VIEWING THE VALUE OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF ZHOUYI BY COMPARING IT WITH THE BAMBOO SLIPS VERSION OF CHU

Written by LIN ZHONGJUN

(Center for Zhouyi & Ancient Chinese Philosophy, Shandong University , Jinan 250100, China )

Translated from Chinese by ZHANG JIWEN

(Department of Foreign Languages, Weifang University , Weifang 261001, China )

    The publication of the Bamboo Slips of Chu 楚 (Volume III) by Shanghai Guji Press brought forth the Zhouyi 周易 of the bamboo slips version of Chu in the Warring States Period to the world for the first time. Although it is not a complete version of Zhouyi , only including 58 slips about 34 hexagrams (133) (1) , it is the earliest version existent so far. The discovery of it is of great significance because it provides some forceful evidences for us to study Zhouyi of the version before Qin Dynasty and the evolution of it.

    Zhouyi of the current version originated from the “ancient text” of Fei Zhi 费直 in the Han Dynasty. In the Han Dynasty there were two main versions of Zhouyi : One is the current version for scholars' study, which was transmitted by Tian He 田何 in the early Han Dynasty and used by Shi 施 ( 仇 ), Meng 孟 ( 喜 ), Liangqiu 染丘 ( 贺 ), etc.; The other is the ancient version circulated among the people, which was transmitted by Fei Zhi 费直 and used by Ma Rong 马融 , Zheng Xuan 郑玄 , Xun Shauang 荀爽 , etc. in the Eastern Han Dynasty. According to the History of Han Dynasty 汉书 , Zhouyi survived the movement of burning books and burying Confucian scholars alive (initiated by the First Emperor of Qin 秦始皇 ) because it was a book about divination. In addition to the different ways of writing the major difference between the two versions mentioned just now mainly lies in the fact that one of them has no such words as “ 无咎 ” and “ 悔亡 ”. It says in the History of the Western Han Dynasty : Bibliography 汉书 ·艺文志 :

    Till the time of the movement of Burning Books and Burying Confucian Scholars Alive, because Yi was a book of divination, it was spread ceaselessly. After the foundation of the Han Dynasty Tian He 田何 spread it. Till the reign of emperors Xuan 宣 and Yuan 元 , Shi, Meng, Liangqiu and Jing's Yi -ology that were officially admitted, while unofficially, there were two schools, namely, the Fei's and Gao's traditions. Liu Xiang, according to the ancient text version of Yijing 易经 , checked the versions of Shi, Meng and Liangqiu's, they cut out the words “ 无咎 ” and “ 悔亡 ”. Only the version of Fei Zhi was the same as the ancient one.

