Further Discussion on the Issue of the Ancient and the New Texts of the Zhouyi

In the Han dynasty, there wasn’t an impassable gulf between the New Text and the Ancient Text. The school of the New Text and that of the Ancient were but two caps put on to the Han scholars’ heads by later scholars, as they had not identified themselves in this way.³³ The New Text classics were transmitted generation by generation from the pre-Qin Ancient Text classics. The ancient text classics in the course of transmission in the Han also had to adopt the format of the new text, no matter the character font or writing style, such as the Shangshu 尚书 read by Kong Anguo 孔安国 and the Zuozhuan 左传 read by Liu Xin. What the Han scholars minded was their jiafa 家法 (the lineage of family approaches) or the presumptuous “principle” stressed by their own school rather than the new or ancient characters. Therefore, when Liu Xin was making efforts to establish the Ancient Text Zuozhuan 左传, apart from incidentally intending to establish the Yili 逸礼 (Lost Rituals) and Guwen shangshu 古文尚书 (Ancient Text of the Book of History),³⁴ he also mentioned the Maoshi 毛诗 (Mao’s Edition of the Book of Poetry), which ought to have been written in New Text characters, aiming to enlarge his allies. But here Liu Xin did not mention Fei’s Changes.

The first scholar who advocated establishing Fei’s Changes as an orthodoxy was Han Xin 韩歆 who lived during the reign of Emperor Guangwu 光武 (25-57), according to the “Biography of Fan Sheng” (Fang Sheng zhuan 范升传) in the Hanshu 后汉书 (History of the Eastern Han Dynasty),

The reason Fei’s Changes was not officially established seems to have been that it had no original teacher, i.e., progenitor of the school. Actually a very important reason is because it “has no zhangju 章句 (extremely long sentence-by-sentence annotations) but interprets the upper and lower scriptures only by the Ten Wings,” not like Shi’s, Meng’s, and Liangqiu’s Changes, each of which has two chapters of zhangju. In other words, Fei’s school was only a faithful megaphone, and there was not any figure like Liu Xin who “interpreted the basic text of Zuozhuan by the Commentaries and gave his own insights, and thus zhangju, meanings, and principles were completed”;³⁸ hence, there were no distinctive contents developed from Fei’s Changes. In addition, the school of Fei’s Changes was “good at milfoil divination,” which was inconsistent with Confucius’s emphasis on virtue and righteousness. Though milfoil divination could actually bring economic and political profits to the diviners (e.g., Liangqiu He became appreciated by the emperor due to his efficacy with milfoil divination), it was not Confucians’ final purpose and thus could not gain esteem from the Confucians. In this point, Fei Zhi differs much from Liangqiu He, as the latter manipulated divination in secret, which was no more than a by-line, and his teaching in public was his zhangju. From Hanshi waizhuan 韩诗外传 (An Exoteric Commentary on Han’s Poetry), it can be seen that zhangju was characterized by deriving some Confucian idea concerning statecraft from a term or sentence in the classics.

The Changes referred to in the book is from Meng’s (Changes), History from Kong’s edition, Poetry from Mao’s edition, Rituals from the Zhou Officials, Chunqiu from Zuo’s edition, Confucius’s Analects, and the Classic of Filial Piety, all being in ancient text.

This was actually also a misunderstanding of Xu Shen’s remarks. Mr. Xu Qinting 徐匠庭 reported his teacher Gao Ming’s 高明 words in this way: “In this preface ‘all being of ancient text’ (jie guwen ye 皆古文也) was used to modify Confucius’s Analects and the Classic of Filial Piety, as the former five Classics were referred to with a school, only these two had not been attributed to a school, which were thus affiliated with the ‘ancient text’ in order to declare that the citations of these two books were based on ancient text.”⁴³ Thus this passage ought to be punctuated in this way:

Its references to the Changes in the book are from Meng’s edition, to History from Kong’s, to Poetry from Mao’s, to Rituals from the edition of Zhou Officials, Chunqiu from Zuo’s, and both Confucius’s Analects and the Classic of Filial Piety are from the ancient text version.

