9. EE 7g Wang Hsi, also of the Sung dynasty, is

decidedly original in some of his interpretations, but much less judicious than Mei Yao-ch‘en, and on the whole not a very trustworthy guide. He is fond of comparing his own commentary with that of Ts‘ao Kung, but the com— parison is not often flattering to him. We learn from Ch‘ao Kung-wu that Wang Hsi revised the ancient text of Sun th’l, filling up lacunae and correcting mistakes. 1

10. {BI Ho Yen-hsi of the Sung dynasty. The personal name of this commentator is given as above by Chéng Ch‘iao in the 7“ng Ckz'lz, written about the middle of the twelfth century, but he appears simply as {Bf EE Ho Shih in the Yii HM, and Ma Tuan-lin quotes Ch‘ao Kung-wu as saying that his personal name is un- known. There seems to be no reason to doubt Chéng Ch‘iao’s statement, otherwise I should have been inclined to hazard a guess and identify him with one 161‘ f Ho Ch‘ij-fei, the author of a short treatise on war entitled fifi éfi, who lived in the latter part of the 11th century. 2 Ho Shih's commentary, in the words of the T‘z'en-z'—ko catalogue, fi fig “contains helpful additions” here and there, but is chiefly remarkable for the copious ex— tracts taken, in adapted form, from the dynastic histories and other sources.

II. ;E E Chang Yfi. The list closes with a com— mentator of no great originality perhaps, but gifted with admirable powers of lucid exposition. His commentary is based on that of Ts‘ao Kung, whose terse sentences he contrives to expand and develop in masterly fashion. Without Chang Yij, it is safe to say that much of Ts‘ao Kung’s commentary would have remained cloaked in its pristine obscurity and therefore valueless. His work is not mentioned in the Sung history, the T‘zmg K‘ao, or