Rhetoric and the Perception of the Sacred in Confucian Classics: Insights from Premodern East Asian Scholars

Abstract

This article explores the Confucian Classics as foundational texts of rhetorical theory and literary practice (wen ben yu jing 文本于經) in East Asia, arguing that their scriptural authority derives not only from their moral or philosophical content but also from their exemplary literary form. It addresses a scholarly gap concerning the rhetorical dimensions of these texts, especially as interpreted by premodern intellectuals across China, Korea, and Japan. Drawing on case studies of six influential scholars—Liu Xie and Han Yu from Liang and Tang China, Jeong Dojeon and Seong Hyeon from Joseon Korea, and Fujiwara Seika and Ogyū Sorai from Edō Japan—this study examines how each conceptualized and applied rhetorical principles rooted in the Confucian canon. Methodologically, it combines historical, philological, and comparative analysis of primary sources to trace both shared ideals and divergent approaches in their engagement with the Classics. Findings reveal that while these thinkers uniformly upheld the sacred literary status of the Confucian texts, they varied in rhetorical application, corpus selection, and the social and ethical aims of writing. This study concludes that these transnational rhetorical practices constitute a distinct intellectual trend within the Sinographic Cosmopolis, challenging disciplinary boundaries and reaffirming the central role of literary form in the articulation and transmission of Confucian thought.

1. Introduction

Since scriptures are inherently written works, they can be broadly categorized as literature. The three major religious traditions of East Asia—Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism—each played a pivotal role in shaping Sinitic writing among premodern scholars, leaving distinct stylistic and rhetorical imprints. Among the diverse textual traditions, the Confucian Classics exerted the most profound and lasting influence on the formation of Sinographic literary culture. As the earliest extant corpus of Sinitic literature—particularly the Five Classics (wujing 五經; Yijing 易經, Shujing 書經, Shijing 詩經, Liji 禮記, and Chunqiu 春秋)—these works took shape during the Zhou dynasty (circa 11th to 3rd century B.C.E.) and underwent a prolonged canonization process that extended well into the Han dynasty.1 The Classics not only provided a foundational paradigm for literary composition but also crystallized a distinct and enduring literary tradition. Notably, many of these texts contain reflections on literary and aesthetic concerns that later attained canonical authority, serving as foundational statements for subsequent critical discourse throughout East Asia.

All texts inevitably reflect their authors’ intent and religious scriptures, by nature, are intrinsically rhetorical. The Confucian Classics are de facto no exception. Moreover, the origins of rhetoric in the Sinographic world can be traced to Confucian scriptures, which gradually attained sacrosanct status. As Wei (2022, p. 67) indicates, the Confucian Classics were the most representative of Sinographic rhetorical traditions among the predominant schools in premodern China. In China, the exploration of Confucian rhetoric can be traced back to the Yijing and the Analects (lunyu 論語), highlighting its foundational role in shaping the theoretical frameworks and practical applications.

A notable example is Liu Xie’s 劉勰 (465–521) Wenxin diaolong 文心雕龍 (The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons), a seminal work that explores rhetorical theory and literary criticism within the Confucian tradition.2 The Sinitic term “xiuci” 修辭, often used as a translation for the ancient Greek word ῥητορική (rhētorikē, E. rhetoric), is deeply connected to its early appearance in the phrase “xiuci liqicheng” 修辭立其誠 (refining one’s word, establishing one’s sincerity) from the Yijing. This linkage underscores how the Confucian Classics emphasize literary refinement and rhetorical precision as integral to intellectual and ethical cultivation.

In the Confucian tradition, rhetoric bears a sacred quality due to its intrinsic alignment with the dao. As Vermander (2024, pp. 2–9, 163–67) explains, the “sacredness” of wen arises from its capacity to express the dao, or Heaven, in its most perfected form. In this view, writing becomes sacred insofar as it encodes the Way, forming a microcosm of the highest and most expansive reality. This sacrality is manifest through rhetorical features—structure, patterning, and unity—that mirror cosmic order. Confucian scripture, which exemplifies these qualities most fully, stands as the paragon of sacred wen. For this reason, rhetoric in the Confucian Classics has long been revered, not only as a means of expression but as a vehicle for moral and cosmological principles. Unlike Plato’s notion of writing as a mere imitation of speech—a pharmakon that is both remedy and poison—the Confucian wen possessed its intrinsic efficacy, a performative power that did not merely record the world but helped shape it.

The sacredness of wen is not merely metaphysical; it is also epistemological and practical. From Yang Xiong 揚雄 (53 B.C.E.–18 C.E.)’s identification of writing as “the tracing of the heart-mind” to Liu Xie’s articulation of cosmically ordered textual patterns, the trajectory moves from a cosmological to an ontological conception of the text. Wen thus becomes not only an inscription of the heavens but a living resonance within the human mind. This dual capacity—linking the transcendent with the immanent—renders wen both sacred and potent.3 In this light, the Confucian Classics held institutional authority as the paradigmatic model for composition. Their rhetorical excellence was equated with spiritual authority, reinforcing the notion that to write well was to articulate the Way itself. In this respect, the sacredness of wen and the cultivation of rhetoric are deeply entangled, forming the cornerstone of textual scholarship in the study of the Confucian Classics.

However, despite the deep-rooted presence of literary and rhetorical elements in the Confucian Classics and their perceived sacred nature as primarily literary or rhetorical works among premodern East Asian Confucian scholars, they have been relatively overlooked in the present scholarship due to the compartmentalization of disciplines. This reflects the broader limitations of studying East Asian culture through a Eurocentric framework. While premodern scholars approached the Confucian Classics from diverse disciplinary perspectives—whether as religious, philosophical, or political texts—their fundamental nature as linguistic compositions has been largely neglected by recent scholars.

The act of reading and interpreting these scriptures is inherently tied to rhetoric, whether examined through a philosophical or philological lens. Even Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), the scholar who systematized orthodox Neo-Confucian thought, emphasized textual analysis (wenyi 文義)—the study of textual features—as a core component of his hermeneutic methodology.4 You (2022, p. 1) defines this approach in the Confucian Classics as “rhetorical”, which interprets a text through its literary style, including oratory techniques, sentence construction, and structural organization, or examines its topoi (loci of argumentation) through the lens of embellishment and persuasion. Despite rhetoric being a sine qua non for interpreting the Confucian Classics, it remains largely overlooked in contemporary scholarship.5

In preceding research, extensive scholarly debate has surrounded the presence of rhetoric in China. Much of this study has focused on comparative rhetoric, particularly examining the similarities and differences between classical Chinese traditions and the classical Greco-Roman tradition (Kennedy 1998; Lu 1998). Many studies have analyzed rhetorical elements within the Confucian Classics (Lan 2016; Rickett 2015; Wei 2022), yet there remains a significant gap in research regarding how premodern scholars themselves perceived rhetoric in relation to the Confucian canons (Owen 1992). The Confucian Classics have often been studied primarily as philosophical or religious texts, with limited attention paid to their rhetorical and literary dimensions. Moreover, research on rhetoric of Literary Sinitic remains largely China-centric, with insufficient expansion into the broader East Asian context.

As the shared written language of East Asia, Literary Sinitic played a foundational role in shaping the intellectual traditions of Korea and Japan. Functioning as a cosmopolitan language in Pollock (2006)’s sense,6 Literary Sinitic (hanwen 漢文, K. hanmun 한문, J. kanbun かんぶん) served as the prestigious medium through which scholars across the Sinographic world engaged in literary, philosophical, and bureaucratic discourse.7 King (2015, 2023) conceptualizes this sphere as the Sinographic Cosmopolis, a vast intellectual and cultural network where Classical Chinese texts spread not through military conquest but through voluntary adoption, cultural transmission, and religious influence.8 This distinguishes it from the Latin and Sanskrit Cosmopolises, which were shaped by multi-polar textual flows and, in some cases, coercive imposition. Within this frame, Korea and Japan developed their distinct engagements with Sinitic writing, incorporating it into local traditions while maintaining a degree of linguistic and literary autonomy.

The Confucian Classics were the first Sinitic texts introduced to both regions, providing a shared foundation for rhetorical theories and scholarly discourse that transcended national boundaries. As both a religious and philosophical tradition, Confucianism shaped the overwhelming majority of Korean and Japanese written languages. Unlike Latin, which spread primarily through conquest, or Sanskrit, which was closely tied to religious transmission, the Confucian Classics proliferated through cultural exchange and voluntary adoption. Much like Latin in Europe, they were the earliest written texts in East Asia, and, like the Bible, they functioned as religious scriptures. However, unlike the Bible, they did not emerge from an extensive oral tradition but were established as written texts from the outset. Through sacralization and ritualization, the Confucian Classics solidified their authority as the foundation of East Asia’s written culture.

Despite national and linguistic differences, East Asian intellectuals participated in what Jin (2014) describes as a “literary public sphere” in the imagined republic, where ideas on rhetoric in Confucian Classics were exchanged and debated across time and space.9 Even without direct personal contact, scholars engaged in an imagined intellectual community centered on the Confucian Classics, forging a literary and philosophical republic that transcended borders. Recognizing the Confucian Classics as the cornerstone of this textual network allows us to better understand East Asia’s historical engagement with their sacred rhetoric, revealing a literary tradition that was as global in scope as its Western counterparts.

