SOURCE: "Ch'ü Yüan Studies" in Silver Jubilee Volume of the Zinbun-Kagaku-Kenkyusyo, Kyoto: Kyoto University, 1954, pp. 192-223.

[In the following essay, Hightower contends that perceptions of Chu Yuan as hero, patriot, and Marxist revolutionary have encouraged hagiography over scholarship. He also assesses some specific works concerning Chu Yuan, particularly regarding attribution of particular poems in the Chu Yuan canon. Chinese characters have been edited out of the text.]

One of the most perplexing and crucial problems in Chinese literary history centers around the controversial figure of Ch'ü Yüan. To some he is China's greatest poet; to others he is a mythological figure. The poems associated with his name, coming after a three-century interval from which no poetry at all surives, mark the first great flowering of Chinese poetry after the anonymous Classic of Songs. The sao poetry credited to Ch'ü Yüan is in a form for which no literary antecedents have been discovered, and the bases of almost all subsequent verse forms in China have been traced back to the sao poems, if not always very convincingly. A major poet who was at the same time an innovator on such a scale is surely unique in world literature, and the interest in Ch'ü Yüan attested by the hundred-odd studies published during the past twenty-five years is certainly justified.

So much scholarly activity should have resulted in a basic core of accepted knowledge which might serve as the point of departure for the examination of issues still in doubt. That there is still no area of general agreement among competent scholars working in the field suggests that there may be something fundamentally amiss in either the technique of inquiry or the statement of the problems themselves. Anyone reading through the mass of published materials will be struck by another factor which may have contributed to the unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that is the appalling amount of repetition and duplication of effort. It is apparent that writers on Ch'ü Yüan and the Ch'u tz'u have too often ignored the work of other scholars which was already available in print.

There is generally a deplorable tendency among scholarly works written in China and dealing with literary topics to neglect earlier publications on the same subject. It has long seemed to me necessary that someone should assess the numerous works in the field, so that scholars might be in a position to build on the work of their predecessors and avoid the wasteful duplication of effort which has been the rule. Three years ago I received a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to undertake such a survey. It is still incomplete; in the meantime I should like to offer this as an installment on a work which I still feel to be necessary though considerably more formidable and less rewarding than I had anticipated.

Preliminary to reviewing the most important publications dealing with Ch'ü Yüan and the Ch'u tz'u, I want to re-examine the Ch'u Yuan problem and try to define the limits within which I think it can be effectively approached, so that I can make clear in advance my own bias in criticizing the work of others.

During the past two thousand years Ch'u Yuan has been perhaps the most written-about literary figure in Chinese history. The melancholy poet and frustrated bureaucrat has captured the imagination of Chinese readers ever since Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote his deeply felt and sympathetic biography.¹ Except for Confucius himself no one has enjoyed such emotionally charged esteem, and Ch'ü Yüan's rare detractors have fared badly at the hands of the majority. Even in modern times when iconoclasm has been something of a fad, the few expressions of skepticism about Ch'ü Yüan's existence have called forth volumes of indignant rebuttal. The Western reader of the poems attributed to Ch'u Yuan finds himself at a loss to account for all this zeal simply on literary grounds. There is no question of the great importance of these poems in literary history, but as poetry they are not the best in the form of which they are the earliest examples. The explanation of the exaggerated esteem for the poems is surely to be found in the figure of their putative author.²

Whatever his historical reality, Ch'ü Yüan has lived on as a Hero, the symbol of a role which in the course of Chinese history many men found forced upon them: the loyal minister whose integrity is slandered. The structure of the traditional Chinese monarchy was such that honesty and loyalty in a servant of the state was often a handicap in the contest for the favor of the ruler, when not even the holder of the highest post was secure against the slanders of a royal favorite. The Confucian code of ethics emphasized the duty of the individual to serve to the best of his ability; it provided little comfort to the man who in the performance of his duty suffered disgrace and punishment through the unscrupulous intrigue of his enemies and the caprice of his sovereign. The emotional appeal of the story of Ch'ü Yüan to anyone who might find himself in that position is understandable: here was a man whose abilities were exceptional and whose conduct was irreproachable, and yet he lost the confidence of his king on the false charge of a colleague. Ch'ü Yüan's judgment was vindicated by events, and his devotion to his ruler was proved by the supreme gesture of suicide. It was not that here was a model to emulate, but rather a telling demonstration of the price one might have to pay in following to the end a code of loyalty which made no comparable demands on the object of that loyalty. The Ch'ü Yüan story served another end than that of a warning and an excuse to those unwilling to accept the consequences of Ch'u Yuan's role. There were always some who could not avoid the role and who suffered the full weight of an injustice against which there was no appeal. Resentment of flagrant injustice is surely a basic human emotion, and the Ch'ü Yüan poems, read in the light of the Ch'ü Yüan story, present a powerful statement of resentment directed against a figure whom in contemporary life it was treasonable to resent. No wonder Ch'ü Yüan found sympathetic readers among the bureaucracy of the past.

The significance of Ch'ü Yüan in modern Chinese society is rather different, but the legend has proven complex enough to supply yet another symbol, of more contemporary concern, the patriot who sacrifices himself for the good of his country. For the Ch'ü Yüan story may be read as an example of a man who is devoted to the welfare, not of an individual ruler, but of a state engaged in a fight for its very existence. It has been easy in modem times to draw analogies between the plight of Ch'u, threatened by an aggressive Ch'in bent on expansion, and China faced by the predatory powers of the West. When in 1925 Wang Kuowei chose drowning as the way to end his life in protest against China's degradation, he was deliberately casting himself in the role of Ch'ü Yüan the patriot.

More recently, without losing his role as patriot, Ch'u Yuan has been reincarnated as a full-blown Marxist revolutionary, champion of the people's rights. One can hardly speak of a revival of interest in Ch'ü Yüan when he has never been neglected, but his elevation to the position of World Culture Hero is indicative of the esteem which he currently enjoys in China.

Whatever the variations in political background and emotional climate, the result is that studies of Ch'ü Yüan for the most part have been more in the nature of hagiography than scholarship. Such evidence as exists has seldom been examined dispassionately, and the conclusions arrived at reflect suspiciously the emotional or doctrinal commitments of their authors. I assume that the relevant data are familiar in their general outlines to my readers, but I should like to review some of them before presenting my own conclusions.

The materials for a study of Ch'ü Yüan are well known, accessible in translation,³ and are cited at the beginning of every book devoted to him. The basic source is the Shih chi biography which he shares with the Han writer Chia I. From it we learn that Ch'ü Yüan was a member of the royal family of Ch'u and that for a time he occupied a position of trust and responsibility in the government. He lost the king's favor when a jealous colleague accused him of boasting that he was indispensable. He wrote a poem called the "Li sao" to express his chagrin at the king's obtuseness. He was sent to the state of Ch'i. Sometime after his return he unsuccessfully tried to dissuade King Huai from going to meet the ruler of Ch'in. King Huai was captured and died in Ch'in; his successor, King Ch'ing-hsiang, banished Ch'u Yuan at the instigation of his enemies. Ch'U Yuan drowned himself in despair after writing another poem ("Huai sha," of which the text is quoted).

This meager information is contained in only twelve lines of the sixty-two lines of the Ch'ü Yüan section of the biography. An author's comment at the end supplies the titles of three further pieces attributed to Ch'u Yuan, but in terms of space allotted, King Huai, with fourteen lines, is more prominent than the ostensible subject of the biography. The balance is somewhat redressed if the six lines devoted to the obviously apocryphal interview with the philosophical fisherman are given to Ch'ü Yüan, though they do not add to our information about his life. The fact remains that a major character in the biography is the ignominious King Huai, who is repeatedly the dupe of Chang I, ideal type of Warring States politician, and the sycophant and venial Tzu-lan. King Huai's role is closely bound up with the fortunes of his state, which at the beginning of his reign was the chief obstacle in the way of Ch'in's expansion and at his death was fatally weakened by his repudiation of the alliance with Ch'i. Ssu-ma Ch'ien states explicitly what he thinks is the relevance of this incompetent ruler to the subject of his biography:⁴

[Ch'ü Yüan] was always thinking of King Huai.… and hoping that perchance his prince might one day come to his senses and society be reformed.…. but in the end it was hopeless.… Princes, wise or stupid, worthy or unworthy, all wish to get loyal men to act for them and to employ worthy men to assist them. The reason why states are lost and royal lines finished, why there is no succession of wise rulers, is because those they take to be loyal are not loyal, and those they take to be worthy are not worthy. Because King Huai could not recognize a loyal minister, he was misled at home by [the royal concubine] Hsiu of Cheng, and cheated abroad by Chang I. He dismissed Ch'ü P'ing and trusted the Great Officer Shang-kuan and the Prime Minister Tzu-lan. His armies were broken and his territory occupied; he lost six provinces and died a captive in Ch'in, the laughingstock of the world. This is the misfortune which comes of not knowing men. The I ching says, "It is a pity that the clear well water should go unused, when it might be drunk. When the King is wise all receive the benefit." What benefit is there from a king not wise?

