Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:56:39.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A SELF-REFLEXIVE PRAXIS: CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARDS MANUSCRIPT AND TEXT IN EARLY CHINA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2019

Rens Krijgsman
Rens Krijgsman*
Affiliation:
Rens Krijgsman, 武致知, Specially Appointed Research Fellow (Associate Professor) at the Center of Bamboo and Silk Manuscripts, School of History, Wuhan University; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the attitudes of Warring States textual witnesses to the increase in presence of and reliance on bamboo manuscripts in communicating knowledge. Based on a rereading of transmitted materials and four manuscript texts (*Wuwang Jianzuo A and B, *Baoxun, and the Zhou Wuwang you ji) from the Warring States period, I analyze how contemporaries dealt with questions about the status of (manuscript) texts, their use and transmission, their trustworthiness, and their ability to preserve knowledge. These are texts that talk about themselves. They remark upon the physicality of text and the act of writing, the problem of oral and written transmission, and the differences in the ability of memory and manuscripts to store, hide, and reveal knowledge. I argue that these different reflections reveal a change in the predominant medium of communicating knowledge towards an increased reliance on bamboo manuscripts gradually and partially replacing traditional knowledge practices.

提要

本文探討戰國時期文本對寫本廣泛使用的反思。基於重讀傳世文獻和四篇出土文獻（分別為：上博簡《武王踐祚》甲、乙本，清華簡《寶訓》和《周武王有疾周公所自以代王之志》），本文討論戰國時期人如何看待寫本和文本的地位、它們保存信息的功能和可信度，以及寫本的使用與流傳、傳授。這些文本的特點呈現在“自我反思”。它們的內容正是講述自己作為寫本的物質性、書寫、口頭和書寫傳授的問題，以及記憶和寫本在保存、隱藏和傳達信息能力上的區別。我認為這些“反思”呈現了傳達信息的主要媒體的轉變：從傳統意義下的知識實踐到逐漸依賴寫本載體。

Keywords

Manuscripttextmaterialityoralitytransmission寫本文本物質性口頭傳授流傳
Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 42 , 2019 , pp. 75 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was made possible with funding from the junior project “Studies in Manuscript Cultures: Excavated Materials from Chu” of the Wuhan University Independent Research Fund (Humanities and Social Sciences), no. 413000025, supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities”; and the start-up project “Manuscript Culture Studies of the Chu Bamboo Manuscripts” supported by the Wuhan University Talent Program: ‘18 Talent team development start-up fund, no. 413100017. I am indebted to Joachim Gentz, Lisa Indraccolo, and You Yifei for generously giving me the opportunity to present some of the ideas in this article. I would also like to thank Yuan Ai, Yegor Grebnyev, Barend ter Haar, Dirk Meyer, Michael Schapers, and the two Early China reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

1. The term manuscript culture was popularized by McLuhan, Marshall, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962)Google Scholar, who used it to distinguish a phase in media development prior to print culture. Currently the term is used to denote a sensitivity to difference in issues of authorship, importance of paratextual and other material features of the manuscript, the problem of critical editions, issues of intertextuality, etc., in a configuration of new approaches to pre-print materials including, for instance, the new philology, Nichols, Stephen G., “Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture,” Speculum 65.1 (1990), 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; scribal culture, van der Toorn, Karel, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; and textual anthropology, Hilgert, Markus, “‘Text-Anthopologie’: Die Erforschung von Materialität und Präsenz des Geschriebenen als hermeneutische Strategie,” in Altorientalistik im 21. Jahrhundert: Selbstverständnis, Herausforderungen, Ziele. Beiträge zur altorientalischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 1, ed. Hilgert, Markus (Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, 2010)Google Scholar. For its use in early China studies see especially Meyer, Dirk, Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of Meaning in Early China (Leiden: Brill, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richter, Matthias L., The Embodied Text: Establishing Textual Identity in Early Chinese Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nylan, Michael, Yang Xiong and the Pleasures of Reading and Classical Learning in China (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2011)Google Scholar; and Galambos, Imre, Orthography of Early Chinese Writing: Evidence from Newly Excavated Manuscripts (490–221 BC) (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, 2006)Google Scholar. For early medieval China see Nugent, Christopher, Manifest in Words, Written on Paper: Producing and Circulating Poetry in Tang Dynasty China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Xiaofei, Tian, Tao Yuanming and Manuscript Culture: The Record of a Dusty Table (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2013)Google Scholar; and Yongquan, Zhang 張涌泉, Dunhuang xieben wenxian xue 敦煌寫本文獻學 (Lanzhou: Gansu jiaoyu, 2013)Google Scholar.

