Sal: Li family and Chen shi taijiquan

[Bob]

Citation and documentation are quit different creatures. Simply citing a document does not mean the document is authentic. To authenticate a document takes substantial effort and investigation of primary sources. Frankly, martial arts history is not a burning endeavor among historians who study Chinese history. Citing one source and implying its authenticity simply because one has cited it and then going on to draw conclusions from that source is risky business e.g. Chen Xin's documents [I have the one of the printed versions out in China]. Translation and interpetation also becomes a whole issue in and of itself. Its unfortunate but historical fact and lineage is a slippery slope and no amount of citation will make up for faulty primary sources.

In general, beyond this specific topic posted here, it seems that there is a lot of speculation dressed up as factual conclusions that are built on shaky primary sources. This really is an area for professional historians trained in appropriate research methodology. Although Brian Kennedy is a lawyer by training, his works reflect a very careful study of documentation and reasonable interpretation--a good benchmark to use when carrying out research in this area.

I also think that there are some Li style practitioners on this forum that might take issue with the statement "Far as I know, the Li family has lost the art, there's no one doing it, just students of previous ancestors". I actually don't know what that sentence means--the art is lost but there are student practitioners doing it based on previous ancestor transmission? No one in the Li family practices the art but others do, they just aren't in the family? Simply because an art is outside of the family name makes it less authentic? Simply because the art is outside of the family name means that it is lost?

[salcanzonieri]

Citation and documentation are quit different creatures. Simply citing a document does not mean the document is authentic. To authenticate a document takes substantial effort and investigation of primary sources. Frankly, martial arts history is not a burning endeavor among historians who study Chinese history. Citing one source and implying its authenticity simply because one has cited it and then going on to draw conclusions from that source is risky business e.g. Chen Xin's documents [I have the one of the printed versions out in China]. Translation and interpetation also becomes a whole issue in and of itself. Its unfortunate but historical fact and lineage is a slippery slope and no amount of citation will make up for faulty primary sources.

In general, beyond this specific topic posted here, it seems that there is a lot of speculation dressed up as factual conclusions that are built on shaky primary sources. This really is an area for professional historians trained in appropriate research methodology. Although Brian Kennedy is a lawyer by training, his works reflect a very careful study of documentation and reasonable interpretation--a good benchmark to use when carrying out research in this area.

I also think that there are some Li style practitioners on this forum that might take issue with the statement "Far as I know, the Li family has lost the art, there's no one doing it, just students of previous ancestors". I actually don't know what that sentence means--the art is lost but there are student practitioners doing it based on previous ancestor transmission? No one in the Li family practices the art but others do, they just aren't in the family? Simply because an art is outside of the family name makes it less authentic? Simply because the art is outside of the family name means that it is lost?

Sure, understood.
I make a point in my book to say that what I have written is an exploration of the material out there and open to discussion and further discovery. It is to get people talking and examining.
I have no vested interest in any one thing, I just want to present all the material I have found over the last 30 years, lay it out, and see what people think about it.
Which is making a dilemma for me in that I want to have people discuss the material, and update as needed.
I want a living document, not a dead book present as presumptive "FACTS" but instead of topics and date for further discussion, insight, and exploration.
So, how do I present it? Should I print and publish the book the traditional way (I do need some money after all, I'm broke right now) or do I make it an online document that can be updated as necessary?

About the Li family loss of their Li taiji quan (not to be confused with the other Li Ruidong style taiji quan).
The sources for that info come from the Chinese researchers and their articles that are talked about on that Literati website. I went to the original sources and they all said that in Tang village the Li family living there doesn't practice their family martial art anymore.

[salcanzonieri]

Sal:

etc .

Thanks! I will take your comments into serious consideration, of course.
If you want to PM me and we can talk further and examine with more detail what I wrote, please do, I'll give you my home email address.
That goes for anyone else that can provide valuable input.

Like I said, the book is an exploration of all the mysteries in internal CMA history.
I want to cover as much ground as I can and look at all different data, present it, and create further discussion, exploration, and finally insight.

