Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:35:01.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ju-tzu Hsi and the Genealogy of the House of Wei 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Jeffrey K. Riegel
Jeffrey K. Riegel*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our knowledge of the genealogy of the feudal houses of the Chou period is based primarily on the Shih Chi “Hereditary Houses” and secondarily on frequent quotations in medieval commentaries of the Shih Pen, a systematic genealogical treatise which, before it was lost in the T'ang, found favor among such historians as Tu Yü (222-284) and Ssu-ma Cheng (fl. 719-736) and classicists like K'ung Ying-ta (574-648). In the “Hereditary House of Wei,” the Shih Chi presents a genealogy at some variance with the genealogy quoted from the Shih Pen in Ssu-ma Cheng's commentary to the Shih Chi and K'ung Ying-ta's “sub-commentaries” to the Tso Chuan and Li Chi. A central point of disagreement concerns Marquis Wen , who is described as the son or grandson of Viscount Huan . This conflict of genealogy is coupled with a serious discrepancy concerning the length and date of the reign of Marquis Wen between the Shih Chi and the reconstructed Chu-shu Chi-nien. I believe that a careful examination of the chronological difficulty will contribute to a resolution of the genealogical conflict and thus prepare the way for a more general solution of points of conflict between the Shih Chi and Shih Pen versions of the genealogy of the House of Wei.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 3 , Fall 1977 , pp. 46 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

An earlier version of this article was presented as a short paper to a meeting of the Western Branch of the American Oriental Society several years ago. I am indebted to Professor Albert E. Dien of Stanford University and Professor John H. Knoblock of the University of Miami for the help they game me In preparing that paper. Indeed, although he may not wish the credit, the initial research was as much the work of John Knoblock as it was mine.

References

FOOTNOTES

2. When the Shih Pen was compiled is not known. Pan Ku claims in his eulogy of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, at Han Shu (Chi-chieh commm. ed. by Wang Hslen-ch'ien) 62.25b that the Shih Pen was one of the sources of the Shih Chi and that it “recorded the genealogies of emperors, kings, dukes, marquises, and magnates from the time of the Yellow Emperor through the Spring and Autumn Period.” Ssu-ma Ch'ien never reveals an awareness of the text however. The work is listed in the bibliographic catalogue at Han Shu 30.17 where It is ascribed, by Liu Hsiang, to “a scribe of antiquity.” After the Han, two different recensions were in circulation: one associated with Liu Hsiang and another which included the commentary of the Wei dynasty (A.D. 220-265) erudit, Sung Chung (For Sung, see Som, Tjan Tjoe, Po Hu T'ung [Leiden, 1949], PP. 23–24 et passim.Google Scholar) The Book is listed in various recensions in the catalogues of the Sui and T'ang dynastic histories. All were presumably lost by the end of the T'ang. During the Ch'ing, a number of redactions of Shih Pen fragments were fashioned and these are gathered under the title Shih Pen Pa Chung (Shanghai, 1957)Google Scholar.

3. The Chu-shu Chi-nien, or Bamboo Annals, is a chronicle of the House of Wei from earliest times to roughly 299 B.C. It was discovered in A.D. 279, 280, or 281, by bandits robbing the tomb of King Hsiang of Wei (d, 296 B.C.). The book was widely quoted by medieval scholars and commentators and thus, although it was lost in the Sung, later scholars have been able to piece together fragments of the original work. (The original work is often referred to as the ku pen in order to distinguish it from the chin pen, an unacknowledged redaction of original fragments which also contain much spurious material. It is the latter forgery that Legge translates in the prolegomena to his translation of the Shang Shu; see The Chinese Classics, Volume III: The Shoo King or the Book of Historical Documents [Hong Kong, 1960], pp. 108–176)Google Scholar. The text of the Chu-shu Chi-nien cited herein is Fan Hsiang-yung , Ku-pen Chu-shu Chi-nen Chi-chiao Ting-pu (Shanghai, 1962)Google Scholar, which contains the original redaction of Wang Kuo-wei together with additions, corrections, and an enormously helpful chronological table by Fan. Although the chronology given in the Chu-shu Chi-nien for the earliest period is questionable, the order and dating of events it presents for the House of Wei during the late Eastern Chou have been generally validated by scholars. See, for example, Osamu, Kanaya, “Sengoku nempyō zasshiki” , Shūkan Toyogaku 8 (1962):44–52Google Scholar.