In the Han dynasty, though there were transcribers of books,⁴⁵ there were also bookstores⁴⁶ or book markets,⁴⁷ but oral teaching⁴⁸ was an important means in the transmission of the books, under the circumstance of which the teacher orally taught the pupils, and the pupils took notes, and when they encounter some character beyond comprehension or they cannot write, they would replace them with a homophone or variant. Consequently, from one teacher’s teaching, there will be a variety of texts based on the notes taken down by the pupils. According to Zheng Xuan’s view cited in the “Regulations” (tiaoli 条例) section in the “Contents and Lineage of Confucianism” (Xulu 序录) of Jingdian shiwen 经典释文 (Explanation of the Texts of the Classics), “In the beginning of writing, when in a hurry there might not be that character, the writers might simulate it with its pronunciation or borrow a character to replace it simply in order to enter a character similar to it. The receivers were not from the same states and each person used his own dialect; as a result, one sound was recorded with different characters and one character was pronounced with different sounds. Therefore, when ‘Liu Xiang was checking the books and examining the Yi learning, he found all the schools of Changes were similar and originated from Tian He 田何, Yang Shu 杨叔, and General Ding 丁将军.’”⁴⁹ But there were sharp differences between characters used in the three schools of Shi’s, Meng’s, and Liangqiu’s texts of the Changes. As Liao Ping 廖平 stated, “So far as the characters are concerned, ‘New’ differs from ‘Ancient,’ and ‘Ancient’ differs from ‘Ancient’, just as gong 公 differs from gu 谷. Though all the three schools of (the Poetry), i.e., Qi’s, Lu’s, and Han’s, belong to ‘New learning’ (jinxue 今学), their texts are not the same. For another instance, though Yan’s 颜 and Yan’s 严 Gongyang Chunqiu 公羊春秋 originated from the same teacher, their texts differ from each other.”⁵⁰ By the silk and bamboo slips materials excavated in the past several decades, it can be seen that the percentage of the application of loan words, homophones, and variants was shockingly high. This phenomenon also signifies that the disputes between the New Text school and the Ancient Text school did not focus on the writing styles of characters but on the number of the chapters on the one hand⁵¹ and the differences of meanings and principles on the other, as “Zuoqiu Ming’s 左丘明 likes and dislikes were identical to the sage, as he saw Confucius in person, whereas Gongyang 公羊 and Guliang 谷梁 were born after the seventy disciples of Confucius. Seeing with one’s own eyes and hearing with one’s own ears differ in details from what was known through hearsay.⁵²

After the ancient texts had emerged, they were not concealed in museums but became to be read, explored, and transmitted as treasures. So it was with the Zuozhuan:
While the Han was arising, figures like Zhang Cang 张苍 as Marquis Beiping 北平侯, Jia Yi贾谊 as the Daifu 太傅 (Grand Preceptor) of the State of Liang, Zhang Shang 张敞 as Jingzhao yi 京兆尹 (mayor of the capital), Liu Gongzi 刘公子 as a Taizhong dafu 太中大夫, were studying Zuo’s Commentary on the Springs and Autumns Annals. Jia Yi made exegesis on Zuo’s Commentary and passed it on to Mr. Guan 贯公 who became an Erudite appointed by King Xian of the state Hejian 河间献王 and whose son Changqing 长卿 turned out to be magistrate of County Dangyin 荡阴令, who further transmitted it to Zhang Yu 张禹 from Qinghe 清河. Both Zhang Yu and Xiao Wangzhi 萧望之 had been yushi 御史 (censors) at the same time when the former recommended Zuo’s Commentaries time and again to the latter. Wangzhi began to value it and presented memorials several times to recommend it to the emperor. Later, Wangzhi was promoted to Grand Preceptor for the Prince (taizi taifu 太子太傅) and recommended Zhang Yu to Emperor Xuan (r. 74-49 BCE) who let Yu wait for imperial inquiries. Before the emperor intended to interview him, Zhang Yu accidentally died. Zhang passed Zuo’s Commentary on to Yi Gengshi 尹更始, who transmitted it to his son Yi Xian 尹咸, Zhai Fangjin 翟方进, and Hu Chang 胡常. Chang taught Jia Hu 贾护 from Liyang 黎阳 who was an imperial attendant waiting for imperial inquiries, who passed it on to Chen Qin 陈钦 from Cangwu 苍梧. Chen further transmitted it to Wang Mang 王莽 (r. 8-23 CE) and became a general. Liu Xin 刘歆 learned it from Yi Xian 尹咸 and Zhai Fangjin. Then those who spoke of Zuo’s Commentary originated from Jia Hu and Liu Xin’s teachings.⁵³
“Zuo’s Commentary originally had more ancient characters and speeches and scholars tended to interpret it. When Liu Xin was exploring it, he used the zhuan 传 (commentary) to interpret the scripture and let both parts illuminate each other, and thus annotations, meanings, and principles are completed.”⁵⁴ “Having more ancient characters and speeches” means not all characters of it were ancient characters.

