The Blacks of Premodern China. Don J. Wyatt

because of the friendship between the prestigious literatus and his father.

      Indeed, Zhu Yu does not appear to have ever voluntarily endeavored to establish either a name or a position for himself. While it was unquestionably an uncommon path to take for that time, there are nonetheless some plausible explanations for his having taken it.¹⁰ However, the absence of a certifiable rationale for it notwithstanding, foremost in importance for us is that we prepare ourselves for the exertion of the “partnership” between father and son on the content of Pingzhou Chats on Things Worthwhile. This connection through lineage of the two Zhus will profoundly influence our understanding of and appreciation for the text that Zhu Yu wrote. This is the case because, if the contentions of traditional scholars are indeed correct, the observations, encounters, and experiences that supply much (if not most) of the material for the narrative of the book are predominantly those of the father Zhu Fu channeled and, on occasion, perhaps filtered or embellished through the son Zhu Yu.¹¹

      Evaluation of the internal chronology of Pingzhou Chats on Things Worthwhile also supports this conclusion that Zhu Yu’s main contribution throughout the book was that of providing the extensive prosopopoeial service of speaking in the voice of Zhu Fu, bringing his likely already deceased father’s views and observations back to life, for the generally accepted date of authorship for the work is the year 1119. Scholars have deduced this date mainly from the fact that the events—some noteworthy and others quite ordinary—recounted in Zhu Yu’s book all occurred between the years 1056 and 1118.¹² However, there are also sound reasons for proffering a somewhat earlier date of composition, one near the conclusion of the eleventh century, for the material pertaining to Guangzhou. Such is the case because Zhu Yu prominently mentions the years 1086 and 1099 with reference to that city,¹³ with the latter year especially closely corresponding to the period of Zhu Fu’s tenure of office there. Consequently, yet another tenable explanation of Zhu Yu’s role in relation to Zhu Fu is that, as the son of a high official, the author mainly functioned quite intentionally, deliberately, and self-effacingly as recorder and raconteur of his father’s far richer life experiences.