Zhu Xi Was Here: Family, Academy, and Local Memory in Later Imperial Dongyang

Zhu Xi Was Here: Family, Academy, and Local Memory in LaterImperial Dongyang

Sukhee Lee

Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, Volume 41, 2011, pp. 267-293 (Article)

Published by The Society for Song, Yuan, and Conquest Dynasty Studies

DOI: 10.1353/sys.2011.0024

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Rutgers University (17 Jul 2013 22:51 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sys/summary/v041/41.lee.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sys/summary/v041/41.lee.html

Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 41 (2011)

Z h u X i Wa s H e r e :

Fa m i ly , A c a d e m y , a n d L o c a l M e m o r y

i n L a t e r I m p e r i a l D o n g y a n g

Sukhee Lee r u t g e r s u n i v e r s i t y – n e w b r u n s w i c k

The chapter on local produce in the 1735 edition of Zhejiang’s provincial gazetteer, citing a Dongyang 東陽 county gazetteer, notes that a bright purple flower called Ziyang hua 紫陽花 grows at Shidong academy 石洞書院 in Dongyang, Jinhua 金華 prefecture.1 This flower is not to be confused with Ajisai 紫陽花 (Hydrangea), the flower blossoming from May to June across Japan, despite the use of identical Chinese characters. Rather, its name should be read literally as “Ziyang’s flower.” One of the many honorific references to Zhu Xi (1130–1200), “Ziyang” evokes the image of Zhu as forever connected to the academy. Indeed, the gazetteer briefly adds that it is said to have been planted by Zhu Xi himself when he had lectures there.2

This passing, seemingly neutral remark in the Zhejiang tong zhi 浙江通志 actually adds a sentimental touch to the much larger claim that Zhu Xi stayed and taught at the academy, a claim that helped promote the prestige of the academy and the family of its founder.3 Although I use the word “claim,” as far as locals are concerned it has been firmly established as a historical fact. A modern edition of the Dongyang municipal gazetteer lists a four-character calligraphy work attributed to Zhu Xi that is inscribed on the rock cliff near

1. Jinhua prefecture was called Wuzhou 婺州 during the Song and Yuan dynasties. In this essay, I will consistently use Jinhua to refer to the prefecture for the sake of convenience. 2. Zhejiang tong zhi (Siku quanshu edition), 106.12b. 3. According to Shu Jingnan 束景南, an authority on Zhu Xi’s biography, Zhu might have visited the academy in 1182 when he was on an inspection tour in the area as Intendant of the Ever-Normal Granary of Eastern Zhe (tiju Liangzhe donglu changping chayan gongshi 提舉兩

浙東路常平茶鹽公事). Thus, it is not entirely improbable that Zhu Xi did plant the flower during his visit. Shu Jingnan, Zhuzi dazhuan 朱子大传 (Fuzhou: Fujian jiaoyu chubanshe, 1992), 509.

268 s u k h e e l e e

the academy as a “municipal level important cultural preservation unit.”4 It further notes that in 1198, when Zhu visited Dongyang for the fourth time dur-ing the ban on “false learning”—the notorious political persecution of Zhu Xi and his followers—Zhu collated his commentary on the Great Learning at the academy.5 If this account is correct, Shidong academy was nothing less than the birthplace of arguably the most authoritative canon of Neo-Confucianism. Given Zhu Xi’s preeminent status, especially in the later history of imperial China, this claim conferred tremendous prestige on the academy. During the Southern Song (1127–1279), Dongyang was “the site of a unique cluster” of academies founded by local elite families.6 Four of seven such academies were founded by people sharing the surname Guo 郭, and three of these were in fact closely related.7 However, the fates of these academies were markedly different. Whereas the other three Guo academies disappeared from the local scene, Shidong academy was renovated and reconstructed five times over its history.8 Moreover, out of all the academies ever founded in Dongyang, the reconstructed Shidong academy is the only academy still appear ing on modern maps, listed as one of the cultural and tourist sites of the area.9 Doubtless, these continued revivals and final survival of the academy owe much to its alleged affiliation with Zhu Xi. As a token of this prestigious connection, today a statue of Zhu Xi stands in the middle of the main yard of the academy.10

In this essay, however, I will argue that these claims of the academy’s relation

4. Dongyang shi difangzhi bian weiyuanhui 东阳市地方志编委员会 ed., Dongyang shizhi 东阳市志 (Shanghai: Hanyu da cidian chubanshe, 1993), 741. 5. Dongyang shi zhi, 630. 6. Linda Walton, Academies and Society in Southern Sung China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press), 128. 7. Besides Shidong, there were Xiyuan 西園, Nanhu 南湖, Nanyuan 南園, Bingshan 摒山, Gaotang 高塘, and Qingxi 清溪 academies. Shidong, Xiyuan, Nanhu and Qingxi academies were founded by the Guos of Changqu 長衢 township. Moreover, Gaotang academy was founded by née Wu the wife of a certain Guo Shi 郭湜. The founders of Shidong and Xiyuan academies were cousins while that of Nanhu was their nephew. Guo Shi was the son of Guo Liangxian 郭良顯, a cousin of Shidong academy’s founder. See Dongyang xian zhi 東陽縣志 (1832 edition), 10.24a–27b; Dongyang shi zhi, 629, 631. 8. These renovations took place during the Wanli, Kangxi, Jiaqing, and Tongzhi reign periods, and again most recently in 1995. 9. See Dongyang shi lüyou ju 东阳市旅游局 ed., Dongyang shi lüyou tu 东阳市旅游图 (Jinan: Shandong sheng ditu chubanshe, 2007) 10. The statue was present when I visited the academy on March 23, 2008.

269f a m i l y , a c a d e m y , a n d l o c a l m e m o r y i n i m p e r i a l d o n g y a n g

to Zhu Xi have little foundation. At most, Zhu was an occasional, reluctant advisor to the academy, who was in fact critical of the scholarship practiced there. I will also show that locals continually appropriated the tenuous links between the academy and Zhu throughout the later imperial period in order to create a version of history that would serve their contemporary interests. The gap between Zhu Xi’s actual position vis-a-vis the academy and the image that emerges from local Dongyang sources inspires two related ques-tions. First, how did local people “transform” Zhu Xi from a critic to a refugee-patron? If they were not simply shutting their eyes to historical facts in pursuit of a downright forgery, how did they gloss over the gaps in the record in order to make their claims? Second, how has the self-serving claim made by a local family become established as “history”? By answering these questions, I will try to shed light on ways in which collective local memory and history were created in later imperial China.

The Guos in Dongyang during the Southern Song

Shidong academy was founded in 1148 by Guo Qinzhi 郭欽止 (1128–1184). He was portrayed in local sources, albeit sketchily, as a rich and generous man who cared about culture. We are told, for example, that he thought little of his own wealth and was willing to support others.11 Having wealth unsurpassed within his village, he is also said to have treated teachers with Confucian decorum and promoted the spirit of propriety and righteousness.12 Chen Liang 陳亮 (1143–1194) recorded that Qinzhi’s uncle, Guo Zhichang 郭知

常, had accumulated tremendous wealth from humble beginnings (tushou neng zhi jiazi juwan 徒手能致家資巨萬) and his servants numbered in the thousands (fuyi zhi shu qianwan 服役至數千人).13 Ye Shi 葉適 (1150–1223), who had studied in Dongyang, said that the Guos had long been prominent in the county. He also added in a quite hyperbolic manner that they were one of the most reputable families in Zhedong (wang zui zhu yu Zhedong 望

11. Jinhua fu zhi 金華府志 (1578 edition), 16.65a; Ye Shi, “Shidong shuyuan ji 石洞書院

記,” Ye Shi ji 葉適集 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1961) (hereafter, YSJ), 9.155. 12. Han Biao 韓滮, “Dongyang Guo Deyi wanci 東陽郭德誼挽詞,” Jianquan ji 澗泉集 (Siku quanshu edition), 9.28b. 13. Chen Liang, “Guo Delin aici 郭德麟哀辭,” Chen Liang ji 陳亮集 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974) (hereafter, CLJ), 26.393. Elsewhere, Chen describes the Guos as a “great family.” See “Ji Guo Boqian mufuren wen 祭郭伯瞻母夫人文,” CLJ 25.383.


