Knowledge Disjunction and Temporal Stratification: A Critical Examination of Buddhist Entries in the Compiled Edition of the Yuan History Bibliography

1. Introduction

Due to the absence of a dedicated Bibliographic Treatise (yiwen zhi 藝文志) in the official dynastic history, the full scope of Yuan dynasty textual production long remained obscure. It was not until the Qing dynasty, with the flourishing of evidential scholarship (kaoju xue考據學), that the compilation of bibliographic records for predecessor dynasties became a concerted scholarly endeavor. Particularly significant efforts were made to reconstruct the literary corpus of the Yuan. Works such as Qian Daxin’s錢大昕 Bibliography of the Yuan History元史藝文志, Lu Wenchao’s 盧文弨Supplemented Bibliography of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan補遼金元藝文志, Ni Can倪燦 and Jin Menzhao’s 金門詔Supplemented Bibliography of the Three Histories補三史藝文志[1][i], and Wu Qian’s 吳騫Supplemented Bibliographic Records of Four Reigns 四朝經籍志補emerged successively. Through exhaustive compilation and reconstruction, they largely reconstituted the broad framework of Yuan dynasty writings. Among these, Qian’s bibliography was praised for its meticulous system and comprehensive scope, regarded as the standard model. Together with the works of Lu and Jin, it formed the collective designation of the "three complementary bibliographies of the Yuan History from the Qing dynasty" (hereinafter referred to as the "three complementary bibliographies"). However, these compilers, working centuries later, had no direct access to original Yuan works. Their records necessarily relied on filtered and transmitted information from various sources, making errors and omissions almost inevitable.

By the late 20th century, scholars Luo Zhuyun雒竹筠 and Li Xinqian 李新乾synthesized prior achievements into the Compiled Edition of the Yuan History Bibliography (hereinafter referred to as the Compiled Edition), representing a comprehensive integration of records on Yuan writings. It corrected numerous errors found in earlier works like Qian’s bibliography, such as mistaken monastic aliases and misattributed Buddhist texts, constituting a work of undeniable merit.

Yet, the advancement of scholarship relies not only on incremental improvement but also on maintaining a critical perspective toward existing achievements. Despite its refinements, the Compiled Edition itself—particularly in sections dealing with the complex institutional contexts and textual traditions of Buddhism and Daoism—still contains various inaccuracies. Previous research has often focused on case-by-case correction, textual source analysis, or classificatory critique of the "three complementary bibliographies," largely remaining within the internal discourse of bibliography studies. It has seldom situated the persistent, patterned misrecordings found even in this "more refined, later work" within the broader context of intellectual history and the processes of knowledge formation.

This study posits that the various errors in the Buddhist categories of the Compiled Edition—such as graphic and phonetic corruptions of personal and place names, misinterpretations of monastic titles and sectarian naming practices, and the mistaken inclusion of later works—are not merely incidental oversights. They are, in essence, microcosmic manifestations of the inherent dilemmas faced in the bibliographic reconstruction of a "textually fragmented era." These dilemmas manifest on at least three levels: First, the informational erosion and distortion inherent in textual transmission, which is particularly acute at the vulnerable endpoints of chains lacking authoritative editions. Second, a "knowledge disjunction" between later scholars and the specific institutions (e.g., the monastic official system) and religious social practices (e.g., White Lotus naming conventions) of the earlier period, leading to anachronistic misinterpretations. Third, the "temporal stratification" intrinsic to the work of supplementation itself, whereby compilers unconsciously project the literary landscape and intellectual boundaries of their own time onto the historical reconstruction.

Therefore, this paper aims to move beyond the technical level of simply "correcting" the Compiled Edition. Using its Buddhist entries as an analytical sample(Table 1), and through specific case studies of errors, it seeks to address a more fundamental question: What systematic limitations are encountered when scholars attempt to reconstruct the intellectual landscape of an era from which most original texts are lost, relying instead on fragments compiled by later generations? How do these limitations shape the historical understanding we ultimately obtain? Through a typological analysis of the Compiled Edition's errors, combined with a dual perspective from Yuan religious social history and post-Qing intellectual history, this paper argues that bibliographic works are not merely static lists of texts. Their very process of compilation constitutes a dynamic activity of "knowledge construction," constrained by historical conditions and intellectual frameworks. This research not only aims to provide concrete guidance for scholars to use the Compiled Edition and related bibliographies more cautiously but also hopes to offer a reflective case study from Yuan history for considering the methodology of "bibliographic supplementation" in classical philology, as well as for document-based research within the fields of book history and history of knowledge.