After the Guwen shangshu 古文尚书 (Ancient Text Version of the Book of History) had come out of the walls of Confucius’s residence, Kong Anguo 孔安国 (c. 156-74 BCE) read it as New Text and thus established his own school.”⁵⁵ Mr. Wang Guowei 王国维 interpreted this sentence in this way: “The possible case might be that when the Guwen shangshu emerged, its text was much different from the text transmitted by Fu Sheng 伏生 and there were no annotations and explanations. Then, based on New Text formula, Anguo 安国 attached long annotations to it, clarified the loan words and variants and transmitted it. This is what the ‘reading it as New Text’ means. …But what Anguo wanted to do with the ancient text Shangshu was to read it and make it loom large. So far as its characters are concerned, they should not have been unknown to the people at that time.”⁵⁶ Though the ancient characters could have been identified and read by some people (as there are regularities for the evolution of forms of ancient Chinese characters), in the course of transmission of these ancient texts by scholars, they must have been turned into the lishu 隶书 style prevailing at that time rather than ancient fonts when they were transmitted to the students. As Mr. Wang Guowei 王国维 pointed out, “The text concealed by Fu Sheng 伏生 was written before the burning of books by the Qin and thus its characters should be ancient ones. When he was teaching pupils, he should have transformed it into New Text. As the text hidden in the walls had been regarded as an external form, it was not treasured any longer. By the time of Ouyang (Gao) 欧阳(高), the Senior and the Junior Xiahou 大小夏侯, there were probably no longer original texts at all.”⁵⁷ As the Qing scholar Gong Zizhen 龚自珍 (1792-1841) asserted, “The book concealed by Fu Sheng was actually an ancient text. But it was read as a new text by Ouyang and Xiahou and transmitted to the Erudites. …The book from the walls of Confucius was assuredly an ancient text, but Kong Anguo read it in a new text way. Yet, why were there differences between Kong’s version and the Erudites’ version? …Both the New Text and the Ancient Text versions originated from Confucius; one was read by Fu Sheng 伏生 and his disciples, and the other was read by Kong Anguo 孔安国. Before they were read by them, both of them were ancient texts, after they were read by them, both of them became new texts.”⁵⁸

The case of the Guwen xiaojing 古文孝经 (Ancient Text Classic of Filial Piety) can more cogently demonstrate some of these problems. According to Xu Chong’s 许冲 assertion, during the reign of Emperor Zhao 昭帝 (87-74 BCE), three old men from the State of Lu presented an ancient text Classic of Filial Piety to the imperial court. It was to be presented in the form of written book, but it is questionable whether it was written in ancient characters. During the reign of Emperor Guangwu 光武 (25-56 CE), the Yilang 议郎 Wei Hong 卫宏 had once checked it. But we don’t know why the book failed to be officially handed down. It failed to be transmitted among the people as a book either, but was orally taught one generation after another. Therefore, Xu Chong wrote it down again and presented to the imperial court. The orally transmitted contents must have been spoken words rather than written characters. When they were written on the bamboo slips or silk, could they have been taken down in ancient characters? I am afraid not! Its differences from the new text Classic of Filial Piety were manifested not in the style of character but in some words and passages.

For these orally transmitted ancient or new text classics, once they were taken down by some great Confucian masters in written style or collated by scholars like Liu Xiang 刘向, Liu Xin 刘歆, and Wei Hong 卫宏, many ancient characters or sayings (or original characters and meanings) might be retained or restored.⁵⁹ When Xu Shen 许慎 was composing his Shuowen jiezi 说文解字 (Explanation of Simple and Composite Characters), he used to take the characters which he thought conformed to the original meaning of Cang Jie 仓颉 as evidence. Whether his understanding of the classics or the meaning of ancient characters was correct or not is another thing.