論孟集註考證

LùnMèng jízhù kǎozhèng 論孟集註考證

Critical Notes on the Collected Annotations of the Analects and the Mencius

金履祥 (Jīn Lǚxiáng, zì Jífǔ, hào Rénshān, 1232–1303)

About the work

A 17-juàn critical-philological supplement to Zhū Xī’s Lúnyǔ jízhù (10 juàn) and Mèngzǐ jízhù (7 juàn) by Jīn Lǚxiáng. Distinguished by its historical-source verification orientation: where Zhū Xī’s Jízhù relied on the orthodox Lǐxué commentary tradition for míngwù, dùshù, and historical-anecdote glosses, Jīn Lǚxiáng cross-checks against the standard early texts — Zuǒzhuàn, Shǐjì, Hànshū, Ěryǎ, etc. — and silently emends or supplements Zhū’s gloss where it seems to mis-cite or to over-extend. A model of kǎozhèng 考證 method applied within orthodox Cheng-Zhu commentary — anticipating by some four centuries the Qing Hànxué return-to-sources movement.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit: Lúnyǔ jízhù kǎozhèng in 10 juàn, Mèngzǐ jízhù kǎozhèng in 7 juàn — by Jīn Lǚxiáng of the Sòng. The author’s own postface says: of old, books that have zhù must have shū; the LùnMèng kǎozhèng is the shū of the Jízhù. Because there is already the zuǎnshū (i.e. Zhào Shùnsūn’s KR1h0028), this is not styled “shū” — and where Zhūzǐ’s wényì 文義 is itself plain, [Jīn] does not even venture a redundant note; he simply uses the convention of the Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文 — to mark and shū what is doubtful or hard.

The book does follow Zhūzǐ’s not-yet-settled arguments and bring them into single-best-fit; on shìjì diǎngù 事跡典故 (historical events and old institutional usage) it has many emendations and re-fixings. Since the Jízhù is principally devoted to expounding lǐdào 理道, on this kind of material Zhū Xī mostly follows old-text wording without taking time for detailed re-checking; Jīn Lǚxiáng, gathering up the missing and patching the gaps, has done much in stitching up cracks — he is in this respect deeply in Zhū’s service.

Only his self-claim — “this book has its small touch of friction; spoken by me, I am a zhōngchén 忠臣 [loyal servant]; spoken by another, the same words are chánzéi 讒賊 [slanderous traitor]” — is most teachable. The jīng is the great constancy of antiquity-and-now, lǐ is the public principle of the world; the worth of an argument is in the words, not the man. If what one supplements is right, even another is no less a zhōngchén; if what one supplements is wrong, even a disciple-or-pupil is not free of being a chánzéi. Why then is Jīn permitted to say it but no other? — this is the ménhù zhī jiàn 門戶之見 (factional view) of the SòngYuán age, not a settled judgment.

Within the work, e.g.: on the Lúnyǔ note “Gōngsūn Zhī” 公孫枝 — Jīn observes that, per the Zuǒzhuàn, this should be Gōngsūn Fā 發, perhaps an error of transmission in the Jízhù. On the Mèngzǐ note on Xǔ Xíng 許行 / Shénnóng’s words — Sīmǎ Qiān’s “nóngjiā zhě liú” 農家者流 — Jīn observes: “Sīmǎ’s Liùjiā (Six Schools) does not include nóngjiā; only the Hànshū yìwénzhì’s Jiǔliú does so.” These corrections are exact. As to the Gōng Liú Hòu Jì zhī zēngsūn 公劉后稷之曾孫 entry — Jīn argues that Gōng Liú avoided Jié by living at Bīn 邠, far in time from Hòu Jì, not strictly his “great-grandson”. He does not realise that ancient writers often called any remote ancestor gāozǔ 高祖 (cf. the Zuǒzhuàn: “our gāozǔ Shàoháo”); that they often called any remote descendant zēngsūn 曾孫 (cf. the Zuǒzhuàn: “zēngsūn KuǎiKuì 蒯瞶 dares to announce to the august-ancestor King Wén”). On this kind of point, the note is not in error and Jīn is. So the work is not always exactly right in every detail.

