Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:13:41.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

J. L. Kroll
J. L. Kroll*
Affiliation:
Leningrad Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the Warring States, Ch'in, and Han periods the influence of the arts of disputation and rhetoric increased. Disputation affected the form and content of philosophical arguments and, mainly during the Han dynasty, contributed to the process of ideological synthesis. Furthermore, debate and argumentation came to play a central role in resolving social difficulties and determining government policy. Along with rhetoric, as represented by the Chan-kuo-ts'e, disputation also helped define the style and nature of a wide variety of literary genres, espeically the Fu and historiographical works of the Han period.

In this paper, the “program” for disputation attributed to Tsou Yen in the Shih chi is presented and its influence on other philosophical schools traced. Then the tradition of debate, both court debates from their Warring States origins on into the Han, and the rise of legal disputes within society as a whole are examined. Finally, the role of the Tsung Heng school in creating, preserving, and transmitting a tradition of rhetoric Is described. Analysis of the rhetorical devices of this school suggests the close connection of debaters, persuaders, logicians, and authors of Fu.

In conclusion, the author seeks to identify some of the social and economic causes for the increasing influence of disputation, such as the emergence of private property and the concept of “individualism,” the development of a scholar class and patrons, and the increase of cultural and intellectual pluralism and diversity.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 11 , 1985 , pp. 118 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

This article was first submitted in March 1985. The final version was prepared in January 1987, with author's revisions of 9 June 1987.

1. See discussion of the problem in Vestnik drevney istorii, 1958, no. 3, pp. 3–17Google Scholar; 1959, no. 3, pp. 22–43, and Narodui Azii i Afriki, 1962, no. 1, pp. 103–8, no. 5, pp. 133–41Google Scholar; Pozdneeva, L. D., Ateistui, materialistui, dialektiki dreynego Kitaya (Moscow, 1967)Google Scholar; Oliver, R. T., Communication and Culture In Ancient India and China (Syracuse, 1971Google Scholar.

2. See Theunissen, P., Su Ts'in und die Politik der Langs-und-Quer-Achse im chinesischen Altertum (Breslau, 1983)Google Scholar; Crump 1964; Vasil'ev; Crump 1970.

3. See Wilhelm, H., “The Scholar's Frustration: Notes on a Type of Fu,” in Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. Fairbank, John K. (Chicago, 1957), pp. 315–19Google Scholar; Hervouet, Y., Un poete de cour sous les Han: Sseu-ma Siang-jou (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar; Knechtges and Swanson; Knechtges 1972; Knechtges 1976; Bischoff, F. A., Interpreting the Fu: A Study in Chinese Literary Rhetoric (Wiesbaden, 1976)Google Scholar; Krol', J. L., “Kvoprosu o vliyanii drevnekltayskogo spora na han'skuyu literatura,” in Teoreticheskiye problemui izucheniya literatur Dal'nego Vostoka (Moscow, 1986), 1:219–25Google Scholar.

4. See Graham 1978, pp. 3-23, 61-65.

5. SC, 46.31, 74.10.

6. SC, 76.11. Adopting translation from Graham 1978, pp. 20-21. See also Graham 1978, p. 199, for further discussion of this passage.

7. LSCC, 25.11-183-184. For another interpretation of pieh shu lei see Te-chien, ChinSsu-ma Ch'ien so chien shu k'ao (Shanghai, 1963), p. 257Google Scholar. Later Mohists also pointed out the presence of “separate kinds” in a saying but, according to A. C. Graham, for them, t'ui lei meant “extending from kind to kind,” not inference by analogy. See Graham 1978, pp. 349-51, 482-84.

8. Han shih wai chuan , TSCC ed. (Shanghai, 1937), 6.76–77Google Scholar; cf. Hightower, J. R., trans., Han shih wai chuan (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 196–97Google Scholar.

9. See YTL, 24:173 and Graham 1978, pp. 20-21. It should be noted that here the text of the “program” is cited in an account of a discussion that has actually taken place and figures in a description of general principles of disputation. Another Confucian from the YTL has given an example of “distinguishing separate kinds” of things in his speech. See YTL, 26.185.

