i Body,RitualandIdentity © KoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,2016 | doi10.1163/9789004318731_001 ii  Sinica Leidensia Edited by BarendJ.terHaar MaghielvanCrevel In co-operation with P.K.Bol,D.R.Knechtges,E.S.Rawski, W.L.Idema,H.T.Zurndorfer VOLUME132 Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedat brill.com/sinl  iii Body, Ritual and Identity A New Interpretation of the Early Qing Confucian Yan Yuan (1635–1704) By Jui-sungYang LEIDEN|BOSTON iv  Coverillustration:ThePortraitofYanYuan.ReproducedfromYeYanlan葉衍蘭&YeGongchuo葉恭綽 eds.,Qingdai xuezhe xiangzhuan清代學者像傳(The Illustrated Biographies of the Qing Scholars), Shanghai:Shanghaishudienchubashe,2001.Vol.2,394. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Names:Yang,Jui-sung,1963- Title:Body,ritualandidentity:anewinterpretationoftheearlyQing ConfucianYanYuan(1635-1704)/byJui-sungYang. Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,2016.|Series:SinicaLeidensia,ISSN 0169-9563;volume132|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. Identifiers:LCCN2016008445(print)|LCCN2016013213(ebook)|ISBN 9789004315457(hardback:acid-freepaper)|ISBN9789004318731(e-book)| Subjects:LCSH:Yan,Yuan,1635-1704.|Yan,Yuan,1635-1704--Politicaland socialviews.|Yan,Yuan,1635-1704--Criticismandinterpretation.| Philosophers--China--Biography.|Confucianists--China--Biography| Radicals--China--Biography|Zhu,Xi,1130-1200--Adversaries.|Elite (Socialsciences)--China--History.|Civil service--China--Examinations--History.|China--History--Qingdynasty, 1644-1912. Classification:LCCB5234.Y464Y3652016(print)|LCCB5234.Y464(ebook)| DDC181/.112--dc23 LCrecordavailableathttp://lccn.loc.gov/2016008445 WantorneedOpenAccess?BrillOpenoffersyouthechoicetomakeyourresearchfreelyaccessible onlineinexchangeforapublicationcharge.Reviewyourvariousoptionsonbrill.com/brill-open. TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill-typeface. issn0169-9563 isbn978-90-04-31545-7(hardback) isbn978-90-04-31873-1(e-book) Copyright2016byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands. KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopiand HoteiPublishing. Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem, or transmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher. AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive, Suite 910,Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange. Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner. ContentCsontents v Contents Foreword vii Benjamin A. Elman Acknowledgements xii xiv 1 Introduction: Why Yan Yuan? 1 1 TheProblem 1 2 AppraisaloftheConventionalWisdomofYanYuan 3 3 YanYuaninContexts:DoubleMarginalStatus 8 A The “Cultural Gap” Between Northern and Southern China 8 B The Early Qing Intellectual Center in North China: The Sun Qifeng School 15 4 ResearchAgenda 22 2 The Formation of a Radical Anti-Zhu Xi Confucian 28 1 TheProblem 28 2 Crises 31 A The Beginning 32 B The Young Man Zhu Bangliang 38 C Conversion: Embodying the Confucian Way 44 D The Crisis 52 E The Interpretations 55 F Turning Against “Zhu” 57 G Epilogue 59 3 Conclusion 60 3 Discontent with “Culture”: Yan Yuan’s Reconfiguration of Confucian Learning 63 1 Introduction 63 2 MasculineProtest:BodilyLearningVersusLiteraryLearning 63 A Confucian Warriors? 