Figure 2. The Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan Dynasty in the National Library of China[ii].

Figure 2. The Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan Dynasty in the National Library of China[ii].

2. Deconstructing Error: Knowledge Disjunction and Temporal Stratification in the Compiled Edition

The errors in the Compiled Edition are not random noise but systematic artifacts that reveal the conceptual and historical distances separating its compilers from their Yuan dynasty subject. These inaccuracies stem primarily from two interrelated phenomena: a disjunction of knowledge, where later scholars misapprehend the specific socio-religious institutions of the past, and temporal stratification, where the compiler’s own historical context inadvertently bleeds into the reconstruction. By analyzing key cases, we can trace how these forces operated to distort the bibliographic record.

2.1. Paleographic Corruption and the Limits of Textual Transmission

The most straightforward errors arise from the frailties of written transmission. The misrecording of Chen Danglin 陳黨琳 for Chen Juelin 陳覺琳 (dang 黨 for jue 覺) in the Pilu Canon entry is a classic graphic error.

For example, the Buddhist catalogue section in the Compiled Edition lists the Pilu Canon, compiled and edited by a certain Chen Danglin 陳黨琳 of the Wanshoutang at Houshan Bao'en 後山報恩萬壽堂in Jianyang during the second year of the Yanyou era. The name “Chen Danglin” recorded in the Luo's Edition is, in fact, an error for Chen Juelin 陳覺琳, likely resulting from the visual similarity between the Chinese characters dang 黨 and jue 覺.

This correction is supported by a colophon found at the beginning of a surviving volume of the Yuan Dynasty Pilu Canon, which reads:

Chen Juelin, the teaching successor of the Wanshou Hall at Houshan Bao'en in Jianyang County, Jianning Route, Fujian Circuit, reverently [undertakes this] to pray for the long life and peace of the reigning emperor and for the prosperity of all civil and military officials. He has gathered supporters to carve the printing blocks of the Pilu Great Canon to enable its circulation and recitation. Respectfully noted on a day in the second year of Yanyou (1315).

福建道建寧路建陽縣後山報恩萬壽堂嗣教陳覺琳，恭爲今上皇帝祝延聖壽萬安，文武官僚同資祿位，募眾雕刊毗盧大藏經板，流通讀誦者。

延祐二年(1315) 月 日謹題

Similarly, the Buddhist catalog entry for the work Four Ceremonies and Disciplines四教儀紀正 lists its author as Shi Chongji釋寵濟. However, a search through the historical Biographies of Eminent Monks yields no record of a monk by this name. This discrepancy is resolved by the Supplemented Continuation of Biographies of Eminent Monks 補續高僧傳. Its fourth volume contains a biography of Master Hongji弘濟, which credits him as the author of Four Ceremonies and Disciplines. Furthermore, the Luo's Edition catalog records a work titled Xiaozhi guan小止觀 (Small Treatise on Calming and Insight), noted as being translated into the Gaochang language, with Hongji named as its compiler. Corroborating this, the text Continuation of the Buddha's Patriarchal Record 續佛祖統紀, in its entry for "Master Hongji," states that he collaborated with the Gaochang’s General總統Prajna Shirikothe般若室利—who was proficient in Chinese and Sanskrit and well-versed in the scriptures—to translate Xiaozhi guan into his native language. It is thus evident that the "Hongji" recorded in the Compiled Edition as the translator of Xiaozhi guan and the "Master Hongji" mentioned in the Continuation of the Buddha's Patriarchal Record are the same person. The misattribution in the Compiled Edition , where the author of Four Ceremonies and Disciplines is mistakenly given as "Shi Chongji," likely stems from the graphical similarity between the Chinese characters for Hong (弘/宏) and Chong (寵).

These are not simply transcription errors, but rather evidence of a multi-generational process of textual transmission. By the Qing dynasty and in subsequent modern compilations, editors were often several removes from the primary Yuan-era sources—such as physical colophons and reliable contemporary biographies. Working instead with layers of intermediary texts, they inherited and inadvertently perpetuated these corruptions. Without direct access to authoritative originals for verification, such errors were easily introduced and became permanently entrenched in the scholarly record.

2.2. Conflated Geographies: The Stratification of Temporal Layers

The Buddhist catalog in the Compiled Edition employs a standard bibliographic format for Yuan dynasty scriptural groups: it first records the number of volumes, then the author—often including his monastic affiliation—and finally notes on the scripture’s existence. This section examines an error within these entries concerning the misidentification of a monastery name.