10. Hsun-tzu, 22.318, 13.175; Graham 1978, pp. 20-21.

11. Hsun-tzu, 21.290 (cf. also 6.62); 22.316-317; 6.59, 63, 65 (cf. also 21.306).

12. LSCC, 25.11.183-4 (cf. also 17.1.119); HNT, 13.118-19, 16.144, 147-8, 17.154-5. For a criticism of eloquent speakers who are not interested in real objects but vilify others and preoccupy themselves only with winning a victory, see also LSCC, 15. VIII. 107. This passage seems consistent with the “program.” Cf. YTL, 24.173 and Han shih wai chuan, 6.76.

13. CT, 33.1111; SC, 130.12.

14. Teng-hsi-tzu, 1, in CCMCST 7; Graham 1978, p. 20; cf. Chang, pp. 917-18.

15. SCS, 3.14; HFT, 49.1078, 50.1102; SC, 6.51, 87.12-13; YTL, 20.143, 23.167, 36.252.

16. According to Liu Hsiang, Kung-sun Lung and his disciples maintained it in the house of the Lord of P'ing-yuan in Chao and it was to this which Tsou Yen responded with the “program.” See SC, 76.11. But in the HFT the argument is ascribed to Ni Yueh who allegedly maintained it before members of the Chi-hsia Academy of Ch'i. See HFT, 32.629.

17. HFT, 41.898-899, 48.1029, 1030 (n.6), 51.1110, 32.612, 631, 9.152.

18. Mencius, pp. 246-260; SCS, 3.14; SC, 6.51.

19. SC, 76.11; HS, 30.3156; Kung-sun Lung-tzu 1, in CCMCST, 52, 53.

20. SC, 85.10, 118.15; HS, 44.3607; YTL, 8.62; HNT, Preface by Kao Yu, 1; Wallacker, B. E., The Huai-nan-tzu, Book Eleven: Behavior, Culture, and the Cosmos (New Haven, 1962), pp. 5, 8, nn. 17, 18Google Scholar; Pomerantseva, L. E., Pozdnie daosui o prirode, obshchestve i iskusstve (“Huainan'tszui0 -- II v. do no e.) (Moscow, 1979), pp. 7–8, 16, 19–20Google Scholar.

21. SC, 46.31, 74.10, 129.22; YTL, 11.82; HFT, 32.629.

22. For Instance, a debate between Hsun Ch'ing and Ling-wu Chun on the principles of warfare before King Hsiao-ch'eng of Chao in 259-258 B.C. See Hsun-tzu, 15.189-200; Knoblock, J. Ho, “The Chronology of Xunzl's Works,” Early China 8 (1982–1983): 31, 40Google Scholar.

23. Such is the case with two interrelated accounts of the debate on the reform of laws, held before Duke Hsiao of Ch'in in 359 B.C., which pitted Shang Yang against Kan Lung and Tu Chih (see Duyvendak, J. J. L., The Book of Lord Shang (London, 1928), p. 167, n. 1)Google Scholar and with two interrelated accounts of the 307 B.C. debates between King Wu-ling of Chao and his courtiers on the adoption of barbarian dress and the techniques of shooting mounted archers (for which, see SCS, 1,1-4; SC, 5.50, 68.5-7, 43.49-60; CKT, 19.59-64). There are adherents of hypotheses which maintain that in each example one of the two accounts is earl 1er and the other derivative. See the works referred to in Creel, H. G., “The Role of the Horse in Chinese History,” American Historical Review 70, no. 3 (1965):651, n. 15Google Scholar, and Goodrich, C. S., “Riding Astride and the Saddle in Ancient China,” HJAS 44, no. 1 (1984):280–81, n. 3Google Scholar, See also Chao-tsu, Jung “Shang-chun shu k'ao cheng” , Yen-ching hsueh-pao 21 (1937):63–76Google Scholar and Vasil'ev, pp. 15-16, 42, 103, and Perelomov, L. S., Kniga pravitelya oblasti Shan (Shan tszyun' shu) (Moscow, 1968), pp. 22–24Google Scholar. According to yet another point of view, disputes in both cases probably “reflect not a real but an abstract situation,” i.e., what Confucians and Legalists would say in connection with Shang Yang's proposal to reform Ch'in laws or King Wu-ling's intention to adopt the “barbarian” dress. See Kryukov, M. V.et. al., Drevnie kitaitsui v epokhu tsentralizovannuikh imperiy (Moscow, 1983), pp. 334–36Google Scholar.

