On Yuan Dynasty 'newspapers': The existence of 'dibao' and 'guanbao' reexamined

On Yuan Dynasty 'Newspapers': The Existence of 'Dibao' �� and'Guanbao' �� Reexamined

Li Man

Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, Volume 42, 2012, pp. 343-374 (Article)

Published by The Society for Song, Yuan, and Conquest Dynasty Studies

DOI: 10.1353/sys.2013.0000

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Universiteit Gent (2 Dec 2013 07:47 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sys/summary/v042/42.man.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sys/summary/v042/42.man.html

Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 42 (2012)

O n Y u a n D y n a s t y ‘ N e w s pa p e r s ’ :

T h e e x i s t e n c e o f ‘ D i b a o ’ 邸報 a n d

‘ G u a n b a o ’ 官報 r e e x a m i n e d

Li Man g h e n t u n i v e r s i t y

The question as to whether or not ‘newspapers’ (報紙) existed in the Yuan Dynasty has been debated generally by scholars in the field of Chinese communication history, but particularly by those interested in Chinese jour-nalism and publication history. With it not as yet being settled definitely, this problem is worth a further review and discussion. Given that in the dynasties prior to and posterior to the Yuan (Song 宋 and Ming 明, respectively) the existence of different types of ‘newspapers’ is well attested, the real question is whether the Yuan Dynasty forms an exception. This article first analyses prior scholarship and then moves on to query Yuan sources. In it, a traditional philological approach is combined with an analytical approach of the concepts ‘Dibao’ and ‘Guanbao’. This article first argues that ‘Dibao’ did not exist in the Yuan dynasty; secondly, that ‘Dibao’ actually were one type of ‘Guanbao’; and thirdly that, although the absence of ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan is a fact, other forms of ‘Guanbao’ may have existed, i.e. as will be shown in the last part of this article, at least one form called ‘Chumu’ existed. As scholars in the past have used the term ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) as a generic word referring to ‘newspapers’ (baozhi 報紙), the question as to whether or not a ‘Court Bulletin’ existed in the Yuan Dynasty has come to rephrase the question as whether or not ‘newspapers’ existed in Yuan China. In the past, two important pieces of evidence have been used to support the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan and those scholars who deny the existence of a Yuan ‘Court Bulletin’ have, in turn, based their argumenta-tion on precisely these two pieces of evidence. The first piece of evidence was discussed widely since its exposure to the public in 1927, but the second piece of evidence was newly discovered in 2010 with very little research so

344 l i m a n

far completed on it. In the following, I will re-examine these two pieces of evidential material respectively.

The ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ as Evidence in the Debate on the Existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) in the Yuan Dynasty

T h e E x i s t i n g D e b a t e o n ‘ H u a n g W a n g b u b i a n ’

The first to favour the idea that a ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) existed in Yuan China was scholar and journalist Ge Gongzhen 戈公振 (1890–1935). He based his claim on the following paragraph of the entry ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ 黃王不辨 (‘No Differentiating Between Huang and Wang’) from Zhou Mi’s (周密 1232–1298) Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji 癸辛雜識·續集 (‘Sequel to “Miscellaneous Information from Gui Xin Street’”):

浙之東，言語黃王不辨，自昔而然。王克仁居越，榮邸近屬也。所居

嘗獨毀於火，於是鄉人呼為“王火燒”。同時有黃瑰者，亦越人，嘗

為評事。忽遭台評，云其積惡以遭天譴，至於獨焚其家，鄉人有“黃

火燒”之號。葢誤以王為黃耳。邸報既行，而評事之鄰有李應麟者為

維揚幕，一見大驚，知有被火之事，亟告假而歸。制使李應山憐之，

饋以官楮二萬。及歸，則家無患，乃知為誤耳。1

1. In the paragraph cited by Ge Gongzhen in his History of China Press (Zhongguo baoxue shi 中國報學史 , Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1955, the first edition of this book was published in 1927.), a subtle thing should be noticed: 制使李應山 (Military Commissioner Li Yingshan) was written as 制史李應山. However, in both editions of the Gui Xin Za Shi 癸辛雜識 (‘Miscellaneous Information from Gui Xin Street’) that have been consulted for this paper, we read 制使李應山, viz.:「1st 《癸辛雜識》 (‘Miscellaneous Information from Gui Xin Street’), (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan 台灣商務印書館股

份有限公司 , 1986, Book 1040, 106; 2nd 《癸辛雜識》(‘Miscellaneous Information from Gui Xin Street’), Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company 中華書局, 1988, 207」 A number of articles on the ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan seem to be influenced by Ge Gongzhen’s History of China Press, since they all write 制使 (Military Commissioner) as 制史 when citing this paragraph. For instance, Huang Zhuoming’s 黃卓明 Research into The Origin of Ancient Chinese Newspapers (Zhongguo gudai baozhi tanyuan 中國古代報紙探源), Beijing: People’s Daily Press 人民日

報出版社 , 1983; Yao Fushen’s 姚福申 ‘Research on the “Court Bulletin” of the Yuan’ (Guanyu Yuandai ‘dibao’de kaozheng 關於元代 “邸報” 的考證), Journalistic University 新聞大學 , 1986/12; Fang, Hanqi 方漢奇 et al., History of Chinese Journalism:1 (Zhongguo xinwen shiye tongshi diyi juan 中國新聞事業通史第一卷), Beijing: China Renmin University Press 中國人

民大學出版社 , 1992, etc. The point is important because Yao Fushen argued with Fang Hanqi

345o n y u a n d y n a s t y ‘ n e w s p a p e r s ’

In the eastern part of Zhejiang, since ancient times, the local dialect has not dif-ferentiated between the pronunciation of Huang and Wang. Wang Keren lived in Yue (ancient name of Zhejiang) as a trusted servant in Rong’s mansion. His home was burnt down (but his neighbourhood remained safe). Fellow villagers therefore called him ‘Wang Huoshao’ (lit.: Wang who was burnt). Huang Gui, a contemporary of Wang, also from Yue, had been an Arbitor (pingshi). He was once unexpectedly criticized by the Censorate, who remarked that Heaven had condemned him for the evils he had accrued, by just burning down his home, while his neighbourhood remained safe, and that therefore he was called ‘Huang Huoshao’ (lit.: Huang who was burnt) by his fellow villagers. This was a [phonetic] mistake caused by taking Wang for Huang. When the court bulletin was issued, Li Yinglin, who worked as an assistant to an official in the Wei-Yang district and whose home was adjacent to Arbitor Huang’s, was shocked to read [the news] and about the fire. He asked permission to take leave to go home. Military Commissioner Li Yingshan took pity on him and gave him 20,000 liang in paper money as an official gift. When [Li Yinglin] got home and found the house safe, he then knew that it had been a mistake. (own translation M.L.)

This is the only historical material used in research prior to 2010 that contains the two characters ‘di bao’ 邸報 (‘Court Bulletin’) and that can thus possibly support the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty. Based on this passage, two opposing views were formulated. Those who are in favour of the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ generally fol-low Ge Gongzhen’s argument. For instance, in Zhongguo xinwen shi (‘History of Chinese Journalism’), compiled by Zeng Xubai 曾虛白, Ge Gongzhen’s argument is referred to as follows: ‘The Yuan Dynasty as a conquest empire by a different ethnic group, only enjoyed a short cultural history. A description of the development of its newspapers is therefore seldom found. According to common sense, however, given that a “Court Bulletin” was very popular in the Song Dynasty, it cannot have disappeared suddenly. As Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji recorded: “[ . . .]” From this material, it is clear that a “Court Bulletin” was still very popular among the gentry class, and its content often amused readers with social news’.2 Also Liang Jialu et al.’s Zhongguo xinwen shiye shi (Gudai zhi yijiusijiu nian) (‘History of the Chinese News Career—

that 制史 (Zhishi) should be understood as ‘Military Commissioner’ 制置使 (Zhizhishi), and not ‘Envoy of the Emperor’ 天子之使 (Tianzi zhi shi), without noticing that 制置使 is usually abbreviated as 制使, not as 制史. 2. Zeng, Xubai et al. 曾虛白主編, History of Chinese Journalism (Zhongguo xinwen shi 中國新聞史), Taipei: San Min Book Company 三民書局印行, 1966, 85.

346 l i m a n

Ancient Times to 1949’) maintained: ‘Historical materials bear few records on newspapers in the Yuan, but people generally believe that a “Court Bulletin” was still popular, without many changes.’3

Huang Zhuomin’s Zhongguo gudai baozhi tan yuan (‘Research into the Origin of Ancient Chinese Newspapers’) maintained that the ‘Court bulletin’ in the early Yuan was just the remnant of the ‘tabloid’ of the Southern Song Dynasty, because ‘its content does not pertain to the court activities; it is a “social news’”.4 He lists four reasons to support his argument: (1) No institution like the ‘Memorials Office’ (Jinzouyuan 進奏院) that is responsible for issuing the ‘Court Bulletin’ existed in the Yuan Dynasty; (2) the ‘Bureau of Transmis-sion’ (Tongzhengyuan 通政院) of the Yuan Dynasty was only responsible for transportation via Jam (Yizhan 驛站 post houses), not for the distribution of imperial decrees or memorials to the throne; (3) the appearance of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the entry ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ from Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji very possibly indicates that the ‘Court Bulletin’ had become a means for those unemployed ‘Memorial Transmitters’ (Jinzou guanli 進奏官吏) and those ‘tabloid’ publishers of the former Song who lived into the Yuan Dynasty to sustain their livelihoods, and, as such, it was no longer an official ‘tabloid newspaper’; (4) the Mongolian cultural backwardness, combined with a stern prohibition for Han people (漢人, i.e. people of the Jin and the Southern Song) to assume the office of Darugaci (達魯花赤, the conqueror/oppressor; transferred meaning: the highest officer) resulted in a break-up of the original form of newspapers which ‘reflect a more developed aspect of culture’, although a remnant of a ‘Court Bulletin’ existed for a while in the early Yuan.5

Although Huang Zhuomin’s Zhongguo gudai baozhi tan yuan (‘Research into the Origin of Ancient Chinese Newspapers’) raised the above four objec-tions to the material provided by Ge Gongzhen in support of the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’, he failed to give detailed philological research to more

