The Emperor's Four Treasures: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch'ien-Lung Era 0674251156, 9780674251151

Citation preview

Published by the Council on East Asian Studies Harvard University and distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London 1987

The Emperors Four Treasuries SCHOLARS AND THE STATE IN THE LATE CHTEN-LUNG ERA

Published by the Council on East Asian Studies Harvard University and distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London

The Emperors Four Treasuries SCHOLARS AND THE STATE IN THE LATE CH1EN-LUNG ERA

The Emperor's Four Treasuries

Harvard East Asian Monographs 129

Published by the Council on East Asian Studies Harvard University and distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London 1987

The Emperors Four Treasuries SCHOLARS AND THE STATE IN THE LATE CHTEN-LUNG ERA

© 1987 by the Pre s ide nt a nd Fellows of Ha r va r d Colle ge Pr inte d in the Unite d States o f Ame r ica T he Co unc il on Eas t As ia n Studie s at Ha r va r d Unive r s ity publis he s a monogr a ph series and, thr ough the Fair bank Ce nte r for Eas t As ia n Re s e arch a nd the Re is chaue r Ins titute o f Japane s e Studie s , adminis te rs research projects de s igne d to fur the r s cholarly unde r s ta nding o f Ch in a , Ja p a n , Kore a, Vie t na m , In n e r As ia, a nd adjace nt areas. Libr a r y o f Congre s s Ca ta lo ging in Public a tion Da t a Guy, R. Ke nt, 1948T he e mpe r or’s four treasuries. (Ha r va r d Eas t As ian monogr aphs ; 129) Bibliography: p. Include s inde x. 1. Ssu k,u ch Uan s hu —His tory. 2. Ch in a —His to r y — Ch ie n- lung 1736- 1795. 3. Le a r ning a nd s cholars hip — Ch in a . I. T itle . II. Series. AC149.S73G89 1987 001.2’0951 87- 495

For Christine Cordell, With Love

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

1

Introduction

1

2

The Im perial Initiative

9

Pre- Ch’ing Policies and Prerogatives 10 T he Ch’ing Conte xt 16 Cour t Publication and Ce ns ors hip in the Ch ien- lung Reig] T he Edict of 1771 34

3

The Scholars' Response

38

K a}o- cheng Scholarship in the Eighte e nth Ce ntur y 39 T he Circle of Ch u Yun and Its Significance 49 Chu Yun’s Me mor ial 56

4

Scholars and Bureaucrats at the ChOen- lung Court: The Compilation of the Ssu- k u ch iian- s hu 67 De cis ion- making at the Ch ien- lung Court: T he Es tablis hme nt of the Ssu- k u Commis s ion Collators and Commitme nts 79 Colle ction and Evaluation 88 . . . To Forgive, Divine : T he Errors List and Ch ’ing Adminis tr ation 95 T he Product 104

5

Reviewing the Reviewers: Scholarly Partisanship and the Anno ta te d Ca ta lo g 121 T he Ssu- k}u chUlan- shu and Ha n Le arning: T he Dr aft Reviews of Shao Chin- han 124 T he Ssu- k u ch}ikm- shu and Sung Le arning: T he Dr aft Reviews of Yao Nai 140 T he Or igins and Significance of Sung Le arning: An Hypothe s is 154

6

C h ui- mao ch iu- tz u: Blowing Back the Fur and Ex amining the Faults

157

T he Or igins of the Ca mpa ig n (Fe bruary 1772- September 1774) 159 T he Growth of the Lite rary Inquis ition (1776- 1782) 166 A Case Study: T he Proceedings Agains t the Ch u Family of Kiangs i 182 T he Sys te matization of Ce ns ors hip (1780- 1782) 190 T he Eighte e nth- Ce ntury Ce ns ors hip in His tory and His tor iogr aphy 197

7

Conclusion

Notes

213

Bibliography Glossary Index

201

251 269

279

Acknowledgments

T his book was be gun as a dis s e rtation s upe rvis e d by Professor Be n­ ja m in I. Schwartz at Ha r va r d, a nd I a m pleas ed to jo in the ma ny who have made it the ir first or de r o f business to acknowle dge his guidance a nd ins pir a tion. Professor Ying- s hih Yu or igina lly s ug­ gested the topic to me a nd prove d an advis or o f rare skill, allowing me to deve lop in my own dire ctions , but offe ring e ncourage me nt, bibliogr a phic and or ga niza tio nal advice at critical mome nts . Profes ­ sor P h ilip Ku h n has served for me as for ma ny a source o f s t imula ­ tion a nd s upport in t h in k ing a nd te aching a bout issues o f mode r n Chine s e history. Professors Be atrice S. Bartle tt, C h ’e n Chie h- hs ie n, Paul J. A. Clar ke , Ja c k L. Du ll, Be nja min Elm a n , the late Jos e ph Fletcher, Jo h n K. Fair bank, Willia m Kir by, Sus an N a q uin , Jo n a ­ than Spence, the late Suzuki Chus e i, Wu Che - fu, Ale x ande r B. Woods ide , and Yin Chiang- yi have all made much- value d sugges­ tions a nd comme nts , as have me mbe rs o f the His tor y Re s e arch Gr oup, the Ch in a Co llo q u iu m a nd the De pa r tm e nt o f His tor y at the Unive r s ity o f Wa s hington a nd me mbe r s of the His tor y De pa r tm e nt s e minars at Yale, Ha r va r d, Wa s hington Unive r s ity a nd Bowdoin Colle ge . I have appre ciate d the ir criticis ms even if I have be e n u n ­ able to imple me nt all o f the ir suggestions. T he research staffs o f the Chine s e Libr a r y o f the Hum a n is tic Re s e arch Ins titute at Kyoto U n i­ versity, the Archive s o f the Na tio na l Palace Mu s e u m in T aipe i, the Firs t His tor ical Archive s in Be ijing, the Harvard- Ye nching Libr a r y a nd the Eas t As ia Lib r a r y o f the Unive r s ity o f Was hing to n have

gracious ly a ccommodate d me a nd saved me countles s hours o f time . T hatche r De a ne , Antho ny Fair bank, Jo h n He r m a n a nd T anya C h ’en He r m a n have assisted me in pr e pa r ing the ma nus c r ipt for p ub lic a ­ tion. For cle rical a nd research s uppor t, pa r tic ula r ly d ur in g the last stages of ma nus c r ipt pr e pa r ation, I owe a de bt o f gr atitude to the C h in a Pr ogr a m o f the He nr y M . Ja c ks on School o f In te r na tio na l Studie s , Unive r s ity o f Was hington, a nd its successive cha ir me n, Ja c k L. Du ll a nd Nicholas R. Lardy. T he Ssu- k)u ch'iian- shu took over twe nty years a nd r e quir e d the resources o f an e mpe ror, over two h undr e d scholars, a nd countles s book collectors a nd clerks to comple te . T his proje ct has take n r athe r less time , accomplis he d s ignificantly less, but r e quir e d almos t as m uc h s upport. It is a ple as ure finally to th a nk all o f those, na me d above a nd un na m e d , teachers, colleagues , s tude nts , relatives, a nd frie nds who have bor ne me thr o ugh the proje ct, a nd to offer some s mall res ult o f the ir m a ny kindnes ses.

the e mpe r or in be g inning s uch a proje ct, a nd why did he do so only in 1772 afte r he ha d be e n on the throne for thirty- six years? To ans we r these que s tions one mus t look not so m uc h to the e dict its e lf as to the tr a ditio n o f impe r ia l s cholars hip a nd book colle cting that it was me a nt to invoke, a nd the characte r o f the e mpe r or who s ought to invoke it. T his tr a dit io n has not be e n m uc h discussed in the We s te rn lite r atur e on G h in a s political a nd inte lle ctual history. Yet it was an im po r ta nt one , for the as s ociation o f wis dom, kings hip a nd the a r tic ula tio n o f c ultur a l ide ntity was a funda me nta l e le me nt o f le gitimacy in tr a ditio na l Ch in a . Empe r or s of C h in a were not only political leaders , they were sages a nd stewards o f the classical canon; as s uch the y ha d very diffe re nt pre rogative s over s cholars hip a nd inte lle ctual life tha n those to whic h we are accus tome d in the West. T hos e pre rogative s a nd the philos ophical pre s uppos itions on whic h they were bas e d de fine d the par ame te rs not only of thought contr ol a nd lite rary patronage , but inde e d o f inte lle ctual life itself.

Pre - Ch yin g P o lic ie s a n d Pre ro g at iv e s T he clos ing line s o f the e dict o f 1772 refe rre d to book colle ction pr o ­ jects unde r take n by Chine s e gove rnme nts d ur in g the re igns o f H a n C h eng- ti (r. 32- 6 B .C .) a nd T a ng Hs ua n- ts ung (r. 713- 756). But these were only the largest o f the book colle ction projects s pons ore d by ne ar ly every Chine s e dynas ty.3 T he scope o f these efforts varie d, according to the capacitie s a nd pre te ns ions o f the rulers who or de re d the m. T he Firs t Empe r or o f C h in a (r. 221- 205 b .c .) adopte d a policy toward the writte n wor d which all s ubs e que nt rulers would know but none would dare e mulate . At the e nd o f the second ce ntury B.C., as H u Shih (1891- 1962) has r e mar ke d, the “age of idle s pe culation had passed, a nd the pr oble m of the day was how to govern the ne wly created e m p ire . 4 To pre ve nt inte lle ctuals fr om cr iticizing “the gov­ e r nme nt in the light o f the ir own te ac hings ,” a nd cas ting “dis re pute on the r ule r,” it was orde re d in 213 B.C. that: . . all books in the bur e au o f history, save the records of Ch ’in be burne d; all persons in the e mpire, save those who hold a function unde r the Bure au o f Wide Le ar ning, dar ing to store the Shih, the Shu, or the discussions of the various philosophers, s hould go to the adminis trative and militar y governors so that those books may be indis criminate ly

burne d. Those who dare to discuss the Shih and the Shu among the m­ selves s hould be [ executed and the ir bodies] exposed in the market place. . . . Books not to be destroyed will be those on me dicine and phar ­ macy, divination by the tortoise and milfoil, and agriculture and arborculture .”5

T he de s truction which followed this or de r was pr oba bly not as great as has c o mmo nly be e n alle ge d, since the e dict was only in effect for five years and several categories o f books a nd book owners were e xcluded. O n the the ore tical level, however, the e dict made several impor ta nt as s umptions . Firs t, C h ’in Shih- huang’s or de r showed, albe it in a ne gative way, the impor tance o f the writte n word for C h i­ nese gove rnme nts . Wr itings mus t have be e n pe rce ive d as pos ing s ome thre at to the gove rnme nt for s uch e mine ntly practical me n as the First Empe r or o f C h ’in a nd his minis te r s to orde r a pros cription. More ove r, the rulers o f C h ’in cle arly respected ce r tain categories o f books , those which could dire ctly contr ibute to us e ful functions s uch as c ur ing the sick or d iv inin g the future ; a nd were w illing to pe r mit ce rtain categories o f officials, those attache d to the Bur e au o f Wid e Knowle dge , to see all books . T he goal o f C h ’in rulers was not to destroy all wr iting, but to unify a nd harnes s knowle dge in pur s uit o f the ir own objectives. Scholar s hip was too impo r ta nt to be left to scholars. T he policies of the H a n dynas ty, though ofte n repres ented as having de ve loped in re action to the C h ’in pr ohibitions , were bas ed on many of the same as s umptions . In 191 B.C., the law p r o h ib it in g private owne rs hip of books was for mally abrogate d. H a n Wu- ti (r. 141- 87 B.C.) “set plans for the re s toring o f books a nd appointe d officers for tr ans c r ibing the m, inc lud in g even the works o f the va r i­ ous philos ophe rs a nd the comme ntar ie s , all to be s tored in the im p e r ­ ial libr ar y.” Und e r H a n C h eng- ti an impe r ia l e mis s ary was sent out to collect books thr o ughout the e mpir e a nd four collators were a p ­ pointe d to review the texts re ce ive d.6 T he mos t famous o f these were Liu Hs ia ng and his son Liu Hs in (43 b .c .- a . d . 25) who were in charge of the classics a nd comme ntarie s on the m, the various p h i­ losophers, and poe try.7 Unlike the book bur ne r s o f the Firs t Empe r or , Liu a nd his col­ leagues did not me a n to stifle inte lle ctual dis pute . In fact there were impo r ta nt debates thr o ughout the H a n , not only about the a uth e n­ ticity o f various texts but also the lessons that could be dr awn fr om the m.8 But fr om the point o f view o f mode r n te xtual criticis m or

even that o f eighteenth- a nd nine te e nth- ce ntury Ne w Text C o n fu ­ cianis m, the Lius impa c t on s cholars hip was as pe r nicious as C h ’in Shih- hua ng s.9 For in cor re cting a nd e va lua ting texts in the na me o f the e mpe r or the y ha d an e nor mous , pe rhaps de te r minative effect on s ubs e que nt s cholars hip. Wh ile the policie s of the For me r H a n a nd the C h ’in dynas tie s had oppos ite effects, the one pre s e rving books a nd the othe r de s troying the m, the y were bas e d on a c o mmo n as s umption: that the co nditio n o f s cholars hip —those arts by which tr uth was preserved a nd p r o c la im e d —was a pr ope r a nd impor ta nt conce rn o f the gove rnme nt. T his a s s umption was, o f course, the m ir r o r image o f the Co nfuc ia n vie w that the state o f the gove rnme nt was a pr ope r a nd im po r ta nt conce rn o f the scholar. But the not io n that the state ha d a role to play in the inte lle ctual life was not solely o f Co n fuc ia n ins pir a tion for, as C h ’in Shih- huang s policies d e m o n ­ strate d, it was he ld by Co nfuc ia ns a nd Le galis ts alike. If, as has ofte n be e n suggested, the arts o f r uling a nd w r iting de ve lope d toge the r in ancie nt C h in a , the n a sense of the bas ic unit y of the two acts may well have unde r la in both the Co nfuc ia n a nd Le galis t views o f s chol­ ars hip a nd gove rnme nt. T he Chine s e conce ption of the un it y o f s cholars hip a nd gove rn­ me nt helps to e xplain the tr a ditio na l e valuation o f the s cholarly projects s pons ore d by various re gime s which r ule d C h in a d ur in g the ages o f uphe aval be twe e n the H a n a nd T a ng dynas ties . In 159 und e r H a n Hua n- ti (r. 147- 168) a special divis ion o f the Chine s e gove rnme nt known as the pi- shu- chien, was cre ate d to collect a nd col­ late books on a r e gular bas is .10 Since book colle cting was by this time seen as a le gitimate activity o f gove r nme nt, mos t rulers of nor th a nd s outh C h in a for the next several h undr e d years recreated this d iv i­ s ion o f gove rnme nt, a nd unde r took the public a tio n o f catalogs . Afte r the fall of the H a n in 220 however, Chine s e gove rnme nts were s hort­ live d, s e ldom r e m a ining in powe r long e nough to comple te a thor ough catalog. Fur the r mor e , in the warfare a nd chaos o f the era, the impe r ia l libr a r y was dis pers ed several time s . T he re fore the cata­ logs pr oduce d were us ually short a nd unr e liable . However, the c r iti­ cis m o f these catalogs thr o ughout Chine s e his tory has be e n not that they were inaccurate , but that they were me re ly catalogs , that is the re gime s which s pons ore d the m made no effort to assess or impr ove up o n the books they collected. Evide ntly, a gove rnme nt’s a bility to collect books , correct texts, a nd pass judg m e nts on the m had be come a s ign of its power, a nd a re gime whic h faile d to do this was s ome how

inade quate . Wr iting a nd r ulin g ha d be come , in some sense, oppos ite sides o f the s ame coin, characte ris tic and inte rr e late d expressions o f lande d lite rati domina nc e o f impe r ia l Ch in a . T he Sui (589- 619) anxious to de mons tr ate its powe r in this as in so ma ny othe r respects, e mbar ke d on a book colle ction proje ct that ultimate ly involve d three stages. In the first, unde r ta ke n before the dynas ty ha d unifie d Ch in a , an e mis s ary was sent out to collect rare books, offe ring one bolt o f silk for each ckuan collected; the or iginals were the n copie d a nd re turne d to the ir owners. T he n, be g inning in 589 scholars were s ummone d to collate a nd copy the texts collected. Finally, officials o f the Sui dynas ty jud g e d the value o f the books they had collected, divide d the m into three classes a nd issued a catalog e ntitle d the Ta-yeh cheng- yii shu- mu (Ca ta lo g o f the great e nte rpris e era, compile d by impe r ia l c o m m a n d ).11 Anothe r e nor mous book catalog, lis ting some 48,167 cfuian was issued d u r in g the re ign o f T ’a ng Hs uan- ts ung (r. 713- 755) and was e ntitle d the CHun- shu ssu- lu (Ca ta lo g o f the as s e mble d books ). As Yao Ming- ta points out, however, this catalog was not compile d in a day. T ’ang bibliographe rs worke d on the ample colle ction as s e mble d by the Sui. Fur the rmor e , the De pa r tm e nt o f the Im pe r ia l Libr a r y in T ’a ng time s , which pr oduce d its first catalog unde r T ’a ng T ai- ts ung (r. 627- 650), was staffed with one director, two s ubdire ctors , one assistant, three secretaries, te n revisers o f texts a nd four e ditor s .12 T he Sung dynas ty pr oduce d two impo r ta nt catalogs o f the im ­ pe rial collections . T he first, e ntitle d CKung- wen tsung- mu (Ca ta lo g o f the impe r ia l libr a r y at C h ung- wen gate) was e dite d by Wa ng Yaoch’en (1001- 1056) a nd issued in 1041.13 It is one o f the few impe r ial book catalogs available today, ha ving be e n re cons tructe d by the Ssuk u editors fr om fragme nts preserved in the Yung- lo ta- tien. T he Sung impe r ia l libr ar y e vide ntly functione d as s ome thing o f a le nding library, for the Sung- shih records several complaints by impe r ial libr ar ians that books ha d be e n borrowe d fr om b ut not r e tur ne d to the colle ction.14 T he colle ction was large ly destroyed by Jur c h e n invaders in 1126. Onc e rees tablis hed in Hangchow, the De pa r tme nt of the Im p e r ia l Libr a r y trie d to re cons titute its holdings “by m a king known its needs to bibliophile s in official circles, by s e nding directors on s couting trips, a nd by us ing the adminis tr ative hie rarchy o f the gove rnme nt, which e xte nde d thr oughout the e mpir e .” In 1177- 1178 a catalog o f the re cons titute d library, e ntitle d the Chung- hsing kuan- ko shu- mu (Ca ta lo g o f the librarie s o f the re s toration), was is s ue d.15

De s pite these achie ve me nts , the practice o f cataloging a nd cor ­ r e cting texts in the impe r ia l libr a r y de cline d afte r the Sung. T his may be a ttr ibute d in par t to a lack o f interes t in things lite rary on the par t o f the Mo n g o l rulers o f the Yua n or the first rulers o f the Min g . But othe r factors, inc lud ing the c ha nging social a nd geo­ gr aphical characte r o f the inte lle ctual c o m m un ity a nd the gr owth o f p r in t ing were im po r ta nt in s ha ping the ne w patte r n of re lations be twe e n the s cholar a nd the state. Accor ding to the se ve nte enth- ce ntury his tor ian Wa n Ssu- t u n g (1633- 1683), the Yua n impe r ia l libr a r y was not at all infe r ior to those o f pr e ce ding gove rnme nts . More ove r, the Yua n gove rnme nt made a n u m b e r of im po r ta nt innovations in inte lle ctual life. Wa n wrote: [ The Yuan rulers were] particularly to be comme nde d for the ir practice of allowing the writings of Confucians in the towns and prefectures to be hande d up through the provincial adminis tr ations for the criticism of Ha n lin acade micians. T he provincial governments of Chiang- che and other areas were ordered to pr int and circulate those worthy of publica­ tion. . . . The Wen- hsien t un^- kho by Ma Tuan- lin rose to promine nce by this means. In other cases, authors were rewarded with a rank or sti­ pe nd, a cus tom unprecedente d in ancie nt or mode r n time s .16

T he Mo n g o l invas ions a nd the severity of e arly Yua n rule has ­ te ne d the move o f ma ny of Ch in a ’s inte lle ctual elite fr om the capital to the ir native dis tricts . T he Yua n rule rs o f Ch in a , at least d u r in g the last years o f the ir dynas ty, were no less conce rne d tha n the ir pr e de ­ cessors about the state o f s cholars hip in the ir r e alm, but the y c on­ fr onte d an inte lle ctual c o m m unity far more diverse s ocially a nd ge ogr aphically tha n any confronte d by pre vious regimes . Scholar ­ s hip was no longe r the exclusive preserve o f a s mall corps o f aris to­ crats who looke d to the ca pital for le ade rs hip, b ut the vocation a nd avocation o f pe ople of m a ny diffe re nt backgr ounds a nd conce rns s pre ad over a wide ge ogr aphical area. P r inting , which came into wide s pre ad use d u r in g the Sung dynas ty, served as both a s ign a nd s pur o f this de ve lopme nt. C h ’ien Ta- hsin (1728- 1804) note d in the Preface to his Pu Yuan- shih i- wen- chih (Supple me nta r y treatise on biblio gr a phy for the Yua n his tory): Books before the T a n g were all produce d by handcopying. Dur ing the Five Dynasties pe riod pr inting first appeared. In the Sung, both private and public pr inting presses flourished. In addition to the s tandard e di­ tions of the classics collated and printe d in the impe r ial library, there were Che kiang editions , Fukie n editions, Szechwan editions and Kiangs i

editions. Scholars often boasted to each other of having bookshelves filled with both publicly and privately printe d books .17

T he growth o f pr int ing made impe r ia l book colle cting at once more difficult a nd less necessary: more difficult since ma ny mor e versions o f a give n text had to be collected a nd checked before a s tandar d ver­ s ion could be es tablis hed; less necessary becaus e ma ny fair ly accu­ rate texts were now available . T he Sung and pos t- Sung gove rnme nts were no less conce rne d a bout the conte nt o f books tha n e arlie r gov­ e rnme nts , a nd practice d both pre- a nd pos t- publication ce ns ors hip.18 T he c ha nging r e lations hip be twe e n impe r ia l a uthor ity a nd schol­ arly pr oduc tio n was illus tr ate d in the ma jo r s cholarly work o f the Min g , the c ompila tion of the Yung- lo ta- tien (Gr a n d e ncyclope dia o f the Yung- lo era). Actually, this was an e ncyclope dia not a book cata­ log, but it was so ofte n cited, both as pre ce de nt a nd ne gative e xam­ ple, by the C h ie n- lung Empe r or a nd his editors tha t its his tory deserves a br ie f cons ide r ation here. T he c ompila tio n appar e ntly be ­ gan in the last year o f the re ign o f M in g T ai- tsu (r. 1368- 1398) whe n the e mpe ror orde re d T a ng Yu- shen (fl. 1400) to pre par e a classified c ompe ndium {lei- yao) o f impo r ta nt language fr om the classics, his ­ tories, a nd philos ophe rs . T ai- tsu s de ath, however, touche d off a suc­ cession s truggle be twe e n his two sons, C h u T i a nd C h u Yun- wen. While ma ny Co nfuc ia n scholars appa r e ntly s ided w ith C h u Yunwen, C h u T i, ha ving a large r ar my at his c omma nd, e ve ntually won out. Shor tly afte r he was e nthr one d as the Yung- lo Empe r or (r. 1402- 1424), inte lle ctuals at court le d by Hs ie h C h in (1369- 1415) me mor ialize d pr opos ing what was pr oba bly a c ontinua tion of the e arlie r project: “T he pas t a nd pre s e nt affairs o f the e mpir e are all re­ corde d in books , but the chapters a nd volume s are so m a ny that they cannot be easily cons ulte d. We propos e p ullin g out the info r ma tio n from each text and or ga nizing it according to a rhyme s cheme to fa­ cilitate its recovery.” T he Yung- lo Empe r or accepted the propos al, hoping, as some mode r n his tor ians have suggested, that the proje ct would occupy the Chine s e lite r ati a nd defuse the ir oppos ition to his rule. Wit h in a year, a dr aft e ntitle d the Wen- hsien ta- ching (Gr e a t com­ pilation o f source mate r ials ) was comple te d. But since this dr aft was found to contain ma ny errors, a re vis ion was orde re d. In 1409 the revised text was pre s e nte d to the e mpe ror, who wrote a preface for the work a nd na me d it the Yung- lo ta- tien. 19 Since the e ditors o f the Yung- b ta- tien copie d into the ir c ompila tio n

m a ny works whic h were late r lost, scholars since the fifte e nth ce ntury have s ought, ofte n avidly, Yung- lo texts. But the or ig ina l goal o f the M in g effort was not so m uc h to pr oduce texts for a gr owing inte lli­ ge nts ia as it was to extract a nd conde ns e the pr oducts o f s uch an inte llige nts ia for use by the court. All impe r ia l book colle ction projects , o f course, ha d as one goal the colle ction o f pre ce de nt a nd source ma te r ia l us e ful for the ruler. But the effort e xpe nde d in e arlie r projects suggested, as has be e n ar gue d above, that e arlie r gove rn­ me nts were conce rne d with the state o f s cholars hip a nd re cognize d that the pr oducts o f s cholarly effort ha d a value in themselves. T he Yung- lo Empe r o r ’s r hy m ing reference guide , never actually pr inte d, was cle arly me a nt for narrowe r, mor e utilita r ia n ends. T hus , at the s ame time that private s cholars hip was be c oming mor e inde pe nde nt a nd diverse, the gove rnme nt’s s cholarly efforts were be c oming more nar r ow a nd limite d. T he C h H n g Co n te x t T he C h ie n- lung e ra Ssu- kyu cKuan- shu proje ct thus re pre s e nte d a re ­ vival o f the lo ng tr a ditio n o f ce ntralize d impe r ia l book colle cting, but it was a re vival carrie d out in a ne w s cholarly atmos phe re , one in whic h scholars had de ve lope d a ce r tain ambivale nce toward public s cholars hip, “as careers in lite r ature , the fine arts a nd private s chol­ ars hip gaine d r e cognition as full- fledged a lte rn a tiv e s . 20 T he reasons for this r e vitalization o f do r ma nt tr aditions undoubte dly lay in the characte r o f re lations be twe e n the Ma n c h u rulers a nd the ir Chine s e subjects. T he Ma nc h us were a tiny m ino r ity who were e thnically and, at least for the first decades o f the ir dynas ty, c ultur a lly dis tinct fr om the vast po pula tio n they rule d, a nd these facts very s ignificantly affected the ide ological jus tifications they fas hione d for the ir rule. Ultimate ly, Ma nc h us de fe nde d the ir domina nc e by p o int ing to Confucian texts whic h e mphas ize d the r ight o f the vir tuous , regardless o f e thnic e xtraction, to govern a nd by stressing the ir own political a nd mor a l qualifications . T he C h ie n- lung Empe r or ’s re e s tablis h­ me nt o f the practice o f impe r ia l book colle cting in the Ssu- k u proje ct was und o ubte dly a par t o f this ide ology o f the re ign of virtue . It w ould be ahis tor ical to argue , however, that the impe r ia l initiative in the Ssu- k u proje ct reflected the goals or capacitie s o f all Ma n c h u rulers. As the wor k of O n o Ka zuko, T ho ma s Fis he r a nd Ly nn Struve has s hown,21 Ma n c h u ide ological claims a nd Chine s e s cholars

attitude s toward the m unde r we nt cons ide rable change d ur ing the e arly years o f the dynasty. T he Ssu- k u proje ct was the c ulm ina tio n o f a lo ng his torical e volution o f ideas a nd attitude s , d ur in g which many tr a ditio nal as s umptions a bout the r e lation o f the s cholar a nd the state were que s tione d, s ome dis carde d a nd some re affirme d. T he initiative s o f C h ’ing empe rors in the are a o f inte lle ctual life reflected this comple x e volution. Wh e n the Ma nc h us be gan to rule Ch in a pr ope r in the mid- sevente e nth century, they were confronte d with three challenges fr om inte lle ctuals . T he first came fr om volunta r y or ganizations o f lite r ati {wen- she) forme d in incre as ing numbe r s in the late Min g , par tly to influe nce gove rnme nt policy, b ut more impo r ta ntly to influe nce civil service e xamine rs a nd thus increase the ir me mbe r s > chances in the compe tition for office. Wh ile lite rati as s ociations had existed thr o ughout Chine s e history, the characte r a nd vigor o f the late M in g groups was a re lative ly ne w phe nome non which reflected the grow­ ing inde pe nde nce of the s cholar fr om the state in the late impe r ial era, the incre as ing compe titive ne s s o f the e x a mina tion system, r is ing levels o f po pula r e ducation a nd a de cline in the qua lit y o f the official school s ys te m.22 M in g inte lle ctuals re pe ate dly warne d o f the dange rs of these societies a nd of lite rati infr inge me nt on the pe rs onne l and policy prerogatives o f rulers, a nd these war nings were ce rtainly not lost on the Ma nc hus . A second challe nge to the ne w re gime fr om the inte lle ctuals was e xplicit, e thnic anti- Ma nc huis m. T he difference in language , social manne rs , hairs tyle and die t be twe e n the Ma n c h u overlords a nd the ir Chine s e subjects made C h ’ing rulers an easy ta r ­ get for Chine s e , who ha d always ha d a s trong sense o f the ide ntity and ce ntrality o f the ir agr ar ian lifestyle in the Eas t As ian e nvir on­ me nt. Some Chine s e were, no doubt, ge nuine ly offe nde d by the prospect o f bar bar ians “stuffed with rudeness a nd recklessness” and “no diffe re nt fr om birds a nd a nima ls ” r uling the Mid d le King d o m . Othe rs were pr obably us ing the fact of e thnic differences for the ir own political purposes. Almos t cons tant Ma n c h u efforts to suppress this racist idio m o f political protest make it difficult to tell how wide ­ spread such thought was or what e nd it served, but there is no que s tion that it repres ented an e xtre me ly powe rful political we apon. Finally, Ma nc hus were confr onte d with the challe nge of ha ving to le arn to use effectively the abs tract and lite rary language o f Chine s e gove rnme nt, inc luding the pr ope r ways o f m a n ip u la t in g the classical canon to jus tify the ir own rule. Althoug h these challenges pres ented

themselves in diffe re nt ways, fr om the Ma n c h u s po int o f vie w the e ducation, cliquis hne s s , a nd e thnic hos tilitie s o f the Chine s e lite r ati were several dime ns ions o f a s ingle pr oble m: how to domina te a lite r ­ ate a nd hig hly s ophis ticate d Chine s e elite? At least until the late e ighte e nth ce ntury, C h in g policie s toward scholars a nd inte lle ctual life mus t be e valuate d agains t the ba c kgr ound of this c o ntinuing conce rn. Onc e e s tablis he d in Pe king, the Ma nc h us move d s wiftly a nd force fully to assert the ir control. T he ir first moves were de s igne d to pre ve nt lite r ati fr om cons pir ing w ith each othe r a nd with local officials to influe nce gove r nme nt policies . In 1651 all officials were orde re d to keep a re cord of all the visits whic h sheng- ymn, lice ntiate s or holde rs o f the first degree, made to the ir offices, a nd the bus ines s on whic h the sheng- yuan came . In the s ame e dict, the for ma tion o f ne w acade mie s , a nd ho ld ing me e tings o f mor e tha n te n lite r ati were pr o ­ hib ite d.23 T he next year, e duca tiona l inte nda nts {t}i- hsueh- kuan) were a ppointe d in the province s unde r C h in g contr ol to le cture a nd e xe mplify the te achings o f the classics a nd to oversee the studies a nd be havior o f Chine s e s cholars .24 T he ce ntral gove rnme nt also orde re d that a stone table t be erected in the courtyar d of every acade my on which were to be ins cr ibe d e ight pr o hibitio ns on s tude nt activity. Stude nts were or de re d not to “argue unr e as onably with the ir te ach­ ers, or ganize fellowships or as s ociations , publis h the ir writings w ith­ out a uthor iza tio n, exert pressure on local or ganizations , or he ctor or dictate to fellow village rs .”25 T he dr a c onia n s pir it of e arly Ma n c h u policie s toward s cholars hip a nd lite r ati was mos t clearly de mons tr ate d in the re gulations the ne w rulers for mula te d for public a tio n a nd book- selling. T he gove rnme nt issued in 1653 an e dict that har dly bode d well for impe r ia l book colle cting: Discussions of the classics ought to be based on the editions and inte r­ pretations of the Sung dynasty. In official docume nts , clarity and correct citation of classical precedents are most impor tant. From now on, let those in charge of students charge e ducational officials with the responsi­ bility of te aching students to know thor oughly and explicate carefully such works as Tzu- chih ^ung- chien and the Tzu- chih t’ung- chien kang- mu, the Ta- hsueh yen- i, the Li- tai ming- chbi tsou- i, and the W^n- chang cheng- tsung. . . . Those works which stealthily advance strange principles or heterodox theories, or which self- consciously set themselves apart [ from the clas­ sics], even though the ir prose is artful, s hould not be copied out by s tu­ dents. Bookstores s hould be allowed to pr int and circulate only books

of [the Sung school of] principle , works on government, and those books which contribute d to the literary enterprise. Othe r works, with petty concerns or immor al language, and the publication of all literary exer­ cise books or collections sponsored by literati associations are strictly for­ bidde n. Those who violate this pr ohibition will be punis he d severely.26

Little change d in the e arly years o f the dynas ty’s second re ign. T he regents for the young K ang- hsi Empe r or (r. 1661- 1722) were, as Robe r t Ox n a m has argue d, s urvivors o f the Ma nc h us “long mar c h to power” whose “dis trus t o f the Chine s e elite blinde d the m to the pos s ibility of us ing Chine s e nor ms as a me ans o f c o n tr o l. 27 T he regents’ hos tility was manife s te d mos t cle arly in a dras tic r e duction of the numbe r s o f Chine s e who were allowe d to pass the tr ie nnial chin- shih e x aminations a nd in two famous pros e cutions , the Kia n g n a n Tax Arre ars case a nd the s uppre s s ion o f the works o f C h u a n g T inglung (d. 1600). In the first o f these cases, the regents ire was dire cte d at the ge ntry o f the pros pe rous , populous a nd ofte n re calcitrant s outhe as te rn province s o f C h in a who were res is ting a re for m in the tax colle ction sys tem.28 T he Ch u a n g T Jing- lung case illus trate d the atmos phe re o f s us pi­ cion and m utua l inc r im ina t io n whic h such r igid policies could e ngender. Some twe nty years after his de ath it was discovered that Chua ng , a lite ratus fr om Che kia ng, ha d once acquir e d a private his ­ tory o f the late M in g a nd the loyalist regimes which followed its downfall a nd ha d proce e de d to as s e mble a gr oup o f scholars to pre ­ pare a de finitive e dition o f the book. T he regents reacted to this dis ­ covery with a severity tha t sent waves o f indig na tio n a nd fear thr ough the Chine s e inte lle ctual c ommunity : C h u a n g TTing- lung and his fathe r were both dis inte rre d a nd be he ade d, the ir works were banne d, a nd C h u a n g Yun- ch e ng a nd over seventy printe rs , collab­ orators a nd relatives were s entenced to de ath or ba nis hm e nt.29 Such e nmity be twe e n court a nd lite rati could not last for long. T he political unit y of tr a ditio na l C h in a rested on a de licate compr o­ mis e between the interests o f lite rate elites a nd those o f the ce ntral gove rnme nt. T he s plit be twe e n court a nd lite r ati which de ve loped dur ing the e arly Ch ’ing gove rnme nt, He llm u t Wilh e m has observed, “had it be e n allowed to coalesce into a condition o f pe rmane ncy, mig ht have unde r m in e d the Chine s e gove r nme mt a nd Chine s e society as w e ll. 30 As in so ma ny othe r areas of C h in g history, the policies o f the court toward inte lle ctuals a nd inte lle ctual life be gan to change in the years after the regency.

T he best know n o f the ICang- hsi pe r iod initiative s toward intelle ctuals was the po- hsueh hung- ju e x a mina tion he ld in 1679. T he mos t famous Chine s e scholars o f the day were invite d to par ticipate in this test, a nd those who pas sed were a ppointe d to a commis s ion to e dit the M in g history. T he yo ung e mpe r or de mons tr ate d his interes t in Chine s e scholars a nd s cholars hip in othe r ways as well. Be g inning in 1671, he atte nde d da ily tutor ing sessions in the Chine s e classics. In 1676 the first o f a series o f texts o f lectures pre s e nte d to the e mpe r or on these occas ions was publis he d, w ith an impe r ia l preface. In 1677 the Nan- shu- fang (Southe r n Study) was es tablis he d whe re the e mpe r or could me e t w ith Chine s e scholars on a n info r ma l basis a nd seek the ir advice .31 T he ne w s pirit which infus e d C h in g policie s was well il­ lus tr ate d whe n the r e gulations for p ublic a tio n a nd book se lling, first is s ued in 1653 (quote d above ), were r e for mulate d in 1687 a nd 1714. Publis he rs were still for bidde n to p r int or sell “s alacious a nd im m o r a l nove ls ,” b ut the references to public a tio ns o f lite rary as s ociations a nd works whic h “self- consciously set themselves apar t fr om the classics” were e liminate d. Fur the r mor e , the ne w r e gulations were ju s t i­ fied in te rms o f an e mpe r or ’s duty to care for the he arts a nd minds o f his subjects: “[ In O u r view] the cus toms a nd desires o f O u r s ub­ je cts for m the only basis for rule o f the e mpir e , a nd in or de r to pur ify those desires a nd s tre ngthe n cus tom, one mus t respect the clas ­ sics. . . . 32 W it h s uch language , the C h ’ing rulers pr oc laime d the ir wilingne s s to govern by the tr a ditio na l rules o f Chine s e society. T he mos t e vide nt results o f the ne w impe r ia l policies were a series o f comme ntar ie s on the classics a nd or ig ina l philos ophical texts whic h were commis s ione d by the court, a nd set the philos ophical tone o f the capital. As the e mpe r or re ache d out to the s cholarly c o m ­ munity , he tur ne d to tha t br anch o f le a r ning mos t favore d by e arlie r Chine s e dynas tie s , the school of “pr inc iple ” or Ne o- Co nfuc ia nis m.33 Not only was the gre at synthesis o f Ne o- Confucian thoug ht, the Hsing- li ta- cKuan (Gr a n d c o m pe ndium of pr inciple s a nd mor als ) re­ pr inte d unde r impe r ia l patronage , the e mpe r or urge d officials to re ad it a nd occas ionally tested the m on its conte nts . Ano the r S ung text on gove rnme nt, the Ta- hsueh yen- i (Implic a tions o f the Gr e a t Le a r ning ) was trans late d into Ma n c h u a nd dis tr ibute d to all M a n ­ chu princes . La te r in the re ign, special homage was pa id to the twe lfth- ce ntury philos ophe r C h u Hs i, who was styled one o f Confucius ’ mos t im po r ta nt dis ciple s .34 T he Ne o- Confucian flavor o f official s cholars hip in the K ang- hsi e ra served a varie ty o f purpos es ;

probably, however, it d id not reflect so m uc h a cons cious choice of philos ophical tone as it did a c o mmitme nt to ce rtain ind ivid ua l scholars, me n like Li Kuang- ti a nd Hs iung Tz u- li a nd the ir vis ion of the appropr iate principle s for good gove rnme nt. Inde e d, the pe r ­ s onal tone o f K ang- hsi e ra impe r ia l patr onage repres ented both its s trength a nd its weakness. For those scholars who received impe r ial patronage , the experience was e xhilarating. Bridge s were built between the court and famous s cholarly familie s a nd communitie s , and a rathe r re markable ambiance was cre ate d at the capital. T he era was one in which “me n rose by ha ving the ir actual pe rformance and practical propos als note d,” a nd the p r e m ium was on pr o duc ­ tivity and cre ativity.35 T he buoy ant atmos phe re at court linge r e d long in the me morie s o f those who live d thr o ugh it, a nd served to ins pire many, pr obably mos t impor ta ntly the K ang- hsi Empe r or ’s grands on who re igne d as the C h ie n- lung Empe r or . T he re were, however, at least two weaknesses o f the K ang- hsi e ra patronage system. T he first was its limit e d extent: while ma ny at the capital par took of the impe r ia l largesse, scholars outs ide Pe king, inc luding s ome very creative minds , did not. Me n like Yen Jo- chii and H u We i ce rtainly did not active ly resist the C h in g gove rnme nt, and had ma ny official a nd semi- official contacts with court and offi­ cials. But they were not actively dr awn into capital inte lle ctual life, and the ir research lay in areas othe r tha n those be ing e xplored in Peking. Wh e n Ma o C h i- ling he ar d of the atte ntion be ing showered on Ch u Hs i a nd Ne o- Confucianis m at court, he r athe r r e luctantly destroyed his s tudy o f errors in C h u H s i s comme ntar ie s on the Four Books, on which he ha d be e n wor king.36 T he limit e d scope o f alle ­ giance to impe r ial s cholarly le ade rs hip was made gr aphically a p ­ par e nt in an episode which took place in 1686. Evide ntly impres s ed by the efforts o f e arlie r dynas tie s to collect books , the K ang- hsi Empe r or s ought to e nlarge the scope of his own impe r ia l library, reflecting that: Since ancie nt times rulers have exalted the writte n word in government. Even when all the laws and classics are assembled it is necessary to seek broadly the dispersed books in order to expand what we know and see. The prope r citation of classical precedents is also an impor tant matter. I have always devoted much [ of my energy] to art and literature, and read day and night. Although the library of the impe r ial hous e hold is fairly extensive, the collection is not complete. It has occurred to me that many impor tant manus cripts are probably

stored in the large cities of the e mpire. Moreover, how could there not be rare books stored in the countryside? A broad search ought to be made for all the classics, histories, and works o f literature and philos o­ phy, except for commonly available pr inte d editions. T he pr e paration of a catalog of the impe r ial library [in which is recorded the results of such a search], and the copying out of handwritte n manus cripts are also tasks which ought to be accomplished. Le t the Boards deliberate carefully and me mor ialize .37

A few days later, the Boar d o f Rite s me mor ialize d, as orde re d, s ug­ ge s ting me thods by which the propos e d a im could be achieved. But ultimate ly, no thing came of the propos al, no books were collected a nd no catalogs pre pare d. On e ta nta lizingly br ie f reference to the proje ct in the corpus of the s e venteenth- century s cholar Ku Yen- wu suggests one reas on why. Book owners, Ku wrote, “tire d o f r e s pond­ ing to orders a nd the incr e as ing numbe r s o f ce ntral directives, a nd re por te d that they ha d no books .” Cle arly, there were limits to the r e cognition o f the K ang- hsi Empe r or ’s role as le ade r of the s cholarly c ommunity , limits which K ang- hsi s gr ands on would labor to e limina te .38 A s econd weakness o f K ang- hsi s pe rs onal system o f patr onage was the factionalis m a nd favor itis m that it fostered. T he K ang- hsi Empe r o r c ompla ine d on several occas ions o f the grudge s that various scholars bore toward one anothe r, a nd the ins idious effects these could have on scholars’ political be havior. Eve n e arly in the re ign, the s eventeenth- century s cholar Ku Yen- wu warne d his ne phe w P an Le i (1646- 1708) agains t be c oming involve d in the wor ld o f court s cholars hip whe re so m uc h time was s pent cur r y ing favor a nd “the fuls ome a nd the fr agr ant were m ix e d . 39 Toward the e nd of the re ign, the s cholarly factions came to be associated with impe r ia l favorites or, more ominous ly, with political factions active in the s uc­ cession s truggle. T he famous dictionar ie s P'ei- wen yun- fu (Re pos itor y arr ange d by rhyme o f the s tudio o f ador ne d lite rature ) a nd Kang- hsi tzu- tien (K ang- hsi dic tiona r y) were both e dite d by Ch a n g Yu- s hu (1642- 1711) an impe r ia l tutor who ac compa nie d the e mpe r or on his e xpe ditions agains t Ga ld a n a nd his four th to ur o f the s outh. Scholars as sociated with the e mpe r or ’s e ighth son pr oduce d the famous e ncyclope dia Ku- chin Vu- shu chi- ching (Synthe s is o f books a nd illus tr a ­ tions , pas t a nd pre s e nt) a nd a colle ction o f works on mathe matics , mus ic a nd as tr onomy e ntitle d Lu- lii cheng- i (Oce ans o f cale ndr ial a nd accous tic ca lculations ).40

It was the pr oble m o f favoritis m a nd factionalis m which eve n­ tually br o ught the era to an e nd. T he pros e cution o f Tai Ming- s hih (1653- 1713) in 1711 has be e n seen as s igna lling the tw ilight o f the age.41 Tai, a s oure d and w ithdr a wn self- declared mis fit, s pe nt mos t of his life tr y ing to pass the civil service e x aminations , s ucce e ding only whe n he was fifty- six sui. Afte r s e rving only two years as a H a n ­ lin compile r, Tai was charge d by a ju n io r cens or w ith w r iting a his ­ tory of the late M in g dynas ty in which the leaders o f M in g loyalist regimes in the 1640s and 1650s were tre ate d as e mpe rors . T he p u n ­ is hme nts were severe, inc lud in g e xe cution for Tai a nd his closest col­ laborator, a nd ba nis hme nt a nd e ns lave me nt for ma ny relatives and associates. Altho ug h the precise motive s for the accus ation agains t Tai r e ma in a mystery, the y pr obably had s ome thing to do w ith the vicious struggle the n going on a m o ng the sons o f the K ang- hsi Empe r or for the he ir- appare ncy.42 T he factionalis m of the K ang- hsi patte r n o f impe r ia l patr onage of s cholars hip would conde mn it almos t irr e de e mably in the eyes o f the K ang- hsi Empe r or ’s son and successor, the Yung- che ng Empe ror. T he actions take n early in the Yung- che ng re ign agains t C h ’en Me ng- le i (b. 1651) compile r o f the T u- shu chi- cHeng suggested some of the ne w e mpe r or’s conce rns a nd motives . Accor ding to a tr a ditio n writte n down in the nine te e nth century, Ch ’en, who was the n s e rving as secretary to the e mpe r or ’s e ighth son, Yin- chih, actually compile d the T'u- shu chi- ch'eng private ly a nd pre s e nte d it to the K ang- hsi E m ­ peror. T he e mpe ror, so the story goes, favored it with a preface and orde re d it pr inte d as a pr oduc t o f impe r ia l scholars hip. Wh e n Yinchih lost out in the compe tition for the throne , a nd the e mpe r or ’s fourth son was e nthr one d, C h en was accus ed o f “ove rwe e ning arrogance ” and banis he d “in or de r to preserve harm o ny . In s o fa r as the T'u- sku chi- ch'eng was a pr oduc t o f the pre vious e mpe ror, it was prais e d as a “pr odigy o f lite r ary c o m pila t io n.” However, a ne w commis s ion of scholars was appointe d to correct the mis takes a nd add the “requisite finis h” to C h en s work, so that the deceased e mpe r or ’s s ublime inte ntion would be fulfille d.43 T he conde mnations of the last years o f the K'ang- hsi re ign a nd the first years o f the Yung- che ng re ign mar ke d an impo r ta nt change o f e mphas is of the par t o f Ma n c h u rulers. T he Yung- che ng Empe r or , veteran of the bitte r succession crises o f the e arly 1700s, was pa r tic u­ larly s us picious o f those scholars who ha d s upporte d his rivals and of Chine s e factions in gene ral. Ins te ad o f e x tolling the virtue s o f

ind ivid ua l Confucia ns , the new e mpe r or e xpounde d Co nfuc ia n v ir ­ tues to the e mpir e as a whole . Projects of impe r ia l s cholars hip, which us ually involve d patr onage of individua ls , de cline d.44 In the first year of the re ign, the me mbe r s hip of the H a n lin Acade my, where mos t impe r ia l scholars were for mally e mploye d d ur in g the K ang- hsi re ign, was cut in ha lf.45 In the place of the impe r ia l patr onage sys­ te m, a system o f s tipe nds pa id to all s tude nts in official acade mie s , regardless o f the ir productivity, grew up. At the s ame time , a ne w ne twork of gove rnme nt school ins pe ctors {hsueh- cheng*), pe rs onally chosen a nd s upe rvis e d by the e mpe ror, was e s tablis he d to judge the re cipie nts o f the s tipe nds .46 Und e r the Yung- che ng Empe r or , scholars were s upporte d by the state as they ha d never be e n before; but they were also le cture d to as never before. In 1724 for ins tance , the famous edict on factions was issued. T he e mpe r or reflected that: . . . jus t as He aven is exalted and the Earth is low, so are the roles of prince and minis te r fixed. T he essential duty of a minis te r is to be aware that he has a prince. For the n his dis pos itions will be firmly dis cipline d, and he will be able to share his prince ’s likes and dislikes; hence the say­ ing, “One in virtue, one in heart, high and low are bound together•”

T he e mpe ror took issue with the Sung s cholar Ou- yang H s iu ’s vie w that factions were e vide nce of a s cholar’s c o m mitme nt to highe r principle s : “Supe rior me n [ Ou- yang Hs iu had written] form cliques because they share the same too.” But how can there be too among the m when they deny the ir sovereign and work for the ir own interests? Ou- yang Hs iu’s too is s imply the tao of infe rior persons.47

Yung- che ng s a r g ume nt that, in effect, it was the rule r ’s pre rogative to de fine the tao was quite tr a ditio nal, but his e ne rgy in pr o c la iming the pr inciple de mons tr ate d one o f the d o m in a n t e mphas e s o f his re ign. T his e dict was made r e quir e d r e a ding at the monthly me e t­ ings o f the officials acade mie s in which all holde rs of the first official degree were e nrolle d. T he s e dition tr ial o f Tseng C h in g afforde d the Yung- che ng Em pe r o r anothe r o ppor t unity to address Chine s e scholars on the subjects of Co nfuc ia n vir tue a nd Ma n c h u le gitimacy. In this case, Tseng C h in g (1679- 1735) an undis tinguis he d first degree holde r fr om H u n a n , atte mpte d to incite a re be llion us ing the works of the s eventeenth- century M in g loyalis t s cholar Lii Liu- liang (1628- 1683)

as his text. T he atte mpt me t with little success, a nd s oon came to the atte ntion o f pr ovincial gove rnor O- erh- t’ai and e ve ntually o f the e mpe ror. A mas sive inve s tigation was launche d. Two lo ng re futations of Tseng and Lii, the Po L il Liu- liang ssu- shu chiang- i (A r e futation of Lii Liu - lia n g s comme nta r y on the Four Books ) a nd Ta- i chueh- mi- lu (Re cor d o f the righte ous way for e nlighte ning the mis guide d) were pre par e d, e vide ntly unde r the e mpe r or ’s pe rs onal guidance , in what T ho ma s S. Fis he r has te r me d the mos t extensive “me dia c a mpa ig n” ever launche d in a non- mode r n society. Both re futations asserted the Ma nc h us r ight to rule , a nd r e minde d Co nfuc ia n scholars o f the ir duty to fa mily and ruler. T he Ta- i chueh- mi- lu was the more successful, dire ctly attacking L ii s e thnic a nti- Ma nc huis m a nd pr o c la iming that: “the vir tue o f loyalty to the state was fore mos t a mo ng all h u m a n relatio n s h ip s . 48 By the e nd o f the Yung- che ng re ign, therefore, the outline s of C h ’ing policies a nd dile mma s toward inte lle ctuals were fairly well es tablis hed. T he que s tion o f how a Ma n c h u e mpe ror could express his respect for Chine s e lite rati w ithout s urr e nde r ing any o f his author ity had be e n give n several answers. T he stern me as ure s o f the early years ha d preserved Ma n c h u author ity, b ut at the cost o f ex­ c luding fr om gove rnme nt the very pe ople who seemed to have mos t expertise in gove rning, the Chine s e lite rati. T he initiative s o f the K ang- hsi years repres ented an effort to woo these lite rati, b ut the info r ma l a nd pe rs onal characte r o f his wooing br o ught with it almos t ine vitable factionalis m a nd he ighte ne d political tens ions . T he Yungche ng Empe r or tr ie d to s ys te matize the proce dure s for lite rati p a r ti­ cipation in gove rnme nt, s acrificing the K ang- hsi era cre ativity and buoyancy for political security. While s ome of the actions o f the C h ’ing gove rnme nt ce rtainly ha d a repressive characte r —the pros e ­ cutions o f C h u a n g T ing- lung or o f Tai Ming- s hih for ins tance — C h ’ing policies as a whole cannot be de s cribe d in these te rms . Eve n these, the mos t famous lite rary cases in e arly C h ’ing history, were br ought about as muc h by s quabbling a mo ng the lite rati as by im ­ pe rial abs olutis m. O n the whole C h in g policy mus t be de s cribe d as having be e n characte rize d by a gr owing r e cognition o f the im p o r ­ tance o f Co nfuc ia n doctr ine a nd the unit y o f cheng (gove rning) a nd chiao (te aching) in r uling Ch in a . T he c ontinua tion and, to anticipate the a r gume nt, the e xagge ration o f this tr e nd d ur in g the C h ie n- lung re ign are the subjects of the next section.

C o u rt P u b lic a t io n a n d Ce n s o rs h ip in the C h ie n - lu n g R e ig n T he C h ie n- lung Empe r or dre w up o n the pre ce de nts o f patr onage a nd cour t public a tio n that his fathe r a nd gr andfathe r ha d la id down, but he ada pte d the m in ways that reflected the political e nvir onme nt o f his cour t a nd conditions in the e mpir e which he rule d. Wh e n the new e mpe r or as ce nde d the thr one in 1736 the time s seemed to call mor e for the s tabilization a nd e xte ns ion o f the e xis ting or de r th a n for any ne w policy initiative s , a nd he seemed de te r mine d to keep it that way by the only me thod e ndors e d by Chine s e s tatecraft —care ful atte ntion to r itua l r e quir e me nts , his tor ical pre ce de nts a nd classical principle s . T he e mpe r or argue d in one o f his pr e monar chica l essays that a r ule r ’s duty to ins truct his pe ople was a critical par t o f the m a n ­ date o f he ave n. His a r gume nt was a philos ophical one , re s ting on the goodness o f h u m a n natur e a nd the weakness of m a n. H u m a n natur e was bas ically good, but since m a n dwe lt in a wor ld o f te mpta tion, the c o m mo n m a n m ig h t easily fall into evil ways. He ave n had therefore created rulers a nd teachers to pur ify m a n ’s e motions a nd restore the funda me nta l goodness of the unive rs e . T he r ule r accomplis he d this by “s e par ating the noble a nd the base, e s tablis hing a social hie rarchy, cle arly pr e s cr ibing rewards a nd fines, a nd dis tinguis hing the honor s due those of various ra nks a nd by pr o m o t ing the r ituals o f c o m m u n ­ ity fe as ting, sacrifices to the altars o f the soil, mar r iage , capping, m o u r n in g a nd ance s tral sacrifice. In essence, every act o f gove rnme nt had as its purpos e the e nlig hte nme nt o f the pe ople .49 Such a n appr oach to gove rnme nt seemed to s uit the ne w r ule r’s e duc ation, for the C h ie n- lung Empe r or came to the throne with a far mor e s ophis ticate d gras p o f Chine s e his tor y a nd the classics tha n any o f his C h ’ing predecessors. But it also was a n appr oach wells uite d to the tas k be fore him: r ulin g an e nor mous e mpir e thr o ugh a fair ly s mall gr oup o f bure aucrats whos e m a in c o m mo n attr ibute was the ir classical e ducation. Like mos t Chine s e e mpe rors , C h ’ienlu n g s e ldom ce le brate d the pur s uit o f knowle dge for its own sake — he saw scholars a nd s cholars hip as adjunc ts o f gove rnme nt —b ut he cle arly respected me n o f le ar ning. In a very e arly e dict, he rejected the ide a that “s tudious ” a nd “bookis h” me n were unfit for office, c la im ing that a knowle dge o f his tor ical pre ce de nt was precisely what would be r e quir e d o f gove rnme nt servants d ur in g his r e ign.50 Initia lly, however, the e mpe r or seems to have be e n inte nt to de mons tr ate that the aus te rity o f the Yung- che ng r e ign ha d e nde d,

and that the buoyancy o f the K ang- hsi re ign could be re capture d. T he re were pr oba bly two reasons for this policy e mphas is . T he first was C h ie n- lung s deep a d mir a tio n for his gr andfathe r ; the futur e Ch ien- lung Empe r or had be e n the K ang- hsi Empe r or ’s favorite gr ands on, a nd the old e mpe ror ha d pe rs onally s upe rvis e d Ch ienlung ’s e ducation. Pe rhaps as impor ta nt, the twenty- five year old mona r c h found hims e lf s ur r ounde d by me n who ha d risen to power d ur ing the K ang- hsi re ign. Ch a n g T ing- yii (1675- 1755), who had served in the Nan- s hu- fang and the H a n lin Acade my in the late K ang- hsi years, be came regent for the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or and chie f gr and councillor. At least accor ding to the court gossip o f the pe riod, Ch a n g was able, fr om this pos ition, to a ppo int many o f his old frie nds a nd proteges to key pos itions .51 T he impe r ia l patr onage system be gan to work almos t imme dia te ly on C h ien- lung,s acces­ s ion. In the first year o f the ne w re ign, the e mpe r or or de re d pr o vin­ cial treasurers to pr int a nd dis tr ibute copies o f all the works o f gove rnme nt- s pons ore d s cholars hip to bookstores w ithin the ir ju r is ­ dictions . Two years later, an edict was issued e ncour a ging private printe rs to re produce a nd dis tr ibute s cholarly works pr oduce d unde r gove rnme nt aus pice s .52 While these edicts the ore tically applie d to all publications o f the C h ’ing the vast major ity of state- sponsored s cholarly works were compile d d u r in g the late K ang- hsi years. On ly one philos ophical work, a rathe r stern tract on the obligations o f filiality e ntitle d Hsiaoching chi- cku (Colle cte d inte r pr e tations o f the Classic of Filial Piety) was issued d ur ing the Yung- che ng re ign. T he C h ie n- lung Empe r or ’s attitude toward this work, or at least toward the text on which it was based, was e vince d in an e dict o f 1737. Re je cting a propos al that the Hsiao- ching be for mally de clare d e qual to the Four Books, the e mpe ror accepted his councillors ’ review of the e vide nce that the text was a forgery, a nd the ir vie w that it did not s upple me nt the pr inc i­ ples of gove rnme nt.53 T his r e mar kably s traight- forward pr onounc e ­ me nt contras te d s harply with the e mpe r or s vigorous efforts to pr int and dis tr ibute othe r gove rnme nt publications . Several othe r actions provide d fur the r e vidence o f the ne w impe r ial attitude s toward s chol­ ars and s cholars hip. In 1736 a second po- hsueh hung- ju e x a mina tion was he ld, on the mode l o f the K ang- hsi e xaminations . In one o f the mos t s tar tling reversals o f the era, Tseng Ching , who ha d be e n pa r ­ done d by the Yung- che ng Empe r or , was a br uptly executed, a nd the Ta- i chueh- mi- lu recalled a nd b a nne d .54 Althoug h he e mulate d his gr andfathe r ’s policies in ma ny respects,

the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or was jus t as conce rne d as his fathe r had be e n to pre ve nt de bilita ting factional conflict. Several o f his premona r c hic a l essays dwe lt on the necessity, so ofte n stressed by Yungche ng, that the r ule r a nd his minis te r s be o f one m in d on policy a nd morality. T he C h ie n- lung Empe r or issued several edicts on factions , dis playing a s e ns itivity to talk of par ty divis ions . T he e mpe r or ’s s en­ s itivity suggested that he kne w s ome thing o f the re ality o f factional conflict, a nd inde e d, suggestions of s uch conflict can be found thr o ughout the his tor y of his re ign. Fur the r mor e , the e mpe r or a nd his advis ors were well aware o f the conne ction be twe e n lite r ary projects a nd factional politics . Wh e n Ch a n g T ing- yii a nd O- erh- t’a i leaders o f oppos ing factions , fell fr om powe r in 1745 a nd 1750 respec­ tively, the ir dis grace was s ignalle d by the implic a tion o f the ir fol­ lowers in lite rary s uppre s s ion cases involving H u Chung- ts ao a nd the works o f Lii Liu- liang. Late r in the re ign, an e dict was issued pr ais ing the conte nts of the T }ung- chih- t3ang ching- chieh (Clas s ical c om­ me ntarie s fr om the T ung- chih Ha ll), which ha d be e n compile d by Hs u Ch ’ien- hs ueh (1631- 1694) whe n he was tutor to the K ’ang- hsi e m pe ror s four th s on, but de cr ying the par tis an conflict which had s ur r ounde d its is s ue.55 In 1741 the C h ie n- lung Em pe r or tr ie d to revive the book colle ct­ ing proje ct which his fathe r ha d be gun: Since ancie nt times, rulers have revered literature and sought to collect lost books, and the impe r ial library is at present largely complete. In recent times, however, the amount o f wr iting has grown daily. Among the scholars of the Yuan and Ming , and those of our dynasty, there are more than a few who, having s tudied the Six Classics and imme rs ed themselves in the study o f metaphysics, have produce d work that is pure and faultless. Although these authors reside in the countrys ide and have not yet been discovered at court, provincial governors and e ducation commis sioners ought to devote themselves to finding the m.56

No t hing came o f this propos al, however. Mos t notably, inte lle ctuals who ha d live d thr o ugh the factionalis m o f the K ang- hsi re ign a nd the aus te r ity o f the Yung- che ng e ra ne e de d mor e e ncourage me nt a nd re as s urance before e m ba r king on a proje ct o f impe r ia l s pons or­ ship. If so, this was what the y got. In 1749 the e mpe r or wrote: T he membe rs of the Ha n lin Acade my serve us with the ir talent for literary compos ition, and recently we have posed questions on e x amina­ tion involving poetic compos ition, r e quiring that much energy be de­ voted to the study of rhetoric.

But there are no doubt many who immers e themselves in the classics, exult in the ir hidde n glories, and research the ir s ublime implications . Is it that those who study the classics prope rly are rare, or that we seldom hear of the m? O f course, re ading the classics is not comparable to carry­ ing out the ir principles. But knowing how to put principles into practice, and respecting classical techniques is an impor tant part of unde rs tanding man’s essential nature and the way of the wo r ld . . . . Now the world is at peace. Among the scholars there mus t be some who have attaine d ins ight into the basic me aning of the classics and who have spent the ir lives in dilige nt conte mplation of forme r Confucians . Why is it that they grow old s itting at home by the ir windows while at court those with a mastery of classical studies are so few?

In fact, several individua ls who were nomina te d on this occas ion rose to high pos itions in the H a n lin Acade my.57 Im pe r ia l rhe toric change d little in the course o f the re ign, b ut the response to it did, as scholars be came mor e sure o f the cour t’s inte n­ tions a nd more confide nt o f the ir own future s . T he impe r ia l trips to the s outh in 1757, 1762 1765 1780 a nd 1784 were pr oba bly both a cause a nd a s ymbol o f the r e lations hip the C h ie n- lung Empe r or wante d to cultivate with the s cholarly c ommunity . In these mas sive a nd we ll- publicize d e xpe ditions , the e mpe ror, s ur r ounde d by courte ­ sans and courtie rs , would cruis e along the Gr a n d Ca na l, s topping at major points o f his toric or scenic interest, whe re he would exchange poe ms , books , a nd s amples o f calligr aphy with the influe ntia l la nd holders. T he trips could not have be e n unple as ant for anyone in ­ volved, except the hapless souls who ha d to pay for e nte r ta ining the impe r ial par ty along the way, but the ir purpos e was political, to de mons tr ate the e mpe r or ’s conce rn for the elite of Ch in a , and the har mony o f court- elite re lations . K ang- hsi had, o f course, made s imilar trips , but those e xpe ditions had at least ha d the os tensible purpos e o f ins pe cting wate r cons e rvancy projects a nd te s ting the mood o f the pe ople following the r e be llion o f the three fe udatorie s . Ch ie n- lung s trips seemed to have no purpos e othe r tha n ce le brating the we alth, comme r cial prosperity, a nd inte lle ctual atta inme nts of the s outhe as t.58 By the 1750s, young scholars with a bility a nd pote ntial were c oming into the gove rnme nt in incr e as ing numbe r s —the cohort who passed the chin- shih e x aminations o f 1757 were a tr uly r e markable gr oup (see chapte r 3 be low) a nd a career in the capital bure aucracy without service on one of the impe r ia l public a tio n projects be came unthinkable . T he his tory o f court and elite pre occupations d u r in g

the Ch ie n- lung e ra could be told in te rms o f the pr oducts of impe r ia l patronage . In the 1740s, the first products o f C h ’ie n- lung patr onage , works on court mus ic, p a inting , a nd geography, appe ar e d.59 Als o a mo ng the earliest products o f the era was the CKin- ting ssu- shu- wen (Ex a mina tio ns essays on the Four Books , compile d by impe r ia l orde r) a pr ime r in which the late K ang- hsi pe riod te ache r a nd NeoCo nfuc ia n par tis an Fang Pao (1668- 1749) selected a nd annotate d a gr oup o f M in g a nd e arly C h ’ing e x a mina tion essays to serve as a s tandar d for the e mpir e .60 At the s ame time , commis s ions were for me d to pre par e e laborations o f the e xis ting official comme ntarie s on the classics. In the 1750s s ome of the first ne w comme ntarie s appe are d: works on the Rites texts were publis he d in 1754 a nd on the I- ching Shih- ching a n d Ch}un- ch iu in 1758.61 T he Ne o- Confucian tone o f these works suggested that the y re pre ­ s ented a c o ntinua tio n o f the K ang- hsi patte r n of patronage . In the 1740s, however, the focus o f C h ’ie n- lung publications be gan to shift fr om classical to his torical texts. In 1747 court scholars were set to work on c ontinua tions of the three famous Chine s e e ncyclope dias , the T'ung- chih (Compr e he ns ive treatises), T ung- tien (Compr e he ns ive ins titute s ), a nd the Wen- hsien t ung- kao (Compr e he ns ive e x a mina tion of his tor ical source mate rials ), a proje ct which was to continue until the e nd of the re ign. At least par t o f the goal of this proje ct was to compile , in a for m acce ptable to Chine s e scholars, a vers ion o f M in g and C h in g his tor y acce ptable to Ma n c h u rule rs .62 Cir cums tance s d ur ing the e ighte e nth ce ntury accelerated the tr e nd toward impe r ia l his tory wr iting. As the ce ntury progressed, the ce ntral gove rnme nt be came mor e conce rne d with milita r y campa igns along its borde rs , and a ne w gr oup o f impe r ia l relatives be gan to take the place o f the a ging K ang- hsi e ra courtie rs in the highe s t councils o f the ce ntral gove rnme nt. Ne w sorts of s cholarly works were c ommis s ione d which focused on the Ma nc h us his tor y a nd ma r tia l achie ve me nts . These include d a series o f publications on the history, language a nd cus ­ toms o f Mo ng o lia , de s igne d pe rhaps to celebrate C h ’ing tr iumphs in ce ntral As ia .63 Be g inning in the late 1750s, a clus te r of works on Ma n c h u language a nd his tory were commis s ione d. T he CKing- wenchien (Dic tio na r y o f Ma nc h u), a dic tiona r y of the Ma n c h u language in Ma n c h u , was reissued in 1771 s ys te matizing a nd in some sense dig nify in g a langua ge which was alre ady fa ding at court. T he gr andiloque nt but ofte n de ceptive Kai- kuo fang- lueh (An account o f the fo un d ing of o ur na tion), commis s ione d in 1773 provide d not only a he roic dime ns ion but a Co nfuc ia n pa tina for e arly Ma n c h u

his tory.64 In 1749 the first o f a lo ng series of milit a r y campaigns , the P'ing- ting Chin- chuan fang- lueh (An account o f the pacification o f the Chin- chua n rebels) appe are d. He re , the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or seems once again to have take n a le af fr om his gr andfathe r ’s book, for the only fang- lueh, accounts o f milita r y campaigns , to appe ar before 1749 were the K ang- hsi record of the s uppre s s ion o f the revolt o f the three feudatorie s , a nd the records of K ang- hsi campaigns agains t the Dzungar s . A divis ion of the Gr a n d Co unc il known as the Fang- luehk u a n (Milit a r y archives o ce) w h ic h had be e n created on an ad hoc basis in the K ang- hsi pe r iod, was made a pe r ma ne nt office in 1749 a nd charge d w ith the re s pons ibility o f pr e pa r ing milit a r y histories; it also bore some re s pons ibility in the othe r e ditor ial projects of the pe riod. Wit h the cha nging subject matte r o f impe r ia l compilations , the locus of publica tion work shifte d fr om the Boar d o f Rite s and H a n lin Acade my to the Gr a n d Co unc il, where it was to r e main until the e nd o f the r e ign.65 To be sure, the shift fr om classical c omme ntar y to milita r y his tory s ignalle d a change of tone in court patronage , b ut the fact that the best and the brighte s t a mo ng Chine s e scholars were e mploye d pre ­ pa r ing works which cele brate d the collabor ation of Ma nc h us and Chine s e suggests that the purpos e o f court lite r ar y activity had not change d. Co m b in in g the inte nt of K ang- hsi patronage , to de mon­ strated C h in g c o mmitme nt to Co nfuc ia n rule, with the s tanda r d­ izing impuls e o f the Yung- che ng years, C h ie n- lung court s cholars hip reflected a m a t u r in g o f Ma n c h u policy toward Chine s e inte lle ctuals . K ang- hsi s publications , issued e arly in the dynas ty, ha d represented a promis e o f present and futur e fide lity to Co nfuc ia n principle s ; for the C h ie n- lung Empe ror, on the othe r ha nd, public a tio n and pa ­ tronage of scholars was an e xis ting dynas ty policy, me ant to glorify the rule r and serve as a s ign and pilla r of the pros pe rity o f the era. Unlike the K ang- hsi Empe r or , the C h ie n- lung Empe r or did not p a ­ tronize individua ls ; e ighte e nth- ce ntury court s cholars hip was me ant to express attitude s toward a class, a nd was adminis te r e d through re gular ins titutions of C h ’ing gove rnme nt like the Gr a n d Counc il, Board of Rite s and H a n lin Acade my, rathe r tha n thr o ugh ad hoc arrange me nts in the e mpe r or ’s private study. C h ie n- lung public a ­ tions repres ented a c ommitme nt, not so m uc h to s cholars hip in an abstract sense, nor to specific individua ls , but to scholars in general and the world they represented. C h ie n- lung s ce ns ors hip also served political as well as lite rary ends. An e mpe r or as conce rne d as the C h ie n- lung Empe r or was

with the r e lations hip be twe e n the cour t a nd the s cholarly c o m m unity could be a vigila nt a nd fe rocious censor, b ut at least un til the 1770s C h ie n- lung ce ns ors hip was te mpe re d by a sense o f political reality. Two cases e arly in the r e ign illus trate d this. In 1741 Hs ie h Chi- s hih, a gr ain a tte ndant fr om H u n a n who ha d by his political obs tinancy annoye d both the C h ie n- lung Empe r or a nd his father, was fo und to have wr itte n s ome classical comme ntar ie s which challe nge d the C h u Hs i inte rpr e tations e ndors e d in the official comme ntar ie s . T he e mpe r or orde re d the works destroyed but carrie d the matte r no furthe r, be ing r e luctant, as he put it in an e dict on the case, to make utte rance s per se a crime . T hir te e n years later, the e mpe r or reacted quite diffe re ntly whe n he re ad Pr ovincial Educ a tio n Commis s ione r H u Chung- ts ao s line “M y e motions ponde r on the cor r upt a nd the pur e ,” in which the wor d cor r upt (cho) was place d ne xt to the dyna s ­ tic na me pur e {ch’ing). But more was at stake in the H u case tha n wor d choice, for H u Chung- ts ao was a s tude nt o f the gr a nd c ounc il­ lor a nd impe r ia l tutor O- erh- t’a i a nd his poe tr y containe d oblique a nd par tis an references to the conflict the n going on be twe e n O- erht a i a nd C h a n g T ing- yii. H u Chung- ts ao s poe try was felt to cons ti­ tute an attack on Ch a n g , the powe rful chie f councillor to the e mpe ror, a nd ultima te ly on the e mpe r or hims e lf. T his was intole r ­ able; H u was s ummo ne d to the cour t, inte rr ogate d, a nd executed. T he outcome s o f the two cases reflected the diffe re nt c ombina tio n o f lite r ary a nd political conce rns in the cases. Hs ie h Chi- s hih was c on­ de mne d, b ut ultima te ly pa r done d a nd r e tur ne d to o cial life, for focus ing on what was “be twe e n the line s ” in the comme ntarie s , as oppos e d to what he s hould have be e n do ing in the e mpe r or ’s view, e xe rting hims e lf to pr omote correct be havior in the world. H u Chung- ts ao’s poetry, regardless o f its lite r ary conte nt, was re ad as a political attack, a nd he nce br o ught its a uthor to grie f.66 T he two cases set infor ma l par ame te rs for the ce ns ors hip of the re ign. Whe ne ve r the e mpe r or saw hims e lf attacke d, he did not he s i­ tate to use all the police powe r at his c o m m a n d to pros ecute r apidly a nd de mons trative ly. T he cases o f T in g We n- pin in 1752 a nd Liu Che n- yu in 1761 provoke d ju s t s uch re actions . T ing, a rathe r u n ­ stable s cholar fr om Shao- hs ing who styled hims e lf Ma s te r T in g {tingtzu) was s entenced to de ath by slow s licing for pre s e nting to a de s ce ndant o f Confuc ius two works o f his own compos ition. One , e ntitle d Wei- shih hsien- shu (A cale ndar for a false age) propos e d ne w re ign titles for recent Chine s e rulers; the other, title d r athe r more

ominous ly Th- Hsia ta- Ming hsin- shu (A ne w dis cus s ion o f the great Hs ia a nd great M in g dynas tie s ) was s aid to be full o f a nti- Ma nc hu language . A s imilar fate befell Liu Che n- yii, a seventy- year- old shangyuan fr om Kia ng s i who publis he d a pla n for a ppr e he nding ba ndits as well as a work e ntitle d Tso- li wan- shih chih- p’ing shu (Toward the ete r­ nally pe ace ful gove r nme nt of the r e alm), which discussed the s um p ­ tuar y laws a nd r itua l systems o f the dynas ty, a nd pre s e nte d the m to the e xamine rs at the 1753 Kia ngs i pr ovincial e xaminations . Re m a r k ­ ably, both the Ta- Hsia ta- Ming hsin- shu a nd the Tso- li wan- shih chih- p ing shu ha d unde r gone review by pr ovinc ial officials —the C h ’ing e quiva ­ le nt of pre - publication ce ns ors hip —before the cases in que s tion. It seems that it was not so m uc h the conte nt o f the books which were offensive, b ut the claims that T in g a nd Liu were implic itly m a k ing in pre s e nting the ir works, respectively, to a de s ce ndant o f Confuc ius a nd to an official at the politically charge d e x a mina tions .67 Whe r e no s uch political claims were pres ent, a nd no attacks were appar e nt, the C h ie n- lung Empe r or was inc line d to take a muc h more tole r ant vie w of works which others at his court cons ide re d mis guide d. In 1757 the H u n a n sheng- yuan C h e n An- p in g was in ­ dicte d for w r iting two comme ntar ie s , one on the Ta- hsueh (Gr e a t le a r ning) a nd the othe r on the Chung- yung (Doctr ine o f the me an), in which he dis agre e d with C h u Hs i. T he H u n a n pr ovincial gove rnor was conce rne d with possible paralle ls with the case o f Hs ie h Chis hih. But the e mpe ror was more conce rne d with the paralle ls with the case o f H u Chung- ts ao, that is, with whe the r there was any dire ct or implie d political attack in the works. F in d in g none , he freed C h en and orde re d the gove rnor a nd pr ovincial e ducation commis s ione r not to purs ue the case furthe r. T he e mpe r or de live re d a s imilar ve rdict on the case o f Yu Teng- chiao. Yu was e vide ntly a s cholar of some re pute ; he was no mina te d to take the second po- hsueh hung- ju e xam in 1736. He faile d these exams b ut e ar ne d his chin- shih degree nine years later, r is ing to the post o f secretary at the Boa r d of Punis hme nts before his r e tir e me nt. Yu e vide ntly ha d a tale nt for ma k in g e ne mie s , a nd in 1761 a kins ma n br o ught a volume o f Yii’s poe try to the atte ntion o f pr ovinc ial author itie s , who relayed it to the e mpe ror. T he e mpe r or reviewed the volume , but fo und no cause for furthe r pros e cution. If the court monitor e d poe try too strictly, the e mpe ror re marke d in his e dict on the case, not only would the authors o f the e mpir e have no way to express the conce rns o f the ir hearts, b ut poets would not dare to write a wor d.68

