confucius (Kong Zi 孔子, 551–479 bce) ¹ —not to mention his disciples—naturally looms large in both the Li ji 禮記 (Book of Ritual) and Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記 (Elder Dai Book of Ritual). Outside of the Lunyu 論語 (Analects of Confucius), which is devoted exclusively to utterances and conversations of Confucius and his disciples, these two works are among our most valuable sources for understanding the thought of both Confucius himself and those who, in the subsequent few centuries, laid claim to his mantle. ² Needless to say, the Confucius of all these works is at once both an historical and literary figure. As an historical figure, he was that man of Lu 魯 who at times likely achieved administrative and advisory positions of some prominence but at others remained largely beyond the political fray and devoted most of his time to the instruction of his disciples; as a literary figure, he was the subject of countless imaginative recreations that, consciously or not, served ends or philosophical positions that occasionally departed in subtle ways from those of the historical Confucius—texts produced by way of a literary license that was nonetheless bound, I would stress, by the limits of credulity established by historical memory of the living Confucius (itself, to be sure, constantly evolving over time). ³

This present article focuses on passages in which Confucius is portrayed in dialogue with Lord Ai of Lu 魯哀公 (r. 494–468 bce, b. 508 bce). Such dialogues are found scattered throughout a range of early texts, but a central core of them is concentrated in the Li ji, the Da Dai Li ji, and the Xunzi 荀子—not to mention the Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語, which likely excerpted directly from these texts—with a fair amount of overlap among them. ⁴ It is these texts in particular that form the subject matter of this study, though, due to space constraints, the current article will examine in depth only the two dialogues that appear in the “Lord Ai Asked” chapter (or, more accurately, text) ⁵ of the Li ji itself (or, equivalently, the “Lord Ai Asked Kong Zi” chapter of the Da Dai Li ji). Translations of the other five dialogues are included here in an appendix; while their mutual affinities and connections with other relevant texts cannot be substantiated in this article to the same degree as those pertaining to the two treated in depth here, we will still have occasion to point to a few telling and significant instances of overlap along the way—though, as we shall see by the conclusion of this article, the two dialogues that form “Lord Ai Asked” may have constituted a particularly central text of the early Confucian proto-canon. In order to maintain distinction among the separate dialogues rather than concentrating unduly on the “chapters” in which they appear, the present study will label each dialogue with a letter, as per Table 1. ⁶

Table 1. Dialogue letter assignments

This study begins with the conjecture that there was likely an explicit purpose behind this particular narrative frame. Against the potential argument that this frame was, at least in some cases, added only later to provide plausible context for pre-existing material, we seek here to adduce evidence to determine whether the frame might instead be original and integral to the content itself. ⁷ To that end, we first observe that Lord Ai is clearly not the only ruler with whom Confucius could have been imagined in dialogue. According to Zuo zhuan 左傳 accounts, Confucius held relatively high positions under the reign of Lord Ding of Lu 魯定公 (r. 509–495 bce, b. 556 bce), who did not die until Confucius was already fifty-six years of age. ⁸ Yet, outside of two very brief excerpts in the Lunyu and a couple of questionable short passages in the Kongzi jiayu and Kongcongzi, ⁹ virtually no dialogues between Lord Ding and Confucius are to be found among extant texts. The chief reason for this probably has much to do with the fact that Lord Ding was, on top of being the ruler, also five years Confucius’s senior and thus one to whom Confucius would have been expected to be relatively deferential, whereas Lord Ai was forty-three years his junior—still only twenty-nine years old when the Master died—and thus Confucius would have appeared before him as a sagely elder statesman, welcomed back to his home state after years of travel abroad and thus now due special deference in his own right. ¹⁰ As we shall see below, certain features of the dialogues in question serve to highlight just such a reversal in deferential status, such as Lord Ai’s repeated use of the formula “Dare I ask” (gan wen 敢問) in making his inquiries, a locution ordinarily reserved for disciples.

Our search for intertextual commonalities among these texts of similar narrative frame will also reveal fascinating connections with other early Confucian texts—connections of the sort that include those not easily attributed to a more general shared vocabulary and commonly utilized narrative devices, but which are rather indicative of more idiosyncratic stylistic tendencies and thought processes. Following an initial examination of the texts in question and an exploration of their shared phraseology, we will attempt to draw out the possible implications of such connections. In brief, these will include the speculation that, while shared usage of some of the more prominent unique terms could well be a mark of conscious imitation, overlap among less immediately noticeable idiosyncratic phrases is more likely a sign of common authorship, whether by a single individual or different members of a cohesive intellectual lineage. For reasons that will become clear below, moreover, indications of such likely common authorship, viewed in conjunction with recently excavated manuscripts, allow us to propose dates of composition for such influential texts as “Zhongni yanju” 仲尼燕居 (Zhongni Rested at Ease) and the “Zhongyong” 中庸 (Centrality and Commonality)—or at least portions thereof—with a much greater degree of certainty than hitherto possible. With these implications in mind, let us start our examination with the two dialogues that together comprise a single text found in both the Li ji and Da Dai Li ji.

“Lord Ai Asked” 哀公問

The “Ai Gong wen” chapter of the Li ji—or “Ai Gong wen yu Kong Zi” chapter of the Da Dai Li ji—is a combination of two entirely separate dialogues (Dialogues A and B). ¹¹ The first and shorter of the two lacks any sort of extra narrative frame, beginning straight off with Lord Ai’s question. Much like other Confucius dialogue texts in the Li ji—such as “Zhongni yanju” 仲尼燕居—the topic of inquiry is, not surprisingly, ritual.

Dialogue A

哀公問於孔子曰： 「大禮何如?君子 ¹² 之言禮，何其尊也！」

孔子曰： 「丘也小人，不足以知禮。」 ¹³

君曰： 「否，吾子言之也。」 ¹⁴

Lord Ai asked Kong Zi: “What is great ritual like? Why do [you] noblemen, when discussing ritual, hold it in such high esteem?”

Kong Zi replied: “I am a man of no consequence and lack the means to understand ritual.”

Lord [Ai] said: “That is not so. Do speak of it.”

While the question of “Ritual, what is it good for?” may well have been on Lord Ai’s mind, it is hard to imagine any real conversation would have opened in such a manner, and Lord Ai’s inquiry in this fictitious dialogue is clearly just a convenient set-up question designed to impart a discourse on the greatness of ritual directly into Kong Zi’s mouth. The question implies that the value of ritual, and by extension ritual experts, has been subject to question, and the task of the written dialogue would seem to be to put such a question to rest.

The Kong Zi of this dialogue at once both declines any true knowledge of ritual and yet demonstrates that very knowledge precisely through his ritual show of humility—in a formula of self-declared “insufficiency” that we see repeated elsewhere. ¹⁵ Pressed by Lord Ai, Kong Zi then goes right ahead to discuss “what he has heard.”

孔子曰： 「丘聞之，民之所由生 ¹⁶ ，禮為大。非禮無以節事天地之神也 ¹⁷ ，非禮無以辨君臣、上下、長幼之位也，非禮無以別男女、父子、兄弟之親，昏姻、疏數之交也 ¹⁸ 。君子以此之為尊敬然。 ¹⁹

Kong Zi said: “I have heard that ritual is the greatest thing by which the people live their lives. Without ritual, there would be no means by which to serve the spirits of Heaven and Earth with rhythmic regularity; without ritual, there would be means by which to distinguish the positions between ruler and ministers, superiors and subordinates, or old and young; and without ritual, there would be no means by which to differentiate the affinities of man and woman, father and son, and elder and younger brother, or the relationships among relatives by marriage, those who are distant and those who are close. It is for these reasons that the noble man holds it in such high esteem and reverence.”

