聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

公是弟子記

5 min read

Text ID
KR3a0034
Date
1046–1068
Dynasty
宋

Gōngshì dìzǐ jì 公是弟子記

Records of the Disciples of Master Gōngshì by 劉敞 (Liú Chǎng, zì Yuánfù 原父, hào Gōngshì 公是, 1019–1068, 宋)

(Note: the catalog meta gives the title as 公是第子記 — a typographical slip 第 for 弟. The correct title 公是弟子記 is preserved in the WYG source itself and in the SKQS tíyào; 第 (dì, “ordinal”) and 弟 (dì, “younger brother / disciple”) are similar in form but distinct in meaning.)

About the work

A four-juan yǔlù-style work nominally framed as “what the disciples have recorded” but, on Cháo Gōngwǔ’s reading endorsed by the SKQS tíyào, in fact Liú Chǎng’s own composition presented in dialogue form. The literary register — old-archaic and matching Liú’s Chūnqiū chuán in style — is taken by Cháo and the SKQS editors as decisive against the disciple-record framing. The work expounds Liú Chǎng’s positions across a wide range of yìlǐ topics: criticism of Xīnfǎ (Wáng Ānshí school) classical interpretation, balanced criticism of Yuányòu mainstream (Ōuyáng Xiū) positions, doctrinal positions on xìng 性, qíng 情, lǐ 理, on the wǔyīn 五音 / lǜlǚ 律呂 controversy, and on Sìyuè 四嶽 / Gǔn 鯀 / Tàibó 泰伯 / Wáng Huí 王回 specific Chūnqiū and Shūjīng passages.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that the Gōngshì dìzǐ jì in four juan was composed by Liú Chǎng of the Sòng. Chǎng’s Chūnqiū chuán has been catalogued elsewhere. This compilation is titled Dìzǐ jì — “what the disciples have recorded” — but the literary register is archaic, of a piece with the wording and air of Chǎng’s Chūnqiū chuán — apparently not what his disciples could have produced. So Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì takes it that Chǎng himself recorded his own questions-and-answers; this is presumably correct.

Cháo also says: in the work, towards Wáng Ānshí, Yáng Cào 楊慥 and the like, the personal name is written; towards Wáng Shēnfǔ 王深甫, Ōuyáng Yǒngshū 歐陽永叔 and the like, the zì is written — to show praise and blame. Examining what Cháo says now, this is in fact a rough impression at most; for instance Wáng Huí 王回 is given the míng in the discussion of “Sìyuè recommended Gǔn” and the discussion of “the sage”, but the zì in the discussions of Tàibó and Jìn Wǔgōng — what would bāobiǎn of either kind have to say to that?

The book does mostly attack the Xīn xué of the Wáng faction, but also includes pointed critiques of the Yuányòu worthies. Hence: “Yín shēng (excessive sound) emerges from lǜlǚ but is not what one ought to use to correct the lǜlǚ; the small ways are born of rén and yì but are not what one ought to use to make manifest rén and yì”; and “the eight tones are not the same in their objects but are the same in their voicing — sameness in voicing is harmony; the worthy and able are not the same in their methods but are the same in their governing — sameness in governing is peace”; and “those who would forget feeling take themselves as having attained, those who would refuse feeling take themselves as having difficulty, those who follow feeling straightway take themselves as authentic — three different paths and a single confusion”; and “study not capable of being put into practice, the gentleman does not adopt; words not capable of use, the gentleman does not consult”; and “zhì (wisdom) does not seek the obscure, biàn (discrimination) does not seek the glib, míng (renown) does not seek difficulty, xíng (action) does not seek strangeness”; and “wúwéi ér zhì — using Yáo’s officials, following Yáo’s customs, applying Yáo’s policies — this is what Confucius calls wúwéi”; and “the worthy does what man can do, no more — what man cannot do, the worthy does not do.”

Abstract

The Gōngshì dìzǐ jì is a slightly anomalous Northern-Sòng yǔlù-style work — anomalous because, on the standard reading, it is in fact the author’s own composition framed as disciple-record. The composition window is bracketed by Liú Chǎng’s working life — from his Qìnglì 6 (1046) jìnshì through to his death in 1068. The frontmatter brackets to ca. 1046–1068.

The substantive position — “balanced criticism”: attacking the Xīnfǎ tradition with vigour but also pointed at the Yuányòu mainstream — places Liú in the small group of Northern-Sòng classicists (with Liú Bān, Sū Shì in some moods, and others) who refused the xīnjiù dǎng 新舊黨 partisan affiliations. The positions on yīn / lǜ / qíng / xìng are recognisable Northern-Sòng Lǐxué-pre-formative.

The bibliographic record: Sòng shǐ yìwén zhì; Wénxiàn tōngkǎo; Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí; SKQS Zǐbù — Rújiā lèi.

Translations and research

  • No substantial English-language secondary literature located.
  • The work is treated within studies of Northern-Sòng Chūnqiū studies (e.g. Hilde De Weerdt’s work on the Sòng jīng-yán) and within Liú Chǎng-specific scholarship (Wú Pèngshèng 吳鵬聖, etc.).

Other points of interest

The work’s framing as disciple-record despite being authorial composition is one of a number of Sòng-period yǔlù genre experiments — comparable to Su Shì’s brief Dōngpō zhìlín 東坡志林 in its blurring of yǔlù and authored biji genres. Cháo Gōngwǔ’s diagnostic — that the literary register betrays the framing — is methodologically sharp.

Graph View

Backlinks