Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:17.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yao, Shun, and Prefiguration: the Origins and Ideology of the Han Imperial Genealogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Gopal Sukhu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the weakening of the Zhou royal line many began to wonder if someone qualified to replace it might not be found in another lineage. The myth of the sage king Yao ceding his kingdom to Shun, an unrelated commoner, helped to make licit the yearning for such a figure, and at times argued for meritocracy, an ideal some thinkers counterposed against the sanctity of hereditary monarchy. After the fall of the Qin that ideal and the myth remained closely associated through most of the Former Han dynasty.

Sometime in the latter half of that period, however, certain scholarly circles connected with the imperial house began to develop the doctrine that the Han Lius were in fact descended from Yao, a doctrine which became orthodoxy with the rise of Wang Mang. After the establishment of the Later Han dynasty, Guangwudi (r. 25–57) attempted to force this doctrine and a prophetic literature supporting it, called chenwei (usually translated apocrypha), on the newly rehabilitated Imperial Academy. Some of these texts were created by applying to the Spring and Autumn Annals a hermeneutic mode that many Western scholars still hold does not occur in the history of Confucian scholarship: typological allegory—in this case to show that the rise of the founder of the Han was prefigured in the Annals. Meanwhile, ideologues excluded from the academy, but favored by the emperors, were putting the image of Yao to an unprecedented use—to support an ideology wherein the right to rule was unquestionably tied to heredity regardless of merit.

This article discusses some of the political developments and the exegetical interventions that helped produce these new uses of the Yao/Shun myth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Early China , Volume 30 , 2005 , pp. 91 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The main exponent of the school of Alexandria was Origen (180–254). See the Early China 30, 2005–2006 concise account of the two schools in Leonardo Cecchini, “‘Allegory of the Theologians’” or ‘Allegory of the Poets’ : Allegory in Dante's Commedia,” Orbis Litterarum 55.5 (October 2000), 340–78. See also Tuve, Rosemond, Allegorical Imagery: Some Mediaeval Books and their Posterity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 48Google Scholar.

2. Auerbach, E., “Figura,” Archivum Romanicum 22 (1938), 189 ff.Google Scholar

3. Leonardo Cecchini, “Allegory of the Theologians,” 345–47. See also Pepin, Jean, Mythe et allegorie: les origines grecques et les contestations Judeo-chrétiennes (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1976)Google Scholar for one of the best overviews of early church hermeneutic history.

4. Sources of Chinese Tradition, ed. Bary, William Theodore de and Bloom, Irene (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), I.24Google Scholar.

5. See, for example, Yu, Pauline, The Reading of Imagery in the Chinese Poetic Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 17Google Scholar.

6. Pauline Yu, The Reading of Imagery, 116–17. Plaks, Andrew, Archetype and Allegory in “Dream of the Red Chamber” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 109–10Google Scholar. Both are quoted in Saussy, Haun, The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 19–31Google Scholar

7. Alighieri, Dante, Convivio II, I, 4Google Scholar. For a convenient translation, see Lansing, Richard H., Il Convivio (The Banquet) (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990)Google Scholar, reprinted in part in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Leitch, Vincent B. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001), 249Google Scholar.

8. Saussy, The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic, 27–28.

9. To the Christian missionaries who took literally such terms as qi and li and concluded that they were materialist concepts and could therefore not be used to describe the ultimate reality that is God, Leibnitz put the question: What precisely do terms such as “spirit” and even “being” describe? To show that such questions form part of Christian tradition, he cited Christian mystics who thought that even the concept of being was inadequate to the task of comprehending God. The implication is that all speech, Western or Chinese, is reduced to metaphor and instability when it comes to describing the ultimate. See Saussy, The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic, 38–48.

10. Pauline Yu, The Reading of Imagery, “Imagery in ‘Encountering Sorrow’,” 84–118.

11. Allan, Sarah, The Heir and the Sage (San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center, 1981), 27–55Google Scholar.