3. Liang, Jialu et al. 梁家祿等 History of Chinese News Career: Ancient to 1949 (Zhongguo xinwen shiye shi (Gudai zhi yijiusijiu nian) 中國新聞事業史 (古代至一九四九年)), Nanning: Guangxi People’s Publishing House 廣西人民出版社, 1984, 16. Generally speaking, those ar-ticles and books that favour the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty were mainly published before the debate between Fang Hanqi and Yao Fushen. After the Fang-Yao debate, their view became widely influential and very few voices rose against it. 4. Huang, 73. 5. Huang, 73–74


conclusively prove his claim. Without a clear and convincing analysis of this material, however, the question of whether or not a ‘Court Bulletin’ existed during the Yuan period cannot be resolved. Philological research was provided by Fang Hanqi. In his Zhongguo gudaide baozhi (中國古代的報紙 ‘Ancient Chinese Newspapers’), he questioned this material because the author (Zhou Mi) of the Gui Xin Za Shi (癸辛雜識 “Miscellaneous Information from Gui Xin Street”, which included its Sequel 續集) lived through the Song–Yuan transition, and having been an official of the Song, refused to serve the Yuan after the subjugation of the Song. As the anecdotes contained in the Gui Xin Za Shi are from both the Song and the Yuan, and are undated, it is quite likely that mistakes were made in the attributions to either the Song or the Yuan. According to Fang Hanqi, Li Yingshan, who is mentioned as ‘Military Com-missioner’ (Zhishi Li Yingshan 制使李應山) in the passage quoted above (i.e. the entry ‘Huang Wang bu bian’), is a typical Han name. Now, according to Fang, generally in the Yuan practice, Han people were not allowed to occupy official positions above the rank of District Magistrate (Xianling 縣令). Such a high official as ‘Zhishi’ 制使 ’ which means ‘Envoy of the Emperor (Tianzi zhi shi 天子之使)’ could therefore never have been occupied by the Han, Li Yingshan. This implies that the above passage from ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ is an account of something that happened in the Song. Hence, Ge Gongzhen’s argument in Zhongguo xinwen shi that this passage proves the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty is invalid.6

Yao Fushen remarked that Fang’s argument is ‘insightful’, and that ‘the re-corded story no doubt happened at the end of the Southern Song, although the argumentation was not necessarily precise and appropriate’.7 This comment is reasonable and pertinent. Therefore, in Fang’s later published Zhongguo xinwen shiye tongshi—diyi juan (中國新聞事業通史第一卷’History of Chi-nese Journalism. Vol. 1’), Yao Fushen’s argument was adopted. In this work, Fang claims that the three other people mentioned in the above passage of ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ cannot be traced. The only person who can be traced is Zhishi Li Yingshan (制史李應山) who, as demonstrated by Yao Fushen, was Liang-Huai Military Commissioner Li Tingzhi (Liang Huai zhizhishi Li

6. Fang, Hanqi 方漢奇.Ancient Chinese Newspapers. (Zhongguo gudaide baozhi 中國古

代的報紙), Beijing: Publication History Department of the School of Journalism in Renmin University of China 中國人民大學新聞系報刊史教研室, 1980, 20, note 29. 7. Yao,’Research on the “Court Bulletin” of the Yuan’: 80–82.

348 l i m a n

Tingzhi 兩淮制置使李庭芝). Fang also gives two pieces of evidence to prove his argument that ‘in the Yuan, there was no “newspaper” that was officially published by a single government organ’: ‘firstly, in the Yuan, there were no special agencies or professionals in the central government responsible for the publication of an official “newspaper” [...], and, secondly, no records in public and private historical materials were discovered that contain informa-tion about a “Court Bulletin”.’8

Yao Fushen conducted his research on this topic after Fang’s Zhongguo gudaide baozhi (中國古代的報紙 ‘Ancient Chinese Newspapers’) but prior to Fang’s Zhongguo xinwen shiye tongshi—diyi juan. His work is a meticulous study of the ‘Court Bulletin’ mentioned in Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi. He first pointed out that Fang Hanqi made a mistake in taking ‘Zhishi 制使 to mean Envoy of the Emperor (Tianzi zhi shi 天子之使), and argued that ‘Zhishi’ is the abbreviation of ‘Zhizhishi 制置使 ’, Military Commissioner. He also referred to Shi Tianzhe 史天澤 as an example to contradict Fang’s opinion that, according to Yuan practice, official positions above District Magistrate (Xianling 縣令) were not allowed to be occupied by Han people and that Li Yingshan can therefore not have occupied such a high position as ‘Zhishi’ 制使 (Tianzi zhi shi 天子之使 ‘Envoy of the Emperor’). Yao demonstrated that Zhishi Li Yingshan 制史李應山 should be Wei-Yang Military Com-missioner Li Tingzhi (Wei-Yang Zhizhishi Li Tingzhi 維揚制置使李庭芝), namely, Liang-Huai Military Commissioner Li Tingzhi (Liang Huai Zhizhishi Li Tingzhi 兩淮制置使李庭芝) who led a resolute resistance against the Mongolian invasion of the Southern Song. Li Tingzhi took up this post twice. His first tenure lasted ten years from Jingding 1 (景定元年, i.e. AD 1260) to Xianchun 5 (咸淳五年, i.e. AD 1269), and then he held this post again during the attack of the Mongolian army at Yangzhou, i.e. from Xianchun 7 (咸淳七

年, i.e. AD 1271)) to Deyou 2 (德祐二年, i.e. AD 1276), when he was defeated and martyred. Therefore, that ‘Li Yingshan gave Li Yinglin, the neighbour of the Arbitor (Pingshi zhi lin 評事之鄰), 20,000 liang in paper money as an official gift’, as mentioned in Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi cannot have hap-pened ‘earlier than the year Jingding 1 (i.e. AD 1260), nor later than the year Deyou 2 (i.e. AD 1276)). Thus it is certain that this happened at the end of the Southern Song.’9 Moreover, according to Yao, ‘Rong’s mansion (Rong di 榮

8. Fang, History of Chinese Journalism:1, 113. 9. Yao, ‘Research on the “Court Bulletin” of the Yuan’: 80–82.


邸)’ in the story actually refers to the mansion of Yu Rui, the King of Glory (Rongwang Yu Rui 榮王與芮). This information also tells us that the story happened at the end of the Southern Song, and can therefore, not be used as evidence for the existence of a Yuan ‘Court Bulletin’. Yao thus concluded that there is no such thing as: ‘a Yuan “Court Bulletin”,’ the existence of which was accepted in studies of the history of journalism for half a century. Other scholars take a more cautious stance in this debate. In Zhongguo xinwen shiye shi (中國新聞事業史 ’China Press Development’), compiled by Ding Ganlin 丁凎林 et al., e.g. while not objecting to the falsification of Ge Gongzhen’s evidence, no hasty conclusion is drawn on the question, and it is preferred to leave this question open.10 Other scholars deemed that a ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) or an official newspaper/organ (Guanbao 官報) did exist in the Yuan, but that, because of the specific historical situation of the Yuan, there was ‘very few extant material about Yuan newspapers’, and time is needed for them to be discovered.11

To summarize, Fang’s and Yao’s argumentation on the material cited from Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji is relatively detailed and reliable. This helps to explain why opinions on the existence of a Yuan newspaper came to ac-cept that no ‘Court Bulletin’ existed in the Yuan, and neither did officially published newspapers. As mentioned above, Fang in his Zhongguo xinwen shiye tongshi—diyi juan claimed that Li Yingshan 李應山 is the only person whose existence can be traced, i.e. as being General Li Tingzhi 李庭芝. The other three names (i.e. Wang Keren 王克仁, Huang Gui 黃瑰 and Li Yinglin 李應麟) who appear in the story are not traceable. The only evidence for the story included in the Gui Xin Za Shi to have happened in the Song Dynasty is the fact that Li Yingshan should be Li Tingzhi. This single piece of evidence renders the

10. Ding, Ganlin et al.丁凎林主編. China Press Development (Zhongguo xinwen shiye shi 中國新聞事業史), Beijing: High Education Press. 高等教育出版社, 2002, 10–12. 11. This view can be found in the relevant chapter of Fang Xiaohong’s 方曉紅 Brief History of Chinese Journalism (Zhongguo xinwen jianshi 中國新聞簡史), Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press 南京師範大學出版社, 2006; Ni Yannian’s 倪延年 History of Ancient Chinese Newspapers (Zhongguo gudai baokan fazhan shi 中國古代報刊發展史), Nanjing: Dongnan University Press 東南大學出版社, 2001, and Legal History of Ancient China Press (Zhongguo gudai baokan fazhi fanzhan shi 中國古代報刊法制發展史), Nanjing: Nanjing Normal Uni-versity Press 南京師範大學出版社, 2004. Due to a lack of historical material, this argument is only a subjective and logic reasoning. It therefore does not pose a real challenge to Fang Hanqi’s and Yao Fushen’s conclusion.

350 l i m a n

argument vulnerable, especially since Zhou Mi did not directly mention the name of Li Tingzhi in his Gui Xin Za Shi. It was only after Yao Fushen’s research and reasonable conjecture that Li Yingshan 李應山 was identified with Li Tingzhi 李庭芝. What if, after all, Li Yingshan 李應山 was not Li Tingzhi 李庭芝 ? Does this invalidate the whole argument? Moreover, also Yao’s suggestion that ‘Rong’s mansion 榮邸’ is the mansion of Yu Rui, the King of Glory (Rongwang Yu Rui 榮王與芮) is only a deliberated conjecture, and hence it requires a formal proof. That is to say: only if other arguments can be found that conclusively prove that this story happened at the end of the Southern Song, can Ge Gongzhen’s ‘single/only evidence’ of the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ be firmly settled. In what follows, we therefore will re-examine the elements mentioned in this story. The less than 200-character long passage of the entry ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ mentions ‘Zhishi Li Yingshang’ (制使李應山) only once. Yao’s argument to identify Li Yingshan with Li Tingzhi is merely the following: ‘Zhishi Li Yingshan 制史李應山,12 mentioned in Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji is the famous patriotic general Li Tingzhi who led a resolute resistance against the Mon-golian invasion. Because Li Tingzhi was from Yingshan county (Yingshan xian 應山縣) of Suizhou in Hubei (湖北隨州), Zhou Mi, the author of Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji called him Li Yingshan, just as people refer to Yuan Shikai 袁世凱 as Yuan Xiangcheng 袁項城 (Xiangcheng being Yuan’s birthplace), and to Duan Qirui 段祺瑞 as Duan Hefei 段合肥 (Hefei be-ing Duan’s birthplace). Also, because Li Tingzhi was killed for resisting the Mongolian invasion less than 20 years before Zhou Mi wrote the Gui Xin Za Shi: Xuji, it would have been typical to avoid the censorship or taboo of the Yuan Government by indirectly calling him Li Yingshan, and not using his real name.”13

The fact that neither Li Yingshan’s real name nor the place he was sta-tioned at are given makes Yao’s claim doubtful. How can it be demonstrated that Li Yingshan is not his real name? As there must have been people from Yingshan county whose family name was Li, other than Li Yingshan, and as more people who were named Yingshan aslo possessed Li as their family name, how can it be proved that Li Yingshan is actually Li Tingzhi? The best way of proving that Li Yingshan really is Li Tingzhi would be to find solid source

12. As referred to in footnote 1, here 制史 should be 制使. 13. Yao, ‘Research on the “Court Bulletin” of the Yuan’: 80–82.


that demonstrates this identity with no equivocation. In the absence of such material, determining when and where Li Yingshan was garrisoned would substantiate the argument: If it can be proved that Li Yingshan was stationed in Wei-Yang at the end of the Southern Song, then he must be Li Tingzhi. If this information cannot be verified then the supposition is dubious.

