1 Introduction
My analysis of the term xin
The second kind of conceptual key terms, which might be defined as component terms, rarely stand alone and occur mostly as a component in particular relationships with other terms in compounds, parallel constructions, chain arguments, clusters, or catalogues of terms. Operating as an ensemble, these terms mostly contribute either to a broader composite meaning or to a general and abstract notion that is formed by means of antithetic compositions or binary polar oppositions.1 Yin
Xin
You xin
有信 /wu xin無信 : have trustworthiness or have no trustworthinessBu xin
不信 belongs to the first meaning if it is used as an intransitive verb. It then means: to not be trustworthy. Or, used as an adjective, it describes an act of being not trustworthy.Xin x
信 x: have trust in xXin yu x
信於 x: be trustworthy in regard to xXin
信 x: to believe (in) x
A semantic relationship between the two basic meanings of xin can be constructed when we look at formulations like
Yet, it appears that these two different meanings of xin are clearly distinguished by the way they are expressed in different literary forms of early Chinese texts. When xin is used in its meaning of “trustworthiness,” then it is mostly used as a component term together with other terms, mostly in parallel constructions. When it is used in its meaning as “to believe x” then it always appears as an individual term.
Since xin in early Chinese texts is mostly used as a component term, I would like to start my analysis with examples of this component use of xin to demonstrate the numerous variants of literary forms which allow a range of component constructions of the term.
The character
After having analyzed over 130 passages from the Zuozhuan, Lunyu, Mengzi, Xunzi, Shangjun shu, Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Mozi, I have decided to present my analysis with selected examples from the Zuozhuan because of the great variety of its linguistic forms, including xin standing alone in the historical narrative in cases that will be discussed further below. I will make use of the trustworthy translation of Durrant, Li and Schaberg to avoid twisting my own translation to serve my argument and to prove my argument against an independent nuanced and reliable contextual interpretation of the term xin
2 Xin 信 as a Member of Catalogues
Xin is often used as a member of catalogues that present sets of terms appearing like powerful terminological troops in a battle of arguments. In early Chinese texts, catalogues define a specific field of discourse and represent a systematic, often didactic, attempt at formulating something like a doctrine. They are self-sufficient,4 not systematically deducted, and might therefore appear randomly chosen but nevertheless function as a closed set5 which in each particular explanation claims to cover everything that relates to the theme. This claim of completeness is sometimes supported by adding numbers to the terms (which I will bold in the translations). Some of these catalogues, especially the numbered ones, require further explanations in the texts. Although many of these terminological sets do not appear anywhere else in the received literature, they assemble terms that obviously belong to a common discourse that is also echoed in other early texts.6 Many of the terms seem to belong to a repertoire of conceptual terms which are combined in different constellations in various argumentative contexts. Xin belongs to such a repertoire.7 It is combined with a range of different terms as we will see and is used to support a broad spectrum of arguments of the various schools of thought in early China. Accordingly, its meaning moves through a panoply of subtle nuances.
2.1 Catalogues of Two:
2.2 Catalogues of Three:
Moreover, you assembled the regional lords and extinguished a fraternal domain;
子犯曰，民未知義，未安其居，於是乎出定襄王，入務利民，民懷生矣。將用之，
子犯曰，民未知信，未宣其用，於是乎伐原以示之信，民易資者，不求豐焉，明徵其辭，公曰，可矣乎，
子犯曰，民未知禮，未生其共，於是乎大蒐以示之禮，作執秩以正其官，民聽不惑，而後用之。
Zi Fan said: “The people do not yet understand their duty, and they are not yet peacefully settled in their abodes.” So it was that he left Jin to stabilize the position of King Xiang, then came back to the domain and strove to benefit the people, and the people cherished their livelihood. When the lord was about to put them to use as soldiers,
Zi Fan said: “The people do not yet understand trustworthiness, and they have not yet demonstrated that they can be put to use.” So it was that he attacked Yuan to show them an example of trustworthiness. The people who traded goods did not seek undue profits from this and openly stood by their words. The lord said, “Can we act yet?”
