Titles

This early Chinese historical text has four titles: Zhou zhi, Zhou shu "Documents/Book of Zhou", Yi Zhoushu "Lost/Leftover Documents/Book of Zhou", and Jizhong Zhou shu "Ji Tomb Documents/Book of Zhou".

Zhou zhi 周志 appears once throughout the transmitted texts: in the Zuo zhuan (Duke Wen of Lu's 2nd year - 625 BCE), along the quote presently found in the Yi Zhou Shu. The reference is valuable since it differentiates the Yi Zhou Shu from the corpus of other documents called shu and possibly refers to its educational function.

Zhoushu (or Zhou shu) – combining Zhou 周 "Zhou dynasty" and shu 書 "writing; document; book; letter" – is the earliest record of the present title. Depending upon the semantic interpretation of shu, Zhoushu can be translated "Book(s) of Zhou" (cf. Hanshu 漢書 Book of Han) or "Documents of Zhou" (cf. Shujing 書經 Book of Documents). In Modern Standard Chinese usage, Zhoushu is the title of the Book of Zhou history about the later Northern Zhou dynasty (557–581).

Yizhoushu (or Yi Zhou shu) adds yi 逸 "escape; flee; neglect; missing; lost; remain" to the title, which scholars interpret in two ways. Either "Lost Book(s) of Zhou", with a literal translation of yi as "lost" (cf. yishu 逸書 "lost books; ancient works no longer in existence"). Or "Remaining Book(s) of Zhou", with a reading of yi as "remnant; leftover" (cf. yijing 逸經 "classical texts not included in the orthodox classics"). This dubious tradition began with Liu Xiang (79–8 BCE) describing the text as: "The solemn statements and orders of the Zhou period; they are in fact the residue of the hundred pian chapters discussed by Confucius." McNeal translates differently, "Yi Zhou shu may well be what remained after Confucius edited the hundred chapters the Shang shu". Since the canonical Shang shu in circulation had 29 chapters, McNeal proposes,

Perhaps sometime during the early Western Han the transmitted version of the Zhou shu was expanded so as to produce a text of exactly seventy-one chapters, so that, added to the twenty-nine chapters of the Shang shu, the so-called "hundred chapters of the shu" could be given a literal meaning. This would account for those chapters of the Yi Zhou shu that seem entirely unrelated or only tentatively related to the main themes of the work.

Jizhong Zhoushu (or Jizhong Zhou shu, 汲冢周書) derives from a second tradition that the text was found among the manuscripts on bamboo slips unearthed in the ( 279 CE) Jizhong discovery of the tomb of King Xiang of Wei ( 衛襄王, r. 311–296 BCE). Shaughnessy concludes that since "both of these traditions can be shown to be without foundation", and since all the earliest textual citations refer to it as Zhoushu, there is now a "general scholarly consensus" that the title should in fact read simply as Zhou shu. However, since Zhou shu also figures as the section of the Book of Documents, the name "Yizhoushu" has obtained broad currency as safely marking the differentiation.

English translations of the Yi Zhou shu title include:

• "Leftover Zhou Writings"

• "Remainder of Zhou documents"

• "Remaining Zhou documents"

• "Chou Documents Apocrypha"

• "Remainder of the Zhou Documents"

• "Remnants of Zhou Documents"

• "The Superfluous of the Book of Zhou"

Content

In the 1st century BCE, the Zhoushu or Yizhoushu text consisted of 10 fascicles (juan 巻 "scroll; volume; book; fascicle") with 70 chapters (pian 篇 "article; section; chapter") and a preface. Eleven chapters were lost around the 12th century CE, and only the titles survive. The extant text has 59 chapters and a preface, with a commentary for 42 chapters attributed to the Jin dynasty scholar Kong Zhao (孔晁, fl. 256–266).

Based upon linguistic and thematic consistencies, modern scholarship reveals that 32 chapters constitute a textual "core" treating governmental and military topics. The remaining 27 Yizhoushu chapters are heterogeneous. Some describe historical events ranging from King Wen of Zhou (r. 1099–1050 BCE) down to King Jing of Zhou (Gui) (r. 544–520 BCE); supplementary chapters record topics such as astronomy (52 Shixun 時訓) and posthumous names (54 Shifa 謚法).

