Jiǎo qì jí 腳氣集
The Beriberi Collection
by 車若水 (Chē Ruòshuǐ, d. c. 1274; zì Qīngchén 清臣, hào Yùfēng shānmín 玉峯山民), of Huángyán.
About the work
A 2-juàn late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì by 車若水 (Chē Ruòshuǐ). The title alludes to jiǎo qì — beriberi — the illness that confined the author in Xiánchún jiǎxū (1274). According to the postface by Chē’s nephew Wéiyī 惟一, the work was begun in the winter of 1274 as a sickbed diversion; a dated Mèng zǐ jí yì chapter section dates earlier entries to Xiánchún guǐyǒu (1273) eighth month. Chē died early the next spring; the book was preserved by his nephew through the late-Sòng / early-Yuán political destruction. The book is in yǔlù style, reflecting Chē’s late discipleship in the Lǐxué school under 陳文蔚 (Chén Wénwèi, hào Kèzhāi 克齋, a Zhū Xī disciple). It contains substantive kǎozhèng on the Shī (attacking the Mào xù), the Chūnqiū (defending the Xià calendar), the Lǐ jì (attacking Hàn rǔ), the Zhōu lǐ (criticising Yú Tíngchūn’s Fù gǔ biān reorganisation), and on Sòng Lǐxué topics; the book is firmly Zhū Xī partisan.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Jiǎo qì jí in two juan was compiled by Chē Ruòshuǐ of the Sòng. Ruòshuǐ’s zì was Qīngchén; hào Yùfēng shānmín; a Huángyán man. By his nephew Wéiyī’s afterword: completed in Xiánchún jiǎxū (1274) — during illness with jiǎo qì, he wrote to amuse himself, hence the title Jiǎo qì jí. Within the book the Mèng zǐ jí yì chapter has a small-type interlinear note: “this two-chapter section was written in guǐyǒu eighth month, now copied in here” — meaning the rest is the winter composition.
Ruòshuǐ in his youth served Chén Qíqīng (Yúnchuāng) of the Yǒngjiā school, studying gǔ wén. In his old age he left that and changed his master to Chén Wénwèi (Kèzhāi), studying kèyīn jiǎngxué (textual-and-lecture learning) — what the book calls “Yúnchuāng xiānshēng” is Chén Qíqīng, “Kèzhāi xiānshēng” is Chén Wénwèi. Hence the book’s organisation is closer to the yǔlù genre.
His discussion of poetry attacks the Mào Shī xiǎo xù; his discussion of Chūnqiū upholds the Xià calendar; his discussion of Lǐ jì batters the Hàn-Confucians — all ménhù zhī jiàn (positions of the school). His discussion of Zhōu lǐ Dōng guān mocks Yú Tíngchūn’s Fù gǔ biān (Yú’s reconstruction of the Zhōu lǐ Dōng guān) — speaking very rightly, but in citing “Zhōu guān still preserves 350 [offices], so Dōng guān is not lost” he still leaves the root from which Kē Shàngqiān and others would later make further cuts.
His discussion that the Shī 300 pieces are Hàn-Confucian forgeries agrees with 王柏’s position (which is Chē’s elder maternal kinsman). His discussion of the Lǐ jì’s wèi yā nì (fear of being pressed-or-drowned) — taking wèi as plague-qì that infects-others — is especially dùzhuàn (fabricated). His discussion of Zhūgě Liàng’s urging the taking of Liú Zhāng — as shēnmíng dà yì (illuminating the great Way) — is also bizarre. His discussion of Lǐ Yōng’s various stelai — that wén bù chéng wén lǐ bù chéng lǐ — is also guāi là (wildly off).
But: his discussion that the Zhōu lǐ Zài shī (Tax-and-Tribute Steward) entry is the yuánchán (garden-and-private-residence) tax, not a tiánfù (field-tax) institution — refuting Sū Xún’s reading — is correct; his discussion of the Chūnqiū Miè zhī méng — Master Chéng on “méngshì jiéxìn xiānwáng bù jìn” — and of “Sòngrén méng yú Sù” — Gōngyáng on “as if granting it” — and of the “Zǎi Xuǎn guī fù” — “directly writing ‘Tiānwáng’ makes the right-and-wrong appear of itself” — all aid classical exegesis.
On Master Zhū’s Sì shū jí zhù he honours and obeys very thoroughly. Only on “Dà xué gé wù” he says: “it is hard to gloss as ‘to-reach-to-the-utmost’; one should follow the Yù piān’s old gloss of bǐ fāng sī liàng (compare-and-evaluate)”; on “Lùn yǔ Wéi qiú zé fēi bāng yě yǔ” — he says the rest is all the Sage’s speech — slightly different from [Master Zhū], but the great-purport is no different.
