decided conclusion. Chu Hsi, as I have stated in the last section,
determined that so much of it was Ching, or Classic, being the
very words of Confucius, and that all the rest was Chwan, or
Commentary, being the views of Tsang Shan upon the sage's
words, recorded by his disciples. Thus, he does not expressly
attribute the composition of the Treatise to Tsang, as he is
generally supposed to do. What he says, however, as it is
destitute of external support, is contrary also to the internal
evidence. The fourth chapter of commentary commences with 'The
Master said.' Surely, if there were anything more, directly from
Confucius, there would be an intimation of it in the same way. Or,
if we may allow that short sayings of Confucius might be
interwoven with the Work, as in the fifteenth paragraph of the
tenth chapter, without referring them expressly to him, it is too
much to ask us to receive the long chapter at the beginning as
being from him. With regard to the Work having come from the
disciples of Tsang Shan, recording their master's views, the
paragraph in chapter sixth, commencing with 'The disciple Tsang
said,' seems to be conclusive against such an hypothesis. So much
we may be sure is Tsang's, and no more. Both of Chu Hsi's
judgments must be set aside. We cannot admit either the
distinction of the contents into Classical text and Commentary,
or that the Work was the production of Tsang's disciples.
2. Who then was the author? An ancient tradition attributes
it to K'ung Chi, the grandson of Confucius. In a notice published, at
the time of their preparation, about the stone slabs of Wei, the

following statement by Chia K'wei, a noted scholar of the first
century, is found:-- 'When K'ung Chi was living, and in straits, in
Sung, being afraid lest the lessons of the former sages should