東坡詩集註

Dōngpō shījí zhù 東坡詩集註

Annotated Collected Poems of [Sū] Dōng-pō [Shì] — also called Bǎi-jiā zhù Dōng-pō shī by 蘇軾 (撰), 王十朋 (註)

About the work

Dōngpō shījí zhù 東坡詩集註 is the principal fēnlèi (classified, by-topic) annotated collection of Sū Shì 蘇軾 蘇軾’s poetry, in 32 juǎn, traditionally attributed to Wáng Shípéng 王十朋 王十朋. The Sìkù tíyào, however, decisively identifies the attribution as a 13th-century shūsì (booksellers’) forgery: (1) the prefacing Zhào Kuí 趙夔 xù’s claim to have associated with Xiǎopō (Sū Guò 蘇過, Sū Shì’s third son) is chronologically impossible — Sū Guò having died in 1124, before the xù-claimed thirty-year-back reckoning could place its author in Chóngníng (1102–1106); (2) Wáng Shípéng’s Méixī jí preserves 11 prefaces Wáng wrote, none for this work, and includes three Dú Sū wén notes none of which mention Sū’s poetry; (3) the bǎijiā (hundred-school) format mirrors the qiānjiā Dù shī / wǔbǎijiā HánLiǔ wén booksellers’ formula — a strong indicator. Zhào Kuí’s xù claims division into 50 categories; the present recension has 29 categories (consolidated). The classification is unrigorous (the Fúróngchéng poem under “gǔjì”; the Hǔ-er poem under “yǒngshǐ”; the Huàyú gē under “shūhuà” — picked out for criticism by Zhā Shènxíng 查愼行 查愼行 in Sūshī bǔzhù). Despite this, the Sìkù editors (and Shào Chánghéng 邵長蘅) acknowledge the work’s yuányǐn xiángmíng (citation-detail) is fully half useful — and Shào himself drew on the王 zhù in his own supplements to Shīzhù Sūshī KR4d0080.

Tiyao

The Sìkù tíyào: Dōngpō shījí zhù in 32 juǎn, old recension titled to Wáng Shípéng of the Sòng. Shípéng has Huìjī sānfù, already cataloged. This collection front carries Zhào Kuí’s xù, claiming division into 50 categories; this běn in fact only 29 categories — clearly some hébìng (combinings) have occurred. Shípéng’s xù heading title “bǎijiā zhù” — the běn citations also do not fill that count — like Dù shī called qiānjiā zhù, like Hán / Liǔ prose called wǔbǎijiā zhù. Its categorization is rather diānchuǎn (overturned-erroneous): like the Fúróngchéng poem entered into gǔjì; the Hǔ-er poem entered into yǒngshǐ — uncountable. Not only does Zhā Shènxíng’s Dōngpō shī bǔzhù deride the Huàyú gē’s entry into shūhuà — its zhù is what Shào Chánghéng has péijī (pummeled) — 38 entries in all. As to the Zhèngé (Correcting Errors) 1 juǎn, prefacing what Shào collated of the Shīzhù. Examined Shípéng’s Méixī qiánjí loads 8 xù, hòují loads 3 xù — alone there is no this xù. Further has Dú Sū wén three piān, also no character touching on Sū’s poetry. The Méixī jí is what his sons Wénshī, Wénlǐ edited; Shípéng’s zhùshù assembled-and-collected without remainder — should not alone omit this xù. Further: Zhào Kuí’s xù says: “in Chóngníng I, my age was set on study; until now thirty years; one character, one phrase pursued the láilì (provenance), necessarily wishing to see the use-event location; recently traveling to Jīngshī on transfer-business, then defending office, repeatedly with the Xiǎopō Shūdǎng (Sū Guò) yóucóng zhì shú, kòu (asked) what I did not yet know, Shūdǎng also could speak of it for me.” Examined: Sòngshǐ loads “Shì going to Hángzhōu; Sū Guò’s age was 19” — the time was during Yuányòu 5–6 / 1090–1091; further records “Guò died, age was 52” — that being in Xuānhé 5–6 / 1123–1124. If we down-count from Chóngníng 1 / 1102 by 30 years — that already reaches Shàoxīng 1 / 1131 — by which time Guò had already been dead 7–8 years. Kuí — how could he have seen Guò and asked him? Hence Kuí’s xù too is from yītuō (forgery-by-attachment). Examining the book’s tǐlì matches the Dù shī qiānjiā zhù — must surely have been one-time shūsì booksellers’ work, borrowing Shípéng’s name to circulate. However Chánghéng pointed out the format’s three failings, and yet says: “where the yuányǐn xiángmíng zhǎnjuǎn liǎorú zhě jǐnjǐn jí bàn (citation clear-detailed, opening-the-volume immediately understood, hardly half)” — clearly the shūlòu zhě bùguò shí zhī wǔ (the shoddy is not above half). On Shī’s annotation the lacking 12 juǎn — likewise says “consulting Wáng zhù, citing the various books for supplement” — clearly never failed to take material from this zhù. Generally, chuàngshǐ zhě (the inaugurating) is hard to be refined; jìshì zhě (the continuing) is easy to be close. Shào’s zhù corrects Wáng’s zhù’s errors; Zhā’s zhù further extracts Shào’s zhù’s mistakes. Today examining Zhā’s zhù also has many chuǎnlòu (errors-and-omissions) — sufficient to know kǎozhèng zhī xué bùkě qióngjìn (the learning of textual examination is inexhaustible). Hard to take one jiā and discard the rest. We record this book likewise to assist readers of Sūshī in pángcān (cross-reference). Qiánlóng 46 (1781) 12th month, respectfully collated.

