聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

文史通義

7 min read

Text ID
KR2o0025
Date
1771–1801
Dynasty
清

Wénshǐ tōngyì 文史通義

General Principles of Literature and History

by 章學誠 (Zhāng Xuéchéng, 1738–1801)

About the work

The Wénshǐ tōngyì is the second great Chinese treatise on historiography, after Liú Zhījǐ’s KR2o0001 Shǐtōng 史通 a millennium earlier — a sustained Qing-period reflection on the methods, purposes, and pathologies of historical writing, conceived in self-conscious dialogue with the Shǐtōng and modelled on its title-form. Like Liú, Zhāng works as a critical insider of an ostensibly stable historiographical tradition; unlike Liú, he was excluded from any official-history bureau, and his reflections were the work of a perpetually undercapitalised gazetteer compiler, private tutor, and patron-seeker.

The work has a complex compositional history. Zhāng’s working drafts were stolen in Qiánlóng 46 (1781) by an unknown hand; he set himself to rewriting from memory, and partial versions were published in Jiāqìng 1 (1796). The full corpus of Wénshǐ tōngyì, with the parallel Jiàochóu tōngyì 校讎通義 (general principles of textual criticism), appeared posthumously in 1832 in the Zhāngshì yíshū 章氏遺書 edition prepared by Zhāng’s eldest son, reprinted in 1885 by his grandson, and most fully in the 1922–23 Jiāyètáng 嘉業堂 edition. The standard modern critical editions are Yè Yīng’s 葉瑛 Wénshǐ tōngyì jiàozhù (Zhōnghuá, 1985) and Cāng Xiūliáng’s 倉修良 Wénshǐ tōngyì xīnbiān xīnzhù (Zhèjiāng gǔjí, 2005).

The conventional structure: 5 juàn of Inner Chapters (Nèipiān 內篇), 3 juàn of Outer Chapters (Wàipiān 外篇), plus a Bǔyí 補遺 of supplementary materials and the Jiàochóu tōngyì 校讎通義 — historically printed as a separate work, but treated together with the Wénshǐ tōngyì in modern editions.

Prefaces

(This text falls outside the WYG canon — Zhāng died in 1801, the work was first published in fragments in 1796 and as a complete corpus only in 1832. The prefatory material in the standard 1832 Zhāngshì yíshū edition includes Zhāng’s own Yuándào 原道 prefaces and his zì xù 自敘 (autobiographical preface) describing the 1781 theft of his working drafts and the subsequent reconstruction.)

Abstract

Zhāng Xuéchéng was the most original Chinese historical theorist of the eighteenth century, a contemporary of Cuī Shù 崔述 (1740–1816), Qián Dàxīn 錢大昕, and the high tide of Qing evidential scholarship — but distinct in temperament and method from all of them. Where the Hànxué pài (Hàn-learning school) deployed evidential method on classical and historical philology, Zhāng turned philological tools to a prior question: what is history for, and how should historical writing be organised? He died in 1801, his work largely unread; he was rediscovered in the late nineteenth century and elevated by Liáng Qǐchāo 梁啟超, Hú Shì 胡適, Qián Mù 錢穆, and David Nivison into one of the principal pre-modern East-Asian thinkers about history-writing.

The work’s most-cited tag is the opening of the Yìjiào 易教 chapter: liù jīng jiē shǐ yě 六經皆史也 (“the Six Classics are all history”). The thought was not original — Wáng Yángmíng and earlier Lǐ Zhì had said similar things, though Zhāng’s specific phrasing draws closely on Lǐ Zhì — but Zhāng turned it into a programmatic principle: the Classics are not eternally-true wisdom-texts but the surviving records of one specific historical period (early Zhōu); they should be read as historical artefacts, and the rules that held good for their authors are not absolute. The rest of the Wénshǐ tōngyì unfolds the implications: a sustained critique of received literary and historical genres, with attention to the zhěngxié 整邪 (orthodox-vs-deviant) traditions of historical writing, the jìzhuàn 紀傳 (annals-biography) form’s exhaustion, and the proper place of fāngzhì 方志 (local gazetteers) as serious history.

