Máo Shī lèi shì 毛詩類釋
Categorical Explanation of the Mao Recension of the Poetry by 顧棟高 (Gù Dònggāo, zì Zhèncāng 震滄, 1679–1759)
About the work
A 21-juǎn mid-Qiánlóng-period Shī-class compendium by the senior Wúxī jīngxué scholar Gù Dònggāo, with a 3-juǎn Xù biān 續編 (continuation). The main work is dated by Gù’s own self-preface to Qiánlóng 17 rénshēn 8th-month 1st-day (autumn 1752); the Xù biān is dated to Qiánlóng 18 guǐyǒu (1753). The work is the most ambitious of the four-or-five Qīng Shī-natural-history works in the Sìkù, and the only one of them to expand the standard four categories (birds, beasts, plants, trees) into a 21-rubric systematic lèi shū-style treatment.
The 21-rubric structure (per Gù’s self-preface and the table of contents):
- Tiānwén 天文 (Astronomy);
- Dìlǐ 地理 (Geography);
- Shān 山 (Mountains);
- Shuǐ 水 (Waters);
- Shílìng 時令 (Seasonal-and-Calendrical);
- Jìsì 祭祀 (Sacrifice);
- Guānzhì 官制 (Official-System);
- Lǐqì 禮器 (Ritual-Implements);
- Yuèqì 樂器 (Musical-Implements);
- Bīngqì 兵器 (Weapons);
- Nóngqì 農器 (Agricultural-Implements);
- Gōngshì 宫室 (Architecture);
- Yīfu 衣服 (Clothing);
- Cǎo 草 (Plants);
- Mù 木 (Trees);
- Niǎo 鳥 (Birds, including bird-catching implements);
- Shòu 獸 (Beasts, including hunting-implements);
- Chóng 蟲 (Insects);
- Yú 魚 (Fishes, including fishing-implements);
- Chē 車 (Carriages, including carriage-fittings);
- Mǎ 馬 (Horses, including horse-fittings).
The Xù biān (3 juǎn) covers the Ěryǎ’s Shì gǔ 釋詁, Shì yán 釋言, Shì xùn 釋訓 entries that bear on the Shī.
The methodology follows the kǎozhèng tradition: each entry begins with the Sòng (mostly Zhū Xī’s Jí zhuàn) gloss as the principal authority, then collates the relevant earlier glosses from Ěryǎ, Kǎo gōng jì, the SòngYuán natural-history monographs (Lù Diàn’s Pí yǎ, Luó Yuàn’s Ěryǎ yì), the Běn cǎo tradition, etc. — and where Gù finds the earlier glosses lacking, he supplies his own àn yǔ (note).
The Sìkù tíyào registers a methodological innovation that distinguishes the work from the encyclopaedic jí lǎn tradition: Gù’s compilation is jǐn yán (disciplined), and frequently uses the míngwù identification to fā míng jīng yì (illuminate the canonical meaning) — the work is not merely encyclopaedic but interpretively engaged. The Sìkù editors single out for praise:
- Dìlǐ: BèiYōngWèi (the three states) are three place-names within one polity (Shāng’s old capital region), not three separate states.
- Shān: The Sōnggāo “wéi yuè” (mountains) refers to Wúyuè (the Yōngzhōu mountain), not Sōngshān (the central peak — ZhèngXuán’s Jiān’s mistake).
- Shuǐ: The Shī “Qī Jǔ” (Qī and Jǔ rivers) is the Luòshuǐ, distinct from the MiánQiánsòng’s Qī Jǔ — Gù’s geographical distinction by location and tributary.
- Shílìng: Gōng Liú already used a zǐzhèng (the eleventh-month-as-first) calendar — the three-zhèng rotational practice was active in antiquity.
- Jìsì: The dì (great-imperial) sacrifice and the dàxiǎngmíngtáng (great-feast-of-the-luminous-hall) were Duke of Zhōu’s creations.
- Guānzhì: Sītú, Sīkōng offices already existed in the Tángyú (YáoShùn) era.
