Analects for Women a forgery?
Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in *Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China*, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly -- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912
Dear Beverly (If I may), A 2005 MA study of this text by Chen Wenhe from Fengjia University in Taiwan is available online, though I cannot access the whole study. However, in the abstract the author states that based on his study, he believes that the former 10 chapters of the extant text should be the commentaries to the text completed by Song Ruozhao, and since the content of the last two chapters is quite different from that of the former 10 chapters he believes they should have been produced after the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism. You can check the abstract through this link: https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094F... Hope this is helpful, and best wishes, Josephine Josephine Chiu-Duke Professor, Asian Studies Department University of British Columbia 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca<mailto:chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca> On Jun 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Beverly Bossler via tangstudies <tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com<mailto:tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com>> wrote: [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly -- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org>
If I may build on Professor Chiu-Duke's message: a position similar to Chen Wenhe's appears to have been presented by Gao Shiyu in 2003 and may be the basis for Chen's interpretation. 高世瑜, 《宋氏姐妹與《女論語》論析——兼及古代女教的平民化趨勢》, in 鄧曉南 ed., 《唐宋女性与社會》 (2003) Incidentally, Gao's essay is followed in this volume by one by Yamazaki, in which he restates his theory that the received text was written by Xue Meng's wife: 山崎純一 ,《 關於唐代两部女訓書《女論語》、《女孝經》的基礎研究》. I'm no expert in the text of the 女論語, but the last two chapters don't seem significantly different from the others to me. It feels like Gao Shiyu and Chen Wenhe mainly argued that they were in order to explain why the received version has twelve chapters not ten. This issue would seem to have been rendered moot now by the Song Ruozhao epitaph stating that the text had twenty chapters. I wonder if anyone has subjected the 女論語 text to linguistic dating to see if it looks more like a post-Tang text? Shao-yun Shao-yun Yang (he/him/his) Associate Professor Department of History Denison University yangs@denison.edu Frontiers of the Tang and Song Empires: A digital map project <https://arcg.is/1i4P9W> Journeys to the West: Kitan and Jurchen Travelers in Thirteenth-Century Central Asia <https://denisongis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e0fe47ae592c4cab8930bbb37ce41269> A Chinese Gazetteer of Foreign Lands: A New Translation of Part 1 of the Zhufan zhi (1225) <https://arcg.is/e15vm> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:46 PM Chiu-Duke, Josephine < Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca> wrote:
Dear Beverly (If I may),
A 2005 MA study of this text by Chen Wenhe from Fengjia University in Taiwan is available online, though I cannot access the whole study. However, in the abstract the author states that based on his study, he believes that the former 10 chapters of the extant text should be the commentaries to the text completed by Song Ruozhao, and since the content of the last two chapters is quite different from that of the former 10 chapters he believes they should have been produced after the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism. You can check the abstract through this link:
https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094F...
Hope this is helpful, and best wishes, Josephine
Josephine Chiu-Duke Professor, Asian Studies Department University of British Columbia 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca
On Jun 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Beverly Bossler via tangstudies < tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
[*CAUTION:* Non-UBC Email] Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in *Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China*, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly
-- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org
_______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org
Dear Josephine and Shao-yun, Thank you both very much for this highly enlightening information. At the very least, I will have to alert my students to the controversies around the text. I do hope someone will explore the question further, especially in view of the findings of the epitaph. Thanks again for your help, I very much appreciate it. Best wishes, Beverly On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:31 PM Shao-yun Yang <yangs@denison.edu> wrote:
If I may build on Professor Chiu-Duke's message: a position similar to Chen Wenhe's appears to have been presented by Gao Shiyu in 2003 and may be the basis for Chen's interpretation.
高世瑜, 《宋氏姐妹與《女論語》論析——兼及古代女教的平民化趨勢》, in 鄧曉南 ed., 《唐宋女性与社會》 (2003)
Incidentally, Gao's essay is followed in this volume by one by Yamazaki, in which he restates his theory that the received text was written by Xue Meng's wife: 山崎純一 ,《 關於唐代两部女訓書《女論語》、《女孝經》的基礎研究》.
I'm no expert in the text of the 女論語, but the last two chapters don't seem significantly different from the others to me. It feels like Gao Shiyu and Chen Wenhe mainly argued that they were in order to explain why the received version has twelve chapters not ten. This issue would seem to have been rendered moot now by the Song Ruozhao epitaph stating that the text had twenty chapters.
