Introduction to the study of Kong-zi jia-yu (“School Sayings of Confucius”)

The Kong-zi jia-yu (“School Sayings of Confucius”) is an important historical source for the study of Confucius’ teachings. The text comprises Confucius’ sayings, records of his conversations with his students and other people, and also information regarding his life and deeds. Regardless of the factual cornucopia, the text remains almost completely unknown to Russian scholars. Equally, it has never been translated into Russian. The necessity to translate this historical source into Russian is obvious, at least because of the information regarding the life of Confucius (551–479 BC) and also the theory of his philosophy and belief system. The article offers the initial stage of the study of the Kong-zi jia-yu and comprises the Russian translation of the first two chapters. One of the tasks of the article is the identification of the sources the Kong-zi jia-yu is based upon. The translation is accompanied by the synopsis of the contents of the first five chapters, their composition and a source critical study about the information found in the Kong-zi jia-yu and the ancient Chinese works, such as Chun-qiu Zuo-zhuan, Xun-zi, Li-ji, Da Dai li-ji, Yi-wen-zi, Shuo-yuan. The study has proven that these texts should not be considered as sources of information for the first and second chapters of the Kong-zi jia-yu due to significant differences in detail description. It has been also established that the texts of the third, fourth and fifth chapters, which are philosophical dialogues to a large extent coincide with the chapters of Li-ji (chapters Ai-gong wen, Ru xing) and Da Dai li-ji (chapters Zhu yan, Ai-gong wen yu Kong-zi). However, regardless of these coincidences these texts still should not be considered as direct sources for the relevant chapters from the Kong-zi jia-yu. Most likely, the authors of all three chapters had recourse to the same source.

楊伯峻《春秋左傳注》考訂六則——以《左傳》隱公至僖公時期為範圍

<p>本文討論楊伯峻《春秋左傳注》釋《左傳》魯隱公至魯僖公時期六則有待商榷字詞，計有「季年」、「征伐以討其不然」、「不以阻隘」、「薄而觀之」、「獻狀」、「鄉役之三月」。一、「季年」專指某位國君在位最末年，非泛指最後一段時間。二、「征伐以討其不然」之「不然」有「不如此」義，「征伐以討其不然」指可征伐不遵「會」、「朝」之「禮」之諸侯。三、「不以阻隘」之「阻」、「隘」於傳文相對舉，故仍應從《春秋左傳集解》釋為同義詞。四、「薄而觀之」之「薄」仍應釋為「迫」，表現曹共公欲詳觀重耳駢脅而無禮之狀。五、「獻狀」之「獻」當讀為《說文解字》之「𤅊」，即典籍所見「讞」，有議罪、辨別是非之意。「獻狀」乃如《國語．晉語四》「誅觀狀」，謂議曹共公觀駢脅之罪。六、「鄉役之三月」之「三月」，依《左傳》「某公之某年」、「謚號之某年」句法與僖公二十八年《春秋經》、《左傳》記載，「三月」當為序數，釋為魯僖公二十八年（632 B.C.）三月。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>This article discusses six phrases on Y&aacute;ng B&oacute;-j&ugrave;n’s &quot;Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan Zhu&quot; which based on the period of Lǔ Yǐn Gōng to Lǔ Xī Gōng in Zuo Zhuan. They are &quot;j&igrave; ni&aacute;n&quot;, &quot;zhēng f&aacute; yǐ tǎo q&iacute; b&ugrave; r&aacute;n&quot;, &quot;b&ugrave; yǐ zǔ &agrave;i&quot;, &quot;b&aacute;o &eacute;r guān zhī&quot;, &quot;xi&agrave;n(獻) zhu&agrave;ng&quot; and &quot;xiāng y&igrave; zhī sān yu&egrave;&quot; 1. The meaning of the phrase &quot;j&igrave; ni&aacute;n&quot; is the last year of a certain monarch’s reign only, not the last period of his reign. 2. The phrase &quot;b&ugrave; r&aacute;n&quot; has the meaning of disobeying the agreement; therefore, the sentence &quot;zhēng f&aacute; yǐ tǎo q&iacute; b&ugrave; r&aacute;n&quot; means to go on a&nbsp;punitive expedition to those vassals who disobeyed the rules of &quot;hu&igrave;&quot; and &quot;ch&aacute;o&quot;. 3. Although the words &quot;zǔ&quot; and &quot;&agrave;i&quot; in the phrase &quot;b&ugrave; yǐ zǔ &agrave;i&quot; are contrastive meanings in &quot;Zhuan&quot;; however, from &quot;Ji Jie&quot;, they should be still interpreted as synonyms. 4. The word &quot;b&aacute;o&quot; should be interpreted as &quot;p&ograve;&quot; in the phrase &quot;b&aacute;o &eacute;r guān zhī&quot;. The whole meaning of this phrase is C&aacute;o G&ograve;ng Gōng heard that Zh&ograve;ng Er’s ribs were connected together, and wanted to take a look at him while he was taking a bath. That was so rude. 5. According to &quot;Shuō W&eacute;n Jiě Z&igrave;&quot;, the word &quot;xi&agrave;n(獻)&quot; should read as &quot;y&agrave;n(𤅊)&quot; in the phrase &quot;xi&agrave;n(獻) zhu&agrave;ng&quot;. The words &quot;y&agrave;n(𤅊)&quot; and &quot;y&agrave;n(讞)&quot; are the same in ancient books and records. It means to judge the cases and distinguish right from wrong. For example, C&aacute;o G&ograve;ng Gōng wanted to take a look at Zh&ograve;ng’ Er’s ribs and that was a case so-called &quot;Zhū guān zhu&agrave;ng&quot; in Gu&oacute; Yǔ. 6. The grammar of the phrase &quot;sān yu&egrave;&quot; in the sentence &quot;xiāng y&igrave; zhī sān yu&egrave;&quot; is quite similar to the sentences &quot;mǒu gōng zhī mǒu ni&aacute;n&quot; and &quot;sh&igrave; h&agrave;o zhī mǒu ni&aacute;n&quot; in Zhun. According to &quot;Jīng&quot; and &quot;Zhu&aacute;n&quot;, &quot;sān yu&egrave;&quot; should be an ordinal number ,and it means the March in 632 B. C.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Wenn, weil – dann

Zusammenfassung Besonderheiten altchinesischer Prognostik werden an zwei Texten aus dem 3. und 4. Jh. v. u. Z. diskutiert, dem »Xici«-Kapitel des Buches der Wandlungen und dem Zuo zhuan. Sie zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass sie zum ersten Mal empirisch begründete Erklärungen für den Zusammenhang von Protasis und Apodosis in der Prognostik geben, die erfolgreiche Durchführung der Prognose aber an die moralische Qualifikation des Deuters als letzte Bedingung knüpfen.

Historiography, thought, and intellectual development during the Springs and Autumns Period

This chapter explores the historiography and political thought of the Springs and Autumns period. It analyzes major historical texts from the period—the Springs and Autumns Annals (Chunqiu) and the Zuo zhuan—addressing their nature, audience, and (especially in the case of the Zuo zhuan) the nature of their primary sources. The multiplicity of genres in the Springs and Autumns period historiography is contrasted with the proliferation of didactic anecdotes as major building blocks of historical knowledge during the subsequent Warring States period. The second part of the chapter explores major aspects of the Springs and Autumns period’s political thought as reflected in the Zuo zhuan. The marked aristocratic nature of this thought is contrasted with major trends of the subsequent Warring States period. The discussion focuses on the views of multistate order, concepts of rulership and ruler-minister relations, and views of social hierarchy and the importance of the ritual system.