The Liu Clan's

chapter 9 The Liu Clan’s ‘Flesh and Bone’: The Foundation of Liu An’s Vision of Empire

Judson B. Murray

One pressing matter the authors of the Huainanzi 淮南子 address in composing this encyclopedic cosmological and political treatise concerns the proper and most effective sociopolitical configuration of the Han 漢 Empire. Debates on Qin 秦 dynasty (221–206 BCE) centralization, Western Zhou 西周 (1045– 771 BCE) enfeoffment, and an integrative model combining elements of both approaches arose in response to the historical events and circumstances of the late third and second centuries BCE. This study outlines the particular model of empire envisioned and proposed by King Liu An 劉安 (179?–122 BCE) of Huainan and his scholar-retainers in response to Western Han 西漢 dynasty (202 BCE–9 CE) imperial unification, and it analyzes one of the rhetorical strategies they use to promote their vision in several chapters of the work. Specifically, one compelling image they employ in attempting to sway the imperial throne to their view is ‘flesh and bone’ (gurou 骨肉, literally ‘bone and flesh’), signifying the ‘kinship’ or ‘blood ties’ between the Han emperors and their royal kinsmen enfeoffed in kingdoms throughout the empire. Thus, the Huainanzi fundamentally concerns a family and family relations. Because of the momentum of imperial measures seeking not only to diminish the territories of these fiefs but also to weaken the autonomy and authority of the royal relatives who administered them, Liu An viewed the empire both as a dysfunctional family and as a house divided in need of internal reconciliation. The ideological and political catalyst that he hoped would both unite it and remedy the estrangement caused by officials at the Han imperial court was the Huainanzi. As we shall see in the analysis to follow, Liu An offered it to his nephew, Emperor Wu of the Han 漢武帝 (r. 140–87 BCE), in 139 BCE as a family book—the “book of the Liu clan” (Liushi zhi shu 劉氏之書)—because the Liu clan’s ‘flesh and bone’ were, for him, the basis of a stable and well-ordered, peaceful and productive, and enduring and powerful empire. By employing this rhetoric of ‘flesh and bone’ in forming the work, at least one audience or constituency that Liu An targeted to ponder its model and message was decid- edly imperial and familial. Therefore, an important historical and rhetorical purpose of composing the Huainanzi and presenting it in this manner was

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004265325_�� 292 murray to convince the Han emperorship of the contribution that imperial relatives can and do make to the cause of empire. Its favorable reception in the intel- lectual and political environs of the first century of Han imperial rule would have aided Liu An in preserving the relative independence of his kingdom and his authority as its lord. Unfortunately for Liu An, who committed suicide in 122 BCE after he was indicted on charges of treason (ironically, by a council of his imperial kinsmen), arguably the most notable episode in its early reception history was that the text and its rhetoric failed to persuade the emperor of the importance of his relatives in governing the unified realm. Before examining how the authors of the Huainanzi conceived of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emperor and the imperial court and, on the other, the blood relatives enfeoffed in the regional kingdoms, it will be instructive to consider earlier and roughly contemporaneous accounts of both their relationship and the practice of enfeoffment in other noteworthy pre-Qin and Western Han dynasty writings. Representative works include the “Xiao kuang” 小匡 chapter of the Guanzi 管子,1 the “Heeding Positional Advantage” (“Shen shi” 慎勢) chapter of the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, and portions of Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (ca. 145–ca. 86 BCE) Shiji 史記, because each includes lengthy and sustained discussions of enfeoffment and the “Lords of the Land” (zhuhouwang 諸侯王).2 What each has to say on these related subjects reflects the different concerns, circumstances, and practices of the ages in which they were composed. By surveying their accounts of the relationship between rulers and their vassals and by examining how enfeoffment was linked to other influential institutions and concepts—namely, the office of the hegemon or Lord Protector (ba 霸), ‘positional advantage’ (shi 勢), and the Qin commandery system—we shall better acquaint ourselves with the early Chinese discourse on enfeoffment and the lords. We shall also thereby discern in sharper relief the viewpoint of the Huainanzi’s authors on these subjects and how it reflects the interests of a regional king and kingdom attempting to contribute constructively to Han imperial rule. Their work, too, both reflects and responded to the circumstances of its time. Although various institutions and practices of the Spring and Autumn 春秋 (770–481 BCE) and Warring

1 I follow W. Allyn Rickett in leaving the title “Xiao kuang” untranslated because its precise meaning is not clear. The same can also be said of the “Zhong kuang” 中匡 and “Da kuang” 大匡 chapters of the Guanzi. For a discussion of these titles, see Rickett’s study and complete translation of the Guanzi into English entitled Guanzi: Political, Economic, and Philosophical Essays from Early China, 2 vols. (Boston: Cheng and Tsui, 2001), 1:281–82. 2 Because the Guanzi and the Lüshi chunqiu were composed by many hands and encompass diverse perspectives, my remarks and conclusions pertain to these specific chapters alone. They are not to be taken as generalizations about the larger texts in which these chapters appear.