Liu Fenglu 劉逢祿

LIU Fêng-lu 劉逢祿 (T. 申受, 申甫, H. 思誤居士), July 26, 1776—1829, Sept. 13, scholar and official, was a native of Wu-chin, Chekiang, and a descendant of a distinguished family. His grandfather, Liu Lun [q.v.], and his two uncles, Liu T'u-nan and Liu Yüeh-yün (see under Liu Lun), achieved note in their political careers and for their writings in prose and verse. His father, Liu Chao-yang (see under Liu Lun), was a scholar of wide learning, and his mother, who lived in the years 1744–1808, was a daughter of Chuang Ts'un-yü [q.v.]. She had a good knowledge of the Classics and history and left in manuscript a small collection of poems, entitled 操縵室藁 Ts'ao-man-shih kao.

During his boyhood Liu Fêng-lu was educated both by a tutor and by his mother. When he was eleven and twelve sui he read with his mother the Elegies of Ch'u (Ch'u-tz'ŭ, see under Ch'ên Hung-shou), the Wên-hsüan (see under Wêng Fang-kang), and the prose and verse of T'ang and Sung authors. She remarked that these were the traditional fields of study in her family which her descendants must not forsake. Once when he visited his maternal grandfather, Chuang Ts'un-yü, his fluent answers brought forth the speculation that this boy would be the one who would transmit his grandfather's studies. At twenty-five sui his scholarly reputation paralleled that of Li Chao-lo [q.v.]—the two being known, because of the courtesy-names they had in common, as "The Two Shêns of Ch'ang-chou" (常州二申). Despite this reputation, however, Liu did not obtain the chin-shih degree until 1814 when he was thirty-nine sui. Three years later he received an appointment as a second class secretary in the Board of Ceremonies. In 1824 he became a department director in the same Board and remained there until his death. Though during his twelve years in the Board he sometimes lagged behind in his work, his able interpretation of puzzling problems on the basis of the Classics always threw much light on their solution.

Liu Fêng-lu's interest in the Kung-yang interpretation of the Spring and Autumn Annals, which came to be known as Kung-yang hsüeh 公羊學, came from his reading of the History of the Former Han Dynasty where his attention was drawn to a work of the second century B. C., known as Ch'un-ch'iu fan-lu (see under Liu Wên-ch'i). He found this last-mentioned work very suggestive and one in which he thought the true doctrines of Confucius were treasured. In addition, his attention was called to the 公羊春秋何氏解詁 Kung-yang ch'un-ch'iu Ho-shih chieh-ku, in which Ho Hsiu 何休 (T. 劭公, 129–182 A.D.) revealed his interpretations of the Kung-yang commentary. Liu exerted all his efforts for several months to understand this work until its principles seemed clear to him. His conclusions are embodied in his Kung-yang ch'un-ch'iu Ho-shih shih-li (釋例), 30 p'ien (篇) in 10 chüan, his own preface being dated 1805. To elucidate difficult and doubtful points he produced two other works, one entitled 何氏解詁箋 Ho-shih chieh-ku chien, in 1 chüan; and 答難 Ta-nan, in 2 chüan. In a work entitled 申何難鄭 Shên-Ho nan-Chêng, 4 chüan, Liu compared the Tso and Ku-liang commentaries with the Kung-yang, much to the advantage of the last mentioned. In his as 議禮决獄 I-li chüeh-yü, 4 chüan, he singled out from history many cases which in his opinion violated the principles laid down in the Classics. Next in importance to the Spring and Autumn Annals, he placed the Analects of Confucius (Lun-yü), since for him both works disclosed the hidden meanings of the Master. Seizing upon certain pregnant sentences attributed to Ho Hsiu, he utilized them to exemplify the inner doctrines of Confucius and thus wrote the 論語述何 Lun-yü shu-Ho, 2 p'ien, with a preface dated 1812. Under the title 春秋賞罰格 Ch'un-ch'iu shang-fa ko, 2 chüan, he brought together examples to illustrate Confucius' use of certain terms for purposes of praise and blame. Believing that K'ung Kuang-sên [q.v.] had violated the orthodoxy of the Kung-yang school (不守公羊家法), and knowing that Ch'ien Ta-hsin [q.v.] before him had doubted that fixed principles could be deduced from the Annals, Liu wrote the Chun-ch'iu lun (論), 2 p'ien, giving many reasons why he adhered to the viewpoints of Ho Hsiu.