N e w p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o n t h e

‘ H u a n g W a n g b u b i a n ’ D e b a t e

The following two pieces of evidence reinforce the identity of Li Yingshan: (1) a passage entitled ‘Sky Cracks 天裂 tian lie’ from the 20th volume of the Shuofu (說郛 ‘The Domain of Texts’), a work compiled by Tao Zongyi 陶宗儀, a scholar who lived in the Late Yuan and Early Ming; (2) the section ‘Zaji—Lunwen wu ze’ 雜記·論文五則 of the Yangwuzhai Ji (養吾齋集 ‘Collection of Yangwuzhai’), a work by Liu Jiangsun 劉將孫 who lived at the end of the Song and in the early Yuan. The passage entitled ‘Sky Cracks’ of the 20th volume of the Shuofu is quoted from Haoran Zhai Shi Ting Chao (浩然齋視聽鈔, ‘Collection of Anecdotes in The Grand Studio’), another work by the author of the Gui Xin Za Shi. The passage runs as follows:

癸酉十月，李應山開淮閫於維揚。一日午後，忽見天裂，其軍馬旗

幟無數，始焉皆紅旗，繼而皆黑，凡茶頃乃合，見者甚多。次年北

軍至。14

In the 10th month of the year guiyou, Li Yingshan took responsibility for military affairs in Wei-Yang. One afternoon, the sky cracked suddenly, and innumerable soldiers and flags thronged. At the beginning, the flags were red, and then they all

14. Tao Zongyi 陶宗儀, Shuo Fu (說郛 ‘The Domain of Texts’), Book 4, Vol.20. Haoran Zhai Shi Ting Chao 浩然齋視聽鈔, Beijing: Zhongguo Shudian. 北京市中國書店, 1986, 7. This quoted passage appears both in the so-called Hanfenlou 涵芬樓 edition which is based on the Ming woodcut printing edition, and of which it is claimed it ‘returns to Nancun’s (i.e.Tao Zongyi) own nature’ (huan nancun zhi jiuran 還南村之舊然), and in the Siku edition (景印文

淵閣四庫全書 (Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股份有限公司, 1986, Book 877, 519. Note that, in the Siku Imperial Library edition, based on Tao Ting’s 陶珽 (offspring of Tao Zongyi) revised and enlarged edition of Shunzhi’s reign in the Qing Dynasty, the passage cited here appears in Vol. 27 (說郛, 卷二十七下), not in Vol.20. Although the original book of Haoran Zhai Shi Ting Chao has been lost, based on these two edited compilations, its authenticity and reliability is still certain.

352 l i m a n

turned black. This scene lasted for the period of a tea-break, and there were lots of witnesses. The next year, the army arrived from the North. (own translation M. L.)

Here there are three very useful pieces of information. The first one is ‘the 10th month of the year guiyou (癸酉十月)’; the second is ‘Li Yingshan took responsibility for military affairs in Wei-Yang (Li Yingshan kai Huai kun yu Wei-Yang 李應山開淮閫於維揚)’; the third is ‘The next year, the army ar-rived from the North (Ci nian bei jun zhi 次年北軍至)’. Although the second piece of information does not directly state that Li Yingshan is Li Tingzhi, we know from it that this Li Yingshan was garrisoned in Wei-Yang. When we combine the first and the third pieces of information, we can conclude that the year guiyou mentioned here has to be AD 1273, i.e. year Xianchun 9 of the Song (宋咸淳九年) or year Zhiyuan 10 of the Yuan (元至元十年), because it was precisely the year after, i.e. AD 1274 (year jiaxu 甲戌年, year Xianchun 10 of the Song (宋咸淳十年) or year Zhiyuan 11 of the Yuan (元至元十一

年), that Kublai Khan promulgated an edict to attack the Southern Song on a large scale in the 6th month of that year. As mentioned above, Li Tingzhi took up the post of Wei-Yang Military Commissioner twice, first holding this post for ten years from year Jingding 1 (景定元年, i.e. AD 1260) to year Xianchun 5 (咸淳五年, i.e. AD 1269)), and a second time during the attack of the Mongolian army at Yangzhou, from year Xianchun 7 (咸淳七年, i.e. AD 1271) to year Deyou 2 (德祐二年, i.e. AD 1276), when he was defeated and martyred. In terms of time, the ‘sky cracks in the year guiyou’ occurred in the second tenure of Li Tingzhi as Wei-Yang Military Commissioner. Zhou Mi’s record of this scene also accords with the traditional Chinese view of history that interprets heavenly changes to prophesy a dynasty’s rise and fall. Furthermore, it is not only Zhou Mi who referred to Li Tingzhi as Li Yingshan, nor is it for reasons of taboo that he did not utilize the name Li Tingzhi. Zhou Mi’s contemporary, Liu Jiangsun 劉將孫, a scholar who lived at the end of the Song and in the early Yuan, mentioned the following at the very beginning of his Yangwuzhai Ji (養吾齋集 ‘Collection of Yangwuzhai’)Volume 27 ‘Miscellanea, 5 Treatises (雜記·論文五則)’:

君實初在李應山幕，為應山作失襄陽謝放罪表，云：‘雖引繩必有絕

處，然龜玉毀於櫝中，是誰之過？（原注用韓文張中丞傳後語，其下

四字今忘之）’以此得名。海上抱沉之節，亦東南之傑，亞於信公云

（原注海上力屈，君實朝服抱祥興身沉於海）。 (Liu, 1986, Book 1199, p. 260)


At first, Junshi was serving in Li Yingshan’s office, and he wrote a letter of official confession and acknowledgement in the name of Yingshan to be absolved from the responsibility for the fall of Xiangyang, stating that: ‘although a snapped rope definitely has a breakpoint, turtleback and jade are destroyed inside the casket. Who is responsible for that? ‘(original note cited from Han Yu’s Postscript for Biography of Censor-in-Chief (Zhongchen) Zhang; the four characters after this sentence are absent). He was renowned for this [letter]. He sank into the sea to maintain a respectable integrity, and became an outstanding person in the Southeastern domains [of China], second only to Xingong (original note: because of the failure [of the Southern Song] in the oceanic battle field, Junshi, dressed in court costume, sank into the sea, carrying the little emperor Xiangxing in his bosom) (own translation M. L.)

Two men are mentioned in this paragraph: Junshi 君實 and Li Yingshan 李應山. Junshi is the style (Zi 字) of Lu Xiufu 陸秀夫. Lu Xiufu (1237–1279) was born in Yancheng, Chuzhou (楚州鹽城, i.e. present-day Yancheng in Jiangsu Province), and is renowned as one of the ‘three outstanding persons of the Late Song (Song mo san jie 宋末三傑)’.15 He refused to surrender to the Yuan and sank to the bottom of the sea with the little emperor Zhao Bing 趙昺 in his bosom. This is what Liu Jiangsun mentioned in the above quoted words: ‘He sank into the sea to maintain a respectable integrity (Haishang bao chen zhi jie 海上抱沉之節)’. Lu Xiufu was serving in the office of Li Yingshan, and wrote an ‘official confession and acknowledgement letter to be absolved from the responsibility for the fall of Xiangyang (Shi Xiangyang xie fang zui biao 失襄陽謝放罪表)’. The General who was absolved from being responsible for the fall of Xiangyang is Li Tingzhi. At that time, when Kublai Khan’s army attacked Xiangyang, Xiangyang Garrison General, Lü Wenhuan 呂文煥, defended resolutely while waiting for reinforcements be-ing sent to Xiangyang by the court. Li Tingzhi thus sent Zhang Shun 張順 and Zhang Gui 張貴 to Xiangyang. Also, Fan Wenhu 范文虎, a favourite of Jia Sidao 賈似道 assisted. Fan Wenhu and Zhang Gui were supposed to simultaneously attack the Mongolians from opposite sides; however, due to Fan Wenhu, this attempt failed. This resulted in the fall of Xiangyang. Jia Sidao and his favourite shirked their responsibility and put the blame on others. Li Tingzhi was implicated, though was finally absolved from the responsibility.16 It is from the transcription of events that we learn that Li Yingshan is in fact

15. The other two are Wen Tianxiang 文天祥 and Zhang Shijie 張世傑. 16. See any edition of Song Shi 宋史, Vol. 351, Vol. 421,Vol. 450, Vol. 474, etc.

354 l i m a n

Li Tingzhi. Yingshan most likely is an honourific name for Li Tingzhi, used by contemporary literati. Apart from these two pieces of textual material, there is a third piece of evidence. One person other than Li Yingshan can be traced in the entry ‘No Differentiating Between Huang and Wang’ 黃王不辨: Wang Keren 王克仁. In Vol 50 of Xianchun Lin’an zhi (咸淳臨安志 ‘Annals of Xianchun Lin’an’) the names of those who were ‘Liang-Zhe Transport Commissioner’ (Liang-Zhe zhuanyunshi 兩浙轉運使) are listed. Wang Keren is among the names, and he is depicted as follows: ‘淳佑十二年七月除運判, 寶佑元年

四月升副, 二年十一月除寶章閣待制、兩浙轉運使, 三年九月除戶部

侍郎兼知臨安府 ’: ‘In the 7th month of Chunyou year 12 (AD 1252) [Wang Keren] was conferred as ‘Transport Assistant’; in the 4th month of Baoyou year 1 (AD 1253), [he] was promoted as ‘Vice Transport Commissioner’; in the 11th month of Baoyou year 2 (AD 1254) [he] was conferred as ‘Edict Attendant’ of Baozhangge (‘Edict Attendant of the Pavilion of Cherished Insignia’) as well as ‘Liang-Zhe Transport Commissioner’; in the 9th month of Baoyou year 3 (AD 1255), [he] was conferred ‘Vice Director of the Ministry of Revenue’ as well as ‘Prefect of Lin’an’. 17Another piece of historical evidence is Zhejiang Tongzhi 浙江通志 (‘Zhejiang Local Gazetteer’) 18 Here, it is also recorded that a building called ‘Jie’ai Tang’ 節愛堂 was built by Wang Keren (‘咸淳

臨安志在兩浙轉運司寶佑初運使王克仁建 ’). The latter text also men-tions Wang Keren twice more, once in the entry ‘Transport Commissioner’ 轉運使 as ‘Wang Keren, from Shaoxing, “Transport Commissioner” and “Vice Transport Commissioner” (王克仁, 紹興人, 正使副使)’; and another time in the entry ‘Prefect of the Hangzhou Military Prefecture, Prefect of Lin’an’ 知杭州軍, 知臨安府 as ‘Wang Keren, from Shaoxing, again took the [position of] Prefect (王克仁, 紹興人, 再知).19 Through this we know that Wang Keren was conferred as ‘Vice Director of the Ministry of Revenue’ and as ‘Prefect of Lin’an’ in AD 1255. This coincides with Li Tingzhi’s serving

17. See Qian Shuoyou 潛說友 , Xianchun Lin’an zhi (咸淳臨安志 ’Annals of Xianchun Lin’an’), Vol. 50 (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan 台灣商務印書館

