...life can be translucent

Menu

The 'received text' revisited, or, which versions of the Yi are various translations based on?

F

Freedda

Guest
In another discussion, someone was sharing their idea that there are or were eariler versions of the Yi - perhaps with a different hexagram order - that were likely used for different purposes than the 'version' we mostly use today. There's quite a lot of 'supposing' in their idea (which I don't need to get into, though others might want to), but this got me wondering:

There is an often-used term, 'the received text' of the Yi, and I wonder what that means? And more specifically, I'm curious which versions of the Yi have been used by various modern authors (for many of the English versions that are used by many of us today).

For example, Edward Shaughnessy's 'Unearthing the Changes' has a translation of the 'Fuyang Zhou Yi' which was excavated from the tomb of Xia Hou Zao, who died in 165 B.C.E.

And, Bradford Hatcher says that his version is based on the: Chinese Imperial Edition of 1715, the Zhouyi Zhezhong (substantially as found in the Harvard-Yenching Institute's Zhouyi Yinde (1935) and in Z.D. Sung’s The Text of the Yi King (1935)).

And I am guessing that Richard Wilhelm based his translation on another more recent (e.g. A.D. date) version, because that's what his Chinese teacher Lao Nai-hsüan was using and was familiar with.

My intent here is information-gathering - and I am not making any claims about any 'better' or 'truer' or 'more original' verisons of the Yi. I just want to know which translations of the Yi (and their dates or time period) are the versions we now use based on?

all the best, ______
 

Gmulii

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
179
Reaction score
35
In another discussion, someone was sharing their idea that there are or were eariler versions of the Yi - perhaps with a different hexagram order - that were likely used for different purposes than the 'version' we mostly use today. There's quite a lot of 'supposing' in their idea (which I don't need to get into, though others might want to), but this got me wondering:

There is an often-used term, 'the received text' of the Yi, and I wonder what that means? And more specifically, I'm curious which versions of the Yi have been used by various modern authors (for many of the English versions that are used by many of us today).

For example, Edward Shaughnessy's 'Unearthing the Changes' has a translation of the 'Fuyang Zhou Yi' which was excavated from the tomb of Xia Hou Zao, who died in 165 B.C.E.

And, Bradford Hatcher says that his version is based on the: Chinese Imperial Edition of 1715, the Zhouyi Zhezhong (substantially as found in the Harvard-Yenching Institute's Zhouyi Yinde (1935) and in Z.D. Sung’s The Text of the Yi King (1935)).

And I am guessing that Richard Wilhelm based his translation on another more recent (e.g. A.D. date) version, because that's what his Chinese teacher Lao Nai-hsüan was using and was familiar with.

My intent here is information-gathering - and I am not making any claims about any 'better' or 'truer' or 'more original' verisons of the Yi. I just want to know which translations of the Yi (and their dates or time period) are the versions we now use based on?

all the best, ______

If I remember, correctly, only one of the three was actually found(zhouyi) and we use today.
The other 2 exists as names and mentions in some old documents, but we have no idea if they were as big as the zhouyi or what they contained, only the hexagram they started from. We can't even be sure they existed at all.
The hexagram they started from, I think wasn't sure as well, in the few places that mentioned them, there is the idea that may have come from their names.

So overall - there may have been 2 more loong time ago.... Or not, and if there were they may start with other Hexagrams... Or not.

I don't think that part is very important. I like the idea of order that starts with Kun(what we now view as Hex.2), but none of the styles I enjoy use the order of the hexagrams in any way, so it matters very little, overall.

Anyway, in short - everyone and everything known today use zhouyi and has been using it for a very long time.
The rest are rumors, short mentions in old documents and very unclear historical data I wouldn't pay much attention to, unless a complete document resurfaces someday.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,452
Reaction score
968
This is the kind of thing Harmen will know in intimate detail! Definitely ask him. But to the best of my knowledge...

The three hexagram oracles that I think Gmulii is referring to - until relatively recently, the scholarly view was that two out of the three were more or less mythical. But fragments of the Guicang turned up, and are included in Shaughnessy's Unearthing the Changes. It's not a version of the Zhouyi, though; the hexagrams often have the same names, but the text is quite different, and there's no sign of line text.

