聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

孝經注疏

9 min read

Text ID
KR1f0004
Date
1001–1001
Dynasty
宋

Xiàojīng zhùshū 孝經注疏

The Classic of Filial Piety with Commentary and Sub-commentary

by 玄宗 (御注, 685–762), 陸德明 (音義), 邢昺 (疏, 932–1010), and 李清植 (考證, Qīng-period collator)

About the work

The Xiàojīng zhùshū combines (a) the Táng emperor Xuánzōng’s 玄宗 imperial commentary of 743 (see KR1f0002), (b) Lù Démíng’s 陸德明 phonetic glosses (yīnyì 音義), and (c) Xíng Bǐng’s 邢昺 zhèngyì 正義 (“Standard Significance”) sub-commentary in 9 juàn. Xíng’s zhèngyì was completed under imperial commission in Xiánpíng 4 (1001) of the Sòng, in continuity with the Táng Yuán Xíngchōng 元行冲 zhèngyì (compiled c. 745), whose substantial chunks Xíng explicitly jiǎnjié 剪截 (“trimmed”) and supplemented. This is the recension that became part of the Shísān jīng zhùshū 十三經注疏 of the Sòng. The Sìkù quánshū recension here also includes Lǐ Qīngzhí’s 李清植 kǎozhèng 考證 collation notes and the Xiàojīng zhùjiě chuánshù rén 孝經注解傳述人 (Lù Démíng’s list of Xiàojīng commentators) at the head.

Tiyao

We have respectfully examined the Xiàojīng zhèngyì in three juàn — imperial commentary by Xuánzōng of the Táng, sub-commentary by Xíng Bǐng of the Sòng. According to the Tánghuìyào, in the sixth month of Kāiyuán 10 (722) the imperial Xiàojīng commentary was presented and promulgated throughout the empire and to the Imperial Academy; in the fifth month of Tiānbǎo 2 (743) the revised commentary was again promulgated. The Jiù Tángshū “Bibliographic Treatise” lists Xiàojīng in 1 juàn, “annotated by Xuánzōng”; the Xīn Tángshū lists “Modern Imperial Xiàojīng with Commentary, 1 juàn”, with the note “Xuánzōng” — this zhìzhǐ 制旨 (“composed by imperial command”) title is parallel to Liáng Wǔdì’s Zhōngyōng yì and refers to the same work. Zhào Míngchéng’s Jīnshí lù 金石錄 records “the Xiàojīng commentary of Emperor Míngdì in 4 juàn”, and Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí says “I have at home this rubbing in four large scrolls” — referring to the imperial-commentary text carved on the Shítái Xiàojīng 石臺孝經 stele in the Imperial Academy in the ninth month of Tiānbǎo 4 (745), still preserved in the Xī’ān Prefectural Academy in four panels; hence the rubbing comes in 4 juàn.

The end of Xuánzōng’s preface says: “In a single zhāng there may be several phrases, and within a single phrase the meaning may have several aspects; if all were noted, the text would be long; if abbreviated, the meaning would be lacking. They are now preserved in the zhèngyì sub-commentary, that the exposition may be the broader.” The Xīn Tángshū “Biography of Yuán Xíngchōng” 元行冲 records that, after Xuánzōng wrote his Xiàojīng commentary, he commanded Xíngchōng to compose a zhèngyì and have it taught in the official schools. The Tánghuìyào further records that in Tiānbǎo 5 (746) it was decreed: “Although the Xiàojīng sub-commentary roughly elucidates [the meaning], it is not yet comprehensive. Now we order it amplified to fill its gaps, and have the Jíxián yuàn 集賢院 transcribe and disseminate it both in the capital and in the provinces.” Thus the imperial commentary was twice revised, and the zhèngyì was twice revised. The Táng catalog gives 2 juàn, the Sòng catalog 3; perhaps a juàn was added. The SòngXiánpíng zhèngyì compiled by Xíng Bǐng took Xíngchōng’s text as its blueprint, but it is now no longer possible to distinguish the old portion from the new addition.

