Modeling Confucius: Crafting the “Hereditary House” of Wang Yangming

When Wang Yangming’s 王陽明 (1472–1529) position in the court came under debate, his second-generation disciple Geng Dingxiang 耿定向 (jinshi, 1556), along with others, submitted a memorial advocating for Wang’s enshrinement following Emperor Longqing’s 隆慶 ascension to the throne in 1567.⁠ This memorial led to the endowment of Wang’s nobility title, which became an essential step towards Wang’s enshrinement later in 1584. After the enshrinement of Wang, Geng wrote a biographical record “Hereditary House of Earl Xinjian Master Wang Wencheng” (新建侯文成王先生世家, 1598; hereafter, “Hereditary House of Wang”), which emphasized Wang’s court-bestowed title of nobility. As a strong advocate of Wang and his teachings, why did Geng still compose a biography after Wang’s recognition by the court? Why did he use an old structural category of historiographical classification shijia to compose this biography? What is the underlying meaning of this writing practice, and how was Wang’s figure adapted and reconciled in this process? These are the questions this paper discusses. In the following analysis, I argue that, by synthesizing the historiographical traditions of shijia with hagiographical objectives, Geng presents a compelling narrative that not only defends Wang’s legacy but also presents him as an exemplary and orthodox Confucian figure, drawing parallels with Confucius. This dual strategy ensures that Wang’s teachings are not only preserved but also interpreted through Geng’s lens, presenting Wang’s life story as a definitive model of Confucian orthodoxy for future generations.

This paper has three sections. The first section explores the historiographical classification of the “hereditary house,” analyzing how the “Hereditary House of Wang” adheres to traditional conventions while adapting them to the Ming context. The second introduces the background of the composition of “Hereditary House of Wang,” establishing the work as a fundamentally hagiographical text that legitimizes Wang Yangming’s teachings through Geng’s interpretation of his master’s teachings. The final section analyzes the content of the work, highlighting the process of legitimization and comparing Geng’s portrayal of Wang to Confucius’s depiction in Records of the Grand Historian. This comparison demonstrates how Geng both emulates Confucius’s biography and distinguishes his work from Wang’s earlier biographies, such as chronicles and illustrated records. Through these methods, I show that “Hereditary House of Wang” hagiographizes Wang Yangming as a Confucian sage by imitating Confucius’s biography in both form and content.

Section 1, “‘The Hereditary House’ in Historiography and Its Ming Revival,” discusses the historiographical classification—shijia in both history and the Ming dynasty. Shijia is a category of biography, but one deeply rooted in a historical and moral framework of Chinese historiography. The “hereditary house” category was used in earlier historiographies but was largely obscured by Geng’s time. The most renowned work that utilized this genre is Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (145BC–86BC) Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji 史記), where “hereditary house” records 30 accounts of noble or influential families. Among the “hereditary houses” of Records of the Grand Historian, Confucius’s biography “Hereditary House of Confucius” (kongzi shijia 孔子世家) stands out as an exception.⁠ Unlike other entries, which typically emphasize political or military achievements and the establishment of hereditary fiefs, Confucius’s biography focuses on his intellectual legacy and moral teachings, reflecting his role as a cultural and philosophical figure rather than a feudal noble. “Hereditary House of Wang” focuses much more on Wang’s philosophical pursuits and cultural influence, which poses a strong sign that Geng was emulating Confucius’s biography in this category instead of other entries in Records of the Grand Historian, rendering it a hagiographical piece of work that equals him to Confucius.

Section 2, “Defending Orthodoxy after Wang Yangming’s Enshrinement,” discusses the underlying incentive for Geng to compose the “Hereditary House of Wang” after Wang’s enshrinement. The years between 1584 and 1596 witnessed a major debate between Geng and the renowned thinker Li Zhi 李贄 (1527-1602) regarding their interpretations of Confucian teachings, a topic that has been widely discussed by scholars. Geng’s stance on Confucian teachings reflected his deep concern about the moral decline of officialdom and society. By writing Wang’s biography, he aimed to present Wang’s life as an orthodox Confucian and ensure the proper transmission of his teachings, viewing this as a means of rectifying social morality.

Section 3, “The Confucian Imitation,” examines the “Hereditary House of Wang,” explores its sources, and compares it with the “Hereditary House of Confucius,” as well as Wang’s earlier chronicle composed by his earlier disciples. It demonstrates that by effectively imitating the form and content of the “Hereditary House of Confucius” and emphasizing Wang’s scholarly achievements, Wang is elevated to the status of Confucius, aligning his scholarly profile more closely with Confucius than in his earlier biographical depictions. In this section, I first discuss similar narrative structures between “Hereditary House of Wang” and “Hereditary House of Confucius,” and then discuss how Geng appropriated various sources, such as Wang’s essays and recorded sayings, to legitimize Wang’s figure in this hagiographical work, aligning his teachings with those of the traditionally recognized orthodox Song Confucians.

By negotiating between the ideal Confucian figure and the portrayal of Wang’s life, Geng’s writing practice demonstrates a nuanced approach to historiography—one that balances fidelity to historical facts with the moral, didactic, and hagiographical imperatives of Confucian biographical writing. By crafting the “Hereditary House of Wang,” Geng not only sought to clarify Wang’s ideas but also to solidify Wang’s place as a paragon of Confucian orthodoxy. Such a hagiographical writing practice sheds light on the broader intellectual and cultural efforts to shape the legacy of influential figures within the Confucian tradition.