University of Virginia Library

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF THE DEBATE

When Wu-ti[1] , the "Martial Emperor" of the Han dynasty, lay
on his death bed, after a reign of no less than fifty-four years
(140—87 B. C.), the first period in the history of the Chinese
Empire was drawing to its close. Ended was the era of prodigious
activity in every department of life, when all the latent forces of
the consolidated Chinese state sought freedom of expression. The
first cursory inventory of Chinese civilization was being completed.
Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien[2] had just written the last pages of his great history.
Everywhere scholars were applying themselves to the task of digesting
mentally the accumulated literary material of preceding centuries.

Though a Canon was not yet established, the Biblia of Chinese
moral philosophy were already taking shape. Saints were being
allotted their respective niches in the Pantheon, and fragments of
ancient lore were being collected in sufficient number to supply
numerous preachers with unanswerable and unshakable texts. At
whatever date be fixed the origin of one of the most fundamental
ideas of Chinese civilization, the concept that the principal function
of government is education,[3] there is no doubt that in the middle
Han period it formed the corner-stone of Chinese political science.
An article of faith, it speedily became a method. Chinese thought
was set in didactical forms. The homilies of the Han pamphleteers,

all written ad usum delphini, set the standard for future literary
productions.

The scholars of the Han renaissance, the "Literati", whose models
were the itinerant sages of old, aspired again to the position of
permanent pedagogue at the side of the "Son of Heaven". They
have for ages deplored the fact that during Wu Ti's reign, when
blood and iron policy ruled supreme, the gentle, ceremonious method
of rule of their paragons of Imperial virtue, the Emperors Wên
and Ching,[4] was shaken to its foundation. This resulted from
pernicious influences at the Court, where the combined forces of
Taoist quacks and unprincipled adventurers, devoid of culture and
refinement, as the "Confucian" scholars viewed them, brought again
to light the sinister methods and the fatal policies of the execrated
Shang Yang and his like.[5] It is clear, nevertheless, that behind
the veil of gross superstition upon which the later Confucian historians
loved to dwell, to show the depth of depravity reached by
the Court, a battle of ideological principles went on between two
traditions. On the one hand was the party repository of technical
knowledge, the Legalists, with their reliance on Power and their
relationship to the Taoists, and on the other hand that of the moralists,
later to be distinguished sharply as the Confucian school.

The great stage of history is, however, occupied by those whose
primary concern is "real politik", "les hommes de grandes affaires",
whose philosophical and religious affiliations are not always clear.
Such are the two outstanding personalities of the age, Sang Hung-yang,[6]
the Lord Grand Secretary of the Yen T'ieh Lun, and Ho
Kuang,[7] the "king-maker", men who, busy with the government
of the far-flung empire, have little time to bother with ideological

subtilties and yet are unconsciously swayed by them, and too often
see their policies checked by the doctrinaire arguments of the despised
"intellectuals".

Sang Hung-yang's whole economic policy, dictated by the exigencies
of his master's imperialistic activity, was subjected to the fire of a
vicious attack by the men of letters during the famous forum on
"Salt and Iron" in the sixth year of Chao Ti's reign (81 B. C.).
This debate serves as the canvass on which Huan K'uan embroiders
many a dialectical gem, and into which he weaves the red thread
of "Confucian" aphorisms and "sacred texts".

The effective consolidation of the Chinese Empire first took place
at the end of the third, and the beginning of the second century
before the Christian era. Numerous feudal states, largely autonomous,
and hitherto constantly at war with one another save for the brief
period of Ch'in's supremacy, were now united under the strong hand
of the first emperor of the Han dynasty, Liu Pang, posthumously
canonized as Kao Tsu[8] The Middle Kingdom developed rapidly in
industry and commerce, as well as intellectually, from the fifth
century onward. Energetic individuals, distinguished for their great
wealth, began to appear, and the names and deeds of many of them
are found preserved in the chronicles of the time.[9] Two of the
early Chinese industrialists, I-tun and Kuo Tsung,[10] are recorded
as having amassed princely fortunes through the production of salt
and iron. The one resided in Lu,[11] in the modern province of Shantung,
traditional site of salt manufacture, the other was a citizen of Han-tan.[12]
The Cho family[13] of Shu,[14] the K'ung family[15] of Yüan,[16] and the
Tsao Ping family[17] of Lu, were all prosperous iron workers, while

a certain Tiao Chien[18] of Ch'i[19] accumulated a colossal sum through
salt manufacturing and fisheries.

Prior to the Han period, the statesmen and scholars of China,
had all, irrespective of the "school" of thought to which later centuries
assigned them, stressed the importance of agriculture.[20] Farming
was looked upon as the fundamental of national wealth; industry
and commerce as merely accessory to the cultivator, "so that his
iron implements might be supplied by the artisan and his produce
distributed by the trader". Apart from this basic agreement on all
sides, various shades of opinion arose. Generally two groups of
thinkers dominated, schools which in time came to be designated
as the School of Law, the fa-chia,[21] and the "Confucian School",[22]
the ju-chia, which based itself on the transmitted doctrines of
Confucius and his successors.

The jurists or writers on law, representing the fa-chia, were not,
so far as their extant works indicate, a numerous class, though many
lost books are also cited in the catalogues. They did not compare
in popular esteem with their antagonists, the austere followers of
Confucius.[23] The Kuan-tzŭ,[24] the Shang-chün-shu[25] and the Han-fei-tzü[26]
exhaust the names of their greatest texts. But as the dominant
politicians of the times, having by their effective financial resource
fulness the ear of their sovereign, the power and importance of
the writers of the School of Law continued to grow. The influence
of their methods is clearly discernible into Han times.

The opponents of the representatives of the fa-chia, the ju,[27] are
defined in the introductory sentence of chapter XI of the Yen T'ieh
Lun as those who "venerate Confucius as their intellectual progenitor,
and intone lauds in praise of his virtue as being unsurpassed from

high antiquity down to the present time."[28] The ju were thus the
Han representatives of the school of Confucius. The strife in words
as disclosed in the Yen T'ieh Lun, represents the conflict between
the economic and political ideology of this group and that of the
Han administrative officials, who may be described as the inheritors
of the principles of the fa-chia writers of the preceding centuries.

