毛詩注疏

Máoshī zhùshū 毛詩注疏

The Mao Recension of the Classic of Poetry, with Annotations and Sub-Commentary by 毛亨 (Máo Hēng, zhuàn 傳), 鄭玄 (Zhèng Xuán, jiān 箋, 127–200), 孔穎達 (Kǒng Yǐngdá, shū 疏, 574–648), 陸德明 (Lù Démíng, yīnyì 音義, c. 550–630)

About the work

The Táng-imperial Máoshī zhèngyì 毛詩正義 (here under its later catalog title Máoshī zhùshū) — the canonical four-layer recension of the Shī 詩 with 毛亨’s Máo zhuàn 毛傳, Zhèng Xuán’s jiān 箋, 陸德明’s yīnyì 音義 from the Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文, and 孔穎達’s shū 疏 (“sub-commentary”). Originally 40 juǎn; the Sìkù zǒngmù 總目 listed it under 30 juǎn (the difference reflects later editorial re-divisioning). The work was commissioned by Tàizōng 太宗 in Zhēnguān 16 (642) as part of the Wǔ jīng zhèngyì 五經正義 project to standardize examination orthodoxy; its principal redactors were Wáng Déshào 王德韶 and Qí Wēi 齊威, with Zhào Qiányè 趙乾叶 and Jiǎ Pǔyào 賈普曜 providing supplementary review under Zhào Hóngzhì 趙弘智. Submitted in 642, revised, and finally promulgated under Gāozōng 高宗 in 653.

The zhèngyì takes Liú Zhuó’s 劉焯 Máoshī yìshū 毛詩義疏 and Liú Xuàn’s 劉炫 Máoshī shùyì 毛詩述義 (both Suí, both lost) as its working drafts, which it explicitly says it both pruned and supplemented. The result became the single dominant Shī commentary of the post-Táng exam culture; its position was unchallenged through the Five Dynasties and the Northern Sòng and only began to erode in the Southern Sòng with the rise of Zhū Xī’s Shī jí zhuàn (KR1c0015). After the Yuán Dàdé 大德 stone-cut and the standard Shísān jīng zhùshū 十三經注疏 of 1815 (Ruǎn Yuán 阮元), the zhèngyì became one of the foundational reference texts of pre-modern Shī exegesis.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that the Máoshī zhèngyì in forty juǎn — zhuàn by Máo Hēng of the Hàn, jiān by Zhèng Xuán of the Hàn, shū by Kǒng Yǐngdá of the Táng. The Hàn shū yìwén zhì lists “Máoshī in 29 juǎn” and “Máoshī gùxùn zhuàn in 30 juǎn,” but only says “Mr. Máo” (毛公) without giving the personal name. The Hòu Hànshū · Rúlín zhuàn first specifies “Máo Cháng of Zhào transmitted the Shī; this is the Máoshī” (writing 長 without the grass radical [萇]). The Suí shū jīngjí zhì lists “Máoshī in 20 juǎn, transmitted by Hàn Hé Jiān taishou Máo Cháng, with Zhèng-shi jiān” — and from this the Shī zhuàn begins to be ascribed to Máo Cháng. But Zhèng Xuán’s Shī pǔ says “the Greater Máo Gōng of Lǔ made the xùn gù zhuàn and transmitted it within his family; the Hé Jiān Xiànwáng obtained it and presented it to court, and made the Lesser Máo Gōng bóshì.” Lù Jī’s 陸璣 Máoshī cǎomù chóngyú shū (KR1c0005) likewise says: “Confucius edited the Shī and transmitted it to Bǔ Shāng 卜商; Shāng prefaced it and transmitted to Zēng Shēn 曾申 of Lǔ; Shēn to Lǐ Kè 李克 of Wèi; Kè to Mèng Zhòngzǐ 孟仲子 of Lǔ; Zhòngzǐ to Gēn Móuzǐ 根牟子; Gēn Móuzǐ to Xún Qīng 荀卿 of Zhào; Xún Qīng to Máo Hēng 毛亨 of Lǔ; Máo Hēng made the xùn gù zhuàn and transmitted it to Máo Cháng of Zhào — at the time Hēng was called the Greater Máo Gōng and Cháng the Lesser Máo Gōng.”

According to these two works, the maker of the zhuàn was Máo Hēng, not Máo Cháng. So Kǒng’s zhèngyì also says, “the Greater Máo Gōng made the zhuàn; through the Lesser Máo Gōng it came to be titled ‘Máo’.” What the Suí zhì says is therefore in error, but conventional usage perpetuated the confusion and never corrected it. Zhū Yízūn’s 朱彝尊 Jīngyì kǎo 經義考 entered “Máoshī in 29 juǎn, by Máo Hēng” with a note “lost,” and “Máoshī xùn gù zhuàn in 30 juǎn, by Máo Cháng” with a note “extant” — this is mediation for its own sake, with no ancient warrant. After consulting all sources we settle the maker of the zhuàn as Máo Hēng. Since Mr. Zhèng was a late Hàn man and Mr. Lù [Jī] a Three-Kingdoms Wú man, both with established lines of Máoshī transmission, what they say cannot be wrong.

