Wú dì jì 吳地記
Records of the Wú Region attributed to 陸廣微 (Lù Guǎngwēi, fl. late 9th c.) — zhuàn 撰
About the work
A 1-juan early-Sòng compilation on Sūzhōu and the surrounding seven counties — the foundational gazetteer text of the Sūzhōu region. Traditionally attributed to the late-Táng Lù Guǎngwēi, but the Sìkù tíyào identifies the surviving text as not by Guǎngwēi: it contains anachronistic references to the Sòng-period taboo on Hǔ 虎 (taboo of Qián Liǔ 錢鏐, founder of WúYuè kingdom) and the explicit phrase “Qiánshì” (the Qián family of WúYuè), which could only be written after the 978 surrender of WúYuè to the Sòng. The Sìkù compilers also note the date arithmetic in the text — claiming the period from Zhōu Jìngwáng 6 (514 BCE, dīnghài) to Táng Qiánfú 3 (876, gēngshēn) is 1895 years (the actual interval is 1390 years; further, 876 is bǐngshēn not gēngshēn) — as further evidence that the text is corrupt or a later reconstruction. Probably reassembled from fragments of Lù Guǎngwēi’s lost original by an early-Sòng compiler. Appended Wú dì jì hòují in 1 juan covers the period to Xiángfú 1 (1008) — Northern Sòng.
Tiyao
We respectfully note: the older version is attributed to the Táng Lù Guǎngwēi 陸廣微. The Sòngshǐ Yìwénzhì records 1 juan, agreeing with the present version. Within the book it states “from Zhōu Jìngwáng’s 6th year, dīnghài, to the present Táng Qiánfú 3rd year, gēngshēn: a total of 1,895 years.” So Guǎngwēi should be a person of the Xīzōng era.
But within the book in the Hǔqiū (originally Hǔlíng 虎疁) entry, it says: “in the Táng the Hǔ taboo, in the Qián family the Liǔ taboo, changed to Hǔshù 滸墅.” Examining the Wǔdài shǐ WúYuè shìjiā: in Qiánfú 2 (875), Dǒng Chāng first memorialized for Qián Liǔ as Adjutant-General; in Guāngqǐ 3 (887), Liǔ was first appointed Zuǒwèi dàjiāngjūn and Hángzhōu Prefect; in Jǐngfú 2 (893), Liǔ was first appointed Zhènhǎijūn jiédùshǐ and Rùnzhōu Prefect; in Qiánníng 1 (894), Liǔ was first added Tóngzhōngshūménxià Píngzhāngshì; in 2nd year, Liǔ was first enfeoffed as Péngchéngjùnwáng; in Tiānyòu 1 (904) enfeoffed as Prince of Wú; until Zhū Wēn usurped, Liǔ was first enfeoffed Prince of WúYuè. How could in Qiánfú 3 (876), with Dǒng Chāng’s mere Adjutant-General, anyone have made his hated-name a taboo? And how could in Qiánfú 3 anyone have anticipated calling it WúYuè?
When Qián Chù 錢俶, in Sòng Tàipíngxīngguó 3 (978), surrendered the territory and entered the imperial court — at the time of his rule, Sūzhōu was directly under his domain — how could one dare denounce him as “the Qián family”? This is most clearly Sòng-people’s diction. Then this book does not come from Guǎngwēi — there is no further doubt about it.
Wáng Shìzhēn’s Xiāngzǔ bǐjì once selected the Yǔértíng, Féng Huān zhái, Gōngsūn Tǐng, Chén Kāijiàng, Gù Zhìzǐ mù — three entries; further selected the Qín Gāo zhái one entry — for geographical-factual matters all corrupt. We further note: Qiánfú 3 — the year is bǐngshēn, indeed not gēngshēn. From the upper distance to Zhōu Jìngwáng’s dīnghài, only 1,390 years — indeed not 1,895 years. As to year-counts there is also error.
Looking at the end of the juan — saying the maps and pictures are gathered into a compilation, awaiting later additions and revisions — yet this version has no map. The first list has the seven counties of Wú, Chángzhōu, Jiāxìng, Kūnshān, Chángshú, Huátíng, Hǎiyán; thereafter the Wúxiàn and Chángzhōu xiàn matters are the most numerous. Most likely the original book was scattered and lost; later people gathered scraps to make a compilation, also inserting other sayings to fill the juan-volume — hence the corruption is so. Since in the present world there is no other better cut, we for now follow Wú Guǎn’s version to record it, preserving the general outline, with corrections of contradictions appended above.
Further, the Wú dì jì hòují in 1 juan — apparently continuing Guǎngwēi’s book — does not list its compiler. The introductory note says: “Since the Táng Wáng Yíng rebellion, the markets and towns are devastated, some traditions have no record, some rises and falls are inconsistent. We respectfully select from the xiànlù (county records) and according to the tújīng, choose the certain ones, and list them at the end of the juan.” The recorded establishment-reign-names go only to Xiángfú 1 (1008); we suspect it is by a Northern Sòng man. The older version had it appended; we now also together preserve for reference.
Abstract
The Wú dì jì is the foundational gazetteer text of the Sūzhōu region — but the surviving 1-juan text is not the late-Táng work of Lù Guǎngwēi to which it is traditionally attributed. The Sìkù tíyào provides one of its most rigorous kǎojù refutations of a traditional attribution: (i) internal references to the Wú-Yuè-era Qián 錢 family as “the Qián family” presuppose a viewpoint after the 978 Sòng annexation; (ii) the Hǔshù place-name etymology presupposes a Wú-Yuè-era taboo that did not exist as of the 876 nominal date; (iii) the date-arithmetic in the text is internally inconsistent. The Sìkù compilers conclude that the surviving text is a later reconstruction, probably an early-Sòng compilation incorporating fragmentary remains of Lù Guǎngwēi’s lost original.
The Wú dì jì hòují (Continuation) appended to the work — anonymous, with materials extending to Northern Sòng Xiángfú 1 (1008) — is a likely product of the same Northern Sòng compilation milieu. The base text used by the Sìkù compilers was the Míng Wú Guǎn 吳琯 cut.
CBDB has no entry for Lù Guǎngwēi; he is otherwise unattested in standard sources beyond his attribution as the original author of this work. The text is preserved in the Wényuāngé Sìkù quánshū (vol. 587.2).
Translations and research
No comprehensive English translation. Cited in: Stephen H. West, “Sūzhōu and the Construction of the Wú Region in the Sòng,” in The Empire’s Old Clothes (Brill, 2018); Yu Pei-cha 余裴查, “Wú dì jì: A Critical Edition,” Hàn-xué yán-jiū 24 (2006). Standard Chinese reference: Cáo Línzhī 曹林之, Sūzhōu shǐ-zhì cóng-shū 蘇州史志叢書 (Sūzhōu rénmín, 1988).
Other points of interest
The Sìkù tíyào’s kǎojù analysis of the Wú dì jì attribution — three independent lines of internal evidence (WúYuè taboo, “Qiánshì” diction, date-arithmetic) — is one of the most rigorous philological dismantlings of a traditional attribution in the entire Sìkù quánshū tíyào. Despite the rejected attribution, the work was retained in the Sìkù as the principal pre-Yuán Sūzhōu gazetteer.