According to the archaeological bulletin of "Cao Cao Gaoling" in Anyang, Henan, the archaeological team has a total of 10 bases for judging this tomb to be Cao Cao's Gaoling, of which the ones that clearly point to Cao Cao himself are several Gui-shaped stone tablets engraved with the words "Gehu Euphorbia often used by King Wu of Wei". It can be said that without these stone tablets indicating "King Wu of Wei", even if there are more items unearthed in the tomb and more detailed documents, people cannot confirm that this tomb is Cao Cao's mausoleum.
It is precisely because the title of "King of Wei Wu" is so important that refuting these three words has become the main direction of attack of the doubters, and its views are divided into three factions, one is that these stone tablets are all forged by modern people and have nothing to do with Cao Cao; one thinks that Cao Cao cannot have the title of "King of Wei Wu"; and the other believes that "King Wu of Wei" is Cao Cao, but for various reasons, this title cannot be brought into the tomb, and the tomb owner has someone else.
The claim that these stone tablets were forged and buried by the archaeological team is beyond common sense and cannot be admissible until there is evidence. Under the premise that the stone tablets and inscriptions are true, according to archaeological methods, the probative power of excavated objects is higher than that of heirloom documents. Because the tomb is unearthed in kind, it is impossible for ancient documents to record everything in the world, and even if it is written down in a long-term circulation, it may be distorted. Therefore, the excavated cultural relics can make up for the lack of historical materials and increase people's understanding of the historical truth. As far as Cao Cao's title of "King wu of Wei" is concerned, this is also the case.
We can comb through the literature to see what knowledge it adds, whether the original historical material can echo the newly discovered historical material, and at the same time, we can also judge whether the questioning point is true.
The question of Cao Cao's posthumous title of "King Wu of Wei" can actually be analyzed in four levels.
<h2 toutiao-origin="h3" >, can Cao Cao be called "King Wu of Wei" in history</h2>?
As we all know, Cao Cao established himself as the Duke of Wei during the Han Dynasty, established the feudal state "Wei", and later ascended the throne as the King of Wei. At the time of his death, his title was "Wang" and his fiefdom was "Wei". Shortly after his death, the Han Dynasty gave him the nickname "King of Wu" and buried him. Chinese history books have always had the tradition of referring to previous emperors or princes of other countries in the way of "title + title + title", such as emperors such as Emperor Wu of Han and Emperor Sui, and princes such as King Jing of Zhongshan and King Si of Chen. In the ancient books not far from Wei, such as the Vinaya and The Five Elements of the Book of Jin, there are also examples of Cao Cao being called "King Wu of Wei". Therefore, from the perspective of the system and the literature, there is no problem in calling Cao Cao "King Wu of Wei" in history. However, there was a special situation, that is, 8 months after Cao Cao was buried, Cao Pi established the Wei Dynasty through Zen Rang, and immediately posthumously honored Cao Cao as "Emperor Taizu Wu", and Cao Cao was later referred to in the history books as "Emperor Wu of Wei" or "Wei Taizu". The title of "King of Wei Wu" only existed for 8 months, so there are few historical materials left.
<h2 toutiao-origin="h3" > second, whether the Wei people can call Cao Cao "King Wu of Wei"</h2>
Based on the results of searching the database of ancient documents, some people have raised a question: Why does "King Wu of Wei" always appear in books after the death of Wei, while the people of the State of Wei and the Wei Dynasty only call him "King Wu" and not "King Wu of Wei" when they mention him?
This involves a historical convention. In ancient times, when the subjects called the Son of Heaven and the princes of the country where they were located, they could not add the name of the dynasty or the name of the country before the title of emperor. "Spring and Autumn" is the history book of the State of Lu in the Zhou Dynasty, and also the originator of Chinese history books, "Spring and Autumn" calls the King of Zhou "Heavenly King", calls Lu Gong "Gong", and does not add the titles of "Zhou" and "Lu". When addressing the monarchs of other princely states, the name of the country is added. Liu Bang was revered as the "Emperor Taizu Gao" of the Han Dynasty, and later generations were commonly known as Han Gaozu, but Sima Qian,composed the "Records of History" and Ban Gu wrote the "Book of Han", and only called him "Gao Zu" or "Emperor Gao", never called him "Han GaoZu". Wei's history books are no exception. The reason for this may have been a linguistic phenomenon at first, but gradually evolved into a political taboo: the monarch is the only one in a dynasty or a country, without the name of the country, and people know who they are talking about. Monarchs who need to add the name of the country before the title are all monarchs of the previous dynasty or foreign countries. After this became the norm, it was disrespectful to say that the monarch of the dynasty could not add the name of the country, otherwise it would be disrespectful. In fact, this is still the case. Therefore, the State of Wei before the Han Dynasty and the Wei Dynasty after the Han Dynasty would not call Cao Cao "King wu of Wei" or "Emperor Wu of Wei". It is normal not to find the "King of Wei Wu" in the Wei literature, but there is a problem in finding it, and it is necessary to examine whether it has been chaotic by later generations.
