Shī shuō 詩說
An Account of the Classic of Poetry by 惠周惕 (Huì Zhōutī, zì Yuánlóng 元龍, d. 1696)
About the work
A 3-juǎn Shī-class monograph by the Chángzhōu Confucian classical scholar Huì Zhōutī — the founder of the famous Chángzhōu Huì shì family tradition of Hànxué classical learning. Composition is dated by the catalog meta to 1691 — the year of his jìnshì and selection as shùjíshì, on which the title page also relies. He died in Kāngxī 35 (1696), giving the firmest dating bracket as 1691–1696.
Methodologically the work is non-aligned: rather than committing to MáoZhèng, Sòng Jí zhuàn, or any single school, Huì argues each point on its own evidentiary merit (“duō zì yǐ jǐ yì kǎo zhèng” — much corroborating with his own evidentiary research). The principal interpretive theses, as listed in the Sìkù tíyào:
- Dàyǎ and Xiǎoyǎ are distinguished by yīn (musical mode), not by zhèng (politics) — i.e., not by reign-era or moral content, but by performance-genre.
- Zhèng yǎ (orthodox elegances) and biàn yǎ (variant elegances) are interlaced in praise-and-blame; one cannot — as the conventional reading would have it — divide the Liù yuè and earlier as zhèng yǎ and the Liù yuè onward as biàn yǎ; nor Wén Wáng and earlier as zhèng yǎ and Mín láo onward as biàn yǎ.
- The 26 poems of the Èr nán are all to be read as fáng zhōng zhī yuè (chamber-music) — without forcing an external referent on each.
- The ZhōuShào (周-召) division — Zhèng Xuán’s reading that takes WénWáng as the referent — is wrong.
- Sòng (paeans) may be appropriately produced both by the Son of Heaven and by the zhū hóu (feudal lords); the Lǔ sòng is therefore not a usurpation.
- (A weaker thesis, where the Sìkù editors register dissent:) Sòng combines praise-and-blame, and yì tōng yú sòng (its meaning is interchangeable with chanting sòng) — i.e., the Shī’s sòng and the yí lǐ term sòng are linked. The Sìkù editors object: the yí lǐ term sòng is songle (singing) plus shēngshī (rising-singing) plus shēng (mouth-organ) — zhèng gē (regular song) plus bèi (set), three terms; the Zhōu lǐ gǔméng (the Music-Director’s office of the Blind Officials) reading “fěng sòng shī” — Zhèng glossing as “reading-it-mute, not following-the-melody” — gē and sòng are two separate things; therefore sòng and the canonical-genre sòng are also two separate things — Huì’s combining them is wrong.
- (Another weaker thesis:) On the lack of a xí-li (ritual classic) precedent for guīníng (returning-home for women), Huì reads the guīníngfùmǔ line as a “no-parents-and-no-grief” line. The Sìkù editors object: guīníng is well-attested in the Zuǒ zhuàn; the xí-li (ritual classic) must have its source. Hé Xiū’s Gōngyáng note states that zhū hóu fūrén, on account of being honored, are not permitted to return except in great cause — only the shìdàfū qī are permitted yearly guīníng. This learning must have its received-line.
The Sìkù conclusion, despite these objections, is broadly positive: the work shows “yǐn jù què shí, shù yì shēn qiè” (citation precise and substantial, doctrine deep and well-constructed) — distinct from the kind of Shī explanation that decides issues by speculative-judgment alone.
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Shī shuō in 3 juǎn. By the guócháo (Qīng) Huì Zhōutī. Zhōutī’s zì Yuánlóng, native of Chángzhōu. Kāngxī xīnwèi (1691) jìnshì, transferred to shùjíshì; on sànguǎn he was awarded the post of Mìyún xiàn zhīxiàn. The Huì family is for three generations distinguished in classical learning, and Zhōutī is the originator.
This work, on the Máo zhuàn, Zhèng jiān, and Zhū zhuàn, has no specific commitment, much corroborating with his own evidentiary research. His principal thesis: dàyǎ and xiǎoyǎ are distinguished by yīn (mode), not by zhèng (politics); zhèngyǎ and biànyǎ are interlaced — not to be divided as Liù yuè onward = biàn, Wén Wáng onward = zhèng, Mín láo onward = biàn. The 26 poems of Èr nán are all to be read as fáng zhōng zhī yuè; not to be forced to specify which person. The ZhōuShào division — Zhèng jiān’s mistake of taking WénWáng as referent. Sòng may be appropriately produced both by the Son of Heaven and by the zhū hóu — Lǔ sòng not a usurpation. These statements all have grounding.
