On exegesis methods of Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts

Referring to ancient explanations

Chinese ancient documents are difficult to understand sometimes. Thus, it is necessary for readers to find proper ancient explanations that can fit well with these documents. Scholars such as Duan Yucai, Wang Niansun, and Wang Yinzhi had solved many difficult exegesis problems by using ancient explanations. Their opinions are credible, for they have appropriate evidence of ancient annotations. It is the same with the exegesis study of Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. When researchers met with difficult words in bamboo-slip manuscripts, first they would look up the explanations in ancient annotations and dictionaries to see whether there were any explanations that would fit well with the bamboo-slip texts. The original annotators of Guodian bamboo-slip manuscripts, Shanghai Museum bamboo-slip manuscripts and Tsinghua University bamboo-slip manuscripts have quoted many ancient annotations to explain these unearthed manuscripts. As for their research results, there are some classical examples of quoting ancient annotations. However, the original annotators may have quoted some debateable ancient annotations, which leads to some misunderstanding of bamboo-slip texts. Some of these debateable explanations have been corrected by other researchers. In books like Guodian Zhushu Bieshi by Chen Wei (2003) and Guodian Chujian Jiaoshi by Liu Zhao (2005), it can be found that some debateable annotations quoted by original annotators have been corrected by these researchers.

Here is an example: in the sentence “ying shou tian zhi ming(膺受天之命)” of the Zhai gong (祭公) manuscript, “ying(膺)” should be explained as “shou(受).” “Chuci Tianwen楚辞·天问, “何以膺之？ (What should be used to reply to it?)” in the annotation by Wang Yinzhi (2000) (王逸), “膺,受也。(ying means reply.)” “ying(膺)” can also be read as “ying(应),” which also means “shou (受).” “ying shou(膺受)” is the structure of two synonyms, which has been observed often in ancient documents.

Identifying loan characters

Using loan characters is a pervasive phenomenon in Chinese ancient documents. In the book Guzi Tongjia Huidian compiled by Gaoheng, many examples can be found. More loan characters are found in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts, therefore identifying loan characters is necessary for the correct understanding of these manuscripts. As for the research of loan characters in bamboo-slip manuscripts, the dictionaries of loan characters should be studied first. Jiandu Boshu Tongjiazi Zidian compiled by Bai Yulan (2008), includes loan characters from five batches of Warring States bamboo and silk materials, which are Chu Silk manuscripts, Xinyang bamboo-slip manuscripts, Guodian bamboo-slip manuscripts, Jiudian bamboo-slip manuscripts, and Shanghai Museum bamboo-slip manuscripts (volumes 1–7). Professor Bai chooses the reliable examples of loan characters in Warring States bamboo and silk manuscripts. Many of his own research results are also included. This book represents the first summary and compilation of loan characters in Warring States bamboo and silk manuscripts, and has a high academic value. Later, Bai Yulan (2012) published the book Zhanguo Qinhan Jianbo Gushu Tongjiazi Huizuan, which is an expansion of Jiandu Boshu Tongjiazi Zidian. Also, Chu Jianbo Jongjia Huishi by Liu Xinfang (2011) and Guwenzi Tongjia Zidian by Wang Hui (2008) are also compilations of loan characters in Chinese ancient characters.

The explanation of words is one of the most important parts in the research of Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. Among these words, some can be explained by their original forms. However, many of them are using loan characters. Thus, these loan characters must be seen through and their corresponding orthographs must be found. There are plenty of accepted research results. First, the original annotators of Guodian bamboo-slip manuscripts, Shanghai Museum bamboo-slip manuscripts, and Tsinghua University bamboo-slip manuscripts have made many annotations to these documents, and there are many excellent examples of finding loan graphs and their corresponding orthographs. As for those explanations that seem debateable, researchers have provided many stimulating discussions. For example, there is a character “” in the Chengwu程寤 manuscript from the first volume of the Tsinghua University Collection. The original annotators believe it should be read as “fu (祓).” However, this interpretation is not plausible in the relevant contexts. Qiu Xigui (2012: 540–545) has argued that it should be read as “bi(蔽),” which refers to an important ceremony before interpreting dreams.

