聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

千頃堂書目

7 min read

Text ID
KR2n0010
Date
1670–1691
Dynasty
清

Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù 千頃堂書目

Catalogue of the Qiānqǐng Studio

by 黃虞稷 (Huáng Yújī, 1629–1691)

About the work

A 32-juan annotated bibliography of Míng-dynasty writings compiled in the early Qīng by Huáng Yújī. Despite the title — taken from the family library Qiānqǐngzhāi 千頃齋 in Nánjīng inherited from his father Huáng Jūzhōng — the work is not a private library catalogue: it is a comprehensive register of Míng-dynasty book production, organised in the canonical sìbù scheme but innovating in several places. Each entry typically gives compiler, juan-count, sometimes minor authorial information; some carry brief notes. Mounted at the end of each major sub-category are appendices listing the corresponding Sòng, Jīn, and Yuán works that escaped earlier dynastic-history bibliography coverage — though not the Wǔdài or earlier dynasties, an asymmetry the Sìkù editors find inexplicable. The work was Huáng’s research apparatus during his Míngshǐ 明史 Yìwénzhì compilation under Xú Yuánwén in the 1680s; it was not separately published in Huáng’s lifetime, and the Sìkù WYG copy is from a Zhèjiāng xúnfǔ-submitted manuscript. Despite the catalog meta description “32 卷”, the work survives in different juan-counts in different recensions; modern scholarship reads it as a working draft, not a finally polished publication.

Tiyao

Compiled by Huáng Yújī of the present (Qīng) dynasty. Yújī, zì Yútái, was originally of Quánzhōu, but in the late Chóngzhēn era his family fled to Shàngyuán; the head of his book is self-titled “Mǐnrén” 閩人 — preserving the original native attachment.

The work records exclusively the books of one Míng dynasty. The jīng division has eleven categories: it makes the Sì shū 四書 a single class, and again separates Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ as their own classes; books on Dàxué and Zhōngyōng go under SānLǐ. The intent is to preserve a little of the ancient practice — and the planning here is thoughtful. But Míng commentators on Dàxué and Zhōngyōng nearly all wrote them as part of Sì shū commentary, not as Lǐjì commentary; even commentaries on Lúnyǔ and Mèngzǐ are mostly Sì shū commentary, not the old single-classic specialist tradition. The classification therefore does not fit the actual evidence. Furthermore, although the Yuè jīng is lost, by abolishing this category there is now no class to which to attach the lǜlǚ (musical-pitch) books — the deletion is also not well-judged.

The shǐ division has eighteen categories. The bùlù 簿錄 (bibliography) class follows Yóu Mào’s Suìchūtáng shūmù example and accepts the Qiánpǔ 錢譜 and Xièlù 蟹錄 sort — works with no other category to land in, which is most apt. But beyond the Diǎngù 典故 class, additional categories Shíhuò 食貨 and Xíngzhèng 刑政 are set up — that is over-elaboration.

The zǐ division has twelve categories. The Mò-school, the Míngjiā, the Fǎjiā, and the Diplomatic-school are merged into a single Záijiā 雜家. Although this is summary, Míng-era Mò, Míng, and Diplomatic transmissions are very few — the survivors are practically nothing — and merging them is acceptable. But to delete the Fǎjiā, is that not over-summary?

The jí division has eight categories. Individual collections are sequenced by dynasty and degree; collections without a jìnshì degree are appended at the end of each dynasty. Compared with the chaos of the Tang and Sòng Yìwénzhì, this is exceptionally clear — the principle is most well-judged. Only the zhìjǔ 制舉 (examination-essay) class need not be set up. The Míng selected scholars by the eight-leg essay — the experts in this craft, even Lìshǒu 隸首 (the legendary ancient mathematician) could not exhaust the count; in a single day, how many tens of thousands of essays are written? And how many of them have already become waste paper or ash, again in tens of thousands? Their birth and death is like the change of clouds, the gathering and scattering of foam. For Yújī to record only what he happened to see is rather upside down.

At the end of each class he appends Sòng, Jīn, and Yuán works — but not comprehensively, and not reaching back to the Wǔdài or earlier — the principle is peculiar and inexplicable.