Here, Kong Zi gets right to the heart of the manner by flatly stating that ritual is, in fact, indispensable for all of human social life, which is naturally marked by various forms of vertical and horizontal difference among living family members, deceased yet ever-present ancestors, and the entire political order under which we live, all of which require the regulating norms of ritual in order for those differences to be properly observed. Such is the essence of ritual, which both precedes and pervades all of its particular occasions, forms, vessels, and accoutrements, which, as the following “only then” 然後 serves to emphasize, are only subsidiary to this greater function:

「然後以其所能教百姓 ²⁰ ，不廢其會節。有成事，然後治其雕鏤、文章、黼黻以嗣。 ²¹ 其順之，然後言其喪筭 ²² ，備其鼎、俎 ²³ ，設其豕、腊，脩其宗廟 ²⁴ ，歲時以敬祭祀，以序宗族 ²⁵ 。即安其居節 ²⁶ ，醜其衣服，卑其宮室， ²⁷ 車不雕幾 ²⁸ ，器不刻鏤，食不貳味 ²⁹ ，以與民同利。昔之君子之行禮者如此。 ³⁰ 」

“Only then does [the noble man] instruct the men of a hundred surnames ³¹ [in ritual] to the extent of his abilities, ³² [so as] not to abandon their communal observances. Only once [their] tasks are accomplished [are they to] follow [these] through with the ordering of their carvings and engravings, emblems and patterns, and embroidered insignia. Only once all is in accord [are they to] discuss their degrees of mourning observance, make provisions for their tripod cauldrons and serving platters, set forth their sacrificial boars and dried meat, and renovate their ancestral temples, so that they may sacrifice with reverence at the seasonal occasions and bring order to their ancestral clans. At this, they are made secure in their [various] abodes and routines, have their clothing categorized [according to rank], ³³ and have their residences and chambers diminished, their carriages devoid of carvings and reliefs, their vessels devoid of etchings and engravings, and their meals devoid of manifold flavors, so as to share their benefits in common with the people.”

Kong Zi makes clear that all of these specific forms, patterns, and accoutrements are for the purposes of allowing the men of the hundred surnames to “sacrifice with reverence at the seasonal occasions and bring order to their ancestral clans”—they should never be misunderstood as being simply for their own sake. And as if to drive this point home, Kong Zi further proclaims that all embellishment or extravagance that does not go directly toward the service of such ends is to be expressly curtailed, so that the benefits of those higher up in the otherwise-indispensable hierarchy may be shared “in common with the people.”

公曰： 「今之君子，胡莫行之也？」

孔子曰： 「今之君子，好實 ³⁴ 無厭，淫德 ³⁵ 不倦，荒怠敖慢 ³⁶ ，固民是盡，午其眾以伐有道 ³⁷ ，求得當欲，不以其所。 ³⁸ 昔 ³⁹ 之用民者由前，今之用民者由後。今之君子莫為禮也。 ⁴⁰ 」

Lord [Ai] said: “Why do none of today’s noblemen put it into practice?”

Kong Zi replied: “The noblemen of today are incessantly fond of material bounty, tirelessly transgress the bounds of virtue, and are indolent, dissolute, and arrogant, thus invariably exhausting [their] people. ⁴¹ Contravening the masses, they attack those with the proper way, seeking [only] to fulfill [their own] desires and taking no stock of their [people’s] places. Those who employed the people in the past took the former route; those who employ the people today take the latter. None of today’s noblemen practice ritual.”

The emphasis on moderation in ritual is finally put into the starkest of terms by posing an enemy of the people in the guise of the sham “noblemen” of today. ⁴² Or, to put the matter another way, ritual is not the problem, but rather that those who are employing it in this day and age are simply abusing it toward selfish ends.

There are a few defining terms and idiomatic phrases worth taking note of in this dialogue, a point which we will return to later. Before moving on to the second dialogue, however, let us first briefly examine the aforementioned “noblemen of today” (今之君子). While the contrast between an ancient golden age and a fallen present is certainly nothing out of the ordinary, the use of this particular term in expressing that contrast is in fact highly limited. Aside from its three occurrences in this dialogue of text, elsewhere within the Li ji and Da Dai Li ji corpuses (hereafter referred to as the “ritual compendia”) it occurs only once in the “Tan Gong, xia” 彈弓下 chapter of the Li ji, in the mouth of Zisi; and, most significantly, once in the “Zhuyan” 主言 chapter of the Da Dai Li ji, in the mouth of Kong Zi. ⁴³ Among all other pre-imperial and early Han texts (including unearthed manuscripts), it also occurs twice within a single passage in the “Gongsun Chou, xia” 公孫丑下 chapter of the Mengzi 孟子 (2B.9), in Meng Zi’s mouth; three times in a passage from the Shanghai Museum manuscript “Zhonggong” 仲弓, in a brief series of questions from Zhonggong about the difficulties of remonstration; once in the “Zashi, disi” 雜事第四 (Miscellaneous Matters 4) chapter of the Xinxu 新序 (New Arrangement), in the mouth of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn)-period great officer Zhao Cui 趙衰 (d. 622 bce); once in the Lienü zhuan 列女傳 (Biographies of Exemplary Women); and once in the “Fanzhi” 反質 (Return to Substance) chapter (juan 20) of the Shuoyuan 說苑 (Garden of Persuasions). ⁴⁴ The latter, bearing ideological similarity to Dialogue A, is especially worth taking a look at:

衛叔孫文子問於王孫夏曰： 「吾先君之廟小，吾欲更之，可乎？」

對曰： 「古之君子，以儉為禮；今之君子，以汰易之。夫衛國雖貧，豈無文履一奇，以易十稷之繡哉？以為非禮也。」

文子乃止。⁴⁵

Shu-Sun Wenzi of Wey asked Wangsun Xia: “The temple of our former lords is small, and I wish to renovate it—would that be alright?”

[Wangsun Xia] replied: “The noble men of antiquity performed ritual with frugality, whereas the noblemen of today have substituted extravagance for this. For though the state of Wey be poor, did it not still have its marvel of the ‘decorated shoes,’ whose embroidery was traded for ten [units] of fine millet? I do not believe this to be in accord with ritual.”

At this, Wenzi desisted.

Though these Chunqiu-era figures technically predated Kong Zi, Wangsun Xia’s ostensible words here sound almost as if they could have been taken straight out of Kong Zi’s mouth from our “Ai Gong Wen” text, with its equivalent emphasis on the curtailment of extravagance. ⁴⁶

Dialogue B

The second and longer of the two dialogues runs as follows:

孔子侍坐於哀公，哀公曰： 「敢問人道誰為大？」

孔子愀然作色而對曰： 「君之及此言也，百姓之德 ⁴⁷ 也。固臣敢無辭而對：人道政為大。」

Kong Zi was sitting in attendance of Lord Ai, and Lord Ai said: “Might I dare ask what is the greatest [aspect] of the human way?”

Kong Zi apprehensively changed his facial expression and replied: “The subject that you, my lord, are broaching concerns the virtue of the people of the hundred surnames, and so I would certainly not dare to decline to give you my reply: governance is the greatest [aspect] of the human way.”

While preceded in this case by at least a minimal contextual tag, Lord Ai’s initial question here comes out of the blue and is such a fundamental one that it is hard to imagine it ever having come up in the course of any genuine conversation. It is striking even to the no-doubt fictionalized Kong Zi of this narrative dialogue, who is portrayed as being visibly taken aback by it, having “apprehensively changed his facial expression” upon hearing the question. He replies by first stating why he even dares to reply, given that the standard ritual in such situations where the ruler asks a question of grave importance is for the minister to first decline the competence to answer it—just as we saw in the previous dialogue. In this case, the question is dramatized to be of such fundamental import that it is simply too big to risk the chance of passing it up through such ritual niceties, and so Kong Zi sums up the matter right away with a concisely straightforward five-word response. ⁴⁸ This of course elicits Lord Ai’s obligatory follow-up question:

公曰： 「敢問何謂為政？」 ⁴⁹

孔子對曰： 「政者，正也。君為正，則百姓從 ⁵⁰ 政矣。君之所為，百姓之所從也。君所不為 ⁵¹ ，百姓何從？」

公曰： 「敢問為政如之何？」

孔子對曰： 「夫婦別，父子親 ⁵² ，君臣嚴 ⁵³ ，三者正，則庶物 ⁵⁴ 從之矣。」

Lord Ai asked: “Might I dare ask what is meant by ‘practicing governance’?”

Kong Zi replied: “‘Governance’ is ‘rectification.’ If the ruler acts with rectitude, the people of the hundred surnames will in accordance become rectified. Whatever the ruler practices, it is this that the people of the hundred surnames follow. If the ruler does not practice something, how would they follow it?”

Lord Ai asked: “Might I dare ask how one is to go about practicing governance?”

Kong Zi replied: “Husband and wife are to be distinguished from one another, father and son are to hold affinity toward each other, and ruler and minister are to be strict toward one another. When these three [relationships] are rectified, all things will follow in accord.”

