The Greeks in Bactria and India c32.3

c32.3

For Ssu-ma Ch'ien I use Dr Fr. Hirth's translation of chapter 123,² to the excellence of which many have testified. Taking Hirth's section numbers, Chang-k'ien's Report (or what professes to be his Report, see pp. 280 sq.) comprises § 18 (p. 95) to § 52 (p. 98) both inclusive and §§ 101-3 both inclusive (pp. 108-9); that §§ 101-3 are out of place where they come is proved by the sense running on without a break from the end of § 98 to the beginning of § 104, which must once have been contiguous (§§ 99-100 are a separate interpolation). These sections 101-3 ought to come between § 52 (end of the Ta-hia part of the Report) and § 53 (beginning of Chang-k’ien’s memorandum for the Emperor on India, which is a different document). The An-si section of the Report has certainly been edited by Ssu-ma Ch’ien, for it includes information later than Chang-k’ien (p. 281). Some believe, as Professor W. P. Yetts kindly informed me, that chapter 123 of the Shi-ki was inserted by another hand after Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s death, though I gather that no definite study of this question has appeared in print. I call the author of chapter 123 Ssu-ma Ch’ien throughout, without prejudice to any question (on which naturally I can express no opinion) as to whether it ought to be Pseudo-Ssu-ma Ch’ien. To the Greek historian it is probably immaterial whether it was Ssu-ma Ch’ien or another who preserved Chang-k’ien’s Report; internal evidence I think shows that chapter 123 is anyhow much earlier than Pan-ku. The material thing would be to know how much really comes from Chang-k’ien, the contemporary eye-witness; on this I have found no help.