雲麓漫抄

Yún lù màn chāo 雲麓漫抄

Random Jottings from the Cloud-Foothills

by 趙彥衞 (Zhào Yànwèi, fl. 1190s–1206; zì Jǐngān 景安).

About the work

A 15-juàn late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì by 趙彥衞 (Zhào Yànwèi), member of the imperial Zhào clan. Originally compiled as Yōng lú xián jì 擁鑪閒記 in 10 juàn and printed at the Hàndōng xuégōng during Zhào’s tenure there; on Zhào’s transfer to Xīnān (Huīzhōu) prefecture in Kāixǐ 2 (1206) the additional 5 juàn were printed and the title changed to its present form. The preface, dated Kāixǐ 2 Chóngyáng day (1206), explicitly likens the book to 葉夢得’s Bì shǔ lù huà (KR3j0106). About 30% of the book is zá jì (anecdotal recordkeeping) and 70% kǎozhèng of míng wù (names and things). The book is significant for: (a) the discussion of the now-lost Lǚ Dàfáng 呂大防 Chángān tú; (b) the Táng zhìkē (decree-examination) typology; (c) Sòng receptions of Jīn embassies — cost figures preserved nowhere else.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Yún lù màn chāo in fifteen juan was compiled by Zhào Yànwèi of the Sòng. Yànwèi’s zì was Jǐngān; in Shàoxī (1190–1194) he was zǎi of Wūchéng; later tōngpàn of Huīzhōu. This book has a Kāixǐ 2 (1206) preface self-signed as Xīnān jùnshǒu; how he eventually ended is unrecoverable.

By his own preface: it was originally titled Yōng lú xián jì, only 10 juan, first printed at the Hàndōng xuégōng; later when officiating at Xīnān he printed together the additional 5 juan, and at that point changed the title. Checking against the Wénxiàn tōngkǎo, which records Yún lù màn chāo as 20 juan with a 2-juan supplement — at odds with his preface — was there subsequent addition beyond these 15, or did the Tōng kǎo err “10 juan” as “20 juan” and “xù 5 juan” as “xù 2 juan”? Zhū Yízūn’s Pù shūtíng abstract-copy of the Sòng original is only 10 juan — so the book had multiple recensions; one cannot decide which is correct.

The book’s records of Sòng-era miscellaneous affairs are 3 of 10; kǎozhèng of names-and-things 7 of 10. Its account of affairs: it has no censorious word on Qín Guì or his son; but on the wrongful execution of Qū Duān 曲端, where Zhāng Jùn 張浚 is omitted and only Wáng Shù 王庶 blamed; and where it speaks of the “Duān’s plot of fǎn (rebellion)” — this is plainly a partisan record.

Its kǎozhèng is rather wide-ranging. Some are slipshod: e.g. on Lùn yǔ “xiáng ér hòu jí” — must not be a single pheasant — without knowing that the Shī’s “jí yú mù,” the Chūnqiū zhuàn’s “dú jí yú gū,” the Jiā yǔ’s “sǔn jí yú Chén tíng” — none of these are flock-perching senses. Or: the Wèi Rú Jī is from the sense of zūn rú Wáng jī — without knowing that there was an ancient Rú surname; that Sòng Yù’s Shén nǚ fù and Lǚ Bùwéi’s fèng Yìrén used “jī” as the yìngshì concubine’s beautiful term has been so since the Warring States. Other slips: Fúrónghuāgēn wèi duàncháng cǎo is from Táo Hóngjǐng’s Míngyī bié lù, but is here cited as the speech of a lǎo pǔ (old gardener) to explain a Lǐ Bái poem. The Zhōu lǐ Dōng guān sàn zài wǔ guān is Yú Tíngchūn’s Fù gǔ biān doctrine, but vaunted as a sole-discovery. The Mèng pó as the consort of Yuánmíng; the ē of Ēfánggōng as the ē of Ējiāo / Ēlián; the bù xiǎn Wénwáng from the Shī as evidence against the Tàizōng line names like Zhào Bùshuāi — to a Shòutínghóu seal entry directly contradicting the Sānguó zhì; a Mǐ Yuánzhāng book-criticism entry contradicting Mǐ’s own Shū shǐ — both inappropriately accepted as authentic, are blemishes.

