1 A first version of this paper was presented at the international conference “Topics in Comparative Philosophy: Greek and Chinese” at the Institute of Chinese Studies at Oxford, 22–24 June 2006. Some of the examples discussed here have been presented in one of my Wang Meng'ou Memorial Lectures (2007) at Cheng-chi University in Taipei; see Fu Xion 傅熊 [B. Fuehrer]: 2007 Wang Meng'ou jiaoshou xueshu jiangzuo yanjiangji 2007 王夢鷗教授學術講座演講集. Taipei 2008, pp. 11–35. I would like to take this opportunity to thank discussants and participants at the conference in Oxford and at the lectures in Taipei for their invaluable comments on those earlier versions. I am also very grateful for comments on an earlier draft of this paper provided by my colleague Nathan Hill (SOAS). The following abbreviations are used: HHS for Fan Ye 范曄: Hou Han shu 後漢書. 12 vols. Beijing [1965] 1987; HS for Ban Gu 班固: Han shu 漢書. 12 vols. Beijing [1962] 1987; MZSS for Yan Lingfeng 嚴靈峰 (ed.): Wuqiubeizhai Mengzi shi shu 無求備齋孟子十書. Taipei 1969; MZSSJ for Zhao Qi 趙岐: Mengzi shisi juan 孟子十四卷. SBCK-ed.; MZZY for Jiao Xun 焦循: Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義. ZZJC-ed.; SBBY for to the Western bound reprint of the Sibu beiyao 四部備要. 100 vols. Beijing 1989; SBCK for to the abridged reproduction of the Sibu congkan [zhengbian] 四部叢刊[正編]. 100 vols. Taipei 1971; SSJZS for Ruan Yuan 阮元: Shisan jing zhushu [fu jiaokanji] 十三經注疏 [附校勘記]. 8 vols. Taipei 1985; ZZJC for Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成. 8 vols. Beijing [1954] 1993.

2 For remarks on the wider issues regarding the need of explanatory material see also J. B. Henderson: Scripture, Canon, and Commentary. A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis. Princeton 1991, p. 75f.

3 The Five Classics are: Shi[jing] ([Book of] Songs), Shangshu 尚[書] or Shu[jing] 書[經] ([Book of] Documents), Li 禮(Rites), [Zhou]Yi [周]易 (Changes [of the Zhou]) and Chunqiu; for details see M. Nylan: The Five “Confucian” Classics. New Haven / London 2001.

4 Fragments show that even He Xiu's 何休 (129–182) commentary on the Gongyang zhuan 公羊傳 first came without the text of the Chunqiu. Whereas it seems that for the Zuo zhuan 左傳 the classic-cum-commentary format was first used for Du Yu's 杜預 (222–284) commentary, it is unclear when the Gongyang zhuan was first presented together with the Chunqiu; see the remarks in Yong Rong 永瑢 (ed.): Siku quanshu zongmu 四庫全書總目. 2 vols.; Beijing [1965] 1987, vol. 1, p. 211. It might also be worth noting that the three commentaries on the Chunqiu were given separate entries in the bibliographical chapter of the HS.

5 See also Henderson 1991, p. 70.

6 The posts of officially appointed chairs were first established under Han Wudi in 136 bc; for an overview and further references see R. P. Kramers: “The development of the Confucian schools.” In: D. Twitchett / M. Loewe (eds.): The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 1: The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B. C.–A. D. 220. Cambridge 1986, pp. 747–765, esp. p. 756.

7 For a more detailed discussion see M. Nylan: “A Problematic Model: The Han ‘Orthodox Synthesis’, Then and Now.” In: K. W. Chow/O. C. Ng/J. B. Henderson (eds.): Imagining Boundaries. Albany 1999, pp. 17–56.

8 For a concise outline on the differences between these two approaches see Zhou Yutong 周予同: “Jing jinguwen xue” 經古今文學. In: Zhu Weizheng 朱維錚 (ed.): Zhou Yutong Jingxueshi lunzhu xuanji 周予同經學史論著選集. Shanghai [1983] 1996, pp. 1–39, especially p. 9.

9 HS, 36: 1970: 分文析字.

10 On the zhangju format see Dai Junren 戴君仁: “Jing shu de yancheng” 經疏的衍成. In: Kong Meng xuebao 孔孟學報. 19 (1970), pp. 77–96 and Lin Qingzhang 林慶彰: “Liang Han zhangju zhi xue chongtan” 兩漢章句之學重探. In: Lin Qingzhang (ed.): Zhongguo jingxueshi lunwenji 中國經學史論文集. 2 vols.; Taipei 1992, vol. 1, pp. 277–297. For a noteworthy more recent contribution to this topic see Zhang Baosan 張寶三: “Handai zhangju zhi xue lunkao” 漢代章句之學論考. In: Taida Zhongwen xuebao 臺大中文學報 14 (2001), pp. 35–76. For overviews and further bibliographical pointers on zhangju see M. Nylan: “The Chin wen / Ku wen Controversy in Han Times.” In: TP 80 (1994), pp. 83–145, esp. pp. 112f. and D. K. Gardner: “Confucian Commentary and Chinese Intellectual History.” In: Journal of Asian Studies 57,2 (1998), pp. 397–422.

