Wénxuǎn bǔyí 文選補遺
Supplement to the Wénxuǎn by 陳仁子
About the work
A 40-juǎn polemical “supplement” to Xiāo Tǒng’s 蕭統 Wénxuǎn 文選, compiled by the late-Southern-Sòng yímín publisher and editor Chén Rénzǐ 陳仁子 (zì Tóngfǔ 同俌) of Màolíng 茂陵 (Chángshā), and prefaced by Zhào Wén 趙文 of Lúlíng 廬陵. The work runs from the late Warring States through the Liáng dynasty and is organised by genre, with — as Zhào Wén’s preface stresses — selection principles diametrically opposed to Xiāo Tǒng’s. Chén Rénzǐ’s complaints, summarised by the SKQS editors: the Wénxuǎn preserves Sīmǎ Xiàngrú’s Fēngshàn shū but not Dǒng Zhòngshū’s Tiānrén sāncè; Yáng Xióng’s JùQín měiXīn but not Liú Xiàng’s Fēngshì; the Wèigōng jiǔxī wén but not Bān Gù’s discursive lùnliè; Zhūgě Liàng’s opening Chūshī biǎo but not the later biǎo; from the Jiǔgē only Shǎosīmìng and Shānguǐ; from the Jiǔzhāng only Shèjiāng; Hàn imperial zhàolìng restricted to Wǔdì and excluding Gāodì/Wéndì; history-prose restricted to Bān Gù and Fàn Yè, excluding Sīmǎ Qiān; Táo Yuānmíng’s poems — the headwater of the lyric tradition — supplied at less than a tenth. Chén further objects to the Wénxuǎn’s placing of shī and fù before zhàolìng and zòushū as inverting the proper jūnchén (ruler-subject) hierarchy. The Bǔyí re-balances each of these — but, as the SKQS editors note tartly, in the process commits its own errors.
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Wénxuǎn bǔyí in 40 juǎn. The Sòng Chén Rénzǐ compiled it. Rénzǐ has the Mùlái cuōyǔ already on record (see KR4d0383). Before, Zhào Wén of Lúlíng has a preface conveying Rénzǐ’s thesis: “Why preserve the Fēngshàn shū yet not the Tiānrén sāncè? Why preserve the JùQín měiXīn yet not Liú Xiàng’s Fēngshì? Why preserve the Wèigōng jiǔxī wén yet not Bān Gù’s lùnliè? It is improper to omit the later Chūshī biǎo. From the Jiǔgē it is improper to retain only Shǎosīmìng and Shānguǐ; from the Jiǔzhāng only Shèjiāng. As for zhàolìng, it is improper to take from Wǔdì and omit GāodìWéndì. As for history’s lùnzàn, it is improper to take Bān and Fàn and omit Sīmǎ Qiān. Táo’s poems are the guānmiǎn (crown-and-cap) of the poets’ tradition — yet not one or two in ten are preserved. Again — shīfù should not come before zhàolìng and zòushū, lest jūnchén lose their stations and zhìwén (substance and ornament) be transposed.” His censure of Xiāo Tǒng is severe. This is plainly of a piece with Liú Lǚ’s Xuǎnshī bǔzhù — both privately disciples of the Wénzhāng zhèngzōng school. But the Zhèngzōng aimed at mínglǐ (illuminating principle); the Wénxuǎn originally restricted itself to lùnwén (discussing literature) — words have their proper application. To use one to censure the other is not a generalist’s argument.
