Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:24:24.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Duke of Zhou's Retirement in the East and the Beginnings of the Ministerial-Monarch Debate in Chinese Political Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Edward L. Shaughnessy
Edward L. Shaughnessy*
Affiliation:
Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations University of Chicago , ChicagoIL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Virtually all Chinese historians, past and present, have viewed the Duke of Zhou as a paragon of the virtuous minister. However, in traditional Chinese sources concerning the Duke of Zhou there is also a distinct negative undercurrent, several texts recording that the Duke “resided in the east” in contexts implying that he went into a sort of exile. Given this ambivalence in the history and traditions regarding the Duke of Zhou, the author examines two chapters of the Book of Documents: the “Shao gao” or “Announcement of the Duke of Shao” and the “Jun Shi” or “Lord Shi.” He posits that these two chapters represent two sides of a debate over political theory and governance. The “Jun Shi,” a speech by the Duke of Zhou to the Duke of Shao, expounds a political theory that privileges ministers over kings. The “Shao gao,” on the other hand, is an address by the Duke of Shao to the Duke of Zhou in which the Duke of Shao resolutely supports the king's prerogative to rule as the “eldest son” of Heaven.

This debate between the Duke of Zhou and the Duke of Shao was but the first instance of a tension that would continue to occupy statesmen and political theorists throughout Chinese history: between the power of the king or emperor and that of his ministers. While, in later times, neither side was ever able long to maintain supremacy in this debate, in the early Western Zhou the Duke of Shao almost certainly prevailed; shortly after the Duke of Shao made the address contained in the “Shao gao,” the Duke of Zhou first relinquished power to King Cheng and then, somewhat later, went into exile or retreat, never again to play a central role in Western Zhou government.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 18 , 1993 , pp. 41 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1993

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.)

References

* This is a revised and expanded version of my “Zhougong ju dong xinshuo: Jianlun Shao gao Jun Shi zhuzuo beijing he yizhi” , in Xi-Zhou shi lunwenji , ed. Shaanxi Lishi bowuguan (Xi'an: Shaanxi Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe, 1993), 872–887 Google Scholar. This version was edited for Early China by David N. Keightley.

1. Analects 7/5. All translations in this paper are my own.

2. For a detailed substantiation of the chronology of the Western Zhou dynasty given here, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 217–287 Google Scholar.

3. In addition to the Duke of Zhou's frequent mention together with kings Wen and Wu in writings of various schools, his elevation can also be seen in the prominent role given him in such comprehensive works of political philosophy of the time as the Yi Zhou shu ; for a study of the Yi Zhou shu showing that its core chapters—those in which the Duke of Zhou figures most prominently—must have been composed toward the end of the fourth century B.C., see Peirong, Huang , “Zhou shu yanjiu” (Ph.D. diss.: National Taiwan University, 1976)Google Scholar.

4. For a concise survey of this notion in the various schools of the period, see Graham, A.C., Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 1989), 292–299 Google Scholar.

5. This point is made, for instance, in Jiegang, Gu , “Zhougong zhi zheng cheng wang—Zhougong dong zheng shishi kaozheng zhi er” , Wenshi 23(1984), 1–30 Google Scholar, especially 9–12. It is also acknowledged by Michael Loewe, who, on the basis of a survey of Han dynasty sources, concluded, “My impression remains that you have to wait for Wang Mang and Later Han before much attention is paid to Zhou Gong's qualities”; personal communication, 15 October 1991.

6. For the story of how the aging Han Wudi (r. 140–87 b.c.) presented to Huo Guang a picture of the Duke of Zhou supporting the young King Cheng (r. 1042/35–1006), implying that Huo was to serve as regent for the young Zhaodi (r. 86–74 b.c.), see Hanshu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962), 68.2932Google Scholar. For a similar illustration from the Eastern Han, see Powers, Martin J., Political Expression in Early China (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991)Google Scholar, 43 fig. 21, and for discussion, pp. 156–163.

