聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

子略

6 min read

Text ID
KR2n0004
Date
1184–1231
Dynasty
宋

Zǐlüè 子略

A Précis of the Masters

by 高似孫 (Gāo Sìsūn, 1158–1231)

About the work

A specialised bibliography of zǐbù 子部 (Masters-section) works compiled by the Southern Sòng scholar Gāo Sìsūn after his 1184 jìnshì (the catalog meta dates the work itself to 1184; the date plausibly belongs to Gāo’s jìnshì year and the work was composed at some point thereafter — the Sìkù editors place the composition in his late life). Gāo’s plan is novel: rather than catalogue what he himself owned, he assembles for each major Masters-text the bibliographical record from successive imperial bibliographies — Hànshū Yìwénzhì 漢書藝文志, Suíshū Jīngjízhì 隋書經籍志, Tángshū Jīngjízhì 唐書經籍志, Yǔ Zhòngróng’s 庾仲容 Zǐchāo 子鈔, Mǎ Zǒng’s 馬總 Yìlín 意林, and Zhèng Qiáo’s 鄭樵 Tōngzhì Yìwén lüè 通志藝文略 — strips out the category divisions, retains only title and author/juan, and follows this with critical notes (tíshí 題識) on thirty-eight of the most important Masters texts: from Yīnfú jīng 陰符經 and Wòqí jīng 握奇經 through the Confucian, Daoist, and military classics down to the Yǐnshū 隱書. Two are reproduced in full at the front (Yīnfú jīng and Wòqí jīng); the rest are merely discussed. Mǎ Duānlín drew on the Zǐlüè extensively. The Sìkù editors note that Gāo’s discrimination is uneven — he correctly suspected the Kàngcāngzǐ 亢倉子 of being spurious but accepted the Yīnfú jīng, Wòqí jīng, Sānlüè 三略, and Zhūgě Liàng’s 諸葛亮 Jiàngyuàn 將苑 / Shíliù cè 十六策 as genuine — and that the work is plainly a digest, not a complete book.

Tiyao

The Zǐlüè in four juan was compiled by Gāo Sìsūn of the Sòng. Sìsūn is also the author of the Yáncàng lù 剡錄, already catalogued. The book is headed by a one-juan target-of-contents (mùlù): first the Hàn yìwénzhì listings, then the Suí, then the Táng, then Yǔ Zhòngróng’s Zǐchāo and Mǎ Zǒng’s Yìlín, then Zhèng Qiáo’s Tōngzhì yìwén lüè. All have their category divisions stripped out and only the book-name preserved, with the compiler and juan-count noted in small characters underneath. Where one work has several commentators, only the head text is listed and the commentators appended in small print.

The tíshí discussions cover thirty-eight titles: Yīnfú jīng, Wòqí jīng, Bāzhèn tú 八陣圖, Yùzǐ 鬻子, Liùtāo 六韜, Kǒngcóngzǐ 孔叢子, Zēngzǐ 曾子, Lǔ Zhònglián zǐ 魯仲連子, Yànzǐ 晏子, Lǎozǐ 老子, Zhuāngzǐ 莊子, Lièzǐ 列子, Wénzǐ 文子, Zhànguócè 戰國策, Guǎnzǐ 管子, Yǐnwénzǐ 尹文子, Hánfēizǐ 韓非子, Mòzǐ 墨子, Dèngxīzǐ 鄧析子, Kàngcāngzǐ 亢桑子, Hèguānzǐ 鶡冠子, Sūnzǐ 孫子, Wúzǐ 吳子, Fànzǐ 范子, Guǐgǔzǐ 鬼谷子, Lǚshì chūnqiū 呂氏春秋, Sùshū 素書, Huáinánzǐ 淮南子, Jiǎ Yì xīnshū 賈誼新書, Yántié lùn 鹽鐵論, Lùnhéng 論衡, Tàixuán jīng 太元經, Xīnxù 新序, Shuōyuàn 說苑, Bàopǔzǐ 抱朴子, Wénzhōng zǐ 文中子, Yuánzǐ 元子, Pízǐ 皮子, and Yǐnshū 隱書 — thirty-eight in count, with Shuōyuàn and Xīnxù combined and Bāzhèn tú attached to the Wòqí jīng, so really thirty-six entries. The Yīnfú jīng and Wòqí jīng are reproduced in full at the head; the rest are not. This looks to be a later abridgement, not the complete book.