[Bob]

Sal, while I appreciate your intensity and desire to get to the bottom of things, one still has to be cautious. It is my understanding that the partial Li Family document has yet to authenticated. While the Literati Tradition site is very interesting, one must still be cautious--I don't think you have vested interested interest in "distorting" the "facts" but there should be great concern regarding the background of any source.

Literati Tradition, i.e. YeYoung Cultural Studies:


Founded by Xiansheng Bing F. YeYoung in Sacramento California, USA in 2000, YeYoung Culture Studies focuses on the five aspects of traditional Chinese arts for a mindful self-cultivation: Chinese Sages and their Philosophies, Meditation (Qi Gong, Neidan, and Taiji quan), Divination and Numerology (I Ching and Fengshui), Poetry and Calligraphy, and Qin Music. YCS is committed to share and promote these studies and practices, continue to conduct research, publish results, and provide teaching and consulting services to the widest possible audience.

Xiansheng YeYoung was born into the YeYoung Family of the Ming Imperial Clan. He studied arts and philosophy and taught full time at Tiedao University in Lanzhou, China. After June Fourth, 1989, he left China and came to San Francisco, California.

Xiansheng YeYoung's distinctive background comes from his old-fashioned family Literati training, extensive studies with masters and monks, and modern scholarship in the five Chinese classical disciplines. As a grand master level practitioner and a vigorous scholar, he is uniquely situated to mediate between theories and practices, to clarify and/or de-mystify what are often obscure points of theory and practice, and to bring the full benefits of the studies and practices to everyone.

Lineages And Transmissions

2008 High Tantric studies and practice under His Holiness Dagchen Rinpoche

2005 Taoist Neidan studies and practice under his father Wen Gai's guidance, USA-China

2002 High Tantric studies and practice under His Holiness Dagchen Rinpoche of the Sakya Order, who holds the third highest religious position in Tibetan Buddhism, USA

1999 Met the requirements and qualified as the Patriarch of the YeYoung Tradition, China
Received the Lineage and Transmission from the late Songye Lama, Tibet. Continue Taoist Neidan practice under his father Wen Gai's guidance, China

1997 Qin Music studies and practice under Grand Master Li Mingzhong, China

1997 Tantric studies and practice under hermit, the late Songye Lama and the Kanpu, the late Dondrop Lama, Tibet

1995 Advanced YeYoung Traditional training, including I Ching, Feng Shui, Sizhu, the YeYoung Meditation, and Advanced Classical Poetry and Literature Studies under his father Wen Gai Oracle Bone & Bronze Vessel Inscription Studies, Chinese Antiquity Appraisal Apprenticeship, China

1994 Taoist Kongtong Martial Arts and Kongtong Nei Gong, Advanced Chen Family Large frame Taiji studies and practice under the late Kongtong Lineage Bearer Qi Youren, China

1979 Chen Family Large Frame Taiji quan studies and practice under the Tenth Patriarch Chen Zhaokui, China

1979 Buddhist Tian Tai Meditation practice under the late Abbot Zhaung Yin, China

1975 Basic YeYoung Tradition training under his grandfather, the late Patriarch YeYoung Ren: Classics of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, Classical Poetry and Literature, Literati Painting & Calligraphy, Daoyin and Neidan, China

1973 Chen Family Large Frame Taiji quan, Taoist Kongtong Nei Gong practice under the late grand master Qi Youren, China

http://www.literati-tradition.com/about_ycs.html

___________________________________________________________________________________

What can you do when you attempt to write an academically researched book---careful citations of all sources---when doubt and controversy exists regarding sources make that clear--identify and differentiate your interpretation from a "factual" interpretation---reach tentative conclusions, very little is absolute.

Good luck.

[salcanzonieri]

Some question / comments from your questions

Sal:

From the Tongbei posted I see 'cloud hands,' '1 step, 3 punches' the 'fair lady works shuttles' jump with turn - but that is about it.

At the mercy of how that particular guy did the set, I have a manual that shows the set slowly, step by step, and there is a lot more showing. The opening sequence is same as all TJQ as well. No matter, it's just a quick look at how TJQ like some aspects of Tongbei Quan are. Other material can be shown for reference.

Do the manuals that Chen Xin used for his master tome still exist? I have heard that there is at least one manual that is in the possession of one family in the village that they refuse to make public, but as far as extant, pre-Chen Xin quanpu, that is about it. A Taiji Musuem is under construction in the village, so could be interesting to see if that delivers any previously undisclosed documentary info. I doubt it will.

