A summary of the findings of an Imperial conference on the interpretation of the classics, called in 79, which captures a moment in the bibliographic evolution of the ritual compendia in particular.
| | | | |
Description
Title. The Bwo-hu (colloquially "Bai-hu") or "White Tiger" Hall was the scene of a debate of several months' duration on the interpretation of the classics, which was convened late in the year 79 by the Han Emperor Jang-di. From the voluminous transcript of those discussions, a summary (Tung-yi, usually abbreviated as Tung; compare the title Fvng-su Tung-[yi]) was separately commissioned. For alternate titles, see Tjan 7f.
Date and Author. The summary was probably completed in the following year, 80. Its compilation is attributed to Ban Gu in his HHS biography and at several other places in that work. There is no competing attribution, and the assignment would be consistent with the state of Ban GU's literary reputation as of 79, and with the fact that he was not himself a disputant at the conference. For an objection to this attribution, see below.
Occasion and Location. Official concern over scholarly differences in the interpretation of the classics had been expressed in a decree of 56, toward the end of the reign of Gwangwu-di. The calling of the conference in 79 (the 4th year of the reign of Jang-di; there had intervened the reign of Ming-di, 58-75)) was presumably to resolve this ongoing issue (see HHS 3). The discussions were held, and the BHT summary was presumably compiled, in the Latter Han capital, Lwoyang.
Proprietorship and Transmission. At first the text was probably held by the Latter Han court which had commissioned it. At some point, probably after the end of Latter Han, BHT entered the group of generally available scholarly texts. The original BHT seems to have been extant until the end of Tang, and, like many other texts, to have encountered transmission difficulties at that point.
Text. Of the original text, which seems to have contained 100 or more chapters under 44 topical headings, 43 chapters and some unplaced fragments are now extant. The present chapters probably represent the original topics, and thus do not of themselves suggest extensive textual losses, but early quotations show that our present text (based on an unsatisfactory edition of 1305) is incomplete. The HK concordance text has been collated anew from several extant but unsatisfactory versions. For the extant work, including fragments of otherwise lost chapters, the HK concordance reports a text of 49,564 characters, and a vocabulary of 2,231 different characters (ratio, 22.2 to 1).
Interpolations. Some (by Hv Syou and others) have been suggested, as a way of accounting for seeming anachronisms. They perhaps demonstrate an ongoing role for BHT as a repository of correct opinions about the classics, and ultimately about the content of Chinese culture.
Type: Integral, with arrangement by topic. See the Text Typology page.
Similar Texts. The Shr-chyw Gv discussions of 051 were a similar attempt to arrive at a consensus about the culture as embodied in the recognized classical texts, but in a different ideological context; see [entry]. By 79, the Confucianism of Latter Han had evolved to a point requiring new determinations. Note also the Han Shu objections to the Shr Ji, which were based in part on the Shr Ji's stance within Confucianism.
Scope and Form. The BHT comprises an ordered consideration of questions of social usage, topic by topic, with attention given also to the system of the cosmos as an authority and model for social usage. Its form is an attempt to ground Chinese cultural usages in something higher up than the scholarly opinion of the day. Each of the 43 extant sections (pyen) opens with a question, followed by an answer apparently representing the Emperor's preference, or the majority preference, from among the options raised in the original discussion. Questions and answers typically quote from the classics, as widely defined (see further below); the form of these quotations provides useful evidence for the form and authority of the various classical texts and repertoires at this period.
Importance. BHT enshrines a particular "New Script" view of the classical tradition (for example, its CC commentary is Gungyang, not Dzwo Jwan). It is interesting at present chiefly as a snapshot of the state of Confucian ritual thinking in Latter Han, and is incidentally useful for the text history of various canonical and quasi-canonical works.
Commentaries and Translations. Among the notable ones are Lu Wvn-chau (1784), Chvn Li (c1860), and Lyou Shr-pei (c1910); see also the study and complete transiation by Tjan Tjoe Som (1949f).
Recommended Citation. By section (pyen), subdivided according to the paragraphing in the HK concordance text.
Details The reader is referred to Tjan's admirable study.
Implications The bibliographic implications include the important fact that the Li Ji texts were still fluid and noncanonical as of 79; they were recognized as a group only about a generation later.
Other Opinions Ban Gu's Role. William Hung disputes the attribution of the BHT summary to Ban Gu because, inter alia, the ritual chapter of the Han Shu, with which Ban Gu is authorially identified, takes a different line on certain issues than does BHT. There are two dubious assumptions here. (1) Ban Gu was the author of the BHT. But he was not. His claimed role with the BHT was as the compiler of a summary of the judgements earlier passed by classical experts, at a conference which he did not even attend. (2) Ban Gu would have inserted his own opinions into the BHT. But this would have violated the mandate to summarize the findings of a conference which had been attended by the Emperor himself. BHT was in effect an official text; HS (then in the process of being written) was still a private and advocational text, albeit one of great interest to the court. A divergence in ritual theory between the two is thus not necessarily remarkable. The whole suggestion, together with the claim that our BHT is a forgery of the 3rd century, is vintage William Hung: fantastically erudite but stubbornly wrongheaded.
Suggestions Research. BHT is useful in documenting the intellectual currents of its time, particularly as respects the ritual texts. It also forms an item in the parallel careers of Wang Chung and Ban Gu, and because of its known date, it may turn out to be a useful watershed in that intertwined bit of literary history.
See Also: Li Ji, Ritual Texts, Canon, Lun Hvng, Han Shu.
Classical Chinese Texts is Copyright © 1993- by E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks
14 Sept 2005 / Contact The Project / Exit to CCT Page
