Jiù Tángshū 舊唐書
The Old Book of Tang by 劉昫 (Liú Xù, 887–946) et al., by imperial commission of the HòuJìn 後晉; Qing collation notes by 沈德潛 (Shěn Déqián, 1673–1769).
About the work
The sixteenth of the Twenty-Four Histories, in 200 juǎn (20 jì, 30 zhì, 150 lièzhuàn), covering the Tang dynasty (618–907). Composed at the HòuJìn 後晉 court (936–947) of Shí Jìngtáng 石敬瑭 and Shí Chónggǔi 石重貴; presented in Kāiyùn 2 (945), 6th month, by Liú Xù as supervising editor (formally; the actual chief compilers were Zhāng Zhāoyuǎn 張昭遠 and Jiǎ Wěi 賈緯). Originally entitled Tángshū 唐書 simply; renamed Jiù Tángshū after Ōuyáng Xiū / Sòng Qí’s Xīn Tángshū (KR2a0027) of 1060 superseded it for examination use. After being effectively replaced by the Xīn Tángshū in the Sòng (especially after Jīn Zhāngzōng 章宗’s edict of Tàihé 7 = 1207), the work nearly fell out of circulation; the present text was reconstituted in the Ming from a single Wényuángé copy.
Tiyao
By Liú Xù et al., by imperial commission of the [Hòu-]Jìn. The Wǔdài shǐ jì and Liú’s biography do not record him as the writer; this is a lacuna. After the Sòng Jiāyòu (1056–1063) Ōuyáng Xiū and Sòng Qí et al. recompiled the Xīn Tángshū, and this work was abandoned. Yet its text continued to circulate, and Confucian readers extolling Liú Xù’s strengths to attack XiūQí’s weaknesses also continued.
(The tíyào gives a balanced assessment. Strengths: pre-Chángqìng (821) period — the jì records only major events, simple and proper; the zhuàn are detailed and ample, zhān (rich) but not huì (weed-grown), preserving the old BānFàn method. Weaknesses: post-Chángqìng — the jì contain shīhuà, prefaces, marriage-edicts, judicial decisions, all in full — verbose and digressive (it gives examples: Wénzōng jì on Wénzōng reciting Dù Fǔ’s Qū jiāng xíng and inferring from it the Tianbao-era Qūjiāng’s pavilion-and-palace cycle of officialdom; Wǔzōng jì on the Yángzhōu dūyúhòu Lú XínglìLiú Qún affair beginning “On Hùichāng 2, 5/14, drinking at the ĀYán house”). The zhuàn, in contrast, often only list official ranks without substance: Xiàhóu Zī’s biography records only the offices held and the rebuke-edicts; Zhū Pǔ’s biography records only that he served as Zhāozōng’s minister. The bújūn (uneven) charge of the Sòng critics is just.)
By the Chóngwén zǒngmù: first Wú Jìng compiled Tang shǐ down to Kāiyuán, 110 juǎn; Wéi Shù 韋述 expanded Jìng’s text, removing the Kùlì chapter, into 112 juǎn of jìzhìzhuàn; in Zhìdé and Qiányuán the shǐguān Yú Xiūliè 于休烈 added 2 juǎn of Sùzōng jì; the shǐguān Lìnghú Pán 令狐峘 etc. added entries to existing juǎn without enlarging the count, totalling 130 juǎn. So the Tang shū old draft is in fact Wú Jìng’s; though many hands continued, the framework was unchanged. Liú Xù et al. used it as their base. The Shùnzōng jì lùn signed “shǐ chén Hán Yù” (Hán Yù), the Xiànzōng jì lùn signed “shǐ chén Jiǎng Xì” (Jiǎng Xì) — clear evidence of inheritance from the older history. From Chángqìng on, historiographical office failed; no good base; Liú Xù et al. assembled miscellaneous shuō and zhuàn — easily inelegant.
(The tíyào enumerates duplicate biographies: juǎn 132 has Yáng Cháojìn biography, juǎn 144 again; Xiāo Yǐngshì appears in juǎn 102 and juǎn 190; Yǔwén Sháo’s hunting-remonstrance memorial in the Wényuàn zhuàn appears in both juǎn 62 and 64; Jiǎng Yì on Zhāng Màozōng’s marriage in juǎn 141 and 149; Yúfú zhì’s tiáoyì often duplicates lièzhuàn phrasing. Lǐ Sōng, Jiǎ Wěi etc. each compiled separately and did not cross-check; Liú Xù as supervising editor never managed the threading of beginnings and ends — the disorder charge is unanswerable. Yet on a fair view, both xīn and jiù have flaws and merits not covering each other; the partisans of either side miss the point.)
