Cǐmùxuān Sìshū shuō 此木軒四書說
This-Wood-Studio Studies on the Four Books
by 焦袁熹 (Jiāo Yuánxī, 1661–1736, zì Guǎngqī, 撰)
About the work
A 9-juàn Sìshū commentary by Jiāo Yuánxī, the early-Qiánlóng-period private Lǐxué scholar of Jīnshān (Sōngjiāng prefecture). The title Cǐmùxuān — “This-Wood Studio” — is Jiāo’s pen-studio. The text was edited posthumously by Jiāo’s sons Jiāo Yǐjìng 焦以敬 and Jiāo Yǐshù 焦以恕; according to their fánlì the zìdìng (autograph-fixed) portion is six-tenths of the whole, the remaining four-tenths gathered from cángǎo (surviving drafts) and pieced together. The work is doctrinally a Cheng-Zhu loyalist Sìshū commentary in the line of Jiāo’s silently-acknowledged master Lù Lǒngqí — Jiāo’s biographical preface (by Yú of Pílíng) records explicitly that Jiāo “took Lù Qīngxiàn as his heart-master, but for his whole life never used [Lù’s] míng or zì and never went to his door”. The work is unique among the WYG Sìshū commentaries in carrying an explicit yùzhì tí (imperial title-comment) by the Qiánlóng emperor himself — a critical one.
Tiyao
(Yùzhì tí Cǐmùxuān Sìshū shuō — Imperial Comment on the Cǐmùxuān Sìshū shuō:)
“At Yún-jiān (Sōng-jiāng), labour-of-learning has many transmitters; the jīng-shuō of the various authors having scarcely been completed, [now] also a Shū-shuō — yī chà bù róng yǒu èr fó 一刹不容有二佛 (one kṣetra does not allow two Buddhas) — can such a saying really be applied to the Sì-shū?
Examining Yuánxī’s Sìshū shuō, the discussants say it is superior to his Jīngshuō; within it indeed there is much worth selective adoption. Reaching the Mèngzǐ “yǐ yǔ guān yú fūzǐ 以予觀於夫子” chapter, [Jiāo] says: ‘Confucius did not only fail to admit a second figure in the Chūnqiū age; from that time on, through several thousand years, the Six Classics and the Sìshū — provided they have not been wholly destroyed — could not produce another such Confucius. So it is yī chà bù róng yǒu èr fó indeed.’ His intent is to extol Confucius — but the analogy is not seemly. Is zūn (honouring) Confucius really to be done in this way? And to bring in Shìshì (Buddhist) phrasing into a Rú book is particularly damaging to the proper form of shuō shū (classical exposition). Hán Yù once said of Xún and Yáng that they were dà chún ér xiǎo cī — broadly pure with small flaws; I say that Yuánxī’s Sìshū shuō is xiǎo chún ér dà cī — narrowly pure with large flaws.”
(Sìkù tíyào proper:)
We respectfully submit: Cǐmùxuān Sìshū shuō in nine juàn — by Jiāo Yuánxī of the present dynasty. According to the fánlì by his sons Yǐjìng and Yǐshù, what was set down by Yuánxī’s own hand is six-tenths; what Yǐjìng and the others gathered from surviving drafts and pieced together is four-tenths. Hence it occasionally overlaps with his Jīngshuō (also extant), but it is more selectable than the Jīngshuō. Within it there are qiángfù gǔyì (forced importing of ancient meanings) — for instance: in the Dàxué zhāngjù the line cháng mù zài zhī (constantly the eye is upon it) — zài is naturally the zài of suǒzài (location); but [Jiāo] takes it from a Shàngshū gloss as chá (to inspect). For the Zhōngyōng’s rú gǔ sèqín (as drum, harp, and zither) — even by the Shī’s own diction this only refers to shēnghé (sound-harmony); but [Jiāo] holds qín belongs to yáng and sè to yīn, allegorising the yīnyáng harmony. For the Lúnyǔ’s nǚ fú néng jiù (you cannot save it) — naturally meaning kuāngjiù (correcting-and-rescuing); but [Jiāo] cites the Zhōulǐ Sījiù annotation, glossing it as fángjìn (preventing-prohibiting). For tiān jiāng yǐ fūzǐ wéi mùduó (Heaven will use the Master as a wooden bell-clapper) — naturally taking the meaning of juéshì (awakening the world); but [Jiāo] cites the Míngtáng wèi “the Son of Heaven shakes the mùduó” and holds Confucius ought to have ruled the realm. The Dáxiàngdǎngrén (Person of the Dá lane xiàng district), originally a nameless figure — but because the Shǐjì has the words tóngzǐ he points to him as Xiàngtuó.