The entry for A General Record of the Buddha Through the Ages 佛祖歷代通載, a twenty-two-volume work, attributes its compilation to the monk Nianchang 念常(style name Meiwu梅屋), a native of Huating華亭. Crucially, it identifies him as a monk of Xiangfu Monastery 祥福寺 in Jiaxing. Nianchang, who traveled to the capital in the third year of the Zhizhi至治 era to compile scriptures and once served as a teacher to the emperor, is thus linked to this institution.

However, this attribution is incorrect. The primary source—the original Yuan edition of A General Record of the Buddha Through the Ages—clearly identifies the compiler in its title inscription as "Nianchang of Huating, Abbot of Dazhong Xiangfu Chan Monastery 大中祥符禪寺 on Jiaxing Road." Its preface likewise refers to him as the abbot of "Jiaxing Xiangfu Chan Monastery 祥符禪寺." Historical gazetteers confirm that during the Yuan dynasty, only Xiangfu Monastery 祥符寺, also known as Dazhong Xiangfu Monastery, existed in Jiaxing Road. A monastery named Xiangfu Monastery 祥福寺 was not established in the region until the Ming Hongwu period, located near Poyang Lake鄱阳湖—a geographically and temporally distinct site.

The error in the Compiled Edition thus stems from a dual dislocation: phonetic convergence and temporal conflation. The names "祥符 (Xiángfú)" and "祥福 (Xiángfú)" are homophonous. Later compilers, lacking direct access to Yuan-era geographical context and working with mediated texts, mistakenly equated the Yuan dynasty "Xiangfu Monastery" in Jiaxing with the phonetically identical but historically and geographically separate Ming-era "Xiangfu Monastery." This misidentification exemplifies how a loss of specific historical and topographical context during textual transmission can lead to the faulty anchoring of a figure to an incorrect institution.

2.3. The Sociological Misprision: Imposing Kinship on Religious Affiliation

The primary patronage for the carving of the Yuan dynasty Pilu Canon came from followers of the White Lotus tradition. Key organizers included Chen Juelin陳覺琳, who led fundraising efforts in Fujian, and Chen Jueyuan陳覺圓, who did the same in Henan. Based on the shared surname and the identical first character (Jue 覺) in their religious names, scholar He Mei has posited that the two were likely members of the same clan, a view also presented in her work co-authored with Li Fuhua, A Study of the Great Collection of Chinese Buddhist Sutras.

This interpretation, however, has been challenged. Barend ter Haar 田海offers a different analysis in his book White Lotus Religion in Chinese History. He argues that the naming practices among Yuan dynasty White Lotus adherents were highly conventional. Believers frequently adopted religious names containing a set of semantically resonant characters such as dao 道, zhi 智, yuan 圓, pu 普, miao 妙, and jue 覺. Statistical evidence from the Pilu Canon colophons supports this: over half of the 45 lay patrons recorded bore such patterned names, with 19 specifically using the character jue. This prevalence suggests that shared name characters primarily reflect common religious practice rather than familial kinship.Various sources further confirm that sharing a character in one's religious name does not necessarily indicate a blood relationship. Within religious communities, the generational character in a Dharma name signifies one's place in a spiritual lineage, which operates independently of secular familial hierarchies. A well-known illustration of this principle comes from the Ming novel Water Margin《水滸傳》. The character Lu Zhishen 魯智深 and his master, Elder Zhizhen 智真長老, share the character zhi 智 in their names despite their master-disciple relationship. This was possible due to Lu's elevated secular status as a former military officer and, crucially, his prestigious introduction to monastic life by the patron Zhao Yuanwai. Consequently, upon ordination, Lu was deemed worthy of receiving a Dharma name placing him in the same spiritual generation as his master. This demonstrates that within a religious framework, individuals of different ages or social standings may become peers based on the time and circumstances of their entry into the community. By this logic, the shared character jue in the names of Chen Juelin and Chen Jueyuan likely marks their belonging to the same religious generation within the White Lotus movement, not their position in a shared family tree.

