Abstract
Cheng zhi 成之 (short for Cheng zhi wen zhi 成之聞之) from tomb no. 1, Guodian, has been widely understood as an early example of a text that sets out to explain the Shangshu. This claim is problematic because it relies on unfounded assumptions of canonicity. Going beyond this canon-centred, exegetical paradigm, this article provides a form analysis of argument construction in Cheng zhi, to demonstrate that conceptual communities during the Warring States draw on traditions of Shu 書 (Documents) as cultural capital to pursue their own socio-political and philosophical agendas. Rather than dominant interpretations that insist on Shu as an entity of stable and fixed texts, as well as on a singular engagement with the Shangshu 尚書 in Cheng zhi, I identify four textual voices in the Guodian text which in dialogic form articulate an integral position on good rule. They are what I call “explicit” and “silent authorial voices”, as well as two “external” voices. One is from the Shu traditions; the other is attributed to a constructed persona of moral integrity named “gentleman” (junzi). I show how the various voices consolidate the text’s argument by creating a reference structure that determines the way an argument is made in Cheng zhi. In this way, the Guodian text is shown to rework old cultural capital into new argument space to produce normative claims. This article concludes that while the Shu emerged as loosely textualised traditions during the Warring States period (ca. 453–222 bce), they nonetheless framed the expectations of conceptual text communities, casting light on these traditions as something dynamic, yet authoritative.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Despite its importance as “one of the pillars of the Chinese textual, intellectual, and political tradition”, scholarship in Western language on the Shangshu and its related traditions is rather limited (Kern and Meyer 2017b: 1). Translations aside, there are just two book-length studies in any European language: Michael Nylan’s monograph on the “Great Plan” (“Hongfan” 洪範) of the Shangshu and Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer’s edited volume on composition and thought of the Shangshu and its related texts (Nylan 1992; Kern and Meyer 2017b: 1–2; Kern and Meyer 2017a).
- 2.
For a highly competent philological discussion of the Yi Zhoushu, see Grebnev (2016).
- 3.
Henceforth I refer to these collections as, respectively, Guodian Manuscripts; Shanghai Manuscripts; Qinghua Manuscripts.
- 4.
See Krijgsman (2016).
- 5.
I take the shortened form of the title from Cook (2012).
- 6.
I discuss this in more detail in my forthcoming monograph on the “Shu” traditions during the Warring States period and their use for the making of political arguments by contrasting communities (Meyer forthcoming).
- 7.
For the loose term “unit of thought”, see Wagner (1999). William Boltz coined today’s commonly used term the “building block” (Boltz 2005). Prior to Boltz, the modular form of Chinese manuscript texts had been discussed by Meyer (2002, 2005), calling them “components” in reference to Ledderose’s groundbreaking study (Meyer 2002, 2005; Ledderose 2000). Analysing the transmitted Guiguzi, Broschat speaks of “text constituents” (Broschat 1985). For the terminology of “context-dependent texts” versus those that are “argument-based”, a difference describing scale rather than absolutes, see Meyer (2011). Kern provides a full account of the compositional structure of the manuscript text Ziyi (Kern 2005).
- 8.
- 9.
My use of the term “master sayings” should not be taken as an equivalent to Denecke’s “masters literature”, which I consider methodologically problematic because it studies heterogeneous pre-imperial traditions from the perspective of imperial catalogues (Denecke 2011).
- 10.
A near identical text to the Guodian Ziyi is found in the Shanghai Manuscripts. The transmitted Ziyi of the Liji, which differs notably from the manuscript texts, also makes one reference to the Changes (Yi 易), as well as to the Chunqiu.
- 11.
These are the manuscript text-units 5 (Liji17); 7 (5); 10 (15); 11 (14); 12 (3); 13 (13); 17 (23); 18 (18).
- 12.
For a fuller discussion of this phenomenon, see Meyer (forthcoming).
- 13.
Chin considers it part of a tradition that took “the Shangshu as its source” (diacritics are mine). Chin further suggests that in Cheng zhi the authors (she considers one individual author behind that text) attempt to make sense of Zhou Gong’s “abstruse utterances” in “Jun Shi” and “Kang gao” and place it within the text’s central theme of “anxiety” (ji 疾) that features against the background of angst that the Mandate of Heaven might not be a constancy, pervading much of the Shu traditions and shared by contemporaneous Zhou communities (Chin 2003). Kern suggests that the text “assumes the gesture of a commentary” (Kern 2005: 321). Cook asserts that Cheng zhi is best understood against the backdrop of the Shangshu (Cook 2012).
