春秋集傳

Chūnqiū jízhuàn 春秋集傳

Collected Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 趙汸 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū jízhuàn 春秋集傳 in fifteen juan is the principal Chūnqiū commentary of Zhào Fǎng 趙汸 (1319–1369) — the major Yuán-Míng-transition Xīn’ān 新安 / Huīzhōu 徽州 scholar. The first draft was begun in Zhìzhèng wùzǐ 至正戊子 (1348) and revised through Zhìzhèng dīngyǒu 至正丁酉 (1357), when Zhào set it aside to write the Chūnqiū shǔcí 春秋屬辭 (KR1e0070) — that work having clarified the methodological framework, Zhào re-began the Jízhuàn in Zhìzhèng wùyín 至正戊寅 (1338, but per Zhào’s biography this should be 1358 — the year after the Shǔcí’s completion). He worked the second draft up through Zhāogōng 28 before illness halted his pen; he died at the end of Hóngwǔ 2 (1369) with the work still unfinished. From Zhāogōng 28 onward, his disciple Ní Shàngyí 倪尚誼 completed the work using the methodology of the Shǔcí and emended the original draft where errors or omissions had occurred. The Sìkù editors note that, although the formal completion is by Ní, the yìlì 義例 (doctrinal categories) are entirely Zhào’s; the work is Zhào’s. The first cluster-work of the five-work Zhào Fǎng Chūnqiū corpus (KR1e0066–KR1e0070).

Tiyao

The Sìkù editors respectfully note: The Chūnqiū jízhuàn in fifteen juan is by Zhào Fǎng of Yuán. Fǎng has Zhōuyì wénquán 周易文詮 (KR1a0090) already registered. This work is prefaced by Fǎng’s own preface and a colophon by his disciple Ní Shàngyí 倪尚誼. Shàngyí states: the first draft began in Zhìzhèng wùzǐ 至正戊子 (1348); it was revised once and once again, completed in dīngyǒu 丁酉 (1357). Then Zhào went on to write the Chūnqiū shǔcí, the meaning more refined and the categories tighter — by which point he realized the Jízhuàn first draft had still not exhausted the methodological framework set out at its head, since the cèshū zhī lì 策書之例 (categories of the historian’s tablet-record) and the jīngyì 經義 (categories of the classic’s meaning) had not yet been fully articulated. In wùyín 戊寅 (1358) he set himself to a second draft, working through to Zhāogōng 28 before illness halted his pen. He did not resume; in Hóngwǔ jǐyǒu 洪武己酉 (1369) he died. From Zhāogōng 28 onward, Shàngyí continued the work using the Shǔcí’s categories. The eight categories of cèshū zhī lì and the eight categories of bǐxuē zhī yì set out at the head are also Shàngyí’s revisions; the original text’s slips and omissions Shàngyí corrected and supplemented. So formally the book was completed by Shàngyí, but the doctrinal categories all proceed from Zhào — 猶汸書也, the work is still Zhào’s.

Zhào’s own preface says: “The student must first know the categories of the cèshū; only then can the meaning of the bǐxuē be sought. Once the meaning of the bǐxuē is clear, all those who interpret the classic with empty words will be self-defeated without need of attack.” This may be called grasping the essential method of Chūnqiū exegesis.

Respectfully presented, Qiánlóng 44 / 4 (April 1779).

— Editors-in-chief: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅; Editor-of-Collation: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.

Abstract

Zhào Fǎng’s Chūnqiū jízhuàn is the centerpiece of the most ambitious and methodologically self-conscious Chūnqiū program of the late-Yuán Xīn’ān milieu. The framework: the Chūnqiū is both the Lǔ historian’s tablet-record (cèshū 策書) and the sage’s editorial pen (bǐxuē 筆削). Reading the classic requires distinguishing what was already in the Lǔ chronicle (history) from what Confucius edited in or out (meaning). Zhào’s program — inherited from Huáng Zé 黃澤 (his teacher, and the source of the Chūnqiū shīshuō KR1e0067) and ultimately from Mencius’s dictum “its events are those of Qí Huán and Jìn Wén; its text is history; its meaning, Confucius said, I privately took” (Mèngzǐ 4B.21) — sets out fifteen cèshū zhī lì 策書之例 (categories of the tablet-record) and eight bǐxuē zhī yì 筆削之義 (categories of the editorial method).

