Biǎojì jízhuàn 表記集傳
Collected Tradition on the Record of Markers
by 黃道周 (撰)
About the work
A late-Míng monograph commentary on the Biǎojì 表記 (“Record of Markers”) chapter of the Lǐjì KR1d0052 in 2 juàn by Huáng Dàozhōu 黃道周, composed in 1638 (Chóngzhēn 11) at the imperial-lecture tent (jīngyán) and presented to the throne — one of his five parallel Lǐjì-chapter monographs of that year (with KR1d0062, KR1d0064, KR1d0065, KR1d0066). The work bears an appendix Chūnqiū biǎojì wènyè 春秋表記問業 (1 juan) and is methodologically distinctive in cross-reading the Biǎojì with the Chūnqiū 春秋, drawing systematic parallels between the chapter’s classical-virtue topics and Chūnqiū historical cases. Huáng’s interpretive title — explained in his preface as the biǎo of biǎojì meaning the ancient eight-foot gnomon (biǎo 表) used for solar observation, “the marker by which one measures the depth of earth and corrects the sun-shadow to govern far-and-near, high-and-low” — innovatively connects the chapter’s title to the calendrical-astronomical framework of his parallel Yuèlìng míngyì KR1d0062.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Biǎojì jízhuàn in two juan was composed by Huáng Dàozhōu of the Míng. [Huáng] Dàozhōu has the Sānyì dòngjǐ, separately catalogued. This book also was compiled at the imperial-lecture tent and presented. His own preface takes [it] that the ancients spying out heaven and earth, sun and moon all first set up biǎo (gnomons) — and so [the chapter] takes its name Biǎojì. Now the ancient character-formation: biǎo 表 and lǐ 裏 both follow yī 衣 — meaning the yī (clothing) shown on the outside, the words-and-conduct of a man being like the yī’s patterning of the body. Zhèng Kāngchéng says: “because [the chapter] records the virtue of the gentleman seen in yíbiǎo (deportment-and-marker)” — this is the original meaning. Necessarily taking the meaning from the eight-foot biǎo — measuring earth’s depth and correcting the sun’s shadow to control far-and-near and high-and-low — is on the contrary far-fetched.
Further, the Biǎojì piān: the ancient annotation roughly divides into nine jié (sections); the Zhèngyì says: “where it says zǐ yán zhī there are eight.” Mr Huáng [Kǎn]: “all are passages opening-meaning; the recorder has detailed them, hence saying zǐ yán zhī. If under zǐ yán zhī further broadening the matter or detail-explaining the principle, then directly say zǐ yuē.” Now examining the upper-text editorial conventions, [it] is at times like Mr Huáng’s words. Now [we] follow it. Therefore at every section [where the] màiluò (vein-network) carries-on, [we] necessarily detail-record it: as saying “this canon further broadly clarifies the matter of gōngjìng (reverence),” further saying “this one jié generally clarifies the matter of rényì,” further saying “from this downward to a certain phrase, further broadens-clarifies the way of rényì.” Former Confucians’ explaining the canon — between the chapter-and-paragraph divisions-and-combinings — their care is like this. Chén Hào does not use the zhùshū sequence; forcefully dividing into more than forty chapters; later interpreters have all ridiculed his fault. Now [Huáng Dàozhōu] reduces it to thirty-six chapters — all are not what ancient training holds; further at variance with the method of explaining the canon.
His exposition of the first section says: “the Yì and the Shī are hidden-yet-manifest; the Shū not boastful-yet-grave; the Chūnqiū not severe-yet-awesome; ritual-and-music not speaking-yet-faithful” — this further pertains to forced-division. Apparently [Huáng] Dàozhōu’s book is also entirely cited Chūnqiū to explain it. Therefore [he] says “the Fāngjì and Biǎojì are not specifically for the Chūnqiū, but using the Chūnqiū to bring-forth its categorical-conventions — then for a hundred generations downward there is something to inspect-and-measure, obtaining its sun-shadow.” But the Fāngjì piān, as saying “in this way, fāng the shì-citizen — among the various lords there are still some who rebel,” further saying “in this way show the mín — mín still struggle for profit and forget righteousness,” further saying “in this way fāng the mín — among the various lords there are still some who die-and-are-not-buried” — its connecting with the Chūnqiū is from the start without any forced-fitting. As to the Biǎojì piān, then [Huáng] mostly speaks of the gentleman’s gōngjìng rényì virtue, and necessarily uses the Chūnqiū to verify [it]; on the canon’s original meaning, on the contrary, [it becomes] wild.