最著於浙東).14 Their local prominence seems to have continued through the late imperial period, a fact which is borne out by the official name of the township where the academy is located today: Guozhai Zhen 郭宅鎮, the town of the Guo residence.15

When the academy was built in the mid twelfth century, however, the Guos were not yet so prestigious a family even in their local setting. Guo Qinzhi described himself as a man of humble origins (hansheng 寒生),16 probably an allusion to the fact that the Guos had produced no degree holder at least up to his time.17 More importantly, however, their local power and wealth seem to have been built via physical or military might (hao 豪), rather than through civil means such as government service or scholarship: they were tough men rather than gentlemen. But they began to realize that this was a problem and tried to redress it in Guo Qinzhi’s generation. In his elegy for Guo Liangchen 郭良臣, Guo Qinzhi’s older cousin, Chen Liang noted,

The son of Delin (Liangchen’s style name), Cheng [whose style name is] Bo-qing, has studied with famous literati of our time. Before then people often had differing opinions on the Guos, but now it has been settled. When Delin was alive, he was anxious about his family history and not satisfied with it.18

What was the source of Liangchen’s anxiety over his family history, which caused “differing opinions” in his locale? Dongyang county gazetteers record that Guo Zhichang, Liangchen’s father, organized a militia (yishe 義社) during the Fang La 方臘 rebellion and made a considerable contribution to protecting his hometown.19 Although organizing a militia was not a disgraceful act in itself, the family legacy colored by its military might seems to have hov-

14. Ye Shi, “Guo chushi muzhiming 郭處士墓誌銘,” YSJ 13.247. 15. I would like to thank Peter Bol for alerting my attention to this fact. 16. Ye Shi, “Shidong shuyuan ji,” YSJ 9.155. 17. The 1578 edition of Jinhua prefectural gazetteer lists four jinshi from Dongyang whose surnames are Guo. But it is uncertain that they were related to the Guos in question. See Jinhua fu zhi, 18.17a–19b. 18. “Guo Delin aici,” CLJ 26.393–394. 19. Kangxi regin county gazetteer simply notes that Guo Zhichang “organized a society to fend off bandits.” See Dongyang xian zhi (1681 edition), 14.1b. But the Daoguang reign gazetteer provides a more concrete information on Guo Zhichang’s acts. See Dongyang xian zhi (1832 edition),19.18b. In the two gazetteers, Guo Zhichang is listed in the “honoring righteousness (xiangyi 尚義)” and “righteous conducts (yixing 義行)” sections of the biography chapters, respectively.


ered over the Guos as a burden.20 After the passages cited above, Chen Liang went on to praise, in a rather apologetic tone, the value of being hao in itself.

A mighty man in local society, even if his wisdom surpasses those of myriad men, has not been classified as equal to those literati who are versed in formal writings. When he manages his business relying on his wisdom, he also becomes an object of grievance and criticism by his neighbors and is always concerned about becoming implicated in legal cases.

What Chen Liang’s elegy implies is that for all their local power the Guos had often incurred grievance and criticism (chouji 讎疾) from local people, and tried hard to transform themselves into something more respectable. Zhu Xi’s statement that Guo Qinzhi “transformed the den of martial might (haoxia zhi ku 豪俠之窟) into a place of rituals and righteousness” must have alluded to this family background.21

The Guos’ effort of gentrification was manifold: they tried the examinations, albeit with little success; they did not shy away from purchasing an official title through a generous donation to the government;22 and they actively ex-panded their social connections. Like Guo Qinzhi, Guo Liangxian 郭良顯 (1137–1190), Liangchen’s brother and Qinzhi’s cousin, is also known to have generously treated any literati who visited his house. His sons-in-law and guests include men of high social position.23 Guo Cheng 郭澄 (1150–1179), a son of Liangchen, was married to a daughter of Wu Liangji 吳良驥, a jinshi from Wenzhou 溫州 prefecture. Another son of Liangchen, Jiang 江, became a son-in-law of He Song 何松 (1134–1181), a jinshi from the same county, whose

20. Especially when a family had already gentrified itself, accepting a role of militia leader-ship was considered inappropriate. See Robert Hymes, Statesmen and Gentlemen: The Elite of Fu-chou, Chiang-hsi, in Northern and Southern Sung (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 143. 21. “Guo Deyi muming 郭德誼墓銘,” Zhu Xi ji 朱熹集 (hereafter, ZXJ) (Chengdu: Sichuan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1996), 8:92.4707. 22. According to Lü Zuqian 呂祖謙 (1137–1181), one of the leading figures in the Daoxue circle and a native of adjacent Jinhua county, when the Southern Song state was in a tough financial condition at the end of the Shaoxing reign period Guo Liangchen donated money to the government, in exchange for which an official rank was conferred on his son. Lü Zuqian, “Guo Boqing muzhi ming 郭白清墓誌銘,” Donglai Lü taishi wenji 東萊呂太史文集 (Xu Jinhua congshu edition), 13.4a. See also Quan Song wen 全宋文 (hereafter QSW) (Shanghai and Hefei: Shanghai cishu chubanshe and Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2006), 262:5898.105. 23. “Guo chushi muzhiming,” YSJ 13.247. His sons-in-law were all lower level local officials of rank 9b or 8b. But one of them was a jinshi degree holder.


family also accumulated remarkable wealth. Liangchen’s sons-in-law include Zhang Shangqing 張商卿 who rose up to Assistant Fiscal Commissioner (yunpan 運判) of Hunan.24

The Guos’ transformation into a literati family, however, was most vividly manifest in the connections they had built with some of the famous intellec-tual leaders of the time. “Almost half of my friends now,” said Chen Fuliang 陳傅良 (1137–1203) of Guo Qinzhi, “had connections with him.”25 Guo Jin 郭津, Qinzhi’s son, was close to Lü Zujian 呂祖儉 (d. 1196), Lü Zuqian’s younger brother; Ye Shi; Chen Fuliang; and Lu You 陸游 (1125–1209). Prob-ably most importantly for the later Guos, he also exchanged letters with Zhu Xi in which he solicited Zhu’s advice on various issues.26 Epitaphs of Guo

24. “Guo Boqing muzhiming,” Donglai Lü taishi wenji, 13.4a (QSW 262:5898.105); Chen Liang, “He furen Du shi muzhiming 何夫人杜氏墓誌銘,” CLJ, 30.436; “Guo fujun muzhim-ing 郭府君墓誌銘,” YSJ 13.247. 25. Chen Fuliang, “Wan Dongyang Guo Deyi 挽東陽郭德誼,” Chen Fuliang wenji 陳傅良

文集 (Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue chubanshe, 1999), 124. There is little doubt that this account was an exaggeration typical of the genre. But that there was a connection between Chen’s circle and Guo Qinzhi appears undeniable. For example, Xu Yuande 徐元德 (jinshi 1178) who wrote Qinzhi’s record of conduct, was also from Rui’an 瑞安, the home county of Chen Fuliang. 26. Lü Zujian wrote Guo Qinzhi’s record of conduct. See Han Biao, “Dongyang Guo Deyi wanci,” Jianquan ji, 9.28b; Zhu Xi heard the news of Lü’s illness through Guo Jin’s letter. See his “Da Lü Ziyue 答呂子約,” ZXJ 4:47.2305; Ye Shi wrote not only a commemorative inscription

Table 1. Dongyang Guos and Their Epitaph Writers

namerelations to other guos epitaphs written by source

Guo Qin zhi Zhu Xi; Chen Fu-liang; Lü Zujian; Xu Yuande (jinshi 1178); Han Biao (1159–1224)

“Guo Deyi muming,” ZXJ 92.4707; “Wan Dongyang Guo Deyi,” Chen Fuliang wenji, 124; “Dong-yang Guo Deyi wanci,” Jianquan ji 9.28b.

Guo Liang-chen

Qinzhi’s cousin Ye Shi; Chen Liang “Guo fujun muzhiming,” YSJ 13.245–247; “Guo Delin aici,” CLJ 26.393–394

Guo Liang-xian

Liangchen’s brother; Qin-zhi’s cousin

Ye Shi; Chen Liang “Guo chushi muzhiming,” YSJ 13.247–248; “Ji Guo Deyang wen,” CLJ 23.361

Guo Cheng (1150–1179)

Liangchen’s son Lü Zuqian “Guo Boqing muzhiming,” Donglai Lü taishi wenji, 13.4a

Guo Jiang (1153–1217)

Liangchen’s son Ye Shi “Guo Boshan muzhiming,” YSJ 23.460–461


men were written by Ye Shi, Chen Fuliang, Chen Liang, Lü Zuqian, Lü Zujian, and Zhu Xi. The Guos’ remarkable wealth must have played a role in expanding their social connections. But their investment in education, epitomized by the establishment of the three academies of Shidong, Xiyuan, and Nanhu, was crucial. The foundation of these academies made stellar connections possible for this otherwise obscure local elite lineage. As Ye Shi noted, “the Guos relied on Confucian learning in embellishing their family.”27