12. Two traditional scholars from the state of Lu, for example, who had been invited to help set up Han court ritual refused, protesting that “a reason for setting up ritual and music occurs only after [an aristocratic family] has had a hundred years’ accumulation of moral power; then and only then can ritual and music be established for it . The subtext is that Liu Bang as a commoner was not worthy. See Shi ji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), 99.2722Google ScholarPubMed.

13. In her The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, Michael Nylan gives a very useful historical account of how each of the classics was transmitted and interpreted, revising many aspects of the received wisdom about canon formation in ancient China.

14. Nylan, Michael, “A Problematic Model: The Han ‘Orthodox Confucian Synthesis,’ Then and Now,” in Imagining Boundaries: Changing Confucian Doctrines, Texts, and Hermeneutics, ed. Chow, Kai-wing, Ng, On-cho, and Henderson, John B. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 17–56Google Scholar.

15. Rudolf G. Wagner calls the Spring and Autumn Annals the “lead classic of the Han since Dong Zhongshu's intervention with Han Wudi,” explaining that the term “lead classic” refers to what the scholars considered the “core” of the classics. “Since the Former Han, this classic was the Chunqiu, which was read as a text into which Confucius had written all the secrets of running society in accordance with the Way.” See his The Craft of a Chinese Commentator: Wang Bi on the Laozi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 34 and 307n17Google Scholar.

16. See Lewis', Mark Edward analysis of the traditional reading of the Gongyang zhuan in his Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 139–46Google Scholar. See also Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, 262–68.

17. Kennedy, Gerge A., “Interpretation of the Ch'un-ch'iu,” journal of the American Oriental Society, 62 (1942), 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Hung, William, Chun qiu jingzhuan yinde (rpt. Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1983) (hereafter Chun qiu), 439Google Scholar.

19. Chun qiu, 439. See also Han shu , 27A.1229 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962)Google ScholarPubMed, where Dong Zhongshu's interpretation is further explained.

20. Han shu, 27A.1332.

21. See Han shu, 27A.1332.

22. See Han shu, 56.2524.

23. For a good introduction to the origins of the Annals commentaries, see Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, 257–62.

24. Huainanzi (Zhuzi jicheng ed.) (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1987), 149–50Google Scholar (“Zhushu xun” 9).

25. Chun qiu, 487.

26. Chun qiu, 487.

27. For an interesting interpretation of this tradition, see Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority, 235–40 and passim.

28. Cheng, Anne, Étude sur le Confucianisme Han: Élaboration d'une tradition exégètique sur les classiques (Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1985), 242Google Scholar.

29. Han shu, 75.3153.

30. See Loewe, Michael, Crisis and Conflict in Han China (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1974), chapter 5Google Scholar.

31. Han shu, 75.3153–54- See also Dull, Jack, A Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts of the Han Dynasty, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1966, 37–39Google Scholar.

32. Gary Arbuckle believes that the albino crows refer to an aspect of an alternative cosmology, the santong system, proposed by Dong Zhongshu, which we will discuss below. Their whiteness, according to Arbuckle, symbolizes the change from an era of what he calls “wholeheartedness” represented by the color black (under which Dong classified the Han dynasty) to an era of “reverence” represented by the color white, the era any dynasty directly succeeding the Han would have to usher in, according to Dong's santong system. The main problem with this theory is that it does not explain the symbolism of the stone, nor does it explain why Sui Hong does not explain the significance of the stone and the white crows. If those objects referred to a system other than the well known five elements cosmology, they surely would have called out for explanation by Sui Hong. See Arbuckle, Gary, “Inevitable Treason: Dong Zhongshu's Theory of Historical Cycles and Early Attempts to Invalidate the Han Mandate,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115.4 (Oct.-Dec., 1995), 585–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Han shu, 75.3154.

34. Gary Arbuckle, “Inevitable Treason,” 585–97.

35. Arbuckle, “Inevitable Treason,” 592n32.

36. Shi ji, 1.14–15. The Suoyin glosses bushan as weiruo .

37. Shi ji, 1.15n5.

38. Arbuckle, “Inevitable Treason,” 592.

39. Han shu, 56.2519.

40. Han shu, 99B.4105–8.

41. See Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts, 43.

42. For a good overview of Chinese debates about the Zuo, the Gongyang, and the Guliang, see Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, 253–306.

