澗泉日記

Jiànquán rì jì 澗泉日記

The Jiàn-quán Diary

by 韓淲 (Hán Biāo, 1160–1224; zì Zhòngzhǐ 仲止, hào Jiànquán 澗泉), son of Hán Yuánjí 韓元吉 of Nánjiàn.

About the work

A 3-juàn late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì by 韓淲 (Hán Biāo), son of the senior recovery-historian Hán Yuánjí 韓元吉. The original text is lost; the SKQS recension is restored from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn and arranged by the Sìkù editors in 3 juàn by topic: history-related entries first, character-evaluation second, classical-history kǎozhèng third, poetics fourth, and mountain-and-stream / ancient-traces miscellany fifth. The book is regarded by the Sìkù editors as “a thoroughly outstanding work among Sòng shuōbù.” Hán Biāo’s social position — son of Hán Yuánjí (the Northern-recovery historian; friend of Zhū Xī, Lù Yóu, Yáng Wànlǐ, Zhāng Shì); descendant of the Northern-Sòng Cānzhèng Hán Yì 韓億; close kin of the Dōnglái Lǚ family — gives him exceptional access to “old hearings” that ground his entries. The book preserves significant correction of 葉夢得’s Shílín yàn yǔ (KR3j0105) and historiographic supplements on the Zhézōng zhèngshǐ edited by Zhèng Yǔnzhōng 鄭允中.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Jiànquán rì jì in three juan was compiled by Hán Biāo of the Sòng. Biāo’s zì was Zhòngzhǐ; Jiànquán his hào. His house was originally settled in Kāifēng; after the Southern migration his father took refuge in Xìnzhōu and was accordingly enrolled at Shàngráo. Táo Zōngyí’s Shuō fù records this book in a few entries titled “compiled by Sòng Hǔ” — a transmission error. The Jiāngxī tōngzhì gives him as Hán Hǔ 韓琥; Lì È’s Sòng shī jì shì gives him as Hán Hé 韓㴲. By Biāo’s elder brother named Hàng, younger brother Jì — all with shuǐ-radical names — his name must be from shuǐ not from yù (jade); “Hú” 琥 is wrong. Shuō wén records hé 㴲 as a place-name; Xú Xuàn glosses it jí yí qiè, with no other meaning. Biāo 淲 means liúshuǐmào (the appearance of flowing water) — i.e. the piào of the Shī’s Piào chí; Xú Xuàn glosses it pí biāo qiè — so the name takes “flowing” and the zì “stopping,” for sense-consistency; “hé” is also wrong.

Biāo has no biography in the Sòng shǐ; his career-start-and-end is unrecoverable. Only the Dài Fùgǔ Shí píng jí has an Elegy for Hán Zhòngzhǐ that says: “his elevated aspiration was not common; he retired from office twenty years; in seclusion above the brook house, he drank from the qīngzhuó in the canyon-spring; with deep feeling he discussed the times’ affairs; in sad cold he made his closing-brush piece; three poems his bequeathed manuscript exists; ought together with the history book to be transmitted.” Self-annotation: “Hearing the matters of the time, he was alarmed of heart and got sick and died, composing the Reasons for Being a Shāng Shān Mountain-Man, Reasons for Being a Táo Yuán Man, Reasons for Being a Lù Mén Man — three poems, his closing brush.” So Biāo encountered a chaotic age, retired discouraged, with held aspiration and died — a worthy shì.

The Sòng shǐ Yìwén zhì does not record this book; one cannot know the original juan-count. We have now gathered the scattered pieces of the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn, arranged them in order in 3 juàn: history-related first, character-evaluation next, classical-history kǎozhèng next, poetics next, mountain-and-stream / ancient-traces miscellany next. Though not necessarily fully restored to the original, it is brilliantly readable.

