Dàxué zhèngwén 大學證文
Textual Verifications of the Great Learning
by 毛奇齡 (Máo Qílíng, 1623–1716, zì Dàkě, hào Qiūqíng / Xīhé, 撰)
About the work
A 4-juàn historical-philological inventory of the Dàxué recensions, by Máo Qílíng. The work is a zhèngwén — textual verification — that lays out, in chronological order of origin (not of currency), the major recensions of the Dàxué and their differences. Máo’s principle is to print the full text only of complete recensions (the Lǐjì zhùshū version, the Hàn Shǐpíng stone-classic where preserved, the Wèi Zhèngshǐ stone-classic [pseudo-recension forged by Fēng Fáng], the Míngdào Chéngzǐ recension, the Yīchuān Chéngzǐ recension, the Zhūzǐ recension), and to print only the points of divergence (yìtóng zhī chù) for the partial recensions (Wáng Bó, Jì Běn, Gāo Pānlóng, Cuī Xiǎn, Gě Yínliàng). It is the principal early-Qīng kǎozhèng survey of the Dàxué recension question and stands alongside Hú Wèi’s Dàxué yìzhēn (KR1h0056) as the major early-Qīng treatment of the Dàxué textual problem — but on a different axis: Hú’s work is doctrinal-and-constructive (he constitutes his own preferred recension), Máo’s is purely historical-and-comparative (he documents the field).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit: Dàxué zhèngwén in four juàn — by Máo Qílíng of the present dynasty. This book lays out in detail the agreements and divergences of the various authors’ Dàxué revised recensions. It first lists the Lǐjì zhùshū recension — the genuine gǔběn. Next it lists the Hàn Shǐpíng stone-classic — there is a list but no body-text, since the original is no longer transmitted; and after examining the surviving fragments [Máo] found it identical with the present zhùshū text, hence does not duplicate it. Next is the Wèi Zhèngshǐ stone-classic recension — that is, the recension on which Fēng Fáng’s forgery depends, and Máo lists it according to the era to which the forger pretended. Next is the Míngdào Chéngzǐ revised recension; next the Yīchuān Chéngzǐ revised recension; next the Zhūzǐ revised recension — all printed in full. Next is the Wáng Bó revised recension; next the Jì Běn revised recension; next the Gāo Pānlóng revised recension (which is the same as the Cuī Xiǎn revised recension); next the Gě Yínliàng revised recension — all of these listing only their points of divergence and not the whole text.
From Hàn onwards, the zhuānmén zhī xué (specialised scholarship) each carried on its own master’s saying, with at most differences of zìjù xùngǔ (wording and gloss); no one dared to disturb-and-disorder the ancient jīng. With Fèi Zhí beginning to move passages in the Zhōuyì and Dù Yù beginning to move passages in the Zuǒzhuàn, even they did not yet dare to invert the order; but with Liú Bīn revising the Wǔchéng and Yú Tíngchūn revising the Zhōulǐ, the practice of gǎi jīng (revising the classic) flourished from the Northern Sòng onwards. By analogy: increasing-and-reducing an ancient prescription to treat a present-day illness — one cannot say it is without benefit to medical treatment, but one also cannot say it is the original prescription of Biǎn Què or Cāng Gōng. Qílíng’s full listing of the various recensions, making the yángé (changes-through-time) orderly, is enough by itself to be useful for kǎozhèng. The two principles — first, wishing the gāngmù to be clearly divided so that the learner may apply effort with ease; second, wishing the zhāngjù not to be lightly altered so that the ancient jīng should not lose its truth — each clarify a separate purpose, and can stand alongside without contradicting. — 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 Dàxué zhèngwén is the principal early-Qīng catalogue-and-comparison of the post-Sòng Dàxué recension industry. Máo Qílíng’s project is descriptive rather than prescriptive: he documents in chronological order — by the purported date of origin — eleven recensions, six of them printed in full and five only in their divergence-points. The recensions in full: (1) the Lǐjì zhùshū version (= the genuine gǔběn); (2) the Hàn Shǐpíng stone-classic (lost, recovered to be identical with the zhùshū and so not duplicated in the body); (3) the Wèi Zhèngshǐ stone-classic recension — a Míng-period forgery by Fēng Fáng; (4) the Chéng Hào (Míngdào) recension; (5) the Chéng Yí (Yīchuān) recension; (6) the Zhū Xī recension. The five partial / late recensions: Wáng Bó, Jì Běn, Gāo Pānlóng (= Cuī Xiǎn), Gě Yínliàng — Wáng Bó being a SòngYuán figure, the rest Míng. The Sìkù editors note Máo’s calibration: full text for the original-tradition recensions and the three high-period authoritative ones (ChéngChéngZhū); divergence-points only for the late-Míng / SòngYuán proliferation.