The pattern of history which Ssu-ma Ch'ien is here pointing out was a familiar one to his readers: the last ruler of a state is led to his end by the advice of sycophants, while the Good Minister is slandered and destroyed; the fatal weakness of a ruler is not knowing whose advice to follow. The stories of Kings Chieh, Chou, and Fu-ch'ai are obvious examples. The pair of contrasted advisors is as necessary to a Last King as to a Founding King, whose helpers are respectively military and civil, or opportunist and moral. That the names of Ch'ü Yüan and Wu Tzu-hsü are sometimes confused is no accident:⁵ they share the same role of Good Minister to a Last King. I have called the pattern historical, as it probably was for Ssu-ma Ch'ien; primarily it is a ritual and legendary pattern, and eventually an artistic and literary one. It may be objected that King Huai was not a Last King, that there were four more rulers of Ch'u before it was finally destroyed by Ch'in. It is precisely this fact which gives point to Ssu-ma Ch'ien's sermon; he is anxious that his reader not miss the significance of Ch'ü Yüan's role. Looking back from the vantage point of Ssu-ma Ch'ien's time, it was not hard to see that King Huai's rule marked the real climax of the struggle for survival between Ch'u and Ch'in, that after his death Ch'u was no longer a possible contender for power. In that sense King Huai was the last of his line. In this biography, as in many others, Ssu-ma Ch'ien has given literary form to a tradition;⁶ he has created a legend. That is not to say that the tradition was without foundation in fact: there can be no reasonable doubt of the historicity of King Huai, and I for one am prepared to accept Ch'iU YUan; but what Ssu-ma Ch'ien tells us about them—all we know, in short—he has reduced to a pattern that is literary rather than historical.

There is even reason to believe that a legend existed about Ch'ü Yüan that did not get into Ssu-ma Ch'ien's account. The famous Dragon Boat Festival (on the fifth of the lunar month) has long been associated with Ch'U YUan's drowning. The association has usually been explained as an amalgamation of a popular festival and a genuine anniversary, analogous to the assimilation of pagan celebrations into the Church calendar. There is ample evidence that this particular festival was in honor of a water spirit, a dragon,⁷ and the widespread observance of a dragon festival as a commemoration of Ch'U YUan suggests that his place in popular mythology was less prosaic than Ssu-ma Ch'ien's biography would lead one to believe.

Ch'ü Yüan is interesting for more reasons than his role as a symbol. It is the poems in the Ch'u tz'u which have given the legend force and made it live: There have been other loyal and misjudged ministers whose names are known only to specialists in obscure periods of history. The Ch'ü Yüan legend permeates the Ch'u tz'u and gives the collection whatever unity it may possess.⁸ But which of the poems did Ch'ü Yüan write? Almost the only evidence is the testimony of the compiler of the anthology, Wang I⁹ who lived some five hundred years after Ch'ü Yüan's time. Ssu-ma Ch'ien listed five titles,¹⁰ and the Han shu "Essay on Bibliography" has an entry "Twenty-five fu by Ch'u YUan."¹¹ Nearly all modern writers on Ch'ü Yüan and the Ch'u tz'u have risen to the challenge to reconcile these data, each producing a different list of works, supported by more or less ingenious arguments in the absence of any definite information. For it has been a common assumption that if a Ch'ü Yüan canon could be established, it should be possible, on internal evidence, to put the poems in chronological sequence, and then to inflate Ssu-ma Ch'ien's meager biography into a full-blown psychological biography of Ch'ü Yüan the poet. That each biographer has created his own Ch'ü Yüan suggests that something is fundamentally wrong with the method. The temptation to supplement facts with speculation when confronted with an important writer about whom next to nothing is known would appear to be a general one; it is chastening to remember what Western scholars have done with the life of Shakespeare.

The Ch'u tz'u begins with the "Li sao." It is a long and not altogether lucid poem, written in the first person by someone who complains that he has lost the favor of his ruler through the slander of his enemies. The author asserts his moral superiority, his unshakeable refusal to compromise his principles, and finally the resolve, after many hesitations, to make a journey. So far the writer is easy to identify with Ch'ü Yüan, though there are none of the details of career that Ssu-ma Ch'ien provides us with. The journey turns out to be a flight through space and an excursion into the realms of mythology. It involves a search, and ends in disappointment and exhaustion. What is the object of the journey, and what is its nature? The poet twice says he is looking for a wife, but most of the mythological places he visits do not seem to hold any candidates. One suspects allegory, and the accepted interpretation is that Ch'ü Yüan is looking for a worthy ruler. Such a reading helps sustain the theme of the first part of the poem, and I think can be strongly defended by several unambiguous lines. But there is another possible interpretation. It was Henri Maspero¹² who, I believe, first pointed out the Taoist nature of the flight through space and who related the allegory to the poet's attempt—not quite successful—to achieve the emancipation of the mystic. Maspero's strongest argument for this reading was the obvious occurrence of the theme in "The Distant Wandering" (Yuan yu), a poem which so closely parallels the "Li sao."¹³

The significance of the flight through space theme is suggested by the Chuang tzu passage¹⁴ quoted by Maspero: "[The adept] mounts the cloud vapor, or rides on the sun or the moon, and wanders beyond the Four Seas." It is even more apparent in a passage from Han Fei tzu:¹⁵

Of old the Yellow Emperor assembled ghosts and spirits on top of Mt. T'ai in the West. He drove an ivory chariot drawn by six hornless dragons. Pifang (the Spirit of Fire) rode on the two linchpins; Ch'ih-yu occupied the van, Feng-po (Lord of the Wind) swept ahead; Yü-shih (the Rain Master) sprinkled the road. Before were wolves and tigers; behind, ghosts and spirits. Snake-subduers (dragons) hid on the ground; phoenixes made a cover above.

Compare the following "Li sao" lines:

For me were driven flying dragons,
 My chariot was made of jasper and ivory
(1. 169)

In front Wang-shu (Charioteer of the Moon)
   was my precursor,
   Behind Fei-lien (Lord of the Wind) was in
   charge of the rear.
Lüan birds and phoenixes were my vanguard,
 Lei-shih (Master of the Thunder) told me
 what was lacking
(11. 99-100)

I ordered Feng-lung (Master of the Clouds) to
  mount a cloud
   And seek out Mi-fei where she makes her
  abode
(1. 111)

The similarities between these two mythological excursions are unmistakable. On the other hand, they are in no detail identical, the same gods are differently named and differently disposed in the cortege. It is reasonable to suppose that the same theme is being used without direct influence between the two literary texts. In the Han Fei tzu context the significance of the passage is clear enough: the Yellow Emperor was making big magic. So too was Ch'ü Yüan. However, this parallel does not establish the purpose of the magic.

The clue to that purpose is to be found in the floral metaphors, the symbolical plants that clutter up the "Li sao." The commentators have been so busy following the vagaries of the political symbolism of the flowers that they have neglected to notice their practical virtues. Ts'ao P'ei, Emperor Wen of the Wei, casually offered a very helpful interpretation of the significance of Ch'ü Yüan's obsession with flowers (this in a letter to Chung Yu¹⁶):

[In autumn all other vegetation dies,] but the fragrant chrysanthemum blossoms in solitary splendor. How were this possible if it did not encompass the perfect balance of heaven and earth and embody the pure essence of fragrance? Hence Ch'ü P'ing, "pained at the inexorable approach of old age," thought to "eat the fallen petals of the autumn chrysanthemum"¹⁷ that he might strengthen his body and prolong his life. There is nothing more valuable than this, and so I am respectfully offering you a bunch to contribute to the technique of P'eng-tsu (i.e. longevity).

It may be objected that Ts'ao P'ei was in no better position to interpret the esoteric meaning of the "Li sao" than Wang I, who was sure that the plants symbolize worthy and unworthy men. But both could be right. The theme of misunderstood loyalty is as implicit in the poem as that of the search for Long Life. The former, being consistent with the Ch'u YUan legend—including the suicide by drowning—was acceptable to a commentator committed to reconciling the legend with the whole corpus of Ch'ü Yüan poems, while the latter obviously contradicted it.

The most satisfactory reading of the poem, it seems to me, is to accept the conflict between devotion to ruler and cultivation of self: this is the alternative repeatedly stated in the poem. So read, there is nothing in the Ch'ü Yüan biography that adds to its understanding; on the contrary, attempts to reconcile the two produce the utmost confusion, leading one interpreter to make the poem the work of Ch'ü Yüan's youth and another to place it in his old age; where one identifies the ruler with King Huai, another is sure it was Ch'ing-hsiang, and so through all the specious details provided by the biography.

The problem of the authorship of the remaining pieces in the Ch'u tz'u is one which has been solved in almost as many different ways as there are commentators. One point is worth making. In all the poems, with the exception of the "Heavenly Questions", the "Nine Hymns", and the "Distant Wandering", the Ch'u Yuan legend is clearly implicit, in marked contrast with the "Li sao" itself. Now in Wang I's text the "Li sao" is called the "Li sao ching"—the "Li sao Classic," and the Sung dynasty commentator Hung Hsing-tsu has a note that "in one edition every entry from the 'Nine Hymns' to the 'Nine Sad Thoughts' is followed by the word chuan." Chao Pu-chih's edition supplied the word after the titles beginning with the 'Nine Persuasions' of Sung YU.¹⁸ Now a chuan, among other things, is a commentary on a ching, classic. For someone—Wang I? Liu Hsiang?—the remaining pieces in the Ch'u tz'u were related to the "Li sao" as commentaries to a classic. (I am assuming that the restriction of the term chuan to titles not assigned to Ch'u Yuan was a rationalization by someone who did not understand its function, for such a procedure is reasonable enough, while the reverse process of extending it to titles traditionally by Ch'ü Yüan makes no sense. Anyhow, the term chuan has disappeared from all extant texts.)