According to the Dōngnán jì wén — Biāo was lofty-pure, beyond ordinary; never carelessly receiving visitors of distinction nor casually accepting gifts. His character and learning had firm root; he was descendant of Cānzhèng Hán Yì of the Northern Sòng and son of Lìbù shàngshū Hán Yuánjí, with close kin among contemporary great clans like the Dōnglái Lǚ-shi — so he was rich in old hearings, not coming from second-hand. His record of the Míngdào 2 (1033) — Míngsù tàihòu’s personal audience at the Tàimiào — is enough to correct 葉夢得’s Shílín yàn yǔ (KR3j0105)‘s error; the record of Dàguān 4 (1110), 4th month — the commission to Lǐbù shàngshū Zhèng Yǔnzhōng et al. to edit the Zhézōng zhèngshǐ — supplements the lacuna in the standard histories. The other arguments are mostly fine-and-exact; in Sòng shuōbù this stands outstandingly elevated.

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

Abstract

The Jiànquán rì jì is one of the Sìkù editors’ most highly regarded Sòng bǐjì, despite its modest size and the loss of its original. The book draws heavily on Hán Biāo’s privileged access to “old hearings” through his great-grandfather Hán Yì’s, father Hán Yuánjí’s, and his Dōnglái Lǚ in-laws’ first-hand recollections of Northern Sòng court affairs.

The book has two distinctive historiographic contributions singled out by the Sìkù editors:

1. Correction of KR3j0105 Shílín yàn yǔ: Hán’s record of the Míngdào 2 (1033) imperial audience of Míngsù tàihòu (the empress-dowager) at the Tàimiào corrects an error in Yè Mèngdé’s Shílín yàn yǔ. The Sìkù editors are particularly impressed since Yè Mèngdé was himself one of the most acute institutional historians of the early Southern Sòng.
2. Supplements to standard histories on Zhézōng zhèngshǐ: Hán’s record of the Dàguān 4 (1110) imperial commission appointing Lǐbù shàngshū Zhèng Yǔnzhōng et al. to compile the Zhézōng zhèngshǐ fills a lacuna in the Sòng shǐ — and is significant because the Zhézōng zhèngshǐ is one of the principal sources for the Yuányòu / Shàoshèng court-political record.

Dating. The book’s references span Hán Biāo’s adult career (he retired from office young — twenty years prior to his death of 1224 by Dài Fùgǔ’s elegy, placing his retirement at around Qìngyuán 5 = 1199 or so), to the end of his life (1224); the Wù-related shock-of-the-times entries (the Shāngshān, Táoyuán, Lùmén hermit-poetic-personae allegories of his late years) are his closing brush. NotBefore 1200 / notAfter 1224. The original juan-count is uncertain; the Sòng shǐ Yìwén zhì does not register it; the SKQS recension is 3 juàn restored from the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn.

The book’s authorial name has been variously misrendered in transmission: as Sòng Hǔ 宋琥 (Shuō fù); Hán Hǔ 韓琥 (Jiāngxī tōngzhì); Hán Hé 韓㴲 (Sòng shī jì shì); the Sìkù editors correctly restore Hán Biāo 韓淲 with shuǐ-radical (matching brothers Hàng 沆 and Jì 濟), and gloss biāo / zhǐ (the name / zì) as “flowing-water” / “stopping” — a sense-pair.

Translations and research

No substantial Western-language treatment. The book is cited in Chinese-language scholarship on Sòng historiographic bǐjì and on the Two Quán (Èr Quán) school of late-Southern-Sòng poetics (Hán Biāo and Zhào Fān 趙蕃; the school highly praised by Fāng Huí 方回 in his Yíng-kuí lǜ-suí).

Other points of interest

The book’s correction of Yè Mèngdé on Empress-Dowager Míngsù’s Tàimiào audience — and the supplementing of the standard histories on the Zhézōng zhèngshǐ commission — together make the work one of the more substantive late-Southern-Sòng bǐjì contributions to Northern Sòng historiography.

Links

• Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 3, Jiànquán rì jì entry.
• Dài Fùgǔ, Shí píng jí, Elegy for Hán Zhòngzhǐ.