御定歷代賦彙

Yùdìng lìdài fùhuì 御定歷代賦彙

Imperially Determined Comprehensive Anthology of Successive Dynasties’ Rhapsodies by 陳元龍

About the work

The definitive pre-modern anthology of the fù (rhapsody) genre, in 184 juǎn (140 juǎn zhèngjí + 30 juǎn wàijí + 16 juǎn yìjù / bǔyí / yùnfù) — imperially commissioned by the Kāngxī emperor (聖祖玄燁) and compiled “by imperial command” by Chén Yuánlóng (陳元龍, 1652–1736, the future Grand Secretary). The work was completed in Kāngxī 45 (1706) and bears (a) the imperial preface dated Kāngxī 45, third month, 22nd day (i.e. April-May 1706), and (b) Chén Yuánlóng’s gàochéng jìnchéng biǎo (memorial-on-completion-and-presentation). The anthology gathers some 4,000+ pieces of fù — from the Three-Dynasties / Xúnzǐ foundational pieces and Qū Yuán’s Lísāo (the Yuánjīng root) through Hàn-Wèi-Jìn-Six Dynasties classical fù, Táng lǜfù (regulated fù used in Tang examinations), Sòng wénfù (prose-style fù), down to Yuán and Míng — organised by subject (lèi) into thirty principal categories (Tiānxiàng, Suìshí, Dìlǐ, Dūyì, Zhìshù, Tiáncí, Wénxué, Wǔgōng, Lǐyuè, Wénjiào, Niǎnlù, Yīshí, Qìyòng, Bǎozhēn, Cǎomù, Niǎoshòu, Yúchóng, etc.) and within each category arranged chronologically. The work supersedes all earlier fù anthologies (the Wénxuǎn fù-section, the Wényuàn yīnghuá fù-section, the Sòng wénjiàn fù-section, Yú Jì’s Lìdài fùyīn etc.) in scope and is the principal source for all subsequent pre-modern and modern fù studies. The Kāngxī emperor’s preface is a substantial critical essay on the historical development of the fù genre from liùyì (Six-Modes) origins through Hàn / WèiJìn variation (排賦 páifù, parallel-form), Táng regulation (lǜfù), Sòng prose-shift (wénfù), and the Yuán loss of fù from the examination curriculum.

Tiyao

[The SKQS source carries the Kāngxī emperor’s imperial preface (御製序, dated Kāngxī 45 / 1706) and Chén Yuánlóng’s memorial of completion (告成進呈表) in place of the standard Sìkù 提要 — both substantive critical-historical documents on the fù genre. Translated and abridged here.]

Kāngxī imperial preface (御製歷代賦彚序), dated Kāngxī 45/3/22 (April 1706):

Fù is one of the Six Modes (liùyì) [of the Shījīng]: fēng, yǎ, sòng, xìng, fù, bǐ — and fù sits between xìng and bǐ. Because fù fūchén shìlǐ shūxiě wùqíng (spreads-out matter-and-principle, writes-out the feel of things) — what xìng and bǐ alone cannot do — its function within poetry is exceptionally great […] Bān Gù further said: Dēng gāo néng fù — “he who can compose fù when ascending a height may serve as a dàifū” — for the gǎnwù zàoduān (the response to things and the construction of beginnings) requires deep cái (talent) and zhì (intelligence)… Thus fù and poetry both stand together, and the matter joins the use of men [in government]. The Shàngshū says fūzòu yǐ yán (spread-out-and-memorialise with words) — fūzòu is closely jìnhū (close to) the meaning of fù: if Yáo and Shùn were here today, they would not abandon it. Is fù not, then, one of the most valuable kinds of writing?

We have, in the spaces of imperial business, observed widely the classical literature and seen: in antiquity the regional lords and great officers, when meeting envoys, císhī yǐ yù zhì (recited poetry to express intent) — not necessarily their own composition; this was all called fù [in the original sense]. Jìn Gōngzǐ Chóngěr fù Liùyuè; Lǔ Wéngōng fù Jīngjīng zhě é; Zhèng Mùgōng fù Hóngyàn; Lǔ Mùshū fù Qífù — these all qǔ gǔ shī gē zhī (took old poems and sang them) to express their intent, jí yǒngyín zhī yíyīn (drawing on the inherited tone of recital) to communicate what was in the heart, to gǎnfā xīngqǐ (move and rouse) the hearer, yīn yǐ míng qí xiāng gàoyǔ zhī qíng (and so to make clear the feeling of mutual address) — like fūbù qí yì ér zhíchén zhī (spreading-out its meaning and stating it directly): hence the name fù (= “spreading-out”).

