Kitay_i_okrestnosti_Mifologia_folklor_literatura

contact between the two ministers. It informs of Yün's utterance concerning an event he interpreted as an omen of Hsüan-ti's forthcoming death (for its translation see below); it took place in a conversation between only three persons,Yün's words were addressed to Marquis of Fu-p'ing in the presence of Tai Ch'ang-lo. In both latter cases the tone of Yün's words seems to be confidential, nothing points to his enmity, mistrust or reserve with regard to Tai Ch'ang-lo. But at some time unknown to us it came to a "discord"31 between the two.

In 56 B.C. Tai Ch'ang-lo was denounced to have boasted that he "exercised in performing rites instead of the emperor [in the ancestral temple, while] Marquis (or Noble=/*ow) of Tu, [Chin Shang], was driving [his carriage]",32 which was defined as a thing "it is unfitting to say". "Saying things it is unfitting to say" was considered a crime "affecting the person of the Emperor", though "only occasion-

prompted by Yang Yün's instructions and in his turn submitted a memorial to the throne denuncing Yün's crimes.This denunciation consists of six Yün's utterances concerning the emperor, his officials and government mostly made in private conversations but once at least in the presence of a group of dignitaries (see above);Tai Ch'ang-lo appended his own comments to a half of the utterances.

According to his denunciation when the carriage of a marquis going at foil speed rushed into the northern side gate of the palace, Yün told Chang Yen-shou , Marquis of Fu-p'ing (cf. above), "As [I] have heard, when it formerly happened that a chariot going at foil speed ran against the palace gate, the bar of the gate was broken, the horses died, and the Emperor Chao passed away. Now it again happened like that; [it was brought about] by fate [ordained by] Heaven (t'ien shih)and not by human efforts". To use Yün's words, for this utterance he could be accused of a crime "[punishable by] exterminating the clan [of the culprit]".Again, Tai Ch'ang-lo informs that Yün submitted a memorial to the throne in order to have Eastern Supporter (tso-p 'ing-yï) Han Yen-shou cleared of a false charge, because of which the latter was sent to prison; being asked by a subordinate whether the convict will remain alive thanks to his intervention he answered, "Is it such an easy task? A straightforward man is not sure to survive; I cannot protect myself. [It is] exactly what people say about: 'A mouse fails to go into [its] hole since [it] is holding a tree fongus in [its] mouth'."According to the same

31 See Han shu, 66.4430. The word in quotes originates from Hsün Yüeh. Ch 'ien-Han-chi, 20.4a.

32Han shu, 66.4429. For Chin Shang see Loewe.^ Biographical Dictionary, 197.

33See Hulsewé. Remnants of Han Law,75, 169, 171 (# 7), 172 (# # 1, 2).

source "when Yün was looking up at persons portrayed on [the wall of] the Western Pavillion, [he] pointed at portraits of [kings] Chieh [of the Hsia] and Chou [of the Yin] and said to Wang Wu, Marquis (or Noble=Aow) of Lo-ch'ang, 'When the Son of Heaven was passing by here, [he] asked about their faults one after the other [in detail, so that he] could learn lessons therefrom (lit. take them as [his] teachers. — J.K.)'."Tai Ch'ang-lo comments, "[Among] persons portrayed [there] are Yao, Shun, Yü and T'ang, [however Yün] did not name [them] but mentioned Chieh and Chou."He also comments on Yün's opinion of the Ch'in dynasty and its officials (see pp. 5—6 above), writing, "Yün groundlessly quoted [the example of] a perished (or vanquished?) state in order to speak evil of and to criticize the present age; [he] failed to [observe] rites [proper to] a subject". As to Yün's prediction that Hsüan-ti "is sure not to reach Ho-tung" (see p. 7 above), Tai Ch'ang-lo interprets it as "deeming that the supreme ruler said [about his decision to reach it] in joke, [which is] especially refractory and contrary to principles [of Heaven]."34

