Ancient Script Texts: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:44, 18 May 2024

Revision as of 08:15, 23 May 2025

Line 1:

{{More footnotes|date=May 2021}}

In [[Chinese language|Chinese]] [[philology]], the '''Ancient Script Classics''' ({{zh|c=古文經|p=Gǔwén Jīng|w=Kuwen Ching}}), commonly known as the '''Old Texts''', refer to some versions of the [[Five Classics]] discovered during the [[Han dynasty]], written in a script that predated the one in use during the Han dynasty, and produced before the [[To burn the classics and to bury the scholars|burning of the books]]. The term became used in contrast with '''"Current Script Classics"''' (今文經, commonly called the "New Texts"), which indicated a group of texts written in the orthography currently in use during the Han dynasty.

Historical sources record the recovery of a group of texts during the last half of the 2nd century BC from the walls of [[Confucius]]’s old residence in [[Qufu]], the old capital of the [[State of Lu]], when Prince Liu Yu (d. 127 BC) attempted to expand it into a palace upon taking the throne there. In the course of taking the old wall apart, the restorers found versions of the ''[[Classic of History]]'', ''[[Rites of Zhou]]'', ''[[Yili (text)|Yili]]'', ''[[Analects of Confucius]]'' and ''[[Classic of Filial Piety]]'', all written in the old orthography used prior to the reforms of the [[clerical script]]. Hence, they were called "Ancient Script texts".

Line 25:

The Ancient Script school was rationalistic. They rejected [[apocrypha]] and believed that the classics were only edited by Confucius. They believed history was caused by human actions and viewed the Son of Heaven (the [[emperor of China]]) as the [[axis mundi]] whose will was [[Absolute monarchy|absolute]]. Officials may advise but not disobey as it is the emperor who is ultimately responsible for keeping or losing the Mandate of Heaven.{{Citation needed|reason=sources for these claims?|date=August 2023}}

The "ancientAncient scriptScript texts" had a peculiarly archaist bent. They emphasized the sage-like as opposed to the prophet-like characteristics of Confucius, thereby making him look more like the earlier sages who founded and ruled the [[Zhou dynasty]] or even the still more archaic states which preceded it. And yet, these archaic sage-kings are shown ruling China with a bureaucratic apparatus peculiarly like that available to Han dynasty rulers, and hence by methods which strikingly echoed those of putative enemies of [[Wang Mang]], the modernists. The Former Han (206 BC – AD 8), prior to Wang Mang, had favored the Current Script Text. When Wang seized power, he declared the Ancient Script Texts to be the state orthodoxy. After the Han restoration, the Current Script Texts became orthodox again.{{Citation needed|reason=sources for these claims?|date=August 2023}}

Later Han (AD 25–220) scholars began favoring the Ancient Script Texts. [[Zheng Xuan]] synthesized the teachings of both schools. While he was very influential, he was unable to unseat the Current Script Texts orthodoxy though the issue became moot when both schools disappeared after the collapse of the Han. The Ancient Script was promoted under Wang Mang and remained influential from the Later Han to modern times.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rodney Leon Taylor, Howard Yuen Fung Choy |title=The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Confucianism Vol. 2 |date=2005 |publisher=Rosen Publishing Group |isbn=9780823940813 |page=452}}</ref> Zheng became the mainstream source of interpretation until the appearance of [[Neo-Confucianism]] in the [[Tang dynasty|Tang]] and [[Song dynasty|Song dynasties]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Xinzhong Yao |title=An introduction to Confucianism |date=2000 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780521644303 |pages=88-89}}</ref> The controversy was forgotten until it was rediscovered during the [[Qing dynasty]] by scholars of [[Han learning]].

== Modern interpretations ==

Significance of the ancientAncient/currentCurrent script text controversy is a debate topic in the modern sinology. [[Michael Nylan]] has proved that the issue itself was an artificial projection of the mid-Han problematic onto the early Han realities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nylan|first=Michael|date=1994|title=The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy in Han Times|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853294x00070|journal=T'oung Pao|volume=80|issue=1|pages=83–136|doi=10.1163/156853294x00070|issn=0082-5433 | author-link= Michael Nylan}}</ref>

==See also==