Qī sòng táng zhì xiǎo lù 七頌堂識小錄
Recording the Small from the Hall of Seven Hymns
by 劉體仁 (Liú Tǐrén, 1617–1676, zì Gōngyǒng 公勇), Hénán literatus and connoisseur.
About the work
A 1-juàn early-Qīng connoisseurship bǐjì by 劉體仁 (Liú Tǐrén), in 74 entries recording calligraphies, paintings, and ancient objects he had seen — mostly in the collections of the great Beijing collector-families 孫承澤 (Sūn Chéngzé), Liáng Qīngbiāo 梁清標, and other old houses. Liú was jìnshì of Shùnzhì yǐwèi (1655) and held office to Lǐbù lángzhōng (Director, Bureau of Personnel). Wáng Shìzhēn’s Jūyì lù (KR3j0162) records that Liú liked to paint but did so poorly, and kept a hand to draft for him — earning the comment that real Xuānzhōu rabbit-hair hè (felt-cap) is not as good as the imitation — a contemporary joke. But his connoisseurship was particularly refined. Liú’s letter to Zhāng Shíshuǐ 張實水 in the Qī sòng táng jí says: “Recently in imitation of Yún yān guò yǎn lù I have made a Zhì xiǎo lù of one volume” — this is the book. The 74 entries each detail the holder of the object and the lineage of transmission — useful for kǎozhèng. Wáng Hóngzhuàn 王宏撰’s Shān zhì preserves a polemic exchange about Liú’s attribution of a Lántíng rubbing’s [Mǐ Yuánhuī colophon and Sòng Zhòngwēn colophon] as written by one hand — Wāng Wǎn 汪琬 disagreed strongly, and after correspondence Liú deleted the passage. The Sū Shì Zuìwēng tíng jì attribution problem — Chūnmíng mèngyú lù (Sūn Chéngzé) says it was by the Zhōngzhōu literatus Bái Lín, whom Gāo Gǒng mistakenly took as Sū Shì’s authentic hand and engraved on stone — Liú also notes the doubt, suggesting it might be by a Zhōngshēng copyist; the Sìkù editors gently rebuke his local-loyalty bias. The last two entries — Lù Zhúsēng’s demon encounter, Wéi Jìfēi’s pond-river-station sighting of male-and-female monkeys — are unrelated to connoisseurship and apparently slipped in.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Qī sòng táng zhì xiǎo lù in 1 juàn was compiled by Liú Tǐrén of the Guócháo. Tǐrén’s zì was Gōngyǒng — some books write Gōngyǒng with the variant character 㦷, which is the ancient form of yǒng. A Hénán Dìchuānwèi man, jìnshì of Shùnzhì yǐwèi (1655), held office to Lìbù lángzhōng. Wáng Shìzhēn’s Jūyì lù records that Tǐrén liked to make paintings but was not skilled; he kept a man to brush for him; there was a saying about Xuānzhōu rabbit-hair hè truly not being as good as the imitation. The joke has remained current.
But his connoisseurship was specifically refined. His Qī sòng táng jí has a letter to Zhāng Shíshuǐ saying “Recently imitating Yún yān guò yǎn lù I have made a Zhì xiǎo lù of one volume” — this is this book. Recorded calligraphies, paintings, and ancient objects total 74 entries; many are described as old-house holdings of Sūn Chéngzé, Liáng Qīngbiāo, and the like. For Tǐrén in his time was a tóngbǎng jìnshì (same-cohort jìnshì) with Wāng Wǎn and Wáng Shìzhēn, exchanging poetry and prose; and with Chéngzé and the others he competed in antiquarianism. Each entry details the holder and the transmission — useful for kǎozhèng.
Wáng Hóngzhuàn’s Shān zhì says: “Recently Liú Gōngyǒng compiled Zhì xiǎo lù in which he says: ‘Wáng Shānshǐ also has a five-character-unfinished Lántíng — the Sòng rubbing Yùzhāng version — with Mǐ Yuánhuī’s postface and Sòng Zhòngwēn’s postface as if from one hand — superfluous.’ Wāng Tiáowén [Wāng Wǎn] strongly disagreed. I once wrote to Gōngyǒng: ‘Mǐ Yuánhuī’s postface I have indeed doubted as forgery; but it and Sòng Zhòngwēn’s postface use very different brush — what do you mean by “as if from one hand”? Now please delete this passage; otherwise it is a misstatement.‘” The postface today we have not seen, but probably it was an enthusiast’s prizing of his own — not yet a dìnglùn (settled judgment).
Only the Sū Shì Zuìwēng tíng jì — Sūn Chéngzé’s Chūnmíng mèngyú lù says it comes from a Zhōngzhōu literatus Bái Lín, whom Gāo Gǒng mistakenly took as authentic [Sū Shì hand] and engraved on stone — Tǐrén also says some doubt it as forgery, perhaps by a Zhōngshēng copyist, and that Dìngzhōu has Shì’s Zhōngshān sōng láo fù fragment stele with the same brush; Shì wrote each piece in a different style — abruptly turning into wild Zhāng or drunken Sù — how could it be impossible? This is perhaps regional-loyalty rationalization. The last two entries — one Lù Zhúsēng meeting demons, one Wéi Jìfēi at the Pool-river Station seeing male-and-female monkeys — are unrelated to connoisseurship; apparently incidentally recorded at the end of the manuscript, and his son took them along when cutting blocks, without time to delete.
Respectfully revised and submitted, tenth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng (1781).
Abstract
The Qī sòng táng zhì xiǎo lù is a tightly focused early-Qīng connoisseurship bǐjì by 劉體仁 (Liú Tǐrén), set within the social network of the great Beijing collector-officials of the early Kāngxī period: 孫承澤 (Sūn Chéngzé), Liáng Qīngbiāo 梁清標, and the tóngbǎng circle of the Shùnzhì 1655 jìnshì (which included Wāng Wǎn 汪琬 and the close friend Wáng Shìzhēn). The book is composed in deliberate imitation of Zhōu Mì’s Yún yān guò yǎn lù (KR3j0169).
The book’s principal contributions:
- Early-Qīng Beijing collections. The 74 entries are one of the principal records of early-Kāng-xī Beijing private collections, especially those of Sūn Chéngzé and Liáng Qīngbiāo. As such it is a foundational source for the post-Conquest reconstitution of literati art collections.
- Connoisseurship within a literary circle. The book records connoisseurship as a social practice within the network of the 1655 tóngbǎng and the older èrchén (twice-serving) figures like Sūn Chéngzé.
- Documentation of transmission. Each entry’s careful record of holder and provenance makes the book a key source for tracing the post-1644 transmission of Sòng, Yuán, and Míng art works.
- Wáng Hóngzhuàn dialogue. The polemic exchange about the Sòng Lántíng rubbing colophons, preserved in Wáng Hóngzhuàn’s Shān zhì, illustrates the methodological self-criticism of early-Qīng connoisseurship.
Dating. The catalog meta records 1655 as a marker (Liú’s jìnshì year), suggesting the work bracket starts there. Composition is concentrated in the 1660s and 1670s. NotBefore 1655, notAfter 1676 (his death).
Translations and research
No substantial Western-language treatment located. The work is cited in modern Chinese-language scholarship on early-Qīng connoisseurship; particularly in studies of Sūn Chéng-zé’s and Liáng Qīng-biāo’s collections.
Links
- Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 4, Qī sòng táng zhì xiǎo lù entry.