大學 (四書章句集注)

Sìshū zhāngjù jízhù 四書章句集注

Section-and-Sentence Commentaries and Collected Annotations on the Four Books

朱熹 (Zhū Xī, zì Yuánhuì, 1130–1200)

About the work

The single most important commentary on the Confucian canon in the second millennium of Chinese history. Catalogued in the meta as Dàxué 大學 (after the title-line of the lead text), the WYG entry actually combines all four parts of Zhū Xī’s Sìshū 四書 commentary in 19 juàn total: Dàxué zhāngjù 大學章句 (1 juàn), Lúnyǔ jízhù 論語集注 (10 juàn), Mèngzǐ jízhù 孟子集注 (7 juàn), Zhōngyōng zhāngjù 中庸章句 (1 juàn). The Dàxué and Zhōngyōng receive the zhāngjù 章句 (“section-and-sentence”) commentary because they are short topical chapters drawn from the Lǐjì 禮記 and Zhū Xī rearranged their internal structure (especially the Dàxué); the Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ receive the jízhù 集注 (“collected annotations”) because Zhū Xī gathers and re-edits the existing tradition rather than fixing the structure himself. Substantively complete by Chúnxī 16 (1189), with revisions until Zhū Xī’s death in 1200; published as a unified Sìzǐ shū 四子書 set in 1190.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit: Dàxué zhāngjù 1 juàn, Lúnyǔ jízhù 10 juàn, Mèngzǐ jízhù 7 juàn, Zhōngyōng zhāngjù 1 juàn — by Zhūzǐ of the Sòng. The Lúnyǔ, in Hàn Wéndì’s reign, was given a bóshì office; the Mèngzǐ, by Zhào Qí’s Tící, was also given a bóshì office in Wéndì’s reign, but the office was soon abolished and the histories do not record it. Zhōngyōng shuō in 2 piān is recorded in the Hànshū yìwénzhì; Dài Yóng’s 戴顒 Zhōngyōng zhuàn 中庸傳 in 2 juàn, and Liáng Wǔdì’s Zhōngyōng jiǎngshū 中庸講疏 in 1 juàn, are recorded in the Suíshū jīngjízhì. Only the Dàxué had no separately-circulating copy. Yet Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí records Sīmǎ Guāng’s Dàxué guǎngyì 大學廣義 in 1 juàn and Zhōngyōng guǎngyì in 1 juàn — already before the two Chéngs. So neither was first held up by the LuòMǐn 洛閩 [Cheng-Zhu] Confucians; only the detailed exposition began with the two Chéngs, and the title Sìshū was fixed by Zhūzǐ.

The original arrangement is Dàxué first, then Lúnyǔ, then Mèngzǐ, then Zhōngyōng. Later cuttings — because the Dàxué and Zhōngyōng had few pages — combined them into one volume, and so moved the Zhōngyōng before the Lúnyǔ. In the Míng-period examination prompts, the order was further shifted by author chronology, so that the Zhōngyōng came before the Mèngzǐ. None of this concerns the broad sense; we need not necessarily restore the old.

The Dàxué old text was a single piān; Zhūzǐ separated jīng (canonical text) from zhuàn (interpretive tradition), reversed their old order, and supplied the missing zhuàn. The Zhōngyōng he also did not follow Zhèng Xuán’s chapter-divisions; hence both are called zhāngjù. The Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ he synthesises from the various schools’ arguments, hence jízhù, on the model of Hé Yàn’s Lúnyǔ jíjiě gathering eight schools’ words and being called jíjiě. Only Hé Yàn’s notes are all marked with the contributor’s surname; Zhūzǐ sometimes marks, sometimes does not — a small difference of practice.

On the Dàxué zhāngjù: various Confucians have raised objections, but his “chéng qí yì” passage and below all use the old text; what is specially original is no more than the supplementary chapter — which does not in any case go beyond the bā tiáomù 八條目 (Eight Items). It does no harm to lǐ and is not without benefit to students; why pit one school against another?

