聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

經稗

5 min read

Text ID
KR1g0025
Date
1740–1779
Dynasty
清

Jīng bài 經稗

Side-Histories of the Classics by 鄭方坤 (撰)

About the work

A 12-juàn mid-Qing compilation by Zhèng Fāngkūn (Lìxiāng) gathering scattered classical exegetical observations from the bǐjì 筆記 / suí bǐ 隨筆 / miscellaneous-notebook tradition (Sòng-Yuán-Míng-early-Qing) — Hóng Mài 洪邁, Wáng Yīnglín 王應麟, Yáng Shèn 楊慎, Jiāo Hóng 焦竑, Gù Yánwǔ, Yán Ruòqú, etc. — and arranging them by canonical book (Yì, Shū, Shī, Chūnqiū, Sānlǐ, Sì shū). The title is from Hàn idiom: bài 稗 (“husk-history”) is the bài guān 稗官 history that runs alongside the zhèngshǐ (orthodox histories) — i.e. material that does not appear in standard commentary but is preserved in the ancillary bǐjì literature.

Tiyao

Your servants having respectfully examined: the Jīng bài in 12 juàn was composed by Zhèng Fāngkūn of our reigning dynasty. Fāngkūn’s sobriquet was Lìxiāng; he was a man of Jiàn’ān. Jìnshì of Yōngzhèng guǐmǎo (1723), he served up to Prefect of Yǎnzhōu. This compilation gathers scattered earlier expositions of the Classics, drawn principally from the various shuō bù (miscellaneous notebooks); hence the title “bài”, meaning that beyond the zhèng shǐ there is a bài guān tradition.

In the Hàn the transmission was specialized teacher-and-disciple, and beyond one’s own master one rarely cited cross-evidence; therefore the man who studied this Classic would not pass through to the others, and within one Classic the xùngǔ of one master would not be passed through to those of others — exclusive and not mixed. So the resulting interpretation was precise, refined.

From the time of Zhèng Kāngchéng’s broad mastery of the Six Arts, with cross-investigation extending even to the apocrypha, and his selective adoption — those who say “the learning of evidential investigation” had begun. Among the Sòng Confucians, only Zhū Xī thoroughly investigated canonical books; the rest of those engaged in classical interpretation generally adjudicated by lǐ (principle) without reading much. Therefore at that time the broadly-learned among them all turned to searching the old text and gathering the lost, raising the gǔ yì to plug the gap. Hàn-Confucian evidential learning became scattered through the bǐjì of the eclectics. Hóng Mài, Wáng Yīnglín among the Sòng; Yáng Shèn, Jiāo Hóng among the Míng; Gù Yánwǔ, Yán Ruòqú of our reigning dynasty — these are the most notable.

The chief task of qióng jīng (exhausting the Classics) lies in clarifying the broad meaning, in obtaining the essence of teaching’s instruction; one does not in fact look to “searching out the strange and obscure” as a strength. But sometimes the míngwù xùngǔ (technical-philological glossing) is unclear, the shì jì shí dì (events and chronology) uninvestigated, and the result is píng yì kōng tán (free-floating empty-talk), at variance with the original sense of the Sage. These persons, in a time when the Hàn xué had been left to scatter and decay, gathered the loose threads and preserved a thin lifeline — this too is no different from the residual sacrificial sheep of antiquity. But the various authors have no specialized canonical books, and their piānzhì are scattered and numerous, hard to navigate. Fāngkūn has been able to gather the notebook-extracts and arrange them by classical book, ordering them by zhōu (province) and date, with deep merit for kǎohé (verification): we accordingly preserve it, in the spirit of Zhū Xī’s incorporation of Shěn Kuò’s Mèng xī bǐ tán into the Zhōngyōng annotations.

The original was in 6 juàn (Yì, Shū, Shī, Chūnqiū each in 1; Sānlǐ combined in 1; Sì shū combined in 1) and the piānyè was rather heavy; we have re-divided it into 12 juàn for ease of consultation. Respectfully collated and submitted in the third month of the forty-fourth year of Qiánlóng (1779). — Editors-in-chief: your servants Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. — Chief proof-reader: your servant Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Jīng bài is a useful mid-Qing scholarly compilation of bǐjì classical scholia. Three points of distinction:

(1) The genre. The work is the most thorough mid-Qing organization of bǐjì-derived classical material, drawing on roughly fifty bǐjì / suí bǐ / zá zhì sources from Sòng (Hóng Mài’s Róng zhāi suí bǐ 容齋隨筆, Wáng Yīnglín’s Kùn xué jì wén 困學紀聞), Yuán (Wáng Yīnglíng’s Yù hǎi), Míng (Yáng Shèn’s Shēngān jí, Jiāo Hóng’s Jiāo shì bǐ shèng), and early Qing (Gù Yánwǔ’s Rì zhī lù (KR3a0091), Yán Ruòqú’s Qián qiū zhā jì).

(2) The Sìkù compilers’ rationale. The Sìkù tíyào articulates a doctrine: “qióng jīng is the broad meaning, but bàiguān literature preserves the míngwù xùngǔ without which the broad meaning cannot be tested.” The Jīng bài is preserved as the gathering point for this otherwise dispersed material.

(3) The Sìkù re-division. The Sìkù compilers re-divided Zhèng’s original 6 juàn (one per Classic-block) into 12 juàn (each Classic-block typically split in two). This is a useful index of how Qing imperial editorial practice subdivided existing texts for easier consultation — a small but consequential detail.

The dating bracket: Zhèng’s jìnshì was 1723 (the date carried in the catalog meta as the work’s date is incorrect — it is Zhèng’s jìnshì year, not the work’s date). The work itself was completed during his Yǎnzhōu prefectship and the years immediately following; the bracket here (1740–1779) reflects the most defensible compositional window.

Translations and research

  • Fújiàn tōng zhì 福建通志 — local gazetteer with biographical entry on Zhèng Fāngkūn.
  • Elman, Benjamin A. From Philosophy to Philology. HUP, 1984. The standard treatment of mid-Qing kǎo-zhèng.

Other points of interest

The work is one of the relatively few Sìkù-included works to have been actually re-edited (re-divided) by the Sìkù compilers from its original form. The 6→12 juàn re-division is openly avowed by the tíyào, with the rationale of “easier consultation” — a small but suggestive instance of imperial editorial practice in the Sìkù quánshū project.

Graph View

Backlinks