宋季三朝政要

Sòng jì sān cháo zhèng yào 宋季三朝政要

Essential Affairs of the Three Reigns at the End of the Sòng by 闕名 (anonymous, zhuàn 撰); Sòng yí mín, early Yuán

About the work

A 6-juan annalistic chronicle (the catalog meta gives 6; sometimes also reckoned as 5 plus 1 appendix) of the last three Sòng reigns — Lǐzōng (1224–1264), Dùzōng (1264–1274), and the boy-emperors Gōngdì (1274–1276), Duānzōng (1276–1278), and Dì Bǐng (1278–1279) — composed by an anonymous Sòng yí mín in the early Yuán, with appended notes on the Èr wáng (the Brothers Wáng, i.e. Duānzōng and Dì Bǐng) of Guǎng and Yì.

Tiyao

Sòng jì sān cháo zhèng yào, 6 juǎn. (Held in the home of Biān xiū Wāng Rúzǎo.) The author’s name is not given. The opening title-inscription says: “the Lǐzōng Guó shǐ was carried into the Northern Capital by the Yuán; nothing more recoverable. So I compile and arrange the Lǐ Dù èr cháo and the Yòu zhǔ běn mò, with the appended GuǎngYì èr wáng affairs.” Its form too is of the biānnián lineage. Apparently the work of Sòng yí lǎo (surviving elder).

Yet the Lǐ-zōng-onwards Guó shǐ, those compiling the Sòng shǐ in fact saw — therefore the běnjì records are more detailed than this book. Further, this book got its material by hearsay; not without errors. The most extreme: it says in Bǎoqìng 1 (1225) Zhào Kuí, Zhào Fàn, Quán Zǐcái built the proposal for guarding the Yellow River and seizing the passes; and dispatched Yáng Yì and Zhāng Dí to take Luòyáng — fought with Northern troops, defeated, returned. On examining: in Bǎoqìng 1, Kuí and Fàn were still of slight rank and reputation; only five years later, Fàn first became Ānfǔ fùshǐ, Kuí first became Huáidōng tíxíng — they suppressed Lǐ Quán; Zǐcái then was cānyìguān. To Duānpíng 1 (1234), at the destruction of Jīn, Zǐcái became GuānShǎn zhìzhì shǐ, Zhī Hénán fǔ Xījīng liúshǒu, and there occurred the affair of the Luòyáng defeat. Counting up from Bǎoqìng 1 — nine years apart. What this records is not actual fact.

The rest of his orderings also lack form-and-essence. Yet on Sòng-end side-affairs they are quite detailed; many things not in the standard history. Preserving them is also useful for reference. As to the Lǐzōng, Dùzōng, and the Yíngguógōng (the boy-emperor) being called sān cháo; the GuǎngYì èr wáng attached as appendix — the form is also impartial. The juan-end argues on the Sòng’s fall, saying “the ruler had no failure of virtue; the blame falls to the powerful chancellor.” The argument is also quite straight. Then suddenly extends mìng shù (cosmic destiny), simultaneously bringing in yīn guǒ (cause and effect) — turning to placing affairs as fixed-as-it-is — quite at odds with quàn jiè (encouragement and warning) intent. Almost wishing to attach to Xú Xuàn making Lǐ Yù’s grave-record’s principle? But missing it.

Abstract

The Sòng jì sān cháo zhèng yào is the principal narrative chronicle of the final Sòng reigns under Lǐzōng (1224–1264) and Dùzōng (1264–1274) plus the brief reigns of the three child-emperors of the dynastic collapse (1274–1279). Composed by an anonymous Sòng yí mín in the early Yuán — its deliberately partial structure (sān cháo for the three legitimate emperors plus a separate Èr wáng appendix for the southern resistance brothers) signals the author’s yí mín loyalty.

The work is a primary documentary source for the Sòng zhèngtǒng end of the dynastic collapse. Its juan-by-juan coverage: Lǐzōng (Bǎoqìng 1 / 1225 — the chronological starting point — through Jǐngdìng 5 / 1264); Dùzōng (1265–1274); Gōngdì / Yíngguógōng (1274–1276); plus the Èr wáng appendix on Duānzōng and Dì Bǐng (1276–1279). The closing lùn on the Sòng’s fall is methodologically interesting — the author rejects the conventional verdict that the dynasty fell through imperial fault and assigns blame to the chancellors (Shǐ Mǐyuǎn and Jiǎ Sìdào in particular), then unexpectedly turns to a mìng shù / yīn guǒ (cosmic destiny / Buddhist karma) explanation that the Sìkù editors find aesthetically incoherent.

The Sìkù editors note as the work’s most spectacular error its placement of the Luòyáng campaign of Duānpíng 1 / 1234 (the Mongol-Sòng joint operation against the Jīn capital, then the disastrous Sòng follow-on campaign) into Bǎoqìng 1 / 1225 — a nine-year displacement. Such errors mark the work as written from hearsay (chuán wén) by someone without access to the Lǐzōng Guó shǐ, which had been carried off to the Yuán capital. It is consequently a less authoritative source than the Sòng shǐ for the Lǐzōng / Dùzōng core narrative; but for the boy-emperor period (1274–1279) and for the Èr wáng southern resistance, it is the principal vehicle, recording many things absent from the Sòng shǐ.

The dating bracket is the early Yuán yí mín period, ca. 1280–1310 (the Lǐzōng Guó shǐ must already have been carried off to the north — i.e. post-1276/1279). The catalog meta assigns Yuán; this is firm.

Translations and research

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

• Richard L. Davis, Wind Against the Mountain: The Crisis of Politics and Culture in Thirteenth-Century China (Harvard EAC, 1996) — uses the work for the Èr wáng resistance.
• Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History (CUP, 2021), index s.v. Sòng jì sān cháo zhèng yào.
• Wáng Ruì-lái 王瑞來, Sòng jì sān cháo zhèng yào jiān zhèng 宋季三朝政要箋證 (Beijing: Zhōnghuá, 2010) — modern critical edition.

Other points of interest

The closing yīnguǒ / mìngshù turn in the closing argument is one of the few late-thirteenth-century Chinese intellectual documents to fold a Buddhist interpretive frame into a Confucian dynastic post-mortem — symptomatic of the yí mín generation’s intellectual recourses after the Mongol conquest.

Links

• Wikipedia: Songji Sanchao Zhengyao
• Wikidata Q11084123
• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0104601.