Zhèng zhì 鄭志
Records of Zhèng [Xuán] by 鄭小同 (compiler)
About the work
A short collection (3 juàn in the WYG recension; originally 11 juàn in the Suíshū) of Zhèng Xuán 鄭玄’s (鄭玄) replies to disciples’ questions on the Five Classics, modelled formally on the Lúnyǔ and edited by his grandson Zhèng Xiǎotóng 鄭小同. The work is the most concentrated single source for Zhèng Xuán’s ad hoc exegetical reasoning outside of his commentaries proper, and a primary witness to Eastern-Hàn classroom pedagogy in the master-disciple ritual-classics tradition.
Tiyao
Your servants having respectfully examined: the Suíshū jīngjí zhì records the Zhèng zhì in 11 juàn, compiled by Zhèng Xiǎotōng, Palace Attendant of Wèi, and the Zhèng jì 鄭記 in 6 juàn, compiled by the disciples of Zhèng Kāngchéng (i.e. Zhèng Xuán). The Hòu Hànshū in Zhèng Kāngchéng’s biography says: “[Zhèng’s] gate disciples together compiled Zhèng’s answers to his disciples — adapting the Lúnyǔ form — into the Zhèng zhì in 8 piān.” Liú Zhījī’s Shǐtōng 史通 likewise says: “Zhèng’s disciples follow up on the master’s annotations and questions-and-answers — these they call the Zhèng zhì; the materials individually transmitted by the master to particular disciples — without question and answer — they call the Zhèng jì.” In each case the figures differ from those of the Suí bibliography. Fàn Yè, who lived not long after the end of the Hàn, would have had grounds for what he says, while the Suí bibliography draws on the Qīlù 七錄, which was settled by Ruǎn Xiàoxù 阮孝緒 and other senior scholars, and is hardly to be classed with the careless and erroneous bibliographies of the post-Táng period that confuse one work with another.
We presume the situation is this: the Hòu Hànshū records the original beginning, when the disciples themselves edited it, while the Suíshū records its eventual state after Xiǎotōng compiled it. The shift from 8 piān to 11 juàn shows that Xiǎotōng divided the older arrangement, and that the received version is no longer the disciples’ original. The Old and New Tángshū both list the Zhèng jì in tandem with the Zhèng zhì; the Zhèng jì’s juàn count there matches the Suíshū, but the Zhèng zhì appears as 9 juàn — already 2 juàn lost. From the Chóngwén zǒngmù onwards it is no longer recorded; the loss must therefore have occurred in the Northern Sòng.
The present 3-juàn copy is of unknown editorial origin. It must have been compiled by some later admirer of Zhèng’s learning, who, regretting the dispersal of the work, gathered it back together from the citations within the Five Classics zhèngyì (正義) commentaries. Therefore it lacks any clear redactional order. Yet, for instance, the entry “Bìchéng wǔ fú: answer to Zhào Shāng’s question” 弼成五服答趙商問 — referring not to the Yìjì 益稷 chapter but to the Gāo Yáo mó 臯陶謨 — exactly matches what Kǒng Yǐngdá’s commentary calls “Zhèng’s text”. And in the entry at the head of the volume, where Lěng Gāng 冷剛 asks about the line “童牛之梏” in the Dà chù 大畜 hexagram, the Zhōuyì zhèngyì does not contain it, but the Zhōulǐ zhèngyì cites it — and that citation contains some sixty-odd characters more than this version, beginning “Lěng Gāng asked saying…“. The Zhōulǐ zhèngyì citation of “the answer to Sūn Hào’s question” lacks the five sentences “in the second month of summer, mid-spring, the tài cù note governs; the yáng breath emerges from the earth and warms it; therefore in ritual one may open the ice-house and offer the first fruits at the bedside of the qǐn miào shrine.” Likewise the annotation on Gāo Yáo mó shows variation in detail compared with the Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文 (KR1g0003) and the zhèngyì; while one entry of the Yáo diǎn 堯典 annotation does not even appear in the zhèngyì. This indicates broad use of many texts — including some that we today no longer have — and not mere extraction from the zhèngyì.
