Hitoshi Takahashi 高橋均

Tokyo: Sobunsha 創文社 2013

Reviewed by Yang Yang (PhD candidate, Kyoto University)

Most of the annotations to the Analects of Confucius 論語 made by scholars from the Han Dynasty and the Wei and Jin periods have lost their original form, with the exception of a few chapters by Zhen Xuan郑玄(127-200) excavated from Dunhuang and Turfan. Some annotations made by Han Dynasty scholars were included in the Lunyu Jijie 論語集解, compiled by He Yan何晏(?-249) in the Wei period, and thus are still extant. After He Yan, compilations generally included annotations made by scholars of the Jin Period and compiled by Jiang Xi江熙(?), which now have disappeared. The Assistant of the Imperial Academy of Liang, Huang Kan皇侃(488-545), made annotations to the text of the Analects of Confucius and the work of He Yan, as well as passages from Jiang Xi and other scholars in his work Lunyu Yishu論語義疏. The Lunyu Yishu had disappeared in China after the Southern Song Dynasty until a Japanese edition emendated by Sonshi Nemoto 根本遜志(1699-1764) in 1750 was taken from Japan around 1770. The Lunyu Yishu is valued today not only because it preserves many old annotations which have been lost in full form, but also because it is the only extant “Yishu” 義疏of the Confucian classics, which is a style of annotation deeply influenced by Buddhism and prevalent in the Six Dynasties.

Nemoto Sonshi’s edition was valued by scholars of Qian-Jia乾嘉, and was included in the Siku Quanshu 四庫全書 and Zhibuzuzhai Congshu 知不足齋叢書. However, some scholars from the Qing dynasty doubted the reliability of the edition brought from Japan, as discrepancies were found with the text of the Lunyu Yishu quoted in ancient Chinese literature. Actually, Nemoto Sonshi made his emendation work based on the manuscripts which were preserved in Ashikaga School足利學校, while he made changes both to the form and to the content of the manuscripts, which is part of the reason why the reliability of his edition was doubted. However, even the manuscripts without emendation could not be regarded as retaining the original form. All of the manuscripts of the Lunyu Yishu preserved in Japan were written down after the 15th century, and were infiltrated by other texts e.g. the Lunyu Zhushu 論語注疏by Xingbing邢昺(932-1010). Yoshio Takeuchi 武内義雄discussed the complicated situation of how the manuscripts of Lunyu Yishu were written down in the 15th-17th centuries in Japan.[1] His emendated edition, which largely rectified the mistakes of Nemoto Sonshi, was regarded as classic.

A Study of the Lunyu Yishu by Hitoshi Takahashi 高橋均 systematically examined the textual problems in and around the Lunyu Yishu, and arguably is the most important research after Yoshio Takeuchi. Hitoshi Takahashi started his research on the Lunyu Yishu in the 1980s. Most of the chapters in this book were published in the 1980s-2000s and revised when they were collected together. The table of contents of A Study of the Lunyu Yishu follows:

Introduction  Why study the Lunyu Yishu論語義疏, and how the book is structured

Chapter One  The Muromachi text of the Lunyu Yishu旧抄本論語義疏

Ⅰ When the Lunyu Yishu was introduced into Japan and the historical background of the introduction

Ⅱ A Historical perspective on the production of the Muromachi text

Ⅲ The Rongo Soryaku論語総略and the Lunyu Yishu

Chapter Two  The Dunhuang text of the Lunyu Shu敦煌本論語疏

Ⅰ A Textual analysis of the Dunhuang text of the Lunyu Shu

Ⅱ A Chapter outline通釋of the Dunhuang text

Ⅲ Interrogative phrases提示句found in the Dunhuang text

Ⅳ Deciphering and analyzing the secondary annotations 疏in the Dunhuang text

Chapter Three 　The Muromachi text and the Dunhuang text

Chapter Four　 The Jingdian Shiwen Lunyu Yinyi 經典釋文論語音義and The Lunyu Yishu

Related Discussions

The remarkable findings of A Study of Lunyu Yishu include:

1. Comparing the Muromachi Text (a text of manuscripts written down in the 15th-17th centuries) with texts quoted in ancient Japanese literature such as the Himitsu Mandara Juju Shinron秘密曼荼羅十住心論 and the Ryo no Shuge 令集解 to reach the conclusion that although variants exist, the Muromachi text and the texts quoted in ancient Japanese literature are in the same stemma, which means that the Muromachi text retains the text first brought to Japan in the 9th century.
2. Reexamining the relationship between the Rongo Soryaku（論語総略）and the Lunyu Yishu. The Rongo Soryaku is a manuscript considered to have been compiled and written down in Japan in the early 14th century. It contains passages from the Lunyu Yishu as well as passages from other annotated works. Takeuchi considered the text of the Lunyu Yishu quoted in the Rongo Soryaku to be from the text common in the 14th century, and thus saw value in emendating the Muromachi text which was prevalent after the 15th century. On the other hand, Takahashi argues that discrepancies between the Muromachi text and the text quoted in the Rongo Soryaku arose mainly from changes made by the compiler of the Rongo Soryaku.
3. Examining the relationship between the Muromachi text and the text of a manuscript entitled the Lunyu Shu 論語疏, which was found in Tunhuang, made clear that the paragraphs of the chapter outline通釋which were seen in the Lunyu Shu and were thought to be deleted in the Muromachi text actually exist in the latter but in scattered form. Furthermore, Takahashi argues that the successive paragraphs of the chapter outline preceding every chapters of the Lunyu Shu exist in a scattered way in the Muromachi text, suggesting that the text of the Lunyu Shu was closer to the original form of the Lunyu Yishu than to the Muromachi text.

However, the second and third points listed above are not beyond doubt. Although the changes made by the compiler of the Rongo Soryaku論語総略could be observed in some parts, the large number and features of the variants make it hard to argue that all variants arose from recompilation. Related to the third point, in contrast to Takahashi’s argument, Li Fang李方 considers the Lunyu Shu to be an outline to expound the classics講經提綱. She concludes that the Lunyu Shu was very different from the original form of Lunyu Yishu, while the Muromachi text was quite similar[2]. As Li Fang has pointed out, mistakes in the way of separating chapters, and words such as 仰 used to indicate the function of expounding the classics, support the possibility that the Lunyu Shu is departs substantially from the original form of the Lunyu Yishu. On the other hand, although Yoshio Takeuchi has pointed out that the arrangement of Jing, Zhu and Shu 經注疏in the Muromachi text was altered by scribes[3], the question of the extent of the similarity of the Muromachi text and the original form of the Lunyu Yishu remains unclear.