聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

春秋尊王發微

6 min read

Text ID
KR1e0018
Date
1043–1057
Dynasty
宋

Chūnqiū zūn wáng fā wéi 春秋尊王發微

The Spring and Autumn Annals: Elucidation of its Subtleties on Honouring the King

by 孫復 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū zūn wáng fā wéi 春秋尊王發微 in twelve juan is the foundational Northern-Sòng Chūnqiū xīnyì 春秋新義 work — the founding treatise of the Sòng Chūnqiū school that read the classic without recourse to the Sān zhuàn. Composed by Sūn Fù 孫復 (992–1057), the founder of the Tàishān school 泰山學派 and one of the Sòng chū sān xiānshēng 宋初三先生 (with Hú Yuán 胡瑗 and Shí Jiè 石介), the work was completed in 1057 just before his death, with the assistance of his pupil Zǔ Wúzé 祖無擇 — sent to Sūn’s home by Hán Qí 韓琦 to dictate the work to court archivists. The Sìkù base reproduces the WYG copy. Originally fifteen juan including a now-lost Zǒng lùn 總論 in three juan (per the Sòng Zhōngxīng shū mù 中興書目); the surviving twelve juan are the running commentary alone.

Tiyao

The Sìkù tíyào (text from the Kyoto Zinbun digital Sìkù tíyào):

By Sūn Fù of Sòng. Fù, zì Míngfù 明復, was a man of Píngyáng 平陽; his career is detailed in the Sòng shǐ rúlín zhuàn. Lǐ Tāo’s Xù zīzhì tōngjiàn cháng biān 續資治通鑑長編 says: “Zhōngchéng 中丞 of the Guózǐjiān 國子監 zhíjiǎng 直講, Sūn Fù treated the Chūnqiū without trusting the commentaries; his words are simple and easy, capturing the jīng’s root meaning. After he fell ill, the Shūmìshǐ 樞密使 Hán Qí 韓琦 spoke about him to the throne; clerks were dispatched, paper and brush issued, and his disciple Zǔ Wúzé 祖無擇 was instructed to record [the work] at Sūn’s home. The result was a fifteen-juan book deposited in the Imperial Archives.” The present text, however, is twelve juan. According to the Zhōngxīng shū mù, there is also a separate Zǒng lùn 總論 in three juan; combining them gives the fifteen-juan total. The Zǒng lùn is now lost; only this commentary survives.

Sūn Fù’s discussion takes its precedent from Lù Chún 陸淳 KR1e0013 above and opens the way for Hú Ānguó 胡安國 KR1e0036 below. He holds that the Chūnqiū contains only blame and no praise (yǒu biǎn wú bāo 有貶無襃), with severity as its keynote. Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dú shū zhì records Cháng Zhì’s 常秩 remark: “Míngfù treats the Chūnqiū like Shāng Yāng’s law: those who throw ash on the road are punished, those who walk over six chǐ are executed” — a perceptive judgment. Sòng-period scholars rather favoured harsh exegesis, eagerly agreeing with such positions; a tide that would not turn back, until ultimately the brushed and chiseled work of Confucius’ court became a “net-of-meshes classic.” Yet who knows the Chūnqiū better than Mèngzǐ — and Mèngzǐ said only “the Chūnqiū was made and rebellious ministers and unfilial sons trembled.” If in the 242 years not a single non-rebellious-minister and non-unfilial-son existed, then Sūn’s reading would hold. But if not all are rebels, the sage must have his selective recognition — how could it be that from the Heavenly King down through dukes and ministers, not one person and not one event escapes being condemned? Excessive depth that misses the Chūnqiū’s root purport begins with Sūn. Yet within the work he distinguishes ranks and discriminates resemblances; on the springs of rise-and-fall and order-and-disorder he has occasional insights. Tested as a whole, in the words of the saying, “his merit does not compensate his faults.” Because subsequent Chūnqiū commentators rooted in him their philological forensic style, we register him here, drawing attention to the gradual onset of frost and laying out his gains and losses in detail.

Chéng Duānxué 程端學 says Sūn produced, beside the Zūn wáng fā wéi and the Zǒng lùn, a Sān zhuàn biàn shī jiě 三傳辨失解. Zhū Yízūn’s 朱彝尊 Jīng yì kǎo 經義考 follows him. But the work is not registered in the Sòng shǐ nor cited by any contemporary. Examining the Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì and the Zhōngxīng shū mù, we find Wáng Rìxiū 王日休 Chūnqiū SūnFùjiě sānzhuàn biàn shī 春秋孫復解三傳辨失 in four juan; possibly Chéng Duānxué confused this — a work attacking Sūn — for a work by Sūn.

Abstract

The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this is the foundational Northern-Sòng xīnyì commentary, building directly on Lù Chún’s Tang-period setting-aside of the three commentaries; that Sūn Fù’s hermeneutical position is one of yǒu biǎn wú bāo — the Chūnqiū contains only condemnation, never praise, against every rank from the Son of Heaven down — and that this severe reading was perceptively criticised in his own time as “Shāng Yāng-style law”; that despite the editors’ clear distance from this position, the work is registered because it is the fons et origo of the entire harsh-reading line of Sòng Chūnqiū commentary down through to Hú Ānguó.

Sūn Fù held no high office and lived in seclusion at Tàishān (Tàishūshūyuàn 泰山書院) teaching for more than thirty years before being recalled by imperial summons. His pupils — Shí Jiè 石介 (1005–1045) and Hú Yuán 胡瑗 (993–1059) among them — became the leading figures of the early Northern-Sòng Confucian revival, and through them the xīnyì programme on the Chūnqiū became one of the doctrinal stems of Dàoxué. Wilkinson’s Chinese History: A New Manual §28.7.3 places Sūn at the start of the Tang–Sòng Confucian revival proper.

Translations and research

  • Lǐ Wěitài 李偉泰, Sòng-rén Chūnqiū xué dōu lùn 宋人春秋學論衡 (Tāiběi: Wénjīn 1995) — comprehensive Chinese-language survey.
  • Sūn Wěimíng 孫衛明, Sòng dài Chūnqiū xué yánjiū 宋代春秋學研究 (Bēijīng: Zhōngguó shèhuì kēxué chūbǎnshè 2009).
  • Wàng Yúnlǔ 王雲路 et al., Sòng chū sān xiānshēng yánjiū 宋初三先生研究 (Hángzhōu: Zhèjiāng dàxué chūbǎnshè 2014).

Other points of interest

The lost Zǒng lùn in three juan, according to the Zhōngxīng shū mù, contained Sūn Fù’s general theoretical statements on the Chūnqiū — the methodologically central part of his programme. Its loss is a substantial gap in our understanding of Northern-Sòng Chūnqiū hermeneutics; what survives is essentially the empirical commentary without the theoretical framework. Modern reconstructions from citations in Liú Chǎng KR1e0021, Hú Ānguó KR1e0036, and Lǐ Míngfù KR1e0047 are partial.

Graph View

Backlinks