聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

金石史

5 min read

Text ID
KR2n0034
Date
1620–1650
Dynasty
明

Jīnshí shǐ 金石史

A History of Bronze and Stone [Inscriptions]

by 郭宗昌 (Guō Zōngchāng, d. 1652)

About the work

A 2-juan late-Míng jīnshí compendium covering 50 stelae — about one-fifth the coverage of Zhào Hán’s Shímò juānhuā KR2n0033. The two works are paired in the Sìkù sequence as late-Míng Shǎnxī provincial jīnshí. Coverage: juan 1 from Zhōu through Suí-Tang; juan 2 mostly Tang stelae (~20+) with one Sòng Jiàngzhōu Fūzǐmiào jì 絳州夫子廟記 mixed in — apparently following Ōuyáng’s Jígǔ mùlù practice of not strictly chronological ordering. Critical apparatus is more focused on calligraphy than on history. The Sìkù editors note distinct lapses (especially Guō’s idiosyncratic argument that the Stone Drums Shígǔ wén are not “drums” at all but should be retitled Qíyáng shíjié wén 岐陽石碣文 [“Qíyáng stone-stelae text”]; Guō also misattributes a Yìshān bēi “排倒” event to Cáo Cāo 曹操 reading a Lǐ Yánwén 李延文 Wénjiànjì passage where the original speaks of Wèi Wǔdì 魏武帝 = Tuòbá Tāo). Despite these eccentricities, Guō’s adjudications on the Héngyuè bēi 衡岳碑, Bǐgān mù 比干墓, Tóngpán míng 銅盤銘, Jì Zhá bēi 季札碑, Tiānfāshénchèn bēi 天發神讖碑, and Bìluò bēi 碧落碑 all correctly identify them as forgeries — in line with later evidential consensus. Sūn Chéngzé’s 孫承澤 Gēngzǐ xiāoxià jì 庚子銷夏記 draws extensively on the Jīnshí shǐ.

Tiyao

[Translated and condensed from the Sìkù tíyào]

Compiled by Guō Zōngchāng of the Míng. Zōngchāng, zì Yǔnbó, of Huázhōu. He was passionate about jīnshí writings; his residence at Zhǐyuán by the Báiyáhú had a pavilion built where every column-foundation, every floor-base, was inscribed with kuǎnshì and míngzàn in his own hand and self-cut. After 30 years the project was not finished — clearly an eccentric devotee of the unusual. Together with the contemporary Zhào Hán 趙崡 of Zhōuzhì, he made jīnshí searching his vocation; Zhào produced the Shímò juānhuā and Guō produced this work. Coverage is only 50 pieces — about a fifth of Zhào’s work.

Juan 1: Zhōu down through Suí-Tang. Juan 2: 20+ Tang stelae plus one Sòng Jiàngzhōu Fūzǐmiào jì mixed in — apparently on Ōuyáng’s original Jígǔ mùlù practice of not strictly arranging by date.

His Stone-Drums discussion follows Dǒng Yóu’s 董逌 Guǎngchuān shūbá 廣川書跋 — he takes the Zuǒzhuàn and dates them to King Chéng of Zhōu. This is over-original. He further argues “stone made into drum-form has no meaning, and the stone shape is not even like a drum”; he proposes to retitle them Qíyáng shíjié wén — stretching too far. His Yìshān bēi 嶧山碑 entry quotes Tang Fēng Yǎn 封演 saying: “the stone was knocked down by Cáo Cāo; Tuòbá Tāo also knocked it down” — so why a single stone twice toppled? Examining Fēng’s Wénjiànjì: “Qín Shǐhuáng’s stele, in Lǐ Sī’s small-seal characters; later Wèi Wǔdì 魏武帝 (Tuòbá Tāo) climbed the mountain and had men knock it down” — there is no Cáo Cāo passage. Probably Guō’s text dropped the Tài 太 (so 魏太武帝 became 魏武帝, mis-readable as Cáo Cāo). His evidential research is rather slack.

But Guō and Zhào both privilege calligraphy over history; not particularly well-informed on dynastic history; need not be faulted. His treatments of Héngyuè bēi, Bǐgān mù, Tóngpán míng, Jì Zhá bēi, Tiānfāshénchèn bēi, and Bìluò bēi — all correctly identifying these as forgeries — are quite reasonable. His view that Huáirén jí Shèngjiào xù 懷仁集聖教序 surpasses Dìngwǔ Lántíng — that is hometown-pride for Guānzhōng holdings, not a settled judgement. Sūn Chéngzé later sharply disagreed; but Sūn’s Gēngzǐ xiāoxià jì in fact regularly draws on Guō’s words — Guō’s views are not entirely set aside. Only Guō’s tendency toward “great words to dazzle the common” — typical late-Míng shānrén (mountain-recluse-poseur) style — should be left aside; the rest stands.

Abstract

The Jīnshí shǐ is the second of the two principal late-Míng Shǎnxī-area provincial jīnshí compendia (with Zhào Hán’s Shímò juānhuā KR2n0033), and a useful witness to local Hàn-Tang capital-region stelae and to late-Míng connoisseurial method. The catalog meta gives “d. 1652”; the work was compiled in Guō’s mature career, set notBefore 1620 / notAfter 1650 here.

The work’s contributions:

  1. Local Shǎnxī coverage. Hàn-Tang capital-region stelae from the late Míng connoisseur’s perspective.
  2. Forgery identification. Guō’s correct identifications of the Héngyuè bēi, Bǐgān mù, Tóngpán míng, Jì Zhá bēi, Tiānfāshénchèn bēi, and Bìluò bēi as forgeries are consistent with later evidential consensus.
  3. Source for Sūn Chéngzé. Despite their published disagreements, Sūn’s Gēngzǐ xiāoxià jì uses the Jīnshí shǐ as a major source.
  4. Late-Míng shānrén aesthetic. The work exemplifies the late-Míng connoisseur’s combination of antiquarian erudition and self-aggrandising rhetoric.

CBDB has no entry for Guō Zōngchāng.

Translations and research

No English translation. Studies:

  • Robert E. Harrist Jr., The Landscape of Words (Washington UP, 2008), on Míng jīnshí.
  • Sūn Chéngzé 孫承澤, Gēngzǐ xiāoxià jì 庚子銷夏記 (1660) — extensive use and corrections.
  • Yáng Rénkǎi 楊仁愷, Zhōngguó shūhuà 中國書畫.

Other points of interest

The Sìkù editors’ suspicion that Guō’s text dropped a tài 太 character (from 魏太武帝 to 魏武帝, leading to confusion with Cáo Cāo) is exemplary of evidentialist textual reconstruction.

Graph View

Backlinks