- 14.
For photographic reproduction of the bamboo slips and transcription of the text plus the philological annotations, see Guodian Manuscripts (Jingmenshi Bowuguan 1998: 48–52, 165–70). Depending on how the manuscript is arranged, alternative names for the text were suggested and include “Da chang”, “Tian chang”, “Tian jiang da chang”, “Cheng wen”, “De yi” and “Qiu ji” or “Junzi zhi yu jiao” (Guo 1998, 2001; Zhou and Lin 1999; Zhang 1999; Chen 2000; Liao 2001: 28).
- 15.
As such, the slips of Cheng zhi fall into one category with LaoziA, Ziyi, Wuxing, Xing zi ming chu, Zun de yi, and Liu de, all of which were produced on bamboo slips of that length.
- 16.
Unfortunately, the idea of taking the materiality of the bamboo slips into account as sources of information regarding the social situation of writing and manuscript production was not yet prevalent in China in the 1990s and so, unlike the slips from the Qinghua Manuscripts, no photographs were taken of the back of the Guodian bamboo slips.
- 17.
Already in the publication of Guodian Manuscripts, Qiu Xigui suspects that slips 24 and 25 should not be put in two different text blocks (Jingmenshi Bowuguan 1998: 170n24).
- 18.
The identification of which slips belong to Cheng zhi is therefore a problem. Chen Wei suggests moving slips |31–|33 to Liu de (he names the text “Da chang”). He further considers slip |40 as the ultimate slip of that text and thus not belonging to Cheng zhi. (Chen Wei considers slip 18 the final slip of Cheng zhi.) Chen’s main reason is the repeated mention of liu wèi 六位 “six positions”—a key concept in Liu de—on those slips; note that Chen also moves the first slip of Zun deyi 尊德義 (Chen 2003: 67f, 72f). The texts share the same physical properties and so Chen’s suggestions make perfect sense. (There are, however, other weaknesses in his choice that apply to the consistent use of other concepts in those texts that would be broken up by his re-arrangement and so I do not follow him here.)
- 19.
Cook also provides a succinct overview over the debate concerning the arrangement of the slips (Cook 2012: 590–95). Slip |30 to my mind does not connect well with |22 as it repeats a formula which in Cheng zhi normally comes with references to the Shu traditions. However, I have no better solution and so I follow Cook’s suggestion. In the following, I reference the slips and the graphs on them by superscript numbers in the Chinese text to indicate the beginning of the bamboo slip in question. When a slip indication is given without a vertical line “|” the head of the slip has broken off.
- 20.
To use—conceptual—communities and sub-groups is a productive way of thinking about the production of texts and their philosophical purposes. It draws our attention to the at times subtle distinctions in the ways the texts construct meaning and, historically speaking, address different—sometimes even contrasting—groupings. Because of a lack of factual evidences, however, it is impossible to pin them down historically, and so they must thus far remain conceptual projections.
- 21.
That is, on slips |1, |10, |19, |38.
- 22.
See Meyer (2014b: 21–38, 23).
- 23.
- 24.
I here use “concept” as hardened terminology formed in socio-political and philosophical discourse.
- 25.
As in, for example, Chin (2003), Shaughnessy (2006: 38) and Huang (2010). The problem with the term “quotation” is that it produces a scenario where an imagined text (B) of a later date relates to a text of an earlier date (A) in a one-directional manner. Such a model misconceives the complex multi-directional relation between texts in early textuality. The way Warring States communities textualise old cultural capital is by rearticulating it, so adapting it to the communities’ expectations. Intertextual correspondences should therefore not be understood as text B (for instance, a philosophical text) pointing to text A (“Shu”), but as renditions of a cultural praxis, because they do not entail a given, prescribed and one-directional relation to and appreciation of the materials referred to (A).
- 26.
Slip10/9–16.
- 27.
At this point the bamboo slip is broken and presumably three characters are missing. Given the pattern of the three parallel metaphors, it is clear that it should be a “弗 [X] 矣” construction. Cook follows the suggestion by Zhou and reads it as “complete” (成) (Cook 2012; Zhou 1999). I consider that reading equally valid.
