Zhuōyì jì 卓異記
Notes on Outstanding Affairs old text attributed to 李翱 (Lǐ Áo); but per the Sìkù tiyao the attribution is anachronistic — the surviving preface is later forgery overlaid on a Late-Táng or Five-Dynasties compilation, possibly by Chén Hàn 陳翰 (also written Chén Áo 陳翺) per the Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì.
About the work
A one-juàn compilation of “outstanding” (zhuōyì 卓異) deeds and events of the Táng court — twenty-six entries on the present count (so the WYG copy; Cháo Gōngwǔ records twenty-seven). The old text bears the attribution of Lǐ Áo 李翺 (zì Xízhī 習之, 772–841), the Yuánhé Confucian scholar and Hán Yù’s 韓愈 disciple; but the Tángshū yìwénzhì attributes the work to a Chén Áo 陳翺, with a note “XiànMù shí rén 憲穆時人” (man of the XiànzōngMùzōng era) — and yet the work itself records events down to Zhāozōng 昭宗 (r. 888–904), too late for either Lǐ Áo or Chén Áo (presumably Xiànzōng-era). The Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì attributes it to a Chén Hàn 陳翰, with a note “also written Chén Áo”; and the surviving preface is dated Kāichéng 5, seventh month, eleventh day (= 840), with the next year (xīnyǒu) given as the first year of Wǔzōng’s Huìchāng — yet the body of the work twice mentions Wǔzōng by posthumous reign-name (so written after Wǔzōng’s death in 846). Both the attribution and the date in the surviving preface are therefore later interventions, and the body of the work has not been similarly updated. The Sìkù editors note moreover that the work labels two posthumously-restored emperors (Zhōngzōng 中宗 and Zhāozōng 昭宗) under the rubric zhuōyì — though both were dethroned and re-enthroned, both were imprisoned and oppressed, and both episodes are catastrophes to the dynasty rather than “outstanding” affairs.
Tiyao
Zhuōyì jì in one juàn, the old text attributed to Lǐ Áo of the Táng. The Tángshū yìwénzhì attributes it instead to Chén Áo 陳翺. As Lǐ Áo lived in the Zhēnyuán–Huìchāng period (785–846), he should not have written down to Zhāozōng. The Tángshū note on Chén Áo says he was a man of XiànMù shí (XiànzōngMùzōng era, c. 805–824), so he likewise should not be writing down to Zhāozōng. The work cannot be by Lǐ Áo, nor can it be by Chén Áo. The Sòngshǐ yìwénzhì gives the attribution as Chén Hàn 陳翰 with the note “or written Áo,” but does not say what manner of person. The preface is dated the eleventh day of the seventh month of Kāichéng 5 — that is, the last year of Wénzōng. The next year, xīnyǒu, would be the first year of Wǔzōng’s Huìchāng — yet the book twice calls Wǔzōng by his posthumous title. Not only is the attribution garbled, but the year-and-month notation in the preface is also a later addition, while the body of the work was not subsequently revised. The book records Táng-court splendid affairs, hence the title zhuōyì; yet Zhōngzōng and Zhāozōng were both deposed and restored — one imprisoned by his fierce mother, the other oppressed by rebellious ministers — both are catastrophes for the dynasty, and to call them zhuōyì shows extreme want of judgment. The Dúshū zhì says the work contains 27 affairs; in this copy I count only 26 headings — perhaps one has been lost, or perhaps the Zhōngzōng and Zhāozōng entries have been miscombined; we cannot tell. Reverently presented in the tenth month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Chief Editors: Jì Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. Chief Collator: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
The work is a Late-Táng or even Five-Dynasties miscellany on outstanding episodes of the Táng court down to Zhāozōng (r. 888–904). The traditional attribution to Lǐ Áo (CBDB id 22052; 772–841) is plainly impossible since the work records events post-dating his death; the Tángshū yìwénzhì’s alternative Chén Áo attribution is similarly anachronistic; the Sòngshǐ’s Chén Hàn (also given as Chén Áo) is the most plausible, though no firm Táng-period record of such a person survives. The catalog meta gives the work as by Lǐ Áo with date 798 — both impossible. The terminus ad quem is the post-Zhāozōng period: i.e. not before c. 888, and almost certainly post-Tiānyòu (904). The Sìkù editors’ analysis demonstrates that the surviving preface (dated Kāichéng 5 = 840) is itself a later forgery overlaid on a much later compilation. The date bracket here (840–870) reflects the disputed terminus; if the work is genuinely a Five-Dynasties or post-Táng compilation, the notAfter should extend further (to c. 950).
Translations and research
No substantial Western-language translation located. The work is briefly noted in Denis Twitchett, The Writing of Official History under the T’ang (Cambridge UP, 1992), as a minor witness to Late-Táng court historiography. The Sì-kù tíyào notice is in 史部·傳記類三·總錄之屬.
Other points of interest
A textbook example of Sìkù attribution-criticism. The transmission history shows three successive layers of attribution (Lǐ Áo → Chén Áo → Chén Hàn), each less confident than the last; the editorial conclusion, expressed in characteristic Sìkù tone, is that the body of the work has been less tampered with than the prefatory matter and so allows reconstruction of the actual terminus ad quem.
Links
- Wilkinson 2018, Chinese History: A New Manual §49.