I wonder if anyone has subjected the 女論語 text to linguistic dating to see if it looks more like a post-Tang text?
Shao-yun
Shao-yun Yang (he/him/his) Associate Professor Department of History Denison University yangs@denison.edu
Frontiers of the Tang and Song Empires: A digital map project <https://arcg.is/1i4P9W> Journeys to the West: Kitan and Jurchen Travelers in Thirteenth-Century Central Asia <https://denisongis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e0fe47ae592c4cab8930bbb37ce41269> A Chinese Gazetteer of Foreign Lands: A New Translation of Part 1 of the Zhufan zhi (1225) <https://arcg.is/e15vm>
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:46 PM Chiu-Duke, Josephine < Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca> wrote:
Dear Beverly (If I may),
A 2005 MA study of this text by Chen Wenhe from Fengjia University in Taiwan is available online, though I cannot access the whole study. However, in the abstract the author states that based on his study, he believes that the former 10 chapters of the extant text should be the commentaries to the text completed by Song Ruozhao, and since the content of the last two chapters is quite different from that of the former 10 chapters he believes they should have been produced after the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism. You can check the abstract through this link:
https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094F...
Hope this is helpful, and best wishes, Josephine
Josephine Chiu-Duke Professor, Asian Studies Department University of British Columbia 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca
On Jun 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Beverly Bossler via tangstudies < tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
[*CAUTION:* Non-UBC Email] Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in *Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China*, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly
-- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org
_______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org
Dear Beverly and Shaoyun, Not at all! And my thanks to Shaoyun as well for providing further insightful information about this text. Best wishes indeed, Josephine On Jun 8, 2021, at 7:45 PM, Beverly Bossler <bjbossler@ucdavis.edu<mailto:bjbossler@ucdavis.edu>> wrote: [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] Dear Josephine and Shao-yun, Thank you both very much for this highly enlightening information. At the very least, I will have to alert my students to the controversies around the text. I do hope someone will explore the question further, especially in view of the findings of the epitaph. Thanks again for your help, I very much appreciate it. Best wishes, Beverly On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:31 PM Shao-yun Yang <yangs@denison.edu<mailto:yangs@denison.edu>> wrote: If I may build on Professor Chiu-Duke's message: a position similar to Chen Wenhe's appears to have been presented by Gao Shiyu in 2003 and may be the basis for Chen's interpretation. 高世瑜, 《宋氏姐妹與《女論語》論析——兼及古代女教的平民化趨勢》, in 鄧曉南 ed., 《唐宋女性与社會》 (2003) Incidentally, Gao's essay is followed in this volume by one by Yamazaki, in which he restates his theory that the received text was written by Xue Meng's wife: 山崎純一 ,《關於唐代两部女訓書《女論語》、《女孝經》的基礎研究》. I'm no expert in the text of the 女論語, but the last two chapters don't seem significantly different from the others to me. It feels like Gao Shiyu and Chen Wenhe mainly argued that they were in order to explain why the received version has twelve chapters not ten. This issue would seem to have been rendered moot now by the Song Ruozhao epitaph stating that the text had twenty chapters. I wonder if anyone has subjected the 女論語 text to linguistic dating to see if it looks more like a post-Tang text? Shao-yun Shao-yun Yang (he/him/his) Associate Professor Department of History Denison University yangs@denison.edu<mailto:yangs@denison.edu> Frontiers of the Tang and Song Empires: A digital map project<https://arcg.is/1i4P9W> Journeys to the West: Kitan and Jurchen Travelers in Thirteenth-Century Central Asia<https://denisongis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e0fe47ae592c4cab8930bbb37ce41269> A Chinese Gazetteer of Foreign Lands: A New Translation of Part 1 of the Zhufan zhi (1225)<https://arcg.is/e15vm> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:46 PM Chiu-Duke, Josephine <Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca<mailto:Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca>> wrote: Dear Beverly (If I may), A 2005 MA study of this text by Chen Wenhe from Fengjia University in Taiwan is available online, though I cannot access the whole study. However, in the abstract the author states that based on his study, he believes that the former 10 chapters of the extant text should be the commentaries to the text completed by Song Ruozhao, and since the content of the last two chapters is quite different from that of the former 10 chapters he believes they should have been produced after