- 28.
Slips12/16–13/19. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 601–02).
- 29.
Slips13/21–16/16. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 604). The image presented by the word qian 牽 is that of a halter or a nose ring.
- 30.
Slips16/17–18/end. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 604–06).
- 31.
The first graph here poses a question. I follow Cook in taking it as bao 報 in the sense of “repay”, “requite” and not as fu 復 in the sense of “to retaliate”, as repeatedly suggested in the literature.
- 32.
Slips19/1–20/end. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 606–08). As has been pointed out repeatedly in reference to this passage, the reciprocity of understanding, cherishing, or honouring in human interaction is a constant topos in literature from the Warring States period (Liao 1998; Cook 2012: 607).
- 33.
This reading follows Cook (2012: 609).
- 34.
- 35.
This reading follows Cook (2012: 609).
- 36.
Slips34/1–36/12. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 608–09).
- 37.
Literary, “those who come” (or “those who follow”).
- 38.
Slips36/13–36/27. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 609–10).
- 39.
Cook continues with slip |30 at this point but I remain hesitant because that line now has the gentleman say something, followed by the formulaic line “this undoubtedly recounts [the matter] X” (害(蓋)言X) (Cook 2012).
- 40.
Some commentators go into rather strained arguments to make the reference fit more closely the received text, here “Jun Shi” of the Shangshu. I intend to stick closer to established principles of reconstruction without being guided too closely by the textus receptus.
- 41.
Another way of taking yin 音 here would be to take its direct meaning as “voice” rather than as particle. When also reading 29/4
as rang 讓 “to yield” as is often suggested—a reading that would fit my argument even better—it would give the reading of the sentence as “[They] yield to us two men, [but] should there not be concordance on that [matter]?” - 42.
I take graph29/16 (
) as originally read by the editors of Guodian Manuscripts, namely yue 說 (*lot), while Cook interprets it as chuo 輟 (*trot) “stop, cease, interrupt” (Cook (2012: 612). Phonetically, though, that choice is problematic. Although 說 *lot and 輟 *trot do rhyme, they do not make a good loan because the place of articulation of their initial is too different. (My reconstruction of the Old Chinese follows the system of Baxter and Sagart 2014). Cook defends his reading by stating that 不輟 is “a term commonly used to refer to a rule that can be maintained without cease for many generations, which is precisely the central theme of ‘Jun Shi’”, thus understanding new material through tradition and not in its potential particularity. Graph29/13 might also be read as an injunction, saying “why?” It would change the reading of the line into: “Why? It states the displeasure of governance.” Cook follows Chen Wei and takes the graph29/18 (
>司) (*s-lə) as 治 (*C.lrə) “rulership, governance” (Chen 2000, 2003). At first sight one might consider this choice unlikely because the structure placing intertextual references in Cheng zhi is commonly that of a repeated form of words, speech or utterance (言/詞). For that reason taking it as 詞 (*sə.lə) “utterance” might seem a good choice, having that line read: “That utterance speaks about displeasure.” However, left unnoticed by the commentators on this passage, the slip cluster under review ties “to govern” 治, “persistence” 恆 and “anxiety/urgency” 疾 into one interconnected organic whole—I shall discuss that below—and so I think it is best taken as “rulership, governance” 治 (*C.lrə) here. - 43.
Another reading could be: “efforts lead to achievements, strength to merit”.
- 44.
