Jiānmíng shū 兼明書
A Book of Comprehensive Clarification
by 丘光庭 (Qiū Guāngtíng, late Táng / early Five Dynasties; tàixué bóshì 太學博士, of Wūchéng 烏程)
About the work
A late-Táng / early Five-Dynasties záokǎo 雜考 bǐjì in five juan, organized by source: classical scriptures (Zhōu yì, Shàng shū, Máo shī, Chūnqiū, Lǐjì, Lúnyǔ, Xiàojīng, Ěryǎ), the Wén xuǎn 文選, miscellaneous matters, and the zìshū 字書 (character-form). The work performs bǔzhèng 補正 — correction and supplementation — of canonical philology and commentary, taking as its targets such celebrated authorities as Máo Cháng 毛萇, Kǒng Ānguó 孔安國, Yán Shīgǔ 顏師古, Kǒng Yǐngdá 孔穎達, Guō Pú 郭璞, Dù Yù 杜預, the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng commentators, Yìng Shào 應劭, and Liú Zhījī 劉知幾. Catalogued by the Sìkù editors as one of the four major Táng záokǎo bǐjì alongside Yán Shīgǔ’s Kuāngmiù zhèngsú, Lǐ Fú’s Kānwù KR3j0027, and Lǐ Kuāngyì’s 李匡乂 Zī xiá jí — but with the explicit verdict that Qiū’s work is the most ambitious and most independent-minded of the four. Catalogued under Záxué zhī shǔ 雜學之屬 of the Zájiā 雜家 division (subdivision záokǎo 雜考).
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Jiānmíng shū in five juan is the work of Qiū Guāngtíng of the Five Dynasties. Guāngtíng, a man of Wūchéng 烏程, held the office of tàixué bóshì 太學博士. Chén Zhènsūn’s Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí calls him a Táng man; the Xù Bǎichuān xuéhǎi 續百川學海 and the Huì mì jí 彙秘笈 brand him a Sòng man. But examining the book, the character shì 世 is written dài 代 [taboo-replacement for the personal name of Táng Tàizōng Lǐ Shìmín], so he should be a Táng man — but Luó Yǐn 羅隱’s collected works contain a poem presented to Guāngtíng, so he must already have entered the Five Dynasties; his observance of the Táng taboo is like Mèng Chǎng’s 孟昶 [Later Shǔ] retention of the dropped strokes for shì 世 and mín 民 in the Shíjīng 石經 — the persistence of an old custom, no more.
The book throughout is kǎozhèng 考證 (textual investigation). The Sòng shǐ · Yìwén zhì gives twelve juan; the Shūlù jiětí gives two; the present recension is in five — likely a later redaction, not the original arrangement. The opening is zhū shū 諸書 (the various canonical scriptures), 22 entries; then Zhōu yì, 5; Shàng shū, 4; Máo shī, 12; Chūnqiū, 10; Lǐjì, 5; Lúnyǔ, 12; Xiàojīng, 2; Ěryǎ, 3; then Wén xuǎn, 22; then záshuō 雜說, 18; zìshū 字書, 12. Of the twelve zìshū entries, the five entries on chǐ 恥, guān 鰥, guī 規, míng 明, and pǔ 朴 have only headings without text — clearly transmissional loss. The entry on qǐ 起 reads incoherently; on close inspection of the sense, the text on qǐ is missing its lower portion and the text on pǔ its upper, the two being erroneously fused into one in transmission.
Among the entries: in zhū shū, citing the Shānhǎi jīng on the phoenix-pattern, Guǎnzǐ and the Hán shī wàizhuàn on the fēngshàn sacrifices to argue that the invention of writing did not begin with Cāng Jié 倉頡 — fails to recognize that miscellaneous zhūzǐ texts cannot serve as proof. In Chūnqiū, mocking Liú Zhījī’s argument that the Chūnqiū’s vassal-states used the Xià calendar — fails to recognize that the Zuǒ zhuàn records Jìn affairs whose canonical-text and commentary differ by two months, clear proof of the use of the Xià calendar. In Lúnyǔ, on the request for [Yán Yuān’s] cart for a coffin — claims that this was the destruction of the cart for the coffin, not the sale of the cart to buy a coffin: fails to grasp that the materials of one cart cannot suffice for a coffin, an argument insensible to actual practice. In záshuō the entry on Qīxī 七夕 is sheer invention. In Shàngshū the discussion that King Kāng of Zhōu 周康王 should bear the personal name fú 䤛 [unknown]; in Xiàojīng the discussion that the ní 尼 of Zhòngní 仲尼 should be written yí 㞋 as the old form of yí 夷; in Chūnqiū the discussion that Duke Huán of Wèi 衛桓公 should be named mào 㒵 — these are mere flights of conjecture without textual ground.
