Gǔjīn chánzǎo jí 古今禪藻集
Chán-Poetry Anthology from Antiquity to the Present by 釋正勉, 釋性𣻢
About the work
A 28-juǎn Míng anthology of verse by Buddhist monks running from the Eastern Jìn (the xuán-monk Zhī Dùn 支遁) down to the editors’ own time. The principal biān compilers are recorded as Shì Zhèngmiǎn (釋正勉, zì Dàokě 道可, of Jiāxīng) and Shì Xìng Tǒng (釋性𣻢, zì Yùnhuī 蘊輝, of Yìngtiān); the actual collecting was carried out by Shì Pǔwén 釋普文 (zì Lǐān 理菴, of Jiāxīng). The arrangement is chronological by dynasty, and within each dynasty by literary genre (tǐ) — the standard schema of a zǒngjí. The title’s Chánzǎo 禪藻 (“Chán-prose-and-poetry”) is the conventional medieval-Buddhist term for monastic literature in the Chinese classical literary genres (shī, fù, zàn, míng, lèi, fù etc.) — i.e. sēngshī (monks’ poetry) in a broad sense, not Chán jìsòng (verse-records) specifically. The Sìkù tíyào praises the work’s 1000-year coverage as substantially fuller than Lǐ Yǎn’s 李龑 Táng-specific Táng sēng hóngxiù jí 唐僧弘秀集, while noting various editorial inconsistencies — particularly the inclusion of laicised monks alongside true clergy, the exclusion of returned-to-faith monks like Ráo Jié 饒節 (Sòng Yǐsōng lǎorén) who is praised by Lù Yóu as the foremost Sòng monastic poet, and the inclusion of pieces (e.g. Bǎoyuè’s Xínglù nán) that Zhōng Róng’s Shīpǐn explicitly identifies as misattributed.
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Gǔjīn chánzǎo jí in 28 juǎn — jointly compiled by the Míng Shì Zhèngmiǎn and Xìng Tǒng; the póují (gathering work) was done by Shì Pǔwén. Pǔwén’s zì is Lǐān; Zhèngmiǎn’s zì is Dàokě — both of Jiāxīng. Xìng Tǒng’s zì is Yùnhuī, of Yìngtiān. What is recorded are all works by Buddhist monks (shìzǐ) — not requiring connection to Buddhist doctrine. Chánzǎo — equivalent to saying sēngshī (monks’ poetry). The pieces start from Jìn Zhī Dùn 支遁; end at Xìng Tǒng’s own composition. By dynasty arranged; within each dynasty further divided by tǐ (form / genre).
In the middle, Sòng Huìxiū 惠休 and Táng Wúběn 無本 (the monk Jiǎ Dǎo) — both later guānjīn shìhuàn (capping the cloth and serving in office) — are unlike Sòng Dàoqián 道潛, who at old age met misfortune and was officially commanded to return to lay status. Including these all together is fànlàn (over-loose).
Sòng Yǐsōng lǎorén Ráo Jié 饒節 — later became a monk under the name Rúbì 如璧; Lù Yóu’s Lǎoxuéān bǐjì calls him the foremost monastic poet of the Southern Crossing — and Gě Tiānmín 葛天民, who in old age returned to original status — these are also unlike each other. Yet the editors omit them — this is also a shūlòu (omission-leak).
Bǎoyuè’s 寶月 Xínglù nán 行路難 — Zhōng Róng’s Shīpǐn clearly states it is not by him, recording the details of gòusòng nàlù (counter-suing and bribery) extensively — yet Pǔwén still records it as a monk’s poem. All these are failures of kǎodìng (textual verification).
Other matters: at the end of juǎn 1, zàn, míng, lěi, fù are separately appended — probably because the Six Dynasties yields too few piān, the editor borrowed these to fill the juǎn. But by this principle: are not the jìsòng (verse-records) of the various lineage masters all yǒuyùn zhī wén (rhymed prose)? — fearing rather “page-on-page, sheet-on-sheet, sweating-oxen could not carry” — also failing bùchún (consistency).
However, the work’s upper-and-lower thousand years’ net — wǎngluó pō fù (gathering is quite full) — compared to Lǐ Yǎn’s Táng sēng hóngxiù jí (which gathers only one dynasty’s authors) — is somewhat more complete. Preserving it can also assist in biàn cǎizé (provide material for selection). Reverently submitted, sixth month of Qiánlóng 43 (1778). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. The Sìkù tíyào gives no firm date and the editors’ lifedates are not securely known. Pǔwén, Zhèngmiǎn, and Xìng Tǒng were active in the late Wànlì / early Tiānqǐ period; the standard practice is to assign the compilation to roughly 1580–1620.
Significance. (1) The Gǔjīn chánzǎo jí is the most comprehensive pre-modern anthology of monastic verse by Chinese authors, spanning the Eastern Jìn through the late Míng. (2) It supersedes the much narrower Lǐ Yǎn’s Táng sēng hóngxiù jí (Northern Sòng, Táng-only, c. 100 pieces). (3) Its chronological-and-generic organisation makes it a usable reference for the historical development of sēngshī across the Chinese literary tradition. (4) The editorial inconsistencies noted by the Sìkù tíyào (especially the inclusion of laicised monks, the omission of returned-to-faith ones, and the inclusion of Bǎoyuè’s misattributed Xínglù nán) record what later editors took to be the representative defects of late-Míng monastic anthology compilation. (5) The work is distinct from Chán yǔlù (recorded sayings) collections — it is an anthology of literary verse by clerical authors, not of doctrinal teachings.
The Zhèngmiǎn / Pǔwén Jiāxīng circle. Pǔwén, Zhèngmiǎn, and the lay collaborators on the Gǔjīn chánzǎo jí belong to the late-Míng Jiāxīng Buddhist literary circle — the same milieu that produced the famous Jiāxīng zàng 嘉興藏 (the Jiā-xīng-printed dàzàngjīng of 1589 onward) and the extensive lay-Buddhist anthology projects of the late Míng.
Translations and research
- 廖肇亨 Liào Zhào-hēng, Zhōng-biān, shī chán, mèng-xì: Míng-mò Qīng-chū fó-jiào wén-huà lùn-shù 中邊‧詩禪‧夢戲：明末清初佛教文化論述 (Táiběi, 2008) — major modern study of late-Míng / early-Qīng Buddhist literary culture.
- Beata Grant, Eminent Nuns: Women Chan Masters of Seventeenth-Century China (Honolulu, 2009) — contextualises the late-Míng Jiā-xīng / Jiāng-nán Buddhist literary scene.
- Jonathan Pettit and Chao-jan Chang, eds., Religious Publishing and Print Culture in Modern China, 1800–2012 (Berlin, 2014).
- Ronald Egan, The Burden of Female Talent: The Poet Li Qingzhao and Her History in China (Cambridge MA, 2013) — for the relevant background on Lù Yóu’s assessment of Ráo Jié.
Other points of interest
The title’s specific term chánzǎo 禪藻 (“Chán-flourishes”) points to the distinctive late-Míng monastic literary self-image: Buddhist clergy as participants in mainstream Chinese literary practice, not isolated in a Chánzōng discourse. This stands in tension with the late-Míng Chán revival (the Tiāntóng pài under Mìyún Yuánwù 密雲圓悟, and the Sānfēng pài under Hànyuè Fǎzàng 漢月法藏), which emphasised Chán gōngàn practice over literary refinement. The compilers’ decision to make their anthology a literary compilation places them with the late-Míng jūshì (lay-Buddhist) literary mainstream rather than with the Chán revivalists.