Part I: Sections 1-25
1. Importance of the Po hu t'ung
The Po hu t'ung pretends to be the official report of the discussions on the Classics which were held under Imperial auspices in 79 A.D., and so it is not astonishing that it has been quoted as an authority numbers of times and by all sorts of books. The Sui, T'ang and Sung Encyclopaedias, such as the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao the I wên lei chü, the Ch'u hsüeh chi, the T'ung tien, the T'ai p'ing yü lan, abound with quotations from the Po hu t'ung, the T'ang Commentaries on the Wên hsüan make a profuse use of it, but, as is to be expected, it is especially in the Commentaries on the Classics that the Po hu t'ung has been most widely invoked. The explanations by T'ang scholars, included as Sub-commentaries in the standard edition of the Thirteen Classics, quote again and again passages from the Po hu t'ung, while the Ch'ing scholars who took a new interest in the controversy between the New Text and the Old Text versions of the Classics, derive much material from it for the interpretation of many Classical passages. So e.g. Liu Pao-nan in his Lun yü chêng i, Ch'ên Huan in his Shih mao shih chuan shu, Sun Hsing-yen in his Shang shu chin ku wên chu shu, Ch'ên Li in his Kung yang i shu1. Liao P'ing considered the Po hu t'ung as a compendium of the general doctrines contained in the Classics, and re-edited the work with the title of Ch'ün ching ta i2. Professor William Hung regarded it as important enough to be included in his Index Series 3. Despite its strange contents the Po hu t'ung has not been shunned by Western and Japanese sinologues; it has been quoted by J. J. M. de Groot in his The Religious System of China (1892 ff.), by Edouard Chavannes in his Le dieu du sol dans la Chine antique (Le T'ai chan, 1910), by Berthold Laufer in his Jade (1912), by Bruno Schindler in his Das Priestertum im alten China (1918), by Otto Franke in his Studien zur Geschichte des konfuzianischen Dogmas und der chinesischen Staats-religion (1920), by Alfred Forke in his The World-conception of the Chinese (1925), by Erich Schmitt in his Die Grundlagen der chinesischen Ehe (1927), by Woo Kang in his Les trois thèories politiques du Tch'ouen ts'ieou (1932), by Wolfram Eberhard in his Beiträge zur kosmologischen Spekulation Chinas in der Han-Zeit (1933), by Marcel Granet in his La pensée chinoise (1934), by Kitamura Sawakichi in his Grundriss der Ju-lehre (1935). The mixed nature of the Po hu t'ung has led to its being quoted for a great variety of purposes, but it is strange that it has not been used more extensively by those who concern themselves with the interpretation of the Classics. Legge and Couvreur do not mention it in their translations of the Chinese Classics, Karlgren only occasionally cites the Po hu t'ung in his Glosses on the Odes, as does also Waley in his translation of the Analects4. Is it because the work is suspect by reason of its mystical and theological interpretations? Is it because it was regarded as unorthodox by the official Confucianism of the Ch'ing period, so that the Imperial Catalogue of the Ch'ing Dynasty did not enter it in the section of the Classics, but in that of the Miscellaneous Philosophers 5?
2.The scholars who made a study of the Po hu t'ung
Indeed, the question is warranted whether the Po hu t'ung on the whole is genuine and reliable. May we see it as the true report of the discussions on the Classics in 79 A.D.? How should we regard the way in which the hundreds of quotations from the Classics are interpreted? To what extent can we use the numerous statements which are not supported by Classical passages? Do they represent ideas current in the first century A.D. 6? Only comparatively recently have Chinese scholars occupied themselves with the Po hu t'ung and its problems. In 1784 Lu Wên-ch'ao published an edition with notes, which had been begun by Chuang Shu-tsu before 1777 7. 洪 頤 煊 Hung I-hsüan gave corrections on Lu's notes in his Tu shu ts'ung lu, preface of 1821 8. Ch'ên Li wrote a new edition in 1832, supplying an abundance of notes and explanations, the value of which cannot be too highly estimated 9; he seems not to have used Hung's remarks. In 1894 Sun I-jang published additional notes on Lu Wên-ch'ao's and Ch'ên Li's editions 10). Liu Shih-p'ei 11 made a profound study of the Po hu t'ung, first publishing extensive emendations on the explanations by Lu, Hung, Ch'ên, and Sun 12, then text-critical notes on Lu's, Chuang's, and Ch'ên's editions 13, studies on the lacunae of the Po hu t'ung 14, and lastly his own edition of the text, which has, however, never been completed 15. Wang Jên-chün composed a table of the quotations appearing in the Po hu t'ung, and wrote notes on the text 16. There seems, finally, to be an edition of the Po hu t'ung by a certain Sun Hsing-hua, provided with a text-critical appendix 17. All these works are text-studies; they represent the efforts of the various scholars to supply the defects of the text as they found it, and to make the current Po hu t'ung intelligible.
With respect to the evaluation of the text--the question whether it is genuine or not--we have a number of studies by Chinese scholars, each arriving at his own conclusion. There was Chou Kuang-yeh 18, who discussed the entries in the Bibliographies. There was Chuang Shu-tsu, the editor of the Po hu t'ung text pub- lished by Lu Wên-ch'ao, who did the same on a more extensive scale 19. Sun I-jang continued and elaborated the work done by these scholars 20. Liu Shih-p'ei reviewed and revised the conclusions reached by his predecessors 21. Lastly the Po hu t'ung was subjected to a new examination by William Hung, who in his study employed quite different methods from those used by previous scholars 22. I shall give summaries of all these opinions, together with an extract of the description in the Imperial Catalogue. It may not be superfluous, however, to precede them with a translation of the passages from the History of the Later Han Dynasty, which contain the statements on the Po hu t'ung, and of the entries in the Bibliographical Chapters of the Dynastic Histories and in the various Catalogues, to which all the scholars constantly refer.
3.The descriptions in the Hou han shu
In the Annals of Emperor Hsiao-chang 23) we read: "In the fourth year of [the period chien-ch'u], the eleventh month, on [the day] jên-hsü (23 December 79 A.D.) there was an Edict, which said: "The Three Dynasties [Hsia, Yin, and Chou], for the guidance of man, took teaching and learning as the basis. The Han [Dynasty], having received [the heritage from] the barbarous Ch'in [Dynasty], promoted and made illustrious the Confucian doctrines, and established Erudites po-shih博 士24 for the Five Classics, as a result of which learning advanced beautifully. And although [the scholars] said that they [only] continued [their] masters, there arose various famous Schools. The August Emperor Hsiao-hsüan, being of the opinion [that the scholars of his time were] far-removed from [the time of] the Sages, and that the [Classical] studies were not sufficiently extensive, erected [official chairs for] the Book of History of the Elder and the Younger Hsia-hou, and later for the Book of Change of Ching [Fang]. In [the period] chien-wu (25-56 A.D.) there were again appointed Erudites for the Spring and Autumn Annals of Yen [An-lo] and Chuang [P'êng-tsu], and for the Rites of the Elder and the Younger Tai 25. All these [events] helped to advance the study of the hidden [meanings of the Classics], and honour and broaden the Way and its disciplines. In the first year of [the period] chung-yüan (56 A.D.) there was an Edict [of Emperor Hsiao-kuang-wu], stating that the [Expositions in] Chapters and Sentences of the Five Classics were too long-winded and numerous, and that deliberations should be held whether they might be reduced. In the first year of [the period] yung-p'ing (58 A.D.) the Colonel of the Ch'ang-shui [Cavalry Fan] Shu memorialized [to Emperor Hsiao-ming], saying that the great heritage of the former Emperors should be carried out according to [the exigen- cies of] the time, and suggesting the convening of Erudites to determine together the meaning of the Classics, so that students might be enabled [to know on what] to rely. Confucius said: 'Not to discuss thoroughly what is learnt is [the thing] I worry about' 26. Further: 'Studying extensively and with an earnest determination, inquiring earnestly and thinking for oneself, therein lies consideration for others' 27. Ah, how diligent [Confucius was in the matter of studies]!" Thereupon [Emperor Hsiao-chang] ordered the Grand Master of Ceremonies to convene the Great Officers, Erudites, Gentlemen-consultants, and Gentlemen, together with Masters and Confucians, in the Po-hu kuan 白虎觀 28, and have them expound and discuss the similarities and differences of the Five Classics. He ordered Wei Ying, the General Over All the Offices of the Gentlemen-at-the-Palace, to receive the Imperial decree to ask questions, and Shun-yü Kung, the Palace Attendant, to memorialize [the replies]. The Emperor in person pronounced Imperial verdicts 29, and attended to decide [disputed points], as in the precedent case of [Emperor] Hsiao-hsüan in [the period] kan-lu (53-50 B.C.) at the Shih-ch'ü Pavilion 30. There was composed the Po hu i tsou ([Commentary of Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ = Li Hsien:], the present Po hu t'ung)" 於 是 下 太 常 將 大 夫 博 士 議 郎 郎 官 及 諸 生 諸 儒 會 白 虎 觀 講 議 五 經 同 異 使 五 官 中 郎 將 魏 應 承 制 問 侍 中 淳 于 恭 奏 帝 親 稱 制 臨 決 如 孝 宣 甘 露 石 渠 故 事 作 白 虎 議 奏 ([章 懷 太 子 = 李 賢 (651-684) 注 : ] 今 白 虎 通 ). 31.
The Preface to the Ju lin chuan32 contains the following statement: "In [the period] chien-ch'u (76-84 A.D.) there was a great gathering of Confucians in the Po-hu kuan, who examined minutely the similarities and differences [of the Classics. The discussions] only ended after several months. Su-tsung [Emperor Hsiao-chang] attended in person, and pronounced Imperial verdicts, as in the precedent case of the Shih-ch'ü [discussions. The Emperor] ordered the historiographers to write and make a t'ung-i ([Commentary:] that is now the Po hu t'ung-i)" 建 初 中 大 會 諸 儒 於 白 虎 觀 考 詳 同 異 連 月 乃 罷 肅 宗 親 臨 稱 制 如 石 渠 故 事 顧 命 史 臣 著 為 通 義 ([注:] 即 白 虎 33.
The Biography of Pan Ku34 contains the passage: "The Son of Heaven convened the Confucians to deliberate on [the meaning of] the Five Classics, and to make [as the result thereof] the Po hu t'ung tê lun. He ordered [Pan] Ku to compose and gather the material" 35.
4.The descriptions in the Bibliographies
The Bibliographical Chapter in the Sui shu mentions a Po hu t'ung in six chuän36.
The same Chapter in the Chiu t'ang shu gives a Po hu t'ung in six chüan, but an additional note says: composed [in the time of] Han Chang-ti (76-89 A.D.) 37.
The Bibliographical Chapter in the Hsin t'ang shu gives a Po hu t'ung i by Pan Ku and others, in six chüan38.
The Ch'ung wên tsung mu gives a Po hu t'ung tê lun in ten chuan; the Original Descriptive Notes add: composed by Pan Ku of the Later Han, in all fourteen p'ien39.
The Bibliographical Chapter of the 通 志 藝 文 略 T'ung chih gives a Po hu t'ung in six chüan, with an additional note: [composed by] Pan Ku and others 40.
The 郡 齊 讀 書 志 Chün chai tu shu chih gives a Po hu t'ung tê lun in ten chüan41.
The Chih chai shu lu chieh t'i mentions a Po hu t'ung in ten chüan, with an additional note: in all forty-four 門 mên42.
The Bibliographical Chapter of the Sung shih gives a Po hu t'ung of Pan Ku in ten chüan. 43
The oldest extant edition of 1305 A.D., reprinted in the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an, contains ten chüan and forty-three headings, and is called Po hu t'ung tê lun44.
5.Opinion of the Ssŭ -k'u editors
The Imperial Catalogue of the Ch'ing Dynasty 45 describes a current edition of the Po hu t'ung i in four chüan, and points out the varying descriptions in the Sui shu, [Hsin] t'ang shu, Ch'ung wên tsung mu, and [Chih chai] shu lu chieh t'i. This edition goes back to an edition in forty-four p'ien, which was owned by a certain Liu Shih-ch'ang 劉 世 常 46 in the period ta-tê of the Yüan Dynasty (1297- 1308); it is probably the same as that mentioned in the Ch'ung wên tsung mu and the Shu lu chieh t'i, except for the number of chüan, which is ten in both these Catalogues. The fourteen p'ien in the Ch'ung wên tsung mu is clearly a mistake for forty-four. Chu I in his I chüeh liao tsa chi47, on account of the fact that a passage from the Po hu t'ung quoted in the Commentary on the Hsün tzŭ is not to be found in the then extant copy, concludes that the work must be a forgery; this is, the editors of the Imperial Catalogue proceed, not an argument to be taken seriously. The general name for the Memorialized Discussions in the Po-hu kuan was Po hu t'ung tê lun, which name occurs in the Biography of Pan Ku, and there was no mention of the name Po hu t'ung i as yet in all the statements about the discussions. It is only in the Preface to the Ju lin chuan that the name t'ung-i is given, which the Commentary of Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ identifies as 'the present Po hu t'ung i'. This clearly proves that only after Pan Ku had 'composed and gathered [the material]' 48 was the book named t'ung-i. This name [Po hu t'ung i], occurring also in the Bibliographical Chapter of the Hsin t'ang shu, is the original one, and the Ch'ung wêntsung mu by naming it Po hu t'ung tê lun has missed the point. The omission of i in the Bibliographical Chapter of the Sui shu was only due to the habit of abbreviation. In the transmission the original name was forgotten. The book quotes, besides the Six Classics and the Transmitted Records 49, also the wei and the ch'an50, which were in favour with the Later Han, and also the lost chapters of the Rites. There was a Po hu t'ung t'i wei白 虎 通 擿 譌 by Jên Ch'i-yün 51, which is not preserved.
6.Chou Kuang-yeh's opinion52
Though, says Chou Kuang-yeh, in the Biography of Pan Ku the name Po hu t'ung tê lun occurs, it is only with the Ch'ung wên tsung mu that this name began to be adopted. The Bibliographical Chapters of the Dynastic Histories from the Chin down to the T'ang, as well as the hundreds of quotations in the Commentaries on the Classics, all say: Po hu t'ung. Even the quotation by Miu Hsi, recorded in the Nan ch'i shu, is stated to be from the Po hu t'ung53. Is it probable that all these early scholars should have omitted the words tê-lun so carelessly? In fact, the Po hu t'ung tê lun referred to two works, viz. the Po hu t'ung and the Kung tê lun, of which a quotation occurs in Li Shan's Commentary on the Wên hsüan, and which is there ascribed to Pan Ku 54. The word kung has probably inadvertently been dropped. T'ung now was the general name for an explanation of the Classics, and so the book was rightly entered in the Sui shu as Po hu t'ung. The name t'ung-i only occurs in the Ju lin chuan of the Hou han shu. K'ung Ying-ta in his Sub-commentary on the Tso chuan, Yin 5th year 55, adopted it, and the Sub- commentaries on the Hsiao ching, Erh ya, etc. by Sung scholars followed suit. The name Po hu t'ung tê lun, however, adopted by Ming and Yüan editions of the work, is a mistake committed after the example of the Ch'ung wên tsung mu.
7.Chuang Shu-tsu's opinion
Comparing the descriptions of the Po hu t'ung or Po hu t'ung i or Po hu t'ung tê lun in the Bibliographical Chapters of the Dynastic Histories and in the Catalogues, Chuang Shu-tsu 56 arrives at the conclusion that, whereas ancient books were generally handed down more and more incompletely throughout the ages, the Po hu t'ung i has increased its number of chüan and p'ien in the course of time. So in the Sui shu and the [Chiu and Hsin] t'ang shu the number of chüan is given as six, in the Ch'ung wên tsung mu, however, as ten. The Ch'ung wên tsung mu gives forty p'ien57, but the present edition [of the Po hu t'ung] has forty-three. Therefore all the chapters which occur in the present edition belong to the class of later forgeries.
In Ts'ai Yung's Pa chün t'ai shou hsieh piao 巴 郡 太 守 謝 表 58 three works are mentioned: the Li ching su tzŭ , the Shang shu chang chü, and the Po hu i tsou, together constituting 212 chüan. As the first two works together do not make one hundred chüan, the Po hu i tsou must have contained more than one hundred chüan, and cannot, therefore, be the same as the present [Po hu] t'ung i59.
