Mèngzǐ zhùshū 孟子注疏
Annotations and Subcommentary on the Mencius
趙岐 (Zhào Qí, d. 201) — zhù 注; 孫奭 (Sūn Shì, 962–1033) — yīnyì 音義 (and traditionally zhèngyì 正義); 陸宗楷 (d. 1773) — kǎozhèng 考證
About the work
The standard zhùshū edition of the Mèngzǐ in 14 juàn — Zhào Qí’s Hàn-period zhāngjù commentary set under the canonical text, with Sūn Shì’s yīnyì phonological glossary, and a subcommentary (zhèngyì) traditionally though disputedly ascribed to Sūn. The zhùshū was incorporated into the standard Shísānjīng zhùshū 十三經注疏 from the Sòng onwards. The WYG copy is appended with a kǎozhèng 考證 by Lù Zōngkǎi 陸宗楷.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Mèngzǐ zhèngyì in 14 juàn — annotated by Zhào Qí 趙岐 of the Hàn, with the old text giving a subcommentary (shū 疏) by Sūn Shì 孫奭 of the Sòng. Zhào Qí, zì Bīnqīng 邠卿, native of Chánglíng 長陵 in Jīngzhào 京兆, originally named Jiā 嘉, zì Táiqīng 臺卿: in the second year of Yǒngxīng 永興 (154 CE) he was appointed to the Sīkōngyuàn 司空掾 and then to the magistracy of Píshì 皮氏; in Yánxī 1 (158) the Chángshì 中常侍 Táng Héng’s 唐衡 elder brother Táng Xuán 唐玹 became Jīngzhào yǐn 京兆尹, and Zhào Qí, who had a long enmity with him, fled into hiding “in the four directions” and took the new name. After the amnesty he was made cìshǐ of Bìngzhōu 并州刺史; was again caught in the dǎnggù proscription for over ten years; in Zhōngpíng 1 (184) recalled as yíláng 議郎; recommended as Dūnhuáng tàishǒu 燉煌太守; later tàipú 太僕, finally tàicháng 太常 — biography in HòuHàn shū 後漢書. Sūn Shì, zì Zōnggǔ 宗古, native of Bópíng 博平, took the Jiǔjīng 九經 first place under Tàizōng’s Duāngǒng era; under Rénzōng rose to bīngbù shìláng 兵部侍郎 兼 Lóngtúgé xuéshì 龍圖閣學士 — biography in Sòngshǐ.
This commentary was made by Zhào Qí in the years of his concealment in the house of Sūn Bīn 孫賓 in Běihǎi 北海, where he composed it shut behind a hidden wall. The Hàn Confucian commentaries on the Classics are mostly devoted to xùngǔ 訓詁 and míngwù 名物; only this commentary explicates and paraphrases the sentences, in the manner of the later kǒuyì 口義 oral expositions, which is somewhat at odds with classical learning. Yet the Lúnyǔ commentaries of Kǒng Ānguó 孔安國, Mǎ Róng 馬融 and Zhèng Xuán 鄭玄, as preserved in Hé Yàn’s 何晏 jíjiě 集解, are also of this kind. For the language of the Yì 易 and Shū 書 is most archaic, and unless one explains the xùngǔ its sense is not clear; the Shī 詩 and Lǐ 禮 are dense with realia, and unless one identifies their míngwù they are not understood; whereas the Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ are plain in their words and sense — only their yìlǐ 義理 needs to be expounded, and there one stops. As the saying goes, “each thing in its proper place.” Where Zhào Qí glosses Zǎi Yǔ 宰予, Zǐgòng 子貢 and Yǒu Ruò 有若 as men who, because of Confucius’s lofty sage-virtue, “praised him beyond measure” and were therefore disparaged as inferior by Mencius — that is wildly wrong; and his comparing Qū Yuán 屈原 emaciated to zhēng yú sè 徵於色 and Níng Qī 寗戚 striking the horn to fā yú shēng 發於聲 is also off the mark. Yet Zhū Xī, in composing the Mèngzǐ jíjù 集註 (KR1h0015) and Huòwèn 或問 (KR1h0016), does not heavily attack Zhào: of the personal names, only on Pénchéng Kuò 盆成括 and Gàozǐ 告子 does he refuse to follow Zhào (because they were not Mencius’s students); on the names Jìsūn 季孫 and Zǐshū 子叔 he does not follow Zhào (who took them as Mencius’s two disciples); but on the rest he largely concurs. Of word-glosses, only on zhé zhī 折枝 (which Zhào reads as “kneading-and-rubbing”) does he reject Zhào, and on much else he follows him. For the comment, though it does not match the precision of later scholars, opens up a wilderness; later students could only follow the road Zhào opened — his merit cannot be effaced.