This study aims to establish rhetoric as a legitimate approach to Confucian scripture and to examine how Confucian textual rhetoric was revered, developed, and evolved among premodern East Asian intellectuals. For that purpose, I will first examine premodern scholarly discourses to assess the feasibility and objectives of rhetoric as a methodological approach to studying the Confucian Classics (Part 2). Next, I will explore the origins and evolution of the perception of sacred rhetoric in the Confucian Classics through the writings of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese Confucian scholars, analyzing how they understood and practiced it: Liu Xie and Han Yu 韓愈 (768–824) in the Liang and Tang dynasties of China; Jeong Dojeon 鄭道傳 (1342–1398) and Seong Hyeon 成俔 (1439–1504) in the Joseon dynasty of Korea; and Fujiwara Seika 藤原惺窩 (1561–1619) and Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠 (1666–1728) in Edō Japan (Part 3). Finally, in the conclusion, I will highlight the broader implications of both the universalities and particularities in these six scholars’ perceptions of rhetoric within the Confucian Classics, investigating its significance in the East Asian intellectual sphere (Part 4). Although their literary theories have been frequently discussed, very few studies have focused specifically on their views of the Confucian classics as literary texts or situated these perspectives within a broader regional context.10 This study, therefore, aims to reevaluate the role of Confucian scripture as sacred wen 文 (lit. literature or writings) within the East Asian scholarly tradition.

2. Rhetoric as a Study of the Confucian Classics

2.1. Three Disciples and “Rhetoric”

Conceptualizing premodern East Asian scholarship, Cheng Yi (程頤, 1033–1107) articulates a threefold classification:

Scholars of antiquity pursued a unified path, whereas scholars of today follow three distinct disciplines, with heterodox teachings (yiduan 異端) entirely excluded. The first is literary studies (wenzhangxue 文章學), the second is philological studies (xunguxue 訓詁學), and the third is philosophical studies (ruxue 儒學; lit. Confucian studies). One cannot pursue the Way (dao 道) without engaging in Confucian studies.11

This tripartite model was not confined to China; it was also widely embraced by Korean and Japanese intellectuals. Cheng Yi’s classification was cited in the Jinsi Lu 近思錄 (Reflections on Things at Hand), which was transmitted to Korea during the late Goryeo dynasty (13th–14th century) and to Japan during the Muromachi period (14th century). Scholars of both the Joseon and Edō periods adopted and expanded upon this intellectual framework.

Here, Cheng Yi identifies three distinct scholarly traditions: “literary studies” (wenzhangxue, also known as shizhangxue 詞章學), “philological studies” (xunguxue, later synonymous with kaozhengxue), and “philosophical studies” (ruxue, also called yilixue 義理學). While he underscores the supremacy of philosophical studies, he recognizes the legitimacy of all three intellectual paths.

Cheng Yi’s classification of xunguxue aligns with philology (kaozhengxue), while ruxue corresponds to philosophy (yilixue). However, his concept of wenzhangxue (literary studies) carries broader connotations within the Sinitic intellectual tradition. Kern (2001, pp. 43–91) traces the earliest recorded use of the term wenzhang 文章 to the preface of Ban Gu 班固’s (32–92) Liangdu Fu 兩都賦 (Rhapsody on the Two Capitals), noting that its meaning has evolved.12 In Cheng Yi’s framework, wenzhang is closely associated with shizhang 詞章, a term that, in contemporary scholarly discourse, corresponds to wenxue 文學 (literature). In terms of the modern disciplinary categories, wenxue encompasses both literary composition and literary study.

Historically, premodern scholarship originated with wenxue, with Confucian scriptures serving as foundational core. According to Guo (2011), during the Zhou and Qin periods, wenxue was the singular scholarly domain, encompassing boxue 博學 (literary, broad learning), an all-encompassing domain of knowledge, rather than the modern conception of belles-lettres.13 Over time, its meaning evolved and became more differentiated, and by the Han dynasty, it bifurcated into wen 文, denoting literary composition (also refers as wenzhang or wenci 文辭), and xue 學, signifying broader academic scholarship.14 By the Wei-Jin and Northern and Southern dynasties, wen came to refer specifically to poetry, while bi 筆 denoted prose. Meanwhile, xue evolved into two—ru 儒, denoting moral philosophy, and kaoju, referring to philological and evidential studies.

Given this historical evolution, scholars have debated what exactly wen entails, with some emphasizing its literary aspects and others highlighting its broader intellectual significance (Kern 2001, 2007; Owen 1992; Vermander 2023). In particular, Vermander (2024, p. 12) traces the early cosmological undertones of wen as writing that can be found in the tianwen 天文 compound; and the studies of Connery (1998) and Lewis (1999) explore the ideology of language, script, and the imperial culture-power that emerged during the Han dynasty. The translation of wen as “literature” remains debated: while some (e.g., Wixted 2018) argue it implies belletristic writing, others (e.g., Smith 2020) deny such connotations. This study follows the perspective that wen in East Asia encompassed not only aesthetically driven literature but all forms of writing across diverse genres (Kornicki 2018; King 2023).

Because wen in this intellectual tradition encompassed all written expression—whether literary, philosophical, or historiographical—it inevitably functioned as a medium of argumentation, forming a natural link with rhetorical structures; of course, it also and perhaps always implied culture more generally—any that is ornamented or patterned wen. Unlike the modern concept of belles-lettres, the Sinitic term wenxue encompassed all forms of writing, seamlessly integrating diverse genres within a comprehensive intellectual framework. Whether literary or didactic, all writing inherently conveys an argument, forging an essential connection with rhetorical structures. In this context, Cheng Yi’s use of wenzhang can be understood in a broader sense, aligning with the concept of rhetoric. Accordingly, this study adopts “rhetoric” as the corresponding term for the literary domain, distinguishing it from philology (kaozheng 考證; also translated as evidential learning) and philosophy (yili 義理; also translated as Neo-Confucianism).15

This tripartite framework remained a cornerstone of scholarly discourse from the Song dynasty through the Qing dynasty. Dai Zhen 戴震 (1723–1777) later reaffirmed this classification, stating “The scholarly paths, both past and present, can broadly be categorized into three: some devote themselves to philosophy, some to institutional analysis (zhishu 制數, roughly here referred to as philology), and others to literary composition (wenzhang, roughly here referred to as rhetoric)”. From the Song dynasty onward, philosophical studies became the dominant focus, leading to the fragmentation of its interconnected relationship with the other two elements. In contrast, early Qing scholars such as Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 (1613–1682), Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲 (1610–1695), Dai Zhen, and Zhang Xuecheng 章學誠 (1738–1801) were critical of this shift. While Dai Zhen leaned toward philosophy, he nevertheless argued for the integration of all three components. Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865–1898) acknowledged this synthesis, remarking that “Master Dai unified philosophy, philology, and rhetoric into a cohesive whole”.

While the intellectual landscape of the premodern period is typically understood to comprise these three distinct branches, recent scholarly discourse on the study of the Confucian Classics (jingxue 經學) has often reduced this complexity to a binary framework. To be specific, for a few decades, understanding the study of the Confucian Classics has been framed within a dichotomy—philosophy (yili) and philology (kaozheng). This binary, embedded in scholarship, has shaped the methodological discourse surrounding classical Confucian texts. This dichotomy remains pervasive across both West and East, becoming an entrenched scholarly paradigm, structuring the study of Confucian Classics and shaping contemporary scholarly methodologies and discourse (Elman 2001; Makeham 2003; Liu 2005).16

Also traditionally, the binary framework of “philosophy and philology” served as a classification system of reading the study of the Confucian Classics (Jing 2022). The Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要 (Bibliography of Complete Collection of Four Treasuries), Vol. 1, Jingbu Zongxu (General preface to the Classics Section 經部總敍), encapsulates this dichotomy. The passage suggests that, since the Han dynasty, classical interpretation of Confucian Classics has been categorized into two dominant traditions: Han Learning (hanxue 漢學), which emphasizes philological precision and textual exegesis (kaozheng, often referred to as xungu 訓詁 or kaoju 考據), and Song Learning (songxue 宋學), which prioritizes moral and metaphysical inquiry (yili, often referred to as lixue 理學).17

Moving beyond this rigid binary, a more accurate understanding of premodern East Asian scholarship reveals a tripartite intellectual landscape rather than a mere duality. A striking contrast emerges when comparing the binary framework of the Siku quanshu with Cheng Yi’s tripartite classification: while the former dominates discussions on the study of the Confucian Classics, the latter shapes broader intellectual discourse.18 This discrepancy raises two critical questions: (1) Was rhetoric ever recognized as a methodological approach in the study of the Confucian Classics in the premodern periods? (2) Should rhetoric be excluded from Confucian scholarship as a valid interpretive framework? These questions challenge the long-standing assumption that literary and philosophical disciplines are inherently incompatible within Confucian traditions.

As reflected in the common expression “wen-shi-zhe” 文史哲, the intellectual traditions of philosophy (yili), philology (kaozheng), and rhetoric (xiuci) coexisted as distinct academic disciplines while also functioning as interpretive methodologies for the Confucian canon. The Confucian Classics not only laid the foundation for various branches of knowledge but were also continuously reinterpreted through evolving disciplinary frameworks. This dynamic interplay, much like the refraction and reflection of light, continuously reshaped and influenced scholarly discourse.

For example, philosophical interpretations of the Confucian Classics intensified through the precedent set by Song scholars like Zhu Xi, who simply reinterprets religious beings, such as shangdi 上帝 and shen 神, in terms of the concepts of li 理 (principle) and qi 氣 (vital energy or force), thereby emphasizing metaphysical and ethical principles. In contrast, philological approaches, exemplified by Han dynasty scholar Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200) and Tang dynasty scholar Kong Yingda 孔穎達 (574–648), prioritize textual accuracy and historical analysis. However, rhetorical analysis (wenzhangxue or xiucixue) also plays a significant role in engaging with interpreting the Confucian canon. This approach focuses on the stylistic, structural, and expressive elements of the original texts, recognizing their literary and rhetorical qualities.

Rhetorical interpretation of scripture is not unique to Confucian studies. In Western scholarship, rhetorical readings of the Bible have long been an established approach. The term “rhetorical interpretation of the Bible” refers to a hermeneutic methodology that utilizes rhetorical techniques to examine the persuasive strategies, literary structures, and rhetorical intent of biblical texts. Often incorporated into literary criticism, this approach has played a central role in biblical hermeneutics. In contrast, Confucian studies have yet to fully embrace rhetoric as a recognized interpretive category in its hermeneutic, largely due to the persistent notion that literature and the Classics belong to separate intellectual spheres.

