Shī zhuàn Shī shuō bó yì 詩傳詩說駁義
Refutations of the Zǐgòng Shī Tradition and the Shēn Péi Shī Account by 毛奇齡 (Máo Qílíng, zì Dàkě 大可, hào Xīhé 西河, 1623–1716)
About the work
A 5-juǎn polemic monograph by Máo Qílíng targeting two pseudepigraphic Hàn-attributed Shī texts — the Zǐ Gòng Shī zhuàn 子貢詩傳 (the Shī tradition attributed to Zǐ Gòng / Duānmù Cì 端木賜) and the Shēn Péi Shī shuō 申培詩説 (the Shī account attributed to Shēn Péi 申培, the founder of the Lǔ Shī) — both, as Máo demonstrates, fabrications by the mid-Míng (Jiā-jìng-period) Yín-county 鄞縣 scholar Fēng Fǎng 豐坊 (1492 – c. 1563).
Fēng Fǎng’s compositional sequence: he first wrote the Lǔ Shī shì xué 魯詩世學 — claiming new readings beyond the Máo notes; then, anxious that the world would not credit the readings, claimed that they came from his ancestor Fēng Jì 豐稷 (the Sòng official), who had received them from a Lǔ Shī family-tradition. He then forged the two pseudepigrapha — the Zǐ Gòng Shī zhuàn and the Shēn Péi Shī shuō — and inserted them into the Lǔ Shī shì xué as supporting evidence. Subsequently Guō Zǐzhāng 郭子章 (the Wàn-lì-period official) cut the two pseudepigrapha as separate works, claiming to have obtained the bì gé (palace library) stone-rubbing kept by Huáng Zuǒ 黃佐 — and from this point forward the two works circulated independently. By the late Míng, Shī-explanatory works were widely citing the two pseudepigrapha, treating them as Hàn-tradition. Máo’s polemic is to dislodge them: the readings themselves may be retained where useful, but the source-attribution must be exposed.
Máo’s stance — as the Sìkù editors register approvingly — is balanced. He does not argue that the pseudepigraphic readings are wholly worthless (analogous to the Yì zhuàn attributed to Zǐ Xià, or the Shū zhuàn attributed to Kǒng Ānguó: their readings may circulate where useful even though the attribution is fabricated). What he argues is that the origin and transmission of an exegetical tradition must be honestly investigated by the school of shuō jīng — and on each pseudepigraphic claim, Máo logs the precise marker that exposes the forgery. The Sìkù tíyào pronounces this “chí píng zhī lùn” (a balanced and even-handed argument).
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Shī zhuàn Shī shuō bó yì in 5 juǎn. By the guócháo (Qīng) Máo Qílíng. In the Míng Jiājìng period, the Yín-county scholar Fēng Fǎng composed Lǔ Shī shì xué, often putting forth new readings beyond what the old commentaries had said. Fearing the readings would not be believed, he forged the Lǔ Shī tradition that had supposedly been passed down within his family from his distant ancestor Jì — one as the Zǐ Gòng Shī zhuàn, one as the Shēn Péi Shī shuō — appending both to the readings he had composed within the Shì xué. Thereafter Guō Zǐzhāng cut the two as separate works, claiming to have obtained the bì gé stone-edition kept by Huáng Zuǒ. From this point on, the two circulated singly; in the Míng era, Shī-explanatory schools — finding their readings often plausible — adopted them widely; thus they came into common circulation.
Qílíng, being suspicious of their classical-attribution, drew on a wide range of sources to expose them. The Yì zhuàn is attributed to Zǐ Xià; the Shū zhuàn to Kǒng Ānguó: in such cases, what is useful in the readings has of course gone forth into the world, but the source-and-transmission must be investigated thoroughly by the shuō jīng school. This work does not hold that the readings should be discarded; but on the matter of pseudepigraphic attribution, each is exposed in turn. This may indeed be called a balanced and even-handed argument. Qiánlóng 46 (1781), 10th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Shī zhuàn Shī shuō bó yì is Máo Qílíng’s mature polemic monograph against two Míng-period Shī-class pseudepigrapha. The work belongs to the broader Qīng biàn wěi (forgery-exposure) tradition that includes Yán Ruòqú’s 閻若璩 Shàngshū gǔwén shū zhèng 尚書古文疏證 (KR1b0048) and Hú Wèi’s 胡渭 Yì tú míng biàn 易圖明辨 (KR1a0140). The two targeted texts — the Zǐ Gòng Shī zhuàn and the Shēn Péi Shī shuō — were widely cited in late-Míng and early-Qīng Shī commentaries (including Hé Kǎi’s Shī jīng shìběn gǔyì KR1c0041 and others), and Máo’s polemic was decisive in ending their reputation. The pseudepigrapha’s true author, Fēng Fǎng, was a notorious forger of his time — also implicated in fabricated Dà xué and other Confucian-canonical pseudepigraphic compositions.
The Sìkù tíyào’s endorsement of Máo’s argument as “chí píng zhī lùn” (balanced and even-handed) is striking, given Máo’s reputation for polemic excess: the Sìkù editors were elsewhere harsh on his other writings, but on this particular polemic they grant the argument its due. The work has continued to be cited by modern Shī-class scholarship — the consensus that the two texts are Fēng Fǎng forgeries is now standard.
Translations and research
No translation. The work and its conclusions are treated centrally in: Hé Yùmíng 何昱明, Míngdài Shī jīng xuéshǐ lùn; Liú Yǔchén 劉宇宸, Fēng Fǎng Lǔ Shī shì xué yánjiū (modern monograph); the standard Qīng-period polemic surveys. The Fēng Fǎng forgery problem is also treated in the Lǔ Shī shì xué-related scholarship of Bao Lǐlì 包麗麗.
Other points of interest
The work’s importance lies less in Shī-readings per se than in its contribution to the philological infrastructure of the high-Qīng kǎozhèng tradition: by establishing the pseudepigraphic status of the Zǐ Gòng Shī zhuàn and the Shēn Péi Shī shuō, Máo cleared the canonical field for the systematic Hànxué recovery work to come (especially Fàn Jiāxiāng’s Sān jiā Shī shí yí KR1c0062).