Yǎnfán lù 演繁露
Elaborations on the Fanlu
by 程大昌 (Chéng Dàchāng, 1123–1195; jìnshì of 1151, posthumous title Wénjiǎn 文簡)
About the work
A large philological-antiquarian bǐjì in sixteen juan, with a Xù (continuation) in six juan also included in the Sìkù recension. The title takes its inspiration from Dǒng Zhòngshū’s 董仲舒 Hàn-period Chūnqiū fánlù 春秋繁露: Chéng Dàchāng’s premise is that Dǒng’s “fánlù” — a “luxuriant rope of pearls” of philological-historical jottings on the Chūnqiū — has been transmitted in such a damaged and partial state that he, Chéng, would compose his own fánlù, yǎn 演 (“elaborated, drawn out”), in a similar mode but tackling the full breadth of Sòng-period kǎozhèng concerns: institutions, ritual implements, ancient and contemporary terms, geographical and astronomical points, lexical curiosities, and exegesis of difficult passages in the canon. The continuation (Xù yǎnfán lù) is organized into four divisions: zhìdù 制度 (institutions), wén lèi 文類 (literary categories), shī shì 詩事 (matters in poetry), and tán zhù 談助 (aids to conversation). Together with the Kǎogǔ biān 攷古編 (KR3j0039) it constitutes Chéng’s principal contribution to Sòng bǐjì-scholarship. Catalogued under Záxué zhī shǔ 雜學之屬 of the Zájiā 雜家 division, záyǎng zhī shǔ 雜考之屬.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yǎnfán lù in sixteen juan and Xù yǎnfán lù in six juan, by Chéng Dàchāng of the Sòng. During the Shàoxīng period the Chūnqiū fánlù first emerged in print but the text was incomplete. Dàchāng adduced [the citations of] passages such as “the sword on the left” 劍之在左 in the Tōngdiǎn 通典 and “the grain ripens in the field” 禾實於野 in the Tàipíng yùlǎn 太平御覽, and argued that these revealed the [received] fánlù to be a forgery — for, said he, Zhòngshū’s original work must have employed each individual wù 物 to make its argument. Accordingly he composed his own work in imitation, naming it Yǎnfán lù. Later, Lóu Yuè 樓鑰 collated against various other versions and recovered the original fánlù: every passage cited in the various books was present, and on this basis Lóu reproached Dàchāng for narrowness of reading and for having treated [Dǒng] Zhòngshū’s book as a xiǎoshuō. Lóu’s criticism is correct. Yet what Dàchāng “elaborated,” even if not the yìzhǐ (original sense) of Zhòngshū, is detailed and clear in identifying objects and explaining institutions, and is genuinely useful for xiǎoxué 小學 (philology). The cited works follow the precedent of Lǐ Kuāngyì’s 李匡乂 Zī xiá jí 資暇集 in citing the Tōngdiǎn, with multiple notations of “such-and-such book, such-and-such juan,” so that any errors are easily checked — a method that may serve as a model for documented citation.
The main work is not divided into categories; the continuation is divided into four sections — zhìdù, wén lèi, shī shì, and tán zhù. In one entry Dàchāng argues that the “děng zǐ” 等子 of the wèishì 衛士 honour-guards in the imperial procession should read “dǐng zǐ” 鼎子. Yuè Kē’s 岳珂 Kuì tán lù 愧郯録 cites Wú Rénjié’s 吳仁傑 Yán shí xīn lùn 鹽石新論, jiǎ biān 甲編, where it is noted that the Wèi shū · Diǎn Wéi zhuàn speaks of “děng rén” — and Hóng Hànlín 洪翰林 [Hóng Mài 洪邁] says “děng rén is like hòu rén 候人 [scout-attendant], such being the military system.” Dàchāng’s doubt was therefore not entirely warranted. But such occasional looseness in the book amounts to no more than one or two entries; the rest is mostly precise and well-documented, sufficient to serve as authority. Zhōu Mì’s 周密 Qí dōng yě yǔ 齊東野語 records: “When Chéng Wénjiǎn’s [i.e. Dàchāng’s] Yǎnfán lù was first completed, Gāo Wénhǔ 髙文虎 once borrowed it to read, praising its breadth and richness. Wénhǔ’s son [Gāo] Sìsūn 似孫, then still young, secretly examined it. The next day Chéng asked for the original to be returned; Sìsūn produced a fascicle and said, ‘My Fánlù’ [i.e. his own], in which he questioned points Dàchāng had not noted, with even more detailed argumentation than Dàchāng’s. Today this latter work is not transmitted, and is not catalogued in the various bibliographies. Considering Sìsūn’s surviving Wěi lüè 緯略 (KR3j0041) cannot in precision and breadth match Dàchāng, perhaps the report has been exaggerated, and Zhōu Mì has erroneously recorded it.”
