Talk:Confucius
From Academic Kids
|
His philosophy, which drew from Taoism...
Um, not that I'm an expert with Confucianism, but as far as I know, Confucian literature and Daoist literature are full of invectives against each other. Confucius even openly ridicules the Daoist concept of "wu wei" ("non-acting" - OK, OK, dubious translation). I was under the strong impression that Confucianism and Daoism were indeed the two opposite poles of Chinese philosophy - or am I wrong here?
(comment by Xiemaisi originally on talk:Confucianism)
No, this is correct, much Confucian thought is dependant on the precursory Tao Te Ching, and in fact puts great stress on wu wei. Confucius admittedly thought that governmental action would keep people's actions in check, but also held that government by example de and correct etiquette and manners li was more socially efficient. sjc
Just wanted to add my support. I've read the novel about Confucius, by Yang Shu'an, and even though Confucius actually meets Lao Tze (Lao Zi) and think him an original charactar with lots of depth, Taoism is not the fundament of Confucianistic philosophy. That is, however, the rules of propriety. Sigg3.net
- A clearer picture of the relationship between Confucius and Daoism (in my humble opinion) is this: there were a lot of ideas kicking around at the time the basic texts of these traditions were being formed (5th, 4th, 3rd centuries BCE). The Ruist school associated with Confucius drew on the ideas in current circulation and put a particular spin on them, while the author(s) of the Laozi (aka Dao de jing) and that school drew on the same store of ideas and put emphasis on different parts. These schools of thought (and the others that also existed at the time) seldom, if ever, defined themselves clearly in opposition to one another in this period. THe "wu wei" concept, and other concepts generally associated with Daoism, occupy more or less central positions in many texts traditionally classified as Confucian. There are certainly ideas developed extensively in Confucian texts, such as "li" "ritual", that are really absent from texts generally classified as Daoist; remember, however, that few texts from this period come marked as the product of one particular school or another, and the ones that are so marked may well be misattributed, so it is certainly possible that it was the presence of ideas like "li" that got these texts marked as Confucian in the first place. Later followers, scholars, historians emphasized particular elements of each school's ideas at the expense of other elements, creating clear and distinct oppositions between the traditions as they developed over time. Later people also chose, classified, and edited the texts that were to become what we know as the central texts of these traditions, that is, the texts that we're thinking of when we talk about what Confucianism and Daoism "are". So I guess there are two different things here: historical people who wrote stuff, and the traditions that grew around some of the stuff that was written. THe "opposite poles of Chinese philosophy" is mainly in the later traditions.
I know this is beginning to sound finicky, but how can you be sure that the Dao De Jing is precursory to Confucianism? AFAIK there are very different opinions about its date of origin. Some say it was actually written by Laozi in the 6th century BCE, others claim Laozi is a fiction and the Dao De Jing was written by some disciples of an unknown master in the 4th century BCE ... so isn't it a bit dubious to outrightly claim Confucius was influenced by it? I mean, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Confucianism and Daoism drew from common sources?
Besides, I still think that the differences between Confucianism and Daoism outweigh their similiarities. As I've said before I don't know that much about it, but what about their respective attitudes towards knowledge and learning? I think learning is quite important for Confucius (see first sentence of the Analects), whereas the Dao De Jing is very skeptical of it (see Dao De Jing, 81: "The extensively learned do not really know." - translation taken from http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/contao/laotzu.htm). Or is this just an unimportant facet?
-- Xiemaisi
No, you don't sound finicky, you're making a number of very valid and also vexed points. The whole area is very, very, grey, and is in fact seriously into the realm of archaeological conjecture. The Ma-Wang-Tui manuscripts of the Tao te Ching have been dated to around the first part of the 3rd century BCE, with much earlier silk manuscripts referring to the Tao, Confucius is thought to have lived around 551-479 BCE. Some people think that Confucius was contemporaneous with Lao-Tzu; others that the compilation of the Tao was a group act and which predates Confucius by a very long way. My reading of it is that the Analects have critical dependencies upon the Tao te Ching which the Tao does not upon the Analects, therefore the supposition has to be that the Tao is older than the Analects.