McNeal disagrees with Shaughnessy's claim that "there is no discernible organization of the text," and contends, "there is in fact a chronological presentation of material throughout the progression of most of the chapters." For instance, 18 chapter titles use one of the paired words wen 文 "civil; literary" and wu 武 "military; martial" – a literary reference to the Zhou founders King Wen and King Wu. At least 28 of the 59 extant chapters "are unambiguously set in the pre-dynastic reigns of Kings Wen and Wu or during the immediate time of the conquest of Shang."

Date and place of composition

According to Shaughnessy, the Yizhoushu underwent two textual redactions.

First, sometime in the late 4th or early 3rd century BCE, an anonymous editor compiled the 32 "core" chapters. These have linguistic and intellectual features characteristic of Warring States writings, and were quoted in classics such as the Zuozhuan, Hanfeizi, and Zhanguoce.

Second, no later than the early 1st century BCE, another editor, possibly the preface's author, composed a redaction with 70 chapters and a preface (modeled upon the Old Texts preface to the Shangshu). Some secondary chapters are earlier than the core and others are later. For instance, Chapter 32 Wushun 武順 uses the term di 帝 "emperor"; McNeal interprets it as "a late third-century BC date", when di came to mean "Emperor of China". Qing historian Zhu Youceng (朱右曾, 19th century) claimed that, though possibly not produced in the early Zhou, Yizhoushu had no features of the Warring States or Qin–Han forgery.

The philosophical lineage of the Yizhoushu within the Hundred Schools of Thought remains uncertain. According to McNeal, several schools (including one branch of Confucianism) emphasized the concept of wen and wu as "the civil and martial spheres of government as comprising a comprehensive totality." In particular, the concept was highlighted by the famous ancient military strategist and politician Jiang Ziya or Tai Gong 太公, who is known through the writings of Su Qin (380–284 BCE) from the School of Diplomacy or "School of Vertical and Horizontal Alliances".

According to Chinese scholars, possible transmission line of the earliest Yizhoushu chapters went through the state of Jin (晉) and its subsequently divided territories. It is attested by the preserved textual quotes, most of which are ascribed to Jin personae. A number of thematic parallels are found between Yizhoushu and the Wenzi, which is reported to be also produced in Jin.

Textual history

The bibliography sections (yiwenzhi 藝文志) of the Twenty-four Histories provide valuable diachronic data. The (111 CE) Book of Han imperial Bibliography records the Zhoushu, or Zhoushiji 周史記, in 71 chapters. The (636) Book of Sui lists a Zhoushu in ten fascicles (juan), and notes it derived from the Jizhong discovery of Jin dynasty period. Yan Shigu (581–645), annotating Yiwenzhi, states that of the 71 Yizhoushu chapters only 45 are extant. However, Liu Zhiji (661–721) claims that all 71 original chapters were extant. The Old Book of Tang (945) bibliography lists an 8-fascicle Zhoushu with annotations by Kong Zhao (孔晁, mid-3rd century). The New Book of Tang (1060) lists both a Jizhong Zhoushu in ten fascicles and Kong Zhao's annotated Zhoushu in eight. The (1345) History of Song and subsequent dynastic histories only list the Jizhong Zhoushu in ten fascicles. Shaughnessy concludes that two separate versions existed up until the Tang period, the eight-fascicle Kong Zhao zhu Zhoushu (孔晁注周書) and the ten-fascicle Jizhong Zhoushu (汲冢周書). These two textual versions were assimilated during the Northern Song period (960–1279), and the loss of eleven chapters occurred before the middle Southern Song (1127–1279).

