On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan *†
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
《中國文化研究所學報》Journal of Chinese Studies No. 67 - July 2018 REVIEW ARTICLE On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan *† Christoph Harbsmeier University of Copenhagen 1 2 The Chunqiu (春秋, hereafter Annals), dealing with the years 722–479 B.C. of the history of the state of Lu 魯, is a singularly important annalistic document in the historiography of the world. Its commentary, the Chunqiu Zuozhuan 春秋左傳, is a foundational text of Chinese civilization. And now, at last, we have a convenient, bilingual, and helpfully annotated edition from which to study this immensely rich work. Commendably, the present translation addresses itself in its rich introduction and annotation not only to specialists in Chinese history but to a general readership interested in the history of historiography. It is worth reflecting that such historical texts have commonly played a con- stitutive role in the creation of a historical “identity” attached to major empires in the world. * Zuo Tradition / Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals.” Translated and introduced by Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2016. Pp. xcv + 2147. $250.00. † I dedicate this review to my mentor and dear friend, co-editor of Thesaurus Linguae Sericae over the decades, Professor Jiang Shaoyu 蔣紹愚 of Peking University, Chinese linguist, phi- lologist, and humanist extraordinary. Also with thanks for help with the present article. 1 In addition to the well-known Western and East Asian literature on this text I would like to draw attention to Н.И.Монастырев, trans. Конфузиева летопись чуньзю • Вёсны и осени • Перевод и примечания Исследования Д.В.Деопика и А.М.Карапетьянца (first published 1870, notes first published 1876; reprint, Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura RAN, 1999). The book spans 351 pages. The notes are on pp. 109–93. 2 479 B.C. was supposed to be the year Confucius died. The Zuozhuan goes down to 468 B.C. For the years 480–468 B.C., the Zuozhuan manifestly had to rely on sources other than the Annals. Indeed, all on their own, the Annals would not have gone very far as a historical source. © 香港中文大學 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 《中國文化研究所學報》Journal of Chinese Studies No. 67 - July 2018 254 Christoph Harbsmeier The Old Testament “historical books” (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings) are a case in point. They come close, occasionally, to an annalistic chronological style, and they refer to a historical period even earlier than the Zuozhuan. One will readily concur with the editors of The Jerusalem Bible who explain: “Though we are accustomed to refer to these as ‘historical’ books, the term ‘Prophets’ suits them well since they are written from a religious standpoint and are concerned chiefly with the relationship between Israel and God, and Israel’s obedience—above 3 all its disobedience—to the word ministered through the prophets.” There is no such dominating transcendent perspective in the Zuozhuan. Nor is there as much psychological ekphrasis—sustained articulate focus on psychological states—in the Zuozhuan as is spread throughout the Old Testament as well as the Homeric epics. The official and very public Annales maximi compiled ex officio by the chief 4 pontiffs (pontifices) of the ancient Romans were ex-officio records of major events, including famines and pests as well as public festivities and political events of all kinds. The eighty-volume copy traditionally dated to the late second century B.C. presented a detailed year-by-year chronological record from about 400 B.C. onwards to 133 B.C., but it did also include a much more tentative chronology of the foundation of Rome. Cicero was among the very few who are known to have used this unique copy. Although perused by few only, the Annales maximi were a foundational official chronological record for the Roman Empire, much as the Zuozhuan seems to have come to be regarded as a foundational chronological record of the Chinese Empire in the Han times. However, I know of no detailed commentary to these Annales maximi compa- rable to the Zuozhuan commentary to the Annals. For the Russian Empire we do have the remarkable year-by-year chronicle 5 Povest’i vremennykh let of the twelfth century, a foundational chronology of the 3 The Jerusalem Bible (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966), p. 267. 4 For a thoughtful survey of traditional views on this document see Pauly Wissowa, Realen- zyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894) under Annales. See now also Bruce W. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annal- istic Tradition (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press, 1999). 5 For a detailed annotated translation and study see Ludolf Müller, Die altrussische Chronik, zugeschrieben dem Mönch des Kiever Höhlenklosters Nestor, in der Redaktion des Abtes Sil’vestr aus dem Jahre 1116, rekonstruiert nach den Handschriften Lavrent’evskaja, Radzivilovskaja, Akademiceskaja, Troickaja, Ipat’evskaja und Chlebnikovskaja und ins Deutsche übersetzt (Stuttgart: Fink Verlag, 2001). For an English translation with a rich intro- duction on the history of the study of the text see The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, trans. and ed. Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerod P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953). © 香港中文大學 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 《中國文化研究所學報》Journal of Chinese Studies No. 67 - July 2018 On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan 255 empire of the Rus’ which would richly reward detailed comparison with the Chunqiu, the Zuozhuan, and the Shiji 史記 (Records of the historians). For here we have a rich foundational chronology of a kingdom what was to mutate into a mighty empire, where everything that is politically basic is solidly inscribed into a byzantine Christian religious historical context. There are truly excellent and very detailed Russian 6 commentaries on this, but they are all modern and not medieval. A comparatist angle on these annalistic traditions could provide a critical fresh perspective on the specificities of our Chinese sources and their commonalities with annals around the world. The Present Edition Some books are so physically beautiful and so eminently useful that one is sorely tempted to celebrate their publication instead of reviewing them. Zuo Tradition is one of these wonderful publications that literally everyone with any interest in traditional China will need to hurry to buy. The book is handsomely produced, lavishly bound, and it is the result of many, many years of intensive cooperation between three of the world’s leading scholars in the field, supported not only by the learned editors but also by some outstanding advisors thanked in the Acknowledgments. Thus this is not only a singularly beautiful printed object, it is also an author- itative translation, if ever there was one, by the leading US scholars in the field. It seems bound to become a classic of sinology. One needs to make room for it on one’s desk to keep this always within easy reach. And, most importantly, this work now creates excellent conditions to continue to improve our understanding of this unique classic in the global history of history-writing. The Zuo Tradition now allows curious students like myself to recline at their ease and to try to reconstruct for themselves the intricate literary dynamics of the interaction between those radically contrasting discourse types that make up this extraordinary book. One is helped along everywhere by introductory texts and footnotes. These original features help even the seasoned reader to find his way in the criss-crossing strands of narratives of the Zuozhuan with its criss-crossing onomastics for thousands of dramatis personae. Very successfully, Zuo Tradition is helpful also to the beginning student. One may still refer with great nostalgic profit to Séraphin Couvreur’s often very beautiful and sensitive rendering of the Zuozhuan narratives, conveniently facing the Chinese original in large characters. But French is apparently no longer 7 everyman’s language of learning. 6 See the bibliography in Müller’s Die altrussische Chronik for bibliographic details. 7 I take this opportunity to draw attention to the lavish and carefully indexed volumes edited (Continued on next page) © 香港中文大學 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 《中國文化研究所學報》Journal of Chinese Studies No. 67 - July 2018 256 Christoph Harbsmeier The Title It is uncertain what exactly the “original” title was of the Zuozhuan—except that the title certainly was not Zuozhuan. Current ancient ways of referring to the book include Chunqiu Zuoshizhuan 春秋左氏傳, or Chunqiu Zuozhuan. Strictly speaking, the Zuozhuan is not a book at all, but a part of a book which includes the ancient Annals of the state of Lu known as the Chunqiu. Given the composite nature of the Zuozhuan and that quite radical diversity of the types of sources and discourse which the Zuozhuan brings together, one might even usefully have reminded oneself of this composite nature by reading the title as “The Zuo Traditions on the Annals.” But as a literal translation this is not, of course, in the spirit of traditional Chinese philology. One notes, however, that the variety of discourse types in the Chunqiu Guliang- zhuan 春秋穀梁傳 and Chunqiu Gongyangzhuan 春秋公羊傳 is quite radically more limited than that in Zuozhuan. The Gongyangzhuan must be read as a system of highly rationalistic questions attached to a given entry from the Annals, and answered in turn. This system of questions is recursive in the sense that some questions are asked not about the Annals themselves but actually about answers to earlier ques- tions. The Guliangzhuan attaches more traditional glosses and comments of various kinds to every item of the Annals and has no such taxonomic structure. In the Guliangzhuan as well as in the Gongyangzhuan there is strikingly little of the narrative ekphrasis, “narrative or discursive elaboration” that assures for the Zuozhuan a place of honour in the history of artistic narrative literature.