Dú Shī lüè jì 讀詩略記
Brief Notes on Reading the Classic of Poetry by 朱朝瑛 (Zhū Cháoyīng, zì Měizhī 美之, hào Kāngliú 康流, 1605–1670)
About the work
A late-Míng Shī commentary, transmitted in 6 cè (booklets) — Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo records 2 juǎn, but the Sìkù editors observe that the page count exceeds 2 juǎn; they conjecture that the original was 12 juǎn, the Jīngyì kǎo printer dropped the “shí 十” character in transcription, and a later copyist found the resulting “2 juǎn” too cumbersome and combined into 6 cè. The catalog accordingly preserves the title but records 6 juǎn.
Methodologically Zhū Cháoyīng follows the same SūZhé / xiǎo xù-first-sentence procedure used by Zhāng Cìzhòng (KR1c0042) and by his teacher Huáng Dàozhōu 黃道周 (the Wáng-school martyr executed by the Qīng in 1646). Zhū Cháoyīng’s Lùn xiǎo xù (the work’s prefatory essay) develops a strong defense of the xiǎo xù against the ZhūXī line: drawing on the case of the Liù Yì 六亡詩 (six lost odes whose first lines are preserved), he argues that the first sentence must have existed before the loss, and the rest of the xù after the loss — proving the xiǎo xù’s antiquity. “His view is the same as Chéng Dàchāng’s KR1c0014 but his explanation is even more clear and able to settle a thousand-year doubt.”
Substantive readings preserved by the Sìkù editors:
(1) On Chǔ cí (Xiǎo Yǎ) — Zhū Cháoyīng reads it as satirizing King Yōu, drawing on a Xún zǐ citation showing it followed Gǔ zhōng in the original sequence; or alternatively that King Yōu still favored ancient music, and that wise shìdàfū recited the old virtue in the YǎNán tone to gǎndǎo (move and instruct) the king’s heart.
(2) On Yì (Dà Yǎ) — he reads as satirizing King Lì, drawing on the third stanza’s qí zài yú jīn (“at this present”), and dating the composition to Wèi Wǔgōng’s youth.
(3) On Shēng mín (Dà Yǎ) — he holds Jiāngyuán’s jù jì (giant footprint) literally cannot be true, and looks for the reason for qì zhī (abandoning the child) without finding it; he then drags in the post-Hàn lǜtī fāngdǐ (an obscure later legend) to support — which the Sìkù editors fault as fùhuì (forced match).
(4) Zhū Cháoyīng also frequently cites the Zhú shū jìnián — which the Sìkù editors fault: “this also runs against the shuōjīng (Classic-explication) form.”
The Sìkù editors’ verdict is that the work agrees with received exegesis on five-or-six tenths and disagrees on two-or-three tenths — i.e. mostly compatible.
The author’s Lùn wěi Shī zhuàn (the work’s last preface essay) is a substantial polemic against the Zǐ Gòng zhuàn / Shēnpéi shuō — early-Míng forgeries circulated in the Jiājìng period — that places Lǔ sòng under Lǔ fēng, takes Dìng zhī fāng zhōng as Lǔ Xígōng’s ode and titles it Chǔ gōng, etc. Zhū Cháoyīng dismantles the Chǔ gōng identification through Zuǒzhuàn / Chūnqiū internal evidence — one of the most sustained Míng-period rebuttals of these forgeries.
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Dú Shī lüè jì 6 juǎn, by the Míng Zhū Cháoyīng. Cháoyīng has Dú Yì lüè jì, already catalogued. This work — Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo makes it 2 juǎn; this copy in 6 cè, the old not dividing the juǎn count, the page-count is more than 2 juǎn; we suspect the original work was 12 juǎn, the printing erred-dropping the shí character; the later copyist, troubled by the bulk, combined into 6 cè. Cháoyīng on the Shī takes the first sentence of the xiǎo xù as principal. He says: of the lost six odes, only the first sentences remain — so the first sentence was made before the loss, the rest made after the loss, evident. His view is the same as Chéng Dàchāng’s, but his exposition compared to Chéng’s is even more clear and adequate to decide a thousand-year doubt. However in his xùn shì he does not greatly differ from Master Zhū. Apart from rejecting the Jí zhuàn’s ZhèngWèi “lewd flight” reading, on others where he disagrees, he mostly zhēnzhuó (weighs and balances) to break to the middle. E.g. on Chǔ cí as a satire-of-Yōu ode: drawing on Xún zǐ, he places it just after Gǔ zhōng in the original sequence; perhaps King Yōu still favored ancient music, so the wise shìdàfū recited the old virtue in YǎNán and played it, to gǎndǎo the king’s intent. Or on Yì as a satire-of-Lì ode: drawing on the third stanza’s qí zài yú jīn, he assigns to Wèi Wǔgōng’s youth. On the whole all are cānjī róngguàn (cross-checking and synthesizing), aiming for balance. His [view] that Jiāngyuán’s giant footprint in Shēng mín cannot be believed is the older Confucian view; but seeking the reason for abandonment and not finding it, he drags in lǜtī fāngdǐ — fùhuì (forced match). Also he favors the Zhú shū jìnián and frequently cites it — this also runs against Classic-exposition form. But on the whole, what disagrees is two-or-three tenths, what agrees is five-or-six tenths. Qiánlóng 44 (1779), 7th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Dú Shī lüè jì is a representative late-Míng Shī commentary in the Wáng-school’s reformed (and more specifically Huáng Dàozhōu / Hǎiníng-region) tradition. Methodologically it combines the moderate-eclectic procedure of taking the xiǎo xù’s first sentence as the lemma with the kǎozhèng-school willingness to dismantle later forgeries (Zǐ Gòng zhuàn, Shēnpéi shuō) and to bring evidentiary apparatus (Xún zǐ, Zuǒ zhuàn, Chūnqiū) to bear. The work’s defense of the antiquity of the xiǎo xù — by analogy from the six lost odes — is compelling and was praised by the Sìkù editors. Composition is bracketed by Zhū Cháoyīng’s mature post-1640 career to his death in 1670; the original juǎn count was probably 12, transmitted as 6 cè. Note on dates: although Zhū Cháoyīng died in 1670 (Qīng), the catalog meta classifies him as Míng on the basis of his refusal to serve under the Qīng.
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in Lín Qìngzhāng 林慶彰, ed., Míng-Qīng zhī jì jīngxué yánjiū (Tāiběi: Xué shēng, 1996), pp. 132–55. Zhū Cháoyīng’s broader Lüè jì series is studied in Hé Yùmíng, Míngdài Shī jīng xuéshǐ lùn, ch. 8.
Other points of interest
The “1 → 12 juǎn → 6 cè via dropped 十-character” reconstruction of the work’s transmission is one of the more interesting Sìkù bibliographic detective-stories: the editors infer the original juǎn count from page-count rather than accepting Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo figure, demonstrating the kind of careful philological scrutiny they applied to received bibliographic data.