Tángōng yíwèn 檀弓疑問
Doubts and Questions on the Tángōng Chapter
by 邵泰衢 (撰)
About the work
A short Yōngzhèng-period monograph in 1 juàn by Shào Tàiqú 邵泰衢 (zì Hètíng 鶴亭, native of Qiántáng, modern Hángzhōu) on the Tángōng 檀弓 chapter of the Lǐjì KR1d0052 — a collection of late Warring States to early Hàn anecdotes, often attributed to disciples of Confucius, with notable inconsistencies and apparent unhistorical details. Shào Tàiqú was a recommended-by-name Qīntiānjiàn zuǒjiànfù 欽天監左監副 (Vice-Director of the Imperial Astronomical Bureau) under Yōngzhèng, with a strong background in suànxué 算術 (calculation). The work picks out the most doubtful passages — those that seem to portray Confucius as having performed un-canonical rituals, expressed un-Confucian views, or performed historically-impossible acts — and refutes the canonical reading on principle that “the Lǐjì came from Hàn-Confucians and the Tángōng piān especially has many fùhuì (forced fittings).”
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Tángōng yíwèn in one juan was composed by Shào Tàiqú of the present dynasty. [Shào] Tàiqú — zì Hètíng, a man of Qiántáng — was clear in suànshù; in the early Yōngzhèng [period] by recommendation was bestowed Qīntiānjiàn zuǒjiànfù. His book takes [it] that the Lǐjì came from Hàn-Confucians, and the Tángōng one piān especially has many fùhuì. So [he] selects what may be doubted, organising-by-section and discussing-and-debating it.
As [in:] taking the tuō cān jiùguǎnrén [section] as failure-of-the-correct-rite; taking the fūzǐ mèng diàn matter as far-mystic and dim-vast — both are not what the sage suitably issues. Further [the issue:] qīn sāng kū wú cháng shēng — should not take rúzǐ qì as difficult-to-continue. Jū chóuzhě bù fǎn bīng ér dòu — taking [it] as opening-the-disorder-edge. Zēng Diǎn’s kuáng is zhì dà ér yǒu suǒ bù wéi — not kuángsì’s kuáng. Yǐ mén ér gē — there is absolutely no such matter. Taking Wáng Jī as Qí Xiānggōng’s wife; not Lǔ Zhuānggōng’s maternal-grandmother. In general [these] are all clear-and-correct; deeply enter into the principled-understanding. Not Liú Zhījī’s héngshēng yìjiě (cross-born-arbitrary-explanation) confusing-the-ancients and doubting-the-canon’s [type] can compare with.
Only [for] the shī jí Qí shī zhàn yú Láng one [section] — [Shào] Tàiqú took the Láng graph as a slip for Jiāo graph: apparently relying on the Chūnqiū “zhàn yú Jiāo” text. [He] does not know that Lǔ has two Lángs: in Yǐngōng one [first year] Fèibó’s walled Láng is in present abolished Yútái county territory; in Āigōng ten [tenth year], where they fought with Qí, the Láng is then near-suburb territory of Lǔ (note: explanation in detail in KR1d0074 Jiāng Yǒng’s Chūnqiū dìlǐ kǎoshí). Saying Láng equals jiāo is acceptable; saying Láng is mistaken is unacceptable.
Further [in] chéngqiū zhī zhàn one [section] — [Shào] Tàiqú doubts [the text reads] Lǔ Zhuānggōng bàijì — error. [He] does not know the ancients’ army-being-routed says bàijì; chariot-being-overturned also says bàijì; the Zuǒzhuàn’s saying bàijì yāfù is this. Reaching to taking zhànnù as doubtful, [he] is also lax in kǎojù. Yet occasional rough-blunders are also no harm to the broad-thrust.
Respectfully revised and submitted, fourth 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
Shào Tàiqú’s Tángōng yíwèn is one of a small number of Qīng-period monograph studies of a single Lǐjì chapter, focused on the Tángōng — the chapter of the Lǐjì whose internal heterogeneity (Confucian-disciple anecdotes mixed with later Western Hàn material) makes it the natural target for biànwěi-style critical scholarship. The Sìkù tíyào gives an unusually positive endorsement: Shào’s general method of separating canonical-Confucian-rite from later-Hàn fùhuì is judged as “clear-and-correct, deeply entering into the principled-understanding”, and explicitly contrasted with the negative example of Liú Zhījī’s 劉知幾 Shǐtōng 史通 — whose “cross-born arbitrary explanations confusing the ancients and doubting the canon” was the kǎojù school’s standard caution against speculative biànwěi.
Two specific passages are flagged for criticism: (i) the zhàn yú Láng / zhàn yú Jiāo identification — the Sìkù editors note (citing Jiāng Yǒng’s Chūnqiū dìlǐ kǎoshí) that Lǔ had two distinct places named Láng, the late one being a near-suburb where Confucius’s father (Shū Liánghé) is recorded as having fought, and Shào’s emendation of Láng to Jiāo is unnecessary; (ii) the bàijì terminology — the Sìkù editors note that the term refers both to “army being routed” and “chariot being overturned”, and Shào’s doubt about Lǔ Zhuānggōng bàijì is therefore kǎojù-careless.
The dating bracket 1723–1740 reflects Shào Tàiqú’s Yōngzhèng-period official career; the work is undatable to a precise year. Shào’s CBDB id 442374; his birth-and-death years are not preserved in the standard biographical sources.
Translations and research
- Qīng shǐ gǎo 清史稿 (no separate biography of Shào Tài-qú; he appears in Yōngzhèng-period imperial-bureau records).
- Yáng Tiānyǔ 楊天宇, Lǐjì yìzhù 禮記譯注 (Shànghǎi gǔjí, 1997) — modern translation taking Shào’s textual queries into account.
- Pèng Lín 彭林, Sānlǐ yánjiū rùmén 三禮研究入門 (Fùdàn dàxué chūbǎnshè, 2012) — covers the Qīng monograph tradition on the Tángōng.
Other points of interest
The Tángōng chapter has remained a paradigmatic test-case for Chinese classical-textual biànwěi scholarship from the Sòng to the present day. The chapter contains anecdotes that — if taken historically — are difficult to reconcile with Confucius’s recorded views or with the historical record (the most famous case being the Confucius-and-his-mother burial story in Tángōng 1, where Confucius is portrayed as not knowing his mother’s grave and asking his father’s burial-companions). Shào Tàiqú’s monograph stands at the entry-point of the Qīng evidential-school’s systematic engagement with these problems.
Links
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Rites
- Chinaknowledge: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/liji.html