What It Does Not Tell Us About the Duke of Zhou

Home , Guan (state), King Wu of Zhou

T’OUNG PAO The QinghuaT’oung Pao “Jinteng” 102-4-5 (2016) Manuscript 291-320 www.brill.com/tpao 291 International Journal of Chinese Studies/Revue Internationale de Sinologie Inhoud The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript: What It Does Not Tell Us About the Duke of Zhou 291 Religious and Other Experiences of Daoist Priestesses in Tang China 321 An Ambivalent Historian: Ouyang Xiu and His New Histories 358 Debating what Lü Dongbin Practiced: Why did the Yuan Daoist Miao Shanshi Denounce the Zhong-Lü Texts? 407 Buddhist Tales of Lü Dongbin 448 Constructing a Playful Space: Eight-Legged Essays on Xixiang ji and Pipa ji 503 India in the Chinese Imagination: Myth, Religion, and Thought. Edited by John Kieschnick and Meir Shahar. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2014, 352 p. 547 From Warhorses to Ploughshares: The Later Tang Reign of Emperor Mingzong. By Richard L. Davis. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Univ. Press, 2015. 224 p. 552 The Beginning of the Subtle School of Taoism 一切道經音義妙門由起: An Official Perception of Taoism in the Early T’ang Period. (Deutsche Morgenländische Gesell schaft, Abhandlungen fūr Kunde des Morgenlandes Band 94.) By Florian C. Reiter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014. viii + 127 pp. 556 Returning to Zhu Xi: Emerging Patterns within the Supreme Polarity. By David Jones and Jinli He (eds.). Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 2015, xiii + 357 pp. 562 The Chinese Market Economy, 1000-1500. By William Guanglin Liu. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 2015. xviii + 374 pp. 566 Livres Reçus / Books Received 571 Contents to Volume 102 (2016) 575 The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript: What it Does Not Tell Us about the Duke of Zhou

Magnus Ribbing Gren (Princeton University)

Abstract This study suggests that the so-called “Jinteng” manuscript held by Qinghua University should be read independently of its received counterpart. When read on its own terms, the manuscript provides a straightforward account of rituals surrounding the Duke of Zhou’s ascension to the throne after the demise of King Wu. As such it represents a continuation of King Wu’s abdication in favor of his meritorious brother, as recorded in the Yi Zhou shu. Read in this light, the fourth century BCE manuscript provides further evidence for the prominence of abdication doctrines during the Warring States period, an intellectual tradition that was deemed subversive in the early empire and became gradually obliterated over the course of the Qin-Han dynasties.

Résumé Cet article propose de lire le manuscrit dit “Jinteng” conservé à l’université Qinghua indépendamment des textes reçus qui lui correspondent. Considéré par lui-même, le manuscrit offre une relation claire des rituels ayant entouré l’accession au trône du duc de Zhou après la mort du roi Wu. De ce fait, il représente le prolongement de l’abdication du roi Wu en faveur de son vertueux frère telle qu’elle est relatée dans le Yi Zhou shu. Considéré sous cet angle, ce manuscrit du IVe siècle avant notre ère offre de nouveaux arguments en faveur de l’importance des doctrines sur l’abdication à l’époque des Royaumes Combattants, alors que cette tradition intellectuelle était considérée comme subversive au début de l’empire et qu’elle est progressivement tombée dans l’oubli sous les Qin et les Han.

* A first draft of this paper was presented at the “Oxford-Princeton Research Collaboration” conference on the Shangshu, “The Classic of Documents and the Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy,” Princeton, May 17-18, 2013.

©T’oung Koninklijke Pao 102-4-5 Brill NV, (2016) Leiden, 291-320 2016 DOI: 10.1163/15685322-10245P01

ISSN 0082-5433 (print version) ISSN 1568-5322 (online version) TPAODownloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 292 Ribbing Gren

Keywords Early China, Manuscripts, Tsinghua University, Qinghua University, Duke of Zhou, Shangshu, “Jinteng,” Abdication

The Duke of Zhou and the “Jinteng” Chapter The “Jinteng” 金縢 (“Metal-bound Coffer”) chapter in the received version of the Shangshu 尚書 offers a narrative that in its general outlines is straightforward and unambiguous. It begins with the statement that King Wu of Zhou 周武王 had fallen ill soon after the conquest of the Shang dynasty. His brother, the Duke of Zhou 周公, made a prayer to their family ancestors in which he offered to sacrifice his own life in ex- change for that of King Wu, who was needed to ensure the stability of the newly established royal house. The Duke of Zhou then prognosti- cated with tortoise shells, and receiving a favorable response he felt at ease knowing that King Wu would suffer no harm. The documents related to his prayer were secretly stored away in a metal-bound coffer. When King Wu eventually did die, suspicions were raised regarding the intentions of the Duke of Zhou toward his nephew, the young successor King Cheng 成王. As a result of various events both human and natural, the details of which have been subject to some disagreement among commentators, the metal-bound coffer was opened and the Duke of Zhou’s act of self-sacrifice was made public, immediately eliminating all suspicions of his loyalty and moral character. Although modern historians generally consider it an authentic pre- Qin text, the provenance and accuracy of the “Jinteng” chapter has been questioned by numerous historical figures, including Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033-1107) and Yuan Mei 袁枚 (1716-1797).1 Yuan Mei in particular listed several reasons showing that the “Jinteng” chapter made little sense in relation to other accounts of the Duke’s life. The recent discovery of a bamboo manuscript bearing what appears to be a ca. 300 BC version of

1) Cheng Yi and Cheng Hao 程顥, “Henan Chengshi yishu” 河南程氏遺書, in Er Cheng ji 二程集 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981), 290; Yuan Mei, Xiaocang shanfang shiwen ji 小倉山房詩文集 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1988), 22.1622-26.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 293 the “Jinteng” chapter, however, has led some scholars to conclude that such doubt is unwarranted.2 Liu Guozhong, for example, wrote:

Now the reappearance of the Qinghua bamboo manuscript “Jinteng” has substantiated the fact that “Jinteng” was a chapter in the pre-Qin Shangshu, and the debate over its authenticity has naturally been resolved. 现在清华简《金縢》的重新面世，证实了《金縢》确实是先秦《尚书》中的一篇，对于该篇真伪的争论自然也就不辩自明了。 3

But while the manuscript is similar enough to received versions of the story, including those of the Shangshu and the Shiji 史記, it also differs from these versions in significant ways. The present study deals with those differences and suggests a reading of the “Jinteng” manuscript that does not base itself on presuppositions introduced by the received versions. To begin with, passages in other early Chinese texts that relate the story of the Duke of Zhou and his relationship with King Wu and King Cheng do not provide a coherent and unambiguous account of the events described in the “Jinteng” or of their significance. Wang Chong’s 王充 (27-97) Lunheng 論衡 is the earliest text to explicitly recognize the divide in opinions over the interpretation of the Duke of Zhou’s relationship to the throne. Wang Chong wrote:

The “Jinteng” says: “In the autumn the grain flourished, but before it had been reaped there were great lightning and thunderstorms in Heaven. The grain was all bent down, and all the large trees uprooted. The men of the state were greatly hor- rified.” At this time the Duke of Zhou died. Learned men theorized that [the natural calamities] were due to King Cheng being hesitant with regard to the Duke of Zhou, because if he were to bury the Duke according to the rituals of a Son of Heaven, [it could be inappropriate since] the Duke had been another’s minister, but if he were to bury the Duke according to the rituals of a minister, [it could be inappropriate since] the Duke had the achievement [of a ruler]. While the King

2) It should be pointed out that this is an unprovenienced manuscript, acquired on the Hong Kong antiquity market. For a discussion of the ethical aspect of studying such Chinese manuscripts, see Paul R. Goldin, “Heng Xian and the Problem of Studying Looted Artifacts,” Dao 12.2 (2013): 153-60. 3) Liu Guozhong 劉國忠, “Cong Qinghua jian ‘Jinteng’ kan chuanshi ben ‘Jinteng’ de wen- ben wenti” 從清華簡《金縢》看傳世本《金縢》的文本問題, Qinghua daxue xuebao 清華大學學報 (zhexue shehui kexue ban 哲學社會科學版) 26.4 (2011): 41.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 294 Ribbing Gren

hesitated over how to bury the Duke of Zhou, Heaven inspired horror with its ab- normalities of great lightning and rain, with the purpose of displaying the sagely achievement [of the Duke]. The ancient script (guwen) specialists think that when King Wu died, the Duke of Zhou acted as a deputy [to King Cheng]. Guan[shu] and Cai[shu] spread rumors that made the King suspicious of the Duke of Zhou, and [to avoid confrontation] the Duke of Zhou went to live in exile in Chu. Conse- quently, it was in order that Heaven brought lightning and rain to awaken King Cheng [to this injustice]. 《金縢》曰： “秋大熟，未獲，天大雷電以風，禾盡偃，大木盡拔。邦人大恐。” 當此之時，周公死。儒者說之，以為成王狐疑于周公，欲以天子禮葬公，公人臣也；欲以人臣禮葬公，公有功。王狐疑于葬周公之間，天大雷雨動恐示變，以彰聖功。古文家以武王崩，周公居攝，管、蔡流言，王意狐疑周公，周公奔楚，故天雷雨，以悟成王。 4

