聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

御批資治通鑑綱目

7 min read

Text ID
KR2o0020
Date
1172–1708
Dynasty
宋

Yùpī Zīzhì tōngjiàn gāngmù 御批資治通鑑綱目

The Imperially Annotated Comprehensive Mirror, in Outline-and-Detail Form

by 朱熹 (Zhū Xī, 1130–1200), with annotations (pī 批) by 聖祖 (Qīng Shèngzǔ / Kāngxī, r. 1661–1722)

About the work

The Kāngxī-imperially-annotated edition of Zhū Xī’s Tōngjiàn gāngmù — the foundational Southern-Sòng dàoxué recasting of Sīmǎ Guāng’s KR2j0001 Zīzhì tōngjiàn into “outline-and-detail” form (with major events written large as gāng 綱 and supporting material in smaller-character mù 目). Zhū Xī wrote only the fánlì 凡例 (compilation rubric) and the autopreface; the actual gāng and mù were drafted under his supervision (chiefly by Zhào Shīyuān 趙師淵, with input from Hú Ānguó 胡安國’s earlier Tōngjiàn jǔyào bǔyí 通鑑舉要補遺). The text was substantively complete by Qiándào 8 (1172, the fánlì date), with refinements continuing through Zhū’s lifetime; it was first printed by Zhū’s family after his death and subsequently became one of the central authoritative texts of post-Sòng dàoxué historiography. The Kāngxī imperial annotations (over 100 of them) were appended in Kāngxī 47 (1708) on a Chén Rénxī 陳仁錫 base text, and printed by Sòng Lào 宋犖 of the Lǐbù.

The key editorial intervention of the Gāngmù against the Tōngjiàn is the substitution of ShǔHàn legitimacy (dì Shǔ 帝蜀) for Sīmǎ Guāng’s Wèi legitimacy (dì Wèi 帝魏), and the consistent use of Chūnqiū-style writing-conventions (shūfǎ 書法) to register praise and blame. The annotative tradition is thick: the principal Sòng commentaries are Yǐn Qǐxǐn’s 尹起莘 Fāmíng 發明 and Liú Yǒuyì’s 劉友益 Shūfǎ 書法; the Yuán philological apparatus is Wāng Kèkuān’s 汪克寬 Kǎoyì 考異, Wáng Yòuxué’s 王幼學 Jíláng 集覽, and Xú Zhāowén’s 徐昭文 Kǎozhèng 考證; the Míng-period correctives are Chén Jǐ’s 陳濟 Jíláng zhèngwù 集覽正誤 and Féng Zhìshū’s 馮智舒 Zhìshí biànzhèng 質實辨正. Huáng Zhòngzhāo 黃仲昭 of the Hóngzhì era integrated all of these into a single composite edition, which Chén Rénxī then republished in evaluative form — and which, in turn, the Kāngxī emperor took as the base for his own annotations.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit: Yùpī Zīzhì tōngjiàn gāngmù in 59 juàn was composed by Zhū Zǐ of the Sòng. He took Sīmǎ Guāng’s Zīzhì tōngjiàn and Hú Ānguó’s Tōngjiàn jǔyào bǔyí and balanced and integrated them; the gāng (outlines) were written large, and the divided notes formed the mù (details). The compilation rubric is set out in his autopreface; he also has a single juàn of fánlì (compilation guidelines) elaborating the principles of praise-and-blame, advancement-and-retirement. But the divided-note mù sections were in fact completed by Zhào Shīyuān of Tiāntái; the going-back-and-forth of editorial deliberation appears throughout in Zhū’s own hand-letters — the work is detailed, careful, refined, and may be called fully accomplished.

After this, in the Sòng Yǐn Qǐxǐn of Suíchāng wrote a Fāmíng; Liú Yǒuyì of Yǒngxīn wrote a Shūfǎ. In the Yuán, Wāng Kèkuān of Qímén wrote a Kǎoyì; Wáng Yòuxué of Wàngjiāng wrote a Jíláng; Xú Zhāowén of Shàngyú wrote a Kǎozhèng. In the Míng, Chén Jǐ of Wǔjìn corrected Wáng Yòuxué’s errors with a Jíláng zhèngwù; Féng Zhìshū of Jiàn’ān wrote a Zhìshí biànzhèng. Some of these traced the brushwork of Zhū’s praise-and-blame, others elaborated the citations — all were of service to Master Zhū’s book. In the Hóngzhì period Huáng Zhòngzhāo of Pútián gathered the various scholars’ words and laid them under the relevant entries, for ready consultation. Chén Rénxī took up Huáng’s text and reissued it in evaluative form, but did not have the authority to settle disputed points.

