So after Han Yu, his legacy was continued. I will argue that perhaps the two sides of his legacy, the legacy of Confucianism and the legacy of his prose essay writing. Between the two, there has been more reinterpretation and more critique of his Confucian side. Since I don't have much time, I cannot go into everything in a very elaborate fashion as to what kind of, sort of a tenet he has critiqued. Suffice it to say that it all verges on, or focuses on, this once central quotation. Near the end of the essay [FOREIGN], and that is the quotation about this line, this is the quotation from the early Confucian text [FOREIGN], or Great Learning. Actually there are two or several editions of [FOREIGN], of Great Learning, so there is a debate as to whether you place the correct weight in the correct side of the Confucian argument. You begin [FOREIGN] with the grand idea of setting all and or heaven in peace, but to do that you have to rule your country, set your country at peace. And then to do that you have to have your family in cohesion, but to get the family right, you have to cultivate yourself. And then, of course, it goes on more and more into the personal side, how to cultivate yourself. Then you have to go into several steps one by one. [FOREIGN] So the personal side is what the Confucianist would emphasize. Whereas would emphasize the public side, namely, how to get the empire to get a country rule in according to Confucian teachings. But he made a very subtle argument that the two sides, in fact, were parts of the same. So that, in order to manifest one's level of self cultivation, the best way of manifesting that is through practice, or public practice, namely officialdom, if you cannot become official, well, be a teacher, exemplary teacher. To be more exemplary in your action, rather than in your worth. Of course, ironically this is the part that the Song New Confucianists criticized for, for his lack of asserting intellectual depths and lack of asserting meditative quality, saying that, arguing that, in fact, his essays are rather superficial. Of course, this reflects on the Song cultural climate, in which under further impact of Buddhism, most of the Confucians have gradually turning inside, into the realm of self cultivation. So the season, this final sentence in Great Learning, which basically said that the pivot of this whole line is in fact self cultivation, because it stands relatively at the center of this ladder if you like, whether you go up or whether you go down. Whereas uses self cultivation as a way of expressing his obligation to public service. Now, so one could argue that contribution to the intellectual tradition of Confucianism was limited, and yet his contribution to the classical essay tradition was immense. I would argue that down to the present day, if I were to write a essay in memory of a dead young relative, of course, the words from essay will come to my mind. So, what is that legacy? The classical prose legacy that has bequeathed to posterity? Now, here we'll have to use some other examples to illustrate. So I will have to say a little bit about limited impact about the first legacy, because I see was being too idealistic. He wanted to reestablish a certain idealized unity, but did he succeed? I would say not. Did later intellectuals compete and succeed in turning the imperial dynasty or the imperial court into something in accordance with the Confucian ideal? The answer is also no. So what happened in history, in my view, is a kind of a parting of the ways, or shall we say the parting, the division, of two sub legacies within the grand stream of Confucianism. One, of course, is the intellectual legacy that established. The other, of course, is what I will call the imperial Confucian ideology. Ideology is not the same as a doctrine or a intellectual legacy. An ideology is a set of values that are used for other purposes, in this case, to govern the people. China, down to 1911, remains a dynastic monarchy. In other words, the power of the ruler was never questioned, and yet one of the central arguments in was precisely that the emperor should become a sage. The emperor himself should be an example. The emperor should be a father figure, like the early sages who would feed the people, who would nourish people, who would teach the people, who would then have a right to govern the people. In reality none of the emperors could ever fulfill that idealized role, rule. In fact, the sage ocean became just the opposite. In since the Ming Dynasty onwards, none of the Confucian prime ministers could, in fact, sit down when they had audience with the emperors. They would have to kneel. Of course, in the early Sung period, the Confucian prime minister could sit with the emperor. They could become the teacher of the emperor, and they could scold the emperor in their teaching. But then of course, later on, the Confucianness had to be totally subservient, if you depart from that, if you cite a Confucian tradition, you're in opposition to the political reality. You'll get yourself into trouble. The famous case was, of course, the [FOREIGN] party scandal, in which thousands of people were killed, executed. And they're relative, in fact, because of their, shall we say, dissident Confucian behavior. So these two strains, the sort of intellectual strain and the imperial strain, somehow failed to reunify, even under the best of circumstances. But if I were get into modern Chinese intellectual history, of course, I'll have more to say about this. But down to the present day, one can still argue that there's a certain conflict between the individual ideas, according to some ancient ideal and power politics on the other hand, and that muddle, that complex issue has never been resolved.