2. Longxi, Zhang, The Tao and the Logos: Literary Hermeneutics, East and West (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992), chap. 1Google Scholar; Olson, David R., The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), chap. 6Google Scholar.

3. Lewis, Mark Edward, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1999)Google Scholar; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, chap. 2.

4. Clanchy, Michael T., From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307, 3rd ed. (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), chap. 9Google Scholar; Thomas, Rosalind, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, chap. 5; Carr, David M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.

6. Olson, The World on Paper, chaps. 5, 6; Goody, Jack, The Power of the Written Tradition (Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institute Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Ong, Walter J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London: Methuen, 1982), 93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Goldin, Paul R., “Heng Xian and the Problem of Studying Looted Artifacts,” Dao 12 (2013), 153–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an overview of forged manuscripts and for ways of authenticating material, see also Hu Pingsheng 胡平生, “Jianbo bianwei tongli” 簡帛辨偽通例, paper presented at the 2008 International Forum on Bamboo and Silk Documents, Chicago, 2008 (http://cccp.uchicago.edu/archive/2008_IFBSD/Hu_Pingsheng_2008_IFBSD.pdf), accessed on Feb. 25, 2016. From an ethical point of view, the discussion as it has taken place in particularly North America is rather different from the one held in China, where, as also mentioned by Goldin, the focus lies on repatriation of national treasures rather than on the issue of stimulating further looting. While I share Goldin’s concerns, I also believe that not studying and preserving the materials would amount to further destruction of cultural heritage (as tomb robbery obviously entails). Another often-heard and related complaint suggesting that the resources allocated to the study of looted artifacts could be better directed at the study of the dozens of excavated manuscripts that have been decaying in less well funded and staffed institutions, while true in spirit, sadly does not account for the actual process of the allocation of funding and people, let alone the politics of preservation and publication rights.

8. For example, the excavation context of the two *Wuwang jianzuo manuscripts would be invaluable in assessing possible missing slips and the exact relationship between the material and other manuscripts thought to be related physically.

9. On the authentication processes of these two collections see Yuanqing, Zhu 朱淵清, “Ma Chengyuan xiansheng tan Shangbo jian” 馬承源先生談上博簡, in Shangboguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu yanjiu 上博館藏戰國楚竹書研究, ed. Yuanqing, Zhu (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 2002), 1–8Google Scholar; and Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Qinghua jian zhengli gongzuo de di yi nian” 清華簡整理工作的第一年, Qinghua daxue xuebao 清華大學學報 5 (2009), 5–6Google Scholar, respectively.

10. See for example Yuchen, Shan 單育辰, “You Qinghua jian shijie guwenzi yi li” 由清華簡釋解古文字一例, Shixue jikan 史學集刊 3 (2012), 96–98Google Scholar. For lines and numbers on the back of the Qinghua manuscripts see Peiyang, Sun 孫沛陽, “Jiance bei huaxian chutan” 簡冊背劃綫初探, Chutu wenxian yu gu wenzi yanjiu 出土文獻與古文字研究 4 (2011), 449–62Google Scholar. Some of the Guodian manuscripts had similar features at the time of excavation, but these were lost in preservation and had been all but forgotten.

11. See for example, Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo and Richter, The Embodied Text.

12. For an overview in English of the finds and their geographical distribution, see Giele, Enno, “Early Chinese Manuscripts: Including Addenda and Corrigenda to New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts,” Early China, 23–24 (1998–1999), 247–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the presence of non-Chu characteristics in manuscripts excavated from the Chu region, indicating a much wider spread of manuscripts during the Warring States period than is reflected in the archaeological distribution of the finds, see Bo, Zhou 周波, Zhanguo shidai gexi wenzi jian de yongzi chayi xianxiang yanjiu 戰國時代各系文字間的用字差異現象研究 (Shanghai: Xianzhuang, 2012)Google Scholar; and Venture, Oliver, “Looking for Chu People’s Writing Habits,” Asiatische Studien 63.4 (2009), 943–58Google Scholar. For general considerations on writing and materiality in early China, see Hsiun, Tsien Tsuen, Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and Inscriptions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