The Academy, Jinhua, and Zhu Xi

Beyond from the Guos’ conscious efforts to gentrify their family, we need investigate the larger social and intellectual context of the academy’s founda-tion. Linda Walton relates the establishment of the Guo academies to the Daoxue Neo-Confucian movement in the twelfth century. According to her, scholars disaffected by the persecution of Daoxue formed a large pool of potential teachers for private academies. Such academies in turn provided shelters and new jobs for those scholars.28 This explanation generally holds true for academies founded during and after intermittent prohibitions of Daoxue by the court, especially right after the ban on “false learning.” But Ye Shi linked the Guos’ founding of academies to the vigorous social ardor for a new learning, which was stirred up by the revival of Daoxue in the late 1160s, rather than by its persecution. He wrote,

In the fifth to sixth years of the Qiandao reign period (1169–1170), [the teaching of Daoxue] began to rise again with great force and spirit. Scholars who discussed [the meaning of Daoxue] spread through Fujian and Zhejiang and covered Jiangxi and Hunan. Literati flocked out of mountains and valleys or left their home places, wishing to hear [the teaching of those scholars], renting houses and borrowing food. Liangchen’s two sons, Cheng and Jiang, were very talented

for Shidong academy but also two poems for Guo Jin; Chen Fuliang also wrote two poems for Guo Jin; and Guo Jin sent fine wine as far as Shanyin 山陰 county, Shaoxing prefecture 紹興, for Lu You, who wrote colophons on Guo Qinzhi’s eulogy. See Lu’s “Xie Guo Xilü Shidong jiu 謝郭希呂送石洞酒 ,” Jianan shigao jaozhu 劍南詩稿校注, annotated by Qian Zhonglian 錢仲聯 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1985), 4:26.1855. 27. Ye Shi, “Guo chushi muzhiming,” YSJ 13.247. 28. See her Academies and Society in Southern Sung China, 131.


from early days. Liangchen regretted that they were constitutionally weak and therefore unable to go long distances [to pursue their learning.] He constructed a good building and supplied nice food, and invited students in their village and from other prefectures, who were of more or less the same age as Cheng, and made them stay together with him. He invited scholars who knew the teaching, to serve as their tutors.29

Ye’s funerary inscription for Guo Liangxian also says, “They also knew what the world valued and honored the accomplished scholars. If there were good scholars, they invited them with propriety even from one thousand li and entrusted them with [educating] their sons and brothers, without limiting their eyes to [the pool of] local scholars.”30 The Guos were aware of a new intellectual trend and wanted their sons to become familiar with it. However, it would be misleading to assume that the Guos were intellectually committed to the cause of Daoxue Neo-Confucianism. They welcomed teachers and guests of different scholarly orientations, and this inclusive selection can perhaps be better understood as a sign of a “whatever-serves-best” attitude toward learning than of any serious attempt at intellectual eclecticism. In addition to the Guos’ practical concerns, the omnivorous nature of the academies’ education should also be understood within the intellectual milieu of Jinhua at the time. As Peter Bol has shown, a wide range of intellectual choices were available in twelfth century Jinhua: Daoxue Neo-Confucianism represented by Lü Zuqian; “utilitarian” ideas emphasizing practical results taught by Chen Liang; classical and institutional learning by Tang Zhongyou 唐仲友 (1136–1188); literary learning focused on examination preparation borne out by the extensive publication of Su Shi’s (1036–1101) works; and even pro-statist ideas reflected in a work by Zhang Ruyu 章如愚 (jinshi 1196).31 All of these intellectual orientations, along with statecraft ideas from Wenzhou, were present in Dongyang county.32

29. “Guo fujun muzhiming,” YSJ 13.246. For a slightly different translation, see Walton, Academies and Society, 130. 30. Ye Shi, “Guo chushi muzhiming,” YSJ 13.247. 31. Peter Bol, “Zhang Ruyu, the Qunshu kaosuo, and Diversity in Intellectual Culture— Evidence from Dongyang county, Wuzhou,” in Qingzhu Deng Guangming jiaoshou jiushi huatan lunwen ji 慶祝鄧廣銘教授九十華誕論文集 (Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1997); idem, “Reading Su Shi in Southern Song Wuzhou,” East Asian Library Journal 8.2 (1998). 32. As I have shown, the Lü brothers, Chen Liang, Chen Fuliang and Ye Shi had ties with the Guos. Ni Qianli 倪千里 (jinshi 1187), Chen Fuliang’s student and Dai Xi 戴溪, Ye Shi’s


This diverse and rich intellectual soil of Jinhua where the Guos had impres-sive connections may have hardly impressed Zhu Xi, however. If anything, it was probably a source of reservation about them. First, as is well known, Zhu disparaged the scholarship of Ye Shi and Chen Fuliang, which expounds “achievements and benefits,” as groundless (duzhuan 杜撰), something of which one could neither make heads nor tails (meitou meiwei 沒頭沒尾).33 In addition, during the mid-to-late twelfth century, Jinhua was a place of ambivalence for Zhu. Doubtless, his friend Lü Zuqian played a leading role in promoting Daoxue learning among scholars in and outside Jinhua. It was with him that Zhu compiled the Reflections on Things at Hand and it was through his mediation that Zhu met and had a famous debate with Lu Jiuyuan (1139–1192). Zhu also entrusted his son’s education under Lü’s tutelage and eventually married him into the eminent Pan 潘 family of Jinhua county.34 Although Zhu was not entirely comfortable with Lü’s positions on examination learning and how to evaluate the scholarship of Su Shi,35 his friendship with and respect for Lü seems to have been genuine during Lü’s lifetime. One of the first things Zhu did when he entered Jinhua in 1182 on his inspection tour was to pay a visit to Lü’s tomb. The year 1182 was, however, a turning point in Zhu’s relationship with Jinhua. Increasingly critical of the kind of scholarship prevalent in Jinhua after Lü’s death, Zhu Xi began to blame his deceased friend openly for having planted the seeds of deterioration. In a letter written in 1185, Zhu Xi lamented:

Since Bogong (style name of Lü Zuqian) passed away, all kinds of weird theories have appeared in Jinhua. As for the ideas of Ziyue (style name of Lü Zujian), aside from differing opinions on general issues, they are by no means the models put forth by Confucius and Mencius. They are [the utilitarian and legalist] opinions of Guan Zhong and Shang Yang, which makes people sigh in alarm. But this

student, held teaching positions in Dongyang. Tang Zhongyou and his student, Fu Yin 傅寅, were invited to teach at Antian charitable school 安田義塾. See Peter Bol, “Zhang Ruyu, the Qunshu kaosuo, and Diversity in Intellectual Culture,” 648–49, 655. 33. See Li Jingde 黎靖德 ed., Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994), 8:123.2961, 2967. 34. Hoyt Tillman, Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992), 104–132. 35. For Zhu’s reservations about Lü’s judgment of Su Shi’s learning, see Peter Bol, “Chu Hsi’s Redefinition of Literati Learning,” in Neo-Confucian Education: The Formative Stage, eds., Wm. Theodore de Bary and John W. Chaffee (Berkeley: University of California, 1990).


was also brought about by Bogong’s somewhat ambiguous and undetermined attitude, which also makes us sigh in regret.36

At the core of “all kinds of weird theories” in Jinhua was the utilitarianism represented by Chen Liang. And Zhu saw a link between Chen and Lü.

But a type of discourse [prevalent in] Jinhua recently is much more detestable. In general, it honors Lü [Zuqian] in name. And yet, in actuality, it advocates [the ideas of] Tongfu (the style name of Chen Liang).37

When he talked about Tongfu, the Master said, “How can Lü Bogong be free of any responsibility? . . . Recently, some of Bogong’s disciples spoke for the ideas of Tongfu. The two schools have now become one piece. How strange!”38

Furthermore, in Zhu Xi’s eyes Jinhua’s problem was not limited to Chen Liang. Six months after his visit to Lü’s tomb, while still serving as the Intendant of the Ever-Normal Granary, Zhu Xi began to impeach Tang Zhongyou, a re-nowned and well-connected scholar from Jinhua county and then the Prefect of Taizhou 台州, for his alleged administrative abuses, resulting in political unrest at the court.39 The timing is important here. If it really happened at all, Zhu’s initial visit to the academy is estimated to have occurred in 1182, exactly when his attitude toward Jinhua and its intellectual leaders became openly critical. Zhu’s later relationship with the academy and its people should be viewed from this perspective. There is still a possibility, however, that Shidong academy might have been a positive exception, and the Guos might have been faithful followers of Zhu’s Neo-Confucian teachings. Admittedly, Zhu Xi penned a eulogy inscription (ming 銘) for the academy’s founder, Guo Qinzhi, and wrote the academy’s plaque, which may lead one to believe that Zhu fully endorsed the academy and the learning practiced there. Guo Qinzhi’s record of conduct (xingshu 行述) attributed to Lü Zujian, which is found in a genealogy of the Guos, renders eloquent support to this reasoning. Most importantly, Zhu Xi appears