24. The account of the debate between Ssu-ma Ts'o and Chang Yi, supposed to have taken place before King Hui of Ch'in in ca. 317-316 B.C., on whether it is more advisable to attack Shu or to attack Han (CKT, 3.22-23; cf. SC, 130.4), is of doubtful authenticity (cf. Hervouet, pp. 141-42 and n. 2). There are cases when one can only assume that a debate took place as, for example, when a ruler received different advice on one and the same problem. For examples see CKT, 3.24, 31.77-78 which can be compared with SC, 34.20-21, 43.90-91. As in the case of philosophical debate between private individuals, a debate through an intermediary was possible. We have the example of the dispute between Lou Huan and Yü Ch'ing on whether Chao should cede six towns to Ch'in where the king of Chao himself was the intermediary who conmiunicated the opinion of one advisor to another. See CKT, 20.70-72 and SC, 76.14-20.

25. See CKT 4.32 and 7.60.

26. See Fu, Hsu, Ch'in hui yao ting pu (Shanghai, 1955), pp. 221–224, 40, 48–49, 67-69, 235Google Scholar; HHHY 409-426; THHY 233-240; Shu-fan, YangLiang Han chung-yang cheng-chih chih tu yü Fa Ju ssu-hsiang (Taipei, 1969), pp. 191–204Google Scholar; Wang, Y. C., “An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty,” HJAS 12, nos. 1-2 (1949):173–78Google Scholar; Bielenstein, H., The Bureaucracy of Han Times (Cambridge, 1980), p. 144Google Scholar.

27. See SC, 6.25-27, 50-52, 122.18-19; HS, 7.239; YTL, 60.373-374; Gale, E. M., Discourses on Salt and Iron (Reprint ed., Taipei, 1973)Google Scholar. On Han Confucian polemics against Legalism see YTL, Preface by Wang Li-chi, p. 4.

28. SC, 121, 16-17; HS, 88.5166-5167.

29. HS, 88.5151, 5169, 5174-5176, 67,4450; HHS, 36.11a-17b, 37.5a; PHT, pp. 89-91, 150-151, 157-158.

30. HFHD, pp. 260-261, 271-274; HS, 88.5149, 5152, 5156-5159, 5164, 5166, 5171; PHT, pp. 13-14, 91-92, 128-36, 154-65.

31. See HS, 66.4440; YTL, 41.276; HFHD, po 260; PHT, pp. 6-7, 1115, 17-18, 92-93, 128-36, 163, 166-67, 170-75. Discussions (or opinions) of the participants of the court conferences were memorialized to the emperor who gave verdicts on them (see HHHY, pp. 411-413, 416 passim). Evidently, disputes between individual Confucians were occasionally written down as well. This can be seen from the fact that after a debate, ordered by Wu-ti, between Chiang-kung, a special 1st on the Ku-liang chuan, and Tung Chung-shu, a specialist on the Kung-yang chuan, Kung-sun Hung was able “to join together their discussions, having arranged them in order.” See HS, 88.5174; SC, 121.28-29.

32. LSCC, 18.IV.132-133.

33. HFT, 32.631.

34. LH, 14.144.

35. See Knechtges 1976, p. 21; Vasil'ev, pp. 105-11.

36. See HS, 30.3161; cf. Wilhelm, p. 313; Crump 1964, p. 90; Yueh, HsunCh'ien Han chi (Shanghaio, 1928), 25.3b-4aGoogle Scholar.

37. CKT, 4.32; SC, 78.2, 110.34-37; HS, 99B.5756. Chiang Ch'ung, who wanted to be sent as an ambassador to the Hsiung-nu, explained to Emperor Wu that he would “conform to changes, do that which fits [the circumstances], and regard the enemy as his teacher, [because] circumstances cannot be planned beforehand.” See HS, 45.3641.

