Zhúwū chīyǔ 竹屋癡語
Foolish Talk of the Bamboo Cottage by 高觀國 (撰)
About the work
The Zhúwū chīyǔ 竹屋癡語 is the one-juǎn Sìkù cí collection of Gāo Guānguó 高觀國 (fl. late twelfth / early thirteenth century; zì Bīnwáng 賓王, hào Zhúwū 竹屋), of Shānyīn 山陰 (Shàoxīng). Chén Zhènsūn 陳振孫’s Shūlù jiětí notes the collection in one juǎn but adds “not known what man Guānguó is”; the Tíyào corrects this from internal evidence and the prefaces by Chén Zào 陳造 of Gāoyóu and Shǐ Dázǔ 史達祖. The collection is the principal documentary witness to the close chángchóu friendship of Gāo Guānguó and Shǐ Dázǔ (the Méixī cí of KR4j0055), two writers whom Zhāng Yán 張炎’s Cí yuán takes as the foremost late-Bái-shí (姜夔-line) prosodic-school cí-writers: cí-grade out of the ordinary, jùfǎ (line-rules) outstanding-different, all able to stand independent of clear-new meaning, cutting out the soft-and-lush. The Tíyào notes that Shǐ Dázǔ’s Méixī cí contains a Hè xīn láng annotated Húshàng yǔ Gāo Bīnwáng tóng fù (“at the West Lake, composed with Gāo Bīnwáng”); the present collection lacks the matching piece — presumably lost in transmission.
Tiyao
Zhúwū chīyǔ, one juǎn, by Gāo Guānguó of the Sòng. Guānguó, zì Bīnwáng, a man of Shānyīn. Per Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí: Zhúwū cí in one juǎn by Gāo Guānguó, with “unclear what man.” Chén had not researched. Chén also notes that Gāoyóu Chén Zào 陳造 and Shǐ Dázǔ 史達祖 two preface it; this text was cut by Máo Jìn 毛晉 with closing colophon; Jìn records only the lines from Zào’s preface — “Zhúwū and Méixī’s language is what others have not spoken; his marvellous places few sentences below Shàoyóu (Qín Guān 秦觀) and Měichéng (Zhōu Bāngyàn 周邦彥)” — and does not give the full text. Examining: Zào has the Jiānghú chángwēng jí transmitted; this preface is not there — perhaps deleted from the draft at the time. From Póyáng Jiāng Kuí 姜夔 onward, by jù-polishing, zì-tempering, the form returned to chúnyǎ (genuine elegance); Dázǔ and Guānguó are his wing-feathers. Hence Zhāng Yán 張炎 says: “several houses’ cí-grade is out of the ordinary; jùfǎ outstanding-different; all able to stand independent of clear-new meaning, cutting out the soft-and-lush.” The Cǎotáng shīyú therefore did not even open its eye on Báishí or Méixī; the Zhúwū cí it picked only the Yù húdié one piece — because at that time still valuing the tiánshú (sweet-and-easy), in conflict with the current trend. Guānguó and Dázǔ traded chángchóu repeatedly, banners-and-drums of equal strength. Only the Méixī cí KR4j0055 has a Hè xīn láng annotated “at West Lake, composed together with Gāo Bīnwáng” — today’s collection does not have this tune — surely lost? — Compiled, Qiánlóng 46 / 1781, 10th month.
Abstract
The transmitted Zhúwū chīyǔ descends through Máo Jìn’s late-Míng cutting; modern editions (the Quán Sòng cí of Táng Guīzhāng 唐圭璋) preserve around 110 cí. Gāo’s exact life-dates are unrecorded; floruit fixed from the Shǐ Dázǔ friendship and from the Chén Zào preface; conventionally placed in the Qìngyuán–Jiādìng decades (c. 1190–1226). The collection is conventionally read alongside Shǐ Dázǔ’s Méixī cí KR4j0055 as a single late-Bái-shí prosodic-school documentary pair; their joint Hè xīn láng at West Lake (one piece in Shǐ’s, none surviving in Gāo’s) is a noteworthy textual loss in the Sòng cí tradition.
Translations and research
- Lin Shuen-fu, The Transformation of the Chinese Lyrical Tradition (Princeton, 1978) — includes Gāo in the Bái-shí line.
- Táng Guī-zhāng 唐圭璋 et al., Quán Sòng cí 全宋詞 (Zhōng-huá shū-jú, 1965; rev. 1999), vol. 4 — collated corpus.
Other points of interest
Gāo Guānguó’s pairing with Shǐ Dázǔ as the two principal late-Bái-shí prosodic-school cí-writers is the canonical SòngYuán placement; Zhāng Yán’s Cí yuán preserves the canonical phrasing, and the late-Qīng Zhèpài cí revival (Zhū Yízūn 朱彝尊 and others) took this GāoShǐ pairing as a foundational object of imitation.