43. Han shu, 53.2410.

44. Han shu, 36.1967.

45. Han shu, 88.3617–18.

46. Gary Arbuckle argues that lack of confidence in Han durability goes back to Dong Zhongshu, but that eventually the Gongyang school split on the viability of Wang Mang's regime, one school favoring it and the other not. See his “The Gongyang School and Wang Mang,” Monumenta Serica 42 (1994), 127–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. Chun qiu, 301.

48. Chun qiu, 165.

49. See Gernet, Jacques, A History of Chinese Civilization, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 60Google Scholar.

50. Fearing perhaps he would come to be known as “Dragon-butcher?”

51. Chun qiu, 429.

52. Shi ji, 2.86, tells the stories of Liu Lei, Kong Jia and the Dragon-tamer, but does not connect them to the Han Liu family. Hun shu 1.8, written later by supporters of the Yao-Liu connection, does. The stories do not figure in the panegyrics to the Han by such Former Han writers as Sima Xiangru (179–117 b.c.e.), but by the Later Han they are frequently alluded to. A good example of the latter is Zhang Heng's (78–139 c.e.) “Nandu fu” in juan 4 of the Wen xuan (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1986), 149–62Google ScholarPubMed. The best translation is the “Southern Capital Rhapsody” by Knechtges, David R., Wen Xuan or Anthology of Refined Literature (Princeton University Press, 1982), 1.311–36Google Scholar. For reference to Fan Xuanzi, Liu Lei, etc., see p. 330, notes to lines 245–50.

53. See Han shu, 75.3153–54, and Dubs, Homer H., History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku (Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1955), 2.180–84 and 199–203, and 1.176n3Google Scholar. See also Jack Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts, 36–42. His reading of the Sui Hong story is somewhat different from mine because of the way that he interprets the word yun in Sui Hong's speech. I translate it as “fate”; he translates it as “evolution.”

54. See The Cambridge History of China, Vol. I, The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.- A.D. 220, ed. Twitchett, Denis and Fairbank, John K. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 185–90Google Scholar.

55. See Loewe, Michael, “The Authority of the Emperors of Qin and Han,” in Divination, Mythology and Monarchy in Han China, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 48 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 96Google Scholar.

56. Han shu, 88.3617–18 and Som, Tjan Tjoe, Po Hu Tung: Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1949), 1. 89–91Google Scholar.

57. Chun qiu, 439.

58. Chun qiu, 488.

59. Han shu, 36.1967.

60. Chun qiu, 392.

61. Han shu, 21B.1011–24. See also Cullen, Christopher, “The Birthday of the Old Man of Jiang County and Other Puzzles: Work in Progress on Liu Xin's Canon of the Ages,” Asia Major, 3rd series XIV.2 (2001), 27–60Google Scholar. This is an interesting analysis of some of the astronomical aspects of the Canon of the Ages. Cullen misses, however, the political significance of Annals and Zuo zhuan passages in the work.

62. Yasui Kozan discusses Liu Xin's (and his father's) role in the changeover to the use of the birth sequence of the elements as a way to reorder history, along with its ideological implications, but without mentioning the Zuo zhuan or Canon of the Ages connections in his Isho to Chūgoku shinpi no shisō (Tokyo: Hirakawa, 1988), 155–58Google Scholar.

63. Han shu, 21B.1012.

64. Aihe, Wang, Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 148–53Google Scholar.

65. The scholars who defended the more conservatively Confucian side, the Reformists, to use Michael Loewe's term, used the birth sequence as the cosmic basis of their program during the debates held in 81 b.c.e. known as the Discourses on Salt and Iron (Yantie lun ). They frequently cite as their authority Dong Zhongshu. The Modernists used the conquest sequence as the cosmic basis of their program, citing as their authority Zou Yan . See Yantie lun in Zhuzi jicheng, 8.54–56.