Commandant of Justice (t'ing-wei) Yü Ting-kuo was given charge over the investigation of Yün's case; he "interrogated the witnesses; the proof was clear."35 Yün made an attempt to convey through his subordinate a warning to his relative-by-marriage Marquis of Fu-p'ing instructing the latter to deny having heard Yün's utterance on the episode with the carriage that Yün has interpreted as an omen portending Hsüan-ti's death. The subordinate refused to convey the warning and the whole story became known to Yü Ting-kuo. The latter reported

34 Han shu, 66.4429—4430; for Yün's opinion of his probable punishment for predicting the emperor's death see ibid ,4431; for Han Yen-shou see p. 7, n. 27 above; for Wang Wu see Loewe. A Biographical Dictionary, 150, 556. Han Yen-shou held the post of Eastern Supporter [Metropolitan Superintendent of the Left, in Loewe's translation] (tso-p'ing-yi) (see Bielenstein. The Bureaucracy, 87, 88; Loewe. A Biographical Dictionary, 765) and was publicly executed in 56 B.C.; Loewe points out that Yang Yün, who had previously been friendly with Han Yen-shou "played a part in the case against him" (ibid., 150). It is difficult to agree with this in view of the data adduced above; maybe Loewe was misled by the word sung that means here "to reject a false (or unjust) charge on behalf of another person "(cf. Han shu hsiian yi, 170)? If Yün would play a part in the case against his friend, his nephew would hardly illustrate Hsüan-ti's ingratitude to his loyal meritorious officials by the example of Han Yen-shou's execution, see p. 24 below. In my translation of Ch'ang-lo's comment on Yün's views on the Ch'in the mod. translation made by A.F..P. Hulsewé is included, cf. Hulsewé. Remnants of Han Law, 173 (# 3). It was believed the Son of Heaven should speak only in earnest and not in joke; the maxim was ascribed to the Duke (kung) of Chou ,cf. Lü-shih ch 'un-ch 'iu (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1936, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed.), Bk. 18,2.130, but deemed applicable under the Han as well, see Han shu, 93.5296.

35 Han shu, 66.4430; the translation is by A. F. P. Hulsewé (cf. his Remnants of Han Law, 74). For t'ing-wei see Bielenstein. The Bureaucracy, 38—39; for Yü Ting-kuo see Loewe. ABiographical

Dictionary, 659—660.

to the throne that Yün does not plead himself guilty, described his attempt to influence a wittness making him deny what he has really heard, and summed up, '"Yün was fortunate [enough] to be able to occupy his place in the rank of Nine Ministers [concurrently holding the additional supernumerary office of] Inspector of the Officials. [He was] a minister near [to the emperor at the head of] bodyguards who are on duty in the palace, one who was trusted and employed by the supreme [ruler; he] participated in [discussing] government matters. [However he] did not devote all [his] loyalty and love [to the emperor], did not fulfill [his] duty of a subject to the end, but groundlessly cherished a grudge, adduced [the example of a perished (or vanquished?) state], uttered slanderous and evil words, [which is] great refractoriness and impiety. [I] ask for permission to arrest and sentence him.' The supreme [ruler however] proved to be un[able] to endure inflicting capital punishment [upon two ministers near to him; he] issued an [imperial] edict, [according to which] both [Yang] Yün and [Tai] Ch'ang-lo were dismissed from [their posts and] made commoners."36

Let us discuss the date of their demotion. Both became ministers in the same year (from January/ February 61 to January /February 60 B.C.); both became commoners also in the same year, that is in 5 years' time after their appointment as ministers.37 The Han shu "Table for Hundred Officials, Excellencies and Ministers" often describes the period during which an official held a certain post but approximately: in particular, when it gives the number of years spent in the service, it often ignores the number of subsequent months that elapsed before the post was practically left.Thus the date "[in] 5 years' [time]" may point to some time in the 6th year after the appointment either in 56 B.C. or the first months of 55 B.C. Moreover according to the Han shu table of meritorious subjects Yün was enfeoffed in September — October 66 B.C. (cf. above) and "dismissed" from his post in 10 years' time, i. e. "in the 3rd year of the Wu-feng [period] owing to [his] crime of speaking evil of and criticizing the government when [he] was the Superintendent of the Imperial Household." Su Yü comments, "The [date 'in]10 years' [time]' corresponds to the 2nd (erh) year of the [period] Wu-feng (i.e. the space of time from February 56 to February 55 B.C. — J.K.). Character 'third'

