Xin Deyong
After destroying the tyrannical Qin, Xiang Yu ostensibly honored King Zhang Chuhuai as the Righteous Emperor and made him the titular co-lord of the world. Subsequently, "Xiang Yu established himself as the overlord of Western Chu, Wang Liang, the nine counties of Chu, and the capital Pengcheng", and divided the generals and eighteen people who had already called themselves kings as princes ("Xiang Yu Benji" and "Gao Zu Benji" of the "Records of History"). Xiang Yu's so-called "Western Chu Overlord" is derived from this.
This is the earliest original record of Xiang Yu's ability, to paraphrase a very popular idiom on the market, which can be described as "since ancient times". But this "ancient" does not mean that it is necessarily "true".
"Western Chu Bawang" in "The Legend of the Evening Laughing Hall"
First, the regional concept of "Three Chus" and the dilemma of "Western Chu Overlord"
Generations of people who have read the "Records of History", people who have talked about Chinese history for generations, have been shouting like this "Western Chu Overlord" and "Western Chu Overlord", but most people have not thought about where is the east and where is the west, let alone whether this princely kingdom established in the land of Pengcheng should be called "Western Chu"; even if a small number of people have thought, analyzed, and explained, no one has ever explained clearly, and even if it is better not to explain, the more they explain, the more confusing it is.
Regardless of whether it is Western Chu or Eastern Chu, these "West" and "East" are based on the Chu land of the Warring States to distinguish their relative orientation. Hearing me say this, everyone must be anxious to ask: Where was the Xichu that people said at that time? In fact, Sima Qian told this matter clearly in the "Chronicle of History and Cargo Breeding":
Yue and Chu have three customs.
Fu from Huaibei Pei, Chen, Runan, Nan County, this Western Chu also. Its vulgar plagiarism is light, easy to anger, thin, and less than accumulated. Gangneung's hometown of Yingdu, west of Wu, Ba, east of Yunmeng Rao. Chen at the turn of Chu xia, through the goods of fish and salt, its people Dojia. Xu, servant, and worry, then clear carving, reserved promise.
East of Pengcheng, Donghai, Wu, Guangling, this Eastern Chu also. Its vulgar xu and servant. North of the 朐 and 缯, the custom is Qi. Zhejiang South Zeyue. Fu Wu Zilu, Chun Shen, and Wang Hao attracted the joy of the world, and there were the rao of sea salt in the east, the copper of Zhangshan, the benefit of the three rivers and the five lakes, and the capital of the east of the river.
Hengshan, Jiujiang, Jiangnan, Yuzhang, Changsha, is the Southern Chuye. Its vulgar category is Xichu. After The Migration of Shou Chun, also a metropolis. And Hefei is affected by the north-south tide, leather, abalone, wood will also be lost. With Minzhong and Ganyue miscellaneous customs, so Nanchu is good at words and cleverly speaks less faith. Jiangnan is wet and wet, and her husband died early. More bamboo wood. YuZhang out of gold, Changsha out of lianlian, tin, but the viola of all, not enough to take more costly.
Throughout the text, we talk about the three chu lands of the west, east, and south, but the previous sentence is "Yue and Chu have three customs" to bring them up. In this regard, the Tang Dynasty Zhang Shoujie explained in the "History of Justice": "The more Wu is destroyed, there is the north of Jianghuai, and the more Chu is destroyed, the more wu yue is the land of Wu Yue, so it is said that Yue and Chu ye." This explanation is very important and quite appropriate, and he tells us that these three Chus have both the land of Wuyue; that is, the geographical scope of the Western Chu, Eastern Chu, and Southern Chu, from Chen at the "Turn of Chu and Xia" to the south, to the foot of Nanling, covers most of the southern territory (Lingnan was then under the rule of Zhao Tuo's Southern Yue State). As for the specific significance of confirming this, let me come back to it later.
Now, if we only compare the territorial situation of Xiang Yu's "Wang Liang, Chu Prefecture Nine Counties, and Du Pengcheng" in the "Chronicle of The Chronicle of Cargo Colonization", we will find the problems existing in the name of "Western Chu Overlord". Regarding the nine counties of Liang and Chu that Xiang Yu had given himself, many scholars had done research since the Qing Dynasty, but they had not been able to do it all. When Mr. Zhou Zhenhe studied the geography of the political region of the Western Han Dynasty, he made the most sincere restoration of this on the basis of his predecessors. The following "Schematic Diagram of Xiang Yu's "Western Chu State" is based on the illustrations of Mr. Zhou Zhenhe's book "Geography of political districts in the Western Han Dynasty".
Schematic diagram of Xiang Yu "Western Chu State"
It can be seen from this schematic map that among the nine counties of Surabaya, Yan County, Dong County, Xue County, Donghai County, and Yan County (the case should be written as "Gu Yan County, Don't Detail the Book of Jianyuan and Jieyuan"), Huiji, Chen County, and Nanyang County, only one county of Chen County belongs to the scope of "Western Chu" mentioned in the "Chronicle of The Chronicle of Goods", and the nanyang county on the west side is the "residence of the Xia people", which does not belong to the Chu land mentioned by Sima Qian, and the northern County and East County should belong to Liangdi, that is, the former land of the Wei state and its adjacent areas, while "east of Pengcheng, the East China Sea, Wu, Guangling, and the expression "Eastern Chu" obviously also includes Pengcheng and Surabaya County, where Pengcheng is located (in addition, there should also be Xue County, which is not mentioned in the text). The Tang Dynasty zhang Shoujie used the name of Li Tang's political district in the "History of Justice" to explain: "Pengcheng, Xuzhou Zhi County also." Donghae, County, present-day Haizhou also. Wu, Suzhou also. Guangling, Yangzhou also. Yan traveled from Xuzhou Pengcheng to Yangzhou to Suzhou. That is, in terms of cities, Pengcheng is the western starting point of the so-called "Eastern Chu". In the past, some people, such as kong Pingzhong of the Song Dynasty, wrote the "Miscellaneous Sayings of Kong Shi", that is, they forcibly interpreted Pengcheng as "Western Chu" (see volume III of the book), and such an explanation was completely inconsistent with Sima Qian's original intention.
To sum up, according to the records of the "Chronicle of The Chronicle of Cargo Colonization", it can be said that most of the land that Xiang Yu left to him belonged to "Eastern Chu", and the capital of the country was also in "Eastern Chu", that is, as the Qing dynasty Qian Daxinyun said, "According to this text, Pengcheng is Eastern Chu, not Western Chu" (Qian Daxin's "Ten Driving Fasting New Gangs", vol. 11 ,"Three Chu"). Living in such a land, how could Xiang Yu give himself the title of "King of Western Chu"? Isn't it weird, isn't it weird!
Reading the "Chronicle of The Chronicle of Cargo Colonization" and thinking about the geographical distinction between Western Chu, Eastern Chu and Southern Chu, we should first be clear that Sima Qian is talking about the regional concept of the people in the early Western Han Dynasty, and this is also a regional concept that is currently known to be the closest to the era of Xiang Yu's life. Judging its specific region, as mentioned above, such a concept could only arise after the chu state was destroyed, so if there is no other counter-evidence, such a concept can be regarded as having been popular since the time of Qin and Chu. In fact, in the relevant commentaries of the "Records of History" and the "Book of Han" and in the discussions of later generations, we do not see a regional understanding of Western Chu, Eastern Chu, and Southern Chu earlier than this. In other words, the above-mentioned records in the "Chronicle of History and Cargo Breeding" are the earliest and most reliable historical basis for later scholars to interpret the problem of the "Western Chu Overlord".
Because of this, we can see that from the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period, when commenting on the "Book of Han and Gao Emperor Ji" that "Yu Established himself as the Overlord of Western Chu", he first quoted the "History of the Chronicle of cargo colonization" to take the historical origin of the Ming Sanchu theory, because this origin obviously contradicted the name of "Western Chu Overlord", so Wen Ying had to add a sentence to reluctantly say: "Xiang Yu wants to be the capital pengcheng, so he calls himself Western Chu." The word "so" here should be used as the meaning of "special place", that is, Xiang Yu called this place "Western Chu" because he was in Pengcheng, which means that although this is not in line with the common customary usage, Xiang Yu uses it like this, and I can only explain the situation like this. In the past, the Qing Dynasty scholar Wang Shiduo understood Wen Ying's statement in this way, thinking that "according to this, Pengcheng to Xiang Wang was originally called Western Chu" (Wang Shiduo's "Collection of Mr. Wang Meicun", vol. 2, "Three Chu Kao"). Wen Ying is an honest person, and she is so honest when she speaks and does things. Although this statement doesn't make sense at all, he is so honest and honest.