Lord Ai’s first two follow-up questions here are asked with particular humility—reflecting not only consciousness of his own youth but also the solemn import of the topic—and as he has finally begun to slowly get more detail as to the basic principles of charismatic governance, he continues to press forward with further humility:

公曰： 「寡人雖無似 ⁵⁵ 也，願聞 ⁵⁶ 所以行三言之道，可得聞乎？」

孔子對曰： 「古之為政，愛人為大。所以治愛人，禮為大。所以治禮，敬為大。敬之至矣，大昏為大，大昏至矣。大昏既至，冕而親迎，親之也。親之也者，親之也。 ⁵⁷ 是故君子興敬為親，舍 ⁵⁸ 敬，是遺親也。弗愛不親，弗敬不正。 ⁵⁹ 愛與敬，其政之本與？」

Lord Ai said: “Although I am unworthy, I wish to learn the means by which to put these three precepts into practice—might I hear of them?”

Kong Zi replied: “In ancient times, the greatest [aspect] of practicing governance was caring for (/loving) people. The greatest means by which to bring order to the care of people is ritual, and the greatest means by which to bring order to ritual is reverence. The greatest [occasion] for the ultimate extension of reverence is the [ritual of] the Great Wedding. ⁶⁰ Having achieved this ultimate extension, the Great Wedding [dictates that the lord] personally receive [the bride] in his ceremonial crown, by which to show his personal intimacy with her. To show intimacy with her is to take her as kin. ⁶¹ Thus the noble man expresses intimacy through the elevation of reverence; to forsake reverence is to leave one’s kin behind. Without care (/love), there will be no intimacy; without reverence, there will be no rectitude. Caring and reverence—are they not the foundations of governance?”

It may well be the case, as Sun Xidan suggests, that Kong Zi chooses to emphasize the Great Wedding above all due to the fact that Lord Ai had, to widespread disapproval, promoted one of his concubines—the favored mother of Noble Scion Jing 公子荊—to become his chief consort. ⁶² Be that as it may, there is much deeper import here: a statement of nothing less than the dialectical relationship of “love” and “reverence” (or “caring” and “respect”), ai 愛 and jing 敬, or, in other terms, that of “affinity” (/“intimacy”) (qin 親) and “rectitude” (zheng 正). ⁶³ The proper balance of these apparent opposites and their reconciliation into a singular attitude is the key to success, contentment, and longevity in all personal, social, and political endeavors, and its foundation in the marriage is naturally the basis for its extension to the ultimate realm of governance—mediated, as always, through the guiding norms of ritual. In the ritual of the Great Wedding, the lord embodies these two primary aspects at once by not only personally going to receive the bride, and thus showing his love and affinity, but also doing so clad in his finest royal garb, and thus expressing reverence for all that the marriage to his bride signifies in harmonizing relations and carrying forth the noble lineage. The youthful Lord Ai has not yet quite grasped this point, and thus deigns to express his doubts:

公曰： 「寡人願有言然 ⁶⁴ 。冕而親迎，不已重乎？」

孔子愀然作色而對曰： 「合二姓之好，以繼先聖之後，以為天地、宗廟、社稷之主， ⁶⁵ 君何謂已重乎？」

Lord Ai said: “There is something I would like to say in this regard. ⁶⁶ To personally receive [the bride] donning the ceremonial crown, is this not excessive?” ⁶⁷

Kong Zi apprehensively changed his facial expression and replied: “Joining together the affections of two clans, so as to carry forward the lineage with a descendant of the former sage ⁶⁸ so as to serve as the lord of Heaven and Earth, the ancestral temples, and the altars of soil and grain—why does my lord say that this is excessive? ⁶⁹

Kong Zi’s reply, accompanied by the narratively requisite sudden change in demeanor upon his hearing such an audacious question, prompts Lord Ai to a recognition of his own obtuseness and an entreaty for further elucidation:

公曰： 「寡人固 ⁷⁰ 。不固，焉得聞此言也？寡人欲問，不得其辭。請少進！」

孔子曰： 「天地不合，萬物不生。大昏，萬世之嗣也。君何謂已重焉？」

孔子遂言曰： 「內以治宗廟之禮，足以配天地之神明 ⁷¹ ；出以治直言之禮，足以立上下之敬。物恥足以振之，國恥足以興之。為政先禮 ⁷² ，禮其政之本與？」

Lord Ai said: “I am ignorant. But were I not ignorant, how would I have come to hear these words? I should like to inquire further, but I am unable to express myself properly. Please advance me a little further!”

Kong Zi said: “If Heaven and Earth did not join together, the myriad things would not be born. The Great Wedding is the continuation of a lineage of myriad generations—why does my lord say that it is excessive?”

Kong Zi then continued: “Internally, the rituals of the ancestral temple are ordered through it, in a way sufficient to match the divine luminosity of Heaven and Earth. ⁷³ Externally, the rituals of straightforward speech are ordered through it, in a way sufficient to establish the respect of superiors and subordinates. ⁷⁴ When affairs are brought to shame, [such rituals] are sufficient to revive them, and when the state is brought to shame, they are [likewise] sufficient to revitalize it. ⁷⁵ In practicing governance, ritual comes first—is ritual not the foundation of governance?”

It is not that Kong Zi has forgotten that he had already just labeled “love and reverence” as the foundation of governance, but rather that it is precisely through ritual—specifically here that of the Great Wedding—that those two fundamental attitudes of sincere affection are brought into harmonious accord. Yet perhaps because it is the attitude of reverence that is the most easily neglected, Kong Zi then turns to elaborate on the three basic forms of reverence, all of which in turn constitute expressions of filial piety toward one’s parents and the ultimate origins of one’s lineage:

孔子遂言曰： 「昔三代明王之政 ⁷⁶ ，必敬其妻子也，有道 ⁷⁷ 。妻也者，親之主也，敢不敬與？子也者，親之後也，敢不敬與？君子無不敬也， ⁷⁸ 敬身為大。身也者，親之枝也，敢不敬與？不能敬其身，是傷其親；傷其親，是傷其本；傷其本，枝從而亡。三者，百姓之象也。身以及身，子以及子，妃以及妃 ⁷⁹ ，君行 ⁸⁰ 此三者，則 ⁸¹ 愾乎天下矣， ⁸² 大王之道也。如此，則國家順矣。」

Kong Zi then continued: “In former times, in the governance of the enlightened kings of the three dynasties, reverence was invariably paid to consorts and sons, and [for this] there was a [proper] way. The consort is the host of one’s parents—dare one not be reverent? ⁸³ The son is the descendant of one’s parents—dare one not be reverent? There is no one toward whom the noble man is not reverent, but his reverence towards his own self (/body) is the greatest. One’s self (/body) is a branch of one’s parents—dare one not be reverent? To be unable to be reverent towards one’s self is to harm one’s parents, to harm one’s parents is to harm one’s roots, and when one harms one’s roots, the branches perish along with them. These three [forms of reverence] form the models for the people of the hundred surnames [to follow]. [Reverence for] one’s own self leads to [others’ reverence for] their selves; [reverence for] one’s own son leads to [others’ reverence for] their sons; and [reverence for] one’s own wife leads to [others’ reverence for] their wives. If the ruler ⁸⁴ practices these three [forms of reverence], his [reverential] spirit will infuse the entire world. ⁸⁵ This is the way of the great kings, ⁸⁶ and if things are thus, all the states and households will be in compliant accord.

Kong Zi ascribes these three forms of reverence to no lesser authority than the “great” and “enlightened” former kings of the three dynasties, whose practice of them adhered to a definite course of principles—they “had [their] way” (you dao 有道)—and thus allowed their reverential spirit to infuse the entire world and bring all levels of society into order. The stakes and pedigree of such practice could not be any higher, which leads Lord Ai to want to inquire further about each form of reverence one by one—or at least the initial form:

公曰： 「敢問何謂敬身？」

孔子對曰： 「君子過言則民作辭，過動則民作則。君子言不過辭，動不過則，百姓不命而敬恭 ⁸⁷ 。如是，則 ⁸⁸ 能敬其身；能敬其身，則能成其親矣。」

Lord Ai said: “Might I dare ask what is meant by being ‘reverent towards one’s self’?”

Kong Zi replied: “When the noble man goes too far with his statements, the people will follow in acting upon his words; when he goes too far with his actions, the people will follow in acting upon his model. [But] when the noble man’s statements do not go too far in their words, and his actions do not exceed the proper model, the people of the hundred surnames will become reverent and humble without having even been commanded to do so. If things are thus, it follows that [the noble man] is able to be reverent towards his own self, and if he is able to be reverent towards his self, he will be able to bring completion to his parents.”

