五經蠡測

Wǔ jīng lí cè 五經蠡測

Measuring the Five Classics with a Calabash-Spoon by 蔣悌生 (撰)

About the work

A 6-juàn late-Yuán/early-Míng Wǔ jīng compendium by the míngjīng recommendee Jiǎng Tìshēng 蔣悌生 (style name Rénshū in his self-preface, Shūrén in the WYG tíyào). The title is from Zhuāngzǐ — yǐ lí cè hǎi 以蠡測海, “to measure the sea with a calabash-spoon” — a self-deprecating figure for a small intellect attempting a vast subject. The book covers Yì (1 juàn), Shū (1 juàn), Shī (3 juàn), and Chūnqiū (1 juàn); the Lǐjì portion is lost. The work was begun while the author was hiding from war in the Lántián valley during the late Yuán and was completed by Hóngwǔ 3 (1370); it was not actually printed until the 1538 retrieval and Jiājìng-era cut by Mǐn Wénzhèn 閔文振.

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Wǔ jīng lí cè in 6 juàn was composed by Jiǎng Tìshēng of the Míng. Tì[‘s] style name was Shūrén; he was a man of Fúníng. At the start of Hóngwǔ he was appointed xùndǎo via the míng jīng recommendation. This book was composed during the closing years of the Yuán while he was avoiding war in the Lántián valley. In the wùxū year of Jiājìng (Note: the original preface gives no era-name but only “wùxū”; from a “more than 160 years” remark in the preface we deduce that the year is Jiājìng 17 = 1538), Mǐn Wénzhèn of Fúliáng, while compiling the zhōuzhì (prefectural gazetteer), obtained the manuscript from his descendant Zōngyǔ, prefaced and printed it. At the front is Jiǎng’s self-preface dated Hóngwǔ gēngxū (= 1370). The work covers Yì in 1 juàn, Shū in 1 juàn, Shī in 3 juàn, Chūnqiū in 1 juàn. After it is Mǐn Wénzhèn’s appended note, saying: “of the Five Classics here, the Shī discussion is the most extensive, then Yì and Shū; Chūnqiū is least; the Lǐjì is lost.” The title Wǔ jīng lí cè is preserved as the original.

Examining the book, in some places it gives the canonical text, in others only a chapter-and-paragraph heading; some passages are written full-size, others as inserted glosses (jiā zhù); the format is not unified. It is in fact still an unfinished draft. Furthermore, the Shū’s Tài jiǎ 太甲 chapter at the head says “the Shī and Shū prefaces have been discussed in detail above” — but no preceding Shī and Shū preface discussions exist; therefore not only the Lǐjì but also part of the Shū is lost.

His Yì discussion much weighs the differences between Chéng’s Zhuàn and the Běn yì. As, on the Yí hexagram’s “hǔ shì dāndān, qí yù zhúzhú” (the tiger watches keenly, his appetite is on the trail), he reads it as the senior minister seeking out worthies as helpers, like a tiger seeking flesh — overstrainedly speculative. As, on “lóng zhàn yú yě” (the dragon battles in the wild), he reads: Kūn cannot properly be called a dragon; the lóng here is the dragon of the Qián hexagram’s six lines, yīn in its overflow, in conflict with yáng; from anxiety that there be no yáng, the term lóng is used to make plain that yáng is never absent. This reading is solidly upright.

His Shū discussion has many revisions of Cài Shěn’s Jí zhuàn. On the Pán gēng he suspects mistaken bamboo strips in the three chapters — going further than Wáng Bó’s 王栢 reading and recklessly extending it. On Gāo zōng róng rì — if it really refers to Gāo zōng, he says, the chapter should call him wáng (king), not begin with the temple name; he uses Zōu’s yīn shì gloss to read it as “Zǔgēng’s sacrifice to Gāo zōng” — not without merit.

His Shī discussion holds that the Xiǎo xù (lesser preface) had its inaccuracies but that Zhū Xī’s hostility to it goes too far. On contested passages Tìshēng works hard to balance the two parties. In the late-Yuán Míng-early period this can fairly be called “standing up by oneself, without leaning on a school’s gate-and-wall.” Yet his reading of “Shī jiū” 鳲鳩 as “praising the Duke of Zhōu, a Bīn fēng poem mistakenly slipped into Cáo fēng” is again the speculative-conjecture old habit.