36 Han shu, 66.4431. Cf. Hulsewé. Remnants of Han Law, 173, 175 (#4). The translation of yao о yen as "slanderous and evil words" was adopted by me from Hulsewé who however elsewhere translates yao yen "monstrous talk" (ibid., 175, 424); cf. Dubs. The History. Vol. I (Baltimore: Waverly Press, INC, 1938), 193 (and n. 2), 244. Yao yen was also rendered as "improper words", see T'ung-tsu Ch'ii. Han Social Structure. Ed. by Jack L. Dull (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1972. Han Dynasty China. Vol. I), 264, 264—265, n. 66, for the translation and analysis of the term.

31 Hanshu, \9B. 1257—1258.

(san) is a mistake. According to the 'Annals of Hsüan [the Filial]' [Yün's dismissal and demotion] also happened in the 2nd year."38

In Han shu annals referred to by Su Yü Pan Ku says, "In [the period] Wufeng,...the 2nd year,...in the 12th month the Marquis of P'ing-t'ung, Yang Yün, owing to having committed a crime when [he] previously was Superintendent of the Imperial Household, was dismissed [from his post] and made a commoner. [He] did not repent [for his fault] and cherished a grudge, [which is] great refractoriness and impiousness; [so he was executed by] being cut in two at the waist". The date under which this information is given corresponds to January/February 55 B.C. To the mind of Dubs, "The plain meaning of this passage is that Yang Yün was executed at this time."39 Moreover, somewhat less than 19 centuries before Dubs Hsün Yüeh wrote, "In [the period] Wu-feng,... the 2nd year, ...in the 12th month the Marquis of P'ing-t'ung, Yang Yün, owing to having cherished a grudge, [which is] impiousness,[was executed by] being cut in two at the waist."40 But does it really mean his execution took place in January/February 55 B.C., as was believed by Dubs and by some others41? At least two western scholars were of the opinion it is only the date of Yang Yün's having been deprived of his post and title.42Indeed in Han shu annals and tables it is twice stated that at that time Yang Yün was only dismissed (or dismissed and made a commoner) instead of having been executed. The same is said in his biography, where however no dates are given (see above). But it is also known therefrom that his actual execution was preceded by the period of his life when he was a commoner; it was then that he exchanged letters with his friend (see above). Hsün Yüeh knew it very well, too: he appended to his record informing that Yün was executed in January/February of 55 B.C. an abridged version of Yün's Han shu biography including some of the accusations from Tai Ch'ang-lo' denunciation, Yü Tingkuo's subsequent report to the throne and the sentence "The supreme [ruler]

38Han shu, 17.1003.

39Han shu, 8.276, 277 (a mod. translation by Dubs cited); Dubs. The History. Vol. II, 247, 248, 249 and n. 19.6.

proved to be un[able] to endure application of the law [to a minister near to him; he] dismissed [Yun] from [his post and] made [him] a commoner"(cf. Pan Ku's utterance above). Hsün Yüeh also described in a few words Yün's subsequent rural life, quoted from Yün's correspondence with his friend as well as from his conversation with his nephew where Yün criticized Hsüan-ti (cf. below), mentioned a new inquest of Yün's crimes and finally wrote, "The supreme [ruler] loathed (or: hated) and therefore executed Yün."43

It is clear that Hsün Yüeh never believed Yün was executed in the 12th mongth of the 2nd year of the Wu-feng period (=January/February 55 B.C.) and never concealed it from his reader; the same is true of Pan Ku, the author of Hsüan-ti's annals and Yün's biography. Why then did they date the execution of Yang Yün in such a misleading way? Maybe a historiographical digression would not be out of place here.

