聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

競公瘧

5 min read

Text ID
KR2p0059
Date
-350–-250
Dynasty
戰國

Jìng Gōng Nüè 競公瘧

Lord Jing’s Ague (modern editorial title; 競公 = graphic variant or alternate spelling of 景公 Jǐng Gōng, Duke Jing of Qi; nüè 瘧 = malarial ague, here combined with jiè 疥 scabies)

(anonymous; excavated bamboo manuscript, no attributable author)

About the work

Jìng Gōng Nüè 競公瘧 is one of the texts in 馬承源 Mǎ Chéngyuán ed., 《上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書》 vol. 5, Shànghǎi gǔjí chūbǎnshè 上海古籍出版社, 2005, comprising approximately 14 bamboo strips. The text is a Qí court narrative starring the famous adviser Yànzǐ 晏子 (Yàn Yīng 晏嬰, d. 500 BCE) remonstrating with Duke Jǐng of Qí 齊景公 (r. 547–490 BCE) about the proper explanation for the Duke’s prolonged illness. It belongs to the well-attested Yànzǐ narrative tradition, paralleled in the received Yànzǐ Chūnqiū 晏子春秋.

Abstract

The narrative opens with Duke Jǐng of Qí suffering from scabies (jiè 疥) and malarial ague (nüè 瘧) for more than a year without recovery. Two ministers — Huì Zǐ 會譴 (var. reading) and Liáng Qiū Jù 梁丘據 — speak to the Duke: “Our offerings of silk and jade have greatly exceeded those of our former lord; yet the Duke still has scabies and ague and cannot recover for a year — this means we have no good ritual specialists (zhù shǐ 祝史). We should execute the ritual specialists.” Duke Jǐng agrees.

The senior ministers Gāo Zǐ 高子 and Guó Zǐ 國子 are told of this plan and endorse it. That evening, Yànzǐ arrives and the two other ministers depart. The Duke reports the same to Yànzǐ.

Yànzǐ then recounts a historical analogy: Qū Mù 屈木 was sent on a mission to Song, and the [Zhou] King commanded Qū Mù to inquire about the conduct of Fàn Wǔzǐ 范武子. Fàn Wénzǐ 范文子 (a Jìn statesman known for virtue) replied: “My master made his private officials hear lawsuits in Jìn — pressing for the truth without concealment; he made his private ritual specialists proceed [to sacrifice] … [The ritual specialists’] blessing of the lord should state things correctly…” The key point: a good ritual specialist must speak truthfully and correctly — neither flattering the lord into hiding his faults nor speaking so harshly that the ruler refuses to listen.

Yànzǐ then applies this directly to Duke Jǐng’s situation: The Duke has inner favorites (nèi chǒng 內寵) who have divided power; externally, Liáng Qiū Jù has been deceiving the lord, bringing in violent men and driving out the wise; the Duke’s own moral conduct is at fault. The ritual specialists are not to blame — blaming them would be wrong; if they speak flatteringly to cover the Duke’s faults, that would make things worse. The specialists restrict access [to forests, waterways, mountains for conservation]; the whole state observes the prohibitions; yet the Duke’s inner and outer favourites evade the restrictions and the people curse them. “What the left and right attendants praise about themselves: ‘We must certainly die; [let us] steal pleasure!’ Hence when the death period approaches, what humaneness—”

The surviving strips then describe the geographic scope of discontent: from Gū 姑 to Yǒu 尤 in the west, from Liáo 聊 and Shè 攝 in the east, there are many people living in poverty and affliction; husbands and wives curse [the Duke]; men holding offerings large and small — all are suffering and cannot even be heard. The Duke then rises, leaves his seat, and says: “Well said, my Master!” Yànzǐ notes: “This is the language of [Dukes] Xiāng 襄 and Huán.” [The Duke acknowledges:] “In sacrificial divination the oracle was not obtained; [spirits] showed my [spirit of] licentiousness and violence … I request sacrifice and divination.”

Genre and significance. Jìng Gōng Nüè is a standard Yànzǐ anecdote narrative: the ruler attributes his illness to bad ritual officials (a standard Spring and Autumn reflexive response to political failure); Yànzǐ redirects blame to the ruler’s own moral failures, citing a precedent to soften the rebuke; the ruler accepts. The Yànzǐ Chūnqiū 晏子春秋 (received text) contains numerous structurally similar episodes. The Shanghai Museum text preserves a version with narrative details — especially the historical precedent of Fàn Wǔzǐ / Fàn Wénzǐ and the quotation from the Liáng Qiū Jù tradition — not found in the received Yànzǐ Chūnqiū.

Translations and research

  • 馬承源 ed., 《上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書》 vol. 5, Shànghǎi gǔjí chūbǎnshè, 2005 — editio princeps.
  • Mair, Victor H., ed. The Columbia History of Chinese Literature. Columbia UP, 2001 — contextual background on Yànzǐ narrative traditions.
  • Goldin, Paul Rakita. “Why Yen Tzu Cannot Be Reconstructed.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 132.1 (2012): 39–59 — analysis of the Yànzǐ Chūnqiū as an evolving text corpus, relevant to locating this Shanghai Museum narrative.

Graph View