38. SC, 69.2, 70.72; Crump 1964, p. 101. A passage at T'ai p'ing yü lan (Peking, 1963), 463.2bGoogle Scholar attributed to the SC, but missing from the modern SC text, says that they studied “the Six Classics” and “the sayings of the hundred schools” for eleven years under Master Kuei-ku who had more than 500 disciples. The test of a disciple's eloquence was to move his master to tears with persuasions spoken from a deep hole in the ground where one's gestures or facial expressions could not be seen.

39. Crump 1964, pp. 110-22; Crump 1970, pp. 17-20; Knechtges and Swanson, p. 102; Knechtges 1972, p. 368; Knechtges 1976, p. 25; HNT, 21.192.

40. See CKT, Preface by Liu Hsiang, 1 (cf. Crump 1970, p. 1); SC, 94.12 (cf. Crump 1954, p. 114); Vasil'ev, pp. 45-48.

41. See SC, 112.11, 122.23; HS, 30.3161; Crump 1964, p. 111.

42. See HS, 6.174 (cf. HFHD, 28); CKT, Preface by Liu Hsiang, 2 (cf. Crump 1970, p. 13).

43. Crump 1970, p. 19.

44. SC, 70.50. A passage at LSCC, 4.V.31 contains a hint of the relation between disputation and the concept of ch'ang tuan. There, the necessity of disputation, which is defined as “instruction” for a scholar, is the conclusion reached from a discussion of how it is that all men have merits and shortcomings (ch'ang tuan) and that one good at learning borrows the merits of others to compensate for his own shortcomings.

45. Knechtges 1976, p. 25.

46. HFT, 3.48.

47. Knechtges 1976, pp. 23-24; Needham, p. 242.

48. HS, 30.3186, 96A.5485; SC, 99.8-9, 113.9.

49. SC, 83.33 (cf. 19-33); HS, 30.3160; Knechtges and Swanson, pp. 101-2.

50. HS, 87B.5123 (cf. Knechtges 1972, p. 376, n. 35); SC, 117.105; HS, 57B.4138, 64B.4367-4368.

51. SC, 130.50, 84.4; cf. Knechtges 1976, pp. 14-18.

52. See HS, 30.3159, 3160; CKT, 10.85; SC, 92.22, 40.

53. CKT, Preface by Liu Hsiang, 2, 3.26, 5.46, 48, 10.85; SC, 69.62, 70.42, 79.36, 48, 49, 85.10, 97.12, 13, 28, 99.8-9; Kung-sun Lung-tzu 1.51.

54. See SC, 46.31, 74.10, 68.3-7; Hsun-tzu, 15.189, 16.211 (cf. Knoblock, pp. 31, 35); Mencius pp. 126-27, 428-30 (cf. 496), 246-60.

55. See LSCC, 5.V.104-105; HFT, 32.630; HNT, 2.20 (cf. 9.75); SC, 107.4. See also Hsun Yueh, 15.6a.

56. See Alexeiev, B. M., “Der Schauspieler als Held in der Geschichte Chinas,” Asia Major 10, no. 1 (1934):35 ff.Google Scholar; Pokora 1972; Pokora 1973.

57. SC, 74.14, 47.18; YTL, 47.301. The commentators Tsou Tansheng and Ssu-ma Cheng believed that “ironical critics” “present wrong as right and explain right as wrong,” i.e., were Sophists “able to confuse sameness and difference.” See SC, 71.2, 126.1; Pokora 1972, p. 161.

58. See SC, 126.1-6; cf. SC, 74.10-12, 46.31.

59. HS, 87.5123, 30.3175, 58,4160, 64A.4312, 65.4401-4411; cf. SC, 126.17-21.

60. See Hervouet, pp. 140, 178-79, 212-13, 239-43, 379, 382, 429; Knechtges 1976, p. 25. Precursors of this new form of the Fu and “fictitious disputes” were the fictitious dialogues of the “Chuangtzu put into the mouths of fictive personages. Such dialogues were probably influenced by disputation. They were given the name yü yen (“speeches put into [the mouths of others]”) or, according to Ssu-ma Cheng, ou yen (“dialogues”) -- the graphs yü and ou are similar and easily confused. See SC, 63.10; Krol', J. L., Suima Tsyan' -- istorik (Moscow, 1970), pp. 43–45Google Scholar; Krol', J. L., “0 dvukh traditsiyakh otnoshenya k materialu v han'skoy literature,” in Istoriya, kul'tura, yazuiki narodov Vostoka (Moscow, 1970), pp. 124–26Google Scholar; Pokora, T., Hsin-Lun (New Treatise) and Other Writings by Huan T'an (43 B.C. - A.D. 28) (Ann Arbor, 1975), pp. 1, 3–4, n. 5Google Scholar.

