Zhōulǐ jùjiě 周禮句解
The Rites of Zhōu, Glossed by Clause
by 朱申 (撰)
About the work
Zhū Shēn’s 朱申 (1260–1318) twelve-juan clause-by-clause line-gloss commentary on the Zhōulǐ (KR1d0001), produced in the late Yuán as an accessible reading text for the Zhōulǐ. The work largely follows the ZhèngJiǎ readings of KR1d0003 but presents them in concise, simplified form, occasionally departing on substantive points (e.g., the Tàizǎi’s gòngzhí 貢職, where Zhū rejects Zhèng’s “head-tax in cash” reading and re-glosses fù as “tax” and gòng as “presented offering”). The five surviving ministries are presented without their xùguān 敘官 introductions, an omission inherited from Wáng Zhāoyǔ’s KR1d0005 Zhōulǐ xiángjiě and flagged by the Sìkù editors as a defect. The Sìkù catalog meta and tíyào both ascribe Zhū Shēn to the Sòng; the parallel tíyào of KR1d0005 correctly identifies him as a late-Yuán (元末) scholar — the dynastic attribution is here corrected to Yuán in line with CBDB id 101904.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Zhōulǐ jùjiě in twelve juan was composed by Zhū Shēn — recorded in the catalog as a Sòng author, but in fact (as the Sìkù tíyào on KR1d0005 notes) a late-Yuán scholar, lifedates 1260–1318. The book glosses by clause; broadly speaking it relies on the zhùshū and prefers concision in interpretation. Where his readings differ from the zhùshū, he openly substitutes his own reading. For example, on the Tàizǎi’s “fifth, gòngzhí” Zhèng’s note says “fù: head-rate paid in cash; gòng: meritorious work — what is taxed of the produce of the Nine Functions”; this book substitutes “fù: tax; gòng: presented offering.”
Where there are firm grounds for upholding the zhùshū, he carefully cites in support. For instance on the Dà Sītú’s “the territory of the various dukes is enfeoffed-and-bordered five hundred lǐ square” and following, he firmly defends the note’s reading that the half-figure represents subordinate territories, and does not cling to the Mèngzǐ and Wángzhì to question the Zhōulǐ. As to disputes within the zhùshū that remain undecidable — such as the Xiǎo Sītú’s “four yì make a diàn” passage where the note holds that the addition is from the side, but in fact represents the count of channels and ditches; or the Dà Sī yuè’s “the Yuánzhōng tone is the gōng” passage where the note holds that the Heavenly-Palace Jiázhōng does not employ the Zhōnglǚ and other measures, on the ground that they share position with the Earth-Palace — both of these he leaves blank, neither recording. While the resulting commentary lacks great originality through its verbatim line-gloss, compared with those who garble the ancient classic and conjure new meanings out of nothing, this preserves at least the value of conscientious restraint.
Only the xùguān (introductory officer-lists) are the structural backbone of the classical text; Shēn omits them on the ground that they “do not require interpretation.” This violates the principles of editorial structure — a defect of cleaving to crude simplification, not to be glossed over.
Respectfully revised and submitted, third month of the forty-third year of Qiánlóng [1778].
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 Zhōulǐ jùjiě is one of the principal late-Yuán pedagogical commentaries on the Zhōulǐ. Zhū Shēn’s clause-by-clause method, conservative reliance on the ZhèngJiǎ tradition, and conscientious restraint about disputed points (refusing either to follow the zhùshū mechanically or to manufacture novel interpretations) make it a standard reading text for the Zhōulǐ in the YuánMíng period. The Sìkù editors’ praise of Zhū’s restraint is part of the broader editorial campaign against the SòngYuán “Dōngguān not lost” school (cf. KR1d0006, KR1d0010) and other interpretive innovations the editors regarded as illegitimate.
The dynastic-attribution discrepancy — catalog 宋 vs. CBDB / KR1d0005 tíyào 元末 — has been resolved here in favour of Yuán, following the convergent external and internal evidence. Lifedates 1260–1318 from CBDB id 101904.
The omission of the xùguān sections — inherited from Wáng Zhāoyǔ’s KR1d0005 — is a structurally significant defect: the xùguān lists are what allow the reader to track the bureaucratic hierarchy and staffing levels of each office, without which the body of the Zhōulǐ loses much of its institutional intelligibility.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Discussed briefly in surveys of Yuán-period classical scholarship.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ framing of Zhū Shēn as praiseworthy precisely because he refrains from interpretive innovation — “compared with those who garble the ancient classic and conjure new meanings out of nothing, this preserves at least the value of conscientious restraint” — is a clear statement of the late-eighteenth-century Hàn xué normative position against SòngYuán interpretive licence and in favour of philological conservatism.
Links
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/zhouli.html