Dú Shī sī jì 讀詩私記
Personal Notes on Reading the Classic of Poetry by 李先芳 (Lǐ Xiānfāng, zì Bóchéng 伯承, hào Běishān 北山)
About the work
A 5-juǎn mid-Míng Shī commentary completed in Lóngqìng 4 (1570). (The catalog gives 5 juǎn; the tíyào gives 2 juǎn — one of these is wrong, but the discrepancy is not resolved in the Sìkù note itself.) Methodologically Lǐ Xiānfāng follows the Máo zhuàn and Zhèng jiān primarily; where these are difficult to push through, he draws on Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Dú Shī jì (KR1c0017) and Yán Càn’s Shī jí (KR1c0023). His self-preface frames the project as adjudicating between Zhū Xī (criticized by the Lǐbù-bibliographer Mǎ Duānlín for not finding the xiǎo xù’s reading and accordingly assigning every Xiǎo Yǎ ode to “satire”) and Mǎ Duānlín himself (faulted for not finding Zhū Xī’s reading and assigning every ZhèngWèi ode to “lewdness”). “Whether they were right or wrong, without my own measuring, I adjudicate between them” — the work is therefore explicitly non-partisan.
The Sìkù editors cite illustrative readings:
(1) On Zhèng fēng Zǐ jīn: Lǐ Xiānfāng follows the xù’s “satire of the school’s neglect” reading — not the Sòng-school anti-xù line.
(2) On the GuófēngXiǎo Yǎ ranking: Lǐ Xiānfāng holds that “originally there is no name of biànzhèng (changed-and-correct)” — not the Hàn-school doctrine that Guófēng and Xiǎo Yǎ divide into “zhèng” and “biàn” categories.
(3) On Chǔ cí, Nán shān, and two other Xiǎo Yǎ odes: he records both the xiǎo xù “satire of King Yōu” reading and the Jí zhuàn reading without committing — “the xiǎo xù is hard to push through, the Jí zhuàn’s reading has no ancient evidence — so I leave the doubt.”
The Sìkù editors approve: “the citation is not broad and there are gaps, but the framework is altogether different from the empty hypothetical reading.”
Tiyao
By the Míng Lǐ Xiānfāng. Xiānfāng zì Bóchéng, hào Běishān, of Jiānlì, registered residence Púzhōu. Jìnshì of Jiājìng dīngwèi (1547). Office reached Shàngbǎo sī shàoqīng. The Míngshǐ Wényuàn records Wáng Shìzhēn’s Guǎng wǔ zǐ — Xiānfāng is one. This work was completed in Lóngqìng 4 (1570). His glosses mostly follow Máo and Zhèng; where these don’t go through, he matches with Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Dú Shī jì and Yán Càn’s Shī jí. His own preface says: “Master Wéngōng [Zhū Xī] thought he could not find the xiǎo xù’s reading on the Xiǎo Yǎ and so reduced the whole to satire. Mǎ Duānlín thought Master Wéngōng could not find the readings of Zhèng and Wèi and so reduced the whole to lewdness. Whether they were right or wrong, without measuring myself, I adjudicate between them” — i.e., he doesn’t exclusively side with one school. So his discussion is calm and even, no division of doors.
E.g. on Zhèng Zǐ jīn he still keeps the school-meaning, not taking the Sòng learning. On GuófēngXiǎo Yǎ he says they have no original name of biànzhèng, not following the Hàn account. On Chǔ cí Nán shān and the others four chapters he keeps both the xiǎo xù and Jí zhuàn readings without judgement: the xiǎo xù is hard to push through and the Jí zhuàn has no ancient evidence — so he leaves the doubt.
Although his citation is not broad and at times incomplete, the main outline is wholly different from those who construct readings out of nothing.
Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo records Lǐ Xiānfāng’s Máoshī kǎo zhèng with no juǎn-count, noted “not seen,” and does not record this work. Whether they are one work or two cannot be known. But this work also adjudicates the Máo zhuàn a great deal — perhaps Zhū Yízūn was misinformed and recorded the wrong title.
Abstract
The Dú Shī sī jì is a moderate, non-partisan mid-Míng Shī commentary, well-anchored in the late-Sòng synthesizing tradition (Lǚ Zǔqiān + Yán Càn) and resistant to the dominant Dàquán-via-Liú-Jǐn line. The Sìkù editors evidently approve of its even-handed ode-by-ode method and its willingness to leave doubts unresolved. Composition is precisely datable to 1570 by the self-preface. The work circulated narrowly; Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo did not see it (or confused it with another title).
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in Hé Yùmíng, Míngdài Shī jīng xuéshǐ lùn, where Lǐ Xiānfāng is grouped with the mid-Míng moderate non-Yángmíng commentators (alongside the slightly later Yáo Shùn-mù KR1c0040). Lǐ Xiānfāng’s broader literary reputation as one of the Guǎng wǔ zǐ is treated in studies of the Hòu qī zǐ / Guǎng wǔ zǐ literary circles; e.g. Liào Kèbīn 廖可斌, Fùgǔ pài yǔ Míngdài wénxué sīcháo (Tāiwān: Wén jīn, 1994).
Other points of interest
Lǐ Xiānfāng’s preface — explicitly framing his work as adjudicating between Zhū Xī and Mǎ Duānlín — is one of the more methodologically explicit Míng Shī prefaces and a useful reminder that the late-Míng was already aware of the dispute the Sìkù editors thematize at length.