Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T09:14:31.000Z 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: anfech@hkbu.edu.hk
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.)

Introduction

The principle of “elevating the worthy” can be justly regarded as one of the most influential ideas in China of the late Spring and Autumn (chunqiu 春秋) and Warring States (zhanguo 戰國) periods. Following deep social changes resulting from the gradual demise of old aristocratic families,Footnote 1 this principle was promoted in philosophical writings and implemented in many political reforms of the day.Footnote 2 As some transmitted texts, such as the “Yao dian” 堯典 chapter of the Shang shu 尚書, and, especially a bulk of newly discovered manuscripts, show, “elevating the worthy” was also applied to the issue of power transfer as an ostensive governance practice of the ancient times when the rulers established the most able men as their successors, regardless of the latter's provenance and social status.Footnote 3

The recently published manuscript Zhou xun 周馴（訓） or Instructions of the Zhou––part of the Peking University collection (Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu 北京大學藏西漢竹書), copied during the last years of Han Wudi 漢武帝 (r. 140–87 b.c.e.)Footnote 4––also discusses the idea of elevating the worthy. Yet, unlike most other related texts, the Zhou xun does not strive to undermine hereditary power transfer, but, on the contrary, seeks to make it more efficient and stable. In this paper, I aim to discuss the introduction of this particular interpretation of elevating the worthies. To this end, I first examine the protagonists, formal aspects, and main notions of the Zhou xun. I argue that the formal aspects of the manuscript, such as its rhyme patterns and some rhetoric strategies, suggest that it could not have been a conversation record from the fourth century b.c.e., as it purports, but was created some time later. Thus, I contend that the protagonists have been deliberately chosen to highlight the main notion of the text, “worthiness” (xian 賢). Further, I investigate how the Zhou xun’s particular interpretation of elevating the worthy influenced its view of classical accounts of throne abdication by Yao 堯 in favor of Shun 舜, and by Shun in favor of Yu 禹. Following that, I explore the main characteristics of “worthiness” as present in the Zhou xun. I claim that this concept shows eclectic features combining elements associated with different schools of thought. Taking into consideration this eclecticism as well as the Zhou xun’s concern for the survival of a state in interstate conflicts, I determine the probable date of its composition as the late Warring States period. Subsequently, I account for the elaboration of the Zhou xun’s doctrine by contextualizing the political and historical settings in which it emerged. While primarily broadening the circle of potential throne candidates, it is also conceivable, I argue, that this doctrine was created to justify the overturn of the Zhou by the Qin 秦. Finally, I claim that, given the state of research, no definitive answer can be given to the question whether the excavated Zhou xun was identical with the long-lost text bearing the same title and listed under Daoist lineage (dao jia 道家) in the bibliographical chapter of the Han shu 漢書.

The Nature and Protagonists of the Zhou xun

The Zhou xun was published in September 2015 and contains a little fewer than five thousand characters.Footnote 5 This is about one thousand characters fewer than indicated on one of the bamboo strips belonging to this manuscript: “Roughly six thousand (characters)” (da fan liu qian 大凡六千).Footnote 6 It thus stands to reason that about one sixth of the manuscript that once entered the Han grave has been lost. The text has the literary form of “instruction” (xun 訓), one of the six traditional types of shu 書.Footnote 7 As such, it purports to be a contemporaneous record of a formal speech by a monarch or a high minister.Footnote 8 In the Zhou xun, Lord Zhaowen of Zhou 周昭文公 (r. c. 328–? b.c.e.) delivers instructions to Prince Gong 𪚔（共）太子, identified there as his son and heir apparent,Footnote 9 who comes into audience at the lord's court on the first day (geng dan 更旦) of every month of the year.Footnote 10

In available historical sources, Lord Zhaowen of ZhouFootnote 11 is called ruler of the East Zhou 東周國, while Prince Gong is linked to either the East Zhou (Zhanguo ce 戰國策)Footnote 12 or the West Zhou 西周國 (Shi ji 史記).Footnote 13 Thus, at first glance, Prince Gong's association with the East Zhou as presented in the Zhanguo ce appears to be correct. However, the Zhou xun clearly places Lord Zhaowen in Chengzhou 成周, associated with the East Zhou,Footnote 14 whereas Prince Gong is reported to dwell in Jia Ru 郟鄏, the capital of the West Zhou.Footnote 15 This immediately calls into question the Zhou xun’s identification of Lord Zhaowen and Prince Gong as a ruler and his heir, given that the separation of the two Zhou kingdoms predates their lifetimes by several decades.Footnote 16

While this idiosyncrasy alone might raise doubts about the historicity of Lord Zhaowen's instructions, most of the scholars dealing with the Zhou xun so far believe that the content of the work goes back to the series of actual instructions that took place in the manner reported in the text.Footnote 17 I argue that the linguistic features of the work and its philosophical content offer little evidence for such historicity claims. As for the former, I would like to mention the three following characteristic traits.

