Foundational to the study of early China, the Shijing 詩經 (Book of Odes), Zuozhuan 左傳 (Zuo Tradition), Shiji 史記 ([Grand] Scribe's Records), and Hanshu 漢書 (History of the [Former] Han) lay the bedrock for research in the field. Of these classic works, the Hanshu has received relatively little attention in the last century. Though its ten treatises—such as the “Lüli zhi” 律曆志 (Treatise on Harmonics and Astronomy), “Xingfa zhi” 刑法志 (Treatise on Penal Law), “Shihuo zhi” 食貨志 (Treatise on Financial Administration), “Dili zhi” 地理志 (Treatise on Administrative Geography), and “Yiwen zhi” 藝文志 (Bibliographic Treatise)—have remained important discussion topics, Hanshu has largely been approached as historical reference material, rather than as an object of direct study.1 Chen Jun's Runse hongye 潤色鴻業 (Embellishing the Imperial Order) is the first academic work to comprehensively investigate the Hanshu and its early history.The book is divided into two parts. Part 1 comprises the primary content in seven chapters: Prehistory of the Hanshu's CompilationFrom Conflict to Collaboration: The Politically Influenced HanshuEncapsulating an Era: The Hanshu's Textual MilieuThe Hanshu's Political Agenda and Political InfluenceManifesting Han Power: The Hanshu's Historical MissionEstablishing Consensus: The Hanshu's Circulation in the Medieval PeriodTraditions of Hanshu Exegesis in the Medieval PeriodPart 2, “Biographical Chronology of Ban Biao 班彪 (3–54 CE) and Ban Gu 班固 (32–92 CE), Father and Son,” begins with Ban Biao's birth in the third year of the Yuanshi reign of Emperor Ping of the Western Han (3 CE) and concludes with Ban Gu's death in the fourth year of the Yongyuan reign of Emperor He of the Eastern Han (92 CE). Following the outlines of Han (202 BCE–220 CE) political history, this chronology focuses on the literary and scholarly activities of Ban Biao and Ban Gu and includes the deeds of other notable scholars, providing historical background for part 1.This book contains a concise introduction in which Chen faithfully and cogently summarizes his major arguments. Those who find reading the book too time-consuming may want to start there, so as not to forgo the work's most compelling findings. Chen also indicates his primary approach therein: “Throughout the evolution of premodern Chinese political culture, the close integration of knowledge and political power was a ubiquitous phenomenon” (1). Indeed, this volume is a history of political culture. Through the lens of the Hanshu's formation, it aims to analyze the relation between knowledge and political power in the Eastern Han.2 Chen's principal research questions are as follows: How did political power play a role in the Hanshu's formation?How are historical writings shaped by the interaction of knowledge and political power?. . . . .In what follows, I introduce each chapter of part 1 in turn and discuss a few pertinent points. Since “xu” 續 (continuations) of the Taishigong shu 太史公書 (Grand Scribe's Records) and Ban Biao's Shiji houzhuan 史記後傳 (Later Tradition of the [Grand] Scribe's Records) are largely nonextant, chapter 1 (“Prehistory of the Hanshu's Compilation”) primarily gathers biographical information about Ban Biao and seventeen scholars who wrote such “xu.” Scholars well versed in the Shiji and Hanshu are generally familiar with the fact that Chu Shaosun 褚少孫 (1st c. BCE), Liu Xiang 劉向 (77–76 BCE), Liu Xin 劉歆 (50? BCE–23 CE), and Yang Xiong 揚雄 (53 BCE–18 CE) all wrote “xu” of the Taishigong shu; less are familiar with the other ten-odd “xu” authors mentioned in Li Xian's 李賢 (655–684 CE) Hou Hanshu zhu 後漢書注 (Commentary to the History of the Later Han) and the “Gujin zhengshi” 古今正史 (Standard History of Past and Present), a chapter of Liu Zhiji's 劉知幾 (661–721 CE) Shitong 史通 (General History). Chapter 1 thus lays out some highly useful research. The thrust of the chapter is the thorough and detailed study of Ban Biao's family, life, and authorship of the Shiji houzhuan. To this end, Chen adopts the notion of clan- or region-based political groups, writing: “The origin of the Ban clan from Anling [county], Fufeng [commandery], can be traced back to the Spring and Autumn period” (30); “In the final years of the Western Han, the Fufeng Bans, as kin to the imperial line, differed from the offspring of