Fēngyǎ yì 風雅翼
Wings of the Wind-and-Yǎ by 劉履
About the work
A 14-juǎn poetry anthology with commentary by Liú Lǚ (劉履, 1317–1379, zì Tǎnzhī 坦之, Shàngyú 上虞 man), structured in three parts:
(1) 選詩補注 Xuǎnshī bǔzhù (8 juǎn): supplementary commentary on the Wénxuǎn poems, drawing on the Five Officials’ Old Commentary (五臣舊注) and Zēng Yuán’s演義 Zēng Yuán yǎnyì, with Liú’s own editorial judgments.
(2) 選詩補遺 Xuǎnshī bǔyí (2 juǎn): 42 ancient gēyáo (folk songs) and lyrics found scattered in various works but not in the Wénxuǎn, to supplement the latter’s lacunae.
(3) 選詩續編 Xuǎnshī xùbiān (4 juǎn): 159 TángSòng poems “approaching the ancient” (近古者), continuing the Wénxuǎn into the post-Lyù-cháo era.
Liú’s selection principles derive from Zhēn Déxiù’s 真德秀 Wénzhāng zhèngzōng 文章正宗 (KR4h0064); his exegetical method derives from Zhū Xī’s 朱熹 Shī jízhuàn 詩集傳 (KR1d0026).
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Fēngyǎ yì in 14 juǎn — the Yuán Liú Lǚ edited it. Lǚ zì Tǎnzhī, Shàngyú man. He entered the Míng without serving, self-styling 草澤閒民 Cǎozé xiánmín (“Idle Man of Reed-Marsh”). In Hóngwǔ 16 (1383) the imperial decree called for bóxué (broadly-learned) scholars from across the realm; the Zhèjiāng bùzhèngshǐ strongly recommended him; he reached Jīngshī (the capital, Nánjīng); was offered office but firmly declined on grounds of age and infirmity; received an imperial gift of paper money and was sent home — but died before reaching there. The Zhèjiāng tōngzhì places him in the yǐnyì (recluse) biographies.
The volume begins with Xuǎnshī bǔzhù in 8 juǎn: he takes the Wénxuǎn poems, abridges and expands the textual notes, drawing largely on the wǔchén jiùzhù (Five-Officials Old Commentary) and Zēng Yuán’s yǎnyì — punctuated with his own opinions.
Next is the Xuǎnshī bǔyí in 2 juǎn: ancient gēyáo cí scattered through various books — 42 pieces selected to supplement the Wénxuǎn’s lacunae.
Next is the Xuǎnshī xùbiān in 4 juǎn: from the Táng and Sòng forward, 159 poems and cí “approaching the ancient” — taken as the Wénxuǎn’s continuation. The selection’s main principles are based on Zhēn Déxiù’s Wénzhāng zhèngzōng; the explication-format is uniformly based on Zhū Xī’s Shī jízhuàn.
His discussion of Dù Fǔ’s Sānlì sānbié — “too urgent and lacking the measure of plain-remote” — and his contrast “compared to Jiànān yuèfǔ — like the Diǎnmó texts being followed by separate Pángēng discourses — sees the qìyǔ (mood-and-style) gradually shifting” — does not understand: the language of fēngyù (allusive admonition) must be implicit before it can show yōuróu (gentleness); the language of xùshù (narration) must be true-and-direct before it can move people. Wáng Càn’s 王粲 Qīāi poem says “Going out the gate I saw no-one — only white bones covering the plain. There was a starving woman on the road, who clutched her child and abandoned it in the grass; she turned back and heard its weeping; she wiped her eyes and did not return; not knowing where she would die herself — how could the two survive together?” — How is this not Jiànān verse? How is it different from Sānlì sānbié? Likewise the Gūér xíng, the Fùbìng xíng, the Shàngliútián, the Dōngxī mén xíng, and even the Jiāo Zhòngqīng qī poem — how are these not yuèfǔ? How are they different from Sānlì sānbié? This [Liú’s reasoning] shows he does not understand the proper and modified-forms of literature, and makes vague generalisations.
