The words for the moon phase in the inscriptions on bronze wares in the Zhou dynasty are open to different interpretations, and the calculation of the moon phase dates clarifies the ambiguities of the bronze moon phase words. Calculation of the time interval between the calendar solunar dates in two bronze ware inscriptions can be made, because the calendar solunar dates (gan-zhi 干支) were in a constant cycle of 60 days. Calculation of the date interval between the two moon phases on the same two bronze ware inscriptions also can be made , because the moon phase is also in cycles. The narrative tradition in the inscriptions of the Shang and Zhou dynasties includes a date series: the day in the solunar cycle, the month and the year of a king’s reign, and the day in the moon phase cycle. By comparing whether the two intervals meet or not, one can verify whether the bronze moon-phase idioms are meaningful, and it can also be confirmed whether the chronology of the kings of Zhou compiled by the previous scholars is resonable and create a new chronology through iterative calculation. The time intervals calculated in this paper chronicle every imperial event from the Zhou dynasty to the Shang dynasty, which rebuild a new chronology for the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. All modern attempts are hindered by a basic assumption, that the bone calendar of the Shang Dynasty is the same as the bronze calendar of the Zhou Dynasty, but it is completely different from the bronze calendar of Zhou, when reading the Bronze Annals (this paper) alongside the Bone Annals (last paper) and as seen in Table 24. In addition, although the inscriptions related to the lunar phases are extremely difficult to understand, through computation, the records of three lunar eclipses on bronze vessels in the Zhou and Shang dynasties are newly recognized, which helps to reconstruct a new chronological list of the kings of Zhou.

This paper probes the elements of theoretical necessity, starting with the word ruo (若) in Duan Yucai’s Shuo Wen Jie Zi Zhu (段玉裁《說文解字註》). From the prospective of theoretical methods of “Ruo (若) ,” the theoretical necessity of “Ruo (若) ,” the exegesis functions of “Ruo (若) ” and different intonations with different modal particles, the author conducted multi-level and multi-dimensional analysis on “Ruo (若) ” in Duan Yucai’s Shuo Wen Jie Zi Zhu (段玉裁《說文解 字註》) so as to explore the concepts of theoretical necessity from Duan Yucai.

本文旨在通过分析段玉裁对假借的观点，阐明段玉裁对本和非本的区分与其意义。段玉裁在≪说文解字注≫中提及了好几次的“假(叚)借”这个语言文字现象，而他的观点与一般的假借概念有所不同，如果用一般的假借概念去了解他说的假借，有的时候很难解释。语言学术语往往限定学习者的思维，因此有时候会引起误解。段玉裁注释里面应该有自己的脉络，如果了解他持有的基本观念，也可以解释出他自己的假借观。笔者认为为了了解段玉裁对假借的观点，需要了解他的“求本”观念。因为他作为对≪说文解字≫这本字书的注释家持有追究“本”的态度，还有区分“本”与“非本”的态度，结果两个字虽然在语义上是派生关系，但被段玉裁认为是假借关系。段玉裁所认为的“假借”就是包括某字不表示它本义的状况的。结果段玉裁说的假借跟一般的假借概念稍微不同，其包括的范围也更广。本文在资料梳理方面还缺少很多，这点有待补充。