This strife did not have for its actual backgrounds merely ideological
disputation. According to the Confucian tradition, the adherents of
the school did not assume to be philosophers. Confucius believed
himself to be a man of action, an administrator and politician,
capable of conducting the world in the true Way. His ambition
was not to record his ideas but to put them into operation through the
government of a principality, entrusted to him by his sovereign.
Those who followed him, his disciples, did not, accordingly, look
to him for a philosophical system, but for a science of government.
Displaced in the councils of their princes by the practical administrators
of the fa-chia, they were not prepared to resign themselves
to the passive role of disseminators of ideas, after having expected
to be the rulers of men.[29] On the other hand, the School of Law
could not properly be designated a school, in-so-far as claiming to
be based upon the principles of a founder; it consisted merely of
such persons as were inclined to think of government after a certain
fashion, and who attempted to associate their empirical view of the
world with the principles of such school as that to which each one
may have belonged.[30]

In early Chinese economic and political thought we find then, on
the one hand, the administrators, the responsible officials, advocating
certain methods of government, adumbrated in the writings of the
fa-chia, and, on the other, the intellectuals not in office, the ju,
pursuing certain ideas ascribed to Confucius and his successors. It
may generally be said that the School of Law emphasized the
problem of production, while their opponents, the men of letters,

stressed the problem of distribution. They were frankly in favor of trading
activities, as clearly exposed in the writings of Mencius.[31] In the
late Vth and early VIth centuries, a work assigned to Li K'uei[32]
applied the principles of the law writers and employed scientific
statistical methods to problems of political economy. The two central
points of his policy were 1) full utilization of soil productivity,
and 2) equalization of grain prices. This policy was directed to the
encouragement of agriculture. As industry and commerce began to
prosper after the middle of the Warring States period, two branches
of the School of Law came into being. First, the agrarian branch
was represented by the Shang-chün-shu laying stress on agriculture;
second, the commercial branch was represented by part of the
Kuan-tzŭ text, laying more emphasis on commerce.

The school of the Kuan-tzŭ emphasized especially the importance
of the currency and of grain, a suitable control of which would
contribute to the wealth of the nation. It held that evils resulting
from powerful combinations were due to private manipulations of
money and of grain prices. To prevent private competition and the
resultant inequality of wealth among the people, what may be
termed nationalization of capital was proposed, and the undertaking
of commerce by the state. It further advocated nationalization of
the salt and iron industries as a source of public revenue. Whether
agrarian or commercial, the writers of the School of Law all based
their economic policy on national aims, i.e., "I can expand the
territory and enrich the treasury for the Prince".

The school of Mo Ti, the Mo-chia,[33] emphasized production also.
But the concept of production was connected with consumption, i.e.,
to them regulated consumption meant equally production. It is from
this theory of regulated consumption that the school attacked the observance
of funeral rites, the performance of music, and aggressive warfare.
It maintained the theory that by manufacturing necessities to the exclusion
of luxuries, the productivity of a nation would naturally increase.

The Confucianist economists emphasized the word Equality, chün.[34]
Confucius said, "The ruler of a kingdom or the chief of a house is
not concerned about his people being few, but about lack of equitable
treatment". The idea is to stress the problem of distribution.
But the problems of production and consumption are considered
too. The Ta Hsüeh[35] of the Confucian School says, "Let the producers
be many and the consumers few. Let there be activity in the production,
and economy in the expenditure. Then the wealth will
always be sufficient". This school purports to concern itself primarily
with the "people's economy" or "social economy", in the modern
terminology popular in China. The belief was held that if the problem
of social economy were solved, the political or fiscal regimen would
take care of itself, thus relying upon Confucius, "If the people
enjoy plenty, with whom will the Prince share want? But if the
people are in want, with whom will the Prince share plenty?"[36] Hence
the strong condemnation of this school upon the law writers' policy
of "enriching the state". The legalist financiers were condemned as
"money grabbers",[37] or "small men", probably because when the
ruler and the state were not distinctly differentiated, to enrich the
state was to enrich the ruler; and also because concentration of
wealth in the government would discourage individual initiative.
The Confucianists would not therefore adopt the policy of state
interference in individual activity. The function of the government
was to remove all obstacles to the productivity of labor, or to equality
in the distribution of wealth. The rest would be left to the
people.[38]

Now there would appear a reversal of policy or principle on the
part of what may be termed the Confucian school of the early
Han era. Due to the development of the state, the scholars, unlike

their most articulate prototype Mencius,[39] no longer whole-heartedly
favor trade. This seems to have come about due to the fact that
practical statesmen, such as Sang Hung-yang, responsible for financing
an extravagant government, sought to control the profits of
industry and commerce for the benefit of the public exchequer.
Confucianism, as represented in the writings of Mencius, called for
a laissez faire policy, government by remote influence, the impressive
but inactive "virtue" of the Ruler.[40] The Han Confucianists
now resented the interference of the state in industry and trade,
and hence are made to appear to oppose such activities on general
principles, which was certainly not the case.

Per contra, the Han dynasts, parvenus as they were, even compared
with the house of Ch'in which preceded them, erected a
façade of conformance to "Confucianism". To acquire prestige,
they professed to follow the practices, largely fictive, we may believe,
of the venerated house of Chou. They were prepared to conform
to the outward ceremonies and observances of traditional antiquity.
But in the actual administrative measures of the state, they reverted
to the execrated policies of the legalist statesmen of Ch'in, whose
aim had been to unify the state, by controlling all activities. While
in Shang Yang's time, as Prime Minister of Ch'in, all was subordinated
to agriculture and war, now state control of industry and
commerce in the expanded Han Empire, was of equal importance.
It was at this point that in the early Han reigns the "Confucianists",
represented by the Literati of the Yen T'ieh Lun, and the legalist
statesmen, such as Sang Hung-yang, diverged. The former, desirous
of reviving "antiquity", harked back to a perhaps largely factitious
"feudal" period; the latter sought to revive and restore in practice
the state control of private undertakings of the Ch'in regime. Seeming
paradoxes[41] in the Yen T'ieh Lun where the men of letters,
the ju, oppose trade, and the Secretary, Sang Hung-yang, advocates

the practices of antiquity, are only intelligible in the light of this
interpretation.

