Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Pfister, Lauren F.
2020.
Dao Companion to ZHU Xi’s Philosophy.
Vol. 13,
Issue. ,
p.
681.
Article contents
The Study of Chu Hsi in the West
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
Chu Hsib (1130–1200), one of the greatest Chinese thinkers since Confucius and Mencius, and the most important in the last eight hundred years, synthesized Neo- Confucianism and built his own philosophy on a new basis. This philosophy—which dominated Chinese thought from the fourteenth century on, Korean thought since the fifteenth century, and Japanese thought since the sixteenth century—began to attract European attention in the seventeenth century. At that time, Catholic missionaries in China quarreled over the translation of “God” as Shang-tic (Lord-on-High), and over the interpretations of the Chinese term t'iend (Heaven). Consequently, they began to study Neo-Confucian thought. The publication, in 1715, of the Hsing-li ching-ie (Essentials of Neo-Confucianism) had a strong impact on them; Chu Hsi and other Neo-Confucian thinkers gradually occupied the minds of Catholic missionaries.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1976
References
1 See my “Hsing-li ching-i and the Ch'eng-Chu School in the Seventeenth Century” in de Bary, Wm. T. (ed.), The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1975), pp. 543–79.Google Scholar
2 Histoire générate de la Chine, ou Annales de cet empire, 13 vols., 1777–80 (Taipei reprint, 1970).
3 “Notices of Chinese Cosmogony: Formation of the Universe, Heaven, Earth, Man, Beasts, etc.,” Chinese Repository, XIII (1849), pp. 342–47.
4 “Seaou Heóex or Primary Lessons,” ibid., V (1836), pp. 81–87, 305–16; VI (1837), pp. 185–88.
5 Confucian Cosmogony. A Translation of Section Forty-nine of the “Complete Works” of the Philosophy Choo-Foo tze, ey 1874.
6 Thai-kih-thu, ez des Tscheu-tsifa Tafel des Urprinzipas mil Tschu-Hifb Kommentare (Dresden, 1876).
7 “Zur Naturphilosophie der Chinesen. Li khifc Vernunft und Materie,” Bull, de l'Acadm. Imp. de St. Pétersbourg, VIII, no. 21 (1879), pp. 667–89.
8 Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Chinesischen Philosophie T'ung-Sūfd des Ceutsite mii Cū-hi's”ff Commentare nach dem Sing-li tsing-ifs (Wien, 1880).
9 “Tchou-tze Tsieh Yao-Tchuen,”fh Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, XX, pt. 2 (1887), pp. 219–27.
10 “La Siao Hio, fi ou morale de jeunesse, avec le commentaire de Tschen-Siuen,”fj Annales du Musée Guimet, XV (1889).
11 Ka-li Livre des rites domestiques chinois de Tchou-hi (Paris, 1889).Google Scholar
12 Chu Tzu wen-chi, 83: 14b. Ssu-pu pei-yaofk (Essentials of the Four Libraries) ed.
13 Ssu-k'u ch'üan-shu tsung-mu t'i-yao (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1933), Ch. 22, pp. 441–42.Google Scholar
14 “L'éecole philosophique moderne de la Chine ou Systeme de la nature (Sing-lifl,” Mémoires de L'Académie Royale des Sciences des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, XLIX (1890).
15 “L'Inscription de l'ouest (Si-mingfm),” Actes du Congrès (Leyde, 1890).
16 Hsien Hsien:fn Catholic Mission, 1906, pp. 171–194; enl. (1930), pp. 187–99.
17 London: Probsthain, 1922.
18 Book of Mencius, 2B:2.
19 Bruce (n. 17 above), p. 355.
20 Ibid., p. 740.
21 Ibid., p. 439, n. 4.
22 Hao, Ch'eng and I, Ch'eng, Erh-Ch'eng i-shu (ShanghaiGoogle Scholar: Chung-hua shu-cbu, fo Erh-Ch'eng ch'üan-shu ed.), 6:8a, 15:20a, 21a.
