聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

經典稽疑

5 min read

Text ID
KR1g0018
Date
1577–1620
Dynasty
明

Jīng diǎn jī yí 經典稽疑

Investigations of Doubts on the Canonical Texts by 陳耀文 (撰)

About the work

A 2-juàn late-Míng jīng compendium by Chén Yàowén 陳耀文 of Quèshān, organized as a systematic preservation of those HànTáng classical glosses that diverge from the orthodox Sòng zhāngjù tradition. The first juàn covers the Sì shū; the second covers Yì, Shū, Shī, Chūnqiū, Lǐjì, and Zhōulǐ. The work is framed (in the self-preface dated Wànlì dīngchǒu = 1577) as a deliberate counterposition to the late-Míng xīnxué trend that had reduced classical learning to a few orthodox glosses; Chén’s purpose is the gathering of variant HànTáng readings as a record of the canonical tradition’s scholarly variety.

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Jīng diǎn jī yí in 2 juàn was composed by Chén Yàowén of the Míng. Yàowén’s style name was Huìbó, sobriquet Quèshān; jìnshì of Wànlì gēngxū (1610), he served up to Vice Surveillance Commissioner. This book takes the Hàn-Táng-and-later interpretations of the Classics that diverge from the Sòng Confucians and arranges them by topic. The first juàn is the Sì shū; the second juàn is Yì, Shū, Shī, Chūnqiū, Lǐjì, and Zhōulǐ. The earlier Confucians’ specialized learning each had its master and transmission and was not idle speculation. Yàowén’s purpose was to preserve the ancient training on each Classic — but he should have collected only the surviving words of Zhèng [Xuán], Wáng [Sù], Jiǎ [Gōngyàn], and Kǒng [Yǐngdá], not mixed in Míng people’s discussions.

For example: on “Zǎi Yǔ slept by day” he takes only the Qī jīng xiǎo zhuàn (KR1g0004) reading — qǐn 寢 as inner-chamber — but does not cite the Liáng Wǔdì’s painted-chamber-by-day item from the Zī xiá jí 資暇集. On “I privately compare myself to Lǎo and Péng” he takes only the Jīng diǎn shìwén citation of Zhèng — “Lǎo is Lǎo Péngzǔ; Péng is Péngzǔ” — but does not cite the Lǐjì commentary or the Wén xuǎn annotation, which preserve Zhèng’s reading as “Lǎo is the Tàishǐ of the Zhōu Lǎo Dāng; Péng is Péng Xián.” On “Qián — yuán, hēng, lì, zhēn” he takes only the Zǐxià zhuàn reading “shǐ tōng hé zhèng” but does not cite the Yì hǎi cuō yào preserving Liáng Wǔdì’s reading “yì shǐ wéi yuán; suì wéi hēng; yì wéi lì; bù sī wéi zhēn”. Such examples of incompleteness are many, marring the work’s thoroughness.

Furthermore, on the Zhōulǐ he carries fully the SòngYuán Confucians’ attacks on it — which only stir up confusion. On the Mèngzǐ he gives in full the Bǐ tán 筆談 record of Wáng Shèngměi’s joke “Why did you go and see King Huì of Liáng?” — which lapses into mere comic effect.

In sum: Yàowén worked because the tièkuà (examination-summary) scholars of his time were dogmatic in their narrow corners, and he gathered alternatives to preserve the ancient sense. Therefore his collation is not always exhaustively pure. Yet between the Jiājìng and Lóngqìng eras, xīnxué flourished and jīngxué declined; that Yàowén alone could search out distant matters, comb deep meanings, and devote himself to xùngǔ — this can be called the footstep echoing in the empty valley. Respectfully collated and submitted in the second month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781). — Editors-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. — Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Jīng diǎn jī yí is a scarce late-Míng witness to philological jīngxué during the period of Yángmíng xīnxué dominance. Three points of distinction:

(1) The dating bracket. The self-preface is dated Wànlì dīngchǒu (1577); the Sìkù tíyào notes Chén’s jìnshì as Wànlì gēngxū (1610). The catalog meta gives the date “1550” — clearly an editorial slip: the work cannot pre-date Chén’s preface, and the preface is firmly 1577. Followed here is the bracket 1577 (preface) to c. 1620 (Chén’s career terminus).

(2) The scholarly position. Chén is positioned as a jīngxué outsider in a xīnxué age: the Sìkù compilers’ figure (“the footstep echoing in the empty valley”, kōng gǔ zhī zú yīn 空谷之足音) — taken from the Zhuāngzǐ — is the standard idiom for an isolated voice. The work’s value is in the very fact that it preserves variant HànTáng readings during a period when the Sòng zhāngjù’s near-monopoly was reducing classical learning to bare orthodoxy.

(3) The Sìkù verdict. Notable, because the Sìkù compilers, who are routinely sceptical of Míng Confucians, here give Chén an unusually positive judgement: even while pointing out the work’s incompleteness (selective HànTáng readings, inclusion of speculative SòngYuán materials, occasional comic-effect anecdotes), the tíyào’s closing assessment is the warm “footstep in the empty valley” — high praise.

The catalog meta’s “1550” date is the only date discrepancy; the Sìkù tíyào’s Wànlì gēngxū (1610) for the jìnshì and the original preface’s Wànlì dīngchǒu (1577) are both followed here in preference to the catalog.

Translations and research

  • Míng shǐ liè zhuàn 明史列傳 — Chén Yàowén appears in the Wén yuàn zhuàn 文苑傳 segment, with brief biographical detail.
  • Bol, Peter K. Neo-Confucianism in History. HUP, 2008. Pages on the late-Míng philological reaction.
  • Elman, Benjamin A. From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China. HUP, 1984; rev. ed. UCLA, 2001. The standard treatment of the philology–philosophy turn; Chén Yàowén is a precursor.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù tíyào’s positive verdict is a useful index of the late-Wàn-lì philological reaction to xīnxué: contemporary classical scholars produced very little work of this kind (compare the body of xīnxué Sì shū compilations that fills the catalogues of the same decades), and Chén’s Jīng diǎn jī yí is one of the few extant works to occupy the philological corner during the time. It is a precursor — at considerable conceptual distance — of the later Qing kǎozhèng movement.

Graph View

Backlinks