Yùxuǎn Táng Sòng shī chún 御選唐宋詩醇
Imperially Selected Distilled Táng-Sòng Poetry by 高宗弘曆
About the work
The Qiánlóng emperor’s 47-juǎn selective anthology of Táng and Sòng poetry, designed as the poetry-companion to the Yùxuǎn Táng Sòng wén chún KR4h0147 of 1738. Completed in Qiánlóng 15 (1750). The work is organised around Six Great Masters (liù dàjiā) of TángSòng poetry — Lǐ Bái 李白, Dù Fǔ 杜甫, Bái Jūyì 白居易, Hán Yù 韓愈 (all Táng); Sū Shì 蘇軾, Lù Yóu 陸游 (both Sòng) — and Six Masters only (not Eight or Ten, as in the prose volume). The Qiánlóng preface explains this asymmetry: “Sòng zhī wén zú kě yǐ pǐ Táng ér shī zé shí bùzú yǐ pǐ Táng yě” — “Sòng prose can match Táng, but Sòng poetry cannot really match Táng poetry.” So while in prose Qiánlóng accepted Eight or Ten Masters covering both dynasties, in poetry he admits only Six — four Táng and two Sòng — as the mainstream of major poetic talent. The work positions itself against the late-Míng “Tāngshī yúnjiān” school which insisted on Táng-only canonicity by including two great Sòng poets (Sū Shì, Lù Yóu) — and against the broad Kāngxī-imperial inclusivism of the Quán Táng shī + Sìcháo shī by being strictly selective. The actual editorial-and-critical work was carried out by Liáng Shīzhèng 梁詩正 (1697–1763, then Hànlín xuéshì and rising senior official) and other Confucian scholars; Qiánlóng’s claim of personal involvement is rhetorical. Each piece carries multi-source commentary in distinct ink colours — lánbǐ (blue) for earlier critical comments, lǜbǐ (green) for textual / historical-explanatory notes, huángbǐ (yellow) for imperial comment — extending the colour-coded annotation system of the Wén chún. The compilation is the canonical Qiánlóng selective TángSòng poetry anthology.
Tiyao
[The SKQS source carries the Qiánlóng imperial preface (御選唐宋詩醇序) and an 8-point fánlì in place of the standard Sìkù 提要. Translated and abridged here.]
Qiánlóng imperial preface. Wén has the title “TángSòng Great Masters”, but shī has no such category — because Sòng prose can match Táng, but Sòng poetry cannot really match Táng poetry. Yet — though bùzú yǐ pǐ (insufficient to match) — We have made this selection because the example of the Yùxuǎn TángSòng wén chún requires that yǒu wénchún bùkě wú shīchún (where there is wénchún, shīchún cannot be lacking); and also to show the general flourishing-and-fading of the two dynasties and to display the zhèngzé of a thousand-year fēngyǎ (correct standard of fēngyǎ).
The Wénchún selection completed what had been previously begun in the shūcōng jiàoyuè (book-window proofing) but not finished, fù Zhāng Zhào zúchéng zhě (handed over to Zhāng Zhào to complete). This Shīchún selection — among the fēnghuā (poetic flourishing) of the two dynasties, these six houses are the foremost. In the spare of imperial business We occasionally shèliè (browse), and the qùqǔ píngpǐn (selection and critical-grading) all came from the hands of Liáng Shīzhèng and several Confucian officials.
Shī and wén — are they really different dào? Chānglí [Hán Yù] said: “qì shèng zé yán zhī duǎncháng yǔ shēng zhī gāoxià jiē yí” (“when the qì is full, the words’ long-or-short and the sounds’ high-or-low all fit”). The WǔSān Liùjīng (Wǔjīng and Liùjīng) — what it transmits to later ages — it instructs not by wén but by shī — because wén still has pūzhāng yánglì zhī jī (the traces of spread-out and exalted), but shī — its tone is leisured-and-satisfied, and what it enters into the man is deep. Therefore where there is Wénchún, Shīchún even more cannot be lacking.
The Six Masters’ pǐngé (rank-grade) and the times-they-met — each is set out in the small preface to each individual collection. This compilation is being completed; Liáng Shīzhèng and others ask for an overview, so We have made this zǒngxù.
Fánlì (editorial-principles, 8 points, abridged):
- Six Masters — among TángSòng poets, zhuōrán míngjiā (clearly major poets) are still 30–40; this selection takes only six because wéi cǐ zú chēng dàjiā (only these qualify as Great Masters). Dàjiā (Great Master) versus míngjiā (Famous Poet) is like dàjiàng (Great General) versus míngjiàng (Famous General) — different orders. Lǐ Bái and Dù Fǔ are yúliàng (Liú Bèi-and-Zhū-gě, yú liàng = jewel-and-bright) of one age, indeed qiāngǔ xīyǒu (rare across a thousand years). Among Táng pairings with Bái Jūyì, Yuán Zhěn stands; among Sòng successors to Sū Shì, Huáng Tíngjiān stands — both contemporaries who jiǎolì zhēngxióng (stood toe-to-toe). But the hundred-generations’ verdict is: Yuán has fúhuá but lacks zhōngài (loyal-love); Huáng has much shēngsè (raw harshness) and little húnchéng (full integration) — compared to Bái and Sū they fall slightly short. Hán Yù uses prose as poetry, but his intent was to zhízhuī LǐDù (chase straight to LǐDù); his real achievement is to bá qí yú LǐDù zhī wài (lift the marvellous out beyond LǐDù). Lù Yóu (Wùguān) is bāohán hóngdà (encompassing-and-vast), like Táng having Bái Jūyì. The flag-and-drum of the great poetic field — without these liùjiā, where else?
