Text of Confucianism Part 02

SR No.: 007676
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: James Legge
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1882
Total Pages: 2405
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 43 MB

Page 57

30
THE YÎ KING.
CH. III.
dowager of La fourteen years before Confucius was born. To account for this is a difficult task for the orthodox critics among the Chinese literati. KO Hsî attempts to perform it in this way:—that anciently there was the explanation given in these paragraphs of the four adjectives employed by king Wăn to give the significance of the first hexagram ; that it was employed by Ma Kiang of La; and that Confucius also availed himself of it, while the chronicler used, as he does below, the phraseology of The Master said,' to distinguish the real words of the sage from such ancient sayings. But who was the chronicler?' No one can tell. The legitimate conclusion from Ku's criticism is, that so much of the Appendix as is preceded by 'The Master said' is from Confucius,—so much and no more. , I am thus obliged to come to the conclusion that Confucius had nothing to do with the composition of these two Appendixes, and that they were not put together till after his death. I have no pleasure in differing from the all but unanimous opinion of Chinese critics and commentators. What is called the destructive criticism'has no attractions for me; but when an opinion depends on the argument adduced to support it, and that argument turns out to be of no weight, you can no longer set your seal to this, that the opinion is true. This is the position in which an examination of the internal evidence as to the authorship of the third and fourth Appendixes has placed me. Confucius could not be their author. This conclusion weakens the
confidence which we have been accustomed Bearing of the conclusion to place in the view that the ten wings' were as to the third to be ascribed to him unhesitatingly. and fourth on
The the other view has broken down in the case of three Appendixes.
endise of them ;- possibly there is no sound reason for holding the Confucian origin of the other seven.
I cannot henceforth maintain that origin save with bated breath. This, however, can be said for the first two Appendixes in my arrangement, that there is no evidence against their being Confucian like the fatal formula, 'The Master said.' So it is with a good part of my fifth Appendix; but the concluding paragraphs of it, as well as the seventh
Digitized by Google