A Re-examination of the Pillar-couplet of Hui Shih-chis (1671-1741) Residence Hung-tou shan-fang

Abstract

It is recorded in Chiang Fan's (1761-1830) Kuo-ch'ao Sung-hsüeh-yüan-yüan chi that the couplet hung on the pillars of Hui Shih-ch'i's residence Hung-tou shan-fang were the calligraphy of and composed by Hui Shi-ch'i himself. The couplet run as follows: ”As for the interpretation of the six classics, we should respect the views of Fu Ch'ien and Cheng Hüsan (127-200); whereas in terms of conducts of decorum, we should follow the instructions of Ch'eng Hao (1032-1085), Ch'eng I (1033-1107), and Chu Hsi (1130-1200).” However, in P'i Hsi-jui's (1850-1908) Ching-hsüeh li-shih, the couplet are said to be: ”Whereas Confucius (551 B.C.-479 B.C.) and Mencius (372 B.C.-289 B.C.) are the orthodox authorities for the interpretation of the six classics; Ch'eng Hao, Ch'eng I, and Chu Hsi set up the paradigms for the conducts of decorum.” Unlike Chiang, P'i has not mentioned which member of the Hui family actually authored the couplet and called Hui's residence as Hung-tou shan-chai. Partly because of P'i's version of the story, the authorship of the couplet has been attributed to Hui Tung (1697-1758), a son of Hui Shih-ch'i by some later scholars. Moreover, Ch'en Ch'ing-yung (1795-1858) and Mo Yü-ch'ou (1763-1841), two late Ch'ing (1644-1912) scholars of Han Learning, made references to two very similar couplets but claimed that their couplets were derived from two early Ch'ing masters Ku Yen-wu (1613-1682) and Yen Jo-chü (1636-1704) respectively. Without makingreference to Hui Shih-ch'I's couplet, it appears that Ch'en and Mo were perhaps unaware of Hui's couplet at all. After careful research and investigations, the author of the present article finds that P'i's version of the couplet is not correct. Moreover, even though Hui's residence has different names, it has never been called by the Huis and their contemporaries as Hungtou shan-chai. The scholars who alleged that the couplet were authored by Hui Tung were perhaps misled by P'i as well as had misunderstood Chiang Fan. There is further no concrete evidence to suggest that Ku Yen-wu and Yen Jo-chü have written the couplet or any similar saying.

據江藩《國朝宋學淵源記》記載，惠士奇手書紅豆山房楹帖「六經尊服、鄭，百行法程、朱」，惟皮錫瑞《經學歷史》則指楹帖為「六經宗孔、孟，百行法程、朱」；又不明言楹帖為惠氏誰人所書，且稱惠宅為「紅豆山齋」，與江藩所述顯著不同，而後人遂衍生楹帖出自惠士奇兒子惠棟之說。 其次，晚清漢學家陳慶鏞與莫與儔分別使用兩副與紅豆山房楹帖十分相似的對聯，但他們指聯語來自顧炎武及閻若璩，又仿似不知道紅豆山房楹帖的存在。 惟據本文作者考訂，皮錫瑞所述楹帖的內容，並不可取；且惠宅名稱雖多，卻無「紅豆山齋」之名。而近人指楹帖出自惠棟，固惑於皮錫瑞之說，亦因誤讀江藩的記載而生。至陳慶鏞與莫與儔謂所用聯語分別來自顧炎武及閻若璩，乃出傳聞，並無實據。