The first of the Han Emperors, Kao Tsu, favored agriculture at
the expense of industry and commerce, by discriminations enforced
against the mercantile classes. This included ineligibility to public
office. Kao Tsu's agrarian policy was continued by his immediate
successors by the reduction of the land tax.[42] This bore fruit in
China's "golden age of agriculture". Within little more than two
generations, however, the Chinese Empire appears to have increased
greatly in population, with large numbers of people congregating
in growing urban centres. Constant "treasury deficits", represented
actually by lack of supplies for the armies on the frontiers, were
incurred through costly campaigns which extended the boundaries
of China to the most distant regions of eastern Asia.[43] In the
distress of the people and the state, new sources of revenue had to
be devised.[44]

To meet the fast approaching bankruptcy of the government,
various expedients were resorted to. Notably the yen-t'ieh-kuan,[45]
officers to control the salt and iron industries, were instituted in
119 B.C., in Han Wu-ti's reign. Salt and iron were the two most
universal necessities, after grain, in the ancient Chinese commonwealth.
Their sale by government agency, on the plea of adjusting the
price, was maintained at such a high rate as to yield a heavy
profit. In the year 115 B.C., officers to "equalize distribution",
chün shu,[46] which may be termed equable marketing, were appointed.
These functionaries undertook to regulate commercial transactions
throughout the Empire. Their duty appears to have been to purchase
staple commodities when cheap and sell them when dear, thus
preventing prices from falling too low or becoming excessively high.
A bureau of "equalization and standardization", p'ing chun,[47] to
regulate the system of equable marketing, was set up at the Capital
in 110 B.C. This was done at the instance of Sang Hung-yang,

who had been promoted Grain Intendant, Sou-su-tu-wei,[48] in the
same year.

While treasury deficits now disappeared, with adequate stores
of grain accumulating in the public granaries, and the armies on
the frontiers once more receiving adequate supplies, the country at
large seethed with discontent.[49] Due to its high cost, people were
often forced to eat without salt. The iron implements employed on
the farms, as supplied by the government monopoly, were criticized
as inferior and unsuitable.[50] To deal with the situation, the representatives
of the Literati and Worthy classes, to the number of
sixty, were summoned to present the popular grievances before the
Throne, in the sixth year of the shih-yüan era of Chao-ti's reign
(81 B.C.).[51] It fell to the statesman and economist, Sang Hung-yang,
to defend his and the government's policies, against the demand
of the representatives of the people for the abolition of state control
over essential commodities, and a return to the laissez faire system
of earlier times. It is the record of this memorable debate which
Huan K'uan,[52] a scholar of Hsüan-ti's time (73-49 B.C), has preserved
in the Yen T'ieh Lun.

Huan K'uan's work, though nominally representing a debate on
the state control of salt and iron, actually covers a far broader field
than the title indicates. It touches various problems of government,
domestic and external policies, social and economic questions.[53] Though
classed among the ju-chia writers, Huan K'uan cannot be charged
with withholding the most telling arguments of his antagonists, the
legalist administrators. The work is notable for its impartial and objective
exposition of the principles of the two opposing groups of the Han
period. The arguments advanced on either side receive equal attention.

The literati attacked the state monopoly of salt and iron, the
imposition of the wine tax and the system of equable marketing, i.e.,
equalized or balanced transportation, on the grounds that it was the
competition of the state with the people in commerce. This, they

held, created an atmosphere of greed and extravagance among the
people leading them from the essential (agricultural) pursuits to nonessential
(commercial) enterprises.[54] The officials are represented as
replying to the charge with arguments based on reasonsof national
defence. The Hsiung Nu, fierce nomads beyond the northern frontiers,
were a national menace. To protect the inhabitants of the marches,
fortresses must be established and garrisoned. To finance these operations,
the very measures complained of had been adopted.[55] This is
the fundamental reason for the introduction of the state administration
of essential commodities in Han Wu Ti's time, called into being
primarily by the urgent needs of frontier defence.

Again these realistic statesmen pointed out that the wealth of
salt and iron was concealed in remote mountains and lonely marshes,
and could be exploited only by rich and aggressive individuals.
Prior to the institution of state control, there were the examples
of Ping of Chü among the commoners, and among the nobles there
was Prince P'i of Wu.[56] The possession of the resources of the
mountains meant the rapid accumulation of wealth, firstly by coinage
of money, and secondly by the manufacture of arms. The salt
industry was highly profitable. Both the salt and iron industries
favored seditious enterprises and full-blown rebellions.[57] It was
because of the existence of such evils that state monopolies had
been introduced. These measures had centralized financial power in
the imperial government as against over-powerful nobles on the
one hand, and prevented, on the other, exploitation of the poor
by the rich.

The literati, however, had their own arguments to advance. They
refuted the effectiveness of the grandiose military display and advocated
pacifying the Huns through the all-rewarding influence of a
benevolent rule.[58] They saw no value in the cold barren lands, the
desolate wastes, inhabited by the Hsiung Nu, and emphasized the
self-sufficiency and wealth of the Middle Kingdom.[59]

The spokesmen for the government maintained, on the other hand,
that the repeated incursions of the Hsiung Nu at the frontier could
only be held in check by military force. As the financing of
the troops depended upon revenue from salt and iron, the abolition
of the government monopoly would mean the cessation of military
expeditions and injury to the prestige of the Empire.[60] Neither did
they hold that the lands of the barbarians[61] were valueless. They
recalled how in former days the central districts of the Empire were
over-populated. Supplies of water and fodder were insufficient and
the hot damp summers were unfavorable for raising horses[62] and cattle.

All labor being done by men, production was meagre. Even the
old and the weak had to carry burdens on the roads and the ministers
and officials had often to ride in ox carts. But after the extensive
conquests of the Warrior Emperor in the south, in the west, and over
the Hsiung Nu of the north, the standard of living had been greatly improved.
Exotic products filled the palace, and fine horses the Imperial
stud. The populace could now ride on excellent mounts and enjoy
delicious fruits.[63] A curious argument was put forth too. The new
system placed in the hands of the state the trade whereby the
barbarians were deprived of their wealth.[64] This novel theory was
developed as a means of getting control of the wealth of the barbarians:

"Now the treasures of the mountains and marshes and the reserves
of the equable marketing system are means of holding the balance
of natural wealth and controlling the principalities. Ju Han gold
and other insignificant articles of tribute are means of inveigling
foreign countries and snaring the treasures of the Ch`iang and the
Hu. Thus a piece of Chinese plain silk can be exchanged with the
Hsiung Nu for articles worth several pieces of gold and thereby
reduce the resources of our enemy. Mules, donkeys, and camels
enter the frontier in unbroken lines; horses, dapples and bays and

prancing mounts, come into our possession. The furs of sables,
marmots, foxes and badgers, colored rugs and decorated carpets, fill
the Imperial treasury, while jade, and auspicious stones, corals and
crystals, become national treasures. That is to say, foreign products
keep flowing in, while our wealth is not dissipated. Novelties flowing in,
the government has plenty. National wealth not being dispersed
abroad, the people enjoy abundance.[65]