66. Han shu, 36.1967–68 and Han shu, 88.3619–20.

67. Dubs, History of the Former Han Dynasty, 3.54–56 and 192.

68. Han shu, 36.1967–68 and Han shu, 88.3619–20.

69. Han shu, 99A.4095.

70. Han shu, 98.4013, the biography of Yuandi's empress, Wang Mang's aunt, tells us that Wang Mang was a self-styled descendant of the Yellow Emperor, and that, according to his own genealogy, the bloodline came to him via Shun. Han shu 87B.3584 tells us that immediately after he took the throne Wang Mang decided that it was time to “determine his origins in order to find divinity in his past and two scholars, one of them Liu Fen , the son of Liu Xin, helped him fabricate the genealogy. Another bit of evidence that the genealogy was his own invention was that neither the Yellow Emperor nor Shun were ever worshipped as ancestors in his family until he began the practice just before he ascended the throne. See Dubs, History of the Former Han Dynasty, 3.277 and 398–400. Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts, 162.

71. Han shu, 99B.4108.

72. Han shu, 99B.4109.

73. Jack Dull believed that what was innovative about Wang Mang's interpretation of 14th year of Duke Ai entry was the idea that Confucius had ended his Annals ”because a cycle had ended at that time.” Dull never said what type of “cycle” was in question. See Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts, 159–61.

74. See Yasui Kozan, Isho to Chūgoku shinpi no shisō, 209–53, and Zhaopeng, Zhong, Chenwei lunlue (Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu, 1992)Google Scholar. See also Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-wei) Texts, 400–12 and 486–99.

75. Hou Han shu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1982), 29.1025Google Scholar.

76. Zhi Yun was a disciple of Zhuang Pengzu , whose school of classical interpretation constituted one of two branches the Gongyang school split into after the execution of Sui Hong, the other being the school of Yan Anle , according to the research of Gary Arbuckle. The school of Zhuang Pengzu declined with the rise of Wang Mang, while the school of Yan Anle appears to have been favored by Wang Mang, suggesting that “the two schools took an opposing attitude to Wang Mang's rationale for assuming the throne.” See Arbuckle, “The Gongyang School and Wang Mang,” 127–50.

77. Hou Han shu, 13.533, 537–38- Under Wang Mang the name of the commandery of Shu was changed to Daojiang and the title of taishou was changed to zuzheng .

78. Hou Han shu, 1A.21; 79A.2558; 79B.2573; Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an-Wei) Texts, 230–35.

79. The emperor often reacted against those who cast doubt on the authenticity of the texts or who suggested that the emperor was over dependent on them. Examples are the cases of Yin Min and Huan Tan (ca. 43 b.c.e.-c.e. 28). The former almost lost his position when he at first refused when the emperor ordered that he help edit the chenwei texts, saying that the texts could not be the work of the Sages as the emperor claimed. The emperor threatened to execute Huan Tan when he showed his disdain for the texts. See Hou Han shu 79A.2558 and 28.959–61.

80. This passage is from the Chun qiu Gongyang jiegu which is interspersed with the shu in the Chun qiu Gongyang zhuan zhushu in the Shisan jing zhushu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 2352–54Google Scholar. I have based my parsing of the text, and to a certain extent my translation, on the French version by Anne Cheng in her Étude sur le Confucianisme Han, 244–51. An easier text to read, because it is just the He Xiu commentary and the Gongyang commentary, is the Chun qiu Gongyang jingzhuan jiegu , the Zhonghua 1987 photocopy of the Song 1193 edition of the Chunxi Fuzhou Gongshi ku kanben text kept in the National Library, Beijing.

81. For the Yan Kong tu, see the Chunqiu Yan Kong tu in Weishu jicheng (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1994), 902Google Scholar (for the descent of the Yan Kong tu, see p. 905). An alternative version of the capture of the unicorn, where the firewood gatherer brings the unicorn to Confucius in a wheelbarrow, and the unicorn spits out texts, can be found in another chenwei text entitled Xiaojing youqi . For the Xiaojing youqi, see p. 624. See also Dull, Historical Introduction to the Apocryphal (Ch'an- Wei) Texts, 516–27.