Meng Kang, a Cao Wei shi who was a little later than him, was not so honest. In the face of Xiang Yu's strange title of "King of Western Chu", Meng Kang first identified this situation as an accurate historical fact (of course, Wen Ying was also convinced of this), and then boldly explained:
The old name Jiangling was Southern Chu, Wu was Eastern Chu, and Pengcheng was Western Chu. (The Book of Han and the Chronicle of Emperor Gao, Tang Yanshi's ancient commentary quotes Meng Kang as saying.) And "History of Xiang Yu Benji" of Pei Xiao's "Collection of Interpretations" quoted Meng Kang as saying)
The word "old name" is not a word, and if you really have any basis, you can say it generously. Meng Kang himself did not say that those who commented on the "Records of History" and the "Book of Han" before him and later than him did not have anyone else seen this "old name" he said, and the authenticity of this matter could not but make me full of doubts. Speaking of Southern Chu, Eastern Chu and Western Chu, they were originally regional titles, but the "old name" described by Meng Kang became the names of the three cities of Jiangling, Wu and Pengcheng, which violated normal concepts and logic, and was obviously very wrong.
In my opinion, Meng Kang's statement is that he is strong and ignorant, and even if he takes the so-called "Western Chu" of The Capital Pengcheng as the base point, he has forced himself to configure it with "Eastern Chu" and "Southern Chu"; that is to say, the place that Xiang Yu has sealed to himself is indeed not called "Western Chu", but since he himself is so chaotic, then "Eastern Chu" and "Southern Chu" can only be determined according to this "Western Chu".
Everyone must not think that this is my Xin someone who suddenly made a transgression, and falsely accused this Meng master of paying attention to history with his heart, Gu Zuyu, a famous expert in the history of public opinion in the early Qing Dynasty, looked at this issue in this way when quoting Meng Kang, saying that the land of Pengcheng originally belonged to Eastern Chu, "Xiang Yu changed to Western Chu, and Wu was Eastern Chu" (Gu Zuyu's "Minutes of Reading the History of Fang Public Opinion", vol. 29, "Nanzhi Xuzhou"). The appendix of the present Zhonghua Bookstore points that the proofreading mistakenly read Gu's judgment as the original text of Meng Kang's commentary, thus obliterating Gu's understanding).
Here, wu yi is the eastern Chu, and just like the concept of the Three Chus described in the "History of the Cargo Colonization", it can only be produced after the Chu people have destroyed the Yue, so it is impossible to be earlier and older than the Three Chu concepts of the "History of the Cargo Colonization", and its "old name" Yun is just a bluff. Taking a step back, this "old name" is only slightly older than the time when Meng Kang himself was born into the world, and its events can only be as Wen Ying said, because Xiang Yu called himself "King of Western Chu", and more clearly, the "old name" that Meng Kang said was a brand new geographical area name that was only decided from the time when Xiang Yu was divided into princes. And including those of us today, when scholars of later generations interpret the records of the "Western Chu Overlord" in the "Records of History" and the Book of Han, it is absolutely inappropriate to explain the antecedents in the future. To do so is too illogical.
Although The Qing dynasty man Qian Daxin tried his best to explain the rationality of Xiang Yu's title of "King of Western Chu", he only lightly preached about Meng Kang's statement: "This is another statement, which is inconsistent with the "History of Cargo Breeding". (Qian Daxin's "Ten Driving Zhai Yang Xin zhen" volume 11 "Three Chu" article) Obviously felt that if this issue was to be explained reasonably, it should still be based on the "Chronicle of History and Cargo Colonization". The book has been read more, the knowledge has been deepened, and at least that vision can avoid those overly absurd paths of understanding in time.
At the time of the Han and Wei Dynasties, Wen Ying could not explain why Xiang Yu called himself the "King of Western Chu", because the word "Western Chu" seriously contradicted the regional concept prevailing at that time.
As mentioned above, Meng Kang, who followed closely behind, of course, also failed to clarify this issue. However, since he could no longer find any reasonable basis, nor could he tell other self-contained theories that were convincing enough to convince people, Pei Xiao later wrote the "Commentary on the Collection of Historical Records" during the Liu Song Dynasty in the Southern Dynasty, and had to transcribe Meng Kang's statement as well (Pei Xiao's "Collection Of Interpretations" in the "History of Xiang Yu Benji"). By the time Yan Shigu annotated the Book of Han in the early years of the Tang Dynasty, he had no choice but to make a vague statement that "Meng said that it was also" (Tang Yanshi's Ancient Notes on the Book of Han and Emperor Gao). Although this kind of position is of no academic value, although later when Zhang Shoujie wrote the "History of Justice" during the Kaiyuan period, he still transcribed the "History of history and cargo" and the two "three Chu" statements narrated by Meng Kang, trying to provide readers with a balanced and objective reference, but Meng Kang's statement was still widely disseminated because of Yan Shigu's affirmation. For example, sun Yi of the Song Dynasty's "Compilation of Lu Zhai Shi'er" and Wang Yinglin's "Primary School Cyan Zhu" are all like this ("Lu Zhai Shi'er Compilation" Volume 14 "Miscellaneous Records" "Place Names Different" article. "Elementary School Cyanotic Pearls" Volume II "Geography Class" "Three Chu" Articles).
This kind of "nonsense" statement, when writing poetry and composition, it is natural to use it as a vain word, but serious scholars cannot take this seriously, and the Qing Dynasty examiners cannot read here without thinking of trying their skills.
Even Qian Daxin, the first master of historical evidence at that time, could not tell what was going on:
"History of Cargo Colonization": "From Huaibei Pei, Chen, Runan, and Nan County, this West Chu also; east of Pengcheng, Donghai, Wu, Guangling, this East Chu also; Hengshan, Jiujiang, Jiangnan, Yuzhang, Changsha, this Southern Chu also." According to this article, Pengcheng is Eastern Chu, not Western Chu. Xiang Yu is the capital pengcheng and east has Wu, Guangling, and Huiji County, which is called "Western Chu Bawang", Yu has liang and Chudi, Liang is in Chuxi, and "Western Chu" is also in It. Considering the division of the three Chu, the large rate is bounded by Huai: Huaibei is Western Chu, Huainan is Southern Chu, and only Eastern Chu spans Huaibei and northern Huai. Wu and Guangling are in Huainan, the East China Sea is in Huaibei, and Pengcheng is also in Huaibei and between the east and west, so the east of Pengcheng can be called "Eastern Chu", and the west of Pengcheng can also be called "Western Chu". (Qian Daxin's "Ten Driving Fasting New Gangs" Volume 11 "Three Chu" Article)
The main points of this examination are twofold: first, Xiang Yu is "Wang Liang and the Nine Counties of Chu", so although Pengcheng is located in "Eastern Chu", because "Liang is in Chuxi, and 'Western Chu' is also in Liangdi", Xiang Yu will call himself "Western Chu Bawang"; second, the land of Pengcheng is between "Eastern Chu" and "Western Chu", "So east of Pengcheng can be called 'Eastern Chu', and west of Pengcheng can also be called 'Western Chu'", in fact, the part west of Pengcheng in the nine counties of Xiang Yu's king originally belonged to "Western Chu".
These two explanations, which at first glance seem to make some sense, are actually very illogical. One is that even if the "Western Chu" is indeed as Qian's yun can also be the Liang land, but then what about the "Eastern Chu" lands such as Surabaya (Zhipengcheng), Donghai, Wu, and Guangling? In order to take care of the old land of the Liang kingdom, Pengcheng, where the capital of the state was located, was abandoned and took the name of "Western Chu" in disregard, so can it be reasonable? I think it's very unreasonable no matter how I look at it, it's so unreasonable. Although Chen County, west of Pengcheng in Xiangyu County, belongs to "Western Chu", and the Chronicle of the Chronicle of Cargo Breeding also makes this clear, but this only accounts for a small part of its territory, especially Xiang Yu's capital Pengcheng is not "Western Chu" but belongs to "Eastern Chu", so Xiang Yu has no reason to take "Western Chu" as the name of his fiefdom, that is, the so-called "name is not worthy of the name".
Even qian Daxin's generation of examiners could not tell a meridian unit, and even in his examination there was a bit of embarrassment that the preface did not match the afterword, which showed that the title of "Western Chu Overlord" was indeed difficult to make sense. The Ming Dynasty Chen Shiyuan commented on the title of "Overlord of Western Chu", and once used the two simple sentences of "The number is Western Chu, the original Eastern Chu Land" to summarize the dilemma caused by this title to people's understanding of this problem (Chen Shiyuan's "Jianghan Cong tan", vol. 2, "Three Chu" articles).
Second, is not "Western Chu" or "Four Chu"?