Analyzing the whole context

In Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts, there are plenty of ancient characters that are difficult to interpret. Even if some of them can be interpreted in their character forms, their exact meanings in bamboo-slip texts are still not known. In this circumstance, the whole context needs to be analyzed carefully, and the proper meanings of these difficult characters need to be figured out. This exegesis method has already been used in Oracle-bone Inscriptions and Bronze Inscriptions. And it is more suitable for the study of ancient books in bamboo-slip manuscripts. There are many research results using this exegesis method. For example, in the Liude六德 manuscript from the Guodian Collection, there is a phrase “弟.” The original annotators and researchers did not know how to interpret the character “.” But according to the context, Qiu Xigui (Jingmen Museum, 1998: 189) has claimed that the character “” should be read as “kun(昆)” of “昆弟(means brothers).” His interpretation is plausible. Later, Li Jiahao (2002: 306–308) has made further interpretation about this character, and proves the correctness of Professor Qiu’s interpretation. As another example, in the Qiongdayishi 穷达以时 manuscript from the Guodian Collection there is a phrase “板.” The original annotators have not explained these two characters. According to the context, Bai Yulan (2001: 194–195) has pointed out that reading the two characters as “鞭箠 (means horsewhip)” is the most plausible explanation for the whole sentence.

Using common practices

Common practices of ancient documents mean the special formats that ancient writers used when writing manuscripts, such as dui wen (对文), lian wen (连文), hu wen (互文), and fu yu (复语). Some ancient scholars had specially studied these common practices, such as Yu Yue, who wrote the book Gushu Yiyi Juli. Here, the current article will focus on lian wen (连文). This common practice has been used a lot in interpreting ancient documents. Wang Yinzhi (2000: 772) has stated that, “Ancient exegesis scholars don’t avoid repetition. There are usually two characters with the same meaning being used together. Researchers won’t figure out their true meaning if they distinguish them as two characters with two different meanings.” This phenomenon has been observed many times in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. Some researchers have considered this common practice when explaining words in bamboo-slip manuscripts. For example, there are two characters “酭” in the Qiongdayishi manuscript from the Guodian Collection. Zhao Pingan (2009: 237–247) has argued that the two characters have the same meaning, and he reads them as “tan hai (醓醢),” which both mean “meat paste.” His interpretation is based on the contextual evidence from this ancient document, and therefore it is reliable.

Referring to grammar discipline

Grammar analysis is helpful in explaining sentences in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts, especially for those function words. Many researchers seem to ignore the function words when they are explaining bamboo-slip manuscripts, and this leads to the misunderstanding of certain sentences. There are also some special grammar phenomena which should be considered.

There is a sentence in the Rongchengshi容成氏 manuscript from the second volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection, “jing bu sheng zhi mao(胫不生之毛).” The meaning of this sentence is clear: “there is no hair on his shins.” However, what is the function and meaning of the character “zhi(之)” in this sentence? This question is hard to answer. Shen Pei (2006: 33–44) compares it with the similar sentence structure in ancient documents, and points out that “zhi(之)” is a pronoun that refers to places.

As another example, in the Zhaojianzi赵简子 manuscripts from the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “吾子将不可以不戒已.” In my opinion, the function word “jiang(将)” should be explained as “qi(其).” ¹ The sentence “吾子其不可以不戒 (You shouldn’t be incautious)” in Zuozhuan can be compared with the sentence above.

