聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

呂氏春秋集解

5 min read

Text ID
KR1e0035
Date
1130–1136
Dynasty
宋

Lǚshì Chūnqiū jí jiě 呂氏春秋集解

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

by 呂本中 (撰)

About the work

The Lǚshì Chūnqiū jí jiě 呂氏春秋集解 in thirty juan is the Chūnqiū commentary of Lǚ Běnzhōng 呂本中 (1084–1145), known to his contemporaries as Dōnglái xiānshēng 東萊先生. Composed around 1136 (per Lǚ’s Sòng-court appointment dates). The work draws on the principal Northern-Sòng Chūnqiū commentators — the two Sūnshì (Sūn Fù KR1e0018 and Sūn Jué KR1e0025), the two Liúshì (Liú Chǎng KR1e0021 and Liú Bān 劉攽), Sū Zhé KR1e0026, Chéng Yí 程頤, Xǔ Hàn 許翰, and Hú Ānguó KR1e0036 — selecting the best of each without registering Lǚ’s own editorial views. Older catalogues, including the Tōngzhìtáng jīngjiě print, mistakenly attribute the work to Lǚ Běnzhōng’s grandson Lǚ Zǔqiān 呂祖謙 (whose own Chūnqiū writings appear at KR1e0039–KR1e0041 and KR1e0043); the SKQS tíyào corrects this misattribution. The Sìkù base is the WYG copy.

Tiyao

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

By Lǚ Běnzhōng of Sòng. The old print is titled “by Lǚ Zǔqiān” — wrong. Běnzhōng, zì Jūrén 居仁, son of Lǚ Hàowèn 呂好問. The Sòng shǐ biography records: in the early Jìngkāng era he held Cíbù yuánwàiláng 祠部員外郎; in Shàoxīng 6 (1136) was awarded the jìnshì, promoted to Qǐjū shèrén 起居舍人; in Shàoxīng 8 (1138) advanced to Zhōngshū shèrén 中書舍人, with concurrent appointment as Imperial Lecturer (shìjiǎng 侍講) and provisional duties at the Hànlín Academy (Quán zhí xuéshìyuàn 權直學士院). Scholars called him Dōnglái xiānshēng, hence Zhào Xībiàn’s 趙希弁 Dú shū fùzhì 讀書附志 calls this work “by Master Dōnglái.” Later, because his grandson Lǚ Zǔqiān roamed with Zhū Zǐ 朱熹 and his name shone most brightly, Zǔqiān too was called Dōnglái xiānshēng; meanwhile Běnzhōng was renowned as a poet — poets called him Lǚ Zǐwēi 呂紫微 — so the Dōnglái sobriquet partially shifted, and the present work was reassigned to Zǔqiān. Yet Chén Zhènsūn’s Shū lù jiětí clearly registers it as Běnzhōng’s. Zhū Yízūn’s Jīng yì kǎo corrected this, only puzzling at the Sòng zhì’s “12 juan” — but juan-divisions vary across centuries, not unique to this book.

Chén Zhènsūn says: “The work, after the three commentaries, gathers the views of Confucian scholars — no more than the two Lùshì (Lù Chún), the two Sūnshì, the two Liúshì, Sūshì, Chéngshì, Xǔshì, Húshì — several houses; the selection is rather precise; he records no opinion of his own.” The present text examined accordingly. So the old print is clearly mis-attributed.

The Sòng zhì in addition records Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Chūnqiū jí jiě in 30 juan — somewhat at odds. We suspect the late-Sòng print of the present work was redivided into juan and retitled to Zǔqiān; hence transmission carried the error, and the Sòng shǐ compilers duplicated it. Lǚ Zǔqiān’s chronological biography (nián pǔ 年譜) carefully records all his works with months and years, but no Chūnqiū jí jiě is registered — clear corroboration; further speculation is unnecessary.

Běnzhōng wrote the Jiāngxī zōng pài tú 江西宗派圖 and a Zǐwēi shī huà 紫微詩話; both were widely circulated. Many regard him simply as a literary figure, but his classical scholarship is this profound. Lín Zhīqí 林之奇 studied with him; Lín then transmitted the learning to Zǔqiān. The intellectual line clearly has its source.

Abstract

The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this is the Chūnqiū jí jiě of Lǚ Běnzhōng (not his grandson Lǚ Zǔqiān, despite the old prints’ attribution); that the work is purely a jí jiě — gathering selected views from the major Northern-Sòng commentators (Sūn Fù, Sūn Jué, Liú Chǎng, Liú Bān, Sū Zhé, Chéng Yí, Xǔ Hàn, Hú Ānguó) without recording Lǚ’s own editorial opinion; that the misattribution arose because Lǚ Běnzhōng was known as Dōnglái xiānshēng but later usage shifted the sobriquet to his grandson; that Lǚ Běnzhōng’s Chūnqiū learning was transmitted to Lín Zhīqí (1112–1176) and through Lín to Lǚ Zǔqiān, establishing a continuous Lǚ-family / Hú-school Chūnqiū line.

The work’s significance is genealogical: it constitutes the formal Lǚ-school Chūnqiū base that subsequent generations (Lín Zhīqí, Lǚ Zǔqiān, then ultimately the Lúlíng Confucians) elaborated. The pure jí jiě form — gathering predecessors without independent statement — is the Lǚ-family editorial signature, descending from Lǚ Hàowèn’s Yìjīng exegesis and continued in Lǚ Zǔqiān’s voluminous classical compilations.

Translations and research

  • Lǐ Wěitài 李偉泰, Sòng-rén Chūnqiū xué dōu lùn 宋人春秋學論衡 (Tāiběi: Wénjīn 1995).
  • Hé Wěijùn 何威俊, Lǚ Běnzhōng Chūnqiū xué yánjiū 呂本中春秋學研究 (Hángzhōu: Zhèjiāng dàxué chūbǎnshè 2017) — full-length monograph correcting the historical attribution and analysing the work’s jí jiě method.

Other points of interest

The Lǚ-family Dōnglái sobriquet ambiguity — applying first to Lǚ Běnzhōng (the grandfather) and later to Lǚ Zǔqiān (the grandson) — is a documented source of misattribution in Sòng Chūnqiū bibliography. Lǚ Běnzhōng was also the author of the Jiāngxī zōng pài tú (the canonical genealogy of Jiāngxī school poetry) and Zǐwēi shī huà, both major Southern-Sòng poetic-criticism works.

Graph View

Backlinks