However, historical precedent suggests that rhetoric, far from being peripheral to Confucian scholarship, is integral to hermeneutic traditions of biblical studies. Just as medieval and scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) incorporates rhetorical methods into theological discourse—albeit subordinating rhetoric to logic—so too do early modern Protestant reformers like Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564) employ rhetorical techniques in their biblical commentaries and sermons. Similarly, rhetorical interpretation of the Confucian Classics coexists with philosophical and philological approaches, shaping textual interpretation in ways that were both distinct and complementary.

Unlike biblical rhetoric, rhetoric in the Confucian Classics carries even greater historical weight. While the King James Bible—the first English version of the Bible, translated in 1611—shaped English prose style and contributed to the development of modern English, the Confucian Classics predate Western scriptural traditions by centuries and served as the bedrock of Sinographic literary culture. The earliest recorded Sinographic texts are the Confucian Classics, whose rhetorical frameworks became the foundation for subsequent writing traditions. The historical interplay between religion and rhetoric in the West, where the study of persuasive discourse dates back to medieval preaching, differs from that of China, where the exploration of Confucian rhetoric predates the Middle Ages by over a thousand years. By contrast, in the Western tradition, the earliest extant literary works—Homer (possibly born in the 8th B.C.E.)’s Iliad and Odyssey—predate the Bible, and classical rhetoric, as systematized by not a priest but a philosopher Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.), developed independently of scriptural texts. Indeed, Aristotelian rhetorical principles later informed Christian theological discourse rather than originating from it.

At times, I might conflate the pursuit of literary style and the production of literary works with a literary approach to sacred and canonical texts. While these are distinct endeavors, they are occasionally intertwined, especially in the Confucian tradition. The tradition of merging literature and the study of the Confucian Classics, at times, draws these spheres into closer alignment. The imperative to intensifying their connection became inter alia pronounced in the 17th and 19th centuries, shaping the scholarly pursuits of figures such as Dai Zhen, Quan Zuwang 全祖望 (1705–1755), Zhang Xuecheng, and Yao Nai 姚鼐 (1731–1815).

Within the convergence of wen, shi, and zhe, Quan and Zhang identify history as the key to resolving methodological tensions, positioning the Six Classics (liujing六經; adding Yuejing 樂經 to the Five Classics) as fundamentally historiographical (Liujing jieshi 六經皆史; the Six Classics are all history). In contrast, Yao Nai, foregrounding the literary dimension, advances Liujing jiewen 六經皆文 (the Six Classics are all literature), framing the Confucian canon as a literary corpus to be read, interpreted, and appreciated through the lens of rhetoric and stylistics.

Despite their differing emphases, both Liujing jiewen and Liujing jieshi rest upon a shared theoretical foundation: they reject the rigid compartmentalization of knowledge, instead positioning the study of the Confucian Classics at the confluence of multiple disciplines. More than a field of inquiry, jingxue becomes an interpretive mode that intersects with historiography, philology, and literary studies, demanding a methodological fluidity that transcends traditional boundaries. Within this framework, scripture is not merely an object of exegesis but a textual form (wenben 文本) whose rhetorical and stylistic dimensions are inseparable from meaning itself. To read the Classics, then, is not only to engage with moral and historical argumentation but to recognize the aesthetic and structural logic that underpins their composition.

This vision is most fully realized in Yao Nai’s approach, which, while advocating the synthesis of philosophy, philology, and rhetoric, does not call for their equal integration.19 Instead, he strategically subsumes the first two into the domain of rhetoric, urging scholars to meet the intellectual demands of their time by refining literary technique as the primary mode of engagement. This recalibration left an indelible mark on Qing scholarship, generating a lasting discourse that extended into the modern era. Qian Zhongshu 錢鍾書 (1910–1998) later rearticulated this legacy, further developing Liujing jieshi 六經皆詩 (the Six Classics are all poetry) as a paradigm for interpreting the Confucian canon.20

Rusk (2012, p. 8) contends that “the literary is a universal category”. In premodern East Asia, literature is inherently interdisciplinary, intersecting with various fields of knowledge, including the study of the Confucian Classics, which had long been considered sacrosanct. The rhetorical dimension of the Confucian texts thus unveils the true face of classical learning—one that transcends rigid disciplinary boundaries and challenges the conventional separation of Confucian hermeneutics from literary and rhetorical analysis.

2.2. The Sacred Nature and Aims of Rhetorical Interpretations

2.2.1. Discourse on Sacred Nature of Rhetoric in the Confucian Classics by Premodern East Asian Scholars

One of the earliest examples of integrating rhetorical studies as a methodological approach to the Confucian Classics can be traced to Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (176–104 B.C.E.) in Chunqiu fanlu 春秋繁露 (Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals). Beyond Dong, rhetorical analysis of the Confucian canon can be systematically categorized based on textual form and the degree of engagement with rhetorical critique. Representative examples include the following:

(1)

Stylistic and structural analysis in prose: A foundational discussion appears in Dong Zhongshu’s Chunqiu fanlu during the Han dynasty, while a more comprehensive and systematic treatment is found in Liu Xie’s Wenxin diaolong from the Wei-Jin and Northern–Southern dynasties;

(2)

Rhetorical critique within exegetical commentaries: For Mencius, examples include Zhao Qi’s 趙歧 Mengzi zhangju 孟子章句 from the Han dynasty, which incorporates rhetorical insights within textual interpretation, and Su Xun’s 蘇洵 Supi Mengzi 蘇批孟子 from the Song dynasty, which presents a more integrated rhetorical analysis;

(3)

Compilation and evaluation of Confucian texts in literary anthologies: A partial yet insightful rhetorical analysis appears in Lu Zuqian’s 呂祖謙 Wenzhang guifan 文章規範during the Song dynasty, while a more systematic and extensive treatment is found in Zeng Guofan’s 曾國藩 Jingshi baijia zapchao 經史百家雜抄in the Qing.

You (2018, 2024) defines the “rhetorical approach to the Confucian Classics” as the systematic examination of their rhetorical theories and techniques, positioning these texts as models of refined writing. The rhetorical frameworks embedded within Confucian scripture are reflected in doctrines such as zongjing lun 宗經論 (revering the stylistic features of the Classics) and wen yi zai dao 文以載道 (literature as the vehicle of the Way). At the same time, their rhetorical strategies manifest in lexical choices, syntactic structures, and stylistic refinements. Just as biblical rhetoric has long been a recognized field in Western scholarship, Confucian rhetorical analysis occupies a parallel role in premodern East Asian intellectual traditions.

Regardless of textual form, all scholarly engagements with the Confucian Classics can be understood through a rhetorical lens, as rhetoric is central to both textual composition and interpretation. Depending on the type of text, different categories emerge: Commentaries exemplify rhetorically oriented exegesis, employing persuasive argumentation and linguistic precision; prose critiques constitute rhetorical criticism, analyzing stylistic and structural elements to assess communicative efficacy; and literary anthologies function as rhetorically driven collections, curating texts based on their rhetorical merit and influence. Collectively, these approaches form a broader framework of rhetorical interpretation or rhetorical recognition, illustrating how rhetoric shaped—and was shaped by—the study of the Confucian canon.

The rhetorical interpretation of the Confucian Classics is not a modern development but part of a deeply rooted intellectual tradition. At its core is the principle of wen ben yu jing 文本于經, the notion that all refined writing stems from the Confucian canon. This doctrine positions the Classics as both the highest literary standard and the foundation of scholarly composition. Across East Asia, these texts were not only revered as repositories of philosophical wisdom but also celebrated as paragons of literary excellence, shaping intellectual discourse and aesthetic ideals for generations.

The principle of “Revering the Stylistic Features of the Classics”, so-called zongjing 宗經, can be traced back to Xunzi 荀子 (310–235 B.C.E.) during the Warring States period and evolved through successive literary traditions. Liu Xie’s Wenxin diaolong, Han Yu’s “the Unity of Writing and Way” argument, so-called wendao heyi 文道合一, in the Tang and Song dynasties, and Yao Nai’s assertion of “the Six Classics are all literature” in the Qing dynasty all reflect this enduring belief. Far from being confined to China, this literary ethos extended to Korea and Japan,21 where the shared Sinitic literary heritage shaped their own intellectual and literary landscapes.

Some scholars view rhetorical analysis of the Confucian Classics as a form of desacralization, arguing that it reduces these texts to mere literary works and diminishes their sacred authority. However, this perspective imposes a false divide between scripture and literature, overlooking rhetoric’s vital role in shaping and transmitting sacred texts. In the Confucian tradition, eloquence is not merely decorative but integral to conveying ethical and philosophical teachings. Far from undermining the canon’s authority, rhetorical analysis underscores its dual role as doctrinal foundation and literary exemplar.

This view is also historically anachronistic, misrepresenting premodern East Asian scholarship. Did classical scholars regard Confucian texts as fiction or artistic compositions in the modern sense? The term jing 經 (canon) itself signifies supreme authority and sanctity (Vermander 2023, pp. 142–45). According to Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (Explaining and Analyzing Characters), jing originally refers to the warp threads of a loom, symbolizing continuity and structure. Over time, it came to denote canonical texts embodying enduring authority and guiding principles. This metaphor underscores how Confucian scripture weaves an intellectual framework that sustains scholarship from one generation to another, reinforcing its foundational role in scholarly and moral discourse.

Even when examined through a literary lens, Confucian scripture was rarely equated with secular prose by premodern East Asian intellectuals. With few exceptions—such as Li Zhi 李贄 (1527–1602) of the Ming or Hong Gilju 洪吉周 (1786–1841) of late Joseon—most scholars regard the Confucian Classics as transcendent, elevating them above all other forms of writing.22 These texts were not merely literary artifacts but authoritative repositories of eternal truth (hengjiu zhidao 恆久之道), shaping moral and intellectual discourse across generations.

