Getting beyond the dichotomy of authenticity and spuriousness: A textual study on the 'Xinshu' (China)

The Xinshu is ascribed to an official-scholar named Jia Yi (200–168 BC). There has been a long debate over its authenticity. While acknowledging the inadequacy of the current proofs of authenticity, this dissertation finds out that all of what is considered as evidence of forgery can be explained by other factors than forgery. Some consider the Xinshu forged because some of its chapters lack proper beginnings or endings and hence look unlike chapters. The dissertation argues that those were originally paragraphs that were titled according to evidenced early metadata format. The dissertation also suggests that some scholars reasonably questioned the authenticity of certain books ascribed to Jia Yi but mistook those books for the Xinshu. The textual mismatch between the Xinshu and the citations of the Xinshu in pre-modern history books is often thought to be evidence of forgery. This argument overlooked the editorial role that early historians played when citing texts. While some official titles in the Xinshu are considered inappropriate for regional administrations and thus suspicious of forgery, archaeological discoveries indicate that this opinion fails to consider the regional lords' usurpation of the system of royal officialdom. A modern scholar finds the Xinshu suspicious because the author of the Xinshu believes in a six-fold cosmology whereas historical books show that Jia Yi considered five as an important number. However, history books have also recorded a theoretical shift in emphasis from six to five during Jia Yi's time. Besides, the dissertation finds the thoughts in the Xinshu coherent with the ideological development by Jia Yi's time and the style in the Xinshu consistent with that of a text of Jia Yi with undisputed authenticity. Contrary to the argument that the Xinshu was pieced together by quoting other books, the dissertation finds it likely that other books quoted the Xinshu. Jia Yi was well versed in the Zuozhuan. The dissertation attributes the Xinshu's lack of mention of the Zuozhuan to the hostility towards the Zuozhuan among the imperial academia. Finally the dissertation suggests treating the Xinshu as a usable text until we encounter any overwhelming evidence of forgery.