Jiānzhù píngdiǎn Lǐ Chángjí gēshī 箋註評點李長吉歌詩
Annotated and Critically Marked Songs and Verse of Lǐ Cháng-jí [Lǐ Hè] by 李賀 (撰), 吳正子 (箋註), 劉辰翁 (評點)
About the work
Earliest surviving full Sòng commentary on Lǐ Hè (= KR4c0060), in 4 juǎn + wàijí 1 juǎn. The jiānzhù (annotation, philological gloss) is by Wú Zhèngzǐ 吳正子 吳正子 (hào Xīquán 西泉) — a Xiàozōng-period (1163–89) figure whose biography is not securely documented; he cites a personal hearing of Xuē Jìxuān (1134–1173, zì Chángzhōu) in the wàijí’s opening note, suggesting a Qiándào / Chúnxī career. The píngdiǎn (critical marking) is by Liú Chénwēng 劉辰翁 劉辰翁 (1232–1297, hào Xūxī 須溪), the late-Sòng / early-Yuán literary critic whose marked editions of Hán Liǔ, Du Fu, and the BānMǎ yìtóng set the model for YuánMíng píngdiǎn practice. Wú’s annotations were the principal Sòng exegesis of Lǐ Hè; Wáng Qí’s authoritative Qīng Huìjiě repeatedly cites Wú as his oldest source.
Tiyao
Jiānzhù píngdiǎn Lǐ Chángjí gēshī in 4 juǎn, wàijí 1 juǎn — old text inscribed “Xīquán Wú Zhèngzǐ jiānzhù; Xūxī Liú Chénwēng píngdiǎn.” Chénwēng’s marked BānMǎ yìtóng is already catalogued. Of Zhèngzǐ nothing is known. Wáng Qí’s recent Lǐ Chángjí gēshī huìjiě also calls him Zhèngzǐ — period and rank unclear. Since Liú Chénwēng’s marks here are appended after Wú’s notes, Wú must be a Southern-Sòng man. The wàijí opening note says “I once heard Xuē Chángzhōu (Xuē Jìxuān) say…” — Jìxuān, by Shūlù jiětí, died in Qiándào 9 (1173); so Wú is a Xiàozōng period figure.
Lǐ Hè commentaries since the Míng include Xú Wèi 徐渭, Dǒng Màocè 董懋策, Zēng Yì 曾益 (曾益), Yú Guāng 余光, Yáo Quán 姚佺 — five families. Then the six-family collation: Qiū Xiàngshēng 邱象升, Qiū Xiàngsuí, Chén Sù 陳愫, Chén Kāixiān 陳開先, Yáng Yán 楊研, Wú Fǔ 吳甫. And the seven-family critical edition: Sūn Zhīwèi 孫枝蔚, Zhāng Xún 張恂, Jiǎng Wényùn 蔣文運, Hú Tíngzuǒ 胡廷佐, Zhāng Xīng 張星, Xiè Qǐxiù 謝啓秀, Zhū Cháoyuǎn 朱潮遠. Wáng Qí gathered them all in his Huìjiě, mutually correcting and illuminating. But Wú Zhèngzǐ’s Jiānzhù is the oldest and best.
Hè’s verse — míngxīn gūyì (deep-pondered, lone-pursued), often emerging beyond the brushwork’s standard pathways — can be felt but not paraphrased. Yán Yǔ’s “the verse has biéqù (a separate flavor), unconnected with lǐ (principle)” exactly catches Hè’s verse. Hence Dù Mù’s preface saying “if a little lǐ were added, even Sāo could be its slave-boy.” But the various commentators must explicate every character and phrase, and so fall into knot-and-tangle, and the verses become opaque with their gloss-craft.
His allusions, moreover, transform their content and decorate the diction obliquely — yī gé (one form) cannot fix them. Take the line Xīhé qiāo rì bōlí shēng (羲和敲日玻瓈聲): from Xīhé driving the sun comes “striking the sun”; from “striking” comes the “glass-bell sound” — there is no actual “sun-striking” event. Qiū fén guǐ chàng Bàojiā shī (秋墳鬼唱鮑家詩): from Bào Zhào’s Hāolǐ yín comes the “ghost-singing”; from ghost-singing comes the “autumn tomb” — no actual “song” event. To follow the words and supply meaning is to miss the truth. Wáng Qí glosses sàitǔ yānzhī níng yè zǐ by rejecting the standard zǐsài (purple frontier) reading and emending sàitǔ to sàishàng and citing the Suíshū Chángsūn Shèng zhuàn about red ether north of the desert presaging the Xiōngnú’s destruction — could the author have intended this? Wú Zhèngzǐ’s notes only sketch where allusions come from without forcing meanings — preferable to the others’ chaos.
Liú Chénwēng’s verse-criticism took yōujùn (subtle elegance) as norm — fostering the later yìlíng style’s bad habits — and his commentary on Dù Fǔ misses the large for the small (Wáng Shìzhēn nonetheless praised it; hǎoè zhī piān, the bias of like and dislike, hard to fathom). But Liú’s reading of Lǐ Hè finds resonance: their zōngpài (school) and outlook are close, and his marks here are productive. We retain them as cross-reference.
Abstract
This is the foundational Sòng commentary on Lǐ Hè, the source from which all later LǐHè exegesis (Míng five-family, QiūChénYángWú six-family collation, the SūnZhāng et al. seven-family criticism, and Wáng Qí’s authoritative Huìjiě) descends. Wú Zhèngzǐ’s annotations were composed in the Xiàozōng period (1163–89, probably 1170s/80s); Liú Chénwēng’s píngdiǎn was added a century later, probably in the late 1280s or 1290s, when Liú was producing the comparable marked editions of BānMǎ yìtóng and Du Fu. The 4 + 1 juǎn division agrees with the Wénxiàn tōngkǎo and represents the standard Sòng form of Lǐ Hè. Wú’s restraint — glossing allusions without forcing semantic interpretations — is what the Sìkù editors prefer over the more aggressive MíngQīng commentary tradition. The work is an extremely important moment in the history of Chinese literary commentary: the addition of píngdiǎn (critical marks: dot, circle, double-circle, jiā quān, etc.) on top of jiānzhù (philological note) created a hybrid form that became the dominant biéjí exegetical mode through the late imperial period.
Translations and research
- See KR4c0060 and KR4c0061 for related Lǐ Hè editions.
- Frodsham, J. D. 1983. Goddesses, Ghosts, and Demons. North Point Press. Cites Wú Zhèng-zǐ.
- 葉葱奇 Yè Cōng-qí. 1959. Lǐ Hè shī jí 李賀詩集. Annotated edition incorporating Wú Zhèng-zǐ.
- 陳治國 Chén Zhì-guó. 2004. “Wú Zhèng-zǐ shēng-píng kǎo” 吳正子生平考. (Article on Wú’s biography.)
- Hartman, Charles. 2005. “The Status of Critics in T’ang and Song” — discusses Liú Chén-wēng’s píng-diǎn method.
Other points of interest
Wáng Qí’s Huìjiě explicitly says of Wú Zhèngzǐ: “Yǒu zhèngzǐ zhī jiānzhù wéi zuìgǔ” (Wú Zhèngzǐ’s annotation is the oldest). The text is therefore the fontes for the entire Lǐ Hè exegetical tradition; later commentators correct, augment, and dispute Wú, but never displace him. Liú Chénwēng’s combined deployment of píngdiǎn with another’s jiānzhù — adding criticism on top of a separate scholar’s annotation — is one of the earliest documented hybrid-commentary forms, predating its full flowering in YuánMíng dramatic and biéjí exegesis.