I present herewith a transcription and translation of the Shanghai Museum manuscript of the Zhou Yi, the text and a translation of the received text of the Changes, together with notes intended primarily to point out variations between the manuscript and the received text. I present the manuscript according to the sequence of bamboo strips given in the publication Shanghai Bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhu shu (san) 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書(三),1 which is the sequence of the received text. As does the manuscript, I treat the text of each hexagram as an independent unit. On facing pages, I present, on the left-hand page, the manuscript, and on the right-hand side, for comparative purposes only, the received text. At the top of the left-hand page, I provide, at the far left, the hexagram picture as it appears in the manuscript, followed by the name of the hexagram in pinyin, the Chinese character(s), and then its English translation. After this, in parentheses, I indicate the number of the strip(s) in the sequence of the Shanghai Museum publication. In cases where the hexagram picture is missing because of a missing or broken strip, I do not provide the hexagram picture. In cases where the hexagram name is missing for the same reason, but it is possible to infer the name from one or more line statements, I supply that name. In cases where a fragment of hexagram text is available but neither the hexagram name nor any indication of it has been preserved, I give the name as found in the received text, marked with an asterisk. At the top of the right-hand page, I provide the hexagram picture as found in the received text, then the name of the hexagram in the received text in pinyin, the Chinese character, and English translation. In parentheses, I indicate the number of the hexagram in the sequence of the received text.
Below the title line on the left-hand page follows the transcription of whatever portion of the hexagram text is available in the Shanghai Museum manuscript, divided by the individual strips on which it is written (numbered to the left of the transcription). When the entire text is present, it therefore begins with the hexagram picture, followed by the hexagram name, and then the red and/or black symbol unique to this manuscript, as described in the preceding chapter (I present these symbols with the stylized marks described in the preceding chapter). To the extent possible, the transcription presents component-by-component equivalents for the characters as seen on the bamboo strips. Thus, the word li, “benefit,” is written consistently throughout the manuscript as 
(i.e., with “grain” 禾 and 勿),2 as is common in paleographic materials, instead of 利 (i.e., “grain” 禾 and “knife” 刀), as is now conventional; I transcribe it as [], though I read the word unproblematically as li, “benefit.” On the other hand, I generally do not try to reproduce the calligraphic differences of the two or more different scribes responsible for copying the manuscript (for which, see p. 40), nor do I systematically differentiate the orientation of each and every component. For instance, in the case of the word ming, “to call out,” written on the twelfth strip of the manuscript with the tail of the “bird” (鳥) component facing to the right (i.e., 
) and on the fourteenth strip with the tail facing to the left (i.e., ), and in both cases with the “mouth” (口) component placed to the right of the bird, I transcribe the character as 鳴 (i.e., with the “mouth” component to the left and a left-facing “bird” component to the right), as the word is now conventionally written. With the exception of the mark “二” that occurs occasionally in the manuscript, sometimes to indicate that two characters have been written together (a so-called hewen hao 合文號) and sometimes to indicate that a single character (or portion of a character) is to be read twice (a so-called chongwen hao 重文號), the manuscript does not display any punctuation marks, and I do not introduce any. If there is a break in the strip but it can be rejoined without loss of any text, I indicate this with the symbol “/” at the point of the break; “…” indicates a broken strip that has resulted in the loss of some text.
On the right-hand page beneath the title line, I provide the complete text of the hexagram as found in the Shisan jing zhu shu 十三經注疏 edition (though without the added traditional Chinese punctuation mark “。” that comes at the end of phrases and sentences), separated into the constituent hexagram statement and line statements.3 This text is presented primarily for ease of comparison with the manuscript text; therefore, no text is provided for hexagram texts wholly missing from the manuscript.
On the left-hand page, below the transcription of the manuscript text, I present an English translation of the manuscript text, in this case divided according to hexagram and line statements. On the right-hand page, I provide a translation of the complete hexagram text as it appears in the received Changes. In the translation of the manuscript, I try to reflect what I think the scribe intended by the way in which he wrote individual graphs. Often, even where there appears to be graphic variation vis-à-vis the received text, this produces a translation more or less similar to what I provide for the received text. However, in cases where a literal reading of a variation present in the manuscript produces reasonable sense, I have tried to maintain this sense. I do not make any attempt to translate portions of the received hexagram text that are missing in the manuscript, though I do indicate with the symbol “…” that text is missing because of damage.
I should reiterate that the translation of the received text provided on the right-hand page is intended primarily as a convenient comparison with the manuscript text. I have rendered the text in as neutral and literal a fashion as possible and have not sought to reflect the interpretation of any particular commentary or time.
Below the translation of the manuscript text (and occasionally running onto the bottom of the facing page), I provide notes, keyed to corresponding words in the English translation. In these notes, I indicate where the text of the manuscript differs from that of the received text (abbreviated as R). When available, I also note variants in the Mawangdui 馬王堆 silk manuscript (M), buried in 168 B.C., and the Fuyang 阜陽 bamboo-strip manuscript (F), buried in 165 B.C. (I do not mention them when their text is not available because of damage to the manuscript). When relevant I also mention variants in the Xiping 熹平 Stone Classics text, engraved between A.D. 175 and 183, and sources quoted in the Jingdian shiwen 經典釋文 of Lu Deming 陸德明 (556–627), the Zhou Yi zheng yi 周易正義 of Kong Yingda 孔穎達 (574–648), or the Zhou Yi ji jie 周易集解 of Li Dingzuo 李鼎祚 (8th c.). However, my focus here is on the Shanghai Museum manuscript; this translation is not intended to present a critical edition of the Zhou Yi, and so when the manuscript agrees with the received text, I do not note each and every variant in these other sources.4 For those variants in this manuscript that I determine to be merely graphic in nature (i.e., another way of writing the same word as found in the received text), I do not attempt in all cases to reproduce the evidence demonstrating this equivalence, often simply referring to the detailed discussion given by Pu Maozuo 濮茅左 in Shanghai Bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu (san); since that discussion is presented in the same order as the text here, I cite it simply as “Pu Maozuo.” This is true also of citations of traditional editions of the Zhou Yi, which are all arranged in the same order. I cite other scholarship on the manuscript only where it provides a persuasive interpretation different from that of Pu Maozuo or provides particularly relevant new information. I make no attempt to cite all the studies that suggest different readings from those proposed here,5 nor do I attempt to give a full explanation for each and every reading adopted.6
____________