Nèijiǎn chǐdú 內簡尺牘
Inner-Letter Collection (annotated) by 孫覿 (撰), edited and annotated by 李祖堯
About the work
Nèijiǎn chǐdú 內簡尺牘 in 10 juǎn is the annotated letter-collection of Sūn Dí 孫覿, edited and annotated by his pupil Lǐ Zǔyáo 李祖堯. The collection presents Sūn’s letters together with Lǐ’s textual notes drawing on Sūn’s own poetry-and-prose, often supplying philological cross-reference. Although there is significant overlap with juǎn 37–50 of Sūn’s Hóngqìng jūshì jí KR4d0179, the Sìkù editors document substantial divergences in textual content — Lǐ Zǔyáo evidently worked from a separate manuscript-base.
Tiyao
Nèijiǎn chǐdú in 10 juǎn, by Sūn Dí of the Sòng. His pupil Lǐ Zǔyáo edited and annotated. What Dí composed of Hóngqìng jí — from juǎn 37 to 50 — all letters-and-tokens. Yet cross-checking this version, often there are differences. Like this version’s Yǔ Xìnānjūnwáng Gài Rénzhòng tiē 22 pieces — the collection-version all not-loaded. The collection-version’s juǎn 46 has Yǔ Gài Rénzhòng jùnwáng tiē 1 piece — also doesn’t-match this. Further this version’s Yǔ Yè zuǒchéng Shǎoyùn tiē 1 piece — and the collection-version juǎn 45’s loaded Yǔ Yè Shǎoyùn zīzhèng tiē 3 pieces, juǎn 46’s loaded Yǔ Yè zuǒchéng tiē 1 piece — also each-different. Surely [Zǔ]-yáo relied-on a manuscript-version compiled. Hence at-times there’s chūrù (divergence).
As-for his annotation, much takes Dí’s self-composed poetry-and-prose to constitute kǎozhèng (textual evidence). For example, juǎn 3’s Yǔ Zhōu Biǎoqīng shìláng dìwǔ tiē — the note cites Dí’s collection’s Xiè Lìbù shìláng jiān Quánzhí Xuéshì biǎo — the collection-version actually lacks this piece. Juǎn 7’s Yǔ Chángshǒu Xú jìyì dìwǔ tiē — the note cites Dí’s collection’s Chángzhōu shèngchányuàn xīngzào jì says: Qīngzhì dàshī Pǔxuán jì zhì, shǐ gǎihào Zīshèng (Pure-Wisdom Master Pǔxuán arrived, and started changing-the-name to Zīshèng) — collection-version juǎn 31 contains this prose, but missing the four-characters Qīngzhì dàshī. Other cited classical-allusions all qièshí (cutting-and-actual). Surely Zǔyáo personally followed Dí’s wandering — compared to Rén Yuān’s annotation of Chén Shīdào and Huáng Tíngjiān poetry, wénjiàn gèng wéi yǒujù (heard-and-seen all-the-more well-grounded). Not what later-persons annotating earlier-dynasties’ books — mōsuǒ yǐngxiǎng (groping-shadow-and-sound) — can be discussed-as-equal. Respectfully collated, Qiánlóng 43 (1778), 9th month.
Abstract
The Nèijiǎn chǐdú in 10 juǎn is one of the more methodologically-interesting late-Sòng texts: a pupil-edited annotated chǐdú (letter-collection) where the editor’s annotations regularly draw on the master’s other writings to supply context. Lǐ Zǔyáo’s textual base differed from the manuscript that became the Hóngqìng jī KR4d0179 — generating significant text-critical divergences — and his citations of Sūn’s other writings preserve material no longer in the surviving Hóngqìng jí recension (e.g. the Xiè Lìbù shìláng jiān Quánzhí Xuéshì biǎo, lost from the parent collection). The Sìkù editors give the work an unusually high methodological evaluation, comparing Lǐ Zǔyáo to Rén Yuān 任淵 (whose annotations of Chén Shīdào and Huáng Tíngjiān were similarly informed by personal contact with the master).
The collection’s title — the original-preface explains — refers to the Sòng-period sense of xiǎojiǎn (small letter-pages) descended through Ōuyáng Xiū and Sū Shì from Tang-period chǐdú practice. The Tang Lǐzhù tradition (per the original-preface) distinguished duǎnqǐ chū yú JìnSòng bīnggé zhī jiān (the short-felicitations originated in the JìnSòng martial-political turbulence) — at-the-time-bans on shūshū (letters-and-rescripts) compelling shorter and easily-hidden pieces.
The transmission history is unusual: the original cut by Lǐ Zǔyáo perished; the collection survived through Sūn’s tenth-generation descendant Sūn Yù 孫玘 (a zhēngshì (recluse) who became Gōngbù zhǔshì under the late Míng); his son Sūn Rén 孫仁 (Imperial Inspector for Sìchuān) re-cut it in the late Míng and asked Sūn Zǐmù to write the present preface (Wànlì gēngzǐ = 1600).
Translations and research
- 周必大 / 孫覿 — see KR4d0179.
- No dedicated Western-language study located.
Other points of interest
- The Nèijiǎn chǐdú’s annotated form makes it methodologically distinct from typical Sòng biéjí; it is one of the few extant Sòng pupil-edited annotated letter-collections. Read alongside KR4d0179 for the full Sūn Dí corpus.