The biography of Guo Kongyan 郭孔延 (1575-?), zi 字: Yannian 延年, from Taihe 泰 和 in Jiangxi, is not very clear. According to Wang Jiachuan, only his father, who also played a role in Guo’s research on the Shitong, and his career are mentioned in a biography in the Mingshigao 明史稿,335 namely the Guo Zizhang zhuan 郭子章傳. Guo Zizhang 郭子章 (1543-1618), zi 字: Xiangkui 相奎, received his jinshi degree in 1571 and, thereafter, was promoted several official posts. In 1598, he became Right Vice Censor-in-Chief (you fudou yushi 右副都御史) and then minister of military affairs.336 While holding office in Guizhou, Guo Zizhang came to know Zhang Dingsi’s edition of the Shitong and sent it to his son, Guo Kongyan, who at that time studied at the Imperial College in the capital. Guo Kongyan immediately started his work on the Shitong pingshi and already one year later completed the first draft of his commentary. With the help of Li Weizhen, he completed a second and superior version in 1604.337
Guo Kongyan’s Preface to the Shitong Pingshi
Today’s established edition of the Shitong pingshi by Guo Kongyan begins with a preface called Shitong pingshi xu 史通評釋序 containing about 5,319 additional characters. Furthermore, this edition from 1604 contains Liu Zhiji’s Shitong xu 史通序 (Preface to the Shitong; i.e. the Shitong yuanxu 史通原序 by Liu Zhiji), the chapter ‘Liu Zixuan zhuan’ 劉子玄傳 (Biography of Liu Zhiji) from the Xintangshu 新唐書, Chao Gongwu’s 晁公武338 Shitong ping 史通評 (Discussion about the Shitong), the chapter
335 Mingshigao 明史稿 (Complete Draft Manuscript of the Ming History) in 310 juan was a draft
to the official Mingshi 明史 by Wan Sitong 萬斯同 (1638-1702; zi 字: Jiye 季野) and served as its basis.
336 Wang Jiachuan (2013), p. 283. 337 Wang Jiachuan (2013), p. 284.
338 Chao Gongwu 晁公武 (1105-1180), zi 字: Zizhi 子止, from Shandong, was a bibliographer and
book collector from the Southern Song dynasty (Nan Song 南宋, 1127-1279). He wrote commentaries to the Confucian classics, e.g. the Shijing kaoyi 石經考異. He is famous for his catalogue of his private library, named Junzhai dushu zhi 郡齋讀書志 (Records of Books Read in my Studio in the Province).
‘Xu Shitong’ 序史通 (Introducing the Shitong) from the Yuhai 玉海 (A Sea of Jades) by Wang Yinglin 王應麟,339 Yang Shen’s 楊慎 Shitong ping 史通評 (Discussion about the Shitong; see Appendix II.6), Yu Shenxing’s 于慎行 Shitong juzheng lun 史通舉正 論 (The Shitong Holding up the Correct View; see Appendix II.7), and Zhang Zhixiang’s 張之象 Shitong xu 史通序 (Preface to the Shitong; see chap. 5.2.3). At the end one finds additional notes, among others Lu Shen’s Ti shuben Shitong hou (see chap. 5.1.2).340
The preface of Guo Kongyan’s edition again is very expressive; therefore, a complete translation follows. This citation derives from the edition by the Shanghai guji chubanshe, which was reprinted in 2006 as a photocopy according to the original work from the 32nd year of Wanli reign period (i.e. 1604) in the collection of the Beijing Library.341 Sometimes, single characters were not clearly readable. In these cases, the Microfilm edition of Li Weizhen’s and Guo Kongyan’s pingshi from 1986 was used as an aid and a supplement.342
史通評釋序 張睿父先生再刻, 陸太史校定劉子玄《史通》於豫章竣,寄家君黔中。 張先生手校為増七百三十餘字，去六十餘字，而《曲筆》、《因習》 二篇，増補缺略，已成全書。家君讀而喜，以新刻寄延曰：“張先 生為觀察，而手不釋書，猶諸生也。爾曹為諸生，乃不諸生也。子 甚有其葸, 黔中亡籍，子家有《史通》蜀本、呉本再校之。刻中如 ‘干寳’之‘于’、‘揚雄’之‘楊’、‘王劭’ 之‘邵’、‘常璩’之‘據’、‘苻堅’之 ‘符’，當是寫誤。可發舊本，細為校定。” See “Chinese Literature—Junzhai dushu zhi 郡 齋 讀 書 志 ,” at ChinaKnowledge.de, http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/junzhaidushuzhi.html, last accessed: August 2nd, 2016.