1) Rhymed Tetrasyllables. Large portions of Lord Zhaowen's speech are composed using rhymed four-syllable sentences. Examine, for example, the following passage in which the text describes the succession struggles that broke out in the state of Jin 晉 after Duke Xian of Jin's 晉獻公 (r. 676–651 b.c.e.) death and preceding the establishment of Duke Wen of Jin 晉文公 (r. 636–628 b.c.e.):

Xiqi was established first, but he was not able to regulate himself, being of shallow wisdom, he was foolish, and the masses did not support his installation.

Zhuozi succeeded him, but raised doubts due to his unworthiness, his subordinates did not cling to him and none among the commoners wanted to have him above themselves.

After these two sons were abandoned, Yiwu stepped in. He discarded virtue and opposed conferring it. Lacking benevolence, he was skillful at betrayal. He entered Qin as a prisoner, experiencing a great disgrace. Soon after returning [to Jin], he passed away.

When Yuzi was in charge of the affairs, neither virtue nor benevolence were carried out. He did not extend kindness frequently. None of the ministers ministered to him, unwilling to be in his service. And so he lost his position and put the state to ruin, and was replaced immediately.Footnote 19

This is only an excerpt from a much longer rhymed passage. Even though there is evidence of rhyme use in historical documents and bronze inscriptions,Footnote 20 passages of rhymed tetrasyllables of such length were indeed rare.Footnote 21 Moreover, we often find this particular text arrangement in conversations of highly dubitable historicity attributed either to illustrious figures from the Chinese past, such as the ministers of the Yellow Emperor 黃帝, Guan Zhong 管仲, Fan Li 范蠡 and so on, or to clearly fictional characters such as various fanciful protagonists of the Zhuangzi.Footnote 22 This should make us cautious about regarding the content of the text as Lord Zhaowen's actual speech.

2) Antithesis. The Zhou xun demonstrates a high degree of organization by using the rhetorical figure of antithesis. In it, the argument is put forth in a positive and a negative strand that, as it were, mirror each other. Here is one small example of this figure as employed in the Zhou xun:

[if] one attaches importance to it, he will certainly put effort into establishing order. If he can order his person, his country will be ordered as well. [This way] the person in the superior position, will freely exercise his will.

If one’s person is disordered his country will be disordered too. If both country and person are disordered, then, even if one is a ruler, how can he attain what he wishes?Footnote 23

Juxtaposing extended portions of speech in this way is rather difficult in a spoken interaction and speaks to the careful and deliberate arrangement of a text. In fact, the parallel mode of reasoning, of which antithesis is an example, can be “considered the ‘default mode’ of classical Chinese expository prose.”Footnote 24 Besides, the frequency and scope in which the Zhou xun uses antithesis is reminiscent of such a prime example of skillful argument as the Xunzi 荀子.Footnote 25

3) Chain Argument. Lastly, the Zhou xun also frequently employs the rhetorical device called “chain argument” or anadiplosis, as in the example below:

為人君者，不可以信讒，信讒則苛民。苛民則正（政）乳（亂）。正（政）乳（亂）則民移，民移則國空虛，國空虛而城不守。主欲毋危，其得已乎？

A ruler cannot trust slanderers. If he trusts slanderers, he will be harsh to the people. If he is harsh to the people, his rule will be chaotic. If his rule is chaotic, the people will move away. If the people move away, the country will be empty and weak. If the country is empty and weak and cities unprotected, though the ruler wishes to avoid peril, can he achieve it?Footnote 26

In a chain argument, the last part of a sentence is repeated in the subsequent sentence. This figure belongs among the most common tools of persuasion in ancient Chinese rhetoric.Footnote 27 While such chain arrangement of the argument has the advantage of establishing causal relationships between its single members, it is also evident that free conversing hardly develops in this fashion.

With the above features in mind, it seems evident that, far from a simple conversation record, the Zhou xun represents a thoughtfully crafted literary composition. And even though the genre of shu, to which the Zhou xun belongs, was, in fact, an instance of the “earliest literary compositions” in China, intended for “oral performance” but written down in advance,Footnote 28 the scope and variety of argumentation techniques employed in the Zhou xun makes it closely resemble masters-texts from the late Warring States period.