In effect commentary is what the remainder of the Ch'u tz'u is, whatever the original concept of the unknown editor who supplied the word "commentary." Each of the pieces is either an elaboration in the first person of a theme in the "Li sao," from which phrases are repeatedly borrowed, or a verse essay on some part of the Ch'ü Yüan legend. Only the "Nine Hymns" is clearly an exception, and Wang I supplies an elaborate explanation of how the "Nine Hymns" may be read as expressions of Ch'U YUan's personal feelings. The "Distant Wandering" was certainly written by someone who knew the "Li sao," since several lines are repeated verbatim, though the legendary Ch'ü Yüan is absent; it further serves to elucidate the theme of the mystic's progress by isolating it from the political allegory. The "Heavenly Questions," after plodding along for 300-odd four-word lines of impersonal riddles on mythological subjects, suddenly ends in a burst of long sao-type lines dealing with Ch'u state history where the ubiquitous "I" of the "Li sao" turns up.

Some may feel that the problem of authorship remains as difficult as ever. For if Wang I's attributions to Ch'U YUan are not accepted, who wrote the early sao poems? I would say that anyone who is content with "Huai-nan hsiao-shan" as the author of the "Summons to the Hermit" or Ching Ch'a of the "Great Summons" or Sung Yü of the "Nine Persuasions" should not balk at complete anonymity for the authors of the others. For what do we know of these men? Only their names, or in the case of two of them, that they were "followers of Ch'ü Yüan." Granted that this is not a very satisfactory situation, nothing is gained by thinking that by the exercise of the imagination we are going to have access to facts which simply do not exist.

I have tried to state my opinions emphatically and categorically, for most of the works which I shall now briefly review are devoted to problems which I believe are either mis-stated or are based on a misconception of the nature of the evidence available. Nearly all of them attempt a detailed biographical account of Ch'U YUan, for substantial data drawing freely on the poems which Wang I, Ssu-ma Ch'ien or wishful thinking assign him. Most are ready to make definite statements about Ch'ü Yüan's mind, his aesthetics, his politics, and his religion. That so little space is devoted to questions of style, form, imagery—subjects for which the materials are adequate—is an index of the relative amount of interest in the poems themselves and in the complex legendary figure which they celebrate.

Hsieh Wu-liang's New Discussion of the Ch'u tz'u is the first of the modern books on the subject, though it is hardly longer than an article once the ten pages of "Li sao" text and the six pages of quoted criticism are discounted. He begins by developing his theory of northern and southern literatures. Northern poetry is represented by the Shih ching, southern begins with Ch'ü Yüan. The discussion of Ch'ü Yüan is introduced by an account of the unpublished theory of Liao P'ing,¹⁹ who held that Ch'ü Yüan never existed, and that the "Li sao" (and much of the Ch'u tz'u) was the work of Ch'in Shih-huang-ti. Mr. Hsieh has little trouble disposing of Liao's flimsy arguments, and politely refutes Hu Shih's suspicions.²⁰ Hsieh maintains that Ch'U YUan existed because (1) someone must have created the sao form; (2) given the political situation in Ch'u someone had to play the part assigned to Ch'U YUan; (3) there are lots of imitations of the "Li sao"; therefore someone must have written it.

The struggle for power between Ch'u and Ch'in provides the background for an understanding of Ch'ü Yüan's life, since Ch'ü Yüan was a supporter of the anti-Ch'in, pro-Ch'i group. The salient episodes are repeated from the Shih chi biography and illustrated by quotations from the poems.

The problem of the Ch'ü Yüan canon is presented by summarizing the views of earlier scholars, beginning with Wang I. Hsieh differs with Wang I by rejecting the "Nine Hymns," and by admitting that not all the "Nine Declarations" are necessarily genuine; at any rate they do not form a homogenous group. He follows Chu Hsi in assigning the "Great Summons" to Ching Ch'a, the alternative authorship suggested by Wang I.

The "New Explanation of the 'Li Sao"' (chapter 4) offers little that is new. It is not a detailed commentary, but consists in dividing the poem into seventeen sections, the gist of each being briefly summarized.

Chapter 5 deals with Ch'ü Yüan's thought and influence. Hsieh finds traces of all the main schools of Chinese thought in the poems, but two dominant ideas recur: patriotism and the supernatural. His influence, exerted through the Ch'u tz'u, extended to the Ch'u songs and ultimately inspired the creation of the Southern Drama (from the "Nine Hymns" and the "Dialog with a Fisherman").

Chapter 6 consists of quotations from critics and commentators.

This little book is distinguished by the tentative way in which Mr. Hsieh presents his guesses. The ching-chuan relationship between the "Li sao" and the other poems is adumbrated, but not developed. In this as throughout the book he has relied heavily on Chu Hsi.

Lu K'an-ju's Ch'ü Yüan and Sung Yü is an even slimmer volume. He postulates four ethnic groups in early China: Shang, Chou, Ch'in and Ch'u, each of which was represented by its own literature. That of Ch'u begins with the "Nine Hymns," popular sacrificial songs antedating Ch'ü Yüan and providing the inspiration for the sao form. Ch'u prose is represented by Lao tzu and Chuang tzu.

Ch'ü Yüan's life is recounted from the Shih chi and the paragraph in the Hsin hsü.²¹ The date of his birth is calculated from the "Li sao" to be 343 B.C., and the main events of his life are assigned approximate dates (he was about thirty when he wrote the "Li sao"). He died around the year 290 B.C.

Mr. Lu's treatment of the Ch'ü Yüan canon is more radical and shows the influence of Hu Shih's judgment. He has finally come to reject all but five pieces: the "Li sao" and four of the "Nine Declarations." For the rest of the Ch'u tz'u he accepts the attributions to Sung Yü and the minor Han dynasty authors. He does not think any of the pieces not in the Ch'u tz'u which bear Sung Yü's name are genuine; this on the basis of rhymes and following Liu Ta-pai.²²

Mr. Lu's book avoids some of the extravagances of later writers, but is a not altogether successful attempt to reconcile the extreme skepticism of Hu Shih with the traditional view of Ch'ü Yüan.²³

Kuo Mo-jo's Ch'ü Yüan Studies is a revised and enlarged version of his Ch'ü Yüan.²⁴ By 1952 thirteen thousand copies of this edition had been printed—an indication of the popularity of the author and his subject. One has come to expect of Kuo Mo-jo an unconventional point of view and controversial opinions presented with wit and supported by considerable erudition. Ch'ü Yüan Studies is no exception. In it he finds occasion to present his own theory of early Chinese society²⁵ as a background for understanding Ch'ü Yüan. Briefly he believes that the old Shang culture was continued in Ch'u, and that slavery was the economic basis of Chinese society until the time of Confucius. Even in Ch'ü Yüan's time the transition from slavery to feudalism was still in process.²⁶ The conflict between cultures and social structures is reflected in Ch'ü Yüan's life and writings. Where the Shang (and Ch'u) peoples were essentially religious and superstitious, the Chou were rationalistic and skeptical. Ch'ü Yüan used the mythological materials furnished by local beliefs, but he himself was a skeptic (witness the "Heavenly Questions")²⁷ much influenced by Confucian ideas;²⁸ he was altogether unaffected by native Taoist quietism. He was a champion of the people's rights (hence anti-slavery) but at the same time he was committed to the principle of a unified China under a humane (Confucian) government. The hopelessness of the situation in Ch'u led him finally to commit suicide. The evidence for all of this is ingenious but specious and sometimes perverse. Kuo's documentation for a widespread slave class in Chou China is chiefly from bronze inscriptions and seems convincing until he dogmatically asserts the phonological identity of the graphs (gliek), (liar), and (ngia) and says that once this general principle of the interchange of homophones is understood one is in a position to read old texts (p. 110).

When it comes to the Shih chi biography and Wang I's list of works, Kuo is extremely conservative. His only innovation is to move the date of the "Li sao" up to the time of Ch'ü Yüan's banishment (he was banished only once, according to Kuo, under King Ch'ing-hsiang), and so to make it a work of his old age.

Mr. Kuo's criticism of the poems is interesting. He finds that they represent a poetic revolution—the use of the colloquial language in poetry; "Ch'ü Yüan is the greatest revolutionary pai hua poet" (p. 68).

The book concludes with a translation into modern pai hua verse of the "Li sao," in which Mr. Kuo makes several brilliant suggestions, not all of them acceptable.

The value of Ch'ü Yüan Studies as social history I am in no position to judge, though I believe it to be highly controversial. Its value as literary history can be inferred from Mr. Kuo's acceptance of the "Yüeh song" quoted in Shuo yüan in the original Yüeh language and then translated into Ch'u (which turns out to be Chinese) as belonging to the fifth century B. C. because that is the date of the context of the story in which it occurs. At that rate the P'i pa chi would be an example of Han dynasty drama.

In The Art and Thought of Ch'ü Yüan Kuo Yin-t'ien treats his subject enthusiastically but uncritically, and his book suffers from his insistently figurative and intolerably prolix style. In recounting Ch'ü Yüan's career he covers the familiar ground, supplying a new set of dates: 343-278 B. C. He also draws up a genealogical table which traces each generation of Ch'ü Yüan's ancestry down from the quite mythical emperor (Kao-yang) mentioned in the first line of the "Li sao."

The second chapter, on the background of Ch'ü Yüan's poetry, is less original than Kuo Mo-jo's, but he reaches the same conclusion about the Confucian tendency of his thinking. Renouncing the contemplative life of the Taoists, Ch'ü Yüan preferred an active political career; hence his unwillingness to listen to the fisherman or to his sister.²⁹

Like Hsieh Wu-liang, Mr. Kuo follows Wang I as modified by Chu Hsi in deciding what poems to assign to Ch'ü Yüan, but not without extensive quotation and argument. He also devotes much space to the more relevant question of the possible antecedents of sao poetry, concluding that the Shih ching verses using the particle hsi could have supplied Ch'ü Yüan with a hint, though he avoided the rigidity of the shih form. He suggests that shih is a more appropriate term for the sao poems than tz'u or fu, since the sao are predominantly lyrical.

