Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:26:25.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ZHOU XUN 周訓 AND “ELEVATING THE WORTHY” (SHANG XIAN 尚賢)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2018

Andrej Fech
Andrej Fech*
Affiliation:
Andrej Fech, 費安德, Hong Kong Baptist University; email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper aims to investigate the idea of “elevating the worthy” (shang xian 尚賢) as it appears in the newly found manuscript Zhou xun 周訓. This manuscript is part of the Peking University collection (Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu 北京大學藏西漢竹書), presumably copied in the first half of the first century b.c.e. In sharp contrast to most recently discovered manuscripts promulgating “elevating the worthy,” the Zhou xun introduces the meritocratic principle to support hereditary power transfer, by positing that the right to rule should be passed on to the most able son of a ruler. I argue that this position served several purposes. First, it provided a solution to the central problem of abdication discourse, namely, the conflict between the principles of “respecting worthies” (zun xian 尊賢) and “loving kin” (ai qin 愛親). Second, this interpretation of “elevating the worthy” entailed a significant extension of the number of potential contenders to the throne, challenging the system of primogeniture, the very cornerstone of political order in early China. This fundamental challenge appears to be deliberate and can be interpreted as an attempt to formulate a new paradigm for the ruling house of Zhou. The complete absence of the idea of Heaven's Mandate (tian ming 天命) from the Zhou xun certainly underscores its radical departure from Zhou conventional claims to power. However, I argue that, given the close association between the Zhou xun and the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, it is also plausible that the former's theory was created to justify the Zhou's overthrow by the Qin 秦. In any case, the Zhou xun provides us with new insights into how the idea of “elevating the worthy” was applied to politics in early China.

提要

本文旨在探討新出《周訓》中的「尚賢」思想。這部出土文獻屬於《北京大學藏西漢竹書》﹐其抄寫年代大概在公元前一世紀的前半葉。《周訓》與其他提倡「尚賢」的新出土文獻形成了鮮明的對比，因為前者提出「尚賢」的目的是為了支持傳子之制，認為應該將統治權力交給最有能力的繼承人。本文認為《周訓》的立場達到以下幾個目的﹕首先，它解決了禪讓說中的核心問題，即「尊賢」與「愛親」之間的衝突﹔其次， 這種對「尚賢」的解釋擴大了王位候選人的範圍，挑戰了長子繼承制這種中國自古以來政治秩序的基石。這個根本性挑戰的目的﹐或許是要為周王室制定一個新的統治範式。《周訓》完全沒有提到「天命」的觀念，也說明了它已經遠離周朝對權力的固有理解。然而，鑑於《周訓》與《呂氏春秋》之間的密切關係，我們也可以說《周訓》的寫作目的是要證明秦滅周的合法性。無論如何，《周訓》給我們提供了有關「尚賢」的原則如何應用於政治的新知識。

Keywords

Excavated manuscripts“elevating the worthy”“Heaven's Mandate”abdication discourseZhou Dynasty出土文獻尚賢天命禪讓說周朝
Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 41 , 2018 , pp. 149 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

The initial draft of this paper was presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Early China in 2017. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, my thanks also go to P. J. Ivanhoe and Eirik Harris for insightful discussions that broadened my understanding of the text.

References

1. Pines, Yuri, Envisioning Eternal Empire: Chinese Political Thought of the Warring States Era (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009), 117–19Google Scholar.

2. Mo Di 墨翟 (470–391 b.c.e.) is generally accepted as the first philosopher to promote this principle. See Mozi jiaozhu 墨子校注, ed. Wu Yujiang 吳毓江 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1993), 66–108 (“Shang xian” 尚賢). As for the administrative measures promoting ranking officials according to their meritorious service, the reforms of Li Kui 李悝 (455–395 b.c.e.) and Shang Yang 商鞅 (390–338 b.c.e.) are exemplary. For the nature of their reforms and more, see Lewis, Mark Edward, “Warring States: Political History,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China. From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. Loewe, Michael and Shaughnessy, Edward L. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 603–16Google Scholar. Some studies suggest, however, that, already from the mid-Western Zhou on, a considerable percentage of government officials were appointed based on meritocratic considerations. See Feng, Li, “Succession and Promotion: Elite Mobility during the Western Zhou,” Monumenta Serica 52 (2004), 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. The manuscripts in question are: Tang Yu zhi dao 唐虞之道 (The Way of Tang and Yu) from Guodian Tomb One, Zi Gao 子羔 and Rongchengshi 容成氏 from the Shanghai Museum collection and the Bao xun 保訓 (Cherished Instruction) from the Qinghua [Tsinghua] University collection. For a detailed study and translation see, Allan, Sarah, Buried Ideas: Legends of Abdication and Ideal Government in Early Chinese Bamboo-Slip Manuscripts (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015)Google Scholar. See also Pines, Yuri, “Disputers of Abdication: Zhanguo Egalitarianism and the Sovereign’s Power,” T’oung Pao XCI (2005), 243–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pines, Yuri, “Subversion Unearthed: Criticism of Hereditary Succession in the Newly Discovered Manuscripts,” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005/06), 159–78Google Scholar.

4. Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo, “Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu gaishuo” 北京大學藏西漢竹書概說, Wenwu 2011.6, 43, 49–57Google Scholar.

5. Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo, ed., Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu. san 北京大學藏西漢竹書. 叁 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2015), 121–45Google Scholar (Henceforth: Zhou xun). For a discussion of several aspects of the Zhou xun, see Buke, Yan 閻步克, “Beida zhushu Zhou xun jianjie” 北大竹書《周訓》簡介, Wenwu 2011.6, 71–74Google Scholar; Buke, Yan, “‘Wei sui dong xiang jia zhi ri’ yu ‘(la) zhi ming ri’ xiao kao” “維歲冬享駕之日”與“(臘)之明日”小考, Zhongguo wenhua 中國文化 33 (2011), 30–34Google Scholar; Buke, Yan, “Shi shi ‘fei jun wu jia, fei jue wu (luo)’ jian lun ‘wo you hao jun, wu yu er mi zhi––Beida zhushu Zhou xun zhaji zhi san’” 試釋“非駿勿駕，非爵勿(羅)”兼論“我有好爵，吾與爾靡之”——北大竹書《周訓》札記之三, Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢 2012.1, 29–51Google Scholar; Shaoxuan, Cheng 程少軒, “Tantan Beida Hanjian Zhou xun de jige wenti” 談談北大漢簡《周訓》的幾個問題, in Chutu wenxian yu gu wenzi yanjiu 出土文獻與古文字研究, ed. Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu gu wenzi yanjiu zhongxin, vol. 5 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2013), 556–57Google Scholar. The most comprehensive study of the text thus far was conducted by Han Wei 韓巍, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao” 西漢竹書《周訓》若干問題探討, in Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu. san, 249–98.

6. Zhou xun, 144, strip 211.

7. Nylan, Michael, The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 125Google Scholar.

8. Allan, Buried Ideas, 267.

9. Zhou xun, 138, strips 144–145: 今女（汝）無孝而難聽親，則周唯（雖）小國，其庸可得有？ “Now, you are not filial and take difficulty in listening to your father. Although Zhou is a small country, can you obtain it?”

10. The total number of instructions of the Zhou xun is fourteen, as Prince Gong is also reported to come to Lord Zhaowen’s court in the “intercalary month” (run yue 閏月) and on the day of the New Year’s court ceremony (xiang he zhi ri 享賀之日). However, there are also a number of passages in the Zhou xun that cannot be associated with any month or date. Han Wei, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao,” 252, gives such passages the designation of “small chapters” (xiao zhang 小章). I estimate that they make up slightly more than ten percent of the entire text.

11. The exact dates for this ruler are not provided. However, the Lüshi chunqiu reports that Zhang Yi 張儀 (?–310 b.c.e.) became the prime minister of Qin with Lord Zhaowen’s support. See Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi 吕氏春秋新校釋, ed. Chen Qiyou 陳奇猷 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2001), 902 (“Bao geng” 報更 15.4). The Shi ji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 5.206, places this event in the year 328 b.c.e. It is thus safe to assume that Lord Zhaowen was established somewhat earlier.

12. Zhanguo ce jian zheng 戰國策箋證, ed. Fan Xiangyong 范祥雍 and Fan Bangjin 范邦瑾 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2006), 69. For the translation, see Crump, J. I., Chan-Kuo T’se (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 23Google Scholar.

13. Shi ji, 4.161: 西周武公之太子死，有五庶子，毋適（嫡子）立。 “After his Heir, Gong, died, Duke Wu of West Chou had five sons by his concubines, but no more sons by his queen to be installed as Heir.” Nienhauser, William H., ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records. vol. 1, The Basic Annals of Pre-Han China (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 79Google Scholar.

14. The actual capital of the East Zhou was at Gong 鞏, close to Chengzhou. See Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, 78n243.

15. Xueqin, Li, Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilizations, tr. by Chang, K. C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 17Google Scholar. See also Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records Records, vol. 1, 78n243.

16. Shi ji, 43.1799, places the division of the Zhou into the eight year of Marquis Cheng of Zhao 趙成侯 (r. 374–350 b.c.e.), that is 367 b.c.e. See Shi ji, 15.719.

17. For Yan Buke, “Beida zhushu Zhou xun jianjie,” 73, for example, there can be no doubt about the historical accuracy of the Zhou xun. Han Wei, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao,” 246, also contends that the nucleus of the text goes back to encounters between Lord Zhaowen and Prince Gong, while, at the same time, claiming that, in its present form, the text was written (somewhat) later by either officials or some of the numerous guests of Lord Zhaowen, who changed the character of the initial conversation so as to be concerned with the then poignant issue of power transfer.