11 See the commentary by Li Xian 李賢 (651–684) and others to HHS, 28A: 955. A zhang 章 corresponds to a chapter, section, or sequence; the term ju 句 denotes short divisions of a chapter or section, generally a sentence or part of a sentence. The translations of zhang as “chapter” and ju as “verse” conform to the textual arrangement and nature of the Mencius. Given that the structure of the Chuci 楚辭 is quite different, the translation of zhangju may need some adjustment where applied to the Chuci zhangju 楚辭章句.

12 See e. g. HHS, 37: 1256 for a 400,000 word zhangju commentary being first edited down to 230,000 and then again shortened to a length of 120,000 words. See also HHS, 65: 2138 for a zhangju commentary of more than 450,000 words being reduced to 90,000. For a concise description of the development after Han Wudi installed the chairs on the Five Classics see HS, 88: 3620. Note also the remarks on one of the most famous massively lengthy elaborations on a title of the Shangshu in the Xinlun 新論 by Huan Tan 桓 譚 (c. 43 bc—ad 28), a scholar who preferred the more philologically oriented approach of xungu 訓詁 (“instructive comments”) over the zhangju format.

13 For one of the most prominent examples see HS, 88: 3593 where Gongsun Hong's 公孫弘 (c. 200–121 bc) ascent from humble origins to the position of the chancellor is directly linked to his expertise on the Chunqiu; see also M. Loewe: A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han & Xin Periods (221 bc—ad 24). Leiden 2000, pp. 125–128.

14 Among them, the meeting at Baihuguan 白虎觀 in ad 79 and the famous Xiping 喜平 (cut between 175 and 183 bc) stone classics in Cai Yong's 蔡邕 (133–92 bc) calligraphy are perhaps best known.

15 See Lin Qingzhang 1992.

16 See e. g. HS, 88: 3620.

17 See HHS, 99 A: 2547; cf. also Pi Xirui 皮錫瑞, comm. by Zhou Yutong 周予同: Jingxue lishi 經學歷史. Beijing [1959] 1963, p. 114. Needless to say that the tensions between scholarly independence that led to diverging interpretations and the authorities' desire to standardize the understanding of the classics are a continuum in the reception history of the classics.

18 See the relevant entries in “Yiwen zhi” 藝文志 (Treatise on arts and letters) in HS.

19 See HS, 81: 3352 for Zhang Yu's 張禹 (d. 25 bc) Lunyu zhangju 論語章句; further early commentaries on the Lunyu are listed by He Yan 何晏 (190–249) in his introduction to the Lunyu jijie 論語集解 (Analects: Collected explanations); see Xing Bing 邢昺: Lunyu zhushu 論語注疏. SSJZS-ed., xu: 4–5 a [pp. 3f.].

20 See Zhao Qi's “Mengzi tici” 孟子題辭 in Mengzi shisi juan 孟子十四卷 [hereafter MZSSJ], 4 a [p. 3] and the subcommentary by Jiao Xun 焦循 (1763–1820) in his Mengzi zhengyi (hereafter MZZY), p. 10. Zhao Qi's claim regarding these chairs is problematic and it seems unclear whether the Mencius chair was linked to any specific interpretation of the Mencius. For some aspects of the Mencius-reception during the Han see W. Ommerborn: “Menzius' Theorie der Politik der Menschlichkeit (renzheng) und ihre Rezeption in der Han-Zeit.” In: minima sinica 2005.2, pp. 19–51. Unfortunately none of the contributions in C. C. Huang / G. Paul / H. Roetz (eds.): The Book of Mencius and its Reception in China and Beyond. Wiesbaden 2008, deals specifically with Zhao Qi and his readings.

21 On the king of Hejian and the narrative regarding the rediscovery of old versions of Zhouguan 周官 (Institutions of the Zhou), Shangshu, Li 禮 (Rites), Liji 禮記 (Record of the rites), Mencius and so forth see HS, 53: 2410.