股份有限公司 , 1986, Book 490, 530. 18. (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan 台灣商務印書館股份有

限公司 , 1986, Book 520, 141. 19. See Zhejiang Tongzhi, Book 522, 84.


in the late Southern Song. Obviously, this Wang Keren is the person who is mentioned in the entry ‘No Differentiating Between Huang and Wang’ in Zhou Mi’s Gui Xin Za Shi: Sequel. Another evidence is also from the Gui Xin Za Shi: Sequel, namely the entry ‘Ma and Zhao Contracted Enmity 馬趙致怨 ’. In this entry, Wang Keren is mentioned when Ma Huafu 馬華父 (Huafu 華父 is his style name; his name is Guangzu 光祖), as an administra-tor of Gaoshajun 高沙郡, had the army under his command, and his army mutinied. Wang Keren 王克仁 was then sent by Zhao Xinguo 趙信國 to suppress the mutiny. There is a biography of Ma Huafu in Song Shi 宋史, Vol. 416, saying that he was from Jinhua, Wuzhou 婺州金華人, a civilian official of the late Southern Song. Wang Keren, being a contemporary of Ma Huafu, also must have lived in the late Southern Song. This, in turn, helps to demonstrate that the entry ‘No Differentiating Between Huang and Wang’ in the Gui Xin Za Shi: Sequel is about the Song, not about the Yuan. The combination of these three pieces of information thus enables us to draw a convincing conclusion: Zhishi Li Yingshan in the entry ‘Huang Wang bu bian’ is, in fact, Wei-Yang Military Commissioner Li Tingzhi (Wei Yang zhizhishi Li Tingzhi 維揚制置使李庭芝). This conclusion further substanti-ates Yao Fushen’s argumentation outlined above.

The ‘Lament to Habashi 哈八石 ’ Written by Xu Youren 許有壬 as Evidence in the Debate on the Existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) in the Yuan Dynasty

Another piece of evidence in the debate on the existence of ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan Dynasty appeared in 2010, in an article by Kong Zhengyi 孔正毅, entitled ‘Yuandai “Dibao’ xin zheng” (元代 ‘邸報 ’ 新證) ‘New Evidence for a “Court Bulletin” in the Yuan Dynasty’).20 Actually, of the three pieces of evidence the author used in this article, only one can be validated.21 This new piece of evidence is, as mentioned, a lament written by Xu Youren 許有壬 to Habashi

20. Kong, Zhengyi 孔正毅, “New Evidences for a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty (Yuan dai ‘dibao’ xinzheng 元代 ‘邸報 ’ 新證),” Journalism and Communication Research (新聞

與傳播研究), 2010/1: 21–23. 21. See the refutatory article by Li Man 李漫 in ‘An Analysis of “New Evidences” for a Court Bulletin in the Yuan Dynasty: A Discussion with Professor Kong’ (Yuandai dibao ‘xinzheng’ kaobian—yu kong zhengyi jiaoshou shangque 元代邸報 ‘新證 ’ 考辨–––與孔正毅教授商榷),’ Journal of International Communication 國際新聞界, June 2010: 113–117.

356 l i m a n

哈八石, i.e. Hagasi 哈噶斯, or with his Chinese name, Ding Wenyuan 丁文苑. Because Xu Youren was born in AD 1286, a year that definitely bears no relationship to the Southern Song, the mentioning of a ‘Court Bulletin’ (Dibao 邸報) in his writings needs to be carefully researched. Of this relatively long piece of evidence, I quote the most important passages here:

哈八石取父字，姓丁，字文苑，于闐人。與予同登乙卯進士第。倅固

安州，掾左司，除禮部主事。予佐吏部，故遊從為多。改秘書著作，

拜監察禦史，又與予同官。南坡之變，梟獍黨與，列據津要。文苑、

康里子山暨予，實同論列。遷戶部員外郎，予在左司，計事率相見。

俄僉浙西道廉訪司事，遂間南北。[…]未<及>[幾]，予除兩淮轉運

使，文苑移山北，邸報同日至。[…]22

Habashi, surnamed Ding after his father’s name, had ‘Wenyuan’ as his personal name, and was from Khotan. He was awarded Metropolitan Graduate together with me in the year yimao (AD 1315). He assumed the position of Assistant Prefect of Gu’an Prefecture, Clerk in the Left Office of [the Secretariat and the Head-quarters Bureau] and Administrative Aide in the Ministry of Rites, respectively. I was an Assistant in the Bureau of Appointment, so we contacted each other often. [Some time later,] he was transferred to the Palace Library as an Editorial Clerk, and then became Investigating Censor, coincidently together with me. After the Nanpo Incident, a treacherous party occupied important official posi-tions. Wenyuan, Kanglizishan and I, in fact, jointly impeached them. He then was nominated as Vice Director of the Ministry of Revenue, when I was in the Left Office of the Secretariat. This made it easy for us to meet each other for consultation. Not long after he was nominated to be Assistant to the Zhexi Circuit Surveillance Commission, we were separated. [ . . .] A short time later, I was awarded as Liang-Huai Transport Commissioner, and Wenyuan moved to ‘Shan Bei’. The ‘di bao (Court Bulletin)’ arrived on the same day. [ . . .] (own translation M.L.)

Kong Zhengyi explains that this lament provides the following information: (1) The court bulletin mentioned in the text presents an event that definitely occurred after AD 1323. Xu Youren was awarded as Liang-Huai Transport Commissioner (Liang Huai Zhuanyunshi 兩淮轉運使) at almost the same

22. The textual material ‘Lament for Habashi’ cited here was not taken from the Siku edition on which Kong Zhengyi based his ‘new evidence’, but from Xu Youren’s collected works, Zhi Zheng Ji 至正集 68 in the Yuanren wenji zhenben congkan 元人文集珍本叢刊, Book 7, 309, which is generally accepted to be a better edition.


time, namely soon after the Nanpo Incident (Nanpo shi bian 南坡事變), when Hagasi (i.e. Habashi) moved to Bei Shan (lit.: North of the mountain, i.e. Shan Bei). It can be surmised that it is precisely because of the ‘Nanpo Incident’ that they were transferred to other positions. As this must have been unforgettable to Xu Youren, his record cannot be mistaken; (2) From the tone of the sentence ‘The “Court Bulletin” arrived at the same day,’ it can be surmised that this ‘Court Bulletin’ contained information about Xu Youren’s and Hagasi’s position transfer. As this information was presented simultane-ously in a ‘Court Bulletin’, one can tell that the content of the Yuan ‘Court Bulletin’ was at least similar to that of previous forms in earlier dynasties with regard to the ‘appointment and removal’ of officials; (3) This ‘Court Bulletin’ is a typical example of a ‘Court Bulletin’ of the Yuan Dynasty because no one would take a ‘Court Bulletin’ that was issued after AD 1323 as being from another dynasty.23 In what follows, I will address this argument. Although the ‘Court Bulletin’ mentioned in this text definitely refers to a time after the Nanpo Incident (i.e. AD 1323), Kong Zhengyi regarded the transfer in position of Xu Youren and Hagasi to be caused by the Nanpo Incident. This conclusion was drawn on an incorrect reading of the text and imprecise research of Xu Youren’s career timetable. The sentence ‘After the Nanpo Incident (Nanpo shi bian 南坡事變), treacherous parties occupied important official positions. Wenyuan, Kanglizishan and I actually together impeached them’ (南坡之變, 梟獍黨與, 列據津要. 文苑、康里子山暨

予, 實同論列), in fact, clearly means that Habashi (i.e., Hagasi or Ding Wen-yuan), Kanglizishan (i.e. Kui Kui 巙巙24) and Xu Youren himself impeached treacherous officials, not that they themselves were involved into being mem-bers of a treacherous party. In fact, Xu Youren remained to hold posts in Dadu 大都, for instance, as Counsellor of Household Administration of the Heir Apparent (Zhanshiyuan zhongyi 詹事院中議) in the year Taiding 1 (泰定

元年, i.e. AD 1324), he prayed in the Tianbao Palace (Zhuci tianbao gong 祝祠天寶宮) together with Ma Zuzhang 馬祖常 in the year Taiding 2 (泰定二年, i.e. AD 1325), he was Director of the Right Office of the Secretariat

23. Kong: 21–23 here refers to the Song dynasty as ‘another dynasty’. 24. The name of Kanglizishan is indicated in Yuan Shi as 巎巎 (nao nao), but it is demon-strated by Zhang Jinliang that this name should be 巙巙 (kui kui). I fully agree with Zhang’s argument. See Zhang Jinliang’s 張金梁 article ‘Kanglizishan mingzi kao 康里子山名字考 On the name of Kanglizisha’, Journal of Ancient Books Collation and Studies (Bimonthly), Jul. 25,2007, No.4. 2007 (Serial No 128), pp.3–6.

358 l i m a n

and Headquarters Bureau (You silang zhong 右司郎中) in the 6th month of the year Taiding 3 (泰定三年, i.e., AD 1326) and soon became Director of the Left Office of the Secretariat and Headquarters Bureau (Zuo silang zhong 左司郎中), a post he held until the year Taiding 4 (泰定四年, i.e., AD 1327). Xu Youren went back to Tangyin in Henan (河南湯陰) in mourning for his father’s death, and later on went to his post in Hubei (湖北).25 There-fore, alleging that Xu and Ding were mobilized to other posts because of the Nanpo Incident is questionable. Moreover, Xu Youren assumed the post of ‘Liang-Huai Transport Commissioner (Liang Huai zhuanyunshi 兩淮轉運

使)’ in the year Tianli 3 / Zhishun 1 (i.e., AD 1330).26 This was already seven years after the Nanpo Incident. It is therefore not reasonable to say ‘soon after the Nanpo Incident (Nanpo shi bian 南坡事變)’. Secondly, the ‘Court Bulletin’ appears in the sentence ‘A “Court Bulletin” (“Dibao” 邸報) arrived at the same day’. To my opinion, this ‘Court Bulletin’ is not a real ‘Court Bulletin’ as it appeared in the Song Dynasty. ‘Court Bulletin’ is merely an elevated form of reference, for instance, to the written statement of their appointment, or a rhetoric device utilized to enhance stature and refinement or to make a word or a thing appear more eruditely elegant. As many scholars have already pointed out, this feature was very commonly used by Chinese literati of ancient times, in many ways. Luo Genze 羅根澤, e.g. wrote that: ‘When Shen Yue 沈約 made an essay on rhythm, he mentioned “Gong shang jue zhi yu” (宮商角徵羽). By doing so, he actually used ancient names/terms to conceptualize a new theory. This was a common practice in ancient China, not just a personal habit of Shen Yue. It is because, in those times, people respected the Classics, so that those who advocated new theories needed to attach themselves to the ancient Classics in order to make themselves more respectable. (沈約論聲韻 , 言及宮商角徵羽 , 是用古名 , 名新說. 這是中國古代的通習, 不惟沈約一人為然. 惟以于時尊重古

典, 所以提倡新學術者, 不能不附古以自重.)’.27 Also, Tan Qixiang 譚其驤 gives many examples: ‘In ancient times, literati preferred to use ancient names (guming 古名) or bynames (bieming 別名) when they mentioned a place name, a district, or magistrates (Xingzhengqu hua he difang guan 行政區劃

25. Ke, Shaomin.柯劭忞, New History of the Yuan Dynasty: 208 (新元史, 卷 208, Shanghai: Kaiming Press, 開明書店鑄版),1935, 406–407. 26. Yuan Shi: 182, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1976, 4199–4203. 27. Luo, Genze.羅根澤, History of Criticism on Chinese Literature (Zhongguo wenxue piping shi 中國文學批評史), Shanghai: Shanghai Bookstore Press 上海書店出版社, 2003, 180.