He also says: “Shī jí zhuàn ought to list at the gānglǐng (general-principle) section the names of the various schools, to ensure they have transmission.” This book — unlike the LùnMèng zhuàn — is from the Hèmíng and Zhìbié (the Sìyán and Yīyánjí chapters of the Shī) onwards — all take the various schools’ existing comments — without first knowing the early xùn (glosses), the Shī too would be opaque. — also a public-spirited argument.
Other discussions: of Cài Yǎn’s Bābā shí as forgery; of Bái Jūyì’s Cháng hèn gē as not a chénzǐ style; of Wáng Tōng’s Gǔdàng compositions as fabricated; of Qiántáng not being a Wú territory and so being unable to have Wǔzǐxū’s tide-cult; of Wǔzǐxū’s biān shī (whipping the corpse) as dà nì (great rebellion); of Wáng Xīzhī’s “bù xuān” character; of jī rǎng (the jī rǎng game) as striking the ground with a stick; of Yīng Shào’s Hàn shū zhù mistaking Xià Jī as Dān Jī — all are useful one-side arguments. His discussion of Dù juān generating offspring in a hundred-birds-nest — though not necessarily certain — also widens unusual hearing.
Respectfully revised and submitted, fourth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781).
Abstract
The Jiǎo qì jí is one of the more interesting late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì, both for its biographical occasion (Chē Ruòshuǐ’s terminal-illness bǐjì, completed in his last winter) and for its position at the end of the SòngLǐxué school’s transmission. Chē was a junior maternal kinsman of 王柏 (Wáng Bǎi, 1197–1274) — the radical Shī-suspicious Lǐxué scholar — and aligns himself with Wáng’s position that much of the Shī 300 is Hàn-Confucian wěi tuō (false attribution).
The book’s substantive kǎozhèng contributions include: the reading of Zhōu lǐ Zài shī as garden-tax not field-tax (refuting Sū Xún); the various Chūnqiū readings (ZhāngChéng vs. Gōngyáng); the Cài Yǎn / Bābā shí forgery detection; the Wáng Tōng / Gǔdàng forgery detection; the jī rǎng game-stick interpretation. The book is also one of the principal late-Southern-Sòng witnesses to the yǔlù mode of bǐjì — Chē’s discipleship under Chén Wénwèi 陳文蔚 (a direct Zhū Xī disciple) shapes the genre toward Lǐxué-recorded-sayings format.
The book is firmly Zhū Xī partisan, but with one small departure: the Dà xué gé wù reading. Chē rejects the Zhū Xī gloss “to-reach-to-the-utmost” and follows the Yù piān old gloss bǐ fāng sī liàng — which the Sìkù editors implicitly approve. The book also shows two-sided judgement on Wáng Ānshí: while critical of his Zì shuō, Chē acknowledges the substantive ethical grounding of the New Policies (the bùbài cǎo / fúrónghuā discussion).
Dating. Internal references date the early entries to Xiánchún guǐyǒu eighth month (1273); the bulk was written in the winter of Xiánchún jiǎxū (1274), in Chē’s terminal illness. NotBefore 1273 / notAfter 1274.
The book’s recensional history is complicated by the late-Sòng / early-Yuán catastrophe: Chē’s nephew Wéiyī’s afterword records that “the other writings of years past, kept in separate fascicles, were innumerable; the war-fires brought disaster — all became huījìn (ash and embers); only this collection alone survives — also a fortune.” The book was later transcribed at the Yìngxuě zhúzhāi of Sūn Dàomíng (age 71) in Wúyuán dīngwèi (the Hóngwǔ / Yuán boundary year 1367), 12th month, 28th day. The standard text is the SKQS recension in 2 juàn.
Translations and research
No complete Western-language translation. The book is cited in modern Chinese-language scholarship on the 王柏 school of Shī-criticism, on the late-Southern-Sòng Lǐxué transmission, and on the Zhōu lǐ commentary tradition (especially Yú Tíng-chūn’s Fù gǔ biān).
Other points of interest
The book is one of the few Southern-Sòng bǐjì preserved through the late-Sòng war catastrophe — Chē’s nephew’s afterword is the principal surviving testimony to the destruction of late-Southern-Sòng private literary archives in 1276.
Links
- Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 3, Jiǎo qì jí entry.