Long ago, there were three brothers, who traveled to Qi and Lu and studied with the same teacher. Having learned the way, humaneness, and rightness, they returned. Their father said, “What is the way of humaneness and rightness?” The eldest brother said, “Humaneness and rightness cause me to care for my person and only after that for my reputation.” The middle one said, “Humaneness and rightness cause me to give my life in order to achieve reputation.” The youngest said, “Humaneness and rightness have me keep both my person and my reputation intact.” These three techniques [of pursuing humaneness and rightness] contradict one another, and yet they all come from the Confucians (ru), which is right and which is wrong?
“Shuo fu 說付”, Liezi 列子 (Attributed to Yang Zhu)For more than two millennia, our knowledge of early Confucianism has been based primarily upon reading the Lun yu 論語 and the Mencius. Recent discoveries of bamboo slip manuscripts in the Chu script of the Warring States period (475–222 bc) provide a new perspective. In this paper, I will translate and discuss one of the manuscripts in the Shanghai Museum collection, the Zigao 子羔. These manuscripts were looted from a tomb and sold in Hong Kong, so their provenance is uncertain. However, the script is very similar to that of the manuscripts found in Tomb Number One at Guodian, Jingmen, Hubei Province, and they are thought to have been buried at about the same time (c. 300 bc) and to be from the same vicinity.Footnote 1
The Zigao is published in the second volume of Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書.Footnote 2 The transcription therein was prepared by the editor, Ma Chengyuan 馬承源. “Zigao” is written on the back of one of the bamboo slips and this is taken as its title. It is a short text. As presently constituted, it includes fourteen bamboo slips in the Shanghai Museum collection and a slip fragment in the collection of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Footnote 3 Some of the bamboo slips are badly damaged and large sections of text are missing, but the calligraphy in the remaining sections is very clear after conservation and it includes enough readable text for the general sense to be comprehensible.
The date of composition of the Zigao is uncertain, but there are clues which allow us to place it within an historical context. According to the Shi ji 史記, Zigao was thirty years younger than Confucius (551–479 bc), so he was born around 521.Footnote 4 We do not know when Zigao died, but he was active in the state of Wey 衛 around the time of Confucius' death.Footnote 5 The style of reference to Zigao suggests that the manuscript was probably composed by a disciple rather than Zigao himself, possibly after his own death. Assuming the manuscript was buried at about the same time as the Guodian manuscripts, we have a terminus ante quem of around 300 bc, or at latest 278 bc.Footnote 6 The Mencius was compiled by his disciples after his death in around 305 bc. Thus, the Zigao was probably composed after Confucius' death and before or around the same time as the final compilation of the Mencius.
One of the many surprises in the Guodian and Shanghai Chu bamboo slip manuscripts is the interest expressed in abdication as a political ideal. Like the Chu bamboo slip text from Guodian Tomb No. 1, Tang Yu zhi dao 唐虞之道 (“The way of Tang Yao and Yu Shun”), the Zigao takes Yao's abdication of the good to the good as the ideal form of political succession.Footnote 7 Two other bamboo slip texts in the Shanghai collection, Rongchengshi 容成氏 and Gui shen zhi ming 鬼神之明, also take abdication as a superior means of political succession.Footnote 8 Although Gu Jiegang proposed early on that the abdication legends of Yao and Shun were Mohist in origin, of these four manuscripts that advocate abdication to the most meritorious as the ideal means of political succession, only Gui shen zhi ming could be described as Mohist.Footnote 9 Indeed, the four manuscripts do not have a consistent philosophical outlook.
The Zigao is nominally a Confucian text in that it records a conversation between Confucius' disciple Zigao and Confucius. It was also bound together with two other bamboo slip manuscripts in which Confucius is the most important figure. However, its main topics are the divine insemination and miraculous birth of the progenitors of the three dynasties and Yao's abdication to Shun. This is not Confucianism as we know it from the Lun yu and the Mencius. According to the Lun yu, “the Master did not talk about uncanny events, feats of strength, disorders, or spirits”.Footnote 10 Moreover, as I shall discuss below, abdication is not discussed in the Lun yu and the Mencius denies that it was possible for a king to abdicate the throne.
The Zigao has a number of other unusual features: (1) Zigao, who is described in uncomplimentary terms in the Lun yu, is the disciple asking questions of Confucius, to his apparent approval. (2) The term tian zi 天子, “son-of-sky/heaven”, a common euphemism for the king, is used literally, to refer to the divine conception of the progenitors of the royal lineage. (3) The term san wang, “three kings”, is used for the progenitors of the royal lineages, rather than for the founding kings of the dynasties or the pre-dynastic rulers. (4) Confucius advocates abdication and prefers the meritorious Shun over the dynastic founders. (5) The progenitors of the three dynastic lineages, rather than the founding kings, are juxtaposed to the pre-dynastic ruler Shun 舜, who received the rule from Yao because of his merit. The effect of this unusual juxtaposition is to present the three dynasties as having the right to rule because of their divine lineage rather than because their first kings received the celestial mandate.
Before turning to my analysis of the manuscript, I will briefly discuss the social changes which serve as its historical context and review what we know about Zigao from the transmitted tradition. I will then give a complete translation of the manuscript based upon the modern character edition that is appended at the end of this article, and explicate it, line by line. In the concluding section, I will place the manuscript within the early Confucian tradition. For alternative readings of particular graphs in the manuscript, see the Appendix.
The historical context
The Warring States period is well known as the axial age of Chinese philosophy, one in which “one hundred schools” competed with different political theories and visions of an orderly society, as the warring states gradually destroyed one another. It was also a period of dramatic social change in which the lineage system of the early Western Zhou period finally collapsed under the pressure of new social developments. Some fifty years ago, Hsü Cho-yun argued that a shift of power began in the seventh century bc, which finally saw the collapse of the old hereditary aristocracy in the Warring States. Concomitantly, this period saw the rise of the shi 士, a class of “gentlemen” who traced their descent to the noble lineages, but who had little if any land and achieved authority through technical skills, including both military arts and literary culture, and official office. The philosophers and their disciples were, by and large, drawn from this class.Footnote 11
Hsü's argument for dramatic social change was based upon an analysis of the family backgrounds of named figures in the transmitted historical records. He states, “after 464 bc most historical figures were self-made men who rose from obscurity. This trend, together with the decline of the minister class in the late Chunqiu period, may indicate not only that there was more mobility between classes at the beginning of [Warring States] times, but that the former dominant class, the ministers, had already collapsed. The disappearance of old families may be a consequence of the conquest and annexation of many older, smaller states by a handful of newer states. An inspection of the backgrounds of the chancellors of various [Warring State period] states indicates that there were few if any such families. In brief, what happened during the Zhanguo period was the disappearance of the former social stratification, not merely freer mobility between strata.”Footnote 12
Hsü's hypothesis has been supported more recently by the gradual accumulation of evidence from mortuary archaeology. In his recent book, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, Lothar von Falkenhausen synthesizes a vast amount of evidence of Chinese mortuary practices from archaeological excavations. He argues that because of the prevalence of lineage segmentation, the social hierarchy of the Western Zhou period quickly began to break down and that there were two major attempts to re-align the sumptuary rules, in the late Western Zhou (c. 850 bc) and again in the middle of the Spring and Autumn period (722–481 bc); that is, the social changes noted by Hsü Cho-yun were marked somewhat earlier in the burial system.
Von Falkenhausen states, “In any segmentary lineage society, descent is the decisive criterion in negotiating social inequality … . Continuity of descent from as prestigious as possible an ancestral figure in the distant past – and seniority among those descended from that ancestor – entailed access to privilege and power. Nevertheless, the segmentation of the lineages gradually led to the destruction of their religious and ritual authority”. Although another “ritual restructuring” occurred in the middle of the Spring and Autumn period that attempted to bring the ritual in line with social realities, the character of the social distinctions had changed too dramatically. The new distinctions were no longer between ranked and unranked members of a lineage, but simply between rulers and the ruled.Footnote 13
This conflict between the hereditary lineages and the rising shi class was expressed in historical legend. In The Heir and the Sage: Dynastic Legend in Early China (1981), I analysed the manner in which Chinese texts compiled from the fifth to first centuries bc describe transfers of rule from Yao to Shun to the foundation of the Zhou Dynasty.Footnote 14 I argued therein that the primary theme of historical legends in Warring States texts is the contradiction between conflicting principles of heredity and virtue. At its most basic level, these principles represent the conflicting obligations to family and the larger social group, which are inherent in any human society. In a society in which ancestral lineages are both religious and social units, as in ancient China, however, such conflicts may become particularly acute.
The idea of a dynastic cycle embodies an inherent contradiction between the principles of rule by hereditary right (represented by dynastic continuation) and rule by virtue (represented by dynastic change). The theory of a changing mandate of sky/heaven attempted to explain this contradiction and to regulate its manifestations, but there was always the potential of conflict with the opposing principle. Any new ruler might be considered a usurper for having breached the hereditary right of the former ruler. Similarly, any hereditary ruler could be accused of having lost his moral authority.
In practical political terms, the hereditary ruler had to contend with the possibility that a rebel or usurper would claim that the mandate had been transferred. In historical legend, the conflicting principles were continually played out by different transformations of the legends according to the philosophical principles being espoused when “history” was discussed by individual philosophers. However, in the transmitted tradition, the legends of abdication of the pre-dynastic period serve to support the concept of dynastic change. No philosophical text, including the Mozi, proposes abdication to the most worthy as a political ideal for their own time.
As we shall see below, the primary issue in the Zigao is how to measure the progenitors of the three dynasties, who were divinely engendered, against the merit of the sage, Shun. Heredity is juxtaposed to virtue, but the historical paradigm becomes one in which the dynastic lineages were legitimate because of the divine birth of the progenitor, rather than because of the merit of the founding king who had received the mandate of sky/heaven. This configuration, in which dynastic legitimacy is attributed to heredity alone, makes abdication an alternative to hereditary rule, rather than a precedent for dynastic change.
