Talk:Seal script

message: In my study of ancient Chinese scripts (on which there is very little accurate and recent info in English), I've had the great fortune to be taken under the wing of a paleographer at the Academia Sinica's Institute of History and Philology who did her dissertation on the Qin system of writing (that is, the writing of the Qin kingdom from the Spring and Autumn period through the Qin dynasty). In reading her work and that of authoritative modern scholars such as Qiu Xigui (see references below), I have discovered that erroneous conceptions abound about bronze script, the Shi3Zhou4Pian1 compendium and the Zhou4wen2 taken from it and preserved in Shuowen, as well as about da4zhuan4 (so-called) greater seal script, xiao3zhuan4 small seal script and the origins of clerical script. In the sections below I will try to treat each separately, and will add additional material and references shortly. Dragonbones 08:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many misconceptions about Seal Script 

message: I saw this on the previous page version: "Note, however, that the literal translation of 篆文 (ie. seal script) means inscription script, since Chinese writing at the time was more often inscribed than written on silk; the contemporary translation seal script is a misnomer, since it is nowadays used mainly, but not exclusively, in seals."
First, the part "more often inscribed than written" is fundamentally wrong. The primary instrument for writing Chinese, from the Shang dynasty onward, has always been the brush. (For those who don't believe the Shang bit, here's a reference: Qiu, p.63 writes: “During the Shāng period the writing brush was the primary writing implement in use.” He goes on to mention the presence of the Shāng characters for writing brush (聿 yù, forerunner of 筆 bĭ) and bamboo or wooden codices (冊 cè), early Zhoū (Shàngshū; Duōshì ch.)  references to Shāng bamboo books and codices, as well as two other supporting facts: first, that some brush-written graphs are found on Shāng-period items, including a few oracle bones, jade, stone and pottery items, and second, that the graphs cast in bronzes also retain a style developed through brush writing, with fluctuations in stroke thickness.) 
In the Qin period as well, bamboo codices (scrolls of bound bamboo or wooden slats) are widely known to be the dominant medium for writing. Of course, the numbers of extant engraved or cast items may be greater than extant perishable materials like silk or bamboo, but this reflects only the perishability of the medium, and not how common it was at the time. 
Second, I am not sure there is sufficient consensus to make the statement that "the literal translation of 篆文 (i.e. seal script) means inscription script". Qiu p.100-101, for example, argues that 篆 was interchangeable with 瑑 zhuan4, meaning "to make decorative by engraving", from which I would argue for a translation as "decorative engraving script". However, this may be splitting hairs.
Furthermore, I don't think we need to call the English name "seal" script an incorrect translation of zhuan4; it is a long-standing, dominant English term for the script due to the predominant modern application of the script, and is not necessarily a translation of zhuan4 per se. Dragonbones 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the misnomer, it has widely become known as seal script, which was the point of creating the article or any article on wiki. A note should be made to the effect that the real name ought to be inscription script, but out of longstanding use, seal script is being used currently which you've already done. Dylanwhs 09:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article Xiaozhuan should be renamed to "Small Seal Script".  That is the correct name.  Seal script is not identical to "Small Seal Script" right off the bat as the first sentence proposed.  This should be changed.  Benjwong 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all set. Now seal script is the main page, small seal script goes to small, and large go to large.  Benjwong 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the name 篆文 means 

message: In the history of Chinese characters, the Small Seal script is often considered to be the ancestor of the clerical script 隷書, which in turn gave rise to all of the other scripts in use today. However, this is not quite accurate. Instead, it was a vulgar or popular script of the late Warring States to Qin period, rather than its formal seal counterpart, which evolved into the clerical script.
What is "it"?
Is "it" clerical script?
Then the sentence says that Clerical was a vulgar script, in contrast to the more formal seal script, which evolved into clerical script.  This contradicts the initial refutation that clerical did not quite evolve from seal.  It also suggests that clerical was contemporous with seal, which makes the sentence kind of self-contradicting.
I'm as confused as heck and I have no idea how to fix this sentence.  Kelvinc 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It" is the small seal script. The formal seal script referred to is the great seal script. 86.8.141.80 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its formal seal counterpart means small seal script, which in the late Warring States and Qin (and occasionally all the way into the Han and later) was used for formal writing such as on ritual bronzes and stelae; for less formal, more functional situations they used a vulgar, roughly executed form of writing called vulgar or common writing (not a coherent 'script' per se) which most Westerners have never heard of, but if you study recent archaeology or books like Qiu Xigui and Chen Zhaorong you will understand this better. It's often chiselled onto weapons, scratched on pottery, and so on.  I have rewritten the confusing paragraph in the hopes of making it clearer. Dragonbones (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Kelvinc, this may be moot since I've rewritten the paragraph so it will be clearer, but by way of explanation, first of all, it is abundantly clear to modern scholars that the evolution of the Chinese script did not occur in a linear fashion, with each script being suddenly invented and completely replacing the preceding script. You have to get rid of that archaic and simplistic notion to understand the situation. In the late Warring States to Qin, small seal, vulgar (or common) writing and proto-clerical were all in use, and proto-clerical evolved from vulgar writing (not from small seal as was once thought and as most English sources still blindly parrot). As for the above quote, I believe you have misunderstood the grammar of the quoted sentence, and therefore have misunderstood the content. In "it was a vulgar or popular script of the late Warring States to Qin period, rather than its formal seal counterpart, which evolved into the clerical script", the "it" is empty, not a reference to clerical script. "It was John, not Bob, who hit Sally" simply means "Bob didn't hit Sally; rather, John was the person who hit Sally". Parallel to this example, the quoted sentence is saying "Seal wasn't the direct ancestor of clerical script; rather, vulgar script (a little-known script which coexisted with small seal script) is now understood to have developed into proto-clerical and then clerical script. This kind of information has not yet been widely disseminated in English writing on the topic, as much of it builds upon the last 40 years or so of archaeology and research, and what most will encounter is merely blind repetition of outdated explanations. This is why I strongly encourage people to get ahold of and read more up-to-date stuff like Qiu Xigui's book (he's one of the most widely respected scholars in Chinese philology, btw, really at the top of his field). It is such an important book that two top Western scholars, Norman and Mattos, took the time to translate it to make its content available to the Western world. Hopefully some more information on this will become available in English before long. Dragonbones (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: It is a talk encouraging to merge the 3 articles. Your opinion is welcome. 210.203.61.15 (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge them 3 : [[Talk:Small_Seal_Script#I also support the merge [Great Seal + Small seal] into Seal script]] 

message: According to the page Erya, the Erya is still extant. Only the ancient commentaries were lost. The duke (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erya not extant? 

message: To add to this article: mention of Liu Shu Tong (六书统). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article