University of Virginia Library

INTRODUCTION[1]

The text here translated is a heterogeneous collection of ethical,
ritual, and anecdotal materials not easily characterized. Its title,
"Exoteric commentary on the Han school text of the Classic of
Songs," claims a relationship with one of the basic works of the
Confucian canon that on examination turns out to be tenuous at
best. The place of the Han shih wai chuan in Han dynasty Confucian
scholarship can be clarified only by briefly describing the
activities of the classical schools of the time.

The Ch`in dynasty (B. C. 221-206) had placed a ban on the
private study of the books particularly venerated by the Confucian
school. During the disorders and civil war following the
downfall of the Ch`in some of these classics disappeared entirely
and had to be recovered wholely or in part from the memories of
aged scholars. The Shih ching (Classic of Songs) was one so
recovered, and in the second century B. C. it existed in four
recensions, each known by the name of either the founder of a
school of interpretation of the text or by the name of the locality
of which the founder was a native. Only the text of the Mao
school survives to the present, but the four texts of the Shih ching
were probably essentially the same; the schools owed their identity
to their divergent interpretations of the text. Of the nearly thirty
exegetical works mentioned in the catalogs and histories as belonging
to the four schools during the Han dynasty, there survive
only two of the Mao school, and the Han shih wai chuan, attributed
to Han Ying (fl. B. C. 150) founder of the Han school.
There is no reason to doubt the attribution, but, as it will appear,

the HSWC is more an anthology than an original composition,
and it certainly is not primarily a work of exegesis on the Shih
ching. It was a textbook used by Han Ying's school, not to present
his interpretations of the Classic (other works performed
that function) but to demonstrate the practical use of the Classic:
a tag to clinch an argument, a stanza to sum up a philosophical
principle, a punning line to delight or confuse. Quotations from
the Shih ching had been so used in pre-Han times and continued
in use in Han writings. Han Ying provided his disciples with a
convenient handbook from which they could study to perfect
their technique of the apt quotation.

If my theory of the purpose and use of Han Ying's sole surviving
work is correct, it explains though it does not entirely
resolve, the difficulty of properly classifying it. Usually it is listed
with the commentaries on the Shih ching, for the reason suggested
with some annoyance by the Ssŭ-k`u editors,[2] "If you do not put
it with the works on the Shih, there is no other place for it." However,
a more appropriate category would be that catchall of the
Chinese bibliographer, the Section of Philosophical Writings ([OMITTED]
[OMITTED]), where one finds the similar collections Shuo yüan and Hsin
hsü. One would hesitate to classify the HSWC and its congeners
as primarily literary works, though they are of interest as representing
an early phase of the development of the anecdote and
story form in the literary language. It is in them that the anecdote
begins to appear, occasionally at least, as a story for its own sake,
not as in the pre-Han philosophers solely to illustrate a point of
doctrine, nor as in the romanticized histories (Kuo yü, Chan-kuo
ts`ê) as an episode in a historical context intended to account
for the motives of a principal actor. By sometimes calling attention
to anachronisms and contradictory versions, I may seem to
be implying that I attribute to these stories a historical character,
to the ones at least where no obvious contradiction occurs. In fact,
I regard all these anecdotes as unhistorical, though I do not deny
the possibility that many may be based on actual events and deal
with historical persons. It is rather that such stories were preserved

not as a record of events, but as themes illustrative of
ritually prescribed conduct. As such they could be applied to any
person, historical or fictional, whose activity fitted a given role.

The materials for the HSWC were derived for the most part
from pre-Han dynasty sources, sometimes rewritten, more often
reproduced without significant change. Only a part of the HSWC
is anecdotal; rather more than half is made up of philosophical
essays plagiarized with a fine indifference to doctrinal consistency
from the writings of several different schools. As Hsün-tzŭ is the
favored source, the book takes on a character strongly reminiscent
of the collection Hsün-tzŭ, where the formula "the Ode says"
([OMITTED]) is of common occurrence. As a whole the HSWC shows
some similarity to the more miscellaneous chapters of the Li chi,
and to the Ta-Tai li-chi; but the most closely related works are
Shuo yüan, Hsin hsü, and Lieh-nü-chuan, in all three of which
occur passages borrowed directly from HSWC. They differ chiefly
in having their contents classified in chapters devoted to special
topics, such classification being Liu Hsiang's contribution to the
development of the form.

