Early Chinese Manuscripts and the Written Tradition of the Book of ODES

• Main Authors: Lee-Moi Pham, 范麗梅
• Other Authors: 黃沛榮
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/31876702587624958474

博士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 中國文學研究所 === 97 === 　　The precise ways in which texts were written in Early China present a key question for the interpretation of the Chinese classics. Books written on bamboo and silk, excavated in large numbers in the last several decades, provide the most valuable data for investigating this question. This study takes as its basis the texts of the Book of Odes, particularly their textual variants, as collected and sorted from excavated and transmitted texts. From the perspectives of the nature of the Chinese writing system, on the one hand, and the writing of texts, on the other hand, this study examines, first, the precise ways in which the texts of the Odes were written and transmitted, and secondly, the methodologies as well as the differences among the various traditions of interpretation. Throughout, the study focuses on the written texts of the Odes, considering them from a variety of perspectives and responding to the relevant views currently held among scholars. There are six main arguments. 　　One, the textual variants of the Odes are a consequence of two tendencies in the Chinese writing system: “symbolization” and “de-symbolization.” Specifying their relations with one another, this study suggests that textual variants are generated in the ways of representing language that are specific to the Chinese writing system. Namely, a single character can represent multiple words, while multiple characters can represent a single word. This study refers to the latter of these two characteristics in terms of “groups of textual variants,” and the broader phenomenon of multiple characters representing multiple words as “webs of textual variants.” It cites actual examples of textual variants from the texts of the Odes, showing how the phenomena of “symbolization” and “de-symbolization” are observed in the interplay of the writing system and the interpretation of the texts of the Odes. Such understandings contribute to the reading and interpretation of transmitted and excavated texts from Early China, responding to the challenge of adjudicating among different reading and interpretations. 　　Secondly, texts of the Odes from Early China are transmitted in the alternating forms of stability and change. While texts of the Odes from Early China were transmitted in oral as well as written forms, in the case of written transmission, this takes the alternating forms of a changing text with multiple textual variants, on the one hand, and a stable text which makes an attempt at fixing the writing, on the other. Such alternation between stability and change is closely entwined with the intellectual history of Early China, including the burning of the books during the Qin, the introduction of clerical script, and the debate between the “current script” and “ancient script” traditions. Reviewing these famous episodes, this study attempts to clarify their nature, providing explanations that are often different from those currently held among scholars. 　　Thirdly, the three schools of the Odes during the Western Han transmitted scholarly traditions of the Warring States in Lu-Chu, Qi, and Jin. By investigating the activities of the various transmitters, in both time and space, this study shows that the three schools of the Odes officially recognized during the Han were not based upon certain texts of the Odes that could be associated with a specific region or a specific period. Instead, they were based on the people, the boshi 博士 “erudite scholars,” who can be traced back to intellectual lineages of the Warring States: the Lu school to a Lu-Chu lineage, the Qi 齊 school to a Qi lineage, particularly at Jixia 稷下, and the Han 韓 school to a Jin lineage. By contrast, the Mao 毛 school was among the various minor traditions of the Han feudal kings, corresponding to similar minor lineages of the Warring States. Comparing transmitted texts of the Odes with their counterparts in excavated texts, this study shows that the texts of the various schools resemble each other in some aspects, while differing in others; the text alone is not sufficient for distinguishing them. This is true for the Fuyang 阜陽 text of the Odes, an Eastern Han mirror inscribed with the poem “Shuoren” 碩人 (The stately person), the text of the Odes cited in the Yili 儀禮 (Rites and etiquettes) from Wuwei 武威, and the “Kongzi shi lun” 孔子詩論 (Confucius’ discussion of the Odes) from the Shanghai Museum; all are among the variable texts of the time, and they have texts that resemble each other in some aspects, while differing in others. As for the Xiping 熹平 stone classics of the Eastern Han, these were inscribed specifically to create a stable text. 　　Fourthly, with regard to the interpretative works of the Odes, the names of the various genres and their respective contents were often not only interchangeable, but also confused. During their transmission, the texts of the Odes and their interpretive works acquired new contents as well as giving up old ones; later works replaced earlier works; and some disappeared just as quickly they appeared. Such changes resulted in the fact that the texts and contents of the various schools resembled each other in some aspects, while differing in others. Thus, there is no clear standard for distinguishing the various schools. As for the interpretative works, they were classified under different genres, with different titles, though these were often based on earlier manifestations of those works, and they were easily confused over time. The same is true with regard to the contents of those works, which accumulated over time or were exchanged among different works, and this resulted in a mismatch between a title and the content it refers to; a title that was indicated at one point might not correspond to the content observed at another. Such confusion is related to the fact that pre-Qin texts circulated in the small unit of pian 篇. Using the examples of the “Kongzi shi lun,” the “Zigao” 子羔, and fragments from Fuyang, the study shows that these texts cannot be grouped, based on content, with any genre of the interpretative works of the Odes. Likewise, they cannot be named according to the standards of the Han. 　　Fifthly, the texts of the Odes employ paronomastic glosses to create an interpretative space for the Odes, where the poems have no fixed interpretation. The interpretative works of the Odes are founded on the principle that multiple characters can represent multiple words; they adopt the view that the poems can have no fixed interpretation; and they make use of paronomastic glosses as their interpretative strategy. These points are illustrated by four examples, which show how the confusion of representing a language that is inherent in the writing system leads directly to the lack of a fixed interpretation for the poems. Additionally, the study comments on the interpretative works of the Odes that make use of paronomastic glosses, comparing them with the textual variants of the Odes and those paronomastic glosses seen in the Mao commentary and the Shiming 釋名 (Explicating names). 　　Finally, the texts of the Odes devise discursive topics based on the principle in the writing system that multiple characters can represent multiple words. This study shows that the various interpretative works of the Odes proceeded from such an understanding; by choosing among different characters and different words, they elaborated on the meanings of the poems, constructed intellectual schemes, and devised general discursive topics. At the end of this study, these points are illustrated by six specific examples.