![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
One of Benjamin Elman's most significant contributions to Chinese intellectual history in general, and to Qing intellectual history in particular, has been his in-depth exploration of the “revolution”—“revolution in discourse,” “epistemological revolution,” “philological revolution,” or, more generally, the “intellectual revolution”—that took place during the eighteenth century. Elman has also demonstrated how the “professionalization of academics,” the “shared epistemological perspective,” and the “consensus of ideas about how to find and verify knowledge” had been intertwined with the changing social and institutional context wherein individual scholars operated. In this article, I take this social context one step further, to emphasize how developing social networks were critical for the revolution in knowledge, and in particular to examine how reading practices, letters, and paratext-writing have been much more communal than intimate. The development of such social networks and the epistemological paradigm shifts they advanced consisted of the social infrastructure that was to underlie the far-reaching implications of the philological turn in eighteenth-century China. These social networks and communal practices were thus tightly connected to the new philological zeitgeist of the eighteenth century and enabled it to become, as Elman put it, “a consensus” that spanned well into the nineteenth and even twentieth centuries.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Ben Elman, the inspiration for my research.
Notes
1 See Benjamin A. Elman, “Philosophy (I-Li) versus Philology (K'ao-Cheng): The Jen-Hsin Tao-Hsin Debate,” T'oung Pao LXIX.4–5 (1983): 175–221 on p. 68; From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), xxvi, 4, 7–8, 29; “The Failures of Contemporary Chinese Intellectual History,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 43.3 (Spring, 2010): 371–91 on p. 240.
2 See Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, xxvi, 7, 90, 211.
3 Ibid., xxvi, 211.
4 Qian Daxin, “Wuyan lou ji” 五硯樓記 [“Record of the Five Inkstones Library”], in Qianyan tang ji 潛研堂集 [Collected Writings of the Hall of Subtle Research] (Shanghai: Guji chuban she, 1989), 21.351–52. Later that year, Ge Zhouxiang invited Qian for another occasion at his place in Suzhou.
5 In the preface to the Xu zizhi tongjian, Feng Jiwu 馮集悟 (jinshi of 1781)—who had the work printed in 1801—mentioned Bi Yuan as the primary author and Shao Jinhan and Qian Daxin as the editors, thus granting the entire work a strong foundation. Feng, however, ignored Zhang Xuecheng's role. See Bi Yuan, comp., Xu zizhi tongjian (Taibei: Hongshi chubanshe, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 13–14.
6 Qianyan tang ji, 29.529.
7 According to Ruan, the Chouren zhuan project began in 1795 and was concluded in 1799. Qian did not write about his participation in the Chouren zhuan project, and it is hard to determine what his exact role had been; Ruan Yuan mentioned him as part of the larger team in the “Fanli” 凡例 (“Outline”) section of the book, and that is all the authorship credit he received. See Ruan Yuan, et al., Chouren zhuan (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991), 5. For Ruan Yuan in general, see Betty Peh-T'i Wei, Ruan Yuan, 1764–1849: The Life and Work of a Major Scholar-Official in Nineteenth-Century China before the Opium War (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006).
8 See Charles Hartman, “Chen Jun's Outline and Details: Printing and Politics in Thirteenth-Century Pedagogical Histories,” in Knowledge and Text Production in an Age of Print: China, 900–1400, ed. Lucille Chia and Hilde De Weerdt (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 273–316, esp. 291–98.
9 See Yong Rong 永瑢 (1744–1790) and Ji Yun 紀昀 (1724–1805), eds., Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要 [Summary of the Catalogue of the Complete Collection of the Four Treasuries] (Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 1999), 1.49.
10 See Qianyan tang ji, 30.545–6.
11 Wang Mingsheng, "Shuowen jiezi zhengyi xu" 說文解字正義敘 ["Preface to The Correct Meaning of the Shuowen Jiezi"], in Shuowen jiezi gulin zhengxu hebian 說文解字詁林正續合編 [Joint Compilation of the Corrected and Continued Forest of Explanations of the Analysis of Characters and an Explanation of Writing], comp. Ding Fubao 丁福保 (Taibei: Dingwen shuju, 1977), vol. 1, p. 328. (The Shuowen jiezi zhengyi, for which Wang Mingsheng wrote the preface, was a work by Chen Zhan 陳鳣, 1753–1817.)
12 I used the manuscript that can be found in the Shanghai Library, Rare Books Collection, ms # 802654. The final version of the work, which includes Dai Zhen's basis and the remarks of all three ‘readers,' can be found in Huang Rucheng, Xiuhai lou zazhu (Taibei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1983), vol. 2.
13 Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 213.
14 Qianyan tang ji, 33.595–97.
15 See “Budeyi tiji” 不得已題記 [“Record of the Problem of the [Book] I Cannot Do Otherwise], in Budeyi 不得已 [I Cannot Do Otherwise], Yang Guangxian 楊光先 (Hefei Shi: Huangshan shushe, 2000), 195.
