Perlin Thesis

8/4/2019 Perlin Thesis

1/48

The Anxiety of Distance:

Alexander of Aphrodisias and Zhu Xias Interventionist Commentators

Ross PerlinCorpus Christi College

June 13, 2006Word Count (incl. footnotes): 11,966


2/48

1

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy.

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is theoutcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.Unless otherwise noted, translations are my own.

With special thanks to Joachim Lacrosse, Bruce Rusk, Haroon Ahmed, M.K. Rath,Sir Geoffrey Lloyd, and Robert Wardy.

.........................................................................

In fact the important thing is to recognise the distance in time as a positive andproductive possibility of understanding. It is not a yawning abyss, but is filled with

the continuity of custom and tradition, in the light of which all that is handed downpresents itself to us.-Gadamer, Truth and Method

Towards a Comparative History of Hermeneutics

The history of the major traditions of philosophical commentary has hardly

been written. After years of either dismissal for lack of originality or use primarily for

reconstructing earlier source texts, commentaries are being re-evaluated for their own

intrinsic worth, and their place in the history of thought is being progressively

rehabilitated.1 As John Henderson has written, the time is ripe for a comparative,

cross-cultural history of hermeneutics.2

As a contribution to this effort, the present paper is an examination of two

thinkers from the Greek and Chinese traditions of philosophical commentary:

1 Recent publications and translations are playing a major role. For the purposes ofthis paper, the ongoing series,Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, edited by RichardSorabji, and the work of Wing-tsit Chan and Daniel Gardner in editing, compiling,and translating Zhu Xi have been particularly useful.2 Henderson 1991, 6.


3/48

2

Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. 200 AD) and Zhu Xi (1130-1200). Juxtaposing the

Greek and Chinese traditions, apart from drawing on the academic background of the

author, keeps us squarely within the bounds of secular thought. It also allows us to

compare two traditions that developed, as it appears, entirely separate from one

another.

Although there are certainly parallels between secular and religious canons

be they Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hinduan added aura inevitably

attaches itself to texts whose origin or inspiration is ascribed to a god or gods,

however reverential secular homage to figures such as Aristotle or Confucius may

have been. The control over scriptural canons often wielded by religious authorities

poses a second problem, not insurmountable but enough to deter us from taking on

extra complications in a study perhaps already over-reaching.

The mutual isolation of the Greek andChinese philosophical traditions until

the 16th century arrival of the Jesuits in China presents us with a unique opportunity.

Recently, an increasing number of full-length studiesnot to mention countless

sections within larger works (especially by Sinologists)have compared Greek and

Chinese thinking on medicine3, sagehood4, literary figurations5, techniques of

persuasion6 etc., yet none have explicitly treated the commentarial traditions in

3 Geoffrey Lloyd and Nathan Sivin (2002.) The Way and the Word: Science and Medicine inEarly China and Greece. New Haven: Yale University Press.4 Stephen Durrant and Steven Shankman (2000.) The Siren and the Sage: Knowledge andWisdom in Greece and China. New York: London: Cassell.5 David Hall and Roger Ames (1997.) Thinking From the Han: Self, Truth, andTranscendence in Chinese and Western Culture. Albany: SUNY Press.6 Lloyd 1996.


4/48

3

comparison. The focus of all these studies, perhaps inevitably, has been on

convergences and divergences, and attempts to explain them. Discovered

convergences may point out what had to be the case for the intellectual history of

these civilizations; divergences, on the other hand, should provide some hint as to

what developments were contingent variations that could have been otherwise.

Enough of this work, such as that of Saul Levmore in his comparative studies of

ancient law7, may demonstrate the major constraints within which these early

thinkers, or civilizations, had to work. Such constraints may range from strayrealia

(e.g. the use of orpiment and brush by Chinese commentators in amending texts8) to

the major sociological questions of how institutions and the individuals within them

functioned, and how knowledge was gathered, represented, and consumed.

The central question of this essay is as follows:What explains the

emergence of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Zhu Xi as two of the first

commentators in each of their independent philosophical traditions to adopt a

strongly interventionist hermeneutic?

Alexander was Greco-Roman antiquitys most renowned commentator on the

works of Aristotle, and Zhu Xi, by the start of Yuan Dynasty, had become the most

famous Chinese exegete of the Confucian Classics. Each made it their lifes work to

systematize and transform the received canon of their tradition. That they succeeded

in becoming philosophical commentators who went well beyond glossing,

7 For example, see Saul Levmore (1987). Variety and Uniformity in the Treatment ofthe Good-Faith Purchaser,Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 16, pp. 43-65.8 See Cherniack 1994.


5/48

4

paraphrasis, and textual transmission can be measured both by the richness of their

writings and by their later influence.

Their being primarily philosophical rather than philological in their exegeses is

not sufficient in itself to justify the label interventionist. To do so, I will look at

cases in which Alexander and Zhu employed two strategiesthe supplementation

and interconnection of textsmore radically, quacommentators, than any

predecessors in their received traditions. First, in Alexanders De fato (On Fate) and

Zhu Xis Supplement (buzhuan) to the Daxue (Greater Learning), each

philosopher inserted an original work directly into the canon to supplement it, while

still claiming the mantle of commentator. Second, in their explanations of famously

obscure passages at De anima3.5 andAnalects4.15 respectively, Alexander and Zhu Xi

surmounted interpretive difficulties by boldly connecting these passages with other

parts of the canon, in ways that were far from self-evident.

This paper will argue that Alexander and Zhu Xi were each among the first

Greek and Chinese commentators we can trace to undertake significant and overt9

interventions of this sort, and that in fact such interventions were the most extreme

manifestation of an overall stance that each took in refashioning received traditions.

In the remainder of the paper, I will try to explain the emergence of this

interventionist hermeneutic, characterizing as interventionist any attempt at

interpretation in which the commentator, still actingquacommentator, treats

9 As we will explore later, covert forms of intervention (forgeries, pseudepigraphyetc.) occurred both before and after Alexander and Zhu.


6/48

5

interpretation of the received source text(s) as dependant upon the addition of expansive, usually

doctrinal, inputand goes on to provide that input. Judging whether input is expansive or

doctrinal is subjective, and whether or not we think such input is justified by the

source text is a separate question. As a general rule of thumb, we might want to call

certain scholastic strategies non-interventionist (e.g. paraphrasis, glossing etc.), while

for other kinds of textual engagementsuch as deletion, rearrangement,

abridgmenta closer look at the given case will be necessary. The supplementation

and interconnection of texts more clearly fits our definition of interventionist, taking

us to the very edge of what most exegetes considered proper. As we shall see, Zhu Xi

at least came in for heavy criticism for having transgressed accepted bounds.10

To explain the interventionist hermeneutics emergence, I will examine the

evidence for Alexander and Zhu Xis sense of historical embeddedness and place

within their traditions. Both commentators shared an anxiety about the temporal gulf

that separated them from their revered masters Aristotle and Confucius, and I will

argue that this anxiety of distance led them to their commentarial interventions.

This anxiety about the hermeneutic difficulties of temporal distance emerged at a

certain point in the Aristotelian and Confucian traditions and led talented

commentators to risk interventions to save the canon for their own time. I am

calling the driving psychological force for these commentators an anxietyless to echo

10 There are generalized critiques of Alexander for inserting his own doctrines into hiscommentaries at Elias In Cat. 123.1-7 and Plutarch of Athens ap. Philoponum, In Deanima21.20-3.


7/48

6

Dodds age of anxiety (echoing Auden) than Harold Blooms anxiety of

influence.11

Deuteronomic Texts

One more methodological consideration is in order. The very label

philosophical commentary presents the problem of what is meant by philosophy

and commentary. Leaving the first of these to the side12, we would do well to

expand our usual notion of commentary, even if only for the purposes of this study.

Of the texts I will refer to here, for instance, only one (Zhus Sishu Jizhu,

or Commentary on the Four Booksactually a compilation of four separate

commentaries) fits the expected model of interlinear commentary based on clearly

marked lemmas from the source texts. Some of the others include a treatise of

identical title and very similar material to its source text (Alexanders De anima), a

deliberate interpolation into a critical edition of the source text (Zhus supplement to

the Daxue), and a work that incorporated much canonical material although it was

novel in presentation and theme (Alexanders De fato). In all of these works,

interpretation of earlier material is a primary goal, but the forms taken for this

purpose are varied and demand a more general rubric than commentary usually

suggests.

11 See Harold Bloom (1973.) The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York:Oxford University Press. I take only a very general cue from Bloom's framework.12 Unfortunately the debate about whether the Chinese can be said to have developedphilosophy has not entirely gone away. For one possible response to the critics

who would rather speak of Chinese thought, see Reding 2005, especially 25.