In his K'un hsüeh chi wên困 學 紀 聞 Wang Ying-lin 王 應 麟 60 refers to a quotation from the Po hu t'ung i occurring in the Sub-commentary on the Tso chuan61, which is missing in the edition in ten chüan current in his time, and wonders if this edition might be an incomplete one. Thus not only was the number of chüan in the Sung edition different from that of the present one, but the Sung edition was already deficient.
The Annals of Emperor [Hsiao-] chang speak of the composing of the Po hu i tsou, which [Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ 's] Commentary identifies as 'the present Po hu t'ung'. But the Ju lin chuan [of the Hou han shu] mentions a t'ung-i, which is identified as 'the Po hu t'ung i now'. As in the time of the Sui and the T'ang the [Po hu] i tsou was already lost, the commentator's identification [of the Po hu i tsou] with the Po hu t'ung is wrong.
Previous to Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ the error of calling the Memorialized Discussions of the Po-hu kuan the Po hu t'ung was already committed by Yüan Hung 62 and Tsu T'ing 63.
The [Po hu] t'ung i is really an extract of the Memorialized Discussions i-tsou. These Memorialized Discussions were lost at a very early date; from the Chin Dynasty onwards (265 A.D.) few scholars have been able to speak about them.
8.Sun I-jang's opinion
Sun I-jang 64 agrees with Chuang Shu-tsu: it is wrong to identify the Po hu t'ung (i) with the [Po hu] i tsou, as was done by Yüan Hung in his Hou han chi, Tsu T'ing in his letter to the Throne quoted in the San kuo tien lüeh65, and Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ 's Commentary on the Hou han shu. The Po hu i tsou containing far more chüan than the Po hu t'ung i, the two works are different, though both arise from [the discussions in] the Po-hu kuan. However, it is not right to say that besides the [Po hu] i tsou there was a separate [Po hu] t'ung i, for such a statement would assume a great carelessness on the part of Fan Yeh 66, Yüan Hung, and Li Hsien (Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ ). The discussions in the Po-hu kuan were on the pattern of those in the Shih-ch'ü ko, and the Memorialized Discussions i-tsou of the former should also have followed the example of those of the latter. The Bibliographical Chapter of the Ch'ien han shu mentions an i-tsou of the Book of History in 42 p'ien, an i-tsou of the Rites in 38 p'ien, an i-tsou of the Spring and Autumn Annals in 39 p'ien, an i-tsou of the Analects in 18 p'ien, all stated to be the reports of the Shih-ch'ü discussions 67; besides there is an entry of the Wu ching tsa i in 18 p'ien, which is also connected with the Shih-ch'ü discussions 五 經 雜 議 68. Together they make 155 p'ien. Thus it appears that the results of these discussions were contained in books each dealing with one special Classic 69, and a book dealing with all the Five Classics, all together forming one work. Of the first category the Discussions on the Rites, the Shih ch'ü li lun, still figure in the Bibliographical Chapter of the Sui shu70, while some fragments have been preserved by Tu Yu in his T'ung tien 通 典71. The style differs widely from that of the Po hu t'ung i72. The Wu ching tsa i has not been preserved, neither has it ever been quoted 73, but judging from the style of the Wu ching t'ung i and the Wu ching yao i74, of which there are many quotations, and which probably were only different editions of the Wu ching tsa i, it had the same style as the Po hu t'ung i, and differed from the catechetical form of the Shih ch'ü li lun, so that it was not called i-tsou. We must assume that, since the Po-hu discussions were on the pattern of the Shih-ch'ü discussions, there must have been an i-tsou of each of the Classics, and a 'Miscellaneous Discussions' of all the Classics together, i.e., there must have been a Po hu i tsou plus a Po hu t'ung i, forming one work. Or, in other words, the Po hu t'ung i's relation to the Po-hu discussions is the same as that of the Wu ching tsa i to the Shih-ch'ü discussions. Ts'ai Yung was still able to see the whole work, which, like the i-tsou and the Wu ching tsa i, consisted of more than one hundred chüan. After the Chin this complete work gradually got lost, while only the [Po hu] t'ung i was faithfully transmitted as a separate copy. Thus the name Po-hu, indicating its origin, was preserved, but its character of tsa-i 'Miscellaneous Discussions' was not recognized. If we remember that the [Po hu] t'ung i is only part of the [Po hu] i tsou, the confusion about the names is cleared up, and the statements in the Hou han shu no longer seem contradictory. For the [Po hu] i tsou, mentioned in the Annals, dealing with the Classics one by one, are there said to have been composed by all the Confucian scholars 75, while the [Po hu] t'ung i is, in the Biography of Pan Ku, ascribed to Pan Ku alone, under the name of [Po hu] t'ung tê lun76. It is in the Preface to the Ju lin chuan that t'ung-i is used instead of i-tsou77, but this is a mistake committed by Fan Yeh, who was probably influenced by Yüan Hung and others 78, the complete Po hu i tsou being no longer available.
Referring to the different entries in the Bibliographies and Catalogues, Sun expresses as his opinion that Po hu t'ung i was the original name. He rejects Chou Kuang-yeh's suggestion that Po hu t'ung tê lun refers to two works; it is merely an error caused by first changing t'ung-i into t'ung-lun, as Shih ch'ü li i was changed into Shih ch'ü li lun; afterwards by adding the word tê. The edition seen by Fan Yeh probably had this name already (Liu Hsieh in his Wên hsin tiao lung e.g. describes the Po hu t'ung as a lun 論; 文 心 雕 龍 79), therefore Fan Yeh in the Biography of Pan Ku used the name Po hu t'ung tê lun. It was not the Ch'ung wên tsung mu, which began with this [wrong] name 80. Po hu t'ung is only an abbreviation of Po hu t'ung i. T'ung means the same as tsa 通, 雜 81, viz. 'not restricted to one Classic', 'stringing together all the Classics'. I and i may be used indiscriminately 82. The Po hu t'ung i, in fact, is of the same character as the [Shih ch'ü] wu ching tsa i. In the T'ang and the Sung both names [Po hu] t'ung i and [Po hu] t'ung tê lun were current. Therefore the Sub-commentaries on the Tso chuan, the Erh ya, the Hsiao ching, as well as Li Hsien's Commentary on the Hou han shuand Wang Ying-lin's K'un hsüeh chi wên, all quote from the [Po hu] t'ung i. This edition, however, disappeared, and was unavailable in the Yüan and Ming Dynasties; what was known was the edition with the title [Po hu] t'ung tê lun. The name Po hu t'ung i, adopted by the Imperial Catalogue of the Ch'ing Dynasty, is correct, so is the title Po hu t'ung tê lun, which goes back to the Sung, Yüan, and Ming editions. The name Po hu t'ung, adopted by Lu Wên-ch'ao 83, however, is wrong.
9.Liu Shih-p'ei's opinion
Liu Shih-p'ei 84 does not quite agree with either Chuang Shu-tsu or Sung I-jang. The procedure of the discussions in the Po-hu kuan is clearly described in the Annals of Emperor Hsiao-chang: Wei Ying was to ask questions, Shun-yü Kung was to memorialize the replies, the Emperor then in person attended, pronouced verdicts, and gave decisions. That was the way in which the Han Confucians deliberated on the Classics; each advocated his master's discipline, and if their opinions clashed, it was recorded in the report, together with the arguments. After the Emperor's personal decision a decree was issued, in which approved and rejected opinions were clearly distin- guished. The Shih ch'ü li lun, preserved as quotations in the T'ung tien, illustrates this procedure, therefore it contains the names of all the disputants 85. The reports on the discussions in the Shih-ch'ü ko and in the Po-hu kuan are both tsou-i or i-tsou. The t'ung-i, however, is different. Here only one opinion is recorded, for it is the final form of the results of the discussions, after the Imperial decisions had been pronounced. Tsou-i and t'ung-i continue to exist side by side; the former is the detailed report with all the deviating opinions, the latter is the summing-up of the Imperial decisions, composed by the historiographers 86, as stated in the Preface to the Ju lin chuan of the Hou han shu. It is not a selection detached from the tsou-i, as the Wu ching tsa i is a selection detached from the Shih ch'ü tsou i. The wording of the Biography of Pan Ku is also clear: Pan Ku was ordered 'to compose and collect' 撰 集 87 the material, i.e., he collected it from various sources, but composed a piece of his own with it. Both the Shih ch'ü tsou i and the Po hu tsou i had a t'ung-i, i.e., a 'Meaning of the Combined Classics', which only recorded one opinion 88. (The present Po hu t'ung i does record deviating opinions, but to a negligible extent). The name Po hu t'ung is an abbreviation of Po hu t'ung i. With respect to the title of Po hu t'ung tê lun, Liu agrees with Chou Kuang-yeh, but goes a step further: the Po hu t'ung (i) was composed and collected by the historiographers, the Kung tê lun was composed by Pan Ku alone 89. The t'ung-i was a report of the discussions on the Classics, the Kung tê lun, judging from its style 90, was a commemoration of the event, which testified to the Emperor's Accomplished Spiritual Power. The confusion about the names arose, when the tsou-i, which was still extant in the period between the reigns of Huan-ti (147-167) and Ling-ti (168-184) was lost. The name Po hu t'ung tê lun first appears in the Ch'ung wên tsung mu, as a work of Pan Ku, which statement is based on the ambiguous passage in the Biography of Pan Ku. Lu Wên-ch'ao, who drops tê-lun; Sun I-jang, who recognizes [Po hu] t'ung i as the correct title, but says that [Po hu] t'ung tê lun originated from the time of the Six Dynasties; Ch'ien T'ung, who regards Po hu t'ung tê lun as the original name, which was changed into Po hu t'ung i, and later abbreviated into Po hu t'ung91, are all more or less wrong.
10.Appraisal of their opinions
We see that our scholars thus far limited themselves to the discussion and explanation of the discrepancies in the statements about the Po hu t'ung. They did not enter into the problem of its authenticity, and all of them seemed to accept it as, in any case, having some bearing on the discussions in the Po-hu kuan. Even Chuang Shu-tsu, who began with denying the genuineness of the present text--on grounds which have already been condemned by Karlgren in his The Authenticity of Ancient Chinese Texts92 -- ended with saying that it is an extract of the, lost, Memorialized Discussions.
It is useless to try to reconcile the conflicting statements regarding the number of chüan and p'ien in the Bibliographies and Catalogues, and, failing to do so, to pronounce a work spurious. Re-arrangements, and the cutting up of sections and books are nothing uncommon 93, and the ten chüan given here, the six chüan given there, can easily be attributed to such a re-arrangement.
As to the puzzle of the different titles in the Hou han shu, the solutions offered by the scholars are far from being in agreement. The correct name is considered to be Po hu t'ung i (Imperial Catalogue, Sun I-jang, Liu Shih-p'ei); Po hu t'ung (Chou Kuang-yeh, Lu Wên-ch'ao); Po hu t'ung tê lun (Sun I-jang, Ch'ien T'ung). The Po hu t'ung i has nothing to do with the Po hu i tsou (Chuang Shu-tsu); it is a kind of Wu ching tsa i (Sun I-jang); it is a short summary (Liu Shih-p'ei). We have little to add to these explanations, which are chiefly based on 'external evidence'. They are ingenious and scholarly, as was to be expected, but some arbitrariness can certainly not be denied. For the attempts to explain away the discrepancies in Fan Yeh's statements require a good deal of hypothetical interpretation, which differs according to the way the scholars look at the material. But they never seem to doubt the authorship or partial authorship of Pan Ku, neither do they try to deny the relationship between the present Po hu t'ung and the discussions in the Po-hu kuan. It was left to William Hung to consider these points and therewith to tackle the problem of the Po hu t'ung from a new point of view.
11.William Hung's opinion
After giving brief summaries of the entries in the Bibliographies and Catalogues, and of the opinions of Chou Kuang-yeh, Chuang Shu-tsu, and Sun I-jang, Professor Hung 94 poses the following questions. Is the Po hu t'ung really by Pan Ku? Has it indeed some relation with the discussions in the Po-hu kuan, at which Emperor [Hsiao-] chang was present in person and gave decisions? Can it perhaps be a work of the San-kuo period (220-245 A.D)? An examination of the works written by Pan Ku reveals the fact that their style shows a great difference from that of the Po hu t'ung. As an example Hung takes the passage on the names of the music of the ancient Sovereigns and their meaning, occurring in the chapter on Rites and Music of the Po hu t'ung, and compares it with the corresponding passage in the Li chi (from which the Po hu t'ung passage is said to be quoted), the chapter on Rites and Music of the Ch'ien han shu, and the Yüeh wei 樂 緯 95. The complicated argumentation may be summarized as follows:
The Li chi gives no list of the ancient Sovereigns and the names of their music.
The Han shu 禮 樂 志 96 says:
"Anciently, Huang-ti created the Hsien-shih [music], Chuan-hsü created the Liu-hêng, Ti-k'u created the Wu-ying, Yao created the Ta-chang, Shun created the Shao, Yü created the Hsia, T'ang created the Hu, King Wu created the Wu, the Duke of Chou created the Cho".
The Li wei97 says:
"The music of Huang-ti was called Hsien-shih, that of Chuan-hsü was called Wu-hêng, that of Ti-k'u was called Liu-ying, that of Yao was called Ta-chang, that of Shun was called Hsiao-shao, that of Yü was called Ta-hsia, that of the Yin [Dynasty] was called Ta-hu, that of the Chou [Dynasty] was called Cho or Ta-wu.
The Po hu t'ung says 98:
"The music of Huang-ti was called Hsien-shih . ., the music of Chuan-hsü was called Liu-hêng . . ., the music of Ti-k'u was called Wu-ying, . . the music of Yao was called Ta-chang . ., the music of Shun was called Hsiao-shao . . ., the music of Yü was called Ta-hsia . . ., the music of T'ang was called Ta-hu . . ., the music of the Duke of Chou was called Cho . ., the music of King Wu was called Hsiang . . ., when united together [the music of Chou was] called Ta-wu".
How are these names explained in the works quoted?
The Li chi says:
"Ta-chang expresses the brilliance [of Yao]; Hsien-shih expresses the completeness [of Huang-ti];Shao means chi 'to continue'; Hsia means ta 'great"' 99.
The Han shu explains:
"Cho means to be able to deliberate on the ways of the ancestors; Wu means to pacify all under Heaven by means of a [military] attack; Hu means to save the people; Hsia means greatly to receive [and continue the ways of] the two Emperors [Yao and Shun]; Shao [means] to continue Yao; Ta-chang expresses the brilliance [of Yao; in] Wu-ying [the word] ying means to flower and blossom; Liu-hêng [means] to reach to the roots and stems; Hsien-shih expresses the completeness [of Huang-ti]" 勺 言 能 勺 先 祖 之 道 也 武 言 以 功 定 天 下 也 濩 言 救 民 也 夏 大 承 二 帝 也 招 繼 堯 也 大 章 章 之 也 五 英 英 華 茂 也 六 莖 及 根 莖 也 咸 池 備 矣: 100.
The Commentary on the Yüeh wei101 gives the following explanation:
"(For the music of Huang-ti:) Shih102 is pronounced shih103, the Way was extended shih to the people, therefore it was called Hsien-shih. (For the music of Chuan-hsü:) The Way had its roots and stems, therefore it was called Wu-hêng. (For the music of Ti-k'u:) The Way had its flowers and blossoms, therefore it was called Liu-ying. (For the music of Yao:) In the time of Yao [the virtues of] consideration for others and [observation] of the right principles were greatly practised, while laws and measures were clear, therefore it was called Ta-chang. (For the music of Shun:) Shao means chi 'to continue'; Shun continued what was left by Yao, and followed [Yao's] practising of the Way, therefore it was called Hsiao-shao. (For the music of Yü:) Yü received [and continued] the Way that was left by the two Emperors [Yao and Shun], and paid attention to [the bringing about of] general peace, therefore it was called Ta-hsia. (For the music of the Yin Dynasty:) T'ang arose by receiving the decaying [Empire], he guarded the way of the ancient Kings, therefore it was called Ta-hu. (For the music of the Chou Dynasty:) The Chou arose by receiving the decaying [Empire], they deliberated on the ways of Wên and Wu, therefore it was called Cho".