The first graph of the phrase pronounced by Prince Shi presents a problem. Interpretations range from interpreting it as liu 旒 “fringes of pearls on crowns”; “pennant” (*c-ru) to mao 旄 “animal tail used as banner” (*mʕaw)—both read as mao 冒 “spread”; “overspread” (*mʕuk-s) by Li Ling (1999, 2007). Zhou Fengwu considers the graph an abbreviation of niao 鳥 (*tʕiwʔ), read as mao 冒, while Tang and Wu interpret it as shan 髟 “long hair” (*sʕram) which they also read as mao 冒 (Zhou 1999; Tang and Wu 2001). To my mind, none of these suggestions justify the reading of mao 冒 “spread”; “overspread” (*mʕuk-s) as they all violate the principles of Old Chinese loans. However, mao 冒 “spread”; “overspread” is the Kong Anguo reading of the equivalent line in the textus receptus—惟茲四人昭武王惟冒, 丕單稱德—which Kong explains as “to spread [King Wu’s virtue] over the world” 布冒天下 (Shangshu Zhengyi2007). This shows the sometimes rather strenuous efforts made by modern-day editors to make a newly received text fit the received text. Liao Mingchun interprets the graph as yu 於 which he reads in the sense of mian 勉 “exert, take efforts” (Liao 1999). Cook follows Tang and Wu in their interpretation of the graph as biao 髟, but he takes it as xu 勖 “encourage” (*m̥ʕok) (Cook 2012; Tang and Wu 2001). His choice too, seems to be equally influenced by the textus receptus in that he follows Sun Xingyan’s 孫星衍 (1753–1818) interpretation of the line, despite its violation of the phonetic principles of loans in Old Chinese (Sun 2004).
- 45.
Slip29/1–29/end; Slip23/1–23/end; Slip22/1–22/end. For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 610–15).
- 46.
Here and above my parsing of the sentences differs from Cook’s.
- 47.
- 48.
Slip30/1–end; Slip1/1–2.
- 49.
Slip24/1–26/3.
- 50.
Slips26/4–end of Slip 21.
- 51.
Slip21/9–14.
- 52.
Slips31/1–end;32/1–33/24. (For the reconstruction, see Cook (2012: 622–23). I do not follow Cook’s transcription of the Shu reference—余(舍)才(茲)
(宅)天心 because the graphs as appearing on the slip make perfect sense.) - 53.
On the paradox of self-cultivation, developed from Nivison’s coinage of the “paradox of virtue”, see Nivison (1996: 33ff.).
- 54.
This interpretation of jia 戛 follows the Kong Anguo interpretation of the transmitted “Kang Gao”.
- 55.
Here we see again the tendency to understand—and thus reconstruct—newly received materials from the perspective of tradition, satisfying the students’ wish in the stability of the canon. The transmitted text has 不率大戛 … (Those who are disobedient to the natural principles [of rites and low] …) and so the interpreters of the Guodian text have taken great pains to make the line 不還〈
(率)〉大暊(戛), 文王
(作)罰, which structurally (!) differs greatly from the Shangshu, to fit the received text. The graph38/19 不〈
(還) was interpreted as a “miscopying” of 
>率. (see Li 2000; Guo 2001). Cook follows this interpretation (Cook 2012). Another interpretation of that line might be: “That those who do not return can be subjected to rules, King Wen created the punishments …” - 56.
Slips33/25–end;37/1–40/end of slip. For taking si 巳 (*s-ɢəʔ) (the sixth early branch) as si 似 “resemble, embody”, I follow Li (2000).
- 57.
The ruler, conceptualised as morally superior and thus considered a real gentleman, is envisaged in conceptually similar terms also in Zhong xin zhi dao, which, just as Cheng zhi, is part of the Guodian materials.
- 58.
Slip37/13–18. (The junzi of the phrase 昔者君子有言曰 is written as a ligature—unlike the other mention of junzi on the same slip who is the imagined addressee). Note, however, that this should not be understood as a general formal feature in the manuscript. There is no attempt in Cheng zhi to mark the commenting junzi consistently in the form of a ligature writing.
- 59.
- 60.
In my discussion of the argument clusters, I translate the “target junzi” consistently as “ruler” (or lord) and the “commenting junzi” consistently as “gentleman” to mark them as separate institutions in the text, which they are.
- 61.
Slip36/12–25/end of slip.
- 62.
Such forms of reinforcing the argumentation pattern in compositional terms are common in argument-based texts of the Warring States period.
- 63.
Slips |29/1–12.
- 64.
Slips29/1–12.
- 65.
Note that this does not speak of the author in Foucault’s sense (Foucault 1969).
- 66.
For a discussion of the structuring device of the “principal insertion” in Chinese argumentation, see Meyer (2011: 99).
- 67.
Slips24/1–26/3.
- 68.
Slips31/1–33/end;37/1–40/end.
- 69.
Heaven sends down great constancy to pattern human relations, such that the ethics between lord and subject are regulated, the relation between father and son are positioned, the division between husband and wife are marked (天降大常, 以理人倫, 制為君臣之義, 著為父子之親, 分為夫婦之辨).