Zigao
The earliest transmitted texts provide only sparse information about Zigao and most of it is uncomplimentary. Zigao, whose name was Gao Chai 高柴, is mentioned in two passages in the Lun yu. In one, he is described as “foolish” or “stupid” (yu 愚):
As for Chai, he is foolish. As for Can (Zengzi), he is dim. As for Shi (Zizhang), he is biased. As for You (Zilu), he is brash.Footnote 15
In the Lun yu, this passage is not attributed to “the Master”, but it appears in the biography of the disciples of Confucius in the Shi ji as Confucius' own opinion.Footnote 16 Thus, whether or not it was an actual statement of Confucius, it had become accepted as Confucius' opinion.
In the other, Zilu 子路 had obtained an appointment for Zigao in the state of Lu as a steward for the Ji family, who had usurped the ducal line of Lu. Zilu was one of Confucius' more problematic disciples. In the Lun yu, his shortcomings and mistakes often serve as a foil to Confucius or another disciple. Here, both men are cast in a poor light:
Zilu had Zigao appointed as steward of Bi. The master said, “This is ruining someone else's child.” Zilu said, “Common people are to be found there and there is an altar of grain. Why must one always read books and only then be taken as learned?” The master said, “This is the reason one despises people who are glib.”Footnote 17
This passage is more about Zilu than about Zigao, but it suggests that Zigao did not even finish his studies with Confucius. That this passage mentions “reading books” (du shu 讀書) is also interesting. We do not know what these “books” would have been. The term shu commonly refers to historical documents like those collected in the Shang shu 尚書, “Ancient Documents” (later canonized as the Shu jing 書經, “Book of Documents”), but the term shu does not seem to be used so specifically here. Perhaps they were simply short texts, like the Chu bamboo slip manuscripts that Confucius used for teaching materials.
The description of Zigao in the Shi ji biography of the disciples is brief, but it retains this negative image. Besides the statement that Confucius considered Zigao foolish, it adds that his personal name was Gao Chai, that he was thirty years younger than Confucius, and that he was less than five “feet” (chi 尺) tall. Sima Qian does not give Zigao's place of origin, but later commentators to the Shi ji give it as Qi 齊 or Wey.Footnote 18 Besides this rudimentary information, the Kongzi Jia yu 孔子家語, which gives Qi as his place of origin, adds ugliness to his short stature.Footnote 19 The Li ji also describes the customary mourning dress used by Zigao 子羔 garment by garment, and then adds that Zengzi 曾子, one of Confucius' most respected disciples, compared it with that of a woman.Footnote 20
There is one narrative in the pre-Han transmitted texts in which Zigao plays an active role. It is first found in the Zuo zhuan 左傳, and is repeated in the Shi ji. As in the Lun yu passage quoted above, Zigao appears in the train of the better known but questionable Zilu. The main narrative is a complex and ignoble tale of the rulers of the state of Wey, involving murder, illicit sex, and a struggle over succession, worthy of a contemporary soap opera. Zilu was employed in the service of the Kong family in the state of Wey (not related to Kongzi) and Zigao was either in Zilu's retinue or had his own appointment. Confucius had previously served in Wey. On one occasion, disgusted with Duke Ling 靈 (534–493 bc), because he drove a carriage accompanied by a woman, he declared that he had yet to find a ruler who was more attracted to benevolence than beauty and left the state. On another occasion, he left after being consulted about military matters by the head of the Kong family. Finally, he gave up on the lords of Wey and returned to his native state of Lu, where he died in 479 bc.
When the story begins, Kuaikui 蒯 聵 (蕢聵), the heir apparent of Duke Ling of Wey, had gone into exile after unsuccessfully plotting to kill his father's consort. Kuaikui's older sister had married a son of the powerful Kong family of Wey and she had given birth to Kong Li. After Duke Ling died, she formed an illicit relationship with a Kong family servant. Before his death Duke Ling had decided to appoint Ying 郢, the son of a consort, rather than Kuaikui, but after his death, Ying refused the throne in favour of Kuaikui's son. He was installed as Duke Chu 出.
Kuaikui attempted to return from his exile with the intention of ousting his son from the throne under the pretence of mourning his father, but was blocked. Then, in 481, the retainer who was having an illicit relationship with Kuaikui's older sister visited Kuaikui in order to plot his return. The two of them returned to Wey disguised as women. Once they had entered the Kong family estate, they attempted to force Kong Li to swear a covenant to join them in an insurrection. The turmoil alerted a house servant, who spirited Duke Chu out of the state in a carriage (together with his unfinished meat and wine), and sent a message to Zilu.
Zilu, having received the message, was on the verge of entering the gate to the walled Wey capital, when he ran into Zigao. Zigao was leaving and told him that the Duke had left and the gates were already closed. Zilu responded, “If one eats someone's grain (salary), one should not flee from his difficulties”, and insisted on proceeding. Zigao, in contrast, warned him “not to step in other people's troubles”. When Zilu arrived at the palace, he was again warned and he again stated that one owes loyalty to someone who has given grain. Having entered the palace, he taunted Kuaikui as cowardly and his covenant with Kong Li as useless. Kuaikui was frightened and sent two men to fight him. In the struggle, Zilu was fatally wounded and his cap string cut. Reciting the rule that “when a gentleman dies, he doesn't remove his cap”, he retied his cap string and fell dead.
Confucius, hearing of the disorder in Wey, declared, “As for Chai [Zigao], he will be coming; as for You [Zilu], he has died”. This judgement is usually taken as evidence of Confucius' perception of the difference in the characters of the two disciples.Footnote 21
Considering the tawdriness of the tale, it is not surprising that Confucius had already decided that he could not convince the Dukes of Wey to practise the Way of the former kings. This battle over succession to rule the small state of Wey is one reflection of the breakdown of the lineage structure mentioned above. It also reflects the instability of hereditary succession as an institution. Sons of rulers often fled to other states, or were held hostage there. Assassinations of the rulers of the states were also common; for example, in the preceding decade, in the neighbouring, and more powerful, state of Qi, the head of the Tian lineage murdered the heir of the recently deceased lord in 485, and then in 481, a rival puppet set up by other lineages. In the following years, as the states began to war in earnest, social and political stability increasingly deteriorated.Footnote 22
Further evidence of this breakdown in the institution of hereditary succession is found in the Chu script bamboo slip manuscript, Xizhe jun lao 昔者君老. This manuscript is not concerned with abdication to the most worthy, but it suggests that in ancient times, when rulers had become old and their eyes and ears had grown feeble, they not only appointed an heir but turned the rule over to them.Footnote 23 Although placed in ancient times, the manuscript is clearly advocating that succession should take place before the death of the ruler. The effect of allowing the heir apparent to accede to his father's position before he died would have been to stabilize the institution of hereditary succession.
Zigao's close association in the transmitted record with Zilu is significant. Zilu, who is described as “brash” (or “boorish”) in the passage from the Lun yu quoted above, was only nine years younger than Confucius and one of his most prominent disciples. Zilu's naive impetuosity and aggressive personality are balanced in the Lun yu and Zuo zhuan accounts by his unwavering sense of personal loyalty and commitment to the truth. This emphasis on well-meaning, but naive, enthusiasm, as well as his love of feats of courage, suggests that his social origins were relatively humble. Zilu's relatively low social status is confirmed by the Shi ji biography of the disciples, where he is described as having worn the cock cap of a fighter before he became a disciple of Confucius.Footnote 24 Similarly, the Xunzi describes Zilu as a rustic (biren 鄙人), who was transformed by literary education (wenxue 文學) and the practice of the rites and right principles.Footnote 25
Zigao seems to have been even lower in social status than Zilu, and the story that he was appointed in Bi without finishing his studies suggests that he never achieved the education of a gentleman. This could account for his poor image in the transmitted tradition. It is also consonant with the interest in the Zigao in miraculous events and the stress of the excavated text on the insignificance of lineage in comparison with merit.
The bamboo slip manuscript
Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu provides extremely high quality photographs as well as excellent scholarly transcriptions and textual notes of the manuscripts. This work is the foundation of all research on the manuscripts. Nevertheless, no first attempt at producing a modern edition from fragmentary bamboo slips in a regional Warring States script could be definitive. The publication of each new volume of manuscripts has inevitably produced a flurry of responses, with suggestions for alternative readings of individual graphs and different sequences of the bamboo slips, as well as differing interpretations of the content and different ideas about the relationship of the texts to one another.
The Zigao was bound together with twenty-nine slips, published under the title, Kongzi shilun 孔子詩論, “Confucius' explication of the Songs” and with six slips, designated Lubang da han 魯邦大漢, “Great drought in the land of Lu”, in Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu. Although Ma Chengyuan recognized that the slips were part of the same scroll and written by the same calligrapher, he took them as three different texts. Kongzi shilun was published in the first volume of that work and Zigao and Lubang da han in the second.Footnote 26 While some bamboo slip scrolls only include a single text, others have diverse material. In arranging the Guodian manuscripts for publication, the editors decided to separate the manuscripts into smaller units as an editorial principle, rather than assuming connections that were not indicated.Footnote 27 The editors of the Shanghai Museum collection have followed the same principle. This is certainly correct procedurally as it does not bias the initial reading, but the publication of the materials from this scroll in different volumes of Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu suggests that they are unrelated and this is not at all clear.
The rhetorical style and content of the three groups of slips are very different. Kongzi shilun is a discourse on various songs of the Shi jing 詩經 by Confucius. At the beginning of Lubang da han, Duke Ai 哀 of Lu 魯asks Confucius what he should do about the drought in his land. Then, Confucius discusses his response with the disciple Zigong子貢. He notes the importance of the principles of de 德 (“virtue” or “accretion”) and xing 刑 (“punishment” or “attrition”), and recommends sacrifices to the mountains and rivers. The Zigao, as I shall discuss below, is a series of six questions in which the disciple, Zigao, asks Confucius about the miraculous birth of the progenitors of the kings of the three dynasties and about the abdication of Yao to Shun.