339 See p. 68, FN 192.
340 Wang Jiachuan (2013), p. 266.
341 Shitong pingshi 史通评释 (Discussion and Explanation to the Shitong), by Guo Kongyan 郭孔
延, in Guo Kongyan 郭孔延, Wang Weijian 王惟俭, Huang Shulin 黄叔琳 (2006), Shitong pingshi 史通 评释, Shitong xungu 史通训故, Shitong xungupu 史通训故补, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, pp.
1-243, preface pp. 1f.
342 Shitong pingshi 史通评释 (Discussion and Explanation to the Shitong), by Li Weizhen 李维桢
and Guo Kongyan 郭孔延, Microfilm, Beijing: Quanguo tushuguan wenxian suowei zhongxin 全国图书 馆文献缩微中心, 1986.
Preface to the Commentary and Explanation to the Shitong
Master Zhang Ruifu [i.e. Zhang Dingsi] again edited [the Shitong], after court historian Lu [Shen] had proofread and had fixed Liu Zixuan’s
Shitong in Yuzhang [i.e. Jiangxi] completely; and [then he] sent it to my
father in Qianzhong.343 Master Zhang himself proofread more than 730 characters, and removed more than 60. Moreover, in the two chapters of
Qubi and Yinxi he increased and supplemented the incomplete parts, and
thereafter had completed the whole book. My father read it and was very fond of it, and—in order to [compile] a new edition—he sent it [to me] inviting me: “Master Zhang investigated [the Shitong], but he personally did not explain the book; he is still a zhusheng.344 If you acted as
zhusheng, then you were not a zhusheng. I, your father, deeply have this
fear that the [region of] Qianzhong [could] lose its books. Your family has the Shu345-edition of the Shitong and the Wu346-edition, and, therefore, [you can] proofread them again. In these editions they, e.g., mistook in Gan Bao 干寳 ‘yu 于’ for ‘gan 干,’ in Yang Xiong 揚雄 ‘yang 楊’ for ‘yang 揚,’ in Wang Shao 王劭 ‘shao 邵’ for ‘shao 劭,’ in Chang Qu 常璩347 ‘ju 據’ for ‘qu 璩,’ and in Fu Jian 苻堅 ‘fu 符’ for ‘fu 苻,’ and wrote such errors. I can send [you] the old editions, and you [can] carefully proofread and fix [the Shitong].”
Guo Kongyan’s preface reveals very interesting facts about the relation of the single Ming time editions and commentaries of the Shitong. Here, Guo first mentioned the first edition by Lu Shen and the newly revised edition by Zhang Dingsi, which Guo then took as foundation for his commentary. Furthermore, he also described what Zhang Dingsi had corrected and changed—the same as Zhang himself did in his preface.
343 I.e. the region west and north-west of the river Xiang in Hunan. R. H. Mathew (1947),
Mathew’s Chinese – English Dictionary, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press (Harvard-
Yenching Institute), p. 124, no. 896.
344 I.e. xiucai 秀才 (bachelor, licentiate, lit. “cultivated talent”); “men qualified to participate in
Provincial Examinations,” see DOTIC, p. 248, no. 2633.