The explanation by the Po hu t'ung, l.c., reads:
"(Hsien-shih) means that [during the reign of Huang-ti] the Way was greatly extended shih to all under Heaven, and put into practise; everything hsien that was created by Heaven and was contained in Earth, was bestowed [on the people], and its spiritual power extended shih unto them. (Liu-hêng) means that in it the [Six Musical Pitch-pipes] lü were in consonant use with the [other Six Pitch-pipes] lü, [thus] harmonizing the yin and the yang; hêng 'stem' is that by which the ten thousand things are made visible. (Wu-ying) means that [Ti-k'u] was able to harmonize the Five Notes, in order to nourish the ten thousand things and season their blossoming. (Ta-chang) means that [Yao] had greatly made illustrious the Way of Heaven, Earth, and Man. (Hsiao-shao) means that [Shun] was able to continue the way of Yao. (Ta-hsia) means that [Yü] was able to follow and put into practise the way of the two Sages [Yao and Shun], therefore [his music was] called Ta-hsia. (Ta-hu) means that, when [T'ang] received [the continuation of] the decaying [Empire], he was able to meet hu the people's needs. (Cho) means that, when the Duke of Chou assisted King Ch'êng, he was able to deliberate chên-cho upon the ways of Wên and Wu, and bring them to completion. (Hsiang) means that it was made to represent hsiang [the achievement of] general peace; it was an expression of [the fact that] general peace was already [prevailing again]. (Ta-wu) means that all under Heaven at last rejoiced, when [the House of] Chou took up arms hsing-wu for the expedition [against the House of Yin]".
From these passages Hung deduces the following conclusion: the text of the Li chi is the earliest, then follows the Yüeh wei, then the Han shu, then the Commentary on the Yüeh wei, lastly the Po hu t'ung. In fact, the passage in the Po hu t'ung is a combination of that of the Han shu, faultily copied, and that of the Commentary on the Yüeh wei. If the Po hu t'ung were from the same hand, viz. Pan Ku's, why should their statements be so different? If the Han shu were after the Po hu t'ung, why did Pan Ku neglect his own fuller explanations? If the Po hu t'ung were after the Han shu, is it not strange that Ying Shao in his Fêng su t'ung i 風 俗 通 義 104 did not copy the former's explanations on the names of the music of the ancient Kings, so much more elaborate than the Han shu's, and, besides, authorized by the Emperor himself, but followed the latter's wording? The Po hu t'ung is not only after the Han shu, but even after the Fêng su t'ung i. This is corroborated by the fact that the commentator on the Yüeh wei must have lived later than the, date of the Po-hu discussions. He was a man by the name of Sung Chün 105. But he cannot have been the Sung Chün who was Governor of Ho-nei, whose style was Shu-hsiang, and who died in 76 A.D. 106, because this was a very active official, and certainly would not have had the time to write Commentaries on the Apocryphal Books 107. Now the Commentary on the Wên hsüan profusely quotes the wei Commentaries, but where in some places the name of Sung Chün is mentioned, in other piaces the name of Sung Chung occurs 108. This Sung Chung appears to be the same man as Sung Chung-tzŭ 109 or Sung Chung 110, who was a well-known Classical scholar 111, and was made a po-shih under the Wei Dynasty. Chung 忠 112 was the tabooed name of Emperor Hui of the Chin Dynasty, and so it was changed into Chung or Chün 衷 , 均 113, or he was called by his style Chung-tzŭ . Since Sung Chung lived more than one hundred years after Pan Ku, how could then Pan Ku, in his Po hu t'ung, have cited so many quotations from Sung Chung's Commentary, as he did?
Hung now proceeds to demonstrate that the background of the statements in the Po hu t'ung must be the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei Dynasty. The Po hu t'ung makes the statement: "[Every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered" 114. Now in the time of the Later Han the custom was to offer a hsia-sacrifice 115 every three years, and and a ti-sacrifice every five years. We find it confirmed by statements in the chapter on Sacrifices of the Houhan shu 祭 祀 下 116, and in the Biography of Chang Shun in the same book 117. If in the Po-hu discussions the opinion was held that every three years there should be a ti-sacrifice, why did Emperor Hsiao-chang, who gave the final decisions in those discussions, not follow it? Or, if he followed it, why did he not change the custom of his time?
Hung gives another instance. The chapter on Examinations and Degradations of the Po hu t'ung cites a quotation from the Li chi, which enumerates the Nine Distinctions, viz.: Carriage and Horses, Robes and Garments, Musical Instruments, Vermilion Doors, Inside Staircases, [Gentlemen as] Rapid as Tigers, Ceremonial- and Battle-axes, Bows and Arrows, and Black Millet Herb-flavoured Liquor. This quotation, however, turns out not to be from the Li chi, but from the Li wei han wên chia 禮 緯 含 文 嘉 118, and therefore it would only be natural that the Po hu t'ung should also have quoted Sung Chung's Commentary on that statement, viz.:
"Those who in their application for office and in their resignation from it observe the rules of decency, and in their deportment the rules of self-restraint, are granted Carriage and Horses to replace their going on foot. Those whose speech has attained a perfect polish, and whose conduct has become a standard, are granted Robes and Garments to make manifest their spiritual power. Those who in their bearing follow the ritual [rules], are granted Inner Staircases to ease their bodies. Those who have distinguished themselves in their teachings and exhortations, and harbour the highest [feelings of] consideration for others, are granted Musical Instruments to reform their people. Those whose abodes are well ordered, and in whose apartments there is no promiscuity, are granted the Vermilion Door to make known their [sense of] discrimination. Those who by their courage are resolute and audacious, and whose adherence to principles is strong and unyielding, are granted [Gentlemen as] Rapid as Tigers, that they may prepare themselves against extraordinary events. Those who are able to rouse themselves to martiality, and whose minds are always alert, are granted Battle-axes, and given the right to execute on their own initiative. Those who harbour [feelings of] consideration for others and [possess] spiritual power, and who impartially hold fast to principles, are granted Bows and Arrows, and given the right to start a punitive expedition on their own initiative. Those who serve their parents with love and filial piety, are granted the Black Millet Herb-flavoured Liquor [to enable them] to sacrifice to their ancestors" 119.
But this description, Hung says, does not yet represent the historical background of the Wei Dynasty. Actually the Edict, by which in 213 A.D. the Nine Distinctions were conferred on Ts'ao Ts'ao reads as follows 魏 書 120:
"Because you have regulated the rites and standards, and set to the people an example for their duties, so that everybody performs his task peacefully, and none suffers from doubt or inconstancy, therefore you are granted the Great Carriage and the War Carriage, one of either, with two black stallions. You have diligently applied yourself to your task and made the fundamental [means of production] your concern, so that husbandmen do their work with ardour, and grain and silk accumulate, causing Our Great Heritage to flourish, therefore you are granted the Clothes and Bonnets of Honour, with Red Slippers to match. With your honesty you esteem integrity and humility, causing the people to cultivate their conduct, so that old and young observe the rites, and superior and inferior are all in harmony, therefore you are granted the Suspended Musical [Instruments] and the Six Rows of Dancers. You have assisted in the spreading of [Our] reforming influence, pushing it unto the Four Quarters, so that [even] the distant people are converted, and Our Flowery Empire reaches its fullness; therefore you are granted the Vermilion Door behind which to dwell. You have whetted your intelligence and wit, and have devoted your attention to Our cares, so that among the talented and the worthy in office the best are sure to be promoted, therefore you are granted the Inner Staircases by which to ascend. You have maintained the balance in the State, abiding by dispassion and equanimity, possessing only infinitesimal vice, so that none [so wicked but can] be repulsed by you, therefore you are granted the [Gentlemen as] Rapid as Tigers, three hundred men. You have respected the Penal Code [approved] by Heaven, and manifested it to the evil-doers, so that among the criminals and law-offenders none escapes his punishment, therefore you are granted the Ceremonial- and Battle-axes, of either one. Your step is like the dragon's, and your eyes like the tiger's, glaring sideways at the Eight Directions, seizing and chastising the breakers of the rules, and pushing them back to the Four Seas, therefore you are granted one Scarlet Bow with one hundred Scarlet Arrows, and ten Black Bows with one thousand Black Arrows. Because you have made generosity and reverence the basis [of your conduct], and filial piety and friendship your virtue, [because] you are enlightened and liberal, sincere and upright, responding to Our wishes, therefore you are granted one goblet of the Black Millet Herb-flavoured Liquor, with a Jade Libation-cup to match".
Could the composer of the Po hu t'ung leave alone such a beautiful passage? No, for he says:
"Those who are able to comfort the people are granted Carriage and Horses; those who are able to enrich the people are granted Robes and Garments; those who are able to keep the people in harmony are granted Musical Instruments; those who have made their population numerous are granted Vermilion Doors; those who are able to promote the capable are granted Inside Staircases; those who are able to restrain the wicked are granted [Gentlemen as] Rapid as Tigers; those who are able to punish the culpable are granted Ceremonial- and Battle-axes; those who are able to chastise the unprincipled are granted Bows and Arrows; and those whose filial conduct is perfect are granted the Black Millet Herb-flavoured Liquor" 121.
This is an abridged form of Ts'ao Ts'ao's Edict, which the Po hut'ung has copied in order to explain the meaning of the Nine Distinctions. However, being accustomed to quote Sung Chung's Commentary, it cannot bring itself to abandoning that habit, and therefore we also find the following passage:
"Those who in their application for office and in their resignation from it observe the rules of decency, and whose spiritual power tranquillizes the people, [are granted] the State Carriage with teams of horses to comfort their bodies. Those whose speech has attained a perfect polish, and whose conduct has become a rule, [are granted] Robes with Painted Dragons to make manifest their spiritual power. Those who have distinguished themselves in their teachings and exhortations, and harbour the highest [feelings of] consideration for others, are granted [the right to use music] in time with the King's Music to reform their people. Those who honour the capable and promote [the possessors of] spiritual power, who in their bearing follow the ritual [rules], are granted Inner Staircases to ease their bodies. Those whose abodes are well cared for, in whose apartments decency is observed, men and women [only at the proper] time sit together, and superiors and inferiors are [properly] distinguished, are granted the Vermilion Door to make manifest their [observance of the] rule by their spiritual power. Those whose martiality is forbidding, and whose sternness and consideration for others are strong and unyielding, are granted [Gentlemen as] Rapid as Tigers, that they may prepare themselves against extraordinary events. Those who can regulate their joy and anger, who chastise [according to] the [correct] penal [rules], are granted Ceremonial- and Battle-axes, and given the right to execute on their own initiative. Those who do not allow their self-interest to be involved in their love and hatred, and who impartially hold fast to principles, are granted Bows and Arrows, and given the right to start a punitive expedition on their own initiative. The beauty of filial piety [should] always be the basis of [human] conduct, therefore [those who are filial] are granted the Jade Libation-cup, and given the right to make their own Herb-flavoured Liquor" 122.
It is clear, Hung concludes, that the Po hu t'ung has only copied, with some alterations, from Sung Chung's Commentary. Which is earlier, this Commentary or Ts'ao Ts'ao's Edict, is difficult to say, but in any case the Po hu t'ung must be later than the latter's date, viz. 213 A.D. And it being as late as that, it is not astonishing any more that neither Hsü Shên 123 nor Ma Jung 馬 融 124 had access to it, and that neither Ts'ai Yung nor Chêng Hsüan 125 ever quoted from the Po hu t'ung.
However, the appearance of the Po hu t'ung must have been before 245 A.D., for the Nan ch'i shu contains a passage in which the Po hu t'ung is quoted by a certain Miu Hsi 126, who, according to P'ei Sung-chih, died in 245 A.D., at the age of sixty 127.
In the time of Ts'ai Yung (133-192 A.D.) the Po hu i tsou, in more than one hundred chüan, was still extant. It would, afterwards, not have been difficult for those who had the inclination to do so, to concoct a Po hu t'ung i with the material [that was left of the Pohu i tsou] and Commentaries on the Apocryphal Writings. Probably the work was not at first ascribed to Pan Ku deliberately. This was done by later lovers of literature, and since the Chin and [Liu] Sung Dynasties (4th-5th cent. A.D.) it has been quoted as such. Though the Po hu t'ung does not represent the interpretations of the Classics current in the middle period of the Later Han, it furnishes important material with respect to the ideas which prevailed during the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei Dynasty. The latter's ritual institutions, such as the Changing of the First Month, the Changing of the Colour [of the previous Dynasty], the Round Mound, the Sacrifice to the Suburb, etc., have been greatly influenced by it.
Hung agrees with Sun I-jang that the original title was Po hut'ung i, but he has no objection to the use of the abridged form Po hu t'ung.
12.Criticism of Hung's material
I have presented Professor William Hung's views in some detail, because his method is really important. He uses what we may call 'internal evidence', i.e., he starts from the contents of the text itself, and tries to evaluate it by comparison with other texts. In this he differs from his predecessors, who only discussed the external testimonies about the book, and took what it has to say more or less for granted. Hung's conclusions are bold, but however detrimental to the belief that the Po hu t'ung should be the outcome of the Imperial Council of 79 A.D., they are on the whole not unfavourable. He does not deny the possibility of some of the material of the Po hu i tsou, the 'Memorialized Discussions of the Po-hu kuan' having been used for its composition. He assigns to the Po hu t'ung as early a date as 245 A.D. He takes its contents to be a comparatively faithful description of the customs of the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei. Can we accept Hung's opinions? Can we agree with the way in which he arrives at the conclusion that the Po hu t'ung cannot be of an earlier period than the Wei Dynasty? For this is the method he actually applies: the occurrence of passages in a work of the third century A.D., viz. Sung Chung's Commentary on the Apocrypha, parallel to passages in the Po hu t'ung, proves that the whole Po hu t'ung must be of that later period; the fact that a description of a ritual by the Po hu t'ung does not tally with the custom of the time in which it professes to have been composed, proves that the whole Po hu t'ung cannot be of that time. A little unexpected is, on the other hand, his conclusion that the fact of the Po hu t'ung being quoted -- in one quotation -- by a man who died in 245 A.D. proves that the whole Po hu t'ung must be at the latest earlier than that date. I shall deal with these questions further on; in the next three paragraphs I shall first try to subject to a closer examination the material Hung marshalls against the Po hu t'ung, in order to see whether it may be used as evidence in his indictment.
13.The parallel statements on the names of the music
Hung's theory that the commentator of the Yüeh wei (and some other Apocryphal Books) was Sung Chung, who lived at the beginning of the Wei (third century A.D.), and not Sung Chün, whose style was Shu-hsiang, and who died in 76 A.D., is in all probability correct. So may be his statement that the Po hu t'ung contains numerous passages which run parallel to Sung Chung's Commentaries 128.
His first example, however, does not strike me as being very convincing. According to him the Po hu t'ung, with respect to the names of the music of the ancient Sovereigns and their meaning, combines the statement of the Han shu and that of Sung Chung's Commentary; therefore its description is the most complete 129. Disregarding the question of greater or lesser completeness--Sung Chung is fuller in his explanation of Yao's music Ta-chang and Shun's music Shao--, and comparing the passages in the Commentary on the Yüeh wei and in the Po hu t'ung130, I feel bound to say that they bear little resemblance to each other; the one cannot have been derived from the other. This does not mean, of course, that the statement in the Po hu t'ung completely deviates from that in the Han shu and Sung Chung's Commentary; it only means that the statement in the Po hu t'ung contains some concepts, which are not present in the other works: the comparison with the Musical Pitch-pipes in the explanation of Liu-hêng, that with the Five Notes in the explanation of Wu-ying, while in those explanations which use the same concepts as the Commentary on the Yüeh-wei the formulation is such that the idea of simple copying must be excluded. Would it be too fanciful to assume that certain concepts were so much common property with the Chinese scholars of a given time that everybody, even though he tried to express his opinion in his own way, more or less unconsciously took from that common stock? In his Commentary on another Aprocryphal Book of Music131 Sung Chung's explanations of the names of the music are different from those which were compared by Hung with the Po hu t'ung. They read as follows:
"(The music of Huang-ti was called Hsien-shih); hsien means chieh 'all', shih takes [its meaning from the fact] that none was not pervaded by his spiritual power which fertilized the ten thousand things, therefore [the name of] Hsien-shih was devised to denominate his music. (The music of Emperor Chuan-hsü was called Wu-ying); [it means that] he was able on behalf of the Five Elements to establish the roots and stems. (The music of Yao was called Ta-chang); it means that his spiritual power approached [that of] the Way; ta-chang means bright. (The music of Shun was called Hsiao-shao); it means that he was able to continue the spiritual power of Yao. (The music of Yü was called Ta-hsia); [it means that] his spiritual power was able to enlarge the Chinese Territory chu-hsia" 132.
