94
R. G. IRWIN
Ces trois historiens des MING sont particulièrement distingués à la Chine, & personne n'y révoque en doute les faits qu'ils rapportent; c'est sur leur réputation de fidélité & d'exactitude que le Père de Mailla les a adoptés de préférence aux autres. II a encore puisé dans un recueil de discours & instructions de HONG-VOU, fondateur des MING, que Chun-chi des TSING a fait traduire en tartare pour son usage particulier dans le gouvernement de son nouvel empire & pour l'instruction des grands de sa cour. Ce recueil est intitulé, Ming-kou-lou-hong-vou-han-y-oyong-tatsi-yen; c'est-à-dire, Documens importans de l'empereur HONG-VOU, de la dynastie des MING.
These authors and their works may well have been renowned at the time of de Mailla, but two centuries later their very identification presents a problem, the results of which are herewith summarized:
1. Ku Ying-t'ai (T. Keng-yü),3 who is credited with the authorship of Ming-ch'ao chi-shih pen-moa by the editors of the Ssu-k'u ch'üan-shu tsung-mu¤$£$#!' was a native of Feng-jun, Pei-Chihli. After taking the chin-shih degree in 1647 he held a secretaryship in the ministry of Revenue, and later in the Chekiang provincial board of education. The history, a work in 80 chüan, each devoted to a separate topic, carries a preface dated 1658.6 On the whole, it is a well-ordered record of the Ming period. Factual errors, which occur, for example, in connection with Chu Yün-wen, who reigned as Emperor Hui (1399-1402), and again with Chang Ma, better known as Empress I-an (consort of Chu Yu-chiao, emperor of the T'ien-ch'i period, 1621-27), are accounted for by the lack of any such standard source as the official history at the time of composition. But the Ssu-k'u editors are of the opinion that the author has handled the available material well.
Whether Ku should be given entire credit for its authorship is open to question, however, since it seems to have been based on Shih-kuei ts'ang-shu♬ §#*, for which he is reported to have paid Chang Tai of Shan-yin, Chekiang, some 500 pieces of gold. Fu I-li# » † (fl. 1862-74), in a colophon, discusses the problem at length, concluding that Chang Tai's material passed through the hands of Hsu Ch'ao-li, who re-wrote it. Ku, in turn, re-worked this, and cannot be accused of out and out plagiarism.
94
R. G. IRWIN
Ces trois historiens des MING sont particulièrement distingués à la Chine, & personne n'y révoque en dout les faits qu'ils rapportent; c'est sur leur réputation de fidélité & d'exactitude que le Père de Mailla les a adoptés de préférence aux autres. II a encore puisé dans un recueil de discours & instructions de HONG-VOU, fondateur des MING, que Chun-chi des TSING a fait traduire en tartare pour son usage particulier dans le gou- vernement de son nouvel empire & pour l'instruction des grands de sa cour. Ce recueil est intitulé, Ming-kouron-hong-vou-han- y-oyongo Tatsi-yen; c'est-à-dire, Documens importans de l'em- pereur HONG-VOU, de la dynastie des MING.
These authors and their works may well have been renowned at the time of de Mailla, but two centuries later their very identi fication presents a problem, the results of which are herewith sum- marized:
1. Ku Ying-t'ai ✯✯(T. Keng-yü Д),3 who is credited with the authorship of Ming-ch'ao chi-shih pen-mo¥‡a by the editors of the Ssu-k'u ch'üan-shu tsung-mu¤$£$#!' was a native of Feng-jun, Pei-Chibli. After taking the chin-shih degree in 1647 he held a secretaryship in the ministry of Revenue, and later in the Chekiang provincial board of education. The history, a work in 80 chữan, each devoted to a separate topic, carries a preface dated 1658,6 On the whole, it is a well-ordered record of the Ming period. Factual errors, which occur, for example, in con- nection with Chu Yün-wen ★★★, who reigned as Emperor Hui ✯✯ (1399-1402), and again with Chang Ma, better known as Empress I-an (consort of Chu Yu-chiao, emperor of the T'ien-ch'i period, 1621-27), are accounted for by the lack of any such standard source as the official history at the time of composi- tion. But the Ssu-k'u editors are of the opinion that the author has handled the available material well.
*
Whether Ku should be given entire credit for its authorship is open to question, however, since it seems to have been based on Shih-kuei ts'ang-shu ♬ §#*, for which he is reported to have paid Chang Tai ✩ of Shan-yin, Chekiang, some 500 pieces of gold. Fu l-li # » † (fl. 1862-74), in a colophon, discusses the problem at length, concluding that Chang Tai's material passed through the hands of Hsu Choi, who re-wrote it. Ku, in turn, re-worked this, and cannot be accused of out and out plagiarism.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.