Gāngmù dìng wù 綱目訂誤
Corrections of Errors in the Outline-and-Detail Mirror by 陳景雲 (Chén Jǐngyún, 1670–1747, zhuàn 撰)
About the work
A 4-juan corrigenda compendium to Zhū Xī’s Tōngjiàn gāngmù, the third (after Zhāng Zìxūn’s Xù lín and Ruì Chángxù’s Shí yí) of the principal Qing Gāngmù critical apparatuses; the most fine-grained of the three, focusing on individual textual slips rather than on the larger question of fēnzhù authorship.
Tiyao
Gāngmù dìng wù, 4 juǎn. (Jiāngsū Provincial Governor’s submitted copy.) By Chén Jǐngyún of the present dynasty. In the past, Yǐn Qǐshēn made the Tōng jiàn gāngmù fā míng; wherever there was a doubtful meaning, he forced an explanation through. Then Zhōu Mì made the Guǐxīn záshí, and first disputed the Zhōngzōng / Wǔhòu dual-reign-period item; but his arguments were not very firm. Later in the Qídōng yěyǔ he further disputed the Northern Qí Gāo Wěi killing his sixty attendants item; the Guō Wēi killing Yǐndì shū shā / regicide of Xiāngyīnwáng shū shì item; the Kāiyuán 9, eleventh month, dismissing the various Wáng dū dū cìshǐ and four other items; the Zhēnyuán 2, eleventh month, Huánghòu not shū shì item; in the mù, the Kāihuáng 17 amnesty of Xiāo Móhē item; the Zhēnguān 1 Tàizōng interrogating Dù Yān item — all hit their target. Later late-Míng Zhāng Zìxūn and the present-dynasty Ruì Chángxù also successively rectified.
Jǐngyún’s book again reaps what previous houses had not addressed, exhaustively citing original previous-history text, mutually cross-collated. Among them, picking up small details — though sometimes verging on fault-finding — yet, e.g.: Hàn Xiāo Wàngzhī erroneously written “imprisoned”; Hànzhōngwáng accession entry under, erroneously inserting Sīmǎ Guāng’s lùn; Yōng Kǎi’s revolt erroneously writing four prefectures as three; Zhōng Huì visiting Wáng Róng erroneously writing his grandfather’s office Cáo zhì dismissed-from-office as chú míng; Tuòbá Hèrù erroneously made the son of Yùlǜ; Shí Hǔ capturing Liú Yuè erroneously written as killing Wáng Dǎo; lùn Liú Yǔn’s words erroneously dropping bù zài Jiāngzhōu four characters; Qǐfú Bùtuí’s revolt erroneously placed after Fú Jiān’s defeat; Sūn Ēn fleeing to Yùzhōu erroneously written as falling Guǎnglíng; Sòng Gāozǔ admonishing Yìfú words erroneously deleting the five characters fēi rú xiōng Sháo yǒu wǔ; Shǐxīngwáng Jùn at Xīzhōu erroneously deleting Zhū Fǎyú’s affair; Shěn Wénjì made Púyè erroneously written together with Xiāo Tǎnzhī; Hèbá Yuè erroneously written as Yōngzhōu cìshǐ; Gāo Yáng erroneously omitting return to Jìnyáng; Western Wèi territory east of LuòyángPíngyáng entering Qí erroneously deleting “east of”; Chén Wǔdì fù his ancestor at the temple erroneously written as Zhōu affair; Suí Wéndì beheading the question-officer erroneously written as beheading the man caned; Cháng Sháo as zhǎngshǐ erroneously joined to following text as zīyì; Lǐ Jífǔ omitting bà xiàng; Lǐ Xíngyán killing strong robbers erroneously written killing Běi sī; the official army’s chaos burning Lǐ Kègōng erroneously written as self-immolating; Luó Shàowēi’s memorial erroneously taking the words of killing as the actual events; Liáng appointing Qián Liú as WúYuè king erroneously duplicated in upper juǎn; Wáng Jùn as Shūmìshǐ concurrently Tóng píngzhāngshì concurrently Pínglú erroneously written as exiting to garrison — all pointed-out are precisely correct, sufficient to set right transmission errors, supplementing Wāng Kèkuān’s Kǎo yì. Misreading Gāomìwáng Huī Chén Jìzhèng; misinterpreting Tàixīngdiàn hòutīng; Hú Yín reading the histories’ Guǎn jiàn erroneously identifying Yǔwén Xiàobó as slandering Wáng Guǐ, and erroneously discussing ĀnShǐ; Liú Yǒuyì’s Shū fǎ erroneously discussing the deletion of Gāo Kǎn’s name — all are also fitting. As to the study of fact-gathering, this may be said to push it ever finer.
Abstract
The Gāngmù dìng wù is the most fine-grained of the three principal Qing-period Gāngmù corrigenda apparatuses. Where Zhāng Zìxūn (KR2b0020) attacked the larger question of authorship and Ruì Chángxù (KR2b0021) restored fēnzhù material, Chén Jǐngyún focused on small individual textual slips: misnamings, miscaptions, misordered dates, dropped phrases, conflated officials. The Sìkù tíyào quotes a long catalog of these (translated above) — reading like a forensic catalog of textual slips across two thousand years of premodern Chinese history.
The work is an exemplary product of the early-Qing Hé Chuò 何焯 / Chén Jǐngyún school of philological corrigenda — short, evidentially anchored, focused on the smallest verifiable unit of textual error. Its tradition descends to Wáng Niànsūn 王念孫 and Yú Yuè 俞樾 in the late Qing.
For dating, Chén Jǐngyún’s adult scholarly career runs from ca. 1700 to his death in 1747; no firmer dating of the Dìng wù is recoverable.
Translations and research
No translation. No standalone monograph. Discussion in:
- Sìkù tíyào (Shǐ-bù, Biānnián-lèi, juǎn 47).
- Tang Zhì-jūn 湯志鈞, Jīng-xué shǐ lùn lù 經學史論錄 (Shanghai shudian, 2002).
Other points of interest
The work, alongside Chén Jǐngyún’s other corrigenda compendia (the Tōngjiàn Hú zhù jǔ zhèng, KR2b0013; the Sān guó zhì biàn wù; etc.), constitutes one of the principal documentary sources for the early-Qing transition from late-Míng broad-brush historical commentary to the small-unit philological method that would define the QiánJiā school of the eighteenth century.
Links
- Wikidata Q11084106
- Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0104001.