It doesn't make sense, which often means that the path of understanding is not at all right. In this case, it is usually not appropriate to go all the way to black. Changing the perspective of understanding may reveal a whole new world before our eyes. So, where do we have to shift the perspective of understanding? Chen Shiyuan's two sentences, "The number is Western Chu, ben Dong Chu Di", suggest that there may be a problem with the "West" character of "West Chu" - either the word is false, or the word is wrong, and this "West" may be another word.
The following question is, if, according to the path of governance instructed by Dr. Hu Shizhi, we first boldly assume that there is a false error in the "Xi" character of "Xi Chu", then what word should it be? There are two most common forms of error in the writing of ancient texts: one is the "sound falsification" caused by the similar pronunciation, and the other is the "morphological falsification" caused by the similarity of the glyphs. For this "Xi" character, the first thing that comes to mind is the "four" character with similar glyphs, that is, to assume that "Xi Chu" is a mistake of "Four Chu", that is, the original "Four" character was mistakenly mistaken for the "West" character we see now.
It's been so long. When we study historical questions, we need to be careful that in focusing on each specific historical event, we should base our attention on the general context behind this matter. In this way, what comes to our eyes is not just a matter of the moment. We need to realize that most things have certain common regularity characteristics, as do the errors of the texts written by our predecessors, and that this regularity provides us with a basic objective possibility as a reference for our analysis of specific matters.
Therefore, before "carefully verifying" the above hypothesis, let us first look at whether the words "west" and "four" in ancient times, at that time, there was a possibility of mutual disparagement. Whether it is the "West" of "Xi Chu" or the "four" of "Four Chu", it is a composite noun formed as a preposition of word construction elements and the subject noun behind, but one belongs to the direction word and the other belongs to the number word. The similarity of this form of word construction is the logical premise of the "four Chu" mistakenly blackmailed into "Western Chu", that is, after the words "West" and "Four" are mutually false, on the surface, the original text is usually still logically smooth, so that the reader will unconsciously accept the wrong text and admit the wrong text.
Next, let's look at the examples of "West" and "Four" in ancient texts. For example, in the "Book of Rites and Funeral DressEs" (礼記・Funeral Dress Notes) "And the suburbs and then avoid crying" sentence Zheng Xuan's note "The tomb is outside the four suburbs", that is, some publications have falsely referred to the "four suburbs" as "western suburbs" (Wang Taiyue's "Four Libraries Of Complete Book Examination", vol. 1 and 2). There are many such examples and there is no need to repeat them.
In this regard, the more famous examples in the history of collation surveying are also between the "four suburbs" and the "western suburbs", which are also from the Zheng Notes of the Book of Rites, that is, zheng Xuan Zhuyun "Yu Yu Of the Western Suburbs of Zhou" under the sentence "The Four Studies of the Heavenly Son" in the "Book of Rites and Sacrifices", and the word "Western Suburbs" was falsely referred to as "Four Suburbs" in the process of circulation, while the original of the Tang Dynasty's "Records of Rites and Justice" was not yet so (Qing Gu Guangxi's "Fu Ben Li Ji Zheng Zhu Kao Yi" volume. Gu Qianli Ji," volume VII, "The Second Book of the Zhou Dynasty Academic System with Duan Maotang Daling" and "The Third Book of the Zhou Dynasty Academic System with Duan Maotang's Great Order").
Qing Jiaqing Bingyin Zhang Dunren imitated the Song carved ben Zheng Xuan's annotation "Book of Rites" with Zhang's "Examination Difference"
This case is most likely to be reflected in the specific situation that the "West" and "Four" mutual falsification are extremely common situations in ancient texts. Roughly speaking, the shape of these two words, just like a person wearing a tie or not wearing a tie, the basic appearance is not much different, and people are likely to regard "Four Chu" as "West Chu".
Third, the truth of the "Four Chus" and its origin
Since the word "four" is very easy to change into "west" in terms of its meaning and glyph, then everyone will allow me to replace "West Chu" with "Four Chu" to see if Xiang Yu will call himself "Four Chu Overlord". I know that when many people see this statement, they will inevitably feel that it is a "very objectionable and strange theory" - if you don't recognize the "Western Chu Overlord", change it to "Eastern Chu Bawang", how to get out of a "Four Chu Bawang"? Sima Qian originally said that there were only the "three Chus" of Western Chu, Eastern Chu, and Southern Chu, so why did you come up with a "Four Chus"?
If you think it is incredible, you may wish to start with the "three jin". What is the "Three Jins", it is the three princely states in the territory of the three former Jin states of Han, Wei and Zhao, so how did a good Jin state become the "Three Jins"? The division of the Three Families of Han, Wei, and Zhao divided up the Jin Dynasty and established their own country independently, which was the landmark event that opened the so-called "Warring States" period, and I think anyone who knows a little about the common sense of ancient Chinese history will know this. In fact, not only were the "Three Jins" hardly separated from a whole, but the "Three Qins" to the west and the "Three Qis" to the east were also three princely states that were separated from the homeland of Qin and Qi, respectively, but their division was later, and it was only after the fall of the Great Qin Empire that it was split by Xiang Yu, that is, in the three divisions of Xiang Yu, the FengQin general Zhang Handan as the Yong King, Sima Xin as the Sai King, Dong Feng as the Zhai King, Cheng Yong, Sai, zhai three kingdoms; Xiang Yu also divided the Qi state into three, They respectively made Qi the general Tian Du the King of Qi, the former King of Qi Tian Cheng the King of Jiaodong, and the former King jiansun Tian'an the King of Jibei, becoming the three kingdoms of Qi, Jiaodong, and Jibei.
"Three Jins", "Three Qins", and "Three Qi", if the chu state is divided into four, wouldn't it become the "four Chu"? Please take a look at the following illustration - it is scanned from the Three Commentaries "History of Qin and Chu Dynasty Moon Table" engraved by the Southern Song Dynasty Jian'an Huang Shanfu Bookstore:
The Hundred Editions of the Twenty-Four Histories photocopy of the Southern Song Dynasty Jian'an Huang Shanfu Shufang engraved the "Moon Table of the Time of Qin and Chu" of the "Records of History"
Under the column of "The First Year of the Righteous Emperor", there are four words, "Divided into Four", which is the focus of my attention here. As for what I focused on, needless to say, everyone also understands that the land of the "Four Chus", which is quite similar to the "Three Jins", "Three Qins", and "Three Qi", has been highlighted in front of us.
However, before specifically describing this record, it is necessary to do some basic proofreading work on the relevant contents of the "History of Qin chu and The Moon Table". Although there are certain problems with the text of the "Qin Chu Dynasty Moon Table" of the three annotated "Records of History", it is still much better than the Zhonghua Bookstore point school book that is now peering. More clearly, it was the "Chronological Table of The Time of Qin and Chu" of the Zhonghua Bookstore's "Records of History", which was mistaken by the pointer and mistakenly deleted some very, very important contents of the original text, so that when we understood this problem, we had to use early engravings such as the Three Notes as the basis for our argument.
First of all, the contents of the column "December" in front of the column of the first year of the Yi Emperor should be classified under the column of "the first year of the Yi Emperor" at the end. This is mainly the same as the nature of "dividing Chu into four", "dividing Zhao into a substitute country" and "dividing Qi into three kingdoms".
The "December" in this column is the chronology of the Qin state, that is, the December of the Qin calendar in which the child and the baby become the queen of Qin. According to this table, the child was appointed King of Qin in September of this year, and this year was the third year of Emperor Qin II. It is reasonable to say that zibao had abolished the imperial title on his own, retired to the title of king, declared that the Great Qin Empire no longer existed, and should have changed the yuan immediately to show that the imperial year was changed to the year of the king, but at that time, the fall of the Qin society was imminent, and the infant was so sparsely on the throne that he did not change to the new yuan. According to the Three Commentaries and other ancestral inscriptions and the zhonghua bookstore point school book, "dividing Zhao into daiguo", "dividing Qi into three kingdoms" and so on, were all tied under December of this year.
However, these historical events all occurred at the same time as xiang yu's self-establishment as the "overlord of western Chu" and the division of the eighteen princes in the next column, or more accurately, the so-called "division of the country" was the first step of Xiang Yu's self-establishment as king and his sub-feudal princes, which were closely linked before and after, and this is also clearly recorded in the "Xiang Yu Benji" and "Gao Zu Benji" of the "History"—this kind of matter, like the "division of Chu into four", is recorded in the "History of Gao Zu Benji" as the "first month" of the first year of the Yi Emperor.
