李太白集分類補註

Lǐ Tàibái jí fēnlèi bǔzhù 李太白集分類補註

The Collected Works of Lǐ Tài-bái, Annotated and Classified by Genre, with Supplementary Notes by 李白 (撰), 楊齊賢 (集註), 蕭士贇 (刪補)

About the work

Lǐ Tàibái jí fēnlèi bǔzhù 李太白集分類補註 in 30 juǎn is the principal SòngYuán annotated edition of Lǐ Bái’s collected works — and the only such edition to survive into the Qīng. The base annotation is by Yáng Qíxián 楊齊賢 (zì Zǐjiàn 子見), a Sòng-period Chōnglíng 舂陵 (modern Níngyuǎn 寧遠 in Yǒngzhōu 永州, Húnán) scholar; this was extensively revised — shānbǔ 刪補, “deleted and supplemented” — by the Yuán scholar Xiāo Shìyún 蕭士贇 (zì Cuìkě 粹可) of Níngdū 寧都 (Jiāngxī), a friend of Wú Chéng 吳澄 (1249–1333), in the early 14th century. The two annotators’ notes are given in parallel, distinguished by the prefixes Qíxián yuē 齊賢曰 (“Qíxián says”) and Shìyún yuē 士贇曰 (“Shìyún says”). The 30-juǎn arrangement is by genre rather than chronologically (the SòngMǐnqiú / ZēngGǒng arrangement of KR4c0012 is chronological): 25 juǎn of fù, yuèfǔ, and gēshī, then 5 juǎn of miscellaneous prose.

Tiyao

Lǐ Tàibái jí fēnlèi bǔzhù in 30 juǎn — the jízhù of Yáng Qíxián of the Sòng, supplemented by the shānbǔ of Xiāo Shìyún of the Yuán. Dù Fǔ’s collection has been annotated by no fewer than several dozen Sòng commentators; for Lǐ Bái, this is the only SòngYuán annotation to circulate today. The Miào Yuēqí 1696 reprint of the Sòng Lǐ Hànlín jí (= KR4c0012) puts 23 juǎn of gēshī first and 6 juǎn of zázhù after; the present edition arranges 25 juǎn of gǔfù, yuèfǔ, and gēshī first, with 5 juǎn of záwén after. The reorganization may be by Qíxián or by Shìyún; the original text has no preface or colophon to settle the question. The annotations alternate “Qíxián yuē” and “Shìyún yuē” tags, allowing the two layers to be distinguished.

The annotations cite extensively from history and treat both factual and meaning-based points. The work is so vast that errors are inevitable. Táng Jǐn’s 唐覲 Yánzhōu bǐjì 延州筆記 once criticized Shìyún’s note on the seventh of the Jì yuǎn shī 寄遠詩 (“the candle is put out, the silk gown is undone”) for not knowing that the line is from the Shǐjì gǔjì zhuàn 史記滑稽傳, Chúnyú Kūn yǔ 淳于髠語, and instead giving prolix references to Xiè Zhān 謝瞻 and Cáo Zhí 曹植. The Línjiāngwáng jiéshì gē 臨江王節士歌: Qíxián says the history has lost the names; Shìyún cites the Yuèfǔ yóuxiá qǔ 樂府遊俠曲 in evidence — neither knows that Hànshū yìwén zhì lists Línjiāng wáng and Chóusī jiéshì gē as two separate pieces, fused only by Lù Jué 陸厥 of the Southern Qí; later Yú Xìn 庾信 and Dù Fǔ followed the conflation, and Lǐ’s poem inherits the error. Qíxián and Shìyún do not dissect this and instead accept “history has lost the name” — equally unrigorous. But the work as a whole is detailed and ample, sufficient as a research aid. In the Guǎngwǔ zhàncháng huáigǔ 廣武戰場懷古 piece Shìyún correctly judges the poem to be non-Lǐ and prints it at the end of the volume — a piece of clear-eyed editorial judgment. So the annotation has merit and is not without value.

Yáng Qíxián, zì Zǐjiàn, was a Chōnglíng man; Xiāo Shìyún, zì Cuìkě, was a Níngdū man, devoted to learning and an accomplished poet, on close terms with Wú Chéng. Their other works (a Shī píng 詩評 in over 20 piān, the Bīngyái jí 冰崖集) are long lost; only this collection has come down to us.

(Reverently collated and submitted in the ninth month of Qiánlóng 47 = 1782.)

Abstract

This is the principal SòngYuán annotated edition of Lǐ Bái’s poetry; the parent text is the same SòngMǐnqiú / ZēngGǒng 30-juǎn recension that underlies KR4c0012, here reorganized by genre and equipped with running commentary. Yáng Qíxián’s base annotation likely dates from the late Southern Sòng (he is dated to the Chúnxī — Qìngyuán period, ca. 1180–1200, on internal evidence); Xiāo Shìyún’s revision to the early 14th century, around the time of Wú Chéng’s Yányòu (1314–1320) circulation. The combined text passed through repeated YuánMíng prints; the WYG version is the SBCK base edition, descending through a MíngWànlì family print.

The two annotators’ divergent methods are characteristic of their periods: Qíxián tends to follow Sòng jīngshǐ kǎojù 經史考據 conventions and is conservative on factual disputes; Shìyún is more ready to make textual judgments (the Guǎngwǔ huáigǔ deletion is the most striking example). Neither can substitute for the Qīng Wáng Qí 王琦 王琦 critical edition (= KR4c0014), which integrates them and adds a substantial layer of MǐngQīng kǎojù; but for the SòngYuán reception of Lǐ Bái this remains the indispensable source.

Translations and research

• See KR4c0012 and KR4c0014 for the principal Lǐ Bái translation literature.
• Hu Zhenheng 胡震亨, ed. 1645. Lǐ shī tōng 李詩通 (which also reprints the Yáng-Xiāo annotations in selectively edited form).
• Stephen Owen. 2003. “The Cultural Tang.” Cambridge History of Chinese Literature vol. 1, ch. 4 — discussion of the Sòng-Yuán reception of Lǐ Bái as visible through these annotations.

Other points of interest

The YángXiāo annotation is one of the very few surviving witnesses to the Sòng jízhù 集註 (collected-commentary) tradition for Lǐ Bái — for Dù Fǔ this tradition produced over 100 named commentators and the famous Qiānjiā zhù Dù gōngbù shī 千家註杜工部詩 (KR4c0018); for Lǐ Bái it produced essentially only this text. The asymmetry reflects a real Sòng critical fact: Dù Fǔ was the school of gélǜ 格律 and historical reference, ideal for zhù; Lǐ Bái was the school of qì 氣 and xiān 仙, less amenable to commentary.

Links

• See KR4c0012 for the unannotated Sòng recension.
• See KR4c0014 for the Qīng (Wáng Qí) annotated edition.
• Li Bai (Wikipedia)