春秋通說

Chūnqiū tōng shuō 春秋通說

Comprehensive Discussions of the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 黃仲炎 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū tōng shuō 春秋通說 in thirteen juan is the Chūnqiū commentary of Huáng Zhòngyán 黃仲炎 (zì Ruòhuì 若晦, of Yǒngjiā 永嘉) — an examination-failed scholar (lǎo ér bù dì zhī shì 老而不第之士, in the words of his recommender Lǐ Míngfù 李鳴復) who pursued classical studies in obscurity. Composed in Shàodìng 3 (1230); presented to the throne in Duānpíng 3 (1236). The work’s distinctive thesis: the Chūnqiū is a jiào jiè zhī shū 教戒之書 (a book of instruction-and-admonition), not a bāo biǎn zhī shū 褒貶之書 (a book of praise-and-blame). It explicitly anticipates Lǚ Dàguī’s 呂大圭 呂大圭 Chūnqiū huò wèn 春秋或問 in this thesis, citing Zhū Xī as authority. The Sìkù base reproduces the WYG copy.

Tiyao

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

By Huáng Zhòngyán of Sòng. Zhòngyán, zì Ruòhuì 若晦, was a man of Yǒngjiā 永嘉. His memorial of presentation says: “I have laboured at the examination essay forms with no success.” Lǐ Míngfù 李鳴復’s memorial of recommendation calls him “outside the kējǔ 科舉, a deep-and-persistent classical scholar, an old man who never passed.” The work was completed in Shàodìng 3 (1230); the memorial of presentation was in Duānpíng 3 (1236). His own preface says: “The Chūnqiū is a sage’s book to teach and admonish the world; not a book of praise-and-blame. The methods recorded are for instruction; the events recorded are for admonition. Since the three commentaries set up praise-and-blame as their thesis, scholarly transmission preserved the corruption; from the Hàn onwards, regulatory categories diversified, and the great meaning was hidden.” Hence the work’s main thesis is: “Record the events directly; the moral principles are self-evident.” On received scholarly conventions — Wáng 王 not tiān 天, Huán not Wáng, etc. — he refutes them all.

Examining Zhū Zǐ’s Yǔ lù: “The sage records by reality; right-and-wrong gain-and-loss, there are unsaid intentions; one need not seek praise-and-blame in every character and phrase. I privately suspect not.” Huáng’s memorial saying “drawn from Master Zhū Xī’s argument” is based on this. Hé Mèngshēn 何夢申’s preface to Lǚ Dàguī’s Chūnqiū huò wèn says: “Of Chūnqiū commentators there are nearly a hundred schools, all generally taking praise-and-blame and reward-and-punishment as the chief thesis; only the Huò wèn roots itself in Master Zhū and rejects them all” — but Hé did not realise that Huáng Zhòngyán had already raised this thesis earlier.

Some interpretive moves in the work go too far in scepticism — as: on Nán Jì 南季 coming to court, citing the three commentaries and the Lǐ jì, claiming the Heavenly King has no rite of court-paying-visits to the lords; the Zhōulǐ shí pìn 周禮時聘 reading is unreliable. On Téng and Xuē coming to court — claiming the lords have no rite of private mutual court-visits; all three commentaries are wrong. This goes too far in suspicion of antiquity. On the covenant at Shǒuzhǐ 首止 — taking it as the king’s heir-prince forming a faction to control the father — too forensic. On zǐ Tóng shēng 子同生 — taking it as transmission-prose erroneously inserted into the jīng. On zàng Cài Huánhóu 葬蔡桓侯 — taking hóu as a corruption of gōng. On tóng wéi Qí 同圍齊 — taking wéi as a copyist’s repetition error. These doubt the jīng itself, falling into subjective speculation.

But on cases like: Jì Yǒu 季友 a great evil, secretly traffickking with the gōng kūn 宮閫 (palace inner courts), and Chéngfēng 成風’s private relationship — the zhuàn has clear text — the words are stern and the doctrine right, sufficient to constitute a great barrier across the ages.

His discussion of Hú Ānguó’s KR1e0036 commentary: “Although Confucius, in answering Yán Yuān’s question, took up the Xià calendar, he should not in editing the Chūnqiū immediately have changed the calendar. Master Hú Ānguó says the Chūnqiū uses the Xià calendar to crown the Zhōu month; Master Zhū Xī rejects this. Justified! Confucius, in his Chūnqiū, transmits the old rites: as in suppressing the lords’ growing power and preserving the king; checking the great-officers’ usurpations and preserving the lords; resenting the rampancy of Wú and Chǔ and honouring the Central States — all matters that subordinates can do. As to changing the dynasty’s wángzhì 王制 (royal institutions) and privately wielding the Heavenly King’s reward-and-punishment — certainly not Confucius’ intent. Confucius edited the Chūnqiū precisely to discipline the jiàn 僭 (usurpations) of his time; how could he himself be jiàn?” — establishing a meaning clear, large, and upright; deeply catching the sage’s intent. Far beyond what Hú Ānguó could attain.

Abstract

The Sìkù tíyào makes the principal points: that this is the Chūnqiū commentary of an obscure Yǒngjiā examination-failed scholar; that the work’s distinctive thesis — the Chūnqiū is a book of teaching and admonition, not of praise-and-blame — anticipates Lǚ Dàguī’s Chūnqiū huò wèn and rests on Zhū Xī’s authority; that the work goes too far in some specific scepticisms (the rejection of Heavenly-King-court-visit and lord-private-visit rites, the textual emendations); but that on the central question of Confucius’ calendar and editorial method, Huáng’s reading is “deeply catching the sage’s intent — far beyond what Hú Ānguó could attain.”

The work’s significance is its anti-bāobiǎn polemic, which stakes out a fundamentally different reading of the Chūnqiū from the dominant Sūn Fù — Hú Ānguó tradition. The unusually warm SKQS editorial endorsement reflects the high-Qīng evidential-school view that this anti-bāobiǎn line is the proper one for serious philological scholarship.

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

Huáng Zhòngyán’s anti-bāobiǎn thesis — that the Chūnqiū records events “directly” with the moral principles self-evident — anticipates by several centuries the modern critical position of George Kennedy (“Interpretation of the Ch’un-ch’iu,” JAOS 62, 1942) and Newell Ann Van Auken (The Commentarial Transformation, SUNY 2016). The position is also that of Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §48.1.1.

Links

• Zinbun Sìkù tíyào: http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/db-machine/ShikoTeiyo/0054801.html