皇王大紀

Huángwáng dà jì 皇王大紀

Great Annals of August Sovereigns and Kings by 胡宏 (Hú Hóng, 1106–1162, zhuàn 撰)

About the work

An 80-juan annalistic chronicle from Pángǔ (the cosmogonic giant) to the end of the Zhōu, in the biānnián tradition but built on the chronological framework of Shào Yōng’s 邵雍 Huángjí jīngshì 皇極經世. Composed by Hú Hóng during his Wǔfēngshān years and once admitted to the imperial library; the principal Sòng-period universal history of pre-imperial China that broke from the Tōng jiàn’s Warring-States starting point.

Tiyao

Huángwáng dà jì, 80 juǎn. (Held in the Tiānyī gé library of the Fàn Màozhù family, Zhèjiāng.) By Hú Hóng of the Sòng. Hóng, zì Rénzhòng, hào Wǔfēng, of Chóngān, was the youngest son of An-guó. By yīn-protection privilege he was made Chéngwù láng. In the Shàoxīng era he memorialized to defy Qín Huì and was for long unappointed; only after Huì’s death was he summoned to office, and he refused on grounds of illness. His career is appended to that of his father in the Sòng shǐ Rúlín zhuàn of Hú An-guó. The book was completed in the ShàoxīngShàodìng era, and once requested into the Imperial Library.

What he records begins with Pángǔ and ends at the close of the Zhōu. The first two juǎn preserve only the names and traces of high antiquity. From Dì Yáo onwards, he uses the Huángjí jīngshì annual format, with broad citation from the Classics and Commentaries, appending judgments of his own. Chén Zhènsūn’s Shū lù jiě tí once mocked him for taking the Zhuāngzǐ’s parables as historical, and for narrating the very-earliest period without evidence — “without evidence, no faith.” Yet the names of the ancient sovereigns and kings are recoverable, the genealogical lines preserved; if classical literature is to be transmitted, this cannot summarily be excised. As to his broad gathering: although small inconsistencies cannot be wholly avoided, compared with Luó Mì’s Lù shǐ, this work is much more solid. One blemish does not eclipse it.

Zhū Yízūn’s Pùshūtíng jí has a postface to this book, saying that the recent Zōupíng man Mǎ Sù made the Yì shǐ, of similar form — Yízūn suspected he had not seen this book; properly the two should both be retained without rejection. On examining: Mǎ’s book often cites Luó Mì’s Lù shǐ, but does not so much as breathe the Huángwáng dà jì. Yízūn’s “had not seen” perhaps indeed was the case. As to the form: this book uses biānnián; the Yì shǐ heads each event and orders cited ancient texts in classified arrangement, somewhat in Yuán Shū’s Jìshì běnmò manner — quite different in form. Why Yízūn called them similar — perhaps he had merely not closely examined Mǎ’s text.

Abstract

The Huángwáng dà jì is the principal Southern Sòng universal history of pre-imperial China composed in the biānnián form. It is structurally distinctive in two ways: (a) it begins with Pángǔ and the cosmogonic period, breaking the Tōng jiàn’s deliberately classical Spring-and-Autumn-onwards starting point; and (b) for the period after Yáo, it adopts Shào Yōng’s 邵雍 Huángjí jīngshì 皇極經世 (KR1a0017) cosmographical-chronological framework — making it a major non-Tōng jiàn alternative within Southern-Sòng historiography.

The work was completed during Hú Hóng’s mid-life period at Wǔfēngshān (Mt. Héng region, Húnán), where he had retreated after the Jīn conquest and was teaching the disciples — including Zhāng Shì 張栻 — who would constitute the HúXiāng xuépài 湖湘學派 school of mid-Southern-Sòng Lǐxué. The dating bracket here (1130–1160) reflects Hú’s Wǔfēngshān residence, ending before his death in 1162. The Sìkù tíyào dates the work loosely to “ShàoxīngShàodìng” — i.e. the period extending into the late Southern Sòng — but Shàodìng (1228–1233) is impossibly late for Hú Hóng (d. 1162); the editors’ “ShàoxīngShàodìng” reading must be a textual corruption of “ShàoxīngLóngxīng” (i.e. 1131–1164) or simply “Shàoxīng” (1131–1162). The work was admitted to the Imperial Library in Hú’s lifetime.

The work’s principal modern interest is doctrinal: it is the historiographical counterpart to Hú Hóng’s better-known philosophical Zhī yán 知言 (KR3a0049), and its narrative judgments (lùn) embedded after each major event articulate the HúXiāng school’s distinctive position on the philosophy of history — particularly on the doctrine of xìng 性 as expressed through the lives of legendary sage-kings. Chén Zhènsūn’s bibliographic critique — that Hú had taken Zhuāngzǐ parables as history — is fair on its own terms but misses the philosophical point: for Hú, the legendary period is a normative repertoire, not chronological reportage, and the cosmogonic frame is doctrinal scaffolding.

The Sìkù editors’ comparison with Luó Mì’s 羅泌 Lù shǐ 路史 (a Southern-Sòng compendium of legendary antiquity) and Mǎ Sù’s 馬驌 Yì shǐ 繹史 (Qing-period topical history of antiquity) places the work in its proper genre context.

Translations and research

No Western-language translation. Substantial Chinese discussions:

• Niú Pǔ 牛朴, Hú Hóng Huáng-wáng dà jì yánjiū 胡宏皇王大紀研究 (Sūn Yat-sen daxue thesis, 2014).
• Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History (CUP, 2021), index s.v. Hú Hóng.
• Conrad M. Schirokauer, “Neo-Confucians under Attack: The Condemnation of Wei-hsüeh,” in J. W. Haeger, ed., Crisis and Prosperity in Sung China (UAP, 1975) — historical-doctrinal background of the Hú-Xiāng / Mǐn split that frames the work.
• Yáng Jí-zhōng 楊濟中, Hú Hóng yánjiū 胡宏研究 (Sānlián, 1996).

Other points of interest

The work is now mainly read for its doctrinal lùn (verdicts) rather than for its narrative substance — Qing critics following Chén Zhènsūn have correctly identified the historical fabric as legendary reconstruction. As a primary document of HúXiāng historiography, however, it remains essential, and is the principal companion piece to the Zhī yán.

Links

• Wikidata Q11108070
• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0103501.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §49.5.