聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

唐鑑

8 min read

Text ID
KR2o0003
Date
1086–1086
Dynasty
宋

Tángjiàn 唐鑑

The Tang Mirror

by 范祖禹 (Fàn Zǔyǔ, 1041–1098), with notes by 呂祖謙 (Lǚ Zǔqiān, 1137–1181)

About the work

The Tángjiàn is the most influential Northern Sòng work of historical criticism on the Táng — a moralised epitome of Táng political history from Gāozǔ (r. 618–626) down to Āidì 哀帝 (Zhāoxuān 昭宣) (r. 904–907), in 12 juàn of selected events plus authorial commentary, presented to the throne in Yuányòu 1 (1086). It was composed by Fàn Zǔyǔ during the long Tōngjiàn project: as the changbian compiler responsible for the Táng portion of KR2j0001 Zīzhì tōngjiàn 資治通鑑, Fàn had unparalleled command of the Táng materials, and the Tángjiàn distils what the Tōngjiàn could only treat synoptically into a sustained moral-political argument addressed directly to the throne. After Fàn’s death the work was annotated by 呂祖謙 of the Southern Sòng, whose comments expanded the original 12-juan structure into the received 24-juan recension transmitted in the Sìkù.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Tángjiàn in twenty-four juàn was composed by Fàn Zǔyǔ of the Sòng. Fàn, zì Chúnfǔ 純甫 (also written 淳父; the source has 純甫 — a slip of the Sìkù copyists), was a native of Huáyáng. He was a jìnshì of Jiāyòu 8 (1063), and rose to be Lóngtú gé xuéshì and Prefect of Shǎnzhōu (陜州). During the Zhìpíng era (1064–67), when Sīmǎ Guāng was commanded to compile the Tōngjiàn, Fàn served as compiler-officer (biānxiū guān) with charge of the Táng materials, and used what he gained from this work to produce this book. From Gāozǔ above to Zhāoxuān below it gathers the principal threads, attaches verdicts, and runs to twelve juàn.

In the first year of Yuányòu [1086], when Fàn held the post of Zhùzuò zuǒláng (著作佐郎), he memorialised it to the court. Later Lǚ Zǔqiān annotated it, and the work was redivided into twenty-four juàn. The book was greatly praised by Yīchuān (Chéng Yí 程頤), who called its analyses unequalled since the Three Dynasties. Zhū Xī, however, said the analyses were weak, with mutual inconsistencies — yet on Fàn’s adoption of Shěn Jìjì’s 沈既濟 view of taking the twenty-one years of Wǔ Hòu’s regency and assigning them to Zhōngzōng’s reign, with the parallel of “the Duke at Qiánhóu” in the Chūnqiū, and Fàn’s declaration that “even if I offend the gentlemen of antiquity, I will not flinch” (a sideswipe at Sīmǎ Guāng’s Tōngjiàn) — Zhū Xī himself, in composing his Gāngmù 綱目, kept exactly this practice (shū “the emperor was at Fángzhōu”). Likewise on the question of the White Horse Disaster: Fàn argues that Péi Shū 裴樞 had originally aligned himself with Zhū Quánzhōng to obtain the chancellorship, and was therefore not a martyr to the Táng; he refuses Ōuyáng Xiū’s contention that without the Péis’ deaths the dynasty could not have been transferred — and Zhū Xī also held this not to have been within Ōuyáng’s reach.

So Zhū Xī did not in fact reject the work. The other discussions are likewise concerned to trace the roots of order and disorder; though sometimes wide of the mark in fact, the cardinal intention is severe and upright, and the book may rightly be transmitted alongside KR2o0004 Sūn Fǔ’s 孫甫 Táng shǐ lùn duàn 唐史論斷.

Respectfully revised and submitted, sixth month of the forty-third year of Qiánlóng [1778]. General Compilers: Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

Fàn Zǔyǔ of Huáyáng (Chéngdū) was one of the three principal compilers of the Zīzhì tōngjiàn — Sīmǎ Guāng having entrusted him with the Táng changbian drafts in 1070, after which he followed Sīmǎ to Luòyáng and worked on the project for the next decade and a half. The Tángjiàn is the result of that work seen sideways: not the synoptic chronicle that became Tōngjiàn j. 184–265, but a thematic moral-political argument compiled from the same source materials, structured as a sequence of selected events each followed by Fàn’s signed commentary in the form Chén Zǔyǔ yuē 臣祖禹曰 (“Your servant Zǔyǔ submits…”). The two memorials presenting the book — one to the boy emperor Zhézōng and one to the Empress Dowager Gāo, both dated the 28th day of the second month of Yuányòu 1 (1086) and preserved in the WYG frontmatter — make explicit that the Tángjiàn is a “mirror” in the technical Sòng sense: a vehicle for jīngyán 經筵 (Classics-Mat) lecture material, designed to be read by the throne as a guide to government.