Same as I heard. Tang Hao was the last to see it, we're left with his books about what he saw.

If you are planning to include the material you have posted above in your published book, you might find the following of use (or not).

RE: Taoist 13 Postures
As I am (gasp!) in direct line twice from Chen Chang-xing via:

(1)Geng-yun who taught Yan-xi, who taught Fa-ke who taught Ziao-quai, who taught Xiao-xing, who teaches my teacher and me; and
(2) Geng-yun who taught Yan-nian who taught Deng-ke who taught Zhao-pei who taught Xiao-xing, etc,

Do I have the "original 13 Postures" that Yang Lu-chan got? If not, why not? Where did it get lost?

Well, sure, since all TJQ has the "original" 13 postures buried within it. It's like it's 'soul' so to speak.
What makes different styles of TJQ different from each other is the OTHER stuff they merged with it from other martial arts they learned as well.

Moreover...

(FYI, for the below, I am using the lineage charts in Jan Silberstorff's book, which is endorsed by Chen Xiao-wang. His charts broadly correspond with those in Dan Docherty's 'Complete Tai Chi' which I also have open before me)

The 14th generation Chen You-ben forms/materials are NO LONGER part of what we call Chen Taiji AFAIK: The only Chen stylist in this lineage (pretty distantly at that) who moved into the modern era was Du You-tse, who still has descendents teaching in Taiwan, but his teacher also learned under Yan-xi, who is part of the Chang-xing lineage. Today, You-ben's lineage has morphed into the Zhaobao, Wu, Sun, etc, styles of Taiji. Yet most of those styles do NOT include the silk reeling - which you say is the aspect of the art that You-ben incorporated and passed on to the clan.

Moreover, extant lineages of Chen Taiji which do NOT trace any part of their ancestry to You-ben DO have the silk reeling. So you might want to reconsider that statement. (Unless you are talking about something distinct from the silk reeling we have in modern Chen Taiji...)

Yes, I shouldn't say "today's Chen TJQ", as that is clearly incorrect and an assumption, thanks! I should just say Chen You-Ben's version of TJQ (and even that is according to Tang Hao, who examined first hand Chen XIn's document).

Silk reeling movements are done in tongbei quan, who got them from Shaolin quan (I did them in my Taizu chang quan and Rou quan training. They didn't call it silk reeling, but the actions were the same. Can't do these internal Shaolin quan without being able to do the actions of silk reeling.).

So, I need some help understanding why some TJQ lineages do silk reeling and not others.
Question: but, just because these other styles of TJQ do not call out the actions specifically as 'silk reeling' (when did that term become first used in Chen TJQ?), does that mean that they don't do it (like I said, Shaolin does it but it isn't named this term)? And, Woo was changed because of Shaui Jiao input, Yang was changed because of Hong Quan input, Wu was changed because of Hong Quan and Zhaobao input, and so on.

Let's move on to the living lineages.

There are - broadly speaking - two major substyles of Chen Taiji today, which, I'd guess, from which I would guess around 95 percent of living Chen exponents can trace their lineage to:
(1) "My" lineage above, ie the dajia or big frame (which includes the Fa-ke/Zhao-kui forms known as xinjia* and the Zhao-pei forms known as laojia)
(2) The xiaojia or small frame (which was recorded by Chen Xin - though according to my lineage chart, he did not come under You-ben, he came under Zhang-shin, who was a generation behind You-ben - and which is continued in the village by Chen Boxiang and others, and in Xian by the Chen Liqing lineage)

So I would respecfully suggest you re-check your lineage materials, as either your info is wrong or mine is (and I am no expert, but I am using the conventional lineage charts).

I said that Chen Xin was the grandson of Chen You-ben, is that incorrect according to these charts? Should be great- grandson? Just was repeating what Tang Hao said in his books. Sometimes in Chinese writings they just say "Grand"son even if you are 'great' or 'great-great'-grand kid. Please clarify, thanks.
Chen Xin didn't practice TJQ, by the way (but, I think you knew that already, no offense meant).