4. Kametarō, Takigawa, ed., Shiki Kaichū Kōshō (Tokyo, 1932–1934), 44, p. 6Google Scholar.

5. Ssu-ma Cheng consistently substitutes the word hsi for shih, avoiding the tabooed personal name of T'ang T'ai-tsung, Li Shih-min.

6. The graph ch'i is excrescent.

7. Shiki 15, p. 35.

8. See, for example, Mencius 2A6.

9. Tso Chuan (Chu-shu ed. of Jüan Yüan set in type as part of SPPY) 11.2, Min 1, records the circumstances of 661 B.C. which led to the Duke of Chin giving Pi Wan the old state of Wei as a fief, thus beginning the House of Wei. (The dates provided below for an individual mentioned in the Tso are those of the first and last occurrences of h1s name.)

10. Shiki 14, p. 71, gives the same date as that found in the Tso. Systematic dating of members of the House of Wei (that is, regular and uninterrupted indication of reign lengths) begins only with Marquis Wen. Dates for individuals prior to him which can be culled from the “Hereditary House of Wei” are largely consistent with those established on the basis of the Tso narrative and are thus not given below.

11. In a quotation of the Shih Pen in the K'ung Ying-ta sub-commentary to Li Chi-(Chu-shu ed. of Jüan Yüan) 38.19, Mang-chi is given as two different persons: Mang and his son Chi. That this is an erroneous quote is evident not only from Ssu-ma Cheng's citation of the same Shih Pen passage (at Shiki 44, p. 3) but also from King's own quotation of the same passage in his sub-commentary to Tso Chuan 11.2, both of which read Mang-chi as one name.

12. According to Tso Chuan 15.5, Hsi 23, Viscount Wu fled the state of Chin along with the heir-apparent, Ch'ung-erh, the future Duke Wen of Chin. This event occurred in 655 B.C (For more on this date see the opinion of Liang Yü-sheng quoted by Takigawa, at Shiki 44, p. 3Google Scholar.) Later, after Ch'ung-erh became Duke, Viscount Wu was made Speannan of the Right in 633 B.C. (Tso Chuan 16.7, Hsi 27) and was nearly executed by the Duke in 632 B.C. for insubordination (Tso Chuan 16.10, Hsi 28).

13. Wu-chung Chou is identified by Ssu-ma Cheng (at Shiki 44, p. 3) with Viscount Wu of the Shih Chi text. Though the Shih Chi does not give the Viscount's personal name, it is supplied by the Tso Chuan in the form of Ch'ou (lit. ‘the grunting of an ox’). Ssu-ma Cheng equates the latter with the Shih Pen form. K'ung Ying-ta makes the same equation. With regard to the problem of Viscount Wu's relationship to Pi Wan, Tu Yü (Tso Chuan 11.2) appears to follow the Shih Pen genealogy and thus says that Pi Wan was the grandfather of the Viscount.

14. Viscount Tao does not appear in the various quotations of the Shih Pen genealogy but he is mentioned in a quote of the Shih Pen treatise “Chü p'ien” (quoted by Ssu-ma Cheng at Shiki 44, p. 4) which says, “Viscount Wu of Wei lived in Wei; Viscount Tao moved his home to Ts'ui.” Ssu-ma Cheng concludes from this that we should insert Viscount Tao into the Shih Pen genealogy. Tu Yü (Tso Chuan 28.16b, Ch'eng 18) notes that Wei Chiang (q.v.) is the son of Wei Ch'ou and thus favors the Shih Pen genealogy as it stands.

15. Viscount Chuang's career spans the years 573 to 559 B.C. during which he achieved first the position of Ssu-ma (Tso Chuan 28.16b, Ch'eng 18), was almost put to death for executing someone himself without authorization (Tso Chuan 29.7b, Hsiang 3), became assistant to the Commander of the Tripartite Army of Chin (Tso Chuan 32.2, Hsiang 13), and finally rose to Commander of the Tripartite Army (Tso Chuan 33.7b, Hsiang 18).