ordinary nobles” (31); “Wei Ao's faction, with which Ban Biao was initially affiliated, was a political group based around a Long You clan” (32). Chen makes similar claims in chapter 2, such as: “In light of the general situation at that time, it was not exceptional that Ban Gu was treated coldly, as many scholar-official clans—such as the Duling (Jingzhao) Fengs, the Duling Dus, and the Anling Bans—were falling out of favor” (41). Here we can easily see the influence of scholars since Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 (1890–1969 CE) on the study of medieval history. But this approach does not suit the study of the Han period. The Han inherited Qin (221–207 BCE) institutions. In the management of regional communities, both adopted the system of household and property division (fenyi fa 分異法) established during Shang Yang's 商鞅 (390–338 BCE) legal reforms: in households with two or more sons, the son(s) not responsible for supporting the elder kin and inheriting the family property received land from the government and established their own household(s) upon reaching adulthood. A household that did not divide in this way owed twice as much tax. With this system, small households formed the backbone of society. For the Qin, with its abundant natural resources, it was essentially a land cultivation scheme in disguise, which aimed to steadily expand and utilize arable land area with newly created households. The system gradually fell into disuse during the Han, but it was not until Emperor Ming of Wei (r. 226–239 CE) during the Three Kingdoms (220–280 CE) that it was abolished completely. Judging from Hanshu's “Dili zhi,” which records the countrywide household registration information for the late Western Han, the population during that period primarily comprised small households, with five people per household on average. We therefore cannot approach the late Western Han and early Eastern Han using the notion of clans or clan-based political groups.Chapter 2, “From Conflict to Collaboration: The Politically Influenced Hanshu,” is of special note. Section 3, “Speculating about the Status of the Hanshu as Presented by Ban Gu in Jianchu 7 (82 CE),” speaks to the pivotal stage of the Hanshu's formation and is thus immensely important. Chen likens the Hanshu to the Hanhou shu 漢後書 (Hua's History of the Later Han), Dongguan Hanji 東觀漢記 (Eastern Library's Record of the Han), Hou Hanshu 後漢書 (History of the Later Han), and even the Tang-era (618–907 CE) Wudai shizhi 五代史志 (Historical Treatises of the Five Dynasties), to infer that the Hanshu comprised at first only annals (ji 紀) and biographies (zhuan 傳), to which treatises (zhi 志) and tables (biao 表) were steadily supplemented afterward. Chen points out that Hanshu's “Wei Xian zhuan” 韋賢傳 (Biography of Wei Xian) contains a large portion of text that seems better suited for inclusion in the “Jiaosi zhi” 郊祀志 (Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifice), and that, historically, scholars have criticized this apparent misplacement. But if the annals and biographies predate the treatises and tables, it becomes easy to resolve the matter [i.e., when the “Wei Xian zhuan” was completed, the “Jiaosi zhi” had not yet been written—Trans.]. Chen also astutely observes that the “Liyue zhi” 禮樂志 (Treatise on Rites and Music) and “Xingfa zhi” appear to have been written during Emperor Zhang's reign (76–88 CE). Citing the Hou Hanshu's “Zhang Cao Zheng liezhuan” 張曹鄭列傳 (Biographies of Zhang Chun, Cao Bao, and Zheng Xuan) [which records Cao Bao's 曹褒 (?–102? CE) 87 CE drafting of ritual protocol that is germane to the “Liyue zhi” —Trans.], Chen persuasively argues that the “Liyue zhi” was written sometime after Zhanghe 1 (87 CE). This treatise was therefore not completed by Jianchu 7 (82 CE), Chen contends, and the Hanshu that Ban Gu submitted to Emperor Zhang in that year probably contained only annals and biographies.The ten treatises comprise one of the most important topics in Hanshu studies. Research on the “Dili zhi” and “Yiwen zhi” is especially comprehensive. Yet the relation between the ten treatises and Eastern Han history has been overlooked. It is of course slightly regrettable, then, that Chen discusses the political issues of Emperor Zhang's reign primarily to determine the