66 B Embodying the Way: Ritualization and Body Discipline 69 C Quiet-sitting & Book-reading 72 D Yan Yuan’s “True” Confucian Learning 76 3 Againstthe“Culture”ofPoetry,Prose,Calligraphy,Painting:TheFour VerminintheWorld 82 4 Conclusion 92 vi Contents 4 Yan-Li School Reconsidered: Li Gong as “Disciple” 95 1 Introduction 95 2 InSearchofConfirmation 98 3 ADiscipleofMaoQiling 106 4 Conclusion:The“Yan-LiSchool”inPerspective 114 5 From Oblivion to Glory: The Revival of Yan Yuan in Modern China 117 1 Introduction 117 2 TheBeginning 118 3 FromaConfucianReformertoaGreatChineseThinker 121 4 LastConfucian?ChineseDewey! 138 5 Conclusion 147 6 Conclusion: Body, Ritual and Identity 150 1 ConfucianRitualismandWenrenCultureReconsidered 151 2 TheIdealofManhoodandHealthyCulture 156 3 IdentityCrisisandIntellectualTransformation 161 Bibliography 165 Index 178 185 4141313AC1C34BBIICPPCIACDG3D2BD3Y12F234512CCC2BT2ABEFCCCCnnnarrrhiiHoHHooHHHo ibboddteensennnnrAAAAAAcffmllee-oiiaatttcoFLxxooPPPPPPeeedccloniuOggnnnTTTTTTeeurStrrstttEEEEEEbmceaacissstoRRRRRRnlpphiianvothho123456ti:nwiyyoooB:lninoWtRhdtoeohy“cf,yCGoaRuYnlRioalsttarnuiudydarY:eileTcur”aeaha:ndlYnedA:a?RLnnIeidtYvGeiu-inZovatanhniltug’ysoaXfRsiYe“CacDnoo11111vvvv1TAYTRTCCTTTEC6IMQYAC9IIAC1ITFLC1CTIT2TTCE1in7766155nnnndnsY8iiaa35raupmhhhhhhhhhhe7rooooooopguii77c00f44oaeDtttfnnuissrSiaieeeeeeeeeennnnnnnuprrriisnsgmltbnepaeooioeieovccccffYYccrYP“EPBCIBIusntaConituualdddasCndellllguiuucion-errareersuuuuraadtrccoirsuuuueitoolacuaai”uitgyrsggcnpsssssiiiyeinsnCacccehtlbbannnaatlniihtiiiiiiyirlaCitnntltttooooof hlsnnnoe’lloMepgusuiAiiigieeoo rQnnnnnnnonoooenngnrraocimmWP“RMgffof::iie5nnngsafiTi“iftnnrCeoiTunEiCM5ndat9Clthartoas&Mnagghf2cnohgmuGeusoruentt aaditeCrnr?eeaeniIaaBlannWbinoatZ“nsl”toCoonCfp“ouZidhoet3nihtYsCnCra:rohoxr2ehQdoR”mssamuIyBfeohnktli ?uynouBenli:n”:no-v iBeliad”ftacReDrn-ionedeof ectLnae5intuiasfaingaotlirw6ant5igoedllucmnnuPtuey5d6StgneiiaDhdocaW7bacoilLeLelnitleenhlenraHneieuCeetgzwonaCaatnrLa eeaNMooylrrgleoerantn,nWlo eTiyaanla”Pt7oiitnr!rrenrnfi2hGrtinanungr3sohggCynriid8ciasennPeuVnsCioenraaeagfle,nmuodNtntr lrCuslrsSCaotBWmpraouutnr7ehoelafstr6laadidchtRieYnLytgutySaie iieCrostvoncaDsenheoupe4rYiinthsanT4uhcsryahaeyii,:pdniraTLnlenniehkrn61321191182699111123691dCea315106114ee21883385520e7748dr86r67h1P Sniauniin6nnag9 tQini8fge:nTghSec“hFoooulr Ve1r5min”intheWorld 8611252311 ForewoFrodreword vii Foreword Inthelateeighteenthcentury,theQingdynasty(1644–1911)classicalscholar ZhangXuecheng(1738–1801)announcedthatthe“SixClassicsareallHistories.” Fortwomillennia,theConfucianClassics,asopposedtothe“Medical”and “Mathematical”classics,werepubliclycalled“sacredClassics,”despitesome doubtsabouttheirindividualauthenticity,whichmanyConfucianscholars hadraisedsincetheearlyempire.Alongwiththe“FourBooks”(Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, Analects,andMencius),the“FiveClassics”(Change,Doc- uments,Poetry,Rituals,andAnnals)becametheliterarycoreofaclassical educationforeliteChinesemales. Moreover,thecivilserviceexaminationsrequiredmasteryoftheConfucian