8/48

7

One scholar who has provided a richer typology is Reviel Netz, a historian of

ancient mathematics who advocates the term deuteronomic texts in speaking of

late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. This category, according to Netz, includes new

editions, epitomes, encyclopedic collections, translations, scholia, marginalia, and, in

general, any texts depending fundamentally on earlier texts.13 Going on to detail

various scholastic strategies (found in deuteronomic texts), Netz concludes that they

add up, on the part of the commentator, tothe attempt to construct the text as a one-

to-one map of the conceptual world it refers to.14 In other words, deuteronomic

writers tend to assume that their source text got it right, in a comprehensive fashion,

and that the commentators job is simply to make ancient insights explicit.15

Often to these writers, there appears to be an inverse relation between, on the

one hand, how truthful and ancient a text is, and, on the other, how explicitly it

transmits its truths. This study presupposes that Alexander and Zhu Xi fit the

deuteronomic mold and identifies in their work some of the most radical

transformations on Netzs list of strategies, although one can find Alexander and Zhu

practicing nearly all those strategies at one point or another. Netzs list makes for an

instructive comparison with that of Henderson (1991), whose work is much broader

in scope but similar in spirit. Taking in a whole range of Eurasian traditions over

what one might call the deuteronomic longue dure, Henderson links a commentarial

assumption about the canon with each strategy, and we will follow him in speaking of

13 Netz 1998, 261.14 Ibid, 281. Italics in the original.15 For a classic statement of this view, see Plotinus V. 1, 8-9, especially 8.12ff.


9/48

8

assumptions and strategies. The notion of canon we will not problematize explicitly,

even though it is true that the canons in our period of study were not absolutely fixed

or universally agreed upon. The canons of the deuteronomic era were not monolithic,

changeless entities, but we can usually draw strong inferences, from the commentary

work spawned, for a texts status during any given period.

Explaining more broadly the rise of deuteronomic activity has proven difficult:

Netz turns aside from the question16, and Henderson posits an ill-defined

commentarial mentality.17 The work of Sluiter (1999) and Mansfeld (1994) suggests

at least a local explanation in the Mediterranean world of changed pedagogical

practice and curriculum standardization. By identifying a distinctly interventionist

phase within the deuteronomic longue durein both a Greek and a Chinese

philosophical tradition, we hope to contribute to this discussion indirectly. A sharper

outline of the overall shape of the deuteronomic era will hopefully nudge forward our

understanding, helping us to progress to the point of understanding its origins.

Our segmentation of the deuteronomic era would break up the synchronicity

of Netz and Hendersons schemes. Although the strategies they list were present over

the long periods of time that each marks out, we have no indication of the strategies'

relative prominence in different periods. It is unlikely that the commentarial era of

the great traditions lacked the kind of shape that we typically impart to other periods

16 Netz does allude to two possible historical explanations: the spread of scripturalreligion in this period and the proliferation of books, at 284, but prefers, especially inhis 2004 case study, to trace the unexpected transformations wrought bycommentarial strategies on a canonical problem in mathematics.17 Henderson 1991, 221


10/48

9

(i.e. with features such as intensive development, retrenchment, paradigm shifts etc.).

It would therefore represent an expansion on the work of Netz and Henderson to

suggest even a loose segmentation, testing whether it can hold up in independent

traditions in China and the Mediterranean.

Model Exegetes

Why compare Alexander of Aphrodisias and Zhu Xi for these substantial

tasks? The comparison undertaken here is not intended to suggest any similarities of

doctrine or of historical context. Nor does this paper, although it juxtaposes the

Peripatetic and Confucian traditions, posit any significant correspondences between

the theories and concepts espoused by those philosophical programs. The temporal

gap between the lives of Alexander and Zhu, who lived a millennium apart, will

already have struck the reader, but I am not endeavoring to make any arguments that

rely on a close one-to-one match of historical periods.

A possibly more significant obstacle is the asymmetrical knowledge we have of

the two commentatorsZhu Xis corpus is vast, nearly intact, and includes a wide

variety of genres; what we have of Alexander, on the other hand, is often fragmentary

(although considerable in comparison to other commentators of the period) and

restricted mostly to interlinear commentaries and original but derivative treatises.18

Moreover, biographical information, as we shall see, is very scarce for the Peripatetic,

but copious in the case of Zhu Xi. This difference will become more problematic

18 For a full catalogue of the Alexandrian corpus, see Sharples 1987, 1182-1199.


11/48

10

when we try to trace Alexanders attitude towards his philosophical predecessors and

his hermeneutic strategies (seldom discussed explicitly); Zhu Xi, on the other hand,

has left us a massive web of references to earlier Confucians and a general

hermeneutic strategy in his Du shu fa (chapters 10 and 11 ofZhuzi Yulei

, or Collected Conversations of Master Zhu).

Leaving these caveatsaside, there are numerous reasons why comparing these

two figures should be a fruitful enterprise for saying something about the

development of deuteronomic traditions in China and the Mediterranean.

Comparisons of certain other thinkers, as I will explore briefly in the conclusion,

could certainly have their worth as well for our purposes, not to mention

comparisons that are more thematic in nature. Perhaps least promising at this time

are one-to-one doctrinal comparisons (although contrasts may be fascinating on this

level, as the work of Francois Jullien demonstrates19)the examples in this paper are

case studies, only made interesting by their larger context, and the comparison is

essentiallymetaphilosophical, located in ways of doing philosophical commentary,

hermeneutic assumptions and strategies, and the shape taken by traditions.

Alexander and Zhu Xi were considered model exegetes20 whose work was

read by students and philosophers for centuries afterwards, and deeply impacted the

history of interpretation in the study of Aristotle and the Confucian Classics,

19 See for example Franois Jullien (2004.), trans. Paula Varsano., In Praise of Blandness:Proceeding from Chinese Thought and Aesthetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.20 For a late antique view of the model exegete in the Greek tradition, seeSimplicius on oJ a[xio"ejxeghth;" at In Cat. CAG 8 7.23ff.


12/48

11

respectively. That their reception has this in common is noteworthyit means that,

either in spite of or at least in part because of their interventions, the two

commentators enjoyed significant authority and renown. One might even posit an

end-point of the interventionist phase in each tradition (about which more in the

conclusion) by asking how long Alexander and Zhu were regarded as models. While

it is certainly the case that they were received this way also for their erudition, their

thoroughness etc. it was not lost on later commentators that Alexander and Zhu had

been bolder than their predecessors and employed strategies that would previously

have been frowned upon, or not even countenanced.

References to Alexander as simplythecommentator (oJ ejxeghth;") are

numerous in the work of the Neoplatonist commentators who wrote in the centuries

after his death.21 One need only look at the frequency with which he was cited, either

by name or implicitly, in the commentaries of Simplicius, Philoponus22, Themistius,

Elias, and many others in a long line that leads through Averroes, Aquinas, and the

Italian humanists. What makes this doubly extraordinary is that, until Averroes in the

12th century, very few of these thinkersThemistius is the main exceptionsaw

themselves as Peripatetics. With the works of Aristotle still consistently studied, but

mostly for logic and psychology as the prelude to a Platonic metaphysical program,

21 Simpl. In Phys. CAG 9 707.33, 10 1170.2, 13 1176.32; Philop. In. Anal. Pr. 159.30,CAG 13.2 136.2022 Fazzo 2004 finds hundreds of direct mentions of Alexander in Simplicius, who alsopreserves large portions of text otherwise lost, and dozens in Philoponus.


13/48

12

Alexander was often seen as the last word on the Stagirite.23 Extant commentary on

Aristotle from before Alexander is scarce, unfortunately, but this may well be because

his commentaries almost entirely replaced the previous legacy of literature handed

down by the Peripatetic school.24 If that claim is true, and we are not simply facing

the vicissitudes of textual transmission, it may be explained in part by the prestige

attached to Alexander's interventions.

Zhu Xi can also be characterized as a model exegete within his tradition. To

take one example of the many possible, the Ming scholar Xue Xuan wrote that

the Sishu Jizhuis so broad and great, so refined and intimate that it completely

develops the ideas of the ancient sages.25 As an indication of how early on Zhu Xis

particular achievement was recognized, Chen Chun spoke of Zhu (his teacher)

having penetrated the minds of the sages, and looking forward, [he] united the many

schools and synthesized them as one... the gathering of the many Confucians into a

complete concert.26 Zhu's renown grew rapidly after 1313, when the Yuan emperor

Renzong canonized the Sishu Jizhu(extending a certain prestige to at least some

of Zhus other works) by making them the basis of civil service examinations.27 By

the second quarter of the 15th century, the use of Zhus commentaries had become

widespread even outside private academies and imperial schools, making Zhu bothan

23 Another symptom of this is the range of works misattributed to Alexander throughthe Middle Ages, especially in the Islamic philosophical tradition, where Alexandersstature arguably reached its zenith.24 Fazzo 2004, 6.25 Xue Xuan, Du shu lu 1.9. Translation is Henderson's.26 Chen Chun, Lectures at Yanlingin Chan 1986, 181. Translation is Chans.27Yuanshi 81.2019.


