聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

論語意原

6 min read

Text ID
KR1h0020
Date
1180–1198
Dynasty
宋

Lúnyǔ yìyuán 論語意原

Tracing the Original Sense of the Analects

鄭汝諧 (Zhèng Rǔxié, zì Shùnjǔ, hào Dōnggǔ, fl. 1187–1194)

About the work

A 4-juàn continuous Lúnyǔ commentary by Zhèng Rǔxié, broadly within the Cheng-school YīLuò 伊洛 lineage but independent in many of its detailed readings. Composed and revised in two stages — first cut at Gànzhōu 贛州 and Hóngzhōu 洪州, then condensed and re-cut at Chíyáng 池陽 (modern Chízhōu, Ānhuī) — the work is methodically self-conscious about its place within Cheng-school Lǐxué, framing itself in the preface as supplementary to (not a replacement for) the readings of the two Chéngs, Zhāng Zǎi, and the YángXiè 楊謝 tradition. Zhū Xī read it sympathetically and Zhēn Déxiù wrote a (now-lost) preface for it.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit: Lúnyǔ yìyuán in 4 juàn — by Zhèng Rǔxié 鄭汝諧 of the Sòng. Rǔxié, zì Shùnjǔ 舜舉, hào Dōnggǔ 東谷, native of Chǔzhōu. Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí says he rose to Lìbù shìláng 吏部侍郎. The Zhèjiāng tōngzhì says he passed the jiàoguānkē 教官科, advanced through Zhī Xìnzhōu 知信州, was summoned as Kǎogōng láng 考功郎, and accumulated to Huīyóugé dàizhì 徽猷閣待制. Chén Zhènsūn lived close to Zhèng’s day; we suspect the Tōngzhì is mistaken.

The book’s preface (by Zhèng himself) says: “The two Chéngs, Héngqú [Zhāng Zǎi], Yáng [Shí] and Xiè [Liángzuǒ] and the rest, mutually expounding, made the sense of the Lúnyǔ clear; to say they served the Lúnyǔ is right, but to say the sense of the Lúnyǔ is fully present in their books is not. Of this book I have recited it from youth and discriminated it in maturity, applying my whole strength to seek the zhǐguī 指歸 — taking my own argument to settle, and adding the various masters’ arguments to fill out, with the aim only of arriving at the appropriate.” The preface continues: “It was first cut at Gàn[-zhōu] and Hóng[-zhōu]; my first intention was to encourage and help the late-born student, but it lost itself in over-detail; I therefore picked out the brief essentials and re-cut at Chíyáng” — so Rǔxié’s book has been twice revised; one may say he gave the matter considered study.

The Shūlù jiětí records a Lúnyǔ yìyuán in 1 juàn without author-name; the Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì follows. This seems to be a separately-circulating work of the same name. But Chén Zhènsūn also lists Shī zǒngwén 詩總聞 erroneously as 3 juàn without author-name, when on examination of his own jiětí it is plainly the work of Wáng Zhì 王質 — we suspect what is recorded here is in fact Rǔxié’s book, only with the author-name not yet checked.

Zhēn Déxiù 真德秀 wrote a preface (now lost) saying that Zhèng’s learning came from the YīLuò tradition. Yet his readings often diverge from Zhūzǐ’s Jízhù. As on Wèi Línggōng’s question on military matters [Lúnyǔ 15.1] — that “the Master could not refuse, but had reason to depart by some pretext”; on Zǐ Jiàn 子賤 [Lúnyǔ 5.3] — that “his manner was sunken and weighty: it was not just that Lǔ had many gentlemen, but that those gentlemen all served to fill out one school’s reading”; up to “shǐ mín zhànlì 使民戰栗” [3.21] read as Lǔ Āigōng’s words; or the reading of “jiànshàn rú bù jí 見善如不及” [16.11] joined to “Qí Jǐnggōng” [16.12] and “Bó Yí Shū Qí” [16.12] as one chapter — these are extreme. Yet on the whole, the precise readings outweigh the strange. Hence Zhēn Déxiù’s praise: “his words may differ from the earlier Confucians, but they never fail to fit the rectitude of yìlǐ”. Zhūzǐ also says: “what was cut at Gànzhōu under the title Lúnyǔ jiě — that is shìláng Zhèng Shùnjǔ’s; in passing inspection, it has good places too” — that is, even Zhūzǐ did not begrudge its differing from him. — Respectfully revised, tenth month of the 49th year of Qiánlóng [1784].

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

Abstract

The Lúnyǔ yìyuán is a particularly self-aware Cheng-school Lúnyǔ commentary: Zhèng Rǔxié’s preface explicitly acknowledges the foundational role of the two Chéngs, Zhāng Zǎi, Yáng Shí, and Xiè Liángzuǒ — but insists that “to say the sense of the Lúnyǔ is fully present in their books is not” right. The work is therefore in the curious position of being inside the Cheng-school orbit while accepting from the start that further work is needed; this gives Zhèng license to depart, in detail, from the readings of the masters where the text seems to him to require it.

The Sìkù editors give a fair list of the most adventurous departures: the reading of Wèi Línggōng’s question on military formations as politely deflected (“tuō ér xíng 託而行”), the reading of “shǐ mín zhànlì” 使民戰栗 (3.21) as Lǔ Āigōng’s own utterance rather than Zǎi Wǒ’s gloss, and the chapter-joining of Lúnyǔ 16.11–12 (the “jiànshàn rú bù jí” passage and the parallel mentions of Qí Jǐnggōng and Bó Yí). Most of these readings did not survive into the orthodox Lǐxué tradition, but they evidence a serious independent engagement.

The textual history is well-attested: first cut at Gànzhōu (likely under Zhèng’s own auspices when he served as Liǎngzhè yùnfù in the late 1180s), then at Hóngzhōu, then condensed and re-cut at Chíyáng (Chízhōu) — with the latter constituting the present 4-juàn configuration. Compare also Zhèng’s Yì yì zhuàn 易翼傳 (KR1a0055), which exhibits the same “supplementary, with substantive disagreements” attitude towards Chéng Yí’s Yì zhuàn.

Zhū Xī’s reported acknowledgment (“there are good places too”) is significant: it shows that even within Zhū Xī’s lifetime the orthodox commentary had to acknowledge useful contributions from outside the strict Lǐxué mainline.

Translations and research

No English translation. Modern Chinese: 點校本 in 朱漢民 ed. Sòng-dài Lǐ-xué Lúnyǔ-xué wén-xiàn jí-chéng 宋代理學論語學文獻集成 (Hú-nán-rén-mín 2011). Studies: Cài Fāng-lù 蔡方鹿, Sòng-dài Sì-shū xué yánjiū; Lin Su-ruò 林素若, Nán-Sòng Lúnyǔ-xué yánjiū (Tái-běi 2003), with substantial discussion of Zhèng Rǔ-xié.

Other points of interest

The work has the unusual textual feature of being a deliberate condensation of itself — the Chíyáng cutting is explicitly Zhèng Rǔxié’s revised, briefer second thoughts on his own earlier Gànzhōu / Hóngzhōu cuttings. This kind of self-revision is rare in Sòng Lúnyǔ scholarship and gives the surviving 4-juàn text a more polished character than first-draft commentaries of the period.

Graph View

Backlinks