composition date of the “Liyue zhi,” devoting only a few hundred words to the topic on page 58. Though Chen posits a link between the Hou Hanshu's “Cao Bao zhuan” and the Hanshu's “Liyue zhi,” he does not discuss the connection between the Hou Hanshu's “Guo Chen liezhuan” 郭陳列傳 (Biographies of Guo Gong and Chen Chong) and the Hanshu's “Xingfa zhi.” As Chen suggests, the “Xingfa zhi” comments on the legal matters of Emperors Guangwu (r. 25–57 CE) and Ming (r. 58–75 CE) and should thus be dated to Emperor Zhang's reign. But while the “Xingfa zhi” contains specialized legal knowledge and shows clear concern for political realities, Ban Gu was not in fact an officer of the law. This being the case, we can establish a connection between Hou Hanshu's “Guo Chen liezhuan,” as well as its “Zhangdi ji” 章帝紀 (Annals of Emperor Zhang), with Hanshu's “Xingfa zhi.” The latter is obviously related to Emperor Zhang's edicts (recorded in the “Zhangdi ji”) from the dingwei day of the seventh month and the guiyou day of the eighth month of Yuanhe 1 (84 CE). Guo Gong and Cheng Chong, further, were high-ranking officials who advocated for penal reform during Emperor Zhang's reign. In Yuanhe 3 (86 CE), Guo Gong sought to reduce punishments by “proposing forty-one matters that could be handled with leniency” (ke congqing zhe sishiyi shi zou zhi 可從輕者四十一事奏之).3 The content of Guo's proposals is highly consistent with the final section of the “Xingfa zhi.” The main source material of the “Xingfa zhi,” then, is probably related to the penal reforms proposed by Guo Gong and Chen Chong in the Yuanhe period (84–87 CE). Like the “Liyue zhi,” the “Xingfa zhi” was completed after Jianchu 7 (82 CE), but the documents on which it was based appear to predate those [of 87 CE] on which the “Liyue zhi” was based.At the end of the “Lüli zhi,” Ban Gu supplements the annals of Wang Mang 王莽 (r. 9–23 CE) and Emperor Guangwu after the line of succession excerpted from Liu Xin's “Shijing” 世經 (Generational Guides). This seems to indicate that Ban Gu first drafted the treatise during Emperor Ming's reign. If so, the composition of the ten treatises began at least as early as Emperor Ming's reign and lasted until Ban Gu's death, spanning the entire reign of Emperor Zhang. The connections discussed above between the “Liyue zhi,” “Xingfa zhi,” and administrative practice prompt further inquiry into the important relations between the ten treatises and contemporary political reforms: Was the composition of a geographic treatise (“Dili zhi”) related to the tax reforms of Emperors Ming and Zhang? Did Emperor Zhang's fondness for ancient learning and the Baihu guan 白虎觀 (White Tiger Hall) discussions underlie the composition of a bibliographic treatise (“Yiwen zhi”)? These questions extend the reach of Hanshu studies to more concrete processes of political practice and may lead to a more complete picture of the relation between knowledge and political power.Chapter 3, “Encapsulating an Era: The Hanshu's Textual Milieu,” discusses Hanshu's textual origins and Ban Gu's strategies for composition and compilation. Section 1 exhaustively enumerates the work's source materials across nine categories: Shiji; “xu” of the Taishigong shu; writings by Liu Xiang and Liu Xin; genealogies (pudie 譜牒); author's prefaces (zixu 自序) and supplemental biographies (biezhuan 別傳); masters literature (zishu 子書); court documents (chaoting dang'an 朝廷檔案); lyrics and rhapsodies (cifu wenzhang 辭賦文章); anecdotes (jianwen 見聞) and apocrypha (yishi 軼事); and “other.” In all, only the claims made in the masters literature category give me some pause. Discussing Han masters literature, Chen adopts Liu Shipei's 劉師培 (1884–1919 CE) position that Ban Gu excerpted Jia Yi's 賈誼 (200–168 BCE) “Zhi'an ce” 治安策 (Plan to Restore Order and Peace)—also known as “Chen zhengshi shu” 陳政事疏 (Enumeration of Governmental Matters)—from the Xinshu 新書 (New Writings), and that he excerpted Dong Zhongshu's 董仲舒 (179–104 BCE) response to the Prince of Jiangdu from the Chunqiu fanlu 春秋繁露 (Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals). But the circulation of texts in the Western Han differed from that of later generations; the emperor's edicts and ministers' memorials circulated widely and were of a public nature, especially those of special consequence or written by famous literati. Many edicts have been uncovered in northwest China, for example, and Xiao Wangzhi's 蕭望之 (ca. 114–47 BCE) memorials have also been discovered in a Han tomb in Dingxian, Hebei. Liu Shipei's method of drawing direct lines between extant transmitted texts is therefore flawed. The “Zhi'an ce” appears in both the Xinshu and Hanshu, but with different text structures. It is more likely that the Xinshu and Hanshu cited different versions of the “Zhi'an ce.” The probability that Ban Gu reorganized the structure of the Xinshu account in his citation of that work, as Liu Shipei suggests, is simply too low.Chapter 4, “The Hanshu's Political Agenda and Political Influence,” is especially noteworthy. Chen deems historical writing a “covert power” (yinxing de quanli 隱形的權力), insofar as the historian can select and narrate history according to their own will. Chen writes: “In addition to the influence of political factors, the Hanshu conveys Ban Gu's personal estimation of Han history. His source selection, narrative strategies, and political perspective distinctly reflect his individual outlook” (93). This chapter focuses on the relationship between Zhou (11th c.–256 BCE) and Han history, as well as the link between the Western and Eastern Han. Its most compelling argument is forwarded in section 3, “Overt and Covert History: Bridging the Two Hans,” one of the book's most important sections. Chen finds that, in compiling the Hanshu, Ban Gu paid special attention to both linking the two Hans and foregrounding the legitimacy of Eastern Han rule. We generally hold that the Western Han began in the first year of Emperor Gaozu's reign (206 BCE) and ended in the fourth year of Wang Mang's Dihuang reign (23 CE), when the latter was killed. In his chronology of events, however, Ban Gu (1) includes the year after Wang Mang's death—the second year of the Gengshi emperor (24 CE)—in the Western Han period; (2) refers to the Gengshi emperor as “His Sagely Lordship, Elder of Shizu” (Shizu zuxiong sheng gong 世祖族兄聖公) [i.e., as Emperor Guangwu's predecessor—Trans.];4 and (3) chronicles Emperor Guangwu's heroism at the Battle of Kunyang (23 CE). By emphasizing Emperor Guangwu's momentous deeds of the Western Han period, Ban Gu effectively dovetails the two Han periods.Ban Gu's arrangement of the annals and biographies, Chen notes, also reflects this kind of “covert linking” (yinxing lianjie 隱形連接) of history. During the final three biographies—“Waiqi zhuan” 外戚傳 (Biography of the Emperor's Maternal Kin), “Yuanhou zhuan” 元后傳 (Biography of Empress Xiaoyuan), and “Wang Mang zhuan” 王莽傳 (Biography of Wang Mang)—the maternal kinfolk gain power, the Western Han gradually falls apart, and Emperor Guangwu of the Eastern Han takes the stage, respectively. In Chen's view, Ban Gu wrote Wang Mang's biography as if it were an annal, and this annal-like biography links the two Han periods. Through the study of textual details, Chen makes exceptional discoveries about the hidden design of Ban Gu's work.Chapter 5, “Manifesting Han Power: The Hanshu's Historical Mission,” studies the relation between the Hanshu and Eastern Han ideology, continuing the arguments of the previous chapter. Regrettably, this chapter does not seriously engage with the Hanshu until section 3. The first two sections spend too much time discussing the changes in early Eastern Han historiography and the connections between ideology and scholarship during the reigns of Emperors Ming and Zhang. Placing more emphasis on the interpretation of historical documents, Chen does not sufficiently explain why the Hanshu's historical mission was to “manifest Han virtue” (zhao zhu Han de 昭著漢德). Still, he forwards a compelling argument in section 3. Proceeding from Zhao Yi's 趙翼 (1727–1814 CE) reading notes (zhaji 札記), Chen carefully analyzes why the Hanshu deliberately concealed details concerning the Xiongnu conflicts. Shedding light on how Emperor Zhang's political culture influenced the Hanshu's formation, Chen's research is of great value to the field.The introduction's third section, “Thearch's Canon: from Classics to Histories,” raises an important point: the Shiji and Hanshu were attempts to imitate the Five Classics and create a new imperial classic. Such aspirations were especially fervent