105Book Reviews
Review of East Asian Confucianisms: Texts in Contexts, by Chun-chieh
Huang. Göttingen and Taipei: V&R unipress and National Taiwan
University Press, 2015
Kuang-ming WU*
Among countless books on Confucianism
throughout histories in China and Japan, thisbook stands out as unique and distinctive on
at least three crucial counts.
To begin with, first, this book insists thatwhat is usually taken as “Confucianism” isactually many “Confucianisms,” a plurality ofvarieties that yet composes a single family ofculture-milieu that is Confucian, in which
various peoples in this vast region of East
Asia move, live, and have their being, cutting
through all boundaries, racial, political, andhistorical. This book promotes such a novel
cosmopolitan perspective seldom heard ofbefore, to revolutionize our traditional staid
impression that “Confucianism” is confined to China proper alone.   Instead,
we must regard Confucianism as cosmopolitan and all-inclusive of East Asia,
this book instructs us.
In addition, secondly, this book is an important and indispensable bookof information on fecund resources in Confucianism in vast East Asia,
attended with critical reflections as clearly displayed in its first beginning“Part I New Perspectives on East Asian Confucianisms.”  This book is not aneasy, indifferent, and casual collection of materials on Confucianism that any
amateur can get hold of. The book is the result of decades of careful siftingand painstaking refining of the firsthand resources that only a Confucian
scholar can amass and understand, and such sifting and refining are what only
the mature veteran Confucian scholar such as Dr. Huang is capable of doing.	  * Kuang-ming WU, PhD (Yale), Rosebush University Professor Emeritus in Philosophy,
The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.

106

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Finally, thirdly, this book is in English. It shows how the author isthoroughly bilingual, so rare among so many Confucian scholars who areusually conversant only in Chinese. This fact shows that the author has
devoted much time to “Englishing” Confucianism to render intelligible thesheer foreign nature of “Confucianism” to the wide circle of readers whoknow no Chinese. The author’s cosmopolitan labors are completely unknownand thankless in the worldwide general reading public, non-Chinese outside
China.   I am myself one of overseas Chinese who are currently undergoingsuch labors and so I fully realize how valuable and indispensable such transcultural labors are.
Of course, this book is distinctive in more features than above indicated,but these crucial three--Confucianism as pluralistic, reflective, and cosmopolitan--are enough to demonstrate how important and indispensable this book isworldwide, beyond China and beyond Japan.
Now, nothing is perfect in this imperfect world, and this book is noexception, however good it is. But it is pointless, counterproductive, andunwise to tear up such a good book into scattered bits and pieces, all sosenseless and irrational. The most reasonable to do here may well be, then, tomention five desiderata among many, somewhat as follows.
The first desideratum is why Confucianism is regarded as the major“orthodox” trend in China. The second is how special and distinct
Confucianism is among so many isms inside China. The third is why Mencius
is an official inheritor of Confucianism. The fourth is what Confucius as“timely sage” means. And the fifth and final desideratum is how many
Confucianisms there are inside China. Now, these five desiderata will bementioned and detailed one by one, as follows.
One: why Confucianism is regarded as “orthodox” in China: It is so
obvious and yet so often unnoticed that “Confucianism as orthodox” is anamazing historic miracle in China. Confucianism is so high an ideal, personaland sociopolitical, that it is seldom actually practiced, and has constantly been
manipulated by unconscionable tyrants into their brutal training rod to beat
their people into obedience to dictatorship.
Confucianism is used as a thin coat to cover up dictatorial praxis oflegalism that is no-nonsense ruler-centrism. And yet, quite surprisingly,legalism was not promoted as “orthodox” in all history of China. Why islegalism constantly practiced not regarded as orthodoxy? Why is, of all isms,Confucianism seldom practiced constantly applauded as “orthodox” in China?
“Confucianism as orthodox’ is itself a big enigma in China.
Two: how special and distinct Confucianism is among so many isms in
China: The above enigma leads us directly to this question. What is it inConfucianism that is responsible to be taken as “orthodox”? What is soBook Reviews