Whereas the Yüeh wei (the Hsieh t'u chêng as well as the Tungshêng i, or the Chi yao chia, cf. n. 97) only gives the names of the music, and their meaning is explained by Sung Chung, an Apocryphal Work on the Spring and Autumn Annals, namely the Ch'un ch'iuwei yüan ming pao133 contains the explanations in its own text.
There we read.
"In the time of Shun the people rejoiced at his continuing the heritage of Yao; therefore [the name of Shun's music] Shao means shao 'to continue'; (Sung Chung's Commentary: Shun undertook to continue the heritage of Yao). In the time of Yü the people greatly rejoiced at his combining p'in [the ways of] the Three Sages who succeeded each other; therefore his music was called Ta-hsia; hsia means ta 'great'; (Commentary: p'in is to be read p'in, it means ping 'to combine' 134). In the time of T'ang the people greatly rejoiced at their being rescued from their plight; therefore his music was called Ta-hu; hu means chiu 'to rescue'. In the time of King Wên the people rejoiced at his raising the army and attacking [the Dynasty of Yin]; therefore [his music was] called Wu; wu means fa 'to attack' ".
Why is Sung Chung so little consistent? I think because there were a great many speculative theories on the names of the music current in his time, from which he took haphazardly, adding ideas of his own, and without the intention of quoting his, perhaps undefinable, source verbatim. It is interesting to compare what Chêng Hsüan has to say about the names of the music.
On the passage in the Li chi135 he comments:
"[Ta-chang was] the name of the music of Yao; it means that the spiritual power of Yao was illustrious and brilliant. . [Hsien-shih was] the name of the music created by Huang-ti; Yao used it by improving it; hsien means chieh 'all'; shih means 'to extend to'; it means that his spiritual power was extended to everyone . . . [Shao was] the name of the music of Shun; shao means shao 'to continue'; it means that Shun was able to continue chi-shao the spiritual power of Yao . . . [Hsia was] the name of the music of Yü; it means that Yü was able to enlarge ta the spiritual power of Yao and Shun . . .".
On a passage in the Chou li136 he comments:
"[The music of] Huang-ti was called Yün-mên ta-chüan; Huang-ti was able to give the ten thousand things their perfect names, and therewith to teach the people to provide for their necessities; it means that his spiritual power was akin to what the clouds yün produce; the people by it could gather tsu [= chüan] the species. Ta-hsien [or] Hsien-shih was [the name of] the music of Yao; Yao was able exhaustively to equalize the penal laws, and therewith to give norms to the people; it means that his spiritual power was extended to everyone. Ta-shao was [the name of] the music of Shun; it means that with his spiritual power he was able to continue the way of Yao. Ta-hsia was [the name of] the music of Yü; Yü regulated the waters and extended the soil; it means that with his spiritual power he was able to enlarge the Middle State. Ta-hu was [the name of] the music of T'ang; T'ang governed his people with magnanimity, and delivered them from evil; it means that with his spiritual power he was able to give all under Heaven their [proper] places. Ta-wu was [the name of] the music of King Wu; King Wu slew Chou and removed his wickedness; it means that his spiritual power was able to accomplish his martial prowess".
Now it appears that some of Chêng Hsüan's statements in the Chou li Commentary correspond with statements in the text of the Li chi137, and some with Sung Chung's Commentary on the Yüehwei hsieh t'u chêng138, while his statements in the Li chi Commentary might as well have been written by Sung Chung himself. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that Chêng Hsüan had copied from Sung Chung. But would it be plausible? Chêng Hsüan, like Sung Chung, wrote Commentaries on the Apocryphal Books, and the two are mentioned in the same breath in the Bibliographical Chapter of the Sui shu139. As contemporaries, both prolific writers, but both representing opposing Schools 140, they were, however, unlikely to copy from each other 141. Indeed, it seems more probable that Chêng Hsüan and Sung Chung derived their material from a source which was accessible to both of them, and the fact that their presentations of this material to a certain extent correspond with each other does not prove that the one has drawn upon the other. May we not, therefore, likewise conclude that the similarity between the Po hu t'ung and Sung Chung's Commentary, with respect to their explanations of the names of the several kinds of music, does not necessarily mean that the former has used the latter?
Two objections raised by Hung remain to be faced: Why does the Han shu, composed by Pan Ku, not contain the same statements as the Po hu t'ung, ascribed to Pan Ku? And why does the Fêng su t'ung i quote from the Han shu, if it had at its disposal the completer material of the Po hu t'ung?
As to the first objection I may add further instances of the discrepancies between the Han shu and the Po hu t'ung to those given by Hung.
The Po hu t'ung says:
"[The note] chüeh means Yüeh 'to leap'; the yang-fluid moves and leaps. [The note] chih means chih 'to stop'; the yang-fluid has stopped. [The note] shang means chang 'to expand'; the yin-fluid begins to expand, [while] the yang-fluid begins to contract. [The note] yü means yü 'to twist'; the yin-fluid is above, the yang-fluid is below. [The note] kung means jung 'to contain'; han 'to hold'; it contains and holds the Four Seasons" 142.
The Han shu, on the other hand, explains:
"[The note] shang means chang 'to display'; when the [ten thousand] things have completed their maturation they may be displayed and estimated. chüeh means cho 'to knock against'; the [ten thousand] things knock against the earth to come out; they carry 'the horns' chüeh of the sprouts. Kung means chung 'the middle': from their position in the centre [the ten thousand things] expand towards the Four Directions; [the note kung] stimulates the beginning and dispenses life; it holds together the four [other] Notes. Chih means chih 'blessing'; the [ten thousand] things having reached their full size confer blessings in abundance. Yü means yü 'to cover'; the [ten thousand] things having been gathered and stored are covered up" 143.
The inevitable conclusion is: the Han shu and the Po hu t'ung cannot be from the same hand. In this conclusion, however, some considerations must be taken into account. First, that the Han shu describes the history and the institutions of the Former Han. Second, that Pan Ku, being a historian and essayist, and not a Classical scholar himself 144, was only ordered to compile the material of the Po-hu discussions. Thirdly, that the Po hu t'ung records the opinions of the contending scholars, and is not a handbook. In other words, we may not expect the two works to contain the same ideas, and to have the same composition; they are of a different character 145.
With respect to the second objection, it is a curious thing, indeed, that the Fêng su t'ung i does not quote from the Po hu t'ung, as Hung says. However, though the passage on the names of the music and their meaning in the Fêng su t'ung i is a verbatim parallel of that in the Han shu, the source is not indicated. On reading further, however, we come across another passage in the Fêng su t'ung i, which again is a verbatim parallel of the passage in the Han shu which I have noted before, viz. the explanations of the names of the Five Notes (shang, chüeh, kung, chih, yü) 146. And here the source is indicated: the Fêng su t'ung i quotes this statement from Liu Hsin's Chung lü shu147. We cannot say that the first passage (on the names of the music) is also from the Chung lü shu148. But Pan Ku seems to have used this work for the chapter Lü li chih, in which the second passage (on the Five Notes) occurs 149. This means, that for this passage Pan Ku and Ying Shao made use of a source accessible to both of them. Now Ying Shao quotes the Han shu more than once, naming his source 150. Can we, then, not suppose that the passage in the Fêng su t'ung i on the names of the music of the ancient Sovereigns and their meaning, though they are parallel to the passage in the Han shu, is not necessarily a quotation from this work, but may be derived from another source, not indicated, which was accessible to both Pan Ku and Ying Shao 151?
The fact remains, however, that the Fêng su t'ung i never quotes the Po hu t'ung. But the Fêng su t'ung i is not a Bibliography, and there are dozens of works, ancient and of a non-suspect nature, which are not quoted in it. It would be incorrect to say that, on these grounds alone, they must be later than Ying Shao. Another question is: Have we reasons to expect that the Fêng su t'ung i should have quoted the Po hu t'ung? The book is an exposition of ideas current in Ying Shao's time, illustrated by quotations of all sorts, among others from the Classics and some of the Apocryphal Books, to which Ying Shao adds his own opinion. It is certainly strange that he never invoked the material contained in the Po hu t'ung. We shall see later whether parallel passages can be found in the two books, which might lead us to some conclusion regarding this curious fact.
14.The parallel statements on the Nine Distinctions
The third example which Professor Hung gives in order to prove that the Po hu t'ung must be of the end of the later Han and the beginning of the Wei, belongs to the same category as the first I have just discussed. The two passages in the Po hu t'ung152 dealing with the Nine Distinctions, according to Hung were copied, one from Ts'ao Ts'ao's Edict, one from Sung Chung's Commentary. Now as far as I can judge, the first passage in the Po hu t'ung is not just a summary of the lengthy statement in the Edict: the reasons for granting the Vermilion Door are quite different in the two texts. The way we look at a text, however, depends on the suspicion we entertain about it, and once we have convinced ourselves of the spuriousness of the Po hu t'ung, it is not difficult to see this particular passage as an abridged copy of Ts'ao Ts'ao Edict, just as it is easy to see its statement on the names of the music as an elaborated copy of the Han shu and Sung Chung's Commentary on the Yüeh wei153. Hung cautiously refrains from deciding which is earlier, Ts'ao Ts'ao's Edict or Sung Chung's Commentary on the names of the Nine Distinctions in the Li wei han wên chia154. It seems to me that the same caution should be applied with respect to the incriminated passages in the Po hu t'ung. The case would be different if the institution of the Nine Distinctions had been a novelty, introduced in the time of Ts'ao Ts'ao. But they were already conferred upon Wang Mang in 5 A.D., in an Edict as exalted as Ts'ao Ts'ao's 155, while their names were already mentioned in the Han shih wai chuan by Han Ying, who lived in the second century B.C 156, and partially in the Shangshu ta chuan by Fu Shêng, who lived in the third century B.C. 157. It is true that neither Han Ying nor Fu Shêng supplied explanations on the conferring of the Distinctions, but we may assume that during the first and second centuries A.D. the institution of the Nine Distinctions was widely known, and speculated upon by several scholars in different, yet to some extent similar, ways 158. In any case, to consider, on the strength of it, the Po hu t'ung passage as a summary of the Edict seems to me an assertion not wholly warranted.
The second passage in the Po hu t'ung adduced by Hung 159 would seem to have more convincing force. The similarity to Sung Chung's Commentary 160 is so striking that Lu Wên-ch'ao thought it necessary to substitute the former for the latter, without, however, implying that the Po hu t'ung was derived from Sung Chung. Ch'ên Li, on the contrary, preferred the original Po hu t'ung reading 161. I think it is safe to regard the one statement as a copy from the other. But which from which? I am reluctant to give a judgment on the ground of a difference of 'style', feeling myself incompetent in this matter. The most I can say is that Sung Chung's Commentary runs more smoothly and is perfectly balanced, whereas the Po hu t'ung contains several deviations from its own enumeration, e.g. it writes State Carriage with Teams of Horses instead of Carriage and Horses, the King's Music instead of Musical Instruments, Jade Libation-cup instead of Black Millet Herb-flavoured Liquor. But what standard is here to be applied? In the same way as either elaboration or abridgment may be used against the originality of a text or in favour of it, so a polished style may be made a witness for the prosecution or a witness for the defence, while with some ingenuity we may prove either that the corruptness of a text testifies to its spuriousness, or to its genuineness. To say, on the strenght of it, that our Po hu t'ung passage must be a, rather clumsy, copy of Sung Chung's Commentary, is therefore, I think, an assertion not sufficiently substantiated.
15.The statement on the ti-sacrifice
Hung's second example is of a different kind. According to him the statement in the Po hu t'ung that "[every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered" is not confirmed by the statements in the Houhan shu and the custom in the Later Han 162, and therefore this discrepancy is another proof that the Po hu t'ung dates from the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei 163.
We have seen that the Po hu t'ung passage was supplied by Ch'ên Li from a quotation in the Chiu t'ang shu, and that Liu Shih-p'ei contests the correctness of this quotation 164. It is interesting to follow Hung's argumentation, which has led him to disagree with Liu. Whereas Ch'ên Li gives the quotation from the Chiu t'ang shu: "[Every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered", Liu prefers the reading of the quotation in Hui-lin's I ch'ieh ching yin i165, viz.: "The Pohu t'ung says: [Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice, [every] five years a ti-sacrifice is offered". Hung bases his mistrust in Hui-lin on the following grounds: 1. Hui-lin's explanations on the word ti in the same work are self-contradictory, therefore he is unreliable; 2. the Commentary of a Buddhist priest cannot be preferred to the opinion of the Grand Master of Ceremonies (who quoted the Po hu t'ung in the Chiu t'ang shu); 3. the discussions on the rites described in the Chiu t'ang shu (during which the question of the ti- and hsia-sacrifices was raised) took place in 739 A.D., more than forty years earlier than the date of the composition of the I ch'ieh ching yin i; 4. moreover the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao, for its section on the ti- and hsia-sacrifices 166, often quotes the Po hu t'ung, but it quotes the Li wei for a statement: "[Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice, [every] five years a ti-sacrifice is offered"; therefore the edition of the Po hut'ung used by Yü Shih-nan 167 cannot have contained the statement "[every] five years a ti-sacrifice".
Now if we read the incriminated passage in the Chiu t'ang shu in its context 168, we see that the discussions in 739 A.D. were concerned with this point: the rites require, not that every three years one sacrifice is performed, and independent from it every five years the other, but that every five years there should be a ti- and a hsia-sacrifice. As to which should come after which, the following opinions were adduced by the Grand Master of Ceremonies during the discussions: The Li wei and the Commentary on the Lu li ti hsia169 say: [Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice, [every] five years a ti-sacrifice is offered; the Po hu t'ung, the Wu ching t'ung i, Hsü Shên's [Wu ching] ii, Ho Hsiu's Ch'un ch'iu [Commentary?], and Ho Hsün's Chi i 祭 議 170 say: [Every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered.
The problem of the ti- and hsia-sacrifices is so complicated and confused that I cannot even contemplate an attempt at a survey of the conflicting opinions. In the special case of the Po hu t'ung quotation I therefore only relate Ch'ên Li's and Ch'ên Shou-ch'i's opinions on the matter 171, namely that the statement "[Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice is offered" represents the view of the Tso chuan and Chou li Schools, and that the triennial ti-sacrifice perhaps belongs to the rites of the ancient Kings 172. That means that according to the opinion of the Old Text scholars 173 the regular custom was the triennial hsia-sacrifice, and that the triennial ti-sacrifice seems to have been so unusual that it had to be assigned to early antiquity.
Further, is there nothing to be said in favour of Liu Shih-p'ei's emendation? He does not explain why he prefers Hui-lin's reading to the quotation in the Chiu t'ang shu. Now the Chiu t'ang shu, besides the Po hu t'ung, also quotes Ho Hsiu's Ch'un ch'iu. What exactly is meant by this work I do not know, but it seems probable that it refers to Ho Hsiu's Commentary on the Kung yang chuan. Now in his Commentary on Wên, 2d year, we read: "[Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice is offered, [every] five years a ti-sacrifice" 174. Can it be that a mistake was committed by the Chiu t'ang shu, and that Liu Shih-p'ei, knowing that the Po hu t'ung is nearly always in conformity with Ho Hsiu's statements (representing the views of the New Text School 175), suspected the Po hu t'ung quotation in the Chiu t'ang shu, and took that in the I ch'ieh ching yin i as the original one? I must leave the question as it stands, because doubt of the positive quotation in the Chiu t'ang shu cannot be further substantiated; moreover this is not necessary for the conclusion which I am venturing to draw.
It is important that both the Old Text and the New Text Schoolsare in agreement with respect to the triennial hsia-sacrifice. The Po hu t'ung, usually following the interpretations of the New Text School 176, here presents a view contrary to those of both Schools. But, because the statement is too brief, and detached from its original context, it is difficult to say whether it represents the Po hu t'ung's own opinion (i.e. an opinion authorized by Imperial approval), or, as it often occurs in the Po hu t'ung, only the record of 'another opinion' 177. To me, the chances are in favour of the latter supposition, and in that case we need not see the statement as a discrepancy from the actual custom of the time, but only as a statement for the sake of completeness and curiosity. Besides, the way in which Hung uses the quotation against the Po hu t'ung, is not altogether correct. If the Wei Dynasty had actually adopted the use of the triennial ti-sacrifice--and I have not been able to find such a statement--, then the Po hu t'ung might be said to be in accordance with that use, and thus to date from that period. But the fact that the Po hu t'ung says: "[Every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered"-- a description of a ritual which evidently was never practised, so that Hsü Shên, as he is corrected by Ch'ên Shou-ch'i, is obliged to explain it, hypothetically, as the custom of the ancient Kings--, whereas according to all historical evidence only the triennial hsia-sacrifice was actually performed, such a fact cannot be used as a proof that the Po hut'ung must date from the Wei.
