Chūnqiū jiǎnshū kān wù 春秋簡書刋誤
Corrections to the Slip-Records of the Spring and Autumn Annals by 毛奇齡 (撰)
About the work
A philological companion volume to Máo Qílíng’s larger Chūnqiū Máoshì zhuàn (KR1e0102), in 2 juǎn. Máo argues programmatically that the canon-text of the Chūnqiū preserves the so-called “slip-records” (jiǎnshū 簡書) — the underlying chronicle slips — while the narratives of the Zuǒ zhuàn preserve the “binding-records” (cèshū 策書). On this premise Jiǎnshū kān wù takes the Zuǒ zhuàn wording as primary and corrects the canon-text wherever it appears to diverge, with parallel readings from Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng registered in evidential notes.
Tiyao
Imperially edited Sìkù quánshū, Classics, Chūnqiū category. Chūnqiū jiǎnshū kān wù in 2 juǎn. Composed in the present dynasty by Máo Qílíng. In writing his Chūnqiū commentary Máo treats the text of the Chūnqiū canon as the ancient jiǎnshū and the narratives reported in the Zuǒ zhuàn as the ancient cèshū; this volume therefore corrects the wording of the canon, naming itself “Jiǎnshū” (slip-records). All corrections take Zuǒ zhuàn as primary and adduce divergent readings from Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng to refute their errors. Because Hú Ānguó’s commentary often follows Gǔliáng, Hú is also rejected. The single instance where Máo abandons Zuǒ and follows Gōngyáng is the entry “Wèi Hóu Kàn fled to Qí” in Xiānggōng 14.
In fact, although the Zuǒ zhuàn came to light comparatively late, its text was transmitted on bamboo and silk, while Gōng and Gǔ — though they were established in the imperial Academy first — were transmitted orally from teachers and so suffered from lapses of memory and dialect-driven phonetic shifts; this was inevitable and is no occasion for surprise. Máo nevertheless insists that these are deliberate alterations of the canon, and even argues at length that 作于饗 ought to read 作享 — a particularly severe charge.
But his arguments are very often acute: that the entry on the assembly at Yí 袲 ought not include Qí Hóu; that Shàn Bó sending the Princess Jī to her husband ought not say nì 逆 (welcome); that “夜恒星不見” and “夜中星隕如雨” should not differ in their use of yè 夜; that “Gōng fá Qí, nà Zǐ Jiū” ought not be missing the character 子; that Qí rén jiān yú Suì should not read jiàn 瀐; that “Cáo Jī chū bēn Chén, Chì guī yú Cáo” should follow the same pattern as “Zhèng Hū chū bēn Wèi, Tū guī yú Zhèng”; that the meeting at Táo 洮 ought not contain Zhèng’s Crown Prince Huá; that “Luán Shū rescued Zhèng” should not read 侵 (invade) Zhèng; that the visit of Duke Shào to bestow charge should read 錫命 not 賜命; that the rescue of Chén in Xiāng 5 should not read “Jǔzǐ, Zhūzǐ, Téngzǐ, Xuē Bó”; that the assembly at GuózhīQiú involves Wèi’s Qí È 齊惡, not Shí È 石惡; that the same should record Qí Luán Shī 齊欒施, not Jìn (晉) Luán Shī; that Shū Sūn Chuò 叔孫婼 should not be named Shě 舍; that the Gōng huì Qí Hóu méng yú Huáng entry should read Qí Hóu, not Jìn Hóu; that “Wèi Zhào Yáng” should not be “Jìn Zhào Yáng”. All these are extremely well grounded.
But there are slips: he traces the toponym Miè 蔑 back to Gū Mèi 姑昧 and Zhī Mèi 知昧 by phonetic loan but fails to see that the canon has dropped the character 姑 in order to taboo the personal name of Lord Yǐn 隱; in “Sòngrén qǔ Cháng Gě” of winter, he sees that canon and zhuàn disagree but fails to see that the Sòng house, descended from a former dynasty, used the Shāng calendar, and so the seizure of Cháng Gě fell in the jiànyǒu month — winter by the Sòng reckoning, autumn by the Zhōu reckoning. Such oversights are scattered throughout, but the merits remain greater. Submitted on the Qiánlóng 42nd year, 5th month (= 1777, June). Editors-in-chief: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief proofreader: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Chūnqiū jiǎnshū kān wù is the textual-critical adjunct to Máo Qílíng’s Chūnqiū Máoshì zhuàn (KR1e0102) and is the place where his slip-vs-binding (jiǎn / cè) hypothesis takes its strongest practical form. The argument is that the Chūnqiū canon-text as received reflects the laconic chronicle-on-slips kept at the Lǔ archive, while the Zuǒ zhuàn narrative reflects the fuller narrative-on-bindings — and that, where the canon’s wording differs from a Zuǒ parallel, the difference is best explained as scribal corruption to be corrected against Zuǒ. The polemic against Gōng and Gǔ is consequent: Máo treats the divergences in those traditions as transmissional errors of oral instruction (memory failure, dialect shift, phonetic loan), not as substantively different witnesses to the canon.
The Sìkù editors found Máo’s positions on individual emendations broadly persuasive and credit him with a long list of acute corrections; they reject only his over-confident generalization of slip-vs-binding and a handful of philological misreadings (notably the Sòng-Shāng-calendar problem in the Cháng Gě entry, where Máo failed to recognize that Sòng, as a successor-dynasty fief, dated the seizure by the Yīn calendar rather than the Zhōu). The work is shorter and tighter than the parent commentary and circulated as a kind of independent manual of Chūnqiū textual criticism through the Sìkù edition. Composition coincides with Máo’s mature post-1679 Hànlín career and is bracketed by his death in 1716.
Translations and research
No substantial Western-language secondary literature located. For Máo’s Chūnqiū corpus see Liáng Tàijǐ 梁太濟 et al., Máo Qílíng nián pǔ 毛奇齡年譜 (Zhèjiāng dàxué, 2014), and discussions in Shén Yùchéng / Liú Níng, Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn xué shǐ gǎo 春秋左傳學史稿 (Jiāngsū gǔjí, 1992).
Other points of interest
The slip-vs-binding hypothesis is original to Máo and appears not to have outlasted his immediate circle as a paleographic claim, but the evidential method — collating Zuǒ-narrative wording against Chūnqiū canon-wording entry by entry — anticipated the program of high-Qīng Zuǒshì philology represented in this division by Huì Dòng 惠棟 (KR1e0116) and Shěn Tóng 沈彤 (KR1e0117).
Links
- Wikidata: Máo Qílíng — Q900998
- ctext.org: Chūnqiū jiǎnshū kān wù (Sìkù WYG facsimile)