For example, the date of bamboo slips was discovered in the Western Jin Dynasty, that is to say, after the Western Jin Dynasty, China society already knew that Yao Shunyu was transferred to the throne, and there was a bloody record, not a peaceful abdication system.
However, despite this record, it has not been accepted by the society, and this is the problem.
So I found 1993 in Hubei Guodian. Yao Shunyu's relocation in The Master Book of Guodian Chu Tomb gives us a new understanding.
1993 10 6 18 to 24, Jingmen Museum in Hubei Province carried out a rescue cleaning and excavation of Guodian No.1 tomb. Many bamboo slips from the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period were unearthed.
Among them, there are twelve Confucian classics, namely Book of Changes, Lu Mu's Official Documents Four, Five Elements, Poor Times, Tang Yu's Way, Faithfulness, Success, Respect for Virtue and Renyi, Sexual Deception, Liu De and Language.
Guodian Cemetery is located in Guodian Village 1 Group, Sifang Township, Shayang County, Hubei Province, about 9 kilometers south of Jinan, the ancient capital of Chu.
Therefore, the excavation of these bamboo slips can be said to be an important official document of Chu State, which has important historical value.
The Record of Yao Shunyu was written by Tang Yu.
In fact, when we doubt or think about the description and different records of bamboo slips and bamboo slips in Guodian Chu Tomb, no matter which document it is based on. We haven't had a strict discussion on the sources of historical materials, but only stay at the phenomenon level of which record says this and which record says that.
For example, are these records about Yao Shunyu's succession legends or records based on facts? Or, did the earliest historical documents come from the Western Zhou Dynasty or the Western Jin Dynasty?
According to the historical records of China's written documents. The history of Yao Shunyu basically belongs to oral literature or oral literature. Strictly speaking, the earliest written history books were in the Western Zhou Dynasty or even the Spring and Autumn Period.
Therefore, the record of Yao Shunyu's history basically belongs to the legend of later generations, rather than a period of time before and after Yao Shunyu.
When did China begin to use characters? Through archaeological history, it is found that there must be characters in the Yao, Shun and Yu era, but the problem lies in this era, which does not belong to an era of conscious use of characters.
Therefore, the possibility of writing down the history of the Yao, Shun and Yu era is slim. Although there are words in this era, the words in this era are still in the era of small-scale use of words. Including Oracle Bone Inscriptions, do not belong to the era of extensive use of words.
Therefore, we should say that the detailed history of Yao Shunyu's succession was recorded in writing in the era of Yao Shunyu, which is very, very unlikely.
Let's take a look at the historical records of the early Zhou Dynasty. Is it detailed? Not to mention the history of the late Shang Dynasty or the early Shang Dynasty.
Why is this happening? This shows that from the late Shang Dynasty to the early Western Zhou Dynasty, we are still in the stage of gradual transition from writing to large-scale.
Therefore, no matter what kind of records you see about Yao Shunyu, we don't think its credibility is too high. Because of the records of later generations, we are at least 1000 years away from the Zhou Dynasty. For such a long time, there is no written evidence as an authoritative record, only oral legends. Obviously, the official statements of the people will be intertwined.
So, is Yao Shunyu's succession to the throne a peaceful abdication or a thrilling political struggle?
From the time when these records came into being, that is, from the end of the Spring and Autumn Period to the beginning of the Warring States Period, the historical situation of China was that various theories came one after another, and a hundred schools of thought contended for freedom of thought.
Yao Shunyu's scholars in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period have no way to know the real situation, but the real history of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period is relatively clear.
As we all know, the Western Zhou Dynasty or the Zhou Dynasty is an important and great dynasty in the history of China, but this dynasty was highly centralized and unified in the Western Zhou Dynasty, that is, the central dynasty had a high authority, but by the late Western Zhou Dynasty, the authority of the central dynasty was declining.
As a result, the five tyrants came into being in the Spring and Autumn Period, and after the three clans were divided into Jin, two new powers, Wei and Zhao, came into being, forming the situation in the later Zhou Dynasty of the Warring States Period. During the Warring States period of nearly 250 years, Qin, as one of the seven great powers, first deprived the authority of the Zhou Dynasty. Since then, the prelude to the reunification of the seven countries has been accelerated, and finally the new reunification of the country has been completed in the hands of Qin Shihuang.
So, from the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period to the unification of Qin Shihuang, what was China society's cognition of Yao Shunyu? What is the transmission of the throne in reality?
We can't find Yao Shunyu in the materials excavated from modern ancient documents, such as Oracle Bone Inscriptions.
So there is a question that must be discussed clearly: When did China record its history in words? Without understanding this problem, we will become more and more confused about many problems.
Although the bamboo slips of Guodian Chu Tomb were written earlier than the Chronicle of Bamboo Slips, they are not based on sufficient historical facts. So the record is very different. I think the main reason for the difference is that the history of Yao Shunyu era is not the record of Yao Shunyu era, but the transformation of oral literature records of Yao Shunyu era by later generations.
These records are largely from legends, so these legends have different sources, such as folk and official. Therefore, there are bound to be different opinions and even different descriptions about the so-called "facts" in Yao Shunyu's archives.
For example, the succession of Yao Shunyu's throne in the annals of bamboo books was obtained through mutual competition. However, the bamboo slips of Guodian Chu Tomb inherited Yao Shunyu's abdication. Obviously, there are huge political differences and factual differences between these two ways of inheriting the throne. Because these two ways of transmission are contradictory after all.
The political attitudes and ideals reflected in them are also expressed by completely different "factual statements", so these two statements are really worthy of scrutiny.
