聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

蘇氏春秋集解

5 min read

Text ID
KR1e0026
Date
1080–1098
Dynasty
宋

Sūshì Chūnqiū jí jiě 蘇氏春秋集解

Master Sū’s Collected Explanations of the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 蘇轍 (撰)

About the work

The Sūshì Chūnqiū jí jiě 蘇氏春秋集解 in twelve juan is the Chūnqiū commentary of Sū Zhé 蘇轍 (1039–1112), the third of the Sān Sū 三蘇 (Sū Xún, Sū Shì, Sū Zhé). Begun during Sū’s first banishment to Gāoān 高安 in the Xīníng 熙寧 era (1068–1077, under Wáng Ānshí’s New Policies) and completed in 1098 at Lóngchuān 龍川 — over twenty years’ labour. The hermeneutical position takes the Zuǒzhuàn as primary; where Zuǒ’s reading is untenable, falls back on Gōngyáng, Gǔliáng, and the DànZhào school. The Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì records the work as Chūnqiū jí zhuàn (a copyist’s error for jí jiě); the Wénxiàn tōngkǎo matches the present title. The Sìkù base is the WYG copy.

Tiyao

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

By Sū Zhé of Sòng. Earlier, Liú Chǎng KR1e0021 had written the Chūnqiū yì lín, much of it new in interpretation; Sūn Fù KR1e0018 had written Chūnqiū zūn wáng fā wéi, further setting aside the commentaries to seek the jīng directly: ancient explanations gradually fell into disuse. Later Wáng Ānshí denigrated the Chūnqiū as a “fragmentary court gazette” and had it removed from the academy curriculum. Zhé saw that jīng and zhuàn alike were both withering, and so composed this work to remedy the loss. His position takes the Zuǒshì as primary; where the Zuǒshì cannot be made to work, he draws on the Gōngyáng, Gǔliáng, Dàn, Zhào, and other schools to fill out — for the Zuǒshì has the state-historian’s record to rely on, while the Gōngyáng and below are all conjecture.

The author’s preface says that during the Xīníng era, in banishment at Gāoān, he composed this work; in spare time he revised it, until in the first year of Yuánfú 元符 (1098) when he settled at Lóngchuān, he finalised the corrections, finding them — on review — without regret. So the work matured over more than ten years; his diligence in composition far exceeded those who write hastily on impulse.

Zhū Yízūn’s Jīng yì kǎo records Chén Hóngxù’s 陳宏緒 postface: “The Zuǒshì’s narrative is comprehensive and clear, but does occasionally err from the way; the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng explain the jīng by conjecture, but their gains and losses are intermingled. As when ‘the Róng attacked Fán Bó at Chǔqiū’ [Yǐn 7] — the Gǔliáng takes ‘Róng’ as ‘Wèi’; or ‘Qí Zhòngsūn came’ [Min 1] — both Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng take this to be ‘Lǔ Qìngfù’; or ‘Lǔ destroyed Xiàng’ [Xī 17] — both take it that ‘Qí actually destroyed it’ — these are clear errors, undeniable. But on cases like ‘autumn of Yǐn 4: Huī led the host together with Sònggōng, Chénhóu, Càirén, Wèirén in attacking Zhèng,’ or ‘Huán 14 autumn eighth month rénshēn: the imperial granary caught fire; yǐhài: the cháng sacrifice,’ or ‘Zhuāng 24 summer: the duke went to Qí to fetch his bride’ — for entries like these, the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng readings precisely catch the sage’s subtle finesse, but Yǐngbīn (Sū Zhé) dismisses them all with deep censure. Reading them, take what is good and pass over the failings — that is the right approach.” Chén’s judgement on the work is balanced. The present text does not include this postface (the Sìkù exemplar predates Chén’s writing).

The Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì gives the title as Chūnqiū jí zhuàn; the Wénxiàn tōngkǎo gives jí jiě, matching the present text — confirming that Sòng zhì contains a transcription error.

Abstract

The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that the work is Sū Zhé’s Chūnqiū commentary, written over twenty-plus years between two banishments; that the hermeneutical position is Zuǒzhuàn-primary with eclectic recourse to the other commentaries — anchored in the Zuǒ’s preserved state-historical record; that the work was conceived as a defence of the Chūnqiū against Wáng Ānshí’s dismissal of it; that Chén Hóngxù’s later judgement (that Sū over-deprecates valid Gōngyáng / Gǔliáng readings) is balanced and worth registering.

The Jí jiě’s political context — composed during Wáng Ānshí’s New Policies and revised through the subsequent Yuányòu 元祐 conservative restoration and Shàoshèng 紹聖 second New-Policies wave — gives it the additional valence of being a sustained critique of the New-Policies-era abandonment of the Chūnqiū. Sū Zhé’s defence of the classic was institutionally significant; Wáng Ānshí had removed the Chūnqiū from the imperial examination curriculum, and Sū’s work was a document in the larger campaign that eventually restored it.

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).
  • Hu, Charles Yim-tze, “Su Che (1039–1112) and the Reform of Confucian Classical Learning in the Sung,” PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1991 — also addresses Sū Zhé’s Chūnqiū jí jiě.

Other points of interest

The work is one of three Chūnqiū commentaries composed in banishment under the Wáng Ānshí New Policies (the others being Sūn Jué’s KR1e0025 and Cuī Zǐfāng’s KR1e0028) — together they constitute the principal Yuányòu / Shào-shèng-era Confucian counter-programme to Wáng Ānshí’s Chūnqiū-dismissal. Sū Zhé’s preface explicitly frames the work in these terms.

Graph View

Backlinks