《周易》与周文王关系补论

A Supplemented Discussion on the Relations between the Zhou Changes and King Wen of Zhou

《周易·系辞》中的"《易》之兴也,其于中古乎;作《易》者,其有忧患乎……《易》之兴也,其当殷之末世、周之盛德邪;当文王与纣之事邪"等语,对于周文王与《周易》的关系有所论述。但是崔述认为这些话"皆为疑词而不敢决",此后信从者渐多。廖名春先生已经根据帛书《衷》篇,指出崔述之说不可信。但是他只讨论了"《易》之兴也,其当殷之末世、周之盛德邪;当文王与纣之事邪"。其实前一句也见于《衷》,但廖先生的释文仍然在句末用问号。本文根据上海博物馆藏战国楚竹书《凡物流行》等文例及其语境,指出"《易》之兴也,其于中古乎;作《易》者,其有忧患乎"也不是"皆为疑词而不敢决",而是表示陈述、肯定的语气。

There are some remarks about the relations between King Wen of Zhou and the Zhou Changes in the ＂Commentary on theAppended Phrases＂ （Xici系辞） that ＂The rise of the Changes, was it not in middle antiquity？ Did not the maker of the Changes become concerned about hidden dangers？ ...The rise of the Changes, was it not just at the end of the Yin [ Shang] era when the virtueof the Zhou had begun to flourish, just at the time when the incident between King Wen and the tyrant Zhou was taking place？＂ Butthe famous Qing scholar Cui Shu 崔述 （ 1740-18161 avers that these remarks are just words of doubts and uncertainty. Later, moreand more scholars became in favor of his view. Basing himself on the chapter Zhong （ lit. Centrality, a. k. a. Yi zhi易之义, ＂TheProperties of the Changes） in Mawangdui silk manuscript, Mr. Liao Mingchun 廖名春 argued against Cui＇s view. But he only discussed the second sentence in the above-mentioned remarks. As a matter of fact, the first sentence also appears in chapter Zhong butMr. Liao still used a question mark at the end of the sentence in his exegesis of the chapter. Relying on the literal formula and contextin the chapter Fanwu liuxing 凡物流行 on the bamboo slips collected in Shanghai Museum, this paper argues that the first sentenceis also of indicative mood and affirmation.