2024 #浸大創意研究院傑出訪問學人 – #夏含夷教授
香港浸會大學饒宗頤國學院很榮幸邀得美國芝加哥大學顧立雅中國古文字學中心主任、顧立雅伉儷早期中國研究傑出貢獻教授夏含夷教授擔任2024浸大創意研究院傑出訪問學人，於10月來港訪問兩周，並開展兩場講座。
📖講座一：《竹書紀年》的所謂「今本」和「古本」
2024/10/31│16:00 – 17:30 | 以普通話主講
摘要：《竹書紀年》是堯、舜、夏、商、周、晉至魏國的編年史，於西晉時代咸寧5年（公元279年）從汲郡（現在河南衛輝市附近的山彪鎮）的某一古墓盜墓的。「今本」《竹書紀年》是明代天一閣圖書館收藏的版本，是明范欽校「訂」的，民國時代四部叢刊有影印本。與此不同，「古本」《竹書紀年》沒有定本，是清代以來文獻學家根據西晉至北宋時代對《竹書紀年》的引文（有的也包括南宋末年《路史》的引文）所造出的輯佚本，上海古籍出版社1981年出版的方詩銘和王修齡編《古本竹書紀年輯證》算最為齊全。
「今本」《竹書紀年》和「古本」《竹書紀年》有一個明顯不同，就在晉紀和魏紀部分「今本」用周王在位年代紀年，而「古本」用晉侯和魏侯（或王）在位年代紀年。史學家公認「古本」《竹書紀年》的體制應該是墓本的面貌，「今本」 《竹書紀年》的體制是後人創造的，這無疑應該是對的。
然而，「今本」和「古本」的另外一些差別並不這樣簡單。「古本」《竹書紀年》的某些內容不見於「今本」《竹書紀年》，或者與「今本」《竹書紀年》有重要差別，清代《四庫全書總目提要》論證「今本」《竹書紀年》是偽造的主要原因是根據這些差別。然而，嚴格而說，「古本」 《竹書紀年》不是一本書，而應該是至少兩個不同的編本的合體，一個編本是《水經註》和《太平御覽》的編者所引用的，一個編本是《史記·正義》和《史記·索隱》的編者所引用，兩個編本有明顯的不同。
據今人朱希租和方詩銘和王修齡的研究，我們可以知道一個編本（大概是《水經註》和《太平御覽》所引用的）應該是荀勗和和嶠在晉武帝時代的原來整理本，一個編本（大概是《史記·索隱》引用的）是束皙在晉惠帝時代的修訂本。將兩個編本的不同弄清楚以後，我們發現「今本」《竹書紀年》與荀勗和和嶠的編本基本上一樣，但是與束皙的編本含有明顯的差別。按照版本學的原則，「今本」《竹書紀年》與「古本」《竹書紀年》的不同並不證明它是偽造的，而只能證明它屬於某一個編本的體系。
📖講座二：由《竹書紀年》的「怪異」內容談它的整理過程
2024/11/8│16:00 – 17:30 | 以普通話主講
摘要：《竹書紀年》傳世以後，立刻引起史學家的注意，特別是因為一些重要內容與當時正史不同，諸如「舜放堯于平陽」（劉知幾《通史》所引）、「益干啟位，啟殺之」、「太甲殺伊尹」和「文王殺季歷」（皆在唐房玄齡編《晉書·束皙傳》所引）。這些記載被稱作「乖異」、「大異」，甚至「乖刺」，甚至唐代劉知幾說「凡此數事語異正經。其書近出，世人多不信也」（《通史·疑古》篇）。這些乖異紀錄不但多不見於「今本」《竹書紀年》，也不見於現傳《晉書》和《通史》。
最為乖刺的紀錄應該是「文王殺季歷」。「文王」指周文王，「季歷」是文王的父親。我們都知道《書·武成》篇說武王伐紂的戰爭「流杵」，因此孟子說「盡信書，則不如無書」（《孟子·盡信下》。如果孟子因為對周武王有這樣的崇拜而對《尚書》只「取二三策而已矣」，那麼其他史學家看到周文王殺了他自己的爸爸恐怕會更有反感，如果不是把這個記載去掉，一定會想辦法把它改變。
難怪「今本」《竹書紀年》的記載謂「文丁殺季歷」（「文丁」是殷代倒數第三個國王，是商王紂的祖父）。「今本」《竹書紀年》並沒有創造這個修改，至少早在北宋時代的《晉書》已經謂「文丁殺季歷」，最權威的當代《通史》版本（即上海古籍出版社2009年的版本）也一樣。雖然沒有確實的證據，但是我很懷疑這樣的修改源於荀勗的整理工作的一個副本，也只是他整理出來的一系列的修改之一。這些修改也許也包括「今本」《竹書紀年》晉紀和魏紀那樣利用周王在位年代的體例。
參與方式
報名鏈接：https://forms.office.com/r/T9Xgyx89Yk
現場出席：香港浸會大學饒宗頤國學院（逸夫校園逸夫行政樓7樓）
線上直播：ZOOM: https://hkbu.zoom.us/j/92106839565?pwd=ZK4nbcQIeDfe7c4IZC8gPL6QKcwDMe.1
會議ID：921 0683 9565
密碼：775205
浸大創意研究院傑出訪問學人計劃由孔憲紹慈善基金贊助。
——————————————————————————
浸大本科學生：如需聯通課程出席記錄，
現場：請於現場領取及填寫「聯通課程－意見調查表」，並於講座結束時投入收集箱。
線上：（1）活動開始時以浸大電郵登入Zoom平台，且與會名稱需改為學生證號碼+姓名；及（2）講座結束後的三個工作日內，填寫並提交「聯通課程－意見調查表」。
https://forms.office.com/r/ffKhttftv2
注：CCL聯通課程標準為1.5時長。學生需滿足此出席要求，才能更新記錄。
——————————————————————
2024 #HKBUInstituteofCreativityVisitingFellow - #ProfessorEdwardLShaughnessy
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 Tongshi [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 Tongshi). 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 Tongshi 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 Tongshi (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.
https://forms.office.com/r/ffKhttftv2
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.