22 On Cheng Zeng, a specialist on the Gongyang traditions, and his Mengzi zhangju see HHS, 69B: 2581, R. de Crespigny: A biographical dictionary of Later Han to the three Kingdoms (23–220 ad). Leiden 2007, p. 93, and the bibliographical notes in Xuxiu Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao. Jing bu 續修四庫全書總目提要經部. 2 vols. Beijing 1993, vol. 2, p. 918. The short fragments of Cheng Zeng's commentary in Ma Guohan 馬國翰 (comp.): Yuhan shanfang jiyishu 玉函山房輯佚書. [1883] 5 vols. Yangzhou 2004, vol. 3, p. 1870 only relate to the so-called waishu 外書 or outer books of the Mencius.

23 For a short discussion of some of these materials as well as other aspects of the reception of the Mencius prior to Zhao Qi see the subcommentary in MZZY, pp. 11–14, and the more detailed bibliographical remarks in Xuxiu Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao. Jing bu, vol. 2, p. 918f. Wei Zheng 魏徵: Sui shu 隋書. 6 vols. Beijing [1973] 1987, 34: 997 and Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修/ Song Qi 宋祁: Xin Tang shu 新唐書. 20 vols. Beijing [1975] 1995, 59: 1510 record the commentaries by Zheng Xuan and Liu Xi, both in seven scrolls. For compilations of fragments of early commentaries on the Mencius (including the outer books) see Ma Guohan: Yuhan shanfang jiyishu, vol. 3, pp. 1870–1883, and the addenda in Wang Renjun 王仁俊 (comp.): Yuhan shanfang jiyishu buyi 玉函山房輯佚書補遺. [Rpt.] Taipei 1990, pp. 70–72. Note that Zhao Qi's work on the Mencius is in circulation under a number of titles: The bibliographic chapters in Sui shu, 34:997, Liu Xun 劉煦: Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書. 16 vols. Beijing [1975] 1987, 46: 2024 and Xin Tang shu, 59: 1510 record it as Mengzi shisi juan. Alternative titles include Mengzi zhu 孟子注 (Mencius with commentary), Mengzi Zhao zhu 孟子趙注 (Mencius with Zhao's commentary) and Mengzi zhangju; the latter may appear either as an alternative title for Zhao's entire work on the Mencius or refer to his chapter-and-verse commentary proper. For further details see Xuxiu Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao. Jing bu, vol. 2, p. 917f.

24 Quotes from “Mengzi tici”, in MZSSJ, 4 b [p. 3] and MZZY, p. 11: 孟子以來五百餘載 and 多乖異不同. Zhao Qi offers no further details but in his subcommentary to this passage in MZZY Jiao Xun lists a number of scholars who referred to and reportedly distorted the Mencius. These include Xun Qing 荀卿 (c. 335–c. 238), Han Ying 韓嬰 (c. 200–120 bc), Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (c. 179–c. 105 bc), Liu Xiang 劉向 (79–8 bc), Yang Xiong, Wang Chong 王充 (27–c. 100), Ban Gu, Zhang Heng 張衡 (78–139), Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200), Xu Shen 許慎 (c. 55–c. 149) and He Xiu. Cf. Xuxiu Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao. Jing bu, vol. 2, p. 917–920.

25 D. C. Lau: “Meng Tzu.” In: M. Loewe (ed.): Early Chinese Texts. A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley 1993, pp. 331–335, quote p. 332.

26 On the Chuci zhangju see M. Schimmelpfenning: Der Kommentar von Wang Yi zu den Liedern von Chu (Chu-ci). Heidelberg 1995 (PhD. diss.). See also the more recent observations in G. Sukhu: The shaman and the heresiarch. Albany 2012, esp. pp. 39–69.

27 Note that although Wang Yi set out in opposition to Ban Gu and compared the Chuci楚辭 (The songs of Chu) to the Five Classics, this was fundamentally different from the way in which zhangju commentaries were used strategically in earlier discourses.

28 “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 3 a–3 b [p. 2] and MZZY, p. 9: 則而象之. Jiao Xun, loc. cit., explains this passage as Mencius “taking Confucius as his model”, and in terms of content, “shaping [his Way] as a continuation of his [i. e. Confucius'] Way”.

29 See Lunyu zhushu, 15: 1a–1 b [p. 137]; MZSSJ, 1: 1a–3a [pp. 12f.] and MZZY, pp. 21–26.

30 Lunyu zhushu, 7: 7b [p. 63]: 天生德於予, 桓魋其如予何!

31 See MZSSJ, 2: 19a–19 b [p. 21.] and MZZY, pp. 99–102, esp. 101: 吾之不遇魯侯,天也. 臧氏之子, 焉能使我不遇哉!

32 For Zhao Qi's short biography, his name change from Zhao Jia 趙嘉 to Zhao Qi 趙崎 (alt. 歧), the historical context and the circumstances under which he undertook his work on the Mencius, see HHS, 64: 2121–2124 and de Crespigny 2007, pp. 1102f.