23 L'ldée de Dieu chez Malebranche et l'idée de li chez Tchou Hi (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1942).Google Scholar
24 New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1963, ch.
25 Wing-tsit Chan (trans. & comp.), (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1963), ch. 34.
26 Dschu Hsi,fp Djin sr lu, die sunkonfuzianiscbe Summa mil dem Kommentar des Yä Tsaifq Tokyo: Sophia Univ., 1953).
27 Instructions for Practical Living and Other Neo-Confucian Writings by Wang Yang-ming (New York: Columbia Univ. Presi, 1963).Google Scholar
28 Hsi, Chu and ch'ien, Lü Tsu (1137–81), comp., Reflections on Things at Hand: The Neo-Confucian Anthology, trans, by Chan, Wing-tsit (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1967).Google Scholar
29 The books he read were: Longobardi, Traitésur quelques points de la religion des Chinois (1701) and Antoine de St. Marie, Traité sur quelquespoints importants de la mission de la Chine (1710); both reprinted in Leipzig, 1735. His letter is included in Leibniz Opera Omnia, ed. by Dutens, Ludovia (Geneva, 1710Google Scholar). Henri Bernard, “Chu Hsi's Philosophy and Its Interpretation by Leibniz,” Tien Hsia” Monthly, 5 (1937), pp. 9–18, presents Leibniz's interpretation of Chu Hsi's li as equivalent to God, without critical evaluation.
30 For an account of the rites controversy and Leibniz's interpretation of the Neo-Confucian li, see Mungello, David E., “Leibniz's Interpretation of Neo-Confucianism,” Philosophy East and West [hereafter PE&W], XXI (1971), pp. 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 With intro. and notes by A. le Moine, Marseilles: Imp. et Lithographie A. Ged, 1936.
32 In Varietes Sinologiques, VI (1894).
33 T'oung Pao,fs n.s. VI (1895), p. III.
34 Ibid., n.s. VII (1896), pp. 105–07.
35 In Le Muséon. XIV (1895), pp. 411–14.
36 Chu Tzu ch'üan-shu, 49:25a; in fact, the saying comes from the Chu Tzu yü-lei, 1:5a.
37 Louvain, 1896.
38 In Le Muséon, XVII (1898), pp. 204–22.
39 In Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XLIX (1918), pp. 111–27.
40 London: Probsthain, 1923.
41 In JNCBRAS (n. 39 above), LV (1924), pp. 28–44.
42 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1956, p. 492.
43 “The Chinese View of Immortality: Its Expression by Chu Hsi and Its Relationship to Buddhist Thought,” Review of Religion, IV (1942), pp. 372–74, 380–81.
44 Le Gall (n. 32 above); Giles, H. A., Confucianism and Its Rivals (London, 1915), pp. 233–41;Google ScholarGrousset, Rene, Histoire de la philosophie orientate (Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1923), pp. 331–54.Google Scholar
45 Hamburg: Friederichen, de Gruyter and Co., 1938. For the debates, see pp. 171–202.
46 Fung Yu-lan, A History ofChinese Philosophy, trans, by Bodde, Derk, Vol. II (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1953), pp. 533—71. Bodde's translation of the ch. on Chu Hsi first appeared as “The Philosophy of Chu Hsi in Harvard Journal of Asiatic StudiesGoogle Scholar, VII (1942), pp. 1–51.
47 A Short History … (New York: Macmillan, 1948), pp. 294–306Google Scholar; The Spirit …, trans, by Hughes, E. R. (London: Kegan Paul, 1947), pp. 186–92.Google Scholar
48 (Note 42 above), pp. 455”93.
49 New York: Bookman Associates, 1959, ch. 12–14.
50 Tao und Jen: Sein und Sollen im sungcbinesischen Monismus (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970).Google Scholar
51 In Journal Asiatique, 253 (1955), pp. 213–28.
52 In PE&W, IV (1955), pp. 295–319.
53 See also Chan, Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, pp. 596–97; and n. 137 below.
54 In Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 1 (1936), pp. 109–27.
55 “Chu Hsi's Approach to knowledge, ' Chinese Culture, X, 4 (1969), pp. 1–14.
56 Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, II, p. 562.