18. I follow the transcription of the Zhou xun provided in Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo, Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu. san, 121–45 (“Zhou xun” 周馴). In it, the graphs in round brackets, (), represent interpretations of the preceding graphs, as suggested by the research group in charge of the transcription of the text. Rhymes are identified based on Schuessler, Axel, Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

19. Zhou xun, 143, strips 192–193.

20. Kern, Martin, “Poetry and Religion: The Representation of ‘Truth’ in Early Chinese Historiography,” in Historical Truth, Historical Criticism, and Ideology Chinese Historiography and Historical Culture from a New Comparative Perspective, eds. Schmidt-Glintzer, Helwig, Mittag, Achim, and Rusen, Jorn (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 63Google Scholar. For the use of rhymes in the bronze inscriptions, see Wolfgang Behr, Reimende Bronzeinschriften und die Entstehung der chinesischen Endreimdichtung (Rhyming Bronze Inscriptions and the Genesis of Chinese End-rhymed Poetry). Ph.D. Dissertation (J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, 1996).

21. Schaberg, David, “On the Range and Performance of Laozi-Style Tetrasyllables,” in Literary Forms of Argument in Early China, ed. Gentz, Joachim and Meyer, Dirk (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 89Google Scholar.

22. For some examples of rhymed tetrasyllables, see Schaberg, “On the Range and Performance of Laozi-Style Tetrasyllables,” 87–111.

23. Zhou xun, 123, strips 13–14.

24. Andrew H. Plaks, “Beyond Parallelism: A Rethinking of Patterns of Coordination and Subordination in Chinese Expository Prose,” in Literary Forms of Argument in Early China, 69.

25. See for example Xunzi jijie 荀子集解, ed. Wang Xianqian 王先謙 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988), 321–22 (“Zheng lun” 正論). For other examples of argumentation strategies employed in the Xunzi, see Joachim Gentz, “Defining Boundaries and Relations of Textual Units: Examples from the Literary Tool-Kit of Early Chinese Argumentation,” in Literary Forms of Argument in Early China, 137–44; Kern, Martin, “Style and Poetic Diction in the Xunzi,” in Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Xunzi, ed. Hutton, Eric L. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2016), 6–28Google Scholar.

26. Zhou xun, 123, strips 13–14.

27. Harbsmeier, Christoph, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 7, part 1, Language and Logic in Traditional China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 282Google Scholar.

28. Allan, Buried Ideas, 276. Falkenhausen, Lothar von, “The Royal Audience and Its Reflections in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions,” in Writing & Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar, ed. Feng, Li and Prager, David Branner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 239Google Scholar, suggests that there was a significant difference between “what was said during the court audiences and what was recorded in the inscriptions.” The possibility is given that the actual speeches, 269: “were comprehensively rewritten in order to make them more ‘correct.’”

29. Shi ji, 4.161. See n.13 above.

30. Han shu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 20.946.

31. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 901 (“Bao geng” 報更 15.4): 國雖小，其食足以食天下之賢者，其車足以乘天下之賢者，其財足以禮天下之賢者，與天下之賢者為徒，此文王之所以王也。今雖未能王，其以為安也，不亦易乎？此趙宣孟之所以免也，周昭文君之所以顯也，孟嘗君之所以卻荊兵也。古之大立功名與安國免身者，其道無他，其必此之由也。堪士不可以驕恣屈也。 “Any state, however small, has enough food to feed the worthies of the world, enough chariots to provide transportation for them, enough material goods to provide courteous gifts for them, and can form common alliance with them. This is how King Wen became a universal king. Now, although one may not be able to become a universal king, would it not be easy to use this same method to maintain peace? This is how Zhao Xuanmeng escaped difficulties, how Lord Zhaowen became eminent, and how Lord of Mengchang repelled the soldiers of Chu. In antiquity those who managed to establish great achievements and reputations and at the same time secure their states and keep themselves free of danger followed no other Dao and invariably employed this policy. Eminent scholar-knights cannot be made to submit through rudeness or recklessness.” Knoblock, John and Riegel, Jeffrey, The Annals of Lü Buwei (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 353Google Scholar.

32. Zhou xun, 138, strips 145–146.

33. Zhou xun, 138, strip 146.

34. For different examples related to this topic, see Lewis, “Warring States: Political History,” 598.

35. For different versions of this event, see Shi ji, 34.1555–1557; Han Feizi jijie 韓非子集解, ed. Wang Xianshen 王先慎 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2003), 338–41 (“Wai chu shuo you xia” 外儲說右下).