The problem presented here was whether the Duke of Zhou had inherited the throne after King Wu and ruled as king, as “learned men” in general assumed, or if he had merely aided the young King Cheng in ruling the kingdom and therefore been unfairly slandered by his brothers, as the so-called ancient script specialists argued. While Wang Chong did not clearly prefer either position, judging from the structure of his statement it may be surmised that in the early part of the Eastern Han, the perception of the Duke of Zhou as a minister who would choose to go into exile rather than be suspected of calling himself king was not uni- versally accepted, and in fact appears more as a minority position up- held and promoted by a limited group of textual specialists. The present study demonstrates how the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript is most properly read, not as a variant of the received Jinteng story, but rather as a written instantiation of a very different narrative that relates how the Duke of Zhou, with the blessings of Heaven and the ancestral spirits, inherited the Zhou kingdom after the demise of King Wu. As discussed toward the end of this article, the significant discrepancies between these two narratives may plausibly be understood in light of Warring States debates between proponents of hereditary succession and those who argued that leaders should be picked based on achievements rather than pedigree. With the establishment of the Chi- nese empire during the Qin-Han dynasties, and in particular after the Wang Mang 王莽 (45 BCE-23 CE) interregnum, arguments for merit-

4) Huang Hui 黃暉, Lunheng jiaoshi 論衡校釋 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1990), 18.787-88.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 295 based succession were deemed subversive and gradually erased from the written tradition. It is only with the discovery of pre-Qin manuscripts that documents promoting abdication and merit-based succession may again be brought into dialogue with the received tradition, and it is within the context of such a dialogue that the present study places the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript.

The Legend of the Duke of Zhou Ruling as King While the received Shangshu quite unambiguously insists that the Duke of Zhou was never interested in occupying the position of king, not a few sources suggest otherwise. For example, many early texts state explicitly that after the Duke’s death, King Cheng buried him as a Son of Heaven. After the Duke’s death, furthermore, his fiefdom in the state of Lu 魯 was granted the royal prerogative of offering sacrifices to Heaven. The connection between this and the series of natural disasters described in the “Jinteng” chapter is drawn directly in several sources, a few of which I introduce and translate below. One of the more succinct and suggestive passages is found in the Baihutong 白虎通, which states:

When the Duke of Zhou died, Heaven behaved abnormally for his sake. King Cheng buried him according to the rituals of a Son of Heaven, and ordered that the state of Lu perform the suburban sacrifice in order to clarify his absolute filial piety toward the one whom Heaven supported. 周公身薨，天為之變，成王以天子之禮葬，命魯郊，以明至孝天所興也。5

“The one whom Heaven supported” in this passage obviously refers to the Duke of Zhou. The Shiji contains one of the more inclusive accounts of the Duke’s life, and this is how it describes King Cheng’s decision to let the state of Lu perform the suburban sacrifice to Heaven, a ceremony reserved for the supreme leader:

After the Duke of Zhou died, in the autumn, before the harvest had been reaped, there were strong winds, thunder, and rain. The grain was all bent down and large trees were uprooted. The Zhou state was in grave terror. King Cheng and his great

5) Chen Li 陳立, Baihutong shuzheng 白虎通疏證 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994), 4.156.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 296 Ribbing Gren

ministers put on court robes and unrolled the writings of the metal-bound coffer. And so the King discovered the prayer where the Duke of Zhou took the enterprise on himself and substituted for King Wu. The two Dukes and the King asked the archivist and the various officers in charge. They all said: “Yes, it is true, long ago the Duke of Zhou ordered us not to dare speak about it.” King Cheng held the document and wept, saying: “From now on there will be no need to prognosticate! Long ago, the Duke of Zhou exerted himself for the royal family, but I the young one did not know about it. Now Heaven moves its majesty to announce the virtue of the Duke of Zhou. I, the little child, wish to welcome it. That also is the appropri- ate thing to do according to the family rituals of our state.” The King went into the suburbs, and then it rained, the wind withdrew, and the grain all rose up. The two Dukes ordered the men of the state to rise and re-plant all the broken trees. The year became very fruitful. At this point, King Cheng then ordered that the state of Lu may perform the suburban sacrifice to King Wen. That the state of Lu may use the ritual and music of the Son of Heaven was in order to repay the Duke of Zhou’s virtue. 周公卒後，秋未穫，暴風雷［雨］，禾盡偃，大木盡拔。周國大恐。成王與大夫朝服以開金縢書，王乃得周公所自以為功代武王之說。二公及王乃問史百執事，史百執事曰：「信有，昔周公命我勿敢言。」成王執書以泣，曰：「自今後其無繆卜乎！昔周公勤勞王家，惟予幼人弗及知。今天動威以彰周公之德，惟朕小子其迎，我國家禮亦宜之。」王出郊，天乃雨，反風，禾盡起。二公命國人，凡大木所偃，盡起而筑之。歲則大孰。於是成王乃命魯得郊祭文王。魯有天子禮樂者，以褒周公之德也。 6

One of many difficulties with this passage is to explain what is meant by the verb “to welcome” (ying 迎). It may be understood as King Cheng going as far out as the suburbs to welcome the Duke of Zhou back from his military campaign. However, in the Shiji account the “welcoming” takes place after the Duke’s death. This is only one among many confus- ing aspects of the Duke’s life as recorded in the received Shiji, whose account reads more like an anthology of legends, not always chronologically arranged. For example, the Shiji contains two isolated descrip- tions of how the Duke of Zhou offered his life to the spirits in order for an ailing superior to recuperate: the first time for King Wu, and the second time for King Cheng. It also contains two references to the Duke of Zhou residing in the east: one two-year military campaign right after King Wu’s death, and one period of self-chosen exile in Chu that

6) Takigawa Kametarō 瀧川龜太郎, Shiji huizhu kaozheng 史記會注考證 (Taipei: Da’an chubanshe, 1959), 33.1522-23.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 297 supposedly also took place while King Cheng was still a child.7 Eastern Han sources, conversely, more frequently treat these as variant interpretations of one event, and not as two isolated events. Be that as it may, consider specifically the last two sentences of the Shiji passage quoted above, recounting how King Cheng offered the suburban sacrifice to the state of Lu. A very similar account appears in Zheng Xuan’s 鄭玄 (127-200) commentary to the Shijing ode “Bi gong” 閟宮 (Mao 300):

King Cheng thought great the Duke of Zhou’s achievements and ordered that the state of Lu may perform the suburban sacrifice to Heaven, and include the royal ancestor Houji. As the sacrificial animal there should be used a purely brown ox, just as by the Son of Heaven. And Heaven in return blessed and comforted them, bringing them large fortunes. 成王以周公功大，命魯郊祭天，亦配之以君祖後稷，其牲用赤牛純色，與天子同也，天亦飨之宜之，多予之福。 8

Similar accounts are found in many texts, including the “Mingtang wei” 明堂位 chapter of the Liji 禮記, the Hou Hanshu 後漢書,9 and the Shangshu dazhuan 尚書大傳 as quoted in Yan Shigu’s 顏師古 (581-645) commentary to the Hanshu 漢書.10 Even more direct than these passages, however, is the “Duoyi jie” 度邑解 chapter of the Yi Zhou shu 逸周書 where, following the destruction of the Shang capital, a sleepless King Wu explains to the Duke of Zhou how he worries about not yet having secured the realm and Heaven’s support. He then proceeds to ask the Duke of Zhou to inherit the throne and the Zhou royal enterprise. The Yi Zhou shu reads:

The King said: “Dan, you are my intelligent younger brother, and so I have further demands of you. You are so busy that you cannot eat in peace, not to speak of taking care of your household. Now Heaven requires your service, for the spirits of

7) On this particular issue, see Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Duke of Zhou’s Retirement in the East and the Beginnings of the Minister-Monarch Debate in Chinese Political Philoso- phy,” in Shaughnessy, Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1997), 101-36. 8) Ma Ruichen 馬瑞辰, Maoshi zhuanjian tongshi 毛詩傳箋通釋 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989), 20.1143. 9) Hou Hanshu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1965), 61.2027-28. 10) Hanshu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962), 67.2926.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 298 Ribbing Gren

heaven and earth have already decided my lifespan. I have not been able to bring peace to this state, but you have remained by my side. Although you are young, you are very wise. From the august ancestors of antiquity to those of the present, you are able to narrate for me all their virtues and achievements and make me emulate them. Therefore, I am just like a farmer cultivating my land, and when I am hungry I look to you for my harvest. I have acted improperly and failed to secure positions with the Heavenly Emperor for our august ancestors. You, young one, pursue my ambitions and you shall be able to control this realm of ours. This way I will rest assured. If you miss home, your virtue will not reach those above, and the people will not come together below, nor will I be able to sit with our high ancestors. And if Heaven does not offer its support, the future will bring disasters. Will you then be able to resolve them? However, if you as younger brother succeed me the older brother, what need is there for me to perform the divination? Therefore I will now establish you, Dan, [as my successor].” Dan was terrified, cried, and raised his hands in front of his chest. 王曰：「旦，汝維朕達弟，予有使汝，汝播食不遑暇食，矧其有乃室，今維天使予，惟二神授朕靈期，予未致于休予，近懷于朕室，汝維幼子，大有知。昔皇祖底于今，勖厥遺得，顯義告期，付于朕身，肆若農服田，饑以望穫，予有不顯，朕卑皇祖，不得高位于上帝，汝幼子庚厥心，庶乃來班朕大環，茲于有虞意，乃懷厥妻子，德不可追于上，民亦不可答于下，朕不賓在高祖，維天不嘉，于降來省，汝其可瘳于茲，乃今我兄弟相後，我筮龜其何所即，今用建庶建。」叔旦恐，泣涕共手。11

