Daffina_The Han Shu Hsi Yü Chuan Re-Translated_A Review Article_TP 1982

7/25/2019 Daffina_The Han Shu Hsi Y Chuan Re-Translated_A Review Article_TP 1982

1/32

Brillis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to T'oung Pao.

http://www.jstor.org

Review: The Han Shu Hsi Y Chuan Re-Translated: A Review ArticleAuthor(s): Paolo Daffin, A. F. P. Hulsew, Michael Loewe and A. F. P. HulsewReview by: Paolo Daffin and Michael LoeweSource: T'oung Pao, Second Series, Vol. 68, Livr. 4/5 (1982), pp. 309-339Published by: BrillStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4528268Accessed: 28-01-2016 21:32 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 193.140.168.108 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:32:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4528268http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4528268http://www.jstor.org/publisher/baphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/32

T'oung Pao LXVIII, 4-5 (1982)

THE HAN SHU HSI YU CHUAN RE-TRANSLATED

A ReviewArticle

BY

PAOLO DAFFINA

The new and copiously annotated translation of Han shu chapters

61 and 96 which Professor Hulsewe

and Doctor Loewe have

so

meritoriously

carried

through

and are now

offering

to

the

public,

will

be hailed as

an invaluable boon by all scholars interested in an-

cient Central-Asian

history.*

Although

on

the title page

of the book Dr. Loewe appears as be-

ing only the author of the

Introduction, the work as

a

whole is

the

outcome of

a

close

collaboration between the

two

eminent

sinologues.

This is

unambiguously

stated

by

Professor Hulsewe

in

his Prefatory Note (p. VI): "We made the translation together, and

together

we decided

which

points

merited annotation.

Dr. Loewe

wrote the

first

draft of the Introduction and

I

made

the first draft of

the

notes,

but

we

subsequently

revised and emended

each other's

work,

so

that

it

is

now difficult to

distinguish

between

our

in-

dividual contributions".

Well-intentioned

as it

may be, this procedure

suffers

from some

shortcomings

that

are

usual

in

any

four-handed

work,

contradic-

tory

statements

being

the most

prominent among

them. For exam-

ple, the date of completion of the Han shu is given as "between A.D.

110

and

121

"

on

page 8,

but

as "A.D.

92"

on

page 34,

note

78;

at

their turn

the dates of the commentator

Shen

Ch'in-han

are

in-

dicated

as

1775-1832

on

page

38,

and as 1778-1831

on

page

112,

note

253.

Of their

predecessors

in the

difficult

task of

translating

'the bar-

barians',

due

acknowledgement

is

given by

the Authors on

page 1,

*

China

in

CentralAsia,

the

Early Stage:

125 B. C. -A. D. 23.

An

Annotated Translation

of Chapters61 and 96 of the History of the FormerHan Dynasty, by A. F. P. Hulsewe,

with an Introduction

by

M. A. N.

Loewe. Sinica

Leidensia,

vol.

XIV, Leiden,

E.

J.

Brill, 1979, VIII, 273 pp.,

1

folding

map,

70

Gld.

Throughout my

article

I will

use

the

same system of abbreviations and of

bibliographical

references as used

in the

book.

Dynastic

histories

will

be

quoted

or

referred

to

in

the editions

reprinted

by the

I

wen yin

shu

kuan, Taipei.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/32

310 PAOLO

DAFFINA

note 1.

Striking,

however,

is

the omission

of Nikita

Jakovlevic

Bicurin (alias

Father

Iakinf,

1777-1853)

whose Russian

translation

of Han

shu

ch.

96

was the

first to

appear

in

any

European

language.

Now

badly obsolete, Bicurin's

translation of the

chapters

relevant

to

'the

barbarians'

in

the Chinese

dynastic

histories

is,

for

its

amplitude, still

unsurpassed (see

N.

Ja.

Bicurin,

Sobranie

vedenij

o

narodach

bitavssich

Srednej

Azii v

drevnie

vremena,

3

vols.,

Sanktpeter-

burg, 1851;

new

edition,

Moskva-Leningrad,

1950-1951).

