Although the English letters b, d, g have, in some English words, the same sounds as those in Chinese, the Wade-Gilés system fails to use these letters. Instead it uses p, t, and k with two different pronunciations. It also uses a medial i (in -ih) and a final u (in tzu, etc.) to denote a semivowel which has a quite different pronunciation from that of these letters in English. The result is frequently confusion and mispronunciation. My changes arc merely designed to correct these deficiencies in Wade-Giles. Otherwise this convenient system is left unchanged.

Bibliography. The works most commonly referred to in this article and the abbreviations used are as follows:

HFHD—The history of the Former Han dynasty by Ban Gu, translated by H. H. Dubs, which is a translation of some chapters of the HS.

HHJ—Hou-Han-ji or Account of the Later Han dynasty, by Yüan Hung (328–376); see Giles, Chinese biographical dictionary, no. 2551.

HHS—Hou-Han-shu or History of the Later Han dynasty, by Fan Ye (398–445); using the paging of Wang Sien-chien's edition, the Hou-Han-shu dzi-jie.

HS—Honshu (usually called the Tsien-Han-shu) or History of the [Former] Han dynasty, by Ban Gu (A.D. 32–92); using the paging of Wang Sien-chien's edition, the Han-shu bu-ju.

LH—Lun-hung, by Wang Chung (A.D. 27–97), translated by A. Forke under the same title; quoted by pages of Forke's translation.

MH—Les memories historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien (5 vols.), a translation by E. Chavannes of about half the Sf.

Sargent—“Subsidized history: Pan Ku and the historical records of the Former Han dynasty,” by Clyde B. Sargent, Far Eastern Quarterly 3 (1944), 119–143, to which the present article is largely a reply.

Sf—Shzh-ji or Historical record, by Sz-ma Tsien (ca. B.C. 145–80).

ST—Shzh-tung or Historical perspectives, by Liu Jzh-ji (661–721).

Chinese characters for these works are either found in the Sargent article referred to or in A. Wylie's Notes on Chinese literature, pp. 16, 24.

¹ One of the most remarkable facts about occidental histories of historiography is their neglect of Chinese histories. H. E. Barnes, A history of historical writing, contains a section entitled “Oriental beginnings of historical writing” (p. 16), but fails even to mention Chinese histories, although Chavannes' splendid translation (the MH ) had been completed for more than a decade before Barnes wrote. J. T. Shotwell, The history of history (1939) equally ignores Chinese histories.

² These figures are based upon a count of the characters in an average chapter (HS, ch. 84, 6827 characters), calculating the average number of characters per page, multiplying by the number of pages in the Kai-ming Bookstore edition of the “Twenty-five histories,” which prints the whole in a uniform format. Sargent's estimate of approximately ten million characters (p. 120) is much too low.

³ Sargent, p. 119 and note 1 denies to the HS the character of a history and translates this title as Han documents or Documents of the [former] Han dynasty.

⁴ There is no ancient evidence to support the statement (Sargent, 128) that Ban Gu's sister, Ban Jao, completed the HS and is responsible for chs. 13–20, 26, and possibly for ch. 99. The primary evidence indicates that she did little, possibly nothing at all towards the completion of this work. The primary evidence upon which the belief that Ban Jao completed the HS is found in her life by Fan Ye in HHS, Memoirs, ch. 74, p. 3b. “[Ban Jao's] elder brother, [Ban] Gu, wrote the HS, but when he died, the eight “tables” [i.e., chs. 13–20] and “The treatise on the ornaments of heaven (Tien-iven jzh)” [ch. 26] had not been completed. [So] Emperor Ho ordered [Ban] Jao to go to the Pavillion for Storing Writings in the Eastern Lodge [where historical work was being carried on] to continue and complete it.” Here nothing is said about ch. 99 being lacking. I see no evidence whatever to connect Ban Jao with that chapter. We are moreover not told that she really worked on the HS.

What she actually did was something different. The foregoing passage continues as follows: “When the HS first appeared, most [people] could not understand it, so Ma Rung, who came from the same commandery [as Ban Gu], prostrated himself below the Pavillion [For Storing Writings] and received from [Ban] Jao the [correct] understanding [of difficult matters].” In those days there were as yet no dictionaries giving the various meanings of words, so that it was necessary to have some person available to explain unusual chaiacters and difficult passages. Such was the regular practise with regard to the classics. Ma Rung (79–166) was then still a young man. He later became the outstanding scholar of the day, so that he was a quite suitable person to carry on the tradition about the meaning of the HS. A century later, in A.D. 221, we find that persons who wished to read the HS would seek out the teacher who possessed this tradition and read the book with him (San-guo-jzh, Wu, ch. 14, p. la).