13. The Chu region, roughly spanning modern Hubei and Hunan provinces, is marked by wet soil conditions that tend to water-lock tombs, and as a result of this oxygen-free environment manuscripts tend to be preserved more easily. On changes in mortuary culture see von Falkenhausen, Lothar, “Social Ranking in Chu Tombs: The Mortuary Background of the Warring States Manuscript Finds,” Monumenta Serica 51 (2003), 439–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kalinowski, Marc, “Bibliothèques et archives funéraires de la Chine ancienne,” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 147.2 (2003), 880–927Google Scholar. For its relation to manuscripts in particular see the excellent discussion in Thote, Alain, “Daybooks in Archaeological Context,” in Books of Fate and Popular Culture in Early China: The Daybook Manuscripts of the Warring States, Qin, and Han, ed. Harper, Donald and Kalinowski, Marc (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 11–56Google Scholar. For a discussion of the status of manuscripts as burial items see Giele, Enno, “Using Early Chinese Manuscripts as Historical Source Materials,” Monumenta Serica 51 (2003), 409–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. For the growing literature on scribes in early China see Selbitschka, Armin, “‘I Write, Therefore I Am’: Scribes, Literacy and Identity in Early China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 78.2 (forthcoming)Google Scholar; Wing, Ma Tsang, “Scribes, Assistants, and the Materiality of Administrative Documents in Qin-Early Han China: Excavated Evidence from Liye, Shuihudi, and Zhangjiashan,” T’oung Pao 103.4–5 (2017), 297–333Google Scholar; Barbieri-Low, Anthony and Yates, Robin, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb No. 247 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1084–1111Google Scholar; Richter, Matthias L., “Textual Identity and the Role of Literacy in the Transmission of Early Chinese Literature,” in Writing and Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar, ed. Feng, Li and Prager, David Branner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 206–36Google Scholar; and I-tien, Hsing 邢義田, “Handai Cangjie, Jijiu, bati he shishu wenti” 漢代《倉頡》、《急就》、八體和史書文體, in Guwenzi yu gudai shi di er ji 古文字與古代史第二輯, ed. Zongkun, Li 李宗焜 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiu yuan lishi yuyan yanjiu suo, 2009), 429–68Google Scholar.

15. Behr, Wolfgang and Fuehrer, Bernhard, “Einführende Notizen zum Lesen in China mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frühzeit,” in Aspekte des Lesens in China in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, ed. Fuehrer, Bernard (Bochum: Projekt, 2005), 14Google Scholar, with the only exception of 念 in the meaning of “remembering.”

16. Behr and Fuehrer, “Einführende Notizen zum Lesen,” 13. Kern’s study on the perception of writing in the Western Zhou slightly augments this picture. He argues that, besides meaning “document,” the word ce 冊 refers to the act of pronouncing a written document rather than designating the verbal “to write”; see Kern, Martin, “The Performance of Writing in Western Zhou China,” in The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign, ed. Porta, S. La and Shulman, D. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 152–57Google Scholar. An updated analysis of these terms, in addition to the verbal and nominal use of shu 書 “to write—writing” and other terms related to text use, for excavated materials published since Behr and Fuehrer’s 2005 study, confirms this picture and further shows that the presence of references to written documents increased particularly in legal and administrative materials from the early empires; see Rens Krijgsman, “The Rise of a Manuscript Culture and the Textualization of Discourse in Early China” (D.Phil thesis, Oxford University, 2017,), chap. 1.

17. Krijgsman, Rens, “An Inquiry into the Formation of Readership in Early China: Using and Producing the *“Yong Yue” 用曰 and Yinshu 引書 Manuscripts,” T’oung Pao 104.1–3 (2018), 2–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Bagley, Robert, “Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System,” in The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, ed. Houston, Stephen D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 218Google Scholar.