36. Zhou xun, 125, strips 30–31.

37. Zhou xun, 144, strips 206–207.

38. Shang shu jiaoshi yilun 尚書校釋譯論, ed. Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 and Liu Qiyu 劉起釪, vol. 1 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2005), 64 (“Yao dian” 堯典): 放齊曰：「胤子朱啟明。」帝曰：「吁！嚚訟可乎？」 “Fangqi said, ‘There is your heir-son Zhu, who is highly intelligent.’ The emperor said, ‘Alas; he is insincere and quarrelsome:––can he do?’” Adapted from Legge, James, The Chinese Classics, vol. 3, The Shoo King, or the Book of Historical Documents (Taipei: SMC Publishing, 1991), 23Google Scholar. In the Shi ji, 1.20, Yao is recorded to give a similarly negative assessment of his son: 堯曰：「誰可順此事？」放齊曰：「嗣子丹朱開明。」堯曰：「吁！頑凶，不用。」 “Yao said, ‘Who can manage the affairs of my position?’ Fangqi said, ‘The Heir, Dan Zhu, is open and bright.’ Yao said, ‘Oh, he is obstinate and mean; I do not want to use him.’” Adapted from Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, 8.

39. The expression “embellishing music” is also found in the Yanzi chunqiu 晏子春秋. See Yanzi chunqiu jishi 晏子春秋集釋, ed. Wu Zeyu 吳則虞 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 39 (“Jing Gong yu fei shizi Yangsheng er li Tu. Yanzi jian” 景公欲廢適子陽生而立荼晏子諫): 古之明君，非不知繁樂也，以為樂淫則哀，非不知立愛也，以為義失則憂。是故制樂以節，立子以道。“The enlightened rulers of antiquity were aware of the increasing complexity of music and they viewed the corruption of music as a tragedy. They were aware of the importance of establishing those whom you love, but they viewed any failure in justice as a source of great sadness. Therefore, the composition of music should proceed according to regulation, and the appointment of an heir should be done according to the Way.” Milburn, Olivia, The Spring and Autumn Annals of Master Yan (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Shang shu jiaoshi yilun, vol. 1, 463 (“Gao Yao mo” 皋陶謨): 無若丹朱傲，惟慢遊是好，傲虐是作。罔晝夜頟頟，罔水行舟。朋淫于家，用殄厥世。予創若時。 “Do not be haughty like Zhu of Dan, who found his pleasure only in indolence and dissipation, and pursued a proud oppressive course. Day and night, without ceasing, he was thus. He would make boats go where there was no water. He introduced licentious associates into his family. The consequence was that he brought the prosperity of his House to an end. I took warning from his course.” Adapted from Legge, The Chinese Classics, vol. 3, 84.

41. Xunzi jijie, 336 (“Zhenglun” 正論): 朱象者、天下之嵬，一時之瑣也。 “Zhu and Xiang were perverse figures, the pettiest men of their day.” Knoblock, John, Xunzi. A Translation and Study of the Complete Work, vol. 3 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 42Google Scholar.

42. Allan, Sarah, The Heir and the Sage: Dynastic Legend in Early China. Revised and Expanded Edition (New York: State University of New York Press, 2016), 86Google Scholar: “Jie and Zhòu Xin are not only creators of luan. … their bad character is frequently described in general terms, such as bao 暴 ‘violent,’ nüe 虐 ‘cruel,’ and yin 淫 ‘inclined to excess,’ ‘licentious.’ These are the same terms used to describe Dan Zhu, Shang Jun, and Qi, the bad sons of Yao, Shun, and Yu.”

43. Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋, ed. He Ning 何寧 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 1330 (“Xiuwu xun” 脩務訓): 沉湎耽荒，不可教以道，不可喻以德，嚴父弗能正，賢師不能化者，丹朱、商均也。“Those, who indulged deeply in wine and sex, whose conduct was unrestrained, who could not be instructed by means of the Way or taught by the example of virtue, whom a stern father could not correct, whom a worthy teacher could not transform, were Dan Zhu and Shang Jun.” Queen, Sarah A. and Major, John S., , tr., Huainanzi (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, “Cultivating Effort,” 774.

44. Xunzi jijie, 336 (“Zhenglun”): 世俗之為說者曰：「堯舜不能教化。」是何也？曰：「朱象不化。」是不然也。 “A persuader’s thesis common in the world today says: “Yao and Shun were incapable of teaching and transforming.” How is this? They say: “[Dan] Zhu and Xiang were not transformed.” This is not so.” Knoblock, Xunzi, vol. III, 42.