- 70.
- 71.
“Entextualisation” means that certain elements are taken from contexts other than the text itself (in other words, they become “decontextualised”) and placed in a new environment, the “target text”. To move such elements and integrate them in that new environment does not mean, however, that they are simply transposed from A to B. Rather, entextualisation always means that the entextualised elements themselves take on a new reality within their new environment.
- 72.
Slip |29/1–12.
- 73.
I read shi 詩 (*s.tə) as shi 是 (*[d]eʔ), a common loan in early Chinese textuality.
- 74.
Most prominently in Western scholarship is Shaughnessy (2006: 38–40).
- 75.
讓 (*naŋ-s)-襄 (*s-naŋ) are phonetically similar; 毋 and 汝 feature close graphical correspondences in manuscript texts; 在 (*[dz]ʕəʔ)-哉 (*[ts]ʕə); 焉 (*[ʔ]a[n])-言 (*ŋa[n]) again share close proximity in phonetic terms. For an elaborate discussion of the line in reference to the received recension, see Shaughnessy (2006: 38ff).
- 76.
Shaughnessy (2006: 38).
- 77.
Shaughnessy elaborates his suspicions about the traditional readings of “Jun Shi” (Shaughnessy 1993).
as rang 讓 “to yield” as is often suggested—a reading that would fit my argument even better—it would give the reading of the sentence as “[They] yield to us two men, [but] should there not be concordance on that [matter]?”
) as originally read by the editors of Guodian Manuscripts, namely yue 說 (*lot), while Cook interprets it as chuo 輟 (*trot) “stop, cease, interrupt” (Cook (
>司) (*s-lə) as 治 (*C.lrə) “rulership, governance” (Chen 
(宅)天心 because the graphs as appearing on the slip make perfect sense.)
(率)〉大暊(戛), 文王
(作)罰, which structurally (!) differs greatly from the Shangshu, to fit the received text. The graph38/19 不〈
(還) was interpreted as a “miscopying” of 
>率. (see Li References
Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boltz, William G. 2005. “The Composite Nature of Early Chinese Texts.” In Martin Kern ed., Text and Ritual in Early China, 50–78. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Broschat, Michael R. 1985. “Guiguzi: A Textual Study and Translation.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.
Chan, Hung Kan 陳雄根 and Ho Che Wah 何志華. 2003. Citations from the Shangshu to Be Found in Pre-Han and Han Texts 先秦兩漢典籍引《尚書》資料彙編). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Chen, Mengjia 陳夢家. 1985. A General Exposition of the Shangshu 尚書通論. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Chen, Wei 陳偉. 2000. “About the Sequencing Rearrangement of the ‘Liu de’ Text in the Guodian Corpus 關於郭店楚簡〈六德〉註篇編連的調整.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slips 郭店楚簡國際學術研討會論文集: 64–74.
Chen, Wei 陳偉. 2003. Alternative Exegesis on the Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts 郭店竹書別釋. Wuhan: Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe.
Chin, Annping. 2003. Cheng zhi wen zhi in Light of the Shangshu. http://bamboosilk.org/zzwk/2003/wuhanhui/Annping%20Chin.htm.
Collins, Randall. 2002. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cook, Scott. 2012. The Bamboo Texts of Guodian: A Study and Complete Translation. 2 vols. Ithaka: Cornell University East Asia Program.
Denecke, Wiebke. 2011. “The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Asia Centre.
Foucault, Michel. 1969. “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?” Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie 63.3: 73–104.
Grebnev, Yegor. 2016. “The Core Chapters of the Yi zhoushu.” PhD diss., University of Oxford.
Guo, Yi 郭沂. 1998. “Exegetical and Editorial Commentaries on ‘Tian jiang da chang’ [‘Cheng zhi wen zhi’] of the Guodian Corpus 郭店楚簡〈天降大長〉〈成之聞之〉篇疏證.” Confucian Studies 孔子研究3: 61–68.
Guo, Yi 郭沂. 2001. The Guodian Bamboo Corpus and Pre-Qin Thought and Scholarship 郭店竹簡與先秦學術思想. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu.
Huang, Kuan-Yun. 2010. “Warring States ‘Echoes’ of the Past.” PhD diss., University of Chicago.