345 I.e. Lu Shen’s edition. 346 I.e. Zhang Zhixiang’s edition.
347 Chang Qu 常璩 (ca. 291-361) was a historian and author of the Huayang Guozhi 華陽國志
(Chronicles of Huayang/of the States South of Mount Hua), which is the oldest known regional history or local gazetteer in China. See Igor Iwo Chabrowski (2015), Singing on the River: Sichuan Boatmen and
According to the author, he learned about the work through his father who was very fond of the Shitong-edition by Zhang Dingsi, and invited his son, Guo Kongyan, to revise it again because he feared that the Shitong would be lost in the future. Moreover, Guo’s father identified some problems with the current Shitong-editions: The problem with Zhang’s edition—as he says—is that the author did not explain the book (而手不 釋書). Additionally, he remarked that there were quite a few misspellings in the Shitong-editions. A very important fact is the information that the family of Guo Kongyan possessed several editions of the Shitong, namely Lu Shen’s Shu-edition from 1535 and Zhang Dingsi’s edition which had just been published in 1603, which displays the great interest in this subject matter. The preface goes on:
延自長安歸，循環校閱，再加芟正。篇中史官姓名，如左氏、遷、 固古今共推者, 可以無釋；自孔衍、荀悅以下，俱為著其爵里。間 以已意為之評論，雖未必合作者之意，祗承嚴命，終陸、張二先生 功耳。
I received it when I returned from Chang’an; I circulated it, read and revised it, and again added, eliminated and rectified [parts]. In the text, there were the names of history officials; for example, Zuo [Qiuming], [Sima] Qian and [Ban] Gu, ancient and contemporary [historians] were praised together. I cannot have an explanation for this. From Kong Yan348 and Xun Yue349 down, they all wrote for the sake of their official post and their hometown [affiliation]. Among [the commentators] they regarded the former as the intention for their discussions, [too]; though, these are not necessarily the ideas of their collaborators. They accepted with respect their fathers’ commands; and in the end the two men Lu [Shen] and Zhang [Dingsi] had meritorious achievements and that is all!
348 Kong Yan 孔衍 (268-320), zi 字: Shuyuan 舒元, was an official of Eastern Jin dynasty. He had
a wide knowledge about the Confucian classics. Especially, he researched the Shangshu and the Chunqiu, and wrote, among other things, the Han shangshu 漢尚書, Houhan shangshu 後漢尚書 and the Han Wei
Shangshu 漢魏尚書. Shitong 史通, neipian, juan 1, liujia 六家 1, p. 4.
349 Xun Yue 荀悅 (148-209), zi 字: Zhongyu 仲豫, was a historian and author in the Later Han. He
wrote the Hanji 漢紀 (Record of the Han) in the biannian style like the Zuozhuan 左傳, which, therefore, was much easier to read. See “Persons in Chinese History—Xun Yue 荀悅,” at ChinaKnowledge.de, http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Han/personsxunyue.html, last accessed: August 2nd, 2016.
In this passage, Guo Kongyan outlined what occurred to him while reading and rectifying the Shitong. Here, he stressed the fact that all the former historians “wrote for the sake of their official post and their hometown [affiliation]” (俱為著其爵里). This is also the case with the commentators of the Shitong, namely Lu Shen in Sichuan and Zhang Dingsi in Songjiang, who published editions in their hometowns. Nevertheless, they “had meritorious achievements.” Guo proceeded:
約而言之，考究精覈，義例嚴整，文詞簡古，議論慨慷，史通之長 也。薄堯、禹而貸撡，丕，惑《春秋》而信《汲冢》，訶馬遷而沒 其長，愛王劭而忘其[佞]，高自標榜，前無賢哲，《史通》之短也。 然則徐堅所云“當置座右”者，以義例言，良非虛譽；而宋祁所云 “工詞古人”者，以誇詡言，亦非誣善矣。
But to sum it up: The careful investigation is a very refined examination; the outline and scope of a book [follows] a neat formation; the language is laconic and archaic; the discussions are deeply moving—these are the strong points of the Shitong. Extending to [the times of] Yao and Yu it, thus, borrows principles and great achievements [from that time]; it doubts the Chunqiu and trusts the Jizhong350 [texts]; it scolds [Si]ma Qian and ends his excelling [reputation]; it honors Wang Shao and neglects other eloquent [personalities]; it highly praises itself; and [claims that] before there were no wise and capable men—these are the weak points of the Shitong. In that case, the saying “it [i.e. the Shitong] should be placed on the right side” by Xu Jian is considered as words on the value of the book—because the good [ones] have no false reputation. Furthermore, the saying “it [i.e. the Shitong] produces phrases of the ancient people” by Song Qi is considered as an expression of exaggeration—because one also does not slander the good [ones]!