Comparing with traditional documents

With the publication of the Guodian bamboo-slip manuscripts, Shanghai Museum bamboo-slip manuscripts, and Tsinghua University bamboo-slip manuscripts, it has been found that some bamboo-slip texts already existed in ancient documents. Some paragraphs and sentences are seen in ancient documents, such as three texts of the Laozi老子manuscripts from the Guodian Collection, the Ziyi 缁衣 manuscript from the Guodian Collection, the first volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection, the Zhouyi 周易 manuscript, the Wuwangjianzuo武王践阼 manuscript from the Shanghai Museum Collection, as well as the Jinteng金縢 manuscript, the Huangmen皇门 manuscript, the Zhaigongzhiguming祭公之顾命 manuscript, and the Mingxun命训 manuscript from the Tsinghua University Collection. Thus, comparisons can be made between the unearthed documents and the ancient documents, which can shed new light on explaining bamboo-slip texts. Some researchers have specially studied in this field, such as the books Ershi Shiji Guwenxian Xinzheng Yanjiu by Feng Shengjun (2006), and Chudi Zhanguo Jianbo yu Chuanshi Wenxian Duidu zhi Yanjiu by Shan Yuchen (2014). In addition, the original annotators and researchers of bamboo-slip manuscripts have interpreted some characters and explained some words by using document comparison. However, careful thought should be given when comparing unearthed documents and ancient documents and explaining the textual variations. Some of them may have the relation of loan characters and original characters, while some may have the relation of owning the same meaning. Some errors may happen during the transcriptions of ancient documents, and erroneous transcriptions of bamboo-slip texts should not be ignored. Here is an example: in the Huangmen manuscript from the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a phrase “夫.” In the current version of the Huangmen manuscript, the corresponding character of “” is “mei(媚).” This character had been proved to be an erroneous form of “mao(媢)” by Wang Niansun (1985: 15). Comparing the two versions of the Huangmen manuscript, it has been plausibly deduced that “” in the Tsinghua University Collection manuscript should be read as “媢 (means jealous).”

Textual research

Textual research here means interpreting Chinese ancient characters. When faced with bamboo-slip manuscripts, the first thing is to interpret all the ancient characters of Warring States. Many of them are characters of the Chu State. Also, some characters may have the features of other regions. The correct interpretation of these characters is very important to the exegesis study and the understanding of bamboo-slip texts. Some of them are easy to interpret. Researchers may interpret them through the comparison between these characters and Oracle Bone inscriptions, Bronze inscriptions, Clerical script, and Seal script of later ages. Or they may interpret these characters through the comparison between bamboo-slip manuscript texts and current versions of them. There are many research results about interpreting characters in bamboo-slip manuscript texts. For example, there is a character “” in the Chengzhiwenzhi成之闻之 manuscript from the Guodian Collection. The original annotators wrongly interpreted it as “jia(加),” and this led to the wrong explanation of the relevant sentence. On the basis of relevant character forms, Bai Yulan (2017: 93–96) has interpreted it as “geng(耕),” and he thinks that “qiang geng(强耕)” means working hard in farms, which can be compared with the sentence “其耕不强者 (The farmers are not diligent)” in Huainanzi Qisu.

Patching up fragmentary slips and slip-linking

Before bamboo slips are excavated from the ancient tombs, they are not usually preserved in good condition. Some of them may have been destroyed by certain external factors, like crushing by other materials or becoming rotten underground. When these slips are found, the first thing that should be done is patching up fragmentary slips and linking slips that are out of chronological order. It should also be noted that some slips have clues to help original annotators and researchers to make slip-linking, because on the back of these slips there are sequencing numbers and verso lines, and even some verso imprints of writing, which can help to link slips. For example, the Yinzhi尹至, Yingao 尹诰, and Xinian系年 manuscripts from the Tsinghua University Collection all have sequencing numbers on the back of these slips. Thus, the slip-linking is more reliable. As for those slips without sequencing numbers and verso lines, the work of patching up and slip-linking becomes much more difficult. Without doubt, the correct patching up and slip-linking would become a great help to the exegesis of bamboo-slip manuscripts. Also, proper exegesis would help to patch up fragmentary slips and link slips. There are many scholars focusing on this work. But excellent examples of patching up fragmentary slips and linking slips are very limited. Here is an example: Chen Wei (2000: 143–144) has argued that in the Yu Cong语丛 manuscript from the Guodian Collection, the 97th slip should be patched up with the 31st slip. After patching up, the relevant sentence is “豊（礼），因人之情而为之₃₁即（节）者也₉₇.” It can be compared with the sentence “礼，因人之情而为之节文 (Regulations about courtesy are made according to situations of different people)” in Liji Fangji.