    After the Eastern Han Dynasty, the version in ancient text became prevalent. It says in the History of Eastern Han Dynasty : Biographies of Confucian Scholars 后汉书·儒林传 : “During the mid period of Jian Wu (56-58AD), Fan Sheng 范升 transmitted Meng's version and handed it down to Yang Zhen 杨政 , while Chen Yuan 陈元 and Zheng Rong 郑众 spread the version of Fei Zhi, and later Ma Rong 马融 joined them. Ma Rong handed it to Zheng Xuan 郑玄 , Zheng Xuan wrote the Annotations to Yi 易注 , and Xun Shuang 荀爽 wrote his Yizhuan 易传 Commentaries on Yi . Since then on the Fei's version prospered and the Jing's declined.” During this period when the ancient text version was in vogue, the government carried out several rectification to Yi at large scale. And a symposium, presided by the Emperor Zhang 汉章帝 , was held at Baihu Guan 白虎观 to discuss the Classics, including Yi studies, to examine the differences and the similarities among the Classics in different versions. Meanwhile, an imperial edict was issued by the Emperor to invite the talented scholars to teach the ancient text Classics.” “Although schools were not officially established, all were interpreted by the most talented scholars who were the top scholars in the imperial Examination so as to adopt the advantages of different classics. ” (2) ( The History of the Eastern Han Dynasty : Biographies of Confucian Scholars 后汉书·儒林传 ) Emperor An 安帝 selected a lot of Confucian scholars and Liu Zhen 刘珍 , Ma Rong 马融 , etc. who were the erudite scholars of the Classics, to check the Five Classics, including Yi and other documents to correct the mistakes and determine a standard version. According to modern scholar Jin Dejian's 金德建 textual research, in this check the current version was rendered into the ancient text version. (261) (3) Emperor Ling 灵帝 “ordered the Confucian scholars to rectify the Five Classics and had them engraved on stone tablets by ancient text, Zhuan 篆 script and Li 隶 script (three different writing styles) to make them become the authoritative standard version accepted by the people.” But the stone tablets version of Xiping 熹平 (172-178) was based on then the “current (or new) text”. After this collation and rectification by the Confucian scholars in the Han Dynasty, there was no differences remained between the ancient text version of Zhouyi and that of the “new text”. In the Tang Dynasty Wang Bi's (who received Fei Zhi's version) Yi was considered as the authoritative version. Therefore, Zhouyi in ancient text was regarded as the authoritative standard among the scholars. Later there were doubts about the ancient text. In the Song Dynasty, the Confucian scholars were used to converting the Classics. But after the collation by Ruan Yuan 阮元 and other scholars in the Qin Dynasty, Zhouyi by the “ancient text” became today's standard version or the received version. Few scholars had doubts about the different versions of Zhouyi till the time of the Republic of China (1912-1949). When the trend of doubting the Classics rose, some scholars suspected that some words might be left out in Yi , otherwise they could have interpreted some special words in it. But regretfully no evidences were unearthed to prove it. The Zhouyi copied on silk excavated in Mawangdui 马王堆 in 1973 was the earliest version of Zhouyi that scholars had ever seen at that time. Thus, the different versions of Zhouyi became the focus the scholars paid much attention to, which led to an animated dispute on the different orders of the hexagrams and the different characters on silk. The recently published Zhouyi on the bamboo slips of Chu can provide new and forceful evidences for us to make further study on the different versions of Zhouyi .

    There is no sharp difference between the Zhouyi of the current version and that of the bamboo slips of Chu , no matter in symbols, names of hexagrams, remarks affiliated to the hexagrams and lines, or the connotations of the characters. As far as the formation of the symbols, there are some differences among the bamboo slips version of Chu, the current version, the silk version and that of the bamboo slips of Fuyang 阜阳 . For example, the symbols consist of “ 八 ”on the bamboo slips of Chu; of “ ” in the current version; of “ ┘└ ” in the silk version ; and of “ ∧ ” on the bamboo slips of Fuyang. Though illustrated in different symbols in different versions, in fact, their connotations are completely the same. Therefore, we agree with the views of Mr. Wang Mingqin 王明钦 and Liao Mingchun 廖名春 . After a careful research on the figure hexagrams and the symbols in Gui Zang 归藏 unearthed in Wangjiatai 王家台 , Wang Mingqin pointed out: “From Shang 商 and Zhou 周 Dynasties to the Warring States Period the hexagrams still belonged to figure hexagrams with ‘ 一 ', ‘ 六 ' and ‘ 八 ' demonstrating the meanings of the figures themselves. Till the Qin and Han dynasties, the figures no longer demonstrated the meanings of the figures themselves, but became pure symbols indicating yin and yang . In the Zhouyi on silk unearthed at Mawangdui, ‘ 'means yang and ‘ ┘└ ' means yin. If they still indicate the meanings of the figures themselves, there would have no ‘ 初九 'and ‘ 六二 ' in the divinatory words. They should be identically ‘ 初一 ' and ‘ 八二 ', etc. Thus, the symbol ‘ 八 ' in the silk version, the symbol ‘ ∧ ' in version of the bamboo slips of Wangjiatai and the symbol ‘ 八 'in the version of the bamboo slips of Fuyang are completely the same, all indicating yin . Therefore we may say that the symbol ‘ ' indicating yang and the symbol ‘ ' indicating yin in the Zhouyi of the current version grew out of the symbols ‘ 一 ', ‘ ∧ ' and ‘ 八 ' in the Qin and Han periods. There is slight difference between ‘ ∧ ' and ‘ 八 '. If we write the two strokes of ‘ ∧ ' a little wider, it will be turned into ‘ 八 '; if we write ‘ ∧ ' in the horizontal direction, ‘ 八 ' will become ‘- -'. ” (4) The same conclusion was drawn by Mr. Liao Mingchun: “the different symbols came from the different ways of writing. Because the bamboo slips and the silk pieces are quite narrow, if written in ‘ ', like those in the current version, it is easy to be linked with each other in the middle to form a ‘ ', which indicates yang . In order to differentiate ‘ ' from ‘ ' when people wrote on the bamboo slips or on the silk pieces ‘ ' would be changed into ‘ ∧ 'or ‘ ┘└ ' . So, ‘ ∧ ' on the bamboo slips of Fuyang symbolizes yin , while on the silk pieces it was ‘ 八 '. Both ‘ ∧ 'and ‘ 八 ' are not certainly related to figures, but they are the variant forms of ‘ ' in the current version to demonstrate the difference between ‘ ' and ‘ '.” (5) From the analysis above it is reasonable for us to conclude that the symbol indicating yin in the Warring States Period have the identical connotations with that of the current version.