I'll restate my main points:
(1) Chen You-ben's material is NOT reflected in today's Chen lineages, as You-ben's material has not been taught in the clan since the 14th generation;
(2) The Chen da-jia lineages, which are by far the most widely disseminated, are, from two separate sub-lineages (ie Fa-ke and Zhao-pei) under Chang-xing: ie the SAME lineage as all today's Yang style Taiji.
(3) FWIW, even the Chen style dajia and xiaojia lineages are today closer to each other in shenfa and (arguably) technique than are Chen and Yang Taiji, or Chen and Wu Taiji, etc. This despite the fact that:
(a) What was noted in (2) above; and
(b) The xiaojia and dajia lineages we have today split way back in the 10th generation (today's masters are 18th and 19th generation) and yet the Chen dajia and Yang Taiji lineages are only separated by three generations (Lu-chan was a contemporary of Geng-yun, who was 15th generation)

1) ok, need to change my text to not say "seen in today's Chen TJQ", yes?
2) the Big Frame is the big frame, regardless of which of the two subsets, yes? Yang Luchan's TJQ is still Big Frame, yes?
(then there is all the controversy as to whether Yang Luchan also learned Small Frame, as lineages coming out from his son's claim there that they has Small Frame Yang).
3) Yes, because Yang, Wo, Wu, is Chen TJQ plus other input, yes? What the other input consists of is the million dollar question (and answer). In my opinion, I see Shaolin Hong Quan (which Yang Luchan's village was known most for, and his first two students, the Wu brothers were masters of, and mostly like Yang himself knew, since it was clear he practiced some martial arts hence his great interest when he met Chen family member at his drug store job). Also, I see tongbei quan movements and postures in Yang as well. But, these come from Shaolin Rou Quan first anyway, and it is already established that Tongbei Quan was derived from Shaolin Quan + 13 Postures from Zhang Neijia Quan).
(a/b) The Chen stories state that the Chen clan was satisfied that Yang was taught something different and hence left them alone in their lessons. Where did this "something different come from", it has to come from something Chen martial arts already had in their "bucket" but wasn't using anymore by that time, yes?

* NOTE: What is TODAY called 'xinjia' has no relation to You-ben's 14th gen 'xinjia,' but is the form of the art developed by Fa-ke and/or his son, Zhao-kui, in the 17th and 18th gens.

And, which is often called New Frame as well, yes?
But this New Frame is not the Small Frame that is still practiced in some Chen TJQ lineages, yes?

[salcanzonieri]

Sal, while I appreciate your intensity and desire to get to the bottom of things, one still has to be cautious. It is my understanding that the partial Li Family document has yet to authenticated. While the Literati Tradition site is very interesting, one must still be cautious--I don't think you have vested interested interest in "distorting" the "facts" but there should be great concern regarding the background of any source.

___________________________________________________________________________________

What can you do when you attempt to write an academically researched book---careful citations of all sources---when doubt and controversy exists regarding sources make that clear--identify and differentiate your interpretation from a "factual" interpretation---reach tentative conclusions, very little is absolute.

Good luck.

Thanks, understood.

I went to the original Chinese articles that I first saw referenced on this Literati site. I didn't rely on the site's info.

For example:
Ming historian Wang Xingya 王興亞 of Zhengzhou University spent a year tracing and studying the origin and the authenticity of the Li Family Genealogy. He concludes that “the Li Family Genealogy was edited by the tenth generation Li Yuanshan 李元善 in 1716.” “Its contents are not from the repeated and extant historical sources but sources of the eye-witness.”

I went to articles of this original source, and to these original articles and books that were all referenced here:


Chen, Xin 陳鑫. 1986. Chen Family Style Taiji Quan Illustrated and Elucidated, Chenshi taijiquan tu shuo 陳氏太極拳圖說. Shanghai: Shanghaishudian chubenshe.