I think if someone offers a Yijing translation, that'll be a translation of the received text unless they say otherwise. It does have the advantage of being complete, which the fascinating excavated fragments (also in Unearthing the Changes) are not.

The one ancient text that's a recognisable Yijing but not the received text is the Mawangdui manuscript. That has a different sequence of hexagrams and quite a lot of different wording. Shaughnessy's translated that - has anyone else?

Margaret Pearson's book is a strange, never-before-seen hybrid: partly Mawangdui, partly received text.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
If I remember, correctly, only one of the three was actually found(zhouyi) and we use today. The other 2 exists as names and mentions in some old documents, but we have no idea if they were as big as the zhouyi or what they contained, only the hexagram they started from. We can't even be sure they existed at all.
I should clarify, I am talking about 'versions' of the Yijing (with commentary), or the Zhouyi (without commentary). I am not talking about any other divination or oracle systems - even ones that are seemingly related, like the Forest of Changes.

And it is my understanding that there are different 'versions' or manuscripts of the Yi that have been discovered or unearthed that are from different time periods: the 165 BC Yi that Ed. Shaughessy writes about and translates; I believe there is another early version housed in the Shanghi Museum, and then the later 1715 version I mentioned above, and other earlier or later versions which may serve as a basis for the English Yi translations we know and use.

But I am not referring to other oracles - lost, partial, or whole.

I hope that is clearer.
 

Gmulii

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
179
Reaction score
35
I should clarify, I am talking about 'versions' of the Yijing (with commentary), or the Zhouyi (without commentary). I am not talking about any other divination or oracle systems - even ones that are seemingly related, like the Forest of Changes.

And it is my understanding that there are different 'versions' or manuscripts of the Yi that have been discovered or unearthed that are from different time periods: the early Yi that Ed. Shaughessy writes about and translates; I believe there is another early version housed in the Shanghi Museum, and then the later 1715 version I mentioned above, and possibly other 'later' versions which serve as a basis for many of the English Yi books we know and use.

I hope that is clearer.

Check Hilary post, I don't know that much about that time, I'm more into the post Han dynasty stuff. : )
 
F

Freedda

Guest
I will look more closely at what Hilary said.
And to further clarify, I am - in part - looking into filling in the blanks:

Alfred Huang used ________ version, or manuscript, or translatoin for his book.

Stephen Karcher used _______ version or versions (or other sources)

Alfred E. Newman used the 1954 New York Times version of the Yi

Prof. Erwin Corey used the little-know DDS (Ding Dong School) version of the Yi ....

Etc. etc. etc.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,452
Reaction score
968
I believe everyone who wasn't explicitly translating the Mawangdui manuscript used the 1715 version, and the big differences are down to school of thought and also the idea that some characters are loans.
 

Liselle

visitor
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
7,003
Reaction score
636
Good question. I've never known either what's meant by "received text," and have just gone along not knowing.

Wikipedia has an article about the "textus receptus" of the Bible, and at the very bottom it says this:
The Latin phrase, textus receptus, is sometimes used in other instances and may refer to "a text of a work that is generally accepted as being genuine or original

So would that be the 1715 version? (Which I've never heard of until this minute - have never paid any attention to the history side of things.)
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,452
Reaction score
968
It would. Here are some notes from Richard Rutt's introduction:

The canonised text (with Wings) was engraved on stone tablets in the Later Han, starting in AD 175. Unfortunately, they got badly damaged, and now there are just 'several hundred fragments' scattered in collections round the world, containing about 1,170 of an original 24,500 characters.

:(

The received text comes via a different route & tradition, but since it had been canonised by then, it's probably not that different. It's 'believed to have been collated by Liu Xiang (79-08BC). This text, with 10 Wings included (not clear when that happened, but it was the norm by AD 127-200), was used by Wang Bi (226-249 AD).

This was used for some more noteworthy commentaries including Zhu Xi's... and then for the imperial Qing edition in 1715. Then something taken from that was used as a source by the Harvard-Yenching Institute in 1935, and that's the version used by translators nowadays.

So... directly 'received' from 1715, but with a continuous line of transmission from Han times. And sure enough, the more recently-excavated bamboo slips dating from 300 BC or so are mostly the same text.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top