聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

春秋左傳注疏

11 min read

Text ID
KR1e0004
Date
222–653
Dynasty
周

Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn zhùshū 春秋左傳注疏

The Spring and Autumn Annals with the Zuǒ Tradition: Commentary and Sub-commentary

by 左丘明 (撰) · 杜預 (注) · 孔穎達 (疏) · 陸德明 (音義)

About the work

The Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn zhùshū 春秋左傳注疏 in sixty juan is the canonical zhùshū 注疏 (layered annotation-and-sub-commentary) of the Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn (parent text KR1e0001) and the standard form in which the Zuǒzhuàn circulated from the Sòng onward. It assembles, in interleaved layers: (1) the Chūnqiū canonical entries, traditionally ascribed to Confucius’ editing of the Lǔ chronicle; (2) the Zuǒzhuàn narrative, traditionally ascribed to Zuǒ Qiūmíng 左丘明 (whence its first frontmatter attribution); (3) Dù Yù’s 杜預 Jí jiě 集解 (KR1e0002); (4) Kǒng Yǐngdá’s 孔穎達 Táng zhèngyì 正義 (KR1e0003); and (5) the yīn yì 音義 phonetic glosses extracted from Lù Démíng’s 陸德明 Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文. The Wényuāngé Sìkù quánshū 文淵閣四庫全書 base reproduced in Kanripo carries this full layered presentation, prefaced by four imperial poems and prose pieces by the Qiánlóng 乾隆 emperor on themes from the Zuǒzhuàn (the SòngChǔ Hóng 宋楚泓 battle, the Yuán nián chūn wáng zhèngyuè 元年春王正月 problem, the JìnChǔ Chéngpú 城濮 battle, and Jì Wénzǐ 季文子’s expulsion of Jǔ Pú 莒僕).

Tiyao

The Sìkù tíyào (text from the Kyoto Zinbun digital Sìkù tíyào, since the Kanripo _000.txt reproduces only the Qiánlóng prefatory pieces, not the tíyào):

The Zhōu-period Zuǒ Qiūmíng compiled the Zhuàn; the Jìn-period Dù Yù annotated it; the Táng-period Kǒng Yǐngdá produced the sub-commentary. From Liú Xiàng 劉向, Liú Xīn 劉歆, Huán Tán 桓譚, and Bān Gù 班固 onwards, all held that the Chūnqiū zhuàn came from Zuǒ Qiūmíng, and that Zuǒ Qiūmíng received the classic from Confucius; from the Wèi and Jìn onwards, Confucian scholars raised no dissent. Only with the Táng-period Zhào Kuāng 趙匡 did the claim begin to circulate that Zuǒshì was not Qiūmíng — the aim being to attack the zhuàn for not agreeing with the jīng, which required first attacking the man who composed the zhuàn as not a recipient from Confucius. (This is the same logic by which Wáng Bó 王柏 wished to attack the Máoshī by first attacking Máo’s reception of it from Zǐxià 子夏: a single argumentative manoeuvre.) Sòng and Yuán scholars then took up the case in succession. Wáng Ānshí 王安石’s Chūnqiū jiě 春秋解 in one juan adduced eleven items as evidence that Zuǒshì was not Qiūmíng; Chén Zhènsūn 陳振孫’s Shū lù jiětí 書錄解題 holds the work to be a forgery. The book is no longer extant, so on what evidentiary basis its eleven items rested cannot be determined. Of the rest of the disputants, only Zhū Zǐ 朱子 (Zhū Xī)‘s remark that “Yú bù là yǐ” 虞不臘矣 must be Qín-period speech, and Yè Mèngdé 葉夢得’s observation that the Zhuàn records events down to the affair of Zhì Bó 智伯 and so must be the work of a Six-Kingdoms-era figure, came close to plausibility. But on inspection of the Shǐ jì, Qín běnjì: the twelfth year of King Huìwén 惠文 (i.e. of Qín) records the inauguration of the là 臘 sacrifice, and Zhāng Shǒujié’s 張守節 Zhèngyì says “King Huìwén of Qín began to imitate the central states in performing it” — making it clear that the là sacrifice existed in antiquity, and that Qín only began to use it at this point: not that Qín first invented it. Yán Ruòqú 閻若璩’s Gǔwén Shàngshū shū zhèng 古文尚書疏證 also refutes this argument: “the Shǐ says Qín Wéngōng first instituted the office of historian to record events, and Qín Xuāngōng first noted the intercalary month — were these too non-existent in the central states, awaiting Qín to invent them?” So the claim that là is exclusively a Qín rite is unfounded. The Zuǒ zhuàn contains predictions of fortune and misfortune that all turn out to be true, which suggests that some retrospective adjustment cannot be ruled out. But in the ninth year of Duke Aī 哀公 it says “the Zhào lineage will continue to face disorder,” which afterwards did not in fact come about — proving that the work cannot have been composed knowing later events. The jīng ends only with the capture of the unicorn, but the disciples extended it to Confucius’ death; the zhuàn records the destruction of Zhì Bó, also probably extended by later hands. The biography of Sīmǎ Xiāngrú in the Shǐ jì contains a saying of Yáng Xióng — but one cannot use this single instance to argue that Sīmǎ Qiān was a Later-Hàn figure! So the inclusion of the Zhì Bó material is not sufficient grounds for doubt. We accordingly continue to assign authorship to Zuǒ Qiūmíng, in order to dispel the various confusions.