In spite of these differences, some scholars have argued that they should be taken as three chapters of a single work. Li Ling, who was one of the team of scholars that prepared the Shanghai Museum collection for publication, was the first to take this stance. With this reading, the characters, “Zigao”, written on the back of one of the slips (no. 5 of the text designated Zigao in the Shanghai Museum publication) would be the title of the entire work.Footnote 28 The implications of taking Zigao as the title of the entire scroll have been further explored by other scholars. Liao Mingchun has argued that some of the statements in Kongzi shilun attributed to Confucius are actually those of a disciple. He further argues that the discussion of the Songs in Kongzi shilun is significantly different from the transmitted record, which is associated with Zixia, so the disciple could not be Zixia and should be Zigao. However, since there is no transmitted tradition about Zigao's philosophy or thought, this is simply conjecture.Footnote 29 Gao Huaping has developed this line of thought even further, suggesting that Zigao was the author of Kongzi shilun, but his argument is subject to the same criticism.Footnote 30
The discovery that people circulated short manuscripts similar to the zhang 章 (“sections”) or pian 篇 (“chapters”) of longer works in the transmitted tradition does require us to rethink how the concept of a text developed. In my opinion, a group of such sections or chapters should not be considered a text unless there is evidence that the sections were repeatedly copied and transmitted together. In the case of the Zigao, we have no evidence upon which to make this assumption. Moreover, since the name “Zigao” is on the obverse of one of the slips from the Zigao section, there is no reason to extend it to the rest of the scroll. Nevertheless, even if they were not transmitted together elsewhere, these three sections may have been copied on the same scroll because they have a loose relationship – they all concern Confucius (“Kongzi”). The Kongzi shilun records Confucius' interpretation of that quintessential Confucian text, the Shi (“Songs”). The Zigao discusses myths of miraculous conception, some of which are found in the transmitted Shi jing 詩經 (“Book of Songs”). Lubang da han, like the Zigao, is concerned with supernatural matters that are largely avoided by the Lun yu.
I will argue in the concluding section of this paper that the Zigao would have been taken as a ru 儒 (“Confucian”) text in the Warring States period. I think that this is also true of the texts with which it was bound. On a popular level, the ru would have been defined principally by their adherence to the figure of Confucius, rather than their ideas. All of Confucius' students – and their own students – would have been ru by definition. They would have evinced an interest in the Shi jing and a set of ideas that included ren and yi, but their interpretations and opinions about what these ideas meant probably crossed a wide spectrum.
My translation of the Zigao below is based upon my readings of the Chu graphs after considering various alternatives offered by different scholars. These alternative readings are given in the apparatus attached to my modern character “edition” at the end of this article and they will not be discussed within the body of the article. However, the reader is cautioned that many of the transcriptions upon which my translation and interpretation are based are open to question. The Chu script presents many problems in interpretation and specialists have offered very different readings of the graphs in some of the lines. Moreover, the manuscript is fragmentary and there are no transmitted versions of this text to assist us in filling in the missing sections. All interpretations rely upon a certain amount of guesswork. As research on Chu bamboo slip manuscripts progresses, some of the uncertainties will undoubtedly be resolved, but a certain amount of conjecture will still be necessary.
The sequence of slips that I follow is different from that found in the Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu, though I continue to use their slip numbers for ease of cross reference. My edition is based upon the sequence proposed by Li Xueqin 李學勤, which is, in turn, based upon one by Chen Jian 陳劍.Footnote 31 Whereas Chen Jian's rearrangement of the slips solved some of the problems of continuity, Li's refinement of the sequencing works on the hypothesis that we have a series of six questions by Zigao and six replies by Confucius. This requires positing a missing slip that includes, “Zigao said” (Zigao yue 子羔曰). As mentioned above, the title Zigao is based upon a notation on the back of one of the slips (slip 5 in the Shanghai Museum edition).Footnote 32 The end is also marked by a square black mark, with the remaining portion of the slip left blank (slip 14).
Translation
9 Zigao questioned Confucius: “When the three kings arose, were they all sons of humans, whose fathers were humble and not worthy of being named? Or were they truly sons of sky/heaven? Confucius said, “That you ask about this is fine! It's been a long time since anyone …”.
11top[Yu's mother was a woman of the Youxin clan.Footnote 33] She saw a Job's Tears [plant] and picked [the seeds.] Having been pregnant for three 10years, her back burst open, and she gave birth. Able to speak when born – that was Yu!
Xie's mother was a woman of the Yourong clan. She 11btmstrolled atop the Sun Tower. A swallow, holding an egg in its beak, placed it in front of her. She took it and swallowed it. Having been pregnant for CUHK3three years, her breast burst open, and she gave birth. When he was born, he called out, 12“metal” – that was Xie.
Hou Ji's mother was a woman of the Youtai clan. She wandered within the Dark Marshes. In winter, she saw thistles (growing), and presented them as an offering. Then, she saw a human footprint and trod in it to offer a prayer, “Di's footstep, it shall…13… That was Hou Ji's mother. When the three kings arose, it was like this.Footnote 34
Zigao said, “That being so, then, of the three kings, which one…… …7 …indeed records the Way of the former kings. If they did not meet a perspicacious king, did they indeed not accomplish great service?”Footnote 35
Confucius said, “Shun may be described as a common person who received a mandate. Shun, was the son of a man… 1He was the son of the music master, Gu Sou, of the clan Youyu.
Zigao said, “Why was he able to become thearch?”
Confucius said, “Formerly, they did not pass (the rule) hereditarily. The good gave (the rule) to another good (person). Therefore they were able to bring order to all-under-sky/heaven, and make the myriad lands peaceful, ensuring that they all 6 got altars of grain and had common people, and reverentially guarded them, regardless of whether they had possession [of land] or not, were large or small, or rich or destitute. Yao saw that Shun's virtue was that of a worthy and therefore he ceded (the throne) to him.
Zigao said, “When Yao obtained Shun, was it that Shun's virtue was truly good… 2 … ? Or was it that Yi Yao's virtue was so very brilliant?
Confucius said, “They were equal. When Shun was planting fields in a barren wasteland… .
[Zigao said]… 3 … . the ordinary people of the barren wasteland… .”
Confucius said, … 4 … I have heard that when Shun was young, he was diligent in his studies and served his parents… . 5 …Footnote 36 When Yao selected Shun, he followed him into his thatched hut and discussed the rites with him. He was pleased… . … 8 … and harmonious. Thus, Shun's virtue was truly that of a worthy. Having gone into the fields after him, (Yao) had him rule all-under-sky/heaven, and found him praiseworthy.
Zigao said, “If Shun lived in the present generation, then what would happen?”
Confucius said, “… … 14 … … the three sons of sky/heaven would serve him”.
The three kings
Although the Lun yu describes Zigao in negative terms, in the bamboo slip manuscript he appears simply as a disciple seeking knowledge from the master and Confucius compliments him on the topic of his enquiry: the miraculous conception of the progenitors of the three dynasties.
Zigao begins by asking whether the three kings (san wang 三王) were the sons of men (ren zi人子) or truly sons of sky/heaven (tian zi 天子):
Zigao questioned Confucius: when the three kings (san wang) arose, were they all sons of men (ren zi), whose fathers were humble and not worthy of being named? Or were they truly sons of sky/heaven (tian zi)?
From Confucius' reply in the following line, we know that the three kings were the first progenitors of the ruling lineages of the three dynasties, Yu 禹 of the Xia, Xie 契 of the Shang, and Hou Ji 后稷 of the Zhou. What Zigao wants to know is whether the myths that their mothers were divinely impregnated were true.
In transmitted texts, the term “three kings” usually refers to the founders of the dynasties: Yu of the Xia, Tang 湯 of the Shang, and either Wen 文 or his son, Wu 武, of the Zhou. It may also refer to the three pre-dynastic rulers, Yao, Shun, and Yu. Mozi, for example, details the frugal circumstance of the burials of Yao, Shun and Yu, even though the “three kings were all respected as the sons-of-sky/heaven and had the wealth of possessing all under sky/heaven”.Footnote 37 In the Zigao, however, the “three kings” are the three progenitors of the royal lineages, not the three dynastic founders or the three pre-dynastic rulers. I have not found any other examples in which the term san wang is used for this set of figures.
Implicit in the use of the term “king” with respect to the progenitors of the three dynasties is the idea that they were rulers. The term wang as used by the Zhou – and all who accepted their ritual authority – refers to the king who ruled over “all under sky/heaven”. Thus, when the powerful Duke Hui 惠 of Wei 魏 took the title wang in 344 bc, it was a declaration that he rejected Zhou sovereignty and presumed to be the “son-of-sky/heaven” with “all under sky/heaven” as his domain. In the following decades, the rulers of Qi 齊, Qin 秦, and other states also took the title wang indicating their own aspirations to rule the world.
If Hou Ji and Xie were considered kings in this sense of ruler over all-under-sky/heaven, there is a chronological problem in the historical scheme – Xie and Hou Ji would have to be placed before Yao and Shun. However, “history” in Warring States period texts conventionally begins with Yao, as it does in the Shang shu, which begins with the “Yao dian 堯典”.Footnote 38 In the “Yao dian”, Yu attempted to cede the task of flood control to both Xie and Hou Ji, as well as to Gao Yao 臯陶, but Xie was ordered to take charge of the moral conduct of the ordinary people and Hou Ji to prevent starvation by sowing all the grains.Footnote 39 In the Shi ji version of this story, when Shun offers the rule to Yu, he declines in favour of Xie, Hou Ji and Gao Yao, before finally accepting. Thus, they play the role of “rule refusers” who, by declining the rule, point out the breach of heredity that occurred when a non-hereditary ruler assumes the throne. But they are ministers, not rulers, and they lived in the time of Yao and Shun.Footnote 40
Since, in Zhou ideology, the king was celestially appointed to rule all-under-sky/heaven, there could be only one king at any one time. For Mencius, this meant that even abdication presented a problem of definition because, if a living king abdicated to someone else, there would be two kings. If Yao had abdicated to Shun, who would have faced south as ruler, and who north as subject? Mencius resolved this problem by denying the possibility of abdication and stating that the ruler could only “recommend” (jian 薦) his successor to sky/heaven. Sky/heaven then demonstrated its will by the movement in the allegiance of the people from Yao's son to Shun.Footnote 41
Nevertheless, the term wang was not always used as strictly as Zhou ideology and the Mencian concept of a changing mandate of sky/heaven would dictate. In Shang Dynasty oracle bone inscriptions, as Qi Wenxin has clearly demonstrated, the term wang was not only used for the Shang king, but also by the Shang king for the leaders of some other peoples.Footnote 42 Moreover, even in the Zhou, the rulers of some unassimilated peoples, such as Lü 呂, Xu 徐, Wu 吳, Yue 越, and possibly Chu, used the title wang,Footnote 43 and although Mencius used the term wang carefully in his philosophical discussion of kingship, he addressed the rulers who had usurped the Zhou title as “king”.
