聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

春秋通訓

4 min read

Text ID
KR1e0031
Date
1085–1110
Dynasty
宋

Chūnqiū tōng xùn 春秋通訓

Comprehensive Instructions on the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 張大亨 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū tōng xùn 春秋通訓 in six juan is the second of Zhāng Dàhēng’s 張大亨 Chūnqiū works, companion to KR1e0030 Chūnqiū wǔ lǐ lì zōng. It is a running interpretive treatise organised by the twelve dukes of Lǔ. Originally sixteen juan (per Chén Zhènsūn’s Shū lù jiětí and the Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì), the work was lost between the Sòng and the early Míng and survives only in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recovery, condensed by the Sìkù editors into six juan for ease of reading. Zhāng’s preface acknowledges his teacher as “Master Hézhòng of Zhàojùn” (Zhàojùn Hézhòng xiānshēng 趙郡和仲先生) — that is, Sū Shì 蘇軾 (whose zì was Hézhòng 和仲).

Tiyao

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

By Zhāng Dàhēng of Sòng. The author’s preface says: “In youth I heard the Chūnqiū from Master Hézhòng of Zhàojùn.” Examining Sū Shì’s chronological biography, Sū’s original zì was Hézhòng 和仲. Also Sū Xún’s family genealogy says the family was descended from the Táng-period chief minister Sū Tǐng 蘇頲, with origins in Zhàojùn 趙郡. The transmitted Tí Yānjiāng diézhàng tú shī 題烟江疊嶂圖詩 stone inscription bears the seal “Zhàojùn Sūshì” 趙郡蘇氏 at the end. So “Master Hézhòng of Zhàojùn” is Sū Shì himself.

Sū Lěi’s 蘇籀 Shuāngxī jí 雙溪集 records Zhāng Dàhēng questioning Sū Shì on the meanings of the Chūnqiū; Sū’s reply: “The Chūnqiū is a Confucian’s basic task. But this book has subtle uses; few learners can grasp them. Most seek it within the bounds of statute, which is closer to the legalist line — petty and over-meshed; what use is it? Only Zuǒ Qiūmíng knew its use, but did not wish to speak it out fully; he displays only the slightest indications, wishing the learner to seek it for himself.” This matches Zhāng’s preface. Zhāng’s learning came from the Sū family; hence the work’s argument and orientation are close to theirs.

Chén Zhènsūn’s Shū lù jiětí and the Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì both give the work as 16 juan. Zhū Yízūn’s Jīng yì kǎo says the work is lost. The present text is preserved in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn: the twelve dukes each have their own juan, and Yǐngōng, Zhuānggōng, Xiānggōng, and Zhāogōng are each further divided into upper and lower — giving a total of 16 juan, matching the original count. But each juan is short on text, and the divisions are excessively granular; we have therefore consolidated them into 6 juan for ease of reading. The text itself is not abridged.

Abstract

The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this work is the running interpretive treatise companion to KR1e0030; that the work derives its hermeneutic from Sū Shì 蘇軾, whom Zhāng identifies in his preface only by the cryptic kenning “Master Hézhòng of Zhàojùn” — the tíyào deciphering this through Sū’s chronological biography, family genealogy, and Sū Lěi’s Shuāngxī jí; that the work was lost between the Sòng and the early Míng, surviving only in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn; that Sū Shì’s response to Zhāng — that the Chūnqiū has “subtle uses” hidden by Zuǒ Qiūmíng — is itself an important record of Sū’s Chūnqiū hermeneutic, otherwise scarcely preserved.

The work is one of the principal Sòng-period testimonies to the Sū-family Chūnqiū hermeneutic, which by contrast with Sū Zhé’s KR1e0026 running commentary is more methodologically minimalist — Sū Shì himself never wrote a Chūnqiū commentary, leaving Sū Zhé’s Jí jiě and Zhāng Dàhēng’s two works as the principal Sū-school Chūnqiū output.

Translations and research

See KR1e0030.

Other points of interest

The Sū Shì–Zhāng Dàhēng correspondence on the Chūnqiū preserved in Sū Lěi’s Shuāngxī jí — and quoted by the Sìkù tíyào — is one of only a small handful of extant statements of Sū Shì’s own Chūnqiū hermeneutic. Sū Shì never wrote a Chūnqiū commentary; this letter and a few scattered remarks in his prose are essentially all we have. The remark “the Chūnqiū is a Confucian’s basic task; but this book has subtle uses, few learners can grasp them; most seek it within the bounds of statute, which is closer to the legalist line” is a pointed characterisation of much Sòng Chūnqiū scholarship, including the Sūn Fù KR1e0018 line.

Graph View

Backlinks