A historical event may develop in the course of more than a year or even of many years, which provides an annalist with various possibilities for choosing a year to which to append the entry dealing with it. His choice may be influenced not only by purely chronological motives, but by other ones as well, such as that of the subject of the chapter he is writing, of his ideology, bias, etc. In particular, in the biography of an individual he may choose the date for an event that permits him to illustrate thereby the character of the portrayed person; while in an account of the history of a region, where the policy initiated by this person was practiced, he may prefer to date the same event differently for the sake of giving all information at his disposal, including facts that took place after the death of the individual as well. To put it differently, in one chapter of his work he may choose a certain year under the influence of his intention to give the reader to understand whose actions have brought about the event in question, who is responsible for it; but in another chapter, i. e. in the context of a different subject, he may prefer to point out exactly when this event has come to an end. All this seems to be true of Pan Ku.

It was noticed out he has given two different dates for the falling of the Western Regions away from the empire, i. e. that of A.D. 16 in the "Biography of Wang Mang" and that of the period after Wang Mang's death in A.D. 23 in the "Memoir of the Western Regions."44Professor Hans Bielenstein who discovered this chronological discrepancy treated it in terms of "correct" or "not correct": "Pan Ku claims that henceforth (from A.D. 16. — J.K.) the Western Regions were cut off. This is not correct. He contradicts himself elsewhere in his history

43 Hsün Yüeh. Ch 'ien-Han-chi, 20.4a—5a.

"Hanshu, 99B.5762, 96B.5547.

312 Классическая литература

and states that the new protector-general of the Western Regions maintained himself in the Tarim Basin.. .The Western Regions were lost only during the civil war after Wang Mang's death, a fact which for historiographical reasons was projected back by Pan Ku into the reign of the 'usurper'."45 This implies that Pan Ku as a historian was capable of tendentiously falsifying facts. Bielenstein does not explain why two different dates of the severance of relations between the Western Regions and the empire appear in the Han shu, though giving two dates obviously contradicts an intention of misleading the reader as regards chronology (if the historian ever harboured it). He pays attention neither to the difference of contexts where the dates appear, of subjects of the two chapters, nor to the possibility that both dates may prove to be correct in spite of their discrepancy.

According to an alternative interpretation Pan Ku believed the severance of relations between Western Regions and the empire to have been a gradual process which began as a result of Wang Mang's foreign policy initiated in A.D. 9 and ended in the period after his death in A.D. 23. In the eyes of the historian A.D. 16 marked the decisive, though penultimate, stage of this process: as a result of Wang Mang's unfortunate punitive expedition to Central Asia a considerable part of Chinese positions there was lost, the presence of the empire in the Western Regions was reduced to a minimum, the backbone of its domination there was broken, for which Wang Mang was to blame. But the time when the last Chinese warrior left the Western Regions fell beyond the scope of Wang Mang's biography and could not be mentioned there, since this happened after his death. In order not to let Wang Mang shun the blame he deserved Pan Ku wrote in his biography under A.D. 16,"From this time on, the Western Regions severed [their relations with us]."46 But when he compiled the account of the Western Regions, his attention was concentrated on the history of this region and not on Wang Mang's personality and he preferred to date severance of these relations by pointing to its final stage marked with the end of the Chinese presence in the Western Regions. Having told of the punitive expedition of A.D. 16 and its sad consequences he added: "After some years [Wang] Mang died and in this con-

45 The Cambridge History of China. Volume I. The Ch 'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. —A.D..220, ed. by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 238; cf. Hans Bielenstein. "The Restoration of the Han Dynasty. Vol. III.The people", in Bulletin of the Museum of Far-Eastern Antiquities. Vol. 39 (1967), 97—98; China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: 135 B.C. —A.D. 23. An annotated translation of chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the FormerHan Dynasty by A. F. P. Hulsewé with an introduction by M.A.N. Loewe (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979),

195—197andn.7O3.

46 Han shu, 99B.5547; a mod. translation by Dubs cited, cf. Dubs. The History. Vol. Ill (Balti-

more: Waverly Press, Inc., 1955), 366.

nection [Li] Ch'ung, [ProtectorGeneral of the Western Regions], perished; therefore the Western Regions severed [their relations with us]."47

The punishment of Yang Yün seems to be another case of different dating of the same event in various contexts by Pan Ku. One of them is the context of Hsüan-ti's annals, another that of Yün's biography. This punishment can be regarded as having dragged on for a long time beginning with his dismissal and demotion to the status of a commoner and ending with his execution.