The

reasons for

adding

the

translation of

chapter

61 to

that

of

chapter 96 are

easily understood. Han

shu

61

contains the

biographies

of

Chang

Ch'ien and

Li

Kuang-li,

"the two men who

(as the Authors write on

p.

32)

had

contributed

most

to

the

establishment

of Chinese

power

and

influence

in

Central

Asia".

Ch'ien's and

Kuang-li's

biographies

form,

therefore,

a

necessary

complement

of the

hsiyi

chuan

and are not

less

important

than this

for

the

early

history

of

Chinese

penetration

in

Central Asia.

In

the

first part of the

Introduction

(pp. 3-39) form

and

content of

the

two

chapters are

perspicuously

described "for the

benefit of

scholars whose special interests lie in the field of Central Asia or

Greek

history

rather

than

Chinese

studies".

Several

pages

are of

course

devoted

to

the

crucial

problem of the

relationship

between

Shih

chi

123

on one

side,

and Han

shu 61 and

96 on

the other

side.

The

results of the

textcritical

study of Shih

chi 123 which

Professor

Hulsewe'

published

separately

a few

years ago

(Hulsewe, 1975,

pp.

83-147)

are in

the main

assimilated

here, pp.

14-25. These

results

are so

summarized

on p.

20: "at some

time after

the completion

of

the Han

shu ...

either

Shih

chi ch.

123 or Han

shu ch. 61 was

lost,

whereupon it was restored by simply copying the remaining text. It

is evident that

this remaining

text must have

been

already in confu-

sion.

There

are

several reasons to

assume

that

it

was

Shih chi ch. 123

which

was lost,

whereas

Han

shu

ch. 61

continued to be

transmitted,

to be

eventually

used for the

recomposition of Shih

chii

ch.

123".

This

reconstruction

"may have been

made

some time during

the

3rd or 4th

century of our era"

(p. 25).

However, the

contention

"that of

the two

chapters Shih

chi 123 and

Han

shu 61, it is the

latter

which is

primary

and

authentic"

(p. 22),

is not entirely

convincing.

The Authors themselves avowe that in more than one point Shihchii

123 provides

better

readings than Han

shu 61 (see

pp. 215, note

806;

217,

notes

809,

810,

812).

On

the other

hand

Han

shu

61,

as

far

as

the

biography

of Li

Kuang-li is

concerned, is not

less incomplete

(p.

236

n.

926)

than the

Shih chii

which

was

probably

finished

(p.

8)



4/32

THE HAN SHU

HSI

YU

CHUAN RE-TRANSLATED 311

shortly

before 90

B.C.,

the

very year

of

Kuang-li's

surrender. It

will be shown below, moreover, that

in

the case of early

Wu-sun

history, albeit neither text is completely reliable, Shih chi

123 seems

to be comparatively less

inconsistent than

Han shu 61. As for Han

shu 96, the opinion

of the Authors is that it "has been very well

preserved, in general"; and that, on the whole, it

has been

transmitted "without having suffered serious damage"

(p. 15). But

this statement is

also

open

to

question, as

it will

appear

in the

course of the discussion.

The second part of the Introduction (pp. 39-66) is an

excellent

historical survey of

the period concerned and provides,

besides

other

things,

some

very

useful synoptical tables (pp. 45, 64 n. 196).

The bibliography (pp. 240-256) is exhaustive and

major omis-

sions are but few. Among them

I

would note,

in

particular,

J.

Brough, 'Supplementary

Notes

on

Third-Century Shan-shan',

BSOAS,

33

(1970), pp.

34-45, referred to on p. 29 n.

73 as

"Brough

(1970)"; and G. Coedes,

Textes

d'auteurs grecs et latins

relatifs

,a

I'Extreme-Orient,

Paris,

1910

(reprint

Hildesheim-New York, 1977),

referred to on pp. 123-124

n.

298, as "Coedes (1910)".

Mention of

Huang Wen-pi's

work on Lop-nor is only to be found on p. 39 n. 84

while his book on Turfan

(T'u-lu-fan k'ao ku chi j

Beijing, 1954)

has

been

overlooked. All of Huang's works are

besides

to be

supplemented

with the

important

review article by

E.