Canonastheeducationalprerequisiteforbecominganofficial.InZhang Xuecheng’stimes,however,theClassicsslowlybegantolosetheirdominant intellectualandculturalpositionas“sacred.”Insteadtherevivalofhistorical studies,bothculturalandinstitutional,graduallygainedscholarlymomentum intheeighteenthcentury.Althoughconceptuallystillalongdistancefrom laterMay4th“historicism,”Zhang’sfamousannouncementrepresentedanim- portanttransitionintheevolutionofChineseacademicscholarship.Inthe twentiethcentury,ChineseintellectualhistoryandConfucianphilosophyhave irrevocablyreplacedclassicalstudiesasthedominantresearchagendasfor modernChineseeducation.ThroughtheinfluenceofHuShi,QianMu,Tang Junyi,MouZongsan,Wing-tsitChan(ChenRongjie),LiuShuxian,LiZehou, andWei-mingTu(DuWeiming),Confucianphilosophyisnowthedominant concernamongChineseandWesternscholarsofChineseintellectualhistory. IfZhangXuechenglivedtoday,sometwohundredyearslater,hemightsay instead:“TheTwenty-fiveDynasticHistoriesareallliterature.”Manycriticsof historianshaveappealedtopost-modernliterarycriticismasthewaveofthe future.Theyquestionedtheprofessionalauthorityandpurportedtruthfulness ofintellectualhistory,sayingforexample:“Historiansandnovelistsareindis- tinguishable.”Or,“Factsareunknowableinthemselvesandallfactsaredeter- minedbythetheoriesthatmanufacturethem.Justasfactsaretheory-laden,so tooalltheoriesareculturally-laden.”Or,“Novelistsmakeupliestotellthe truth;historiansusethefactstotelllies.”Inotherwords,post-modernistshave dissolvedhistory,particularlyintellectualhistory,intoliterature,justastwo hundredyearsagoZhangXuechengandothersdissolvedtheClassicsintocul- turalandinstitutionalhistory.Modernhistoriansreplythattheirdisciplineis basedon“objective”texts,whichinessencearedifferentfromthenovelsand viii Foreword storiesthatnovelistsandwritersinventoutoftheirimaginations.Post-modern critics,however,gainsaytheclaimthathistoricalstudiesareobjective.Instead, theyconflatenovelsandintellectualhistoryintothesameliterarystreamof consciousnessof“subjective”humancreations. Unfortunately,premodernChineseclassicalscholarssuchasYanYuan (1635–1704),forexample,haveserveduswellas“modern”cannonfodder. Loadeddownbyourowncontemporarypresuppositions,wehaveusedearlier Chinesescholarsasammunitionto“fireup”ourownunspoken,subjective agendas.WehavestillnotputbehindusthemisleadingimageofHuangZongxi asthe“RousseauofChina.”NorhaveweovercometheerroneousimageofYan YuanasaJohnDewey-styleAmericanpragmatist.InChina,andJapan,Wang Fuzhi(1619–1692)remainstrappedasthepioneerof“materialism”inearly- modernChinesethought.Thingsdonotgetmuchbetterinourmostrecent studies.Inthe1990stheclassicalDaoistZhuangZhouhasbecomeaDerridean deconstructionist.InPierreBourdieu’sHomo Academicus,LiZhi(1527–1602) appearsasaBourdieu-likeanti-academicacademic. EarlierConfucianssuchasYanYuanandWangFuzhireactedtothefallof theMingdynasty(1368–1644)andtheManchutriumphdifferentlyfromothers suchasGuYanwu(1613–82)orHuangZongxi(1610–95).Yettheyallexperi- encedanageofturmoilandchangetowhichtheyrespondedinvariousways. Thehistoricalcontextdidnotdeterminetheiractions,butitdoeshelpusun- derstandwhytheywrotewhattheydid.Increasingly,intellectualhistorians