To meet the Scholars' advocacy of a return to agricultural pursuits,
Sang Hung-yang asserted that state control of salt and iron would
concentrate the people on the land, thus actually encouraging
agriculture.[66] His Literati opponents, with bitter irony, maintained
the contrary, "Far-sighted and far-reaching in intent is your policy
but contiguous with profit for powerful families. The aim of your
prohibitory laws is profound indeed, but manifestly leading you into
the path of wild extravagance . . . . The result is that we see the
farmer abandoning his plough and toiling no more; the people
becoming vagabonds or growing idle — and why? Because while
they toil, others reap the fruit of their labor. Wasters continue to
compete with each other, unceasingly trying to reach higher levels
of extravagance. This is the only explanation for the people increasing
in dishonest practices and the dwindling number of those who turn
to fundamental occupations [agriculture]."[67]

The Literati, and their associates the Worthies, had been summoned
to discuss "the grievances of the people".[68] These were the various
forms of injustice, extortion and inconvenience, which the people
were subjected to by the salt and iron monopolies, the liquor excise
and the system of equable marketing. The men of letters were
concerned in opposing, as a matter of principle, state interference
in commerce and industry. For such policies were those of the
legalist school represented by Shang Yang, Ch'ao T'so and Li Ssŭ,
all of whom are criticised by the Literati in the debate.[69]

There is, however, a deeper motivation for the courage of the

"country intellectuals", as represented at least in Huan K'uan's
composition, in opposing the policies of the powerful Minister, Sang
Hung-yang. This is their determination to recover the "Confucian"
prerogative of advisor to the Throne, a position wrested from them
by the adroit legalist statesmen, in actual control of state affairs.
Their vigorous denunciation of the administrators of the Ch'in and
early Han periods, turns at times to a violent invective upon the
actual government authorities participating in the debate (usually
returned with interest by the latter).[70] The Yen Ti'eh Lun thus
plays its role among those inspired documents which, like the Hsin-yü
of Lu Chia[71] of a century and more earlier, were designed for the
express purpose of accomplishing the reinstatement of the scholars
in their traditional position of mentor to the Son of Heaven.

CHAPTER II

THE DISCOURSES AND THEIR AUTHOR

§ 1. Huan K'uan and his Work

What is known of the author of the Discourses on Salt and Iron
and the origin of his work is summarized in the preface to the
hung-chih edition. This note, generally repeated in succeeding redactions,
was composed by a scholar named Tu Mu[72] of Wu Chün[73] in
the 14th year of the hung-chih[74] era of the Ming dynasty (1501 A.D.),
by way of a tribute to his fellow licentiate in letters T'u Chen.[75]

"The Yen T'ieh Lun, consisting of 10 books in 60 chapters",
wrote Tu, "was composed by Huan K'uan, tzŭ Ts'ŭ Kung,[76] a
native of Ju Nan,[77] who served in the Han dynasty as the T'aishou-ch'êng[78]
of Lu Chiang.[79] The debate on salt and iron is said
to have taken place in the shih-yuan[80] era of the Emperor Chao
(86—81 B. C.). The recommended Worthies and Scholars,[81] in response
to an Imperial summons and inquisition, petitioned that the official
monopoly of salt and iron in the Imperial commanderies and feudal
states[82] be removed. A prolonged disputation ensued between them
and the Lord Grand Secretary[83] the Yü-shih ta-fu, Sang Hung-yang.
The salt and iron control was nevertheless not [materially] relaxed.[84]

"During the reign of the Emperor Hsüan (73—49 B. C.), Master
Huan developed and expanded the subject matter [in the form of
a dialogue][85] in order to establish a school of thought. The book

was engraved and printed in the Sung dynasty;[86] but due to the
lapse of many generations, it became gradually lost in transmission
and was little known to people. Master T'u of Hsin Kan,[87] while
in his second year of office at Chiang Yin,[88] found himself in a
position to give effect to his administrative policies and to turn to
numerous activities along hitherto neglected lines. In moments of
freedom from his duties in renovating the people,[89] he devoted himself
to editing this book. From his own means he had it printed,
so that students might enjoy the literature of the ancients in its
complete form. Master T'u undoubtedly had in mind the benefit to
his own age of the work's exposition of the principles fundamental
to good government; its disapproval of private profiteering showed
the way, moreover, how the state might be the gainer, for the advantage
of posterity".

The work of the Han literatus Huan K'uan is thus cast in the
form of a debate. This type of logomachy as a literary genre had
been already suggested, in more or less formal style, in writings
previous to Huan K'uan. Traditionally, the earliest of these might
be taken to be the "Counsels of the Great Yü",[90] in its present
recension, part of the spurious text in "ancient characters", faked
by Mei Tsê[91] in the 4th century A.D., and the "Counsels of Kao
Yao",[92] part of the authentic text, of the Shu-Ching (Part I, chaps.
iii and iv).

The Mêng-tzŭ[93] is largely in the form of dialogues. The work of
Hsün-tzŭ,[94] the philosopher of the third century B.C., contains particularly
a debate (chap. XV) on military questions between himself
and the Lord of Ling Wu,[95] the King of Chao[96] presiding and occasionally
interjecting an observation. At the beginning of the Shangchun-shu[97]
occurs a brief debate,[98] "On the reform of the law", an

imitation of a discussion on the advisability of adopting the clothes
of the Hu barbarians in chapter VI of the Chan-kuo-ts'ê.[99]

In fact, the literature of the ante-Han period may be classified as
in the two categories of discourses and chronicles. The former is
represented by a large part of the Shu-ching, by the Kuo-yü[100] and
the Chan-kuo-ts'ê[101] ; while the latter is exemplified by the Ch'un-ch'iu,
its three so-called commentaries, the Tso-chuan,[102] the Ku-liang,[103]
and the Kung-yang.[104] Even in the Tso-chuan, the novel method appears
of a debate by means of quotations from the Shih-ching,[105] which
itself is in part antiphonal.[106] This form becomes, one may say, a
literary obsession with Chinese writers beginning with Ch'ü Yüan's
Chiu Wen,[107] and continuing with Ssŭ-ma Hsiang-ju,[108] the Liang Tu
Fu[109] of Pan Ku[110] and their innumerable literary heritors.[111]

In Chapter XXI of the Shih-chi, a debate is described between the
scholars Yüan Ku,[112] tutor of the Prince of Ch'ing Ho,[113] and Master
Huang,[114] on the question of whether Ch'êng T'ang[115] and Wu Wang[116]
were justified in overthrowing the traditional tyrants Chieh and Chou.[117]
The discussion pointed ultimately to justification of regicide and
the name of the founder of the reigning house of Han, Kao Tsu,[118]
emerged. The presiding Emperor Wu-ti enforced the clôture to the
embarassing controversy by observing that "because one fond of
meat did not eat horse liver, did not indicate that he was without
a taste for delicacies; that is to say: because a scholar did not
discuss T'ang and Wu assuming imperial authority, proved [only]
that he was [discreet,] not stupid".[119] Again in 135 B.C., Wu-ti submitted

to his council the question of the demands of the nomad
Hsiung Nu for a royal marriage alliance. Whereupon Wang K'uei[120]
and Han An-kuo[121] debated the matter. The famous VIth chapter
of the Shih-chi represents the Ministers and Scholars assembled before
the First Emperor of Ch'in, respectively offering their advice
as to the conduct of the Empire. These speeches appear in extenso.