Further evidence dismantling the presumed link between shared name characters and kinship comes from historical records concerning White Lotus adherents themselves. The Ming dynasty scholar Wei Su 危素 (courtesy name Taipu 太僕, 1303–1372, from Jinxi, Jiangxi), in his extant work Shuoxue Studio Draft《說學齋稿》 , documents White Lotus communities. In the second volume, an account concerning a White Lotus abbey mentions a certain Tu Wenzheng 屠文正, whose religious name was Jueyuan 覺緣, and whose son bore the religious name Juexing 覺興. This explicit case of a father and son sharing the generational character jue conclusively demonstrates that these naming patterns indicated religious affiliation and generation within the sect, which operated independently of, and could even supersede, secular familial seniority.

Furthermore, internal sectarian writings confirm that these specific name characters had evolved into potent and contentious symbols of group identity. The White Lotus patriarch Pudu 普度 (lay surname Jiang 蔣, from Danyang, Jiangsu), in his doctrinal work The Precious Mirror of the Lotus Sect 廬山蓮宗寶鑒, laments the proliferation of what he deemed heterodox interpretations:

As we are distant from the time of the sages, people often harbor mistaken understandings. Although aiming for the true path, they all fall into heretical schools. The ignorant, possessing mere consciousness, cause all manner of heresies and deceptions to flourish, various factions to blaze up simultaneously, disputes to swarm, and empty debates [on concepts like] ‘emptiness’ and ‘existence’ to arise, arbitrarily splitting the void and mutually destroying one another. ... There are those who cling to the characters pu 普 and jue 覺 for our school, and those who claim the characters miao 妙 and dao 道 for that school. These are all cases of privately stealing this mirror into that heretical domain, resulting in its being obscured by dust and grime, failing to comprehend the essence of the school. Although they obtain the name of this mirror, they cannot put it to use.

去聖時遙，人多謬解，雖期正道，悉陷邪宗，庸昏之徒，含識而已，致使群邪詭惑，諸黨並熾，是非蜂起，空有云云，夾截虛空，互相排毀。……有執我宗“普”字“覺”字者，有言彼宗“妙”字“道”字者，是皆私偷此鏡入彼邪域，致爲塵垢蔽蒙，不明宗體，雖得此鏡之名而不得其用也。

Pudu’s polemic explicitly identifies the characters pu, jue, miao, and dao as the defining labels claimed by different, mutually antagonistic groups within the broader White Lotus milieu. This indicates that by this period, such characters served primarily as symbols of sectarian distinction (tribal or factional identity), not as indicators of common kinship. Therefore, the shared jue in the names of Chen Juelin and Chen Jueyuan is far more likely to signify their membership in the same religious branch or generation than any familial relationship.

The intricate networks of jue-generation believers, bound by shared religious identity rather than kinship, are further illuminated in local records and literary sources. The Yuan poet Lu Qi 盧琦, in his poem Yuping Nanshanying an Shuhuai 《寓平南善應庵述懷》(Expressing My Feelings While Lodging at the Shan Ying Hermitage in Pingnan), documents the founding of the Shan Ying Hermitage 善应庵. According to the poem, the hermitage was established with the support of Chen Juejian 陳覺堅, a White Lotus adherent who donated his private residence. This Chen Juejian had previously founded the Anfu Hermitage 安福庵. His disciples, Chen Jueqing 陳覺慶 and Chen Juezheng 陳覺正from Houwan, are also recorded as daoshi (likely referring to lay religious practitioners). The network extends further: Chen Jueqing's disciple was Chen Juerong 陳覺榮, still a lay believer (upasaka), while Chen Juejian's grandson took the tonsure and the religious name Juezhen 覺真. This Chen-family cluster demonstrates that within a single surname, jue-generation individuals could be linked as master and disciple, as blood relatives (grandfather and grandson), or as fellow disciples, forming a complex web where religious affiliation and family ties intersect but are not equivalent.

Crucially, the jue-generation was not confined to a single surname. The Yuan scholar Du Ben 杜本 provides definitive evidence of this in his “Record of the Fuyi Hall in Jiangyuan” Jiangyuan Fuyi tang ji 《江源復一堂記》. The stele inscription details a leadership succession within a religious community:On the ninth day of the fifth month in the Yanyou Dingsi year [1317], Juejing assembled his disciples and passed on his teachings to his disciple Wang Juezhen [王覺真], before peacefully passing away. I happened to travel through the area, and Juezhen invited me in for a quiet seat. He spoke of the reasons for the community's rise and decline, wishing a record of its history be made for posterity, so that later generations would know its establishment was not easy. Gazing up at the lofty halls and looking down at the incense-filled vessels—where there is no worry of heat, cold, hunger, or thirst, but only the joy of purity and liberation—one sees this indeed has its origins. I was pleased with Juezhen's words, coming to know the foundation. Moreover, he was able to toil personally in practice, earnest and sincere. He contended with nothing, and through diligence and frugality accumulated resources to peacefully support his community. After Juezhen later passed away, Zheng Jueqiong [鄭覺瓊] succeeded him, being especially capable of upholding the precepts firmly and expanding the established regulations.