In examining Ch'ü Yüan's ideas he determines the metaphysical bases of his philosophy, namely a belief in God and a conviction of the ultimate supremacy of good over evil. Ch'ü Yüan's doubts about man in the world he finds expressed in the "Heavenly Questions."

Chapter five, on Ch'ü Yüan's art, is the only part of Mr. Kuo's book worth reading. It consists in a detailed comparison of the sao poems with the Shih ching and in addition to the obvious contrasts, makes a few interesting observations: the rhyming or alliterative binomes of the sao compared with the reduplicated modifiers of the Shih; the predominance of the imaginary in the sao, where the Shih deals with matters of common experience; the different treatment of ghosts and spirits. The promising subject of grammatical differences is most inadequately treated.

Yu Kuo-en has published more on Ch'ü Yüan and the Ch'u tz'u than any other scholar, and is probably the most thoroughly informed of all students of the subject. The results of his many articles are incorporated in the three volumes here under consideration, and there is unavoidably a good deal of repetition in the books themselves, covering as they do the same ground. I shall base my report of Mr. Yu's theories on the most recent of them, the Ch'ü Yüan, referring to the other two only occasionally. However, there is a wealth of detail in A General Discussion of the Ch 'u tz 'u and especially in Minor Problems of the Sao Poems which the serious student cannot afford to ignore.

In Ch'ü Yüan he begins with the expected refutation of Liao P'ing's heresy, and having demonstrated Ch'ü Yüan's historical existence, proceeds to a statement of his significance. He was more than just a paragon of purity, his poems more than an expression of resentment. Ch'u Yuan was not simply a poet, he was a statesman; his poetry was the by-product of his failure. He wrote, not to express his personal grievances, but to awaken his compatriots to their danger. In the same way his suicide was not a gesture of despair, but a "remonstrance after death."³⁰ He advocated a legalist government, like Wu Ch'i and the Lord of Shang, and like them incurred the enmity of the nobles. A man of principle, he preferred death to compromise. It was his sense of duty to his native state that kept him from seeking his fortunes elsewhere.³¹ These are the themes which are elaborated in the next six chapters.

Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to a detailed account of the wars of the Chan-kuo period, especially the relations between Ch'u, Ch'i, and Ch'in. The details supplied from the Chan-kuo ts'e and the Shih chi are probably for the most part fictional, but this is a lucid re-construction of a very confusing period.

Chapter 4 takes up the problems of Ch'ü Yüan's names, antecedents, and place of birth. Mr. Yu very sensibly refuses to try to draw up a genealogy of Ch'ü Yüan; he speculates inconclusively about Nu-hsu, and is inclined to accept K'uei-chou as his native town.

In Chapter 5 Ch'ü Yüan's political activities are considered, and the relative importance of the two positions he is said to have occupied. On very slight evidence Mr. Yu reaches some very definite conclusions: for instance, the episode of the slanderous charges by the Great Officer Shang-kuan was only a pretext for getting rid of Ch'ü Yüan because he advocated the unpopular policy of resistance to Ch'in.

Chapter 6 is a detailed study of the last years of Ch'üu Yüan's life, tracing his wanderings during his second banishment (Mr. Yu differs from Kuo Mo-jo in believing that Ch'ü Yüan was twice banished). For this chapter the chief source is the place-names in the several poems of the "Nine Declarations."

Ch'ü Yüan's philosophy is the subject of Chapter 7. Mr. Yu finds that he was eclectic, accepting elements from the Confucian, Taoist, Yinyang, and Legalist Schools.

The discussion of the Ch'ü Yüan canon in Chapter 8 is abridged from Yu 1927; he accepts the "Li sao," "Heavenly Questions," "Nine Declarations," "Distant Wandering" and "Summons to the Soul" as authentic. Like Kuo Mo-jo he believes the "Li sao" to be a work of Ch'ü Yüan's old age, after his second banishment; likewise the "Heavenly Questions," for which he rejects Wang I's explanation. The "Nine Declarations" he believes were originally separate poems written at different times; in this he is followed by most other modern critics (Chu Hsi was the first to suggest it). In accepting the "Distant Wandering" he is revising his earlier opinion; he fails to relate it in any way to the "Li sao." The chapter concludes with a criticism of the sao poems in which nothing new is added.

Chapter 9 follows the political history of Ch'u from Ch'ü Yüan's death to its final destruction by Ch'in, and Chapter 10 traces the literary influences of the Ch'u tz'u through the Ch'u Songs, with the conclusion that Ch'u state patriotism was kept alive through this medium. Hence the downfall of the Ch'in empire at the hands of Ch'u rebels was in large measure due to Ch'ü Yüan.

An appendix is devoted to the interesting subject of the feminine symbolism of the "Li sao." The profusion of flowers in the poem is attributable to the feminine role assumed by Ch'ü Yüan, whose position of dependence on the royal favor was analogous to that of a wife at the mercy of her husband's whim. More speculative is the implication that all Chinese love of poetry somehow derives from Ch'ü Yüan.

Mr. Yu's books suffer from the essential weakness of all such attempts to reconcile the contradictory data about Ch'ü Yüan and reduce them to a coherent narrative. His approach to specific problems is often scholarly, always informed, but highly uncritical of the data available. The volume Ch'ü Yüan should be the last of its kind, since it is hard to see how this particular approach can be further developed.

The identification of place names or possible place names mentioned in old Chinese texts has long been a favorite pastime of Chinese scholars: witness the amount of commentary inspired by the "Yü kung" chapter of the Shu ching. Not even obviously imaginary itineraries are exempt: there is a book devoted to the travels of the Emperor Mu, complete with maps, and there is always a commentator ready to give the precise location of the ingenious allegorical place-names invented by Chuang-tzu. Jao Tsung-i's Study of Placenames in the Ch'u tz'u is not unique; every biographer of Ch'ü Yüan has felt the need to establish an itinerary of his wanderings during his periods of banishment. It had been proposed by Ch'ien Mu³² that those wanderings were to the north of the Yangtze River; Mr. Jao devotes most of his book to refuting that proposal. He deals with the rivers and cities mentioned in the Ch'u tz'u, assembling a wealth of citations. There is an index which greatly enhances the usefulness of the book for the curious.

Ho T'ien-hsing reports in his preface the difficulties that delayed publication for over ten years of his book, That the Ch'u tz'u Was Written in Han Times. The hesitancy of publishers to print his manuscript is understandable, and not only because his thesis is an unpopular one. Mr. Ho rivals Liao P'ing in facility in reaching startling and quite unjustified conclusions, but his chief inspiration is the uncritical method of K'ang Yu-wei, from whom he also borrows the name of one of his villains, Liu Hsin, responsible for "no less than several thousand forgeries." However, Liu Hsin (and his father, Liu Hsiang) in this case did not actually write the Ch'u tz'u, they merely invented an author, Ch'ü Yüan. Their motive was very simple: an implacable hatred for the real author of the "Li sao," who was Liu An, Prince of Huai-nan. When Liu An was executed, Liu Te, Liu Hsiang's father, came into possession of the Prince's library. Misled by the treatises on alchemy which he found there, Liu Hsiang got support from the Emperor to conduct experiments. When he failed to produce the elixir, he was thrown into jail under sentence of death. He was pardoned and then devoted himself to discrediting the unfortunate poet whose library had nearly been his undoing. Having access to the Shih chi manuscript in the Imperial Archives, he was in a position to supplement it with a forged biography of Ch'ü Yüan, to whom he attributed the "Li sao" and other poems which really were by Liu An. Liu Hsiang's dislike of Liu An was passed on to his son and to his followers, Yang Hsiung, Wang Ch'ung, and Chang Hua, all of whom criticized Liu An as disloyal; hence their readiness to accept Ch'ü Yüan as the author of the "Li sao."

The evidence for this fairy tale is the statement in Hsun Yüeh's Ch'ien-Han chi³³ and Kao Yu's preface to Huai nan tzu that the Emperor Wu had Liu An write a "Li sao fu." …The context in all three texts calls for a display of literary skill rather than erudition, and the word fu seems to give the best sense, the easiest interpretation being "a fu in the 'Li sao' manner." But recalling the practice of referring to the "Li sao" as the "Li sao ching," and the use of the term chuan to refer to the other Ch'u tz'u pieces, a "Li sao chuan" could mean exactly the same thing as a "Li sao fu." In neither case is it necessary or reasonable to read into the text a statement that the "Li sao" was written by Liu An. The argument is not appreciably strengthened by the sixteen lines in the "Li sao" more or less paralleled by lines in the Huai nan tzu, since they could represent conscious borrowings on the part of the Han authors of that heterogenous work.

It is hardly worth while to refute in detail all the reasons adduced to support an argument based on a misconception.³⁴ Mr. Ho's attempt to rearrange familiar data into a new and significant pattern is vitiated by special pleading for a thesis even weaker than the one it strives to supplant. It is useful in challenging traditional assumptions, and the chapter dealing with the "Nine Hymns" is a positive contribution to that controversy. However, it has been anticipated by two articles published independently and adducing much the same evidence.³⁵ (Actually Mr. Ho's may have been written earlier, though he makes no mention of any other studies.)

Lin Keng's Studies of the Poet Ch'ü Yüan and His Works is a collection of essays published during the past ten years with an introductory "Biography of the people's poet Ch'ü Yüan" which reads as though written for the edification of the very young. In contrast to the other "studies" in this volume, the biography is dogmatic, scarcely documented, and shows the influence of Kuo Mo-jo: Ch'ü Yüan was a champion of the people's rights, a sworn enemy of feudal society, and a romantic poet who wrote in the colloquial language of his time. Mr. Lin derives his own chronology (7 January 335-295 B. C.) in Chapter 2, and has applied it in reconstructing the details of Ch'ü Yüan's life. Of all the biographies of the poet this one is the most persuasive. It is coherent and well written, the dating and circumstances of the poems sound convincing, but the whole is a product of Mr. Lin's imagination. The absence of contradictions in the narrative obscures the fact that there is no objective evidence whatever for the chronology, especially for the sequence of poems quite arbitrarily assigned to Ch'ü Yüan.

