春秋師說

Chūnqiū shīshuō 春秋師說

Master’s Discussions on the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 趙汸 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū shīshuō 春秋師說 in three juan preserves the Chūnqiū teachings of Huáng Zé 黃澤 (1260–1346, zì Chǔwàng 楚望) — Zhào Fǎng’s teacher at Jiǔjiāng 九江 — assembled into eleven sections by Zhào from notes and oral transmissions. The title (shīshuō, “the master’s discussions”) deliberately marks the work as not Zhào’s own but his teacher’s; Zhào is editor and disciple. Appended at the end are Huáng Zé’s own Sīgǔ shíyín 思古十吟 (Ten Songs Cherishing Antiquity), two prefaces by Wú Chéng 吳澄 (KR1e0057), and Huáng Zé’s xíngzhuàng 行狀 (biographical record). The second cluster-work in the five-work Zhào Fǎng Chūnqiū corpus (KR1e0066–KR1e0070).

Tiyao

The Sìkù editors respectfully note: The Chūnqiū shīshuō in three juan is by Zhào Fǎng of Yuán. Fǎng once studied under Huáng Zé of Jiǔjiāng. He attended the master’s gate once or twice, and obtained ten-odd items of doubtful meaning across the Six Classics, with which he returned home; later he went again and stayed two years, receiving the oral transmission of the great meaning of the Sixty-four Hexagrams [of the Yì] and the essentials of the Lǔ Chūnqiū. The title therefore says “Master’s Discussions”, marking that he does not forget his source. Fǎng’s preface to the Zuǒzhuàn bǔzhù (KR1e0068) says: “Master Huáng’s discussion of the Chūnqiū took Zuǒ Qiūmíng and Dù Yuánkǎi [Dù Yù 杜預] as principal.” His xíngzhuàng of Master Huáng records the master’s words: “To explain the Chūnqiū, one must first recognize the sage’s air-and-form (qìxiàng 氣象*); then all the carved-and-detailed and fussy-and-petty theories will of themselves retire and listen.*” And he records that the master had once examined the non-similarity of customs ancient and modern (古今風俗之不同) and written more than ten essays to demonstrate the uselessness of explaining the classic with empty words (xūcí shuō jīng zhī wúyì 虛詞說經之無益). His learning had a foundation, and his arguments were pacific — much of it deeply caught the sage’s intent.

Fǎng has classified the substance into eleven sections; his disciple Jīn Jūjìng 金居敬 has also collected Master Huáng’s Sīgǔ shíyín and the two prefaces by Wú Chéng 吳澄, together with the xíngzhuàng, appended at the end. The xíngzhuàng records that Master Huáng’s Chūnqiū writings included: Yuán nián chūn wáng zhèngyuè biàn 元年春王正月辨, Bǐxuē běnzhǐ 筆削本旨, Zhūhóu qǔnǚ lìzǐ tōngkǎo 諸侯取女立子通考, Lǔ Yǐn bù shū jíwèi yì 魯隱不書即位義, Yīn Zhōu zhūhóu dìxiá kǎo 殷周諸侯禘祫考, Zhōu miào tàimiào dānjì héshí shuō 周廟太廟單祭合食說, Zuò qiūjiǎ biàn 作丘甲辨, Chūnqiū zhǐyào 春秋指要 — these would be the ten-odd essays referred to. Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo 經義考 also lists a Sānzhuàn yìlì kǎo 三傳義例考. None of these survive; only by Fǎng’s book can Master Huáng’s general thesis be read. This is on the order of: by reading Sūn Jué’s 孫覺 book (KR1e0025) one can see Hú Yuán’s 胡瑗 meaning [Hú Yuán being Sūn Jué’s teacher].

Respectfully presented, Qiánlóng 41 / 5 (May 1776).

— 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

The Chūnqiū shīshuō is the principal surviving record of Huáng Zé’s 黃澤 Chūnqiū methodology. Huáng’s eight or so dedicated Chūnqiū essays (listed in the tíyào) are all lost; only the eleven sections that Zhào Fǎng compiled from notes and oral transmissions preserve the teacher’s positions. The Sìkù editors’ analogy is precise: “by reading Sūn Jué one can see Hú Yuán” — that is, the work is doxographic, recovering an otherwise lost teacher’s program through a disciple’s compilation.

The doctrinal core: Huáng held that Chūnqiū exegesis must take the Zuǒzhuàn (the historical record) and Dù Yù’s 杜預 commentary as its principal foundation; that the sage’s qìxiàng (air-and-form, deportment) must be grasped before bāobiǎn analysis; that ancient and modern customs differ, so reading the classic by modern conventions is illegitimate; and that the xūcí 虛詞 (“empty word”) school of Chūnqiū exegesis — those who read every word as carrying hidden meaning — is methodologically invalid. These positions, transmitted to Zhào, are the methodological foundation of Zhào’s entire Chūnqiū program.

The composition window: Huáng died in 1346; Zhào could only have compiled the Shīshuō after that date, since the work is in the form of a memorial to the deceased master. The work is also presupposed by the Chūnqiū jízhuàn (KR1e0066) and Chūnqiū shǔcí (KR1e0070), and is referenced in Zhào’s letter to Zhào Bóyǒu 趙伯友 (cited in the Shǔcí tíyào). The bracket 1346–1369 is therefore defensible. A composition closer to 1346 (immediately after Huáng’s death) is consistent with Zhào’s biographical pattern; the work was clearly in circulation among Zhào’s disciples well before his own death in 1369.

The relationship Zhào — Huáng — Wú Chéng 吳澄 (whose two prefaces are appended to the Shīshuō and whose own Chūnqiū zuǎnyán KR1e0057 is closely related) places Zhào in a Yuán Chūnqiū line that is methodologically distinct from both the fèizhuàn line of Chéng Duānxué 程端學 (KR1e0060–KR1e0062) and the synthetic line of Lǐ Lián 李廉 (KR1e0064). The line is one of historical-philological recovery: Mencius — Chén Fùliáng 陳傅良 — Huáng Zé — Wú Chéng — Zhào Fǎng. It is the most direct ancestor of the early-Qīng Hànxué reconstruction of Chūnqiū studies (see KR1e0114 Gù Dònggāo, KR1e0116 Huì Dòng).

Translations and research

• Wú Wánjū 吳萬居, Zhào Fǎng Chūnqiū-xué yánjiū 趙汸春秋學研究 (Tāiběi: Wénshǐzhé chūbǎnshè 1992) — principal modern monograph; treats the Shī-shuō as the methodological key to the entire Zhào corpus.
• Sūn Wěimíng 孫衛明, Sòng dài Chūnqiū xué yánjiū (Bēijīng 2009).
• No dedicated Western-language study located.

Other points of interest

The Shīshuō is one of the principal documents of the late-Yuán Confucian master-disciple line (shīchéng 師承) — a literary form intermediate between yǔlù 語錄 (recorded sayings) and treatise. The xíngzhuàng of Huáng Zé that Jīn Jūjìng appends is itself a major source for the late-Yuán Jiǔjiāng / Xīn’ān Confucian milieu and includes a list of Huáng’s eight or so dedicated Chūnqiū essays — all lost — which makes the Shīshuō the only surviving evidence of their content. The work is therefore not only a record of Zhào’s methodology but a salvage record of his teacher’s lost monographs.

Links

• Sìkù tíyào: from KR1e0067_000.txt in source.