Past Events

2024 HKBU Institute of Creativity Visiting Fellow - Professor Edward L Shaughnessy

The HKBU Jao Tsung-I Academy of Sinology has invited renowned sinologist Professor Edward Shaughnessy to be the HKBU Institute of Creativity’s Visiting Fellow. As the Director of the Creel Center for Chinese Paleography and Lorraine J & Herrlee G Creel Distinguished Service Professor in Early Chinese Studies at The University of Chicago, USA, Professor Shaughnessy will stay on campus for two weeks to give 2 public talks.

Lecture 1: The so-called ‘current’ and ‘ancient’ redactions of The Bamboo Annals

2024/10/31│16:00 – 17:30 | Conducted in Putonghua

Abstract: The Bamboo Annals is a compilation that comprises chronicles of reigns of the Emperors Yao and Shun and dynasties and kingdoms from the Xia, Shang, Zhou, and Jin to the Wei. It was plundered from an ancient tomb in Ji prefecture (the town of Shanbiao near the city of Weihui in modern Henan) in the fifth year of the Xianning era of the Western Jin dynasty (279 CE). The ‘current’ redaction is a version in the Ming dynasty Library of the Tianyi Pavilion (Pavilion of Unified Heaven) that had been edited by Fan Qin in the Ming dynasty, and a facsimile was issued by the Sibu Congkan in the Republican period. Differently from this, the ‘ancient’ redaction of The Bamboo Annals has no urtext and instead comprises ‘compilation editions’ assembled by documentalists during and subsequent to the Qing dynasty according to citations of it ranging from the Western Jin to Northern Song (some also include citations from the Lushi [Pathway of history] of the late Southern Song). The Shanghai guji chubanshe (Shanghai Classics Publishing House) edition of 1981 compiled by Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling and titled Guben zhushu jinian jizheng (Compilatory evidence pertaining to the ‘ancient’ redaction of The Bamboo Annals) could be considered the most authoritative of these.

The ‘current’ and ‘ancient’ redactions of The Bamboo Annals have one clear difference, that is, in the sections recording Jin and Wei, the ‘current’ version employs the reigns of the Zhou rulers to outline the chronology, whereas the ‘ancient’ version employs the reigns of the rulers of Jin and Wei. Historians generally acknowledge that the structure of the ‘ancient’ redaction represents that of the edition found in the tomb, while that of the ‘current’ redaction was created by a later contributor, and this can be undoubtedly regarded as correct.

Other differences between the ‘current’ and ‘ancient’ versions are however not quite so simple. Some of the contents of the ‘ancient’ redaction are not found in the ‘current’ redaction or have important discrepancies with the ‘current’ redaction. In the Qing dynasty, the principal reasons why the Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao (Annotated bibliography of the complete book repositories of the Four Treasuries) demarcated the ‘current’ version as spurious stem from these discrepancies. In fact, strictly speaking, the ‘ancient’ redaction is not a single text, but instead a polytextual combination of at least two separate editorial lineages: one cited by the compilers of Shuijing zhu (Commentary on The Book of Rivers) and Taiping Yulan (Imperial readings of the Taiping era), and the other cited by the Zhengyi (Correct meanings) and Suoyin (Seeking out the concealed) texts pertaining to the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian). There are clear differences between the two lineages.

According to research carried out by recent scholars Zhu Xizu, Fang Shiming, and Wang Xiuling, we can ascertain that one redaction of The Bamboo Annals (probably the one cited by Shuijing zhu and Taiping Yulan) was originally compiled in the era of Emperor Wu of Jin by Xun Xu and He Qiao, while the other (probably the one cited in the Suoyin to the Shiji) was a revised redaction by Shu Xi made in the era of Emperor Hui of Jin. After clarifying the differences between these two lineages, we discover that the ‘current’ redaction of The Bamboo Annals is fundamentally identical to that of Xun Xu and He Qiao but substantially at variance to that of Shu Xi. Abiding by the principles of the study of editions, the differences between the ‘current’ version of The Bamboo Annals and the ‘ancient’ version do not in themselves demonstrate its spurious nature and can only demonstrate that it belongs to a particular editorial lineage.