in the early Eastern Han. Ban Gu wrote the Hanshu to “synthesize the Five Classics from beginning to end” (pangguan Wujing; shangxia qiatong 旁貫五經上下洽通).5 In both style and chapter organization he tried to mimic—even encapsulate (zongkuo 綜括)—the Five Classics. The overall structure of Chen's study seems to indicate that chapter 5 should treat the question of how the Hanshu created this new classic. That these expectations are not met is this book's greatest shortcoming.At the same time, we can pursue Chen's line of inquiry to consider the following: Why did the desire among literati to create new imperial classics fade away after the middle Eastern Han? Considering the preface to the Taishigong shu, Sima Qian 司馬遷 (ca. 145–86 BCE) did not in fact seek to imitate the Five Classics; rather, he felt he was creating a new classic in the manner of Confucius's Chunqiu 春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals). Ban Gu, on the other hand, clearly tended toward imitation. The Hanshu is modeled after the Five Classics insofar as it “synthesizes” them and “accords with the Chunqiu” (wei Chunqiu kao 為春秋考).6 Yet, after the Hanshu, we find no further attempts to model a new imperial classic—such ambitions disappear in subsequent historical writings. Why this change occurred is a question worth answering.Chapters 6 and 7 provide a history of the Hanshu's transmission and exegesis from the Han to the Tang, that is, over the course of its classicization. Of immense benefit to scholars of the period, Chen forwards a clear and well-founded argument.In sum, Runse hongye is one of the most comprehensive treatments of the Hanshu to date. Chen's innovative findings make this study indispensable to the field. There remain, of course, some important issues that Chen does not sufficiently address. Rich in detail, the Hanshu necessitates a yet more systematic analysis.Next, I turn to some broader issues related to Chen's study. First, we must approach Hanshu and its source materials with rigor and precision. Compared to the Shiji, the Hanshu can be distinguished by an attention to internal consistency. When altering material cited from the Shiji, Ban Gu primarily did so at the surface level of rhetoric. But he also meticulously assessed and substantively altered the historical record. Chapter 3 analyzes this facet in detail. But there are more telling examples, beyond what Chen cites, that demonstrate how Ban Gu (or his successor Ban Zhao 班昭 [ca. 49–120 CE]) sought narrative unity in the Hanshu. In the biography of Gongsun Hong 公孫弘 (200–121 BCE), for example, Ban Gu copied the main events from the Shiji but modified their sequence. For illustration purposes, I record both accounts below.Shiji, “Pingjin hou Zhufu [Yan] liezhuan” 平津侯主父列傳 (Biographies of the Marquis of Pingjin [Gongsun Hong] and Zhufu [Yan]): The strategy proposals having been submitted, the Emperor selected Hong's response as the best and summoned him to an audience. Elegant in appearance and style, Hong was appointed court scholar (boshi). At the time, roads were being built to establish a commandery in the Southwest Periphery (Xinan Yi). The people of Ba and Shu suffered from this [i.e., the taxes or labor involved], and [the Emperor] sent Hong to inspect the matter. Returning to court, he vehemently denounced the Southwest Periphery, which he recommended was of no use [to establish contact with]. His Majesty did not heed this advice. . . . Hong's stepmother died, and he donned the mourning garb for three years. When laying out his arguments during court debates, Hong left the Emperor to make his own decisions, never pointing out errors or directly disputing the point. The Emperor thus found him to be honest and tolerant in his conduct, never without rebuttal during debate, practiced in legal and official matters, and bedecked with Confucian learning. His Majesty was greatly pleased with him. Within two years Hong was promoted to Left Chamberlain for the Capital (zuo neishi).策奏,天子擢弘對為第一。召入見,狀貌甚麗,拜為博士。是時通西南夷道,置郡,巴、蜀民苦之,詔使弘視之。還奏事,盛毀西南夷無所用,上不聽。 . . .. . . 後母死,服喪三年。每朝會議,開陳其端,令人主自擇,不肯面折庭爭。於是天子察其行敦厚,辯論有餘,習文法吏事,而又緣飾以儒術,上大說之。二歲中,至左內史。