Both these traditions, associating the extant Yizhoushu to Jizhong texts or Kong's edition, have dubious historicity. First, contemporary research on the Yizhoushu has conclusively demonstrated that the received text could not have been recovered from King Xiang's tomb along with the Bamboo Annals. Shaughnessy explains that "the Yi Zhou shu was extant as an integral text, known as the Zhou shu 周書, throughout the nearly six centuries from King Xiang's burial in 296 B.C. through the opening of the tomb in 280 A.D." Some chapters (e.g., 62 Shifang 職方) have internal evidence of being written after the 221 BCE Qin dynasty unification. Second, it is unlikely that Kong Zhao, author of the earliest commentary, consulted the Jizhong documents. The dates of Kong's life are uncertain, but he was a close contemporary of Wang Su (195–256), and the last historical reference to him was in an imperial invitation of 266. Shaughnessy says Kong's commentary was added to the text "sometime in the middle of the third century A.D., but certainly before the 280 opening of King Xiang's tomb." Histories listed many scholars – but not Kong Zhao – who worked on deciphering the bamboo strips.

Yizhoushu commentaries began with Kong Zhao in the 3rd century and continue in the present day. Kong's commentary is extant for 42 of the 59 chapters, and has been included in most editions. Qing dynasty (1644–1912) scholarship produced valuable Yizhoushu commentaries and editions. The text-critical edition of Lu Wenchao (盧文弨, 1717–1796) was based on eight Yuan dynasty and Ming dynasty versions, and includes twelve earlier Qing commentaries. The (1936) Sibu beiyao 四部備要 series reprinted Lu's edition, which is called the 抱經堂本 "Baojing Study version". The (1919) Sibu congkan 四部叢刊 collection reproduced the earliest edition, a (1543) version by Zhang Bo (章檗) printed at the Jiaxing provincial academy.

Compared with most other Chinese classics, the Yizhoushu has been neglected by scholars, both Chinese and Western. McNeal suggests, "A bias against the work, perhaps originating in part from the misconception that it comprised those Zhou documents that Confucius deemed unfit for inclusion in his canonical edition of the Shang shu 尚書, or Venerated Documents (which includes a section called "Zhou Documents" itself), has contributed to the relative neglect of this text."

Parallel texts and epigraphics

The text close to the known version of Yizhoushu was known to Sima Qian: numerous parallels are found in the Shi ji account on Zhou history, and the Yizhoushu "Ke Yin" (#36) and "Duoyi" (#44) chapters are basically incorporated into the Shi ji in their full form. The observation was made by Ding Fu (丁黼).

Among the excavated sources on Yizhoushu:

• Bamboo cache of Cili County, Zhangjiajie, Hunan (excavated in 1987) contains fairly complete text of Yi Zhou Shu #8 "Da Wu" (大武).

• Fragments of Yi Zhou Shu were identified in the Tsinghua Bamboo Slips (2008).

Traditional scholarly attitudes

The Shi fu (世浮) document was condemned by Mencius and ignored by Sima Qian, which is probably part of the reason it is found in the Yizhoushu today instead of the Book of Documents. After its compilation, the Yizhoushu was condemned as inadequate representation of history by the traditional Confucian scholars of the late imperial period, beginning from the Song dynasty (Ding Fu, Hong Mai). Their standpoints were characterized by merging of moralistic judgement into textual criticism. Most pronounced condemnation came from Fang Xiaoru (1357–1402). Fang claimed that Yi Zhou Shu contained "exaggerations" and "immoral" notions ascribed to the past sages (bringing "Shi fu" chapter as an example for the first, and "Guan ren", "Da wu", "Da ming" for the second). He concluded on those grounds that they could not have been authentic Zhou documents, and thus Liu Xiang's claim that they had been left over by Confucius was necessarily false.

Yegor Grebnev has recently shown that the "Shi fu" chapter is a compilation of a number of pre-existing texts. The organization of the chapter, the totals of captives and animals, etc., are best understood in this light, and as demonstrating an ideal of kingship far removed from the moralistic "Mandate of Heaven" ideological construction of the Zhou conquest: hence Mencius's rejection of what is probably a more authentic account.