Our Shèngzǔ Rénhuángdì silently grasped the strict-and-careful intent of the Chūnqiū. On matters that should be exemplars or warnings, or where the received text drifted into harmonising falsifications and broke from reason, His Majesty added critical comments in detail. The more than one hundred pī (annotations) are means for testing the past against the present, settling doubt and verifying truth, to be transmitted through generations — they are certainly not on a level with the previous Confucians’ textual quibbles and bookworm-narrow speculation. Qiánlóng 46 (1781), 11th month, respectfully revised.

Abstract

The Tōngjiàn gāngmù is the second-most-influential historical work in the Chinese classical-historical tradition (after the Zīzhì tōngjiàn itself), and the principal vehicle of the post-Sòng dàoxué reading of Chinese dynastic history. Its key editorial decisions — ShǔHàn legitimacy, Chūnqiū-style shūfǎ on every politically-charged term, terse moralised gāng lines under detailed mù notes — set the template for all subsequent gāngmù-style works (Jīn Lǚxiáng’s KR2o0021 Qián biān, Shāng Lù’s KR2o0022 Xù biān, etc.) and dominated late-imperial Chinese historical pedagogy through the early twentieth century.

The work’s compositional history is layered. Zhū Xī composed only the fánlì (compilation rubric) and his autopreface — the substantive drafting of gāng and mù was carried out by his disciples, primarily by Zhào Shīyuān of Tiāntái, working from Hú Ānguó’s Tōngjiàn jǔyào bǔyí as a source-base. The fánlì is dated Qiándào 8 (1172), but Zhū continued to revise the work until at least the late 1190s. The first printed edition was post-1200 (after Zhū’s death), and the work was widely reprinted by his Sòng disciples. The Sòng commentaries by Yǐn Qǐxǐn and Liú Yǒuyì are the principal Sòng glosses, both staunchly orthodox; the Yuán-period Wāng Kèkuān, Wáng Yòuxué, and Xú Zhāowén’s commentaries are more philologically careful; the Míng correctives represent the Wàn-Lì-era reformist response.

The Kāngxī imperial annotations belong to the late phase of the emperor’s jīngyán programme, when Lǐ Guāngdì 李光地 and the Hàn-school Lǐxué circle dominated the throne’s reading curriculum. The annotations are largely conservative, defending the Gāngmù’s judgements while occasionally departing from harmonising falsifications. The Sìkù tiyao is enthusiastic about them. (The Qiánlóng emperor would, in 1782, undertake a separate critical re-evaluation that less generous to the Gāngmù tradition’s own moralising — see KR2o0023 Píngjiàn chǎnyào.)

The catalog meta records 朱熹 (1130–1200) and the Qing 聖祖 (Kāngxī, 1654–1722) as the two contributing persons. The composition window is bracketed by Zhū’s death year (1200, the latest year by which his own draft was substantively complete) and the Kāngxī 47 (1708) date of the imperial annotations. The base text used for the annotations was Chén Rénxī’s printed edition of Huáng Zhòngzhāo’s composite recension; the SòngYuánMíng commentary apparatus is preserved as marginal supplements.

Translations and research

A complete English translation of the Gāngmù does not exist. The Mongol Yuán-period translation by Sengge 桑哥 et al. into Mongolian is well-known. Selected portions:

  • Achim Mittag, “Die Geschichtskunde im Gangmu-Stil unter den Yuan und Ming”, in Geschichtsschreibung im Vergleich, ed. Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991).
  • Charles Hartman, The Making of Song Dynasty History (Cambridge UP, 2021), Ch. 6 on Zhū Xī’s Gāngmù and the Sòng gāngmù-tradition.
  • Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (University of Hawai’i Press, 1992), Ch. 6.
  • John Chaffee, The Thorny Gates of Learning in Sung China (Cambridge UP, 1985), passim.
  • Wm. Theodore de Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboush (eds.), The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea (Columbia UP, 1985), on the Korean reception.
  • Conrad Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi’s Political Thought”, Journal of Chinese Philosophy 5 (1978).
  • Yú Yīngshí 余英時, Zhū Xī de lìshǐ shìjiè 朱熹的歷史世界 (Sānlián, 2003) — the most exhaustive modern study of the Gāngmù’s political-intellectual context.
  • Wang Cengyu 王曾瑜, Yuē fèi xīn zhuàn 岳飛新傳 (Hé-Hǎi, 2003), passim, on the post-Gāngmù tradition.
  • Beverly Bossler, Powerful Relations: Kinship, Status, and the State in Sung China (Harvard Asia Center, 1998), passim.

Other points of interest

The Gāngmù’s compositional method — Zhū Xī’s fánlì, Zhào Shīyuān’s drafting, multiple commentary layers, then the imperial annotations — is the most elaborate stratification in any Chinese historical text. The Gāngmù’s most significant disagreement with the Tōngjiàn — the assignment of legitimate succession to ShǔHàn rather than Wèi — was not Zhū’s innovation but the revival of an argument 劉恕 (Liú Shù) had already lost inside the Tōngjiàn bureau (preserved in KR2o0006 Tōngjiàn wènyí).

Graph View

Backlinks