16. While Viscount Chuang and Viscount Chao are surely the same person, the correct form of his posthumous name is uncertain. Ssu-ma Cheng (Shiki 44, p. 4) points out that although he is called Chuang in the Shih Pen genealogy, the “Chü P'ien” refers to him as Viscount Chao. In light of the Tso reading, however, Chuang is surely the correct form.

17. See note 20.

18. Viscount Hsien's career beqins in 550 B.C. when he is in association with Luan Ying (Tso Chuan 35.5b, Hsiang 23). In 544 B.C., upon the death for Viscount Hsuan of the House of Han, the government of Chin passes into the hands of Viscount Hsien (Tso Chuan 52.14, Chao 28) and in 510 B.C., at a convocation of feudal lords from various states called by Viscount Hsien and a member of the House of Han, the Viscount assumed the position facing south (i.e., that of superior to the feudal lords) and thus invited a number of predictions of his demise (Tso Chuan 53.13b, Chao 32). The exact date of his death is uncertain. The Shih Chi has him still alive in 476 B.C. which is very unlikely. See Shiki 15, p. 7Google Scholar.

19. The Shih Pen reading of the personal name is an attested loan form of the Tso Chuan reading. See Karlgren, B.Grammata Serica Recensa 82x and 83kGoogle Scholar.

20. Shih Pen places Viscount Chien between Viscount Hsien and Viscount Hsiang in its genealogy. Like Wei Ying of the Shih Chi version, Viscount Chien is not mentioned in the Tso. The death of Viscount Hsien in 509 B.C. occurs 12 years before the first mention of Viscount Hsiang in the Tso and thus it is possible that a generation intervenes. It is also possible that Viscount Chien and Wei Ying are one and the same person and that either the Shih Chi or Shih Pen has placed him erroneously in the generation count.

21. Viscount Hsiang is first mentioned in connection with the unsuccessful attack on the Fan and Chung-hang clans (a prefiguring of the division of Chin in 453 B.C.) he undertook in 497 B.C. along with the Marquis of Chin and adherents of the Han and Chao Houses (Tso Chuan 56.7, Ting 13). Later, he invaded Wey on two occasions, in 488 B.C. and in 482 B.C. These attacks are recorded in the Ch'un Ch'iu under Duke Ai, years VII and XIII.

22. Wei Ch'ih of the Shih Chi version is to be identified with Viscount Hsiang. The graph ch'ih is probably, as Ssu-ma Cheng suggests (Shiki 44, p. 6), a scribal error for to, a form homophonous with the Shih Pen name. The latter is attested as correct by the Tso form.

23. Fan Hsiang-yung, p. 46, places the fragment which records the murder of the Earl of Chih by Viscount Hsiang of Chao, Viscount K'ang of Han, and Viscount Huan of Wei under the 22nd year of Duke Ch'u of Chin (i.e., 453 B.C.), following the reading of Chu-shu Chi-nien given by Ssu-ma Cheng at Shiki 39, p. 92Google Scholar.

24. Fan Hsiang-yung, p. 46, assigns the Chu-shu Chi-nien fragment recording Marquis Wen's assumption of title to the sixth year of Duke Ching of Chin, i.e., 446 B.C. This date is arrived at by counting back 76 years in Chinese count (the combined length of Marquis Wen's 50 year reign given in a fragment quoted by Ssu-ma Cheng at Shiki 44, p. 12, and Marquis Wu's 26 years given in a fragment quoted by Ssu-ma Cheng at Shiki 44, p. 12) from 371 B.C., the date of Marquis Wu's death and one consistent with both Chu-shu Chi-nien and Shih Chi chronologies. Ssu-ma Cheng, Shiki 39, p. 93, however, quotes a Chu-shu Chi-nien passage which says that Marquis Wen assumed his title in the eighteenth year of Duke Ching. Wang Kuo-wei argues that the graphs shih pa are an error for liu in the vertical column text. He is fol lowed by Fan Hsiang-yung and other Chu-shu Chi-nien scholars.

25. Shiki 15, pp. 35, 50Google Scholar.

26. The date of Marquis Wu's assumption of title is arrived at by subtracting the 26 years of his reign in Chinese count from 371 B.C. See note 15.