標題

《逸周書》又名《周書》、《周志》，隋唐以後稱《汲塚周書》。

《周志》見于傳世文獻：《左傳·文公2年》中引用了《逸周書》原文。這一引用很有價值，因為其將《逸周書》（《周志》）與其他《書》區別開來，並可能是指其教育功能。

《漢書·藝文志》稱之為周書。謝墉為抱經堂本作序所說，「『周書』本以總名一代之書，猶之『商書』、『夏書』也。」由于《尚書》中已有《周書》，把《漢志》著錄的《周書》71篇改稱《逸周書》，是比較方便的。今傳本《逸周書》末有序，列舉七十篇標題，加上序本身，恰合71篇之數。蔡邕《明堂月令論》云「《周書》七十篇，《月令》第五十三」，今本仍在第五十三。

《左傳》、《國語》引《周書》多次，其內容在今《尚書》之中；《墨子》《戰國策》也引《周書》多次，其內容在今《逸周書》中。《左傳》引用《逸周書》時，稱「周志」或曰「書」。

《逸周書》最早見于西漢劉向：《漢書·藝文志》注引劉向雲「（《周書》，）周時誥誓號令也，蓋孔子所論百篇之餘也。」 今人羅斌認為：

也許在西漢早期的某個時候，《周書》的傳世版本得到擴充，產生了正好有71章的文本，這樣加上《尚書》的29章，就有所謂「百篇」了。這樣就可以解釋《逸周書》那些似乎與主題完全無關或只是暫時相關的章節了。

《汲塚周書》于西晉初年（約279）出土于汲郡（今河南省衛輝市附近）的魏襄王墓（公元前296），是汲塚書的一部分。夏含夷指出，現行的兩種稱呼都是缺乏根據的，而早期文獻都稱之為《周書》。不過《周書》也是《尚書》的一部分，所以還是稱為《逸周書》以作區分。

內容

根據語言風格和主題的一致性，現代學者發現《逸周書》中的32篇構成了處理政務與軍事主題的核心部分。剩下27篇描述了上至文王，下至景王的歷史事件，補充篇章則記錄了天文（《時訓》）與謚法（《謚法》）。

羅斌不同意夏含夷所說的「文本無明顯條理」，認為「事實上，大多數章節的材料都是按時間順序排列的」。例如，至少有18章的標題包含「文」（文王）或「武」（武王），現存59章中至少有28章「明確在文王、武王的時期」。

以下是篇名一覽，加*的僅留有標題，有目無文。《大匡》有兩篇。

編寫時間與地點

《逸周書》篇目有與出土青銅器銘文相近的語段。

夏含夷認為，《逸周書》經歷了兩次修訂。

第一次發生在戰國中前期，一位編者編纂了32篇核心文本，具有戰國文本的語言與思想特點，並被《左傳》《韓非子》《戰國策》等引用。

第二次發生在西漢早期，另一位編者重編了70章和序（仿《尚書》舊序）。次要章節創作時間或早或晚于核心章節，例如《武順》使用「帝」一詞，羅斌認為這篇當作于秦始皇之前。晚清學者朱右曾指出，《逸周書》雖然可能並非作于周初，但也沒有戰漢偽書的特徵。

《逸周書》在諸子中的思想脈絡仍不清楚。羅斌指出，有幾家（包括儒學一支）強調「文治武功」的概念。

經學界認為《逸周書》最早的章節可能是在晉地流傳下來的，保存下來的引文確實大多出自晉人之手。《逸周書》與《文子》在主題上也有許多相似之處，後者據稱也是晉國人所編。

文本史

《二十四史》的《藝文志》提供了寶貴的歷時資料。《漢書·藝文志》（111）記載了《周書》或稱《周史記》，有71章；《隋書》（636）載《周書》有十卷，是汲塚書的一部分。顏師古（581–645）注《藝文志》時，稱71章中僅存45章；但劉知幾（661–721）則稱71章全部有存。《舊唐書》（945）列出三國孔晁注8卷本《周書》；《新唐書》（1060）列出10卷本《汲塚周書》和孔晁注8卷本《周書》。《宋史》（1345）及之後的史書都只列出了10卷本《汲塚周書》。夏含夷的結論是，唐代之前存在兩個不同的版本，即8卷本孔晁注周書，和10卷本《汲塚周書》。北宋時期兩者被編在一起，11章的佚失發生在南宋中期之前。

