聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

二程遺書

8 min read

Text ID
KR3a0030
Date
1085–1168
Dynasty
宋

ÈrChéng yíshū 二程遺書

The Bequeathed Writings of the Two Chéng sayings of 程顥 (Chéng Hào, 1032–1085, 宋, 撰) and 程頤 (Chéng Yí, 1033–1107, 宋, 撰); edited by 朱熹 (Zhū Xī, 1130–1200, 宋, 編)

About the work

A twenty-five-juan compilation of the yǔlù of Chéng Hào and Chéng Yí — the central master-text of Luòxué 洛學 — edited by Zhū Xī in Qiándào 4 (1168). The materials had circulated since the death of Chéng Yí (1107) in fragmentary form via several disciples — Lǐ Yù 李籲, Lǚ Dàlín 呂大臨, Xiè Liángzuǒ 謝良佐, Yóu Zuò 游酢, Sū Bǐng 蘇昞, Liú Xuàn 劉絢, Liú Ānjié 劉安節, Yáng Dí 楊廸, Zhōu Fúxiān 周孚先, Zhāng Yì 張繹, Táng Dì 唐棣, Bào Ruòyǔ 鮑若雨, Zōu Bǐng 鄒炳, Chàng Dàyǐn 暢大隱 and others — with significant variation between recensions and (per Zhū Xī’s postface, citing Yǐn Tūn’s 尹焞 testimony) some material that the Chéng brothers themselves had said failed to capture their meaning. Zhū Xī’s editorial work, completed in 1168, drew on his own family copy and gathered up further materials by genre, ordered them by approximate chronology, divided them into twenty-five juan, and added a one-juan appendix of xíngzhuàng and related biographical materials. The work is the authoritative recension of the Chéng yǔlù and is, with the closely-related Wàishū (KR3a0031), the principal source for Chéng-school doctrine.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that the ÈrChéng yíshū in twenty-five juan with one juan of appendix was recorded by the disciples of the Two Chéngzǐ of the Sòng and re-edited and re-collated by Zhūzǐ. After the Chéngzǐ had died, the yǔlù transmitted by Lǐ Yù, Lǚ Dàlín, Xiè Liángzuǒ, Yóu Zuò, Sū Bǐng, Liú Xuàn, Liú Ānjié, Yáng Dí, Zhōu Fúxiān, Zhāng Yì, Táng Dì, Bào Ruòyǔ, Zōu Bǐng, Chàng Dàyǐn and others were quite confused and out of order; each followed the student’s own intent, and the records often diverged.

Note Yǐn Tūn’s testimony: when Zhū Guāngtíng 朱光庭’s transcription of Yīchuān’s [Chéng Yí] sayings was put before Yīchuān, Yīchuān remarked: “It is as if it does not capture my heart-mind; what is recorded is only his intent.” So already in the Chéngzǐ’s lifetime, what was transmitted had to a significant degree lost its truth (this matter is in Zhūzǐ’s postface). Hence Zhūzǐ’s Yǔlù says: “Yóu’s record speaks slow, Shàngcài [Xiè Liángzuǒ]‘s record speaks dangerously, Liú Zhìfū’s record is concise, Lǐ Duānbó’s record is broad and unrestrained, the various Yǒngjiā gentlemen’s records are wordy.”

This compilation was completed in wùzǐ of Qiándào 4 (1168). On the basis of his family-held old recensions, he then sought out parallels by category and supplemented; roughly arranging by chronological sequence as the materials came in, he edited up twenty-five juan, with eight 篇 of xíngzhuàng and the like as one juan of appendix.

The Yǔlù records the question of Chén Chún 陳淳 about the line “Jièfǔ [Wáng Ānshí] speaks of lǜ (statutes)” in juan 9; what is the meaning? Zhūzǐ replied: “Bógōng [Lǚ Zǔqiān] held that all matters were comprehensive but only lǜ was not spoken to, and incidentally there was this passage, so it was casually taken in.” Further, Zhèng Kěxué 鄭可學 asked: in the Yíshū there is the passage “the ancients spoke of Qián and Kūn not using the six children — what does that mean?” Zhūzǐ replied: “This passage holds that this is the natural order; another passage takes the opposite view.” Further, Zhūzǐ in his Huìán jí 晦庵集 has a letter to Lǚ Bógōng 呂伯恭 saying: “the abridged copy of the Yíshū I have already written out; my opinion is that the deleted material should also be copied out on rough paper, with brief notes on each item explaining the deletion-reason — only thus is the work not done in haste; if one silently strikes things out, in the long run it will mislead.” Looking now at the work: as in Liú Ānjié’s record of the line “those careful in ritual but not penetrating must use the Zhuāngzǐ”, which is one-sided and forced — the note says “supplied from another copy”; and Chàng Dàyǐn’s record of “the Way is something one cannot leave but also cannot not leave”, purely Buddhist — the note says “mostly not the Master’s words”. The taking and rejecting is therefore deeply careful.