Technical Terms

In a text of this sort technical terms offer a special problem.
Technical words, even within the limits of usage of a single school
at a given period, seldom have a single equivalent translation
word. The HSWC is as heterogeneous as its sources, and it is too
much to expect to find terms like jên [OMITTED], li [OMITTED], i [OMITTED] used with any
consistency. Originally I had planned to leave them untranslated.
However, some of them occur in contexts where they may adequately
be translated by an English word—li, for example, in
1/12 clearly is "etiquette, courtesy"—and it seems misleading not
to translate such occurrences, even though translation involves
the sacrifice of consistency. Hence the word [OMITTED] will be found as
"etiquette," "ritual," "rites"—in each case with the romanized
(li) in parentheses after the translation—and also simply as "li."
Jên [OMITTED] is used with connotations so vague as to defy English
rendering, even the most inconsistent, though occasionally I have
written "the humane (jên) man," in preference to the awkward

circumlocution "the man endowed with jên." The word i [OMITTED]
used of behavior means the act appropriate to the situation and
the individual involved; when it is used to denote an abstract
virtue, I have left it untranslated. Other terms, such as hsiao
[OMITTED] "filial piety," hsin [OMITTED] "trustworthiness," chung [OMITTED] "loyalty,"
lien [OMITTED] "integrity" (adj. "scrupulous") are used with a narrower
range of meanings that correspond to those of their single English
equivalents. Wang [OMITTED], except as a title, is used in contrast with
pa [OMITTED] "hegemon," and I have translated as "the True King."
The terms for Confucian adepts are awkward to handle. I use
"saint" for shêng [OMITTED], "sage" for hsien [OMITTED] (but "worthy" in
contrast to [OMITTED]), "superior man" for chün-tzŭ [OMITTED], and "gentleman"
for shih [OMITTED], except where an emphasis on military virtues
makes the archaic value "soldier" more appropriate, or where the
context calls for "official."

In its technical use, the word tao [OMITTED] seems to mean the "True
Way," "the Kingly Way" to Han Confucians. It occurs with a
metaphysical Taoist use a few times in the text, as in 1/23. Where
it is used other than technically, I have translated it variously to
fit the context. Yin and yang are too well established to require
a note. Anatomical and medical terms occur in 3/9 and 10/9; they
are dealt with in the notes to those sections. Ch`i [OMITTED] seldom
occurs simply as "breath," and out of ignorance of its true force
I have usually left it untranslated. Hsüeh [OMITTED] likewise carries more
weight than the English "blood." I have translated tê [OMITTED] sometimes
in accordance with Waley's note on the use of the word in
The Analects of Confucius, p. 33, and sometimes as "virtue"
when the context has demanded a vaguer word. It must be remembered
that by Han times such words had already a long
history and were seldom used in a strictly technical or etymological
sense.

An expression that occurs very frequently in HSWC is [OMITTED].
It cannot be taken as referring to HSWC itself in the way [OMITTED]
is sometimes used to introduce a passage in that work, since
HSWC is not a "commentary" following a line of the Shih;
instead the quotation normally follows the passage which illustrates
it. Nor can it be referred to a single specific source. In

1/5, 2/6, 3/5, 22, 32, 7/23, and 10/4, the quotation is from Hsün-tzŭ
(where [OMITTED] is lacking), in 9/24 it is from Han-fei tzŭ; 7/9
is from either YTCC or Han-fei tzŭ; 3/27 is from LSCC. The
great majority of occurrences introduce no identifiable quotation,
though at least one half are again reproduced in Hsin hsü, SY,
or other later compilations, with or without the introductory
[OMITTED]. A study of the passages so introduced for which a source
cannot be found in the extant early literature discloses three
types: (1) A general disquisition on moral conduct, such as 1/20,
2/30, 4/24, 7/19. These are very similar to 2/6, where Hsün-tzŭ
seems to be the source, and may well be quotations from philosophical
works now lost. (2) An aphorism (3/11, 5/15, 20, 7/5).
These passages are either short or the force of the [OMITTED] may be
restricted to the opening sentence. Of the same sort are those
occurrences of the expression within a given paragraph, as 1/1.
(3) A story or anecdote that is common to a number of pre-Han
works (2/1, 3/10, 4/7, 7/13, 15). I believe the basic and most
general rendering of the phrase would be "There is a tradition
that . . . ." In some cases a written text is being referred to; but
there would be no reason always to expect to find the source in
a text, even if all the texts to which a Han writer had access were
still available. Oral tradition undoubtedly played an important
part in the teachings of the schools attached to the Classics, and
any saying or dictum an author considered worth emphasizing
might rate a "tradition has it." In translating the expression I
have varied the English phraseology to fit the line or passage
introduced by it.

