說孚

Shuō fú 說郛

The City of Discourses (alt. Citadel of Sayings)

by 陶宗儀 (Táo Zōngyí, c. 1329–c. 1409, zì Jiǔchéng 九成), late-Yuán / early-Míng polymath. (Title note: in the catalog meta the title is recorded as 說孚; the standard form is 說郛 — “fú” being the YuánMíng variant. The work is known under both forms.)

About the work

The greatest cóngshū (compendium) of Chinese xiǎoshuō and bǐjì extracts, in 120 juàn in the WYG recension. 陶宗儀 (Táo Zōngyí) took materials from over 2,000 books of classics, histories, biographies, and the bǎijiā záshuō (writings of the hundred schools and miscellaneous discourses) and compiled them into a single work of unprecedented scope. The original work was 100 juàn (per Yáng Wéizhēn 楊維禎’s preface and per Sūn Zuò 孫作’s biography of Táo in his Cāngluó jí). The text underwent multiple recensions and expansions: a Hóngzhì bǐngchén (1496) editing by the Shànghǎi man Yù Wénbó 郁文博, who removed 36 entries duplicated in Zuǒ Guī’s Bǎi chuān xué hǎi; and a Shùnzhì dīnghài (1647) revision in 120 juàn by the Yáoān man Táo Tǐng 陶珽 — the latter incorporating fresh material and altering structure. The WYG copy is the Táo Tǐng 120-juàn recension. The Sìkù editors discuss the book’s textual problems at length: many works appear under inconsistent titles (Confucian-classic Wěi texts; Zhōu Mì’s Wǔlín jiùshì split into nine titled portions; Duàn Chéngshì’s Yǒuyáng zázǔ listed under three different titles); and several attributions are demonstrably wrong (Wáng Kuí’s Lǐ hǎi jí assigned to a “Sòng Wáng Kuí” by Shāng Jùn’s Bài hǎi; Hàn zá shì mì xīn a Yáng Shèn (1488–1559) forgery, but listed in the Shuō fú — proof these are post-Táo additions). The recensional history is therefore intricate. But despite the corruption, the book preserves enormous numbers of fragmentary and partial xiǎoshuō and bǐjì otherwise lost. Of the 1,292 works recorded: 76 from juàn 33 (the Liú Sù Zhuàn jì and onward) survive in mù (table of contents) only without text — these the Sìkù editors retain as a record. The original juàn-character is throughout 㢧 (a Yuán-era graphic variant), which Bāo Héng glosses as “zhōu-sound, same as zhóu” or, per another tradition, “fù-sound” (claimed Buddhist-origin). The Táo Tǐng appendix of 46 additional juàn — Míng-era materials — the Sìkù editors reject as worthless and exclude.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that Shuō fú in 120 juàn was compiled by Táo Zōngyí of the Míng. Zōngyí’s Guófēng zūnjīng is already recorded. This book has more than one printed cutting; some have transmitted that in Jiāngnán households there is Zōngyí’s complete Shuō fú — four giant shelves — and that what circulates is not complete. Investigating: Yáng Wéizhēn’s preface to this book says 100 juàn; Sūn Zuò’s Cāngluó jí has a small biography of Zōngyí that also says the Shuō fú compiled was 100 juàn. The two men were contemporaries and friends, eyewitnesses to the book — certainly without untruth. We know the popular accounts are nonsense. Probably Zōngyí’s book actually follows the Lèi shuō (Zēng Zào, KR3j0180) pattern; for each book it briefly preserves the broad outline — no need to seek completeness; and some originals were lost and lèishū gleanings put together to preserve one variety. So the format is wholly different from Zuǒ Guī’s Bǎi chuān xué hǎi. Later men, seeing the table of contents list numbering in the thousands, vainly insisted on finding the complete book, supposing it must fill cases and boxes; not realizing that what cannot be found by record is also not noted in successive dynastic histories — so where would Zōngyí have got it from?

Dū Qióng’s Sānyú zhuì bǐ further says: Shuō fú was originally 70 juàn; the latter 30 juàn were supplied by a Sōngjiāng man from Bǎi chuān xué hǎi books — differing again from Sūn Zuò and Yáng Wéizhēn. Could it be that in Dū’s time the original was incomplete, only 70 juàn surviving? Examining: in Hóngzhì bǐngchén (1496) the Shànghǎi man Yù Wénbó’s preface says: those duplicated with Bǎi chuān xué hǎi — 36 varieties in all — have all been removed. But examining today, what Bǎi chuān xué hǎi has, this book still records. Also the original juàn-head cites Huáng Píngqiàn’s words saying: “Of the Daoist family-of-sons, several already have complete books; the classics’ commentaries seem without deep flavor — should be deleted these two volumes; with the Yánguān Wángshì Xuéyōng gǔ běn and several others placed at the head” — and so on. Now examining: this copy already has no zǐshū jīngzhù, and the book opens with Dàxué shí jīng, Dàxué gǔ běn, Zhōng yōng gǔ běn — three books, each with bǔ zì notes added — so [Yù’s] words were adopted and the old text altered. Apparently Yù Wénbó’s 100-juàn compilation already is not Zōngyí’s original; this 120-juàn copy was further edited in Shùnzhì dīnghài (1647) by the Guócháo man Yáoān Táo Tǐng — again not Yù’s original.

