Xīn Tángshū 新唐書
The New Book of Tang by 歐陽修 (Ōuyáng Xiū, 1007–1072) and 宋祁 (Sòng Qí, 998–1061), under the supervision of 曾公亮 (Zēng Gōngliàng, 999–1078); imperial commission of Sòng Rénzōng. Zǎixiàng shìxì biǎo 宰相世系表 by 呂夏卿 (Lǚ Xiàqīng). Qing collation notes by 沈德潛 and 葉酉.
About the work
The seventeenth of the Twenty-Four Histories, in 225 juǎn (10 jì, 50 zhì, 15 biǎo, 150 lièzhuàn). Composed under imperial commission of Sòng Rénzōng to supplement and correct the Jiù Tángshū (KR2a0026), which the Sòng court found “shì zēng yú qián, wén shěng yú jiù” 事增於前，文省於舊 (events more than before, prose more economical than the old). Compilation began ca. Qìnglì 4 (1044), with Sòng Qí responsible for the lièzhuàn and Ōuyáng Xiū for the jì, zhì, and biǎo; Zēng Gōngliàng as supervising editor; presented in Jiāyòu 5, 6th month, jǐyǒu (16 July 1060).
Tiyao
By Ōuyáng Xiū and Sòng Qí et al., by imperial commission of the Sòng. The supervising editor was Zēng Gōngliàng, hence the presentation memorial leads with him. Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí says: “The old practice in compiling histories was to sign only the highest-ranking single editor’s name. Mr. Ōu said, ‘Mr. Sòng is my senior in age, and has worked long on this book — how can he be effaced?’ So in the jì and zhuàn both names were given. Mr. Sòng, moved by the gracious deference, hence in the work the lièzhuàn are signed Sòng Qí, the běnjì, zhì, and biǎo signed Xiū.” But examining the Suí shū zhì: this practice already existed; not in fact begun by Xiū and Qí. The Sòngshǐ biography of Lǚ Xiàqīng says the Zǎixiàng shìxì biǎo is by Xiàqīng, but the work is signed Xiū. So in fact still by the rule of highest-ranking editor; only the use of two persons being unusual.
The work was meant to correct Liú Xù’s lapses; Ōuyáng Xiū’s own claim is “events increased on the previous, prose abridged from the old.” Liú Ānshì’s 劉安世 Yuánchéng yǔlù says: “shì zēng wén shěng — that is precisely the xīn shū’s defect.” But did not show why. Following his line: historiographers’ records all in the jiù shū; if one wishes broader coverage, one must search out xiǎoshuō and tend to the wěi zá (miscellaneous and obscure). The Tang’s literary style was throughout detailed and ample; if one wishes to reduce its prose, one must transform into the obscurantist style and lapse into the jíqū (cramped). Ānshì’s words hit the disease.
(The tíyào gives a sample of the prose-economy issue: Hànshū and Hòu Hàn shū běnjì contain many edicts; ancient prose simple, rarely more than a few lines. Tang imperial yán ran to ornate parallel-prose, four-by-six, page on page; Sòng Mǐnqiú’s Tang dà zhào lìng runs to 130 juǎn; for them all to enter the běnjì would be no proper history-form. Sòng Qí’s wholesale excision was forced. Excessive criticism is unwarranted. As to Lǚ Xiàqīng’s private composition of the Bīng zhì, Cháo’s Dúshū zhì records; Sòng Qí’s separate composition of jì and zhì, Wáng Détén’s Méi shǐ records — even the working group itself was internally dissatisfied; once the work was published, Wú Zhěn’s Jiūmiù (KR2a0028) immediately followed. The criticisms are not without point. But a one-dynasty zhèngshǐ sweeping in vast scope — by a single hand the labour cannot complete; by many hands the styles diverge — from the Sān shǐ through the Bā shū, all zhèngshǐ show contradictions. Not unique to this work. Lǚ Sòng’s text — better or worse undecidable; Wú Zhěn’s jiūmiù — preserved as collation aid, useful — but to demand on this basis that the xīn shū be replaced is a one-corner view.)