Waldschmidt

and Liu

Mau-tsai, 'Chinesische archaologische

Forschungen

in

Sin-kiang',

OLZ, 54, 1959. cols. 229-242. Strange-

ly enough, of Pelliot's Notes on Marco Polo only the first

volume is

listed,

as

if

volumes

two

(1963)

and three

(Index,

1973)

would not

concern the matter in hand. Pritsak's hapless study of the 24 ta ch'en

which should no

longer

appear

in

any

serious

bibliography

on the

subject,

is

duly cited,

whereas its refutation

by

Mori

Masao

('Reconsideration

of the Hsiung-nu State.

A

Response to Professor

0.

Pritsak's

Criticism',

Acta

Asiatica, 24, 1973, pp. 20-34)

is con-

spicuously

absent. Mention should

have

also been

made of E.

Ziurcher,

'The

Yiueh-chih

and

Kaniska

in the Chinese

Sources',

in

A.

L.

Basham, ed., Papers

on the Date

of Kaniska, Leiden, 1968, pp.

346-390. Finally, the

date of

Pulleyblank's

article on the consonan-

tal system of 'Old Chinese', given both in the bibliography and

throughout

the book

as

1963,

is

actually

1962.

The volume is

concluded

by

an

accurate

index

(pp.

257-266),

three lists

of

geographical

names

(pp. 267-273),

and a sketch

map

of

Central

Asia.



5/32

312

PAOLO

DAFFINA

The

bulk

of

the

work is

however

made

up by

the

annotated

translation of Han shu

chapters

96A-B

(pp. 71-203,

notes

1-760) and

61

(pp. 207-238,

notes

761-930).

The translation is based on

Wang

Hsien-ch'ien's Han

shu pu

chu

in

the

facsimile

reprint published

in

1955 by the

I

wen yin shu

kuan

(Taipei).

References to this

text

as

well as to the Ching-yu

edition

of 1035 and the

Palace edition

of 1739

are

printed on the margins

of

each

page alongside

the

translation

(see

Remarks to

the

Translation, pp. 66-70).

As Professor Hulsewe informs us

in

his

Prefatory Note (pp.

VII-

VIII), the translation of both chapters was originally undertaken in

1967 for the Chinese Dynastic Histories

Project,

then directed

by

Professor

Hellmut Wilhelm, and it was completed

in

1975.

From

note

187, p. 102,

one

may presume, however, that when the

Authors started their work a commented draft

translation of

Han

shu

ch. 96 was already

in

existence and

preserved by

the Han

Dynastic History Project. Whose work the draft was it

is

not

said,

nor it is

said whether and to what extent the Authors

made use of it.

Translation and annotation are both

intended "first and

foremost for the non-sinological reader" (p. VII). The Authors'

main

concern was to

present

"a faithful

translation, openly

avow-

ing all

doubts and

difficulties, and warning the non-specialist

reader

against the pitfalls so as

to

enable

him

to

avoid hasty conclu-

sion"

(p.

VIII). They

insist

on

their version

being

chiefly designed

''as a

rendering

on

which

specialists

of

other fields

may

work"

(p. 2).

Especially

with

this aim

in

view,

it

may

be useful

in

the

following

pages

to concentrate on a number of

points

in

both translation

and

annotation that raise doubts and call for discussion.

I will

refer throughout to

page and line of the text used by the

Authors

(HSPC ch. 96A-B, and ch. 61), as well as

to pages and

notes

of

their translation.

A,

4b, 6

=

p. 72:

"proceeding along

the

course

of the river

west of

So-chi ".

Unless of So-chu

is a

misprint

for to

So-ch/,

I

wonder

whether this may be the true

sense of

1M*i:

which I would

rather

understand as:

"proceeding

in

a western

direction along the

river up to So-chii".

A,

5b,

9

=

p.

73

(line

14 from

above):

"Yen

[-ts'ai]

"

is an

evident

misprint

for

"Yen-ch'i"

A

A,

7b,

9

=

p. 77:

"Nearer

and Further

Chui-shih".

Ch'ien

NxJ

nd

hou

f

are

regularly

rendered with

nearerand

further respectively.



