漢魏六朝百三家集

HànWèi Liùcháo bǎisānjiā jí 漢魏六朝百三家集

Collected Works of 103 Hàn, Wèi, and Six-Dynasties Authors by 張溥

About the work

A 118-juǎn late-Míng anthology that reconstructs the collected works (biéjí) of 103 individual authors active between the Western Hàn and the Suí — compiled by Zhāng Pǔ (張溥, 1602–1641, zì Tiānrú 天如, founder of the Fùshè 復社). The work is built on the framework of Zhāng Xiè’s 張燮 Qīshíèr jiā jí 七十二家集 (the Wàn-lì-period 72-author compilation), to which Zhāng Pǔ has added new authors and supplementary pieces drawn from Féng Wéinè’s 馮惟訥 Shījì 詩紀 (the great Míng compilation of pre-Táng verse) and from Méi Dǐngzuò’s 梅鼎祚 Wénjì 文紀 series (cf. KR4h0130, KR4h0131). Each author-collection in the compilation is prefaced by Zhāng’s own tící 題詞 — short literary-historical essays which, taken together, constitute one of the most influential late-Míng critical assessments of the pre-Táng tradition. The Sìkù tíyào documents at length a series of editorial errors — texts that belong to other divisions (Classics, Histories, Masters) included in biéjí, mis-attributed pieces, doubled appearances, and authors whose works are unevenly gathered. Nevertheless, the editors judge that the work’s organisation — by region, by author, by period — gives readers a gěnggài (skeletal overview) of pre-Táng literature otherwise unavailable, and concede that “though the labour is great and the faults many, it cannot be said to be without merit.”

Tiyao

Your servants respectfully submit: the HànWèi Liùcháo bǎisānjiā jí in 118 juǎn — compiled by the Míng Zhāng Pǔ. Zhāng Pǔ has the Shī jīng zhùshū dàquán hézuǎn — already catalogued. Since Féng Wéinè’s compilation of the Shījì, all the verse of Hàn-Wèi-Six-Dynasties is collected in one work; since Méi Dǐngzuò’s compilation of the Wénjì, all the prose of Hàn-Wèi-Six-Dynasties is collected in one work; since Zhāng Xiè’s compilation of the Qīshíèr jiā jí, all the remnant biéjí of Hàn-Wèi-Six-Dynasties are collected in one work.

Zhāng Pǔ takes Zhāng Xiè’s book as his gēndǐ (foundation), then from the Féng and Méi compilations adds in those authors whose surviving output is somewhat more abundant — arranging and supplementing to complete the present collection. The bulk being great, he could not avoid the fault of wù dé tān duō (insisting on quantity for its own sake) — losing the principle of xiànduàn (proper editorial boundary). His arrangement is often wúfǎ (unsystematic); his textual scholarship is often wèimíng (not made clear).

Pieces that properly belong to the jīngbù (Classics division) but are inserted in this collection: e.g. Dǒng Zhòngshū’s jí includes the Chūnqiū yīnyáng; Liú Xiàng and Liú Xīn’s jí include the Hóngfàn wǔxíng zhuàn — and so on. Pieces that properly belong to the shǐbù (Histories division): Chǔ Shǎosūn’s jí records the entire Bǔ Shǐjì; Xún Yuè’s jí records the entire Hànjì lùn — and so on. Pieces that properly belong to the zǐbù (Masters division): Zhūgě Liàng’s jí includes the Xīnshū; Xiāo Zǐyún’s jí includes the Jìngzhùzǐ — these are examples.

Cases of contradiction not noted: Zhāng Héng’s jí records the Zhōutiān dàxiàng fù, which mentions WèiWǔ’s [Cáo Cāo’s] “yellow star” — Zhāng Héng having long predeceased Cáo Cāo. Cases of disputed authorship simply judged at will: Chén Lín’s biography contains a phrase “Yuán Shào employed him as zhǎng shūjì” — so the Sānguó zhì zhù-cited Shào cè Wūhuán Chányú wén is recorded in Chén Lín’s jí. Cases of pseudepigraphy admitted: Dōngfāng Shuò’s jí records the “letter to a friend” found in the Zhēnxiān tōngjiàn, and the Shízhōu jì preface — both spurious. Cases of mis-attribution unnoticed: Yǔ Xìn’s jí records two pieces actually by Yáng Jiǒng. Cases of incomplete gathering: Shù Xī’s jí records the Bǐng fù in only a few phrases — apparently unaware that Zhù Mù’s Shìwén lèijù preserves more. Cases of fragmentation: the Chénghóu mìng fù chuán of Zhōng Huì’s jí — cited in the Sānguó zhì zhù in two separate places — Zhāng has separated head and tail into two pieces. Cases of completable collections passed over: Méi Chéng’s Qī fā, the Wàngyōuguǎn liǔ fù, the Jiàn Wúwáng shū, plus the Gǔ shī preserved in the Yùtái xīnyǒng would form one juǎn; Zuǒ Sī’s Sāndū fù, Báifà fù, Dúlóu fù, plus the Yǒng shǐ shī in the Wénxuǎn would also form one juǎn — these are bīnluò (dropped without admission).