The Sìkù tíyào takes the occasion to deliver an unusually pointed gǎijīng historiography. Pre-Hàn through Hàn classical learning held to zìjù xùngǔ differences without anyone daring to disturb the jīng itself. Even Fèi Zhí (the Zhōuyì mover) and Dù Yù (the Zuǒzhuàn mover) only relocated passages, not inverted the order. With Liú Bīn’s revision of Shàngshū Wǔchéng and Yú Tíngchūn’s revision of Zhōulǐ, the gǎijīng fashion flourished from the Northern Sòng on. The ChéngChéngZhū Dàxué recensions — even though doctrinally orthodox — are placed by the tíyào squarely within this gǎijīng historical sequence; the analogy is Biǎn Què’s classical prescription augmented to fit a modern case. The verdict on Máo’s compilation is that it gives the field its yángé (chronology of change) clearly enough to be a useful kǎozhèng aid in itself. The closing principle — that gāngmù fēnmíng (clear gradation of major and minor) and zhāngjù bù yì (not lightly altering chapter-and-section) can both stand without conflict — is doctrinally moderate: not endorsing Máo’s anti-gǎijīng polemic, but conceding the historical-philological value of his catalogue.
The work is the third of Máo’s three Sìshū-related works admitted into the Sìkù; alongside KR1h0060 (Lúnyǔ jīqiú) and KR1h0061 (Sìshū shèngyán) it forms his complete extant Sìshū output in the WYG. Composition is post-1679 Bóxué hóngcí, terminating with Máo’s death in 1716; no precise preface-date in the WYG front matter.
Translations and research
No English translation. Modern Chinese: 點校本 in Máo Qí-líng quán-jí / 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: Daniel K. Gardner, Chu Hsi and the Ta-hsueh (Harvard, 1986), is the principal English-language treatment of the Dà-xué recension dispute and the Cheng-Cheng-Zhu gǎi-běn tradition; for Máo Qí-líng’s place see Benjamin Elman, From Philosophy to Philology (Harvard, 1984/2001) and the discussion in On-cho Ng, Cheng-Zhu Confucianism in the Early Qing (SUNY, 2001).
Other points of interest
The work is the most systematic early-Qīng documentation of the Dàxué recension industry: by enumerating eleven recensions in chronological order of origin (rather than of currency or doctrinal authority), Máo effectively historicises the entire Sòng–Míng gǎiběn phenomenon. The Sìkù editors’ surprisingly tolerant verdict — that catalogue and comparative exegesis can co-exist without contradicting — exemplifies the late-Qián-lóng editors’ willingness to admit kǎozhèng-mode Sìshū work into the jīngbù alongside the Cheng-Zhu loyalist mainstream. Read with KR1h0056 (Hú Wèi, Dàxué yìzhēn) it gives the two complementary high-Qing approaches to the Dàxué textual problem.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4 and §27 on Qing classical kǎozhèng.
- Daniel K. Gardner, Chu Hsi and the Ta-hsueh (Harvard, 1986).
- Qīngshǐgǎo 481 (Máo Qílíng biography).