《尚書•洛誥》、〈令方彝〉「明保」作何解，乃學界之公案。楊向奎先生提出周公旦字「明保」的說法，存在論證不足及未盡圓融之處，故流傳不廣，未受學者重視。其實，「明」是周公旦之「字」，乃貫穿《尚書》、金文之通例。《尚書》「明保」並非成語，〈令方彝〉「明保」亦屬子虛烏有，周公旦後嗣並不存在「明保」其人。〈洛誥〉應斷句為「王若曰：『公明！保予沖子』」，〈令方彝〉應斷句為「王令周公子明，保尹三事四方」，「公明」乃「周公子明」之省稱，二者毫無牴牾可以互證。

How to interpret “Ming Bao” in the “Luogao” chapter of the Book of Historical Documents and inscriptions on the “Ling Fangyi”? This is a controversial issue. Mr. Yang Xiangkui proposes that “Ming Bao” is an alias name of Duke Dan of the Zhou Dynasty. Since this idea lacks evidence and is imperfect, it is not widely spread. Scholars do not pay much attention to it either. As a matter of fact, “Ming” is an alias name of Duke Dan of the Zhou Dynasty, which is commonly seen in the Book of Historical Documents as well as bronze inscriptions. “Ming Bao” is not a fixed expression in the Book of Historical Documents, it is also a fictious concept in inscriptions on the “Ling Fangyi.” There is also no such person named “Ming Bao” among the offspring of Duke Dan. The relevant sentence in the “Luogao” should be punctuated as “The King apparently said: Gongming! protect my children,” and the corresponding statement in inscriptions on the “Ling Fangyi” should be read as “The King ordered Ming, Duke of Zhou, to protect and manage the three ministers and feudal lords from four directions.” In summary, “Gong Ming”(公明) is an abbreviation of “Zhou Gongzi Ming”(周公子明), these two designations do not contradict, on the contrary, they can support and validate each other.