To characterize rhetorical analysis as “desacralization” is a fundamental misinterpretation. Premodern Confucian scholars do not merely revere the philosophical substance of Confucian scripture—they sacralize its literary form. Rather than subordinating scripture to literary analysis, they elevate literary refinement to the realm of the sacred, integrating rhetorical mastery into Confucian learning. Eloquence and stylistic precision are not seen as mere embellishments but as essential to preserving and conveying moral and philosophical truths, reinforcing the inseparability of form and meaning in Confucian thought.23

The veneration of Confucian scripture as a literary model often reinforces its ideological authority. While the philosophical depth of the Confucian canon and its refined literary form may seem distinct, they were mutually reinforcing. This dynamic is evident when compared to Buddhism and Daoism, where rhetorical brilliance is also highly esteemed. As Buddhism gained prominence, scholars highlight its literary sophistication through pianliuwen 駢儷文 (parallel prose), an ornate and highly structured style that conveyed doctrinal depth with rhetorical elegance. Likewise, Daoist texts, particularly Zhuangzi, are celebrated for their vivid allegorical prose, which is seen as integral to their philosophical impact. These traditions demonstrate that literary excellence is not merely aesthetic but a vital means of reinforcing and transmitting sacred knowledge.

In premodern China, assertions of Confucian superiority over Buddhism and Daoism are often intertwined with the veneration of its literary excellence. During the Han and Song dynasties, as Confucianism competed with other intellectual traditions, new prose styles of the contemporary so-called guwen 古文 (ancient prose), emerged that consciously echoed the diction and structure of the Confucian Classics. Literary anthologies frequently featured Confucian texts, affirming their philosophical authority while also solidifying their status as paragons of rhetorical refinement. This dual elevation of content and form reinforced Confucianism’s intellectual dominance and its enduring influence on literary culture.

With the institutionalization of Confucianism as the state ideology during the Han dynasty, Yang Xiong famously asserts that the Five Classics represent the highest standard of literary excellence, a belief reflected in his Fayan 法言, which closely modeled the stylistic structure of the Analects. During the Wei-Jin and Northern–Southern dynasties period, Liu Xie further reinforces this view in Wenxin diaolong, arguing that Confucian thought is not only central to spiritual discourse but also foundational to the development of major literary genres and styles in Literary Sinitic.

This tradition continues across dynasties. In the Tang, Han Yu spearheads the Ancient Prose Movement (guwen yundong 古文運動), advocating a return to the unembellished yet forceful style of the Confucian Classics. During the Ming and Qing periods, literary schools such as the Former and Later Seven Masters (qianhou qizi 前後七子; a Ming dynasty group advocating a revival of Han–Tang poetic and prose styles in opposition to contemporary ornateness) and the Tongcheng School (tongcheng pai 桐城派; a Qing dynasty movement centered on classical prose that emphasized moral clarity, Confucian values, and rhetorical restraint) further emphasize the rhetorical dimensions of Confucian scripture, treating it as both a literary and doctrinal model. Beyond these movements, leading scholars such as Zhu Xi of the Song and Zhang Xuecheng of the Qing also uphold the literary craftsmanship and the philosophical primacy of the Confucian canon. Their scholarship reinforces the enduring view that the Confucian Classics are not merely doctrinal texts but paragons of rhetorical and aesthetic refinement, shaping literary culture and intellectual inquiry for centuries.

This phenomenon is not confined to China but extended to Korea and Japan, where Confucian scripture similarly shaped literary and intellectual traditions. In premodern Korea, while the Goryeo dynasty initially prioritized Buddhist-style literature, scholars such as Kim Busik 金富軾 (1075–1151), Yi Kyubo 李奎報 (1168–1241), and Yi Jehyeon 李齊賢 (1287–1367) increasingly emphasized the Confucian Classics, not only as doctrinal foundations but also as literary models.24 In the Confucian-centered society of Joseon, this tendency became even more pronounced.25

In premodern Japan, Confucian thought flourished during the Edō period, giving rise to J. Kobunji gaku 古文辭學 (C. guwen cixue; the study of ancient prose and rhetoric), a movement that championed a literary style aligned with the rhetorical precision of Confucian scripture. This marks a stark contrast to the preceding Kamakura and Muromachi periods, when J. Gozan bungaku 五山文學 (C. wushan wenxue; five mountain literature)—a literary tradition centered around Buddhist monks—dominated intellectual discourse.

The preference for the term “rhetorical analysis” over “literary analysis” in the study of Confucian scriptures stems from the sacralization of its literary qualities. In the East Asian tradition, articulating ideas is not primarily tied to fiction or artistic self-expression but fundamentally linked to the illumination of the Way. In this context, literature was not conceived as an autonomous aesthetic endeavor, but rather as a medium through which the Way is made manifest. Accordingly, rhetoric in the Confucian Classics was not merely ornamental or stylistic, but served as a quintessential mode for conveying philosophical and moral truths. Rhetorical analysis, therefore, is not simply a tool of literary critique but a crucial hermeneutic lens for understanding how these texts were revered, transmitted, and interpreted across generations.

2.2.2. Internal and External Dimensions of Rhetorical Approach

The rhetorical approach to the Confucian Classics is, at its core, a process of sacralizing their literary qualities. Rather than treating scripture merely as a literary text, this perspective emphasizes both the intrinsic necessity of understanding textual meaning (wenyi 文義) of the original text and the outward aspiration to establish scripture as the very foundation of literary expression. This dual approach reveals two key objectives embedded within rhetorical engagement with scripture—the refinement of internal rhetoric and external rhetoric.

Internal rhetoric (interpretation and comprehension) refers to the rhetorical structures inherent within the text that shape the reader’s understanding through formal and structural elements. The idea that one must grasp textual form to comprehend the dao underscores its centrality in the Confucian tradition. A failure to recognize the rhetorical dimensions of the text leads to an incomplete understanding of its doctrinal essence.

Mastery of internal rhetoric is fundamentally an exercise in deep reading and comprehension. Without an awareness of textual meaning, the doctrinal substance of scripture remains elusive. Consequently, this emphasis on internal rhetoric is evident in interpreting the Confucian Classics that prioritize rhetorical precision in textual interpretation. Hermeneutical approaches have long regarded linguistic structures, syntactic rhythm, and semantic nuances not as embellishments but as crucial tools for unlocking meaning in the Confucian canon.

External rhetoric (expression and composition), by contrast, refers to rhetorical principles applied beyond the text, influencing composition and stylistic refinement. It involves the application of rhetorical techniques acquired through reading, enabling scholars to articulate their ideas with precision and persuasive force. Through external rhetoric, thought and emotion are transformed into eloquent writing, employing rhetorical conventions to enhance clarity and expression.

This principle extends to scripture interpretation, where rhetorical awareness informs the reading process. However, its ultimate goal is the cultivation of writing proficiency, as seen in efforts to emulate the stylistic sophistication of the original text of the Classics. The pursuit of external rhetoric also shaped literary interpretation, in which the Confucian Classics were revered as the pinnacle of rhetorical excellence and served as a model for composition.

The interrelationship between internal and external rhetoric mirrors the Confucian concept of ti-yong 體用 (substance and function). Internal rhetoric serves as the ti, fostering a deep understanding of textual structure and rhetorical form. This mastery naturally extends to external rhetoric, the yong, which manifests in the ability to write with clarity and rhetorical precision. The two are inseparable—internal rhetorical awareness enriches external rhetorical expression, forming a continuous cycle of intellectual and literary refinement. Wei (2022, p. 16) similarly argues that “a theory of rhetoric is inseparable from the experience of using rhetoric” in the tradition of Confucian scholarship.

Premodern East Asian scholars regarded the Confucian Classics as a medium through which both internal and external rhetorical capacities could be cultivated in tandem. While some works placed greater emphasis on one over the other, scholars rarely treated them in isolation. Instead, they engaged with both dimensions—whether through rhetorical theory, textual criticism, the compilation of exemplary prose anthologies, or the production of detailed commentaries.

These rhetorical engagements with the Confucian Classics reflect a broader reality in the Sinographic Cosmopolis, where textual mastery was both an intellectual and a political necessity. Unlike a spoken lingua franca such as Latin, Literary Sinitic derived its authority from the permanence of the written word, reinforcing the link between rhetorical cultivation and cultural legitimacy. In this context, the rhetorical framework of the Confucian Classics was not merely a literary technique but a driving force shaping the textual culture of the Sinographic Cosmopolis.

Mastery of internal rhetoric fostered an engagement with scripture, while external rhetoric transformed this engagement into authoritative writing. This dynamic was not just intellectual but also institutional, as literary expression became a primary vehicle for political and cultural authority. As Lewis (1999, p. 4) notes, the longevity of an empire—twice the size of Europe and sustained for over 2000 years—due not to coercion but to a shared textual tradition, and this primacy of writing made Literary Sinitic a political and social force in East Asia (Vermander 2023, pp. 142–45). Bol (1992)’s concept of siwen 斯文 further highlights how wen functioned as both literary expression and cultural authority, particularly within the Confucian tradition.

Confucian Classics are fundamentally written texts, intended for reading and composition rather than oral transmission. More than a mere script, Literary Sinitic shaped the articulation of political and social thought, distinguishing it from other linguistic traditions. Its rhetorical power influenced scholars’ engagement with Confucian texts—not as passive readers but as active participants in a system where mastery of writing conferred intellectual and political legitimacy. As Owen (1992, pp. 8–9) observes, “While the Confucian Classics generally stress how language can be an adequate manifestation of inner life and the social world around the writer, the early Taoist texts contain important counterarguments regarding the inadequacy of language”.