T hus , while the Ch^e n- lung Empe r or ne ve r he s itate d to destroy books that he saw as dange rous , un til the 1770s he us e d his powers o f ce ns ors hip cautious ly, for his r e lations hip with the book- owning c o m m unity was too valuable to be cast as ide lightly. Ce ns or s hip, like patr onage , was not a capr icious act for the C h ie n- lung Empe r or , but one of the ins titutio na l expressions o f his r e lations hip with the w r iting a nd book h o ld ing c ommunity . It was pe rhaps not u n til the Ssu- k u s thirty- six thous and chuan o f te s timony to the le gitimacy of his dynas ty almos t rested securely on his shelves tha t he felt confi­ de nt e nough to unde r take a search for the wr itings o f those who ha d once que s tione d his rule. T he E d ic t o f 1 7 7 1 In Fe bruar y o f 1771 the C h ie n- lung Empe r or made a s econd effort to or ganize a book colle cting proje ct. Two factors pr o ba bly pr e c ipi­ tate d the de cis ion to e mbar k on a book colle ction proje ct in this year. T he first was the s imultane ous ce le bration in 1771 o f the e mpe r or ’s s ixtieth bir thda y a nd his mothe r ’s e ightie th. T he event was cele­ brate d w ith m uc h festivity, the b u ild in g o f monume nts a nd te mple s in Pe king, a nd the Ma n c h u s s umme r residence at Je ho l, a spate o f ne w official public ations , a series of s pecial e x aminations a nd ad hoc increases in the numbe r s o f pe ople allowe d to pass the r e gular ex­ a mina tions . Co n te m p la tin g his own arr ival at sixty, a nd his dynas ty’s successful rule o f over two hundr e d years, the C h ie n- lung Empe r or seemed to wa nt a s um m a t io n o f the pr inciple s on whic h C h ’ing rule had be e n bas e d, a final te s timony to his own a nd his ances tors’ c o m ­ m itme nt to civilize d rule . T he e me rge nce o f a ne w gr oup o f Chine s e leaders at the C h ie n- lung court following the de ath o f Fu H e n g in 1770 may also have be e n a pr e c ipita ting factor. Ce r tainly, these me n were to be very closely associated with the proje ct a nd the y very like ly were active in its initia tio n. T he s e lf- congratulatory tone o f the e dict suggested, however, that it was m e a nt to celebrate the success o f C h ie n- lung policie s toward inte lle ctual life r athe r tha n impos e ne w the me s in the doc ume nt; its d o m in a n t tone o f impe r ia l be ne vo­ lence a nd ope nne s s to all scholars was characte ris tic o f the Ch,ienlu n g era. T he doc ume nt was care fully dr awn to express these themes , to ce le brate the achie ve me nts of Ma n c h u policy a nd to point to c o ntinuing goals. Pompous as the y seem, the ope ning line s o f the e dict o f 1771 were

har dly an idle boas t, they were an as s ertion o f the e mpe r or ’s adhe r ­ ence to one o f the funda me nta l tenets o f e mpe r ors hip in China : “[ In our rule] We have always be e n m in d fu l o f pre ce de nt, revered the wr itings o f the pas t, re lie d on the br us h to govern a nd r ule d in ac­ cordance with principle . We have be e n dilige nt fr om day to day in our s tudy.” For the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or , as for inte lle ctuals and rulers thr o ughout mos t o f the his tory o f impe r ia l Ch in a , the special r e lations hip o f knowle dge a nd powe r ha d a cor ollar y in the duty o f an e mpe r or to m a in ta in a catalog o f the best books in his e mpire : “So I ofte n think o f the great impe r ia l librarie s o f the pas t a nd the lite rati atte ndants who re corde d the ir conte nts . T he greatest o f these catalogs be came comme ntar ie s in themselves, [ comme ntarie s which] be ing passed fr om ge ne ration to ge ne ration, served as mir ror s for a thous and years o f his tory•” O f course, as the C h ie n- lung Empe r or kne w well, his tor ians would judg e his dynas ty not only by its achie ve me nts a nd the qua lity o f its ins titutions , but by the characte r of inte lle ctual life that they fostered. A c ompila tio n comple te d unde r his s pons ors hip would not only assist the ruler, b ut it would assemble and advance le a r ning in an incre as ingly s pe cialize d and ge ogr aph­ ically dis pers ed e mpire : “T hos e who know only a s mall s ubject and compile narrative s so de taile d that every last fact or phe nome non is e nume r ate d w ill be unifie d a nd each will be fit into his prope r tr a di­ tion. How could there be any who would not make discoveries? By such me ans are the arts advance d a nd minds n u r tu r e d .” T he e mpe r or ’s policies since the b e g inning o f his re ign, he asserted, ha d a mply de mons tr ate d his respect for the classics and his ­ tories as the ultima te sources o f mor a l and political authority: “For this reason, whe n we first as ce nde d the throne , we calle d for lost books to be collected and orde re d scholars to e dit the thir te e n classics a nd the twenty- one histories. [ We fur the r commande d] that the ir works be wide ly dis s e minate d as a be ne fit to futur e scholars. We es tablis hed commis s ions successively to compile the Kang- mu for the Sung, Yua n a nd M in g dynas ties , the T ’ung- chien chi- lan (Impe r ia l comme nts on the compre he ns ive mir r or ), a nd the three encyclo­ pe dias .” But m uc h more r e maine d to be done if the tr a ditional goal o f Chine s e rulers, a compre he ns ive re pos itory o f the tr uth o f ma n’s natur e and the principle s o f gove rnme nt, was to be accomplis he d. T he e mpe r or offered the T u- shu chi- ch nge compile d unde r his g r a nd­ father, as an e xample o f what could be done : “But the only goal o f s tudy is to obta in g uid ing principle s a nd know more o f the words

a nd deeds of the pas t in or de r to gain virtue . On ly if book colle ctions are br o a d a nd e ncompas s ing can research be fine a nd precise. For ins tance , in the K ang- hsi era, the Tu- sku chi- cKeng was collected a nd annotate d, a nd pr ovide d a great vie w o f policy m a k in g [ through the ages]. Us ing various compilations , a nd a r r a nging accor ding to cate ­ gory mate r ials fr om s uch a vast n um b e r of sources that no one re ade r could expect to unde r s tand the m all, the c ompila tio n e nable d its us e r to trace the sources [ of var ious ideas] a nd to e xamine one by one the ir points o f o r ig in.” Ju s t as the inte r action o f state a nd private s cholars hip d ur in g the K ang- hsi re ign had res ulte d in this re mar kable c ompila tio n, a mas ­ sive proje ct o f state- sponsored s cholars hip could leaven the inte lle c­ tua l life o f the pres ent re ign: “Now, to or ganize the books stored in the impe r ia l hous e hold ca nnot b u t be a good thing. Similar ly, the books o f pas t a nd pre s e nt author s , regardless o f the ir numbe r , who pe rhaps still live in the m o unta ins a nd have not as ce nde d to the ranks of the dis tinguis he d s hould also be collected fr om time to time a nd sent to the capital. By s uch me ans , the unit y of s cholars hip pas t a nd pres ent can be made manife s t.” T he s econd h a lf o f the e dict de s cribe d the sort o f books the e mpe r or s ought, a nd outline d proce dure s for colle cting the m. T he e mpe r or dis tinguis he d be twe e n works of e ndur ing tr uth us e ful in gove rnme nt a nd me re e phe me ra. “Le t the pr ovinc ial governors be orde re d to collect all books ,” the e dict we nt on, “except for e ditions o f e x a mina tion essays (shih- wen) pr e par e d for sale by books hops , genealogies [ which circulate] uselessly a m o ng the pe ople , colle ctions o f letters, a nd s ample s o f calligraphy. [ Gove rnors ne e d not send] works by author s who have little real le a r ning, or who write only to implic ate or to frighte n, or who pre par e colle ctions which contain only flattery, prais e, a nd tr ivia. Ot h e r tha n these, any preserved book which clarifies the essential me thods of gove r nme nt or which c on­ cerns h u m a n natur e ought to be purchas e d. As for comme ntar ie s , e xplications , a nd booknote s , if the y are of real be ne fit, the y ought to be inc lude d.” In this lis ting there were, to be sure, ominous echoes o f the e arly C h ’ing pr ohibitions o f works with “pe tty conce rns or im m o r a l language ” or lite rary exercise books . However, the C h ienlu n g Empe r or was quick to point out that he did not me a n to exclude any ind ivid ua l o f ge nuine ability. “Fur the r mor e , the scholars a nd worthies o f the pres ent dynas ty, like the famous me n o f old, have the ir lite r ary collections . T hos e o f recent time s who have imme r s e d

themselves in classical studies se e king the or ig ina l elegance, also have lite rary collections. These cannot be compar e d with plagiar ize d words or dange rous ideas and ought to be s ought thor oughly. T he proce dure s to be us ed in colle cting books were dictate d by the natur e of s cholars hip a nd book pr oduc tio n in the e mpire : “T he books for sale in bookstores s hould be bought at the going rate. Pr ints o f woodblocks stored in private home s s hould be made at gov­ e r nme nt expense. Officials s hould or de r copyists to duplicate those books which have never be e n pr inte d a nd exist only in handw r itte n manus cripts , be ing care ful to r e tur n the or iginals to the ir owne rs .” Above all, this proje ct, which ha d be e n conce ive d as a be ne fit to scholars hip, s hould not be come a nuis ance to scholars: “Gove rnors s hould or de r the ir s ubor dinate s to manage e ve rything carefully. In no case s hould yame n unde r lings make the proje ct into a pretext to dis tur b the popula ce .” Finally, the e mpe r or propos e d a practical me as ure to s implify and r ationalize the e normous task o f book colle cting he had orde re d. “Since the books to be collected are m a n i­ fold, if we do not care fully compar e the m, but s imply send every­ thing, there will ine vitably be duplic a tio n a nd waste. T he re fore , let the governors and governor- generals first make a list of all titles col­ lected, a nd annotate it with the name s of authors , dynas tie s , a nd the general conte nt o f the works. Wr ite these lists down s imply, and me mor ialize . Afte r [ the lists have be e n received] , I will or de r court officials to compar e the lists carefully. A list o f those which seem worthy o f fur the r ins pe ction, will the n be pre par e d a nd sent a r o und .” T he final line s of the edict r e minde d the readers that the proje ct propos e d was one o f a great tr adition o f such efforts da ting back to the Forme r H a n dynas ty: “By this me ans the glories o f the Ch'i- lueh [ prepared by Liu Hs ia ng d ur in g the Forme r Han] a nd the Ssu- k'u shumu [ of the Sui] will be exceeded, a nd my wishes fu lfille d . 69 Ir o n i­ cally, this pe rhaps greatest book colle ction proje ct in Chine s e his tory would also be the last. But before it e nde d, e mpe ror, bure aucrats , and scholars would be br ought toge the r for a final affir mation o f the unity o f knowle dge a nd power in Chine s e history, an affir mation which would de mons trate the strengths o f the great tr a ditio n, its weaknesses, and the de licate balance that existed betwe e n scholars and the e ighte e nth- ce ntury state.

vocabular y a nd c ommon conce rns o f the day tha n in any single doc ume nt or e ve nt.1 Eighte e nth- ce ntur y inte lle ctuals s e ldom made br o a d pr o gr a mma tic statements ; they expressed the ir inte lle ctual c ommitme nts in the incr e as ingly de taile d and self- confident studies o f ancie nt texts a nd ideals, the comme ntar ie s a nd glosses, prefaces, colophons , letters, essays, a nd biographie s which the y produce d. T he ir c ha nging political c ommitme nts were expressed not in m a n i­ festos, but in the ir steady gr avitation toward the centers o f power and we alth in Chine s e society. Ma n y e le me nts o f the social life o f the ce n­ tur y were e pitomize d in the semi- official circles o f patr onage and pe dagogy which grew up par ticular ly in the latte r h a lf o f the century. In these circles, contacts were made , pe rs onal bonds were ce me nte d, research goals were articulate d, research projects formulate d, and sources o f financial s upport secured. Also, a nd pe rhaps as impor ta nt to the par ticipants , the skills of te xtual criticis m a nd philological inve s tigation were passed fr om mas te r to dis ciple in these groups , a nd the results o f the applica tion o f these te chnique s —critical e di­ tions of the ma jor classical texts a nd essays a bout the ir inte rpr e ta­ tion —found the ir promote rs and publis he rs . On e o f the first of these circles to de ve lop coalesced a r ound the le ade rs hip o f the e mine nt philologis t a nd H a n lin acade mician C h u Yun (1729- 1781) in the late 1750s. Well- conne cte d at court and a mo ng the social and s cholarly elite o f the day, C h u expressed the conce rns o f a nd guide d the careers o f m a ny scholars, and whe n the C h ie n- lung e dict on book colle cting was pr omulgate d in the winte r o f 1772 it was C h u who for mulate d the scholars’ response and urge d his we althy bookow ning frie nds to cooperate with the impe r ial s ummo ns in the cause o f k'ao- cheng s cholars hip. K ’a o - c h e n g S c h o la r s h ip in the E ig h t e e n t h Ce n t u ry T he emerge nce o f a c o m munity o f inte lle ctuals committe d to the task o f pre s e rving ancie nt texts reflected de ve lopme nts in the social, political and inte lle ctual his tory o f late impe r ial Ch in a . In inte lle c­ tual history, the tur n toward te x tualis m represented a t ur nin g away fr om Sung me taphys icians to earlier, specifically H a n , sources of ins ight and inte lle ctual le gitimacy. But it would be a mis take to char ­ acterize kko- cheng scholars as me re antiqua r ia ns . For, s har ing in the unive rs al Chine s e be lie f that the golde n age o f the pas t could teach valuable lessons for the present, e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars saw

themselves as active a nd creative, lay ing the founda tion for a be tte r futur e by for ging ne w pathways into the past. Ironically, the futur e for which they were laying the fo unda tio n was one few in the e igh­ te e nth ce ntury could have foreseen. T he skills scholars were de ve lop­ ing in s uch fields as e pigraphy, te xtual criticis m, philology and his torical inve s tigation, whe n applie d in a more critical age, would tr ans for m the classical canon into a mus e um piece, an object for inve s tigation rathe r tha n reverence. T he age was still s ome years in the future , however. In the e ighte e nth ce ntur y the goal was not the de s truction o f classical le a r ning, b ut its re e s tablis hme nt on a fir me r founda tion. T he te xtualis t move me nt has be e n calle d by various na me s —Aanhsueh (H a n le ar ning), p3u- hsueh (una do r ne d le a r ning), a nd k'ao- cheng (re ctification thr o ugh inve s tigation).2 By mos t re ckonings , the move ­ me nt be gan in the e arly seventeenth century. Twentieth- century C h i­ nese his tor ians have advance d several theories to account for its or igins , b ut in doing so they have all too ofte n re ad the concerns o f the ir own politicize d eras into the e ighte e nth century. Scholars w r it­ ing at the tur n o f the century, influe nce d by the he at o f anti- Ma nc hu fe e ling in the ir own day, te nde d to portray k ao- cheng s cholars hip as a response on the par t o f the Chine s e elite to Ma n c h u de s potis m. In this view C h ’ing scholars, r e cognizing that they ha d no more s tre ngth vis- a- vis the C h in g state tha n “so muc h fish roe or so ma ny fleas ,” s ought refuge in safe, apolitical studies o f ancie nt texts and expressed the ir oppos ition to the state, if at all, only by me ans o f an ae s opian la nguage .3 T he writings o f H u Shih and his followers in the Ma y Fourth Move me nt have be e n e qually influe ntial. Wr iting in the late teens and twenties of this century, H u analyze d kho- cheng s cholar­ s hip fr om the s tandpoint o f his tr a ining in western philos ophy, and found in it an e mpir ic is m and obje ctivity which, he felt, he ralde d the be g innin g o f a Chine s e s cientific re volution. In m a k in g his case, H u was more conce rne d with the me thods o f C h ’ing scholars tha n with the ir results or e xplicit concerns. He saw the pr inciple goal o f khocheng s cholars hip as ove rthrowing Sung me taphys ics a nd r e con­ s tr ucting Chine s e le a r ning on a ne w fo unda tio n.4 A thir d view has associated the rise o f ne w sorts o f le a r ning in the e ighte e nth ce ntury with changes in mate r ial and e conomic life occur r ing s imulta ne ­ ously, a mo ng the m the growth o f cities, comme rce , a nd comme r cial we alth.5 Each o f these views has its tr uth, but none is wholly s atisfying; in

par ticular none e xplains the d y na mis m o f the kho- cheng move me nt in the e ighte e nth century, or its pe culiar c ombina tio n o f inte lle ctual iconoclas m a nd social e litis m. Whate ve r the s eventeenth- century or igins of the kho- cheng move me nt, its growth reflected eighteenthce ntury de ve lopme nts : the gr adual a c cumula tion o f knowle dge and perspective about the classics, which both re inforce d a nd s ubtly recast the goals o f the move me nt; the re s olution, or at least abate ­ me nt, of te ns ions between Chine s e scholars a nd the Ma n c h u state; a nd finally the incre as ing we alth of Chine s e society, which provide d a ne w financial fo unda tion for s cholarly life in the century. T he e volution o f inte lle ctual conce rns fr om the seventeenth to the e ighte e nth ce nturie s was subtle. In almos t every field o f conce rn to the m, e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars built up o n the work o f the ir seventeenth- century predecessors. But as Be nja min Elm a n has compe llingly de mons tr ate d, kho- cheng scholars br ought ne w me thodo log i­ cal s ophis tication, new resources a nd ne w perspectives to be ar on tr a ditional proble ms . An d as they d id so, the pr oble ms themselves as s ume d ne w forms . T his process was mos t e vide nt in kho- cheng studies o f the Five Classics. T he core o f classical studies d ur ing the H a n dynasty, the I- ching (Book o f changes ), Shang- shu (Book o f docu­ me nts ), Shih- ching (Book of poe try), CKun- cKiu (S pr ing a nd a utum n annals ) a nd the Li- chi (Re cor d o f rituals ), were thought to have been e dite d by Confucius , and to contain the mos t authe ntic vis ion of the Chine s e past. T he Five Classics ha d be e n eclips ed, d u r in g late r impe r ial time s , by the Four Books, s ome what more philos ophical texts e mphas ize d by the Sung s cholar C h u Hs i (1130- 1200). It was characte ris tic o f the kho- cheng move me nt that its adhe re nts s hould seek to resolve the controversies that ha d de ve loped a r o und the often cor rupte d texts o f the Five Classics, a nd restore the m to a ce ntral place in the corpus of Chine s e le ar ning. T he dis pute s on the texts o f the Five Classics to which kho- cheng scholars addressed themselves were o f cons ide rable dur a tio n and sig­ nificance . Pe rhaps the mos t impor ta nt issue in the s tudy o f the I- ching was the r e lations hip of the charts in the work to its text, a que s tion ins pire d by the impor tance which C h u Hs i a nd othe r Neo- Confucians attr ibute d to the charts as sources of Co nfuc ia n wis dom. Fol­ lowers o f Wa ng Yang- ming (1472- 1529) and his e arly C h ’ing dis ciple H u a n g Tsung- hsi (1610- 1694) s ought to attack C h u on this matte r by conte nding that the charts were forgeries o f Taoist ins pir a tion. C h u ’s defenders counte re d that the Sung mas te r s tood on perfectly valid

s cholarly gr ounds in his e me ndations , a nd that he preserved a rich a nd valuable tr a ditional unde r s ta nding o f the te xt.6 T he de bate e ngage d s ome of the mos t im po r ta nt figures in C h in g inte lle ctual history. Following H u a n g Tsung- hsi were H u We i (1633- 1714) a nd Ma o Ch ’i- ling (1623- 1716); C h u ’s de fe nde rs inc lude d Ku Yen- wu (1613- 1682) Tai Ch e n (1724- 1777) and, fr om a s lightly diffe re nt p o int of view, Fang Tung- shu (1772- 1851).7 As both sides br o ught mor e e r uditio n to be ar on the issue, the ar gume nts be came mor e s ophis ticate d a nd lengthy. Wh a t H u a n g Tsung- hsi ha d suggested in a work o f 6 chuan in 1661 H u a nd Ma o prove d in works of 10 a nd 30 chuan, respectively. Similar ly, wha t Ku Yen- wu suggested in a foot­ note to his Jih- chih- lu T ai Che n s howed m uc h mor e conclus ive ly in Ching- kho. Scholar s hip on the Shang- shu, as Be nja min E lm a n has clearly de mons tr ate d, dis playe d a s imila r e volution fr om conce rn with a me taphys ical issue to conce rn with a text. In this case the issue was the r e lations hip o f the “mor a l m in d ” (tao- hsin) to the “m in d o f m a n” {jen- hsin), a nd s pecifically the way this issue was for mula te d in the “Couns e ls o f the Gr e at Yii” chapte r o f the Shang- shu. C h u Hs i a nd his followers ha d inte rpre te d this passage to imply that the source of mor a l tr uth lay outs ide the h u m a n he art, a nd ha d to be s ought by a labor ious process o f r e fine me nt a nd s e lf- cultivation. Late M in g s cholars re s ponde d that the re was only one m in d , in m a n as in the unive rs e , a nd that mor a l tr uth a nd h u m a n desires coexisted in it. T he de bate was a he ate d one , a nd was almos t ce rtainly one of the ins pir ations for Yen Jo- chu (1636- 1704) in w r iting his Shang- shu kuwen shu- cheng (An e x a mina tion o f the ancie nt text ve rs ion o f the Shangshu), publis he d in 1745 which de mons tr ate d not only that the passage in que s tion was dr a wn fr om the Taoist canon, but cast doubt on the e ntire ancie nt text vers ion o f the Shang- shu.8 T his work dre w an angr y re tort fr om Ma o C h ’i- ling, a nd an even angr ie r response fr om Fang Tung- shu. T he conflict be came a cause celebre, s timula ting classicists a nd his tor ians un til well into the nine te e nth ce ntury.9 T he Shih- ching did not ins pire s uch me taphys ical dis putes . It did, however, provide a founda tion for a br a nc h of le a r ning that was to be come a backbone o f C h ’ing te xtualis m, phonology. C h ’ing scholars were conce rne d above all w ith the matte r o f how to pre ve nt cor r upt texts a nd the mis take n inferences that m ig ht be dr awn fr om the m. On e o f the mos t serious pr oble ms the y faced was that characters with the s ame s ound could easily, e ithe r thr ough inadve r te nce or by

de s ign, be e xchange d for one anothe r. It the re fore was vital fr om the te xtualis t point o f vie w to es tablis h familie s o f characters with the same s ound, a nd to show how these s ounds ha d change d over time . T he Shih- chingy a colle ction o f ancie nt poe try with a fairly pre dictable r hyme scheme, seemed an ide al s tar ting point for s uch research. C h en T i (d. ca. 1617) re vive d the s tudy o f phonology a nd the Shihching with his Mao- shih ku- yin- kho (A s tudy o f ancie nt pr onunc ia tions in the Ma o re ce ns ion of the Shih- ching), publis he d in the e arly 1600s. But, at least according to e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars, Che n’s work was no thing but “chaff a nd weeds” a nd it was not un til Ku Yen- wu s work on phonology, pr obably comple te d fairly late in his life, appe are d that phonology be g a n.10 Ch ia n g Yu n ^s (1681- 1762) Ku- yun piao- chun (A pr ime r on ancie nt phonology) corrected a n um b e r o f the factual errors a nd ide alis tic as s umptions o f K u s work, a nd thr o ugh C h ia n g ’s frie nd a nd s tude nt, Tai Ch e n (1724- 1777) the dis cipline o f phonology was passed to scholars o f the late e ighte e nth century. A num b e r o f phonological studies were pr oduce d in the last years of the century, but one o f the mos t care ful a nd arde nt s tude nts o f the field was T uan Yu- ts a i (1735- 1815) whose Liu- shu yin- yun piao (Clas s ifica­ tion of the phonology o f the Six Books ), appe are d in the late 1760s.11 O n one level at least, author s on each o f these three texts seemed to be following in the footsteps of the ir predecessors, pos ing tr a di­ tional que s tions in more a nd mor e re fine d ways a nd offe ring ever more s ophis ticate d answers. But, as s cholarly works be came longe r a nd more de taile d, the ir e mphas is s eemed to s hift fr om que s tions o f faith to matte rs o f proof. Tenets whic h pre vious ly ha d be e n as s ume d or asserted were now prove n, and e le me nts of tr a ditio n that ha d pr e ­ vious ly be e n left une x a mine d were now e laborate d a nd e nume r ate d. Scholar s hip on the ancie nt texts on rites illus tr ate d this phe ­ nome non. T he earliest C h in g write rs on the rites texts were all, appare ntly, ins pir e d by the legacy of C h u Hs i. T he great Sung NeoCo nfuc ia n ha d be e n at wor k on a comme nta r y on the I- li (Ce r e ­ monie s and rites) at the time o f his de ath, a nd s hortly before he die d, he professed the ne e d for mor e work on the rites. Two o f his disciples unde r took to comple te his work afte r his de ath, b ut they were appare ntly uns ucce s s ful, so that the task o f pr ope rly e x pla ining various rites r e maine d on the inte lle ctual a ge nda .12 In 1696 Hs u Ch ’ien- hsueh pr oduce d an inde x to the various m o u r n in g rites in 120 (Man; some years later, Ch ia n g Yung compile d an 88 chuan inde x to the rites, and in 1761 C h in H ui- t ie n pr oduce d his 260 chuan Wu- li

Vung- k'ao (A s tudy of the five texts on rites). Onc e these c ompe ndia h a d be e n accomplis he d, the way was ope n for more de taile d s tudy o f various facets of the rites texts. Both C h ia n g Yung a nd his fr ie nd Tai Che n pr oduc e d studies o f one chapte r o f the Chou- li (Rite s o f Ch o u ) de a ling w ith a ncie nt vehicles a nd we apons . Othe r s worke d on la nd te nure systems, e nfe offme nt practices a nd un ifo r m s .13 T he re is ample e vide nce that each of the e arly s tude nts o f the rites texts was ins pir e d by the pros pe ct o f fulfilling one o f C h u Hs i’s goals. T he author s of late r studies may have be e n s imila r ly ins pir e d. But, w ith the s hift to limite d topics a nd the s cholarly dis pute s that ofte n ac compa nie d this s hift s o me thing of the or igina l Ne o- Confucian faith was lost. At the ve rbal level, e vide nce o f this loss was not har d to find. It ha d be come r outine by the m id dle of the e ighte e nth ce n­ tur y for incr e as ingly precise a nd s cholarly philologis ts to c onde mn the more re ligious o f Ne o- Co nfuc ian wr itings as “e mpty me taphys i­ cal s pe c ula tion.” At the level o f philos ophe rs ’ conce ptions a nd self image s e vide nce of a de cline , or at least a tr ans for mation, o f NeoCo nfuc ia n faith could be fo und in s uch passages as Lin g T ing- kan s (1757- 1809) e x planation o f the r e lations hip o f his exegesis o f r itua l texts to C h u H s i s tr a ditio na l goal o f “inve s tigation of things ” (ko- wu). C h u s goal, o f course, has be e n var ious ly de fine d a nd conc e ptua l­ ize d, but at base it re pre s e nte d the search for mor al unive rs als . Lin g ha d no c ompla int w ith this; the pr o ble m was how to accomplis h it. As Lin g saw it, the key to mor a lity lay in ind iv id ua l feelings a nd these seemed not s us ce ptible to the kind o f analys is necessary to es tablis h mor a l ce rtainty. Lin ^s s olution to this pr oble m be gan with his pe r ce ption that h u m a n feelings were best expressed in r ituals a nd one could, by inve s tigating rituals a nd ce re monie s , accomplis h C h u ’s goals. T he best way to inves tigate r ituals was to s tudy the texts which re corde d the m. Exegesis o f r itua l texts (kho- li) was, therefore, mor a lly e quivale nt to C h u H s i s inve s tigation of th ing s .14 Textual s cholars hip ha d re place d, for Lin g at least, self- cultivation as the ce nte r o f the inte lle ctua l^ life. T he pote ntial for fair ly r adical inte lle ctual a nd political change was implic it in the te xtualis ts r e de finition o f the purpos e s of Chine s e s cholars hip, as work on the Ch!un- chyiu de mons tr ate d. T his was not a par tic ula r ly controve rs ial text in e arly Ch,ing time s , though a n u m ­ be r o f exegeses were pre pare d. T he mos t pr o m ine nt s tude nt o f the text in the e ighte e nth ce ntur y was C h u a n g Ts un- yii (1719- 1788). Gh u a n g ’s interes t in this text le d h im be yond the tr a ditio na l Tso

c omme ntar y on it, into othe r e arly exegeses, inc luding the Kungyang and the Ku- liang comme ntar ie s . In the first h a lf o f the nine ­ te e nth ce ntury Ch u a n g ’s s tude nts , Liu Feng- lu (1776- 1829) a nd We i Yua n (1794- 1856) a mo ng others, found in these ne gle cte d c omme n­ taries a powe rful s anction for social a nd political a c tivis m.15 Signifi­ cantly, however, it was not Ch u a n g who dre w these implica tions , and it was not until the e conomic and social crises o f the 1820s a nd 1830s that they were de veloped. In the e ighte e nth century, scholars seemed large ly unaware of, or uninte re s te d in, the political implica tions of the ir work. Chine s e thought in the late e ighte e nth ce ntury seemed thus to be at a tu r n in g point: pois e d betwe e n a Ne o- Confucian past a nd a mor e activis t future , committe d to the rigorous e x a mina tion o f texts but not yet e mancipate d fr om the conce rns that had tr a di­ tionally s ur r ounde d the texts. On e factor which had impe lle d C h ’ing s cholars hip to this point was undoubte dly the self- conscious pr ide that C h ’ing scholars took in the ir own me thodology. Tai Che n was one s cholar whose me th­ odological awareness was a par ticular ly impo r ta nt e le me nt in his self- image. Co m m e n t in g on the public a tio n of his Kho- kung chi- t u in a letter to Yao Na i (1732- 1815) writte n in 1775 Tai re marke d: Some of my works are based on thoroughly conclusive evidence, others are not yet so based. By conclusive evidence I me an that the text mus t be verified by antiquity in every particular, the work mus t be in such complete accord with the tr uth as to leave nothing debatable, all the major and minor points mus t be traced, and fundame ntal as well as secondary points considered. If we rely on hearsay to de te rmine the me aning of a text, use the various interpre tations to point out its strengths, merely express its argume nts with e mpty words, and use r andom proofs to verify it, then although we are moving upstre am to de te rmine the source, we don’t see the original s pring with our own eyes.16

In Re nais s ance Europe , o f course, such me thodological awareness was associated with the rise o f science, but the implic a tio n that Ch ’ie n- lung C h in a was on its way toward an inte lle ctual tr ans for ma­ tion compar able to the scientific re volution in Europe , mus t be approache d w ith caution. For Tai a nd his colleagues me ant not to move in ne w inte lle ctual dire ctions b ut to use the tools the y were e volving to e xamine old texts and r e nde r ancie nt que s tions solvable. It was precisely because ne w research te chnique s were us e ful in s olving old pr oble ms that e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars took pride in

the m. T he me thodological awareness of e ighte e nth- ce ntury inte lle c­ tuals pr oba bly s ignalle d a gr owing confide nce in the powers of the inte lle ct, a confide nce which in tur n e rode d many tr a ditio nal beliefs. But science, a nd the sys tematic e x plor ation o f na tur a l phe nome na, take n as an e nd in itself, was still a lo ng way off.17 Economic a nd social growth also c onditione d inte lle ctual de ve lop­ me nt. Eighte e nth- ce ntur y scholars attitude s toward the wor ld and the ir role in it mus t have be e n s hape d in par t by what they saw ar ound the m. Like the late Min g , the pe r iod of the e ighte e nth ce ntury was a time of gr owing cities, incr e as ing comme r cial we alth a nd slowly r is ing prices. Unlike the late Min g , however, the C h ie n- lung e ra was a time of relative peace; a ltho ugh the re were wars alo ng the frontie r d u r in g mos t of the re ign, the resources o f the gove rnme nt a nd social elites were not excessively dr a ine d by the de mands o f defense. T he re ­ s ulting a c c umula tio n of we alth may well have served to convince in ­ tellectuals that the r e alization o f classical ideals was possible in the ir own times . In fact, in a sense, s cholars very careers were founde d on this we alth. T he best philological s cholars hip r e quire d not only a s ignificant inve s tme nt in books and e ditions , but the fre e dom fr om the de mands o f live lihood that only patr onage , or very extensive pe r­ s onal resources provide . Ce r ta inly the comme r cial we alth o f the e ighte e nth ce ntury unde r la y the era’s te xtual scholars hip. Re lations be twe e n scholars a nd the we althy diffe re d in the various centers of k ao- cheng s cholars hip. By the middle of the e ighte e nth ce n­ tury, the Yangchow are a was fast be c oming one of the wealthiest areas in C h in a owing to the influe nce o f are a me r chants who were lice ns e d in the gove rnme nt salt monopoly to sell to the pros pe rous lowe r Yangtze de lta. Some k ’ao- cheng scholars were de s ce ndants of me r chants , but even whe n the y ha d no s cholarly relatives, merchants conce rn to de mons tr ate a c o m mitme nt to Co nfuc ia n values led the m to engage in a lavis h phila nth r o py .18 In the last h a lf of the e ighte e nth century, salt me r chants e ndowe d three acade mie s in the Yangchow area, a nd three more in ne arby Huic h o u, a nd s ome o f the mos t pr omine nt scholars o f the day were attracte d to te aching pos i­ tions at these or to research pos itions s pons ore d by individua l me r ­ c ha nts .19 Colle ctive ly known as the “Yangchow s chool scholars o f nor the r n Kia ngs u a nd s outhe rn Anhw e i le d the way in the de ve lop­ me nt of ne w philological te chnique s in the e ighte e nth ce ntury, a nd par ticular ly in research on the Rite s texts.20 Inte lle ctuals fr om the Soochow are a te nde d to be fr om familie s of

olde r we alth, a nd were ofte n mos t interes ted in book colle cting, b ib ­ liography, and par tic ipation in the state e x a mina tio n process. A twe ntie th- ce ntury de s ce ndant o f the Yangchow school labe lle d these concerns o f “de cade nt wor ds miths .” But in the e ighte e nth century, Soochow scholars interests re nde re d the ir city one o f the e mpir e ’s major centers of book pr oduc tio n a nd tr ade .21 Altho ug h one Soo­ chow acade my was founde d with me r chant capital, mos t o f the e du­ cational resources o f the dis trict were more closely tied to lande d wealth. T he early twe ntie th- ce ntury publis he r and bibliophile Yeh Te- hui has trace d the fate of large private librarie s first as s e mble d by C h ’ien C h ien- i (1582- 1664) and Ma o C h in (1599- 1659) in the late M in g a nd passed along thr o ugh s tude nts and de s ce ndants , large ly landholde rs o f the C h ang- shu re gion northe as t of Soochow, to H u a n g P ’ei- lieh (1763- 1825).22 Fr om the mids t of this gentle laby­ r inth o f la nd and librarie s came some of the great titans o f kho- cheng s cholars hip —the three “phoe nixe s ” of the C h ie n family, Ta- hsin (1728- 1804), Ta- chao (1744- 1813) T ung- yuan (d. 1824) a nd Wa ng Ming- s he ng (1722- 1798). In the Hangchow are a olde r we alth, mos tly o f me rcantile or igins , had made possible the as s e mbly o f a vast ne twork o f s cholarly re­ sources by the middle o f the e ighte e nth century. Not only were the Ha ngc how book owners me n of very cons ide rable me ans , they were close pe rs onal frie nds .23 T he inte lle ctual tr a ditio n which dre w its sus­ tenance fr om this as s e mblage of s cholarly resources had a few special characteristics, notably its interest in late M in g his tory and its r athe r activist e mphas is , but it par ticipate d in all the de ve lopme nts o f C h ’ing s cholarly life. T he Hangchow librarie s forme d a ma jor source of books for the Ssu- k u Pr oje ct.24 T he growth of Pe king as an inte lle ctual center paralle le d the growth in the capacity o f the Gh in g state to attract me n o f we alth and e ducation to its service. Fr om rathe r mode s t be ginnings in the seventeenth century, the Liu- li- ch a n g or books e lle r’s quarte r, had grown by the mid- e ighte e nth ce ntury to be a mar ke t “jus t ifia bly fa­ mous thr o ughout C h in a .” Its me rchants r e gularly sent to Soochow for books and bauble s to amus e the ir we althy cus tome rs .25 Am o n g these cus tome rs were s inifie d Ma n c h u princes a nd successful e x ami­ nation candidate s who stayed on in the capital to occupy court s ine ­ cures. But there were also several familie s who stayed for several ge ne rations in Pe king, fo r ming a kind of local elite. Mos t famous of these were the familie s o f C h u Yun and We ng Fang- kang. Re gula r ly

infus e d with new blood fr om C h in a ’s he ar tland, the eighteenthce ntury s cholarly elite in Pe king was a ttune d to all the inte lle ctual de ve lopme nts of the e mpir e . Its par tic ula r c ontr ib ution pr oba bly was the s tudy o f stone ins cr iptions whic h dotte d the Nor th C h in a plain. Yangchow, Soochow, Hangchow, a nd Pe king were not the only centers o f kho- cheng s cholars hip in the e ighte e nth ce ntury, but they were the ma jor ones. T he close conne ction be twe e n we alth a nd s cholars hip in these centers suggested the impor tance o f the ne w pros pe rity o f the ce ntury for te xtual s cholars hip. But, one o f the frus ­ trations for the his tor ian o f the e ighte e nth ce ntur y is that the q u a n t i­ tative change s o f the e ra did not always le ad to qualita tive ones. T he uie w we alth o f the pe r iod served more to s uppor t the fulfillme nt of tr a ditional goals tha n to ins pire ne w social ideals. To be sure there were some, like Tai Che n a nd Ch ia o Hs un , who for mula te d ne w e thical conce ptions in which h u m a n feelings playe d a gre ate r role tha n in e arlie r conce ptions .26 But these works could har dly be c on­ sidered typical of the pe riod, e ithe r in te rms o f conte nt or influe nce . It is s imila r ly difficult to see kho- cheng s cholars hip as a kind of statecraft t h inking tur ne d in up o n its e lf in response to Ma n c h u des­ potis m. Kho- cheng scholars were fond o f q uo ting s tatecraft thinke rs , a nd they did so even in the Ssu- k u catalog itself, but the y quote d only the passages that interes ted the m. T he y rejected, or s imply ignor e d, the more political wr itings o f s e ve nteenth- century th in k ­ ers.27 In a funda me nta l sense, of course, e arly twe ntie th- ce ntury his ­ torians were right; Ma n c h u gove r nme nt created the climate in which kho- cheng s cholars hip flouris he d, a nd this fact impos e d s ome c on­ s traints on Chine s e scholars. T he C h ’ing court reserved s ome pos i­ tions of real political a uthor ity for Ma nc h us only, a nd the great Chine s e court favorites o f the ce ntury —me n like H a n g Shih- chiin (1696- 1775), She n Te- ch’ien (1673- 1769), C h ’ie n Ta- hsin a nd C h i Hs iao- lan (1724- 1805) —were all writers a nd poets, rathe r than s trat­ egists or pla nne r s .28 Wh e n H a n g Shih- chiin compla ine d in 1743 that only Ma nc h us could occupy the highe s t offices of the r e alm, he was banis he d fr om court with a speed which be lie d the Ma nc h us ofte n pr oclaime d desire to rule w ithout re gard to e thnic dis tinctions .29 But what mor e would k’ao- chmg scholars have s ought? T he y were or re pres ented the wealthies t s e gme nts o f Chine s e society. While the Ma nc h us reserved for themselves the r ight to make a ppointme nts to court sinecures a nd to contr ol bor de r affairs , they quite cons cious ly did not inte rfe re w ith the rights o f landholde r s or the pre rogative s of

we alth. In an e ra whe n e conomic growth almos t guarante e d the con­ tinue d domina nc e o f those who owne d la nd or contr olle d resources, k'ao- cheng s cholars hip, which te nde d toward an acce ptance of es tab­ lis he d author ity a nd containe d at best an impuls e to gr adual re form, may well have s uite d Chine s e elites interests a nd pre dile ctions as well as the political opportunitie s ope n to the m. T he speed with which many inte lle ctuals be gan to a ba ndon the k}ao- cheng approach once events made glar ingly e vide nt the need for e conomic and social re forms in the e arly nine te e nth century, suggests that C h in g inte lle c­ tuals ha d not forgotte n the role they could play in policy- making. But the e ighte e nth ce ntury was a time whe n the opportunitie s for r e aliz­ ing tr a ditional inte lle ctual goals seemed to elites more compe lling tha n the need for social or political r e form. Ra th e r tha n seek political re form, scholars o f the e ighte e nth ce ntury seemed conte nt to func ­ tion w ith in the e xis ting order, tur nin g court initiative s to the ir own e nds wherever possible. Such at least, was the appa r e nt a im o f Ch u Yun a nd his frie nds as they set out to for mulate a response to the im ­ pe rial book colle cting orde r of 1773. T he C irc le o f Ch u Y u n a n d It s S ig n if ic a n c e We s te rn s cholars hip has not yet probe d de e ply e nough into the e igh­ te e nth ce ntury to realize C h u Yun s s ignificance , but a mo ng his con­ te mporarie s and a mo ng mode r n Chine s e and Japane s e his torians , C h u s impor tance has long be e n re cognize d. Yao Ming- ta wrote in his 1937 biogr aphy o f Chu: If one were to read through the writings and biographies of the Ch ienlung and Chia- ch ing periods, one would realize Ch u ’s unparalle le d influ­ ence on the scholarly climate of the day. On the one hand, he proposed the establishment of a government bure au to collate books, and created the e nvironme nt for such a project. On the other hand, he repeatedly received and nurtur e d scholars and created a climate for the encourage­ me nt of scholarship. He was truly the founde r and leader of the “unadorne d le arning” (p'u- hsueh) move me nt in the Ch’ien- lung and Chiach’ing pe riods .30

Kawata Teiichi finds some o f Yao Ming- ta’s language , par ticular ly his char acte rization o f C h u as “founde r a nd le ade r o f the una do r ne d le a r ning move me nt,” a bit excessive, but still sees C h u as a figure who e nriche d e nor mous ly “not only the inte lle ctual but the h um a n side o f the e ighte e nth- ce ntury life .”31

C h u ’s fa mily his tor y illus trate s the incr e as ing attractivenes s o f life in Pe king for the e ighte e nth- ce ntury elite. Alth o ug h the y were or igi­ nally fr om the Ha ngc how area, the Chus ha d resided in Pe king since C h u Yun’s gr andfathe r chose to retire there, in the late K ang- hsi era. Except for a seven- year te r m as a magis tr ate in She ns i, C h u Yun’s fathe r s pe nt his e ntire life in the capital, s e rving at court a nd te ach­ ing Pe king s tude nts for over twenty- five years .32 C h u Yun a nd his younge r br othe r C h u Kue i attracte d the atte ntion o f the city whe n they r anke d first a nd second, respectively, on the Shun- t ien hsiu- tshi e x a minations of 1745.33 C h u Yun’s rise to court pr omine nce , however, be gan with his selection in what was, fr om the point o f view of inte lle ctual history, one o f the mos t dis tinguis he d chin- shih classes in the e ighte e nth ce ntury. In the s econd a nd forty- second places, respectively, of the class of 1754 were the two dis tinguis he d eighte e nth- ce ntury his tor ians C h ie n Ta- hsin (1728- 1804) a nd Wa ng Ming- s he ng (1722- 1798). T he bibliogr a phe r a nd futur e editorin- chie f o f the Ssu- k}u ch iian- shu C h i Hs iao- lan (C h i Yun) r anke d sixth in the e x a minations , a nd the great e pigr aphe r a nd classicist Wa ng C h ’ang (1725- 1806) r anke d ninth. C h u Yun hims e lf r anke d thirtye ighth.34 All except Wa ng C h ’a ng were a ppointe d to the H a n lin Acade my. Wor king a nd s ocializing together, they soon be came a tightly knit gr oup whose o pinio n a nd s cholarly style came to domina te the th in k ­ ing o f the capital. T he ir social circle was soon jo in e d by the philos o­ phe r a nd classicist Tai Che n a nd the e pigr aphe r We ng Fang- kang (1733- 1818) who was a ne ighbor o f C h u ’s in Pe king. Eve n Yao Na i, who would e ve ntually dis s ent fr om the ir views, was te mpor ar ily dr awn into the ir m ids t.35 For about ten years C h u served with this gr oup at court, e mploye d on such CWe n- lung e ra his tor ical compilations as the P'ing- ting Tsunko- erh fang- lueh (An account o f the s uppre s s ion o f the Dzung a r s ).36 In the mid- 1760s, however, C h u be gan to make his own par tic ula r c on­ tr ibution to inte lle ctual life, the r e c r uitme nt a nd tr a ining of younge r scholars. Two events in C h u ’s life mar ke d a nd has te ne d this de ve lop­ me nt. T he first was his move in 1764 into a ne w home across fr om that of fellow H a n lin Aca de mic ia n Ch ia n g Yii- ts un (d. 1770). C h u name d his s tudy in the new quarte rs , a r oom which be came famous as the scene o f m a ny partie s a nd dis cus s ions , the “Pe ppe r Blos s om H u m m in g B o a t. 37 In the s ame year C h u ’s fathe r die d, a nd the three- year m o u r n in g pe riod o f e nforce d r e tir e me nt fr om official

business gave C h u the leis ure to be gin cultivating younge r talents on a large r scale.38 C h u ’s conte mporarie s claime d that he had betwe e n five hundr e d a nd one thous a nd s tude nts (men- jen) in his life time ; Yao Ming- ta has locate d references to a bout one hundr e d in C h u s collected w r it­ ings .39 T he large r figures were pr oba bly inflate d by the fact that candidate s who passed the chin- shih e xaminations us ually referred to the ir e xamine r as “mas te r” even if they had not ha d any pre vious contact with h im , and by the te nde ncy o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury lite rati to form “be lle tris tic frie nds hips ” o f the sort de s cribe d by Jame s Polache k, that is, re lations hips in which aesthetic commonalitie s are asserted for es sentially political purposes. Cle ar ly some o f C h u s s tu­ de nts were o f the latte r type, c oming to h im s hortly before or after the chin- shih e x aminations in the hope that some last minute coaching or a chance me e ting with a s e nior courtie r mig ht s tand the m in good stead. But many o f C h u ’s s tude nts , like Ch a n g Hs ue h- ch e ng (17381801) W u Lan- t’ing {chu- jen, 1774) a nd C h a Pi- ch e ng {chin- shih, 1778) stayed with C h u for a n um be r o f years and actually lodge d at his hous e .40 Conge nia lity was a ha llm a r k o f C h u s hous e hold. In an e pitaph for C h u s ne ighbor Ch ia n g Yii- ts u n Ch a n g H sueh- ch e ng described the atmos phe re that pre vaile d at C h u s home : Stude nt and teacher would exchange presents, pitchers of wine or plat­ ters of vegetable delicacies, then sit and eat them together. Or , student and teacher would recall together an old story and laugh over it. Mo r n ­ ing and evening passed so. In discussing writing or que s tioning the origin of words, there was not a day of leisure. If there was wine, it was never left undr unk.41

Unde rs tandably, whe n the te rm o f m o ur n ing for his fathe r was finis he d, C h u was loath to leave the Pe ppe r Blos s om H u m m in g Boat. Fortunate ly, after a br ie f service at court, C h u was appointe d to a post which allowed h im to continue his lifestyle and calling. T he post of pr ovincial e ducation commis s ione r had be e n cre ate d by the Yung- che ng Empe r or to supervise the holders o f the hsiu- tshi degree who received gove rnme nt stipends . It was unr a nke d a nd for mally outs ide the bure aucracy, but it carrie d e nor mous prestige, especially as the appointe e s were suppos e d to have be e n pe rs onally selected and ins tructe d by the e mpe ror.42 Altho ug h they were bas e d in provincial capitals , pr ovincial e ducation commis s ione r s traveled fr om county seat to county seat in orde r to inte rvie w s tude nts and give exams.

C h u was appointe d e duc ation commis s ione r o f Anhwe i in 1771. He took with h im a rathe r large r e tinue that include d Ch a n g Hs uehch’e ng Shao Chin- han (1743- 1796), H u n g Liang- chi (1746- 1809) a nd H u a n g Ching- je n (1749- 1803) a nd the y trave le d thr o ugh the province on a r e gular basis. For ins tance , in the s pr ing o f 1772, the y e x amine d s tude nts at Wu- hu in the e nd o f Ma r c h, the n jour ne ye d s outh to conduct e x a minations at Hui- chou in Apr il. O n the four ­ te e nth o f May, the y conducte d e x a mina tions at Hs iu- ning, a nd on the thir te e nth of Ju ly at Ning- kuo, before r e tur nin g to T ai- p in g for a br ie f respite. T he following fall the y e mbar ke d on a to ur of the nor the r n h a lf of the pr ovince .43 T he r e tinue which C h u br o ught with h im to Anhwe i cons titute d the nucle us o f his circle. Alth o ug h C h u s was the first gr oup of this type to coalesce, s uch circles be came a fair ly c o m m o n fe ature of the e ra s inte lle ctual life. Am o n g the mor e im po r ta nt successors o f C h u s circle in this re gard were the gr oups which P i Yua n (1730- 1797) for me d in She ns i in the late 1770s a nd 1780s, a nd the gr oup that J u a n Yua n for me d at the Hs ue h- hai- t a ng in Ca n t o n in the first decades of the nine te e nth ce ntury.44 T he late r circles were more active in public ation: Pi Yua n unde r wr ote the public a tio n o f many monog r a phs a nd critical e ditions , a nd Ju a n Yua n was res pons ible for the fourte e n- hundre d- volume c ompila tio n o f classical c omme ntar y e ntitle d Huang- Ch'ing ching- chieh (C h ’ing pe r iod comme ntar ie s on the classics). But all circles were s pringboards for s cholarly tale nt, a nd pr obably also bridge s be twe e n Ma n c h u political power a nd Chine s e inte lle ctual life. Life in these circles illus trate d some o f the ways in which Chine s e inte lle ctuals adapte d themselves to the political a nd e conomic realities o f the e ighte e nth century. T hre e sorts o f ties seem to have b o und toge the r the me mbe rs o f C h u s circle —e conomic, social a nd inte lle ctual. T he e conomic aspects o f C h u ’s circle were obvious ly impor ta nt, especially for poor e r me mbe rs o f the gr oup like Wa ng C h u n g (17451794) a nd Ch a n g Hs ue h- ch’eng. A chin- shih degree was a guarante e at least o f e conomic se curity in e ighte e nth- ce ntury C h in a a nd C h u Yun’s advice on the e x aminations , if only becaus e he was so well con­ ne cte d with those like ly to serve as e xamine rs a nd so well attune d to s cholarly tre nds in the capital, was valuable . T hus , C h u could advis e Ch a n g Hsue h- ch e ng that he ha d no tale nt for w r iting the pa- ku essays r e quir e d on the e x aminations , but reassure him: “Wh y s hould pas s ing the e x a minations be difficult? An d why s hould this re quire

you to s tudy pa- ku? Follow your own way, trus t to your own natur e , a nd a degree will not necessarily be u n o b ta in a b le . 45 It was not that C h u could guarante e his s tude nts success on the exams, b ut he ha d a far clearer sense o f what was r e quir e d o f the m tha n mos t if not all of his conte mporarie s . C h u was also in a pos ition to find te mpor ar y e mployme nt for ne e dy s tudents . Li We i (fl. 1770- 1800) a s tude nt o f C h u ’s in the late 1770s, once pointe d out to C h u that his ha bit o f r e co mme nding for e mployme nt s tude nts who ha d faile d on the e xaminations had e arne d h im the scorn o f ma ny in Pe king who s aid “Ma s te r C h u s r e c omme nda tio n that a s tude nt has e xce ptional tale nt and unus ua l abilitie s only me ans that the s tude nt has fa ile d.” C h u s ighe d a nd re marke d: “I too, have doubts on this point. Yet if a m a n whose tale nts are incomple te has come fr om a poor fa mily a nd traveled for over a thous and li . . . a nd has ce rtain abilities , I prais e those a b ili­ ties. T his may not comple te ly accord w ith righteous nes s , b ut what ha r m can it do? 46 C h u ’s capacities in this respect were not unlimite d. In 1769 one of his favorite s tude nts , Je n Ta- ch un (1738- 1789) passed four th on the list in the chin- shih e x aminations . Alt h o ug h this did not guarante e Je n a place in the H a n lin Acade my, mos t pe ople as s ume d he would be appointe d, both because o f the bre adth o f his r e ading and his p a r ­ ticular expertise in the three books o f rites. Surpris e a nd cons te r na­ tion atte nde d his a ppo intm e nt in the De pa r tm e nt o f Ce r e monie s at the Boa r d o f Rite s . Shor tly afte r this a ppointm e nt was a nnounce d, Je n asked C h u to inte rce de on his be ha lf to secure a trans fe r to a less burde ns ome post. Je n pointe d out that, since his hous e was close to C h u ’s, he would be able to bor row books more ofte n fr om his patr on’s libr a r y if he ha d mor e le is ure time : “O f te n years s pe nt in office, at least five could be s pe nt r e a ding.” But C h u was una ble to effect the trans fe r.47 Less tangible , b ut real nevertheless, were the social ties that b o un d Ch u a nd his s tudents . T he fr e que nt references to feasts and outings in G h u s writings a nd those o f his s tude nts attest to the active social life the gr oup le d together, a nd the de s criptions by C h u ’s s tude nts o f the war m and s upportive atmos phe re o f his circle are too fre que nt a nd sincere to be dismis s e d as sycophancy. C h u hims e lf discusses the impor ta nce o f social ties be twe e n s tude nts in a preface he wrote in 1766. In that year C h ’e ng Chin- fa ng (1718- 1784) a nd Fe ng T ingche ng (1728- 1784) s toppe d at his hous e on a vis it to Pe king. Several

s tude nts were invite d to jo in the party. As was cus tomary, Fe ng as s e mble d the poe ms writte n d ur in g the e ve ning into a s mall volume e ntitle d Chiao- hua chin- fang hsiao- chi (A s mall colle ction fr om the Pe p­ pe r blos s om h u m m in g boa t).48 In his preface C h u wrote tha t while he was de lighte d that Fe ng had made the colle ction, he was afr aid that pe ople outs ide his circle mig ht take his gr oup for a ba nd of dis s olutes who gathe re d becaus e they were dis s atis fied with the world. Why, he asked, did me n o f old give the na me “fr ie nds ” {yu) only to the d r in k ing groups who gath­ ered for wine a nd amus e me nt, is olate d themselves fr om the wor ld, and were o f no use to society? If these were the only kind o f “frie nds ” that existed, the n fr ie nds hip would de pe nd on a pe rs on’s e mploy­ me nt in the wor ld whic h in tur n de pe nde d on fate (m ing) a nd the time s (shih). C h u was at some pains to dis tinguis h the re lations hips a mo ng the me mbe rs of his circle fr om political frie nds hips whic h de pe nde d on a pe rs on’s e mployme nt in the wor ld a nd, in tur n, on “fate” a nd the “time s .” He who asks nothing of heaven can be faithful to himse lf, and he who keeps faith with hims e lf is a chun- tzu. One who keeps faith with hims e lf and asks nothing of heaven can be a frie nd, and thr ough such frie nds hip there is a ge nuine and tr anquil happiness. Me e ting on one occasion, two people become friends. Afterwards whe n they have parte d they know that the friends hip will not be betrayed . . . A Mn- tzu’s friends hip ought to be ceaseless like the waters.49

In C h u ’s vis ion, his s tude nts were ce me nting bonds which would trans ce nd phys ical dis tance a nd social a nd inte lle ctual differences as they e xplore d s cholarly issues toge the r at his home . His preface, o f course, reflected a n elite lifestyle, but the re was also a n una r tic ula te d sense that in an incre as ingly fr agme nte d society, circles like C h u s pr ovide d im po r ta nt social a nd pe rs onal s uppor t for the ir me mbe rs . It was impor ta nt, however, that the un it y which C h u saw hims e lf as fos te ring was not in oppos ition to e s tablis he d author ity: these were not dr unke n dis s olutes who rejected s ocial a nd political conve ntion. Ne ithe r were the y conce rne d patriots ; the pe rs onality ide al o f the e ighte e nth ce ntur y was quite diffe re nt fr om the image o f ar de nt a nd pas s ionate c o m m itm e nt whic h do mina te d the nine te e nth ce ntury.50 T he style o f the e ighte e nth ce ntury e mphas ize d success, going a lo ng a nd ge tting ahe ad. It had, o f course, all the classic compone nts o f collabor ationis m; b ut it is difficult to ima gine how eighteenthce ntur y scholars could have evolved any other.

Finally, C h u ’s circle was he ld toge the r by the fact that he stood for s ome thing in the inte lle ctual world. C h u publis he d little hims e lf, but by vir tue o f his ma ny te rms as civil service e x amine r he was in a pos ition to enforce a view o f le a r ning on his conte mporarie s . Na r ­ rowly conceived, his cause was the advocacy o f ce rtain H a n dynas ty texts and te chnique s . Mor e br oadly viewed, he offered a ge ne ral a p ­ pr oach to le ar ning, an e pis te mological conce ption with ramifications for all branche s o f s cholarship. C h u believed, as did vir tually all tr a ­ ditiona l Chine s e scholars, that Ch in a ’s ancie nt sages ha d actually achie ve d ins ight into the tr uth. T he pr oble m was how to re capture those ins ights . C h ’ing scholars came to believe that the best way to accomplis h this was to s tudy the ir actual words. For me n o f Ch u Yun s ge ne ration, this me ant s tudying H a n dynas ty comme ntar ie s , since they were the earliest e xtant explications o f the ancie nt classics. C h u ’s interest in H a n comme ntar ie s combine d the conce rns of the Pe king and Chiang- na n s cholarly communitie s . T he de ciphe r ing of stone steles was a par tic ula r pas time o f the Pe king elite; outings to the sites o f steles were an impo r ta nt par t o f capital social life. Ma n y o f the sites C h u vis ite d were o f H a n date, a nd re minis ce nce s of the outings a nd reflections of H a n his tory fill C h u s e arly wr itings .51 As his inte lle ctual wor ld grew, so did C h u ’s conce rn w ith the philological me thods pr ize d by scholars fr om the s outh. He s pons ore d works on dialects a nd classical dictionarie s , as well as a s tudy o f var iant char ­ acters in the classics. While e ducation commis s ione r o f Anhwe i he or de re d that copies o f the Shuo- wen, an e tymological dictiona r y o f the H a n pe riod, be dis tr ibute d to all e x a mina tion candidate s .52 In an essay e ntitle d “C h uan- hs ueh- pien” (An e xhor tation to s tudy), which was writte n as a preface to a colle ction he ha d com­ pile d o f the best e x amina tion essays he ha d re ad d ur in g his te r m as e ducation commis s ione r in Fukie n, C h u said: Wha t I seek in e xamination essays may be called “inte rpre tation of the classics,” that is, explanations of the me aning of the Four Books and the Five Classics. Ex plaining the classics began in early Ha n times when various texts were preserved and protected by the elders from the fires of Ch ’in Shih- huang. The Han shu claims that from the time Ha n Wu- ti es­ tablis hed the five erudites and the ir disciples until the e nd of the Former Ha n dynasty, over a million words could have been written in explana­ tion of a single classic. There were over a thous and masters, and schol­ arship was a road of wealth and influence . . . The explanations o f the classics were both nume rous and earnest. But now they are regrettably lost. •.

Ou r present government is also anxious to attract me n of me rit, and so also dispatches officials to give e xaminations . T he goals and methods are the same as in Ha n times. As Ha n Yii of the T a ng said: “If a stu­ de nt does not know the classics, he is not worthy of holding office.” Or, “In order to write one mus t unde rs tand words .” T he texts of Ha n Confucianis ts which have been dis tribute d to all the academies include the writings of Ma o Ch’ang, Ho Hs iu, Chao C h i and Che ng K ang- ch’e ng.53 Also in ready circulation are the dictionaries of Mas te r Hs u She n.54 If the student has not read Hs u’s Shuo- wen, he will not know the me aning of words. If they do not read Ma o Ch’ang, Ho Hs iu, Chao C h i and Che ng Hs uan, they will not be able to penetrate the me aning of the classics. Students who take the e xaminations without this pre paration will find it very difficult to conform to the standards of elegance and clarity de mande d. Now, clarity is not s imply achieved through e mpty words, nor is elegance a matte r of useless expressions. If the s tudent wants to avoid useless expressions and e mpty words, and conform to e xamination standards, he mus t know the classics and the me aning of words.55

T he conte ntions of C h u a nd his colleagues have ofte n be e n mis ­ represented. T he y ar gue d not that H a n texts were sacrosanct —after all even the earliest H a n comme ntators were several centuries re move d fr om the golde n ages o f the sages but that the philological me thods o f H a n comme ntators were more like ly to be productive tha n the dis curs ive me thods o f late r comme ntator s . T he focus was on the me thod rathe r tha n on the results o f H a n comme ntator s . As C h u put it in anothe r essay, if mode r n s tude nts c ouldn’t even dis tin­ guis h between s imilar but dis tinct characters like cKan (flatte ry) and tho (doubt), how could they pos s ibly compr e he nd the classics or express the inte nt of the sages?56 C h u expressed well the e motional force that unde r lay the move me nt whe n he wrote to a frie nd in 1755 that what he feared mos t was the self- satisfaction of those who read texts only pe r functor ily.57 C h u Y u n 's M e m o r ia l If philologis ts can ever be de s cribe d as giddy with e xcite me nt, that s urely was the mood in Ch u Yun’s yame n at T ai- p in g in the fall o f 1772 as C h u and his s tude nts ponde re d the pos s ibilitie s of the impe ­ rial edict on book colle cting. In De ce mbe r, C h u me mor ialize d, s ub­ mit tin g s ome seventeen books for the e mpe r or ’s s crutiny.58 Not s urpris ingly, these books repres ented the ma jor c ontr ibutio n o f each dis trict o f Anhwe i province to C h in g s cholars hip in ge ne ral and the

kho- cheng move me nt in par ticular. Fr om Hui- chou came books by C h u Yun s secretary Tai Che n a nd T ai s te ache r C h ia n g Yung (16811762).59 Re pr e s e nting An- ch in g Pre fe cture were Fang I- chih (d. 1671) one o f the pione e rs o f the kho- cheng move me nt in the late Min g , and his two sons Fang Chung- te a nd Fang Chung- lii (fl. 1700).60 T he works o f the his torical ge ographe r Hs u We n- ching (1667- after 1756) were s ubmitte d fr om T ai- p ing; a nd selections by the poe t Me i Tingtso (1549- 1618), the prose- stylist Shih Jun- c ha ng (1619- 1683) a nd Wu Hs iao- kung (ca. 1700?) were selected fr om Ning- kuo Pre fe cture .61 T his first s ubmis s ion of C h u Yun’s de mons tr ate d the degree to which r e gional loyalties and philos ophical allegiances could still shape s cholarly discourse, despite the ma ny conce rns that all eighteenthce ntury scholars shared. O n mor e care ful cons ide ration, C h u saw pote ntial in the impe r ia l e dict on book colle cting for more tha n an as s ertion o f localis m or inte lle ctual loyalis m. “T his ,” he was s aid to r e mar k o f the edict, “is an e x traor dinary s tatute .” If collators o f the pr ope r skills were se­ lected the n “knowle dge could be trace d to its or igins , the outline of the ancie nt sages vis ion e s tablis he d a nd the inte ractions o f he aven a nd e arth e x a m ine d . 62 T he reference to collators o f the pr ope r skills was pr oba bly not to specific individua ls . C h u was not so m uc h c on­ te nding for contr ol o f the pe rs onne l in the proje ct as he was e xplor­ ing ways in which the c o m m unity he re pres ented m ig ht be able to accomplis h thr o ugh the effort some of its funda me nta l goals. Afte r dis cus s ions with his staff, C h u s ubmitte d a palace me mo r ia l in e arly Ja n u a r y pr opos ing that four projects be unde r take n in c on­ ju n c t io n with the c ompila tio n o f the impe r ia l library. T his was a rathe r unus ua l action, for at least two reasons. First, although pr ovincial e ducation commis s ione r s ha d the r ight to s ubmit palace me mor ials , the y us ually d id so only to convey e x a mina tion results and to s ubmit the re quir e d a nnua l re ports on the ir staffs. It was also rare, in the late C h ie n- lung era, for any official to use the secret me mor ia l system to e ngage the e mpe r or in dis cus s ion o f an e dict alre ady issued. Give n these cons ide rations , the e mpe r or ’s r athe r unus ua l response to his couns e lors ’ comme nts on the me mor ial (see chapte r 4 be low), and the fact that there were appar e ntly no othe r responses to the book- colle cting order, it seems like ly that C h u was addre s s ing the e mpe r or not only in his for mal role as pr ovinc ial e du­ cation commis s ione r, but also in his info r ma l role as re pres entative of the s cholarly c o m m un ity well pos itione d at court. T he four

projects C h u propos e d were (1) the pre s e rvation o f handw r itte n texts, par ticular ly those of the Sung a nd Yua n dynas tie s , (2) the r e cons titu­ tion o f texts lost since the M in g dynas ty fr om fragme nts preserved in the Yung- lo ta- tien (3) the pr e pa r ation o f a mas te r catalog of all the stone ins cr iptions in the e mpire , a nd (4) the ins e rtion in each book o f a br ie f e valuation o f its conte nt a nd bibliogr a phic a l s ignificance .63 T he dis cus s ion be low will e xamine each o f these projects in de tail, a nd cons ide r the ir r e lation to ideas cir culating a mo ng C h u s col­ leagues a nd friends . Handw ritte n texts. C h u ’s first conce rn was that ade quate atte ntion be paid to handw r itte n texts of the Sung, Lia o a nd C h in dynasties: T he collection of older printe d and handcopied editions is particularly urgent. Extant Ha n and T ’ang books are, of course, extremely rare. Book collectors have more copies of classical comme ntaries and literary collections from the Sung, Liao, Ch in and Yuan dynasties, but unless there are printe d editions, copies of such books in circulation will be ­ come rarer day by day. Othe r works, of philos ophy and history, often do not exceed one or two chuan in length. But it would be appropriate to concentrate first on acquir ing the best of the m, orde ring officials to make copies of the m and re turning the originals to the ir owners. These works can usefully s upple me nt the bibliographical treatises in previous dynastic histories, and fill the gaps in Ou r Dynas ty’s collection, so that what is written [ about these periods] will have a foundation.

As a scholar o f H a n le a r ning, C h u was har dly like ly to be advocating the pre s e rvation o f Sung s cholars hip for the ideas it expressed, and while the ide a o f s upple me nting the bibliogr a phical treatises o f pre vious dynas tie s or pr o viding a fo unda tion for what was writte n about the Sung, Liao, Ch in , and Yua n dynas tie s mig ht have a p ­ pe ale d to the e mpe ror, C h u s propos al we nt s ome what fur the r than this. O n one level, C h u was invit ing the gove rnme nt to engage in a compe tition that ha d fas cinate d the we althy book collectors o f Soochow for about a century. T he colle ction o f Sung e ditions had be come such a vogue by the late e ighte e nth ce ntury that some col­ lectors ide ntifie d the ir librarie s by the num b e r o f Sung volume s they possessed, while others pre pare d special catalogs o f the ir Sung ho ld ­ ings. H u a n g P ei- lieh for ins tance , na me d one s e gme nt o f his libr a r y the Pai- Sung i- ch an (T he r oom with one hundr e d Sung e ditions ). T he pas s ion for Sung books was par tly a fad, but ma ny owners also prize d the Sung e ditions for the ir s uppos e d te xtual accuracy.64

Mo r e fundame ntally, what C h u was pr opos ing involve d not so m uc h ne w goals and proce dure s as a ne w rationale . Whe r e the e m­ pe ror ha d or de re d that books be as s e mble d becaus e they containe d ins ights valuable to the r ule r a nd his minis te rs , C h u was s ugge s ting that books be collected regardless o f the ir conte nt, s imply because they were in dange r o f be ing lost. In the e mpe ror ’s plan, s cholars hip was to be e ncourage d in the interest o f be tte r gove rnme nt; in C h u ’s propos al, the gove rnme nt was be ing invite d into the s cholar’s world | in the interest o f be tte r scholars hip. 1 Sim ila r ar gume nts ha d be e n advance d by C h u s s tude nt Ch a n g Hsueh- ch e ng in his writings on bibliogr a phic a l clas s ification and local his tor iography.65 But the mos t force ful a nd me mor able ple a for gove rnme nt action to preserve books was an essay e ntitle d “Ju- ts angs huo” (A ple a for Co nfuc ia n librarie s ), by an associate o f Ch a n g ’s a nd C h u ’s the Sha ntung biblio phile Ch o u Yung- nie n. T he essay took the for m o f a dialogue betwe e n Ch o u a nd various real and ima gine d oppone nts ; in the course o f these debates, Ch o u a ntic i­ pate d ma ny o f the ar gume nts that would be us e d agains t C h u ’s project. On e s poils port was made to argue in C h o u ’s essay that “the body o f ancie nt a nd mode r n books is as vast as the fog on the seas, and your pla n to collect the m would be as futile as the efforts o f the foolis h old m a n to move the m o un ta in [ stone by s to ne ] . 66 Ch o u re s ponde d that the task o f colle cting all the books in C h in a for a Co nfuc ia n tr ipitaka would be no thing compar e d to the effort made dur ing the T ang and Six Dynas tie s to assemble, annotate a nd tr ans ­ late the Buddhis t tr ipitaka. All that was re quir e d, Ch o u asserted, was a le ade r w illing to issue a s ummons for the books , and a patr on w illing to s pons or the ir collation. Ano the r ima g ine d oppone nt, this time the his tor ical Ch e n g Chia o (1088- 1166) was quote d as a r g uing that: “T he re are s pe cialize d books and s pe cialize d scholars to m a in ta in the m. T he re fore , although in d i­ viduals come a nd go, tr aditions o f s cholars hip will be pres erved. T his a r gume nt had a ce rtain res onance with the H a n le a r ning view that s pe cialize d tr aditions o f le a r ning were impo r ta nt vehicles for the pre s e rvation o f sagely te achings ; inde e d, Ch a n g Hsueh- ch e ng pa r ­ ticular ly a dmir e d Che ng Ch ia o ’s pr onounce me nts on this subject. Ch o u Yung- nie n s response to this a r g ume nt was both practical and effective: “Wh y not store the products o f s pe cialize d s cholarly tr a di­ tions away,” he asked, “so that the public will prote ct the m?” Mo r e ­ over, Ch o u pointe d out that s pe cialize d tr aditions o f le a r ning would

be more nume r ous if a ce ntral libr a r y were e s tablis hed, since the books to s upport the m would be easier to obta in. Che ng Ch ia o was also re pres ented as as s e rting that “essays are as c ommo n as de w in the mo r ning , . . . b ut principle , though as deep as a m o un t a in ravine , may not always be attaine d by the seeker.” Why, in s hort, collect so ma ny books whe n only a few have the tr uth? Because, ans we re d Ch o u , if all kinds o f books were collected, every­ th ing the s cholar could ne e d would be as s e mble d. Wh e n all knowl­ edge could be reviewed, what appe are d to be useless studies mig ht well prove to be us e ful.67 T he pre mis e o f both C h u ’s propos al a nd C h o u ’s essay, one very c o m mo n in the e ighte e nth century, was that all books ha d some value , if not as repositories o f tr uth at least as his torical evidence. T oday’s tras h could be come tomor r ow’s treasure. It be hoove d a gov­ e r nme nt inte nt upo n pla ying a role in s cholars hip to assemble a li­ br ar y worthy o f the vast financial a nd or ga niza tional resources it could c omma nd. C h u ’s propos al would have tur ne d the gove rnme nt’s book- colle cting proje ct into the s cholar’s biblio gr a phy o f last resort. It would also have set the gove r nme nt in compe tition with private collectors, those scholars who ha d access to the impe r ia l libr ar y be ing the ultima te beneficiaries . T he Yung- lo ta- tien. C h u s s econd propos al de alt with the books stored in the inne r court library: T he current holdings of the inne r court library ought to be made public, in order that the gaps in the collection can be filled. There are very few books which are not held either by the impe r ial library (in the inne r palace) or by the Ha nlin Acade my (in the oute r palace). I recall that in the Ha n minis te r Liu Hs iang’s me thod of collation, books outside the palace s uppleme nte d those inside the palace, and those inside the palace were collated against those from the outside. If your majesty were to order prepared a catalog of the library of the impe r ial hous e hold and make it available to scholars of the oute r court, then later you could order each official to s ubmit any volumes he possessed which were not on the list. By this means, the holdings of the inne r court library could be made even broader.

T he divis ion be twe e n the inne r court library, pr e s umably for the e mpe r or ’s pe rs onal use, a nd the oute r court libr a r y was an old one in Chine s e history, a nd there had be e n ma ny efforts to cons olidate the two holdings . As the r e ma inde r o f C h u ’s propos al made clear,

however, C h u was not as conce rne d with the comple te ne s s o f the e mpe r or ’s pe rs onal libr a r y as he was w ith m a k in g the conte nts o f both court librarie s available to scholars. He was par tic ular ly c on­ ce rne d with one text in the m. Whe n I served in the Ha n lin Academy, I often perused the Yung- lo ta- tien. T he r e is little order among the books and articles in this work; in some cases, texts have been divide d up (unde r more than one he ading). But there are many books preserved in the collection which are never seen outside of it. I would urge that your majesty order several of the com­ plete works containe d in the encyclopedia (which are not available else­ where) copied out and include d in your collection. By such means lost texts would be restored and scholarship benefited.

T he Yung- lo ta- tien fas cinate d M in g and C h ’ing scholars. Wh e n the work was comple te d in 1409 tw o copies were made —one for storage in Pe king, the othe r to be stored in Na nking. T he Pe king copy was par tially destroyed by fire in 1562 b u t the bur ne d volume s were late r re copie d fr om the N a nk in g set. Wh e n the M in g dynas ty fell, the N a nk in g set was destroyed, b ut the Pe king copy was left intact, a nd it was s aid that the Shun- chih e mpe r or brows ed in it d u r in g m o ­ me nts o f leisure. T he or de r o f the topics in the work was inde e d unique . On e characte r was chosen fr om the name or de s cription o f each event or ide a discussed. These characters were the n gr oupe d accor ding to a rhyme scheme devis ed at the court o f the first M in g e mpe ror. Passages drawn fr om classical texts were quote d unde r the characte r re pre s e nting the event they des cribed. Alt ho ug h the pas ­ sages quote d were s ome time s quite long, occas ionally, as C h u Yun note d, passages fr om the s ame book could appe ar unde r diffe re nt he adings . T he for m o f the e ncyclope dia made the task o f re cove ring individua l titles a d a un ting one , par ticular ly in view o f the le ngth o f the whole . T he or igina l work compr is e d eleven thous and stringb o und volume s , pr oba bly well over a millio n lines, altho ugh pe rhaps as ma ny as two thous and o f these volume s ha d be e n lost by the e igh­ te e nth ce ntury.68 Very few scholars ha d actually seen the e ncyclopae dia. Liu Jo- yii (fl. 1630) a late M in g thinke r, did not even know whe re it was stored. In the late K ang- hsi years, Hs u C h ’ien- hsueh applie d to use the Yung- lo ta- tien in his c ompila tio n o f the Ta- CKing i- t ung- chih (C o m ­ pre he ns ive gazetteer o f the C h ’ing e mpir e ), but pe r mis s ion was de nie d. On e o f the mos t e laborate atte mpts to make use o f the Yung- lo e ncyclope dia was made by Li Fu (1675- 1750) a s e nior court official,

a nd the his tor ian C h ’iia n Tsu- wang (1705- 1755) whe n C h ’iia n was living at L i’s home in Pe king in the e arly 1730s. Li, pe rhaps in his capacity as e ditor o f the Pa- cHi t’ung- chih (Gaze tte e r o f the e ight b a n ­ ne r system) was able to bor row s ome volume s o f the e ncyclope dia which the two proce e de d to e xamine together. Se e ing the impor tance o f the work, the y for mula te d rules for copying out texts fr om it and even hir e d copyists. T he effort was halte d, however, whe n C h ’iia n was trans fe rre d to a magis tracy in the first year o f the C h ie n- lung r e ign.69 T he failur e of this effort did not stop othe r scholars fr om tr ying to obta in Yung- lo texts. Fang Pao (1668- 1749) trie d to use it in the 1740s in his comme ntar ie s on the three books o f rites, and Tai Che n, one o f C h u Yun s secretaries in Anhwe i trie d to use it in 1767. Tai Che n de s cribe d his efforts to use the work: I have tried to reconstruct the Chiu- chang hsuan- shu (Nine essays on com­ putation) for over twenty years to no avail. I discovered that the text might have been copied into the Yung- lo ta- tien, which is currently stored in the Ha n lin Academy. In 1767 I went to the Acade my together with the Ha nlin compile r Ts ao Wen- chih who was from my native district (to look into it). Although there were errors in the text, and it was dispersed in several entries, I thought it could be recons tructed.70

C h u Yun s propos al of 1774 that the r e cons truction o f texts fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien be made a par t o f the Ssu- k'u ch'iian- shu proje ct was har dly a novel idea. Pe rhaps the only novelty o f the s ituation was that C h u felt comfor table e nough with the centers o f powe r in Pe king to propos e the proje ct formally, a nd Ma n c h u rulers were favorably e nough dis pos e d toward Chine s e scholars a nd s cholars hip to un d e r ­ write the proje ct. T he suggestion a nd s ubs e que nt effort afforde d, at any rate, a me as ure o f both the gr owing te xtualis m o f eighteenthce ntury scholars a nd the cha nging attitude s o f C h ’ing rulers toward the m. On cataloging. C h u s thir d propos al was to le ad the impe r ia l c om­ pilation proje ct into yet anothe r are a of special interest to eighteenthce ntury scholars: Ma king lists and collating texts are both impor tant. Officials who col­ lated books unde r previous dynasties, like the officers of White T ige r Hall and the Pavilion of He avenly Emolume nts ,71 assembled the various editions, compare d, and produce d a new one. At the T ’ang and Sung academies, officials were chosen especially for this. Liu Hs iang, Liu

Chih- chi and Tseng Kung were (therefore) all engaged in a specialized enterprise.72 T hr ough the ages, catalogs like the Ch’i- lueh, Chi- hsien shu- mu and the CKung- wen tsung- mu all reflected traditions of le arning passed from Mas te r to disciple. Your servant requests that your majesty order that Confucian officials be chosen especially to collate books, which can then be organize d either according to the Ch i- lueh or according to the four divis ion system.73 Each book presented to your majesty ought to be pre­ ceded by a br ie f note setting forth its accomplis hme nts and failures and s ummar izing its ma in points . These notes can then be presented for your approval. Your servant observes that if able directors- general, re­ visers and collators are selected to work at the Wu- ying T hrone Ha ll on this task, the n each day there will be accomplis hme nts , and every month there will be progress, and soon the task will be complete.

Wh ile ma ny impe r ia l book catalogs ha d some a nno ta tio n, very few ha d such comple te annota tions as C h u Yun was propos ing. On e that d id was the H a n dynas ty work Ch,i- lueh} by Liu Hs ia ng , which how­ ever was known only thr o ugh its s ur viving fragme nts . T he fre que nt references to this work, toge the r w ith the dis cus s ion of “pas s ing le a r ning fr om Mas te r to dis ciple ,” s trongly suggested that the impe ­ tus for C h u ’s propos al was the a dmir a tio n that C h u a nd his col­ leagues felt for H a n dynas ty ins titutions o f impe r ia l scholars hip, which they saw large ly re s pons ible for the pr oductivity o f H a n dynas ty comme ntator s . In par ticular , they felt that impe r ia l b ib li­ ographe rs like Liu Hs ia ng had be e n able, thr o ugh the ir annotations , to reestablish tr aditions o f le a r ning a nd the chains o f dis ciple s hip thr o ugh which these tr aditions were b u ilt .74 A second a nd rathe r diffe re nt conce rn may also have influe nce d C h u Yun’s propos al. As I have argue d in chapte r 2 the rise o f p r int­ ing in the late Sung a nd Yua n ha d res ulted in a pr olife r ation of e di­ tions ; by Ch ’ing times , the libr ar y builde r was confronte d with a be wilde r ing varie ty of texts, with very diffe re nt e ditor ial s tandards . La m e nt in g this state o f affairs, one late e ighte e nth- ce ntury inte lle c­ tual wrote: Since the Sung, printe d editions have become common. Yet if you com­ pare two different editions of the same book, they are as different as a wide hall and a narrow path. Whe n you look at book collectors’ catalogs, you see entries for so many volumes of the classics, so many volumes of history, etc., etc., but you can’t tell whose editions they are. Therefore, you really don’t know whether a book is in fact what it purports to be and whether its text is reliable. How can you talk about the merits or significance of the collection?75

C h u s me mor ia l did not me ntio n the proble ms o f e ditions directly, b ut in ca lling for annotations , in the m a nne r o f Liu Hs iang, he may well have ha d this issue in m in d . Ce rtainly, in a num b e r o f reviews drafte d by C h u ’s colleagues for the impe r ia l catalog, this que s tion was de alt with at s ome le ng th.76 Stone inscriptions. C h u s four th propos al was that the gove rnme nt unde rtake to compile a mas te r catalog o f stone ins cr iptions in con­ ju n c t io n with its mas te r catalog of books: Stone ins criptions and rubbings mus t be recorded. T he Sung official Che ng Chia o made two surveys of the stone rubbings mis s ing from earlier listings. Ou- yang Hs iu and Chao Ming- ch eng prepared lists of stone inscriptions, while Nie h Ch ung- i and Lu Ta- lin made compilations of r ubbings .77 These books can be relied upon in s tudying the past. Your servant urges that a collection of r ubbings be made in addition to the collection of books. Rubbings should be made of all the steles and grave stone inscriptions of each province, sent to the capital, and collated and listed in a complete form.