    Seen from the point of the characters used in the three versions it is obvious that most of the characters on the bamboo slips of Chu are nearly the same as those in the current version, but different from those in the silk version. These identities and the differences can be seen from the following:

 

The Version of the bamboo slips of Chu	The Current Version	The Silk Version
孚 , 遇 , 上	孚 , 遇 , 上	复 , 愚 ( 禺 ), 尚
係遯 , 畜臣妾	係遯 , 畜臣妾	为遯 , 畜仆妾
见豕 , 来誉 , 来硕	见豕 , 来誉 , 来硕	见豨 , 来輿 , 来石
君子夬夬 , 擊于金柅	君子夬夬 , 擊于金柅	君子缺缺 , 擊于金梯
用大牲 , 利用祭祀	用大牲 , 利用祭祀	用大生 , 利用芳祀
黃牛之革 , 乃革之	黃牛之革 , 乃革之	黃牛之勒 , 乃勒之
改邑 , 东邻杀牛	改邑 , 东邻杀牛	邑 , 东邻杀牛以祭

 

    If seen from the connotations of the characters, such a conclusion can be drawn: although there are some local characters in the Zhouyi of the bamboo slips of Chu , different from those in the current version, the connotations of them are the same. We can see the different characters with the same meanings in the following table:

 

The Version of the bamboo slips of Chu	The Current Version
尨 , 帀 , , 蛊 , 亡忘 , 大 , 欽 , , ,	蒙 , 师 , 豫 , 蠱 , 无忘 , 大畜 , 咸 , 遯 , 睽 ,
, , 敂 , , 卿 , 冬 , 晶 , 罗 , 又 , 僮 ,	蹇 , 解 , 姤 , 井 , 亨 , 终 , 三 , 离 , 有 , 童 ,
是蜀 , 攸攸	蹢躅 , 逐逐

 