There is moreover no statement concerning how much interpretation of the HS was given by Ban Jao. With such an unusual person as Ma Rung, the explanation even of difficult characters was probably quite unnecessary, so that Ban Jao may not have felt herself obligated to do that. There have however come down to us certain glosses attributed to Ban Jao, dealing with passages in HS ch. 100, the “Introductory memoir.” These glosses deal particularly with Ban Gu's autobiography in that chapter. It is quite likely that Ban Jao did nothing more with the HS than to give the explanations that led to the making of these glosses. For biographical matters concerning Ban Gu she would be specially fitted.There is no ancient evidence that she actually did anything more. She was a favorite of the Empress Dowager nee Deng, who was then ruling as regent, and attended court with the Empress Dowager (HHS, Memoirs, ch. 74, p. 3b), so that she probably had no spare time for serious labor on her brother's work. She needed to achieve no fame.

Sz-ma Biao, who lived ca. 240-ca. 306, says definitely: “Ma Sü, [a younger brother of Ma Rung], wrote the Treatise on the ornaments of heaven” [From a note incorporated into HHS, Treatises, ch. 10, p. 2b.]. This evidence concerning the authorship of HS ch. 26, written a century and a half before Fan Ye's HHS, is clear and plain.

Yüan Hung (328–76), in his HHJ, tells about the completion of the HS, saying nothing about Ban Jao: “When Ban Gu composed the HS, seven ‘tables’ were lacking [prob. ch. 13–19], together with the ‘Treatise on the ornaments of heaven.‘” [The titles of these chapters] were recorded, but [the chapters] were without any writing. [Ma] Sü did the entire [work of] continuing and completing them” [HHJ, ch. 18, p. 3b]. Yüan Hung evidently believed that Ban Gu had composed the last of the “tables,” which is the “Table of ancient and present personages” (ch. 20). The nature of that chapter corroborates this interpretation. Yüan Hung's evidence is half a century earlier than that of Fan Ye. The latter used the HHJ as one of his sources. Yüan Hung's statement is of high value.

Fan Ye (397–445) continues the passage translated above by illegitimately combining Yüan Hung's statement with the imperial edict ordering Ban Jao to complete the HS: “Afterwards there was also an imperial edict that [Ma] Rung's elder [sic] brother, [Ma] Sü, should continue [Ban] Jao's [work] and complete it” [HHS, Memoirs, ch. 74, p. 3b]. (“Elder brother” is here an error; Hui Dung [1697–1758], using a note in HHS, Memoirs, ch. 14, p. 23b, points out that Ma Rung was the elder of the two. The passage above, quoted from the HHJ, is preceded by a sentence in which Ma Sü is also mentioned as “[Ma Rung's] elder brother.” This circumstance establishes that Fan Ye is here using the HHJ as a source.)

This clear evidence makes definite that Ban Jao had a minor part in completing the HS. She was a learned woman—the marvel of her age. The ancient evidence is merely that she was ordered to complete the HS. It is nowhere stated that she actually did so. It is also declared plainly that Ma Sü did so.

The “tables” in the HS were evidently copied out of the genealogical and chronological material in the imperial records—Ban Gu was probably too much of a poet lor such drudgery. Ma Sü was a mathematician and hence well fitted to prepare an account of astronomy. Except for the first part of the “Table of the many offices” (HS, ch. 19, which may indeed have been prepared by Ban Gu), in which an account is given of the imperial bureaucracy, Ma Sü docs not seem to have produced anything outstanding. HS, ch. 26 largely repeats what Sz-ma Tsien, who was himself an astronomer, says in the SJ. In comparison to the rest of the HS, the compilation of these eight missing chapters represents a quite minor amount of work.

⁵ The passage is translated here: “Anciently the ‘Canons of Yü [Shun]' and ‘of Hsia [Yü]‘, [which are now parts II and HI of the Book of history; Cf. Legge's translation in Chinese classics, pp. 29, 92] and the ‘Announcements’ of the Shang and Jou [dynasties, i.e., pts. IV and V; Cf. ibid., pp. 173, 281] were called shu, hence [Ban Gu] took shu as the name [of his work], which is a fine name for an examination of ancient events” [ST, ch 1]. In his own introduction, Ban Gu refers to the Book of history as a model of historiography (HS, ch. 100B, p. la), so that Liu Jzh-ji is merely expressing what Ban Gu implies.

⁶ HS, ch. 30, p. 18b, in the bibliography of the Imperial Private Library, lists the Han ju_a (Han documents and records) in 190 rolls. Ban Gu collaborated with Ma Yen (A.D. 17–98) in writing the Jicn-vm ju_b-ji (Documents and records of the Jien-wu period), that of Emperor Guangwu, the first ruler in the Later Han period. Later “Documents and records” were prepared for Emperor Ming (Hsien-dzung chi-jü-ju_b), the second ruler (HHS, Annals, ch. 10, p. 9a–b) and at least for Emperor Ling (Ling-di chi-jü-ju_b; mentioned in the HHJ) and for Emperor Hsien (Hsiendi chi-jü-ju_b, in 5 rolls; listed in the Sui-shu bibliography, ch. 2, p. 9b). These books of sourcematerials for history can properly be called “documents” in the modern sense of the word. They were primary records of events observed and prepared by courtiers who attended closely upon the throne, so that they were in a position to know what happened.

