Tiānxià tóngwén jí 天下同文集
Collection of Same-Script Writings from All Under Heaven by 周南瑞
About the work
A monumental early-Yuán prose anthology compiled by Zhōu Nánruì (周南瑞, zì Jìngxiū) of Ānchéng. Originally 50 juǎn; in the SKQS recension juǎn 17, 18, 31, 34, 35, 41 are missing — the result of Máshā Sòng-style fascicle-binding decay during manuscript transmission. Title from the classical phrase Chētóngguǐ, shūtóngwén (Carriages-share-tracks, Books-share-script) — a celebration of unified imperial culture. The selection covers early-Yuán official prose: imperial zhào, biǎo, zòuyì, shū, míng, jì, etc. Liú Jiāngsūn 劉將孫 supplies a preface. The compiler’s reputation is poor: Wú Chéng 吳澄’s Zhīyán jí contains a Zèng Zhōu Nánruì xù sharply criticising Zhōu’s màochēng (false claim) of descent from Zhōu Dūnyí — he had inscribed Liánxī (Zhōu Dūnyí’s studio-style) over his door. The SKQS editors take this as evidence Zhōu was a hàoqūfù gāomíng (one who eagerly hangs onto great names) — and note that the table-of-contents end carries the standard commercial formula Suísuǒchuán lùzé lùxù kānxíng (“the various transmissions, as obtained, sequentially printed”) — confirming this is a fángběn (workshop-edition) like later Míng commercial anthologies.
Documentary value. Despite the compiler’s poor reputation, the content has substantial historical value — much of what is recorded does not appear in Sū Tiānjué’s KR4h0081 Yuánwén lèi, and the work preserves valuable early-Yuán official-document material:
- Cuī Yù 崔彧’s Jìn bǎoxǐ (presentation of the imperial seal) — the Yuánshǐ records the event in the Chéngzōng běnjì and Cuī’s own biography but without month and day. The Tóngwén jí’s preserved memorial-text identifies the date as the 30th day of the 1st month of Zhìyuán 31 (1294).
- Ānnán king’s Hè Chéngzōng dēngjí memorial, dated 3rd month of Yuánzhēn 1 (1295) — disambiguating a conflict between the Yuánshǐ Chéngzōng běnjì (which dates it 3rd-month yǐsì 1 of Yuánzhēn 1) and the Ānnánguó zhuàn (which dates it 5th month of Zhìyuán 31) — confirming the běnjì against the zhuàn.
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Tiānxià tóngwén jí in 50 juǎn — the Yuán Zhōu Nánruì compiled it. Nánruì’s beginnings-and-ends are not in detail. Examining Wú Chéng’s Zhīyán jí, there is Zèng Zhōu Nánruì xù saying: “Ān-chéng-man Zhōu Nánruì Jìngxiū inscribed Liánxī two characters over his chamber; some criticised it” — and further: “Jìngxiū’s wéncí indeed already early stood above the xiāngrú (village Confucians); but viewed from Liánxī, it is lòu (mean). Why not provisionally lay aside what one has already learned and strive at what one has not?” Surely this is the man.
Chéng’s preface holds many words of dissatisfaction; even saying that for one who wished to be Liánxī’s descendant, he should know the gate-and-path — this plainly disparages him as falsely claiming Master Zhōu’s descent. The man is one who eagerly chases after high names. Observing the table-of-contents’ end-mark “As obtained, sequentially printed” — eight characters — his format is no different from current age’s commercial print-shop crude prints. Thus it can be inferred.
At the head of the book is Liú Jiāngsūn’s preface, also disorderly-and-shallow — seems forged. Yet what is recorded has much not collected in Sū Tiānjué’s Yuánwén lèi, and is enough to provide a basis for the period’s diǎngù (institutions-and-precedents). For example: Cuī Yù presenting the imperial seal — the matter is in the Yuánshǐ Chéngzōng běnjì and Yù’s own biography — without detail of the month-and-day of obtaining the seal. *This collection’s preserved Cuī Yù Xiànxǐ shūwén confirms it as the 30th day of the 1st month of Zhìyuán 31.
Again: the Chéngzōng běnjì — Yuánzhēn 1 third-month yǐsì shuò, the Ānnán shìzǐ Chén Rìjiōng dispatched envoys to memorialise and present fāngwù (regional goods); but the Ānnánguó zhuàn records the matter under the 5th-month of Zhìyuán 31 — divergent with the běnjì. Now examining this collection’s preserved Ānnán Wáng Hè Chéngzōng dēngjí biǎo’s end says “Yuánzhēn 1 3rd-month-1st-day” — knowing the lièzhuàn is mis-recorded. All this can serve as side-evidence for verification. Other texts also mostly kěguān (worth viewing).
Juǎn 17, 18, 31, 34, 35, 41 are all missing — for the Máshā old-format divides juǎn into broken-pieces, easily losing in transcription. Today since there is no separate recension for verification-and-supplement, we provisionally follow the original and record it, to preserve its authenticity. Reverently submitted, fourth month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Compiled in the early-to-mid Yuán (c. 1290–1330) by Zhōu Nánruì of Ānchéng. The Liú Jiāngsūn preface (probably authentic) is undated; the Wú ChéngZhōu Nánruì correspondence places Zhōu in Wú’s active period (c. 1290–1330). The original 50-juǎn state is preserved in the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn citations and Sòng/Yuán cross-references; the SKQS recension is incomplete.
Significance. (1) Yuán official-prose archive. As a near-contemporary collection of imperial zhào, biǎo, and zòuyì, the Tóngwén jí preserves Yuán-state documents that did not enter Sū Tiānjué’s Yuánwén lèi (which is more strictly literary). For the early-Yuán period it is a primary source.
(2) Documentary check on the Yuánshǐ. The work’s preserved memorials with dates allow scholars to adjudicate internal contradictions in the Yuánshǐ. The SKQS editors’ Cuī Yù and Ānnán examples are model uses.
(3) Commercial-workshop product. The “as obtained, sequentially printed” formula is one of the earliest extant uses of the xùkè (continuous-publication) commercial-workshop publication model — a precursor to the late-Míng monthly anthologies.
Translations and research
- Hok-lam Chan, Legitimation in Imperial China — for Yuán-state legitimacy documents.
- John D. Langlois Jr. (ed.), China Under Mongol Rule (Princeton, 1981) — context.
- 蕭啟慶 Xiāo Qǐ-qìng, Yuán-dài shǐ xīn-tàn — Yuán institutional history drawing on the Tóng-wén jí.
Other points of interest
Zhōu Nánruì’s Liánxī claim is a striking case of late-imperial genealogical fabrication at the level of textual identity — using a studio-style inscription rather than a fabricated genealogy. The SKQS editors’ confidence in Wú Chéng’s identification of the man and his motive is a useful reminder that contemporary criticism is often the most reliable source.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §31.4.
- ctext