聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

古文孝經指解

9 min read

Text ID
KR1f0005
Date
1054–1086
Dynasty
宋

Gǔwén Xiàojīng zhǐjiě 古文孝經指解

Pointing Exposition of the Old-Text Classic of Filial Piety

by 司馬光 (指解, 1019–1086) and 范祖禹 (說, 1041–1098), with the imperial commentary of 玄宗 (御注, 685–762)

About the work

A combined Sòng-period treatment of the gǔwén 古文 (22-chapter) recension of the Xiàojīng, comprising (a) Sīmǎ Guāng’s 司馬光 Gǔwén Xiàojīng zhǐjiě 古文孝經指解 (“Pointing Exposition”) originally presented to Emperor Rénzōng 仁宗 in Huángyòu 皇祐 (1049–1054, see Tíyào discrepancy below) and (b) Fàn Zǔyǔ’s 范祖禹 Gǔwén Xiàojīng shuō 古文孝經說 (“Discussion”) of c. 1085, taken from his Xiàojīng shuō zhāzi 孝經說劄子. Sīmǎ Guāng’s exposition uses the gǔwén 22-chapter recension (still circulating in manuscript) but, anomalously, distributes Xuánzōng’s jīnwén-based imperial commentary alongside it; Fàn Zǔyǔ supplements with his own shuō. The single juàn of the Sìkù recension fuses the two works.

Tiyao

We have respectfully examined the Gǔwén Xiàojīng zhǐjiě in one juàn — composed by Sīmǎ Guāng of the Sòng, with a continuation by Fàn Zǔyǔ. The Sòng zhōngxīng yìwén zhì states: “From the time of Xuánzōng of the Táng, the gǔwén was attacked and the guīmén chapter dismissed as vulgar, and the gǔwén was abandoned. Only with Sīmǎ Guāng was the gǔwén taken up for the zhǐjiě, and Fàn Zǔyǔ later submitted his Xiàojīng shuō zhāzi.” (Note: this account is mistaken; the rebuttal has been given under KR1f0004.) Fàn Zǔyǔ’s memorial states: “In the Rénzōng court, when Sīmǎ Guāng was at the Hànlín, he composed the Gǔwén [zhǐ]jiě and presented it as a memorial; I have presumed to add my own views and a shuō.” The Shūlù jiětí records Sīmǎ Guāng’s work in 1 juàn and Fàn Zǔyǔ’s in 1 juàn, but does not say who combined them — apparently because the two were composed in succession, the works were eventually edited together. Wáng Yīnglín’s Yùhǎi dates Sīmǎ Guāng’s submission to Zhìhé 至和 1 (1054), when he was Diànzhōngchéng 殿中丞 of the Imperial Library — slightly different from Fàn’s account. But the memorial in Sīmǎ Guāng’s collected works states: “In Huángyòu (1049–1054) I composed the Gǔwén Xiàojīng zhǐjiě and presented it to Rénzōng; fearing that with the passage of years it might be lost, I have now had it transcribed in 1 juàn and submit it again.” Thus Fàn Zǔyǔ’s shuō is on the original presentation copy.