Inte re s t in e pigr aphy was es pecially great a mo ng C h u ’s s tude nts and conte mporarie s . In late Octobe r o f 1771, C h u a nd s ome s tude nts ha d pa id a vis it to the Liu- li- ch ang, or book- selling dis tr ict o f Pe king, whe re they had une ar the d a series o f stone ins cr iptions which ha d e nable d the m to piece toge the r a m a p o f Lia o dynas ty Pe king. T he epis ode was a famous one, re corde d in ma ny conte mpor ar y writings , a nd e vide ntly served to ins pire ma ny who he ar d o f it. In the next quarte r- ce ntury, ma ny o f C h u ’s s tude nts a nd frie nds publis he d the ir own catalogs o f stone ins cr iptions . In 1787 a volume of comme nts on the ins cr iptions by C h ’ie n e ntitle d Chin- shih- wen pa- wei (Co mme nts a nd colophons on stone ins cr iptions ) was pr inte d. Wa ng C h ’ang^s mas s ive work Chin- shih ts ui- p ien (A c o m pe nd ium o f stone ins cr ip­ tions ) was publis he d in 1805. We ng Fang- kang pr oduce d in 1786 a s tudy o f H a n stone ins cr iptions , Liang- Han chin- shih chi (Note s on H a n stone texts). Sun Hsing- ye n s catalog, title d Huan- yu fang- pei- lu (Stone ins cr iptions o f the e mpir e ), was e vide ntly a collective effort, pr o ­ duce d by the collabor ation o f ma ny o f C h u Yun’s s tude nts and frie nds in 1802. T he compile rs o f these catalogs saw themselves as par t o f a long, if occas ionally broke n, tr a dition. T he oldest stone ins cr iptions in C h in a date d fr om the Ch o u dynas ty, b ut the first e xtant catalogs were the Chi- ku lu (Ca ta lo g o f antiquitie s ) o f Ou- yang Hs iu (10071072) a nd the Chin- shih- lu (Lis t o f stone ins cr iptions ) o f Cha o

Ming- ch e ng.78 These two pione e rs ha d a num b e r o f followers d ur in g the Sung dynasty, b ut d u r in g the Min g , stone ins cr iptions came to be re garde d as objects of aesthetic r athe r tha n his tor ical interest a nd the natur e o f catalogs change d accordingly. Ku Yen- wu (1613- 1682) ha d “rediscovered” the impor tance o f stone ins cr iptions in the e arly C h in g us ing the m extensively in his m o num e nta l Jih- chih- lu (Re cor d o f knowle dge accumulate d day by day), a nd it was to Ku that e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars looke d for ins pir ation. C h u a nd his frie nds were par ticular ly anx ious to collect stone ins cr iptions fr om the Yua n a nd M in g dynas tie s , a nd be fore the Lia ng dynas ty, since ne ithe r o f these pe riods ha d received ade quate tr e atme nt in pre vious catalogs .79 It was characte ris tic of e ighte e nth- ce ntury thought to have re ­ garde d the colle ction o f stone ins cr iptions as a na tur a l comple me nt to the colle ction of books; both projects were seen as e s tablis hing with ce rtainty the words a nd deeds o f the past. “Wit h o u t stone in ­ s c r iptio ns / J Wa ng Ch ’a ng asked, “how can one check the language o f the clas s ics ? 80 We ng Fang- kan e specially value d H a n ins cr iptions becaus e they pr ovide d the mos t re liable s amples o f the prose style o f the H a n , a style he re garde d as more “gr a nd and impos ing^’ tha n that of any othe r e ra.81 On e could, o f course, find records o f stone in ­ s criptions in s uch sources as local gazetteers but r e lying on s econ­ dar y records would, Sun Hs ing- ye n obs erved, defeat the e pigr aphe r ’s pr ima r y purpos e . Unle s s one ha d made a r u b b in g or tr ans cr iption with one ’s own ha nd, how could one be ce rtain that a careless s cholar ha d not erred in r e cor ding a na me or date , intr o duc ing ju s t the sort o f e rror that stone ins cr iptions were me ant to be pr oof agains t?82 It was na tur a l for C h u a nd his colleagues to look to the gove rnme nt, with its far- flung pe rs onne l ne twor k a nd capacities for s tanda r diza ­ tion, for le ade rs hip in an effort to collect all s ur viving stone ins cr ip­ tions in the e mpire . W it h these four propos als , C h u s ignale d the willingne s s of those a r o und h im to par ticipate in the impe r ia l book colle cting proje ct, a nd o utline d s ome of the bene fits they hope d to re alize fr om s uch an effort. T ha t C h u was expres s ing the attitude of the s cholarly c o m ­ m unity as a whole has be e n one o f the pr inc ipa l ar gume nts o f this chapter. C h u was by no me ans typical o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars or s cholarly patronage ; the resources he could c o mma nd, the tale nt he could attract, a nd the de pth o f his c o m mitme nt to the philological me thod were all e xce ptional. But his circle e mbodie d in the ir mos t advance d for m the social, e conomic, a nd inte lle ctual tre nds which

would shape late eighteenth- a nd e arly nine te e nth- ce ntury thought. C h u ’s propos als were not, therefore, the pro forma response o f a b u ­ re aucratize d lite r atus to impe r ia l initiative ; the y reflected the ge nu­ ine desires o f a creative inte lle ctual in touch with the hopes a nd conce rns o f his conte mporarie s . T he ends C h u s ought may be both br oadly a nd narr owly c on­ ceived. T he influe nce that a proje ct o f the sort C h u was pr opos ing, s anctione d by impe r ia l author ity, could have ha d over s cholarly life was e nor mous . T he pros pe ct o f pr oc la iming his own principle s fr om the practically unimpe a c ha ble impe r ia l pulpit was ple as ing, no doubt, for C h u . T he ne e d to find e mployme nt for inte lle ctuals o ut­ side of or on the pe riphe rie s o f gove rnme nt service in an e ra whe n popula tio n was incr e as ing a nd the n um b e r o f places in gove rnme nt r e maine d cons tant may also have la in be hind C h u ’s propos als .83 As Da vid Nivis on has writte n: “It may be that one o f C h u ’s motive s for init ia t in g the Ssu- k u proje ct was the hope o f finding e mployme nt for s ome o f his mor e pr omis ing proteges. A m a n like Ch u , who had the me ans to play the pa tr on on a s mall scale, would pr oba bly attract mor e s tude nts tha n he could s uppor t.”84 Ce rtainly, the Ssu- k u pr o j­ ect afforde d s ignificant oppor tunity for the e mployme nt o f out- ofwork philologically inc line d inte lle ctuals . It s hould be note d, however, that mos t o f the staff o f the Ssu- k’u proje ct came fr om the ranks of me n who alre ady he ld hig h official degrees a nd pos itions . Im p o r t a nt as these cons ide rations may well have be e n, they ha r dly accounte d for the fe rvor or consistency that can be found in so ma ny o f the writings o f C h u a nd his frie nds . T he fact, for ins tance , that ge ne rations o f Ch ’ing inte lle ctuals expressed the s ame desire to see the Yung- lo ta- tien the imme ns e a m o unt o f time a nd e ne rgy s pent in colle cting a nd clas s ifying stone r ubbings , a nd the r e markable d e di­ cation o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury inte lle ctuals to H a n dynas ty s cholarly ins titutions suggested a de e pe r c o mmitme nt. On e o f the hallmar ks o f Co nfuc ia n thought has always be e n the be lie f that a golde n age ha d actually existed in the pas t. Kao- cheng scholars belie ve d sincerely that by s tudying ancie nt texts the y could re capture ancie nt truths . T he re fore , in a dditio n to the de lights and e conomic rewards o f s chol­ ars hip, kho- cheng scholars ha d the e thical s atis faction o f know ing that the y had done the ir duty as Confuc ia ns and contr ibute d to rees tab­ lis hing tr uth. T he y be lieved that the ir cause was one that both me r ite d a nd r e quir e d gove rnme nt s upport.

compr omis e s were made which reflected the interests a nd conce rns o f those involve d. T he texts o f the Ssu- k’u ch'tian- shu reflected these compromis e s , a nd the ofte n critical assessments o f the work have served to hig hlig ht the ir natur e . D e c is io n - m a k in g at the C h ie n - lu n g C o u rt T he E s t a b lis h m e n t o f the S s u - k yu C o m m is s io n T he bure aucr atic e nvir onme nt which conditione d the Ssu- k’u pr oj­ ect was first appa r e nt in the official cons ide ration o f C h u Yun’s me mor ial. It was an e nvir onme nt s hape d both by ins titutio nal fac­ tors a nd ind iv id ua l pe rs onalitie s although, to be sure, the extent to which the two inte racte d has be e n obs cure d by impe r ia l r he toric a nd two ce nturie s o f ofte n bias e d his tory wr iting. T he for mal proce dure s , at least, were clear. Wh e n it was received at the capital, C h u ’s me mo r ia l was first referred to the Gr a n d Co un c il for de libe r ation. A me mo r ia l s um ma r izing the Co u n c il’s de libe rations was s ubmitte d to the e mpe ror in late February, to which he re s ponde d in edicts of 26 Fe br uar y and 3 Ma r c h. T he last of these edicts na me d a nd for­ mally es tablis he d the Ssu- k u Commis s ion. T hus the first me mbe rs o f the Chine s e bur e aucr acy to pass ju d g ­ me nt on C h u ’s propos al were the gr and councillors , who were s ituate d at the pinnacle o f officialdom in the Ch ie n- lung era. O r ig i­ nally a gr oup of impe r ia l frie nds conve ne d info r ma lly to assist the r ule r in a dminis tr a tio n a nd milit a r y matte rs , the gr oup ha d be come by the late e ighte e nth ce ntury an or gan o f policy for ma tio n worthy o f its rathe r impos ing title which exercised contr ol over mos t o f the functions o f gove r nme nt.5 It was compos e d o f s e nior s tates men a nd pr omine nt representatives of the ma jo r interest groups in C h ’ing politics . Us ua lly the council was domina te d by Ma nc hus . For over twe nty years d u r in g the C h ie n- lung re ign, the d o m ina n t figure was Fu- he ng (d. 1770), the e mpe r or ’s brother- in- law, pre s ide nt o f the Boar d o f Re ve nue , and mas te r mind o f mos t of the milita r y c a m ­ paigns of the e ra.6 His de ath in 1770 however, had left the council leaderless, a nd the Ma nc h us cons e que ntly were repres ented only by re lative ly ju n io r figures o f little influe nce . Inde e d, as C h u Yun a nd his friends undoubte dly saw, the 1770s were the first time in the e ighte e nth ce ntury whe n the council was domina te d by Chine s e . But the s e nior Chine s e states men were me n

of very diffe re nt pers onality. Liu T ung- hs un (1700- 1773), Fu- heng s successor as chie f gr and councillor, ha d made a r e markable career for hims e lf ins tigating a nd inve s tigating charges o f cor r uption agains t impe r ial frie nds a nd relatives. In 1741 Liu , the n a ne wly appointe d pre s ide nt o f the Ce ns orate , indicte d Ch a n g T ing- yii who was the n chie f gr and councillor, pre s ide nt o f the Board o f Pe rs onnel a nd unofficial regent for the young C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or , on charges o f c or r uption a nd ne potis m. T his charge was followed in s ubs e que nt years by indic tme nts of the impe r ia l in- laws a nd powe rful governors a nd governors- general. Strikingly, his charges were us ually uphe ld by the e mpe ror, a fact which suggested that at the very least Liu kept a close watch on the e mpe r or ’s own moods a nd pe rce ptions . None ­ theless, Liu e arne d for hims e lf a r e puta tion for hone s ty and incor ­ r uptibility, and his own career was untouche d by s candal.7 Yii Min- c hung (1714- 1780), the second s e nior me mbe r of the Co unc il, ha d a r e putation almos t the oppos ite o f Liu ’s. Liu ha d come fr om a re lative ly humble nor the r n C h in a family, b ut Yii was a re pre ­ sentative o f the Chia ng- na n lite r ati who ha d be e n so as s iduous ly cultivate d by the e mpe r or in the e arly years o f his re ign. Y ii s career was founde d on his lite rary accomplis hme nts as well as his several te rms as civil service e x amine r a nd Pre s ide nt o f the Board o f Pe rs onne l. T he place he had carved out for hims e lf between Ma n c h u rulers a nd Chine s e subjects was a vital one in an a dminis tr a tio n so self- consciously or ganize d on Chine s e principle s , b ut it could also be a pre carious one. Yii was accus ed of cor r uption, pr oba bly with reas on, several time s d u r in g his life, but was us ually saved by the e mpe r or ’s pe rs onal inte r ve ntion un til his pos thumous de motio n for re ve aling state secrets in 1782.8 T he unus ua lly long time which elapsed between 3 Ja nua r y , whe n C h u ’s me mor ial was referred to the Co unc il, and 26 February, whe n the e mpe r or acknowle dge d receipt o f the Co un c il’s views, suggests dis pute over the propos al, and this is confir me d in eighteenthce ntur y sources.9 Yao Na i, an associate o f C h u Js well conne cte d in the s e nior bure aucracy, re porte d in a biogr aphy o f C h u that Liu argue d s tre nuous ly agains t C h u s propos al d ur in g Co un c il dis cus ­ sions, r e ma r king that the proje ct was not necessary for gove rnme nt a nd would be come an e mpty nuis ance . Suppo r t for C h u s propos al was s aid to have come fr om Yii Min- c h un g .10 Pe rhaps because of Yii’s s ubs e que nt dis grace for re ve aling state secrets, eighteenth- and nine te e nth- ce ntury sources were dis creetly s ilent a bout his contacts

with lite rati and his re marks on state policy. But his advocacy of C h u ’s proje ct would have be e n very m uc h o f a piece with his role as de fe nde r o f Chine s e lite rati interests at the Ma n c h u court. In vie w o f this configur ation o f forces, what factors ultima te ly de te r mine d the fate o f C h u s propos als ? If pe rs onal contacts alone ha d done so, there pr oba bly would have be e n little pr oble m, for C h u was well conne cte d with all the centers o f powe r a nd a uthor ity in Pe king. T his fact, pe rhaps as m uc h as his a miable natur e a nd love o f partie s , accounte d for his pr omine nce in s cholarly circles a nd the pivotal role he playe d in the ina ug ur a tio n o f the Ssu- k’u project. C h u Yun a nd Liu T ung- hs un for ins tance , ha d known each othe r for over twenty- five years a nd were to all appe arance s quite close.11 In 1750 Liu invite d C h u Yun to his hous e to he lp in c o m piling the Sheng- ching- chih (His to r y o f the capital). A conte mpor ar y note d that: Whe n there was a discussion of law or public affairs at court and Liu had a ques tion, Ch u often volunteered the infor mation. . . . Whe n the ir opinions differed, they argued forcefully. T ung- hsun was quite stern and even of those in his generation, few dared to question him lightly. Chu alone dared speak freely with h im .12

Liu came to feel an almos t fathe rly affe ction for the younge r Ch u . Wh e n C h u passed his chin- shih, Liu was s aid to re mark: “You can no longe r r e pr ima nd me with stories o f old officials. I a m old and can no longe r do anything. You mus t now be e n e rg e tic . 13 C h u Yun also ha d even highe r conne ctions . He ha d accompanie d the e mpe ror on a tour to Mu- la n in the s umme r o f 1758 and ha d worke d on lite rary projects close to the r ule r’s he art. C h u Kue i re­ porte d that d ur ing an impe r ia l audie nce the e mpe r or asked specifi­ cally after the whe r e abouts a nd occupation o f C h u Yu n .14 Late r, whe n C h u Yun was r e tur ning fr om Anhwe i in 1773 to take up a post as reviser for books s ubmitte d fr om the province s at the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion, his frie nds advis e d h im to r e tur n quickly, r athe r tha n sightsee in Sh a nt ung as pla nne d, since the e mpe ror inquir e d a bout h im fre que ntly.15 T he very fact that C h u me mor ialize d on the book colle ction proje ct at all suggests his re mar kable pos ition, for it was mos t unus ua l for an e ducation commis s ione r to me mo r ialize on any but r outine matte rs . C h u , it may be s urmis e d, would not have me mor ialize d unless he ha d reason to believe his propos als would me e t with a favorable response. As close as C h u ’s re lations were with Liu and the e mpe ror,

however, the y did not guar ante e s mooth s ailing for his me mo r ia l whe n it re ache d Pe king. T ha t C h u ’s ties did not pave the way for his propos als suggests ju s t how impor ta nt appa r e ntly subtle differences o f perspective could be in the hig hly political e nvir onme nt o f the Chine s e court. T he differences betwe e n Liu a nd C h u were o f p r io r i­ ties and experiences. Liu had served for over twenty- five years in s e nior s ubs tantive posts in Chine s e gove rnme nt, de fe nding ce ntral interests agains t the s pe ndthrift te nde ncie s o f s e nior officials and impe r ia l frie nds . Ch u , though thor oughly fa milia r with court life, would never hold a s ubs tantive post and seemed cons cious ly to avoid gove rnme nt service. Yu Min- chung, on the othe r ha nd, ha d founde d his career on his pr o x imity to the e mpe ror a nd his a bility to s pons or Chine s e lite r ati and the ir projects. Each o f these perspectives was pr obably typical o f the strategies o f ma ny Chine s e tr y ing to succeed in a Ma n c h u court, a nd each w ould shape attitude s toward the tasks o f c o mpiling the impe r ia l library. Pre ce de nt and public o p inio n both s anctione d the various stances o f politicia n and lite r ati toward the Ch,ing court. For ins tance , gr a nd councillors were not s uppos e d to receive calls, except on public business. Wh e n C h u was in the H a n lin a nd Liu was a councillor, the y me t at court one day. Liu, noting that he ha d not seen C h u for some time , asked “Have you forgotte n me ?” C h u answered: “I wouldn’t dare to vis it you except on public business. People would gossip.” Liu s ighed a nd agr e e d.16 Two othe r incide nts d ur in g the pe r iod unde r review, though they did not dire ctly involve Liu a nd Ch u , de mons trate the fairly r igid s e paration between individua ls o f the two or ie ntations . In the fall o f 1773 some o f the e ditors o f Ssu- k’u trie d to elevate one of the ir n u m ­ be r to the Gr a n d Co unc il. Yu Min- chung, a councillor, wrote back to the m info r m ing the m quite fir mly that what they re ques ted could not be done , since “T he Gr a n d Co unc il a nd the H a n lin are two dif­ ferent ro a d s . 17 Some years later, in 1796 the name s o f three Ssu- k’u editors, Liu Lu n , C h i Hs iao- lan a nd P e ng Yuan- tuan, were be ing cons ide re d for pos itions on the Gr a n d Co unc il. T he e mpe r or re ­ je cte d all three of the m: “Liu Lu n has never s hown hims e lf w illing to work re ally har d, P e ng Yuan- tuan is not atte ntive to his conduct, and Ch i [ Hsiao- lan] though he has re ad ma ny books , does not re ally unde r s tand /z.. 18 Alth o ug h there were ma ny pe rs onal a nd social bridge s jo in in g the worlds of the s cholar a nd politician in Chine s e officialdom, there were impor ta nt differences in the outlooks ,

prioritie s and career patte rns o f the two groups . T he s ignificance of these differences were quite appar e nt in the Gr a n d Co un c il’s c om­ me nts on Ch u Yun ’s me mor ial, which were received by the e mpe ror on 26 Fe br uar y 1773. T he Gr a n d Co unc il me mo r ia l was ne ithe r as ide alis tic as the e m ­ pe r or ^ or ig ina l edict, nor as c ommitte d as C h u Yun’s re s ponding me mo r ial. It was an even- hande d dis cus s ion, which balance d con­ s ide rations o f ide ological s ignificance , his torical pre ce de nt and adminis tr ative practicality. T he me mo r ia l cons ide re d the me rits and fe as ibility o f each o f C h u ’s propos als separately. T he ge ne rally ne ga­ tive tone o f the doc ume nt which pr oba bly reflected Liu T ung- hsun s influe nce was suggested by the or de r in which the r e comme ndations were offered. T he first two propos als cons ide re d were flatly rejected; the thir d and four th were accepted only with s ignificant modific a ­ tions .19 Addre s s ing first C h u ’s propos al that the gove rnme nt conce ntrate initia lly on a c quir ing and copying handw r itte n texts, especially c om­ me ntarie s and wen- chi of the Sung, Lia o a nd C h in dynas ties , the councillors asserted that: There are certainly enough wood- block printe d copies of the best works in circulation for broad benefit and wide diss e mination. While the works of some unknown authors have, perhaps, never been printe d, handwr it­ ten copies [ of these books] can be stored and utilize d for research when needed.

T he councillors the n pointe d out that the e mpe ror ’s e dict or iginally calle d for ha ndw r itte n as well as pr inte d books to be forwarde d to the capital, a nd conclude d that there was “no ne e d to es tablis h spe­ cial proce dure s ” for Sung, Lia o a nd C h in books . In fact, the c ounc il­ lors were pr oba bly wrong: in vie w o f the he avy de m a nd for Sung and Yua n e ditions , there was pr obably a ne e d for special proce dure s in h a n d lin g these books (see chapte r 3 above). T he que s tion, however, was not so m uc h a bout the state o f bibliogr a phy as about the extent o f gove rnme nt re s pons ibility for book pre s e rvation. C h u ha d urge d that the gove rnme nt take on a ne w obliga tion in this re gard; the councillors obje cte d. T he councillors adduce d both his torical pre ce de nt and an as­ sessment of the difficultie s involve d to oppose C h u ’s sugges tion that the gove rnme nt compile a mas te r list o f all the stone ins cr iptions in the e mpire . T he y acknowle dge d the value of s uch an effort: “Since

antiquity, ins cr iptions a nd [ recorded] his tory have for me d the warp a nd woof o f scholars hip. . . . Stone ins cr iptions are the oldest his tor­ ical source, can be re lie d upo n in e x a mining the pas t, a nd never lose the ir t r u th .” However, ne ithe r Ju a n Hs iao- hs u (479- 502), in his Ch ilu (Seven Summa r ie s ),20 nor M a T uan- lin, in the bibliog r aphical section o f his Wen- hsien t^ung- kho21 ha d es tablis hed special categories for stone ins cr iptions . Furthe r more , the work o f c o mpiling stone in ­ s criptions be longe d to specialists in e pigraphy, a nd was not for all scholars. Wh ile it mig ht be us e ful to as s emble all the catalog o f stone ins cr iptions in one place ,22 the gove rnme nt could har dly unde r take a mas te r catalog: “T he re are nume r ous stone ins cr iptions that can be us ed to e xamine the tr uth o f the classical canon, and ma ny o f the m are locate d in out o f the way places. If local officials are orde re d to copy the m all out, we fear that in some are a the work will be m a n ­ aged impr ope r ly and there will be tr ouble .” It is not clear whe the r by the phras e “there will be trouble ,’ {chuan- tzu fen- jao) the councillors e nvis ione d a dis tor tion o f the me a ning of stone ins cr iptions , the diffi­ culty o f ge tting at bronze s which were locate d in ma ny cases in p r i­ vate collections , or s imply the dis r uption o f or dina r y a nd official life which would occur if magis trate s were co mma nde d to comb the countrys ide h u n t in g for steles. In any event, the councillors rejected C h u ’s propos al. Cons ide r ing C h u ’s suggestion tha t books in the impe r ial hous e ­ hold, inc lud in g the Yung- lo ta- tien, be made more accessible, Liu and his colleagues took some pains to point out that the analogy C h u had dr awn betwe e n the C h ’ing a nd H a n impe r ia l librarie s was ina cc u­ rate. Whe r e as in H a n time s it was im p o r ta nt that a catalog o f the impe r ia l libr a r y be pre pare d since commone rs were for bidde n to e nte r the impe r ia l library, the Ch ’ing ha d made a special effort to make the le a r ning o f the sages available to scholars o f the e mpire , publis hing s tandar d e ditions o f the thirte e n classics a nd twenty- one histories a nd dis tr ibuting the m free o f charge. T he councillors were thus more conce rne d with e s tablis hing the pr inciple that gove rn­ me nt- s pons ore d works were accessible to the public tha n with the issue o f how wide ly the y were diffus e d. It was practical difficulty, not pr inciple , that inhibite d fur the r work on the Yung- b ta- tien. T he councillors pointe d out that the Yung- lo ta- tien was so large that H a n lin compile rs were not allowe d to see it, therefore C h u Yun could only have a vague notion of what he was propos ing. To ascer­ ta in the true s ituation, Gr a n d Co un c il clerks ha d be e n sent to

ins pe ct the Yung- lo e ncyclope dia. T he clerks found, first, that only nine thous and of the or iginal eleven thous and volume s were e xtant and, s econd, that the pla n o f the e ncyclope dia, q uo ting fr om diverse sources on each topic, made it difficult to re cons truct or ig ina l texts and therefore inconve nie nt to use. T he councillors conclude d that there were ma ny books in the Yung- lo colle ction that could fill gaps in the librarie s o f the e mpire . But, they re marke d, “s uch an effort was not the or igina l inte nt o f the pr oje ct.” T he y r e comme nde d a compr omis e proce dure . Ins te ad o f commis s ioning me mbe rs o f the H a n lin Acade my to copy out texts fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien the c oun­ cillors suggested that the H a n lin me mbe rs copy out only the titles o f works not in cir culation. Onc e the list was finis he d, a final de cis ion could be made a bout which works were to be copied out in full. Finally, the councillors discussed C h u ’s propos al that a short c o m­ me nt on the value a nd s ignificance o f each work be appe nde d to the first ckuan o f the text in the Im p e r ia l Ma nus c r ipt Libr ar y. As in the case o f C h u s propos al for a catalog o f stone ins cr iptions , they acknowle dge d the value o f s uch a proce dure , q uo ting the Han- shu view that Liu Hs ia ng ’s “s ummar ie s o f the chapters a nd sections o f f the work he collate d, a nd excerpts o f the ir ma jor conclus ions ” per- \ for me d an impor ta nt service for the re ade r.23 None the le s s , they observed: There are so many more books in circulation now than there were in Ha n times, and since the e mpe ror has decreed that this collection of books be broade r than has ever been unde rtake n before, if we appe nd a comme nt at the be ginning of every book, the re sulting set of comme nts will be as broad as the seas.

T he councillors the n cite d the e xample s o f the Ch'ung- wen tsung- mu (Ca ta lo g o f the impe r ia l libr a r y at the C h ung- wen Pavilion) by Wa ng Yao- ch e n 24 and the CKun- chm tu- shu- chih (C h iin - c h a i s notes on r e ading) by Ch ’ao Kung- wu (fl. 1144),25 annotate d catalogs which were compile d afte r the colle ctions o f books they were bas e d up o n had be e n as s e mble d. Afte r the work o f as s e mbling books ha d be e n comple te d, the coucillors suggested, s ome court officials could be as s igned to pre pare a catalog lis ting the title and a uthor o f each book in the colle ction. T he pos ition was a comple x one. As me n o f le a r ning, they re cognize d the value a nd his torical pre ce de nt for muc h o f the work that was propos e d. As s e nior officials of the gove rnme nt,

however, the y would ultima te ly be re s pons ible for ca r r ying out the propos als adopte d, a nd could jud g e the c ommitme nts o f time and pe rs onne l necessary. T he second o f these cons ide rations was stressed thr o ughout the ir me mor ials , a nd appar e ntly s hape d the counc il’s r e comme ndations . In vie w o f the adminis tr ative proble ms that arose d ur in g the course o f the proje ct, the councillors ’ he s itations were pe rhaps well- founde d. But ultimate ly, of course, the e mpe ror ’s was the final voice in the de cis ion- making process, and his r e lation with the propos e d book colle ction proje ct was a unique one. Unlike the scholars, his conce rn was not so m uc h to de te r mine the tr uth as to pr oc laim a nd de fe nd it. Unlike the bure aucrats , his pos ition rested not on his ability to pe rfor m the tasks of gove rnme nt, b ut on his ancestors’ achie ve me nts , and ultima te ly on his subjects’ pe rce ption that he was ca r r ying out the ma nda te of he ave n. T he C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or hims e lf, ins ofar as we can tell, was a m a n of excellent classical e ducation a nd s ome lite r ary a nd s cholarly inc lina tio n. But he was also a very political ma n, s upre me ly conce rne d with e s tablis hing a nd up h o ld ing the powe r a nd prestige o f his uniq ue pos ition. T he impor tance o f these cons ide rations le d h im to take a rathe r unus ua l step whe n confronte d with his councillors ’ me mo r ial. Mos t o f Gr a n d Co un c il de libe r ation me mor ials were, if not b in d in g on the e mpe ror, at least docume nts to be take n very seriously.26 In the w in ­ ter o f 1773 however, the e mpe r or selectively took issue w ith his councillors ’ r e comme ndations . In the e dict o f 26 Fe bruary, the e mpe r or accepted the ir r e c omme nda tio n that the gove r nme nt not unde r take the c ompila tio n of a mas te r catalog o f stone ins cr iptions , or conce ntrate par tic ular ly on books o f the Sung, C h in a nd Yua n dynas tie s .27 However, he obje cte d to the me thods propos e d for work on the Yung- b ta- tien a nd ove rrule d the m on the matte r o f s hort s um ­ marie s . In both cases, the e mpe r or ar gue d that the me r it o f C h u Yun’s propos als overrode the practical cons ide rations advance d by the councillors . T he work o f re cove ring books fr om the Yung- lo e ncyclope dia, the e mpe r or conce de d in his first e dict, could go on for months , even years, w ith out comple tion. Yet it was impo r ta nt work, “par tic ula r ly because the search for books at the time [ the e ncyclope dia was c o m­ piled] was so br oad, a nd there could be rare works in it which” were s e ldom seen in the e ighte e nth century. In or de r to ins ure that the work was carrie d out prope r ly a nd as e xpe ditious ly as possible, the

e mpe ror orde re d gr and councillors themselves to serve as editors- inchie f for the proje ct. Un d e r the ir dir e ction, H a n lin me mbe rs were to serve in r otation as collators for the Yung- lo ta- tien, de te r mining whic h texts could be re cons tructe d, a nd c ompa r ing Yung- lo ta- tien vers ions o f texts to those in the TTu-shu chi- ch)eng. T he results were to be re porte d r e gularly by me mor ial. Cons ide r ing his councillors o p inio n that w r iting short s umma r y comme nts at the be g innin g o f every work collected would be too trouble s ome , the e mpe ror r e marke d that: “If we follow Liu Hs ia ng ’s rules, the n the complications will be e ndle s s .” However, he note d that “a br ie f s umma r y a nd de s cription was ins e rte d in each work s tored in the impe r ia l libr ar y d ur in g the K ang- hsi pe r iod, a nd these s ummarie s are inde e d us e ful in e x a mining the books .” The re fore , the e mpe r or orde re d that whe n all the books were as s e mble d, those s e rving as collators s hould pre pare s hort s ummarie s for ins e r tion in the texts. Four days afte r this edict was issued, the councillors sent to the e mpe r or the sixty ts i o f the table o f conte nts o f the Yung- lo ta- tien on which they had bas e d the ir r e comme ndations . T he following day, 3 Ma r c h, two edicts were issued, one c o mme nting on the M in g ency­ clope dia, the othe r n a m in g the propos e d book colle ction project. T he e mpe r or pr onounc e d hims e lf unimpre s s e d by the Yung- lo tatien. 28 Alt ho ug h the preface was very br oad in scope a nd full o f high s ounding phras eology, he asserted that it was re ally no t h in g more tha n a reference book, an exercise in inte lle ctual covetousness (thn- to wu- te). Its use o f rhyme as a pr inc iple o f or ga niza tio n dis torte d and dis orde re d classical te achings , which were the or ig in o f all le arning. For ins tance: O f the hexagrams in the I- ching, the Yung- lo ta- tien recorded the men first; of the sections in the Shih- ching, it records the “Ta- tung” first; and of the sections in the Chou- li, it considered the “Tung- kuan” first.29

all o f which was contr ary to the or de r e s tablis he d by the sages. C h ’ie n- lung r e mar ke d that his own book colle ction would be or ga­ nize d on the imm uta ble four treasuries system. T his system, in which books were gr oupe d into four categories —classics, histories, philos ophie s a nd belles lettres —ha d first be e n us e d d u r in g the Ch in dynas ty (265- 313). Alt houg h quite po pula r d u r in g the T ’a ng and Sung dynas ties , it had gone out o f use after the Sung, so that the Gh ie n- lung e ra use of the system repres ented a his tor ical revival.

T he purpos e o f this re vival was never made e xplicit, but fairly clearly the e mpe r or pre fe rre d to associate hims e lf with the glories o f T ang a nd Sung rule r athe r tha n the ignominie s (in his view, at least) of M in g dis or ganization. Altho ug h the Ch ie n- lung colle ction would draw upo n the Yung- lo e ncyclope dia, it would clearly supersede it, both in scope a nd in or ganization. T he s ame day, the book colle ction was o cially na me d The Com­ plete Library of the Four Treasuries {Ssu- kyu ch iian- shu).30 In so n a m in g his colle ction, the C h ie n- lung Empe r or was m a k in g a s tate me nt about biblio gr a phic a l clas s ification, but, pe rhaps as impor ta nt, he was also m a k ing a s tate me nt a bout the natur e o f the proje ct he e nvis ione d. As Yao Ming- ta has pointe d out, while impe r ia l book catalogs and e ncyclope dias compile d unde r impe r ia l s pons ors hip had name s , book collections did not. In Yao’s view, the Ch ie n- lung e mpe r or was tr ying to combine the na me o f an e ncyclope dia with the re ality of a book colle ction.31 It may also have be e n that the oppor t unity o f affix­ ing a na me o f his own de vis ing to the corpus o f Chine s e le a r ning appe ale d to the e mpe ror ’s sense of his own role in Chine s e gove rn­ me nt a nd letters. These edicts, tr ans par e nt b ut ce rtainly not unpr e ce de nte d e xam­ ples o f impe r ia l bre as t- be ating, reflected s ome o f the e mpe r or ’s motive s in the Ssu- k’u project. Cle arly, the ide a o f s upe rs e ding a predecessor, par ticular ly a M in g predecessor, was impor ta nt to him. Equa lly appar e nt is the as s umption that an e mpe r or s hould de fe nd the tr uths o f classical te aching, a nd could affect by edict the or ga ni­ zation o f knowle dge in his re alm. Above all, however, these edicts re ite rate d the notion, first expressed in the initia l e dict on the Ssu- k’u proje ct, that the proje ct was to represent a ce le bration o f the unit y o f knowle dge a nd powe r achieved in the C h ’ie n- lung re ign. T ha t s uch conce rns s hould have le d the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or to or de r his mos t s e nior councillors to supervis e the recovery of books fr om a four- hundred- year- old e ncyclope dia and the pr e par ation o f a com­ me nt on every book e xtant in the e mpir e (a nd this at a time whe n the na tion was at war in the southwest a nd s oon to be in re be llion in the northe as t) was characte ris tic o f the e mpe rors hip, the m a n who he ld it, a nd the era. Ins titutio na l cons traints a nd ind iv id ua l pre dile ctions both s hape d the attitude s that e mpe ror, bur e aucrats and scholars br o ught to the Ssu- kyu ch'imn- shu proje ct. T he circle o f C h u Yun, at one with othe r scholars who conte nde d that only thr o ugh the mos t thor ough and

me ticulous canvas s ing o f the classical canon could tr uth be e s tab­ lis he d, saw in the proje ct a n o ppor tunit y to accomplis h s cholarly goals be yond the ir own resources. Ove r a ll, the Gr a n d Co u n c il’s re action was one o f conce rn with the s trains s uch a proje ct could p ut on the fabric o f pe rs onne l a nd interests that gove rne d Ch in a , a l­ though there is e vidence that s ome ind iv id ua l councillors , like Yu Min- chung, favored the proje ct becaus e it seemed like ly to e nhance the ir pos ition in court politics . T he e mpe ror, though pe rhaps pe r ­ s onally incline d toward lite rary matte rs , was also conce rne d with as s e mbling a colle ction o f unpr e ce de nte d scope a nd pr oving hims e lf worthy o f occupying his pos ition as le ade r o f the lite rate community. In a late r time , whe n milit a r y a nd political necessities would gal­ vanize a re luctant court into action, these diffe ring perspectives could har de n into factional allegiances . In the late e ighte e nth ce n­ tury, however, they r e maine d differences o f perspective, whic h in a le is ure d era could be expressed with confide nce a nd security. T he y did, however, have a pr ofound impa c t on the ju n io r me n who would be appointe d to the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion. C o lla t o r s a n d C o m m it m e n t s T he errors in Chine s e texts —errors which ha d aris e n thr o ugh ce n­ turies o f tr ans mis s ion in an or thogr aphy which, even to those mos t fa milia r with it, offered s e e mingly endless pos s ibility for both m e a n­ ingful and me aningle s s va r ia tion —e xplaine d, at one level at least, the ne e d for an effort like the Ssu- k’u proje ct. But the lo ng a nd s ome ­ time s tor me nte d his tory o f Chine s e texts har dly e xplaine d why so ma ny as pir ing bure aucrats o f the 1770s a nd 1780s were anx ious to e mbar k on a task o f such s tagge ring scope. Strikingly, some o f those who were to be e mploye d as e ditors on the proje ct did not have s ub­ s tantial r e putations as scholars at the time the proje ct be gan, a nd few we nt on to careers in the e ighte e nth- ce ntury e quivale nt o f acade me . T he y were, on the whole , me n b o un d for political office, a nd they saw in the Ssu- k’u proje ct an oppor t unity to advance the ir b ur e a u­ cratic careers. T he balance o f lite rary ability, pe rs onal conne ctions and a d m in ­ is trative compe te nce which de te r mine d a candidate ’s chances for e mployme nt a nd pr omotio n in C h in g C h in a was always a de licate one. But evide nce suggests that it was c ha nging in the last years of the e ighte e nth century, with s ignificant cons equences for the way in

which gove rnme nt was to be conducte d for the next several decades. In par ticular, the influe nce o f ind iv id ua l gr a nd councillors over this a nd many othe r processes o f gove rnme nt was growing. Because the changes in pe rs onne l proce dure affected the Ssu- k u proje ct, and because the proje ct affords a uniq ue o ppor tunit y to vie w changes with major impa c t on the s ubs e que nt s tructure of gove rnme nt, some atte ntion will be de vote d here to selection a nd a dminis tr a tio n. T he e mpe r or ’s m a in conce rn was that r e s pons ibility in the Ssu- k u proje ct be clearly de le gate d a nd de line ate d. Some time in the s pring o f 1773 the Gr a n d Co un c il e vide ntly suggested to the e mpe r or that me mbe rs o f the H a n lin Acade my serve in r otation on the Ssu- k u Commis s ion without specific appointme nts . T his was e vide ntly s ome thing o f a re ar- guard action; having faile d in the ir efforts to lim it the scope o f the proje ct, councillors now s ought to diffuse re s pons ibility, ho p in g that in doing so they mig ht lim it the wor kload. T he e mpe ror oppos e d this , or de r ing the council to select a de finite num b e r o f me n for the Commis s io n, a nd assign the m specific re s pons ibilitie s . T he councillors dutifully me mor ialize d on 2 Ap r il that this ha d be e n accomplis he d.32 Formal re s pons ibilitie s br ought with the m for mal titles, but not impe rs onal r e cr uitme nt. T he me thods for selection o f Ssu- k u re­ visers par alle lle d the proce dure s us ed for the selection of pr ovincial e ducation commis s ione rs , a nd e xamine rs for the chu- jen a nd chin- shih e xaminations . T he councillors re lie d on e x a mina tio n results, pe r­ s onal knowle dge of the candidate s a nd the r e c omme nda tion o f frie nds in m a k ing the appointme nts . Fr ie nds r e comme ndations were par ticular ly impor ta nt in s electing mor e scholarly collators. Tai Che n and Yu C h i were, for ins tance , appointe d after be ing r e com­ me nde d by the ir te ache r C h iu Yue h- hs iu, the n s e rving as pre s ide nt o f the Board of War, to Gr a n d Co unc illo r Yu Min- c hung .33 Ap p a r ­ e ntly many at the H a n lin Acade my trie d to pre vail on C h u Yun to put in a kind word on the ir be half. But C h u chose not to he ar the ir pleas, characte ris tically s cor ning the rewards o f gove rnme nt service: “Wh a t the we althy a nd powe rful compe te for is incons e que ntia l.” He adde d, in what mus t have seemed cold comfort to those anxious to be gin the ir careers with an a ppointme nt at the Ssu- k u Commis s ion, “self- satisfaction can be obtaine d fr om he ave n a lo n e . 34 No comple te list o f the me n a ppointe d by the council to the Ssuk u Commis s ion in 1773 has be e n preserved. However, a list of those who served on the Commis s ion, date d 1782 is publis he d in the first

chuan o f the Ssu- k u ch!mn- shu tsung- mu t}i- yao.35 T he work o f collation a nd recovery was e ntrus te d to four categories o f revisers (tsuan- hsiu):36 revisers for the collation o f books s ubmitte d fr om the provinces , revisers for the collation o f books fr om the Yung- b ta- tien a gr oup o f trouble s hoote rs known as “yellow tally research revisers,” a nd re­ visers for as tr onomy (for the ir relative ranks , see fig. 1). Fifty name s were lis te d in the four categories. Forty o f the m ha d served in the H a n lin Acade my pr ior to the ir a ppointme nt; twenty- three were H a n lin bache lors at the time o f the ir appointme nt. T he y were a re lative ly yo ung gr oup; the ages at the time o f a p­ pointme nt, of those whose ages can be de te r mine d, r ange d fr om 2648 a nd the me dia n age was 31.37 T he old me n o f the gr oup were Tai Che n (48) Li Shou- chie n (in his forties), Ch u Yun (43) and Ch o u Yung- nie n (42), all me n a ppointe d fr om outs ide the H a n lin Aca d­ e my a nd known pr ima r ily for the ir s cholarly ability. T he ma jor ity of the revisers, me n appointe d dire ctly fr om the H a n lin Acade my or re late d ins titutions at court, were me n at the be ginnings o f the ir official careers. A modifie d vers ion o f the me thod devis ed by Ad a m Yue n- chung Lu i in his book, The Hanlin Academy: Training Ground for the Ambitious, can be us ed to characte rize the s ubs e que nt career patte rns o f the me n appointe d. Lu i assesses the impor ta nce o f various groups of H a n lin bache lors by de te r mining how ma ny o f the bache lors in a give n gr oup re ache d the thir d r ank or above, a nd finds that, for the C h ’ie n- lung pe r iod as a whole , 21.2 pe rce nt o f the H a n lin bachelors re ache d this r a nk.38 T he me n a ppointe d as Ssu- k’u revisers d id sig­ nificantly be tte r tha n this average. O f the forty me n a ppointe d to the Commis s ion who ha d served in the H a n lin Acade my pr ior to the ir a ppointm e nt, twelve, or thir ty pe rce nt re ache d the thir d rank. Am o n g me n who were re lative ly young at the time o f the ir a pp o int­ me nt, me n a dmitte d to the H a n lin fr om the chin- shih e x aminations o f 1769 1771 or 1772 the success of those who served at the Co m m is ­ s ion was more s triking. Twenty- five o f the one h undr e d me n in these three classes were appointe d to the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion; fr om this pool came sixty- three pe rce nt o f the s e nior officials in the three classes. Cle arly, the young me n appointe d at the Co mmis s io n were an elite, even a mo ng the ir H a n lin colleagues, de s tine d for career success.39 T he critical que s tion is what these statistics me ant. Did the selec­ tion process me re ly ide ntify me mbe rs o f a pre- existing elite? O r was

Figur e 1. T he Staff o f the Ssu- k’u Co mmis s io n, Ar r ange d by Bure aucr atic Ra n k Rank*

Title (Number of Appointees)

1A

Dire ctors - Ge ne ral (16)

IB

As s is tant Dire ctors - Ge ne ral (6) Se nior Re ade rs (15)

2A 2B 3A

Ch ie f Editors (3); Ch ie f Colla to r (1)

3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A

Revisers for the collation o f books s ubmitte d fr om the province s (6) H a n lin Proctors (20)

7A

Revisers for the collation o f books fr om the Yung- b- ta- tien (38) As s is tant Editors for the Annotated Catalog (7)

7B

Wu- ying T hr one Ha ll Proctors (9)

6B

8A 8B Unr a nke d

Copyis ts (212)

*Service on the Commission did not carry an official rank. These figures represent the ranks Ssu- k’u personnel had when they were appointed to the Commission staff.

s ubs e que nt career success a result o f service on the proje ct? If the la t­ ter, how dire ct a result was it, a nd how could the prestige acquir e d by wor king on an impe r ia l proje ct manife s t its e lf as career advance ­ me nt? At issue in these que s tions , which mus t have be e n as appar e nt to young me n c onte mpla ting service at the Ssu- k u Co mmis s io n as the y are to us today, was the characte r o f bur e aucr atic loyalty. A l­ though ma ny o f the Ssu- k u re cruits were me n at the be ginnings of the ir careers, they mus t have be e n aware o f the ma ny s cholarly pr oj­ ects and ins titutions which cons titute d precedents for the Ssu- k u effort, a nd the ir impac t on the lives o f those who had served in the m. Car e e r success was pr oba bly not a dire ct result o f service at the Commis s ion. Os te ns ibly, the re ward for me r itor ious service at the Commis s ion was the privile ge o f i- hsu advance me nt on the wa iting list for a ppo intm e nt to office. O n two occasions, in Ma r c h o f 1778 a nd Nove mbe r o f 1780 this privile ge was awarde d to Ssu- k u re­ visers, a nd a total o f eleven revisers were so re warde d.40 As the s ubse­ que nt careers o f the me n re warde d suggest, the s ignificance o f the privile ge was not great. Wa n g Tseng {chin- shih, 1771), re warde d in Nove mbe r o f 1780, was de mote d fr om his post as compile r and as s igne d to a post in the province s three years late r.41 C h ’en C h angch’i (1743- 1820), re warde d in 1778 was found to be a third- rate offi­ cial in the me tr o po lita n pe rs onne l e valuations o f 1785, a nd de mote d.42 Ch o u Ping- t’ai (1746- 1821), place d at the he ad o f the list for a ppointm e nt in 1778 and 1780, was not pr omote d to s ubs tantive office until 1788 and this pr o mo tio n appe ars to have res ulted more fr om favorable impe r ia l re action to his propos al that the pi- yung, a H a n dynas ty ins titutio n in which the e mpe r or le cture d on the clas­ sics, be re ins titute d tha n fr om his Ssu- k u service.43 A fourth reviser, Wu Sheng- lan (d. 1810) was also r e c omme nde d for advance me nt to office twice, b ut ha d to wait eleven years for his chance ; whe n it came , his pr omotion was a big one, however, fr om assistant secretary o f the Supe rvis or ate o f Im pe r ia l Ins t r uc tion (r a nk 6b) to vicepre s ide nt o f the Board o f Works (r a nk 2a).44 O n the othe r ha nd, the pr omine nce o f Ssu- k u revisers in gove rn­ me nt was pr oba bly not coincide ntal. Ap p o in tm e n t to the C o m ­ mis s ion me ant that one ha d attracte d the atte ntion o f the gr and councillors , e ithe r thr o ugh pe rs onal achie ve me nt or the r e c omme n­ da tion o f frie nds a nd patrons . T his atte ntion was a vital factor in Chine s e official careers, pr oba bly e x pe diting one ’s first a ppo intm e nt out o f the H a n lin Acade my, a nd ce rtainly necesssary for pr o motio n

into the highe s t ranks of gove rnme nt service.45 Councillor s could even make life more ple as ant for those s e rving in the H a n lin by r e c omme nding the m for the lucrative commis s ions as chin- shih and cku- jen e xamine rs that s upple me nte d the mode s t s tipe nds paid the bache lors .46 In fact, atte ntion fr om on high playe d a decisive role in several o f the example s discussed in the pre vious par agr aph. Wu She ng- lan was a s tude nt in the school o f the Palace o f Unive r s al Peace for childr e n o f ba nne r me n at the s ame time as Ho- s hen and be came his protege. Wu rose very r apidly at court after Ho- s hen be came a gr a nd councillor, ho ld ing four commis s ions as chie f cku- jen e xamine r a nd two as e ducation commis s ione r in spite o f the fact that he did not possess a chin- shih degree. He was appointe d vice- president o f the Boar d of Wor ks in 1788 a nd vice- president o f the Boa r d o f Rite s a nd gr and secretary in 1792. Wh e n the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or die d and Ho- s he n fell, Wu fell too, be ing de mote d ove rnight to the r ank of compile r at the H a n lin Acade my.47 C h ’en C h ang- ch i s career illus trate s the ne gative impa c t a c o un­ cillor could have on an official career. Appointe d to the Ssu- k u C o m ­ mis s ion in 1773, a nd commis s ione d chie f chu- jen e x amine r twice in the next four years, C h ’en appe are d to be on his way to a dis tin­ guis he d career. Ho- s he n, at the time a councillor, e vide ntly notice d C h ’en a nd passed wor d that he would like to have Ch ’en call. C h ’en refused, as s e rting tha t “since he is not he ad o f the Acade my, there is no e tique tte (It) for vis iting h im .” T his was take n, pr oba bly cor­ rectly, as an ins ult by the councillor and as a result C h ’e n was fo und to be a third- rate o cial in the next me tr opolita n pe rs onne l e valua­ tio n.48 C h e n a feisty Cantone s e , persisted in his course of oppos ition to the le ade rs hip, s ubmit ting a me mo r ia l some years late r pr opos ing that the e ducation commis s ione r o f Ch ih li be e mpowe re d to un d e r ­ take an inve s tigation o f c or r uption a mo ng s e nior officials at the court. It received no official response. Lo ng after Ho- s hen die d, C h en re gaine d impe r ia l favor with a series o f courage ous and knowl­ e dgeable me mor ials on defense agains t pirate s along the Fukie n and Kw a ng tung coasts.49 Alt houg h r e c omme ndations were an impo r ta nt factor in pe rs on­ ne l a dminis tr a tio n thr o ughout the C h ’ing pe riod, there were im p o r ­ tant changes in the ir s ignificance in the very years that the Ssu- k’u proje ct was unde rway. Yii Min- c hung may well have ope ne d the door for infor ma l influe nce whe n he abolis he d the rule , to whic h Liu T ung- hs un ha d adhe r e d strictly, that a gr a nd councillor could

not me e t othe r me mbe r s of the bure aucr acy except on official bus i­ ness. It was pe rhaps in light o f this change in the social gr ound rules o f gove rnme nt service that Ho- s hen took offense at Ch ’e n C h ’angch i s refus al to vis it him , although it was possible that C h ’e n was prote s ting the rule change as well as s nubbing his s uperior. In fact, d ur in g his te r m o f office, Yii Min- c hung was s aid to have “contr olle d the destinies o f all the young officials o f the e m p ire . 50 Yao Na i, who was a ppointe d a reviser on the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion on the r e com­ me nda tio n of Liu T ung- hs un e vide ntly attracte d Y ii s atte ntion d ur in g his service. Yu asked Yao to “be come his follower” {chyu ch i men), a nd slated h im for service at the Ce ns orate . Yao, however, refused, and e ve ntually r e turne d to his ances tral home in Anhw e i.51 To be sure, the mos t e gre gious example s of ne potis m occurre d d ur in g the te nure o f Ho- s hen as gr a nd councillor, but he d id not create the system. T he Ssu- k u revisers, at least, ha d ha d ample e xperience of it before the yo ung Ma n c h u ’s rise to power. T his cha nging s ituation pr oba bly affected morale a nd pe rfor­ mance at the Commis s ion. T he me mbe rs of the Ssu- k u staff who advance d to hig h office did so in large par t because o f the ir ability to attract a nd hold the atte ntion of s e nior officials, a nd the ir a ppo int­ me nt to the Commis s ion me re ly repres ented the first evide nce o f s uch ability. Ma n y o f those a ppointe d to the Co m mis s io n had, o f course, dis tinguis he d themselves by the ir lite r ary a nd s cholarly achie ve me nts pr ior to the ir appointme nts . It goes w ithout s aying that s uch me n ha d an aptitude for the kind o f work they were to be involve d in at the Commis s ion. Howe ve r some, or pe rhaps all in d if­ fe r ing degrees, saw the proje ct as an oppor t unity to gain access to the corridors o f powe r in Pe king, and were thus c ommitte d to book e diting as a me ans rathe r tha n as an e nd. Wo r king at the Ssu- k u Co mmis s io n may have be e n pre s tigious , but it was not me a nt to be profitable . In the ir me mor ia l on the or ga niza tio n o f the Commis s ion, the gr and councillors asserted, pe r­ haps pointe dly, that there was no ne e d to pay the appointe e s fr om the H a n lin or othe r ins titutions in “food, firewood or s ilv e r. 52 W it h ­ in a mo nth , the e mpe r or reversed this de cis ion, pr e s cr ibing that the appointe e s be pr ovide d with food a nd dr ink according to the prece­ de nt o f the employees at the Wu- ying T hr one Ha ll. Accor ding to a me mor ia l o f 1783, this pr ovis ion was conve rte d into silver payme nts . T he rate for collators was not give n, b ut s upe rvis ory pe rs onne l were paid 4.8 ounce s o f silver pe r m o n t h .53 At ir r e gular inte rvals , the

e mpe ror re warde d each me mbe r o f the e ditor ial s taff o f the C o m ­ mis s ion with a s mall gift, in one case a bolt o f s atin, in anothe r case a ca nta loupe .54 Revis ers ha d a nothe r pe rquis ite which, as the case o f Sun Ch e n- tung (1737- 1781) de mons trate s , could be profitable , that o f n o m in a t in g one pe rs on o f s uitable e ducation a nd calligraphic a bility to serve as a copyist. T he copyists so appointe d were not pa id anything, b ut were re warde d with the privile ge o f a dvancing in the w a iting lists for a ppointm e nt to office. Sun C h e n- tung passed thir d on the chin- shih e x aminations o f 1772 a nd was a ppointe d reviser on the Ssu- k u staff. His nine te e nth- ce ntury biogr aphy portraye d h im as politically naive but o f e x tr aor dinar y inte grity. Dut ifully no m in a t in g a copyist r e comme nde d to h im by the s e nior editors, he was as ton­ is hed and ange re d whe n the m a n offered h im mone y in r e tur n.55 As the num b e r of books to be ins pe cte d grew, the phys ical loca­ tions o f Ssu- k’u activity multiplie d. In the e arly s pr ing of 1773 the collators were bas e d in a set o f rooms a djo ining the west side o f the H a n lin Acade my. By Ap r il of that year, a s tore room o f the Im pe r ia l P r int in g Press a nd Binde r y was conve rte d for use. Evide ntly, more book storage space was necessary; a me mo r ia l o f Ju n e 1778, re porte d that the premis es o f the Milit a r y Archive s Office were so full o f books that they would hold no more , a nd that the stacks o f books were inte r fe r ing with the da ily work o f the Office . By 1783 collation was ta king place at four sites, each with its own s upe rvis ory a nd s upport pe rs onne l, a nd special budge tar y provis ions were made for m a in ­ te nance a nd s e curity at book storage ware hous e s .56 T he arrange me nts for s upe rvis ion were impo r ta nt both to the revisers, for w hom the chance o f me e ting s e nior s tates men was an impo r ta nt re ward for work at the Commis s ion, and for the gr a nd councillors who ultima te ly bore re s pons ibility for the work. Qu it e early, the councillors urge d that several o f the ir clerks be e s tablis he d as proctors (t}i- tiao- kuan) whose re s pons ibility was to mana ge the s mooth flow of books a nd oversee the work in ge ne ral.57 T he title “proctor” was ubiquito us in C h ’ing a dminis tr a tio n, a ppe a r ing over thir ty time s in Br unne r t a nd Ha ge ls tr om^ catalog o f Ch,ing official titles. Or ig in a lly coine d for capital police officials in the Yua n dynasty, by C h ’ing time s it seems to have ha d the sense o f executive officer, one who “mana ge d docume nts a nd oversaw c le rk s . 58 In the Ssu- k u Co m mis s io n the proctors ’ role seems to have be e n a d m in i­ strative r athe r tha n e ditorial. At least seven o f the me n appointe d to the post ha d served as Gr a n d Co un c il clerks, three o f w ho m d id not

hold a chin- shih degree. Five o f the appointe e s were Ma nc hus , and this was the only post in the Commis s ion, othe r tha n copy clerk, to which Ma nc hus were appointe d. By 1783 a nd pe rhaps earlier, archivis ts and libr ar ians as well as copy clerks were a ppointe d at each collation site.59 Re s pons ibility for mana ge me nt a nd e ditor ial dir e ction o f the pr oj­ ect was vested in three layers o f officials. T he lowest r a nking o f these, a nd pe rhaps the mos t dire ctly involve d in day- to- day ope rations , were chie f e ditors Ch i Hs iao- lan and Lu Hs i- hs iung (1734- 1792) and chie f collator Lu- fei C h ih (d. 1790). T he ir specific re s pons ibilitie s canno t be ce rtainly es tablis hed, but Lu- fei Ch ih seems to have been in charge o f the copying of manus cr ipts ,60 and C h i Hs iao- lan’s name was mos t fr e que ntly associated with the e diting o f the Annotated Cata­ log. Lu Hs i- hs iung had pur vie w over a wide range o f matte rs , but was pr obably mos t dire ctly involve d with the collation o f texts. Se nior to these three but with muc h less dire ct re s pons ibility for the pr oduc tio n o f manus cr ipts were fifteen chie f readers. T he y were, as a rule , pres idents of boar ds and old political associates o f the e mpe r or or gr a nd councillors , and served as final proofre ade rs of texts pre pare d for inclus ion in the Ssu- k'u ch'iian- shu. At the top o f the Ssu- k’u Co mmis s io n were sixteen directors- general a nd te n assistant directors- general. Mos tly Ma n c h u prince s , milita r y leaders or gr and councillors , the directors- general did not all play a n active role in the Co m mis s io n.61 Some were quite influe ntial, however. Wh e n Yu Min- c hung and the e mpe r or were both in residence in Pe king, Yii e vide ntly con­ veyed impe r ial ins tructions and inte ntions to the editors orally. Wh e n the e mpe ror we nt to Je ho l for the s umme r months , Yii accom­ panie d him , c o m munic a ting by letter with chie f e ditor Lu Hsihs iung. These letters were e dite d and publis he d by C h e n Yua n (b. 1880) in 1938.62 Yii was succeeded in his role as inte rpre te r by Hoshen (1755- 1799), whose activities will be de taile d mor e fully below. T he e mpe r or e vide ntly took a sincere a nd c o ntinuing interest in the proje ct. In one o f the first letters Yii Min- c hung wrote to Lu Hsihs iung, Yii re late d that the e mpe ror had asked to be cons ulte d on “all matte rs r e quir ing dis cus s ion.” Yii, s urpris e d a nd pr oba bly cha­ gr ine d, note d, “I had no choice b ut to ag re e . 63

C o lle c t io n a n d E v a lu a t io n Alt houg h the work accompa nie d at each stage o f the process will be e xamine d in some de tail below, the steps o f the process may be out­ line d here. On e advantage the C h ie n- lung gove rnme nt appe are d to have over private collectors, a nd no doubt par t o f the reason C h u Yun a nd his frie nds were so e nthus ias tic about the Ssu- k u project, was the empire - wide ne twork o f pe rs onne l a nd conne ctions which could be e nlis te d in the search for rare a nd valuable books. T he book colle ction process illus trate d the characte r and capacities o f this ne t­ work, a nd the natur e o f the cour t’s re lations with the various s trata o f pe ople who owne d books in e ighte e nth- ce ntury Ch in a . Cle arly, for a proje ct like the Ssu- k u c ompila tio n to succeed, it ha d to appe al to the wealthies t collectors who owne d rare e ditions , as well as collectors o f mor e limite d me ans who m ig ht only have one or two volume s of interest to the impe r ia l collators. T he e mpe ror e ntrus te d pr ovincial governors a nd governors- general, init ia lly at least, with the re s pons i­ bility o f m a k in g contact with book collectors. Ma n y governors, and par ticular ly those in pros pe rous , book- owning province s , es tablis hed in the ir pr ovincial capitals ad hoc committe e s known as book- bure aus {shu- cku) to oversee the process. T he te r minology here was not novel. Gr oups of p r o m ine nt local leaders created by pr ovincial governors to pe r for m semi- official tasks were ofte n calle d chu in the nine te e nth century. Chu created by Tseng Kuo- fan a nd Li Hung- chang in ante ­ be llum Chia ng- na n oversaw the provis ion o f re lie f a nd a dminis tr a ­ tion o f taxes, for ins tance ; Tseng in par tic ula r also created pr ovincial shu- chuy which r e pr inte d ma ny impor ta nt classical texts, and it seems like ly that mode r n private pub lis hing companie s have borrowe d the usage o f the te r m to fas hion the ir own name s . These committe e s were ge ne rally le d by e xpe ctant officials and s ubor dinate s o f the governors; occas ionally the y include d natives o f the province on home leave, or famous book collectors.64 But the bas ic link w ith the book- owning populace was a gr oup of func tio n­ aries known as “local e ducational officials .” T hese were the directors o f the state acade mie s in which first degree holde rs (sheng- yuan) were e nrolle d. T he y were ge ne rally me n who ha d passed the re gional e x aminations for the chti- jen degree, but faile d in the me tr opolitan e x aminations for the chin- shih. Since the rule of avoidance was not applie d to these pos itions , local e duc ational officials were ofte n natives of the dis tricts in which they served, a nd the ir appointme nts

were contr olle d by pr ovinc ial governors. Wo r king toge the r with ce n­ trally a ppointe d pr ovincial e duc ation commis s ione rs , local e duca­ tional officials were re s pons ible for g uid ing the inte lle ctual lives a nd s upe rvis ing the political activitie s o f s tude nts in the ir districts. De s pite these appar e ntly awesome re s pons ibilitie s , they were a m o ng the lowest r a nking C h in g officials, a nd also were a mo ng the last groups o f officials to receive “nour is hme nt o f vir tue ” salaries, which were not e xte nde d to the m u n til the e arly C h ie n- lung r e ign.65 Local e ducational officials status d id not pre ve nt governors fr om pla cing a fairly he avy bur de n on the m. Accor ding to governors’ re­ ports, afte r be ing notifie d o f the natur e o f the Ssu- k u c ompila tio n by local e ducation officials, book owners took the ir valuable books to the ir pr ovincial book bur e aus , whe re the books were ins pe cte d a nd e valuate d. To alle viate the necessity o f s e nding to Pe king all the books collected, the book bure aus pre pare d lists o f the volume s ins pe cte d, which were forwarde d first to the governors, the n to Pe king. Appa r e ntly in at least s ome o f the book bur e aus , draft state­ me nts of the conte nts a nd s ignificance {Vi- yax)) o f books were pr e ­ par e d a nd sent to governors a nd to the capital. T he e mpe r or was sus picious o f the book bur e aus , or at least o f the pote ntial for dis r up­ tion and dis or ganization created whe n official functions were place d in semi- official hands (a s us picion which s ubs e que nt events were to prove jus tifie d) a nd urge d governors to watch the ir s ubor dinate s carefully. T he book bure aus cons titute d bridge s b uilt be twe e n the ce ntral gove rnme nt a nd book owners, bridge s b uilt on the fo unda tio n o f the e x a mina tion system and its pe rs onne l, r athe r tha n the s lightly less savory fo unda tion o f magis trate s yame ns a nd unde r lings . Since local e ducational officials could be as s ume d to have fairly cons is te nt s tan­ dards in the matte r o f book selection, and could be as s ume d to share with the candidate s they s upe rvis e d a ce rtain pr ide in the ir re gion’s a bility to contr ibute to na tiona l inte lle ctual life, there was re as on to believe that the book bur e aus would pe r for m w ith re as onable effi­ ciency. Book bure aus thus illus trate d the pote ntial for gentry- state coope r ation, a pote ntial whic h could be re alize d whe n both scholars and the state re cognize d a c o mmo n interest. It was a pote ntial which had its limits , however. In the first place, the book bure aus were te mporary, task- oriented groups which dis ­ ba nde d whe n they were no longe r ne e de d. T he y ne ithe r could, nor were me ant to, serve as s ta nding ide ological watch- dogs. More ove r,

as attractive as the pictur e o f the ge ntry a nd the state coope r ating in pur s uit o f jointly- he ld aims was, the pr ovincial book bur e aus were, for several reasons, not up to the task for which they were created. Valuable books in C h in a were very une ve nly dis tr ibute d. Some 4831 books s ubmitte d by pr ovincial governors were e ve ntually include d in the Ssu- k u cKuan- shu. O f these four thous and, or 83 % came fr om the province s o f Che kia ng (which s ubmitte d 1639 titles, 3 4 %), Kia ngs u (861 titles, 17.8%), Kia ngs i (455 titles, 9 .4 %), Anhwe i (327 titles, 6 .8 %), a nd the gove rnor ge ne rals hip o f Liang- chiang (718 titles, 15 %). Cle arly, however successful the state was in cre ating an e mpire - wide ne twor k o f book bur e aus , the work o f pr o viding a nd e va luating books for the Ssu- k u proje ct would fall m a in ly on the Chia ng- na n ge ntry who owne d the m. T he nor the r n Ch in a province s made mode s t c ontr ibutions to the effort —Sha ntung pr ovide d 211 titles; Ho n a n , 67 titles; Ch ih li, 119 titles; Hu p e i, 60 titles; She ns i, 79 titles; and Shans i, 66 titles. T he contr ibutions of the othe r Chine s e province s varie d cons ide rably —Fukie n contr ibute d 160 titles; H u n a n pr ovide d 33 titles; Kw a ngtung, 4 titles; while Yunna n, Sze chwan, a nd Kwangs i provide d none at a ll.66 T he s econd pr oble m with the book bure aus was that while the local e ducational o cials who staffed the m were s uitable re pre s e nta­ tives of the court to mos t ge ntry in Ch in a , they were har dly the appr opr iate pe ople to appr oach the very we althy collectors who owne d the finest e ditions . Private collectors s ignificant e nough to me r it me ntion by na me in the impe r ial catalog contr ibute d 3426 titles to the Ssu- k u effort, or 32 % o f the final colle ction. T he care a nd fe e ding of these we althy book owners was clearly essential to the Ssu- k u effort. Wh e n , for ins tance , the governors of Che kia ng and Kia ngs u a nd the governor- general of Liang- chiang propos e d that book bur e a u pe rs onne l be sent to the home s of salt me r chants in the ir jur is dic tions , the e mpe r or re s ponde d that it would be be tte r if s ome one “pe rs onally known to the book owners ” like the me r cha nt C h ia n g Kuang- ta, wor king unde r the guidance o f salt commis s ione r Li Chih- ying, were sent. T he e mpe r or d id not note the fact in his e dict, but Li Chih- ying ha d ha d the recent experience o f ne gotiating s ome r athe r large loans fr om the salt me r chants to the impe r ial hous e hold, whe re he served as a bonds e r vant.67 As a toke n o f impe r ial gr atitude for the ir c ontr ibutio n to the Ssu- k u proje ct, the four largest private contr ibutors o f books —the Hangchow me r chants Fan Mou- chu (1721- 1780) Pao Shih- kung and Wa ng C h i- shu

(1728- 1799) a nd the Yangchow salt me r chant M a Yu —each of w ho m contr ibute d over five hundr e d titles, were re warde d with copies of the T u- sku chi- ching. Fourte e n mor e book owners, who con­ tr ibute d between one hundr e d a nd five hundr e d titles, received copies o f the P ei- wen yun- fu. These rewards were pr oba bly large ly s ymbolic for the wealthy me n who received the m although, to be sure, the s ymbolic value o f a gift of books fr om the e mpe r or was not to be unde re s timate d. T he e m pe ror s gifts did have a me as ur able mar ke t value , however. In a conte mpor ar y but pr oba bly unre late d me mo r ial, impe r ia l hous e hold officials discussed what price copies of the Tu- shu chi- cKeng would fetch on the ope n mar ke t. It was de cide d that the price o f 12.46 taels set the pre vious m o nth was not ina p pr o ­ priate , although only 44 o f the or igina l 896 copies offered for sale several months before ha d be e n s old.68 A final pr oble m of the bor r owing a nd copying system evolved by the e mpe ror a nd pr ovincial governors was that some book owners were e vide ntly unw illing to loan books to the gove rnme nt. T he re a­ sons for this were har dly matte rs to be discussed in o cial or private sources; but it may well have been that book me r chants or those who invested in books , r e alizing that r e pr inting unde r gove rnme nt auspices would lower the value o f the ir holdings , s ought c om­ pe ns ation. To the extent that publis hing was an indus tr y in eightee nth- ce ntury Ch in a , the Ssu- k’u proje ct put the gove rnme nt in compe tition with private e ntre pre ne urs . T he bur de n o f paying for books was place d on the governors, a nd the e mpe r or rejected one gove rnor’s pe rhaps s ome what wis tful suggestion that books p u r ­ chased by governors be come par t o f pr ovincial libraries . Ins te ad, all books purchas e d for the proje ct be came par t o f the impe r ia l library. T he need for close accounting me a nt that governors had to keep track of numbe r s o f books bought a nd copies borrowe d. T he Ch e ­ kia ng gove rnor re porte d that in his province , 1875 titles ha d been bought and 2609 borrowe d; in Kia ng s u, 1071 were bo ught and 632 borrowe d; in Sha ntung, 137 titles were bought, 155 copie d, and 72 borrowe d; in Ho n a n , 91 titles were bo ught, 22 copie d a nd none bor ­ rowed; and in Shans i, 57 books were bought a nd 31 copie d. In 1777 the salt commis s ione r Yin Ch o res pectfully conveyed the request of salt me rchants that the 932 titles which they ha d pr ovide d to the Ssuk u Co mmis s io n be re garde d as a gift to the impe r ia l library.69 Onc e they arrive d in Pe king, the texts to be collate d for the Ssu- k’u ch'uan- shu were as s e mble d a nd cataloge d in the Im pe r ia l P r in tin g

Press a nd Binde r y at the Wu- ying T hr one H a ll.70 T he n, if there were mor e tha n one vers ion o f the text, or if the text was to be recov­ ered in whole or in par t fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien, the task was as s igned to a reviser. At least the mos t s e nior or famous o f the revisers were allowe d to work in areas of the ir specialty. Onc e the initia l collation was comple te , the reviser r e turne d the manus c r ipt to the Wu- ying T hr one Ha ll, whe re it was reas s igned to a copyist. Wh e n r e pro­ duce d, the text was checked by two assistant collators wor king sep­ arately. Scholars e arlie r this century, e x a mining books in the impe r ia l hous e hold library, found ins e rte d in the m what would be calle d in mode r n bur e aucr atic par lance “r o uting slips” left over fr om the Ssu- k’u project. T he for m was as below, with blanks filled in by the appr opr iate adminis tr ative official: Original of Volume (Blank) Pages (Blank) Dis patche d fr om the Wu- ying T hr one Ha ll on (Date - blank) to (Location- blank) for collation. O n (Date - blank) trans fe rre d to copyist (Name - blank). O n (Date - blank) manus c r ipt received. O n (Date - blank) checked a nd re turne d. Re ce ive d by re che cking center on (Date - blank). Re che cking comple te on (Date - blank). T his volume contains (Numbe r - blank) chapters. In c lud in g pre vious chapters (Numbe r - blank) characte rs .71 Afte r re che cking, the manus c r ipt was give n to a s e nior re ade r for final ins pe ction before be ing s ubmitte d to the e mpe ror. In spite of all these efforts, Gr a n d Co unc illo r Yii Min- c hung compla ine d o f sloppy manus cripts , mar r e d by yellow (pe rhaps tea?) stains, a nd had to a dmo nis h the collators not to use red ink in the ir wor k.72 Both the e mpe r or a nd Ch ie f Co unc illo r Yii made corre ctions fr om time to time in the manus cr ipts s ubmitte d to the m. Finally, copies o f the approve d texts were made and place d in librarie s especially built to hous e the m at the four ma jor impe r ia l residences: the Forbidde n Cit y and the Sum m e r Palace in Pe king, the impe r ia l s umme r retreat at Je ho l, a nd the C h ’ing ances tral home in Ma n c h u r ia outs ide the city known today as She nyang. Wh e n these sets were comple te d, copies were made for librarie s in the lower Yangtze valley cities o f Hangchow, Yangchow, a nd Chinkia ng . By all accounts , a convivial a nd s timula ting atmos phe re pre vaile d a mo ng the collators, a nd they were give n a fairly free h a nd in the ir

work. A rare account o f one day in the life o f a Ssu- k’u collator was preserved in the a utobiogr aphy o f We ng Fang- kang, a reviser for books s ubmitte d fr om the provinces: Early each mor ning, I went to the Academy. A kitche n was established there to provide meals for us as we worked. Afte r lunch I re turne d home. T he n, at the Pao- shan- t ing I discussed the books that I had col­ lated in the mor ning with Ch ’eng Chin- fang, Yao Nai, and Je n Ta- ch un. Each of us contribute d what we knew, and we compile d a list of the books that would have to be consulted. In the afternoon, I would hasten to the Liu- li- ch ang book markets to look for them. At that time, the Kiangs u and Che kiang book merchants all competed with each other to acquire books that could be used for research. The y were all assembled in the Five Willows Lodge of the Ha ll of Lite rary Re fine me nt. Each day I found books that could be used and re turned home with a cart full of the m . . . If the price was not too high, I rented them. From the vol­ umes that I could not afford to rent, I copied out the necessary portions, or hire d someone else to do so.73

T he Liu- li- ch a ng a dis trict locate d to the west o f the ce ntral gate into the impe r ial city o f Pe king famous for its book marke ts , grew up in the e arly C h ie n- lung years, a nd be came par ticular ly pros pe r­ ous d ur in g the Ssu- k’u proje ct.74 C h u Yun, as was his wont, contr ibute d to the ambia nc e by giving parties. In the s pring o f 1773 Yao Na i, We ng Fang- kang, Lu Hsihs iung, and C h i Hs iao- lan all we nt on a picnic or ganize d by C h u some te n li outs ide of the ca pita l.75 Each wrote a poe m, a nd C h u p r o ­ vide d a preface for the colle ction. Ch a n g Hs ue h- chtng comme nte d that C h u s e nthus ias m for partie s d ur ing his Ssu- k’u years “was pe r ­ haps too great to pe r mit his de voting a great de al [ of time a nd energy] to his w o rk. 76 Some revisers, appare ntly, took the o ppor tunit y o f wor king on seldom- seen texts to make copies for themselves or for sale. Ch o u Yung- nie n, a par ticular ly e nthus ias tic bibliophile fr om Sha ntung, hir e d a staff o f ten copyists to assist h im .77 At least two of the texts recovered by Shao Chin- han fr om the Yung- h ta- tien were s ubs e que nt­ ly private ly publis he d,78 a nd others circulate d a mo ng his frie nds in manus c r ipt copie s .79 T he re appe ar to have be e n no legal or e thical obje ctions to his practice; however, the collators ha bit o f phys ically taking manus cr ipts away fr om the work site complicate d the gove rn­ m e nts task o f ke e ping watch over all the manus cr ipts be ing collate d, as the cur ious case of H u a n g Shou- ling de mons trate s . H u a n g was a H a n lin bache lor o f the class o f 1772, appointe d to

serve as Ssu- k’u reviser. Some time in the s umme r o f 1774 he carrie d one volume o f the Yung- lo ta- tien out o f the H a n lin Acade my a nd lost it. Wh e n the e mpe r or he ar d o f the matte r, he was furious : T he Yung- lo ta- tien [ manuscript] is unique , revisers cannot be allowed to carry it off. Each day food is provide d at the Acade my and every colla­ tor can eat his fill. If they work on public business, collating books at the Acade my for a full day, the work schedule can be met. There is no need for the m to bur n the midnight oil. [ Furthermore, we have] estab­ lished proctors at the Academy. If the culprit informe d the proctor of his intentions, the n the two of the m mus t be in this together.80

T he capital police were orde re d to investigate the matte r thoroughly. Several days later, the book tur ne d up mys te rious ly unde r a bridge in the impe r ia l city, but the e mpe r or was not mollifie d. He comme nte d: T his book has been mis s ing for a long time. It mus t be that the man who stole it took it ar ound to book merchants and used pape r shops and tried to sell it. But the merchants know that the Yung- lo ta- tien is govern­ me nt prope rty and cannot be privately bought and sold. So the cul­ prit . . . not dar ing to re tain it, placed the book unde r a bridge in the middle of the night.81

T he police were or de re d to investigate furthe r, but to no avail. T he incide nt had serious re pe rcus s ions for those involve d. A gr and c o un­ cillor, the he ad o f the Im p e r ia l P r in t in g Press and Binde ry, a nd the he ad o f the capital police s ubmitte d a jo in t me mor ial o f apology; the s alary of H u a n g Shou- ling, who ha d hims e lf br ought the matte r to the atte ntion o f C h i Hs iao- lan b ut e vide ntly would not e x plain in full what had happe ne d, was s us pe nde d for three years. T he salaries o f two proctors were s us pe nde d for six months . As a result of the case, r e gulations on ca r r ying of books fr om the collation site were tig ht­ e ne d. Ch o u Yung- nie n, finding that he could no longe r take out books fr om the Acade my, s adly dis charge d his staff o f copyists.82 T he case is of interes t for several reasons, aside fr om the vie w it provide s o f the emperor- as- detective. First, it de mons trate s the e mpe ror ’s ge nuine conce rn for the pre s e rvation o f books and the lively, if pe rhaps illicit, interest o f collators a nd book me r chants in the process. Se cond, the da ily work s chedule e nvis ione d by the e mpe ror contras ts s harply with the s ome what more relaxed s chedule de s cribe d in We ng Fang- kang^ Autobiography: the issue o f how har d the scholars were in fact wor king be came a live one late r in the

project. Finally, the case trigge re d an inve s tigation o f book colle ction and storage proce dure s , which provide d some o f the mos t impor ta nt sources on c ompila tio n me thods . . . . T o Fo rg iv e D iv in e : T he E rro rs L is t a n d C h ’in g A d m in is t r a t io n Wh ile the mos t pre s tigious tasks o f the Ssu- k u proje ct were e n­ trus te d to me n o f cons ide rable s cholarly r e puta tion like Tai Che n, Shao Chin- han a nd Ch o u Yung- nie n, the bulk o f the work o f colla­ tion was de le gate d to younge r me n a ppointe d to the commis s ion at the capital. T hes e younge r officials did not necessarily share the ir seniors motiva tion or interests; the ir pe rformance reflected the ir own attitude s a nd conce rns a nd the sense o f purpos e a nd s tandards co mmunic ate d to the m by s e nior bure aucrats . T he ir work was far fr om flawless. Accor ding to ma ny assessments, books that could have be e n recovered fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien were overlooked; collation was has ty and s ome time s ne glige nt, a nd pr oofr e ading pe rfunctory. In 1828 Ch ’ie n I- chi, an e ditor o f the gove rnme nt- s pons ore d I- Vung chih (Unive rs al gazetteer), propos e d that so ma ny Yung- lo ta- tien books had be e n overlooked in the Ssu- k u proje ct that the M in g e ncyclope dia ne e de d to be re e dite d. T he T ao- kuang Empe r or approve d of the ide a but, tied down by dome s tic re be llion a nd tur mo il, ha d ne ithe r the pe rs onne l nor the resources to unde rtake the proje ct.83 Nor were the Ssu- k u collators ne glige nt only with respect to the Yung- lo ta- tien. Ofte n, comparis ons of diffe re nt e ditions o f a work, which could have resulted in a be tte r text, s imply we nt undone . As a result, prefaces were omitte d, characters mis take n, maps mis dr awn a nd mis labe le d, and the appe arance o f or igina l texts change d dras tically. Such collation, the mode r n s cholar Sun Chie h- ti has obs erved, “may have amus e d those e ngage d in it ,” but was o f little value .84 Co n t e m ­ porarie s c ontinua lly comme nte d on poor pr oofr e ading in Ssu- k u e ditions . Onc e , in no less exalted a text than a poe m by the Ch ’ienlu n g Empe r or ’s gr andfathe r, a copyis t’s e rror tur ne d a pe ar blos s om into a plum blos s om.85 T he last straw came for the e mpe r or whe n he was pr oudly ins pe cting his new libr a r y in Je h o l a nd found one volume e ntire ly bla nk!86 These assessments of the Ssu- k u ma nus c r ipt containe d ele me nts of tr uth, to be sure, but they also reflected the ir author s perspective on the C h ie n*lung gove rnme nt a nd its s te wards hip of Chine s e

affairs (see be low). Pe rhaps the mos t inte re s ting issue which Ssu- k u errors posed in the ir own day was not one o f assessment but of a dminis tr a tion. Wh a t were the reasons for the mistakes, a nd how did C h ’ing officials perceive and re s pond to the m? Yii Min- chung, at least, seems to have be e n aware o f the qua lity o f collators ’ work, but seemed una ble to do a nything a bout it. A “Re cor d o f Wor k Accom­ plis he d” {ch'eng- kung- tsi) was kept in which the accomplis hme nts and failings o f each collator were re corde d. Ins pe cting it, Yu re marke d that “Exce pt for Ch o u fr om S h a ntung [ Chou Yung- nie n] , very few are re ally d ilig e n t. 87 O n anothe r occas ion, Yii wrote: “T he books you s ubmitte d for impe r ia l review were r e turne d in one day, b ut the e mpe r or pointe d out two errors. Re a d ing thr o ugh the books , these were very easy to see. If we are r e pr ima nde d like this again, [ our colors] will inde e d be fa d e d . 88 T he re were pr oba bly several reasons for the s lips hod e diting. On e was s urely the speed at which collators were expected to work. A p r i­ ma r y conce rn of the e mpe ror ’s, re pe ate d over a nd over in his edicts and poetry, was that the proje ct be comple te d quickly.89 As the books pile d up for collation, this be came more difficult. “Pr e vious ly,” Yii wrote ne rvous ly to Lu Hs i- hs iung one s umme r, “the rule was that each reviser s hould re ad five pages pe r day. But so ma ny books have be e n collected that each reviser mus t now re ad over thirte e n hundr e d volume s {ts3e). If the y re ad 160- 170 volume s pe r month , that would be s ufficient. If they could even re ad one h undr e d volume s pe r month , we could calculate a s che dule .” As s uming that even a s mall Chine s e “volume ” would have containe d at least twe nty folio pages, this me ant each reviser would have ha d to re ad be twe e n 2,000 a nd 3,200 folio pages pe r month! Ca ug h t be twe e n an impa tie nt e mpe r or a nd ove r burde ne d col­ lators, s e nior officials could only te mpor ize a nd me diate . Yu continue d: T he schedule that you and Chi Hsiao- lan worked out is of no value. Yet the e mpe ror still inquire s [ whether it is be ing met] . How shall I answer him? I am really frightened. You mus t discuss this matte r with the other collators and set a new schedule. T he n write me a letter. You can figure from the numbe r of volumes re maining. [ Maybe we] can compensate for having deceived the e mpe ror before.90

In the face o f such de mands for haste, the e ditors could har dly have expected une r r ing accuracy. Onc e , whe n the Ltang- chho kang- mu pei- yao (T he essentials o f the Kuang- ts ung a nd Ning- ts ung periods :

an outline his tory),91 a his tor y o f the Sung dynas ty wr itte n in the kang- mu for m, was s ubmitte d for impe r ia l review, Yii Min- c hung comme nte d that it was “all r ight if there [were] mis takes in the mu sections so lo ng as the kang were cor re ct.” T he kang were the he adings unde r which events were de s cribe d, the mu were the actual his tor ical nar r ations .92 Ano th e r factor pr oba bly affe cting collators ’ pe rfor mance was the tediousnes s o f the work a nd its ofte n ins ignificant result. Eve n a m a n like Yao Na i, who s hare d the C h u Yun circle’s e nthus ias m for s chol­ arly purs uits but not the ir c o m mitme nt to e vide ntial research, found that “although the Sung a nd Yua n comme ntar ie s are ma nifo ld , ofte n only one or two lines are wor th pre s e rving in e a c h . 93 References to books in the Yung- lo ta- tien were ofte n so fr agme ntar y or to texts o f such little value that no thing could be done with the m. Yii Minc hung r e mar ke d that the Yung- lo books were like “chicke n r ibs ,” nume r ous b ut not me aty; “however,” he asserted, “we mus t continue with the m. It will not do to tur n back in m id- ta s k. 94 T he Sung dynas ty wen- chi were par ticular ly trouble s ome . T he e nvir onme nt o f the Ssu- k’u proje ct mus t also have affected the collators. In the compe titive atmos phe re o f the H a n lin Acade my d ur ing late C h ie n- lung time s , as we have note d, a crucial e le me nt in career success was the atte ntion o f s e nior officials. If one worke d at the Ssu- kyu chyuan- shu Commis s ion, whe re success was me as ur e d in te rms o f the n um b e r o f titles recovered a nd pages collate d, the pr e ­ m iu m was on pr oduc ing as m uc h work as possible, regardless o f its quality or s ignificance . Re gre ttable as this s ituation was fr om the point o f vie w o f impe r ia l or s cholarly interests, it was an almos t ine vitable cons e que nce o f the bur e aucr atic e nvir onme nt o f the pr oj­ ect. Eulo g izing C h o u Yung- nie n, Ch a n g Hs ue h- ch’e ng charge d that in re cove ring books fr om the Yung- b, the officials at the Commis s ion picked only the easiest books, then claime d there were no more to be found. Chou (Yung- nien) alone argue d with the m, claiming that there were many more texts that could be reconstructed. His colleagues ignore d him . . . and left the task to Chou alone. Chou took no leisure; s umme r and winter, thr ough the winds and the rains [he searched] , re ading over nine thous and volumes and eighteen thous and chapters . . . As a result, the wen- chi of the Sung brothers Kung- shih and Kung- fei and ten othe r books were recovered.95

Eve n allowing for some dr a ma tic e xagge ration on Changes par t, the differences betwe e n scholars a nd bure aucr ats mus t be admitte d.

