白虎通義

Báihǔ tōngyì 白虎通義

Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall

by 班固 (Bān Gù, 32–92, Lántái lìngshǐ 蘭臺令史; redacted from the proceedings of the imperially-convened conference of 79 CE on the Five Classics)

About the work

The official redacted proceedings of the second great imperially-sponsored Hàn conference on the Five Classics (Wǔ jīng 五經), held in 79 CE in the Báihǔguān 白虎觀 (White Tiger Hall) at the court of Hàn Zhāngdì 漢章帝. The first such conference had been held in 51 BCE in the Shíqúgé 石渠閣 under Hàn Xuāndì 漢宣帝; the Báihǔ conference followed the same precedent. Selected scholars (Lóu Wàng 樓望, Chéng Fēng 成封, Huán Yù 桓郁, Jiǎ Kuí 賈逵, Dīng Hóng 丁鴻, Zhāng Pú 張酺, Zhào Bó 趙博, and others — about a dozen identifiable in the Hòu Hàn shū) submitted their views; the Wǔguān zhōnglángjiàng 五官中郎將 Wèi Yìng 魏應 conducted the questioning, the shìzhōng 侍中 Chúnyú Gōng 淳于恭 memorialised the conclusions to the throne, and the emperor personally adjudicated. The full proceedings were styled Báihǔ tōngdé lùn 白虎通德論 (“Comprehensive Discussion of Virtue from the White Tiger Hall”); Bān Gù was commanded by Zhāngdì to compile and edit them. The received text — variously titled Báihǔ tōng 白虎通, Báihǔ tōngyì 白虎通義, or Báihǔ tōngdé lùn — covers titles, names, the five sacrifices, ritual and music, the marquisate, the capital, the five phases, the three armies, punitive expeditions, remonstrance, archery, retirement, the bìyōng 辟雍 academy, calamities and changes, ploughing and sericulture, the fēngshàn sacrifices, royal progresses, evaluation of officials, those whom the king does not treat as subjects, milfoil and tortoise divination, sages, the eight winds, merchants, wénzhì 文質, the three governments, the three teachings, the three bonds and six relations, dispositions and natures, lifespan, the lineage, surnames and personal names, heaven and earth, sun and moon, the four seasons, garments, the five punishments, the Five Classics, marriage, the imperial cap and crown, mourning attire, and royal demise. Catalogued under Záxué zhī shǔ 雜學之屬 of the Zájiā 雜家 division.

The Kanripo recension is the Sìbù cóngkān 四部叢刊 (SBCK) printing, based on the Yuán Dàdé 大德 edition (bǐngzǐ 1305) collected from the family library of Liú Shìcháng 劉世常 by Zhāng Kǎi 張楷 of Dōngpíng 東平 — for centuries the only complete witness — to which the SKQS recension is also closely related. The work is in 10 sections (piān) but in 2 juan as catalogued here.

Tiyao

(The Kanripo source-file frontmatter is the SBCK preface of Zhāng Kǎi 張楷, dated Dàdé yǐyǐ 大德乙巳 [1305]. The SKQS tíyào below is supplied from the Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào via the Kyoto University Zinbun digital text.)

We respectfully submit that Báihǔ tōngyì in four juan was composed by Bān Gù of the Hàn. The Suí shū · Jīngjí zhì records Báihǔ tōng in six juan, with no compiler named. The Táng shū · Yìwén zhì records Báihǔ tōngyì in six juan, first attaching Bān Gù’s name. The Chóngwén zǒngmù 崇文總目 records Báihǔ tōngdé lùn in ten juan, comprising fourteen piān. Chén Zhènsūn’s Shūlù jiětí 書錄解題 also gives ten juan, with forty-four mén. The present recension was preserved in the Dàdé era [1297–1307] by Liú Shìcháng 劉世常; it has forty-four piān, agreeing with Chén Zhènsūn — confirming that the Chóngwén zǒngmù’s “fourteen piān” is a transcriptional dropping of one 四 (i.e., should read 四十四). But it survives in only four juan, differing from the catalogues. Zhū Yì’s 朱翌 Yījuéliáo zájì 猗覺寮雜記 says that the Xúnzǐ commentary cites a Báihǔ tōng passage of six lines on “the Son of Heaven’s six [-yoke] horses” not present in the current recension — so transmission has lost some material. But for Zhū to argue from this for forgery is not solid criticism.