61. Cf. Chang, p. 648.

62. See Crump 1964, pp. 35, 38-40, 45, 47-52, 57, 76, 110-22.

63. Crump 1964, p. 6.

64. Cf. Needham, pp. 243-44. Phrases in quotes are from the CT, where it is said that Sophists “were able to win a victory over the mouths of others, but unable to subjugate the hearts of others. This is the limit for the Sophists” (CT, 33.1111). Though it is mentioned in some texts that, as a result of a debate, the opponents were “subjugated” (see HFT, 32.629; SC, 76.5), i.e., it was thought possible, and sometimes even desirable, to persuade utterly by means of disputation, there are other cases when the opponents, though “unable to object,” still remained in disagreement with one who “maintained [his position] in a dispute adroitly and cleverly.” The commentator Yen Shi-ku remarks in this connection that “in their hearts they were not subjugated.” See HS 88.5151, cf. 5169. But to be successful In cases where the listener initially disagreed with the persuader, It was necessary to resort to over-persuasion as was the case when the king of Sung was led to say, “The guest has subjugated our [heart] by means of his persuasion” (LSCC, 15.V.105).

65. It was, however, risky to win an argument against a powerful magnate or ruler. See CKT, 7.60; HS, 67.4450.

66. HFT, 12.221; cf. Needham, p. 243.

67. See Creel, H. G., The Origins of Statecraft in China (Chicago, 1970), pp. 177–93Google Scholar.

68. See Ch'u, pp. 4-7, 16-17, 252, 262.

69. Shui-hu-ti Ch'in mu chu chien (Peking, 1978), pp. 254–55, 257–58Google Scholar; Hulsewé, A. F. P., Remnants of Ch'in Law (Leiden, 1985), pp. 190, 192–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. See HS, 28Bb.3025, 3032-33, 89.5185, 76.4751-4752; Ch'u, pp. 6-7, 280-281, 287, 375, Contentiousness and the popularity of litigation were traditionally connected in China with the promulgation of written laws. See Legge, J., The Chinese Classics, vol. 5, The Ch'un Ts'ew, with the Tso Chuen (Hongkong and London, 1872), pp. 607, 609Google Scholar; HS, 23.1979; cf. Hulsewé, A. F. P., Remnants of Han Law (Leiden, 1955), 1:331–32Google Scholar.

71. See Hulsewé, A. F. P., Remnants of Han Law, pp. 72, 77–78Google Scholar; Hulsewé, A. F. P., “‘Contracts’ of the Han Period,” in Il diritto in Cina (Firenze, 1978), pp. 26–27, 33–35Google Scholar.

72. Movement and travel over great distances was characteristic not only of “scholars” but also of merchants and migrant farmers of the time. Alienation or estrangement of a person from his local community, through the weakening of blood and territorial connections contributed to this phenomenon. The social roles of scholars and merchants cannot be separated from such estrangement and “individualism.” Scholars and merchants have contributed striking examples of isolation and self-consciousness. Among scholars, there developed the Confucian concept of the chun-tzu, the self-centered philosophy of Yang Chu and his followers, and of Taoists, as well as gravitation towards the life of a hermit. Merchants created and acted upon an ideology of individual enrichment whose influence was felt even among the nobility (see, for example, SC, 81.17). During the period from the late sixth to the early third century B.C., people began to appreciate such qualities as unusual intellect and talent, to contrast personal intellect and tradition, and to marvel at strange wisdom. See, for example, SC, 69.62, 7.76; HS, 14.427, 28Bb.3019; Malyavin, V. V., Gibel' drevney imperii (Moscow, 1983), pp. 106–118Google Scholar. There also appeared the concept of individual authorship, for which see Lisevich, I. S., Literaturnaya muisl' Kitaya na rubezhe drevnosti i srednikh vekov (Moscow, 1979), pp. 160–65Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that the great majority of pre-Han biographers in the Shih chi--the biography having been invented only after the notion of personality as well as the concept of who is deserving of such literary preservation--are devoted to the Chan-kuo period.