33 See the short remark in his “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 3 b [p. 2] and MZZY, pp. 9f. (with the notes by Jiao Xun).

34 On the outer books see “Mengzi tici”, in MZSSJ, 3 b [p. 2] and MZZY, p. 9. In his bibliographical note Ban Gu 班固 (32–92) describes the Mencius as a work in eleven scrolls; see HS, 30: 1725: 孟子十一卷. The so-called outer books were subsequently lost and material that carries this title is regarded as later forgeries; see the remarks on the Mengzi waishu 孟子外書 in Xuxiu Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao. Jing bu, vol. 2, p. 917f. Song Xiangfeng 宋翔鳳 (1776–1860) describes the four outer books as “fakes of fakes” (偽之偽者); see his Mengzi Zhao zhu buzheng 孟子趙注補正, 1: 2 b in Xiaojing Mengzi zhushu ji buzheng 孝經孟子注疏及補正. Taipei 1981.

35 See for example Kobayashi Katsundo 小林勝人: Moshi yakuchū 孟子訳注. 2 vols. Tokyo 1968, vol. 2, pp. 458–484 who presents interesting arguments for Zhao Qi as a somewhat heavy handed editor of the Mencius.

36 On textual strata in the Mencius see E. B. Brooks/A. T. Brooks: “The Nature and Historical Context of the Mencius.” In: A. K. L. Chan (ed.): Mencius. Contexts and Interpretations. Honolulu 2002, pp. 242–281. Further important observations on the Mencius prior to Zhao Qi and the received text are to be found in H. van Ess: “Some Remarks Concerning Consistency in the Mengzi.” In: Lin Qingzhang 林慶彰 / C. Soffel (eds.): Zhengtong yu liupai 正統與流派 (Orthodoxy and Schools of Thought. Changes in the History of Confucian Canon Studies). Taipei 2012, pp. 629–644.

37 See MZSSJ, 14: 20b [p. 124].

38 A rather detailed excursion into numerology in the “Mengzi pianxu” shows how deeply Zhao Qi's structure of 7 books (pian), 261 chapters (zhang) and 34685 graphs (zi 字) and so forth is embedded in the intellectual environment of his days; see “Mengzi pianxu” in MZSSJ, 14: 20b [p. 124] and MZZY, “Mengzi pianxu”, p. 2f. as well as Jiao Xun's comments on a related passage in the “Mengzi tici” in MZZY, p. 7f.

39 On the arrangement of the Mengzi zhangju as classic-cum-commentary and the zhangzhi see “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 5 a [p. 3] and MZZY, p. 16. Zhangzhi are marked by the formula zhangzhi yan 章旨言 or, in some copies, zhangzhi yue 章旨曰. Qian Daxin 錢大昕: Shijiazhai Yangxinlu 十駕齋養新錄. SBBY-ed., p. 41 notes that the practice of eliminating the zhangzhi sections from Zhao Qi's commentary was initiated by Lu Shanjing 陸 善經, a scholar most active during the 730 s who wrote a commentary on the Mencius in seven scrolls. As this editorial practice was continued in some of the subsequent reproductions of Zhao's commentary such as the annotated version of the Mencius with a subcommentary attributed to Sun Shi 孫奭 (962–1033), the Thirteen Classics as well as the SBBY reproduce Zhao Qi's commentary without the zhangju sections; see Mengzi zhushu 孟子 注疏 (SSJZS-ed.) and the Mengzi in vol. 2 of the SBBY. Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) and Qian Daxin 錢大昕 (1728–1804), loc. cit., both expressed doubts regarding Sun Shi's authorship of this subcommentary to the Mencius; see Li Jingde 黎靖德 (ed.): Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類. 4 vols; [Rpt.] Changsha 1997, vol. 1, p. 398.

40 Consider, for example, the first zhangzhi which emphasises the prime position of ren (humaneness) and yi (rightness) throughout Mencian philosophy; cf. MZSSJ, 1: 1 a [p. 4] (1A.1), MZZY, p. 26. This practice of providing interpretative guidance has been applied by many subsequent commentators, though later generations tend to prefer to place their synopses at the very beginning of their explorations of textual sequences.

41 Quotes from W. A. C. H. Dobson: Late Han Chinese. A Study of the Archaic-Han Shift. Toronto 1963(a), pp. xix–xx, cf. also pp. 109–111 for further details on linguistic characteristics. On Zhao Qi's application of rhymes in the zhangzhi see the pointer by Qian Daxin in his Shijiazhai Yangxinlu, p. 41.

42 See MZSSJ, 2: 19b [p. 21] and MZZY, 102: 讒邪搆賢, 賢者歸天, 不尤人也. Reconstructions of Later Han sounds according to A. Schuessler: Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese. Honolulu 2009.

