Talk:Yu Gong

Name

In English-language sources, this chapter is usually called the "Tribute of Yu", so I'd suggest that should be the article title. Kanguole 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment but most of the articles that reference the topic seem to use the Yu Gong or Tribute of Yu conjunction so it seems reasonable to call it Yu Gong. I prefer using the pinyin as any translation into English inevitably takes away from the actual meaning. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First to define Tianxia?

This is problematic, since the term tianxia doesn't occur in the chapter, but does appear in works such as the Analects, which are now believed to be older. Also the reference is an article about Qing history, rather than an expert on older texts. The chapter is, however, commonly cited for its description of five concentric domains. Kanguole 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. I added the ref due to scarcity of (English) sources on the Yu Gong when I started the article. Having read an awful lot about the Yugong and the text itself, my considered opinion is that the whole thing is apocryphal and was written in the Warring States period to justify someone or others territorial/clan or political aims. That aside, I have removed the offending reference and rewritten the paragraph with a request for citation that I will work on. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, particularly those whose aims included a vast and unified empire like that described so favourably in the text. That's one of the reasons some authors connect it with the Qin or early Han. Kanguole 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

@Kanguole: According to Li Xueqin's History and Civilisation of Xia, Gu Jiegang dated Yu Gong to the late Warring States period, a few decades before the Qin unification. This book seems to agree with that view. The article says Gu dated Yu Gong to possibly as late as Han Dynasty, which is different from what I've read. As all the sources cited are offline, can you verify that this is in fact correct? Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think we should make the conclusion that most scholars agree with Gu. Archaeological evidence seems to support Wang Guowei's Western Zhou theory. See A Companion to Chinese Archaeology. Li Xueqin also leans toward Western Zhou. -Zanhe (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by a quotation of Gu in Kai Vogelsang, BMFEA 74 (2002), p141:

Third group (3 chapters): "Yao dian," "Gao yao mo," "Yu gong." These are certainly forgeries of the Warring States to Qin/Han period; they are connected to the philosophical theories of those times.

but I can only see a snippet on GBooks – I'll have to check it on a future trip to the library.

For most scholars agreeing with the late date, the citations are:

The consensus of modern authorities is that it is a work of the fifth century BCE or later. (Shih, p817)

Group C: Six Modern Script chapters, including [...] Tribute of Yu [...] None, however, can possibly date much earlier than Qin unification in 221 BC, and some may postdate unification. (Nylan, p134)

There is now general agreement that the [first six New Text chapters ...] were composed in the last centuries of the Chou dynasty and, especially in the case of the 'Yü kong', perhaps as late as the Ch'in dynasty. (Shaughnessy, pp377–8)

I don't have access to Torajirō, which was cited in the zh version, but that's from 1931 anyway. Kanguole 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]