Tōngzhì 通志
Comprehensive Treatises by 鄭樵 (compiler)
About the work
A 200-juǎn universal history of China from the Yellow Emperor 黃帝 down to the end of the Suí 隋 (or Táng for the jì), the second of the Sāntōng 三通 — the foundational triad of Chinese institutional historiography, comprising Dù Yòu’s 杜佑 Tōngdiǎn 通典, Zhèng Qiáo 鄭樵’s Tōngzhì, and Mǎ Duānlín’s 馬端臨 Wénxiàn tōngkǎo 文獻通考 (cf. Wilkinson, Chinese History, §51.2). Compiled by the Pútián 莆田 polymath Zhèng Qiáo (1104–1162) over decades of recluse-scholarship on Mt. Jiājì 夾漈山 in Fújiàn, presented to court in Shàoxīng 紹興 19 (1149), and revised through Zhèng’s death in 1162. The work consists of 18 juǎn of imperial annals, 2 juǎn of empress biographies, 4 juǎn of chronological tables (niánpǔ), 51 juǎn of “summary treatises” (lüè 略), and 125 juǎn of biographies. The jì and zhuàn are largely abridged from the standard histories, and reception has consistently focused not on these but on the 二十略 / Èrshí lüè — Zhèng Qiáo’s twenty topical treatises, which constitute his original contribution and which were singled out by Wáng Shùmín 王樹民 in the modern Zhōnghuá Shūjú edition (Tōngzhì èrshí lüè jiàozhèng, 1995).
Tiyao
Submitted by your servants, etc. The Tōngzhì in two hundred juǎn was compiled by Zhèng Qiáo of the Sòng. Qiáo’s Ěryǎ zhù is already on record. The “comprehensive history” form was inaugurated by Sīmǎ Qiān; thus Liú Zhījī’s Shǐtōng in describing the two formats counted the Shǐjì and Hànshū as a single format, but in describing the six schools counted them as two — because one narrates a single dynasty and the other narrates all dynasties. The latter form gathers a thousand antiquities into a single voice: without learning sufficient to comprehend it and writing sufficient to fuse it, the book cannot be made. Liáng Wǔdì made a Tōngshǐ in 620 juǎn — soon dispersed; later writers therefore generally did not dare attempt the form. Qiáo, drawing on his vast erudition, gathered the old records, mixed in his new ideas, and composed this work — 18 juǎn of imperial annals, 2 of empress biographies, 4 of chronological tables, 51 of summary treatises, and 125 of biographies. The jì and zhuàn are abridgements from the standard histories, sometimes shifted around but on the whole holding to the old headings — the format is not pure. The chronological tables follow the various tables of the Shǐjì, but inserting major enfeoffments and major political events into them, sometimes prolixly, sometimes deficiently — much branching out, also no special attention. The author’s lifelong concentration of effort, the essence of the whole work, is in the twenty lüè alone. They are: 1. Clans 氏族; 2. Six Scripts 六書; 3. Seven Tones 七音; 4. Astronomy 天文; 5. Geography 地理; 6. Capitals 都邑; 7. Rituals 禮; 8. Posthumous Names 諡; 9. Implements and Robes 器服; 10. Music 樂; 11. Officialdom 職官; 12. Selection 選舉; 13. Penal Code 刑法; 14. Economy 食貨; 15. Bibliography 藝文; 16. Textual Criticism 校讎; 17. Diagrams and Genealogies 圖譜; 18. Inscriptions 金石; 19. Portents 災祥; 20. Plants, Insects 草木昆蟲. The five — Clans, Six Scripts, Seven Tones, Capitals, Plants and Insects — are all without precedent in earlier histories. The Shǐtōng “Treatises” chapter says: “Three subjects are eligible to be treatises: Capitals, Clans, Local Products.” Qiáo added Clans, Capitals, Plants and Insects (here standing for Local Products) — three lüè — clearly drawing on this passage. As to Six Scripts and Seven Tones, these are branches of xiǎoxué 小學 (elementary learning) and not the proper concern of historians; he showed off learning by recklessly extending himself into them — by the canons of the form, this is no precedent. Of the remaining fifteen, all are present in earlier histories, but Posthumous Names and Implements-Robes are subdivisions of Ritual; Textual Criticism, Diagrams-Genealogies, and Inscriptions are subdivisions of Bibliography — splitting them off as separate categories is gratuitous and fragmentary. Furthermore: the Clans treatise is full of omissions; the Six Scripts treatise is full of forced readings; the Astronomy treatise contains only the Dānyuánzǐ Bùtiān gē 丹元子步天歌; the Geography treatise wholly copies Dù Yòu’s Tōngdiǎn “Subprefectures and Commanderies, General Preface” in one piān, with a few water-courses listed in front from the Hànshū dìlǐ zhì and the Shuǐjīng zhù — even the Yǔgòng mountains and rivers cannot be detailed in full; the Posthumous Names treatise establishes new headings but excises the Shìfǎ of Shěn Yuē 沈約 and Hú Chēn 扈琛 — and even the yáo 杲-character posthumous epithets in the Táng huìyào are dropped; the Implements section’s lists of zūn yí jué zhì 尊彝爵觶 are sketchy and overlap with the Inscriptions treatise; the Robes section wholly copies the Tōngdiǎn “Auspicious Rituals”; the six treatises Rites, Music, Officialdom, Economy, Selection, and Penal Code are likewise extracts from the Tōngdiǎn with no further investigation; the Officialdom treatise rewrites the Tōngdiǎn’s commentary as if it were base-text — even more careless. The Bibliography treatise’s headings are too proliferated; Hán Yù’s Lúnyǔ and Lúnyǔ lèi appear twice; Zhāng Hú’s Sùlǚzǐ appears in both the Rújiā and Dàojiā; Liú Ān’s Huáinánzǐ appears in both Dàojiā and Zájiā; Jīng Hào’s Bǐfǎ jì is on painting and is placed under calligraphy; Wúxìng Rénwù zhì and Héxī Rénwù zhì are biographical and are placed under Míngjiā; Duàn Chéngshì’s Yùgé is one piān of the Yǒuyáng zázǔ and is placed under treasures — all very absurd. The Inscriptions treatise’s bells, tripods, steles, and tablets, set against Bógǔ and Kǎogǔ and Jígǔ and Jīnshí lù, omits seven or eight in ten. The Portents treatise wholly copies the Wǔxíng sections of the various histories. The Plants and Insects treatise even fails to consult the Shī jīng and Ěryǎ annotations. Sòng scholars rated principles above textual scholarship and rarely turned attention to the latter; Qiáo, relying on his erudition and looking down on his age, presumed no one would rise to challenge him — and so he strode about with an air, no longer carefully checking, and could not produce a fully precise work; later writers had much to fault. Yet his collection of materials is itself broad and his arguments often penetrating; pure and impure are mixed but the flaws do not overwhelm the merit, and he is hardly to be ranked with the rootless gossips. To this day the work is consulted as a mirror; that it is set alongside Dù Yòu and Mǎ Duānlín as the Sāntōng has its reasons. Second month, Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Chief compilers, etc.