The work’s controversial editorial choices were two. First, on the regency of Wǔ Zétiān: where Sīmǎ Guāng’s Tōngjiàn dates the period 690–705 to her own Zhōu 周 dynasty, Fàn followed the early-Táng critic Shěn Jìjì 沈既濟 in collapsing those years into a fictive prolongation of Zhōngzōng’s reign — citing the Chūnqiū precedent of “Duke (Zhāo) being at Qiánhóu” 公在乾侯, and explicitly accepting that he might “offend the gentlemen” by doing so. Second, on the White Horse Disaster of 905, Fàn argued against Ōuyáng Xiū’s view that the Péi family’s destruction was a national catastrophe: he held that Péi Shū had been Zhū Quánzhōng’s instrument and was no martyr. Both judgements were received with mixed results in the Southern Sòng: Chéng Yí praised the work without reservation; Zhū Xī, while complaining elsewhere that Fàn’s analyses were sometimes “weak,” nevertheless adopted both editorial choices in his own Tōngjiàn gāngmù 通鑑綱目 (KR2o0020). Wáng Mòhóng’s 王懋竑 Báitián zázhù 白田雜著 reports that Zhū Xī’s mature view (in his Shècāng jì 社倉記) revised his earlier dismissal — so Sòng-school received opinion fluctuates and the early Yǔlù dismissals should not be the last word.

The Sòng-era pop-cultural reception is also striking. Cài Tāo’s 蔡絛 Tiěwéishān cóngtán 鐵圍山叢談 records that Fàn’s son Fàn Wēn 范溫, walking in the Dà Xiāngguó Temple, was pointed out by the eunuchs as “the Tángjiàn’s son” — they did not know who Fàn Zǔyǔ was, but they had heard of the Tángjiàn. Zhāng Duānyì’s 張端義 Guì’ěr jí 貴耳集 reports Sòng Gāozōng telling his lecturers that he read the Zīzhì tōngjiàn to learn that Sīmǎ Guāng had the bearing of a chief minister, and the Tángjiàn to learn that Fàn Zǔyǔ had the technique of the censor. The two stories together explain the work’s nickname Tángjiàn gōng 唐鑑公 attaching to Fàn himself.

The 12-juan original was already in wide circulation in the late Northern Sòng. Lǚ Zǔqiān’s annotation, made probably in the 1170s, is exegetical rather than substantive: it tracks down quotation sources, explicates obscure officialdom, and crossreferences the Tōngjiàn — and his redivision into 24 juàn became the received structure. The standard modern edition is the Zhōnghuá shūjú 2008 punctuated text. Wilkinson (Chinese History: A New Manual §49.7.2.1) flags the work as more detailed than the corresponding chapters of the Tōngjiàn and a primary source for the motives behind Táng decisions of state.

Translations and research

No complete English translation located.

  • Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual (Harvard, 2022), §51.4 and §52.4 list the Tángjiàn among the standard Sòng-era guides to Táng history.
  • Mark Halperin, Out of the Cloister: Literati Perspectives on Buddhism in Sung China, 960–1279 (Harvard Asia Center, 2006), discusses the Tángjiàn’s anti-Buddhist commentary positions in the Yuányòu lecturing context.
  • Hilde De Weerdt, Information, Territory, and Networks: The Crisis and Maintenance of Empire in Song China (Harvard, 2016), Ch. 6, on the circulation and reception of the Tángjiàn in Southern Sòng jīngyán and political-essay culture.
  • Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History: Sources and Narratives, 960–1279 CE (Cambridge UP, 2021), passim, on Fàn’s place in the Tōngjiàn compilation and the relationship of the Tángjiàn to it.
  • Cài Chóngbǎng 蔡崇榜, Sòngdài xiūshǐ zhìdù yánjiū 宋代修史制度研究 (Wénjīn, 1991).
  • Yú Yīngshí 余英時, Zhū Xī de lìshǐ shìjiè 朱熹的歷史世界 (Sānlián, 2003), on Fàn Zǔyǔ’s Yuányòu lecturing and its moral-political programme.

Other points of interest

The Tángjiàn is the principal Sòng historical-criticism text on the Táng, and along with KR2o0001 Shǐtōng and KR2j0001 Zīzhì tōngjiàn it sets the framework for all later premodern Chinese reflection on Táng government. It also reflects, by what it omits, the Yuányòu faction’s narrowing of acceptable historical judgement: the work largely passes over Wǔ Zétiān’s legitimate accomplishments and treats the High Táng’s military expansion with marked unease.

Graph View

Backlinks