Lǐ Yìshān wénjí jiānzhù 李義山文集箋註
Annotation and Commentary on the Prose Collection of Lǐ Yì-shān [Lǐ Shāng-yǐn] by 李商隱 (撰), 徐樹穀 (箋), 徐炯 (註)
About the work
The Qīng critical edition (10 juǎn) of Lǐ Shāngyǐn’s prose, by the brothers Xú Shùgǔ 徐樹穀 徐樹穀 (zì Yìchū 藝初; Kāngxī yǐchǒu 1685 jìnshì; rose to Shāndōng dào jiānchá yùshǐ) — jiān (philological gloss) — and Xú Jiǒng 徐炯 徐炯 (zì Zhāngzhòng 章仲; Kāngxī rénxū 1682 jìnshì; rose to Zhílì xúndào) — zhù (commentary). Both were of Kūnshān. Xú Jiǒng obtained the base text from Lín Jí 林佶 in Kāngxī gēngwǔ (1690) while serving as jǔrén examiner in Fújiàn; he then supplemented the base from the Wényuàn yīnghuá (esp. for the missing zhuàng genre) and added the Chóngyáng tíng míng.
The transmission problem is acute: Lǐ Shāngyǐn’s prose corpus in the Tang originally comprised biǎozhuàng jí 40 juǎn (per Jiù Tángshū), or Fánnán jiǎjí 樊南甲集 20 + yǐjí 20 + Yùxī shēng shī 3 + wénfù 1 (per Xīn Tángshū yìwénzhì), or wénjí 8 + sìliù jiǎyǐ jí 40 + biéjí 20 + shījí 3 (per Sòng zhì). Of all this, only the shījí 3 juǎn survived. Zhū Hèlíng 朱鶴齡 (the commentator on Lǐ’s verse, KR4c0075) compiled 5 juǎn of recovered prose from various sources, but lacked the zhuàng genre and was incomplete. The Xú brothers extended Zhū’s recovery, producing the present 10-juǎn form. Subsequent late-Qīng work by Féng Hào 馮浩 disputed the attribution of two pieces (the Shàng Cuī Huázhōu shū and the Chóngyáng tíng míng), arguing that Xú’s identification of historical figures behind the references was wrong.
Tiyao
Lǐ Yìshān wénjí jiānzhù in 10 juǎn — present-dynasty Xú Shùgǔ jiān, Xú Jiǒng zhù. Shùgǔ zì Yìchū, Kāngxī yǐchǒu jìnshì, ended Shāndōng dào jiānchá yùshǐ. Jiǒng zì Zhāngzhòng, Kāngxī rénxū jìnshì, ended Zhílì xúndào. Both Kūnshān men. Jiù Tángshū records biǎozhuàng jí 40 juǎn; Xīn Tángshū yìwénzhì: Lǐ Shāngyǐn Fánnán jiǎjí 20, yǐjí 20, Yùxī shēng shī 3, wénfù 1; Sòng zhì: Lǐ Shāngyǐn wénjí 8, sìliù jiǎyǐ jí 40, biéjí 20, shījí 3 — only the shījí 3 transmits; the wénjí all lost. National-beginning Wújiāng Zhū Hèlíng began gathering from various books, editing 5 juǎn; missing the zhuàng genre — still an unfinished draft. Kāngxī gēngwǔ (1690) Jiǒng diǎnshì (examiner) in Fújiàn, obtained the base from Lín Jí; collated Wényuàn yīnghuá’s recorded zhuàng to fill in; further added the Chóngyáng tíng míng — making the present text. Hèlíng’s original was lightly glossed with many lacunae — still unfinished draft. Shùgǔ broadly examined histories, verified contemporary events, made the jiān. Jiǒng further searched allusions and xùngǔ (ancient glosses), made the zhù.
The Shàng Cuī Huázhōu shū — Shùgǔ judged not Shāngyǐn’s. Recent Tóngxiāng Féng Hào’s commentary distinguishes: the letter is Kāichéng 2 spring, Cuī Huázhōu is Cuī Guīcóng (not Cuī Róng); Jiǎ xiàngguó is Jiǎ Sù (not Jiǎ Dān); Cuī Xuānzhōu is Cuī Dān (not Cuī Qún) — citing Tang biographies to refute Shùgǔ’s mistaken doubt. Also the Chóngyáng tíng míng — Jiǒng accepted from Quán Shǔ yìwén zhì; Féng’s commentary refutes: the carving’s jiéxián xiāngguàn (concluding inscription and ancestral seat) all suspect; recognized as old stele faded, Yáng Shèn’s forgery; cites Yáng Shèn’s forgeries of Fán Mǐn and Liǔ Mǐn steles to illustrate Jiǒng’s mistaken belief. Also: Féng’s commentary draws from Chéngdū wénlèi a Wèi Hédōng gōng shàng Xīchuān xiàngguó Jīngzhào gōng shū and 9 lines of fragments — all supplementing this commentary’s lacunae. But the Shàng Jīngzhào gōng shū is àndú (case-document) prose with nothing of value; the fragments concern no major matter. So we still register the present commentary as base.
Abstract
The Xú brothers’ jiānzhù is the principal Qīng prose-commentary on Lǐ Shāngyǐn — the natural complement to Zhū Hèlíng’s verse-commentary KR4c0075. Its production at the very end of the 17th century, building on Zhū’s mid-century work, made the long-lost Lǐ Shāngyǐn prose corpus partially accessible: 10 juǎn recovered from anthologies (Wényuàn yīnghuá primarily, also the Quán Shǔ yìwén zhì and other compilations) against the documented Tang original of perhaps 80 juǎn. The sìliù wén (parallel-prose ornate-style) of which Lǐ Shāngyǐn was the late-Táng paragon — “Fánnán wén tǐ” — was a major part of the recovered corpus and was the foundation for Sòng Xīkūn parallel-prose practice. The Xú brothers’ jiānzhù explicitly worked back from Sòng Xīkūn scholarship to reconstruct the Tang original. Subsequent Féng Hào kǎozhèng (1763) corrected several attributional and interpretive errors but kept the Xú text as base.
Translations and research
- See KR4c0074 and KR4c0075 for primary references.
- 馮浩 Féng Hào. Fán-nán wén jí xiáng-zhù 樊南文集詳注. The post-Xú authoritative commentary; integrates and corrects Xú.
- 錢振倫 Qián Zhèn-lún, 錢振常 Qián Zhèn-cháng. 1860s. Fán-nán wén jí bǔ-biān 樊南文集補編. Late-Qīng supplementation.
- 劉學鍇, 余恕誠. 2002. Lǐ Shāng-yǐn wén biān-nián jiào-zhù 李商隱文編年校注. 5 vols. Zhōng-huá.
Other points of interest
Féng Hào’s Qián-lóng-period (1763) commentary on the Shàng Cuī Huázhōu shū — disputing Xú Shùgǔ’s identification of Cuī Huázhōu as Cuī Róng (Lǐ Shāngyǐn’s later patron) and identifying him instead as Cuī Guīcóng — is one of the more pointed examples of kǎojù historiography correcting an early-Qīng commentator on the basis of careful Tang biographical-record matching. The Yáng Shèn-forgery question on the Chóngyáng tíng míng — Yáng Shèn’s habitual fabrication of stele inscriptions in the late Míng (Shígǔ wén most famously) — is recognized by Féng as the most likely explanation for the suspect text.