Yuán yìpǔ jí 元藝圃集
Garden of Arts: Yuán Collection by 李蓘
About the work
A 4-juǎn late-Míng anthology of Yuán poetry, the companion volume to KR4h0113 Sòng yìpǔ jí, compiled by Lǐ Gǔn (李蓘). The work runs to 625 poems by 108 named poets — much smaller and more selective than the 288-poet Sòng yìpǔ jí. Lǐ’s own preface — dated Wànlì 10 rénwǔ (1582), 5th month, 8th day — apologises that “my dwelling is pì (remote) and books are scarce; I have not been able to comprehensively cover the yīdài zhī suǒcháng (the strengths of an entire dynasty)“. The anthology shares the disordered chronological arrangement flaw of the Sòng companion: Ní Zàn 倪瓚, Sòng Yuán, Yú Què 余闕 (all end-of-Yuán) appear at the start; Dài Biǎoyuán 戴表元 and Bái Tǐng 白珽 (early-Yuán) appear near the end. The SKQS editors attribute this to suíjiàn suíchāo wèi jīng kāndìng (“transcribed-as-seen, not yet collated and fixed”).
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Yuán yìpǔ jí in 4 juǎn — the Míng Lǐ Gǔn edited it. This compilation continues the Sòng yìpǔ. Records 108 persons, 625 poems in total. His own preface says: “the dwelling is remote and books scarce, no means to comprehensively cover one age’s strengths”. Now examining the records: Yú Jí 虞集, Fàn Pēng 范梈, Jiē Xīsī 揭傒斯 — three of the so-called Four Houses of early-Yuán Hanlin verse — but Yáng Zài 楊載 is absent — one of the four canonical names is missing. Lòuluè (omission-defect) cannot be avoided.
Further: Liú Chénwēng 劉辰翁 is a Sòng man; Wáng Tíngyùn 王庭筠 and Gāo Kègōng 高克恭** are Jīn men; Yuán Hǎowèn 元好問 is a Jīn man; monk Láifù 來復 is a Míng man — all yīlì zàirù (uniformly inserted) — duànxiàn (chronological boundaries) are not properly drawn.
The ordering: Ní Zàn, Sòng Yuán, Yú Què are all end-of-Yuán figures — but placed earliest; Dài Biǎoyuán and Bái Tǐng are early-Yuán figures — placed at the end. Other inversions and disordering — wú lúnxù (no orderly sequence). Similar to Sòng yìpǔ jí — apparently suíjiàn suíchāo (transcribed as seen) — like the Táng anonymous Sōuyù xiǎojí 搜玉小集, where chronology is ignored.
However, Lǐ’s own preface says: “Sòng poetry was disabled by lǐ (philosophy); Yuán poetry was contiguous to cí (lyrics)” — this strikes the zhōng (heart) of the two ages’ literary faults. Therefore his qùqǔ (selection-rejection) is reasonably bùgǒu (uncasual). To say “completely representing one age’s poetry” — indeed insufficient; but to say “discrimination” — compared to indiscriminate fànlàn pángshōu (broad-gathering, side-collecting), this is much more carefully judged.
Reverently submitted, second month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. Lǐ Gǔn’s own preface dated Wànlì rénwǔ (1582), 5th month, 8th day.
Significance. (1) The work is the Yuán companion to Lǐ Gǔn’s KR4h0113 Sòng yìpǔ jí — completing the anti-Qīzǐ program of canonical recovery for Sòng and Yuán verse. (2) Lǐ Gǔn’s preface contains the famous epigrammatic dual-characterisation: Sòngshī shēnkè ér gù yú lǐ; Yuánshī fūlǐ ér lín yú cí — “Sòng verse is deeply-carved and fixated on philosophical principle; Yuán verse is superficial and bordering on song-lyrics”. This is the canonical late-Míng formula for the two dynasties’ poetic limits — quoted approvingly by the SKQS editors and influencing Qīng poetry studies. (3) The smaller size (108 poets, 4 juǎn) reflects Lǐ Gǔn’s complaint of remote-residence and book-scarcity; the Sòng yìpǔ had taken him 13 years, the Yuán yìpǔ presumably less. (4) For the Yuán dynasty, Lǐ Gǔn’s volume is a smaller, more curatorially selective alternative to KR4h0092 Qiánkūn qīngqì, KR4h0093 Yuányīn, and KR4h0100 Yuán shī tǐyào — and it survives in the Sìkù alongside them.
Translations and research
- 楊鎌 Yáng Lián, Yuán shī-shǐ (Beijing, 2003).
- 査洪德 Zhā Hóng-dé, Yuán dài wén-xué wén-xiàn xué.
- No substantial Western-language monograph specifically on this work located.
Other points of interest
The dual epigram Sòngshī gù yú lǐ; Yuánshī lín yú cí is one of the most-quoted late-imperial characterisations of SòngYuán poetic limits. It frames the Qīzǐ rejection of SòngYuán as exaggerated but pointing to real faults; the Tóngchéng pài and Qīng poetics generally took Lǐ Gǔn’s formula as the starting point for a more balanced reassessment. Lǐ Gǔn’s two yìpǔ anthologies are thus methodologically significant as the mid-Wàn-lì pivot between Qīzǐ rejection and Qīng restoration.
Links
- ctext
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §31.4.