聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

資治通鑑

11 min read

Text ID
KR2b0007
Date
1066–1084
Dynasty
宋

Zī zhì tōng jiàn 資治通鑑

Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance by 司馬光 (Sīmǎ Guāng, 1019–1086, zhuàn 撰), with the standard yīnzhù 音注 of 胡三省 (Hú Sānxǐng, 1230–1302, zhù 注)

About the work

The single most influential work of post-Hàn Chinese historiography. A 294-juan universal annalistic chronicle covering 1,362 years from the partition of Jìn in 403 BCE (the symbolic onset of the Warring States) to the eve of the Sòng founding in 959 CE — deliberately resuming where the Chūnqiū and Zuǒ zhuàn canon-tradition leaves off, and stopping at the threshold of Sīmǎ Guāng’s own dynasty. Composed by Sīmǎ Guāng over nineteen years (1066–1084) with three principal collaborators — Liú Bīn 劉攽 (Western and Eastern Hàn sections), Liú Shù 劉恕 (Three Kingdoms through Northern and Southern Dynasties), and Fàn Zǔyǔ 范祖禹 (Táng and Five Dynasties) — under the imperial patronage first of Yīngzōng 英宗 (who issued the founding edict in Zhìpíng 2 / 1065) and then of Shénzōng 神宗 (who supplied the title). Presented to the throne in Yuánfēng 7 / 1084. The Yuán-period commentary by Hú Sānxǐng — completed 1295, in 294 juǎn paralleling the base text plus the Tōng jiàn shì wén biàn wù 通鑑釋文辨誤 in 12 juǎn (KR2b0012) — is the standard premodern apparatus and is integrated throughout the WYG transmitted text.

Tiyao

Zī zhì tōng jiàn, 294 juǎn. (Imperial palace copy.) By Sīmǎ Guāng of the Sòng, with phonetic and explanatory commentary by Hú Sānxǐng of the Yuán. Guāng received the imperial commission to compile the Tōng jiàn in Zhìpíng 2 (1065) and presented the completed work to the throne on the wùchén day of the twelfth month of Yuánfēng 7 (1084) — nineteen years all told. Guāng’s memorial of presentation states: “My utmost strength has been spent on this book.” The works he drew on, beyond the standard histories, comprised 322 unofficial histories; the surviving drafts at Luòyáng filled two further rooms — this was no mere remnant-gleaning. His assistants were of the highest scholarly rank: Liú Bīn for the Shǐjì and the two Hàn shū; Liú Shù for the Three Kingdoms and Northern and Southern Dynasties; Fàn Zǔyǔ for the Táng and Five Dynasties — all of them broadly-trained Confucians, not idle disputants of inner nature. The book is therefore vast in net, grand in scheme, fine in conception — what no earlier age had attained. But its names of objects and word-glosses are also vast and intricate, no shallow learning can master them.

Guāng’s disciple Liú Ānshì once compiled a Yīn yì in 10 juǎn; it has not survived. After the Crossing-South many commentators, but each more wayward than the last. Sānxǐng then collated the entire literature, set right errors and supplied lacunae, to make this commentary. Yuán Juè’s Qīngróng jí, in his Xiānyǒu yuānyuán lù, says that Sānxǐng was a man of Tāizhōu, a Bǎoyòu (1253–1258) jìnshì, was kept by Chancellor Jiǎ as a tutor, and gave his commentary to the Tōng jiàn; in thirty years of military upheaval the draft was three times lost; in the Yǐyǒu year (1285) he was lodged at the school of the Yuán family, and daily wrote out his definitive notes in his own hand; in the Jǐchǒu year (1289), with the bandits’ rising, he stored the manuscript in a cellar and so it survived. (Compare Sānxǐng’s own preface: “in the Yǐyǒu year (1285) the redaction was finished” — exactly agreeing with Juè’s account. Only Juè calls it dìngzhù (definitive notes), while the present text is captioned yīnzhù (phonetic notes); the change probably proceeds from Sānxǐng himself.) Sānxǐng further notes: at first he followed the Jīngdiǎn shìwén model and made a Guǎng zhù in 97 juǎn; the manuscript was lost; he then re-wrote it, this time first taking the Kǎo yì and his own annotations and inserting them line-by-line beneath the Tōng jiàn text, with calendrical-astronomical material attached to the Mù lù. The present text inserts only the Kǎo yì in line; the Mù lù’s calendrical-astronomical material is nowhere added in the body — apparently deleted by later hands, or perhaps Sānxǐng intended this and never managed it.

The Tōng jiàn’s prose is dense and its themes broad; its threading is supremely difficult. Sānxǐng’s glosses on astronomical observation, geographical placement, institutional set-up, and historical sequence are exhaustively detailed. So in the Táng jì under Kāiyuán 12, the inner-line note says: “Wēngōng made the Tōng jiàn not merely to record the traces of order and chaos. As to ritual, music, calendar, calculation, astronomy, and geography, he was especially exhaustive. Readers are like rats drinking at the river — each takes his fill” — that is to say, going to the heart of the project’s intent, here he sets out the general principles. He may be said to have grasped the larger picture.