    In fact, the local characters on the bamboo slips of Chu and the characters used in the current version have the same or similar pronunciation or the same or similar form of writing which can be interchanged. For instance, “ 尨 ” is pronounced as “meng”, the same as “meng 蒙 ”. It says in Interpretations to the Classics 经典释文 : “ 尨 , 莫江反 , is pronounced the same as ‘ 蒙 '. ” “ 尨 ” and “ 蒙 ” in fact are the same both in pronunciation and connotation. In a poem of the Book of Poetry 诗 ? 邶风 ? 旄丘 there was the phrase “ 狐裘蒙戎 ”, but in the fifth year of the Duke Xi 僖公五年 in Zuo Zhuan 左传 Zou's Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals it was written as “ 弧裘尨茸 ”; and in the Historical Records : the Hereditary Houses of Jin 史记·晋世家 it was written into “ 弧裘尨茸 ”, too. The character “ 帀 ” on the Fuyang bamboo slips is the same as that on the bamboo slips of Chu; while in the current version it became the character “ 师 ” because “ 帀 ” is the right part of “ 师 ”. So, “ 帀 ” and “ 师 ”can be interchanged with each other. It says in Shuo Wen 说文 Origin of Chinese Characters (the earliest Chinese dictionary by Xu Shen [58-147]): “2500 soldiers form one 师 , 从帀从 .” The character “ 卿 ” on the bamboo slips of Chu is changed into “ 亨 ” in the silk and the current versions as well as in the Fuyang bamboo slips version. Pu Maozuo 濮茅左 says: “The form of ‘ 卿 ', written in the form of ‘ 饗 ' in ancient times, looks like two persons sitting and facing to each other drinking, according to its written form on the bones or tortoise shells of the Shang Dynasty (16-11 century BC) or on the bronze objects and on the bamboo slips.” Words in Shuo Wen 说文 ? 食部 interpret: “ ‘ 饗 , 鄉人饮酒也 , 从食 , 从鄉 , 鄉亦声 , 许两切 ,'means the same as ‘ 亨 '.”(139) (1) There are also some different characters used in the remarks affiliated to the hexagrams and lines. For example: the phrase “ 飞鸟 罗 之 ” in the versions of the bamboo slips and silk version was changed into “ 飞鸟 离 之 ” in the current version. Here “ 罗 ” is the interchangeable form of “ 离 ”. It says in Dialects 方言 : “ ‘ 罗 ' is ‘ 离 ' and ‘ 离 ' is ‘ 罗 '. ” “ 罗 ” and “ 离 ” are pronounced differently but had the same meaning. As for some other interchangeable characters and ancient characters, much research has been made, therefore, no more will be recounted about here.

    Only a few characters used in the bamboo slips version of Chu are different from that in the current version, but they have the same or similar meanings. For example: 帀 ( 师 ) 卦上六 “ 启邦 ” on the bamboo slips and on the silk pieces means “ 开国 ” in the current version; “ ”( 谦 ) 上六 “ 征邦 ” means “ 征邑 ”; 比卦六四 “ 亡不利 ” means “ 吉贞 ” in the current version and the silk version.

    From the above we can conclude that the current version, though collated later, still preserves many characters which have the same forms of same connotations as those used in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu . The fact that the current version has so close link with the version on the bamboo slips that it indisputably proves it is still the most important version of Zhouyi among the varied versions and its authority hasn't been weakened and shaken due to the discoveries of different versions of Zhouyi in recent years.

    After compared the Zhouyi of the version on the bamboo slips of Chu with that of the current version, we learned that most characters used in both versions are the same and with the same connotations. But, still there are some differences remained. And these differences mainly lie in the following aspects:

(1) In the version of the bamboo slips of Chu some characters are omitted. For instance, in 九二 of Hexagram Song 讼 (the 6 th hexagram in the current version of Zhouyi ) in the current version there are characters “ 归而逋 ”, and it is the same with the silk version, but on the bamboo slips “ 归而逋 ” was changed into “ 归肤 ” with no “ 而 ” at all. In 六二 of Hexagram Bi 比 (the 8 th ) in the current version and the silk version there are characters “ 贞吉 ”, while on the bamboo slips there is no “ 贞 ” at all. In the remarks affiliated to the Bi hexagram 九五 in the current version, the silk version and on the Fuyang bamboo slips there are characters “ 王用三驱 ”, but on the bamboo slips of Chu it was “ 王三驱 ” without the character “ 用 ”. In 上六 of Hexagram Xian 咸 (the 31 st ) in the current version and the silk version there are characters “ 咸其辅颊舌 ”, but on the bamboo slips of Chu it was “ 咸辅颊舌 ” without “ 其 ”. In Hexagram Heng 恒 (the 32 nd ) in the current version and the silk version there are characters “ 利有攸往 ”, but there were no “ 利有攸往 ” on the bamboo slips of Chu. In the remarks affiliated to Hexagram Jian 蹇 (the 39 th ) in both the current and the silk versions there are characters “ 贞吉 ”, but no such characters on the bamboo slips of Chu. In Hexagram Jie 解 (the 40 th ) in both the current and the silk versions there are characters “ 贞吝 ”, while there were no such characters on the bamboo slips of Chu. In 六四 of Hexagram Gen 艮 (the 52 nd ) in the current version there are characters “ 无咎 ”, while in the silk version and that of the bamboo slips of Chu there is no “ 无咎 ”. In Hexagram Huan 涣 (the 59 th ) in both the current and the silk versions there are characters “ 利贞 ” but there are no such characters in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu.

