Viewing page 13 of 182

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

13

of Ch'i(齊), Lu(魯), Chao(趙) and Wei(魏) for a year and purchased more than three thousand fragments, thus totalling my collection over five thousand pieces.  Therefore the greater part of these inscribed bones discovered in the year Chi-hai (己亥, 1899) are now in my possession; what is left out of this year's discovery must be rather insignificant...." [[superscript]]13[[/superscript]]
[[/block quotation]]

Tieh-Yüng T'sang-kuei was published in 1903.  It is remarkable that nothing was known of Tuan Fang's collection even in this period; and the matter has ever since remained in obscurity.^[[ [[superscript]]14[[/superscript]] ]]  On the other hand the publication of this book by Liu Ê must be considered a momentous event; it marked a turning point in Chinese scholarship and laid a solid foundation for later development.

Lo Chen-yü, the brilliant and worthy successor to Liu Tieh-yün, was first introduced to Liu's collection in 1902.^[[ [[superscript]]15[[/superscript]] ]]  He perceived their importance immediately and made the exclamation that how the great masters in the field of ancient epigraphy in the Han Dynasty like Chang(張), Tu(杜), Yang(楊), and Hsü(許) had missed them.[[superscript]]16[[/superscript]]

[[line across page]]

[[footnote]]13. In the same preface,Liu Tieh-yün has recorded the curio-dealer's first version regarding the origin of these tortoise shells. They were uncovered,according to this version from the ancient remains of Yu-li(羑里) in T'ang-yin). He evidently believed it, and laid the statement down quite categorically.[[/footnote]]

[[footnote]]14. The obscurity of Tuan Fang's collection is not to be surprized at,for in the early days it was believed that such specimens of ancient writing were spurious, and invented by a few to deceive the public. Chang Pin-lin(章炳麟), for instance, expressed such opinion frequently(See "A recent interview with Chang Pin-lin(章炳麟訪問記)published in La Revue Literarre de L'Impartial, No. 128,23 June, 1930.).It may be that Tuan did not have the courage to make public his collection, lest that he may incur the same criticism. For all these,however,further proofs must be awaited to show how trust worthy is the statement regarding Tuan Fang's collection. But it is quite obvious that it did take some courage and a great deal of insight to publish such strange records the first time.[[/footnote]]

[[footnote]]15. Lo made it 1900 in his preface to Yin-hsü Shu-ch'i Ch'ien-pien(殷虛書契前編). But as Tung has definitely shown that as the collection passed to Liu only in 1902,and Lo first saw it in Liu's place,it could not be 1901.Liu wrote his preface only one year after the collection, while Lo wrote his preface more than ten years after the first writing to Liu's collection,the mistake is therefore more likely with Lo.[[/footnote]]

[[footnote]]16. Lo had a special seal made with the following characters: 見張杜楊許未見之文字 and had it stamped in Yin-hsü Shu-ch'i.[[/footnote]]