延祐丁巳（1317）五月九日，覺靜命集徒侶，付其法於弟子王覺真，蕭然逝化。予當道過其處，覺真延引清坐，且言興替之由，欲爲記其始末，以俟夫後來，使知成之不易。且仰觀夫高閎之宇，俯思夫香馥之盂，無寒暑饑渴之憂，有清淨解脫之樂者，其有由來也矣。予悅覺真之言，知所本始，且能劬躬踐行，謹願端愨。而於物無競，勤儉累積，以安養其眾。覺真既西逝，則爲今鄭覺瓊，尤能持戒堅確，增廣前規。而友蔣君汝晦居與相鄰，知之爲悉，乃錄其事如此，故得以次第記之。

This passage is pivotal. It confirms that the jue-generation included individuals with different surnames (Wang and Zheng), who were linked through master-disciple succession within a religious institution. Therefore, the cluster of Chen-surname jue believers, while significant, represents just one subset of a much broader, surname-transcending religious cohort.

Accordingly, the onomastic evidence demonstrates that jue-generation believers within the White Lotus movement were numerous and their relationships multifaceted—they could be linked by blood, by master-disciple ties, by marriage, or simply by shared sectarian affiliation within the same religious generation. The presence of other jue-generation believers with surnames like Wang and Zheng provides the final, crucial piece of evidence. It solidifies the argument that the shared character jue in the names of Chen Juelin and Chen Jueyuan primarily signifies their membership in a specific religious generation or branch of White Lotus teaching. While they shared a surname, the determining factor for their name similarity is far more likely their common religious identity than membership in the same kinship group. Their names, therefore, do not constitute reliable evidence for a clan relationship.2.4 Conclusion: Errors as Windows into Historical Rupture

The errors cataloged within the Compiled Edition of the Yuan History Bibliography are far more than simple oversights. They are, in essence, symptoms of historical rupture—tangible points where the conceptual world of the Qing and later compilers fractured against the institutional and social realities of the Yuan dynasty they sought to document. Through the systematic analysis of paleographic, geographical, and sociological misattributions, this chapter has demonstrated that these inaccuracies stem from a fundamental disjunction in contextual knowledge and the stratified nature of historical transmission. Collectively, they reveal the Compiled Edition not as a transparent window onto the Yuan, but as a palimpsest—a document in which the target era is viewed through the layered and often distorting lenses of subsequent periods. Each error type traces a distinct fault line in this disconnect: the textual, the spatio-temporal, and the socio-conceptual.

Therefore, the ultimate value of this bibliography for modern scholarship lies as much in rigorously correcting its specific errors as in thoughtfully analyzing their causes. It is through the critical examination of these “symptoms” that we can most clearly discern the shifting contours of historical knowledge itself, understanding not only the Yuan past but also the evolving perspectives of those who later attempted to capture it.

Figure 3. Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan Dynasty edition《元史藝文志輯本》, edited by Luo Zhuyun 雒竹筠and Li Xinqian李新乾[xlix].

Figure 3. Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan Dynasty edition《元史藝文志輯本》, edited by Luo Zhuyun 雒竹筠and Li Xinqian李新乾[xlix].

3. The Permeable Boundary: Misplaced Works and the Problem of Temporal Integrity

A critical challenge in reconstructing a lost bibliographic corpus lies in maintaining its temporal integrity—ensuring that the catalog accurately reflects the texts produced and circulating within its defined historical period. The Compiled Edition occasionally fails at this boundary, admitting works from later eras. These are not random inclusions but symptoms of a porous historiographical filter, influenced by textual ambiguity, evolving institutional memory, and the compilers’ own embeddedness within a later scholarly tradition.