(2) Opposite to (1), in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu some characters were added while in both the current and the silk versions there are no such. Characters. For Example:

    In 亡忘 (i.e., 无妄 , the 25 th hexagram of the current version of Zhouyi ) 六二 in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there were Characters “ 不耕而获 ”, while in both the current and the silk versions they are “ 不耕获 ” without “ 而 ”. In Hexagram of Da Xu 大畜 (the 26 th hexagram) there are Characters “ 不家而飤 ”, while in both the current and the silk versions they are “ 不家食 ” without “ 而 ”. In Hexagram Sui (the 17 th ) in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there were Characters “ 係而敂之 ” , it is nearly the same with the silk version, while in the current version the Characters are “ 拘係之 ”. In 六二 of Hexagram Yi 颐 (the 27 th ) in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu and the silk version there were Characters “ 曰 颐 ”, while in the current version there are only two characters “ 颠颐 ”, no “ 曰 ” at all. In 初六 of Hexagram Dun 遯 (the 33 rd ) in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there were Characters “ 亓尾 ”, while in both the current and the silk versions there is no “ 亓 ”. In the remarks affiliated to Hexagram Huan 涣 (the 59 th ) there were Characters “ 王假于庙 , 利见大人 ” while there are no “ 利见大人 ” in both the current and the silk versions.

(3) Some characters used in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu are quite different both in form and meaning from those used in both the current and the silk versions. Let us come to the examples: In Hexagram Bi 比 in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are characters “ 备筮 ”, while in both the current and the silk versions there are “ 原筮 ” . In 九五 of Hexagram Wu Wang 亡忘 in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are characters “ 亡忘又疾 , 勿药有菜 . ” Here, “ 又 ” is changed into “ 之 ”, and “ 菜 ” is changed into “ 喜 ” in both the current and the silk versions. In Hexagram Song 讼 in the current version there are characters “ 三百户 ”, but in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu they became “ 三四户 ”. In Hexagram Yu 豫 (the 16 th ): 六晶 ( 三 ) in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are characters “ 可 ”,but in the current version “ 可 ” is changed into “ 盱 ”. In 六二 of Hexagram Gen (the 52 nd ) in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are characters “ 艮其足 ”, but in the current version “ 足 ” is changed into “ 腓 ”. In the version of the bamboo slips of Chu the character “ 悸 ” in “ 亓心不悸 ” is changed into “ 快 ”.

    These differences might originated from two probabilities: one is that when the version of the bamboo slips of Chu was copied from the other versions some mistakes were made and remained which were found out and corrected in the current version on the basis of other versions, such as what was mentioned in point (1): words in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu were concise but not smooth enough. It was the same with point (3), that is, different characters were used in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu are more difficult to understand, which led to the misunderstandings; the other probability is that there might be errors or there might be some characters used abnormally in the original version of Zhouyi , which were handed down to the version of the bamboo slips of Chu. Therefore, some revisions have been made in order to make them more standardized such as what was mentioned in point (2): words used in the current version are more concise and smooth. No matter what probability it is, it reveals that during the process of being handed down from the ancient times, errors and mistakes were made to the Zhouyi because of the wrong copy of the original characters; that the current version came from the original version which went through constant correctness and collations without changing the original connotations in later years. Therefore, we may say that although some characters used in the current version are different from the original one, overall, the current version has advantages over the version of the bamboo slips of Chu and some other ones.