107

special, peculiar, and distinctive of Confucianism that stands out of so many
schools and sentiments in the history of China? The specific peculiarities ofConfucianism have seldom objectively looked into among the cacophonies of
empty praises of Confucianism.
Empty praises actually harm Confucianism more than helping it. We aresadly at a loss in the midst of piles after piles of descriptions of Confucianism,
usually repetitive and emotional. We are quite at a loss as to what exactly
Confucianism is, so precious and valuable, so worthy of adoration andassiduous praxis, however often we fail to reach it. In fact, we do not knowwhat it is in Confucianism that is so valuable as to urge us to follow it atall.
Three: why Mencius is an official inheritor of Confucianism: Mencius
was admired throughout Chinese history as the legendary “亞聖” and only hewas called “Mencius” with “Confucius,” not “Meng Tzu.” No greater honor
has been accorded in Chinese history than such to anyone, and Mencius is theonly person in history to have received such honor.
A question naturally arises. Why is such the case with Mencius? The
Doctrine of the Mean 中庸 begins by saying that 子思 the great disciple ofConfucius conveyed the gist and essence of Confucianism to Mencius. But
such saying seems to be showing Mencius famous than proving Mencius aslegitimate inheritor of Confucius. Mencius quoted Confucius even lessfrequently than Chuang Tzu his contemporary who was not at all a followerof Confucius.
Mencius’ sentiment is more heartfelt than Confucius, and rather Taoist,and homo-cosmic, more than objectively socio-ethical as Confucius was.
Mencius did not seem to be particularly passionate about Confucius or
passionately preaching Confucius in Mencius’ days, either. No clear evidence,textual, historical, circumstantial, or in content of ideas or sentiment, orotherwise, seems to be forthcoming for regarding Mencius as particularly
Confucian, much less sagely and legitimate inheritor of Sage Confucius at all.
Four: what Confucius as “timely sage” means: “Timely sage” is my privatetranslation, but it seems to be totally inappropriate for Confucius. What isConfucius timely about? The original is simply “聖之時者 the timely sage” thatis unintelligible however we take it. Does “time” indicate “at the time (whattime?,” “seasonal,” “for all time,” or what? In fact, why is Confucius reverently characterized as “sage” at all? He was admired as a great and skillfulteacher, but being a teacher is far from being a sage.
We remember that Confucius was unemployed for life, roaming aroundfrom place to place. Confucius was a “failure” for life, good for nothing.
Why was he admired? For what was he admired? Whatever we see for which
Confucius is famous, “time sage” seems to be the least apposite appellation

108

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

or characterization of Confucius. He was not time-ly, and he the lifelong
failure was far from sage-ly.
Five: how many “Confucianisms” there are inside China: The bookreminds the readers that Confucianism is not one but many throughout the vast
East Asia region. This is the contribution of this book. But the book forgets
to mention that there exist so many “Confucianisms” within China itself.
Perhaps the very variety of the plurality of Confucianism within China has
given birth to the plurality of Confucianism outside China in East Asia.
The insights of Confucius have sired Mencius their people-rooted version,
Hsün Tzu their ruler-centered version, and even Name Scholars their namerighting version, and the list goes on. It deserves to devote much labor tocomparing these “Confucian schools” on their similarities and differences,and showing how they all feature Confucian sentiment in their differences,that their differences enrich the fecundity of Confucianism. Differences,plurality, and enrichment are three in one.
What is noteworthy is that despite such rich variety, Confucianism stays
as scholarship, not branched out into esoteric religiosity as Taoism andYin-Yang School. Our natural question is of course why Confucianism stays
scholarly throughout its development. Is there anything special in
Confucianism to feature it as specifically scholarly all the way? What is thatspecial Confucian feature?
Now, to my knowledge, no essay, much less book, has appeared that evenmentions these interesting and significant queries, much less discusses themor responds and answers them. But if it is impossible to handle these queries
at all, then it would have been great if this book did mention these probes
and then cite some reasons for not discussing them. After all, these fivedesiderata are “desired” for consolidating and establishing “Confucianism”
that has been quite pivotal in China since those illustrious days of august
Confucius. Such is what is desired on this good book to enhance even more
the value of this book.