the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism. You can check the abstract through this link: https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094F... Hope this is helpful, and best wishes, Josephine Josephine Chiu-Duke Professor, Asian Studies Department University of British Columbia 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca<mailto:chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca> On Jun 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Beverly Bossler via tangstudies <tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com<mailto:tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com>> wrote: [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly -- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org> _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org>
Dear Beverly, Thank you for this interesting question. I learn a lot from the discussion that followed. I don't have much to contribute in way of addressing this question. However, Song Ruozhao'e epitaph was unearthed in 2014, more recent than the scholarship mentioned above. 女論語 is specifically mentioned. I attached the rubbing here and two Chinese articles that annotate the epitaph and discuss the discrepancy between the dynastic histories and epitaph regarding this 女論語. Best regards and wishes, Jessey [cid:3182b6cd-6c30-4dce-9d31-e5825dc60974@namprd14.prod.outlook.com] Jessey J.C. Choo Associate Professor of Chinese History & Religion Asian Languages and Cultures Rutgers University On Jun 9, 2021, at 1:08 AM, Chiu-Duke, Josephine <Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca<mailto:Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca>> wrote: Dear Beverly and Shaoyun, Not at all! And my thanks to Shaoyun as well for providing further insightful information about this text. Best wishes indeed, Josephine On Jun 8, 2021, at 7:45 PM, Beverly Bossler <bjbossler@ucdavis.edu<mailto:bjbossler@ucdavis.edu>> wrote: [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] Dear Josephine and Shao-yun, Thank you both very much for this highly enlightening information. At the very least, I will have to alert my students to the controversies around the text. I do hope someone will explore the question further, especially in view of the findings of the epitaph. Thanks again for your help, I very much appreciate it. Best wishes, Beverly On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:31 PM Shao-yun Yang <yangs@denison.edu<mailto:yangs@denison.edu>> wrote: If I may build on Professor Chiu-Duke's message: a position similar to Chen Wenhe's appears to have been presented by Gao Shiyu in 2003 and may be the basis for Chen's interpretation. 高世瑜, 《宋氏姐妹與《女論語》論析——兼及古代女教的平民化趨勢》, in 鄧曉南 ed., 《唐宋女性与社會》 (2003) Incidentally, Gao's essay is followed in this volume by one by Yamazaki, in which he restates his theory that the received text was written by Xue Meng's wife: 山崎純一 ,《關於唐代两部女訓書《女論語》、《女孝經》的基礎研究》. I'm no expert in the text of the 女論語, but the last two chapters don't seem significantly different from the others to me. It feels like Gao Shiyu and Chen Wenhe mainly argued that they were in order to explain why the received version has twelve chapters not ten. This issue would seem to have been rendered moot now by the Song Ruozhao epitaph stating that the text had twenty chapters. I wonder if anyone has subjected the 女論語 text to linguistic dating to see if it looks more like a post-Tang text? Shao-yun Shao-yun Yang (he/him/his) Associate Professor Department of History Denison University yangs@denison.edu<mailto:yangs@denison.edu> Frontiers of the Tang and Song Empires: A digital map project<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farcg.is%2F1i4P9W&data=04%7C01%7Cj.choo%40rutgers.edu%7C9832f198c43c429edb8808d92b3e37db%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C637588368534637382%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=SrSej%2BzHoLTzGBq4j%2BNf9l0rJiqGCKFWFO8AmY9huk4%3D&reserved=0> Journeys to the West: Kitan and Jurchen Travelers in Thirteenth-Century Central Asia<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdenisongis.maps.arcgis.com%2Fapps%2FMapJournal%2Findex.html%3Fappid%3De0fe47ae592c4cab8930bbb37ce41269&data=04%7C01%7Cj.choo%40rutgers.edu%7C9832f198c43c429edb8808d92b3e37db%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C637588368534647377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EuJin22VpdQxxMMAULFGzkuyTnomUmQ5%2FFV9SSBI3Ac%3D&reserved=0> A Chinese Gazetteer of Foreign Lands: A New Translation of Part 1 of the Zhufan zhi (1225)<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farcg.is%2Fe15vm&data=04%7C01%7Cj.choo%40rutgers.edu%7C9832f198c43c429edb8808d92b3e37db%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C637588368534647377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ZNMTHbnN6Ko84x0EZtRdSvyNqNI7WpR9BkEoiaVbp6s%3D&reserved=0> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:46 PM Chiu-Duke, Josephine <Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca<mailto:Josephine.ChiuDuke@ubc.ca>> wrote: Dear Beverly (If I may), A 2005 MA study of this text by Chen Wenhe from Fengjia University in Taiwan is available online, though I cannot access the whole study. However, in the abstract the author states that based on his study, he believes that the former 10 chapters of the extant text should be the commentaries to the text completed by Song Ruozhao, and since the content of the last two chapters is quite different from that of the former 10 chapters he believes they should have been produced after the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism. You can check the abstract through this link: https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094FCU05045009%22.