Although history conventionally began with Yao in Warring States texts, the Zhuangzi and Hanfeizi do have passages with references to rulers who are placed in a period of high antiquity before Yao. The Zhuangzi includes a list of twelve rulers in high antiquity, when “people still tied knots” as writing, beginning with Rongchengshi, but it does not include Xie or Hou Ji.Footnote 44 It also refers to Huang Di 黃帝, the “Yellow Emperor”, who is the first ruler and an ancestor of Yu in the “five emperor” scheme in the Shi ji.Footnote 45 Among excavated texts, the Chu script bamboo slip manuscript, Rongchengshi 容成氏 (in the Shanghai Museum collection), includes a list of rulers before Yao, all of whom, according to the text, abdicated to one another. Unfortunately, the beginning of the list is missing, so it is impossible to be certain, but neither Xie nor Hou Ji are included in the extant section. That the order of the rulers is different to that in the Zhuangzi suggests that there was no common agreement.Footnote 46
As Bernhard Karlgren argued, most of the rulers of high antiquity in later texts probably originated as ancestors of noble lineages or regional peoples.Footnote 47 Since an idea of high antiquity, in which people lived with utmost simplicity, was emerging in the Warring States period, the author of the Zigao may have placed Xie and Hou Ji in this period without any clear historical scheme of rulership in mind. Whether the title “king” was meant literally is not clear. As we shall see below the first king of the Shang is called the “black king” (xuan wang) in the Shi jing. Moreover, in records of the myths of births of the Shang and Zhou progenitors, they are described as “kings” (wang), but this does not seem to mean that they ruled “all-under-sky/heaven”. Thus, this reference to Yu, Xie, and Hou Ji, as “three kings” may simply reflect vagueness about political succession in high antiquity in a period in which localized myths were being amalgamated.
Sons of sky/heaven (tian zi)
Zigao asks whether the three wang (“kings”) were tian zi (“sons of sky/heaven”). In Zhou texts and bronze inscriptions, tian zi is a common epithet for a ruler, equivalent to wang. Here, however, Zigao is not asking whether they were rulers, but whether they were literally, “sons of sky/heaven”; that is, whether their births were divine. This literal sense is made explicit in Zigao's question, when he asks whether they were ren zi 人子, “sons of men”, or tian zi, and by the myths of divine conception and birth with which Confucius responds.
The term tian 天 is used from the beginning of the Zhou dynasty on as a euphemism for Shang Di 上帝, the “Supreme Thearch”, as well as in its literal sense of “sky” or “heaven” (in the sense of the place where the spirits abide).Footnote 48 In the Zigao, the miraculous births of the progenitors of the three royal lineages all resulted from an event in which their mother was divinely impregnated by “sky/heaven”; that is, they were all children of Shang Di. This sense is found in the “Shao Gao 召誥” chapter of the Shang shu 尚書 in which the Duke of Zhou explains the overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou, by declaring “The Supreme Thearch in the August Sky has changed his primary son” (皇天上帝改厥元子).Footnote 49 The analogy here is one of changing the heir apparent and it is evidence that both the Shang and Zhou kings were considered descendants of Shang Di. The “sons” of sky/heaven presumably include the grandsons and their descendants.
This belief in the divine descent of the rulers may have been the origin of the term tian zi as an epithet for the ruler. However, in Eastern Zhou texts, the term tian zi usually refers to a position of authority, the one who rules “all under sky/heaven” rather than divine birth. The expressions “established as son of sky/heaven” (立為天子), for the recipient of the mandate, and “respected as son of sky/heaven” (gui wei tian zi 貴為天子), for the one who acts as ruler, are used in a wide variety of early texts. The term tian zi is also used in this sense in the Lun yu and the Mencius. According to the Lun yu, “Confucius said, ‘if the world has the way, then the rites, music, and punitive attacks are all initiated by the son of sky/heaven’”.Footnote 50 The comparison here is between kings and feudal lords, as it is when the Mencius states, “If the son of sky/heaven is not humane, he cannot protect (the land within) the four seas. If the feudal lords are not humane, they cannot protect the altar of grain”. Clearly, “son of sky/heaven” refers to political authority in these passages, rather than lineage. Rulers were also called tian zi because they ruled “all under sky/heaven”.
In a theory of dynastic cycle, the term tian zi is closely associated with the idea of the changing “mandate of sky/heaven” (tian ming 天命). This association is especially close in the Mencius, where the term wang was also closely associated with the idea of the mandate. In texts of this period, the rulers of the pre-dynastic period, Yao and Shun are called di 帝, “thearch” or “lord” and occasionally wang, as in the Mozi example cited above. The term di, which had been shared by the Shang ancestors in the main line of descent and Shang Di, the “supreme thearch” or “lord on High” in the Shang period, was used in the Warring States period as a title for pre-dynastic rulers and the Qin adopted it as a title, which replaced wang, “king”. The common translation, “thearch”, is meant to convey its quasi-religious, quasi-political implications.Footnote 51
The difference between the use of the term tian zi in the Zigao and the Mencius, is clear in the following passage in which Mencius states that Shun became “son of sky/heaven”:
Mencius said, “When Shun's food was dried rice and wild vegetables, it was as though he would end his life like this. When he became son of sky/heaven (tian zi) …Footnote 52
Tian zi here clearly refers to the position of authority, not descent. This usage, in which the same term is used for the pre-dynastic and dynastic rulers, supports Mencius' position that the changes of mandate in the pre-dynastic and dynastic periods were all due to the changing mandate of sky/heaven.
The birth of Yu
As noted above, the three “sons of sky/heaven” in the Zigao are Yu, Xie and Hou Ji. According to the Zigao, Yu's mother became pregnant after picking yi yi 薏苡, Coixseed or “Job's tears”, a wild grass with edible barley-like seeds:
11top[Yu's mother was a woman of the Youxin clan.] She saw a Job's Tears [plant] and picked [the seeds].Footnote 53 Having been pregnant for three 10years, her back burst open, and she gave birth. Able to speak when born – that was Yu!Footnote 54
I have supplied the clan name of Yu's mother, Youxinshi 有莘氏, where there are missing graphs because the slip is incomplete, on the assumption that the line should be parallel with those describing the mothers of Xie and Hou Ji, but it may not be correct. The source is the Wu Yue chunqiu, which also refers to the myth of Yu's mother swallowing Job's Tear seeds.Footnote 55
Yu's role is pivotal because he is both the recipient of Shun's abdication and the first king of the Xia Dynasty. In transmitted texts, he may be classified as a thearch (di) – or as the founder of a new dynasty. However, he is not normally classified with the progenitors of those dynasties Hou Ji and Xie and they are not usually called “kings”. In the Lun yu, Confucius takes both Yu and Hou Ji as examples of people who “having planted crops, possessed all under sky/heaven” (禹稷躬稼而有天下).Footnote 56 This grouping of Yu and Hou Ji with the implication that they both ruled the world resembles the paradigm found in the Zigao.
In the Wu Yue chunqiu, Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記, and Di wang shi ji jicun 帝王世紀輯存, Youxinshi is identified as the wife of Gun.Footnote 57 In the “Yao dian 堯典” chapter of the Shang shu 尚書, Yu's father, Gun, unsuccessfully attempted to allay the flood by damming up the waters, before the task was assigned to Yu. Henri Maspero and Wolfram Eberhard suggested that two different regional flood myths were amalgamated, and this seems likely.Footnote 58 Some early texts refer to a myth in which Yu was born miraculously from the body of his father, Gun, rather than as a result of his mother's miraculous pregnancy. According to the Zuo zhuan, “Long ago, when Yao executed Gun on Feather Mountain, his spirit was transformed into a yellow turtle, and thus he entered Feather Abyss”.Footnote 59 The Chu Ci 楚辭, “Tian Wen 天問” also states, “Lord Gun brought forth Yu from his belly, how was he transformed”.Footnote 60
I suspect that the designation of Gun as the husband of Yu's mother is a further combination of different myth traditions. In any case, in the Zigao, Yu's mother was divinely impregnated, as were the mothers of the progenitors of the Shang and the Zhou. Because descent was patrilineal, it was necessary for the father of Yu to be divine for him to be considered a “son of sky/heaven” in the literal sense of the term found in the Zigao. This would also have been true for Xie and Hou Ji.
Although the myth of Yu's mother's miraculous conception is not found in pre-Han texts, a reference to these three myths of divine birth of the progenitors of the dynastic lineages is found in the Lun heng 論衡, attributed to Wang Chong 王充 (c. ad 27–100):
The Confucians extol the births of sages that did not rely on the vital force of men, but garnered the essence from sky/heaven. Yu's mother swallowed Job's Tears and gave birth to Yu; therefore the Xia surname was Si. Xie's mother swallowed the egg of a swallow and gave birth to Xie; therefore the Yin surname was Zi. Hou Ji's mother trod on a giant's footstep and gave birth to Hou Ji. Therefore the Zhou surname was Ji… .Footnote 61
There are also references to this set of myths in the two apocryphal texts, Li wei 禮緯 and Shang shu, Xing de fang 尚書刑德放.Footnote 62
Xie, the divine progenitor of the Shang
The second myth of divine birth in the Zigao is that of Xie, traditionally regarded as the progenitor of the Shang Dynasty:
Xie's mother was a woman of the Yourong clan. She 11btmstrolled atop the Sun Tower.Footnote 63 A swallow, holding an egg in its beak, placed it in front of her. She took it and swallowed it. Having been pregnant for CUHK3three years, her breast burst open, and she gave birth. When he was born, he called out, 12“Qin” – that was Xie.Footnote 64
Two “Hymns of the Shang” in the Shi jing celebrate the divine origin of the progenitor of the Shang people. In one, the Shang progenitor is called “Shang” and the bird is simply a “black bird” (xuan niao):
In the other, “sky/heaven” is called di 帝, “thearch”; that is, it was the Thearch on High himself who impregnated the ancestress of the Shang people:
While the Zigao is more specific than these Shi jing songs, the texts generally correspond. Yu's role in this song is as a cosmogonic hero of the Shang rather than a dynastic progenitor of the Xia. This probably reflects the early date of the song, as discussed above.