36. Zhu Xi, “Yu Liu Zicheng 與劉子澄,” ZXJ 3:35.1552. 37. Zhu Xi, “Da Huang Zhiqing 答黃直卿,” ZXJ 9:xuji 1.5136. 38. Zhuzi yulei, 8:123.2965. 39. It would be interesting to note that Chen Liang and Tang Zhongyou were related to each other. Zhongyou’s elder brother, Tang Zhongyi, was a son-in-law of a certain He Hui 何恢 (1125–1183). So was Chen Liang. See Hayasaka Toshihiro 早坂俊広, “Bugaku: basho no mono-gatari 婺学: 場所の物語り,” Sōdai bito no ninshiki 宋代人の認識, ed. Sōdai shi kenkyūkai 宋代史研究会 (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin, 2001), 203.


in this document as having a special relationship with Guo Qinzhi. When Zhu Xi heard the news of Qinzhi’s death through Lü Zujian’s letter asking for a eulogy on Guo’s behalf, he is reported to have said that “it has been a long time since I befriended this person. There must be a biography.” Then Zhu ordered his disciples to examine old precedents and used seventy-two characters to compose the eulogy. And Zhu urged the somewhat hesitant Lü Zujian more than once to write a detailed record of Guo Qinzhi’s life.40 If this information is authentic, we should conclude that Zhu’s amiable relation-ship with the Guos was anomalous from his generally uncomfortable stance regarding Jinhua at the time. Lü’s writing in the genealogy does contain detailed information on Guo Qinzhi.41 The main text of Zhu’s eulogy is indeed composed of seventy-two characters, as the document notes. There is no reason why we should not trust the basic biographical information provided in the document. There are a few reasons, however, why we should be suspicious of the picture of Guo Qinzhi’s relationship with Zhu Xi that emerges from it; among these is the fact that the document itself contains discrepancies. First, the record ends with “Recorded by Dayu Lü Zujian” (大愚呂祖儉識).” Dayu was Lü’s literary name (hao 號). It would be atypical to use one’s own literary name together with a given name, especially when writing for others. There is the possibility, of course, that this might have been mistakenly added by later compilers of the genealogy. But the document also makes a mistake in presenting a person whose style name is Boqing as one of Guo Qinzhi’s sons. Boqing is in fact the style name of Guo Cheng, a nephew of Guo Qinzhi, whose funerary inscription was written by none other than Zujian’s brother, Zuqian. As a contemporary of Guo Qinzhi and his sons’ generation and as a commissioned epitaph writer, how could Lü be confused about such basic

40. See Jiyang Guo shi bingcheng zongpu 暨陽郭氏秉誠宗譜 (1928 edition), juan 2. No pagination is available. I would to like thank Tian Ge of Fudan University for copying this mate-rial for me from the Shanghai Library. According to the genealogy, a grandson of Guo Qinzhi migrated from Dongyang to adjacent Zhuji 諸暨 county during the mid Southern Song and the lineage founded by his descendants continued to cherish the earlier history of their first ancestors. 41. Typical of its genre, it records the exact dates of his birth and death; the names of his father, grandfather, and great-grand father; his wife’s surname; the names of his five sons; his son-in-law’s name and official title; and his burial site. A student of Zhang Jiucheng 張九成 (1092–1159), one of the major figures in the Daoxue circle during the early Southern Song period, Guo Qinzhi is said to have unsuccessfully sat in the examinations.


information? Moreover, the claim that Guo Qinzhi had studied with Zhang Jiucheng is found in no other contemporary sources. Most importantly, Zhu Xi’s own words present a somewhat different picture of his relationship with the Guos from that in Lü’s alleged writing. Zhu’s five letters replying to Guo Jin, Guo Qinzhi’s son, are preserved in his literary collection.42 In these letters, Zhu suggests that Guo Jin first read the Great Learning thoroughly before moving on to the Analects, the Mencius, and then the Doctrine of the Mean; that he carefully read these main texts first before consulting interpretations by various scholars; and that Guo Jin try to peruse the “Diagram of Supreme Ultimate,” “Western Inscription,” and the Tongshu 通書, a text for penetrating the Book of Changes. Zhu also clarifies Jin’s understanding of putting the mind in order (shouxin 收心) and rectify-ing the mind (zhengxin 正心). He strives to guide Guo Jin toward a correct path of learning, as he understood it. Zhu Xi suspected, however, that Guo Jin was basically interested in examination preparation and the practical benefits it would entail for his family. In response to Guo Jin’s expression of his primary concerns about regulating family matters, and his relative lack of interest in serious learning, Zhu writes,

If you think of learning as a serious business to which you cannot find time to commit yourself while constantly wasting your mental energies on examination preparation, and yet want to pursue a separate method with which to regulate your family for its lasting harmony, I humbly think that the heavenly principle will not be illuminated, and human desire will arise without restraint, so that there will be no way to apprehend and prevent its harmful effects.43

In another letter, when Guo Jin makes the excuse that he is unable to pursue broad learning because of his poor health, Zhu responds sarcastically,

If you are really unhealthy, why have you been so enthusiastically engaged in examination learning? You do not devote yourself to this [i.e., true learning], while you have been doing that [i.e., examination learning] for a long time. Thus, even if you assert that you pay less attention to profit than to righteous-ness, I do not believe it.

42. Chen Lai estimates that the five letters were written between 1188 and 1191, but he admits that there is no corroborating evidence to support this estimate. See his Zhuzi shuxin biannian kao zheng 朱子书信编年考证 (Shanghai: Remin chubanshe, 1989), 276, 327. 43. “Da Guo Xilü 答郭希呂,” ZXJ 5:54.2726.


When Guo Jin asks for Zhu’s opinions on the academy’s institutional details, requesting that he write its commemorative inscription and offer calligraphy for the academy’s plaque, Zhu Xi replies,

As for the scale of the academy, you can do as situation and your ability allows. In so doing, if you ponder upon and organize your plan based on concrete issues, then you will see the proper order of doing things. You must not try to premeditate things as you do now. The inscription and plaque calligraphy are matters of secondary importance.44

Zhu was reproaching Guo Jin for being more concerned with the academy’s institutional façade than its intellectual commitment. Zhu’s attitude toward the academy can also be detected from his epitaph for its founder. Guo Jin was fastidious about making Zhu’s eulogy look proper. He asked Zhu, for example, whether he could add the character “Song 宋” to the title of Zhu’s eulogy, and into how many lines Zhu’s text should be divided when inscribed on stone. He also asked Zhu more than once for a descriptive preface (xu 敘) to that eulogy as well. The following was Zhu’s answer to the latter request.

As for the eulogy and preface [you mentioned] in your letter, [I have declined] not because I want to save something but simply because, as an old man with failing health, I cannot accept all the requests from all directions and I have to care for my own life. My personality is straightforward. Had it been possible, I would have done it already. Why would I do it only after I have bothered you to send me a second [requesting] letter? . . . Furthermore, the eulogy inscription is more important than the preface. If I had some remaining strength after I wrote the eulogy, why should I be reluctant to write a preface and make complicated excuses? Had Chengzhi (the style name of Zhuge Qianneng 諸葛千能 [jinshi 1181] of Shanyin county) not accepted your request, he should not have trans-ferred the matter to me on your behalf, doing unto me what he himself did not want to. If [as your letter says] he dared not do it because it is an important duty, I have already taken care of that important duty. Thus, he should not have any other words now. But I suspect that this was not Chengzhi’s intention. It must be simply that you would not understand [the situation] and make this excuse because you by all means want me to do it myself. In friendship, what is valued is understanding each other’s mind. Gentlemen in antiquity would not exhaust other’s joy and loyalty, because they wanted to preserve their friendship intact. I

44. “Da Guo Xilü,” ZXJ 5:54.2727.


strongly urge you to ponder this point and to have a pity on my old age and failing health. Please do not ruin this old precedent and invite my death!45

Can this Zhu Xi be the same person who, as portrayed in Lü’s alleged “record of conduct,” earnestly wrote the eulogy inscription and encouraged Lü to write a more detailed biography? What may be more interesting than his irritated refusal, however, is the content of the eulogy itself. Its entire text reads,

I, Zhu Xi of Xin’an, write an inscription for the tomb of Mr. Guo [whose style name is] Deyi of Dongyang. It reads as follows: While his talent matched that of one hundred men, he was not offered to serve. While he aspired to be involved in affairs of the state, in fact his sphere of activity remained local. Since his brothers and sons observed the instruction of their masters and Confucian teachers, how-ever, his prefecture and immediate neighbors all know the uprightness of his descendants. He drastically transformed the den of military might and brightly opened a place of propriety and righteousness. Remember this principle, and the family will grow for one hundred generations. Transmit it without change, and it will prosper forever.46

Befitting the genre, the eulogy is generally laudatory in its tone. But although Guo Qinzhi’s effort to gentrify his family was mentioned, his founding of the academy is only implied at best, with mention of the “place of propriety and righteousness.” Had Zhu Xi praised Guo Qinzhi, as was argued by Shu Jingnan, for his founding of the academy through which Zhu came to have some influ-ence in Jinhua, he could have elaborated more on this achievement.47 The eulogy’s brevity, Lü’s alleged “record of conduct” asserts, was well-intended and carefully premeditated. But it was certainly odd to other contemporaries, one of whom tried to explain apologetically that brevity itself should not be an issue.