Further [he] cites Wéi Dǐng’s seeing Wáng Tōng matter — then mistakenly trusting a forged book; on kǎojù [it is] also lax. But his Chūnqiū mutual-verification side-by-side-clearing [comprehension] has considerable elucidation; like Hú Ānguó’s Chūnqiū zhuàn — although [it does] not necessarily fully obtain the canon’s meaning — only because of the discussion’s correctness-and-grandness, by-event yielding-up admonition, [it has] much bearing on world-instruction. Therefore [we] again cannot abolish it.
Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
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 Biǎojì jízhuàn is one of Huáng Dàozhōu’s five 1638 Lǐjì-chapter monographs and methodologically the most adventurous: he treats the Biǎojì (a chapter of moral-philosophical reflections) as a meta-commentary on the Chūnqiū 春秋, systematically marshalling Chūnqiū historical cases as illustrations of each Biǎojì passage. The Sìkù tíyào finds this method partly defensible (the parallel chapter Fāngjì KR1d0064 does have substantial Chūnqiū connection in its language) but largely strained for the Biǎojì, whose subject matter is gōngjìng rényì virtue rather than Chūnqiū-style commendation-and-condemnation. The editors compare Huáng’s interpretation to Hú Ānguó’s 胡安國 Chūnqiū zhuàn: methodologically suspect but valuable for its political-moral guī (admonition).
The work is divided into thirty-six chapters of Huáng’s own creation (the canonical Biǎojì is a single chapter). The Sìkù editors object to this on two grounds: (i) the HànTáng zhèngyì tradition recognised eight or nine internal jié (sections) marked by the formulaic zǐ yán zhī / zǐ yuē; (ii) Chén Hào KR1d0059 had already been criticised for forcing forty-plus chapter divisions on the same text. Huáng’s thirty-six is a compromise between these two but is still presented in the tíyào as fundamentally departing from “the method of explaining the canon.”
A specific kǎojù error is flagged: Huáng cites Wéi Dǐng’s 韋鼎 (a Sòng figure) seeing Wáng Tōng 王通 — a passage from the Wénzhōngzǐ 文中子 Zhōngshuō 中說 — without recognising that the Zhōngshuō is generally regarded as a partial forgery. The Sìkù editors take this as evidence of Huáng’s kǎojù laxity, though the work is preserved for its political-moral seriousness rather than its philological precision.
The accompanying Chūnqiū biǎojì wènyè (1 juan, an appendix) records Huáng’s jīngyán discussions with disciples including Zhū Cháoyíng 朱朝瑛 and others, and is methodologically continuous with the main work.
Translations and research
- Lynn A. Struve, The Southern Ming, 1644–1662 (Yale UP, 1984) — biographical material on Huáng Dàozhōu’s late-Míng career.
- Míng shǐ 明史 j. 255 (biography of Huáng Dàozhōu).
- Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers the late-Míng Lǐjì commentary tradition.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ explicit comparison of Huáng Dàozhōu’s Biǎojì jízhuàn to Hú Ānguó’s Chūnqiū zhuàn — both judged philologically problematic but politically-morally valuable — is a useful index of how the Qīng evidential-school tradition triangulated between strict kǎojù and the residual respect due to SòngMíng yìlǐ commentary’s political-moral seriousness. The eighteenth-century Sìkù catalogue inclines towards philology, but consistently makes room for SòngMíng yìlǐ works that meet a high political-moral standard.
Links
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_Daozhou
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/liji.html