14/48

13

exemplary figure and a major target of attack until the exam systems dismantling in

the early 20th century. By contrast, Alexanders significance was always restricted,

even in the Islamic world, to a small elite who transmitted his work across the

generations.

Case #1Supplementation

Let us turn to how Alexander and Zhu supplementedtheir received canon

with the De fato and the buzhuansection of the Daxue, respectively.

Supplementation, the term we are using to describe the function performed by

these two works vis--vis their canons, is meant in a straightforward sense. I will

argue that Alexander perceived a major lacuna in Aristotelian doctrine on the

question of fate and determinism and sought to fill it with De fato, thus supplementing

the tradition with his own words but averring that this book holds the opinion of

Aristotle concerning fate and what depends on us.28 Zhu Xi perceived a lacuna

within the received text of the Daxuerather than within the canon as a whole, but it

too amounted to a doctrinal gap, on the question ofgewu zhizhi (fully

apprehending the principle of things and extending knowledge29). Both inteventions

are of the strongest sort available to the commentator and represent attempts to

address topics that appear to have hardly even been framed in the time of Confucius

or of Aristotle.

28 Alexander, De fato 164.13-14. Reiterated in the conclusion at 212.5ff and elsewhere.29 This is Gardners translation, with my own slight modification.


15/48

14

The problems of fate and determinism were already old ones by the time

Alexander took them up, but he claims plausibly to be the first Aristotelian to write

on them at any length.30 Nor is De fato the only place in Alexanders work where he

takes up these issuesSharples (1983) helpfully brings it together withMantissa

XXII-XXV,QuaestionesII.4, II.5, and III.13, and a few short passages from his

commentary on Aristotles Topics. This indicates that a constellation of issues

surrounding fate, responsibility, and what depends on us (ejfhJmi'n) were of interest

to Alexander, particularly in his non-commentarial works.

De fato itself is mostly taken up with polemic against strict determinists, but the

passages from 164.15-171.18 provide our clearest picture of how Alexander

constructed a Peripatetic doctrine of fate. This positive doctrinein essence, that

fate is the individual nature of each thing, admitting exceptions31 is the core of the

supplement Alexander is adding to the canon of Aristotle, providing a definition not

clearly found in previous Aristotelian works but compatible with the schools major

doctrines.

The De fato is Alexanders most notable attempt to supplement the range of

Aristotelian doctrineswhy this choice of topic? Among those who had discoursed,

30 Quaestio 2.21, 70.25. In the same passage, Platonists are also enjoined to see thatAristotle indeed treated the subject of providence. Sharples 1983, 23-25, surveys ourvery fragmentary knowledge of previous Peripatetic positions on fate. That there hadbeen at least some consideration of the issue cannot be denied.31De fato 169.20.tov te ga;r eiJmarmevnon kata; fuvsin kai; to; kata; fuvsineiJmarmevnon.


16/48

15

but apparently not at sufficient length for Alexander, were Theophrastus32 and the

anonymous commentator onNicomachean EthicsII-IV (possibly Adrastus of

Aphrodisias). Just as significantly, there is some evidence for differingPeripatetic

notions of fate.33 It is probably safe to conjecture that no single, authoritative

position had been established in the Peripatetic tradition before Alexander.

Nor should one be at all surprised at such a gappartisans of Aristotle were

often constrained to show that the philosopher had in fact discoursed upon a given

topic. Why fate remained a pressing philosophical issue for a wide range of writers

into the 2nd century AD, long after the Stoics and Epicureans had first framed it, is

not entirely clear. That Alexanders view was soon taken to be the Peripatetic one is

discernible from the treatises wide-ranging impact34 and the absence of later theories

claiming an Aristotelian imprimatur.

In a short space, Alexander constructs a plausible libertarian notion of fate,

and one moreover that seems compatible with Aristotelian assumptions on voluntary

action and choice (proaivresi") inNicomachean EthicsIII, the theory of four causes in

Physics2.3, and other basic positions in those two works and theMetaphysics. If this is

the birds' eye view of what Alexander is doing in the De fato, what is he up to in the

Peri; eiJmarmevnh" (On Fate) section of theMantissa? It is one of the puzzles of

32 AtMantissa186.39-41, Alexander cites the lost Callisthenesas treating what is inaccordance with fate as being the same as what in accordance with nature. There isevidence for this preserved in Aetius 1.29.4 as well.33 These include the pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo (which, according to Sharples,

Alexander knew of and referred to) and a claim by the middle Platonist Atticus, at fr.8.8ff des Places.34 See Sharples 1983, 28-29.


17/48

16

Alexander's work that, though he treated Aristotle as a systematic thinker, he himself

often seems to espouse multiple, sometimes incompatible, positions. AtMantissa

185.11-14, Alexander (or whoever the author might have been)35, describes fate as

nothing other than the proper nature of each thing (th;n oijkeivan fuvsin

eJkavstou)... not what is universal and common, for example simply [in] living

creatures or man, but in the individuals (ejn toi'" kaq e{kasta), Socrates and

Callias. In De fato we infer that the nature in question is the nature of a species and

not of an individual (169.20-23).

Which position, we might ask, was meant to supplement the ranks of tried and

true Peripatetic doctrines? When we notice similar inconsistencies in Zhu Xi, there is

usually a genetic explanation to hand, since we know that Zhu was constantly revising

and re-publishing his interpretations, and indeed often referred explicitly to past

mistakes that he wished to correct. With Alexander it is harder to know, but it

appears that for both commentators it was more important to demonstrate that no

stone had been left unturned in the process of interpretation than to expound a single

dogmatic view. Supplementation is anything but a process of arbitrary insertion;

done convincingly, it means a gathering up of small proto-theories from the canon

and their elaboration into something that can stand on its own.

35 One difficulty with pairing the De fato with passages fromMantissaorQuaestionesisthat the latter, minor works may come from Alexanders school rather than fromthe hand of Alexander himself. At present, there is not enough evidence to makedefinite attributions; moreover, none of Alexanders students is known by name.


18/48

17

The supplement added by Zhu Xi to what he considered the fifth section of

Zengzis commentary on the core Confucian Daxueis only 134 characters in

length, but became one of his most controversial moves as a commentatorand is

otherwise without parallel in his uvre. Indeed, Zhu claimed that the Daxueoccupied

his attention more than any other of the Classics, and it is precisely here that his

transformations were most radical. Handed down as the 42nd chapter of the Liji,

a ritual handbook supposedly compiled by Dai Sheng (fl. 51 BC), the Daxuewas

apparently not studied independently until the Song, when it rapidly gained

importance. It was thought by the Cheng brothers and Zhang Zai, on what

evidence it is unclear, to be directly from the school of Confucius (though not

necessarily written by Confucius himself). Zhu Xi asserted that the first 205

characters were the words of Confucius himself and that the rest was commentary on

that core passage, composed by Zengzi, one of the masters key disciples. It was in

addition to this reorganization that Zhu posited, and chose to fill with his own words,

a major lacuna in the fifth section of Zengzis alleged commentary.

The Daxueand its themes of education and self-cultivationlike the topic of

fate and determinism by Alexanders timeappear to have become of such great

interest that it was necessary to project this interest, however recent, far backwards

into the past. The groundwork for Zhu Xis major commentarial moves had been

well laid by Han Yu, Sima Guang, and especially the Cheng brothers,

but in his preface to the Daxue Zhangjuhe felt it necessarily to state his motives for


19/48

18

composing the buzhuanin particular: The text of the Greater Learningstill [after the

Cheng brothers] contained some errata and lacunae and hence, forgetting my

rusticity, I edited it. At times also I took the liberty of appending my own ideas and

filling in the lacunaethese await superior men of the future. I know full well that I

have overstepped my bounds and that there is no way for me to escape blame.36

This extraordinary, self-conscious passage is not the only case of Zhu being sensitive

to criticism that he was intervening too muchin the Zhuzi Yulei, he says to a

disciple: Whenever I have emended the wording of a classic I had a reason; I never

make emendations lightly. You must look to my reasons for making emendations.37

What Zhu set out to do in his supplement should be sharply distinguished

from an insertion such as the Shijing Daxue (Stone Classics Greater

Learning)38, one of the most famous forgeries of the late Ming, accepted by many for

a long period as an authentic, archaic text. While doubtless the forger of this work

(Feng Fang, a late Ming literatus) was staging a kind of intervention, Zhu was

not setting out to fool anyone deliberately: the style of the buzhuanis distinct from

that of the Daxue(although at first Zhu reportedly did attempt an archaic style39). On

a related note, the frequency with which interpolations found their way into the

Chinese Classics, especially in the period of canon formation during the late Warring

States and early Han, must be linked to the textual medium of easily removed or

36 Daxue ZhangjuPreface,2b-3a. See Gardner 1986, 86.37Zhuzi Yulei105.2626. Both passages translated by Gardner.38 For more on the Shijing Daxue, see Rusk, forthcoming.39Zhuzi Yulei16.326.