As for the eulogy by Master Zhonghui (Zhu Xi) for the tomb of Mr. Guo, some people regret that it was too brief. But our master Confucius’ inscription for Jicha reads, “Alas! This is the tomb of the youngest son from Yanling 延陵 of the state of Wu 吳.” The inscription consists only of ten characters but it has been transmitted as a treasure until now. All those mediocre people’s desire for more is completely worthless. On the twenty-third day of the first month of the second year of the Shaoxi reign period (1191), Lu You respectfully writes.48

45. “Da Guo Xilü,” ZXJ 5:54.2724–2725. 46. “Guo Deyi muming,” ZXJ 8:92.4707. 47. Shu Jingnan, Zhuzi dazhuan, 509. 48. Lu You, “Ba Guo Deyi muzhiming 跋郭德誼墓誌銘,” Lu You ji 陸游集 (Beijing: Zhong-


Despite Lu’s rather forced explanation, Guo Jin’s repeated, unsuccessful requests for a descriptive preface to this eulogy betray that it was none other than the Guos themselves who displayed “mediocre people’s desire for more.” Zhu Xi also declined another request for an epitaph by a Dongyang Guo. In 1196, a certain Guo Qi 郭淇 made a long trip to Jianyang 建陽 to solicit Zhu Xi’s eulogy for his deceased father. Declining his keen request, Zhu instead wrote a brief colophon, out of courtesy, to the record of conduct presented to him.49

Now we can speculate that Guo Jin, disillusioned by Zhu’s attitude, turned to Ye Shi for the commemorative inscription on the academy. Given Ye’s close relationship with the Guos, he may have been a right person to request such a work.50 Ye’s inscription written in 1198 praises Guo Qinzhi’s decision to transform a place of entertainment into a place of learning (yi xue yi you 以學易游) and to share his personal resources with others (yi zhong he du 以眾合獨).51 It mentions, of course, neither the academy’s relationship with Zhu Xi nor its commitment to Daoxue Neo-Confucianism at all. What are we to make of Lü’s “record of conduct” preserved in the Guo family genealogy, which paints Zhu in such a favorable relationship with the Guos? In the absence of other evidence, we may not simply dismiss the entire document as a forgery. However, I argue that it is likely to have been doctored at some point in history in order to add credibility to the claim that the Guos were blessed by Zhu Xi and that he taught at the academy. In the following section, I will try to put this document and its uses in historical perspective.

hua shuju, 1976), 5:28.2246. Around the time when this colophon was written, Lu also wrote a colophon to Guo Qinzhi’s letter (“Ba Guo Deyi shu 跋郭德誼書,” ibid). It was also one year later that Lu wrote a poem expressing his gratitude to Guo Jin for sending him Dongyang local wine. Given this context, the colophon was almost certainly written at the request of Guo Jin. 49. “Ba Dongyang Guo Defu xingzhuang 跋東陽郭德輔行狀,” ZXJ 7:84.4314–4315. Accord-ing to this colophon, Lü Zujian and Lin Dazhong 林大中 (1131–1208), a renowned statesman from Yongkang county, also wrote Zhu Xi to confirm that Guo Defu was indeed a man of honor. Given that Guo Qinzhi’s style name is Deyi 德誼, Guo Liangchen’s Delin 德麟, and Guo Liangxian’s Deyang 德揚, this person seems to have been their cousin. Note also that all three men’s sons’ names include water radical (Jin 津, Cheng 澄, and Jiang 江) as does Qi. 50. Ye wrote three funerary inscriptions for the Guos and poems for Guo Jin. Zhou Meng-jiang 周夢江 estimates that Ye Shi stayed in Dongyang in 1167–1168. See his Ye Shi yu Yongjia xuepai 叶适与永嘉学派 (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1992), 158. Cited in Peter Bol, “Zhang Ruyu, the Qunshu kaosuo, and Diversity in Intellectual Culture,” 670. 51. The date of this inscription is also revealing. Had Zhu indeed stayed at the academy for the fourth time in 1198, as is claimed by the modern Dongyang municipal gazetteer, why did Guo Jin ask Ye Shi, rather than Zhu Xi, for a commemorative inscription on the academy?


Family Story Retold and Local Memory Created

Twenty-five years after Ye Shi wrote his inscription on the academy, Cao Yanyue 曹彥約 (1151–1228) added a colophon to it.

This is the inscription of Shidong academy, [built by] the Guo family. The inscription was written by Ye Shi, the calligraphy [of the inscription] is by Lou Yue (1137–1213), and the academy’s plaque calligraphy (ti 題) is by Zhu Xi, three paragons of the time. Guo Jin succeeded his father’s will and transmitted his work, and sought and obtained this writing and calligraphy. There is nothing in recent years to compare to this (jin wu ci bi 近無此比). But it was the winter of 1198 when [the slanderous] discourse on [Daoxue’s] faction was just beginning to get fierce [that Guo Jin asked them for these works]. Literati feared becoming implicated with the three Masters, and it seemed that [those who would follow them] would cease to exist. In such an era, Xilü (the style name of Guo Jin) alone did not follow the way of the world because of vicissitudes [in its attitude toward these masters], obtaining their [works] while they were rejected [by the world] . . . Others can never match his lofty and far-reaching opinion and his sincere belief and love of learning.52

This colophon rather typically shows the way in which later people embel-lished the academy’s special relationship with Zhu Xi. Admittedly, Zhu appears here as just one of the three eminent figures who added honor to the academy by providing it with their literary work, but his writing of the plaque calligra-phy is brought to fore as something equally important as Ye Shi’ inscription itself. In addition, the colophon does not ask what kind of relationship Guo Jin maintained with each of the three figures, whose intellectual orientations were markedly different, despite their common fate of being lumped together under the rubric of “false learning.” Instead, it is suggested that Guo Jin’s act of asking for their literary works at the time of their political persecution was a sufficient condition for proving his “lofty and far-reaching opinion and his sincere belief and love of learning.” The relationship’s existence itself is more important than its nature or content. This colophon was written in 1223, the year when Ye Shi died. By this time, Zhu Xi had been dead for twenty-three years. Over those two decades, the court’s attitude toward Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism had transformed remark-ably to pave the way for its eventual apotheosis in 1241. In 1212, Zhu’s commentar-

52. Cao Yanyue, “Ba Dongyang Guo shi Shidong shuyuan ji 跋東陽郭氏石洞書院記,” Changgu ji 昌谷集 (Siku quanshu edition), 17.14a–14b. QSW 293.43.


ies on the Analects and the Mencius had been recommended as standard texts in official schools. In 1227, Zhu was enfeoffed as Lord of Xin and an imperial decree glorifying Zhu’s commentaries on the Four Books was issued.53

John Chaffee has shown that for much of the twelfth century establishing an academy that openly promoted Daoxue’s cause was likely to prompt suspicion from those in power at court, which was a disincentive to potential investors.54 After Daoxue received the state’s recognition, however, local literati made deliberate efforts, however tenuous, to establish a connection to it. “After Duke Wen passed away,” Ren Shilin 任士林 (1253–1309) noted at the end of the thirteenth century, “in all the places where he had ever resided and in all the locales where he had ever administered, people invariably honored him as their master and sought to discuss his learning. Thus, [establishing] academies became more popular.” People went so far as to build an academy honoring Zhu Xi at a ford where he is said to have used a boat to Taizhou on his inspection tour as the Intendant of the Ever-Normal Granary.55 Now it seems only natural that the Shidong academy, whose founder’s eulogy was written by Zhu Xi himself while the founder’s successor exchanged letters with him, stressed its already existing link. As Zhu began to appear as the academy’s iconic figure, other scholars whose relationship with it may have been more substantive became overshadowed by his image. Virtually nothing is known of the academy during the critical Yuan period, aside from its apparent dilapidation. The Yuan saw a dramatic change in the status of Jinhua Confucianism thanks to the concerted efforts of its literati thinkers. Silent on the fact that Zhu Xi held deep reservations about Jinhua scholarship, they actively promoted Jinhua Confucianism as the most orthodox transmission of Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism, repeatedly emphasizing that He Ji 何基 (1188–1268), a Jinhua native, personally learned from Huang Gan 黃榦 (1152–1221), Zhu’s son-in-law and one of his most representative disciples. By the end of the Yuan dynasty, the image of Jinhua as the stronghold of