45. The story of Shun appointing master Kui 夔 to regulate music is recorded, among others, in the Rongchengshi and the Shang shu. For the former, see “Rongchengshi,” ed. Li Ling 李零, in Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書, ed. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, II (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2002), 273. For the Shang shu, see Yingda, Kong 孔穎達, Shang shu zhengyi 尚書正義 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 2000), 93–94Google Scholar: 帝曰：「夔！命汝典樂，教冑子。直而溫，寬而栗，剛而無虐，簡而無傲。詩言志，歌永言，聲依永，律和聲。 “The emperor said, ‘Kui, I appoint you to be Director of music, and to teach our sons, so that the straightforward shall yet be mild, the gentle may yet be dignified, the strong not tyrannical: and the impetuous not arrogant.’” Legge, The Chinese Classics, vol. 3, 47–48. Brindley, Erica Fox, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China (New York: State University of New York Press, 2012), 28Google Scholar, believes that the author of this passage “describes state music as a highly organized institution, requiring an official functionary, who is both specialized master as well as innovative sage-leader.”

46. See, for example, Shi ji, 1.31–38. Allan, The Heir and the Sage, 37–45, believes that, in the transmitted literature, the character “Shun” resolves the conflict between the principles of virtue and heredity by taking the middle ground. The Zhou xun, however, seems to treat him solely as the epitome of virtue.

47. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 56 (“Qu si” 去私 1.5): 堯有子十人，不與其子而授舜；舜有子九人，不與其子而授禹；至公也。 “When Yao, who had ten sons, did not share the empire with them but passed it to Shun and when Shun, who had nine sons, did not share the empire with them but passed it to Yu, both acted with perfect impartiality.” Knoblock and Riegel, Annals of Lü Buwei, 74. The account from the Rongchengshi is similar. See “Rongchengshi,” ed. Li Ling, 258: 堯有子九人，不以其子為後，見舜之賢也，而欲以為後。 “Yao had nine sons, but he did not make his son successor. He observed Shun’s worthiness and wanted to make him his successor.”

48. Allan, Buried Ideas, 18–19. A possible exception to this regularity can be found in the “Yao dian” and “Shun dian” 舜典 chapters of the Shang shu that, while mentioning Yao’s abdication to Shun, are silent about the latter’s succession, as noticed by Kern, Martin, “Language and the Ideology of Kingship in the “Canon of Yao,” in Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, ed. Pines, Yuri et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 145Google Scholar. Kern comes to the conclusion that this idiosyncrasy goes back to the imperial scholarly elite who, wishing to promote their interests, created the image of Shun who followed the hereditary principle of succession and “delegated much of his power, followed the advice of his subordinates, and abstained from personal activism driven by his own convictions” (151).

49. Zhou xun, 141, strips 180–182.

50. It is particularly in the Lun heng 論衡 that Shang Jun is often describes as “cruel” (nüe 虐). See, for instance, Lun heng jiaoshi 論衡校釋, ed. Huang Hui 黃暉 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 135 (“Ben xing” 本性): 所與接者，必多善矣，二帝之旁，必多賢也，然而丹朱慠，商均虐，並失帝統，歷世為戒。 “Those with whom the two might have mixed, were most excellent, and the persons forming the suit of the two emperors, were all most virtuous. Nevertheless, Dan Zhu was haughty, and Shang Jun brutal. Both lacked imperial decorum to such a degree, that they were set up as a warning to coming generations.” Adapted from Forke, Alfred, Lun-Heng. Part I. Philosophical Essays of Wang Ch’ung (Leipzig: Harrassowitz | London: Luzac | Shanghai: Kelly & Walsh, 1907), 385Google Scholar.

51. See Han Feizi jijie, 467 (“Zhong xiao” 忠孝): 瞽瞍為舜父而舜放之，象為舜弟而殺之。放父殺弟，不可謂仁。 “Gu Sou was Shun’s father but Shun exiled him; Xiang was Shun’s brother hut Shun killed him. Who exiled his father and killed his brother, could not be called benevolent. Nor could one who married the emperor’s two daughters and took the rule over All-under-Heaven be called righteous.” Adapted from Liao, W. K., The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu, vol. 2 (London: Arthur Probsthain, 1959), 314Google Scholar.

52. See Huainanzi jishi, vol. 3, 1409 (“Taizu xun” 泰族訓): 故舜放弟，周公殺兄，猶之為仁也；文公樹米，曾子架羊，猶之為知也。 “Evaluate those who pursue by what they bring back; evaluate those who flee by where they end up. Thus, Shun banished his younger brother; the Duke of Zhou executed his older brothers, but they both alike were considered humane. Duke Wen [of Jin] planted rice. Zengzi yoked a goat, but they both alike were considered wise.” Queen and Major, Huainanzi, “The Exalted Lineage,” 822. Shi ji, 118.3080, talks about Yao banishing his relatives: 上聞之，乃嘆曰：「堯舜放逐骨肉，周公殺管蔡，天下稱聖。何者？不以私害公。天下豈以我為貪淮南王地邪？」 “When Emperor Wen heard of this, he sighed and said, ‘The ancient rulers Yao and Shun exiled their own kin, and the duke of Zhou killed his brothers Guan and Cai, and yet the whole world calls them sages. This is because, whatever they did, they did not allow their personal feelings to interfere with the public good. Do the people of the empire now suppose that I acted as I did because I was greedy for my brother’s territory?’ Watson, Burton, Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty II (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 328Google Scholar.”

53. Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本竹書紀年輯證, ed. Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Wang Xiuling 王修齡 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1981), 63: 舜放堯於平陽。 “Shun banished Yao to Pingyang.”

54. Zhou xun, 142, strip 183.

55. This seems to validate Sarah Allan’s observation that the difference between abdication legends as recorded in the transmitted and excavated texts is that, in the former, they adhere to the pattern of “dynastic cycle.” See Allan, Buried Ideas, 20.

56. See, for example, Shi ji, 2.83.

57. Zhou xun, 125, strips 32–34.

58. Among the stances of “support,” “qualified support” and “rejection” of abdication, in which this discourse might have developed in early China, according to Yuri Pines, “Disputers of Abdication,” 271, the Zhou xun seems to tend towards the second option. Allan discriminates between three different claims: that Yao, 1) abdicated power to Shun; 2) could not have abdicated power to Shun, and that 3) Shun forced the rule from Yao. According to this classification the Zhou xun would take the first position. Allan, Buried Ideas, 19.

59. There is evidence of fraternal succession in some historical periods of China, as is evident in Milburn, Olivia’s study, “Kingship and Inheritance in the State of Wu: Fraternal Succession in Spring and Autumn Period China (771–475 BC),” T’oung Pao, Second Series, vol. 90, Fasc. 4/5 (2004), 195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, the impact and duration of this model of succession was rather limited.

60. Lord Zhaowen’s instructions from the third (Zhou xun, 126, strips 42–53), sixth (129–130, strips 76–91), tenth (136, strips 123–133) months as well as the leap month (140, strips 166–178), are all about the eventual ascension to power of younger sons of different rulers.

61. Thus, the Zhou xun rejects the most important traditional criteria implemented in the selection of an heir apparent. See Chunqiu Gongyang zhuan zhushu 春秋公羊傳註疏 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 2000), 15–16 (“Yin gong yuan nian” 隱公元年): 隱長又賢，何以不宜立？立適以長不以賢，立子以貴不以長。桓何以貴？母貴也。母貴則子何以貴？子以母貴，母以子貴。 “Since Yin was senior and, moreover, worthy, why should he not have been duke? Because, while sons of the legal wife are ranked by seniority and not worthiness, sons of concubines are ranked by nobility and not seniority. So why was Huan considered noble? Because his mother was noble. Why is the son considered noble if the mother is noble? The son is noble because the mother is noble; the mother is noble because the son is noble.” Miller, Harry, The Gongyang Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: A Full Translation (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Loy, Hui-Chieh, “From ‘Elevating the Worthy’ to ‘Intimacy with Officers’ in the Mozi,” in The Mozi as an Evolving Text: Different Voices in Early Chinese Thought, ed. Defoort, Carine and Standaert, Nicolas (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 208Google Scholar: “Those [worthies] to be employed are defined primarily in terms of their possessing certain skills or other qualities useful to the running of the state.”

63. Pines, “Disputers of Abdication,” 258.

64. While clearly resembling the Zhou xun, the other excavated manuscripts addressing the topic in question characterize a “worthy,” as embodied by Shun, as possessing fewer moral virtues. In this way, Shun is either described as the epitome of “filial piety” (xiao 孝), as in the Rongchengshi (Allan, Buried Ideas, 236), or “virtue” (de 德) and ability to learn (xue 學), as in the Zigao (Allan, Buried Ideas, 174, 176), or a combination of “filial piety,” “fraternity” (ti 悌), “compassion” (ci 慈) and “loyalty” (zhong 忠), as in the Tang Yu zhi dao 唐虞之道 (Allan, Buried Ideas, 121). Only the Bao xun addresses Shun in the context of the notion of zhong 中, absent from the Zhou xun (see below).

65. Initially, the term min 民 designated only the entourage of the king.

66. Zhou xun, 130, strips 84–87.

67. Pines, “Disputers of Abdication,” 278.

68. Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義, ed. Jiao Xun 焦循 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 644 (“Wan zhang shang” 萬章上).