Evidently in the annals of Hsüan-ti both Pan Ku and Hsün Yüeh believed the date of the 12th month of the 2nd year of the Wu-feng period to be more important for the story of Yang Yün's punishment than the real date of his execution. There seem to be at least two reasons for that. To begin with, it is a date included by historiographers into an emperor's annals and therefore according to their point of view destined to characterize in the first place Hsüan-ti and not Yün. As to Hsüan-ti, the 12th month of the 2nd year of the Wu-feng period is a date marking royal mercy and for that reason appearing as its sign, since it was then that he treated Yün leniently and gave him a chance to improve himself. Even Yün in his letter seems (or at least wants to seem) to acknowledge it saying, "I humbly deem the mercy of the sage ruler is immeasurable."48 As to Yün, the date marks the beginning of his punishment (and not its lethal end) when he was given a chance that he never used; so it is important for his characteristic, too, emphasizing he was himself to blame for his subsequent execution. But does it mean Pan Ku approved of this execution? It seems to be highly doubtful. The historian made no direct statement concerning it but quoted the opinion of another emperor whose views he probably shared. He made it not in Hsüan-ti's annals but in those of his son Yüan-ti. According to Pan Ku the latter at the time of being heir-apparent "was mild and humane and liked Confucian scholars; [he] saw that among those employed by Hsüan-ti there were many officials [versed in] written laws and that [the emperor], resorting to [the method of comparing] performances [of the officials] with titles [of their offices] (hsing ming) (i. e. with definitions of their

47 Han shu, 96B. 5547; a mod. translation by Hulsewé cited, cf. China in Central Asia, 197. It cannot be excluded that the translated passage was written by Pan Piao (A.D. 3—54) and not by his son Pan Ku who, however, included it in his history thus having joined his father's point of view, cf. ibid., 197, п. 713. For details of the alternative interpretation see Yu. L. Krol'[=J. Kroll]." Otnosheniya imperiyi i syunnu glazami Ban Gu [Relations between the Empire and the Hsiung-nu as Seen by Pan Ku]", in Siranui i narodui Vostoka [Countries and Peoples of the East]. Vol. XXXII: The Far East. Bk. 4. Problems of geography and foreign policy in the "History of the Former Han Dynasty" by Pan Ku: research works and translations (Moscow: "Vostochnaya literatura [Oriental Literature]" Publishers, 2005), 289—290, 329—333.

48 Han shu, 66.4432.

functions. — J.K.), corrected [his] subordinates [like one who squares a piece of wood making it straight to such an extent that it] corresponds [to the line marked by] a carpenter's cord; [as a result] great ministers Yang Yün, Ke K'uan-jao and others were executed owing to having committed crimes [consisting in] biting critical utterances." Once heir-apparent made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade Hsüan-ti that he is too severe in applying laws and should employ Confucian masters in his administration; the emperor changed colour with rage and declined the advice saying with a sigh, "The one who will throw the dynasty into disorder is my heir-apparent!"49 Probably Pan Ku shared Yüan-ti's critical opinion. In any case it should be noted it is adduced in the annals of the latter and not in those of his father — the historian did not want to criticize Hsüan-ti in the annals devoted to him.

Let us, however, return to Yang Yün's biography. The main source from which we know, what happened to him after his arrest and during his subsequent life as a commoner, as well as what thoughts have occurred to him at the time, is his letter.50 One can infer from it he experienced a deep shock when he, his wife

49See Han shu, 9.287—288; cf. Dubs.77*e History. Vol. II, 299—301; Herrlee G. Creel. ShenPuhai. A Chinese Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), 270—276; for Ke K'uan-jao see Loewe. A Biographical Dictionary, 116; also p.7 above, p. 24 and n. 99 below.

