聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

六經奧論

6 min read

Text ID
KR1g0011
Date
1200–1279
Dynasty
宋

Liù jīng ào lùn 六經奧論

Discussions of the Mystery of the Six Classics by 闕名 (anonymous Southern-Sòng author; falsely attributed to 鄭樵)

About the work

A Sòng-period anonymous compendium of classical-method essays in 6 juàn, traditionally ascribed to Zhèng Qiáo 鄭樵 (Master Jiājì) but conclusively shown by the Sìkù compilers to be a late Southern-Sòng pseudonymous work. The book is structured as a series of essays on the formation, the transmission, the philology, the phonology, the editorial history, and the interpretive method of each of the Six Classics, with general framing essays at the front. It is one of the more philologically interesting jiàotiáo (lecture-outline) classical compendia of the late Southern Sòng — clearly written for examination preparation (the work’s own fán lì describes it as “chí fā chǎng wū zhī zī” 持發場屋之資, “the resource one carries into the examination hall”) — and despite its mistaken attribution it has had a wide circulation under Zhèng Qiáo’s name.

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Liù jīng ào lùn in 6 juàn is in the old text attributed to Zhèng Qiáo of the Sòng. Zhū Yízūn’s Pù shū tíng jí has a colophon to this book saying: in the Chénghuà era (1465–1487) Wéi Bāngfǔ of Xūjiāng 旴江 from his household holdings supplied the manuscript, with a preface by Lí Wēn 黎温, and printed it; he says it is by Zhèng Yúzhòng. Táng Shùnzhī of Jīngchuān 荊川, in compiling the Bài biān, followed Wéi.

But examining the book, its arguments do not square with the Tōngzhì lüè 通志略. Qiáo himself once submitted a memorial enumerating his works in detail; this book is not among them. So that it is not by Qiáo’s hand is established. Later Mr. Xú of Kūnshān, in cutting his Jiǔ jīng jiě, still attributed it to Qiáo. We now examine the book and find that its discussions of the Shī throughout favour the Máo-Zhèng line — exactly contrary to Qiáo’s own Shī biàn wàng 詩辨妄. There is also a Tiān wén biàn (Discussion on Astronomy) which cites Qiáo’s saying as “Master Jiājì said” — clear evidence that the work is not by Qiáo’s own hand.

A second discussion of Shī cites Hùìān’s 晦庵 (Zhū Xī’s) Shī kǎo 詩考. Per the Sòng shǐ biography, Qiáo died in the thirty-second year of Shàoxīng (1162); Zhū Xī’s Shī zhuàn was completed in the fourth year of Chúnxī (1177); and the sobriquet Hùìān itself first arose only in the second year of Chúnxī (1175) — none of these can be assigned to Qiáo. A discussion of Shū cites the Master Zhū yǔ lù, and uses Zhū Xī’s posthumous title — so the work must be by a person of the late Sòng. Of these obvious proofs there is no shortage; we cannot understand how Gù Méi 顧湄, in collating the Jiǔ jīng jiě, failed to detect them.

Yet the work has been long current and its arguments are partly worth retaining. We accordingly preserve it, append it at the end of the Sòng-period works, and have struck Qiáo’s name from the attribution. Respectfully collated and submitted in the twelfth month of the forty-fifth year of Qiánlóng (1780). — Editors-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. — Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Liù jīng ào lùn is a late-Sòng pseudonymous work falsely attributed to Zhèng Qiáo. The Sìkù compilers’ demonstration that it is not by Qiáo is conclusive on six independent grounds: (1) Qiáo’s own list of his works (preserved in his zòu shū) does not include it; (2) its Shī discussions follow MáoZhèng, contradicting Qiáo’s known Shī biàn wàng; (3) it contains a Tiān wén biàn citing Qiáo as a third-party source (“Master Jiājì said”); (4) it cites Zhū Xī’s Shī kǎo (1177), 15 years after Qiáo’s death (1162); (5) it uses Zhū Xī’s sobriquet Hùìān (first attested 1175), 13 years after Qiáo’s death; and (6) it cites Zhū Xī’s yǔ lù and uses Zhū Xī’s posthumous canonical name (shì 諡), placing the composition firmly in the late Southern Sòng. The actual date of composition is therefore between c. 1200 (after the Zhū Xī materials were in circulation) and the fall of the Southern Sòng in 1279.

The work covers the Six Classics (Yì, Shū, Shī, Zhōulǐ, Lǐjì, Chūnqiū) with introductory chapters on the formation of the canon (Fūzǐ zuò liù jīng 夫子作六經, Qín rén huò liù jīng 秦人禍六經, Hàn rú chuán jīng 漢儒傳經), the philology and phonology of the canon (Liù jīng gǔ wén biàn 六經古文辨, Liù jīng zì yīn biàn 六經字音辨), the commentarial tradition (Liù jīng zhù shū biàn 六經注疏辨), and the surviving lost-text witness (Shī Shū yì piān yóu cún yú Chūnqiū zhī shì 詩書逸篇猶存於春秋之世). The phonological discussion is particularly interesting as a record of mid-Southern-Sòng acoustic awareness — it explicitly distinguishes Northern, Southern (Wú), Qí, QínLǒng, and LiángYì regional pronunciations, anticipating points later developed by Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武. The Liù jīng zhù shū biàn cites Ōuyáng Xiū’s call (Rénzōng era, 1023–1063) for an imperially-commissioned editorial purgation of the chènwěi 讖緯 apocryphal materials from the zhèngyì layer — useful evidence for the eleventh-century critical reception of the post-Táng commentary stratigraphy.

The Sìkù compilers’ decision to retain the work but strip the false attribution is the standard scholarly position; modern editions by convention list the author as “qué míng” (anonymous) or “Sòng anonymous”.

Translations and research

  • Cherniack, Susan. “Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China.” HJAS 54 (1994): 5–125. Discusses Sòng pseudonymous compilations as a genre.
  • Hervouet, Yves, ed. A Sung Bibliography. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1978. Entry on the Liù jīng ào lùn.
  • Honda Wataru 本田濟 et al. Sōdai keigaku no kenkyū 宋代経学の研究. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1971. Treats late-Sòng liù jīng compendia.
  • Cháo Gōngwǔ 晁公武, Jùnzhāi dúshū zhì; Chén Zhènsūn 陳振孫, Zhízhāi shū lù jiě tí — relevant Sòng-period bibliographic background, neither of which lists the work under Zhèng Qiáo’s name.

Other points of interest

The work was widely read for several centuries under Zhèng Qiáo’s prestige; the Sìkù compilers’ detective-work in unravelling the false attribution is among the more elegant pieces of kǎozhèng in the entire Sìkù tíyào — six independent strands of evidence, each individually compelling — and is a useful model of how to authenticate (or rather de-authenticate) an anonymous Sòng compendium against later interpolations.

Graph View

Backlinks