Li, Bin 李濱. 2005. “Taiji Quan, Taoist Transmission—A reflection on the Copy of tang Village ‘Li Family Genealogy, taiji quan daojiazhuang—tangcun ‘lishijiapu’ chaojian guanggan 太極拳道家傳唐村李氏家譜 抄件觀感.” http://www.chenjiagou.net

Li, Xiangyi 李相宜. 2005. “Taiji quan—Searching the Secret in the Qianzhai Temple, taiji quan—qianzaisi tanmi 太極拳千載寺探秘. " http://www.taiji.net.cn/Article/Print.a ... cleID=2470

Tang, Hao 唐豪 and Gu Liuxin 顧留馨. 1963. Studies on Taiji Quan, Taiji quan yanjiu 太極拳研究. Hong Kong: Bailing Chubenshe.

Wang, Xingya and Li Libingn 王興亞 李立炳. 2005. “A New Study on Li Yan’s Birthplace and Origins, the discovery and its Value of the Kangxi Fifity-fifth Year Tang Village ‘Li Family Genealogy’ Liyanjiguan yuyuanliu xinshu kangxi wushiwunian tangcun ‘lishi jiapu’ defaxian jiqijiazhi 李巖籍貫與源流 康熙五十五年唐村 ‘李氏家譜’ 的發現及其价值.” Zhongzhou Academic Journal 7:4, Zhongzhou xuekan 中州學刊 . http://www.qinghistory.cn/cns

Wile, Douglas. 1996. Lost T’ai-chi Classics from the Late Ch’ing Dynasty. Albany: State University of NewYork.

Wu, Pei-yi. 1990. The Confucian’s Progress: Autobiographical Writings in Traditional China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Qu, Jian 蘧鑒. 2006. “A Talk on the Factual Origins of Taiji, Zhenben qingyuan hua taiji 正本清源話太極." http://www.taijicn.net/viewarticle.php?id=206

Yuan, Ququan 原福全. 2005. “The Significant Discovery—A Study on Chen Wangting and Wang Zongyue from the Tang Village of Boai County, Zhongda faxian—boaixian tangcun kao Chen Wangting chuntaiji quan he Wang Zongyue 重大發現—博愛縣唐村考陳王廷和王宗嶽. " http://www.e-wulin.com/channel/taiji.asp

[yeniseri]

the Big Frame is the big frame, regardless of which of the two subsets, yes? Yang Luchan's TJQ is still Big Frame, yes?
(then there is all the controversy as to whether Yang Luchan also learned Small Frame, as lineages coming out from his son's claim there that they has Small Frame Yang).

I am not too sure about that but to my understanding Yang Chengfu's "Big Frame" appears to be representative of of his size and era despite Yang Luchan's xiaojia instruction to his sons' and grandson. What I am framing is that based on Chen xiaojia external expression, it is close to the Yang family style taiji within a Hongquan template. The degree and extent is unknown. What did it for me was posture"danbian" of Chen xiaojia of Xi'an!

As I compare the stepping of Chenjiagou and the Xi'an adherents and even Zhaobao, the latter is seen in Yang style stepping movement and made more pronounced as part of style training! Just my observation

[Graculus]

So, how do I present it? Should I print and publish the book the traditional way (I do need some money after all, I'm broke right now) or do I make it an online document that can be updated as necessary?

Just a quick aside (not wanting to interrupt the Chen discussion) in reply to Sal's musings - I would say 'Publish your book', and then we, (the community) will have a fixed reference. Sure, some of what you write may be disproved between writing and going to press, but that's the way things are in the academic world. It would nice to have another 'standard', even if we disagree with some of what is in there. Think how invaluable Smith's work has been. Also, there is so much material that a book makes it far more digestible - at least in my opinion.

Of course, stick in all the detailed references and footnotes, and then we know where to go if we do disagree with your conclusions.

By the way, did you ever sort out how to handle the visuals?

Graculus

[taiwandeutscher]

"Chen Xin didn't practice TJQ, by the way (but, I think you knew that already, no offense meant)"

Sal, are you really sure about that statement?
In his own preface he wrote that even he was supposed to go the literati way, he failed miserably, and so he still spent most of his years besides his father, teaching Taijiquan. Therefore, he writes, he has a little bit of understanding of the art (a polite Chinese understatement?), and I myself wonder how the hack he could write the whole part on the small frame form, if he was not schooled?

I also wonder what small frame people know about that?

