入蜀記

Rùshǔ jì 入蜀記

Record of Entering Shǔ by 陸游 (撰)

About the work

A 4-juàn travel diary by Lù Yóu 陸游 (1125–1210), recording his upstream journey from his home at Shānyīn 山陰 (modern Shàoxīng 紹興) to Kuízhōu 夔州 (Three-Gorges, modern Fèngjié 奉節, Chóngqìng), where he had been appointed Tōngpàn 通判. Lù was given the appointment in Qiándào 5 (1169) and embarked on the eighteenth day of the intercalary sixth month of Qiándào 6 (28 July 1170 Gregorian), arriving at Kuízhōu on the twenty-seventh day of the tenth month of the same year. The diary thus covers c. four months of the journey from the lower Yangtze (passing Sūzhōu, Zhènjiāng, Nánjīng, Wúhú 蕪湖, Jiǔjiāng 九江, Hànyáng 漢陽, Yuèzhōu 岳州, Jiānglíng 江陵, then upstream into the Three Gorges and to Kuízhōu).

The work is one of the great Southern Sòng travel diaries and is, with Fàn Chéngdà’s Wúchuán lù (KR2g0055, the downstream parallel composed seven years later), the canonical Sòng eyewitness corpus on the Yangtze and Three-Gorges corridor. As the Sìkù notice emphasizes, the Rùshǔ jì is distinguished by its sustained antiquarian / textual kǎozhèng: at every monument and famous site Lù pauses to verify topographical claims against epigraphy and to correct errors in earlier sources. Notable items: the identification of Dānyáng Huángyèsì 丹陽皇業寺 as the Huángjīsì 皇基寺 of standard histories (renamed under the Tàishànghuáng taboo of Táng Xuánzōng); the Xīnfēng 新豐 of Lǐ Bái’s poem identified as the lower-Yangtze Xīnfēng (between Dānyáng and Zhènjiāng) and not the Chángān Xīnfēng; corrections to Gānlùsì 甘露寺 Hěnshí 狠石 / Duōjǐnglóu 多景樓 site-attributions; the demonstration that Méi Yáochén’s 梅堯臣 poem mistakenly identifies Wèi Tàiwǔdì with Cáo Cāo at Guābù 瓜步; identification of the Bǎodà 9 stone-inscription on the Wúkōng Chán Master at Guǎnghuìsì 廣惠寺 as Southern-Táng Yuánzōng and not the Hòuzhǔ; the location of Yǔ Liànglóu 庾亮樓 at Wǔchāng (not Jiāngzhōu, as in Bái Jūyì’s poem); the identification of Sòng Yù’s 宋玉 estate at Zǐguīxiàn 秭歸縣 east; emendation of the readings chángnián sānlǎo 長年三老 and tānqián 攤錢 in Dù Fǔ; emendation of Sū Shì’s yùtǎ wò wēilán 玉塔卧微瀾 line; and the identification of certain interpolated verses in Lǐ Bái’s collection (e.g. Gūshú shímài 姑熟十脈, Sēngjiā gē 僧伽歌, Huáisù cǎoshū gē 懐素草書歌) as Sòng Mǐnqiú 宋敏求 interpolations.

Tiyao

Rùshǔ jì in 4 juàn, by Lù Yóu of the Sòng. Yóu, courtesy name Wùguān 務觀, hào Fàngwēng 放翁, of Shānyīn, grandson of [Lù] Diàn 佃 and son of [Lù] Zǎi 宰. He first entered office through yìn (hereditary privilege) as Dēngshìláng; in Lóngxīng (1163) was given jìnshì-equivalent qualification by imperial favor; in Jiātài (1201) ranked at last as Bǎomógé dàizhì 寳謨閣待詔. Yóu in Qiándào 5 (1169) was appointed Tōngpàn Kuízhōu; in the next year, on the eighteenth day of the intercalary sixth month, he set out from Shānyīn, and on the twenty-seventh day of the tenth month reached Kuízhōu. He thus narrated the route taken to compose this diary. Yóu was gōngwén (good with prose) by nature, and so on shānchuān (mountains and rivers) and fēngtǔ (local conditions) his narration is exceedingly yǎjié (refined and pure). On verifying gǔjì (antiquities) he is particularly attentive. Such as: Dānyáng Huángyèsì — that this is the Huángjīsì of histories, with the name changed to avoid Táng Xuánzōng’s taboo; that what Lǐ Bái’s verse calls Xīnfēng jiǔ refers to a place between Dānyáng and Zhènjiāng, not the Xīnfēng of Chángān; that Gānlùsì’s Hěnshí and Duōjǐnglóu are not original sites; that Zhēnzhōu Yíngluánzhèn 真州迎鑾鎮 was renamed by Xú Wēn 徐温 (not by HòuZhōu Shìzōng); that Méi Yáochén’s Guābùcí poem mistakenly identifies Wèi Tàiwǔdì with Cáo Cāo; that Guǎnghuìsì memorial-inscription of Wùkōng Chánshī dated Bǎodà 9 belongs to Southern-Táng Yuánzōng, not the Hòuzhǔ; that Yǔ Liànglóu should be at Wǔchāng, not Jiāngzhōu — though Bái Jūyì’s poem and Zhāng Shùnchén’s 張舜臣 Nánqiān zhì 南遷志 perpetuate the error; that Ōuyáng Xiū’s verse “jiāngshàng gūfēng bì lǜluó” — lǜluó refers to the stream-name, not generally to vines and creepers; that Sòng Yù’s residence at Zǐguī xiàn east had stone-inscriptions formerly destroyed when the prefect’s family-name taboo was applied. All such items are useful to yútú zhī kǎozhèng (historical-geographical verification). As for his explanation of Dù Fǔ’s “chángnián sānlǎo” and “tānqián” expressions, his reading of Sū Shì’s “yùtǎ wò wēilán”, his explanation of Southern Táng’s qīyuè liùrì dating of Qīxī, his identification of Gūshú shímài, Guīlái hū xiào yǐ hū, Sēngjiā gē, Huáisù cǎoshū gē etc. in Lǐ Bái’s collection as Sòng Mǐnqiú interpolations — all of these too widen one’s range. As for his other searches in jīnshí (epigraphy) and citation of poetry to verify topography — these are too numerous to count. He is not to be classed with other writers of xíngjì who merely linger over scenery and record trivia. Reverently presented in the fourth month of Qiánlóng 46 (= 1781). Chief Editors: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Chief Collator: Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