Moreover, of the pieces supplied: Sīmǎ Tán’s Liùjiā yàozhǐ lùn equates HuángLǎo with the Six Classics; Lǔ Zhònglián’s YíYānjiāng shū teaches a man to rebel against his lord; Gāodì’s Hónghú gē expresses excessive favoritism; Yáng Xióng’s Fǎn Lísāo is contrary to loyalty-and-integrity; Cài Yǎn’s Hújiā shíbā pāi is not the speech of chastity-and-fortitude; the Yuèrén gē and Lǐ Yánnián gē are simply lewd-speech; Bān Gù’s Yānránshān míng is in fact flattery of a usurping minister; Dǒng Zhòngshū’s Huǒzāi duì also indulges in fùhuì (forced analogising) on the Classic. Measured by Zhèngzōng standards, all transgress his own principle, so he cannot strictly maintain the Zhènshì ([Zhēn Déxiù]) school either. As for Sòng Yù 宋玉’s Wēiyǒng fù corrupted to SòngWáng Wēi 宋王㣲 — both name and dynasty are misregistered. He cites Buddhist Sūtra “horizontal display” passages to gloss the Fěngfù — exceedingly pángzá (heterodox-and-miscellaneous). The JīngKē Yìshuǐ gē doubles the Wénxuǎn — also lack of scrutiny.
Examining his Mùlái cuōyǔ, the gélǜ (formal rules) of gǔwén versus shíwén (current prose) are still not very clearly distinguished; his censure of the ancients is therefore also a màomào rán (blind-and-rough) large-talk. Yet his thesis says “supplementing the Wénxuǎn” and not “thereby abolishing the Wénxuǎn” — letting the two books stand side-by-side, each clarifying one principle, used to remedy the Wénxuǎn’s exclusive cult of huázǎo (florid-pattern); this cannot be called without merit. Compared to those who single out one and abolish a hundred, there is still a distance.
Reverently submitted, third month of Qiánlóng 44 (1779). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Internal evidence places compilation in the last decade of the Southern Sòng (1268–1280). Zhào Wén’s preface is undated but is securely datable to before 1280; Chén Rénzǐ’s own collection Mùlái cuōyǔ is similarly late-Sòng. The work was first printed at the family-school of Mùlái in Chángshā, a celebrated late-Sòng provincial press.
Significance. The Bǔyí is the most ambitious anti-Wénxuǎn polemic ever attempted in pre-modern China. The transmitted text is virtually the sole survivor of a wider Sòng Wénxuǎn-critical genre attested in catalogues (Sū Shì’s reported view that the Wénxuǎn was “lòu” [crude] is widely cited as its slogan). The SKQS editors’ equivocation — preserving the work as polemical balance, but cataloguing every error — represents the Qīng-court orthodox judgement that the Wénxuǎn remains canonical and the Bǔyí a partisan exercise. The book is thus of two-fold interest: (1) as evidence for the late-Sòng Wénzhāng zhèngzōng / Zhēn Déxiù school’s reception of the canon; (2) as a textual reservoir preserving pre-Liáng prose pieces that the Wénxuǎn omits, including Sīmǎ Tán’s Liùjiā yàozhǐ lùn (preserved otherwise in the Shǐjì) and Dǒng Zhòngshū’s Tiānrén sāncè (otherwise in the Hànshū).
Translations and research
- David R. Knechtges, “Wen Xuan” in the introduction to Wen Xuan, or Selections of Refined Literature, 3 vols. (Princeton, 1982–1996) — context for Sòng-period Wén-xuǎn studies and their critics.
- 王立群 Wáng Lìqún, Xiàn-dài Wén-xuǎn-xué shǐ 現代文選學史 (Beijing, 2003).
- 屈守元 Qū Shǒu-yuán, Wén-xuǎn dǎo-dú — for the reception history Chén Rén-zǐ joins.
- 潘宗周 Pān Zōng-zhōu, “Sòng Mào-líng Chén Rén-zǐ kǎo” — on the publisher and his press.
Other points of interest
The work’s most curious editorial choice — the substitution of SòngWáng Wēi 宋王㣲 (a non-existent author) for Sòng Yù 宋玉 as author of the Wēiyǒng fù — became the standard example of Sòng-period authorial garbling in later catalogues. The SKQS editors flag it as a model of how zealous editing can transform a transmission error into a fictional persona. The use of Buddhist sūtra glosses to comment on the Fěngfù is similarly noted as evidence of late-Sòng sānjiào (Three-Teachings) hybridisation in literary scholarship.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §31.4.
- ctext