Erroneous characters

In ancient documents there are some erroneous characters, which has led to the misunderstanding of certain texts. In Warring States bamboo-slip documents, the phenomenon of erroneous characters also exists. From the ancient character forms on the slips, it can be observed that different scribes had different copying levels. Some of the low-level scribes may have made mistakes in copying documents. Moreover, some original manuscripts they copied from may have come from other regions, so characters on these slips were likely unfamiliar to them. Consequently, these scribes may have copied these characters into different characters. In view of this, care should be taken in interpreting characters on slips. Qiu Xigui (2012: 377) has stated that:

As Professor Qiu has emphasized, uncovering erroneous characters in bamboo-slip manuscripts is very important to the understanding of texts, and to the exegesis study. For example, there is a character “” in the sixth slip of Ziyi from the Guodian Collection. This character exists in the sentence “谨恶以民淫.” The corresponding character of “” in Ziyi from the first volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection is written as “.” And the corresponding character in an extant edition of Ziyi is “yu(御).” Comparing the three characters, it is known that “” in the Shanghai Museum edition is the loan character of “yu(御)” in the extant edition. As for “” in the Guodian edition, Liu Lexian (2002) first points out that it should be an erroneous writing form. Qiu Xigui (2012: 372) has further stated, “‘wang(亡)’, the upper part of character ‘’, together with the upper part of ‘mu(木)’, is the erroneous writing form of ‘hu(虍)’. ‘shui(水)’, the lower part of character ‘’, together with the lower part of ‘mu(木)’, is the erroneous writing form of ‘yu(鱼)’.” Their opinions are reliable. Seeing the character “” in the Guodian edition as erroneous form, and finding its correct form, the relevant texts in the Guodian edition, Shanghai Museum edition and extant edition can be satisfactorily explained.

Residual characters

Residual characters are observed in ancient documents. Maybe this is because there are some problems in block-printing, or these documents are preserved in bad condition. However, it is much worse in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. Residual characters in bamboo-slip manuscripts can be the result of specific causes. The broken parts of slips may have characters. The ink marks of characters may fade away, which makes it difficult for researchers to identify certain characters. The bamboo slips may become rotten underground. All these reasons can lead to residual characters. With the help of comparing handwriting and patching up fragmentary slips, these broken slips can be restored. Of course, it will be a great help to exegesis study. For example, in the Caomozhizhen曹沫之阵 manuscript from the fourth volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection, the upper part of the 23rd slip and the lower part of the 51st slip should be patched up. The first character of the lower part of the 51st slip is written as “.” Bai Yulan (2017: 127) has claimed that it is the character “gua(寡).” Compared with the character “” in the sixth slip, Professor Bai’s opinion is proven to be correct. The text can be rearranged as “二三子勉之，过不在子在寡人 (You should be diligent. The mistake is on me, not on you).” The meaning of this sentence is very clear, and there are similar sentences in ancient documents.

Redundant characters

Sometimes, redundant characters may exist in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. When copying documents, scribes may mistakenly have written some redundant characters. Chen Jian (2013) finds some examples of this kind. There is a sentence in the Kongzi jian jihuanzi 孔子见季桓子 manuscript from the sixth volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection, “上不亲仁，而尃闻其词于逸人乎？” Chen Jian (2013: 297–300) has pointed out that “尃闻” is hard to be explained. Besides, characters “” and “尃” both use “fu(父)” as the sound part. Their ancient pronunciations are very close and may even be the same. Therefore, Professor Chen points out that between the characters “” and “尃,” there must be a redundant one. Professor Chen also points out a similar case in the Jinggong nue景公疟 manuscripts from the sixth volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection. In the tenth slip, there is a sentence, “是皆贫瘔（苦）约病.” ² The characters “约” and “” both use “shao(勺)” as the sound part, therefore, one of them may be a redundant character. Thus, “贫苦约病” in this bamboo-slip manuscript text is the same as “贫苦约病 (poor and sick)” in Yanzi Chunqiu Neipian Jianshang.