53. See Hilde de Weerdt, Competition over Content: Negotiating Standards for the Civil Service Examinations in Imperial China (1127–1279) (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 214–15. 54. See John Chaffee, “Chu Hsi in Nan-K’ang: Tao-hsüeh and the Politics of Education,” in Neo-Confucian Education: The Formative Stage, 416–24. 55. Ren Shilin, “Chongjian Wengong shuyuan ji 重建文公書院記 ,” Songxiang ji 松鄉

集 (Siku quanshu edition), 1.6a–7a. See also Quan Yuan wen 全元文 (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 2001), 18:582.381.


orthodox Neo-Confucianism came to be not only cemented in Jinhua but also shared by outside literati.56 We may expect to find then that a parallel process might have been under way around the public memory of Shidong academy: Zhu Xi’s contacts with the academy were emphasized while his critical attitude toward it was glossed over. But it is during the late imperial period that we begin to see in greater detail how the academy’s image as a sanctuary of Neo-Confucianism emerged, and how this perception made its way into the public and official realm. Although the academy itself had not been rebuilt until the late Ming, local efforts to revive its memory appeared early on.57 Between 1506 and 1509, a descendant of Guo Qinzhi compiled the Shidong yifang ji 石洞遺[貽]芳集 (The Transmittance of the Fragrance from Shidong [Academy]), a collection of various writings related to the academy such as Zhu’s eulogy and letters; Ye’s commemorative inscription and poems; Chen Fuliang’s poems; and Lu You’s colophon and poems. As the title suggests, it was put together to publicize the academy’s glorious history. It is surely no coincidence that Guo Qinzhi began to appear in local historical compilations only after the publication of the Shidong yifang ji. His name is not found, for example, in the Jinhua xianda zhuan 金華賢達傳 (Biographies of Worthy and Renowned People of Jinhua) compiled in 1420.58 But the Jinhua xianmin zhuan 金華先民傳 (Biographies of Former [Worthy] People of Jinhua) that appeared about fifty years after the Shidong yifang ji records him in its “miscellaneous biographies (zazhuan 雜傳)” chapter. As this categorization shows, Guo Qinzhi was still treated as a minor figure. But the Jinhua xianmin zhuan quotes the entire text of Zhu’s eulogy of him and notes that his son, Guo Jin, studied under Zhu.59 This entry is the first datable reference to Guo Qinzhi beyond the contemporary writings of the Song period, and it furthered the reproduction of local memory around him and the academy.

56. Peter Bol, “Neo-Confucianism and Local Society, Twelfth to Sixteenth Century: A Case Study,” in The Song-Yuan-Ming Transition in Chinese History, eds., Richard von Glahn and Paul J. Smith (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001), 262–267; Chen Wenyi 陳雯

怡, “‘Wu Wu wenxian zhi yi’—Yuandai yi ge xiangli chuantong de jiangou ji qi yiyi 吾婺文獻

之懿–––元代一個鄉里傳統的建構及其意義,” Xin shixue 新史學 22 (June, 2009) 57. In the 1578 edition of the Jinhua prefectural gazetteer, Shidong academy is listed not in the “schools” chapter but in the “historic sites (guji 古蹟)” chapter, where it notes that Ye Shi wrote its inscription and Zhu Xi wrote its plaque. Jinhua fu zhi, 24.24a. 58. See Zheng Bo 鄭柏, Jinhua xianda zhuan (Siku quanshu cunmu congshu edition) 59. Ying Tingyu 應廷育, Jinhua xianmin zhuan (Xu Jinhua congshu edition), 10.4b.


The Jinhua xianmin zhuan was one of a few local works that the Jinhua prefectural gazetteer (1578 edition) consulted in preparing its biography chap-ters.60 Guo Qinzhi is listed in its addendum (fulu 附錄), which largely repeats the information provided in the xianmin zhuan.61 The prefectural gazetteer also lists Shidong academy in its “historic sites” chapter where it confirms that it was founded by Guo Qinzhi and that Ye Shi wrote an inscription and Zhu Xi wrote its plaque calligraphy. However, it does not mention the claim that Zhu taught there. This prefectural gazetteer rarely fails to recognize such historic events in the legacies of the major academies. For example, in noting the Bahua 八華 academy in Dongyang, the gazetteer states that Xu Qian 許謙 (1270–1337), the last of the “four Jinhua masters” during the Yuan dynasty, once taught at the place. As for the Wufeng 五峯 academy in Yongkang 永康 county, it records that the academy was built on a place where Zhu Xi, Lü Zuqian, and Chen Liang had a gathering.62 There are two likely explanations for the gazetteer’s silence on Shidong academy’s alleged special relationship with Zhu Xi: either its compilers did not endorse the self-aggrandizing claims of the academy, or the claims had not yet been made at this time. What ul-timately matters here is that the Guos’ family history now made its way into the realm of official, thus more public memory. During the late Ming, the Guos more actively publicized their history. In the 1610s–20s, a descendant of Guo Qinzhi rebuilt the academy, resumed sacrifices to Zhu Xi and Ye Shi, and invited three county officials—Zhang Erjia 張爾嘉, Gong Xiuling 貢修齡, and Li Jingshi 李經世—to write com-memorative inscriptions on the occasion.63 These three officials’ inscriptions were significant in promoting the academy’s status for a couple of reasons. First, Zhu Xi now unequivocally appears as a defining figure in the academy’s historical importance. Gong Xiuling’s inscription, for example, begins with the exclamation, “Great indeed! The Way of Master Hui’an is everywhere . . . Shidong of Dongyang is a place where the master discussed learning in the past.” The other two inscriptions also restate this point matter-of-factly.64 Second, given that all three of them are recorded as “reputable officials

60. Jinhua fu zhi (1578 edition), “liyi 例義,” 2b. 61. Jinhua fu zhi, 24.24a, 16.65a. 62. Jinhua fu zhi, 10.16a, 10.19b. 63. Dongyang xian zhi (1681 edition), 6.23b. 64. Gong Xiuling, “Chongjian shuyuan ji 重建書院記,” Shidong yifang ji (Jinhua cong-shu edition), 1.19a. Zhang Erjia’s “Guo shi Shidong ji 郭氏石洞記” (1.22.a) and Li Jingshi’s


(ming huan 名宦)” in a later gazetteer, their endorsement may have added credibility to the statement.65 Numerous poems were written by local literati of the reconstructed academy, five of which mentioned the “Ziyang’s flower.” The academy also soon provided the literati community with a venue for a literary society (she 社) and meetings for discoursing on learning (jianghui 講會), two of the typical late Ming literati movements. For those who wrote prefaces on these occasions, the academy was without question considered to have been a place of Zhu Xi’s teaching.66

By the early Qing, the Guos’ claims had become even bolder and more colorful. In 1664, the Guos established twelve mu of endowed fields for the academy.67 In 1677, a revised edition of the Shidong yifang ji was published by a certain Guo Zhongru. In a colophon included in this edition, Guo Zhongru says that while taking refuge at the academy Zhu Xi expounded the meaning of the Book of Changes, completed his commentaries on the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean, and kept the manuscripts in the academy. We are also told that Guo Qinzhi (who had actually been dead for fourteen years by the time of Zhu’s alleged stay in 1198!) treated them as treasures.68 The preface to this revised edition written by a different member of the Guo family repeats Guo Zhongru’s words and adds that Guo Qinzhi was a student of Zhang Jiucheng, the first datable appearance of this “information.”69 We do not know what the source of these bold claims was; it could have been transmitted in the Guo family or fancifully fabricated by Guo Zhongru him-self. But it seems that the Guos became confident enough to (re)produce such statements openly around this time, when Shidong was the only active academy in all of Dongyang county.70

In 1720, another local anthology, the Jinhua zhengxian lüe 金華徵獻略 (A

“Chongjian Shidong shuyuan ji 重建石洞書院記” (1.20a) also state that the academy is a place where Master Ziyang discoursed on learning. 65. Zhang Erjia was Dongyang magistrate appointed in 1613. Gong Xiuling was magistrate appointed in 1620. Li Jingshi was instructor at the county school in 1623. See Dongyang xian zhi (1832 edition), 5.5b, 5.16b. For their brief biographies in the “minghuan” chapter, see 6.22a–22b. 66. Lu Guangcai 盧光寀, “Shidong shanfang she xu 石洞山房社序”; Chen Qi’en 陳其

蒽, “Jiangtang fuhui xu 講堂復會序,” Shidong yifang ji 1.23a–26b. 67. Dongyang xian zhi (1681 edition), 6.24b. 68. Guo Zhongru, “Ti xiang hou 題像後,” Shidong yifangji, 1.21b. 69. Guo Ruoyi 郭若繹, “Yuanxu 原序,” Shidong yifangji, front matter, 1a. 70. “[In the county,] Youcheng academy was the oldest and Bahua academy was the most famous. But today only Shidong academy exists.” See Dongyang xian zhi (1681 edition), 6.23a.