Thus an examination of literary material — and the examples
cited could be multiplied — reveals the innumerable harangues and
discussions of ancient China. From very early times obscure scribes
had employed the debate between Sovereigns and their ministers
as a literary artifice to express their own ideas.[122] The record of debates
before the Throne from the Chou to the Han doubtless stimulated
Huan K'uan to produce a literary work in the complete style
of the debate. With a store of previous literary specimens cast in
the same mould, and the historical debate of 81 B.C. to record, it
is to be expected that he would employ this form. It thus fell to
Huan K'uan to provide this perfected stylistic medium in the
development of Chinese prose writings.

§ 2. The Various Editions.

The earliest printed editions of the Yen T'ieh Lun, of which there
is record, are the two noted in the bibliography of editions of
works issued in the Sung and Yüan dynasties, entitled Sung Yüan
pên shu-mu hsing-ko-piao.[123] One is known as the Sung shun-hsi pên
Yen T'ieh Lun.[124] This is in 10 chüan.[125] It has nine columns to
each half-folio, and 18 characters to each column. It is called the
Sung Yüan old edition.[126] The information is quoted from the catalogue
entitled Shu ching yen-lu.[127] The other edition is the Sung
pên Yen T'ieh Lun.[128] It is described as in 12 chüan, with 10 columns

to each half-folio, and 18 characters to each column. A description
of the work is quoted from the catalogue entitled Ch'ih ching shu-mu:[129]
"On the back of the last folio of each chüan there is the
following colophon in two columns:[130] "Fine edition published by
the family of Chang the tax controller, a native of Chin-ch'i, in the
year when the reign title was changed to shun-hsi [1174]".[131]

One of the leading editors and commentators of the late Manchu
period, Wang Hsien-ch'ien,[132] observes in his edition of the Yen T'ieh
Lun:[133] "The best copy of the Yen T'ieh Lun is the reprint of the
chia-t'ai[134] edition of the Sung dynasty [1201—1204]. This was made
by T'u Chên, a mayor of Hsin Kan in the 14th year of hung-chih
era in the Ming period [1501]. During the chia-ching period [of the
Ming dynasty, 1522-1566],[135] Chang Chih-hsiang of Yün Chien[136] issued
a new edition with explanatory notes, the text being divided into
12 chüan, the original having 10 books. This edition was reprinted
by Wang Mo (Ch'ing era)[137] in his augmented edition of the Han
Wei Ts'ung Shu, the Collected Works of the Han and Wei Dynasties.[138]
Due to omissions and changes in words and sentences, this
particular recension has been criticized by authorities. Lu Wên-chao,
[tzŭ Shao-kung[139] 1717-1795], by means of a comparative study of
the copy in the Yung-lo encyclopaedia,[140] the T'u edition and the
Chang recension, made some corrections in his Additional Collection

of Miscellaneous Works, Ch'ün Shu Shih Pu.[141] In the 12th year
of chia-ch'ing [1807][142] Chang Tun-jên, [tzŭ Ku Yü][143] reprinted the
T'u edition, supplemented by his Exegetical Notes,[144] bringing out
many points not covered by Lu.

If we are to rely on the results of Wang Hsien-ch'ien's researches,
it may be concluded that the earliest edition preserved to Chinese
scholarship in recent times was the chia-t'ai edition of the 13th
century. That the records should point back to a printed edition
of the Sung period is to be expected, as some centuries before Gutenberg
and his press, the art of book-printing by engraved blocks
reached the height of perfection in China.

The chia-t'ai edition is unfortunately lost to the world, but T'u's
reprint of the hung-chih period of the Ming era is in current use;
and its photographic reproduction is now available in the extensive
anthology of Chinese literature known under the title of Ssŭ Pu
Ts'ung K'an,[145] The Collected Reprints of the Four Divisions.[146] This
edition is regarded generally as the most authentic. It is not clear
whether the manuscript copy included in the great encyclopaedia
Yung-lo Ta Tien was taken from the chia-t'ai edition or from an
independent source. As this anthology provided parts of the succeeding
Imperial Complete Collection of the Four Libraries, the Ssŭ K'u
Ch'üan Shu,[147] another of the vast literary compilations of China and
to which access has only recently been afforded, the question remains
for investigation at some future time. The edition which Chang
Chih-hsiang freely arranged as to organisation, punctuation and textual
renderings (the text of the Han Wei Ts'ung Shu), does not mention
its sources. Its variations from the T'u reprint, however, are

now generally regarded as Chang's own work.[148] The Lu edition
provides a text based upon a comparative study of the T'u reprint,
the Yung-lo Ta Tien text, and Chang Chih-hsiang's edition.

The best edition today is doubtless that of Wang Hsien-ch'ien,
published in 1891[149] by the Ssŭ Hsien Chiang Shê.[150] The text is
based on the T'u reprint; but for the sake of comparative study,
Wang inserts as notes in appropriate sections the textual corrections
and comments of the preceding editors Chang Chih-hsiang, Lu Wên-chao
and Chang Tun-jên. In addition he appends to his two volumes
a body of "Minor Research Notes" of unusual value. These are
formed from quotations from the Yen T'ieh Lun culled from various
works of the T'ang and Sung dynasties.[151]

In the preparation of the present translation into English, reliance
has been placed chiefly on the invaluable edition of Wang-Hsiench'ien.
The reprints in the Ku Shu Ts'ung K'an[152] collection, and
the Han Wei Ts'ung Shu (representing the Chang Chih-hsiang
edition), and the Ssŭ Pu Ts'ung K'an reprint (T'u's edition), have
been utilized in connection with Wang Hsien-ch'ien's annotated work.
The texts made use of by Chinese editors of the Yen T'ieh Lun
since the Sung era, and their relationship, are represented in the
following chart. Necessarily the two editions of the shun-hsi era of
the Sung dynasty, known only through the catalogues, are not included.

The Relationship of the Editions of the Yen T'ieh Lun since the Sung Era.

§ 3. Authenticity of the Text.