82. Han shu, 1B.84.

83. On the close connection between the Gongyang scholarship and the chenwei, see Zhong Zhaopeng, Chenwei lunlue, 116–46. On the general connection between jinwen scholarship and the chenwei, see Yasui Kozan, Isho to Chūgoku shinpi no shisō, 37–45, where he gives evidence of still subscribing to the “rationalism vs superstition” theory of guwen vs jinwen. On the same subject see Zongli, Lü, “Weishu yu Xi-Han jinwen jingxue” , in Shin'i shisō no sogoteki kenkyū , ed. Kozan, Yasui (Tokyo: Kokusho, 1984), 395–426Google Scholar.

84. See Nylan, Michael, “The Chin wen/Ku wen Controversy in Han Times,” T'oung Pao LXXX (1994), 83–146Google Scholar. See also Li Xueqin , “Jinguxue kao yu Wujing yiyi” , Guoxue jinlun (Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu), 1992; and Ess, Hans Van, “The Old Text/New Text Controversy: Has the 20th Century Got It Wrong?,” Toung Pao LXXX (1994), 146–70Google Scholar.

85. See Cheng, Anne, “What Did It Mean to Be a Ru in Han Times?,” Asia Major, 3rd series, XIV.2 (2001), 112Google Scholar. See also Robert Kramers, “The Development of the Confucian Schools,” in The Cambridge History of China, Volume 1, The Ch'in and Han Empires 221 B.C-A.D. 220, 763.

86. Loewe, Michael, in his influential Crisis and Conflict in Han China (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), 12Google Scholar, characterized the difference between the two political orientations in the following way: “The Modernists derived their tradition from Ch'in and its unification of the world under a single rule, and the occult forces which they worshipped had been served by the kings and then the emperors of Ch'in. The Reformists harked back to a tradition which they traced to the kings and ethical ideas of Chou . .. The Modernists tried to shape imperial policies so that they could control human endeavour, utilise human strength and exploit natural resources in order to enrich and strengthen the state. The Reformists found it repugnant to exercise more controls on the population than were absolutely necessary, and in place of the obedience to official orders which the Modernists demanded, the Reformists looked to the people of China to follow the example and moral lead of the emperor... To Modernists the emperor stood at the apex of the State and administrative duties were delegated according to a strictly prescribed scheme of senior and junior officials. The Reformists saw the Emperor first and foremost as an instrument for conferring bounties on mankind and believed that the most senior statesmen should share the supreme responsibility for government from positions that were of equal status.”

87. The absence of the forgery/philology debate in the Han was noticed by the great late Qing classicist Liao Ping (1852–1932), as Li Xueqin has pointed out; see Li Xueqin, “Jinguxue kao yu Wujing yiyi,” 128–30. See also Ess, Van, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty and the Old Text/New Text Controversy,” T'oung Pao LXXXV (1999), 41–42Google Scholar.

88. In his “The Imperial Tombs of the Former Han Dynasty and their Shrines,” T'oung Pao LXXVIII (1992), 340Google Scholar, Loewe states, “How far a distinction should be drawn at this time between the two attitudes later to be described as Ku-wen and Chin-wen may perhaps not be known.”

89. Baoxuan, Wang, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu (Taipei: Dongda, 1994)Google Scholar.

90. Nylan, “The Chin/Ku Wen Controversy,” 86–87.

91. Nylan, “The Chin/Ku Wen Controversy,” 107.

92. See Nylan, “The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy,” 104 and 87.

93. Han shu, 100.4207–25.

94. Han shu, 100.4208.

95. Han shu, 100A.4207f.

96. See Sarah Allan, The Heir and the Sage, 31 and Mengzi (Sibu congkan ed.) 9/98–12b (5A.5, 6).

97. Liu Bang's having won the right to rule not through divine intervention or heredity, but through military prowess was frankly affirmed by his followers. See Wang Aihe's excellent article on the founding of the dynasty, “Creators of an Emperor: the Political Group behind the Founding of the Han Empire,” Asia Major, 3rd series, XIV.i, 19–50, especially 24–28.