Dis c iplining the collators was a complicate d pr oble m. O n the one ha nd, the dynas ty’s prestige was at stake: errors in the manus cr ipts could unde r mine the effort to be ne fit scholars o f “te n thous and gene r ations .” O n the othe r h a nd, collators ’ errors were har dly matte rs o f life or de ath, a nd the re were ma ny possible e xplanations , a mo ng the m pressure fr om an impa tie nt e mpe ror, the natur e o f the work, a nd even the characte r o f the Chine s e language . T his conflict, be ­ tween dynas tic prestige a nd bur e aucr atic practicality, was one cha r ­ acteristic o f the era. It was never effectively resolved; as late as 1791, e ditors were orde re d to travel a r o und the e mpir e at the ir own ex­ pense corre cting errors in various versions o f the manus c r ipt. But the gove rnme nt’s atte mpts to solve the pr oble m o f errors in the Ssuk u manus cr ipts suggest m uc h a bout the qua lity a nd politics o f le a d­ e rs hip in the late r C h ie n- lung era. O n 13 Nove mbe r 1773 the e mpe ror, finding several mis takes in the Ssu- k u manus cr ipts s ubmitte d to h im , or de re d the Co m mis s io n to de libe rate a nd devise a me thod for pr e ve nting error. Two weeks later, Pr ince Yung- jung me mor ia lize d in response on be half of the Co m m is s io n.96 His me mo r ia l argue d that the pr oble m was two- fold: the work o f copyists was not be ing re ad thor oughly e nough, a nd the successes a nd failure s o f the collators were not be ing monitor e d care ­ fully e nough. Each day, he e x plaine d, the thirty- two Ssu- k u collators produce d over four h undr e d thous and words , while the twelve Ssu- k'u hui- yao collators pr oduce d two hundr e d thous and words. T he prince care fully avoide d s aying that this pace, pr oba bly ma inta ine d to please the e mpe ror, was too fast, or that the collators were ne glige nt. Ins te ad, he de clare d tha t the chie f collator e s tablis he d at the Wuying T hr one H a ll to pre par e manus cr ipts for impe r ia l review s imply could not keep up with the flow o f work. He r e c omme nde d the de s ig­ na tio n of twenty- two proofre ade rs {fu- chiao- kuan) to recheck all m a n u ­ scripts after the y were s ubmitte d to the Wu- ying T hr one Ha ll a nd before they were give n to the e mpe ror. Pr ince Yung- jung also r e comme nde d that a system of credits a nd de me rits be establis he d. Each collator or copyis t was to receive one cre dit for every corre ction he made in a manus cr ipt. If the pr oof­ re ade r found an error, he would receive a cre dit and the collator a nd copyist re s pons ible for the manus c r ipt would e ach receive a de me rit. If an e ditor discovered an error, copyist, collator and proofr e ade r would all receive de me rits . If the e mpe r or fo und an error, all three would receive de me rits a nd the s e nior e ditor would be tur ne d over

to the Boar d o f Punis hme nts for adminis tr ative dis cipline . At the e nd o f five years, the collators a nd copyists were to be r e c omme nde d for a ppo intm e nt to office on the basis o f the a m o unt o f work they ha d accomplis he d a nd the num b e r of credits and de me rits they ha d accumulate d. Ir onically, those who ha d accumula te d the mos t de me rits were to be re taine d at the Co mmis s io n for a n extra two years before be ing a ppointe d to office. On e mode r n s tude nt of the proje ct has ar gue d that these s anctions were “very lig h t 97 but in fact they seem to have been well s uite d to the fr ame work o f incentives a nd pressures w ithin which collators worked. De s pite these meas ures , the e mpe r or c ontinue d to find errors in manus cr ipts s ubmitte d to h im . His response was s hape d by two te n­ dencies which, par ticular ly in the late r years o f his re ign, characte r­ ize d his political be havior: to e ntr us t his affairs to a re lative ly few me n, and to hold the m pe rs onally re s pons ible for the successes and failure s o f his policies .98 T he pr oble m, the e mpe r or re as one d in an e dict of Ma r c h 1774 mus t have la in with the me n a ppointe d as directors- general {tsungtsai). “Ho w can they cast aside the ir dutie s so lightly?” he e xclaime d. But not all the directors were e qually to blame : Among the m (there are some) like my sixth son Yung- jung, Shu- ho- te, and Fu- Lung- an, who although they were appointe d dire ctor were not expected to read manuscripts . . . . As for Ying- lien he is in charge of banne r affairs and the impe r ial hous e hold and is too busy to read ma nu­ scripts. Chin Chie n is also in charge of other matters. Yii Min- chung s hould be re ading manus cripts but is pr obably busy with his secretarial duties and the managing of the Gr a nd C o u n c il."

T he othe r directors , however, me n like Ts’ao Hs iu- hs ie n, Wa ng Chihua, Ts’a i Hs in, Ch a n g Jo- kue i and Li Yu- tang, had be e n ne glige nt and s hould be tur ne d over to the Boar d o f Pe rs onne l for a dminis tr a ­ tive punis hme nt. T he list of directors reads like a “who’s who” at the C h ie n- lung court. Eve n those who were to be punis he d were me n o f cons ide rable authority: Ts’ao Hs iu- hs ie n was pre s ide nt of the Boa r d o f Works , Wa ng Chi- hua was pre s ide nt o f the Boar d o f Pe rs onne l, a nd Ts’a i Hs in was successively pre s ide nt of the Board of Works , Rite s and Pe rs onne l d u r in g the e arly years of the Ssu- k’u pr oje ct.100 In effect, the e mpe r or was char ging mos t o f the s e nior officials o f his gove rn­ me nt with re s pons ibility for the failure s of the Ssu- k’u project. He did not, he as s ure d the directors , expect the m to re ad every word of

every manus c r ipt s ubmitte d; b ut they s hould have re ad e nough of the text to keep the collators on the ir toes a nd set a pe rs onal example . T he s ame gr oup was r e pr ima nde d again in the fall o f 1774: “It has be e n five months since I left for Je hol. Ho w is it that the directors have still not le arne d to collate ?” In the winte r o f 1779, a ne w gr oup o f s e nior readers (tsung- yueh- kuan) was a ppointe d to review Ssu- k’u manus cr ipts for e rr or.101 T he pressure on s e nior officials mus t have be e n e normous , as were, no doubt, the te mptations to avoid r e pr ima nd by conce aling e vide nce o f failure s fr om impe r ia l view. In one o f Yii’s letters quote d above, the councillor confessed to Lu Hs i- hs iung that he was “really ne rvous ” a bout the e mpe r or ’s dis cove ring that the work s chedule was not be ing me t, a nd urge d Lu to devise a ne w s chedule so that Yu could “make u p for ha ving deceived the e mpe r or p re v io u s ly . 102 In anothe r letter, Yu discussed how the errors in the I lin (Anthology o f ideas), a T ’a ng dynas ty anthology r e pr inte d in the Wu- ying Ha ll Colle ctane a, could be corrected, and advis e d Lu to go ahe ad with the necessary proce dure s w ithout impe r ial approval. “I will advis e the e mpe r or o f the pr oble m whe n the time is r ig h t. 103 In this s itua­ tion o f impe r ia l impatie nce a nd bur e aucr atic mis r e pr e s e ntation, it would have be e n easy for a ne w m a n, or a m a n fr om a ne w faction, to e arn impe r ia l esteem by p o inting out the de ce ptions a nd errors o f his predecessor. Such a m a n was r is ing in the C h ie n- lung court o f the late 1770s. Ho- s he n pr oba bly first attracte d impe r ia l atte ntion whe n he was appointe d to the impe r ia l body gua r d in 17 7 2 .104 Du r in g the next few years, he rose r apidly thr o ugh the inne r court bure aucracy, be ing a ppointe d in 1778 to the lucrative post o f s upe r inte nde nt o f the cus ­ toms a nd octroi at the C h ung- wen gate in Pe king. Ho- shen s first impo r ta nt political commis s ion came in the winte r o f 1780 whe n he was sent to investigate charges o f c or r uption agains t the governorge ne ral o f Yun na n , Li Shih- yao. T his he did mos t thor oughly, with the result that Li and ma ny o f his s ubor dinate s were dis mis s e d a nd ba nis he d.105 T he e mpe r or was e vide ntly de lighte d with the young ba nne r m a n’s reports; even before he r e turne d to Pe king, Ho- s hen was appointe d pre s ide nt o f the Boar d o f Finance , a nd shortly the re ­ afte r he was be tr othe d to the e m pe ror s younge s t daughte r , Princess Ho- hsiao. Yu Min- c hung die d in late Ja n u a r y o f 1780 le aving vacant posts as chie f gr and councillor, lite r ary secretary to the e mpe ror, e ditor o f

the Jih- hsia chiu- wen kho (A his tor y o f the Pe king re gion), the M ing shih, the Liao- Chin- Yuan shih (His to r y o f the late Liao, C h in a nd Yiia n dynas tie s ), a nd the Man- chou yuan- liu kho (A s tudy o f the or igins a nd de ve lopme nt o f the Ma nc hus ), a nd director- general o f the Ssu- k u ch'iian- shu proje ct, posts fr om which he was s aid to contr ol the de s tiny o f all the scholars in the e mpir e .106 W it h in two years, Ho- s he n occu­ pie d all o f these posts, except the e ditors hip o f the M ing shih, a text large ly comple te by the late 1770s. He was alre ady e ditor of the Manchou yuan- liu kho a nd the Liao- Chin- Yuan shih at the time o f Yii’s de ath, a nd was a ppointe d e ditor o f the Jih- hsia chiu- wen kho in 1781. A- kuei (1717- 1797) anothe r Ma n c h u , was for mally de s ignate d chie f gr and councillor, but as e arly as the s pring o f 1781 Ho- s he n func tione d as chie f in his absence. O n 4 Nove mbe r 1781 the for me r bodygua r d was appointe d director- general o f the Ssu- kyu ch'iian- shu pr oje ct.107 Ho- shen s first official act as director- general, pe r for me d the day after his a ppointm e nt, was to indict Ts’ao We n- chih (1735- 1798) a se nior Chine s e s tate s man who was coe ditor o f the Liao- Chin- Yuan shih, for fa iling to re port spaces left bla nk by the collator o f Ch'ing- hsia chi (Colle cte d works o f the s cholar of C h ing- hs ia m o u n ta in ) by the e arly M in g official Sung Lie n (1310- 1381). T he spaces ha d be e n left blank, it s eemed, in or de r to e limina te a nti- Ma nc hu references.108 Alt houg h this was by no me ans the first expression o f conce rn about anti- Ma nc hu references in lite r ature , the fact that ne wly as ce ndant Ma n c h u leaders us ed the issue agains t the ir Chine s e counte r parts ha d omino us implications . T hr o ug ho ut the C h ienlun g re ign, there was a fairly r e gular a lte r nation o f the Ma n c h u a nd Chine s e leaders at the court. Firs t the Ma n c h u O- erh- t’a i the n the Chine s e Ch a n g T ing- yii the n the Ma n c h u Fu- heng, the n the C h i­ nese Liu T ung- hs un and Yii Min- chung, the n the Ma nc h us A- kuei and Ho- s hen served as chie f gr and councillors . As s ociate d with several o f these leaders were s ignificant groups o f bure aucrats , al­ though the C h ie n- lung e mpe ror was very sensitive to any public me ntion o f the m. T he re is e vide nce that at least in the cases o f the trans itions fr om O- erh- t’ai to Ch a n g T ’ing- yii a nd Yu Min- c hung to Ho- s hen the partis ans were also to use the fact of e thnic diffe r­ ences to the ir own factional e nds .109 Mo r e re le vant to the collation o f Ssu- ^u chyiian- shuy however, was the fact that Ho- s hen, appa r e ntly fr om his very first day at the C o m m is ­ sion, took upon hims e lf the task o f p o int ing out errors in the m a n u ­ script to the e mpe ror. T his role received impe r ia l s anction e arly in

Ho- shen s te nure . In accordance with Pr ince Yung- jung s me mo r ia l o f Nove mbe r 1772 (s umma r ize d above), reports o f the de me rits e arne d by each collator were s ubmitte d to the e mpe r or quar te r ly.110 T he credits, if the y were tabulate d, were not re porte d to the e mpe r ­ or, he nce the na me for the docume nts , “errors lists” (chi- kuo- chi). T he first errors list for 1781 was pre face d by an impe r ia l orde r c o m m a n d ­ ing Ho- s hen a nd A- kuei to take charge o f r e ading books and r e por t­ ing e rrors .111 T he c o m m a nd was r e printe d in every errors list afte r 1781, but was not me ntione d in any lists before that date. In vie w o f the numb e r o f dutie s that devolve d on Ho- s he n afte r 1780 it was unlike ly that he pe rs onally re ad every Ssu- k’u text; nonetheless , he bore final re s pons ibility a nd mus t have set the tone a nd guide line s for the task. T he watchful ne w adminis tr ator s found m a ny mor e mis take s tha n had the ir predecessors. Du r in g the last two years o f Yu Min- c hung ’s life, 221 a nd 259 de me rits were re porte d. In 1781 5,006 de me rits were re ported; in 1782, 7,072 were re porte d a nd in 1782, 12,033 were issued. T he re ports were not made afte r 1784.112 Possibly, the errors in these re ports were exaggerated, or at least counte d retroactively, for at least one o f the e ditors was charge d with de me rits pos thu­ mous ly.113 T he cons equences o f ne w e ditor ial vigilance for Ssu- k u editors were mos t vividly de mons tr ate d in 1787. At that time , five copies of the ma nus c r ipt libr a r y ha d be e n comple te d. Le afing thr o ugh his ne w libr a r y at r a ndo m, the e mpe r or found ma ny mis take s and omis s ions , a nd so appointe d a Co m mitte e he ade d by Ho- s he n to ins pe ct a nd correct the volume s .114 Afte r the new Co mmitte e ha d be e n at work for about a m onth, it be came clear that muc h r e maine d to be done . In late Ju ly for me r chie f e ditor C h i Hs iao- lan, whose guilt in the matte r had be e n te r me d “uns pe akable ” by both the e mpe r or a nd Hoshen, s ubmitte d a me mor ia l o f apology a nd offered to travel to M a n ­ chur ia with assistants at his own expense to make the necessary cor re ctions .115 His offer was accepted, a nd in Nove mbe r he arrive d at Je h o l.116 Wo r king conditions were not what they ha d be e n in Pe­ king. T he gr oup was locate d outs ide the m a in gate o f the We n- lu Pavilion where the manus cr ipts were stored. Ch ill Nove mbe r winds ble w thr ough the work rooms , a nd one collator was s aid to have pe ris he d fr om the cold. Possibly a dding ins ult to injury, several Ma n c h u soldiers fr om the garris on were as s igne d to watch the gr oup as they worke d a nd “to he lp the m as necessary.” Afte r a bout two

months C h i me mor ialize d c la iming that the work, which ha d take n years to accomplis h in Pe king, could be reviewed a nd corrected in a bout three months . “In the capital, each o f us ha d private affairs which una voida bly e xte nde d the wor k,” he e xplaine d. He therefore re que s te d pe r mis s ion to r e tur n home w ithin a month. “Wh y not stay a little longe r?” the e mpe r or re marke d acidly on the m e m o r ia l.117 Not s urpris ingly, many Ssu- k u pe rs onne l were oppos e d to Hos hen d ur in g his time in office, a nd were active in his demis e. C h en C h ang- chi a Yung- lo reviser, s ubmitte d a me mo r ial pr oba bly in the late 1780s ur g in g that the e ducation commis s ione r in Ch ih li be charge d with inve s tigating cor r uption at the court. Yin Chuang- t u a se nior re ade r at the Commis s io n, bare ly escaped w ith his life whe n he suggested that “c or r uption was ge ne ral thr oughout the e mpir e a nd tre as ury deficits existed e ve rywhe re ,” with the a ppa r e nt imp lic a ­ tion that Ho- s hen was at fault. Anothe r Yung- lo reviser, M o Chanlu, was sent to investigate the pr ope r ty accumulate d by Ho- s hen a nd his servants after his demis e. Finally, one o f the mos t e xplicit a nd te lling indic tme nts o f Ho- s hen, the famous letter to Pr ince C h ’e ng was wr itte n in 1800 by H u n g Liang- chi. H u n g was a very close fr ie nd o f C h u Yun, and was also the associate a nd biog r aphe r o f ma ny Ssu- k u collators , and pr oba bly served on the Co mmis s io n in s ome capacity hims e lf, though he is not lis te d on the pe rs onne l list o f 1782.118 Ce rtainly, Ho- shen,s actions as director- general o f the Ssu- k,u Commis s ion were not the only causes for oppos ition to him . Ho w ­ ever, his role at the Co mmis s ion was pr oba bly typical o f the kind of action which br o ught about not only his own rise a nd de mis e , but those o f many s e nior o cials o f the era. T he Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu was only one of several gr and ca mpaigns which the C h ’ie n- lung e mpe r or impos e d on his bure aucr acy a nd ar my in the last years o f his re ign. These projects would have taxe d the resources of C h ’ing gove rnme nt even if it ha d not alre ady be e n s traine d by a d o ub ling p o pula tio n and conc omita nt social a nd e conomic te ns ions . Liu T bng- hs un’s oppos i­ tion to the gr ande r propos als o f C h u Yun ’s me mo r ia l reflected his r e cognition o f the toll o f time a nd e ne rgy these projects would exact. Ca ug h t between a n impa tie nt e mpe r or a nd an ove re xtende d bur e a u­ cracy, s e nior officials faced an almos t ins oluble dile mma : e ithe r they could a d mit the ir ina bility to carry out the e mpe ror ’s will, with pos ­ sibly dis as trous cons equences for themselves, or the y could tr y to conce al the ir failure s with the atte ndant risk o f re ve lation a nd

de nunc ia tion. T he errors in the Ssu- k u manus c r ipt, unfortunate ly, could ne ithe r be revealed nor long conce ale d. Mu c h o f Ho- shen s e arly career was s pe nt in inve s tigating a nd r e por ting on the de ce p­ tions a nd failure s o f his predecessors in Yun na n , at the Boar d o f F i­ nance , a nd at the Ssu- k u Commis s ion. Afte r his own fall, ma ny o f his de ce ptions , par ticular ly in the ca mpa ig n agains t the White Lotus upr is ing, were de nounce d by his oppone nts . Wh ile m uc h dis cus s ion o f Ho- s hen has focused on his greed a nd othe r pe rs onal characte ris ­ tics, little atte ntion has be e n give n to the political a nd ins titutio nal e nvir onme nt in which he rose a nd fell. To say that Ho- s he n profite d fr om the e xis ting s ituation o f a cor r upt and overe xtende d bur e a u­ cracy, or that the powers he exercised over pe rs onne l a nd the de ce p­ tions he practice d on the e mpe r or ha d the ir pre ce de nts is not to de ny that his cor r uption a nd greed were mor e flagr ant or his be havior more booris h than his predecessors. It is s imply to suggest that the excesses of his te nure were weaknesses o f an era as well as of an individua l. T he P ro d u c t T he products o f the Ssu- k u c ompila tion project were: (1) Seven manus c r ipt copies, each 36,500 chUan long, o f the Ssu- k'u ch'iian- shu, the books selected by the Ssu- k u Co mmis s io n for inclus ion in the imp e ­ rial libr a r y .119 (2) A list o f the titles a nd author s of the books in this colle ction, with s ome what abbr e viate d reviews, e ntitle d the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu chien- ming mu- lu (A s horte ne d catalog of the Ssu- k u cKixanshu).120 (3) A shorter vers ion o f the Ssu- k u ch'uan- shu c ompilation, 11,170 ckuan long, c onta ining only the mos t impor ta nt works in the colle ction, e ntitle d the Ssu- k u ch}iian- shu hui yao (T he essentials of the Ssu- k'u chuan- sku).121 (4) A series o f 134 titles, known as the Wu- ying'tien chen- chu pan ts'ung- shu (Colle ctane a pr inte d fr om as s e mble d pearls in the Wu- ying throne hall), which r e pr inte d in move able type the rarest and mos t valuable works in the Ssu- k u .122 (5) An annotate d catalog, 4,490 pages lo ng in its mode r n r e print, e ntitle d Ssu- k u ch'uanshu tsung- mu t’i- yao (Anno ta te d ge ne ral catalog o f the Ssu- k'u ch'iianshu).123 Pe rhaps the mos t balance d e valuation o f these products was by Yii Chia- hs i (ca. 1890- 1960) a bibliog r a phe r who devoted his life to the s tudy o f the Ssu- k'u ch'uan- sku catalog: To say that there has been no work like this since Liu Hs iang^ Pieh- lu would not be excessive. [Its benefits] were felt thr oughout the empire,

and soaked deeply [ into the roots of Chine s e scholarship] . Since the Taokuang and Chia- ch ing periods, there have not been any scholars who have not partake n of its riches, or used it as a compass needle to find the ir way. Its accomplis hme nts were great and its utility vast. O f course, in a work which attempts to preserve all the accumulate d insights of the past, some proble ms are unavoidable . Furthe rmore , this was a work of official scholarship, a product of many hands , accom­ plished within a limite d pe riod of time by me n who had to meet bur e au­ cratic standards. Wit h in ten years, seven copies of the Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu and two copies of the Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu hui- yao were finished. Ine vitably, copyist’s errors were many and ge nuine insights few. Moreover, in these years, ten new works of impe r ial scholarship were commis s ione d, and several hundr e d books were reconstructed from the Yung-lo ta-tien. Be­ tween lis ting the books, e diting and correcting the m, ba nning some and making sure that the taboos were observed in others, when was there time for ge nuine research? Furthe rmore , there was the difficulty of ob­ taining reference works. If one borrowed the m from the impe r ial library, [one risked] the pe nalty for los ing the m. If one relied on private hold­ ings, the n the reference collections were incomple te .124

A mor e thor ough e valuation tha n Yii’s would pr oba bly be be yond the capacities of any mode r n scholar. For this reas on, Yii’s s ugges tion that the faults o f the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu were es s entially the faults o f a system is par ticular ly valuable . Spons ors hip o f the proje ct was ha r dly haphaza r d. Collator s were selected, s upe rvis e d, compe ns ate d and coor dinate d not by accide nt, b ut by a care fully for mula te d de s ign that expressed the prioritie s a nd attitude s o f e mpe ror a nd bur e a u­ crats toward scholars a nd scholars hip. T he accomplis hme nts and failure s o f the Ssu- k’u Co mmis s ion were not so m uc h those o f in d i­ viduals as those of a gove rnme nt. Conversely, ma ny assessments o f the Ssu- k u Co mmis s io n’s products in the pas t two ce nturie s have re pres ented s tate me nts about the gove rnme nt which orde re d the c ompila tio n as well as catalogs o f lacunae a nd accomplis hme nts . T he earliest scholars who assessed the Ssu- k’u Wa n g T ai- yueh (1722- 1785), Ju a n Yua n (1764- 1849) and Shao I- chen (1810- 1861) were me n who s hared the bas ic as s ump­ tions o f Ssu- k’u editors. T he ir writings , re ally more s upple me nts tha n critique s , te nde d to note the occas ional omis s ion or mis pr int rathe r tha n to call into que s tion funda me nta l a s s umptions .125 Mia o C h iian- s un (1844- 1919) was a bit bolde r, or at least more rhe torical, in his criticis m, obs e rving that “ma ny books were inc lude d which ought to have be e n omitte d, a nd ma ny were omitte d that ought to have be e n inc lude d,” with the res ult that the libr a r y ha d its s trong and weak points .126

M ia o s obs e rvations were too vague to cons titute a critique , but m a ny of his conte mpor ar ie s , less cons tr aine d by loyalty to the C h in g a nd more infla me d by anti- Ma nc hu pas s ions , we nt furthe r. Yu Yue h (1821- 1907) note d that a ltho ugh the Ssu- k u ha d its s trengths, it was wr itte n to contr ol thought r athe r tha n c ontr ibute to s cholars hip. T he pr oble m, as Y u saw it, was that no one could re fute the Ssu- k’u as, for ins tance , C h ’e n Yueh- wen (chin- shih, 1553) ha d re fute d Yang She n’s writings on bibliography. If inte lle ctuals m a in func tio n was to articulate ir re futable gove rnme nt pos itions , Yii asked, how could they ever serve or be appre ciate d by society? Y ii s mor e radical dis ci­ ple Ch a n g Ping- lin (1869- 1936) took up this the me in his “La m e nt for Bur ne d Books ,” char acte r izing C h i Hs iao- lan a nd his assistants as he nchme n o f a fore ign gove rnme nt be nt on he avy- hande d ide o­ logical m a n ip u la t io n .127 Post- 1911 s cholars hip on the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu has be e n s ome what less s hrill, b ut at least par t o f the bur de n o f mos t Re public a n pe riod writings on the text has be e n to explore ways in which the C h ’ing gove rnme nt s ought to contr ol thought by s uppre s s ing fore ign doc­ trine s and m a k in g te xtual e me ndations . T he only Englis h language work de aling with the Ssu- k u proje ct, L. Ca r r in g to n Go odr ic h’s The Literary Inquisition of Ch’ien- lung argues that the book colle ction was “ins e parably linke d” with a n effort o f thought contr ol a nd s uppre s ­ s ion.128 Simila r ly patr iotic conce rns have fue le d ar gume nts that the anti- inte lle ctualis m o f C h in g rulers res ulted in a fairly cavalie r a tt i­ tude toward the texts o f the Ssu- k’u cKuan- ska, a nd carelessness in the matte r of mis pr ints a nd omis s ions . Ano th e r the me o f twe ntie th ce n­ tur y s cholars hip reflected in revis ions o f the Ssu- k’u was the intr o ­ duc tion o f Eur o pe a n s cholarly s tandards a nd attitude s into Ch in a . A 1929 s tudy o f the Ssu- k u is pre face d with the obs e rvation that “as s cholars hip has be come more comple x, the ne e d for more precise ref­ erence aids be come s more pres s ing, a nd the te chnique s for c o m pil­ ing the m mor e vita l.”129 Inde e d, the several indice s to the Ssu- k’u pr obably reflect this po int o f view. T we ntie th- ce ntural na tiona lis m, a nd inte r na tio na lis m, have also affected work on Gh ie n- lung s book colle ction. In 1917 the Japane s e gove r nme nt tur ne d over its por tio n o f the Boxer In d e m n it y to the Or ie nta l Cu lt u r a l Ente rpris e C o m m it ­ tee (T ung- fang we n- hua shih- yeh we i- yuan- hui), which in tur n gr ante d the reques t of a num b e r o f Chine s e scholars a nd politicians that a re vis ion a nd c o ntinua tio n o f the Ssu- k u be unde r take n. T he proje ct was accomplis he d large ly by Chine s e scholars a nd continue d u n t il 1925 a lthough m a ny o f the Chine s e par ticipa nts in the proje ct

fled s outh after the Japane s e invas ion. T he pr oduct o f this effort was stored in the Hum a n is tic Re s e arch Ins titute o f Kyoto Unive r s ity until it was publis he d in thir te e n volume s by the Co m me r c ia l Press, T aipe i in 1971.130 Mo r e recently, the Ssu- k u has be e n seen by at least some Chine s e scholars as an obje ct the y can re gard, or at least r e print, with pride . In 1982, the Co m me r c ia l Press (T aipe i) und e r ­ took to r e pr int the e ntire Ssu- k'u chyuan- shu as a me ans “o f e ns ur ing that the treasures o f Chine s e thought a nd cultur e the r e in be pre ­ served fr om e x tinc tio n,” a nd offered the pr oduct for sale to the public at an appr ox ima te cost o f $27,000 U.S .131 No inte lle ctual vis ion can s tand forever. At the broade s t level, the revis ions o f the Ssu- k,u cHuan- shu propos e d and accomplis he d in the last two ce nturie s have de mons tr ate d how Ghina,s tur bule nt mode r n his tory has influe nce d its inte lle ctuals vie w o f the ir role in society and the ir s cholarly heritage . At a more concrete level, the criticis ms have suggested ju s t how closely the Ssu- k u reflected the series of inte lle ctual a nd ins titutio nal compr omis e s in the 1770s which pr o ­ duce d it. Two o f the mos t fr e que nt criticis ms , that the crite r ia for de c iding which books were to be include d in it were uncle ar, overly political a nd incons is te nt, a nd that ma ny texts in it were e dite d to s uit the political or bure aucr atic conve nie nce of the rulers, have been par ticular ly te lling in this re gard. Ho w comple te s hould a “comple te lib r a r y ” be? Acc or ding to the Annotated Catalog at least 10,869 works were e xamine d in the course of the collating a nd selection process; 3,697 o f these were de e me d worthy o f inclus ion in the Ssu- k’u ch iian- shu a nd 134 were r e pr inte d in the Collectanea. T he r e ma ining 7,038 were listed as “e xtant” in the Catalog a nd give n s ome what abbr e viate d reviews. T he Ch ie n- lung lis ting was by far the largest in Chine s e history, a nd pe rhaps the largest in the wor ld o f its day. T he scope o f the proje ct was, in great me as ure , a cons e que nce of impe r ial a mbitio ns to supersede all pre vious book colle ction efforts. T he e mpe r or touche d upon the impor ta nce o f unpr e ce de nte d scope in his e dict o f 3 Ma r c h 1773 on the Yung- lo ta- tien b ut e vide ntly dis ­ cussed the matte r more fr ankly late r with his chie f councillor, Yu Min- c hung .132 In a letter writte n d u r in g the s umme r o f 1773 Yu re porte d to Lu Hs i- hs iung: At today’s mor ning audience, the empe ror inquir e d which dynas ty’s book collection project had collected the most books, and which was the most beneficial. Could you look into this matte r carefully and report back to me by the seventeenth? His Maje s ty also asked whether or not the

Yung-lo ta-tien project is recorded in the Ming-shih (Official history of the Min g dynasty). Please investigate and s ubmit a me mor ia l.133

O n the 19th o f Augus t, Yu chide d Lu: “You still have not re s ponde d to my request for a re port on which dynas ty collected the mos t books . I th ink we ha d be tte r use chuan to count. T he last re port I re ­ ceived on the books e xamine d by the book bur e au a nd forwarde d fr om the province s us ed titles (as a s tandard). Do you think we can gathe r several tens o f thous ands o f M an ?”134 Numbe r s o f books collected be came a s tandar d o f the success o f the proje ct. Yu once couns e lle d the editors: “It will not be a pr oble m if there are n’t ma ny collected writings of M in g author s so lo ng as we list ten thous and titles in the Annotated Catalog.” Expre s s ions like “te n thous and” {wan) were us ually us ed figurative ly in Chine s e w r iting to me an “a great many ,” however, it was pr oba bly not coincide ntal that the An­ notated Catalog containe d jus t over te n thous and titles. T he s ubject matte r o f the books inc lude d in the Ssu- k}u chyuan- shu also reflected impe r ia l purposes. In his first pr onounc e me nt on book colle cting, the e mpe ror s ought writings which “clarifie d the s tudy o f gove rnme nt” or “conce rne d m a n ’s essential n a tu re . 136 In view o f the tr a ditional conce rn of Co nfuc ia n thought with m a n a nd how he was to be governed, this was a manda te br oad e nough to include mos t o f Ch in a ’s lite r ary heritage , but it was not unlimite d. T he crucial cr i­ te r ion was utility. T he “Pr inciple s ” (fan- li) of the Annotated Catalog asserted bluntly that the “le a r ning o f the sages e mphas ize d clar ifying the essence in or de r to achieve usefulness. All wr itings in which r e ali­ ties cannot be seen clearly are wasted w ords . 137 An e mpe ror c ulti­ vate d le a r ning in his r e alm not for its own sake, but for the ins ight it gave h im into gove rnme nt a nd the way o f the sages. Pe rhaps mos t controve rs ial were the Co mmis s io n’s de cis ions about which books were worthy o f be ing pr inte d in the Collectanea, which were worthy o f be ing copie d into the impe r ia l library, a nd which only deserved tr e atme nt in the Annotated Catalog a nd which were to be ignor e d altogether. As Yao Ming- ta has pointe d out, the divis ion o f books into categories by qua lit y was unpr e ce de nte d in impe r ia l book colle cting projects, which ha d pre vious ly s imply copie d all e xtant books . T he C h ie n- lung practice o f d iv id in g books into classes may have reflected the e mpe r or ’s desire to pass ju d g m e n t as well as to collect books , but it pr oba bly also reflected pr oble ms posed by the e nor mous n um b e r of books in cir culation in the late e ighte e nth

ce ntur y.138 Jt would have be e n a m uc h more complicate d process for the C h ie n- lung gove rnme nt to have atte mpte d to pr int or copy all the works in cir culation. None the le s s , the as s ignme nt o f a give n text to one o f these four categories was, as Yii Min- c hung r e marke d in 1774 a matte r over which scholars could easily have differences o f opinio n. T he mos t severely restricted category was the first; only 134 titles, or 1.25% of the books ins pe cte d in the proje ct were pr inte d in the Collectanea. Anothe r 3,697 books , or appr ox imate ly 33.2% o f the books in ­ spected in the proje ct were copie d into the impe r ia l manus c r ipt li­ br ary (see Table 3- 2). Two crite r ia were me ntione d by Yii for books which were to be include d in the Collectanea: a book mus t have be e n e ithe r o f “real be ne fit to h u m a n unde r s ta nding” or else “very s e ldom s e e n.” T he public a tio n o f books which were not e xtant before the Ssu- k u proje ct, that is, those recovered fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien, would “increase the ir cir culation and so be a real be ne fit to s c ho la rs . 139 In a s ubs e que nt letter, Yii advis e d the e ditors that in as s igning books to all categories, they could be “le nie nt with books writte n before [ the e nd o f the] Yua n dynas ty a nd more severe with those writte n afte r the [ be ginning of the] M in g .” T his e mphas is on preM in g texts was in effect an e mphas is on Sung a nd Yua n texts, since very few pre - Sung texts circulate d in any form. It pr oba bly was motivate d by both s cholarly a nd political cons ide rations . T he s chol­ arly c o m m unity ha d lo ng urge d that the proje ct focus on the books o f these two pe riods ; a nd a ltho ugh C h u Yun’s propos al that the p r o j­ ect for mally do so was rejected, his hopes were in fact re alize d. T he de nigr a tion o f M in g s cholars hip e vide nt thr o ughout the Ssu- k'u cKimn- shu almos t ce rtainly also e vince d a C h in g gove rnme nt desire to play up its own contr ibutions to Chine s e s cholars hip at the expense o f the dynas ty it ha d conque re d. As ide fr om these specific dire ctions , Y u couns e lle d the e ditors to use the ir own ju d g m e n t a nd s tandards o f prais e a nd blame in select­ ing books for the compila tio n. If a reviewer found m uc h to prais e in a book a nd nothing to blame , it s hould be pr inte d in the Collectanea. If he found re as on both to prais e a nd blame the book, it could be copie d into the Ssu- k u cKmn- ski. T hos e books which containe d little that was prais e worthy a nd m uc h that was conte mptible would be lis ted by title only in the Annotated Catalog. Evaluations o f books , like Confuc ius pr a is ing and b la m in g o f his tor ical figures in the Ch’uncKiu, were bas e d on a re vis e r^ assessment o f the ir mor a l worth. On ly

Figure 2. Nu m b e r o f Books Pr inte d, Copie d, a nd Lis te d in the Ssu- k'u ch iian- shu Acc or ding to Subje ct

2177

2012

Listed

! "

! " #

! " # !

PJ1

!

P 3 J S J

P 3 J S J

! " #

Copied

335

! C L AS S IC S

H IS T O R Y

!

P H IL O S O P H Y

B E LLE S LE T T RE S

Legend P (Printe d): Printe d in the Collectanea Printed from Assembled Pearls in the Wu Ying Copie d: Copie d in the Ssu- k’u ch'uan- shu Listed: Listed in the Annotated Catalog

if the c ompila tion was bas e d on s uch s tandards , Yu asserted, would it e nable late r scholars to “s traighte n out the quills a nd tr a ns mit the tr u th . 140 Anothe r o f Y ii s letters made it clear that the classics a nd comme ntarie s on the m were par ticular ly valuable ; in re cove ring books fr om the Yung- lo ta- tien “if only one or two te nths o f a text could be re cons tructe d, it was worth the e ffort.” 141 Several me as ure s attest that Y u's dicta were closely followed. As be fitte d colle ctions which s ought to re capture the way o f the sages, both the Ssu- k u chyuan- shu and the Collectanea include d gre ate r pe rce n­ tages o f books fr om the classics divis ion tha n fr om the othe r d iv i­ sions, history, philos ophy or belles lettres. Works recovered fr om the Yung- b ta- tien were par ticular ly favored by the editors: 21.02% of the m were pr inte d (as oppos e d to 5% o f texts collected fr om all othe r sources). T he e mphas is on pr e - Ming works was mos t e vide nt in the Collectanea (see fig. 2) which publis he d twenty- five books writte n before the Sung, eighty- five fr om the Sung a nd only te n fr om the Min g . T he Ssu- k'u cHuan- shu also showed this bias , however. While twenty- six chuan of the Annotated Catalog lis tings o f books copie d into the Ssu- k u were de vote d exclusively to Sung works, only te n chuan were devote d to M in g works. Conversely, in the section o f the catalog which lis te d books reviewed but not copie d into the Ssu- k u ch'tian- shu, twenty- six chuan were devoted to M in g works, while only three were devoted to Sung works. Also, as Kuo Po- kung has note d, works by disciples o f the M in g philos ophe r Wa ng Yang- ming (1472- 1529) appe ar to have be e n cons is te ntly ignore d: books by Wa n g ’s disciples Li Yung (1627- 1705) a nd H u a n g Tsung- hsi (1610- 1695) were only listed as e xtant in the catalog, a nd Wa ng ’s own works were listed unde r “belles lettres” r athe r than “clas s ics . 142 T he e vide nt s lighting of Wa ng Yang- ming may have reflected the e ditor ’s vie w that these works were not re ally us e ful, but it also reflected the a nti- Ming bias of the whole colle ction. T he s mall size a nd appare nt incons is tencies o f the sections on Buddhis t and Taoist texts have also be e n muc h criticize d. T he e mpe ror ’s ins tructions were that the e ditors s hould include only such works as were necessary for reference. T he Buddhis t section of the catalog inc lude d only thirte e n works, all writte n before the Yua n dynas ty, while the Taoist section include d forty- four books . Some of the e ditors ’ de cis ions were quite confus ing. T he y chose, for ins tance , to include a Sung Buddhis t work e ntitle d Kao- seng- ckuan (Biogr aphie s of e mine nt monks ),143 and ignor e d a T ’a ng text o f the s ame title.

T he re was even some confus ion a mo ng the editors themselves, for several works that Yii Min- c hung s pecifically re que s te d the editors to include do not appe ar in the catalog as we have it today. T hos e who lame nte d the s mall size o f the Buddhis t a nd Taoist lis t­ ings in the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu have ofte n ignor e d the fact that not only the e ditor ial principle s which gove rne d the selection o f Buddhis t and Taoist texts, but ofte n the specific titles to be include d were governed by his torical pre ce de nt. Vir t ua lly all o f the books lis te d in the Budd his m section o f the Ssu- k’u ha d be e n include d in e arlier book colle ctions , and the selection could pe rhaps be re garde d as the con­ sensus o f ge ne rations o f bibliogr aphe rs on “Wh a t a well- educated e mpe r or s hould know about Bu d d h is m .”144 A compar is on of the Ssu- k’u lis tings with those o f the seventeenthce ntur y Buddhis t biblio gr aphy Yueh- tshng chih- ching (A bibliogr a phic guide to the T r ipitaka) is s uggestive.145 T he Yueh- ts a ng compile d by C h ih Hs u (fl. ca. 1650) was divide d into four sections, the first three cor re s ponding to the three tr a ditional divis ions of the Buddhis t t r ip i­ taka. All o f the Ssu- k’u lis tings came fr om the four th divis ion o f the bibliogr aphy, that o f mis ce llane ous wr itings about Buddhis m. W it h ­ in this category, the Ssu- k’u editors chose only works by Chine s e author s , a nd did not choose works by author s clearly affiliate d with any o f the various schools o f Buddhis m. T he Ssu- k’u selections in ­ clude d the largest e xtant works in each o f the Yueh- ts ang s ubcate ­ gories for “mis ce llane ous essays “bio g ra phie s of m o nks ,” and “pre s e nting the fa it h .” T he only ind ivid ua l school to be represented in the Ssu- k u colle ction was the Ze n school, and the lis tings include d four works by Sung Ze n masters. Wh a t the Ssu- k u editors, and the e arlie r impe r ial bibliogr aphe rs w hom the y cited as pre ce de nt, a p­ pe ar to have be e n a im in g for was a br oad, s ecular vie w o f Chine s e Buddhis m uninflue nc e d by s e ctarian concerns . T he Buddhis t books so selected illus trate d the cultur al he ritage which Chine s e Buddhis m and Co nfuc ia nis m he ld in c ommon, a he ritage which it was the purpos e o f a “comple te colle ction” to h ig h ­ light. Similar itie s in the his torical de ve lopme nt of Co nfuc ia nis m and Buddhis m de mons tr ate d the inte rre late dne s s of the two doctrines . T he editors o f the impe r ial catalog were par tic ula r ly fond o f dr a wing a par alle l between the de ve lopme nt o f Ze n and o f Ne o- Confucianis m. T he bas ic the me o f Buddhis m, the catalog note d in one review, was the notion of kar ma, jus t as the bas ic the me o f Co nfuc ia nis m was the inte r pr e tation (hsun- ku) o f the six classics. Both Ze n and the

Ne o- Confucian s tudy of i a nd It were de parture s fr om these bas ic the me s , a nd both ha d e me rge d dur in g the Sung. T he a r gume nt here was not the us ual one, that Ze n ha d influe nce d the de ve lopme nt o f Ne o- Confucianis m, b ut that the two doctrine s were par alle l de par ­ tures fr om or igina l the me s ins pir e d by the s ame patte r ns o f Sung tho ug ht .146 In anothe r review, the catalog lame nte d the unfo r t una te te nde ncy o f bodie s o f doctr ine to s pawn s cholarly controversy. Before the T a ng the editors wrote, Co nfuc ia nis m and Bud d his m ha d c on­ te nde d p r ima r ily with each other. Afte r the e nd o f T a n g however, factionalis m incre as e d da ily a nd Co nfuc ia ns came to oppos e othe r Confucia ns , while Buddhis ts fought w ith each other. He r e the im p li­ cation was not that Co nfuc ia nis m a nd Bud d his m s hould go back to fighting with one anothe r, b ut tha t the te nde ncy to conte nd was a unive rs al one, o f which a unive rs al rule r s hould be aware .147 Nowhe re in the catalog did e ditors argue that an e mpe ror s hould know s ome thing about Buddhis m becaus e his subjects be lieved in it; to have made s uch an a r g ume nt would have pe rhaps conce de d too m uc h o f the e mpe r or ’s a uthor ity as an ar bite r o f abs olute tr uth. Ra the r , the pos ition o f the impe r ia l catalog was that there were ma ny lessons that a good Co n fuc ia n s hould le arn fr om Buddhis t books since, altho ugh Buddhis m was or iginally a fore ign doctrine , ce ntu­ ries o f de ve lopme nt w ithin C h in a h a d re nde re d it a par t o f the C h i­ nese inte lle ctual tr adition. It was becaus e Buddhis m ha d be e n influe nce d by Chine s e tr a ditio n, even influe nc ing it in ce rtain cases, that its books were us e ful to a Chine s e ruler. T he issues involve d in de te r mining the utility o f Taois t texts were s ome what diffe re nt. Whe r e Buddhis m, for all its comple xity, had an accepted body o f texts to which editors could refer, the task before Ssu- k’u editors in the case o f T aois m was to sort out what the or igina l m e a ning of T aois m was, a nd to labe l a nd classify s ubs e que nt accre­ tions . Issues o f prove nance , te xtual inte gr ity a nd philos ophical pur ity do mina te d the Ssu- k’u reviews o f Taoist books . T he Ssu- k u e ditors ’ attitude toward these issues may well have be e n expressed in the ir c omme nt in one review that Taoist books were us e ful in ce rtain respects, but the Taoists themselves “were not very o rd e rly . 148 T he the me s o f the Taoist s ection were set forth in its he adnote . “In recent time s , w r iting on ghosts a nd the s upe r natur al have be e n clas­ sified as Taoist. And , as one mig ht expect, Taoists have writte n about s uch matte rs , as for ins tance in the Shen- hsien chuan (Biogr aphie s o f the s pirits and im m o r ta ls ) the editors wrote. “But at base, T aois m is

conce rne d with pur ity a nd self- discipline, s ucce e ding thr o ugh p a ­ tience a nd self- restraint, contr olling hardne s s with softness a nd a dva ncing thr o ugh re tre at.” Mu c h o f what ha d tr a ditionally be e n classified as Taoist ne e de d, therefore, to be reclassified; the Shen- tzu and Han- fei- tzu be longe d to the school o f milita r y strategy, a nd the various writings on ghosts a nd spirits s hould be classified toge the r and apar t fr om mor e philos ophical Taoist writings . Mos t writings on these subjects, the catalog obs erved, were late r additions to the Taoist canon. De s pite the obvious ne e d for s ome r e or ganization, Taoists ha d be e n unable to cle an the ir own hous e , a nd therefore there seemed to the editors little point in doing so in the impe r ia l catalog. “But by e x a mining the writings tr a ditio nally classified as Taoist, the reasons for the e volution o f the school can be e s ta b lis he d . 149 T he impuls e to labe l a nd classify (pe rhaps even pigeon- hole) ancie nt writings was, as note d above, at the he art o f impe r ia l c o m pi­ la tion projects, a nd in the case o f Taoist texts this seems to have be e n par ticular ly impor ta nt. T he bas ic or ga niza tio nal pr inciple in the impe r ia l catalog was that the or igina tor o f a school or tr a dition would be listed at the be g innin g of the section on that school, fol­ lowed by various comme ntarie s lis te d in the or de r in which they were writte n. T his me ans that in mos t sections, inc lud ing the Buddhis t chapter, books were listed in chr onological order. In the Taoist sec­ tion, however, the editors s e parate d what they cons ide re d to be d if­ ferent strains of T aois m, each de r iving fr om an ancie nt text. Und e r each text, several comme ntar ie s were listed. T hus the Yin- fu- ching was listed first, followed by three comme ntar ie s ; the n the Tao- te- ching fol­ lowed by nine comme ntar ie s ; the n the Lieh- tzu, the Chuang- tzu a nd so forth. T he orde r in which the various strains o f T aois m were cons id­ ered in the Ssu- k’u catalog ge ne rally paralle le d the or de r in which they appe are d in the Tao- tsang and in pre vious impe r ia l biblio g r a ­ phie s .150 But the a nnotations o f the Gh ie n- lung editors made e xplicit a point which was only implic it, if pres ent at all, in pre vious b ib lio ­ gr aphical tre atme nts : that T aois m was an e xtre me ly diverse reflec­ tion o f ma ny tre nds w ithin Chine s e society rathe r tha n a cons is te nt philos ophical whole . Appr opriate ly, the first text which the e ditors felt de alt fairly with T aois m as a whole was the Yun- chi ch!i- ch!ien (A guide to Taoist writings ), a c ompila tio n pre pare d unde r the pa tr o n­ age o f a Sung e mpe r or .151 T he catalog was mos t s us picious o f texts which confus e d various s trains o f T aois m, or which confus e d T aois m with othe r s trains o f

Chine s e thought. Like C h u Hs i, the Ssu- k’u editors rejected the claim o f Su C h ’e (1039- 1112) that Taois m and Buddhis m de rive d ult i­ mate ly fr om the same s ource .152 T he y also rejected ve he me ntly the inte re s ting, a nd s ome what more like ly claim o f Hs u Ta- ch u n (16931771) that T aois m ante date d Co nfuc ia nis m, a nd that Taoist texts more closely repres ented the ideas o f the Ye llow Empe r or tha n the Six Classics. Lao- tzu, the catalog asserted, ha d live d in a time o f chaos a nd ha d evolved his philos ophy o f pur ity in response to tr ouble d times . It ha d not been Lao- tzu s inte ntio n that his work s hould ever be take n as the fo unda tion for the gove rnme nt o f a u n i­ fied e mpire . Ce rtainly, the sages o f a ntiquity ha d me ant the Six Cla s ­ sics, a nd not the Tao- te- ching, to be the guide s for the ir followe rs .153 Ssu- k u editors were also le ary o f those who practice d magic in the na me o f T aois m. But if magic were to be practice d, the editors seemed to argue , it ought to be writte n about unde r a Taoist labe l. For this reas on, the e ditors were care ful to point out, the y classified books a bout d ivina tio n which were bas ed on the I- ching unde r Tao­ ism. Pr e vious catalogs ha d classified s uch works as comme ntarie s on the I- ching, or unde r wu- hsing. But this seemed to the Ssu- k u editors to confus e the issue, with the par ticular ly pe rnicious effect o f s ug­ ges ting that Confucia ns ha d once approve d o f this sort o f t h in g .154 T hus the goal of the Taoist section o f the catalog was to es tablis h clearly, a nd in s ome cases to dis tinguis h betwe e n, the various p hilo ­ s ophical impuls e s which were calle d Taoist. Books which fur the re d this goal were useful; others which confus e d T aois m with othe r schools o f thought or which u n d u ly stressed te chnique s or practices were not. As in the case of Buddhis m, no me ntion was made o f popula r beliefs. T he line between corre cting mis writte n characters a nd actually e diting a text to change its conte nt was a fine one, a nd the editors o f the Ssu- k u undoubte dly e ngage d in both. T he s tatutory re cord makes it cle ar that the e mpe r or inte nde d his editors to make changes in ce rtain texts. He wrote of s ome colle ctions o f me mor ials by late M in g officials: Although there are many perverse words and sentences among the me morials , this cannot be held against the ir authors , for they were true to their own duties. Simply a few considered e me ndations ; and the origi­ nal works may stand for all time, to reveal to everyone how the Min g lost and how our own dynasty came to power, and to infor m my poster­ ity how the ir ancestors suffered to achieve e mpir e .155

Yii M in- chung s letters suggest that the editors we nt along with s uch practices, although they occas ionally did so with re luctance . In one case, he orde re d editors to cut fr om a Sung colle ction a br ie f essay e ntitle d “Chu- tzu chu- i” (Several propos als o f Mas te r Ch u ) con­ t a ining several suggestions the Sung s cholar C h u Hs i (1127- 1200) made for oppos ing the Ch in , or Jur c h e n invade rs .156 In anothe r le t­ ter he re marke d that one text was too c ommo nly us e d to be e dite d.157 To Yu ’s cre dit, he did ins tr uct editors that de le tions were to be clearly note d both in the Annotated Catalog a nd in the texts themselves, a l­ though this practice was not always followe d.158 Edito r ia l de le tions were not confine d to private ly pr inte d texts. In 1783 the e mpe ror obs erved that several references to the C h in dy­ nas ty in the impe r ia lly commis s ione d Tung- chien kang- mu hsu- pien (A c ontinua tion o f the Compr e he ns ive Mir r o r in outline for m) were not in accord with the rules o f tr ans cr iption that he ha d re ce ntly pr e ­ s cribe d.159 He therefore orde re d all pr ovincial editors to collect a nd e me nd all pr inte d e ditions bas ed on officially pre pare d de pos itory copies. T he process we nt on for at least two years, with pr ovincial governors r e quire d to re port at the e nd o f each year the num b e r o f copies the y ha d c ha nge d.160 Wh ile scholars have be e n aware for s ome years that the Ssu- k’u editors made changes in texts, few have made the de taile d c ompa r i­ sons o f pre- a nd post- Ssu- k’u texts necessary to assess the s ignificance of e ditor ial de le tions . P r e limina r y e vide nce indicate s , however, that mos t of the de le tions involve d e ithe r the e lim ina tio n of anti- fore ign references, stories a nd legends cir c ula ting a bout the Ma n c h u conque s t or early complaints about the characte r o f Ma n c h u a d m in ­ is tr ation. For ma ny years, for ins tance , it was as s ume d that C h ’ienlu n g editors made s ignificant revis ions in the text o f Ku Yen- wu s Jihchih- lu. T he as s umption was bas e d par tly on the facts o f K u ’s life. A towe ring figure in e arly C h in g inte lle ctual history, Ku was re garde d as one o f the mos t br illia nt a nd creative minds o f his era by c onte m­ porarie s , a nd revered as a founde r o f mode r n s cholars hip by eighte e nth- ce ntury inte lle ctuals . T he pr oble m was that, altho ugh K u ’s place in the s hadowy world o f seventeenth- century loyalist politics had yet to be care fully e s tablis hed, there were unmis taka ble signs of a nti- Ma nc hu activis m in his biography. Was he also too s e ditious to be e ndors e d? Such, at least, was the sugges tion o f Ch a n g Ping- lin who accus ed C h i Hs iao- lan a nd his “he nchme n” o f s ys te matically

e mas culating K u ’s work o f its social a nd political conte nt in the course o f the ir e ditor ial labor s .161 Initially, Changes sugges tion seemed plaus ible , since the ve rs ion of Jih- chih- lu in the Ssu- k'u cHmn- shu diffe re d fr om those c ir culating in the e arly twe ntie th century. However, closer e x a mina tion o f the catalog be lie d the notio n o f any s ystematic atte mpt to dis tort K u ’s work. Some twenty- three o f his works, almos t his e ntire corpus , were note d in the Annotated Catalog; fifteen were copie d into the impe r ia l libr a r y a nd e ight were give n br ie f notice . On ly seven othe r author s , one o f the m C h u Hs i, ha d as ma ny books reviewed. More ove r, o f the twenty- three works include d in the Ssu- k u o n ly two ha d pre vious ly be e n a par t of the impe r ia l library, a nd only one was de s cribe d as an e dition in c ommo n c ir c ula tion.162 T he r e ma inde r o f the works were dr awn fr om private collections , in par ticular , those o f the Liang- huai salt me rchants . On e cons e que nce o f the proje ct, the re ­ fore, was to place e ditions o f K u ’s work, whic h ha d pre vious ly be e n found only in the hands o f the we althy few, into the public doma in. Ho w could this cons e que nce be re concile d with the vie w that editors were ce ns oring K u s work? T he pr oble m was resolved in the e arly thirtie s o f this ce ntury whe n studies o f the prove nance o f the Jih- chih- lu revealed that the u n ­ e xpurgate d vers ion o f the work available today was unavailable in the e ighte e nth century. T he only ve rs ion o f the work which Ssu- k u e di­ tors could cite was an e xpurgate d one pre par e d by K u ’s own s t ude nts . s hortly afte r his de a th.163 Wh a t ha d seemed to Ch a n g Ping- lin a crime o f conscience prove d to be a matte r o f accide nts o f his torical prove nance . T he comple x inte raction be twe e n scholars a nd courtie rs in the e diting a nd e me nding process was illus trate d in the case o f the Chiu Wu- tai- shih (Old his tory of the Five Dynas tie s ). T his work, a his tory of the fifty- three years imme dia te ly pr e ce ding the Sun g dynas ty, was commis s ione d by the first Sung e mpe r or in 973 a nd pre s e nte d to the court by pr ime minis te r Hs ue h Chii- che ng in the following year. It dre w on the official archives of the pe riod to pres ent a factual na r r a ­ tive. At least fifty years later, the gre at Sun g prose mas te r Ou- yang Hs iu compile d the Hsin Wu- tai- shih (Ne w his tory o f the Five Dy na s ­ ties). Alt houg h Ou- y a n^s his tory was wr itte n in a cris p a nd attr ac­ tive prose style and e mbodie d the finest tr aditions o f Co nfuc ia n “prais e and bla me ” his toriography, it was not as re liable as the e arlie r

work. Both books were quote d d u r in g the Sung dynasty, but Ouyang Hs iu ’s prove d to be the more durable . Hs ue h’s his tory was copie d in par t into the Yung- lo ta- tien, but ha d be e n lost by the e igh­ te e nth ce ntury.164 In 1773 Shao Chin- han, one o f the few Yung- lo revisers a p ­ pointe d to the Ssu- k’u Co mmis s ion on the basis o f his r e puta tion as a his tor ian r athe r tha n his official pos ition, set a bout re cons tructing the text o f the Chiu Wu- tai- shih. He recovered large por tions o f it fr om the Yung- lo e ncyclope dia, a nd s upple me nte d the m where necessary with mate r ial dr awn fr om re le vant Sung dynas ty sources. His r e con­ s tructe d text was, therefore, as lo ng as H s ue h s or igina l, a nd pr o b ­ ably containe d m uc h the s ame info r ma tio n, but it was not Hs ue h’s exact text. To indicate whe re he ha d s upple me nte d or change d the or igina l, Shao wrote notes on s mall, yellow slips o f pape r a nd in ­ serted the m into the manus c r ipt, a nd pre pare d a long, b ib lio g r a ph ­ ical a ppe ndix .165 Wh e n the work was copie d into the Ssu- k u cHuan- shu a nd pr inte d in the Collectanea it was de cide d, e vide ntly afte r s ome de bate , not to include the bibliogr a phic a l appe ndix , to pr int all the collation notes at the e nd o f the text, a nd to make quite a few changes o f w or ding in Shao’s or iginal. T he pr oduct, which was ne ithe r pr ima r y fish nor s e condary fowl, mus t have hor r ifie d Shao who, as an e nthus ias tic kho- cheng scholar, ha d ofte n lambas te d editors pas t a nd pres ent who made changes in texts w ithout s howing the ir sources. It ce rtainly offe nde d many o f Shao’s fr ie nds .166 T im e and circums tance have, however, mitiga te d the seriousness o f the Ssu- k’u e ditors crime agains t the canons o f evidence. Several o f Shao’s friends e vide ntly made manus c r ipt copies o f his work for the ir own librarie s , inc lud ing the notes and appe ndix . On e o f these was publis he d in 1921 a nd anothe r s urfaced five years later; both were us ed as bases for the Ssu- pu pei- yao and Comme r c ia l Press (Pe ­ king) e ditions o f the text. In 1937 C h en Yua n publis he d a s hort s tudy e ntitle d Chiu Wu- tai shih chi- pen fa- fu (A r e cons truction o f the wor king vers ion o f the old his tory o f the Five Dynas tie s ) in which he de taile d some 194 changes in w or ding made by the Ssu- k’u editors in Shao,s text. Mos t of these involve d c ha nging the tr a ditio nal, pe jorative te rms for noma dic peoples, hu, lu, chieh, a nd i into the for mal tr ibal name , Ch i- thn} for the pe ople in que s tion. References to ce rtain non- Chine s e ins titutions , such as tr ibal chie ftains , and othe r me ntions o f bandits a nd traitors were also cha nge d.167

T he Ssu- k’u ch}iian- shu was characte ris tic o f its era. Und e r ly ing the achie ve me nts a nd de fining the te nor o f late e ighte e nth- ce ntury C h in a were ce rtain patte r ns and pote ntials for coope r ation a nd con­ flict be twe e n various e le me nts o f gove rnme nt a nd society. A proje ct like the Ssu- k}u chyuan- shu achieved its ends only to the extent that the e le me nts o f state and society with interests re le vant to it were able to acknowle dge a c o mmo n purpos e and coope rate in a c ommon endeavor. T he e mpe ror, the elite “top- drawer” segments o f the capi­ tal bure aucracy, and ce rtain e le me nts o f the s cholarly c o m m unity were the crucial groups for the Ssu- ^u ch’Han- shu project. In many respects, the ir coope ration was successful. T he mos t extensive cata­ log o f Chine s e le a r ning ever compile d, us e ful today in spite o f its biases, was pr oduce d a nd muc h more impo r ta nt work o f b ib lio ­ gr aphic pre s e rvation a nd recovery was accomplis he d. In othe r respects, o f course, the Ssu- k u editors faile d. But in a sense, the day for assessment o f the ir products has passed: the text o f the Yung^lo tatien is now destroyed, ma ny of the e ditions with which Ssu- k’u e ditors worke d are no longe r e xtant, the Chine s e ques t for e ncyclope dis m takes diffe re nt forms today than in the past. T he proje ct is mos t rele­ vant today in that it suggests how areas o f c o mmo n interest between e mpe ror, bure aucracy a nd scholars made possible the successes o f the proje ct, points o f dis agre e me nt presaged the failures. U n it in g e mpe ror, bure aucrats , a nd scholars was a be lie f in the impor tance o f the wr itte n word as the ultima te source o f inte lle ctual a nd political authority. T he tr e me ndous c o mmitme nt o f time , tale nt, space, resources and e ne rgy made by all three to the collation o f ancie nt texts testified to the impor tance of this be lie f to the m. Yet word a nd de e d were diffe re ntly re late d for each. For the e mpe ror, words s anctione d deeds. Not only was the Ssu- k’u chyuan- shu to be a colle ction o f classical precedents for action, b ut the e mpe r or ’s s pon­ s ors hip o f the largest book colle ction proje ct in history, his ability to attract the mos t tale nte d me n of the era to his court a nd supersede all predecessors in lite rary r e putation a nd munifice nce was me a nt to de mons trate his r ight to be le ade r o f the lite rate c o m m unity o f the mos t civilize d e mpir e in history. His conce rn to achieve this de m o n­ s tration d u r in g his own life time pr obably accounte d for his cons tant de mands for haste, and in par t for his impatie nce with manus c r ipt errors. For the bur e aucrat, the word, or at least the ability to ma nipula te

language a nd write his tory, made possible deeds w ithin the political are na. Lite r ar y ability ope ne d doors to pos itions o f powe r a nd author ity at all levels o f Chine s e gove rnme nt, and unde r a le ade r like the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or , this was par tic ula r ly impor ta nt. For a m a n who s ought to wie ld influe nce a nd author ity in the counsels o f gov­ e r nme nt, however, a pos ition as collator o f Ssu- k u o r even editor, was only a s te pping stone, not an e nd in itself; a nd the slow, pa ins ­ ta king work r e quire d to produce a perfect ma nus c r ipt was not the sort of effort that e arne d r e cognition, c omme nda tion, a nd p r o m o ­ tion. T he ins titutio na l e nvir onme nt o f the proje ct thus ine vitably influe nce d the ir attitude s toward it. Eve n the r e por ting o f errors a p ­ par e ntly served political as well as inte lle ctual purposes. For the scholar, words e xplaine d deeds. On ly whe n texts were care fully tr ans mitte d a nd me ticulous ly e dite d could ideas a nd events pas t and pres ent be unde rs tood. These differences in the perspectives o f e mpe ror, bure aucr ats a nd scholars were, o f course, pres ent thr o ug h­ out Chine s e his tory; the y cons titute d mor e or less an obs tacle to the achie ve me nt o f a give n goal to the extent that the impor ta nce o f the tasks unde r take n or the puis s ance o f the a uthor ity involve d were re cognize d. In the late e ighte e nth century, a facade o f ha r mo ny could be m a inta ine d over the Chine s e gove rnme nt’s activity; while differences betwe e n e mpe ror, bure aucrats , a nd scholars were pe rhaps as explicit as they ha d ever be e n, the y could be re concile d. T he difficultie s o f coope ration a nd the realities o f divis ion would, o f course, be come mor e appa r e nt in the nine te e nth century. Inde e d, the his tor y of c ha nging assessments o f the Ssu- k,u proje ct suggested s ome o f the for m this divis ion took. Wh e n confr onte d w ith the unpr e ce de nte d challenges o f the nine te e nth century, the e mpe r or (or those who exer­ cised power in his name ), bure aucrats , a nd scholars, would come to s tand for funda me nta lly diffe re nt vis ions o f social or de r a nd the actions necessary to de fe nd it. But while nine te e nth- ce ntury chal­ lenges magnifie d divis ions w ithin the Chine s e elite, s uch divis ions were not created in the nine te e nth century. T he Ssu- k’u ch iian- shu, a gr and 36,500 chiian s um ma tio n o f Ch in a ’s c ultur a l he ritage , illus ­ trate d both the pote ntial for ha r mo ny a nd the realities o f divis ion a nd self- interest in the mode r n Chine s e state.

the re lation o f political powe r a nd inte lle ctual conce rns seems espe­ cially worthy o f inve s tigation. T hr o ug h muc h o f the twe ntie th ce n­ tury, scholars have argue d that the H a n le a r ning was es sentially a move me nt o f s cholarly oppos ition to Ma n c h u political repression and inte lle ctual pe rs e cution. T he e ditor ial changes in Shao Chinha n’s reviews suggest that this conclus ion mus t be appr oache d with some c a ution.7 By the middle o f the e ighte e nth century, a c o m­ promis e appe ars to have be e n re ache d be twe e n scholars a nd the C h in g state. T he change s made by Ssu- k u e ditors in Shao s reviews suggests the natur e o f this compr omis e , a nd fur the r de mons trate s which o f the conte ntions o f the move me nt ha d come to be acce ptable at court. Conversely, the tr e atme nt o f Yao N a i s reviews suggests that there were at least some levels at the C h ’ing court on which one could que s tion old for mula tio ns o f or thodox y a nd evolve ne w ones, a nd s ome r oom for de bate a bout which texts mos t effectively ar ticulate d ancie nt truths . T he y illus trate , in s hort, how the “politics o f orthodoxy” could work in the late impe r ia l Chine s e court. T he S s u - k u c h iia n - s h u a n d H a n L e a r n in g : T he D r a f t R e v ie w s o f S h ao C h in - h an Shao Chin- han was bo r n in 1743 into a pr omine nt fa mily of Yii- yao dis trict, Che kia ng. Little is known o f his father, the only me mbe r of the family in five ge ne rations without an official degree, except that he enjoyed book colle cting a nd on occas ion r e turne d home with his bibliogr aphic treasures only to have his wife sell the m to me e t hous e ­ hold expenses.8 Chin- han was raised in the home o f his gr andfathe r Shao Hs iang- jung (1674- 1757), a dire ctor of schools in a dis trict farthe r east a long the Che kia ng coast, who was the ma jor influe nce in C hin- han s e arly inte lle ctual life a nd who passed on to h im the s cholarly tr aditions of the fa mily a nd the ir native dis trict.9 These centered a r ound the te achings of Shao C hin- han s great uncle , Shao T ing- ts a i (1648- 1711). T ing- ts a i was an a dmir e r o f H u a n g Tsunghsi and, thr ough his own fathe r a nd gr andfathe r, a second or thirdge ne ration dis ciple o f Wa n g Yang- ming.10 At the e nd o f his life, T ing- ts a i taught what he ha d le arne d to his younge r half- brothe r Hs iang- jung,11 and it was this tr a ditio n which Shao Hs iang- jung passed to Shao Chin- han. Alt houg h late r ass ociations s timulate d othe r interests, Shao Chin- han r e maine d faithful to his gr andfathe r ’s

te achings thr oughout his life, a fide lity note d by e ighte e nth- ce ntury and mode r n biographe rs alike. Du r in g his e x a mina tio n career, Shao me t othe r figures influe ntial in his inte lle ctual de ve lopme nt. At the te nde r age o f sixteen, he re ­ ceived his hsiu- tshi degree. At twenty- two he e arne d his chu- jen, a nd with it the life long respect and fr ie nds hip o f his e x amine r C h ’ie n Tahs in. C h ’ie n wrote o f Shao’s chu- jen e xamination: His five essays on government policy exceeded all others in bre adth and pe netration. I re marked that they could only have been writte n by a mature scholar. Whe n Shao came to call, I was astonished to find he was a young man. But his le arning was ine xhaus tible .12

In pur s uit of his chin- shih degree, Shao made three trips to Pe king, toge the r with his fr ie nd Ch a n g Hs i- nie n.13 O n the s tre ngth e ithe r of his fa mily ties or his contacts with C h ’ie n Ta- hsin, Shao was able to me e t on these trips mos t of the inte lle ctual lumina r ie s o f the day. As a poverty- stricken fe llow- provincial, Wa ng Hui- tzu note d, “Fr om the time I me t Shao Chin- han, I be gan to know all the great scholars of the day . 14 In 1767 Shao arrange d thr ough frie nds to re ad a nd copy C h i H s iao- lan s manus c r ipt of the famous s tudy Ku- wen Shang- shu kho (A s tudy o f the old text version of the Book of Documents), one o f the mos t famous works o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury te xtual inve s tigation.15 O n Shao’s thir d tr ip to Pe king in 1771 he received his chin- shih degree. T he re is s ome que s tion, however, o f how Shao re garde d the degree he had e arne d. Although he passed the Boar d o f Pers onnel me tr opolitan e x aminations first on the list, a dis tinction that n o r ­ mally would have e arne d h im a seat in the pre s tigious H a n lin Ac a d­ emy, Shao did not e nte r the Acade my b ut ins te ad e mbar ke d on a jo ur ne y thr ough s outhe rn Ch in a . Shao’s mode r n biogr a phe r H u a n g Yun- me i, re fe rring to a poe m by one o f Shao s associates, claims that Shao de libe rate ly refused an a ppointm e nt a nd chose travel ins te a d.16 C h ’ie n Ta- hsin offered two e xplanations . In his formal biogr aphy of Shao, C h ’ien note d that although Shao passed first in the me tr opo li­ tan e x aminations , he was ranke d in the s econd class on the subse­ que nt Palace e x aminations , too low to be assured o f a seat at the Acade my.17 In a less for mal w r iting about Shao’s father, C h ’ien s ug­ gested that Shao had, in fact, chosen not to serve in gove rnme nt, as had several o f his ancestors and e arly H a n le a r ning s cholars .18 Shao’s travels to the s outh were not w ithout effect, however, as they soon br ought h im to the yame n o f Educ a tion Commis s ione r C h u Yun at

T ai- p’in g whe re he me t H u n g Liang- chi, Tai Che n, a nd Ch a n g Hs ue h- ch e ng and pr oba bly par ticipate d in the dis cus s ions that led to C h u ’s me mor ial on the Ssu- k’u pr oje ct.19 In 1773 Shao followed C h u and Tai to the capital for a ppo intm e nt on the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion. Shao’s service at the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion was br ie f and was inte r ­ r upte d by an e xte nde d tr ip to Che kia ng to m o ur n the de ath o f his mothe r in 1776- 1777.20 It was long e nough, however, for h im to draft ma ny reviews for the Annotated Catalog, recover several impor ta nt works fr om the Yung- lo ta- tieny and receive the acclaim o f the inte lle c­ tua l community. Shao a nd his colleagues Tai Che n, Ch o u Yungnie n, Yii C h i and Yang C h ang- lin were known as the “five lords of e vide nce ” o f the Ssu- k u Co m m is s io n.21 Afte r his work at the Ssu- k u Commis s ion, Shao served in several official sinecures, inc lud ing compile r at the H a n lin Acade my, s enior s upe rvis or at the Supe rvis orate o f Impe r ia l Ins tr uc tion, proctor at the State His tor iogr a phica l Commis s io n, and chie f e ditor of the Diarie s of Action a nd Re pos e .22 In these capacities , he worke d on a num b e r of impe r ial s cholarly projects a nd wrote ma ny of the drafts for the official biographie s o f the CKing- shih, several time s e ar ning special impe r ial praise. He also comple te d his own comme ntar y on the Erh- ya, be gan a his tory o f the Southe r n Sung dynasty, and a d­ vised Gove rnor- ge ne ral Pi Yua n about a c ontinua tion of the T ungchien kang- mu (Compr e he ns ive mir r o r in outline for m) that Pi was c onte mpla ting.23 Although Shao was in poor he alth for mos t o f his life, he appare ntly die d quite abr uptly whe n a phys ician a d minis ­ tered the wr ong me dicine to h im on 19 Ju ly 1796.24 Wh ile the followers o f H a n le a r ning s hare d e nough as s umptions to cons titute a ge nuine move me nt, there were also differences a mong the m, differences note d both by the ir conte mporarie s and mode r n his torians . Shao’s his torical and philological work illus trate d both the c ommo n as s umptions o f the move me nt a nd the points at issue within it.25 Shao’s alle giance to the te achings o f his grandfathe r, and in d i­ rectly to the te achings of Wa ng Yang- ming and H u a n g Tsung- hsi, place d h im in an inte lle ctual line age which Ch a n g Hsueh- ch e ng labe lle d the “eastern Che kia ng tr a d itio n . 26 T he characteristics of this r athe r loosely cons titute d tr adition were an interest in mode r n history, par ticular ly that o f the late M in g a nd e arly Ch,ing, a nd what Paul De mie ville has te r me d an inc lina tio n toward “s ynthe tic intuition” in his torical inte r pr e tation.27 T he first characte ris tic pr oba bly

de rive d ultimate ly fr om H u a n g ’s political loyalties. T he eastern Ch e ­ kia ng re gion resisted the C h in g conque s t for a par tic ular ly long time and Hu a n g , who par ticipate d in this resistance, took it as his charge to preserve its le ge nds .28 T he second characte ris tic was a c o mpo und of his tor iogr aphical a nd e pis te mological as s umptions . As a follower of Wa n g Yang- ming, H u a n g Tsung- hsi believed in a unit y of knowle dge a nd action, o f le a r ning and e thical cultivation. T his be lie f was expressed in his motto: “Wit h o u t br oad r e ading, one cannot trace the c ha nging o f principle ; w ithout mor al re fle ction, all le a r ning is vulgar ,” which has ofte n be e n contras te d with the motto o f H u a n g ’s conte mpor ar y Ku Yen- wu, “in le ar ning, bre adth; in be havior, sham e ” the latte r be ing s aid to express a greater s e paration o f the worlds o f le a r ning a nd e thics .29 One implic a tion o f H u a n g s be lie f for his torical w r iting was that in or de r to provide a re ade r with sufficient mate r ial for mor a l reflection and intuitive pe rce ption of the e thical lessons that his tory was me ant to teach, one s hould write what would be called in m o d ­ e rn time s “monog r a phic studies ” of e ntire eras or lives .30 T his his ­ tor iogr aphical stance can be contras te d with that o f the “western Che kia ng tr a ditio n” o f which, ironically, Shao s fr ie nd C h ie n Ta- hsin was the leader, which believed in slowly c o mpiling appar e ntly un r e ­ late d b uild ing blocks of his torical e vide nce a nd re cor ding the m in “notation books ” such as C h ie n s own Shih- chia- chai yang- hsin- lu (Re cor d of cultiva ting new knowle dge in the Shih- chia Study) or Tushu tsa- chih (Mis ce llane ous r e a ding notes) o f Wa ng Nie n- s un (17441832).31 In many respects, Shao was faithful to his gr andfathe r ’s te achings . All o f his his torical studies were o f e ntire eras, a nd he expressed in his writings a cons is te nt conce rn for the mor a l role o f the his tor ian. In one o f his Ssu- k u reviews, for ins tance , he prais e d the Kung- yang comme ntar y over the Tso comme nta r y on the ancie nt Spring and Autumn Annals because the forme r s uppos e dly dis tinguis he d betwe e n “accomplis hme nts ” and “inbo r n qualitie s ,” a nd dwe lle d on accom­ plis hme nts .32 Whe the r or not this was in fact the difference between the two s chools ,33 Shao’s r e mar k was inte re s ting in its implic a tion that the his tor ian’s role was to judg e what an his torical actor made of hims e lf, not s imply to record his inbo r n nature . Shao also pr e ­ served the e astern Che kia ng tr a ditio n o f knowle dge o f late M in g his ­ tory. Gove r nor Pi- yuan was said to have r e marke d to Shao after one convers ation:

