Classical Chinese Texts
PrefaceThere exists at present considerable uncertainty about the nature, date, and authorship of many of the classical Chinese texts. This is a major problem for the historian, since it casts a shadow of doubt over much of the text evidence for the classical period.
Traditional scholarship has dealt with some of the difficulties, but usually in a context of cultural piety. Among traditional scholars, the authenticity of the canonical works was rarely open to doubt, and in a teaching context, the moral suitability of a text was often more important than its value as evidence for ancient history. Intellectual continuity and cultural identity have loomed large in these discussions. Philology as such has played a minor role. The solutions proposed for problematic texts by scholarship operating under these conditions have been convincing in some cases, but less so in others, and with a very few exceptions, the Warring States text situation has not been approached as a whole. The work of the historian thus continues to be hampered at its beginning: the correct evaluation of the source materials. We here attempt to contribute to the creation of a better context for historical investigation.
Our Approach
One distinctive feature of our approach is that we recognize a wide range of text types. The traditional view operated with only two categories: authentic works and and spurious works. This amounts to recognizing only a single text type, the authorial text, and evaluating texts solely on the basis of their authorship claims.
The assumption that all texts were authorial does not hold up under close examination. The internal evidence suggests to us that many of the Warring States texts were organizational rather than authorial. Some accumulated over time as new statements of the sponsoring group's agenda were made, or as issues newly important to contemporary society were addressed. Such formative processes yield either a single quasi-text or a repository of separate texts. Within either type, each constituent has its own different date and historical circumstances. Inconsistencies within such a text or repository are not problematic; rather, they are a normal consequence of the time span over which the material accumulated. In general, recognizing a wider range of text formation possibilities (see Text Typology) often makes possible the solution of what would otherwise be a philologically intractable situation.
We have sought to address the problems of these texts in strictly philological terms, without giving preference to traditional assumptions, and without regard to contemporary controversies. We expect that a successful hypothesis about some text will: (1) respect sound philological method, (2) take account of all the internal evidence, (3) be compatible with solutions proposed for other texts, (4) agree with any archaeological or other hard evidence, and (5) yield inferences which are historically plausible in themselves, and which cohere with what else is firmly known about the social and political environment. That is, the solutions reached for single texts should together give a convincing account of the corpus of texts, and the corpus should imply a plausible sense of the larger historical context. For further points of methodology and approach, see the following Analytical Procedure page.
It should be added that texts alone are not a sufficient basis for the work of understanding the texts. In recognition of that fact, we include entries not only for texts, but also for persons, events, and tendencies in the Warring States period and in the early Empire.
Previous Publications
Extracts from an early version of our general solution for the chronology of the Warring States texts were given in Brooks Prospects (1994). This was itself a response to Loewe Texts (1993). The present effort seeks eventually to provide a systematic account of our conclusions about most of the consequential texts, along with discussions of some general issues affecting their solution.
CCT in its present format reflects our best opinion as of the time of posting. Each of its pages is subject to updating as our own research continues, as others obtain useful results, or as new evidence becomes available. The on-line CCT is a preliminary publication, and will eventually appear in a print version. Meanwhile, viewer comments on this on-line version are very welcome.
For the convenience of present viewers and future readers, the text entries present information in a standard sequence; see the Format page. Entries for groups of texts, persons, events, or historical situations have a different format, varying with the needs of the subject. All entries are accessible from the alphabetical Index page, and there is also a Subject Index for names or issues which are discussed in more than one place. For convenience and conciseness, we abbreviate some recurring titles; see the Abbreviations page.
These conclusions are are drawn from our own researches, or from our own weighing of theories suggested by others. Some material is adapted from the hundreds of Notes and Queries circulated among members of the Warring States Working Group (WSWG) between 1993 and 2000, and from the Warring States Workshop (WSW) E-mail dialogue which began in 1997 and is now the chief medium of that conversation. These and other sources are credited as appropriate.
More generally, we acknowledge with gratitude the ongoing support of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for the current phase of this program of research, beginning in 1993, the financial support of Donald and Loretta Gibbs and of the Mercer Trust for that continuing effort, and a 1996-97 Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, under which part of the research here summarized was carried out. We also appreciate the suggestions and corrections of many individual colleagues over the years, and hope that the present pages will evoke further suggestions.
Back at the beginning of the 18th century, the private scholar and bibliophile Yau Ji-hvng wrote a little treatise examining the authenticity of 91 texts, most of them from the classical period. In the preface, he has this to say about the importance of this kind of work:
"Many spurious books have been produced in both ancient and modern times. Can a scholar who does not take the time to make that distinction be called a scholar at all? To make that distinction is the first duty of scholarship."
That really says it all. In acknowledgement, we have dedicated this book to Yau Ji-hvng.
E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks
22 February 2001Classical Chinese Texts is Copyright © 1993- by E Bruce and A Taeko Brooks
Comments to The Project / Exit to CCT Index Page