From this point of view, the columns such as "Dividing Chu into Four" and which are tied to the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor should be the original appearance of the "Taishi Gongshu", while those contents of the same nature, such as "dividing Zhao into a daiguo" and "dividing Qi into three kingdoms" under December of the previous year, should be a mistake produced in the process of circulation of the "History", which was mistakenly shifted when the records were written and engraved in later generations. In the past, Zhang Wenhu proofread the three annotated copies of the "Records of History" for the Jinling Bookstore during the Reign of the Qing Dynasty, not only failed to see the correctness of the phrase "dividing Chu into four" under the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor, but on the contrary, based on the fallacy of Liang Yusheng's "History of History And Doubts" (see volume 10 of the book), in order not to be mistaken, he moved these four characters to the lower December of the previous year (Zhang Wenhu's "Records of Proofreading history" Volume II), and the current Zhonghua Bookstore point schoolbook not only inherits its mistakes, but also does not even have a proofreading explanation. The average reader also completely loses the clue of exploration.
Phoenix Publishing House photocopied the Song carved fourteen lines of the single attached "Collection of Interpretations" of the "History" of the "Qin Chu Dynasty Moon Table"
In addition, in the Song Dynasty's fourteen-line edition of the "Historical Records" with the "Interpretation of the Collected Records of History", we can see that in the line "Han in the division of the pass" in the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor, the book is "divided into the Han in the Guanzhong" (the previous column has listed "the four kingdoms in the sub-guanzhong"). In connection with the above situation, it seems that the word "for the pass" is added here, that is, it seems that it should be written as "Han in the sub-guan", which is unified with the next line of "the sub-guan is yong", "the sub-guan is the sai", and "the sub-guan is zhai". However, this seemingly extrapolated word "for the pass" suggests that in this position, we should have written the same sentence as the previously mentioned "four [kingdoms] in the sub-guan" (that is, the "four kingdoms in the sub-pass" that was mistakenly moved to the previous column in the popular text), and the word "for the pass" is only a little remnant of this sentence (the order of the words is chaotic), thus further justifying the above analysis.
Further in-depth investigation, we can also see that even if books such as the Three Commentaries are "Han in the Sub-Customs", "Yong in the Sub-Guan", "Sai in the Sub-Guan", and "Zhai in the Sub-Guan", it is still not appropriate. Zhang Wenhu of the Qing Dynasty proofread the "Records of History", thinking that "the previous table has written 'four in the division of the guanzhong', then this should also be such as Chu, Zhao, Qi, Wei, Yan, and Han, 'divided into Han', 'divided into Yong', 'divided into Sai', 'divided into Zhai' can be done." The character 'Guanzhong' is doubtful" (Zhang Wenhu's "Notes on the Interpretation of SuoYin Justice in the Collection of Collation and Historical Records", vol. 2). Now that we look at the chaotic remnants of the two sentences "for the four kingdoms in the sub-customs", it is all the more reasonable to speculate that the "Guanzhong" of these "sub-customs" should be derived from the influence of the original "Four Kingdoms in the Sub-Customs" line of the Han Dynasty in the process of circulation of the "History", and should now be deleted according to Zhang Wenhu's inference.
According to this understanding, the relevant contents of the three annotated "Records of History" can be restored as follows:
Three annotated editions of the "Chronicle of the Moon of Qin and Chu" related content restoration table
In order to facilitate modern reading habits, I changed the arrangement direction of the original table text from right to left to left and right, but the order of the table has not changed, it is still right before left. In addition, the contents of the table in parentheses are the additional explanatory text that I have added to facilitate your reading; the contents of the trapezoidal brackets [] brackets are the words that we think should be added; the contents of the straight brackets [] brackets are owned by the original text and I think should be deleted; the content of the black brackets is that I think the word before this black bracket is wrong and should be replaced by the text in black brackets.
In the column of the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor, I added a vertical line to divide this column into two. Such an approach may not conform to the original appearance of the "Taishi Gongshu", but the eyebrows are clear, which is convenient for everyone to understand the logical relationship of related matters, and I hope that everyone will give understanding.
It should be pointed out in particular that the text I moved from the previous column of "December" to the first month column of the first year of the Yi Emperor is not limited to the content of "dividing Zhao into a daiguo" and "dividing Qi into three kingdoms", but also "Xiang Yu complains about glory, kills it" and "Yu Beiyue" and "Zang Di congruent into" these three records. The reason is that these three articles describe the preconditions for Xiang Yu to divide the eighteen princes, which is the first step of Xiang Yu's self-establishment as a king and his sub-feudal princes mentioned above, that is, in this sense it is exactly the same as the content nature of "dividing Zhao into a substitute country" and "dividing Qi into three kingdoms", so these chronicles should also be misplaced under the previous month, and now they should return to their old positions.
In addition, the content of the correction in the table also needs to be explained here.
Specifically, the word "deposed" in black brackets, the original text of the "Records of History" as "kill". The new school book of the Zhonghua Bookstore has deleted the word "kill" to illustrate the cloud: "Liang Yusheng's (Historical Records) Zhi Doubt Volume 10: 'Rong Gu (固?') In Qi, Yu An had to kill it? The "Interpretation of History" means that the word "kill" is cut. 'According to the Book of Han, Volume 1 of the Book of Han, Tian Rong was killed in the spring and first month of the second year, and the Book VII of the Book of Xiang Yu Was also killed in the second year, at this time he had not yet been killed. It is now deleted. "The general principle of proofreading ancient books in this case is to restore the original appearance of the original book, and it is not necessary to correct the errors of the original manuscript for the ancients; even if it is necessary to change, it is necessary to first eliminate other possibilities to the greatest extent possible, and then make changes. This is especially true for classics like the Chronicle of History.
The word "kill" here is certainly inconsistent with historical facts. There are mistakes, but they are not necessarily due to increased reproduction. Because the possibility of deriving these two words out of thin air is too small and too small, it is difficult to find the reason for this situation. From another point of view, as far as the principle of ancient books is wrong, the word "kill" is likely to be a variation of other texts. Liang Yusheng, a former Qing dynasty, once mentioned that "or 'killing' is regarded as 'unsealed', and there is also this work 'Angry Glory and Rebellion'" (Liang Yusheng's "History of Doubts", vol. 10). Considering the relevant circumstances, I speculate that this "kill" is most likely a false word for "deposed".
Gaitian Rong was the younger brother of King Dan of Qi, and when Brother Nai was killed by the Qin general Zhang Handan, the Qi people made Tian Fei the late King of Qi, and Tian Rong was angry, drove Tian Fei into Chu, and set up Tian Wei, the king of Qi, as king ("History of Tian Danlie"), and made himself a chancellor and manipulated his authority. In the "Chronicle of the Moon of Qin and Chu", under the end month (that is, the first month) of the third year of Qin II, the "State of Qi" column records that "Xiang Yu and Tian Rong are divided into two kingdoms", referring to the two Qi kings of Tian Fei and Tian City, who were controlled by each of them. Under this premise, "Tian Rong refused to send troops to assist Chu and Zhao to attack Qin" with negative Xiang Liang, causing Xiang Yu to resent, so he did not get the throne when Xiang Yu presided over the division of the eighteen princes, and the so-called "Xiang Yu complained about Rong, deposed", that is, Xiang Yu was deposed because he resented Tian Rong, that is, he was disqualified from participating in the division of the seal, that is, he was deprived of the opportunity to obtain the position of Tian Rong that should have belonged to him.
After I moved the phrase "Xiang Yu complains about glory and kills (deposed)" a month later, the logical relationship between this chronicle and Xiang Yu's "division into three kingdoms" and sealing it has become more and more prominent. Let's see, is this a smooth text from the word? I think at least it would be much better than cutting off the word "kill" alive. Trying to think about the word "unsealed" mentioned by Liang Yusheng, the difference between the "killing" of this "Historical Record" is too big, and the text is not easy to get here; on the other hand, Tian Rong has not tried to betray Chu until this time, but just sat and watched Chu Qin succeed or fail, so there is no "rebellion" to speak of. None of the theories cited by Liang Yusheng can be established.