[Andy_S]

Sal:

SNIP
So, I need some help understanding why some TJQ lineages do silk reeling and not others.
Question: but, just because these other styles of TJQ do not call out the actions specifically as 'silk reeling' (when did that term become first used in Chen TJQ?), does that mean that they don't do it (like I said, Shaolin does it but it isn't named this term)?
SNIP

If you ask me, silk reeling is simply the spiralling way in which Chen style moves. I have not seen this in Tongbei or other styles of Taiji, but there are strong similarities in HsingI and Bagua. It is visible to the naked eye in most practitioners. (The old boys being a bit different, as they will have internalised it.)


SNIP
I said that Chen Xin was the grandson of Chen You-ben, is that incorrect according to these charts? Should be great- grandson? Just was repeating what Tang Hao said in his books. Sometimes in Chinese writings they just say "Grand"son even if you are 'great' or 'great-great'-grand kid. Please clarify, thanks.
SNIP

The lineage charts do not discuss familial relationships, just who taught MA to who, so I can't help on that I am afraid. But given their dates, it is perfectly possible that Xin was You-ben's grandson.

SNIP
Chen Xin didn't practice TJQ, by the way (but, I think you knew that already, no offense meant).
SNIP

Sure, and I confess to not having read his book.

Frankly, the tome is considered 'difficult,' as much literati/wannabe literati material was in those days, full of obscure literary and philosophical references. In a word: Pretentious. I have never heard it considered a work of genius, nor a 'classic.' I have been in Chen Taiji since 1995, and none of my teachers have made any real reference to it in their teachings. This is very different to the Yang-derived traditions, which talk about their 'classics' a great deal, and which are widely debated. Basically, it is of little technical help in understanding Taiji.

Whether it is a reliable historical source, I could not say, but I rather doubt it.

SNIP
1) ok, need to change my text to not say "seen in today's Chen TJQ", yes?
SNIP

I'd recommend that, but I would also recommend trying to bring your research down to the present as while all this 17th, 18th and 19th century material may be interesting from a historical perspective, it has little relevence unless the various lineages, techniques, influences, etc, can be pointed to in today's practitioners, forms and techniques. That way, you move your research from the academic to the pratical.

SNIP
2) the Big Frame is the big frame, regardless of which of the two subsets, yes?
SNIP

Yes. And Yang Luchan's TJQ is still big frame (dajia) - same lineage

SNIP
(then there is all the controversy as to whether Yang Luchan also learned Small Frame, as lineages coming out from his son's claim there that they has Small Frame Yang).
SNIP

Sure, but AFAIK, these 'small frames' have no relations to current Chen small frame (xiaojia).

SNIP
3) Yes, because Yang, Wo, Wu, is Chen TJQ plus other input, yes? What the other input consists of is the million dollar question (and answer). In my opinion, I see Shaolin Hong Quan (which Yang Luchan's village was known most for, and his first two students, the Wu brothers were masters of, and mostly like Yang himself knew, since it was clear he practiced some martial arts hence his great interest when he met Chen family member at his drug store job). Also, I see tongbei quan movements and postures in Yang as well. But, these come from Shaolin Rou Quan first anyway, and it is already established that Tongbei Quan was derived from Shaolin Quan + 13 Postures from Zhang Neijia Quan).
SNIP

Seems fair enough. However, as a Chen stylist, it is pretty easy to recognize the techniques and the sequence of the Yang form and the Chen form, back-to-back (though I have never done Yang).

The issues seems to be:
On the one hand: Yang style has different names for techniques, and has a different tempo and slightly different shenfa (though according to Yuen-Ming, the old Yang style stuff in the Yongnian village uses the Chen half-horse stance rather than the bow and arrow we comonly associate with Yang style today)

On the other hand, the techniques are largely the same (regardless of their different names) and the sequence of these techniques in the boxing form is largely the same.

The Chen and Yang weapons forms seem pretty different, though.

SNIP
(a/b) The Chen stories state that the Chen clan was satisfied that Yang was taught something different and hence left them alone in their lessons.
SNIP

Really? What are these stories? My understanding was that Yang learned Chen Clan MA. Later he taught it in Beijing as soft boxing or cotton boxing, and it gained the name Taijiquan.

