Xù Lǚshì jiāshú dú Shī jì 續呂氏家塾讀詩記
Continuation of Mr. Lǚ’s Family-School Notes on Reading the Classic of Poetry by 戴溪 (Dài Xī, zì Xiàowàng 肖望 / Shàowàng 少望, fl. 1178–1215)
About the work
A 3-juǎn supplement to Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Lǚshì jiāshú dú Shī jì (KR1c0017). The original was lost; the Sìkù editors recovered roughly seven or eight tenths from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn, restored the 3-juǎn organization, and noted that the Shī-rhyme volume of the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn is unusually mutilated, so that the original prefatory matter could not be recovered. Methodologically Dài Xī took Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Dú Shī jì as a benchmark on míngwù xùngǔ but felt that Lǚ had inadequately treated the inner significance and lyric overtones (piān nèi wēi zhǐ, cí wài jì tuō 篇內微旨，詞外寄託) of each ode. The Xù jì fills that gap. Despite the title, it is not a slavish continuation: Dài Xī silently parts company with the xù on several odes (e.g. taking Biāo méi 標梅 as a parents’ search for a son-in-law rather than the xù’s “the way of the man and woman is in time”; Yǒu hú 有狐 as the people pitying a widower; Gāntáng 甘棠 as not the reception of legal complaints; Xíng lù 行露 as not against forced marriage) and produces a more philologically careful xù-independent reading than Lǚ Zǔqiān himself did. Chén Zhènsūn already noted that “the general intent does not much follow the small preface,” but the Sìkù editors take care to distinguish Dài Xī from the polemicists: he reads “with calm mind, exploring what the poet meant,” not “starting with prejudice and seeking to demolish Máo and Zhèng.”
Tiyao
Dài Xī’s continuation of Lǚ Zǔqiān’s book. Xī, of Yǒngjiā 永嘉, was first in the biétóu shěngshì (subsidiary metropolitan) examination in Chúnxī 5 (1178); he rose through office to Gōngbù shàngshū and Wénhuá gé xuéshì, and at death was given the posthumous title Duānmíng diàn xuéshì. Under Lǐzōng’s Shàodìng era he was bestowed the posthumous name Wénduān. His record is in the Sòngshǐ Rúlín zhuàn, where his zì is given as Xiàowàng 肖望; Huáng Zhèn’s Rìchāo agrees. But Shěn Guāng’s preface to Dài Xī’s Chūnqiū jiǎngyì gives Shàowàng 少望. Huáng Zhèn was a contemporary of Dài Xī; he should not be wrong. Dài Xī’s son Jué requested Shěn Guāng’s preface when reprinting his father’s posthumous works; he should not be wrong either. Perhaps Dài Xī had two zì.
Dài Xī, finding that the Lǚshì jiāshú dú Shī jì takes the Máo zhuàn as primary and adjudicates among the schools, with the names-things-and-philological-glosses very thoroughly given, but with the inner significance of each ode and the lyric extra-meaning sometimes not fully threaded, made this work to supplement it. So the title is “continuation”; in substance he is putting forward his own readings, not slavishly defending Lǚ. So for example Biāo méi he takes as parents seeking a son-in-law; Yǒu hú as the people grieving for a widower; Gāntáng as not the receiving of complaints; Xíng lù as not against the encroaching. The Shū lù jiětí says “his main intent does not much take the small preface as primary.” Yet he reads with a calm temper, working out the Shī poet’s intent — different from those who, with prejudice already in place, set out to attack Máo and Zhèng. The Wēnzhōu zhì says: “Dài Xī was plain, modest, simple — sought the inner mind of the sages, not new-and-novel for its own sake; understanders deferred to him for his sense of measure.” This work shows the same.
The original 3 juǎn has long been lost. From the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn we have got back about seven or eight in ten. We have collated and reset as 3 juǎn. The Shī rhyme of the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn has unusually heavy missing volumes; the original preface and general outline could not be recovered, so we leave them out.
Abstract
The Xù dú Shī jì is a relatively short but exegetically distinctive Southern-Sòng Shī commentary that occupies the territory between the pro-xù line of Lǚ Zǔqiān (whose Dú Shī jì it overtly extends) and the anti-xù line of Zhū Xī (whose final Jí zhuàn it does not engage with by name). Dài Xī reads each ode for its emotional and lyric content, abandons the xù where the wording will not bear it, and otherwise treats the xù as one piece of evidence among many. Composition postdates Lǚ Zǔqiān’s death (1181) and predates Dài Xī’s own death (per CBDB and the Sòngshǐ Rúlín zhuàn; lifedates given as fl. 1178–1215). The work was lost in late-Yuán / early-Míng and is preserved here only through Yǒnglè dàdiǎn recovery. Its principal interest in modern Sòng-Shī historiography is as evidence that the apparent late-twelfth-century polarization was not as complete as the xù / jí zhuàn binary suggests: there was a substantial moderate position represented by Dài Xī and his Yǒngjiā colleagues.
Translations and research
No translation. Treated briefly in Mǐn Zéwǎng, Běi-Sòng Shī xué chuánshì kǎo; cited in modern surveys of the Yǒngjiā school’s contribution to Southern-Sòng classical learning. Dài Xī’s broader oeuvre — including a Chūnqiū jiǎngyì, a Lǚnyǔ jiěshuō, and a substantial collected works — has been the subject of dedicated study by Yǒngjiā scholars (Tāng Xiàoxīng 湯小型, Dài Xī yánjiū, Wén jīn, 2007).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ note that Dài Xī had two distinct zì (Xiàowàng and Shàowàng) — preserved by Huáng Zhèn / Sòngshǐ on one side and Shěn Guāng / Dài Jué (the son) on the other — is a small but well-documented case of competing zì attestation that the editors decline to resolve.