Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T02:24:17.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A First Reading of the Mawangdui Yijing Manuscript

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Edward L. Shaughnessy
Edward L. Shaughnessy*
Affiliation:
Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among the texts discovered in December, 1973, at Mawangdui in Changsha, Hunan, was by far the earliest manuscript text (copied about 175 B.C.) of the Zhouyi or Zhou Changes, together with various commentaries, some known—such as the “Xici” or “Appended Statements”— and others —”Ersanzi Wen” or “The Two or Three Disciples Ask,” “Yi zhi Yi” or “The Propriety of the Changes,” and “Yao” or “Essentials”—not heretofore known. Despite the great anticipation with which scholars learned of this discovery, it was not until twenty years later, 1993, that this manuscript was finally published, and even at that only incompletely. In this comte rendu, the author introduces the state and contents of the manuscript, including especially how it varies from the received text, and some of the debate that these variora have already engendered among historians of Chinese thought.

1973 年在長沙馬王堆漢墓中出土了大量帛書,其中包括現知最早的《周易》寫本及數種傳文.這些傳文有的是舊有流傳,如至今仍存的《繋詞》便是；其餘的如《二三子問》,《易之義》,及《要〉等三種則都是以前從未聞見過的.時値二十年後,也就是1993年,這批學術界企盼已久的珍貴文獻才首次公佈於世.儘管帛書《易經》照像影印本迄今尙未正式發表,但其大旨已頗詳晰.本文即擬對這批材料作一些介紹,特別注意帛書不同於通行本之處.此外也將選撣地介紹一些中國史學家對通行本及帛書之異文所持的不同看法及論辯.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 19 , 1994 , pp. 47 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was edited for Early China by David N. Keightley.

References

1. For comprehensive bibliographies of Mawangdui studies, see Songchao, Zuo 左松超, “Mawangdui Hanmu yanjiu ziliao mulu suoyin” 馬王堆漢墓硏究资威目錄索弓|, Zhongguo shumujikan 中國書目季刊 23 (1989), 95–115Google Scholar; Meili, Li 李梅鹿,她《 Mawang-dut Han mu yanjiu mulu 馬王堆漢墓研究目錄(Changsha: Hunan sheng bowuguan, 1992)Google Scholar.

2. A transcription of the Zhouyi 周易 portion of the manuscript, i.e., the hexagram and line statements of the basic text, was published in 1984 (Mawangdui Han mu boshuzhenglixiaozu, ”Mawangduiboshu ‘Liushisigua’ shiwen” 馬王堆帛書六十四卦釋文,Wenwu文物, 1984.3, 1-8), though complete photographs of this portion of the text have only recently been published, without transcription, in Mawangdui Han mu wenwu 馬王螆漢墓文物(Added English title: The Cultural Relics Unearthed from the Han Tombs at Mawangdui), ed. Juyou, Fu 傅舉有 and Songchang, Chen 陳松長(Changsha: Hunan chubanshe, 1992), 106–117Google Scholar. Mawangdui Han mu wenwu, which is more in the nature of a “coffee-table book” than a scholarly publication, also includes complete photographs of the portion of the manuscript bearing the “Xici” 辭 or “Appended Statements” commentary (pp. 118-126), in this case adding a preliminary transcription. Two superior transcriptions of the “Xici” were published in Daojia wenhua yanjiu 道家文化硏究3 (1993): Zhang Zhenglang 張政烺, “Mawangdui boshu Zhouyi Xici jiaodu” 馬王堆帛書周易繋辭校讀, pp. 27-35, and Chen Songchang陳松長,” Boshu Xici shiwen 帛書紫辭釋文, pp. 416-423; a third, more convenient and more “literal” transcription is that of Huang Peirong 黄沛榮： Mawangdui boshu Xici jiaodu 馬王堆帛書繋辭校讀,Zhouyi yanjiu周易硏究1992.4, 1-9. The same issue of Daojia wenhua yanjiu also contains preliminary transcriptions, by Chen Songchang and Miao Mingchun緣名春,of the commentaries “Ersanzi wen” 二三子問 or “The Two or Three Disciples Ask,” “Yi zhi yi” 易之義 or The Propriety of the “Changes,” and “Yao” 要 or “Ti1e Essentials”; “Boshu Ersanzi wen Yi zhi yiYao shiwen”帛番三三子問易之義要釋文, pp. 424-435. Miao Mingchun has also provided excellent synopses of these commentaries; “Boshu Ersanzi wen jianshuo”帛書二三子問簡說, pp. 190-195, “Boshu Yi zhi yi jianshuo”帛書易之義簡說, pp. 196-201, and “Boshu Yao jianshuo,’ pp. 202-206. He also gives a detailed summary of the dual commentaries “Mu He“繆和 and “Zhao Li“昭力（〃 Boshu Mu He Zhao Li jianshuo”帛會繆和昭力簡說, pp. 207-215), but does not provide a complete transcription. Photographs of these other commentaries have not yet been published.

