Tángshī gǔchuī 唐詩鼓吹
Drum-and-Fife Tang Poetry by 元好問 and 郝天挺
About the work
A 10-juǎn anthology of Táng heptasyllabic regulated verse (qīyán lǜshī 七言律詩), with 596 poems by 96 poets, compiled by Yuán Hǎowèn (元好問, 1190–1257) and annotated by his disciple Hǎo Tiāntǐng (郝天挺, zì Jìxiān 繼先, 1247–1313). The title — “Drum-and-Fife” (gǔchuī — Chinese military-band music, also a general term for a ringing performance) — likely takes its sense from the famous Shìshuō xīnyǔ phrase Sāndū Liǎngjīng wǔjīng gǔchuī (“the Five Classics are the drum-and-fife of the Three Capitals and Two Metropolises”). Yáo Suì’s preface, alternatively, derives the title from Sòng Gāozōng’s Yōuxián gǔchuī compilation of TángSòng anecdotes — but the SKQS editors reject this as a fùhuì (forced analogy). The selection is organised by poet (not by topic or chronology), with notable space given to Liǔ Zōngyuán (10), Liú Yǔxī (15), Xǔ Hún (31), Xuē Féng (22), Hán Wò (19), Lù Guīméng (35), Pí Rìxiū (23), Lǐ Shāngyǐn (34), Wēn Tíngyún (10), Dù Mù (32), Hú Sù (23 — erroneously included since Hú Sù is a Sòng poet), Tán Yòngzhī (38). All authors are titled by name except Liǔ Zōngyuán (Liǔ Zǐhòu) and Dù Mù (Dù Mùzhī), which the SKQS editors cannot explain. The principal critical aspect: strict and standardised in selection, unlike the loose-fragmented manner of late-Sòng Jiānghú and Sìlíng schools. Hǎo Tiāntǐng’s commentary, simple but accurate, confines itself to identifying allusions and avoiding speculation — judged superior to the Míng Liào Wénbǐng 廖文炳 and others. First printed at the JiāngZhè Rúsī in Zhìdà 1 (1308).
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Tángshī gǔchuī in 10 juǎn. The compiler’s name is not given. According to Zhào Mèngfǔ’s preface, it was edited by the Jīn Yuán Hǎowèn, and his disciple Zhōngshūzuǒchéng Hǎo Tiāntǐng annotated it. Chángshú Lù Yídiǎn’s colophon of our dynasty disputes this on the basis of the Jīnshǐ Yǐnyì zhuàn: that Tiāntǐng was Hǎowèn’s teacher, not disciple, and that he was an early-retired man who refused examination service — and never reached Zhōngshūzuǒchéng.
Examining Wáng Shìzhēn’s Chíběi ǒután: “Between Jīn and Yuán there were two Hǎo Tiāntǐng’s — one Yíshān’s teacher, one Yíshān’s disciple. Examining the Yuánshǐ Hǎo Jīng zhuàn: ‘His ancestor was from Lùzhōu, settled in Língchuān of Zézhōu. His grandfather Tiāntǐng, zì Jìnqīng, was the man Yíshān studied with; Yíshān told [his grandson] Jīng, “Your face resembles your grandfather; talent unusual” — this is that one.’ The other was zì Jìxiān — his father in Yuán Tàizōng times achieved much military merit; Tiāntǐng was yīngshuǎng gāngzhí (bold-and-upright), of strategic aspiration; received instruction from Yíshān Yuán Hǎowèn, and rose through office to Píngzhāng Zhèngshì of the Hénán Xíngshěng, posthumously enfeoffed Jìguógōng with canonical-title Wéndìng — a Huáng-qìng-period famous official. He once compiled the Yúnnán shílù in 5 juǎn and annotated the Tángshī gǔchuī jí in 10 juǎn. Recently the Chángshú Gǔchuī jí print has confused him with the Yǐnyì zhuàn’s Jìnqīng, and consequently doubted Zhào Wénmǐn (Zhào Mèngfǔ)‘s preface; further on the words “Shàngshūzuǒchéng” it has falsely added a “Jīn” character — very mistaken.” So Yídiǎn et al. knew the one but not the other.
What Hǎowèn selected is all Táng-men’s qīyán lǜshī: 96 families in all, totalling 596 pieces. The authors are each titled by name only Liǔ Zōngyuán and Dù Mù are titled by zì — not understood why. In juǎn 4 there are 11 pieces under Sòng Yōng 宋邕 — Tiāntǐng notes that these are in fact from the Cáo Táng collection but titled “Sòng Yōng” — there must be a basis. But in juǎn 8 the 23 Hú Sù pieces are now found in the Wéngōng jí — they are Sòng poetry mis-inserted; a small carelessness.
