Shī jīng bài shū 詩經稗疏
Weed-pulling Notes on the Classic of Poetry by 王夫之 (Wáng Fūzhī, 1619–1692)
About the work
A 4-juǎn philological-and-natural-history notebook on the Shī by the early-Qīng Míng-loyalist Wáng Fūzhī, continuous in genre and method with his Zhōuyì bài shū 周易稗疏 (KR1a0120). The work is not a verse-by-verse commentary; it is a series of focused kǎozhèng notes that “weed out” — bài 稗 = the weeds in a Shī paddy — readings the author finds untenable in Máo zhuàn, Zhèng jiān, and Zhū Xī’s Jí zhuàn. The end of juǎn 4 carries an appended Kǎo yì 考異 (Textual Variants) and a Yè yùn biàn 叶韻辨 (On Rhyme-Tuning). The Sìkù editors deliberately excised a final section of Shī yì 詩譯 (Versified Renderings of the Shī) — described as resembling the late-Míng Jìng-líng-school shī huà of Zhōng Xīng — judging it incompatible with the philological dignity of the rest.
The contributions are distributed across natural-history, geography, vocabulary, ritual, and prosody:
- Geography: Following Shǐjì, the Zhōu nán / Shào nán distinction is geographic — Shǎnzhōu 陜州 as the central line, with Zhōunán being the territory under the Duke of Zhōu’s administration to the south.
- Birds: Jū jiū 雎鳩 is a mountain bird, not an aquatic; què jiǎo 雀角 = a beak (and the Shī line means the sparrow really has a “horn”, just as the rat really has teeth).
- Beasts: “九十其犉” should be glossed by Ěryǎ “qī chǐ yuē chún” (a bovine seven chǐ tall = chún), not by Máo’s “yellow ox with black lips”; xīnggāng 騂剛 = gāng 犅 read as the spine of an ox.
- Plants: lóu 蔞 is a kind of reed, not the lóuhāo; wēi 薇 by itself is edible, not the inedible jué 蕨; pǔ 樸 in the Shī = modern zuò 柞, zuò = modern lì 櫟, and the zhēn 榛 of the bird-coast verses ≠ the zhēn lì 榛栗 of the chestnut verses.
- Insects: sī zhōng 斯螽, suō jī 莎雞, and xī shuài 蟋蟀 are three distinct insects, not seasonal aliases of one species.
- Fish: zhān 鱣 = carp; Zhū Xī’s Jí zhuàn errs in glossing it as the yellow fish.
- Rites: gōngtáng chēng gōng 公堂稱觥 (the goblet-presentation in the Shī) is from a regular drinking-rite (the introductory clause), not — as Zhū Xī read it — from the Duke of Bīn’s hall; guàn jiāng 祼將 means libation to the descended spirit, identical in sense with diàn 奠.
The Sìkù editors register reservations on Wáng’s reading of “祺嗟” as referring to Lǔ Zhuānggōng witnessing the Qí guān shè and on his Shēng mín exegesis (linking Jiāng Yuán to Dì Kù 帝摯’s consort and Hòu Jì to Dì Kù’s son — a reading they note has no canonical historical support and conflicts with the Lǐjì 祭法 statement on the dì 禘 sacrifices).
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Shī jīng bài shū in 4 juǎn. By the guócháo (Qīng) Wáng Fūzhī. Fūzhī has the Zhōuyì bài shū, separately catalogued. This work likewise distinguishes and rectifies míngwù xùngǔ, supplementing what Máo zhuàn, Zhèng jiān, and the various other commentaries left aside.
For instance, the Shī pǔ says: “those who received the transformation of the Sage are called Zhōunán; those who received the transformation of the Worthy are called Shàonán”. This work follows the Shǐjì, taking Luòyáng as the term for ZhōuShào, and Shǎnzhōu as the central line dividing south, so that Zhōunán is the southern country administered by the Duke of Zhōu — corroborated by geography, this also offers a fresh reading.
For birds, he distinguishes jū jiū as a mountain bird, not an aquatic. The jiǎo of què jiǎo = the beak; the Shī’s sense is that the sparrow really does have a horn, just as the rat really does have teeth. For beasts, he holds that “九十其犉” should be glossed by the Ěryǎ’s “seven chǐ tall = chún”, not by “yellow ox with black lips”; xīnggāng — gāng read 犅 — refers to the ox’s spine. For plants, he distinguishes lóu as a kind of reed, not the inedible lóu hāo; wēi by itself is edible, not the inedible jué. For trees, he distinguishes that the Shī’s pǔ = the present-day zuò, zuò = the present-day lì; the zhēn / kǔ of the zhēn — that zhēn is = the Shī’s liè 栵 — is not the zhēn of zhēn lì. For insects, he distinguishes sī zhōng, suō jī, and xī shuài as three separate species, not seasonal aliases. Guǒ luǒ (mason wasp) takes míng líng (caterpillar) as food for its young — not, as the legend would have it, adopting them as its children. For fishes, he distinguishes zhān = carp — Jí zhuàn errs in glossing as the yellow fish; wěi 鮪 resembles a carp — Jí zhuàn errs in glossing as a sturgeon. For implements, he distinguishes that Jí zhuàn’s gloss of zhòng jiào 重較 as “the two side-rails projecting upward over the cross-bar” misunderstands the chariot system, and Máo zhuàn’s gloss of mù 楘 as lì lù 厯録 — and the Jí zhuàn’s addition of a “rán 然” character — lì lù being in fact the name for the criss-cross binding of a spinning-wheel, hence the Jí zhuàn’s gloss is a one-character corruption. For ritual institutions, he distinguishes gōngtáng chēng gōng as a drinking-rite of the introductory clause, not — as Jí zhuàn claims — of the Duke of Bīn’s hall; the gloss of guàn jiāng as libation = parallel with diàn 奠 in sense — running through, this critiques the Bái hǔ tōng’s “libation upon the ground summons the descended spirit” reading as erroneous. All these claims are firmly grounded in evidence, not arbitrary judgment.