Next, let's look at the phrase "divide into four". Looking at the expressions of the following articles" "divided into three kingdoms", "divided into four countries" and "divided into two countries", according to the general practice, it seems that the word "country" should also be added at the end of the sentence "divided into four countries", that is, "divided into four countries". The surviving single edition of the "Shi Ji Suo Yin" records that the other kingdoms other than the Chu state were divided when Xiang Yu divided the eighteen princes as "Zhao Wei Two", "Qi For Three", "Guanzhong for Four", "Yan for Two", "Wei For Two", and "Han for Two", of which the qi, Guanzhong, and Yan records the same form as the three annotated "Records of History", while the Zhao Jinben "Shi Ji" is "divided into Zhao as a daiguo", the Wei Jinben "Shi Ji" is "Divided wei as the Yin State", and the Han Jinben "Shi Ji" is "Divided into Han as Henan Kingdom". Looking at the annotations of the three kingdoms of Zhao, Wei, and Han in the "Shi ji Suoyin", which are "Dai, Zhao", "Wei, Yin" and "Han and Henan", it can be seen that the original text of the corresponding "Shi Ji" must be "Zhao Wei Two", "Wei Wei Two" and "Han Wei Two" described in the "Shi Ji Suo Yin". When Zhang Wenhu was proofreading the Three Commentaries on the Records of History for the Jinling Bookstore, he thought that "this table zhao, Wei, and Han should also be like Chu, Qi, Guanzhong, and Yan, and suspect that the "Suoyin" was originally " ( Zhang Wenhu ' " Records of The Collection of Proofreading Records of the Interpretation of Suoyin Justice " Volume II " ) . If, as is the case with the three commentaries in common today, the books are "Dividing Zhao for the Daiguo", "Dividing Wei for the Yin Kingdom", and "Dividing Han for the Henan Kingdom", such annotations are stacked on the bed frame house, which is redundant (it is because of this that the "History of the Three Commentaries" omitted Sima Zhen's "Suo Yin" under the corresponding sentences, and the zhonghua bookstore point school book still draws gourds, and even a proofreading instruction is not even published). The reasoning is the same as that described earlier, that is, the writing method of "dividing Zhao into the generation of the country" such as the three commentaries should be a textual error inadvertently caused by changing these contents to the previous grid in the process of circulation of the "History".
At the end of the Ming Dynasty, the ancient court carved a single book "History of Suoyin"
The revisions I have made in the table now are mainly based on the general rules of the table and the old appearance of the ancient texts reflected in the single edition of the "History of Suoyin". However, the sentence "Chu divided into four" in the "History of Suoyin" is "Chu is divided into four", which is a mistake according to the general practice, and Zhang Wenhu has already pointed out this point when proofreading the "History of History" (Zhang Wenhu's "Records of Proofreading the History of The Interpretation of Suoyin Justice", vol. 2). In addition, the three characters of "Eighteen Kingdoms" in the "Chu Division into Four" of the single-line "Shi Ji Suo Yin" are not available in the "Records of History" such as the Three Commentaries, and these three words should also come from the "Records of History" article seen by Sima Zhen. This "Eighteen Kingdoms" is aimed at the eighteen Xiang Yu vassal states below Hengshan Mountain, which are all taken and written here. According to the general writing customs, there should be another word before the "Eighteen Kingdoms", stating its origin and attributes, so Yu Fei added a "seal" word to complete the sentence.
Finally, it should be noted that the "Guan" character of "Zang Di congruent into the customs" in this table Yan Guo column is based on the opinion of Liang Yusheng's "Historical Records of Doubts", but Liang Yusheng does not tell the reason for this view (Liang Yusheng's "Historical Records of Doubts" vol. 10). In fact, only by placing this chronicle under the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor in accordance with our opinions can we better understand Sima Qian's intention in recording this matter and the rationality of adding the word "Guan". Gai's "History of Xiang Yu Benji" records that Xiang Yu divided the sealing of Zang Di when jiyun: "Yan saved Zang Di from Chu to Zhao, and because he entered the pass, he established Zang Di as the King of Yan. This corresponds to the sentence "Zang Di from entering [Guan]" in the "Qin Chu Dynasty Moon Table". Although Liang Yusheng deduced from the sentence itself that the word "Guan" should be added, he could not understand the inner meaning of this sentence, so not only did he not see that this sentence should be moved backwards, but he also thought that "this should be written in Yan Twenty-seven Months", that is, it was moved forward two boxes and placed under the "October" item in Liu Bang's entry into the Pass (Liang Yusheng's "History of Doubts", vol. 10), which is really far away.
IV. The Kingdom of the "Four Chus" and the "Chu State" of Xiang Yu
After eliminating all kinds of derivative blackmails, it shows the substantive significance and rationality of the record of "Dividing Chu into Four Kingdoms" in the "Chronicle of the Moon of Qin and Chu", which also lays a crucial foundation for verifying the existence of the "Four Chu Overlords". Let's see, weren't the "Three Qins" and "Three Qis" I mentioned in the previous example separately at the same time and for the same reason as the so-called "Four Chus"? Are we seeing more and more the plausibility of the hypothesis of the "Four Chu Overlords"?
In the study of history, as the Western proverb goes, the devil is hidden in the details. If we really want to do historical research, if we really want to see the truth of history, we must be patient and afraid of trouble.
Zhonghua Bookstore points out the relevant content of the schoolbook "History of Qin Chu's Time and Moon Table"
The troubles in the "Chronicle of the Moon and the Moon of Qin and Chu" are far more than that. The following frames of book shadows, taken from the Zhonghua Bookstore's "History of History", are part of the contents of the first three months of the yidi emperor's first year in his "Qin Chu Zhi Yue Table": Compare the three annotated books I presented earlier and the "Qin Chu Zhi Moon Table" of the "Ji Xie" "Historical Records", as well as the three annotations I restored, "History of Qin Chu's Occasion Moon Table", please look at the contents of the top two lines of the above (first) frame of the book shadow, the biggest difference between them is that the Zhonghua Book Company has merged the first three lines of the ancient carved old book into two lines; in terms of the overall form of this table, Almost all the old ancient engravings are listed in the twenty-first horizontal line, while the Zhonghua Bookstore version has become the twenty horizontal line. Where did that missing line go? ---------------------------------------
This is a serious omission; no, more accurately, it cannot be said merely a lapse, but rather a huge mistake. Because negligence is unintentional neglect, and the problem here is that people have deliberately changed the "Chronology of the Chronicle of Qin and Chu"—except that the reformers did not change the wrong ones to the right ones, but changed the right ones to the wrong ones.
In order to facilitate your comparison and reference, I will first slightly examine the relevant contents of the ancient carved old version of the "Chronicle of the Moon and the Moon of Qin and Chu" and excerpt it below.
Ancient carved old version of the "History of Qin Chu Time Moon Table" related content table
In terms of verification, this big mistake can be said to have been forged for a long time, and it is not the original creation of the point school of the Zhonghua Bookstore. Its direct antecedent is the inscription of the Jinling Bookstore inherited from the zhonghua book company, that is, the Jinling book during the Qing Tongzhi period (cf. Zhang Wenhu's "Records of The Collation of The History of the Investigation of the History of Xie Suoyin", vol. 2); if it is further traced back, it is at the latest that Liang Yusheng had already proposed this intention during the Qianlong period (Liang Yusheng's "History of History", vol. 10). A little earlier than Lao Liang, there was a guy named Zhang Zhao, who, when he was surveying the WuyingDian "Shi Ji" for Qianlong Ye, was more self-made, and instead of Tai Shi Gong, he re-compiled a "new table" and attached it to the back of the "Shi Ji" section, thinking that "Shu can recognize the original meaning of Tai Shi Gong" (see the "History of The Chronicle of The Moon" of Qin Chu at the end of the chapter attached to Shi Chen's "Examination"). However, from Zhang Zhao to Zhang Wenhu, they have no basis for version, just personal subjective views. Although the Zhonghua Bookstore pointed out the school book was not the first disaster, but recently this time to re-order its books, since the world's ancient books have been examined, it should always be explained in the proofreading record of those ancient versions outside the Jinling Bookstore.
The Zhonghua Bookstore's move to point out the schoolbook is quite complicated, following the wrong miao and changing it to right and wrong. In this regard, I have done a very detailed analysis in the book "History of the New School Survey", if you are interested in detail, you can check it yourself (see the fourth section of the third part of the book). Here, just to facilitate everyone's understanding of the so-called "Western Chu Overlord" problem, the analysis directly related to this is recorded, and then slightly played and supplemented.
To put it simply, the twenty-one rampant lines listed in the ancient carved old edition of the "Chronicle of the Moon of Qin and Chu" after the first year of the Yi Emperor are the continuation of the legal system of the "King of Chu". If you look at the three commentaries I restored, "The Chronicle of the Moon and the Moon of Qin and Chu", I have listed the "Qin, Chu, Xiang, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, Wei, and Han" marks at the beginning of each horizontal line, and listed them at the beginning of the lines, and the so-called "King of Chu" legal system is inherited from this. Please note that this table was originally listed as nine rampant before the first year of the Yi Emperor. The reason why Sima Qian listed "Qin" in the first row was to show the status of Qin ruling the world.
However, after the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor," when "the princes honored the king as the righteous emperor", the situation in the "world" had changed greatly. First of all, Emperor Yi had formally replaced the Emperor of the Qin Dynasty and become the co-lord of the world; secondly, Xiang Yu officially replaced the original dominance of King Huai of Chu over the soldiers and horses of the Chu State, known as the so-called "Overlord of Western Chu". But immediately after that, it can even be said that at the same time, "The Western Chu Bo King Xiang Zhi (De Yong Case: "Bo" is the different writing of "Hegemony"), for the lord of the world, the establishment of the Eighteen Kings" (in the past, in the "History of the New School Survey", I advocated that the phrase "West Chu Bo Wang" be read as "West Chu Lord Bo", now it seems wrong, here from the Zhonghua Bookstore to point out the reading of the school book), which means that Xiang Yu also inherited the position of King Huai of Chu as the "Tianxia" ally of various anti-Qin forces before the destruction of Qin, "Yi Emperor". It has only become a symbolic title.