But his cardinal work on the Tso-chuan, and one that was almost epoch-making, was the 左氏春秋考證 Tso-shih ch'un-ch'iu k'ao-chêng, in 2 chüan. In the first chüan he examines evidence for the belief that Liu Hsin 劉歆 (T. 子駿, d. 23 B.C.) had a hand in its rearrangement; in the second chüan he compares the annotations of various commentators from Han to T'ang times. The Tso-shih ch'un-ch'iu k'ao-chêng was reprinted in 1933, with modern punctuation, in the series 辨僞叢刊 Pien-wei ts'ung-k'an. Liu's comments on the Classic of History, entitled 尚書今古文集解 Shang-shu chin-ku wên chi-chieh, in 30 chüan, were in reality based on two works by Chuang Shu-tsu (see under Chuang Ts'un-yü), known as 書序說義 Shu-hsü shuo-i, 1 chüan, and Shang-shu shou-tu (授讀), 1 chüan. It is evident that he did not credit the authenticity of the 'ancient text' (see under Yen Jo-chü). As for the Preface to the Classic of History, he seems in his Shu-hsü shu-wên (述聞) to accept its authenticity, though on the first page of his Tso-shih ch'un-ch'iu k'ao-chêng he remarks that it may be a forgery of the Eastern Chin period (317–419 A.D.). In his study of the Classic of Changes he was a follower of Chang Hui-yen [q.v.] whose incomplete work on the subject he continued under the title, 易言篇 I-yen pien. Other works by Liu in this field are the following: 易虞氏變動表 I Yü-shih pien-tung piao; 六爻發揮旁通表 Liu-yao fa-hui p'ang-t'ung piao; 卦象陰陽大義 Kua-hsiang yin-yang ta-i; 易象賦 I-hsiang fu; and 卦氣頌 Kua-ch'i sung—each in 1 chüan. His interest in phonetics is exemplified in the 詩聲衍 Shih-shêng-yen, 28 chüan, which probably was not printed. But from the abstract by Ch'ên Ch'ao 陳潮 (T. 東之, H. 1801–1835), which appears in Liu's collected works, it is clear that he attempted to ascertain, by comparative methods, the ancient pronunciations and meanings of characters. His other works on the study of astronomy, mathematics, and geography, and his various anthologies of ancient prose and verse, are indications that his interests were very wide.

Liu Fêng-lu was survived by four sons: Liu Ch'êng-k'uan 劉承寬, a chü-jên of 1816; Liu Ch'êng-hsiang 劉承向, and Liu Ch'êng-shih 劉承實, both students of the Imperial Academy; and Liu Ch'êng-an 劉承安. Another brilliant son, Liu Ch'êng-ch'ung 劉承寵 (1798—1827), who died before his father, left a collection of prose and verse, entitled 麟石詩文鈔 Lin-shih shih-wên ch'ao, in 2 chüan, which is appended to his father's collected works. This last, entitled 劉禮部集 Liu Li-pu chi, in 12 chüan, with a preface written by Wei Yüan [q.v.], was first printed in 1830 by the Liu family.

The achievements of Liu Feng-lu as a scholar are attributable in part to the rich heritage he received from both sides of his family and in part to his contacts with eminent contemporaries, such as Sun Hsing-yen, Tuan Yü-ts'ai, Chang Hui-yen, Li Chao-lo, Yün Ching, Hsü Sung [qq.v.], Ch'ên Huan (see under Wang Hsien), and others. He proposed to Juan Yüan [q.v.] the printing of the (Sung-pên) Shih-san ching chu-shu and the Huang Ch'ing ching-chieh (for both see under Juan Yüan)—two great collectanea for which the public had been waiting for years.

Though Chuang Ts'un-yü was the one who laid the foundations of the so-called modern text (chin-wên 今文) school of classical criticism, he nevertheless credited the authenticity of the 'ancient text' (ku-wên 古文) of the Classic of History whose spuriousness Yen Jo-chü had demonstrated some decades earlier. But Chuang's grandson, Liu Fêng-lu, laid the foundation for a new approach to the Classics and so gave new inspiration to the chin-wên school. He was the first scholar to point out the alleged misuse of the Tso-chuan by Liu Hsin. He believed that the Tso-chuan was originally not a commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals but a separate history whose material was rearranged to form such a commentary. Hence in his opinion, the existing Tso-chuan, officially known as the 春秋左氏傳 Chun-ch'iu Tso-shih chuan, should in reality be called to 左氏春秋 Tso-shih ch'un-ch'iu after the manner of the 晏子春秋 Yen-tzŭ ch'un-ch'iu and the Lü-shih ch'un-ch'iu (see under Liang Yü-shêng)—both independent works of the pre-Han period. He observed that the structure of the Tso-chuan is in some respects similar to that of the Kuo-yü (see under Huang P'ei-lieh) and concluded that it was unjustifiably rearranged to follow the chronological order of the Annals. He implied that Liu Hsin had political reasons for giving supremacy to the Tso-chuan and therefore wished to make it appear as a commentary to the Annals. It remained for the modern scholar, Ts'ui Shih 崔適, in his important 春秋復始 Chun-ch'iu fu-shih, 38 chüan, published in 1918, and in his 史記探源 Shih-chi t'an-yüan, 8 chüan, preface dated 1910; and above all for K'ang Yu-wei (see under T'an Ssŭ-t'ung) to develop the implications of these suggestions to their fullest extent and thus to find in Confucius an adequate sanction for the reforms that modern China was facing. Liu Fêng-lu stressed the study of the Annals because it was the only work that could conceivably have been written by Confucius himself. He favored the Kung-yang commentary above either of the others because it seemed to take him closer to the time of Confucius and because it embodied certain recondite concepts that could be elaborated into a social and political philosophy consonant with the needs of a changing social order. In the hands of his followers his aims became political rather than historical. Such an approach is known to modern Chinese scholars as t'o-ku kai-chih 託古改制, the practice of "finding in antiquity the sanction for present-day changes". This accommodation of ancient thought to modern ideals was in vogue until the close of the dynasty.

