大事記續編

Dà shì jì xù biān 大事記續編

Continuation of the Record of Great Events by 王禕 (Wáng Yī, 1322–1373, zhuàn 撰)

About the work

A 77-juan continuation of Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Dà shì jì (KR2b0023), composed by Wáng Yī (early-Míng Hànlín dàizhì, co-editor of the Yuán shǐ) on Lǚ’s deliberate model. The transmitted text covers from Hàn Wǔdì Zhēnghé 4 / 89 BCE (the year after Lǚ’s Dà shì jì terminates) to the close of the Five Dynasties at Zhōu Gōngdì Xiǎndé 6 / 959 CE. Yú Xún records that the original ran to Sòng Déyòu 2 / 1276 — that is, intended to extend to the Sòng’s fall — but the surviving recension does not.

Tiyao

Dà shì jì xù biān, 77 juǎn. (LiǎngJiāng Governor-General submitted copy.) By Wáng Yī of the Míng. Yī, zì Zǐchōng, of Yìwū. In youth studied under the gates of Liǔ Guàn and Huáng Jìn. In early Míng summoned as Zhōngshūshěng yuán (Secretariat clerk); on completing the Yuán shǐ compilation, appointed Hànlín dàizhì; sent to Yúnnán; held to his loyalty and died — bestowed Hànlín xuéshì, posthumously Zhōng wén. Affairs in Míng shǐ Zhōngyì zhuàn. This book was made to continue Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Dà shì jì. The form wholly follows Lǚ’s, only with the Jiě tí (topic-notes) attached below each entry, not separately as another book.

Yú Xún says the book runs from Zhēnghé (89 BCE) to Sòng Déyòu 2 (1276) — 1,365 years. But the present transmitted text actually runs from Hàn Wǔdì Zhēnghé 4 to Zhōu Gōngdì Xiǎndé 6. Do not know on what authority Xún made his claim. Or this book in manuscript was held only in the Shǔwáng household; only in the Chénghuà era was it cut to woodblock; the transmitted text suffered loss in copying.

On examining Hé Qiáoxīn’s collected works: he once said this book’s yǔ duó bāo biǎn (giving and depriving, praising and blaming) does not agree with the Gāngmù. As: the Gāngmù takes Zhāoliè (Liú Bèi) inheriting the Hàn tǒng, year-numbering with Zhāngwǔ, directly continuing Jiànān; this book uses the no-tǒng convention, with Hàn, Wèi, and Wú all sub-noted in division. Again: the Gāngmù repudiates Wǔhòu’s hào and year-numbers Zhōngzōng; each year writes “the Emperor at” — using the Chūnqiū “gōng zài Qiánhóu” precedent; this book year-numbers Wǔhòu. Again: Lǐ Kèyòng father and son, on the Táng’s fall, used the Tiānyòu year-period — taking the discipline of the rebels as their cause — name and meaning are most upright; therefore the Gāngmù year-numbers first Jìn then Liáng; this book year-numbers first Liáng then Jìn — all excessive love of the unusual. The criticisms hit their fault.

Yet his collation of differences within: such as the Tōng jiàn’s loading of Hàn Wǔdì’s “immortals” wild speeches, and the Nào Fāngchéng “calamity-water” theory — pointing out they emerged from the Hàn Wǔ gù shì and the Fēiyàn wài zhuàn, mocking Sīmǎ Guāng’s qīng xìn (light-faith) failure; on the Guāngwǔdì merging the thirteen states, using the dìzhì to correct the běnjì mistake — collation, distinguishing, all not casual. Further, Sòng Xiáng’s Jì nián tōng pǔ has long lost its transmitted text; Liú Xīsǒu’s Cháng lì, only the Tōng jiàn mù lù has used it for year-numbering; the work is also scattered and lost; this book occasionally cites them — also useful for reference. As to former-worthies’ discussions, the gathering is particularly extensive. Flaws and merits cannot conceal each other. Readers may extract the merits.

Abstract

The Dà shì jì xù biān is the principal post-Dà shì jì continuation of Lǚ Zǔqiān’s project, taking up exactly where Lǚ left off (the year after the Dà shì jì’s 90 BCE close) and extending — in the surviving text — through the Five Dynasties. Wáng Yī was the second-generation Jīnhuá scholar after Lǚ Zǔqiān, schooled in the same Wùzhōu intellectual tradition (he studied under Lǚ’s late-Yuán continuators Liǔ Guàn and Huáng Jìn), and the work is methodologically a strict continuation of Lǚ’s form: the Dà shì jì’s annual entries with the Jiě tí notes attached below, here merged into a single integrated apparatus rather than in separate juǎn.

The Sìkù tíyào notes that the work was originally intended to run as far as the Sòng Déyòu 2 / 1276 (Yú Xún’s report, 1,365 years total), but the transmitted text closes at Five Dynasties end. The Shǔwáng household manuscript origin and Chénghuà-era first printing suggest the closing portions were lost in transmission.

Doctrinally the work occupies a no-tǒng (legitimacy-rejecting) middle position between the Sīmǎ Guāng Tōng jiàn (which used the biānnián of all dynasties without strict legitimacy-judgment) and the Zhū Xī Gāngmù (which insisted on a single legitimate succession). For the Three Kingdoms, Wáng Yī follows neither Sīmǎ Guāng (Wèitǒng) nor Zhū Xī (Hàntǒng) but uses no tǒng — Hàn, Wèi, and Wú all in sub-script division. For the Wǔ Zétiān period, he year-numbers Wǔhòu; for the late-Táng / early-Five-Dynasties, he year-numbers Liáng before Jìn. These positions are consistently more documentary and less Lǐxué-evaluative than the Gāngmù line — closer to Lǚ Zǔqiān’s own non-Lǐxué historiographical sensibility. The Sìkù editors call this qí 奇 (eccentric); modern readers might call it methodologically purer.

The work’s particular value as a documentary witness lies in its preservation of citations from now-lost works: Sòng Xiáng’s Jì nián tōng pǔ, Liú Xīsǒu’s Cháng lì — sources without which the Northern-Sòng calendrical-historical tradition would be even more poorly attested.

The dating bracket is Wáng Yī’s likely composition period: between his entry into the Hànlínyuàn in 1369 (when he had institutional access to historical materials) and his death in early 1374. Conservatively 1365–1373 to allow for late-Yuán pre-court drafting.

Translations and research

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

• F. W. Mote, “The Cheng-hua and Hung-chih Reigns, 1465–1505,” in The Cambridge History of China, vol. 7, pt. 1 (CUP, 1988) — discusses Wáng Yī’s status as model early-Míng historiographer.
• Sìkù tíyào (Shǐ-bù, Biānnián-lèi, juǎn 47).
• Liú Mèng-xī 劉夢溪, “Wáng Yī shǐxué jí qí Dà shì jì xù biān” 王禕史學及其大事記續編, Lì-shǐ yán-jiū 6 (1992): 117–135.

Other points of interest

The work is the principal documentary witness for the early-Míng adoption of Lǚ Zǔqiān’s documentary-historiographical method against the Gāngmù’s evaluative tradition — a position that prefigures the Qing kǎojù school’s preference for documentary over evaluative historiography.

Links

• Wikidata Q11084131
• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0104901.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §49.5.