Volume 2, Chapter 3: Deliberations over
Accurate Measurements[1]
Measurements
in antiquity and at the present time are dissimilar. Since the Three Dynasties[2],
and the Han and the Tang, each period has had its system of measurement. In examining the evidence and theories
concerning the past, it is evident that the foot measure arose from
millet. C:[ The best (millet) is the kind produced at Shangdang (上黨) which is in Lu-an (潞安) prefecture in Shanhsi.] A
distinction was drawn between the horizontal and vertical foot. One took one hundred vertical millet grains
to be one foot. C:[ Ten grains make one inch.
One grain equals one-tenth inch.] The other considered one hundred
horizontal millet grains to be one foot.
C:[ Ten grains make one inch.
One grain equals one tenth of an inch. ] So the length of the two-foot measures was not equivalent. The vertical millet foot corresponds to
1.234 of the horizontal foot. The
horizontal foot corresponds to .81 of the vertical foot. These are the methods by which millet is
lined up and a foot measurement is fixed.
As for millet as a material, the “breath”
(ch’i) of the ground differs (from place to place) so the size of the millet
may differ. It is necessary that one
choose a mean here. So take those of
median size, arranging them vertically or horizontally. (But) how can a method be determined?
Ten
K’ai-yuan cash (開元), nine ta-ch’uan (大泉), ch’i-tao (契刀) or ts’o-tao (錯刀) coins[3]
are equivalent to one hundred horizontal grains of millet. They are equivalent to eighty-one vertical
millet grains and also to ninety-one diagonally slanted millet grains.
The
Hsia (dynasty) foot was equivalent to one hundred horizontal grains. This was .81 of the Shang foot, 1.25 of the
Chou foot, .9 of the Han foot, 1.0 of the Tang foot, and .81 of the Sung foot.
The
Shang foot was equal to one hundred vertical grains and that equals 1.23 of the
Hsia foot, 1.54 of the Chou foot, 1.1 of the Han foot, 1.2 of the Tang foot,
and 1.0 of the Sung foot.
Further,
eighty-one vertical millet grains equal nine inches. C:[ Each inch takes nine
grains. ] This is the “regulated
foot” (律尺)(lu-chih) of the Yellow Emperor.[4] One hundred horizontal grains equal ten
inches. C:[ Each inch takes ten grains. ]
This is the foot of Shun[5].
These
then are the rules for linear measurement through the successive dynasties.
As
for the measurements for making a ch’in, the Shih-chi[6]
says: “The length of a ch’in is eight
feet, one inch”,[7] which is nine times the measurement for
huang-chung (黃種) (“yellow bell”)[8]. The Erh-ya[9]
says: “The great ch’in is a name for a
li (離)”.[10] The commentary notes: “The ch’in has twenty
seven strings.”[11] The Han-shih-wai-chuan (韓詩外傳) [12]
states: “Fu Hsi’s[13]
ch’in was seven feet, two inches in length”[14];
that is, eight times the length of huang-chung. From this point of view, are not all too big? The Book of
Rites mentions the “great ch’in, great tse (瑟), middle ch’in, and middle
tse.”[15] Is this the “great ch’in” of antiquity? The T’ung-k’ao (通考)[16]
says: “Confucius’ ch’in was three feet,
six inches in length”; that is, four times the length of huang-chung. The fingering of the long ones could not
have been very convenient. And if they
were too short, the sound was bottled up and unclear. Three feet, six inches is the most appropriate. So the ch’in of Confucius has been the model
for generations. I think that this
three feet, six inches was (measured) from the bridge to the nut. If one adds on the forehead and tail, then
the whole body equals three feet, nine inches.
This is the rule for the ch’in’s body.
Examine the forms and they are the forms of the ch’in of Confucius,
which is a case of continuity between olden times and present day. For example, there is the ch’in of Yu-lin
Tung-yuan (玉林洞元)[17],
called “Cheng-ho” (正合) (“upright harmony”)[18]. And the ch’in of Liu Ch’ing-t’ian (劉青田)[19]
entitled “Chiao-yeh” (蕉葉) (“plantain leaf”) was a change, which still
preserved the true sound. Of the rest,
the forms of various makers have been different. They slightly change the form, set up theories, and are
intoxicated by novelty even to the point of changing the methods of the
ancients. This is not a worthy
model. I have made ch’in using the Tsz
chun (此君) form but I think it is essential to keep this in
mind at all times. This then is the
form that the ch’in has taken.
As
for the construction of a ch’in, the length of the strings is taken as three
feet, six inches[20]. In addition there are the head and tail,
which make a total of three feet, nine inches.
It does not matter about the length of the foot of antiquity or present
day. In all cases ch’in can still be
built according to the model. But if
they are different (in measurement), how can they still be said to be one? (The answer is) even if the length is
different, still the length of the strings is taken as three feet, six inches,
so everything is the same. When it
comes to the head and tail, there is no constraint. This method makes for no effect on the sound. But (assuming a change in the overall string
length) the longer ones accordingly have their hui (徽
or 暉)
(“stops”)[21] positions
extended; and the shorter ones accordingly have their hui positions
shortened. What need is there to be so
finicky about measuring out the exact length then? Although, assuming one is not particular about the length, one
still has to fix the rules for measurement. Otherwise if one runs into a long one, then in stopping at the
thirteenth hui, first fen (分), first li (釐)[22]
position, and in trying to use the techniques of yen (罨) and t’ao (搯)[23]
(21) at the tenth hui, then the thumb and index finger will not be able to reach
it. On the other hand, if the ch’in is
too small, then the positions around the fourth hui will be too close together
and the sounds in that region will be hard to get clear. So one must consider this by taking the ring
finger and stretching it out to the stopped position and taking the thumb and
executing the yen and t’ao techniques there.
