This book is a must-read for anyone studying early Chinese manuscripts. Building
on an extensive case study of the third century BCE manuscript text titled *Min
zhi fumu 民之父母 (Parent to the People) by the editors of the Shanghai Museum,1
and drawing on numerous examples from both excavated and transmitted litera-
ture, Matthias Richter shapes a rigorous and compelling methodological program
to establish and read early Chinese texts. Instead of the all too common practice
of reading a manuscript text such as *Min zhi fumu on the basis of transmitted
counterparts in the Liji 禮記 and Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語, both far removed in
time, Richter provides a methodology for transcribing and interpreting manu-
script texts on their own terms. Well aware of the latest questions and concepts
in the field, this study is a model for manuscript studies to come.
The book is structured in three complementary parts. The first part focuses on
how the manuscript’s physical embodiment of the text is crucial in shaping the
identity and thus the reading of the text. Most notably, this part illustrates con-
vincingly how codicological and paleographical factors structure the reception of
a manuscript text. In essence, part one argues for rendering our criteria for read-
ing a text explicit. It provides examples showcasing how an understanding of, for
instance, the material carrier and the use of punctuation, or the quality and con-
sistency of a scribe’s writing, influence our understanding of a particular rendering
of a text. Scribal habits such as these become an important criterion in part two
dealing with the interpretation of graphs and variants between texts.
In part two, the focus shifts towards the oft-ignored issue of homogenization.
This part criticizes the habit of modern paleographers and interpreters to assimi-
late character readings of the manuscript text to its transmitted counterpart(s).
The paradox of homogenizing a manuscript text to its received counterpart, where
on the one hand the manuscript text is seen as somehow the original and thus
most authentic text, yet tries to iron out any differences in favor of later counter-
parts, is convincingly shown to fly in the face of manuscript evidence and meth-
odological rigor. Richter convincingly argues that an accumulation of homogenized
readings steers interpretation in such a way that we end up reading a completely
different text. These differences are of course important when the content of the
text is interpreted and used to construct diachronic narratives, for instance. As
such, the practice of homogenization tends to project later notions and arguments
backward onto earlier material, resulting in flawed interpretations.
The ideological differences between the manuscript text and its transmitted
counterparts are the subject of part three. In a text-historical narrative, Richter
1)
In this review, I follow Richter in using an asterisk to indicate where titles are provided
by modern editors instead of by the manuscript itself.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685322-9945P0009
Book Reviews / T’oung Pao 99 (2013) 539-584 545
tion are shown to apply to the Guodian Laozi 老子 counterparts. The numerous
manuscript finds, early commentaries, and adaptations of Laozi materials all attest
to its status as a text. That this is not reflected in each particular manuscript need
not say anything about its text. This difference can be likened to cheap, mass
produced editions of the Bible lying in hotel rooms, versus the elaborately illumi-
nated and gilded editions that form the centerpiece in a lavish church, for instance.
The text reigns supreme in both cases, but this is not necessarily borne out by its
carrier.
As such, to evaluate the relationship between manuscript and text, I think there
is more promise in the functional approach offered in this chapter. The *Yucong
1-3 share many characteristics with the didactic repositories examined later in the
book. Arguably, the copious use of space and high-quality execution of the graphs
could perhaps in this case be construed not as a marker of status but rather for
promoting legibility and ease of reference. In short, it thus seems that while the
analytic distinction between manuscript and text clearly needs to be maintained
regarding value judgments such as status, functional elements translate easier from
manuscript to text.
Another salient point in this book is the insightful discussion of paleographic
evidence and its broad range of clear examples. The need for careful paleographic
examination advocated throughout this book is clear and is written with the
confidence of an experienced paleographer. While it is safe to say that minute
examination and ready reading of the complex Chu script is a daunting task for
most, Richter advances a set of criteria that are useful not only in establishing a
first reading but also in evaluating the—often widely conflicting—readings of
experienced paleographers. The criteria are laid out as follows:
– Internal criteria: (1) manuscript orthography; (2) logical coherence in the man-
uscript text.
– External criteria: (3) orthography in other, closely related manuscripts; (4) tex-
tual parallels in other manuscripts or transmitted literature; (5) general usage
in Classical Chinese language and script. (p. 70)
2)
Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China (New York: State Univ. of
New York Press, 1999); Dirk Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of
Meaning in Early China (Leiden: Brill, 2011).
548 Book Reviews / T’oung Pao 99 (2013) 539-584
the Han. The texts were reconstructed by experts in particular areas, and we may
assume that their ideas about content influenced the decision of what made a
sensible text.” (p. 7)
In other words, any transmitted text that we study is in most respects, be it
form of presentation and structure, or ideological outlook and content, a Han or
even later imperial construct. Studying this material as a witness to the world
before the empires can only be undertaken with extreme caution. True enough,
similar statements have been made before.3 However, in the light of Richter’s
insightful discussion of homogenization and the attempts of early imperial exe-
getes to “restore” texts to their “original” state, this critical point is brought home
with verve. If anything, it appears that statements such as these and the many fine
points in this book have the potential to overturn many long-cherished assump-
tions about early Chinese textuality. In that sense, and like any good book should,
this study raises a number of questions that require separate monographs to
answer them. For example, how should the dynamic of turning didactic materials
into linear text be conceptualized? In light of this book’s finding that scribes took
pains to disambiguate textual meaning, one could ask to what extent some scribes
could have been involved in composition as well. Are there differences in writing
down memorized and taught text across genres? Why where so many of these
remembered materials put into writing in the first place, and what new modes of
engagement with ideas did this enable?
This excellent study provides some of the essential tools to start answering these
questions. Especially its insights regarding materiality and homogenization pro-
vide a necessary, not just welcome, addition to the field. Approaches such as these
pave the way for a rich and rewarding dialogue on early text and manuscript.
Hopefully, the methodological strictness and depth of investigation advocated
throughout this work will be adopted and further refined in future studies of early
manuscripts.
3)
Martin Kern, “Excavated Manuscripts and Their Socratic Pleasures: Newly Discovered
Challenges in Reading the ‘Airs of the States’,”Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 61
(2007): 783.