聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

石刻鋪敍

4 min read

Text ID
KR2n0020
Date
1248–1248
Dynasty
宋

Shíkè pūxù 石刻鋪敍

A Comprehensive Account of Stone Inscriptions

by 曾宏父 (Zēng Hóngfù, fl. mid-13th c.)

About the work

A 2-juan critical study of Sòng jīnshí and fǎtiè compilations and stelae, with particular focus on Zēng’s own Fèngshù tiè 鳳墅帖. The work cites widely from earlier sources (the shíjīng stone-classics, the imperial jíguān (or mìgé) holdings, and the various Sòng fǎtiè) and gives notably detailed accounts of Sòng jīnshí and fǎtiè compilations as a coherent literature. Composed in wùshēn mid-spring of Chúnyòu 8 (1248). The Sìkù WYG copy preserves Zhū Yízūn’s 朱彝尊 own postscript appended at the end (with two of his name-seals) — Zhū had recovered an early-Qing Shèdú 射瀆 manuscript and called it “coral and mùnán pearls”; this manuscript is the immediate source of the WYG transmission.

Tiyao

Compiled by Zēng Hóngfù of the Sòng. Hóngfù, zì Yòuqīng, self-styled Fèngshù yìkè, of Lúlíng. The book quotes widely from the imperial Shíjīng stones and the various imperially-held witnesses, but its own Fèngshù tiè is treated in particular detail. Whatever it cites is rigorously sourced; but the work has been rare in book-collectors’ hands. In the early years of our (Qing) dynasty, Zhū Yízūn obtained a Shèdú-area manuscript and wrote his own postscript on it, comparing the work to “coral and mùnán pearls.”

The present text retains this postscript and Zhū’s two name-seals — apparently still in his own hand. But Zhū’s postscript says Hóngfù was named Dūn 惇 with the zì used in place — this is a confusion. Examining: there were two Zēng Hóngfù in Sòng — one named Dūn, with zì Hóngfù, was a grandson of Zēng Bù 曾布 and son of Zēng Yǔ 曾紆. Under Níngzōng 寧宗 the personal-name taboo led many to substitute the zì, with the result that this man and the present author have been merged. They are in fact different persons.

Zhū’s postscript also says Chén Sī’s Bǎokè cóngbiān 寶刻叢編 KR2n0024 cites widely but does not include this work. But the Fèngshù tiè was cut between Jiāxī and Chúnyòu eras; the present Shíkè pūxù finished its discussion in mid-spring of wùshēn (Chúnyòu 8 / 1248); while Chén Sī’s Cóngbiān was completed in xīnmǎo of Shàodìng (1231) — the seventh year of Lǐzōng — seventeen or eighteen years before. How could Chén have foreseen Zēng’s later work? Zhū misremembered.

Recently, when Lì È 厲鶚 et al. printed the NánSòng záshì shī 南宋雜事詩, they directly attributed this book to Zēng Dūn — perpetuating Zhū’s error.

Abstract

The Shíkè pūxù is a key late-Sòng jīnshí meta-study, dated 1248 (Chúnyòu 8, wùshēn) per Zēng’s own dating. The catalog meta gives “13th cent.” for Zēng’s lifespan (no precise dates known). The work belongs alongside Cáo Shìmiǎn’s Fǎtiè pǔxì KR2n0021 (1245, also Chúnyòu) as the most important late-Sòng critical bibliographies of the fǎtiè and jīnshí literatures.

The work’s significance:

  1. Documentation of Zēng’s own Fèngshù tiè. The book is the principal source for what the Fèngshù anthology contained — its piece-list, dating, sources, and supplementary cuttings. With the Fèngshù stones long lost, this is much of what survives.
  2. SòngSòng fǎtiè genealogies. Zēng surveys the Sòng fǎtiè tradition from Chúnhuà gétiè through the various imperial and provincial recensions, often supplying details otherwise lost.
  3. Two-Zēng disambiguation. The Sìkù editors’ note distinguishing this Zēng Hóngfù from Zēng Dūn (zì Hóngfù; grandson of Zēng Bù; son of Zēng Yǔ) is itself a piece of important biographical scholarship, correcting Zhū Yízūn’s identification.

The work was lost between Yuán and early Qing; Zhū Yízūn’s recovery of the Shèdú manuscript is the terminus a quo of all later transmissions. The Sìkù WYG copy is the principal printed witness.

Translations and research

No English translation. Studies:

  • Mò Yǒuzhī 莫友芝 and others, on Sòng jīnshí meta-bibliography.
  • Robert E. Harrist Jr., The Landscape of Words (Washington UP, 2008), on Sòng inscription studies.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù editors’ careful disambiguation between two Zēng Hóngfù — and their identification of Zhū Yízūn’s, then Lì È’s perpetuated error — is a small but exemplary piece of evidential prosopography, and is regularly cited in later Qing scholarship on the Fèngshù tiè.

Graph View

Backlinks