⁷ Ban Gu did not call the first part of his HS by the title “Imperial annals (di-ji),” as stated by Sargent (p. 120). He merely entitled them “annals(ji).” The word “imperial(di)” is a later and quite appropriate addition, just as is the tsien (former) usually placed before the ancient title of the HS. The oldest extant edition of the HS, that of 1034–35 (reproduced in the Commercial Press's “Bo-na ed.”) does not have the word di in the titles of its “annals.”

⁸ As Sargent, 120, 123.

⁹ Sargent, 123. The placing of the “Memoir of the imperial relatives by marriage” (HS, ch. 97) and the next two chapters (cf. Sargent, 124) near the end does not mean that Ban Gu thereby “intentionally indicated his disapproval of the persons treated” in this chapter (Sargent, 124). The empresses and important imperial concubines, together with their male relatives, were by no means all wicked and contemptible persons. One of them was Ban Gu's own great-aunt, the Favorite Beauty nee Ban, who was a highly admirable person. Ban Gu was a Confucian, so obviously placed this chapter near the end in order to indicate the lack of governmental importance that ought to characterize women. The current Confucian principle was “Women should not take part in governmental matters” (translated in HFHD, vol. 2, p. 31, note 2.11). Fan Ye, who was not a staid Confucian, in his HHS, indicates the actual importance of these women by including his account of them among his “annals.” He did not thereby approve of their deeds, for he points out that their rule brought calamity upon the dynasty.

HS ch. 98, “The memoir of the Empress of Emperor Yüan,” i.e., the Empress Dowager nee Wang, the great-aunt of Wang Mang, is not “entirely devoted to a woman” (Sargent, 124–25). It begins by quoting the genealogy Wang Mang fabricated for himself, tells about Wang Mang's ancestors, then recounts the lives of Wang Mang's grandfather and various great-uncles, who successively dominated the government for a whole generation. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to these great-uncles. The name of his great-aunt, the Empress Dowager, is used as the title because these ministers attained their positions through their relation to her. The chapter is really an account of the whole Wang clan and not merely of the Empress Dowager. This chapter portrays the rise of the Wang clan to power, thereby laying the foundation upon which Wang Mang raised himself still higher. Sargent (p. 125) declares, “The evidence suggests that Pan Ku [whose name I spell “Ban Gu”] felt that the persons treated in these three chapters deserved his disapproval.” But the last sentence in ch. 98, which is part of the historian's judgment upon the persons discussed therein, indicates that Ban Gu and his father both approved of the Empress Dowager: “But the Empress [Dowager nee Wang of Emperor] Yüan was entirely devoted [to the Han dynasty], and still grasped firmly the one imperial seal [considered to convey the imperial power; this incident is recounted in HS, ch. 98, p. 13a, b] and did not wish to give it to [Wang] Mang. [She exhibited] the perfect virtue of a wife. Alas [her relatives did not possess the same devotion]!”

¹⁰ Sargent (121) divides the fourth part of the HS, the juan or “memoirs,” into two parts, separating as the second part “a group of essays on ‘foreign affairs’ (chapters 94–96),” e.g., “The memoir concerning the Hsiung-nu [or Huns].” But these are not “monographs,” which are “systematic expositions of one thing” (the Desk standard dictionary's definition), but historical accounts, quite similar to such a chapter as no. 88, “The memoir concerning the forest of literati (Ru-lin juan),” which recounts the erudits (bo-shzh) and their outstanding disciples, together with the development of the Confucian canon upon which they specialized.

¹¹ Sargent concludes, “Pan Ku was not primarily an historian or a critical scholar; he was a careful compiler” (p. 132). “The work really is not a ‘history’ but is primarily a collection of documents” (p. 119, note 1). “The compiler … was completely unable to present a synthesis of the entire picture” (p. 139). Again, on page 132, Sargent also states that Ban Gu “did not have judgments; he did have impressions.” I find nowhere in the article the precise distinction between a “judgment” and an “impression.” Sargent, however, states that Chinése history is “a planned presentation of the compiler's estimate of the events themselves” (p. 135), which statement itself implies that the “compiler” did have a judgment upon the events.

¹² Sargent, 132.

¹³ For example, Jia Yi (200–168 B.C.) wrote an essay on the causes for the downfall of the Tsin dynasty, which Sz-ma Tsien transcribed into the judgmental part of his chapter that treats of this dynasty (translated in MH, vol. 2, pp. 219–36).

¹⁴ Cf. Legge's translation of the Dzo-juan (he spells it Tso Chuen) in Chinese classics, vol. 5, pt. 1, p. 2 line 12 and p. 6a, et passim.

¹⁵ Guo-yü, ch. 7, p. 5b, 12a, et passim.