19. See Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo, chap. 7; Meyer, Dirk, “Bamboo and the Production of Philosophy: A Hypothesis about a Shift in Writing and Thought in Early China,” in History and Material Culture in Asian Religions, ed. Fleming, Benjamin J. and Mann, Richard (London: Routledge, 2014), 21–38Google Scholar; Kern, Martin, “Methodological Reflections on the Analysis of Textual Variants and the Modes of Manuscript Production in Early China,” Journal of East Asian Archaeology 4.1–4 (2002), 143–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lewis, Writing and Authority, 89, who hints at this shift: “The Mencius also offers the first theory on the reading of poetry … These uses of quotation and a theory of reading indicate the increasing importance of written documents in the educational practices of the day.” See also Richter, The Embodied Text; Nylan, Michael, “Toward an Archaeology of Writing, Ritual, and Public Display in the Classical Period (475 b.c.e.–220 c.e.),” in Text and Ritual in Early China, ed. Kern, Martin (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005), 3–49Google Scholar; and Ling, Li 李零, Jianbo gushu yu xueshu yuanliu 簡帛古書與學術源流 (Beijing: Sanlian, 2004)Google Scholar.

20. See also Cho-yun, Hsu, Ancient China in Transition: An Analysis of Social Mobility, 722–222 B.C. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1965)Google Scholar for the socio-economical changes behind these shifts.

21. Lewis, Writing and Authority, 5 and chap. 2.

22. On the inadequacies of language and writing in particular, see Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos, 17–22 and 134–35.

23. My understanding of such transitions is informed by theorists of orality and literacy such as Finnegan, Ruth, Orality and Literacy: Studies in the Technology of Communication (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988)Google Scholar; Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece; Ong, Orality and Literacy; Rubin, David C., Memory in Oral Traditions: the Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Olson, The World on Paper; and Goody, The Power of the Written Tradition, among others.

24. Compare for instance Loprieno, Anthony, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms (Leiden: Brill, 1996)Google Scholar on ancient Egypt; and van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, on the Levant.

25. Thomas, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, 12–14; Havelock, Eric, Preface to Plato (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

26. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, 255, 295.

27. Ong, Orality and Literacy, 5–10; Goody, The Power of the Written Tradition, chap. 1, but note critiques to some of their overly teleological arguments in Finnegan, Literacy and Orality: Studies, 37ff.

28. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, chap. 1; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, chap. 1; see also Armin Selbitschka, “‘I Write, Therefore I Am’” for early China.

29. An analysis of the later editions lies outside the scope of this study, it is noteworthy that these seem to combine elements from the two *Wuwang jianzuo texts studied here and feature a further increase in the emphasis on the written word.

30. For this character see Allan, Sarah, “The Identities of Taigong Wang 太公望 in Zhou and Han Literature,” Monumenta Serica 30 (1972–73), 57–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Chengyuan, Ma 馬承源 ed., Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 7 上海博物館藏楚竹書(7) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008), 149–68Google Scholar.

32. That is, if the length of the transmitted text is considered to be a useful indication.

33. The Da Dai Liji rendition of the story is indeed furnished with such a double frame. Space left for a missing graph on the first slip of *Wuwang jianzuo B before the opening “King Wu” further suggests that this might have been the case.

34. See Songru, Li 李松儒, Zhanguo jianbo ziji yanjiu—yi Shangbojian wei zhongxin 戰國簡帛字字跡研究—以上博簡為中心 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2015), 235–42Google Scholar. Note that the fact that each of the 15 slips of the *Wuwang jianzuo is broken at the top makes it difficult to assert manuscript affiliation, the overlap in script and the same position for the binding cords make it highly likely.

35. Daniel Morgan, “A Positive Case for the Visuality of Texts in Warring States Manuscript Culture,” paper presented at the conference “The Rise of Writing,” University of Chicago, 15–16 October 2011.

36. This edition is based on Ma Chengyuan, ed., Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 7, 149–68, and incorporates changes suggested by Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin yanjiusheng dushuhui 復旦大學出土文獻與古文字研究中心研究生讀書會, “Shangbo qi Wuwang jianzuo jiaodu” 上博七·武王踐阼校讀, Dec. 30, 2008 (www.guwenzi.com/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=576), accessed on Feb. 28, 2016. I directly transcribe the text in modern orthography except where my reading differs. Reconstructions of ancient Chinese follow Baxter, William H. and Sagart, Laurent, Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. The 而 is wedged in between the graphs and a later addition, see the discussion above.

38. The Cinnabar document refers to a legendary document that was carried by red birds 赤鳥 to a variety of rulers, including king Wen. See Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin yanjiusheng dushuhui, “Shangbo qi Wuwang jianzuo jiaodu,” n. 3 for other early sources.

39. In reading zhai 齋, I follow Liu Hongtao 劉洪濤, “Shi Shangbo zhushu Wuwang jianzuo de “zhai” zi” 釋上博竹書武王踐阼的“齋”字, May 5, 2009 (www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=744), accessed on Feb. 28, 2016.

