聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

資治通鑑外紀

7 min read

Text ID
KR2b0015
Date
1077–1078
Dynasty
宋

Zī zhì tōng jiàn wài jì 資治通鑑外紀

Outer Chronicle to the Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance by 劉恕 (Liú Shù, 1032–1078, zhuàn 撰)

About the work

A 10-juan annalistic history (with appended 5-juan Mù lù) covering the period from Bāoxī / Fúxī to King Wēiliè of Zhōu — that is, before the opening date (403 BCE) of the Zī zhì tōng jiàn (KR2b0007). Composed by Liú Shù 劉恕 in his last paralysed years and dictated to his son Liú Yìzhòng 劉羲仲, who completed the manuscript at Liú Shù’s death in 1078. The Wài jì is conceived as a deliberately preliminary draft (an outer, that is external, supplement) — Liú Shù imagined Sīmǎ Guāng would eventually himself compose a proper Qián jì and Hòu jì, with this work being absorbed into the Qián jì.

Tiyao

Tōng jiàn wài jì, 10 juǎn, with Mù lù 5 juǎn. (Held in the home of Lù Fèichí, Shǎo zhān shì.) By Liú Shù of the Sòng. Shù, zì Dàoyuán, ancestrally of Wànnián in Jīngzhào; his grandfather Liú Shòu was magistrate of Línchuān and was buried at Gāoān, where the family settled. The Sòng shǐ biography says he passed jìnshì in the high pass-list, without giving the year. Examining Sīmǎ Guāng’s preface to this work: Shù died in the ninth month of Yuánfēng 1 (1078), aged 47, hence born in Míngdào 1 (1032); the same source says he passed jìnshì at 18 — therefore Huángyòu 1 (1049). First appointed Jùlù zhǔbù; soon transferred to magistracies at Hézhōu and Wēngyuán. When Sīmǎ Guāng received the imperial commission to compile the Tōng jiàn, he memorialized for Shù to be seconded as co-compiler; Shù was promoted to Zhùzuò láng. In Xīníng 4 (1071), having defied Wáng Ānshí, he requested zhōngyǎng and was reassigned to Mìshū chéng, with permission to continue the Tōng jiàn drafts at home — and so died at home. The present book was completed at his deathbed.

When the Zī zhì tōng jiàn was being compiled, Shù wished to draw on the Sòng First-Ancestor and Four-Successor Veritable Records and the State History to make a Hòu jì, and to take up Zhōu Wēilièwáng pre-history for a Qián jì. He fell ill with grief; the right thigh paralysed and useless; knowing the state archives were beyond reach in his isolation, the Hòu jì could not be completed. So he dictated to his son Yìzhòng to make this book, renaming it Wài jì. From Bāoxī down — one juǎn; Xià jì and Shāng jì together one juǎn; Zhōu jì eight juǎn; plus Mù lù 5 juǎn, year as warp and event as woof, with shuò and intercalary months and astronomical phenomena above, and Wài jì juan-numbers below — entirely the form of Sīmǎ Guāng’s Tōng jiàn mù lù.

Jīn Lǚxiáng in making the Tōng jiàn qián biān attacked Shù as fond of the unusual. On examining the book: Zhōu Chéngwáng yuán nián bǐngxū is captioned “first year of the Duke of Zhōu’s regency”; only seven years later, guǐsì, is “first year of Chéngwáng” — so the Duke of Zhōu is made out almost to be a WángMǎng. Again, Lǔ Huìgōng is said to have arranged a Sòng marriage for Yǐngōng, then on seeing the bride himself to have taken her, producing Huángōng — making Huìgōng prior to the WèiXuān ugliness. Such things are unbecoming. Again, Qí Huán observing the dragon, almost like comic theatre; Xióng Qú shooting the tiger, what bearing on encouragement and discouragement? Though “neither tiny nor great is to be discarded,” he was unable to avoid greedy collection.