和地方官). This practice not only applied when writing poems, essays, and correspondences, but also when signing native places (Shu jiguan 署籍貫) and inscribing book titles (Ti shuming 題書名). In the case of using ancient names for place names, for instance, Jinling 金陵 was used instead of Nanjing 南京, Guangling 廣陵 instead of Yangzhou 揚州. In reality, however, Jinling was the name used before the Qin (Xian Qin 先秦), and Guangling before the Tang 唐. After the Song-Yüan, these names ceased to be used. In the case of using bynames for place names, for instance, Wenling 溫陵 was used instead of Quanzhou 泉州, Liangxi 梁溪 instead of Wuxi 無錫. In reality, however, Quanzhou was never historically called Wenling; neither was Wuxi called Liangxi. Both are merely examples of bynames used by literati for the sake of elegance and refinement (‘Fengya’ 風雅). In the case of districts and magistrates, for instance, there were no Juns 郡 (Commanderies) at all after the Song, but Jun 郡 (Commandery) and Taishou 太守 (Prefect) very often appeared in writings of Song and Yuan literati, and in these cases, Jun meant Zhou 州 (Canton) or Fu 府 (Prefecture), and Taishou meant Zhizhou 知州 (Administrator of a Canton) or Zhifu 知府 (Administrator of a Prefecture) of that time. At that time, the region of a Zhou 州 or a Fu 府 was roughly equal to a Jun 郡 of the Western and Eastern Han Dynasties and the Following Six Dynasties, and Zhifu 知府 and Zhizhou 知州 was equal to Jun Taishou 郡太

守 (Prefect of a Jun). Another example is that Ming and Qing literati referred to Daoyuan 道員 (Circuit Intendants) as Guancha 觀察 (Surveillance), and to Zhixian 知縣 (Administrator of a County) as Xianling 縣令 (District Mag-istrate). In reality, however, Guancha 觀察 and Xianling 縣令 are all old titles used in the Tang Dynasty, and were never used after the Song Dynasty.’28 All these examples eloquently demonstrate that rashly concluding that a name or a title in an ancient text implies that it is the name for the actual thing, namely an official post or a place, should be avoided. In fact, there are two such obvious examples in Xu Youren’s ‘Lament for Habashi (Habashi aici 哈八石哀辭)’. One can be read at the beginning: ‘Habashi, surnamed Ding after his father’s style name, had “Wenyuan” as his personal style name, and was from Yutian (哈八石取父字, 姓丁, 字文苑, 于闐人)’. Here, Yutian is an obvious example of using an ancient name. The region of Yutian 于闐 in

28. Tan, Qixiang 譚其驤, ‘Summary of Historical Chinese Administrative Divisions’ (Zhong-guo lidai zhengqu gaishu 中國歷代政區概述), in Collection of Changshui (Changsshui cuibian 長水粹編), Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press 河北教育出版社, 2000, 34.

360 l i m a n

the southern Tarim Basin was often called Woduan 斡端 in the Yuan period.29 When the Yuan shi (‘History of the Yuan Dynasty’) mentions this region, it most often is referred to as Woduan 斡端;30 in the Menggu mi shi (蒙古秘

史 ‘The Secret History of the Mongols’), it is referred to as Wudan 兀丹; and in Yelüchuchai’s 耶律楚材 Xi You Lu (西遊錄 ‘Records of the Journey to the West’), it is referred to as Wuduan 五端. It is an obvious anachronism if one simply takes this region as the kingdom under the reign of the old Khotan regime of the Han-Tang period by seeing the characters ‘yu tian’ 于闐. Another example in this text can be read just near the characters ‘di bao’ 邸報: ‘A short time later, I was awarded as Liang-Huai Transport Commis-sioner, and Wenyuan moved to Shan Bei. The “Court Bulletin” (“Dibao” 邸報) arrived on the same day. 未<及>[幾], 予除兩淮轉運使, 文苑移山北, 邸報同日至. Here, ‘Transport Commissioner’ (Zhuanyunshi 轉運使) is an ancient name. In fact, there was no such official post as ‘Transport Commis-sioner’ (Zhuanyunshi) in the Yuan Dynasty. Here, Xu Youren borrowed the official title of the Song Dynasty, namely ‘Zhuanyunshi’ 轉運使, to refer to the position of ‘Salt Distribution Commissioner’ (Du zhuanyun jiansishi 都轉運鹽司使) he was newly appointed to. This shows that one cannot judge that Xu Youren was an official of the Song Dynasty, merely because of the title ‘Zhuanyunshi’ 轉運使 in the text. Another example can be found in a footnote in Fang Hanqi’s Zhongguo xinwen shiye tongshi—diyi juan.31 Here, the example given is that Liu Yazi 柳亞子 wrote a poem in Chongqing 重慶 in the 1940s, using the term ‘Dibao’ 邸報 to refer to the Xinhua Daily (Xinhua Ribao 新華日報). Liu Yazi’s employment of this word in the poem is, in fact, a literary expression for the sake of elegance and refinement. Can his poem be taken as a proof to demonstrate that a ‘Court Bulletin’ (‘Dibao’) still existed in the 1940s in China? For the same reason, we should not take for granted that the two characters ‘di bao’ 邸報 appearing in a Yuan text are a proof for the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty. A more logical interpretation is that here we have an example of a literary expression of Xu Youren’s, using an ancient name for the sake of elegance and refinement, to refer to the appointment document.

29. In Yuan Shi, Yu tian 于闐 appears 5 times, and Woduan 斡端 appears 26 times. 30. In Yuan Shi, this region was also called Hutan 忽炭, and occasionally Yutian. As all these instances are either a continuation of using ancient names, or are just transliterations of the name of the region in Chinese, they are not important for our argument. 31. Fang, Ancient Chinese Newspapers, 15–16, note 5.


Thirdly, when analysing Kong’s ‘from the tone of the sentence, it can be surmised that a “Court Bulletin” arrived at the same day (“Dibao” tongri zhi 邸報同日至)’,32 precisely ‘what’ ‘arrived at the same day’ is controversial. I prefer to regard what arrived at the same moment to be a document about the ‘transfer order’ or an ‘appointment document’ for Xu Youren and Ha-bashi, not a document about the ‘news on the transfer or appointment’ of Xu and Habashi. If it really were the news reported in the ‘Court Bulletin’ that arrived simultaneously, then Xu Youren would not necessarily emphasize ‘arrived on the same day’ (Tongri zhi 同日至). Rather, he should emphasize the news itself, i.e. the two appointments for Xu and Habashi listed in the same ‘Court Bulletin’ that arrived on the same day.33 The ‘Dibao’ or ‘Court Bulletin’ should be issued on the same date, whilst it is possible that the receivers of the ‘Court Bulletin’ do not get their copy on the same date. While the content of that issue of the ‘Court Bulletin’ should be the same for every copy, it does not matter whether or not two copies of the issue of that ‘Court Bulletin’ arrived on the same day. However, if we take the word ‘Dibao’ to be an euphemistic saying for an appointment document, then it is logical for Xu to emphasize the coincidence that he and his friend Habashi each received their appointments on the same day, in this way expressing his emotions with respect to this fate. Moreover, if the ‘Dibao’ mentioned in the text was like a Song ‘Court Bulletin’, then ‘Court Bulletins’ did not possess legal effect even though their content was transcribed from official documents, issued by the central government.’34 In other words, the nature of a ‘Court Bulletin’ is merely that of a public news-informing paper, without the right of appointment, and only an appointment document could function to mobilize officials. Therefore, it does not make sense to emphasize the simultaneous reception of copies of a ‘Dibao’, unless this ‘Dibao’ actually referred to an appointment document. Therefore, ‘”Dibao” tongri zhi’ (邸

32. Kong: 21–23 33. Usually, in such a situation, documents would use the expression ‘Lianpi’ 聯闢 (appointed with names listed together). For instance, in Shuiyuncun gao 水雲村稿, Vol. 11, Liu Xun 劉壎 mentions the following situation: ‘[. . .] 久而閱邸報, 見盛名與菊泉大司馬聯闢 [. . .]’: ‘A long time later, I read the “Court Bulletin” and found that your exalted name is listed together with “Dasima” Juquan’s as newly appointed officials.’ 34. Yao, Fushen 姚福申, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’ (Zhongguo gudai guanbao mingshi kao 中國古代官報名實考), Journalism and Communication 新聞研究資

料, 1985/5: 199–213.

362 l i m a n

報同日至) in the text should be understood as the two men’s (Xu’s and Habashi’s) appointment documents which arrived in their hands at the same day, not as the news-informing paper or ‘Court Bulletin’ (as it was in the Song) that records the information on their mobilization, and that arrived simultaneously. To summarized, the two characters di bao as they appear in Xu Youren’s ‘Lament’ cannot be taken as evidence for the existence of a ‘Court Bulletin’ in the Yuan Dynasty. We can thus conclude that the evidence used to prove the existence of a ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan Dynasty discussed in the first part of this article is not reliable. That there was no ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan Dynasty thus remains a reasonable conclusion. However, does this conclusion also imply that neither was there a ‘Guanbao’ 官報 in the Yuan Dynasty? We will turn to this question in the next section of this article.

Does the Absence of a ‘Dibao’ 邸報 Imply the Absence of a ‘Guanbao’ 官報 ?

In order to solve this question, it is first necessary to clarify the different names used for ancient Chinese ‘Guanbao’. Fang Hanqi’s Zhongguo Gudaide Baozhi (中國古代的報紙 ‘Ancient Chinese Newspapers’) gives a detailed overview of the different names used for ‘Guanbao’: ‘Feudalistic “Guanbao” (Fengjian “Guanbao” 封建官報) enjoyed quite a wide variety of different titles in Chinese classical texts and literature. The most frequently used one, is “Dibao” 邸報. For instance, [ . . .].Besides, it was also called “Chaobao” 朝報, as in [ . . .]; or “Chumu” 除目, as in [ . . .]; or “Dichao” 邸鈔, as in [ . . .]; or “Baozhuang” 報狀, as in [ . . .]; or “Chaobao”鈔報, as in [ . . .]; or “Jingbao” 京報, as in [ . . .]. All these names, along with “Zabao” 雜報, “Tiaobao” 條報, “Gechao” 閣鈔, etc., are all aliases of the feudalistic “Guan-bao” of ancient China. Some names refer to the institute and place issuing them, like “Dibao” 邸報, “Dichao” 邸鈔, “Gechao” 閣鈔, “Chaobao” 朝報, “Jingba”’ 京報, etc.; some refer to their contents and forms, as for “Zabao” 雜報, “Tiaobao” 條報, “Chumu” 除目, “Baozhuang” 報狀, “Zhuang” 狀, etc. Early feudalistic Guanbao did not have a masthead, so it is natural that there are diversified names.’35 According to Yao Fushen, however, these aliases of “Guanbao” are doubtful.

