Yùxuǎn gǔwén yuānjiàn 御選古文淵鑒
Imperially Selected Mirror-of-the-Abyss of Ancient Prose by 聖祖玄燁, 徐乾學
About the work
The Kāngxī emperor’s imperially-selected 64-juǎn anthology of Chinese classical prose running from the Zuǒzhuàn and the Guóyǔ (Spring-and-Autumn, juǎn 1–8) down to the late Southern Sòng (Wén Tiānxiáng, Xiè Fángdé, Fāng Féngchén, etc., juǎn 64). Compiled and annotated by Xú Qiánxué (徐乾學, 1631–1694, Nèigé xuéshì at the time) “by imperial command” (fèngchì). The work bears the imperial preface dated Kāngxī 24, 12th month (1685) and is the most ambitious of the Kāngxī-era literary projects in classical-prose anthology — a jīnkē yùlǜ (golden-statute, jade-rule) model for the gǔwén canon. The imperial preface explicitly positions the work in the lineage of Xiāo Tǒng’s Wénxuǎn, Yáo Xuàn’s Táng wéncuì, and Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Sòng wénjiàn, criticising the latter two for their dynastic restriction; the Yuānjiàn is to be a trans-dynastic anthology, holding the whole tradition from Spring-Autumn through Sòng to a single elevated zhèng (regular) standard. The Sìkù tíyào praises the work as bringing together five anthological-critical precedents: Zhēn Déxiù’s Wénzhāng zhèngzōng (selection by didactic-moral standard), Lǐ Shàn’s Wénxuǎn commentary (philological note), Lóu Fǎng’s Gǔwén biāozhù (critical comment), Wáng Tíngzhèn’s Gǔwén jíchéng (broad gathering), and the Wǔchén Wénxuǎn zhù (multiple-commentator format) — while exceeding all of them in scope and discrimination.
Tiyao
Your servants respectfully submit: the Yùxuǎn gǔwén yuānjiàn in 64 juǎn — in Kāngxī 24 (1685), the Sage-Ancestor Benevolent Emperor [Kāngxī] yùxuǎn (imperially selected); the Nèigé xuéshì Xú Qiánxué and others fèngchì biānzhù (compiled-and-annotated by command).
What is recorded: upward from Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn, downward to Sòng. The example of Zhēn Déxiù’s Wénzhāng zhèngzōng is followed — but the ruìjiàn jīngshēn (imperial vision is deep), the biécái zhèngdāng (selection is correct-and-proper); not the same as Déxiù’s jūyū (restricted-and-pedantic) approach. Material is annotated under the example of Lǐ Shàn’s Wénxuǎn zhù — but kǎozhèng míngquè (textual evidence is clear), xiánglüè déyí (length-and-detail is well-judged); not the same as Shàn’s fánsuì (busy-fragmentary) approach. Each piece is reviewed under the example of Lóu Fǎng’s Gǔwén biāozhù — but pīdǎo kuǎnyào (criticism opens the essential), kāifā jīngwēi (revealing fine-subtle points); not the same as Fǎng’s jiǎnlüè (brief-cursory). Earlier critics’ comments are recorded in full under the example of Wáng Tíngzhèn’s Gǔwén jíchéng — but sōuluó gāibèi (gathering is complete), qùqǔ jǐnyán (selection is rigorous); not the same as Tíngzhèn’s wúzá (tangled-and-disorderly) approach. Each chénjiā (court editor)‘s remarks list their names following the example of the Wǔchén zhù of Wénxuǎn — but sùchéng shèngxùn (each long-trained in imperial instruction), the words seen at the source; not the same as the Wǔchén’s shūlòu (sparse-and-leaking) approach.
As for the imperial discrimination of jiǎyǐ rankings (which is first-class / second-class), qīnhuī kuízǎo (personally wielding the cinnabar pen), bié bǎijiā zhī gōngzhuō (distinguishing the hundred schools’ skill-and-clumsiness), qióng sānzhǔn zhī jīngwēi (penetrating the three norms’ fine-subtleties) — from the existence of zǒngjí to the present, no emperor has been known to do this. There is no precedent to follow. This is because:
The shèngrén heart has no place it does not penetrate; the shèngrén way has no completion it lacks. Not only is the gōng deep and dé great, shàng yì Táng Yú (surpassing Yáo and Shùn) — even the yǐlǎn zhī yú (overflow of the imperial reading) and pǐntí wényì (literary criticism) is the jīnfú (golden gong-stick) of the cíyuàn (rhetorical garden) and the yùlǜ (jade norm) of the rúlín (forest of Confucians). Even Emperor Yáo’s huàn hū wénzhāng (brilliantly displaying patterned writing) — what could be added? Reverently submitted, fifth month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Editor-in-Chief Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. General Collator Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
Date. The imperial preface is dated Kāngxī 24, 12th month (1685) — this is the standard publication date. The compilation was carried out over several preceding years by Xú Qiánxué’s editorial team; the imperial selection and annotation were finalised by 1685.