Hung's bias against the Po hu t'ung also appears in his fourth objection against Hui-lin 178. If the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao, in the matter of the succession of the ti- and hsia-sacrifices, does not quote the Po hu t'ung, as it often does in other matters, but the Li wei, then logically it can only mean, either that the Po hu t'ung edition used by Yü Shih-nan did not contain that passage -- any more than the Yüan ta-tê edition --, or that Yü failed to quote it, but not, as Hung concludes, that the Po hu t'ung cannot have contained the passage "[Every] five years a ti-sacrifice is offered", with the facile but unfounded implication that it did contain the statement "[Every] three years a ti-sacrifice is offered".
16.Summary of objections against Hung
My criticism of Professor Hung's argumentation does not in the least diminish my appreciation of the method he has followed 179, namely to take the text itself as the starting-point of the investigation. I only disagree with the way he handles the method. Hung is full of inconsistencies. Apart from the objections I have raised against the data which he uses, I may point to a curious arbitrariness in his interpretation of the evidence. He discovers parallel passages in the Po hu t'ung and Sung Chung's Commentary, and concludes that the former must have borrowed from the latter. He discovers a complete absence of quotations from the Po hu t'ung in the Fêngsu t'ung i, and concludes that the former must be later than the latter. This reasoning amounts to the following: There are parallel passages in Sung Chung's Commentary (A) and the Po hu t'ung (C); conclusion: C is later. The Fêng su t'ung i (B) does not quote C; conclusion: C is later. In an exaggerated way this means:
which would, of course, be nonsense. Starting with two known data, viz. Sung Chung's Commentary and Ying Shao's Fêng su t'ung i180, and comparing them with an unknown, viz. the Po hu t'ung, we should have asked: Why is C, if it were as early as it pretends to be, not quoted by A and B? Are there passages in A and B which are parallel to C? If there are, how to explain these parallels? Only in this way sufficient justice can be done with respect to the suspect text.
My chief objection to Hung's conclusion is, however, that, on the ground of some passages which he considers as late, he regards the entire work as late, while on the ground of a single quotation by a man who died in 245 A.D. he regards the entire work as being of that date at the latest 181. Thus he assumes a homogeneity of the text which should still be proved, and necessarily implies judgments working in two opposite directions: nothing in the text is of the beginning of the Later Han, while suddenly everything in it is of the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei. Actually we are still in the dark about those early texts. The only real thing is the present edition. Hung's terminus ante quem non (213 A.D.) only applies to Ts'ao Ts'ao's Edict and, if we accept his opinion, to the passage in the Po hu t'ung which is a summary of it. His terminuspost quem non (245 A.D.) only applies to some edition seen by Miu Hsi. The former does not necessarily mean that in the present edition there are not passages which came from a period before 213 A.D., the latter does not necessarily mean that in the present edition there are not passages which were interpolated after 245 A.D. The only positive thing we can say is that there was a Po hu t'ung in 245 A.D. at the latest. But on the basis of what is said in the Hou han shu we may as well say--as has been done by Hung's predecessors--that there was a Po hu t'ung, or whatever it was called, in 79 A.D. There is here a confusion of two questions, that of authenticity, and that of first appearance. The parallel passages prove, at the most, that the present edition is not authentic, in this sense that parts of it are later interpolations, but it does not mean that the whole of the present edition is of a later period. The quotation of 245 A.D. proves, at the most, that there was an edition of the Po hu t'ung at that time, but it does not mean that the whole of the present edition must be the same as that.
17.The problem of parallel passages
"The question how to judge parallel passages in ancient Chinese works is very delicate", says Karlgren 182, and he points out the difficulty, which in many cases is an impossibility, of proving their anteriority or posteriority. Indeed, it is always hazardous, in the case of parallel passages, immediately to think of borrowing and to try to settle the problem "who borrowed from whom", with the exclusion of the possibility that several writers may have used the same source, each quoting in his own way and for his own purpose. We must always remember that Chinese scholars had the habit of quoting, and mostly quoting by heart, from revered books, and that many quotations from the fact of their having been handed down so many times ceased being quotations and became common property. We must also remember that despite the desire to preserve the original ideas as much as possible in their original form--we are all acquainted with the scrupulous care the Chinese scholars observe in this matter--it is inevitable that deviations did arise in the course of time. The form may first have undergone an alteration, and then a new idea be put into the new vessel; or unconsciously a re-interpretation was felt necessary and a new form accordingly adopted, without the intent to make a change. Parallel passages as such have not much convincing force. If they are exactly alike they may be copies from each other, but they may also have no mutual relation at all, except that they may be traced back to some ancient stock; besides, their form may be the same, but the purpose for which they are used may be quite different. If they are not exactly alike they may be clumsy borrowings, but they may also be individual expressions of the same ideas or of ideas almost similar, or they may have no mutual relation at all, except again that they may be traced back to some ancient stock. In all these things absolute certainty as to what is what can only be achieved in very rare cases; mostly we have to be content with more or less plausible reconstructions, which at any moment may prove wrong by the discovery of new material or by deeper insight into the problem. The idea of direct borrowing in the case of parallel passages is very tempting, but we must beware of the error of the man who was widely read in literature, and when one day presented with a Bible, with which for some reason he was unacquainted, remarked that it was just a collection of quotations.
Of course the Po hu t'ung is a different case. It is a collection of quotations. It abounds with them, with or without indication of sources. As it presumes to be the report of the discussions on the Classics, when scholars from several Schools attended and each defended his own opinion, backing it with statements of his masters, we may expect passages in it which are parallels of those in older and contemporary works. This need not raise problems, unless we distrust those older and contemporary texts. The difficulty arises, when we discover parallels in works which are of a later date than the Po hu t'ung claims to be. Then we begin to doubt and to wonder whether it is a case of borrowing by or from those later works. On the evidence of the fact alone we cannot say anything definite. It depends on the way we look at the Po hu t'ung. If we deem it suspect we shall be inclined to explain the parallels as borrowings by it from the other texts; and the fact that the Po hu t'ung has not been actually quoted until a certain, comparatively late, date will confirm our suspicion. If we deem it reliable we shall be inclined to see the parallels as borrowings from it by the other texts; and the fact that the Po hu t'ung, when it quotes, names its source, will confirm our trust. Both attitudes easily lead to interpretations which are arbitrary as well as subjective, and I think that, unless more material can support a contrary view, it is not unscientific to regard parallel passages as just 'parallel passages', i.e., to assume that they have come from a common stock.
The quotations in the Po hu t'ung from the Classics and the Apocryphical Books with indication of source I have listed in Appendix A. There are further numerous passages which are not indicated as quotations but correspond with passages in the Classics or the Apocrypha, either verbatim or paraphrased. I have not listed them, but in my notes to the translation of chapters I, II, XVIII, and XL I have indicated them as fully as possible. It is not so important for our problem, because I am not going to question the authenticity of the works quoted by the Po hu t'ung, with or without indication of source. However, there are parallels with works later than the time the Po hu t'ung is supposed to have been composed, i.e., works of the end of the second century and the beginning of the third century A.D. These are the crucial data, and we have to examine them. It is impossible to give a comprehensive list of those passages, because it would have surpassed the limits of this study. Moreover, it is not really necessary: an absolutely comprehensive list is a fiction, for the reason alone that so many works of that period are either lost or highly defective. Furthermore I have restricted myself to a few authors, again for reasons of space and for clarity's sake: for the purpose of giving an impression of the nature of those parallel passages too many examples would only cause bewilderment. The authors in whom I have looked for parallels are Ts'ai Yung, Sung Chung, Ying Shao, Chêng Hsüan, and Ho Hsiu. Ts'ai Yung, because he was the man who may still have had the opportunity to see the Po hu i tsou; Sung Chung, because according to Hung his Commentary has been profusely used by the Po hu t'ung; Ying Shao, because he never quotes the Po hu t'ung; Chêng Hsüan, for the same reason; Ho Hsiu, because he represented the School of Kung-yang, so often quoted by the Po hu t'ung.
18.Parallels in Ts'ai Yung
The following parallels are from Ts'ai Yung's Tu tuan 獨 斷 183, Yüeh ling chang chü, and Ming t'ang yüeh ling lun 月 令 章 句 , 明 堂 月 令 論 184:
The impression created by these parallels is a little flattering. It would be easy to give a number of passages which definitely differ from those in the Po ha t'ung. From a man who had seen the Po hu i tsou we might expect that he would have made more use of it. That he did not do so may have been due to various causes. 1. Ts'ai Yung in reality had no access to the Po hu i tsou, because his mention of it does not implicitly mean his actual knowledge of its contents. 2. He made use of it, but the present edition of the Po hu t'ung is a later forgery, therefore his writings only tally with it on a few points. 3. He made use of it, but his writings, as we know them in their fragmentary form, are forgeries, so that the discrepancy may be explained in the same way. 4. He made partial use of it, but maintained his own views on several points. I think that the fourth case is the most probable, even though it is only a supposition, as the other three are.
19.Parallels in Sung Chung
The following passages are from Sung Chung's Commentary on the Apocryphal Books Yüan ming pao, Kan ching fu, Yüan shên ch'i, Yen k'ung t'u, and Han wên chia186. The curious thing about Sung Chung's Commentary is that, apart from the two examples given by Hung, there are no other parallels equally striking. The Po hu t'ung contains numerous quotations from the Apocryphal Texts themselves, with and without source-indication, but a perusal of Sung Chung's Commentary has, as far as I could discover, not yielded the results which might be expected from Professor Hung's statement that the Po hu t'ung in very numerous cases copied from Sung Chung 187. As the editions which I have used are not comprehensive 188 I cannot contradict this statement; in fact, even if I could, it would not very much affect my reasoning, which is, that the occurrence of parallels as such does not prove a great deal. Sung Chung's passages in my list cannot strictly be regarded as parallels of the Po hu t'ung; on some points they even show conspicuous differences.
20.Parallels in Ying Shao
If we can regard the above passages as parallels, then the question which Hung asks with respect to the Fêng su t'ung i loses its point: though neither Sung Chung nor Ying Shao quote the Po hu t'ung by name, both show a certain number of parallel passages, which, however, does not imply direct borrowing. There is another interesting fact.
The Po hu t'ung, paragraph 42d, says the following:
"There is none who, hearing the note chüeh, does not feel compassion and act accordingly; there is none who, hearing the note chih, does not rejoice in nourishing [the needy] and does not love bestowing [goodness]; there is none who, hearing the note shang, does not become strong and decided, and embark on enterprises; there is none who, hearing the note yü, does not deeply reflect and take precautionary measures against far-off [eventualities]; there is none who, hearing the note kung, does not become mild and liberal, and act beneficently and harmoniously".
The Fêng su t'ung i192 has an almost identical passage, without indication of source: "Hearing the note kung causes man to be mild and liberal and expand his greatness; hearing the note shang causes man to be straight and love principles; hearing the note chüeh causes man to be serene and love ritual [behaviour]; hearing the note chih causes man to feel compassion and make his love all-embracing; hearing the note yü causes man to be proficient in nourishing [the needy] and love bestowing [goodness]".
Now this passage of the Fêng su t'ung i corresponds word for word, with but slight deviations, with what is said by Ho Hsiu in his Commentary on the Kung yang chuan193; it does, however, not occur in the Han shu, from which, according to Hung, the Fêng su t'ung i has quoted the statement on the names of the music 194. Did Ying Shao copy from the Po hu t'ung or from Ho Hsiu? Did Ho Hsiu copy from the Pu hu t'ung or from Ying Shao? Or did the Po hu t'ung copy from Ho Hsiu and Ying Shao, so that it must be later than both of them? But then we find a passage, similar to that of Ying Shao and Ho Hsiu, in the Han shih wai chuan, ascribed to Han Ying, who lived in the second century B.C. 195. Is it not more probable that the Po hu t'ung used the Han shih wai chuan as its source? Why it altered the latter's style, while Ying Shao and Ho Hsiu did not, is inexplicable, but this is no valid argument against its use of the Han shih wai chuan.
21.Parallels in Chêng Hsüan
These three passages, of course, prove nothing. But we have a case which is more interesting. In the Po hu t'ung (170 f) we come across the statement: "The Ch'ü li says: 'A Minister offers a young sheep as a present, a great officer a wild goose, a common officer a pheasant; the common man offers a p'i. . .'. P'i means mu 'tame duck"'. Now this appears to be a contamination of the passage in the Ch'ü li, where indeed the present of the common man is said to be a p'i196, and a corresponding passage in the Chou li, where the present of the common man is said to be a mu, i.e. a tame duck 197. The explicit identification of p'i with mu198 seems to occur for the first time in the Po hu t'ung. Chêng Hsüan, in his Commentary on the statement of the Li chi, mentions it in the words: Some interpreters take p'i to mean mu 'tame duck' 199. Should we assume copying from Chêng Hsüan by the Po hu t'ung, or may we suppose that Chêng Hsüan refers, not necessarily to the Po hu t'ung, but to some theory known to both?
22.Parallels in Ho Hsiu
Ho Hsiu represents a special case. His affinity with the Po hu t'ung through the Kung yang chuan is so close that it is difficult to say which quotes from which 200. The following parallels are, however, revealing:
The wording is so identical that the thought of borrowing immediately arises, until we discover that the original source is probably the Kung yang chuan, Wên 9th year 201, where the two sentences occur in exactly the same form. We may, therefore, assume that for the other parallel passages some common source may also have been used.
23.Later interpolations in the Po hu t'ung
Hitherto I have given examples of passages which are not necessarily fatal to the Po hu t'ung. But there are others which, to some degree of certainty, prove that the Po hu t'ung contains statements of a later date than it claims.
In paragraph 172 it says:
"Therefore [even] the Queen uses for her presents dates, chestnuts, and dried spiced meat tuan-hsiu. . . Tuan-hsiu means fu 'prepared meat'. Therefore the Ch'un ch'iu chuan says: It is not according to the rites that the wives of great officers offer presents of silk on their visits. But what is then to be used? Dates and chestnuts with the appropriate words, dried spiced meat tuan-hsiu with the appropriate words".
If we look up the Kung yang chuan, we find immediately after its statements: "To present silk on their visits [by the wives of great officers] is not according to the rites. But what is then to be used? Dates and chestnuts with the appropriate words, dried spiced meat tuan-hsiu with the appropriate words" Ho Hsiu's Commentary: "Tuan-hsiu means fu 'prepared meat"' 202.
We see that the Po hu t'ung's quotation from the Kung yang chuan is slightly different, and that the order of Ho Hsiu's Commentary, immediately following upon the expression tuan-hsiu in the Kung yang chuan, is more logical than that in the Po hu t'ung, where the sentence "tuan-hsiu means fu" more or less hangs in the air. It is not too bold to assume that Ho Hsiu's Commentary is here prior to the Po hu t'ung.
In paragraph 181a the Po hu t'ung quotes the Ch'un ch'iu chuan:
"The King preserves the descendants of the last two Dynasties; he allows them to employ their own colour, and to practise their [own] rites and music".
None of the three Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals--Kung yang chuan, Ku liang chuan, Tso chuan--contains this statement, but we find it in Ho Hsiu's Commentary on the Kung yang chuan in the following form: "The King preserves the descendants of the last two Dynasties; he allows them to regulate their [own] correction of the first month, to use their [own] colour for their clothes, and to practise their [own] rites and music" 203.
It is evident that the Po hu t'ung in this case has simply quoted Ho Hsiu, mistaking it for the Ch'un ch'iu (kung yang) chuan.
In paragraph 142c the Po hu t'ung says:
"The Ch'un chiu says: 'Chi-chiang, [daughter of the Marquis] of Chi went as bride to the capital'. The relation between parents and daughter is such that, even if she becomes the Queen, her dignity does not affect [her attitude] towards her parents".
Again we look up the Kung yang chuan204, and there we find that after the entry of the Ch'un ch'iu: "Chi-chiang of Chi went as bride to the capital", there first comes the Chuan of Kung-yang, reading: "The relation between parents and daughter is such that, even if she becomes the Queen by Heaven['s decree], still she is called: Our Chi-chiang", and then Ho Hsiu's Commentary "It means that the dignity of the child does not affect [its attitude] towards its parents".
