聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

周官集注

5 min read

Text ID
KR1d0021
Date
1715–1720
Dynasty
清

Zhōuguān jízhù 周官集注

Collected Annotation on the Officials of Zhōu

by 方苞 (撰)

About the work

Fāng Bāo’s 方苞 (1668–1749) twelve-juan early-Qīng commentary on the Zhōulǐ (KR1d0001), composed in the late Kāngxī era and completed by 1720 (autograph preface dated gēngzǐ of Kāngxī winter). Fāng explicitly restores the title Zhōuguān 周官 — following Liú Xīn, Zhū Xī, and the Qīndìng Zhōuguān yìshū commission (in which Fāng was a deputy compiler) — and argues that the canonical text is “the official-and-procedural manual of the Six Ministries, not a record of ritual texts.” The commentary follows Zhū Xī’s Sìshū jízhù model: combined-source notes are not flagged with attribution, while full quotations of single authorities are explicitly named; obviously erroneous readings are simply omitted, plausible-but-wrong readings are corrected; secondary inferences are flagged with a circled mark (juānwài 圈外), following Zhū Xī’s editorial convention.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Zhōuguān jízhù in twelve juan was composed by Fāng Bāo of the present dynasty. Bāo (zì Fèngjiǔ, hào Línggāo, also hào Wàngxī, native of Tóngchéng) in bǐngxū of Kāngxī passed the metropolitan examination, rose to be Grand Secretary of the Inner Cabinet and concurrently Vice-Minister of the Board of Rites; later removed from rank and assigned to compile books, then specially granted the shìjiǎng rank on retirement. This compilation gathers the various scholars’ explanations to gloss the Zhōulǐ; he holds that the work is the procedural-program of the six offices, not a record of ritual texts. Later Confucians, on account of the Hàn shū yìwén zhì listing of “Zhōuguān in five chapters” under the ritual-classics category, transmitted the misnaming as Zhōulǐ; he therefore changes the title back to its original designation, restoring its initial state.

The annotation follows Zhū Xī’s example: gathered accounts of multiple voices are not separately attributed; full quotations of single accounts are flagged by name. All conspicuously erroneous accounts are passed over without discussion; only the seemingly-plausible-but-wrong are briefly corrected. Where extension and lateral-inference yield ancillary insight, also following Zhū Xī’s example he distinguishes them with a circled mark. Glosses are concise-and-clear; argument is sound-and-correct — quite useful for beginners.

The book was completed after gēngzǐ of Kāngxī [1720]. Bāo’s later collected works Wàngxī jí 望溪集 charge that the Zhōuguān text was emended by Liú Xīn to flatter Wáng Mǎng — and indicates particular paragraphs and sentences as Xīn-emended, with the most positive certainty as if witnessing the brushwork itself. He thinks himself learned-deep-enough to discriminate true from false and reveal what the millennia have not revealed; but in fact cannot escape arbitrary judgement, and so falls short of Jízhù’s own conscientious restraint.

Respectfully revised and submitted, sixth month of the forty-second year of Qiánlóng [1777].

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 Zhōuguān jízhù is the principal Fāng Bāo work on the Zhōulǐ and represents the conservative-evidential side of Fāng’s Sānlǐ engagement (the speculative side being his essays in the Wàngxī jí). The work belongs to the same Qīng-court conservative-pedagogical tradition as the Lǐ-family Ānxī commentaries (KR1d0019, KR1d0020) — taking the zhùshū as foundation, organising in a ZhūXī inspired editorial format, and prioritising clarity for beginners over depth of philological argument.

The autograph yuán xù (original preface) is included at the head of the work and contains a striking statement of Fāng’s reading method: “many sections that seem to have lost the thread are seen, after long contemplation, to be wholly coherent — head-and-tail mutually-supportive, the bloodlines mutually-irrigated.” The text’s editorial tiáolì (rules) at the head provide explicit principles for the jízhù compilation, including the convention that “settled-doctrine glosses precede; broad discussions follow; not arranged by historical period.”

The Sìkù tíyào highlights the contrast between Fāng’s restrained Jízhù and his speculative Wàngxī jí essays on the same text — where Fāng identifies specific passages as LiúXīn forgeries — and judges the Jízhù the more valuable work. This intra-author methodological contrast is one of the more interesting cases in the Sìkù Sānlǐ assessment.

Translations and research

  • William T. de Bary and Irene Bloom (eds.), Sources of Chinese Tradition (Columbia University Press, 1999) — Fāng Bāo’s general intellectual significance.
  • Tāng Dài 唐恬, “Fāng Bāo Zhōuguān jízhù yǔ qí Sānlǐ sīxiǎng” 方苞《周官集注》與其三禮思想, Tóngchéng wénhuà yánjiū (2010) — modern critical assessment of the work.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù editors’ explicit preference for Fāng Bāo’s restrained Jízhù over his speculative Wàngxī jí essays — and their willingness to publicly identify the inconsistency — is a clear statement of Sìkù-editorial values: textual conservatism over interpretive licence, even when the same author authored both modes. This is also a notable case where a Sìkù tíyào directly criticises the additional-essays of an author whose principal work it admits.

Graph View

Backlinks