A Study on the Relationship between the Comments of “The Two Fengs of Haiyu” and Ji Yun on a Collection of the Tunes of Talent and Those on Li Shang-Yin’S Poems

I am executing the 106th Annual Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology “A Study of Qian Qian-Yi’s Written and Collated Edition of A Collection of Li Shang-Yin’s Poems” (106-2410-H-008 -064 -). During this period, I considered the real situations where Qian’s direct students have deeply been affected by Qian’s learning on Li Shang-Yin’s poetics. In this direction, this project is focused on “The Two Fengs of Haiyu,” Feng Shu and Feng Ban. The two Fengs may have different poetic standpoints from Qian but they are indeed his successors. Feng Ban especially respectfully regards Li as the standard, though it is a pity that they have not published any commentary to Li’s poem collection but only elaborated on their poetic insights through comments on it. They especially honor The Collection of the Tunes of Talent with their comments and their use of these comments in teaching prompt the popularization of this collection in the whole country. The two Fengs have commented on each of the forty of Li’s poems that The Collection of the Tunes of Talent records. This collection with these comments can actually be counted as a small-scale selection of Li Shang-Yin’s poems with annotations. After this, Ji Yun, who is also proficient in Li’s poetry, also edits The Collection and reduces the number of Li’s poems to 10, which is the second highest in this book. Ji also expresses his views of Li Shang-Yin’s poems and the Two Fengs’ comments on Li Shang-Yin’s poems through The Collection, regardless of his motivation. In short, the two Fengs and Ji take The Collection as the space to demonstrate their arguments about Li’s poems and form a meaning of acceptance, and this is rarely discussed in academic circles. The following questions can be explored through this project: (1) the actual criticism of Li’s poems by the two Fengs, (2) the relationship between this actual criticism and Qian’s poetic studies on Li, and (3) the similarities and differences between the actual criticisms of Feng and Ji. With these three points, we can weave a more detailed image of acceptance of Li’s poems and reveal the process of The Collection’s participation in the classicization of Li’s poems. This reminds us the fact that to construct a history of acceptance, we must broaden our horizons to diversified contexts of issues so that our thoughts can become more abundant and profound.