The Chinese Classics — Prolegomena by Unknown
page 25 of 207 (12%)
page 25 of 207 (12%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
Thirdly, there is the second chapter of Book XI, the second
paragraph of which is evidently a note by the compilers of the Work, enumerating ten of the principal disciples, and classifying them according to their distinguishing characteristics. We can hardly suppose it to have been written while any of the ten were alive. But there is among them the name of Tsze-hsia, who lived to the age of about a hundred. We find him, B.C. 407, three- quarters of a century after the death of Confucius, at the court of Wei, to the prince of which he is reported to have presented some of the Classical Books [3]. 2. We cannot therefore accept the above account of the origin of the Analects,-- that they were compiled by the disciples of Confucius. Much more likely is the view that we owe the work to their disciples. In the note on I. ii. I, a peculiarity is pointed out in the use of the surnames of Yew Zo and Tsang Shan, which 1 See Chu Hsi's commentary, in loc. -- ©s·q¤l, ¾|¤j¤Ò, ¥ò®]¤ó, ¦W±¶. 2 ±¥¤½. 3 ®ÊÃQ´µ¨ü¸g©ó¤R¤l®L; see the Ød¥N²Î¬öªí, Bk. i. p. 77. has made some Chinese critics attribute the compilation to their followers. But this conclusion does not stand investigation. Others have assigned different portions to different schools. Thus, Book V is given to the disciples of Tsze-kung; Book XI, to those of Min Tsze-ch'ien; Book XIV, to Yuan Hsien; and Book XVI has been supposed to be interpolated from the Analects of Ch'i. Even if we were to acquiesce in these decisions, we should have accounted only for a small part of the Work. It is best to rest in the general conclusion, that it was compiled by the disciples of |
|