兩朝綱目備要

Liǎngcháo gāngmù bèi yào 兩朝綱目備要

Annalistic Compendium of the Two Reigns by 闕名 (anonymous, zhuàn 撰); probably late-Sòng to early-Yuán

About the work

A 16-juan annalistic chronicle of the Southern-Sòng liǎng cháo — the two reigns of Guāngzōng (Shàoxī 1 / 1190 – Shàoxī 5 / 1194) and Níngzōng (Qìngyuán 1 / 1195 – Jiādìng 17 / 1224). Anonymous; the catalog assigns it to Yuán dynasty, but its internal stance is nèi Sòng wài Yuán 內宋外元 (privileging the Sòng over the Yuán). Recovered from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn by the Sìkù editors and re-divided into 16 juǎn.

Tiyao

Liǎngcháo gāngmù bèi yào, 16 juǎn. (Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recovery copy.) The author’s name is not given. What is recorded begins from Sòng Guāngzōng Shàoxī 1, ends at Níngzōng Jiādìng 17. No house-catalog records it. On examining: the Yuán Wú Shīdào’s Lǐbù jí contains an Answer to Chén Zhòngzhòng’s question on the Chuī jiàn lù, saying: “the Xù Sòng biānnián records, several months after Wú Xī’s execution, Lǐ Hǎoyì died of poison.” Also a Postface to Móu Chéngfù’s biography of Dèng Píngzhòng and the Jìdǐ shìlüè says: “Wú Xī’s execution was actually the merit of Yáng Jùyuán binding Lǐ Hǎoyì; covered up by Ān Bǐng’s clique. Recently a Xù Chén Jūn Sòng biānnián records Jùyuán’s affair quite fully, although able to write ‘Ān Bǐng kills his cānyìguān Yáng Jùyuán,’ yet again attaches the crime of unauthorised killing of Sūn Zhōngxiǎn — generally at the time the merit was given to Bǐng, so the matter not made clear.” Cross-referencing his citation, this agrees with what the present book records. Suspected this book in the Yuán was once called Xù Sòng biānnián. But Shīdào also did not say clearly from whom it was composed.

Look at the entry under Jiādìng 14, sixth month, yǐhài, “supplement YǔJù to bǐng yì láng”; the entry-note says “this is Lǐzōng Huángdì.” On examining the Sòng-period system, even old names also tabooed; this directly indicts without avoiding — apparently a Yuán person. Yet his work nèi Sòng wài Yuán, also writes the Yuán’s national-founding origins; many enemy-state hearsay reports — perhaps a late-Sòng mountain-forest scholar, not knowing the established forms.

Chén Jūn’s Biānnián bèi yào was made by abridging Lǐ Tāo’s Cháng biān; this book takes the Liǎng cháo Shí lù as basis, supplemented with Lǐ Xīnchuán’s discussions. Thus Zhào Dǐng called Zhào chéngxiàng; Ān Bǐng called Ān guānwén; Qián Xiàngzǔ called Qián cānzhèng; Lǐ Bì called Lǐ cānzhèng; Shǐ Mǐyuǎn called Shǐ chéngxiàng — much following contemporary documentary text, not all silently corrected. The recording of the JīnYuán start-of-quarrel affairs traces back the Jīnyuán founding genealogy and offices, fully detailing the head-and-tail — looking like a separate book, not the form of supplementing the old history. Yet narrative is concise and clear; arguments mostly impartial. Such as Sìchuān reducing the heavy é-tax, Húběi running huì zǐ, the supplementing of Fàn Zǔyǔ’s posthumous title, Hé Zhì retiring from the zhìkē — all sufficient to supplement the Sòng shǐ’s incompleteness.