Brief Anthology of Jinhua People’s Biographies) by Wang Chongbing 王崇炳 (1653–1739) of Dongyang county, lists Guo Qinzhi in its “lofty conduct (zhuo-xing 卓行)” chapter, where it is recorded that Zhu Xi stayed at the academy for a long time during the ban on “false learning.”71 It was also around this time that the very first edition of the Jiyang Guo shi bingcheng zongpu, which contains Lü Zujian’s problematic “record of conduct,” was compiled.72

The period from the late seventeenth to the early eighteenth century was a critical time in constructing local narratives of the academy’s early history. Nevertheless, neither the Guos’ self-promotion nor the individual endorse-ments by Gong Xiuling and Wang Chongbing were readily accepted by official compilations. The “education” chapter of the Dongyang county gazetteer (1681 edition) does list, in abridged form, the inscriptions on the Shidong academy written by Gong Xiuling and Zhang Erjia, but the compilers have omitted from the two inscriptions any mention of Zhu Xi having taught at the academy.73 By editing the texts this way, they maintained the legacy of earlier records on the academy while unmistakably showing their reservations about the latter claim’s credibility. The relationship between private and official compilations was more complex, since a seemingly more neutral assertion evaded the skeptical eyes of official compilers. The same gazetteer’s “local produce” chapter records the “Ziyang’s flower” and comments that it is said to have been planted by Zhu Xi when he took refuge at the academy.74 The compilers’ critical attitude toward Shidong academy’s affiliation with Zhu did not extend to this entry. The impact of the inclusion of such “information” in the county gazet-teer was significant because outside writers and other official compilations drew upon it as an authoritative source. Besides the Ziyang’s flower, the 1735 edition of the Zhejiang provincial gazetteer also has an entry for Guo Qinzhi, the academy, and the Shidong yifang ji, respectively.75 Although it does not explicitly mention the claim that Zhu Xi taught and collated his works at the academy, the provincial gazetteer now lists Guo Qinzhi in the “righteous conduct” category of its biography chapters, a promotion compared

71. Jinhua zhengxian lü (Siku quanshu cunmu congshu edition), 14.3b–4a. 72. The earliest extant edition of the genealogy held at the Shanghai Library is from 1822, but the later genealogies note that the Jiyang Guos began to compile their genealogy in 1712. 73. Dongyang xian zhi (1681 edition), 10.24b–25a. 74. Dongyang xian zhi, 19.18b, 3.22b. 75. Zhejiang tongzhi, 28.8b–9b, 106.12b, 189.2b–3a, and 253.39b .


to the Jinhua xianmin zhuan (1558) and Jinhua prefectural gazetteer (1578) in which he was assigned to “miscellaneous biographies” and “addendum,” respectively.76 Between 1747 and 1755, the county gazetteer was also cited by Quan Zuwang 全祖望 (1705–1755), a Ningbo native and renowned historian, in his famous Song Yuan xue’an 宋元學案 (Case Studies of Song-Yuan Scholars) where he records Guo Qinzhi as a disciple of Zhang Jiucheng.77 Guo Qinzhi is now presented not only as a man of generosity but also as a man of learning. This enriched local memory was eventually acknowledged by the central government. The imperially commissioned Siku quanshu completed in 1782 lists the Shidong yifang ji in its catalog. The Siku editors’ opinion on the book shows a critical, official evaluation of the information on Guo Qinzhi and the academy available at the time. They acknowledge that Lü Zuqian and Ye Shi taught at the academy, that scenery around the academy is described in poems by Lu You and Chen Fuliang, and that Zhu Xi wrote a eulogy for Guo Qinzhi. Taking for granted that Guo Qinzhi was Zhang Jiucheng’s disciple, they comment that given Zhu’s critical stance against Zhang, his high opinion of Guo’s integrity was remarkable. Nevertheless, they do not introduce the core assertion promoted by the yifang ji that the academy was a place where Zhu Xi taught. Probably this is why the book was sidelined into the catalog (cunmu 存目), not included in the library itself. In this sense, it is interesting to note that two other Jinhua works that contained favorable comments on Guo Qinzhi, the Jinhua xianmin zhuan and the Jinhua zhengxian lüe, were also set aside to the catalog.78

The completion of the Siku quanshu, however, did not close the gap between private, local literary works and more official compilations in en-dorsing the Shidong claims. This pattern of reticence continued well into

76. In classifying Guo Qinzhi, the provincial gazetteer follows the county gazetteer (1681) and the Jinhua zhengxian lüe (1720) where he was recorded under the categories of “righteous conduct” and “outstanding conduct,” respectively. 77. Song Yuan xue’an (Taipei: Huashi shuju, 1987), 3:40.1330. 78. Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要 (Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 1999), 192.1048. The Jinhua zhengxian lüe was criticized for being influenced by private interests of the locale and thus being exaggerative (xiangqu zhi si, suo lu bumian fanlan 鄉曲之私, 所錄不免

泛濫), and was thus recorded only in the catalog. Ibid, 63.353. For an illuminating analysis of the Siku editors’ judgments of those books included in the library and those only listed in the catalog, see Seunghyun Han, “Re-inventing Local Tradition: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Early 19th Century Suzhou,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2006), chapter 2.


the nineteenth century. The 1832 edition of the Dongyang county gazetteer, for example, basically follows the line of the 1681 edition: it records Guo Qinzhi’s biography, introduces the academy’s history, and lists excerpts of commemorative inscriptions, but it does not touch on the assertion that Zhu stayed and studied at the academy. On the other hand, Hu Fengdan 胡鳳

丹, the editor-in-chief of the Jinhua congshu 金華叢書 (Jinhua Collectanea) completed in 1877, begins his preface to the Shidong yifang ji by saying that “Shidong academy was a place where master Zhu studied and taught.” He states, with no sense of irony, that Zhu Xi stayed at the academy for a few years during the ban and completed his commentaries on the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean.79

The parallel between private/local source and public/official source could, perhaps, have continued perpetually. How, then, did the story of Zhu Xi’s lecturing and collating his important works at Shidong academy cross into official sources and become firmly established as historical “fact” in Dongyang? I suspect that the incorporation of the story into the Song Yuan xue’an buyi 宋元學案補遺 (Supplement to the Case Studies of Song-Yuan Scholars) might have greatly increased its credibility both in and outside Dongyang.80 The book was compiled by Wang Zicai 王梓材 and Feng Yunhao 馮雲濠, both of whom were Ningbo natives. These outsiders’ acknowledgements might have been esteemed as more objective. Moreover, the book assumes the title of “supplement” to an authoritative work compiled by the renowned Quan Zuwang. Not surprisingly, it is this apparently scholarly work that modern scholars have consulted to reconstruct the social networks around the acad-emy.81 I also suspect that the end of the imperial era softened the presumed superiority of “public/official” sources over “private/local” sources. Unlike the compilers of the 1681 and 1832 editions of the Dongyang county gazetteer, for example, the compilers of the 1993 Dongyang municipal gazetteer could pick and choose the kind of information that would best serve their purposes,

79. Shidong yifang ji, front matter, 1a. 80. Song Yuan xue’an buyi (Siming congshu edition), 69.156b. 81. In his Zhuzi menren, Wing-tsit Chan lists a certain Guo Hao 郭浩 as one of Zhu Xi’s disciples and as a son of Guo Qinzhi. In refuting the “fallacy” of Zhuzi shiji 朱子實紀, Kaot-ing yuanyuan lu 考亭淵源錄, Jingyi kao 經義考, and Rulin zongpai 儒林宗派, all of which “mistook” Guo Hao for Shao Hao 邵浩, Chan cites the Song Yuan xue’an buyi verbatim. See his Zhuzi menren 朱子門人 (Taipei: Xuesheng shuju, 1982), 205–06. Linda Walton relies on the buyi when she confirms that Zhu Xi stayed at the academy. See her Academies and Society, 130–131.


with little concern about its divergence from the version of history that had traditionally been acknowledged as “official.” Shidong academy has recently received renewed attention at the local level. A Jinhua newspaper report from May 6, 2009 deplored the dilapidation of the academy and discussed how to develop it as a new tourist site while preserving its precious historic cultural resources.82 As a response to this call, eight student volunteers from the Department of International Trade at the Industrial and Commercial College in Yiwu 義烏 county visited the academy to clean and offer free tutoring to local children on the premises. Their visit is reported to have been welcomed by the entire local community. The initial proponent of this visit and the leader of the volunteer group were a certain Guo Shushu and Guo Yudan, respectively. It seems that the Guos have not forgotten their glorious past and are trying to revive it.83

