聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

正蒙初義

6 min read

Text ID
KR3a0029
Date
1721–1767
Dynasty
清

Zhèng méng chū yì 正蒙初義

The First Meaning of the Zhèng méng by 王植 (Wáng Zhí, 1682–1767, 清)

About the work

A seventeen-juan mid-Qīng comprehensive commentary on Zhāng Zǎi’s Zhèng méng 正蒙. The work integrates the previously circulating Zhèng méng dàquán 正蒙大全 (with jíshì 集釋, bǔzhù 補註 and jíjiě 集解 layers) with later commentary by Gāo Pānlóng 高攀龍 (Late Míng), Xú Défū 徐德夫, Rǎn Jìnzǔ 冉覲祖, Lǐ Guāngdì 李光地 (KR3a0028) and Zhāng Bóxíng 張伯行, plus parallel passages drawn from Zhāng Zǎi’s Jīngxué lǐkū, Yǔlù and Xìnglǐ shíyí. Wáng Zhí adds his own concluding cāndìng 參訂 (collation) at the close of each section. The work is methodologically distinguished by Wáng’s deliberate effort to break out of Lǐxué faction-affiliation: he argues that Zhāng Zǎi’s tài xū 太虛 contrasts with Buddhist kōng 空 in three different senses simultaneously, that Chéngzǐ and Zhūzǐ’s reservations about the tài xū terminology need not be taken as decisive against Zhāng, and that Zhāng’s unfamiliar readings of the Shū, Shī and Lǐ simply reflect a different (Hàn-Táng-rooted) classical-glossing tradition that ChéngZhū’s wide circulation has displaced from contemporary expectation.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that the Zhèng méng chū yì in seventeen juan was composed under the present dynasty by Wáng Zhí. Zhí’s Huángjí jīngshì jiě has been catalogued elsewhere. This compilation glosses the Zhèng méng. Beyond the jíshì, bǔzhù and jíjiě layers gathered in the Dàquán, it takes the commentaries of Gāo Pānlóng and Xú Défū of the Míng, and of Rǎn Jìnzǔ, Lǐ Guāngdì, and Zhāng Bóxíng of the present dynasty, listing them after the ChéngZhū sayings. It also draws parallel passages from Zhāngzǐ’s three works Jīngxué lǐkū, Yǔlù and Xìnglǐ shíyí that illustrate the matter, and appends them. Each section closes with his own collation according to his view.

His main bearing: Zhāngzǐ saw the Way originally beginning from the place where Confucianism and Buddhism agree and differ, so when he speaks of tài xū it is always in contrast to the Buddhists. He further says that tài xū has three meanings; further, that Chéngzǐ and Zhūzǐ are mostly displeased with this book’s tài xū terminology — but if one analyses its true bearing, the different paths converge in the same destination, and one ought not insist on the ChéngZhū views to attack it. Further, that the Shū jiān, Shī xù and Lǐshū old commentaries were used much by Zhāngzǐ; today’s reader, accustomed only to what ChéngZhū have left in circulation, finds Zhāng’s wording strange. But one ought to read with discrimination, not raise heedless complaint. His positions are throughout balanced; he can break the ménhù 門戶 (factional) view.

He says: of Zhāngzǐ’s own annotations, only those in the Cān liǎng 參兩, Shén huà 神化, Zhì dāng 至當, Sānshí, Yuè qì 樂器 (each appearing once); five in Wáng dì 王禘; four in Qián chēng 乾稱 — others (often) the various recensions take from the jíshì and mistake for self-annotation. He further says that the seventeen 篇 are what Sū Bǐng 蘇昞 transmitted as Zhāngzǐ’s hand-fixed text, and that Lǐ Guāngdì’s recension (KR3a0028) splits up considerably. His distinctions and analyses are throughout careful. As to his note that Zhāng Bóxíng’s commentary came from another’s pseudonymous use of Bóxíng’s name and was not Bóxíng’s own work — said to have come from Bóxíng’s own oral statement — this also is worth noting for collation purposes.

Respectfully revised and submitted, fourth month of the forty-fourth year of Qiánlóng [1779].

General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.

Abstract

The Zhèng méng chū yì is the major mid-Qīng commentary on the Zhèng méng, succeeding the early-Qīng commentaries of Lǐ Guāngdì (KR3a0028) and Wáng Fūzhī. It is methodologically distinct from both: rather than offering Wáng Zhí’s own running interpretation, it gathers the major prior strata of commentary into a unified collected-commentary format, with Wáng’s own cāndìng at the close of each section. This positions the work as an editorial integration rather than a fresh commentary.

The composition window is bracketed by Wáng Zhí’s working life — from his 1721 jìnshì through to his death in 1767 — with the more likely range his mid-career (1730s–1750s). The frontmatter brackets the work to ca. 1721–1767.

The substantive position — that tài xū has multiple meanings, that the Lǐxué mainstream’s reservations need not be decisive, that Zhāng Zǎi’s classical glossing reflects a HànTáng tradition different from but not incompatible with the ChéngZhū strand — is one of the cleaner pieces of mid-Qīng Lǐxué irenicism. Wáng’s diagnosis of the Zhāng Bóxíng Zhèng méng commentary as a pseudonymous forgery — on Zhāng Bóxíng’s own oral testimony to Wáng — is a significant philological note, taken up by the SKQS tíyào and confirmed by twentieth-century textual scholarship.

The Lǐ Guāngdì recension’s “splitting up” of the seventeen 篇 (mentioned by Wáng) refers to chapter-divisions; modern scholarship favours the seventeen-篇 (Sū Bǐng) recension followed by Wáng Zhí.

The bibliographic record: SKQS Zǐbù — Rújiā lèi. The work has not been displaced by later commentaries on the Zhèng méng.

Translations and research

  • No substantial English-language secondary literature located specific to Wáng Zhí’s Zhèng méng chū yì.
  • For the parent text: Kasoff, The Thought of Chang Tsai, 1984; Robin Wang and Ding Weixiang (cited under KR3a0026).
  • The major modern Chinese critical study integrating Wáng Zhí is Hāng Sōng’s Zhāng Zǎi jí (Zhōnghuá Shūjú 1978).

Other points of interest

The Zhèng méng chū yì is unusual in mid-Qīng Lǐxué commentary for its programmatic anti-factionalism: Wáng Zhí is willing to read Zhāng Zǎi against the consensus reading of ChéngZhū Lǐxué without leaving the broader SòngMíng Lǐxué tradition. This mid-Qīng irenic position is methodologically distinct from both the orthodox-Lǐxué (Lǐ Guāngdì) and the heterodox-qì (Wáng Fūzhī) lines.

Graph View

Backlinks