3.1. Textual Ambiguity and the Erosion of Bibliographic Identity

The Compiled Edition, while serving as a valuable repository for works attributed to Yuan dynasty monks, contains bibliographic entries that demand critical scrutiny due to inconsistencies in recorded titles and editions. These discrepancies point not to minor variants but to probable errors in identification. For example, the catalogue lists a twenty-volume work as Chanlin leiyao (ju) 禪林類要(聚) (Classified Essentials [or Collection] of the Chan Forests). However, this specific title, leiyao, finds no support in major later supplements to Yuan dynasty bibliography. In contrast, authoritative sources like Qian Daxin's supplement, the Supplement to the Bibliographic Treatise of Yuan History, the Supplement to the Bibliographic Treatise of Liao, Jin and Yuan, and the Supplement to the Bibliographic Treatise of Four Dynastiesunanimously record the title as Chanlin leiju 禪林類聚 (Classified Collection of the Chan Forests). This stark contrast strongly suggests that the Compiled Edition contains a misidentified or erroneously transcribed title, with the correct characterju 聚 merely appended in parentheses as an apparent afterthought.

A similar issue of questionable specification arises with the entry for Wansong Older Commented on Tiantong Niangu Please Later Record 萬松老人評唱天童拈古請益後錄. The inclusion of the character "later" 後 is problematic, as the Ming dynasty catalogue “Chuan shi mu” 傳是目 records a work under the shorter title Wansong Older Commented on Tiantong Niangu Please Record (without "後"). This is corroborated by its listing in the Bibliography of Chinese Ancient Books, which describes a Ming Longqing period edition under the shorter title and attributes its compilation to Shiconglong 釋從隆. The discrepancy indicates that the Compiled Edition may either reference a distinct, otherwise unattested "later" volume or, more plausibly, has perpetuated an extraneous character introduced during textual transmission. These cases collectively highlight vulnerabilities in the Compiled Edition's foundational data, where titles appear to have been recorded without sufficient verification against a stable bibliographic tradition.

3.2. Anachronistic Attribution and the Sedimentation of Error

The Compiled Edition also contains significant inaccuracies in its records of monastic official titles, demonstrating how errors can become sedimented through textual transmission. A notable example is its entry for the Buddha Top White Umbrella Dharani Sutra 《佛頂大白傘蓋陀羅尼經》, which attributes the work to Sha Luoba 沙羅巴, a monk from the Western Regions and a śramaṇa of the Yandu Qingshou Temple who was granted the title "Great Wisdom" 大廣智. The entry further states that later, he was appointed as the general of the translation monasteries in Jiangsu and Zhejiang 江浙等處譯教總統, and the classics became popular.

The specific title "general of the translation monasteries" 譯教總統 recorded here is problematic. According to Yuan historical institutions, the monastic officials who oversaw Buddhist affairs were uniformly titled the "general of the Buddhist monasteries" 諸路釋教總統 or "chief general" 都總統. This administrative system was established in 1264 with the founding of the General Administration 總製院, later renamed the Commission for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs 宣政院, which was placed under the overall responsibility of 'Phags-pa八思巴. As the Yuan dynasty consolidated control over former Southern Song territories, it established regional monastic officials such as the "supervisor" 總攝 and "general" 總統. For instance, in 1291, the Tibetan monk Nyan chen Shākya ba 輦真術納思 was appointed as the "chief general of the Buddhist monasteries of various routes" 諸路釋教都總統, a position subordinate to the central Commission.

The correct form of this title is corroborated by contemporaneous sources. Yang Lianzhenjia 楊璉真迦, the chief patron of the Puning Canon 普寧藏, was recorded as "Master Yongfu" 永福大師. TheYuanHistory: Annals of Shizu《元史·世祖本紀》 suggests Master Yongfu was likely from the Western Xia, an identification supported by a "tonsure-style" figure 髡髮狀 depicted next to his name and title in a Puning Canon frontispiece. The title inscribed alongside his portrait in both the Puning and Qisha Canons is unequivocally "Yang Lianzhenjia, Chief General of the Buddhist Monasteries of the Jianghuai Routes 江淮諸路釋教都總統, Merit Master Yongfu." Furthermore, in 1299, Emperor Chengzong sent the eminent monk Yishan Yining 一山一寧 of Mount Putuo to Japan, identifying him with the title "general of the Buddhist monasteries of Jiangsu and Zhejiang" 江浙等處釋教總統. An inscription from the end of a Puxian Xingyuan scroll in the Puning Canon ”臣”字函 also references this institution:

Furthermore, we received the guardianship of the Chief Superintendency of the Buddhist Monasteries of the Jianghuai Routes, which granted official permits and forwarded [our petition] to the Master under the Eaves ['Phags-pa] for an audience. The emperor subsequently issued a sacred decree to protect and uphold our school, enabling the completion of this virtuous undertaking.