So, before Qin Shihuang unified China, what did you think of Yao Shunyu's succession? Let's look at what a hundred schools of thought have said in history.
The earliest document that recorded abdication was Shangshu. Among them, Yao Dian recorded "Yao Shun abdicated" and Mo Yu recorded "Shun Yu abdicated". This is the earliest abdication record in Chinese literature, but the problem is that Shangshu was later suspected by ancient scholars, who thought it was forged by Jin scholars, or partially forged.
However, it is doubtful that if Shangshu was forged, Mozi also recorded Yao Shunyu's abdication.
Therefore, in addition to Shangshu, The Analects of Confucius and Mencius also mentioned the abdication of Yao and Shun.
Zhang Wan asked Mencius, "What are the advantages of Yao and Shun in the world?" He replied, "No, the son of heaven cannot rule the world with others." Zhang Wan asked again: "But, Shun won the world, which one?" Mencius said, "Heaven is the same with it." In Mencius-Zhang Wan, Mencius does not seem to acknowledge Yao Shunyu's abdication.
Zhuangzi listed many stories of abdication in "Let the King", such as Yao's abdication and Shun's abdication. He also believes that Yao Shun's abdication has laid a curse for thousands of years, and cannibalism will definitely happen after thousands of years.
Here, Zhuangzi obviously thinks that Yao Shunyu has abdicated, but he is critical of abdication. This is a kind of political criticism, but it does not mean denying the "facts".
Xunzi was one of the hundred schools at the end of the Warring States period, and he was skeptical about abdication.
Zheng Lun, a Xunzi, said that "Yao Shun's good concession is empty talk, shallow biography and humble words", and directly regarded abdication as nonsense.
"Warring States Policy" Gongsun Yan told Zhang Yi to persuade Wei Huiwang to inherit Zhang Yi, while "Warring States Policy" said that Qin Xiaogong wanted to inherit Shang Yang, but these abdications were not really successful, for the simple reason of course. How can the throne be easily awarded to others?
Lv Chunqiu said that Wei Huiwang wanted to inherit Hui Shi.
In Historical Records of Yanshi, Rebecca gave up the throne and gave way to Xiangguozi at the instigation of counselors Su Dai and Lu Maoshou. As a result, the country was in chaos, and the general city was attacked by the prince, but both of them were killed. Qi Xuanwang fish in troubled waters, Zi Zhi and Kuang were both killed.
The death of Rebecca and Zi represents the bankruptcy of the practice of abdication.
This is the criticism and practice of abdication system in the Warring States Period, but it is an ironclad fact that abdication did not really become a political realization in both criticism and practice.
In 299 BC, King Wuling of Zhao abdicated to his son Zhao, claiming to be the father of the country. My late father wanted to establish Gongzi Zhang as the acting king and plotted to split the State of Zhao. Minister Li Dui and Gongzi Cheng launched the Dune Palace to kill Gongzi. My father was trapped in the palace, begging for food and starving to death.
From these materials before Qin Shihuang, we can see that history reflects the fact that the ancients' attitude towards abdication was not exact. There are actually different attitudes about whether there is such a thing or not. Of course, these different attitudes are not forged facts, but an expression of their respective political thoughts. Are these ideas based on accurate facts? Of course, they don't have a definite answer, which will lead to different imagination or their own judgment.
Then, judging from the so-called abdication practice in the Warring States period, abdication should have both historical records and historical practice facts. After all, the inheritance and influence of a culture is very far-reaching, not hundreds of years, but thousands of years.
There are not thousands of years from the Yao Shunyu era to the Warring States period, so all the statements about Yao Shunyu's abdication will not be groundless.
What I want to say here is that we may confuse the "ancient" and "modern" systems, or use the modern system to doubt the ancient system, or use the ancient system to deny the modern system.
Therefore, this is a different view caused by a wrong view of time and space. Therefore, for us, whether there is abdication system in Yao, Shun and Yu era is a problem that needs us to continue to explore. I think it is too arbitrary to think that there is or not.
Then, it is normal that Yao Shunyu's abdication is recorded differently in the annals of bamboo slips and bamboo slips in Guodian Chu Tomb.
It is worth mentioning that both the bamboo book chronology and the bamboo slips of Guodian Chu Tomb are from the Warring States period, just because one was discovered in the Western Jin Dynasty and the other was discovered in our time.
Has the chronology of bamboo books discovered in the Western Jin Dynasty been tampered with? It doesn't seem very important today, because we can see from the fact that hundred schools of thought had different views on whether Yao Shunyu abdicated the throne before the Annals of Bamboo Records.
Then, there are some problems in the absolute authenticity of historical materials, whether it is the chronology of bamboo books or the bamboo slips of Guodian Chu Tomb.
An important task of studying history is to get rid of the false and keep the true. However, it is difficult. For example, many records about Mu in the annals of bamboo books have a certain mythical color. Are we also worthy of trusting these records?
It is better to believe in the ancients than to have no books.
One of the problems involved is that although facts need opinions, we can't replace facts with opinions. This truth, we must make it clear, historical facts and your view of history are completely different.
However, whether Yao Shunyu abdicated during the Warring States Period or in our modern times is still a question worthy of in-depth study.
This is because: first, which of all the records in history is the earliest? Second, is there an era of abdication in China's history? And then from abdication to privatization? This is still a problem worthy of our study.
What we can clearly see from the facts is that the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, including the Western Zhou Dynasty, has been an era of direct transmission, and there is no basis for abdication as a political system. Although there were public opinions and abdication motions during the Warring States period, they did not really come true. So, is abdication a historical stage or a political fantasy? This is the problem that we should study.