20/48

19

inserted bamboo slips. Such interpolations are perhaps a category unto themselves,

quite unlike the supplements offered by a commentator.40

Zhus reasons for taking so bold a step become evident if one looks at the

content of his supplement. He explainsgewu zhizhiby writing that if we wish to

extend our knowledge to the utmost, we must probe thoroughly the principle (li)

in those things we encounter. Everyone can build gradually from lito understand

that which eludes him. After exerting himself in this way for a long time, he will one

day become enlightened and thoroughly understand [li]; then, the manifest and the

hidden, the subtle and the obvious qualities of all things will all be known, and the

mind, in its whole substance and vast operations, will be completely illuminated.41

Gewu(apprehending things, or Neo-Confucian principle, here) became the first

step, the foundation of the self-cultivation process42 which ends in a kind of

enlightenment almost Buddhist in nature.

This short tour de forceoffers an emphasis on li, a general program of education,

and a novel concept of self-cultivation. Zhu excels at writing such tightly condensed

passages, microcosms for the whole Neo-Confucian enterprise. As with Alexander's

work on fate, we can glimpse some of the proto-theories from whichgewu zhizhi

emerges. Many have noticed that Chan Buddhist influence is important, but not

decisive, since enlightenment is still rooted in external action. At the same time, the

40 A shade closer in spirit to Zhu's supplement is the work of Wang Tong,

disparaged by Zhu, which apparently imitated the Classics.41Daxue Zhangju5. The translations in this paragraph are from Gardner.42 Gardner 1986, 54.


21/48

20

Daxuein Zhu's hands ceased to be an elite political handbook (the dominant view

from Zheng Xuan on) and was deemed relevant for any adult. The core issue of

self-cultivation and enlightenment came from outside the Confucian tradition, just as

fate and determinism had their origin outside the Peripatetic school, but in each case

the supplement inspired was located firmly within the tradition.

With his supplement, Zhu is at once more anxious for a place in the canon,

and perhaps more brazen than Alexander, as is reflected in the view of Dong Huai

and Wang Bo that the buzhuanwas off the mark and insufficient43 and those

of Yang Shouchen, Wang Shu, and Cai Qing that it was flawed or

unnecessary. In the same period, the Wujing Daquan (Great Compendia on

the Four Books and Five Classics), compiled for students in the early 15th century on

the basis of Zhus works, tried to cover up his interventionism. That Alexander's

work on fate and Zhu's on self-cultivation were created, and viewed, as supplements

to the received tradition is clear.44 In both cases, the commentators managed to make

it seem as if their tradition had something distinctive to say on a topic of major

contemporary importance, and had in some sense been saying it all along.

Case #2Interconnection

43 Rusk forthcoming, 11.44 For a summary ofDe fato's reception, from its influence on Plotinus and Eusebiusthrough the use made of it by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, see Sharples 1983,28-29.


22/48

21

Interconnection refers to a strategy perhaps less interventionist than

supplementation but decidedly more specific than intertextuality (which can

encompass a wide range of relations). To narrow the scope of interconnection

further, we should be clear that we are discussing intra-canonical connections,

although by interconnection one could mean a reading ofMiddlemarchthat pairs it

with Das Kapital, for instance. Our examples here will be Alexanders identification of

active intellect and the Unmoved Mover and Zhu Xis theory of Confucius single

thread, both famous attempts to knit the canon closer together precisely where it

may seem weakest.45 By bringing a central doctrine ofMetaphysics to bear on the

difficulties of the active intellect, Alexander enhanced the explanatory power of both

passages while simultaneously pointing to a larger Aristotelian theory of the soul and

nou'".46 AtAnalects4.15, Zhu interprets an ambiguous statement about unity in what

seems its strongest possible sensethat all Confucian doctrine is a single thread

somehow made up ofzhong and shu. Drawing in his discussion on the Shijing

, Zhouyi, and anotherAnalectspassage, Zhu also makes his commentary enact

the interconnection it describes. In both cases, interconnection breathes life into

passages that are obscure but have strong appeal.

The difficulties ofDe anima3.5 (a section that does not exceed 200 words in

length) had been a key node of exegetical interest at least since Theophrastus

45Analects4.15 is now seen by many scholars as a later interpolation into one of theworks earliest sections. De anima3.5 has proved similarly problematic, taken by someas a later addition to the text.46 Another useful text to treat in this context is the discussion of reproduction in

Aristotles De generatione animalium736a24-737a34.


23/48

22

(preserved in Themistius, De anima107.30-109.4, and elsewhere47). Although some

modern commentators are inclined to see the debate that raged for the next 1500

years as a museum piece48, the distinction drawn in 3.5 between a passive and

active intellect held out too many intriguing theological implications to be ignored.

Although work on the De animawas surely done in the 500-year interim

between Theophrastus and Alexander (for instance, there is the possibility that

Andronicus of Rhodes wrote a commentary), evidence is sparse, leaving us to wonder

what Alexander had to build on. He appears to have been the first to posit that the

active intellect was external (De anima90.21-91.4; Peri;nou' 109.27-28), unique (Peri;

nou' 109.27-28), andmost cruciallythat one could make a definitive connection

between it and the first cause (prw'tonai[tiovn), the Unmoved Mover (De anima89.9-11; Peri;nou'109.24-110.3).

As with his views on fate, Alexander's doctrine of intellect varies in different

texts, so a closer reading would need to distinguish passages in his interlinear

commentary on Aristotle's De anima(preserved in part by Themistius49, Pseudo-

Simplicius, and the Latin and Greek Philoponus commentaries ofDe anima3), the

Peri;nou' (On Intellect) now grouped with theMantissa50, and the material in his own

De animatreatise. For our purposes, we can say that Alexander holds to a single

47 See Theophrastus, 307A-327 FHS&G, where the fragments of his theory ofnou'"are gathered.48 Hugh Lawson-Tancred (1987), trans. De anima, New York: Penguin Classics,Introduction, 92.49 See Themistius, De anima1.1 and 2.7.50 It is worth remembering that the so-calledMantissawas transmitted until Bruns as acommentary on the De anima, perhaps in part because of this section.


24/48

23

strategy in all three texts, different as the specific treatments may be: to flesh out a

fuller Aristotelian notion ofnou'" by using as much of the relevant material in the

Aristotelian corpus as possible. The capstone of this effort was his connecting two of

the most formidable and influential aspects of this notion.

The termnou'"poihtiko;" (active intellect) is not used in Aristotles textit

may have been abstracted by Alexander from 430a14-15, where Aristotle

distinguishes oJ me;n toiou'to" nou'" tw/' pavnta givnesqai (passive intellect...

calledpaqhtiko;" in Aristotle,uJliko;", or material, in Alexander) from oJ de; tw/'

pavnta poiei'n, wJ" e{xi" ti" (active intellect). Aristotle writes at 430a22-23 that

the active intellect oujc oJte; me;n noei' oJte; d ouj noei'. cwrisqei;" d ejsti;

movnon tou'q o{per ejstiv, kai; tou'to movnon ajqavnaton kai; aji?dion. From this

underspecified notion, Alexander develops the idea ofnou'"poihtiko;" completely

independent of matter (De anima88.25) and yet if this sort of intellect is the first

cause, in that it is cause and source of being for all other things, it should be

poihtiko;" in virtue of this, that it causes the being of all intelligible things (89.9-11).

To drive home this connection, Alexander continues at 89.18-19: It has been

proved by Aristotle, moreover, that the intellect possessing all these properties is the

first cause, and thus truly (kurivw") intellect; for a completely immaterial form is truly

intellect. What Alexander has in mind here are the descriptions following upon

Metaphysics 1072a25-26, where Aristotle speaks of ti o} ouj kinouvmenon kinei',

aji?dion kai; oujsiva kai; ejnevrgeia ou\sa. This Unmoved Mover becomes a kind of

first principle (ajrch;), and because it is the highest and most necessary form of life, its


25/48

24

activity is purenovhsi" (1072b20-22). For Alexander, the active intellect and the first

cause share the same attributes of independence, eternity, uniqueness; both are

concerned fundamentally withnou'"; both can handle apparent contradictionshow

could they not be one and the same?