Zi Fan said: “The people do not yet know ritual propriety, and they have not yet developed respect.” So it was that he organized the great spring hunt to show them an example of ritual and established the keeper of ranks to put in order his officials. The people could then heed his commands and not be deluded, and it was only then that he put them to use.11
公曰，衣食所安，弗敢專也，必以分人。 對曰，小惠未遍，民弗從也，
公曰，犧牲玉帛，弗敢加也，必以信。 對曰，小信未孚，神弗福也，
公曰，小大之獄，雖不能察，必以情。 對曰，忠之屬也，可以一戰。
2.3 Catalogues of Four:
2.5 Catalogues of Six:
These examples show that the typical Zuozhuan repertoire of terms that are combined in different constellations with xin
3 Xin 信 in Argumentative Chains
Argumentative chains claim causal relationships between concepts and thus structure a discursive field in a slightly different way than catalogues which have a more authoritative encyclopedic and hierarchical approach. Many of the terms used in argumentative chains belong to the same repertoire as the terms used in catalogues. Again, xin is one of these terms which we find often as a member of such argumentative chains.
名以出信，
信以守器，
器以藏禮，
禮以行義，
義以生利，
利以平民，政之大節也。
Designations are for bringing forth confidence;
confidence is for guarding ritual objects;
ritual objects are for embodying ritual propriety;
ritual propriety is for carrying out righteousness;
righteousness is for producing benefit;
benefit is for appeasing the people.
These are the great principles of government.17
信以守禮。
禮以庇身。
Trustworthiness serves to protect ritual propriety,
ritual propriety serves to protect one’s person.18
The different functions of xin in different sets of terms is even more evident in argumentative contexts in which xin operates as cause and effect in causal chains like in the examples above. The exact meaning in these lines of reasoning is often difficult to determine because the exact relevant discursive contexts in response to which these terminological connections are constructed are mostly missing.
4 Relational Meaning
Xin might also appear as a component in a relationship constructed between two concepts when it forms an implicit part of another concept and thus defines the meaning of this other concept, for example in a conditional way as in the following examples.
君子曰，信不由中，質無益也。
君子曰，苟信不繼，盟無益也。
The noble man said: “If trustworthiness does not hostages are of no
spring from within, then benefit.”20
The noble man said: “When trustworthiness is covenants are of no
not sustained, then benefit.”21
5 Singular Usages of xin 信
In early Chinese texts there are two basic ways to use terms individually. Terms are either used in a colloquial way or they are exposed as conceptual terms, discussed, commented, and defined.
In the Lunyu we can find a set of key terms that are discussed and defined as singular conceptual terms. In numerous instances, disciples ask Confucius about the meaning of these specific terms such as ren
In early Chinese texts, xin is almost never used as a singular conceptual term. When used as an individual term we only find it in colloquial usages in all of its basic meanings.
費曰，我奚御哉，袒而示之背，信之。
Bi said: “Why should I stop you?” When he pulled down his robe and showed them his back, they trusted him.33
子上欲涉。大孫伯曰。不可。晉人無信。半涉而薄我。
Zi Shang (Dou Bo) wanted to cross the river but Da Sun Bo (Cheng Daxin) said: “This is not possible. The people of Jin have no trustworthiness, once we would have halfway crossed the river they would attack us.”34
6 Conclusion
Analyzing the usage of xin
Second, terms that are used as component terms in compounds or wider sets of terms which can be presented in different literary forms such as catalogues, chain arguments, word pairs, or parallelisms, etc. These terms often belong to an analytical repertoire that is semantically flexible and can be used in varying argumentative contexts. They function as building blocks in particular kinds of arguments that often use the catalogue form to claim systematic completeness and didactic guidance and to provide mnemonic support. These catalogues are often further formalized and marked as discursive units by adding numbers to them.