69. Zhou xun, 123, strips 15–17.

70. Zhou xun, 123, strips 22–23.

71. Zhou xun, 123, strips 11–13.

72. Zhou xun, 130, strips 88–90.

73. Galvany, Albert, “Beyond the Rule of Rules: The Foundations of Sovereign Power in the Han Feizi,” in Dao Companion to Philosophy of Han Fei (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013), 104Google Scholar: “As we shall see, such a conception of sovereign power is modeled on certain cosmological patterns, derived in great measure from expositions in the Laozi and similar texts, which posit that there is an extreme disparity between, on the one hand, specific beings or entities (wu 物) and, on the other, the impenetrable Way (dao 道) from which they emerge and to which they return. … Indeed, the art of politics, as presented in the Han Feizi, consists precisely in duplicating this unbridgeable disparity between the Way and the entities, introducing it as a model for the relations between sovereign and subject.”

74. Although the Zhou xun, much like the Han Feizi, is concerned with consolidation of power in the hands of a monarch, it does not denigrate the first abdication accounts as usurpation of power as did the latter. For doing so would cast a bad light on Yao and Shun, which was inconceivable for the Zhou xun, as it regarded them as paragons of virtue, filial piety and wisdom.

75. Zhou xun, 144, strips 208–209.

76. Allan, Buried Ideas, 9–11. Among the excavated texts, it was particularly the Tang Yu zhi dao that was aware of this conflict and attempted its resolution.

77. Some early Chinese sources speak directly of the difficulty to recognize the potential successor’s abilities. See, for instance, Bai hu tong shuzheng 白虎通疏證, ed. Chen Li 陳立 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1994), 148: 《曾子問》曰：「立適以長不以賢何？以言為賢不肖，不可知也。」《尚書》曰：「惟帝其難之。」立子以貴不以長，防愛憎也。《春秋傳》曰：「適以長不以賢，立子以貴不以長也。」 “The Zengzi wen says: ‘Why is the appointment of an Heir from [among the sons of] the principal wife determined by seniority in age, and not by worthiness? It means that whether a man will prove to be worthy or unworthy cannot be known.’ The Shang shu says: ‘Even for Emperor [Yao] it was difficult [to know men].” The appointment of an Heir [from among the other sons] is determined by rank and not by seniority, in order to prevent [strife arising from] love and jealousy.’ The Chunqiu zhuan says: ‘The appointment of an Heir from [among the sons of] the principal wife is determined by seniority and not by worthiness, that from among the other sons by rank and not by seniority.’” Adapted from Som, Tjan Tjoe, tr. Po Hu T’ung 白虎通. The Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 419–20Google Scholar.

78. In view of the thematic unity of the text and its overarching general structure, I do not see any indications that the Zhou xun was created in distinct steps, as suggested by Han Wei, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao,” 254, who speaks of four different layers in the text. This is not to say that I believe the different chapters of the text all stemmed from a single source, but that this heterogeneous textual material was integrated in the Zhou xun in a single act of creation.

79. Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (yi) 清華大學藏戰國竹簡（壹）, ed. Li Xueqin 李學勤 (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi, 2010), 143.

80. For an overview of different standpoints on the notion zhong in the Bao xun, see Guozhong, Liu, Introduction to the Tsinghua Bamboo-Strip Manuscripts, tr. Foster, Christopher J. and French, William N. (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 139–44Google Scholar. See also Allan, Buried Ideas, 289–99.

81. Luo Xinhui 羅新慧 notices that the second section of the Tsinghua manuscript Chengwu, which, like the Bao xun, contains admonitions of King Wen to Fa, does not mention the notion of Heaven’s Mandate: See Xinhui, Luo, “Omens and Politics: The Zhou Concept of the Mandate of Heaven as Seen in the Chengwu 程寤 Manuscript,” in Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, ed. Pines, Yuri et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 64–68Google Scholar. For Luo this fact speaks to the rejection of the “omenological” approach to Heaven and Heaven’s Mandate,” as it was propagated in the first part of the same manuscript, written earlier (68). It is, however, unlikely that the Zhou xun ’s silence about the Mandate of Heaven was motivated by the same considerations. Rather, it seems that this omission was a result of the political bankruptcy of this concept.

82. Shi ji, 4.158: 威烈王二十三年，九鼎震。命韓、魏、趙為諸侯。 “In the twenty-third year of King Weilie, the Nine Tripods shook. The king appointed Han, Wei, and Zhao as feudal lords.” Adapted from Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, 79.

83. In his “intercalary month” instruction, Lord Zhaowen even makes an unfavorable comparison between himself and Prince Gong, on the one hand, and Zhao Yang 趙鞅 (d. 475 b.c.e.), a ministerial vassal of Jin and leader of the Zhao clan, and his son Viscount Xiang 襄子 (r. 458–425 b.c.e.), on the other. See Zhou xun, 140, strip 176: 今我不如趙簡鞅，而爾又不及襄子無卹。 “Now, I am not as good as (Viscount) Jian Yang of Zhao, while also you cannot reach Viscount Xiang, Wuxu.”