I think also you have to see the text of the Tao as being something other than prima-facie; it is, to my mind, a highly ironic text, and phrases such as "The extensively learned do not really know" more than adequately make this point... It's self-referential to the nth degree, whereas the Analects are altogether more earnest. They are very different texts in this respect, and substantially different in their underlying philosophies, but Confucianism, to my way of thinking, is a reaction against something which it is secretly hankering to be but can't quite attain. We'll have to disagree on this one, I suspect! sjc
On Confucius, the Chinese roots are typed in square brackets but link to non-Wikipedia pages. What's the correct format here?
Added some old lecture notes of mine to what was little more than a stub when i got to it (what were all these people debating about?) Could we ask a native Chinese speaker to pinyinise the names and terms? Thanks --- clasqm Later Oops sorry, didn't see the redirect to Confucius/Talk, I was referrring to <Confucianism/Talk>>
I heared that confucius had 300 wifes and 400 concubines (or the other way round). Is that true? -- Michael
- This a part of its legend, I guess. -- Anon
- Do you really believe that such a thing has validty?........ --Menchi (Talk)â 10:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- He only had one son.
| Contents |
Suggestions
IMHO few things are missing is this page (or Confucianism):
- Xunzi (not Sunzi) is considered as the other great follower of Kongzi and should be mentioned
- Zhu Xi is a important Song renovator of Confucianism
- Kongzi's problem with women is in fact a problem with Confucianism and only very few Analects are talking about women's
- So, IMHO, it should be said somewhere that, even if Confucianism is a bit of "oppressive", this is not directly related to the man himself, but to the fact that its philosophy has been used as main "state" philosophy during 2 millenaries
- Kongzi is said to have edited Shijing (Book of Odes) and maybe other classical books
- A stress should be done on music (and harmony), as Kongzi nearly always balances "rites" (li) with music or harmony, and, moreover, he liked to play music and to hear it. Music is, i think, related to the fact that it has the power to "unify the hearts of the men" (when rites divide them hierarchically)
- The Way of (thinking of) Kongzi is "tautological" (the son be a son,...) and "indicial" (show one corner of a problem), not "polemic" or "dialectic" or "rational", and that is a key difference with Ancient Greek philosophers
Gbog 06:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Some of the stuff, like women, Zhu Xi and tautological, sounds more suitable in Confucianism. And I believe women is mentioned there already.
- Ok -Gbog
- But otherwise, be bold! --Menchi 06:35, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes but as I'm not a native english speaker, I'm afraid to give hudge work to readers :) Gbog
- Replied on your talk page. --Menchi 07:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
---
- Removed this
Women
Confucius outlined a society based strongly upon hierarchy. To him, women were firmly at the bottom of that hierarchy. He intended virtually all of his philosophy and rigid ethical code to apply only to men.
His desire to civilize politics may explain this: In the time he lived, China was going through a chaotic period where the focus was often on war and other male-run concerns. This may partially explain his desire to focus on getting men to recognize strong obligations to each other - and to keep women out of politics. Such sentiments were also a part of the discourse taking place regarding democracy well into the 20th century - see suffragette.
- because I think that what Confucius thought about women's place in society is only a side discussion about Confucius, as it's isn't stated directly anywhere. This could have a place in Confucianism. What could be stated here is the "five human relations" (King-Subject, Father-Son, Husband-Wife, Elder-Younger brother, Friends). gbog 16:50, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Vacuous statement?