Alexander appears to be the unnamed target of Themistius in the latters De

anima, at 102.30-103.19, where he writes of being puzzled at those who believed that

according to Aristotle this active intellect is... the first god, countering them by

pointing to 430a10-15 and by saying that the phrase this alone is immortal (430a23)

must really mean this alone is immortal within the soul because theMetaphysics

contains mention of other immortal forces in the causing of motion.51 In effect,

Themistiusand the many critics of Alexanders theory who came after himis not

denying the appropriateness of bringing theMetaphysicsto bear on the passage but

indicating a different section of canonical text to connect it with.52 So too, we shall

see, Zhu Xi presses any future commentator to readAnalects4.15 globally, in light of

the rest of the Confucian canon: it is only against the backdrop of the full canon that

an interpretation can be upheld or struck down.

Alexander's unmentioned assumption is that Aristotle holds to a single noetic

theory within a single psychology, both of which can be traced through his uvre.

Moreover, whatever this theory ofnou'" is will have implications for Peripatetic

theology and even cosmology. It would be left only to modern interpreters to lookfor

51MetaphysicsBook, 1073a14ff.52 In addition, Themistius himself wrote an influential paraphrase/commentary onMetaphysics.


26/48

25

inconsistencies, rather than patch them up, leading either to genetic explanations

(however scarce the evidence) or acceptance that the inconsistencies were really

there, even for Aristotle. Only modern Confucians (and certainly not all) would, by a

kind of gestalt flip perhaps, see inconsistencies as an endpoint of interpretation and

not a spur to further work that, by definition, seeks to eliminate them.

Unweaving or reweaving the single thread (yiguan) ofAnalects4.15

has excited almost as long a controversy as De anima3.5, and, similarly, some current

scholars consider the whole discussion an impassioned digression. The textual

problem of how theAnalectscame together poses a particular challenge, since most

scholars have agreed on the relatively antiquity of most of Book 4, with 4.15 the

principal exceptiona passage which comes as something of a non-sequitur even

given the paratactic and abrupt style of the received text.53

The passage is exceedingly brief, a mere 34 characters in length:

The master said, Shen! As for my Way, with one thing it binds it together.Zengzi said, Yes.

The Master left, and the disciples asked, What did he mean?Zengzi said, The Way of the Master is zhongand shuand that is all.54

53 The question of whether or not 4.15 is a later interpolation is not central to theargument here, but for a convincing argument that it is, see Van Norden 2002, whotakes it as having been planted by followers of Master Zeng.54 The translation is from Van Norden 2002, 218.


27/48

26

Our first recorded gloss on this passage is from the 3rd century AD commentary of

He Yan, who is characteristically spare in his Collected Explanations. This

collected commentary actually includes 8 separate commentaries excerpted and

juxtaposed by 5 editors working under Heand became the paradigm of the old

commentary tradition on theAnalects. As with what we know of the early Peripatetics

(and will discuss later), a great deal of the material in the Collected Explanationsis

philological in nature, involving the glossing of outdated terms or unpacking of

unusual syntax. One recent scholar, noting how close to paraphrasis the work keeps,

goes so far as to call it a performative expression of Confucius claim to have been a

transmitter [atAnalects7.1] rather than a creator.55 Aside from Hes comment, there

is a detailed syntactic discussion on 4.15 from Xing Bing, but we can safely

surmise that the passage achieved its fame thanks to Zhu Xi. The latter devoted over

30 pages of exegesis (in most modern editions of the Zhuzi Yulei ) to these 34

characters, compared to 4 or fewer pages to other topics in Book 4, not to mention

his discussion in the Lunyu Jizhu. At Zhuzi Yulei2:669, Zhu speaks of it as

the foremost zhang [chapter] of the Analects.

It is Zhu moreover who inaugurated the idea of the one thread as the key

to that systematicity56 which many exegetes have sought in Confucian thought, even

down to the present day. Zhus contribution here seems to be twofold: 1) identifying

55 Makeham 2000, 25-26.56 Van Norden 2002, 230.


28/48

27

yiguanas standing in for the heart-and-mind (xin) of the Sage which is

undifferentiated principle (li) and unites all Confucian doctrine; 2) definingzhong

and shuas mutually entailing ideas and showing how far these terms could extend. As

for the first of these, in the Lunyu Jizhu, Zhu writes: The heart-mind of a sage is one

undifferentiated principle; it responds universally and is appropriate in the minutest

details.... [Zengzi] did not yet realize that its substance is one.57

In the Lunyu Jizhuexplication of 4.15, Zhu Xi unpacks zhongand shuin part

with erudite reference to other works thought to have a close tie to Confucius. It is

not unusual for Zhu to make such abrupt intertextual moves, but his doing so, and

with such a density of references, has a special resonance here (given its theme of

interconnection). Alexander, too, frequently references an array of works in quick

succession, assuming an extensive knowledge of the canon easily drawn upon. Indeed,

Alexander does not usually explicit note his citations of disparate texts, introducing

the Unmoved Mover, for one, without fanfare or footnote.

To sample Zhu's citations here, zhongis said to be not far from the Way (wei

dao bu yuan shi yereferring to Zhongyong chapter 13); the great

root and universal (daben weidao) ofZhongyongchapter 1 is touched upon;

and Gardner (2003) also detects a rapid succession of references to the Shijing, Mao

#267; Zhouyi1; andAnalects14.35. These quick moveswhich one imagines may

have been sensed as much as tracked down by studentswere designed to give an

57Sishu Jizhu2.10b. Zhu takes it thatyi yishould be inverted in the phraseyiyi

guanzhi. The translation is from Van Norden, 231.


29/48

28

impression of the unity of the earlier Five Classics and the Four Books, and of a

synthesis of Confucian thought, precisely as 4.15 itself enacted a grand

interconnection of the canon. At least Zhu Xi is here foregrounding a theoretical

basis for the assumption of doctrinal unity and consistency which he deploys in so

many other contexts.58 Alexander operates with very much the same assumption,

leading him to parallel strategies of interconnection, but he does not flag the origins

of the assumption.

Zhu's explanation ofzhongand shu, which, like Alexander's discussion ofnou'",

is anything but a straightforward gloss in the vein of previous commentators, begins

from a similarity in the characters themselves, which share the xin(heart) radical, and

preserves it in the shared characterji (oneself) of Zhu's definitions:jinji

(fully realizing oneself) for zhongand tuiji (inferring from oneself) for shu.

The former, Zhu seems to suggest, is an innate disposition that shuexpresses in actual

practice, making the two concepts mutually entailing but zhongtemporally prior. Shu

has generally appeared to be the more straightforward term, thanks in part to its

appearance atAnalects15.24, the famous Chinese golden rule, meaning something

like reciprocity. Zhongoften occurs in theAnalectswith the basic sense of loyalty

(which at least a few modern commentators would like to restore at 4.1559)the

58 A few other sections of theAnalectsare used by Zhu for this claim. See, forinstance, Zhus comment on 7.10, as recorded in Jullien 2003, 32, andAnalects15.3,

which many have connected, for obvious reasons, with 4.15.59 Van Norden 2002, 225. For another noteworthy recent interpretations, see HerbertFingarette 1980, Followign the One Thread of theAnalects,Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion Thematic Issue S, pp. 373-405.


30/48

29

sense is clearly extended by Zhu withjinji, which has what is for Zhu a characteristic

focus on inner growth, education, and character.

The textual interconnections at work in Zhu Xis commentaries on 4.15

operate on so many levels that we tend to forget the immediate context of the

passage and read it globallyeven if we disagree with Zhus specific interpretations. It became

more difficult after Zhu to read a canonical text in isolation, whatever one's

ideological orientation. Similarly, one had to grapple with Alexander's interconnection

of the De animawith the Unmoved Mover doctrine of theMetaphysics, whether one

believed the interpretation or not. Beforehand, it was not taken amiss for He Yan, or

the earlyCategoriescommentators, to restrict their commentary to the single source

text to which it referred; afterwards, a commentator would prove his skill precisely by

employing a wide range of references. Interconnection, in our sense, should reflect

substantive input, and so is usually rare, but the number of citations of all sorts

underwent an explosion during the interventionist phase of deuteronomic activity.

Much can probably be attributed to the growing erudition of an elite, the increased

availability of texts, the accretion of libraries etc. However the change came about, it

filtered down into the work produced by commentators. Morselization of the canon,

though it could operate along other lines, such as Zhus de facto excision of bawdy

verses in the Shijing, could not be appropriate for a passage with the potential

philosophical import of 4.15.