Zhāng’s other principal contributions:

  • The doctrine of zhuān jiā 專家 (specialist) writing: a historian must master one well-defined corpus and not chatter across all topics. Closely related: his attack on bóxué 博學 (broad learning) as a substitute for substantive understanding.
  • The doctrine of shǐdé 史德 (the historian’s virtue): “There is no good historian without a polished style” (liánghshǐ mò bù gōng wén 良史莫不工文; Wénshǐ tōngyì Nèipiān 3, Shǐdé — quoted in Wilkinson). Style and integrity together constitute the historian’s professional identity.
  • The doctrine of fāngzhì 方志 as historical genre: Zhāng treated local gazetteers as serious history on a par with the dynastic guóshǐ 國史, and proposed that local archives be kept and gazetteer compilation entrusted to specialists. His own gazetteers (compiled for Hézhōu 和州, Yǒngqīng 永清, Bòzhōu 亳州, Hú-bĕi 湖北 and others) are the documentary product of this theoretical position.
  • The doctrine of jiàochóu 校讎 (textual collation) as a discipline coordinate with history-writing — set out in the Jiàochóu tōngyì.

The work also famously contains Zhāng’s intemperate and disproportionate attacks on his older contemporary the poet Yuán Méi 袁枚 (whom Zhāng saw as a moral and literary corrupter). These attacks are tangential to his historiographical contribution and are mostly preserved in the appendices.

The composition window is wide: Zhāng’s earliest references to working on the project date from c. 1771; he continued revising until his death in 1801. The 1781 theft is a well-attested but mysterious episode that determined the shape of the surviving corpus — much of what survives is reconstructed from memory rather than direct authorial transmission.

CBDB id 65634 confirms Zhāng’s lifedates as 1738–1801.

Translations and research

Selected portions of the Wénshǐ tōngyì exist in translation:

  • Paul Demiéville, “Chang Hsüeh-ch’eng and his Historiography”, in Historians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley and E. G. Pulleyblank (Oxford UP, 1961), 167–85.
  • David S. Nivison, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsüeh-ch’eng (1738–1801) (Stanford UP, 1966) — the standard biographical study, with extensive translations.
  • David S. Nivison, “Aspects of Traditional Chinese Biography”, Journal of Asian Studies 21.4 (1962): 457–63.
  • Paul Demiéville, Anthologie de la poésie chinoise classique, Gallimard, 1962, includes selected Zhāng materials.
  • Hú Shì 胡適, Zhāng Shízhāi xiānshēng nián pǔ 章實齋先生年譜 (1922; rev. 1931) — the foundational modern Chinese chronological biography.
  • Yú Yīngshí 余英時, Lùn Dài Zhèn yǔ Zhāng Xuéchéng 論戴震與章學誠 (Sānlián, 1976).
  • Liáng Qǐchāo 梁啟超, Zhōngguó jìn sānbǎi nián xuéshù shǐ 中國近三百年學術史 (1924), Ch. 8.
  • Yē Yīng 葉瑛, Wénshǐ tōngyì jiàozhù 文史通義校注 (Zhōnghuá, 1985) — the standard critical edition.
  • Cāng Xiūliáng 倉修良, Wénshǐ tōngyì xīnbiān xīnzhù 文史通義新編新注 (Zhèjiāng gǔjí, 2005).
  • Cāng Xiūliáng, Zhāng Xuéchéng hé Wénshǐ tōngyì 章學誠和《文史通義》 (Bĕijīng: Zhōnghuá, 1984).
  • On-cho Ng and Q. Edward Wang, Mirroring the Past: The Writing and Use of History in Imperial China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2005), Ch. 6.
  • John Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary (Princeton UP, 1991), passim.

Other points of interest

The Wénshǐ tōngyì’s pairing with the KR2o0001 Shǐtōng — through the conscious title echo Tōng 通 → Tōngyì 通義 — is the most explicit late-imperial Chinese gesture of return-to-Liú-Zhījǐ. Wilkinson notes that Zhāng’s predecessors in the Zhèdōng xuépài 浙東學派 (Eastern-Zhè school) — Wáng Fūzhī 王夫之, Huáng Zōngxī 黃宗羲, Wàn Sītóng 萬斯同, Quán Zǔwàng 全祖望 — provided the immediate intellectual context, but none had attempted Zhāng’s level of systematic theoretical synthesis. The work’s late reception (after 1885) makes it look like a precursor to twentieth-century historiographical reform; in its own time it was unread, its author’s reputation resting almost entirely on his gazetteer compilations.

Graph View

Backlinks