Yet, the clearest evidence that the Zhou xun was not an audience record but a later composition follows from its eclectic content, which combines several distinct (and often inconsistent) ideas about the nature of ideal rule. While I am going to address these ideas a little later, it seems that the characters “Lord Zhaowen of Zhou” and “Prince Gong” belong to the plot of the text and were chosen by the author to provide a special framework for the promulgation of his ideas. What factors may have prompted their appearance in a text such as the Zhou xun?

As for Prince Gong, it is not easy to find a rationale behind his appearance in the Zhou xun, given that no information about him is transmitted except that he, as the main contender to the throne, predeceased his father.Footnote 29 I will attempt to deliver an explanation for his appearance when concluding this paper. Lord Zhaowen, on the other hand, is mentioned in the Han shu “Gujin ren biao” 古今人表, early China's most prominent source for assessing the historical significance of people, only as a person with middling to low abilities.Footnote 30 However, Ban Gu's 班固 (32–92 c.e.) judgement was based on considerations that differed from the standards of the pre-Qin period. As for the early depictions of Lord Zhaowen, the most comprehensive source appears to be the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, which mentions him as a ruler who became famous in the world through his deep respect and support of the worthies (xian 賢).Footnote 31 Lord Zhaowen's preoccupation with the worthies as recorded in the Lüshi chunqiu is clearly reflected in the content of the Zhou xun, where “worthiness” appears as the most frequently used term (see Table 1).

Table 1 Most Frequently Used Terms of the Zhou xun

In view of this, it may be argued that, for the author of the text, the historical Lord Zhaowen epitomized a person respecting worthies and concerned with obtaining excellence. It is my contention that the whole text might be regarded as an instruction on how to be a “worthy” ruler. Accordingly, even those instructions of Lord Zhaowen that do not mention this term directly are still intended to illustrate this content—to be a worthy ruler.

The Zhou xun and the Abdication Discourse

There are a number of passages in the Zhou xun that seem to demonstrate an unequivocal support of the “worthies,” going so far as to promulgate the ceding of political power to the most capable men, even if they do not belong to one's family:

In the past, Yao cautioned Shun, saying: “In installing one’s successor no method is appropriate, [other than making] worthiness your standard. In establishing one’s heir no way is orthodox, [other than making] worthiness your imperative.”Footnote 32

However, a closer look reveals that the text does not find this model applicable to contemporary times. While in antiquity, ministers, like Shun, were worthy to be entrusted with the throne, nowadays, so goes the sad conclusion, the time of such ministers has passed:

夫賢之臣不賢，久矣，剴（豈）乃今哉？

Now, long has it been the case that that ministers of worthy [rulers] are not themselves worthy. Why should it be different today?Footnote 33

When reading these lines, the reader might have felt reminded of the abundant examples of minsters supplanting the rulers of the state.Footnote 34 One of the most scandalous among them was King Kuai of Yan's 燕王噲 (r. 320–314 b.c.e.) abdication of the throne to his cunning minister Zi Zhi 子之, which had most dramatic consequences for the state of Yan.Footnote 35

Being aware of these dangers, Lord Zhaowen does not get tired of admonishing Prince Gong of the great difference between the positions of a ruler and a minister:

夫天之與地相去遠矣，而為人君與為人臣之相遠也，有（又）遠與天之去地也。

Now, heaven and earth are far away from each other, but the distance between ruler and minister is even farther than that between heaven and earth.Footnote 36

How can ruler and minister change their positions if they are farther away from each other than heaven and earth? As can be seen already, the Zhou xun promulgates the principle of the elevation of worthies only if it relates to the appointment of the heir apparent from among the sons of the ruler. And it also addresses the most common factors causing rulers to neglect this standard. The most severe among these factors is the rulers’ “love” (ai 愛) for one (or several) of their sons, blinding them to the abilities of their other offspring.