suchasJui-sungYanginTaiwan,aredissatisfiedwithaWestern-inspired“mod- ernizationnarrative”fortheirhistoricalresearch.EarlierstudiesofChinese thoughttendedeithertodismisspremodernChineseintellectualhistory,par- ticularlythehistoryofConfucianism,asadismalexerciseinrotelearningbe- forethecomingoftheWest.Recentstudiestendtoover-determinepositively thephilosophicalidealsofNeo-Confucianismastheculturalbasisofmodern Chinese“liberal”historicaldevelopment. Jui-sungYangnotesthatmoderninterpretationsofYanYuanasa“liberal” statecraftscholarareanexampleoftheintriguinglinkageofYanYuan’sseven- teenth-centurystatecraftideastohisso-called“liberal”socialvision.Inacuri- ousway,modernscholarshiponYanYuan,whichnowstresseslesseningthe importanceoftheWesternimpactinmodernChinesehistory,hasnowlinked upwiththeearlier“liberal”pictureofthe“unfoldingofNeo-Confucianism.”In thisinterestingweddingoftworesearchagendasnowtyingtheknotbetween theminmodernintellectualstudies,YanYuanthusappearsbothasa“liberal” Neo-Confucianandaprogressivestatecraftthinker.Translationsofportionsof YanYuan’seditedwritingspresenta“Whiggish”portraitofYan.Theahistorical portraitofYanYuanstillpresentshimasa“liberal,”statecraft-orientedNeo- Foreword ix Confucianwhorepresentstheearlymodern“mind”ofQingChina.Jui-sung Yang’spioneeringstudyofYanYuan,however,showsincreasingepistemologi- calvigilanceandgrowingmethodologicalsophistication,whichhasleftbe- hindthesocialsciencemethodologiesandthe“coldwar”politicalcontextof precedinggenerations.Jui-sungYangdemonstrateshowteleologymeasures thepastaccordingtotheyardstickofthepresent.Asthepresentchanges,that yardstickalsochanges.Inanearlier“present,”whenChinawasvisiblyeconom- icallybackwardandmilitarilyweakwhencomparedwithWesternEuropean nation-states,Confucianismwassingledoutandblamedforthatbackward- ness.NowthatChina’s“present”isfardifferentfromits“past,”soalsotheper- ceptionofConfucianssuchasYanYuanhaschangedfromviewingthemas traditionalliteratitoviewingthemasfacilitatorsofmodernity. Post-modernshavesuccessfullyexposedtheahistoricalbiasesinherentin thisoveremphasisonthe“present”(called“modernity”)asthemeasureforthe “past.”ModernizationremainsanimportantobjectofinquiryinChinesehis- toryafter1860,butithasoutliveditsusefulnessastheoverallframeworkfor evaluatingChinesecultureandsocietybeforetheTaipingRebellion.Although therehavebeenwelcomeWeberian-stylechangesintroducedbyYuYing-shih, thehistoryofYanYuan’sthoughthasremainlargelyseparatedfromitssocial, political,andeconomiccontext.Theresulthasbeenanarrativeaccountof Chineseintellectualhistorylongonphilosophybutshortonhistoricalorpo- liticalsetting. AfurtherexampleofJui-sungYang’sprowessasahistorianisthecurrent debateinAmericanChinesestudiesconcerningtheapplicationofHabermas’ notionsofa“publicsphere”and“civilsociety”tomodernChinesehistory.Pro- ponentsofaChinese“publicsphere”arguethatthegentry-managerialelitein urbancentersinthelate-Minghadfavoredanautonomouspoliticalandeco- nomicspherevis-à-visthestate.Opponentscontendthattheuseof“public sphere”inChinesehistoryuncriticallyappliesHabermas’bourgeois“civilsoci- ety”ineighteenth-centuryEuropeasthemeasuringstickforChinesegentry