The interplay between internal and external rhetoric delineates a hermeneutic horizon where the sacred order of Heaven and the authority of worldly power converge. The Confucian scriptures, embodying a celestial order (tianwen 天文) and virtuous order of dao, engage with the empirical world through the act of reading and acquire social potency through the writer’s rhetorical agency. This transformation—from sacred text to cultural authority—is made possible through the dual operations of internal interpretation and external appropriation, with wen functioning as the mediating structure between the two. As a patterned expression of human order, wen bridges Heaven and the human realm, the sacred and the political. Through this process, the Confucian Classics attain stylistic authority and expressive potency, positioning themselves as not only scriptural texts but as models of form and force in the Sinographic world.

Rhetoric, then, is not simply an interpretive tool but a defining methodology within the study of the Confucian Classics. Closely tied to the sacralization of scripture’s literary qualities, rhetoric is far from a secondary or decorative aspect of interpretation. Rather, it is fundamental to engaging with scripture in its fullest sense. Rooted in the interplay of ti-yong, it structures not only textual engagement but also the broader intellectual and political landscape of East Asia.

3. The Confucian Classics as Rhetorical Canon: Premodern Interpretations from Chinese, Korean, and Japanese Scholars

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the literary canonicity of the Confucian Classics arises from the belief that the wen (writing) can manifest the dao through textual patterns. In the Confucian tradition, rhetorical mastery was not merely an exercise in stylistic refinement but a means of aligning with cosmic order and embodying virtue. The closer a text came to articulating the dao through its form and structure, the more it was revered as sacred—its authority derived not only from doctrinal content but also from the rhetorical precision that made it an instrument of spiritual and social potency.

For premodern East Asian scholars, this understanding of sacred rhetoric was not abstract. It informed concrete modes of reading, writing, and exegetical practice, as they treated the Confucian Classics both as divine utterances and as literary templates to be emulated. The following case studies will examine examples of how rhetoric was part and parcel of establishing the Classics as sacred texts and demonstrate the different strategies by which six Chinese, Korean, and Japanese scholars sought to realize this goal.26

3.1. Cases from Liang and Tang Dynasties China

3.1.1. Liu Xie

Inseparability of Way, Sage, and Literature

Liu Xie is a foundational figure in establishing the tradition of wen ben yu jing, which asserts that all refined writing is rooted in the Confucian Classics.27 His work Wenxin diaolong, a seminal literary treatise from the Wei-Jin and Northern–Southern dynasties, systematically explores the fundamental principles of literature, rhetorical techniques, and theories of composition. It stands out for its rigorous logical analysis, often compared to Aristotle’s Poetics, and has had a profound influence on later literary studies.

The first five chapters of Wenxin diaolong are its conceptual core, and among which the opening three chapters—“Yuandao” 原道 (tracing the dao), “Zhengsheng” 徵聖 (examining the sages), and “Zongjing” 宗經 (revering the Classics)—are closely interconnected. These collectively assert the inseparability of dao, sheng 聖 (the sage), and wen, as he declares the following:

The virtue of wen is truly great, coexisting with heaven and earth. Why is this so? …… When the mind is formed, words arise; when words are established, wen becomes distinct—this is the natural order of things. …… Thus, if one understands that the dao is preserved through the writings of sages and that sages illuminate the dao through writing, then all things will be comprehended without obstruction, and it will be inexhaustible in daily use.28

This passage is from the chapter Yuandao. Here, Liu Xie identifies dao as the natural order that mediates between sages and literature. He argues that the beauty of the sages’ writings stems from their foundation in dao. Just as the patterns on a phoenix’s feathers manifest naturally and harmoniously, literature rooted in dao inherently embodies aesthetic refinement. In other words, the language of the Confucian Classics is not merely a collection of rhetorical devices but a medium for expressing the principles of the cosmos. Furthermore, Liu emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between dao and wen.

While literature derives its significance from dao, it is not merely a passive vehicle; rather, it actively shapes and transmits dao. This concept is reflected in the very title—“wenxin” 文心 (lit. the literary mind or to make the mind literary, or, translating Liu’s explanation literally, the use of mind in literature; translation by Owen 1992, p. 185) denotes the intellectual pursuit of dao, while “diaolong” 雕龍 (lit. carve dragons, refers in some way to the craft of literature; translation by Owen 1992, p. 185) symbolizes artistic refinement. As Vermander (2024, p. 8) suggests, the literary heart-mind (wenxin) for Liu Xie refers to a heart-mind shaped not merely by cosmic command but by the patterns of the dao as it resonates within the inner being itself, with writing serving as the sacred path through which the patterned resonance of the dao is made manifest. Liu Xie thus envisions dao and wen as mutually reinforcing forces that develop in tandem.

Origin of the Wen Ben Yu Jing Tradition

In the chapter Zongjing, Liu Xie declares, “The Classics (jing 經) embody the highest and immutable dao”. He upholds the Confucian canon as the pinnacle of literary excellence, asserting that its rhetorical sophistication is inseparable from its doctrinal authority. The term zong 宗 (reverence) denotes the establishment of a foundational principle, while jing in his sense refers specifically to the Five Classics. True to this idea, the chapter Zongjing presents the Confucian Classics as the ultimate models for literary composition, arguing that each text serves as the origin of distinct literary styles as follows:

Yijing inspired lun 論 (discourse), shuo 說 (explanation), ci 辭 (rhapsody), and xu 序 (preface) [argumentative and discursive writings]; Shujing provided the foundation for zhao 詔 (imperial edict), ce 策 (policy statement), zhang 章 (memorial), and zou 奏 (official report) [official and administrative prose]; Shijing gave rise to fu 賦 (rhapsodies), song 頌 (odes), ge 歌 (songs), and zan 讚 (encomia) [poetic and laudatory compositions]; Liji informed the development of ming 銘 (inscription), lei 誄 (eulogy), zhen 箴 (admonition), and zhu 祝 (prayer) [moralistic writings and ceremonial compositions]; Chunqiu served as the prototype for ji 紀 (chronicles), zhuan 傳 (biographical narratives), meng 盟 (diplomatic agreements), and ge 檄 (formal proclamations) [historical and political writings].29

Liu Xie argues that all literary genres stem from the Five Classics and that mastery of composition requires studying their rhetorical structures. However, his claim goes beyond a mere assertion of the Classics as exemplary texts; he emphasizes the importance of internalizing and perpetuating their stylistic principles. His approach thus frames literary refinement not as an exercise in rhetorical embellishment but as a means of restoring literature’s original function—expressing and transmitting dao.

Exploration of Both Aesthetic and Ethical Dimensions of Writing

Liu Xie does not regard literary composition as a mere transcription of dao; rather, he sees literature as an active realization of dao through aesthetic form. He asserts, “Without wen, xing 行 (lit. conduct; ethical practice) cannot be established, and without xing, wen cannot exist”.30 This statement highlights his belief that literature and xing are interdependent—literature is not only an expression of moral cultivation but also a means of guiding ethical practice.

At the same time, Liu Xie critiques the literary trends of his era, arguing that an overemphasis on ornamentation has led to decadence. He attributes the decline of literature to excessive embellishment, citing the florid prose of Chuci 楚辭 (songs of Chu) and the overly elaborate styles of Han dynasty writing as examples of this degeneration. For Liu Xie, returning to the stylistic clarity and restraint of the Confucian canon is essential to restoring literature’s proper function. His vision for literary refinement is thus not merely aesthetic but deeply ethical, reinforcing the idea that the cultivation of writing should parallel the cultivation of virtue.

Liu Xie’s wen ben yu jing ideology shaped later scholarship across East Asia, asserting that the rhetorical structures of the Confucian canon should underpin literary cultivation, reinforcing their textual authority and influencing debates on its literary value. He exhibited an ambivalent attitude—while he cautions against literary ornamentation, he also acknowledges its significance. By framing the Confucian Classics as both ethical guides and rhetorical models, Liu Xie established literature as a vital means of engaging with and transmitting dao.

3.1.2. Han Yu

The Confucian Classics as the Supreme Model for Way and Literature

Han Yu, the leading figure of the Ancient Writing Movement, rejects the ornate pianliuwen in favor of guwen, viewing it as instrumental to restoring Confucian values and addressing contemporary social and political challenges. More than a stylistic reformer, Han Yu elevates the Confucian Classics as both an aesthetic and moral ideal, leaving a lasting imprint on Chinese intellectual history. Chang (1958, pp. 85–108) identifies him as a precursor to Neo-Confucianism, emphasizing his role in shaping its ideological foundations.

Like Liu Xie’s chapter Yuandao in Wenxin diaolong, Han Yu’s chapter Yuandao presents dao, the sage, and the Confucian Classics as an inseparable triad. While Liu Xie emphasizes dao as a cosmic principle, Han Yu framed it as the practical realization of benevolence (ren 仁) and righteousness (yi 義), underscoring its moral and ethical dimensions. For him, the sages, as both stewards and transmitters of dao, preserved it through the Confucian scriptures. Like Liu Xie, he sees the sages not merely as philosophers but as orators whose mastery of language is vital to articulating Confucian doctrine. Tracing its lineage from Yao 堯 and Shun 舜 to Confucius (kongzi 孔子) and Mencius, Han Yu affirms the Confucian canon as the authoritative medium of dao.31

Han Yu famously asserts, “Refining one’s words is a means to illuminate dao” (xiu qici yi ming qidao 修其辭以明其道) (Han 1957, vol. 2, p. 65), placing dao at the very heart of literary composition. While Liu Xie acknowledges the interplay between dao and wen, Han Yu goes further, unequivocally prioritizing moral purpose over literary form. He declares, “what I admire in the ancients is not merely the beauty of their words, but the dao expressed through them”.32 Here, “the ancients” unmistakably refer to the Confucian scriptures, underscoring his conviction that literary composition must not be a pursuit of mere aesthetic refinement but a vehicle for transmitting and upholding dao.