Yao's Love for Dan Zhu 丹朱

The juxtaposition of the ruler's love and the successor's abilities is also at the heart of the interpretation given in the Zhou xun to the legend about the abdication of power by Yao and Shun. Here is the first of the two legends:

昔堯之所愛子曰丹朱，不好茲（慈）孝，（繁）樂以惀（淪）。堯欲其賢，而弗能教海（誨）乃廢弗立，而吳（虞）舜受是置。於是為篇曰：子而能茲（慈）仁，則以代

In the past, the son whom Yao loved was Dan Zhu, who was fond nieither of kindness nor filial piety and embellished music with excessive emotions. Yao wanted him to become worthy, but was unable to instruct him. Therefore, he dismissed [Dan Zhu], not establishing him. Instead, Yu Shun was installed in this position. Thereupon, [Yao] composed a script that said: “If a son is able to be kind and benevolent, then replacing …”Footnote 37

The Zhou xun is the first among the excavated texts with abdication accounts to ever mention Dan Zhu. By calling the latter Yao's favorite son, the manuscript also diverges from the transmitted sources, in which we can hardly find any signs of fatherly affection toward him.Footnote 38 The list of Dan Zhu's flaws presented above is quite lengthy, including not liking kindness and filial piety, as well as embellishing music (fan yue 繁樂).Footnote 39 However, this judgment, as severe as it appears at first glance, is much more lenient than in the transmitted sources, where he is routinely accused of being “arrogant” (ao 傲) and “cruel” (n ü e 虐)Footnote 40 and even the worst human being of his time,Footnote 41 reminding the reader of the last depraved rulers of the Xia and Shang dynasties, the infamous Zhou 紂 and Jie 桀.Footnote 42 The reason for this idiosyncratic lenience seems to be inter alia the result of calling Dan Zhu the favorite son of his illustrious father, for such a paragon of wisdom and morality as Yao could not possibly be portrayed as bestowing love upon an utterly evil and depraved person. This has the interesting consequence that the text can no longer blame Dan Zhu's utter badness for his inability to reform, as it was often done in the received literature.Footnote 43 In fact, the Zhou xun is unusually outspoken about Yao's inability (fu neng 弗能) to reform his favorite son, coming closely to the position vigorously criticized by Xunzi (c. 300–c. 230 b.c.e.).Footnote 44 While such bluntness is unlikely to signal a critic of Yao, given his overall positive image in the Zhou xun, it can be interpreted in many different ways, including that behind the favorite sons there often were beloved consorts and concubines with their families subjecting the ruler to undue influence. Such a person, representing an entire hostile clan, could not be reformed by definition. The point here, however, was rather that Yao, despite all the efforts undertaken to transform his beloved son, was eventually able to put aside his emotions and to make a “rational” decision in favor of Shun. As the paragon of worthiness, filial piety, and kindness, as well as the regulator of music,Footnote 45 Shun embodies exactly the qualities Dan Zhu is lacking. However, he is mentioned here only in passing, and none of the complex details of his family background and ascension to power, as recorded in other sources, is mentioned in the Zhou xun.Footnote 46 His marginality shows, once again, that the focus of the Zhou xun is on the relation between a father-ruler and a son-heir. Had Dan Zhu been able to change his ways, there is no doubt that Shun would have never been invested with power. The script in which Yao explained his decision to Dan Zhu is incomplete, but it appears to be apologetic in nature.

Characteristically, other sons of Yao, of which he ostensibly had a great number, are not mentioned in the Zhou xun.Footnote 47 Their omission seems to have been deliberate, for otherwise the question would arise as to why Yao did not make any attempts to educate (any of) his remaining sons, preferring instead to hand the rule over to a man not belonging to his kin. Obviously, the author of the Zhou xun was attempting to create a version of the legend that would be consistent with his own agenda.

Shun's Love for Shang Jun 商均

Confirming Sarah Allan's observation, that authors in ancient China tended to adopt one particular view towards all traditional abdication legends,Footnote 48 Shun's account in the Zhou xun bears a close resemblance to that of Yao. Fortunately, it is much better preserved than the latter:

The son whom Shun loved was Shang Jun. Shun instructed and guided him, wanting to enable him to become worthy. But it was impossible to instruct him, and so (Shun) banished him, not letting him be king over the people.

Therefore, [Shun] composed a script that said: “You are the beloved son of your father, how can I begrudge ennobling you (making you king)? I think that by giving you the country I will imperil it.”

Now, one who destroys a country, does he really destroy just the country? He will certainly lose his life [as well].”Footnote 49

Like Yao, Shun too is reported to have tried his best to make his beloved son, and the only wished-for successor, worthy of the throne. Yu's complete absence from this account only underscores Shun's desire to establish his son as successor. However, Shun too failed to transform his son, who, in contrast to the received literature often depicting him (together with Dan Zhu) as the embodiment of evil,Footnote 50 is not given here any characterization. Just as it was the case with Dan Zhu, the reason for this less negative treatment in the Zhou xun seems, once again, to lie in the ostensible love of the virtuous father. As Shun reveals in his apologetic script, his love for Shang Jun was also at play when he sent the latter into exile. Not mentioned elsewhere, this particular event appears to be an appropriation of the motif of Shun banishing different people, such as his father, Gu Sou 瞽瞍,Footnote 51 his younger brother, Xiang 象,Footnote 52 and his former ruler, Yao.Footnote 53 The motivation behind sending his heir into exile was benign, for Shun is adamant that an incapable ruler will lead the country and himself to destruction.