Please note that as the "Western Chu Overlord" who is the main destiny of the world, the "Overlord" of Xiang Yuan is located in Pengcheng. But on the other hand, the "overlord" always has to be a "king" first, and Xiang Yu himself must also have his own "wang capital" after being promoted from "Lu Gong" to "king", which is the Jiangdu described in the third line of the ancient carved old book "Moon Table". In the past, Liu Wenqi, a Qing dynasty, wrote a "Xiangyu Du Jiangdu Kao", which very specifically identified the historical fact that Xiang Yu made Jiangdu the capital of the king (see Liu Shi's "Qingxi Old House Collection", volume IV).
We also need to pay special attention to the fact that this line is directly continued from the line of "item" when the table is nine horizontal, and the so-called "Western Chu Bawang" line above it, that is, the second line, is directly continued from the line of "Chu" when the table is nine horizontal. This means that the so-called "King of Western Chu" inherited the position of King Huai of Chu as the lord of the anti-Qin forces of all sides, while the capital of Jiangdu was only the kingdom directly ruled by Xiang himself.
Comparing with each other, it can be seen that from Zhang Zhao, to Liang Yusheng, to Zhang Wenhu, and then to the people who are in charge of the zhonghua bookstore, because they could not understand the origin of these two rampant acts, they could not understand their nature, and even vainly merged the second and third and second horizontal lines of the original table into one line, and vainly moved the sentence "Princes honor the king of Huai as the righteous emperor" in the second line of the original table to the first line, and at the same time deleted the matter of Xiang Yu's "Dujiangdu" in a straight line. What a big change? There is not a single explanatory text to tell the reader about the relevant situation, so that if you do not read the ancient carved old text, you will mistakenly think that Tai Shi Gong has written it like this, and the consequences are really quite serious - the most serious negative consequence is to completely destroy the truth of the so-called "Western Chu Overlord"!
This is xiang Yu after "dividing Chu into four kingdoms", he is a person with two identities: one is the so-called "Western Chu Overlord", which is a country of "overlords", from the situation described in the "Qin and Chu Moon Table", its capital seems to be located in Pengcheng; the other is a country of Chu after the quarter, which is an ordinary princely kingdom with its capital in Jiangdu. Of course, the body of one person cannot be divided into two places, this is actually a sequence of precedence, and there is a difference in the nature of the inner nature, and it is this order of succession that shows us the difference between Xiang Yu's own princely kingdom and the so-called "Western Chu Overlord" kingdom, revealing the truth of the so-called "Western Chu Overlord".
After distinguishing between Xiang Yu's own princely kingdom and the so-called "Western Chu Overlord" kingdom, an unexpected question suddenly appeared before us: If we only literally look at the words "Xiang Yu is the king of Western Chu, Wang Liang, the nine counties of Chu, and all Pengcheng", then the king of the "Nine Counties of Liang and Chu" should seem to refer to the so-called "King of Western Chu". However, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible to call the land of "Liang and Chu Nine Counties" "Western Chu"; and then it will inevitably bring about a great problem, that is, where is Xiang Yu's own princely kingdom with Jiangdu as the capital? This may seem like a lot of twists, but at least we can and should try to analyze the problems along the lines of this line of thinking.
Returning to the path of understanding just mentioned, this "Chronology of the Occasion of Qin and Chu" underwent an important change in the first year of the Yi Emperor, that is, in terms of form, it changed from nine rampant to twenty-one rampant; in essence, the nine major political forces of Qin, Chu, Xiang, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, Wei, and Han at the beginning of the anti-Qin dynasty were changed to more than twenty political forces, such as the Yi Emperor, the "Overlord of Western Chu", and the eighteen princely states sealed by Xiang Yu. At the time of this change, the geographical scope covered by the table Items, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, Wei, and Han was actually roughly equivalent to the territory controlled by the States of Chu, Zhao, Qi, Qin, Yan, Wei, and Han in the late Warring States period, and can be figuratively understood as the "Seven Heroes of the Warring States" re-established and co-emerged. Xiang Yu's self-proclaimed reign and the other eighteen princes were based on this geographical space.
After understanding this, let's look at how the so-called "Seven Heroes of the Warring States" evolved into the Eighteen Princes of Xiang Yu. To sum up, there are three forms. The first is to be thoroughly dismembered. "Qin", or "Guanzhong", is divided into four (divided into han, Yong, Sai, and Zhai kingdoms) in this form. The second is to divide the new princely states and change the name of the remaining original kingdoms. After the division of the "Zhao" from the Daiguo, the remaining homeland of the Zhao State was "renamed Changshan"; after the division of the "Qi" state of Jibei and Jiaodong, the remaining homeland of the State of Qi was "renamed Linjing"; after the division of "Wei" from the State of Yin, the remaining homeland of the State of Wei was "more Western Wei". The third is to divide the new princely states, and the remaining original kingdoms will remain unchanged from the old name. After the "Division of Yan" into Liaodong, the remaining homeland of Yan is still called Yanguo; after "Han" is "divided into Henan", the remaining Korean homeland is still called Korea.
So, what about the "Chu" related to the "Western Chu Overlord"? After the "Qin and Chu Moon Table" records that "Chu is divided into four kingdoms", what we see is "divided into Hengshan", "divided into Linjiang", and "divided into Jiujiang", that is, three new princely states are divided from the identity of the "Chu" state. So, what about the remaining piece of Chu homeland? Judging from the table we see now, this is really unclear. Following the first form, it can be understood that a vassal state named "Western Chu" was carved out; if the second form is followed, it can be understood that the remaining Chu homeland was renamed "Western Chu". However, neither understanding makes sense, that is, as mentioned earlier, its geographical orientation contradicts the concept of "Western Chu" of the people at that time, that is, according to the concept of geographical orientation at that time, it should be called "Eastern Chu" rather than "Western Chu".
Since these two methods are not consistent, then it can only be the third way left - that is, the last country in the "Division of Chu into Four Kingdoms", along with the old name of the Chu State, it has not changed, and it is called "Chu"! Many people may be surprised to hear this inference suddenly. Not only the "Chronology of The Time of Qin and Chu", the "Xiang Yu Benji" and the "Gao Zu Benji" of the "Records of History" do not mention this when they record Xiang Yu's division of the world. It's not surprising that people are surprised, and of course more people may never think about it like I did.
V. The Political Geography of the Four Chu Overlords and the Beginning of the Qin Dynasty
Everyone must not think that there have been more people reading the "Taishi Gongshu" for generations in the past and the present, and they should think that some people have already thought about it; if no one thinks, it seems that they should not think like me at all. The actual situation is that in the process of understanding ancient history, many people, many scholars, prefer to regard the common views of the world as accurate and unmistakable historical facts, and then arbitrarily ride out their own judgments beyond ordinary people.
In the study of ancient Chinese history, there are many such things as treating absurd understandings as real history and as real history. Like "First Emperor" was originally a title of the nature of a nickname, so it could only be used behind Zhao Zheng's beast, and that beast was still alive when the Yang World was harming the world, of course, he wouldn't call himself that, this matter was famous enough and important enough, right? However, China's university history textbooks and middle school history textbooks have been saying for many years that Zhao Zheng was "calling himself the First Emperor" (don't go into detail the humble article "Talking about the Nature of the Title of the "First Emperor", included in the humble book "ZhengShi and Novels"). There is also the Battle of Chenxia, which is like the decisive battle between Chu and Han, which has been mistakenly called the "Battle of Chenxia" for thousands of years, and now China's university history textbooks and middle school history textbooks are also talking in such a nonsense (don't go into detail the humble article "On the So-called "Battle of Chenxia" should be correctly called "The Battle of Chen Xia", included in the humble book "The History of Historical Space and Space"), and the world is also firmly convinced.
In fact, if you close your eyes and think about it carefully, you will find that the same is true of the world we are living in front of us. This is a flaw in human nature. Knowing this defect of human nature, we need not doubt any kind of thinking that conforms to normal logic, to ourselves, to others, to the world. To do historical research, just like Dr. Hu Shizhi said, read carefully, think piously, first boldly hypothesize, and then carefully seek verification.