Within: such as Chūnqiū wěi jiǔ chóng with another Chūnqiū wěi separately appearing; Qīngsuǒ gāo yì with another Qīngsuǒ shī huà separately listed; Kǒng’s Záshuō with another Hénghuáng xīn lùn separately listed; Zhōu Mì’s Wǔlín jiùshì divided under nine titled portions; Duàn Chéngshì’s Yǒuyáng zázǔ given three different names; Chén Shìchóng’s Suí yǐn bǐ jì with two trick-titles — Zōngyí’s confusion could not reach this far. Also Wáng Kuí’s Lǐ hǎi jí — Wáng was a man of the early Míng but a junior to Zōngyí; from Shāng Jùn’s Bài hǎi onward [the editor] mistakenly took him as a Sòng Wáng Kuí. The Hàn zá shì mì xīn came from Yáng Shèn’s forgery; Shèn was a Zhèngdé (1488–1521) man, long after [Zōngyí]. Yet his book is listed in the [Shuō fú] compilation — so it is not from Zōngyí — clear evidence.

But although it has been altered, the outlines remain; ancient books that do not survive today — broken slips and torn pages — often appear here; lost texts and minor matters often find verification. It is, indeed, an ocean of kǎozhèng.

The records total 1,292 works. From juàn 33 (the Liú Sù Zhuàn jì and onward), 76 works have a record but no text; we keep them as in the original. The original juàn-character is everywhere 㢧; the front of the juàn cites Bāo Héng’s words that 㢧 sounds zhōu and is the same as zhóu; or others say 㢧 sounds fù, both said to come from Buddhist books — probably also an over-fondness for the curious.

As for Táo Tǐng’s appended 46 juàn — all Míng men’s dòudīng (mash-up) writings — the whole book not worth viewing; the extracts even less worth taking. We list its table-of-contents separately and do not keep it cluttering the volumes.

Respectfully revised and submitted, ninth month of the forty-fourth year of Qiánlóng (1779).

Abstract

The Shuō fú is the greatest cóngshū of Chinese xiǎoshuō and bǐjì extracts — a late-Yuán / early-Míng compilation by 陶宗儀 (Táo Zōngyí) drawing on over 2,000 source-works. The book has had a complex recensional history: Táo’s original 100-juàn edition (witnessed by Yáng Wéizhēn’s preface and Sūn Zuò’s biographical record); Yù Wénbó’s 1496 editing; and Táo Tǐng’s 1647 expanded 120-juàn recension. The WYG copy follows the Táo Tǐng recension, which the Sìkù editors emend by rejecting his 46-juàn Míng appendix.

The work’s principal contributions:

1. Foundational compendium. The Shuō fú is the principal Chinese repository of Sòng, Yuán, and early-Míng xiǎoshuō and bǐjì extracts. 1,292 works are listed (with 76 surviving only as titles). For an enormous range of Sòng-era bǐjì, the Shuō fú is the sole or principal surviving witness.
2. Bibliographic record. Even where the text of an extracted work has been lost or corrupted, the Shuō fú’s record of the title preserves bibliographic evidence of works that would otherwise be invisible.
3. Recensional complexity. The work’s complicated transmission — original, 1496 edition, 1647 recension — makes it one of the most studied case-histories of Chinese textual transmission. The Sìkù editors’ detailed analysis of the recensional layers is itself a masterpiece of philological criticism.
4. Source for Yuán literary culture. As a late-Yuán compilation, the Shuō fú preserves Yuán-era literary attitudes toward the xiǎoshuō tradition and provides a window into Yuán scholarly practice.

Dating. The original is dated to Táo’s Hóngwǔ-era activity (c. 1360–1370). The WYG 120-juàn Táo Tǐng recension dates from 1647 but preserves YuánMíng material. NotBefore / notAfter for the original work: c. 1360 / c. 1370 (placing it just before the dynastic transition).

Translations and research

• William H. Nienhauser, ed., The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature, Indiana, 1986 — entry on Táo Zōng-yí.
• Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual, 6th ed., Harvard, 2022 — discussion of the Shuō fú as foundational cóng-shū.
• Modern Chinese editions: Zhāng Zōng-xiáng 張宗祥’s 1927 collation of the original 100-juàn recension, Shàng-hǎi gǔ-jí chū-bǎn-shè; reissued multiple times.
• Critical edition by Zhāng Bǎo-sān 張保三 et al., Shuō fú jiào zhù, in successive volumes from the Shǎn-xī shī-fàn dà-xué chū-bǎn-shè.

Other points of interest

The Shuō fú has been an indispensable source for modern textual reconstruction of lost Sòng bǐjì. Works such as the Zhìyǎtáng záchāo (Zhōu Mì), various Sòng shīhuà, and dozens of lost yěshǐ survive only or principally through the Shuō fú’s excerpts.

Links

• Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi 5, Shuō fú entry.
• Wikipedia: Shuofu.