Hú Huǎng’s 胡爌 Shíyí lù 拾遺錄 cites the Wénxuǎn 文選 commentary of Lǐ Shàn 李善 quoting “Mèngzǐ said: Mòzǐ 墨子 universally loved, even rubbing his head down to his heel” with Zhào Qí’s note “zhì means ‘to reach’”; we know therefore that the present text and notes both differ from the Táng witness. Comparing Zhào’s notes against Sūn Shì’s yīnyì 音義 readings, many of them no longer agree (details under the Mèngzǐ yīnyì entry at KR1h0009). Hence the present text is no longer in its old form. At the close of the Jìnxīn xià 盡心下 piān, “fūzǐ zhī shè kē yě 夫子之設科也” — Zhào’s note reads “Mèngzǐ said: as for my setting up the curriculum for instruction…”, which makes plain that the original character was yú 予 (I), now transmitted as fūzǐ 夫子. Likewise at “Wàn zǐ yuē 萬子曰” — Zhào’s note says “Wànzǐ is Wàn Zhāng 萬章,” which makes plain that the original was zǐ 子, now misprinted as zhāng 章. These are cases where the note has not been altered but the text has been mis-cut.
As to the shū itself, although it is also marked “by Sūn Shì,” Zhū Xī’s Yǔlù 語錄 says: a Shàowǔ 邵武 scholar made it under a false name; Cài Jìtōng 蔡季通 knew the man. Examination confirms this. The Sòngshǐ biography of Xíng Bǐng 邢昺 (邢昺) records that, in the 2nd year of Xiánpíng (999), Xíng Bǐng received imperial command and, with Dù Hào 杜鎬, Shū Yǎ 舒雅, Sūn Shì, Lǐ Mùqīng 李慕清, Cuī Wòquán 崔偓佺 and others, fixed the yìshū 義疏 of Zhōulǐ 周禮, Yílǐ 儀禮, Gōngyáng 公羊, Gǔliáng 穀梁, Xiàojīng 孝經, Lúnyǔ 論語, and Ěryǎ 爾雅 — there is no Mèngzǐ zhèngyì on the list. Sīmǎ Guāng’s 司馬光 Sùshuǐ jìwén records that Sūn Shì authored zhèngyì on the Lúnyǔ, Xiàojīng and Ěryǎ — again, no Mèngzǐ zhèngyì. That this work did not come from Sūn’s hand is therefore certain. The subcommentary expounds the sense in the manner of a village-school lecture, hence Zhū Xī’s complaint that “it does not at all resemble shū style; it does not explain míngwù and zhìdù 制度, it merely tangles itself around Zhào Qí’s words.”