43 See MZSSJ, 1: 3 b [p. 5] and MZZY, p. 30: 聖人之德與民共樂.

44 See MZSSJ, 1: 3b [p. 5] and MZZY, p. 30.

45 See MZSSJ, 2: 14a [p. 18] and MZZY, p. 90.

46 My translation reflects Zhao Qi's understanding of bu ren ren zhi xin as bu ren jia e yu ren zhi xin 不忍加惡於人之心 rather than the later equation of bu ren ren zhi xin with ceyin zhi xin 惻隱之心 which has, of course, gained wide acceptance due to the authoritative position of Zhu Xi's commentary; see MZSSJ, 3: 14b [p. 28] and Zhu Xi 朱熹: Mengzi jizhu 孟子集註. In: Si shu jishu 四書集註. [Facsimile of a Song red.] Taipei 1984, pp. 242f. On this passage see also K. L. Shun: Mencius and Early Chinese Thought. Stanford 1997, esp. p. 49.

47 See MZSSJ, 3: 16a [p. 29] and MZZY, p. 140.

48 See MZSSJ, 2: 12b [p. 17] and MZZY, p. 86f.

49 See MZSSJ, 14: 1b [p. 115] and MZZY, p. 562.

50 See MZSSJ, 3: 18b [p. 30] and MZZY, p. 148.

51 See Lunyu zhushu, 12: 3b [107]: 自古皆有死, 民無信不立. Segmentation of the Lunyu follows the Harvard-Yenching Index Series; see Shisan jing yinde 十三經引得. [Rpt.] 8 vols. Taipei [undated], vol. 8, p. 23.

52 C. C. Huang: Mencian Hermeneutics. A History of Interpretations in China. New Brunswick 2001, p. 6. For an overview of the wider context see Tang Junyi 唐君毅: Lun Meng xue zhong zhi xingqi xinzhi yi liren zhi dao” 論孟學中之興起心志以立人之道. In: Xinya Shuyuan xueshu niankan 新亞書院學術年刊 14 (1972), pp. 55–87.

53 See MZSSJ, 12: 14b [p. 103] and MZZY, p. 507.

54 See MZSSJ, 11: 3a [p. 89] and MZZY, p. 437. For a discussion of Mencius 6A.3 see Shun 1997, esp. pp. 91–94.

55 See “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 1: 2a–2 b [p. 4] and 1: 3 b, MZZY, p. 26.

56 See MZSSJ, 7:14b–15 b [p. 61f.] and MZZY, 310–312.

57 See “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 5 a [p. 3] and MZZY, p. 16: 施於新學, 可以寤疑辯惑.

58 For an elaboration on the sequence of the first book and a clarification as to how the meaning is structured into the text (i. e. Liang to be followed by Wei and Qi) see the zhangzhi to Mencius 1A.7 in MZSSJ, 1: 9 a [p. 8].

59 This development is often described as substitution of monosyllables by disyllables. Although most examples here seem to be genuine monosyllables being glossed as genuine disyllables, my wording reflects the growing consensus that (at least) some characters were pronounced as disyllables in Old Chinese; for details see L. Sagart: The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam 1999. Cf. also P. A. Boodberg: “Some Proleptical Remarks on the Evolution of Archaic Chinese.” In: HJAS 2,3/4 (1937), pp. 329–372.

60 For Wang Li 王力: Hanyu shigao 漢語史稿. Rpt. Beijing 2009, pp. 396–401 and J. Norman: Chinese. Cambridge 2005, pp. 86f., 112 the need for disambiguation was caused by the gradual phonological simplification from Old Chinese to Middle Chinese that lead to a functional overload of syllables and thereby reduced the communicative function of the vernacular. In a study on disyllabic words in the Lunheng 論衡, Cheng Xiangqing 程湘清 sees the phonological simplification as a result of disyllabism and argues that the trend of compounding also relates to the substantial historical changes and developments of society that occurred during the Later Han; see his “Lunheng fuyinci yanjiu” 論衡複音詞研究. In: Cheng Xiangqing (ed.): Liang Han Hanyu yanjiu 兩漢漢 語研究. Jinan 1984, pp. 262–335. On the simplification of final consonant clusters from Old Chinese to Middle Chinese see W. H. Baxter: A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. Berlin 1992, esp. p. 568. S. L. Feng: “Prosodic Structure and Compound Words in Classical Chinese.” In: J. L. Packard (ed.): New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation: Morphology, Phonology and the Lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. Berlin 1997, pp. 197–260 argues for prosodic reasons behind this trend towards compound formation. On the semanticization of iambic forms see W. G. Boltz: “‘Where Have All the Prefixes Gone?’ Iambic Prefixes and Semanticization in Old Chinese.” In: AS 61,3 (2007), pp. 755–773.

