University of Virginia Library

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]