7Hanshu, “Gongsun Hong Bu Shi Ni Kuan zhuan” 公孫弘卜式兒寬傳 (Biographies of Gongsun Hong, Bu Shi, and Ni Kuan): The strategy proposals having been submitted, the Emperor selected Hong's response as the best and summoned him to an audience. Elegant in demeanor and style, he was appointed court scholar, to await edicts at Bronze Horse Gate. . . . At the time, communication had just been established with the Southwest Periphery. [The people of] Ba and Shu suffered from this, so [the Emperor] sent Hong to inspect the matter. . . . Within the year, he was promoted to Left Chamberlain for the Capital. . . . In caring for his stepmother, he was filial and considerate. When she passed away, he donned the mourning garb for three years. Serving as Chamberlain for the Capital for a few years, he was promoted to Censor-in-Chief.策奏,天子擢弘對為第一。召見,容貌甚麗,拜為博士,待詔金馬門。 . . .. . . 時方通西南夷,巴、蜀苦之,詔使弘視焉。 . . .. . . 一歲中至左內史。 . . .. . . 養後母孝謹,後母卒,服喪三年。為內史數年,遷御史大夫。8“Strategy proposals” are the responses (dui 對) to imperial examination questions (ce 策). According to the accounts cited above, this round of examination responses led to Emperor Wu's discovery of Gongsun Hong, who rose rapidly in the ranks thereafter. The Shiji dates the exchange to Yuanguang 5 (130 BCE), and the Hanshu follows suit. But a brief comparison reveals that the sequence of events following Gongsun Hong's imperial audience is modified in the Hanshu account. In the Shiji, Gongsun Hong first takes leave of office to mourn for three years before taking up his position as Left Chamberlain for the Capital; in the Hanshu, by contrast, his mourning period does not occur until after this appointment. Why, though, would the Hanshu alter the sequence?The Hanshu's “Baiguan gong qing biao” 百官公卿表 (Table of the Various Officials) records that the court scholar Gongsun Hong served as Left Chamberlain for the Capital in Yuanguang 5. If, after his imperial audience that year, Hong then withdrew from office to observe the three-year mourning period, how could he have served in office that same year (Yuanguang 5)? This would make Gongsun Hong's biography inconsistent with the aforementioned table. By placing Gongsun Hong's mourning period after this official appointment, Ban Gu avoids such a contradiction.But the Hanshu's “Wudi ji” 武帝紀 (Annals of Emperor Wu) records that Gongsun Hong submitted this examination response in Yuanguang 1 (134 BCE). This creates an even more blatant contradiction with the Gongsun Hong biography, and yet Ban Gu made no revision. Between the annals, biographies, and tables, he prioritized the concordance of the biographies and tables. Considering that Ban Gu assessed his source materials and had no qualms modifying the Shiji accounts, we must address the following questions: If the Hanshu that Ban Gu submitted during Emperor Zhang's Jianchu reign contained only annals and biographies, why didn't he resolve the blatant contradiction concerning Gongsun Hong?Annals and biographies—like classics (jing 經) and traditions of interpretation (zhuan 傳)—are closely connected. But why, in the Gongsun Hong biography, did Ban Gu value the congruence of the tables and biographies more highly? Is his revision of this biography an outlier case or conventional practice?When Ban Gu passed away, most of the tables had not yet been completed, so was it Ban Gu or his successor Ban Zhao who made the biography and table consistent?More important, how many other similar revisions does the Hanshu contain? If such revisions are exhaustively assessed, might we draw nearer to the history of Hanshu's formation?As mentioned above, the Hanshu relates in important ways to the politics of Emperors Ming and Zhang. This relation can only be uncovered through careful textual research.My second general issue with Chen's work is this: is the designation “perfect author” (wanmei zuozhe 完美作者) necessary? Runse hongye bases its arguments on author studies, and Ban Gu as “author” plays a leading role. Chapters 2–5, the book's core arguments, focus not as much on the Hanshu as on Ban Gu during the reigns of Emperors Ming and Zhang. With a hand on every aspect of the Hanshu, Ban Gu is the real focus of Chen's study. Chen considers Ban Gu a “perfect author” but derives this designation from modern assumptions about authorship. While the relationship between authors and their works in the Han was in some ways identical to how we normally think about that relation today [i.e., a single person who