Moreover the Yùhǎi 玉海 cites: “[the Shī] Dìng zhī fāng zhōng 定之方中: Zhāng Yì asks ‘When did Zhōng Liángzǐ 仲梁子 live?’ Answer: ‘My former teacher [先師] was a man of Lǔ.‘” This text adds the word shuō 説 after xiānshī, making clear that the xiānshī (former teacher) is not Zhōng Liángzǐ. Such examples show that this version is in some respects superior to other transmissions, and is itself an old recension, not a recent reconstruction.
We have now collated this against the Five Classics zhèngyì, the Shuǐjīng zhù, the Nán Qí shū lǐ zhì, the Tàipíng yùlǎn, the Yìwén lèijù, Dù Yòu’s Tōngdiǎn, and similar texts; where there are divergences we have respectfully appended notes for reference. Since the Zhèng jì has been lost for so long, we have appended what citations of it can be found, so that the broad outlines of Zhèng’s learning may be preserved. This also illustrates how Hàn classical masters and disciples interrogated each other with such thoroughness and care — that later persons given to glib speculation about the Classics may not lightly contradict them. Respectfully collated and submitted in the eighth month of the forty-sixth year of the Qiánlóng era (1781). — Editor-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Zhèng zhì is a Lúnyǔ-style record of Zhèng Xuán’s exegetical replies to his disciples on textual and ritual cruxes across the Five Classics. Its compositional history — clearly summarized in the tíyào — runs in three layers: (1) original transcription by the disciples themselves into 8 piān during Zhèng Xuán’s lifetime or shortly thereafter (per Hòu Hànshū); (2) editorial expansion and re-division into 11 juàn by Zhèng Xiǎotóng under the CáoWèi (per Suíshū jīngjí zhì); (3) progressive loss from the Táng onwards (9 juàn in the Tángshū yìwén zhì; absent from Chóngwén zǒngmù); the WYG 3-juàn recension is a Sòng/Yuán reconstruction harvested from the citations preserved in the Wǔjīng zhèngyì, Shuǐjīng zhù, Nán Qí shū lǐ zhì, Tàipíng yùlǎn, Yìwén lèijù and Dù Yòu’s Tōngdiǎn. The compiler of the WYG recension is unknown but is shown by the tíyào not to be a Qing reconstruction — Sòng-period readings already at variance with the zhèngyì citations are preserved.
The text proper is structured by classical book — Yì, Shū, Shī, Sānlǐ, Chūnqiū — with each entry naming the disciple posing the question (Zhào Shāng 趙商, Zhāng Yì 張逸, Lěng Gāng 冷剛, Sūn Hào 孫晧, etc.). The entries are essential for the reconstruction of Zhèng’s Sānlǐ learning and for any prosopography of the Eastern-Hàn classical lineage. The dating bracket reflects the original compositional period (under Zhèng Xuán’s lifetime, so before 200, completed by Xiǎotóng before his death in 254); the WYG recension itself dates from before the Yuán.
Translations and research
- Wáng Tài 王泰. Zhèng zhì zhèng kǎo 鄭志正考. Late Qing critical edition.
- Wáng Fùxīng 王復興. Zhèng zhì jiào shì 鄭志校釋. Modern textual reconstruction with critical apparatus.
- Tjan Tjoe Som [Zēng Zhūsēn] 曾珠森. Po Hu T’ung: The Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall (Leiden 1949–52), introductory chapters discuss Zhèng’s exegetical method and use the Zhèng zhì fragments.
- Brashier, K. E. Public Memory in Early China (Cambridge MA: HUP 2014), §§ on Zhèng Xuán’s disciple network — uses Zhèng zhì prosopography.
Other points of interest
The Zhèng zhì is the principal early source for the names of Zhèng Xuán’s disciples (Zhào Shāng, Sūn Hào, Lěng Gāng, Zhāng Yì, etc.) and is therefore foundational for the prosopography of Hàn-end classicism.