73. SC, 126.20; cf. HS, 65.4406-4407; Hsun-tzu, 6.67.

74. SC, 77.12-14, 129.32.

75. See WH, 13.280; HS, 13.366; HHS, 53.13a-b, 67.4a; Malyavin, pp. 88-100.

76. See Mencius, pp. 282-283; YTL, 19.136; SC, 102.10, 46.31, 74.10 (cf. HS, 30.3153); HS, 30.3156 (but cf. SC, 77.12), 62.4273 (cf. SC, 124.3, 5); Graham 1979, pp. 92-100.

77. See Kung-sun Lung-tzu, 1.53; SC, 76.3, 5, 77.7, 85.9-10; HFT, 9.152.

78. See HS, 34.3343-3344, 92.5256; SC, 93.15-16, 107.2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 22; Ch'u, pp. 127-30, 133-35, 188, 412-13.

79. See HS, 65.4403; SC, 126.18; WH, 45.982.

80. HS, 92.5256.

81. See SC, 58.6; Hervouet, pp. 24-25, 27-35, 141, 156-58, 161-68, 234-38.

82. See SC, 118.15-16, 20-26, 28-37, 39-41, 43-45; HS, 44.3607 (cf. Pomerantseva, p. 18); HNT, Preface by Kao Yu, p. 1; Wallacker, p. 8, nn. 17 and 18; YTL, 8.62.

83. See Krol', J. L., “0 traditsionnoy kitayskoy kontseptsii ‘ravnuikh gosudarstv’,” in Pyatnadtsataya nauchnaya konferentisiya ‘Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae” (Moscow, 1984), 1:128–34Google Scholar.

84. See, for instance, SC, 118.4, 6, 13, 19, 44; 106. 6, 10, etc.

85. See Graham 1978, pp. 200, 318, 338-40, 402-3; CT, 2.83; CKT, 7.60, 4.32; SC, 117.25-26; HS, 94B.5390; LH, 14.144.

86. See Sun-tzu shih chi a chu taikei, Kambun ed., Vol. 13 (Tokyo, 1922), 7.1–5Google Scholar; Wu-tzu chih chieh taikei, Kambun ed., Vol. 13, 1.8–9, 2.17–18Google Scholar; SCS, 3.13; SC, 7.76, 41.17, 71.15, 87.3, 118.20, 121.4, 126.18; HS, 12A.1101, 65.4403.

87. See SC, 130.37-38, 47, 51, 58, 70.8, 42, 76.3, 77.2, 85.9-10, 88.3, 97.17, 19, 129.43; Shui-hu-ti Ch'in mu chu chien, 19-20; HFT, 11.207, 35.773, 23.458; YTL, 1.1, 13.96, 17.12; Hsun-tzu, 8.91, 21.289; HS, 24A.2014; Hsin shu , SPPY ed. (Shanghai, 1936), Ch. 1Google Scholar, “Fu-i” , p. 13; 1; LH, 14.145; Malyavin, pp. 35-36, 40-41, 44-45.

88. Mencius, p. 282; Hsun-tzu, 21.287; HS, 30.3171; cf. SC, 6.51.

89. See Graham 1978, pp. 6-15, 64-65; Graham 1979, pp. 92-100.

90. See Perelomov, pp. 59, 344-50.

91. See Major, John H., “Research Priorities in the Study of Ch'u Religion,” History of Religions 17, nos. 3-4 (1978):231, 236–43Google Scholar; Eichhorn, W., Die alte chinesische Religion und das Staatskultwesen (Leiden/Köln, 1976), pp. 63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92. See SC, 6.51-52, 87.12-13.

93. See HS, 13.366; HHS, 53.13b; cf. SC, 16.3.

94. See SC, 58.6; YTL, 8.62.