7. For the text of this proclamation, generally referred to as the “Mang gao” , see Hanshu, 84.3428-3434.

8. The first explicit indication of this belief that the Duke of Zhou had ruled as “king” seems to be in Zheng Xuan's (127–200) commentary on the “Da gao” chapter of the Shangshu, where, at the first usage of the word wang , “king,” Zheng notes, “the ‘king’ is the Duke of Zhou; when the Duke of Zhou resided in command of the great affairs, he appropriated the title ‘king’”; quoted at Shangshu zhengyi (Sibu beiyao ed.), 13.9b.

9. See McMullen, David, State and Scholars in T’ang China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 33 Google Scholar. McMullen remarks that “in this way, the dynasty used the cult to maintain a difference in status between the imperial house, symbolized by the duke of Chou, and the officials and scholars, whose symbol and ideal was Confucius.”

10. Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801) was one of the first philosophers of history to elevate the Duke of Zhou over even Confucius; see Nivison, David S., The Life and Thought of Chang Hsüeh-ch'eng (1738–1807) (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966), 146–149 Google Scholar. At about the same time, many “Han Studies” commentators on the Shangshu, citing Zheng Xuan's “Da gao” gloss, argued that the Duke of Zhou was called king, and therefore was the author of most of the royal proclamations of the Shangshu; see, for instance, Jiang Sheng Shangshu jizhu yinshu (1793 Jinshiju kan ed.), 6.17a; Wang Mingsheng Shangshu houan (Sibu congkan ed.), 14.1a–b; Sun Xingyan , Shangshu jinguxven zhushu (Sibu congkan ed.), 14.1a. Even the jinwen (New Text) scholar Pi Xirui shared this view; see his linwen Shangshu kaozheng (1897 Shifutang ed.), 12.1a–b.

11. King Wen, nominal founder of the dynasty, is said to have had ten direct-line sons: Kao , who pre-deceased his father; Fa , who was to become King Wu; Xian, Guanshu , Dan, Zhougong; Du, Caishu ; Zhenduo, Caoshu ; Wu, Chengshu ; Chu, Huoshu ; Feng, Kangshu ; and Zai, Danji ; see Shiji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959)Google Scholar, 35.1570. There were also secondary sons (i.e., sons by secondary consorts), among whom, as we will see, Shaogong or Grand Protector (taibao ) Shi was the most important.

12. It is worth noting that of the two earliest texts that purport to describe the events of the conquest, the “Ke Yin” and “Shi fu” chapters of the Yi Zhou shu, the “Ke Yin” ascribes a prominent role to the Duke of Zhou while the “Shi fu” does not mention him at all. As I have argued previously (Edward L. Shaughnessy, “‘New’ Evidence on the Zhou Conquest,” Early China 6 [1980–81], 55–81), the “Shi fu” is almost certainly a Western Zhou text if not a contemporary account of the conquest. On the other hand, the “Ke Yin” betrays numerous anachronistic linguistic usages (most notable of which is the mention of a qing lü , almost certainly the transcription of a Central Asian word for the type of curved sword known to the Greeks as akinakes, a type of weapon which could not have been introduced to China much earlier than about 300 b.c.). For philosophical reasons, however, Sima Qian (145–c. 86 b.c.) adopted the “Ke Yin” account of the conquest in his Shiji (4.124–126), and it is through the Shiji that most historians have come to view the Duke of Zhou's role in the conquest.

13. Among numerous textual sources indicating that Guanshu and Caishu were suspicious of their brother's motives, see Shiji, 4.132.

14. Guowei, Wang, “Yin Zhou zhidu lun” , in Guantang jilin , 4 vols. (1923; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984)Google Scholar, vol. 2, 456 (10.3b). Wang does not explain, however, why the Zhou succession before the conquest of Shang seems to have been based on father-son inheritance (if not primogeniture), passing from Gugong Danfu through Wang , to King Wen, and then to King Wu. Nor does he explain why it should have been the Duke of Zhou rather than his elder brother Guanshu Xian who succeeded King Wu.