27. Shiki 15, pp. 50, 58Google Scholar.

28. Chu-shu Chi-nien as quoted in Ssu-ma Cheng's commentary at Shiki 14, p. 25Google Scholar. See also Fan Hsiang-yung, pp. 55, 67, 95, and 99.

29. Shiki 15, pp. 58, 73Google Scholar. The Shih Chi mistakenly has Hui's reign ending in his 36th year because Ssu-ma Ch'ien mistook the King's instituting a new calendar in his 37th year for the beginning of King Hsiang's reign. The Chu-shu Chi-nien passage indicating the adoption of the new calendar is paraphrased by Cheng, Ssu-ma at Shiki 44, p. 22Google Scholar.

30. Chu-shu Chi-nien as quoted in the Chi-chieh commentary at Shiki 14, p. 25Google Scholar. The Chu-shu Chi-nien ends with King Hsiang and he is referred to as “the present King” within it. According to Cheng, Ssu-ma, Shiki 44, p. 31Google Scholar, the Chu-shu Chi-nien ends in the year given in the Shih Chi as the twentieth year of King Ai, i.e., 299 B.C.?

31. Shiki 15, pp. 73, 79Google Scholar. The dates are mistaken, however, since Ssu-ma Ch'ien has King Hsiang ruling during the period that was in fact the last sixteen years of King Hui's reign.

32. Shiki 15, pp. 80, 90Google Scholar. According to Ku Yen-wu (1613-1682), since Ssu-ma Ch'ien had placed King Hsiang in what was in fact the last part of King Hui's reign he then had to invent another figure, King Ai, to occupy King Hsiang's slot. (For a full discussion see Kanaya Osamu, p. 47.) It is significant that the Shih Pen does not list a King Ai in Its genealogy.

33. Shiki 15, pp. 91, 98Google Scholar.

34. Shiki 15, pp. 99, 115Google Scholar.

35. Shiki 15, pp. 115, 119Google Scholar.

36. Shiki 15, pp. 119–121Google Scholar. The last entry says that that Ch'in took King Chia captive. A lost passage in the Lieh Nü-chuan quoted by the Chi-chieh commentary at Shiki 44, p. 49Google Scholar, says that Ch'in murdered Chia.

37. Tsugio, Mikami ed., Chūgoku kodaishi kenkyū (Tokyo, 1960), pp. 120, 123Google Scholar.

38. An interesting parallel can be seen in the ancient Near East during the second millennium B.C. There Rowton, M.B., “The Date of Hammurabi” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17 (1958):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar has established years per generation as a lower limit, 26.4 years as a median, and 31.7 as an upper limit.

39. See note 23.

40. Shiki 15, p. 35Google Scholar.

41. See note 24.

42. See note 25.

43. Shiki 67, p. 28Google Scholar.

44. Shiki 44, p. 8Google Scholar. What purports to be a record of a conversation between Tzu Hsia and the Marquis can be found at Li Chi 38.19-39.6b.

45. See notes 29, 31, 32.

46. The Chu-shu Chi-nien dates for Marquis Wen are accepted on other grounds by Ch'ien Mu , Hsien Ch'in Chu-tzu Hsi-nien (Hong Kong, 1956), pp. 123–124Google Scholar.

47. This appears to be the point the Ch'ing scholar Lei Hsüeh-ch'i is making in a note to p. 38 of his reconstruction of the Shih Pen in the Shih Pen Pa Chung. His interpretation is lent some support by the fact that Ssu-ma Cheng does elsewhere cite evidence of internal contradiction in the Shih Pen. See notes 14 and 16.

48. Karlgren, B., Grammata Serica Recensa 869Google Scholar.

49. Shuo Wen Chi eh Tzu Ku Lin (SWCTKL) 3320b.

50. Chün-sheng, Chu, SWCTKL 3320bGoogle Scholar, gives other examples in Han literature where the graph ssu is mistakenly substituted for the fuller graphs used to write the other words cognate to its proper word.

51. Both definitions are quoted by Yü-ts'ai, Tuan at SWCTKL 3320bGoogle Scholar.

52. Quoted in the Chiao-lu notes at SWCTKL 3320b.