Sìshū dàquán 四書大全
Imperially Endorsed Compendium on the Four Books
胡廣 (Hú Guǎng, zì Guāngdà, shì Wénmù, 1369–1418), with Yáng Róng 楊榮 et al. — fèngchì zhuàn 奉敕撰 (compiled by imperial command)
About the work
The single most influential Míng-period Sìshū commentary, in 40 juàn: Dàxué zhāngjù dàquán 1 + Dàxué huòwèn 1 + Lúnyǔ jízhù dàquán 20 + Mèngzǐ jízhù dàquán 14 + Zhōngyōng zhāngjù dàquán 2 + Zhōngyōng huòwèn 2. Compiled at imperial command by Hú Guǎng, Yáng Róng, and other senior Hànlín officials in 1414–1415 under the Yǒnglè Emperor; promulgated to all schools and academies of the empire in 1415, with the Emperor’s own preface, as the official curricular text. From 1415 until the abolition of the examination system in 1905, this was the single binding Sìshū commentary for Chinese (and most Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) examination candidates.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit: Dàxué zhāngjù dàquán 1 juàn, Huòwèn 1 juàn; Lúnyǔ jízhù dàquán 20 juàn; Mèngzǐ jízhù dàquán 14 juàn; Zhōngyōng zhāngjù dàquán 2 juàn, Huòwèn 2 juàn. Total title: Sìshū dàquán. 40 juàn in all. By Hú Guǎng et al. of the Míng.
After Zhūzǐ’s Sìshū zhāngjù jízhù: Zhēn Déxiù 真德秀 was the first to gather Zhūzǐ’s yǔlù and append them to the Dàxué zhāngjù, making the Jíbiān (KR1h0024). Zhù Zhū 祝洙 imitated the format and supplemented it as the Sìshū fùlù 四書附錄. Cài Mó’s Jíshū (KR1h0025), Zhào Shùnsūn’s Zuǎnshū (KR1h0028), Wú Zhēnzǐ’s Jíchéng, all gather many explanations to mutually develop, but cannot avoid being a little overgrown. Only Chén Lì’s Sìshū fāmíng and Hú Bǐngwén’s Sìshū tōng (KR1h0034) are more concise-and-pointed. Chén Lì’s disciple Ní Shìyì 倪士毅 then combined the two books into one and pruned, calling it Sìshū jíshì 四書輯釋.
In Yǒnglè of the Chéngzǔ, the imperial decree to the Confucian officials Hú Guǎng, Yáng Róng et al., to compile the various schools’ zhuànzhù into one volume — the volume given the imperial name Sìshū dàquán, the imperial preface composed and the work distributed to schools throughout the empire. From this time, Míng shìzǐ (gentlemen) preparing for the kējǔ examinations all read this; and the various schools’ arguments thereby fell out of use.
But Hú Guǎng et al. compiled this book actually entirely on the basis of Ní Shìyì’s Jíshì. Gù Yánwǔ 顧炎武 says of it: only minor additions-and-deletions; in detail and economy, it often falls behind Ní’s. The Dàxué huòwèn and Zhōngyōng huòwèn portions are precisely Ní’s, and contain occasional errors. Zhū Yízūn likewise reproaches the volume as “zhuān rǎng chéngshū 専攘成書” — cribbing a finished book. The various Confucians who compiled it on imperial mandate could not search broadly and consult thoroughly; they merely took an extant volume to fulfil the assignment and copy. Naturally this would invite later scholarly censure.
Yet Ní Shìyì’s original is the most precise-and-essential — its yìlǐ clear-and-comprehensive, its selections clean-and-pure, far above the other schools’. The Sìkù’s editorial conclusion is therefore: the senior officials of the day used Ní’s text not without reason. And Míng-period Sìshū commentators — like Cài Qīng’s Méngyǐn (KR1h0044) and Chén Chēn’s Qiǎnshuō — all set this Dàquán up as their zōng (governing point) for subsequent zhézhōng (mediation). We therefore record it, to display where the dynasty’s school-system was institutionally fixed. — Respectfully revised, fifth month of the 41st year of Qiánlóng [1776].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Sìshū dàquán fixed the institutional shape of Chinese (and Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) Confucian education for almost five centuries. Its compilation in 1414–1415 was part of a coordinated Yǒng-lè-period editorial project that also produced the Wǔjīng dàquán and the Xìnglǐ dàquán — three imperially-issued comprehensive Cheng-Zhu compendia that, in conjunction, replaced earlier curricular texts and standardised the Lǐxué curriculum. From 1415 until 1905, every Chinese examination candidate was expected to memorise this 40-juàn corpus; outside China, Korean gwageo candidates and Japanese Edo-period Confucian academics worked with the same text.
The Sìkù editors’ ambivalence is well-known: they recognise the work’s institutional importance but rebuke its compilers for cribbing Ní Shìyì’s Sìshū jíshì without proper acknowledgment. Gù Yánwǔ’s Rìzhīlù — and Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo — both make the point that the Dàquán is essentially Ní Shìyì’s earlier work, lightly edited; this charge of zhuānrǎng (private appropriation) is well-attested. Yet the Sìkù editors note that Ní Shìyì’s book was itself a model of editorial discipline; the Yǒnglè officials’ choice of base-text was not unreasonable.
The Sìshū dàquán’s textual base is the standard transmission line of Zhū Xī’s Sìshū jízhù — the same line that the WYG copies of KR1h0015 and KR1h0016 descend from, augmented by the Dàquán level of supplementary commentary drawn (via Ní Shìyì) from Zhào Shùnsūn’s Zuǎnshū (KR1h0028), Hú Bǐngwén’s Tōng (KR1h0034), and the broader Yuán Lǐxué tradition.
Translations and research
The Dà-quán itself has not been translated into English; the underlying Zhū Xī commentaries are extensively translated (see KR1h0015). Modern Chinese punctuated edition: in Sì-kù-quán-shū huì-yào. Studies: Wing-tsit Chan, Chu Hsi: New Studies (HUP, 1989); Benjamin Elman, A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China (UCalP, 2000), ch. 2 on the Yǒng-lè-era curricular fixation; Hoyt Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (UHP, 1992), broader context; Carney T. Fisher, “The Great Ritual Controversy in the Age of Ming Shih-Tsung”, Bulletin of Sung-Yuan Studies 19 (1987). Wilkinson §28.4.4.
Other points of interest
The Yǒng-lè-period editorial decision to standardise Cheng-Zhu Confucianism through three imperial compendia (Sìshū dàquán, Wǔjīng dàquán, Xìnglǐ dàquán) was one of the great institutional decisions of Chinese intellectual history. Its consequence was twofold: first, the cementing of Cheng-Zhu Lǐxué as the orthodox Confucian doctrine for half a millennium; second, the slow erosion of the broader Confucian commentarial diversity (the LùWáng Xīnxué, the WángĀnshí school, the Sū-family eclectic, etc.) that had survived from the Sòng. Wilkinson §28.4.4 (the Four Books) and §28.7.3 (Neo-Confucianism) treat both consequences in detail.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4 and §28.7.3.
- Benjamin Elman, A Cultural History of Civil Examinations (UCalP, 2000).
- Míngshǐ 147 (Hú Guǎng biography).