Jingmenshi Bowuguan 荊門市博物館, ed. 1998. Bamboo Slip Manuscripts from the Chu Tomb at Guodian 郭店楚墓竹簡. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Kern, Martin. 2005. “Quotation and the Confucian Canon in Early Chinese Manuscripts: The Case of Ziyi (Black Robes).” Asiatische Studien/Etudes asiatiques 59.1: 293–332.
Kern, Martin and Dirk Meyer, eds. 2017a. Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), Studies in the History of Chinese Texts 8. Leiden: Brill.
Kern, Martin and Dirk Meyer. 2017b. “Introduction.” In Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer, eds., Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), Studies in the History of Chinese Texts 8, 1–22. Leiden: Brill.
Krijgsman, Rens. 2016. “The Textualisation of Cultural Memory in Early Chinese Manuscripts.” PhD diss., University of Oxford.
Ledderose, Lothar. 2000. Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art, Bollingen Series 46. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Li, Ling 李零. 1999. “The Guodian Chu Bamboo Corpus: Collated and Annotated 郭店楚簡校讀記.” Studies of Daoist Culture 道家文化研究 17: 455–542.
Li, Ling 李零. 2002. The Three Chu Bamboo Slip Texts Collected by the Shanghai Museum: Collated and Annotated 上博楚簡三篇校讀記. Taibei: Wanjuanlou.
Li, Ling 李零. 2007. The Guodian Bamboo Slip Texts: Collated and Annotated 郭店楚簡校讀記(增訂本). Beijing: Beijing Daxue.
Li, Xueqin 李學勤. 2000. “A Preliminary Discussion of the Two Chapters of ‘Cheng zhi wen zhi’ in the Guodian Bamboo Texts 試說郭店簡《成之聞之》兩章.” Journal of Yantai University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 煙台大學學報(哲學社會科學版) 13.4 (51): 457–60.
Li, Xueqin 李學勤, ed. 2014. Qinghua Manuscripts 清華大學藏戰國竹簡 (壹). Shanghai: Zhongxi Shuju.
Liao, Mingchun 廖名春. 1998. “An Examination into the Confucian Texts in the Guodian Corpus 郭店儒家著作考.” Confucian Studies 孔子研究 3: 69–83.
Liao, Mingchun 廖名春. 1999. “The Guodian Bamboo Slip Texts of the Cheng zhi wen zhi, the Tang Yu zhi dao and the Shangshu 郭店楚簡〈成之聞之〉, 〈唐禹之道〉與《尚書》.” Studies of Chinese History 中國史研究 3: 33–38.
Liao, Mingchun 廖名春. 2001. “Issues about the Sequencing and Entitling the Guodian Text of the Cheng zhi wen zhi 郭店簡〈成之聞之〉的編連和命名問題.” 中國史研究 2: 68–81.
Liu, Zhao 劉釗. 2003. Exegesis on the Guodian Chu Slip Texts 郭店楚簡校釋. Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin.
Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, ed. 2001. Shanghai Museum Chu Bamboo Manuscripts上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
Meyer, Dirk. 2002. “The Power of the Component and the Establishment of the Guodian Tomb One Bamboo-Slip Manuscript Zhong xin zhi dao as a Text.” MA diss., Leiden University.
Meyer, Dirk. 2005. “A Device for Conveying Meaning: The Structure of the Guodian Tomb One Manuscript ‘Zhong xin zhi dao ‘.” In Wolfgang Behr and Joachim Gentz, eds., Komposition und Konnotation—Figuren der Kunstprosa im Alten China. Special issue of Bochumer Jahrbuch für Ostasiatische Forschung 29: 57–78.
Meyer, Dirk. 2011. Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of Meaning in Early China. Leiden: Brill.
Meyer, Dirk. 2014a. “The Materiality of ‘Shu 書’ (Documents).” Lecture delivered at UC Berkeley, 22 October.
Meyer, Dirk. 2014b. “Bamboo and the Production of Philosophy: A Hypothesis About a Shift in Writing and Thought in Early China.” In Benjamin Fleming and Richard Mann, eds., History and Material Culture in Asian Religions. 21–38. London: Routledge.