I'm not particularly happy with the opening para ie. "Confucius...was the famous great sage...of China". "Great sage" does mean a "great wise man", but this definition seems to me otherwise rather vacuous. What's worse, it seems to presuppose we all know about this "famous one". Any better solution? Mandel - May 13, 2004
- Well, MORE famous than Mencius and Zhu Xi ever had been or will be.... :o) And he in fact has always been called "sage" (sheng in the non-religious sense) in China, maybe except in the Cultural Revolution years and its wake. So, really, at least in China, that is very true. And I'm under distinct impression that IF a westerner ever hears about classical Chinese philosophy, Confucius is the first. It's really not that inaccurate a statement (I'm not defending my own work -- I didn't write that sentence). --Menchi 18:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yah, he is called sage in China at least, but that's out of respect; actually the term has little meaning other than as a term of veneration. (It also means "saint", but the Chinese and the Western meaning are quite different). Anyway I find this quasi-official verbiage has little meaning and certainly not helpful to someone trying to learn about Confucius.
- Notice the line reads "the famous great sage", which obviously presupposes the reader, like you, know about this title in China. (You know, so it makes sense, doesn't it?)
- Furthermore a certain monkey in Chinese literature is also referred to by that name. I think it treason to put Confucius on the level of a monkey; although I must admit it may be me that is extraordinarily sensitive. Mandel
Office
The page says Confucius was PM of the state of Lu, but I seem to recall that was historically questionable. I've read the most senior position justifiable by texts of the period is police commissioner of Lu; as time goes on afterwards he's credited with increasingly senior positions until the tradition of him being PM is established. Haven't got my books with me but it was either DC Lau's Analects or AC Graham's Disputers of the Tao. Can anyone clear this up for me? -- Conflatuman, 13 Sept 2004
- Well, one of the most complete texts I've come across on early Chinese history is, oddly enough, Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe II. Although that may not sound like a good source, it's extremely good and well-researched. It reads, "The grateful duke of Lu promoted Confucius to PRIME MINISTER, and he was visibly delighted!" (84) If need be, I might be able to find the source for this. It might be derived from Sima Qian. Brutannica 04:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, I know it's sources at 10 paces here, and I don't have any to hand beyond the Lonely Planet, which is not very solid. It's possible Sima Qian is the source, but that actually post-dates Confucius himself by 300 years or so. Furthermore I thought the _Records of the Historian_ were notorious for their inclusive attitude, which preserved plenty of material at the expense of judgements of accuracy ... isn't this why he's compared to Herodotus? I'm inclined to note the tradition he was PM and the questioning by modern historians that he was more senior than police commissioner. Conflutuman, 10:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just want to make 2 points.
- i. Historical in China, the higest officer is call Jai-Xiang (宰相). This position should never be mistaken as Prime Minster. It is common to have more than two Jai-Xiang in any China state or kingdom.
- ii. I think this paragraph will not complete if we omit a political murder direct by Confucius himself. When Confucius act as the higher officer in Ru state, he gave order to arrest and kill another well known officer, Sau-Zhen-Mau (少正卯) using ambiguity execuses. This political murdering are well documented by many historical book but evaded by most confuciusism follower. The consequence of the political murdering is so long lasting, which explain that why Confucius are unwelcome in any state. sltan. 8:12, 07 feb 2005 (GMT+8)
Politics
Was also considering linking here from Conservative, any thoughts -- Conflatuman, 13 Sept 2004
