It would hardly provoke protest to state that the “Letter to Ren An” (hereafter: Letter) is one of the most frequently read pieces in the Chinese epistolary tradition. As a text traditionally attributed to Sima Qian and usually received in tandem with the Shiji, the Letter has long been regarded as an integral part of the interpretation of his opus magnum and the key source for reconstructions of the motives of its putative author. The Letter is so informative and expressive that readers tend to neglect its heartlessness (especially as a letter to an imprisoned acquaintance) and its problematic relationship with the Shiji. This volume, consisting of a full translation of the Letter and research papers by the four contributors, presents comprehensive investigations of various aspects of the Letter, including its authorship, date, authenticity, themes, styles, versions and influence.
In the first chapter, the four authors provide a highly readable translation that effectively delivers the spirit of the original text and comes with a wealth of notes. With the Hanshu version of the Letter as its base text, the translation gives adequate consideration to textual variants in the Wenxuan version as well as its commentarial traditions. Alternative readings are provided in the notes on the translation and in the following chapters, presenting stimulating discussions that shed light on the interpretation of key terms such as qinmei 親媚, kongwen 空文 and kuanghuo 狂惑. Though, generally speaking, the translation is sound and accessible, one might occasionally have hoped for a stricter adherence to philological considerations such as clear indications of interpolations by the translators and closer reflection of the stylistic structure of some original phrases (e.g. the translation of 不能拾遺補闕, 招賢進能, 顯巖穴之士 on p. 23). Also, more in-depth explanations regarding repeated occurrences of the same word that may convey different meanings (e.g. 俗 as common, vulgar, ordinary custom, and world) would have been beneficial for some readers.
Regarding the four individual papers on the Letter, there are overlaps in research interests, but the four authors apply different approaches and exhibit different styles of presenting their views, thereby opening up inspiring perspectives.
With a focus on provenance, date and authenticity, Stephen Durrant meticulously explicates his train of thought, going back and forth between arguments and counterarguments. The first part explores scholarly debates about the date of the Letter and summarizes Durrant's views on this matter, while the second part deals with the authenticity of the Letter and its function as a key to the interpretation of the Shiji. Durrant draws attention to the lesser-known version of the Letter in the Qian Hanji, to the similarity between the Letter and Yang Yun's letter, and to inconsistencies between the Letter and the Shiji. Given that most of his conclusions remain tentative, they aptly demonstrate the complexities of seemingly simple problems regarding the Letter.
In the third chapter, Hans van Ess also briefly discusses the date and the authenticity of the Letter, but focuses more on interpreting the Letter through the lens of faction conflicts at the Han court, and on examining Ban Gu's verdict on Sima Qian's presentation of contemporary people and events. In addition, van Ess juxtaposes parallel accounts of those who made their names as writers (cf. “suffering authors” in Wai-yee Li's chapter) in the Letter and in the “Personal narration” (Shiji chapter 130), and analyses their intertextuality in the light of Ban Gu's text management and his application of key phrases.
Michael Nylan carries out a stylometric analysis, comparing “the Letter's syntactical units, vocabulary and particles, to those found in other related works” (p. 77). The suggestive results of this experimental analysis are presented in seven pie charts. With Nylan's caveats regarding the methodology running throughout her analysis (with some potential problems unaddressed), the benefit of this approach does indeed remain debatable. Also, one would have expected a full list of items in her sample set so as to inform the reader of the words/phrases she analyses. In the hope of broadening the discourse regarding the Letter, Nylan then moves towards a discussion of the portrayal of intimate friendship in the Letter and more general perceptions of friendship during the Han period.
In the last chapter of this volume, Wai-yee Li concentrates on the lists of suffering authors in the Letter and in chapter 130 of the Shiji. Unlike the previous three chapters that more or less concur in challenging the convention of treating the “Letter” as part of the Shiji tradition, it would appear that Li is inclined to merge the two back together, especially in her analysis of the Letter within the epistolary culture transmitted in the Shiji corpus. Though most of the passages referred to in her explorations of “reverberations” of the Letter are fairly well known, her discussion of perceptions of the relation between suffering and writing provides a convenient list of references.
Questioning the received understanding of the Letter's nature, authorship and its relation with the Shiji, this volume, based on solid scholarship and scrupulously referenced, will become a must-read for anyone interested in the study of Sima Qian and the Shiji. It also serves as a most welcome reminder of the necessity to periodically re-evaluate well-established perceptions of literary traditions with a critical eye.
