|
|
|
Appendix I. The Establishment of
Year-Periods
Before Han times, there were no named year-periods.
For the reigns of Emperors Kao, Hsiao-hui, and the Empress of the Kao-tsu,
there were also no named year-periods. In the reigns of Emperors Wen and Ching,
we find merely more than one beginning of the count of years, no named
year-periods. Emperor Wen began the count of years twice, the second time
seemingly under the influence of Hsin-Yüan P'ing, with the notion that his
reign would be thereby lengthened (cf. 4: 16a and HFHD I, 260, n. 1). Emperor
Ching began the count of years thrice. Named year-periods are first found in
the reign of Emperor Wu. This conclusion must be inferred from the scant
information given us; namely, a record of an imperial order by Emperor Wu
ordering that a new beginning should be made in the count of years, and a
memorial requesting the establishment of the first named year-period.
In SC 28: 55 (=
Mh III, 474), there is the following statement, "In the
third year after [114 B.C.], a high official said that it was proper for the
first years to be called by some manifestation of heavenly favor, and it was
not proper [for them to be
called merely] by the numbers First, Second, [etc].
The first first year (yüan) should be called
Chien (inaugurate); the second first
year should be called Kuang (splendor), because of the long comet; the third
first year should be called Shou (animal), because the animal with [only] one
horn was obtained for the suburban sacrifice."
From the above statement, Wu Jen-chieh (1137-1199)
in his Liang-Han K'an-wu Pu-yi 2: 2a, b, deduces that, in the first part of his
reign, Emperor Wu merely continued the practise of his predecessors in
beginning anew the count of years in his reign, without giving any special name
to these periods.
Emperor Wu was only fifteen and a half years of age
when he came to the throne; by 114 B.C. (the twenty-seventh year of his reign),
he had already begun the count of years at least thrice and was destined to
reign an equally long period in the future. These periods had previously been
called merely by numbers, the First, the Second, and the Third first years. To
only three periods could the words ch'ien, chung, and
hou be (retrospectively)
applied, as was the case in the reign of Emperor Ching; since it was not known
how many times Emperor Wu would change the count of years, when it seemed
likely in 114 B.C. that he would want to begin the count of years
again, the suggestion was made that these periods be named in accordance with
some outstanding supernatural event that had happened in the period. The
official who made this suggestion also suggested names for three year-periods;
when names were actually given, it was decided to start a new period every six
years, so the period Yüan-so was interpolated, which seems not to have
previously been counted. The precious tripod, after which the fifth period was
named, was probably not found until the fourth year of that period (113 B.C.;
cf. 6: 19b and n. 17.9), hence that year-period must also have been
retrospectively named.
The named year-periods then originated in 114 or
113 B.C., when Emperor Wu had begun the count of years in his reign at least
three times already and was thinking of beginning the count again. At least the
first five names were retrospectively given to periods which previously had no
name, only numbers, and, in the case of one period, seem not to have previously
been counted. The first year-period for which we have an imperial edict
ordaining its name is that of 110 B.C. (cf. 6: 26a). This one was not named
until the sixth month in that calendar year, and the naming of Emperor Wu's
last year period seems to have been delayed until after his death (cf. n.
38.1). The practise of naming year-periods continued to the end of the Ch'ing
dynasty with only one important change; beginning with the Ming dynasty, the
name of the year-period was not altered except at the accession of a new
emperor. (Cf. also Chavannes, "Le Traité sur les sacrifices fong et chan," in
Jour. Peking Or. Soc'y, 1890, III, no. 1, p. 56, n. 1;
Mh I, c, n. 1; HS 6: 1b;
SC 28: 55; Nien-erh Shih Cha-chi 2: 11b.)
|