Zhōuguān lǐ yìtóng píng 周官禮異同評

Evaluation of Similarities and Differences in the Zhōuguān-Ritual [Transmissions]

by 陳邵 (撰)

About the work

A single-juàn, single-paragraph reconstruction of 陳邵 Chén Shào’s (Cáo-Wèi-period) lost Zhōuguān lǐ yìtóng píng 周官禮異同評, preserved only as a brief excerpt in Lù Démíng’s Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文 xù-lù 敘錄 (preface-table). The fragment is the single most-cited historical witness for the Hàn-Wèi transmission-genealogy of the Sānlǐ. CHANT (CH2e1071) preserves only this one fragment.

Abstract

The full fragment as transmitted in Jīngdiǎn shìwén xù-lù reads:

Dài Dé 戴德 excerpted the ancient in 204 piān into 85 piān — this is the Dà Dài Lǐ 大戴禮. Dài Shèng 戴聖 excerpted the Dà Dài Lǐ into 49 piān — this is the Xiǎo Dài Lǐ 小戴禮. The later-Hàn Mǎ Róng 馬融 and Lú Zhí 盧植 collated the same-and-differing readings of the various schools and appended Dài Shèng’s piān-zhāng, removed the redundant and abbreviated material, and circulated [the result] in the world — this is the present [i.e. the standard Lǐjì]. Zhèng Yuán [Xuán] 鄭元 also followed Lú Zhí and Mǎ Róng’s recension and made his annotation.

This passage is the locus classicus for the standard Hàn-Wèi Lǐjì transmission genealogy: from the original Hàn-court corpus (the Yílǐ core plus subsidiary piān), through the / Xiǎo Dài recensions, through the Mǎ-Róng-and-Lú-Zhí editorial collation, to the Zhèng Xuán annotated edition that became canonical. Every subsequent classical-history overview from the Suí-Táng Lǐjì zhèngyì onwards goes back to this Chén Shào fragment as the foundational historical witness.

The dating bracket (220–280) reflects Chén Shào’s documented activity as a Wèi-period official; his exact life-years are not preserved.

Translations and research

  • Jean-Pierre Diény, Le saint ne rêve pas: De Zhuangzi à Michel Jullien discusses the parallel canonical histories of the Lǐjì.
  • See also studies of the Hàn-Wèi Sānlǐ school by Kanaya Osamu 金谷治 and others.
  • No substantial Western-language secondary literature located specifically on Chén Shào’s Zhōuguān lǐ yìtóng píng.

Other points of interest

The Chén Shào fragment as preserved in Jīngdiǎn shìwén is a frequent target of skepticism in modern philology: the Dài Dé / Dài Shèng piān-shù (204 → 85 → 49) ratios are tidier than the Hàn-source evidence actually permits, and the “Mǎ Róng and Lú Zhí editorial collation” claim is not corroborated in either Hàn-historical sources or Mǎ-Lú’s own preserved writings. The fragment is best read as a Cáo-Wèi-period synthesis-reconstruction that became authoritative through repeated citation.