聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

十一經問對

7 min read

Text ID
KR1g0014
Date
1280–1310
Dynasty
元

Shí yī jīng wèn duì 十一經問對

Question-and-Answer on the Eleven Classics by 何異孫 (撰)

About the work

A 5-juàn early-Yuán or-wèn (or huò wèn) classical compendium on a deliberately heterodox set of “Eleven Classics” — Lúnyǔ, Xiàojīng, Mèngzǐ, Dàxué, Zhōngyōng, Shī, Shū, Zhōulǐ, Yílǐ, Chūnqiū sān zhuàn, and Lǐjì — modelled formally on Zhū Xī’s Huò wèn 或問. The set differs from the canonical Shísān jīng by treating the Dàxué and Zhōngyōng as separate “classics”, and by counting the Chūnqiū sān zhuàn as one block. The author Hé Yìsūn 何異孫 — known only by his Shí yī jīng wèn duì — was a younger contemporary of Wáng Yìshān 王義山 (sobriquet Jiācūn, Sòng jìnshì who took early-Yuán office) and the dating bracket is securely early Yuán (between c. 1280 and c. 1310).

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Shí yī jīng wèn duì in 5 juàn is attributed to Hé Yìsūn, with no period given. Examining the second juàn — its discussion of Mencius’s chè fǎ and zhù fǎ (well-field tax systems) — it cites “the guān zhì (official system) of the Great Yuán inheriting the Sòng zhítián 職田 (office-fields)”, so the work must be by a Yuán person. In the first juàn, the discussion of the Lúnyǔ “mù chūn zhě” 莫春者 records: “Mr. Wáng Jiācūn 王稼村 lectured this chapter at the Hángzhōu prefectural school.” Jiācūn is the sobriquet of Wáng Yìshān 王義山, who passed jìnshì in the Sòng Jǐngdìng era and under the Yuán took office as Education Commissioner of Jiāngxī (Jiāngxī rúxué tíjǔ). Yìsūn lived to hear him lecture, so the work must be from the early Yuán. Furthermore, the discussion of Mencius’s héng xīn héng chǎn 恆心恆產 records: “the older Confucians still read héng 恆 as cháng 常, avoiding Sòng Zhēnzōng’s name-taboo; today it should be read húdēng fǎn 胡登反” — proof that the Sòng has not been long fallen.

The Eleven Classics it treats are: Lúnyǔ, Xiàojīng, Mèngzǐ, Dàxué, Zhōngyōng, Shī, Shū, Zhōulǐ, Yílǐ, Chūnqiū sān zhuàn, Lǐjì — but the order of these makes no rational sense, and treating the Dàxué and Zhōngyōng as separate Classics is also a fabrication and somewhat hard to credit.

The book throughout imitates Zhū Xī’s Huò wèn form, posing questions and answering. The Dàxué, Zhōngyōng, Lúnyǔ, Mèngzǐ discussions broadly use the zhāngjù jí shuō, with minor differences. As, on “the gentleman dwells there — what is mean in it?”, he reads it as: Jīzǐ 箕子 once dwelt in that land, and even now its rituals and education are the same as those of the central plain — the place is not “mean” (note: Zhèng Rǔxié’s Lúnyǔ yì yuán had already advanced this reading; Yìsūn appears to coincide with him). On “at the time of summer-solstice all are ripe” he reads “solstice” as the summer solstice; on “a gentleman is unbright, how could he take hold?” he reads wù 惡 in the qù tone — none of these is unreasonable. On “the lù bamboo grows luxuriantly” — following the Máo gloss “lù is mùzéi” (horsetail-grass) — he therefore reads “qiēcuō zhuómó” 切磋琢磨 as using this grass to polish things. On “the parents only worry about his illness” he reads it as Mèng Wǔbó’s anxious nature — Confucius reassuring him: “do not worry about other things, only the parents’ illness.” On “Yōng may face south” he reads Confucius’s words as obstructing the lǐ. On “all say I have destroyed the Mìngtáng” he reads it as the Seven States all having usurpingly built Mìngtáng — these are not innocent of speculative excess. As to taking the Jízhǒng Jìnián 紀年 as composed by Chúnyú Kūn 淳于髠, and reading the eighteen-chapter sequence of the Xiàojīng as fixed by Táng Xuánzōng — these are arbitrary inventions without any basis at all.