The reliability of the Yi Zhou shu in relation to the Shangshu has of course been questioned. In pre-Qin times, however, no distinction was made between a Shangshu and an Yi Zhou shu, or between the chapters that are now classified under these respective titles.12 The title Yi Zhou shu as the name of a body of textual material first appears as used by Xu Shen 許慎 (58-147), and what has been observed with regard to the con- tent and structure of early Chinese manuscripts only strengthens the hypothesis that dealing with these titles as two separate textual units is methodologically problematic.13 In the Yi Zhou shu passage, the Duke of Zhou does not answer King Wu’s request either in the positive or negative. I propose, however, that the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript may convincingly be read as the Duke

11) Huang Huaixin 黃懷信 et al., Yi Zhou shu huijiao jizhu 逸周書彙校集注 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995), 505-10. 12) Li Xueqin, “Qinghua jian yu Shangshu, Yi Zhou shu de yanjiu” 清华简与《尚书》《逸周书》的研究, Shixue shi yanjiu 史學史研究 142.2 (2011): 104-9. 13) Ibid.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 299 of Zhou’s request for and acceptance of the position as Son of Heaven after the death of King Wu. In this reading of the Qinghua text, the Duke of Zhou accepts and fulfills King Wu’s decision to have the Duke succeed him, secure Heaven’s support, and bring peace and stability to the newly established Zhou reign. This reading avoids a number of interpretive problems one would otherwise face when trying to understand the manuscript in terms of the received Shangshu.

The Manuscript Does Not Mention the Duke’s Self-Sacrifice The starting point for the following analysis is the observation that the Qinghua manuscript does not contain any of the passages directly and unambiguously referring to self-sacrifice on the part of the Duke of Zhou that are included in received texts. Within the received “Jinteng” chapter, there are three such passages:

1. The phrase “use Dan to substitute his person” (以旦代某之身) intro- duces a specific request directed by the Duke of Zhou to his spirit ancestors. At the end of his prayer, the Duke of Zhou then asks whether or not the spirits will grant his request, and explains what different actions he will take in response to either a negative or an affirmative answer. 2. Following the Duke of Zhou’s prayer, the chapter records a conver- sation between the Duke and King Wu, where the Duke of Zhou assures his older brother that he “will suffer no harm” (王其無害). This implies that the Duke’s prayer and subsequent divination had the aim of curing King Wu’s illness. 3. After recounting how the Duke of Zhou hid his prayer document in the metal-bound coffer, the chapter proceeds to report the pur- ported “result” of the Duke’s activities, namely, that on the following day the king recuperated (王翼日乃瘳).

These are the only extant references in all of pre-Han literature that refer directly to the Duke of Zhou offering to sacrifice his life on behalf of King Wu. All of them also appear in slightly modified versions in the Shiji. The fact that none of these references are included in the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript, which otherwise remarkably closely follows the

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 300 Ribbing Gren received Shangshu version, while not proving conclusively that they do not “belong” there, at least should make us reflect on the assumptions we bring to our reading of the manuscript. From this perspective, I will examine two passages in the text that have been notoriously difficult for traditional and modern commentators to resolve. The Qinghua “Jinteng” begins by situating the event chronologically three years after the Zhou conquest, and then states that King Wu had fallen severely ill. The Duke of Zhou then constructs three platforms, one for each of his and King Wu’s ancestors, positions himself on a fourth platform, and has an official read out his prayer. The text of the prayer is similar but not identical to its received counterpart, which in Bernhard Karlgren’s translation reads as follows:

Your chief descendant So-and-so has met with an epidemic sickness and is vio- lently ill. If you three kings really (have the debt of a great son towards Heaven =) owe a great son to Heaven (i.e. if he must die), then substitute me, Tan, for So-and- so’s person. I am good and compliant, clever and capable, I have much talent and much skill, I can serve the Spirits. Your principal descendant does not, like me, Tan, have much talent and much skill, he cannot serve the Spirits. But he has been ap- pointed in the Sovereign’s hall, extensively (i.e. everywhere) to possess the (regions of) the four quarters and thereby be able firmly to establish your descendants on the earth here below. Of the people of the four quarters, there are none who do not revere and fear him. Oh, do not let fall the precious mandate sent down by Heaven, then our former kings will also forever have a reliance and resort (i.e. sacrifices to sustain them). Now I will announce the inquiry to the great tortoise. If you grant me my wish (sc. that the king may recover), I will with the pi jade disc and the kuei tessera return and wait for your order (sc. to be called away by death). If you do not grant me my wish, I will shut up the jade disc and the tessera (i.e. no more function as officiant in sacrifice). 「惟爾元孫某，遘厲虐疾。若爾三王是有丕子之責于天，以旦代某之身。予仁若考能，多材多藝，能事鬼神。乃元孫不若旦多材多藝，不能事鬼神。乃命于帝庭，敷佑四方，用能定爾子孫于下地。四方之民罔不祗畏。嗚呼！無墜天之降寶命，我先王亦永有依歸。今我即命于元龜，爾之許我，我其以璧與珪歸俟爾命；爾不許我，我乃屏璧與珪。」14

The most obscure sentence in this passage is, in Karlgren’s translation, “If you three kings really (have the debt of a great son towards Heaven =) owe a great son to Heaven (i.e. if he must die)” (若爾三王是有丕子之責

14) Bernhard Karlgren, “The Book of Documents,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 22 (1950): 35.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 301

于天). The manuscript counterpart to this sentence is similar but presents some significant variation: 爾母(毋)乃有備子之責才(在)上. Firstly, the manuscript lacks the conjunction ruo 若 (“if”), the noun san wang 三王 (“three kings”) and the emphatic shi 是. Instead, the manuscript version has two characters mu nai 母乃, which the editors consider a graphic variant of wu nai 毋乃, “is it not,” marking a rhetorical question. Furthermore, the character yu 于 in the manuscript version is written cai 才, which the editors consider the common graphic variant for zai 在 (“at”), and the manuscript has shang 上 (“above”) rather than tian 天 (“Heaven”). Finally, instead of the character pi 丕 in the received text, the manuscript presents a previously unencountered variant bei 備 *brək-s for the first character in the four-character phrase 丕子之責.

Does the Prayer Speak of King Wu or the Duke of Zhou? In place of the variants pi 丕 / bei 備, the Shiji account has fu 負. The manuscript variant bei 備 does not offer support for any particular interpretation in previous scholarship. At the same time, however, according to Karlgren’s strict conditions for phonetic similarity in Old Chinese— that words must share a homorganic initial and belong to the same rhyme group—備 *brək-s is phonetically so close to the received variants 負 *bəʔ (Shiji) and 丕 *phrə (Shangshu) that it cannot on its own be used to subvert earlier interpretations.15 The second character zi 子 in the phrase 丕子之責 also has several variants in the textual tradition, including zi 茲 and ci 慈.16 The commentarial confusion regarding 備/負/丕 and 子/茲/慈 suggests that they together form something of a technical term. This hypothesis is further substantiated by He Xiu’s 何休 (129-182) commentary to the Gongyang zhuan 公羊傳 and Xu Guang’s 徐廣 (352-425) commentary to the Shiji, both of which explain this character combination as referring to “the illness of a duke.”17 Even if we do not accept this reading as such, it demonstrates that some early commentators read the two characters as a

15) Bernhard Karlgren, “Loan Characters in Pre-Han Texts,” Bulletin of Far Eastern Antiquities 35 (1963): 1-18. 16) As conveniently summarized in Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 and Liu Qiyu 劉起釪, Shangshu jiaoshi yilun 尚書校釋譯論 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005), 1253-60. 17) See e.g. Pi Xirui 皮錫瑞, Jinwen Shangshu kaozheng 今文尚書考證 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989), 13.292.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 302 Ribbing Gren binome, rather than as two separate words. The discovery of yet another character variant only strengthens this assumption. In the following, I suggest a new interpretation that fits the excavated text well but could not have been thought of by earlier commentators who worked exclu- sively with received versions of the text. The “Dazhuan” 大傳 chapter of the Liji contains the following passage:

That the various sons [who are not the first-born] do not sacrifice is in order to clarify who is the lineage head. That the various sons are not allowed to wear the three years mourning dress for their first-born sons is because their first-born sons do not succeed their second degree (zu) ancestor. When an additional son (biezi) becomes the second degree (zu) ancestor, he who succeeds him becomes [main] lineage head. His children who then succeed him, now the first degree (ni) ancestor, become minor lineage heads. 庶子不祭，明其宗也。庶子不得為長子三年，不繼祖也。別子為祖，繼別為宗，繼禰者為小宗。 18

The Liji zhengyi 禮記正義 compiled in the Tang dynasty under Kong Yingda’s 孔穎達 (574-648) editorship explains the meaning of the term “additional son” (biezi 別子) as it appears in the above passage:

