Chūnqiū huáng gāng lùn 春秋皇綱論
Discussions of the Imperial Order in the Spring and Autumn Annals
by 王晳 (撰)
About the work
The Chūnqiū huáng gāng lùn 春秋皇綱論 in five juan is a Northern-Sòng essayistic treatment of the Chūnqiū by Wáng Xī 王晳 (also spelled 王皙; xī / xī; the catalog uses the variant 晳). Composed in the Zhìhé 至和 era (1054–1056) under Sòng Rénzōng, the work consists of twenty-two essays that elucidate the editorial intent of Confucius and discuss the gains and losses of the three commentaries together with the DànZhùZhàoKuāng school. Of Wáng’s three known Chūnqiū works — the Tōng yì 通義 in twelve juan, the Yì yì 異義 in twelve juan, and the present Huáng gāng lùn — only this fifth-juan essayistic remainder survives. The Sìkù base is the Wényuāngé WYG copy.
Tiyao
The Sìkù tíyào (text from the Kyoto Zinbun digital Sìkù tíyào):
By Wáng Xī of Sòng. Xī self-identifies as a man of Tàiyuán 太原; his career is unrecoverable. Chén Zhènsūn’s Shū lù jiětí says he held the post of Tàicháng bóshì 太常博士. But Gōng Dǐngchén’s 龔鼎臣 Dōngyuán lù 東原錄 records that in the Tiānxǐ 天禧 era of Zhēnzōng, Qián Wéiyǎn 錢惟演 memorialised the retention of Cáo Lìyòng 曹利用 and Dīng Wèi 丁謂 [in office], and Yàn Shū 晏殊 spoke of these matters to Hànlín xuéshì 學士 Wáng Xī — making clear his rank was higher than Tàicháng bóshì alone.
Wáng Yīnglín’s Yùhǎi says that in the Zhìhé era Wáng Xī composed Chūnqiū tōng yì 春秋通義 in twelve juan (relying on the three-commentary annotations and the DànZhùZhàoKuāng school: where the doctrines connect, they are placed under the jīng; where they fall short, his own interpretation supplies the gap), as well as a Yì yì 異義 in twelve juan and a Huáng gāng lùn in five juan. The Tōng yì and Yì yì are now lost; only the present text survives. There are twenty-two discourses, all expounding the editorial intent of the Master and weighing the three commentaries’ and DànZhào’s gains and losses. (Note: Zhào Kuāng in the work is everywhere written Zhào Zhèng 趙正, to avoid the personal-name taboo on Sòng Tàizǔ; the Zūn wáng xià piān 尊王下篇 cites the Lúnyǔ as “yī zhèng tiānxià” 一正天下 in the same convention.)
His prose is mostly clear and plain, free of the habit of forced fitting. The Kǒngzǐ xiū Chūnqiū piān 孔子修春秋篇 says: “If [the Chūnqiū] were specifically composed to make rebellious ministers and unfilial sons fear, then the function of honouring the worthy and rewarding the good would be missing” — a thrust sufficient to break the yǒu biǎn wú bāo 有貶無褒 doctrine of Sūn Fù KR1e0018. The Zhuàn shì yìtóng piān 傳釋異同篇 says: “The Zuǒshì ranged broadly through old histories and combined many traditions; he obtained a thorough record of the Chūnqiū’s events. Yet he made an independent book outside the jīng, and so was confused by some heterodox accounts and gathered too much; on the sage’s subtle intent he is also rather sketchy. But he has structure throughout: probably the work of a single hand. The Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng learnings are based on argumentation, taking selected scholarly views and attaching them to the jīng; though they cannot give detailed events, on the sage’s subtle intent they investigate often. Yet they are flawed in their twisted reasoning and superfluous explanations, in their crude shallowness and clutter — probably the work of a school of teachers.” He further says: “The Zuǒshì school likes to determine fortune and misfortune from a moment’s gōng 恭 or huì 惰, and from divinations and oracles; few prove false. This is its blindness; one should select what is correct in the prose to elucidate the jīng. As jade has flaws, but one rejects the flaws and uses the jade — one cannot reject the jade with the flaws. The two other commentaries are likewise.” Such balance breaks the position of Sūn Fù and others who would discard all three commentaries entirely.
Among Sòng-period Chūnqiū explanations, this is one that does not lose the ancient meaning. Only the Jiāo dì piān 郊禘篇 — saying that the Duke of Zhōu should perform the jiāo 郊 and dì 禘 sacrifices, that King Chéng’s gift was not excessive, and that Lǔ’s continuation was not transgressive — and the Shā dàfū piān 殺大夫篇 — saying that all entries on killing a great-officer indict the great-officer for failing to perceive in advance and withdraw — are partial views, not worth following.
Abstract
The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this is a methodologically balanced Northern-Sòng work, alone among major Sòng Chūnqiū commentaries in resisting both the rigorist yǒu biǎn wú bāo doctrine of Sūn Fù and the DànZhàoLù tendency to discard the three commentaries entirely; that two of Wáng Xī’s three Chūnqiū works are lost and only this fifth-juan essayistic remainder survives; that two specific positions in the work (on the propriety of Lǔ’s jiāo-and-dì sacrifice, and on the universal indictment of slain great-officers) are exceptions to its general balance and should not be followed.
The Huáng gāng lùn’s twenty-two essays cover broad topics — Confucius’ editorial method, the relative reliability of the three commentaries, the idea of “honouring the king,” the punishment of regicides, the reception of the Way — rather than offering a running commentary on the jīng. It is therefore methodologically distinct from Sūn Fù’s KR1e0018 running commentary and Liú Chǎng’s KR1e0021 Quán héng, occupying instead the genre of zǒng lùn 總論 essay-on-general-themes.
Translations and research
- Lǐ Wěitài 李偉泰, Sòng-rén Chūnqiū xué dōu lùn 宋人春秋學論衡 (Tāiběi: Wénjīn 1995).
- Sūn Wěimíng 孫衛明, Sòng dài Chūnqiū xué yánjiū 宋代春秋學研究 (Bēijīng: Zhōngguó shèhuì kēxué chūbǎnshè 2009).
Other points of interest
Wáng Xī’s tabooed-name convention — writing Zhào Kuāng 趙匡 as Zhào Zhèng 趙正 to avoid the personal-name taboo on Sòng Tàizǔ Zhào Kuāngyìn 趙匡胤 — is preserved by the WYG editors as a Sòng-imperial-period feature, though it sits oddly in a Qīng-dynasty edition (where the original Tang figure Zhào Kuāng could be written normally).
Links
- Zinbun Sìkù tíyào: http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/db-machine/ShikoTeiyo/0052701.html