Nonetheless, his cross-references and oblique-corroborative citations — neither idly diverging nor idly agreeing — far outdistance Hú Bǐngwén (KR1h0034) and his ilk, who confine themselves to defending the zhù without knowing the jīng. The book has in all 17 juàn; before the work is Xǔ Qiān’s preface; at the close, a colophon by Lǚ Chí 呂遲 of the original cutting — still the old form. Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo says the Yīzhāi shūmù records 2 juàn, marked “unseen” — that is a transmission error of citation, not authoritative. — Respectfully revised, eleventh month of the 44th year of Qiánlóng [1779].

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

Abstract

The LùnMèng jízhù kǎozhèng is the most philologically rigorous of the early-Yuán Cheng-Zhu Sìshū sub-commentaries. Where the parallel zuǎnshū of Zhào Shùnsūn (KR1h0028) gathers ZhūXī school yìlǐ discussion, and where Cài Mó’s Mèngzǐ jíshū (KR1h0025) leans toward family-tradition tweaking, Jīn Lǚxiáng’s contribution is historical-source verification: he checks Zhū Xī’s Jízhù glosses against the Zuǒzhuàn, Shǐjì, Hànshū, Ěryǎ, and other HànTáng witnesses, and silently corrects errors of citation and over-extension.

The Sìkù editors’ verdict is calibrated. They praise Jīn Lǚxiáng for the philological labour (“yú Zhūzǐ shēnwéi yǒu gōng 於朱子深為有功” — deeply in service to Zhū Xī); they correct several places where Jīn Lǚxiáng himself errs (the zēngsūn / gāozǔ gloss is a representative case where the orthodox note is right and the supplement is wrong); they sharply rebuke the ménhùzhījiàn (factional partisanship) implicit in Jīn Lǚxiáng’s “I am a loyal servant; another would be a slanderous traitor” line. The conclusion is favourable: Jīn Lǚxiáng’s kǎozhèng method “far outdistances” the rigid Cheng-Zhu defenders like Hú Bǐngwén (KR1h0034).

Methodologically, the work anticipates the Qing Hànxué / kǎozhèng movement (Wilkinson §28.7.4) by some four centuries — applying historical-source verification methods to canonical commentary. The Sìkù editors, themselves Hànxué-orientated, would have found this congenial; their unusually warm praise reflects this affinity.

The textual transmission is well-attested: front-prefaced by Xǔ Qiān (Jīn Lǚxiáng’s pupil, KR1h0033); colophon by Lǚ Chí 呂遲 — the original cutter; preserved as the Yīzhāi line text into the late Qing.

Translations and research

No English translation. Modern Chinese: 點校本 in Sòng-Yuán xué-àn cuì-biān (Yáng Bó-jùn 楊伯峻 ed.). Studies: 何俊 Sòng-Yuán Lǐ-xué guǎn-kuī; Cài Fāng-lù 蔡方鹿, Sòng-dài Sì-shū xué yánjiū; Bryan W. Van Norden, Mengzi: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries (Hackett, 2008), cites Jīn Lǚxiáng in passing.

Other points of interest

Jīn Lǚxiáng’s two surviving Sìshū works — KR1h0029 Dàxué shūyì (sub-commentarial / yìlǐ) and KR1h0030 LùnMèng jízhù kǎozhèng (philological / kǎozhèng) — show the breadth of orthodox Cheng-Zhu commentary as practised by the Wūzhōu Bei-shān school: each work is methodologically distinct, reflecting the genre and demands of the canonical text being annotated.

Links

• Yuánshǐ 189 (Jīn Lǚxiáng biography in Rúlín zhuàn).
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.7.3 and §28.7.4.
• 全國漢籍データベース 四庫提要