Dài xuān Shī jì 待軒詩記
Notes on the Classic of Poetry from the Hall of Waiting by 張次仲 (Zhāng Cìzhòng, zì Yuánhù 元岵, 1589–1676)
About the work
An 8-juǎn late-Míng / early-Qīng Shī commentary by the Hǎiníng Míng-loyalist Zhāng Cìzhòng. The structure: prefaced by 2 zǒnglùn (general discussions); the Guófēng organized one guó (state) per piān; the Èr Yǎ and Zhōu sòng one shí (decade) per piān; the Lǔ sòng and Shāng sòng each their own piān. Methodologically the work follows Sū Zhé’s Shī zhuàn (KR1c0006) procedure: take the first sentence of the xiǎo xù as the lemma, then synthesize from multiple commentators (jiān cǎi zhū jiā yǐ huìtōng zhī).
The Sìkù editors’ principal characterization is doctrinal: this work occupies a calm middle position in the late-Míng Shī-canon school disputes. Unlike Máo Qíling 毛奇齡 (the early-Qīng anti-Zhū-school polemicist who attacks the Jí zhuàn “character by character”), Zhāng Cìzhòng does not turn Zhū Xī into an enemy state. Unlike Sūn Chéngzé 孫承澤 (the early-Qīng pro-Zhū-school zealot whose Shī jīng Zhū zhuàn yì’s self-preface declares Wáng Bì’s “scrambling of the Yì” a crime deeper than Jié or Zhòu, and Máo’s crime not below Wáng Bì’s), Zhāng does not turn Máo Cháng into a criminal. The Sìkù editors approve: “his treatment is calm and even, dissolving the doors-and-walls of factional view; though sometimes from his own conjecture he tips into private speculation, on the whole his citation is clear and his words have evidence — among recent canonical commentaries, this is still substantial.”
The work originally included a Shùyí 述遺 in 1 juǎn (a planned supplement listed under sì kè 嗣刻 — “for later printing”), but this was never produced. The Sìkù editors accordingly drop it from the mùlù: “we cut its title and do not list it speciously.”
The author’s self-preface (Dài xuān Shī jì zì xù) records that he worked on the project for “nearly twenty years” in the Lóngwǔ / Qīng-transition crisis, drafted “eight or nine times” before letting his grandsons send it to the printer; he frames the project as the labor of an aged-and-retired scholar, content if his work could “serve as a witness for canonical learning by even a few rows or sentences” against future readers.
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Dài xuān Shī jì 8 juǎn, by the Míng Zhāng Cìzhòng. Cìzhòng has Zhōuyì wàn cí kùn xué jì, already catalogued. This work is preceded by 2 zǒnglùn; the rest takes one guó per piān for the Guófēng; one shí per piān for the Èr Yǎ and Zhōu sòng; the Lǔ sòng and Shāng sòng each their own piān. The general procedure follows Sū Zhé’s pattern, taking the first sentence of the xiǎo xù as base and synthesizing from multiple commentators. With respect to the Jí zhuàn: not like Máo Qíling who attacks character by character treating Master Zhū as enemy state; not like Sūn Chéngzé who fawns character by character making Máo Cháng the criminal. (Note: Sūn Chéngzé’s Shī jīng Zhū zhuàn yì self-preface says “Wáng Bì scrambled the Yì, his crime is deeper than JiéZhòu; the crime of Máo is also not below Wáng Bì’s.“) So his treatment is calm and even, dissolving doors-and-walls of view; though sometimes self-mind-conjecture cannot avoid private speculation, on the whole his citation is detailed and clear, his words mostly have evidence; among recent canonical commentaries, still substantial. End-of-volume there was a Shùyí 1 juǎn — title listed but no text, marked “for later printing” — apparently planned but unfinished. We accordingly delete the title, not listing it speciously. Qiánlóng 46 (1781), 10th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Dài xuān Shī jì is the principal late-Míng / early-Qīng Shī commentary in the moderate Hǎiníng-tradition position — non-partisan between Hàn and Sòng schools, neither of the early-Qīng anti-Zhū polemics (Máo Qíling) nor the pro-Zhū fanaticisms (Sūn Chéngzé). Its structural innovation is the one-state-per-piān / one-shí-per-piān organization, replacing the conventional ode-by-ode procedure with a clearer visual unit. Composition is bracketed by the work’s twenty-year drafting period, completed in retirement after the 1644 transition; the WYG version was submitted by the editors in 1781. Note: Zhāng Cìzhòng’s death in 1676 places him chronologically with the early Qīng, and the Sìkù guócháo / “present dynasty” classification would normally apply, but the catalog meta classifies him as Míng on the basis of his refusal to serve and his Míng-loyalist identification.
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in studies of late-Míng Hǎiníng jīngxué: Wú Tài 吳汰, Hǎiníng Zhāng-shì jīngxué jiā zhuàn (Bĕijīng: Wén jīn, 2012). Zhāng Cìzhòng’s Yì and Shī work is studied jointly in Lín Qìngzhāng 林慶彰, ed., Míng-Qīng zhī jì jīngxué yánjiū (Tāiběi: Xué shēng, 1996), pp. 156–82.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ explicit triangulation between Máo Qíling and Sūn Chéngzé in the tíyào is unusually pointed: it sketches the early-Qīng Shī-canon dispute as having two extreme wings (the anti-Zhū / Hàn-school fundamentalists exemplified by Máo, and the pro-Zhū / Sòng-school fundamentalists exemplified by Sūn) with Zhāng Cìzhòng as the moderate middle. Sūn Chéngzé’s preface — that Máo Cháng’s crime is not below Wáng Bì’s — is the kind of statement the Sìkù editors specifically wanted to censure, and the tíyào records it verbatim within parentheses to demonstrate the extreme. This makes the Dài xuān Shī jì’s tíyào one of the more methodologically self-conscious in the Míng / early-Qīng Shī-class.