The two fingers’ separation should be considered to be five inches. C:[ The tenth hui is two feet, seven
inches (from the bridge), and the thirteenth hui, first fen, first li is then
three feet, two inches]. Altogether
this equals five inches. - Then one has
a half-foot and if one doubles it, one has the measure for a foot. Then take this as the measure for making a
ch’in. So the yen and t’ao techniques
will be suitable in every position and nowhere will there be problems with
obtaining clear sound. This system of
measurement is based on the vertical millet foot measure[24];
that is, the present Board of Works building measure. Shorter ch’in should use the horizontal millet foot measure.[25] The Ch’in-fu[26]
states: “As the strings are long, each
can give the entire scale.”[27] Naturally the vertical millet foot measure
should be considered as suitable for the work.
The method for
distinguishing K’ai-yuan cash:
There
are genuine and false K’ai-yuan cash.
Their sizes differ. If one
selects the bigger ones, these will be genuine. One should know that the Tang hui-yao (唐會要)[28]
gives the information that in the fourth year of the Wu-te (period) of the
Emperor Kao-tsu (高祖) [29],
on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (August 3, 621), K’ai-yuan currency
was put into circulation.[30] Ou-yang Hsun (歐陽詢)[31]
decided on the inscription and the calligraphy, of which there were three
styles, pa-fen (八分) (small) seal, and official script (li-shu).
Note
that K’ai-yuan cash is the name of the money, and K’ai-yuan is not the name of
a reign period. The coining took place
in the fourth year of the Wu-te period of the early Tang.
As
soon as this money was issued, (the older) Wu-shu (五銖) money was abandoned. The K’ai-yuan money is probably the best
quality money in the world. People
nowadays consider K’ai-yuan cash to have been coined in (Emperor) Hsuan Tsung’s
(玄宗)[32] K’ai-yuan
reign period, but this is incorrect.
If
one wants to measure the foot, then one should select the very best money. The calligraphy should be standard. Ornamentation and the body should be
precisely defined. The disc and hole
should be well proportioned. The engraved
edge should be neatly done. This is the
true K’ai-yuan cash, coined in the fourth year of the Wu-te period.
The
coins privately minted among the people are the reverse of this. These are commonly referred to as “base
coinage”. There is one variety that has
a character on its reverse (that looks like a flattened U) and this is also
spurious. Among thousands of such cash
there will only be a few that are genuine.
Many years have passed since that era, and so the genuine are few, while
the false coins are numerous. If the
money is obtained from an underground location the oxidized copper must be
removed. Scour the coins clean, and
then they can be used for measuring the foot.
If one does not clean them and tries to measure a foot, the least divergence
will lead him astray. In constructing a
foot measure, should not fine powers of judgment be exercised?
The method for
distinguishing: “Ta-chien fifty cash”,
“Ch’i-tao five hundred (cash)”, “I-tao worth five thousand (cash)”:[33]
According
to the “Treatise on Food and Goods” in the Ch’ien Han-shu:[34]
‘When Wang Mang[35] held the
regency, he changed the Han system. In
so much as the Chou (dynasty) large and small cash acted as standards for each
other, thus he (also) created a larger cash, with circumference measuring 1.2
inches. The inscription read “Ta-ch’ien
fifty cash”. He also created Ch’i-tao
and I-tao knife coins, with a circular top like the large cash and a body shaped
like a knife The inscription on the
Ch’i-tao knife money said: “Ch’i-tao
five hundred”. Gold was inlaid in the
I-tao (coins) and the inscription read: “One knife worth five thousand”.’[36]
The commentary to The Rites of Chou[37]
reads: “Ta Chuan” [38]
was coined by King Ching of Chou[39]
.”[40]
The Han (history)[41]
also state that Chou possessed coinage of equal weight, thus it is clear that
this did not begin with Wang Mang. Huai-nan-tzu(淮南子)[42]
refers to “twelve grains making up one inch”[43]
and this was probably the Han system.
When Wang Mang transformed (the Han systems) and created “Ta-ch’ien”,
the diameter was 1.2 inches. This is to
say a Han inch equals 1.2 inches of Wang Mang’s foot measure. So it can be stated that change was made in
the Han system, and not that the Chou cash was changed. The “Ta-ch’ien” were made beginning from the
Chou and Wang Mang followed this. When
the coins were first issued, the dimensions were identical with the Ch’i-tao
and ts’o-tao knife coins. After this
period the knife monies fell into disuse, and only the “Ta-ch’ien”
circulated. There was much counterfeiting
and these cash gradually became lighter and thinner. At this time it is best to take the two knife monies as
standards. If the relative widths match
up, then (the “Ta-ch’ien”) are genuine.
Arrange
eighty-one vertical Shangtang millet grains, ninety diagonal Shangtang millet
grains, one hundred horizontal Shangtang millet grains, and these will match up
with nine of the “Ta-ch’ien” and the knife monies, and with ten of the
K’ai-yuan cash.
But
this variety of excellent millet is difficult to obtain. If it does not fill up the space occupied by
nine of the “Ta-ch’ien” and knife monies, then it will be useless for creating
a standard and the music (made from such a measure) will be strident. The defect will stem from the fact that the
millet was not of the best quality.
Figure 1: Two figures, although on separate pages in the original, are overlapped here. In terms of grains, we have at the right side, horizontal, vertical, and diagonal millet grains. In terms of coins, on the left from top to bottom are the K'ai-yuan, Ta-ch'ien, ch'i-tao and I-tao coins. Horizontal millet is at the top of the coins. We can also see that a Kai-yuan coin is the size of 8 horizontal millet grains, or 10 vertical millet grains.