40. The Liji, “Xueji” has: “The ritual of great learning is such that even when you are summoned to the emperor you do not face north, this is to show respect for teachers.” 大學之禮，雖詔於天子，無北面，所以尊師也. Quoted from Da Dai Liji jiegu 大戴禮記解詁, ed. Wang Pinzhen 王聘珍 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1963), 104. But the commentary also notes that the “Wuwang Jianzuo” places the king in the guest, and Shi Shangfu in the host position, rather than in a student–teacher configuration.

41. Fukuda Tetsuyuki 福田哲之, “Shangbo qi Wuwang jianzuo jian 6, jian 8 jianshou quezi shuo” 上博七·武王踐阼簡6、簡 8 簡首缺字說, Mar. 24, 2009 (www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1007), accessed on Feb. 28, 2016, argues that there is a graph missing here, and he suggests supplementing 箸（書） ‘to write’ on the basis of possible parallelism with the Da Dai Liji version. While I agree that a graph is missing here, a choice of 戒 “to admonish” works better in this context, as it avoids the awkward collocation of two instrumental verbs. The Da Dai Liji version indeed splits this line into two sentences: “退而為戒書, 於席之四端為銘焉.”

42. Note the discussion in Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin yanjiusheng dushuhui, “Shangbo qi Wuwang jianzuo jiaodu,” n. 12 on this problematic sentence. Zhi 志 is “corrected” to wang 忘 in later versions, but rhyme and paleography exclude this reading. They add a bu 不 which they suspect might have been lost in transmission. Despite these problems, my translation follows the bamboo.

43. For an analysis of these sayings, see Krijgsman, Rens, “Traveling Sayings as Carriers of Philosophical Debate: From the Intertextuality of the *Yucong 語叢 to the Dynamics of Cultural Memory and Authorship in Early China,” Asiatische Studien 68.1 (2014), 83–115Google Scholar.

44. Compare the discussion on covenants sealed in blood in Mark Lewis, Edward, Sanctioned Violence in Early China (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1990), 44–6Google Scholar.

45. Note that the crucial term repeated in this saying is “preservation” (shou 守).

46. For example, admonishments on the need to look back when thinking ahead are written on a mirror, a warning not to drown in the affairs of the world are written on a washbasin, etc.

47. The materiality of knowledge is preserved in the Da Dai Liji text as well, in addition to amplifying the scene wherein King Wu inscribes his furniture. The transmitted text also incorporates elements from the frame and the saying from text B.

48. Following Shen Pei 沈培, “Shangbo qi canzi bianshi liang ze” 上博七殘字辨識兩則, Jan. 2, 2009 (www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=598), accessed on Feb. 28, 2016.

49. The exact workings of the marks here are unclear, certain rhymes are not marked and others are marked double. Possibly, it marks a specific type of presentation taking into account rhyme, breaks, and stresses. Thus, while the sayings might be presented for a specific type of oral delivery, the particular way of presentation would need to be learned separately.

50. In this text, the shift in position is merely stated. While this presents the basic kernel of the story, it does not develop this dynamic to the extent of text A, which, by emphasizing the shift into host–guest positions highlights the ritualized dynamic of presenting a material object.

51. It is interesting to note here that the core message on the proper, enduring rule is articulated differently in both texts. Where text B focusses on the need for “respect” (jing 敬) in its development of the rhymed saying, text A highlights instead the need for “preservation” (shou 守), a quality embodied by the Cinnabar Document.

52. As coined by McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy.

53. Krijgsman, Rens, “Cultural Memory and Excavated Anecdotes in ‘Documentary’ Narrative: Mediating Generic Tension in the Baoxun Manuscript,” in Between History and Philosophy: Anecdotes in Early China, ed. van Els, Paul and Queen, Sarah (New York: SUNY, 2017), 313Google Scholar.

