春秋稗疏

Chūnqiū bài shū 春秋稗疏

Subordinate Glosses on the Spring and Autumn Annals

by 王夫之 (撰)

About the work

The Chūnqiū bài shū 春秋稗疏 in two juǎn is the Chūnqiū contribution of Wáng Fūzhī 王夫之 (1619–1692) — Míng-loyalist Yìjīng and Lǐxué philosopher of Héngyáng 衡陽, one of the “Three Great Confucians of the Early Qīng” alongside Gù Yánwǔ and Huáng Zōngxī. The title bài shū 稗疏 (“subordinate glosses” — bài are the wild grasses, the Chūnqiū version of the parallel Zhōuyì bài shū 周易稗疏 KR1a0120 and Shàngshū bài shū 尚書稗疏 KR1b0047 in his graded scholarly oeuvre) signals a focused philological study rather than a systematic reading. The work concentrates on geographic identification (~ 90% by the Sìkù tíyào’s own count), with a smaller proportion on shū fǎ 書法 (canonical writing-conventions), calendrical-and-astronomical points, and ritual-institutional details. Within Wáng’s corpus, the Chūnqiū bài shū is the evidential-research end of his work — alongside the Bài shū trio on Yì, Shū, and Chūnqiū, which together form the philological substratum of his more systematic and philosophically ambitious works on those classics.

Tiyao

The Sìkù tíyào may be rendered as follows:

We have respectfully examined the Chūnqiū bài shū in two juǎn. By Wáng Fūzhī of the present dynasty. Fūzhī also has a Zhōuyì bài shū — separately catalogued. This compilation discusses Chūnqiū writing-convention, calendrical / phenomenal / institutional matters at perhaps one-tenth, and dedicates the other nine-tenths to investigating geographic places.

His discussion of writing-convention: that on Mǐngōng year 1, “Jìzǐ, Zhòngsūn, Gāozǐ — all unnamed”, the reason being that Mǐngōng was a young child and listened to whatever the people did, hence following the guórén’s honorific titles. — But examining: Xiānggōng was actually only four when established; Zhāogōng’s exit was likewise not in a single year — and yet there is no record of anyone applying the principle of “the lord not participating in governance, the writing varies.” Why does only Mǐngōng have this preserved-from-the-people? His reading on the Chūnqiū’s “róng 戎” being all the Xú róng — refuting Dù Yù’s identification at Chénliú Jìyáng’s east-Róng-city — and arguing that the area between Cáo and Wèi has no business having a Róng presence — citing the Fèi shì 費誓 as evidence — sounds reasonable, but: róng and the various states were really mixed and not of one type; the Classic’s “pursuit of róng west of the Jì” puts them close to Cáo and far from Xú; and as for the case where Fán Bó was visiting Lǔ on his way back from Zhōu and the róng attacked at Chǔ qiū 楚丘, Fánbó had no business being near Xúfāng, and the Xúróng could not possibly cross states to attack — how can he say that between Cáo and Wèi the róng did not jointly reside? Such cases are not free of impressionistic adjudication.

As to taking the qúyǔ 鸜鵒 (mynah-bird) as the hánháo chóng 寒號蟲, against the Píyǎ — read as yán zhī jiù 延之廏 = “yán-extending its stables”, that yán is also called a stables — these are slips. He cuts the word nán 南 from Dù Yù’s note on Wèi tíng 䣆亭 being south of Zhàolíng — the better to attack Dù — and this is forced.

But as to: Jǔ rén rù Xiàng 莒人入向 — taking Dù Yù’s identification (Lóngkáng) as right and refuting the Shuǐ jīng zhù citing Kàn Yīn 闞駰 (which mistook a town-name for a country-name) — this confirms Dù; and: arguing that Qí’s eastern migration was before the Chūnqiū; and: arguing that the killing of Zhōu Yú 州吁 at Pú 濮 was not at Chén; and: arguing that táo 洮 is a Cáo place not a Lǔ place; and: that táo 洮 is read with the tuī xiǎo fǎnqiè (not tā dāo); and: that the word guàn 貫 is not a corruption of shì 貰; and: that Lì 厲 is the Lài state, not Suí County’s Lìxiāng; and: that Jiàntǔ 踐土 is not a Zhèng place; and: that Díquán 翟泉 in the Zhōu period was not within the Royal City; and: that there are two Yùn 鄆 between Jǔ and Lǔ; and: that the chuí 垂 where Zhòng Suì died is not a Qí place; and: that the Cì zēng 次鄫 is neither the Zēng state nor a Zhèng place; and: that the Chūnqiū Zhù qí 祝其 is not the Hàn Zhù qí — all of these correct Dù’s errors.

Citing Hòu Hàn jùnguó zhì on Láng 郎 being in Gāo píng; citing Kuò dì zhì on Hú 胡 being in Yǎnchéng; citing Hàn shū dìlǐ zhì on Chóngqiū 重丘 being in Píngyuán; citing Yìng Shào’s note on Yáng 陽 being in Dūyáng — all supplement Dù’s gaps.