The third essay (written in 1948) is an effective reply to the assertion of Kuo Mo-jo, Wen I-to,³⁶ and Lin Keng himself (in Chapter 1) that Ch'ü Yüan was sympathetic toward the lot of the common people. This interpretation is based on several lines in the "Li sao" and the "Nine Declarations"… It is obvious from context that the word min is not "the common people," but "all people, humanity," so obvious that only the most determined effort to claim Ch'ü Yüan for an early Marxist could have prompted the misreading in the first place. The remainder of the essay argues that Ch'ü Yüan was no Confucian, nor a philosopher at all, though he shared with Mencius the insistence on inner rectitude and self-righteousness.

The fourth essay deals with interpolations in the "Li sao." Mr. Lin advances arguments based on internal consistency for expunging lines 136-149 and so eliminating the Shaman Hsien from the poem. The technique is one worth further refinement, especially in establishing what symbols are characteristic of the "Li sao" poet. However, in this instance Mr. Lin's conclusion cannot be accepted without reserve.

The fifth essay, in answering the question "Who was P'eng-hsien?" extricates from the "Li sao" a part of the Ch'ü Yüan legend (his drowning) which Wang I gratuitously supplied in his arbitrary identification of P'eng-hsien. Mr. Lin's equating P'eng-hsien with the Lao P'eng of the Analects³⁷ and the long-lived P'eng-tsu was anticipated by Yü Yüeh;³⁸ the important point is that for the "Li sao" poet, P'eng-hsien was an Immortal whom he wished to emulate.

The sixth essay is a brief note on the nature of the particle hsi in the Ch'u tz'u, contrasting its use there with its occurrence in the Classic of Songs. The conclusion, that in the Ch'u tz'u hsi serves to mark a caesura, not to convey an emotional nuance, is hardly worth a separate study. A more helpful suggestion is offered in the next essay on verse length in the Ch'u tz'u. Mr. Lin regards the sao line as derived from the prose of the period rather than a development of the Shih ching meter. Because of its prose antecendents, the sao line was irregular, and this irregularity necessitated the use of hsi to mark a hemistich, the end of each line being indicated by the rhyme word. Thus hsi functioned to change a long prose line into rhythmic verse. It is the key to the parallel constructions in the sao, and is characteristic of the derived flu form. This concept of the function of hsi complements nicely Wen I-to's theory of its nature, that it represents not a word or separate sound, but indicates that the preceding vowel sound is to be prolonged in recitation.³⁹ Observing that the "Nine Hymns," of all the Ch'u tz'u, use a verse form farthest from prose, and also revert to rhyme-schemes typical of the Shih ching, Mr. Lin concludes that they are late works of Ch'ü Yüan. On the basis of his study of sao verse types, he suggests an emendation of the opening lines of the "She chiang."

In the seventh essay Mr. Lin elaborates his views of the "Nine Hymns," without however adducing any convincing reasons for taking them to be the work of Ch'ü Yüan. He takes up four of the hymns in separate essays (11, 12 and 13), where he asserts that the "Kuo shang" was an application of the technique developed by Ch'ü Yüan in his "Summons to the Soul"; with the "Shan kuei" it is the earliest of the "Nine Hymns." The "Li hun" he places with the "Kuo shang" as its coda. He proposes to read the "Hsiang chün" and "Hsiang fu-jen" as a single poem in two parts.

The ninth essay takes up the problem of the place names in the "Summons to the Soul." Mr. Lin very sensibly rejects Wang I's facile identifications of places elsewhere unattested and suggests reasonable translations for several. Incidentally, the "Summons" is not addressed to Ch'ü Yüan's errant soul, but is a public and impersonal rite.

The tenth essay adduces reasons for believing that the "Chü sung" is the earliest of Ch'ü Yüan's poems, chiefly because it is his earlier statement that the sao was originally a modification of prose.

Essay fourteen is a defense of the "Heavenly Questions," in which Mr. Lin demonstrates some organization of the materials and proposes a couple of transpositions to conform to the principle he discovered.

These essays, along with those of Wen I-to, are the most important contribution to an understanding of the Ch'u tz'u. I do not agree with Mr. Lin's general attitude toward these poems and their authorship, but his insight into specific aspects is helpful as none of the other writers here reviewed.

Notes

¹Shih chi 84. (T'ung-wen ed.)

² An analogous situation is furnished by the even more exaggerated praise of the Classic of Songs, extolled by all traditional critics as the absolute standard of poetry, because of its supposed editorship by Confucius and its consequent canonical status. While modem scholarship has been able to detach the Songs from the legendary Confucian role, something of the traditional prestige attached to the collection has survived in current literary criticism.

³ James Legge, "The Li Sâo Poem and its author," JRAS, Jan. 1895, pp. 571-99. F.X. Biallas, "K'ü Yüan, his life and poems," JNCBRAS 59 (1928). 231-53; "K'ü Yüan's Fahrt in die Ferne," AM 4 (1927). 50-107.

⁴Shih chi 84.3b-4a.

⁵ Both Ch'ü Yüan and Wu Tzu-hsü are associated with the Dragon Boat Festival; cf. Wen I-to 1.9 (in the appended list). Granet (Danses et Légendes p. 82, note 1) long ago called attention to their sharing the water-suicide theme.

⁶ I suggest that the word chuan in lieh chuan has primarily that meaning. The difficulty of finding a suitable translation equivalent of the term is possibly because it was intended to describe the historian's attitude toward his materials rather than any supposed similarity of their subject matter. It has often been pointed out that the word "biography" covers only a majority of the lieh chuan chapters. But if we consider them as collections of materials handed down (ch 'uan) by tradition—oral or written—materials for which Ssu-ma Ch'ien may have been unwilling to give unqualified endorsement, their lack of homogeneity ceases to be relevant. Such an hypothesis helps explain the large number of fictional themes in the lieh chuan section; compare for example the biography of Wu Tzu-hsü with the sober account of him given in the shih chia devoted to the state of Wu (Shih chi 31).

⁷ Wen I-to (1.9, 1.10) has assembled the relevant materials, but his interpretation of them is in the euhemerizing and moralizing tradition of the early Chinese historians.

⁸ There is unity of form for most of the pieces, but the inclusion of the "Heavenly Questions", "Divining a Calling", and "The Fisherman" can only have been because of their association with the Ch'ü Yüan legend.

⁹ If Liu Hsiang was the first to assemble a Ch 'u tz'u anthology, none of his opinions on the authorship of the several pieces has survived.

¹⁰Shih chi 84.5a, 14b.

¹¹Han shu 30.30b.

¹²La Chine antique, pp. 602-4; cf. also Le taoisme (Melanges posthumes sur les religions et l 'histoire de la Chine II) pp. 203-4.

¹³ Maspero regarded "The Distant Wandering." as a late work by Ch'u Yuan. I do not believe that it is by the author of the "Li sao," though I can find no better reason than the verbatim repetition of several lines from that poem, and the not altogether rational point that in it the Ch'ui Yuan legend is absent. The "Yuian yu" is in my opinion a much finer poem than the "Li sao."

¹⁴Chuang tzu 1.40b (SPTK ed.)

¹⁵Han Fei tzu 3.3a (SPTK ed.) This passage is translated by B. Karlgren, "Legends and cults in ancient China," BMFEA (1946) 280.

¹⁶Ch'üan San-kuo wen 7.4a. This passage is cited in Ho (1947) p. 37.

¹⁷…The "Li sao" lines read

Inexorable the approach of old age:
   I fear I shall not have made an enduring
  name.
Mornings I sip the fallen dew off the peonies
   Evenings I eat the fallen petals of the
 autumn
        chrysanthemum.
(11. 32-3)

¹⁸ Chu Hsi (Ch'u-tz'u pien cheng 1.1a) furnishes this information.

¹⁹ Apparently it has remained unpublished. It is successively attacked by Lu K'an-ju, Yu Kuo-en, Kyo Yin-t'ien, and Kuo Mo-jo, all of whom refer back to Hsieh's version. Somewhat toned down it appeared in Liao's (Chengtu: Ts'un-ku Shu-chul, 1921) as "An interpretation of the Ch'u tz'u" (cited in Yu 1946, p. 2).

²⁰ Hu Shih doubted Ch'ü Yüan's existence on the grounds of inconsistencies in the Shih chi biography. For his much abused article see 2.2. Maspero (La Chine antique, p. 600, note 2) gave it short shrift; it was also refuted by Biallas, AM4 (1927). 71-78 (see note 3), as well as Yu Kuo-en, et al. Actually Mr. Hu's note—it is hardly more—includes some very acute observations, though the arguments with which he supports them are very vulnerable.

²¹Hsin hsü 7.10a-ll a. Liu Hsiang's edifying tales, though "traditional," are not acceptable sources of historical information even for the Han period.

²² Liu Ta-pai "The fu falsely attributed to Sung Yü".…

²³ Essentially the same material is used for the section on the Ch'u tz'u in Lu K'an-ju and Feng Yüan-chün, (A History of Chinese Poetry, 3 vols. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1931), 1.177-263.

²⁴ Shanghai: K'ai-ming Shu-tien, 1935. 122 pp.

²⁵ See his The Age of Slavery.

²⁶ This view is forcefully stated in Wen I-to's defense of Ch'ü Yüan's character in his "The problem of Ch'ü Yüan"; see 1.12.