Textual variations are to be found in the several extant reprints
of the Yen T'ieh Lun. These are traceable doubtless to the inaccuracy
of early scribes, who in the course of over a thousand years must
have frequently recopied the work, before the block-printing of
books in Ssŭ-ch'uan, from the ninth century A.D.[153] Moreover, there
is much divergence of opinion among the various later editors as
to the "corrections" which should be made. Nevertheless, no Chinese
critic, ancient or modern, is on record, so far as investigations disclose,
who questions the genuineness of this work of the first century
before the Christian Era.

The earliest notice of the book is found in the Bibliographical
Section of the Ch'ien-han-shu[154] which lists "the ten books of the
Yen T'ieh Lun by Huan K'uan". In the same work, in the chapter
XXXVI on T'ien Ch'ien-ch'iu,[155] Chancellor when the debate on Salt
and Iron took place and presiding officer of the forum, the concluding
chapter of the Yen T'ieh Lun is quoted in extenso, though
with some omissions and alterations of the wording. Yen Shih-ku,[156]
the commentator of the T'ang period, appends the following note:
"In Chao Ti's time the Chancellor and the Secretaries debated the
salt and iron question with the Worthies and Literati. Huan K'uan
edited the discourses."[157] To be sure, it cannot be ascertained whether
the excerpt in the Ch'ien-han-shu represents the original text
of Huan K'uan. It is possible to believe that the quotation is a
modified citation which Pan Ku, the great historiographer of the
early Han dynasty, made to suit his own literary taste. Chinese
prose writing developed with extraordinary rapidity in the century
between the two writers; and already Huan K'uan's style may
well have appeared archaic in thought and expression to the skilful
artist in rhythmic prose who composed the celebrated fu of the
"Two Capitals".

Throughout succeeding centuries, the Discourses receive due notice
in dynastic histories, in the sections devoted to bibliographical

notices. Thus the Sui-shu[158] (ch. 34), the Chiu T'ang-shu[159] (ch. 47),
the Hsin T'ang-shu[160] (ch. 59), and the Sung-shih[161] (ch. 205), each
list the Yen T'ieh Lun in ten chüan. Huan K'uan is named as
the compiler in each case, and is classed with the Confucian writers.
The three great early encyclopaedic compendia of literature, aften
grouped together as the San T'ung,[162] equally take notice of the
work, either by unacknowledged extracts from its text (a not uncommon
practice of the compilers of these Lei-shu[163] or anthologies), or by
direct name and citation. Thus the T'ung Tien[164] (ch. 10) and the
Wên Hsien T'ung K'ao[165] (ch. 15) quote at length from the Yen
T'ieh Lun without indicating the source. The T'ung Chih[166] does
the same in ch. 62; while in ch. 66 of the latter and ch. 209 of
the Wên Hsien T'ung K'ao, Huan K'uan and his work in ten chüan
are listed. In all these notices, the author of the Discourses is
grouped among the ju-chia writers, save in the Wên Hsien T'ung
K'ao, where its compiler, the celebrated Chinese economist Ma
Tuan-lin,[167] places him among the writers on economics.

Internal evidence is lacking, as well, to cast doubt upon the
general authenticity of the work ascribed to Huan K'uan, or to
indicate that it was in whole or in part a fabrication of later
writers, despite the proneness of Chinese scholars of the early centuries
of our era to foist upon the literary world spurious productions
of their own as the works of the ancients. The style of the
language throughout, save where obvious glosses of the scholiasts
occur, reveals that it is a work of one hand. The philosopher and
essayist Wang Ch'ung[168] provides a very early reference to Huan
K'uan and his discourses on salt and iron, in the XXXVIIth chapter of
the Lun Hêng: "It is very difficult to equal Huan Chün Shan's writings.
When two blades cut one another, we see, which is sharp and which
blunt, and when two treatises are composed together, one finds out,
which of the two is right and which wrong. This is the case of
the `Four Difficulties' by Han Fei Tse, the treatise on `Salt and

Iron' by Huan K'uan and the `New Reflections' by Huan Chün Shan".[169]

Differing from such ante-Han classics as the Kuan-tzu or the
Shang-chün-shu or the monumental but somewhat discredited Chou-li,
there is nothing in the Yen T'ieh Lun to lend itself, or give
inducement, to fabrication. It does not assume to be the work of
a great and original thinker, for with extraordinary objectivity
the author sets forth the arguments of two schools of thought, and
it is only due to certain subtleties of presentation that the editor
of the debate slyly indicates his prejudices[170] in favor of the doctrinaire
scholars and thus merits in the Imperial catalogue a somewhat reluctant
assignment to the ju-chia, adherent of the "Confucian" school.[171]

Huan K'uan thus does not expound exclusively the doctrines of
any particular school, however many there were in his day. In
fact the arguments placed in the mouths of the government spokesmen
are frequently all too convincing to the Western reader! Yet,
as indicated, the author's sympathy is with the Confucianists. Nor
does he advocate any systematized program of political, social and
economic reform or reconstruction such as is found in the much
disputed Chou-li, save in the way of pleas, voiced by the Worthies
and Literati in the debate, for economic measures of a more laissez
faire nature, and for a more conservative foreign policy. These are
only natural reactions of the national exhaustion induced by the
over-active reign of "The Conqueror", Wu-ti. All evidence then
points to the conclusion that the Yen T'ieh Lun is the authentic
work of Huan K'uan in the first century before our era, despite
some possible minor corruption of the extant text. It cannot be
held, to be sure, that it is an exact and literal record of the
discussions of the famous forum of 81 B.C., as they took place
between the unofficial "opposition" and the government spokesmen;
but that it is generally faithful to the principles and policies which
might well have been advocated in the verbal joust before the
Throne, there is no sufficient reason to doubt.[172]

CHAPTER III

HUAN K'UAN AS PROSE WRITER

§ 1. Stylistic Features

"Pre-Confucian" literature was in style terse, simple and direct.
As authentic examples there remain the Shih-ching and parts at
least of the Shu-ching. After the Ch'un Ch'iu[173] period (VIIIth—Vth
cents. B.C.) and especially in the era of the Warring States[174]
(Vth—IIIrd cents. B.C.) came the introduction, then the general
prevalence, of an involved, prolix, and ornate style. Due to the
so-called southern influence, the school of Ch'u,[175] and the "diplomats",
shuo-k'o,[176] the one exemplified in the Chuang-tzŭ[177] and the Li Sao[178]
of Ch'ü Yüan,[179] the other in the discourses of Su Ch'in[180] and
Chang Yi,[181] and the celebrated memorial of Li Ssŭ[182] on the employment
of "foreigners" in the state,[183] a more poetic and emotional
style developed. In the philosophical writings of the schools of Lu
and Ch'i[184] in the ante-Han period, structure is subordinated to
logical exposition.[185]

Chia I[186] is the typical writer of the early Han. His style is
held by the lettered to be one of the most beautiful of all Chinese
literature. He already manifests a tendency towards the erudite style,
with frequent references to names famous in history and tradition.
By Wu-ti's time this characteristic became emphasized. Two types
of literary allusion appear. One takes the form of brief aphorisms,
upon which the argument is developed as a preacher does with his

"text". Or again the style assumes the form of a literary mosaic
harmoniously pieced together by means of sentences and phrases
culled from a variety of sources. The latter stylistic method undoubtedly
became more favored by Huan K'uan's time with the
rising tide of literary production, as well as because of the recovered
writings of the pre-Ch'in period, furnishing a vast treasury to draw
upon. The literary renaissance of the early Han produced material
which rapidly became stereotyped in its frequency of usage.