- Great Masters’ full strength shows mainly in gǔshī; in jìntǐ (regulated verse), Tàibái [Lǐ Bái] would not condescend to the studied bùzhì (placement) of Zǐměi [Dù Fǔ]; Chānglí’s qíjié zhī qì (strange-and-heroic spirit) particularly resists confinement; Dōngpō [Sū Shì]‘s cáibó (talent-breadth) and seeming-disregard makes his pieces often lǜ (slipshod). Only Bái and Lù among the gǔjīntǐ have no bias. The selectors’ acceptances and rejections follow these intent-differences, not striving for equality.
- Bái Jūyì and Lù Yóu have the largest jí among the Six; biézé (selection) is most difficult. We decide by the fēngrén zhī yì (principle of the fēng poets): mostly take those yǒu wéi ér zuò (composed-with-purpose). Their yōushēn sīyuǎn (deep-sorrow, far-thought), the suíchù gǎnfā (everywhere-aroused), the jìxīng zhī zuò (intent-deposited works) — all are měi bù shèng shōu (beautiful beyond gathering); jiāchù lǐng yào (the finest passages take the essential) — then we shān qí fù (cut redundancies) and bá qí yóu (lift the choicest); tàn dé lízhū (extracting the dragon-pearl) — not pedantically chasing every scale-and-shell.
- Lǐ and Dù — fame deep and transmission long — therefore píngshǎng jiā (commentators) are particularly many; Hán and Bái both came from the Táng, but their fame did not reach LǐDù’s, and Hán’s being valued comes later than Bái’s — so the critical commentary gù yīng dìjiǎn (should correspondingly diminish); Sū and Lù in the Sòng — ages already different, fame also unequal — late-coming commentary even liáoliáo (sparse). Where commentary is abundant, We select; where scarce, We do not fùhuì (force-fit) — zhézhōng yīdìng, shēngjià zì qí (the zhézhōng having been settled, the shēngjià arrange themselves).
- Critical commentary is recorded by colour following the Wénchún example. But there are also yuánjù zhèngshǐ záshuō (citations of standard histories and miscellaneous works) used to assist kǎodìng shūjiě (textual and explanatory) — distinguished from the ancient-and-modern critics’ words. In the Wénchún this was not distinguished; now beyond lánbǐ (blue) we add lǜbǐ (green) for clarity.
- Some older critical-commentaries are cuòmiù (erroneous); rightly they should be deleted. But for fear that long-circulating mistakes might be thought “this compilation by chance did not include them” — and so the errors continue — we record them and add corrections.
Abstract
Date. Imperial preface and compilation Qiánlóng 15 (1750) — twelve years after the Wén chún (1738), reflecting the Qiánlóng court’s settled mid-reign literary establishment.
Significance. (1) The Yùxuǎn Táng Sòng shī chún establishes the canonical Qiánlóng Six-Masters of TángSòng poetry (LǐDùBáiHán plus SūLù). This canon is conservative compared to the Kāngxī inclusivism but firm: these six remain the standard major figures of Chinese poetic-historical scholarship to the present. (2) The fánlì’s methodological criteria — distinguishing dàjiā (Great Masters) from míngjiā (Famous Poets); requiring zhōngài (loyal-loving content) for Great-Master status; insisting that prose-as-poetry (Hán Yù’s experimentation) is valid as long as it zhízhuī LǐDù (aims at LǐDù); judging Sòng poets by bāohán hóngdà (Lù Yóu) and Táng-precedent (Bái-comparison for Sòng poets) — provides the operative critical apparatus for Qiánlóng-era poetry evaluation. (3) The colour-coded annotation system (lán / lǜ / huáng) — extending the Wén chún practice — is one of the most sophisticated annotation-typography systems in pre-modern Chinese book design. (4) Together with the Wén chún the work forms Qiánlóng’s complete selective TángSòng canon — the prose-and-poetry pair that establishes the mid-Qīng canonical aesthetic.
Critical positions encoded in the selection. The exclusion of Yuán Zhěn (“fúhuá ér wú zhōngài”) and Huáng Tíngjiān (“shēngsè ér shǎo húnchéng”) from the canon is a notable critical statement: the Qiánlóng court will not honour technical brilliance unaccompanied by Confucian moral seriousness. The inclusion of Lù Yóu over Yáng Wànlǐ 楊萬里 or Fàn Chéngdà 范成大 reflects the bāohán hóngdà (encompassing-and-vast) criterion: Lù Yóu’s enormous output and jiāguó zhī gǎn (love-of-state) made him the natural choice over the more refined but narrower contemporaries.
Translations and research
- Burton Watson, Su Tung-p’o: Selections from a Sung Dynasty Poet (New York, 1965) — standard English-language Sū Shì introduction.
- Burton Watson, The Old Man Who Does as He Pleases (New York, 1973) — translations of Lù Yóu.
- 莫礪鋒 Mò Lì-fēng, Lù Yóu shī xuǎn 陸游詩選 — modern Chinese annotated selection.
- 葛兆光 Gě Zhào-guāng, Zhōng-guó sī-xiǎng shǐ — context for Qiánlóng-era canonical formation.
Other points of interest
The Qiánlóng preface’s matter-of-fact judgment that “Sòng zhī shī zé shí bùzú yǐ pǐ Táng” — “Sòng poetry really cannot match Táng poetry” — is one of the most consequential pre-modern critical statements on Sòng poetry: although the Qiánlóng emperor includes Sòng (SūLù), he explicitly subordinates the Sòng tradition. This judgment, embedded in the imperial canon, would shape elite reception of Sòng poetry for the rest of the dynasty — and was only seriously challenged in the 20th century (by Qián Zhōngshū’s Sòng shī xuǎnzhù of 1957 and Yoshikawa Kōjirō’s Introduction to Sung Poetry of 1967).