35. Fang, Ancient Chinese Newspapers, 15–16, note 5.


He argued that “Tiaobao” 條報 is a verb, not a noun; and that “Zabao” 雜報 only appears once in the literature. Therefore, he claims, they should both be ‘removed from the list of ancient Chinese “Baozhi” (報紙, newspaper).’36 Furthermore, the term ‘Chumu’ 除目 is the content of a ‘Chaobao’ 朝報 or a ‘Dibao’ 邸報 and should therefore ‘also be removed from the list’.37 He also states that as ‘Bao’ 報, ‘Baozhuang’ 報狀 and ‘Zhuangbao’ 狀報 are all not proper names, ‘it is obviously not appropriate to take them as the name for a type of “Guanbao”’.38 ‘Kechao’ 科鈔 and ‘Gechao’ 閣鈔, further, are documents examined and approved by the emperor. Therefore, these ‘should not be regarded as alias of ancient “Guanbao’”.39 Only ‘Chaobao’ 朝報, ‘Jin zou yuanzhuang’ 進奏院狀, ‘Dibao’ 邸報 and ‘Jingbao’ 京報 ‘are four basic names of ancient Chinese feudalistic ‘Guanbao’. They can generalize for all kinds of ancient ‘Guanbao’ from the early Tang to the Late Qing’.40

The studies cited above provide two contradictory opinions. Given that both opinions seem persuasive and are illustrated by ample examples, it is likely that it is the question itself that is wrong. More precisely, what do both authors mean by the term ‘Guanbao’? In my understanding, Fang Hanqi sees a ‘Guanbao’ as a method or a channel of the central government in ancient dynasties, with no fixed forms, for publishing such official informations as ‘Qijuzhu’ (起居注—records of an emperor’s daily life), major policy deci-sions, meeting communiqués, appointments of officials, imperial orders and royal edicts, memorials to the throne, etc. ‘Guanbao’ therefore is a general term or common noun, not a special term or proper noun.41 In Yao Fushen’s interpretation, ‘Guanbao’ is a term used to denote the papers issued by a special governmental department, of relatively fixed form and content, albeit with names that change with the times. Therefore, ‘Guanbao’ is a special term or a proper noun, not a general term or a common noun.42 In other words,

36. Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’: 202. 37. Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’: 207. 38. Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’: 213. 39. Yao,Fushen 姚福申 , ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins—continuation’ (Zhongguo gudai guanbao mingshi kao xu 中國古代官報名實考續), Journalism and Com-munication 新聞研究資料, 1986/1: 120. 40. Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins—continuation’: 126. 41. See Fang, Ancient Chinese Newspapers, 5–6. 42. See Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’ and ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins—continuation’.

364 l i m a n

Fang’s concept of ‘Guanbao’ is a concept with a narrower connotation but a wider denotation, while Yao’s concept has a wider connotation but a narrower denotation. Hence, the discrepancy between Fang’s and Yao’s viewpoint is actually caused by a different level of conceptualization. In my understanding, their arguments do not necessarily contradict each other. ‘Guanbao’ in a narrow sense refers to the four forms pointed out by Yao, viz., ‘Chaobao’ 朝報, ‘Jin zou yuanzhuang’ 進奏院狀, ‘Dibao’ 邸報, and ‘Jingbao’京報. These four enjoyed the same nature while bearing different titles. ‘Guanbao’ in a broad sense possesses—as Fang has explained—differ-ent titles, contents and forms, and is, in fact, a general term for all kinds of published documents of the central government. It thus becomes clear that, when Fang and Yao claimed that there was ‘no “Dibao” in the Yuan Dynasty’, this meant that there was no type of “Guanbao” called “Dibao”, or, that in the Yuan Dynasty, there was no “Guanbao” that took the shape of a “Dibao”.’ To Yao, who interprets the concept ‘Guanbao’ in a narrow sense, the absence of a ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan Dynasty implies that there was no ‘Guanbao,’ sustained by the fact that, in historical records relating to the Yuan Dynasty, none of the four types he discerned are mentioned. To Fang, on the other hand, as he interprets the concept ‘Guanbao’ in a broader sense, the absence of a ‘Dibao’ should not necessarily imply that there was no ‘Guanbao’. However, as he denies the existence of ‘Guanbao’, there have to be other arguments for this. Fang claimed that there was no ‘Guanbao’ in the Yuan because ‘The Yuan followed a practice of combining three departments (sansheng heyi 三省合

一), with the Director of Secretariat (Zhongshuling 中書令) ‘leading all offi-cials and judging with them the affairs (Dianling bai guan, hui jue shu wu 典領百官, 會決庶務). There was no Menxiasheng 門下省 (Chancellery) department in the Yuan, while this Chancellery was the major organ for ed-iting and publishing “Guanbao” in the Song’.43 At first sight, this argument seems logical. However, in this passage the broad and narrow interpretation of the concept ‘Guanbao’ are confused. It is true that, in the Song Dynasty, the Menxiasheng was in charge of publishing ‘Dibao’. However, it was not the only department to issue government documents or ‘Guanbao’ in a broad sense. Even the fact that the Menxiasheng was not established in the Yuan Dynasty can be interpreted differently. Although the ‘Bai Guan Zhi’ (百官志, Record of Official Titles) of the

43. Fang, History of Chinese Journalism:1, 113.


Yuan shi 元史 does not mention the ‘Menxiasheng’, the biography of Lian Xixian 廉希憲 in the Yuan shi mentions that:44

會議立門下省，帝曰：‘侍中非希憲不可。’遣中使諭旨曰：‘鞍馬

之任，不以勞卿，坐而論道，時至省中，事有必須執奏，肩輿以入

可也。’希憲附奏曰：‘臣疾何足恤。輸忠效力，生平所願。’皇太

子亦遣人諭旨曰：‘上命卿領門下省，無憚群小，吾為卿除之。’竟

為阿合馬所沮。

In the meeting, the establishment of the Menxiasheng was discussed. The emperor said: ‘Shizhong (Director of the Chancellery) must be Xixian.’ The Imperial Commissioner was sent to announce the following imperial instruction: ‘[I would not let ] trifles be burdens on you, only sitting and discussing the affairs would be your responsibility while you should sometimes go to your office. If anything is important enough to be reported to me [the emperor], then you can be carried in a sedan chair.’ Xixian submitted a memorial saying: ‘My humble disease should not have received solicitude from your Majesty. To be loyal to You and of Your service is all I want.’ The Heir Apparent also sent someone to announce: ‘His Majesty ordered you to be the leader of the Menxiasheng. Do not be afraid of those despicables. I will get rid of them for you.’ However, in the end [he] was held back [from the post] by Ahema. (own translation M.L.)

From this paragraph, it is clear that, in the early Yuan, the government did think about establishing the Menxiasheng, although Lian Xixian did not have the chance to be the director of it because of Ahema’s obstruction. This can also be read in other places in the Yuan shi. As in the following:45

禮部尚書謝昌元請立門下省，封駁制敕，以絕中書風曉近習奏請之

弊。帝銳意欲行之，詔廷臣雜議；且怒翰林學士承旨王盤曰：‘如是

有益之事，汝不入告，而使南方後至之臣言之，汝用學問何為！必今

日開是省。’三日，廷臣奏以文忠為侍中，及其屬數十人。

Xie Changyuan, Minister of the Ministry of Rites, reported to the throne to establish the Menxiasheng in order to prepare and issue imperial docu-ments, at the same time getting rid of the bad practices of hearsaying in the Zhongshusheng, and petitioning to the Emperor by close officials at court. The Emperor was determined to carry out this suggestion, and summoned officials to discuss this problem. Moreover, the Emperor was furious and said to Wang

44. Yuan Shi, Book 10, Vol.126, 3095–3096. 45. Yuan Shi, Book 12, Vol.148, 3504.

366 l i m a n

Pan, Hanlin Academician Recipient of Edicts, that ‘such a beneficial thing was not reported by you, but by a newly arrived subject of Southern China. Of what use is your knowledge?! The department (Menxiasheng) must be set up today.’ On the third day, officials at court asked to appoint Wenzhong as the Shizhong (Director of the Chancellery), as well as tens of his underlings. (own translation M.L.)

Here, Kublai became angry about the establishment of the Menxiasheng not being suggested by his close officials but by ‘a newly arrived subject of South-ern China’ and determined that ‘the department (Menxiasheng) must be set today’. It is clear that he attached great importance to this matter. Moreover, in volume 169 of the Yuan shi, it is mentioned that Jia Tingrui 賈廷瑞 once ‘suggested establishing the Xuanhuiyuan 宣徽院 (Palace Provisions Com-mission) as the Menxiasheng (Qing yi xuanhuiyuan wei menxiasheng 請以

宣徽院為門下省 ’.46 Although this ended unsuccessfully, it can be seen that both the Emperor and the subjects attached importance to the function of the Menxiasheng. It is important to note that, although the Yuan Government finally failed to establish the Menxiasheng, the functions of the Menxiasheng as they existed in the Song, had to be fulfilled in other ways.47 For instance, the Nei Ba Fu Zaixiang 內八府宰相 (Grand Councillor of the Eight Palace Offices, possibly derived from Mongolian Clerk (Menggu bishechi 蒙古必

闍赤 Bicigeci) is such an important person among whose responsibilities concerned some aspects of the Menxiasheng.48

46. Yuan Shi, Book 13, Vol.169, 3972. 47. ‘To be fulfilled through other ways’ means to realize one or several functions of the Menxiasheng through several departments or official posts, respectively, but not through a single department or post, because if one single department could function as Menxiasheng, then this would mean that the Menxiasheng could be re-installed under a new name (as, for instance, Jia Tingrui’s suggestion to establish the Xuanhuiyuan as Menxiasheng). Actually, there was no such department. 48. In Yuan Shi, Vol.87 (Bai Guan Zhi 3), it is recorded that: ‘內八府宰相, 掌諸王朝覲儐

介之事. 遇有詔令, 則與蒙古翰林院官同譯寫而潤色之. 謂之宰相云者, 其貴似侍中, 其近似門下 , 雖有是命, 而無授受宣命, 品秩則視二品焉.’: ‘The Nei Ba Fu Zaixiang (Grand Councillor of the Eight Palace Offices) is responsible for all matters concerning the presentation of all ‘kings’ (brothers of the Emperor) before the Emperor. Once an edict was issued, he would be responsible to translate and refine it together with officials from the Mongolian Hanlin Academy. He is called ‘Zaixiang’ precisely because this post is as distinguished as ‘Shizhong’ (Director of the Chancellery) is, and is as close as Menxia (lit.: ‘at the gate’, denoting service at the palace). It enjoys responsibility and influence, but without the official appointment commensurate with the second rank.’