Antecedents Revered and Ignored


31/48

30

Having laid out our two case studies of the supplementation and

interconnection of texts by Alexander and Zhu Xi, we must proceed with our attempt

to explain the interventionist hermeneutic that these studies substantiate. One

explanation may hardly be sufficient, but here we will gather evidence that Alexander

and Zhu were motivated to intervene in the canon by an anxiety about the temporal

distance separating them from their revered masters. They were thus led to

supplement it with positions on contemporary debates and interconnect its parts

more tightly than ever. Our evidence for their anxiety will come from looking at

the historical embeddedness and hermeneutic position of both figures in relation to

their traditions.

The evidence, plainly, is much stronger for Zhu Xi, who has left us an entire

theory of his predecessors (the daotong transmission, which we shall discuss

below), than for Alexander. For the latter, we will have to draw inferences from the

ways in which he refers to his antecedents and to the textual relationship he

constructs between himself and Aristotle. On this, as on other points, Alexander

simply seems less theoretically oriented than Zhu, and less so than some of the

Neoplatonist and Christian thinkers who followed him.60 Is this because he was

already kept busy enough mastering a canon, and dissecting it, as no one had done

before him, while Zhu Xi could build on the work of others, many of whom had a

mastery similar to his own?

60 Some have traced the West's first general hermeneutic to late Antiquity, in the workof Tyconius or Augustine; late antique pagan Neoplatonists also seem to be castingabout in this direction (to be unabashedly teleological about it).


32/48

31

Although the works of Theophrastus and other heads of the Lyceum often

drew from the Aristotelian corpus, it is probably reasonable to begin discussion of

Peripatetic commentators with Andronicus of Rhodes, due to the temporary

disappearance of most of Aristotle's works from circulation.61 While evidence for

Andronicus actual commentarial output is scarce (there is strong evidence for a

Categoriescommentary), he most likely produced a crucial edition of Aristotles works,

set in place the order of their study and decided which texts were considered

genuinely the work of Aristotle. This is the crucial pointthe first two centuries of

Peripatetic commentary, as initiated by Andronicus, had a tendency to conservatism,

to glossing and paraphrasis, to basic questions such as the titles and boundaries of

works and their relative place in the canon.

To insist on this too much, however, would be to disregard at least one

follower of Androncius: the commentator Boethus. His Categoriescommentary, as

preserved in Simplicius (In Cat. 348.22, 433.28, 167.22 etc.), probably rested on a

bedrock of textual criticism and basic explication, but also included material from

other Aristotelian works and some in-depth discussions of philosophical problems.

As Gottschalk writes, he tried to keep the discussion within an Aristotelian

framework and saw his main task as explaining the real or apparent discrepancies he

found in Aristotles writings.62

Most intriguing are fragments where he addresses the

categories of Time, Action, and Passion, bringing in his knowledge of the Physicsand

Metaphysicsto supplement the Categoriesmaterial. Perhaps if more of Boethus had been

61 Strabo, GeographyXII 1.54 provides the best-known account.62 Gottschalk 1990, 77.


33/48

32

preserved, we could gauge whether he is treating interpretation of any passages as

trulydependentupon doctrinal input of his own.

The next generation of Peripatetics for whom we have names, although little

documentation, was the one that preceded Alexander and included his teachers

Herminus, Sosigenes, and possibly the obscure Aristotle of Mytilene. What we know

of Adrastus of Aphrodisias indicates that he was more philologist than philosopher

(e.g. the title of his lost work, On the order of Aristotles writings); as for Aspasius,

the commentary on theNicomachean Ethicsattributed to him is largely a paraphrase,

though with some intriguing suggestions. Although it is apparent in certain places

that Alexander is referring to, or disagreeing with, these thinkers, they are rarely

mentioned by name and can hardly have loomed very large. If any of them had

undertaken major interventionist movessuch as the two mentioned above,

undertaken by Alexanderthen it is likely we would know something about it.63

What is notable in Alexander is precisely the relative absenceof explicit

references to past authorities other than Aristotle. Sharples has found 50 references

to Theophrastus (about half of them in the Prior Analyticscommentary), 11 to

Eudemus (7 of them in In Anal. Pr.), and otherwise only a handful of citations to less

than a dozen other Peripatetics. This is enough to show us that, if Alexander largely

ignored past Peripatetics, it was not from ignorance of their work. Controversies with

Galen and the Middle Platonist philosopher Atticus, anti-Stoic polemic, and citations

63 For useful discussions of this generation of Peripatetics, see Gottschalk 1987,1155-1161, and Sharples 1990, 86-87.


34/48

33

of Plato (especially where Aristotle himself cites Plato) may also be present, but all

this is dwarfed by the insistent and explicit homage paid to Aristotle.64

Indeed, Aristotle is mentioned by name hundreds of times in Alexanders

corpus, and the degree of intertextuality with Aristotelian writings even in the

Alexanders original works is astonishing and pervasive. Sharples provides an

extensive list of citations to show examples of Alexander ignoring previous

Peripatetics to provide more Aristotelian solutions, especially regarding fatethis

leapfrogging is something Zhu purports to do as well.65 Alexander particularly likes

to cite Aristotle in the opening and closing passages of his works, as for example in

the De animapreface: Just as on other matters, we take the teachings of Aristotle to

be foremost, considering his doctrines to be more truthful than those handed down

by others.66 Also worth noting are admiring interjections, such as that ofIn Metaph.

(CAG I) 564.17ff, where Alexander is particularly impressed by Aristotles

presentation of a pointo{ra dh; to; didaskaliko;n kai; daimovnion tou'de tou'

ajndrov".

Minimizing overt reference to other Peripateticshowever much their

influence may be present, consciously and unconsciously on the part of Alexander

may have had the aim of intensifying this sense of a dialogue outside the ages.

Although Alexander nowhere explicitly lays out a guiding hermeneutic practice, we

can infer that the impulse towards discovering a mens auctoriswas of no small

64 The evidence for Alexanders use of philosophers other than Aristotle is inSharples 1990, 89-95.65 Sharples 1987, 1180 n27.66 Alexander, De anima2.4-6


35/48

34

importance. While seeking out Aristotles intentions may be justified by claims that

Aristotle had the most sensible opinions on a given topic (as above), one cannot help

but feel that Alexander is constructing a very deliberate relationship to Aristotle and

the canon of his works. One can perhaps attribute traces of this romantic

hermeneutic in Alexander to his position as Peripatetic diavdoco" or to the late

antique expectation (not found much before Alexander) that a commentator must

know the works of their revered master in their entirety67, without displaying undue

bias.68 Perhaps the most appropriate figure to compare with Alexander, in terms of

commentarial style and approach, is his near-contemporary Galenas Mansfeld

points outwho was more self-conscious about his hermeneutic (he even wrote a

lost On Exegesis). While it is well recognized that Galen made Hippocrates (his source

author) into a sort of proto-Galen69, it is less well understood how Alexander made

Aristotle into a sort of proto-Alexander. The nature of the Hippocratic canon (looser

in its genesis than the Peripatetic, closer in this sense to the Confucian) would also be

worth taking into account in such a comparison.

Zhu Xi channeled his anxiety about constructing a relationship with a

Confucius long dead into both a genealogical theory of transmission and also what

many have heralded as the first general hermeneutic in the history of Chinese

67 Mansfeld 1994, 164 lists some quotes from commentators related to thisexpectation.68 The last was a criticism levelled at Iamblichus, for his excessive partisanship ofPlato, presumably at the expense of philosophical truth. Blumenthal 1996, 54-55.69 Mansfeld 1994, 152.


36/48

35

philosophy. The term daotong (transmission of the Way) appears to have been

coined by Zhu in 1181; it mapped out a tradition of doctrine passed directly from one

sage to the next over generations.70 What Zhus daotongtheory asserted was not

continuous transmission, however, but a serious gap in Confucian tradition from the

time of Mencius to the 11th century emergence of the Song commentators (especially

the Cheng brothers). In this regard, too, Zhus position built on that of the Chengs

and Zhang Zai, whose indifference [to past commentators] spoke more eloquently

of the disrepute into which the tradition had fallen than would the most vociferous

criticism.71

The sentiment that little exegesis of note, and even some grave mistakes, had

taken place during this 1300-year hiatus found expression in many of Zhus works. In

Zhuzi Yulei1:181, Zhu asserts that since the end of the Qin dynasty (221 BC),

interpreters have notpersonallycomprehended the meaning of the sages (Confucius

and others). The task of Zhu Xi, as he asserts in his Zhongyongcommentary, is to clear

away the mistakes of the intermediary exegetes, or ignore them altogether, and renew

the tradition as it existed in the time of Confucius, Zengzi, and Mencius. It is with the

emergence ofdaotongtheory that we can understand the claim of Thomas Wilson:

The most elemental problem in the hermeneutic project of all post-classical

Confucians was overcoming the gaping hiatus separating the ancient sages from their

70 Imagining some sort of genealogical transmission appears to be a common featureof deuteronomic traditions. Post-Quranic preocuppation with isnadis one of thebest-known examples.71 Van Zoeren 1991, 195.


