聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

孝經定本

6 min read

Text ID
KR1f0008
Date
1303–1303
Dynasty
元

Xiàojīng dìngběn 孝經定本

A Definitive Recension of the Classic of Filial Piety

by 吳澄 (撰, 1249–1333)

About the work

The Xiàojīng dìngběn is the second great Yuán reorganization of the Xiàojīng canon, completed by Wú Chéng 吳澄 (Cǎolú xiānshēng 草廬先生) in his middle career. It takes the jīnwén 18-chapter recension as base, but applies the Zhū Xī “1 jīng + zhuàn” structural method (see KR1f0006): the first six jīnwén chapters are merged into a single jīng chapter; the remaining 12 are made into zhuàn chapters in re-arranged order. Wú adopts most of Zhū’s deletions (172 of the original 223 characters Zhū had marked for excision) and appends the 24 characters of the gǔwén Guīmén 閨門 chapter as supplementary material. A postface by Wú’s pupil Zhāng Héng 張恒 of Hénán is dated guǐmǎo 癸卯 of Dàdé 大德, i.e. 1303.

Tiyao

We have respectfully examined the Xiàojīng dìngběn in one juàn, composed by Wú Chéng of the Yuán. Chéng’s Yì zuǎnyán 易纂言 has already been recorded. This work takes the jīnwén Xiàojīng as base, follows Master Zhū’s Kānwù example by separating canon and zhuàn, and forms its canon-chapter by combining six jīnwén chapters into one. The zhuàn portion follows the jīnwén in 12 chapters but rearranges the sequence. The 172 characters that Master Zhū had deleted (note: Master Zhū’s Kānwù deleted 223 characters in all; some were single characters within phrases — only the deleted phrases are reproduced here, hence the figure 172) and the 24 characters of the gǔwén Guīmén chapter are appended at the end.

A postface by Chéng’s pupil Zhāng Héng of Hénán, dated guǐmǎo of Dàdé (1303), states: “Chéng saw Xíng [Bǐng]‘s sub-commentary and so came to know that the gǔwén is a forgery; he saw Master Zhū’s discussion and so came to know that the jīnwén too has things to be doubted. He therefore arranged the various theories in order, inserted his own views, and composed it as a textbook for the family school. He did not wish to transmit it; never showed it to others.” (His mind was therefore not entirely at ease.)

His statement that “in the early Hàn the various Confucians first saw this book” is incorrect, as he had failed to consult the Lǚshì chūnqiū, which already cites words from the Xiàojīng. As to his observation, on the basis of Xǔ Shèn’s Shuōwén citation of the gǔwén Xiàojīng — “Zhòngní jū” 仲尼居, without the xián 閒 — he infers that the gǔwén’s “Zhòngní xián jū” 仲尼閒居 was an arbitrary insertion by Liú Xuàn 劉炫. Citing Huán Tán’s Xīnlùn, which says the gǔwén has 1872 characters and differs from the jīnwén in over 400 characters: the present Liú-Xuàn-edited recension has 1807 characters, only 8 more than the jīnwén; if one excludes the 24 characters of the inserted guīmén chapter, the difference between gǔwén and jīnwén is just over 20 characters — Wú’s argument is therefore far more grounded than Sīmǎ Zhēn’s vague charge that the gǔwén’s phrases are “vulgar.”

The chapter divisions adopted are admittedly highly invasive, but the exposition is concise and clear, and forms an internally coherent reading. Master Zhū’s Kānwù cannot be set aside, and so this work of Wú’s, too, must be preserved. From this point onward, the Xiàojīng exists in two re-edited recensions [Zhū Xī’s and Wú Chéng’s]. Submitted respectfully on the imperial command, twelfth month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). 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

Wú Chéng (1249–1333), zì Yōuqīng 幼清, hao Cǎolú 草廬, of Chóngrén 崇仁 (modern Jiāngxī), was — with Xǔ Héng 許衡 — the leading Confucian of the Yuán and the principal connector of the late-Sòng Zhū Xī tradition into the Yuán intellectual world. He served briefly under Kublai Khan as a Jǔrén of the Hànlín; declined high office; spent most of his career as a private teacher. He produced commentaries on the Yìjīng, Shàngshū, Shī, Liji, Chūnqiū, the Sìshū, Lǎozǐ, and the Xiàojīng. The Xiàojīng dìngběn is the only one of his works on a Wǔjīng + Sìshū + Xiàojīng base in which he openly broke with both the jīnwén and the gǔwén recension to produce a fresh philological reconstruction.

The Sìkù editors’ assessment is balanced. They note Wú Chéng’s failure to consult the Lǚshì chūnqiū (which proves the work older than the early Hàn) and his minor errors of dating, but credit him with the most serious philological argument against Sīmǎ Zhēn’s jīnwén polemic to date — namely, the comparison with Xǔ Shèn’s Shuōwén citations and Huán Tán’s Xīnlùn character-count, which together imply that the gǔwén received recension is largely identical to the jīnwén and contains only some 20 substantive differences plus the guīmén chapter. From the standpoint of evidential scholarship, the Sìkù editors accept Wú Chéng’s argument as more careful than Sīmǎ Zhēn’s. Modern scholarship (Hayashi 1976) has largely confirmed Wú’s textual diagnosis.

The Sìkù editors close with the famous remark: “From this point onward, the Xiàojīng exists in two re-edited recensions” — a tacit acknowledgment that, despite the Sìkù’s neutralism, after Wú Chéng a re-edited Xiàojīng (whether Zhū Xī’s or Wú Chéng’s) is what most readers will encounter.

Translations and research

  • See KR1f0001 for general Xiàojīng translations and research.
  • 陳鐵凡 Xiàojīng xuéshǐ 孝經學史. Taipei: Guólì biānyìguǎn, 1986.
  • David Gedalecia, The Philosophy of Wu Ch’eng: A Neo-Confucian of the Yüan Dynasty. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. The standard English biography; treats Wú’s editorial methodology in detail.
  • David Gedalecia, A Solitary Crane in a Spring Grove: The Confucian Scholar Wu Ch’eng in Mongol China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.
  • John Dardess, Confucianism and Autocracy: Professional Elites in the Founding of the Ming Dynasty. Berkeley: UCP, 1983. Contextualizes the post-Wú Chéng Confucian curriculum.

Other points of interest

The Xiàojīng dìngběn is unusual in that Wú Chéng — Zhāng Héng’s postface admits — never wished it to be circulated; it was a “household textbook” (jiāshú kè zǐ zhī shū 家塾課子之書) that escaped only after his death. The Sìkù editors include this detail with the dry observation that “his mind was therefore not entirely at ease,” tacitly suggesting Wú himself recognized the philological audacity of his reorganization. The work is the first attempt in the Xiàojīng tradition to deploy comparative-citation evidence (the Shuōwén and Xīnlùn) systematically to reconstruct an older textual state — a method that anticipates the Qing kǎozhèngxué.

Graph View

Backlinks