But Jiāo Hóng’s 焦竑 Guóshǐ jīngjízhì 國史經籍志 is so full of fabrications it cannot be relied on; Fù Wéilín’s 傅維鱗 Míngshū jīngjízhì 明書經籍志 and Yóu Tóng’s 尤侗 Míngshǐ Yìwénzhì gǎo 明史藝文志稾 are even more confused and unsystematic. For research on Míng dynasty literary production, after all, this work is the one to rely on; for that reason the imperially commissioned Míngshǐ Yìwénzhì extensively consults it. To overlook its inconsistencies and take its comprehensive richness, that is appropriate.

Abstract

The Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù is the foundational Qing-era bibliography of Míng-dynasty writings, and the principal source of the Míngshǐ Yìwénzhì 明史藝文志. Huáng Yújī compiled it during his work as one of the senior compilers (under Xú Yuánwén) on the imperial Míngshǐ project, which began in 1679; the catalog meta dynasty “清” and the lack of internal date suggest a working composition between roughly 1670 and Huáng’s death in 1691, with notBefore here set conservatively to 1670 (post-1670 Qiānqǐngzhāi expansion under Huáng’s care).

Structural innovations:

  1. Period-bounded scope. Unlike all preceding sìbù catalogues, this is a bibliography of one dynasty (Míng). The principle later became standard.
  2. Inclusion of degree-level data. In the jíbù, individual collections are sequenced not just by dynasty but by kēfēn (examination-cohort year); collections by men without jìnshì are appended at the end of each dynasty’s listings. This is unusual; Wilkinson cites it as one of the earliest Chinese bibliographies to record systematic prosopographical data alongside the bibliographic.
  3. SòngJīnYuán appendices. End-of-class appendices of pre-Míng titles fill a gap left by the Sòng / Jīn / Yuán Yìwénzhì coverage, although the asymmetric exclusion of pre-Wǔdài is unexplained.
  4. Explicit zhìjǔ (eight-leg essay) category. This is a Míng-specific cultural-historical category; the Sìkù editors disapprove (they regard examination essays as ephemera not worth preserving), but in modern scholarship this listing is used as a witness for the published examination-essay output of Míng publishing.

The work was not formally published during Huáng’s lifetime. The Sìkù WYG copy comes from a Zhèjiāng xúnfǔ-submitted manuscript. Modern scholarship recognises the work as a draft: different juan-counts circulate; the Sìkù editors regularised the partition at 32 juan, while Huáng’s Wényuàngé shūmù 14-juan claim (in the same author’s hand) suggests an earlier numbering. The standard modern critical edition is Qú Fèngqǐ 瞿鳳起 and Pān Jǐngzhèng 潘景鄭 (eds.), Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù (Shànghǎi gǔjí, 1990; rev. 2001), which collates the WYG against the Mìngshǐ Yìwénzhì and the surviving Huáng-family manuscripts.

The Sìkù editors’ overall judgement: despite category-classification quirks, this is the indispensable apparatus for Míng book history.

CBDB 65940 confirms Huáng’s lifedates (1629–1691), as do Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, and standard reference works.

Translations and research

No English translation. Studies and editions:

  • Qú Fèngqǐ 瞿鳳起 and Pān Jǐngzhèng 潘景鄭 (eds.), Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù (Shànghǎi gǔjí, 1990; rev. 2001) — the standard modern collated edition.
  • Lái Xīnxià 來新夏, Gǔdiǎn mùlùxué 古典目錄學 (Zhōnghuá, 1991, rev. 2013), chapters on Huáng’s method and the Míngshǐ project.
  • Cài Tànghuá 蔡堂華, “黃虞稷《千頃堂書目》研究” — modern monograph on the catalogue’s structure and sources.
  • Hummel (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1943), s.v. “Huang Yü-chi” — biographical entry.
  • Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual, on Qing bibliography.

Other points of interest

The Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù underwent very heavy editorial use during the Qing imperial Míngshǐ Yìwénzhì compilation: Wáng Hóngxù 王鴻緒’s Míngshǐ gǎo 明史稿 Yìwénzhì and the final Míngshǐ Yìwénzhì (the latter under Zhāng Tíngyù 張廷玉, completed 1735) draw on Huáng’s listings. The accuracy of attribution and juan-counts in the Míngshǐ — long known to be inconsistent — is in many places traceable to working-draft state in Huáng’s catalogue. For Míng cunmu studies (works recorded but lost) the Qiānqǐngtáng shūmù is the primary witness.

Graph View

Backlinks