This paragraph of his official preface is devoted to his assessment of the Shitong. Guo clearly named advantages and disadvantages: The careful investigation, neat formation,
350 Jizhong 汲冢 designates the corpus of texts found in a tomb in Jizhong (today’s region of
Henan) in 279 AD. The most important texts found are the Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年), furthermore, there are the Guoyu 國語, the Yijing 易經, and others. Normally, this especially refers to the Bamboo Annals. For further information on the Jizhong discovery, see Edward L. Shaughnessy (2006),
the laconic language and the “moving” discussion, Guo expressed, are the forte of Liu Zhiji’s work. In contrast, its shortcomings are that it draws on the times of Yao and Yu, doubts canonical classics like the Chunqiu and trusts the Jizhong texts—texts with an eventful and sometimes uncertain history—, scolds Sima Qian and praises Wang Shao. In addition, Guo accused Liu Zhiji of praising his own work, while neglecting that there were other “wise and capable men” before. In the end, Guo Kongyan neither approved of the praising of the Shitong by Xu Jian, nor did he accept Song Qi’s defamation of Liu Zhiji’s work; this corresponds to his debate of the pro and contra concerning Liu Zhiji’s work which is indicative for Guo’s reflective attitude. The last paragraph of the preface remarks the following:
延又因之有感焉。子玄自敘《史通》方諸《太玄》，《太玄》數百 年後為張衡、陸績所重，苐《史通》“後來張、陸，則未之知”。不 謂今千年後，首刻于陸太史，再校于張觀察，為子玄之平子、公紀 也。二姓俱同，事豈偶然？亦可謂子玄忠臣矣。
大明萬曆甲辰歲夏五日後學泰和郭孔延謹序
Prolonging I, therefore, again comment on this. Zixuan in his preface of the Shitong compares it to the Taixuan. The Taixuan several hundred years ago was attached importance to by Zhang Heng351 and Lu Ji;352 however, the Shitong [says]: “But later, they [i.e. Xu Jian and Zhu Jingze,353 Liu Zhiji’s friends] will not be known as having been my Zhang [Heng] and Lu [Ji].”354 Unexpectedly, today thousand years later, the first edition [of the Shitong] by the court historian Lu [Shen] was again proofread by Zhang [Dingsi] and inspected, and [hence] became Zixuan’s Pingzi [i.e. Zhang Heng] and Gongji [i.e. Lu Ji]. The two surnames are the same, how could this fact be fortuitous? Also, one can call Zixuan a loyal statesman.
351 See p. 101, FN 282. 352 See p. 101, FN 283. 353 See p. 101, FN 281.
[In the time of] the Great Ming Wanli [reign period], jiachen year (41st year) summer fifth month Guo Kongyan from Taihe carefully [compiled this] preface
This last paragraph of Guo Kongyan’s preface seized a statement by Liu Zhiji from the zixu 自序-chapter, which is also mentioned by Zhang Zhixiang in his preface (see chap. 5.2.3). Guo here ended his preface with the witty memo that Zhang Zhixiang and Lu Shen had the same surnames as Zhang Heng and Lu Ji, who are known as the great commentators to Yang Xiong’s Taixuan, the same of Zhang Zhixiang himself.