You of eastern Che kiang are familiar with the writings of Liu Tsungchou and Hua ng Tsung- hsi, the stories of factionalis m and misgovernme nt at the end of the Ming , and the resistance of the Princes of T a ng and Lu. [ This history] is passed on by word of mouth or in handwritte n manus cripts and is outside of the official record. Whe n you die, there will be no one to verify the events south of the river (i.e., in Eastern Che kiang).34

Shao, however, ha d ma ny othe r abilities besides his his torical knowle dge , as was de mons tr ate d in his c omme ntar y on the Erh- ya. While philology was very popula r in the e ighte e nth century, it was not par ticular ly associated with the school o f H u a n g Tsung- hsi; if anything, it was associated with the followers of Ku Yen- wu.35 T he Erh- ya was a H a n dynas ty the s aurus whic h classified words and ex­ pressions in e ighte e n categories (mounta ins , birds , tools, and the like ) accor ding to the ir use in various classical texts.36 Mos t comme ntator s before Shao, as he note d in his preface, had pointe d out only the allus ions to the Shih- ching (Book o f poe try), le aving u n i­ de ntifie d the references to othe r texts. By as s e mbling these references one could not only clarify the me anings o f words in the Erh- ya Shao claime d, but correct errors o f tr ans mis s ion in the othe r texts.37 T he pr oble m with such work was not so m uc h as s e mbling the texts to which Erh- ya could have be e n a lluding , b ut de ciding which allus ions the ancie nt dictionar y was actually making. Pr e pa r ing a c o m me n­ tary, Shao said, was a labor o f love: “Rid in g in my cart fr om nor th to s outh, I have never ceased to apply mys e lf to it . 38 T he work took h im at least e ight years, but the results were impressive. H u a n g Yunme i claims that whe n Shao finis he d, several o f his conte mporarie s , Wa ng Ch u n g , Wa ng Nie n- s un a nd T uan Yii- ts a i put aside s imilar manus cr ipts on which they were wor king.39 H u n g Liang- chi c o m­ posed a poe m about the text, r e mar king: “O n r e a ding your book, all my doubts , as by the light o f dawn, were swept o u t ,” a nd c ompa r ing Shao’s knowle dge a nd dilige nce with those o f his e xamine r C h ’ie n Ta- hsin.40 Shao thus typifie d ma ny s trands of H a n le ar ning. Fr om his grandfathe r, he ha d le arne d the me thodology a nd beliefs o f H u a n g Tsung- hsi a nd his followers. T hr o ug h his associates, and par ticular ly Ch ’ie n Ta- hsin, he came into contact with othe r s trands o f the H a n le a r ning move me nt and de ve lope d othe r interests, inc lud in g p hilo l­ ogy a nd classical studies. T hr o ug h C h u Yun, Shao me t several impo r ta nt e ighte e nth- ce ntury thinke r s —Tai Che n, Ch a n g Hs ueh-

ch e ng and H u n g Liang- chi —who ha d not attaine d official p r o m i­ nence. All this pre pare d h im pe rs onally and inte lle ctually for his work at the Ssu- k u Commis s ion. On e of the mos t inte re s ting and inte lle ctually re ve aling tasks he pe r for me d there was the pr e par ation of draft reviews for ma ny impo r ta nt his tory texts, inc lud ing the s tan­ da r d dynas tic histories. A compar is on o f Shao s wor dings with the final versions that appe are d in the Annotated Catalog will suggest some of the areas o f conflict a nd agr e e me nt between the C h ie n- lung court and the H a n le a r ning move me nt. Shao C hin- han s mode r n biogr aphe r H u a n g Yun- me i has accus ed the Ssu- k u editors o f a cons is te nt atte mpt to deflect the thrus t of Shao s draft reviews. T he y did this, accor ding to Hu a n g , by incor ­ por a ting Shao s dis cus s ions (t- lun) and excis ing his conclus ions (piencheng), thus conve rting care fully ar gue d essays into a ntiqua r ia n treatises. A close e x a mina tio n of the drafts a nd final versions, how­ ever, suggests s ome thing othe r tha n sys tematic e mas culation. Four reviews will be e xamine d in de tail below. In the first two, the editors adopte d mos t o f Shao’s draft, c ha nging only s lightly his ar gume nt. In the latte r two, the editors did s ignificantly change Shao s draft, but the impor t o f the ir change was to modify the style r athe r tha n the s ubs tance o f the pieces, and the two vers ions are more suggestive of the differences between a s cholar seeking impe r ial approval a nd an e ditor carr ying out impe r ia l will tha n o f a s ystematic atte mpt to impos e inte lle ctual orthodoxy. Shih- chi chi- chieh. T he Shih- chi chi- chieh by P ’ei Yin (ca. fifth ce ntury) was one o f three early comme ntar ie s on the Shih- chi (His tor ica l rec­ ords ), the othe r two be ing by Ch a n g Shou- chie h (fl. 736) a nd Ssu- ma Che n (ca. e ighth- ce ntury a .d .).41 Evide ntly, it was Shao’s favorite of the three; he re marke d in his review o f the Shih- chi that “Wit h Ssu- ma C h ie n s ability to e x plain what has s urvive d o f the classical canon, a nd P’ei Yin ’s ability to preserve the dispersed theories of the ancie nt Confucia ns , one who wante d to unde r s tand the me a ning o f the clas­ sics would ce rtainly be able to attain his goal.”42 Altho ug h the comme ntar ie s had be e n wr itte n ce nturie s apar t, it was the practice to pr int the three o f the m in one volume , a practice followed by the M in g Im pe r ia l Colle ge whe n it produce d its a uth o r i­ tative e dition o f the Shih- chi a nd comme ntar ie s . T he only e dition in which the Shih- chi chi- chieh stood alone was that pr inte d by Ma o Ch in , a bibliophile of the late Min g . T he Ssu- k u project ha d uncove re d a

copy o f M ao s text (or a text bas e d closely up o n it).43 T he b ulk o f both Shao’s draft a nd the final Annotated Catalog review was devoted to a compar is on o f the text o f the Ma o e dition with the text o f Shih- chi chi- chieh that could be re cons tructe d fr om e ditions like that of the M in g Im p e r ia l Colle ge in which the P e i c omme ntar y was pr inte d together with the C h a n g a nd Ssu- ma comme ntar ie s . T he point o f both reviews was that ma ny errors which ha d crept into the e ditions in which the three comme ntar ie s were pr inte d to ­ gether ha d be e n corrected in the Ma o e dition. T his point was b u t ­ tressed with nume r ous e xamples culle d fr om a close compar ative r e ading o f the various versions. For ins tance , in the M in g Im p e r ia l Colle ge e dition afte r the sentences “T he re were e ight tale nte d me n o f the Kao- yang fa mily ” and “T he re were e ight tale nte d me n in the Kao- hs ing fa mily ” the Ma o text note d “see the Tso- chuan for bio g­ r a phie s / J while the M in g Im pe r ia l Colle ge e dition made no notation. O r after the sentence “C h ’in Shih- huang paid no atte ntion to the carts but value d the horses . . . the Ma o text quote d Hs u Ku a n g as s aying “T he or igina l o f this r e mar k did not contain the words ‘but va lue d w hile the othe r e ditions containe d no quotation. As both the draft review and the final vers ion note d, e ditions which imita te d the M in g Im pe r ia l Colle ge e dition were even less accurate .44 T he two reviews were each a bout e ight hundr e d characters long and diffe re d in only nine ty characters, o f which forty cons titute d a list o f the official pos itions he ld by P e i Yin . All of Shao Chin- han’s drafts lacke d such a list, e vide ntly a nice ty o f impe r ia l c ompila tio n projects o f which Shao was unaware or could afford to ignore . In the r e ma ining fifty- two characters, jus t over five pe rce nt o f the review, the e ditors made a very subtle change in the natur e o f the ar g ume nt, a change which illus trate d the diffe re nt conce rns of author a nd editor. In the draft, Shao prais e d P e i Yin ’s s cholars hip lavishly. Fr om it, he claime d, “On e could see [ Ha n s cholars ] te nde ncy to draw on all the classics o f the hundr e d schools, e diting s upe rfluous language and r e taining only the essentials, ke e ping the ir words re s traine d (yueh) and the ir me a ning br oad » . 45 In s harp contras t to such me tic u­ lousness, late r scholars had indis cr iminate ly combine d P e i s text with those o f othe r comme ntator s and intr oduce d errors into it. In short, where early scholars were precise, late r scholars were s loppy the M in g Im p e r ia l Colle ge e dition was only one e xample o f such carelessness albe it one o f the wors t.46

T he Ssu- k’u editors change d Shao’s prais e of P e i to a terse, four characte r nota tion that e arly scholars “dre w on a wide varie ty o f s ources•” T he point of the final Annotated Catalog review was to con­ trast the accuracy of the Ma o C h in e dition uncove re d by the Ssu- k u proje ct with the inaccuracy o f the M in g Im p e r ia l Colle ge e dition, a nd the re by implic itly to prais e the achie ve me nts o f C h ’ing impe r ial s cholars hip at the expense o f M in g gove rnme nt- s pons ore d s cholar­ s hip. Since all the texts c ommo nly cir culating de rive d ultimate ly fr om the M in g e dition, the e ditors r e marke d in the ir final sentence, the e dition r e pr inte d in the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu was s upe rior to all othe r texts.47 T he changes the e ditors made in Shao’s draft can be various ly inte rpre te d, but at base the differences between the two reviews were o f for m rathe r tha n substance. Both agreed that the Ma o text was s upe rior to all others, a nd both prove d this point at what seems to the mode r n re ade r s oporific le ngth. All the Ssu- k’u editors did was to s ubs titute prais e o f C h ’ing official s cholars hip (in its recovery of the Ma o text) for Shao’s prais e of P e i Yin . It is true that one of Shao’s points , about the impor tance o f r e a ding ancie nt comme ntar ie s on ancie nt texts, was suppressed in the s ubs titution. But the point was pr oba bly not lost on the inte llige nt reader, for it was implic it in much o f the a r gume nt. And, the e ditors change no doubt made the e nd pr oduct far more attractive to the C h ’ing rulers. Sung- shih. Alt houg h the Sung- shih was the longest o f the dynas tic his ­ tories Shao reviewed, and has been prais e d by one mode r n critic as r e pre s e nting the “apex” o f the “bas ic principle s o f Chine s e official his tor iography,”48 it was one o f the least satis factory for Shao. He seems to have ha d three obje ctions to the work. Shao agreed with Ch a n g Hs ue h- ch’e ng that a lthough the Sung- shih containe d a stag­ ge r ing a mo unt o f infor ma tio n, it was “infe r ior in lite r ary quality, conveyed none o f the m e a ning of his torical events a nd e xhibite d no sense o f selection in the pre s e ntation o f d a ta . 49 Se cond, muc h of the infor ma tio n in the his tory was in e rror and it made many contr adic­ tory s tate me nts .50 Finally, it de alt pr ima r ily with the Nor the r n Sung, ignor ing what were for an inte lle ctual his tor ian compe lling issues in Southe r n Sung his tory.51 Shao’s opinions on the Sung- shih were shared by many e ighte e nth- ce ntury thinke rs , inc lud in g C h ’ie n Ta- hsin, C h ’iia n Tsu- wang and Wa n Ssu- t u n g .52 Pr oba bly as early as 1774, Shao be gan work on or at least pla nne d his own re vis ion o f the

Sung- shih to be e ntitle d Sung- chih (A treatise on Sung). T he re vis ion was e vide ntly never finis he d and only its table o f conte nts is e xtant today, but it was wide ly known a mo ng Shao’s conte mpor ar ie s .53 Shao made no secret o f his scorn for the Sung'shih in his draft re ­ view. It be gan: “Pre vious critics have all r e marke d that the Sung- shih ne e de d to be e dite d a nd sorted, b ut they have give n few e xample s .” T his Shao proce e de d to do, by citing a nd e x a mining in de tail a n u m ­ be r o f errors and incons is tencies pointe d out by pre vious c omme nta ­ tors K o Wei- ch i (1497- 1574) a nd She n Shih- po.54 Shao the n tur ne d to the philos ophy o f his tor y in the book. Like his predecessors in eastern Che kia ng, Shao was conce rne d with the mor a l s ignificance as well as the factual accuracy o f history. T he Sung- shih containe d m uc h his tor ical de tail, but little inte r pr e tation; ma ny ha d ar gue d, in fact, that the his tor ical infor ma tio n in the book made up for its lack o f analys is . But for Shao, the book was uns atis ­ factory on both counts : Those who have criticized the Sung- shih have often observed that the biographies in it contain only the names of [ their subject’s] ancestors, and none of the realities of [ their subject’s lives] and in this they resem­ bled grave inscriptions. It is as if the editors copied directly from gov­ e rnme nt personnel records, ma king no e mme ndations or corrections. Those who like such history will perhaps argue that since the infor ma­ tion in the m is directly from long- preserved gove rnme nt records, it mus t be reliable. But when you compare the m with other sources, the biog­ raphies in Sung- shih too often prove unre liable .55

Finally, Shao obs erved that the his tor y was s hape d by the political biases o f Sung scholars who “like d to talk o f the Nor the r n Sung ” but wrote little o f the Southe r n Sung, and as a result de alt inade quate ly with the late r pe riod. T he Annotated Catalog e ditors inc lude d all o f Shao’s criticis ms in the ir final review.56 Wh e n they came to the que s tion o f why the Sung- shih was ina de ­ quate , however, both Shao and the Ssu- k’u editors ha d to tre ad lightly. Shao wrote: “Wh e n they compile d the Sung- shih the major ity of editors s imply took the official his tory as a draft. T he re was no time for fur the r re s e arch. 57 In fact, Shao’s obs e rvation was pr oba bly correct; as Yang Lie n- s he ng has re marke d, the pr ima r y goal of the compile rs o f the Liao, C h in and Sung his tories “seems to have be e n a quick finis h,” a goal which was achie ve d thr o ugh “effective, if s ome ­ time s high- hande d s upe rvis ion a nd e d itin g . 58 T he pr oble m was that the Sung- shihy like the Liao- shih a nd Chin- shih, was compile d d ur in g the

Yua n dynas ty; the patte r n o f re lations be twe e n warlike Mo n g o l rulers, s inifie d Mo n g o l bure aucr ats a nd Chine s e scholars was c om­ plex, pe rhaps r e s e mbling the patte r n at the Ch ’ie n- lung Empe r or ’s own court. Obvious ly, the im plic a tio n tha t non- Chine s e contr ol of Chine s e s cholarly efforts was pe r nicious ha d to be avoide d, pa r tic u­ larly whe n the fore ign rulers involve d were the Mo n g o l Yua n, to whose his torical rights C h ’ing rulers were par ticular ly sens itive.59 Eve n the notio n that s cholars hip s pons ore d by rulers, be the y C h i­ nese or fore ign, could have ha r m ful prioritie s a nd de adline s would have ha d to be appr oache d with c a utio n in the Ssu- k}u cKuan- shu. Evi­ de ntly Shao s pas s ing re fe re nce —“T he re was no leis ure for fur the r research” was too m uc h for the Ssu- k u e ditors, for it was cut fr om the final vers ion. T hus , while the Ssu- k u e ditors r e printe d all o f Shao’s criticis ms of the Sung- shih they ge ne ralize d fr om the m only cautious ly. T he ir caution was e vide nt in the intr o duc tion a nd conclus ion, forty and e ighty characters lo ng respectively, which they appe nde d to Shao’s review. Dr a w ing, pe rhaps , on othe r sources a bout the c ompila tio n of the Sung- shih the editors be gan with an official biogr aphy o f the Mo ng o l compile r T o- t o (1313- 1355). T he y the n r e marke d that since the Sung- shih was the his tor y o f an e ntire era compr is ing over five hundr e d chapters , it mus t have be e n very difficult to proofr e ad and correct. T he final review the n made the rathe r a s to unding comme nt that since the Sung- shih was wr itte n unde r the influe nce o f the Sung le ar ning, it was pr oba bly inaccurate on all matte rs except the Sung le ar ning. T he Catalog pole mical tone here pr oba bly preserved Shao C hin- han s inte ntions in the review, b ut it may have served anothe r purpos e as well for, as Liu Han- p in g has observed, attacks on the Sung le a r ning in the Catalog were ofte n associated with c o nde mna ­ tions o f Sung le a r ning scholars te nde ncy to form factions .60 At any rate, the editors were care ful to provide s ome inte lle ctual r ationale for continue d r e a ding o f the Sung- shih: From the time of K o Wei- ch’i61 on, many have edited the Sung- shih. But with the passing of the years, the sources have been lost and dispersed. One may take the original as a draft and s upple me nt it in small re­ spects, but it will never be superseded. Therefore, those who research the events of the two Sung dynasties mus t base themselves on the or igi­ nal text. It cannot be disregarded.62

In vie w o f the Ma nc h us s e ns itivity to criticis m o f the Yua n, the Ssu- k u editors were pe rhaps bold to include as ma ny o f Shao’s

criticis ms o f the Sung- shih as they did. T ha t they did so illus trate d the point that te xtual research per se was not perceived as a thre at by the C h ’ing court. In e diting Shao’s drafts , the Ssu- k u officials seemed to have little he s itation a bout a dopting his ma jor conclus ions , me th o d­ ology or e vidence, occas ionally a d d ing a pr o o f or pole mical sally o f the ir own. In fact, m uc h of what is us e ful in the Annotated Catalog today was pr oba bly the work of me n like Shao. T he changes that were made in Shao’s reviews o f the Shih- chi chi- chieh a nd the Sung- shih were s ignificant in that they illus trate d the differences be twe e n a s cholar anx ious to convey his vis ion to the world, a nd e ditors who would be he ld accountable for any political implications , b ut they were at base tange ntial to the issues at stake in the reviews. We re there matte rs more pre s s ing to Shao or the editors? Han- shu. T he pr oble m o f forgeries in Chine s e s cholars hip was dis ­ cussed in the review o f the Han- shu. T he first two- thirds o f both the draft and final Han- shu reviews cons ide re d the differences between the “ancie nt” a nd “mode r n” vers ions o f the work. T he two versions were so labe lle d by Liu Chih- lin (476(?)- 547) who, according to his biogr aphy in the Liang- shu (Re cords of the Lia ng dynas ty), was s um­ mone d by Cr ow n Pr ince Cha o- ming (501- 533) to compar e two ve r­ sions of the Han- shu which the Pr ince he ld in his library. T he vers ion calle d by Liu “mode r n” had actually be e n in cir culation since the H a n dynas ty and was in Lia ng time s the s tandard e dition. T he “ancie nt” ve rs ion ha d be e n discovered a nd pres ented to the prince by a s ubor dinate . T he implic a tions of Liu ’s use o f the labels were cle arly that the “ancie nt” vers ion was mor e authe ntic tha n the “m o d e rn . 63 Wit h this conclus ion both Shao and the Ssu- k u e ditors took issue. T he y offered six ar gume nts . First, the dates o f the me mo r ial pre s e nt­ ing the Han- shu to the H a n court containe d in the “ancie nt” but not in the “mode r n” vers ion did not corre s pond to the dates o f comple ­ tion give n in the biogr a phy of the author , Pan Ku, in the Hou- Han- shu (His tor y o f the Late r H a n dynas ty). Se cond, the “ancie nt e dition” place d an e xplanator y note (hsu) at the b e g inning of the work whe n it was the cus tom o f H a n dynas ty authors to place such notes at the e nds of the ir books. T hir d, the “ancie nt” containe d a biogr aphy o f Pan Piao, which would have be e n ina ppr opr iate in a his tory o f the Forme r H a n since Piao received his official degree and accepted office in the Late r H a n . Fourth, the “ancie nt” vers ion was divide d into 38 chuan, while Pan expressly de s cribe d his his tory as ha ving

be e n divide d into 106 p ’ien which was the form o f the “mode r n” ve r­ sion. Fifth, the or ganiza tion o f the biographie s in the “ancie nt” ve r­ s ion differed fr om that in the “m o d e r n,” a nd appe are d to be the work o f s ome one e ithe r unfa m ilia r with H a n dynas ty inhe ritance practices or with Pan K u s basic aims . Finally, Prince Cha o- ming hims e lf quote d fr om the “mode r n” vers ion in his famous lite rary colle ction, Weri'hsuan (Se le ctions o f lite r ary writings ). It was the conclus ion of both Shao and the Ssu- k’u editors that the “ancie nt” work was in fact a Lia n g dynas ty forgery.64 T he a r gume nt was an e laborate one. It was also in a sense u n ­ necessary since ma ny o f Liu C h ih - lin s conte ntions ha d be e n re fute d d ur in g the T ’ang. But it provide d Shao an o ppor t unity for an ex­ te nde d and s cathing attack on eleven ce nturie s o f Chine s e s cholar­ ship. Mos t late r comme ntator s and collators, Shao wrote: liked to discuss the pape r in Sung editions, or examine the antiquity or pr inting techniques, paying no atte ntion to the me aning of words in the texts. They were all like this. T he Ha n dynasty was close to antiquity and this book is orderly and thorough. Therefore, Kan Pao and Che ng K’ang- cheng (Che ng Hs uan) quote d it in the ir comme ntaries on the classics, while the Ha n classicists Fu Ch'ie n and Wei Chao all wrote comme ntaries on it.65 It most certainly can be used to s upple me nt the classics. Yet for generations people wrote phonological and philological comme ntaries , never even suspecting that there could be a forgery. T he ir successors followed them in a common and thoughtless band, saying that (Pan) Ku could not write well and one could not draw implications from his work.66 Dur in g the T ang Yen Shih- ku was called the “loyal minis te r of Pan Ku .” Alas, all he did was to assemble old comme ntaries and weigh the m.67 He did not assemble other source materials in order to clarify the implications [of the text]. Those who followed him did not exceed his scope, so it would be appropriate to call the m “loyal ministers” too.68

Forgeries, o f course, arous e d the par ticular ire o f H a n le ar ning scholars. But the Han- shu review was not the only one in which Shao Chin- han inte mpe r ate ly attacke d pre vious ge ne rations of scholars. In his review o f the Hou- Han- shu, for ins tance , Shao wrote: [ Intellectuals of the Six Dynasties] who discussed history did not con­ sider the truth or falsehood of events, but blithely spoke of “praise and blame .” They didn’t give a thought to the literary merits of their own writings, but argued whether one or two words or expressions [in an ancie nt work] raised or lowered [a subject’s stature] . Ove r and over they evaded each other’s arguments , in and out [they bobbed] all without evidence.69

In a dis cus s ion of Ou- yang Hs iu ’s Hsin Wu- tai- shih (Ne w his tory o f the Five Dynas tie s ), Shao r e marke d “Wh a t was mos t re gre ttable about Ou- yang Hs iu was his inade quate re s e arch.” Such comme nts were e dite d fr om the dr aft reviews before they were publis he d in the Annotated Catalog. In the Han- sku review the e ditors re place d Shao s tirade with a calm, scholarly, survey o f one o f the controversies s ur r ounding the Han- sku whe the r Pan Ku had be e n paid to write it.70 T he y also prais e d Yen Shih- ku s comme ntar y with the obs e rvation that “jus t because a few words are out o f orde r in it, there is no need to reject the whole c om m e ntary . 71 T he re ­ views of the Hou- Han- shu a nd Hsin Wu- tai- shih took a diffe re nt form entirely, r e lating the te xtual his tories o f the works rathe r than e valu­ a ting the ir worth as his torie s .72 Shao’s care fully- mus te re d te xtual evidence, which was me ant to provide s upport for his indic tme nt o f pos t- Han scholars hip, was thus converted by the Ssu- k u editors into the raw data for re lative ly dry surveys o f te xtual history, a nd his ma jo r conclus ions excised. But the reasons for the changes in Shao s reviews mus t be care fully assessed. Shao’s views posed no thre at to the C h ’ing court; if they had, why would the editors have include d his e vide nce and suppressed only his conclus ions ? O n the othe r ha nd, the comme nts d id pose a thre at to the inte lle ctual consistency of the Annotated Catalog as a whole. One could har dly dis mis s texts in one review, while care fully assessing the ir me rits in anothe r. Fur the rmor e , Shao s s tate me nts were essen­ tially par tis an pr onounce me nts . T he Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu was me ant to be a source book for ten thous and ge ne rations o f Chine s e scholars, not a pla tfor m for s cholarly controversy. Ming- shih. Wit h o u t cor r obor ating e vidence, it is difficult to prove that Shao Chin- han me ant to be d a m n in g by giving only faint praise in his review o f the Ming- shih. However, in his family and native dis trict, Shao had le arne d more a bout M in g his tory than mos t e igh­ te e nth- ce ntury scholars would ever know. Yet his 575 characte r draft review o f the Ming- shih was one of the shortest a nd least s ubs tantial that he wrote. O n a num be r o f subjects, par ticular ly the le gitimacy o f ce rtain late M in g pretenders , Shao may well have discreetly chosen to r e main silent. Whate ve r the reasons for Shao’s silence on these issues, the draft and final versions o f the Ming- shih reviews had a dis tinctly diffe re nt flavor. T he final vers ion de picte d a gove rnme nt in its r ightful role as teacher of mor a l lessons thr ough history. Shao’s

draft, on the othe r ha nd, compar e d the Ming- shih with the writings o f private his tor ians , a nd stressed gove rnme nt e ditors access to p r i­ mar y source mate r ials on political a nd milita r y events. T he draft a nd final versions o f the Ming- shih review be gan very differently. Shao first observed that a num b e r o f M in g inte lle ctuals had wr itte n his tories o f one re ign or one event bas e d on local tr a di­ tions , gravestone ins cr iptions , a nd e pitaphs . He cited as e xamples the Wu- hsueh- p'ien (Co m pila t io n of my studies) by Ch e n g Hs iao, the Ming- shu (Re cords o f the Min g ) by Teng Hs i- yuan, a nd the Hsienchang lu (Chr onolo gy of statutes) by Hs ue h Ying- ch i.73 All o f these works suffered, Shao argue d, because the ir author s did not have access to gove rnme nt archives and ha d wr itte n only par tial histories. Eve n the me thodical s tudy by Wa ng Shih- che n, Shih- cheng kho- wu (An e x a mina tio n o f errors in the his tor ical re cords )74 ha d not be e n able to correct all the mistakes. However, the compile rs o f the official his ­ tory le d by Ch a n g T ing- yii wor king fr om a dr aft by Wa n g Hunghs u a nd ha ving access to the official records, ha d be e n able to compar e the various private his tories and compile a record that was both fair, compre he ns ive , a nd accur ate .75 Inte re s tingly, none o f the books Shao me ntione d were copie d into the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu, a l­ though all received br ie f notices in the Annotated Catalog. T he final vers ion o f the Ming- shih review made no me ntion o f these e arlie r histories. It was mor e e conomical, a conce rn for all editors but par ticular ly so for editors of a two hundr e d chuan impe r ia l e ncy­ clope dia. But it was also more acce ptable politically, for ins te ad o f dis cus s ing private his tor ians c ontr ibutions to the Ming- shih it stressed the impe r ial role in the c ompila tion process, quo ting at le ngth pas ­ sages fr om the me mor ial pre s e nting the Ming- shih to the C h ’ing court de s cribing how the compile rs ha d for over fifty years enjoye d the patr onage a nd te aching o f the K ’ang- hsi Yung- che ng a nd C h ’ienlung Empe r or s .76 Both versions o f the Ming- shih review the n note d several innova ­ tions its compile rs ha d made in tr a ditio nal Chine s e his tor iogr aphical practice. T he first o f these was the inclus ion o f charts in the treatise on as tronomy. Shao traced the ide a to the works o f Hs u Kuang- ch i (1562- 1633), a nd ultimate ly, to the influe nce o f Je s uit as tronome rs who resided at court in the late M in g a nd e arly C h Jing pe r iods .77 T he Annotated Catalog s imply ignor e d the contr ibutions o f private as tronome rs a nd wrote that “as tr onomy was created by numbe rs ; numbe r s also created calculations . . . . T oday the [ me thods of]

calculations are muc h more comple x tha n in ancie nt times. T he r e ­ fore, if there were no charts, the points could not be made c le a r. 78 Perhaps the Annotated Catalog e ditors ’ re luctance to acknowle dge the contr ibutions o f the Je s uits to Chine s e as tr onomy reflected the re ­ s triction on Je s uit residence in Ch in a first issued late in the K ang- hsi re ign and re inforce d d ur ing the Yung- che ng a nd e arly C h ’ie n- lung reigns. Following closely after passages in which the e mpe rors ’ g uid ­ ance and patronage o f the Ming- shih were prais e d at le ngth, the c om­ me nts in the Annotated Catalog ha d the appe arance of a ttr ibuting innovations to impe r ia l wis dom. Both reviews the n discussed the Ming- shih compile rs ’ practice of lis ting in the “treatise on arts a nd lite rature ” only books writte n by M in g authors , and ig no r ing works by e arlie r authors . T he final ve r­ s ion of the review trace d this practice to suggestions made by Liu Chih- chi (661- 721) o f the T ’ang. Not incompa tible , but s ome what more convincing was Shao C hin- han s e x planation that becaus e the records o f the M in g impe r ia l libr ar y had be e n lost, the Ming- shih compile rs ha d no thing to cons ult in w r iting the tre atis e .79 Fina lly both reviews note d that the cre ation of categories for biographie s o f e unuchs , a nd he r e ditar y local commande r s , a nd the a ddition o f a chart o f the pre s ide nts o f the six boards and the Ce ns orate reflected the impor tance o f these groups d ur ing M in g times. Altho ug h both reviews e nde d with prais e o f the C h ’ing e mpe rors role in c ompiling the Ming- shih, the Annotated Catalog e ditors adde d a final, fuls ome comme nt on a s ubject that Shao may well have chosen to ignore , name ly, the reigns o f M in g pre te nde rs . Shao’s inte lle ctual forebear, H u a n g Tsung- hsi, ha d served one o f the pre te nde rs , Pr ince Fu, until 1649; and Shao was said to know mor e about these reigns tha n any late e ighte e nth- ce ntury author .80 T he pre te nde rs were also a n especial conce rn o f the Ch ie n- lung Empe r or , who issued an edict on the subject on 17 De ce mbe r 1775 de cre e ing that Pr ince F u s re ign na me could only be us e d in reference to events before 1644 and those of Prince s T ’a ng a nd Kue i could not be used at a ll.81 T he Anno­ tated Catalog care fully re corde d the e mpe ror ’s views on this subject, a nd asserted with the s impe r ing s ycophancy characte ris tic o f im p e ­ rial his tor iogr aphy that they de mons tr ate d “the will o f the sage to be both correct and fa ir ” a nd fur the r that “never since there have been his torical source mate rials has there be e n a case of such in s ig h t. 82 In the c onc luding passage, as thr o ughout the Annotated Catalog re­ view, the e ditors stressed the r ight of an e mpe r or to es tablis h the

tr uth o f his tory a nd de te r mine the mor a l lessons to be dr awn fr om it. Shao C hin- han s wr iting, at least on the Ming- shih, suggested that he be lieved jus t the oppos ite, that e mpe rors and official compile rs were b o und by the same canons o f e vidence and pr o o f as the ir s ub­ jects. T he issues o f whe the r private his tor ians s hould par ticipate in impe r ia l compilations , and whe the r private and public s cholars hip were in fact compatible , were a mo ng the major que s tions d ividin g the C h ’ing court fr om the H a n le a r ning move me nt in the seven­ te e nth century. By the e ighte e nth century, of course, H a n scholars ha d overcome the ir ambivale nce about gove rnme nt projects. But echoes o f the e arlie r view, in which the private his tor ian’s role was value d at least as muc h as the o cial com pile rs s urvive in Shao’s review of the Ming- shih. These echoes could not, o f course, be allowed into the Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu. But pe rhaps the more im po r ta nt point was that in spite o f such dive rge nce of opinio n, Shao was allowed to write for the impe r ia l catalog a nd to draft reviews o f texts no less impor ta nt tha n the s tan­ dar d histories o f the Gh ie n- lung Empe r or ’s impe r ial predecessors. It was one th ing for the gove rnme nt to wis h to avoid e ndor s ing embaras s ing s tate me nts about the impor tance o f private his tor ians , and quite anothe r for it to have e mbar ke d on a s ystematic c a mpa ign to dis tort the s ignificance of one o f the major inte lle ctual move me nts o f its day. Ma n y have disce rne d a pe rnicious inte nt in the C h ie n- lung cour t’s tr e atme nt o f the H a n le a r ning move me nt; an inte nt, that is, to shift the focus o f the move me nt fr om conte nt to me thodology, rob the H a n scholars pr onounce me nts o f any philos ophical or political thrus t, and convert the m into a ntiqua r ia n dis cus s ions with no rele­ vance to e ighte e nth- ce ntury concerns. T he editors ’ motive s mus t be care fully assessed, par ticular ly in light o f the fact that they adopte d so muc h o f what Shao wrote. As recent critique s o f mode r n linguis tic philos ophy have s hown, me thod and conte nt cannot be so easily sep­ arate d. Embodie d in any inte lle ctual me thodology, par ticular ly one so s ophis ticate d as te xtual inve s tigation, are pr e s umptions about the natur e of the proble ms to be solved. T he notion that one could, by e x a mining the authe nticity a nd inte gr ity o f ancie nt texts, reestablish the wis dom o f the sages and see more clearly present errors, was jus t such a pr e s umption, and it unque s tionably lay be h ind muc h of the r e as oning of the Annotated Catalog. Altho ug h it did not r e pr int the mos t provocative conclus ions o f H a n le a r ning scholars like Shao, the

Annotated Catalog reflected ma ny o f the bas ic as s umptions o f H a n le ar ning. In fact, the close ide ntification between the H a n le a r ning move me nt a nd the Ssu- k u cKmn- shu pr oduce d a ma jo r re action a mo ng thinke rs oppos e d to H a n le ar ning, as the following section will show. T he S s u - k u c h ia n - s h u a n d S u n g L e a r n in g : T he D r a f t R e v ie w s o f Y ao N a i T he te rms “H a n le a r ning” a nd “Sung le a r n in g com m only us ed by his tor ians to describe the two schools of thought whose conflict d o m i­ nate d the inte lle ctual life of late e ighte e nth a nd early nineteenthce ntury Ch in a , are in a sense deceptive. T he H a n le a r ning scholars were by no me ans e ngage d in the s ame sort o f philos ophical e n­ de avor as the ir first- century namesakes; nor were the Sung scholars a nim a te d by the s ame me taphys ical conce rns or anti- Buddhis t s e nti­ me nts as the ir predecessors. T he issue in the e ighte e nth ce ntury was how to inte rpre t Gh in a ’s inte lle ctual he ritage . T he advocates o f H a n le a r ning felt this could best be done thr o ugh the inte rpr e tation o f texts; the Sung le a r ning was in par t a re action to the excesses o f the H a n le a r ning, a re action which lame nte d the ove rs pe cialization o f te xtual studies a nd the re s ultant fr a gme ntation o f le arning. To refer to these two inte lle ctual or ie ntations as schools may be to exaggerate the ir differences, for they were never re ally ins titutionalize d, and s hare d ma ny c ommo n as s umptions . It may be more accurate to re gard the Sung le a r ning as a counte ractive te nde ncy which arose fr om the mids t of the H a n le ar ning. A pivotal figure in this process was Yao Na i, a Ssu- k u reviser, classicist, and litte rate ur from T ’ungch’e ng dis trict o f Anhwe i province . Yao s experiences at the Ssu- k’u Co mmis s io n may well have been a pr e c ipita ting factor in the for ma tion o f S ung le ar ning, for it was only after his r e s ignation fr om gove rnme nt in protest agains t the e ditor ial policies o f the Co mmis s ion that Yao be gan to express his dis s atis faction with H a n le arning. In s ubs e que nt letters and pre f­ aces, he laid the blame for the excesses o f H a n le a r ning specifically on the Ssu- k’u e ditors a nd the s mall gr oup of Pe king lite r ati who s ur­ r ounde d the m and domina te d inte lle ctual life at the capital. Yao hims e lf die d in 1815 b u t the ba nne r of S ung le a r ning was e nthus i­ as tically take n up by his s tudents . In 1825- 26 one o f Yao’s mos t famous s tude nts , Fang Tung- shu, wrote a broads ide agains t the H a n

le a r ning move me nt e ntitle d Han- hsueh shang- tui (A pole mic agains t H a n le a r ning) which was publis he d in 1831.83 A decade later, a vol­ ume of Yao N a i s dr aft reviews for the Annotated Catalog were pre pare d for public a tio n by anothe r s tude nt, Ma o Yii- s he ng.84 Taken together, these two docume nts s ounde d mos t o f the the me s o f the Sun g le a r n­ ing move me nt. T he Japane s e inte lle ctual his tor ian Ha m a g u c h i Fujio has recently argue d that Fang T ung- shu s criticis m of H a n le a r ning in Han- hsueh shang- tui was pr ima r ily “dire cte d agains t the anti- social characte r of the move me nt,” a nd repres ented “a re awake ning o f the s pirit of a pplie d s tate s mans hip in C h ’ing th o ug h t .” T his re awake ning, Ha m a g uc h i fur the r conte nds , pr oduce d some r e mar kably far ­ s ighte d suggestions o f policy toward the o p iu m trade at Ca n t o n in the 1830s.85 T he re was no indic a tion o f practical policy suggestions in Yao N a i’s dr aft reviews for the Annotated Catalog. T he reviews did de mons tr ate , however, that the followers o f Sung le a r ning dre w d if­ ferent lessons fr om the classical canon a bo ut the natur e o f tr uth and the role o f the inte lle ctual in ve r ifying it tha n did the followers of H a n le a r ning.86 T he natur e o f these diffe re nt lessons, a nd the ir re la­ tions hip with the Ssu- k u proje ct, are the subjects of the present chapter. Alt ho ug h Yao N a i’s native T ’ung- ch e ng dis trict was a scant 225 mile s away fr om the eastern Che kia ng re gion that pr oduce d Shao Chin- han, the two areas were worlds apar t in inte lle ctual tr aditions . T he y had ha d very diffe re nt experiences at the time o f the MingC h in g tr ans ition. T he e arly years o f C h in g rule were punc tuate d with outburs ts o f M in g loyalis m in eastern Che kia ng, but a calm acquiescence, in which the ne w rulers and old elites made c ommo n cause in m a in t a in in g the status quo, pre vaile d in T ung- ch e ng.87 T hus , at the very time whe n Shao C hin- han s gr andfathe r was le a r ning the tales o f he roic resistance fr om Shao T ing- ts a i Yao N a i’s great- great gr andfathe r was s e rving as pre s ide nt o f the Boar d o f Punis hme nts , charge d with the task o f pas s ing sentence on captur e d M in g loyalis ts .88 T he tr a dition o f service at the C h ’ing court was s trong in T ung- ch e ng, a nd one which Yao Na i was to a ba ndo n only with the greatest reluctance . Eas te rn Che kia ng and T ung- ch e ng also ha d diffe re nt philo s o phi­ cal tr aditions . Wh ile the dy na mic “un it y o f knowle dge a nd action” he ld sway in Che kia ng, the stern mor a lis m o f C h e ng- Chu NeoCo nfuc ia nis m domina te d T ung- ch e ng. Yao le arne d this tr a ditio n

w ithin his family, one o f the two mos t p r o m ina n t lineages in the dis ­ trict, and fr om Fang Pao (1668- 1749), scion of the othe r impor ta nt line age .89 De s pite his implic a tion and impr is onme nt in the lite r ary s uppre s s ion case of Tai Ming- s hih, Fang he ld his court office until the e nd o f his life, a nd was influe ntia l in the C h ie n- lung Empe r or ’s project to pr int the T hir te e n Classics. He was also a fir m believer in the philos ophy of C h u Hs i, and was said to have re marke d in a letter to a fr ie nd that the de ath o f the fr ie nd’s eldest son was a punis hme nt for the latte r’s attacks on C h u Hs i.90 Pe rhaps the mos t famous char ­ acteristic o f T ung- ch e ng s inte lle ctual tr aditions was an interest in wr iting, par ticular ly o f the ku- wen (ancie nt prose) style.91 Yao Na i le arne d this te chnique both fr om Fang Pao a nd from othe r local mas ­ ters and was the undis pute d mas te r of it in his day. Ch o u Yung- nie n once pr oclaime d that “all the great writers [ of ancie nt prose] were fr om T ung- ch e n g . 92 On e rathe r cur ious incide nt fr om Yao s e arly life suggested that, despite his s trong Sung Ne o- Confucian backgr ound, Yao may not always have be e n as fir mly oppos e d to H a n le a r ning as he would late r appear. Some time in the e arly 1750s Yao e vide ntly wrote to Tai Che n as king if he could be T ai s s tude nt. Tai re s ponde d politely, tha nking Yao for his praise, but no ting that between two frie nds there could be no que s tion o f dis ciple s hip.93 Ch a n g Ping- lin has claime d that Yao’s dis a ppointme nt over the incide nt was the or igin o f his a nimus toward H a n le a r ning.94 Yao, however, never me ntione d it in his own writings nor do any o f his conde mna tions o f H a n le a r n­ ing seem even re mote ly re minis ce nt o f it. Wh ile factionalis m and pe rs onal animos ity did undoubte dly play impo r ta nt roles in the inte lle ctual dis pute s o f the era, it seems unlike ly that s uch a ma jo r dis pute would be gin over such a s mall incide nt. Far mor e likely, a young and impre s s ionable Yao was struck, as were so ma ny o f his conte mporarie s , by the force o f T ai’s work a nd de clare d an inte lle c­ tual alle giance which he would late r re pudiate . Yao’s more imme dia te conce rn was his e x a mina tion a nd official career. Following the best tr aditions of his dis trict, he passed in the top thir d o f his chin- shih class in the e xaminations o f 1763 and was appointe d to the H a n lin Acade my, where he served fr om 1763 to 1766. Between 1766 a nd 1771, he was secretary in the Boards o f Wa r a nd Rite s , a nd a de par tme nt dire ctor in the Boa r d of P unis hme nts .95 He e vide ntly attracte d Yii Min- c hung’s atte ntion, for Yu asked that Yao be come his prote ge {chyu cKi men) a nd slated h im for office as a

censor.96 In 1771 on the r e c omme ndation o f Liu T ung- hs un and C h u Yun, Yao was appointe d reviser for books s ubmitte d fr om the province s at the Ssu- k’u Co m mis s io n.97 Afte r several years at the Commis s ion, however, Yao found h im ­ self chafing at the inte lle ctual biases o f his colleagues a nd s uperiors. His son de s cribed the s ituation as follows: T he compilers all competed with each other to make new finds, and despised the Confucian scholars of the Sung and Yuan. Cons ide r ing the ir works e mpty comme ntaries and attacks, the compilers ridiculed and laughe d at [ Sung scholars] and exerted no effort to [ compile or comme nt on them] . My father repeatedly debated with the various e di­ tors but, although it would not have been difficult, none made any effort to help him. Whe n he was on the point of leaving, We ng Fang- kang wrote a note . . . [ lamenting] that “all the editors want to read books that they have never seen before, no one wants to look at common books.” At this time, Liang Shang- kuo, one of [my father’s] friends, told him, “If you resign, I will be able to obtain an appointme nt.” Yao there­ upon resigned in Liang’s favor.98

Such a course was not easy for Yao, as he confide d to a ce rtain Mr . Ch a n g shortly afte r his re s ignation. T he e xcite me nt of the Ssu- k’u proje ct was so e nor mous that no one could ignore it, “even if one were de a f and blind, it would have re ache d the eyes and ears; even if one were halt a nd lame , it would have stirred the fe e t.” Fur the r ­ more , Yao ha d his ancestors to think of: “M y forebears all passed the ir [ official] robes to one anothe r, and walke d in e ach others foot­ steps s e rving at court, but now there are none fr om o ur family serv­ ing. ^ Painful as the choice was, it was one Yao felt he had to make . T he re were s ome in the world, Yao observed, who were able to dr ink one hundr e d cups o f wine and some who had no tole rance for wine at all. Wh y s hould it be diffe re nt in the matte r of capacities for state service, he a s ke d ." Afte r his r e s ignation Yao ha d a long te aching career at a numb e r o f impor ta nt acade mie s , inc lud in g the Chung- s han s hu- yuan in Chia ng- ning, whe re he acquire d a num b e r of loyal s tude nts and articulate defenders. Am o n g these were C h en Yung- kuang (chin- shih o f 1801) Ma o Yii- s he ng, a nd Fang Tung- shu (17 7 2- 1851).100 Yao wrote and de dicate d to these and othe r frie nds an e xtraor dinar y num b e r o f prefaces and letters in the late r years of his life, in which he articulate d his views on s cholars hip and writing. These writings are the major source on Yao’s thought today.101

De s pite the ve he me nce o f s ome o f the ir late r c onde mnations , Yao a nd his s tude nts did not obje ct to all o f H a n le ar ning. Yao prais e d, for ins tance , Hs ie h C h i- k u n s Hsiao- hsueh- k3ao} 102 a nd a work on the Shang- shu e ntitle d Shang- shu pien- wei (A dis cus s ion of forgeries in the Book of Documents).103 Evide ntial research a nd s tudy o f H a n dynas ty texts ha d the ir place. All s cholars hip, Yao asserted, was compos e d o f three e le me nts , research a nd e valuation, principle , and lite rary practice. T he best w r iting ke pt these three e le me nts in balance . If pr inc iple were over- emphas ized, w r iting be came confus e d a nd dis ­ orde rly; if research were over- e mphas ize d, it be came me aningle s s a nd tr iv ia l.104 T his ide a was not ne w with Yao —it ha d be e n ex­ pressed pre vious ly by Tai Ch e n a nd Ch a n g Hsueh- ch e ng a mo ng othe rs 105 —but it was expressed so fr e que ntly by Yao a nd his follow­ ers that it came to serve as a s logan for the ir move me nt. Wh a t Yao obje cte d to were the excesses of the H a n le a r ning move me nt which, he felt, could le ad in two ha r mful dire ctions . First, H a n le a r ning ha d a te nde ncy to fr agme nt s cholars hip, focus s ing the s cholar’s atte ntion on the tr ivial and arcane , rathe r tha n on the large r mor a l and political que s tions which ha d ins pire d Ch in a ’s e arly p h i­ losophers. Perhaps more impor ta nt, H a n le a r ning ha d a te nde ncy to sneer at the very pe ople who seemed to Yao to come closest to e mbo dy ing in the ir lives and writings the wis dom of the sages, me n like the Sung philos ophe rs C h u Hs i a nd the Ch ’e ng brothers . Yao expressed his first obje ction mos t force fully in a preface he wrote for a work by C h ’ie n T ie n (1744- 1806).106 T he faults of H a n le a r ning, Yao argue d, could be trace d to the H a n dynas ty: Whe n Confucius die d, the great too was diminis he d. Whe n Ha n Confu­ cians continue d [the Mas te r’s work] after the Ch in s bur ning of the books, they began by es tablishing specialties. Each scholar concentrated on one classic, and the techniques were passed on from teacher to dis ci­ ple. T he re upon, resentments and jealousies arose, and [the scholars] could not fully unde rs tand each other. It was as if they had built walls and blocked up the ir doors and alleyways to the teachings of the Sages. Compre he ns ive knowledge was gradually lost. To penetrate the classics, to s upport the m with proofs and clarifications, and to choose the most worthy theories, of these tasks they were unworthy. [ They were only able to] mix up the s ituation with calculations , and confuse with strange, prejudiced, petty and trifling examples .107

Yao’s view of the for ma tion of s eparate tr aditions o f le a r ning d ur ing the H a n contras te d s harply with those o f C h i Hs iao- lan, Sun

Hs ing- yen, a nd Ch a n g Hs ue h - c h ’e n g 108 who saw this process as c ontr ib uting to the s har pe ning o f in t e lle c t u a l me thodologie s , a nd the mor e accurate tr ans mis s ion o f sagely te achings . Yao saw the for­ ma tio n o f schools as me re ly confus ing the issue, a nd accus ed e igh­ te e nth- ce ntury scholars o f the s ame sin: T hey concentrate on de te r mining ancie nt names, systems of social and political organization, pr onunciations and publications , and consider breadth to be the goal. They particularly value observing minutiae and accomplis hing difficult [ textual recoveries]. T he worst of the m even want to abandon Ch’eng and Chu, and respect only Ha n thinkers. T his is like planting a branch and neglecting the r oot.109

T hos e who we nt so far as to a ba ndo n the te achings o f the Sung mas ters e arne d Yao s special scorn, for they willingly cast aside the one gr oup who seemed to have obtaine d s ome ins ight into h u m a n natur e a nd mor ality: Since Ha n times, there have been many who have writte n about the classics. On some questions they agree, on other questions they disagree; there is no one road to be followed. But Ch’eng and Chu of the Sung really had many profound insights into the teachings of the ancients. T he ir expression of ordinary sentiments in language was indeed appr o­ priate, unlike the Ha n scholars’ clums y words which did not accord with feelings. Furthermore, [the Sung scholars] were able to establish and cultivate virtue in the ir own lives, so that they really put into practice what they preached. For these reasons, they were admir e d by their successors.110

Alt houg h native place as s ociations a nd pe rs onal frie nds hips were obvious ly impor ta nt in e ighte e nth- ce ntury s cholarly dis pute s , there were also ge nuine philos ophical differences between the H a n le a r n­ ing a nd the Sung le arning. As has be e n argue d above, the H a n le a r ning repres ented a de par tur e in Chine s e inte lle ctual history. To such a de par ture , there was ine vitably a response. Yao N a i’s letters and essays suggested the bas ic issues at stake between the two schools; his Ssu- k u draft reviews clarifie d what these differences me ant in practice. His tor ians occas ionally pose counte r- factual que s tions to set br oad patte rns o f events in relief, but s e ldom can such que s tions be answered. T he re is evidence, however, on the que s tion o f what the Annotated Catalog would have be e n like if it had be e n do mina te d by the Sung le a r ning rathe r than the H a n le a r ning, for the Hsi- pao- hsuan shu- lu (Book notes by Yao Hs i- pao [ Nai] ) include d only reviews

which had be e n rejected by the Ssu- k u editors . Prefaces made it clear that the work ha d be e n publis he d in or de r to show H a n le a r n­ ing scholars the errors o f the ir ways. In this respect it diffe re d fr om the colle ction o f Shao C hin- han s reviews which was publis he d by a me mbe r o f the eas tern Che kia ng ge ntry who s ought to celebrate the achie ve me nts o f the dis trict’s native sons, a nd containe d only drafts which had for me d the basis for Ssu- k’u reviews. Give n the natur e o f the colle ction o f drafts by Yao Na i, one mus t as s ume that each o f the reviews in it was, therefore, in s ome way unacce ptable to the e di­ tors .111 In the first two reviews discussed below, the conclus ions o f Yao and the Ssu- k’u editors were br oadly s imilar but the me thod­ ology and style o f a r g ume nta tio n were quite diffe re nt. In the thir d a nd fourth reviews discussed, the conclus ions of Yao a nd the Ssu- k’u e ditors diffe re d s ubs tantially. Ku- shih. Yao N a i’s review of the Ku- shih in ma ny respects par alle lle d Shao C hin- han s review o f the Shih- chi chi- chieh; Shao’s review ex­ pressed the views of H a n le a r ning on an e arly comme nta r y on Shihchi, while Yao s review expressed the views o f Sung le a r ning on a Sung c omme ntar y on the s ame text. Not only did the two reviews suggest the differences in the s cholarly styles of H a n le a r ning and Sung le ar ning, the two texts unde r review e xe mplifie d the inte lle c­ tual te mpe rs o f the two eras which gave the C h ’ing move me nts the ir name s . T he Ku- shih (Ancie nt his tor y) was a work by Su C h e (10391112) brothe r o f the poe t Su Tung- pb, which pur por te d to s upple ­ me nt and correct bas ic annals , biographie s , and de s criptions o f he re ditary a nd noble houses in Ssu- ma C h ’ie n’s Shih- chi.112 Am o n g the ite ms inc lude d in the Ku- shih were the story o f Lao- tzu s me e ting with the Buddha , a nd an account o f the Co n fuc ia n dis ciple T zu- ssu s te aching o f Me ncius . Alt ho ug h the language o f the book was elegant, Naito Ko n a n has pr onounce d it “practically useless” fr om the point o f view of mode r n critical his torical s cholars hip.113 T he his torical opinions in the book were, however, m uc h admir e d by Ne o- Confucians par ticular ly C h u Hs i, who wrote: “O f all recent histories, this work comes closest to expres s ing the t r u th .” C h u pa r ­ ticular ly a dmir e d S u s s tate me nt that “the kings and e mpe rors o f old mus t have be e n good jus t as fire mus t be hot and wate r mus t be w e t. 114 Liv ing in an age muc h mor e sensitive to the canons o f pr o o f a nd evidence, ne ithe r Yao nor the Ssu- k’u editors could accept Ch u H s i’s views on the Ku- shih at face value. Yao, however, did not address

the que s tion o f the factual accuracy of the work in his review. Rathe r, he pre s e nte d a series o f br ie f a nd impre s s ionis tic characte rizations of the two authors , Su Ch ’e and Ssu- ma C h ’ie n which he compos e d into a type o f critical fugue . T he Ku- shih was writte n whe n Su Ch ’e was advance d in both age and wis dom, Yao said, a nd the work had e arne d the respect o f Sung scholars despite its weaknesses. O n the othe r ha nd, Ssu- ma C h ’ie n ha d done a magnifice nt jo b in c o mpiling the Shih- chi par ticular ly in vie w of the dis pe rs ion o f source mate rials which occurre d with the b u r n in g o f the books by C h ’in Shih- huangti. Altho ug h many corre ctions could be made in the Shih- chi the work o f those who corrected (lit. nur tur e d a nd de corate d) e arlie r works could not be compar e d with the labors o f the or igina l authors . Still, Ss u- ma C h ’ie n did have his faults , par ticular ly his excessive liking for the novel a nd strange, which Su C h ’e ha d corrected accor ding to Co nfuc ia n principle s . All in all, Su C h ’e ought to be viewed as Ssum a C h ie n s “good frie nd across a thous and ye ars . 115 Ins te ad o f r e lying on br ie f biogr aphical s tate me nts to prove the ir points , the Ssu- k u editors us ed e xamples drawn fr om the Ku- shih and othe r texts on H a n history. T he y be gan by citing a n um b e r o f the mor e pate ntly unbe lie vable stories in the book, such as that o f Laot zu^ me e ting with the Buddha , and no ting the ir source. T he n, the editors quote d C h u H s i s prais e of the book, but also note d that C h u had criticize d some of Su s assertions in his Tsa- hsueh- pien (Dis t in ­ guis hing true and false in mis ce llane ous te achings ).116 Like Yao, the Ssu- k u editors comme nte d that Su Ch e s work pre s e nte d no chal­ lenge to Ssu- ma C h ’ien, a lthough they did so in s lightly s tronge r te rms than Yao: Ssu- ma Ch’ien is to history as Li Po and Tu Fu are to poetry, Wang Hsi- chih is to calligraphy, and Ku K’ai- chih is to painting. . . . Su Ch e s effort to correct and annotate the work unavoidably involves some nonsense.

None the le s s , the editors conce de d that whe n Su dre w upo n re liable sources, his e me ndations to Shih- chi were s ome time s worth con­ s ult ing .117 On e obvious difference between the two versions of the Ku- shih review was le ngth; the final vers ion was almos t three a nd a h a lf time s as lo ng as Yao’s draft. But the difference in le ngth reflected a mor e pr o found difference in styles o f ar gume ntation: whe re Yao de alt in image s and impre s s ions that could be capture d in a me taphor or

othe r rhe torical figure, the Ssu- k u editors care fully note d where Su C h e had s upple me nte d Ssu- ma C h ’ie n a nd where Su ha d take n issue with him . On e can well see how Yao mig ht have argue d that the e ditors review dive rte d the re ade r’s atte ntion fr om the ce ntral issue, the worth o f a Sung his tory text, with de tails o f H a n history, while the editors mig ht have argue d that Yao s draft was ins ubs tantial a nd empty. Be hind this me thodological difference was a fund a m e n ­ tal dis agre e me nt over how the docume nts o f Chine s e his tory s hould be approache d. T his dis agre e me nt, at once me thodological and s ub­ s tantial, was also appar e nt in the two versions of a review of one of the mos t colorful H a n dynas ty texts, the Shan- hai- ching (Clas s ic of mounta ins a nd seas). Shan- hai- ching. T he pr oble m in re vie wing the Shan- hai- ching was to de cide what sort o f inte rpre tive pa r a dig m s hould be us ed to me as ure the work. T he Chine s e have, at least in his torical times , re garde d ge ogr aphical features as be ing e ndowe d with s upe r natur al powers, a nd belie ve d it possible for m a n to chart the resonances between the na tur a l and the s upe r natur al orders with various sorts of geomancy. T he Shan- hai- ching, a text o f unc e r tain date and author s hip, was a catalog of mounta ins , rivers and othe r topogr aphical features in C h in a and he r s uppos e d bor de rlands , and the legends and powers associated with th e m .118 It has be e n inte rpre te d as a he te rodox text on magic a nd as tr onomy by C h u H s i,119 as a book o f folktales by Yang She n (1488- 1559),120 and as an ancie nt ge ography book by H u i T ung and his followers in the e arly C h in g .121 Each of these inte rpr e ­ tations implie d a diffe re nt set o f s tandards a nd expectations. Yao Na i’s draft review of the Shan- hai- ching centered a r o und Ch u Hs i’s assertion in his Ch u- tz u pien- cheng (Cr itic a l comme nts on the Ch'u- tz'u) that the Shan- hai- ching was wr itte n afte r the Ch u- tz u to ex­ pla in a nd e laborate ce rtain as tonomical points in it .122 In defense o f this ar g ume nt, Yao reviewed the e vide nce on the author s hip o f Shanhai- ching. Dis mis s ing claims that it was wr itte n by the le ge ndar y figures Po- i a nd Yu on the gr ounds that ma ny o f the place name s in the book date d only fr om the Ch ’in dynasty, Yao suggested ins te ad that the book was the work o f We i a nd C h in dynas ty authors who dre w on popula r le ge nd to annotate the ancie nt poetry. Yao Na i agre e d with Ch u Hs i that the work was pr obably or igina lly accom­ pa nie d by charts , a lthough he said that these charts were pr obably lost by Sung time s , a nd rejected as fake a M in g dynas ty e dition o f

Shan- hai- ching charts. Br ie f s tate me nts a bout the prove nance o f the text, a nd about ce rtain de le tions which Ssu- k u e ditors had made in the text conclude d Yao s review.123 T he Annotated Catalog review o f Shan- hai- ching containe d m uc h the same info r ma tio n as Yao’s draft, but was or ganize d a r o und diffe re nt que s tions . Like Yao, the Ssu- k u editors e xamine d the author s hip o f the Shan- hai- ching but they did so in or de r to es tablis h the characte r a nd authe nticity o f the text, rathe r tha n to prove or dis prove C h u Hs i’s theories. T he y note d the views o f the Sung philos ophe r, but as only one o pinio n on the que s tion, a nd at that a r athe r late a nd im ­ plaus ible one. It was the ir conclus ion that the res emblances betwe e n the Shan- hai- ching a nd the Ch u- tz u showed only that the two texts dre w on the s ame fund o f e arly legends , not that the y were re late d as text a nd comme ntar y. T he editors agre e d with Yao, however, that if any charts had or igina lly ac companie d the text, they ha d now be e n los t.124 Both Yao a nd the Ssu- k u editors therefore viewed the Shan- hai- ching as a colle ction o f legends; they diffe re d only in the ir ideas on why the legends had be e n collected. But this difference had impor ta nt im p li­ cations for the que s tion o f how the text was to be viewed. Se e ing Shan- hai- ching as an a nno ta tio n o f the Ch u- tz u Yao re garde d it as a he re tical text, a nd de s cribe d its conte nts as “e xtravagant and false the orie s .” Se e ing the work in anothe r light, the Ssu- k u e ditors place d it in a section o f the catalog e ntitle d “tale s ,” r e mar king: In the discussion of topography in the book’s preface, there is much dis ­ cussion of ghosts and spirits, therefore it was include d in the Tao- tsang (Taoist tripitaka). . . . But if you examine carefully its basic inte nt, the work does not be long to the Huang- Lao school at all. In its discussion of mountains and rivers it draws upon various sources, whatever happe ne d to reach the eye and ear of the author. Although several groups regard it as the first geography book, this too is inappropriate . If you look at the work carefully, then [it is appare nt that] it is the oldest collection of tales.125

Alt houg h the factual conte nt o f the two reviews was very s imilar, the implic ations dr awn a nd the critical categories e mploye d were quite diffe re nt. Yao was r e a ding the book, as had Ch u Hs i, as an e xample o f e arly anti- Confucian thought; the Ssu- k’u editors were looking at it as an e xample o f e arly tales. To put the matte r in mor e ge ne ral te rms , Yao was tr ying to e valuate the r e lations hip o f the Shanhai- ching to a core of or thodox beliefs which ha d be e n founde d in

ancie nt time s , and give n force ful expression by eleventh- century Ne o- Confucians . Alt ho ug h Yao Na i was w illing to th ink critically on some issues, he was cle arly not w illing to do so whe n s uch would call C h u Hs i into que s tion. T r aditional beliefs were mor e impo r ta nt to h im tha n the te xtual founda tions on which they rested. By contras t, H a n le a r ning scholars were as king new que s tions about prove nance a nd me aning, and e volving powe rful ne w te chnique s for re s olving ma ny tr a ditionally intr actable que s tions in Chine s e inte lle ctual his ­ tory. Ine vitably, these ne w que s tions und e r m ine d the old or thodoxy in some respects, a nd le d H a n le a r ning thinke rs to ne w conclus ions , as the example s of the next section will de mons trate . Mo- tzu. T he M o'tzu was a much- maligne d a nd little- studied text in impe r ial C h in a a nd as a result the text had be come cor r upt by the e ighte e nth century. On ly sixty- three o f the or iginal seventy- one chapters o f the Mo- tzu were e xtant d ur in g the Ch ’in g .126 F ur the r ­ more , as both Yao a nd the Ssu- k’u editors pointe d out, portions o f the text mos t pr oba bly the ones on milita r y strategy, a nd the clas­ sical canon a nd its e xpos ition —were not by Mo- tzu hims e lf, but by disciples or forge rs .127 For Yao, however, the ma jor faults o f the Mo- tzu were not the cor­ r uptions in the text, but its ine le gant lite r ary style, a nd the p h ilo ­ s ophical heresies it espoused. Mo- tzu, Yao observed, was not like Lao- tzu, Chuang- tzu, H a n Fei- tzu a nd Sun- tzu, whose lite r ar y a b ili­ ties were sufficie nt to express the ir ideas. O n the contrary, Mo- tzu s eemed de libe rate ly to avoid elegance in wr iting, fe aring, as one o f his disciples re marke d to the K in g of C h u that pe ople would dwell on his style while ig no r ing his m a in p o in t .128 To Yao, this fear was mis place d: If the writing is insufficient, the n the truth will not be clear. Therefore, it is said that when words have no polish, they will not travel far. It is clearly impossible for a [a philos ophe r’s] disciples to admire [his] lan­ guage and ignore [his] theme. Why should one worry that elegance in writing [will distract the reader] ?129

T he Mo- tzu s unins pir e d style was, Yao argue d, s ymptomatic o f its philos ophical errors: T he tr uth of the sages must accord with human feelings. Therefore, the sages [ preached] restraint of lusts and desires but did not pr ohibit [such natural sentiments] . But Mo- tzu would have me n end up miserable

spendthrifts. Naturally, Mo- tzu s conde mnation of mus ic, and ur ging of miserliness in fune ral rites is poorly written! How far his ideas were from the common mind! . . . It is not even worth arguing with such nonsens e!130

Star ting fr om the same obs e rvations a bout the text, the Ssu- k’u editors reached e ntire ly diffe re nt conclus ions . For the m, the co r r up­ tions in the Mo- tzu text were only a s ymptom of the neglect which the Mo- tzu and texts like it ha d suffered over two centurie s . T he y at­ tr ibute d the neglect o f the Mo- tzu to Me nc ius conde mna tions o f Mo T i and Yang C h u ,131 and argue d that as a result o f Me nc ius attacks, no ma jor philos ophe r in impe r ial time s had styled hims e lf a Mohis t. T his was unfor tunate , in the e ditors ’ view, since in Ch o u time s the Mo- tzu had be e n an influe ntial text. More ove r, ce rtain o f the Mo- tzu doctrine s were especially worthy of a dmir a tio n, par tic ula r ly its e mphas is on te mpe rance and the time ly utiliza tio n o f resources. For all these reasons, the editors conclude d that the Mo- tzu deserved to be ranke d a mo ng the major e arly Chine s e philos ophical wor ks .132 T he Ssu- k u editors were not alone a mo ng e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars in la m e nting the bane ful influe nce of Me nc ius attacks on Mo- tzu. In 1783 several pr o mine nt classicists, wor king unde r the patronage o f Pi Yua n, br o ught out the first critical e dition o f the Motzu to appe ar in over a m ille nnium . Pie cing toge the r fr agme nts and re s toring ancie nt re adings , these scholars pe rfor me d an act o f re­ ha bilita tion which, as one s tude nt of the text has obs erved, could pr oba bly only have take n place after the book ha d be e n favorably reviewed in the impe r ial catalog.133 Wa ng Ch u n g (1745- 1794) a close associate o f many o f the impe r ial catalog editors , wrote two prefaces for the ne w e dition. In the first he note d tha t the Mo- tzus e mphas is on frugality, which e ntaile d oppos ition to some o f the mus ic and ce re monie s of the Co nfuc ia n school, was his s olution to pre s s ing e conomic proble ms o f his day. He fur the r argue d that Me ncius c onde mna tio n of Mo- tzu s hould not be re garde d as abs olute tr uth, but as ancie nt pole mics , e vidence o f the compe tition o f early philos ophical schools for adhe re nts and atte ntion. In his second pre f­ ace, Wa ng e ndors e d Chuang- tzu s comme nt that Mo- tzu s hare d with the sage Y u an a dmir able s pirit o f de dication a nd self- sacrifice.134 These s tate me nts drew a ha ughty a nd vindictive re buke from We ng Fang- kang (1733- 1818). We ng was a close fr ie nd o f Yao Na i a nd like Yao, was afr aid that e ighte e nth- ce ntury te xtualis ts we nt too far in the ir conte ntions and und e r m in e d ancie nt te achings a nd the

philos ophical foundations o f Confuc ia nis m. In fact, whe n Yao re ­ s igne d fr om the Ssu- k u Commis s ion, We ng had writte n h im a br ie f note o f s ympathy.135 Co m m e n t in g on Wa ng C h u n g ’s prefaces, which were in some respects milde r tha n the Ssu- k u review, We ng asserted that the Mo- tzu ha d be e n cons ide re d be nighte d, at the very least, by mos t bibliogr aphe rs a nd philos ophe rs in the pas t. We ng fur the r pr o ­ claime d that those who “re ad the Mo- tzu a nd seek to clarify its text are de finite ly outs ide the way o f the sages.” We ng could tolerate the public a tio n efforts s pons ore d by Pi Yua n, but Wa ng C h u n g ’s a r g u­ me nts were pur e sophistry. “How can he say this !” We ng blus te re d. In a final conde s ce nding flouris h, Gr a n d Se cre tary We ng note d that altho ugh in othe r respects Wa ng C h u n g had de mons tr ate d tale nt and a s cholarly te mpe r, in his work on the Mo- tzu he ha d obvious ly be e n led astray. T he vitupe r a tio n in We ng s re marks may well have be e n a result o f the fact that he ha d lo ng re s traine d hims e lf. If Wa ng ’s preface e arne d such a rebuke , one can ima gine the feelings o f Yao and We ng whe n they saw such views ope nly a nd unimpe a c ha bly pr oclaime d in the impe r ia l catalog.136 Chung- yung chih- lueh. T he Ss u- k’u e ditors ’ tr e atme nt o f Sung texts was, if anything, even more fr us tr ating for the oppone nts o f H a n le ar ning. T he e le vation of the Chung- yung (Doc tr ine o f the me an) to a ce ntral pos ition as one o f the Four Books o f Co nfuc ia n philos ophy was a ce ntral and characte ris tic achie ve me nt o f Sung Ne o- Confu­ cianis m. An essay o f a bout 3,500 characters da ting pr obably from the Wa r r ing States pe r iod or e arly H a n dynasty, the Chung- yung has be e n te r me d “the mos t philos ophical work in the whole body o f C o n ­ fucian lite r atur e .”137 It ar ticulate d a conce pt o f tr uth which was at the he art o f Sung Ne o- Confucianis m, a view, as Tu We i- ming has par aphr as e d it, that “heaven- endowed h u m a n natur e de fine d what the Way is, which in tur n, characterizes what te aching ought to b e . 138 It was to counte r precisely such a view o f tr uth, as par t o f m a n ’s he ave nly e ndowme nt to be preserved thr o ugh e thical selfcultivation, that the H a n le a r ning scholars advocate d s tudy o f texts as the best me ans o f pur s uing tr uth. Cr e dit for the e le vation o f the Chung- yung to canonical status be ­ longs pr inc ipa lly to C h u Hs i, but actually his vie w o f the work re ­ flected those o f e arlie r Sung thinke rs . Some time in the twelfth century, Shih T un {chin- shih o f 1145) collected the e arly Sung com­ me ntarie s on the Chung- yung in a volume e ntitle d Chung- yung chi- lueh

(Colle cte d inte r pre tations o f the Chung- yung). La te r in the ce ntury, C h u Hs i favored Shih T un’s work with a preface a nd publis he d it in two s eparate e ditions .139 But S h ih s work was overs hadowed a nd inde e d ceased to circulate inde pe nde ntly afte r the public a tio n o f C h u Hs i’s own works, Chung- yung chang- chu (A te xtual exegesis o f the Chung- yung) a nd Ssu- shu huo- wen (Que s tions a nd answers a bout the Four Books ).140 Du r in g the late Min g , a s cholar fr om Shih T un s native dis trict obtaine d the p r int ing blocks for the Shih T un c om­ me ntar y a nd r e printe d it .141 Yao, however, did not me ntio n this late r e dition, a nd bare ly m e n­ tione d Shih T un in his draft review. He conce ntrate d ins te ad on the conne ction betwe e n the Shih T un comme ntar y and C h u Hs i’s late r work. Yao note d that Ch u wrote his first preface to the Chung- yung chilueh in 1183 whe n he was 54 sui. Six years later, afte r Shih T un was de ad a nd C h u ’s own comme nta r y on the Chung- yung was comple te , C h u re e dite d Shih’s text a nd r e pr inte d it with his old preface. C h u ha d also wr itte n an e pitaph for Shih T un. For Yao, the n, the mos t impo r ta nt fact a bout the Shih c omme ntar y was its influe nce on C h u H s i.142 T he Chung- yung chih- lueh was the first text to be reviewed in the sec­ tion o f the Annotated Catalog which de alt solely with the Chung- yung a nd as such afforde d the Ssu- k u editors an o ppor tunity to explore the que s tion o f the prove nance o f the Chung- yung, a nd the dis pute s the work ha d arous e d a mo ng Sung scholars. H a n dynas ty author s , the editors obs erved, ha d not known what to make o f the Chung- yung, Liu Hs ia ng ha d place d it in the ge ne ral essays (t'ung- lun) section o f his catalog, while others ha d seen it as par t of the Li- chi (Book o f rites). It was not u n til the Sung Ne o- Confucians had rediscovered the text that it was seen as essential for an unde r s tanding of Co nfuc ia n p h i­ losophy. Afte r that rediscovery, however, the comme ntarie s on the text ha d be come mor e nume r ous every day. T he e ditors fur the r note d that Ssu- ma C h ie n s a tt r ibution o f the Chung- yung to Co nfuc ius dis ciple Tzu- ssu, which C h u Hs i ha d accepted unque s tioningly, was only a s ugges tion, a nd ha d be e n rejected by several H a n dynas ty s cholars .143 Fur the rmor e , as the Annotated Catalog obs erved elsewhere, the Chung- yung was not a n easy text to re ad, a nd even the Sung thinke rs had ha d the ir dis agre e me nts a bout its m e a n in g .144 C h u Hs i ha d e s tablis he d his own inte rpr e tations in the Chung- yung huo- wen a nd in the course of so doing had re fute d ma ny e arlie r Sung thinke rs . T he

value o f Shih T un’s effort was that it preserved ma ny o f these e arly inte rpre tations , so that one could see how and why C h u Hs i had reached his conclus ions . In s hort, far fr om e mpha s izing the conne c­ tion be twe e n the Shih c omme ntar y and C h u H s i s work, the Ssu- k’u editors e mphas ize d the differences be twe e n the two comme ntar ie s , and stressed the difficultie s involve d in inte r pr e ting the ofte n a m ­ biguous e arly te xt.145 If the sugges tion that the Mo- tzu ha d some value was he re tical to the oppone nts of H a n le a r ning, the notio n that the Chung- yung was not necessarily sacros anct mus t have seemed even more offensive to the m. T he reviews o f the Mo- tzu and Chung- yung suggested how the diffe re nt me thods o f Yao Na i a nd the Ssu- k’u e ditors could le ad to funda me nta lly diffe re nt conclus ions . T he Ssu- k u editors a p ­ proache d the Mo- tzu a nd the Chung- yung as docume nts o f inte lle ctual his tory w ith ce rtain values a nd ce rtain weaknesses, values a nd we ak­ nesses which could be de te r mine d fr om the histories o f the texts themselves. Yao de alt in absolutes: the Mo- tzu, despite its date, was heretical; while the Chung- yung despite its s ome what fuzzy or igins , was an invaluable guide to the wis dom of the sages hallowe d by both his torical tr aditions a nd the e ndors e me nt o f C h u Hs i. T he O r ig in s a n d S ig n if ic a n c e o f the S u n g L e a r n in g : A n H y p o t h e s is Mo de r n inte lle ctual his tor ians have not be e n kind to Sung le ar ning. In his biogr aphy o f Fang Pao for Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period Fang Chao- ying writes that “bigotry was characte ris tic o f the T ’ungch’e ng school, whic h limite d its e lf to the s tudy of C h u H s i s c o m me n­ taries a nd the prose writings o f a few me n, b r a n d ing othe r types o f lite r ature as h a r m ful to the m in d . 146 Lia n g Ch i- ch ao characte rize d Sung le a r ning in s imilar terms: . . if we judg e this school by its writings , it was imitative , overly punc tilio us a nd de void o f substance; if we judg e it by its te achings , it e ncourage d abstractness a nd stifled cre ativity a nd was therefore not be ne ficial to society. More ove r, it never occupie d an impor ta nt place in C h ’ing le arne d c irc le s . 147 Ce r ­ tainly, s uch de s criptions capture the s pirit o f the pole mics which the followers o f Ha n le a r ning aime d at Yao Na i and his disciples in the early nine te e nth ce ntury. T he y may also reflect the influe nce of the earliest s tude nts o f C h ’ing inte lle ctual his tor y —me n like Ch a n g

Ping- lin (1868- 1938) and H u Shih —who a dmir e d a nd furthe re d H a n le arning. It is the conte ntion of this chapter, however, that the differences between Yao N a i s draft reviews and the final vers ions that appe are d in the Annotated Catalog illus trate d the inte lle ctual issues at stake be ­ tween the H a n a nd Sung le a r ning more clearly tha n did e ithe r the pole mics which the two schools e xchange d or s ubs e que nt his torical tr e atme nts o f Sung le ar ning. T he essential difference betwe e n the two schools was over the conce pt of tr uth and how it was to be ve ri­ fied. For both H a n and Sung le a r ning thinke rs , the ancie nt sages were, o f course, the ultima te sources o f philos ophical a nd mor al wis dom. But for H a n le a r ning, that wis dom was to be found in and verified by texts, while for Sung le a r ning tr uth was a matte r o f ju d g ­ me nt and unde r s tanding, more ofte n e xpe rie nce d tha n docume nte d. As a result o f these two funda me nta lly diffe re nt vis ions of tr uth, the two schools asked diffe re nt que s tions ; what s eemed tr ivial to one school seemed o f central impor t to the other. T hus , there were few differences betwe e n the two schools on point o f fact, but very s ub­ s tantial and impor ta nt differences on que s tions o f inte rpre tive stance, differences which seem to have been almos t irre concilable . T he re seems to have be e n, in fact, very little inte rchange between the two groups , except on a pole mical level, because they were pr ima r ily a r g uing on diffe re nt planes . If, as the evide nce above suggests, Sung le a r ning was bas ically a response by ce rtain e le me nts of the scholarly c o m munity to some of the new de parture s of the H a n le a r ning move me nt, why was such a response ar ticulate d only in the 1780s and 1790s?148 T he H a n le ar n­ ing move me nt had been active since the middle o f the seventeenth century, and by the mid- e ighte e nth ce ntury ha d alre ady pr oduce d many funda me nta l challenges to tr a ditional beliefs. T he move me nt does appe ar to have reached a new level of m a tur ity and inte ns ity in the last years of the e ighte e nth century, pas s ing fr om what Yii Yings hih has called “inte lle ctualis m” to “te x tualis m ” and this may have been re s pons ible in part for the Sung le a r ning r e a ction.149 But the s ignificance of the Ssu- k u project in this re gard cannot be ignore d, for the project change d the re lations hip of H a n le a r ning both with its oppone nts a nd with the gove rnme nt. De s pite the Ssu- k’u editors re luctance to pr int the more radical conclus ions of thinke rs like Shao Chin- han the Ssu- ku chmn- shu was,

in conce pt, me thodology a nd a r gume nta tio n, a doc ume nt o f the H a n le a r ning move me nt. Mig h t not the Sung le a r ning re action have be e n trigge re d by the very pos ition oPpolitical a nd inte lle ctual d o m i­ nance H a n le a r ning ha d attaine d in the proje ct? At the very least, it can be argue d that Sung le a r ning be gan with Yao Na i, that Yao’s experiences at the Ssu- k u Co mmis s io n were a t ur nin g point in his career a nd inte lle ctual life, a nd that the e diting of his draft reviews pr ovide d h im with first- hand experience o f H a n le a r ning which domina te d political a nd inte lle ctual life at the capital. T he pr opos i­ tion that the s pread o f Sung le a r ning was pre cipitate d in par t by the Ssu- k’u proje ct is only a hypothes is , but it is one bas e d on s trong e vidence fr om both Yao’s life and the Ssu- k’u proje ct itself. Whe the r or not the above hypothe s is can be s us taine d, the fore ­ going e vidence suggests that the C h ’ing gove rnme nt inde e d had a role to play in the process by which s cholarly ins ight be came received wis dom affe cting e s tablis he d conce ptions o f the mor a l and social orde r in e ighte e nth- ce ntury Ch in a . But in pla ying that role, the gove rnme nt was guide d by the opinio ns a nd pe rce ptions o f its mos t articulate subjects, s e rving more as an a r bitr ator tha n as an ide ologi­ cal police ma n. As chapte r 6 will show, it was not that the C h ie n- lung gove rnme nt ha d abrogate d its pre rogative o f cens ors hip, or that the e mpe r or a nd his minis te r s were ins e ns itive to the political im p li­ cations of ideas. But in the ir view the r e lations hip between the court and the Chine s e elite, or at least its more dy na mic and articulate e le me nts , was critical to the success of Ch ’ing rule in China . To pr e ­ serve that re lations hip, it was impor ta nt that the court lis ten to the views of the H a n le a r ning move me nt. As the conce rns of Chine s e inte lle ctuals change d, the or thodoxy of the C h in g court had to change with the m. While it was pr oba bly a source o f regret to some that Yao Na i left state service, it was pr oba bly a source o f ple as ure to more that H a n le a r ning, with its promis e of r e a lizing the age- old ideals of Chine s e society, ha d found its place in Ch ie n- lung s re ign o f virtue .