But: the identification of the Shíbā xuéshì tú as a Qīnzōng’s painting bestowed on Zhāng Shūyè and Lǐ Gāng, misattributed to Yán Lìběn; the observation that the Kāiyuán also had a Shíbā xuéshì, not unique to Tàizōng; the reading of hēi as lú, i.e. Shàng shū lú gōng, not a northern colloquialism; the demonstration that xíng xiāng was not a guójì (state-tabooed) ritual; the identification of the Shǐ jì Guī cè zhuàn zhū zhào míng; the demonstration of the forgery of the Wáng Xiànzhī bǎo mǔ mù zhuān; the demonstration that the Bó gǔ tú erred in faulting the Sān lǐ tú; the textual research on the Wáng Mǎng lǜ quán shí; the demonstration that the Luó Jìng bēi is not a father-son same-name; the demonstration that tomb-sacrifice is already in the Zhōu lǐ; the demonstration that the Xiāo Yì Lán tíng “tricked-into-buying” anecdote has no foundation — all are grounded and contribute to kǎozhèng.

As to the Lǚ Dàfáng Chángān tú — the original is lost; this book preserves its outline. The Táng zhìkē (decree-examination) name-typology, and the Sòng sòngyíng Jīn shǐ (escort-and-reception of Jīn envoys) expenditure-figures, are both unrecorded in the standard histories’ treatises. The book’s self-preface saying “it can stand alongside Yè Mèngdé’s Bì shǔ lù huà” — this is not deception.

Respectfully revised and submitted, third month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781).

Abstract

The Yún lù màn chāo is one of the most kǎozhèng-rich of the late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì. The Sìkù editors single out three distinctive contributions:

1. Lǚ Dàfáng’s Chángān tú: the original map is now lost; Zhào’s book preserves a substantial outline — the principal extant witness to one of the most important Sòng historical-geography productions.
2. Táng zhìkē typology: the decree-examination categories (zhìkē, irregular examination courses) — by which the Táng court recruited candidates for special qualifications — are not detailed in the standard Táng shū or Tōng diǎn treatises; Zhào’s book preserves a fuller listing.
3. SòngJīn embassy cost-figures: the expenditure-tables for receiving Jīn embassies — useful for early-13th-century institutional and financial history — are not given in the standard histories.

The book’s textual contributions include: the identification of the Shíbā xuéshì tú as a Qīnzōng painting (not Yán Lìběn); the demonstration that there were two Shíbā xuéshì (Kāiyuán as well as Tàizōng); the hēi as lú / Shàng shū lú gōng reading; the demonstration of the forgery of the Wáng Xiànzhī bǎo mǔ mù zhuān; and the dismissal of the Xiāo Yì Lán tíng trick-buying story. The book’s principal weaknesses are partisan: Zhào Yànwèi spares Qín Guì in his anecdotes and adopts a hostile reading of Qū Duān’s case.

Dating. The original Yōng lú xián jì (10 juàn) belongs to Zhào’s earlier (Wūchéng / Hàndōng) period — Shàoxī (1190–1194); the additional 5 juàn and the rebranding to Yún lù màn chāo are from his Kāixǐ 2 (1206) tenure at Xīnān (Huīzhōu). NotBefore 1190 / notAfter 1206. Multiple Sòng recensions are recorded — 10, 15, and 20 juàn — so the textual history is complex; the SKQS recension is the 15-juàn form.

Translations and research

No complete Western-language translation. The book is regularly cited in modern scholarship on Táng zhì-kē (decree-examinations), on Sòng-Jīn diplomatic costs, and on Cháng-ān historical geography. The Bā lù tú and Lǚ Dà-fáng Cháng-ān tú materials are widely cited by historical geographers (Sī-mǎ Guāng / Lǚ Dà-fáng research).

Other points of interest

The book’s preservation of an outline of the Lǚ Dàfáng Chángān tú — one of the principal sources for Sòng-period reconstruction of the Táng imperial city — is its single most cited contribution.

Links

• Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 3, Yún lù màn chāo entry.
• Wikipedia: 雲麓漫抄.