Content deleted Content added
KolbertBot (talk | contribs) m Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v477) |
m →Controversy among new schools: clean up, replaced: Liu Xin → Liu Xin |
||
Line 16:
By the time of 1st century, a new controversy had begun between these two texts. The "new texts" are those that had been transliterated into the new orthography back in the beginning of 2nd century BC, either from oral transmissions or from texts that had survived the Qin Dynasty’s burning of the books or were rescued by the Han Dynasty in the provinces. Surviving scholars in the direct line of transmission of these books got hold of surviving copies and transliterated them into the new orthography.
The "old texts" were the ones that off and on since the late 2nd and during the 1st century BC had turned up, some discovered in the walls of Confucius’s residence, or in Warring States period graves. They were called the “old texts” because they were written in the pre-Qin writing. The discoverers of the "old texts", such as [[Liu Xin (scholar)|Liu Xin]], claimed that all existing texts suffered from an interrupted pedigree, which was rectified by the newly discovered texts. "New text" followers claim the "old texts" are forgeries that lack a line of transmission.
In reality, the burning of the books probably did little more than symbolically burn a few copies of the Confucian books conveniently at hand in the capital.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} Many other copies survived elsewhere, and these were available for copying into the new orthographic standard set by Qin and its [[clerical script]] successor which evolved under Han Dynasty. It was the change in orthography which divided the [[Warring States]] and early imperial period textual traditions, and in this respect the newly discovered texts were no different from those used as the basis for the "new text" transcriptions soon after the fall of [[Qin Dynasty]].
| |||