Lecture 2: Taking the ‘weird’ in The Bamboo Annals to discuss its editorial process

2024/11/8│16:00 – 17:30 | Conducted in Putonghua

Abstract: Once The Bamboo Annals had entered circulation, it immediately attracted the attention of historians, especially since important elements of its contents were at variance to the received versions in formal histories of the time; for example, ‘Shun banished Yao at Pingyang’ (cited by Liu Zhiji in his Shitong [The generality of history]) and ‘Yi usurped Qi’s role, and thus Qi killed him’, ‘Taixi killed Yiyin’, and ‘King Wen killed Jili’ (all cited in ‘Shu Xi zhuan’ [The biography of Shu Xi] of the Jinshu [The official book of the Jin dynasty] by Fang Xuanling of the Tang dynasty). These records have been accorded the appellations ‘weird’, ‘greatly at variance’, and ‘perverse satire’, and Liu Zhiji of the Tang dynasty even went so far as to opine that ‘all wording pertaining to these several matters is different to the versions in orthodox canonic writings. The book from which they derive has only been issued recently, and those perspicacious of the world mostly do not believe them’ (the essay ‘Yigu’ [Doubting the ancient] in Shitong). These ‘weird’ records are not only mostly not found in the ‘current’ redaction of The Bamboo Annals but are also not seen in the modern versions of the Jinshu and Shitong now in circulation.

The weirdest of all the records is probably the sentence: ‘King Wen killed Jili’. ‘King Wen’ is King Wen of Zhou; ‘Jili’ is King Wen’s father. As we are all aware, the chapter ‘Wucheng’ (Successful completion of the war) of the Shangshu (Book of documents) recounts the ‘spears floating in blood’ of the campaign King Wu mounted against Zhou. For this reason, Mencius indicates: ‘If the Shangshu is trusted unthinkingly, then this is inferior to a situation where there is no Shangshu’ (‘Jinxin xia’ [With the entire mind, part two] of The Mencius). If Mencius, because he held such an adulatory regard for King Wu of Zhou, looked on the Shangshu as only containing ‘two or three bamboo writing slips worthy of trust’, then other historians, on reading that King Wen of Zhou killed his own father, would probably have been even more repelled. If this record is not to be expunged entirely, then a means must be found to alter it.

No wonder, then, that the record in the ‘current’ version of The Bamboo Annals indicates that ‘Wending killed Jili’ (‘Wending’ was the third last ruler of the Yin dynasty and the grandfather of the Shang dynasty ruler Zhou). The ‘current’ version of The Bamboo Annals certainly did not create this correction, for as at least as early as the Northern Song dynasty, the Jinshu had already stated that ‘Wending killed Jili’. The most authoritative contemporary version of the Shitong (that is, the 2009 Shanghai guji chubanshe edition) is also identical in this respect. Although there is no definite evidence, my suspicion falls on a supplementary edition employed by Xun Xu in his editorial process as the origin of this correction, and this is only one of a series of changes that he made. These corrections perhaps furnished the rationale behind the structure by which the sections recording Jin and Wei in the ‘current’ redaction of The Bamboo Annals employed the chronology of the reigns of the Zhou rulers.

Participation
Registration: https://forms.office.com/r/T9Xgyx89Yk
In-person Venue: Hong Kong Baptist University Jao Tsung-I Academy of Sinology (Level 7, Shaw Tower, Shaw Campus)
Online: ZOOM: https://hkbu.zoom.us/j/92106839565?pwd=ZK4nbcQIeDfe7c4IZC8gPL6QKcwDMe.1
Meeting ID: 921 0683 9565
Passwords: 775205

The HKBU Institute of Creativity Visiting Fellowship Scheme is sponsored by Hung Hin Shiu Charitable Foundation.
————————————————————————————
HKBU students: For CCL attendance,
In-person: please collect and complete the Co‐curricular Learning Evaluation Form onsite, and submit it into the collection box at the end of the lecture.
Online: please (1) log in Zoom using HKBU email account, with your name as “STUDENT ID NO. + NAME”, and (2) complete and submit the Co‐curricular Learning Evaluation Form after the activity in 3 working days.
Note: A CCL-recognised event must be at least 1.5 hours long. Please observe the requirements if students wish to update the attendance record