聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

李太白文集

8 min read

Text ID
KR4c0012
Date
762–762
Dynasty
唐

Lǐ Tàibái wén jí 李太白文集

Collected Works of Lǐ Tài-bái (Lǐ Bái) by 李白 (撰)

About the work

Lǐ Tàibái wén jí 李太白文集 in 30 juǎn is the standard Sòng-period recension of the writings of Lǐ Bái 李白 (701–762), the Tàibái in the title being his zì and a punning reference to Venus (tàibái xīng 太白星), under whose dream-omen, according to Lǐ Yángbīng’s 李陽冰 contemporary preface, his mother conceived him. The 30-juǎn form is the work of Sòng Mǐnqiú 宋敏求 (1019–1079, jìzǐ preface to the collection) and Zēng Gǒng 曾鞏 (1019–1083, who reorganized Sòng’s draft into chronological order); it descends from the original 10-juǎn Cǎotáng jí 草堂集 edited by the calligrapher Lǐ Yángbīng — Lǐ Bái’s kinsman and his last protector at Dāngtú 當塗 — at the time of the poet’s death in Shàngyuán 3 (762), supplemented by the further 10-juǎn of poetry that the Sòng xiǎoxué scholar Yuè Shǐ 樂史 separately recovered from imperial-archive sources during the Xiánpíng 咸平 period (998–1003).

Tiyao

Lǐ Tàibái wén jí in 30 juǎn was composed by Lǐ Bái of the Táng. The Jiù Tángshū biography calls him a Shāndōng man; the Xīn Tángshū makes him Lǒngxī 隴西 Chéngjì 成紀 (Wèi prefecture). Yáng Shèn 楊慎 (in his Dānqiān lù 丹鉛錄), citing Wèi Hào’s 魏顥 Lǐ Hànlín jí xù 李翰林集序 (which says “the world calls him Lǐ Dōngshān 李東山”), takes the Tángshū “Lǐ Dōngshān 東山” as a transposition for Lǐ Shāndōng 山東 — but Yuán Zhěn’s 元稹 Dù Fǔ mùzhì 杜甫墓誌 also says Dù was “with Shāndōng Lǐ Bái,” which makes the inversion impossible. Inspecting Lǐ’s collection, his Jì DōngLǔ èrzǐ shī 寄東魯二子詩 says “wǒ jiā jì DōngLǔ 我家寄東魯,” and Wèi’s preface says he “matched with a Lǔ woman and had a son named Pōlí 頗黎”; he must have lived in Shāndōng for a long time, and others called him by it. But it was not his native registration. Liú Xù 劉昫 [the Jiù Tángshū compiler] is in error.

As to Lǒngxī Chéngjì, this was the Táng-period jùnwàng 郡望 title generically claimed by Lǐ-clan members. Liú Zhījī’s 劉知幾 Shǐtōng Yīnxí piān 史通因習篇 self-note says: “Recently, the standard histories make every Wáng a Lángyá Línyí man and every Lǐ a Lǒngxī Chéngjì man. It is not only that the two clans have long been displaced from their original counties — the very jùn and xiàn are no longer in use; these are all pre-Wèi-Jìn old names.” Inspecting the Tángshū dìlǐ zhì confirms the point. Lǐ Yángbīng was constrained by custom; Sòng Qí 宋祁 [the Xīn Tángshū compiler] simply followed older texts. Both are unreliable.

But Lǐ Yángbīng was Lǐ Bái’s kinsman and Wèi Hào his close friend. Yángbīng’s preface says: descendant of Liáng Wǔzhāo wáng Hào 涼武昭王暠; banished to Tiáozhī 條支; on the eve of the Shénlóng period (705), the family fled back to Shǔ 蜀 (Sìchuān); pointing to a plum tree at his birth he was given the surname Lǐ; his mother dreamed of Chánggēng xīng 長庚星 (Venus). Wèi’s preface says: “Lǐ Bái was originally Lǒngxī; settled in Miánzhōu 綿州; his body in fact born in Shǔ.” Lǐ was therefore a Shǔ man, with two reliable witnesses; both standard histories err on the point.

Yángbīng’s Cǎotáng jí xù 草堂集序 does not give a juǎn count; the Xīn Tángshū yìwén zhì says “Cǎotáng jí, 20 juǎn, edited by Lǐ Yángbīng.” But Sòng Mǐnqiú’s hou-xù 後序 says: “Lǐ Yángbīng of the Táng prefaced Cǎotáng jí in 10 juǎn; in Xiánpíng (ca. 1000), Yuè Shǐ separately obtained another 10 juǎn of gēshī and combined them as Lǐ Hànlín jí in 20 juǎn; Yuè Shǐ also gathered the miscellaneous prose into a bié jí in 10 juǎn.” So Cǎotáng jí was originally 10 juǎn; the Tángshū yìwén zhì’s 20-juǎn attribution to Lǐ Yángbīng is a mistake.

The present edition is the work of Sòng Mǐnqiú, who obtained the texts of Wáng Pǔ 王溥 and Wèi Hào, and supplemented from the Táng lèishī anthologies and stone-rubbing-derived material; Zēng Gǒng then reorganized this into chronological order over 30 juǎn: the first juǎn containing only the prefaces, bēi, and jì; juǎn 2 onward containing the gēshī over 23 juǎn; zázhù in the final 6 juǎn. This recension circulated rather sparsely. In Kāngxī (1662–1722) Miào Yuēqí 繆曰芑 of Wúxiàn re-printed it from a Sòng manuscript he had obtained from the Yàn 晏 family of Línchuān 臨川. The Zhízhāi shūlù jiětí, Jùnzhāi dúshū zhì, and Mǎ Duānlín’s 馬端臨 Jīngjí kǎo all entitle the collection Lǐ Hànlín jí, while this edition uses Tàibái quán jí 太白全集*; whether the change is by the Sòng print or by Miào Yuēqí is unclear and slightly suspicious. The present arrangement is now restored to gēshī first and xù, bēi, jì last, to fit the standard biéjí convention.

