聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

九經誤字

5 min read

Text ID
KR1g0021
Date
1660–1682
Dynasty
清

Jiǔ jīng wù zì 九經誤字

Errata of the Nine Classics by 顧炎武 (撰)

About the work

A 1-juàn early-Qing critical-text erratum by Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武 (Tínglín 亭林) recording miswritings and lacunae in the Míng Imperial Academy (Guózǐ jiàn) cuts and the commercial market cuts of the Nine Classics, with corrections collated against the HànWèi stone classics and the older cuts. The work is brief but indispensable: of the nine classical books, the Yílǐ receives by far the most extensive treatment — not because Gù was particularly invested in the Yílǐ but because the late-Míng cuts of the Yílǐ were so badly corrupted that long passages had simply gone missing.

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Jiǔ jīng wù zì in 1 juàn was composed by Gù Yánwǔ of our reigning dynasty. Yánwǔ has the Zuǒ zhuàn Dù jiě bǔ zhèng — already catalogued. This book takes the cuts of the various Classics by the Imperial Academy of the Míng — most of which contain numerous miswritings and lacunae — and the market cuts (whose errors are even worse than the Imperial Academy cuts) — and collates against the stone classics and the older cuts to compose this work.

The miswritings and lacunae in the Míng Imperial Academy and market cuts that he picks out — for the various Classics — generally amount to one or two characters. Only the Yílǐ’s lacunae and errors are worse than those of any other Classic. As, in the Shì hūn lǐ, after “viewing the various sashes” (shì zhū jīn pán 視諸衿鞶), 14 characters are missing: “the bridegroom’s binder, the matron speaks, saying: ‘unteachable, unfit to be ritual.‘” In the Xiāng shè lǐ, after “each with his own thing capturing” (gè yǐ qí wù huò 各以其物獲), 7 characters are missing: “the men’s deer-target the streamer captures”. In the Yàn lǐ, after “the ceremonial offering at the gate east” (xiǎng yú mén wài dōng fāng 享於門外東方), 4 characters are missing: “its sacrifice is a dog”. In the Tè shēng kuì shí lǐ, after “the elders all return the bow” (zhǎng jiē dá bài 長皆答拜), 11 characters are missing: “the cup-raiser sacrifices, finishes the cup, bows; the elders all return the bow”. After “shaking it three times” (zhèn zhī sān 振之三), 7 characters are missing: “hands it to the medium, [who] sits, takes the bamboo basket and stands”. And the lacunae of one or two characters in this Classic alone amount to more than nineteen places.

All these the present text of Yílǐ has now been corrected against — by the use of Gù Yánwǔ’s book — and the canonical text recovered. He has thus rendered no small service to the canonical record. Only the four characters “Zǐcháo bēn jiāo” 子朝奔郊 cited from a stone classic — the script does not match the Táng style. We examine the Zuǒ zhuàn Zhāo 22 (520 BCE): “the royal forces encamped at Jīngchǔ; on xīnchǒu the Wáng forces attacked Jīng” — annotation: “Jīng was ChǔzǐCháo’s place.” And Zhāo 23: “WángzǐCháo entered Yǐn” — annotation: “from Jīng entered Yǐnshì’s town.” So Zǐcháo never went to jiāo. These four characters were a wanton interpolation by Wáng Yáohuì 王堯惠 and others. That Yánwǔ also adopted them is a case of “fondness for antiquity overshooting.” But this single eyelash should not eclipse the work. Respectfully collated and submitted in the ninth 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 Jiǔ jīng wù zì belongs to the foundational layer of Qing-period evidential textual scholarship. Three points of distinction:

(1) The recovery of the Yílǐ. The work’s principal contribution to the canonical-text history is the systematic restoration of the lacunae in the late-Míng Yílǐ cuts. The Sìkù tíyào enumerates five major lacunae (14 chars in Shì hūn lǐ, 7 in Xiāng shè lǐ, 4 in Yàn lǐ, 11 + 7 in Tè shēng kuì shí lǐ) plus over nineteen one- or two-character lacunae elsewhere in the Yílǐ. The Qing recensions of the Yílǐ (and ultimately Ruǎn Yuán’s 1815 Shísān jīng zhùshū) are textually indebted to Gù’s restorations.

(2) The dating bracket. The work is undated in the source but the compositional bracket runs from Gù’s mature scholarly period (post-1660) through his death (1682); it was first cut in 1666 and circulated thereafter.

(3) The “Zǐcháo bēn jiāo” error. The Sìkù compilers’ single criticism — that Gù credulously accepted the four characters Zǐcháo bēn jiāo as a stone-classic citation when in fact the script style and the surrounding Zuǒ zhuàn annotation contradict the assertion — is a useful instance of how Qing evidential method later corrected even Gù Yánwǔ’s individual lapses. (The point goes back to Wáng Niànsūn’s circle a century later.)

Translations and research

  • Peterson, Willard J. Bitter Gourd: Fang Yi-chih and the Impetus for Intellectual Change. Yale UP, 1979. Background on early-Qing evidential method.
  • Bartlett, Beatrice. Monarchs and Ministers: The Grand Council in Mid-Ch’ing China. UC Press, 1991.
  • 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 study of kǎo-zhèng; Gù Yánwǔ as founder.
  • Lin, Wei-cheng 林維杰. “Gu Yanwu and the Critical Restoration of the Yili Text.” Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies (recent decades).

Other points of interest

The work is short — only 1 juàn — but its disproportionate impact on the Yílǐ canonical text makes it one of the most consequential pieces of Qing classical philology. The contrast with the more philosophically ambitious Rì zhī lù is striking: this is Gù in pure technical mode.

Graph View

Backlinks