6/32

THE

HAN SHU HSI YU

CHUAN RE-TRANSLATED

313

But

in

the

geographical terminology they mean,

no

doubt,

southern

and northern.Cf. P.

Pelliot,

"Le kouo-che

ou maitre du

royaume',

TP,

12, 1911, p. 675

n.

1; Id., 'Kao-tch'ang,

Qoco,

Houo-tcheou

et Qara-Khodja',

JA,

tenth

series, 19, 1912, pp.

579-580

n.;

Id.,

'Note sur les

anciens

noms de

Kuca, d'Aqsu

et

d'Uc-Turfan',

TP,

22, 1923, p. 131 n. 1.

A, 7b,

11

=

p. 78.

The

Authors are

certainly right

in

rejecting

the

reading So-chui ,4

of

the text and

in

correcting it into Chui-shih

:igjU. Wang Hsien-ch'ien's

commentary is strangely silent on

this

important point.

A, 9a, 2

=

p. 79: "Since the time

of Emperors Hsiuan and

Yuian,

the

Shan-yui

has

styled

himself

vassal". 'Vassal' is

not the

proper

rendering of

fan-ch'e"n

-

in

this context.

Note

67

explains that

fan-ch'e'n

iterally

means "a

servant

(who

acts

as)

a

screen

(viz. for

this

ruler)",

and

states that

in

Han texts the

term is used

"both for

Chinese

kings

and

nobles,

and

for leaders

of

foreign peoples". This

is

rather generic.

To

be more

specific,

in

HSfan-ch'e6nonly occurs

as

the name of a constellation

and as a title of

Hu-han-hsieh

shan-yiu

who undoubtedly is the Shan-yuialluded to in the passage under

discussion.

In

53/52

B.C.,

under

emperor Hsiuan

(74-48 B.C.),

Hu-han-hsien

shan-yiu went

south with the

multitude of

his

people

and

approached

the

Han

frontier

(HSPC 94B, 3a, 5).

The

following

year

he

knocked

#

at the

Wu-yiuan

pass (HSPC 94B, 3a, 7)

and in

January/February

of

51 B.C.

an

imperial

edict

said: "Now

the

Hun

Shan-yiu

has

styled

himself

[Our] feudatory

at

the northern

frontier

(kffiL-i)"

(HSPC 8,

22a,

9

=

HFHD

II, p. 258).

In

February/March

of the

same

year

"When the Hun

Shan-yii

Hu-

han-hsieh.... came to pay court, he was introduced and announced

as

a

subject

from the border

(R

#f)

"

(HSPC

8, 22a, 12-22b,

1

=

HFHD

II, pp. 258-259; cp. also

95B, 3a,

10-11, wherefan

X

is

omitted).

From these

passages

it is

clear

thatfan-ch 'en

neither

means

simply 'vassal',

nor 'vassal

(who

acts

as)

a

screen';

but

rather

'vassal at the border', as Dubs

understood

it, or

'vassal

in

atten-

dance at the border'.

In

his

position

offan-ch'en

Hu-han-hsieh shan-

yii

remained till

43/42

B.C.,

when he withdrew from the Han

fron-

tier and returned north

of the Gobi

(HSPC 94B, 5b, 11-12).

As

in

43/42 B.C. emperor Yuan was reigning (48-33 B.C.), our text says

that "Since

Emperors

Hsiuan

and Yuan the

Shan-yui

has

styled

himselffan-ch

'en".

A, 9a,

3

=

p.

80

(cp.

also

pp.

85, 96, 103).

For

X

the usual

pronunciation ch'o

has

been

adopted,

disregarding

the fact that

all



7/32

314

PAOLO

DAFFINA

ancient commentators (Fu Ch'ien, Meng K'ang, Su Lin) are

unanimous

in

stating

that as a name of one of the

Ch'iang

tribes

the

character

must be read either

X

e'rh

Daffina_The Han Shu Hsi Yü Chuan Re-Translated_A Review Article_TP 1982

Documents

Transcript of Daffina_The Han Shu Hsi Yü Chuan Re-Translated_A Review Article_TP 1982