According to the Hòu Hàn shū · Bān Gù běnzhuàn: “The Son of Heaven assembled the Confucian scholars to discuss the Five Classics and composed the Báihǔ tōngdé lùn; [Bān] Gù was ordered to compile the proceedings.” The Yáng Zhōng zhuàn 楊終傳 records that Yáng Zhōng said: “Hàn Xuāndì broadly summoned the various Confucians and settled the Five Classics in the Shíqú Pavilion. Now the realm is largely at peace and scholars can complete their studies, but the chapter-and-verse pedants are wrecking the substantive structure — let it be done as in the Shíqú precedent, in perpetuity for the world’s standard.” So the emperor commanded the Confucians to discuss differences and similarities at the Báihǔguān. Yáng Zhōng was at that point imprisoned for an offence; the bóshì Zhào Bó 趙博 and the jiàoshū láng 校書郎 Bān Gù, Jiǎ Kuí 賈逵 and others memorialised that Yáng Zhōng was deeply versed in Chūnqiū and broadly informed, and asked for him; he was released that very day on bail. The Dīng Hóng zhuàn 丁鴻傳 says that Sùzōng [Zhāngdì] commanded Hóng, the Prince of Guǎngpíng Xiàn 廣平王羨, and the Confucian scholars Lóu Wàng 樓望, Chéng Fēng 成封, Huán Yù 桓郁, Jiǎ Kuí, and others to argue out the similarities and differences of the Five Classics in the Běigōng Báihǔguān; the Wǔguān zhōnglángjiàng Wèi Yìng 魏應 was commissioned to lead the questioning, the shìzhōng Chúnyú Gōng 淳于恭 [actually Chúnyúgōng with surname Chúnyú] to memorialise, and the emperor personally judged. At that time also Zhāng Pú 張酺, Zhào Xùn 召馴, Lǐ Yù 李育 — all attended at the Báihǔguān. The Confucians whose names can be reconstructed thus number more than ten. Their submitted memorials were collectively named Báihǔ tōngdé lùn — not yet under the title Tōngyì. The Hòu Hàn shū · Rúlín zhuàn xù 儒林傳序 says: “in the Jiànchū era a great assembly of Confucians at the Báihǔguān discussed similarities and differences in detail; for several months it sat. Sùzōng personally took the chair, as in the Shíqú precedent. He commanded the historian to compose the Tōngyì.” The Táng prince Zhānghuái Tàizǐ Xián 章懷太子賢’s note: “viz. Báihǔ tōngyì.” This is enough to demonstrate that after [Bān] Gù compiled the proceedings, he then named the book Tōngyì. The Táng [shū] zhì’s record [of this title] is therefore the original name. The Chóngwén zǒngmù’s Báihǔ tōngdé lùn misses the actuality. The Suí zhì drops the yì character — it is the popular abridgement; hence the Táng’s Liú Zhījī 劉知幾, in the preface of Shǐ tōng, cites Báihǔ tōng and Fēngsú tōng together — in fact transmitting one after another, forgetting the original starting-point. The book cites — beyond the Six Classics and their zhuàn — the wěichèn 緯讖 prognosticatory texts; this is the customary practice of Eastern Hàn. There are also citations of the Wángdù jì 王度記, the Sānzhèng jì 三正記, the Biémíng jì 別名記, the Qīnshǔ jì 親屬記 — these are surviving yìpiān 逸篇 of the Lǐ. At the time the Hàn revered classical learning, all carefully kept their shīchéng 師承 transmissions; ancient meanings and old hearsay are largely preserved here. It is something the student of the Classics ought to take up. Our dynasty’s Rén Qǐyùn 任啟運 once sought to correct its omissions and composed Báihǔ tōng zhāié 白虎通擿譌, recorded in his preface to his own zhìyì 制藝 selections; his book is no longer extant, so the rights and wrongs of his criticisms cannot be checked.

Abstract

The Báihǔ tōngyì is the official redacted record of the second of the two great Hàn imperial conferences on the Five Classics — the Báihǔguān conference of 79 CE under Hàn Zhāngdì, parallel to the earlier Shíqúgé conference of 51 BCE under Hàn Xuāndì. The Hòu Hàn shū · Zhāngdì běnjì records that on guǐxū of the eleventh month of Jiànchū 4 (79), the emperor commanded the Confucians to assemble at the White Tiger Hall to discuss the Five Classics’ similarities and differences, with the Wǔguān zhōnglángjiàng Wèi Yìng 魏應 leading the questioning, the shìzhōng Chúnyú Gōng 淳于恭 memorialising, and the emperor personally adjudicating, “as in the XiàoXuān Gānlù Shíqú precedent.” The result was the Báihǔ zòuyì 白虎奏議, of which Bān Gù 班固 was commissioned by the throne to compile a redacted edition known as Báihǔ tōngdé lùn 白虎通德論 — abbreviated in transmission to Báihǔ tōng 白虎通 or Báihǔ tōngyì 白虎通義. The dating bracket adopted here (notBefore 79, notAfter 92) reflects the conference itself as the earliest possible date and Bān Gù’s death in 92 as the latest plausible terminus for his redaction.

The text is in form a comprehensive systematic treatment of Hàn Confucian doctrine on titles, ritual, ritual music, calamity, the yīnyáng wǔxíng 陰陽五行, ancestral cult, royal progresses, marriage, mourning, naming, kinship, sāngāng liùjì 三綱六紀 (the three bonds and six relations) — by far the fullest synthesis of Eastern Hàn classical jīngxué 經學 to survive. The work is heavily informed by the wěishū 緯書 prognosticatory tradition characteristic of Eastern Hàn imperial scholarship; the Sìkù editors note this not as a fault but as a historical witness to the doctrinal climate of the dynasty. It also preserves citations from the lost Wángdù jì, Sānzhèng jì, Biémíng jì, and Qīnshǔ jì — yìpiān 逸篇 of the Lǐ tradition not extant elsewhere.