²⁷ Mr. Kuo professes the highest esteem for the poetic merits of this catechism and insists that the questions are the expression of a skeptical attitude which is really scientific. This peculiar obsession is shared by Lin Keng (Lin 1952) and Honda Nariyuki (2.1).

²⁸ Mr. Kuo suggests (p. 136) that he may have been a pupil of Ch'en Liang (mentioned in Mencius 3A/4).

²⁹ Nü-hsü (cf. "Li sao", 65ff.). Her identity has intrigued all writers about Ch'ü Yüan. Kuo Mo-jo decided she was either a maid or possibly a star.

³⁰ Like the Recorder Yü; see Han-shih wai-chuan 7/ 21.

³¹ This point has bothered everyone from Ssu-ma Ch'ien on: why did Ch'ü Yüan not do like Confucius, Mencius and the peripatetic advisors and look for a more receptive prince in another state? I am tempted to enter the rather pointless controversy by calling attention to Mencius 5B/9:

The King Hsüan of Ch'i asked about high ministers. Mencius said.… "There are the high ministers who are noble and relatives [of the prince), and there are those of a different surname." The king said, "I beg to ask about the high ministers who are noble and relatives of the prince." Mencius answered, "If the prince have great faults, they ought to remonstrate with him, and if he do not listen to them after they have done so again and again, they ought to dethrone him."

The king on this looked moved, and changed countenance.… He then begged to ask about high ministers who were of a different surname. Mencius said, "When the prince has faults, they ought to remonstrate with him; and if he do not listen to them after they have done this again and again, they ought to leave [the state]." (Legge, Ch. Cl. 2.392-3).

Ch'ü Yüan, of course, was "noble and a relative of the prince."

³² His article is conveniently reprinted in an appendix. See 2.23.

³³Ch'ien-Han chi 12.10a (SPTK ed.).

³⁴ One shared by Chu Tung-jun (see 3.28). Kuo Mo - jo' s merciless treatment of his thesis would apply even more strongly to Ho T'ien-hsing.

³⁵ See 4.11, 4.14; also 2.34 and 4.19. For objections to this dating see 4.15 and Kuo Mo-jo, The Age of Slavery, p. 165.

³⁶ See 1.14 and 1.20.

³⁷Analects 7/1 (Legge, p. 195).

³⁸Tu Ch'u tz'u 24.1b-2a.…

³⁹ See 4.12.

Bibliography

I Books

The following eleven titles represent independent volumes dealing with Ch'ü Yüan or the Ch'u tz'u. Some are collections of essays published separately elsewhere. Translations and editions of the Ch'u tz'u have been omitted, as have works written before 1900.

Ch'u-tz'u hsin-lun (A New Discussion of the Ch'u tz'u). By Hsieh Wu-liang. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1933 (1923). 76 pp. (Hsieh 1923)

Ch'ü Yüan yü Sung Yü (Ch'ü Yüan and Sung Yü). By Lu K'an-ju. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1930. 60 pp. (Lu 1930)

Ch'ü Yüan yen-chiu (Studies on Ch'ü Yüan). By Kuo Mo-jo. Shanghai: Hsin-wen-i Ch'u-pan-she, 1942; fourth printing 1952. 192 pp. (Kuo 1942)

Ch'üi Yüan chih ssu-hsiang chi ch 'i i-shu (The Art and Thought of Ch'ü Yüan). By Kuo Yin-t'ien. Chungking: Tu-li Ch'u-pan-she, 1943. 295 pp. (Y. T. Kuo 1943)

Ch'u-tz'u ti-li k'ao (A Study of Place-names in the Ch'u tz'u). By Jao Tsung-i. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1946. 231 pp. (Jao 1946)

Ch'u-tz'u kai-lun (A General Discussion of the Ch'u tz'u). By Yu Kuo-en. Peking: Shu-hsüeh-she, 1927. 366 pp. (Yu 1927)

Tu sao lun wei, ch 'u chi (Minor Problems of the Sao Poems, first series). By Yu Kuo-en. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1937. 217 pp. (Yu 1937)

Soji (The Ch'u tz'u). By Hashikawa Tokio. T ky: Nippon Hy ronsha, 1943. 298 pp. (Hashikawa 1943)

Ch'ü Yüan. By Yu Kuo-en. Shanghai: Sheng-li Ch'u-pan kung-ssu, 1946. 221 pp. (Yu 1946)

Ch'u-tz'u tso yü Han-tai k'ao, (That the Ch'u tz'u was written in Han times). By Ho T'ien-hsing. Shanghai: Chung-hua Shu-chü, 1948. 118 pp. (Ho 1948)

Shih-jen Ch'ü Yüan chi ch'i tso-p'in yen-chiu (Studies of the Poet Ch'ü Yüan and his Works). By Lin Keng. Shanghai: T'ang-ti Ch'u-pan-she, 1952. 177 pp. (Lin 1952)

II Articles

This list of articles dealing with problems relating to the Ch'u tz'u was compiled for the most part at first hand. In the interest of completeness titles were added from published bibliographies. Such entries are seldom dated. Those which I have been unable to examine are marked with an asterisk. The articles are arranged in chronological sequence of publication under nine headings. Alphabetical lists of authors and abbreviations are appended.

1. Ch'ü Yüan

1.1 Hsieh Wu-liang, ("Ch'ü Yüan"), Ch. 1 in (Six Chinese Heroes of Literature), Shanghai: Chung-hua Shu-chü, 1916. 90 pp. Almost wholly a collection of texts. Any ideas of the author will be found in Hsieh 1923.

1.2 Ch'en Chieh-shih, ("Some minor discoveries about Ch'ü Yüan"), Wei shih 1 (May 1920), 7 pp.

1.3 Hu Huai-ch'en, Ch. 1 in (Eight Great Chinese Poets), Shanghai, The Commercial Press, 1925, pp. 1-11.

*1.4 Chou Erh-fu, ("Ch'ü Yüan studies"), KHPYK 3.8

* 1.5 Li Ling, ("Ch'ü Yüan and the 'Li sao"'), NTCK 137-8 (1931).

*1.6 Chi Shao-ju, ("Ch'ü Yüan"), CNWH 2.1

1.7 Liu Yung-chi, ("Six essays on Ch'ü Yüan"), WCCK 4.2 (1935). 259-89. Deals with Ch'u tz'u collections, the Ch'ü Yüan canon, Ch'ü Yüan's character, chronology of the poems, critics, appreciation.

1.8 Ch'en Chu. ("Notes on the Biography of Ch'ü Yüan and Chia I"), HSSC 1.7 (Dec. 1935). 125-7.

1.9 *Doi Teruo, ("My views on the expression ling-yün in the 'Li sao"'), Kangakkai 6. (1937). 113-28.

*1.10 Hashimoto Shun, ("Ch'ü Yüan and Liu Tsung-yüan") (Essays Commemorating the Thirty-fifth Anniversary of the Ritsumeikan University), pp. 163-8.

1.11 Chao Yin-t'ang, ("On Ch'ü Yüan's Works as edited by Kuo Lou-ping"), IWTC 2.9 (Sept. 1944). 33-37. Kuo's book was published in Shanghai in 1932 by the Pei-hsin Shu-chü. It consists of annotations on the "Li sao," "T'ien wen," and five of the "Chiu chang." The brief introduction attempts no defense of his choice of titles.

1.12 Wen I-to, ("problem of Ch'ü Yüan"), CY 2.2 (1944); reprinted in Works 1. 245-58.

*1.13 Fei-te-lin (Eidlin?), ("A study of the life and creative works of Ch'ü Yüan"), Part one translated by Ko Pao-ch'üan CY; Part two translated by Chang T'ieh-hsien, CKHS 1 (Aug. 1946). 53-73.

1.14 Wen I-to, ("The people's poet, Ch'ü Yüan"), Works (1948) 1. 259-61.

1.15 Wen I-to, ("A study of the Dragon Boat Festival"), Works 1. 221-38.

1.16 Wen I-to, ("The historical lesson of the Dragon Boat Festival"), Works 1. 239-43.

*1.17 Yu Kuo-en, ("On Ch'ü Yüan's art"), WHTC 2.12 (1948).

1.18 T'ao Kuang, ("The death of Ch'ü Yüan"), TLTC 1.8 (Oct. 1950).

1.19 Lin Keng, ("The admirable character of Ch'u Yuan and an explanation of the word min in the 'Li sao"'), WHTC 2.12. (1948); reprinted in Lin 1952.

*1.20 Ho Ch'ang-jung, ("Ch'ü Yüan's thought as it appears in his poems"), Hsin sheng 24.

1.21 Kuo Mo-jo, ("The people's poet, Ch'ü Yüan"), (The Age of Slavery), Shanghai, Hsin-wen-i ch'u-pan-she, 1952, pp. 150-8.

2. Ch'u tz'u

2.1 Liu Shih-p'ei, ("Collation notes on the Ch'u tz'u"), CKHP 2, 3, 4, 5 (1916), 19 pp.; KHTK2.1 (Mar. 1924). 97-110. Collected in his (Works), vol. 33.

2.1.1 Nishimura Tokio, ("On Ch'ü Yüan's poems"), Geimon 11.6 (June 1920). 437-45, 11.7 (July). 545-66, 11.8 (Aug.). 646-67, 11.9 (Sept.). 728-47.

2.2 Honda Nariyuki, ("On the ideas which appear in the Ch'u tz'u"), SG 2.2 (1921). 90-106.

2.3 Hu Shih, ("On the Ch'u tz'u"), Hu Shih wen ts'un, erh chi, 139-48. (1922).

*2.4 Feng Yüan-chün, ("Ancestors and descendants of the Ch'u tz'u"), KHYK 1.2 (1922)

*2.4.1 Liu Ta-pai, ("A brief discussion of the Ch'u tz'u"), LTCK 1.1 (1925).

