Zuǒzhuàn Dù jiě bǔ zhèng 左傳杜解補正
Supplements and Corrections to Dù Yù’s Annotation of the Zuǒ Commentary
by 顧炎武 (撰)
About the work
The Zuǒzhuàn Dù jiě bǔ zhèng 左傳杜解補正 in three juǎn is the Zuǒzhuàn commentary of Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武 (1613–1682) — founding figure of the Qīng evidential-school Hànxué 漢學 and one of the “Three Great Confucians of the Early Qīng” (alongside Huáng Zōngxī and Wáng Fūzhī). It is a focused supplement and correction to Dù Yù’s 杜預 foundational Chūnqiū jīng zhuàn jí jiě (KR1e0002) — the Zuǒ commentary that had supplied the canonical reading from the Western Jìn through the Táng zhèng yì of Kǒng Yǐngdá (KR1e0004). Gù’s method is to draw on Jiǎ Kuí 賈逵 and Fú Qián 服虔 (both of whose Zuǒ commentaries had been lost), Lè Sūn’s 樂遜 Chūnqiū xù yì 春秋序義, the Guó yǔ, the Ěr yǎ, the Lǚshì chūnqiū, the Chǔ cí, Zhèng Xuán, the Shuō wén, the Shuǐ jīng zhù, the Hàn shū wǔxíng zhì, Wáng Sù’s Jiā yǔ zhù, Shào Bǎo 邵寳’s Zuǒ huì 左觽, and similar evidence-bearing sources to identify and rectify Dù Yù’s gaps and errors. As such it inaugurates the Qīng tradition of Zuǒ-philological supplements to Dù — continued by Huì Dòng 惠棟’s Huìshì Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn bǔ zhù (KR1e0116).
Tiyao
The Sìkù tíyào may be rendered as follows:
We have respectfully examined the Zuǒzhuàn Dù jiě bǔ zhèng in three juǎn. By Gù Yánwǔ of the present dynasty. Yánwǔ — also named Jiàng 絳, zì Níngrén 寜人, a man of Kūnshān 崑山 — was vastly erudite, refined in evidential research; of those at the founding of our dynasty whose learning had a real grounding, Yánwǔ stands first. Lǐ Guāngdì (李光地) once wrote a small biography of him, now preserved in his Róngcūn jí. This work — taking it that Dù Yù’s Chūnqiū jí jiě has occasional gaps and errors, while the notes of Jiǎ Kuí and Fú Qián and Lè Sūn’s Chūnqiū xù yì are no longer extant — therefore widely consults all the records and made this book. Where Shào Bǎo’s Zuǒ huì and similar works happen to agree, they too are excerpted and gathered.
Thus: shì rú xuán qìng 室如懸罄 (the chamber resembles a hung bell-stone) — taken from the Guó yǔ; ròu wèi zhī gēng 肉謂之羮 — from the Ěr yǎ; chē zhī yǒu fǔ 車之有輔 — from the Lǚ lǎn; tián lù qí zǐ 田祿其子 — from the Chǔ cí; Qiānmǔ yuán 千畝原 being in Jìnzhōu — from Zhèng Kāngchéng (Zhèng Xuán); shí 祏 as the temple-master tablet — from the Shuō wén; shí sì 石四 making up a gǔ 鼓 — from Wáng Sù’s Jiā yǔ zhù; Zhùqí 祝其 being equivalent to Láiwú 萊蕪 — from the Shuǐ jīng zhù. All such things have a basis. Other inferences and meaning-pursuits and gloss-investigations also obtain Zuǒshì meaning often.
In the past, Suí’s Liú Xuàn 劉炫 made a Dù jiě guī guò (Reproof of Dù’s annotation), which has not survived but is preserved scattered in Kǒng Yǐngdá’s Zhèng yì. But Kǒng’s shū by convention always champions one school; thus all the cases Liú reproved were thrown into rejection — not one phrase of Liú’s was allowed any credit, with always Liú twisted and Dù straight. Failed, that. Now Yánwǔ greatly esteems Dù’s annotation while still being able to fill its gaps and faults. He may be said to have swept away factional positions and held the balance of right and wrong (sǎo chú ménhù, néng chí shìfēi zhī píng 掃除門户能持是非之平).
