In a lecture on the rules of speech acts, one of my professors recently quoted Confucius. Believe it or not, I have seldom run into this kind of thing. The only other time I can recall Confucius coming up was in a discussion on sex back in Hangzhou. (The quote then was “食色性也.”) Anyway, this time it was:
Now I’m no scholar of ancient Chinese, but seeking to better understand the teacher’s point after class, I asked the teacher himself as well as a few scholarly friends about it. The explanations I got were varied because four of the characters are open to a lot of interpretation: 质, 文, 野, 史. The characters with relatively fixed meanings are 胜, meaning “exceeds,” and 则, which indicates a result, and means something like “will be.”
One common interpretation of the quotation refers to writing. In this case it means something like:
When content exceeds rhetoric, [writing] will be rough. When rhetoric exceeds content, [it] will be pretentious.
The quote can also be applied to people, in which case you also get a translation rather similar to the above.
My professor used the quote in a less orthodox way. He was talking about history, which could be divided into the emperor’s “official history” (史) as well as the people’s oral tradition (野), which was a less stable method of recording actual events, but which didn’t overlook certain unpleasant events that the emperor didn’t want to record. I find this idea much harder to translate, because it’s harder to assign specific meanings to 质 and 文, but I guess it goes something like this:
When events outweigh revision, legend results. When revision outweighs events, an unbalanced history results.
My, that’s a very clumsy translation. (Hey, I’m on vacation!)
The essence of the quote lies in the part my professor didn’t quote:
That is, when 文 and 质 are in balance, the results are ideal.
See chinakongzi.com for an interpretation of the quote in Chinese. Ancient Chinese is one of those gaping voids in my Chinese education, so any corrections or revisions are welcome.
In the next couple days I will elaborate on the point my professor was making when he spouted this Confucian wisdom.