The Xiàojīng exists in two recensions, jīnwén 今文 and gǔwén 古文. The jīnwén is conventionally said to bear Zhèng Xuán’s 鄭玄 commentary, transmitted from Xún Chǎng 荀昶, but the Zhèngzhì 鄭志 does not record his name. The gǔwén is conventionally said to bear Kǒng Ānguó’s commentary, the work emerging from Liú Xuàn 劉炫 — and already declared a forgery in the Suíshū. In the third month of Kāiyuán 7 (719) it was decreed that the various Confucians should determine the matter. Liú Zhījī 劉知幾, Right Director of the Crown Prince’s Household, advocated for the gǔwén, advancing twelve points to discredit the Zhèng commentary; Sīmǎ Zhēn 司馬貞, Jìjiǔ of the National University, advocated for the jīnwén, picking out the inelegant phrases of the guīmén 閨門 chapter, the spuriously inserted zǐ yuē 子曰 in the shùrén 庶人 chapter, and certain crude phrasings in the commentary as evidence against the Kǒng — all set out fully in the Tánghuìyào. Subsequently the jīnwén prevailed and the gǔwén was abandoned. Xióng Hé 熊禾 of the Yuán, in his preface to Dǒng Dǐng’s Xiàojīng dàyì 孝經大義 (see KR1f0007), accordingly held that “Sīmǎ Zhēn’s removing of the guīmén chapter ultimately gave rise to Xuánzōng’s [later] disorders of license and disregard for the rites.” Sūn Běn 孫本 of the Míng wrote a Xiàojīng biànyí 孝經辨疑 also asserting that “in Táng times the harem was not in good order, and Sīmǎ Zhēn struck out the guīmén chapter as a national taboo.” But — does removing one chapter really produce the calamity of xìng Shǔ 幸蜀 (Xuánzōng’s flight to Sichuan in 756)? Had the gǔwén been used in that age, would there really have been no Tiānbǎo rebellion? That the Táng harem was disorderly is true; but the 24 characters of the guīmén chapter have nothing whatever to do with Wǔ [Zétiān] and Wéi [Hòu] — what taboo would they have been avoiding? Moreover, the proposals of [Liú] Zhījī and [Sīmǎ] Zhēn were submitted at the same time, and the decree recorded in the Tánghuìyào says: “Let the Zhèng commentary be used as before; let the Kǒng commentary be transmitted, and through it preserve continuity for what would otherwise be cut off.” Thus Zhèng was not abandoned because of [Liú] Zhījī, nor Kǒng because of [Sīmǎ] Zhēn. Three years later, when the imperial commentary was complete and the stone-stele list of names appeared, [Sīmǎ] Zhēn was not among the thirty-six. After the imperial commentary was promulgated, both the Kǒng and the Zhèng were jointly abandoned — and there is no record of [Sīmǎ] Zhēn proposing further to abolish Kǒng. Xióng Hé and the others, merely because Zhū Xī’s kānwù 刋誤 (see KR1f0006) happened to use the gǔwén, treated not using the gǔwén as a great crime, and being unaware of Táng institutional history, took the Zhōngxīng shūmù 中興書目’s note that “some discussants attacked the gǔwén and so it was abolished” and embroidered upon it, so that they thoughtlessly fastened the blame on [Sīmǎ] Zhēn. They did not realize that, at the level of commentary, the Kǒng was lost, and the Zhèng was also lost: if the Kǒng’s loss is to be charged to Zhēn, to whom shall the Zhèng’s loss be charged? At the level of the canonical text, both the Zhèng [recension] and the Kǒng [recension] are extant; the gǔwén did not perish because of one proposal by Zhēn. What guilt then lies with Zhēn?

We now examine the matter at length: the establishment of the jīnwén dates from this commentary of Xuánzōng; the establishment of this commentary of Xuánzōng dates from the Sòng decree commanding Xíng Bǐng and others to compose this sub-commentary. The various clamorous theories are all surmise and innuendo, and may be left without further consideration. Submitted respectfully on the imperial command, fifth month of Qiánlóng 41 (1776). General editor: (your servant) Jì Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General collator: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.

Abstract

The Xiàojīng zhùshū is the standard Sòng-and-after recension of the Xiàojīng and the form in which the work entered both the Shísān jīng zhùshū and the Sìkù quánshū. It overlays three layers: (1) the Táng imperial commentary of 743, (2) Lù Démíng’s yīnyì 音義 (phonetic glosses originally part of his Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文 of c. 583), and (3) Xíng Bǐng’s Xiàojīng zhèngyì 孝經正義 of 1001. Xíng explicitly says in his preface that he was commissioned together with the National University staff to “trim the old zhèngyì” — i.e. Yuán Xíngchōng’s c. 745 work — and “draw on other sources, distributing the commentary among the canonical text” — that is, the zhèngyì is not an independent composition but a redaction of Xíngchōng’s text. The Sìkù editors note that the prefatory Xiàojīng zhùjiě chuánshù rén 孝經注解傳述人 (a list of all the principal Xiàojīng commentators back to Hàn) is from Lù Démíng — drawn from the Jīngdiǎn shìwén — and is reproduced here as a freestanding piece. The Wāng Yáo preface’s account of the dispute between Liú Zhījī (favouring gǔwén) and Sīmǎ Zhēn (favouring jīnwén) in 719 — and of the imperial decree that the matter be decided by Xuánzōng’s own commentary in 722 — is one of the most important sources for the history of Xiàojīng canonization in the Táng.

The work was a standard examination text from the Sòng to the late Qīng. Its prose-style preface by Xíng Bǐng (cited above as the Xiàojīng zhùshū xù 孝經注疏序) and the parallel preface by Fù Zhù 傅注 (presented by the Chéngdū Prefectural Academy) reflect the canonical reading of the work as that “of which the zhì lies in the Chūnqiū, the xíng lies in the Xiàojīng” — i.e. as the practical complement to the Chūnqiū’s normative theory. The SòngXiánpíng zhèngyì line is the basis of every traditional Xiàojīng commentary down to the late Qīng.

Translations and research

  • See KR1f0001 for general Xiàojīng translations and research.
  • 喬秀岩 Yìshū lùn 義疏論. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2001. Includes a careful study of the relation between Yuán Xíngchōng’s 元行冲 lost zhèngyì and Xíng Bǐng’s redaction.
  • 張濤 (ed.), Xiàojīng zhùshū 孝經注疏 (punctuated and collated). Běijīng: Běijīng dàxué chūbǎn shè, 1999, 2000 (in the Shísān jīng zhùshū punctuated edition). The standard modern critical edition.
  • 陳鐵凡 Xiàojīng xuéshǐ 孝經學史. Taipei: Guólì biānyìguǎn, 1986.

Other points of interest

The Tíyào is unusually argumentative for the Sìkù, defending Sīmǎ Zhēn at length against Sòng-and-Yuán Daoxue polemics — a sign of the editors’ preference for evidential-scholarly history over moralistic readings of canonical formation. Xíng Bǐng’s zhèngyì is the only one of the Shísān jīng sub-commentaries explicitly described in its preface as a redaction (jiǎnjié 剪截) rather than a fresh composition, and is the latest in date (1001) of the zhèngyì set.

Graph View

Backlinks