Shī jiě yí 詩解頤
Smiles at the Classic of Poetry: An Exposition by 朱善 (Zhū Shàn, zì Bèiwàn 備萬, hào Yīzhāi 一齋, 1314–1385)
About the work
A 4-juǎn early-Míng Shī commentary that breaks with the zhèngyì-style sub-commentary tradition: it does not reproduce the canonical text, listing instead only the chapter titles, and on a number of odes it refrains from comment altogether. Methodologically Zhū Shàn does not engage in xùngǔ on words and phrases; his project is to use the Shī as a vehicle for moral instruction (jiè Shī yǐ lì xùn 借詩以立訓) — drawing out the xìngguānqúnyuàn 興觀羣怨 (“stimulus-observation-fellowship-complaint”) functions of the odes (a Confucius-derived four-fold model from Lúnyǔ), and the wēnróu dūnhòu 溫柔敦厚 (“gentle, mild, sincere, generous”) tone — as the Lǐjì’s “great preface” called the Shī an instrument of moral cultivation. He pursues the xīngshuāi zhìluàn 興衰治亂 (rise and fall, order and disorder) themes back to root causes.
The Sìkù editors are mixed: (1) on Hé bǐ nóng yǐ the work follows Wáng Bǎi’s incorrect transposition (the ode reassigned from Zhào nán to Wáng fēng) — “this is following Wáng Bǎi’s error and unreliable”; (2) on Èr zǐ chéng zhōu Zhū Shàn calls Shòu (Wèi Xuāngōng’s son who died in his half-brother Jí’s place) “tìdì” (good younger brother) and Jí not “xiàozǐ” (filial son) — “applying the [Mencian] dàzhàng zé táo (with a heavy stick, flee) doctrine — strict on the worthy, but actually Shēnshēng hanged himself and the Chūnqiū did not condemn him; in judging the ancients we must not be so harsh.” But on substance the Sìkù editors approve: “in main intent, sober and correct, the speech of a Confucian.” The editors highlight specific kǎozhèng contributions: (1) on Tài Wáng he draws Jīn Lǚxiáng’s argument; (2) on Jié bǐ Nán Shān he uses the 46-year reign of King Xuān to refute Xiàng Ānshì’s identification of Shēnbó / Juéfù / Huángfù / Yǐnshì with the Chūnqiū-period namesakes.
Tiyao
By the Míng Zhū Shàn. Shàn zì Bèiwàn, hào Yīzhāi, of Fēngchéng. In the Hóngwǔ era he rose to Wényuān gé dàxuéshì. His record is in the Míngshǐ with Liú Sānwú. This work does not give the Classic text, only marks chapter titles. Mostly extends Master Zhū’s Jí zhuàn. There are also chapters left without comment, with the title omitted.
His method does not focus on xùngǔ of words and phrases; he aims to borrow the Shī to set instruction. So he goes back and forth, opening up — devoted to manifesting the xīngguānqúnyuàn intent and the wēnróu dūnhòu meaning. On xīngshuāi zhìluàn he traces back to root causes, sharply illuminating. In Classic exposition this is a separate genre, but in practice — beyond what the Confucians who fight over agreement-and-difference do — it has bearing on human affairs.
His view that Hé bǐ nóng yǐ was misedited into Zhào nán by later editors follows Wáng Bǎi’s mistaken account and is unreliable. His view of Èr zǐ chéng zhōu — that Shòu may be called a good younger brother but Jí cannot be called a filial son, judged by the heavy-stick-then-flee text — is strict on the worthy, but actually Shēnshēng hanged himself and the Chūnqiū did not censure him; in judging ancients we must not be so harsh.
But on the main intent, the work returns to honest correctness; it does not fail as the speech of a Confucian. On the Tài Wáng jiǎn Shāng item, he cites Jīn Lǚxiáng to supplement what the Jí zhuàn did not have. He uses King Xuān’s 46-year reign to argue that Jié bǐ Nán Shān’s Shēnbó, Juéfù, Huángfù, Yǐnshì cannot all have been the same long-living men of that day, and refutes Xiàng Ānshì’s account — also at times grounded in evidence. The Míngshǐ records his citation of the past histories to refute the marriage prohibition between gūjiù and liǎngyí (paternal-aunt’s and maternal-aunt’s families), exceptionally well-cited.
So we know his thinking-through of the canon has its discoveries. The Yuán Confucians’ style of solidity — early Míng still preserved it. Not the type of later empty talk and lofty discussion.
Abstract
The Shī jiě yí is the principal early-Míng Shī commentary that explicitly breaks with the zhèngyì-style sub-commentary tradition and treats the Classic of Poetry as moral pedagogy rather than philological investigation. Zhū Shàn’s institutional position — Wényuān gé dàxuéshì under Hóngwǔ — meant the work circulated widely in the early-Míng court reading. The Sìkù editors’ verdict is unusually nuanced: they accept the early-Míng zhèngshí heritage from the Yuán Confucians while flagging the proto-Míng tendencies (Wáng-Bǎi-school text-transposition, Mencian over-strictness on the moral judgement of poems) that they regard as the seeds of later degeneration. Composition is bracketed by Zhū Shàn’s mature Hóngwǔ-era career (1370 onward) to his death (1385).
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in studies of early-Míng jīngxué and the Shī-canon transition: Hé Yùmíng 何宇明, Míngdài Shī jīng xuéshǐ lùn (Shàngwù, 2013); Cài Fāngdé, Zhū Xī jīngxué. The work is briefly noticed in Hok-lam Chan’s chapters on early-Míng intellectual history in the Cambridge History of China vol. 7.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ specific praise of Zhū Shàn’s Míngshǐ-recorded refutation of the marriage prohibition between maternal-cousin lineages — drawing on past histories — is one of the more substantive late-imperial vindications of an early-Míng Confucian as a competent legal-historical scholar, not merely a moralizing commentator.