東園叢說

Dōng yuán cóng shuō 東園叢說

Discussions from the East Garden

by 李如箎 (Lǐ Rúchí, Dōngyuán xiānshēng 東園先生; fl. 1132).

About the work

A 3-juàn Southern Sòng bǐjì by 李如箎 (Lǐ Rúchí), Dōngyuán xiānshēng of Kuòcāng. The book is a wide-ranging cóng shuō (collected discussion) covering classical exegesis on the Yì, the Shī, the Chūnqiū, the Lǐ jì, and the Lùn yǔ; kǎozhèng on Sòng astronomy and lì shù (calendar studies); and a substantial záshuō section. The Sìkù editors find the textual transmission suspicious — they identify internal references to events later than the preface and possible influence from Zhū Xī’s Jí zhù, suggesting some later interpolation — but conclude that the book’s substantive arguments are sufficiently strong to retain. Examples of strong arguments singled out by the editors: the reading of Wáng yòng sān qū via the Zhōu lǐ Dà sīmǎ lì biǎo; the critical reading of the Kūn liùwǔ hexagram against Chéng Yí’s Yì zhuàn; the Shuō guà on shēng shī (generating divination-stalks) corrected against Yáng Xióng; the Xì cí “Tàijí shēng liǎng yí” read as the divination-stalk generative method; kǎozhèng on the Zuǒ zhuàn “Chǔ yǒu Jù shì, Zhāng shì, Yōng shì, Péng shì” places against the Sān shì’s identification as river-names; and the Guān jū read as the hòufēi (royal consort) seeking the Shū nǚ (virtuous lady), with Cuī Língēn’s Sān lǐ yì zōng cited on the “stoppered-with-mugwort” libation.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Dōng yuán cóng shuō in three juan, old recension titled “compiled by Lǐ Rúchí of the Sòng.” Rúchí’s biography is incompletely recorded. By the juàn-opening preface dated Shàoxīng rénzǐ — he was a Kuòcāng man, at the time serving as Tóngxiāng chéng. There is also a Shàoxīng jiǎyín Jiànān Zhōu Tíngyún bá (afterword) to the book, calling him Dōngyuán xiānshēng — so Dōngyuán is his hào. The book is not registered by the various house-collection bibliographers; no path can be traced for its provenance.

The lower juan, in the zá shuō section, records [the author’s] own Chū xià poem and his father’s Huānxǐ kǒu hào sān shǒu — three poems hitherto not recorded in any Sòng-poetry compilation.

The book’s preface is dated rénzǐ — Shàoxīng 1 (1131); the printing jiǎyín — Shàoxīng 3 (1133); yet one entry recording contemporary affairs records Shàoxīng 6 (1136); one on Yáng Yāo and Lǐ Chéng’s xiǎnnìng records the post-Shàoxīng 24 (1154) Qín Xūn dengdi affair; one on “as few losing to many” records Shàoxīng 31 (1161) liǎngHuái shīshǒu affair; and there is reference to Gāozōng’s posthumous temple-name — the book is supposed to have been completed under Xiàozōng; the dating does not match. Moreover, the Yǔ Mèng shuō division — Yǔ Mèng (the Lùn yǔ and Mèngzǐ paired) — is a paired-classification not familiar in early Southern Sòng. The entry on Běichén bù dòng matches the Míng Chén Shìyuán’s Lùn yǔ lèi kǎo discussion — as if having seen Zhū Xī’s Jí zhù, but the book should antedate Zhū Xī. The Tiānwén lì shù shuō on the present Hún tiān being the Gài tiān’s method — sounds like post-Jesuit-arrival language; Sòng-period tuībù astronomers were not yet clear on this principle.

We doubt the recension is later miscellaneous-text pulling, with what was added imitating Sòng-period speech and foisted on Sòng authorship. Yet — just on the substance of what it says — though not always exact, much is worth adopting. The Chūn qiū háng Xià shí entry — that taking jiànzǐ as Zhōu’s first month is the Zuǒ shì’s error — yet does not realise that Zuǒ shì, being a Zhōu man, may sometimes have erred in narrating other matters, but on the dynasty’s own zhèngshuò (regnal calendar), all the fùshù (women and servants) of his time would have known: it cannot be that Zuǒ shì erred. The Shī wáng Chūnqiū zuò entry — that what Confucius heard-and-saw of his time had no Shī — yet does not realise that the Zhūlín Xiànán poem has names attached, and could not have been moved east of the DōngZhōu. The Zhào gōng bù yuè entry — that Zhōugōng held audience with the feudal princes in the Míngtáng and Zhàogōng once “north-faced and served him” — wrongly trusts the Míngtáng wèi absurdity. The Zuǒ zhuàn “the remaining ones became the Liú clan” entry suspects Qiū Míng’s foreknowledge or fùhuì — without realising the line is a Hàn-Confucian insertion, on which Kǒng Yǐngdá’s Zhèng yì has explicit confirmation.