T he O r ig in s o f the C a m p a ig n (F e b ru a ry , 1 7 7 2 —S e pte m be r, 1 7 7 4 ) Ce ns ors hip was not new to the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or in 1772; he had ba nne d several works d u r in g his re ign, as had all his C h ’ing pre de ­ cessors. Political inte rfe re nce with the wr itte n wor d was, in fact, as old as the Chine s e im p e r ium itself. H a d the e mpe r or des ired in 1772 to suppress ce rtain works or categories o f works, he ne e d not have created an e laborate cover for doing so. But the impe r ia l motive in the c a mpa ig n o f lite rary s uppre s s ion o f the 1770s we nt be yond this; the court s ought not me re ly to suppress a few books , but to e xpunge an idio m of protes t fr om the Chine s e political le xicon. Ju s t as in the c ompila tion o f the Ssu- k’u ch'tian- shu, what the e mpe r or did not say a bout book s uppre s s ion in his initia l edict on the s ubject was as impo r ta nt as what he did say. T he s tar tling s tride ncy o f impe r ial la n ­ guage on ce ns ors hip mas ke d comple x motives . T he first me ntio n o f ce ns ors hip in conne ction with the Ssu- k’u proje ct occurre d in an edict issued in Ap r il of 1773. T he de bate w ith ­ in the Gr a n d Co unc il over C h u Yun’s propos als o f tasks to be unde r ­ take n in c onjunc tio n with the Ssu- k u proje ct ha d jus t been comple te d a nd the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion e s tablis hed. T he Apr il edict be gan with a s umma r y of that de bate a nd the goals o f the book col­ le ction project. T he Empe r or the n note d that r athe r few pr ovincial governors or private collectors had complie d with his or de r that they s ubmit rare a nd valuable books to Pe king, a nd spe culate d: It mus t be that provincial governors, knowing that the books were not all from one hand, feared that there might be some expressions of a rebellious or seditious nature in the m, whe re upon they themselves would be held liable. . . . In their turn, the owners of libraries, noting the appre he ns ion of the governors, were secretive and not fo r thc o m ing .. . .

Digr e s s ing briefly, the e mpe ror offered a re lative ly tole rant view o f how diffe r ing opinions on philos ophical or his tor ical issues could arise. Whe n me n of le arning write books to set forth the ir theories, each pours forth his own beliefs. There are sometimes contradictions, and some­ times untruths . This is unavoidable. In fact, the contradictions and untr uths are usually obvious, and there is no reason why books [containing them] s hould not be collected and stored together with [ more trustworthy accounts] . And if the wording is sometimes offensive or

treasonous, . . . this is because these are the bigoted views of forme r me n which have no contact with the present. Why should there be so much fear?4

Such an edict would s urely not have be e n issued unless there had be e n some e vidence o f fear on the par t of local officials and book owners. Yet, in pr inciple , there was no thing ne w here: the views that the state had a role to play in inte lle ctual life, a nd that whe n mis ­ unde r s tandings arose, it was the duty o f a wise and be ne vole nt e mpe r or to correct the m, were wide ly he ld. T he fear book owners felt pr obably de rive d not so m uc h fr om the abs tract pr inciple the e mpe ror was expressing, as fr om the specific “bigote d views of for me r me n” which all kne w to exist. As the works o f Hs ie h Kuoche n in C h in a a nd Ly nn An n Struve in the Unit e d States have s hown, a cons ide rable lite rature de s cribing the s eventeenth- century tr ans ition fr om the M in g to the Ch ’ing dynas tie s in C h in a s urvive d into the e ighte e nth and nine te e nth ce nturie s .5 Mos t o f this lite r ature was wr itte n fr om the point of vie w o f the Chine s e , and was writte n a few years after the events it des cribed. It chr onicle d in vivid la n ­ guage the not- always savory events o f the day, and portraye d the e motions of the Chine s e who saw the native M in g dynas ty fall to the Ma n c h u house. More ove r, e ighte e nth- ce ntury scholars occas ionally used s uch sources; as recently as Apr il o f 1772 C h a Shih- kue i, a lit­ e ratus who he ld office as a dis trict magis trate , was punis he d for c om­ pilin g a treatise on the late M in g pe r iod a nd the C h ’ing conque s t bas ed on private histories (yeh- shih) unfavorable to the Ma nc h us .6 All o f the official docume nts about the book s uppre s s ion ca mpa ign, and mos t o f the s ubs e que nt analyses o f its aims , suggested that the p r i­ ma r y conce rn o f the c a mpa ig n was the de s truction o f this antiMa n c h u lite r atur e .7 In the e dict o f Apr il o f 1773 the e mpe r or pr oba bly me ant to allay o ffic ia ls fears by acknowle dging a pote ntial that all kne w to exist. By Se pte mbe r o f 1774 however, the balance between gathe r ing the best books , and s uppre s s ing offensive ones had shifted. Anti- Ma nc hu lit­ e rature was clearly on the e mpe r or ’s m in d , a nd the pr oble m was to es tablis h a proce dure for finding and de s troying it. T he e mpe r or set forth his concerns: Now, over ten thous and books have been s ubmitte d by the several prov­ inces, but none has been singled out as offensive. How is it possible that among such a quantity of lite rature be queathe d by forme r generations,

not one s hould contain a trace of sedition? Dur ing the pe riod at the end of the Ming , unauthorize d histories were very nume rous , and in the m both de famatory and eulogistic comme nts were expressed, according to the authors own prejudices. It stands to reason that among the rumors and gossip, there mus t have been some de famatory to our dynasty.

He fur the r orde re d pr ovincial governors to publicize his orders pr omptly: Therefore, let an order be tr ans mitte d to the governors and governorsgeneral to delegate trustworthy me n to go to those households which have already s upplie d the m with books, and e xplain my edict clearly. Let the m be told that if they own books which they s hould not possess, they mus t hand the m over with all speed and will not be held to account. . . . But if after this edict there are still those who secrete mischiefworking books, the n it mus t be that these books are be ing inte ntionally withhe ld. If such books s hould be discovered, the ir owner’s crime be beyond forgiveness.

On e s hould not unde r e s timate the significance o f this s hift in tone. In both language a nd s ubs tance, this e dict repres ented a de par tur e fr om pre vious officially stated policy. T he e mpe r or ’s references to s e dition were far mor e specific a nd thr e a te ning in 1774 tha n the y had be e n in 1773; “the bigote d views o f for me r me n which have no thing to do with the pre s e nt” be came “r umor s a nd gossip . . . de famator y to our dynas ty.” Whe r e the e mpe r or s ought in 1773 to allay officials fears, he seemed to want in 1774 to arous e the m. Re fe r r ing by name to te n governors, he asked: [These] are all officials . . . whose fathers too have served our dynasty. If they see books hostile to the dynasty, be they privately preserved ane c­ dotes or collected works of poetry or prose, there is not one of the m but ought to show hatred. How can they pe rmit these things to be hidde n and circulated illicitly to mislead future generations? We cannot unde r ­ stand what these officials did when they encountered these books in the ir investigations. We command the m to me morialize faithfully in this re gard.8

Punis hme nts were author ize d for the first time for those who w ith­ he ld books. O n the othe r ha nd, one s hould not overes timate what was be ing atte mpte d. Very little, if any, o f the lite r ature seized in the book s up­ pression c a mpa ig n o f the 1770s incite d readers to re be llion agains t the gove rnme nt as it existed in the e ighte e nth century. Unlike The Rights of Man agains t which a conte mpor ar y Britis h gove rnme nt

would s oon dire ct its s e dition statutes, or The Revolutionary Army which the Cluing gove r nme nt would pros cribe in the twe ntie th century, the lite r ature o f the e ighte e nth- ce ntury “inquis itio n” in C h in a did not propose ne w conce ptions o f gove rnme nt or oppose e xis ting mode ls o f authority. It was s e ditious only in the sense that it e choed his tor i­ cal challenges to C h ’ing author ity, and que s tione d Ma n c h u mor a lity in rathe r abs tract te rms . T he mate r ial which the court sequestered in the 1770s a nd 1780s was tre as onous , in that it revealed matte rs the court would pr oba bly have pre fe rre d ke pt secret, but the secrets so exposed could only be us ed as we apons in an ide ological combat. T he re were, to be sure, tr uly s e ditious a nd tre as onous mate rials a r o und in the e ighte e nth ce ntury; but s uch works —colle ctions o f official me mor ials which did reveal state secrets, or the manife s tos o f White Lotus re be ls —were involve d in the s uppre s s ion c a mpa ig n only tange ntially. Fr om the po int o f vie w o f conte nt, the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or a nd those a r o und h im seemed like pe ace time generals who were de te r mine d to fight the last war; they focused not so muc h on e ighte e nth- ce ntury challenges to C h ’ing rule , as on seventeenthce ntury idioms of protest. It s imply would not do for a secure, le giti­ mate , a nd powe rful Chine s e r ule r to tole rate racist slurs par ticular ly whe n, as the e mpe r or had every reason to expect, s uch works could be fairly e a s ily e limina te d. Ju s t as the c ompila tio n o f the Ssu- k’u ch}uan- shu was ultima te ly me ant to de mons tr ate the le gitimacy, in tr a ditional Chine s e terms , o f C h ’ing rule , so the c a mpa ig n o f book s uppre s s ion was me ant to show that the re gime ha d always he ld a jus tifiable contr ol over the Chine s e state. At least six pr ovincial governors re s ponde d to the e mpe r or ’s orde r to me mor ialize faithfully on book colle ction proce dure s . Two gover­ nors me re ly re porte d that they had not seen any s e ditious books in the course o f the ir inve s tigations , and that new proce dure s for locat­ ing and de s troying tre as on ha d been ins titute d.9 Four governors s ubmitte d mor e infor mative reports, however. Gove r nor P e i Tsunghsi of Anhwe i wrote that he ha d s ubmitte d a total o f 516 books on six occasions for the Ssu- k'u ch'tian- shu, but ha d not found any ins ta n­ ces of s e dition. Since othe r figures show that Anhwe i s ubmitte d a total of 516 books for the Ssu- k u it is clear that the process o f as s e m­ bling books for the c ompila tio n was comple te in that province before the search for s e dition be ga n.10 Similar ly, Gove r nor Y u Wen- i of Fukie n re porte d that 203 volume s , vir tually the e ntire c ontr ibutio n o f his province to the compila tio n, ha d be e n s ubmitte d but no

s e ditious mate r ials fo u n d .11 In Kw a ng tung the colle ction o f books for the Ssu- k u ch!ixan- sha was comple te in 1773 a year before the orde r to collect s e ditious books was issued; a nd in Kia ngs i, h a lf the pr ovincial c ontr ibution to the c ompila tion had be e n dis patche d before the ce ns ors hip be ga n.12 It is, o f course, possible that the governors were not r e por ting tr uthfully on the extent o f s e dition in the ir provinces; but they could not be ly ing about the numb e r o f books forwarde d to Pe king. These figures show mos t clearly that the colle ction o f books for the Ssu- k u ch'uan- shu and for the lite r ar y inquis itio n were two separate endeavors , a nd that the policy o f colle cting books for ce ns ors hip was a new one in 1774. Wh y the e mpe r or unde r took this policy dir e ction in 1774 was less clear. No s ingle event in the political or inte lle ctual his tory of the 1770s can be s aid to have trigge re d the ce ns ors hip ca mpaign; nor did it develop fr om the suggestions of officials in Pe king or in the prov­ ince s .13 T he initiative for the c a mpa ign came fr om the e mpe r or h im ­ self, or fr om his very closest advisors. It came , in short, fr om deep w ith in the inne r court, which is to the mode r n his tor ian one of the mos t impe ne tr able areas of the C h in g gove rnme nt. T he only clue to the e mpe ror ’s motive s was a shift in his lite rary and s cholarly inte r ­ ests which took place in the 1770s, a shift reflected in his patronage o f scholarly projects in the early 1770s.14 Du r in g his sixty- year re ign, the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or c ommis ­ s ione d over nine ty s cholarly works. Fifte e n de alt with Ma n c h u la n ­ guage , Ma n c h u history, or the his tory of the last years o f the M in g dynasty. Ele ve n of these were commis s ione d betwe e n 1772 and 1781 a nd two which had be e n commis s ione d e arlie r were e xpande d and reissued in the late 1770s. T he result o f all this work was a new, offi­ cially certified record of the Ma n c h u ’s rise to power and a s tandar d­ ize d system for tr ans c r ibing Ma n c h u and Mo n g o l name s into Chine s e . T he cens ors hip o f the late 1770s seems to have be e n closely related to this series of publications . T he sequence and t im in g o f the impe r ial commis s ions for works on Ma n c h u his tory and language were suggestive. T he first books were conce rne d with Ma n c h u and Mo ng o l language . In 1771 a new e dition of the CKing- wen chien (Glos s ary o f Ma n c h u language ) was c ommis s ione d.15 Shor tly the re afte r work was be gun on the Liao Chin Yuan shih kuo- yil chieh (A Chine s e gloss on the histories o f the Liao, C h in and Yua n dynas tie s ).16 In the mid- 1770s the impe r ia l atte ntion seems to have shifted fr om corre cting e xtant his torical texts to

w r iting Oew histories; and several works tr a cing Ma n c h u ge ne alogy and r e cording the victory over the M in g were or de r e d.17 T he ne w de finition o f s e dition for mulate d in the e dict o f Se pte mbe r 1774 pe rhaps reflected this s hift in impe r ia l interests: in orde r for the ne w works on Ma n c h u his tory to be be lie vable , olde r ones ha d to be destroyed or dis cre dite d. T he s equence o f works on Ma n c h u his tory re ache d a c ulm ina tio n in 1781 whe n, in a single year, three ne w studies o f Ma n c h u cus toms were or de r e d.18 Wit h the e xce ption o f a r e e diting of the Liao Chin Yuan shih kuo- yii chieh orde re d in 1791 no fur the r Ma n c h u his tory books were commis s ione d after the early 1780s. As will be ar gue d below, a s ignificant change o f proce dure a nd ge ne ral retreat fr om the goals o f the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ign also took place in 1781. T he e mpe ror ’s vie w o f the ne w record o f Ma n c h u his tory which he was c ommis s ioning was expressed in edicts or de r ing the works unde r take n, and prefaces he wrote pe rs onally for the books p r o­ duce d. On e the me o f these writings was that Ma n c h u language and history, though diffe re nt fr om Chine s e , deserved as muc h respect a nd atte ntion fr om scholars and bure aucrats . He worrie d, for in ­ stance, that because the s ound t u in Ma n c h u name s (a c ommo n syl­ lable ) was s ome time s re pres ented in the Ming- shih with the Chine s e characte r m e a ning “r a bbit” rathe r tha n the characte r m e a ning “m a p ” or “por tr a it,” la t e r scholars would as s ume that the Ming- shih editors were r id ic uling Ma n c h u cultur e in the ma nne r o f Co nfuc ia n “prais e a nd bla me ” his torians . He therefore orde re d a committe e to correct a nd s tandar dize tr ans criptions o f Ma n c h u and Mo ng o l place name s in the Ming- shih.19 He r e marke d in a nothe r edict that the C h i­ nese ha bit of clas s ifying alie n peoples accor ding to the dir e ction fr om which they appr oache d Ch in a ; as nor the r n bar bar ians , s outhe rn ba r bar ians , and so forth, obs cure d e thnic differences a mo ng various tr ibal gr oupings , a nd thus did an injus tice to the Ma n c h u he ritage .20 A clear r e te lling o f Ma n c h u a nd late M in g his tory would, the e mpe ror r e marke d in his preface to the Kai- kuo fang- lueh, show Ma n c h u rule in Ch in a to have be e n “more glorious tha n the achieve­ me nts of H a n a nd Min g , not to me ntion T a ng a nd S u n g .’ 21 U n d e r ­ ly ing each o f these projects was an effort to rectify a perceived his tor iogr aphical injus tice done the Ma nc h us by e arlie r his torians . T he search for anti- dynas tic books which the e mpe r or orde re d in 1774 would have be e n a na tur a l outgr owth o f this effort. While no one event or conce rn can be s hown to have been

re s pons ible for the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or ’s as s ertion o f the im p o r ­ tance o f Ma n c h u language and his tor y in the 1770s, several pos s ibili­ ties may be suggested. T he e mpe r or may have be e n tr ouble d by the de cline o f Ma n c h u milita r y readines s which was par tic ula r ly a ppa r ­ e nt in the second ca mpa ig n agains t the Chin- ch ua n (1770- 1776) a nd the s uppre s s ion o f the Wa ng Lu n r e be llion in 1774. T he for me r was an e xtre me ly protracte d a nd costly affair in which, on one occas ion, a Ma n c h u ar my unde r Ge ne r al We n- fu was comple te ly a n n ih i­ late d.22 A s imilar r out in the Wa ng Lu n c a mpa ig n was avoide d only whe n Ma n c h u troops fled fr om the scene o f battle , a n event which elicite d an e dict fr om the e mpe r or in Octobe r 1774 cas tigating the Ma nc h us for forge tting the ir m ilit a r y he ritage a nd ne gle cting the skills o f arche ry a nd hor s e mans hip as sociated with it. T he Wa ng Lu n Re be llion itself, and the unne r ving ease with which Wh ite Lotus - ins pire d rebels were able to or ganize a nd attack a s trate gically critical are a a long the Gr a n d Ca na l, may also have served to r e mind the C h ’ing court o f its own vulne r a bility.23 T he e mpe r or ’s interests a nd fears may also have be e n arous e d by a cache o f docume nts which was appar e ntly rediscovered in the course o f the e ditor ial work of the e arly 1770s. Both the CHing- wenchien a nd Khi- kuo fang- lueh were bas e d on pape rs in the Ma n c h u la n ­ guage which have come to be known as the “old Ma n c h u archives ” (chiu Man- wen tang). These docume nts re corde d in vivid a nd re ve aling de tail the his tory o f the Ma nc h us fr om 1621 until 1633 a nd 1635 until 1636. In a recent doctoral dis s e rtation, Ge r tr a ude Ro th Li has compar e d the te x ts o f the old Ma n c h u archives with the Khi- kuo Janglueh pr oduce d by C h ie n- lung s editors. She finds that the e ditors s uppressed info r ma tio n on the social a nd e conomic c onditio n of the e arly Ma nc hus , the oppos ition o f Chine s e living in Ma n c h u r ia to Ma n c h u rule , and the oppos ition a mo ng Ma n c h u prince s to the rule of H o n g T aiji (1627- 1644). Some o f the ite ms s uppressed, such as tales o f Chine s e pois oning the wells in Ma n c h u r ia to e limina te the ir powe rful but unc outh overlords , ha d o mino us implic ations for SinoMa n c h u re lations . On e can well see how the discovery of s uch mate ­ rial could have trigge re d an impe r ia l desire to set the re cord s traight, and to search for othe r writings o f the s ame s ort.24 Finally, it is possible that the e mpe r or ’s interests in Ma n c h u his tory a nd lite rature reflected the s ituation of factionalis m at the C h ’ie n- lung court. As has be e n suggested in chapte r 3 there appe ar to have be e n bur e aucr atic factions at the court thr o ughout the

re ign; in the e arly 1770s, a faction o f Chine s e scholars was le d by chie f gr and councillor Yu Min- chung, while anothe r gr oup was coale s cing a r o und the Ma n c h u bodygua r d Ho- s hen. T he e mpe r or may have wante d or ne e de d to balance this patr onage o f Chine s e scholars with compa r able s upport for a colle ction o f works on the Ma n c h u he ritage . Ce r tainly, the a bility to attract impe r ial patr onage was an impor ta nt me as ure o f the s tre ngth o f any faction at court. It cannot have be e n comple te ly coincide ntal that mos t o f the Ma n c h u compilations were e dite d by Ho- s he n a nd A- kuei, or that the series o f publications c ulm ina te d in 1781 jus t at the time whe n Ho- s hen a nd A- kuei be came chie f gr a nd councillors . T he his torical circums tance s s ur r o unding the or igins o f ce ns or­ s hip have be e n discussed at some le ngth, in orde r to suggest that the colle ction o f books for the b a n n in g a nd for Ssu- k'u cKuan- shu were two separate albe it par alle l endeavors . T he Ssu- k'u ch'uan- shu was me ant to be a m o num e nt to the success of the dynas ty a nd the pros pe rity o f the re ign, a nd a resource for scholars a nd rulers o f ten thous and ge ne rations . T he ce ns ors hip was unde r take n to e xpunge fr om the his torical re cord signs o f e arly Sino- Ma nc hu conflict a nd Chine s e disrespect for Ma n c h u cus tom, he ritage a nd tr adition. Both projects, o f course, de mons tr ate d the C h ie n- lung Empe r o r ’s pr ofound be lie f in the impor ta nce o f the wr itte n word as a source of ide ological ju s t i­ fication, and his almos t obsessive conce rn with his place in history. But the two efforts were not re late d as pretext a nd reality; they were two dis tinct outgr owths o f the c o mbina tio n o f powe r and vulne r a b il­ ity, pride and s e ns itivity that characte rize d the rule o f Ma nc hus , a nd par ticular ly the C h ie n- lung Empe r or , in Ch in a . T he Gro w t h o f the L it e r a r y In q u is it io n (1 7 7 6 - 1 7 8 2 ) T he search for s e dition initia te d in 1774 be came , over the next seven years, a c a mpa ig n o f ma jo r propor tions . T hous ands of suspect vol­ ume s were sent to the capital, pr ovincial governors a nd the ir s ubor ­ dinate s s pent an incr e as ing pr opor tion o f the ir time e x a mining s e ditious books a nd proce s s ing s e dition cases, familie s were tur ne d agains t themselves, and a ma jo r pote ntial for social dis r uption was created. T he re was no indic a tion that any o f these cons equences was inte nde d by the court in 1774. But once initiate d, the c a mpa ig n acquir e d a m a lig n a n t m o m e n t u m of its own. Ce ns or s hip grew in scope and fe rocity as ne w groups with diffe r ing interests were swept

into the process, a nd as bur e aucrats a nd the s cholarly c o m munity re alize d that the proce dure s o f search a nd de s truction could be tur ne d to the ir pe rs onal ends. T he e volution o f inquis itio n proce ­ dure s a nd the gr owing response to the m therefore reflected as muc h the characte r a nd interests of the lite rate c o m munity as they did impe r ia l initiative . T he ce ns ors hip o f the 1770s a nd 1780s took place in three stages. First, book collectors were infor me d o f the types of works s ought and were ins tructe d to s ubmit any que s tionable works in the ir holdings to pr ovincial authoritie s . T he n, the s ubmis s ions were e valuate d and a pr e limina r y de te r mina tion of the characte r of works was made in the pr ovincial capital. Finally, books judg e d to be ce ns orable were forwarde d to Pe king for final e valuation; whe n it was de cide d that a pa r tic ula r book was to be destroyed, governors were or de re d to search for the woodblocks us ed to pr int it a nd s hip the m to the c a pi­ tal as well. T he re was no s ingle s e dition statute; rather, as pr ovincial governors and the ir s ubor dinate s e ncounte re d difficultie s in car rying out the ir orders, they evolved ad hoc s olutions , r e por ting the m to the court a nd re ce iving impe r ial s anction as necessary.25 These proce dure s par alle le d those us ed to assemble a nd e dit the Ssu- k’u ch iian- shu but, owing to the r athe r diffe re nt characte r o f the tasks involve d in the two efforts, diffe re nt actors be came d o m ina n t a nd diffe re nt interests e me rge d. As in so ma ny cases in C h ’ing his ­ tory, s imilar ity of form mas ke d impo r ta nt differences o f function. Alt ho ug h it seems an exercise in an his tor ian’s ex post facto mor a l cas uis try to diffe re ntiate too s harply a mo ng those who collaborate d in the two efforts, s ome dis tinctions can be made . T he inte lle ctuals who do mina te d the Ssu- k’u proje ct were me n of influe nce a nd pos i­ tion, or scholars whose inte lle ctual achie ve me nts gave the m access to the wor ld o f influe nce . T he y collaborate d willingly in an e nte rpris e which the y expected to be ne fit the m individua lly a nd collectively. T he book s uppre s s ion c a mpa ig n be came essentially a police action, albe it one carrie d out in the context o f a society w illing to sacrifice a great de al for the mainte nance o f orthodoxy. Almos t ine vitably, such an action offered diffe re nt oppor tunitie s to those who par tic i­ pate d in it than the Ssu- k u project, opportunitie s bas e d more on the punis hme nts involve d in such an effort tha n the be ne fits accr uing to those involve d. T he task of info r m ing book collectors o f the impe r ia l will was e ntr us te d, at least in Hupe i, Che kia ng, a nd Anhwe i province s and

the jur is dic tion o f the governor- general o f Liang- chiang, a nd pr o b­ ably in othe r jur is dic tions as well, to a gr oup o f functionar ie s known collectively as “local e ducational officials .” These were, o f course, the s ame individua ls who ha d staffed the book bur e aus res pons ible for gathe r ing, e valuating and copying.26 Since they were ofte n natives of the dis tricts in which they served, a nd re s pons ible for the inte lle ctual de ve lopme nt and political activities o f those who took the e x a mina ­ tions in the ir dis tricts , they were the na tur a l officials for the court to rely upo n in the search for a nti- Ma nc hu books. As the gatherers of mate rials for the Ssu- k'u ch'uan- shu, they ha d be e n res pons ible for gathe r ing a bout h a lf the books us e d in the c ompila tio n (see chapte r 3). T he y were, however, r athe r less successful in the init ia l phases o f the book s uppre s s ion ca mpaig n, a nd the reasons for this suggested s ome thing o f the nature of local e ducational officials as a group. T he image o f these officials, at least in court sources, was o f failures , me n who ha d grown old tr ying to succeed on e xaminations , a nd who were una ble to secure any othe r pos itions . Ju d g in g fr om the num b e r of time s the adjectives “feeble and de bilitate d” (lao- shuai) were applie d to the m in impe r ial edicts, this image was c o mmo n at the highe s t level o f C h ’ing gove rnme nt.27 T he re is reason, however, to suspect this image . Alt ho ug h s e ldom the s ubject of essays and biographie s —e ducational officials were mos t like ly to tur n up in his torical sources as the pre ce ptor o f beloved me mor y o f one accomplis he d scholar, like Shao C hin- han s g r a nd­ fathe r Shao Hs iang- jung, or the s worn e ne my o f anothe r —they were not ins ignificant figures. As events in the book s uppre s s ion c a mpa ign were to show, e ducational officials, or at least e xpe ctant e ducational officials could be quite vigorous . More ove r, local e ducational officials had some power in Chine s e society: the y ha d author ity over the lice ntiate s of a dis trict a nd contr olle d the lands whose proceeds pr ovide d the s tipe nds for those e nrolle d in state acade mie s . In a sense, they were pois e d between the wor ld of ce ntral gove rnme nt appointe e s like Pr ovincial Educ a tion Commis s ione r C h u Yun and local s tude nts , sensitive to the wishes of both groups b ut the captives of neither. T he court image o f local e ducational o cials as old and tire d pe rhaps did not reflect de mogr aphic realities so muc h as ce ntral gove rnme nt concerns that local school officials could not be re adily contr olle d, a conce rn which was ce rtainly in the Yung- che ng Em pe r ­ or s m in d whe n he establis he d the post o f pr ovincial e ducation c o m­ mis s ione r to oversee the m. In the case o f a proje ct like the Ssu- k u

effort, local e ducational officials pe rfor me d with mode rate success. T he search for a nti- Ma nc hu lite r ature , a far more de licate task like ly to involve an official in what mus t have be e n one o f the mos t dis tas te ­ ful cans o f his torical worms in e ighte e nth- ce ntury Ch in a , was quite anothe r matte r, and it seems like ly that ma ny local e duca tiona l offi­ cials were successful in avoiding the one rous bur de n place d up o n the m. Several othe r proce dure s of book colle ction at the local level were also indicative o f the pr oble ms a nd prioritie s o f these early years. In only two provinces , Kw a ng tung a nd Che kia ng, were m utua l g ua r a n­ tee (pao- chia) units utilize d to canvass the lite rati. T his was not s ur­ pr is ing in vie w o f the fact that the gentry, who were mos t like ly to be book owners, fr e que ntly e vade d the m utua l guarante e system. Fur the rmor e , the tasks re quire d in the lite r ary inquis ition were not those to which the m u tu a l guarante e system, es sentially a police and s urve illance me chanis m, was mos t suite d. T he e mpe r or ’s orders were not dire cte d at the popula tion at large, but at a s mall s e gme nt o f the elite, and r e quir e d ju d g m e n t a nd dis cre tion to enforce. T he y could har dly be e ntrus te d to the village h e a dme n.28 In fact, in several pr ov­ inces, the governors re lie d not on officials b ut on unofficial “trustworthy a nd capable ” lite r ati to pe r for m the tasks o f notification a nd colle ction. In the book s uppre s s ion c a mpa ig n, as in the Ssu- k}u cKuanshu proje ct, it was impo r ta nt to ins pe ct books hops as well as private collections . T his was par tic ular ly true in the pros pe rous province s o f Kia ng s u, Kia ng s i a nd the jur is dic tio n o f Liang- chiang, whe re committe e s were for me d to search for s e ditious books in books hops . In fact, it was a cons ignme nt o f purchas e d, rathe r tha n confis cated, books which trigge re d one of the ma jo r proce dural innovations o f the inq uis itio n .29 In areas where book bure aus ha d existed pr ior to 1774 these organs pr obably continue d to serve as ce ns ors hip boards . T he num b e r o f such groups grew as the c a mpa ig n proce e de d a nd gover­ nors discovered that areas which ha d not been able to contr ibute m uc h to the Ssu- k’u effort, m ig ht have mor e to do in the book s up­ pression c a mpa ig n. By 1778 a bur e au ha d be e n e s tablis he d in H u n a n ; in 1779 one was for me d in Sha ntung, and four were e s tab­ lis he d in Sze chwan. By 1781 bur e aus were func tio ning in Sh a nt un g a nd C h ih li.30 In the Ssu- k’u proje ct, book bur e aus ha d done re as on­ ably well at the task o f s e par ating the bibliogr a phic a l whe at fr om the chaff and for war ding the best books , or copies o f the m, to Pe king.

T he y did not do so well in the book s uppre s s ion c a mpa ign, for re a­ sons that can best be de s cribe d as s tructural. Few s tandards were laid down for these groups . T he me mbe rs o f pr ovincial bure aus ha d to e xtrapolate a de finition o f anti- Ma nc hu lite rature fr om rare books for the Ssu- k u proje ct fr om edicts c o nde mning individua l works which came fr om Pe king. In par t, the absence o f a for mal de finition o f s e dition reflected the fact that or igins o f the lite r ary inquis itio n lay in a ge ne ralize d impe r ia l conce rn over a nti- Ma nc hu references rathe r tha n an attack on any specific genre or id io m o f protest. T he e mpe r or could not easily codify his aims , becaus e he did not know what sort of anti- Ma nc hu lite r ature existed, or whe re it was locate d. T he vague de finition o f s e dition may also have reflected the char ac­ ter o f Chine s e law, which te nde d to be e ithe r very ge ne ral or very specific in its pr ohibitions a nd pre s criptions . Ce rtainly, the func tio n­ ing o f book bur e aus in the e arly years of the inquis itio n d e m o n ­ strated how de pe nde nt the Ma n c h u court was on Chine s e lite rati o f the re alm, r e lying on the m even to de fine a nti- Ma nc hu lite rature . T he leeway that bur e aus ha d in de te r mining the natur e o f s edi­ tion posed pr oble ms both for the pe ople who staffed the bure aus , a nd for mode r n his tor ians o f the ca mpaign. T he fact that local gentry, in effect, censored themselves mus t have ope ne d up infinite pos s ibilities for m a n ip ula tio n by local magnate s . Such m a n ip u la ­ tion, as well as difficultie s o f coor dination, me ant that the s tandards o f pr ovincial bur e aus could vary widely, ac counting for what ma ny have seen as wild incons is te ncie s in the s tandards o f pros cr iption (see below). Afte r pr e limina r y de cis ions by the local bur e aus , books jud g e d to deserve ce ns ors hip were sent to Pe king for final e valuations a nd dis ­ pos ition. In the capital, the y were stored in the offices o f the Milit a r y Archive s Co mmis s io n, which was s ubor dinate to the Gr a n d Co unc il, and to which only employees o f the council and the Co mmis s io n had access. In theory, the volume s were the n ins pe cte d by gr a nd c ounc il­ lors for the purpos e o f m a k in g a r e c omme nda tio n to the e mpe ror. Several sources suggest that the gr and councillors de le gate d the ir a uthor ity to Ssu- k u e ditors C h i Hs iao- lan and Lu Hs i- hs iung.31 T he first bur nings seem to have occurre d in 1778. In Ju n e o f that year, the Gr a n d Co unc il re porte d to the e mpe r or that so ma ny c on­ de mne d books a nd the woodblocks us ed for p r int ing the m ha d pile d up in the Milit a r y Archive s Co mmis s io n that the councillors were afr aid some volume s would be lost or mis place d. T he impe r ial

rescript, date d 11 Ju n e , orde re d the councillors to “cast the books to the fla m e s . 32 T ha t impe r ial orders were carrie d out is indicate d by a re port o f 12 Nove mbe r 1781 that 52,480 woodblocks for p r int ing s e ditious books , we ighing 36,530 catties, ha d be e n br oke n up for firewood. “Since the me mor ialis t continue d, “firewood costs 2 taels, 7 cash pe r thous and catties, 98 taels, 6 cash has be e n saved on palace expenses since 1774.”33 It s hould be note d, however, that whe n the premis es o f the Gr a n d Co unc il were e xamine d in the twe ntie th ce n­ tury, copies o f books ba nne d in the inquis itio n, and mar ke d for bur ning , were found inta ct.34 T he use of expectant educational officials as inquisitors. T hes e e arly p r o ­ cedures obvious ly had ma ny loophole s . Ma n y volume s escaped the inquis itio n thr o ugh e ducational officials ne glige nce , incons is te ncie s in the s tandards o f pr ovincial boards , a nd the like. T he effort to close these loophole s , however, necessarily involve d a muc h large r s e gme nt o f the popula tion in the campaig n. As mor e pe ople be came involve d, not only were more s e ditious books discovered, b ut more private aims a nd interests came to fuel the search. T he growth o f the c a m ­ pa ig n reflected the characte r o f the lite rate c o m m unity as m uc h as impe r ia l interests. T his growth be gan in 1776, whe n the dutie s of p ublic izing pros cr iptions and colle cting ba nne d volume s were tur ne d over to e xpe ctant e ducational officials. T he re for m had a comple x history. In 1776 Gove r nor Hai- ch e ng of Kia ngs i hit upo n the happy ide a o f paying book collectors and book sellers double the price o f all suspect volume s , the n or de r ing his s ubor dinate s to search thr ough the purchas es , de live r ing the s edi­ tious volume s to h im personally. As a result, Hai- ch e ng pres ented over e ight thous and volume s for de s truction in De ce mbe r, 1776. T he e nor mous cons ignme nt of books , a nd Hai- ch e ng s ac compa nying me mor ial, attracte d the e mpe r or ’s atte ntion, s ugge s ting the existence of a hithe r to uns us pe cte d a m o unt o f anti- Ma nc hu mate rial. O n 21 Ja n u a r y 1777 the e mpe ror orde re d copies o f Hai- ch e ng s me mor ial sent to the governors of Che kia ng a nd Kiangs u: Wha t [ Hai- ch eng] has done is very good. We find that Hai- ch e ng in this search for books of forme r generations, has shown the greatest zeal and thoroughness. Therefore, from first to last, the collection he has made of prohibite d books that ought to be bur ne d exceeds those of Kiangs u and Che kiang. Now, the numbe r of their literary productions , of private libraries and of bookshops is double that of other provinces.

These two provinces ought not collect fewer books than Kiangs i. . . . But the two provinces of Kiangs u and Che kiang, since the first few deliver­ ies, have sent up no later consignments; and further, they have not tr uthfully informe d me how they were proce eding in the search for and purchase of works, and whether or not they re quire d more time for the satisfactory and thor ough comple tion of the job. Kao- chin and San- pao have been prosecuting this business for several years. Yang Kue i has also been in office for ha lf a year. How can they treat this matte r so superficially? T his edict is issued as a severe re pri­ m a nd to these officials.35

Yang- kuei, gove rnor o f Kia ngs u, and San- pao o f Che kia ng both re s ponde d to this e dict in February. San- pao professed hims e lf uagitate d, uneasy, a nd as hame d” on r e ading the impe r ia l edict. He continue d: In Che kiang province, the book collectors are mostly concentrated in Hang- chou, Chia- hs ing, Hu- chou, Ning- po, and Shao- hsing [districts]. Among the collectors in these areas, many are degree holders, and they are unwilling to buy or store books which are of a seditious or taboo nature. Booksellers seldom sell them. Furthe rmore , your edict has been widely proclaime d and its te aching made clear, so that all are aware of its admonitions . None would dare withhold s edition, thereby implicating himself. However, Chin- hua, Ch ii- chou, Yen- chou and Ch u- chou prefec­ tures are rustic and far from the thoroughfares. Perhaps the heterodox works of the Min g dynasty which were once possessed by the ancestors [ of families living in these regions] have now been passed to sons and grandsons who cannot read or write, and cannot inspect the books. For this reason, . . . I have frequently ordered my subordinates to search thoroughly so that no holding is neglected.36

Gove r nor Yang- kuei wrote in the s ame vein: T he people of Kiangs u are book- loving and culture d. There are many who pr int histories, anthologies, literary collections, and collections of personal letters. But the type of work be ing sought does not circulate widely, and has probably been hidde n away for a long time. Me n today may not even know that it exists. Although we widely proclaim your edict and collect books, it is not possible to e liminate all such books at one time. . . ,37

U nd e r impe r ial pressure to b r ing s e ditious books to light, the two governors not only spoke with greater urgency, they dire cte d the ir ef­ forts at a ne w s tr atum o f book collectors. T he y took a im, not at the big collectors who live d in cities and tr ade d at the ma jor book marke ts , but at those who live d “in rus tic areas far fr om the major thor oughfare s ” a nd who m ig ht not even be able to re ad the books

they were holding. In or de r to reach s uch collectors, a more active policy ha d to be purs ue d. Gove r nor Yang- kuei outline d the essentials o f such a policy whe n he spoke o f the ne e d to “have the r ur al book collectors info r m each othe r [ of the search] ” a nd “compe te with each othe r to ha nd in” offensive volume s . It was San- pao, however, who first propos e d a specific proce dure , in a me mor ial of Apr il, 1777: Your servant has observed that there are a great numbe r of expectant educational officials at leisure in the province. I have selected the most able of the m and dis patched the m to the ir native districts, orde ring the m to reinforce in person the injunctions of your forme r edict, to search among the ir own friends and relatives from whom it should be easier to collect books, and to carry mone y for buying books and do all they can to purchase volumes. I can then judge the ir ability by the numbe r of books they have s ubmitte d. Whe n the time comes to s ubmit names to the Board of Personnel to fill vacancies [ among the educational officials] , the candidates can be ranked according to the numbe r of books they have s ubmitte d. . • . T his procedure will cause little trouble and is bound to produce more books.38

In ins titutio nal te rms , s hifting the bur de n o f the book search fr om e ducational officials in office to those awaiting a ppo intme nt was a fairly m in o r change , but it pr oduce d a ma jor shift in the characte r and motiva tio n o f the inquis itor s . By the middle o f the e ighte e nth century, a post as a local e ducational official was one o f a very few pos itions in the gove rnme nt hie rar chy to which a m a n who he ld a chu- jen degree but not chin- shih m ig ht re as onably aspire. Vacancies in the posts s e ldom arose, however. Alt ho ug h pr ovincial governors a nd e ducational commis s ione rs were re quire d by law to e xamine an e ducational official’s fitness for office once every six years, this task was ofte n pe r for me d pe rfunctorily, with the result that e ducational officials te nde d to r e ma in in office un til they die d or retire d. Gove r ­ nor T ie n We n- ching re porte d to the Yung- che ng Empe r or in 1725 that some e xpe ctant e ducational officials ha d be e n on the w a iting list for office for over fifty years. T he re was every reas on to expect that the e xpe ctant e ducational o cials would take advantage o f the oppor t unity offered the m in San- pao s proce dure to increase the ir chances for a pp o intm e nt.39 T he s ubmis s ions o f books to the capital over the next few years revealed vividly the e cacy of the proce dure . Pr ior to Apr il, 1777 only 315 books were s ubmitte d to Pe king fr om Che kia ng province . Between Ap r il 1777 whe n San- pao propos e d the proce dure a nd Ju ly

1779 4,811 s e ditious volume s were forwarde d to the capital.40 In Kia ngs u whe re the proce dure was also utilize d, the results were mor e s triking. In 1776- 1777 644 volume s were sent to Pe king, but in the ten months betwe e n Ma r c h a nd Octobe r o f 1777 over 10,640 volume s were for warde d.41 San- pao was trans fe rre d to the gove rnor­ s hip o f Hupe i in e arly 1778 a nd ins titute d the s ame proce dure s there as he had in Che kia ng, with the result that, whereas 279 vol­ ume s ha d been s ubmitte d to the inquis ition be fore Ma r c h of 1778; 5,713 volume s were s ubmitte d be twe e n Ma r c h o f 1778 and De c e m­ be r o f 1779.42 T he re could be little d o ubt about the reasons for this growth. Both Yang- kuei a nd his s upe rior the Gove rnor- ge ne ral of Liang- chiang, Kao- chin, re porte d in separate me mor ials that the use of e xpe ctant e ducational officials as inquis itor s was re s pons ible for the ne w flow o f books .43 It is possible that the e xpe ctant e ducational officials canvassed the countrys ide and, as San- pao ha d pre dicte d, fo und s e ditious works sequestered in r ur al h id in g places. It is also possible, and pe rhaps s ome what more likely, that the new inquis itor s searched everywhere, in cities and in the countrys ide , and that the ir success was due more to the vigor they br o ught to the task tha n to the ne w sources they discovered. Wha te ve r the source o f the books , the ne w ferocity o f the c a mpa ig n mus t ce rtainly be attr ibute d to the e ne rgy and a mb itio n of e xpe ctant e ducational officials. M anufacturing anti- Manchu literature: T he case of Wang Hsi- hou and its aftermath. T he ne w flow o f books change d the characte r o f the cens ors hip, for it made the e mpe r or not only mor e aware o f antiMa n c h u lite r ature , b ut mor e s us picious o f those pr ovincial gov­ ernors who faile d to find it. T he ne w impe r ia l attitude s , in tur n, had an impa c t on pr ovinc ial governors, who s ought to allay the e mpe r or ’s fears by every me ans possible. Since the de finition o f a nti- Ma nc hu lite r ature was ne ve r cle arly ar ticulate d by the court, it was possible for a governor, cons cious ly or uncons cious ly, to “p a d ” his s ubmis ­ sions to Pe king w ith books whose s editiousness was que s tionable at best. T his phe nome non was illus trate d in the afte r math of one o f the mos t famous cases in the day, that o f Wa ng Hs i- hou, the hapless le xicographe r. Wa ng e arne d his chix- jen degree in 1750 but ne ve r qualifie d for any highe r degree. By 1777 he ha d wr itte n te n books , inc lud in g a vol­ ume o f poetry, a local gazetteer, a nd his dictionary, Tzu- kuan

(Compr e he ns ive dictionar y). T his last work was the cause o f the trouble , be ing conde mne d on two counts : First, in defense o f his own s cholarly efforts, Wa ng criticize d in his preface the or ga niza tio n of a dictiona r y commis s ione d by a nd na me d after the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or ’s gr andfathe r, the Kang- hsi tzu- tien (Dic tiona r y o f the K ’anghsi Empe r or ). Se cond, Wa ng wrote in full the te mple name s o f the K ang- hsi Yung- che ng and C h ’ie n- lung Empe r ors , which was c on­ s idered tre as on. A thir d charge agains t Wa ng was that in his fa mily genealogy, he traced his ances try back to the mythical e mpe ror Hua ng- ti.44 T he case was br ought to the atte ntion of the court by one Wa ng Lung- nan who, it de ve loped, ha d been banis he d fr om Wa ng Hs i- hou s native Hsin- ch ang county some years e arlie r for “fome nting litig a tio n.” Wh e n Lung- nan trie d to re tur n to the c oun­ try in 1777 Wa ng Hs i- hou and others caught h im a nd tur ne d h im in to the dis trict magis trate ; Lung- nan, in tur n, accused Wa n g Hsihou o f w r iting a nti- Ma nc hu lite rature . A copy of Wa ng H s i- hou s dictiona r y was forwarde d to Kia ng s i Gove r nor Hai- ch e ng who tr ans mitte d it to his book bur e a u for ins pe ction. T he pe rs onne l at the book bur e a u re ad it, mar ke d the que s tionable passages, a nd re ­ tur ne d it to Hai- ch e ng who forwarde d it to Pe king with the r e com­ me nda tio n that Wa ng Hs i- hou be de prive d o f his chu- jen.45 Wa ng was ce rtainly not a M in g loyalist. But his book calle d into que s tion the s cholarly achie ve me nts o f the C h ’ing in a way that was par ticular ly offensive to the Ch ’ie n- lung Empe r or. Since the be gin­ ning o f his re ign the e mpe ror ha d e mphas ize d, pr oba bly for reasons as muc h political as pe rs onal (see chapte r 2), the c ontr ib ution to C h in g inte lle ctual life o f K ang- hsi e ra patronage . T he Kang- hsi tzutien was one o f the s hining examples o f that patronage , a wor k which, in the words of the s e nior officials who reviewed the Wa ng case, was me ant to “serve as a mode l for a thous and ge ne rations o f s cholars .” For a private s cholar to compare his own work to a book which was me ant to be the last word in lexicography, let alone to do so favor­ ably, was bo und to be offensive to an e mpe ror as e xquis ite ly sensitive to the political implica tions of s cholars hip as C h ’ien- lung. More ove r, Wa ng had faile d to accord to C h ’ing e mpe rors the respect tr a dit io n­ ally due Chine s e rulers. An d Wa n g had done this in spite o f the fact that he he ld a chu- jen degree. Se rious though his errors may have be e n, Wa n g Hs i- hou s crime har dly seemed to me r it the punis hme nts that were me te d out to h im and to his family. Afte r due de libe r ation by the Boa r d of P unis hme nts , Wa ng hims e lf was s entenced to

de ath, a sentence which was carried out on 22 De ce mbe r 1777 and twenty- one me mbe rs o f his fa mily were made slaves.46 Mo r e was at stake here tha n le xicographic hubris ; mos t probably, the e mpe r or was us ing the Wa ng case to make a s tate me nt to the lite r ary c o m­ m unity about his de te r mina tio n to preserve his dynas ty’s r e putation. T he s ingling out o f one offender, r e pugna nt though it may seem today, was not an unc o m m o n me ans o f c ommunic a ting , in the e igh­ te e nth century, to a large a nd diffuse c o m m unity unce r tain o f imp e ­ rial dire ctions . T he impe r ia l s tate me nt in the Wa ng case ha d at least the dubious me r it o f r e aching a large audie nce ; an empire- wide search for Wa ng ’s works was la unche d and over two thous and copies of his books were found, inc lud ing 125 copies o f his dictionary, some fr om province s as far away as Yu n n a n .47 T he fate o f Wa ng Hs i- hou and his relatives well illus trate s the dange rs o f pub lis hing in an e m ­ pire whe re the r ule r had almos t unlim it e d power even over the world of knowle dge , par tic ula r ly whe n the r ule r happe ne d to be so ins u­ late d fr om the realities o f life in his e mpir e as C h ’ie n- lung was. Wa ng Hs i- hou s trage dy was c o mpo unde d by the fact that, ju d g ­ ing fr om the s ubs e que nt edicts in the case, the impe r ia l ve rdict was dire cte d not so muc h at the lite rary c o m m unity as at the bur e a u­ cracy. In his pr onounce me nts on the case, the e mpe ror dire cte d his ire not only at Wa ng but at the gove rnor o f Kia ngs i, Hai- ch e ng who had, in the view o f the court, conducte d a lax inve s tigation and r e comme nde d an overly le nie nt punis hme nt. Ho w could the gover­ nor have e ntrus te d a matte r as serious as the dignity of the dynas ty to his s ubor dinate s at the book bur e au, the e mpe r or asked; why ha d he not pe rs onally reviewed the book hims e lf? Mos t serious o f all, the e mpe r or discovered Hai- ch e ng s name a mo ng the list o f those who had contr ibute d funds for public a tion o f the volume , a fact which the gove rnor never e xplaine d. T he pos s ibility o f collus ion between C h ’ing officials a nd the author s was too muc h for the e mpe r or to tol­ erate. In an edict o f De ce mbe r 1777 Hai- ch e ng was de s cribe d as “comple te ly b lind to he ave nly [ imperial] virtue , a nd ignor ant o f the Gr e ate r Dut y .” T he e mpe r or continue d, “I cannot but express mys e lf thr ough s trong punis hme nt. T his m a n has be e n appointe d as a high provincial official; he has received our grace w ithout any sense of conscience at a ll.” T he case agains t Hai- ch e ng was tur ne d over to the Boar d of Pe rs onne l, which r e comme nde d that he be dis mis s e d fr om office and hande d over to the Boar d o f Punis hme nts . T he re is no re cord of the de libe rations o f that Boar d, or of Hai- ch e ng s

e ve ntual fate, but in a rescript o f Ja n u a r y 1778, the e mpe r or decreed that Hai- ch e ng s p unis hme nt s hould be lighte ne d to impr is onme nt awaiting e xe cution in the fall. Two othe r pr ovincial officials were dis mis s e d fr om the ir posts.48 T he case was in its day a nd pr oba bly is today the mos t wide ly known o f the lite r ary inquis itio n cases. Two taboo characte r cases re porte d s hortly afte r its conclus ion suggested the impa c t the case ha d on the pr ovincial bure aucracy. In Ma y o f 1778 the gove rnor of Shans i re porte d the case o f Wa ng Erh- yang, a chu- jen, or igina lly fr om Liao- chou, who he ld office as a local e duc ational official. A sheng- yuan o f Shans i, Li Lun- yuan, asked Wa n g to write an e pita ph for his father. Wa ng compos e d the e pitaph us ing the expression huang- kho to refer to L i’s father. Whe r e as the characte r huang me a nt ‘e m pe ror , the c o m po und huang- k'ao ha d lo ng be e n us e d in Chine s e as an honor ific expression for one ’s deceased father, a nd was de fine d as s uch in the classic Chine s e treatise on rites, Li- chi. T he gove rnor judg e d, how­ ever, that Wa ng had committe d s e dition in us ing the characte r huang w ithout e le vating it as was r e quir e d in all reference to the e mpe ror. An inve s tigation of the case was be gun. Li’s hous e was s earched, a nd the gove rnor reques ted that Wa n ^s ances tral home in Liao- chou be searched as we ll.49 Wh e n the case came to the e mpe r or ’s atte ntion, however, he orde re d that inve s tigation cease, finding that the usage in que s tion was not s e ditious . T he e mpe ror pointe d out that the expression ha d be e n us ed thr o ughout Chine s e lite r ature , as, for e xample , in L i Sao, a nd in Ou- yang H s iu s essay in honor o f his father, “Lung- ch ie n kang- piao.” While there were ins tances in the his tory o f Chine s e lit ­ e rature of classical expressions be ing change d because one characte r in the m was taboo, these cases involve d characters in the pe rs onal name s of e mpe rors , not generic te rms like huang. 50 Not only was huang- kho a perfectly valid classical locution, b ut the e pitaph in which it was found ha d no t hing to do with the dynas ty or its ruler. T he e mpe r or de clare d that such a case mus t be dis tinguis he d fr om true s e dition; “In our ma na ge me nt o f affairs, we have always trie d to a t­ ta in fairness. T he case o f Wa ng Hs i- hou was tr uly s e ditious , a nd we are unw illing to re le nt in the slightest. T his case, however, is not re be llious , a nd we are unw illing that there s hould be no dis tinction made [ between the cases]. T he for me r case was punis he d severely. T his matte r ne e d not be inve s tigate d furthe r. Le t this be wide ly p r o­ claime d a nd know n!”51 T he phras e “more like Wa ng Erh- yang tha n

Wa ng Hs i- hou” was us ed again and again by the e mpe r or to me an that a case need not be fur the r pros ecuted. A second case involving the mis us e of taboo characters followed shortly. O n 3 Ju ly 1778 the Gove r nor of H u n a n , Li H u , re porte d the s e dition o f a s tude nt at the Im pe r ia l Acade my, Li Ta- pen. Gove r ­ nor Li’s attitude toward the lite r ary inquis ition was pr oba bly s hape d by the recent his tory o f the H u n a n gove rnors hip. Li H u ha d he ld the post for twelve days whe n he re porte d the case o f Li Ta- pen. In Ju n e , a c ommo ne r had left an essay in front o f the yame n of Li H u s pre de ­ cessor, Yen Hs i- s han. O n r e ading it, Yen conclude d not only that it was s e ditious but that it ha d be e n pres ented to a pre vious H u n a n governor. Unfor tunate ly, the m a n Yen sent to investigate the case was a dis tant relative of the for me r governor. T his arous e d the e m ­ pe r or ^ suspicions: were Yen a nd the ne w m a n tr ying to cover up for the for me r governor? Yen was orde re d to tur n over his dutie s to Li H u and proceed to the capital for inte r r ogation a nd punis hme nt. Gove r nor Li H u was, unde rs tandably, a mode l of caution a nd vigor in his inve s tigations .52 T he case agains t Li Ta- pen involve d a volume o f poe try e ntitle d Tzu- hsiao chi (Ac cumula te d filial pie ty colle ction), c o nta ining poe ms wr itte n by various relatives in honor o f Li’s mothe r ’s e ightie th b ir th ­ day. T he m a in charge agains t the volume was that in it L i’s mothe r was compar e d to a numb e r o f famous Chine s e ladies, inc lud ing kins ­ wome n o f the le ge ndary e mpe rors Huang- ti and She n- nung. T his compar is on was not w ithout its s e ditious overtones. If one ’s mothe r was like the mothe r o f an e mpe ror, the implications for one s e lf were obvious ; impe r ial pre te ns ions were not we lcome d in Ch ’ing Ch in a . However, the gove rnor cited no e vidence that Li’s inte ntion in the book was othe r tha n flattery. A second charge was that in one o f the poe ms , a characte r in the K ang- hsi Empe r or ’s te mple name was wr itte n in full. T he re were s trong echoes here o f the Wa ng Hs i- hou case; Wa ng was charge d both with w r iting the name s o f various C h ’ing e mpe rors in full and with tr acing his ge ne ology back to Huang- ti. De s pite these echoes, there was no evide nce o f any que s ­ tio ning o f the Ma nc h us r ight to cultur al a nd political le ade rs hip in the volume by Li Ta- pen. Wh ile the Empe r or found it exaggerated, he did not find it tre as onous . It was ‘‘more like Wa ng Erh- yang than Wa ng H s i- ho u. 53 Several factors could have accounte d for the governors’ actions in these two cases. Perhaps , in the absence o f pre ce de nt and s tandard,

the governors mis unde r s tood the bas ic aims o f the inquis ition and ge ne rally mis judge d the s ignificance of the volume s they were s ub­ mitting. It was also possible that the governors, unde r pressure fr om an impa tie nt court, be came dis tracte d fr om the e mpe r or ’s bas ic p u r ­ poses and re porte d cases of ma r gina l s ignificance in or de r to m a in ­ ta in an image o f vigor a nd effectiveness. T he t im in g o f the cases, and the natur e o f the accus ations s trongly suggested the latte r possibility. Both cases involve d the mis us e o f taboo characters, and followed closely one o f the mos t famous taboo characte r cases in Chine s e his ­ tory. Fur the rmor e , the gove rnor who re porte d the case of Li Ta- pen ha d special reason for s howing vigor a nd conce rn in his pros e cution o f cases. Whate ve r the reason for the phe nome non, the cases o f Li Ta- pen and Wa ng Erh- yang were not isolate d ins tance s .54 For the r e ma inde r of the inquis itio n, the e mpe r or a nd his officials care fully sifted thr o ugh the books s ubmitte d for pr os cr iption, we e ding out many that they felt did not deserve official action. Gentry accusations. T he effort to collect all the s e ditious books in C h in a would have made no he adway at all if it ha d me t with ma jo r resistance, active or passive, a mo ng the lite rati. O n the othe r ha nd, lite rati pa r tic ipa tion could not be we lcome d incautious ly, for pe ople could ha nd in books for a variety o f reasons. Fear, as well as respect, could motivate an ind ivid ua l to h a n d in his own books; a desire for vengeance, as well as a sense o f duty could le ad one pe rs on to accuse anothe r of possessing s e ditious books . As the num b e r o f pr os cr ip­ tions grew, a nd the pe naltie s for ho ld ing s e ditious books be came wide ly known, the n um b e r of ge ntry accus ations grew as well. Se p­ a r a ting true accus ations fr om false, and us e ful info r ma tio n fr om that which me re ly involve d the court in innume r a ble pe tty dis pute s unr e ­ late d to the inquis itio n was a task which came to pre occupy the e mpe r or and bur e aucrats alike in the late r years o f the ca mpaig n. Wh e n accusers had motive s unr e late d to the bas ic purpos e o f the inquis ition, the fact was care fully re corde d in me mor ials a nd edicts. A fairly clear picture o f the s ignificance a nd causes o f the ge ntry accus ations can, therefore, be re cons tructe d. Appr ox ima te ly one - third of the cases docume nte d in Ch'ing- tai wentzu- yu tang involve d one me mbe r o f the ge ntry accus ing anothe r. Ab o ut sixty pe rce nt of these accus ations le d to convictions ; while about forty pe rce nt were s hown to be tr ivial or false. T he accus ations were a mir r o r of the te ns ions in e ighte e nth- ce ntury society. As la nd

was a ma jor for m o f we alth, it was not s ur pr is ing that dispute s over la nd owne rs hip a nd use were c ommonly found to lie be hind accus a­ tions . T he major ity o f these were dis pute s a mo ng relatives, and ma ny ce nte re d a r o und commonly- he ld, or corporate land. As m ig ht be expected, all the cases o f this for m came fr om the s outhe as te rn province s o f Fukie n and Kia ngs i, where s uch la ndho lding was c om­ mon. As one o f these cases will be discussed as a case s tudy below, no fur the r e xamples will be cons ide re d he re .55 La n d owne rs hip was not, however, the only cause o f accus ations , nor were all ge ntry lineages the highly articulate d communitie s focussed exclusively on la nd h o ld in g de s cribe d in recent s cholars hip on C h in a .56 On e need only to e xamine the biographie s o f Ch a n g Hsue h- ch e ng or Yua n Me i to realize how impor ta nt unofficial posts were in the lives o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury lite r ati, a nd to unde r s tand how critical a ne twork o f pe rs onal contacts was in o b ta ining these posts. Pre dictably, lost e mployme nt and s cholarly je alous ie s were also fre que nt causes o f accus ations , as was the bitterness o f arr ange d marriage s gone awry.57 Ge ntr y conflicts in the e ighte e nth ce ntury took place, o f course, agains t the bac kgr ound of a very s ignificant po pula tio n change . Fr om a level o f a bout 150 m illio n at the tur n of the e ighte e nth ce n­ tury, the Chine s e popula tio n incre as e d to about 275 m illio n by the time o f the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ign, a nd about 313 m illio n by the e nd o f the ce ntury.58 Undoubte dly, the s ilent pressure o f popula tion gr owth complicate d all dis pute s in the century. But while the new compe titive atmos phe re pr obably exace rbate d the conflicts be hind accus ations , the sources o f conflict were c o mmo n ones in late imp e ­ r ial Chine s e history. Ultimate ly, book owners actions in the ce ns or­ s hip c a mpa ig n were more the manife s tation of long- s tanding te ns ions in C h in a tha n the cre ation of ne w ones. An inte re s ting case involving several sources o f te ns ion was re­ porte d in 1778. Implic ate d in it were sheng- yuan C h ’en Hs i- s he ng a nd a commone r, Teng H u i, both o f w hom made the ir living by te aching and for tune te lling. Before 1778 they seem to have be e n good frie nds the ir houses were quite close a nd they worke d a nd re ad the I ching together. C h e n ha d pr omis e d his daughte r , whe n yet a minor , in mar r iage to Tenges son; cons e que ntly, the girl was rais e d in T e n^s hous e hold. But in 1778, a fa lling out occurre d. It seemed that C h ’en lur e d some o f T eng’s arche ry s tude nts away a nd proce e de d to teach the m hims e lf. Teng was angry a nd the two me n quar re lle d. C h ’en wrote a doc ume nt c onde mning Teng a nd wante d to bre ak off

the mar r iage agr e e me nt betwe e n the two families . But a mar r iage promis e , even one involving minor s , was not to be broke n off that easily. T he gr oom’s fa mily claime d that the y had alre ady invested s ignificant financial a nd e motio nal resources in r ais ing the pote ntial br ide .59 Teng wante d to accuse C h ’e n at the dis trict magis trate ’s office, b ut was re s traine d fr om doing so by his frie nds a nd relatives. Re lations betwe e n the two familie s appe ar to have be come so c o m ­ plex, a nd the ir quar r e l so involve d that the s tandar d me chanis ms o f dis pute re s olution in Chine s e society were inade quate to reconcile the m. At this point, C h ’e n re alize d that he ha d a copy o f one o f the books ba nne d by the court and hit up o n the ide a o f c la iming, not only that Teng ha d sold it to h im , but that Teng was in the bus ine s s o f s e lling pros cribe d books . As it happe ne d, Teng did have in his pos ­ session s ome books that ha d be e n ba nne d. As the magis trate inve s ti­ gated the case, the story nar r ate d above e me rge d fr om villagers fa milia r with the s ituation and finally fr om the pr incipals th e m ­ selves. T he magis trate de cide d to accept T eng s s tate me nt that he had not known the books were ba nne d. C h ’e n on the othe r hand, was found guilty of m a k ing a false accus ation, a nd it was r e com­ me nde d that he be be ate n one hundr e d strokes a nd exiled to a dis ­ tance o f three thous and li.60 Ine vitably, the cour t’s attitude toward accus ations was ambivale nt. Accusers’ info r ma tio n could be valuable b ut the ir motive s were always que s tionable . Some o f the largest cases o f the inquis ition, inc lud ing those o f Wa ng Hs i- hou a nd the Cho , Tai a nd C h u familie s , came to light thr o ugh accus ations . O n the othe r ha nd, about forty pe rce nt o f the accus ations lodge d prove d false or tr ivial. In s hort, pe ople s hould not be e ncourage d to make accus ations b ut every accus ation had to be care fully inve s tigate d. Such was the thrus t o f an impo r ta nt impe r ial s tate me nt on the pr oble m o f accus ations in 1778: If, in the future, there are me n who accuse others of treason, the gover­ nor involved should make a careful investigation of the tr uth or false­ hood of the charge. If false, then the accuser should be dealt with as if he had committe d the crime he accused [others of committing.] True accusations s hould be completely reported by me mor ial.61

Re gardle s s o f court policy, accus ations were pr oba bly una vo id ­ able. T he e mpe r or we nt to the he art o f the matte r whe n he obs erved that: “those who m u r m u r agains t a fa mily a nd plot to ha r m it ne e d

only s ubmit one pape r, a nd the accus ed fa mily will be involve d in a legal case, even though they are w ithout g u ilt .” T he pos ition of a me mbe r of the e ighte e nth- ce ntury Chine s e ge ntry was de te r mine d by a de licate balance o f a num b e r o f factors inc lud in g his we alth, his pos ition w ith in a line age , his circle o f frie nds , his lite rary o utput, a nd his r ank in the official hierarchy. Wit h the inquis ition, the court had, pr obably inadve rte ntly, created a ne w way in which the social status o f an individua l, gr oup, line age or line age br a nc h could be te m­ por a r ily or even pe r ma ne ntly altered. In short, a ne w variable ha d be e n created in the ne twork of inte rpe rs onal re lations that was eighte e nth- ce ntury Chine s e ge ntry society. Scholars have lo ng be e n puzzle d by the a ppa r e nt quiescence o f the inte lle ctuals in the “lite rary in q uis itio n .” Actually, as the phe ­ nome no n of ge ntry accus ations , the actions o f pr ovincial governors, a nd the role o f e xpe ctant officials in the inquis itio n indicate d, the inte lle ctuals playe d an active role in the ca mpa ign. Lite r ati in and out o f office locate d, conde mne d, inve s tigate d a nd e valuate d mos t o f the books that were sent to Pe king for pros cription. In do ing so, how­ ever, lite r ati were not s ubs e rvie nt to the e mpe r or ’s will, nor did they resist it; they were s imply pur s uing the ir own interests. In the c om­ plex, multi- ce nte re d wor ld o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury Ch in a , interests could ove rlap w ithout necessarily be ing ide ntical or even congr ue nt with each other. T he c a mpa ig n grew thr o ugh the inte r action o f gentry, bure aucr atic a nd impe r ia l interests, s hape d by all but d o m i­ nate d by none . In the following section, this inte r action o f interests will be e xamine d in an ind ivid ua l case. A Cas e S t u d y : T he Pro c e e d ing s A g a in s t the C h u F a m ily o f K ia n g s i T he proce e dings agains t the C h u fa mily of Te- hsing, Kia ngs i have be e n selected for e x a mina tio n here not because they change d the characte r of the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ig n, but because they were typical of the inve s tigations a nd litigations which took place all over C h in a in the late 1770s. T he C h u case took place in the fall o f 1779, d ur ing the he ight of the ce ns ors hip in Kia ngs i, a province which ha d sent a dis pr opor tionate n um b e r of its books to the capital for b a nning . T he Chus were a large, la nd ho ld ing line age with a record o f e x ami­ na tion success s tre tching back to the seventeenth century. T he Kia ngs i bure aucracy, which had recently be e n shake n by the

dis mis s als o f Hai- ch e ng and several s ubor dinate s in the Wa ng Hsihou case, was ce rtainly well aware o f the dange rs and impor tance o f lite rary litigations . A gazetteer fr om the Ch us native county publis he d in 1872 de ­ scribes the area, a nd pe rhaps also the family. Cros s e d by shallow streams a nd broke n by ge ntly r olling hills , Te- hsing was one o f seven countie s which compr is e d Jao- chou pre fe cture in the red e arth dis trict o f Kiangs i; the northe as te rn bor de r o f the dis trict for me d the bounda r y between Kia ngs i and Che kia ng. T he name s o f the offe n­ ders did not appe ar in the nine te e nth- ce ntury gazetteer, b ut e nough evide nce r e maine d to suggest that the C h u fa mily live d in the s outh­ eastern section o f the dis trict, ne ar mode r n Nuan- s hui. T he re were two chin- shih, one cku- jen and six sheng- yuan s ur name d C h u fr om this are a a mo ng the successful candidate s on the e xaminations d ur in g the C h ’ing. On e o f the chin- shih a nd one o f the sheng- yuan were ide nti­ fied in ce ns ors hip docume nts as be ing me mbe rs of the offe nding C h u family. Accor ding to the gazetteer there was a hall, the Pi- chien tz% in the are a o f Nuan- s hui for persons s ur name d Ch u , a nd ce ns ors hip docume nts re corde d that the C h u fa mily live d clustered a r o und the ir ances tral hall. It ca nnot be conclus ive ly prove n that the Chus of Nuan- s hui were the Chus o f the case at ha nd, but both the gove rn­ me nt docume nts and the local his tory suggested that the Chus were a large, well e s tablis hed, land- holding a nd s e gme nte d ge ntry line age .62 Little is known o f C h u T ’ing- che ng a sheng- yuan who die d in 1750 except that at some point he wrote a volume e ntitle d Hsu san- tzu- ching (Supple me nt to the Three Character Classic) which he us e d to te ach his gr ands on C h u Chie h how to r e ad.63 It was this w r iting which e ve n­ tually br o ught the fa mily to grief. T he San- tzu- ching or igina lly w r it­ ten by Wa ng Po- hou o f the Sung Dynas ty, has be e n us ed as an e le me ntar y r e ading pr ime r in C h in a for over a thous and years. Compos e d in short, easily me mor ize d, three characte r sentences, it was divide d into sections e ntitle d “M a n s Or ig in a l Na tur e ,” “Du t y to Par e nts ,” “Ge ne r al Know le dge ,” and “Advice as to Le a r ning and Dilige nc e .”64 T he s ection on ge ne ral knowle dge containe d a br ie f sketch o f Chine s e his tory fr om le ge ndar y time s to the fo unding o f the Sung dynas ty, and it was this sketch which C h u T ’ing- che ng e vi­ de ntly s upple me nte d by e xte nding it to the middle o f the C h ing. Subs e que nt criticis m alleged that C h u not only lis ted the dynas tie s a nd e mpe rors since Sung, but made mor alis tic comme nts on the m

in the tr a dition of Chine s e “prais e and bla me ” his toriography. It is not har d to guess who was be ing bla me d. On e line fr om the book re corde d in the archives of the case was: “Wit h ha ir loose and clothes folding to the left, even har de r to be ar is the fact that C h in a is filled with m onks .” T he first par t o f this line was an allus ion to the Analects whe re Confuc ius re marke d on how for tunate Ch in a ’s escape fr om ba r ba r ia n contr ol had been. T he second h a lf o f the line referred to the fact that the Ma nc h us shaved the front par t o f the ir heads , which made the m look like monks . T his practice , along with the cus tom of b r a id ing the back par t o f the ha ir into a que ue , was forced on the Chine s e whe n the Ma nc hus took power a nd ha d me t with cons ide r­ able resistance. T hus one the me o f C h u T ing- che ng s comme nts on Chine s e his tory was very pr obably oppos ition to Ma n c h u r ule .65 T he or iginal copy of C h u T ing- che ng s work was lost. Ma n y years afte r C h u T ing- che ng s de ath, whe n his gr ands on C h u Chie h, a sheng- yuan hims e lf, came to teach his own son how to re ad, he had to write out a copy of the text fr om me mory. In this copy, seized by local officials, the taboos on C h ’ing e mpe rors ’ name s were not prope rly observed. In one par ticular ly blatant ins tance , after a me ntion o f the famous e arly C h ’ing rebel Wu San- kue i (1612- 1678) a reference to the C h ’ing gove rnme nt was not elevated the re quis ite num b e r o f spaces. In a s ubs e que nt inte rr ogation, C h u Chie h claime d that in w r iting the text he had followed the mode l o f the or iginal San- tzuching a r r a nging the sentences par alle l to each othe r for ease o f r e ad­ ing a nd me mor iza tio n and for this reas on he ha d not obs erved the C h ’ing taboos properly. Ano the r fault o f C h u Chie h ’s text was that it confus e d the re ign name s of the rulers o f the Yua n dynasty. Since the rulers o f the Yua n were Mongo ls , and were the mos t recent nonH a n rulers of C h in a before the C h ’in g the court was very sensitive to any infr inge me nt o f the ir his torical rights . It is difficult to tell whe the r these were inadve rte nt errors on the par t o f C h u Chie h or inte ntiona l acts of s e dition; at the very least it was ce rtain that the manus c r ipt was not inte nde d for publication. Some time in the mid- 1770s, there seems to have be e n a dis pute w ithin the Ch u fa mily between C h u Chie h’s brothe r, C h u H u i, and a dis tant relative o f both, Ch u P ’ing- chang. In this s quabble , Ch u H u i accus ed C h u P ’ing- chang o f s e lling corporate land. T he exact natur e o f the dis pute was not specified, but C h u P ing- chang s be ­ havior was late r officially characte rize d as “de s troying the ances tral

h a ll.” Line age s in s outh C h in a ofte n us e d the proceeds o f corporate lands to s uport the ir ances tral hall, or pay e duc ational expenses; but conflicts over the resources fr om s uch lands could easily aris e.66 T he two litigants were at first re luctant to take the case to court. T he y asked anothe r me mbe r o f the C h u fa mily who ha d jus t e arne d his chin- shih degree, C h u Huang- fan, to arbitrate . Hua ng- fa n e vide ntly refused. T he case we nt to court a nd C h u P ’ing- chang lost, with the result that he was s trippe d o f his sheng- yuan degree. While this litigation was going on, C h u P ’ing- chang had occas ion to vis it his kins ma n C h u Chie h. A copy o f the Hsu- san- tzu- ching was ly ing ope n on C h u C h ie h s desk which P ’ing- chang picke d up a nd took home with him . In Octobe r , 1779 afte r C h u Fing- chang had lost his degree, he s ought a me ans o f ta king revenge on C h u Hs i a nd his brothe r. He de cide d to ha nd in the volume he had take n fr om Ch u Chie h’s hous e, a nd accuse the latte r o f s e dition. P ’ing- chang also wante d revenge agains t C h u Huang- fan. As it happe ne d, C h u Huang- fan ha d wr itte n a volume o f poe try a nd de dicate d it to C h u H u i. P’ing- chang also obtaine d a copy o f this volume a nd s ubmitte d it to the magis trate . T hus on 13 Nove mbe r 1779, the magis trate o f Te- hsing county received copies of the Hsu- san- tzu- ching a nd an untitle d volume o f poe try by C h u Huang- fan. Afte r e x a mining the m, he forwarde d the m to the gove rnor of the province with a re port on how a nd why he ha d received the m. T he gove rnor who received the volume s was Hao- s huo, whose a ppointm e nt in De c e mbe r 1777 followed the dis grace a nd e xe cution of Hai- ch e ng fo r his role in the Wa ng Hs i- hou case. T he C h u case was the first that Hao- s huo pros e cute d as a pr ovincial governor. O n receipt of the magis trate ’s re port, Hao- s huo orde re d that the magis trate o f Te- hsing a nd the prefect o f Jao- chou to inte rrogate thor oughly all the pr incipals , a nd search the C h u hous e holds ; he the n forwarde d the books to Pe king. Several weeks late r the re port of the magis trate a nd prefect arrive d, c o nta ining the outline s o f the story above. But the gove rnor was not satisfied. He had le arne d thr ough his own sources that C h u T ’ing- che ng ha d wr itte n anothe r book, e ntitle d T z^t'ang pi- chi (De s ultor y jo tt ings fr om the ance s tral hall) which was not me ntione d in the re port o f the magis trate a nd prefect. T he gove rnor did not reveal the sources o f his info r ma tio n on the second volume but, cas tigating the magis trate a nd the prefect

Figur e 3. Me mbe r s o f the C h u Family Involve d in Litiga tio n Proce e dings in 1779 Generation I

C h u T ’ing- cheng (d. 1748, sheng- yuan) Chu

II C h u Ping- chang {sheng y uan) III

/ C h u Chie h (sheng- yuan)

IV

C h u Mou- s u

X

Y -… - - Chu Huang- fan {chin- shih)

\ \

\

Ch u H u i

NOTE: Solid line indicates direct descendants; dotted lines indicate uncertain relation­ ships. Nothing is known of the relationship between Chu Huang- fan and Chu Hui, except that Huang- fan was of the same generation in the clan as Hui’s father. Chu P’ing- chang was a grade 5 mourning relative (in Maurice Fried­ man's parlance) of Chu Chieh. The implications of this latter relationship will be discussed in the text.

for the “leaks” in the ir re port, orde re d a second inve s tigation. T his time , the inve s tigation was to be conducte d by the censor o f circuit for northe as te rn Kia ngs i, O- erh- teng- pu. Two months later, O- erh- teng- pu re porte d back that he ha d found it too late. Wor d had s pre ad that the gove rnor was looking for the volume and there had be e n a s cramble a mo ng the Chus to e radicate ce rtain name s a nd phrases fr om the book. No less tha n seven me mbe rs of the fa mily ha d made revisions. Each was inte rr ogate d and searched. O n Ma r c h 19, the gove rnor re porte d all the c ir c um­ stances o f the case to the court in a long me mor ial, a nd r e com­ me nde d punis hme nts for those he found guilty. T he first cr imina l discussed in the me mo r ial was C h u T ing- cheng hims e lf, who had had the good for tune to die thir ty years before his case was discovered. C h u had committe d two crime s —ha r bor ing anti- Ma nc hu s e ntime nts a nd re cor ding the m in an his torical text.