Recently Huì Dòng’s 惠棟 Zuǒzhuàn bǔ zhù corrects this book in a few places: the mángliáng 尨涼 entry, the Dà sīmǎ Gù 大司馬固 entry, the Wénmǎ bǎi sì 文馬百駟 entry, the “shǐ Fēngrén lǜ shì 使封人慮事” entry, the “yù Gèn zhī Bā 遇艮之八” entry, the “Dòu qū fǔ zhōng 豆區釡鍾” entry. But on Wénmǎ the matter rests with Yánwǔ. Huì also picks at Yánwǔ for citing “the ancient Chūnqiū Zuǒshì shuō” only by giving the title of the Hàn shū wǔxíng zhì; and at Yánwǔ for the “lǐ wéi línguó quē 禮為鄰國缺” entry using Fú Qián’s reading without citing the source. — But on the principle of citing lost works, the appropriate citation is the work that preserves the passage. Huì himself cites the Shì běn without indicating the Shǐjì zhù, and the Jīngxiàngfán without indicating the Shuǐ jīng zhù — irregularities of citation-protocol, and not a thing to use as a counter-blow at Yánwǔ. As to the Fú Qián case, this must arise from a momentary lapse of source-citation. Huì himself, on Zhāogōng year 29’s “fù Jìnguó yī gǔ tiě 賦晉國一鼓鐵,” gives Wáng Sù’s Jiā yǔ zhù but also gives Féng Shìkě’s 馮時可 reading without naming Féng Shìkě — so Huì cannot really claim this is liè měi 掠美 (taking another’s credit). Respectfully checked and submitted, Qiánlóng 49 (1784), third month. Editors-in-chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì; chief proof-reader Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Bǔ zhèng is the foundational text of Qīng Zuǒzhuàn evidential research. Its method — anchoring corrections in cross-reference to non-Zuǒ corpora (the Guó yǔ, Ěr yǎ, Lǚshì chūnqiū, Chǔ cí, Shuō wén, Shuǐ jīng zhù, Wǔxíng zhì, Jiā yǔ) — is the same method Gù would deploy more comprehensively in the Rì zhī lù 日知錄 (KR3a0091) and in his historical-phonological work the Yīn xué wǔ shū 音學五書. Dating: Gù mentions in his correspondence with Zhū Hèlíng 朱鶴齡 (朱鶴齡) that he sent Zhū “several dozen Zuǒzhuàn notes” in the autumn of 1660 (gēngshēn 庚申), at which point his Bǔ zhèng was “not yet complete”; the work was finished and circulated in his last decades, and the Sìkù version reflects the form he established before his death in 1682. The dating bracket 1660–1682 reflects this history: lower bound the documented start of the project, upper bound Gù’s death.
The work’s significance, beyond the immediate philological content, is methodological: by treating Dù Yù respectfully — as a scholar to be supplemented and corrected, not displaced — Gù institutes the Qīng kǎozhèng posture toward the canonical commentaries. The Sìkù compilers’ approval (“swept away factional positions and held the balance of right and wrong”) explicitly contrasts this with the zhèng yì practice of always vindicating one school against another. Gù’s posture would be the model for Huì Dòng’s Zuǒzhuàn bǔ zhù (KR1e0116) and ultimately for the modern critical edition of Yáng Bójùn 楊伯峻.
In Wilkinson’s framing (Chinese History: A New Manual §16.3.3, §55582), Gù Yánwǔ as founder of the Hànxué pài explicitly sought “the correct pronunciation of the Classics and hence their correct meaning, leading to a strengthening of conduct and government” — a programme of which the Bǔ zhèng is one focused application.
Translations and research
- Wāng Yúfēng 汪育鋒, Gù Yánwǔ jīng-shǐ zhī xué 顧炎武經史之學 (Bēijīng: Zhōnghuá 2003).
- Wm. Theodore de Bary, ed., Self and Society in Ming Thought (Columbia 1970) — for the Míng-Qīng transition context.
- Tu Wei-ming, Centrality and Commonality (SUNY 1989) — for Gù’s place in Qīng moral philosophy.
- Yú Yīngshí 余英時, Lùn Dài Zhèn yǔ Zhāng Xué-chéng 論戴震與章學誠 (Tāiběi: Huá-shì 1976; rev. ed. Bēijīng: Sānlián 2000) — fundamental on the genealogy of kǎo zhèng from Gù Yánwǔ.
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §16.3.3, §55582 (on Gù Yánwǔ as founder of Hàn-xué).
- Wang Fan-sen 王汎森, Wǎn Míng Qīng chū sī-xiǎng shí lùn 晚明清初思想十論 (Shànghǎi: Fú-dàn 2004).
Other points of interest
The Bǔ zhèng is the Zuǒzhuàn counterpart to Gù’s broader kǎozhèng programme — it is to the Zuǒ what the Yīn xué wǔ shū is to historical phonology, what the Tiānxià jùnguó lìbìng shū is to administrative geography, and what the Rì zhī lù is to Confucian classical-historical-political learning generally. Its institutional reception in the Qīng — read with respect by Lǐ Guāngdì at the Kāngxī court, supplemented (and critiqued) by Huì Dòng a generation later, ultimately authoritative in the Sìkù compilers’ judgment — anchors the Hànxué pài’s claim to philological priority over the SòngMíng lǐxué tradition.
Links
- Sìkù yǐng yìn Wényuāngé base: V174.2, p287.
- CBDB record for 顧炎武: id 34252.