authors texts—Trans.], there were two sides to Ban Gu's authorial identity.On the one hand, there was the writer of such works as “Dianyin” 典引 (Extending the Canon [of Yao]), “Liangdu fu” 兩都賦 (Rhapsody on the Two Capitals), and “Da bin xi” 答賓戲 (Responding to the Guest's Teasing). The author of these individual pieces can probably be called a “perfect author” in the modern sense. On the other hand, there was the compiler of the Hanshu. Is it possible that Ban Gu single-handedly authored such a massive tome? As adumbrated above, I hesitate to call the ten treatises Ban Gu's compositions, as he clearly did not write the “Tianwen zhi” 天文志 (Treatise on Astrology).Scholars since the twentieth century who have engaged with the Shiji and Hanshu in a broad-stroke fashion have been in large part literary critics. Literary studies, in turn, rely primarily on “immersive analysis” (chenjin shi de yanjiu 沉浸式的研究), which seeks to thoroughly understand the author's ideas through close reading (xi du 細讀) and to shed light on such aspects as rhetoric, structure, and meaning within the context of the author's life, times, and traditions. Immersive analysis is premised on a “perfect text” and “perfect author,” so that the researcher begins to construct their anticipated findings in line with their own anticipation; sometimes, a researcher will further assign the author or text a certain purpose or “mission.” This sense of mission will only grow throughout the research process and can easily obscure a whole range of factors such as the origin and nature of sources, their materials and editions, and the history of their compilation and transmission. Immersive analysis engenders not only the simplification of texts but also the progressive embellishment of their meaning.Since the twentieth century, the humanities have principally focused on the relationship between individuals and texts, seeking to understand the former through the latter. But in premodern times, was individualistic expression the primary motive for composition? Did the author guide the text or vice versa? There are no definitive answers to these questions. In the “Yan Gong” 言公 (On the Common Good) chapter of his Wenshi tongyi 文史通義 (An Overview of Literature and History), Zhang Xuecheng 章學誠 (1738–1801 CE) writes: The words of the ancients were vehicles of the Common Good (suoyi weigong). The ancients neither boasted of their elegant writings nor sought to own them as their private possessions. The will seeks to meet the Dao (zhi qi yu Dao); words manifest the will (yan yi ming zhi); and ornament supplements the words (wen yi zu yan). The Dao of the ancients did indeed manifest throughout the world, as all that they willed came to be and spread forth. They needed not take ownership of what their words accomplished.古人之言,所以為公也,未嘗矜於文辭,而私據為己有也。志期於道,言以明志,文以足言。其道果明於天下,而所志無不申,不必其言之果為我有也。9Throughout this lengthy treatise, Zhang argues—largely convincingly—that from a social or functional perspective, premodern compositions were written “for the Common Good” (wei gong 為公). This premodern predisposition does not easily accord with the idea of “sole authors” who own their compositions. It is difficult to imagine that before the Han dynasty there existed anyone who single-handedly produced texts. Even in the case of great works with an overarching design such as the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋 (Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals), Shiji, and Hanshu, it is only at the structural level that the text's orchestrator emerges. Once immersed in a particular chapter, however, authorial subjectivity does not readily present itself; the creator, content, and function of the text, moreover, are not always unified. Factors such as the scope, source, and nature of cited materials influence the narrative structure and symbolic significance of any one section or passage. In this way, Hanshu's narrative voice is most likely pluralistic. Even considering the annals and biographies alone, we cannot establish that only Ban Gu was involved in their composition.What approach should we use to analyze ancient writers? Should we move beyond the perspective of the author? If we do so, what model would then suffice to explain Han and pre-Han texts? These questions remain to be answered.