Nán huá zhēn jīng yì hǎi zuǎn wēi 南華真經義海纂微

Collected Subtleties from the Sea of Meanings of the True Scripture of the Southern Florescence

compiled by 褚伯秀 (Chǔ Bóxiù, Xuě yán 雪巖; b. 1230, d. after 1278); preface dated 1265

A monumental Southern-Sòng 106-juàn anthology of commentaries on the [[KR5c0051|Nán huá zhēn jīng]] (the Zhuāngzǐ) compiled by Chǔ Bóxiù 褚伯秀. Preserved in the Zhèngtǒng Dàozàng as DZ 734 / CT 734 (Dòngshén bù, Yù jué lèi 洞神部玉訣類). At 106 juàn, this is the single most extensive commentary-compilation on the Zhuāngzǐ in the pre-modern period — an exceptional scholarly monument of late-Southern-Sòng textual scholarship.

About the work

Jan A. M. De Meyer’s notice in Schipper & Verellen eds., The Taoist Canon (2004, 2:2403–2700, DZ 734) gives the authoritative modern framing.

Compiler’s background

Chǔ Bóxiù 褚伯秀, Xuě yán 雪巖 (“Snow Crag”), was born in 1230 and must have died after 1278 — his active period therefore brackets the Southern Sòng’s fall to the Mongols (1279). Native of Wǔ lín 武林 (modern Hángzhōu 杭州, Zhè jiāng).

In 1246 — at age sixteen — Chǔ met Fāng Yuán yīng 方元英 (a Daoist master from Sìchuān, abbot of the Shòu níng guān 壽寧觀 on Héng shān 衡山, and author of a still-extant Lǎozǐ Dàodé jīng gǔ běn jí zhù 老子道德經古本集註) during the latter’s stay at the Southern-Sòng capital. Chǔ studied the Zhuāngzǐ with Fāng for two years, then (following Fāng’s instructions) continued studying by himself for seven years. He then compiled the present edition and had it printed in 1265.

Three prefaces

The compilation carries three 1265 prefaces:

  1. Liú Zhēn sūn 劉震孫 (1197–1268).
  2. Wén Jí wēng 文及翁 (fl. 1279).
  3. Táng Hàn 湯漢 (c. 1198–1275).

These are followed by a note by the editor (preface 4a–6a) showing that Chǔ based himself on Chén Jǐng yuán’s 陳景元 (陳景元) 736 Nán huá zhēn jīng zhāng jù yīn yì 南華真經章句音義 — Chén Jǐngyuán’s list of major commentators — but added several additional interpretations.

Commentators included

Of the seventeen commentators listed by Chǔ Bóxiù as available to him, six are actually included in the anthology:

  1. Guō Xiàng 郭象 (郭象, 252–312) — quoted from a Wǔ mén 吳門 official edition (guǎn běn 官本), corrected through Chén Jǐng yuán’s critical notes. Differs from the version in DZ 745 Nán huá zhēn jīng zhù shū and from Lù Démíng’s.

  2. Lǚ Huìqīng 呂惠卿 (呂惠卿, 1032–1111) — from a Sìchuān edition. Lǚ’s Zhuāngzǐ commentary in 10 juàn was presented to the throne in 1084; listed as lost in the 1430 Dàozàng quē jīng mù lù 道藏闕經目錄. A 1920 archaeological discovery at Khara-khoto (Karakorum) by P. K. Kozlov recovered a copy — from which it could be determined that Chǔ Bóxiù had not quoted the complete text. Until 1920, Lǚ’s Zhuāngzǐ was known only through Chǔ’s citations.

  3. Lín Yìdù 林疑獨 (fl. 1268) — from a Masha 麻沙 (Fú jiàn) edition. Gives a hermeneutic and symbolical reading emphasising the limits of human language.

  4. Wáng Pōu 王雱 (王雱, 1042–1076) — apparently different from Wáng’s Nán huá zhēn jīng xīn zhuàn (DZ 743); may represent another commentary by the same author, now otherwise lost.

  5. Lǐ Yuán zhuó 李元卓 (alias Lǐ Shí biǎo 李士表) — different from Lǐ’s work in DZ 1263 Zhuāng Liè shì lùn.

  6. Chǔ Bóxiù himself — the compiler’s own commentary, coming at the end.

Preservation value

The compilation’s text-critical value is enormous:

  • Preserves significant fragments of Lǚ Huìqīng’s Zhuāngzǐ zhù (pre-1920 the only witness).
  • Preserves alternate versions of Wáng Pōu’s commentary (distinct from DZ 743).
  • Preserves the Wǔ mén edition of Guō Xiàng’s commentary (with Chén Jǐng yuán’s corrections) — distinct from the DZ 745 and Lù Démíng versions.
  • Preserves Lín Yìdù’s commentary — otherwise unattested.

Chǔ Bóxiù’s own commentary

The editor’s own interpretive voice appears in the final commentary-position. Chǔ’s approach is characteristically late-Southern-Sòng syncretic — integrating Daoist, Confucian, and Buddhist categories, and drawing on the deep reserves of scholarship he accumulated during his decade of study with Fāng Yuán yīng and subsequent self-study.

Abstract

The compilation is a masterpiece of late-Southern-Sòng Daoist textual scholarship. Its 106-juàn scope, its preservation of otherwise-lost commentaries, and its systematic text-critical apparatus make it the single most important scholarly resource for the history of Zhuāngzǐ commentary. Its completion in 1265 — fourteen years before the fall of the Southern Sòng — places it at the culmination of the great Southern-Sòng scholarly-textual traditions.

Dating. Preface 1265. Per the project’s dating rule, the frontmatter gives 1265 as the composition / completion date. Dynasty: 宋.

Translations and research

  • Schipper, Kristofer, and Franciscus Verellen, eds. The Taoist Canon: A Historical Companion to the Daozang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 2:2403–2700 (DZ 734, J. De Meyer). Primary reference.
  • Kozlov, Pyotr Kuzmich. Comptes rendus des expéditions and Mongolei, Amdo und die tote Stadt Chara-Choto. On the 1920 recovery of Lǚ Huìqīng’s Zhuāngzǐ at Khara-khoto.
  • Boltz, Judith Magee. A Survey of Taoist Literature, Tenth to Seventeenth Centuries. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1987.

Other points of interest

The decade of study that preceded Chǔ Bóxiù’s 1265 compilation — two years with Fāng Yuán yīng, then seven years of self-study — reflects the serious scholarly preparation characteristic of late-Southern-Sòng Daoist scholarship. The combination of master-disciple training with solitary philological labour produced a work of extraordinary depth.

The recovery of Lǚ Huìqīng’s Zhuāngzǐ at Khara-khoto (Karakorum) in 1920 — through the Russian geographical-archaeological expedition of P. K. Kozlov — is one of the major archaeological-textual discoveries of the modern period, comparable to the Dūnhuáng library discoveries in its importance for medieval Chinese textual history. The Khara-khoto manuscript allowed scholars to compare Chǔ Bóxiù’s citations with the full original, verifying his editorial fidelity and identifying passages he had not included.