Kānwù 刊誤
Correcting Errors
by 李涪 (Lǐ Fú, late Táng; zōngzhèng qīng 宗正卿 under Zhāozōng 昭宗)
About the work
A short late-Táng bǐjì 筆記 of textual, ritual, and institutional criticism, transmitted in two juan (49 of a stated 50 piān survive). Lǐ Fú’s preface declares the aim of the work as the correction of errors in contemporary ritual practice, official titulature, and the language of common usage; he draws on the Wǔ jīng 五經 classics and the high-Táng codes (the Kāiyuán lǐ 開元禮 in particular) to expose the institutional and philological lapses of the late-Táng court. Catalogued under Záxué zhī shǔ 雜學之屬 of the Zájiā 雜家 division (subdivision záokǎo 雜考).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Kānwù in two juan is the work of Lǐ Fú of the Táng. The old recension carries a frontispiece title naming Guō Zhōngshù 郭忠恕, jìjiǔ of the Imperial College, and his Pèi xī 佩觿 also cites this book and styles its author “jìjiǔ Lǐ Fú”: the Five Dynasties were not far from the close of Táng, and the testimony should be reliable. Only Lù Yóu’s 陸游 Wèinán jí 渭南集 contains a colophon to this book reading: “When Wáng Xíngyú 王行瑜 raised his rebellion, zōngzhèng qīng Lǐ Fú stoutly maintained that loyalty would compel him to repent his crimes; when Xíngyú’s severed head was sent to the capital, Fú was likewise banished and died south of the Lǐng 嶺南” — perhaps the same man, but we cannot determine which is correct. The book has the author’s own preface saying it was “compiled in fifty piān”; the present recension has only forty-nine, evidently lacking one. Throughout it investigates institutions and cites the old codes to correct the failings of the late Táng, also citing the ancient codes to expose errors in Táng practice — much that can serve to correct ritual texts. The lower juan also handles miscellaneous matters, such as the discussion of the corrupt forms of the six characters jǐn 僅, shēng 甥, páng 旁, miù 繆, jiù 廏, jiàn 薦; the rebuttal of errors in Lù Fǎyán’s 陸法言 Qièyùn 切韻; the explanation that the Lúnyǔ’s “did not enquire after the horses” 不問馬 should not be read with bù běn 不本 vs. fǒu yīn 否音; the collation of the Zuǒ zhuàn’s “shàn-mended-qì-walled-wán” reading of 完 as the character 宇; the refutation of Lǐ Shāngyǐn’s 李商隱 absurdity that “Confucius took Lǎo Dān as teacher and Lǎo Dān took Zhú Qián 竺乾 [the Buddha] as teacher”; and the correction of the errors in Jiǎ Dān’s 賈耽 Qī yào lì 七曜厯 — all of considerable value to the well-read. Whereas the men of the late Táng vied at facetious cleverness, Fú alone investigated old learning; he may truly be called a scholar of solid foundation. Respectfully revised and submitted, eleventh month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀 (note: 均 in the original is a typographical slip for 昀), Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
Lǐ Fú 李涪 was a late-Táng official; the Sìkù tiyao, citing Lù Yóu’s Wèinán wénjí 渭南文集 colophon, identifies him with the zōngzhèng qīng 宗正卿 of the same name who pleaded the loyalty of Wáng Xíngyú 王行瑜 (the jiédùshǐ of Bīnníng 邠寧) before the rebellion of Qiánníng 2 (895), was disgraced after Wáng’s defeat, and died in exile in Lǐngnán 嶺南. Guō Zhōngshù’s 郭忠恕 Pèi xī 佩觿 (Five Dynasties) styles him guózǐ jìjiǔ 國子祭酒 — the two titles are not necessarily inconsistent (high-ranking sinecures were routinely combined), and the Sìkù editors leave the question open. CBDB (id 93044) gives a floruit of 874–898, consistent with the Lǐngnán-exile identification.
The Kānwù is one of the four major Táng záokǎo 雜考 bǐjì — paired by Chén Zhènsūn 陳振孫 in the Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí 直齋書錄解題 with Yán Shīgǔ’s 顏師古 Kuāngmiù zhèngsú 匡謬正俗, Lǐ Kuāngyì’s 李匡乂 Zī xiá jí 資暇集, and Qiū Guāngtíng’s 丘光庭 Jiānmíng shū 兼明書 (see KR3j0029) as the key works of late-Táng / Five-Dynasties philological correction. Its substantive concerns are: (a) ritual and institutional failings in late-Táng court practice, measured against the Kāiyuán lǐ and the Zhōu lǐ; (b) corrupt character forms in current circulation; (c) phonological errors in Lù Fǎyán’s Qièyùn; (d) misreadings of canonical texts (the Lúnyǔ’s 不問馬 passage, the Zuǒ zhuàn’s 繕完葺牆); (e) refutation of fashionable late-Táng absurdities (Lǐ Shāngyǐn’s claim that the Buddha was Lǎozǐ’s teacher, Jiǎ Dān’s astronomical errors).
The dating bracket adopted here (notBefore 880, notAfter 898) reflects Lǐ Fú’s late floruit as recorded in CBDB and the LùYóu colophon. The author’s preface states the original fifty piān; the surviving forty-nine piān are preserved in the Sìkù recension. The work was much cited by Sòng jīnshí 金石 and bǐjì writers (Hóng Mài 洪邁, Wáng Yìnglín 王應麟) and is one of the principal late-Táng sources for the historian of Táng ritual practice and Táng-era súzì 俗字.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. The text is treated incidentally in modern surveys of Táng bǐjì (e.g., Liú Yèqiū 劉葉秋, Lìdài bǐjì gàishù 歷代筆記概述, Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1980) and in studies of Táng ritual reform; no monograph or European-language translation exists. The Sìkù recension and its Cóngshū jíchéng 叢書集成 reprint are the standard editions; a punctuated edition is available in the Quán Táng wǔdài bǐjì 全唐五代筆記 series (Sānqín Chūbǎnshè, 2012).
Links
- Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào 四庫全書總目提要, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi, Kānwù entry.
- Lù Yóu, Wèinán wénjí 渭南文集, juan 27 (colophon to the Kānwù).
- CBDB id 93044 (Lǐ Fú).