&searchmode=basic<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fndltd.ncl.edu.tw%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgs32%2Fgsweb.cgi%2Flogin%3Fo%3Ddnclcdr%26s%3Did%3D%2522094FCU05045009%2522.%26searchmode%3Dbasic&data=04%7C01%7Cj.choo%40rutgers.edu%7C9832f198c43c429edb8808d92b3e37db%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C637588368534657379%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HEhs18PFjRkH%2BnDtGg9pMPlwwIL360DmjSxVN5vuUzA%3D&reserved=0> Hope this is helpful, and best wishes, Josephine Josephine Chiu-Duke Professor, Asian Studies Department University of British Columbia 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca<mailto:chiuduke@mail.ubc.ca> On Jun 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Beverly Bossler via tangstudies <tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com<mailto:tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com>> wrote: [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly -- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org> _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org> _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org<mailto:admin@tangstudies.org>
Dear Beverly, The Japanese scholar Yamazaki Junichi 山崎純一 has argued that the received text of the 女論語 is actually a different, misattributed twelve-chapter work by Madame Wei 韋氏, the wife of the ninth-century poet Xue Meng 薛蒙, titled 《續曹大家女誡》 (i.e., "sequel to *Ban Zhao's Admonitions for Women*"). Yamazaki's relevant work is cited in Bret Hinsch, *Women in Tang China *(Rowman and Littlefield, 2020), 190 n. 31. So: still Tang, according to this theory, but late Tang. Chen Jo-shui's interpretation of the text as a later forgery may be based on Yamazaki's theory; I suppose he would be the best person to clarify if that is so. Most mainland Chinese and Taiwanese scholars have been inclined to believe that all or most of the received text was written by at least one of the Song sisters. They do recognize, however, that all extant editions are from the late Ming and Qing and that we simply don't know what versions of the text existed in the Song and Yuan, let alone the Tang. So the possibility that the text was significantly altered between Tang and Ming can't be ruled out. Song Ruozhao's epitaph was apparently unearthed in Xi'an around 2014 and has only complicated the issue, because it claims that the original 女論語 was twenty chapters long (not ten or twelve). I'm attaching an article that includes a transcript of the epitaph. Best, Shao-yun Shao-yun Yang (he/him/his) Associate Professor Department of History Denison University yangs@denison.edu Frontiers of the Tang and Song Empires: A digital map project <https://arcg.is/1i4P9W> Journeys to the West: Kitan and Jurchen Travelers in Thirteenth-Century Central Asia <https://denisongis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e0fe47ae592c4cab8930bbb37ce41269> A Chinese Gazetteer of Foreign Lands: A New Translation of Part 1 of the Zhufan zhi (1225) <https://arcg.is/e15vm> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Beverly Bossler via tangstudies < tangstudies@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues: In a 1994 article on Wu Zhao that appears in *Imperial Rulershp and Cultural Change in Traditional China*, Chen Joshui mentions the late Tang Song sisters and the composition of the 女論語. Then in a footnote he says, "This text is apparently a later forgery," explaining that the Xin Tangshu and Jiu Tangshu both say the work was "written in the form of dialogues between ancient learned and virtuous women," (which is not true of the existing version) and adding that the "present version contains twelve chapters, whereas the original work had ten." Does anyone know more about this? I have looked online (in English and Chinese) and in sourcebooks that include translations of the 女論語, and have seen no other mention that it may be a forgery. But I have to say that, looking at it that with that perspective, there are some good reasons (especially its emphasis on chastity) to think it might well be. Any insights would be appreciated! Best, Beverly
-- Beverly Bossler Chair, Department of East Asian Studies Professor of East Asian Studies and History Brown University Box 1850 (401) 863-9764 Providence, RI 02912 _______________________________________________ T'ang Studies Society admin@tangstudies.org
participants (4)
-
Beverly Bossler -
Chiu-Duke, Josephine -
Jessey J.C. Choo -
Shao-yun Yang