- Bīngqì: Ancient armor was made of leather, not metal.
- Gōngshì: Jūnzǐ yángyáng is a singing-master poem, not a wife’s poem.
- Cǎo: Má (hemp) has two species — grain and fibre.
- Niǎo: Sāng hù has two species — by-property and by-color.
- Mǎ: The Wèi fēng “lái mǔ sān qiān” and the Lǔ sòng’s yùhuángxīngqí are described in their abundance for bīng shì (warfare). The Sīmǎ fǎ’s “mǎ niú chē shèng jù cóng mín jiān chū” passage is a Wáng Mǎng forgery.
The Sìkù conclusion: the work belongs alongside the Lù Jī tradition, but distinguishes itself from the merely fànlàn yǐ xuàn bó (overflowing-citation-for-show) tradition; it is “jiào wéi jǐn yán” (more disciplined) than its predecessors, and fā míng jīng yì (illuminating the canonical meaning) — not merely a zhāo lèi shū tóng (encyclopaedic compendium).
(The Sìkù editors do note small mismatches: some of Gù’s preface-claims (e.g., Sītú, Sīkōng; dìjì and míngtáng) — when checked against the body — are absent from the body’s actual content, suggesting partial revision. Several of the prefaced theses are also from earlier scholars: the BèiYōngWèi point from Gù Yánwǔ, the Sōnggāo point from Yán Ruòqú, the Qī Jǔ point from Xǔ Qiān, the Gōng Liú calendar point from Máo Cháng, the leather-armor point from Chén Xiángdào, the má-two-species point from Cài Biàn, the sāng hù-two-species point from Lù Diàn, the qiū diàn bù chū mǎ niú point from Lǐ Lián — Gù’s own original contribution being chiefly the jūnzǐ yángyáng reading.)
Tiyao
Your servants etc. respectfully present: Máo Shī lèi shì in 21 juǎn with a Xù biān in 3 juǎn. By the guócháo (Qīng) Gù Dònggāo. Dònggāo’s zì Zhèncāng, native of Wúxī. Kāngxī gēngzǐ (1720) jǔrén, served as Nèigé zhōngshūshèrén. Qiánlóng xīnwèi (1751) recommended under the jīngxué summons, awarded Guózǐjiān sīyè; later by special favor honored with jìjiǔ title; ended at home. This work was completed in Qiánlóng rénshēn (1752); the preface and case-statements all use (臣) — clearly the imperially-presented recension.
It divides into 21 lèi. In his preface, the points he extracts as new findings: in Dìlǐ, that BèiYōngWèi are three place-names not three states; in Shān, that Sōnggāo wéi yuè is Wúyuè not Zhōngyuè; in Shuǐ, that the Shī’s Qī Jǔ is not the Miánshī and Qiánsòng’s Qī Jǔ; in Shílìng, that Gōng Liú had already taken the zǐzhèng as primary; in Jìsì, that dì and dàxiǎngmíngtáng were Duke-of-Zhōu’s creation; in Guānzhí (offices), that Sītú, Sīkōng, Sīmǎ were all in pre-Zhōuguān; in Bīngqì, that ancient armor was leather; in Gōngshì, that Jūnzǐ yángyáng is a singing-master’s poem, not a wife’s; in Cǎo, that má has two species; in Niǎo, that sāng hù has two species; in Mǎ, that Wèi fēng láimǔ and Lǔsòngmùmǎ are for warfare-purpose, and the Sīmǎfǎ’s “mǎniúchēshèng jù cóng mín jiān chū” passage is Wáng Mǎng’s pseudepigraphic text.
