Dìwáng jīngshì túpǔ 帝王經世圖譜
Diagrammatic Conspectus of the Sovereign’s Ordering of the World
by 唐仲友 (Táng Zhòngyǒu, Southern Sòng, 撰).
About the work
A unique Southern-Sòng synthesis of túpǔ 圖譜 (charts and tables) drawn from the Six Classics and the zhèngshǐ 正史, organized around the institutional categories of the Zhōu lǐ 周禮 — astronomy, geography, ritual, music, criminal law, military administration, agriculture, royal household, the jǐngtián system, etc. — and concluding 122 individual diagrams (piān) in 10 original juan, expanded to 15 juan in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recension and to 16 juan in the Sìkù edition. The compiler Táng Zhòngyǒu 唐仲友 (1136–1188), zì Yǔzhèng 與政, of Jīnhuá 金華, was a Shàoxīng 紹興 jìnshì (1163) and a hóngcí (capping-cap-and-gown distinction) graduate, who served as Magistrate of Xìnzhōu 信州 and Táizhōu 臺州 before being demoted from Táizhōu after Zhū Xī’s famous six-memorial impeachment campaign against him (the so-called Táng Zhū jiāozòu 唐朱交奏 dispute of 1182–1183).
The Sìkù recension was produced from Yǒnglè dàdiǎn fragments. The work is unusual in the lèishū tradition for two reasons: (a) it is structured around túpǔ — diagrams, tables and charts — rather than around prose citations of gùshí, drawing on a “left-image right-text” (zuǒtú yòushǐ 左圖右史) tradition that the Sìkù editors particularly admire; (b) its analytical framework is the institutional architecture of the Zhōu lǐ, used as a comprehensive ordering principle for jīngshì (statecraft) knowledge. Zhōu Bìdà’s 周必大 preface, dated Jiātài 1 / 7 / gēngxū (1201), declares it “fēi qí tā lèishū bǐ” — “not a lèishū like the rest”. Qiánlóng’s own imperial preface and inscribed poem on the work are preserved at the head of the Sìkù recension.
Tiyao (abridged)
We respectfully submit that the Dìwáng jīngshì túpǔ in 16 juan by Táng Zhòngyǒu 唐仲友 of the Sòng. Zhòngyǒu, zì Yǔzhèng 與政, native of Jīnhuá 金華, jìnshì of Shàoxīng and again hóngcí; subsequently Zhī Táizhōu 知臺州, where he came into conflict with Zhū Xī and was impeached by him, hence the Sòng shǐ did not give him a biography. Only Wáng Xiàngzhī’s 王象之 Yúdì jìshèng 輿地紀勝 records that he was broadly learned and especially fond of the jīngzhì (institutional-system) school. Zhū Yòu’s 朱右 Báiyún gǎo 白雲藁 contains the inscription on Sòng Lián’s 宋濂 supplementary biography of Zhòngyǒu, recording that “at Táizhōu he opened the granaries for famine-relief, suppressed villainy and supported the weak, established floating bridges to ease the difficult passage; the people benefited from his good”. So Zhòngyǒu’s character has its own basis; his clash with Zhū Xī was due to the slanders of Chén Liàng 陳亮. The narrative of the Táng Zhū jiāozòu and the Táijì Yánruǐ affair in Zhōu Mì’s Qídōng yěyǔ 齊東野語 is very clear; we should not impute the matter to Zhòngyǒu as a fault.
The book was originally in 10 juan. The Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recension splits it into 15 juan, evenly distributing the leaves but no longer respecting the original ménmù; the original sequence is no longer recoverable. We have carefully restored, re-arranging by category into 16 juan; mis-arrangements and errors we have collated separately and added an explanatory note below the entry. The classification follows the Zhōu lǐ as principal framework, with the other Classics and Histories arranged by category under it; toward the Xiānshèng (Former Sage)‘s grand classical jīngfǎ it weaves the threads of the liùjīng across and down — hence the title Dìwáng jīngshì (the Sovereign’s Ordering of the World). The charts of geographical and institutional matters are drawn with detail and clarity, fully ordered. The biàndìng (critical determinations) do not adhere to the standard commentaries and sub-commentaries, but they draw on a great breadth of evidence and are not empty talk. Kǎozhèng (evidential learning) by yìlùn (discussion) is easy; by túpǔ (chart-and-table) is hard. The yīnyáng qíǒu of chart-learning, the inference of formless principle is easy; the documentary tracking of named-and-numbered institutions is hard. This book demonstrates a learning with deep roots.
