Page:Eminent Chinese Of The Ch’ing Period - Hummel - 1943 - Vol. 2.pdf/373

 But Tuan, being an experienced research scholar in historical phonology and classical studies, did not rule out in this letter the possibility that both authors may have arrived independently at similar or even identical solutions. He merely urged Liang to inform him, and the public, of the truth of this matter.

Liang's reply has not come down to us. But five years later, in 1814, Tuan Yü-ts'ai, then seventy-nine years old, published a chronological biography, or nien-p'u, of Tai Chên in which he restates the case very fairly. He remarks first on the friendship that existed between Chao I-ch'ing and Ch'üan Tsu-wang; on their close co-operation and actual sharing of their findings about the Shui-ching chu; then states that their researches had, in numerous instances, resulted in solutions very similar to those reached independently by Tai Chên; and finally concludes that there was here a notable instance of two men of profound learning who, without knowledge of each other's investigations, nevertheless obtained almost identical results in the same field.

Toward the end of his statement, however, Tuan goes on to say, "Moreover, Mr. Chao's work was edited by Mr. Liang Li-shêng before it was printed. At some points where Chao's text was found to be incorrect, the Tai text was used to make the corrections. Therefore, the two texts rarely differ on essential matters."

My own belief is that these remarks were prompted by Liang Yü-shêng's reply which unfortunately was never published. The mention of Liang's deceased brother—and not the two of them—as having done the editing, seems to indicate that Tuan had been so informed by the surviving brother. Tuan Yü-ts'ai died in 1815, the year after his publication of the above-mentioned chronological biography. Liang Yü-shêng lived till 1819; if he had been dissatisfied with Tuan's statements, he had ample time to refute them during the five years after their publication.

We may therefore conclude that, after he had been correctly informed of the facts, as these were known to Liang Yü-shêng, Tuan was willing to abide by the twofold conclusion: that the similarity between the two texts of Chao and Tai was a case of independent investigators having reached the same results, and that Liang, Li-shêng, and not his brother, had used Tai's text in correcting some of Chao's errors.

After six months' study of this historic controversy, I have come to essentially the same conclusion. In justice to the work done by Chao I-ch'ing, I must repeat that the corrections made by Liang Li-shêng are all of a minor character for they had to be effected within the strict limits set by the format of the originial wood blocks. A careful comparison of the printed text of Chao's work with the manuscript copy of it in the Ssŭ-k'u ch'üan-shu establishes beyond doubt that no changes were made in the textual corrections that concern the separation of the original Book from the later Commentary—even in those few places where Tai and Chao radically differ.

The text of a letter which Ch'üan Tsu-wang wrote originally to Shih T'ing-shu 施廷樞 (1714–1758) in Hangchow, announcing to his two fellow-workers, Shih and Chao, his great discovery of the textual confusions, is now preserved in the First Series of Ch'üan's Chi-ch'i t'ing chi (chüan 34, item 11, see I, ), first printed in 1804. In this letter Ch'üan merely remarked on his successful re-ordering of seven paragraphs in chüan seven of the Shui-ching chu. When a copy of it reached Chao in Peking, so inspired was he by Ch'üan's suggestion that though he was working on the same text 3,000 li away, he achieved results "exactly similar" to those of his friend.