While reverence toward one’s self is here put into the familiar context of the invariably charismatic political effect of one’s words and actions, this is ultimately brought back to land once again on the positives it accords to one’s parents. This prompts a follow-up question:

公曰： 「敢問何謂成親？」

孔子對曰： 「君子也者，人之成名也。百姓歸之 ⁸⁹ 名，謂之君｛子｝之子 ⁹⁰ ，是使其親為君｛子｝也 ⁹¹ ，是為成其親之名也已。」

Lord Ai asked: “Might I dare ask what is meant by ‘bringing completion to [one’s] parents’?”

Kong Zi replied: “The ‘noble man’ is the name given to a man who achieves completion. The people of a hundred surnames attach a name to him, calling him the ‘son of a noble man,’ and this [effectively] makes his parents ‘noble[s] men’; ⁹² this is how he brings about the completion of a good name for his parents.”

Kong Zi’s answer involves something of a play on words: nobility of character confers noble pedigree upon one’s entire lineage, as junzi 君子, “noble man,” is quite literally the “son of a lord (ruler/noble).” For someone like Lord Ai, whose lineage was of course already noble in fact, such a practice would demonstrate that it was actually still deserving of that term, Lord Ai having fulfilled the conditions of character and action that make one worthy to serve as ruler. On the heels of this point, Kong Zi then returns to the importance to governance of the other cardinal attitude/practice emphasized in this text, “caring” (/“love”) for others, and doing so by first emphatically repeating verbatim a statement he had made earlier: ⁹³

孔子遂言曰： 「古之為政，愛人為大。不能愛人，不能有其身； ⁹⁴ 不能有其身，不能安土；不能安土，不能樂天；不能樂天，不能成其身。」

Kong Zi then continued: “In ancient times, the greatest [aspect] of practicing governance was caring for (/loving) people. If you are unable to care for other people, you will be unable to take possession of your own self; ⁹⁵ if you are unable to take possession of your own self, you will be unable to be secure in your own territory; if you are unable to be secure in your own territory, you will be unable to find contentment with Heaven[’s mandate]; and if you are unable to find contentment with Heaven[’s mandate], you will be unable to bring completion to your self.”

Living with stability in the world inherently requires the support of others, and this is all the more true for someone in a position of political authority. Caring for others is naturally indispensable for this cause, and when applied fully, it can lead one beyond mere survival to a state of self-completion and ultimate security and contentment in one’s Heavenly-mandated position. Having been told of this, Lord Ai asks for elaboration on these final notions of “self-completion” and contentment with “Heaven’s Way”:

公曰： 「敢問何謂 ⁹⁶ 成身？」

孔子對曰： 「不過乎物。」 ⁹⁷

公曰： 「敢問君子 ⁹⁸ 何貴乎天道也？」

孔子對曰： 「貴其不已。如日月東西相從而不已也，是天道也。不閉其久 ⁹⁹ ，是天道也。無為而物成，是天道也。已成而明，是天道也。」

Lord Ai asked: “Might I dare ask what is meant by ‘bringing completion to [one’s] self’?”

Kong Zi replied: “[It lies in] not going beyond [the proper scope of] things.［To not go beyond [the proper scope of things] is to accord with Heaven’s Way.］” ¹⁰⁰

Lord Ai asked: “Might I dare ask what aspect of Heaven’s Way it is that the noble man ¹⁰¹ values most?”

Kong Zi replied: “He values the fact that it is unrelenting. Such as the sun and moon following each other from east to west without relent—this is Heaven’s Way. To lastingly endure without ever shutting down—this is Heaven’s Way. For things to find completion while it acts to no purpose—this is Heaven’s Way. To shine brilliantly after achieving [such] completion—this is Heaven’s Way.”

Kong Zi concludes his sagely advice here on a metaphysical note, implicitly comparing the way of a fully accomplished ruler—and the entire lineage of noble rulers that precede him—to the ceaseless operations of the cosmos itself: self-perpetuating, ever-enduring, and a source of sustenance for all he oversees.

The final exchange then reiterates the point that filial piety lay at the root of such achievement, and reverence for one’s parents is ultimately the same as reverence toward Heaven itself:

公曰： 「寡人惷愚、冥煩，子志之心也。 ¹⁰² 」

孔子蹴然辟席 ¹⁰³ 而對曰： 「仁人不過乎物，孝子不過乎物 ¹⁰⁴ 。是故仁人之事親也如事天，事天如事親。是故 ¹⁰⁵ 孝子成身。」

公曰： 「寡人既聞此言也，無如後罪何！」

孔子對曰： 「君之及此言也，是臣之福也。」

Lord Ai said: “I am foolish, ignorant, and befuddled, as you, sir, know all too well in your heart.”

Kong Zi apprehensively arose from his mat and replied: “The man of humanity does not go beyond [the proper scope of] things, and the filial son [likewise] does not go beyond [the proper scope of] things. For this reason, the man of humanity serves his parents just as he serves Heaven, and he serves Heaven just as he serves his parents. For this reason, the filial son brings his self to completion.” ¹⁰⁶

Lord Ai said: “Having now heard these words, I [still fear] I cannot avoid falling short of them in the future!”

Kong Zi replied: “That you should [aspire to] live up to these words is, itself, my good fortune.”

Not only does Lord Ai end up convinced by Kong Zi’s words, he also expresses the fear that he might fail to live up to them—a trope not uncommonly seen in exchanges with disciples. ¹⁰⁷ Given that Lord Ai is far from a disciple in any ordinary sense, Kong Zi not surprisingly follows this with some encouragement couched in an expression of humility.

Analysis and textual connections

The narrative form of Dialogue B displays some contours already familiar from the previous dialogue. Lord Ai once again initiates the main question, and it is a big one unprompted by any particular context. This time, Kong Zi does not demur, but he still offers an explanation as to why he will not demure. He first gives the minimal answer—that “governance” is the greatest aspect of the human way—which necessarily invites Lord Ai’s request for elaboration. This is all more or less identical to the opening of Dialogue A, save for the lack of actual demurral—which only serves to highlight the particular importance of the lesson that is to follow. After Lord Ai presses for more details, Kong Zi finally lets loose with his more sustained lesson, framed in terms of the successful traditions of the past, the rituals of the former kings. Throughout the dialogue, while Lord Ai grows ever-humbler, Kong Zi naturally remains respectful, though taken aback enough by a couple of Lord Ai’s questions to have it visually appear on his face, as duly noted for dramatic effect by the author of this clearly fictional dialogue.

The gist of the lesson is that governance is all about leading through example, which begins with modeling the correct cardinal relationships between husband and wife, father and son, and ruler and minister—in that order. Whereas governance is said to be the greatest aspect of the human way, the greatest aspect of governance is “caring for people,” for which “ritual” and “reverence” are in turn the key prerequisite means. This is all encapsulated in the ritual of the Great Wedding, which best exemplifies the quasi-paradoxical ideal of the identity between “caring (/love)” and “reverence,” or of that between “affinity” and “rectitude.” As the Great Wedding lies at the nexus of harmony between clans and the continuity of the royal lineage, getting that relationship correct sets the tone for all of society to follow. In more cosmological terms, moreover, the relationship established by the Great Wedding, if properly achieved, is inherently natural insofar as it parallels that between Heaven and Earth. In all these respects, it is the prime exemplar of “ritual” more generally, which is itself described as the ordering principle of society and “foundation” of all governance—in this sense essentially equivalent to the identity of “caring” and “reverence.”

Reverence for those toward whom one holds affection and affinity likely seems paradoxical to Lord Ai because the primary object of such affection, the wife, was in some sense always considered subordinate to the husband. Kong Zi takes this further by demanding that such reverence be applied to one’s son and one’s self as well—both of whom occupy a position subordinate to one’s parents. Such reverence is justified, however, precisely because the wife, the son, and the parents’ son are indispensable to the well-being and legacy of the parents themselves, and so reverence towards them is inextricably bound together with reverence towards one’s parents and lineage as a whole—to thus show reverential “affinity” (qin) is, quite literally, to serve one’s “parents” (qin). All of this is ultimately an expression of filial piety towards one’s own legacy and the means to have it partake in the unrelenting, ever-lasting, and glorious splendor of Heaven’s Way itself.

