Lúnyǔ jīqiú piān 論語稽求篇
Inquiry-and-Verification Pieces on the Analects
by 毛奇齡 (Máo Qílíng, 1623–1716, zì Dàkě, hào Qiūqíng / Xīhé, 撰)
About the work
A 7-juàn polemical Lúnyǔ commentary by Máo Qílíng, the prolific early-Qīng polymath of the Xīhé / Xiāoshān (Hángzhōu region) circle. The work is a sustained attack on Zhū Xī’s Lúnyǔ jízhù 論語集注 — the editors place it explicitly in the fǎnJízhù genre that runs through the Yuán Sìshū biànyí 四書辨疑 of Chén Tiānxiáng 陳天祥. Máo’s method is to draw in classical-philological evidence (Zhōulǐ, Hàn glosses, Hàn-period Lǔ Lún / Qí Lún / Gǔ Lún alternate readings, etc.) to question Zhū’s particular semantic choices in the Jízhù. The Sìkù assessment is mixed in a calibrated way: many of Máo’s challenges are over-clever or specious; some are partly right; a few are positively wrong; but where Máo is sound he is genuinely sound, and his sustained attention to Hàn-period alternate readings is welcome on the model of jiāncún yìshuō (preserving alongside the variant readings) — the editors invoke the parallel of the Hàn QíLǔGǔ triple academic establishment.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit: Lúnyǔ jīqiú piān in seven juàn — by Máo Qílíng of the present dynasty. Throughout, it disputes-and-rebuts the doctrines of Zhūzǐ’s Jízhù — basically of the type of Chén Tiānxiáng’s Yuán-period Sìshū biànyí. Zhūzǐ’s Jízhù researches the textual sense aiming to satisfy the principle and stop there; he is not by character a strong kǎozhèng exegete. Qílíng’s learning is broad and he is fond of dispute; hence he gathers ancient meanings on the side to set against the Jízhù. Among these there are qiáng shēng zhī jié (force-grown side-shoots): for instance, “the ancients had any matter from which they took instruction — they all called it xué; even xué zhì xué ōu [learning to roast / learning to chant] is no different in gloss.” Zhūzǐ glosses xué as xiào 效 (imitate, follow) — originally without flaw. Qílíng must hold that xué is the name for yèdào (taking up the way) and that an unspecific xiào gloss is undifferentiated from gōngshī shòushòu (master and apprentice transmitting craft) — not knowing that xué dào and xué yì differ in what is being learned but the word xué itself cannot be glossed twice — exactly as in yù yú yì / yù yú lì the what is grasped differs but the word yù cannot be split. To raise objection on this is not to have seen-the-truth.
There are bàn shì bàn fēi (half-right, half-wrong) cases: e.g. on fēi qí guǐ ér jì zhī the Jízhù lists Jìshì’s sacrifice on Tàishān as the negative case (fēilèi); Qílíng holds that guǐ is rénguǐ (human ghost) specifically referring to zǔkǎo (ancestors), hence the phrase qí guǐ — citing the Zhōulǐ Dàzōngbó in support, and saying that the spirit of Tàishān cannot be called the guǐ of Tàishān. The argument is well-made; but guǐ in fact refers generally to yínsì (improper sacrifices) and not specifically to ancestral spirits. If Qílíng’s reading were correct, when [Qí] Sòng Xiānggōng used the Zēngzǐ duke at the Cìjū shè shrine — and the Zhuàn calls it the yínhūn zhī guǐ (improper-and-deluded ghost) — whose ancestor would that “ghost” have been?
There are quánrán wúlǐ (entirely without grounds) cases: e.g. on wú suǒ qǔ cái (no place to gather material), Zhèng Kāngchéng’s gloss “cái = fúcái (raft material)” is positively unfitting to the situation. Even in the niúdāo (ox-knife) jest, things have not come to that point. Qílíng draws this in to attack the Jízhù — is it not bordering on insulting the sage’s word?