57 Needham (n. 42 above), pp. 558–59, 565–68, '572–73.
58 Ibid., p. 559.
59 Chu Tzu yü-lei, 5:1a.
60 Needham (n. 42 above), pp. 453, 454, 510, 558, 578. 579.
61 Chu Tzu yü-lei, 94;3a-b; Chu Tzu ch'üanshu, 49:20b.
62 Shih, Hu, The Chinese Renaissance (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 59.Google Scholar
63 “Excursion into Substance and Function: The Development of the t'i-yung Paradigm in Chu Hsi,” PE&W, XXIV (1974), pp. 443–52.
64 “Patterns for Neo-Confucianism: Why Chu Hsi Differed from Ch'eng I,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, forthcoming.
65 Forke (n. 45 above), pp. 196–98.
66 Bruce (n. 40 above), p. 74.
67 (Note 46 above), pp. 585–93.
68 Lu Hsiang-shan, A Twelfth Century Chinese Idealist, Philosopher (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1944), pp. 14–15Google Scholar, 79–86.
69 (Note 49 above), pp. 285–308.
70 “The Goose Lake Monastery Debate (1175),” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, I (1974), pp. 161–78.
71 “The Relationship between Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan, a Chronological Account,” forthcoming in Journal of American Oriental Society.
72 Wing-tsit Chan, “Wang Yang-ming: Western Studies and an Annotated Bibliography,” PE&W, XXII (1972), pp. 75–92.
73 Chang (n. 49 above), pp. 309–31.
74 Fung (n. 46 above), p. 566; see also n. 137 below.
75 In Sung Studies, Memoriam Étienne Balazs, 2d ser., 1 (1973), pp. 59–90.
76 Ibid., pp. 73–80.
77 “The Confucian Way (Tao and Tao-t'ung),” journal of the History of Ideas, XXXV (1974), pp. 371–89.Google Scholar
78 “How Did a Neo-Confucian School Become the State Orthodoxy?”, PE&W, XXIII (1973), pp. 483–505.
79 In Journal of Asian Studies, XXXI (1972), pp. 499–513.Google Scholar
80 “Neo-Confucians under Attack: The Condemnation of Wei-hsueh” n in John W. Haeger (ed.), Crisis and Prosperity in Sung China, in press.
81 In Forke's book (n. 45 above), there is no section on criticism of Buddhism.
82 Bruce (n. 40 above), pp. 5–24, 246, 254.
83 Fung (n. 46 above), pp. 566–71.
84 Chang (n. 49 above), pp. 277–78.
85 Tschou Hi contre le bouddhisme (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955).Google Scholar
86 “Morality or Beyond: The Neo-Confucian Confrontation with Mahāyāna Buddhism,” PE&W, XXIII (1973), pp. 375—96.
87 ”Chu Hsi's Appraisal of Lao Tzu,” PE&W, XXV (1975), pp. 131–44.
88 Geschichte der chinesischen Philosophie (Reichenberg: 1926–27), pp. 240, 247, 251.
89 Forke (n. 45 above), p. 202.
90 Needham (n. 42 above), p. 458.
91 Fung (n. 46 above), pp. 542, 547, 571.
92 Chang, (n. 49 above), pp. 240–71.
93 Bruce (n. 4 0 above), pp. 148, 241.
94 Graf (n. 26 above), I, pp. 278–97. This section Reis based on “Chu Hsi and Spinoza,” in Beth, E. W., Pos, H. J., Hollak, J. H. A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Philosophy (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1949), pp. 238–42.Google Scholar
95 Graf (n. 50 above), pp. 242, 277, 326, 350–52.
96 “Hsi, Chu and Thomas, St., A Comparison,” Harvard Univ. Committee on International and Regional Studies, Papers on China, IV (1954), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
97 Graf (n. 26 above), I, pp. 239–78; also Tao und Jen (n. 50 above), pp. 317–41.
98 , Hughes (trans.), The Great Learning and The Mean-in-Action (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1943), p. 12.Google Scholar
99 Needham (n. 42 above), p. 504, n. g; Mungello, David E., “Leibniz' Interpretation of Neo-Confucianism,” PE&W, XXI (1971), pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