It is our imperial highness who alone of clear judgement decided that both should stand together within the zhèngshǐ — the most public and just course of all time. Of historians’ debates one need say no more.
Abstract
The Jiù Tángshū is the older of the two surviving zhèngshǐ of the Tang dynasty (618–907). It was compiled in the HòuJìn 後晉 (936–947) — the third of the Five Dynasties — under imperial commission of Shí Chónggǔi 石重貴, with Liú Xù 劉昫 (887–946) as supervising editor; the actual chief compilers were Zhāng Zhāoyuǎn 張昭遠 and Jiǎ Wěi 賈緯, plus an editorial team of Wáng Shēn 王伸, Liú Chōngbǎo 劉沖寶, and others. Compilation 941–945 (presented Kāiyùn 2, 6th month). The work draws heavily on the unfinished Tang historiographical materials that the HòuLiáng had inherited from the late Tang: the Tang shū of Wú Jìng 吳兢 (110 j., completed under Xuánzōng), the expansion by Wéi Shù 韋述 (112 j., mid-Tang), and the post-An Lùshān additions by Yú Xiūliè 于休烈 and Lìnghú Pán 令狐峘. Pre-Chángqìng (821) material reflects this rich documentary base; post-Chángqìng material is from the late-Tang court records and is much weaker.
The work was effectively superseded for examination purposes after Ōuyáng Xiū and Sòng Qí completed the Xīn Tángshū (KR2a0027) in 1060; the Jīn imperial edict of Tàihé 7 (1207) abolishing all use of pre-Xīnshū Tang histories drove it nearly out of circulation. Through the Yuán and early Ming the work survived in only a handful of manuscript copies; the present standard text is the Ming Jiā-jìng-era reconstitution based on a Wényuángé copy. The kǎozhèng re-evaluation of the Qing — Hé Zhuó 何焯, Qián Dàxīn 錢大昕, Sòng Lián 宋濂 — established that the Jiù Tángshū preserves much primary documentary material (memorials, edicts, court documents) that the Xīn Tángshū deliberately compressed away. The Sìkù compilers’ decision to include both texts side by side in the zhèngshǐ canon — restoring the Jiù Tángshū to the Twenty-Four Histories — is the canonical statement of the modern view that the two works complement each other.
The Wényuāngé text further carries Qing kǎozhèng by Shěn Déqián 沈德潛 (1673–1769), the great early-Qing literary editor and former Hànlín shìjiǎng. Catalog meta gives 88 juǎn of kǎozhèng. The standard modern punctuated edition is the Zhōnghuá Shūjú Jiù Tángshū (16 vols., 1975, ed. Wáng Yuénzhāng 王永泉).
Translations and research
No complete translation. Standard partial translations: Howard J. Wechsler, Mirror to the Son of Heaven: Wei Cheng at the Court of T’ang T’ai-tsung (Yale, 1974); Denis Twitchett’s Cambridge History of China vols. 3 and 4 (CUP, 1979 and 2009) — extensive use throughout; Charles A. Peterson, “Court and province in mid- and late-T’ang” (in Cambridge History of China vol. 3); Stanley Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang (Cambridge, 1987) — uses both Tang zhèngshǐ; Robert Borgen, Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court (Council on East Asian Studies, 1986) — uses the Tang shū Liè zhuàn on Tang–Japanese contacts. Standard Chinese-language scholarship: Wáng Mínshèng 王鳴盛, Shíqī shǐ shāngquè 十七史商榷 (1787) — extensive kǎozhèng on the Jiù Tángshū; Zhào Yì 趙翼, Niàn’èr shǐ zhájì 廿二史劄記 (1799); Cén Zhòngmiǎn 岑仲勉, Suí-Tang shǐ 隋唐史 (Gāoděng Jiàoyù, 1957). Major monograph on the textual relations of the two Tang shū: Huáng Yǒngnián 黃永年, Tang shǐ shǐliào xué 唐史史料學 (Shaanxi Shīfàn Dàxué, 1989).