Abstract

Dōngpō shījí zhù (the Wáng Shípéng bǎijiā recension) is bibliographically a major case-study in Sòng biéjí forgery: the Sìkù editors’ two-pronged demonstration — chronological impossibility of the Zhào Kuí xù (the Sū Guò consultation claim), and absence of any trace in the authentic Wáng Shípéng Méixī jí — together with the Dù qiānjiā zhù / HánLiǔ wǔbǎijiā parallel formula identification, conclusively place this in the Yuán / early-Míng shūsì (booksellers’) forgery tradition. Despite the forged frame, the underlying annotation material is genuine and substantive: Shào Chánghéng’s frank acknowledgment that “hardly half is sound, but the citations open the volume” matches the Sìkù editors’ position. The work is the principal fēnlèi (classified-by-subject) Sūshī annotation alongside the Wáng Shípéng / Fù Zǎo SBCK recension KR4d0078 (a parallel bǎijiā recension with Fù Zǎo’s Jìnián lù added). Together with Shī Yuánzhī 施元之 / Shī Sù 施宿 KR4d0080 and Zhā Shènxíng KR4d0081, it is part of the four foundational annotations of Sū Shì poetry. Dating bracket: chronological terminus a quo of the Zhào Kuí xù (post-1131) to the Sìkù re-collation (1781).

Translations and research

• Egan, Ronald C. 1994. Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi. Harvard. Treats the annotation tradition.
• Wáng Wén-gào 王文誥. 1819. Sū Wén-zhōng-gōng shī-biān-zhù jí-chéng. Includes detailed comparison of all four annotation traditions.
• Wáng Yǒng-zhī 王永之 et al. 1986. Sū Shì shī-jí jiào-zhù 蘇軾詩集校註. Treats the four-annotation tradition.

Other points of interest

The forgery identification is itself a significant kǎojù exercise — the Sìkù editors’ attention to Wáng Shípéng’s authentic Méixī jí prefaces (and the absence of this purported preface from his son’s compilation) is one of the more elegant biéjí identifications in the corpus. The qiānjiā / bǎijiā / wǔbǎijiā booksellers’-formula identification points to a coordinated late-Sòng/Yuán publishing-house strategy — applying the qiānjiā Dù shī template to Sūshī, Hán wén, and Liǔ wén alike — that produced a constellation of pseudonymous-bracketed, real-substance-content commercial editions.

Links

• Su Shi (Wikidata)
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual, §28.1 (Sòng biéjí); §28.6 (annotation tradition).