又蒙江淮諸路釋教都總攝所護念，准給文憑，及轉呈簷八上師引覲。皇帝頒降聖旨，護持宗門，作成勝事。

Based on this convergence of official history and canonical colophons, it is evident that "general of the Buddhist monasteries" 釋教總統 was the standard designation for a high-ranking regional monastic administrator in the Yuan dynasty. Therefore, the title granted to Sha Luoba should have been the "general of the Buddhist monasteries of Jiangsu and Zhejiang and other areas" 江浙等處釋教總統, not "general of the translation monasteries" 譯教總統. The error in the Compiled Edition likely originated from the visual similarity between the Chinese characters for "Buddhism"釋and "translation" 譯, which led to the mis-transcription and subsequent perpetuation of an anachronistic and institutionally incorrect title

3.3. The Conflation of Historical Layers: Ming and Qing Works in a Yuan Catalog

While the Compiled Edition records numerous Buddhist texts from the Yuan dynasty, offering a valuable snapshot of scriptural circulation during that period, its catalog is not immune to significant chronological errors. The work occasionally includes later Ming and Qing titles, thereby conflating distinct historical layers within its bibliographic framework.

One clear case of anachronism is the entry for the Zangcheng Fashu藏乘法數(Numerical Categories of the Treasury Vehicle). The catalog describes it as a single-volume work, parenthetically noting its alternative title Jiaocheng Fashu教乘法數(Numerical Categories of the Teaching Vehicle). However, according to the Ming dynasty monk Zhixu’s guide Yuezang Zhijin《閱藏知津》(A Guide to Navigating the Buddhist Canon), the Jiaocheng Fashu is a forty-volume dictionary of Buddhist terminology compiled by the Ming monk Yuan Xuan—not a one-volume work by the Song monk Sui Ke as suggested in the Luo’s Edition. More decisively, the Jiaocheng Fashu was completed in 1431, during the Ming Xuande reign. It is therefore unequivocally a Ming dynasty production with no connection to the Yuan. The entry’s conflation of the two titles and its erroneous attribution represent a mistaken inclusion of a Ming work within a Yuan catalog, likely stemming from the compiler’s confusion between similarly named texts.

A parallel error, rooted in paleographic misreading, appears in the catalog’s appendix regarding a Qing dynasty publication.

It lists the Yuanshi Shizu Biao《元史氏族表》(Genealogical Tables of the Yuan History) as part of a series called the Qian Yanjiu Quanshu《潛研究全書》. This series name is unattested. The correct reference should be to Qian Daxin’s collected works, the Qianyantang Quanshu《潛研堂全書》, first published in 1840. The hall name “Qianyantang” was adopted by Qian Daxin after his retirement in 1767. The error in the Compiled Edition—substituting “Yanjiu” 研究 for “Yantang” 研堂—is a classic instance of graphic confusion, where the visually similar characters jiu 究 and tang堂were misread or miscopied.

It lists the Yuanshi Shizu Biao 《元史氏族表》(Genealogical Tables of the Yuan History) in three volumes, compiled by the Qing scholar Qian Daxin, and notes its publication as part of the Qianyanjiu quanshu《潛研究全書》 (The Complete Works of Profound Research), allegedly from the Guangxu光緒 reign period. However, no such series titled Qianyanjiu quansh is attested in extant bibliographic records. The authoritative Zhongguo congshu zonglu 《中國叢書綜錄》(Comprehensive Catalog of Chinese Collectanea) lists Qian Daxin's collected works under the correct title Qianyantang Quanshu《潛研堂全書》(The Complete Works of the Hall of Profound Research), which was first engraved in the 20th year of the Daoguang道光 reign (1840). Qian Daxin, renowned for his exceptional contributions to historical and phonological studies, produced a definitive corpus of scholarship within his lifetime. This corpus includes the fifty-volume Qianyantang Collection, which, together with works such as the Nian'er shi kaoyi《廿二史考異》(Textual Critiques of the Twenty-Two Histories) and the Shijia zhai yangxin lu《十駕齋養新錄》(New Records from the Ten Harness Studio), constitutes the crystallization of his lifelong academic endeavors. The name Qianyantang itself refers to the studio acquired by his family after Qian Daxin retired due to illness and returned to his hometown in Jiading in 1767, located near the Children's Bridge孩兒橋. The studio plaque was inscribed by Cao Xiuguang曹秀光. Given this context, it is evident that the title Qianyanjiu quanshu recorded in the Compiled Edition is an error for the correct Qianyantang quanshu. The mistake originated from the graphical similarity between the Chinese characters jiu (究, meaning "to investigate") and tang (堂, meaning "hall"), leading to the misreading and consequent

corruption of the book's title.