<h2 toutiao-origin="h3" > third, can Cao Cao be called "King Wu of Wei" outside the State of Wei</h2>
In the 8 months from cao Cao receiving the title of "King of Wu" to being honored as "Emperor Wu", within the State of Wei, he was honored as "King of Wu", and outside of the State of Wei, how should people, including Han Tianzi and historians, call him? According to the tradition and actual social life of the Spring and Autumn Period, he should be called "King Wu of Wei", otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish him from other "Wu Kings", at least in theory. In his edict to Cao Pi, Emperor Han, after addressing Cao Pi as "King of Wei", referred to Cao Cao as "King of Wu", which cannot be regarded as the standard title of "King of Wei". In addition, there is no direct record, and circumstantial evidence needs to be sought.
In August of the second year of the Huang Dynasty (221), when Cao Pi pursued Cao Chong, he called him "Marquis of Deng", using the model of "national name + title + title". At this time, it was only more than a year to go to Cao Cao's burial, and the system should be continued.
At the end of the Wei Dynasty, when Sima Shi's father and son brothers imitated the story of the Han Wei Zen Dynasty and forced Emperor Wei to give way to the world, they also staged the political tricks that Cao Cao had played in that year, and the script was not changed word for word, and it was completely copied. After the death of Sima Yi, Sima Shi, and Sima Zhao, they were honored by Wei Tianzi as "King Jing of Jin", "King Wu of Jin", and "King Wen of Jin". The "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" also explicitly uses the "state name + title + title" model, which shows that people outside the princely states call the deceased princes of the country, and the use of the "feudal number + title + title" model was the common practice at that time.
At the time of Sima Zhao's death, he had acquired exactly the same political status, actual power, and tianzi as Cao Cao, and could be said to be Cao Cao's reappearance. Sima Zhao was called "King Wen of Jin", and Cao Cao could be called "King Wu of Wei". The excavation of the "King of Wei Wu" stone tablet adds an example rather than a counter-evidence.
<h2 toutiao-origin="h3" >4. Whether Cao Cao can be called "King Wu of Wei" in his tomb</h2>
Although Cao Cao's tomb was built on the land of the State of Wei, he went to another world, not the State of Wei, nor the Han Dynasty. As the late King of Wei of the Han Dynasty, assuming that Cao Cao had a spirit underground and met other emperors who had died, how should he introduce himself? In other words, if people want to leave a text in the tomb that indicates his identity, what should they write?
Sima Fu's discussion of how to write inscriptions in the funeral of Empress Wei Ming in volume 37 of the Book of Jin gives us an idea of the ceremonial system at that time. At that time, some people proposed to add "Wei" in front of the title, and Sima Fu thought that according to the provisions in the classics, "Wei" should not be written on the inscription, because "Wei" is "the number of the world". The titles of emperor and empress are the only honorable names in the world, and there is no need to "call the name of the country to express oneself". If Jing Ming writes "Wei", it is to equate "the honor of the emperor" with the king of the princes and nations, which not only deviates from the classic righteousness and the sage system, but also sets a bad precedent for future generations. His opinion was echoed by the upper and lower monarchs.
This happened after the Wei Dynasty and the Han Dynasty. Replacing "Wei" with "Han" applies to Cao Cao's funeral. From the etiquette system expounded by Sima Fu, it can be seen that after the death of the emperor, it is not necessary to write the "number of the world" to express his identity, while the kings of the princes and nations must "call the name of the country to express themselves" and write the "national name" of the country they have been enfeoffed, otherwise they will not be able to reflect their own identity and cannot distinguish themselves from the emperor. Although Cao Cao controlled the actual power of the Han Dynasty at that time, and was also allowed to use certain ceremonies and ceremonies dedicated to the emperor, and the funeral ceremony may also enjoy the funeral items and ceremonies given by the emperor, he was still a feudal monarch and did not obtain the status of a son of heaven, according to the above system, the name "Wei" cannot be omitted.
In addition, Sima Fu also said that "all emperors are different from previous generations because of their own name as the name of the world." At that time, Cao Pi was eagerly preparing to stand on behalf of the Han Dynasty, and "Wei" was about to become "the name of the country" to the "number of the world", which was the political basis for Cao's political power. Cao Cao, as the founding king of the State of Wei and the de facto founding emperor of the Wei Dynasty, how could he not use this state name? Therefore, it is reasonable to add the national name "Wei" before the honorific title "King of Wu" and call Cao Cao in the tomb "King of Wei Wu".
This article is authorized to be excerpted from Ai Junchuan's "Living and Reading", Guangxi Normal University Press.