Lúnyǔ shíyí 論語拾遺
Gleanings on the Analects
蘇轍 (Sū Zhé, zì Zǐyóu, 1039–1112)
About the work
A short, single-juàn set of 27 supplementary discussions of Lúnyǔ passages, composed by Sū Zhé in his retirement at Yǐngchuān 潁川 in Dàguān dīnghài 大觀丁亥 (1107). Its purpose, stated in Sū Zhé’s own zìxù, was to preserve and silently revise his elder brother Sū Shì’s 蘇軾 Lúnyǔ shuō 論語說 — for which he had as a young man written the abridged Lúnyǔ lüèjiě 論語略解 — by re-examining “those of [Sū Shì’s] passages that I felt were not yet settled” (yì yǒu suǒ wèi ān 意有所未安) for the benefit of his grandsons Zhòu 籀, Jiǎn 簡 and Yún 筠 in family classroom discussion.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit: Lúnyǔ shíyí in 1 juàn — by Sū Zhé 蘇轍 of the Sòng. The front of the book contains his own preface: in his youth he composed a Lúnyǔ lüèjiě 論語略解, of which his elder brother Sū Shì took two or three parts in ten when he composed his Lúnyǔ shuō 論語說 in exile at Huángzhōu 黃州. Living in retirement at Yǐngchuān in Dàguān dīnghài (1107), Zhé took up his brother’s exposition in the points he found unsatisfactory and re-treated them, for his grandsons Zhòu and the others. Sū Shì’s book is recorded in the Sòngshǐzhì as in 4 juàn, in the Wénxiàn tōngkǎo as 10 juàn — neither survives, and which is correct cannot be settled; nor is its argument any longer recoverable.
This book contains 27 supplementary chapters in all. Where Zhé reads “sī wú xié 思無邪” (Lúnyǔ 2.2) as “wúsī” (no-thought), and “cóngxīn bù yú jǔ 從心不踰矩” (2.4) as “wúxīn” (no-mind) — both touch on Chán doctrine. Reading “gǒu zhì yú rén yǐ, wú wù yě 苟志於仁矣, 無惡也” (4.4) as “where there is love, there is no hatred” — likewise the yuānqīn píngděng 寃親平等 (foe-and-friend equality) view of Buddhist provenance. Reading “zhāo wén dào, xī sǐ kě yǐ 朝聞道, 夕死可矣” (4.8) as “even though one die, one is not disturbed” — the more so does it resemble Chán “free coming-and-going” learning. The Méishān school’s learning indeed mixed in elements from the two doctrines [Buddhism and Daoism], hence these accents.
Where Zhé openly differs from his brother are three places. On the qǐng tǎo Chén Héng 請討陳恒 (Lúnyǔ 14.21, on Confucius’s request to attack Chén Héng of Qí for usurpation), Sū Shì’s reading is that if the Three Huán [houses of Lǔ] could subdue the Tián 田 [usurping] family, then the three Huán themselves would automatically fall in line — Confucius therefore wished by this means to expand the ducal authority [of Lǔ]. Zhé reads it instead: although Confucius knew it would be of no practical avail, he wished to make plain the proper duties of ruler and minister. On zǐ jiàn Nánzǐ 子見南子 (6.28) and Qí guī nǚyuè 齊歸女樂 (18.4), Sū Shì reads them: Línggōng of Wèi had not yet “received the [Heavenly] mandate” — therefore Confucius could see his lady; Jì Huánzǐ had received it — therefore he could not. Zhé reads them: the various marquises like Línggōng of Wèi were many; one cannot leave them all. In the Qí jiàn episode the lord and grandees of Lǔ had already swallowed the [women-musicians] bait — if Confucius did not depart, he would sit and accept the disaster. On Tàibó zhìdé 泰伯至德 (8.1): Sū Shì argues that Tài Bó did not occupy his rightful position, hence no disorder followed; whereas Lǔ Yǐngōng 魯隱公 and Sòng Xuāngōng 宋宣公 took the rightful name of ruler and so suffered the consequences. Zhé argues: the disaster of Lǔ began with the regency [of Yǐn], and the disaster of Sòng was completed by [Xiānggōng’s] love of war — neither was caused by the yielding (ràng 讓) of Tàibó.