Lǚxiáng’s criticism is not mere fault-finding. Yet the Wài jì, on what is credible in high antiquity, writes large; on divergences and errors, on remote and dim matters, sometimes splits to fine notes, sometimes writes small — never failing to make its discriminations. The Mù lù: from Gònghé onward it follows the Shǐjì nián biǎo in arranging years; before Gònghé it is everywhere “doubtful years,” with no suìyáng / suìyīn names attached, and no successive year-counts — particularly cautious. His own preface says: “Táo Qián composed his sacrificial text in advance; Dù Mù wrote his own grave-record. The night-platform draws near; the homing heart is on the wing. Unable to make a Qián jì and Hòu jì, I make a Wài jì. Some other day when the work is complete, the duke will make a Qián jì and Hòu jì; he can then prune the Wài jì’s prolix excess and use it as a Qián jì, completing the consistent voice of past and present.”

So Shù in making this work was specifically composing a draft (cǎo gǎo), storing material for use — like the cháng biān of the Tōng jiàn — to await Sīmǎ Guāng’s final cutting. Lǚxiáng failed to grasp the editorial method of the project bureau and rashly slighted him; his grasp does not avoid being already cramped.

Abstract

The Tōng jiàn wài jì is the preparatory cháng biān for what would have become the pre-403-BCE portion of an expanded Tōng jiàn, dictated by Liú Shù in his last months when his paralysis prevented him from completing the Hòu jì (Sòng-founders) project he had been working towards. Sīmǎ Guāng’s preface, dated Yuánfēng 1 / 1078, mourns Liú Shù as the most learned of the Tōng jiàn compilers (“when in doubt I always sent to Dàoyuán”) and frames the Wài jì as Liú Shù’s own farewell deposit of materials.

The structural plan is: 1 juǎn for legendary antiquity (Bāoxī, Shénnóng, Yellow Thearch); 1 juǎn for Xià and Shāng combined; 8 juǎn for the Western and Eastern Zhōu down to King Wēiliè (the Tōng jiàn’s opening date); plus a 5-juǎn Mù lù in the form Sīmǎ Guāng adopted for his Tōng jiàn mù lù. Liú Shù’s stated method is methodologically refined: he distinguishes high-credibility material (large script), divergent or doubtful material (small script or notes), and pre-Gònghé (841 BCE) chronology, which he refuses to date with cyclical signs at all, marking the entire pre-841 period as “doubtful years” (yí nián 疑年) — a remarkable exercise in chronological scepticism for the eleventh century.

Sīmǎ Guāng never composed the projected Qián jì and Hòu jì; the Wài jì therefore stands as the principal Sòng-period universal-history continuation of the Tōng jiàn into pre-403 BCE territory. The implicit programme — a comprehensive chronicle from earliest antiquity through the Sòng founding — was eventually accomplished only piecemeal: by Jīn Lǚxiáng’s Tōng jiàn qián biān (KR2b0033) for the pre-403 BCE portion, by Lǐ Tāo’s Xù tōng jiàn cháng biān (KR2b0019) for the early Sòng, by Lǐ Xīnchuán’s Jiànyán yǐlái xìnián yào lù (KR2b0024) for the Southern Sòng, and finally by Bì Yuán’s Qing-period Xù Zī zhì tōng jiàn (also separately catalogued).

The dating bracket here is the brief period of dictation, 1077–1078, ending at Liú Shù’s death.

Translations and research

No translation. Discussion in:

  • Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History (CUP, 2021), index s.v. Liú Shù.
  • Cuī Wàn-qiū 崔萬秋, Tōng-jiàn yánjiū 通鑑研究 (1934/1985), §3.
  • Zhāng Xū 張須, Tōng jiàn xué 通鑑學 (1948/2010), §4.
  • Lǐ Yǒngshēng 李永生, Liú Shù yǔ Tōng jiàn wài jì 劉恕與通鑑外紀 (Henan daxue thesis, 2011).

Other points of interest

The pre-Gònghé chronological scepticism — refusal to date the legendary period with cyclical-sign exactness — is one of the earliest and clearest Chinese statements of what is now standard scholarly practice on pre-841 BCE chronology, well anticipating the Qing kǎozhèng school by half a millennium.

Graph View

Backlinks