- Your notes deserve to be included in the article, imho. First, I confirm that most of my readings on the topic don't share the idea of Confucius being a PM, far from that. He was closer to an obscure teacher with few disciples trying to convince rulers to apply his political ideas. Second, with it's conservatism, I would say something like "Confucius defended strongly his own conservatism and nerver claimed he was bringing something new to the world, but in fact he used idealised old institutions as models for an improvement of current ones. It's most 'revolutionary' idea may be the one of 'meritocraty', where ruling noblesse of blood is replaced with noblesse of virtues". If you wish to change the current article (that is far from perfection), you may have a look to Confucianism, which is more developed. gbog 14:23, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
- Fine with the link, but much of what gbog discusses is already in the article in one form or another, just maybe not as organised. Brutannica 04:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Family name
Do not make stupid edits please! The family name (姓) of Confucius was Zi (子). Kong (孔) was only his clan name (氏). The character zi (子) which means master is a homonym of the family name Zi, but that's two different words, as much as bank (of England) and bank (of the river) are two different words. So before you "correct" people, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE SUBJECT IN DEPTH. Hardouin 11:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sources ? (I'm highly surprised by your plea. Even if I never did really take care to such a detail, I think that all the sources I read about Confucius says that his family name was Kong, and his given name was Qiu, and that Zi stands for Master as in many other cases like Lao Zi, Xun Zi, Sun Zi, Meng Zi, Mo Zi and so on.) gbog 11:54, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
All the sources I have are in Chinese, and there A LOT of them. I give you one link among others:
[1] (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:t08tvZdWqNoJ:www.pep.com.cn/200406/ca465798.htm+%22%E5%AD%90%22+%22%E5%95%86%22+%22%E5%AE%8B%22+%22%E5%AD%94%E5%AD%90%22+%22%E5%A7%93%22+%22%E6%B0%8F&hl=en). Then a research in the Chinese Google will provide you with lots of links showing that the family name was Zi. Remember that in the 2nd century BC the distinction between family names and clan names became blurred, and the descendants of Confucius used Kong as their family name, while Zi was falling into oblivion. However in the 6th century BC their was a strict difference between family name and clan name. One more time, the "zi" that means master is not the same word as Zi the family name, although they are written and pronounced the same. That's what people call homonyms. Hardouin 17:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To put it another way, for people who are familiar with Latin, Qiu is a bit like a "praenomen", Zi is a bit like a "nomen gentile", and Kong is a bit like a "cognomen"; "zi" or "fuzi" are only titles meaning "master". Confucius is more known under his "cognomen" (Kong) than under his "nomen" (Zi), the same as for instance Cicero who is more known under his cognomen Cicero than under his nomen gentile Tullius. Hardouin 18:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I understand how historians traced his name, as in [2] (http://www.hnass.com.cn/lldt-sjk/list.asp?id=212). However, even in this article, it explains how the name have changed six generations before Confucius. And how people stopped using Zi in Confusius' era. "孔子先世原为子姓，自孔子六世祖孔父嘉起，因“五世亲尽，别为公族”，乃以字为姓，是为孔氏之始。至孔子时，姓氏不再两存，以氏为姓，所以孔族尊孔子为一世祖。" So the Zi name only applies to his ancestors, it was not used by Confucius himself at the time. This is like arguing that everyone in the world should be called Adam or Eve. I think it is irrelavant. Kowloonese 20:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't really agree with the article when they write 孔姓: this is a usage that originated in the Historical Records of Sima Qian at a time when the difference between 姓 and 氏 was blurred, so in the article about Confucius Sima Qian wrote: "姓孔氏", because he clearly did not make a difference between the two anymore, but this is 300 years after the time of Confucius. In the same vein, he also wrote about the first emperor Qin Shi Huangdi: "秦之先为赢姓", and then somewhere else in the book he wrote about the same first emperor "名为政，姓赵氏", because he clearly did not understand the difference anymore between Ying (赢) (the family name 姓 of the first emperor), and Zhao (赵) (the clan name 氏 of the emperor).
