Classic of Filial Piety
Confucian treatise on filial piety (孝), allegedly composed from a conversation between Confucius and Zengzi but more probably from 4th century BC Warring States period
The Classic of Filial Piety, also known by its Chinese name as the Xiaojing, is a Confucian classic treatise giving advice on filial piety: that is, how to behave towards a senior such as a parent, an elder brother, or a ruler.
The text was most likely written during the late Warring States period and early Han dynasty and claims to be a conversation between Confucius and his student Zengzi. The text was widely used during the Han and later dynasties to teach young children basic moral messages as they learned to read.
Authorship
The text dates from the 4th century BC to 3rd century BC. It is not known who actually wrote the document. It is attributed to a conversation between Confucius and his disciple Zengzi. A 12th-century author named He Yin claimed: "The Classic of Filial Piety was not made by Zengzi himself. When he retired from his conversation (or conversations) with Kung-ne on the subject of Filial Piety, he repeated to the disciples of his own school what (the master) had said, and they classified the sayings, and formed the treatise."
Content
As the title suggests, the text elaborates on filial piety, which is a core Confucian value. The text argues that people who love and serve their parents will do the same for their rulers, leading to a harmonious society. For example,
資於事父以事母，而愛同；資於事父以事君，而敬同。
As they serve their fathers, so they serve their mothers, and they love them equally.
“Classic of Filial Piety” enters the record as confucian treatise on filial piety (孝), allegedly composed from a conversation between Confucius and Zengzi but more probably from 4th century BC Warring States period. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Classic, Filial and Piety can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Classic of Filial Piety” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Classic, Filial and Piety provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1368044. VIAF identifies the subject as 179830181. The Library of Congress control number is n81090226. None of the 3 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Classic of Filial Piety”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Classic of Filial Piety primary sources, Classic of Filial Piety archive and Classic research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Classic of Filial Piety”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Classic of Filial Piety” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.