54. Mozi jiangu 墨子間詁, ed. Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001), 4.120–121 (“Jian’ai Xia” 兼愛下), translations of the Mozi adapted from Mei, W. P., The Ethical and Political Works of Motse (London: Arthur Probsthain, 1929)Google Scholar. Note that sayings containing “written on bamboo and silk” 著於竹帛 occur across the Mozi and are a standard trope within the collection to talk about wisdom and folly transmitted from the past. The saying is encapsulated in different comments revealing the perceived functionality of written documents, such as the ability to approximate the ancient kings through space and time, as in this passage, or the ability to preserve material about the past such as in Mozi jiangu, 9.280–281 (“Feiming Xia” 非命下): 是以書之竹帛，鏤之金石，琢之盤盂，傳遺後世子孫。曰何書焉存？禹之總德有之曰： … ？仲虺之告曰：“This is why they wrote it on bamboo and silk, carved it in bronze and stone, and chiseled it on plates and beakers, passing it on to their sons and grandsons. What writings are preserved thereon, you say? There is ‘Yu’s Comprehensive De’, which reads … There is the ‘Announcement of Zhonghui’, which reads …” On this, and other recurring sayings in the Mozi text as evidence of stratified transcription, see Defoort, Carine and Standaert, Nicolas, eds., The Mozi as an Evolving Text: Different Voices in Early Chinese Thought (Leiden: Brill, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Introduction.” On the use of writing and transmitted accounts as a means of authority and verification in Mozi regarding ghosts and spirits see in particular the discussion in Roel Sterckx, “Mozi 31: Explaining Ghosts, Again,” in The Mozi as an Evolving Text, 101–3.

55. Note that in Mozi jiangu, 7.216–217 (“Tianzhi Xia” 天志下), for example, the same formula is used in order to present a narrative about how the sages preserved in writing the faults of rulers of the past. See here also Mozi jiangu, 6. 237–238 (“Minggui Xia” 明鬼下) which contains a form of the saying that presents an awareness that bamboo manuscripts tend to rot and decay as opposed to other media: 故書之竹帛，傳遺後世子孫；咸恐其腐蠹絕滅，後世子孫不得而記，故琢之盤盂，鏤之金石，以重之；有恐後世子孫不能敬莙以取羊，故先王之書，聖人一尺之帛，一篇之書，語數鬼神之有也，重有重之. “Thus when they wrote it on bamboo and silk, to pass it on to their sons and grandsons, they all feared that the [manuscripts] would rot, decay, and perish, so that their sons and grandsons would not obtain and remember them. Thus they also chiseled it on plates and beakers, and carved it into bronze and stone, to double (copy) it. They also feared that their sons and grandsons would not be able to respect in awe so as to gain favor [of the spirits]. Thus all writings of the former kings, and even a foot of silk and a bundle of writings of the sages whose words related the existence of ghosts and spirits, they doubled it and doubled it again.”

56. Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋, ed. Guo Qingfan 郭慶藩 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1961), 493–95 (“Tian dao” 天道), translations of the Zhuangzi modified from Watson, Burton, The Complete Works of Zhuangzi (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968)Google Scholar. See for example the discussions of these passages by Schwitzgebel and by Yearly in Kjellberg, Paul and Ivanhoe, Philip J., eds., Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi (New York: SUNY, 1996), 74–76, and 165Google Scholar respectively, and the discussion in Owen, Stephen, Readings in Chinese Literary Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Chen, Jack, “On the Act and Representation of Reading in Medieval China” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 129.1 (2009), 59Google Scholar.

57. In the passage preceding this anecdote the “sound” (sheng 聲) and “appearance” (se 色) referred to in the Mozi are likewise targeted as obstacles to true understanding, see Zhuangzi jishi, 492.