The Rùshǔ jì is the senior text of the canonical Southern-Sòng pair (with Fàn Chéngdà’s Wúchuán lù of 1177) on Yangtze travel; it is the first and most evidentiary of Lù Yóu’s prose travel writings, composed during the journey itself in 1170 and probably circulated in revised form during the early-to-middle 1170s. CBDB gives Lù Yóu’s lifedates as 1125–1209; the standard Western convention (followed in the catalog meta and here) gives 1125–1210, since his death in early 1210 fell within the lunar year 嘉定 2 (1209.10) but Gregorian-converts to early 1210. The composition window for the diary itself is firmly 1170 (the journey); the text was almost certainly polished and circulated in the 1170s, before he had moved to subsequent posts in Sìchuān (which would supplant his Kuízhōu vantage). A defensible window is therefore 1170–1175.

The work’s value is fivefold: (i) it is the principal Northern / Southern Sòng prose record of the Yangtze travel-route from the lower delta through the Three Gorges, recording every stop and every notable site; (ii) its sustained kǎozhèng methodology — emending earlier poems and gazetteers from on-site epigraphy and physical inspection — anticipates and influences the Qīng kǎojù tradition; (iii) it preserves field-observations of antiquities and inscriptions many of which are now lost, including specific stele-readings (e.g. the Bǎodà 9 Wùkōng Chánshī stone), painting-attributions, and architectural states; (iv) the diary is an essential biographical document for Lù Yóu himself, recording his transit from his Zhèjiāng base into the Sìchuān years that produced his greatest poetry; (v) together with Fàn Chéngdà’s Wúchuán lù, it constitutes the canonical Sòng-period eyewitness corpus on a single corridor — the upstream and the downstream are now read as paired texts in scholarship on Sòng travel literature.

Translations and research

• Chun-shu Chang and Joan Smythe, South China in the Twelfth Century: A Translation of Lu Yu’s Travel Diaries, July 3 – December 6, 1170 (Chinese University Press, 1981) — a complete annotated English translation of the Rù-shǔ jì with an introduction and apparatus.
• James M. Hargett, Jade Mountains and Cinnabar Pools: The History of Travel Literature in Imperial China (UWP, 2018), with extensive treatment of Lù Yóu’s diary alongside Fàn Chéng-dà’s.
• Burton Watson, The Old Man Who Does As He Pleases: Poems and Prose by Lu Yu (Columbia UP, 1973) — the standard short-volume English introduction to Lù Yóu’s poetry and prose.
• Michael Duke, Lu You (Twayne, 1977), the standard biographical study in English.
• The Sì-kù tíyào notice is in 史部·傳記類四·雜錄之屬.

Other points of interest

The Rùshǔ jì is methodologically the most evidentiary of the great Sòng travel diaries: where Fàn Chéngdà tends toward the literary and meditative, Lù Yóu’s tone is the kǎozhèng-scholar’s — every poetic line is checked against the topography, every gazetteer reading against epigraphic survival. The list of textual emendations to Lǐ Bái’s collected poems (excluding several pieces as Sòng Mǐnqiú interpolations) is one of the earliest sustained authentication-critiques of a major poet’s collection in Chinese literary history; modern Lǐ Bái philology continues to engage with Lù Yóu’s verdicts.

Links

• Wilkinson 2018, Chinese History: A New Manual §62.3.3.3 (Sòng diaries).
• Chang and Smythe 1981 (translation); Hargett 2018; Watson 1973; Duke 1977.
• CBDB person id 3640 (Lù Yóu 陸游, 1125–1209).