¹⁶ MH, vol. 1, p. 94, et passim.

¹⁷ HFHD, vol. 1, pp. 146–50, et passim.

¹⁸ A similar reply may be given to Sargent's criticism (p. 139) that there is a “general absence of cross references and the complete absence of indices.” But Ban Gu gives many cross references: Cf. HFHD, vol. 1, pp. 192, 210 (two), 222 (two), 255, 258, 259, 325; vol. 2, pp. 151, 165 (two). 199, 201 (two), 204 (two), 209, 242, 385, 406. Twenty-one cross references in ten chapters may not be as many as Sargent wants, but that is a larger number than is found in ancient occidental histories. When we remember that the HS was written on rolls of silk, so that there could be no page references, it is remarkable that we find any cross-references at all. Indices were impossible, because an alphabet was lacking to give order to words. The radical system and the systematized rime scheme had likewise not yet solidified. It is consequently quite correct to emphasize “the student's necessity of having a complete and detailed familiarity with the entire work in order to study any single phase of Han history” (Sargent, 139). But such knowledge is no more than what genuine scholarship ought to demand.

¹⁹ Analects VII, viii.

²⁰ HS, ch. 62, p. 24a; also translated in MH, vol. 1, p. ccxxxvii. I see no reason for doubting the genuineness of this letter. Whether it is genuine or not, this ideal of historical judgment was expressed.

²¹ The HS is not restricted to “an imperial political history of the reigning family of Liu during the former Han dynasty” (Sargent, 143) nor does it show an exclusive “concern for historical events affecting the fate and fortune of the imperial family” (ibid., 140). Its interests were as broad as those of the bureaucracy.

The interests of the reigning family were of course quite restricted. Several emperors were playboys who cared for little beyond their favorites and their harem. Only a very few exceptional rulers anywhere have ever been interested in the whole scope of the matters with which the central government must deal. Emperors, unless they were real statesmen, would not be interested in such subjects as those treated in HS ch. 91, “Producers of wealth” or ch. 92, “Traveling redressers of wrongs.”

²² HS, ch. 100A, p. 6a.

²³ He was the grand astrologer (tai-shzh), whose rank is given in HS, ch. 19A, p. 6b.

²⁴ Cf. note 10.

²⁵ Sargent declares, “The masses of the people, as well as general social and economic conditions, are generally ignored unless they materially affect the throne or the court. An insurrection or revolution, for example, is conspicuously noted only when its vibrations threatened stability of the dynasty” (p. 140). Every insurrection, of course, potentially threatens the dynasty. But among the many dozens of rebellions in the first ten chapters of the HS, the following did not actually threaten the stability of the dynasty: in 195 B.C. (HFHD, vol. 1, p. 141), in 183 (ibid., 198) in 174 (ibid., 250), in 164 (ibid., 260), in 122 (ibid., vol. 2, p.58), in 121 (ibid., 61), in 122 (ibid., 79) in 111 (ibid., 82), in 108 (ibid., 93), in 86 (ibid., 155), in 83 (ibid., 158), in 80 (ibid., 163), in 78 (ibid., 168), in 67 (ibid., 216), in 62 (ibid., 238), in 61 (ibid., 241), in 52 (ibid.,256), in 42, (ibid., 322), in 22 (ibid., 391), in 17 (ibid., 399), and in 13 (ibid., 406)

²⁶ HS, ch. 99C, pp. 16a, 17b.

²⁷ We are told, for example, that the usual rate of interest was 20 per cent; also the rates of income on various types of property (HS, ch. 91, pp. 6a–8b).

²⁸ Mentioned by Sargent, pp. 129, 130.

²⁹ LH, vol. 2, p. 224.

³⁰ HS, ch. 30, p. 18a. Wei Jao (197–273) glosses that this work was prepared at the imperial command. A fascicle (pirn ) was a set of narrow bamboo or wooden writing tablets, plaited together by strings in accordian fashion, so that they could be folded together or spread open on a table for writing or reading. It was the common form of writing material before the invention of paper. The roll (jüan ) was of silk, hence expensive and usually limited to works financed by the imperial treasury.

²¹ Cf. note. 6.

²² HS, ch 30, p. 18b.

²³ HS, ch. 18, p. 15b; HHS, Memoirs, ch. 70A, p. 7b.

²⁴ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30A, p. 6b.

²⁵ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30A, p. 7a.

²⁶ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 3, p. 6a.

²⁷ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 18.

²⁸ ST, ch. 12, pp. 5b, 6a (Wai, ch. 2, ”Gu-jin jeng-shzh”). Jeng Tsaio (1104–62), in a famous and libellous criticism of Ban Gu, which is so bad that it is plainly biased and unreliable, says: “For the whole of the six reigns from Emperor Jao to Emperor Ping, [Ban Gu's] material came from the writings of Jia Kuei (A.D. 30–101] and Liu Hsin.” (From the preface to his Shzh-tung or General history, p. 3a.) Jia Kuei's work may be another of Ban Gu's sources. It is not mentioned elsewhere, so far as I know.