    Take Hexagram Yi 颐 for example: in the Yi hexagram 六二 in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are characters “ 曰 颐 ” , and it is the same with the silk version. But in the current version there are only two characters “ 颠颐 ” as if “ 曰 ” was missing. However, with the careful study of the Scripture of Zhouyi , in the Yi hexagram 六四 in the current version there are two characters “ 颠颐 ”, but in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu and the silk version, the characters are “ 颐 ” . Apart from the name of the Yi hexagram itself, other words, which connected with the character “ 颐 ”, often consist of two characters such as “ 观颐 ”, “ 由颐 ” “ 拂颐 ”. So we may say that it is better to keep the two characters “ 颠颐 ” in the Yi hexagram 六二 .

    Here, I think that there is no “ 曰 ” in the current version doesn't mean the character “ 曰 ” is missing. The character “ 曰 ” might be a character left in Zhouyi when Zhouyi absorbed other scriptures in the process of being put into written form. The reasons lie in the following:

(1) It is quite difficult to interpret the connotations of “ 曰 ”. Many of the ancient interpretations cannot justify themselves. For instance: It says in 九三 of Hexagram of Da Xu 大畜 in the current version: “ 良马逐 , 利艰贞 , 曰闲舆卫 .” There are two interpretations to “ 曰 ”. One is that “ 曰 ” means “say”, the other is that it means “the Sun”. According to the Interpretations to the Classics 经典释文 : “ 曰 is pronounced as yue ( 越 ). Liu Yun 刘云 says: 曰 means say. 郑 : 人实反 , 云日习车从 (354-355) (6) ” The later views mainly came from these two interpretations. Modern scholar Gao Heng 高亨 considered “ 曰 ” as “ 四 ”(234) (7) . But I think differently: If we say “ 曰 ” means “say”, it is an unnecessary character; if we say “ 曰 ” is “ 日 ”(the Sun), this cannot be proved to be true because the two characters “ 曰 ” and “ 日 ” were quite easy to be distinguished in the current version and the silk version as well as the version of the bamboo slips of Chu; if “ 曰 ” is pronounced as “ ri ”( 日 ), why nothing has been found to prove it. And Gao Heng's opinion is much more groundless. In Yi Zhuan ? Zhao Li 易传·昭力 in the silk version, esp. in Hexagram Da Xu 's 九三 , “ 阑舆之卫 ” was quoted twice, which can show that the character “ 曰 ” is a superfluous word. As Liao Mingchun says: “The character ‘ 曰 ' in the current version was used illogically and meaninglessly.” There is the character “ 之 ” instead of “ 曰 ” in “ 阑舆之卫 ” which made the meaning smooth and reasonable. This fact can better tell us that the character ‘ 曰 ' in the current version of Zhouyi is indeed an error.”(188) (8) Another example is the 上六 text of Hexagram Kun 困 (the 47 th ). It says: “ 曰动悔有悔 .” The interpretation to it is nearly the same as that to the hexagram Da Xu . Cheng Yi 程颐 of the Song Dynasty says: “ 曰自谓也 ” ( Cheng's Commentaries on Yi 程氏易传 vol. 4). According to Gao Heng's quotation from Wang Yin 王引 , “ 曰 ” in fact is a mood auxiliary word. The characters “ 动悔有悔 , 吉行也 ” in Xiang Zhuan 象传 may prove that “ 曰 ” is a superfluous word.

