拙文说:“‘外臣’国的情况同文、景以前的‘内诸侯,国相同。(不过法律比较落后)”,又说,“汉代的‘外臣’是与‘内诸侯’相区别的名词”。陈庸龙同志认为,这在提法上是前后矛盾的。依我看来,两种提法并不矛盾。拙作已经指出:“外臣”国和“内诸侯”国之间有“异”、有“同”。“在文、景以前的‘内诸侯’国,其国王要受封,不能称帝,自丞相以下的官吏由国王任命,有自己的法律”。在这几点上“外臣”国和“内诸侯”国是相同的,如果没有这几点相同,则一、西汉政府争取南粤和朝鲜等国作为“外臣”国,便没有多大意义了;二、南粤和朝鲜等国也不愿意成为“外臣”国了。它们的“同”,不仅是不可否认的历史争实,而且饶有奥妙的作用在内。“外臣”国和“内诸侯”国除了“同”之外当然还有“异”。这里所说的“异”,是指法律不同、民族不同、历史文化不同。我的两种提法在具体内容上各有所指,是不矛盾的。在“属国”问题上,陈同志只承认西汉的“属国”是行政组织,而不承认它是行政区划,认为《汉书·地理志》没有把“属国”列为郡一级的行政区划,也不是班固的遗漏。对此,我有如下的看法: I Zhuo Wen said: “The situation of the ’foreign ministers’ is the same as that of the princes and states in the previous texts and scenes (but the law is relatively backward),” adding that “the foreign ministers in the Han Dynasty were distinguished from the princes in the noun”. Comrade Chen Yonglong believes that this is contradictory in formulation. In my opinion, the two formulations are not contradictory. My essay has pointed out: There are “differences” between the “foreign minister” states and the “princes” in the country, and there are “same”. “In the text, before King ’princes’ state, the king to be closed, can not be called emperor, prime minister since the following officials appointed by the king, have their own laws.” At these points, the “foreign minister” and the “princes” countries are the same. Without these same points, the Western Han Government won little significance by winning the governments of southern Guangdong and North Korea as “foreign minister states.” ; Second, South Korea and North Korea and other countries are not willing to become “Foreign Minister” of the country. Their “sameness” is not only an undeniable historical contention, but also an ingenious role. “Foreign Minister” and “princes” in addition to the “princes” of the country, there are of course “different.” What we mean here refers to different laws, different nationalities and different historical and cultural backgrounds. My two references have different meanings in specific content and are not contradictory. On the issue of “subordinate state,” Chen only recognized that the “state” of the Western Han Dynasty was an administrative organization and did not admit that it was an administrative division. He considered that “Hanzhi Geographical Records” did not list “subordinate state” as an administrative division at the county level, Nor is it a class omission. In this regard, I have the following view: