by waywardauthor » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:48 pm
[Another review on the same book, this one appearing in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies in 1977. Some part of it is transcribed, and some of the examples of Lau's somewhat harsh evaluation are omitted twice. It is wade-giles, some of the u's are not transcribed properly. ]
Book review of Xun Yue (AD 148-209): Life and Reflections of an Early Medieval Confucian by Chen Chi-yun
vWritten by D. C. Lau
Xun Yue was a minor thinker in the latter half of the second century A.D. His life almost coincided with the last years of the Eastern Han. He has been a rather neglected figure, and students of Chinese history and thought should welcome this study by Dr. Chi-yun Chen who is a specialist not only on Xun Yue but also on Xun Shuang, an uncle of Xun Yue. Besides publishing 'Textual problems of Xun Yue's writings: the Hanchi and the Shen-chien' in 1968, Chen also published 'A Confucian magnate's idea of political violence: Xun Shuang's interpretation of the Book of changes ' in the same year.
The present study falls mainly into two parts. The first three chapters sketch the age in which Xun Yue lived while the next three chapters analyze Xun Yue's thought in his two works, the Han chi and the Shen chien, with the final chapter dealing with Xun Yue's influence in subsequent ages. The author's purpose can, perhaps, be described as twofold: first, to give Xun Yue’s thought a historical background and second, to use the changes in Xun Yue's thought as a clue to changes in his attitudes following changes in the historical situation. In general, the author is more successful in his first purpose than in the second. This is not surprising, as he is basically a historian by training and analysis of the subtleties of philosophical ideas is not really his strong point. There is a further difficulty. Too little is known of Xun Yue’s life so that any interpretation of the position he took is liable to be mainly conjectural.
Chen divides Xun Yue's life into four periods: (1) the period of eunuch power and the tang-ku persecutions ending in A.D. 184; (2) from the Yellow Turban rebellion in 184 to the 'restoration' of the Han court at Xu in 196; (3) from his official appointment at the newly restored Han court at Xu to the completion of the Han chi in 200; and (4) from the completion of the Han chi to his death in 209, during which period the Shen chien was completed and presented to the throne in 205. The author's thesis is also twofold: first, that Xun Yue, like many of his friends and relations, was a dissident in period (1) but turned loyalist in period (3); second, that Xun Yue's criticisms of the Han in his Han chi written in period (3) were in the ch'ing I tradition but these gave way to the ch'ing t'an discourses in the Shen chien in period (4). The first part of the thesis is highly conjectural as we know nothing about Xun Yue's life in period (1), except that ' he lived in retirement under the pretext of illness and was not known to people of the time ' (Hou Han shu, p. 2058). How can we be sure that he shared the views of dissidents? More important, surely being a dissident is not incompatible with being a loyalist. In a sense, it is because a critic is loyal to a ruling house that he is so critical of its shortcomings. Thus it would seem to be incorrect to describe Xun Yue as a dissident turned-loyalist. Equally, Chen's point that as the Han chi is an apology for Han rule any criticism in it must have been a hangover from Xun Yue's dissident days is open to the same objection. As to the transition from the ch'ing i type of criticisms to ch'ing t'an type of discourses, this may have been due chiefly to the difference in genre of the two works and not necessarily to a change in Xun Yue’s position. In a historical work like the Han chi it would hardly have been appropriate to insert discourses of a ch'ing t'an nature.