Missing characters

When copying manuscripts, scribes sometimes would have incautiously missed some characters. Sometimes, scribes would have found the missing characters and copied them in smaller forms at the right places. But sometimes they would not have found them, causing problems for researchers to understand the meaning of bamboo-slip texts and to the exegesis study. So, when it is difficult to satisfactorily explain some sentence, the possibility of missing characters should be considered. This consideration must be based on the understanding of the whole context, and finding the best solution for this should be attempted. For example, in the Zigao子羔 manuscript from the second volume of the Shanghai Museum Collection, there is a sentence, “昔者而弗世也.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear. Bai Yulan (2004: 485) has pointed out that this sentence can be compared with “禅而不传 (Abdicate and hand over the crown to someone else instead of giving it to his son)” in the Tangyu zhidao唐虞之道 manuscript from the Guodian Collection. And he further states that there must be a missing character between character “zhe(者)” and character “er(而).” Professor Bai thinks this missing character could be “shan(禅),” or some other characters which have similar meaning to “shan.” Chen Jian (2013: 85) also holds the same opinion.

Transposed characters

As copying editions, there are also existing transposed characters in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. The chance of this is very low, and careful thought about the meaning of context is required before making judgment. So far, only Chen Jian has pointed out one example of a transposed character in bamboo-slip texts. Chen Jian (2013: 4–9) has argued that the 14th slip and 9th slip of the Qiongda yishi穷达以时 manuscript from the Guodian Collection should be linked together, and that “mu zhi (母之)” on the 14th slip are two transposed characters. He reverses the order of the two characters. Then he reads “mu bai(母白)” as “Mei Bo(梅伯).” In ancient documents, there are records about Mei Bo (梅伯) being made into meat paste. Bai Yulan (2017: 109–112) has further stated that “sheng zhi yi zhi(圣之弋之)” in bamboo-slip text should be read as “听之任之 (allowing something to go unchecked).”

Disregard of traditional exegesis methods

Chinese traditional exegesis methods are very important to exegesis study of bamboo-slip manuscripts. If these methods are used properly, bamboo-slip texts can be better explained. Otherwise, they will be misunderstood and further study will be made more difficult. In this part of the article, combined with exegesis study examples, problems of improper exegesis will be discussed, mainly in the following contexts: citation of unsuitable ancient annotations; phonetic barriers; misunderstanding of the meaning of context; disregard of the common practices of ancient documents; and the lack of internal document evidence.

Citation of unsuitable ancient annotations. When faced with some difficult words in bamboo-slip manuscripts, original annotators and researchers usually tended to quote relevant ancient annotations and records in ancient dictionaries. Obviously, proper ancient annotations can help with the understanding of these texts. However, sometimes annotators and researchers may have quoted some unrelated ancient annotations, because they did not fully understand the exact meaning of these manuscript texts. For example, in the Guan zhong管仲 manuscript from the sixth volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “执即（节）绳，可埶（设）于承.” The original annotators explain “zhi(执)” as “xing(行),” and quote Lunyu Zilu, “zhi shi jing(执事敬)”, and Liu Baonan Zhengyi, “犹行也 (zhi means implementing)” as evidence. As for the character “ji(即),” original annotators read it as “jie(节),” and explain it as “礼(courtesy).” They quote the ancient annotations of Liji Wenwangshizi “xing zhi jie(兴秩节),” and Zheng Xuan zhu, “犹礼也 (jie means courtesy).” These ancient annotations which they quote are not suitable for this bamboo-slip manuscript text. I think “zhi(执)” should be explained as 持(hold) and 守(keep) on the basis of Lunyu Yaoyue, “yun zhi qi zhong(允执其中),” Huang Kan shu, “执，持也 (zhi means hold),” Liji Qulishang, “zhi er yan (执尔颜),” and Zheng Xuan zhu, “执，犹守也 (zhi means keep)” as the annotation evidence. “jie(节)” should be explained as “节操 (moral integrity),” on the basis of Guangyun Xieyun, “节，操也 (jie means moral integrity)” as the annotation evidence. So, “zhi jie(执节)” in this bamboo-slip text means keeping moral integrity. The word “zhi jie(执节)” is also seen in ancient documents, such as Houhanshu Zhuomaozhuan, “束身自修，执节淳固 (cultivate personal morality and cultural quality; hold steadily of moral integrity).”

As another example, in the Tangchuyu tangqiu汤处于 汤丘 manuscript form the fifth volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “共（恭）天畏（威）.” The original annotators quote ancient annotation “奉也” to explain this character. I do not think this meaning is appropriate. The following meaning is plausible for this character: Erya shiguxia尔雅·释诂下, “Gong, jing ye 恭，敬也.” Therefore, “恭天威” means respecting the law of Heaven.