Hou Ji: the divine progenitor of the Zhou
The third myth of divine birth is that of Hou Ji, the progenitor of the Zhou Dynasty. This story is also found in the Shi jing. The Zigao states:
Hou Ji's mother was a woman of the Youtai clan. She wandered within the Dark Marshes. In winter, she saw thistles (growing), and picked them to present. Then, she saw a human footprint and treading in it, she made her offering and gave prayer, “Di's footprint, it shall… . 13 …” That was Hou Ji's mother.Footnote 67
Slips 12 and 13 are damaged, so there is a gap of an unknown number of graphs at the end of slip 12 and beginning of slip 13. The Shi jing eulogizes miraculous with the way in which Hou Ji was born (see below); if that is what is missing here, then Hou Ji's birth contrasts with the long and difficult births of Yu and Xie. This might explain why the passage ends with “that was Hou Ji's mother”, rather than the more strictly parallel “that was Hou Ji”.
The most extensive account of Hou Ji's birth in the Shi jing is in “Sheng Min 生民” from the Da ya 大雅 section:
The one who in the beginning gave birth to the people was Jiang Yuan. How was it she gave birth to the people? Having worshipped and made offerings, as she was without child, she stepped in Di's footprint and was suddenly elated. She was enlarged; she was blessed. How she quaked and how quickly! She was engendered and she bore child. This was Hou Ji. She fulfilled her months and her first child was born like the bursting through (of a spring). She did not tear; she did not rend. There was no injury, no harm, thus displaying its miraculous nature.Footnote 68
The story of Hou Ji's miraculous birth is also found in the hymns of the state of Lu (Lu song).Footnote 69
Shun, the son of the music master
As we have seen above, in the Zigao, the term tian zi is used literally and refers to the insemination of the mothers of progenitors of the three dynasties by sky/heaven. Thus, tian zi is the opposite of ren zi, “son of a man”. That the term ren zi is similarly a literal reference to human paternity is clear from Confucius' reply to the second question:
Zigao said, “That being so, then, of the three kings, which one… … …7 … … … indeed records the Way advocated by the former kings. If they did not meet a perspicacious king, did they likewise not accomplish great service? Confucius said, “Shun may be described as a common person who received the mandate. Shun, was the son of a man (ren zi)… 1He was the son of the music master, Gu Sou, of the clan Youyu.
The readings of the graphs in Zigao's question are very problematic and there are many missing, so the continuity is not clear. However, Confucius' reply that Shun was a commoner who had received a mandate and was the son of a man is clear. The story that Shun's father was the Blind Man, Gu Sou 瞽瞍, who tried to murder him three times in collaboration with his son, Xiang 象, is common in the early texts, including the Mencius.Footnote 70 There, Shun is described as a “common fellow” (pi fu 匹夫) befriended by Yao, who was “son of sky/heaven” (tian zi).Footnote 71
Abdication
In response to Zigao's third question about how Shun became a thearch (di), Confucius explains that in ancient times, good rulers did not pass the rule on hereditarily, but to another good person:
Confucius said, “Formerly, they did not pass (the rule) hereditarily. The good gave (the rule) to another good (person). Therefore they were able to bring order to all-under-sky/heaven, and make the myriad lands peaceful, ensuring that they all 6 got altars of grain and had common people, and reverentially guarded them, regardless of whether they had possession [of land] or not, were large or small, or rich or destitute. Yao saw that Shun's virtue was that of a worthy and therefore he ceded (the throne) to him.
In the Warring States period philosophical texts, different philosophers describe the manner in which Yao passed the rule to Shun differently. The Mozi is the earliest text to discuss abdication and it describes the transfer of rule from Yao to Shun as abdication. In the Mencius, this transfer was not abdication: Yao simply commended Shun to sky/heaven, which demonstrated its will when the people changed their allegiance; and in the Hanfeizi, it was a usurpation.Footnote 72
Yao's insight and Shun's virtue
The appointment of a successor worthy of abdication in the pre-dynastic period – or of a founding minister who will aid a king to found his new dynasty in later periods – has two prerequisites: there must be a ruler with the insight necessary to recognize and appoint a good man and there must be someone in the empire worthy of receiving the rule.
In the fourth question, Zigao seeks to determine the relative importance of these two factors:
Zigao said, “When Yao obtained Shun, was it that Shun's virtue (de) was truly good … 2 … ? Or was it that Yi Yao's virtue was so very brilliant?
Confucius said, “They were equal. When Shun was planting fields in a barren wasteland…”.
As pre-dynastic rulers who appointed their successors, Yao and Shun first raise up their successors, Shun and Yu, from humble positions. The texts frequently parallel these acts with the raising up and appointment of the founding ministers, Yi Yin 伊尹 and Taigong Wang 太公望 by Tang and Wen Wang in the Shang and Zhou, thus tying the pre-dynastic period together with the foundation of the Shang and Zhou dynasties.Footnote 73 For the Shang and Zhou, the would-be kings – rather than the enthroned rulers – demonstrate their perception by recognizing the virtue of a man in a low position and show their humility in their willingness to raise up and rely upon such a man, even though he is poor and unrecognized.
This is the theme we find here in which Yao visits Shun and shows his perception of Shun's virtue even though he is farming in the fields. Shun's discussion of the rites in the Zigao is similar to Yi Yin's discussion of the five flavours when he served as a cook to the wife of the Shang Dynasty founder, Tang.Footnote 74 By their discovery of the minister, the rulers demonstrate their insight into human character. But, if there is no king with insight and humility like Yao; or a man, who preserves his integrity like Shun, the good cannot give to the good. In the received texts, it is primarily Shun's filial piety that demonstrates his virtue. Since these slips are so badly damaged at this point, we do not know whether the Zigao originally included the story of Yao's filial piety.
The Mozi, which stresses the importance of appointment and describes the Yao's transfer of rule to Shun as an abdication, describes these figures in terms which suggest very low social status. In the Mencius, on the other hand, they are eremitic gentlemen, who have retired from the world rather than serve an unworthy ruler. The Zigao describes Yao's perception and Shun's merit as of equal importance. Shun's father is described as the son of a music master, but the status of such musicians, who were often blind, like Shun's father, is not clear and the text is too damaged to make any further assessment.
The importance of humility
The bamboo slips on which the fifth question is written are also badly damaged. This arrangement of the sequence assumes that the line, “ordinary people of the barren wasteland” is part of a question by Zigao, but the question itself is missing. The reading of the text on slip 4 is very problematic and many different interpretations have been offered. Since none of the interpretations of the first five graphs on slip 5 make sense to me and I am unsure what the transcription should be, I have omitted them in my transcription and translation. The theme of Yao visiting Shun in his thatched hut is well known and consistent with the “founding minister” motif, but the statement that they discussed the rites is not found elsewhere.
Confucius said, …4 … I have heard that when Shun was young, he was diligent in his studies and served his parents … . 5 … [?]. When Yao selected Shun, he went with him into his thatched hut. He spoke of the rites with him, and was pleased with … . … 8 … and became harmonious. Thus, Shun's virtue was truly that of a worthy. Having gone into the fields after him, (Yao) had him rule all-under-sky/heaven, and found him praise-worthy.
There are various versions of this story of Yao visiting Shun, but the poor condition of the manuscript makes it impossible to determine the details. In some texts, Shun not only farmed but also made pottery and fished.Footnote 75 The previous question stressed the equality of Yao's perception and Shun's merit. Here, Yao's humility is demonstrated by his willingness to go to Shun, though he is but a poor farmer, and Shun's virtue by his discussion of the rites.
Shun and the three sons of sky/heaven
The sixth question is also badly damaged, but its sense seems clear:
Zigao said, “If Shun lived in the present generation, then what would happen?”
Confucius said, “… … 14 … … the three sons of sky/heaven would serve him.”
In sum, the progenitors of the royal lineages were indeed divinely conceived, but even they were not as good as the human and meritorious Shun.
Conclusion
In received texts from the Warring States period, the pre-dynastic rulers Yao and Shun are sometimes juxtaposed to the founding kings of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties – Yu (of the Xia), Tang (of the Shang) and Wen or Wu (of the Zhou). Whereas Yao and Shun passed the rule on to the most virtuous person in the world, the first kings of the three dynasties passed it on hereditarily. However, the precedents for the founding kings' breach of heredity in overthrowing the previous dynasties are also found in the abdication legends of the pre-dynastic period, as the evil sons that were passed over by Yao and Shun are likened to the bad last kings of the Xia and Shang. Thus, in the received tradition, the pre-dynastic legends of abdication commonly serve as a precedent for – and justification of – the theory of dynastic cycle. In the Mencius especially, the change of rule in the pre-dynastic period is described as a change of the celestial mandate no different from the change of divine mandate in the dynastic period.
In the Zigao, Shun is juxtaposed to the progenitors of the dynastic lineages, rather than to the virtuous founders of the three dynasties. The effect of this contrast is to portray the dynastic rulers as legitimate primarily because of the divine birth of their progenitors, rather than because of the merit of the founding king who had received the divine mandate because of his superior virtue. This is not only surprising in a nominally Confucian text, it is surprising in the context of received Warring States literature as a whole. On the other hand, it is a stark reflection of the social conflict of the period, in which the old hereditary aristocratic lineages were being challenged, sometimes by people who could not legitimately claim any noble lineage.