3. I will cite many of these in the discussion below.

4. The number of commentaries has been a source of considerable confusion during the many years between the manuscripfs discovery and first complete publication. For instance, early reports held that the commentary now referred to as “Yi zhi yi” was a continuation of the “Xici.” This is clearly not the case, the “Yi zhi yi” beginning in a new column of text headed with a black, rectangular marker indicative in the Yi-jing manuscript of the beginning of a new text. On the other hand, it is not clear whether “Mu He” and “Zhao Li” should be considered one or two discrete texts. “Mu He” begins with a rectangular black mark, and runs for about 70 columns, at the end of the last of which there is one blank space followed by the graphs mu he The next column begins, without a rectangular black mark, with the words “Zhao Li wen yue” 昭力問曰,” Zhao Li asked.” This text then runs 14 columns, at the end of which there is another blank space followed by the graphs zhao li 昭力, and then, after another blank space, the number “6,000“,” which is indicative of the total number of graphs in both texts. Perhaps they should be read as two chapters of a single commentary.

There is also some disagreement whether these commentaries (i.e., those other than “Ersanzi wen“) were all written on a single piece or on two pieces of silk. In a recent article, Li Xueqin 李學勤 argues that there were two separate pieces, the first bearing the “Xici” and the “Yi zhi yi,” and the second bearing “Yao” and “Mu He” and “Zhao Li“; “Boshu Zhouyi de jidian yanjiu” 帛書周易的幾點硏究, Wenwu 文物1994.1,45. However, Li then goes on in the next paragraph to say that the two pieces were either joined together or at least that the texts on them were run together.

5. The inital publication was Mawangdui Han mu boshu zhengli xiaozu, “Mawang-dui boshu ‘Liushisi gua’ shiwen,” Wenwu 1984.3, 1–8Google Scholar; photographs are given in Ma-wangdui Han mu wenwu, 106-117; see above, n. 1.

6. Honshu 漢書(shuju, Zhonghua ed.), 30.1704Google Scholar.

7. For a discussion of these variora in the Mawangdui manuscript version of the Zhouyi, see Liwen, Zhang 張立文, Zhouyi boshu jinzhu jinyi 周易帛書今注今譯, vol. 1 (Taipei: Xuesheng shuju, n.d. [1991?])) 18–28Google Scholar.

8. For the significance of “lexical variation” as opposed to “graphic variation,’ espe-daily with respect to manuscript materials, see Boltz, William G., “Manuscripts with Received Counterparts,’ in Paleographie Sources of Early Chinese History, ed. Shaughnessy, Edward L. (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 1995), in pressGoogle Scholar.

9. See Qinting, Xu 徐斧庭,Zhouyi yiwen kao 周易異文考(Taipei: Wuzhou chuban-she, n.d.), 21Google Scholar.

10. Jinshu 晉書 (shuju, Zhonghua ed.), 51.1432Google Scholar.

11. For a study arguing that the hexagram sequence of the Mawangdui manuscript is related to the Eight Palace (ba gong 宮)sequence of Jing Fang 京房(d. 37 B.C.), and thus that it is part of a long tradition, see Dajun, Liu 劉大鈞, “Bo Yi chutan” 帛易初談, Wenshizke 史哲 1985.4, 53–60Google Scholar, translated as “A Preliminary Investigation of the Silk Manuscript Yijing,’ Zhouyi Network 1 (01 1986), 13–26Google Scholar.

