Huáng yùshǐ jí 黃御史集
The Collected Works of Censor Huáng by 黃滔 (撰)
About the work
The WYG ten-juǎn (catalog meta gives 8 juǎn; the WYG itself adds an appendix 附錄 for a tenth-bound juǎn of supplementary materials) edition of Huáng Tāo’s 黃滔 collected works — the same author and same Sòng-recension lineage as the SBCK reprint at KR4c0103, but cut from the Chóngzhēn-era Míng family edition rather than the Wànlì Cáo Xuéquán cutting. The collection retains the same dual prefaces (Yáng Wànlǐ 楊萬里 of Chúnxī 3 = 1176; Hóng Mài 洪邁 of Qìngyuán 2 = 1196) and adds a Xiè É 謝諤 preface dated Chúnxī 4 (1177). The Sìkù tiyao uses this WYG edition to argue several philological points absent from the SBCK presentation: (1) that the Wǔdàishǐ’s omission of Huáng Tāo from Wáng Shěnzhī’s literary clients is a defect of the Five Dynasties record; (2) that the Jì Nánhǎi Nánpíng wáng must be the funerary memorial composed for Liú Yǐn 劉隱 of Southern Hàn (rather than for Gāo Jìxīng of Jīngnán), since the Nánpíng wáng title was Liú Yǐn’s only briefly before his posthumous elevation; (3) that Huáng Tāo’s Yǐngchuān Chén xiānshēng jí xù dates the ascription to “Mǐn xiàng” (Mǐn chancellor) Wáng Shěnzhī rather than “Mǐn wáng” (Mǐn king), confirming that Huáng Tāo’s compositional intent was always to maintain the formal TángLiáng court relationship for Wáng Shěnzhī.
Tiyao
“We respectfully report: Huáng yùshǐ jí in ten juǎn with one juǎn of appendix. Composed by Huáng Tāo of the Táng. Tāo’s zì was Wénjiāng; he was of Pǔtián. Passed jìnshì in Qiánníng 2 (895), in Guānghuà (898–900) appointed Sìmén bóshì and soon promoted to Jiānchá yùshǐ lǐxíng, then Wēiwǔjūn jiédù tuīguān. When Wáng Shěnzhī controlled all of Mǐn but maintained the formal title of subject — Tāo’s kuāngzhèng (rectifying-remonstrance) was decisive in this. The Wǔdàishǐ says Wáng Shěnzhī favoured Wáng Dàn 王淡, Yáng Yí 楊沂, Xú Yín 徐寅 [a graphic alternation, here for 徐夤], and the Táng-period zhī duōshì (those of broad knowledge) attached themselves to him — but it does not mention Tāo. The Wǔdàishǐ is famously selective and not always to be relied upon. There is also in the collection a Jì Nánhǎi Nánpíng wáng in which the funerary mention ‘Cuīyuánwài lately bringing the ceremonial gifts having visited my gates’ is the work composed for Wáng Shěnzhī to mourn Liú Yǐn. Liú Yǐn was first ennobled Dàpéng wáng, then Nánpíng wáng, then Nánhǎi wáng; the Wǔdài huìyào dates the Nánhǎi enfeoffment to one month after his death, so this text retains the Nánpíng wáng form. Some have wondered whether Nánpíng might refer to Gāo Jìxīng (also titled Nánpíng) and supposed that Tāo at some point answered Gāo’s summons — but they have not examined the matter carefully. The Tángshū yìwénzhì records Tāo’s collection in fifteen juǎn together with the Quánshān xiùjù in three; both are now lost. The present text opens with Yáng Wànlǐ’s and Xiè É’s prefaces. Wànlǐ’s preface relates how Tāo’s descendant — the Yǒngfēng prefect — said that the collection had long been lost and that his father, the Kǎogōng officer, had recovered only some four juǎn; that he himself later obtained five further juǎn of poetry and prose from the Lǚ Xiàqīng family, plus yìshī from the Wēng Chéngzàn family, and stele-texts from Buddhist and Daoist temples — assembling the ten juǎn. First cut at Chúnxī (1176), then re-cut in Zhèngdé (1506–1521), then in Wànlì, and a fourth time in Chóngzhēn; the present text is from the Chóngzhēn cutting. The collection’s prose is rich and well-developed; the poetry has the residual flavor of Zhēnyuán–Chángqìng. Although it does not match Luó Yǐn or Sīkōng Tú, it is unmatched by Xú Yín and others. The Yǐngchuān Chén xiānshēng jí xù says Tāo ‘in Tiānfù 1 (901) shamelessly received the appointment of the Mǐn chancellor’: checking, in Qiánníng 4 (897) the Táng made Fúzhōu the Wēiwǔjūn and appointed Wáng Shěnzhī its jiédùshǐ; he later rose to Tóng zhōngshū ménxià píngzhāngshì and was enfeoffed Lángyé wáng; only after Liáng Tàizǔ ascended the throne was he named Mǐn wáng (with the same chancellor-style title). That Tāo writes ‘Mǐn xiàng’ (chancellor) and not ‘wáng’ (king) is itself further evidence of his rectifying intent — to preserve the formal subordination to the Táng. Appended is one juǎn including bǔyí by his descendant Huáng Bū 黃補, zì Jìquán; Shàoxīng-period jìnshì, served as Ānxī xiàn magistrate. His Shī jiě 詩解, Jiǔjīng jiě 九經解, and Rénwùzhì 人物志 are all lost; only this single piān survives, and is therefore appended to Tāo’s collection. Respectfully presented, Qiánlóng 42 / 10 (1777). Chief compilers: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General reviser: Lù Fèichí.”
Abstract
The same collection as KR4c0103, in a different recension lineage. Where the SBCK eight-juǎn derives from the Wànlì bǐngwǔ (1606) Cáo Xuéquán cutting, the WYG ten-juǎn descends from the later Chóngzhēn-era cutting via the family-line of Huáng Tāo’s descendant Huáng Bū 黃補 (Shàoxīng jìnshì); the appendix preserves Huáng Bū’s single surviving bǔyí essay. The textual divergence between the two recensions is not gross — the principal poems and prose pieces overlap substantially — but the WYG includes the additional Xiè É 謝諤 preface (Chúnxī 4 = 1177) which is absent from the SBCK and which independently confirms the printing-history of the original Sòng cutting. The catalog meta dates this WYG copy to 895 (the jìnshì year of Huáng Tāo); the actual poetic and prose composition extends to ca. 920, when Huáng was active in the Mǐn court of Wáng Shěnzhī. See KR4c0103 for the broader bibliographic situation.
Translations and research
See KR4c0103 for the same author’s secondary literature. The Sì-kù tiyao itself, by virtue of its argumentative structure (extracting Huáng Tāo’s biographical details from the Yǐng-chuān Chén xiān-shēng jí xù and Jì Nán-hǎi Nán-píng wáng to test against the Wǔ-dài-shǐ), constitutes a major early-modern philological treatment.
Other points of interest
The two-pronged transmission — SBCK Tang-Huáng-xiān-shēng wénjí via Wànlì cutting and WYG Huáng yùshǐ jí via Chóngzhēn cutting — represents an instance where the MǐnPǔtián family-line of Huáng Bū was capable of two separate Míng-period reprintings. The two recensions together provide a textual basis for triangulating an editorial reconstruction of the lost original 15-juǎn Sòng-listed jí (per the Xīn Tángshū yìwénzhì).