Sūn Kězhī jí 孫可之集
The Collection of Sūn Kě-zhī [Sūn Qiáo] by 孫樵 (撰)
About the work
Prose collection in 10 juǎn of Sūn Qiáo 孫樵 孫樵 (fl. 855, zì Kězhī 可之, also Yǐnzhī 隱之), self-described as a Guāndōng rén (man of east-of-the-pass) — Guāndōng covering vast territory, exact prefecture unrecorded. Jìnshì of Dàzhōng 9 (855); appointed Zhōngshū shèrén; when Xīzōng fled to QíLǒng during the Huáng Cháo rebellion (881), Sūn was summoned to the imperial residence-in-exile and promoted to Zhífāng lángzhōng, Shàngzhùguó, and cì zǐjīn yúdài (granted the purple-and-gold fish-bag).
Sūn is, with Liú Tuì 劉蛻 (= KR4c0080) and Fán Zōngshī 樊宗師 (= KR4c0063), the canonical late-Táng practitioner of the xiǎnjué gǔwén (precipice-jutting archaic-prose) school descending from Hán Yù via Huángfǔ Shí 皇甫湜. Sūn’s own self-genealogy (in his Yǔ Wáng Lín xiùcái shū) traces his prose-method: “I received the true secret of writing from Lái Wúzé 來無擇; Lái got it from Huángfǔ Chízhèng 皇甫湜; Chízhèng got it from Hán Tuìzhī 韓愈.” Sū Shì’s verdict, recorded in Cháo Gōngwǔ’s Dúshū zhì: “those who learn Hán Yù and fail are Huángfǔ Shí; those who learn Huángfǔ Shí and fail are Sūn Qiáo” — a precise statement of the school’s downward stylistic trend toward forced obscurity.
The 10-juǎn form descends from a Wáng Áo 王鏊 nèigé manuscript transcription, printed by Máo Jìn in his Jígǔ gé. Xīn Tángshū yìwénzhì, Tōngzhì, and Tōngkǎo all give Jīngwěi jí 3 juǎn; Shūlù jiětí gives 35 pieces with a self-preface — both at variance with the present 10-juǎn form. The discrepancy gave Wāng Shīhán 汪師韓 (Qīng Sūnwén zhìyí preface) the basis for arguing 15 of the 35 pieces are post-Tang forgeries — a position the Sìkù tíyào rejects as inadequately grounded.
Tiyao
Sūn Kězhī jí in 10 juǎn — by Sūn Qiáo of the Táng. Qiáo zì Kězhī, also Yǐnzhī, self-titled Guāndōng rén. Hángǔ outside, vast territory, prefecture unknown. Dàzhōng 9 jìnshì; appointed Zhōngshū shèrén; Xīzōng fled to QíLǒng, summoned to imperial residence; promoted Zhífāng lángzhōng, Shàngzhùguó, granted zǐjīn yúdài. Xīn Tángshū yìwénzhì, Tōngzhì, Tōngkǎo all give Jīngwěi jí 3 juǎn; Shūlù jiětí records Qiáo’s own preface — 35 pieces. Present 10-juǎn Máo Jìn Jígǔ gé edition — Wáng Áo from nèigé (palace cabinet) transcription. Headed by Qiáo’s self-preface: “5,000-volume library, often self-explored; from youth worked at prose, got the true secret. Guǎngmíng 1 (880) [imperial] carriage fled to QíLǒng; court took the xǐngfāng Shǔguó wénwù yōuxīng pǐnzǎo cháolùn, recognizing my talent; reviewed my writings — bēi, jié, shū, xí, zhuàn, jì, míng, zhì — over 200 pieces; selected 35 as the choice.” Matches Chén Zhènsūn’s record. But also: “edited into 10 juǎn, stored in collection-chests” — at variance with the 3-juǎn claim.
Recently, Wāng Shīhán’s Sūnwén zhìyí xù claims: only 10 pieces in Táng wéncuì (the Hòu fúsì zòu, Dú Kāiyuán zájì, Shū Bāochéng yì, Kè Wǔhóu bēi, Yīn Wénzhēngōng hù míng, Yǔ Lǐ jiànyì xíngfāng shū, Yǔ Jiǎ xiùcái shū, Sūnshì Xīzhāi lù shū, Tián jiāngjūn biānshì shū, Hé Yìyú) are genuine; the other 15 forged. But juǎn division and combination — ancient books often vary; cannot determine genuine/forged on this basis. Wāng has no firm evidence; he judges by characters-and-phrasing — insufficient.
Sūn’s Yǔ Wáng Lín xiùcái shū: “I once obtained the true secret of writing from Lái Wúzé; Lái got it from Huángfǔ Chízhèng; Chízhèng got it from Hán Yù.” His Yǔ yǒurén lùnwén shū says the same. Reading the three masters’ prose: Hán Yù bāoyùn qúnyán (encompasses many voices) — naturally lofty-archaic; Huángfǔ Shí already shāo yǒu yì wéi qí (slightly forced into oddness); Sūn looking-back at Shí is even more nǔlì wéi qí (straining for oddness). The more strained for oddness, the further from the original. Cháo’s Dúshū zhì records Sū Shì: “those who learn Hán Yù and fail are Huángfǔ Shí; those who learn Shí and fail are Sūn Qiáo” — a subtle judgment. Máo Jìn’s colophon disputes Shì’s words — superficial reading.
Abstract
Sūn Qiáo’s collection is the principal late-Táng exemplar of the xiǎnjué gǔwén school. The transmitted 10-juǎn form is significantly fuller than the 3-juǎn / 35-piece form recorded in the Sòng bibliographies — but the discrepancy may reflect juǎn re-division rather than fabrication. The Sū Shì derivation chain (Hán Yù → Huángfǔ Shí → Sūn Qiáo) — each generation more strained — became the canonical critical formula for the school’s stylistic decline. CBDB id 92793 has no dates; the Guǎngmíng 1 (880) imperial-residence summons (recorded in Sūn’s self-preface) is the firmest dating point. Sūn’s place in the Táng gǔwén genealogy is conditioned by his Yǔ Wáng Lín xiùcái shū — the canonical statement of the HánHuángfǔSūn line — which became a key document in Sòng gǔwén historiography.
Translations and research
- 蔣君章 Jiǎng Jūn-zhāng. Sūn Qiáo wén jí. Modern annotated reprints exist.
- No substantial Western-language secondary literature located.
Other points of interest
Sūn’s Yǔ Wáng Lín xiùcái shū’s explicit triple-generation genealogy (Hán → Huángfǔ → Lái → Sūn) is one of the rare surviving examples of a self-consciously codified Tang gǔwén lineage — comparable to Chán Buddhist transmission claims and likely modelled on them. The piece predates the explicit dàotǒng 道統 statements of the early Sòng Lǐxué.