84. See n.91 below.

85. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 902 (“Bao geng” 報更 15.4): 張儀所德於天下者，無若昭文君。周，千乘也，重過萬乘也，令秦惠王師之 … 名號至今不忘。 “Of all those whom Zhang Yi, as prime minister of Qin, treated with kindness, none equaled Lord Zhaowen. Zhou was a state with a mere thousand chariots, yet Zhang Yi treated it as if it were as important as a state with ten thousand chariots. … He ordered King Hui of Qin to regard Lord Zhaowen as a teacher. Even today his reputation has not been forgotten.” Knoblock and Riegel, Annals of Lu Buwei, 354.

86. Shi ji, 4.161–69; Zhanguo ce jian zheng, 3–134 (“Dong Zhou” 東周 and “Xi Zhou” 西周).

87. Shi ji, 5.219: 莊襄王元年，大赦罪人，修先王功臣，施德厚骨肉而布惠於民。東周君與諸侯謀秦，秦使相國呂不韋誅之，盡入其國。 “In his first year (249 b.c.e.), King Zhuangxiang extensively pardoned criminals, glorified the meritorious vassals of the former king, spread favor with generosity among his kin, and extended good deeds to the people. The Lord of East Zhou plotted with the feudal lords against Qin. Qin had Lü Buwei, the Prime Minister, punish him and annexed his entire territory.” Adapted from Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, 122.

88. Shi ji, 5.219: 秦不絕其祀，以陽人地賜周君，奉其祭祀。 “Qin did not cut off the Zhou ancestral sacrifices and bestowed the territory of Yangren upon the Lord of Zhou to sustain his sacrificial rites.” Adapted from Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, 122.

89. See Pines, Yuri, “Biases and Their Source Qin History in the Shiji,” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005/06), 10–34Google Scholar. Shi ji, 4.159.

90. Zhou xun, 125, strips 37–38.

91. Han Fei suggests that the relation between the East and West Zhou was characterized by tension all along. See Han Feizi jijie, 254 (“Nei chu shuo xia” 內儲說下): 公子朝，周太子也，弟公子根甚有寵於君，君死，遂以東周叛，分為兩國。 “Prince Zhao was heir apparent of Zhou. His younger brother, Prince Gen, was in special favor with the ruler. Upon the death of the royal father, Gen occupied Eastern Zhou, rose in rebellion and partitioned the original territory into two states.” Adapted from Liao, The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu, vol. 2, 19. Prince Gen, who rebelled against Zhou, was the first ruler of the East Zhou, Duke Hui of East Zhou 東周惠公 (r. 367–360 b.c.e.), and possibly Lord Zhaowen’s father. As for Prince Zhao, he was Prince Gong’s grandfather.

92. For the juxtapositions between the Zhou xun and the Lüshi chunqiu, see Zhou xun, 128, 131 and 135.

93. Sellmann, James D., Timing and Rulership in Master Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals (Lüshi chunqiu) (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), 1Google Scholar.

94. Han shu, 30.1730.

95. Yan Shigu, Han shu, 30.1732n9. This entry seems to indicate that the copy of the Zhou xun that Liu Xiang had at his disposal came from a private collection, and that, prior to that, the text was not part of the imperial library. Compare to Liu Xiang’s editorial comment to the Shuo yuan 說苑 in Shuo yuan jiaozheng 說苑校證, ed. Xiang Zonglu 向宗魯 (Bejing: Zhonghua, 1987), 1 (“Xu zou” 序奏).

96. Cheng Shaoxuan, “Tantan beida Hanjian Zhou xun de jige wenti,” 564–566, does not believe that these two works are identical, whereas Yan Buke, “Beida zhushu Zhou xun jianjie,” 74, and Han Wei, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao,” 275, claim the opposite.

97. Zhou xun, 144, strip 208.

98. Such as, for instance, Tai gong 太公, also called Liu tao 六韜. Han shu, 30.1729.

99. This characterization might very well go back to either Liu Xiang’s Bie lu 別錄 or Liu Xin’s 劉歆 (46 b.c.e.–23 c.e.) Qi lüe 七略. For the connection between these two works and the Han shu “Yiwenzhi,” see Wolff, Ernst, “I-wen chih” 藝文志, The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature, vol. 2, ed. Nienhauser, William H. Jr. (Taipei: SMC Publishing, 1999), 64Google Scholar.

100. I disagree with Han Wei’s view, “Xi-Han zhushu Zhou xun ruogan wenti tantao,” 275, that Ban Gu, who depicted Daoism as emerging out of the historiographical office (shi guan 史官), characterized the Zhou xun as a “daoist” work due to its abundant historical narratives. For would not the majority of ancient Chinese works count as “daoist,” if we accept this argument?

101. Gu Jiegang proposed that the first abdication legend was created by Mozi or his followers, whereas Allan connects the rise of this discourse with the literati (shi 士) and the inspiring figure of Confucius. See Allan, Buried Ideas, 17, 164–65.