This dialogue is a fascinating one, mainly because it is in fact a relatively unique expression of a particular confluence of ideas with thought-provoking resonances. At the same time, though, it does sound certain undeniable echoes with other texts in the early Confucian tradition—beyond all the various “Ai Gong asked” dialogues—that are worth our further exploration. The textual similarities discussed below come in several varieties, and their implications vary in accordance with such factors as whether they involve common terminology or idiosyncratic phrases, and, for the latter, whether they are prominent enough to be ripe for imitation or inconspicuous enough to suggest other reasons for their shared usage across the texts in question—points we shall address more fully in the final section of this article.

Parallels With The “Zhongyong”

Several tell-tale turns of phrase would appear to link this dialogue closely with a core section of the “Zhongyong,” especially when considered in the aggregate. First, the expression that, to achieve something, “there is a [proper] way” to go about it (you dao 有道) appears above in the statement: “In former times, in the governance of the enlightened kings of the three dynasties, reverence was invariably paid to consorts and sons, and [for this] there was a [proper] way” (昔三代明王之政，必敬其妻子也，有道). There is an entire paragraph of the “Zhongyong”—also found attributed to Meng Zi in his eponymous work—that is built upon this construction:

在下位不獲乎上，民不可得而治矣。獲乎上有道：不信乎朋友，不獲乎上矣。信乎朋友有道：不順乎親，不信乎朋友矣。順乎親有道：反諸身不誠，不順乎親矣。誠身有道：不明乎善，不誠乎身矣。 ¹⁰⁸

If those in subordinate positions do not capture [the trust] of their superiors, the [allegiance of] the people cannot be gained and they cannot be governed. There is a [proper] way to capture [the trust] of superiors: if one is not trusted by one’s friends, he will not capture [the trust] of his superiors. There is a [proper] way to become trusted by one’s friends: if one does not gain accordance with his parents, he will not be trusted by his friends. There is a [proper] way to gain accordance with one’s parents: if one, in reflecting back upon himself, is not sincere, he will not gain accordance with his parents. There is a [proper] way of making oneself sincere: if one lacks a clear understanding of the good, he will be unable to make himself sincere. ¹⁰⁹

Here, what follows this “there is a [proper] way” is in each instance framed in the negative—what to not fail to do—and while our text here phrases it somewhat differently, it also lands on the idea of not daring not to be reverent (gan bu jing yu 敢不敬與). It is worth noting that the “Zhongyong” lines appear within what some consider to be part of an extended dialogue between Lord Ai and Kong Zi—the only one in the text—which begins with the phrase “Lord Ai asked about governance” (哀公問政); ¹¹⁰ this would thus also put them in the mouth of Kong Zi, though it remains possible the dialogue was meant to end prior to these lines. No less notable is the fact that this expression appears but only a few times among other early Confucian texts. The only comparable example among the ritual compendia can be found in the “Zeng Zi shi fumu” 曾子事父母 (Zeng Zi’s service to his parents) chapter of the Da Dai Li ji, a short text wherein a disciple asks Zeng Zi a series of three questions: “Is there a [proper] ¹¹¹ way to serve one’s parents”? (事父母有道乎), “Is there a [proper] way to serve one’s elder brother”? (事兄有道乎), and “Is there a [proper] way to serve one’s younger brother?” (事弟有道乎). Interestingly, the kernel answer to the first question, which in detail refers to the subtle art of remonstrating with one’s parents when they are in the wrong, is precisely to “be loving, yet reverent” (ai er jing 愛而敬). The phrase “you dao” also appears in a few other passages of the Mengzi, most notably in a chain within the passage wherein Meng Zi describes how Jie 桀 and Zhou 紂 both lost the world by losing the people’s hearts:

得天下有道：得其民，斯得天下矣；得其民有道：得其心，斯得民矣；得其心有道：所欲與之聚之，所惡勿施爾也. ¹¹²

There is a [proper] way to attain the world: attain the people, and you will have attained the world. There is a [proper] way to attain the people: attain their hearts, and you will have attained the people. There is a [proper] way to attain their hearts: simply to give them and stockpile what they desire, and do not bestow upon them what they detest

Elsewhere, we find only a couple of comparable examples in the Xunzi ¹¹³ and, among more eclectic or non-Confucian texts, in a few scattered dialogues and passages found in such works as the Guanzi 管子, the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, or the Han compendium Shuoyuan. ¹¹⁴

A second, relatively uncommon phrase of note is one that occurs no less than eight times in Dialogue B, and notably once in Dialogue A as well: that such-and-such “is the greatest [aspect]” (wei da 為大) of something, as we see already in Lord Ai’s initial question: “Might I dare ask what is the greatest [aspect] of the human way?” (敢問人道誰為大). Here again, the most comparable example among other texts appears in the “Zhongyong,” and this time almost certainly as part of its dialogue between Lord Ai and Kong Zi:

哀公問政。子曰：「文武之政，布在方策。其人存，則其政舉；其人亡，則其政息。 … … 故為政在人，取人以身，脩身以道，脩道以仁。仁者，人也，親親為大；義者，宜也，尊賢為大。親親之殺，尊賢之等，禮所生也。在下位不獲乎上，民不可得而治矣。故君子不可以不脩身；思脩身，不可以不事親；思事親，不可以不知人；思知人，不可以不知天。」 ¹¹⁵

Lord Ai asked about governance. The Master replied: “The governance of Kings Wen and Wu has been displayed on wooden tablets and bamboo strips. So long as the men existed, their governance was implemented; when the men perished, their governance ceased …. Thus the execution of governance lies in its men, the men are selected on the basis of one’s self, one’s self is cultivated on the basis of the [proper] way, and the [proper] way is cultivated on the basis of humanity (ren). ‘Humanity’ is [a matter of] the ‘human,’ and in this, intimacy (/affinity) towards kin (qin qin) is the greatest [aspect]. ‘Propriety’ (yi) is [a matter of] the appropriate, and in this, the honoring of worthies is the greatest [aspect]. The graded diminutions in intimacy towards kin and graded ranks in the honoring of worthies are things to which ritual gives rise. If those in subordinate positions do not capture [the trust] of their superiors, the [allegiance of] the people cannot be gained and they cannot be governed. Thus the noble man may not fail to cultivate his self. If he wishes to cultivate his self, he may not fail to serve his parents; if he wishes to serve his parents, he may not fail to appreciate others; and if he wishes to appreciate others, he may not fail to appreciate Heaven.”

Whether the words were intended to have been spoken by Kong Zi end at this point is difficult to determine, but if the line reading “If those in subordinate positions do not capture [the trust] of their superiors” is indeed part of the Master’s response here, that suggests that it may indeed be correct (as Zhu Xi happened to arrange it) to include the previously cited passage—in which the same line reappears verbatim—as a later part of the same dialogue. Immediately following the present citation, the text (and perhaps its “Kong Zi”) goes on to mention how there are five “prominent ways” (da dao 達道) and three “prominent virtues” (da de 達德) in the world, the former consisting of the relationships between ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brothers, and colleagues and friends—which, notably, is an expanded and reordered version of the three cardinal relationships whose proper handling Kong Zi emphasizes as the key to the successful practice of governance in his initial answer to Lord Ai in our current dialogue (“Ai Gong” Dialogue B). Most telling, however, may be the shared emphasis between these two dialogues on the importance of “intimacy towards kin” in balance with an attitude of “reverence” or “honor,” though in this case more specifically the honoring of worthies and in terms of a dialectical relationship between the cardinal virtues of “humanity” (ren) and “propriety” (yi). All these points of commonality naturally serve to link these two texts together in fascinating ways that are not to be easily dismissed. ¹¹⁶