61 For a general investigation on synonyms in the Mencius see Zhou Wende 周文德: Mengzi tongyici yanjiu 孟子同義詞研究. Chengdu 2002, which includes some information on the treatment of synonyms in the commentarial literature on the Mencius.

62 MZSSJ, 1: 6a [p. 6].

63 MZSSJ, 2: 13b [p. 18]. See also Zhou Wende 2002, pp. 292–296.

64 Example from MZSSJ, 2: 3a [p. 13]. With you 囿 denoting a smaller sized park or garden and yuan 苑 defined as “large park with animals” in MZZY, p. 63, words like yuanyou 苑囿 and xiyue 喜說/悅 are clear-cut cases of (near-)synonym compounds.

65 MZSSJ, 7: 2b [p. 55].

66 MZSSJ, 10: 2a–2 b [p. 80]. As the added object specifies the verb, cases like li 立 → li yi 立義 are particularly interesting. Under general phrasal rules, these expressions are to be regarded as verb-object phrases; some consider them compounds.

67 As shown in the examples, the substituting two-character-phrase does not include or repeat the substituted one-character-word.

68 MZSSJ, 10: 8b–9 a [p. 84] (for Zhao rephrasing of both passages). On the semantic expansion of he 何 and Zhao Qi's tendency to use it in his paraphrases see Dobson 1963 a, pp. 90–93; compare E. G. Pulleyblank: Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar. Vancouver 1995, pp. 93–95. On xi and he in the Mencius see also Cui Libin 崔立斌: Mengzi cilei yanjiu 孟子詞類研究. Kaifeng 2003, pp. 188–191. For a gloss where Zhao Qi explains the archaism xi/ge directly as he/ɡɑi see MZSSJ, 9: 4b [p. 73] (5B.2): 奚, 何也.

69 MZSSJ, 9: 9a [p.16]. Zhao Qi's lexical gloss comes with a reference to the Shijing; see Mao Shi zhengyi 毛詩正義 (SSJZS-ed.), 9B: 17 a [p. 323] where we have qinu 妻帑. For the alternate orthography of nu 孥/帑 as 奴 see the subcommentary in Zhouli zhushu 周禮 注疏 (SSJZS-ed.), 36: 9 b [p. 543] where Zheng Xuan is quoted explaining nu 奴 as “son” in his commentary on the Shangshu.

70 MZSSJ, 12: 16a–16 b.

71 MZSSJ, 1: 6b [p. 6]. On the use of an as an interrogative in Mencius see Pulleyblank 1995, p. 96, and on the replacement of wu 惡 by the more general an 安 see Dobson 1963 a, pp. 90f.

72 MZSSJ, 1: 7a [p. 7]. Note that whereas it remains unchanged in his paraphrase of the sentence shu neng yi zhi 孰能一之 (Who can unite it [i. e. the All-under-Heaven]?), the question word shu/dźuk is amended to shei/dźui in his translation of the sentence shu neng yu zhi 孰能與之 (Who can deliver it?). On the assimilation of shu 孰 into the more general shei 誰 see Dobson 1963 a, pp. 89–92, 48; cf. Pulleyblank 1995, pp. 91–93. For general remarks on the usage of shei and shu in the Mencius see Cui Libin 2003, pp. 187f.

73 MZSSJ, 1: 8b–9 a [pp. 7f.]. See also MZSSJ, 13: 7a [p. 108] (7A.16) where the synonym compound yuzhi 御止 stands for yu 御 in Zhao's translation.

74 MZSSJ, 4: 2b [p. 31]. For examples where ru zhi he remains unchanged in Zhao Qi's rephrasing of the main text see MZSSJ, 1: 6b–7 a [pp. 6f.] (1A.6) or MZSSJ, 2: 10b [p. 16] (1B.6) etc. On the three-character-phrase ru zhi he as representing two stressed syllables see G. A. Kennedy: “Metrical ‘Irregularities’ in the Shih Ching.” In: HJAS 4,3/4 (1939), pp. 284–296 and L. Sagart: “Response to Professor Ting.” In: Journal of Chinese Linguistics 30,2 (2002), pp. 392–403, esp. p. 393.

75 MZSSJ, 12: 5a [p. 99].

76 MZSSJ, 2: 19a [p. 21]. Generally speaking the commentary clearly reflects a preference for compounding and, apart from contractions, economisations such as shiyi 是以 into words represented by one character are not particularly common.

77 See MZSSJ, 2: 18a [p. 20].

78 See MZSSJ, 1: 9a–10 a [p. 8]. Names provided in the main text are printed here in italics.

79 See MZSSJ, 11: 14b [p. 95].

80 See MZSSJ, 5: 15b–16 a [pp. 45f]. On the replacement of gu 固 (definitely) by chang 常 (always) see the remarks in Dobson 1963 a, p. 19.

