Lúnyǔ quánjiě 論語全解
The Complete Analects with Glosses
陳祥道 (Chén Xiángdào, zì Yòngzhī, 1042–1093)
About the work
A 10-juàn continuous Lúnyǔ commentary by the leading Wáng Ānshí–school Sānlǐ scholar Chén Xiángdào. Cháo Gōngwǔ’s 晁公武 Dúshū zhì records that Wáng Ānshí’s 王安石 Lúnyǔ zhù and his son Wáng Pāng’s 王雱 Lúnyǔ kǒuyì 口義 circulated as official examination texts after Shàoshèng (1094), and that Chén Yòngzhī’s jiě did likewise — these three together constituted the Wáng-school Lúnyǔ curriculum in late Northern-Sòng kējǔ preparation, before being displaced in the Southern Sòng by Zhū Xī’s Lúnyǔ jízhù. The original Chén Xiángdào Lúnyǔ commentary is therefore the only one of the three to survive in full.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit: Lúnyǔ quánjiě in 10 juàn — by Chén Xiángdào 陳祥道 of the Sòng. Xiángdào, zì Yòngzhī, native of Fúzhōu, in the Yuányòu 元祐 era served as Tàicháng bóshì 太常博士 and Mìshūshěng zhèngzì 秘書省正字; Lǐ Zhì 李廌’s Shīyǒu tánjì 師友談記 records his life and works in some detail.
Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì says: Wáng Jièfǔ’s [Wáng Ānshí’s] Lúnyǔ zhù and his son Wáng Pāng’s kǒuyì, and his disciple Chén Yòngzhī’s jiě — after Shàoshèng all circulated in the examination halls, valued by their contemporaries. Or someone — Cháo cites — says this Yòngzhī book was actually written by Zōu Hào 鄒浩 and falsely attached to Yòngzhī. Examination of the Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì shows that Zōu Hào has a Lúnyǔ jiěyì in 10 juàn of his own, separately listed — Zōu’s was its own book and was never attached to Xiángdào’s. The “or someone” report is probably mistaken. The old text-line of Yòngzhī’s preface heads it with the words “examined by his disciple Zhāng Cuì 章粹”; and every juàn is title-headed Chóngguǎng Chén Yòngzhī zhēnběn rùjīng 重廣陳用之真本入經 Lúnyǔ quánjiě — what this means is unclear, perhaps because in those days this was the standard book for the jīngyì 經義 examination format.
Yòngzhī was a great scholar of the Sānlǐ 三禮 — his Lǐshū 禮書 [i.e. KR1d0084] is widely praised for its precision and breadth — and his glosses on the Lúnyǔ are accordingly clearest on ritual-institutional matters. For example, on “gōngzì hòu ér bózé yú rén 躬自厚而薄責於人” (15.15) he draws on the Xiāngyǐnjiǔyì 鄉飲酒之義 to clarify the sense; on the Shī Miǎn jiàn 師冕見 chapter (15.42) he draws on the principle that a host treats a blind musician as he would treat an aged guest. These do not always exactly match the Classic, but they are well-cited and often illuminating. On Zāng Wénzhòng jū Cài 臧文仲居蔡 (5.18) Yòngzhī observes that “the Jì 冀 region produced many fine horses, and so a fine horse is called a jì; the waters of Lú 瀘 are dark, hence dark is called lú; Cài 蔡 produced precious tortoises, hence the tortoise is called a Cài”; on the Guānjū zhī luàn 關雎之亂 (8.15) chapter, “to govern dirt is called wū 汙, to govern decay is called bì 弊, to govern waste is called huāng 荒, to govern disorder is called luàn 亂” — these may not be free of inventive new glosses, but their connective enrichment of the yìxùn 義訓 commentary tradition is considerable. Only because his school’s roots were in Wáng’s [Wáng Ānshí’s] tradition, he sometimes mixes in citations from Zhuāngzǐ in support — which is somewhat against the proper jiějīng 解經 style. But what he cites is generally well-grounded and worth retaining; one cannot let one blemish hide all merit. — Respectfully revised, eighth month of the 42nd year of Qiánlóng [1777].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Composed in the years immediately preceding Chén Xiángdào’s death — most likely between 1080 and his appointment as Tàicháng bóshì in 1092, on the same scholarly work-table as the Lǐshū — the Lúnyǔ quánjiě is the chief surviving witness to the Wáng Ānshí school’s approach to Lúnyǔ exegesis. Wáng Ānshí’s own Lúnyǔ zhù, his son Wáng Pāng’s Lúnyǔ kǒuyì, and Chén Xiángdào’s jiě together constituted the standard examination set in the Yuánfú / Shàoshèng / Chóngníng eras (1094–1106); only Chén’s survives.
The Sìkù tíyào fairly captures the work’s character: it is at its strongest on ritual-institutional questions, where the author’s Sānlǐ expertise is brought to bear (the readings of the Xiāngyǐnjiǔyì under 15.15, the Shī Miǎn jiàn under 15.42, etc.); it is creative-but-unorthodox in its etymological glosses (the jì, lú, Cài set on 5.18); and it is openly Wáng-school in its ready use of Zhuāngzǐ citation in support of Confucian doctrine — a feature that would later be one of the principal grounds of Cheng-Zhu opposition to the New Policies tradition.
The Cháo Gōngwǔ rumour that Zōu Hào 鄒浩 was the actual author is dismissed by the Sìkù editors with reference to the Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì, which independently lists Zōu Hào’s own (now lost) Lúnyǔ jiěyì — the rumour was a confusion of two separately circulating Wáng-school Lúnyǔ commentaries.
Translations and research
No standalone English translation. Modern Chinese: discussion in Cài Fāng-lù 蔡方鹿, Sòng-dài Sì-shū xué yánjiū, esp. ch. 4 on the Wáng Ān-shí school; Lín Sù-ruò 林素若, Wáng Ān-shí xué pài Lúnyǔ-xué yánjiū (Tái-běi 1994). Western: passing notice in Peter K. Bol, “This Culture of Ours”: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China (SUP, 1992).
Other points of interest
Of the surviving Sòng Lúnyǔ commentaries, KR1h0012 is the only one written from explicitly within the Wáng Ānshí school — and as such occupies a unique place in the political-intellectual landscape of late Northern-Sòng jīng scholarship. Read against the partisan Lǐxué commentaries of the Cheng-Zhu line, it gives a sense of how broad and contested Lúnyǔ exegesis was before Zhū Xī’s Jízhù fixed the orthodox reading.
Links
- Sòngshǐ 432 (Chén Xiángdào biography).
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.7.3 (Neo-Confucianism context).