Moving from turns of phrase to specific terms, we might first take note of “Heaven’s way” (tian dao 天道), which appears as a focal point of one of Lord Ai’s questions here and its consequent response. While this term (including in the variant forms of tian zhi dao 天之道 and tiandi zhi dao 天地之道) comes up frequently in a whole range of early texts—from the Laozi 老子 and Zhuangzi 莊子 to the Guanzi and Guoyu 國語, to name just a few—the term is not particularly favored in texts that are clearly associated with the Confucian tradition. Its only appearance in the Lunyu is where it is specifically eschewed: “Zigong said: ‘Of the Master’s refined cultural patterns we are able to hear, but we are unable to hear him speak of [human] nature or Heaven’s Way’” (子貢曰：「夫子之文章，可得而聞也；夫子之言性與天道，不可得而聞也」). ¹¹⁷ One of its only two appearances in the Mengzi is likewise placed in the context of human nature and one’s personal mandate as a human. Our common sensual desires are, Meng Zi tells us, a matter of human nature, though for the noble man a mandate is involved therein; such things as “the sage’s relationship to Heaven’s Way,” on the other hand, “[are] matters of mandate, [but] as [human] nature is involved therein, the sage does not refer to [them] as mandate[s]” (聖人之於天道也，命也，有性焉，君子不謂命也). ¹¹⁸ The other example, tellingly, occurs in the aforementioned passage that duplicates the wording of a “Zhongyong” passage, and which states: “Thus sincerity is the Way of Heaven, and contemplating sincerity is the way of mankind” (是故誠者，天之道也；思誠者，人之道也). ¹¹⁹ Even in the Xunzi the term appears only twice, once in the relatively inconsequential line “The significance of dance commingles with Heaven’s Way” (舞意天道兼), and the other in a statement that specifically eschews the term’s relevance to humanity: “The ‘way’ is not the way of Heaven, and not the way of Earth, but rather the way by which mankind is led, the way that is taken (/guided/discussed) by the noble man” (道者，非天之道，非地之道，人之所以道也，君子之所道也). ¹²⁰ This relative lack of favorability makes its appearances within the ritual compendia all the more significant. And while it does appear in several chapters of both ritual compendia, “Ai Gong wen” is the only one, aside from the “Zhongyong,” in which it appears more than once, there the focus of an entire paragraph of conversation. ¹²¹

More noteworthy, though, is the use of the term wuwei 無為, “acting to no purpose,” which also appears within that same paragraph and is likewise a term that is generally not utilized in Confucian texts, save for a few well-known exceptions. ¹²² Within the ritual compendia, aside from a possible instance of limited relevance in “Liyun” 禮運, ¹²³ this dialogue and the “Zhongyong” are the only two places in which this term occurs, and both in a remarkably similar context:

“Ai Gong wen”:

孔子對曰： 「貴其不已。如日月東西相從而不已也，是天道也。不閉其久，是天道也。無為而物成，是天道也。已成而明，是天道也。」

Kong Zi replied: “He values the fact that [Heaven’s Way] is unrelenting. Such as the sun and moon following each other from east to west without relent—this is Heaven’s Way. To lastingly endure without ever shutting down—this is Heaven’s Way. For things to find completion while it acts to no purpose—this is Heaven’s Way. To shine brilliantly after achieving [such] completion—this is Heaven’s Way.”

“Zhongyong”:

如此者，不見而章，不動而變，無為而成。天地之道，可壹言而盡也：其為物不貳，則其生物不測。天地之道，博也，厚也，高也，明也，悠也，久也。 ¹²⁴

Someone like this is manifest without even presenting himself, causes change without even taking action, and brings completion while acting to no purpose. The Way of Heaven and Earth can be exhausted in a single word: as it is never duplicitous on behalf of things, its production of things cannot be fathomed. The Way of Heaven and Earth is vast, abundant, lofty, bright, long, and enduring.

Parallels with “Kong Zi xianju” 孔子閒居

In addition to the “Zhongyong,” another text with which Dialogue B reveals suggestively close connections is the “Kong Zi xianju” chapter of the Li ji—the first half of which also appears as a text among the Shanghai Museum manuscripts given the title of “Min zhi fumu” 民之父母. ¹²⁵ Of particular note are the underlined terms and phrases from the opening and closing lines of the following paragraph of Dialogue B:

孔子遂言曰：「昔三代明王之政，必敬其妻子也，有道。 … …身以及身，子以及子，妃以及妃，君行此三者，則愾乎天下矣，大王之道也。如此，則國家順矣。」

Kong Zi then continued: “In former times, in the governance of the enlightened kings of the three dynasties, reverence was invariably paid to consorts and sons, and [for this] there was a [proper] way …. [Reverence for] one’s own self leads to [others’ reverence for] their selves; [reverence for] one’s own son leads to [others’ reverence for] their sons; and [reverence for] one’s own wife leads to [others’ reverence for] their wives. If the ruler practices these three [forms of reverence], his [reverential] spirit will infuse the entire world. This is the way of the great kings, and if things are thus, all the states and households will be in compliant accord.

First, on a general level, the phrase “his [reverential] spirit will infuse the entire world” (愾乎天下矣) reminds one most immediately of Kong Zi’s opening lines from “Kong Zi xianju” (“Min zhi fumu”): “A father-and-mother of the people! He must comprehend the source(s) of ritual and music, so as to achieve the five attainments and practice the three absences, and thereby transfuse the world” (夫民之父母乎！必達於禮樂之原，以致五至而行三無，以橫於天下). ¹²⁶ While the exact sense of kai hu tianxia 愾乎天下 is a little ambiguous, that it may involve a transfusing qi 氣 is suggested by the “Kong Zi xianju” rephrasing of its similar notion later in that text as zhiqi sai hu tiandi 志氣塞乎天地 ([The virtuous] energy of intentions fills [the expanse between] Heaven and Earth) and its recurring focus on “energized intent” (qizhi 氣志). ¹²⁷ In “Kong Zi xianju,” the main conduit of this “energy of intentions” or “energized intent” is the practice of the “three absences,” ¹²⁸ and it may be no coincidence that the “[reverential] spirit infusing the entire world” in our dialogue here is similarly the result of “one who practices these three” (行此三者)—albeit here “these three” constitute manifestly different forms of reverence from the “three absences.”

More striking, though, are the other two underlined terms in this passage. Notably, while references to the “three [founding] kings” (san wang 三王) of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou are of course rife in early literature, the phrase san dai ming wang 三代明王 (the enlightened kings of the three dynasties) appears only in this dialogue and the “Biao ji” 表記 (Record of example) chapter of the Li ji, the latter of which reads: “The Master spoke thus: ‘In former times, the enlightened kings of the three dynasties all served the spirits of Heaven and Earth, in which service they never failed to employ tortoiseshell and milfoil divination—not daring to employ their own private [judgments] and [thereby] serve the Lord-on-High with disrespect’” (子言之：「昔三代明王皆事天地之神明，無非卜筮之用，不敢以其私，褻事上帝」). ¹²⁹ If we extend this phrase to include the variant form of simply san dai zhi wang 三代之王 (the kings of the three dynasties), however, we find yet one further reference, which occurs in the second half of “Kong Zi xianju,” at the very end of Kong Zi’s mini-lecture: ¹³⁰

「三代之王也，必先其令聞。詩云『明明天子，令聞不已』，三代之德也。『弛其文德，協此四國』，大王之德也。」 ¹³¹

In coming to rule the kingdom, the [sage] kings of the Three Dynasties invariably first [accomplished] a fine reputation. As the ode has it, “Brilliant, oh brilliant, is the Son of Heaven, his glorious reputation never ceasing”—[such] were the virtues of the Three Dynasties; and “He promulgates his refined virtue, and harmonizes the four regions”—[such] were the virtues of the great kings. ¹³²

In the passage from Dialogue B above, Kong Zi is made to bookend his initial reference to “the governance of the enlightened kings of the three dynasties” (三代明王之政) with “the way of the great kings” (大王之道也) at his statement’s conclusion, whereas here, remarkably, the same thing happens with “the kings of the three dynasties” (三代之王也) and “the virtue of the great kings” (大王之德也). And as it turns out, the phrases “way of the great kings” (大王之道) and “virtue of the great kings” (大王之德) occur nowhere else in early literature—the phrase being so unusual that commentators have insisted on reading the “great kings” (da wang 大王) of these passages as specific references to the historical King Tai (Tai wang 太王). ¹³³

Connections with “Ziyi” 緇衣, “Fang ji” 坊記, and “Biao ji”