Yet — by separating regions and arranging dwellings, yǐwén lìrén (pieces under their authors) and yǐrén lìdài (authors under their periods) — Zhāng makes the remnant pieces of pre-Táng authors each individually accessible, gěnggài (in skeletal overview). This cannot be said to be without merit. Zhōu Liànggōng’s Shū yǐng says: “Yáng Shēngān [Yáng Shèn] of XīShǔ wrote up to 200-plus zhǒng; Zhū Yùyí of Yùzhāng wrote up to 112 zhǒng — at the time no Màolíng search was made for their books. Zhāng Tiānrú [Zhāng Pǔ], although a famous figure of his time, has not many original compositions; yet at the time even zhāngzòu (memorial-pleadings) were issued to gather his manuscripts. Some men have luck, some do not — like this.” This passage is jiào zhì bùmǎn (rather full of dissatisfaction) toward Zhāng. Now, examining Zhāng’s writings, they really do not exceed contemporary commercial publication and may indeed be left without comment. But the present compilation, yuányuán běnběn (originating-and-source-tracing), suffices to zī jiǎnhé (assist checking) — truly far surpasses his other works. Even if it must be ranked after the two [Yáng Shèn and Zhū Yùyí], that is also no disgrace. Reverently submitted, fifth month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.

Abstract

Date. Zhāng Pǔ’s editorial career ran chiefly through the 1620s and 1630s up to his early death in 1641. The HànWèi Liùcháo bǎisānjiā jí was assembled in those decades and printed in his lifetime; the present 118-juǎn SKQS recension preserves the standard Míng print.

Significance. (1) The work is the standard pre-modern reconstructive anthology of pre-Táng individual authors’ collected works — much fuller than Zhāng Xiè’s earlier 72-author compilation, with three classes of additional material (verse from Féng Wéinè’s Shījì, prose from Méi Dǐngzuò’s Wénjì, and miscellaneous pieces gathered by Zhāng himself). Until Yán Kějūn’s Quán shànggǔ Sāndài Qín Hàn Sānguó Liùcháo wén (completed 1836), it was the principal pre-modern reference for pre-Táng authors as individuals — Yán himself drew heavily on it. (2) Zhāng’s 103 tící, prefacing each author’s collection, constitute a sustained late-Míng critical review of the pre-Táng literary tradition; they were widely read independently and influenced early-Qīng poetry criticism. (3) The Sìkù tíyào’s lengthy catalogue of editorial errors documents what the Qiánlóng-period editors took to be the representative late-Míng anthological failings (over-inclusion of cross-divisional material, uncritical inclusion of pseudepigrapha, mis-attributions, fragmentation, gaps) — making the critique itself a foundational document of Qīng editorial method.

Authors covered. The 103 authors run from Western Hàn (Jiǎ Yì 賈誼, Dǒng Zhòngshū 董仲舒, Sīmǎ Xiāngrú 司馬相如, Yáng Xióng 揚雄, Dōngfāng Shuò 東方朔, Liú Xiàng 劉向, Liú Xīn 劉歆, Zhāng Héng 張衡, Cài Yōng 蔡邕…), through WèiJìn (Cáo Pī, Cáo Zhí, Wáng Càn, Chén Lín, Zhūgě Liàng, Zuǒ Sī, Pān Yuè, Lù Jī, Liú Kūn…), to Six Dynasties (Bào Zhào, Xiè Língyùn, Yán Yánzhī, Shěn Yuē, Jiāng Yān, Liú Xié, Yǔ Xìn, Xú Líng…), down to early Suí.

Translations and research

• David R. Knechtges (tr.), Wén xuǎn, or Selections of Refined Literature, 3 vols., Princeton 1982–96 — extensive overlapping coverage of the same corpus in scholarly English translation.
• Cynthia Chennault et al. (eds.), Early Medieval Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, IEAS, Berkeley 2015 — entry-by-entry coverage of the individual authors and works that Zhāng’s compilation gathers.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §32, §44.
• 何詩海 Hé Shī-hǎi, Zhāng Pǔ yán-jiū 張溥研究 — modern Chinese monograph on Zhāng Pǔ and the Fù-shè.

Other points of interest

Zhāng Pǔ’s tící prefaces became a critical genre in their own right in the late Míng / early Qīng — they are often anthologised separately as Qīlù zhāi shīwén héjí 七錄齋詩文合集. Several of them — on Cáo Zhí, Zuǒ Sī, Tāo Qián 陶潛 — are among the most-quoted single critical assessments of those authors in pre-modern Chinese literary criticism. Zhāng’s stance is consistently to position the HànWèi tradition as the model against which the Míng poetic schools (the Qián / Hòu qīzǐ and their successors) should be measured.

Links

• ctext
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §32, §44.