As for the reason the zhuàn was composed, Liú Zhījī’s 劉知幾 dictum that Qiūmíng “personally served as state historian” is the most decisive explanation. The zhèngyì says: “Major events were recorded on the official tablets — that which is written in the jīng; minor events were recorded on the bamboo strips — that which is recorded in the zhuàn.” If one observes that the Jìn historian’s record of Zhào Dùn 趙盾, the Qí historian’s record of Cuī Zhù 崔杼 and Níng Zhí 寧殖 — what is described as “set down in the registers of the lords” — all conform stylistically to the jīng; and that Mòzǐ’s citations from the Zhōu Chūnqiū (the case of Dù Bó 杜伯), the Yān Chūnqiū (the case of Zhuāngzǐ Yí 莊子儀), the Sòng Chūnqiū (the case of [Yè]guān Gū [#x35650]觀辜), the Qí Chūnqiū (the case of Wáng Lǐ Guózhōng Lǐ 王里國中里), all conform stylistically to the zhuàn — then both jīng and zhuàn alike were compiled out of state-historian records: a clear demonstration that whoever sets aside the zhuàn in expounding the jīng abandons what is near in pursuit of what is distant.

The Hàn shū yìwén records “Chūnqiū gǔ jīng in twelve sections, jīng in eleven juan” with a note that the jīng in eleven juan covers the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng schools; the Zuǒshì jīng-text is therefore not registered. But Dù Yù’s Jí jiě preface says: “I have divided the jīng by year and combined it with the zhuàn by year, attaching them so that the meaning may be expounded together”; and Lù Démíng’s Jīngdiǎn shìwén says: “Of old the Master’s jīng and Qiūmíng’s zhuàn circulated separately; Master Dù combined and explained them.” So the Zuǒ-tradition jīng itself existed independently. The Hàn shū notation then describes the gǔ jīng in twelve sections; this should not be conjoined with the jīng in eleven juan. The fact that the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng both circulated in eleven juan, paired with the jīng in eleven juan, makes clear that the eleven-juan jīng is the jīng of those two commentary-traditions; hence the editorial note. Xú Yàn’s 徐彥 Gōngyáng zhuàn shū says: “the Zuǒshì was first set down in writing, hence Hàn scholars called it the ‘old learning’” — so what is called gǔ jīng in twelve sections is precisely the Zuǒ-tradition jīng, hence its designation as “ancient inscription”; the Hàn shū compiler erroneously joined the two entries into one. If we now collate the Zuǒ jīng-text against the two other commentaries, in every case the Zuǒshì reading proves superior — establishing that the manuscript-transmission text is more reliable than the orally-transmitted versions.