(Reverently collated and submitted in the second month of Qiánlóng 44 = 1779. Chief compilers: Jì Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅. Chief collator: Lù Fèichí 陸費墀.)

Abstract

The Sìkù-printed 30-juǎn recension is the editorial ur-text of the modern Lǐ Bái corpus: it descends, through Sòng Mǐnqiú and Zēng Gǒng, from Lǐ Yángbīng’s contemporary 10-juǎn Cǎotáng jí (the editorial collection assembled by Yángbīng at Dāngtú in Bǎoyìng 1 = 762, the year of Lǐ Bái’s death) plus Yuè Shǐ’s Xiánpíng-period (998–1003) recovery of an additional 10 juǎn of poetry. The YuánMíng circulation was sparse; Miào Yuēqí’s 1696 reprint from a Sòng manuscript at the Yàn family of Línchuān is the basis of the WYG print. The two principal SòngYuán annotations — Yáng Qíxián’s 楊齊賢 楊齊賢 (Sòng) and Xiāo Shìyún’s 蕭士贇 蕭士贇 (Yuán) — are not in this version; for those see KR4c0013.

The biographical issue addressed at length in the tíyào is whether Lǐ was a Shāndōng (= eastern Shāndōng), Lǒngxī (= the jùnwàng of the imperial Lǐ clan), or Shǔ man. The tíyào sides with the consensus of modern scholarship: Lǐ’s family fled Tiáozhī 條支 (a western-frontier oasis, identified variously with Suíyè 碎葉 in modern Kyrgyzstan or with Tokharistan) in 705 and resettled in Miánzhōu 綿州 Chānglóng 昌隆 (modern Jiāngyóu 江油 in Sìchuān), where Lǐ was born or raised; the Shāndōng attribution reflects the years he spent in Yǎnzhōu 兗州 with his family in the 740s, and the Lǒngxī Chéngjì attribution is a generic Tang-period jùnwàng.

Lǐ Bái’s biography is too well-known to recapitulate at length here. CBDB confirms 701–762 (cbdbId 32540). The principal phases: Sìchuān upbringing and education to suì 25; an extended Yangtze-valley yóuxiá tour 725–742; appointed Hànlín gōngfèng 翰林供奉 by Xuánzōng on Hè Zhīzhāng’s 賀知章 recommendation in 742; dismissed from court in 744 amid factional infighting; further travels and a brief alliance with the rebel prince Lǐ Lín 李璘 in Zhìdé 至德 1–2 (756–757) that nearly cost him his life; an exile-pardon to Yèláng 夜郎 commuted at the Wūshān 巫山; final years at Dāngtú 當塗 with his cousin Lǐ Yángbīng; death in Shàngyuán 3 / Bǎoyìng 1 (762), aged 62.

The collection contains gēxíng, yuèfǔ, gǔfēng, lǜshī, juéjù, and a smaller body of fù, xù, biǎo, jì, jìwén, and zàn. Centerpieces include the Gǔ fēng 古風 cycle of 59 archaic-style gǔshī (Lǐ’s programmatic literary statement, in direct continuation of Chén Zǐáng 陳子昂’s Gǎn yù); the Jiāngjìn jiǔ 將進酒 (“Bring On the Wine”); the Shǔ dào nán 蜀道難 (“Difficulty of the Road to Shǔ”); the Mèng yóu Tiānmǔ yín liúbié 夢遊天姥吟留别 (“Song of My Dream-Wandering on Mt. Tiānmǔ”); and the long Yuányán Wúpán 怨言吳盤 ascription-cycle.

Translations and research

  • Stephen Owen. 2013. The Poetry of the High Tang: An Anthology with Annotated Translations. Library of Chinese Humanities. Substantial section on Lǐ Bái.
  • David Hinton. 1996. The Selected Poems of Li Po. New Directions.
  • Hàn Wèi 韓威 et al., eds. 1977. Lǐ Bái jí jiào-zhù 李白集校注. 4 vols. Shànghǎi gǔjí. The standard modern critical edition (built on Wáng Qí’s 王琦 1758 edition; see KR4c0014).
  • Paula M. Varsano. 2003. Tracking the Banished Immortal: The Poetry of Li Bo and Its Critical Reception. UH Press.
  • Stephen Owen. 1981. The Great Age of Chinese Poetry: The High T’ang. Yale UP.
  • Arthur Waley. 1950. The Poetry and Career of Li Po. Allen and Unwin. Foundational English-language biography.

Other points of interest

The textual transmission of Lǐ Bái’s collection is unusually well-documented in its own paratexts: Lǐ Yángbīng’s death-bed Cǎotáng jí xù, Wèi Hào’s Lǐ Hànlín jí xù, and Sòng Mǐnqiú’s hòuxù are all reprinted in the present juǎn 1, providing first-hand evidence for the original recensional split between Shǔ family material (transmitted via Lǐ Yángbīng), WúYuè circulation (transmitted via Wèi Hào), and the early-Sòng Xiánpíng recovery of court-archive copies.

Graph View

Backlinks