The dispute between jīnwén and gǔwén Xiàojīng has been clamorous since the Suíshū records of Wáng Shào 王劭 and Liú Xuàn 劉炫. In the Táng Liú Zhījī advocated the gǔwén and Sīmǎ Zhēn the jīnwén; their argumentation is set out in detail in the Tánghuìyào. To the present day commentators have continued to take sides, but what is in dispute is, in fact, only differences of word and phrase. Yet — paradoxically — Sīmǎ Guāng presents the gǔwén as the canonical text, and beneath each phrase reproduces Xuánzōng’s jīnwén commentary. If the two recensions were like the carriage facing south and the carriage facing north — nán yuán běi zhé 南轅北轍 — could the jīnwén commentary be transferred to gloss the gǔwén? Huáng Zhèn 黄震 of the Sòng wrote in his Rìchāo 日鈔: “On examination, the Xiàojīng is one work; the gǔwén and jīnwén differ only slightly in their transmission. For example, in the opening chapter the jīnwén says Zhòngní jū, Zēngzǐ shì 仲尼居，曾子侍, while the gǔwén says Zhòngní xián jū, Zēngzǐ shìzuò 仲尼閒居，曾子侍坐. The jīnwén says Zǐ yuē: ‘Xiānwáng yǒu zhì dé yào dào’ 子曰：先王有至德要道, the gǔwén says Zǐ yuē: ‘Shēn, xiānwáng yǒu zhì dé yào dào’ 子曰：參，先王有至德要道. The jīnwén says Fū xiào, dé zhī běn yě, jiào zhī suǒ yóu shēng yě 夫孝、德之本也，教之所由生也; the gǔwén says Fū xiào, dé zhī běn, jiào zhī suǒ yóu shēng 夫孝、德之本，教之所由生. Such additions and subtractions are at most slight, and there is no difference in dàyì 大義. As for chapter divisions: the jīnwén combines Sāncái 三才 with the section beginning qí zhèng bù yán ér zhì 其政不嚴而治 and the section beginning xiānwáng jiàn jiào zhī kě yǐ huà mín 先王見教之可以化民 into one chapter, while the gǔwén divides them into two. The jīnwén combines Shèngzhì 聖治 (chap. 9) with the section beginning qí suǒ yīn zhě běn yě 其所因者本也 and the section beginning fùzǐ zhī dào tiānxìng 父子之道天性 into one chapter, while the gǔwén divides them into two; the section beginning bù ài qí qīn ér ài tā rén 不愛其親而愛他人 the gǔwén makes a further chapter. Such mergings and divisions are at most slight, with no difference in dàyì. The gǔwén also has 22 characters — Guīmén zhī nèi jù lǐ yǐ hū, yán fù yán xiōng, qī zǐ chénqiè yóu bǎixìng túyì yě 閨門之內具禮矣乎，嚴父嚴兄，妻子臣妾，猶百姓徒役也 — entirely absent from the jīnwén, that the gǔwén makes into a separate chapter; with the three additional chapter-divisions noted above, this brings the gǔwén total to 22. The differences are no more than this. The jīnwén and the gǔwén are not two different books.” This exposition is balanced. Readers of Sīmǎ Guāng’s exposition and Fàn Zǔyǔ’s shuō should grasp the broad import to seek the source of the tiānjīng dìyì* 天經地義, and treat the jīnwén / gǔwén dispute as merely an excess of zeal of the worthies. Hú Huāng 胡爌, in his Shíyí lù 拾遺錄, criticized Fàn Zǔyǔ for misreading some of Sīmǎ Guāng’s commentary as canonical text — by checking against Zhū Xī’s Kānwù (see KR1f0006) Hú’s criticism is correct, but this does not concern the dàyì. We follow the original text and append Hú’s note to correct the slip. 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 Gǔwén Xiàojīng zhǐjiě is a key Sòng monument in the post-Táng revival of the gǔwén recension. Sīmǎ Guāng — better known for the Zīzhì tōngjiàn 資治通鑑 — was, after the Sòng Imperial Library’s classification commission of 1042, one of the few high-ranking scholar-officials willing to maintain the textual integrity of the gǔwén line. His preface to the work is itself an important historical document: it sets out his reasons for taking the gǔwén as canonical against the dominant jīnwén establishment of the TángSòng age. He argues, contra the Suí consensus, that the wall-recovered Kǒng Bì 孔壁 manuscripts are not forgeries, on the grounds that the Shàngshū and the Xiàojīng came from the same wall — and people accept the Shàngshū’s authenticity but doubt the Xiàojīng’s, “as if they trusted the chopped meat to be edible but doubted the roasted meat could be eaten.” He frankly admits that he uses Kǒng Ānguó’s zhuàn (see KR1f0003) only as a structural reference and writes a fresh “pointing exposition” of his own.

Fàn Zǔyǔ’s Gǔwén Xiàojīng shuō was composed when he was Drafter of the Veritable Records (修實錄檢討官) and a Hànlín lecturer-in-waiting (侍講) under Zhézōng 哲宗 — i.e. between 1085 and 1098. His preface is short but emphatic: “Although the two books are largely the same and only slightly different, the one that has the truth of the matter is the gǔwén.” Fàn Zǔyǔ was a major Northern Sòng historian and Confucian moralist, son-in-law of the Lǎoshī 老師 (his father-in-law) Lǚ Gōngzhù 呂公著, and the closest political ally of Sīmǎ Guāng — he co-authored the post-Yuányòu 元祐 reform-rollback memorials and the new edition of the Tángjiàn 唐鑑.

The Sìkù editors’ criticism — that Sīmǎ Guāng’s choice to gloss the gǔwén with the jīnwén commentary was logically inconsistent — is materially correct, but as Huáng Zhèn already observed in the Sòng, the actual textual differences are slight and the Xiàojīng dàyì 大義 is the same in either case. The work is not, strictly, a commentary in the Hàn or Táng sense, but more of a pointed reflection (zhǐjiě 指解) on selected phrases — a form that became important again in the Míng and Qīng Xiàojīng literature.

Translations and research

  • See KR1f0001 for general Xiàojīng translations and research.
  • 陳鐵凡 Xiàojīng xuéshǐ 孝經學史. Taipei: Guólì biānyìguǎn, 1986. Treats the Sōng-period revival of the gǔwén under Sīmǎ Guāng and Fàn Zǔyǔ in detail.
  • 王志躍, “司馬光《古文孝經指解》研究” 司馬光《古文孝經指解》研究. Sīchuān shīfàn dàxué xuébào 四川師範大學學報 (社科版) 38.5 (2011): 100–105.
  • Anthony C. Yu, “Sima Guang.” (entry) in William Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom, eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition, vol. 1. New York: Columbia UP, 1999, pp. 614–620.
  • 朱熹 Xiàojīng kānwù 孝經刋誤 (see KR1f0006) — Zhū Xī’s polemical response to the Sīmǎ Guāng / Fàn Zǔyǔ recension, taking up but radically restructuring the gǔwén.

Other points of interest

The work is the primary source for the gǔwén text as it stood in the Northern Sòng manuscript tradition — i.e. independent of the post-1731 Japanese-Dazai recension (see KR1f0003) — and has been used by modern scholars (Hayashi 1953, 1976; Chén Hóngsēn 1996) for collation against Dazai Shundai’s Kǒngshì zhuàn recension to identify which features of the latter belong to the older Chinese gǔwén tradition and which are post-Sòng Japanese accretions.

Graph View

Backlinks