Three conclusions have been drawn for the term xin in this second register. First, xin is frequently used as component term. Second, xin is only used as component term in its meaning of trustworthiness, not in its meaning of belief. The notion of belief thus never has a conceptual meaning when expressed by the term xin in early Chinese texts. Third, in contrast to terms such as ren
In contrast to many other component terms, xin’s related counterparts vary and are not fixed. The term is thus neither fully independent nor part of an independent binary unit of a fixed compound. Xin appears as a term that gains its meaning in its relationship to particular contexts, it functions as a term that creates semantic connotations rather than fully independent semantic fields. It might be described as a semantically light term that rarely carries the whole weight of its semantic value, but is used as a component term that shares its semantic value with others and mostly contributes to a meaning that lies beyond itself.
The third register is the colloquial usage of terms as part of everyday language with no indication that terms carry much conceptual weight as analytical terms. On this level, xin is used in all its meanings.
One of the relevant conclusions for this volume on xin is obviously that we do not find any evidence that the term xin was used as a conceptual term in its meaning of “belief” in early Chinese texts up to, and probably including, Early Han times. A component usage of this meaning as we find it in European reformational three or five solae, such as “sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide” (“by Scripture alone, by Grace alone, through Faith alone”) would thus be very unlikely to have ever been conceptualized for xin in the meaning of belief/faith at that early stage. Like in Ancient Rome, conceptual xin in the religious realm is always related to the correct and reliable performance of rituals and prayers, not to true faith, in early Chinese texts.
I have only found one example so far which might indicate some kind of a more conceptual reflection on belief in spirits and ghosts, and it comes, of course, from the rather unique “Ming gui xia
墨子: 明鬼下 …
由此始，是以天下亂．此其故何以然也？
則
皆以疑惑鬼神之有與無之別，
不明乎鬼神之能賞賢而罰暴也．
今若使天下之人，
偕若信鬼神之能賞賢而罰暴也，
則夫天下豈亂哉！
… starting from this, therefore, the world was in disorder. What was the reason for this being so? It was in all cases that there was doubt about the existence or non-existence of spirits and ghosts and no understanding of the spirits’ and ghosts’ ability to reward worthies and punish brutes. Now if the people in the world could be brought to completely comply with believing in the spirits’ and ghosts’ ability to reward worthies and punish brutes, then how could the world be in disorder!
Here, we might see some conceptualization of the term xin (believing) through the loose parallel composition which contrasts it with yihuo
Bibliography
Chan, Wing-tsit. 1986. Neo-Confucian Terms Explained: The Pei-hsi tzu-i by Ch’en Ch’un, 1159–1223. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chen Zhi 陳致. 2014. “‘Yun,’ ‘yun,’ ‘jun’ shi shi 「允」、「㽙」、「畯」試釋.” Bulletin of the Jao Tsung-I Academy of Sinology 饒宗頤國學院院刊 1: 135–159.
Cua, Antonio S. 2003. Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Durrant, Stephen, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg (transl. and introd.). 2016. Zuo Tradition / Zuozhuan 左傳 / Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals.” 3 vols. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Erkes, Eduard. 1950. “Antithetische Komposition und Dekomposition im Chinesischen.” Sinologica 2: 127–139.
Geaney, Jane. 2016. “Binaries in Early Chinese Texts: Locating Entities on Continuums.” International Communication of Chinese Culture 3, no. 2: 275–292.
Gentz, Joachim. 2018. “The Lunyu, a Homeless Dog in Intellectual History: On the Dating of Discourses on Confucius’s Success and Failure.” In Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship, edited by Michael Hunter and Martin Kern. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 116–151.
Gentz, Joachim. 2019. “Literary Forms of Argument in the Tsinghua Manuscript ‘Tang zai Chi Men 湯在啻門’.” In Qinghuajian yanjiu 3: ‘Qinghua Daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian 5’ guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 清華簡研究（第三輯）—《清華大學藏戰國竹簡（伍）》國際學術研討會論文集, edited by Li Xueqin 李學勤, Sarah Allan 艾蘭, and Michael Lüdke 呂德凱. Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju, 194–221.
Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1987. Thinking Through Confucius. Albany: SUNY Press.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1969. Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture and Community. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jullien, François, ed. 1990. “Vertu pratique de la liste: De la main, du corps, du poème.” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 12: 13–36.
Mainberger, Sabine. 2003. Die Kunst des Aufzählens: Elemente zu einer Poetik des Enumerativen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Röllicke, Hermann-Josef. 1995. “Hidden Commentary in Precanonical Chinese Literature.” Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 19: 15–24.
Seiwert, Hubert, and Ma Xisha. 2003. Popular Religious Movements and Heterodox Sects in Chinese History. Leiden: Brill.
Shen Baochun 沈寶春. 2019. “Cong guwenzi de gouxing guilü tan ‘xin’ zi liushu de guishu wenti 從古文字的構形規律談「信」字六書的歸屬問題.” In Shen Baochun xueshu lunwen ji (gu wenxian juan) 沈寶春學術論文集 (古文獻卷). Taipei: Wanjuan lou, 307–324.
Silber, Ilana Friedrich. 2003. “Pragmatic Sociology as Cultural Sociology: Beyond Repertoire Theory?”. European Journal of Social Theory 6, no. 4: 427–449.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51, no. 2: 273–286.
Wang Yueqing, Bao Qinggang, Guan Guoxing. 2020. History of Chinese Philosophy through Its Key Terms. Translated by Xiang Shuchen. Singapore: Springer; Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.
Wu Yi. 1986. Chinese Philosophical Terms. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Xie Wuliang 謝无量. 1916. Zhongguo zhexue shi 中國哲學史. Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhang Dainian 张岱年. 1989. Zhongguo gudian zhexue gainian fanchou yaolun 中国古典哲学概念范畴要论. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.
Zhang Dainian. 2002. Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy. Translated by Edmund Ryden. New Haven: Yale University Press; Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Erkes 1950; Geaney 2016.
For a grammatical and historical analysis of these two basic meanings see the chapter by Meisterernst in this volume.
Shen 2019, 311ff.; Chen 2014.
Jullien 1990, 8–9. For a general introduction into the variety of forms and functions of catalogues in Western literature, see Mainberger 2003; for the original Greek sense of the verb
Similar to sets that are in use today from internationally propagated Five Taekwon-Do Tenets: Courtesy-Integrity-Perseverance-Self Control-Indomitable Spirit down to the local five School values of James Gillespie’s High School in Edinburgh: Respect-Equality-Inclusion- Honesty-High aspirations.
For further details on catalogues in early Chinese texts, see my analysis of a set of catalogues in the Tsinghua manuscript “Tang zai Chi Men
My usage of the term “repertoire” here has been inspired by its use in Seiwert and Ma (2003, 489–494) in their model for Chinese sectarian religions. For “repertoire” as a broader cultural studies term, see Hannerz (1969, 186–188), quoted by Swidler (1986, 277) who famously has interpreted it as a cultural “tool kit.” See also the critical reflection on that concept in Silber 2003.
Here and in the following passages I follow in my translations the excellent translation by Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016 (here p. 97) with my own amendments as appropriate, especially when translating xin.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 287.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 429.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 405.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 119.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 161.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 383.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 101.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 829.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 713.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 819.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 1197.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 25.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 117.
A critical analysis of the many meanings of ren
Lunyu
Chan 1986.
Zhang 1989. This work was first written as Zhongguo zhexue dagang: Zhongguo zhexue wenti shi
Cua 2003.
Wu 1986.
Xie 1916, 71–72.
Hall and Ames 1987, 56–62.
Wang et al. 2020, 117.
Shen 2019.
Wang et al 2020, 117–118.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 155.
See Durrant, Li, Schaberg 2016, 455. Here
Röllicke 1995.
In this respect, early Chinese is not different from modern English: we can’t use the term “benevolent” in the same colloquial way as the term “to believe.” It is uncommon to say: “he is a real benevolent guy” or “she’s so filial,” etc. The same applies to ren
That the concept of ming