The new erudite style depended largely upon quotations from the
writings of the Confucian school, later to become the "canonical"
books. Well known authors provided further material. The writers
of the time indicated their reverence for the old as advocated by
the Great Sage himself, by "transmitting antiquity".[187] The abundance
of classical allusions and historical references led to their later often
absurd applications. The work of Huan K'uan reflects in their
entirety these marked literary characteristics of his time.[188] His
Yen T'ieh Lun combines the style of the discourses of the Warring
States and the didactic style of the philosophers; while the influence
of the revival of the "old learning" in the early Han, with its
reverence for the writings attributed to Confucius and his followers,
is clearly discernible.

A noteworthy feature of Chinese prose style is the binome or
synonym-compound. Two simple monosyllabic words with the same,
or at least analogous, meanings are joined together to form a single
idea. While this device is already found in the Mencius, the two
words forming the binome still may usually be translated singly, i.e,
each with its original meaning. The synonym-compound as employed
by Huan K'uan furnishes a formidable difficulty to the translator.
The two words yen t'ieh in the title of the work itself, literally
"salt-iron", actually connote "state monopoly of national resources",

and illustrate the fondness of the Chinese writer for the balance of
two complementary words or phrases.[189] This linguistic phenomenon
doubtless indicates a significant trend in the development of the essentially
monosyllabic Chinese language.[190] In many cases the literal
translation of the binome is superfluous. For example, chün and
kuo, "provinces and demesnes", are almost invariably placed together,
by literary habit, as it were. The question arises whether the binome
represents a natural development of the language in an unconscious
attempt to escape the difficulties of homophony; or as might be the
case in relation to the written language, which appeals the eye only
and not the ear, simply an affection of style.

The former hypothesis has some justification, for Chinese prose
was sufficiently young to have escaped, as yet, on the whole, the
later processes of "fossilisation", by being divorced from the actual
spoken language.[191] The prose of the Han era, influenced doubtless
by the older literature, brought to light in the "revival of antiquity"
was simple in style. In discourses such as those of Chia I or as in
Huai-nan-tzŭ, the style followed the Lun-yü or the Mêng-tzŭ. In
narratives as found in the Shih-chi or the Ch'ien-han-shu, the Tso-chuan
or Kuo-yü formed the models. The prose literature of the

time, though not identical with the spoken language of the people,
retained much of the natural grammar and construction. In fact,
in many cases, the spoken language was partially employed and
incorporated in written forms. Instances of this are found in the
Shih-chi and Ch'ien-han-shu.[192] Thus, while the prose of Ssŭ-ma
Hsiang-ju (d. B.C. 117) is already indicative of the "fossilization"
of Chinese writing, Huan K'uan at least in his liberal use of the
binome retained touch with the spoken language.

§ 2. The Citatory Element

A study of the composition of the Yen T'ieh Lun discloses a
valuable deposit of material[193] indicative of the literary resources
available to the Chinese writer of the first century before the
Christian era. The intellectual backgrounds of the men of letters of
the time are made clear through their marked predilection for the
use of quotation and allusion. Our own medieval scholastics, "well
read in the Latin writers", scarcely equalled in resourcefulness and
versatility the literary giants of China, who could at will dig down
into the colossal literature of all preceding time and extract an
historical or literary similitude to round out their thought. Stereotyped
and dogmatic quotation makes its appearance particularly
since the Middle Han period, together with cadenced sentence and
topical parallelism. Such early Han writers as Chia I[194] or Ch'ao
Ts'o,[195] and their successor Tung Chung-shu,[196] are not found to employ
the quotation as a mere literary affectation, but as the necessary
basis upon which an argument should rest.

An examination of the borrowed material, the bagage littéraire,
of Huan K'uan in his complete sixty chapters discloses some one
hundred and twenty-nine direct citations from at least twenty different

sources. These frequently represent variants from the present-day
texts.[197] In the Yen T'ieh Lun it is noteworthy that about four-fifths
(over ninety) of the quotations emanate from the side of the
Worthies and Scholars, the Hsien-liang and Wên-hsüeh.[198] Of the
entire number, thirty citations are identified as from the Lun-yü
to which may be added seven ascribed generally to K'ung Tzŭ.[199]
Ten are from the Mêng-tzŭ;[200] thirty-three from the Shih-ching and
eighteen from the Ch'un-ch'iu (9)[201] and its commentaries (9).[202] The
remaining represent direct quotations from the 1-ching (6),[203] the
Shang-shu (2)[204] [Shu-ching],[205] T'ai Kung (1),[206] Kuan Tzŭ (4),[207]
Lao Tzŭ (3),[208] Yen Tzŭ (1),[209] Kung-sun Lung (1),[210] Lu Lien (1)[211]
[Lu Chung-lien],[212] Yang Tzŭ (1)[213] [Yang Hu or Huo],[214] Sun
Tzŭ (1)[215] [Hsün Tzŭ],[216] Han Tzŭ (1)[217] [Han Fei],[218] Chia I (1),[219]
and Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien (1).[220] These are all introduced by [OMITTED],
[OMITTED], or [OMITTED]. Seven are ascribed to popular sayings.[221]

A number of personages are mentioned in the text but with no
citations from the works attributed to them. We look in vain for
the name of the brilliant Chuang tzŭ.[222] The perhaps apocryphal
Su Ch'in[223] and Chang I,[224] whose speeches enliven the Chan-kuo-ts'ê[225]
and are repeated in the Shih-chi, are made to appear in the mise
en scène, but provide nothing for the argument. Tung-fang So[226] is
mentioned twice, but not Tung Chung-shu, and neither are quoted.