As to: taking Zǐ Jiū 子糾 to be Qí Xiānggōng’s son; arguing that Lǔ Xiānggōng’s frequent month-after-month solar eclipses arose from misidentifying solar haloes — these supply useful additional readings. Among recent commentators on the Classic, this work has substantial ground; only it has never been printed, and so the Zǐ Jiū reading was recently picked up by Liáng Xíyù 梁錫璵 (KR1e0095 zuǎnxiū) as a “new reading”; Huī bù shū zú, Dìng Sì fēi shì 翬不書族定姒非諡 was also picked up recently by Yè Yǒu 葉酉 (KR1e0120) as “new reading” — both presumably not having seen this book. Respectfully checked and submitted, Qiánlóng 46 (1781), sixth month. Editors-in-chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì; chief proof-reader Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

Wáng Fūzhī’s Chūnqiū bài shū belongs to the philological substratum of his comprehensive Classics oeuvre. As with his Yì trilogy (Bài shū + Wài zhuàn + Nèi zhuàn; see 王夫之), Wáng worked on multiple registers: the Chūnqiū bài shū is the focused-evidential register — concerned principally with geographic identification, calendrical-phenomenal points, and a few targeted shū fǎ arguments. His broader Chūnqiū hermeneutic is developed in his Sī wèn lù 思問錄 and his historical-philosophical synthesis the Dú Tōngjiàn lùn 讀通鑑論 (KR3c0034) and Sòng lùn 宋論. The Bài shū is the workshop, in effect, of the Wáng Fūzhī Chūnqiū position: refusal of GōngyángHúĀnguó speculation in favour of textual-geographic-institutional anchoring.

The work was not printed in Wáng’s lifetime; the SKQS notice’s emphasis on this point — and on the resulting late-eighteenth-century mis-attribution of Wáng’s geographic readings to Liáng Xíyù 梁錫璵 (the principal zuǎnxiū of the imperial Yù zuǎn Chūnqiū zhí jiě KR1e0095) and to Yè Yǒu 葉酉 (KR1e0120) — testifies to the work’s circulation in manuscript among HúnánSūzhōu evidential scholars before the Sìkù discovery. The dating bracket 1650–1692 reflects: lower bound the period after Wáng’s withdrawal from political life (his Yǒnglì service ends c. 1650, after which he settles permanently at Mount Chuán); upper bound his death.

Within the early-Qīng evidential-school Chūnqiū tradition, the Bài shū sits alongside Gù Yánwǔ’s Zuǒzhuàn Dù jiě bǔ zhèng (KR1e0096) — published a few years earlier and explicitly cited and used by the Sìkù — but with a different focus: where Gù supplements and corrects Dù Yù, Wáng works directly from the canonical text and the Zuǒzhuàn against Dù Yù where the geographic record allows. Wáng’s elder brother Wáng Jièzhī’s Chūnqiū sì zhuàn zhì (KR1e0091) sits in the same Héngyáng-loyalist methodological orbit, but operates at the level of zhuàn-comparison rather than realia. Together with Yú Rǔyán’s Chūnqiū sì zhuàn jiū zhèng (KR1e0098) and Chūnqiū píng yì (KR1e0099) — both of 1676 — these constitute the major early-Qīng evidential-school engagements with the Chūnqiū.

In Wilkinson’s framing (§16.3.3, §55582), Wáng Fūzhī shares with Gù Yánwǔ the foundational status of late-Míng / early-Qīng anti-orthodoxy Hànxué — though Wáng’s reception, unlike Gù’s, was largely deferred until late-nineteenth-century rediscovery by Tán Sìtóng 譚嗣同 and others.

Translations and research

• Hou Wai-lu 侯外廬 et al., Sòng-Míng lǐ-xué shǐ 宋明理學史 (Bēijīng: Rénmín 1984–1987), vol. 2 — the principal modern survey of Wáng Fūzhī’s philosophy.
• Yáng Xiànghuá 楊向華, Qīng-dài Chūnqiū xué shǐ 清代春秋學史 (Bēijīng: Zhōngguó shèhuì kēxué chūbǎnshè 2014).
• Black, Alison Harley, Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-chih (University of Washington Press 1989).
• Yu Xinhua 于心華, Qīngchū kàng-Qīng Hàn-rén de Huá-Yí guān yánjiū — yǐ Wáng Fūzhī, Gù Yánwǔ, Fù Shān wèi zhōngxīn 清初抗清漢人的華夷觀研究 (PhD diss., Peking University, History dept., 1999) — the standard study of the huá-yí views of the three early-Qīng anti-Manchu Hàn scholars (cited at Wilkinson p. 23680).
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §16.3.3, §27508, §40855, §41505, §55582 (Wáng Fūzhī’s poetic, classical, and historical works).

Other points of interest

The Sìkù tíyào’s closing observation — that Liáng Xíyù and Yè Yǒu both picked up Wáng’s readings as their own without realising they had been Wáng’s a century earlier — is a small but precise indicator of how Wáng’s manuscript-circulated work was already known to Qīng evidential scholars in the eighteenth century, even as his philosophical works remained dormant until late-Qīng rediscovery.

Links

• Sìkù yǐng yìn Wényuāngé: V174.3, p341.
• CBDB record for 王夫之: id 65721.