University of Virginia Library

The probable source of a significant imperial conversation

One further circumstance merits notice from a textual standpoint—
the conversation between Emperor Hsüan and his son reported in 9: 1b.
It does not seem to be in Pan Ku's manner at all and may well have been
one of Pan Piao's "different reports," recounted to him by a relative—
his relatives had the entree into the most intimate imperial circles and
could well have observed this sort of thing (cf. n. 13.5). Or it might have
been stenographically recorded. In 6 A.D., Wang Mang established an
office of court reporters or stenographers, whose duty it was to keep a
record of imperial remarks and deeds for future reference. They were
entitled the Five Clerks at the Foot of the Pillars. Since the emperor
usually decided matters by verbal replies, the courtiers needed a record
of what he said, hence this office was necessary. The title was as old as
the Ch'in and possibly the Chou period (cf. Glossary, sub voce), so that
Wang Mang was probably enacting into law a long established practise.
Many imperial edicts were probably dictations. (There is however, no
evidence in Former Han times of any Right and Left Historiographers,
Tso-shih and Yu-shih, attending the emperor to record his words and
deeds.) The conversation mentioned above contains such a drastic
criticism of Confucianism that sincere Confucians, such as Pan Piao
and his son, would not have fabricated it and would not have included it
in their histories had they not believed they had good evidence for its
genuineness. It sums up very well the difference between Emperors
Hsüan and Yüan. Pan Ku is so careful in his recordings and plainly
depends so much upon written records, that he would hardly have
recorded an imperial conversation for which he had no documentary or
traditional evidence. I think one would be quite safe in holding that

this conversation must have been well attested or else Pan Ku would
have rejected it.