He was conde mne d as a “wild a nd reckless” m a n, “living in seclus ion and de r iding the dynas ty.” Eve n worse, he had received the bo unty o f the dynas ty in the for m o f a sheng- yuan degree a nd still dar e d to speak agains t it. C h u was not only ungr ate ful for the benefits he ha d received b ut had in conduct and in writings scorned his benefactors . He was clearly a m a n o f anti- social te nde ncie s and im m o r a l char ­ acter. O r so he was picture d. T he re was no indic a tion that his true feelings a nd inte ntions were inve s tigate d, nor can the y be de te r­ mine d today. C h u T ’ing- cheng was also conde mne d for “pr a is ing a nd b la m in g for me r kings accor ding to his own fancy” a nd “ha ving the audacity to criticize pre vious e mpe r or s .” T he key phras e here was “prais e and bla m e .” Wm . T he odor e de Bary has note d that while all me n were free to s tudy the pas t, “only a sage mig ht dare actually to record mor al judg me nts in his w r itin g . 67 C h u T ’ing- cheng was, therefore, conde mne d in te rms thor oughly gr ounde d in Chine s e tr a dition, for us ur ping the prerogatives o f a sage and expressing his oppos ition to the Ma n c h u house. T he gove rnor r e comme nde d that, as p unis h ­ me nt a nd as e xample to others, C h u ’s corpse be dis inte r re d and be he ade d. He also r e comme nde d that all the prope rty C h u T ’ingche ng had be que athe d at his de ath be confis cated by the state, and that all o f T ing- che ng s de s ce ndants over 16 sui be e xe cute d.68 Punis hme nts were also me te d out to those who ha d resisted the Gove rnor's will by h id in g and alte r ing the Tz u- tang pi- chi. T he in d i­ vidua l who had alte re d the mos t was s entenced to a be a ting o f one hundr e d strokes and exile to a dis tance o f three thous and li. Anothe r me mbe r o f the fa mily who had erased one na me was de prive d o f his status as a lice ntiate . Othe rs , who made only a few changes were s en­ tence d to be be ate n e ight strokes, but were forgive n whe n they ple d for me rcy on Ne w Ye ar’s Da y 1780. On ly one me mbe r o f the C h u family accus ed in the case escaped official conde mna tio n. Wh e n the poe try o f the chin- shih C h u Huangfan was e xamine d, no se ditious wor ding was found. Huang- fan was not a de s ce ndant o f C h u T ’ing- cheng and thus bore no r e s pons ibility for the pre s e rvation o f the Hsu san- tzu- ching. Officials accepted his word that he had never seen the volume . Pr obably H uang- fan s exalted r ank he lpe d to establis h his cre dibility. In any case, ne ithe r his life nor his career was har me d; he we nt on to serve as magis trate in three countie s before r e tir ing to care for his aged mothe r and write his comme ntar ie s on the classics.69

T he interests on the court, bur e aucracy a nd ge ntry accusers were all served by the outcome o f the C h u case. Alt h o ug h there were no impe r ia l edicts in the case, several o f the e mpe r or ’s aims were o b­ vious ly served. A book which, ha d it be e n publis he d, would have be e n o f cons ide rable subversive pote ntial was destroyed. T he San- tzuching was more tha n a series o f a mus ing jingle s ; it expressed the basic beliefs o f Chine s e high culture . Re a d ing a nd me mo r izin g it were the first steps in the s ocialization o f the childr e n o f the Chine s e elite; unde r no circums tance s could a vers ion o f it which containe d antiMa n c h u language be allowed to circulate . Als o, the practice o f pas s­ ing s e ditious volume s fr om ge ne ration to ge ne ration w ithin a family was attacke d forcefully, a nd it was made clear that any who e ngage d in the practice would lose not only the ir lives a nd writings , but also any pr ope r ty they m ig ht be que ath to the ir de s cendants . T he process o f inve s tigation in the C h u case illus trate d the impa ct o f the ce ns ors hip on the pr ovincial bure aucracy, a nd the crucial role of the bure aucr acy in it. Not only d id Hao- s huo send three sets of officials to investigate the Chus , he e vide ntly s ought info r ma tio n fr om private sources as well. In his final me mor ial, the gove rnor r e comme nde d that the prefect a nd the magis trate , whose reports had not me t his s tandards o f comple te ne s s a nd accuracy, be dismis s e d fr om the ir posts. As a result o f his dilige nce , an extra volume by C h u T ing- che ng was discovered, several more pe ople punis he d, a nd a m in o r panic created am o ng the Chus . Wh ile the gove rnor clearly felt a vigorous inve s tigation o f the case was necessary, it was not clear that the results o f his search were worth the effort a nd dis r uption it e ntaile d. On ly one phras e, a s tandar d classical allus ion to the s tre nu­ ous life o f an e mpe ror and his officials, was quote d fr om the volume , a nd it appe ars on none of the indice s of works suppressed. It is an ir onic c omme nt on the difficultie s o f h o ld ing office d u r in g the C h ’ing that four years after his mos t thor ough pros e cution of the Ch u case, Hao- s huo was s ummone d to Pe king, cas hiered a nd pe r mitte d to c ommit s uicide for e xtorting mone y fr om his infe r ior s .70 T he interests o f the accus er in the case, C h u P ing- chang pr e ­ sented a s lightly more complicate d picture . Altho ug h P ing- chang s quar r e l was with C h u H u i, he accus ed C h u Chie h. Wh ile it was r e comme nde d that C h u H u i be executed for not re s tr aining Ch u Chie h, there were many othe r unfor tuna te cons equences o f the accu­ s ation. Wh y did P ing- chang e mploy such a pote ntially dis as trous me ans o f revenge? He was not a s ufficie ntly close relative o f Ch u

T ’ing- cheng that he would have be e n he ld re s pons ible had the book be e n discovered, nor did he give any mor a l or ide ological reas on for his act. Anthr opologic a l lite rature on s outhe as t C h in a lineages provide s s ome clue to the puzzle . In his e arly work on the s ubject, Ma ur ic e Fr e e dman found that some s egments or lineages seemed to have more power tha n others, and he hypothe s ize d that the more powe rful branche s owne d mor e la nd tha n the weaker one s .71 Ja c k M. Potter, anothe r s tude nt o f s outhe rn C h in a clans, tested this hypothe s is and conclude d that 4,the dis tr ibutio n o f political power w ithin Chine s e lineages may be s aid to have be e n de te r mine d by ances tral pr o p­ erty . . . wealth in the form o f ances tral estates e nable d we althie r branche s to e ducate sons for the e x aminations , m a k ing it pr obable that we althy branche s would have more prestige a nd political conn e c tio n s . 72 T he re is e vidence to suggest that the quar r e l be twe e n C h u P’ing- chang and C h u H u i was not a quar r e l betwe e n two in d i­ viduals , but betwe e n two branche s o f the C h u lineage. T he fight was over corporate land, the s e lling o f which was re garde d as “de s truc­ tion o f the ances tral h a ll.” It was a fight o f s ufficient impor tance to go to the dis trict magis trate ’s court. C h u P ’ing- chang pr obably be ­ longe d to a diffe re nt br a nch o f the fa mily than C h u H u i a nd C h u Chie h, for it was re corde d that C h u P ing- chang was a “coarse silk” m o u r n in g relative of Ch u Chie h. T his referred to an ancie nt C h i­ nese system of clas s ification o f line age me mbe rs , whe re in two pe o­ ple d r e lations hip to one anothe r was expressed in te rms of the type of cloth they would have to we ar at each othe r’s fune r a l.73 T he te r minology was not sufficie ntly precise that C h u P ing- chang s re la­ tions hip to C h u H u i and C h u Chie h can be pinpointe d. However, C h u P’ing- chang could not have be e n a de s ce ndant of C h u T ingche ng, that is of the same line age s e gme nt as C h u H u i a nd C h u Chie h, unless he were C h u T ing- che ng s great- great- grandson. In view of the ages o f the parties involve d, this is unlike ly. If C h u F ing- cha ng and the de s ce ndants o f Ch u T ’ing- cheng were of diffe re nt, fe uding branche s o f the Chus , the n the outcome o f the case was clearly in P ing- chang s interest. For, as a result of the find­ ing of s e dition, it was r e comme nde d that all o f C h u T ing- che ng s de s ce ndants over the age of 16 sui be executed, which would have e limina te d the e ntire br anch o f the clan with which Fing- cha ng was fe uding. Whe the r or not C h u P ’ing- chang anticipate d this outcome whe n he lodge d his accus ation, he clearly had motive s unr e late d to

the ce ns ors hip a nd kne w e nough o f gove rnme nt pre ce de nt a nd pr o ­ ce dure to be ce rtain that his accus ation would receive a pr ompt and thor ough inve s tigation. Such wide s pre ad knowle dge o f censors aims a nd proce dure s , a nd the ability o f local ge ntry to ma nipula te the m were clearly ma jor factors in the growth o f the censors hip. T he S y s t e m a t iz a t io n o f Ce n s o rs h ip (1 7 8 0 - 1 7 8 2 ) By 1780 the book b a n n in g ha d re ache d its ze nith. All the province s ha d ins titute d proce dure s for locating a nd colle cting s e ditious books , and the cons ignme nts o f books sent to the capital fr om the largest province s averaged two thous a nd volume s annually, with some pr ov­ inces s e nding as m a ny as five thous and volume s pe r year. T he pote n­ tial for social dis r uption was be c oming more a nd more e vide nt, however. Litigations , like that of the C h u family, r e quir e d more and more time to investigate a nd prosecute; book holde rs indicte d each othe r regularly, with or w ithout basis; and governors padde d the ir s ubmis s ions with books o f ma r gina l significance . In the face of m o un tin g e vidence o f the dis r uptive side effects o f the c a mpa ign, the C h ie n- lung court s eemed to shift its policies. For the first time , ce n­ tr alize d ce ns ors hip boar ds which could enforce cons is te nt s tandards on various genres o f lite rature were created; a mas te r list o f ba nne d books a nd a s tate me nt o f the crite ria for de te r mining s e dition were pr omulgate d at court and dis tr ibute d to pr ovincial officials; a nd gov­ ernors were r e pr ima nde d, not for neglige nce , but for ove rze alous ­ ness in pur s uing the goals o f the ca mpa ign. T he s hift was a subtle one. T he court ne ithe r re tre ate d fr om its stated policy o f finding and e lim ina ting all a nti- Ma nc hu references in Chine s e writings nor r e nounce d any of the proce dure s o f the e arly years o f the ca mpaign. T he goals were r athe r to sys tematize and re gularize the effort, and br ing unde r ce ntral contr ol forces pre vious ly left uncontrolle d. Conte mpor a ne ous with these de ve lopme nts was the rise o f a new gr oup o f leaders in Pe king. Ma n y o f this gr oup, which coalesced unde r the le ade rs hip o f Ho- s he n, were e thnically Ma n c h u or of impe r ia l hous e hold or igins . At least two of the changes in proce dure s d ur in g the early 1780s were dire ctly associated with these ne w me n: Ho- s hen and others staffed the ne w ce ns ors hip boar ds while Yinglie n, Ho- shen s uncle , pr e pare d the ba nne d book lists. T he r e pr i­ mands o f governors were e mbodie d in impe r ial edicts dr afte d by the Gr a n d Co unc il which was domina te d by Ho- s hen a nd his followers.

Ir onically, it was Ma nc h us who le d the retreat fr om the excesses o f the c a mpa ig n agains t anti- Ma nc hu lite rature . Cons ide r e d mor e carefully, however, this de ve lopme nt was not so par adoxical. T he ce ns ors hip put s e nior Chine s e o cials in a difficult pos ition; they could not conde mn its excesses w ithout a ppe a r ing to condone its objects. On ly Ma nc hus could confide ntly c onde mn the excesses o f the ca mpa ign. Fur the rmor e , in this respect as in ma ny others, the e arly efforts o f the ne w Ma n c h u le ade rs hip appe ar to have cons ti­ tute d a ge nuine and ne e de d re for m o f pre vious adminis tr ative proce ­ dures. T he fact that these leaders’ own activitie s be came excessive a nd cor rupt, and were so labe lle d by the ir successors, s hould not obs cure the s ignificance o f the ir e arly actions . T he origin and development of censorship boards. Und e r the proce dure s o f the e arly years, if a book containe d even a few references offensive to the re gime , local book collectors and pr ovincial bur e aus ha d no optio n but to s ubmit it to Pe king for de s truction in toto. T his me ant that there was pr oba bly more de s truction o f lite r ary texts tha n was necessary to achieve the court’s goals and, with public knowle dge o f s uch de s truction, a climate o f fear a nd unce r ta inty was created which obfus cate d the gove rnme nt’s bas ic aims . These cons equences could have be e n avoide d if there had be e n a ce ntral ce ns ors hip boar d with the powe r and confide nce to censor selectively. Such a boar d was created for the ce ns ors hip o f dr a m a in De ce mbe r 1780; s hortly thereafter, s imila r boards were created for othe r genres. T he ce ntral gove rnme nt’s desire to m inim ize the pote ntial for social dis r uption was stressed thr oughout the official docume nts cre ating these boards . T ha t the first ce ns ors hip boar d created ha d to do with d r a m a may have reflected the calculation that, since the stories a nd language of plays were known to a large r s e gme nt o f the popula tio n tha n othe r writte n texts, the dange rs o f public mis unde r s ta nding o f dr a m a ce ns ors hip were gre ate r than those o f ce ns ors hip o f othe r sorts o f texts. O n 6 De ce mbe r 1780 the e mpe r or issued his first e dict on dr ama: Formerly, we ordered the officials of each province to seek energetically writings containing seditious words and phrases and send the m to the capital. T he successive submissions of the various governors have been nume rous indeed. It has occurred to us that playscripts cannot be with­ out seditious passages. For instance, among those which depict events at the end of the Ming dynasty, there mus t be some references to the

present dynasty which ought to be investigated thoroughly. As for poetic dr ama which concerns the Southe rn Sung and the rise of the Chin, there mus t be many scripts in which the roles [ presumably of the J u r ­ chen rulers, who were ancestors of the Manchus ] are portrayed so exces­ sively that the truth is lost. These have been in circulation so long that the une ducate d masses take the m for the truth when in fact they bear no re lation at all to the truth. They also mus t be investigated thoroughly.74

Ins te ad o f char ging pr ovincial officials with the task of e valuating s e ditious dr a ma , the e mpe ror e ntrus te d it to Ch iian- te a Ma n c h u o f the P la in Yellow ba nne r who ha d dis tinguis he d hims e lf in the ca mpa igns agains t Bur m a a nd the Chin- ch ua n re be ls .75 It was essential, the e mpe ror admonis he d, that Ch'iian- te carry out his tasks w ithout ar ous ing any noise or c ommo tion, or m a k in g any dis ­ play o f force. T he e mpe ror pr oba bly felt that the Ma n c h u milita r y officer could be relied on to carry out his orders quie tly a nd effec­ tively; but as a d r a m a censor C h iian- te ha d one liability, name ly, that he could not re ad Chine s e very well (pu- t'ung- hsiao Han- wen). T he re fore , I- ling- a, an impe r ial hous e hold bonds e r vant the n s e rving as salt commis s ione r for the Liang- huai dis trict, was orde re d to assist h im . Some time in Ma r c h of 1781 I- ling- a was relieved o f his dutie s as assistant dr a ma censor and re place d by T u- ming- a a Mo ng o l of the P la in Yellow banne r. C h uan- te and T u- ming- a worke d out betwe e n themselves the fol­ lowing modus operandi. 76 Dr a m a scripts collected by pr ovincial gover­ nors were first sent to C h iian- te, who sorted the m into three cate­ gories: T hos e that me rite d comple te de s truction he sent to the capital for review; those which r e quir e d only a few e me ndations to be acce ptable to the re gime he forwarde d to T u- ming- a; a nd those which containe d no s e dition he r e turne d to the ir owners. O n receipt o f scripts r e quir ing e me ndation, T u- ming- a rewrote the offe nding passages, and forwarde d his ha ndiw or k to Pe king for review. Both C h iian- te and T u- ming- a r e gularly re porte d to the e mpe r or on what they had accomplis he d, and r e gularly received impe r ial re­ scripts on the ir reports ur g ing the m not to be too hars h or stir up tr ouble In his last e xtant me mor ial on dr a m a date d 20 Ju n e 1781 C h ’iian- te re porte d that he ha d collected 424 scripts o f which he had e valuate d 273. Unfo r tuna te ly he did not say how ma ny he ha d ce n­ sored, but he did re port that o f the forty- two scripts he had e valuate d since he had last me mor ialize d, he ha d orde re d six ba nne d entirely, e ighte e n par tially ame nde d, and e ighte e n r e tur ne d uncha nge d to

the ir owners. In a me mo r ia l date d 6 Ju n e 1781, T u- ming- a r e porte d that he ha d e dite d thirty- five scripts a nd ha d twe nty more on ha nd for e diting.77 Ano th e r boar d, o f s imila r func tion, was also cre ate d in De c e mbe r 1780. Appa r e ntly in or de r to preserve texts which containe d only a few a nti- Ma nc hu references, printe rs ha d be gun to pre pare special e ditions o f works w ith the offensive passages excised. However, the bla nk spaces could be more suggestive th a n the actual excised wor d­ ing. On e of the volume s pr inte d in this way, a text o f Chying- hsia- chi (Colle cte d writings o f the s cholar o f C h ing- hs ia m o unta in), by Sung Lie n (ca. 1600) s ome how made its way into the Ssu- k)u cKuan- sbu itself. O n the day o f his a ppo intm e nt as director- general o f the Ssu- k’u proje ct, Ho- s he n was give n the tas k o f inve s tigating this text. T he following day he me mo r ialize d, ind ic ting As s is tant Dire ctor- Ge ne ral Ts’ao We n- chih a nd Ch ie f Co lla to r T s ang She ng- yung for fa iling to re port the bla nk spaces.78 Five days later, an e dict was issued on the s ubject o f bla nk spaces: We presume that besides this work there are shops in the provinces which have printe d other books, le aving spaces blank, as in the case of Ch^ng- hsia- chi, to which thought ought to be given and additions made. But this will pr obably be a difficult task for the governors- general and governors to pe rform satisfactorily and in like fashion. So we command the high officials of all the provinces to discover those volumes which need not be destroyed but have been pr inte d with spaces left blank, to mark the m, and to send the m to the capital. T he y will the n be turne d over to the commis sioners to be deliberated upon, filled in, the n re­ turne d. In case there are woodblocks, the high provincial officials s hould obe die ntly compare the m with the revised works and engrave [the prope r parts] afresh, so that they may be precisely the same.79

O n 15 De ce mbe r, Ho- s he n a nd A- kuei were appointe d to dire ct the work o f filling in the blanks . T he cre ation o f a ce ntralize d boa r d to correct works which ha d be e n, in effect, selectively cens ored by C h i­ nese lite rati a nd printe rs mus t have facilitate d s uch pr ior ce ns ors hip a nd thus relieved some o f the pressure on local officials to find a nd destroy all a nti- Ma nc hu references. Unfor tuna te ly, as in so m a ny o f Ho- shen s activitie s , no records o f the func tio ning o f the committe e for filling in the blanks s urvive. T he prom ulgation o f indices and standards, A s econd pr oce dural r e for m, the pr e pa r a tion a nd p r in t in g o f mas te r lists o f b a nne d books , took place in the s pr ing o f 1782. T he initiative for this re for m came

fr om the gr oup o f Ma n c h u officials s ur r o unding the e mpe ror, who had inhe r ite d in the late 1770s the task o f s upe r vis ing his various projects and campaigns , r athe r tha n fr om the e mpe r or hims e lf. Specifically, the re for m was be gun by Ying- lie n, an uncle o f Hoshen’s who served in various mos tly adminis tr ative capacities at the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion. In Ma y 1780 Ying- lie n was orde re d to s upe r­ vise and expedite the r e tur n o f the books collected for the Ssu- k)u ch'uan- shu to the ir owners in the provinces . In orde r to carry out this task, the Ma n c h u official fo und it necessary to pre pare a mas te r list of all the books that ha d be e n ba nne d to ins ure that no work c o nta in­ ing s e ditious language would be r e turne d to its owne r by mis take .80 In Apr il 1782 he re porte d to the e mpe ror that his work was c o m­ plete. Some months late r the Gr a n d Co un c il me mor ialize d, no ting with approval the work o f Ying- lie n a nd his s ubor dinate s a nd o b ­ s e rving that “Nine - te nths of the works now be ing s ubmitte d have alre ady be e n inves tigated. . . . T he n um b e r of diffe re nt books to be destroyed, both in toto and in parte, is 780.n T he me mo r ial conclude d: We re comme nd that an Index be drawn up clearly stating title and author [or compile r of all seditious works], and that it be printe d in book form for circulation among the provinces. T he n even the ignorant villagers who have books hidde n away will know what is against the law, and we who have the pr ohibition in hand will be better able to check volumes sent [to the capital] . So will provis ion for every book of past generations deserving suppression be made.

In such ma nne r was the first a nd only known ce ntral inde x of books ba nne d in the C h ’ie n- lung years cre ate d.81 Appa r e ntly at the same time as they were pr e par ing a mas te r list of ba nne d books, Ying- lie n a nd his s ubor dinate s pre par e d a set o f crite ria for de te r mining whe the r or not a book was to be judg e d s edi­ tious. T his doc ume nt consisted mos tly of s ummarie s of impe r ial edicts b a nning individua l works; some o f the provis ions , however, were of a more ge ne ral natur e . T he re lative ly limit e d de finition o f s e dition adopte d in the doc ume nt and the re peated stress on the need for dis cre tion and jud g m e n t were s tr iking.82 Except for works with obvious ly re be llious wor ding, the c ommis ­ sioners assert in the ir pr e amble , in de te r mining s e dition “there will have to be a balance , which will need to be handle d in various ways .” Article one orders that books c o nta ining the name s o f milita r y sta­ tions and outpos ts in Ma n c h u r ia be forwarde d to the capital, so that the ir te r minology and tr ans cr iptions could be made cons is te nt with

the Man- chou yuan- liu kho the n be ing pr e par e d in Pe king. Article s two, three, four, and five s ummar ize edicts on the works of C h ’ie n C h ’ieni, Lii Liu- liang, C h in Pao, C h u Ta- chun and Wu Wei- yeh, a nd works which us e d the re ign name s of ce rtain M in g pre te nde rs . Ar ticle six cautions that in the ce ns ors hip o f e ncyclope dias and books o f his tor i­ cal notes it is not necessary to destroy an e ntire volume s imply because o f a few anti- Ma nc hu references, and orders censors to “check care fully to see in what divis ion a nd what biogr a phy the tre as onable par t occurs and e limina te th a t.” Article seven deals with collections of me mor ials . Noting the e mpe r or ’s c o m m a nd that me mor ials relevant to present conditions , like those in the Ching- shih wen- pien (Colle ction on statecraft), s hould be preserved, it urges censors to be cautious : “whiche ve r have words and phrases that are tre as onable s hould be censored o f that part; the balance afte r de ­ libe r ation ought to be cons e rve d.” T he concluding article orders censors to de libe rate a nd change as necessary writings by Sung and M in g author s de a ling with the Yua n, C h in and Lia o dynas tie s .83 Reprim ands o f provincial governors fo r overzealousness. T he ne w e mphas is on dis cre tion and s ys te matization e vide nt in the s tandards a nd me mor ials o f Ying- lie n was also appar e nt in the comme nts made by the e mpe r or on works sent to h im to be ba nne d. Wh ile the e mpe r or ha d on ma ny occasions found that books s ubmitte d for pr ohibit io n were not s e ditious , he had never before 1782 r e pr ima nde d the governors who had s ubmitte d the m. In the s pr ing o f that year, how­ ever, one case involving the mis us e of taboo characters a nd some r athe r e xtravagant a nd clums y his torical allus ions was br ought to his atte ntion by Gove r nor Li Shih- chie h o f H u n a n . T he e mpe r or comme nte d: “If in all cases, we mus t blow back the fur a nd e xamine the faults , pic king a nd pluc king at falsehoods, will this not cause the pe ople to be at a loss as to what to do? T his matte r has come about because Gove r nor Li Shih- chie h is not fa milia r with the principle s o f lite r atur e .” In a second e dict on the case issued two days later, the e mpe r or fur the r fulmina te d: “If in m a n a g in g local affairs, all were as has ty a nd unconce rne d as this , how could they be worthy of re a p p o in tm e n t? 84 Late r in the same year, officials pres ented the e mpe r or with s ome rathe r bitte r poe ms writte n by a lite ratus who had s tudie d all his life but never obtaine d more than the first degree. T he e mpe r or c o m­ me nte d: “T he re are ma ny of this type, dis appointe d me n s inging in

the wild grasses a nd mar s hlands . If we blow back the fur a nd ex­ a mine the faults in orde r to punis h the m, the n anyone expressing hims e lf in poe try will be p utting hims e lf in dange r, a nd the pe ople will be at a loss as to what to do. . . . Le t this e dict be wide ly pr o ­ claime d a nd kno w n. 85 In s tatutory te rms the ce ns ors hip d id not e nd in 1782. Pr ovincial book bur e aus c ontinue d to exist, s ubmit ting yearly cons ignme nts o f books to Pe king, u n til the e nd o f the re ign. T he re was even an im p e ­ r ial or de r in 1788 to pr ovincial governors to “throw the ir whole energies into the e xe cution o f ce ns ors hip that it may be cle ane d up once a nd for a ll. 86 But there is an unmis takable de cline after 1782 in the n um b e r o f books s ubmitte d by the province s to the court, in the n um b e r o f litigations , a nd in the court’s interest in the ca mpaign. Probably, the s ys te matization a nd r e pr ima nds of the e arly 1780s r e p­ resented a s ignal to the lite rate c o m munity that the c a mpa ig n ha d re ache d its conclus ion, and that lite rati in the e mpir e ha d little to gain fr om fur the r censors hip. T he effort ha d grown, in large me a ­ sure, because bure aucrats , e xpe ctant officials, and lite r ati had been able to fur the r the ir own interests thr o ugh the pur s uit o f impe r ial goals; whe n this oppor tunity ceased to exist, the c a mpa ign de cline d as well. T he circums tance s o f these cases a nd the na tur e of impe r ial r e pr i­ mands were wide ly known in the pr ovincial bure aucracy. Four governors me mor ialize d, acknowle dging receipt o f the edict r e pr i­ m a n d in g Li Shih- chieh. Gove rnors Pa- san- t in g of Kw a ng tung and T an Shang- chung o f Anhwe i promis e d to avoid cases involving pe tty infr actions like those o f the tasteless H u n a n poe t;87 Pa- san- t in g r e marke d that he was par ticular ly aware o f the dange rs of s uch cases since he had be e n re s pons ible for the case o f Wa ng Erh- yang. T he gove rnor o f Kia ngs i note d that the only circums tance s in which an individua l could be punis he d were r idic uling the dynas ty and con­ ce aling s e ditious books; he agreed with the e mpe ror that there was no ne e d to br ing to the atte ntion of the court cases in which language ha d be e n mis us e d, a nd fur the r note d the impor tance o f inve s tigating all ge ntry accus ations . In or de r to e ncourage his s ubordinate s to act in accord with impe r ial wishes, the gove rnor said, he wide ly p u b li­ cize d the outcome of all cases. Gove r nor Li Shih hims e lf s ubmitte d two me mor ials , one apologizing for his errors, and the othe r a n ­ n o unc ing that the impe r ial par dons ha d be e n conveyed to those c onde mne d.88

T he E ig h t e e n t h - C e n t u ry Ce n s o rs h ip in H is t o r y a n d H is t o r io g r a p h y T his picture of the growth and de cline o f ce ns ors hip in the e igh­ te e nth ce ntury accords with what is known o f the late C h ie n- lung era. T he las t quar te r of the e ighte e nth ce ntury in C h in a was a time whe n, be ne ath a fagade o f har mony, peace a nd pros perity, an endless array of pa r tic ula r interests were in compe tition w ith each other, a compe tition pe rhaps exacerbated by the sile nt pressure of popula tion growth. T he phe nome na obs erved in the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ig n — e xpe ctant officials vy ing with each othe r to collect ba nne d books in compe tition for gove rnme nt posts, ge ntry ave nging grievances by t ur nin g in the ir fellows, a nd pr ovincial governors ma ne uve r ing a nd dis s e mbling to avoid impe r ial r e pr ima nd —were as characte ris tic o f the era as C h u Yun’s atte mpt to tur n the Ssu- k’u proje ct to his own ends, or the compe tition betwe e n gove rnme nt a nd private book holde rs for the best e ditions . T ha t the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ig n grew thr o ugh such phe nome na may be a ne w finding; it s hould not be a s tar tling one. Nor s hould it be s ur pr is ing that the c a mpa ig n was dire cte d p r i­ mar ily agains t a nti- Ma nc hu references. T he C h ie n- lung Empe r or ’s desire to re gulate the thought o f his subjects thr ough lite rary controls has ofte n been suggested but never attested. O n the othe r ha nd, his “strange, guilty” s e ns itivity to any s light of his own rule or that of his ancestors has be e n de mons tr ate d.89 Anti- Ma nc hu his torical refer­ ences not only offe nde d this s e ns itivity b ut unde r mine d s agging Ma n c h u morale , and quite pos s ibly ups et the de licate Ma n c h u / Chine s e balance at court. In the atmos phe re o f self- glorification s ur r ounding the e mpe r or ’s s ixtieth bir thda y and the c ompila tio n o f the Ssu- k u chOxan- shu, a c a mpa ig n to e radicate a nti- Ma nc hu references seemed to fit. Pe rhaps the mos t s ur pr is ing aspect o f the views o f the ce ns ors hip here pres ented is precisely that they are new, that pre vious s tude nts have faile d to offer such inte rpre tations . Partly, as was suggested in the intr oduction, the pr oble m has be e n one of source mate rial. But two fur the r e xplanations , one ide ological and the othe r me thodo­ logical, may be offered for the characte r o f pre vious inte rpre tations . T wentieth- century his tor ians have seen the “lite r ary inquis ition” as an ins tance , pe rhaps the classic ins tance , o f a clums y a nd ine ffi­ cie nt Ma n c h u de s potis m which r obbe d C h in a o f its inte lle ctual

vigor and political vitality on the eve o f its e ncounte r with the West. Sun Yat- sen once wrote: Unde r the Ma nc hu autocracy, those who would preserve the Chines e national spirit could not do so in writing, [they] could do so only by word of mouth. [ This was because] the writings which had been trans mitte d were completely destroyed in the time of the Ch'ie n- lung emperor. . . .Because of the proscriptions of that era which involved many litigations and conde mnations , the written thought of the Chines e people was completely destroyed.90

Such pr onounce me nts , o f course, were par t o f the ide ology of re volu­ tion. But the ideas be hind the m have be e n r e mar kably long- lived. A Re public of C h in a book company, offe ring for sale a series o f re­ pr ints o f books suppressed d ur in g the C h ’ing dynasty, wrote in its 1977 catalog: Because the Chines e people have a spirit of “separating themselves from their enemies, dis tinguis hing the Chines e from barbarians ,” they have long survived and prospered. After the Manchus conquered China, they came to unde rs tand this principle quite clearly, and so realized that if they were to maintain themselves in China, and cast out the Chinese, they must first destroy this element of the Chines e spirit. We know that books are the most impor tant me dium for the trans ­ mis s ion of traditional thought and spirit. Therefore, the Ch’ing gov­ e rnme nt thoroughly investigated the books that our nation had long preserved. . . . We have made every effort to locate copies of these books preserved in the country, re print and circulate them, in order to further this company’s goal of re invigorating Chines e culture .91

Wr it in g fr om the othe r side o f the T aiwan straits in 1959 Ch a n g Shun- hui bla me d the lite rary litigations for the willingne s s o f e igh­ te e nth- ce ntury scholars to engage in te dious and unpr oduc tive re­ search of te xtual ve rification, and by implic a tion, for the ir failure to explore the r e volutionar y implica tions of the ir discoveries.92 L. Ca r r ing to n Go odr ic h in his Englis h study, The Literary Inquisition of Ch'ien- lung, seems to have adopte d his Chine s e conte mpor ar ie s vie w o f the ce ns ors hip as an ins tance o f impe r ia l de s potis m, w ithout inc or por a ting into his work the a nti- Ma nc hu nationalis t as s ump­ tions that buttres s ed the ir theories. Ad d in g a We s te rn legalistic me ta ­ phor to the c onde mna tio n o f the C h ’ie n- lung Empe ror , Goodr ic h pr oc laime d that the “C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or s tands accus ed at the ba r o f public opinio n for his ope n inte rfe re nce with scholars o f his day.”93 Vie w ing the inquis ition in this light, his tor ians have s ought to

assess the extent o f damage done to Ch in a ’s inte lle ctual heritage, rathe r tha n explore the proce dure s and me chanis ms thr o ugh which the inquis itio n grew. Studie s have focused on the fr agme ntary indice s of ba nne d books which archivis ts have found in ce ntral gov­ e r nme nt records a nd in the private pape rs o f par ticipants in the ca mpaign. Since 1883 three book- le ngth essays and nume r ous a r ti­ cles have be e n devoted to these doc ume nts .94 While impre s s ive lists o f conde mne d books have be e n compile d, it is unlike ly that any co m­ plete list o f all the works totally or par tially censored by all the local ce ns ors hip boards will ever be found, or inde e d, was ever compile d. Fur the rmor e , while one may as s ume that every book on e xtant lists was in fact ba nne d, one may not as s ume , give n the lack o f ce ntr al­ ize d s tandards and the haphaza r d proce dure s o f governors and governors- general, that the lists comple te ly e xhaus t or even accurate ly reflect impe r ia l purpos e s in the ca mpaign. It is both dange rous and me thodologically unjus tifie d to characte rize the C h ’ie n- lung Em pe r ­ or ^ policies toward s cholars hip a nd lite r ature only on the basis o f these lists. A n um be r of his tor ians w r iting in the People’s Re public in late 1979 a nd e arly 1980 me n who ha d seen in the ir own lives the de ­ s truction that could be wr ought by a gove rnme nt be nt on c ha nging the political le xicon o f its people, e mphas ize d othe r aspects of the C h ie n- lung book bur nings . Some argue d that a pote ntial for inte l­ le ctual pe rs e cution exists whe ne ve r those with s upre me powe r were also re garde d as ha ving s upre me wis dom a nd the duty to re for m so­ ciety; a nd that whe n political author ity is unr e s tr aine d by law, the ru le r s will can only be cons traine d by circums tance . Othe r s a tt r ib­ ute d the accus ations a nd je alous ie s o f the ce ns ors hip c a mpa ign to the C h ’ing gove r nme nt’s policies o f “lite r ary e ntr a pm e nt,” a nd re garde d both as evide nce o f the “fe udal” characte r o f Chine s e society in the e ighte e nth century, r e mnants o f which they still s adly saw about the m. Ultimate ly, o f course, these articles were pr oba bly me ant to de mons trate a will to overcome “fe udal r e mna nts ,” but the points they made were te lling. T he br oad patte r n o f ce ns ors hip in the C h ’ie n- lung era —a vague ce ntral initiative , gr owing m o m e nt um fed by officials eager to please, and finally official retreat in the face o f ove rwhe lming popula r re s pons e —was one re pe ate d ma ny time s in Chine s e history. T he ce ns ors hip c a mpa ig n manife s te d some of the timeless characteris tics of Chine s e history, b ut also ha d its roots in specific e ighte e nth- ce ntury realities like the e volving r e lations hip

between Chine s e a nd the ir Ma n c h u rulers, and the patte rns o f re la­ tions between scholars and the state. T he effort to relate the c a m­ paign too closely to broade r his torical patte rns has its tr uth, but ine vitably ove rs implifie s .95 T he analys is o f this chapte r has viewed the e ighte e nth- ce ntury ce ns ors hip not solely as an ins tance o f impe r ial de s potis m, b ut as an i his torical event, s hape d by the interests and attitude s o f all those who par ticipate d in it. T he purpos e has not been to apologize for the C h ’ie n- lung Empe r or ; ce ns ors hip o f the wr itte n word is always odious , and whe n it involves the de s truction o f lives and prope rty, it is par ticular ly so. Wit h o u t e xcus ing the e mpe ror in the slightest for his role in initia ting the effort, one may observe that the h u m a n and lite r ary tragedies o f the c a mpa ig n were not all o f his making. T he inte lle ctual world o f e ighte e nth- ce ntury C h in a was s imply too large, too comple x, and too diverse to be domina te d by one ma n. T he ferocities and excesses of the era be ar witness to this comple xity. T he place of the ce ns ors hip o f the C h ’ie n- lung re ign in his tory and his tor iography is, therefore, doubly ironic. Not only has the c a m ­ pa ig n to secure the dynas ty’s vir tuous na me contr ibute d to its r e pu­ tation for de s potis m a nd par anoia; but the event so ofte n cited as evide nce of the C h ’ing dynas ty’s des potic power proves, on closer , e x a mina tion, to show jus t how tightly the exercise o f impe r ial will in e ighte e nth- ce ntury C h in a was cons traine d by the c o m munity of interests over which the e mpe ror re igne d.

Notes

Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Among the most me morable of such studies are Florian Znanie cki, The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge, and Karl Ma nnhe im, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. For a survey of literature on the sociology of knowledge, see Edward A. Shils, “Inte lle ctuals ,” in vol. 8 of International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, pp. 399- 414. 2. Adam Yuen- chung Liu’s The Hanlin Academy: Training Groundfor the Ambitious and Miyazaki Ichis ada, China’s Examination Hell, trans. by Conr ad Schirokaue r are useful ins titutional studies, but do not really explore the s ignifi­ cance of the government bodies they are describing. T homas A. Me tzge r’s The Internal Organization of the Ch’ing Bureaucracy: Legal, Normative and Communi­ cative Aspects and Jo h n Watt’s The District Magistrate in Late Imperial China ex­ plore the re lationship of scholarly and political roles in Ch’ing China, but do not address the structure of policy- making ins titutions . For earlier periods, see Jo h n Me s kill Academies in Ming China: A Historical Essay, Jo h n H. Winke lman, “T he Impe r ial Librar y in Southe rn Sung China , 11271279,” and Howard S. Galt, A History of Chinese Educational Institutions. 3. See, for instance, Philip A. Kuhn and Sus an Jone s , “Dynas tic De cline and the Roots of Re be llion,” pp. 107- 162; Jame s Polachek, The Inner History of the Opium War; and Ju d it h Whitbe ck, “T he His torical Vis ion of Kung Tzuchen, 1792- 1841.” Sus an Na quin has some interesting speculations on why this era saw significant outbreaks of mille nar ian rebellion in Shantung Rebel­ lion: the Wang Lun Uprising of 1774, pp. 148- 151, and 160- 164. 4. Im manue l C. Y. Hs u emphasizes the splendors of the Ch ien- lung reign in The Rise of Modern China, 3rd ed.; Ale xande r Woodside emphasizes the cr umbling facades o f the era in his draft chapter for the Cambridge History of China.

5. Har old L. Ka h n Monarchy in the Emperor)s Eyes: Image and Reality in the Ch’ienlung Reign. 6. Two of the most forceful statements of the importance of gentry allegiance for the survival of Ch’ing rule in the nine te e nth and twentieth centuries are to be found in Philip A. Kuhn, Rebellion and Its Enemies in Late Imperial China: Militarization and Social Structure, 1796- 1864, and Chuzo Ichiko, “T he Role of the Ge ntry: An Hypothe s is ,” pp. 297- 318. 7. Yii Ying- shih, “Ts’ung Sung- Ming ju- hsueh ti fa- chan lun Ch ing- tai ssuhs iang s hih ” and “Ch ing- tai ssu- hsiang shih ti i- ko hs in chieh- shih ” and Be njamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China. For a more complete assessment of the vari­ ous theories about the origin of the textualist move me nt, see Chapte r 2 below. 8. Some of the major areas of literati dis content with official orthodoxy in the eighteenth century are explored in Paul S. Ropp, Dissent in Early Modern China: Ju- lin wai- shih and Ch’ing Social Criticism. I have explored the origins of the as s umption that the bur de n of eighteenth century scholarship was opposition to the Ch’ing re gime in a pape r entitled “T he National Essence Move me nt and the Eighte e nth Ce ntur y,” which was delivered at the March 1982 meetings of the As sociation for As ian Studies. 9. Luthe r Car r ington Goodr ich, The Literary Inquisition of ChUen- lung, and Wu Che- fu, Ch ing- tai chin- hui shu- mu yen- chiu. Chapter 2. The Imperial Initiative 1. Robe rt Frost, uFor Jo h n F. Ke nne dy on His Inaugur a tion,” The Poetry of Robert Frost, p. 424. 2. Pan- li I p. la- b. T hr oughout this book, I will follow the practice of refer­ ring to the e mpe ror as the author of impe rial edicts, although I am aware of the complex process by which they were composed. 3. See Yao Ming- ta, Chung- kuo mu- lu- hsueh shih, pp. 177- 201 passim. 4. Hu Shih, “T he Es tablis hme nt of Confucianis m as a State Re ligion Dur ing the Ha n Dynas ty,” pp. 20- 21. 5. Shih- chi “Basic Annals of Ch ’in Shih- huang,” 6.254- 255. Translated in De rk Bodde, China’s First Unifier: A Study of the Ch’in Dynasty as seen in the Life of L i Ssu . . . (280P- 208 b.c . pp. 82- 83. 6. Han- shu, “Treatise on Ar t and Lite r atur e ,” 30.1701 trans. in T. H. Tsien, Written on Bamboo and Silk, p. 13. 7. On the Lius , see Han- shu 36.1929- 1974. 8. For some sense of these conflicts, see T ja n Tjoe- som, trans. Po Hu T ’ung: The Complete Discussions in White Tiger Hall; R. P. Krame rs , “Cons e rvatis m and the Trans miss ion of the Confucian Ca n o n ,” pp. 119- 172; and Jac k L. Dull, “An His torical Intr oduction to the Apocrypha (Ch an- wei) texts of the Ha n Dynas ty.” 9. See, for instance, K’ang Yu- wei s Hsin- hsueh wei- ching- kho, the argume nt of which is s ummarize d in Liang C h ’i- ch’ao, Intellectual Trends in the Chying, trans. by Imma nue l C. Y. Hs u, pp. 92- 93.

10. Robe rt des Rotours , vol. 2 of Traite des jbnctionaires et traite de Uarmee pp. 204207; Charle s O. Hucker, A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China, pp. 377- 378. 11. Sui- shu, “Treatise on Bibliography,” 32.908. 12. Yao Ming- ta, Mu- lu- hsueh pp. 187- 188; and des Rotours , Traite des Jbnction­ aires 2:207. 13. T MT Y, p. 1775 (85.1a). 14. Yao Ming- ta, Mu- lu- hsueh, pp. 197- 198. 15. Jo h n F. Winke lman, “T he Impe r ial Libr ar y,” p. 36. 16. Wan Ssu- t ung “Ming- s hih i- wen- chih hs u.” According to the Comme r ­ cial Press editors, the passage was found in a handwritte n version of the Ming- shih- kao in the possession of the National Libr ar y of Peking. T he work is formally attribute d to Wang Hung- hs u, but the librarians believe it was Wan’s work. T he Comme r cial Press editors believe that the piece might have been written as a preface to a privately compiled treatise on bibli­ ography in the Yuan. On state publis hing dur ing the Yuan, see also Yeh Te- hui, Shu- lin Mng- hua, pp. 176- 177. On the regional character of intellec­ tual life dur ing the Yuan, see Wing- tsit Cha n, “Chu Hs i and Yuan NeoC o n fu c ia n is m ,p p . 197- 231. 17. Ch’ien Ta- hsin, “Pu Yuan- shih i- wen- chih hs u ” p. 8393. 18. Hok- lam Chan, Control of Publishing in China, Past and Present, pp. 5- 21. See also De nis Twitchett, Printing and Publishing in Medieval China. 19. Kuo Po- kung, Yung- lo ta- tien kho, pp. 5- 8. 20. Lynn Ann Struve, “Ambivale nce and Action: Some Frustrated Scholars of the K’ang- hsi Pe riod,” p. 327. 21. T homas S. Fisher, “Lii Liu- liang (1628- 1683) and the Tseng Ching Case (1728- 1733) Ono Kazuko, “Shincho no shiso- tosei o me gutte ” pp. 99123; and Lynn Ann Struve, “Uses of His tory in T raditional Chine s e So­ ciety: T he Southe rn Min g in Ch’ing His toriography.” 22. Willia m S. Atwell, “From Education to Politics: T he Fu- she in Late Min g p. 338. 23. HCCS 1:433- 434 (24.1a- b); Ono Kazuko, “Shincho no shiso- tosei,n p. 100. 24. HCCS 1:461 (26.1a); On o Kazuko, p. 100. T he ambiguity of the e duca­ tional inte ndant’s pos ition as police man and preceptor of local students was characteristic of Min g as well as Ch’ing institutions . See T illma n Gr im m , “Min g Educational Inte ndants .” 25. HCCS 1:39- 41 (26.1a); On o Kazuko, p. 101. Translated in Hs iao Kungchua n Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 241- 242. 26. T he complete text of this edict can only be found in the K’ang- hsi e dition of the Ta- Ch'ing hui- tien 51:20a. Subs equent editions of the Hui- tien and HCCS include only abridge d versions of the edict, abridge me nts more in accord with later versions of this re gulation. See also Ono Kazuko, p. 102. 27. Robe rt Ox na m, Ruling from Horseback: The Politics of the Oboi Regency, pp. 10 and 118. 28. Lawrence D. Kessler, “Chines e Scholars and the Early Ma nc hu State;” and the same author’s K a’ ng- hsi and the Consolidation of Ch}ing Rule 1661- 1674, pp. 158- 166. For anothe r perspective on the politics of the K’ang- hsi era,

see H. Lyman Mille r, “Factional Conflict and the Inte gration of Ch’ing Politics.” 29. See ECCP, pp. 205- 206; L. Car r ington Goodrich, The Literary Inquisition of ChUen- lungj pp. 75- 77; and Lynn An n Struve, “Uses of His tory,” pp. 103104. For Ku Yen- wu s reaction to these events, see Willa r d J. Peterson “T he Life of Ku Yen- wu (1613- 1682) (II).” 30. He llmut Wilhe lm, “T he Po- hsueh hung- ju Ex amination of 1679 p. 62. 31. On the Nan- shu- fang, see Silas Wu, “Nan- shu- fang chih chien- chih chi ch i ch ien- ch i fa- chan ” pp. 6- 12. T he first text publis he d was the Jih- chiang ssushu chieh- yi, see T MT Y} pp. 746- 747 (36.5b). 32. HCCS 1:166- 167 (7.1b- 2a). 33. On the Ne o- Confucian tone of K ang- hsi official scholarship, see Wing- tsit Cha n, “T he Hsing- li ching- i and the Ch’eng- Chu School,” pp. 545- 546. Dur ing the course of his reign, the K ang- hsi Empe ror ordered seven col­ lections of lecture notes printe d, as follows: T MT Y Citation Text Date pp. 746- 747 (36.5b) 1676 Ssu- sku Shu- ching pp. 246- 247 (12.5b) 1679 1683 I- ching p. 83 (6.1a) ---Shih- ching n.d. ---Tzu- chih Vung- chien n.d. 1738 Ch'un- Mu p. 575 (29.1a) 1749 Li- chi p. 421 (21.4a) In addition to these texts, the K’ang- hsi Empe ror ordered impe rially com missioned (ch}in- ting) editions of comme ntaries as follows: I- ching 1715 pp. 83- 84 (6.1a) Ch un- ch iu pp. 575- 576 (29.1a) 1722 Shu- ching 1729 p. 247 (12.5b) Shih- ching p. 319 (16.5a) 1740 T he last publication of the second series, and the last two of the first series were approved {ting) by the K ang- hsi Empe ror, but were printe d by his successors. One of the most useful s ummarie s of impe r ial publications in Ch ing is the bibliography section of the Ch’ien- lung pe riod work Kuo- chho kungshih (1769) which has been recently reprinted. 34. Ta- Ch'ing sheng- tzu- jen huang- ti shih- lu 39.13b, 120. 5b- 6a, and 249.7b- 8a. 35. Lynn Ann Struve, “Uses of His tory,” p. 140. See also her article, “T he Hs u Brothers and Semiofficial Patronage of Scholars in the K ang- hsi Pe riod.” 36. Tai I “Han- hsueh tan- che ” p. 7. 37. HCCS 1:65- 66 (3.1a- b). 38. Liu Shih- p ei, “Lun chung- kuo i- ch ien tsang- shu- lou,” p. 2291. 39. Translated in He llmut Wilhe lm, “T he Po- hsueh hung- ju Ex a mination’ p. 64. 40. ECCP, pp. 66, 93- 95, 285- 286; T MT Y} pp. 2822- 2823 (136.5b), 874 (47.12a). See also Silas H. L. Wu, Passage to Power: K'ang Hs i and His Heir Apparent, 1661- 1722, p. 165. On public and private interests in the KJanghsi publication projects, see Jona tha n D. Spence, Tsho Yin and the Khng- Hsi Emperor, pp. 157- 165.

41. Lynn Ann Struve, “Ambivale nce and Action,” p. 354. 42. Lynn Ann Struve, “Uses of His tor y,” pp. 193- 195; Goodrich, Literary In­ quisition, pp. 77- 79; ECCP, p. 701. 43. Ta- ChUng Shih- tsung- hsien huang- ti shih- lu 2.20a- 21a; Lione l Giles, An Alpha­ betical Index to the Chinese Encyclopedia, pp. vi- vii. Giles here draws upon the K'uei- t'ien so- chi by Lia ng Chang- chu, which was writte n after Liang retired in 1841. For Liang’s biography, see ECCP, pp. 499- 501. 44. T he Yung- cheng Empe ror’s few publications reflected his interests in ad­ minis tration and manage me nt of the bureaucracy, and his interests in the subject of filial piety: Date Title T MT Y ---1727 Ch'ing- han- wen hsiao- hsueh Hsiao-ching chi-chu p. 654 (32.4 a- 6) 1727 Pa- cKi ^ung- chih p. 1734 (82.10a) ---1736 Kung- Mn chuan 1736 Chih- chung ch’eng- hsien pp. 1941- 1942 (92.3a) 1726 Yueh- hsin chi ---45. Ta ch’ing Shih- tsung hsien huang- ti shih- lu 12.16a- b. 46. See Sheng Lang- hsi, Chung- kuo shu- yuan chih- tu, pp. 132- 133 and Araki Toshikazu, “Y6sei jid a i ni okeru gakushinsei no ka ika ku—shu to shite sono nin yoho o chus hin to s hite,” pp. 27- 43. 47. HCCS 1:46- 56 (2.5a- 9b). Translated in David S. Nivis on, “Ho Shen and his Accusers: Ide ology and Political Behavior in the Eighte e nth Ce ntur y,” pp. 225- 226. 48. T homas S. Fisher, “Lii Liu- liang and the Tseng Ching Cas e ,” pp. 253279 passim. 49. Lo- shan- t'ang chi 1.9a- b. Ch’ien- lung’s pre- monarchical essays have been dis ­ cussed at some le ngth in Har old Ka hn, Monarchy in the Emperor’s Eyes: Image and Reality in the Ch’ien- lung Reign; and Cha ng Chun- s hu, “Empe rors hip in Eighte e nth Ce ntury Ch in a .” 50. Shih- lu 5.3b- 5a. 51. ECCP, pp. 54- 56; On Cha ng’s appointme nt of friends and proteges, see Liu T ’ung- hsun s accusation and the e mpe ror’s response to it in Shih- lu 156.7a- llb. See also R. Ke nt Guy, “Zha ng T ingyu and Re conciliation: T he Scholar and the State in the Early Qia nlo ng Re ig n.” 52. HCCS I 92- 93 (14.1b- 2b); 99- 106 (14.51- 8b). 53. On the Yung- cheng publication of the Hsiao- ching, see T MT Y, p. 654 (32.4a- b). T he Yung- cheng Empe ror also ordered a trans lation of the Hsiao- ching into Ma nc hu (see KCKS pp. 967- 968). For the Ch’ien- lung rejection of the text, see HCCS I 94- 98 (14.3a- 8a). 54. On the second po- hsueh hung- ju examinations , see Li Fu- sun, Ho- cheng hou- lu, and Hs iao I- shan, Ch'ing- tai t'ung- shih 2:33- 34. On the Tseng Ching case, see T homas Fisher, “Lii Liu- liang and the Tseng Ching Cas e ,” pp. 260283; and L. Car r ington Goodrich, The Literary Institution of Ch'ien- lung, pp. 84- 85. For the edict conde mning Tseng, see Shih- lu 9.10b- lla; the form of this edict suggests that the impuls e for the punis hme nt of Tseng might have come from the Board of Punis hme nts , to which Hs u Pen (see

55.

56. 57. 58.

59.

60. 61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

ECCP, p. 602) a protege of 0- erh- t ai, had jus t been appointe d. T he source of the new policy initiatives of the early Ch’ien- lung reign is a com­ plex subject which deserves furthe r study. See Pan- li I, 69b; David S. Nivis on, “Ho- shen and his Accusers,” p. 229; Hs iao I- shan, Ch}ing- tai Vungshih 2:14- 32 passim. ; and Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 94- 96. Factional politics also affected the Ssu- k’u project significantly at various points. See below, chapters 4 and 5. HCCS 1:66 (3.1b). HCCS 1:125- 126 (5.3a- b). On Ch ien- lung s trips to the s outh, see Sugimur a Yuzo, Kenryu katei, pp. 16- 18. On K ang- hsi s trips, see Jona tha n D. Spence, Tsho Yin and the Kanghsi Emperor, pp. 124- 157. Among the first works to appe ar were the Hsieh- chi pan- fang shu on court painters and painting, which was commis sione d in 1711 and printe d in 1741 (T MT Y, p. 2270 [109.b]); and the Ta- CHing i^ung- chih, printe d in 1744 (T MT Y, pp. 1460- 1461 [68.3b]; a draft o f the Ming- shih, commis s ioned in the K ang- hsi reign, was presented to the court in 1739. A s upple me nt to the Lu- lu cheng- i, a compe ndium on mathe matics , mus ic and the cale ndar first commis s ione d by K’ang- hsi in 1713, was ordered in 1741 and com­ pleted in 1746 (T MT Y, pp. 802- 803 [38.6b]). T he book was completed in 1740; see T MT Y, pp. 4225- 4226 (190.4b). T he three texts on rites were the I- li i- sku (T MT Y, pp. 395- 396 [20.4b]), the Chou- kmn i- shu {T MT Y, p. 379 [19.7a]) and the Li- chi i- shu (T MT Y, p. 422 [21.4b]); they are sometimes collectively known as the San- li i- shu. T he Chou- i shu- i (T MT Y } p. 84 [6.1b]) and Shih- i che- cbung {T MT Y, p. 319 [16.5a]) were both printe d in 1755. T he CKun- cKiu chih- chieh (T MT Y, p. 576 [29.1b]) was corrected and pr inte d in 1758. On the encyclopedias, see Wang Chung- han “Ch’ing san- t ung tsuan- hsiu k ao’” in Ch’ing- shih tsa- kho; the best introduction to the products of this project and their significance is Teng Ssu- yu and Knight Biggerstaff, An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Chinese Reference Works, pp. 110- 115. Publications on Mo ngo lia include d the Huang- yu hsi- yu t'u- chih, a volume of maps of Ch ’ing campaigns in the area (T MT Y, pp. 1478- 1479 [68.11a]) commis s ione d in 1757 and completed in 1762; the Hsi- yil t'ung- wen- chih, a dictionary of Mongolian languages, commis sione d in 1763 {T MT Y, pp. 876- 877 [41.13a]); the Meng- kuyuan- liu, a trans lation of a Mongol language work on early Mongol history {T MT Y, pp. 1139- 1140 [51.7b]); and the Meng- ku hui- pu wang- kung kung- chi piao- chuan, a volume of biographies of Mongol leaders issued in 1779 {T MT Y, pp. 1283- 1284 [58.4a]). On the CKing- wen chien, see T MT Y, p. 875 (41.1a); on the Man- chou yuan- liukho, see T MT Y, pp. 1478 (68.11a); the Khi- kuo fang- lueh is not in T MT Y, probably having been finished too late, but Franz Michae l’s The Origins of Manchu Rule in China is based closely on it. On the P'ing- ting liang Chin- chuan fang- lueh, see T MT Y, pp. 1076- 1077 (49.4a); on the establishment of the fang- lueh kuan as a pe rmane nt office, see Li P eng- nien et al. editors, CKing- tai chung- yung kuo- chia chi- kuan kai- shu, pp. 66- 67.

66. On the Hs ie h and H u cases, see Hs iao I- shan, Ch'ing- tai t'ung- shih 2:18- 21; Goodr ich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 88- 96; and WT YT y pp. 9- 11 and 57- 114. 67. WT YT } pp. 19- 56; and Ar t hur Waley, Yuan Mei, an Eighteenth Century Chinese Poet, pp. 63- 64; Waley interprets the bure aucratic significance of the T ing case slightly differently than I do. 68. WT YT , pp. 131- 134, and 817- 829. 69. Pan- li I p. l.a- b. Chapter 3. The Scholars Response 1. Be njamin A. Elman, From Philosophy to Philology. 2. T he term p u- hsueh was originally used in the Han- shu “Biographies of Co n ­ fucians, Ou- yang Sheng” to describe a kind of le arning purs ue d for its own sake by scholars unconce rne d with profit or re putation: “Ma o K ua n was e xtraordinarily talented. Whe n he first met Ha n Wu- ti, he lectured on classical studies. T he e mpe ror said, ‘I have always considered the Book of Documents to be a subject for p'u- hsueh, and have not favored it, but he aring K uan speak of it, I can see its me rits .’ He the re upon endorsed K’uan’s inte r pre tation.” See Morohas hi, Dai kanuua jiten 6:6250; and Han- shu 88.3603. T he origins of the te rm Han- hsueh are fairly obvious, but its usage was complicate d. Originally, the te rm was used to describe a certain group of eighteenth- century scholars, concentrated in Soochow, who advocated the study of Ha n dynasty comme ntaries . Ma ny of the membe rs of this group were appointe d to the Ssu- k’u Commis s ion, with the result that the Hanhsueh orie ntation became associated with the Ssu- k’u project. (See chapter 5.) Later, after a group of dissidents styled themselves followers of Sung le arning, it became cus tomary to call all of eighteenth- century scholarship Han- hsueh. One early example of this e xpande d usage was the title Kuo- chho Han- hsueh shih- Mng chi of Chia ng Fan’s 1812 history of eighteenth- century scholarship. T he te rm kho- cheng is the most ne utral and perhaps least pr ob­ le matic des cription for eighteenth- century scholarship as a whole. 3. See Cha ng Ping- lin, “Ch’ing- ju ” and “Hsueh- yin” in Ch'ien- lun; and Teng Shih, “Kuo- hsueh chin- lun,” in Kuo- ts'ui hsueh- pao. I have analyze d the ir views at greater le ngth in “Decadence Revisited: National Essence Views of the Eighte e nth Ce ntury.” 4. Hu Shih, “Ch ’ing- tai hsueh- che ti chih- hsueh fang- fa ” and “Chih- hs ueh fang- fa yii ts’ai- liao” in Hu Shih wen- ts'un. Recently, Yii Ying- shih has taken issue, not so much with H u s emphas is on kho- cheng methodology, as with his view that k'ao- cheng scholars completely rejected the concerns of Sung philosophy. Yii has de monstrate d that it was the very concern of early Ch ’ing scholars with Sung issues of metaphysics that led the m to examine earlier texts. Seeing a much more gradual break between Sung thought, and Min g and Ch ’ing thought than did Hu Shih, Yii has suggested that there was an “inte rnal logic” to Chines e thought in the late impe r ial period, a logic which led from the “anti- intellectualis m” or “intuitionis m” of Min g to “intellectualism” and textual studies in the Ch’ing. See Yii

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

Ying- shih, “Ts’ung Sung- Ming ju- hsueh ti fa- chan lun Ch ing- tai ssuhs iang s hih,” and “Ch ing- tai ssu- hsiang shih ti i- ko hs in chieh- shih.” Yamanoi Yu, “Minma ts u shinsho shiso ni tsuite no ichi k6satsu.” See also Be njamin Elman, “Japane s e Scholars hip and the Ming- Ch ing Inte lle ctual T rans ition.” See Yu, “Ch ing- tai ssu- hsiang ti i- ko hs in chieh- shih p. 147. Hua ng Tsung- hsi s contr ibution to this debate was entitled I- hsueh hsiang- shu lun (T MT Y, pp. 87- 88 [6.3a]); Mao’s was titled T'u- shuymn- ch'uan- pien and Hu We i’s was titled I- t'u ming- pien {T MT Y, pp. 95- 96 [6.6b]). O n the tr adi­ tion of criticism, see Ch ’ien Mu , Chung- kuo chin- san pai- nien hsueh- shu shih 1:229; and Liang Ch ’i- ch’ao, Intellectual Trends During the Ch^ng Period, trans. Imma nue l C. Y. Hs u, pp. 34- 35. T hough Lia ng fails to note the partisan origins of the controversy, he styles Hu Wei s book a “fatal blow to the Sung le arning [ of Ch u Hs i] ’ and compares its impact in China to that of Dar win’s Origin of the Species and Re nan’s Life ofJesus in Europe. Ku Yenw u s note on the Chou- i pen- i can be found on pp. 2- 4 of the mode r n re print Ymn- chho- pen jih- chih- lu. Tai Che n’s Ching- kbo is a rare work, but Yu Yingshih describes T ai s comme nts on the I- ching in his “Ch’ing- tai ssu- hsiang ti i- ko hs in chieh- shih,Mp. 147. Fang Tung- shu s discussion of the contro­ versy can be found in Han- hsueh shang- tui, pp. 1- 2. See Be njamin Elman, “Philosophy (I- li) Versus Philology (K’ao- cheng): T he Jen- hsin Tao- hsin De bate .” See also Yu, “Ch ing- tai ssu- hsiang ti i- ko hs in chieh- shih, p. 148; and Tai Chiin- je n, Yen- mao ku- wen shang- shu kungan, pp. 79- 94; and Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 200- 212. Ku Yenwu’s remarks on the text of the Ku- wen shang- shu can be found in Jih- chih- lu, pp. 51- 54; for his views on the passage on the “he art,” see pp. 528- 529. Hua ng Tsung- hsi’s comme nts on the passage in ques tion can be found in the preface he wrote for Yen’s text, “Shang- shu ku- wen shu- cheng hs u ’ Nan- lei wen- ting, san- chi l.la- b. Yen’s comme nts on the “heart” passage can be found in ch. 2, article 32 of his text. Ma o Ch i- ling s responses were entitled Ku- wen shang- shuyuan- tz'u {T MT Y, pp. 249- 251 [12.7a], and Shang- shu kuang- ^ing- lu {T MT Y, p. 251 [12.7b]). Ch ’ien Mu has some interes ting comme nts on why Ma o wrote these vol­ umes, see Chung- kuo chin- san- pai nien hsueh- shu shih 1:244- 246. Fang Tungshu,s comme nts on the controversy are found in Han- hsueh shang- tui} pp. 2533. T MT Y, p. 902 (42.10a). For a sense of the continuity of these studies, see Be njamin Elman, “From Value to Fact: T he Emergence of Phonology as a Precise Dis cipline in Late Impe r ial China ” and Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 212- 221; as well as Chia ng Yung, “Hs u,” Ku- yun piao- chun, 3b- 4a; and Tai Che n, “Ku- shih yin- lun pa ,” Tai Chen wen- chi, p. 86. Ch ’ien Mu , Hsueh- shu shih 1:307- 308. Tai Che n s most famous work on the rites was entitled K'ao- kung t u- chi. Chia ng Yung s works were entitled L i shu kang- mu {T MT Y, p. 437 [22.4a]), Li- chi hsun- i tse-yen (T MT Y , p. 427 [21.6b]), and Chou- li i- i chu- yao {T MT Y, p. 385 [ 20.8b]).

14. See C h ie n Mu , Hsueh- shu shih 2:495. Ling’s major work on the rites texts was titled Li- ching shih- li. 15. On the developme nt of this tr adition, see Ch’ien Mu , Hsueh- shu shih 2:523569; and Chou Yu- tung, Ch’ing chin- ku- wen hsueh. T ang Chih- chun explores some of the political implications of the mode r n text move me nt in his article, “Ch ing- tai ching- chin- wen- hsueh ti fu- hsing.” 16. Tai Che n, “Yii Yao Ssu- lien [ Hsi- chuan] s hu ” in Tai Chen wen- chi, pp. 141142. T his passage is translated in Intellectual Trends During the Ch’ing Period, p. 56. 17. To be sure, in those areas where techniques of investigation were influ­ enced by the Je s uit presence in China, methods and conclusions came to resemble those of conte mporary western scientists. For s timulating discus­ sions of this issue, see Jo h n B. He nde rs on, The Development and Decline of Chi­ nese Cosmology, pp. 227- 256; Nathan Sivin, “Why the Scientific Re volution Did Not Take Place in China, or Did n’t It ? and Elma n, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 61- 64, 79- 85 228. 18. Ho Ping- ti, “T he Salt Me rchants of Yangchow: A Study in Comme r cial Capitalis m in Eighte e nth- Ce ntury Ch in a .” There is, of course, a large lit­ erature in Chines e and Japane s e on the salt merchants , who commande d, in many cases, extensive networks of financial and personal connections. A thorough investigation of the acquisition and dis pos ition of salt me r ­ chant wealth lies somewhat outside the scope of the present study. 19. Okub o Eiko, Min- shin jid ai shoin no kenkyu, pp. 260- 286. 20. On the Yangchow scholars, see Cha ng Shun- wei, Ch'ing- tai Yang- chou hsueh- chi. 21. Liu Shih- p’e i “Chin- tai Han- hsueh pien- ch’ien lu n ” p. 3821. 22. Yeh Te- hui, “Wu- me n shu- fang chih sheng- shuai in Shu- lin chUng- hua, pp. 254- 257. 23. Nancy Lee Swann, “Seven Intimate Library Owne r s .” 24. See chapte r 5 below for a discussion of the contr ibution o f one me mbe r of the Hangchow acade mic community, Shao Chin- han, to the Ssu- k’u project. 25. Li Wen- ts ao “Tu- men shu- ssu chih chin- hsi ” re printed in Yeh Teh- hui, Shu- lin Mng- hua, pp. 257- 262. 26. See Che ng Chung- ying, trans. Tai Chenys Inquiry into Goodness, particularly “Editor’s Intr oduc tion ” pp. 17- 30. 27. See Guy, “The De ve lopme nt of the Evide ntial Research Move me nt: Ku Yen- wu and the Ssu- k’u ch iian- s hu.” 28. Sugimur a Yuzo, Kenryu kotei, pp. 140- 141. 29. Sugimur a Yuzo, Kenryu kotei, pp. 14- 15 44; Shih- lu 184:7b- 9a; and ECCP pp. 276- 277. 30. Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yun nien- p’u p. 3. 31. Kawata Teiichi, “Shindai gakujuts u no ichi s okumen —Shu In, So Shikan, Ko Ryokits u to shite Sho Gakus e i ’ p. 104. 32. Yao, Chu Yun nien- p'u, p. 9. Chu was e vidently somewhat curious about his family origins, but never expressed any desire to re turn to the m

permanently. See “T ’ung- hsing chung- huang hsien- sheng chih kuan chiao- yu ch’i fang- wen hsien- shih p’u- p’ai wei shu shu- tse,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 147- 148. 33. Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yun nien- ^u, p. 13. 34. Willia m Hung , ed. Tseng- chiao Ch’ing- ch’ao chin- shih t'i- ming pei- lu fu yin- te, p. 101; ECCP, pp. 152- 155, 805- 807, 828. 35. For Tai Che n’s reaction to this group, see “Tai Tung- yuan nien- p u ” Tai Chen wen- chi, p. 221. On We ng Fang- kang s connections with the group, see Chu Yun, “Ch ii- fu yen- shih pen- tsang ch’ih- tu hs un,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 75- 76. On Yao Nai, see chapte r five below. See also Yu Ying- shih, Lun Tai Chen y ii Chang Hsueh- ch'eng, pp. 105- 107. 36. Ch u Kue i, “Chu- chiin chu- kung shen- tao- pei,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. vi; Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yun nien- p u, p. 25. Ch u wrote a s ummar y of the volume , two fu on the campaign, and an intr oduction for a collection of poetry about it. 37. Chu Yun, “Pien- hsiu Chiang- chiin mu- chih- lu,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 234236. T he house was located in the s outhern portion of the city, jus t west of the Kwangtung hui- kuan. 38. Ch u Yiin, “Hsien- fu- chun hs ing- chuang,” Ssu- ho wen- chi} pp. 159- 166. 39. See Chu Yun nien- phi, pp. 129- 141. T he trans lation of the te rm men- jen is proble matic. “Stude nts ” seems to me to convey the reality of the te rm in the eighteenth century more accurately than “disciples,” with its biblical overtones, or “followers.” 40. On Wu Lan- ^ing and Ch ’a Pi- ch^ng, see Cha ng Hsueh- chJeng, “VVu- fuchun mu- pe i,” Chang- shih i- shu, 15.40a- 42a, and Chu Yun, “Sung ch’a sheng pi- ch ang chih kuan t’un- liu hs u ” Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 85- 87. Hs u Shen- shou was evidently an example of a student who stayed with Chu only briefly. See Ch u Yun, “Yang Shu- jen mu- chih- lu,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. 274. 41. Chang Hsueh- ch’eng, “Chia ng Yu- ts un p’ien- hsiu mu- chih- lu shu- hou,” CSCWC} p. 270. 42. See chapte r 2, and Araki Toshikazu, “Y5sei jid a i ni okeru gakushinsei no kaikaku- shu to shite sono nin yoho o chus hin to s hite.” 43. For descriptions of C h u ’s yame n in TTai- p’ing, see David S. Nivis on, The L ifi and Thought of Chang Hsueh- ch'eng, p. 39; and Sus an L. M. Jone s , “Hu n g Liang- chi (1746- 1809): T he Perception and Articulation of Political Pr ob­ lems in Late Eighte e nth- Ce ntury C h in a , p p . 55- 56. For Ch u ’s travels, see Chu Yun nien- p}u, p. 41. 44. On Pi Yuan, see ECCP, pp. 622- 625; on Ju a n Yuan, see Be njamin Elman, “T he Hsueh- hai- t ang and the Rise of New Text Scholarship at Ca nto n” and Peh- t i We i, “Ju a n Yuan: A Biographical Study with Special Reference to Mid- Ch’ing Security and Contr ol in Southe rn China , 1799- 1835,” part 5. David S. Nivis on, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh- cheng, p. 32. 6 . Li Wei, “Ts’ung- yu- chi,” in Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. xxvi- xxvii. 7. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, “Je n Ta- ch’un mu- chiii- lu,” CSCWC, p. 138. 8 . T he work is not extant. 9. Chu Yun, “Chiao- chin- fang hsiao- chi hs u,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 83- 84,

50. T his personality style is vividly described by Ju d it h Whitbe ck in “T he His torical Vis ion of Kung Tzu- chen (1792- 1841).” 51. See, for instance, Ch u Yun, “Ha n hsi- yu- hua- shan miao pei pa- wei ’ and “Kua n shun- t ien- fu shu chu- pei chi,” in Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 89- 90, and 132- 133. 53. Ma o Ch’ang was a scholar of the Former Ha n dynasty whose recension of the Shih- ching became the s tandard text. T he details of his life are sketchy; see T MT Y, p. 293 (15.1b- 2a). Chao Ch i (ca. 110- 200) is known for his comme ntar y on the Mencius; see T MT Y, p. 711 (35.1a- b). Ho Hs iu (d. ca. 180) was a specialist on the Ch un- chiu} particularly the Kung- yang and the Ku- liang comme ntaries . Che ng K ang- ch’e ng (Che ng Hs uan, 127- 200) was perhaps the most famous of all Ha n dynasty comme ntators; works on almost all the classics are attribute d to him. 54. Hs u Shen (30- 124) was the compile r of China ’s first e tymological diction­ ary, Shuo- wen chieh- tzu, which was completed in 100. 55. Chu Yun, “Ch iian- hsueh- p’ie n Ssu- ho wen- chi pp. 78- 79. 56. Ch u Yun, “Shuo- wen chieh- tzu hs u,” Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. 69. 57. Ch u Yun, “Yii Ch ia Yun- ch’en lun shih- chi s hu ’’ Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. 145. 58. Pan- li, I, pp. 2b- 3a. Punctuate d in Ssu- ho wen- chi p. 2. There was appar ­ ently little response to the e mpe ror’s initial edict on book collection, quote d in chapte r 2. A second edict on the matte r was therefore dis ­ patche d to provincial governors on 11 November. In accordance with impe r ial ins truction, this second edict was relayed to e ducation commis ­ sioners. Chu Yun was very likely re s ponding to this second edict, rather than the first, with his me morial of De ce mbe r 1772. 59. T he works which Ch u Yun s ubmitte d by Tai Che n were Kao- kurtg chi- t'u and CKu Yuanfu- chu} ne ithe r of which were include d in the impe r ial collec­ tion. T he works s ubmitte d by Chia ng Yung were the Li- shu kang- mu (T MT Y , pp. 439- 440 [22.a]), and the Chou- li i i {T MT Y, pp. 385- 386 [19.9b]). A total of sixteen works by Chia ng Yung were include d in the impe r ial collection, five of which dealt with rites. No works authore d by Tai Che n were include d in this collection, although many texts he recon­ stituted from fragme nts in the Yung- lo ta- tien were. On Chia ng Yung and Tai, see ECCP, pp. 695- 699 and Yii Ying- shih, Lun Tai Chen y ii Chang Hsuehchbig pp. 169- 178. 60. Ch u s ubmitte d the T'ung- ya of Fang I- chih {T MT Y, pp. 2500- 2501 [119.3a]) the Ku- shih- pi by Fang Chung- te (T MT Y , pp. 2877 [139.4a]) and the Ku- chin shih- i by Fang Chung- lu (T MT Y , p. 2658 [126.7b]). Fang I- chih s book was pr inte d in the impe r ial library, the works of his sons were only listed in the catalog, with the notation that they were not as good as the father’s work. On the Fangs, see ECCP, pp. 232- 233, and J. Willa r d Peterson, Bitter Gourd: Fang I- chih and the Impetus for Intellectual Change. T he Ssu- k’u editors made some interesting remarks on the origins of k’ao- cheng scholarship dur ing the Min g in the course of the ir review of Fang I- chih’s Tung- ya. 61. T he impe r ial catalog include d notices of ninete en works by Me i Ting- tso,

62. 63.

64. 65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

76.

five works by Shih Jun- chiang, and three works by Wu Hs iao- kung, but did not me ntion the works Chu Yun s ubmitte d by each author, which were the Hsuan- hsueh ch iian- shu by Me i, the Yu- shan- chi by Shih and the Shu- nan chi by Wu. Chu Yun s ubmitte d the Chu- shu t’ung chien (T MT Y, p. 1024 [47.1b]), and the Shan- ho liang- chieh kho {T MT Y, p. 1157 [ 72.3a]) by Hs u Wen- ching. on Hs u, see ECCP, pp. 326- 327. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, “Ch u Hsien- sheng pie h- chuan,” CSCWC’ p. 130. Ch u ’s me morial may be found in Pan- li, I, 3a- 4b; there is a punctuate d version in Ssu- ho wen- chi pp. 2- 4. No other me morials from provincial e du­ cation commissioners de aling with matters of substance are extant in the National Palace Mus e um Archives from 1770 until the end of the reign. Cheuk- woon Taam, The Development of Chinese Libraries Under the Ch’ing Dy­ nasty, 1644- 1911, pp. 59- 61. David S. Nivis on, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh- ch'eng, pp. 79- 80. Chou Yung- nien, “Ju- ts ang s huo,” p. 2a. I have chosen to use the re print of this essay in the Sung- lin ts ung- shu. There is also a punctuate d version of the text in Yang Chia- lo, comp., Ssu- k’u ch'uan- shu kai- shu (Nanking 1931) “Wen- hsien,” pp. 9- 11, but this text has quite a few mis prints and variants. The date of the essay is unce rtain. It was written as an introduction to the catalog of Cho u Yung- nie n s library, which was entitled Chi- shu- yuan shu- mu, and seems to be no longe r extant. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng appare ntly wrote a preface for the volume when he visited Chou in 1775, in which he referred to the ideas, if not the text of the essay now known as “Juts’ang- shuo.” See Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, ‘‘Chou Shu- ch’eng c huan,” Changshih i- shu 18.25a- 26b. For the story of the foolish old man trying to move the mounta in stone by stone, see the Lieh- tzu, T ang- ho Chapter. “Ju- tsang- shuo pp. 3a- b; Nivis on, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsuehch'eng, pp. 77- 78. Lione l Giles, “A Note on the Yung- lo ta- tien, n pp. 137- 143. Ch’iian Tsu- wang, “Ch’ao Yung- b ta- tien c hi,” Chi- chi ting- chi wai- p'ien, pp. 2757- 2763. Quote d in Tuan Yii- ts a i Tai Tung- yuan nien- p'u, pp. 228- 229. Two ins titutions of Ha n scholarship. Liu Chih- chi (661- 721) was a compile r of the T ang impe r ial catalog. Tseng Kung (fl. 1058) worked on the Sung impe r ial catalog. On the differences between these two systems of cataloging, see below. David S. Nivis on, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh- ch'eng, pp. 77- 78 156 171- 174. T his language is from Ku Kuang- ch’i’s 1812 preface to Ch in Ssu- fu s book catalog Shih- yen chai shu- mu, as quote d in Yao Ming- ta, Chung kuo mu- lu- hsueh shih, p. 413. See, for instance, Shao Chin- han’s review of the Shih- chi chih- chieh discussed in chapte r five below. Some nineteenth- century scholars felt that the Ssuk u editors had not devoted enough atte ntion to the proble ms of editions; one, Shao I- ch en (1810- 1860) prepared a set of notes on the various e di­ tions available of the books listed in the Ssu- k'u ch}uan- shu chien- ming mu- lu,

79.

80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

which was later publis he d unde r the title Ssu- k’u chien- ming mu- lu piao- chu. See Teng and Biggerstaff, An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Chinese Reference Works, p. 25. On Ou- yang Hs iu and Chao Ming- ch e ng see note 78 below. Chu Yun appears to refer here to the San- li t’u chih- chiek {T MT Y, pp. 431- 432 [22.1a]) by Nie h Chung- yii (fl. 960) and the Kao- ku t’u and Hsu kho- ku- ^u (see T MT Y, pp. 2393- 2395 [115.1b]) by Lu Ta- lin (fl. 1090). T he catalogs of Ou- yang Hs iu and Chao Ming- ch eng are the first two entries in the section of T MT Y devoted to stone inscriptions. For convenient s ummarie s of the history of e pigraphy in China , see Ch ’ien Ta- hsin’s preface to his Chin- shih wen- tzu mu- lu, Lung Family re print (Changs ha 1884); and Be njamin Elma n, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 188- 191. Wang Ch ’ang Chin- shih ts ui- p ien hsu, 2a. We ng Fang- kang, Liang Han chin- shih chi 1.1a. Sun Hsing- yen, Huan- yu. fang- pei- lu p. 1. On the e conomic pos ition of eighteenth- century scholars, see Sus an Jone s , “Hu n g Liang- chi ” pp. 53- 55, and also her article, “Scholasticism and Politics in Late Eighte e nth Ce ntur y Ch in a ,” pp. 28- 49. David S. Nivis on, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh- ch}eng, p. 45.

Chapter 4. Scholars and Bureaucrats at the Ch!ien-l\ mg Court: The Compilation of the Ssu- k’u ch Gan- shu 1. T he issue of roles in Chines e bureaucracy was first raised by Ma x Weber in The Religion of China. Weber saw office in China essentially as a reward for success in the Confucian quest for mor al cultivation. The “office pre­ be ndary,Mhe argued, was an “ethically hallowed form. It is the one posi­ tion be coming a s upe rior man because the office alone allows for the pe r­ fection of personality.” (Max Weber, The Religion of China, trans. Hans H. Ge rth, p. 160). T homas Metzger, in his recent work on the subject, par tic­ ularly chapter one of The Internal Organization of the Ch}ing Bureaucracy, and chapte r four of Escapefrom Predicament, offers a more complex view in which intellectual tr aining, practical cons iderations , and moral conceptions all play a part in s haping literati roles and orie ntations toward official life. 2. Some sense of the variety of people in the Ha nlin Acade my is conveyed in Adam Yuen- chung Lui’s book, The Hardin Academy: Training Groundfor the Ambitious, 1664- 1850. 3. Be njamin I. Schwartz, “Some Polarities in Confucian T ho ught,” p. 5. 4. I am grateful to Professor Suzuki Chus e i for this for mulation (private con­ versation, Novembe r 1976). 5. On the origins and early functioning of the Gr a nd Council, see Silas H. L. Wu, Communications and Control in Imperial China, and Fu Tsung- mao, CKing- tai chiin- chi ch!u tzu- chih chi M chih- chang yen- chiu, pp. 338- 418. 6. T he grand councillors dur ing the Ch ien- lung pe riod are listed in Fu, Ch^ng- tai chun- chi, pp. 535- 591. On Fu- heng, see ECCP, pp. 252- 253, Ch}ingshih, pp. 4116- 4121, and KCCHLC 29.5a- 25b.

7. On Liu, see ECCP, pp. 533- 534, and KCCHLC 21.22a- 42a. For Liu’s re pu­ tation for incorruptibility, see the comme nts of Chao- lien in KCCHLC 21.42a. Liu ’s accusation of Chang T ing- yii led to Cha ng ’s resignation as president of the Board of Personnel. Although the e mpe ror approved of L iu s indictme nt, he did not accept Cha ng’s resignation. See Shih- lu 156.7a- lla. 8. On Yu, see ECCP, pp. 942- 944; CMng- shih, pp. 4242- 4243; and KCCHLC 27.1a- 7b. 9. Mos t discussion me morials were s ubmitte d fairly pr omptly after they were requested by the emperor. O f course, the New Year’s holiday fell dur ing the period C h u s me morial was be ing discussed, but this should not have unduly delayed Council action. On discussion me morials , see Beatrice S. Bartlett, The Vermillion Brush: Grand Council Communications System and Central Government Decision Making in Mid- Ch’ing China. 10. Yao Nai, Chu- chun hsien- sheng pieh- chuan, KCCHLC 128.35a. 11. Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yun nien- p'u, pp. 14- 34. 12. Cha ng Hsueh- ch e ng “Ch u Yun pie h- chuan CSCWC, p. 129. See also Chu Yun nien- p u p. 16. 13. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’e ng “Ch u Yun pieh- chuan,” CSCWC, p. 129. 14. Ch u Kue i, “Chu- chiin chu- kung shen- tao- pei,” in Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. 6. 15. Chang Hsueh- ch’e ng “Ch u Yun pieh- chuan, CSCWC, p. 136. 16. Li Wei, “Ts ung- yu c h i ” in Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. 23. T his story is often taken as evidence o f Liu T ung- hsun s incorr uptibility and Ch u Yun s observance of the tr aditional rules of the Ch’ing court. (See Susan L. M. Jone s , “Hung Liang- chi,” p. 47). It should be contrasted with the relations that existed between Yii Min- chung and the Ssu- k u revisers, described below.