這兩種將現存《逸周書》與汲塚書、孔晁注聯繫起來的說法，在歷史性上值得懷疑。第一，當代對《逸周書》的研究明確表明，所收文本不可能與《竹書紀年》一起從汲塚墓中出土。夏含夷就認為：「從公元前296年襄王下葬，到公元280年出土的近六百年中，《逸周書》一直作為《周書》這樣一個整體存在。」部分章節（如《職方》）的內部証據表明，該章寫于秦統一之後。第二，最早作注的孔晁不太可能參考過汲塚書。雖然孔晁生卒年不確定，但與王肅（195–256）當是同時代人，最後一次提到是在266年的諭旨中。故而夏含夷斷定孔晁注肯定是在280年出土之前就添加到文本中的。史料記載了許多解讀汲塚書的學者，其中沒有孔晁。

《逸周書》作注工作始于三國孔晁，延續至今。孔晁注現存59章中的42章，並收于大多數版本中。清代學者對《逸周書》有豐富的研究。盧文弨（1717–1796）批註本基于元、明兩朝的8個版本，並收集了清初12種注。《四部備要》（1936）重印了盧文弨本，稱為抱經堂本。《四部叢刊》（1919）重刊了最早的版本，即嘉興省立書院的章檗本（1543）。

與其他大多數古籍相比，《逸周書》一直被中外學界所忽視。羅斌認為：「對這部書的偏見，部分原因可能是人名誤以為《周書》是孔子剔除出去的不適合收在《尚書》裡的篇目（《尚書》裡面本就有《周書》），這也是導致它被忽視的原因之一。」

平行文本

司馬遷知道與《逸周書》相近的一些文段，《史記》關于周代歷史的部分與《逸周書》有很多相似之處，尤其《克殷》與《多義》兩篇幾乎被完整抄錄進《史記》。這觀察最早由丁黼做出。

關于《逸周書》的出土文物有

• 湖南張家界慈利縣竹簡（1987出土）有相當完整的《逸周書·大武》。

• 《逸周書》中的《皇門》《命訓》及傳世本有目無文的《程寤》片段見于清華簡（2008）。

傳統學界態度

《世俘》遭孟子譴責，並被司馬遷忽略，可能是《世俘》被收入《逸周書》而非《尚書》的原因之一。

《逸周書》成書後，宋朝之後的傳統儒家學者（丁黼等人）譴責《逸周書》沒有充分反映歷史，立場特點是將道德判斷與文本批評結合起來。明初方孝孺（1357–1402）的譴責最尖銳，《遜志齋集》：「王者之師，禁亂除暴，以仁義為本。其《大武篇》則曰：『春違其農，夏食其榖，秋取其刈，冬凍其葆。』不仁孰甚焉！其《大明篇》則曰：『委以滛樂，畧以美女。』不義孰甚焉！此後世稍有良心者所不忍為。……其他若是者甚衆。及載武王伐商之事，往往謬誕，與書不合。由此觀之，決非《周書》謂孔子刪定之餘者，非也。其中若《諡法》《周月》《時訓》《職方》之篇，又與《爾雅·月令》間有合者，竊意漢初書亡，隱士縉紳之流所偽者以為《周書》，而司馬遷不察，故引而用之。劉向因以為古書耳……」

近年烏克蘭學者葛覺智指出，《世俘》是已有文段的匯編。以此觀點來看，更能輕易理解《世俘》的組織結構、俘虜和牲畜的總數等，它展示的王權理想與周天子征伐的「天命」道德主義相去甚遠，因此，孟子拒絕接受可能是更真實的記載。

注釋

參考

• 《逸周書匯校集注》 作者：張懋鎔、黃懷信、田旭東

• 王連龍：談汲塚《周書》與《逸周書》，載《中原文化》2014年第4期

•

•

•

•

•

腳註