98. Han shu, 100A.4207–9 and 4211.

99. See Quan Hou Han wen , 23.8b–10a; 26.1a, 3b, 6a–8a, in Quan shanggu Sandai Qin Han Sanguo Liuchao wen , Kejun, Yan (1762–1843), comp., 1815 rpt. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959)Google Scholar; Tjan Tjoe Som, trans., Po-hu t'ung, 2.528ff; and The Cambridge History of China, 780.

100. These remarks are in Ban Gu's critique of Jia Yi's (200–168 b.c.e.) ”The Faults of Qin” (Guo Qin lun ) in Shi ji, 6.291.

101. Quan Hou Han Wen 26.6a (in Quan shanggu sandai Qin Han Sanguo liuchao wen). See also Ch'en Ch'i-yun, “Confucian, Legalist, and Taoist Thought in Later Han,” in The Cambridge History of China, 1.780.

102. See Michael Loewe, “Imperial Sovereignty; Tung Chung-shu's Contribution and his Predecessors”, in his Divination, Mythology and Monarchy in Han China, 121–41, where he says (on p. 136), “Heaven took little or no place in the religious cults patronized by the Han emperors until c. 31 BC.”

103. The Han shu 88.3620 outline of the transmission of the study of the Zuo zhuan from the Former Han to the Later Han marks the teachings of Liu Xin as the turning point in the study of that text.

104. Hou Han shu, 40B.1375–85.

105. Hou Han shu, 40B.1376.

106. Hou Han shu 40B.1384. Nylan, in the “The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy,” 109, claims that Ban Biao based the ”Wangming lun” ”on claims found in the apocrypha.” I know of no references to the chenwei in that work.

107. Hou Han shu, 1A.84.

108. Hou Han shu, 79A.2558.

109. See Van Ess, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 54–56.

110. Hou Han shu, 28A.961.

111. Hou Han shu, 36.1217–23.

112. Hou Han shu, 79B.2582.

113. Hou Han shu, 59.1911–12.

114. Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority, 337–62.

115. Hou Han shu, 79A.2554.

116. Hou Han shu, 36.1233.

117. T'oung Pao LXXXV (1999), 29–64Google Scholar.

118. Li Xueqin argues that scholars, such as Liao Ping, who used the Wujing yiyi to demonstrate sharp differences between the jinwen and guwen scholars miss the fact that in that text Xu Shen's own “gu” opinions sometimes agree with the “jin” opinions, and that sometimes “gu” and “jin” opinions are in agreement. Van Ess, basing some of his argument on the research of R. A. Miller, shows that instances of “gu” and “jin” agreement are either negligible or explainable, and do not in fact constitute counter- evidence of fundamental differences between the two schools. See Van Ess, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 41–43. See also Li Xueqin, “Jinguxue kao yu Wujing yiyi,” 128–30, and Miller, R. A., “The Wu-ching i-i of Hsu Shen,” Monumento Serica 33 (1977–1978), 1–21Google Scholar. For Ping's, Liao views, see his “Jinguxue kao” in Liao Ping xueshu lunzhu xuanji (Chengdu: Ba Shu, 1989) 29–112, 535–626Google Scholar, especially 545–47.

119. Hou Han shu, 88.3620, in fact, traces the Han dynasty study of the Zuo zhuan back to Jia Yi, but indicates that one of the two main lines of Zuo zhuan studies in the Later Han is traceable back to Liu Xin.

120. Van Ess, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 48–61. Compare Kozan, Yasui, Isho no seiritsu to sono tenkai (Tokyo: Kokusho, 1979), 46–57Google Scholar

121. Van Ess, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 30.

122. See Van Ess, “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 61.

123. In Van Ess’ “The Apocryphal Texts of the Han Dynasty,” 55ff, for example, an explanation (shuo ) of the Han shi tradition of Book of Odes interpretation is cited as the “new” (jitt ) opinion on the construction of the Lingtai; the Ouyang Shang shu and the Xiahou Shang shu traditions are cited as the bases for the “new” opinion concerning the sangong and the Qi , Lu , and Han interpretive traditions on the Odes are cited as the bases for “new” doctrine of the miraculous births of the sages.