A chapter for each is devoted to Shang Yang[227] and Ch'ao Ts'o[228]
but no acknowledged quotations appear from the works accredited
to them. Neither the Chan-kuo-ts'ê, the Han-shih-wai-chuan,[229] or the
Kuo-yü[230] is cited by name. Yet the six hundred and twenty-five
authors and their works listed in the bibliographical section of the
Ch'ien-han-shu indicate the volume of literature which may have
been available to Huan K'uan. There are accordingly interesting
and unexplained lacunae in the citations.

Various conclusions may be drawn from this survey. The author's
later editors take it that "he enlarged upon and expanded the ideas
set forth in the debate in order to form a school of thought."[231] The
supposition is then that the compilation is not a verbatim report,
recorded by Huan K'uan at the time of the great forum of 81 B.C.
On the one hand, accordingly, it may be assumed that the compiler
of the Lun had access to no other material than the authorities
actually cited in his text. Many works had been destroyed in the
first "bibliothecal catastrophe", the holocaust of literature instigated
by Ch'in Shih Huang-ti's minister Li Ssŭ (213 B.C.). During the
disorders which followed the fall of the Ch'in house, and the struggle
between Han and Ch'u, most of the great cities were burned. These
were the seats of the feudal princes, many of whom as literary
Maecenases, such as the later Liu Tê, Prince of Ho-chien,[232] had
made collections of books. The country-side, too, was ravaged by
the armies of the generals contending for the Empire.

Only a century or less before Huan K'uan, the law for the
suppression of literary works was formally repealed (191 B.C.).
Despite vigorous efforts made to recover the ancient writings, even
towards the close of the first century B.C. many works were still
wanting and others incomplete. It remained for Liu Hsiang[233] and
his son Liu Hsin[234] in that time to restore the national library as
represented in the catalogue of the Ch'ien-han-shu. Even if works
lay buried in the Imperial archives, as appears to have been the

case of the Tso-chuan,[235] Huan K'uan unlike the Grand Astrologer
Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien and his successor the Archivist Liu Hsin, may not
have gained access to them, though residing at the capital as a
lang.[236] Later as a provincial t'ai-shou-ch'êng at Lu Chiang the
presumption is that he would be without easy access even to
standard material.

On the other hand, with a voluminous and varied literature
already in existence and accessible, the author seems likely to have
restricted his references to such works as were immediately pertinent
to his argument. Moreover as an adherent of the Han ju school,
he would defer to those works which, while not yet formally elevated
to the Canon, where the only primary sources from which
to draw lofty moral precepts and sound principles of government.
The scholar disdained to make use of those writers who "at times
deny the teaching of the classics and criticize the sages, and at
times glorify spiritual beings and gods and put faith in prodigies."[237]
This explains the paucity of quotations or complete disregard of
the writings of the economic and jurist school, such as represented
by the Kuan-tzŭ, the Shang-chün-shu, and the Han-fei-tzŭ, works
in circulation in Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien's time.[238]

Huan K'uan was steeped in the Kung-yang commentary[239] of the
Ch'un-ch'iu.[240] Hence after the apostolic Shih-ching and Lun-yü,
the greatest number of references attach to this work, which so
engrossed the earlier Han scholars. Seven of the quotations assigned
to the Ch'un-ch'iu derive from the famous commentary itself.

None of the ascriptions to the Chuan are derived from the Tso-chuan,
although the Ch'ien-han-shu[241] indicates that the latter was in
circulation in Ching-ti's time (156—141 B.C.). With four-fifths of the
quotations belonging to the Confucian bibliography, and half of these
from the Shih-ching and the Lun-yü, these two works appear thus
to have already formed the vademecum of the scholar of the time.
Contrasted with seeming carelessness in other directions, both of
these works are quoted on the whole accurately and faithfully.[242]

It is a striking fact that Huan K'uan's work reveals only one
direct quotation from the monumental compilation of his immediate
predecessor, and in part at least contemporary, the historiographer
Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien. Too, the quotation is placed in the mouth of the
Lord Grand Secretary, Sang Hung-yang, who speaks of his authority
as Ssŭ-ma Tzŭ.[243] The great historiographers's death has been determined
as occuring at the beginning of the reign of Chao-ti (86-74 B.C.).[244]
Thus it is probable that his life terminated shortly before the great
debate of the second lunar month of 81 B.C. Had the Shih-chi
been accessible to Huan K'uan, and had he chosen to make use of
it, he would have had at hand a veritable thesaurus of material
upon which to draw. Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien himself records that he placed
one copy of his work — whether on boards or silk rolls, we do not
know — in the Imperial library, and one at the Capital.[245] But the
Shih-chi, in the form completed by its compilator, appears to have

been withheld from general publication for reasons of state, until
Hsüan-ti's time (73-49 B.C.), to be again withdrawn from public
circulation in 28 B.C. Its contents represented material of a "heterodox"
and otherwise dangerous nature, in contemporary opinion.[246] Thus
only a few privileged persons could have had access to its
treasures.

It has been found, on the other hand, that the Shih-chi, though
quoted directly only once by the high officer of state, Sang Hung-yang,
yields a number of parallels to Huan K'uan's citatory passages.
But Huan K'uan's citations, notably in the case of the Lun-yü,
prove to be more faithful to the accepted (i. e. present day) texts
than those of the historiographer.[247] Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien makes a notably
limited use of the Shih-ching. Only six principal citations from this
earliest of extant Chinese literary documents have been noted by
Chavannes,[248] although others are suggested as occuring; Huan K'uan's
Yen T'ieh Lun contains no less than thirty-three direct quotations.
It may thus be concluded that Huan K'uan had available his own
collection of books, from which his citations were culled. Certain
passages in the Yen T'ieh Lun parallel in style or content the
Shih-chi.[249] This suggests little more than that these writers were
familiar with the same documents, and that both made use of much
which had become common property through oral tradition. Yet the
occurrence of an actual quotation from Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien's work, in
the words of the historiographer himself, would tend to indicate
that Huan K'uan, nevertheless, was familiar with the Shih-chi. The
caution in its use, however, would seem to corroborate the tradition
of its contemporary disfavor.

The foregoing examination of Huan K'uan's intellectual background
reveals with some certainty this early Han writer's place
in the evolution of China's school of letters. He represents, in a
word, the beginning of the Chinese scholastic mentality. The time
had arrived when the ascendancy of the "Confucian" bibliography

induced the scholars to ignore the litterature which later was to be
definitely regarded as non-canonical. Immediately before him, Ssŭ-ma
Ch'ien earned the condemnation of his own generation by an indiscriminating
eclecticism in the employment of all extant literature.
Huan K'uan's work may thus be regarded as among the earliest
influences which finally formed the Confucian canon.