16 See Qian Daxin (Chen Wenhe 陳文和, chief ed.), Jiading Qian Daxin quanji 嘉定錢大昕全集 [The Entire Collected Writings of Qian Daxin of Jiading] (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1997), vol. 2, p. 1. Compare with Gu Yanwu's insistence on erasing parts of his writings that he found precedents for in earlier scholars' writings: Gu Yanwu, Rizhilu jishi 日知錄集釋 [Record of Knowledge Gained Day by Day, with Collected Explanations] (Shujiazhuang: Huashan wenyi chubanshe, 1990), 1.
17 向秀注莊子而郭象竊之﹔郗紹作晉中興書而何法盛竊之。二事相類. Wang Yinglin may not have been the first to accuse the two, but he linked them together, and was a prominent scholar in Qian's view. See Wang Yinglin, Kunxue jiwen 困學紀聞 [Record of Stories from Arduous Learning], (Shanghai: Shanghai wuyin shuguan, 1935), vol. 4, juan 10, 18a. The high esteem for Wang Yinglin's works during the Qing began earlier, with Yan Ruoqu 閻若璩 (1636–1704) and Quan Zuwang 全祖望 (1705–55) working primarily on the Kunxue jiwen (Quan's work was completed in 1742). Hui Dong, in 1756, promoted another book by Wang Yinglin, the Zhengshi Zhouyi 鄭氏周易 [Master Zheng [Xuan's Version] of the Zhou Changes]; see Benjamin A. Elman, Classicism, Politics, and Kinship: The Ch'ang-chou School of New Text Confucianism in Late Imperial China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 130–31; Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 242; Chen Zuwu 陳祖武 and Zhu Tongchuang 朱彤窗, Qian-Jia xueshu biannian 乾嘉學術編年 [Scholarship of the Qianlong-Jiaqing [Reign Periods] on a Yearly Basis] (Shijiazhuang Shi: Hebei renmin chubanshe, 2005), 46.
18 Qian reiterated the sense of shame at plagiarizing in his biography of Chen Zufan (1675–1753), whom he regarded to comprise the Lunyu ideal of a “gentleman Ru” (君子儒) in part because of Chen's scholarly integrity. See Qianyan tang wenji 潛研堂文集 [Collected Writings of the Hall of Subtle Research], in Qian, Jiading Qian Daxin quanji, vol. 9, 38:648.
19 These, of course, are not the only sources to allow us glimpses into such communal collaboration; biographies and autobiographies are straightforward sources, and epitaphs, for example, also comprise such a source.
20 “Qian Xinmei xiansheng nianpu” 錢辛楣先生年譜 [The Biography of Master Qian Xinmei], in Jiading Qian Daxin quanji, vol. 1, p. 23.
21 Liang Qichao, Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshu shi 中国近三百年学术史 [History of Scholarship of the Past Three Hundred Years in China] (Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe, 2004), 233.
22 Wang Chang, “Zhanshi fu shao zhanshi Qian jun muzhiming” 詹事府少詹事錢君墓志銘 [“Epitaph to the Assistant Supervisor of Instruction at the Imperial Supervisorate of Instruction, Master Qian”], in Chunrong tang ji 春融堂集 [The Writings from the Spring Harmony Hall], Wang Chang (Shunan shushe kanben, Guangxu 18, 1892), Juan 55, pp. 12b–16a.
23 Cheng Jisheng, Shuowen yinjing kao (Fudan University Rare Books Collection, ms. 374889-3107), 3b.
24 “Qian Xinmei xiansheng nianpu,” p. 18.
25 For Dai's views that did not necessarily concur with Hui's, see: Yü Ying-shih, Chinese History and Culture, volume 2: Seventeenth Century through Twentieth Century (La Vergne: Columbia University Press, 2016), 43–44; Hu Minghui, China's Transition to Modernity: The New Classical Vision of Dai Zhen (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2015), esp. pp. 168–181.
26 See Arthur W. Hummel, ed., Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1644–1912) (Taipei: Ch'eng Wen Publishing Company, 1970), p. 782.
27 See Qianyan tang ji, 33.597–9.
28 Qian also kept the imperial network going, having written a eulogy—“Wanshou song” 萬壽頌 [“Eulogy for Longevity”] to the emperor, Qianyan tang ji, 1.8–12.
29 See Nancy Lee Swann, “Seven Intimate Library Owners,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1.3/4 (Nov. 1936): 363–390; Zhang Guili 张桂丽, “Wangshi Zhenqitang cangshu, keshu” 汪氏振绮堂藏书，刻书 [“The Wang Lineage Zhenqitang Library and Printing House”], Zhongguo dianji yu wenhua 86.3 (2013): 75–83; Li Fuyan 李福言, “Shuowen xizhuan kaoyi zuozhe puzheng”⟪ 说文系传考异⟫作者补证 [“Supplement and Correction to the Author of the Shuowen xizhuan kaoyi”], Guizhou shifandaxue xuebao 187.2 (2014): 117–120; Wang Guiping 王桂平, Qingdai Jiangnan canshujia keshu yanjiu 清代江南藏书家刻书研究 [Research on Jiangnan Bibliophiles and Printing in the Qing Era], (Nanjing: Fenghuang chubanshe, 2008).