On the Zhōngyōng zhāngjù: although it does not follow Zhèng Xuán’s notes, it is in fact more precise than Zhèng. For the school of kǎozhèng the Sòng Confucians do not match the Hàn; for the school of yìlǐ, the Hàn Confucians do not match the Sòng. The argument has more than one side, and each is right in its own place. Where Zhèng’s notes are good — as on the four lines “jièshèn hū qí suǒ bù dǔ 戒慎乎其所不睹” — Zhū has by no means failed to take up the sense; on the “suī yǒu qí wèi” passage he has wholly retained the wording. To see his choices — they are made with discernment; we need not insist on the old gloss to argue.

The Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ also frequently take from old commentaries: as on the Lúnyǔ “HúLiǎn” 瑚璉 entry (5.4) — which contradicts the Míngtáng wèi 明堂位; or the Mèngzǐ “Cáo Jiāo” 曹交 note (6B.2) — which contradicts the Chūnqiū zhuàn. Critics have raised these as doubtful — without realising that HúLiǎn uses Bāo Xián’s note, and Cáo Jiāo uses Zhào Qí’s note, not Zhūzǐ’s invention. Likewise on “fūzǐ zhī qiáng shù rèn” 夫子之牆數仭 (19.23) — note: 7 chǐ is a rèn; and “jué jǐng jiǔ rèn” 掘井九仭 (7A.29) — note: 8 chǐ is a rèn. Critics have particularly cited this as contradictory — without realising that 7 chǐ = 1 rèn is also Bāo Xián’s note, and 8 chǐ = 1 rèn is also Zhào Qí’s note. Hence we know the Sìshū digests several traditions and is not the issue of private invention. Without due investigation into sources, one cannot lightly accuse the master of shīxīn 師心 [arbitrary self-trust].

In substance, Zhūzǐ’s life-energy was poured into the Sìshū. His sifting of subtle distinctions, his discrimination of the smallest difference, far surpasses what is in his Yì běnyì 易本義 KR1a0064 or his Shī jízhuàn 詩集傳 KR1c0019. Readers should seek the broad sense and the subtle phrase, and find their root therein. Since the Míng, those who attack him have collected up his minor errors of míngwù 名物 and dùshù 度數; those who venerate him have, equally, defended even these trivia. Both are partisans — neither understands the master’s purpose in writing. — Respectfully revised, fifth month of the 42nd year of Qiánlóng [1777].

General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Sìshū zhāngjù jízhù is the canonical Sòng Lǐxué presentation of the Confucian Four Books. Its history, broadly: Zhū Xī started his Lúnyǔ jíyì 論語集義 in Lóngxìng 1 (1163; later renamed LùnMèng jīngyì 論孟精義 KR1h0017, and later still Yàoyì 要義 / Jíyì 集義), and supplemented it with the LùnMèng huòwèn 論孟或問 (KR1h0016) — a “questions-and-answers” companion explaining the deletions and selections he had made among earlier commentators. The Jízhù itself, slimmer and more authoritative than the Jíyì, was substantively complete by Chúnxī 16 (1189) and was published as a four-book unified set in 1190 under the title Sìzǐ shū 四子書 — “The Four Masters’ Book”. Zhū Xī continued to revise it throughout the last decade of his life; by his death in 1200 the Lúnyǔ jízhù and Mèngzǐ jízhù had each gone through at least four major revisions (cf. Wáng Màohóng 王懋竑, Zhūzǐ niánpǔ 朱子年譜).

The four works form a deliberately graduated curriculum, set out in Zhū Xī’s Dú Sìshū fǎ 讀四書法: read the Dàxué first (for “scaffolding”: gé wù, zhì zhī, chéng yì, zhèng xīn, etc.); then the Lúnyǔ (for “the standing root and stem”); then the Mèngzǐ (for “the further branches”); finally the Zhōngyōng (for “the deep mystery”). The 1313 imperial-examination reform under Yányòu placed the Sìshū at the centre of the kējǔ curriculum — and from then until 1905, every Chinese (and most Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) examination candidate had to memorise this 19-juàn corpus and reproduce it under exam conditions in bāgǔ wén 八股文 form.