81 See MZSSJ, 1: 6a [p. 6]. The gloss also adds the verb sha 殺 (kill) and the object zhi 之 (it) in the parallel passage with sui 歲 (harvest).

82 See MZSSJ, 1: 1b [p. 4].

83 For this archaism see MZSSJ, 2: 7a [p. 15] and MZZY, p. 73.

84 See MZSSJ, 4: 12a [p. 36].

85 See MZSSJ, 14: 8b [p. 118].

86 See MZSSJ, 2: 1a [p. 12].

87 See MZSSJ, 10: 15b [p. 87].

88 See MZSSJ, 13: 14a [p. 112].

89 See MZSSJ, 6: 4b–5 a [p. 48f]; the translation here follows D. C. Lau: Mencius. London 1970, p. 108 (with minor amendment).

90 See MZSSJ, 6: 4b–5 a [p. 48f]. The use of active mode may be interpreted as a technique to augment the argument.

91 On approaches toward the concept of “words” see W. H. Baxter / L. Sagart: “Word Formation in Old Chinese.” In: Packard 1997, pp. 35–76.

92 MZSSJ, 2: 5a [p. 14].

93 MZSSJ, 10: 6b [p. 83].

94 MZSSJ, 9: 10b [p. 76]. For his glossing of fou as bu ran 不然 (not being so) see for example MZSSJ, 1:13a [p. 10], MZSSJ, 9: 7a [p. 75].

95 MZSSJ, 2: 6b [p. 14].

96 MZSSJ, 2: 11a [p. 17].

97 MZSSJ, 5: 11b [p. 43].

98 MZSSJ, 14: 17a [p. 123].

99 MZSSJ, 3: 5b [p. 23] where Zhao Qi paraphrases yue as yueyao約要, an alliterated compound (same initial); cf. also MZSSJ, 8: 5a–5 b [p. 65].

100 MZSSJ, 4: 8a [p. 34].

101 MZSSJ, 3: 1b [p. 21].

102 MZSSJ, 3: 7b [p. 24] where the gloss explains 槁 as ganku/kanC-khɑ/乾枯.

103 MZSSJ, 6: 14b [p. 53].

104 For readings of peiran (var. 霈然) on the literal (twice in 1A.6), metaphorical (4A.6) and allegorical (7A.16) level see MZSSJ, 1: 8b—9 a [p. 7f]; 7: 5b [p. 57]; 13: 6b–7 a [p. 108]. Where it denotes “central states” or “central kingdoms”—often in juxtaposition to outsiders or lower levels of civilisation—the term zhongguo 中國 was deemed unproblematic; see MZSSJ, 1: 13b [p. 10] (1A.7); 5: 11b [p. 43] and 5: 13b [p. 44] (3A.4); 6: 11 b [p. 52] (3B.9); 8: 1 a–1 b [p. 63] (4B.1); 9: 10 a–10 b [p. 76] (5A.5); and 12: 13b [p. 103] (6B.10). An explanation was however deemed necessary upon MZSSJ, 4: 12a [p. 36] (2B.10) where the commentary periphrases zhongguo as “centre of the country/kingdom” or “centre of the capital”.

105 See MZSSJ, 1: 12a [p. 9] (1A.7): 按摩折手節解罷枝. Compare the literal translation of and note on the expression zhezhi in W. A. C. H. Dobson: Mencius. London 1963(b), p. 11, which deviates from Zhao Qi's explanation.

106 Cf. Lau 1970, p. 56.

107 D. C. Lau in the bilingual edition of his Mencius. 2 vols. Hong Kong 1984, vol. 1, p. 17. For the background of this reading see MZZY, p. 51.

108 MZZY, p. 51: 折草樹枝, where further material regarding this passage can be found in Jiao Xun's subcommentary.

109 For Zhu Xi's handling of this passage his Mengzi jizhu, p. 207.

110 See e. g. the introductions of Mencius' interlocutors, e. g. King Hui of Liang, who is introduced in the jieti. Glosses on the subsequent chapters in which the king features prominently offer no further information on the king; cf. MZSSJ, 1: 1a–8 a [pp. 4–7] (1A.1–5). The appearance of other kings in the main text is followed by short pointers regarding their names, see e. g. MZSSJ, 1: 8a [p. 7] (1A.6) and 1: 9 a [p. 8] (1A.7).