15. For one of Gu's earliest explicit expressions of this view, see Jiegang, Gu, “Shangshu Da gao jin yi” , Lishi yanjiu 1962.4, 26–51 Google Scholar, especially 50–51.

16. See, above, n. 5.

17. Of course, Gu basically presented evidence he regarded as supportive of his position that the Duke of Zhou served as king. There is, however, other evidence that Gu did not cite—evidence that is earlier and clearer than that which he did cite—which states unequivocally that the Duke of Zhou did not serve as king. For instance, in Mencius 5A/6, in a famous discussion of the prerequisites of kingship, Mencius states:

. When the world (tianxia) is ruled on the basis of (succeeding generations=) heredity, those that Heaven deposes must be like Jie and Zhou. Therefore, Yi, Yi Yin, and the Duke of Zhou did not come to rule the world.

18. For this inscription, see Shirakawa Shizuka , Kinbun tsūshaku , 56 fascicles, Hakutsuru bijutsukan shi 4 (1963), #14, 141–160 (Western Zhou bronze inscriptions studied by Shirakawa will hereafter be cited in the form: Shirakawa 4.14:141). The translation given here represents my own understanding of this difficult inscription, which Gu simply transcribes without explanation. However, since he refers to it as the “Mei Situ Yi gui,” his interpretation of the critical issue of who cast the vessel — Kanghou or Mei Situ Yi –must be roughly the same as mine.

19. I am aware that many scholars would take exception to my use of the word “enfeoffment” here. While I certainly agree that the word should be used cautiously, it seems to me that it is not inappropriate for the sorts of land-grants made to royal relatives during the early Western Zhou.

20. The Shu xu (Preface to the Documents) explicitly states in several places that King Cheng participated in the suppression of the Wu Geng rebellion; see James Legge, The Chinese Classics, vol. 3, The Shoo King or the Book of Historical Documents (1865; rpt. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960), 9,10,11,12Google ScholarPubMed. Among other texts that at least imply his participation (by way of placing him in Yan at the time that that state was being defeated) are the Shiji (4.133) and the Zhushu jinian (Bamboo annals; see Legge, The Shoo King, Prolegomena 145).

21. A similar argument is given in Masaaki, Matsumoto , “Shūkō sokui kō—shoki Shōsho seiritsu ni tsuite no kenkyū” , Shigaku zasshi 77.6 (1968), 1–37 Google Scholar.

22. As noted above (n. 21), several texts explicitly place King Cheng in Yan, which, as I will show below (p. 49), was located at at this time at present-day Qufu , Shandong.

23. This graph, , transcribed by Shirakawa (following Ruan Yuan , Jiguzhai zhongding yiqi kuanzhi [1804 Baoshi Houzhi Buzuzhai ed.], 5.28) as chen , obviously refers to some type of sacrifice, but which type is not clear to me.

24. See Ming, Gao , “Guwenzi de xingpang ji qi xingti yanbian” , Guwenzi yanjiu 4 (1980), 71–72 Google Scholar.

25. Han Feizi (Sibu beiyao ed.), 7.10b.

26. For more discussion of this identification between Gai and Yan, see below, p. 69.

27. Shuo wen jie zi Duan zhu (Sibu beiyao ed.), 6B.34a; the Shuo wen writes the graph as .

28. See above, n. 20.

29. For this translation, and those that follow, see Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, 185–186.

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

31. The Duke of Zhou is also mentioned posthumously on several vessels: the “Rong gui” (Shirakawa 11.59:591), “Ling yi” (Shirakawa 6.25:276), “Shenzi Ta gui” (Shirakawa 15.78:7), and the above-mentioned “Shi Qiang pan.”