If the names were changed, I suspect that few scholars would associate this manuscript with Confucianism. Nevertheless, Zigao was a follower of Confucius and I believe that the manuscript would have been understood as a ru document in its own time. There are two important issues in understanding the relationship of the Zigao to early Confucianism: (1) the importance which this text attributes to myths of divine birth; (2) its promotion of abdication.
The statement that Confucius did not discuss uncanny events in the Lun yu has been very important to our modern conception of Confucianism. While it is true in a general sense of what is recorded in the Lun yu, even there, Confucius does not entirely discount such events. For example, distressed at his lack of success, he cries out that the appropriate supernatural omens have not signalled the coming of a new dynasty, saying, “The phoenix has not arrived; the river has not given up a chart, I am finished”.Footnote 76 In any case, since the stories of the miraculous birth of Xie and Hou Ji are recorded in that quintessential Confucian text, Shi jing, such myths would have been part of Confucian lore.
As discussed above, the myth of Yu's birth is not found in the Shi jing. I believe that this can be attributed to the historical evolution of the myths concerning the formation of the Xia Dynasty.Footnote 77 The grouping of Xie, Hou Ji and Yu as archetypally similar that is found in the Zigao is also extremely rare in early texts. However, Yu and Hou Ji are linked in the Lun yu, where Nangong Kuo, to Confucius' delight, asks him about Yi and Ao who were good at archery and extraordinarily strong but met a violent death, whereas “Yu and Ji planted crops and yet possessed all-under-sky/heaven”.Footnote 78 What the historical scheme is here is not at all clear, as it suggests that Hou Ji was a ruler and, possibly, the recipient of abdication like Yu. It also ties the Zigao to the Lun yu. As many scholars have noted, the Lun yu is a multi-layered work. Clearly, the Zigao does not represent the mainstream of Confucian thought, but neither is it entirely outside the Confucian tradition.
The issue of abdication is more complex. Confucius expressed so little interest in the transfer of rule from Yao to Shun, that, as noted above, Gu Jiegang hypothesized that the legend of Yao's abdication to Shun was a later, Mohist invention.Footnote 79 The only clear reference to pre-dynastic abdication in the Lun yu is indirect. It begins:
Yao said, “Oh Shun, the celestial succession has fallen upon your person. Hold truly to the center. Should the [region within the] four seas be reduced to dire straits, what sky/heaven has bestowed will be forever ended”.
Shun gave the same command to Yu.Footnote 80
The archaic language in this passage resembles that of the Shang shu and it does not mention Confucius or any of his disciples, so many commentators have suggested that it was an interpolation.Footnote 81 In light of the discovery of the Chu script bamboo slip manuscripts, we can easily imagine this passage as having circulated separately as a manuscript like the Chu script texts found in Guodian Tomb Number One and in the Shanghai Museum collection before it was added to the Lun yu. Its original date – or when it was joined to the other material in the Lun yu – cannot be determined.
Historically, Mencius' rejection of abdication as a political theory may have been influenced by a real event, the “abdication” of King Kuai of Yan to Zizhi 子之. This story is recorded in the Zhanguo ce 戰國策 and the Shi ji.Footnote 82 The context in these accounts is the persuasion of Su Dai 蘇代, who has replaced his father Su Qin 蘇秦 as a persuader acting on behalf of King Xuan of Qi. He convinced King Kuai to abdicate by suggesting that Zizhi would refuse, like the worthy, Xu You 許由, to whom Yao abdicated before he gave the rule to Shun. Unfortunately for King Kuai, Zizhi accepted. Soon after King Kuai died, however, the Crown Prince and his supporters revolted and attacked him unsuccessfully. With this civil war broke out, with tens of thousands of people killed in the fighting between the two parties.
At the time of King Kuai's abdication, Mencius was in Qi and these events are also recorded in the Mencius. Mencius states explicitly therein that the ruler cannot give the rule to a successor, because it is not within human power. He can only recommend him to sky/heaven, which can “give” (yu 與) the rule to someone, as demonstrated by the allegiance of the people who turn to the new ruler. The ruler may commend a worthy to sky/heaven, but he cannot abdicate because the power of determining the ruler is not his:
Wan Zhang said, “Yao gave all-under-the-sky to Shun. Is this right?” Mencius said, “The son-of-sky/heaven cannot give all-under-the-sky to someone”.
“If that's so, then when Shun possessed all-under-the-sky, who gave it?” (Mencius) replied, “Sky/heaven gave it”… “Sky/heaven does not speak. It only demonstrates it by means of actions and deeds”… “The son-of-sky/heaven can commend someone to sky/heaven, but he cannot make sky/heaven give him all-under-the sky; a feudal lord can commend someone to the son-of-sky/heaven, but he cannot make the son-of sky/heaven bestow a fief upon him … Formerly, Yao recommended Shun to sky/heaven and sky/heaven accepted him; he presented him to the people and the people accepted him” … “He made him the principal officiant in the sacrifices and the hundred spirits enjoyed them; this was sky/heaven accepting him … Therefore, I say, “Sky/heaven cannot give all-under-the-sky to someone”.Footnote 83
Wan Zhang's question is based upon an assumption that in the pre-dynastic era, the good gave the rule to the good, just as we find in the Zigao. The abdication of King Kuai of Yan is also evidence of the popularity of the idea of abdication in the fourth century bc. Thus, although Mencius rejected the possibility of abdication, this rejection probably reflects a backlash against the advocates of abdication in his own day.Footnote 84
In arguing that the abdication legends were a creation of the Mohists, Gu Jiegang associated the abdication legends with the Mohist advocation of appointment by merit.Footnote 85 Moreover, in the received tradition, the only philosophical work that describes the transfer of rule from Yao to Shun straightforwardly as an “abdication” is the Mozi.Footnote 86 However, the received Mozi does not advocate abdication for its own time, but ties the legend of Yao's abdication to Shun to the importance of merit in the establishment of a new dynasty. This is primarily demonstrated by the ruler's willingness to raise up and appoint a poor but meritorious founding minister, in the same manner that Yao had appointed Shun, Tang had appointed Yi Yin 伊尹, and King Wen, Taigong Wang 太公望.
It is not possible to tie these legends specifically to the Mohists. As I noted at the beginning of this paper, four Chu script bamboo slip manuscripts discuss abdication and all present it in a favourable light. Only one, Gui shen zhi ming, can be considered Mohist. This suggests that the idea of abdication as a better means of political succession than hereditary transfer was popular among a range of early thinkers in the fourth century bc.Footnote 87 The rise of these legends reflects the political claims of a new class of officials with little status within the noble lineages.
Every Chinese philosopher after Confucius, including those who disagreed with him, was dominated by his presence. Mozi castigated him and Zhuangzi put unlikely words in his mouth, but no one could ignore him. These legends, when seen in light of the social transformation of the Warring States period, provide a clue to the question of why Confucius was so dominant in the imagination of the thinkers that followed him, even though he had not achieved any notable success in his life. Although he was a member of a hereditary lineage and taught the rites to his students, he had very little social status, and he transformed the rites into an ethical system, all the while stressing virtue and integrity. In this manner, he implicitly challenged the hereditary aristocracy. How the legends of abdication first arose is not clear, but we may conjecture that the personality of Confucius was an important inspiration for their development and the popularity of the idea that abdication to the most worthy would be a better and more effective means of government.
While Confucius was not yet the “unadorned king” (su wang 素王) of later tradition, the seeds of this role are already present in the Zigao.Footnote 88 That Confucius could have assisted one of the hereditary rulers to unite all under sky/heaven was clear to his followers, but would it not have been even better if he were the ruler of all-under-the-sky? That the Confucius of the Lun yu denied being a “sage” may be a statement of his humility, as commonly supposed, but it could also be interpreted as the denial of a claim to rule.Footnote 89 To the advocates of abdication in the period after his death, he must have been an obvious model of the type of sage who might receive the rule from a good king. In any case, one can easily imagine that readers would have thought of Confucius himself in the Zigao's firm resolution that the divine progenitors of the three dynasties would have served Shun if they had lived at the same time.
Appendix
The text of the Zigao子羔 is published in volume 2 of Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書. It includes fourteen bamboo slips in the Shanghai Museum collection. A fragment of a bamboo slip in the collection of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK3 in my abbreviation below) seems to come from this text.Footnote 90 As noted above, the edition below is based upon a sequence proposed by Chen Jian and further modified by Li Xueqin. In the following, the slip numbers, as published in Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu, and number of the graph on each slip are marked in subscript; e.g. the graph after the notation “9,1” is the first graph on slip 9 in that work. Partial graphs are indicated by X and included in the numbering. Graphs with “二” on the slips (joined or duplicated graphs) are numbered as two graphs.
The longest slip in Zigao (1) measures 54.2 cm. It has 52 graphs, including the first partial graph. It is slightly damaged at the top. One of the graphs on this slip is a “joined graph” (hewen 和合), marked with the duplication mark, “ = ”, so my transcription below has 53 modern characters. The longest slip in Kongzi shilun 孔子詩論, with which the Zigao was bound, is only slightly damaged at the bottom and has 55 graphs; two of these have duplication marks, so the transcription has 57 modern characters. Lubang da han 魯邦大漢 in the same scroll has a complete slip with only 50 graphs. This suggests that the slips in Zigao originally had about 50 to 55 graphs, without accounting for joined or duplicated graphs. Although excavated bamboo slip texts do not have a consistent number of graphs per slip (because of punctuation and duplication marks, variation in the complexity of the graph, spacing, etc.), this estimate is a useful guide for understanding the amount of text missing from the damaged slips. In the reconstruction below, I posit the loss of one slip (following Li Xueqin).
The transcriptions in modern characters of each line of text represent my readings of each graph. In the notations below, this graph is followed by a direct transcription. For example, 9,3 問:昏 means that my reading is 問 and a direct transcription of the original graph is昏. The colon “:” signifies a phonetic borrowing. The symbol “ < ”signifies that the reading has a graphic relationship to the direct transcription. I have included in this category graphs which share a phonetic, but have different semantic elements, although such graphs are usually understood as phonetic borrowings.