Now examining his book: the dìjì and míngtáng entry, the SītúSīmǎ entry — both are absent from the body, mismatching the preface — for what reason is unclear. The BèiYōngWèi entry is Gù Yánwǔ’s reading; the Sōnggāo entry is Yán Ruòqú’s reading; the QīJǔ entry is Xǔ Qiān’s reading; the GōngLiú zǐzhèng entry is Máo Cháng’s reading; the gǔjiǎyònggé entry is Chén Xiángdào’s reading; the máyǒuèrzhǒng entry is Cài Biàn’s reading; the sānghùyǒuèrzhǒng entry is Lù Diàn’s reading; the qiūdiànbùchūmǎniú entry is Lǐ Lián’s reading. Only the Jūnzǐ yángyáng entry — using the Chǔ cí text to corroborate the xiǎo xù — is his own new reading.
Yet the various scholars’ Shī míngwù schools mostly overflow-with-citation-for-show; this work assembles old readings with rather more discipline; and often uses them to fā míng jīng yì — distinct in style from the zhāo lèi shū tóng (encyclopaedic-compendium) school. For shuō Shī this is also not without help. The Xù biān in 3 juǎn — completed in Qiánlóng guǐyǒu (1753) — takes the Ěryǎ’s Shì gǔ, Shì yán, Shì xùn entries that bear on the Shī, excerpts and records them, and lightly explains them. Indeed xùngǔ and míngwù go together — by the Ěryǎ check, still missing two entries (zhī, pǐ; yán, jiè) — perhaps the manuscript’s chance omissions. Qiánlóng 46 (1781), 3rd month, respectfully collated. Chief Compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Editor: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Máo Shī lèi shì is the most ambitious Shī-class systematic-encyclopaedic compilation of the mid-Qiánlóng period, and the most sophisticated of the Shī-natural-history-and-institutional works in the Sìkù. Composition is precisely datable: Qiánlóng 17 (1752) for the main 21-juǎn work, Qiánlóng 18 (1753) for the 3-juǎn Xù biān; both presented in the imperial recension. Gù Dònggāo was 73–74 years old at completion — at the apex of his jīngxué career — and the Sìkù editors’ approving tone reflects his standing as one of the most respected mid-Qiánlóng jīngxué scholars (a status confirmed by his special imperial appointment to the Imperial Academy under the jīngxué summons in 1751).
The work’s structural innovation — the 21-rubric organization expanding well beyond niǎoshòucǎomù to encompass astronomy, geography, ritual institutions, and material culture — gives it the character of a Shī-class material-culture handbook, distinct from the verse-by-verse commentary tradition. The Sìkù editors’ specific praise — that the work is jǐn yán (disciplined) and uses míngwù to fā míng jīng yì — distinguishes it from the more sprawling encyclopaedism of Chén Dàzhāng (KR1c0056) and the more purely natural-history-focused work of Yáo Bǐng (KR1c0055).
The candor of the Sìkù editors’ inventory of source-attribution — locating each of the prefaced “new findings” in earlier scholarship — registers the editorial ethos of high-Qiánlóng kǎozhèng maturity: even a senior and respected scholar’s claims to originality are subject to systematic source-checking, and the result is published in the tíyào without polemic intent.
Translations and research
No translation. The work is the most famous of Gù Dònggāo’s Shī-class writings; treatment in the standard surveys: Bao Lǐlì 包麗麗, Qīngdài Shī jīng xué shǐ shuǎngyào (Wén jīn, 2018); Lín Qìngzhāng 林慶彰, Qīngdài jīng-xué guójì yán-tǎo-huì lùn-wén jí. On Gù Dònggāo’s broader jīng-xué career, particularly the Chūnqiū dà-shì biǎo, see Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual; Chen Pan 陳槃 (1969), Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing jicun miebiao zhuanyi 春秋大事表列國爵姓及存滅表譔異 (the standard scholarly supplement and corrections).
Other points of interest
The pairing of Máo Shī lèi shì (21-rubric Shī-handbook, 1752) with the contemporaneous Chūnqiū dàshì biǎo (50-rubric Spring-and-Autumn-handbook, 1748) shows Gù Dònggāo’s signature methodological commitment — the kǎozhèng-systematic-tabulation approach — extended across the canonical corpus. Both works inaugurated a high-Qīng vogue for systematic-tabulation supplements to the canonical texts, and both remain pre-eminent within their respective fields.