≪論語ㆍ為政≫ “至於犬馬皆能有養”의 의미 재고찰

Abstract

This paper adduces philological evidence to support a new interpretation of a long-controversial passage in “Weizheng(為政)” in The Analects, which reads 子游問孝. 子曰: “今之孝者, 是謂能養. 至於犬馬, 皆能有養. 不敬, 何以別乎?” (Ziyou asked about filial piety. The Confucius said: “Filial piety nowadays means to be able to tend. Even dogs and horses can all have the case of tending/being tended. If one does not respect, by what means can one distinguish?”) There has been disagreement regarding the agent and patient in 至於犬馬皆能有養(Even dogs and horses can all have the case of tending/being tended). There are three possible interpretations: (1) 人養犬馬 “The human beings tend dogs and horses” (2) 犬馬養人 “Dogs and horses tend the human beings” (養 is the falling tone) (3) 犬馬養犬馬 “Dogs and horses tend their own parents” (養 is the falling tone) This paper aims to strengthen the third interpretation, 犬馬養犬馬 (Dogs and horses tend their own parents). This interpretation was suggested by Qing dynasty scholars, including Li, Guangdi 李光地 and Zhai, Hao 翟灝. Li paraphrased the passage as 蓋言禽獸亦能相養, 但無禮耳; 人養親而不敬, 何以自別於禽獸乎?(It roughly means that birds and beasts can also tend each other. It is just that they do not have the proper ritual. If human beings tend their parents, yet do not respect, by what means can they distinguish themselves from birds and beasts?) Zhai also pointed out a very similar passage in “Fangji” 坊記 in Liji(禮記): 子云: “小人皆能養其親. 君子不敬, 何以辨?”(The Confucious said: “Even the petty men can all tend their parents. If the gentleman does not respect, by what means can one distinguish?”) The passage in Liji contains 犬馬 “dogs and horses” where The Analect has 小人 “petty men” and it explicitly expresses the object of 養 ‘to tend’, which is 其親 ‘one’s parents’; the rest is extremely similar, and the gist of the two passages is identical. This paper argues that the 犬馬養犬馬(Dogs and horses tend their own parents) interpretation is plausible based on the following three facts. First, given that both The Analect and Liji are Confucianists’ texts, the occurrence of the parallel passage noted above is not accidental at all. Rather, it implies that the idea was popular among Confucianists. Second, Confucianists’ texts often discuss the idea that there are different levels of 孝 ‘filial piety’. For instance, a passage in “Zaji shang” 雜記上 in Liji(禮記), which reads　曾子曰: “孝有三：大孝尊親，其次弗辱，其下能養” (Zengzi said: “There are three levels of filial piety. The highest is to respect one’s parents. Next is not to offend them. The lowest level is to be able to tend them.”) stresses that tending is merely the lowest level of filial piety, where that of the highest level must include respect. Third, in Classical Chinese texts, animals are often personalized in order to highlight the extreme appropriateness of human beings’ behaving in a certain way. The passage 鳥獸之於不義, 尚知避之, 況於人乎!(Even birds and beast know to avoid injustice. How much is it even more so in case of human beings?) in Kongzi jiayu(孔子家語) is an example. In sum, 至於犬馬, 皆能有養. 不敬, 何以別乎? in The Analect should be interpreted as “Even if dogs and horses tend their own parents: If one does not respect [one’s parents], by what means can one differentiate the filial piety of animals [which only contains tending] and that of human beings [which must contain both tending and respect]?”