Zhāngshì Chūnqiū jí zhù 張氏春秋集注
Master Zhāng’s Collected Annotations on the Spring and Autumn Annals
by 張洽 (撰)
About the work
The Zhāngshì Chūnqiū jí zhù 張氏春秋集注 in eleven juan (with a 1-juan Gāng lǐng) is the Chūnqiū commentary of Zhāng Qià 張洽 (zì Yuándé 元德, of Qīngjiāng 清江; jìnshì of Jiādìng era), a direct disciple of Zhū Xī. Composed in his retirement and presented to the Lǐzōng court in Duānpíng 1 (1234); Zhāng was elevated to Zhī Bǎozhānggé 知寶章閣 — but he died before taking up the post and was given the posthumous title Wénxiàn 文憲. The work was paired with Hú Ānguó’s KR1e0036 Chūnqiū zhuàn as the imperial-examination canon under the early Míng (Hóngwǔ era), but later eclipsed by Hú alone. A larger companion work, Chūnqiū jí zhuàn 春秋集傳, has been lost. The Sìkù base reproduces the WYG copy.
Tiyao
The Sìkù tíyào (text from the Kyoto Zinbun digital Sìkù tíyào):
By Zhāng Qià of Sòng. Qià, zì Yuándé 元德, was a man of Qīngjiāng 清江. Jìnshì of the Jiādìng era; rose to Zhùzuò zuǒláng 著作佐郎. In Duānpíng 1 (1234), the court learned that Zhāng was at home composing books; an imperial commission was sent to the Línjiāngjūn 臨江軍 prefect to “respectfully invite” Zhāng with paper and brush, copy his work, and present it. Once submitted, Zhāng was elevated to Zhī Bǎozhānggé 知寶章閣; but he died at this point. The posthumous title was Wénxiàn 文憲; the work was deposited in the Imperial Archives.
The work has Zhāng’s own jìn shū zhuàng 進書狀 (presentation memorial) at the head: “Of all Confucian scholars’ arguments since the HànTáng, none have I not examined; I extract those sufficient to elucidate the sage’s intent and attach them under each event, naming the work Chūnqiū jí zhuàn. Now that the present work is roughly complete, I have followed my late master, Wéngōng 文公 (Zhū Xī)‘s example with the YǔMèng 語孟 books — assembling the precise meanings, ordering the doctrine, naming the result Jí zhù.” Zhū Zǐ’s Yǔ lù sharply rejects Hú Ānguó’s “Xià seasons crowning Zhōu months” (Xià shí guān Zhōu yuè 夏時冠周月) doctrine; Zhāng’s work takes spring as Zhōu’s jiànzǐ 建子 month, agreeing with the Zuǒzhuàn “Wáng Zhōu zhèngyuè 王周正月” reading — sufficient to break the disjointed and obscure failing of the Hú reading. Chē Ruòshuǐ’s 車若水 Jiǎoqì jí 腳氣集 deeply criticises Zhāng’s correction to the Zhōu calendar, but this is mere school-loyalty defence, not authoritative.
As to Chē Ruòshuǐ’s view that “the Chūnqiū cannot be subjected to substantive judgement; only Confucius rising again could state the affairs and the principles of praise-and-blame and rejection-and-acceptance; the present making of a Jí zhù effectively makes substantive judgement, which the YǔMèng example does not warrant — YǔMèng state principles, the Chūnqiū records facts; even the opening sentences are hard to clarify (e.g. Huìgōng Zhòngzǐ 惠公仲子: is this Huìgōng’s Zhòngzǐ, or Huìgōng together with Zhòngzǐ? Yǐnshì cù 尹氏卒: one side reads it as a woman, the other as the Heavenly King’s hereditary minister; the various Confucians’ criticism of hereditary ministers is the obvious teaching, perhaps a “raised candle gives light” argument — the principle right but the case wrong)” — Chē’s argument also catches some of Zhāng’s defects. But the gain cannot be discarded with the loss.
In the early Míng Hóngwǔ era, this work and Hú Ānguó’s KR1e0036 zhuàn were both established in the official curriculum. By the Yǒnglè era, Hú Guǎng 胡廣 et al. plagiarised Wāng Kèkuān’s 汪克寬 Zuǎn shū 纂疏 to make the Chūnqiū dàquán 春秋大全, exclusively favouring the Hú zhuàn; the examination model used Hú alone, and Zhāng’s work fell out of use. Now Zhāng’s text barely survives, while the Jí zhuàn (the larger companion work) has long been lost.
Abstract
The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this is the Chūnqiū jí zhù of Zhāng Qià, the principal disciple of Zhū Xī to compose a Chūnqiū commentary, modelled on Zhū’s Sìshū jí zhù; that the work was paired with Hú Ānguó’s commentary in the early-Míng imperial curriculum, then eclipsed; that the larger companion Chūnqiū jí zhuàn has been lost; that Zhāng’s correction of Hú’s “Xià seasons crowning Zhōu months” doctrine, restoring the Zuǒzhuàn’s reading of Zhōu zhèngyuè, is methodologically important and supported by Zhū Xī’s own teachings; that Chē Ruòshuǐ’s defence of the Hú reading reflects school-loyalty rather than evidentiary judgement.
The work’s importance is genealogical: it is the principal Zhū-Xī-school Chūnqiū statement, the parallel on the Chūnqiū to Zhū’s own Sìshū jí zhù on the Four Books. Despite its eventual eclipse by Hú Ānguó in the late-imperial examination curriculum, Zhāng’s work represents Zhū Xī’s intellectual position on the Chūnqiū.
Translations and research
- Lǐ Wěitài 李偉泰, Sòng-rén Chūnqiū xué dōu lùn 宋人春秋學論衡 (Tāiběi: Wénjīn 1995).
- Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (UHP 1992).
Other points of interest
The Hóng-wǔ-era curriculum decision to include both Zhāng Qià and Hú Ānguó on the Chūnqiū — the only Classic with two prescribed commentaries — reflects the Míng founders’ attempt to balance the Dàoxué lineage (Zhāng = ZhūXī line; Hú = ChéngYí line). The eclipse of Zhāng under Yǒng-lè-era Hú Guǎng is the clearest single instance of Zhū-Xī-school marginalisation in late-imperial Chūnqiū scholarship.
Links
- Zinbun Sìkù tíyào: http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/db-machine/ShikoTeiyo/0054602.html