御定資治通鑑綱目三編

Yù dìng zī zhì tōng jiàn gāngmù sān biān 御定資治通鑑綱目三編

Imperially Set Third Continuation of the Comprehensive Mirror Outline-and-Detail imperially commissioned (fèng chì 奉敕撰), compiled by 張廷玉 (Zhāng Tíngyù, 1672–1755) et al.; revised under Qiánlóng 40 / 1775

About the work

A 40-juan Qing imperially-commissioned continuation of the Tōngjiàn gāngmù tradition for the Míng dynasty (1368–1644). Originally compiled in the late Yōngzhèng / early Qiánlóng era under Zhāng Tíngyù; substantially revised in Qiánlóng 40 / 1775 to correct errors of shū fǎ (writing-method) and to bring the foreign-language transliterations into line with the Qing-imperial Liáo Jīn Yuán Guóyǔ jiě.

Tiyao

Yù dìng tōng jiàn gāngmù sān biān, 40 juǎn. Qiánlóng 40 (1775), composed under imperial commission. Originally Grand Secretary Zhāng Tíngyù et al., under imperial commission, gathered the affairs of the Míng dynasty and composed the Tōng jiàn gāngmù sān biān — to continue Zhūzǐ and Shāng Lù’s books. But Tíngyù et al. only with brush-and-pen bāo biǎn sought rigour in shū fǎ; on event-traces had many gaps and omissions. Further, the various peripheral peoples — for personal-names and place-names — they followed old text without textual rectification, and could not avoid errors.

Now, Zhūzǐ in establishing the form originally took gāng to imitate the Chūn qiū and mù to imitate the Zuǒ zhuàn. Chūn qiū great meanings number in the thousands, brilliant as sun and stars. Yet without close investigation of the Zuǒ zhuàn’s event-traces, the Sage’s yǔ duó purport in the end cannot be made clear. How much more — books of historical biānnián only mark the gist in large script and do not provide beginning-and-end in fine notes; their right-and-wrong gain-and-loss — by what means then can it be known? Even the imperial-instruction-pointed-out Fúfān tiántǔ one item — the other items’ sketchiness, all may be inferred.

As for translated language, originally taking transliteration: in books before the Táng, all foreign personal-names and place-names recorded in the histories — bān bān (orderly) — investigatable. Only the Two Sòngs, bowed under strong neighbors, daily came to weakening; the brush-holders of the time, neither able to win at the frontier nor able to plan in tent-curtain — accordingly translated with foul language, to drag out their resentful hearts — actually contradicting the form of recording-and-loading. Continuing into Míng times, this habit was not removed. As the imperial-instruction-pointed-out Duǒyán Qīnghǎi etc. personal-names written tù (rabbit) and the like — also frequently occur. Mean and absurd — the more it cannot but be promptly rectified.

This compilation, respectfully receiving imperial deliberation, on large-script form-rule, all follows the imperially-set Tōng jiàn jí lǎn; while the fine notes carefully examine the shǐzhuàn, supplementing remnants and rectifying errors — making the head-and-tail orderly. Further, each appended fā míng, to clarify the principle of the imperial pen; each added substance-confirmation, to assist the merit of kǎo zhèng. While the absurdities of translated language are also all corrected following the imperially-set Liáo Jīn Yuán Guóyǔ jiě, one by one rectified — to transmit truth and correct error. Compared with Zhāng Tíngyù et al.’s original-edited copy — actually doubly more refined and meticulous. The Sage in establishing affairs takes “the most good” as period; if there is meaning unsettled, he does not from the already-completed pattern shrink from re-making — this too is one ten-thousandth of what may be glimpsed.

Abstract

The Yù dìng tōng jiàn gāngmù sān biān is the principal Qing imperially-sponsored Gāngmù continuation for the Míng dynasty — the third continuation (sān biān) following Zhū Xī’s original Gāngmù (Zhōu through Five Dynasties) and Shāng Lù’s SòngYuán Xù gāngmù (1476). The compositional history is unusual: the work was first compiled under Zhāng Tíngyù 張廷玉 in the late Yōngzhèng / early Qiánlóng era (the dating bracket here is set to 1746–1775 to span the original compilation through the substantial revision); then substantively revised in Qiánlóng 40 / 1775 by an imperial commission to correct two specific failings of the original.

The two principal corrections set out in the Sìkù tíyào: (1) Zhāng Tíngyù’s original had emphasised shū fǎ (the writing-method, i.e. praise-and-blame conventions) at the expense of substantive narrative completeness in the fēnzhù sub-notes; the revised version adds substantial historical detail to the fēnzhù. (2) Zhāng’s original retained the abusive Sòng / Míng transliterations of foreign-language personal and place names (which had been politically motivated character choices — substituting derogatory characters like tù “rabbit” for the actual Mongol or Manchu name); the revision systematically corrects these against the imperially-promulgated Liáo Jīn Yuán Guóyǔ jiě of Qiánlóng 36 / 1771, restoring proper transliterations.

The work’s gāng (large-script headings) are explicitly anchored to the parallel Yù pī tōng jiàn jí lǎn (KR2b0037) — the gāng lines and orthodoxy judgments are the same; the fēnzhù details are independently developed.

The combination of these two works — the Jí lǎn (covering antiquity through Míng) and the Sān biān (covering Míng in Gāngmù form) — constitutes the Qiánlóng-era imperial canon of universal-history writing. Together with the Huáng Qīng kāiguó fānglüè (KR2b0039) for the dynasty’s own founding and Xú Qiánxué’s Zī zhì tōng jiàn hòu biān (KR2b0040) for the SòngYuán bridge, they constitute the Qing imperial biānnián corpus.

Translations and research

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

• R. Kent Guy, The Emperor’s Four Treasuries (Harvard EAC, 1987).
• Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror (UC Press, 1999) — discusses the foreign-language transliteration revision as a key marker of Qiánlóng-era ideological self-positioning.

Other points of interest

The transliteration revision is one of the principal documentary sites of the Qing-imperial restoration of dignified rendering of Inner Asian names — a reversal of the Sòng / Míng practice of using derogatory Chinese characters for foreign names. The Qiánlóng emperor is unusually explicit in the Sìkù tíyào that this practice was politically motivated and historically discreditable.

Links

• Wikidata Q11084138
• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0105301.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §49.5.