Chóngdìng Shī jīng yíwèn 重訂詩經疑問
Revised Questions on the Classic of Poetry by 姚舜牧 (Yáo Shùnmù, zì Yúzuǒ 虞佐, hào Chéng’ān 承庵, 1543–1627)
About the work
A 12-juǎn late-Míng Shī commentary, the revised version of an earlier work that Yáo Shùnmù pursued “for several decades.” Methodologically the work draws on both Máo zhuàn and Zhū Xī’s Jí zhuàn, plus Yán Càn’s Shī jí (KR1c0023), with frequent independent judgement. The original preface (in the WYG copy) is dated Wànlì xīnhài (1611), the Chóngdìng (revised) version is later — Yáo Shùnmù died in 1627.
The Sìkù editors single out characteristic readings:
(1) On Chéngwáng and the Duke of Zhōu’s ritual prerogatives: Yáo Shùnmù argues that Chéngwáng never bestowed tiānzǐ lǐyuè (Son-of-Heaven ritual and music) on the Duke of Zhōu — the standard reading. The Sìkù editors approve: “this view is not without insight.”
(2) On the sān jīng sān wěi 三經三緯 doctrine (i.e. fēngyǎsòng as the three jīng, fùbǐxìng as the three wěi, the Hàn-school structural framework): Yáo Shùnmù holds that fù, bǐ, and xìng are tōngróng qǔyì (mutually-flexible meaning-takings) — not mutually exclusive labels for distinct ode-types. “It is not that you sharply say this is fù, this is bǐ, this is xìng; only when sharply divided into three, when the reading does not work, you then have to say fù-and-also-xìng-and-also-bǐ, fù-and-also-bǐ-and-also-xìng, and the meaning gradually slips away.” The Sìkù editors approve: “this argument is enough to dissolve the snarled disputes.”
The Sìkù editors also note Yáo Shùnmù’s chief defect: he does not believe in the principle that ancient texts use few jiǎjiè (loan-character) substitutions and so reads every character literally — e.g. on lóng guāng 龍光 and bàn huàn 伴奐, where he forces a literal reading and concocts disputes that the jiǎjiè tradition would dissolve. “This is the result of post-LóngWàn (post-1567) Confucians’ shortage of exposure to ancient books. It also shows: when the gǔxùn (philology) is unclear, wanting the yìlǐ not to be wrong is impossible.” This is one of the editors’ more sharply philological-historical comments in the Míng-class tíyào.
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Shī jīng yíwèn 12 juǎn, by the Míng Yáo Shùnmù. Shùnmù has Yìjīng yíwèn, already catalogued. This volume’s exposition of the Shī uses both Máo’s zhuàn and Zhū’s zhuàn, and Yán Càn’s Shī jí, with occasional fresh discussions of his own. E.g. arguing that Chéngwáng never bestowed Son-of-Heaven ritual-and-music on the Duke of Zhōu — that view is not without insight. Or his discussion of the three-jīng-three-wěi theory: he holds that fù, bǐ, xìng are taking-meaning by mutual flexibility, not sharply this-is-fù-this-is-bǐ-this-is-xìng — only by sharply dividing into three, when the reading does not work, you have to say fù-and-also-xìng-and-also-bǐ, fù-and-also-bǐ-and-also-xìng — and the meaning gradually slips away. This argument is enough to dissolve the snarled disputes. Shùnmù has the Yíwèn on every canon, but only this Shī-volume is comparatively the best. The self-preface says: my doubts have lasted several decades, and I have re-pursued the questions; previously erroneous readings I have urgently corrected — for he applied himself with comparative depth. Only that he does not believe the ancients-used-few-loan-characters argument, on items like lóng guāng and bàn huàn directly reading them as the original characters and forcing disputes — this is post-LóngWàn Confucians’ shortage of exposure to ancient books, also enough to show that when gǔxùn is not clear, wanting the yìlǐ not to be wrong is impossible. Qiánlóng 45 (1780), 5th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Chóngdìng Shī jīng yíwèn is a representative late-Míng Shī commentary in the moderate-eclectic mode, drawing on both Hàn (Máo-Zhèng) and Sòng (Jí zhuàn) sources without partisan commitment. Its principal substantive contribution is the fùbǐxìng dissolution argument — that the three rhetorical figures are not mutually exclusive ode-categories but interlocking meaning-strategies — which anticipates Qīng poetics (e.g. Zhāng Xuéchéng’s analogous treatment in Wénshǐ tōngyì). The work’s principal flaw is its post-1567 character-fundamentalist reading of every locus, refusing the jiǎjiè principle. Composition: the original preface is dated Wànlì xīnhài (1611); the revised version is later but before Yáo Shùnmù’s 1627 death — bracketed accordingly.
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in studies of late-Míng eclectic Shī commentary: Hé Yùmíng, Míngdài Shī jīng xuéshǐ lùn. On the fù-bǐ-xìng tradition more broadly, see Pauline Yu, The Reading of Imagery in the Chinese Poetic Tradition (Princeton, 1987). Yáo Shùnmù’s broader yíwèn series is treated in Lín Qìzhāng 林啟彰, Míngdài jīngxué yánjiū (Tāiběi: Wén jīn, 2002).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ parenthetical observation — “post-LóngWàn (1567 onward) Confucians’ shortage of exposure to ancient books” — is a notable diagnosis of the late-Míng kǎozhèng deficit, attributing the period’s philological weakness specifically to access-to-sources rather than to ideological commitment. This is a useful contrast with the editors’ standard critique of the late-Míng Wáng-school as ideologically anti-philological.