To revert to the analysis of thought. One of the disturbing features of Chen's work is his insensitivity to both the Chinese and the English languages. For instance, in discussing Legalism, the author says, ' Fa, or methods, man-made rules and law' (p. 149). Is there any evidence that the Legalists ever used the term fa to mean ‘methods’? Again, take the title Shen chien. It is rendered throughout as 'Extended Reflections', but in a discussion of the meaning of the words we find, 'The title Shen chien means "lengthening ", "extending ", or " reiterating " the chien (mirror, reflection, lessons of history) ' (p. 128). The author goes on to mention a work entitled Tien yin by Cai Yong and says, ' Tien refers to the canons and ordinances; yin means to extend and lengthen', and then simply concludes that Shen chien was synonymous with Tien yin. This gliding from meaning to meaning irrespective of whether they are connected or not is hair-raising. Xun Yue was very explicit about the meaning of his work. He says, 前鉴既明后复申之故古之圣王其於仁义也申重而已(SC 1.1a). By using 申 and 重as a compound, he leaves no doubt that 申 was to be understood as 'to reiterate '. Indeed, Chen understands this quite well, but it does not seem to have deterred him from using 'Extended Reflections' in general as the translated title. What would 'Extended Reflections' mean to the English reader? the first place, he is unlikely to take 'reflections' as 'mirror reflections ', but if he were told that that was the sense of the word, what is he to make of the title? Would he think of ' elongated images in the mirror'? As to the assertion that the title is synonymous with Tien yin this is totally unfounded as tien does not mean 'lesson' nor does yin mean 'reiterate.'
At times Chen's arguments can only be described as non sequitors. Here is a blatant example. In Xun Yue's biography in the Hou Han Shu, it is said that 'his family was poor and did not possess many books'. Chen tries to explain why there were so few books in the family by the unscholarly disposition of Xun Shu, his grandather, and says that this confirms a statement made earlier in Xun Shu's biography which mentioned that "Shu had no taste for the orthodox classical learning and was therefore looked down upon by the many conventional confucian scholars". On the same page, Chen refers once again to Xun Yue's grandfather as the "suncholarly Xun Shu." If we turn to the Hou Han Shu we find Xun Shu descibed as "widely learned, but was not fond of chapter and verse type of learning, and was much disapproved of by the vulgar Confucians... Outsanding men of the time of Li Ku and Li Ying all looked up to him as their teacher.' By omitting the phrase 'widely learned' and by not mentioning the respect Li Ying accorded him and, above all, by translating chang chu chih hsueh as 'orthodox classical learning,' Chen manages to give the impression that the Hou Han Shu actually considered Xun Shu unscholarly. But surely 'chapter and verse learning' is a cliche almost always contrasted with interest in the general meaning of the classics and not a few of the great scholars of the Han were so descirbed. By the same token such men would have to be considered 'unscholarly.' Again, if Xun Shuang were really unscholarly, would Li Yang have looked up to him as a teacher?
The book does not seem to have undergone a thorough revision before publication, as there are a considerable number of oversights. Here are some examples. Hou Han Shu is hyphenated Hou-Han Shu and translated as "History of the Later Han Dynasty" instead of Hou Han-shu "A continuation of the Han Shu." 'Grand unity' is said to be rendered as Ta'i t'ung when surely the ta in the original is a verb and not an adjective? Kai K'uan-jao should be Ko K'uan-jao. [List of other examples omitted] On page 88 we find 'follow the wise path of [the Han loyalists] Ch'en Ying and Wang Ling.' It is astonishing to find Ch'en Ying descibed as a Han loyalist as he refused to take on the leadership long before the appearance of the Han. On page 141 we find 'acknowledge and comprehend the changing lot' descibed as a 'recurrent injunction' of Xun Yue, but in fact the phrase i pien-shu tso t'ung, as far as I know, is found only once in the Shen Chien.
The romanization in the book is erratic to say the least. Kang-yu should be kang-jou. Yung should be Jung. Juan Chi on page 8 becomes Yuan Chi on page 9. Ho-nan yun should be Ho-nan yin. Chen should be Tsen on page 21-22. Feng Xu becomes Feng Shu on page 36. The syllable tsun in tsunchen does not exist in the wade-giles system. Shun i should be sun i. Finally there are two misprints. Kun-yang on page 153 should be kung-yang and comfotable on page 146 should, of course, be comfortable.
Although I have dwelt, perhaps unduly, on the shortcomings of the book, it is, nevertheless, a useful work for the student of Han history and thought and it is to be hoped that the author will take the first opportunity to give it a thorough revision.
Alone I lean under the wispy shade of an aged tree,
Scornfully I raise to parted lips a cup of warm wine,
Longingly I cast an empty vessel aside those exposed roots,
And leave behind forgotten memories and forsaken dreams.