Significance. (1) The Yùxuǎn gǔwén yuānjiàn is the single most authoritative classical-prose anthology of the early Qīng — the imperial successor to Xiāo Tǒng’s Wénxuǎn, Yáo Xuàn’s Táng wéncuì, and Lǚ Zǔqiān’s Sòng wénjiàn. As an imperially-selected anthology, it set the canon of literary models for the Kāngxī- and Qiánlóng-period examination essay (bāgǔ wén) and gǔwén practice. (2) The Kāngxī emperor’s stated reasoning for trans-dynastic selection (rather than dynasty-by-dynasty) is a distinctive critical contribution: literature, unlike ritual / institutional / legal matters, has a yuánliú shēncháng (deep, long source-flow) crossing dynasties, and to limit selection by dynasty is to miss the literary continuity. (3) The structural plan — zhèngjí (primary collection), biéjí (separate collection), wàijí (outer collection, drawn from the zhūzǐ Masters) — provides a three-tier hierarchy of canonicity that organises the literary tradition into a unified system. (4) The annotation format — combining philological exegesis (after Lǐ Shàn), critical comment (after Lóu Fǎng), and earlier-critics’ assembled remarks (after Wáng Tíngzhèn) — establishes the imperial-anthology format that the Qiánlóng emperor would later use for the Yùxuǎn TángSòng wénchún 御選唐宋文醇 KR4h0147 and the Yùxuǎn TángSòng shīchún 御選唐宋詩醇 KR4h0148. (5) Xú Qiánxué’s role as the principal editorial annotator establishes the early-Qīng imperial-scholar partnership that would define imperial cultural projects through the Qiánlóng reign.
Editorial method. The compilation runs strictly chronologically by dynasty: Zhōu / Spring-and-Autumn (Zuǒzhuàn, Guóyǔ, Gōngyáng, Gǔliáng, Zhànguó cè; juǎn 1–8); Qín (juǎn 9); Hàn (juǎn 10–20, divided Western and Eastern Hàn); Three Kingdoms (juǎn 21–22); Jìn (juǎn 23–24); LiúSòng / Qí / Liáng / Chén (juǎn 25–26); Northern Wèi / Northern Qí / Northern Zhōu / Suí (juǎn 27–28); Táng (juǎn 29–40); Five Dynasties (juǎn 41); Sòng (juǎn 42–64). Each entry-author has comments by named editorial chénjiā (court-editor) hands, plus imperial jiǎyǐ pǐntí (first-/second-class rankings).
Translations and research
- Jonathan Pease, “The Gǔ-wén yuān-jiàn and the Kangxi Canon,” in Susan Mann (ed.), Court Culture and Politics in Late Imperial China, forthcoming — modern study of the work’s canonical role.
- 黃進興 Huáng Jìn-xìng, Yōu-rù shèng-yù: quán-lì, xìn-yǎng yǔ zhèng-dāng-xìng 優入聖域：權力，信仰與正當性 — on Kāngxī-era imperial cultural authority.
- R. Kent Guy, The Emperor’s Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch’ien-lung Era (Cambridge MA, 1987) — context for the Qiánlóng imperial-anthology projects that built on the Yuān-jiàn model.
Other points of interest
The Kāngxī emperor’s imperial preface contains the strongest statement of literary self-confidence in any pre-modern Chinese imperial document: that he, the emperor, will personally rank (jiǎyǐ pǐntí) the gōngzhuō (skill-and-clumsiness) of the hundred schools, exceeding what any prior emperor has attempted in literary anthology. This positioning — emperor as supreme literary judge — is the founding gesture of the Qīng imperial literary canon that the Qiánlóng emperor would later complete in the Sìkù quánshū project. The imperial jiǎyǐ rankings in the Yuānjiàn serve as the basic litmus for the Kāngxī canonical view of the gǔwén tradition.
Links
- ctext
- Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §32.