§ 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]