Abstract
The Tōngzhì is the second of the Sāntōng and the most ambitious single-author project of Sòng historiography. Wilkinson (Chinese History, §51.2.2) summarises Zhèng Qiáo’s intent: to write a single annals-biography history of all China from Huángdì to the Suí, structured on the Shǐjì model but supplemented by twenty topical “summary treatises” 二十略 — these were Zhèng’s principal innovation and the only part of the work that posterity has consistently regarded as essential. The original title was to have been Tōngshǐ 通史 but Zhèng changed it to avoid confusion with Liáng Wǔdì’s lost work of that name and with the original title of the Zīzhì tōngjiàn. Seven of the twenty lüè — Clans 氏族, Six Scripts 六書, Seven Tones 七音, Textual Criticism 校讎, Diagrams and Genealogies 圖譜, Inscriptions 金石, and Plants/Insects 草木昆蟲 — concern subjects not previously treated in the zhèngshǐ monographs. The Yìwén lüè (bibliography), running to roughly a quarter of the entire 51-juǎn treatise section, contains the most detailed bibliographical classification scheme produced in China before the twentieth century (Wilkinson, §73.3.5). The Liùshū lüè is the founding statement of systematic Sòng xiǎoxué; the Qīyīn lüè the first Chinese phonological treatise to fully integrate Sanskrit-derived rime-table method. The Sìkù tíyào faults the jì and zhuàn and a number of the lüè (especially Geography, Officialdom, Inscriptions, Plants/Insects) for being slack abridgements of the Tōngdiǎn and the standard histories — a judgement that subsequent scholarship has largely confirmed and that explains why modern editions (notably Wáng Shùmín, Tōngzhì èrshí lüè jiàozhèng, Zhōnghuá shūjú, 1995) typically present only the twenty lüè. Two Qing imperial continuations — the Qīndìng xù Tōngzhì 欽定續通志 (KR2d0020) and the Qīndìng huángcháo tōngzhì 皇朝通志 — were both placed by the Sìkù in the same bièshǐ category.
Translations and research
- Wáng Shùmín 王樹民, ed. 1995. Tōngzhì èr-shí lüè 通志二十略. 2 vols. Běijīng: Zhōnghuá shūjú. The standard punctuated edition of the twenty treatises.
- Lee, Thomas H. C. 2004. “History, erudition, and good government: Cheng Ch’iao and encyclopedic thinking.” In Thomas H. C. Lee, ed., The New and the Multiple: Sung Senses of the Past. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 163–199.
- Wú Huáiqí 吳懷祺. 1992. Zhèng Qiáo píng-zhuàn 鄭樵評傳. Nánjīng: Nánjīng dàxué. The standard intellectual biography.
- Wú Huáiqí 吳懷祺. 1996. Zhèng Qiáo wén-jí 鄭樵文集. Běijīng: Shūmù wénxiàn.
- Wú Huáiqí 吳懷祺. 2002. “Zhèng Qiáo de shǐ-xué pīpíng hé shǐ-xué sī-xiǎng.” In Wú, ed., Zhōngguó shǐ-xué sī-xiǎng tōng-shǐ: Sòng-Liáo-Jīn juǎn 中國史學思想通史·宋遼金卷. Hé-féi: Huángshān shūshè.
- Liú Yáng 劉揚. 2009. Zhèng Qiáo Tōngzhì yánjiū 鄭樵《通志》研究. Húnán shīfàn dàxué chūbǎnshè.
Other points of interest
The Èrshí lüè — particularly the Yìwén lüè, Xiàoshòu lüè, and Túpǔ lüè — together constitute the most detailed surviving Sòng-era statement of bibliographical and library theory, and are the principal pre-Qīng source for the history of the Chinese book. Zhèng Qiáo’s Xiàoshòu lüè 校讎略 is the first Chinese treatise on critical text-collation as a discipline. The Liùshū lüè and Qīyīn lüè, despite the Sìkù’s deprecation, are foundational texts for the history of Chinese phonology and writing-system theory. Three Qīng imperial continuations of the Sāntōng (the Xù tōngzhì, Xù tōngdiǎn, Xù wénxiàn tōngkǎo) and three further “current-dynasty” continuations (the Qīng tōngdiǎn, Qīng tōngzhì, Qīng wénxiàn tōngkǎo) — together known as the Jiǔtōng 九通 — extend the Sāntōng tradition through the Qīng.