100 Bruce (n. 40 above), p. 241.
101 Needham (n. 42 above), pp. 496–505.
102 Ibid., pp. 497–98, 501.
103 Univ. of Chicago, 1959. See also n. 55 above.
104 Needham (n. 42 above), p. 466.
105 E. C. Bridgeman (trans.), “Memoir of the Philosopher Chu who flourished in the Sung dynasty in the twelfth century, by Fu, Kau Yu A.D. 1697,” Chinese Repository XVIII (1849), pp. 187–206. I am grateful for Mr. Charles K. H. Chenfv of Dartmouth College for identifying the name of Kay Yü.Google Scholar
106 In Wright, Arthur F. (ed.), Confucian Personalities (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1962), pp. 162–80.Google Scholar
107 Stanford Univ., 1960.
108 “Chu Hsi the Poet,” T'oting Pao, LVIII, 105 (1972), pp. 55–119.
109 Wieger (n. 16 above), (1930 ed.), pp. 187–97.
110 Fung (n. 46 above), pp. 592, 622, 623.
111 Ibid., pp. 592, 629.
112 Forke (n. 45 above), pp. 203–32.
113 Chang (n. 49 above), pp. 334–36.
114 “Chinese Confucianism on the Eve of the Great Encounter,” in Jansen, Marius (ed.), Changing Japanese Attitudes toward Modern Japan (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 283–310.Google Scholar
115 In de Bary, W. T. (ed.), Self and Society in Ming Thought (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1970), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
116 See n. 1 above.
117 Monumenta Serica, XXIX (1970–71), pp. 1–26.
118 Knox, G. W. and Haga, T., “Shushi's Philosophy, &c,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, XIX (1892).Google Scholar
119 “A Japanese Philosopher,” ibid., XX (1893), pp. 1–133.
121 Ibid., XXXIV (1907), p. 1–80.
122 London: J. Murphy, 1913.
123 Kaibara Ekiken's Daigiroku (Leiden, 1941).
124 Leiden: Brill, 1942.
125 Light from the East: Studies in Japanese Confucianism (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto, 1914).Google Scholar
126 New York: Covici Friede.
127 Ryūsaku Tsunoda, fw de Bary, W. T., and Keene, Donald (eds.), Sources (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1958), pp. 344–77.Google Scholar
128 In PE&W, XXIII (1973), pp. 139–62.
129 “The Spirit and Development of Neo-Confucianism,” Inquiry, XIV (1971), pp. 56–83.
130 See n. 63 above.
131 “The Neo-Confucian Concept of Man,” PE&W, XX (1971), pp. 79–87. Also see n. 138 below.
132 “The problem of Evil and a Possible Dialogue between Christianity and Neo-Confucianism,” Contemporary Religion in Japan (Sept. 1968), pp. 161–93. Also see n. 70 and n. 77 above.
133 See n. 86, above.
134 “Practical Learning in Yen Yiian, fx Chu Hsi and Wang Yang-Ming,” forthcoming.
135 “A Philosophical Analysis of the Confucian Approaches to Ethics,” PE&W, XXII (1972), pp. 417–25.
136 “Leibniz and Confucianism: Failure and Future in Ecumenis,” Univ. of California-Berkeley Ph.D. thesis, 1973. Also see n. 99 above.
137 Cleveland Hoyt Tillman, “Chu Hsi and Ch'en Liang: Polemics in Chinese Political Thought,” Harvard; John Hugh Berthrong, “Chu Hsi's Philosophy of Descriptive Norms: An Intellectual Approach to Moral Metaphysics,” Univ. of Chicago; Irene Tilenius Bloom, “Notes on Knowledge Painfully Acquired. A Translation and Analysis of the K'un-chih chify by Lo Ch'in-shun”fz (1465–1547) [Chu Hsi's follower and critic], completed in 1975, Columbia Univ.
138 “Reconstituting of t h e Confucian Tradition,” Journal of Asian Studies (1974), pp. 441–54, a review article on Ch'ien Mu'sga 5-vol. work Chu Tzu hsin-hsueh-angb (A New Scholarly Record on Chu Hsi), Hong Kong, 1971.
- 1
- Cited by