SNIP
Where did this "something different come from", it has to come from something Chen martial arts already had in their "bucket" but wasn't using anymore by that time, yes?
SNIP

There is a body of opinion that the Chen Clan taught Yang the real deal, but refused to teach that materail to their own family. To me, this seems a very odd idea to say the least.

I think it more likely that:
(1) Yang LC taught Chen MA in Beijing, and what he taught was subsequently altered by his sons and/or grandsons; or
(2) Yang learned other MA, such as Hong Quan and then spent a great deal of time and effort learning Chen Clan MA, but he may have changed it a bit with techniques, concepts, etc, from Hong Quan. Still, there seems to be little question that the vast bulk of his experience and material came from Chenjiagou.

SNIP
* NOTE: What is TODAY called 'xinjia' has no relation to You-ben's 14th gen 'xinjia,' but is the form of the art developed by Fa-ke and/or his son, Zhao-kui, in the 17th and 18th gens.

And, which is often called New Frame as well, yes?
SNIP

Yes, xinjia translates as 'new frame.' (In more detail: The new frame of dajia, or big frame)

SNIP
But this New Frame is not the Small Frame that is still practiced in some Chen TJQ lineages, yes?
SNIP

Right again. Today's big frame (dajia) consists of two slghtly different styles:
Laojia (which comes to us today from Zhao-pei) and
Xinjia (which comes to use from Fa-ke and or his son Zhao-kui).
The distinction and naming of these two slightly different variations of dajia only dates back to the 1960s or 1970s, when Zhaokui came back to teach in the village and the villagers saw that it was different from Zhaopei's material.

Most of those in the village lines (self included) do both the two laojia AND the two xinjia sets. The weapons forms seem virtually the same.

The small frame (xiaojai) is a differerent substyle of Chen Taiji. It is taught mainly in the village and in Xian, A number of skilled clan members left the village in - I THINK....I could well be wrong here - around the 1940s and 50s, and took their Taiji with them.

FYI, both xiaojia and dajia (ie xinjia and laojia) are widely represented on YouTube. Xiaojia is the father of Zhaobao style, and looks very similar to it in technqiue - though the tempo and shenfa of Zhaobao is a bit different to both the xiaojia and the dajia. (At least, to my eyes.)

I'd add that while the technique of dajia and xiaojia is somewhat different, the shenfa seems near identical. To my eyes, Chen dajia and Chen xiaojia, while many generations removed from one another, still seem more similar to each other than do Chen and Wu, Chen and Woo, Chen and Hao or Chen and Sun. FWIW. So the different branches of the Chen art seem much more similar than Chen and the other Taiji styles, despite those styles' relative youth. You will notice I have not commented on Yang style as there seems to be such a chasm between pre- and post-Yang Cheng-fu styles of that art.

So why and how did the different Taiji styles diverge There's the question - and that alone is worth a book. The answers are probably out there, as post-Chen family Taiji only really dates back to the 1850s. I'd add that, given the huge numbers of Taiji practitioners globally, such a book might have commerical potential.

[salcanzonieri]

"Chen Xin didn't practice TJQ, by the way (but, I think you knew that already, no offense meant)"

Sal, are you really sure about that statement?
In his own preface he wrote that even he was supposed to go the literati way, he failed miserably, and so he still spent most of his years besides his father, teaching Taijiquan. Therefore, he writes, he has a little bit of understanding of the art (a polite Chinese understatement?), and I myself wonder how the hack he could write the whole part on the small frame form, if he was not schooled?

I also wonder what small frame people know about that?

I read that it said the opposite, he spent his time taking exams and didn't practice like the rest of this relatives.

[yeniseri]

I came across a Chen Zhengli article a few years ago (not sure when exactly) and in said article he mentions one Chen family method as being "martial" and the other 'scholarly" with the Xi'an branch mentioned for the first time as having their own methods (for lack of a better description). I will try to find.