I especially do not agree with this: "至孔子时，姓氏不再两存". This is contrary to everything else I've read. The matter is a bit complicated, so I am not surprised that even some Chinese articles would have it wrong. According to several articles written by Chinese historians and university professors that I have read, the 姓 and the 氏 both cleary still existed in China at the time of Confucius, even though of course in everyday life people made use of the 氏 only, so people used Kong, they did not use Zi, but Zi remained anyway. If I follow you, then we should change the article about the first emperor too, and instead of the family name Ying (赢), which goes back to "Adam and Eve", we should write the family name Zhao (赵). Should we? We should also suppress the familly name Tullius from the article Cicero, because Tullius was not used whereas everybody used Cicero. Should we? I have been told over and over before by other Wikipedians that we "ought" to list all the names, and now that I am obediently complying, I am being told that we "ought not" to list all the names. Go figure! Hardouin 23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- First we have to confirm if family and clan name were combined by the time of Confucius. Even if Confucius still used it separately, you still have a lot of explanation to do in the article because the Chinese had not separated 姓 and 氏 for thousands of years. The ancient concept of these two entities deserve an article on its own. Yet, the ancient 姓 of Confucius causes confusion to modern reader because the modern 姓 is acutally the ancient 氏. And the modern 氏 is now defined as maiden name or the family name on the mother side which is the opposite of the ancient definition, note the woman radical in the character 姓 which literally breaks down to the meaning "born by woman". There was a terminology change a few thousand years ago. In fact, the two meanings swapped. In the article, you need to redefined the modern readers' concept of 姓 before you introduce the ancient name that only historians care about. Even the name 子 was deduced based on what Confucius said his ancestor was and the historian belief of what his ancestor was called. It was not a black and white record from his era that said Confucius was named 子. I understand your intention, but I think the current state of the article will only confuse reader. You may need to expand on the topic to eliminate the confusions. Kowloonese 01:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- "孔父为字，嘉为名。其地位由卿降为大夫，是孔子第六代祖。自弗父何至孔父嘉已历五代，按照《孔子世家谱姓源》所言：“五世亲尽，别为公族，遂异子姓，而以字为姓，盖成孔姓之始。”所以，在孔父嘉前孔子的先世都姓子而不姓孔。" This paragraph said that six generation before Confucius, 孔父嘉 changed the family name to Kong. I intepret this to mean that 子 was not in use for 5 generations when Confucius was born. Kowloonese 02:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly why I disagree with this article, because of the sentence you pasted here, in particular "遂异子姓，而以字为姓". This is a modern, anachronistic vision of it. I don't know what kind of book is《孔子世家谱姓源》, but it's probably a modern book. The original sentence appears in a book called 《孔子家语》 (卷第九, 本姓解第三十九) which was written by Wang Su (王肃) at the beginning of the 3rd century after Christ. The original sentence reads: "考甫生孔父嘉，五世亲尽，别为公族，故后以孔为氏焉". It doesn't say that they adopted Kong as a family name (姓), it says that they adopted Kong as a clan name (氏). So you see that the sentence you pasted contains an error. I would recommend reading the article that I linked to above (link # 1), it's the best I have found so far on the matter, it was written by Liu Kaihua from the University of Nanjing, and I have no reason to doubt what he says, as I haven't found any mistake inside the article so far. He clearly states that the family name (姓) of Confucius was Zi (子), and that did not undergo changes. What changed is the clan name (氏), which was Gongsun (公孙) up to ancestor Kongfu Jia (孔父嘉), and was changed into Kong after ancestor Kongfu Jia. As for Kongfu Jia himself, Zi (子) was his family name, Gongsun (公孙) was his clan name (氏), Jia (嘉) was his given name (名), and Kongfu (孔父) was his courtesy name (字). This also answers another of your questions: family and clan names were not combined. Actually, none of them were used, as is obvious from the example of Kongfu Jia. People used only the courtesy name and the given name. So Confucius would have been known as Zhongni Qiu (仲尼丘). Inside the article, of course I would never write Zi, Kong, and Qiu together, but in the identity table on the right, we are like the police in a way, we just state the identity of the person, line after line, so it's different. It's only centuries later that Chinese people started to use family name (姓氏) and given name (名) together. So of course there was "not a black and white record from his era that said Confucius was named 子", and there was not even a "black and white record" that he was named Kong either, because the custom was not to use either family name or clan name. But when discussing genealogical lineages, then they would have stated both, and it is not true to say it is a reconstruction of modern historians: the Classic of History (书经), the Spring and Autumn (春秋), The Annals of Song (宋国的史书), and so forth, they would all have listed the family and clan names. When it was time to get married, Confucius would certainly have looked at his ancestral family name Zi, because as Liu Kaihua states in the article, the rule 25 centuries ago was: "氏同姓不同，婚姻可通；姓同氏不同，婚姻不可通" ("if the bride and groom have same clan name and different family name, the marriage is possible; if they have different clan name but same family name, the marriage is not possible"). Confucius could have married another Kong with a different family name, but he could not have married a woman with family name Zi, even though her clan name was not Kong.