32. The Dong Yi and Pugu are recorded in traditional texts as targets of the suppression campaign; for a detailed survey of these texts, see Jiegang, Gu, “San jian ji dongfang zhuguo de fan Zhou junshi xingdong he Zhougong de duice” , Wenshi 26 (1986) 1–11 Google Scholar. Although Feng is not as prominent in the traditional record as are the Dong Yi and Pugu, I will adduce evidence below (p. 70–71 showing that it was located near them.

33. I here follow Chen Mengjia's explication of the graph as jue , by way of ku ; see “Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai” , I, Kaogu xueban 1955.9,160 Google Scholar. It is worth noting that in this inscription, as in the “Qin gui” inscription, both the king—who is the subject for this “later digging out and conquest of Shang” — and the Duke of Zhou — who makes an award at the “Cheng Garrison” — are mentioned in the same inscription. If the “king” here refers to King Cheng, as Chen Mengjia and Shirakawa both argue it does, and as the description of a “later” (hou ) conquest of Shang would seem to require (as would, perhaps, also the setting of the award ceremony at the Cheng Garrison—presumably the site at Luoyang later known as Cheng Zhou ), then this would once again demonstrate that King Cheng was very much involved in the suppression of the Wu Geng rebellion, and was recognized as “king” during it.

34. I believe that we can now lay to rest the sorts of suspicions Noel Barnard raised a generation ago about these inscriptions involving the Duke of Zhou. For Barnard's comments, see his “Chou China: A Review of the Third Volume of Cheng Te-k'un's Archaeology in China ,” Monumento Sérica 24 (1965), 337–354 Google Scholar. For a detailed critique of Barnard's methodology, see Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, 43–62.

35. For a representative discussion of the dating of the various chapters of the Book of Documents, see Creel, The Origins of Statecraft in China, 447–463. Creel accepts twelve chapters as being of Western Zhou date, nine of them as being from the time of the Duke of Zhou: the five “Announcements” (“Da gao” , “Kang gao” , “Jiu gao” , “Shao gao” , and “Luo gao” ), the “Zi cai” , “Duo shi” , “Jun Shi” , and “Duo fang” . David Keightley has criticized this dating of these chapters, suggesting that they may have been composed toward the end of the Western Zhou and thus reflect retrospective and idealizing tendencies; review, Journal of Asian Studies 30.3 (1971), 656 Google Scholar. Another attempt to date the five Announcements, as well as the “Duo shi,” to the opening years of the Western Zhou, that of Dobson, W.A.C.H. (Early Archaic Chinese [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962], 123–130)Google Scholar, is similarly open to question; while Dobson argues that these chapters of the Book of Documents are linguistically “of a piece” with a sample of fourteen bronze inscriptions that he studies, in fact, at least one of these inscriptions, that of the “Maogong ding” (Shirakawa 30.181:637), dates to late in the dynasty, while others (e.g., the “Ling gui” [Shirakawa 6.24:255] and “Ban gui” [Shirakawa 15.79:34] certainly date to the reigns of kings Zhao (r. 977/75–957 B.C.) and Mu (r. 956–918 B.C.). Thus, even if Dobson's linguistic analysis is correct, the most one could conclude from his sample is that these chapters date from the Western Zhou.

It is not my purpose here to try to resolve this important question. Of the two chapters of the Book of Documents that I will examine in detail below, the “Jun Shi” and “Shao gao,” I think there can be no doubt that they long predate the hagiographical traditions that, by about the time of Confucius, developed around the Duke of Zhou; they thus almost certainly reflect historiographical concerns of the Western Zhou period.

36. See, for example, the inscriptions on the “Taibao gui” (Shirakawa 2.3:58), “Chuo you” (Shirakawa 4.16:173), and “Lü ding” (Shirakawa 2.5:72). For English translations of all three of these inscriptions, as well as a study of their historical context and implications, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Role of Grand Protector Shi in the Consolidation of the Zhou Conquest,” ,4rs Orientalis 19 (1989), 51–77 Google Scholar.