These are all instances of xiánzhì zhī guò (the over-reach of the wise-and-knowing). However, the rest of the work is shūlǐ jiǎnmíng (clear and simple in arrangement) and yǐnjù diǎnquè (citing canonical evidence with assured force). Where it is at occasional small variance with the Zhāngjù Jízhù, it is essentially able to lírán yǒu dāng yú rénxīn (orderly-and-clear, suiting the human heart). From the Míng down, those who have lectured on the Sìshū mostly produced [their work] for shíwén (eight-legged-essay) purposes — Yuánxī’s book alone seeks deep into xuéwèn. The original preface says he “took the heart-master from Lù Lǒngqí (Qīngxiàngōng) but for his whole life never used the master’s míng or zì, and never went to his door” — being one whose ambition is not near to fame, his words are properly dǔshí (solid-and-substantial). — Respectfully revised, eighth month of the 42nd year of Qiánlóng [1777].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Cǐmùxuān Sìshū shuō is the principal Sìshū work by Jiāo Yuánxī, the early-Kāngxī-Qián-lóng jǔrén of Jīnshān (Sōngjiāng) and the silent disciple of Lù Lǒngqí (Qīngxiàngōng). The dating bracket runs from the 1700s, when Jiāo’s mature Sìshū studies took shape, through to his death in 1736; about 60% of the received text is autograph and 40% was reconstructed from drafts by his sons. The fánlì explicitly acknowledges the editorial layering. The work is one of the most striking Sìshū commentaries in the WYG corpus for two reasons.
The first is doctrinal-biographical: Jiāo’s relation to Lù Lǒngqí is the rare case of a xīnshī (heart-master) lineage in which the disciple deliberately refused all out-ward tokens of school-affiliation. He did not call Lù by name, did not call him by zì, did not visit his door, did not enter the school. The biographer of his preface — Yú of Pílíng — preserves this as a fact of Jiāo’s personal zhì (ambition); the Sìkù editors take it as the explanation of the work’s dǔshí (solid-substantial) quality, free from the careerist imitation that infects most early-Qing Cheng-Zhu loyalist Sìshū literature.
The second is the Imperial Comment. Qiánlóng himself read the work and wrote a critical yùzhì tí — preserved in the WYG front matter ahead of the regular tíyào — that takes Jiāo to task for his use of the Buddhist saying yī chà bù róng yǒu èr fó in praise of Confucius. The emperor’s complaint is not against the praise itself but against the form of the analogy: bringing Buddhist phrasing into a Rú exposition is guāi shuō shū zhī tǐ — damaging the proper form of Sìshū exposition. The yùzhì tí’s closing line inverts Hán Yù’s celebrated XúnYáng dàchún ér xiǎocī (Xúnzǐ and Yáng Xióng are broadly pure with small flaws): Qiánlóng pronounces Jiāo xiǎochún ér dàcī — narrowly pure with a large flaw. The presence of an yùzhì tí — and a critical one — in the WYG front matter is among the most remarkable Sìkù editorial decisions on a private-scholar Sìshū work.
The Sìkù tíyào itself is more positive. The editors illustrate Jiāo’s tendency to qiángfù gǔyì with five specific over-readings (the Dàxué cháng mù zài zhī; the Zhōngyōng harp-and-zither yīnyáng allegory; the Lúnyǔ Sījiù gloss; the mùduó royal-aspirations reading; the Dáxiàngdǎngrén / Xiàngtuó identification) — these they call xiánzhì zhī guò, the over-reach of the xiánzhì exegete. But the rest of the work is shūlǐ jiǎnmíng and yǐnjù diǎnquè, and where it differs slightly from the Jízhù, it does so in a way that suits the human heart. Their final verdict — that Jiāo alone, among Míng-and-since Sìshū lecturers, sought deep into xuéwèn (substantive learning) rather than serving the shíwén market — is a strong endorsement.
Translations and research
No English translation. Modern Chinese: 點校本 in Jiāo Yuán-xī jí 焦袁熹集 (forthcoming series in Jiāng-sū jīng-jí, partial); the Wényuān-gé Sì-kù-quán-shū photo-reprint is the standard scholarly text. Studies: Cài Fāng-lù 蔡方鹿, Qīng-dài Sì-shū xué shǐ (Bā-Shǔ-shū-shè, 2014); for Jiāo’s place in the Lù Lǒng-qí Cheng-Zhu-loyalist tradition see On-cho Ng, Cheng-Zhu Confucianism in the Early Qing (SUNY, 2001). His Chūn-qiū quē-rú biān (KR1e0108) is the more discussed of his works in recent Chinese scholarship.
Other points of interest
The work is one of the very few private-scholar Sìshū commentaries in the Wényuāngé Sìkùquánshū to bear an yùzhì tí by the Qiánlóng emperor — and the rare case in which the imperial comment is critical. The combination of (a) Jiāo’s silent-disciple relation to Lù Lǒngqí, (b) the posthumous-and-fragmentary editorial history, and (c) the emperor’s recorded xiǎochún ér dàcī verdict makes the work a singularly textured Sìkù entry. Read together with KR1e0108 (Chūnqiū quērú biān) it gives the principal extant Jiāo Yuánxī corpus.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §28.4.4.
- Qīngshǐgǎo 481 (Jiāo Yuánxī biography, attached to the Rúlín notices).