2.5 Cheng Chen-to, ("Shih-ching and Ch'u tz'u"), HSYK 15.6 (1924). 29 pp. A chapter from his (An Outline of Literature), revised and expanded in the (History of Chinese Literature, 4 vols., 1932). 1.50-93.

2.6 I P'ei-chi, ("Supplementary collation notes on the Ch'u tz'u"), KHTK 1.1 (1923), 2.1 (Mar. 1924). 88-97.

2.7 Ch'en Chung-fan, ("On the authorship of the several poems in the Ch'u tz'u"), LSQ 1.4 (Dec. 1926) .579-96; 2.1 (Dec. 1927). 79-86. The same material is used in his (A General Account of Chinese Poetry), Shanghai: Chung-hua Shu-chü, 1927 (1930). 26-58.

2.8 Lu K'an-ju, ("Derivations from the Ch'u tz'u), KHLT 1.2 (Sept. 1927). 247-60. This material reappears with slight modifications in Lu 1930.

*2.9 "Ch'ing-pin," ("Differences between the Ch'u tz'u and the Shih ching"), Mang-ts'ang 2.1 (? 1927).

*2.10 Hsüan Chu, ("Ch'u tz'u and Chinese mythology"), WHCP 6.8

*2.11 Chu Wei-chih, ("Ch'u tz'u studies"), CNCP 82.

2.12 Yu Kuo-en, ("The origin of the Ch'u tz'u"), KHYP 1 (1928). 64-79.

2.13 Ho Li-ch'üan, ("Ch'u tz'u and literature"), CSYLCK 7.78 (24 Apr. 1929). 6-22.

*2. 14 Fan Wu, ("Collation notes on the Ch'u tz'u"), WHTK 1 (1929).

2. 15 Chu Pao-hsiung, ("On the 25 titles attributed to Ch'ü Yüan in the Han shu 'Essay on Bibliography'"), CHCK 34. 6 (6 Dec. 1930). 29-39.

2. 16 Yu Kuo-en, ("A study of the origins of Ch'ü Yüan's poems"), WCCK 1.3 (1930). 565-98; 747-80. Reprinted in Yu 1937.

*2. 17 Chou Kan-t'ing, ("Ch'u tz'u studies"), CTYK 1. 2, 4 (1930)

*2. 18 Chou Kan-t'ing, ("Rhymes in the Ch'u tz'u"), CTYK 1. 6 (1930); 2. 1 (1931).

2. 19 Lo Hung-k'ai, ("A study of the Ch'u vocabulary cited in Wang I's commentry on the Ch'u tz'u"), KHTK 1. 2 (May 1931). 17-20.

A similar list of "Ch'u words" is to be found in Kuo 1952, pp. 61-5.

*2. 20 Lin Yüan-han, ("Ch'u tz'u studies"), HTHS 2 (? 1931).

*2.21 Wang Chih-hsin, ("Ch'u tz'u studies"), NTCK 137, 138 (1931).

2. 22 Liu Yung-chi, ("Errors in Wang I's Ch'u-tz'u chang-chü"), WCCK 2. 3 (1933). 453-68; 811-30. Exegesis.

2. 23 Ch'ien Mu, ("On the place-names in the Ch'u tz'u"), Tsing-hua Journal 9. 3 (1934). 713-42. Reprinted in Jao 1946, pp. 160-99.

2. 24 Hoshikawa Seik, (Myth and legend in ancient China and the Ch'u tz'u"), Kangakkai 2. 1 (Apr. 1934). 63-85.

*2. 25 Li Ch'ang-chih, ("An hypothesis about the authentic works of Ch'Ü Yüan and their dates"), WHPL 1. 1 (1934).

*2. 26 Lu K'an-ju, ("Reply to Hu Shih's 'On the Ch'u tz'u'") TSTC 4 (? 1934).

*2. 27 Lo Shao-pin, ("On the principle governing the use of binomes in the Ch'u tz'u"), HNCK 8 (? 1934).

*2. 28 Li Chia-yen, ("The origins of the Ch'u tz'u), CHCK 39. 11, 12 (1935).

*2. 29 Kojima Kenkichi, ("On the Ch'u tz'u"), tr. by Li Ch'un-p'ing, Min tsu 3. 3 (1935).

2. 30 Wen I-to, ("Supplement to Liu Shih-p'ei's Collation notes on the Ch'u-tz'u), WCCK 5. 1 (1935). 79-98. Tsing Hua Journal 11. 4 (Oct. 1936). 915-950. Reprinted in Works 2. 353-495. For an appreciation see Chu Sun, ("Introducing Wen I-to's Collation Notes on the Ch'u-tz'u"), KWTC 2. 1 (July 1943). 30-3.

2. 31 Sait Goichi, ("Asami Keisai's views on the Ch'u tz'u"), Shibun 17. 11 (Nov. 1935). 31-7. A Tokugawa follower of Chu Hsi.

*2. 32 Li Hua-kua, ("On the Ch'u tz'u"), Chung hua 2. 2 (? 1935).

2. 33 Sait Goichi, ("A study of the differing contents of the various editions of the Ch'u tz'u"), Shibun 17. 3 (Mar. 1935). 31-41: 17. 7 (July 1935). 50-9.

*2. 34 Chu Tung-jun, ("Ch'ü Yüan's other poems than the Li sao"), HS 36. Criticized by Kuo Mo-jo in The Period of Slavery, pp. 165-70.

*2. 35 Chang Chao-feng, ("An explanation of the rules governing the use of the first personal pronoun in the twenty-five compositions of Ch'U YUian"), Li hsüeh 1. 2 (? 1935)

2. 36 Wen I-to, ("Postface to a fragment of an old ms. copy of the Ch'u tz'u Phonology from Tun-huang"), Literary Supplement to Ta kung pao 2 Apr. 1936; reprinted in Works 2. 497-505. Notes on variant readings preserved in this Sui dynasty work.

2. 37 Lo Hung-k'ai, ("Exegetical Notes on the Ch'u tz'u"), Chih-yen 19 (16 June 1936). 12 pp.

2. 38 Wang T'ien-shou, ("A table of the rhymes used in the poems of Ch'ü Yüan and Sung Yü"), HHHP 4 (1936). 103-110; 5 (1937). 27-39.

2. 39 Lo Hung-k'ai, ("An examination of the old commentaries on the Ch'u tz'u"), Chih yen 34 (1 Feb. 1937). 2 pp.

2. 40 Lo Hung-k'ai, ("Collected commentries on the Ch'u tz'u"), Chih-yen 34 (1 Feb. 1937), 2 pp.; 44 (1 July 1937), 37 pp.

2. 41 Lu K'an-ju, ("Supplementary remarks on the Ch'u tz'u"), WHNP 3 (1937). 75-8.

2. 42 Yu Kuo-en, ("That the Hsia calendar is used in the Ch'u tz'u"), WHTC 2. 3 (Aug. 1947). 38-47.

2. 43 Lu Chih-wei, ("An explanation of the rhymes in the Ch'u tz'u"), Yenching Journal 33 (1947). 95-104.

2. 44 Komai Kazuchika, ("Han mirror inscriptions and Ch'u tz'u literature"), Hinomoto 6. 4

3. Li sao

3. 1 Suzuki Torao, ("On the 'Li sao"'), 1907; reprinted in Shina bungaku kenky (1925). 387-428. Includes a translation of the poem.

3. 2 Liao P'ing, ("The principle of the 'Li sao"'), CKHP 3 (Mar. 1916), 1 p.

*3. 3 Hu Kuang-wei, ("Principles of the 'Li sao"'), KHTK 2. 4 (1924).

3. 4 Yu Kuo-en, ("'Li sao' studies"), KHYP 1 (1928). 89-102.

3. 5 Chang Ling-jui, ("The problem of the construction of the 'Li sao"'), CSYLCK 9. 98 (11 Sept. 1929). 23-30.

*3. 6 Hsiao Ping-kan, ("The art of the 'Li sao"'), YTYK 6. 1 (? 1929).

*3. 7 Fan Ch'ung-kao, ("On the 'Li sao"'), WHTK 1 (1929).

*3. 8 T'ang Ching-sheng, ("A study of the date of Ch'ü Yüan's 'Li sao"'), KHNK 1.

3. 9 Aoki Masaru, ("Desultory notes on the Li sao"), SG 2. 2 (Dec. 1921) 138-144. Reprinted in Shina bungaku rons (1927). 48-56.

3. 10 Hsiao Ti-fei, ("The use of simile in the 'Li sao"'), CHCK 35. 2 (7 Mar. 1931). 62-74.

3. 10. 1 Yu Kuo-en, ("An. explanation of the phrase hou hsin chü hai in the 'Li sao"'), WSTK 1.; reprinted in Yu 1937, 167-74.

*3. 11 Yang Kuan-chen, ("On the name 'Li sao"'), Chung hua 1.4 (? 1933).

*3. 12 Huang-wen, ("A comparison of variants in the editions of the 'Li sao' and the correction of some errors"), Tung wu 1. 1 (1933).

*3. 13 Ai Ch'i, ("My views on the 'Li sao"'), Wen Hsüeh 6, 7 (1933).

3. 14 Ch'ien Chi-po, ("A lecture on the 'Li sao"'), Ch'ing hao 3. 2 (1 Dec. 1934), 3. 3 (16 Dec. 1934). 7 PP.

*3. 15 Hsü Wei-shan, ("Doubts about the Nü-hsüi tradition"), Hsin Li 10, 11, 12.