(2). After a further research on the relationship between the divinatory remarks, Gui Zang 归藏 and Zhouyi 周易 , a common understanding has been reached that the Yi texts, divinatory remarks, and the Gui Zang texts are all divinatory remarks. And the divinatory remarks and Gui Zang texts are the main source of the remarks in Zhouyi . The modern scholar Qu Wanli 屈万里 from Taiwan gave quite a few of facts to show that the hexagrams in Zhouyi were based on the tortoise divination (9) ; Yu Yongliang 余永梁 concluded that the remarks in Zhouyi were the imitation of divinatory remarks from the points of syntax and idioms (10) ; I had pointed out the influences of Gui Zang on Zhouyi (11) . In divinatory remarks the characters “ 占曰 ” were frequently used, while in the number hexagrams closely related to Zhouyi , the character “ 曰 ” was often used. For example: On the bones unearthed at Sipanmo 四盘磨 in An Yang 安阳 , He Nan 河南 province, are such characters: “ 七五七六六六曰魁 , 七八七六七六曰隗 .” And “ 曰其无咎既鱼 ( 吉 )”(29-30) (12) are the characters on the tortoise shell excavated at Feng Chu 凤雏 village, Qi Shan 歧山 County, Shannxi 陕西 Province. In the remarks of Gui Zang the character “ 曰 ” was used, too. Therefore, the character “ 曰 ” might be a character left in Zhouyi while absorbing the divinatory remarks and Gui Zang texts . When Zhouyi was handed down from ancient times, the character “ 曰 ” was not fitted to the style of the remarks to the hexagrams and lines, thus, it was deleted intentionally while some scholars(such as some Confucian scholars) were collating Zhouyi . And if a few of “ 曰 ” were left in Zhouyi , it is just because of the scholars' admiration for Confucius. If all the character “ 曰 ” were deleted, the remarks would be more readable and more formal. Therefore, the current version in which there is no “ 曰 ” is the best version existing.

    Surely, the current version is not a sheer perfect one, and should not be blindly admired, for there are still some mistakes in it. For instance: It says in Hexagram Huan 's 九五 : “ 涣汗其大号 ”, it is the same as the words in the History of the Western Han Dynasty ? the Biographies of Liu Xiang 汉书·刘向传 . And the later interpretations are based on this. But some scholars such as Gao Heng, Liu Dajun 刘大钧 and Wu Xinchu 吴新楚 put forward the idea according to the context that the word order of “ 涣汗其大号 ” should be changed into “ 涣其汗大号 ”(335) (7) ,(310-311) (14) , (13) (15) . In the silk version of Zhouyi , the word order “ 涣其肝大号 ” can present a forceful evidence to prove the mistakes in the current version. So did the version of the bamboo slips of Chu with the similar order of Chinese characters. In addition, in the remarks to Hexagram Cui 萃 (the 45 th hexagram) in the current version, there is the character “ 亨 ”, while in the silk version and the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there was no “ 亨 ” at all. It also says in the Interpretations of the Classics 经典释文 : “There is not this character in Ma Rong, Zheng Xuan, Lu Ji, and Yu Fan's commentaries on Yi in this part” Thus, we can say that “ 亨 ” is a character added to the current version. In the remarks to the initial line of Hexagram Huan in both the silk version and the version of the bamboo slips of Chu there are two characters “ 悔亡 ”, but there is no such a character in the current version. Here, we can say that “ 悔亡 ” was deleted in the current version. It was the same with the character “ 吉 ” in both the silk version and the version of the bamboo slips of Chu. Therefore, we say although the three versions had been revised and collated many times by Liu Xiang, his son and other scholars, there are still some characters added to or deleted from the current version.