When Zhào Qí’s notes use ancient anecdotes by way of comparison, the shū is often unable to find their source: e.g. on the gloss “non-ritual ritual” (Zhào: as Zhào Zhì 趙質 taking a wife and bowing low to her), or “non-righteous righteousness” (Zhào: as Jiè Jiāo 藉交 avenging an enemy), the shū indeed cannot find these citations. (We note that “Jièjiāo bàochóu” should mean “avenging an enemy through the help of one’s jièjiāo friends”, as in the case of Zhū Hài 朱亥 and Guō Jiě 郭解 — there is no person named Jiè Jiāo. We add this note to clarify the doubt.) On “Dān Bào 單豹 cultivated his interior and a tiger ate his exterior” (a Zhuāngzǐ tale), the shū still fails to identify the source — its narrowness is excessive. Zhū Yízūn’s 朱彝尊 Jīngyì kǎo 經義考 picks out the absurd citation “those who would see Xī Shī 西施, each man pays a penny” as if from the Shǐjì; on examination, Zhào takes Wěi Shēng 尾生 as a “bùyú zhī yù” (undeserved praise) and Chén Bùzhān 陳不瞻 as a “qiúquán zhī huǐ” (slander seeking perfection), and the shū identifies these as Shǐjì — but the Wěi Shēng story is in the Zhuāngzǐ, and the Chén Bùzhàn story is in the Shuō yuàn 說苑 (the Shuō yuàn writes Chén Bù-zhàn 不占; a phonetic borrowing of an old graph). None of these are in the Shǐjì at all — so much for “no warrant” forgery. Yet because this zhùshū has long stood in the school curriculum, we tentatively retain the old text and record it as is. — Respectfully revised, tenth month of the 46th year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
The standard Mèngzǐ zhùshū combines three distinct strata: (1) the Hàn commentary of Zhào Qí (composed during his concealment, ca. 158–168 CE), still the bedrock interpretation; (2) Sūn Shì’s yīnyì (KR1h0009), an early-11th-century philological glossary on Zhào Qí’s text by the Northern Sòng jiǔjīng graduate; and (3) the (pseudo-)Sūn Shì zhèngyì / shū — a sub-commentary in the format of the Shísānjīng zhùshū but already rejected as fabricated in Zhū Xī’s Yǔlù (citing Cài Yuándìng 蔡元定 / Cài Jìtōng 蔡季通: a Shàowǔ 邵武 scholar wrote it under Sūn’s name). The Sìkù tíyào above accepts Zhū Xī’s verdict, marshalling the further evidence that neither the Sòngshǐ nor Sīmǎ Guāng’s Sùshuǐ jìwén lists a Mèngzǐ zhèngyì among Sūn Shì’s works, although both list other classical zhèngyì by him. The zhèngyì is therefore conventionally cited as “Sòng-period anonymous, ascr. Sūn Shì.”
The Mèngzǐ was, with these subcommentaries, formally elevated to the rank of jīng in the late Northern and Southern Sòng — recognised as a Classic by the Ministry of Education in 1212, and from 1313 a fixed component of the imperial examination curriculum. The Yuán Shísānjīng zhùshū incorporated it as the thirteenth jīng; the standard 1816 Ruǎn Yuán 阮元 reprint at Jiāngxī Nánchāngfǔxué adopted the WYG-line text with collation against earlier witnesses (the Bāxíng běn 八行本, the Mín 閩 cutting, the Jíanfǔxué 吉安府學 Sòng cutting, etc.).
The kǎozhèng by Lù Zōngkǎi 陸宗楷 appended to the WYG is a brief Qing-period note-form supplement on textual variants, prepared in-house at the Sìkùguǎn under standard Qiánlóng kǎozhèng protocols.
Translations and research
The Zhào Qí + (pseudo-)Sūn Shì combined edition is the textual base of the magisterial Qing critical commentary of Jiāo Xún 焦循, Mèngzǐ zhèngyì 孟子正義 (1810s; Zhōnghuá-shujū 1987), which superseded and largely renders obsolete the medieval zhèngyì. On the authorship dispute around the Sūn Shì shū, see the discussions in Wāng Yáo-mín 汪耀民, Mèngzǐ Sūn Shì shū kǎo 孟子孫奭疏考, and Liú Shùn-wén 劉舜文, Mèngzǐ zhùshū jiànlùn 孟子注疏簡論. The zhùshū itself is included in every reprint of the Shísānjīng zhùshū; punctuated typographic editions: Běijīng-Dàxué chūbǎn-shè 1999 Shísānjīng zhùshū zhěnglǐ běn 十三經注疏整理本 (Liào Míng-chūn 廖名春 et al., eds., for the Mèngzǐ volume).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào is unusually candid in noting the philological mismatches between Zhào Qí’s notes and the received Mèngzǐ text — at Jìnxīn xià “夫子之設科” (read by Zhào as “yú 予 zhī shè kē”) and at “萬子曰” / “萬章曰” (Zhào’s note treats Wànzǐ as Wàn Zhāng) — concluding that “the note has not been altered but the text has been mis-cut” (zhù wén wèi gǎi ér jīng wén wù kān). These are foundational diagnostic notes for the textual history of the Mèngzǐ.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4.
- HòuHàn shū 64 (Zhào Qí 趙岐 biography); Sòngshǐ 431 (Sūn Shì 孫奭 biography).