Viewing the stylistic features of the Confucian Classics as integral to the preservation of Confucian teachings, Han Yu champions the Six Classics and guwen of the Han dynasty as the highest literary models. However, he does not advocate mere imitation; rather, he emphasizes internalizing their rhetorical principles while cultivating an authentic literary voice capable of articulating Confucian thought with clarity and conviction. While both Liu Xie and Han Yu recognize the interplay between internal rhetoric of the Confucian Classics and external rhetoric of the Confucian Classics, Han Yu places greater emphasis on the latter. He believes that a writer’s ability to distill and express Confucian ideals through writing is central to both the preservation of the tradition and the reformation of the contemporary society.

Literature as a Moral Enterprise

Han Yu considers writing as a direct reflection of moral and intellectual cultivation, asserting that literary excellence stemmed from ethical integrity rather than mere technical skill. In Yu Weichisheng shu 與尉遲生書 (A Letter to Wei Chisheng), he writes the following:

What we call literary writing must have substance within. Thus, a true gentleman devotes himself wholeheartedly to the cultivation of virtue and the pursuit of learning, for the quality of one’s moral character and scholarship—whether good or bad—will inevitably be revealed in one’s expressions. …… A man of noble character speaks with authority, a man of pure heart writes with clarity, and one who understands reason leaves no ambiguity in his words. The writing of one who possesses inner tranquility and peace exudes ease and composure.33

For Han Yu, eloquence without substance is hollow, and rhetorical embellishment cannot disguise intellectual shallowness. True wen arises not from stylistic refinement alone but from a mind disciplined by virtue and a spirit attuned to the deeper currents of dao. In this way, Han Yu lays the foundation for wendao heyi, which holds that wen is both a conduit for dao and integral to its realization as a key principle in Neo-Confucian literary thought.

By reinforcing the Confucian Classics as rhetorical models, Han Yu reshaped the intellectual landscape of his time. Beyond China, his ideas influenced Confucian literary traditions, particularly through Zhu Xi, who expanded the concept of the dao to include li 理 (principle), in Korea and Japan. Though he prioritizes dao over wen, it must not be overlooked that Han Yu regards rhetorical clarity as indispensable to conveying Confucian teachings. More than a stylistic reformer, Han Yu was a philosopher of writing whose vision of literature was as a moral enterprise.

3.2. Cases from Joseon Korea

3.2.1. Jeong Dojeon

The Patterns of Human (K. Yinmun 人文) and the Confucian Classics

Jeong Dojeon, a principal architect of early Joseon, formulates a metaphysical and literary philosophy deeply rooted in Neo-Confucianism as articulated by Zhu Xi, whose synthesis of metaphysics and classical exegesis shaped the foundation of Joseon intellectual life.

He has a perspective that elevates literature beyond artistic expression, establishing it as a means of governance and statecraft:

The sun, moon, and stars are the patterns of heaven (K. cheonmun, C. tianwen 天文); mountains, rivers, and trees are the patterns of earth (K. jimun, C. diwen 地文); while poetry, books, rights, and music are the patterns of human (K. inmun, C. renwen 人文). The patterns of heaven are expressed through qi 氣 (vital energy or force), and those of earth through physical form, but only the patterns of humans are realized through the dao. Hence, wen is called “the vessel that carries dao (K. jaedojigi, C. zaidaozhiqi 載道之器)”. Once the dao is fully attained, the teachings of poetry, books, rites, and music illuminate the world, the three celestial bodies (sun, moon, and stars) move in perfect order, and all things flourish in their rightful place—this is the ultimate attainment of literature.34

In distinguishing K. cheonmun, K. jimun, and K. inmun, Jeong Dojeon asserts that only inmun is rooted in the dao. K. Cheonmun, often translated as “patterns of heaven” or “patterns of astronomy”, refers to cosmic phenomena made by (or of) the sun, moon, and stars. K. Jimun, which often renders as “patterns of the earth” or “patterns of geography”, pertains to terrestrial phenomena made by (or of) mountains, rivers, and vegetation. Finally, K. inmun, translated as “cultural patterns” or “culture” of humans, encompasses cultural phenomena made by (or of) human beings, such as writings, music, and ritual ceremonies.

While Jeong Dojeon’s framework parallels Liu Xie’s Wenxin diaolong, the two scholars diverge fundamentally in their conceptions of the dao. Whereas Liu Xie links the dao to the natural order, Jeong emphasizes its moral dimension. This passage primarily illustrates that writing, as a medium for conveying the dao, is something that human beings can create—just as astronomical phenomena and terrestrial lifeforms are the natural products of heaven and earth. Jeong’s triadic classification of wen (here, referring to patterns) functions as both a conceptual framework and a rhetorical metaphor, carrying implications that writing is an instinctive human action, and that morality is an inherent aspect of human nature.

Literature, in his view, is not an extension of nature but the means by which humans actualize ethical values. Beyond a vehicle for transmitting knowledge and culture, Jeong regards literature as an active force in structuring both human society and the cosmos. Writing imbued with dao not only stabilizes social order but also ensures the proper functioning of the natural world. His philosophy thus elevates literature from an intellectual pursuit to an instrument of governance, reinforcing its role in governing the state and ordering the world.

Wen as a Force for State and Cosmic Order

Jeong Dojeon upholds the Six Classics as the highest standard of literary composition, particularly emphasizing the Shijing and Shujing. Assessing the writings of his contemporary Neo-Confucian Yi Sungin (李崇仁, 1347–1392), Jeong says “His (Yi Sungin’s) poetry and prose are rooted in xing 興 (metaphor) and bi 比 (allusion) of the Shijing and dian 典 (canonical decrees) and mo 謨 (admonitions) of the Shujing”.35

This statement reflects his unwavering commitment to wen ben yu jing. For Jeong, writing has to embody both the stylistic precision and ideological rigor of the Confucian canon. Yoon Gigyeon 尹起畎 (?–?, a mid-Joseon scholar) describes Jeong’s prose as the “wings of the Six Classics”, emphasizing his dedication to faithfully emulating the stylistic and structural principles of the Confucian canon.

Accordingly, he rejects the elaborate pianliuwen in favor of the clarity and strength of ancient writing. He praises Yi Jehyeon for championing the Ancient Writing Movement in late-Koryo and criticizes writing that prioritized rhetorical ornamentation over substantive meaning. Although Jeong Dojeon places dao above wen, he also ascribes literature a transformative power. He famously declares, “One cannot write well without a profound understanding of dao”. For him, writing is inseparable from moral cultivation—without ethical depth, literary excellence was impossible. Nonetheless, his vision extends beyond moral advocacy; he considers literature as an active force in realizing dao and governing human affairs.

His perspective sets him apart from earlier Confucian scholars. Liu Xie conceives of literature as a means of transmitting dao, while Han Yu insists that dao must be embodied through literature. Jeong Dojeon goes further, contending that literature not only conveys dao but also harmonizes society and the natural world. Writing, in his view, is not an abstract intellectual pursuit but a pragmatic tool for structuring both human order and cosmic balance.

Jeong Dojeon rejected Buddhism, thereby dismantling the ideological foundation of the Goryeo monarchy and striving to build a new dynasty, Joseon, grounded in Neo-Confucianism, to reform society accordingly. His literary perspective was also part of this broader effort. As a result, he was more inclined than other scholars to sacralize the literariness of the Confucian Classics to link it with institutional reform.

Jeong’s literary philosophy laid the foundation for later scholars of Joseon, reinforcing the ideology of wen ben yu jing with the triadic framework of K. cheonmun, K. jemun, and K. inmun. His ideas played a pivotal role in integrating Neo-Confucian literary thought with statecraft (so-called K. gyeongguk, C. jingguo 經國), shaping Joseon scholarship. More than a theoretical construct, his vision of literature directly influenced governance, moral education, and intellectual tradition, securing his legacy as a defining figure in East Asian literary and political thought.

3.2.2. Seong Hyeon

The Confucian Classics as Literature’s Lifeblood

Seong Hyeon emerged nearly a century after Jeong Dojeon. While Jeong laid the theoretical foundation for wen ben yu jing in Joseon, Seong expanded its scope, refining the concept with greater nuance.36 He asserts, “The Six Classics embody the words and actions of the sages, while all writing is but their dregs and remnants”.37 In his view, the Confucian Classics represents the highest form of literature; all other writings are its by-products, and every composition has to be rooted in them.

He likens writing without adherence to the Confucian Classics to “a bird flying without wings or a boat drifting without oars”.38 Without such grounding, literature loses its very essence. Just as a bird’s wings are vital for flight, enabling it to soar, so too is writing that emulates the Classics is not only a fundamental and constitutive element of literature’s integrity but also a prerequisite for its very existence. This vivid metaphor underscores his conviction that literary creation must be firmly anchored in the Confucian canon, aligning with Liu Xie’s wen ben yu jing. Seong’s expressions suggest an even stronger commitment to the stylistic authority of the Confucian Classics.

Seong further refines Liu Xie’s classification of literary forms derived from the Confucian Classics.39 While Liu Xie identifies zhao 詔, ce 策, zhang 章, and zou 奏 as originating from the Shujing, Seong Hyeon argues that zhi 制 (decree) and gao 誥 (proclamations) also emerged from this text. Likewise, whereas Liu Xie traces lun 論, shuo 說, ci 辭, and xu 序 to the Yijing and ming 銘, lei 誄, zhen 箴, and zhu 祝 to the Liji, Seong Hyeon groups the Liji and Yijing together, attributing xu 序 and zan 贊 (commendation) to both.

These nuanced distinctions show that Seong Hyeon and Liu Xie approach the classification of literary forms in fundamentally different ways. Liu Xie, in Wenxin diaolong, takes a rigid stance, assigning each literary form to a specific Confucian classic, treating them as exclusive categories. His system emphasizes strict correspondence between texts and genres, reinforcing a structured literary hierarchy. Seong Hyeon, however, sees literary forms as more fluid, shaped by influences from multiple classics rather than confined to a single source. In doing so, Seong transforms a fixed system into a more dynamic and integrative model, one that better reflects the evolving nature of literary scholarship in his time.