I think we should put a footnote to explain that the family name Zi is not the same as the word "zi" which means "master", as I understand that this may confuse people. But as for explaining the difference between family name and clan name, it is not relevant in the Confucius article. It should be in the article about Chinese family names. It's the same with Roman historical figures: we list their three names in the articles (praenomen, nomen, cognomen), even though most people probably don't know the difference... then it's up to the people to make some further research to find out what is the difference for these three things. It should be the same for Chinese historical figures. I think all the articles in Wikipedia about Chinese historical figures before the 3rd century BC should include family name, clan name, and given name. After the 3rd century BC family names and clan names merged, so it is not necessary to state both in the articles about Chinese people after 3rd century BC. Hardouin 13:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hardouin, what do you understand by the distinction between family name (姓) and clan name (氏)? Please keep your answer as short and as to the point as I have difficulty understanding your somewhat meandering argument. Mandel 19:37, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Mandel, I think you can follow the Chinese links mentioned in this talk page and read about how the two words have swapped around in meaning a few thousand years ago. If you stick to today's concept of the two words, you may not understand what Hardouin is getting at. I kind of understand his position, but I just worry it is going to create too much confusion because only the Chinese historians understand the ancient usage. I have suggested Hardouin to write an article about this ancient concept because I don't think a short answer will ever work for anyone. Translating the Chinese links into English is a good start. :-) Kowloonese 21:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I have read both links and I think Hardouin make a serious mistake in translating either Chinese terms. The ancient Chinese term 姓 should be translated as clan name, not family name, whereas 氏 should be translated as family name, not clan name. That's because clearly before the Warring states 氏 is a subset of 姓. 姓 is larger, hence the term "clan" which means an extended group of families should make it clearer.
- So what shall we do? I suggest to keep the common usage in Confucius' names ("zi" meaning master, "KONG Qiu" being his name) and to add this interesting discussion in the "Names" paragraph. gbog 05:22, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
Mandel, Sima Qian wrote "姓赵氏" about the First Emperor, which clearly shows that he confused 姓 and 氏. For him they meant the same. If you're not convinced, you can read the end of this article: [4] (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:jzJGJNbb3WEJ:zhsc.sdedu.net/shuyuan/GONGJU/Gj038.htm+%22%E5%8F%B8%E9%A9%AC%E8%BF%81%22+%22%E5%AD%94%E5%AD%90%22+%22%E5%AD%94%E6%B0%8F%22+%22%E7%96%8F%E5%BF%BD%22&hl=en). Also, please avoid personal attack. Words such as "meandering argument" or "serious mistake" should not have their place in such a forum. We can debate about topics while remaining respectful of each other.
- Dear Hardouin, I am not personally attacking you - but I think you did make a mistake in misreading Sima Qian. "Meandering argument" isn't an attack either. Your argument is indeed not quite so to the point. I don't feel I owe anyone an apology, since the remarks refer to what was being said rather than who said them. (To be perfectly honest, your attitude to gbog and Kowloonese isn't exactly pacific either - you can read your own comments). Everybody makes mistakes one time or another. I'm just pointing them out for the sake of clarity.
- At least to me, Sima Qian was *not* confused about the wording of 姓 and 氏; he was merely mixing it up in the the contemporaneous sense so that his Han dynasty readers could understand it. He knows full well what he is writing. As you noted, by his time the meaning of 姓 and 氏 has undergone changes. I do not agree with the link you provided. Had Sima Qian been confused he would not have mentioned at one time Qin Shihuang's 秦之先为嬴姓. His meaning of 姓孔氏 probably means this:
- Confucius's surname (ie. 姓), in the modern sense of the word ie. in the Han dynasty, is 孔, which is his clan (or whatever) name.