We may conclude that the Po hu t'ung, in this case, combined the Kung yang chuan and Ho Hsiu's Commentary, presenting the combination as its own statement.
We may proceed further, and discover passages in the Po hu t'ung, which are evidently even later than Ho Hsiu's time.
In paragraphs 2b and 57a there is a statement which, as it stands, is unintelligible 205, but, as I have tried to show in my note to my translation, appears to be a contamination of two sentences, the one being the text of the Hsiao ching wei yüan shên ch'i206, the other Chia Kung-yen's Sub-commentary on the Chou li207. Chia Kung-yen lived in the seventh century A.D. 208.
Paragraph 10e of the Po hu t'ung contains a passage which is clearly an interpolation. Not only does its 'informative' character differ from the terse, matter-of-fact style of the Po hu t'ung, but it also avoids the tabooed word shih, occurring in the name of the T'ang Emperor Li Shih-min 209, using the synonym tai210 instead. Lu Wên-ch'ao, probably correctly, supposes it to be from the hand of Hsü Chien (659-729), the composer of the Ch'u hsüeh chi, where the incriminated passage occurs 211.
In paragraph 168k it is said that "the uses of the Five Jade [tablets] are not limited to one; they cannot be described exhaustively; only the most important have been presented", which statement likewise strikes us as having an 'informative' character, so that it is probably an interpolation of some later date.
That interpolations of a rather late date occur in the Po hu t'ung is not surprising. We may safely say that all important Chinese books contain interpolations of some sort 212. The more a text has been studied the greater is the possibility that it has not retained its original form and character. We may, however, not immediately think of deliberate forgeries. For a text which deals with the norms of social and political behaviour, as so many Chinese texts do, has perforce to be 'interpreted', i.e., to be made intelligible to the time of the reader, while obsolete ideas have to be converted into new ones. So long as it is regarded as a living text, it is subject to alterations, however imperceptible, and only after it has become dead, that is, seen as an historical curiosum, can it be treated as a fossil, and can detached, impersonal methods be applied in order to assign it its historical setting. It is admirable to note how well most Chinese scholars succeed in combining, on the one hand, their personal entanglement with a text from which they expect a message, with, on the other hand, a loving and meticulous care in the preservation of the original wording. But the influence on them of the former factor should always be borne in mind and to some extent condoned, for though the modern scholar in his scientific attitude is chiefly interested in the question of objective, historical authenticity, he is never free from a personal bias, inevitable, because he, too, by the fact of his existential setting, interprets.
24.Early fuller editions of the Po hu t'ung
Before I proceed to sum up the results reached thus far, I should mention another point. Hung says that, judging from the fact that the T'ai p'ing yü lan contains numerous quotations from the Po hu t'ung which are not found in the edition of 1305 A.D. of this work, the edition used by the T'ai p'ing yü lan must have been a completer one 213. In a review of Hung's Index Pelliot pointed out that this statement is not correct; the T'ai p'ing yü lan, as is proved by a Tun-huang manuscript, has, for the period before the T'ang, simply and wholesalely copied from the quotations it found in the Hsiu wên tien yü lan of 572 A.D., and the quotations from the Po hu t'ung in the T'ai p'ing yü lan are probably to be ascribed to the Hsiu wên tien yü lan214. Hung then subjected the entire problem to a reexamination 215: he proved that the Tun-huang manuscript actually is not the Hsiu wên tien yü lan, as was stated by Lo Chên-yü, and, on his authority, by Pelliot, but the Hua lin p'ien lüeh216, which was begun in 516 A.D., and completed eight years later in 700 chüan. It served as material for the Hsiu wên tien yü lan, and the I wên lei chü, which was completed in 624 A.D. The compilers of the T'ai p'ing yü lan, having no longer access to the Hua lin p'ien lüeh, could only rely on the material contained in the Hsiu wên tien yü lan, the I wên lei chü, and other extant works.
It is not clear whether the Hua lin p'ien lüeh has made use of the Po hu t'ung217. If it did, we may admit the transmission through the I wên lei chü, or Hsiu wên tien yü lan, to the T'ai ping yü lan of a fuller edition than the present Po hu t'ung already before 516 A.D. 218.
This supposition is corroborated by other data. We have seen that Miu Hsi (died 245 A.D.) quoted from the Po hu t'ung, and though the single quotation does not suggest much as to the edition he had at his disposal, the fact that the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao, three centuries later, contains an almost identical quotation not occurring in the present edition of the Po hu t'ung219, may be taken as an indication that Miu Hsi's edition was probably, like that used by the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao, fuller than our edition of 1305 A.D.
For the composing of the "Lacunae in the Text of the Po hu t'ung" Chuang Shu-tsu and Lu Wên-ch'ao have ransacked a great number of works. They took quotations from several lei-shu, such as the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao (by Yü Shih-nan 558-638), the I wên lei chü (624 A.D.), the Ch'u hsüeh chi (by Hsü Chien 659-729), the T'ung tien (by Tu yu 735-812), the T'ai p'ing yü lan (completed 983 A. D.); from several Sub-commentaries on the Classics, such as that by Huang K'an (488-545) on the Lun yü 皇 侃 , 論 語 義 疏 220; by K'ung Ying-ta (574-648) on the Tso chuan, Li chi, Mao shih221; by Chia Kung-yen (po-shih in the period 650-656) on the Chou li and the I li222; by Yang Shih-hsün on the Ku liang chuan223, by Hsing Ping (932-1010) on the Erh ya224. They further used a quotation by Tsang Tao (end 4th-beginning 5th century A.D.) occurring in his Biography in the Sung shu225, and quotations from the Commentary on the Hsü han chih by Liu Chao (± 510 A.D.) 226, from the chapters on the Rites in the Sui shu隋 書 禮 儀 志 by 魏 徽Wei Chêng (580-643) 227, from the Kuang yün by Liu Fa-yen (completed 601 A.D.) 228, from the Commentary on the Hou han shu by Li Hsien or Chang-huai T'ai-tzŭ (651-684) 229, from the Commentary on the Wên hsüan by Li Shan (died 689 A.D.) 230, from the Chiu t'ang shu by Liu Hsü (887-946) 231. Ch'ên Li supplied new material from the Sui ching chu by Li Tao-yüan (d. 527) 232, Liu Shih-p'ei from Hui Lin's I ch'ieh ching yin i (780-783) 233 and the Chi jui by Liu Kêng, who lived in the T'ang 234.
Thus it seems that uninterruptedly from the beginning of the third century until the beginning of the eleventh the Po hu t'ung was transmitted, probably in various editions and in a completer state than the edition of 1305 235.
25.Recapitulation of the data and provisional conclusion
I now may recapitulate the data we have found. There is at one end the statement in the Hou han shu on the discussions in the Po-hu kuan in 79 A.D., as a result of which a Po hu i tsou was composed, or a t'ung-i was written, or a Po hu t'ung tê lun was made. At the other end there is the edition of 1305 A.D., called the Po hu t'ung tê lun, in ten chüan, which we possess. Between these two ends the gap has to be bridged.
We have at our disposal the following facts: Ts'ai Yung (133-192) mentioned a Po hu i tsou in more than one hundred chüan; in the writings of Ts'ai Yung, Ho Hsiu, Chêng Hsüan, Ying Shao, Sung Chung, all men living in the second century A.D., there are passages which run parallel to certain passages in the present Po hu t'ung; Miu Hsi (died 245 A.D.) quoted from the Po hu t'ung; however, his quotation is not found in the present Po hu t'ung, but it figures, in an almost identical form, in the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao by Yü Shih-nan (558-638); the Sui shu, describing the history of the Sui Dynasty (589-619) mentions in its Bibliographical Chapter a Po hu t'ung in six chüan. In a great number of works, from the beginning of the fourth century to the beginning of the eleventh century, numerous quotations from the Po hu t'ung occur, many of which are missing in the present edition. The present edition contains interpolations of the second century A.D. (Ho Hsiu), and of the T'ang.
Unless we want to doubt everything that was not actually written under our eyes, we have to accept the fact that there was a discussion on the Classics in 79 A.D., and that as a result of the discussion a report was made. Why the names given to this report differ in the statements of the Hou han shu is a puzzle. The explanations sup- plied by our scholars are ingenious but hypothetical. We may as well suggest another: Po hu i tsou probably was not the title of the report, but only a general appellation: 'the Memorialized Discussions in the Po-hu [kuan]'; Po hu t'ung tê lun and Po hu t'ung i were more specific names of the same thing, having assumed the character of a proper name. This is a hypothesis, no more. Pan Ku was charged with the compilation of the material; he probably did not take part in the discussions, not being a Classical scholar; neither did he write a Po hu t'ang (tê lun) with his own hand. The report was voluminous, consisting of more than one hundred chüan; it was extant in the second century A.D., which means that not only T'sai Yung may have had access to it, but also his contemporaries Ho Hsiu, Chêng Hsüan, Ying Shao, Sung Chung, and other scholars. The parallels in their works suggest that at least they were acquainted with the ideas contained in the Po hu t'ung. Why they did not quote the work by name remains unexplained. Such a quotation first appeared from the brush of Miu Hsi, who died in 245 A.D. From then on quotations from the Po hu t'ung abound. Hung uses this date as a terminus post quem non, i.e., according to him the Po hu t'ung in its present form dates from that time at the latest. Actually we only know that Miu Hsi's quotation does not occur in the present edition of the Po hu t'ung, and we can only say that there was some edition of this work which differs from the one we possess. Judging from the quotations in texts coming after Miu Hsi we may perhaps go a step further, and say that there were, from 245 A.D. until the beginning of the eleventh century, many editions of the Po hu t'ung, different from the present one in so far as they contain passages which are not found in the latter. We have assumed that they were fuller texts, including Miu Hsi's, but it cannot be definitely proved.
The really important question is however: what happened in the second century A.D.? Should we say, as Hung does, that the report on the discussions, with the existence of which Ts'ai Yung (133-192) was still acquainted--he even knew its number of chüan-- was neglected and left to perish, until between 213 and 245 A.D. somebody came to pick up the poor remnants, and with the help of Sung Chung's Commentary concocted a book which he dubbed Po hu t'ung? And should we conclude that the Po hu t'ang, as we have it, therefore represents a true picture of the text existing in the period between 213 and 245 A.D.? It all turns round the parallel passages, on which Hung bases his opinion. However, those passages may be called upon to tell a different story: they suggest a general knowledge of the contents of the Po hu t'ung among the scholars of the second century A.D.; the Po hu t'ung known to Miu Hsi may not be a concoction of the time between 213 and 245 A.D., but a genuine representation of what has been discussed in the Po-hu kuan in 79 A.D. The present edition, though containing a number of later interpolations and many omissions, may also be regarded as derived from the earliest edition, and therefore as representing, with the above reservations, the Po-hu discussions on the Classics.
Our conclusions on the ground of the available material are not satisfactory. Perhaps we have paid too much attention to the facts about the text, and too little to its contents, i.e., we may have made insufficient use of 'internal evidence', by which I mean the analysis of the text itself in order to localize its ideas and to see whether they fit in the time from which the text professes to date. Such an attempt has its dangers and its difficulties. It is dangerous, because in many instances we have to interpret, and in this interpretation a great deal depends on 'feeling'. It is difficult, because we have to reconstruct an ancient period, and this reconstruction, even with an abundance of material, can never be completely achieved. Moreover, Chinese material for early periods is mostly deficient, in the sense that numerous works have been lost and are irretrievable, while the extant ones are all more or less suspect. We have to work with so many unknown factors, that almost every conclusion is provisional and always subject to revision.
In the case of the Po hu t'ung we may try to discover whether the ideas contained in it tally with the background of the discussions in 79 A.D. Is it probable that a book like the Po hu t'ung, such as we actually know it, was the result of those discussions? To give a picture of such a background, however, involves a study of the entire Han period. The Po-hu discussions were held to determine the meaning of the Classics, they represent the opinions of the Han scholars as to what the Classics meant to them. In order to understand their opinions properly a study has to be made of the history of the Classics. As the Classics cover the whole of human life and provide the rules for man's behaviour and his rôle in society, such a study would involve a study of ancient Chinese culture in its entirety, i.e. a study of all ancient Chinese documents, not only the Classical writings and their innumerable Commentaries, but also all historical and philosophical texts, in order to know the social and political factors, and the interplay of the various streams of thought. Granting that the existing documents may be considered as representative, granting that we have read them correctly, we may then form a picture of that ancient period, but even so we must take into consideration that our ordering of the material will have proceeded according to a preconceived plan -- otherwise it would remain a bewildering mass of mute facts --, so that our personal vision colours the whole picture, which is thus necessarily 'subjective'.
Such an undertaking is of course out of the question; not only would it require a lifetime, and more, but my own strength would be inadequate. Moreover, within the scope of this introductory study I should avoid building a mountain which would only be delivered of a mouse, and I have perforce to restrict myself to a very brief sketch of the development of Classical studies in the Han period, just enough to make the background of the discussions a little clearer, being, nonetheless, well aware of its incompleteness.
1. Cf. the Bibliography at the end of this book.
2. 羣 經 大 義 by 廖 平(1852-1932). It has been edited by Hung Ch'en-kuang 洪 陳 光, and is published in the Liu i kuan ts'ung shu 六 譯 館 叢 書 . Liao P'ing has only made a selection of those passages which directly or indirectly concern the Classics. His work makes the impression of being incomplete.
3. No. 2 of the Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series (1931).
4. Arthur Waley, The Analects (1938), p. 254; Bernhard Karlgren's Glosses appeared in the Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Vol. 14, 16, 17, and 18.
5. Ssŭ k'u ch'üan shu tsung mu 子 部 , ch. 118, 28,雜 家 類 2. The Po hu t'ung was still included in the section of the Classics ching in the Bibliographical Chapters of the Sui shu, the Chiu t'ang shu, the Hsin t'ang shu, the Sung shih, and in the Ch'ung wèn tsung mu.
6. A. Forke seems to take the book at its face value. In his Geschichte der mittelalterlichen chinesischen Philosophie (1934) he gives an outline of the world-conception contained in the Po hu t'ung (p. 137144), a work "welches für die Entwicklung der Naturphilosophie von Wichtigkeit ist" (p. 137). He accepts the authorship of Pan Ku.
7. 盧 文 弨 (1717-1796), 莊 述 祖(1751-1816), see A. W. Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1943), p. 549 and 207. Chuang's and Lu's joint edition, named 白 虎 通 Po hu t'ung, was published in the Pao ching t'ang ts'ung shu 抱 經 堂 叢 書 .
8. (1765-1837, Hummel, o.c., p. 244),讀 書 叢 錄, ch. 16, fol. 14b-18a.
9. 陳 立, style卓 人 or 默 齊(1809-1869). His edition, named 白 虎 通 疏 證 Po hu t'ung shu chêng , appeared in the Huang ch'ing ching chieh hsü pien, ch. 1265-1276.
10. 孫 诒 讓 (1848-1908, Hummel, o.c., p. 679), in his Cha i 札 迻 , ch. 10, fol. 1a-6a (preface of 1895).
11. 劉 師 培(1844-1919, Hummel, o.c., p. 536).
12. Po hu t'ung tê lun pu shih 白 虎 通 德 論 補 釋 , which first appeared in the Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao 國 粹 學 報 , 子 篇 (內) (), Vol. 72-74 (1910).
13. Po hu t'ung i chiao pu 白 虎 通 義 斠 補 , published in his Collected Works, the Liu shên shu hsien shêng i shu 劉 申 叔 先 生 遺 書 (1942).
14. Po hu t'ung i chüeh wên pu ting 白 虎 通 義 闕 文 補 訂 , Po hu t'ung ii wên k'ao 白 虎 通 義 佚 文 考 , both in his Collected Works.
15. Po hu t'ung i ting pên 白 虎 通 義 定 本 , in his Collected Works. He only edited the first five chapters.
16. 王 仁 俊 (1866-1913), Po hu t'ung i yin shu piao白 虎 通 義 引 書 表 , Po hu t'ung i chi chiao 白 虎 通 義 集 校 . See the Ts'ung shu ta tz'ŭ tien 叢 書 大 辭 典 , s.v. Wang Jên-chün. I have not been able to consult these works.
17. 孫 星 華 (Ch'ing Dynasty), Po hu t'ung i, with chiao k'an chi校 勘 記 , in 4 ch. It appeared in the Kuan chung ts'ung shu關 中 叢 書 , which was printed in 1935. See the Ts'ung shu tzŭ mu shu ming so yin叢 書 子 目 書 名 索 引 , p. 1190. I have not been able to see the book.