²⁹ These twenty-nine persons were: the Favorite Beauty nee Ban, Chao Tso, Chen Tang, Du Ye, Dung Fang-so, Dung Jung-shu, Gu Yung, the King of Huai-nan, Jang Chang, Jai Yi, Kuang Heng and Wang Feng, Kung Dzang, Li Sun, Li Ling, Liu Hsiang, Liu Hsin, Mei Sheng, Shzh Dan, Shzh Tsen, Si-fu Gung, Sz-ma Siang-ru, Sz-ma Tsien, Tang Lin, Tsui Juan, Wang Bao, Wei Siang, Wei Hsüan-cheng, Wu-chiu Shou-wang, Emperor Wu, and Yang Hsiung.

⁴⁰ Cf. HFHD, vol. 1, p. 116, note 2.

⁴¹ Sargent (p. 130) says otherwise, seemingly without any evidence.

⁴² LH, vol. 1, p. 185.

⁴³ ST, ch. 12, p. 6a j LH, vol. 2, p. 304 states it contains more than a hundred chapters. This number probably represents the design rather than the execution. Jeng Tsiao (op. cit.) states that Ban Biao's “book cannot [now] be secured and read.”

⁴⁴ The only case I know is a reference by Wei Jao in a note to HS, ch. 30, p. 18a.

⁴⁵ Cf. HFHD, vol. 2, p. 336 and note 13.5; p. 418, note 16.2.

⁴⁶ LH, vol. 1, p. 184.

⁴⁷ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30B, p. 8b.

⁴⁸ Sargent, 130–31.

⁴⁹ HHS, Memoirs, 69A, p. 3a. Wang Chung's statement that the Former Han imperial library was scattered and lost (Sargent, 131) must be discounted in view of Fan Ye's explicit statement. The account in the HHS is confirmed by the large amount of Former Han material listed as available in Sui and Tang times, evidenced in the bibliographies of the Sui-shu and two Tang-shu. Chinese palaces have been quite spread out affairs, so that, although Ban Gu says “the Wei-yang Palace had been burnt” and “the Red Eyebrows burned the palaces … in Chang-an” (HS, ch. 99C, p. 29a), this does not mean that every pavillion in every palace was burned. The illiterate Red Eyebrows would moreover hardly find worth looting a library, with its piles of bamboo writing tablets. There is hence no reason to understand the foregoing two statements about the burning and looting of the imperial palaces to imply that the imperial archives were necessarily also destroyed, especially in view of Fan Ye's explicit statement. The Former Han library may not have been moved to Loyang until A.D. 32, when Emperor Guang-wu returned from Chang-an (HHS, Annals, ch. IB, p. 5b).

⁵⁰ Ban Gu states that a book of revelations written by Gan Jung-ko (who died in prison) was stored in the imperial archives and brought out again in A.D. 5, fourteen years later (HS, ch. 75, p. 31b).

⁵¹ HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30A, p. 8b. The circumstance that “the compiler” Ban Gu was willing “to make only partial quotations from his available archive materials” (Sargent, 139). is to be explained simply by the extraordinarily large amount of archive material available. The HS is quite long, but what would it have been with complete quotations from its materials!

⁵² Sargent, 142: “Pan Ku's inevitable loyalty to emperors of the Latter Han necessarily included loyalty to emperors of the Former Han; and obviously this would confuse even conscientious efforts at objectivity and undoubtedly did color many of the general interpretations found in the Han documents” [i.e., the HS].

⁵³ Analects XV, xxv.

⁵⁴ Dzo-jnan, Duke Siang, yr. XXV, Legge's translation in Chinese classics, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 510, 511, 514b, 515a.

⁵⁵ Sargent, 135, note 57. It is not true that “early in his literary career Pan Ku had several years in prison to meditate upon the cost of independent writing” (Sargent, 142). The circumstances are as follows: When Ban Gu as a young man was ac home near Chang-an working on the HS, somebody accused him to the throne of “privately altering the historical records.” He was ordered arrested. His younger brother, Ban Chao, thereupon galloped to the capital at Lo-yang and sent to the throne a memorial explaining the situation. He was summoned to an imperial audience and reported to the Emperor what were Ban Gu's real plans. Ban Gu's writings had also been sent to the capital by the officials. When Emperor Ming read them, he was highly pleased. He not only freed Ban Gu but also gave him a position in the imperial entourage where he was set to work writing history (HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30A, p. 7b). The accusation against Ban Gu was either spitework or a clever but dangerous publicity stunt by the Ban family.