His reading of “qí jiē” 猗嗟 as composed under Lǔ Zhuānggōng, on the occasion of Lǔ’s visit to Qí to view the guān shè — referring to Zhuānggōng’s marriage to Āi Jiāng — uses the Ěryǎ gloss “the husband of one’s elder/younger sister = shēng” to elucidate the shēng character. His reading of “wú yī” 無衣 as composed under Qín Āigōng, with the term wáng referring to Chǔ’s usurped title, also makes good sense. Only his treatments of Qí ào 淇澳 as two river-names, of lǜ zhú 緑竹 as two plant-names, of “gě jù wǔ liǎng” 葛屨五兩 with wǔ read as 伍 in the sense of “ranks”, of mù guā / mù táo / mù lǐ 木瓜木桃木李 as carved-wood objects, of jǐn / tú 堇荼 with tú read as 塗 (clay, soaked-fodder), of fèng zhāng 奉璋 with zhāng read as the yá zhāng — connecting it to “the six armies” in the following line — all unavoidably approach forced reading. As for the Shēng mín chapter: holding Jiāng Yuán to be Dì Zhì’s consort, Hòu Jì Dì Zhì’s son, and “the level forest” as Dì Zhì’s vassal-lordling territory, deriving the abandonment of Hòu Jì from the suspicion of being deposed-and-Yáo-installed, taking bù kāng bù níng as referring to the actual circumstances of that day — leaving aside that the chronicles have no clear text on this, it also contradicts the Jì fǎ 祭法 doctrine that dì honored Kù and jiāo honored Jì.
The end of the four juǎn appends a Kǎo yì — though not exhaustive, sufficient as evidentiary material; and a Yè yùn biàn, of clear and far-reaching argument, sufficient to dissolve the tangles of the various schools. Only its tag-on of several Shī yì (versified renderings) — close in style to shī huà — apparently still preserving the residual flavor of [Zhōng] Xīng [Zhōngxīng]‘s Jìnglíng school’s Píngpú guófēng (criticism of the Guó fēng) — could not but pollute his book. We have specifically excised these so as to correct that fault. Qiánlóng 44 (1779), 7th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The work belongs to Wáng Fūzhī’s bài shū genre — a kǎozhèng-style philological notebook continuous with his Zhōuyì bài shū (KR1a0120) and Shàngshū bài shū (KR1b0047). All three are products of his decades of seclusion at Mount Chuán 船山 in Héngyáng 衡陽 (Húguǎng 湖廣 — modern Húnán 湖南) following the collapse of the Southern Míng. Composition is not precisely datable but falls within the mature seclusion period (mid-Shùnzhì to Kāngxī — c. 1650 to 1692, the year of his death). The Sìkù editors’ verdict is broadly positive — the philological work on míngwù, animals, trees, and ritual institutions is “què yǒu yī jù bù wéi yì duàn” (firmly grounded, not arbitrary) — but they record specific reservations on his geographic and ritual readings of certain verses (notably Qí ào, Shēng mín, and the guǒluǒ / mínglíng identification), and they have systematically deleted his concluding Shī yì (versified renderings) as in poor taste.
In the Qīng Shī-class Sìkù, the Shī jīng bài shū sits beside the slightly later Bài shū of KR1c0048 Shī jīng tōng yì (Zhū Hèlíng) and KR1c0049 Máo Shī jī gǔ biān (Chén Qǐyuán) as the third major early-Qīng Hànxué Shī commentary — though where Zhū and Chén’s collaboration produced systematic verse-by-verse re-engagement, Wáng’s contribution is a focused notebook of lexical and natural-history corrections produced in greater isolation. The work was not a major polemical event in the early-Qīng Shī studies world — its broad influence came only with the late-Qīng / early-Republican rediscovery of Wáng Fūzhī’s complete corpus.
Translations and research
No translation. The work is treated in the standard Chinese surveys of Qīng Shī studies (Hé Yùmíng 何昱明, Míng-Qīng zhī jì jīngxué yánjiū, etc.). For Wáng Fūzhī’s Shī studies more broadly, see also Stephen Owen, Readings in Chinese Literary Thought (Harvard, 1992), pp. 451–91, on Wáng’s Shī yì 詩繹 (a separate work, the philosophical-aesthetic commentary on the Shī; the Bài shū is the philological complement).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ decision to excise a portion of the original work — silently retitling and re-issuing what they considered the philologically dignified portion — is unusually candid in this tíyào (most of the Sìkù editorial intervention happens silently). Their judgment that the Shī yì tag-on resembled Zhōng Xīng’s Jìnglíngpài Guó fēng criticism — i.e., the late-Míng poetry-critical xìnglíng style — registers the precise stylistic distance the Sìkù editors wanted between kǎozhèng and shī huà.