The transcriptions in Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu were prepared by Ma Chengyuan. Unless otherwise noted, these are the basis of the following transcription. Where there is a difference of opinion, these are designated by the abbreviation “MCy”. A key to the other abbreviations and their sources are given at the end.
9,1子羔問於孔子曰：“三王者9,11之作也,，皆人子也,，而其父9,21賤而不足稱也歟？抑亦誠9,31天子也歟？
Slip 9. Bottom end damaged. 44 graphs, including 2 joined characters.
9,3; 9,40 問 (*m
wən):昏 (*χmwən)9,5–6; 7,17–18 孔子:
(). The “ = ” mark indicates duplication of the element 子.9,8; 11上, 10; 14,2; 13,7; 13,19 三 (*s
m):參 (*ts'əm) < .9,12; 13,11 作 (*tsâk) < 乍 (*dz'ăg).
9,14; 1,53 皆 (*kɛr) <
.9,21 賤 (*dz'
ans) < 戔 (*dz'ân).9,25, 8,24 稱 (*
'əŋ) < . Following, CJ, QXg, LXq. MCy reads as 偁 (*’əŋ), meaning 并擧.9,27; 9,34 歟 (*z
o): 與 (*zo).9,28. 抑 (
ək): 殹 (* ər). Following CJ, QXg. LXq:繄 (* iər) (particle). MCy transcribes as: .9,30; 6,32; 8,10 誠 (*
ĕŋ) < 城 (*ĕŋ)/ Following LXq. CJ, QXg read as 成 (*ĕŋ).9 Zigao questioned Confucius: When the three kings arose, were they all sons of humans, whose fathers were humble and not worthy of being named? Or were they truly sons of sky/heaven?
孔子曰：“善，爾問9,41之也。久矣其莫…
9,39 爾 (*ń
ăr):而 (*ńəg).9,43 久 (*k
ŭg):舊 (*g'ôg) Following CJ, LXq.Confucius said, “That you ask about this is fine! It's been a long time since since anyone… .
11上[禹之母，有莘氏之]（女）也，觀薏苡而得之，懷三10,1年而劃於背而生，生而能10,11言，是禹也.
Slip 11 上. Both ends damaged. 10 graphs.
“禹之母有莘氏之” supplied by LCl.
11上,1(女). Partial graph, supplied by LXq.
11上,4,5 薏苡 (*
əg *zəg)：於 (*˙o) 伊 (*˙ɛr). Following LCl. LZp takes 伊 as place or river (洢), but the grammar is difficult to understand. LMc 伊:禋 (*˙ɛn).11上,7; 1,19; 6,1; 6,25 得 (*tək) <
.11上,9; 11下,21 懷 (*g'wɛr)：裏 (*l
əg) (). Following LXq, interpreted as 懷 (*g'wɛr) 妊. JXs analyses as {宀 + 鬼}, also reads as 懷. CJ , read as 娠 (*ən).Slip 10. Both ends damaged. 10 graphs.
10,1, CUHK3,2. 年 (*nien)：仁 (*ń
ĕn). This graph is a common graphic variant of 仁 in Chu script and is usually transcribed as . Following CJ, QXq, who read it as . MCy, HLy: variant of 身 (*śĕn), read as 妊 (*ńəm).10,3 劃 < 畫 (*ts'ĕk).
10,5 背 (*pwəg)：伾 (*p'
əg), read as 倍 (*b'wəg).10,7–8 生, 生 (*sĕŋ, *sĕŋ)<
.10,13 禹 (*g
wo)< .11top[Yu's mother was a woman of the Youxin clan.] She saw a Job's Tears [plant] and picked [the seeds]. Having been pregnant for three 10years, her back burst open, and she gave birth. Able to speak when born – that was Yu!
契之母，有娀氏10,21之女11下,1也，遊於陽臺之上，有燕銜11下,11卵而措諸其前，取而吞之，娠CUHK3,1三年而劃於膺，生乃呼曰 12,1 ‘金’，是契也。
10,15; 12,3 契 (*k'iad)：禼. Interchangeable in ancient texts.Footnote 91
10,18; 1,2; 1,47; 11,5; 12,9 有 (*g
ŭg) < 又 (*gŭg).10,19 娀.仍 (*ń
əŋ) (廼). MCy transcribes as . Following XZg, CJ, QXg.10,20; 1,4; 12,11 氏 (*
ĕg)：是 (*ĕg).Slip 11下. Broken at top, joined with 11上 in the MCy arrangement.
11下,4 陽 (*d
aŋ). HLy 央 (aŋ). MCy: 瑤 (*dog).11下,9 燕 (
ian): (read as 妟ian).11下,10 銜 (*g'am)：監 (*klam).
11下,13 措 (*ts'âg)<
. MCy: 錯 (*ts'âk).11下,14; 5,12; 8,13 諸 (*
o) < 者 (*å).11下,19 吞. 541E;. MCy
. SJz analyses as 舟 and 申 ().Slip CUHK3. Broken at both ends. 10 graphs.
CUHK3,2 年 (*nien)：仁 (*ń
ĕn) (). Following CJ, QXg, LXq. See also 10,1.CUHK3,4 劃 < 晝 (*t
ôg), taken as 畫 (*ts'ĕk), stroke missing. Cf. 10,3.CUHK3,6 膺 (
əŋ)< 雇 (*g'o). MCy takes as 扈 (*g'o), identifies with 石紐山, birthplace of 禹.CUHK3,9 呼 (*χo):
(虎*χo).Slip 12. Top damaged. 41 graphs.
12,1 金 (*k
əm):銫 following QXg2. MCy欽 (*k'əm).Xie's mother was a woman of the Yourong clan. She 11btmstrolled atop the Sun Tower. A swallow, holding an egg in its beak, placed it in front of her. She took it and swallowed it. Having been pregnant for CUHK3three years, her breast burst open, and she gave birth. When he was born, he called out, 12“metal” – that was Xie.
后稷之母，有邰12,11氏之女也，遊於玄澤之12,21内也，冬見芺, 攼而薦之，乃12,31見人武，履以祈禱，曰：帝之12,41武，尚使…13…是后稷之母.也。三王者之13,11作也如是。”
12,5; 13,2 后 (*g'u) < 句 (*ku).
12,6; 13,3; 6,4 稷 (*ts
ək)< .12,10 邰 <
.12,17 玄 (*g'iwen). Following LXq, ZFh. MCy: 串 (*kwan). LXh takes as 毌 (*kwân, from GSR 貫), which is interchangeable with 毋 (*m
wo), 母 (*məg), 某 (*məg). Reads as 禖 (*mwəg) ((媒) (*mwəg)).12,18 澤 (*d'ăk): 咎 (*g'
ôg), following LXq. LXh takes as 臯 (*kôg, from GSR 皋) (as in Tang Yu zhi dao, 臯陶), reads as 高 (*kog), meaning 高禖.12,23 冬 (*tôŋ). MCy: 終 (*
ôŋ).12,26 攼. LXq reads as 乾 (*kân). ZFh 搴 (*k
an) (graphic variant). MCy, HLy 薊.12,34 履 (*l
ər):.12,36 祈 (*g'
ər) < . HLy 忻(reads with above, not graph below).12,43; 1,45; 1,52; 8,19 使 (*sl
əg) < 吏 (*ləg).Slip 13. Broken at top and bottom 24 graphs.
13,13; 8,28 如 (*ń
o) < 女 (*no).Hou Ji's mother was a woman of the Youtai clan. She wandered within the Dark Marshes. In winter, she saw thistles (growing), and presented them as an offering. Then, she saw a human footprint and trod in it to offer a prayer, “Di's footstep, it shall … . 13 … That was Hou Ji's mother. When the three kings arose, it was like this.
子羔曰：然則，三王13,21者孰為 … … … … … . . 7 … … … … 7,1 亦紀先王之游道. 不逢明7,11王, 則亦不大事？
13,22 孰 (*
ôk): , read as 竹 (*t ôk).Slip 7. Broken at bottom. 32 graphs, including 1 joined character.
7,2 紀 (*k
əg):. MCy punctuates after 7.2. QXg interprets as 記 (*kəg) 載 (*tsəg). LXq: possibly 改 (*kəg), reads 7,1–2 with graphs below.7,6 游(d
ôg). LXq: possibly 攸 (*dôg).7, 9 逢 (*b'
uŋ):奉 (*b'uŋ). Following WQp.7,10 明 (*m
ăŋ): . Following QXq (graph is variant of 盟). MCy transcribes as . LXq phonetic is貝(*pwâd), reads as 廢(*pwăd). WQp 敗 (*bwad). HLy graph is made up of 四 and 皿, reads as 駟 (*səd). HDk: 四 and 益.7,16 事 (*dz'
əg): . Following WQp, who analyses as {水 + 史}. MCy transcribes as . LXq reads as 汴, loan for 變. LR水 + 弁, read as 辨.Zigao said, “That being so, then, of the three kings, which one … … … 7 … indeed records the Way of the former kings. If they did not meet a perspicacious king, did they indeed not accomplish great service?”
孔子曰：“舜7,21其可謂受命之民矣。舜，人7,31子也…1,1X有虞氏之樂正瞽瞍之1,11子也。”
7,20; 7,28; 6,13; 6,26; 6,28; 2,15; 4,4; 5,9; 8,6; 8,29. 舜 (*ś
wən): 夋 (*ts'wən) <. (夋 = 俊 *tswən)7,22 謂 (*g
wəd) < 胃 (*gwəd).Slip 1. Broken at top. 52 graphs, including 1 joined character.
1,1 Partial graph. MCy:以. CW:曰.