12. See, for instance, Zhongmin, Han 韓4中民, Bo Yi shuolüe 帛易說略(Beijing: Beijing Shifan daxue chubanshe, 1992), 25Google Scholar.

13. This division of the text into two sections was first suggested in Haoliang, Yu 于彔亮, “Boshu Zhouyi” 帛書周易, Wenwu 文物 1984.3, 22Google Scholar; Xueqin, Li, “Boshu Zhouyi de jidian yanjiu,” 46, maintains itGoogle Scholar.

14. See Mingchun, Miao, “Boshu Ersanzi wen jianshuo,’ 190. Miao notes that the text in column 17 continues and comments upon that in column 16Google Scholar.

15. See Haoliang, Yu 于豪亮, “Boshu Zhouyi” 帛書周易, 23Google Scholar; see, too, the remarks made by Zhenglang, Zhang 張政烺 in “Zuotan Changsha Mawangdui Han mu bo-shu“座談長沙馬王堆漢基帛書, WCTIWW 1974.9, 45–57Google Scholar.

16. In a postscript to his synopsis of the “Yi zhi yi” commentary, Miao Mingchun claims to have discovered a fragment bearing three barely legible characters that probably belongs in the final column of the text. He says that the second and third of these characters appear to be numerals, presumably indicating the number of characters in the text. However, he does not say what numerals they appear to be; Mingchun, Miao, “Boshu Yi zhi yi jianshuo,” 201Google Scholar.

17. Peirong, Huang, “Mawangdui boshu Xici zhuan jiaodu,’ 3Google Scholar.

18. The first statement seems to have been Chen Guying 陳鼓應, “Yi zhuan Xici suoshou Laozi sixiang yingxiang—jianlun Yi zhuan nai Daojia xitong zhi zuo” 易傳繁辭所受老子思想影攆——兼論易傳乃道家系統之作, Zhexue yanjiu 哲學硏究1989.1, 34-42, 52Google Scholar. This and other studies of Chen's were then included in his monograph Lao Zhuang xinlun老莊新論(Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju, 1991)Google Scholar. The first explicit counter-argument seems to have been: Lü Shaowang呂紹網,Yi Dazhuan yu Laozi shi liangge genben butong de sixiang tixi— jian yu Chen Guying xiansheng shangque “易大傳與老子是兩個根本不同的思想體系——兼與陳鼓應先生商榷, Zhexue yanjiu 1989.8,20–29Google Scholar.

19. Songchang, Chen陳松長, “Boshu Xici chutan” 帛書繫辭初談, Daojia wenhua yanjiu 3 (1993), 155–164Google Scholar; Baoxuan, Wang 王媒 “Boshu Xici yu Zhanguo Qin Han Daojia Yi xue” 帛書繋辭與戦國秦漢道家易學, Daojia wenhua yanjiu 3 (1993), 73–88Google Scholar.

20. Mingchun, Miao 緩名春, “Lun boshu Xici yu jinben Xici de guanxi” 論帛書紫辭與今本繁辭的關係, Daojia wenhua yanjiu 3 (1993), 134Google Scholar. These characters are not entirely clear in the photograph in Mawangdui Han mu wenwu (p. 119), but there is no question that there are two small characters written there.

21. Tsung-i, Jao 饒宗頤, “Boshu Xici zhuan Da Heng shuo” 帛書繋辭傳大恒說, Daojia wenhua yanjiu 3 (1993), 6–19Google Scholar.

22. Mingchun, Miao, “Boshu Yi zhi yi jianshuo,’ 198Google Scholar.

23. Mingchun, Miao, “Boshu Yao jianshuo,’ 205Google Scholar.

24. Miao Mingchun consistently writes “Section 12” as the point at which the form changes, however his description of the content of the various sections makes clear that the change takes place with Section 13.