Specific terminology and phraseology aside, there are, finally, areas of general philosophical overlap for which we can also observe close points of correspondence among these texts. In particular, we might also note the similarity of such statements as “the people of the hundred surnames will become reverent and humble without having even been commanded to do so” (百姓不命而敬恭) in Dialogue B of “Ai Gong wen” with such lines as “Thus the noble man is revered without even taking action, and trusted without even speaking” (故君子不動而敬，不言而信) from the final passage of the “Zhongyong.” ¹³⁴ To be sure, similar lines are found in any number of early texts, ranging from the Zhuangzi to the Lüshi chunqiu to the Huainanzi, and, most notably among Confucian texts, in the opening lines of the “Biao ji”: “The Master spoke thus: ‘Let us return! The noble man is prominent while in seclusion, solemn without making any display of it, awesome without being stern, and trusted without even speaking’” (子言之：「歸乎！君子隱而顯，不矜而莊，不厲而威，不言而信」). ¹³⁵ However, within the same paragraph of “Dialogue B” text, it is also interesting to note that the 君子X則民Y pattern seen in the statement 君子過言則民作辭，過動則民作則 (When the noble man goes too far with his statements, the people will follow in acting upon his words; when he goes too far with his actions, the people will follow in acting upon his model) is in fact seldom seen in early texts. Aside from one instance in the Lunyu and a couple of cases in the Hanshi waizhuan and Shuoyuan, the other four examples all come from the three closely related Li ji “chapters” traditionally associated—in addition to the “Zhongyong”—with Zisi 子思: the “Fang ji” (Record of Boundaries): “The Master said: ‘If the noble man honors others and lowers himself, prioritizes others and deprioritizes himself, the people will be made to be yielding’” (子云：「君子貴人而賤已，先人而後己，則民作讓」), and “Thus if the noble man oversees with trust and yielding, the people will be generous in their ritual requitals” (故君子信讓以蒞，則民之報禮重); the “Biao ji”: “The Master said: ‘If the noble man does not praise people with [mere] words, the people will be made to be loyal” (子曰：「君子不以口譽人，則民作忠」); and the “Ziyi” (Black Robes): “Thus if the noble man looks back upon his words before acting, so as to fulfill his trustworthiness, then the people will [likewise] be unable to exaggerate their [own] beauty or minimize their [own] failings” (故君子寡（顧）言而行以成其信，則民不得大其美而小其惡). ¹³⁶ Notably, two of these examples also duplicate the specific pattern of 民作X seen in the 民作辭 and 民作則 of the Dialogue B statement.

Where do we find other examples of this idiosyncratic phrase? Once again, four of them occur in these same texts; in the “Fang ji”: “The Master said: ‘If [the minister] praises the ruler when good is accomplished and faults himself when things err, the people will be made to be loyal’” (子云：「善則稱君，過則稱己，則民作忠」), “The Master said: ‘If he [as a son] praises his parents when good is accomplished and faults himself when things err, the people will be made to be filial’” (子云：「善則稱親，過則稱己，則民作孝」), and “The Master said: ‘If the leader of the people shows respect to the elders in court, the people will be made to be filial’” (子云：「長民者，朝廷敬老則民作孝」); and the “Ziyi”: “The Master said: ‘If one is as fond of beauty as [one is of] black [courtly] robes (as in the ode “Ziyi”), and as despising of the wicked as [one is of] slanderers (as in the ode “Xiangbo”), then noble ranks will not be transgressed, and the people will act with honesty; implements of punishment will not be utilized, and yet the people will all submit’” (子曰：「好賢如緇衣，惡惡如巷伯，則爵不瀆而民作愿，刑不試而民咸服」) ¹³⁷ ; the only two other examples are likewise found in the ritual compendia. ¹³⁸

Some Tentative Conclusions

What does this all tell us? The answer naturally depends on which particular forms of evidence we are considering. The use of common terminology, for instance, while highly suggestive, might show only that the texts in question derived from similar impulses or within the same intellectual milieu. That a couple of Confucian texts would borrow common terminology such as tian dao or wuwei that likely originally derived from sources beyond the confines of Confucian lineages may thus in that regard not be entirely remarkable, though the confluence of both terms within closely related contexts is certainly at least suggestive of more direct ties between the texts in question. The same limitations apply even more to the case of the common appearance of shared notions—however particular those notions may be—where they do not involve especially close repetitions of wording. When it comes to more idiosyncratic phrases, however, these are far more suggestive of direct connections, especially where such phrases are subtle enough to not otherwise scream for attention.

Broadly speaking, such connections are of two possible varieties. Most directly, subtle echoes of unique language usage could reveal traces of common authorship, as everyone naturally has one’s own idiosyncrasies in phraseology just as every individual has a unique signature. Indirectly, however, the connections could take the form of conscious imitation, where one may have occasion to attempt to replicate a prior dialogue model down to the smallest detail of verbal interactions between characters. And we can also imagine something in between these two possibilities: common authorship could, for instance, be understood more broadly to include authorship by different individuals within the same teacher–disciple lineage, wherein a disciple or set of disciples either consciously or subconsciously imitated the model of a master under whom they had studied so closely. Each of these scenarios is significant in its own way.

For conscious imitation of a Confucian dialogue beyond the confines of a lineage or common ideology, we have the fascinating examples of the many parodies (or, in some cases, quasi-tributes) of such dialogues in the Zhuangzi. In some cases, the level of attention to detail is in fact quite striking and reveals an author who is quite a master of the literary craft of parody.

For instance, in dialogues in both the “Dasheng” 達生 and “Zhi beiyou” 知北遊 chapters, confused disciples are given to ask Confucius (there referred to as “Zhongni”) the question 敢問何謂 (May I dare ask what [this] refers to?), which is the stock form of questions to the Master in “Ai Gong wen” (/“Ai Gong wen yu Kong Zi”). Remarkably, within the ritual compendia, the only other places we see the phrase are in two of the three “Confucius at leisure” texts: “Kong Zi xianju” (notably in both “halves” of the dialogue) and the “Zhuyan” 主言 chapter of the Da Dai Li ji. ¹³⁹ The somewhat more common yet still idiosyncratic phrase 吾語汝 (/吾語女/吾語若) (I will tell you) is found uttered by Confucius to disciples in the “Renjianshi” 人間世, “Qiushui” 秋水, and “Yufu” 漁父 chapters of the Zhuangzi—though this particular term is also adopted in other dialogues in that work between imaginary interlocutors wherein a certain figure assumes a similar role as a kind of enlightened master. ¹⁴⁰ Finally, and even more interestingly in terms of narrative detail, we have the term qiaoran 愀然 (apprehensivel, taken aback) and its variants (蹴然、愀焉、憱然、憱焉、蹙然)—often in conjunction with zuo se 作色 (changed facial expressions)—as descriptors of participants’ reactions in dialogue contexts. This expression occurs three times in Dialogue B, and once in Dialogue F (from the Xunzi), in all cases descriptive of Kong Zi’s reaction to one of Lord Ai’s comments or questions. ¹⁴¹ Elsewhere in the ritual compendia, it also occurs in the “Confucius at leisure” text “Zhuyan”—as Kong Zi’s reaction to a dumb question from his disciple Zeng Zi; and thrice in the “Sidai” 四代 and “Shaoxian” 少閒 texts (two of the so-called “Kongzi sanchao ji” dialogues mentioned in note 4 above)—though in two of these cases it portrays the Lord’s reaction rather than Kong Zi’s. Elsewhere, the term appears occasionally in a few other dialogue or purely narrative contexts scattered amongst a variety of Warring States and early Han works, but on balance it is decidedly associated with dialogues involving Kong Zi. ¹⁴² Not surprisingly, roughly half of the instances in the Zhuangzi describe Kong Zi in just such imagined dialogues: in response to his disciple Yan Hui in both “Dazongshi” 大宗師 and “Rangwang” 讓王, in response to Lao Laizi 老萊子 in “Waiwu” 外物, and twice in response to the fisherman guest in “Yufu” 漁父. ¹⁴³

The recurring use of all such tell-tale terms in these parodies shows obvious signs of conscious imitation, which in turn suggests a source of well-known, pre-existing model texts upon which to draw, ones whose narrative quirks would have already been familiar to the audience for whom these newly imagined dialogues were intended.

In some ways, we might suppose that such forms of direct imitation would actually be less likely to occur in texts written by followers of a master within the same ideological lineage, where the emphasis was no doubt more on the transmission of ideas and philosophical positions rather than achieving a convincing mimic of a prior textual dialogue. But to the extent that such imitation may have in fact occurred within a single lineage, the very act of such a form of common lineage authorship would itself certainly be significant for our understanding of intellectual-historical developments in the period.

