Chóngxiū Xuānhé bógǔ tú 重修宣和博古圖
The Revised Xuān-hé Illustrated Catalog of Antiquities by 王黼 (Wáng Fǔ, 1079–1126, 宋, zhuàn 撰)
About the work
The principal Northern-Sòng imperially-commissioned catalog of bronze antiquities, in 30 juàn, compiled at the Xuānhédiàn 宣和殿 of the Sòng inner palace under Sòng Huīzōng. The author is Wáng Fǔ 王黼 (1079–1126), as recovered from the Yuán Zhìdà (1308–1311) recutting recorded by Qián Céng 錢曾 (Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì gives the author as Wáng Chǔ 王楚 — the Sìkù editors correctly identify this as a transmission error, and explain that Wáng’s name was xuēqù (struck out) of the imperial book-record after his political downfall and disgrace). The Sìkù tíyào provides important contextual corrections to several long-circulating errors about the work: (1) Wáng Fǔ, not Wáng Chǔ, is the compiler; (2) the work was not completed in Xuānhé (1119–1125) but begun at the start of Dàguān (1107) — Cài Tāo’s 蔡絛 Tiěwéishān cóngtán 鐵圍山叢談 (Cài was the son of Cài Jīng 蔡京 and an eyewitness to the project) explicitly says so; (3) the title’s Xuānhé refers not to the regnal era but to the Xuānhédiàn — the imperial library-hall where the antiquities were stored — Huīzōng’s later use of Xuānhé as a niánhào in 1119 derived from the same name (Huīzōng’s wished niánhào was Chónghé 重和, but this was found to clash with the Liáo name Chóngxī 重熙 — hence shifted to Xuānhé, the name of his preferred palace); (4) the project follows the precedent of Lǐ Gōnglín’s 李公麟 (zì Bóshí 伯時, 1049–1106) Kǎogǔ tú (i.e. Lǐ’s private compilation, distinct from Lǚ Dàlín’s KR3h0086 Kǎogǔ tú) rather than Huáng Bóstī’s 黃伯思 Bógǔ túshuō — Huáng’s text was however partially absorbed and adapted. The catalog records the bronze holdings of the imperial shàngfāng — at the time exceeding 6,000 items per Cài Tāo’s count — with each piece illustrated, its inscription traced and glossed, and its place in the Three-Dynasty ritual system discussed. The Sìkù editors note the work’s evidential weaknesses (e.g. Hóng Mài’s 洪邁 famous Róngzhāi suíbǐ mockery of its readings: Fùguǐ yí 父癸匜 read as Hànzhù shuǐyí, Chǔjī pán 楚姬盤 read as Hàn Liángshān xuān 漢梁山鋗, etc.) — but defend it on the grounds that the illustrations preserve the actual vessel shapes and that the kuǎnshí tracings preserve the actual inscriptions even where the readings are mistaken. The 30-juàn corpus accordingly remains the principal source for the Sòng-era imperial bronze collection.
Tiyao
We have respectfully examined: Chóngxiū Xuānhé bógǔ tú in thirty juàn. Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì calls the author Wáng Chǔ; Qián Céng’s Dúshū mǐnqiú jì calls the Yuán Zhìdà recutting “Bógǔ tú — compiled by Wáng Fǔ — all such marks deleted, perhaps because of person-discredit-for-the-book”; this book is therefore truly Wáng Fǔ’s compilation, and Wáng Chǔ is the transmitted text’s error. Qián Céng further says: “The Bógǔ tú was completed in Xuānhé — the title ‘revised’ is because it absorbs Huáng Chángruì’s Bógǔ túshuō in front of it.” Checking Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí: “Bógǔ túshuō in 12 juàn, by the Mìshūláng Zhāowǔ Huáng Bóstī, zì Chángruì — covering 59 vessel-categories totalling 527 pieces, plus 17 seal-categories totalling 45 pieces. Chángruì died in Zhènghé 8 (1118). Afterwards when the Bógǔ tú was edited, much was taken from his work, though with cuts and modifications.” — Qián Céng’s account is borne out.