The Wénxiàn tōngkǎo records the Yíshū juan-titles in agreement with this text. Huáng Zhèn’s 黃震 Rì chāo 日抄, however, records up to juan 17 only — different from this. Huáng Zhèn’s juan-titles have Lǚ Yǔshū Dōngjiàn lù 呂與叔東見錄 and the Appendix-to-Dōngjiàn lù 附東見錄 both as juan 2; this text places the Appendix as juan 3. Probably the transmitted recensions vary.

In the appendix, the Nián pǔ — Zhūzǐ himself says it is what the Shílù (Veritable Records) writes, what is preserved in the Wénjí, Nèishū, Wàishū, and what other works can corroborate; Huáng Zhèn says that Zhūzǐ inquired of the matter from Zhāng Yì 張繹, Fàn Yù 范域, Mèng Hòu 孟厚 and Yǐn Tūn 尹焞 to compose it. Zhūzǐ is naming the cited books, Huáng Zhèn is naming the cited people — each describing one side, seeming contradictory but not.

Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].

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 ÈrChéng yíshū is the foundational text of Luòxué and one of the central sources of SòngMíng Lǐxué. The composition window has two layers: (i) the original sayings recorded by the disciples between roughly 1080 and 1107 (Chéng Hào’s death to Chéng Yí’s death); (ii) Zhū Xī’s editorial recension completed in wùzǐ of Qiándào 4 (1168). The frontmatter brackets the work to ca. 1085–1168, covering both layers.

The text-critical situation is unusually well-documented: Zhū Xī’s editorial postface preserves his methodology (including the Yǐn Tūn anecdote on which the SKQS tíyào leans); his editorial correspondence with Lǚ Zǔqiān (in the Huìān jí) explicitly defends the “rough-paper marginalia” method of editorial transparency. The two principal alternative recensions — Wénxiàn tōngkǎo style (matching the SKQS-base) and Huáng Zhèn’s Rì chāo style (17 juan) — are taken as parallel transmissions rather than divergent texts.

The doctrinally critical passages: the famous Wèi xué shǒu yán 為學首言 of Chéng Hào (later given as the opening of the Jìnsī lù); Chéng Yí’s sustained argument on jìng 敬; the brothers’ famous discussion of xìng 性, qì 氣 and the xìn shì zhī xìng 性是之性 / qì zhì zhī xìng 氣質之性 distinction; the disputes with Zhōu Dūnyí and Zhāng Zǎi on technical Yì-cosmology; the exchanges with Wáng Ānshí, Su Shì and others. Within the SKQS Rújiā the Yíshū is the authoritative source for these.

The bibliographic record: Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì; Wénxiàn tōngkǎo; Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí; Huáng Zhèn rì chāo; SKQS Zǐbù — Rújiā lèi. The standard modern critical edition is Wáng Xiàoyú 王孝魚’s Èr Chéng jí 二程集 (Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1981; rev. 2004), which integrates the Yíshū, Wàishū, Cuìyán and Wénjí.

Translations and research

  • Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, 1963, 518–571 — substantial selections in translation from the Yí-shū.
  • A. C. Graham, Two Chinese Philosophers: Ch’eng Ming-tao and Ch’eng Yi-ch’uan, London: Lund Humphries, 1958 (rev. Two Chinese Philosophers: The Metaphysics of the Brothers Ch’eng, Open Court, 1992). The standard English-language critical study.
  • John Tucker, “Ch’eng Hao and Ch’eng Yi”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Wáng Xiàoyú 王孝魚 (ed.), Èr Chéng jí 二程集, Běijīng: Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1981, rev. 2004. The standard Chinese critical edition.
  • Hou Wai-lu et al., Sòng-Míng lǐxué shǐ 宋明理學史, vol. 1.
  • Yú Yīngshí 余英時, Zhū Xī de lìshǐ shìjiè 朱熹的歷史世界, 2003 — context for Zhū’s editorial project.

Other points of interest

The Yíshū’s editorial provenance through Zhū Xī establishes it as part of the Sìshū / Jìnsī lù canon-formation that consolidated the Northern-Sòng daoxué into the standard Lǐxué curriculum of the Southern Sòng and after. The careful editorial method — preserving disputed materials with marginalia rather than silently striking them — is a methodological landmark in Chinese editorial practice.

The Chéng Yí remark recorded by Yǐn Tūn — that the disciples’ records sometimes capture only the disciple’s intent rather than the master’s — is one of the most-cited passages on the philosophical limits of the yǔlù genre in Chinese intellectual history.

Graph View

Backlinks