30 See more on this Song dynasty text and its transmission along with the various printing of it from the Qianlong era onward in: Shao Min 邵敏, “Xu Jie Shuowen jiezi xizhuan zhuangben kao” 徐锴⟪说文解字系传⟫版本考 [“Examination of the Editions of Xu Jie's Shuowen jiezi xizhuan”], Xinyang shifan xueyuan xuebao 27.6 (2007.12): 92–95.
31 For example, the Yizhuan 易傳 [Commentary on the Changes], a hand-written manuscript (copied by Zhu Bangheng 朱邦衡, who was Hui's disciple, from a Song dynasty edition), on which both Huis' (father and son) remarks can be found, in black and red ink. Note that the copier—Zhu Bangheng—left no substantial remarks of his own on the text. See Jing Fang 京房 (77–37 BCE), Yizhuan (undated hand-written manuscript, Fudan University Rare Books Collection), ms# 001260087-3286.
32 See, for example, Qian Daxin's and Duan Yucai's comments and postscript to Hui Shiqi, Daxue shuo 大學說 [Explaining the Great Learning], (undated hand-written manuscript, Shanghai Library Rare Books Collection), ms # 756289.
33 See, for example, Jiao Xun's 焦循 (1763–1820) early nineteenth-century Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義 [The Correct Meaning of the Mengzi], (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2007). Jiao Xun mentioned the Shuowen almost a thousand times in this work.
34 Qianyan tang ji, 394–95.
35 See Qianyan tang ji, “Hou Hanshu nianbiao houxu” 後漢書年表後序 [“A Late Preface to the [Song Dynasty, Xiong Fang's] Yearly Tables of the Later Han History”], 24.398–99.
36 See, for example, Jerry Dean Schmidt, Harmony Garden: the Life, Literary Criticism, and Poetry of Yuan Mei (1716–1798) (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 53; Dorothy Ko, Teachers of the Inner Chambers: Women and Culture in Seventeenth-Century China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 131.
37 Gerard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1–2.
38 See also Qian Daxin's letter to Feng Jiwu (in Bi Yuan, Xu zizhi tongjian, 15) asking Feng to make sure a preface was added to the Xu zizhi tongjian, in order to both convey the right meaning of the book and confirm that Bi Yuan's name as the progenitor of the book was not neglected.
39 Most of the epitaphs Qian wrote—over fifty of them appear in his collected writings—were commissioned by a family member; so were some of the Records (記), prefaces (序), and postscripts (跋).
40 See, for example, R. Kent Guy, The Emperor's Four treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch'ien-lung Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), 121–156, esp. pp. 140–141, wherein Guy qualified the use of the terms Han and Song Learning yet continued to use them (see also Lynn Struve's review of Guy's book exposing this problem in The American Historical Review 94.5 [Dec. 1989]: 1453–54); Theodore Huters, “From Writing to Literature: The Development of Late Qing Theories of Prose,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 47.1 (Jun. 1987): 51–96; William T. Rowe, Chen Hongmou and Elite Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 114; Wang Damin 王达敏, “Lun Yao Nai yu Siku guannei Han Song zhizheng” 论姚鼐与四库馆内汉宋之争 [“Yao Nai and the Han-Song debate in the Compilation Office of the Four Treasuries”], Beijing daxue xuebao 43.5 (Sep. 2006): 86–95.
41 Qian and Yao also met in person in Beijing during the 1760s and early 1770s. See Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, 900. For the prefaces to Xie Qikun's books, see: Xie Qikun, Xiaoxue kao (Hangzhou: Zhejiang shuju, 1888), pp. 1b–6a.
42 Other factors, often interlinked, comprised the growth of print culture; the development of libraries and bibliophiles' collections; travel; the growth of academies; improvement of postal services; growing access to sources; and increased sponsorship and patronage of scholarship, especially collaborative projects.
43 See Joseph P. McDermott, A Social History of the Chinese Book: Books and Literati Culture in Late Imperial China (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006), 21, 39, 101, 112; Charles O. Hucker, China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 386; Cynthia J. Brokaw, “On the History of the Book in China,” in Printing and Book Culture in Late Imperial China, ed., Cynthia J. Brokaw and Kai-wing Chow (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2005), 3–54, esp. pp. 29–30.
44 See Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 178–202.
45 Qian's remarks about the positive influence of Qianlong's Siku quanshu project illustrate this impact.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Ori Sela
Ori Sela is an assistant professor in the Department of East Asian Studies at Tel Aviv University. He specializes in the history of Early-Modern and Modern China, and is interested particularly in the reciprocal relationship between intellectual history and socio-political history at various crossroads in China's past. His book on the philological turn in eighteenth-century China is forthcoming with Columbia University Press.