111 Whereas the running commentary upon the passage “Wu mu zhi zhai … wei zhi you ye” ([If] mulberry is planted in every homestead of five mu of land … it is impossible for their prince not to be a true king) in Mencius 1A.3 deals with the main text in the regular manner, the glosses on the same passage in Mencius 1A.7 refer to the earlier occurrence and state that the meaning remains the same, but also explore the reasons why Mencius presented the same speech to yet another king; see MZSSJ, 1: 5a [p. 6] and 1: 15b–16 a [p. 11]: 五畝之宅 … 未之有也. Translation from Lau 1970, p. 51f.

112 This is particularly important where Zhao Qi guides his reader through the means and methods by which the discourse is expressed. See, for example, the commentary on Mencius 1A.3 which guides and assists the reader in “catching up” with the gist of the narrative's argument structure: “Form here on [he] outlines the Way of the [true] king for the king”; see MZSSJ, 1: 4b [p. 5]: 此以下為王陳王道也.

113 Illustrations by reference to precedents play an important function here. See e. g. the references to those who became rules despite their lack of ren (humaneness) in the gloss in MZSSJ, 14: 5a [p. 117] (7B.13) 不仁而得國者 and 不仁而得天下者. See also the references to regicide committed by vassals and the “state of ten-thousand chariots” versus “state of thousand chariots” issue, in the commentary in MZSSJ, 1: 1b–2 a [p. 4] (1A.1).

114 This applies to word glosses as well as to the recognition of the historical dimension and, more importantly, to the expansion of arguments and evidence employed in the main text. For examples see the references to Zhouli and Liji in Zhao Qi's explanations of the terms guitian 圭田 (hereditary land assigned to nobility) and yufu 餘夫. (additional man) in the exposition of the well-field (jingtian) system in his commentary on Mencius 3A.3; see MZSSJ, 5: 7b–8 a [p. 41f].

115 MZSSJ, 9: 8a [p. 75] and MZZY, p. 377 (5A.4): 故說詩者不以文害辭, 不以辭害志. 以 意逆志, 是為得之. Compare the translations in Lau 1970, p. 142, Dobson 1963 b, p. 97, and B. W. van Norden: Mencius. With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis 2008, p. 122.

116 See “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 4a–4 b [p. 3] and MZZY, p. 11: 說詩者不以文害辭, 不以 辭害志. 以意逆志, 為得之矣. On the allegorical nature of the Mencius see “Mengzi tici” in MZSSJ, 4 a [p. 3] and MZZY, p. 11.

117 See MZSSJ, 10: 15a–b [p. 87] and MZZY, p. 429 (5B.8) for gaining access to and befriending the ancients by reciting their poems and reading their writings with knowledge of their environment (zhi ren lun shi 知人論世). The zhangzhi to Mencius 5B.8 incorporates a partial quote from Lunyu 1.8 on the accomplished person's choice of whom he wishes to befriend; see Lunyu zhushu, 1: 6 a [p. 7]: 無友不如己者.

118 For an example of elucidation by analogy see e. g. MZSSJ, 11: 11a [p. 93] (6A.10) where xiongzhang 熊掌 (bear's paws) is read as standing for yi (rightness/justice) and yu 魚 (fish) as referring to sheng 生 (life).

119 See his commentary on Mencius 7B.38, on “knowing [the sages] by seeing them”, i. e. thorough personal experience, and “knowing [the sages] by hearing (about) them”, a task most difficult and complex task due to the passage of time; see MZSSJ, 14: 19b [p. 124] on 見而知之 and 聞而知之. On this passage see also T. A. Wilson: “Messenger of the Ancient Sages: Song-Ming Confucian Hermeneutics on the Canonical and Heretical.” In: C. I. Tu (ed.): Classics and Interpretations. The Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese Culture. New Brunswick 2000, pp. 107–125, esp. pp. 120f.

120 See e. g. MZSSJ, 7: 10a–b [p. 19] (4A.14) and 4: 16 a [p. 38] (2B.13).

121 Huang 2001, p. 261.

122 See MZSSJ, 8: 4b [p. 65] (4B.12).

123 Unfortunately Zhao Qi's terminology is not particularly clear in this instance and the suggested appropriation remains open for discussion.

124 See footnote 38 above. For influences of yinyang wuxing in his glosses see MZSSJ, 13: 16a [p. 113] (7A.38), together with Jiao Xun's subcommentary in MZZY, p. 552f. For further examples see MZSSJ, 3: 7a [p. 24] (2A.2) or 5: 14 b (3A.4) and the short summaries in Huang Junjie 黃俊傑: “Cong Rujia jingdian quanshishi guandian lun jiejingzhe lishixing ji qi xiangguan wenti” 從儒家經典詮釋史觀點論解經者的歷史性及其相關問題. In: Taida lishi xuebao 臺大歷史學報 24 (1999) pp. 1–28, p. 13f.

125 See the subcommentary in MZZY, p. 16.