| Abstract |
This paper discusses the Hu’s Commentary’s criteria for praise and censure—to radically reform and expand the great righteousness contained in the Linjing (another name for the Spring and Autumn Annals); that is, the ministers had better look up to setting straight the throne line and the kings should discipline themselves without womanizing, embrace mad but straight forward people, build up an open mind to admonitions, praise ministers’ moral integrity, and respect and hire the able and virtuous. This paper also tries to present the Hu’s Commentary’s explanatory features: to develop the classic meaning of the saints contained in the Spring and Autumn Annals. In the interpretation of the “Righteousness of the Spring and Autumn Annals”, his was conspicuously more in-depth and multi-faceted than what was expounded in the Three Commentaries and by such scholars as Du Yu, He Xiu, Fan Ning, Dan Zhu, Sun Fu, and Liu Chang. His interpretation actually brought to full play the spirit of era on the relationship between “Righteous meanings of the Six Classics” and “Putting into practice the said meanings” prevalent in the dynasties of two Song’s. Finally, the paper lists the critic comments centered in three entries of transformed classic writing in order to depict the divergence caused by different interpretations on the classics and the problems caused by later generations misreading the Hu’s Commentary, so that it may clarify Hu An-guo’s elucidation on Confucius’distinct sense of right and wrong and true intention by his Commentary on Spring and Autumn Annals.
|