Ban Gu could not have been held in prison long, for the accusation was not made until after A.D. 58 (HHJ, ch. 13, p. 10a). Before 62, when he was promoted (HHS, Memoirs, ch. 37, p. la; ch. 30A, p. 8a), Ban Gu had already completed a history of Emperor Guang-wu's reign. My own guess is that he was not imprisoned more than a very few months at most, possibly only the few weeks necessary for Ban Chao to reach Lo-yang and for the imperial order of release to get back to Chang-an. The fortunate outcome, placing the orphaned Ban Gu and his family on the imperial payroll, more than cancelled any sufferings Ban Gu may have undergone.

It is furthermore not true that later Ban Gu “fell across the path of imperial wrath and for a second time was thrown into prison,” “for incompetence as a military commander” (Sargent, 128 and note 26). In A.D. 89, Ban Gu joined the notorious Dou Hsien on his military raid into Mongolia, with the title, Staff Commissioner of the Army. While Dou Hsien was away from the capital, there was discovered a plot to murder the emperor made by some of Dou Hsien's subordinates, in which Dou Hsien was implicated. Upon his return, he was arrested with his followers, sent out of the capital, and forced to commit suicide (HHS, Memoirs, ch. 13, pp. 15b–17a). Ban Gu's slaves had previously offended the prefect of Lo-yang. In the turmoil when Dou Hsien's adherents were being arrested, this prefect revenged himself by arresting Ban Gu, who thereupon died in prison. When the Emperor discovered this fact, this prefect was executed (HHf, ch. 13, p. 9a). The Emperor thus had nothing to do with Ban Gu's second imprisonment and his military ability or inability was not concerned.

⁵⁶ HS, ch. 100A, p. 5b. Ban Jzh was impeached “for having refused to send on an auspicious report” and “having [thereby] committed an inhuman [capital] crime.” He was only saved from death by the intercession of the Empress Dowager nee Wang.

⁵⁷ HS, ch. 75, p. 4a.

⁵⁸ HFHD, vol. 2, p. 175 and note 10.5. This passage is quoted below, super note 65.

⁵⁹ HS, ch. 75, p. 4a–b.

⁶⁰ HS, ch. 90, p. 8a–b.

⁶¹ HS, ch. 90, p. 9b; cf. my summary in HFHD, vol. 2, pp. 2, 11–13, 16–17.

⁶² Cf. HFHD, vol. 2, p. 167, note 7.1.

⁶³ HS, ch. 96B, pp. 38b, 39a; for the details of Emperor Wu's economic measures, cf. MH, vol. 3, pp. 546–600, which material is repeated in HS, ch. 24. It describes the ruin and impoverishment of a prosperous country by Emperor Wu's continual drain upon its resources and by his oppressive measures. In his old age, Emperor Wu seems to have repented for his oppressive measures (HS, ch. 96B, pp. 17a–20a quotes a repentant edict; Dzrjzh tung-jien [Sz-bu tsung-kan ed.], ch. 22, pp. 11b, 12a, sub 89 B.C., quotes an even stronger statement of repentance by Emperor Wu), so that in his judgmental summaries to chs. 24 and 96 Ban Gu does not condemn Emperor Wu severely. Ban Gu nevertheless recounts Emperor Wu's evil deeds, in order to enable the reader to make his own judgments.

He moreover gives evidence to prove that Emperors Wu (HS, ch. 93, pp. 3b, 4a), Cheng (HS, ch. 59, p. 12a), and Ai (HS, c. 93, p. 8b) indulged in homosexuality and that the latter did not care for women. Emperor Cheng's infanticides of his only sons are recounted from the testimony of eye-witnesses (HS, ch. 97B, pp. 1 lb—14a; summarized in HFHD, vol. 2, pp. 369–72; translated in C. M. Wilbur, Slavery in China [Chicago: Field Museum, 1943], pp. 424—32). How can Ban Gu be said to have upheld “the justice and virtue of the throne”?

⁶⁴ HS, ch. 6, p. 39b, translated in HFHD, vol. 2, p. 120.

⁶⁵ HS, ch. 7, p. 10b, translated in HFHD, vol. 2, p. 175.

⁶⁶ Cf. HFHD, vol. 1, pp. 272–75.

⁶⁷ Sargent, 135.

⁶⁸ Shzh, Hu, “Wang Mang, the socialist emperor of nineteen centuries ago,” Journal of the north China branch of the royal Asiatic society, 59 (1928), 218–230Google Scholar, approves of him. So does Mr. Sargent. I agree with Ban Gu that he was evil.

Sargent uses the account of Wang Mang as proof for Ban Gu's perversion of the facts. He states that “Wang Mang … saw that the relation between plebeian and capitalistic interests had to be adjusted to avert a major social revolution” (p. 135). For Wang Mang's agrarian reforms, [Ban Gu] “gives only the superficial aspects…. He does not point out any specific relation between the conditions of land tenure and Wang Mang's reforms” (p. 133). Ban Gu “makes no mention of the new conditions that made a more elaborate currency necessary in an expanding economy” (p. 133). “Wang Mang … tried far harder than Kao-Tsu or any other intervening emperor to carry out the ruler's function of adjusting social and economic conditions in the country to benefit the livelihood of the people” (p. 136).