Yet the book, like Fāng Huí’s Yíngkuí lǜsuǐ, comes from the early Yuán; but its selection-and-rejection is strict, its method consistent. Generally strong-and-healthy, broad-and-open, without the late-Sòng Jiānghú / Sìlíng’s suǒsuì hánjiǎn (fragmentary-and-stinted) habit — actually superior to Fāng’s book. Tiāntǐng’s commentary, though brief, only clarifies the source-text, doesn’t venture into chuānzáo (forced interpretation) — also unlike Míng Liào Wénbǐng et al. who héngshēng zhījié (grow side-branches), routinely going to the absurd. According to Dōu Áng’s Sānyú zhuìbǐ: “this book at Zhìdà wùshēn (1308) the JiāngZhè Rúsī cut-blocks.” The old has Yáo Suì and Wǔ Yīchāng prefaces; this recension is missing them. Further records Suì’s preface: “Sòng Gāozōng once compiled TángSòng yìshì into the Yōuxián gǔchuī, hence Hǎowèn took the basis from it.” But Sāndū Liǎngjīng Wǔjīng gǔchuī — this phrase appears in the Shìshuō; Hǎowèn’s naming probably comes from here. Suì’s explanation is not without fùhuì (forced analogy).
Reverently submitted, twelfth month of Qiánlóng 41 (1776). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Anthology compiled by Yuán Hǎowèn in the same period as the Zhōngzhōu jí (begun 1233), drawing on his decades-long programme of poetic preservation. The annotation was added by Hǎo Tiāntǐng (zì Jìxiān) in the late thirteenth century, supplied by oral instruction from his teacher and from Yuán’s notes. First printed in Zhìdà 1 (1308) by the JiāngZhè Rúsī under Hǎo Tiāntǐng’s supervision, with prefaces by Zhào Mèngfǔ (preserved), Yáo Suì (lost from the SKQS recension), and Wǔ Yīchāng (lost).
Significance. (1) Canonical Yuán-period Táng anthology. Alongside Fāng Huí’s Yíngkuí lǜsuǐ KR4h0074, the Tángshī gǔchuī is one of the two principal early-Yuán Táng anthologies, and the foundational text for the late-imperial Chinese understanding of Táng heptasyllabic regulated verse as a genre. Hǎo Tiāntǐng’s zhù set the standard for textually-restrained Táng commentary.
(2) Selection emphasis on mid- and late-Táng. Compared to the GāoBǐng / Lǐ Pānlóng anthologisations centred on High Táng, the Gǔchuī gives unusual prominence to late-Táng (Lǐ Shāngyǐn, Wēn Tíngyún, Pí Rìxiū, Lù Guīméng, Xuē Féng, Xǔ Hún, Hán Wò) — a sensibility consistent with Yuán Hǎowèn’s general late-Táng preferences and contrasting sharply with the later Míng qiánhòu qīzǐ canon.
(3) Reception. The work was repeatedly recommissioned in the Míng (with the commentaries of Liào Wénbǐng, Wáng Yáojǔ 王堯衢, et al. added) and travelled widely to Korea and Japan as a standard pedagogical text for qīyán lǜshī composition. The Sìkù-orthodox judgement places it above Fāng Huí’s anthology — though Fāng’s yīzǔ sānzōng (Dù Fǔ as ancestor, Huáng Tíngjiān / Chén Shīdào / Chén Yǔyì as patriarchs) doctrine has been historically more influential.
Translations and research
- Stephen Owen, The Late Tang: Chinese Poetry of the Mid-Ninth Century (827–860) (Cambridge MA, 2006) — context for the late-Táng material the anthology features.
- John Timothy Wixted, Poems on Poetry: Literary Criticism by Yuan Hao-wen (Wiesbaden, 1982).
- 詹杭倫 Zhān Háng-lún, Yuán Hǎo-wèn yán-jiū — for the anthology’s place in Yuán’s overall œuvre.
- 牟懷川 Móu Huái-chuān, “Táng-shī gǔ-chuī yǔ Sòng-Jīn Yuán-chū qī-lǜ shī-xuǎn-xué” (journal article).
Other points of interest
The two-Hǎo-Tiān-tǐng confusion (teacher vs. disciple of Yuán Hǎowèn) is one of the standard cases in Chinese homonym bibliography. The Sìkù editors’ careful resolution — citing Wáng Shìzhēn and the Yuánshǐ Hǎo Jīng zhuàn — is the textbook example. The mistake in Chángshú Lù Yídiǎn’s colophon — confusing the two and “adding a Jīn character” before Shàngshūzuǒchéng — exemplifies the dangers of relying on a single source.
Links
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §31.4.
- ctext