- The fact that Sima Qian makes no distinction 姓 and 氏 does not imply that he did not know they existed beforehand. He was merely conforming to the norms of his time. I find it hard to believe the Chief Historian 2 millennium before our own wouldn't know something so basic as this. It's like saying Herodotus won't know about Jews during the time of Jesus.
- Not the crux of our argument, but I just find the supposition incredulous. Mandel 10:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
About the translation of 姓 and 氏, I have simply used the translation that I have read before in scholarly works about China. Yes, 姓 is larger than 氏, but for some reason, 姓 is generally translated as family name, and 氏 is generally translated as clan name. I used the same translation so as not to confuse people who are already used to these translations. Actually, I was also planning to go to the local library to find some books about Chinese history in English to see if other translations exist. I think the reason for these translations is that 氏 was a clan inside a large "family". For instance, the descendants of the kings of Shang had the "family name" (姓) Zi (子), and inside this large Zi "family", there were many clans, and Kong was one of the clans. Perhaps the translation of 姓 is the one that is not very good... I will try to find if there exists another translation. Alternatively, we could also choose to call 姓 the "nomen gentile", and 氏 the "cognomen", because these concepts in Latin are almost identical to the use of 姓 and 氏 in Chinese antiquity. Hardouin 12:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Which was exactly why I was confused. I personally disagree using Latin names because I think it will meddle the issue more. After MHO is rather someone do a translation on the Chinese links. Mandel 10:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- IMHO, all the confusions is due to the change in definition of these two terms thousands years ago and ordinary Chinese people aren't even aware of the ancient meanings. So actually there are 4 meanings among these two characters, namely ancient 姓, ancient 氏, modern 姓 and modern 氏. I have no idea how other scholars translated these 4 meanings. I suggest that you simply come up with 4 distinct translations and tie them to the Chinese characters in their usage context to disambiguate them. If whatever translations you pick do not mix them up, the confusion can be eliminated.
Based on the few sources posted here that I read so far (mind you I am no historian), I summarize as follows:
- ancient use of 姓 = ancestor name passed down from the mother side?
- ancient use of 氏 = clan name
- modern use of 姓 = family name that passed down from the father side (derived from ancient clan name)
- modern use of 氏 = family name on the mother side, i.e. maiden name that don't pass on.
Another complication is that Sima Qian was writing during a time that the change of definition took place. So he might be using the new meaning to describe a concept or vice versa. In a sense, his writing is as confusing as this article itself. Sigh!
Please correct if I am wrong.
Kowloonese 18:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- "Ancestral name" and "clan name" seemed like very good ways of translating the ancient 姓 and 氏. I support this usage. Mandel 10:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
It looks like some additions, including text on this talk page, are needed for Chinese family name. Clan and family names are not distiguished by that article. --Jiang 08:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Mandel, "ancestral name" and "clan name" make perfect sense after all. I have put that in the table. I also added a footnote to disambiguate the character 子. Now, we also need to list the ancestral names for other Chinese people who lived at the same time, such as Mengzi, Sunzi, etc. That's if we can find their ancestral names of course... Not everybody's biography is as documented as Confucius unfortunately. And then we also need to write a section about ancestral and clan names in the Chinese family name article. A translation of link #1 above would be a good start. Anyone volunteering? Hardouin 12:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You have said it yourself. The ancestral names of these people were so irrelevant that even historians didn't document them. The risk of adding an undocumented ancestral name in an encyclopedia entry will make something more important than it really is. Some of these names are simply speculations by historians, instead of actual written record. If the name is not confirmed, such fact should be pointed out along with the name.