Phonetic barriers. As mentioned before, there are many loan characters in Warring States bamboo-slip manuscripts. So, the original characters should be found before trying to explain the whole texts. However, among research results about loan characters, many of them have phonetic barriers, which means the ancient pronunciation of loan characters and the so-called original characters are not close. And annotators could not find examples that can prove that one character can be read as another. For example, there is a sentence “高宗恐惧，乃尃语彭祖” in the Yingaozong wen sanshou殷高宗问三寿 manuscript from the fifth volume of the Tsinghua University Collection. The original annotators read “fu(尃)” as “fu(复).” As for the meaning of context, “fu(复)” is suitable. However, the rhyme classes of “fu(尃)” and “fu(复)” are different and have little connection. Besides which, no examples have been observed in ancient and unearthed documents that can prove the close connection between “fu(尃)” and “fu(复).” In view of this, Professor Bai Yulan reads “fu(尃)” as “bu(布).” ³

I think it can also be read as “fu(敷).” “fu(尃)” and “fu(敷)” both use “fu(甫)” as the sound part. In ancient annotations, “fu(敷)” is often explained as “bu(布),” such as in Yupian Pubu: “fu, bu ye(敷，布也).”

Misunderstanding of the meaning of the context. Correct understanding of bamboo-slip context can be a great help to exegesis study, whereas, misunderstanding the meaning would lead to the wrong explanation of characters and words in bamboo-slip texts. For example, in the Yuegong qi shi越公其事 manuscript from the seventh volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “因其货（过）以为之罚 (Make punishment on the basis of one’s mistakes or sins).” The original annotators read “huo (货)” as “guo(过),” which means mistakes and sins. Ma Nan thinks the original character “huo(货),” which means property and belongings, is a plausible explanation for the context. ⁴ The content of this paragraph says: Emperor Yue makes a series of rules and rewards and punishment policies for the purpose of pursuing “xin(信),” which means credibility and integrity. At the end of this paragraph, it says “举越邦乃皆好信 (The whole nation is in favor of honesty)” (43rd slip). So, I think “huo(货)” of this paragraph should be read as “wei(伪),” which means hypocritical. It is the antonym of “xin(信).”

Disregard of the common practices. As has already been demonstrated, using common practices of ancient documents is very important to the explanation of words in bamboo-slip texts. However, if researchers cannot recognize common practices in texts, they will make mistakes in explanation. For example, in the Hou fu厚父 manuscript from the fifth volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “亦惟酒用（恒）（狂）.” As for the character “（恒）,” the original annotators have not explained it. Huang Jie thinks it is the erroneous form of “ji(亟),” and reads it as “ji(极).” “ji kuang(极狂)” means extreme madness. ⁵ Actually, “” is the combination of two synonyms. In the text above, there is a phrase “kang le (康乐),” which is also a combination of two synonyms. In view of this, Bai Yulan and Wu Qi (2017: 13–14) have claimed that the character “” should be read as “chi (癡).” In ancient documents, “chi(癡)” is the synonym of “kuang(狂),” which also means madness.

Lacking document evidences. Document evidence is an important criterion for the judgment of proper exegesis study. If there is no document evidence, research results become less reliable. For example, in the Guan Zhong manuscript from the sixth volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “千乘之都，型（刑）正（政）既萬（蔑）.” As for the character “wan(萬),” the original annotators read it as “mie(蔑),” whereas Shan Yuchen reads it as “li(厉).” ⁶ As for the meaning of the characters “mie(蔑)” and “li(厉),” they are both plausible explanations for the context to a certain extent. However, both explanations lack the documentary evidence. In view of this, I think “wan(萬)” can be read as “luan(乱).” “xing zheng luan刑政乱 (means punishment and politics are disrupted)” is a common phrase in ancient documents, like Mozi Feileshang, “君子不强听治，即刑政乱 (If officials are diligent in their work, punishment and politics would be disrupted).”