In fact, regarding Xiang Yu's self-proclaimed country as "Chu", this is recorded in the "Records of History", which is a series of articles and dazzling. Since the princes and soldiers rebelled and each took up their own country, the "History" mentions the kingdom of Xiang Yu, which is called "Chu", the so-called Chu-Han rendezvous, the middle divides the world, "the one who cuts the gap to the west is Han, and the one who is east of the gap is Chu" ("History of Xiang Yu Benji"), which is its most representative expression. In addition, if you look at liu Bang's first edict issued after chen xia (that is, the so-called "Xiaxia") defeated Xiang Yu and ascended the throne as emperor, it was to grant Han Xin the title of "King of Chu", which is to say that "Han Xin, the King of Qi, learned the customs of Chu and migrated to the King of Chu" ("History of Gao Zu Benji"). Mr. Zhou Zhenhe restored the area covered by Han Xin, the "State of Chu", saying that "from the west to the east of Qin County, there are Chen County, Xue County, Surabaya, Donghai, Huiji and other counties" (Zhou Zhenhe's "Geography of the Political District of the Western Han Dynasty"), let's compare the "Schematic Map of Xiang Yu's "Western Chu State" that I showed earlier, is this not basically the scope of Xiang Yu's homeland? Please note that the name of this princely state is "Chu"! It is not directly inherited from Xiang Yu's old name, but where does it come from?
According to this understanding, on the "Table of Contents related to the Ancient Carved Old Edition (Records of the Moon of the Time of Qin and Chu") that I presented earlier, I made up "Chu" and "Wang Xiang's Origins" Therefore, Lu Gong" corresponds to the three words "Dujiangdu" at the end of this line. It is thought that this is according to the contents of the "Chronicle of the Moon of Qin and Chu", but it was only removed in the process of circulation in later generations (in addition, the "Korea" line in this table calls Han "the old Han General", and the word "will" should be "king"). The "History of Xiang Yu Benji" records that "King Chengyin of Han was the ancient capital of Duyang Zhai").
After realizing Xiang Yu's own Chu state, the truth of the so-called "Western Chu Overlord" was not difficult to uncover.
In addition to Xiang Yu's own Chu state, the other monarchs of the three kingdoms of Hengshan, Linjiang, and Jiujiang, namely Wu Rui, the king of Hengshan, Gong'ao, and Yingbu, the king of Jiujiang, were originally subordinates of the Chu state. As shown in the "Chronology of the Qin and Chu Dynasties", the king of Linjiang, Gong'ao, was the "former Chu Pillar State", the king of Jiujiang, Yingbu, was the "former Chu general", and wu Rui, the king of Hengshan, was also attached to Chu because he led Yingbu and the Yue people to rebel against Qin, and married his daughter to Yingbu, so he was also attached to Chu ("History of The Biography of Tuobu Lie" and "Hanshu Wu Rui Biography"). Therefore, to put it simply, these four places, the kingdom is the land of "Chu", the king is the "Chu" people, divided into four kingdoms, of course, can be called "four Chu", which is the same as the "Three Qins" and "Three Qi" mentioned earlier.
Since the "Four Chus" are a natural existence, then the so-called "Four Chu Overlords" will naturally appear. Before dividing the eighteen princes, Xiang Yu, who won the decisive battle with a giant deer, had become the de facto monarch of the Chu state, and when he divided the world, he cut out three areas from the homeland of the Chu state, demarcated the three princely states of Hengshan, Linjiang, and Jiujiang, and awarded them to the three old subordinates of Wu Rui, Gong Ao, and Yingbu respectively—it was precisely in order to continue to maintain effective control over these three lands and these three old subordinates that Xiang Yu created the special title of "Four Chu Overlords", that is, he, the King of Chu, still had the right to continue to control Hengshan under the name of "Four Chu Bawang" The three princely states in the old territory of the Chu state, Wu Rui, Gong Ao and Yingbu, used to be Chu Chen, and now they are still subordinates of his "Four Chu Overlords".
We see that at the beginning of the establishment of the various princes entrusted by Xiang Yu, Qi Xiangtian Rong rose up to seize power and established himself as the king of Qi, and Xiang Yu had to unite the army to recruit Qi, for this reason, "conscripting troops in Jiujiang, Jiujiang Wang Bu said that he was ill and sent thousands of people to go"; later, "the defeat of Han in Chu Pengcheng, Bu also known as bing bu Zuo Chu." King Xiang complained about the cloth, and several messengers asked the messenger to summon the cloth, and the cloth became more and more frightened, and did not dare to go. Xiang Wang Fang Bei Qi, Zhao, Western Han, and the King of Jiujiang, who was with whom he was alone, and had many cloth materials, wanted to use it himself, so that he did not strike" ("History of Tuobu Lie"). Xiang Yu, the king of Chu, was the king, and the king of Jiujiang in Tuobu was also an exactly the same king, so why did Xiang Yu "recruit troops in Jiujiang" in such a big way? Why did Tuobu have to "send thousands of people" even though he "said he was sick"? Later, after Liu Bangbing entered Pengcheng, Xiang Yu once again recruited troops in Jiujiang, and Tuobu caused Xiang Yu to resent because of "also known as Bing Bu Zuo Chu", but it was only because of the situation at that time that he could not bear to fight it, what was this for?
The reason is very simple, Xiang Yu, the "Overlord of the Four Chus", has absolute control over the land of the "Four Chus", and in addition to the Chu State that directly belongs to him, the three princely states of Hengshan, Linjiang, and Jiujiang must also obey his orders. The word "hegemon" of the "Four Chu Bawang" is first embodied in this regard. When Xiang Yu defeated Liu Bang at Pengcheng, in view of Yingbu's pivotal position in the Chu-Han rivalry, Liu Bang sent He to persuade Yingbu to persuade him to betray Chu and obey Han. When He He inquired about "the Thief King and Chu He Qinye", Yingbu replied: "The widow is in the north and the subject is a subject." ("History of Tuobu Lie") The phrase "Beixiang and Subject matter" clearly and unmistakably indicates the relationship between Xiang Yu, the "King of the Four Chus" and his king of Jiujiang.
The other two countries of the "Four Chus", namely the Hengshan Kingdom and the Linjiang Kingdom, were also subject to Xiang Yu, the "Four Chu Overlords", just like the Jiujiang Kingdom of Tuobu. In the course of the Chu-Han conflict, due to the relationship between strength and geographical location, Wu Rui, the king of Hengshan, did not specifically participate in it, and immediately after the decisive battle of Chen Xia (also known as the "Battle of Xiaxia"), it was immediately attached to Liu Bang; while the Linjiang side, although it did not participate in the war, it remained loyal to Xiang Yu, and after Xiang Yu was defeated by Chen Xia and eventually killed wujiang, it was destroyed by Liu Jia and Lu Xie, and even in this isolated and helpless situation, it still persisted for several months ("Records of History", "Gao Zu Benji", "Jingyan Shijia", "Jingyan Shijia", "Jingyan Shijia", " Biography of Han Xin Lu Qilie" and "Biography of Fu Jin Ku Chenglie").
In fact, as long as you honestly read the "History of History", naturally, you will inevitably come to such a conclusion. I have at hand a "Historical Atlas of China", which was compiled by Northeast Normal University in the 1950s for correspondence education in Chinese history. This atlas contains a "Map of the Chu-Han War", which marks the eighteen princely states that Xiang Yu had sealed and the "independent kingdom" he had left to him, and the kingdom of Xiang Yu marked here is a bare "Chu" character, rather than what "Western Chu" it is painted as it is like other similar maps in the period before and after (the attached case of this icon is slightly missing, that is, the kings of the princely states not indicated in the legend are represented by solid black dots). The original map does not use this symbol to note the kings of the three dynasties, The Ji, and the Kingdom of Yan and Liaodong, but is marked as a hollow circle indicating "general place names". In addition, the map uses "national capital" to mark "Xianyang", which is obviously very inappropriate)! Of course, if you don't think deeply, you won't understand the other historical connotations that are contained in them, and you won't realize that there are more famous people in them.
In 1955, the Correspondence Education Office of Northeast Normal University published the first fascicle of the Historical Atlas of China
In fact, a prominent example that can reflect the subordinateity of the three kingdoms of Hengshan, Linjiang, and Jiujiang to Xiang Yu, the "Four Chu Overlords", is that when Xiang Yu killed Emperor Yi, he simultaneously ordered the king of Jiujiang, Wu Rui, the king of Hengshan, and the king of Linjiang, Gong'ao, to kill him on the way south to Changsha Chenxian ("Xiang Yu Benji", "Gao Zu Benji", and "Di Bu Lie Biography" of the "Records of History"). Only to those who belong to one's own confidants can they have the power and possibility to issue such instructions. Don't say you don't know, it's very clear when you say it.