Conclusion

The Guos’ intentions in their original foundation of the Shidong academy in the Southern Song, and the continued embellishment of its history during the late imperial period, were probably propelled by the same motivation: they wanted more respectful recognition in their community. They were quite successful in achieving what they sought. As Wang Congbing noted in the late eighteenth century, had it not been for the prestigious connections Guo Qinzhi had accumulated through the academy, his otherwise obscure name would have not been transmitted through history and finally recognized by the provincial gazetteer. Even high officials were not always recorded in the gazetteer.84 What Wang Congbing failed to note, however, is that the continued efforts of Guo Qinzhi’s descendants were more important in transmitting his name than anything he had actually done. In the twelfth century, the Guos realized that their martial power, though

82. See a report by Shi Lei and Chen Qiaodan at Jinhua xinwen wang. http://www.jhnews .com.cn/zzxb/2009-05/06/content_526573.htm. 83. See a report by Chen Qiaodan on June 30, 2009 at Jinhua xinwen wang. http://www .jhnews.com.cn/site1/zzxb/html/2009-06/30/content_1016730.htm. It would be also interesting to note that the Dongyang Guos’ achievement and their special relationship with Zhu Xi is widely shared by all Guos in China through the Internet. See the website of the Guos in China, “Zhonghua Guo shi wang 中国郭氏网,” especially http://www.guohome.org, where Lü Zujian’s “record of conduct” and many other writings from the Shidong yifang ji are reproduced. 84. Jinhua zhengxian lü, 14.3b–4a.

http://www.jhnews.com.cn/zzxb/2009-05/06/content_526573.htm

http://www.jhnews.com.cn/zzxb/2009-05/06/content_526573.htm

http://www.jhnews.com.cn/site1/zzxb/html/2009-06/30/content_1016730.htm

http://www.jhnews.com.cn/site1/zzxb/html/2009-06/30/content_1016730.htm

http://www.guohome.org


Table 2. The Evolution of Stories on Shidong Academy

date contents source

ca. 1509 Guo Fu puts together various genres of writing on the academy and complies the Shidong yifang

Guo Fu, Shidong yifangji (original edition not extant)

1558 Guo Qinzhi is listed in “miscellaneous biographies” and it is noted that his son studied under Zhu Xi

Ying Tingyu, Jinhua xianmin zhuan, 10.4a–4b.

1578 Records the academy in its “guji” chapter and lists Guo Qinzhi in the biography chapter’s addendum

Jinhua fu zhi

1621–1627

The earliest extant claim that the academy is a place where Zhu Xi discoursed on learning

Gong Xiuling, “Chongjian shuyuan ji”

1677 “Guo Qinzhi was a student of Zhang Jiucheng;” “Guo Qinzhi’s two sons studied under Zhu Xi;” “Zhu stayed at the academy for several years dur-ing the ban and finished the editing of his com-mentaries on the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean”

Guo Ruoyi, “Preface” to the Shidong yifang ji

1681 Records “Ziyang flower;” “two sons of Guo Qinzhi studied under Zhu;” but is silent on Zhu Xi’s stay at the academy

Dongyang xian zhi

1709 “Zhu Xi stayed at the academy for a long time;” two sons of Guo Qinzhi studied under Zhu Xi

Wang Chongbing, Jinhua zheng xian lüe

1736 Cites “Ziyang flower” from Dongyang xian zhi; records the Shidong yifang ji

Zhejiang tong zhi

1744–1755

Lists Guo Qinzhi as Zhang Jiucheng’s disciple Quan Zuwang, Song Yuan xue’an

1782 Includes the Shidong yifang ji in the catalog Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao

1832 Basically follows the 1681 edition: cites the full text of Ye Shi’s inscription; selectively cites the inscrip-tions of Zhang Erjia and Gong Xiuling; lists Guo Qinzhi in the “righteous conduct” section of biographies

Dongyang xian zhi

1838 “Zhu Xi stayed at the academy for a while during the ban and collated his commentary on the Great Learning;” two sons of Guo Qinzhi studied under Zhu

Wang Zicai and Feng Yun-hao, Song Yuan xue’an buyi

1877 Basically repeats the claim made by Guo Ruoyi in 1677

Hu Fengdan, Jinhua cong shu

1993 “Zhu Xi visited the academy four times;” “he col-lated his works on the Great Learning, especially the part on ‘making one’s mind sincere’”

Dongyang shi zhi

1999 “Zhu Xi stayed and taught at the academy,” citing the Song Yuan xue’an buyi

Linda Walton, Academies and Society in Southern Sung China


backed up by impressive wealth, could not best serve their family interests. The academy’s foundation and the invitation of famous teachers was a way of translating this naked social power and wealth into cultural capital. The brief encounters they had with the great Neo-Confucian master Zhu Xi in this process became part of a deliberate effort to bring further blessings upon them-selves. The ascendance of Daoxue Neo-Confucianism during and after the twelfth century deeply affected not only the survival of our historical sources but also the nature of materials in them. Because of their uncomfortable relationship with Daoxue, many historical figures whose social and political influence was substantial were either simply ignored (e.g. Tang Zhongyou) or villainized (e.g. Qin Gui [1090–1155]).85 At the same time, also because of their relationship with Daoxue, other people came to be remembered in history.86 Rather than simply being at the mercy of Daoxue’s triumphant judgment, however, many were able to take advantage of Daoxue’s authority to serve their interests. The refashioning of Shidong academy as a place of Zhu Xi’s special patronage vividly shows this process. It may appear ironic to us that Zhu Xi’s five critical letters to Guo Jin are all included in the Shidong yifangji, which purports to glorify the academy’s connection to Zhu. But the fact that Zhu Xi was disapproving of the learning practiced at Shidong academy and that his relationship with the Guos was lukewarm at best did not matter to those who tried to elevate the prestige of the academy. What mattered ultimately to them was the fact that he wrote a eulogy for its founder and that the founder’s son “learned” from him. These tenuous connections later developed into the claim that Zhu Xi taught at the academy and took refuge there during the political ban on his learning,

85. For the virtual disappearance of Tang Zhongyou from the histories of the Southern Song and the Yuan and the local movement of reviving his legacy in the late imperial period, see Jaeyoon Song, “Tang Zhongyou Revival in the Ming Founding,” in his “Shifting Paradigms in Theories of Government: Histories, Classics, and Public Philosophy in 11th–14th Century China,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 375–381. Charles Hartman’s masterful study of Zhu Xi’s assessment of Qin Gui and its impact on later historiography has demonstrated that Daoxue’s final victory enabled it to establish as historical fact its representation of historical figures based on highly moralistic judgments. See his “The Making of a Villain: Ch’in Kuei and Tao-hsüeh,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 58.1 (June 1998), 126–140. 86. Beverly Bossler has shown that one’s affiliation with Daoxue during the Southern Song influenced the chance of survival of his biographical materials. See her Powerful Relations: Kinship, Status, and the State in Sung China (960–1279) (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 1998), 27.


collating his most representative scholarly work. This narrative was colorfully embellished by the physical evidence of a flower that had been allegedly planted by Zhu Xi himself. A close examination reveals that the formation and transformation of local memory related to the academy involved a three-tiered process. First, there was the Guos’ investment in reviving their own history. Previous writings on the academy were collected and the academy was reconstructed. Second, there was the endorsement by local authors of said investment, which helped create a shared local memory. New inscriptions were written on the refurbished academy, poems were composed about the “Ziyang’s flower,” and these were put together as a book. Finally, there were selective official recognitions of this local memory. What interests me is that the relationship among these three layers is not unilateral. Private-local claims were certainly filtered by public/official judgments. Nevertheless, despite their undeniable authority in the traditional period, the more skeptical and critical attitudes of public/official compilations did not eradicate the bold and self-serving claims made by local people. The Guos’ and other local writers’ efforts to glorify their past continued throughout the late imperial period, and they created concentric ripples of varying influences on the official versions of the story. Even the eighteenth century, when state activism is believed to have most effectively imposed its voice on local culture, was no exception. Indeed, it was precisely during this period that the “Ziyang flower” was recorded in the Zhejiang provincial gazetteer and the Siku editors highlighted Zhu Xi’s endorsement of Guo Qinzhi. It was through this complex process of forming and reaffirming local memory that Guo Qinzhi’s place moved from a “miscellaneous” figure (Jin-hua xianmin zhuan, 1558) to a man of “righteous conduct” (Zhejiang tong zhi, 1736); that he and his son were given a place in an authoritative scholarly anthology (Song Yuan xue’an) as men of learning; and that Shidong academy has evolved into a special place honored by Zhu Xi’s prolonged sojourn.

Date post:	22-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rutgers
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Zhu Xi Was Here: Family, Academy, and Local Memory in Later Imperial Dongyang

Documents