His Chūnqiū discussion has only six items: Téng zǐ lái cháo 滕子來朝, zǐ Tóng shēng 子同生, fū rén Jiāng shì xùn yú Qí 夫人姜氏遜於齊, fū rén Jiāng shì huì Qí hóu yú Zhuó 夫人姜氏會齊侯於禚, gōng jí fū rén huì Qí hóu yú Yánggǔ 公及夫人會齊侯於陽穀, and Qí Zhòngsūn lái 齊仲孫來 (note: xùn yú Qí and the Zhuó item form a single piece). The Zhòngsūn item and the Yánggǔ item have their year-and-month order also reversed. His discussion does not strongly champion the Hú [Ānguó] zhuàn, but says: the Hú zhuàn is not in accord with the original intent of the brush-and-deletion; yet if the Sage came back to life he would still take from Hú’s words. So why must one, in every case, be in accord with the original intent of the brush-and-deletion? On the Hú zhuàn he is still wavering between belief and doubt.

In sum: dwelling in a remote and impoverished valley, he had little chance to consult ancient books; for evidential proof and citation his work is not strong. But the warm and meditative reflection often produces fresh personal insight. The reputation of his work is less than that of Xióng Pénglái (KR1g0013); the substance is in fact his superior. Respectfully collated and submitted in the third month of the forty-second year of Qiánlóng (1777). — Editors-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. — Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Wǔ jīng lí cè is one of the more interesting Wǔ jīng compendia of the late-Yuán/early-Míng dynastic transition. Three points of distinction:

(1) Provenance and survival. The work was composed in hiding from war (Lántián valley) c. 1360–1370, with the self-preface signed Hóngwǔ gēngxū (1370). It was preserved only in private family transmission, and not printed until 1538 — almost 170 years after its completion — by the Jiājìng prefectural-gazetteer editor Mǐn Wénzhèn. The published juàn are still in unfinished form (some passages give canonical text, others only headings; some written full-size, others as inserted glosses) — the unrefined state of a draft that was never finalized.

(2) Lost portions. The Lǐjì portion is entirely lost. A reference in the Shū’s Tài jiǎ chapter to “the Shī and Shū prefaces discussed above” indicates that the surviving Shū portion is also incomplete. The Chūnqiū portion is unusually short (six items only), but in the Sìkù compilers’ view this may not be from loss but from the work simply being unfinished.

(3) Interpretive position. Independent of any specific master’s school, working from his own reflection — the Sìkù compilers’ praise (yìshù dú lì, wú yī mén bàng hù zhī sī 屹然獨立,無依門傍戶之私) is a real compliment in the Sìkù tíyào register. He balances Chéng Yí Yìzhuàn and Zhū Xī Běn yì, has an independent line on the Shū (revising Cài Shěn), distrusts both excesses (Zhū Xī’s hostility to the Xiǎo xù on the Shī, but also Hú Ānguó’s Chūnqiū zhuàn).

Translations and research

• Mǐng-shǐ liè zhuàn 明史列傳 (but Jiǎng does not appear in the Míng shǐ Rúlín zhuàn, indicating his obscurity).
• Fú-níng zhōu zhì 福寧州志 — local gazetteer with biographical entry.
• Bol, Peter K. Neo-Confucianism in History. HUP, 2008. Pages on the late-Yuán/early-Míng Confucian transition.
• Mote, F. W. Imperial China 900–1800. HUP, 1999. Pages on the late-Yuán war and the Hóngwǔ regime’s recruitment of míng-jīng recommendees.

Other points of interest

The 168-year gap between the composition of the work (1370) and its first cut (1538) is itself instructive: a great deal of late-Yuán/early-Míng scholarship survived only because Jiājìng-era local-gazetteer compilers retrieved the manuscripts from family holdings — the Sìkù tíyào records analogous cases for several KR1g works.

Links

• http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/db-machine/ShikoTeiyo/0067301.html (Kyoto Zinbun digital tíyào)