However, also checking Cài Tāo’s Tiěwéishān cóngtán: “Lǐ Gōnglín zì Bóshí — best as painter — by nature loving the old — took the pieces in his lifetime obtained and those reported as observed, making illustrations of them, calling them Kǎogǔ tú; at the start of Dàguān (1107) we imitated Gōnglín’s Kǎogǔ in making the Xuānhédiàn bógǔ tú.” Therefore this book follows on Lǐ Gōnglín’s work, not Huáng Bóstī’s; and was made at the start of Dàguān, not in Xuānhé. Cài Tāo was Cài Jīng’s son; what he reports is eyewitnessed and cannot be in error. Chén’s investigation was incomplete. At that time the Xuānhé niánhào did not yet exist; the title “Xuānhé bógǔ tú” derives from the fact that there was a Xuānhédiàn in Huīzōng’s inner palace where ancient vessels, calligraphy and painting were stored; later in Zhènghé 8, the new niánhào was originally Chónghé; the Zuǒchéng Fàn Zhìxū objected that it violated the Liáo niánhào (Liáo first used Chóngxī as niánhào; later, because of Tiānzuò’s tabooed name Xī 禧, retroactively called it Chónghé) — Huīzōng was displeased and then named the era after his commonly-occupied palace, calling it Xuānhé — this also is seen in the Tiěwéishān cóngtán. So this book is named for the palace, not the niánhào. From Hóng Mài’s Róngzhāi suíbǐ onward, the misnomer “Zhènghé and Xuānhé between the court set up shūjú by the tens — for crude shallowness mockable, none beats the Bógǔ tú” — Qián Céng follows this and so makes the same error.
Cài Tāo also says: “The shàngfāng (palace workshop) holdings reached more than 6,000; several hundred vessels were all on view; one saw the Three Dynasties’ canonical-ceremony writing — and reading the xiānrú’s (earlier Confucians’) discussions, there were almost laughable readings.” Hóng Mài on the other hand picks out the Fùguǐ yí read as Hànzhù shuǐyí, the Chǔjī pán read as Hàn Liángshān xuān, and the Zhōuyū Gāokè entries — as criticisms — all hitting the mark. Cài’s discussion was made to protect the era; not a settled evaluation. However, the book’s evidential research is though crude, yet the vessel-form does not fail; the script-reading is though wrong, yet the strokes preserve themselves; the reader can still use the illustrations to identify the Three-Dynasty dǐngyí manufacture and the kuǎnshí writing — re-collating it. The compiling work of the time also cannot be denied. Its rambling and absurd discussions are not worth challenging; leave them, undiscussed, that is enough. Respectfully collated, Qiánlóng 46 (1781), ninth month.
Abstract
The Chóngxiū Xuānhé bógǔ tú is the imperial Sòng counterpart to Lǚ Dàlín’s private KR3h0086 Kǎogǔ tú; together the two constitute the Northern-Sòng founding of Chinese antiquarianism. Wáng Fǔ 王黼 (1079–1126) — Zǎixiàng under Huīzōng and one of the central figures of the Liùzéi (Six Traitors), executed during the Jurchen sack of Biànjīng — is one of the principal political targets of Southern Sòng historiographical condemnation; the Yuán Zhìdà recutter’s removal of his attribution is itself a piece of cultural history. The work’s 30-juàn coverage and 800+ inscribed vessels make it the largest single Sòng-imperial antiquarian compilation. Its evidential weaknesses, identified by the Sìkù editors and earlier by Hóng Mài, are real — the zìhuà readings of inscriptions are frequently incorrect — but the catalog’s preservation of the actual vessel forms and inscriptions (in tracing-copy) makes it indispensable: many of the recorded vessels are no longer extant and survive only here. The textual corrections in the Sìkù tíyào (the author’s name, the actual date of compilation in Dàguān, the meaning of Xuānhé in the title) are particularly important: the SòngYuánMíngQīng catalog tradition before the Sìkù mostly perpetuated Hóng Mài’s slip. The dating range here is therefore set to 1107 (Cài Tāo’s Dàguān date) to 1123 (the latest plausible completion before Huīzōng’s political collapse).
Translations and research
- Sena, Yunchiahn C. Bronze and Stone. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2019.
- Ebrey, Patricia. Accumulating Culture: The Collections of Emperor Huizong. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008. [Comprehensive Western study of the Xuān-hé bó-gǔ tú in its imperial-collection context.]
- Hsu, Ya-hwei 許雅惠. “Antiquaries and Politics: Antiquarian Culture of the Northern Song.” Hsiang Lectures on Chinese Poetry 7 (2014).
- Wáng Guówéi 王國維. Sòng-dài jīn-wén zhù-lù-biǎo.
- Rong Geng 容庚. Shāng Zhōu yí-qì tōng-kǎo. Beijing: Yanjing Daxue, 1941.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ careful unravelling of (a) the author’s identity (Wáng Fǔ, not Wáng Chǔ), (b) the date of compilation (Dàguān 1107 onwards, not Xuānhé), and (c) the meaning of Xuānhé in the title (the palace-hall name, not the niánhào) is one of the most important pieces of kǎozhèng on Sòng antiquarian history. It substantially revises the standard pre-Qīng understanding of the work and remains the accepted modern reading.