In my understanding, it is so that, while there was no special institute such as the Menxiasheng in the Yuan for issuing government documents, ‘Guanbao’ did actually exist in various forms. ‘Chumu’ (除目), as mentioned by Fang Hanqi, is one of these important forms. As previously noted, Yao Fushen denied this perspective, and regarded it as merely a kind of table of contents printed on a ‘Dibao’. However, if the spread of contents of a ‘Chumu’ (the promotion and demotion, appointment and dismissal of officials) did not take the form of a ‘Dibao’, then the ‘Chumu’ itself must have been a form of ‘Guan-bao’ with its function limited to providing those names of newly appointed or dismissed candidates and their positions. If one regards ‘Dibao’ in the Song as a public communiqué of the central government with references to the internal bureaucratic system, then a ‘Chumu’ is similar to a ‘Dibao’, albeit with a narrower coverage of content. (A ‘Chumu’ essentially contained the promotion and demotion, appointment and dismissal of officials.) Although it is not clear whether the Yuan Dynasty ‘Chumu’ contained other information, many references within the contemporary literature of the period prove the existence of ‘Guanbao’, or central government communiqué, which took the shape of a ‘Chumu’. The following examples serve to establish this: The first two sentences of the poem ‘Ji chao sheng zhugong (寄朝省諸公)’ by Gong Kui 貢奎 read as follows: ‘太平開治急需賢, 除目新從驛騎傳 lit., Peaceful governing is in urgent need of virtuous personnel, so “Chumu” were newly transmitted by post horses’.49 In the second part of the sentence, not only is ‘Chumu’ mentioned, but as well the channel through which they were spread, i.e. the post house or Jam (Yizhan 驛站). Ouyang Xuan 歐陽玄, in two pieces of correspondence with his friend, also mentioned the ‘Chumu’. One is ‘A Letter to Censorial Envoy Zhang’ (Yu Zhang xianshi shu 與張憲使書). In the beginning of this letter, he wrote: ‘都門別後 , 賤跡尋亦謁告還湘 . 相距地逺 , 乏便致書 , 惟深馳

仰. 近傳全除目共諗, 移軺左浙, 弭節西江, 西江之民蘇息之期, 實在

此矣[ . . .]’: ‘After [we] parted in the gate of the capital, I also petitioned to retreat my humble body to Hunan. Because of the distance, I failed to send a letter to you, although I missed and admired you very much. Recently, the

49. Gong, Kui 貢奎, Yun Lin Ji 雲林集 (‘Collection of Yun Lin’, or lit.: ‘Collection of Cloud Forest’), Vol.5. (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股

份有限公司 , 1986, Book 1205, 649.

368 l i m a n

full ‘Chumu’ was circulated and read publicly. A special vehicle for you, the Censorial Envoy, will be heading to the East of Zhejiang and will stop West of the River. Then I know it is time for the people West of the River to enjoy their time in reviving and relaxing [ . . .]’.50

Another letter sent by Ouyang Xuan is ‘A letter to Liu Wenting’ (Yu Liu Wenting shu 與劉文廷書). Here we read: ‘[ . . .]乆之又以不蒙一紙之寄

為欠, 今夏忽睹除目, 承有儒㙜之擢, 既喜且駭[ . . .]’: ‘[ . . .I] apologize for not sending you any message for such a long time. This summer [I] sud-denly read the ‘Chumu’ and felt happy but also scared to be promoted in the scholarly sphere [ . . .]’.51 These two letters show that, in Ouyang Xuan’s time, scholars, officials and distinguished persons with a Han 漢 ethnic background, could read ‘Chumu’, or again, those government documents or public com-muniqués that pertained to the appointment and dismissal, promotion and demotion of officials. These documents, namely ‘Chumu,’ are, in fact, a form of ‘Guanbao’. In addition many scholars mentioned ‘Chumu’ in their personal poems. For instance, Wu Shidao 吳師道 wrote a poem for a friend entitled ‘For Na Wen-can, nominated Office Manager of Jiang-Zhe Province”’ (Song Na Wencan Jiang-Zhesheng dushi 送納文粲江浙省都事), writing that he ‘[ . . .] 聳聞

除目下, 欣值化弦更 [ . . .]’: ‘unexpectedly heard of the issue of “Chumu”, it is just a happy moment of reform’52; Song Jiong 宋褧 wrote in his poem ‘Successful People Gathered on the same List of Imperial Examinations’ (Tong Nian Hui 同年會) that “[ . . .]醉後方言頻爾汝, 座中除目互平章[ . . .]’: ‘only when we are drunk, we call each other by our first names. Otherwise, we call each other by our titles such as “Grand Councillor”, like in “Chumu”.’53; Hu Zhu’s 胡助 famous poem ‘Spring Rain’ (Chun yu 春雨) also mentions ‘Chumu’: ‘京城春雨似江南, 客況蕭條苦不堪. 又報中台除目下, 諸公

袞袞赴朝叅 ’: ‘the spring rain in the capital is just like in “Jiangnan”. As a

50. Ouyang Xuan 歐陽玄, Gui Zai Wen Ji 圭齋文集 (‘Collection of Gui Zai’), Shanghai: Shanghai Shangwu Yinshuguan 上海商務印書館縮印明成化刊黑口本 Publishing date unclear, Vol.15, 135. 51. Ouyang, Vol.15, 135. 52. Wu, Shidao 吳師道 Li Bu Ji 禮部集 (‘Collection of Li Bu’), Vol.6. (景印文淵閣四庫

全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股份有限公司, 1986, Book 1212, 55. 53. Song, Jiong 宋褧, Yan Shi Ji 燕石集 (‘Collection of Yan Shi’), Vol.6. Rare Editions of Collected Ancient Works Series By Beijing Library, Book 92 北京圖書館古籍珍本叢刊 92, Beijing: National Library Of China Publishing House 書目文獻出版社, 1991, 158.


passer-by, I suffered desolately in pain. Again, it was reported that a “Chumu” was issued from the Central Pavilion. All gentlemen continuously went to the court.’54; Cheng Tinggui’s 成廷珪 lines read: ‘吳門五月看除目, 喜見郎君

好姓名 . . .’: ‘In the 5th month, [I] read a “Chumu” at “Wumen”: it is good to see his nice name in it.’55 This list of examples could still be continued. However, as these are examples of mainly scholars of the early and mid-Yuan period, some further examples mentioning ‘Chumu’from the late Yuan are necessary. These examples are also hardly uncommon seen. For instance, Zheng Yuanyou 鄭元祐 (1292–1364), representative of the Wuzhong School 吳中

學派, once wrote an “epitaph for Budashili from Gaochang, Director of the Left and Right Office of Jiangxi Branch Secretariat 江西行中書省左右司郎

中高昌布達實哩公墓誌銘 ’ in which ‘Chumu’ was also mentioned: ‘[ . . .] 時至順改元秋也. 是年冬十月, 御史台以除目奏, 上复指其名曰: “良御史” [ . . .]’: ‘It was the moment of changing the reign title of His Majesty’s imperial reign to Zhishun. It was in the 10th month in that winter that the Censorate presented a memorial to the throne with a “Chumu” attached. His Majesty pointed at his name, saying: “a good Censor”.’56 Hu Tianyou 胡天

遊, a later scholar (date of birth unknown, died in the Ming Hongwu era (Zu yu Ming Hongwu nianjian 卒於明洪武年間) wrote a poem of which the title itself contains the term “Chumu”: ‘Reading “Chumu” (Guan ‘Chumu’ 觀除目), saying that 君王輕爵重艱危 , 欲把銅山鑄虎符 . 天上故人修

詔草, 山中幽子看除書[ . . .]’: ‘As the Emperor cares about the difficulties and dangers confronting the country, but not about the “rank of nobility”, he wishes to cast a whole mountain of copper into tiger-shaped tallies. My old acquaintance is now [serving in the court and] writing rescripts, while

54. Hu, Zhu 胡助, Chun Bai Zhai Lei Gao 純白齋類稿 (‘Manuscript of the Pure White Room’), Vol.15 (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股

份有限公司 , 1986, Book 1214, 637. 55. Cheng, Tinggui 成廷珪 , Juzhu Xuan Shi Ji 居竹軒詩集 (“Poetry Anthology of the Juzhu Room), Vol.2 (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書

館股份有限公司 , 1986, Book 1216, 314. 56. Zheng, Yuanyou 鄭元佑, Qiao Wu Ji 僑吳集 (“Collection of Migrated-in-Wu”) Vol.12 (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股份有限公司, 1986, Book 1216, 604.

370 l i m a n

[I], the nobody in the mountains, am reading “Chushu”.’57 It is notable that, although this poem is entitled ‘Reading “Chumu”,’ the poem line does not directly use the phrase ‘Chumu’ but instead ‘Chushu’. There are two reasons for this usage: one is that ‘Chushu’ is an alias of ‘Chumu’, the other reason is for the sake of rhythm. From the above examples, we can conclude that, in the Yuan Dynasty, a ‘Guanbao’ existed which took the shape of a ‘Chumu’ 除目. Furthermore, we can know that this type of ‘Guanbao’ is, in fact, a communiqué by the central government, available to those within the bureaucratic system, with the promotion and demotion, appointment and dismissal of officials as its content. It is in this sense that a ‘Guanbao’ existed in the Yuan Dynasty. Strictly speaking, this kind of ‘Guanbao’ of the Yuan Dynasty is no differ-ent in nature from other types of ‘Guanbao’ of other dynasties. They are all central governmental communiqués issued to lower levels,58 with none of the characteristics of a modern newspaper. Instead, those ‘Xiaobao’ 小報, ‘tabloid’ which were popular among the people and were unsuccessfully forbidden by the Government, are within their news-informing content and usage a production more similar to modern newspapers. In fact, ‘Xiaobao’ 小報 was a term first used in the Southern Song by Zhou Linzhi 周麟之 (1118–1164) in an article titled ‘On the prohibition of Xiaobao 論禁小報 ’. In this article, Zhou strongly advocated the prohibition of the spread of Xiaobao:

[…]仰惟皇帝陛下，自更化以來，<蠱>[整]飭百度，鼎新庶政，登

用賢儁，屏除姦回，凡積年弊事，固已一切剗革，而釐正之矣。方

陛下頒詔旨布命令，雷厲風飛之時，不無小人譸張之說，眩惑群聽。

如前日，所謂召用舊臣者，浮言胥動，莫知從來。臣嘗究其然矣，此

皆私得之小報。小報者，出于進奏院，蓋邸吏輩為之也。比年事有疑

似，中外未知，邸吏必競以小紙書之，飛報逺近，謂之小報。如曰今

日某人被召，某人被召罷去，某人遷除。往往以虛為實，以無為有。

57. Hu, Tianyou 胡天游, Ao Xuan Yin Gao 傲軒吟稿 (‘Manuscript for Poems in the Room of Proud’), (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股份有

限公司 , 1986, Book 1216, 730. 58. Yao Fushen’s two articles about this problem, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’ and ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins—continuation’ give a detailed expatiation, although his opinion on the differentiation of ‘Guanbao’ is arguable, his explanation on the nature of ‘Guanbao’ is insightful.