The cèshū zhī lì sort the classic-text by what kind of record it is in the Lǔ chronicle (the ruler’s actions; the dukely accession-and-funeral entries; the ducal women’s marriage and funeral; the seasonal sacrifices; the great-officer entries; the dispatches to and from foreign states; the natural phenomena; etc.). The bǐxuē zhī yì sort the editorial moves the sage made on the chronicle (preserve the chronicle’s main outline; use the editorial pen for the moral judgment; vary the wording to display the meaning; distinguish names and realities; observe the dividing line of Chinese and barbarian; use special wording to fix names; use day-and-month notations to mark categories; defer to the chronicle’s wording where there is no need to depart). The eight categories anticipate, in form, the Shǔcí (KR1e0070); but where the Shǔcí is a treatise on the editorial method, the Jízhuàn is the running commentary that applies it.

The methodological program is set out in detail in Zhào’s preface, reproduced in full in the source — one of the most extensive author-prefaces in the Yuán Chūnqiū corpus. Notably, Zhào’s preface is heavily indebted to Mencius and to Chén Fùliáng 陳傅良 陳傅良 (KR1e0038); and explicitly critical of the late-Sòng / Yuán fèizhuàn line of Chéng Duānxué 程端學 (KR1e0060–KR1e0062).

The composition history is unusually well-documented (see the tíyào and the colophon by Ní Shàngyí). The dates of composition span Zhào’s working life: 1348–1369, with the death of the author leaving the second draft incomplete from Zhāogōng 28 onward. The work was completed posthumously by Ní Shàngyí using the Shǔcí’s categories. The bracket 1338–1369 is given as a defensible span; the proper completion date is 1369 with Ní’s hand.

The five-work Zhào Fǎng cluster (KR1e0066–KR1e0070) constitutes the most concentrated single-author Chūnqiū program in the entire SòngYuánMíng transition, and stands as the principal counter-statement to the fèizhuàn line. The five together: Chūnqiū jízhuàn (this) — running commentary; Chūnqiū shīshuō (KR1e0067) — methodological foundation from teacher Huáng Zé; Chūnqiū Zuǒshìzhuàn bǔzhù (KR1e0068) — Zuǒzhuàn sub-commentary recovering Dù Yù’s strengths and Chén Fùliáng’s; Chūnqiū jīn-suǒ-shi (KR1e0069) — bǐshì shǔcí condensed; Chūnqiū shǔcí (KR1e0070) — methodological treatise.

Translations and research

• Wú Wánjū 吳萬居, Zhào Fǎng Chūnqiū-xué yánjiū 趙汸春秋學研究 (Tāiběi: Wénshǐzhé chūbǎnshè 1992) — the principal Chinese-language monograph on Zhào’s Chūnqiū program.
• Sūn Wěimíng 孫衛明, Sòng dài Chūnqiū xué yánjiū 宋代春秋學研究 (Bēijīng: Zhōngguó shèhuì kēxué chūbǎnshè 2009) — context.
• Hóu Měizhēn 侯美珍, articles on the Yuán-Míng Chūnqiū commentary tradition.
• Liú Yúnjùn 劉雲軍, work on the late-Yuán Chūnqiū corpus.
• John W. Dardess, Confucianism and Autocracy (UC Press 1983) — for the Xīn’ān Confucian milieu in which Zhào worked.
• No dedicated Western-language monograph on Zhào Fǎng’s Chūnqiū corpus located.

Other points of interest

The relationship between teacher Huáng Zé 黃澤 (1260–1346) and disciple Zhào Fǎng is unusually well-attested in the corpus. Zhào’s Chūnqiū shīshuō (KR1e0067) preserves Huáng’s oral teachings on the Chūnqiū; Zhào’s autobiographical material (in the Dōngshān cúngǎo 東山存稿 and various xíngzhuàng 行狀) records the methodological transmission. Together, master and student constitute one of the most fully-documented teacher-disciple relationships in late-Yuán scholarship.

Ní Shàngyí 倪尚誼’s role is also significant: he was Zhào’s student in the Dōngshān jīngshè 東山精舍, completed the Jízhuàn posthumously, and is one of the principal transmitters of Zhào’s methodology into the early Míng. The Sìkù editors’ careful insistence that the work, despite Ní’s posthumous completion, is “still Zhào’s” (猶汸書也) is a notable case of editorial discrimination.

Links

• Sìkù tíyào and Zhào Fǎng’s original preface: from KR1e0066_000.txt in source.