Disregard of special features

The foregoing text has discussed the importance of bamboo-slip manuscript features in exegesis study. However, it is undeniable that some researchers have not paid enough attention to these features, which leads to incorrect exegesis study. Here, the problems of debatable exegesis will be discussed, based on the following aspects: wrong interpretation of characters; wrong patching up of fragmentary slips and slip-linking; and erroneous character forms.

Wrong interpretation of characters. The correct interpretation of characters in bamboo-slip manuscripts is no doubt the most important step of exegesis study. First, what these characters are must be known and then progress can be made to the following steps. Interpreting ancient characters is very difficult; therefore, there are always many different opinions about interpreting characters. The correct interpretation needs to be found from all the different opinions. Here, I want to take the character “” as an example. This character appears in the Chengzhi wenzhi成之闻之 manuscript from the Guodian Collection. The original annotators interpret it as “jia(加).” Compared with character forms of “jia(加),” it is known that the character form of “” is different from common forms of the character “jia(加)” in bamboo-slip manuscripts; and the wrong interpretation leads to the obscure meaning of the relevant sentences. Compared with some character forms, Bai Yulan (2017: 93–96) interprets it as “geng(耕).” Then, the meaning of this sentence is clear: “qiang geng(强耕)” means working hard on farms.

As another example, in the Zhaigong zhi guming manuscript from the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a character “” on the 15th slip. The original annotators read it as “yin(寅),” which means “jing(敬).” After further analyzing this character, it appears to be a character with two phonetic symbols. Compared with the character forms of “” and “,” it is believed that character “” is composed of two phonetic symbols: “” and “.” Therefore, this character can be read as “wei(畏),” which also means “jing敬 (means respect).”

Wrong patching up of fragmentary slips and slip-linking. Some bamboo slips are not preserved in good condition, and some may even break into many fragmentary slips. Besides which, when these slips are excavated from underground, the binding cords have already rotted away. Thus, the fragmentary slips should be patched up and the slips should then be linked. If mistakes are made in this process, the exegesis study will be seriously hindered. There are many fragmentary slips and slip-linking problems in bamboo-slip manuscripts from the Shanghai Museum Collection. The original annotators made some mistakes in patching up and linking the slips. Researchers have corrected some of these mistakes. For example, on the 14th slip of the San de三德 manuscript from the Shanghai Museum Collection, there is a character “pi(埤).” However, the slip-linking is not correct. Based on the wrong linking, the original annotators read it as “bi(俾).” Chen Jian (2013: 179) has claimed that this slip should be linked with the 19th slip. After linking, the relevant sentence is “埤墙勿增，废人毋兴 (Don’t heighten low walls; don’t use incapable men).” Chen Jian reads “pi(埤)” as “bei(卑),” and “bei qiang(卑墙)” means low wall. Thus, the meaning of this sentence is clear, and it is proven that the slip-linking by Chen Jian is correct.

Exegesis can also lead to the correct slip-linking. For example, in the Guanzhong manuscript from the Tsinghua University Collection, the 29th slip has the sentence “唯（虽）齐邦区₌（区区），不若蕃箅,” and the 30th slip has the sentence “不（榖），余日三之，夕三之.” The original annotators point out that there must be a missing slip between slip 29 and slip 30. I believe that the content on the two slips should be read consistently. And “bugu yu(不榖余)” is a set phrase that can represent the King himself. In the Zifan ziyu子犯子余 manuscript from the seventh volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “不榖余敢问其道奚如.” I believe that this is evidence of my viewpoint.

Erroneous character forms. The phenomenon of erroneous characters in bamboo-slip manuscripts should not be ignored. If manuscripts are explained based on erroneous characters, there is no doubt that mistakes will be made. There are many factors that could lead to erroneous writing forms. Care should be taken in distinguishing these wrong characters. In the Qi ye耆夜 manuscript from the first volume of the Tsinghua University Collection, there is a sentence “（嗟）士奋甲，殹（繄）民之秀.” The original character form of the so-called “jia(甲)” is “.” Analyzing this character carefully, it is found that it is different from the common forms of “jia(甲).” Some researchers have pointed out that it is the character form of “ren(刃).” ⁷ The same character forms have been seen in some other bamboo-slip manuscripts. Sometimes, the character forms of “jia(甲)” and “ren(刃)” are very similar, so, they need to be distinguished carefully.