Of those who expounded the Zuǒ zhuàn, the explanations of Kǒng Qí 孔奇 and Kǒng Jiā 孔嘉 have long been lost; the explanations of Jiǎ Kuí 賈逵 and Fú Qián 服虔 survive only in scattered citations. The most ancient surviving works today are the Dù annotation and the Kǒng sub-commentary. Dù’s annotation often forces the jīng to fit the zhuàn; and Kǒng’s sub-commentary frequently sides with Dù against Liú Xuàn 劉炫. (Note: Liú Xuàn composed Guī guò 規過 to attack Dù’s commentary; whatever he refutes, the Kǒng shū takes to be wrong.) Both reflect an excessive devotion to a single school — a defect that cannot be denied. Yet only with the zhùshū did the Zuǒshì meaning become clear, and only with the Zuǒshì meaning clear did the events of the 242 years find their evidentiary anchor. Latter-day Confucians who arrogate to themselves the role of judging praise and blame can still be checked against the zhuàn-text and shown to be wrong. From the Hàn and Jìn onwards the jīng’s meaning has been reached through the Zuǒshì; from Sòng and Yuán onwards the Zuǒshì has been used to seal off subjective speculation. To call the zhuàn together with its zhù and shū “of great service to the Chūnqiū” is no more than the truth.

Abstract

The zhùshū form derives ultimately from the Northern Sòng integration of Dù Yù’s Jí jiě and Kǒng Yǐngdá’s zhèngyì with the Lù Démíng yīn yì; in this WYG presentation, the layers are arranged with the Chūnqiū entries set above (in larger characters), the Zuǒzhuàn immediately following, Dù Yù’s note in double-column smaller-character interlinear position, the Kǒng zhèngyì in single-column reduced-size beneath, and the Lù Démíng glosses dispersed within. This is the same arrangement that Ruǎn Yuán 阮元 (1764–1849) re-cut for the standard Shísān jīng zhùshū (1815). The Sìkù tíyào above gives the work’s textual history, the question of authorship of the Zuǒzhuàn, and a balanced defence of the layered Dù–Kǒng inheritance against both the eleventh-century xīnyì attacks and the late-imperial doubts.

The catalog meta gives composition dates of (晉) for Dù Yù (whose lifedates are 222–284, with the Jí jiě completed in his late 270s or early 280s) and (唐) for Kǒng Yǐngdá (574–648, with the zhèngyì presented in 653 by his successors); for the received recension under the present id, the relevant date-bracket is therefore Dù Yù’s lifetime (notBefore 222) to the Yǒnghuī 4 (653) presentation of the zhèngyì. The frontmatter dynasty: 周 here records the (pseudo-)attribution of the parent text to Zuǒ Qiūmíng, kept for the sake of the catalog’s flat list, with the actual composition of the layered work spanning Hàn (Zuǒzhuàn) → Jìn (Dù zhù) → Suí–Táng (Lù yīnyì) → Táng (Kǒng zhèngyì).

Translations and research

The standard Western reference is the Durrant–Li–Schaberg Zuo Tradition (UWP 2016), which translates the Zuǒzhuàn with full reference to the Dù zhù and Kǒng zhèngyì. Specialist studies include:

  • Hóng Yèhuáng 洪業 [William Hung], Chūnqiū jīng zhuàn yǐndé 春秋經傳引得 (Harvard-Yenching, 1937) — concordance and standard collation tool.
  • Yáng Bójùn 楊伯峻, Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn zhù 春秋左傳注 (Zhōnghuá 1990) — modern critical commentary, supersedes Dù-Kǒng for technical questions but quotes them throughout.
  • Lǐ Tāo 李濤, Kǒng Yǐngdá Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn zhèngyì yánjiū 孔穎達春秋左傳正義研究 (Zhōnghuá shūjú 2009).
  • Sun Bin Bin 孫斌斌, Zuǒzhuàn Dù zhù yánjiū 左傳杜注研究 (Sānlián 2018).

Other points of interest

The Qiánlóng emperor’s prefatory poems and prose pieces (yù zhì 御製) at the head of the WYG volume are not present in any earlier edition; they were composed for the Sìkù compilation in the late 1770s and reflect the emperor’s particular interest in the Zuǒzhuàn. His Yù zhì shū Chūnqiū yuán nián chūn wáng zhèngyuè shì 御製書春秋元年春王正月事 reads the famous opening as encoding both Confucius’ acceptance that the calendar of his own time was that of King Píng 平王 (whose forty-ninth year was Yǐn 1 / 722 BCE) and his hidden adherence to the Xià calendar.

Graph View

Backlinks