These examples demonstrate that errors in the Compiled Edition extend beyond the misrecording of contemporary Yuan details to include the faulty incorporation of materials from later periods. Such mistakes compromise the temporal integrity of the catalog, transforming it from a pure record of Yuan Buddhism into a composite text where historical boundaries have been blurred through scribal error and unverified attribution.

Figure 4. The manuscript of Supplement to Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan dynasties collected by the National Library of China[l].

Figure 4. The manuscript of Supplement to Bibliography of Chronicles of Yuan dynasties collected by the National Library of China[l].

4. Conclusion: The Compiled Edition as a Palimpsest of Yuan Scholarship

While the Compiled Edition contains certain errors in its Buddhist entries, its scholarly value is equally demonstrated in its necessary corrections of omissions and inaccuracies found in earlier compilations such as the Qian’s Edition. For example, the Qian’s Edition lists the Shishi yulu 《石室語錄》(Stone Chamber Recorded Sayings) in one volume and Shishi heshang shanju shi《石室和尚山居詩》 (Poems on Mountain Dwelling by the Stone Chamber Monk) in two volumes. The Compiled Edition correctly identifies the monk in question as Qinggong清珙, whose sobriquet was Shiwu石屋 (Stone Hut), and cites as evidence the two-volume Shiwu Qinggong chanshi yulu 《石屋清珙禪師語錄》(Recorded Sayings of Chan Master Shiwu Qinggong) from a 1627 Ming blockprint edition, along with the one-volume Shiwu heshang zhu Jiaxing Danghu Fuyuan Chansi yulu 《石屋和尚住嘉興當湖福源禪寺語錄》(Recorded Sayings from Stone Hut Monk’s Residence at Jiaxing Danghu Fuyuan Chan Temple) and the one-volume Shiwu heshang jisong《石屋和尚偈頌》 (Verse and Hymns by Stone Hut Monk). This clearly shows that the “Stone Chamber” references in the Qian’s Edition are errors for “Stone Hut” (Shiwu), a misattribution rectified by the Compiled Edition. Another instance is the Qian’s Edition’s listing of the Zongmen tongyao xuji《宗門統要續集》 (Sequel to the Essential Compendium of the Chan School) as twelve volumes. The Compiled Edition, drawing on the earlier Zhizhai shulu jieti《直齋書錄解題》, specifies that the Zongmen tongyao ji《宗門統要集》 (Essential Compendium of the Chan School) in ten volumes was compiled by the Song monk Zongyong釋宗永, while its two-volume sequel was compiled by the monk Qingfa釋清筏. The Qian’s Edition’s failure to distinguish between the main text and its sequel, recording them simply as a twelve-volume sequel, is thus corrected.

Figure 6. The manuscript of Supplement to Bibliography of Chronicles of four dynasties[li].

Figure 6. The manuscript of Supplement to Bibliography of Chronicles of four dynasties[li].

In summary, the Compiled Edition revises and expands upon works like the Qian’s Edition, making significant contributions to the compilation of Yuan literary achievements. The vast body of writings by Yuan monks and literati, coupled with the absence of an official bibliographical record in the standard histories, has long made a comprehensive overview difficult to ascertain. The complexity of verifying key details such as personal names, place names, titles, and volume numbers has posed a major challenge for the compilation of official historical bibliographies.

Fortunately, the Compiled Edition broke free from the constraints of the standard history format, diligently gathering surviving Yuan works with the aim of preserving them without omission. Consequently, it became the refined successor to earlier Yuan bibliographies such as the Yuanshi yiwen zhi, the Bu Sanshi yiwen zhi, and the Bu Sichao jingji zhi. Despite containing certain errors and omissions, it remains an indispensable resource for the study of Yuan dynasty texts. The wealth of information and the numerous details awaiting further verification it contains provide a crucial foundation for later scholars to refine and build upon. As a palimpsest, the value of the Compiled Edition lies not only in the panorama of Yuan texts it seeks to reconstruct but also in the transparent way it reveals the complex texture of historical knowledge as it is accumulated and reconstituted. In using this landmark reference work, we must therefore rely on it to explore the scholarly world of the Yuan even as we look through its “errors” to examine the very frameworks of understanding that connect past and present—this constitutes the enduring tension and fascination of historiography itself.