But the discussions which point out the Shǐjì’s error in taking Fàngxūn 放勛, Chónghuá 重華, and Wénmìng 文命 [Yáo, Shùn, Yǔ’s epithets] as their personal names; Máo Cháng’s error in glossing dié 垤 as ant-mound; Kǒng Ānguó’s error in taking jīngmáo 菁茅 as two things; Yán Shīgǔ’s error in taking the shī jiū 鳲鳩 as the bái jué 白鷢; Kǒng Yǐngdá’s error in taking the chī xiāo 鴟鴞 as the qiǎofù 巧婦, and another in taking divinatory texts as paired with the tortoise and milfoil; Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng’s error in treating Jīngrén 荊人 as a derogation; Dù Yù’s error in glossing wén mǎ 文馬 as painted horses; Zhào Kuāng’s 趙匡 error in claiming that vassal-states had no two guān 觀 (gate-towers); Guō Pú’s error in glossing qiè zhī 竊脂 as “thief of fat” / meat-thief; and Yìng Shào’s error in deriving the surname Qiū 丘 from Zuǒ Qiūmíng 左丘明 — all are well-grounded refutations argued in clear order. The treatment of the shè and jì 社稷 (altars of soil and grain) is largely faithful to ritual sense; the rebuttal of the Five-Officials’ commentary on the Wén xuǎn is throughout precise; and the proposition that the Chūnqiū’s formulae include some written for praise, some for blame, some for satire, and some neither for praise nor blame nor satire but as a national-affair record requiring chronicling — this is uncommonly insightful. Among the kǎozhèng writings of Táng men, his book stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Yán Shīgǔ’s Kuāngmiù zhèngsú 匡謬正俗, Lǐ Fú’s Kānwù 刊誤, and Lǐ Kuāngyì’s Zī xiá jí 資暇集 as one of the four. Fēng Yǎn’s 封演 Jiànwén jì 見聞記 is too miscellaneous, and Sū È’s Yǎnyì 演義 plagiarizes much from older work; both are inferior. Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth month of the forty-first year of Qiánlóng [1776].
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
Qiū Guāngtíng 丘光庭 (fl. late 9th – early 10th c.) was a tàixué bóshì 太學博士 (Erudite of the Imperial College) from Wūchéng 烏程 (in Húzhōu 湖州, modern Zhèjiāng). His dating has long been controversial: Chén Zhènsūn’s 陳振孫 Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí (Sòng) treats him as a Táng man, while the Sòng compendia Xù Bǎichuān xuéhǎi and Huì mì jí style him a Sòng man. The Sìkù editors resolve the question by internal evidence — Qiū observes the Táng taboo on Lǐ Shìmín’s 李世民 personal name (writing 世 as 代) — together with the external evidence of Luó Yǐn’s 羅隱 (833–909) presentation poem, placing him at the very end of Táng and into the Five Dynasties, on the model of Mèng Chǎng’s 孟昶 retention of taboo strokes after the dynasty’s fall. He is not in CBDB.
The Jiānmíng shū itself was originally in twelve juan (so the Sòng shǐ · Yìwén zhì) or two juan (so the Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí); the present five-juan recension is a later redaction, as the Sìkù editors note. Its principal targets are the zhū shū 諸書 (the canonical scriptures and commentaries, 22 entries), the Wén xuǎn (22), miscellaneous topics (18), and the zìshū (12, of which five survive only as headings). The Sìkù editors give a remarkably balanced verdict: a number of entries are speculative or wrong (the 七夕 entry, the King Kāng-naming entry, the 仲尼 entry); but the great refutations — of Máo Cháng on dié, of Kǒng Ānguó on jīngmáo, of Yán Shīgǔ on the shījiū, of Kǒng Yǐngdá on the chīxiāo, of Dù Yù on wén mǎ, of Guō Pú on qièzhī, and of Yìng Shào on the surname Qiū — are well-argued and the treatment of the shè / jì altars is sound. They place the work in a conspicuous position among the Táng záokǎo, alongside Yán Shīgǔ’s Kuāngmiù zhèngsú, Lǐ Fú’s Kānwù KR3j0027, and Lǐ Kuāngyì’s Zī xiá jí — a group of four Táng works on classical philology and lexical correction that constitute the principal late-Táng inheritance of the kǎozhèng tradition into the Sòng. The dating bracket adopted here (notBefore 900, notAfter 950) reflects the late-Táng / Five-Dynasties floruit established by the Sìkù.
The work is included in 《宋史·藝文志》, Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí, Bǎichuān xuéhǎi 百川學海, Cóngshū jíchéng 叢書集成 and other compendia, and the Sìkù recension.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located. Modern Chinese editions are available in the Cóngshū jíchéng and in the Quán Táng wǔdài bǐjì 全唐五代筆記 (Sānqín, 2012). The work has been treated in Chinese-language scholarship of late-Táng bǐjì (Liú Yèqiū 劉葉秋, Lìdài bǐjì gàishù 歷代筆記概述) and in studies of Táng-era Wén xuǎn commentary; no Western-language translation exists.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tiyao is one of the longer and more sharply argued in the Zájiā division: its sustained engagement with both the merits and the failings of Qiū’s textual judgements is itself a model of Qing kǎozhèng. The work’s title — Jiānmíng “comprehensive clarification” — declares its program: to clarify all received texts simultaneously, by means of bǔzhèng (correction-and-supplementation) on the model of Yán Shīgǔ.