Chinese character structure: Tracing it back
Let's look at the structure of variant Chinese characters for a second. (This post is triggered by Amida's comment to the blog entry below but I thought it deserves to be in a main entry.)
Does the structure of a particular character form always have to go back to a standard or a historical form? Or can you look at the structure of a form in its own right, without automatically tracing it back to earlier or more standard forms? I have always felt suspicious about the practice of analyzing Tang character forms by digging up earlier and earlier forms of the same character and eventually tracing it back to jiaguwen. It is true that even the Tang character forms originate from the oracle-bone script, I am not trying to deny that. At the same time the relevance of such a genealogy is highly debatable.
Would it make sense to look at running hand character forms in their own right? Instead of saying, "Ah, this is the abbreviation of this" or, "This should actually be written like this," just look at the way it is actually written. Take, for example, the character 盈 in the Santi Qianziwen page on the picture below. The caoshu form in the left-most column is clearly not of the same structure as its kaishu form. You cannot say that it has the 皿 component at the bottom, even though this particular character has that component in other styles, such as the kaishu and xingshu styles on its right. On the other hand, the components in this caoshu forms could also be analyzed and categorized. The little thing that replaces the component 皿 probably occurs in other caoshu forms, replacing the same or even other elements.
Now there might be some cases when you do not have a kaishu form to rely on, simply because it has not survived. Imagine a scenario where you only have caoshu characters and you have to make sense of those alone. You would not be able to take each character form and say, well, this actually should be written like this. Instead, you would have to work with what you actually see.
The same goes for tracing Han or Tang character forms back to oracle-bone inscriptions. Yes, there is a lineage but you should be able to look at the evidence at hand in its own light, shouldn't you? Plus then the oracle-bone inscriptions should be traced back to something as well, only we do not have anything to trace it back to.
I am really curious about what others have to say about this.
This is the beginning of the Santi Qianziwen, or the Tri-style Thousand Character Classic, which is essentially the same text written in three different calligraphic styles: kai (standard), xing (running hand) and cao (drafting).
Does the structure of a particular character form always have to go back to a standard or a historical form? Or can you look at the structure of a form in its own right, without automatically tracing it back to earlier or more standard forms? I have always felt suspicious about the practice of analyzing Tang character forms by digging up earlier and earlier forms of the same character and eventually tracing it back to jiaguwen. It is true that even the Tang character forms originate from the oracle-bone script, I am not trying to deny that. At the same time the relevance of such a genealogy is highly debatable.
Would it make sense to look at running hand character forms in their own right? Instead of saying, "Ah, this is the abbreviation of this" or, "This should actually be written like this," just look at the way it is actually written. Take, for example, the character 盈 in the Santi Qianziwen page on the picture below. The caoshu form in the left-most column is clearly not of the same structure as its kaishu form. You cannot say that it has the 皿 component at the bottom, even though this particular character has that component in other styles, such as the kaishu and xingshu styles on its right. On the other hand, the components in this caoshu forms could also be analyzed and categorized. The little thing that replaces the component 皿 probably occurs in other caoshu forms, replacing the same or even other elements.
Now there might be some cases when you do not have a kaishu form to rely on, simply because it has not survived. Imagine a scenario where you only have caoshu characters and you have to make sense of those alone. You would not be able to take each character form and say, well, this actually should be written like this. Instead, you would have to work with what you actually see.
The same goes for tracing Han or Tang character forms back to oracle-bone inscriptions. Yes, there is a lineage but you should be able to look at the evidence at hand in its own light, shouldn't you? Plus then the oracle-bone inscriptions should be traced back to something as well, only we do not have anything to trace it back to.
I am really curious about what others have to say about this.
This is the beginning of the Santi Qianziwen, or the Tri-style Thousand Character Classic, which is essentially the same text written in three different calligraphic styles: kai (standard), xing (running hand) and cao (drafting).
Labels: Chinese character variants
2 Comments:
This is a really interesting observation. Could we simply look at one written form in its own right? Surely we could, theoretically. But what do we have in mind when we see 盈 in its caoshu form? That, I think, is the question. If there is no other reference perviously imposed in our mind, then it is safe to say that we "have to" read it in its own right. But we are all inscribed with various material forms of something, aren't we? Even if we could liberate our mind from this tracing-back limitation, we would fall into another. As long as we are aware that the so-called "tracing back" is only an avialable option among many, I'd say we're fine.
I guess you are right, once we look at the structure, we always look at it etymologically. After all, that is what structure is, isnt't it?
At the same time, once we go back to the oracle-bone inscriptions, which was already a fairly sophisticated and abstract system, we do not have anything older to trace the characters back to. Then comes the game of guessing that this character looks like a man lying sick or a horse with its hair blowing in the wind or whatever. But the majority of those characters do not really resemble any physical objects.
Post a Comment
<< Home