37/48

36

own day.72 Given the central place of oral teaching in the work of Confucius, it may

not be surprising to see some signs of this anxiety as early as the famous Mencian

distinction betweenjian er zhi zhi (knowing the sage personally) and wen er

zhi zhi (hearing about the sage later).73

This explicit dismissal of the intermediary tradition should not blind us to Zhu

Xis considerable debts to a range of thinkers who fall outside the daotonglineage,

however much he may want us to forget them. Especially when glossing, Zhu clearly

draws on major figures of the Han and Tang. One study by the scholar Otsuki

Nobuyoshi finds 113 commentaries or glosses by Zhu based on Xing Bings Lunyu

Zhushu, 452 commentaries based in some way on Hes Collected

Explanations, and many more relying on Huang Kan, Kong Anguo, and

others.74 As we would expect, references to Confucius are everywhere. Alexander's

enthusiasm is matched by Zhu's tendency to interject terms of admiration for

Confucius' achievement that have no relation to what is at issue philosophically.

Authorities from before Confucius are dimly recognized, but their wisdom is seen as

culminating in his school, just as all references to later figures ineluctably lead back to

the Confucian texta tendency we notice in Alexander with regard to Aristotle as

well.

Daotongtheory expressed Zhus self-image and the way he positioned his own

interpretations vis--vis past ones. In the Du shu fa, Zhu encourages students to read

72 Wilson 2000, 108.73 See Mencius 7B.38.74 In Makeham 2003, 189.


38/48

37

less and recite until ingrained, turn it over [in your mind] and apply it, do not imagine

things or calculate the gain [to be realized by study].75 Reading (for Zhu too, we

imagine) is described variously as like a fight with staves (10.24) or like the pursuit of

bandits (10.27), with the reader seen as a general (10.25) fighting his way back to

understand the intentions of the sage. The ultimate goal is to enter into direct

conversation with Confucius, to overcome the distance of years by deep

internalization of the text. At Zhuzi Yulei2:432, theAnalectsare described as a place

to encounter Confucius.

Earlier Song commentators are treated by Zhu at times as meriting our respect

almost as much as the ancients. Zhu even corrals some of them into a sort of chorus

in hisJinsilu (Reflections on Things at Hand), an anthology of quotes from

the Cheng brothers, Zhang Zai, and others. Zhus achievement must be viewed in

close connection with theirs, as part of a broadly diffused interventionist movement.

As Peter Bol has suggested, we might add the unexpected name of Wang Anshi

as well. Although Zhu staunchly opposed Wangs outer reforms and the use of

certain Classics to justify them, supporters of the inner reforms (the Cheng

brothers, Zhu etc.) may have taken on the spirit of Wangs interventions just as they

half-consciously absorbed the metaphysics of Buddhism.

75Zhuzi Yulei10:35. Cherniack 1994, 50-51 sees these prescriptions as an attempt toresist some effects of print culture and advocate a nostalgic return to pre-printreading practices. This is an intriguing suggestion, further evidence of an interest inmens auctoris, and ironic given Zhus apparent ownership of a printing business.


39/48

38

Alexander's (unstated) hermeneutic appears to have shared much less in

common with the previous generation of Peripatetics, and so he seems to stand in

relative isolation. That Zhu was viewed as part of a corporate entity (Cheng-Zhu

orthodoxy) which many later thinkers aimed to attack or embrace, while Alexander

was taken more as an individual exegete (especially after the end of the official

Peripatetic school in Athens) had much to do also with the disparity in their later

reception (more extreme, positive or negative, in Zhu's case).76 A second factor in

this disparity may have been the generally looser nature of the Confucian canon,

which enabled Zhu Xi to offer bolder (to us, often unlikely) interpretations than

Alexander could.

Conclusion

This paper has been an attempt to set out a few textual interventions by two

of the most prominent commentators to emerge during the deuteronomic period of

two very different philosophical traditions (the Aristotelian and Confucian).

Alexander and Zhu Xi, at these their most interventionist moments, displayed a

similar willingness to forcefully update the traditions under their stewardship. This

willingness to supplement the canon, and significantly interconnect some of its

doctrines, we have tried to explain as the result of an anxiety about the gulf of time

separating these commentators from the composition of the Classics. Such an anxiety

is perhaps fundamental to any hermeneutic enterprise, but its character necessarily

76 For this last point, I am grateful to Robert Wardy (conversation, 7/6/06).


40/48

39

varies with an authors ability to access the past and his or her self-image vis--vis the

received tradition, to name only two factors. Having established the presence of, and

a possible reason for, this interventionist hermeneutic, we now close by suggesting a

trajectory shared by the Aristotelian and Confucian deuteronomic traditions that may

be of use in looking at the lifespan of other Greek and Chinese philosophical schools,

and perhaps of other intellectual traditions as well.

The four examples treated above are far from typicalthe bulk of what

Alexander and Zhu Xi wrote did not supplement the canon with philosophically new

material or deeply interconnect its apparently disparate parts. In the main, they

treated the source texts as requiring explanation, but not dependent upon expansive

doctrinal input. The reason for analyzing these extreme cases is not to claim that

these two commentators were interventionists through and through, but that they

were, in a few instances at least, willing to undertake bold moves to strengthen their

traditions (as they saw it). Many contemporary commentators, and most who

preceded them, treated the canon with much more circumspection. As our brief

survey of earlier Peripatetics and Confucians shows, glossing, organization, and

paraphrasis had been, by and large, the chief activities of exegesis, although

philosophical discussions were not wholly absent in, say, Boethus or Huang Kan.

Much of the evidence may have disappeared with time.

Whatever the nature of their predecessors, the immediate successors of

Alexander and Zhu clearly carried on with something like an interventionist spirit. It

is difficult, for instance, to imagine the work of Wang Yangming without


41/48

40

Zhu, his philosophical nemesisin his introspective interpretation of the Daxue,

Wang called for a return to the Old Text used by Zheng Xuan. Not yet a choice

grounded in philology, this represented a strong, doctrinal intervention in itself. For

the late antique Mediterranean, it is the Neoplatonist commentators to whom we

should look. One could indicate major interventions between the 3rd and 6th centuries

AD, at leastone need only consider Philoponus attempts to bring Christian and

Neoplatonic thought together or the repeated attempts to reconcile Aristotle and

Plato where they seemed to differ. To label entire periods in the history of the

Peripatetic and Confucian traditions interventionist might be premature, but

something had certainly changeda certain caution had fallen away and given rise to

ambitious systematizing and harmonizing schemes.

The decline of such ambitions, and the return of philology (this time more

historically grounded, with textual criticism at the forefront), is too large a story to

treat seriously here. However blistering the attacks of a Wang Yangming, the kaozheng

scholars of the early Qing inflicted much deeper wounds on Zhu Xis

reputation. Yan Yuan (1635-1704) went so far as to blame the collapse of the

Ming on Zhu Xi and his school, pointing the finger at the Cheng-Zhu engagement

with Buddhism and its self-cultivation doctrine, as well as the casualness of Zhu and

others in inserting their own opinions into the canon. Elman (1984) is a study of this

transition from the philosophical reconstructions (interventionist in spirit) of the late

Ming to the dating tests (using mathematical astronomy) and rigorous philology of

the late 17th and 18th centuries.


42/48

41

Superficial as this treatment has been, this outline leads us to suggest a

tentative segmentation of the deuteronomic longue dure, something which at least

might prove a spur to further research. We would expect these segments to flow

chronologically after one another, but we should stress that our aim is less to set up a

temporal scheme than an epistemological one capable of fleshing out the rise and

fall of traditions. First, we should expect some phase ofcanon formationduring which

canonical works are assembled (whether this involves their composition, their

ordering, entitling etc.); then aphilologicalphase during which the chief goal is

transmission, paraphrasis, glossing etc. of the texts; third, an interventionistphase, as

exemplified above; and finally, what we might term a historicistphase during which the

tendency emerges to write commentary with an eye to chronology, textual criticism,

and more rigorous philological methods.