At one point, the Zhou xun mentions Dan Zhu and Shang Jun together, but again, in a way remarkably different from the received sources:

【•】禹謂啟曰：「丹朱，商均，行羛（義）弗好，寡德少禮，是以不得為堯舜嗣。」

Yu said to Qi: “Dan Zhu and Shang Jun were not fond of practicing righteousness, they possessed little virtue and scarce propriety. Thus, they did not get to be successors to Yao and Shun.”Footnote 54

Accordingly, Dan Zhu and Shang Jun were not fond of righteousness and possessed virtue and propriety to a very limited extent, but they were not embodiments of evil. Consequently, in the Zhou xun, the two father–son pairs of Yao–Dan Zhu and Shun–Shang Jun do not seem to represent miniature models of “dynastic cycles” as is the case in some received works.Footnote 55

Apart from the above examples, the narrative of the Zhou xun is such that, when facing a decision between a favorite successor and a worthy one, a ruler is always concerned with choosing among his sons. Characteristically, even such well-known instances of yielding power to worthies outside of the family, as Yu's abdication to his minister Yi 益,Footnote 56 are absent from the Zhou xun, which treats Yu's son, Qi 啟, as his natural heir apparent.Footnote 57 Therefore, we can characterize the Zhou xun as a text that, while recognizing the historical fact of meritocracy-based transfer of power to worthy ministers, regarded it as a last resort measure and not as a laudable practice to be implemented broadly (at least, in the political setting of the time).Footnote 58

Preeminence of Worthiness

While calling Dan Zhu and Shang Jun the favorite sons of their fathers, the Zhou xun remains silent about the important fact that they were also lawful successors based on the rule of primogeniture, the very cornerstone of the political and social order in pre-imperial and imperial China.Footnote 59 Thus, while rejecting other motivations for establishing an heir, the absolute majority of ancient Chinese thinkers supporting the hereditary paradigm of succession would unanimously emphasize the importance of primogeniture as the only way to avoid chaos resulting from succession struggles. The Zhou xun, however, seems to reject even this fundamental rule, by presenting a set of stories in which a worthy younger brother would eventually consolidate power in his hands.Footnote 60 Together with the contender's seniority (zhang 長), the text also rejects the nobility of his maternal lineage (gui 貴) as a criterion worthy of consideration.Footnote 61 With the preeminence of worthiness thus coming to light, we must address the question of what constitutes its nature for “Lord Zhaowen.”

The Nature of Worthiness

From the above stories about Dan Zhu and Shang Jun, it became apparent that the Zhou xun identified such qualities as “filial piety” (xiao 孝), “virtue” (de 德), “righteousness” (yi 義), and “propriety” (li 禮) as instantiations of worthiness. This list can be completed with such frequently used terms as “trustworthiness” (xin 信), “kindness” (hui 惠), “benevolence” (ren 仁), and “compassion” (ci 慈) (as listed in Table 1). The obviously moral interpretation of this initially purely administrative notion,Footnote 62 was common to most excavated manuscripts addressing the topic of abdication, and its goal seems to have been “to enhance the legitimacy of abdication among the ‘Confucian-minded’ part of their audience, namely those statesmen and thinkers who believed in the priority of moral values over purely political considerations.”Footnote 63 However, the Zhou xun offers the by far most comprehensive list of moral values, which might be interpreted as a (relatively late) attempt to combine the most relevant standpoints.Footnote 64

By possessing these qualities, the Zhou xun claims, a ruler or a claimant to the throne will necessarily win support of his “people” (described interchangeably by terms min 民, ren 人 and zhong 眾).Footnote 65 Moreover, the text purports that the people are directly involved in the royal transfer of power. The passage below, arranged in a positive and a negative strand of argumentation, substantiates this claim:

Now, if you are able to be kind and filial, to honor benevolence and value trustworthiness, then, even if I have not yet established you, you will enforce your establishment by yourself. So when I am near my end, reaching my final years, the crowd will establish you (as certainly) as the sun must rise (treating you) as Heaven above them.

