Hunter, Michael, Confucius beyond the Analects Leiden: Brill, 2017, 347 pages Hin Ming Frankie CHIK 1 Published online: 3 January 2019 # Springer Nature B.V. 2019 The title of the book under review, Confucius beyond the Analects, indicates that its author, Michael Hunter, has two goals. First, by drawing on many early texts beyond the Lunyu 論語 (the Analects), which has been traditionally believed to be the earliest and most authoritative text of Confucius’ s life and teaching, he aims at offering critical examinations of the importance of Kongzi 孔子 (Confucius) and the “Kongzi” phe- nomenon in early Chinese intellectual history. Kongzi here is not treated as an historical figure. Rather, Kongzi is a quotable figure and authority who, compared with other well-known pre-Han masters, was dramatically preeminent in early traditions. Second, Hunter wants to offer critical reflections on the traditional Lunyu-centric approach to Kongzi. The Lunyu, as Hunter takes pains to argue, only marks a stabilization of the development of the “Kongzi” phenomenon and the text is not as authoritative as it has been believed. Throughout his book, Hunter focuses on textual comparisons and connections— intertextuality—in early writings, particularly the compilation of the Lunyu in the second half of the book. Hunter is not the first person to study ancient texts by considering intertextual parallels. One of the best examples of this approach is found in a series of edited volumes from the Chinese University of Hong Kong’ s Chinese Ancient Texts (CHANT) project, which collect quotations of the most important classical sources. The volume on the Lunyu is entitled Xianqin Lianghan Dianji Yin “Lunyu” Ziliao Huibian 先秦兩漢典籍引《論語》資料彙編 (Collections of Quotations from the Lunyu in Pre-Qin Texts). The character yin 引 (quotation or citation) in the title implies that the editors have assumed that the Lunyu must have existed prior to other texts that supposedly quoted the Lunyu. This is what causes Hunter to be skeptical and to adopt an approach different from previous scholarship. However, his standard of defining the “Lunyu parallels” is open to discussion. He claims that a sentence must, if nothing else, “share at least three words in common with a Lunyu entry” (89–90). Dao (2019) 18:137–141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-018-9648-0 * Hin Ming Frankie CHIK hchik@asu.edu 1 School of International Letters and Cultures, College of Liberal Arts & Science, Arizona State University, Languages & Literatures Building (LL 440) 851 S. Cady Mall, PO Box 870202, Tempe, AZ 85287-0202, USA