Yet such as the reading of Wáng yòng sān qū via the Zhōu lǐ Dà sīmǎ lì biǎo as evidence; the reading of the Kūn liùwǔ against Chéng Zhuàn’s mistaken Nǚwā / Wǔ-shi citation; the reading of Shuō guà against Yáng Xióng’s chǎn shī; the reading of the Xì cí “Tài jí shēng liǎng yí” as the divination-stalk generative method; the Zuǒ zhuàn “Chǔ yǒu Jùshì, Zhāngshì, Yōngshì, Péngshì” places against the Sān shì identification as river-names; the reading of Guān jū as the hòufēi seeking the Shū nǚ, citing Cuī Língēn’s Sān lǐ yì zōng on the libation with stoppered-mugwort; and the Yì zhī Bā fǎ discussion, the liù bǎi qī fēn zhī shuō, the calculation of Jiàng xiàn rén jiǎzǐ — all are exact and not careless: contribute substantively to classical exegesis. So, although together with 岳珂’s Táng hú shī gǎo, both are clearly suspect productions of recent date, since the book is adoptable in substance, we have provisionally preserved it for consultation.

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

Abstract

The Dōng yuán cóng shuō is a substantial classical kǎozhèng bǐjì attributed to 李如箎 (Lǐ Rúchí), Dōngyuán xiānshēng of Kuòcāng. The Sìkù editors flag the textual transmission as suspicious: a number of internal references postdate the preface (events of 1136, 1154, 1161; reference to Gāozōng’s posthumous temple-name; possible reliance on Zhū Xī’s Lùn yǔ jí zhù; reference to Húntiān / Gàitiān astronomy in apparent post-Jesuit language). The editors suggest later interpolation — possibly substantial — but conclude that the book’s substantive contributions to classical exegesis are sufficient to retain it.

Strong arguments in the book (as flagged by the Sìkù editors):

1. Wáng yòng sān qū: read via the Zhōu lǐ Dà sīmǎ lì biǎo (the zhūhóu’s standing-up of biǎo poles in the hunt).
2. Kūn liùwǔ: the Nǚwā / Wǔ-shi exegetical line in Chéng Yí’s Yì zhuàn refuted.
3. Shuō guà shēng shī: Yáng Xióng’s “chǎn shī” (production of divination-stalks) corrected.
4. Xì cí: “Tài jí shēng liǎng yí” read as the divination-stalk generative method.
5. Zuǒ zhuàn Jùshì, Zhāngshì: identifies the Sān shì line as river-names rather than place-names.
6. Guān jū: read as the hòufēi seeking the Shū nǚ, citing Cuī Língēn’s Sān lǐ yì zōng.
7. Yì’s Bā fǎ and liù bǎi qī fēn: calendrical-divinatory technicalities.
8. Jiàng xiàn rén jiǎzǐ: calculation of the Zuǒ zhuàn old-man-of-Jiàng’s age.

Weaker arguments: dismissal of Zuǒ shì’s use of the jiànzǐ (Zhōu first-month) calendar; over-trust of the Míng táng wèi; insufficient awareness of Hàn-Confucian fùhuì interpolations into Zuǒ zhuàn.

Dating. The book’s stated preface is Shàoxīng rénzǐ (1132). The recension contains internal references to events of 1136, 1154, 1161, and Gāozōng’s posthumous temple-name (post-1187). Conservative reading: the book in its present form represents accumulation through the mid–late Southern Sòng. NotBefore 1132 / notAfter 1162 (Gāozōng’s reign; if the temple-name reference is genuine, push later, but the Sìkù editors suggest later interpolation).

Translations and research

No substantial Western-language treatment. The book is cited in Chinese-language Sòng Yì-studies (Bā fǎ; the Tài-jí generative-stalk reading), in Shī-studies (the Guān jū libation argument), and in Sòng calendar-and-astronomical scholarship.

Other points of interest

The book is one of the more substantial Sìkù cases of textual-criticism reservation: the editors accept it provisionally on the strength of its substantive arguments, while flagging the recensional uncertainty.

Links

• Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 3, Dōng yuán cóng shuō entry.