18. 周 廣 業 , style勤 補, appellation 耕 厓 (1730-1798). His remarks are included in the Preface of Lu Wen-ch'ao's edition.
19. Chuang Shu-tsu's study, the Po hu t'ung i k'ao 白 虎 通 義 考 , is also included in the Preface of Lu's edition.
20. In his Po hu t'ung i k'ao 白 虎 通 義 考 in 2 ch. Published in the Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao,社 說 , Vol. 55, fol. 1a-4a.
21. In his Po hu t'ung i yüan liu k'ao 白 虎 通 義 源 流 考 , first published in the Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao,通 論 , Vol. 74, fol. 1a-2b.
22. In the Prolegomena of his Index to Po hu t'ung (1931). I have not been able to procure a recent study by Chin Tê-chien 金 德 建, in the Ku chi ts'ung k'ao 古 籍 叢 考 , published in 1941. It was announced in the Monumenta Serica, Vol. VIII (1943), p. 338.
23. Hou han shu, 3.8b ff. of the Po-na ed.
25. See infra, p. 146.
26. Lun yü, VII. 3.
27. Ibid., XIX. 6.
29. The expression ch'êng-chih 稱 制 is curious here. Acc. to the Tz'ŭ ha (s.v.) it is usually said of an Empress who as Regent issues Edicts.
30. The discussions of 51 B.C., see infra, p. 92.
31. (651-684) . In the main I have adopted Professor Dubs' rendering of the titles in his translation of the History of the Former Han Dynasty.
32. 儒 林 傳 序 ; Hou han shu, 79 (69 上). 3a.
33. ([:] (should be 虎)通 議 (should be 義) 是).
34. Hou han shu, 40 (30 下). 15a.
35. 天 子 會 諸 儒 講 輪 五 經 作 白 虎 通 德 輪 令 固 撰 集 其 事
36. 卷, literally "scroll", see Charles S. Gardner, Chinese Traditional Historiography (1935), p. 41. Sui shu ching chi chih, 32 (27). 28a of the Po-na ed. The work was compiled under Imperial auspices by Chang-sun Wu-chi 長 孫 無 忌 and others, and presented to the Emperor in 656 A.D. See Têeng Ssŭ -yü and Knight Biggerstaff, An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Chinese Reference Works (1936), p. 9.
37. Chiu t'ang shu ching chi chih, 26. 12a of the Po-na ed. The Chiu t'ang shu was composed by Liu Hsü 劉 昫(887-946) and others.
38. Hsin t'ang shu i wên chih, 47.9a of the Po-na ed. The Hsin t'ang shu was composed by Ou-yang Hsiu 歐 陽 修(1007-1072) and others.
39. 崇 文 總 目, 1. 39a of the Han yün chai ts'ung shu ed. The Ch'ung wên tsung mu is a catalogue of the Imperial collection of the Sung Dynasty in the middle of the eleventh century. It was compiled under Imperial auspices by Wang Yao-ch'ên 王 堯 臣(1001-1056) and others between 1034 and 1038. See Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 13. For p'ien 篇 "subject-section", cf. Gardner, l.c.
40. T'ung chih i wên lüeh, 63. 762 of the Commercial Press ed. The T'ung chih, "an encyclopaedia dealing with government", was compiled by Chêng Ch'iao 鄭 樵(1104-1162). See Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 130.
41. , 4. 5b of Wang Hsien-ch'ien's ed. of 1884. It is a catalogue of two private Sung collections, compiled by Ch'ao Kung-wu 晁 公 武 , compiler's preface dated 1151 (Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 15).
42. , i.e. sections.直 齊 書 錄 解 題 , 3. 24a of the Chiang-su shu-chü ed. of 1883. It is a catalogue of works preserved by the compiler Ch'ên Chên-sun 陳 振 孫, who was an official between 1234 and 1236 (Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 17).
43. Sung shih i wên chih, 202 (155). 25b of the Po-na ed. The Sung shih was compiled by T'o-t'o 脫 脫and others in the Yüan Dynasty (1206-1342).
44. The table of contents gives 44 headings, but the two in chüan 7,三 綱 and 六 紀 , properly constitute only one. There is an earlier edition of the Po hu t'ung, probably of the Northern Sung (960-1126), which Lu Wên-ch'ao calls the "Old Edition with Small Characters" 小 字 舊 本. Originally having ten chüan it was re-divided into two chüan. I have not been able to ascertain what was the title of this edition.
45. See note 5.
47. 朱 翌(1098-1167), 猗 覺 寮 雜 記. Chu I's statement occurs in ch.下 . 20b of the ed. in the Chih pu tsu chai ts'ung shu知 不 足 齊 叢 書 .
48. 撰 集 [其 事] , cf. n. 35.
49. Chuan-chi傳 記 , i.e., the Lün yü, Erh ya, etc.緯 識 , see infra, p. 84.
50. , see infra, p. 100.
51. by 任 啟 運(1670-1744, Hummel, Eminent Chinese, p. 344).
52. See n. 18.
53. See infra, n. 126.
54. 文 選, 55. 19a of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed. The quotation reads: 班 固 功 德 輪 曰 朱 軒 之 使 鳳 舉 於 龍 堆 之 表. See n. 90.
55. Tso chuan chu shu, 2. 25b, the chêng-i 正 義 of 孔 穎 達 (574-648).
56. See n. 19.
57. Chuang's statement is a mistake. The Ch'ung wên tsung mu says: fourteen p'ien, which is merely an error for forty-four p'ien, cf. the opinion of the Imperial Catalogue on p. 9, supra.
58. by 蔡 邕(133-192). It occurs in the Ch'üan shang ku san tai ch'in han san kuo liu ch'ao wên全 上 古 三 代 秦 漢 三 國 六 朝 文 by Yen K'o-chün 嚴 可 均 (1762-1843). The quotation is to be found in section Hou han wên, 71. 6a of the photographic reprint of the 1894 ed.
59. .禮 經 素 字 尚 書 章 句 白 虎 議 奏 合 成 二 百 一 十 卷 Chuang takes the first work to be the 禮 古 經Li ku ching in 56 chüan (mentioned in the Han shu i wên chih, 30. 10a), the second to be one of the chang-chü of Ou-yang, of the Elder Hsia-hou, or of the Younger Hsia-hou, that of Ou-yang containing the greatest number of chüan, viz. 31 (Han shu i wên chih, 30. 6a-b).
60. by (1223-1296); ch. 7, fol. 5a of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed.
61. See n. 55.
62. 袁 宏 (328-376) in his Hou han chi 後 漢 紀 范 曄 五 經 雜 議 石 渠 禮 論 通 典 杜 佑 馬 國 翰 玉 函 山 房 辑 佚 書 五 經 雜 義 劉 向 , 11. 13b of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed. The quotation reads: "In the autumn of the fourth year of [the period] chien-ch'u (79 A.D.) an Imperial Edict [ordered] the convening of Confucian scholars in the Po-hu kuan to discuss the similarities and differences of the Five Classics [, the report of which was] called Po hu t'ung".
63. 祖 珽 (± 550 A.D.) in a letter to the Throne, quoted in the San kuo tien lüeh三 國 典 略 by Ch'iu Yüeh 丘 悅 (± 710 A.D.), which has not been preserved (the Bibliographical Chapter of the Hsin t'ang shu mentions it as a work in 30 chüan, that of the Sung shih as a work in 20 chüan). It is profusely quoted by the T'ai p'ing yü lan. This particular passage occurs in ch. 601, fol. 4b, and reads: "Formerly, the Confucian scholars in the time of the Han gathered (集, Chuang writes 雜) to discuss the Classics and their transmission, and to memorialize [the results] in the Po-hu ko, therefore [the report was] called Po hu t'ung".
64. See n. 20.
65. See n. 63.
66. 范 曄 (398-445), composer of the Hou han shu.
67. Ch'ien han shu, ch. 30, fol. 7a, 12b, 17a, 20a.
68. , ibid., 30. 21b.
69. The Shu, the Li, the Ch'un ch'iu, and the Lun yü. According to Ch'ien Ta-chao (quoted by Wang Hsien-ch'ien in the Ch'ien han shu pu chu, 8. 23a) there should also have been an i-tsou of the Book of Change, and an i-tsou of the Book of Poetry; Pan Ku merely failed to record them. Cf. also Dubs, The History of the Former Han Dynasty (1944), Vol. II, p. 273.
70. in 4 chüan; Sui shu, 石 渠 禮 論 32 (27). 17a.
71. by 杜 佑 (735-812). Ma Kuo-han 馬 國 翰(1794-1857, see Hummel, o.c., p. 557) has edited the Shih ch'ü li lun in his Yü han (shan tang chi i shu) 玉 函 山 房 辑 佚 書 , 28. 31a-37b, making use of the quotations in the T'ung tien and the Sub-commentaries on the Shih and the Li chi.
72. Cf. infra, p. 128ff.
73. The Bibliographical Chapter of the Chiu t'ang shu, 26. 12b, mentions a Wu ching tsa i 五 經 雜 義in 7 chüan by Liu Hsiang 劉 向(79-8 B.C.). Sun I-jang agrees with Wang Ying-lin and Chu I-tsun 朱 彝 尊(1629-1709), who identify this work with the original Wu ching tsa i. Only the addition of the name of Liu Hsiang is a mistake.
74. 五 經 通 義 in 9 chüan; 五 經 要 義 in 5 chüan, both ascribed to Liu Hsiang in the Chiu t'ang shu, l.c. The first work has been re-edited from quotations by Ma Kuo-han (Yü han, 52. 2a-13b).
75. See n. 31. The Annals, however, do not explicitly say so.
76. See n. 35.
77. See n. 33.
78. See n. 62.
79. ; by 劉 勰 (± 470 A.D.), 4. 59 of the Kuo hsüeh chi pên ts'ung shu chien pien ed.
80. As was affirmed by Chou Kuang-Yeh, see supra p. 11.
82. 義, 議 . As proof Sun refers to the entries of the Wu ching tsa i in the Han shu and the Chiu t'ang shu, see n. 68 and 73.
83. See n. 7.
84. See n. 21.
85. Cf. infra, p. 128ff.
86. 史 臣.
88. Liu Shih-p'ei refers to the Biography of Ts'ai Yung, where it is said that "anciently, [Emperor] Hsiao-hsüan convened the Confucians at the Shih-ch'ü [ko], and Emperor [Hsiao-] chang gathered the scholars at the Po-hu [kuan], to combine the Classics and elucidate their meaning 通 經 釋 義" (Hou han shu, 60 (50 下). 19a).
89. Liu is not quite clear, cf. n. 87. Probably he means to say that Pan Ku as one of the historiographers took part in the composing of the Po hu t'ung i. In fact, he thinks that the entry in the Hsin t'ang shu: "Po hu t'ung i by Pan Ku and others" (see n. 38) is correct.
90. Liu does not use the quotation from the Commentary on the Wên hsüan (see n. 54), but that from the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao by Yü Shih-nan 虞 世 南 (558-638), ch. 40, fol. 3a of the 1888 ed. by K'ung Kuang-t'ao 孔 廣 陶, which is somewhat different. The Ch'üan shang ku san tai ch'in han san kuo liu ch'ao wên (see n. 58), section Hou han wên, 25. 6b, again gives a different, and fuller, quotation, which reads: 今 朝 廷 昭 明 海 內 甯 靜 空 令 朱 輪 之 使 風 舉 龍 堆 之 表 "At present the Court is illustrious, and [all] within the seas are in peace; from his rest [the Emperor] commands the Vermilion Carriage Officials, as the wind soars above the plains of the Lung-tui [desert]".
91. 錢 侗 (1778-1815), who with his brother Ch'ien Tung-yüan錢 東 垣 (d. 1824) edited the Ch'ung wên tsung mu, see Hummel, Eminent Chinese, p. 152. The statement is to be found in the Ch'ung wên tsung mu, 1. 39a.
92. The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Bulletin No. 1 (1929), p. 165 ff.
93. Karlgren, o.c., p. 170.
94. See n. 22.
95. , i.e. the Apocryphal Books of Music, cf. infra, p. 103.
96. Ch. , Ch'ien han shu, ch. 22, fol. 8a-9a.
97. From a quotation in the Ch'u hsüeh chi 初 學 記(by Hsü Chien 徐 堅(659-729) and others), 15. 2b of the Ku hsiang chai hsiu chên shih chung ed. It is also quoted, with a few differences, in K'ung Ying-ta's Sub-commentary on the Li chi (ch. 樂 記, 大 章 章 之 也 咸 池 備 矣 韶 繼 也 夏 大 也: 樂 記, Li chi chu shu, 38. 3b). Hung thinks that by the Yüeh wei is meant the Chi yao chia; Ma Kuo-han, however, includes the passage in the Tung shêng i (Yü han, 54.46a).
98. In the translation par. 44 d-m.
99. ; ch. , Li chi chu shu, 38. 2b; Couvreur, II. 68; Legge, II. 106.
100. ; Ch'ien han shu, ch. 禮 樂 志, 22. 9a-b.
101. Ch'u hsüeh chi, l.c.; Ma Kuo-han, l.c. (with some deviations).
104. by 應 劭(end 2nd cent. A.D.). The passage on the names of the music and their meaning occurs in ch. 6, fol. 1a of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed.
105. 宋 均
106. 叔 庠 ; see his Biography in the Hou han shu, 41 (31). 19a ff.
107. This argumentation is really incredible; it is common knowledge that Chinese scholars were mostly active officials at the same time. Besides, we can read in Sung Chün's Biography l.c., that in his youth he was fond of the study of the Classics, and that every 'week-end' he received instruction from a po-shih, so that he became well-versed in the Book of Poetry, the Book of Rites, and in argumentation; when he was chief of the district of Chên-yang, he founded schools to combat the superstitious beliefs of the people. Yet Hung is undoubtedly right in denying Sung Chün the authorship of the wei Commentaries. Hui Tung 惠 棟(1697-1758, see Hummel, o.c., p. 357) thinks that 宋 均 is a mistake for Tsung Chün 宗 均 (Hou han shu pu chu, 10. 44a of the Kuangya ed., quoted by Hung). The Fêng su t'ung i (2. 17b) relates a story of Sung Chün driving tigers away; Lu Wên-ch'ao in his Text-critical Notes on the Fêng sut'ung (Pao ching t'ang ts'ung shu, 6a) also remarks that Sung is a mistake for Tsung. The Bibliographical Chapter of the Sui shu, chapter on the Apocryphal Books (32 (27). 29b), mentions a Shih wei 詩 緯 in 18 chüan, with a Commentary by Sung Chün, a po-shih of the Wei [Dynasty] (220-265 A.D.). In his edition of the Apocryphal Books Ma Kuo-han also indicates the commentator as Sung Chün of the Wei, while in the Shui ching chu水 經 注 by Li Tao-yüan 酈 道 元(d. 527 A.D.) the Yüeh wei is quoted, followed by the statement 宋 忠 曰(34. 4a of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed.). The Classified Catalogueof Chinese Books of the Harvard Yenching Institute, Section Classics (1938), mentions as the commentator of the wei Sung Chün, but where he is rightly assigned to the Wei [Dynasty], his style is wrongly given as Shu-hsiang (see e.g. p. 102, Shih wei). On the other hand Sung Chün mentioned as his 'former Master' 先 師(cf. for the expression R. des Rotours, Le traitè des examens, 1932, p. 169, n. 4) Chêng Ssŭ -nung 鄭 司 農(T'ang hui yao, 77. 9a of the Chiang-su ed. of 1884, quoted also in the Pai ching t'ang ts'ung shu ed. of the Liu i lun 六 藝 論, fol. 4b). Chêng Ssŭ -nung was the same as Chêng Chung 鄭 眾, a great Classical scholar who died in 83 A.D. (cf. Woo Kang, Les trois thèoriespolitiques du Tch'ouen ts'ieou, p. 3, 115, 196). Thus Sung Chün, whose style was Shu-hsiang, whose surname was really Tsung, and who died in 76 A.D., may have received his tuition from Chêng Ssŭ -nung, but it is more probable that it refers to Sung Chün, who was really Sung Chung, and lived in the second century A.D., and here acknowledged his indebtedness to a Master he did not know personally.
108. 宋 衷 . Checking the references in Hung's Index to the Titles Quotedin the Commentary on Wen Hsüan (Index Series, No 26, 1935), I found that there are 66 places, where the name of Sung Chün is given, 15 places with the name of Sung Chung, one with the name of Sung Yüeh 宋 約, and one without name.