17. YMCSC, p. 54.

18. Wang Lan- yin, “Chi Hsiao- lan hsien- cheng nien- p u ’ p. 100. 19. Pan- li, I pp. 5b- 7a. 20. T he preface and subject he adings for Ju a n Hsiao- hsu s catalog of books was one of the earliest treatises on book cataloging extant in the eighteenth century. See Ju a n Hsiao- hsu Ch'i- lu hsu- mu. 21. Ma Tuan- lin, Wen- hsien t'ung- kho, chuan 1974 and 207. T MT Y, pp. 1702- 1703 (81.3b- 4a). 22. Unfortunate ly, the Ssu- k’u project did not achieve this. 23. T he allusion was to the Han- shu, “Treatise on Bibliography,” 30.1701. 24. See above, chapte r 2. 25. For the complex history of the writing of the CKun- chai tu- shu- chih, see T MT Y, pp. 1777- 1778 (85.1b) and Ssu- yu Teng and Knight Biggerstaff, An Annotated Bibliography, pp. 15- 16. 26. I am grateful to Beatrice S. Bartlett for this observation. 27. T MT Y, “Hs ii” (Sheng- yu), p. 2. 28. Pan- li, I p. 8a- b. 29. T he “me ng” he xagram was tr aditionally listed fourth in the I- ching; the “Ta- tung” Ode was #203 in the Mao listing; and the “tung- kuan” section of the Chou- li was a part of the “K’ao- kung chi- t u” which was tr aditionally appe nde d to the end of the Chou- li.

Pan- li, I p. 7b. Yao Ming- ta, Chung- kuo mu- lu hsueh- shih p. 199. Pan- li, I p. 7b. Tuan Yii- ts a i Tai Tung- ymn nien p'u, in Tai Chen wen- chi, p. 233. 5. 6 . Cha ng Hs ueh- ch^ng, “Ghu Yun pie h- chuan,” CSCWC, p. 130. ( + ) + T MT Y, “Hs u” {Chih- kuan\ pp. 1- 25. Kuo Po- kung, Ssu- k’u ch’Han- shu tsuan- hsiu kho, p. 60 and Yeh Te- hui, Shu- lin Mng- hm, p. 240 both interpret the personnel list in this manne r. Based on a sample of eleven revisers whose age can be de te rmine d. Adam Yuen- chung Lui, The Hanlin Academy, p. 127. I am grateful to Dr. Lui for making his doctoral thesis available to me, and for s howing me how this me thod might be applie d to my study. 39. Da ta on the ranks attaine d by Ha n lin bachelors is from Ch u Ju- che n, comp., Tz u- iin chi- lueh 4.31a- 35b. T he same was evidently true of Sung dy­ nasty compilation projects. See Jo h n H. Winke lman, “T he Impe r ial Librar y in Southe rn Sung China , 1127- 1279 ’ pp. 22- 23. 40. Pan- li, I, pp. 54a, 86a- b. 41. Wang Tseng, comp., Hsin- chh hsien- chih, “Hsu”, lb - 2 ^ and Hu n g Liang- chi, comp., Huai- Mngfu- chih 15.6a. Wang says in his autobiographical preface to Hsin- chh hsien- chih that he was de mote d after ten years’ service in the Ha nlin Academy. T his mus t be an approximate figure, however. Accord­ ing to the Huai- Mng fu- chih, Wang was appointe d assistant prefect in 1787 twelve years after his appointme nt to the Ha nlin. Shao Chin- han briefly alludes to Wang’s troubles in a letter written in 1777 (See SCHN P 57). -" Ch’ing- shih lieh- ckuan 75.37a- 38a. -, -3 . m ng- shih 38.4453. “Wu Sheng- lan kuo shih- kuan pen- chuan,” KCCHLC 97.12b- 13a. See also -) Sus an Jone s , “Hung Lia n g - c h i,p p . 169 192. 5 . 6 . Adam Lui, The Hanlin Academy, pp. 102- 109 passim. I am grateful to Professor Ch ’en Chieh- hsien of the National Taiwan U n i­ versity for this infor mation. For some sense of Ha n lin bachelors attitudes toward these commis sions, see Wu Ching- tzu, The Scholars, Gladys Yang and Yang Hsien- yi, translators, p. 128. -7. “Wu Sheng- lan kuo- shih- kuan pen- chuan ” KCCHLC 97.13a. 8. -" Ch’ing- shih 363.4506. -. o. % Ibid., 363.4506. / % 2. Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yiin nien- p’u, p. 70. % 3. 4. Yao Ju n g , “Yao Nai hsien- sheng hs ing- chuang,” KCCHLC 146.17a. % 5. % 6. Pan- li, I p. 7b. 7. % 8. Pan- li, I pp. 9a, 91a. 0 % . % $ Pan- li, I pp. 54a, 65b, 70b. 1 % Wang Tsung- yen, “Sun Ch en- tung mu- chih- lu ” KCCHLC 130.12b- 13a. % Panli I pp. 7a, 9b- 10a, 55b, 91a. Pan- li, I p. 7b. Mor ohas hi Tetsuji, Dai karuva jiten 5:311- 312. Pan- li, I, p. 91a. See ECCP, p. 543. Lu- fei C h ih s association with the actual work of + $ + % + 1. + 2. + 3. + & +

06

61. 62.

63. 64.

65.

66.

67.

68. 69.

copying texts is strengthened by the fact that when the compilation was finished, he was held accountable for errors in the manus cript. See Pan- li, I 88a. A- kuei, for instance, was out of the capital dur ing most of the compilation process. C h en Yuan, e d. Yii Min- chung shou- cha. I am grateful to Professor Yin Chiang- i of Tung- wu Unive rs ity (Taipei) for his assistance in re ading the handwr iting of these letters. YMCSC, pp. 7- 8. On book bureaus, see KCT :CL 029551 (Kao- chin, 15 Septembe r 1774); KCT :CL 029837- 1 (Ho Wei, 14 Octobe r 1774); KCT CL 029453 (Sa- tsai, 7 Septembe r 1774); KCT CL 029496 (San- pao, 11 Septembe r 1774); KCT CL 029802 (San- pao, 12 Octobe r 1774); KCT CL 029861 (Hai- ch’e ng 16 Octo ­ ber 1774); KCT CL 030000 (Yu Wen- i, 26 Octobe r 1774); KCT CL 030178 (Te- pao, 7 Novembe r 1774). In KCT CL 029792 (Li Hu, 12 Octobe r 1774) Gove rnor Li Hu reported that there was no need for a book bure au in Yunnan. Actually, four offices were designated by this name: prefectural directors of schools {chiax>- shou)y rank 7A; de partme ntal directors of schools (hsuehcheng*), rank 8A; district directors of schools {chiao- yu), rank 8A; and s ub­ directors of schools (hsun- tao)f rank 8B. See Brunne rt and Hage ls trom, Present Day Political Organization of China, pp. 431- 435, passim. T he Yung- cheng Empe ror made a numbe r of changes in the qualifica­ tions and regulations for this post. For an analysis of these, and a discus­ sion of the office in general, see Araki Toshikazu, “Choku- sho kyogaku no sei o tsujite mitaru Yosei chika no bunkyo seisaku.” There are at least two sources on the numbe r of books s ubmitte d by each province for the Ssu- k’u ch'iian- shu. Yang Chia- lo in Ssu- k'u ch’iian- shu kai- shu, “Wen- hsien pp. 154- 156 gives one set of figures, with no sources. In the Palace Mus e um Archives, there is a set of me morials in which provincial governors responded to an impe rial order to report on the numbe r of books they had s ubmitted; the series of me morials is, however, incomplete. The figures given in extant provincial me morials do not always agree with Yang Chia- lo; usually Yang’s figures are lower, and so may represent an earlier count. Give n the difficulties of us ing either set of numbe rs , I have decided to use here the numbe rs of books actually re printe d in the Ssu- k u cKmn- shUy rather than those s ubmitte d for conside ration by the provinces. T he numbe r of books s ubmitte d by a province which were re printe d in the compilation can be fairly easily and re liably counted, for the origin of books is noted in the Tsung- mu t'i- yao. I rely on Yang Chia- lo’s count, based on the catalog, also presented in Ssu- k'u ch'iian- shu kai- shu, pp. 154- 156. Pan- li, I, p. 13a- b. On Li Chih- ying and his negotiations with salt merchants , see Preston Torbert, The Ch’ing Imperial Household Department, p. 108. On the numbe rs of books s ubmitte d by private collectors and include d in the compilation, see Yang Chia- lo, Ssu- ^u ch’iian- shu kai- shu, “Wen- hsien,” pp. 156- 160. Pan- li, I p. 25a- 26b. See also ECCP) pp. 230, 559, 612 and 810. For the empe ror’s orders on the re porting and dis pos ition of borrowed and

purchas ed books, see Pan- li, I pp. 46a- 47b. T he provincial governors’ reports are (Che kiang) KCT :CL 032228 (San- pao, 5 Septembe r 1777); (Kiangs u) KCT CL 032278 (Yang Kue i, 11 Se ptembe r 1777); (Shantung) KCT CL 032070 (Kuo- t’ai, 20 Augus t 1777); (Hona n) KCT CL 032107 (Hs u Ch’ien, 23 Augus t 1777); (Shans i) KCT CL 031868 (Pa- san- t’ing, 28 Ju ly 1777): Yin Cho s me morial on be half of the salt me rchants in KCT CL 031774 (Yin- cho, 19 Ju ly 1777). T he books which Ma Ju n g s ubmitte d to the Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu, were re turned to him, and thus not include d in those to which Yin Cho referred. 70. YMCSC, pp. 57- 58. 71. Yeh Te- hui, Shu- lin Mng- hua, p. 240. I follow Yeh in his inte rpre tation of these documents . Note, however, that a me morial of Prince Yung Jung , quote d below, implies that copying was done before collation. T he point is not a vital one; for consistency’s sake, I will follow Yeh. 72. YMCSC, pp. 119 38. 73. We ng Fang- kang, Weng- shih chia- shih lueh- chi, pp. 36b- 37a. 74. Lee M. Sands, “T he Liu- li Ch ’ang Quarte r : Potters and Booksellers in late Ch ien- lung pp. 35- 39. 75. Yao Ming- ta, Chu Yun nien- p'u, pp. 69- 70; Ch u Yun, “Ts ao- ch ao hsiu- hsu ’ Ssu- ho wen- chi, pp. 84- 85. 76. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, “Chu hsien- sheng pie h- chuan CSCWC, p. 130. 77. Kue i Fu, “Cho u Yung- nien c huan,n KCCHLC 130.30b. Kue i, a chin- shih of 1790 was one of the copyists Chou hired. 78. T he Chiu- kuo- chih by Lu Che n was one such text. Evide ntly by mistake, the work was not listed in T MT Y. See Ju a n Yuan, Ssu- k’u wei- shou shu~mu} (with T MT Y ), p. 2. 79. Two such texts were the Nan- hu- chi and the Chiu wu- tai- shih {T MT Y, pp. 3370 [160.8a], and 1005 [ 46.2b]). See SCHNP, p. 60 which quotes a br ie f reminiscence by Chu Wen- tsao entitled “Shu nan- hu- chi ho u ” and the preface to the 1975 Chung- hua shu- chu e dition of Chiu wu- tai- shih. 80. Pan- li, I, p. 27a. 81. Pan- li, I p. 28a. 82. Pan- li, I pp. 29b, 35b; Kue i Fu, “Chou Yung- nien c hua n,” KCCHLC 130.30b. 83. Mia o Ch iian- sun “Yung- lo ta- tien- k ao ” in I- feng- thng hsu- chi, 4.2a- 3b. 84. Sun Chieh- ti, “Lun chiao- yu- pu hsuan- yin Ssu- k u ch iian- s hu,” quote d in Kuo Po- kung, p. 230. 85. Pan- li I p. 23a. 86. Hua ng Fang (Colophon to the letters of Yii Min- chung), YMCSC, p. 126. 87. YMCSC, p. 86. 88. YMCSC, pp. 47- 48. 89. One reason the e mpe ror ordered the compilation of the Ssu- k’u hui- yao was that he feared he would not live to see the comple tion of the Ssu- k u ch’Hanshu. See Kuo Po- kung, pp. 198- 199. 90. YMCSC, pp. 86- 88. 91. T MT Y, pp. 1044- 1046 (47.10a). T he t'i- yao for this volume was evidently drafted by Shao Chin- han. See T YFT K, pp. 47a- 48b. 92. YMCSC, p. 50.

93. Yao Nai, Yao Hsi- pao hsien- sheng Mh- tu 2.1b- 2a. I assume Yao’s time refer­ ence in this letter, tsai kuan- chungy refers to his service at the Ssu- k u C o m ­ mission. For Yao’s biography, see chapte r 4. 94. YMCSC, p. 34. 95. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, “Chou Shu- ch’ang pieh- chuan CSCWC, p. 151. 96. Pan- li, I pp. 18b- 20a. 97. Yeh Te- hui, Shu- lin ch’ing hua, p. 240. 98. These tendencies had the ir roots, of course, in the nature of the Ch ’ing emperorship. See Silas Wu, Communications and Control in China, pp. 107- 123. 99. Pan- li, I p. 23a. 100. On Ts’ao Hsiu- hsien, see Ch'ing- shih 321.4255; on Wang Chi- hua, see “Kuoshih- kuan pe n- chuan ” KCCHLC 88.38a- 40a; on Ts a i Hs in, see Ching- shih 321.4248. 101. Pan- li, I, pp. 32b, 62a. 102. YMCSC, p. 48. 103. YMCSC, p. 69. On Yi- lin, see T MT Y, p. 2579 (123.3b). 104. ECCP, p. 228. 105. Ho Shen s biography in ECCP touches briefly on this episode. For more complete docume ntation, see Shih- lu, pp. 16182- 16258, passim, and SYT (FP), Ch ien- lung 45 (1781- 82) Fall, pp. 117- 381 passim. T he case is of particular interest since it is one of the few cases in which Ho Shen s activities can be docume nte d. 106. Ch ’ien- lung 44 (1779- 1780) Winte r, p. 381. 107. Pan- li, I pp. 74b, 69b- 70a. SY T (FP), Ch ien- lung 46 (1781- 82) Spring, p. 207. 108. T MT Y, p. 3674 (172.6b). See also L. Car r ington Goodr ich and Fang Chao- ying, eds. Dictionary of Ming Biography 2:1182- 1885; and L. Ca r r ing­ ton Goodrich, The Literary Inquisition, pp. 192- 193. 109. See chapter two and David S. Nivis on, “Ho Shen and his Accusers ” pp. 228- 229. 110. T he originals of these lists are found in SY T (FP). Ch ’en Yuan has counte d the numbe r of errors charged to each editor, and recorded his findings at the end of Pan- li. \ \ \ .SYT(FP), Ch ’ien- lung 46 (1781- 1782) Spring, p. 195. 112. T he totals for all the years of the project are as follows: Year Toted Errors Charged CL 42 (1777- 78) 89 CL 43 (1778- 79) 221 CL 44 (1779- 80) 259 CL 45 (1780- 81) 2118 CL 46 (1781- 82) 5006 CL 47 (1782- 83) 7072 CL 48 (1783- 84) 12,303 CL 49 (1784- 85) 3235 113. Sun Ch en- tung ws charged with twenty- five errors in the s umme r of 1781. He died on 30 Septe mbe r 1780. (See Wang Tsung- yen, “Sun Ch en- tung mu- chih- lu,MKCCHLC 130.12b- 13a.)

114. 115. 116. 117.

118.

119.

120. 121.

122. 123.

124. 125. 126.

Pan- li, I I pp. 2b- 3a. Pan- li I I p. 5b. KCT .CL 052120 (Chi Hsiao- lan, 3 De ce mbe r 1787). KCT .CL 052115 (Ch’iian Te and T ung Ch’u n 3 De ce mbe r 1787); KCT .CL 052736 (Chi Hsiao- lan, 8 Ja nua r y 1788). See also Hua ng Fang [ Colophon to the letters of Yii Min- chung] , YMCSC, p. 126. See Sus an Jone s , “Hung Liang- chi, pp. 85- 86 156- 203, passim. On Ch ’en, see Ch'ing- shih 363.4506; on Yin, see David S. Nivis on, “Ho Shen and his Accusers,” p. 234; on Mo, see “(Mo Ch an- lu) Kuo- shih kuan penc huan KCCHLC 102.1a- 6a On the location of the manus cripts , see above. The exact numbe r of ts}e per set varies slightly. See Willia m Hung, “Preface to an Index of the Ssu- k’u cKuan- shu tsung- mu and Wei- shou shu- mu. ” One set is extant today in the vaults of the National Palace Mus e um (Taipei). Two sets are extant in the Peo­ pled Re public, one in Peking, the other in Hangchow. In 1936 the Comme r cial Press began a project to re print the Ssu- k’u collection. Re pr inte d in 1964 by the Chung- hua shu- chii (Shanghai) in a 1033 page edition. Two copies of this were made, one of which is extant in the vaults of the National Palace Mus e um (Taipei). T he table of contents of the Ssu- k'u cWuan- shu huiyao is re printe d in Wu Che- fu, Ssu- k’u cKuan- ska hui- yao tsuan- hsiu k’ao pp. 131- 214. Re printe d by the Kuang- ya shu- chii in 700 ts}e in 1899. T he two most common editions of this work are the one cited throughout this thesis, T MT Y, which was first produce d by the Comme r cial Press in 1934 and has been re printe d many times since; and the lithogr aphic e di­ tion br ought out by the Ta- tung shu- chii in 1930. There are two major indices: Willia m Hung , et al., Ssu- k’u c^iian- shu chi wei- shou- mu yin- te; and Wang Yun- wu et al., Ssu- k)u cKuan- shu tsung- mu t i- yao shu- ming chi tso-che so- yin, which is pr inte d at the end of the Comme r cial press e dition of T MT Y. Yii Chia- hsi, Ssu- k}u Vi-yao pien- cheng, pp. 52- 53. Wang T ’ai- yueh Ssu- k}u cKuan- shu k'ao- cheng; Ju a n Yuan Ssu- k’u wei- shou shumu Vi- yao; and Shao I- chen, Ssu- k u chien- ming mu- lu piao- chu. Mia o Ch ’iian- sun, “Hs u,” in Shao I- chen, Ssu- k’u chien- ming mu- lu piao- chu,

p. 1. 127. Yu Yue h, “Ch un- tsai- t’ang ch ih- tu,” quote d in Liu Chao- yu, “Min- kuo i- lai ti Ssu- k’u hs ue h,” p. 146. 128. L. Ca r r ington Goodr ich, The Literary Inquisition, pp. 5- 6. 129. Ou- yang Tzu, “Ou- yang hs u ” in Ssu- k’u mu- lueh, p. 1. 130. “Hs u ,” Hsu- hsiu ssu- ^u ch'uan- sku tH-yao} pp. 2- 3; and Wu Che- fu, “Hsients’un hsu- hsiu Ssu- k’u ch’iian- shu t’i- yao mu- lu hou- chi,” pp. 29- 30. 131. Ch ’ang P’i- te, “Why the Pr inting of the Entire Ssu- k’u ch’iian- shu is Sig­ nificant,^ privately dis tribute d, 1983. 132. Pan- li, I, p. 7a. 133. YMCSC, p. 24. 134. YMCSC, p. 36.

135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144.

145. 146. 147. 148. 149.

150.

151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160.

161. 162.

163.

YMCSC} p. 81. Pan- li, I p. lb. T MT Y, “Fan- li,” p. 5. Yao Ming- ta, Chung- kuo mu- lu- hsueh shih, p. 200. YMCSC, p. 19. YMCSC, p. 75. YMCSQ p. 33. Kuo Po- kung, Ssu- k'u chUlan- shu tsuan- hsiu- kho, p. 227. T MT Y, p. 3019 (145.2a). T his is obviously a judgme nt on my part. T he precise comparis on of the listings of the Ssu- k u with earlier book collections is complicate d by the different purposes of the various collections, and by the vagaries of textual history. Chih- hs u, editor, Yueh- tshng chih- ching (A bibliographic guide to the tripitaka). See the review of Fa- yuan chu- lin {T MT Y, p. 3018 [145.1b]). See the review of Cheng- teng hui- yuan {T MT Y, p. 3022 [145.3a]). T MT Y, p. 3034 (146.3b). T MT Y, p. 3029 (146.1a). T he concluding note for the Buddhis t section in Chiao Hu n g ’s Kuo- shih ching- chi chih (A Treatise on bibliography for the na ­ tional history), pp. 145- 146, makes a s imilar point about the disorderly character of Taoist writings , but does not stress the gove rnme nt’s responsi­ bility to clear up this disorder. On the tr aditional organization o f the Taoist canon, see Ofuchi Ninji, “T he Formation of the Taoist Ca no n,” pp. 253- 267; and Liu Tsun- yan, “T he Compila tion and His torical Value of the Tao- tsang pp. 104- 119. I am grateful to Ju d it h Boltz for her very he lpful comme nts on this issue. T he Yun- chi M- chien. See T MT Y, p. 3055 (146.12a). See the review of the Tao- te- ching- chieh (T MT Y , 1.3033 [146.3a]). See the review of the Tao- te- ching- chu (T MT Y, p. 3036 [146.4a]). T MT Y, p. 3047 (146.8b). T MT Y, “Sheng- yii ” p. 9. Translated in L. Car r ington Goodr ich, The Literary Inquisition, p. 147. YMCSC, p. 74. YMCSC, p. 110. T he text in ques tion was the San- chab pei- meng hui- pien (T MT Y, pp. 1070- 1071 [49.1b]). YMCSC, p. 26. Shih- lu, p. 17204 (1174.8b- 9a). T he ir reports are preserved in the Ch’ing archives at the National Palace Mus e um (Taipei), and afford an interesting study in book circulation in the eighteenth century. Chang Ping- lin, “Ai chin- shu,” Chien- lun 4.17b. Only seven individuals had more than twenty works listed in the Annotated Catalog: Chu Hs i (1130- 1200), 28 works; Ch’en Chi- ju (1558- 1639), 31 works; Lu Shen (1477- 1544) 20 works; Wang Shih- chen (1634- 1711) 32 works; Wei I- chieh (1616- 1686), 24 works; Yang Shen (1488- 1559), 35 works. Cha ng Ping- lin, ^Jih- chih- lu chiao- chi hs u,” in Hs u Wen- ts’e editor, Yuanchho- pen jih- chih- lu (Taipei, 1958).

164. T MT Y, pp. 1005- 1007 (46.2b); For evidence of impe rial interest in this text, see YMCSC, pp. 80, 83, and 84. 165. SCHNP, p. 53; For Shao s biography, see chapte r 5. 166. SCHNP, p. 54. 167. Ch’en Yua n, Chiu wu- tai- shih chi- pen fa- fu san- chuan, passim. Chapter 5. Reviewing the Reviewers: Scholarly Partisanship and the Annotate d Catalog 1. Chia ng Fan (1761- 1831) claime d in the early nine te e nth century that all the reviews “from the broadest [ discussions of] classics, history, philos ophy and literature, to the narrowest note d on me dicine and divination” were the work of Chi Hs iao- lan himself. See Chia ng Fan, “Ch i Yun ” Han hsueh shih- chbtg chi 6.1b. Li Tz u- ming argue d in a note include d in his Yueh- mant}ang pi- chi (De sultory jottings from the Yueh- man H d l) that Ch i s intellec­ tual background was not broad e nough for him to have written all the reviews. Li credited Ch i with the reviews in the literature divis ion only, attributing the reviews in classics, history and philosophy to Tai Che n, Shao Chin- han and Chou Yung- nien, respectively. (Li’s note is quote d in Wang Lan- yin “Ch i Hsiao- lan hsien- sheng nien- p u ” p. 95.) 2. Ju a n Yuan, “Hs u Ssu- ku wei- shou shu- mu t'i- yao, re printed in T MT Y, vol­ ume 5. 3. Shao Chin- han, “Ssu- k’u ch iian- shu t i- yao fen- tsuan- kao ” in Ma Yunghsi, comp., Shao- hsing hsien- cheng i- shu. 4. Yao Nai, “Hsi- pao hs uan shu- lu ” in Ma o Yii- sheng, Hsi- pao- hsuan i- shu

san-chung. 5. Prefaces to the work by Mia o Ch iian- s un H u Ssu- ching and We ng h im ­ self are extant. See Mia o Ch’iian- s un re printe d in I- feng- t'ang wen- chi, I- fengtyang- wen man ts^n, 4:16a- b We ng Fang- kang, Fu- cKu chai wen- chi, pp. 13881389; and H u Ssu- ching, T'ui- lu chyiian- cki pp. 339- 340. Liu Ch eng- kan me ntions seeing these drafts in a preface to the Ssu- k^u c^iian- shu piao- wen chien- shih, dated s ummer, 1915, and quote d in Yang Chia- lo, editor, Ssu- k'u cKuan- sha kai- shu, “Wen- hsien ” pp. 11- 25. 6. Liu Ch ’iian- chih “Chi wen- ta kung i- chi hs u ” quoted in Wang Lan- yin, “Chi Hsiao- lan hsien- sheng nien- p’u ” p. 95. 7. Both Liu I- an and Immanue l C. Y. Hs u, in his trans lator’s preface to Intel­ lectual Trends During the ChUng Period, suggest that the kho- cheng move me nt of the Ch’ien- lung and Chia- ch ing periods represented an effort by scholars to avoid political repression by bur ying themselves in old classics. Hou Wai- lu in Chung- kuo chin- tai ssu- hsiang hsueh- shuo shih argues that Tai Che n ex­ pressed his resentment of Ma nc hu oppression in his criticisms of Me ncius . 8. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’e ng “Huang- Ch’ing lieh- feng shu- jen Shao- shih Yuan chu- jen mu- chih- lu ” CSCWC, p. 59. Shao’s father evidently devoted his life to the study of the I- ching. See Ch’ien Ta- hsin, “Tseng Shao Chin- han hs u ” Ch ien- yen- tang wen- chi 23.333- 334. 9. SCHNP, pp. 4 5- 6. 10. ECCP, p. 639. 11. Chu Yun, “Shao nien- lu hsien- sheng mu- piao” in Ssu- ho wen- chi, 11.203204.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32. 33.

Ch’ien Ta- hsin, “Shao- chiin mu- chih- lu,” in Ch'ien- yen Vang wen- chi 43.686. SCHNP, pp. 11- 19, passim. Wang Hui- tzu, “P ing- ta- meng lang- lu quote d in SCHNP, pp. 14- 15. SCHNP, p. 15. SCHNP, p. 18. Ch ’ien Ta- hsin, “Shao- chiin mu- chih- lu. One of Shao’s examiners, Liu T ung- hsun, was a close friend of Chu Yun’s. According to Li We i’s biog­ raphy of Chu, Shao’s success in the e x amination was due to the fact that Chu expressed his admir ation of Shao to Liu. See Li Wei, “Ts ung- yu- chi in Ssu- ho wen- chi, p. xxiv. Shao was ranked thirtieth in the e xamination. Fourteen people with ranks below Shao’s were appointe d to the Academy. See Willia m Hung, ed., Tseng- chiao Ch in^- chho chin- shih t'i- mxng pei- lu Ju yin- te, p. 114. Ch’ien Ta- hsin, “Tseng Shao Chih- nan hs u.” SCHNP, p. 20. Shao met Cha ng Hsueh- ch eng at T ai- p ing and the two forme d a life- long friendship. In Cha ng s I- shu, there are eight letters to Shao and a biography of him; discussions of Shao also are found in several of Chang’s “family letters.” Based on these docume nts, Nivis on comes to the conclus ion that Shao was “taciturn, cautious , perhaps even dull com­ pared with Chang, who (as he admitte d) spilled out whatever strange speculations came into his head. Evide ntly the two needed each other.” (Nivis on, Chang Hsueh- Mng, p. 51). Cha ng ’s letters are useful for des cribing Chang, but in the absence of any responses from Shao, it may be unfair to generalize from the m about Shao. SCHNP, pp. 50- 54. SCHNP p. 30. Ch ’ien Ta- hsin, “Shao- chiin mu- chih- lu.” On the Erh- ya project, see below. On the project to prepare a Hsu t'ung- chien kang- mu, see Chang Hsueh- ch’eng, “Shao Chin- han pieh- chiian ’’ CSCWC, p. 159. also Nivis on, Chang Hsueh- Mng, p. 206. Ch ’ien Ta- hsin, “Shao- chiin mu- chih- lu.” See above, chapte r 2. Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng, “Che- tung hsueh- shu,” Wkn- shih t'ung- i, pp. 51- 52. Cha ng saw hims e lf as preceded in this tr adition by Hua ng Tsung- hsi, the Wan brothers, and Ch ’dan Tsu- wang. Paul Demieville , “Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng and his His toriography,” p. 170. Naito Ko na n, Shim shigakushi} pp. 356- 357. Ch ’ien Mu , Chung- kuo chin- san- pai- rden hsueh- shu shih 1:31. Naito Ko na n, Shim shigakushi, pp. 298- 299. Hua ng and his followers be ­ lieved especially in the importance of having charts as evidence of the flow o f history. T hey also stressed the importance of be ing faithful to docume n­ tary evidence in history writing. See Vir g inia Maye r Cha n’s dissertation on the western Che kiang tradition. T YFT K, p. lb. T his re mark raises the tantalizing ques tion of the re lations hip between Shao and the chin- wen move me nt. I have found no indication in Shao’s

34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41.

42. 43.

44.

45.

46. 47. 48. 49.

writings that he was a partisan o f the move me nt. On the othe r hand, Chua ng Ts un- yii one of the most impor tant eighteenth- century figures in the move me nt, was one of Shao’s chin- shih examiners, so there existed at least a for mal re lations hip of disciple and teacher between the two me n. Ch’ien Ta- hsin, “Shao- chiin mu- chih- lu.” Many authors trace the origins of Ch’ing phonological studies to Ku Yenwu s Yin- hsueh wu- shu. See, for instance, Ch ’ien Mu , Chung- kuo chin- san- painien 1:151. T MT Y, pp. 832- 834 (40.1a- b). See the text and analysis in Willia m Hung, Erh- ya yin- te. Shao Chin- han, Erh- ya cheng- i, “hs u,” p. 3a. Ibid., p. 4a. SCHNP, p. 80. Hua ng furthe r claims that the most famous nineteenthcentury comme ntar y on the Erh- ya, Ha o I- hsing’s Erh- ya i- shu, is not s ub­ stantially different from Shao’s. However, Shu- mu ta- wen pu- cheng, ed. by Cha ng Chih- tung, p. 42 says that Hao’s work definitely superseded Shao’s. Hu n g Liang- chi, Chuan- shih ko- shih, chuan 8, quote d in SCHNP, p. 80. T MT Y, pp. 974- 979 (45:2a- 4b). These three comme ntarie s have been studied and re printe d by the mode r n Japane s e scholar Takigawa Kametaro in Shiki kaichu koshd. T YFT K, p. 2a. On Ma o Chin, See ECCP, pp. 565- 566. An original of the Ma o Ch in e di­ tion of Shih- chi and comme ntaries currently resides in the Librar y of Congress. T MT Y, p. 974 (45.2a); T YFT K, p. 2b. T he language on the Kao- yang and Kao- shih families comes from the “Basic Annals of the Five Empe ror s ,” Shih- chi, chuan 1 (Takigawa, 1:50). T he des cription of Ch ’in Shih- huang is from the “Basic Annals of Ch’in Shih- huang,” Shih- chi, chtian 6 (Takigawa, 2:67). In both cases, the infor mation in Shih- chi chi- chieh is not found in the other comme ntaries . T he locus classicus for the terms po and yueh is the Analects 6/25: “T he Supe ­ rior man, extensively s tudying all le arning, and kee ping hims e lf unde r the restraint of propriety, does not exceed what is r ight.” By Ch’ing times, the terms had come to represent two poles of scholarly activity, namely, wide re ading and gathe ring of infor mation {po) and intensive study and moral cultivation (yueh). Perhaps the best discussion of the terms, and the s ignifi­ cance of having both characteristics, is Cha ng Hsueh- ch’eng’s essay, “Poyueh” in Wen- shih t'ung- i, pp. 47- 51. For an analysis of this essay, see Shimada Ke nji, “Sh6 Gakus e i no ichi ’ pp. 519- 530, particularly pp. 522- 524. T YFT K, p. 2b. T MT Y, p. 974 (45.2a). Yang Lien- sheng, “T he Or ganization of Chine s e Official His toriography, p. 357. Nivis on, Chang Hsueh- ch'eng, p. 51; Chang Hsueh- ch e ng “Shao Y iH ’ung pieh- chiian ” CSCWC pp. 134- 135, 136.

50. T YFT K p. 35a- b. T he review is punctuate d in SCHNP, p. 45. 51. T YFT K, p. 37a- b. 52. Naito Ko na n, Shim shigakushi, pp. 360- 361. For Ch ’ien Ta- hsin’s views, see “Pa Sung- shih Ch'ien- yen- thng wen- chi 28.432- 435. Ch’ien’s ma in complaint appears to be that the biographies of intellectual leaders of the Sung- shih are inadequate . Include d in the wen- chi of Wan Ssu- t ung and Ch ’iian Tsuwang are a numbe r of notes revising and s upple me nting the biographies of militar y and intellectual figures of the Southe rn Sung dynasty. There are fourteen such notes in Ch’Qan Tsu- wangfs Chi- ch'i- t'ing chi wai- p*ien, pp. 3204- 3228 (28.9a- 28b), and five notes in Wan Ssu- t’ung^s Chkm- shu i- p'ien ll.la- 7a. 53. SCHNP, pp. 62- 66. Cha ng Hsueh- ch eng s son Cha ng I- hsuan was a s tu­ dent of Shao Chin- han s and his comme nts on his father’s biography of Shao (see note 48) are a major source of infor mation on Shao’s revision project. Ch ’ien Ta- hsin evidently saw the manus cript, and include d the table of contents in his Shih- chia- chai yang- hsin- lu. Jud g ing from the table of contents, Shao set about revising the Sung- shih in much the same way as Wan and Ch ’iia n except that while Wan and Ch ’iian discussed military and intellectual figures, Shao confined hims e lf to writers and philosophers. 54. T YFT K, p. 37a, T MT Y, p. 1009 (46.3a). K’o Wei- ch’i’s work was entitled Sung- shih hsin- pien {T MT Y, pp. 1109- 1110 [50.10a]). She n Shih- po’s was Sungshih chyin cheng- pien. K’o’s work was given a notice in the Annotated Catalog, but not copied into the Ssu- k’u Shen’s work was not listed. There is no biog­ raphy of Shen in the standard histories, and I have been unable to locate any other reference to the work. 55. T YFT K, p. 36a; T MT Y, p. 1009 (46.3b). 56. T YFT K, p. 37a- b; T MT Y, p. 1010 (46.3b). On the inade quate treatme nt of the Southe rn Sung resistance, see Ch ’iian Tsu- wang’s colophon on a biography of Yueh K’o {Chi- M- t'ing chi, pp. 3224- 3225 (28.17a- 18b)). 57. T YFT K, p. 37a. 58. Yang Lien- sheng, “T he Or ga nization of Chines e His toriography,” p. 54. 59. Kb Wei- ch’i s revision of the Sung- shih is criticized in the Annotated Catalog for prais ing the Chines e , and cons ide ring the “Liao and Chin dynasties as foreign, in the same class with the Hsi- hsia and Korea. How can this be fair? T his type of nonsense mus t be dis tinguis he d from [ K’o’s] achieve­ ment in s upple me nting the Sung- shih, M T MT Y, p. 1110 (50.10b). 60. Liu Han- p’ing, “Lue h lun Ssu- k'u Vi-yajo yii Ssu- k’u fen- tsuan- kao ti i- t ung ho Ch ’ing- tai Han- Sung hsueh chih che ng,” p. 43. 61. On K’o Wei- ch’i see above, notes 53 and 58, and the Dictionary of Ming Biog­ raphy 1:721- 722. 62. T MT Y, p. 1010 (46.4b). 63. See Nan- shih, “Biography of Liu Chih- lin ’ 45.1250- 1251; and Liang- shu, “Biography of Liu Chih- lin, 50.573. 64. T YFT K, pp. 9b- lla; T MT Y, pp. 980- 981 (45.4b- 5a). 65. Che ng Hs uan was a famous comme ntator on the classics; sixteen works attribute d to him are listed in T MT Y. Kan Pao lived dur ing the Ch ’in dynasty (317- 420); his comme ntaries were extant as late as the Sui

66.

67.

68. 69. 70.

71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80. S I. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86.

Dynas ty (589- 618) but are not listed in T MT Y. T he Han- shu comme n­ taries of Fu Ch ien and Wei Chao, both of the Late r Ha n dynasty, were also extant dur ing the Sui, but are not available today. T he text was considered difficult to read even in the late Ha n and early Six Dynasties pe riod, as biographies in the Hou- han- shu and San- kuo- chih attest. See Han- shu, “hs u ” p. 9. Yen Shih- ku (579- 645) wrote a famous comme ntary on the Han- shu. T he comme ntar y evidently did not circulate independently, but it is include d in virtually all editions of Han- shu. T YFT K, p. 12a- b. T YFT K, p. 24a- b. T his accusation was evidently first made by Li Yen- shou (600- 680) T ang dynasty author of the Nan- shih and Pei- shih. T hough he does not base h im ­ self on the evidence Li presented, Clyde B. Sargent explores the implica­ tions of these charges in “Subs idize d His tory: Pan Ku and the His torical Records of the Former Ha n Dynas ty,” pp. 141- 142. cf. Home r H. Dubs ’ reply, “T he Re liability of the Chine s e His tories .” T MT Y, p. 982 (45.5b). T MT Y, pp. 983- 984 (45.5b) and 1006 (46.3a- b). T he works were reviewed in T MT Y as follows: Che ng Shao, Wu- hsueh- p'ien {T MT Y, p. 1110 [50.10a]); Teng Yuan- hsi, Ming- shu (T MT Y, pp. 1112- 1113 [50.10a- b]); Hs ue h Ying- ch i, Hsien- chang- lu {T MT Y, p. 1062 [48.4a]). T MT Y, p. 1856 (90.2b). T YFT K, p. 43a- b. T MT Y, p. 1017 (46.7b). T YFT K, pp. 43b- 44a. On Hs u, see ECCP, pp. 316- 319. T MT Y, p. 1017 (46.7b). T YFT K, p. 44a. Lu Wen- ch’ao also complaine d of this inade quacy of the Ming- shih in his br ie f note “T i Ming- shih i- wen- chih- kao ” Pao- ching- tang wen- chi 7.98. See the comme nt of Pi Yuan quote d above, pp. 127- 128. Shih- lu, p. 14611 (995.21b- 24a). T MT Y, p. 1018 (46.8a). On the authors hip and significance of the Han- hsueh shang- tui, see Hamaguchi Fujio, “Ho Tojo no Kangaku shoda o me gutte ” pp. 73- 79. On the authors hip and provenance of the book, see above, pp. 122- 123. On Ma o Yii- sheng, see Ch'ing- shih lieh- chuan 73.29b. Hamaguchi Fujio, “Ho Tojo no Kangaku hihan ni tsuite,” pp. 172, and 173- 178. I am grateful to Be njamin Elman for br inging the Ha ma guc hi articles to my atte ntion. For an interes ting discussion of the atmosphere in which the Han- hsueh shang- tui was written, see Be njamin A. Elman, “T he Hsueh- hai- t ang and the Rise of New Text Scholarship at Ca nto n.” T he ques tion of what re lations hip Yao Nai’s epistemological insights bore to the political stance of his disciple is a fas cinating one, but lies somewhat outside the scope of the present chapter. In general, the pr oble m of what political positions were associated with intellectual stances in eighteenthcentury scholarship is one which awaits furthe r research.

87. See Hila r y J. Beattie, “T he Alte rnative to Resistance: T he Case of T ’ungch’eng in Anhwe i pp. 256- 257. 88. Yao N a i s great- great- grandfather, Yao Tuan- ko, was evidently some thing of a “strict cons tructionis t.” See Ma o Yii- s heng,” [Yao Hsi- pao] mu- chihlu ” KCCHLC 146.8a. 89. Yao Ju n g , “Yao Nai hs ing- chuang,” KCCHLC 146.16b. 90. ECCP, pp. 235- 237. O n the Tai Ming- s hih case, see chapter 2 above. 91. T here have been many studies of the T ung- ch eng School’s views on writ­ ing. See, for instance, Liu Sheng- mu, e d. T ung- cheng phi wen- hsueh yuanyuan kho. 92. Yeh Lung, T ung- cheng- pa i wen- hsueh- shih, p. 126. 93. Tai Che n, “Yii Yao Ssu- lien shu ’ Tai Chen wen- chi, Yuan- shan, Meng- tzu tzu- yi sku- cheng, pp. 141- 142. 94. Cha ng Ping- lin, Chien- lun 4.25a. Both Cha ng and Wei Yuan stress the im ­ portance of factionalis m in the disputes between Ha n and Sung le arning. 95. “[Yao Nai] kuo- shih- kuan pe n- chiian ’ KCCHLC 146.6a. 96. T his is reported both in Ma o Yii- sheng, “Mu- chih- lu KCCHLC 146.8b, and Yao Jung , “Hs ing- chuang KCCHLC 146.17a. 97. Yao Ju n g , “Hs ing- chuang ” KCCHLC 146.17a. 98. Yao Ju n g , “Hs ing- chuang KCCHLC 146.17b. In this as in other respects, Yao Ju n g ’s biography of his father is re markably full and revealing. 99. Yao Nai, “Fu Chang- chiin s hu,” in Hsi- pao hsuan Man- chi p. 65. For a fur­ ther discussion of Sung le arning in the late eighteenth century, see Yii Ying- shih, Lun Tai Chen yu Chang Hsueh- ch’eng chapte r six, note 70. 100. In addition to the biographies by Yao Ju n g and Ma o Yii- sheng quote d above, see Ch ’en Yung- kuang, “[Yao Nai] Hs ing- chuang,K C C H L C 145.12b- 16a. 101. In addition to nume r ous notes, letters and preface in Yao s 619- page wenchi. C h en Yung- kuang edited a collection of Yao N a i s letters after his re­ tire me nt entitled Hsi- pao hsien- sheng Mh- tu. 102. Yao Nai, “Hsiao- hsueh- k’ao hs u ” Ch'iian- chi, pp. 47- 48. 103. Yao Nai, “Shang- shu pien- hsu hs u ” Ch'iian- chi, p. 193. 104. Yao Nai, “Shu An wen- ch’ao hs u,” Ch'uan- chi, p. 46. The same argume nt can be found in many of Yao’s writings. 105. Y u Ying- shih, Lun Tai Chen yu Chang Hsueh- ch'eng p. 111. 106. T he preface cannot be found in any extant work by Ch’ien T ie n, and the preface itself gives no indication of what work it was me ant to introduce. However, one of Ch ie n s works was entitled Lun- yii hou- lu. T his work was completed in 1776, jus t as Yao was on the verge of le aving Peking. In a letter to Chia ng Sung- ju (see Ch'iian- chi, p. 73). Yao speaks of discussing le arning with Tai Che n and his colleagues, and writing a preface to Ch ’ien T ie n’s works to illustrate his point. If the preface quoted here and the pref­ ace Yao speaks of in his letter to Chia ng Sung- ju are the same, then it is quite possible that these lines reflect Yao’s thought jus t as he was leaving the capital. Since the preface quote d here begins and ends with references to Confucius and the preservation of his teachings, it may quite possibly have been written to introduce Lun- yii hou- lu. On Ch’ien T ie n, see ECCP, p. 156.

107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

112.

113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120.

121.

Yao Nai, “Tseng Ch ’ien Hsien- chih hs un ” Ch iian- chi p. 84. See pp. 59- 60 above. Yao Nai, “Tseng Ch’ien Hsien- chih hs un ” Ch'uan- chi, p. 84. Ibid., p. 84. Some of the books Yao reviewed were not listed in the Catalog at all. O f the ninety- nine books Yao reviewed, sixty- six were include d in the Ssu- k u chUian- shu collection, sixteen were described in the Annotated Catalog but not include d in the collection and seventeen were not listed in the Annotated Catalog. Yao Nai’s draft reviews are so nume rous that they would jus tify a mono­ graph by themselves. I have selected the reviews of Ku- shih, Shan- hai- ching, Mo- tzu, and Chung- yung chi- lueh because they seem to illustrate as well as any the differences in scholarly styles and substances between Yao and the Ssuk u editors. T he Ku- shih was completed in 1065. It dealt only with the portions of the Shih- chi which describe events pr ior to the time of Confucius . It revised six of the ten basic annals in Shih- chi, sixteen of the thirty biographies of he re ditary and noble houses, and thirty- seven of seventy individual biographies. Naito Konan, Shim Shigakushi, p. 219. Chu Hs i, “Ku- shih yii- lun ” in Chu- tzu chi 71.33a. HPHSL 2.1a- b. T MT Y, pp. 1903- 1904 (92.6a- b). T MT Y, pp. 1092- 1093 (50.3a- b). For an excellent s ummary of the contents of Shan- hai- ching and the various inte rpre tations of it, see Naito Ko na n, Shim shigakushi, pp. 93- 95. See Naito, Shim shigakushi, p. 93 and note 125 below. Yang Shen s views are expressed most clearly in “Shan- hai- ching hou- hsu” Sheng- an ch'uan- chi 2.17; Yang also wrote a short comme ntar y entitled Shanhai- ching pu~chu. For Yang’s biography, see Dictionary of Ming Biography 2:1531- 1534. Hu i Tung (1697- 1758) evidently wrote a comme ntar y on the Shan- hai- ching stressing its use as a geography book, but the comme ntar y is not extant. Hs u Wen- ching (1667- after 1756) used infor mation from the Shan- hai- ching extensively for verification of geographical infor mation in his comme ntar y on the Shu- ching. In 1783, Pi Yuan publis he d an e dition of the Shan- hai- ching with comme ntary, and as Sun Hsing- yen’s preface to that work makes clear (see Sun Yuan- ju wai- chi, 3.5a- 6a) those who participate d in that project saw the Shan- hai- ching pr incipally as a geography book. T he most extensive comme ntar y on the Shan- hai- ching was done by a younge r con­ te mporary of Yao Nai, Ha o I- hsing (1757- 1825), and was entitled Shan- hai-

122. Chu Hs i, “Ch’u- tz’u pien- cheng ” B.lb- 3b, in Ch u- tz u chi- chu. Ch u made the comme nts in the course of re futing an earlier atte mpt, by Hung Hsing- tzu (1090- 1155) to use Shan- hai- ching to comme nt on the “T ien- wen” section of the Ch}u- tz u. 123. HPHSL 2.10a- b. 124. T MT Y, pp. 2938- 2939 (142.1a- b).

125. T MT Y, p. 2939 (142.1b). 126. T he Han- shu “I- wen- chih” lists Mo- tzu as a work in 71 p’ien. For some reason, Sung bibliographie s only record 61 p ien. 127. T he suspect portions are p’ien 40- 43 and 52- 71. 128. T his episode is related in the Han Fei- tzu, section 32. Burton Wats on, a mode r n trans lator of Mo- tzu remarks that “T he Mo- tzu, whatever the inte r­ est of its ideas, is seldom a de light to read. . . . T he style as a whole is marke d by a s ingular monotony of sentence patterns, and a lack of wit or grace that is atypical of Chines e lite rature .” See Bur ton Wats on, Basic Writings of Mo- tzu, Hsun- tzu and Han- Fei- tzu, pp. 14- 15. 129. HPHSL 3.5b. 130. Ibid., 3.5b. 131. See Me ncius , 3B/9. 132. T MT Y, pp. 2452- 2453 (117.16). 133. Augus tinius Tseu, The Moral Philosophy of Mo- tzu, pp. 35- 36, footnote. 134. Wang Chung, “Mo- tzu hs u ” and “Mo- tzu hou- hsu” in Sku- hsueh, nei- p’ien, 3.1a- 4b. 135. On We ng Fang- kang, see ECCP, pp. 856- 858. On his note of s ympathy to Yao Nai, see Yao Ju n g , “Yao Nai hs ing- chuang,” KCCHLC 146.17b. 136. We ng Fang- kang, “Shu Mo- tzu,^ Fu- cKu- chai wen- chi, pp. 618- 620. On the significance of this controversy, see Hu Shih, “We ng Fang- kang yu Mot z u , i n Hu Shih wen- ts'un, pp. 931- 933. 137. Wing- tsit Cha n, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, p. 96. 138. Tu Wei- ming, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on the Chung- yung, p. 3. 139. For the difference in the two editions, which appeared in 1183 and 1189, see below. In the process of re pr inting Shih Tun’s work, Chu Hs i appar ­ ently changed the name from Chung- yung chi- chieh (Collected interpre tations of the Chung- yung) to Chungyung chi- lueh (roughly, Collected approximations of the Chung- yung). 140. T MT Y, pp. 721- 723 (35.5a- 6b). 141. T MT Y, p. 724 (35.6b). 142. HPHSL 1.6a. 143. T MT Y, p. 725 (35.6b). 144. T he editors made these remarks in their review of the Ssu- shu kuo- wen T MT Y, p. 723 (35.5a). 145. T MT Y, p. 725 (35.6b). 146. ECCP, p. 237. 147. Liang t h ’i- ch’ao Intellectual Trends During the Ch'ing Period, p. 78. 148. Although Yao Nai referred to some of his ancestors as the founders of the T ’ung- ch’eng school, this may have involved more filial piety than his tori­ cal accuracy. Mos t authors agree that the Sung le arning, as here por­ trayed, began with Yao. 149. Yu Ying- shih, Lun Tai- Chen yu Chang Hsueh- Mng, pp. 3- 4. It might be added that with the changing political circumstances of the early nine ­ teenth- century, the intellectual and political significance of the Sung le arning changed slightly, pr oducing the phe nome non that Hamaguchi Fumio described in the articles cited in note 88.

Chapter 6. Ch ’ui- mao ch’iu- tz u: Blowing Back the Fur and Examining the Faults 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

Kuo Po- kung, Ssu- k u cKuan- ska tsuan- hsiu- kho, p. 3. Yang Chia- lo, Ssu- k'u ch’iian- shu kai- shu, pp. 17- 19. L. Car r ington Goodr ich, The Literary Inquisition of Ch}ien- lung, p. 30. Shih- lu, p. 13465 (919.19a- b). See Hs ie h Kuo- chen, Wan- Ming shih- chi k o}aand Lynn Ann Struve, “Uses of His tory in T raditional Chines e Society: T he Southe rn Min g in Gh ing Historiography. ” Shih- lu, p. 13029 (904.29a- 30a). Both L. Car r ington Goodrich, Literary Inquisition p. 53, and Wu Che- fu, in his Ch’ing- tai chin- hui shu- mu yen- chiu, pp. 27- 62 aver that the des truction of anti- Manchu literature was the main goal of the Ch’ien- lung censorship, and this category fits the vast majority of works they list as censored. Shih- lu, pp. 14077- 14078 (964.9b- llb). I follow the trans lation in Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, p. 110 with some modifications . One proble m with the Goodrich trans lation is that it does not make clear that the edict begins with s ummarie s of two previous edicts. KCT CL 029802 (San- pao, 12 Octobe r 1774); KCT CL 029880 (Kao- chin, 17 Octobe r 1774). KCT CL 029909 (P’ei Tsung- hsi, 19 Octobe r 1774). As cited in chapter three, the two sources on the numbe r of books s ubmitte d by the provinces for Ssu- k’u ch'mn- shu do not always agree; in the case of Anhwe i province, however, both sources give 516 (Yang Chia- lo, p. 154; KCT :CL 032624 (Min Ao- yun, 22 Octobe r 1776)). KCT CL 030000 (Yii Wen- i, 26 Octobe r 1774). Yang Chia- lo, p. 154 gives a total of 200 books for Fukien; KCT CL 032364 (Chung- yin, 23 Se pte m­ ber 1776) gives 216. On Kwangtang, see KCT CL 030178 (Teh- pao, 7 Novembe r 1774); on Kwangsi see KCT CL 029861 (Hai- ch e ng 16 Octobe r 1774). Hai- ch eng reported that 503 books had been s ubmitte d for the Ssu- k'u ch’iian- shu by Octobe r 1774. Yang Chia- lo, p. 154 gives a total of 664 KCT CL 032205 (Hai- ch’eng, 3 Septe mbe r 1776) gives 1038. T he major concerns of the court in the late s umme r and early fall of 1774 aside from the suppression of the Wang Lun rebellion in Shantung, and the campaign against the Chin- chuan Mia o in the southwest (see below), were the prosecution of a case against the e unuch Kao Yun- ts ung who had been found guilty of divulging the contents of secret impe r ial rescripts, and the provis ion of relief for victims of a flood of the Yellow River. None of these had much to do with the issue of Sino- Manchu relations or with the suppression of anti- Manchu literature. There is no me ntion of the issue of Sino- Manchu relations in the Shih4u for the two months preceding or following the 10 Septembe r edict (Shih- lu, ch. 960- 967 pas s im.) or in the Ch ’ing basic annals for the years 1774- 1776 (ChUng- shih, pp. 171- 189 pas s im.). Ne ithe r the Shang- yii tang (fdng- pen) nor a bundle of draft edicts from the s umme r and fall of 1772, which I was fortunate e nough to have

the opportunity to inspect in the First His torical Archives in Beijing, shed much light on the origins of censorship. T he edict of September, 1774 was issued at a time when the Ch^e n- lung Empe ror was on his s umme r retreat in Je hol, but it was drafted by Yii Min- chung in the capital. It may be significant that when he drafted the edict Yu hims e lf was unde r a cloud, having been held responsible and de mote d in the case of Kao Yun- ts ung. On this case, see Preston Torbert, The ChHng Imperial Household Department, pp. 131- 135. 14. I am grateful to Professor Jo nat ha n D. Spence of Yale for dire cting my atte ntion to this “clue .” For a more detailed study of the Ch^en- lung Empe ror’s literary projects, see chapte r 2 above. For a discussion of how these projects change d the character of Ma nc hu studies, see Ch’en Chiehhsien’s preface to the Hsueh- sheng shu- chii e dition of Pa- ch i t ung- chih, particularly pp. 3- 7. 15. T MT Y, p. 875 (41.11a). 16. T MT Y, p. 1016 (46.7a). 17. These were the Sheng- chho hsun- chieh chu- chen (lu) (T MT Y, p. 1284 [ 58.4b]), the Kht- kuo fang- lueh, the Man- chouyuan- liu- kho, (See Shih- lu, pp. 15260- 15262 [1319.4b- 8a]). T he last two works were completed too late for inclus ion in T MT Y. 18. These were the Shih- tsung war^- kung kung- chi- piao, Ming- chyen isou- yi (See Shihlu, pp. 16759- 16760 (1043.25b- 26a)), and a Chines e trans lation of Manchou ch}ashen chya- t}ien tien- li, all completed too late for inclus ion in T MT Y. 19. Shih- lu pp. 14425- 14426 (983.6b- 7b). 20. Shih- lu, p. 15261 (1319.5a- b). 21. A- kuei et al. eds” ICai- kuo fang- lueh, preface, 4a. 22. ECCP, p. 7. 23. Shih- lu, pp. 14152- 14153, (967.32a- 34b). Quote d in Richar d Lu- kuen Ju n g , “T he Ch ’ien- lung Empe ror’s Suppress ion of Re be llion,” p. 218. 24. Ge r traude Roth Li, “T he Rise of the Early Ma nc hu State ,” p. 4. These docume nts have since been publis he d twice; once by the Ma m b u n Roto Ke nkyukai of the Toyo Bunko led by Ka nda Nobuo: Mambun Roto (Tokyo, 1955- 1962); and once by the National Palace Mus e um, Taipei: Man- chou chiu- tang (Taipei, 1969). T he two publications are based on different ver­ sions of the originals; the Palace Mus e um version is generally believed to be more complete and reliable. 25. A recent article on the eighteenth century has termed the labor of recon­ s tructing inquis ition procedures “Sis yphe an.” Actually thanks to the clarity of Ch’ing docume nts and the classification procedures of the Palace Mus e um in Taipei, the labor can be accomplished relatively easily. It may be useful here to indicate briefly the size and significance of the archival data base that supports the statements about inquis ition procedures in this section. For the years 1774 to 1779, there are 1225 me morials in the KCT and CCCT collections de aling with the literary inquis ition. I believe that these represent between one- half and one- third of the original docume nts

on the event, based on a study of the gaps in the collection, inte rnal evi­ dence in some me morials which indicates that they were a part of a numbe re d sequence, and a careful count of the numbe rs of responses by provincial governors to selected impe r ial edicts. T his evidence is s um­ marize d below. a. Gaps in archives. There are five gaps for the years 1774 to 1779 in the two me morial collections of the Mus e um, KCT and CCT : 1. Ga p in KCT —23 Ja nua r y 1773 to 16 Octobe r 1773. 2. Ga p in KCT —1 February 1775 to 7 February 1777. 3. N o CCCT archives before 28 Ja nua r y 1778. 4. Ga p in KCT — 28 Ja nua r y 1778 to 23 June 1778. 5. Ga p in (XT —27 February 1778 to 21 Septembe r 1778. Such gaps exist throughout the Palace Mus e um Colle ction. Archivis ts speculate that they were caused when his torians, working in the collection before it was moved dur ing the war, pulle d out the docume nts of certain time- periods in which they were interested. Such docume nts were stored in a separate place and never re turned to the original collection. Perhaps they still exist in one of the several wartime locations of the collection. b. Numbered Sequences. A numbe r of provincial governors had the habit of re cording the numbe r of times the provinces they governed had s ubmit­ ted books for banning in the s ubmis s ion me morials . For this practice, his ­ torians can be grateful to San- pao, who originate d it when he was governor of Che kiang and carried it with him to Hupe i. It is possible to compare the numbe r of s ubmis s ion me morials extant with the numbe r of such me morials which theoretically existed. T he results of such a compar i­ son are s ummarize d below. Number of Number of Submissions Documents Province in Sequence Extant Percentage Che kiang 18 50% 9 Fukien 7 28% 2 Hu na n 40% 5 2 Hupe i 8 6 75% Kue ichow 4 66% 6 Yunnan 5 1 20% 4 1 25% Kwanghsi Average: 43% c. Response to imperial edicts. It appears to have been de rige ur for all of the provincial governors to s ubmit me morials re s ponding to certain sorts of impe r ial edicts. It is therefore possible to compare the numbe r of gube rnatorial responses extant with the numbe r that once theoretically existed. T his measure is, of course, not as reliable as the previous one since the possibility that a governor responded to a given edict, in the absence of any written evidence of his response, can only be a pre ­ s umption.

Edict 5 Augus t 1774 10 Septembe r 1774 18 Ma y , 12 Augus t 1777* 27 Augus t 1778 26 Ja nua r y 1779 6 Septembe r

8 (9)**

10 (11)**

* T his edict was issued twice, appare ntly because so few governors re­ s ponded to it the first time. “ In both these cases, a newly appointe d governor repeated acknowledge­ ments made by his predecessor.

26. 27.

28.

29.

30.

T his data base is, admittedly, far from complete. However, for two rea­ sons I believe it to be strong e nough to s upport the statements made about inquis ition procedures in this section. First, much of the language in the extant docume nts is repetitious; governors decided on a form to be used in s ubmitting seditious books and repeated it over and over. Second, any major changes in inquis ition procedures were announce d in impe rial edicts. Since the record of impe r ial edicts is fairly complete (no edict about the inquis ition has been found which is not in either Pan- li or Shih- lu), I believe I have not missed any major shifts of inquis ition procedure. KCT CL 032031 (Ch’en Hui- tzu, 15 Augus t 1777), KCT :CL 029802 KCT .CL 029907 (P’ei Tsung- hsi, 20 Octobe r 1774) and KCT CL 029880. T he Yung- cheng Empe ror made a numbe r of changes in the qualifications and regulations for this post. For an analysis of these, and a discussion of the office in general, see Araki Toshikazu, uChoku- sho kyogaku no sei o tsujite mitaru Yosei chika no bunkyo seisaku.” On the Ch ’ien- lung Em ­ pe rors image, see the rescript of 1750 and edict of 1753 on the importance of regular inspection of local e ducational officials ability and vigor, Hsuehcheng ch'ixan- shu 1:419 (23.8a) and 1:423- 425 (23.9b- lla). On local e duca­ tional officials control of e ducational lands, see the edict of 1721 orde ring local educational officials to report clearly at the time of the ir as sumption of office on the amount of land, numbe r of books, and numbe r of imple ­ ments pe rtaining to the office they are assuming. Hsueh- cheng cKuan- shu 1:417- 418 (23.7a- b). On local e ducation receipt of e x amination fees, see Miyazaki Ichis ada, China’s Examination Hell, p. 31. KCT CL 030466 (San- pao, 20 February 1777) CCCT 021115 (Kuei- lin, 9 De ce mbe r 1778). Hs iao Kung- chuan, Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 72- 83. KCT CL 029861 (Hai- ch^ng, 16 Octobe r 1774); KCT . CL 032946 (Pi- yuan, 24 Novembe r 1777). On book purchas ing, see KCT CL 030695 (Yang- kuei, 11 Ma r ch 1776); KCT CL 032376 Kao- chin, 23 Septembe r 1777). KCT iCL 036136 (Li Hu , 12 Octobe r 1778). Actually Gove rnor Li refers to the appointme nt of one man, expectant magis trate Ch’en Ching- li, (chinshih 1756) whose duty it was to receive and evaluate the books. Whe the r or not Ch’en was head of a bure au, the strictures below about the difficulty

of e valuating seditious books would apply. (Shantung) KCT :CL 038326 (Kuo- T a i 4 June 1778); (Szechwan) KCT :CL 037783 (Wen- teh, 2 Ma y 1779). T he four Szechwan bure aus were in Ch eng- tu, Ch ung- ching, Yachou and Sheng- ching. (Shensi) CCT :CL 026623 (Lo Erh- chin, 2 Ma y 1780); (Chihli) CCCT CL 029202 (Yuan Shou- t’ung 7 Ja nua r y 1781). 31. For samples of me morials accompanying books s ubmitte d to the emperor, see SY T FP.CL 45 (Fall) 159; SY T FP CL 45 (Winte r ) 317; SY T FP.CL 46 (Summe r ) 335. See a me morial from the Gr a nd Council which describes books as having “been turne d over to the his toriographers Ch i Yun and Lu Hsi- hs iung for e diting.” {Pan- li, I, p. 89a- b, translated in Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, p. 214) and a letter from Yii Min- chung to Lu Hsihs iung which orders Chi and Lu to search for treasonous books ( YMCSC, p. 97). 32. Pan- li I p. 55b. 33. Pan- li, I p. 70a. 34. I am grateful to Beatrice S. Bartlett for s haring this infor mation from her exhaustive research on the Gr a nd Council with me. 35. Shih- lu, pp. 15032- 15033 (1022.20a- 21a), translated in Goodr ich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 157- 158. 36. KCT :CL 030466. 37. KCT CL 030695. 38. KCT CL 030925 (San- pao, 28 Apr il 1777). San- pao used s imilar language in many memorials . See Goodr ich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 159- 160. 39. Cite d in Araki, “Choku- sh6 Kydgaku pp. 77- 78. 40. KCT :CL 030466. I obtain this figure by adding the numbe rs of books s ub­ mitte d in the seventh through thirte enth, sixteenth and eighteenth con­ signments for Che kiang. T he figures and sources are as follows: Number in Volumes Sequence Source Submitted 7- 8 K CT .CL 03095 (17 Apr il 1777) 120 454 9 K CT CL 03125 (24 June ) 10 K CT .CL 549 031808 (28 July ) 11 K CT .CL 1957 032229 (5 Septembe r) K CT .CL 032446 (3 Octobe r) 298 12 019448 (20 Mar ch 1778) 307 13 C CCT CL 036007 (2 Octobe r) 105 K CT .CL 16 CCCT CL 023848 (22 Ju ly 1779) 456 18 Reports fromi the fourteenth, fifteenth and seventeenth cons ignments are miss ing, but undoubte dly they would add to the totals. A version of the 2 Octobe r 1778 me morial with a list of the titles be ing s ubmitte d is also available (CCCT : CL 036342). 41. KCT CL 030695; KCT CL 032872 (Yang- kuei, 18 Nove mbe r 1777). 42. I obtaine d the figure for s ubmis s ion pr ior to 1778 by taking San- pao s re­ port on the total numbe r of books s ubmitte d from Hupe i in the five s ub­ missions pr ior to 11 Septembe r 1778 and s ubtracting from it the three s ub­ missions San- pao made himself. San- pao s 11 Septembe r report is

43.

44.

45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54.

CCCT :CL 020733; the othe r submis s ions are listed below. San- pao s five s ubmissions were as follows: Number in Volumes Sequence Source Submitted 3 CCCT .CL 019402 (1 Mar ch) 524 (4) (One docume nt miss ing, numbe r obtaine d from s ubsequent report) 1341 021724 (29 July ) 5 CCCT .CL 613 021227 (2 De ce mbe r) 6 CCCT .CL 1817 022661 (12 Fe bruary 1779) 7 CCCT .CL 667 039290 (21 May) 8 K CT .CL 26 o25117 (25 Ja nua r y ) 725 9 CCT .CL KCT CL 033091 (Kao- chin, 6 De ce mbe r 1777); KCT .CL 032872 (Yangkuei, 18 Nove mbe r 1777). In Septembe r of 1777, the e mpe ror issued an edict comme nding the procedure, and orde ring that it be employed in all the provinces. See Shih- lu, p. 15263 (1319.10a- b). For Wang’s biography, see ECCP, pp. 819- 820; and Me ng Shen, Hsin- shih ts’ung- k’an pp. 581- 595. T he docume nts conde mning Wang include KCT CL 033054 (Hai- ch e ng 3 De ce mbe r 1777) and the materials re­ printe d in Chang- ku ts ung- p ien, Wang Hsi- hou case, Ch i l.la- 9b. Wang was supposed to have said in his preface that the proble m with the Khng- hst tzutien was “the difficulty of pe ne trating it” (cKuan- huan chih- nan). On inte rroga­ tion, Wang claime d that he had me ant that the Chine s e writing system was di cult, rather than that the K a’ ng- hsi tzu- tien was poorly organize d. He also subsequently claime d that he had written the tabooed impe r ial names merely to show people what they were. He observed the taboos properly, however, in the second e dition of his dictionary. For the court’s attitude toward accusations, see below. Chang- ku ts ung- p ien} Wang Hsi- hou case, Chi 2.20a. These figures are based on Chua ng Chi- fa s s ummary of the Palace M u ­ seum Archives on the Wang Hsi- hou case. Since not all governors specifi­ cally ide ntified Wang’s books in the ir cons ignments , and some merely referred to “books by Wa ng,” it is likely that these figures understate, pe r­ haps considerably, the numbe r of Wang’s works found in the empire. See Chua ng Chi- fa, “Wang Hsi- hou Tzu- kuan- an ch u- t’a n,” pp. 144- 147. Chang- ku ts^ng- p'ien, Wang Hsi- hou case 2.12a, 2.22a. WT YT , pp. 305- 306. Ch ’en Yuan, “Shih- hui chii- lieh,” p. 552. WT YT , p. 307. WT YT , pp. 349- 351. Gove rnor Li holds the record for the numbe r of inquis ition cases prosecuted in a single year (five). He also seems to have been responsible for the creation of a book bure au in Huna n, and for an increase in the numbe r of books s ubmitte d for bur ning from the province. WT YT , pp. 363- 364. See the cases of Fang Kuo- t’ai {W T YT , pp. 767- 770); Lou She ng (W7 T 7 pp. 789- 792); and Kao Chih- ch’ing {WT YT , pp. 761- 765).

55. See the cases of Yu Teng-chiao {WTYT} pp. 817-829); Ch u Ssu-tsao {WT YT , pp. 803- 804); Cho Chang- ling {WT YT , pp. 567- 580); Chu

T’ing-cheng {WTYT, pp. 443-449); and Yeh Ting-tui {WTYT, pp. 541547).

56. For a s timulating discussion of the limitations of Fre e dman’s mode l of

South China landholding lineages, see Patricia Ebrey, “Types of Lineages in Ch’ing China: A Reexamination of the Chang Lineage of T’ungcheng.”

57. See the cases of Ch eng Ming- yin {WT YT , pp. 549- 566); Ch’en Hsi- sheng {WT YT , pp. 387- 393); Li Ta- pen {WT YT , pp. 363- 370); and Lia ng Sanch’uan {WT YT , pp. 751- 755). 58. Ho Ping- ti, Studies on the Population of China: 1386- 1953, p. 270. 59. On minor marriages, the reason why Chines e in recent times have chosen

them, and the financial stakes involved, see Arthur P. Wolf and Huang

Chieh- shan, Marriage and Adoption in China, 1845- 1945, pp. 82- 93, 261- 271,

and 272-281. 60. WTYT, pp. 387-393.

61. WT YT , p. 734. 62. Yang Ching- ya and Me ng Ch ing- yu, editors, Te- hsing t'ung- chih, 2.2b,

7.21a-b, 8:16b, 9:9b, lla-b, 12b.

63. C h u ’s given name is sometimes written with the roof radical, sometimes

without.

64. See Evelyn S. Raws ki, Education and Popular Literacy in Ch}ing China, pp. 47- 48. T he subject headings are taken from Chia ng Ker- chiu s trans la­ tion: The Three Character Classic. 65. WT YT , pp. 443- 447. A trans lation of the passage from Confucius can be

found in Arthur Waley, trans., Analects of Cor^ucius, Book 14 Chapter 18. On the queue, see Robert Entenmann, “De Tonsura Sino-Tartarica: The Queue in Early Ching China.” For an instance of resistance to the queue, see Frederick Wakeman, “Localism and LoyalismDuring the Ching Con­ quest of Kiangnan.”

66. See De nis Twitchett, “T he Fan Clan’s Charitable Estate, 1050- 1760.” 67. W illiam Th eodore de Bary, Sources of the Chinese Tradition, p. 267. 68. Ove r fifty mou of land, including twenty mou of far mland, worth 166 taels

were seized.

69. Te- hsing t'ung- chih 5.22b.

70. ECCP, p. 279.

71. Maurice Fre e dman, Lineage Organization in Southeastern China, pp. 46- 76.

72. Jack H. Potter, “Land and Lineage in Traditional China,” p. 126. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Feng Han- chi, “T he Chines e Kins hip Sys te m,” pp. 180- 181. Shih- lu, p. 16375 (1118.17b- 18b). “Ch’iian- teh kuo- shih- kuan pe n- chuan KCCHSC 300.10b- lla. T his plan of operations was not set forth in any single docume nt. I have

pieced it together from the memorials ofCh’iian-te and "Fu-ming-a in the Archives. In addition to the documents cited in notes below, these include:

CCT CL 029314 (Ch’iian- te, 14 De ce mbe r 1780); CCCT CL 030030 (T u ­ rn in g s 9 Apr il 1781); CCT CL 031109 (Tu- ming- a, 21 Ju ly 1781); and KCT CL 039197 (T ’u- ming- a, 17 Octobe r 1781).

77.

CCTCL

030717 (Ch ’iian-te, 20 Ju n e 1781); an d

ming-a, 6June 1781).

CCCT:CL 030718

(T ’u-

78. On this case, see Pan- li, I, pp. 69b- 70a; the Ch'ing- hsia- chi was reviewed in T MT Y, p. 3674 (172.6b). Also see chapter 3 above. 79. Shih- lu, p. 16381 (1119.5b- 6a). Translated in Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, p.

192.

80. T MT Y (Adde ndum numbe r 1), p. 83. Translated in Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 211- 212. 81. I have not seen an original of this docume nt. T his trans lation is from Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 214- 215. T his index was first printe d by Yao Chin- yuan in 1883. Re pr inte d in T MT Y (Adde ndum numbe r 1) pp.

81-116.

82. Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 216- 218. T he original language, some­ what abridge d, can be found in Wu Che- fu, CKing- iai chin- hui shu- mu yenchiu, pp. 87- 88. I have not seen the original of the docume nt. According

to Goodrich, however, it had no date. Goodrich dates it after the memorials of Ying-lien, which seems plausible for three reasons. a. Its location within the sequence ofdocuments in which it was found. See Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, p. 218. b. Since the Ssu-k’u Com m ission ers who subm itted the m em orial were

at workthrough these years on a master list ofbanned books, it seems rea­ sonable to assume that they prepared a statement of the reasons for ban­ ning books at the same time. c. T he docume nt me ntions the work of Wu Wei- yeh, which was

described by San-pao as “never previously submitted” for censorship in a me morial of 15 Octobe r 1779. ( Wen- hsien ts’ung- pien, coll. 8 “Wei- ai- shu

ch’ing-tan” 3b).

83. For the edicts conde mning these works, see (Ch’ien Ch’ien- i) Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 100- 107; (Lu Liu- liang) Goodrich, p. 85 note 5;

(Chu Ta-chun) Goodrich, pp. 112-136; (Chin Pao) Goodrich, pp. 144 149; (Edict on reign names) Goodrich, pp. 138-140. 84. WTYT, pp. 764-765. 85. WTYT, p. 770. 86. Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, pp. 227- 228. 87. (Anhui) KCT :CL 041209 (T an Shang- chung, 15 May 1782); (Kwangtung) KCT CL 041330 (Pa- san- ting, 31 Ma y 1782).

88. KCTCL 041191 and KCTCL 041364 (Li Shih-hao 3June 1783).

89. David S. Nivis on, “Ho- shen and His Accusers,” p. 236. 90. Quote d in Kue i Cheng- hsien, Ch'ing- tai wen- hsien chi- lueh, pp. 4- 5.

91. 1977 catalog of the Wei-wen Publishing Company, Taipei, p. 1.

92. Cha ng Shun- hui, Ch'ing- tai Yang- chou hsueh- chi, pp. 1- 2. 93. Goodrich, Literary Inquisition, p. 6. 94. T he first index of banne d books was assembled in 1883 by Yao Chin- yuan, and include d in his collectanea Chih- chin- chai ts}ung- shu; it was subsequently reprinted as an adde ndum to the Comme r cial Press Re pr int of the Anno­ tated Catalog. Yao s work has been s uppleme nte d twice, first by Teng Shih’s

publication in 1907 of an index kept at the Chiang-ning bureau

(Ch’ing- tai chin- hui shu- mu pu- {), and again in 1925 with the publication in Peiching ta- hsueh kuo- hsueh- men chou- khn of a Gr a nd Council me morial dated

1783 which summarized seven submissions of banned books to the Em­ peror. These two supplements, together with Yao Chin-yuans original work, have recently been reprinted in a one-volume edition, CHing-iai chinhui shu-mu; Ching-tai chin-shu chih-chien-lu, (Shanghai, 1957). As research in the Ch’ing Archives continued in the twenties and thirties, other lists, mostly those which accompanied individual consignments of books from provinical capitals to Peking, were found and publis he d. In 1932 C h en nai- ch ien publis he d an index to all the known lists of banne d books e n­ titled So- yin- shih- ti chin-shu tsung- lu (Shanghai, 1932). Since the 1930s, there

have been numerous articles tabulating and analyzing the various entries on these lists. In 1969 Wu Che-fu of the staff of the National Palace Mus e um, Taipei, publis he d a study of banne d books indices which s um­ marize d all previous work, and such additional materials as he could find in the Palace Mus e um Archives, CKing- tai chin- hui shu- mu yen- chiu. Pages 99117 of this work contain a convenient s ummar y of the extant indices.

95. In the fall of 1979and the winter of 1980 several articles on the censorship of the Ch’ien-lung era appeared in the Chinese press. Among these were: Kung Li, “Lun Ch’ing-tai ti wen-tzu-yii” TsoPu-ching, “Ch’ien-lung fenshu” Wang Ssu-chih, “Ming-Ch’ing wen-tzu-yii chien-lun” and Wei Ghing-yuan “Chung-tu Ching-tai wen-tzu-yO-tang.” I am grateful to Thomas Fisher for sharing his observations on these articles with me.

Bibliography

Araki Toshikazu . uChoku-sho kyogaku no sei o tsujite mitaru Yosei chika no bunkyo seisaku” (The provincial school inspectors as an ^ i ?o "T °) • example of Yung-cheng period educational policy), Toydshi kenkyu 16.4:70-94 (March 1958). Yosei jidai ni okeru gakushinsei no kaikaku—shu toshite sono nin l O i X. I t yoho chushin toshite i >j /C>, I X (The reform of provincial e ducation com­ missioners in the Yung- cheng pe riod —with special emphasis on the utiliza­ tion of personnel), Toydshi kenkyu fl * 18.3:27- 41 (De ce mbe r

1959).

Atwell, Willia m S. “From Education to Politics: T he Fu- she,Min The Ur^olding of Neo- Confucianism, ed. Wm. Theodore de Bary. New York, Columbia U n i­ versity Press, 1975. Bartlett, Beatrice S. The Vermillion Brush: Grand Council Communications System and Central Government Decision Making in Mid- Ching China. Yale Un iversity Press,

forthcoming. Beattie, HilaryJ. “The Alternative to Resistance: The Case of T’ung-ch’eng in Anhwe i ” in From Ming to Ching, ed. Jona than D. Spence and Jo h n E. Wills .

New Haven, Yale University Press, 1979.

Bodde, Dcrk. China's First Unifier: A Study of the Ch’in Dynasty as seen in the Life of Li Ssu ... (280P-208 b.c.): Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1938. Brunne rt, H. S. and V. V. Hage ls trom. Present Day Political Organization in China,

tr. A. Beltchenko and E. E. Moran. Shanghai, Kelly and Walsh, 1912.

Carter, T homas Francis. The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward.

New York, Columbia University Press, revised edition, 1931.

Chan, Hok-lam. Control of Publishing in China, Past and Present. Canberra, The Australian National University, 1983. Chan, Wing-tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, Princeton Univer­ sity Press, 1963. --------. “The Hsing- li ching- i and the Cheng-Chu School of the Sixteenth Cen­ tury,,5in The Unfolding of Neo- Cor^ucianism, ed. Wm. Theodore deBary. New York, Columbia University Press, 1975. . “Chu Hsi and Yuan Neo-Confucianism,nin Chinese Thought and Religion Under theMongols, ed. Wm. Theodore

Columbia University Press, 1982.

deBary an d Hok-lam Ch an . New York,

Chang'ku is'ung- pien (Collected historical documents ), Nos. 1- 10. Pei- p’ing Palace Mus e um, Ja n. 1928- Oct. 1929. suppleme nte d by Fan Hsi- tseng ^ Chang Chih- tung Shu- mu ta- wen pu- cheng ^ (A prime r on bibliography, with

supplements). Chang’s Preface, 1875; Fan’s Preface, 1931. Taipei, Hsin-hua shu-chii reprint, 1975.

Chang Chun- shu. “Empe rors hip in Eighte e nth Ce ntur y C h in ai^ Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 7.2:551- 569 (1974). Chang Hsueh-ch’eng Wen- shih tung-i (Principles of

literature and history). 1771. Hong Kong, T’ai-p’ing shu-chii reprint, 1973.

- - - - . Chiao- chbu Cung- i

(Principle s of textual collation). 1779.

Peking, Ku-chi chu-pan-she reprint, 1956. (The re maining Chang-shih i-shu

writings of Chang Hsueh- ch’e ng) ed. Liu Ch’eng- kan ^*| ^ . Wu- hsing, Chia- yeh- t’ang 1922. > ^ h L comp. Chang Shih- chai hsien- sheng wen- chi ff. f Cha ng I- hsuan

(The collected writings of Chang Hsueh-ch’eng). Taipei, Wen-hai Publishing Company reprint, 1968.

Cha ng Ping- lin

• Chien- lun