[Biezi] refers to the younger brothers of a feudal lord’s first-born son. They are dif- ferentiated (bie) from the legitimate successor, and therefore called “additional sons” … When they are called the “various sons” or “princes,” this is because as long as the primary successor has not been enthroned, the various sons and princes may still sacrifice to their father. Now, that they are called “additional sons,” however, is to clarify that the successor has been established as such. They are called “additional sons” because, although they are princes, they may no longer sacrifice to their father. 謂諸侯適子之弟，別於正適，故稱別子也 … 若稱庶子及公子，若世子不立，則庶子公子皆得有禰先君之義。今言別子，明適子在故云。謂之別子者，公子不得禰先君。 19

During the Han dynasty, the “additional son” was frequently referred to as zhizi 支子 (“branch son”). Thus, the Mao commentary to the line “the grandchildren of King Wen spread the trunk and branches for a hun- dred generations” (文王孫子，本支百世) in the ode “Wen Wang” 文王

18) Sun Xidan 孫希旦, Liji jijie 禮記集解 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989), 34.913-14. 19) Liji zhengyi 禮記正義 (Taipei: Taiwan guji chubanshe, 2001), 1122.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 303

(Mao 235) explains: “The ‘trunk’ refers to the ‘trunk’ (main) lineage, and ‘branches’ refer to the [lineages of] the ‘branch’ (other) brothers” (本，本宗也；支，支子也).20 While the Liji passage is the earliest transmitted source where the term “additional son” is used, another compound beizi 北子 that appears in bronze inscriptions, and more recently in excavated manuscripts, may refer to the same phenomenon. Li Xueqin 李學勤 suggests that 北子 in the following bronze inscription should be understood as “additional son”:

Liu Zuo, the “additional son,” made this gui-vessel to offer food to his grandfather Ri Yi. May his children and grandchildren always treasure it for a myriad years. 翏作北子乍簋，用遺 (饋) 厥祖父日乙。其萬年子子孫孫永寶。 21

There are several such instances of beizi in bronze inscriptions, most of which occur right in front of a personal name. Song Huaqiang 宋華強 has shown that the term beizi occurs with some frequency in bamboo manuscripts excavated in the 1960s from Wangshan 望山 in Hubei, and suggests that these support Li Xueqin’s argument that 北子 be understood as “additional son.” Among other contexts, the compound appears in the phrase “the king’s additional son” (王之北子). Song Huaqiang further points out that beizi/biezi probably could be used as a first-person pronoun.22 The character 北 *pʕək belongs to the zhi 職 rhyme group, while 別 *pret belongs to the yue 月 rhyme group. Phonetic interchange between these rhyme groups is uncommon but does occur. Thus, the “Tian wen zhi” 天文志 chapter of the Hanshu contains the sentence “the moon from the south enters the southern border of the Altair star” (月南入牽牛南戒), where jie 戒 *kʕrək-s appears to write the word usually written jie 界 *kʕret-s.23 Nevertheless, Song Huaqiang does not think that the relationship between 北 *pʕək and 別 *pret should be explained in

20) Ma Ruichen, Maoshi zhuanjian tongshi, 797. 21) Li Xueqin, “Zhangzi, Zhongzi he Biezi” 長子、中子和別子, in Li, Zhongguo gudai wenming yanjiu 中國古代文明研究 (Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue, 2004), 91-94. 22) Song Huaqiang, “You Chujian ‘beizi’ ‘beizong’ shuodao jiagu jinwen ‘dingzong’ ‘chizong’” 由楚簡“北子” “北宗”說到甲骨金文“丁宗” “啻宗,” Jianbo 簡帛 2009.4: 123-34. 23) Hanshu, 26.1296. Another example of phonetic interchange between the two rhyme groups is huo 或 *ɢwrək (職) for he 曷 *gʕat (月).

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 304 Ribbing Gren phonological terms. Instead, he provides additional textual examples from both received texts and excavated manuscripts where 北 appears to carry the meaning of 別, whose early epigraphic form is . Song further argues:

It is possible that the character in the received dictionaries is always a miswrit- ing of the character 北. In Warring States bamboo manuscripts from Chu the character 北 is written [in the forms] and so on. If the upper and lower parts on each side were written with just a little distance between them, it would turn into and could then be mistaken for the other character. 有可能傳世子書中的字都是 “北” 字的訛體。戰國楚簡文字 “北” 字作等形，左右上下兩筆寫開一些，就成 “ ” 形了，有可能被人誤認爲是另外一個字。24

The Chinese commentarial tradition also contains instances of the character 北 being read as 別. The “Shundian” 舜典 chapter of the Shangshu, for example, contains the sentence fen bei san miao 分北三苗.25 With reference to that Shangshu phrase, Pei Songzhi’s 裴松之 (372- 451) commentary to the Sanguo zhi 三國志 quotes part of a memorial by Yu Fan 虞翻 (164-233), which in turn cites a gloss attributed to Zheng Xuan that “bei is the old character for bie” (北古別字).26 Similarly, the Shiji jijie 史記集解 has Zheng Xuan paraphrasing the same Shangshu sentence as “splitting them up and exiling them” (分析流之).27 For the purposes of the present paper, as long as the relationship between 別 and 北 can be accepted, it matters less whether it is phonologically or palaeographically based. Assuming that the identification of 北子 with 別子 is correct, the compound 備子 in the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript may well refer to the same word. The three variants of the received and manuscript “Jinteng” versions 備 *brək-s, 負 *bəʔ, and 丕 *phrə all belong to the zhi 之 rhyme group. Whereas interchange between the 之 and 月 (to which 別 belongs) rhyme groups is quite rare, there is significant overlap between the

24) Song Huaqiang, “You Chujian ‘beizi,’” 126. 25) See the “Yaodian xia” 堯典下 chapter in Sun Xingyan 孫星衍, Shangshu jinguwen zhushu 尚書今古文注疏 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986), 73. 26) Sanguo zhi 三國志 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), 57.1323. 27) Takigawa, Shiji huizhu kaozheng, 1.58.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 305 rhyme groups 之 and 職 (to which 北 belongs).28 The most obvious and relevant example is bei 背 *pʕək-s (之) for 北 *pʕək (職). On phonological grounds, with their homorganic initials and as members of the 之 and 職 rhyme groups, the characters 備 *brək-s, 負 *bəʔ, or 丕 *phrə could write the same word as 背 *pʕək-s. There also is direct evidence for their interchangeability. For example, the “Li sheng Lu Jia liezhuan” 酈生陸賈列傳 chapter in the Shiji contains the phrase “King Xiang broke the contract and did not join” (項王負約不與).29 In the Hanshu, the sentence has been rephrased to read “King Xiang turned his back on the contract and did not join” (項王背約不與), evidently taking for granted the interchangeability of bei 背 and fu 負.30 Similarly, the Shiji chapter “Pingjin hou zhu fu liezhuan” 平津侯主父列傳 contains “[He] faced south with his back to the screen, folded his sleeves, and greeted the princes and dukes” (南面負扆攝袂而揖王公).31 The Hanshu renders the same sentence “[He] faced south turning his back on the screen, folded his sleeves, and greeted the princes and dukes” (南面背依攝袂而揖王公).32 Moreover, 負 *bəʔ is interchangeable with fu 服 *bəʔ. The “Kao gong ji” 考工記 chapter of the Zhouli 周禮 contains the sentence: “The pinfu carriage is two and two-thirds’ axe-handles wide” (牝服二柯有參分柯之二).33 In his commentary to this passage, Zheng Xuan states: “Fu 服 is to be read fu 負” (服讀為負).34 This is relevant since 備 is also very common as a loan for 服 in its various senses and appears in common bi- nomes like yibei 衣備 = yifu 衣服 (“clothing”) and zhengbei 征備 = zhengfu 征服 (“to subdue”).35 Considering the above, if we are ready to accept that 北子 as it appears in bronze inscriptions and excavated manuscripts refers to what in the Liji is called “additional sons” (別子), there is nothing problematic about accepting that 備子 (Qinghua manuscript) or 負子 (Shiji) could

28) Cf. Feng Qiyong 馮其庸 and Deng Ansheng 鄧安生, Tongjiazi huishi 通假字彙釋 (Bei- jing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2006). 29) Takigawa, Shiji huizhu kaozheng, 97.9. 30) Hanshu, 43.2109. 31) Takigawa, Shiji huizhu kaozheng, 112.20. 32) Hanshu, 64A.2806. 33) Sun Yirang 孫詒讓, Zhouli zhengyi 周禮正義 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), 86.3522. 34) Sun Yirang, Zhouli zhengyi, 86.3523. 35) Feng and Deng, Tongjiazi huishi, 82.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 306 Ribbing Gren refer to the very same thing. But the evidence is not limited to the above, and I think it is possible to demonstrate beyond doubt that 備 and 別 are cognate words. In the Jingyi shuwen 經義述聞, Wang Yinzhi 王引之 (1766-1834) presents a convincing argument for glossing 別 *pret as bian 徧 *pʕen-s (“wide, extensive”).36 He quotes the following passage from the “Kang gao” 康誥 chapter of the Shangshu:

Shangshu: 往敷求于殷先哲王用保乂民 Pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary: 汝往之國當布求殷先智王之道用安治民 “You should go to the capital and search extensively for the Way of the former wise kings of Yin, and use it to rule your people.” Shangshu: 汝丕遠惟商耇成人宅心知訓 Pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary: 汝當大遠求商家耇老成人之道常以居心則知訓民 “You should search wide and far for the Way of the old and accomplished men of Shang, for if you keep it always in mind you will know how to guide your people.” Shangshu: 別求聞由古先哲王用康保民 Pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary: 又當別求所聞父兄用古先智王之道用其安者以安民 “Further you should search extensively for accounts of how your father and older brother used the Way of the former wise kings, and use that which worked well to bring peace to your people.” Shangshu: 弘于天若德裕乃身不廢在王命 Pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary: 大于天爲順德則不見廢常在王命 “Be greatly obedient to Heaven, so that your accumulated virtue will not be wast- ed, and the royal mandate will be ever present in you.”