In all three places his reasoning is sounder than his brother’s. Other passages — using gāngyì mùnè 剛毅木訥 (13.27) to gloss against qiǎoyán lìngsè 巧言令色; the liù bì 六蔽 (17.8) chapter’s bù hào xué 不好學 set against the rù xiào chū dì 入孝出悌 (1.6) chapter’s xué wén 學文 — also have things to teach. The work has been listed in catalogues throughout, and we now preserve it as one school’s contribution. — Respectfully revised, eighth month of the 42nd year of Qiánlóng [1777].
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 Lúnyǔ shíyí is a fragment of the Sū-family Lúnyǔ tradition. The full Sū-family commentary on the Lúnyǔ — Sū Shì’s Lúnyǔ shuō (mid-1080s, written during his Huángzhōu exile) and Sū Zhé’s underlying Lúnyǔ lüèjiě (1050s) — is now lost; what we have is only Zhé’s set of corrigenda. The composition date Dàguān dīnghài (1107) is firm — Sū Zhé was at Yǐngchuān in retirement, having returned from his second exile after the death of Huīzōng’s father (Zhézōng), and was teaching his grandsons Zhòu, Jiǎn, and Yún at home. He himself notes the regret that he could no longer “settle his disagreements with Zǐzhān [Sū Shì, who had died in 1101]“.
The Sìkù assessment is essentially correct: the Lúnyǔ shíyí is substantively flavoured by Chán Buddhist and Daoist vocabulary — the famous “sī wú xié 思無邪” → wú sī gloss, the “cóngxīn bù yú jǔ” → wú xīn gloss, the yuānqīn píngděng (foe-and-friend equality) reading of gǒu zhì yú rén yǐ wú wù — and exemplifies the Méishān (Sū-family) syncretism that the orthodox Lǐxué of Zhū Xī would later set itself sharply against. The work was, however, sufficiently respected as a contribution to Lúnyǔ scholarship that the Sìkù preserved it as “one school’s contribution”.
The text was first cut for print by Zhū Yī 朱翌 in the Southern Sòng (no longer extant), and was transmitted thereafter through YuánMíng manuscript and Qing block-print editions. The WYG copy is the Sìkù base.
Translations and research
No standalone English translation. Modern Chinese: Cuī Yán 崔縯, Sū-shì Lúnyǔ-shuō kǎo-yì 蘇氏論語說考佚 (Bā-Shǔ shū-shè 1996), with attempted reconstruction of Sū Shì’s lost Lúnyǔ shuō using the Lúnyǔ shíyí as primary witness. Studies of Sòng Lúnyǔ hermeneutics that treat the work include Zhū Hàn-mín 朱漢民, Sòng-Míng lǐ-xué tōnglùn; Cài Fāng-lù 蔡方鹿, Sòng-dài Sì-shū xué yánjiū. Western: brief notice in Daniel K. Gardner, Zhu Xi’s Reading of the Analects (Columbia, 2003), as a foil for Zhū Xī.
Other points of interest
The Lúnyǔ shíyí is one of the earliest Lúnyǔ commentaries to read selected passages through the lens of Chán Buddhist non-duality and Daoist wúwéi. The Sìkù tíyào explicitly diagnoses this Méi-shān-school (Sū-family) eclecticism — and the rejection of those readings was, in turn, a foundational moment for Zhū Xī’s defence of “purely Confucian” Lúnyǔ exegesis.
Links
- Sòngshǐ 339 (Sū Zhé biography).
- Charles Hartman, “Sung Government and Politics,” in The Cambridge History of China vol. 5, pt. 2 (CUP, 2015).