Introduction 191 



with caution, and for a year was kept prisoner by the Hiun-nu." When 

 he adds, however, "but the relations which he had started brought the 

 cultivated plants to China in the course of the next years," he goes on 

 guessing or speculating. 



In his recent study of Can K'ien, Hirth 1 admits that of cultivated 

 plants only the vine and alfalfa are mentioned in the Si ki. 2 He is 

 unfortunate, however, in the attempt to safeguard his former position 

 on this question when he continues to argue that "nevertheless, the one 

 hero who must be looked upon as the pioneer of all that came from 

 the West was Chang K'ien." This is at best a personal view, but an 

 unhistorical and uncritical attitude. Nothing allows us to read more 

 from our sources than they contain. The TsH min yao $u, to which 

 Hirth takes refuge, can prove nothing -whatever in favor of his 

 theory that the pomegranate, sesame, garlic, 3 and coriander were 

 introduced by Can K'ien. The work in question was written at least 

 half a millennium after his death, most probably in the sixth century 

 a.d., and does not fall back on traditions coeval with the Han and 

 now lost, but merely resorts to popular traditions evolved long after 

 the Han period. In no authentic document of the Han is any allusion 

 made to. any of these plants. Moreover, there is no dependence on 

 the Ts'i min yao iw in the form in which we have this book at present. 

 Bretschneider 4 said wisely and advisedly, "The original work was in 

 ninety-two sections. A part of it was lost a long time ago, and much 

 additional matter by later authors is found in the edition now cur- 

 rent, which is in ten chapters. . . . According to an author of the 

 twelfth century, quoted in the Wen hien fun k'ao, the edition then 

 extant was already provided with the interpolated notes; and accord- 

 ing to Li Tao, also an author of the Sung, these notes had been added 

 by Sun Kuh of the Sung dynasty." 5 What such a work would be 

 able to teach us on actual conditions of the Han era, I for my part 

 am unable to see. 



1 Journal Am. Or. Soc, Vol. XXXVII, 1917, p. 92. The new translation of this 

 chapter of the Si ki denotes a great advance, and is an admirable piece of work. It 

 should be read by every one as an introduction to this volume. It is only on points 

 of interpretation that in some cases I am compelled to dissent from Hirth's opinions. 



8 This seems to be the direct outcome of a conversation I had with the author 

 during the Christmas week of 191 6, when I pointed out this fact to him and remarked 

 that the alleged attributions to Can K'ien of other plants are merely the outcome of 

 later traditions. 



* This is a double error (see below, p. 302). 



4 Bot. Sin., pt. I, p. 77. 



8 Cf. also Pelliot (Bull, de I'Ecole franqaise, Vol. IX, p. 434), who remarks, 

 "Ce vieil et preaeux ouvrage nous est parvenu en assez mauvais 6tat." 