109. 宋 仲 子 . Chung-tzŭ was his style according to the Ching tien shihwên by Lu Tê-ming (556-627), Preface, 1. 11b of the Ssŭ pu ts'ung k'an ed.
110. 宋 忠. The San kuo chih, Su shu 蜀 書, Biography of Hsü Ching 許 靖, mentions Sung Chung-tzŭ , whom P'ei Sung-chih 裴 松 之(372-451) in his Commentary identifies as Sung Chung 宋 忠(38 (8). 4b-5a of the Po-na ed.).
111. Cf. T'ang Yung-t'ung's article on Wang Pi's New Interpretation of the Iching and Lun-yü, translated by Walter Liebenthal (Harvard Journal of AsiaticStudies, Vol. 10 (1947), p. 129-132).
114. 三 年 一 禘 . This passage does not occur in the Yüan ta-tê edition, neither in Lu Wên-ch'ao's, but is added by Ch'en Li in his edition (12. 6b), from a quotation in the Chiu t'ang shu, ch. Li i chih 禮 儀 志. Liu Shih-p'ei (Pohu t'ung i chüeh wên pu ting, first published in the Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao, Vol. 75, fol. 2b) thinks that the quotation is wrong and should read: "[Every] three years a hsia-sacrifice 祫is offered, [every] five years a ti-sacrifice". Hung, however, confirms Ch'ên Li.
116. Ch. (9. 3b).
117. 張 純 傳 , 35 (25).3b.
118. , an Apocryphal Book of Rites. In Lu Wên-ch'ao's ed. the words 禮 記 [ 曰 ] have been altered into 禮 說 [ 曰 ]. See the translation par. 139a.
119. Quoted, with the foregoing statement of the Han wên chia, in the Sub-commentary on the Li chi, ch. Ch'ü li上(Li chi chu shu, 1.18a), likewise in the Sub-commentary on the Shih, Ode 239 (Mao shih chu shu, 23. 55a), and in the Sub-commentary on the Kung yang chuan, Chuang 1 (Kung yang chu shu, 6. 7a), with slight differences.
120. San kuo chih, Wei shu , 1. 35b-36b. For Ts'ao Ts'ao 曹 操 see Giles' Chinese Biographical Dictionary (1898), no. 2013. See also Stefan Balàzs, Ts'ao Ts'ao, in Monumenta Serica Vol. II, p. 410 ff. and D. von den Steinen, Poems of Ts'ao Ts'ao, ibid., Vol. IV, p. 125 ff.
121. See par. 139b of the translation. I have followed, here as well as there, Lu Wên-ch'ao's reading, which is the same as Hung's, except that Hung follows the quotation from the Po hu t'ung in the Sub-commentary on the Ku liang chuan, Chuang 1 (Ku liang chu shu, 5. 5a) by reading 不 順 "the disobedient" instead of "the unprincipled" 不 義 .
122. This passage, occurring in the Yüan ta-tê ed., has been replaced by Lu Wên-ch'ao by the literal text of Sung Chung's Commentary as it is quoted in the Sub-commentary on the Li chi, see n. 119. Ch'ên Li has restored the original reading of the Yüan ta-tê ed.
123. 許 慎 (30-124), author a.o. of the Shuo wên 說 文 , and the Wuching i i 五 經 異 義 .
124. (79-166). He wrote many Commentaries on the Classics, making use of the Old Text versions, for which see infra, p. 137ff.
125. For Ts'ai Yung see n. 58. Chêng Hsüan 鄭 玄(127-200) was Ma Jung's pupil, and one of the most prolific of commentators.
126. 謬 襲 , see ch. 禮 志of the 南 齊 書, 9 (1). 5a of the Po-na ed. The quotation reads: "The Po hu t'ung says: In their sacrifice to Heaven the Three Kings all used the first month of the Hsia [calendar]; they did so because the first month of the Hsia [calendar, viz. the first month of spring] corresponds with the number of Heaven". It is missing in the Yüan ta-tê ed., but Lu Wên-ch'ao, in his "Lacunae in the Text of the Po hu t'ung", has inserted an almost similar passage in ch. 郊 祀, quoting from the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao.
127. See his Commentary on the San kuo chih, Wei shu, Biography of Liu Shao 劉 劭, 21. 21b.
128. This is my non-committal statement of the fact which Hung has pointed out and which I do not want to question: Hung himself says that the cases of the Po hu t'ung copying from Sung Chung are very numerous (p. VI of his Prolegomena to the Index). See, however, infra p. 50.
129. 最 圓 整 周 密 , p. IV of his Prolegomena.
130. Cf. supra, p. 21.
131. The Yüeh wei hsieh t'u chêng 樂 緯 葉 圖 徽, in the Yü han, 54. 53a-b.
132. The words between round brackets form the commented text of the Yüehwei.
133. 春 秋 緯 元 命 苞 , in the Yü han, 57. 15a-b.
134. 駢 讀 為 頻 頻 猶 并 也 .
135. Li chi chu shu, 38. 2b; cf. n. 99.
136. Ch. , Chou li chu shu, 大 司 樂 22. 3b.
137. Ch. 祭 法(Li chi chu shu, 46. 17a; Couvreur, II. 269), namely the explanations of the names of the music of Yao, Huang-ti, T'ang, Wu-wang.
138. Namely the explanations of the names of the music of Shun and Yü. See supra, n. 132.
139. Ch. 32 (27). 30b.
140. T'ang Yung-t'ung, o.c., p. 130.
141. Except perhaps for the purpose of contradicting each other. As a matter of fact, Sung Chung himself says that he has quoted Chêng Hsüan's Liu i lun (T'ang hui yao, 77. 9a, Pai ching t'ang ts'ung shu ed. of the Liu i lun, p. 4b), and several times in his Commentaries on the Apocrypha he says: "Chêng Hsüan says . . . ". (see Yü han, 54. 23a, 44a, 60a; 58. 26a, 32b).
142. Ch. Rites and Music, see par. 51c of the translation.
143. Ch'ien han shu, ch. 律 歷 志 , 21 .上 3b.
144. This was already pointed out by Liu Shih-p'ei in his Po hu t'ung i yüanliu k'ao (Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao, Vol. 74, fol. 2b).
145. Of course I do not mean to say that Pan Ku wrote the Han shu in his own, personal style, whereas he compiled the Po hu t'ung in an indifferent, objective fashion. Both works are 'compilations'.
146. Fêng su t'ung i, 6. 2b-3a.
147. 劉 歆 鍾 律 書 . The work has since long been lost.
148. In the edition of the Chung lü shu by Huang Shih 黃 奭(Han hsüeht'ang ts'ung shu) the passage is not included.
149. See Une famille d'historiens et son oeuvre, by Mlle Lo Tchen-ying (1931), p. 78.
150. See the Index du Fong sou t'ong yi, prepared by the Centre franco-chinois d'ètudes Sinologiques (1943), p. 77. Not only is the Han shu quoted by name, but in two places also by its chapters 郊 祀 志 and 古 今 人 表.
151. In fact, Pan Ku, for his Essay on Rites and Music, draws chiefly on the writings of four men, among them Liu Hsiang (Gardner, Chinese TraditionalHistoriography, p. 36, n. 39).
152. See supra, pp. 27-28.
153. Cf. p. 22 and n. 129.
154. Cf. p. 29.
155. See the Biography of Wang Mang, in the Ch'ien han shu, 99 上. 21a-22a.
156. , 韓 嬰, 韓 詩 外 傳 , ch. 8, fol. 6b of the Ku ching chieh huihan ed.
157. , 伏 勝 , 尚 書 大 傳, ch. l, fol. 21a and ch. 3, fol. 10a of the Kuching chieh hui han ed. For the work see Woo Kang, Les trois thèories politiquesdu Tch'ouen ts'ieou (1932), p. 230.
158. Ho Hsiu 何 休(129-182) in his Commentary on the Kung yang chuan, Chuang 1, has, however, restricted himself to an enumeration of the Nine Distinctions, quoted from the Li (wei han wên chia), and to the brief remark "they are all [conferred] to stimulate the capable and to support the incapable" (Kungyang chu shu, 6. 6b).
159. See p. 28.
160. See p. 25.
161. Cf. n. 122.
162. See p. 25.
163. His Prolegomena to the Index, p. VI.
164. See n. 114.
165. 慧 琳 – 切 經 音 義 , - , in the Taishō Tripitaka, Vol. 54, p. 912. Hui-lin wrote this work towards the end of the chien-chung period (780-783), according to its Preface (o.c., p. 311).
166. Ch. 90, fol. 4a-5a.
167. The compiler of the Pei t'ang shu ch'ao, see n. 90.
168. Ch. 26.(7). 11b.
169. 魯 禮 禘 祫 注 . I do not know what is meant by this Commentary. There is a Lu li ti hsia i 義 by Chêng Hsüan, re-edited from fragments by several scholars. The edition by Ma Kuo-han (Yü han, ch. 28, fol. 39a-43b) is called Lu li ti hsia chih志 . I think that Commentary chu 注is simply an error for義 i or chih 志.
170. For the Wu ching t'ung i see n. 74, for Ho Hsiu n. 158. For the Ch i of Ho Hsün 賀 循(260-319), i.e. his Expositions on the Sacrifices, see his Biography in the Chin shu, 68 (38). 11a ff. of the Po-na ed., where, however, the question of the ti- and hsia-sacrifices is not dealt with. Ho Hsün, an authority on ritual, was made Grand Master of Ceremonies t'ai-ch'ang太 常 in 317 A.D. Fragments of his works have been edited in the Yü han, ch. 23, fol. 12a-25a.
171. Ch'ên Li in his Po hu t'ung shu chêng, 12. 6b. Ch'ên Shou-ch'i 陳 壽 褀(1771-1834) in his Wu ching ii shu chêng 五 經 異 義 疏 證 (Huangch'ing ching chieh, 1248, 40a-41a).
172. This is Ch'ên Shou-ch'i's interpretation of Hsü Shên's obscure wording.
173. The Tso chuan and the Chou li belong to the so-called Old Texts of the Classics.
174. Kung yang chu shu, 13, 8b.
175. I.e., the Kung-yang School.
176. See infra, p. 70.
177. See infra, p. 67.
178. See p. 40.
179. Rightly called 'très étudiée' by Pelliot in a review of the Index (T'oungPao, Vol. 28, 1931, p. 513).
180. Both of the end of the Later Han, but we must not forget that we only assume that these texts provide safe data. As a matter of fact they are as problematic as the Po hu t'ung. But we could not work if everything is questioned; we must begin with some assumption, however provisionnally.
181. To be strictly fair I should say: 1. that Hung has limited himself to giving two instances of parallel passages in the Po hu t'ung and in Sung Chung's Commentary, because it would not do for him to give all, nor is it necessary; 2. that he supposes the Po hu t'ung to be a concoction of material from the discussions plus Commentaries on the Classics and Aprocrypha. Nevertheless his conclusion is that the Po hu t'ung may be regarded as a faithful representation of the beliefs of a certain period, namely the end of the Later Han and the beginning of the Wei, i.e., from that time on the Po hu t'ung is homogeneous and reliable.
182. The Authenticity of Ancient Chinese Texts, p. 171.
183. , Pao ching t'ang ts'ung shu ed.
184. , , in the Huang shih i shu k'ao.
185. The Li chi has 行 'lane', in st. of 井 'well'.
186. 元 命 苞 , 感 精 符, 援 神 契, 演 孔 圖, 含 文 嘉. I have used Ma Kuo-han's ed. in the Yü han shan jang chi i shu.
187. Cf. n. 128.
188. Namely those by Ma Kuo-han and Huang shih in the Yü han shan fang chi i shu and the Huang shih i shu k'ao. I have not been able to consult the other editions of the Apocrypha, for which see infra, p. 106.
191. cf. Chou li chu shu,大 師 , 23.16a, where the Six Songs liu-i 六 義 are called liu-shih 六 詩(Biot II, p. 50: les six sortes de chants notès).
192. Ch. 6, fol. 3a-b.
193. Yin 5, Kung yang chu shu, 3.6a.
194. See supra, p. 22.
195. Ch. 8, fol. 13a; cf. n. 156.
196. 匹 . Li chi chu shu, 5. 28b.
197. 鶩 . Chou li chu shu 大 宗 伯, 18.27a.
198. I think p'i should be taken in the usual sense of 'mate', 'equal', hence the Ch'ü li passage should be translated: the common man offers a present, equal to [his capacities].
199. 說 者 以 匹 為 鶩.
200. Cf. Woo Kang, o.c., p. 197.
201. Kung yang chu shu, 13.22b.
202. Kung yang chu shu, Chuang 24, 8.13b.
203. Ibid., Yin 3, 2.8a.
204. Ibid., Huan 9, 5.7a.
205. 象 雷 震 百 里 所 潤 (雲 雨) 同 .
206. 象 雷 震 百 里.
207. 象 雷 震 百 里 所 聞 同.
208. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was made a po-shih in the period yung-hui (650-656), see the Chung kuo jên ming ta tz'ŭ tien, p. 1328.
209. 李 世 民 .
211. See the note to my translation of the passage. The occurrence in a text of a word for a tabooed name does not, in itself, mean that the text dates from the period in which the taboo was observed. The rule is very loose (see Ch'ên Yüan's Shih hui chü li, 陳 垣 , 史 諱 舉 例 , in the Yen ching hsüeh pao, 1928, p. 591). Besides the word 世 the Po hu t'ung avoids the tabooed words 徽, writing (par. 120a)證, and 啟, writing 開(par. 86), the former occurring in the name of Sung Jên-tsung (1023-1064), acc. to Lu Wên-ch'ao, 2 下11b; the later in the name of Han Ching-ti (156-141 B.C.), Lu, 2 上. 21b.
212. Gardner, o.c., p. 25, who says that "interpolation in the transmission of Chinese texts . . . . . . . is always to be suspected" gives an enumeration of the causes which may have effected it.
213. Prolegomena, p. x.
214. 修 文 殿 御 覽 T'oung Pao, Vol. XXVIII, 1931, p. 514.
215. In an article 所 謂 修 文 殿 御 覽 者, in the Yen ching hsüeh pao, 1932, p. 2499-2558.
216. 華 林 遍 略 .
217. The Tun-huang fragment, which is subjected to an analysis in Hung's article, does not contain any quotation from it.
218. Liu Shih-p'ei, on the contrary, says that the edition used by the T'ai p'ing yüi lan was unreliable (Kuo ts'ui hsüeh pao, Vol. 72.2a).
219. Cf. n. 126.
220. Lun yü i shu.
221. 孔 穎 達, 左 傳 正 義 , 禮 記 正 義, 毛 詩 正 義, all incorporated in the 十 三 经 注 疏Shih san ching chu shu.
222. Cf. n. 204. The 周 禮 疏and 儀 禮 疏 the are also edited in the Shih san ching chu shu.
223. 揚 士 勛, 穀 梁 疏, in the Shih san ching chu shu. Yang Shih-hsün lived in the T'ang, his exact dates are unknown.
224. 邢 昺 , 爾 雅 疏 , in the Shih san ching chu shu.
225. 臧 壽 , Sung shu, 55 (15). 4b of the Po-na ed.
226. 劉 昭 , 續 漢 志 注 .
227. by .
228. 廣 韻 , by 陸 法 言. See Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 176.
229. 李 賢 (章 懷 太 子 ), 後 漢 書 注 .
230. 李 善 , 文 選 注 . See Têng Ssŭ -yü, o.c., p. 250.
231. 劉 呴 , 舊 唐 書 .
232. 酈 道 元, 水 經 注.
233. See supra, n. 165.
234. 稽 瑞 by 劉 賡.
235. Of course it is possible that separate, fuller editions were lost after they had been used by the Hua lin p'ien lüeh, i.e. after 516 A.D., and that quotations from the Po hu t'ung by later scholars were either quotations from the lei-shu, or from editions made up of quotations from these lei-shu. This is, however, unlikely. Lu Wën-ch'ao, on whom I have relied, carefully mentions the sources from which he took the quotations to supply the lacunae; when a quotation occurs in several works, he enumerates all these works, so that the fact of his referring to one work only, e.g. Hsing Ping's Sub-commentary on the Erh ya (see Section 闕 文, fol. 8a in his ed.) may be seen as a proof that the particular quotation is only to be found in that text, and that this text had a separate edition of the Po hu t'ung at its disposal.