Shìgǔtáng shūhuà huìkǎo 式古堂書畫彙考
A Compendious Investigation of Calligraphy and Painting from the Shìgǔ Studio by 卞永譽 (Biàn Yǒngyù, 1645–1712, 清, zhuàn 撰)
About the work
A 60-juàn compendium of calligraphy and painting — shūkǎo 書考 in 30 juàn, huàkǎo 畫考 in 30 juàn — by Biàn Yǒngyù 卞永譽 (zì Lìngzhī 令之, of the Hànjūn 漢軍 Xiānghóngqí 鑲紅旗, who served as Vice-Minister of Punishments and Fújiàn xúnfǔ 福建巡撫). Hence the WYG title is the bare Shūhuà huìkǎo; the Shìgǔtáng 式古堂 is Biàn’s studio name (used in the standard external title of the work). The work was completed in Kāngxī rénxū 22 (1682) — Wáng Shìzhēn’s 王士禎 Jūyì lù 居易錄 attests “Biàn the Vice-Censor Yǒngyù has gifted me his Shūhuà huìkǎo in 60 juàn; all the poetry-essay colophons are entered, tracing upward from WèiJìn and downward to the YuánMíng; the collection is the most detailed and broadest.” The organisational protocol is rigorous: first the gāng (governing category), then the mù (catalogued items); first the general, then the specific; first the work’s main text, then the colophons; first the colophons attached to the work itself, then citations from external books. As the Sìkù editors note, however, the work is a compilation rather than a personal connoisseur’s record: only a portion is from pieces Biàn personally owned or eyewitnessed; much is excerpted from Wāng Kěyù’s KR3h0060 Shānhú wǎng and Zhāng Chǒu’s KR3h0055 Qīnghé shūhuà fǎng — so the Mǐ-Fú-style epistemic distinction between mùdǔ (seen) and díwén (heard-of) is not preserved. The Sìkù entry also enumerates several detailed evidential errors (e.g. mistaking Wén Péng 文彭 and Wén Jiā 文嘉’s Yànmén 雁門 / Màoyuàn 茂苑 — actually a place-name and toponym — for personal biéhào; mistaking Qiūyán 秋岩 for a biéhào of Wú Qiūyǎn 吾丘衍 [author of KR3h0077]; multiple-versions confusion of the Yānjiāng diézhàng tú and the Yīnchángshēng shī). Despite these blemishes, the huìkǎo is by far the largest such compendium and remains a foundational reference.
Tiyao
We have respectfully examined: Shūhuà huìkǎo in sixty juàn, by Biàn Yǒngyù of the present dynasty. Yǒngyù, zì Lìngzhī, of the Hànjūn Xiānghóngqí, finally Left Vice-Minister of Punishments. Wáng Shìzhēn’s Jūyì lù says: “Biàn the zhōngchéng (provincial governor) Yǒngyù has gifted me the Shūhuà huìkǎo in sixty juàn; all the poetry-essay colophons are entered, tracing upward to WèiJìn and downward to the YuánMíng; the collection is the most detailed and broadest.” Zhū Yízūn’s poem on painting also has the lines: “Who can distinguish the smallest hair? In one age, hard indeed to have two zhōngchéng.” — Both Yǒngyù and Sòng Luò were skilled in connoisseurship: Luò was at that time the Jiāngnán Governor, Yǒngyù was at that time the Fújiàn Governor, hence “two zhōngchéng.” The book is calligraphy and painting each in thirty juàn: first the gāng, then the mù; first the general, then the specific; first the main text, then the colophons; first the běnjuàn colophons, then the citations of other books. The arrangement is orderly, and compared with previous catalogers his citation is particularly detailed. Only — the calligraphies and paintings recorded are not all his own holdings; nor are they all from eyewitness. Rather, much is gathered from Wāng Kěyù’s Shānhú wǎng and Zhāng Chǒu’s Qīnghé shūhuà fǎng and similar books, by excerpting and compiling — hence unable to distinguish, as the Bǎozhāng dàifǎng lù could, between eyewitnessed and merely-heard-of with such clarity. Further: the recorded main texts — Chǔ Suìliáng’s writing of Lù Jī’s Wén fù, Wú Tōngwēi’s writing of the Yīnfú jīng, Liú Chǎng’s writing of the Nánhuá Qiūshuǐ piān, Zhào Mèngfǔ’s writing of the GuòQín lùn, etc. — all have no significant differences from the current standard texts, yet the full essays are entered: this is rather redundant. Whereas Lù Jī’s Píngfù tiè and Yú Shìnán’s Zhěnwò tiè — whose texts are unknown to the world — are simply not entered. Even Zhào Mèngjiān’s Shuǐxiān tú juǎn — the Shānhú wǎng records two versions; one cannot but suspect a front-and-back error — and Yǒngyù correctly notes under the second version that one may be a copy, preserving both for further inquiry: this is correct usage. But the Dìngwǔ Lántíng luòshuǐ běn recorded here differs in colophon order from Yù Féngqìng’s Shūhuà tíbá jì; and the Shénlóng Lántíng recorded here repeats colophons that appear in the Zhū Cúnlǐ Tiěwǎng shānhú record of the Dìngwǔ běn. Likewise the Huáng Tíngjiān Yīnchángshēng shī juǎn — three versions appear across Zhū Cúnlǐ, Zhāng Chǒu and the present work; the Wáng Shēn Yānjiāng diézhàng tú — four versions, all without distinguishing the genuine. Further: Wáng Shìzhēn’s Jūyì lù records seeing in Yǒngyù’s studio a Sīmǎ Guāng Zīzhì tōngjiàn manuscript, which Yǒngyù said was originally a single album of exquisite zhèngkǎi, divided up by an enthusiast — Yǒngyù getting only two or three sheets. The present book lists this trace but says only “shǐcǎo” (historical draft) without specifying how many pages — less reliable than Wáng’s record. Wáng also notes seeing Zhào Mèngfǔ’s transcription of Dù Fǔ’s Tiānyù biāojì gē with a small-seal heading dated Yányòu 4 / 9 — also missing. All such omissions are losses. Further: Yànmén is a commandery name; Màoyuàn is the place-name of Chángzhōu; but they are taken here as the biéhào of Wén Péng and Wén Jiā. Jūjié, zì Shìzhēn 士貞 — but the seal Zhēn in ancient seal-form resembles Dǐng 鼎, hence the work takes him as having a second name Shìdǐng. Further, Qiūyán is taken as a biéhào of Wú Qiūyǎn — because Wú’s Gǔwén yùn has after it a “Zhìyuán bǐngxū Qiūyán jì” entry. But Zhìyuán bǐngxū of the prior Zhìyuán is when Wú is just twenty suì — not appropriate for “old man.” If the colophon’s dīngmǎo is in the late-Sòng Xiánchún dīngmǎo, that is precisely the year of Wú’s birth — also not consistent with the “I myself walked from Jiànchāng” content. Comparing the Táo Jiǔchéng (Táo Zōngyí) colophon: this should read as Zhìzhèng 7 / bǐngxū (1346) — zhìyuán a copyist’s slip for zhìzhèng — that is 37 years after Wú Qiūyǎn’s death. Qiūyán is therefore the tíbá writer, not a biéhào of Wú. Errors of this kind abound. However, the registered records are extensive and the citations rich; for the tányì jiā (art-connoisseur), no compilation exceeds it. We will not allow one or two small flaws to obscure the great breadth of its whole. Respectfully collated, Qiánlóng 46 (1781), third month.
Abstract
The Shìgǔtáng shūhuà huìkǎo is the largest single Chinese compendium of calligraphy and painting records before the imperial KR3h0061 Yùdìng Pèiwénzhāi shūhuà pǔ (1708) and the KR3h0063 Shíqú bǎojí (1744). Biàn’s strict editorial protocol — gāng-then-mù, zǒng-then-fēn, běnwén-then-tíbá, běnjuàn tíbá-then-citations — is the model adopted by the imperial Qiánlóng compilers a generation later. The work’s principal weakness, identified clearly by the Sìkù editors, is that it does not separate eyewitnessed from cited material; the Sìkù critics’ list of specific evidential errors is a key entry-point into the work’s textual problems. The 60-juàn extent and the wide coverage from WèiJìn to the Míng make this the standard reference work for tracing colophons on famous SòngYuán pieces. The date attribution range in the catalog meta (1645–1706) follows older datings of Biàn’s death; CBDB and standard modern references give the death date as 1712 — followed here.
Translations and research
- Cahill, James. The Distant Mountains. New York: Weatherhill, 1982.
- Wáng Liánqǐ 王連起. Sòng-dài shūhuà jiànbié yánjiū. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Chubanshe, 2003.
- Ledderose, Lothar. Mi Fu and the Classical Tradition of Chinese Calligraphy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
- No standalone Western-language monograph on Biàn Yǒngyù or the Shìgǔtáng shū-huà huì-kǎo.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù’s list of specific evidential errors in this work — Wén Péng’s Yànmén / Màoyuàn misattribution, the Qiūyán / Wú Qiūyǎn confusion, the Sīmǎ Guāng manuscript miscount — is itself a major kǎozhèng document and key to understanding the limits of Biàn’s authority as a secondhand compiler. Catalog-vs-external dating note: the catalog meta records Biàn’s death as 1706; CBDB and standard modern references give 1712, followed here.