朝士聞之，則曰已有小報矣。州<都>[郡]間得之，則曰小報已到矣。

他日驗之其說，或然，或不然；使其然耶，則事涉不密，其不然耶，

則何以取信？此于害治，雖若甚微，其實不可不察。臣愚欲望陛下深

詔有司，嚴立罪賞，痛行禁止。使朝廷命令播之天下，天下可得而

聞，不可得而測；可得而信，不可得而詐。則國體尊，而民聽一。

臣不勝至願取進止。59

[ . . .]Ever since your Majesty took the reform to rectify things, to improve poli-cies, to appoint virtuous people and to dismiss treacherous people, all those ac-cumulated malpractices have already been eradicated and corrected. But when your Majesty makes a promulgation or issues an order [as resolutely as] thunder and winds, mean persons’ rumours will most likely accompany it and confuse the audience. For instance, days before, the sayings of calling back the old of-ficial were in fanfare60, without it being known where [the sayings] came from. I have tried to find the reason, and all these [hearsays] are privately known from Xiaobao. Xiaobao, coming from the ‘Memorials Office’ (Jinzouyuan 進奏院), are produced by Liaison Hostelers. In recent years, when anticipated [official decisions] are still unknown at home and abroad, Liaison Hostelers contended to write them down in small pieces of paper and rushed to spread them far and near. Those papers were called xiaobao. For instance, [in these papers it is said that] today someone is called in [for appointment], someone is called in for dismissal and someone is transferred. [These papers] often take false information as truth, or what is non-existent to be existent. When court officials hear news (of official arrangement or decision), they say that they knew it from xiaobao; when provincial officials hear it, they say that the xiaobao has already arrived. If,

59. Zhou, Linzhi 周麟之, ‘lun jin xiaobao 論禁小報 On the prohibition of Xiaobao’, Hai–ling ji 海陵集 (‘Collection of Hailing [where the author was from]’), (景印文淵閣四庫全書 Photofacsimile reprint of the Wenyuan Pavilion copy of the Siku Imperial Library), Taipei: The Commercial Press, Ltd. Taiwan, 台灣商務印書館股份有限公司, 1986, Book 1142, Vol.3, 18–19. 60. ‘Old official’ refers to Zhang Jun 張浚 (1097—1164). Zhang Jun is the leader of the Southern Song party that opposed the Jin 金 (1115–1234) regime. After the death of Qin Hui 秦檜 (1090–1155), the leader of the pro-Jin party, emperor Gaozong 宋高宗 wished to maintain the ‘armistice’ between his state and the Jin. However his advisors and high officials of the anti-Jin side endeavored to wage a ‘revenging’ war against the Jin, and even forged an imperial order to reinstate Zhang Jun, so as to either somehow force the throne to agree with their political stand, or to invoke the rivalry Jin to start hostility against the Southern Song for its anti-Jin attitude. See any edition of xu zi zhi tong jian 續資治通鑒, vol.131, in the entry of the 25th of the third month (三月丙寅) of 1156 (Shaoxing 26, 紹興二十六年) (i.e. April 15, 1156). For this article, I consulted: Bi, Yuan 畢沅, xu zi zhi tong jian 續資治通鑒, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書

局, 1957, book 8, vol. 131, 3471.

372 l i m a n

on a later day, the information that appeared in the xiaobao is tested for truth, then it can only be either true or false. If it is true, then the divulgence [of the official decisions or policies] has happened; if it is false, then how can [the gov-ernment] enjoy the trust of the people [when they take this fake information as true official information]? This seems to be quite a minor issue with respect to the damage of governance, but in fact we cannot afford to neglect it. I humbly wish that your Majesty issues orders to responsible organs to set up rigid laws [for punishment and awards concerning the issue of xiaobao], and to strictly enforce the prohibition of [spreading xiaobao]. Thus, orders promulgated from the court will spread everywhere, and people from everywhere will be able to know the orders but be unable to predetermine them; orders will be able to be trusted but unable to be falsified. The dignity and grandeur of the state will then be respected, and the instruction and informing of the people will be unified. I humbly wish to do your will.

From Zhou’s narration, it is clear that Xiaobao is a term used to describe those small pieces of papers bearing unauthorized information. For the sake of either preventing the divulgence of official decisions if the xiaobao in fact reported information correctly, or to preserve the credibility of the imperial government if the content of the xiaobao was inaccurate, Zhou advocated the prohibition of the spread of this kind of ‘newspaper’. Zhao Sheng 趙升 (the details of his life-time not available, mostly active during Ningzong’s 宋寧宗 reign 1194–122461) also made it quite clear that a xiaobao is something like a ‘newspaper’:

日生事宜也。每日門下後省編定，請給事判報，方行下都進奏院，報

行天下。其有所謂內探、省探、衙探之類，皆衷私小報，率有漏泄之

禁，故隱而號之曰新聞。62

Things generate every day. The Chancellery edits information about them, and asks the Executive Assistant to judge their publishability. Then, the information is transmitted to the Chief Memorials Office to be published. There are so-called neitan (Insider Scout), shengtan (Chancellery Scout), yatan (Department Scout), etc. who privately search information for xiaobao. Then came the prohibition of this divulgence activity. Therefore, [information through xiaobao] was secretly named ‘xinwen’ (news, or newly heard things).

61. Zhao, Sheng 趙升, chao ye leiyao 朝野類要 (Reference Book for Both Court and Civil Life), Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局, Prelude, 3. 62. Zhao, 2007, Vol.4, 88-89.


Due to the nature of xiaobao to divulge official decisions, many decrees were issued to prohibit them in the Song. Here we just mention one as an example:

近聞不逞之徒撰造無根之語，名曰小報，轉播中外，駭惑聽聞。今後

除進奏院合行關報已施行事外，如有似此之人，當重決配。63

Recently, it has been heard that some unruly people fabricate rootless sayings to spread at home and abroad through what is called ‘xiaobao’, causing shocks for those who get information from it. From now on, except for the routine reports of things already carried out by the Memorials Office, anyone [who spreads information through xiaobao] will, as aforementioned, be heavily punished.

Although the prohibition of xiaobao was carried out strictly, they managed to survive. In the Yuan dynasty, xiaobao were also popular among people. Although up to the present, no actual physical ‘Xiaobao’ entity has been discovered, and even within literature it is very difficult to find a trace of it, certain important information is available. Most researchers would cite an injunction in Yuan shi Vol.105: ‘諸但降詔旨條畫, 民間輒刻小本賣於市

者, 禁之.’: ‘All imperial decrees, edicts and regulations that are issued, are forbidden to be copied and printed in xiaoben (lit. small pamphlet) and to be sold in the market without permission.’64 This injunction demonstrates the existence of ‘Xiaoben’ 小本. Xiaoben is very likely another word for ‘Xiaobao’. Both the content (information, decree, orders not yet released by the govern-ment) and form (small pieces of paper convenient for carriage) of xiaoben are similar to those of xiaobao. Also the official prohibition of their spread is similar. Therefore, it is very probable that Xiaoben is another name for xiaobao, or at least xiaoben, like xiaobao, is a general term for those small papers that carry unauthorized information. As Chen Yuan 陳垣 said: ‘必其有所效, 而後有所禁也 ’: ‘Behaviors must be practised first, injunctions come later’.65 The contents of these forbidden ‘Xiaoben’ included ‘Zhao zhi tiao hua’ (詔

63. Xu, Song 徐松, Song huiyao gao 宋會要稿 (Photofacsimile reprint), book 165 (Criminal Law 2 刑法二), Shanghai: Dadong shuju 大東書局, 1936, 123a. 64. Yuan Shi, Book 9, Vol.105, 2680. 65. See Chen Yuan’s 陳垣 Sinization of the People in the Western Area in the Yuan Dynasty (Yuan xiyuren huahua kao 元西域人華化考), Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House 上海古籍出版社, 2000, Vol.6, 113. This sentence was originally used in the context of ‘forbidding Uighur people [to be buried] according to Han people’s custom 禁止畏兀兒效漢

兒體例 ’. However, its reasoning can be applied here. Although the focus of Chen was on trans-formation of the word xiao (效 the behavior of imitation) in the sentence, my quotation here is to establish that the injunction came after the practice (of imitation) or xiao of selling Xiaoben.

374 l i m a n

旨條畫: imperial decrees, edicts and regulations) which are also some part of ‘Guanbao’. This practice of selling ‘Xiaoben’ probably originated from the newspaper profiteers of the Song who sold ‘Chaobao’ 朝報 or ‘Xiaobao’ as counterfeit ‘Chaobao’. As aforementioned, in the Song, selling ‘Xiaobao’ as counterfeit ‘Chaobao’ was prohibited.66 After the Yuan replaced the Song, this unlawful practice continued to exist, and it was for this reason that the Yuan government issued the injunction, just as the Song government did. We can thus conclude that the absence of ‘Dibao’ does not imply the ab-sence of ‘Guanbao’. ‘Dibao’ is the subordinate concept or specific concept, while ‘Guanbao’ is the superordinate or generic concept. ‘Guanbao’ can be translated into English with different words, such as ‘government organ’, ‘communiqué’, ‘gazette’, ‘official journal’, etc. Therefore, the denial of the existence of ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan Dynasty does not necessarily mean that there were no ‘Guanbao’ in the Yuan Dynasty. In this viewpoint, this article differs from the ideas of other scholars.

Conclusion

This paper dealt with two major problems: did ‘Dibao’ 邸報 exist in the Yuan Dynasty, and did ‘Guanbao’ exist? For the first question, this paper analysed the evidence commonly used to discuss this matter, and explained in detail why these historical sources cannot be taken as evidence for the existence of ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan. The second question is actually derived from the first one. As demonstrated above, it is in fact a problem of unclear vision. Clarifying this confusion is the key to solving the problem. This paper has shown that ‘Dibao’ is only a type of ‘Guanbao’ and that therefore the absence of ‘Dibao’ in the Yuan does not necessarily have to lead to the conclusion that ‘Guanbao’ were also absent. It can be concluded that ‘Dibao’ did not exist in the Yuan Dynasty, but that some types of ‘Guanbao’ such as the ‘Chumu’ did exist.

66. Yao, ‘Studies on Ancient Chinese Official Bulletins’: 199–213.

On Yuan Dynasty 'newspapers': The existence of 'dibao' and 'guanbao' reexamined

Documents

Transcript of On Yuan Dynasty 'newspapers': The existence of 'dibao' and 'guanbao' reexamined