But if you distance yourself from trustworthiness and benevolence and are not able to be kind and filial, if you despise learning, loathe goodness, and do not heed teaching and counsels, then, even if I personally install you, the people will replace you and none of them will like you.Footnote 66

The importance of subjects’ support for a ruler was a common topic in ancient China. However, such strong emphasis on the role of the people in establishing a ruler, which is also absent in the relevant excavated materials, has strong similarities with the Mengzi 孟子, in which “the people's acceptance of [a successor] as a true leader” was at the heart of the abdication doctrine.Footnote 67 In the Mengzi, however, this topic was embedded in the overarching “Heaven's Mandate” theory, according to which the allegiance of the people does signal the acceptance of a particular ruler by Heaven.Footnote 68 Without attempting to determine the exact relation between the Mengzi and Zhou xun, it is evident that the authors of the two texts recognized the importance of the low strata of society for successful governance.

Another characteristic point of the Zhou xun’s idea of “worthy” is that it includes the ruler's ability to protect and assert his position against the subversive activities of his ministers (chen 臣). Such admonitions are especially abundant in the beginning of the text, like, for example, here:

為人君者，喜怒不可還（旋）發之於前。有所唯，未可以還（旋）唯之。有所非，未可以還（旋）非之。穆穆乎！賢主之心，如臨深淵，其誰能極之？

A ruler cannot make an immediate display of joy and anger. If he approves of something, he cannot express his approval immediately. If he disapproves of something, he cannot express his disapproval immediately. So profound! The heart of a worthy ruler! Like (approaching) a deep chasm, who can fathom it?Footnote 69

Not only should the ruler keep his ministers ignorant in regard to his own thoughts, he should also take measures to prevent them from knowing each other's respective opinions, as proposed below:

為人君者，不可以通其群臣之言，通其群臣之【言】，則臣相智（知）情，臣相智（知）情則不和，不和則乳（亂）主，乳（亂）主則主危。

A ruler cannot communicate the words of his minsters to one another. If he communicates the words of his ministers to one another, they will all know what each other truly feels. If the ministers all know what each other truly feels, they will not be in harmony. If they are not in harmony, they will plunge the ruler into chaos. If they plunge the ruler into chaos, the ruler will be in danger.Footnote 70

In some of his advice, Lord Zhaowen even encourages the ruler to use deception techniques with his subordinates, as below:

A ruler cannot but be fond of listening. If he is not fond of listening, he will not know the sentiments of his subordinates.

And so, it is imperative (for him) to listen but not be heard; to know but remain silent. This is what a proverb expresses in saying: “If you are not mad and deaf, you cannot become the duke of people.”

And so, when the Documents say: “Great wisdom resembles madness,” is it not talking about this?Footnote 71

The Zhou xun’s overall setting of a father-ruler directly instructing his son can also be viewed as the expression of distrust in ministers, who were usually in charge of the upcoming ruler's education. In any case, Lord Zhaowen sees himself as the only person fit to instruct the heir apparent:

If not for me talking to you, telling you the way things are, would other people dare to utter these words? Ah well! Be cautious! Devote yourself to receiving instructions and pay attention to not getting sluggish!Footnote 72

In some of this, the Zhou xun resembles Han Feizi 韓非子. Han Fei (280–233 b.c.e.) developed his highly characteristic strategies for power consolidation in correspondence with his cosmology, in which the impenetrable, obscure Dao 道, the Way, played a pivotal role.Footnote 73 The Zhou xun, in turn, shows no interest for cosmological speculations whatsoever and does not operate with the cosmological notion of Dao. While this and other differences speak against a direct connection between the two texts,Footnote 74 the above quoted passages underline the complex and eclectic character of the Zhou xun’s notion of “worthy.”

Equipped with the support of his people and enjoying a secure and uncontested position within his state, a worthy ruler is not only able to continue his own ancestral sacrifices, one of the main concerns in the Zhou xun, but also to be successful in his external politics, conquering other countries:

The worthy ruler conquers other states, whereas the unworthy one lacks wisdom and loses his territory, which of them will have a constant place to dwell?Footnote 75

It follows from the above that the Zhou xun’s idea of “worthy” mainly includes the abilities of an aspiring ruler to win the support of the population, to protect his position against the encroachments of ministers, and to extend his influence into other countries. That is, a worthy would successfully deal with the major challenges presented to a ruler of the late Warring States period. Besides, the Zhou xun’s focus on the education of the ruler's sons seems to have been designed to provide 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).Footnote 76 Indeed, transferring the rule to a worthy son is the only effective means to resolve this conflict. Yet, the ideal of worthiness as proposed in the Zhou xun is anything but easy to fulfill. For even if we assume that a ruler really existed, who, while being a worthy himself, was also wise enough to recognize an able successor among his sons and educate him the right way,Footnote 77 the problem would still remain as to how cultivation of lofty moral virtues could be combined with the deception techniques the text teaches. After all, how genuine can the “benevolence” or “kindness” of a ruler be, who, in his interactions with his subordinates, is advised to resort to subterfuge?

