聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

中說

9 min read

Text ID
KR3a0014
Date
617–700
Dynasty
隋

Zhōng shuō 中說

Discourses of the Mean attributed to 王通 (Wáng Tōng, WénZhōngzǐ 文中子, 584–617, 隋, 撰); 阮逸 (Ruǎn Yì, fl. 1028–1063, 宋, 注)

About the work

A ten-juan, ten-篇 Lúnyǔ-style work attributed to Wáng Tōng (WénZhōngzǐ), in fact compiled by his sons Wáng Fújiào 王福郊 and Wáng Fúzhì 王福畤 from his sayings and lecture-notes (and, on the SKQS tíyào’s detailed argument, embroidered with substantial later additions by them and by their followers), with appended pieces — Dù Yān’s 杜淹 WénZhōngzǐ shìjiā 文中子世家, a record by Wáng Fúzhì of Táng Tàizōng’s discussion with Fáng Xuánlíng and Wèi Zhēng on ritual-music, a letter from Wáng Tōng’s brother Wáng Jì 王績 to Chén Shūdá 陳叔達, and a “Guān Zǐmíng shì” 關子明事 — together with two prefaces, one by Ruǎn Yì of the Sòng and the other dated Zhēnguān 23 (649) under Wáng Fúzhì’s name. The SKQS tíyào concedes that Wáng Tōng was a real figure but holds the work as transmitted to be a fundamentally untrustworthy compilation, with multiple chronological impossibilities pointing to fabrication or padding by Fújiào / Fúzhì and their immediate associates.

Tiyao

The Zhōng shuō in ten juan — copy from the family library of Vice Censor-in-Chief Huáng Dēngxián 黃登賢.

The old recension titles it as composed by Wáng Tōng of the Suí. The Táng zhì gives WénZhōngzǐ Zhōng shuō in five juan; the Tōngkǎo and Yùhǎi give ten juan, matching the present text. There are ten 篇 in all, with a preface, Dù Yān’s WénZhōngzǐ shìjiā, Wáng Fúzhì’s record of Tàizōng’s discussion with Fáng [Xuánlíng] and [Wèi Zhēng] on ritual-music, Wáng Tōng’s brother Jì’s letter to Chén Shūdá, and a record of Guān Zǐmíng’s affairs, all appended. At the close of the volume there is a preface by Ruǎn Yì, and another by Wáng Fúzhì dated Zhēnguān 23.

Cháo Gōngwǔ in his Jùnzhāi dúshū zhì has already pointed out that Wáng Tōng was born in Kāihuáng 4 (584); Lǐ Délín 李德林 died in Kāihuáng 11 (591), when Tōng was eight — yet the work has Délín visiting and Tōng playing the qín and reciting yǎpǐn poetry, his disciples wetting their lapels with tears. Guān Lǎng 關朗 met Wèi Xiàowéndì 魏孝文帝 in the Tàihé dīngsì year — one hundred and seven years before Tōng’s birth in 584 — yet Tōng has a passage on inquiring of Lǎng about ritual. Xuē Dàohéng 薛道衡 left for Xiāngzhōu 襄州 as Governor in Rénshòu 2 (602) and was not recalled until Yángdì’s accession (605); the Suí shū records that Dàohéng’s son Shōu was placed for adoption with kinsman Rú at birth and as an adult did not know his birth-father — yet the Zhōng shuō has Dàohéng in Cháng’ān in Rénshòu 4 (604) speaking with Tōng and naming his son Shōu. Hóng Mài 洪邁’s Róngzhāi suíbǐ notes that the Táng shū records Xuē Shōu’s submission to Táng in Dàyè 13 (617), yet the shìjiā has Tōng falling ill at the time of the Jiāngdū disaster (Yángdì’s assassination, 618) and summoning Xuē Shōu to converse. Wáng Yīnglín’s 王應麟 Kùnxué jìwén notes that the Táng huìyào gives the renaming of the Suí Tàixìngdiàn as Tàijídiàn under Táng Wǔdé 1 / 5 (618.5) — yet the book has Suí Wéndì receiving Tōng in the Tàijídiàn. Cross-checked against the histories the contradictions are obvious.

We further consider: Tōng went home from Chángān in Rénshòu 4 (604), east-bound for the Héfén 河汾 region, and never came out again — the shìjiā says so, recording that even the call of Dàyè 1 (605) again came to nothing. Yet the “Zhōugōng” 篇 has Tōng visiting the Tàiyuè 太樂 [Music Bureau] and hearing the Lóngzhōu wǔgēng 龍舟五更 melody. Ruǎn Yì’s note says: “the Tàiyuè office; Yángdì about to journey to Jiāngdū composed this melody”; the Suí shū zhíguānzhì gives the Tàiyuè office under the Tàichángsì — so on this account Tōng was at Chángān again at the close of Dàyè. The forgery is again exposed.