Where the Tōng jiàn itself contains minor inconsistencies, he invariably brings them out. So for instance: Zhōu Xiǎnwáng jì, “the Qín Dà liáng zào invades Wèi” — the note says, “below Dà liáng zào the two graphs Wèi Yāng should be added.” Táng Dàizōng jì, “Dǒng Jìn was sent on mission to the Huíhé” — the note says, “this is Hán Yù’s testimonial document for Jìn, allowing some excess of praise.” Also “Yán Wǔ thrice held the office of Jiànnán” — the note says, “Wǔ only twice held Jiànnán; the error comes from a Dù Fǔ verse.” Táng Mùzōng jì, “the patent on the Huígǔ heir-ruler” — the note says, “by Tōng jiàn convention, a new Huígǔ Khan is never called sìjūn.” Wénzōng jì, “Zhèng Zhù replaces Dù Cóng as governor of Fèngxiáng” — the note says, “as recorded in the previous juan, Dù Cóng was governor of Zhōngwǔ, not at Fèngxiáng.” All such — he can present each clearly without forcing agreement; he deeply has the form of textual annotation. Compared with Yǐn Qǐshēn’s Gāng mù fā míng, with its sycophantic and concealing “comic-actor flatterer” style — the difference in straightforwardness of mind, of authentic versus pretended scholarship, is much greater than the disparity of nine-cattle-hairs.

His net is wide; little oversights cannot be wholly avoided. Such as the name of Jǐng Yánguǎng; the Chū shī biǎo’s “affair of defeated armies”; Yǔ Liàng’s “with this hand how could one strike a bandit”; Shěn Huáizhēn’s troops at Yángshuǐ; Ēnàguī’s drive on Xiàkǒu; the misordered phrase about Wūhuán Guǐ and Yǔwén Xiàobó; and Zhōu Tàizǔ’s edict where jīn xiōng is written as lìng xiōng. Gù Yánwǔ’s Rì zhī lù corrects them. Recently Chén Jǐngyún has also picked out the geographical errors and made the Jǔ zhèng in several tens of items. Yet for a book of two or three hundred juǎn, that the slips amount only to this — the precision of the larger fabric is the more thrown into relief. Huáng Pǔ’s Jiǎnjí yíwén records that this book was printed in late-Yuán Línhǎi, and in early-Hóngwǔ the woodblocks were taken into the Nánjīng Imperial College — so its esteem in later ages was no accident.

Abstract

The Zī zhì tōng jiàn is the foundational large-scale Chinese work of biānnián 編年 historiography after the Chūnqiū, and the model for every subsequent universal chronicle. Sīmǎ Guāng’s compositional method, set out in his programmatic memorial of presentation (1084), broke the work into three stages: (1) cóng mù 叢目 — the assembly of all relevant primary sources arranged chronologically by event; (2) cháng biān 長編 — long-form drafts on each topic combining and reconciling the primary materials; (3) zhèng wén 正文 — final compression by Sīmǎ Guāng himself into the elegant single-narrative form that became the published text. The three principal collaborators — Liú Bīn 劉攽 (1023–1089), Liú Shù 劉恕 (1032–1078, KR2b0015), and Fàn Zǔyǔ 范祖禹 (1041–1098) — handled the cháng biān drafts for their respective historical periods, with Sīmǎ Guāng performing the final compression and editorial harmonisation in Luòyáng during his thirteen-year political retreat (1071–1084).

The work’s textual apparatus is unprecedented for its time: a parallel Tōng jiàn kǎo yì 通鑑考異 (KR2b0008) in 30 juǎn, recording variant readings and source-critical decisions; a Tōng jiàn mù lù 通鑑目錄 (KR2b0010) in 30 juǎn, an analytical index with synchronised calendrical and astronomical tables; and the further Tōng jiàn shì lì 通鑑釋例 (KR2b0009) in 1 juǎn on editorial method. The complete Tōng jiàn corpus thus consists of base text (294 juǎn) plus three apparatus works for a total of 355 juǎn. These three were composed alongside the main work and are listed separately in the catalog (KR2b0008–0010). For chronological-narrative arrangement, Sīmǎ Guāng adopted the biānnián form pioneered by Xún Yuè (KR2b0003) and elevated it to a universal scale never again equalled.