The parallelism in these sentences strongly suggests that 別 is semanti- cally related to words like fu 敷 *pha (“spread out”), 丕 *phrə (“wide; large”), and hong 弘 *ɢwʕəŋ (“vast”). Consider further the following passage from the Mozi 墨子: “Heaven loves the people dearly, Heaven loves the people inclusively” (且天之愛百姓厚矣，天之愛百姓別矣).37 Wang Yinzhi also glosses 別 in this Mozi passage as 徧.38 Finally, the “Yueshu”

36) Wang Yinzhi, “Shangshu xia” 尚書下, in Jingyi shuwen 經義述聞, in Qingren zhushu shisan jing (Sibu beiyao ed.), vol. 5, 57. 37) Sun Yirang, Mozi xiangu 墨子閒詁 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001), 211; W.P. Mei’s translation. 38) Wang Niansun 王念孫, “Mozi san” 墨子三, in Wang, Dushu zazhi 讀書雜誌 (Beijing: Zhongguo shudian, 1985), vol. 2, 75.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 307

樂書 chapter of the Shiji contains the parallel sentence “he whose achievement is great, his music will be complete; he whose rule is accomplished, his rituals will be replete” (其功大者，其樂備，其治辨，其禮具), to which the Shiji jijie commentary gives the following variant: “bian in one instance is written bie” (辨一作別).39 Judging from the parallelism in this passage, 別 again appears to be synonymous with words like da 大 *lʕat-s (“large”), 備 (“complete”), and ju 具 *go-s (“replete”). Since 負 is common in the binome yinfu 殷負＝ yinfu 殷阜 (“plenty”), where it carries the meaning “large” (da 大),40 all of the “Jinteng” variants discussed above— 備, 負, 丕, and 別 —share with each other one semantic field and carry a rough meaning of “large; extended; wide- spread; complete.” The term 別子 as it appears in the Liji, therefore, should probably not be understood as “other sons [than the first-born],” but rather, as I have translated it throughout this paper, the “additional sons.” It might perhaps also be understood through its Han dynasty syn- onym 支子 (“branch sons”), seeing that as they branch out they “extend,” “widen” and “add to” the clan whose trunk ideally remains undivided through a lineage of first-born sons (zhangzi 長子 or shizi 適子). Consequently, it is perfectly plausible that 備子 in the Qinghua manuscript (for 丕子 in the received Shangshu version) is one of several possible graphic variants of a term that in the Liji is written as 別子. Thus, 備子 in the manuscript refers not to the first-born son King Wu as some commentators have suggested (and as translated by Karlgren) but to the Duke of Zhou himself as an “additional son.” The following analysis demonstrates how such a gloss produces a strong reading of the manuscript text.

Did Heaven Demand of the Zhou Ancestral Spirits the Death of King Wu? As already mentioned, at the very end of the received sentence “if you three kings really (have the debt of a great son towards Heaven =) owe a great son to Heaven (i.e. if he must die)” (若爾三王是有丕子之責于天), the manuscript version has “above” (zai shang 才[在]上) instead of the

39) Takigawa, Shiji huizhu kaozheng, 24.24-25. 40) Feng and Deng, Tongjiazi huishi, 869.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 308 Ribbing Gren

Shangshu and Shiji version “in Heaven” (yu tian 于天). This led pre-Song commentators to gloss ze 責 as “to owe something to someone” (負人物).41 The sentence was thus taken to mean: “Is it that you [the ancestral spirits] owe to Heaven a first-born child?” In the Song dynasty, Cai Shen 蔡沈 (1167-1230) dismissed such a reading, suspecting that there were characters missing from the sentence:

After “in Heaven” I suspect there is a passage missing. The traditional reading is that Heaven demands to take King Wu. This is incorrect. 「于天」之下疑有缺文，舊説謂天責取武王者，非是。 42

Cai Shen glosses ze 責 as “responsibility, duty” and explains what he thinks the passage must have originally meant:

Since King Wu is the first son of Heaven, the three kings should fulfill their protec- tive duty to Heaven, and not let him die. 蓋武王為天元子，三王當任其保護之責于天，不可令其死也。 43

However, Cai Shen must have realized that such a reading could not be defended grammatically. There would have had to be a passage missing that meant something like “do not let him die.” Otherwise the following sentence “use Dan to substitute his person” (以旦代某之身) would make little sense. It is evident, therefore, that Cai Shen chose a grammatically defunct reading as the lesser of two evils, as he realized how absurd it would be to assume that the Zhou ancestral spirits were being pressured by Heaven into removing King Wu from his earthly duties as heir to their newly established kingdom. The idea of ancestral spirits retaining their social roles and attend- ing to their tasks after death is supported primarily by the “Pangeng” 盤庚 chapter of the Shangshu. But there the ancestors either punish their descendants for misbehaving on earth and thus not living up to the accumulated virtue (de 德) of the clan, or they send blessings and protec-

41) See Kong Yingda’s subcommentary in Shangshu zhengyi 尚書正義 (Taipei: Taiwan guji chubanshe, 2001), 396. 42) Cai Shen, Shujing jizhuan 書經集傳 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987), 80. 43) Ibid.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 309 tion. There is no early textual support for the idea that Heaven would demand from the spirit ancestors the offering of a living descendant. Fortunately, the manuscript version on this point saves us from having to choose between a culturally improbable but grammatically ac- ceptable reading, on the one hand, and a grammatically problematic paraphrase, on the other. 才 (在) 上 not only implies no direct reference to Heaven but also appears quite frequently in bronze inscriptions, where it without exception refers to the ancestral spirits. Consider the following examples:

“My deceased father dwells gloriously above, and aids me on earth” (皇考嚴才上，異才下).44 “My deceased father who dwells gloriously above” (皇考其嚴才上).45

Both inscriptions, and there are many more, show that 才上 (“above; in Heaven”) was commonly used in referring to the relationship between dead ancestors and living descendants. If the manuscript passage is interpreted with this usage of 才上, it does not refer to Heaven but should be read in conjunction with the pronoun er 爾 as a reference to the ancestral spirits: “You [ancestral spirits] … above.” Taking now all of the above into account, my translation of the whole prayer in the Qinghua manuscript reads as follows:

Your first-born grandson Fa has met with a terrible disease. Is it not that you above have demand for your additional son [to take his place in the ancestral line]? Your first-born grandson Fa is not the equal of [me,] Dan, that is, in being good and compliant, clever and capable, talented and skilled, able to serve the spirits, and of being mandated in the [Heavenly] emperor’s court to possess the four quarters and settle your sons and grandsons down here on earth. If you accept me [as his successor] I will present you with this bi-disc and gui-tablet. If you do not accept me, I return with this bi-disc and gui-tablet.

44) Guo diao lü zhong 虢弔旅鐘 http://www.chant.org/Jinwen/ShowJinwen.aspx?bname= 244&r=366 (accessed 5/15/2016) 45) Shi fu zhong 士父鐘 http://www.chant.org/Jinwen/Default.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/Jin- wen/default.aspx (accessed 5/15/2016)

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 310 Ribbing Gren

爾元孫發也，遘害虐疾，爾毋乃有備子之責在上？隹爾元孫發也，不若旦也，是年若巧能，多才多藝，能事鬼神，命於帝廷，溥有四方，以定爾子孫於下地。爾之許我，我則晉璧與珪；爾不我許，我乃以璧與珪歸。 46

The Duke of Zhou Offers to Replace King Wu as Ruler In the following I will focus on the two passages in the manuscript that read (1) 其所為自以代王之敚 and (2) 周公之所自以為自以代武王之敚. There are two similar passages in the received text, which in Karl- gren’s translation read: (1) “the prince then proffered himself” (公乃自以為功), and (2) “the words by which Chou Kung proffered himself to take the place of Wu Wang” (乃得周公所自以為功代武王之說).47 The discrepancies between the manuscript and the received versions are significant and make it highly problematic to apply commentaries based on the received text to the reading of the manuscript text. In the following, therefore, I limit my engagement with the commentarial tradition to the interpretation of two central characters, one of which is gong 功 (received Shangshu) versus (manuscript), and the other is shuo 說 (received Shangshu) versus duo 敚 (manuscript). Based on the interpretation of these two characters a straightforward reading of the manuscript text may be established. The interchangeability of 敚 and 說 is widely attested. 敚 appears frequently in prayer or divination texts found among the Warring States bamboo manuscripts from Baoshan 包山 (Hubei). The character in these texts usually appears as a verb in the phrase “for this reason, pro- pitiate it [i.e. the spirits or Heaven]” (以其古 [ 故 ] 敚之). It seems straightforward to take 敚 in the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript as referring to some sort of prayer-related action.48 Another piece of suggestive evidence is found in the “Rongcheng shi” 容成氏 text among the Warring States bamboo manuscripts held in the Shanghai Museum. Toward its end, the “Rongcheng shi” relates how King Wu, before moving his forces against the Shang, said: “The

