Shǐjì zhèngyì 史記正義
Corrected Meanings in the Records of the Grand Scribe by 張守節 (Zhāng Shǒujié, fl. 725–740)
About the work
The third and latest of the sānjiā zhù 三家注 on the Shǐjì (KR2a0001), with a self-preface dated Kāiyuán 24 (736). The work is preeminent among the three for its geographical and yīnyùn (phonological) scholarship. Originally in 30 juǎn by Zhāng’s own preface (the Cháo Gōngwǔ 晁公武 and Chén Zhènsūn 陳振孫 catalogues record 20 juǎn); the WYG exemplar is divided into 130 to match the Shǐjì, drawn from the rare Zhènzé Wángshì 震澤王氏 Zhèngyì-only single-text impression.
Tiyao
By Zhāng Shǒujié of the Táng. Shǒujié’s full particulars are not transmitted; from the work’s own ascription his post was Zhūwáng shìdú lǜfǔ zhǎngshǐ 諸王侍讀率府長史. Per the self-preface, in 30 juǎn; the catalogues of Cháo Gōngwǔ and Chén Zhènsūn give 20 juǎn. Like the Suǒyǐn, the work originally listed lemmata with separate notes; later hands dispersed the notes under each line, already departing from its old form. By the Ming Directorate edition, the Zhèngyì was attached after the Jíjiě and the Suǒyǐn with further excisions, losing the principal point of the work.
(The tíyào then enumerates dozens of specific lapses in the Ming jiānběn across two main areas — geography and yīnzì glossing — illustrating each by quoting the omitted text, and concludes that “the further small one- and two-character omissions probably exceed a thousand.” All of these are recovered only because of the survival of the Wángshì Zhènzé impression of the standalone Zhèngyì.)
Where Shǒujié excels is in geography (his self-preface: “districts and feudal states, walled towns and hamlets — laid out in detail and with full clarity”); the jiānběn loses, e.g., 17 characters of Zuǒzhuàn citation in the Zhōu běnjì on Sū Fěnshēng’s twelve fiefs of which Wēn was one; 9 characters in the Qín běnjì on the swallowing of all Chǔ’s lands north of the Huái by Qín; 19 characters of the Mèng Kāng note on Xiàng Yǔ’s three Chǔs (Eastern, Western, Southern); the Kuòdì zhì citation on King Wǔlíng of Zhào’s tomb (23 characters); the Gǔjīn dìmíng citation on Hán Wǔzǐ’s Hányuán (16 characters); among many others. Where Shǒujié excels in citation of gùshí (his self-preface: “the dim and obscure points of the ancient classics — secretly I have probed their beauty”), the jiānběn equally shows large omissions, e.g., the 170-character Hàn Wǔdì gùshì citation on the Bǎiliáng Tower and the female sorcerer Yuǎn Ruò 宛若, the 59-character Lièxiān zhuàn citation on Ān Qīshēng 安期生, the 61-character Hàn shū qǐjū zhù citation on Lǐ Shǎojūn 李少君’s death, etc. As to phonological glossing, the jiānběn drops Shǒujié’s sìshēng and fǎnqiè notes wholesale at scores of points (the tíyào gives a sample of about thirty cases). The Sìkù compilers conclude: “Without this Zhènzé Wángshì impression, there would be no way to know how arbitrarily the jiānběn has cut.”
Abstract
Zhāng Shǒujié’s Zhèngyì is the latest and most extensive of the three classical Shǐjì commentaries. Its principal strengths, signposted in Zhāng’s own preface, are (1) geographical identification, in which Zhāng systematically maps Shǐjì place-names against early-Tang administrative geography, drawing on the Kuòdì zhì 括地志 (the great Tang geographical compendium of Lǐ Tài 李泰, 642), the Gǔjīn dìmíng 古今地名, and the works of Yīng Shào 應劭, Wéi Zhāo 韋昭, and others; and (2) yīnzì glossing through fǎnqiè 反切 spellings and jīngdiǎn shìwén-style yīn xùn 音訓 keyed to the four-tone system of the Qièyùn 切韻 tradition. Zhāng’s fánlì 凡例 and his Lùn zìlì 論字例 / Lùn yīnlì 論音例 prefatory essays, both preserved at the head of the work, set out his philological method and survive only because of the WYG single-text exemplar. The work is also notable for its incorporation of the Hàn Wǔdì gùshì 漢武帝故事, the Lièxiān zhuàn 列仙傳, the Qǐjū zhù 起居注, and dozens of other now-lost sources used as glosses on Hàn-period anecdote.
The composition window: Zhāng’s preface is dated Kāiyuán 24 (736); his floruit is documented in the late Kāiyuán era (725–741) by his appointment to the imperial princes’ household. The terminus post quem is conventionally taken as 725 (when his princely-tutor post is first attested), the terminus ante quem as the early Tiānbǎo era (742–745).
The Zhèngyì lost considerable material in transmission. The Sōng sānjiā zhù běn tradition’s collation of Zhèngyì notes against the main text dropped many notes that did not link easily to a head-character lemma; many of these have been recovered in modern times from Japanese manuscript fragments preserved at the Kōzanji 高山寺 in Kyoto (about 17 juǎn of Tang manuscript fragments survive). The recovered material was first systematically edited by Mizusawa Toshitada 水澤利忠 in his Shiki kaichū kōshō kōhō 史記會注考證校補 (9 fascicles, Tokyo, 1957–70), supplementing Takigawa Kametarō’s 瀧川龜太郎 Shiki kaichū kōshō (10 vols., 1932–34, repr. 1956–60).
Translations and research
The Zhèngyì has not been translated independently. It is incorporated, with full identification, into Nienhauser et al., The Grand Scribe’s Records (1994–) and Chavannes / Pimpaneau et al., Les mémoires historiques (2015 reissue). Standard scholarly studies: Yīng Sānyù 應三玉, Shǐjì sānjiā zhù yánjiū (Fenghuang, 2008); Cheng Jīnzào 程金造, Shǐjì sānjiā zhù yǐn shū kǎo 史記三家注引書考 (Zhōnghuá, 2009 posth.). On the recovered Japanese fragments: Mizusawa Toshitada 水澤利忠, Shiki kaichū kōshō kōhō 史記會注考證校補 (Tokyo, 1957–70; repr. 2015 in 8 vols., 2024 in 6 vols., Shanghai Gǔjí); see also Zhāng Yùchūn 張玉春, Shǐjì Rìběn cángběn zhùběn lùnjí (Shèhuì kēxué, 2018) for the manuscript catalogue.
Other points of interest
Zhāng’s Lùn zìlì and Lùn yīnlì essays are among the earliest substantial writings on Tang historiographical philology, prefiguring the principles followed by Lù Démíng 陸德明 in his Jīngdiǎn shìwén 經典釋文. The Zhèngyì’s extensive citation of the Kuòdì zhì makes it one of the principal sources for reconstructing that lost Tang work.
Links
- Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0097601
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §59.2.6.2.