In Sargent's brief article, these assertions are left without proof. I cannot agree with his views. But a disproof would require a detailed account of Wang Mang's deeds. I have attempted something of that sort in “Wang Mang and his economic reforms,” Toung pao, 35 (1939–40), 219–65Google Scholar. Here I can merely point out certain facts that make unlikely Sargent's conclusion.

Wang Mang did not actually succeed in improving the lot of his people, if he ever tried to do so. Popular rebellions and widespread banditry in China are an almost infallible sign of misgovernment. There were such rebellions (not including those of the Liu clan) in A.D. 14 (HS, ch. 99B, p. 26a), 17 (99C, 2a), 18 (99C, 4a), 19 (99C, 4b, 5b), 20 (99C, 10a, b), 21 (99C, 12a, b, 13a,' 14a, b, 15a), 22 (99C, 17a, 18a, b, 19a) and 23 (99C, 19b, 24b). This banditry gradually increased during the last years of his reign, spreading to all quarters of the empire, and even to the capital region. These bands became so large that they defeated imperial armies in battle. The Red Eyebrows were merely one among many bandit bands, each of which dominated some area of the country. Thus Wang Mang's own government itself broke down. Corruption was rife in his bureaucracy (HS, ch. 99B, pp. 23b, 27a and 99C, pp. 3a, 14a, b). Wang Mang was killed in an attack upon the capital, not made by professional soldiers, but by a mob of common people (HS, ch. 99C, p. 26a). The generals arrived after it was all over (HS, ch. 99C, p. 28a). Wang Mang was then widely hated by the common people and was overthrown by a popular uprising, not by the intrigues of ambitious politicians. These facts indicate a complete failure on the part of Wang Mang to adjust social and economic conditions to benefit the people.

In his changes of the currency, he seems to have made no real effort to make these new coins a means of facilitating business transactions, for nothing was done to maintain the value of the higher denominations (cf. Dubs, op. cit., p. 237). Ban Gu says that Wang Mang's currency “did not circulate” (HS, ch. 24B, p. 23a), as it would if a more elaborate currency had been necessary. He declares that the overt purpose of these coinages was to follow classical precedents (HS, ch. 24B, pp. 21a, 23b). Wang Mang's deepest purpose was to profit the government by issuing fiat money. In this respect he was highly successful (Dubs, op. cit., pp. 237–38, 240).

As to the adjustment of plebeian and capitalist interests: the most important capitalist investments were in land. Wang Mang did limit the amount of land any individual could own, but that matter had been urged upon rulers by Confucians for more than a century (ibid., p. 245). Wang Mang moreover rescinded his agrarian reforms within two years, probably because his own relatives objected, so that these reforms were ineffective (ibid., pp. 243–47, 249–51). No wonder Ban Gu tells only their “superficial aspects.” They were themselves superficial.

In Wang Mang's reforms, he adopted the program of the Confucian party that put him in power. He had to do so because of the way he secured the throne. He exhibited no originality in devising a beneficent economic or social program. He was cruel, unnecessarily harsh, ready to execute people by the hundreds (HS, ch. 99A, p. 16b), to exile commoners by the thousands (HS, ch. 99A, p. 24b), and to enslave them by the hundred thousands (HS, ch. 99C, p. 12b). I can find in Wang Mang no reil statesmanship or genuine concern for the interests of the common people.

⁶⁹ Sargent finds the chapter on Wang Mang somewhat difficult to understand. He writes: “Conspicuous examples of these incongruities [present in the HS] are found in the chapter on Wang Mang. Apart from several open contradictions of documentary material by the author's personal comments, the entire chapter, in some ways, is a contradiction. This is particularly conspicuous in Part I [my part “A”] of the chapter in which the documentary material is nearly all most favorable to Wang Mang while the author's personal comments and the general impression created are exactly opposite” [p. 131, note 50].

Since Sargent does not list these “open contradictions,” there is no way of checking them. I suspect that the “contradiction” is between Sargent's theory that Ban Gu is prejudiced and Ban Gu's own presentation of Wang Mang's virtues. By “the author's personal comments,” I suppose Sargent means the “eulogy,” of which more below.

Ban Gu actually looked favorably upon the first part of Wang Mang's life, especially of that phase recounted in the earlier half of part A in ch. 99. My own “general impression” of it, contrary to that of Mr. Sargent, is that Ban Gu gives a quite favorable view of Wang Mang. This “usurper” is represented as living up to Confucian ideals, even going beyond them in some respects (e.g., his monogamy; cf. HS, ch. 99A, p. 2a).

⁷⁰ Cf. note 56.

⁷¹ HS, ch. 99A, p. 30a.

⁷¹ HS, ch. 99A, p. 24b.