124. Hou Han shu, 35.1201.

125. See Hou Han shu, 35.1203 for this explanation.

126. Hou Han shu, 35.1202.

127. For the functions of the taichang, see Hou Han shu, zhi 25.3571.

128. See Han shu, 36.1201–3. Van Ess has a somewhat different interpretation of the same affair. See his “The Old Text/New Text Controversy: Has the 20th Century Got It Wrong?,” 164–70.

129. Gary Arbuckle has argued that, although the Chunqiu fanlu is not a reliable source for the thought of Dong Zhongshu, parts of it were written or revised after Dong's lifetime to refute the claims of Wang Mang and “prove” “the Han dynasty cosmologically inviolate and invulnerable to replacement.” In none of the Chunqiu fanlu essays where he sees evidence of this (chapters 38, 42, 43, 58, 59, and 60) is the case for the Han argued in genealogical terms—it is argued only in cosmological terms. See his “The Gongyang School and Wang Mang,” 127–50.

130. Chun qiu Gongyang jiegu, Shisan jing zhushu ed., 2354. On the use of the Chun qiu as a basis of Han jurisprudence, see Queen, Sarah A., From Chronicle to Canon: The Hermeneutics of the Spring and Autumn, according to Tung Chung-shu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 127–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131. See Anne Cheng, Étude sur le confucianisme Han, 156–57, for a discussion of He Xiu's debt to Huwu Sheng , a contemporary of Dong Zhongshu.

132. Hou Han shu, 36.1237.

133. Anne Cheng, Étude sur le confucianisme Han, 104–7.

134. Hou Han shu, 36.1236.

135. See Sarah A. Queen's illuminating discussion of the concept of quan in From Chronicle to Canon, 152–58.

136. Michael Nylan, for example, in her “The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy,” 105–6, says, “Chia gauged the interests of his imperial audience well, for he asserted the superiority of the Tso Commentary over its chin wen counterparts (the Kung-yang and the Ku-liang commentaries) in two related ways, both of which were calculated to please the throne: Chia argued first that only the Tso celebrated hierarchical obligations to the ruler and the father, while the Kung-yang undercut obligations to the ruling house in alleging that receipt of the Mandate depended more upon expedient action (ch'uan ) than Heaven's divine appointment. He also contended that the Tso accorded better with the apocrypha, which confirmed the ruling Liu clan's descent from the demi-god ruler, Yao. In this way, only the Tso was seen to uphold the Lius’ growing pretensions to divine right. Emperor Chang was easily persuaded to favour the Tso Commentary once he became convinced that it supported notions of divine rule” (my emphasis). Anne Cheng in her Etude sur le confucianisme Han, 106, says, “Jia Kui avait donc bien compris qu'une apologie des Classiques en guwen ne pouvait ĕtre re´ue avec faveur par l'empereur que si elle s'assurait le soutien des Apocryphes. Malgré cette concession, … Jia Kui proposait la première analyse veritable des differences entre les deux traditions, “ancienne” et “moderne”. Rien de précis, jusque là, n'avait été dit … (my emphasis)”

137. Hou Han shu, 36.1239.

138. Anne Cheng, Étude sur le confucianisme Han, 103.

139. Hou Han shu, 35.1207–13.

140. Sarah A. Queen, From Chronicle to Canon, 229.

141. For an excellent study of how genealogy and cosmology continued to influence political discourse at the end of the Han and beyond, see Goodman, Howard L., Ts'ao P'i Transcendent: the Political Culture of Dynasty Founding in China at the End of the Han (Seattle: Scripta Serica, 1998). See also Yasui Kozan, Isho to Chūgoku shinpi no shisō, 221–28Google Scholar.

142. Henderson, John B., Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 5Google Scholar.

143. Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary, chapter 4.