Respectfully revised and submitted, eleventh month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀 (note: 均 in the original is a typographical slip for 昀), Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. General Reviser: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.
Abstract
The Yǎnfán lù is one of the major Southern-Sòng kǎozhèng bǐjì and the principal work for which Chéng Dàchāng was known to later antiquarians. Its preface (the original 《演繁露原序》 by Dàchāng himself) is dated Chúnxī gēngzǐ 淳熙庚子, first month — i.e. spring of 1180, written at Wúxīng 吳興 — which fixes the composition of the main work to the Chúnxī decade and grounds the dating bracket adopted here. The Sìkù editors include both the original 16-juan Yǎnfán lù and the 6-juan Xù yǎnfán lù under one catalog entry. The continuation’s preface notes the work’s authorial intent and modest framing: Chéng Dàchāng disclaims any rivalry with Dǒng Zhòngshū but invokes the Chūnqiū fánlù’s name to authorize a xiǎoxué-philological project on the names and institutions of antiquity. The Míng préfacier Dèng Měi 鄧渼 (preface dated 萬曆丁巳 = 1617) printed the work at his Wényuǎntáng 文逺堂.
The work is famously paired with the Kǎogǔ biān 攷古編 (KR3j0039), the two together representing Chéng Dàchāng’s mature antiquarian-philological practice. Where the Kǎogǔ biān is exegetical and confrontational (challenging earlier commentators, asserting novel theses on the Shī’s structure or the Táng liùdiǎn’s status), the Yǎnfán lù is broader and more cumulative: brief essays on names of objects (often ritual or sumptuary), names of places, terms in early poetry, words for foods and clothing, etymologies of proper names, and explications of obscure passages in the canon and the histories.
The work was famously criticized by Lóu Yuè 樓鑰 (1137–1213), who pointed out that Chéng Dàchāng had condemned the received Chūnqiū fánlù as forged on insufficient evidence — Lóu having located a fuller recension that vindicated the transmitted text. The Sìkù editors concede the criticism but defend the Yǎnfán lù’s independent value, situating it as a positive contribution to xiǎoxué and kǎozhèng even if its founding premise was mistaken. The work is recorded in Chén Zhènsūn’s 陳振孫 Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí 直齋書錄解題 and the Sòngshǐ · Yìwén zhì; it is widely cited by Wáng Yìngmín 王應麟 and by all later antiquarian bǐjì writers from the Yuán through the Qīng.
The Zhōu Mì anecdote retold in the Tíyào — that the young Gāo Sìsūn 高似孫 (KR3j0041’s author), having peeped at the borrowed manuscript, produced a rival Fánlù of his own — is now generally treated as a literary embellishment; the Sìkù editors’ own assessment that Sìsūn’s Wěi lüè is in fact inferior to Chéng Dàchāng’s work argues against the anecdote’s literal truth.
Translations and research
No substantial European-language secondary literature located. The standard modern punctuated edition is in:
- Quán Sòng bǐjì 全宋筆記, ser. 4 vol. 9 (Lǐ Wěiguó 李偉國 et al., eds., Zhèngzhōu: Dàxiàng chūbǎnshè, 2008), containing punctuated Kǎogǔ biān, Yǎnfán lù, and Xù yǎnfán lù.
- Liú Yèqiū 劉葉秋, Lìdài bǐjì gàishù 歷代筆記概述 (Zhōnghuá, 1980; rev. 2003), notice on Chéng Dàchāng’s bǐjì.
- Notice in Cíhǎi 辭海 and the Zhōngguó dà bǎikē quánshū 中國大百科全書, Zhōngguó wénxué juàn.
- The Yǎnfán lù is heavily quarried in modern Chinese works on Sòng material culture and on the historical lexicography of ritual implements, textiles, and foodstuffs.
Other points of interest
The Yǎnfán lù’s methodology — citing every source by chapter and folio so that the reader can verify each reference — anticipates by half a millennium the citational ethos of Qīng kǎozhèng scholarship and is explicitly singled out by the Sìkù editors as a model for documented citation. Sòng bǐjì-prose rarely adheres to this standard.