Again, his discussion of the Tángshàng xíng’s last 6 lines — saying they show Wèi Wéndì on campaign and Zhēn Hòu missing him — does not understand: in antiquity, cǎishī to enter music: when the sound finished but the words did not, the words were trimmed; when the words finished but the sound did not, lines of other poems were borrowed to fill out — both being purely musical-rhythm considerations, having nothing to do with literary sense. The Yuèfǔ shījí records many such cases. The Tángshàng xíng’s final 6 lines suddenly leap to a military campaign — this is from that practice. Liú forcedly connects them to Wèi Wéndì’s western campaign — this shows he does not understand the textual-fabric of verse and produces forced explanations.
As for distinguishing bǐ and xìng sharply in HànWèi compositions — this is especially “carving the boat to mark where the sword fell”: forced application of a method to material that does not require it. Zhū Xī’s annotation of the Chǔcí on this is already widely disputed — how much more for someone who copies Zhū’s pín (frown)?
Still: the main thrust of the book is not far from the orthodox; nor does it fall entirely into the rigid. His annotations and commentaries are quite detailed; he is not a xiāofù zhī kōngtán (empty-bellied empty-talk). Compared to Chén Rénzǐ’s book (KR4h0078 Wénxuǎn bǔyí) he is the superior. We can include him for reference.
Further: Yè Shèng’s 葉盛 Shuǐdōng rìjì 水東日記 records that “the Jìjiǔ (Director of Imperial University) An-chéng Lǐxiānshēng often added separate annotations to Liú Lǚ’s Fēngyǎ yì, far more detailed than Liú’s.” An-chéng Lǐxiānshēng is Lǐ Shímiǎn 李時勉. His book we have not seen — but Lǐ Shímiǎn was reputed for xuéwèn chúnzhèng (pure-and-correct scholarship) and rénpǐn duānfāng (correct conduct); poetry was not his strong suit; nor was textual criticism. His [annotated edition’s] standing is probably no better than equal to Liú’s original.
Reverently submitted, eleventh month of Qiánlóng 45 (1780). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Liú Lǚ (1317–1379) was a late-Yuán scholar who survived into the early Míng and refused office. The work must have been completed before his death in 1379 or shortly before. He was strongly recommended in Hóngwǔ 16 (1383) — but the SKQS dates this rather than the work; here CBDB gives Liú’s death as 1379, so the work is c. 1369–1378.
Editorial method. The work is a distinctive late-Yuán / early-Míng Neo-Confucian re-reading of the Wénxuǎn: Liú takes the Liáng-dynasty Wénxuǎn tradition (Xiāo Tǒng 蕭統’s classical anthology) and re-annotates it through the lens of Zhū Xī’s Sòng Lǐxué exegesis (Shī jízhuàn). This represents an unusual cross-period interpretive move — bridging Lyùcháo philology and Sòng Neo-Confucian commentary. The SKQS editors criticise the method (especially the forced bǐxìng classifications), but acknowledge its scholarly rigour.
Significance. (1) Principal Yuán-end Wénxuǎn-commentary product. (2) The supplementary 42 gǔ gēyáo preserves materials not in the Wénxuǎn. (3) The 159-poem TángSòng continuation establishes a Sòng zhèngzōng-derived canon of post-Liáng poetry. (4) The work was important enough that Lǐ Shímiǎn 李時勉 (Míng-mid Hanlin figure) annotated it separately — an unrecovered Míng commentary.
Translations and research
- David R. Knechtges, Wen xuan, or Selections of Refined Literature (Princeton, 1982/1987/1996) — the standard Western Wén-xuǎn translation and study; cites Liú Lǚ among the Sòng-Yuán annotation tradition.
- 李丹 Lǐ Dān, Wén-xuǎn jí xué-shǐ — Chinese Wén-xuǎn studies history.
- 屈守元 Qū Shǒu-yuán, Wén-xuǎn dǎo-dú — introduction.
Other points of interest
The work is significant for its methodological boldness: it is unique among YuánMíng Wénxuǎn commentaries in explicitly substituting Zhū Xī’s Shī jízhuàn exegetical paradigm for the LiángTáng tradition of the Wǔchén jiùzhù. This makes it a key transitional document in the canonisation of Zhū Xī as the universal interpretive authority across pre-Sòng literature — a project that culminated in MíngQīng Lǐxué hegemony in literary studies.
Links
- ctext
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §38.2.