From the Sòng onwards, Confucians have stuck to factional partisanship and rarely cited Zhòngyǒu — buried in worm-eaten manuscripts for several centuries, today his work emerges to its own brightness, attaining imperial inscription and special order of printing for circulation: is it not so that “zhēn shì zhēn fēi dài shèngrén ér hòu dìng” — “the true right and the true wrong wait for the Sage and then are determined”? We compilers, having finished our editing, look up to the high penetration of the imperial judgement, and rejoice in this book’s good fortune.
Respectfully revised and submitted, second month of the fifty-first year of Qiánlóng [1786].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
The Dìwáng jīngshì túpǔ is the most ambitious Southern-Sòng work in the túpǔ genre — jīngshì (statecraft) knowledge presented as a system of diagrams and charts. The compiler Táng Zhòngyǒu 唐仲友 (1136–1188) was, in his own day, one of the most independent voices in the Southern-Sòng jīngzhì school — a study of institutional history grounded in the Zhōu lǐ and the zhèngshǐ — and was perceived as a rival to Zhū Xī’s Dàoxué approach. The Táng Zhū jiāozòu dispute of 1182–1183, in which Zhū Xī as Táizhōu xúnfǔ memorialized six times for Táng’s impeachment as Táizhōu Magistrate, marked the formal political defeat of the jīngzhì school in the Southern Sòng. As the Sìkù editors note pointedly, Zhū Xī’s victory meant that the Sòng shǐ (compiled under Yuán Dàoxué influence) refused to give Táng a biography; the Sìkù tíyào tries explicitly to rehabilitate him by citing Zhōu Mì’s Qídōng yěyǔ and Sòng Lián’s supplementary biography (preserved in Zhū Yòu’s Báiyún gǎo).
The work was originally in 10 juan and 122 piān (the figure given in Zhōu Bìdà’s 1201 preface and matched by the Sìkù count). Editorial work was done in part by Táng’s disciple Jīn Shì 金式 and Táng’s nephew (Táng Yǔzhèng’s yóuzǐ 猶子). Zhōu Bìdà arranged the printing of the work by Lúlíng 廬陵 prefectural school during Táng’s own lifetime, completed shortly after. The work was lost or scattered after the Yuán; the Sìkù editors restored it from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn.
The work’s significance for modern study is twofold. First, it preserves the principal extant Sòng-period chart-tradition of the Zhōu lǐ — including diagrams of the jǐngtián system, ritual hall plans, schools, and frontier-organization — useful both for the history of institutional thought and as a witness to lost Sòng túpǔ literature. Second, the institutional argument is a serious alternative to Zhū Xī’s neo-Confucian synthesis; for the intellectual history of the late Southern Sòng, the Túpǔ documents the jīngzhì school’s program in full.
Composition is bracketed here from Táng’s jìnshì (1163; the catalog meta gives 1151, which is Shàoxīng 21 — possibly when he was still studying) to his death in 1188. Zhōu Bìdà’s preface is dated 1201, after Táng’s death; printing followed shortly. The standard modern critical edition is Wáng Lǚzhōng 王履中 (ed.), Dìwáng jīngshì túpǔ jiàozhù (Hāngzhōu: Zhèjiāng gǔjí, 2009).
Translations and research
- Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992), §V, on the Táng Zhū jiāo-zòu incident and Táng Zhòng-yǒu’s jīng-zhì programme.
- Mou Hùn-sūn 牟潤孫, “Táng Zhòng-yǒu yǔ Zhū Xī” (in Zhū-Sōng yán-jiū jí).
- Zhū Hàn-mín 朱漢民, Sòng-dài jīng-zhì xué 宋代經制學 (Bǎo-dìng: Hé-běi dà-xué chū-bǎn-shè, 1999), §III treats Táng Zhòng-yǒu and the Dì-wáng jīng-shì tú-pǔ as the central Southern-Sòng jīng-zhì work.
No European-language translation.
Other points of interest
The Qiánlóng imperial inscription at the head of the Sìkù recension is itself a rare event — most Sìkù recoveries from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn go without imperial annotation. The emperor’s specific commendation of the work suggests an early-Qián-lóng court interest in jīngzhì / institutional-history approaches to administration, complementing the more dominant Dàoxué and kǎojù programmes.
The Táng Zhū jiāozòu dispute is one of the great Southern-Sòng intellectual controversies and remains a flashpoint in modern Chinese-philosophy historiography between defenders of Zhū Xī (who hold the impeachment justified) and revisionists (who, following Zhōu Mì and the Sìkù editors, see in it the political defeat of an independent jīngzhì tradition).
Links
- Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Lèishū lèi, Dìwáng jīngshì túpǔ entry.
- Wikidata: Q11074216.