After the Spring-and-Autumn, pìnwèn yǒnggē (formal envoy-recitation) ceased to operate among the regional states; the jīchén zhìshì (sojourning officials and aspiring scholars) began to zìyán qí qíng (speak their own feelings) — and the genre of fù proper was created. The genre’s earliest creator was Xún Kuàng (Xúnzǐ) who, in huànyóu in Chǔ, made the Five fù (Lǐ, Zhī, Yún, Cán, Zhēn). The Chǔ chén Qū Yuán then made the Lísāo: later men honoured it as a jīng, but Bān Gù had already said “Qū Yuán made fù to fěngyù (admonish)” — so already named as fù. After him Sòng Yù, Táng Lè — all competed in it. The Hàn arose, and Jiǎ Yì, Méi Chéng, Sīmǎ Xiāngrú, Yáng Xióng, Zhāng Héng and their kind — composition was particularly abundant. From the Three Kingdoms and Two Jìn down to the Six Dynasties — biàn ér wéi pái (transformed into parallel-style, páifù). Reaching TángSòng, biàn ér wéi lǜ (transformed into regulated, lǜfù); and again biàn ér wéi wén (transformed into prose-style, wénfù). And TángSòng both used fù in the civil-service examinations (yǐ qǔ shì) — at that time many míngchén wěirén (famous officials and great men) came out of it. Reaching the Yuán, fù was first removed from the examination categories.

We hold that it cannot be entirely abandoned, and have occasionally used fù to seek the talent of the empire. We therefore have commanded the literary officials to kǎojī gǔxī (examine the ancient and remote), sōucǎi quēyì (search for missing and lost), and to assemble it as one compilation; personally We have made the jiàndìng (judgment-and-determination) and ordered it printed. Composing this preface to set out its source-flow and the reasons for its flourishing and falling — that all who study may know Our intent. Kāngxī 45 (1706), 3rd month, 22nd day.

Chén Yuánlóng’s memorial of completion: The submission memorial documents the editorial scope (Wénxuǎn covers only JìnSòng and earlier; Wényuàn yīnghuá misses post-Sòng; Wéncuì and Wénjiàn are brief; Fùchāo and Fùyuàn are inconsistent) and the organisation (by category, by sub-category, with separate zhèngjí and wàijí, plus addenda of jíjù and yùn pieces).

Abstract

Date. Both the imperial preface and Chén Yuánlóng’s gàochéng biǎo are dated Kāngxī 45 (1706) — the standard completion-date for the work. The compilation took several preceding years (Chén Yuánlóng received the imperial commission in the late 1690s); the imperial review (qīn jiā jiàndìng, personally graded and determined) and printing were completed in 1706.

Significance. (1) The Yùdìng lìdài fùhuì is the most comprehensive pre-modern anthology of the fù genre — approximately 4,000+ pieces across all major fù sub-genres, organised by both subject category (the dominant axis) and chronology (the secondary axis). All subsequent fù scholarship, traditional and modern, depends on it. (2) The Kāngxī preface is a definitive imperial critical statement on the historical development of fù — and the imperial endorsement of fù as a serious genre (despite its exclusion from the post-Yuán examination curriculum) helped revive fù writing in the Kāngxī court and led to the Kāngxī-era fù-revival that produced Jì Yún’s later Jìyún táng fùcǎo, Yuán Méi’s fù writings, and the Kāngxī-Yōngzhèng-Qiánlóng canonical fù corpus. (3) The compilation’s categorical organisation — over thirty principal subject categories — gives it the function of a fùlèi encyclopedia: useful for studying any topic on which fù were ever composed (Tiānxiàng / cosmology, Suìshí / season-and-time, Dìlǐ / geography, Dūyì / capitals, Zhìshù / regulations, Cǎomù / botany, Niǎoshòu / zoology, etc.). (4) The zhèngjí / wàijí / bǔyí / yùnfù / jíjùfù division supplies a hierarchy of canonicity for the fù tradition: primary pieces in zhèngjí, supplementary in wàijí, fragmentary in bǔyí. (5) Chén Yuánlóng’s editorial method — collation of multiple anthological precedents (Wénxuǎn, Wényuàn yīnghuá, Wéncuì, Wénjiàn, Fùchāo, Fùyuàn) plus extensive recovery from biéjí — established the standard for early-Qīng imperial-anthology compilation.

Translations and research

• David R. Knechtges and Su Jui-lung (eds.), The Han Rhapsody: A Study of the Fu of Yang Hsiung (Cambridge, 1976) and Knechtges’ three-volume Wén xuǎn translation (Princeton 1982–96) — foundational modern English-language fù studies.
• Su Jui-lung, Versatility within Tradition: A Study of the Literary Works of Bao Zhao (414–466) (Harvard, 2000) — modern study of one of the great fù practitioners.
• 馬積高 Mǎ Jī-gāo, Fù shǐ 賦史 (Shàng-hǎi, 1987) — the comprehensive Chinese history of the fù genre, drawing heavily on the Lì-dài fù-huì.
• 簡宗梧 Jiǎn Zōng-wú, Hàn-fù wén-xué chéng-xíng zhī yán-jiū 漢賦文學成型之研究 — focused Chinese study of Han-era fù formation.
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §32.

Other points of interest

The Kāngxī preface’s identification of Xún Kuàng (Xúnzǐ) as the first creator (shǐ chuàng zì) of fù — rather than Qū Yuán — is the canonical Qing-imperial position on the genre’s origin. The five fù attributed to Xúnzǐ in the Xúnzǐ (chapter 26, Fù piān: Lǐ, Zhī, Yún, Cán, Zhēn) are placed first; Qū Yuán’s Lísāo and the Chǔcí tradition are placed as a parallel root (the southern-Chu sāo lineage). This dual-root model — Xúnzǐ for the fù-proper and Qū Yuán for the sāo / cí lineage — is the standard pre-modern Chinese understanding of fù origins, supplanting earlier views that traced fù exclusively from the Lísāo.

Links

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