Thank you for the elaboration and perspectives on this. I can better understand now what your objections are. I think you and I have arrived at different conclusions about Rutt’s scholarly objectives, and about how careful and thorough his methodology is. I could take issue with a number of your characterizations here. For example, the evidence for the Ten Wings as being an “added layer” on the core Zhouyi text is philological, and has been fairly widely agreed upon for some years. The language of the Zhouyi is identifiable with a particular historical period, and this can be corroborated in studying ritual Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, where there are clear similarities of content and grammar. The language of the Ten Wings materials, on the other hand, is both internally diverse in grammar and content, and as a body identifiable as language of a much later period (or periods) than that of the Zhouyi. I wasn’t able to confirm your remark that Rutt claims the Ten Wings to have “had nothing to do with [Zhouyi] initially,” although I think he does argue that the authors of the Ten Wings materials didn’t have perfect understandings of the language usage in the core text. Most modern scholars have been in agreement on these points for some years.
The whole issue of whether the Zhouyi was always a “wisdom text,” or rather was recast as one in the early Han is a more difficult case to make beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Ten Wings material is diverse, likely assembled in increments. Herrlee Creel wrote that the Ten Wings “were produced long after the Western Chou period. . .” (The Origins of Statecraft in China, 1970, Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 445) Angus Graham wrote that the original Zhouyi “is a manual of divination without philosophical relevance,” and concluded, “Most or all of the appendices called the ‘Ten Wings’, which relate the diagrams to cosmology, later to be ascribed to Confucius himself, may be dated within a few decades on either side of 200 B.C.” (Disputers of the Tao, Open Court, 1989, p. 359) Feng Yulan (Fung Yu-lan), writing in his 1931 History of Chinese Philosophy, said, “The I Ching (Book of Changes) was first of all a book of divination.” (Vol. I, trans., Derk Bodde, Princeton, 1952, p. 379) He writes further: “That these ‘Ten Wings’ or Appendices could never have been written by Confucius, has already been made clear both by past and contemporary scholars.” (Ibid., p. 381. Feng cites, among others, the eleventh century scholar O-yang Xiu, and the the modern scholar I mentioned above, Gu Jiegang.
That the Yijing (as distinct from the core Zhouyi) became a “wisdom text” is beyond question. One modern scholar of Chinese philosophy, Chung-ying Cheng, even identifies a whole strain of early Chinese cosmological thinking as “The Yizhuan Theory of Reality” (Yizhuan referring to the commentaries—zhuan, i.e., the Ten Wings—of the Yijing.). The Xicizhuan (Appended Remarks—what Wilhelm calls “The Great Treatise”) is an incredibly rich and evocative text, synthesizing many early ruist (Confucian) and daoist ideas. When most people quote the Yijing, nine times out of ten, it’s the Xicizhuan that they’re actually quoting. Zheng Manqing was particularly inclined to quote and make allusions to this text in his taiji writings.
So again, I just want to point out that Rutt has not struck out on his own in some unfounded conjecture, nor is he out to dismantle the great tradition of the well-established post-Han classic Yijing. He is building upon a substantial body of scholarship that began well before him, whose aim is to better understand the nature of the source text in its pristine setting, to the degree that may be possible.
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 01-24-2004).]