The most controversial single feature of the work is the Dàxué zhāngjù’s rearrangement of the Lǐjì “Dàxué” chapter into a structured jīng (canonical) text + ten zhuàn (interpretive) sections, and Zhū Xī’s supplied chapter (“gé wù bǔ zhuàn” 格物補傳) explaining the doctrine of gé wù / zhì zhī by the famous formula “extending one’s knowledge by investigating things” (Wilkinson §28.4.4). This emendation was challenged by Wáng Yángmíng (who restored the original Lǐjì Dàxué text) and by every subsequent Hànxué 漢學 critic, but remains the canonical text for textbook purposes.

A related editorial controversy: at Lúnyǔ 5.4 (HúLiǎn 瑚璉) and Mèngzǐ 6B.2 (Cáo Jiāo 曹交), Zhū Xī follows the Hàn commentaries (Bāo Xián, Zhào Qí) against textual variants in the Míngtáng wèi and Chūnqiū zhuàn; at Lúnyǔ 19.23 and Mèngzǐ 7A.29 he allows two different glosses of rèn 仭 (7 chǐ / 8 chǐ) because the underlying Hàn commentators differed. These were diagnostic Qing-period objections to the Jízhù, addressed by the Sìkù editors (above).

Translations and research

The Sì-shū jí-zhù has been translated countless times into European and East Asian languages. Major English translations:

• Dàxué and Zhōng-yōng: James Legge, The Chinese Classics I (1861/1893); Ku Hung-Ming 辜鴻銘, The Universal Order: The Conduct of Life (1906); Andrew Plaks, Ta Hsueh and Chung Yung (Penguin, 2003); Daniel K. Gardner, Chu Hsi and the Ta-hsüeh (HUP, 1986); Ian Johnston and Wang Ping, Daxue and Zhongyong: Bilingual Edition (CUHKP, 2012); Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (PUP, 1963), partial.
• Lúnyǔ with Zhū’s jí-zhù: Daniel K. Gardner, Zhu Xi’s Reading of the Analects (Columbia, 2003).
• Mèngzǐ with Zhū’s jí-zhù: Bryan Van Norden, Mengzi: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries (Hackett, 2008).
• The complete Sì-shū jí-zhù in modern punctuated Chinese: Sì-shū zhāng-jù jí-zhù 四書章句集注, 點校本, ed. 朱傑人 et al., in Zhū-zǐ quánshū 朱子全書 vol. 6 (Shàng-hǎi gǔ-jí 2002); also Zhōng-huá-shu-jú 1983 (the standard punctuated edition).

Modern monographs are too numerous to list. Key surveys: Wing-tsit Chan, Chu Hsi: New Studies (HUP, 1989); Daniel K. Gardner, The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition (Hackett, 2007); John Makeham, ed., Dao Companion to Neo-Confucian Philosophy (Springer, 2010); Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (UHP, 1992); Shu Jingnan 束景南, Zhū Xī nián-pǔ cháng-biān 朱熹年譜長編 (2 vols, Huá-dōng-shī-dà 2014). Wilkinson §28.7.3 lists further references.

Other points of interest

The Sìshū jízhù is the single most-printed book in pre-modern East Asia by very wide margin — Edo-period Japan alone produced over a thousand distinct cuttings and kun-doku 訓読 editions. The 1313 imperial-curricular institution of Zhū Xī’s Sìshū in the examination system is one of the great intellectual events of the second millennium; its abolition (by imperial edict, 1905) marked the formal end of the Confucian state-orthodox order.

A noteworthy feature of the Jízhù’s textual history: Zhū Xī himself revised it constantly until his death, and his closest disciples (notably Huáng Gàn 黃榦) in turn revised the death-bed text. The standard transmitted text descends through Zhāng Hóng’s 張洪 1192 cutting and the Zhū-family cutting of 1213; the present WYG follows this line.

Links

• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4 and §28.7.3.
• Daniel K. Gardner, Chu Hsi and the Ta-hsüeh (HUP, 1986).
• Daniel K. Gardner, The Four Books (Hackett, 2007).
• Zhūzǐ quánshū vol. 6 (Shànghǎi gǔjí 2002).