58. Zhuangzi jishi, 492.

59. For example, Shisan jing zhushu 十三經註疏, ed. Ruan Yuan 阮元 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1980), 7.82.C (“Xici Shang” 系辭上): 子曰：“書不盡言，言不盡意。然則聖人之意，其不可見乎。” (The Master said: “Writing does not fully express speech, and speech does not fully express meaning. How invisible then, is the meaning of the sages?”). Also see Mengzi zhushu 孟子注疏, in Shisan jing zhushu, 9A.2735 (“Wanzhang I” 萬章上): 咸丘蒙曰：“舜之不臣堯，則吾既得聞命矣。《詩》云：‘普天之下，莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣。’而舜既為天子矣，敢問瞽瞍之非臣，如何？”曰：“是詩也，非是之謂也；勞於王事，而不得養父母也。曰：‘此莫非王事，我獨賢勞也。’故說《詩》者，不以文害辭，不以辭害志。以意逆志，是為得之。如以辭而已矣，《雲漢》之詩曰：‘周餘黎民，靡有孑遺。’信斯言也，是周無遺民也。(Xian Qiumeng said: “On Shun’s not treating Yao as a minister, I have received your instructions. But it is said in the Odes: ‘Under the whole of heaven, Every spot is the sovereign’s ground; To the borders of the land, Every individual is the sovereign’s minister.’—and Shun had become sovereign. I venture to ask how it was that Gu Sou was not one of his ministers.” Mencius answered: “That Ode is not to be understood in that way—it speaks of being laboriously engaged in the sovereign’s business, so as not to be able to nourish one’s parents, it means: ‘This is all the sovereign’s business, and how is it that I alone am supposed to have ability, and am made to toil in it?’ Therefore, those who explain the Odes, may not insist on one term so as to do violence to a sentence, nor on a sentence so as to do violence to the general scope. They must try with their thoughts to meet that scope, and then we shall apprehend it. If we simply take single sentences, there is that in the Ode called ‘The Milky Way’,—‘Of the black-haired people of the remnant of Zhou, There is not half a one left.’ If it had been really as thus expressed, then not an individual of the people of Zhou would have been left.”) Translations of Mengzi modified from Legge, James, The Works of Mencius (New York: Dover Publications, 1970)Google Scholar. For readings of this passage see, for example, Lewis, Writing and Authority, 89; Mingdong, Gu, Chinese Theories of Reading and Writing: A Route to Hermeneutics and Open Poetics (Albany, NY: SUNY, 2005), 17–44Google Scholar; Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos, 134.

60. See here Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos, and Wagner, Rudolf G., A Chinese Reading of the Daodejing (Albany, NY: SUNY, 2003)Google Scholar. For my argument it is telling that in its many articulations the issue of writing is brought up as exemplifying the problem and could be seen as providing one of the main reasons for reflecting on the issue.

61. See here the discussion by the linguist Olson, The World on Paper, 115–42, writing on the massive increase in verbs in English describing types of speech acts. He understands this as an attempt to describe extratextual data in textual form, pointing to the inherent limitations of the medium. Olsen’s main thesis is that writing can only provide limited transcription of or an approach to oral communication, in that it elides a number of crucial features, including sound, (speech) rhythm and pause, gesture and expression, all of which can only be partially approached, but never fully replicated in writing. As a result, the written language has to come up with new words and signs to convey these aspects of pragmatic meaning to a reader.

62. Note here that the *Wuwang Jianzuo does not have King Wu read the text, but rather has it orally transmitted to him by a teacher-figure, thereby harkening back to a master–disciple dynamic perceived to be more traditional.

63. Xueqin, Li 李學勤, ed., Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (1) 清華大學藏戰國竹簡(壹) (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2010), 142–49Google Scholar (transcription). For an analysis of the genre markers in this text identifying it as belonging in the broad sphere of Shu type texts see Allan, Sarah, “On Shu 書 (Documents) and the Origin of the Shang shu 尚書 (Ancient Documents) in Light of Recently Discovered Bamboo Slip Manuscripts,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 75.3 (2012), 547–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Krijgsman, “Cultural Memory and Excavated Anecdotes in ‘Documentary’ Narrative.” The slips measure 28.5 cm in length and were bound by two threads, it is unclear whether this happened before or after writing took place. The slips are written from the very top, and at the end of each strip a space with the size of roughly one graph is left blank. Other than the usual repetition marks, the manuscript does not come with any punctuation and its ending is marked by leaving the remainder of the last bamboo strip blank. The manuscript is written in a uniform calligraphy likely from a single hand, the style of which is markedly different from the other texts in the collection.

64. Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (1), 142. Another reading is baoxun 保訓 or the “preserved instructions.”

65. For a different analysis of the structure of the *Baoxun in light of the “Gu ming” 顧命, see Meyer, Dirk, “Recontextualization and Memory Production: Debates on Rulership as Reconstructed from the Gu ming 顧命 (Testimonial Charge),” in Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), ed. Kern, Martin and Meyer, Dirk (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 106–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. See also, Harper, Donald, “The Sexual Arts of Ancient China as described in a Manuscript of the Second Century B.C.,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 47.2 (1987), 563–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for ritualized transmission in medical texts.