For year-numbering divergences: the Sòng shǐ Hán Tuōzhòu zhuàn records Xuē Shūsī’s announcing-and-deploying JīngHú; Chéng Sōng and Wú Xī jointly going to Sìchuān; Dèng Yǒulóng announcing-and-soothing the Two Huái; Xú Bāngxiàn dismissed-from prefect-of-Chǔ-zhōu — all in Kāixī 4. But Kāixī in fact had no fourth year. This book records them in Kāixī 2 bǐngyín — that must be the truth. For surname divergences: the Sòng shǐ Zhào Yànyú zhuàn has Zhōnglángjiàng Fàn Rèn; this book gives Fàn Zhòngrèn. Zhào Rǔyú zhuàn has Xuānzàn shèrén Fù Chāngzhāo; this book gives Chāngqī. Bùshuài Yán Zhòngyè; this book gives Wáng Zhòngxiān. Běnjì fù dūtǒng Zhái Cháozōng got the precious seal; this book gives Xìngzōng. Sufficient to mutually testify to differences. Only on Shǐ Mǐyuǎn deposing-and-establishing the Jìwáng affair, sketchy and not recorded — perhaps the era still close, public opinion not unified, the matter not yet settled — therefore left in doubt. Yet Mǐyuǎn building family temple, seeking qǐfù (recall from mourning), every one of these large-written in the bamboo — knowing not concealed by twisted brush.

The book was rare to be transmitted; only seen in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn, head and tail still preserved complete. We carefully collated and copied for reference. The original juan-table cannot be recovered. Now annually compiled, divided into 16 juǎn. There are sometimes narrative errors and confused beginnings-and-endings; the imperial-criticism instruction lights up like dispelling fog. We respectfully follow the imperial dictum, carefully verifying, each adding case-notes to clarify — orderly head and tail. Not only does long-buried old archive get to be displayed; even hundreds of years’ uncorrected gaps, once seen by the imperial gaze, the yì lì clarified — particularly the work’s good fortune.

Abstract

The Liǎngcháo gāngmù bèi yào is the principal extant chronicle of the Southern-Sòng liǎng cháo of Guāngzōng (1190–1194) and Níngzōng (1195–1224) — that is, the period after Lǐ Xīnchuán’s Yào lù coverage ends (1162) and before the SòngYuán transition. It is structurally an anonymous synoptic chronicle following the Tōng jiàn gāngmù form (without the moral bāobiǎn apparatus), organising affairs by year and month, drawing on the Sòng Liǎng cháo Shí lù as primary base supplemented with Lǐ Xīnchuán’s Cháoyě zá jì and Yào lù.

The dating is uncertain. The Sìkù editors’ analysis yields conflicting indicators: (a) the work uses Yuán-period taboo-violations, suggesting Yuán composition; (b) the nèiSòng wàiYuán stance and the yímín tone suggest late-Sòng; (c) the inclusion of substantive material on the JīnYuán founding genealogy suggests early-Yuán access to Yuán-court material. Their conclusion — “perhaps a late-Sòng mountain-forest scholar not familiar with established forms” — is the working consensus; the dating bracket here is set to 1224 (the chronicle’s end-date as terminus post quem non) through ca. 1280 (the early Yuán). The catalog meta assigns the work to Yuán; this is conventional rather than firm.

The work’s particular value lies in (a) preserving substantive material on the Hán Tuōzhòu administration, the Kāixī běi fá (1206 northern campaign), and the Jiādìng peace; (b) preserving the founding-period documentary record on the Jīn and Yuán start-of-quarrel; (c) cross-checking the Sòng shǐ on dating, naming, and event-attribution. The Sìkù editors itemize a number of Sòng shǐ errors corrected by this work — including the Kāixī 4 (a non-existent year) muddle, the Fàn Rèn / Fàn Zhòngrèn naming, the Fù Chāngzhāo / Chāngqī naming, etc.

Translations and research

No translation. No standalone Western-language monograph. Discussion in:

• Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History (CUP, 2021), index s.v. Liǎng-cháo gāng-mù bèi yào.
• Yán Yǒng-chéng 嚴永成, Liǎng-cháo gāng-mù bèi yào jiào zhèng 兩朝綱目備要校證 (Beijing: Zhōnghuá, 1995) — modern critical edition.

Other points of interest

Together with Liú Shíjǔ’s Xù Sòng biānnián zī zhì tōng jiàn (KR2b0026), the work is one of two surviving narrative chronicles for late-Southern-Sòng court politics independent of the Sòng shǐ — and accordingly an essential check on Yuán-period biases in the standard history’s portrayal of late-Sòng figures.

Links

• Wikidata Q11084121
• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0104402.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §49.5.