Library

The Prince of Zheng stated: According to the *Huainanzi*, twelve grains of millet constitute one *fen* (a unit of weight), and twelve *fen* constitute one *zhu* (a unit of weight); thus, one *zhu* equals 144 grains of millet. The *Book of Han: Treatise on Music and Measures* states that 1,200 grains of broomcorn millet (*Shu*) equal twelve *zhu*; therefore, one *zhu* equals 100 grains of millet. The commentary in the later *Han* treatise further states that ten grains of millet weigh one *gui* (a small unit of weight), and ten *gui* weigh one *zhu*; thus, one *zhu* is also merely 100 grains of millet. This figure is even smaller than that in the *Huainanzi* and does not coincide with it. Moreover, the standards for music pitch, length, volume, and weight during the Han dynasty were chaotic and unregulated. My family possesses dozens of Han dynasty coins of various types. Although the dimensions of each type are roughly similar, their thickness and weight are uneven. Comparing them with the *Treatise on Food and Money* in the *Book of Han*, which records that the *Huoquan* coin weighs five *zhu*, the *Huobu* coin weighs twenty-five *zhu*, the *Daquan* coin weighs twelve *zhu*, and the *Dabu* coin weighs twenty-four *zhu*: using a contemporary balance scale, I weighed ten or five coins of each type in total to average their weight, and calculated the equivalent in modern units. One tael of Han weight corresponds to approximately 3.3 qian of modern weight for the *Daquan*, 3.5 qian for the *Huoquan*, 3.7 qian for the *Huobu*, and 3.8 qian for the *Dabu*. These represent the standard of one Han tael, yet they vary significantly, consistent with the views of Lu Dalin in the Song dynasty's *Kaogu Tu*. Generally, one Han tael is slightly more than 3.5 qian in modern measure; thus, three Han taels exceed one modern tael. This discrepancy from the method of counting millet grains likely arises because Liu Xin erroneously used millet as a standard, causing all four instruments—pitch pipes, rulers, measures, and weights—to be too small, leading to errors in other vessels as well. Historical texts state that Jin dynasty weights differed from ancient ones; Liang and Chen dynasties followed ancient weights; Qi dynasty defined one jin as eight liang of ancient weight; Later Zhou jade weights of four liang equaled four and a half ancient liang; Sui dynasty defined one jin as three ancient jin; Tang dynasty measures and weights were one-third of ancient standards. However, historical records are sparse, making exact figures unknown today. Sun Simiao in the *Qianjin Fang* (Thousand Gold Formulas) stated: Ancient scales only had *zhu* and *liang*, without *fen*; now, 100 millet grains equal one *zhu*, six *zhu* equal one *fen*, four *fen* equal one *liang* (equivalent to six modern qian), and sixteen *liang* equal one *jin*. This represents the scale of Shennong. Wu people used two *liang* as one *liang*; Sui people used three *liang* as one *liang*; currently, the standard is four *fen* per *liang*. (Ten Jin of this Tang scale correspond exactly to six modern Jin.) This explanation suffices to dispel confusion. However, the preface to *Zhouhou Beiji Fang* by Luming Mountain claims that ancient herbal dosages and acupuncture point measurements differ from modern ones due to differences in human body size and blood vessel caliber. This view is incorrect, as criticized by Lin Yi et al. in the Song dynasty's preface to *Qianjin Fang*, who stated that baseless claims are most severe here. Furthermore, the *Qianjin Fang* describes a medicinal sheng (volume unit) with an upper diameter of one cun, lower diameter of six fen, and depth of eight fen. This sheng is very small; it is unclear which era's measure was so tiny. It also states that one sheng of Banxia weighs five liang, which contradicts calculations. Such discrepancies in drug weights and measures are common; these views are retained merely to illustrate the variations in measurement standards across eras. Measurements from Sui, Tang, Song, and Yuan dynasties, when verified by millet counting, appear too large; those from Han, Wei, and Southern and Northern Dynasties appear too small. Song Confucians discussing music pitch often chose lower over higher; those discussing measures chose smaller over larger, failing to understand the principle of moderation. Now, selecting 1,200 medium-sized millet grains from Yangtou Mountain, filling a Huangzhong zhuo (ancient volume unit) perfectly, and weighing them on a balance scale yields exactly three qian, which is the ancient half-ounce. Two zhuo of millet weigh six qian on the balance scale, constituting one ancient liang. Therefore, one ancient jin equals nine liang and six qian on the modern balance scale; one modern jin equals ten ancient liang, representing two-thirds of the ancient standard. Currently, the Ming dynasty paper currency ruler of seven chi and five cun matches the millet ruler of one zhang; the iron hu of three sheng and two ge matches the millet measure of one dou; the balance scale of nine jin matches the millet weight of one cheng (fifteen jin is called one cheng). Though different in form, they are identical in essence; though rarely used, they are practically effective. Profound principles lie within, unrecognized by many. Had I not personally verified this using millet, I would not have believed such subtlety existed. Scholars of bell and pitch-pipe studies in later generations should not neglect this due to its common usage.