History of the Text and Editions

The Han shu "Essay on Literature"[3] lists a HSWC in six
chüan and a Han-shih nei-chuan in four chüan. The Sui shu
"Essay"[4] has only the HSWC in ten chüan; likewise the "Essays"
in the T`ang shu,[5] Hsin T`ang-shu,[6] and Sung shih.[7] That

the ten-chüan text is essentially a combination of the HSWC and
the Han-shih nei-chuan listed in the Han shu is a hypothesis
proposed by Yang Shu-ta[8] and further developed in my article
"The Han-shih wai-chuan and the San chia shih." This amalgamation
must be supposed to have occurred during the biggest
lacuna in the record of the text's history: between the Han shu
entry, valid for the first century A.D. and the Sui shu entry, based
on sixth century catalogues. The Han school of the Shih was no
longer active after the third century,[9] but a copy of the Han shih
was still known to the compilers of the Sui shu "Essay," which
lists numerous other works of the school, now all lost.[10]

In the absence of contemporary Han citations from the HSWC
by name, there is no certainty that our ten-chüan edition is at
all the same work. On the other hand, the numerous parallels
in Hsin hsü, SY and LNC, some of them demonstrably filiated
with the HSWC version, furnish good grounds for assuming that
a part at least of the present text represents the Han dynasty
HSWC. Furthermore there is no apparent motive for a hypothetical
forger to compile an obscure work belonging to a defunct
school of classical exegesis when the resulting book provides no
excuse for a new departure in either exegesis or doctrine. The case
for the Han-shih nei-chuan is more tenuous. None of the three
lines quoted in Po-hu-t`ung as from Han-shih nei-chuan occurs in
the present text, and the question must be dealt with chiefly
from internal evidence. I refer again to my earlier article for the
reasons which make it likely that we now possess a fragmentary
text of Han-shih nei-chuan imbedded in the present HSWC.

There are many obviously defective passages in the text of
HSWC which is here translated. Not all of these imperfections
can be laid to the hypothetical pre-T`ang editor who established
the ten-chüan text. There are over two hundred citations of
HSWC in the T`ang encyclopedias and collections of excerpts,[11]

and in the commentators on the Classics, Histories, and other
works,[12] of which nearly ten per cent are not to be found in the
present text. There was apparently a certain amount of doubt in
the minds of some of those commentators as to just what text
they were quoting; Chia Kung-yen [OMITTED] thrice attributes a
line to HSWC in his commentary on I li,[13] only to repeat it in
his commentary on Chou li[14] as from the Han shih shuo. A Han
shih chuan is cited four times;[15] none of the lines cited appears
in the present text. Chang Shou-chieh [OMITTED] quotes seven times
from HSWC;[16] only three of his quotations are in our text, and
of them one was used by Hsü Kuang [OMITTED] in an earlier passage.[17]
Of four quotations by Ssŭ-ma Chên [OMITTED], one is no longer in
the HSWC.[18] Li Shan provides the best testimony that one T`ang
text at least was essentially the same as the one we have, since
only nine[19] of his 115 citations are missing, and of them one[20] is a
lexical gloss unlike anything in our text (I suspect they are from
one of the other works of the school), whereas the only long
quotation turns up twice in the same commentary as being from
Han-shih nei-chuan.[21] It is worth pointing out also that in his
commentary three passages from HSWC are introduced by [OMITTED]
[OMITTED].[22]

The Sung bibliographers[23] knew the HSWC, and it is quoted
157 times by the TPYL, of which twenty-three quotations are not
in the present text.