⁷³ HS, ch. 99C, p. 22b. This procedure was in imitation of the similar deed recounted of the Duke of Jou in the Book of history V, vi, Legge's translation in Chinese classics, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 351–60. Wang Mang believed in spirits (HS, ch. 99C, p. 13b), so that this act could hardly have been a deceit, for the spirits would punish him severely.

⁷⁴ HS, ch. 99B, pp. 9a-lla.

⁷⁵ They are mentioned in a memorial quoted in HS, ch. 99B, p. 13b.

⁷⁶ HS, ch. 99C, p. 29a.

⁷⁷ The remainder of Ban Gu's “eulogy” (which is placed at the very end of the whole account) points out that fact.

⁷⁸ The circumstance that Ban Gu “never refers to Wang Mang by his dynastic title” (Sargent, 136; I suppose he means, by entitling him “Emperor So-and-so”) is to be explained simply. Because Wang Mang had no successor to give him a posthumous name (such as the “Wo” in the designation “Emperor Wu”), Wang Mang had no distinctive imperial name. He could not be called “Emperor So-and-so” because he was never given a “So-and-so.” The given name of a Chinese emperor has never been used with the imperial title, for the use of that given name constituted lese-majesty, so that the occidental practise of calling a ruler by such a designation as “King George” has been impossible in China. Wang Mang moreover could not be called by his yearperiod, as was Liu Hsüan, who is called “the Geng-shzh Emperor.” Since Wang Mang reigned long enough to have several year-periods, he could not be called by any one of them. (Cf. my “Chinese imperial designations,” JAOS, 65 [1945], 28–30. Sargent seems not to have understood the nature of these imperial designations, for he speaks of Geng-shzh as Liu Hsüan's “dynastic title” [p. 126, note 19]. It was merely the name he used for the years in his reign.) Wang Mang's subjects merely called him “the Emperor.” If Ban Gu had used that designation, it would have been ambiguous. Its use would moreover have constituted an implication that the rulers of the Later Han dynasty were illegitimate, for they claimed to continue the Former Han line. The omission of the term “emperor” for Wang Mang really means little. It was a matter of protocol, rather than a moral judgment upon Wang Mang.

Sargent's statement that “almost invariably the last ruler of a deposed dynasty was portrayed as a scoundrel” (p. 136) has important exceptions. The last king of the Jou dynasty is not made out to be wicked, but merely weak (MH, vol. 1, pp. 317–18). King Jao of Tsin is however warned not to attack the Jou ruler, for, if he did so, he would be abhorred by the rest of the country (MH, vol. 1, p. 315). Emperor Ping, the last ruler of the Former Han dynasty, died before he attained his majority, so that he could not be and was not blamed for the fall of the dynasty. Emperor Ling, the last of the Later Han emperors, was an imbecile and never really governed, so that he too was not condemned. Fan Ye merely states that the mandate of the Han dynasty had run out (HHS, Annals, ch. 9, pp. 12b—13a). Here the last rulers in the three greatest of five successive dynasties are not condemned. (The other two dynasties, the Tsin and the Sin [Wang Mang], ruled only a few decades each; these two were not included by Chinese philosophers among the list of “genuine dynasties.”) Whatever may have been the “orthodox political morality,” the great Chinese historians were realists. Sargent's theory about Chinese history does not apply to the really great histories and has important exceptions in the case of the others.

⁷⁹ Sargent, 134. Sargent sums up his criticism as follows: “This attempt to justify imperial policies and actions and to harmonize accomplished historical events and orthodox political morality, represents the supreme objective of the orthodox compiler of historical docments, which were drawn together less for factual enlightenment than as a guide to political ethics for rulers” [p. 138].

⁸⁰ Cf. the quotation from the Analects, super, note 53.

⁸¹ For such resolutions of apparent contradictions, cf. HFHD, vol. 1, pp. 154–60; p. 310, note 3.2; p. 326, note 8.6; vol. 2, p. 230, note 12.1; p. 233, note 13.4; p. 412, note 14.4, n. 415, note 15.2. For genuine contradictions, cf. HFHD, vol. 1, p. 317, note 5.6; vol. 2, p. 71, note 17.9; p. 76, note 20.4.

⁸² This passage is found in Fan Ye's (398–445) HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30B, p. 16a, and is taken from Hua Chiao's (fl. 270–93) Hou-Hm-shu.

⁸² This passage is found in Fan Ye's (398–445) HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30B, p. 16a, and is taken from Hua Chiao's (fl. 270–93) Hou-Hm-shu.

⁸³ From Hua Chiao's Hou-Hm-shu (quoted in Dz-jzh tung-jien, ch. 48, p. 3b), repeated by Yüan Hung (328–76) in HHJ, ch. 13, p. 11b and by Fan Ye in HHS, Memoirs, ch. 30B, p. 16a. The most violent Chinese attack upon Ban Gu is that of Jeng Tsiao (a portion of which is quoted in note 38) but it does not charge him with prejudice.