^{page 336 note 1} Solomon, Bernard S. (tr.): The veritable record of the T‘ang Emperor Shun-tsung (February 28, 805-August 31, 805) Han Yü’s Shun-tsung shih-lu, translated with introduction and notes. (Harvard-Yenching Institute Studies, XIII.) xxxiii, 82 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955.Google Scholar (Distributed in G.B. by Geoffrey Cumberlege. 24s.)

^{page 338 note 1} ‘Chin Shun-tsung huang-ti shih-lu piao-chuang’, Han Ch’ang-li chi 38.

^{page 338 note 2} Ibid. See also the end of Han Yü's biography in Chiu T’ang-shu 160, where, however, it is said that Wei Ch‘u-hou's version was prepared later as a result of dissatisfaction with Han Yü's. This is obviously an error and one is led to ask how it came to be made. Han Yü already had an official biography as early as 830. This is proved by a reference to his biography in the ‘National History’ in Li Han's preface to his collected works. The preface is undated but must have been written in the period 827–30 in view of the office which Li Han held when he wrote it. (See Chu Hsi's commentary on this preface in Han chi k‘ao-i 1.1.b, reproduced also in the standard editions of Han Yü's works, and compare Li Han's biography in Chiu T‘ang-shu 171.) We should have expected Han Yü's biography to appear for the first time under the date of bis death in the Ching-tsung shih-lu but this was only completed in 843 (see Yü-hai 48.8.a). Presumably a biography had already been prepared in the History Office for ultimate insertion in the shih-lu. Li Han would have been able to see it since he was in the History Office at the time working on the Hsien-tsung shih-lu. It is inconceivable that the confusion about Wei Ch‘uhou's Shun-tsung shih-lu could have occurred at that time and, as is indicated by its appearance out of chronological order appended to the biography, the passage in question must have been a later addition. This could either have been in the preparation of the ching-tsung shih-lu or in the final editing of the Chiu T‘ang-shu in the Five Dynasties period. In either case it is interesting as probably indicating the continued existence of Wei Ch‘u-hou's version of the Shih-lu.

^{page 338 note 3} Under Yung-chen 1 (805)/2/jen-tzu. See also Yu-hai 46.6.b.

^{page 339 note 1} Nien-erh shih cha-chi 16, ‘Chiu T‘ang-shu ch‘ien-pan ch‘üan yung shih-lu kuo-shih chiupen’; see also Pulleyblank, BSOAS, XIII, 2, 1950, 448–73.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} See Solomon, pp. xix and xxi, passages la and 4a and compare Chiu T‘ang-shu 14.

^{page 339 note 3} Namely those of Chang Chien and Ling-hu Huan in ch. 3, those of Chang Wan-fu , Lu Chih , and Yang Ch‘eng in ch. 4 and that of Wang Shu-wen in ch. 5; cf. biographies in Chiu T‘ang-shu 149, 152, 139, 192, and 135.

^{page 339 note 4} See Solomon, p. xx, passage 3a, and compare with Chiu T‘ang-shu 135.

^{page 340 note 1} Han Ch‘ang-li chi 38. The commentary is that of Sun Ju-t‘ing . See Wu-pai-chia chu yin-pien Ch‘ang-li hsien-shang wen-chi .

^{page 340 note 2} ‘Lu Chih han-yüan chi hsü’, Ch‘üan Tsai-chih wen-chi, pu-lc‘o, l.a.ff. (SPTK).

^{page 341 note 1} CTS 159; cf. Ts‘e-fu yüan-kuei 556.22.a and 562.9.b. See also the discussion of this and other evidence about this revision in the commentary at the beginning of wai-chi 6 in the standard editions of Han Yü's works which stem from Liao Ying-chung , e.g. the Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts‘ung-shu. This comment, which is not Chu Hsi's, may have come from the Wu-paichia edition, in which case it probably bore the name of its author. Since the reprints of this edition available to me lack the wai-chi, I am unable to check it. Cf. Chao I, Nien-erh-shih cha-chi 16, ‘T‘ang shih-lu kuo-shih fan liang-tz’u san shih’.

^{page 341 note 2} CTS 160, end of Han Yü's biography.

^{page 342 note 1} Chiu-T‘ang-shu 14.2.b under fifth month, chia sh‘en.

^{page 342 note 2} Han Ch‘ang-li chi 38.

^{page 342 note 3} CTS 149; Ch‘ttan Tang wen 506.

^{page 342 note 4} CTS 139.

^{page 343 note 1} Chu Hsi notes that Li Ao's hsing-chuang of Han Yü mentions a ‘small collection’ in 10 chüan in addition to the main collected works in 40 chüan and wonders whether this may be the wai-chi. The reference must, however, be to a collection of poetry alone in 10 chüan which existed already in the ninth century and of which Fang Sung-ch‘ing was able to consult a manuscript copy dated 870 which had belonged to the Ling-hu family. (Han-chi k‘ao-i 9.10.a; Li Wen-hung chi 11 (SPTK); Han chi chü-cheng, hsü-lu 5.b (Ssu-k‘u chen-pen series).)

A passage in Yü-hai 55 (quoting the Chung-hsing shu-mu ?) might be taken to mean that the edition of Han Yü with supplement including the Shih-lu began with Tseng Kung . It can, however, also be construed to mean only that a further addendum of I-wen in one chüan stemmed from Tseng Kung. Since there appears to be no other evidence of Tseng Kung's having made an edition of Han Yü, one must in any case take this statement with some reserve.

^{page 343 note 2} Ch‘ung-wen tsung-mu 5, p. 347 (Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts‘ung-shu).

^{page 343 note 3} See Ssu-k‘u t‘i-yao 150 and Fang Sung-ch‘ing, Han chi chü-cheng in the Ssu-k‘u chen-pen series.

^{page 343 note 4} Liu K‘ai (948–1001) wrote a concluding note (pa) to his text of Han Yü's works when he was 23 or 24, therefore in 970-1. See Ho-tung hsien-sheng chi 11.3.a (SPTK).

^{page 343 note 5} Ou-yang Hsiu's (1007–72) interest in Han Yü's works is well known. See ‘Chi chiu-pen Han wen hou ’, Ou-yang wen-chung ch‘üan-chi 73.6.a (Ssu-pu pei-yao).

^{page 343 note 6} Yin Chu (1001–47) was closely associated with Ou-yang Hsiu in the promotion of ku-wen modelled on Han Yii and Liu Tsung-yüan. See Sung-shih 295.

^{page 343 note 7} Liu Yeh is called Liu Lung-t‘u by Fang Sung-ch‘ing, no doubt with reference to his office in the Lung-t‘u ko. The date when he held this office cannot be established more precisely from his biography than some time (probably a number of years) after 1017. See Han chi chücheng, hsil-lu 8.b; Sung-shih 262.

^{page 343 note 8} Han chi k‘ao-i 9.10.a.

^{page 344 note 1} Han Wen lei-p‘u 6.10.a, in Han Liu nien-p‘u (Yüeh-ya t‘ang ts‘ung-shu).

^{page 344 note 2} Ibid., 5.4.b.

^{page 344 note 3} Han chi k‘ao-i 9.21.a, b. The longer version of the Shih-lu was probably lost by this time. The Shun-tsung shih-lu did not appear as a separate work in the Chung-hsing shu-mu.

^{page 344 note 4} Both comments are quoted in the commentary at the beginning of wai-chi 6 in Chiang Chihch’iao's edition of Han Yu's works (preface dated 1633, Japanese reprint).