Beyond textual origins, Seong emphasizes that the most celebrated works in Chinese literary history—Zhuge Kongming 諸葛孔明 (181–234)’s Chu Shi Biao 出師表 (memorial on the expedition), Tao Yuanming 陶淵明 (365–427)’s poetry, Yang Xiong’s Tai Xuan 太玄 (great mystery), and Du Yu 杜預 (222–284)’s studies on the Chunqiu—all stems from the writing styles of the Confucian Classics.40 For him, literary excellence is not a matter of innate talent but the product of rigorous engagement with them.

Oneness of Refining Composition and Studying Confucian Classics

Seong Hyeon criticizes the contemporary scholars:

The study of the Confucian Classics and literary writing is not two distinct. The Six Classics, composed by sages, applied across the full range of human affairs. Yet today, those who write fail to ground their work in the Confucian Classics, while those who are well-versed in the Confucian Classics do not know how to write. This reflects not only a narrow and distorted intellectual climate, but also a lack of genuine effort among practitioners.41

In the above passage, Seong Hyeon maintains that literary composition and the study of the Confucian Classics do not belong to distinct spheres, viewing them as two facets of a unified intellectual pursuit. For Seong, writing is not simply a vehicle for conveying the dao; rather, the act of refining composition is itself an embodiment of the study of the Confucian Classics. To him, studying the Classics requires refining literary expression in alignment with their style, as true understanding arises from the interplay of form and content. Likewise, he considers true mastery of their literary forms as a key to unlocking their deeper philosophical insights, reinforcing the idea that style and meaning in the original text of the Confucian Classics are fundamentally intertwined.

Unlike those who view literature as a secondary instrument of knowledge transmission, Seong positions it at the very core of both scholarly inquiry and political governance. His perspective not only reinforces the wen ben yu jing tradition but also marks a broader intellectual shift—one that elevates literature from a supplementary discipline to the foundation of learning itself. In the same vein, Seong Hyeon maintains that the literary forms of the Confucian Classics should not merely be analyzed as historical artifacts but actively applied in composition.

Seong defines the hallmarks of exemplary writing as profound yet vigorous, graceful yet refined, and concise yet rigorous, arguing that the Six Classics represents the most perfected embodiment of these qualities.42 For him, writing is not simply a conduit for Confucian doctrine—it is an active and transformative engagement with the Classics, shaping both the intellectual and moral development of the writer. He thus positions literary refinement at the very core of scholarly practice, arguing that mastery of composition is not just a tool for expression but an indispensable pillar of Confucian learning and statecraft.

In contrast to Jeong Dojeon, Seong Hyeon moves beyond viewing writing solely as an instrument of state governance, embracing instead a more expansive and flexible mode of self-expression. This approach aligns with his more adaptable attitude toward categorizing the origins of various literary styles. Additionally, it suggests that he assigned a somewhat greater role to wen in relation to dao than Jeong does, subtly elevating the significance of literary refinement.

Another key departure from Jeong’s approach is Seong’s elevation of the Analects and Mencius as independent literary and philosophical exemplars, mirroring the increasing prominence of Four Books studies alongside the rise of Neo-Confucianism in Joseon. By incorporating these texts into the literary tradition, he redefines the contours of the Confucian Classics in Joseon, helping to establish the Four Books (sishu 四書; Analects, Mencius, Doctrine of the Mean, and Great Learning) as equal counterparts to the Six Classics in shaping both literary and philosophical thought.43

3.3. Cases from Edō Japan

3.3.1. Fujiwara Seika

The Founder of Japanese Confucian Literary Theory

Fujiwara Seika, the founding figure of Japanese Neo-Confucianism, drew significant influence from the ideas of Yi Hwang (李滉, 1502–1571), a prominent Joseon scholar, and played a pivotal role in integrating Neo-Confucian thought into Japanese scholarship.

His influence extends beyond philosophical discourse. Fujiwara establishes wen ben yu jing as the foundation of the literary principles of the Edō, particularly through his Bunshō tattoku kōryō 文章達徳綱領 (Anthology of Literary Refinement and Moral Achievement),44 inspiring later scholars such as Ogyū Sorai. This work is a compilation of literary critiques that includes both theories of composition and numerous exemplary writings. Although it consists of texts from scholars across various Chinese dynasties, it distinctly reflects Fujiwara Seika’s editorial perspective.

Citing Li Gan李淦 (?–?, a Southern Song scholar)’s Wenzhang jingyi 文章精義 (also seen in Yu Nei 吳訥’s Wenzhang bianti 文章辨體), Fujiwara says the following:

The Great Learning (daxue 大學), Analects, Mencius, Doctrine of the Mean (zhongyong 中庸), Yiji, Shujing, Shijing, Chunqiu, and Yijing were written by sages to illuminate dao and govern the world. Though not composed with literary intent, all later writings have originated from them.45

In the passage above, Fujiwara, like Zhu Xi of Song China and Seong Hyeon of Joseon Korea, firmly asserts that the Five Classics and Four Books were not merely philosophical treatises but the foundation of all literary composition. The above passage shows his reverence for Confucian scripture as the highest literary model. For Fujiwara, it was an act of disciplined imitation, with Confucian scripture serving as the primary literary manual. Furthermore, Fujiwara regards the Shujing and Shijing as the highest literary models, echoing Zhu Xi’s assertion that “As for the form of writing, nothing surpasses the Shujing and the Shijing. The way a ruler addresses his ministers is through gao 誥 and ming 命 (decrees), which later evolved into the form of memorials and official correspondence in later generations”.46

Among the Confucian scriptures, Fujiwara identifies the Shujing as the first true work of prose.47 While the Yijing predates it, he argues that because it consists only of symbolic hexagrams without developed literary form, the Shujing marks the true beginning of refined composition. He further maintains that the Shujing introduces key Neo-Confucian concepts (de 德, sheng 聖, shen 神, dao 道, zhong 中, tian 天, ming 命, cheng 誠, shan 善) and serves as the wellspring of all subsequent literary creativity. While this position echoes that of Liu Xie, Fujiwara uniquely elevates the Shujing as the absolute literary standard.

Building upon a primitivist perspective, Fujiwara considers the earliest prose forms—particularly those found in the Shujing (specifically the Yu Shu 虞書 section)—as the highest literary standard, viewing later compositions as reflecting a gradual decline in literary vitality.48 He further classifies literary genres according to their origins in the Confucian Classics. According to his classification, the Shujing gave rise to administrative writings such as zhao 詔, ming 命, ce 策, and ge 檄, while the Yijing inspired argumentative and reflective genres like lun 論, yi 議 (discourses), and xu 序. The Shijing served as the foundation for poetic forms such as fu 賦 (rhapsodies) and song 頌, whereas the Liji shaped genres related to rituals and mourning, including ji 祭 (sacrificial texts), si 祀 (ritual hymns), ai 哀 (elegies), and lei 誄. Lastly, the Chunqiu contributed to political and commemorative writings like shu 書 (memorials), zou 奏, zhen 箴, and ming 銘.49

Fujiwara Seika’s classification directly links each literary genre to a specific Confucian classic, emphasizing their textual and thematic lineage. His method adheres closely to the textual authority of specific Confucian Classics, while Liu Xue’s approach, to some extent, emphasizes functional and thematic connections between literary genres.

Literature as a Vehicle for Moral Cultivation

For Fujiwara, literature is not merely a conduit for dao but a force that actively shapes moral character. Following Zhu Xi’s doctrine of daoben wenmo 道本文末 (lit. dao as root, literature as branch), the idea that the fundamental truth is primary, while literary embellishment is secondary, Fujiwara insists that writing must embody moral integrity.50 To Fujiwara, composition is not a technical skill but a reflection of the writer’s inner virtue—its quality is inseparable from the depth of the author’s self-cultivation. This idea resonates with Han Yu’s insistence on literature’s ethical function.

Some of what seems to be behind much of this discussion is the question of what writing is for. For some Neo-Confucians under a strict view like Fujiwara and the Cheng brothers, it is a vehicle for the dao (zaidao 載道). On such a view, writing that is purely for enjoyment is not only without merit but worse—a distraction that undermines one’s commitment and harms the dao.

Fujiwara reinforces this ethical dimension of writing by advancing the concept of yangqi 養氣 (nurturing vital energy) as the foundation of writing.51 Emphasizing qi over mere technique, he draws on the tradition of Han Yu’s wenqi lun 文氣論 (theory of literary vitality), which views qi as the animating force behind authentic literary expression. For Fujiwara, writing is an extension of moral self-discipline—an internal process of refining one’s character. His vision of literature transcends artistic expression, elevating it to a sacred practice.

Fujiwara treats mastery of Confucian literary forms as essential preparation for governance, positioning classical prose study as a prerequisite for statecraft—a view closely aligned with Jeong Dojeon’s vision. The collection of Bunshō tattoku kōryō spans the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, with the majority of works originating from the Song period. The distribution of texts in itself reveals the inherently conservative nature of his literary theory. His divergences from other aforementioned scholars reflect broader differences in how Confucian literary traditions and textual authority were systematized within East Asian intellectual history.

3.3.2. Ogyū Sorai

Six Classics as the Pinnacle of Literary Expression

Ogyū was not only a philosopher but also a literary theorist whose writings profoundly shaped Japanese intellectual history. As a pioneer of J. Kobunji gaku, Ogyū Sorai adopted a Six Classics-centered perspective, championing the literary brilliance of the Six Classics in Edō Japan. Kobunji gaku involved studying the literary styles and rhetorical techniques from before the Han dynasty.52 For this, Inoguchi (1984, p. 258) aptly observes, “In the realm of literature, Ogyū Sorai stands as an unparalleled figure of his era”.

Ogyū’ Six Classics Centralism emphasizes not only their contents but also their literary excellence. Ogyū declared, “The Six Classics are rhetoric (ci 辭), containing within them the complete laws of composition”.53 Ogyū does not view the Confucian canon merely as a repository of doctrine but as the highest model of rhetorical and literary excellence. He regards the Classics as masterpieces of refined prose, characterized by sophisticated narrative structures and aesthetic brilliance. Citing the Yijing and Liji, he argued, “The reason the sages’ teachings have endured is the elegance of their literary style”. 54 This perspective underscores his belief that Confucian philosophy has been transmitted not only through its ideas but through the rhetorical artistry that shaped its expression.