37. For the “Zuoce Da fangding,” see Shirakawa 8.42:440; see, too, Shaughnessy, “The Role of Grand Protector Shi,” 55. Other King Kang period inscriptions that similarly portray the Grand Protector include those on the “Jin ding” (Shirakawa 51.1:449), “Shu tuoqi” (Shirakawa 2.6:77), and the recently discovered “Ke he” (for which, see Weizhang, Yin , “Xin chutude Taibao tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” Kaogu 1990.1, 66–77 Google Scholar; Weizhang, Yin and Shuqin, Cao “Zhou chu Taibao qi zonghe yanjiu” , Kaogu xuebao 1991.1, 1–21 Google Scholar.

38. The Duke of Zhou is mentioned in only two poems: “Po fu” (Mao 157) of the Bin Feng , section, and “Bi gong” (Mao 300) of the Lu Song section. This latter poem, probably composed in the seventh century B.C., recounts the history of the state of Lu, of which the Duke of Zhou was the titular founder. Nevertheless, mention of the Duke of Zhou in it is extraordinarily restrained; he is cited only as one of the ancestors of the current duke of Lu.

39. Some recognition of his role is found in Creel, The Origins of Statecraft in China, 69–78. See, too, Shaughnessy, “The Role of Grand Protector Shi.”

40. For translations of the “Jun Shi” into English, see Legge, The Shoo King, 474–486; and Karlgren, Bernhard, The Book of Documents (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1950), 59–62 Google Scholar; for Karlgren, 's annotations, see his Glosses on the Book of Documents (1948–1949; rpt. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1970)Google Scholar, #1859–#1903.

41. It should be noted, however, that the present arrangement of the Book of Documents seems to be faulty at this point. In the present arrangement, the next jinwen or “new text” chapter following the “Jun Shi” is the “Duo fang” . As has often been noted, this placement is almost certainly incorrect. The “Duo fang,” putatively an address by the Duke of Zhou to the leaders of the many (eastern) states, begins with a sort of “great event” notation dating it to the year that the king returned from Yan (wei wu-yue dinghai wang lai zi Yan zhi yu Zongzhou , “It was the fifth month, dinghai [day 24], the king returned from Yan, arriving at Zongzhou”). The Bamboo Annals places the king's return from Yan to Zhou in the fifth year of the regency, a date which the text of the “Duo fang” itself seems to corroborate, quoting the Duke of Zhou as saying to the leaders of the eastern states, “Now you have scurried and run about ministering to our overseers for five years” (jin er ben zou chen wojian wu si ). If the “Duo fang” is out of place in this way, it is possible that the “Jun Shi” is similarly out of place.

42. Cai Chen , Shu jizhuan (Siku quanshu ed.), 5.24b.

43. Legge, The Shoo King, 11.

44. Shiji, 34.1549.

45. For interpretations of this phrase, see Karlgren, Glosses, #1860. Karlgren notes (albeit in disagreement) that the Pseudo-Kong commentary takes shi as shi , interpreting it as a request (apparently reading the yi , “already,” as an ejaculation) by the Duke of Zhou that Grand Protector Shi “approve” of him so that he might remain in power. This reading is followed also in Shangshu zhengyi ([Sibu beiyao ed.], 16.11a) and in Wang Xianqian's Shangshu Kong zhuan canzheng ([1904 Xushoutang ed.], 25.2b) among other commentaries.

46. It is also possible that bu , “not,” here should be read pi , “very,” as is common in Western Zhou texts, but there is no independent verification for such an emendation.

47. I emend ning to wen , as is common in the Book of Documents. It would seem that the Grand Protector's point in this quotation is to stress the primacy of kingly succession.

