Because the "Su Xiaoxiao" article was written half a year ago, many materials I have forgotten, this time I have been thanked for having so many discussions for friends, so I took a closer look, here to say my current views, the conclusion is: Bai Shiman did not shoot Mu Caiting, as for where I do not know. First of all, it is not Mu Caiting, I have not carefully combed the early images of Mu Caiting before, some of the images I can not determine the time, this time take a good look, "Moon Moon Novel" in 1908, volume II, No. 9 There is a highly blurry photo (1), annotated as "Xiling Bridge" and "Su Xiao Tomb". Although vague, we can be almost certain that he and Figure 2 are similar scenes, and from this point of view, by 1908 at the latest, Mu Caiting was in that dilapidated image at the same position at the head of the Xiling Bridge. And in the 1900 "Xi Leng Hanging Su Small Tomb" in the 15th issue of the "Shu Lin", I also saw the sentence "The stone fence pavilion has been deserted for a long time". It should also be noted that publishing in the 1908 journal does not mean that the photograph was taken in 1908, and as for what date I do not speculate, I will separate it later. Referring to the book "The Great Archives", the best book on Mr. Bai Shiman, it can be seen that Bai Shiman arrived in Hangzhou twice, the earliest of which was in December 1907. So let's assume that if the Bai Shi Man Pavilion is Mu Cai Ting, then there are two possibilities: one is to assume that the 1 and 2 pictures were taken before the arrival of Bai Shi Man, then the conditions are: 1900 was broken ~ take 1 and 2 pictures ~ before December 1907 to complete the overhaul, and build a hill, in December 1907, Bo Shi Man photographed ~ 1911, when Frier arrived (3), again dilapidated into the appearance of Figures 1 and 2; the other is to assume that the 1 and 2 pictures were amazingly taken after the arrival of Bo Shi Man in 1908. Then the conditions are: 1900 was destroyed ~ completed before December 1907, and in December 1907, Bershiman photographed it ~ early 1908 quickly destroyed, and eradicated the hill. I think that almost none of the above two possibilities can be realized. As for Bai Shiman's second arrival in Hangzhou, it was in the spring of 1909, and the reasoning process was almost the same. Next, let's briefly talk about the possible mistakes of Bai Shiman, as a person who took more than 8,000 photos, he could not fail to make mistakes, in the Case of bashu and Hubei regions that I am currently combing, he misnoted the Deyang Confucian Temple as the Guanghan Confucian Temple, mistakenly marked the Changsha Tianxin Pavilion as a Yichang building, and sometimes there have been cases of replacing small place names with large place names, such as the construction of Wushan County, the capital of Kuizhou, directly written as the capital of Kuizhou. However, the trouble of this picture is still relatively large, because Bai Shiman is not a simple annotation here, there are paragraphs, and the pavilion and the Mucai Pavilion are really similar. What the reason for this is, I don't know yet. Two additional points, 1, A friend asked Bo Shiman about the possibility of citing other people's photos. I thought about this, the 49-page Dangyang Guanling in the book "Ancestral Hall" is a reference figure, and he has a clear annotation, so I think this picture is still taken by himself. 2, because most of these Western scholars will read Western materials before leaving, so I thought about the problem of misleading Western literature, so I briefly explored it, and found that Yun Fei de 1906 "City of Heaven" has a clear description of Su Xiaoxiao's tomb in English, and the location is also the western end of the Lonely Mountain Road, so it is judged that this picture is Bai Shiman's own mistake, and there is no embarrassing situation in which Westerners run the Lingyin Temple Five Hundred Luohan Hall to recognize Marco Polo.