Perhaps more interesting, however, are the idiosyncratic terms that we do not find in texts that clearly involve conscious imitation. Such dialogue-advancing and narratively descriptive phrases as “May I dare ask what this refers to?” “I’ll tell you,” and “[He] apprehensively changed facial expression” are both prominent and colorful enough to have been readily noticed and adopted by those eager to imitate the form and tone of a particular text. By contrast, less intriguing yet still idiosyncratic locutions such as “is the greatest [aspect]” or “there is a [proper] way [for something],” or even the close juxtaposition of the “kings of the three dynasties” with “great kings,” were perhaps subtle or unremarkable enough to have escaped the attention of any conscious mimicker and appear far more likely to evidence common authorship—either derivation from the work of the same individual author, or, if not that, then from followers of texts that would have been so frequently consulted or even memorized by members of a common lineage as to have pervaded their subconscious writing habits (or perhaps patterns of speech more generally). While any such evidence remains tenuous at best where it occurs in isolation, a confluence of such evidence within a particular constellation of texts, especially when some of the terms in question are almost entirely absent elsewhere, points us more firmly in the direction of common authorship of one sort or another.

In this study, we have observed how the dialogues in “Ai Gong wen”—particularly Dialogue B—reveal remarkable parallels on multiple levels with both the “Zhongyong” and the entire text of “Kong Zi xianju,” not to mention with such closely associated texts as “Biao ji,” “Fang ji,” “Ziyi,” and even portions of the Mengzi. What might this tell us about dating and authorship? To take the “Kong Zi xianju” example first, the fact that the “Ai Gong wen” parallels with that text clearly cut across both halves of it would only serve to corroborate my findings elsewhere, based mostly on entirely separate evidence, that the two halves of “Kong Zi xianju” did indeed belong together and that the excavated manuscript “Min zhi fumu” was simply an excerpt from that larger, originally integrated text. ¹⁴⁴ If this holds true, it is clear that “Kong Zi xianju” as a whole was written by no later than around the end of the fourth century bce—assuming a probable dating of around 300 bce for the Shanghai Museum manuscripts—and if “Ai Gong wen” indeed derived from a common author, the same would hold true for “Ai Gong wen” as well (or certainly at least Dialogue B). This is further corroborated by the close connections “Ai Gong wen” also betrays with “Ziyi” and its likely cohort texts “Fang ji” and “Biao ji,” as we know for certain that at least “Ziyi” also predates the roughly-300 bce interment of both the Guodian tomb and whatever tomb the Shanghai Museum manuscripts were stolen from.

The other text that shares the greatest formal similarity with “Ziyi,” “Fang ji,” and “Biao ji” is, of course, the “Zhongyong,” but the “Zhongyong” is also clearly the most problematic of these texts to date, given especially the long-observed anomaly of the passage wherein, perhaps anachronistically, it is stated that:

今天下車同軌，書同文，行同倫，雖有其位，苟無其德，不敢作禮樂焉；雖有其德，苟無其位，亦不敢作禮樂焉。

Now all the carriages of the world drive the same tracks, documents share the same forms of writing, and practices share the same order. Though one may have the position, if he does not possess the virtue, he dare not create ritual and music therefrom; and though he possess the virtue, if he does not have the position, he also dare not create ritual and music therefrom.

This statement has led to a view—now something of a scholarly consensus—that the composition of either the “Zhongyong” as a whole or at least substantial portions of it must post-date the Qin 秦 unification. ¹⁴⁵ Whether the statement is indeed an anachronism, however, is open to question, for so long as one does not neglect to read the “now” phrases together with the “though” phrases that follow them, we should in fact be inclined to read the whole utterance as a hypothetical, in other words: “Now suppose that all the carriages of the world were to drive the same tracks … [even then], though one may have the position [of Son of Heaven], if he did not possess the virtue, he [should] not dare to create [new] ritual and music therefrom.” ¹⁴⁶ This reading is supported by other co-occurrences of jin 今 and sui 雖 in early texts, as in the “Quli, shang” 曲禮上 chapter of the Li ji, for instance, where we are told “Now if someone were to be lacking in ritual, then though he may be well versed in speech, would he not still have the mind of a bird or beast!” (今人而無禮，雖能言，不亦禽獸之心乎); and, in the words of “Kong Zi” as quoted in the “Youzuo” 宥坐 chapter of the Xunzi: “Now suppose there were the right man, but he did not encounter the right time, then though he may be worthy, would he be able to put anything into practice? [But] were he to encounter the right time, what difficulties would he have!” (今有其人，不遇其時，雖賢，其能行乎？苟遇其時，何難之有). If this sort of reading holds, then what the passage does tell us is only that it was written at a time when unification of the realm had already begun to be imagined, which was in fact the case by the latter years of the fourth century bce. ¹⁴⁷

Yet even if we choose to view that passage as an expression of a post-unification worldview, that certainly would not entail that the whole of the “Zhongyong” is a product of the Han dynasty, given especially all the close resonances it shares, both ideologically and formally, with other Warring States texts. We could well suppose that the “Zhongyong” was constructed in several layers upon the foundation of a text having the Kong Zi-Lord Ai dialogue (its current passage 20, in Zhu Xi’s numbering) at (or even as) its original core, which makes a good deal of sense when we consider that the dialogue is both anomalous in form from the rest of the “Zhongyong” and yet contains within it many of the core terms and ideas expressed throughout the rest of the text. Much work on this issue remains to be done, but given the undeniably close resonances this dialogue has with Dialogue B of “Ai Gong wen,” and the latter’s likely fourth century bce provenance, we have much cause to further rethink the dating of what remains one of the most important texts in the long and far-reaching Confucian tradition.

Finally, it should be clear from the foregoing that “Ai Gong wen” not only betrays an especially close connection with “Kong Zi xianju,” but with the other two “Confucius at leisure” texts from the ritual compendia as well: “Zhongni yanju” and “Zhuyan,” which in turn, as I have attempted to demonstrate elsewhere, all reveal close resonances with one another. Of the three, “Zhuyan” is likely derivative—concerned as it is with the types of concrete administrative issues that would seem to be more reflective of late-Warring States texts—and may well be a candidate for what we have spoken of here as conscious imitation within a common lineage. ¹⁴⁸ “Kong Zi xianju” and “Zhongni yanju,” however, would appear to be constructed of the same cloth, and in this regard it is interesting to observe that not only do they both share relatively unique phraseology in common with “Dialogue C,” ¹⁴⁹ the latter also shares a pattern in common with “Dialogue B” which, as far as I can ascertain, appears nowhere else among the ritual compendia—one which takes the form of “A之所B，C之所D也,” as follows: ¹⁵⁰

“Ai Gong” Dialogue B:

君之所為，百姓之所從也。

Whatever the ruler practices, it is this that the people of the hundred surnames follow.

“Zhongni yanju”:

禮之所興，眾之所治也。禮之所廢，眾之所亂也。

“Wherever ritual prospers is where the masses are well-ordered. Wherever ritual is abandoned is where the masses are in chaos.”

Again, while such an instance of relatively unique overlap may be less than convincing on its own, when the entire constellation of such close resonances among “Ai Gong wen,” “Kong Zi xianju,” and “Zhongni yanju” are considered in tandem, common authorship of one sort or another presents itself as a distinct possibility.

To that end, we might propose a working hypothesis that these three texts formed part of a small core of writings formulated by either a single individual or group of individuals within a common Confucian lineage who had a particular interest in presenting their philosophy in a set of closely related, yet somewhat-distinct narrative contexts designed to highlight that philosophy with convincing rhetorical effect, whether that be to impart the sense that Confucius saved his most profound philosophy for unusual “moments of leisure” with his disciples, or that he proffered his most important views on governance as an elder statesman responding to the eager queries of a young ruler of Lu. These texts, then, would have been disseminated widely enough to become well known to even the followers of philosophical rivals, who felt free to construct parodies of Confucian dialogues by extracting bits and pieces of narrative phrases therefrom, and to not only make their way into the Han ritual compendia after being rediscovered perhaps in ancient-script form, but even, in the case of “Min zhi fumu,” to resurface from looted pre-imperial tombs in more recent years. Other texts, such as the “Ziyi,” “Biao ji,” “Fang ji,” and “Zhongyong,” would also appear to have been closely related to this group in one way or another, as were other early “Ai Gong wen” dialogues such as “Ai Gong wen wuyi.” The exact nature of these various relationships, if it can ever be determined with any precision, necessarily awaits further research and, ideally, further archaeological discoveries, but the evidence we have so far demands that we continue to closely examine this group of texts as writings of potentially seminal import in the development of Confucian thought in the mid-to-late Warring States.