Mr. Zhèng, illuminating the meaning of Máo, named his contribution jiān. The Bówù zhì 博物志 says “Máo Gōng once held the post of Běihǎi Commandery Governor; Kāngchéng [Zhèng Xuán] was a man of this commandery, and so showed deference to him.” Zhāng Huá’s claim, by analogy with the practice of jì 記 for senior offices and jiān 箋 for the head of the prefecture, would mean that Kāngchéng was paying respect to a senior of four hundred years before — which has no basis. The Shuōwén says: “jiān is a way of marking and identifying writing.” Zhèng-shi’s Liù yì lùn 六藝論 says, “in glossing the Shī I take Máo as the master; where Máo’s meaning is hidden or terse, I make it explicit; where I differ, I add my own meaning so that they can be told apart.” (The Liù yì lùn is now lost; this passage is from the Zhèngyì citation.) So Kāngchéng simply tagged the margins of Máo’s zhuàn, like one’s own annotated slips; pile them up and they make a volume — hence the name jiān. There is no need for the elaborate explanation by analogy. Once the Zhèng jiān circulated, the three schools of Qí, Lǔ, and Hán fell silent (this is Lù Démíng’s view in Jīngdiǎn shìwén).

But the jiān and the zhuàn sometimes differ. Wáng Sù 王肅 of Wèi made Máoshī zhù, Máoshī yìbó, Máoshī zòushì, Máoshī wènnán and so forth, all to support Máo and impeach Zhèng; Ōuyáng Xiū cites the gloss on Wèi fēng · Jīgǔ fifth stanza, holding Zhèng inferior to Wáng (see Shī běnyì KR1c0008). Wáng Jī 王基 wrote Máoshī bó to support Zhèng and impeach Wáng; Wáng Yīnglín cites his counter on the Fúyǐ 芣苢 piece, holding Wáng below Zhèng (see Kùnxué jì wén KR3i0079 and the Jīngdiǎn shìwén). Sūn Yù 孫毓 of Jìn made Máoshī yìtóng píng in further support of Wáng; Zhèng Tǒng 鄭統 made Nán Sūnshì Máoshī píng in further support of Zhèng (both in the Shìwén). Each took sides; for a hundred years partisans were arrayed left and right.

Down to the Táng — in Zhēnguān 16 (642) — Kǒng Yǐngdá and others were ordered, on the basis of the Zhèng jiān, to make a zhèngyì; opinion was thereby unified, and the divergence of paths ended. Of Máo’s 29 juǎn, the Suí zhì attached Zhèng’s jiān and made 20 — perhaps Kāngchéng’s own re-divisioning. Kǒng and his colleagues, finding the shū commentary heavy, again divided into 40. Their book takes Liú Zhuó’s Máoshī yìshū and Liú Xuàn’s Máoshī shùyì as its drafts; that is why it is able to fuse the various views and embrace the ancient meanings. Through the Táng era no one disagreed. Only Wáng Dǎng’s 王讜 Tángyǔ lín records that Liú Yǔxī 劉禹錫, listening to Shī Shìgài 施士匄 lecture on the Máoshī, set out four interpretations of Wéi tí zài liáng, Zhì bǐ hù xī, Wù jiǎn wù bài, and Wéi běi yǒu Dǒu, calling Máo “uncommented” — but he never went so far as to attack.

To the Sòng, Zhèng Qiáo 鄭樵 trusted his own talent and rashly opened the attack. After the Southern Crossing the literati made cudgeling Máo and Zhèng their stock-in-trade. Yuán Yánjǐo 延祐 examination regulations specified that even though the Shī used the old zhùshū in addition, the partisan houses were already set, and the lecturers refused to use it. Through the Míng, Hú Guǎng 胡廣 and others stole Liú Jǐn’s 劉瑾 book to make the Shī jīng dàquán (KR1c0035), made it official, exclusively followed Zhū’s zhuàn, and Hàn-learning collapsed. But Master Zhū only followed Zhèng Qiáo in attacking the small preface; his philological glosses still mostly use Máo and Zhèng. Later scholars, not consulting old texts, did not realize that the small preface is one thing and the zhuàn and jiān another; they piled into the brawl and threw out Máo, Zhèng, and Master Zhū’s zhuàn together — not even knowing what each was saying.

Our state’s classical learning is luminous, washing away the obstructions of the late Míng. In Qiánlóng 8 (1743), the Imperial mandate ordered the collation and printing of the Shísān jīng zhùshū and its distribution to the schools; rope-bound students all enthusiastically pursue ancient learning. We now record this work alongside the small preface at the head of the Shī division, to make the deep source of the six meanings clear, and the line of teacher-pupil transmission from the school of Confucius bright. No other doctrine can ever cover it.

Respectfully revised and submitted, second month of the thirty-ninth year of Qiánlóng [1774].