Abstract
The Xīn Tángshū covers the same period as the Jiù Tángshū (KR2a0026), but with substantially restructured organisation and freshly drawn-up apparatus. The compilation history is well-documented. Sòng Rénzōng commissioned the work in Qìnglì 4 (1044) to address what the Sòng court regarded as the old work’s lapses — disorganisation, repetition, lack of proper biǎo, and inappropriate inclusion of voluminous edicts in the běnjì. The work was effectively in two parts: Sòng Qí 宋祁 (998–1061) was responsible for the 150 juǎn of lièzhuàn; Ōuyáng Xiū 歐陽修 (1007–1072), who joined the project later (ca. 1054), took the jì, zhì, and biǎo. Zēng Gōngliàng 曾公亮 (999–1078) supervised. Lǚ Xiàqīng 呂夏卿 (jìnshì 1042) compiled the Zǎixiàng shìxì biǎo 宰相世系表, the great chief-ministerial genealogical table that is one of the work’s most famous structural innovations. The work was presented in Jiāyòu 5, 6th month, jǐyǒu (16 July 1060).
The work’s principal innovations relative to the Jiù Tángshū: (1) the addition of 15 biǎo — the Zǎixiàng biǎo 宰相表, the Fāngzhèn biǎo 方鎮表 (one of the foundational documents on the late-Tang jiédùshǐ military governorships), the Zōngshì biǎo 宗室表, the Zǎixiàng shìxì biǎo 宰相世系表 (the most extensive medieval Chinese genealogical compilation in any zhèngshǐ); (2) the Yìwén zhì 藝文志 — a comprehensive bibliographic treatise on Tang scholarship, the principal source for Tang bibliography; (3) the Bīng zhì 兵志 — the first zhèngshǐ monograph on a dynasty’s military system, treating the Tang fǔbīng 府兵 and jiédùshǐ institutions; (4) revised classifications of biographies and partial elimination of duplicates from the Jiù Tángshū; (5) extensive prose compression, particularly elimination of edict and memorial text from the běnjì — a controversial choice that has been the principal scholarly criticism of the work since the Sòng.
The Wényuāngé text further carries Qing kǎozhèng by Shěn Déqián 沈德潛 and Yè Yǒu 葉酉 (catalog meta gives 89 juǎn of kǎozhèng). The standard modern punctuated edition is the Zhōnghuá Shūjú Xīn Tángshū (20 vols., 1975, ed. Wú Yùgōng 吳玉貢 et al.); revised Xiūdìngběn 20 vols., 2017.
Translations and research
No complete translation. The principal partial translation is the early French project by Édouard Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (St. Petersburg, 1903), incorporating extensive translations of the Xīn Tángshū on the Western Turks. Standard scholarly use: Denis Twitchett, The Writing of Official History under the T’ang (Cambridge, 1992) — the foundational study of the Tang historiographical bureau on which both Tang zhèngshǐ depended; Twitchett’s Cambridge History of China vols. 3 and 4 (CUP, 1979 and 2009); Howard J. Wechsler, Mirror to the Son of Heaven (Yale, 1974). Standard Chinese-language scholarship: Wáng Mínshèng 王鳴盛, Shíqī shǐ shāngquè 十七史商榷 (1787); Zhào Yì 趙翼, Niàn’èr shǐ zhájì 廿二史劄記 (1799); Cén Zhòngmiǎn 岑仲勉, Suí-Tang shǐ (Gāoděng Jiàoyù, 1957); Huáng Yǒngnián 黃永年, Tang shǐ shǐliào xué (Shaanxi Shīfàn Dàxué, 1989); Hú Yùndōng 胡運東, Xīn Tángshū yánjiū 新唐書研究 (Wǔhàn Dàxué, 2008).
Other points of interest
The Zǎixiàng shìxì biǎo (juǎn 71–75) is the largest medieval Chinese genealogical compilation extant — listing the lineages of all Tang chief ministers and their forebears. It is the principal source for the social history of the Tang aristocracy and has been the basis for Patricia Ebrey’s The Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China: A Case Study of the Po-ling Ts’ui Family (Cambridge, 1978) and David Johnson’s The Medieval Chinese Oligarchy (Westview, 1977). The Yìwén zhì (juǎn 57–60) is the most comprehensive premodern catalogue of Tang scholarship and the principal authority for what was extant in 1060 of the Tang literary heritage.