46) Here I represent the text as interpreted in modern characters. See my annotated translation below for additional notes. 47) Karlgren, The Book of Documents, 35-36. 48) See e.g. Chen Zhenmin et al., “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi,” 38-39.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 311 completely virtuous matter is that I convince (敚) him [Zhouxin] to be replaced; second to it, I shall invade and replace him” (成德者，吾敚而代之。其次，吾伐而代之).49 Although it is rather unclear how 敚 is to be understood here, it is presented as a less violent alternative to fa 伐 (“kill, subdue by military force”) in the act of dai 代 (“replacing”) a ruler. I find it plausible that 敚 in “Rongcheng shi” is closely related to the same character in the “Jinteng” manuscript, and that it refers to an act of willingly ceding and transferring power through ritual observances involving Heaven and the ancestral spirits, that is, what we today may refer to as an act of abdication. Indeed, we find in the Mencius a similar description of Yao’s abdicating the throne in favor of Shun. There, the “Wan Zhang” chapter relates how Yao “made him [Shun] preside over the sacrifices, and the many spirits were pleased; this [is what is meant by] Heaven accepting him [as the new ruler]” (使之主祭而百神享之，是天受之).50 This strongly supports my reading of the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript as a description of the Duke of Zhou’s ritual activities: not as a self-sacrifice for his brother King Wu but rather as a royal succession ceremony for the good of the Zhou kingdom. As for , the Shiji gives the variant zhi 質 rather than 功 in the first of the received passages under discussion, but is identical to the received “Jinteng” in the second. It has been commonly assumed that and its variants relate somehow to the Duke’s self-sacrifice. Jiang Sheng 江聲 (1721-1799) interpreted the Shiji variant 質 as follows: “It refers to the ‘hostage’ in [a passage like] ‘Zhou and Zheng exchanged hostages’” (周鄭交質之質).51 Implying a similar interpretation, Mi Yan has suggested taking as a loan for gong 貢 (“tribute”).52 Although this loan is well attested, it leads to a very forced and probably grammatically im- possible reading of gong zi 貢自 as “to present himself as tribute.”

49) The translation follows Yuri Pines, “Political Mythology and Dynastic Legitimacy in the Rong Cheng shi Manuscript,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73 (2010): 523. 50) Jiao Xun 焦循, Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), 19.644 [Mengzi 5A.5]. 51) Jiang Sheng, Shangshu jizhu yinshu 尚書集注音疏, in Ruan Yuan 阮元, Qing jingjie 清經解 (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1988), 395.888a. 52) Mi Yan 米雁, “Qinghua jian Jinteng gong zi shigu” 清華簡< 金縢 > 示工字試詁, at http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1377 (last accessed 4/5/2013)

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 312 Ribbing Gren

Alternatively, it has been argued that the manuscript variant supports a reading suggested by several Qing scholars that takes 功 as gong 攻, that is, as one of the “great invocator’s” (da zhu 大祝) responsibilities in the Zhouli, as does 說.53 Zheng Xuan’s gloss “with ‘gong’ and ‘shuo’ a request is made to them [the spirits] by means of words” (攻、說，則以辭責之) appears to fit the context.54 However, while this reading provides a cluster of terms with related meanings, it becomes exceedingly difficult to construct the sentence grammatically. Moreover, Li Xueqin has argued that since 攻 in the Baoshan manuscripts refers to an exor- cism ritual (gongjie 攻解 or gongchu 攻除) directed at evil spirits, it cannot possibly be what the “Jinteng” character 功 refers to.55 Since we are not bound to accept the story of the Duke’s self-sacrifice, may simply be read as 功 in its common meaning of “merit, achievement.” appears frequently and unambiguously in this sense in other early Chinese manuscripts.56 Furthermore, as Huang Hui has demonstrated, Wang Chong’s Lunheng consistently paraphrases the “Jinteng” story in ways that imply him reading gong 功 as gongde 功德 (“merit”).57 There is no lack of 功 in this usage in received texts, and it appears as such in grammatical constructions almost identical to those of the manuscript text. The “Shui nan” 說難 chapter of the Hanfeizi 韓非子, for example, contains the following passage:

Whenever a noble man acquires a scheme and desires to regard it as his own achievement, and the persuader knows about this, those who are in that position are in danger. 貴人或得計而欲自以為功，說者與知焉，如此者身危。 58

Based on the above analysis I translate the two passages as follows: (1) “… his written prayer that, based on his achievements, he replace the

53) Chen Minzhen et al., “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi,” 38-39; and Hong Yixuan, Dushu conglu 讀書叢錄 (N.P.: Fuwenzhai 富文齋, 1822), ch. 1. 54) See Zheng Xuan quoted in Sun Yirang, Zhouli zhengyi, 49.1987. 55) Li Xueqin, “Shangshu Jinteng yu chujian daoci” 尚书金縢与楚简祷辞, in Li, Wenwu zhong de gu wenming (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2008), 408-12. 56) Bai Yulan 白於藍, Jiandu boshu tongjiazi zidian 簡牘帛書通假字字典 (Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 2008): 255-56. 57) Huang Hui, Lunheng jiaoshi, 18.792. 58) Wang Xianshen 王先慎, Hanfeizi jijie 韓非子集解 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1998), 88.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 313 king” (其所為功自以代王之敚); and (2) “… the Duke of Zhou’s written prayer that, based on what he regarded as his achievements, he replace King Wu” (周公之所自以為功自以代武王之敚).

Conclusion The above argument could not have been made before the discovery of the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript. Most scholars working on this manuscript have read it in conjunction with the received versions and con- cluded that they are basically the same text. The general narrative has been taken for granted, and in-depth studies of the text have focused on deciding on a case-by-case basis what should be the preferred graphic variants. As this article has demonstrated, however, the crucial differ- ence between the manuscript and the received versions does not lie in graphic variants, but in the lack of any explicit reference in the manuscript text to the Duke of Zhou offering to sacrifice his life for King Wu. This is the observation that makes it possible to offer a solution to the long-standing commentarial confusion over the passages discussed above, and with those riddles resolved, the “Jinteng” story looks much less the anomaly it was to readers like Cheng Yi and Yuan Mei. It remains to answer the question why the received versions of Shiji and Shangshu both differ from the manuscript. If my reading can be accepted, we have to assume the existence in the Han dynasty, at the lat- est, of two diametrically opposed versions of the “Jinteng” story, each with its own political implications. Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 (1893-1980) once suggested that the strong ruler-minister distinction between King Cheng and the Duke of Zhou was created by Eastern Han exegetes in reaction to Wang Mang’s usurpation of the throne and his use, for that purpose, of a pre-Qin image of the Duke of Zhou as a strong ruler. These Eastern Han interpolations, according to Gu Jiegang, would have included revis- ing certain Shiji passages:

The early Zhou historical events recorded in the “Basic Annals of Zhou” chapter of the Shiji are similar to the received prefaces to the Shangshu, and we can say with certainty that it was in order to disseminate their own political views that Eastern Han scholars either copied the revised Shangshu prefaces into the Shiji, or rewrote the original text of the Shiji.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 314 Ribbing Gren

《史記。周本紀》中所記周初史事和《今本書序》文字相同，也該斷說為東漢以後人為了達到他們的政治的宣傳目的，因而把改定的《書序》文字鈔進去或是把《史記》原文改寫了的。59

With regard to the “Jinteng” chapter, it is indeed with Eastern Han exegetes like Ma Rong 馬融 (79-166) and Zheng Xuan that we see the ap- pearance of completely new interpretations. The most obvious one is the already mentioned “ancient script” reading of the passage “the Duke of Zhou resided in the east” (Zhougong ju dong 周公居東) as referring, not to a military campaign, but to a period of self-chosen exile to avoid suspicions of usurpation. It would be worth investigating further the possibility that the Qing- hua “Jinteng” as discussed here represents a version of the narrative about the Duke of Zhou and his relationship to King Wu and King Cheng that preceded a hypothetical Eastern Han reinterpretation and indeed rewriting. In this earlier version—although we should not discard the possibility that the two versions coexisted even before the Han dynasty—the Duke of Zhou was unequivocally presented as having succeed- ed to the Zhou throne after the demise of King Wu, with the endorsement of the ancestral spirits and of Heaven, and that he subsequently passed the rule on to his nephew. The “Jinteng” manuscript does not pass negative judgment on the Duke of Zhou for these actions; quite the contrary, what matters most to the narrative is not the life or death of one man, but the fate of the newly established Zhou kingdom. This brings us to the wider context in which the Qinghua “Jinteng” may be understood. If authentic, the manuscript was in all probability written down in the Warring States. This was a time without a central- ized monarchy that witnessed the demise of old aristocratic lineages and the rise of political thinkers who depended to a considerable degree on their intellectual achievements in the pursuit of social station. While incessant interstate conflicts produced the ideal of unity under a sin- gle and hereditary ruling house, recently discovered manuscripts suggest that such arguments for hereditary succession were formulated in

59) Gu Jiegang, “Zhougong zhizheng chengwang: Zhougong dongzheng shishi kaozheng zhi er” 周公執政稱王——周公東征史事考證之二, in Zhougong shezheng chengwang yu Zhou chu shishi lunji 周公攝政稱王與周初史事論集, ed. Guo Weichuan 郭偉川 (Beijing: Beijing tushuguan chubanshe, 1998), 36.