50See Han shu, 66. 4431—4434; Wen hsiian by Hsiao Tung with Li Shan's commentary (Peking: Shang-wu yin-shu-kuan, 1959; Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts'ung-shu ed.), 41. 910—912. It was rendered into English by Professor Burton Watson, see Burton Watson.£ar/y Chinese Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 116—119. On the whole his translation is adequate, possesses doubtless literary qualities and gives a good idea of the contents of the original. But Watson's taste for making literary translations has influenced also this work of his. At times he prefers to re-tell rather than to translate the text somewhat simplifying or even "Westernalizing" it at that. He leaves it entirely without notes of textual criticism: e. g. in the text of the letter in Han shu,66.443l, the reading

mo erh hsi hu ("to lapse into silence and to stop [talking]?") appears while in that of Wen

hsiian,4l.9\Q, the reading mo erh tzu shou ("to lapse into silence and to keep to oneself) is present

(characters hsi hu make an impression of being the result of corruption of those of tzu shou: radicaltzu

is a component of the character hsi, while show and hu are graphically reminiscent of each other); Han s/ш, 66.4432, reads t'ung hsinping li ("to be of the same mind (=unanimous) and tojoin efforts with"), whereas Wenhsiian, 41.911, reads only ping li instead;Han shu, 66.4432, reads ts 'ao yii ("metwith") while Wen hsiian, 41.911, reads sui ts'ao ("therefore(or finally) [he] met with"); Han-shu, 66. 4432, reads ssu nien("to think") while Wen hsiian, 41.911, reads only nien, etc. Watson passes over these cases in silence. Again, he makes no attempt to identify citations "without quotes", i. e. wordcombinations borrowed by Yang Yün from earlier literature (mainly Lun yii, but some other texts as

well) without marking their provenance (see for them Li Shan's comments in Wen hsiian, 41. 910—

912) ; this is strange since he has provided with due references a couple of citations from Lun yü pre-

sented by Yang Yün as such. There are also errors and inexactitudes in the translation. For instance

Watson translates "possessing neither refinement nor native ability" (see his Early Chinese Literature,

116), while the text rather means that in Yang Yün's person "refined form {wen) and natural substance

and children were imprisoned. He felt himself beyond all hope of not losing his head and feared that even the "wiping out" of his clan together with him will prove to be insufficient to atone for his crime. The imperial mercy appears to have returned him to life and to revive his hopes. But he felt he must take a new way of life. To use his words, "When the superior man keeps in touch with [his] acquaintances, [he]'rejoices [in it] forgetting [his] sorrows thereby;'51when the mean man preserves [his] body intact, [he] is happy [at it] forgetting [his] crimes thereby. When [Yün] ventured to think about himself [he realized that his] fault is already [so] great and [his] conduct already [so] defective (?vicious?) that [he] will become a farmer for a long time(=for ever) and die in this capacity. For that reason [he] personally leads [his] wife and children, and [they] join52 efforts in plowing [fields] and [planting] mulberries, watering orchards and kitchengardens, managing [business for the sake of increasing] property; [they] pay in [taxes] to the state thereby." It should be noted he participated in cultivating the fields personally together with other members of his family and they had slaves at their disposal that evidently helped them (see below ).

Unfortunately Professor Watson left the words "managing [business for the sake of increasing] property" in the text cited above untranslated.53 However they

(chih) led to no [result]", a hint at his being not a "superior man" (chün-tzu) with whom both qualities should be "equally blended" (cf.Legge. Confucian Analects. Bk.VLCh. XVI, 190). He translates "But I deserved none of these [i.e. neither a post in the palace guard nor the title of marquis]" (Wat- son.Early Chinese Literature, 116); to my mind the text means "eventually [he] proved to be inadequate to his tasks (or official duties)". He translates "teaching me my shortcomings and how to correct them" (ibid., 116); the text literally means "instructing [him] in and urging upon [him] that which is unknown [to him]." He translates "to check myself (ibid., 117 ); I think the word combination means "to retire of one's own accord." He translates "met with unbridled accusations" (ibid., 117); in my opinion the text rather means "suffered guiltlessly (or undeservedly, lit. wrongly) [owing to] words of mouth [of a slanderer]." He translates "practices the Way" (ibid., 117); I believe the text should be rendered "to keep in touch with [one's] acquaintances." He translates "decided that it was best for me" (ibid., 117); to my mind it means "to become for a long time(=for ever)", "to live a long life as..." He translates, "Ting-an [the correct name of the commandery is An-ting. —J.K.] is a mountainous region, the old home of K'un-i barbarians, and its sons are greedy and uncouth. How can you hope to change the customs and habits of such people?" (ibid., 119); I am of the opinion the second part of the text means: "...and [the young people there — their] sons and younger brothers — are greedy and mean. Is it possible that [local] habits and customs change [the original nature of] the people [who have moved there from without, like you]?" For the Chinese original see Han shu, 66.4431—4434.