67. The edition in this section is based on Krijgsman, “Cultural Memory and Excavated Anecdotes in ‘Documentary’ Narrative.” For an extensive overview of the different graph readings and reconstructions up to June 20, 2011, see Chen Minzhen 陳民鎮 and Hu Kai 胡凱, “Qinghua jian Bao xun jishi” 清華簡《保訓》集釋, in Yantai daxue Zhongguo xueshu yanjiusuo yanjiusheng dushuhui Qinghua jian (yi) jishi 3 煙臺大學中國學術研究所研究生讀書會《清華簡（壹）集釋》第三篇, 2011 (www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/Web/Show/1654), accessed on Apr. 12, 2013.

68. For a discussion, see Allan, Sarah, Buried Ideas: Legends of Abdication and Ideal Government in Early Chinese Bamboo-Slip Manuscripts (New York: SUNY, 2015), 289–92Google Scholar.

69. Krijgsman, “Cultural Memory and Excavated Anecdotes in ‘Documentary’ Narrative,” 312–13.

70. Compare the use of this trope in later times to justify new textual traditions, for example the range of (in certain cases, putative) discoveries of old script texts during the Han which presented a way for Wang Mang to justify his rule, or the rediscovery of written text in the story of the ascension of the sixth patriarch of Chan Buddhism among others.

71. Lewis, Writing and Authority; Hsu, Ancient China in Transition.

72. See discussions in Shaughnessy, Edward L., Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1997), 101–36Google Scholar, and Meyer, Dirk, “The Art of Narrative and the Rhetoric of Persuasion in the ‘*Jīnténg’ (Metal Bound Casket) from the Qinghua Collection of Manuscripts,” Asiatische Studien 68.4 (2014), 937–88Google Scholar.

73. On the historicity of the narrative see Shaughnessy, Before Confucius, 137–64.

74. Creel, Herrlee G., The Origins of Statecraft in China, Vol. 1: The Western Chou Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 458Google Scholar.

75. For a thick description of the manuscript and an overview of different readings, see Meyer, “The Art of Narrative and the Rhetoric of Persuasion.” In this article I follow Meyer’s edition and translation, with minor modifications.

76. This reading is changed from Meyer, “The Art of Narrative and the Rhetoric of Persuasion,” which has yan 厭. I read jin 進 for the graph jin 晉 instead.

77. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, 256–62.

78. Already found in the Guodian *Yucong 語叢 1, slips 38–39.

79. Note that while the composition and storing of the document are contextualized in the story, the poem and the rumor are presented as is and are therefore not presented with a means of validating its contents.

80. Mozi jiangu, 7.216–217 (“Tianzhi Xia” 天志下).

81. Note also that the transmitted “Jinteng” includes a large episode on a divination conducted to verify the written text.

82. Mengzi zhushu, 14A.2773B (“Jinxin II” 盡心下). As becomes clear from the passage quoted at the end of this article (acknowledging access to the past through writing) and the passage on (mis-)reading Odes quoted in note 65 above, the Mengzi’s problem with written text centers on the room left for “correct” interpretation.

83. Krijgsman, “The Rise of a Manuscript Culture,” chap. 2.

84. Mozi jiangu, 7.197 (“Tianzhi Shang” 天志上). For a discussion of the role of Heaven in providing standards in the Mozi see Nicolas Standaert, “Heaven as Standard,” in The Mozi as an Evolving Text, 264–65.

85. See also Mozi jiangu, 12.445 (“Guiyi” 貴義) for a passage ridiculing the master for carrying cartloads of books.

86. Zhuangzi jishi, 1102 (“Tianxia” 天下).

87. By Graham, Angus C., Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (La Salle: Open Court, 1989)Google Scholar, for example.

88. Lewis, Writing and Authority, 80–82. See also the Han Feizi which is riddled with comments deriding the reliance on (old knowledge) as preserved in books and words, for example in the quote heading this article and in the “Yulao” 喻老 and “Liu Fan” 六反 chapters.

89. Zhuangzi jishi, 523 (“Pianmu” 駢拇): 臧與穀，二人相與牧羊，而俱亡其羊。問臧奚事，則挾筴讀書；問穀奚事，則博塞以遊。二人者，事業不同，其於亡羊均也。“The slave boy and the slave girl were out together herding their sheep, and both of them lost their flocks. Ask the slave boy how it happened: well, he had a bundle of writing slips and was reading some writings. Ask the slave girl how it happened: well, she was playing a game of Liu Bo. They went about their business in different ways, but in losing their sheep they were equal.”

90. Mengzi zhushu, 10B.2746B (“Wanzhang II” 萬章下).