1,3 虞 (*ŋ
wo):吴 (*ŋo).1,8 瞽 (*ko):
. Following LXq. MCy transcribes as: , taking the centre as 占 but LXq parses it as古 + 丁, and takes 古(*ko) as the phonetic. (In 1,17 古 is written as ). CJg, XJs read as 質 the name of Yao's music master in the Lushi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, “Gu yue 古樂.”1,9
. LXq: from艸(), i.e. 草 (*ts'ôg); not from (*χjweˎi), so this graph can be taken as a phonetic loan, 叟(*sôg), and read as 瞍. MCy . MCy takes 1,8, 1,9 as two persons; CJ one person. CJg, XJs read as 虁, title for music official; 質夔, identified as 瞽瞍.Confucius said, “Shun may be described as a common person who received the mandate. Shun, was the son of a man… 1He was the son of the music master, Gusou, of the clan Youyu.
子羔曰：“何故以得為1,21帝。”
1,16; 8,35 何 (*g'â)< 可 (*k'â).
1,17; 6,17; 8,4 故 (*ko) < 古 (*ko).
Zigao said, “Why was he able to become thearch?
孔子曰：“昔者而弗世也，1,31善與善相授也，故能治天1,41下，平萬邦。使無有小大肥1,51瘠，使皆 6,1得其社稷百姓而奉守之。6,11堯見舜之德賢，故讓之。”
1,29 世 (*ś
ad)< 殜.1,39 治 (*d'
əg) < 紿 (*dẓ‘əg).1,42 平 (*b’
ĕŋ) < 坪. ZGg original graph has 旁, not 平.1,45;1,52 使 (*sl
əg) < 吏 (*sləg).1,46 無 (*m
wo): 亡 (*mwaŋ). Following CJ. JXs 無有interpreted as 無論.1,48 小 (*s
og) < 少 (*sog).1,50 肥 (*b'
wər)< (). Following MCy, HLy. CJ, QXg. LXq analyses as 乙over 心, reads as 柱 (*d'u), meaning strong.1,51 瘠 (*dz'
ĕk):. Following CW, HLy. LXq reads as 脆 (*ts'wad). MCy reads as 磽 (*k'ŏg).1,52 使 (*sl
əg) < 吏 (*sləg). ZGg reads as 遍 (*pian):弁 (*b'an). Cf. 1,45.Slip 6. Broken at bottom. 33 graphs.
6,6 姓 (*s
ĕŋ)< 眚 (*sĕŋ).6,15; 6,30; 2,5; 8,8 德 (*tək) <
.6,16; 8,11 賢 (*g'ien) <
.Confucius said, “Formerly, they did not pass (the rule) hereditarily. The good gave (the rule) to another good (person). Therefore they were able to bring order to all-under-sky/heaven, and make the myriad lands peaceful, regardless of whether they were large or small, rich or lean; they ensured that all 6 obtained their altars of grain and had common people, and reverentially guarded them. Yao saw that Shun's virtue was that of a worthy and therefore he ceded (the throne) to him.
子6,21羔曰：堯之得舜也，舜之德6,31則誠善 … … … … … … . . 2 … … … … . . 2,1 與？伊堯之德則甚明與？
6,32 誠 (* ̑d῀
ĕŋ) < 城 (* ̑d῀ĕŋ)Slip 2. Broken at top, 21 graphs, including 1 joined character.
2,1; 2,9 與 (*z
o) <.2,2 伊 (*˙
ɛr). LXq takes as place and clan name, citing the Qianfulun 潛伕論, “Wudezhi 五德志”: 後嗣慶都，與龍和婚，生伊堯. CJ, QXg: 抑 (*iək).2,8 明 (*m
ăŋ)：盟 (*măŋ) (). Following HLy, LXq. MCy昷 (*˙wən), read as 溫(*˙wən). ZGg reads as 壺 (*g'o).Zigao said, “When Yao obtained Shun, was it that Shun's virtue was truly good…2 …? Or was it that Yi Yao's virtue was so very brilliant?
2,11孔子曰：“均也，舜穡於童土之，田則 … … … … … . .
2,14 均 (*k
wĕn) < 鈞 (*kwĕn). Following HLy. LXq: 鈞 (*kwĕn). MCy:鈐, read as 柴 (*dz'ăr).2,17 嗇 (*ṣ
ək) < 穡 (*ṣək). Following CBx. MCy 來 (*ləg) < ().Confucius said, “They were equal. When Shun was planting fields in a barren wasteland….
[子羔曰:…] 3… … … …3,1之童土之黎民也。”
Slip 3. Broken at both ends. 9 graphs, including 1 joined character.
3,5 黎 (*l
ər):莉.[Zigao said]… 3…. the ordinary people of the barren wasteland… .”
孔子曰: … 4 “… 4,1吾聞夫舜其幼也，敏以[學]，4,11侍其親……… … … 5… … … 5,1或以文而遠。堯之取舜也，5,11從諸草茅之中。°與之言禮，悅… …… …8… …… ….8,1X而和，故夫舜之德，其誠8,11賢矣。遂諸畎畝之中而使君8,21天下而稱。”
Slip 4. Broken at bottom. 13 graphs.
4,1 吾 (*ŋo):
.4,2 問 (*m
wən):昏 (*χmwən).4,8 敏 (*m
wĕn) < 每 (*mwəg). Following HDk, Anhui (HLy).4,10. 學. Partial graph. Following LR, HDk, Anhui (HLy). GYb 好. LLx 孝.
4,11侍 (*
əg) < 寺 (*dzəg). Following LLx. HDk, GYb 詩 (*śəg). LXq 時 (*d῀əg). LR read as 慈 (*dz'əg). Anhui (HLy) 持 (*d'əg). Punctuation after 4,10 following Anhui (HLy).4,13 Graph unclear (
).親 (*ts'ĕn)：辛 (*sĕn). Following LLx. MCy, Anhui (HLy) 言 (*ŋăn).Slip 5. Top and bottom ends damaged. 21 graphs. 2 graphs (子羔) on back.
5,3 文 (*m
wən): . Following LXq. MCy transcribes as: . HLy should be transcribed as {敃over 目}, homophone for 閔(*mwən); can read as文 or 敏(*mwən). My translation of 4,8-4,13 is very tentative.5,1–5,5, no satisfactory transcription and interpretation.
5,13 草 (*ts'ôg) < 艸 (*ts'ôg) (
). Following LXq. MCy: 卉 (*χjweˎi). Cf. 1,9.5,20 禮 (*liər) < 豊 (*liər).
5,21 悅 (*d
wat) < .Slip 8. Broken at top. 39 graphs, including 1 joined graph.
8,1
. Partial graph. Not interpreted by MCy or LXq.8,12. 遂 (*dz
wəd): (), read as 穗 (*dzwəd). Following CBx. XZg, HLy: 由 (*dôg)：秀 (*sôg). MCy番 (*p'wăn) < 采 (*ts'əg), read as 播 (*pwâr) or 布 (*pwo).8,14 畎 (*kiwən) <
.8,15 畝 (*məg) <
.Confucius said, … 4 … I have heard that when Shun was young, he was diligent in his studies and served his parents … . 5 … ????? . When Yao selected Shun, he followed him into his thatched hut and discussed the rites with him. He was pleased … . … 8 … and harmonious. Thus, Shun's virtue was truly that of a worthy. Having gone into the fields after him, (Yao) had him rule all-under-sky/heaven, and found him praise-worthy.
子羔曰：“如舜在8,31今之世，則何若？”
8,30 才 (*dz'əg)：在 (*dz'əg).
8,31 今 (*k
əm) < 含 (*g'əm).8,33 世 (*ś
ad) < 殜.Zigao said, “If Shun lived in the present generation, then what would happen?”
孔子曰：“… … … … . 14 … …14,1X三天子事之。
Slip 14. Broken at top and bottom. 6 graphs. Black line after last graph.
14.1 illegible.
Confucius said, “… …14… … the three sons of sky/heaven would serve him.
(
). The “ = ” mark indicates duplication of the element 子.
.
.
. Following, CJ, QXg, LXq. MCy reads as 偁 (*
.
.
). Following LXq, interpreted as 懷 (*g'wɛr) 妊. JXs analyses as {宀 + 鬼}, also reads as 懷. CJ 
, read as 娠 (*
. Following CJ, QXq, who read it as 
. MCy, HLy: variant of 身 (*ś
.
.
. Following XZg, CJ, QXg.
(read as 妟
. MCy: 錯 (*ts'âk).
. SJz analyses as 舟 and 申 (
).
). Following CJ, QXg, LXq. See also 10,1.
(虎*χo).
.
.
.
. HLy 忻(reads with above, not graph below).
, read as 竹 (*t 
. MCy punctuates after 7.2. QXg interprets as 記 (*k
. Following QXq (graph is variant of 盟). MCy transcribes as 
. LXq phonetic is貝(*pwâd), reads as 廢(*p
. Following WQp, who analyses as {水 + 史}. MCy transcribes as 
. LXq reads as 汴, loan for 變. LR水 + 弁, read as 辨.
. (夋 = 俊 *ts
. Following LXq. MCy transcribes as: 
, taking the centre as 占 but LXq parses it as古 + 丁, and takes 古(*ko) as the phonetic. (In 1,17 古 is written as 
). CJg, XJs read as 質 the name of Yao's music master in the Lushi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, “Gu yue 古樂.”
. LXq: from艸(
), i.e. 草 (*ts'ôg); not from 
(*χjweˎi), so this graph can be taken as a phonetic loan, 叟(*s
. MCy takes 1,8, 1,9 as two persons; CJ one person. CJg, XJs read as 虁, title for music official; 質夔, identified as 瞽瞍.
(
). Following MCy, HLy. CJ, QXg. LXq analyses as 乙over 心, reads as 柱 (*d'
. Following CW, HLy. LXq reads as 脆 (*ts'
.
.
.
). Following HLy, LXq. MCy昷 (*˙wən), read as 溫(*˙wən). ZGg reads as 壺 (*g'o).
(
).
.
).親 (*ts'
. Following LXq. MCy transcribes as: 
. HLy should be transcribed as {敃over 目}, homophone for 閔(*m
). Following LXq. MCy: 卉 (*χjweˎi). Cf. 1,9.
.
. Partial graph. Not interpreted by MCy or LXq.
(
), read as 穗 (*dz
.
.