But “sòng combines praise-and-blame; meaning is interchangeable with the yí lǐ sòng” — this statement is unsettled. Examining Zhèng Kāngchéng’s yí lǐ note on “zhèng gē sets jù”, saying: zhèng gē = shēnggē and shēng each three-finished, combining-the-music three-finished, as one bèi. By the canonical text, there is no gē-after-sòng nor yī gē yī sòng division. The Zhōu lǐ Gǔméng office: “fěngsòngshī”, Zhèng glossing as “reading-it-mute, not following-the-melody” — gē and sòng are two separate things; thus sòng and sòng (the canonical genre) are also two separate things. Zhōutī combines them — wrong.
Further: he uses the Guó cè’s “lǐ wú guīníng” (no-returning-home-by-the-rite) and reads guīníngfùmǔ as the meaning of wúfùmǔyílí (without-parents-with-grief). Examining: guīníng is in the Zuǒ zhuàn; in the canonical lǐ it must have a source. Hé Xiū’s Gōngyáng note says that zhū hóu fūrén, being honored and serious, are not permitted to return except in great cause; only shìdàfū qī, even without affairs, are permitted to return-home yearly. This learning too must have a received-line. Qūlǐ says: “a nǚzǐ with permission-to-marry has the yīng (head-band); except in great cause not entering her gate. The gūzǐmèi and nǚzǐ, having married and returned, xiōngdì not sitting on the same mat, not eating from the same vessel” — the text follows on the previous “permitted-to-marry” — i.e., having married and returned = guīníng and clear evidence of it. It is not the case that “lǐ wú wén” (the lǐ has no record).
Yet the rest of his readings are mostly drawn on substantial evidence, the doctrine deep and well-constructed; against those who explain the Shī with empty stomach and decide rights-and-wrongs by speculative judgment, this is fundamentally different. Qiánlóng 46 (1781), 1st month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Shī shuō is the founding Shī-class work of the Chángzhōu Huì shì family — Huì Zhōutī being the originator of the three-generation family scholarly tradition that culminated in his grandson Huì Dòng 惠棟 (1697–1758), one of the principal founders of the high-Qīng Wúpài (Sūzhōu school) of kǎozhèng learning. Composition is between 1691 (jìnshì and selection) and 1696 (death), with the catalog dating it to 1691.
Methodologically the work is non-aligned: rather than committing to a single hermeneutic frame (MáoZhèng, Sòng Jí zhuàn, or xiǎo xù-anchored historicism), Huì argues each point on the merit of evidentiary research. Its principal interpretive theses concern the structural categories of the Shī — Dàyǎ and Xiǎoyǎ distinguished by yīn, not zhèng; zhèngyǎ and biànyǎ interlaced; the 26 Èr nán as chamber-music; Lǔ sòng not a usurpation. These positions are intellectually serious and continue to be discussed in modern Shī-class scholarship.
The Sìkù editors register two specific objections (the gēsòng / sòng-as-canonical-genre equation; the guī-níng-as-without-parents reading) but pronounce the overall work substantial. Within the early-Qīng Shī studies world, Huì’s work is one of the genuinely independent contributions, methodologically distinct from both the polemic Hànxué of Chén Qǐyuán (KR1c0049) and the more conservative xiǎo xù-anchored work of Zhū Hèlíng (KR1c0048).
Translations and research
No translation. The work and its interpretive theses are treated in the standard surveys: Lín Qìngzhāng 林慶彰, ed., Qīngdài jīng-xué guójì yán-tǎo-huì lùn-wén jí; Bao Lǐlì 包麗麗, Qīngdài Shī jīng xué shǐ shuǎngyào (Wén jīn, 2018), pp. 199–210. On the broader Cháng-zhōu Huì shì family tradition see Benjamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China (Harvard, 1984; revised UCLA, 2001), and Classicism, Politics, and Kinship: The Ch’ang-chou School of New Text Confucianism in Late Imperial China (California, 1990).
Other points of interest
Huì Zhōutī’s reading of Dàyǎ / Xiǎoyǎ as distinguished by musical mode — yīn bié bù yǐ zhèng bié — is one of the genuinely original interpretive innovations of early-Qīng Shī studies. The thesis was widely discussed (and contested) in the eighteenth century, and continues to be discussed in modern Shī-class scholarship; the issue connects to the broader question of Shī-and-music relations and the lost performance practice of the Shī.