    There are some other characters in the current version whose meanings are not clearer than those in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu . Let us come to the following examples: In the remarks to Hexagram Ge 革 (the 49 th hexagram) in the current version there are characters “ 巳日乃孚 ”, while in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu the corresponsive characters are “ 改日乃孚 ”. In the second text of the hexagram in the current version there are characters “ 巳日乃革之 ”, while the corresponsive characters are “ 改日乃革之 ” in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu. Although “ 改 ” and “ 巳 ” can be interchanged, “ 改 ” has a much clearer meaning, which conformed to the connotations of the hexagram Ge for “ 革 ” has a connotation of “change” or “reform”. It says in Tuan Zhuan : “ ‘ 巳日乃孚 ', 革而信之。 ”Obviously, here “ 巳 ” should be interpreted as “ 革 ”. On this point, the version of the bamboo slips of Chu is better than the current version. Another reason is: It is a general rule that each hexagram, with its remarks, may not necessarily deal with one thing, but each hexagram has a certain theme of its own, namely, the remarks to a hexagram must be closely related to the name of the hexagram. For example, in Hexagram Tun 屯 (the 3 rd hexagram) the character “ 屯 ” should be used. It is the same with “ 临 ” in Hexagram of Lin 临 , “ 咸 ” in Hexagram Xian 咸 , “ 艮 ” in the hexagram of Gen 艮 , and “ 革 ” or “ 改 ” in the hexagram of Ge 革 . So we say that in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu “ 革 ” or “ 改 ” was used in Hexagram Ge , which has a connotation of “change” or “reform” and conformed to the connotations of the hexagram Ge . The character “ 巳 ” in the current version can easily arouse ambiguity in understanding. For instance, some ancient scholars pronounced it as “ 祀 ” and interpreted it as “offering sacrifices to gods or ancestors”; and some other scholars considered it as “ 己 ”(ji) in the Heavenly Stems or “ 巳 ” in the Earthly Branches, and forced an interpretation of “reform” to it. Such examples can well demonstrated that the meanings of some characters in the current version are not clearer than those in the version of the bamboo slips of Chu .

 

Bibliography:

(1) Pu Maozuo, Chu zhu shu zhou yi shi wen kao shi ( 楚竹书 ) 《周易》 ( 释文考释 )Research on the Interpretations of the Version of Zhouyi on the Bamboo Slips of Chu. Ma Chengyuan, The Bamboo Slips of Chu Preserved in the Shanghai Museum (Vol.3). Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 2003.

•  The History of Eastern Han Dynasty. Beijing : Zhonghua shuju,1991.

•  Jin Dejian, 经今古文字考 . Jinan : Qi Lu Publishing House, 1986.

•  Wang Mingqin, “Shi lun gui zang de ji ge wen ti”, On Some Questions about Gui Zang . Gu Fang, etc. Yi Jian Ji [C] Beijing : Zhongguo funü chubanshe,1996.

•  Liao Mingchun, “ Shanghai bowuguan chu jia Zhouyi guankui”, On the Zhouyi Copied on the Bamboo Slips Preserved in Shanghai Museum . Studies of Zhouyi 周易研究 , 2000, (3).

•  Rectification of the Meanings of Zhouyi 周易正义 . Beijing : Beijing Normal University Press, 1999.

•  Gao Heng, Zhouyi gujing jin zhu . Beijing : Zhonghua shuju,1998.

•  Liao Mingchun, Bo shu yi zhuan chu tan , A Tentative Research on Yi Zhuan Copied on Silk. Tai Bei: Taiwan wenshi chubanshi,1998.

•  Qu Wanli. A Research on the Tortoise-Shell Divination----the Origin of the Divination of Yi [A].Huang Shouqi, Zhang Shanwen. The Collected Essays on the Studies of Zhouyi [C]. Beijing : Beijing Normal University Press, 1987.

•  Yu Yongliang. 易卦爻辞的时代及其作者 [A]. The Collected Essays on the Studies of Zhouyi [C]. Beijing : Beijing Normal University Press, 1987.

•  Lin Zhongjun. The Yiologic Value of the Bamboo Slips of Qin Unearthed in Wang Jia Tai[J]. Studies of Zhouyi , 2001, (2).

•  Han Zhongmin. On the Zhouyi of the Version of the Silk[M]. Beijing : Beijing Normal University Press, 1992.

•  Wang Mingqin. A Brief Account on the Bamboo Slips of Qin of Wang Jia Tai[A]. A paper at the Symposium held in Wuhan University in 2001.

•  Liu Dajun. An Introduction to Zhouyi [M]. Shandong : Qi Lu Book Company,1988.

•  Wu Chuxin. 周易异文校正 [M]. Guangzhou : Guangdong People's Press, 2001.

(Originally published in Chinese in the STUDIES OF ZHOUYI/No. 5, 2003)