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 315 response to an opposing argument for royal abdication in favor of wor- thy men, who deserved the throne due to their merit and achievement.60 The main reason why we do not find much of the latter tradition in transmitted texts was its highly subversive nature under the hereditary ruling houses of the Qin and Han dynasties.61 Consequently, it is neces- sary to consider the extent to which certain texts were manipulated or revised during the Han dynasty, when they were transcribed into Han script.62 In the wake of the Wang Mang interregnum in particular, East- ern Han scholars had compelling reasons to reinterpret canonical texts in a way that further downplayed the ancient abdication doctrine. And if Eastern Han scholars to some extent managed to create interpretive ambiguity surrounding Yao’s abdication to Shun, as argued by Martin Kern, they were even more successful in effacing the Duke of Zhou’s seemingly irregular succession to the throne after the demise of King Wu.63 It is therefore quite plausible that the Qinghua “Jinteng” manuscript, with its emphasis on the Duke of Zhou as a successor to King Wu based on his merit and achievement, represented a version of the story that favored meritocratic over hereditary succession, which in turn explains why this legend about the Duke of Zhou was so significantly revised to create the received account of the “Jinteng” narrative in the Shiji and the Shangshu.

Annotated Translation of the Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript64 HQJJ Huang Qing jingjie SJ Shiji

60) Yuri Pines and Sarah Allan have both written extensively on this topic, see e.g. Pines, “Disputers of Abdication: Zhanguo Egalitarianism and the Sovereign’s Power,” T’oung Pao 91 (2005): 243-300; Pines, “Subversion Unearthed: Criticism of Hereditary Succession in the Newly Discovered Manuscripts,” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005): 159-78; and Sarah Allan, Buried Ideas: Legends of Abdication and Ideal Government in Early Chinese Bamboo-Slip Manuscripts (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 2015). 61) Possible traces of the abdication doctrine’s subjugation during the Eastern Han are identified in Martin Kern, “Language and the Ideology of Kingship in the ‘Canon of Yao’,” in Ideol- ogy of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, ed. Yuri Pines et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 149-150. 62) Sarah Allan, Buried Ideas, 22. 63) Cf. Kern, “Language and the Ideology of Kingship in the ‘Canon of Yao’,” 118-151. 64) The transcription follows Li Xueqin et al., Qinghua Daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian 清華大

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 316 Ribbing Gren

SJJJ Shiji jijie SS Shangshu SWJZ Shuowen jiezi YZS Yi Zhou shu ZL Zhouli ZZ Zuozhuan

Title:

【 Slip 14 (back)】周武王又 (有) 疾，周公所自以弋 (代) 王之志。 The Duke of Zhou’s ambition to replace the king on account of King Wu of Zhou being ill.65

Text:

【 Slip 1】武王旣克 (殷)三年，王不䶠，又ᰥ。二公告周公曰：「我亓(其)爲王穆卜。」周公曰：「未可㠯(以)【Slip 2】 (慼) (吾) 先王。」 Three years after King Wu had conquered Yin, the King was unwell for a lasting period of time.66 The two Dukes beseeched the Duke of Zhou, saying: “We request

學藏戰國竹簡, vol. 1 (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chuban jituan, 2010); as well as Chen Min- zhen 陳民鎮 and Hu Kai 胡凱, “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi” 清華簡金滕集釋, at http:// www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1658 (accessed 5/22/2016). 65) The manuscript title was never included in received versions of the “Jinteng,” but strongly supports a reading of the manuscript version as describing the Duke of Zhou’s unambiguous intention to ascend to the throne in place of King Cheng. Liao Mingchun 廖名春 adduces parallels to show that 之志 occurs as part of text titles in ZZ, meaning simply “the record of …,” but based on my discussion I am inclined to a more literal reading as above. Cf. Liao Mingchun, “Qinghua jian yu Shangshu yanjiu” 清華簡與尚書研究, Wen shi zhe 321 (2006): 120-25. 66) Instead of bu yu you chi 不䶠又ᰥ, received variants include you ji fu yu 有疾弗豫 (SS); you ji bu yu 有疾不豫 (SJ); bu yu you jia 不豫有加 (YZS); you ji bu yu 有疾不悆 (SWJZ), and the Qinghua “Baoxun” 保訓 manuscript also has an instance of bu yu 不䶠. SWJZ glosses 悆 as “happy” (xi 喜), and the “Gu ming” 顧命 chapter of the SS has the phrase wang bu yi 王不懌, which the pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary paraphrases “the King was sick and therefore unhappy” (wang you ji, gu bu yue yi 王有疾，故不悅懌). My translation “unwell” covers both physical and mental aspects of the king’s illness. Liao Mingchun argues that ᰥ may be read as 㾕, glossed as “cold disorder” (hanbing 寒病) (SWJZ), suggesting that the word order of the manuscript and received versions has merely been inverted. However, Liao Mingchun’s suggestion lacks textual parallels. Song Huaqiang follows the Qinghua editors’ reading of ᰥ as a variant of 蒈, glossed as “delayed, lasting” (chi 遲) (SWJZ); see Liao Mingchun, “Qinghua jian Jinteng pian bushi” 清華簡金縢篇補釋 at http://www.confu- cius2000.com/admin/list.asp?ID=4723 (accessed 5/22/2016); and Song Huaqiang, “Qinghua

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 317

to perform a mu divination on behalf of the King.”67 The Duke of Zhou said: “[You] may not treat the former kings as family.”68

周公乃爲三坦(壇)同 (墠)，爲一坦(壇)於南方，周公立 (焉)，秉璧 (植) 珪。 The Duke of Zhou then made three elevated platforms on the same leveled ground.69 He made one elevated platform on the southern side [of the leveled ground], and the Duke of Zhou stood on it, holding a bi-disc and a gui-tablet.70

史乃册【Slip 3】祝，告先王曰：「尔(爾)元孫癹(發)也， (遘) (害) (虐) 疾，尔(爾)母(毋)乃有備子之責才(在)上。隹(惟)尔(爾)元孫癹(發)也，【Slip 4】不若但(旦)也，是年(佞)若丂(巧)能，多 (才)多埶(藝)，能事 (鬼)神，命于帝 (庭)，尃 (溥)又(有)四方，㠯(以)奠(定)尔(爾)子【Slip 5】孫于下 (地)。尔 (爾)之 (許)我，我則 (厭)璧與珪；尔不我 (許)，我乃㠯(以)璧與珪 (歸)。 The shi-official then made an invocation based on a written document71 and beseeched the former kings, saying: “Your first-born grandson Fa has met with a terrible disease.72 Is it not that you above have demand for your additional son [to jian Jinteng jiaodu” 清華簡金縢校讀, at http://www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1370 (accessed 5/22/2016). 67) Erya 爾雅 glosses gao 告 as “beseech, request” (qing 請). SJ specifies the “two Dukes” as Tai gong 太公 and Shao gong 召公, i.e. the minister Jiang Ziya 姜子牙 and King Wu’s younger half-brother and Grand Protector Ji Shi 姬奭. Liu Qiyu follows Qing scholars in taking mubu 穆卜 to be a technical term regarding divination. The common gloss of 穆 as “respectful” (jing 敬) or “harmonious” (mu 睦) adds no relevant information in this case. See Liu Qiyu, Shangshu jiaoshi yilun, 1225. 68) The character is transcribed as qi 慼, corresponding to qi 戚 in SS and SJ. The Kong Anguo commentary quoted in the SJJJ reads 戚 as a verb “to approach” (jin 近), while Zheng Xuan’s gloss reads 戚 as the verb “to worry” (you 憂). Zheng’s gloss coincides with SWJZ glossing qi 慽 as “sorrow, worry” (憂). Liao Mingchun reads 戚 as a variant of chu 俶, meaning “to move” (dong 動) in the sense that a mu-divination would not be sufficient to “move” the hearts of the former kings (只憑 “穆卜”，不可能打動我們的先王). I think that 戚 here is better understood in its common meaning of the putative verb “to regard as family, to associate closely with.” 69) Regarding glosses on tan 坦 and shan 墠, see e.g. Chen Minzhen’s note on this passage in “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi” 清華簡金縢集釋, at http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow. asp?Src_ID=1658 (accessed 5/22/2016). 70) I follow Song Huaqiang’s suggestion that bing 秉 and zhi 植, which appear in switched positions in SS, may be regarded as synonymous in this case. See Song Huaqiang, “Qinghua jian Jinteng jiaodu.” 71) The shi 史 here was probably a high ranking ritual specialist in charge of written documents, with the invocation of which as one of his primary responsibilities. See Martin Kern, “Offices of Writing and Reading in the Rituals of Zhou,” in Statecraft and Classical Learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History, ed. Benjamin A. Elman and Martin Kern (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 64-93. 72) I am not competent to deal with the palaeographical problems of transcribing this line,

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 318 Ribbing Gren

take his place in the ancestral line]?73 Your first-born grandson Fa is not the equal of [me,] Dan, that is, in being good and compliant, clever and capable,74 talented and skilled, able to serve the spirits, and of being mandated in the [Heavenly] emperor’s court to possess the four quarters and settle your sons and grandsons down here on earth.75 If you accept me [as his successor] I will present you with this bi- disc and gui-tablet.76 If you do not accept me, I return with this bi-disc and gui- tablet.”