From this point of view, the so-called "Western Chu Bawang" in the current "History" should be a mistake of the "Four Chu Bawang", but the time of this textual error is quite early, because we see that the "Book of Han" written in the early Eastern Han Dynasty has also been mistaken for "Western Chu Bawang" ("Hanshu Gaodiji"). In a very similar situation, the character for "official" of the five district star officials in the "Book of History and Tianguan" has long been falsely used as "palace" because of the similarity of the glyphs, and the "Book of Han and Astronomical Chronicle" has copied such a text, and the point school version of the Zhonghua Bookstore is still the same. Fortunately, the book that Sima Zhen of the Tang Dynasty saw when he wrote the "History of Suoyin" still maintains the original appearance of the "History of History", so that we can point out this error (Qian Daxin's "Twenty-two Shi Kaoyi", volume III). Because of the succession of generations, Xi Fei is right, and on this basis, many specious mistakes have been derived. Now that I have revealed the falsehood of the "Overlord of Western Chu", there may be some people who feel very uncomfortable (because these people are very reluctant to believe that they have been doing research on "making mistakes on mistakes"), and of course they are even more reluctant to accept it, but the correct historical facts are in front of us, and using this historical fact to explain the relevant historical events can be said to be smooth and unhindered. It is not easy to believe it.
After restoring the true appearance of the so-called "Western Chu Overlord" and its historical connotations, we can better understand the political structure of China when Xiang Yu first became a prince, and we can better understand the political geography of that time.
Before Xiang Yu divided the eighteen princes, he first "honored the king as the Righteous Emperor" ("History of Xiang Yu Benji"). Originally, this "King Huai" was only the king of the anti-Qin State of Chu, although this Chu State was founded in The First Yi of Chen Shi, and was the strongest and most influential among all the anti-Qin forces, but the specific power was limited to Chu after all, and there was no vertical subordination relationship with other anti-Qin princely states. Now this righteous emperor who was "honored" by Xiang Yu was nominally the emperor who ruled the whole country.
However, giving this name does not mean that you will necessarily have the corresponding ability to exercise the power conferred by this name. In fact, at this time, Emperor Yi was already completely controlled by Xiang Yu and had no power, and history said that Xiang Yu "really did not need his life" ("History of Gao zu Benji"). Liu Bang invaded Guanzhong and took the first step to destroy Qin, which was originally due to the intention of King Huai of Chu. This is why at the same time that Xiang Yu was ordered to go north to save Zhao, King Huai deliberately selected Liu Bangxi to slightly Guanzhong, and solemnly agreed to "Wang Zhi, the one who entered Guanzhong first" ("History of Gaozu Benji"). Regarding the origin of this agreement and its historical and geographical significance, the humble article "On the Geographical Significance of Liu Bang's Entry and Exit from Hanzhong and His Marching Route" has a specific argument, and interested friends can refer to it for themselves, which is included in the humble book "The History of Historical Space and Space"). However, after Xiang Yu entered the pass, he did not want this treasure land in Guanzhong to fall into the hands of Liu Bang. When Xiang Yu asked King Huai for instructions on how to deal with it, King Huai insisted on the previous agreement and replied, "As promised." (History of Xiang Yu Benji).
It was under these circumstances that Xiang Yu had to come to the forefront and directly "establish the Eighteen Kings for the Lord of the World." On the surface, Emperor Yi seemed to have risen one level from the original "King of Chu" and had jurisdiction over the territory of the world, but Xiang Yu said that he did not have the merit of destroying Qin and fixing the world, "so he should divide the land and the king" ("History of Xiang Yu Benji"). Just gave a name, before letting go of the hand to cover it, they all let Xiang Yu divide it, and it was clean, and there was nothing left. What made this righteous emperor even more angry was that his original territory of Chu Guo was actually stripped away by Xiang Yu in his superficial name - Xiang Yu formally inherited the legal system of the Chu state in name, became the king of Chu, and on this basis, he became the "King of the Four Chus", and King Huai only ended up as an empty "righteous emperor".
However, even if it is an empty "righteous emperor", there must be an imperial capital. This place in Pengcheng was the capital city where King Huai of Chu moved from Xuyi when Xiang Liang's soldiers were defeated and killed in battle ("History of Xiang Yu Benji"),that is, from then on, the capital of the State of Chu was always located in Pengcheng, and King Huai of Chu also lived there, until Xiang Yu "honored" him as emperor of righteousness. After Liu Bang rebelled against Chu, in the fourth year of the Han Dynasty, he counted Xiang Yu's ten major crimes, the eighth of which was "Xiang Yu expelled the Yi Emperor Pengcheng, from the capital" ("History of Gao Zu Benji"), which shows that before Xiang Yu's "Self-Capital", Pengcheng was the capital of the Yi Emperor, that is, the capital of the whole country.
Xiang Yu expelled Emperor Yi from Pengcheng after Xiang Yu returned from Guanzhong in April of the Han Dynasty. History says, "In April of the first year of the Han Dynasty, the princes rebelled and each took up his place. King Xiang went out of the country and made people migrate to the Yidi Emperor. ...... He envoyed The Emissary Emperor Of Changsha Chenxian County" (Shi Ji Xiang Yu Benji). Thus, it can be seen that from this time on, Pengcheng became the capital of Xiang Yu, and before that it was the imperial capital of emperor Yi. In this way, in connection with the situation described earlier, we can understand that Xiang Yu himself proposed the capital city of Jiangdu for his Chu state, but in fact he did not stay, and Pengcheng in April of the Han Dynasty was the real capital of Xiang Yu Chu, of course, this is also the only capital of the Chu state. As for the so-called "Four Chu Overlords", since this overlord was Xiang Yu who had the status of this "overlord" as the king of the Chu State, there was naturally no need to set up another capital for him.
It should be noted that the contents of the two columns of February and March of the first year of the YiDi Emperor indicated in this "Table of Relevant Contents of the Ancient Carved Old Edition of the Monthly Table of the Time of Qin and Chu" have nothing to do with these two months. Most of these contents should have happened at the same time as the Xiang Yu kings in the first month of the first year of the Yi Emperor's reign, but they were divided into three columns and marked separately. Slightly special, only the second line of the table notes "Du Peng Cheng", refers to the capital of the Xiang Yu Chu State after April of the first year of Han Gaozu, from then on, it was also the capital of the "Four Chu Overlords".
Through this analysis, we can outline the basic shape of China's political structure when Xiang Yu first enfeoffed the princes as follows:
Schematic diagram of the political structure of the first year of the Yi Emperor
Through this diagram, we can see that the supreme ruler of the country at that time was nominally the Righteous Emperor. But the "emperor" of this righteous emperor is completely different from the "emperor" created by Qin Shi Huang. Even nominally, it was not a totalitarian ruler, just an emperor like the ancient Sage Ming monarchs Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun. At that time, the supreme authority who actually controlled the world was Xiang Yu, the king of the Four Chus, and nominally, his position was below that of the Yi Emperor. Xiang Yu, the king of the Four Chu Dynasties, directly ruled over the princely states of Chu, but at the same time had control over the three princely states of Hengshan, Linjiang, and Jiujiang, which were divided into Chu, but this control was significantly weaker than his right to rule the Chu state. For the remaining fifteen princely states, Xiang Yu, the overlord of the Four Chus, had only one kind of "hegemony", that is, to intimidate and intimidate the countries with the status of "hegemon" and make them submit to themselves, and the actual effectiveness of them could only depend on the specific conditions at that time.
If we translate the above understanding into the regional space, we can see the following situation:
Schematic diagram of the control area of the Four Chu Overlords
This picture is the same as the previous "Schematic Diagram of Xiang Yu's "Western Chu State"", which also uses the illustrations of Mr. Zhou Zhenhe's book "Geography of political districts in the Western Han Dynasty", but according to the views described above, some of the contents of the figure have been appropriately modified. Among them, the land of Korea is also enclosed within the scope of the "Four Chus" because "king Han cheng has no military merit, king Xiang does not make his country, and he goes to Pengcheng, abolishes it as Hou, and has killed it again" ("History of Xiang Yu Benji"). Thus, it can be seen that at the beginning of the division of the eighteen princes, the fiefdoms of Korea should actually be under the jurisdiction of the Chu state of Xiang Yu.
From this schematic diagram, everyone can see that as the "King of the Four Chus", the geographical range that Xiang Yu can control is quite broad, and compared to Liu Bang, the King of Han, Ben occupies a strong advantage. To a large extent, Xiang Yu's "domineering spirit" in the world should come from the advantage of this kind of regional control--it is neither the so-called "Western Chu", nor the "Eastern Chu", nor the "Southern Chu", but the "Four Chus" that include all the Chu lands and the Liang lands and the so-called Han lands.
This is the political geographical significance embodied in the title of "Four Chu Bawang", which is the basic form of the political geography pattern at that time. The Chu-Han struggle was carried out on this basis, and only by understanding this foundation can we clearly understand the whole picture of the Chu-Han controversy.
Diary of March 8, 2021
Amended on March 22, 2021
Editor-in-Charge: Zang Jixian
Proofreader: Yijia Xu