The Zhou xun in the Context of the Late Warring States Period

The above analysis suggests that the Zhou xun’s understanding of “worthy” was shaped by ideas associated with different texts and schools of thought. While such eclecticism possibly speaks to its rather late date of composition, the mention of interstate conflicts still reflects the political realities of the Warring States period. Thus, assuming that the Zhou xun was elaborated in a single creative effort,Footnote 78 I would like to place its doctrine in the context of the late Warring States period and see whether it can be explained through the political circumstances of the time. To this end, I would like to first contrast the Zhou xun with the Bao xun 保訓 (Cherished Instructions) of the Tsinghua University collection.Footnote 79 In the latter, King Wen of Zhou 周文王 (d. c. 1047 b.c.e.) is instructing his son, Fa 發, the future King Wu 武王 (d. c. 1043 b.c.e.), in order to transmit to him the Mandate of Heaven. The possession of this mandate, expressed in the Bao xun by means of “center” (zhong 中),Footnote 80 is the main prerequisite for the latter to become an equal to his father and illustrious rulers of the past, such as Shun, King Tang of Shang 商湯, etc. Lord Zhaowen also instructs his heir with the goal of making him a successful ruler, but he does not operate with the notion of the mandate anymore.Footnote 81 While placing great emphasis on filial piety, he does not treat the founders of the Zhou dynasty and his own ancestors, Kings Wen and Wu of Zhou, differently from Duke Wen of Jin or even Marquis Wen of Wei 魏文侯 (?–396 b.c.e.), whose recognition as zhuhou 諸侯, alongside the leaders of Han 韓 and Zhao 趙, shook the very foundation of Zhou power.Footnote 82 To him, all of these persons, regardless of their ties to the ruling house of Zhou and their standing in the Zhou system of titles, did, to the same extent, represent examples of being “worthy.”Footnote 83

Lord Zhaowen's refusal to attach himself to the paradigm of his ancestors, is in accord with his neglect of the Zhou ethics of zongfa 宗法 kinship relations, noted above. What are the reasons for his outspoken anti-traditionalism? A possible answer could run along the lines that the doctrine was created to support political aspirations of those members of royal families who were traditionally at a disadvantage regarding succession to the throne, such as, for example, sons by concubines. Does not the setting of the Zhou xun, in which Lord Zhaowen treats Prince Gong, probably his first cousin once removed,Footnote 84 as his successor, speak to the same point? In this case, the Zhou xun was created by or on behalf of the representatives of this social stratum.

However, I believe that the interpretation of the Zhou xun that takes into consideration Lord Zhaowen's reputation and the premature death of Prince Gong is also plausible. According to the Lüshi chunqiu, Lord Zhaowen was a ruler who, although possessing only a small country, earned great and long-lasting respect from mighty rulers of his time, especially in the state of Qin 秦.Footnote 85 Thus, while not being the Zhou “Son of Heaven” (tian zi 天子), Lord Zhaowen was perhaps the last representative of this ruling house with the reputation of a worthy and virtuous ruler. The premature death of Prince Gong, whom Lord Zhaowen aimed to educate, could be then interpreted to the effect that, with his death, the Zhou were left without a worthy successor, which, given the doctrine of the text, should with necessity lead to its demise. The behavior the Zhou rulers exhibited in the final years of the dynasty does indeed not show any signs of the lofty moral virtues Lord Zhaowen promulgated.Footnote 86 The Qin, on the other hand, are depicted much more favorably. King Zhuangxiang of Qin 秦莊襄王 (r. 250–247 b.c.e.), for instance, who extinguished the East Zhou in the year 248 b.c.e., is lauded in the Shi ji to have “spread favor with generosity among his kin, and extended good deeds to the people” (施德厚骨肉而布惠於民).Footnote 87 This could easily be a description of ideal behavior in the Zhou xun. But could it be really the case that the Zhou xun promoted the hidden agenda of legitimizing Qin's replacement of Zhou, after all that we have learned about it so far, and especially given the text's great emphasis on the continuation of ancestral sacrifices? As regards the latter point, it is worth mentioning that, after conquering Zhou, Qin did not cut off the latter's ancestral sacrifices, providing them with territory specifically for that purpose.Footnote 88 Besides, some fragments of the Shi ji, alongside some excavated material, suggest that, historically, the alliance between Zhou and Qin had been very close, speaking even of their “unity.”Footnote 89 Claims to inherit Zhou do indeed seem possible under these circumstances. Furthermore, the narrative of the Zhou xun speaks to this possibility as well. At one point in his instructions, Lord Zhaowen advises Prince Gong on how to win the allegiance of the people of Chengzhou (East Zhou), which was not the domain of the prince who resided in Jia Ru (West Zhou):

