Hey, Harmen - in the Hex 26 thread, you said this:

hmesker said:

A good dictionary like the Hanyu Da Zidian can help you decide. In the case of gu 牿 4 meanings are given:

1. 關牛馬的圈欄. A circular fence for enclosing oxes or horses.
2. 從圈欄中放出來的牛馬. Oxes or horses which are released from within the circular fence.
3. 綁在牛角上使其不能觸人的橫木. A horizontal piece of wood placed on the horns of an ox so that it can not touch humans.
4. 用同'梏'. 桎梏，束縛. Used for gu 梏. Wooden handcuffs, to tie up.

For the first and second meaning the 書經 is cited, the Book of History, thus an old resource for these meanings. The third meaning, however, is only mentioned in the 正字通 and 篇海類編 dictionaries, which are both from the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). The only other example that is given of a text which is supposed to use this meaning of the character is H26-4 in the Yijing. The Hanyu Da Zidian quotes 李鼎祚 Li Dingzuo from the Tang dynasty (618-907) who explains this meaning, and it seems as if this is the oldest usage of this meaning. In other words, the meaning of 'headboard' seems to be quite late, or at least not in use during the time the Yijing is supposed to be written. Meaning 1. or 2. are the most likely options.

Click to expand...

I'd like to explore this with you, cuz I'm confused about it, so I started a new thread rather than hijack the 26 thread with my confusion.

I understand the value of knowing the oldest definitions: because the Yi is a pre-Christian era book, the oldest meanings for a word are more likely to be the ones the Yi intended.

But here's my confusion: when were the modern versions we use actually written? The 1935 Harvard-Yenching edition of the Yijing, for example - when was it written? Well, 1935 obviously, but what does *that* version draw on? What's the earliest one we've got that bears close resemblance to the 1935 HY edition, for instance?

dobro said:

But here's my confusion: when were the modern versions we use actually written? The 1935 Harvard-Yenching edition of the Yijing, for example - when was it written? Well, 1935 obviously, but what does *that* version draw on? What's the earliest one we've got that bears close resemblance to the 1935 HY edition, for instance?

Click to expand...

I don't have the Harvard-Yenching edition, so I don't know on what Yi version it is based. I assume however that the oldest Yi version that is the same as today's text is the text of Wang Bi's Yijing. But I must confess I'm not sure about that. I will try to find some more information about this. Others on this forum are also knowledgeable about this subject.

Harmen.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the H-Y based on, or a copy of, the Kang Xi Edition of 1715, compiled by Li Guangdi for the namesake emperor and, with all the classical commentary attached, is known as the "Zhouyi Zhezhong? I believe the H-Y is a bared version of the Zhouyi, sans commentary. Isn't it?



L

Well, that's what I thought, Luis. And if that's the case, then maybe the 1715 version intended more modern meanings for the terms in the text. Does that make any sense?

For instance, we've been discussing 26.4 in that other thread and whether it means 'headboard' or 'pen'. The older meaning is 'pen' according to Harmen's excellent dictionary. But if the version we're using is a recent one, wouldn't it be logical to consider the possibility that more modern meanings are being used?

See, this is the bit I'm confused about.

dobro said:

Well, that's what I thought, Luis. And if that's the case, then maybe the 1715 version intended more modern meanings for the terms in the text. Does that make any sense?

Click to expand...

Well, the Kang Xi edition is not our oldest source, it is the same as the text from earlier versions, as far as I can see. For instance, the 周易逐字索引 concordance is based on the 重刊宋本周易注疏 Song edition of the Commentaries and Subcommentaries to the Zhouyi, re-cut by Ryan Yuan 阮元 in 1816. I don't know exactly when this edition was published, but the Song dynasty lasted from 960-1279, which is quite earlier than the Kang Xi edition. Also reprints of Tang dynasty manuscripts show the same text. The electronic text that I have of Wang Bi's text is the same as our current version, which makes me think that our version goes back to Wang Bi. It seems that from the Han dynasty on the text of the Yi was more or less fixed. Even though the Stone Classics Yijing shows some variant characters compared to the received version I still guess it helped to arrive at a standardized classic. All the variant texts that are discovered are written before the writing of the Stone Classics. I think it is safe to assume that our version goes back to the Han dynasty, but is not earlier than that.

For instance, we've been discussing 26.4 in that other thread and whether it means 'headboard' or 'pen'. The older meaning is 'pen' according to Harmen's excellent dictionary. But if the version we're using is a recent one, wouldn't it be logical to consider the possibility that more modern meanings are being used?

Click to expand...

If we agree that by 'modern' you mean 'Han dynasty' then I say yes, that could be possible. That is why it is important to study variant texts of the Yijing as well, because they can help to find out if a character in our received text was also used in earlier versions of the Yi, thereby eliminating the chance of a Han substitution. In the case of the character gu 牿 we see that the Mawangdui text and the Shanghai Museum manuscript both use a different character. The MWD text uses ju 鞫, a character which in the HYDZD is decribed as 'poverty-stricken', reaching a limit', 'the edge of a water border (水涯的盡頭)'; summarized it has to do with boundaries, limits. The character in the Shanghai Museum Manuscript is an unknown character, but it contains the component wei 囗, 'surround'. The editors of the 楚竹書《周易》研究 say that the character has to be read as 牿, but they say this with a lot of unknown characters so I'm not entirely convinced. Nevertheless I believe it has to do with boundaries - like a fence.

Harmen.

That was great information. Thanks, Harmen!

L

hmesker said:

In the case of the character gu 牿 we see that the Mawangdui text and the Shanghai Museum manuscript both use a different character. The MWD text uses ju 鞫

Click to expand...

And yet Shaughnessy says the 'received text' meaning is 'headboard'. You think he was using Wilhelm/Baynes as his 'received text' lol?

dobro said:

And yet Shaughnessy says the 'received text' meaning is 'headboard'. You think he was using Wilhelm/Baynes as his 'received text' lol?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, he is just following the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that, but regarding gu 牿 me thinks otherwise. There are more instances in the Yi text where other readings are justifiably better than the mainstream's consensus.

Harmen.

hmesker said:

There are more instances in the Yi text where other readings are justifiably better than the mainstream's consensus.

Click to expand...

Story of my life, Harmen. lol