The remaining Shī discussions mostly follow Zhèng Xuán’s pǔ; the Shū discussions mostly follow Cài Shěn’s zhuàn; the Sānlǐ sān zhuàn discussions are largely abbreviated extracts from the zhùshū. But the practice of “following the text and producing a sense, touching one and reaching the others” is not without educational benefit for young students’ memorization and recitation.

His comment on Zhào Qí’s annotation of Mèngzǐ says: “the Six Classics, the Lúnyǔ, the Mèngzǐ, before and after how many hands have annotated them. Sòng Confucians do nothing but gather the various explanations to seek a single resolution. To say Yì — they immediately curse Wáng Bì; to say Zhōulǐ — they immediately blame Zhèng Kāngchéng and Jiǎ Gōngyàn; to gloss the Shàngshū — they immediately rebuke Kǒng Ānguó. The injury here is excessive. After all, Hàn Confucians had their share of merits too. Zhào Qí, in three years between two columns, annotated the whole Mèngzǐ — we should at least show some sympathy for his hard work.” This indeed is the language of an even-handed mind. Respectfully collated and submitted in the fifth month of the forty-first year of Qiánlóng (1776). — Editors-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. — Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Shí yī jīng wèn duì is a useful witness to early-Yuán pedagogical Confucianism, written shortly after the SòngYuán transition by a scholar still close enough to the Sòng to remember the Sòng míng huì (name-taboo) practice. Its set of “Eleven Classics” is structurally a Sì shū + Wǔ jīng assemblage — the Sì shū split into 4 separate texts plus Xiàojīng (= 5), and the Wǔ jīng with Sān lǐ expanded to Sānlǐ (Zhōulǐ + Yílǐ + Lǐjì = 3) and the Chūnqiū sān zhuàn counted as one (= 5+3+1+1+1 = ? does not actually equal 11, and the resulting count is 11 only by interpreting Sì shū + Xiàojīng + Shī + Shū + Sānlǐ + Chūnqiū in this idiosyncratic way) — i.e. neither the HànTáng Wǔ jīng nor the Sòng Shísān jīng, but a transitional pedagogical bundle. The work is itself an artifact of how the Sì shū and Wǔ jīng curricula were being merged in the late Sòng / early Yuán academies.

The interpretive method is moderate Sòng-school yì lǐ with selective HànTáng absorption — the Sìkù compilers’ verdict (“touching one to reach the others, useful for young students’ memorization”) is fair. The author’s even-handed position towards the Hàn commentators (his explicit defence of Zhào Qí against Sòng-school dismissiveness) is the most attractive single feature of the work. The dating bracket here (c. 1280–1310) is set by the Sìkù compilers’ two independent indications: cite of the Yuán guān zhì and the early-Yuán resonance of the Sòng name-taboo memory.

Translations and research

  • Yuán shǐ Rúlín zhuàn 元史儒林傳 — but Hé Yìsūn does not appear in the Yuán shǐ, an indication of his obscurity.
  • Bol, Peter K. Neo-Confucianism in History. HUP, 2008. Pages on early-Yuán pedagogy.
  • Chu, Hung-lam. “Towards a History of Civil Service Examinations in Imperial China.” International Journal of Asian Studies (2006). Background on early-Yuán curriculum.

Other points of interest

The Sòng míng huì trace — “old Confucians still read héng as cháng” — is a delightful linguistic-anthropological detail of the dynastic transition: a generation of teachers who, decades after the Sòng’s fall, still automatically suppressed the Zhēnzōng-era graphic taboo. Hé Yìsūn records the moment when the active correction was waning and only the older generation retained it.

Graph View

Backlinks