3. 16 Hsu Ying, ("The real meaning of the 'Li sao"'), AHYK 2. 4 (Jan. 1935), 29 pp. Exegesis.

*3. 17 Wei Chung-fan, ("Significant divisions of the 'Li sao"'), HF 5 (1935).

3. 18 Wen I-to, ("Exegesis of the 'Li sao"'), Tsinghua Journal 11. 1 (1936); reprinted in Works 2.293-311.

3. 19 Hsü Fu, ("An explanation of the phrase tz'u lu shih in the 'Li sao"'), Chih yen 23 (16 Aug. 1936), 4 PP.

3. 20 Hsü Chia-jui, ("The structure of the 'Li sao"'), YYYWH 59 (2 Dec. 1947)

*3.20.1 Shen Hsiao-yü, ("A new study of the authorship of the 'Li sao"'), CJWH 3. 1

3. 21 Ch'en Ssu-ling, ("On the word yin in the 'Li sao"'), KWYK 58 (Aug. 1947). 8-9.

3. 22 Wen I-to, ("On Liao Chi-p'ing's theory of the 'Li sao"'), WHTC 2. 5 (Oct. 1947). 1-5; reprinted in Works 1.335-8.

3. 23 Ch'en Ssu-ling, ("The meaning of the term 'li sao"'), KWYK 65 (Mar. 1948). 15-17.

3. 24 Chang Huai-chin, ("An explanation of the word chiang in the 'Li sao"'), KWYK 72 (Oct. 1948). 24-26.

3. 25 Lin Keng, ("Who was P'eng-hsien?"), WIFH 1 (1948). 60-2. Reprinted in Lin 1952.

3. 26 K'uai Shu-p'ing, "Notes on the Li sao riddle," Studia Serica 8 (1949). 103-6.

*3. 27 Wang Chü-ch'ang, ("A study of the date of Ch'ü Yüan's Li sao"'), Ta-hsia 1. 1.

*3. 28 Chu Tung-jun, ("The authorship of the 'Li sao"'), HS 33. Criticized by Kuo Mo-jo in The Age of Slavery, pp. 159-64.

4. Chiu ko

4. 1 Suzuki Torao, ("Ch'ü Yüuan's 'Chiu ko"'), Shina bungaku kenky (1925). 429-45. A translation which emphasizes the dramatic character of the hymns.

4. 1. 1 Lu K'an-ju, ("What are the 'Chiu ko"'), KHYP 1 (1928). 79-89.

*4. 2 Ma Ch'i-ch'ang, ("On the 'Chiu ko"'), TSTC 2. 9 (1932)

4. 3 Ting Ti-hao, ("'Chiu ko' studies"), TSTC 2. 9 (1932)

*4. 4 Wang Ping-hun, ("On the three 'Nines' in the Ch'u tz'u"), KHPYK 2. 1 (? 1930).

*4. 5 Yang Kuan-chen, ("The authorship and period of the 'Chiu ko"'), Chung hua 1. 1 (? 1933).

*4. 6 Yang Kuan-chen, ("Vicissitudes of the 'Chiu ko"'), Chung hua 1. 2 (? 1933)

4. 7 Aoki Masaru, ("The dance-song structure of the 'Chiu ko"'), SG 7. 1 (May 1933). 1-23; reprinted in Shina bungaku rons 147-171; translated by Chi Yung in KWYK 72 (Oct. 1948). 18-23.

4. 8 Liu Yung-chi, ("A commentary on the 'Chiu ko"'), WCCK 4. 1 (1934). 61-100.

4. 9 Wang Fan, ("An investigation into the 'Chiu ko"'), AHYK 1. 6 (Apr. 1934), 12 pp.

4. 10 Sun Tso-yün, ("A study of 'The Mountain spirit,' one of the 'Chiu ko"'), Tsinghua Journal 11. 4 (Oct. 1936). 977-1006.

4. 10. 1 Hoshikawa Seik, ("The narrative element in the 'Chiu ko' and mythological tradition"), Kangakkai 5. 3 (Oct. 1937). 63-88

4. 11 Hsu Chung-shu, ("On the 'Chiu ko' and the 'Chiu pien"'), Studia Serica 1. 3 (Mar. 1941). 315-29.

4. 12 Wen I-to, ("How to read the 'Chiu ko"'), Works 1. 279-304 (1941).

4. 13 Wen I-to, ("What are the 'Chiu ko'?"), Works 1. 263-278 (1942).

4. 14 Sun K'ai-ti, ("That the 'Chiu ko' are song-words of the Han period"), Shanghai Ta kung pao 4 Dec. 1946, Wen-shih chou-k'an.

4. 15 Hsü Wen-yu, ("Some remarks on Sun K'ai-ti's article 'That the "Chiu ko" are song-words of the Han period"'), Tientsin Ta kung pao 5 Sept. 1947, Wen shih chou k'an.

4. 16 Li Chia-yen, ("The origin of the 'Chiu ko' and and the number of sections"), KWYK 58 (Aug. 1947). 5-8.

4. 17 Wen I-to, ("A new version of the 'Chiu ko"'), WHTC 2. 7 (Dec. 1947). 38-59; reprinted in Works 1. 305-34.

4. 18 Chiang Liang-fu, ("The meaning of the title 'Chiu ko"'), HY 2. 2 (June 1948). 65-69.

4. 19 Sun K'ai-ti, ("A further discussion of the thesis that the 'Chiu ko' are song-words of the Han period"), HY 2. 4 (Aug. 1948). 61-67.

4. 20 Wen I-to, ("On the 'Arbitor of Fate"'), Works 1. 139-142.

5. T'ien wen

5. 1 Yu Kuo-en, ("T'ien wen' studies"), KHYP 1 (1928). 102-12.

5. 2 Hsü Hsü-sheng, ("Resolving doubts about the 'T'ien wen"'), TSTC 4 (1934).

5. 3 Liu Yung-chi, ("A commentary on the 'T'ien wen"'), WCCK 3.2 (1934). 293-314; 605-24; 753-72.

5. 4 Wen I-to, ("The word t'ien in the 'T'ien wen"), Tsinghua Journal 9. 4 (1934). 873-96; reprinted in Works 2. 313-38.

5. 5 Chou Yüeh-jang, ("Additional commentary on the T'ien wen"'), Nanking Journal 10 (1940). 307-20. A first printing of a ms. by a late 19th-century scholar.

5. 6 Lin Keng, ("Difficulties of interpreting the 'T'ien wen' and a clue for editing the text"), WHTC 2. 10 (Mar. 1948). 5-17; reprinted in Lin 1952, pp. 151-165.

*5. 7 Fang Shih-ming, ("An interpretation of the phrase Wu huo ch'i ku in the 'T'ien wen"'), WSTC 6. 2 (May 1948). 45-9.

5. 8 Ku Chieh-kang, ("The 'T'ien wen"'), CSYLCK 11. 122 (12 Mar. 1930). 8-10.

*5. 9 Hoshikawa Seik, ("On the 'T'ien wen' section of the Ch'u tz'u"), Kangakkai 1. 2 (1933). 117-133.

6. Chiu chang

*6. 1 Fang Shu-lin, ("A discussion of the authepticity of the 'Chiu chang"'), CSYLCK 4. 43 (1928).

6. 2 Ting Ti-hao, ("The date of the 'Chü sung"'), Chin chan 2. 1 (Jan. 1933). 83-8.

6. 3 Hsü Heng-chih, ("On the authenticity of the 'Pei hui feng,' one of the 'Chiu chang"'), HF 3. 5 (June 1933). 11-14.

6. 4 Liu Yung-chi, ("A commentary on the 'Chiu chang"'), WCCK 5. 1 (1935). 49-78. Introduced by a general discussion.

*6. 5 Fang Shou-ch'u ("A study of the 'Chiu chang"'), HSTK 1 (1947). 15-31.

*6. 6 Wen I-to, ("Lexical notes on the 'Chiu chang"'), Tsinghua Journal 14. 2 (Aug. 1948).

6. 7 Lin Keng, (On the 'Chu sung"'), KWYK 72 (Oct. 1948). 27-29; reprinted in Lin 1952, pp. 123-31.

7. Chiu pien

7. 1 Liu Yung-chi, ("A commentary on the 'Chiu pien"'), WCCK 4. 4 (1935). 735-806.

7. 2 Hsu Chung-shu, "On the 'Chiu ko' and the 'Chiu pien"'; see 4. 11.

8. Ta chao

*8. 1 Fan Hsi-tseng, ("Against the theory that the 'Yüan yu' and 'Ta chao' are forgeries of the Latter Han period"), WCHP 3 (1923).

*8. 2 Lu K'an-ju, ("The problem of the authorship of the 'Ta chao,' 'Chao hun,' and 'Yuan yu'), TSTC 2(1934).

9. Chao hun

9. 1 Cheng Yüan, ("That the 'Chao hun' is not the work of Sung Yü") CKHP 9 (1913). 23-4.

9. 2 Suzuki Torao, ("The 'summons to the soul' as found in pre-Ch'in writing"), Shina bungaku kenky (1925). 446-55.

9. 3 Lu K'an-ju, "The problem of the authorship of the 'Ta chao,' 'Chao hun,' and 'Yüan yu"'; see 8. 2

9. 4 Chang Huai-chin, ("Popular practices illustrating the 'cages, nets, and cotton cloth mentioned in the 'Chao hun"'), KWYK 65 (Mar. 1948). 18-21.

10. Yüan yu

10. 1 Uejima Kazuo, ("On the Date of the 'Yüan yu' section of the Ch'u tz'u"), Kangakkai kaih 2. (1934). 77-88.