[salcanzonieri]

Couple thought that just popped up in due course:

1- just bought Docherty's new book "Decoding the Classics". On page 37 and 38, I am surprised to see him downplay the importance of Chang Nai Zhou and the obvious overlap seen between Chang's Neijia Quan and Chen TJQ.
Here is why the old masters had an edge that is no longer existent many places: they learned a long fist art first and build their TJQ or other internal martial art education from on top of this foundation, instead of starting with TJQ, etc from scratch.
In Dan's book talks about the bent postures and other stuff that is different from Chang's martial art.
BUT, because he has no Shaolin background, Dan doesn't see what I clearly see in the Chang illustrations he shows in the book:
Shaolin Pao Chui does EXACTLY these movements and from an internal perspective. Chang's writings make a point of saying that Shaolin Pao Chui and Hong Quan are a major foundation to his Neijia Quan.
And Chen TJQ makes the same statements. Thus, there is considerable overlap just in that part, let alone all the other points they share. Wylie and Marnix books clearly showed that Chang's writing were used in the Chen manuals and theory. Whole passages were identical.

Dan's book shows images of Chang bent postures, which are identical to those seen in this Pao Chui video (used an on example), see it as 1:08:

[salcanzonieri]

Second, just bought new issue of T'Ai Chi magazine, there is an article in the hard work it is tracing TJQ history by practitioner and researcher Wu Wenhan.
he points out the similarity and differences between Yang and Chen.
I started to get the idea that Yang Luchan worked together with Wu Xiang to further develop the Chen TJQ he learned.
There is no doubt that Yang and Wu were great friends and surely that practiced together all out. They surely examined not only what Yang has just learned but what Wu was already master at which was Hong Quan. This seems common sense, what else would Wu be able to draw from?
Wu was the one that, not long after their interactions, introduced to Yang (in 1852) the supposed "found" book by Wang Zhongyue.
(and think about this, the salt store where the book was found was one most likely that same salt store that as the one that was owned by the Li family, cousins to Chen Wangting, hence why such a book would be found there. And shows something else, later Chen does not have Wang Zhongyue theory in it . Chen Xin's book described how It had changed a lot over time, which much going into disuse.)

Wu Wenhan points out that Chen TJQ is based on Chen Wangting's 10 Principles (also described in Chen Xin's book) and Yang is not, instead it is based on the theories shown in Wang Zhongyue's book (whoever that real author is, no one knows).
He also says that Yang and Wu/Hao styles don't have Silk Reeling spiraling rotation from the dantian like Chen style does, but instead they do a sort of "pulling silk from a cocoon" and sinking of the dantain.

(my note: Shaolin Hong Quan does it like Yang style; Shaolin Chan Yuan Quan (Circular Boxing) does it like Chen style).

Wu Wenhan says that Wu style are basically similar, but Wu style is not simply a combination of Chen and Zhao Bao, but feature the changes Wu Yuxiang worked out with Yang Luchan, since they obviously changed a lot.
He feels that Wu Yuxing didn't actually learn from Yang Luchan (I guess he means as a disciple student) but rather they changed ideas and methods.
(In my opinion, there is no other way to explain how Yang's martial art had changed so much by the time he want to Beijing to teach; if you believe that the big frame Chen you see today is the same stuff as what Yang Luchan had first learned (looking at pre-Yang Chengfu TJQ).
Wu Wenhan says that Wu Yuxiang's book was not seen outside of the Wu family, thus, a very few. Three books were written by Li Yifu, a nephew of Yuxiang.

My notes: This material (Li's writings) is what became known as taiji quan first, then Yang and his son's martial art was called this too.

If you went to Beijing and a martial art style there was already considered as the Big Cheese called Bagua Zhang and was said to be special because it was based on the Taoist Yi Ching, wouldn't you make a style called Taiji Quan that was special because it was based on original Taoist ideas? Wu Yixiang's brother called Yang Luchan to come to Beijing and teach, they needed to create a viable marketing program to make it worthwhile. Hence, I think that why the Wu's developed all the theoretical aspects that they called Taiji Quan.

[salcanzonieri]

If you ask me, silk reeling is simply the spiralling way in which Chen style moves. I have not seen this in Tongbei or other styles of Taiji, but there are strong similarities in HsingI and Bagua. It is visible to the naked eye in most practitioners. (The old boys being a bit different, as they will have internalised it.)

Henan Tongbei Quan and Hongdong Tongbei Quan indeed do spiralling, it's called Coiling in those arts, as it is called in the Shaolin Rou neigong and quan. Like when you coil a cable, you lay the layers in a spiral.