General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.

Abstract

The Máoshī zhùshū (= Máoshī zhèngyì) is the canonical Táng-imperial four-layer redaction of the Shī. Begun under the Wǔ jīng zhèngyì 五經正義 commission of 642, it was successively revised under Yán Shīgǔ 顏師古 and Sīmǎ Cáizhāng 司馬才章 and finally promulgated as the official examination text under Gāozōng 高宗 in 653. The compilers’ acknowledged drafts — Liú Zhuó’s Máoshī yìshū and Liú Xuàn’s Máoshī shùyì — are both lost, but their editorial method (a shū that systematically expounds the zhuàn and the jiān together, attempting to reconcile the two when they diverge and noting where they cannot be reconciled) became the model of the zhèngyì genre and shaped subsequent commentary across the entire Shísān jīng corpus.

The work’s stable position as orthodox examination doctrine in the Táng and Northern Sòng was eroded after the Southern Sòng by Zhèng Qiáo 鄭樵 and Zhū Xī 朱熹, but it was restored to canonical status with the Qīng Hàn-learning revival, and the Qiánlóng 1739 imperial collation and printing of the Shísān jīng zhùshū (the so-called Wǔyīng diàn 武英殿 edition) gave it the textual form in which it has been studied since. Ruǎn Yuán’s 阮元 Shísān jīng zhùshū jiào kānjì 十三經注疏校勘記 (1815) added the philological apparatus that remains the basis of all serious modern Máoshī zhèngyì work.

The Sìkù tíyào’s long methodological excursus — its careful disentanglement of “Greater Máo / Lesser Máo” attribution, its defense of Zhèng’s jiān against Sòng-learning attacks, its identification of the zhèngyì as a fusion of two Suí drafts — is one of the most-cited individual tíyào in modern Chinese classical-studies historiography.

Other prefatory matter

The Sìkù zhùshū edition opens with a long Qiánlóng-emperor preface (the Yùzhì yǒng Shī liù yì 御製詠詩六義, six short pieces on xìng 興, fù 賦, bǐ 比, fēng 風, yǎ 雅, sòng 頌) and a prose imperial reading-note on Bèi fēng · Bāo yǒu kǔ yè 邶風·匏有苦葉 in which the emperor follows Ōuyáng Xiū’s Shī běnyì in arguing that the Máo zhuàn and the Zhèng jiān both misread the line “xióng zhì 雄雉 / qiú qí mǔ 求其牡” by treating xióng/cí as “of birds” and pìn/mǔ as “of beasts” — a pre-Sòng allegoresis that conveniently conjures up an unnatural cross-species union for the xù’s charge of imperial debauchery to land on. The emperor reads this as a stylistic ancient-language usage, citing Sòng Yìzhāi’s 宋逸齋 Bǔ zhuàn and Ōuyáng Xiū’s argument in support. Kǒng Yǐngdá’s own original preface — defending Liú Zhuó / Liú Xuàn as “outstanding talents of the day” but adding “to those who, because they were of the day, looked down on their seniors and made what should be brief detailed and what should be detailed brief, we have dared to prune and supplement” — follows.

Translations and research

No complete English translation of the zhèngyì exists; selections appear in the running discussion of Achilles Fang’s contributions to Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide (1993), and in the running translations attached to the Karlgren / Waley editions of the Shī (cited at KR1c0001). The standard modern Chinese punctuated edition is Máoshī zhèngyì, in Shísān jīng zhùshū (Běijīng dàxué, 1999), 3 vols., based on Ruǎn Yuán’s collation. Liú Yùqìng 劉毓慶 et al., Máoshī zhèngyì jiào jiào 毛詩正義校注 (Zhōnghuá, 2010), is the most current critical edition.

For the zhèngyì’s position in the Táng-imperial scholastic project, see David McMullen, State and Scholars in T’ang China (Cambridge, 1988); Hugh Stimson, “The Thirteen Classics,” in The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature (Harvard, 2010), s.v. Chinese counterpart; for the philology specifically, Yú Bóhuà 余迺永, Tángdài Wǔ jīng zhèngyì yánjiū 唐代五經正義研究 (Zhōnghuá, 2008).

Other points of interest

Liú Zhuó and Liú Xuàn were both Suí court scholars famously regarded as rivals; the zhèngyì’s acknowledgement of using both their drafts as “wax” to be re-formed is a rare explicit statement of editorial method in Táng-imperial scholarly compilation. The compilers’ practice of preserving their predecessors’ commentary verbatim where it agrees with their own judgment, while refraining from naming them as the source, has had to be reconstructed in modern times by collation against parallel citations in the Jīngdiǎn shìwén and the Bóyǎ shū zhèng 博雅疏證.

Links

• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wujing_Zhengyi
• Ruǎn Yuán Shísān jīng zhùshū, 1815, repr. Zhōnghuá shūjú 1980, 2 vols.
• David McMullen, State and Scholars in T’ang China (Cambridge, 1988), ch. 3.