Shī shí míng jiě 詩識名解
Identifications and Explanations of the Names in the Classic of Poetry by 姚炳 (Yáo Bǐng, zì Yànhuī 彥暉, fl. early 18th c.)
About the work
A 15-juǎn Shī-natural-history monograph by the early-Qīng Qiántáng scholar Yáo Bǐng. The work continues the tradition of the SānGuó scholar Lù Jī’s 陸璣 Máo Shī cǎo mù chóng yú shū — supplemented and refashioned by the Sòng scholar Cài Biàn’s 蔡卞 Shī xué míng wù chāo — but with a distinctive methodological choice: only four categories are treated, namely birds (niǎo, juǎn 1–3), beasts (shòu, juǎn 4–6), plants (cǎo, juǎn 7–12), and trees (mù, juǎn 13–15). Insects (chóng) and fish (yú) are deliberately excluded, on the basis of Yáo’s literal reading of the Lúnyǔ phrase “duō shí yú niǎo shòu cǎo mù zhī míng” (much knowledge of the names of birds, beasts, plants, and trees).
The Sìkù tíyào registers Yáo’s distinctive interpretive direction:
- Beyond the standard natural-history glossing, Yáo extends his discussion to the inferred zuò shī zhī yì (intent of the poem’s composition) — going slightly beyond the strict míngwù-only mandate of the genre.
- The exclusion of insects and fish is judged overly literal — comparable to Gāosǒu 高叟’s wooden literalism (the Lúnyǔ phrase being a generic illustration, not an exhaustive list).
- Specific weaknesses are noted: the discussion of the lín / qí (the two unicorn-like beasts) — though in the Shuōwén tradition, where xùngǔ is concerned — is acceptable; but the “fènghuáng (phoenix)” entry, where the bird is rarely seen and yet the work continues for several pages discussing its physiological characteristics, is irrelevant to jīng yì (the meaning of the canonical text). Similarly, the bā luán 八鸞 — the “eight harness-bells” of the Shī — being a kind of carriage-bell rather than the luán bird, should not be in the bird-section; if it were placed there, then the fútù 伏兎 (a part of the carriage, not actually a hare) would also have to be in the beast-section.
- These flaws are characterized as “ài qí shì bó” (love-of-the-unusual, taste-for-broad-citation).
The Sìkù conclusion is broadly positive: “kě qǔ zhě duō” (the recoverable material is plentiful); the chaff is to be set aside, the wheat extracted.
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Shī shí míng jiě in 15 juǎn. By the guócháo (Qīng) Yáo Bǐng. Bǐng’s zì Yànhuī, native of Qiántáng. Since the xùn zhuàn (Lù Jī’s commentary) on the duō shí (knowing many things) gloss of the Shī — coming down from the Confucian Gate-and-the-Ěryǎ — xùngǔ and míngwù have been broadly covered. Afterwards the various scholars’ compilations were many, lost over time; only Lù Jī’s commentary still has its compendia and re-editions. Since the Sòng’s Cài Biàn onward, all have used Lù Jī’s book as the basis, with successive supplementation and modification. This work also classifies birds, beasts, plants, trees as the four divisions, whence its name shí míng (recognizing the names).
It differs slightly from the various predecessors in that it occasionally also pursues the textual meaning, taking up the intent of the verse-composition. Yet Confucius’s expression “niǎo shòu cǎo mù” originally embraces the gross categories — like the four-seasons in the histories, where mutual cross-reference among Chūnqiū records is permitted. Yet Bǐng, on account of this single phrase, then does not record insects and fish — unavoidably approaching Gāosǒu’s literalism.
Within the work, kǎozhèng and biàn bó (distinguishing-and-arguing) are often led astray by undisciplined extension. As for the biàn of lín and qí as two creatures — the meaning is fundamentally from the Shuōwén, having relevance to xùngǔ. As for the fènghuáng — a divine creature, rarely seen by the world — to fill piān upon piān arguing the differences in its appearance is irrelevant to the canonical meaning. Further: in the Shī, the bā luán — being part of the bell-genus, not the luán bird’s luán — being placed in the bird-section: then the carriage’s fútù (a piece of the carriage) would also have to be in the beast-section! These are all of the flaw of “ài qí shì bó” (love-of-the-unusual, taste-for-broad-citation).
But examining its overall caliber, what is recoverable is plentiful — properly to be skirted of its chaotic-and-miscellaneous parts and excerpted of its essence-and-glory. Qiánlóng 42 (1777), 8th month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Shī shí míng jiě is one of three substantial early-/mid-Qīng natural-history-of-the-Shī monographs in the Sìkù — alongside Máo Qílíng’s Xù Shī zhuàn niǎo míng juǎn (KR1c0054) and Chén Dàzhāng’s Shī zhuàn míng wù jí lǎn (KR1c0056) — and is followed in the catalog by Gù Dònggāo’s Máo Shī lèi shì (KR1c0060), which extends the míngwù approach into a broader twenty-one-category encyclopaedic treatment. Composition is undatable; the Sìkù collation is Qiánlóng 42 (1777). Yáo Bǐng’s biographical data is sparse: he is a Qiántáng scholar without major office.
The work’s distinctive methodological choice — restricting to niǎoshòucǎomù on the basis of a literal reading of Lúnyǔ — sets it apart from the LùJī tradition (which had covered cǎomùchóngyú) and from later works (which restored the four categories and added more, as Gù Dònggāo’s Lèi shì did). The Sìkù editors’ positive overall verdict — despite their specific objections — places the work in the second tier of the natural-history tradition, useful for kǎo dìng but not authoritative.
Translations and research
No translation. Treated in the standard surveys of Qīng natural-history-of-the-Shī scholarship, e.g. Bao Lǐlì 包麗麗, Qīngdài Shī jīng xué shǐ shuǎngyào (Wén jīn, 2018); for broader natural-history context, Roel Sterckx, The Animal and the Daemon in Early China (SUNY, 2002).