51A citation from Lunyü, cf. Legge. Confucian Analects. Bk. VII. Ch. XVIII. 2, 201.

52Lu ("to join") is written as in Wen hsüan, 41.911, and as in Han shu, 66.4432. Wang Hs'iench'ien has seen a copy of Han shu where lu is written in the same way as in Wen hsüan. He deems this

way of writing the character to be correct (see ibid.); however both lu characters interchanged.

53 Hanshu, 66.4432; cf. Watson. Early Han Literature, 117.

are meaningful since they point to another important aspect of Yang Yün's economic activities. As his letter says, "Yün is fortunate enough to have [savings] left over [from his] salary; just now [he] is buying grain at low prices and selling [it] at high prices, 'pursuing one-tenth profit'(cf. below) thereby." Pan Ku also writes in Yün's biography: "[After] Yün has already lost [his] rank of nobility [he] took up residence in [his] house and managed [business for the sake of increasing] property, set to [erecting] buildings and enjoyed his [life] thanks to his wealth."54At that time Yün was even warned against "managing [business for the sake of increasing] property, establishing friendly relations with guests and accepting praise" (see below). Obviously he has become a wealthy person behaving like a "superior man" who "keeps in touch with his acquaintances [and] 'rejoices [in it] forgetting [his] sorrows thereby'" (see above). Thus Yang Yün combined two economic occupations simultaneously, that of a farmer (the "basic" one) and that of a merchant (the "secondary" one). This was approved of neither by the Confucian tradition nor by the Han state, but was not a crime in the eyes of representatives of some other traditions of Han thought.55Among those who combined a tolerant attitude toward wealthy merchants with the idea that the rich "gained wealth by means of the secondary [occupation] and kept hold of it by means of the basic [one]" was Yün's grandfather Ssu-ma Ch'ien; Pan Ku even criticised him for that:"When [he] wrote (lit.transmitted) [the account of] money-makers, [he] honoured [those who possess] power and profit and shamed those who are of low standing and poverty-stricken."56 Yang Yün's image as presented in his letter is on several points reminiscent of that of one of the money-makers portrayed by Ssu-ma Ch'ien, namely Fan Li. There are two biographies of the latter in the Shih-chi, one in ch. 41, "The Hereditary House of Kou-chien, King (wang) of Yüeh", the other in ch. 129, "Biographies of Money-Makers."

According to ch.41 of the Shih-chi Fan Li was a minister of Kou-chien (ruled in 496—465 B.C.), who owing to the support of the former was enabled to crush

54 Han shu, 66.4432, 4431. A mod. translation of a passage of Yün's letter by Professor T'ung-tsu Ch'ü cited, cf. Ch'п.Нап Social Structure, 121. In the citation from Yün's biography we adopt theс/ш chia ("took up residence in [his] house") reading from Ch 'ien-Han-chi (Hsün Yüeh. Ch 'ien-Han-chi,

20.4b) instead of chia chü in Han shu, 66.4431; it seems to be preferable.

55See Huan' Kuan'. Spor о soli i zheleze (Yan' te lun') [Huan K'uan. Debate on Salt andiron

(Yen t'ieh lun)]. A Translation from the Chinese with Introduction, Notes and Supplements by Yu. L. КгоГ (=J.Kroll). Vol. I, ed. by L. P. Delyusin. Vol. II,ed. by B. L.Riftin (Moscow: "Vostochnaya lit- eratura [Oriental literature]" Publishers, 2001; Pamyatniki pis'mennosti Vostoka [Literary texts of the Orient] CXXV(l,2).Vol. I, 80—83, 135—136, 147, 212—213 (n. 86), 254 (n. 19, 21).Vol. II, 112, 433, n. 6.

56Shihchi, 129.43; Han shu, 62. 4273; cf. Waison.Ssu-ma Ch 'ien, 68.