周公乃內(納)亓(其)【Slip 6】所爲 (功)，自㠯(以)弋(代)王之敚，于金 (縢) 之匱，乃命執事人曰：「勿敢言。」 The Duke of Zhou then put into the metal-bound coffer his written prayer that, based on his achievements, he replace the king.77 He then ordered the servicemen, saying: “Do not dare to speak of this!”

(就)蒥(後)，武王力(陟)， (成)王由【Slip 7】 (幼)才(在)立(位)，官(管)弔 (叔)﨤(及)亓(其)羣兄俤(弟)乃流言于邦，曰：「公蟻(將)不利於需(孺)子。」 Later, King Wu died.78 Because King Cheng was young in the position [of ruler], Guan Shu and his various brothers spread rumors in the capital, saying: “The Duke will not be beneficial to the young child.”79 but I follow the transcription gou hai nüe ji 遘害虐疾 and interpret it in a general way as translated above. 73) See discussion above. 74) Liao Mingchun has suggested that the character shi 是 here implies a cause-and-effect relationship (相當於 “因為”), but provides no supporting early textual parallels. Song Hua qiang thinks that 是 is a variant of shi 寔 in the sense of “truly, indeed” (shi 實). I take 是 as introducing further explanation to what precedes it. I am unsure how to interpret the words nian ruo qiao neng 年若巧能; my translation follows Karlgren, “The Book of Documents,” 35. See Liao Mingchun, “Qinghua jian Jinteng bushi”; and Song Huaqiang, “Qinghua jian Jinteng jiaodu.” 75) The received “Jinteng” suggests that King Wu should be the subject of this passage ming yu di ting 命于帝庭, and Liao Mingchun (“Qinghua jian yu Shangshu yanjiu”) has pointed out that from this perspective, the manuscript version is “illogical” (邏輯混亂). The manuscript version, however, is straightforward if we assume that the whole passage following 是 and ending with xia di 下地 refers to the Duke of Zhou. 76) has been identified in other manuscripts as the character yan 厭. Accepting that identification for the “Jinteng” manuscript, Song Huaqiang has argued that 厭 *ʔem is a graphic variant of gan 贛 *komʔ, glossed as “to give” (ci 賜) (SWJZ). He further demonstrates that 贛 appears with this meaning in bronze inscriptions. See Xu Zaiguo 徐在國 “Xincai Geling Chu jian zhaji (er)” 新蔡葛陵楚簡札記 (二), at http://www.jianbo.org/showarticle.asp?arti cleid=813 (accessed 5/22/2016); and Song Huaqiang, “Qinghua jian Jinteng jiaodu.” 77) See discussion above. 78) No consensus exists over how exactly to explain the character li 力 here, but scholars agree that it must mean “to die.” 79) The Qinghua editors take you 由 as “still, yet” (you 猶). I read it in conjunction with nai 乃 in the following clause as “because … so …” According to SJ, Guan Shu was the third son

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access The Qinghua “Jinteng” Manuscript 319

周公乃告二公曰：「我之【Slip 8】□□□□亡(無)㠯(以) (復)見於先王。」周公石東三年，囔(禍)人乃斯ୁ(得)。於蒥(後)，周公乃 (遺)王志(詩)，【Slip 9】曰《周(鴟)鴞》。王亦未逆公。 The Duke of Zhou then told the two Dukes: I … have nothing with which to face again the former kings.80 The Duke of Zhou went east for three years, and the trou- blemakers were then apprehended. Later, the Duke of Zhou left to the King a song called “Zhouxiao.”81 But the King did not welcome the Duke.82

是 (歲)也， (萩—秋)大䈞(熟)，未 (穫)。天疾風㠯(以)靁(雷)，禾斯妟 (偃)，大木斯 (拔)。邦人【Slip 10】□□□□覍(弁)，夫〓(大夫) (綴—端)，㠯(以)⼄(啓)金 (縢)之匱。 That year the autumn crops were greatly abundant, but there was no harvest. In the sky there were fierce winds and lightning. The crops were all bent down, and large trees were all uprooted.83 The men of the state … caps, the officials in black robes, and thus opened the metal-bound coffer.84

王ୁ(得)周公之所自㠯(以)爲 (功)，㠯(以)弋(代)武王之敚。王斞(問)執【 Slip 11】事人，曰：「信，殹公命我勿敢言。」王捕(搏)箸(書)㠯(以) (泣)，曰：「昔公堇(勤) (勞)王 (家)，隹(惟)余 (沈—沖)人亦弗﨤(及)【Slip 12】智

of King Wen’s primary wife, younger than King Wu but older than the Duke of Zhou. 80) The bamboo slip here lacks what seems to have been four characters. The received “Jin- teng” has the three characters fu pi wo 弗辟我. The pseudo-Kong Anguo commentary and SWJZ both gloss 辟 as “subdue by law” (fa 法). Ma Rong and Zheng Xuan both gloss 辟 as “withdraw, avoid” (bi 避). This is related to the commentarial debate mentioned above over whether the Duke of Zhou led a military expedition to subdue a political revolt in the old Shang territories, or went into self-chosen exile. 81) Scholars generally agree that zhou 周 *tiw is a graphical variant of chi 鴟 *thij, and that 周鴞 corresponds to Mao ode no. 155. 82) For ni 逆, received texts have the variants qiao 誚 (SS), xun 訓 (S), and rang 讓 (pseudo- Kong Anguo commentary). The meaning of the manuscript character 逆 here is ambiguous, as it carries two meanings based on the same word stem, either as “go to meet, welcome” or as “go out against, reproach.” Chen Jian 陳劍 reads the character in its positive sense as “welcome, accept,” and further suggests from a palaeographical perspective how the various variants might have come about. I agree, assuming that the reading of 逆 here should be consistent with that of the same character in the following passages “I, the young one, wish to personally welcome the Duke” (wei yu chongren qi qin ni gong 惟余沖人其親逆公) and “the King then went to welcome the Duke” (wang nai chu ni gong 王乃出逆公). See Chen Jian’s post (1/9/2011) under “Qinghua jian Jinteng yandu zhaji” 清華簡金縢研讀札記, at http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1344 (accessed 5/22/2016). 83) The character si 斯 is commonly glossed “all, completely” (jin 盡) in early texts. See Chen Minzhen et al., “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi,” 58. 84) The manuscript appears to lack four characters due to a broken slip. The reading of as duan 端 in the sense of “black ritual robes” (xuanduan 玄端) follows Chen Jian’s post under “Qinghua jian Jinteng yandu zhaji.”

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access 320 Ribbing Gren

(知)。今皇天 (動)鬼，㠯(以)章(彰)公悳(德)。隹(惟)余 (沈—沖)人亓(其) (親)逆公，我邦 (家)豊(禮)亦宜之。」王乃出逆公【Slip 13】至鄗(郊)。 The King obtained the Duke of Zhou’s written prayer that, based on what he regarded as his achievements, he replace King Wu.85 The king asked the servicemen, who said: “That is true, but the Duke ordered us not to dare speak about it.”86 The King, sobbing, grasped the document.87 He said: “Formerly the Duke worked dili- gently for the royal family, but I, the young one, did not know about it! Now August Heaven is moving the spirits to make manifest the Duke’s virtue.88 I, the young one, wish to personally welcome the Duke, and to do so is also in accord with the rituals of our state.89 The king then went to welcome the Duke, as far as the suburb.

是夕，天反風，禾斯 (起)▃， (凡)大木 (之所) (拔)，二公命邦人 (盡) (復) (築)之▃。 (歲)大又(有)年， (萩—秋)【Slip 14】則大 (穫)┗。 That evening, Heaven turned the winds around, and the crops all rose up. As for the large trees that had been uprooted, the two Dukes [Jiang Ziya and Ji Shi] ordered the men of the state to plant them all again. The year was greatly prosperous, and the autumn brought a great harvest.

85) See discussion above. 86) As several scholars have pointed out, the character yi 殹 should be interpreted in the same way as the received variant yi 噫, which Wang Niansun read as a graphic variant of yi 抑 in the sense “however, but.” See Wang Yinzhi, Jingzhuan shici 經傳釋詞 (Hunan: Yuelu shushe, 1982), 67. 87) The Qinghua editors read bu 捕 as “spread out” (bu 布), but various possibilities have been suggested for taking 捕 in the sense of “to hold, grasp.” See the Fudan University reading group’s “Qinghua jian Jinteng zhaji”; and Song Huaqiang’s comment as quoted in Chen Minzhen et al., “Qinghua jian Jinteng jishi,” 65-66. 88) The character gui 鬼 *k-ʔujʔ could be taken as a graphic variant of either wei 畏 *ʔuj-s or wei 威 *ʔuj in the sense of “awe-inspiring,” but I do not see the point of such a substitution. 89) The interpretation of this passage is closely related to the modern script vs. ancient script commentarial debate mentioned above. On the various commentarial positions, see e.g. Karlgren, Glosses on the Book of Documents (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiqui- ties, 1970), 257-58 (no. 1583).

T’oung Pao 102-4-5 (2016) 291-320

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:03:01PM via free access