Meyer, Dirk. 2017. “Recontextualization and Memory Production: Debates on Rulership as Reconstructed from ‘Gu ming’ 顧命.” In Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer, eds., Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), Studies in the History of Chinese Texts 8, 106–45. Leiden: Brill.
Meyer, Dirk. 2018. “Moving Old Cultural Capital into New Problem Space: ‘Hou Fu’ and the Materiality of Meaning Networks in ‘Shu’ (Writings) Genre”. Lecture delivered at the International Workshop Warp, Woof, Wen / Phoneme, Pattern, Pun: Structural Approaches to Early Chinese Texts. University of Zurich, 12–14 April 2018.
Meyer, Dirk. Forthcoming. Traditions of Writings 書 (Shu) and Political Argument in Early China. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Nivison, David S. 1996. The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Nylan, Michael. 1992. The Shifting Center: The Original “Great Plan” and Later Readings. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag.
Rath, Saraju, ed. 2012. Aspects of Manuscript Culture in South India, Brill’s Indological Library 40. Leiden: Brill.
Richardson, Brian. 2009. Manuscript Culture in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaberg, David. 2017. “Speaking of Documents: Shu Citations in Warring States Texts.” In Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer, eds., Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), Studies in the History of Chinese Texts 8, 320–59. Leiden: Brill.
Schaberg, David. 2001. A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography, Harvard East Asian Monographs 205. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.
Shangshu zhengyi 尚書正義. 2007. With commentary by Kong An’guo 孔安國, subcommentary by Kong Yingda 孔
達, compiled by Huang Huaixin 黃懷信. In Ruan Yuan, ed., An Exegetical and Editorial Commentary on the Thirteen Canonical Texts 十三經注疏. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1993. “The Duke of Zhou’s Retirement in the East and the Beginnings of the Minister–Monarch Debate in Chinese Political Philosophy.” Early China 18: 41–72. Reprinted in Edward L. Shaughnessy. 1997. Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics, 101–36. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2006. Rewriting Early Chinese Texts. Albany: State University of New York Press
Stevenson, Charles. 1938. “Ethical Judgements and Avoidability: Persuasive Definitions.” Mind 47: 331–50.
Stevenson, Charles. 1945. Ethics and Language. London: Oxford University Press.
Sun Xingyan 孫星衍, ed. 2004. An Exegetical and Editorial Commentary on the Modern and Ancient Scripts of the Shangshu 尚書今古文註疏. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Tang, Yuhui 湯餘惠 and Wu, Liangbao 吳良寶. 2001. “Miscellaneous Notes on the Texts of the Guodian Chu Slips 郭店楚簡文字拾零(四篇).” Research on the Bamboo and Silk Manuscripts 簡帛研究 9: 199–202.
Wagner, Rudolf G. 1999. “The Guodian MSS and the ‘Units of Thought’ in Early Chinese Philosophy.” Unpublished conference paper, presented at the Guodian Conference, Wuhan, 15–18 October 1999.
Zhang, Liwen 張立文. 1999. “Entitling the Chapters in the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slip Manuscripts 《郭店楚墓竹簡》的篇題.” In Research on the Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts 郭店楚簡研究: 331–34.
Zhao, Ping’an 趙平安. 2000. “Explaining the Graph ‘Ling’ in the Guodian Bamboo Text of the ‘Cheng zhi wen zhi’ 釋郭店簡成之聞之的 ling 字.” Tsinghua University Research on the Bamboo and Silk Manuscripts 清華簡帛研究 1: 204–06.
Zhou, Fengwu 周鳳五. 1999. “Reading the ‘Cheng zhi wen zhi’ in the Guodian Corpus 讀郭店竹簡〈成之聞之〉札記.” Philology and Ancient Manuscripts 古文字與古文獻: 42–54.
Zhou, Fengwu 周鳳五 and Lin Suqing 林素清. 1999. “Research on the Recovering of the Sequencing of the Guodian Bamboo Slip Manuscripts 郭店竹簡編序復原研究.” Philology and Ancient Manuscripts 古文字與古文獻: 55–58.
達, compiled by HAuthor information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meyer, D. (2019). Shu 書 (Documents) Repertoire in Argument-Based Texts from Guodian: The Case of Cheng zhi成之 (Things Brought to Completion). In: Chan, S. (eds) Dao Companion to the Excavated Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04633-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04633-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04632-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04633-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)