- Title : Why Did Sima Qian "Put Down the Book"?: A Narrative Analysis of the "Arrayed Traditions of Master Meng and Excellency Xun" Chapter of the Records of the Scribe
- Author : KIM Byungjoon
- Journal : 동아문화
- Publication Date : December, 2021
- Abstract
Because we grow accustomed to longstanding hermeneutical, we sometimes fail to comprehend, and therefore misread, the overall gist of a text. The “Mengzi Xun Qing Lie Zhuan” 孟子荀卿列傳 (“ArrayedTraditions of Master Meng and Excellency Xun”) chapter of the Shi ji史記 (“Records of the Scribe”) is an example of such a misread text. The conviction that the beliefs and actions of the sages of the Ruist 儒家 lineage-in which a line was traced from Master Kong 孔子 (trad. 551-479 B.C.E.) to Master Meng 孟子 (c.371-c. 289 B.C.E.) and then to Master Xun 孟子(c. 300-c. 230 B.C.E.)-were faultless and beyond critique has been long held not only by traditionalist pre-modern and early modern scholars: among contemporary scholars, too, there are those who steadfastly champion the notion (so common in early Chinese Ruist discourse) that intellectuals must preserve a kind of noble ideal in which one refuses to toady to corrupt worldly interests or to pander to foolish wielders of power and authority. Western Han(202 B.C.E.-9 C.E.) historian Sima Qian 司馬遷 (145-c. 86 B.C.E.), who agonized over the nature of the “way of heaven” (tian dao 天道), is thought of as no exception, and is remembered as a scholar who embraced this ideal. As a result, the contents of “Mengzi Xun Qing Lie Zhuan” are naturally (and misleadingly) thought of as endorsing an attitude of eremitic retreat. Moreover, because the preamble to the chapter, which begins with the clause “the Grand Scribe, His Lordship, states” (Tai Shi Gong yue 太史公曰), expresses agreement with Master Meng’s admonitions against pursuing personal or collective “interest”(li 利), readers of the chapter are led even farther away from its central message. This paper argues that Sima Qian used the expression “put down the book” (fei shu 廢書) as an intentional conceit that served the need to transition between the contents of the preamble and those of the main section of the chapter. It follows that in the main section, Sima Qian (in contrast to the position of the preamble) brings up critical problems concerning Master Kong and Master Meng, and presents his own thinking regarding these revered figures of the Ruist tradition. It is only when the main section is understood as existing in tension with the contents of the preamble that the segmented accounts of various historical figures in the main section can be understood consistently. However, because the main section of this chapter of the Shi ji largely omits explanations of the underlying logic tying together the accounts it contains, Sima Qian’s overall intention in writing the chapter is not overtly expressed. Therefore, the author of this article reconstructs Sima Qian’s voice based on the author’s own reasoned conclusions, attempting a translation of the entire main section of the chapter.
|