The oldest published text is the (?) Sung edition reprinted by
Mao Chin [OMITTED] (1599-1659),[24] an edition he believes to be the
same as that described by Hung Mai [OMITTED] (1123-1202), who
says,[25] "During the Ch`ing-li [OMITTED] period (1041-1048) the Chung-chiang
tso-chien-chu-pu [OMITTED] Li Yung-chang [OMITTED][26]
edited [the HSWC] and ordered workmen to cut [blocks for its
publication] in Hang[-chou]. There is also a postface which says,
`Over 3,000 characters have been rectified by Minister Wên.'[27]
I have a [copy of] this book in my house." Three thousand emendations
in a text of approximately 50,000 words—say six per cent
—is admittedly high. That there are nothing like so many discrepancies
between Mao's text and the other available editions[28]
may mean that they too are derived from the one published by
Li Yung-chang. No modern catalog lists a Sung edition, and the
only Yüan edition seems to be the one from which Ch`ü Chung-jung
[OMITTED] (1769-1842) made notes.[29]

By T`ang times isolated passages in the HSWC had attracted
the attention of commentators on early philosophical and historical
texts.[30] Wang Ying-lin [OMITTED] deals incidentally with a

few lines,[31] but it was not until early in the Ch`ing dynasty that
a critical edition of HSWC was published with a full-dress commentary.
Two Ch`ing scholars brought out their HSWC commentaries
in successive years, each apparently unaware that the
other was engaged in the same task. The earlier of the two, by
Chao Huai-yü (1747-1823),[32] bears a preface dated the fifth
moon, 1790, and was printed by the author in his own establishment,
the I-yu-shêng-chai [OMITTED].[33] He mentioned in his collation
notes eight editions which he made use of, including a Yüan
edition (cited once);[34] in addition he gleaned many citations
from the encyclopedias and the T`ang commentators. On the
basis of such citations and parallel passages in pre-Han and Han
works he did not hesitate to make extensive emendations in the
HSWC text. It is easy to share Liu Shih-p`ei's enthusiasm for
the result,[35] as many difficult passages are simplified by his changes
or additions; however, it is questionable how much reliance can
be put on the encyclopedias and commentators, given their predilection
for abridgment and paraphrase.

Chou T`ing-ts`ai, whose HSWC chiao-chu appeared with a
preface dated the sixth moon, 1791, using essentially the same
materials, produced a more conservative text. Chou usually
limited himself to suggesting in his notes emendations he thought
desirable. It is interesting that the two scholars, working independently,
are more frequently than not in agreement about
doubtful points. It is not surprising, however, that Wu T`ang in
bringing out a combined edition of the two commentaries, reproduced
Chou's text, relegating Chao's variants to the notes.[36]

Under the ambitious title of HSWC su-chêng Ch`ên Shih-k`o
published in 1818 an edition (provenance not specified) of the
HSWC in which are included most of the parallel passages,
whether earlier or later than Han Ying. These are printed in full
after each paragraph of HSWC. The usefulness of this compilation
is somewhat impaired by the fact that his HSWC text is defective,
while the parallels contain many misprints. Despite the title, no
commentary is supplied. This work has been the point of departure
for locating most of the parallels cited in the notes to my
translation; it is not there acknowledged, as the same parallels
are nearly always indicated in Chou, CHy, or Chao; it was simply
easier to locate them from a page of text than from a single line
or phrase.

In the appended bibliography will be found listed the notes by
Sun I-jang and Yü Yüeh on the HSWC. They are useful, but
deal with only a dozen or so passages. So far the best single
work devoted exclusively to the HSWC is Chao's Shan-i's HSWC
pu-chêng, to which I am greatly indebted, especially for the rich
documentation which it brings together for the consideration of
doubtful passages. Sources are given with reasonably exact references
(not, of course, page references), and citations are usually
in full.

The Kuan-hai-t`ang shu mu [OMITTED] 1.6b lists a MS. HSWC
k`ao [OMITTED] in ten chüan by Okamoto Hōkō [OMITTED], with appendix
[OMITTED] and collation notes [OMITTED], each 1 vol. This work is also mentioned
by Chao, Introduction, p. 3, as a work he was unable to
get; I have never seen a copy.

A new edition of HSWC has been prepared by Professor Hsü
Wei-yü [OMITTED] of National Tsing Hua University, but the MS.
still awaits publication. I regret not having had the use of it in
preparing my translation, though Professor Hsü kindly offered
to put at my disposal his materials, unfortunately just before my
departure from Peiping.