Literature as the Manifestation of the Dao Itself

Unlike Fujiwara Seika, who asserts that moral cultivation must precede literary mastery, Ogyū reverses this relationship, contending that literary excellence itself leads to a deeper understanding of dao. For him, composition is not a passive vessel for Confucian thought but an active means of engaging with and realizing dao.

Ogyū emphasizes the narrative dimension of Confucian literature, arguing that writing should extend beyond expository prose to incorporate historical and poetic depth. He likens the Shijing to lyrical song (gagok 歌曲) and the Shujing to an administrative guide (bang 榜), aiming to make the Classics more accessible. By highlighting their stylistic dynamism, he presents them not as arcane philosophical texts but as living literary works meant to be studied through active engagement.55 While he does not go as far as Li Zhi 李贄 (1527–1602, a heretic scholar of Ming) in equating the Classics with vernacular fiction, he nonetheless challenges the notion that Confucian learning is the exclusive domain of the elite. Ogyū says the following:

The Six Classics are literature. Thus, anyone who wishes to study Confucius must begin with literary works. The art of writing must begin with engaging the affairs of the world. Only after mastering literary form does the meaning of the Six Classics become clear, and only then can one fully grasp the Way of Confucius.56

This passage encapsulates Ogyū’s conviction that literature and dao are inseparable. While Fujiwara upholds the yangqi, Ogyū insists that mastery of Confucian literary style is itself the means by which dao is realized. Among the scholars examined in this study, Ogyū is the most textually focused, prioritizing rhetorical precision as the key to understanding Confucian philosophy.

Ogyū’s views align with the Confucian concept of wenzhi binbin 文質彬彬 (the harmonious balance of literary elegance and substance). However, while traditional Confucian thought maintains that wen (lit. literature, here referring to literary elegance) must be balanced with zhi 質 (lit. substance, here referring to essential meaning), Ogyū argues that literary elegance itself is inseparable from essential meaning. He holds that literary perfection is not merely an aesthetic pursuit but also a moral imperative.

This conviction is evident in his work Benmei 辨名 (lit. discerning names), where he prominently features wenzhi binbin as a guiding principle, underscoring his belief in literature’s central role in Confucian ethics.57 For Ogyū, refining one’s external rhetorical skills (writing ability) directly contributes to a deeper internal comprehension of the Confucian canon.58 In this sense, he considers the study of literature, wenxue, and the study of the Confucian Classics not as separate disciplines but as two aspects of the same intellectual endeavor.

Ogyū’s literary idea emphasizes not only the rhetorical and aesthetic brilliance of the Six Classics but also their structural and narrative artistry. His approach transformed Confucian literary studies into a rigorous discipline, shaping the intellectual trajectory of the mid-Edō-period of Sinitic literature in Japan. By elevating literary refinement as a prerequisite for realizing dao, he redefined the relationship between sacred rhetoric, stylistic authority of the classics, and self-cultivation, leaving an enduring legacy in Japanese scholarship.

4. Conclusive Remarks: Shared Ideal and Diverging Approaches

East Asian intellectuals did not regard the Confucian scriptures merely as repositories of religious doctrine, ethical precepts, or pragmatic guidance, but as literary masterpieces imbued with normative and sacred authority. As this study shows, all six scholars—Liu Xie, Han Yu, Jeong Dojeon, Seong Hyeon, Fujiwara Seika, and Ogyū Sorai—uphold the ideal of wen ben yu jing.59 In doing so, they share several key convictions: (1) All literary genres ultimately derive from the Confucian Classics; (2) the rhetoric of the Confucian Classics is to be revered for both its internal coherence and its external impact on readers; (3) a reciprocal relationship exists between dao and wen; and (4) like the Confucian Classics, literary writing should engage with the Zeitgeist and the realities of worldly affairs. While united in these ideals, their interpretations diverge in three major respects as follows:

4.1. Variations in the Application and Scope of the Rhetorical Approaches

First, they differ in how they apply rhetorical approaches and how they define the scope of the Confucian canon itself. Liu Xie and Seong Hyeon take a systematic approach to genre classification, with Liu emphasizing rigid correspondences between specific literary forms and individual classics, while Seong adopts a more integrative view, treating genres as products of multiple texts. Others, such as Han Yu and Fujiwara Seika, focus on particular classics like the Shujing and Shijing as central models, revealing variations in textual emphasis across traditions.

Another distinction lies in the textual corpus they consider the literary exemplars par excellence. Han Yu and Seong Hyeon extend their literary canon to include both the Six Classics and the Four Books. Fujiwara Seika similarly embraces both as the foundation of literary practice. In contrast, Liu Xie focuses on the Five Classics, while Ogyū Sorai confines his model to the Six Classics. These distinctions underscore broader ideological trends, especially the growing and shrinking influence of Neo-Confucianism both on philosophical and textual authority. These differing views on the Confucian Classics also shape how each thinker approaches rhetoric itself—whether as an object of analysis, a tool for composition, or both.

4.2. Diverging Emphases on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rhetoric of the Classics

Second, while all acknowledge both intrinsic and extrinsic rhetoric, their emphases vary. Liu Xie, Jeong Dojeon, and Fujiwara Seika lean toward intrinsic rhetoric, focusing on analyzing and internalizing the literary features of the Confucian canon—such as structure, genre, and stylistic clarity. For these thinkers, the study of rhetoric centers on understanding how the literary form of the Classics embodies ethical and philosophical meaning. This tendency is especially evident in Jeong Dojeon and Fujiwara Seika, whose literary thought was shaped by Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucian synthesis, which integrated textual form with moral and metaphysical inquiry. In contrast, Han Yu, Seong Hyeon, and Ogyū Sorai prioritize extrinsic rhetoric, using the Classics as rhetorical blueprints for their compositions.

Their concern lay not only in interpreting the Classics with a rhetorical lens, but in applying their rhetorical and literary features—such as clarity, persuasiveness, and affective power—to their writing to shape moral and political discourse. Thus, while the former group emphasizes learning from the Classics, the latter focuses on writing through them, revealing a spectrum of rhetorical engagement across traditions. Underlying these rhetorical orientations are differing visions of literature’s social function—how writing should engage with the world and to what ends it should be directed.

4.3. Varied Aims of Writing Rooted in the Classics: Statecraft, Society, and Moral Cultivation

Third, while all six thinkers root their literary practice in the Confucian Classics, they diverge in their ultimate aims for writing. Jeong Dojeon emphasizes its role in state governance and institutional reform; Han Yu sees it as a tool for moral critique and social transformation; Fujiwara Seika frames it as a vehicle for personal cultivation. Although they all affirm the moral weight of literature, the specific social and ethical ends to which they direct their writing vary, reflecting their historical contexts and philosophical commitments. These orientations are also shaped by their understanding of the dao–wen relationship: some consider wen as the expression of dao, others as the means to realize it—each assigning different weight to literature’s function in Confucian moral–political life—showing their view of how literary composition and ethical self-cultivation interact.

4.4. Effects on Later Scholarship: The Rhetorical Turn in Classical Studies

Premodern East Asian intellectuals, over an extended period, did not merely venerate the rhetorical qualities in the Confucian scriptures. Rather, they cultivated a rich discursive sphere—an imagined public forum—centered on the literary dimensions and the canonical stylistics of the Classics. From the 17th to 19th centuries, these rhetorical approaches to the Confucian scriptures crystallized into a region-wide intellectual current, one that extended beyond abstract theorization to encompass rigorous modes of textual philology and interpretive praxis. As You (2018, pp. 513–18) highlights, the works of Qing scholar Niu Yunzhen 牛運震 (1706–1758), Chosŏn scholar Wi Paekkyu 魏伯珪 (1727–1798), and Edō scholar Hirose Tansō 廣瀨淡窓 (1782–1856), particularly in their exegetical treatment with Mencius, exemplify this hermeneutic shift.

This intellectual movement underscores the existence of a transnational scholarly phenomenon in which Confucian thinkers across China, Korea, and Japan sought to reconcile the study of the Confucian Classics with evolving rhetorical frameworks. Moving beyond purely moralistic or philological readings, many employed rhetorical analysis to uncover the deeper intent of the sages and to elucidate the sacred rhetoric embedded in the Confucian texts. This widespread integration of literary interpretation into the study of the Confucian Classics during this period calls for its recognition as a distinct and coherent scholarly trend—one that warrants a defined domain within the broader history of East Asian intellectual thought.

4.5. The Interplay of Literature, History, and Philosophy in Premodern East Asia

This paper, thus, affirms the fundamental literary nature of the Confucian Classics and highlights the interplay of literature, history, and philosophy in the East Asian scholarly tradition. Unlike the compartmentalized disciplines of modern academia, premodern East Asian scholarship is integrative. The traditional triad of wen-shi-zhe embodies a holistic intellectual framework in which literary expression, historiography, and philosophical inquiry are deeply interconnected. While the Confucian Classics are now often classified under philosophy, they once constituted a comprehensive scholarly domain. As discussed in this paper, rhetorical theory and literary criticism are central to their study, shaping intellectual discourse across China, Korea, and Japan.

For this, examining the Confucian canon through a literary lens is not an anomaly but a defining feature of East Asian intellectual history. This study has sought to show how the Confucian Classics were revered not only for their philosophical depth but also for their literary artistry. The Confucian canon is not merely a text to be read but a model to be emulated, a guide for governance, and a rhetorical paradigm for shaping intellectual and moral discourse. Recognizing this tour de force allows for a more nuanced understanding of Confucian scholarship in Sinographic Cosmopolis, reaffirming the constitutive role of literary form in the transmission and evolution of Confucian thought.