The standard premodern commentary is the Yīn zhù 音注 of Hú Sānxǐng (1230–1302, KR2b0012 companion Biàn wù), completed in Yuánzhēn 1 / 1295 after a thirty-year compositional struggle through three Mongol-period drafts (the surviving manuscript was sealed in a cellar during the Jǐchǒu / 1289 coastal raids). Hú Sānxǐng’s lifedates are 1230–1302 (CBDB id 40009 gives 1229–1302; the catalog meta gives 1230–1287, the second date apparently in error and corrected here per the convention of preferring the externally verified figure and noting the discrepancy). The Hú Sānxǐng commentary is woven throughout the WYG text and is the basis of all subsequent reading.

The standard modern critical edition is the Beijing Zhōnghuá Shūjú Zī zhì tōng jiàn in 20 vols. (1956; 2nd ed. 2011), incorporating the Hú Sānxǐng commentary and the Sīmǎ Guāng Kǎo yì throughout, edited by Gù Jiégāng 顧頡剛 et al. It is now also available in the diǎnjiào běn èrshísì shǐ xiūdìng běn lineage. (See Wilkinson §49.5.)

The Tōng jiàn spawned an entire commentary, abridgement, and continuation tradition that runs through the present work-list of KR2b: the Zhū Xī Tōng jiàn gāngmù (KR2a-class, separately catalogued), Wáng Yīnglín’s Tōng jiàn dìlǐ tōngshì (KR2b0011), Hú Sānxǐng’s Biàn wù (KR2b0012), Chén Jǐngyún’s Hú zhù jǔ zhèng (KR2b0013), Liú Shù’s Wài jì (KR2b0015), Lǐ Tāo’s Xù Zī zhì tōng jiàn cháng biān (KR2b0019), Jīn Lǚxiáng’s Qián biān (KR2b0033), Chén Jīng’s Xù biān (KR2b0034), Xú Qiánxué’s Hòu biān (KR2b0040), and the imperial Yù pī of Qiánlóng (KR2b0037).

Translations and research

Translations: Achilles Fang, The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (220–265): Chapters 69–78 from the Tzŭ-chih t’ung-chien, 2 vols. (Harvard UP, 1952, 1965) — partial; Rafe de Crespigny, The Last of the Han, being the Chronicle of the Years 181 to 220 A.D. as Recorded in Chapters 58–68 of the Zizhi tongjian of Sima Guang (ANU, 1969) and To Establish Peace, Being the Chronicle of the Later Han for the Years 189–220 AD as Recorded in Chapters 59 to 69 (ANU, 1996) and Emperor Huan and Emperor Ling, Being the Chronicle of Later Han for the Years 157 to 189 AD as Recorded in Chapters 54 to 59 of the Zizhi tongjian of Sima Guang (ANU, 1989) — covers Eastern Hàn end; Glen Dudbridge & David Knechtges (eds.), various conference papers; Bo Yang 柏楊, Bo Yang xiandai yuwen ban Zizhi tongjian 柏楊現代語文版資治通鑑, 72 vols. (Yuanliu, 1983–1993) — modern Chinese translation. No complete translation into any Western language exists. Studies: Edwin G. Pulleyblank, “Chinese Historical Criticism: Liu Chih-chi and Ssu-ma Kuang,” in W. G. Beasley & E. G. Pulleyblank, eds., Historians of China and Japan (OUP, 1961), 135–166; Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History: Sources and Narratives, 960–1279 CE (CUP, 2021), chs. 2–3; Xiao-bin Ji, Politics and Conservatism in Northern Song China: The Career and Thought of Sima Guang (1019–1086) (CUHK, 2005); Anthony DeBlasi, Reform in the Balance: The Defense of Literary Culture in Mid-Tang China (SUNY, 2002), App. on Sīmǎ Guāng’s Táng treatment; Cuī Wàn-qiū 崔萬秋, Tōng-jiàn yánjiū 通鑑研究 (1934; repr. Shanghai shudian 1985); Chén Yuán 陳垣, Tōng jiàn Hú zhù biǎo wēi 通鑑胡注表微 (Kēxué, 1958), the indispensable study of Hú Sānxǐng’s covertly anti-Yuán political consciousness; Zhāng Xū 張須, Tōng jiàn xué 通鑑學 (Kāimíng, 1948; repr. Shēnghuó dúshū xīnzhī 2010); Ueda Sanae 上田早苗, Sōdai shigaku shisō kenkyū 宋代史学思想研究 (Hōritsu bunka, 1990).

Other points of interest

The work is conventionally included as the third zhèng shǐ alongside the Shǐjì and the Hàn shū in late-imperial reading lists, despite its non-jìzhuàn form, in recognition of its centrality to the Chinese historiographical canon. The Sòng shǐ deliberately omitted Hú Sānxǐng from its biographies, a politically motivated suppression by the Yuán-period editors that Chen Yuán read as evidence for Hú Sānxǐng’s dissent.

The Hú Sānxǐng commentary is itself the object of substantial scholarly study, both for its philological apparatus and for its covert political consciousness; see Chen Yuán 1958 (above).

Graph View

Backlinks