society,therebymissingtheuniquepoliticalandsocialcompromisesworked outbetweentheimperialstateanditselitessincetheSongdynasty. Forexample,anthropologistsandsociologistshaveseenpremodernChi- neselineageorganizationsasaparticularisticanddivisivefeatureofgentry societyorasanimpedimenttoa“civilsociety”capableofassumingmodern politicalform.ButJui-sungYangexplainshowimperialrulersandConfucians suchasYanYuansawinsteadtheconvergenceofkinshiptiesandpublicinter- ests,whichwereincorporatedthroughthelegalizedinstitutionalizationof charitableestatesandthattherebyfulfilledtheegalitarianidealofequitable distributionofwealthandresourcesthroughoutsociety.Wheregentrypoliti- x Foreword calassociationsbasedonnon-kinshiptiesduringtheSong,MingandQing dynastiesweredefinedbythestateas“private/selfish”andthereforewere bannedasillegitimate,socialorganizationsbasedondescentwerepromoted as“public,”theexactoppositeofmodernWesternnomenclature. ThereasonrulersandConfucianssuchasYanYuansupportedkinship groupsisnotdifficulttounderstand.TheConfucianpersuasion,conceptual- izedasasocial,historical,andpoliticalformofdailypracticeorganizedaround ancestorworship,encouragedkinshiptiesastheculturalbasisformoralbe- havior,whichwerethoughttoredoundtothestate.Consequentlywecannot assume,asadvocatesofthe“publicsphere”inChinaoftendo,thattherewas aninversecorrelationbetweenthepowerofthestateandthedevelopmentof kinshipgroups.Chineselineagesbefore1900didnotdevelopin“private”an- tagonismtothestatebutratherevolvedasaresultofthe“public”interaction betweenthestateanditselites. ForJui-sungYang,the“publicsphere”debaterequiresustoavoidsimple- mindedlinkagesbetweenConfucian/Neo-Confucianphilosophyandthede- velopment of a “civil society” in late imperial China. The tendency to concentrateonindividualssuchasYanYuaninChineseintellectualhistoryhas longobscuredtheimportantrolesplayedbyfamilyandlineageinChina’scul- turalhistory.YanYuanandotherChineseintellectualsbeforethetwentieth centurydidnotconstructavisionoftheirpoliticalandsociallifeex nihilo. Theirliveswereimbeddedinlargersocialstructurespremisedonthecentral- ityofkinshipties.Moreoftenthannot,culturalresourceswerefocusedonthe formationandmaintenanceoflineagesforfamilysuccessintheacademicand politicalworlds. AsJui-sungYangshowssowellinthisstudyofYanYuan’slifeandwritings, theMing-Qingtransitionwasstillsociallypremisedonfamiliesandlineages. YanYuan’seffortstorediscoverhisHanChinese“familyroots”inNorthChina duringtheManchuconquestisacompellingstoryofbothsocialcontinuity andculturalchange.YanYuan’sidentitycrisiswastriggeredbyhisexperience ofsufferingduringhisgrandmother’sfuneral,awomanwhomhelaterlearned washisfostergrandmotherfromtheZhufamily.Afterthatdiscovery,hecame tohaveanewunderstandingofthepressuresimposeduponhimbyhisau- thoritarianfostergrandfatherZhuShengxuan.Yang’saccountthushasclearly articulatedtheintensiveandenstrangedrelationshipbetweenYanYuan, whosenextofkinwerefromtheYanfamily,andZhuShengxuanfromtheZhu family.Itprecipitatedhisquestioningthevalueofancestorworshipforfoster parents,inthefaceofnotperformingfamilyritualsforone’sauthenticnext ofkin.