Going back on this discussion after a while, I think there is still a problem : the "names" section in the article is in contradiction with the "name box". It's a mess and I would like to simplify the box and give the details in section. gbog 06:21, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
This whole paragraph describing the name make my head spin. We are living in 21st century, why make simple thing so confusing. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT to know what his ancerstor,-super-duper-ultra ancestor name. This wiki topic is not a good place to enroot the family name of Confucius. I think the paragraph of "Names and descendants" are totally useless to describe confucius. HOWEVER, in my opinion, it is appropriate to put under confuciusism, to understand why confuciusism keep guarding the meaningless abstract name.
sltan 08 Feb 2005
Confucius Political Exile
When Confucius held the post of highest officer in Ru Kingdom, he gave order to arrest and Sau-Zhen-Mau (少正卯) with five ambiguity reason : 1.Having a rebelion mind 2.Behave akwardly and refuse correction 3.Talking nonsense 4.Record that bad thing and spread the news 5.Support wicked act. (１.心逆而险 ２.行辟而坚 ３.言伪而辩 ４. 记丑而博 ５.顺非而泽). Although these political murdering is widely denied by confuciusism follower.
In facts, Confucius are force to exile from Ru Kingdom after the political murdering. The Ru King are given a hint to reject Confucius from governing. During the exile(Confuciusism rephrase it "touring around the kingdom" 周游列国 ), Confucius are not welcomed, some kingdom even forbid Confucius from entering the kingdom border. sltan
- The above also now appears in the article. I'm going to try and make it more understandable to English readers. If no one objects to my version in the next few days, I'll replace the main article text with this:
- When Confucius held the post of highest officer in Ru Kingdom, the Ru King, Sau-Zhen-Mau (少正卯) issued an arrest order for Confucius with five ambiguous reasons: 1. Having a rebellious mind, 2. Behaving awkwardly and refusing corrections, 3. Talking nonsense, 4. Recording that bad thing and spreading the news, 5. Support of wicked act. (１.心逆而险 ２.行辟而坚 ３.言伪而辩 ４. 记丑而博 ５.顺非而泽). These political accusations are widely denied by followers of Confucianism.
- In fact, Confucius was forced to exile from Ru Kingdom after the political accusations. The Ru King hinted that Confucius should be barred from governing. During the exile (called "touring around the kingdom" 周游列国 in Confucianism), Confucius was not welcomed; some kingdoms even forbid Confucius from crossing their borders.
- -- A D Monroe III 20:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've just edited your version, and inserted it into the article (I hope that that's OK). There's nothing ambiguous about the reasons given for his arrest, though the last two are too obscure for me to attempt making sense of them, so they still need work. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's OK. I assumed the abiguity was the lack of mention of specific incidents, but it could be a poor translation, as you say. Also, I'm assuming Sau-Zhen-Mau was the Ru King. I'll try and research this, but my sources are scant. -- A D Monroe III 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose that we could add that the reasons given were vague (though that's pretty obvious...). I didn't omit Ru because I disagreed that he was the Ru king, but because it's an odd way of expressing that fact(normally, of course: King of Ru), and because in the context the qualifier seemed superfluous.
- Incidentally, I have so little expertise in Chinese that it might as well be discounted altogether, so I'd be grateful if anyone here with such expertise could look at the article that I've just started on Wang fu-zi, especially with an eye to making the Romanisations consistent. I'm aware that they're not (I took them from sources using different systems), but I don't want to risk bungling the changeover. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion about the fact on Sau-Zhen-Mao. Perhaps I should make the facts straigh : i)Confucius holding the post of higher officer. ii) Confucius issue an order to arrest and execute Sau-Zhen-Mao(who disagree with him)
using ambiguity reason iii) Sau-Zhen-Mao is a respected person in Ru Kingdom. iv) The Ru King are not happy with Confucius idea of executing Sau-Zhen-Mao v)During a annual ritual, Ru King refuse to distribute the sacred meat to Confucius, a hint of diapproval to Confucius. --sltan
- Thanks for your comments; I've amended the passage in line with them. Could you check to make sure that I haven't made another mistake? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Posthumous Names
至聖 or 先師 is seldom used alone. 先師 means 'Teacher who passed away', not 'the First Teacher'. --Simonking11 07:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