However, things in this work like the discussion that Níng Yú did not serve under Wéngōng, and “lù removed from the ducal house for three generations and zhèng devolving to the dàfū for four generations” — the kǎojù on these is exceptionally detailed; the explication of wéizhèng yǐ dé and similar passages stands on solid ground. In the Hàn the academic establishment had the QíLún, LǔLún, and GǔLún — three schools standing in parallel and preserving variant readings to be used together for cross-reference. This [work] is also in the spirit of the ancient principle of not discarding the various schools’ meanings. — Respectfully revised, ninth month of the 42nd year of Qiánlóng [1777].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Lúnyǔ jīqiú piān is the principal anti-Zhū Xī Lúnyǔ commentary of the early Qīng. Máo Qílíng — by the 1680s, having taken the Bóxué hóngcí of 1679 and gone into Hànlín service — was already the most prolific of the fǎnSòng polymaths and the most aggressive Cheng-Zhu polemicist of his generation. The Lúnyǔ jīqiú is one of his largest Sìshū-related works (the others being KR1h0061 Sìshū shèngyán and KR1h0062 Dàxué zhèngwén). Composition runs broadly across the post-1679 Hànlín period to Máo’s death in 1716; no precise preface-date in the WYG front matter. The Sìkù editors place the work’s tradition explicitly: it is a follower of Chén Tiānxiáng’s Yuán-era Sìshū biànyí — the canonical Cheng-Zhu-attacking Sìshū commentary line.
The Sìkù editors’ verdict is unusually fine-grained for a Máo Qílíng work. They acknowledge Máo’s broad kǎozhèng competence; they acknowledge that his attention to Hàn-period QíLún / LǔLún / GǔLún alternate readings is welcome on the in-principle ground that variant traditions deserve preservation. But they sub-divide his Jízhù-disputations into three groups: (a) those that are qiángshēng zhījié — strained, over-determined readings (the editors illustrate with Máo’s attack on Zhū’s xué = xiào gloss); (b) those that are bàn shì bàn fēi — partly right (illustrated with the fēi qí guǐ dispute over whether guǐ refers narrowly to ancestral spirits); and (c) those that are quánrán wúlǐ — wholly without grounds (illustrated with Máo’s appropriation of Zhèng Xuán’s eccentric cái = fúcái gloss to attack Zhū’s Jízhù on the Lúnyǔ 5.7 wú suǒ qǔ cái passage). Concurrently they single out as genuinely meritorious Máo’s kǎozhèng on the political-historical points — Níng Yú under Lǔ Wéngōng, the sānshì sìshì devolution-of-power chronology — and his philologically grounded explication of wéizhèng yǐ dé.
The closing endorsement-clause — Hàndài xuéguān, QíLún LǔLún GǔLún sān jiā bìng lì, jiān cún yìshuō yǐ bèi cānkǎo — is an in-principle defence of variant-preserving Sìshū commentary, even where it disputes Zhū. The Sìkù editors’ framing positions Máo Qílíng’s Lúnyǔ jīqiú piān alongside other early-Qīng Hànxué incursions into the jīngbù: not endorsed as orthodoxy, but allowed in as a jiān cún yìshuō corrective.
Translations and research
No English translation. Modern Chinese: 點校本 in Máo Qí-líng quán-jí 毛奇齡全集 / Xī-hé hé jí 西河合集 (Hú-běi-jiāo-yù 2007); the Wényuān-gé Sì-kù-quán-shū photo-reprint is the standard scholarly text. Studies: Benjamin Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Harvard, 1984/2001), discusses Máo Qí-líng as a transitional figure in early-Qīng kǎozhèng; On-cho Ng, Cheng-Zhu Confucianism in the Early Qing (SUNY, 2001), on the polemical context; Cài Fāng-lù, Qīng-dài Sì-shū xué shǐ (Bā-Shǔ-shū-shè, 2014); for Máo’s Lúnyǔ readings specifically see Wáng Quán-shēng 王全生, Máo Qí-líng Lúnyǔ jī-qiú piān yánjiū (Bā-Shǔ-shū-shè, 2016).
Other points of interest
The work is the most sustained early-Qīng fǎnJízhù Lúnyǔ commentary admitted into the Sìkù. Read together with the same author’s Sìshū shèngyán (KR1h0061) and Dàxué zhèngwén (KR1h0062), it constitutes the principal late-Kāngxī Hànxué-style assault on the Cheng-Zhu Sìshū programme. The Sìkù editors’ preservation of these works — coupled with their Cheng-Zhu-orthodox preferences elsewhere — is a striking case of the Qiánlóng editors’ commitment to jiān cún yìshuō even when they disagree.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4 and §27 on Qing classical kǎozhèng.
- Qīngshǐgǎo 481 (Máo Qílíng biography).