48. With Karlgren and others, on the basis of a quotation in the “Ziyi” chapter of the Liji ([Sibu beiyao ed.], 17.18a), I read ge shen quan ning wang zhou tian guan wen wang . For a discussion, see Karlgren, Glosses, #1879

49. here follow Ma Rong's (79–166) reading of mao as mian , “to strive,” for which, see Karlgren, Glosses, #1624 (though note that Karlgren rejects this reading). For pi dan , I assume pixian , “illustrious.”

50. The xiaozi of this phrase is traditionally interpreted as referring to King Cheng, but as Karlgren (Glosses, #1885), following Yirang, Sun (Shangshu pianzhi [Beiping: Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1929]Google Scholar, 42a–b), notes, the same term is used in the preceding sentence as a reference to the Duke of Zhou himself and it would be extremely unusual for it to have a different referent here.

51. Karlgren (Glosses, #1886), following Jiang Sheng , Shangshu jizhu yin shu ([1793 Jinshiji ed.], 8.25a–b), explains the context of this elliptical line as follows: “Chou Kung pleads with Shao Kung that he himself is no usurpator, but an ordinary minister, just as before the regency: Shao Kung should not urge him to retire, but on the contrary encourage him to achieve his work.”

52. In the “Three Styles Stone Classics” (Santi shijing ) version of this line, yun is written xiong , “elder brother,” which is obviously correct; see Karlgren, Glosses, #1893.

53. I here read bu “not,” as pi , “very,” as is common in Western Zhou texts.

54. For previous translations into English of the “Shao gao,” see Legge, The Shoo King, 420–433; Karlgren, The Book of Documents, 48–51; and, for Karlgren's annotations, Glosses, #1715–#1745.

55. Lin Zhiqi, Shangshu quanjie (Tongzhitang jingjie ed.), 33.7a.

56. Karlgren (Glosses, #1718), following Yu Xingwu ( Shangshu xinzheng [1934; rpt. Taipei: Songgao shushe, 1985], 158–163 Google Scholar [3.1b–4a]), departs from all traditional interpreters in taking the address as being that of the Duke of Zhou. Both Karlgren and Yu argue that since the Duke was the recipient of the bi insignia, it would be he who would be expected to “fold his hands and touch his head to the ground” (bai shou qi shou ), the phrase that introduces the chapter's address. While it is true that Western Zhou bronze inscriptions routinely describe gift recipients as doing this, the “Luo gao,” the sister chapter to this “Shao gao,” shows this phrase, repeatedly used by both the king and the Duke of Zhou, to be a conventional opening to any address respectfully delivered. Although Karlgren's glosses to this chapter remain as valuable as those for other chapters, I believe that this initial mistake causes him to misinterpret the entire thrust of the chapter.

57. Cai Chen, Shu jizhuan, 5.2b.

58. Not only is “to approve” the normal sense of ruo in Shang oracle-bone inscriptions, but it is also its sense later in the “Shao gao” in the expression “mian qi tian ruo” , “to face and fathom Heaven's approval.”

59. The translations of both Legge and Karlgren treat the wu of this line as the imperative wu , and neglect entirely the conditional ze , suggesting that the “young son” has already succeeded and that he is being admonished not to neglect the elders. Not only is this grammatically unfounded, but more important it misses the intent of Grand Protector Shi: this is his admonition to the Duke of Zhou that if the king is given power, he will not be an autocrat but will accept advice from his ministers.

60. The expression shao Shang di , “to succeed the Lord on High,” obviously refers to royal succession, but it is curious that the king should be said “to succeed” the Lord on High, especially if the “Lord on High” is to be construed as the high god known from Shang religion. I wonder if it might not refer to “the fathers on high,” as suggested in Robert Eno, “Was There a High God Ti in Shang Religion?” Early China 15 (1990), especially 20–26.

61. See, for example, the contrasting interpretations of this divination rite offered by Xigui, Qiu in “An Examination of Whether the Charges in Shang Oracle-Bone Inscriptions are Questions,” Early China 14 (1989), 113–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and by David S. Nivison in his response, pp. 154–155.