The textual history is complex. The original was in 6 juan (per the Suí zhì and Táng zhì); the Chóngwén zǒngmù and Chén Zhènsūn record 10 juan in 44 mén. The Yuán Dàdé 大德 edition (1305) of Liú Shìcháng 劉世常 — which the SBCK reprints as the basis of the present Kanripo recension — preserves 44 piān in 4 juan; the SKQS catalogues it in 4 juan also. The Kanripo meta-catalog gives 2 juan, reflecting some intermediate edition’s juan-division. Modern scholarship treats the present recension as essentially Hàn in substance with later transmission losses (the lacuna noted by Zhū Yì in Yījuéliáo zájì) but no significant interpolation. The Sìkù editors’ tiyao explicitly defends the Hàn provenance against Zhū Yì’s forgery suspicion.

Modern reconstruction begins with Lú Wénchāo 盧文弨 (1717–1795)‘s Bàojīngtáng 抱經堂 edition with critical notes. The standard modern critical edition is Chén Lì’s 陳立 (1809–1869) Báihǔ tōng shūzhèng 白虎通疏證 (completed by his disciples and posthumously published; modern punctuated edition by Wú Zéyú 吳則虞, Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1994 — the indispensable scholarly base). The Hong Kong CHANT (Chinese Ancient Texts) database (ICS 21) provides a concordance.

English-language scholarship

The Báihǔ tōngyì is among the most studied Hàn texts in Western Sinology. The standard English translation and study is Tjan Tjoe Som 曾珠森 (1903–1969), Po Hu T’ung: The Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall, 2 vols (Brill, 1949; vol. 2 1952), based on his University of Leiden PhD dissertation of 1949. Wilkinson notes (§59.6.7) that Tjan’s introduction is “excellent” but that the translation is “unreliable.” It nevertheless remains the only complete European-language version after seventy-five years.

Translations and research

• Tjan Tjoe Som 曾珠森, Po Hu T’ung: The Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall, 2 vols (Brill, 1949–1952). Complete English translation with extensive introduction. Wilkinson §59.6.7: introduction excellent, translation unreliable.
• Shi Jian, “The Way to the White Tiger Hall Conference: Evidence Gleaned from the Formation Process of the Baihu tong,” Early China 45 (2022): 303–339. Critical reconstruction of the conference’s history.
• Michael Loewe, “Po hu t’ung,” in M. Loewe (ed.), Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide (SSEC, 1993), 347–356. Bibliographic entry of record.
• Chén Lì 陳立, Báihǔ tōng shūzhèng 白虎通疏證, ed. Wú Zéyú 吳則虞, 2 vols (Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1994). Indispensable critical edition.
• Lú Wénchāo 盧文弨, Bàojīng-táng jiào-běn Báihǔ tōng 抱經堂校本白虎通 (Qiánlóng era; repr. various). Foundational eighteenth-century recension.
• Hans van Ess, Politik und Gelehrsamkeit in der Zeit der Han: Die Alttext / Neutext-Kontroverse (Harrassowitz, 1993). German Habilitation; substantial treatment of the Báihǔ tōng in the context of Eastern Hàn classical politics.
• D. C. Lau (劉殿爵) and Chen Fong Ching (eds.), Baihu tong zhuzi suoyin 白虎通逐字索引, ICS Concordance Series no. 21 (Commercial Press, Hong Kong, 1995). Standard concordance.

Other points of interest

The Báihǔ tōngyì is the single most important systematic statement of state-sponsored Eastern Hàn Confucian doctrine and a critical source for Hàn cosmology, ritual, and political theory. It is also the locus classicus for the doctrine of the sāngāng liùjì 三綱六紀 (three bonds and six relations) which became the structural backbone of imperial Confucian ethics from the Hàn through the Qīng. Wilkinson notes (§16) that the Báihǔ tōng’s Xìngmíng 姓名 chapter (juan 9) is “the first surviving work to contain a chapter on names,” and that its discussion (1.16a–b) “Great deeds receive great [posthumous] names; small deeds receive small [posthumous] names. Deeds are done by oneself; the name is accorded by others” (大行受大名, 細行受小名, 行出於己, 名生於人) is the locus classicus of Hàn naming theory.

Links

• Sìkù quánshū zǒngmù tíyào 四庫全書總目提要, Zǐbù · Zájiā lèi, Báihǔ tōngyì entry (text via Kyoto Zinbun digital Sìkù tíyào http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/db-machine/ShikoTeiyo/0246802.html).
• Wikipedia: Bohu Tong; Wikidata: Q927793.
• CHANT ICS concordance no. 21.
• Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual (6th ed., 2022), §16, §59.6.7.