Examining Yáng Jiǒng’s collection: he wrote a preface for the Wáng Bó jí in which he says Bó’s grandfather Tōng held the xiùcái in high position in the Suí, served as Recorder of Shǔjùn (蜀郡司戶書佐) and Lecturer to the King of Shǔ (蜀王侍讀), and at the end of Dàyè withdrew to lecture in literary arts at Lóngmén; at his death his disciples gave him the posthumous title WénZhōngzǐ. As Yáng Jiǒng made the preface for Bó’s collection, his record of his grandfather cannot be in error. Dù Mù’s Fánchuān jí opens with a preface by his nephew-by-marriage Péi Yánhàn 裴延翰, which also cites WénZhōngzǐ saying: “if writing speaks but does not extend to principle, whence can the Wángdào arise?” — agreeing in the present text. So a WénZhōngzǐ really did exist; what is called Zhōng shuō is a record of his sayings drafted by his sons Fújiào and Fúzhì, padded out with empty boasting — the book also really exists. But at the founding of the Táng there were enlightened sovereigns and great ministers who could not be moved by empty fame; Lù Démíng 陸德明, Kǒng Yǐngdá 孔穎達, Jiǎ Gōngyàn 賈公彥 and other senior Confucians filled the academy and could not be talked into nonsense — so neither the man nor the book was prominent in the time itself, and yet none in the time spoke against them as fraudulent. Only after the mid-Táng, when the gap from the events had grown and there was no further verification, did the imposture begin to find a market. Sòng Xián 宋咸 must claim there was in truth no such man; Hóng Mài must claim the book was wholly composed by Ruǎn Yì — both go too far. Some lecturers even claim the book carries on the transmission from Confucius and Yán Yuān — that is the height of inversion. The fraudulent traces standing exposed, the work is not really a thing to be drawn upon. Yet the great bearing is not entirely contrary to principle; and besides, imitation of the words of the sage begins with Yáng Xióng, who did not yet dare appropriate the name; imitation of the deeds of the sage begins with Tōng, who appropriates the name to himself. Later gathering disciples to lecture, fermenting into factions, with consequences extending to the survival of the dynasty itself — Tōng was the precursor. As the Yìjīng says of Kūn liùyī “treading on frost, hard ice is at hand”, and Gòu liùyī “tied to the metal stop” — recording and preserving the work shows the gradual departure of Confucian wind from the ancient, and how it began.

Abstract

The textual situation has been a standing crux in Chinese intellectual history since the Sòng. Cháo Gōngwǔ, Hóng Mài and Wáng Yīnglín assembled the chronological impossibilities; Sòng Xián argued that no Wáng Tōng of the WénZhōngzǐ profile ever existed; Hóng Mài argued that Ruǎn Yì had forged the entire work. The SKQS tíyào’s position — that Wáng Tōng was a real figure but the Zhōng shuō in its received form is a heavily padded compilation by his sons and immediate followers, mixing genuine sayings with extensive fabrication — has remained the standard working position.

The composition window is therefore not the lifetime of Wáng Tōng (584–617), but the period of the editorial work of his sons Fújiào / Fúzhì in the early Táng, conventionally bracketed from Wáng Tōng’s death (617) to roughly the late seventh century. The frontmatter brackets the work to ca. 617–700, with the further note in this Abstract that internal evidence suggests significant additional material entered in the mid-Táng. The Wáng Fúzhì preface dated Zhēnguān 23 (649) gives a terminus a quo for at least the bulk of the work. Ruǎn Yì’s commentary is Northern Sòng (mid-eleventh century) and is the standard premodern annotation.

The work is structured in ten 篇 — Wáng dào 王道, Tiāndì 天地, Shìjiā 事君, Zhōugōng 周公, Wèn yì 問易, Lǐyuè 禮樂, Shù shǐ 述史, Wèixiàng 魏相, Lì mìng 立命, Guān Lǎng 關朗 — each in Lúnyǔ-style entries of zǐ yuē / disciple question-and-answer. The five-juan / ten-篇 doubling — the Táng zhì gives five juan, the present text ten — reflects later subdivision; the work was in ten 篇 from at least the Sòng. The closing five 篇 of appendix — shìjiā, Tàizōng lǐyuè memo, Wáng Jì letter, Guān Zǐmíng record, two prefaces — are the principal later strata.

The bibliographic record: Suí shū jīngjí zhì (no entry, the Suí zhì not knowing the work); Jiù Táng zhì (no entry); Xīn Táng yìwén zhì (5 juan); Tōngkǎo (10 juan); Yùhǎi; Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì; SKQS Zǐbù — Rújiā lèi.

Translations and research

  • Howard Wechsler, “The Confucian Teacher Wang T’ung (584?–617): One Thousand Years of Controversy”, T’oung Pao 63 (1977): 225–272. Standard English-language critical biography and survey of the controversy.
  • Ditrich, Ole, Politische Philosophie und Geschichtsschreibung im chinesischen Mittelalter — Wang Tong und Liu Xizai, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989.
  • Yǐn Xié-lǐ 殷協理, Zhōng-shuō jiào zhù 中說校注, Běijīng: Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 2018. Modern Chinese collation.
  • Zhāng Pèihéng 章培恆, Wáng Tōng yǔ Zhōng shuō zhī yánjiū 王通與中說之研究.
  • Sòng Xián 宋咸, Bó Wáng Zhòng-yān shuō 駁王仲淹說 — Sòng-period polemic against the work’s authenticity, preserved in the Sòng wén jiàn 宋文鑒.

Other points of interest

The Zhōng shuō’s influence on the Sòng Confucian revival is real and was at one point destabilising: Hán Yù’s late-Táng programmatic Yuán dào 原道 owes nothing to Wáng Tōng, but the early Sòng daoxué tradition (especially Lǐ Gòu 李覯 and Sūn Fù 孫復) sometimes invoked the Zhōng shuō as a quasi-canonical link between Confucius and the Sòngrǔ recovery. The SKQS tíyào’s closing line — that Wáng Tōng’s pseudo-Confucian self-fashioning was the precursor to the Northern Sòng péngdǎng 朋黨 disasters — is a remarkable piece of imperial-court intellectual genealogy.

Graph View

Backlinks