爾有蓐（鄏）邑，而成周之人不為女（汝）民，其何以守國？

You have the City of Ru, but if the people of Chengzhou are not your people, how will you preserve the country?Footnote 90

By the end of the fourth century b.c.e., the East and West Zhou were two belligerent countries not unlike the other states of the late Warring States period.Footnote 91 Against this backdrop, advising a prince of the West Zhou how to win the support of the East Zhou capital was not much different from giving the same advice to a ruler of Qin (or any other state). Finally, there are multiple parallels between the Zhou xun and the Lüshi chunqiu in content and structure.Footnote 92 The latter's patron, Lü Buwei 呂不韋 (292–235 b.c.e.), not only led the concluding campaign against the East Zhou, but also attempted to create theoretical justification for the unifying rule of Qin.Footnote 93 These parallels suggest that the two works might stem from a similar background.

The Zhou xun and the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” 藝文志

Besides bearing direct testimony to the philosophical discourse of long-gone times, the Zhou xun has another intriguing side to it, namely, the fact that, in the bibliographical chapter of the Han shu, “Yiwenzhi,” there is a mention of a work with the same title. There, the Zhou xun is listed under the “Daoism” section, comprising fourteen chapters or pian 篇.Footnote 94 Since Liu Xiang 劉向 (77–76 b.c.e.) made an editorial comment on it that is preserved in a quotation by Yan Shigu 顏師古 (581–645 c.e.), we can conclude that the Zhou xun entered the imperial library already during the Western Han (206 b.c.e.–8 c.e.). However, Liu Xiang's comment was rather unflattering, stating: “A petty book from the people, its sayings are vulgar and trivial” (ren jian xiao shu, qi yan su bo 人間小書，其言俗薄).Footnote 95 The question of whether that “trivial” work of Daoist philosophy listed in the Han shu was identical to the Peking University manuscript carrying the same name has been answered variously in recent publications.Footnote 96 While I do agree with the argument that the coincidence of having two different texts with the same title and similar scope is rather unlikely, the content of the Zhou xun proved to be in no way specifically Daoist. The text does not operate with the cosmological notion of the Way (dao 道) and only once does it name “possession of the Way” (you dao 有道) as a quality of a worthy ruler.Footnote 97 However, the Daoism section of the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” also contains other works with less pronounced Daoist flavor,Footnote 98 and we cannot rule out the possibility that the Zhou xun was characterized as Daoist based on other considerations than its content.Footnote 99 Thus, in the end, the question of whether the Peking University Zhou xun and the work listed in the Daoist section of the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” are one and the same text cannot be answered definitively at this point.Footnote 100

Conclusion

The interpretation of history as offered in the Zhou xun was not destined to become influential in early China. Too paradoxical was the ostensible love of Yao and Shun toward their unworthy sons, too much shadow and suspicion did it cast on these paragons of virtue to be accepted as a conventional narrative. Nor could the Zhou xun’s challenges to the system of primogeniture be embraced in China, where it remained the main rule regulating the transition of power throughout its imperial history. Yet, the text is still a valuable document, providing us with new evidence on the variety of different standpoints in the abdication discourse of the late pre-Qin China. Likewise, the author(s) of the manuscript, I contend, appear to come from a different social group than is assumed to have been the case with other manuscripts on the topic.Footnote 101 And if the text was really composed to provide justification for the Qin's conquest of Zhou, as was suggested here, it would be a unique example of using the principle of “elevating the worthy” in political life. While I mainly focused on the Zhou xun’s system of thought in the present article, its parallels to the other texts, especially the Lüshi chunqiu, promise to shed further light on the circumstances of its creation.

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.

Figure 0

Table 1 Most Frequently Used Terms of the Zhou xun