Such a scheme raises as many questions as it might answer. I have discussed

the interventionist phase as operating at the unit of a given textual tradition

surrounding a secular canon. Aside from the question of whether such units even

exist as proper objects of study, one might wonder at how closely related textual

traditions fit into the picture. For instance, a commentator such as Wang Bi,

who focused his attention on the Daoist canon but was an avowed Confucian, may

well be shown to be a strong interventionist at times. Yet he was a contemporary

(perhaps frienda and even collaborator, it seems) of He Yan, whom we have held up

as a model of the philological commentator. On the one hand, such synchronicity is

of course a possibility, just as Zhu Xi can be an interventionist at some points, and


43/48

42

philological at others; on the other, Wang Bi could have been a brilliant commentator

without therefore being interventionist. It is also quite possible, likely even, that a few

individuals of particular talent will operate regardless of any scheme labelling their

work historicist or interventionist or anything elseand are best seen as sui generis. To

label a phase interventionist is to draw attention to cases that are almost always

exceptional (most workaday exegesis is always more banal) but loom large in

intellectual history.

Many hypothetical research plans might emerge from our segmentation of the

deuteronomic period. Ideally, one should find matches for each phase similar to the

one we have drawn between Alexander and Zhu Xi. Staying with the Peripatetic and

Confucian traditions, we might ask, for instance, why the formation of the two

canons occurred so differently, and how this relates to their later reception (including

in particular the relative openness of the Confucian canon). In one case, we have a

single, historical writer (Aristotle) to whom a body of work can be safely attributed; in

the other, we have a shadowy figure (Confucius) to whom much could be (and was)

attributed but rarely with any assurance. The former canon, much as it benefited from

Andronicus and others, might have been recognizable in some respects at the death

of Aristotle; as for the latter, we have little to go on. Given such differences, it is

surprising that these textual traditions came to operate as similarly as they did for later

thinkers. The nature of a canons genesis, we might hypothesize at the outset of such

a study, may determine some crucial bounds for later interpreters (e.g. much wider in

the Confucian case), but the temptation to distill a canon down to a single inspired


44/48

43

mind, or a few minds at most, is strong. For a time at least, many interpretive

problems are thereby rolled into one: the problem ofmens auctoris.

Another hypothetical research plan could look into what I have labelled the

historicist phase of the deuteronomic longue dure. Leaving the question of possible

Western influence on the kaozhengscholars to the side, it is worth enquiring why the

interventionist, and sometimes remarkably unconstrained, interpretations of the late

Middle Ages and Renaissance (attempting to harmonize pagan classics and

Christianity, largely) gave way to a rebirth of philology and historical and textual

criticism, just as the supposed excesses of the Song and Ming gave way to the

rigorous methods of the kaozhengcommentators. Perhaps the anxiety behind the

interventionist phase should be located in the collision of newly ascendant faiths or

ideologies (Christianity, Buddism etc.) with a desire to preserve the older canon?

In the historicist phase, one might fruitfully compare how Qing scholars such

as Yan Ruoju and Cui Shu used historical criticism on classic works

(the Shujing, or Classic of History, for instance) with how major figures in the

West such as Scaliger and Causabon (the latter most famously on the Corpus

Hermeticum) used tests of chronology and style to debunk long-held assumptions

about revered texts.

There remains a danger in all this of constructing a house of cards from our

characterizationsdeuteronomic, interventionist etc. Yet if we feel at least some

confidence that such terms help us to specify large sweeps of intellectual history, we

can begin to read deuteronomic thinkers in their proper context. We can appreciate


45/48

44

that the deuteronomic longue durewas not a period of more or less uniform second-

order work occasionally illuminated by the appearance of a star commentator. The

larger cultural enterprise of creating commentaries based on canonical worksone of

the chief intellectual achievements of the medieval period across Eurasiamight

appear to us more and more like He Yans Collected Explanationswrit large, a gigantic

collective effort, or conversation, to which the canon-makers, the philologists, the

interventionists, and the historicists all contributed. The vast traditions thus

constituted may appear to us now to share a certain logic over timeforming and

solidifying and renewing and archaizing, and perhaps finally dissolving back into the

cultural space they helped to define.


46/48

45

WORKS CITED

Blumenthal, H.J. (1996).Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity: Interpretations oftheDe Anima. London: Duckworth.

-----. (1987). Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Later Greek Commentaries onAristotles De anima in J. Wiesner (ed.),Aristoteles: Werk und Wirkung, Paul Morauxgewidmet, vol. 2, Berlin-New York, 90-106.

Bol, Peter K. (1989). Chu Hsis Redefinition of Literati Learning inNeo-ConfucianEducation: The Formative Stage, Wm. Theodore de Bary and John W. Chaffee (eds).Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chan, Wing-tsit. (1986). Chu Hsi and Neo-Confucianism. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress.

Chaniotes, Angelos. (2004). New Inscriptions From Aphrodisias (1995-2001) inAmerican Journal of ArchaeologyVol. 108, 377-416.

Cherniack, Susan. (1994). Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China,in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies54:1, 5-126.

Durrant, Stephen and Steven Shankman (2000). The Siren and the Sage: Knowledge andWisdom in Greece and China. New York: London: Cassell.

Elman, Benjamin. (1997). The Formation of Dao Learning as Imperial Ideology

During the Early Ming Dynasty, in Theodore Huters, R. Bin Wong, and Pauline Yu(eds.) Culture & State in Chinese History: Conventions, Accommodations and Critiques.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

-----. (1984). From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in LateImperial China. Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University.

Fazzo, Silvia (2004). Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition, in Peter Adamson,Han Baltussen, and M.W.F. Stone (eds.) Philosophy, Science, and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic,and Latin Commentaries. Vol. I. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1-19.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1975). Truth and Method(trans. G. Barden and J. Cumming).London: Sheed and Ward.

Gardner, Daniel. (2003.) Zhu Xis Reading of the Analects. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.


47/48

46

-----. (ed. trans.) (1990.) Chu Hsi: Learning to Be a Sage. Selections from theConversationsof Master Chu, Arranged Topically. Berkeley: University of California Press.

-----. (1986.) Chu Hsi and theTa-hsueh. Cambridge, MA: Council on East AsianStudies, Harvard University.

Gibson, Roy, and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus. (eds.) (2002.) The ClassicalCommentary: Histories, Practices, Theory. Leiden: Brill.

Henderson, John. (1991.) Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucianand Western Exegesis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lloyd, G.E.R.(1996).Adversaries and Authorities: Investigations into Ancient Greek andChinese Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Makeham, John. (2003). Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators andCommentaries on theAnalects. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London: HarvardUniversity Asia Center.

Mansfeld, Jaap. (1994.) Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, ora Text. Leiden: Brill.

Most, Glenn. (ed.) (1999.) Commentaries-Kommentare. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.

Netz, Reviel. (2004). The Transformation of Mathematics in the Early Mediterranean World:

From Problems to Equations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

-----. (1998). Deuteronomic Texts: Late Antiquity and the History ofMathematics, Revue dHistoire des Mathmatiques4: 261-288.

Nussbaum, Martha and Amlie Oksenberg Rorty (eds.) (1992.) Essays on AristotlesdeAnima. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nylan, Michael. (2001). The Five ConfucianClassics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Oliver, James. (1977). The Diadocheat Athens Under the Humanistic Emperors, inAmerican Journal of Philology, Vol. 98: 160-178.

Reding, Jean-Paul. (2005). Lorigine de la philosophie en Grce et en Chine, inLacrosse (ed.). Philosophie Compare: Grce, Inde, Chine. Paris: Vrin, 21-42.

Rusk, Bruce. (forthcoming 2006). Not Written in Stone: Ming Readers of the GreaterLearningand the Impact of Forgery in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies.


48/48

47

Sharples, R.W. (1990). The school of Alexander? in Sorabji 1990.

-----. (1987). Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and Innovation in W. Hasse(ed.),ANRWII 36.2, 1176-243.

-----. (1983). (ed. trans.)Alexander of Aphrodisias on Fate. London: Duckworth.

Sluiter, Ineke. (1999). Commentary and the Didactic Tradition in Most 1999, 173-205.

Sorabji, Richard. (ed.) (1990).Aristotle Transformed: the ancient commentators and theirinfluence. London: Duckworth.

Tu, Ching-i. (ed.) (2000). Classics and Interpretations: The Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese

Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Van Norden, Bryan (ed.) (2002). Confucius and theAnalects:New Essays, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

-----. (2002) Unweaving the One Thread ofAnalects4.15 in Van Norden 2002,216-236.

Van Zoeren, Steven. (1991). Poetry and Personality: Reading, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics inTraditional China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wilson, Thomas (2000). Messenger of the Ancient Sages: Song-Ming ConfucianHermeneutics of the Canonical and the Heretical in Tu 2000, 107-128.

Zhu Xi. Zhuzi Yulei. Ed. Li Ching-te. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1986.

Zhu Xi. Sishu Jizhu. Taibei Xian Ban-qiao zhen : Yi wen yin shu guan, Min guo 55(1966).

Perlin Thesis

Documents

Transcript of Perlin Thesis