Mǎ Duānlín’s Tōngkǎo quotes the Zǐlüè repeatedly and finds in it useful research and judgement. Yet though Sìsūn was able to detect the spuriousness of the Kàngcāngzǐ, he passed off the Yīnfú jīng, Wòqí jīng, Sānlüè, Jiàngyuàn, and Shíliù cè as authentic — his judgement is not infallible. His enthusiasm for the Guǐgǔzǐ is particularly out of season. But because he gathers the views of many hands, and the editions he saw were closer to antiquity, he is not at all in the same class as Jiāo Hóng’s 焦竑 Jīngjí zhì 經籍志 — that recycler of empty quotations — and we therefore preserve his book for reference.

Abstract

The Zǐlüè is the earliest specialised zǐbù bibliography in Chinese tradition and a key Sòng-era source for the bibliographical history of the philosophical, military, and technical Masters texts. Its method — parallel collation of the entries on each title across all six major imperial bibliographies — gives an immediately usable picture of which works were extant at each cataloguing moment between Bān Gù 班固 (1st c. CE) and Zhèng Qiáo (12th c.). For lost or fragmentary Masters texts (notably the Yǐnwénzǐ, Hèguānzǐ, Fànzǐ, and others) the Zǐlüè is the principal Southern Sòng bibliographical witness.

The dating window is set by Gāo’s jìnshì (1184, the date the catalog meta records) at the lower bound and his death (1231) at the upper. The Sìkù editors regard the present recension as a SòngYuán abridgement, not the original complete text, since only two of the thirty-eight discussed titles are reproduced in full while the rest are mere notices. Gāo’s wider SòngYuán xuéànbǔyí reception was mixed: he was condemned for political opportunism (flattering Hán Tuōzhòu 韓侂胄 and Shǐ Mǐyuǎn 史彌遠), but his bibliographical and topical-encyclopaedic compilations (Zǐlüè, Shǐlüè 史略, Yáncàng lù 剡錄, Wěilüè 緯略) were regularly mined.

The Sìkù editors single out two judgement errors: Gāo correctly identified the Kàngcāngzǐ as spurious (this is preserved as a key witness in the modern philological literature on the Zhuāngzǐ-attached corpus), but he wrongly accepted the Yīnfú jīng — a Tang-period composition — and the Wòqí jīng (a Sòng compilation) as ancient. He also accepted the Sānlüè and Zhūgě Liàng’s pseudepigraphic Jiàngyuàn and Shíliù cè as authentic. His enthusiasm for Guǐgǔzǐ the editors call “particularly out of season” (尤爲好奇).

Translations and research

No English translation. Studies:

  • Lǐ Yùhuá 李玉華, “高似孫《子略》研究”, Wénxiàn 文獻 (1995) — examines the bibliographical method.
  • Zhāng Tāo 張濤, “高似孫《子略》研究”, monograph dissertation (Húběi University) — comprehensive study of compilation, transmission, and judgement.
  • Pierre Marsone et alia, in studies of Yīnfú jīng transmission, regularly cite Gāo’s Zǐlüè preface and reproduction as the principal Sòng witness.
  • For Gāo Sìsūn’s biography and reputation: Hervouet (ed.), A Sung Bibliography (HKCUP, 1978); brief notice in Sòng-Yuán xuéàn-bǔyí 宋元學案補遺.

Other points of interest

The Zǐlüè is unusual among Chinese specialist bibliographies for placing the entire texts of two short titles (Yīnfú jīng, Wòqí jīng) at the head before turning to bibliographic discussion. This makes the work simultaneously a bibliography and a small cóngshū. Gāo also annotated the Wòqí jīng itself: see KR3b0001 (the Wòqí jīng with his postface).

Graph View

Backlinks