[1/488/16b; 2/69/34a; 3/148/36a; 3/420/58a; 5/72/9a; 7/17/12b; 7/35/14b; 13/4/22a; Li Chao-lo [q.v.], Yang-i-chai wên-chi, 14/1; 武進陽湖合志 Wu-chin Yang-hu ho-chih 26/21; Ch'ien Hsüan-t'ung, Ch'ung-yin Liu Fêng-lu T'so-shih ch'un-ch'iu k'ao-chêng shu-hou, 師大學術叢刊 Shih-ta hsüeh-shu ts'ung-k'an, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 25–42; William Hung, "Prolegomena to Index to Ch'un-ch'iu and Commentaries," Historical Annual (史學年報), vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 19–96.]

Fêng Chia-shêng

《清史稿》卷482

劉逢祿，字申受，武進人。祖綸，大學士，諡文定，自有傳。外王父莊存與、舅莊述祖，並以經術名世，逢祿盡傳其學。嘉慶十九年進士，選翰林院庶吉士，散館改禮部主事。二十五年，仁宗大事，逢祿搜集大禮，創為長編，自始事至奉安山陵，典章具備。道光三年，通政司參議盧浙請以尚書湯斌從祀文廟，議者以斌康熙中在上書房獲譴，乾隆中嘗奉駮難之。逢祿攬筆書曰：「后夔典樂，猶有朱、均；呂望陳書，難匡管、蔡。」尚書汪廷珍善而用之，遂奉俞旨。四年，補儀制司主事。越南貢使陳請為其國王母乞人葠，得旨賞給，而諭中有「外夷貢道」之語，其使臣欲請改為「外藩」，部中以詔書難更易。逢祿草牒復之曰：「周官職方王畿之外分九服，夷服去王國七千里，藩服九千里，是藩遠而夷近。說文羌、狄、蠻、貊字皆從物旁，惟夷從大、從弓。考東方大人之國夷，俗仁，仁者壽，有東方不死之國，故孔子欲居之。乾隆間奉上諭申飭四庫館不得改書籍中『夷』字作『彝』，舜東夷之人，文王西夷之人，我朝六合一家，盡去漢、唐以來拘忌嫌疑之陋，使者無得以此為疑。」越南使者遂無辭而退。逢祿在禮部十二年，恆以經義決疑事，為眾所欽服類如此。其為學務通大義，不專章句。由董生春秋闚六藝家法，由六藝求觀聖人之志。嘗謂：「世之言經者，於先漢則古詩毛氏，後漢則今易虞氏，文詞稍為完具。然毛公詳古訓而略微言，虞翻精象變而罕大義，求其知類通達、微顯闡幽者，則公羊在先漢有董生、後漢有何劭公氏、子夏喪服傳有鄭康成氏而已。先漢之學，務乎大體，故董生所傳非章句訓詁之學也。後漢條理精密，要以何劭公、鄭康成氏為宗，然喪服於五禮特其一端。春秋文成數萬，其旨數千，天道浹，人事備，以之貫群經，無往不得其原；以之斷史，可以決天下之疑；以之持身治世，則先王之道可復也。」於是尋其餘貫，正其統紀，為公羊春秋何氏釋例三十篇，又析其疑滯，強其守衛，為箋一卷，答難二卷。又推原穀梁氏、左氏之得失，為申何難鄭四卷。又博徵諸史刑、禮之不中者為儀禮決獄四卷。又推其意為論語述何、夏時經傳箋、中庸崇禮論、漢紀述例各一卷。別有緯略二卷，春秋賞罰格一卷。愍時學者說春秋皆襲宋儒「直書其事、不煩褒貶」之辭，獨孔廣森為公羊通義能抉其蔽，然尚不能信三科、九旨為微言大義所在，乃著春秋論上、下篇以張聖權。又成左氏春秋考證二卷，知者謂與閻、惠之辯古文尚書等。逢祿於易主虞氏，於書匡馬、鄭，於詩初尚毛學，後好三家。有易虞氏變動表、六爻發揮旁通表、卦象陰陽大義、虞氏易言補各一卷。又為易象賦、卦氣頌，提其指要。尚書今古文集解三十卷，書序述聞一卷，詩聲衍二十七卷。所為詩、賦、連珠、論、序、碑、記之文約五十篇。道光九年，卒，年五十有六。弟子潘準、莊繽樹、趙振祈皆從學公羊及禮有名。