62. Creel, The Origins of Statecraft in China, 458.

63. Cited at Maoshi zhengyi (Sibu beiyao ed.), 8/2. 1a.

64. For other English translations of this poem, see Legge, James, The Chinese Classics, vol. 4, The She King or The Book of Poetry (1871; rpt. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960), 233–235 Google Scholar; Waley, Arthur, The Book of Songs (1937; rev. ed. New York: Grove Press, 1987), 235 Google Scholar; Karlgren, Bernhard, The Book of Odes (1950; rpt. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1974), 99–100 Google Scholar.

65. See, for instance, Cai Chen, Shu jizhuan, 4.34b.

66. See, for instance, Lunheng (Sibu beiyao ed.), 18.17b.

67. Shiji, 33.1519–20. The second account, in the “Meng Tian liezhuan” (88.2569), differs only slightly. It reads:

.

Coming to the time when the king was able to rule the state, there was a thieving minister who said, “Duke Dan of Zhou has long wished to create havoc. If the king is not careful, there will certainly be great trouble.” The king was then greatly angered, and Duke Dan of Zhou fled and went into exile in Chu. King Cheng made inspection in the Note Repository, gained the text of Duke Dan of Zhou's submersion (of his fingernail parings), and then with tears flowing said, “Who said that Duke Dan of Zhou wished to create havoc?” He killed the one who had said it and caused Duke Dan of Zhou to return.

68. Mozi (Sibu beiyao ed.), 9.16a–b.

69. Mozi, 11.11b–12a.

70. Mengjia, Chen, “Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai” , II, Kaogu xuebao , 1955.10, 75 Google Scholar. The original references are Zuo zhuan, Ding 4; Mencius 3B/9.

71. For these reconstructions, see Axel Schuessler, A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), 185, 712. This phonetic similarity was pointed out to me by William G. Boltz, who explains that the vacillation is probably akin to that between the surnames Tian and Chen in the state of Qi .

72. Moruo, Guo, Liang-Zhou jinwenci daxi kaoshi (Tokyo: Bunkyudo shoten, 1935), 11b Google Scholar.

73. The graph for Chu appears quite frequently in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, in all cases clearly written with the central element xu rather than the qu of the “Qin gui”; see Jinwen bian ed. Rong Geng , with Zhang Zhenlin and Ma Guoquan (4th rev. ed.; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984), 408–409 #0967. The reasoning behind Guo's identification of the “Qin gui” graph with chu is really quite transparent: by showing that the Zhou had attacked the state of Chu during the reign of King Cheng, Guo was hoping thereby to substantiate his position in the well-known debate over the periodization of the “Ling yi” and “Ling gwi” vessels (on which, see Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, 193–216). His position in that debate is now generally regarded to be mistaken, and the association he drew between it and the “Qin gui” inscription is surely irrelevant.

74. Although there is no direct evidence regarding the location of this Feng, most commentators on the “Ran fangding” inscription assume that it was located near Pugu, which at this time was certainly near Qufu. For a discussion of these locations, see Jiegang, Gu, “Zhougong dongzheng he dongfang gezude qianxi” il , Wenshi 27 (1986), 8–9 Google Scholar.

75. Shiji, 33.1522.

76. See Legge, The Shoo King, Prolegomena 146. This record is corroborated by the Shangshu dazhuan , which states, apparently after describing the Duke's return of governance to King Cheng, “three years later the Duke of Zhou retired to Feng” (sannian zhi hou Zhougong lao yu Feng ); Shangshu dazhuan (Congshu jicheng ed.), 4.2b.

77. Xueqi, Lei, Zhushu jinian yizheng (1810; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1976), 282–283 Google Scholar.

78. Legge, The Shoo King, 12.

79. Legge, The Shoo King, Prolegomena 146.