Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 3.djvu/322

---

have witnessed in China in our own day, than to the appearance of a fourth text, which displaced A fourth text; that of Mâo. them by its superior correctness, and the ability with which it was advocated and commented on. This was what is called the Text of Mâo. It came into the field rather later than the others; but the Han Catalogue contains the Shih of Mâo, in twenty-nine chapters, and a Commentary on it in thirty-nine. According to Kăng Hsüan, the author of this was a native of Lû, known as Mâo Hăng or 'the Greater Mâo,' who had been a disciple, we are told by Lü Teh-ming, of Hsün Khing. The work is lost. He had communicated his knowledge of the Shih, however, to another Mâo,—Mâo Kang, 'the Lesser Mao,' who was a great scholar, at the court of king Hsien of Ho-kien, a son of the emperor King. King Hsien was one of the most diligent labourers in the recovery of the ancient books, and presented the text and work of Hăng at the court of his father,—probably in B.C. 129. Mâo Kang published Explanations of the Shih, in twenty-nine chapters,—a work which we still possess; but it was not till the reign of Phing (A.D. 1 to 5) that Mâo's recension was received into the Imperial College, and took its place along with those of Lû, Khî, and Han Ying.

The Chinese critics have carefully traced the line of scholars who had charge of Mâo's Text and Explanations down to the reign of Phing. The names of the men and their works are all given. By the end of the first quarter of our first century we find the most famous scholars addicting themselves to Mâo's text. The well-known Kiâ Khwei (A.D. 30 to 101) published a work on the Meaning and Difficulties of Mâo's Shih, having previously compiled a digest of the differences between its text and those of the other three recensions, at the command of the emperor Ming (A.D. 58 to 75). The equally celebrated Mâ Yung (A.D. 79 to 166) followed with another commentary;—and we arrive at Kăng Hsüan or Kăng Khang-khăng (A.D. 127 to 200), who wrote a Supplementary Commentary to the Shih of Mâo, and a Chronological Introduction to the Shih. The former of these two works complete, and