FRIENDS OR FOES: CHANGING CONCEPTS OF RULER-MINISTER RELATIONS AND THE NOTION OF LOYALTY IN PRE-IMPERIAL CHINA Author(s): Yuri Pines Reviewed work(s): Source: Monumenta Serica, Vol. 50 (2002), pp. 35-74 Published by: Monumenta Serica Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40727495 . Accessed: 14/01/2012 00:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Monumenta Serica Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Monumenta Serica.
http://www.jstor.org MonumentaSerica % ifc 50(2002):35-74 4 4
FRIENDS OR FOES CHANGING CONCEPTS OF RULER-MINISTER RELATIONS AND THE NOTION OF LOYALTY IN PRE-IMPERIAL CHINA*
Yuri Pines
Nowthe reason why a rulerbuilds lofty inner walls and outer walls, looks carefullyto thebarring of doors and gates, is [toprepare against] the coming of invadersand bandits. But one whomurders the ruler and takes his state doesnot necessarily climb over difficult walls and batter in barred doors and gates.[He maybe oneof the ministers] who by limiting what the ruler sees andrestricting what the ruler hears, seizes his government and monopolizes hiscommands, possesses his people and takes his state. ShenBuhaiÍ^H1
Contents 1. "Whenyou dislike [the ruler], you may leave him": The Guodian credo 38 2. Ruler'sCompanions and Personal Servants of the Chunqiu Period 42 3. FollowingDao orBefriending the Ruler: Zhanguo Views of Loyalty 53 4. FromFriends to Foes - TheLate Zhanguo Reappraisal of Loyalty 62 Epilogue:From Friends to Wives: The Imperial Notion of Loyalty 71 ChineseAbstract 73
Loyalty(zhong Ä) is widelyrecognized as one of the pivotalethical norms in Chinese politicalculture. Ever since the Chunqiu #$C (722-453 B.C.E.) - ZhanguoBUS (453-221) periods,2political and philosophicaltexts argued that without"loyal ministers"(zhong chen ,*£[§) the statewould perish,and urged officialsand ministersto preservezhong even at the expenseof theirlives. The
Inpreparing this article I benefited greatly from on-line discussions by the members of the War- ringState Workshop (WSW) (see http://www. egroups.com/group/wsw/). I am also deeplyin- debtedto AndrewPlaks, Irene Eber, Lothar von Falkenhausen, Michal Biran, Sato Masayuki $lWt&3L,Naomi Standen, and Gideon Shelach for their insightful remarks on theearlier ver- sionsof this article. 1 ^AmmÀft&mtmmnKZïnM.»A*K«¿stó«4*moiRB#, ##**» (Modifiedtranslation ofHerrlee G. Creel,Shen Pu-hai: A ChinesePolitical Philosopher of the FourthCentury B.C. [Chicago- London1974], p. 344). 2 Hereafterall thedates are before Common Era, unless indicated otherwise. 36 Yuri Pines pseudo-Handynasty "Canon of Loyalty" (Zhongjing AM) states: "Among whateveris coveredby Heaven, supportedby Earthand followedby men,noth- ing is greaterthan loyalty."3 This maybe a rhetoricalexaggeration, but the sen- timentcertainly represents a widely shared convictionof traditionalChinese statesmenand thinkers. This exaltationof loyaltycannot obscure major problemsconcerning actual implementationof thisvirtue in politicallife. ThroughoutChinese history, think- ers and statesmendisagreed to whomloyalty is due: to an immediatemaster, a supremeruler, a rulingfamily, the people in general,or, perhaps,to Dao it, i.e., theprinciples of good rule?Especially in theages of turmoiland dynasticdecline, conflictingloyalties instigated immensely tense personal dramas. These dramas have not remainedunnoticed: several excellent studies discuss the complicated natureof loyaltyduring ages of rebellionand dynasticchange.4 These studies, however,usually concentrate on the last millenniumof imperialhistory. Much less attentionhas beendevoted to theorigins of theconcept of loyaltyand itsevo- lutionduring the pre-imperialperiod, the formativeage of Chinese political thought.Occidental Sinology has rarelyfocused on ethical aspects of ruler- ministerrelations in pre-imperialthought.5
3 XZffiW,t62Jrfc, AZffifä, ^±¥& (Zhongjing, repr. Congshu jicheng »JtífcjS [Beijing],vol. 893, p. 1). Althoughthe Zhong jing is traditionallyattributed to Ma Rong Ulfe (79-166 C.E.), it was compiledin all likelihoodin theSong dynasty. 4 See, forinstance, Wang Gung-wu, "Feng Tao: An Essay on ConfucianLoyalty," in: ArthurF. Wright- Denis Twitchett(eds.), ConfucianPersonalities (Standford, Calif. 1962), pp. 123-145; JamesT.C. Liu, "Yiieh Fei (1103-1141) and China's Heritageof Loyalty,"in: Journalof Asian Studies31 (1972) 2, pp. 291-297; Naomi Standen,"Frontier Crossing from North China to Liao, c. 900-1005" (Ph.D. diss., Universityof Durham, 1994), pp. 260-277; David A. Graff,"The MeritoriousCannibal: Chang Hsiin's Defenseof Sui-yangand the Exaltationof Loyaltyat theAge of Rebellion,"in: Asia Major (ThirdSeries) 8 (1995) 1, pp. 1-17; RichardL. Davis, WindAgainst the Mountain.The Crisis of Politicsand Culturein Thirteenth-Century China (Cambridge,Mass. 1996). For a somewhatdifferent perspective, see Laurence A. Schneider,A MadmanofCh'u. The ChineseMyth of Loyalty and Dissent(Berkeley 1980). 5 The issue of ruler-ministerrelations and thenotion of loyaltyin pre-imperialChina have been extensivelydiscussed by Chineseand Japanesescholars. See, forinstance, a seriesof studiesby SuzukiYoshikazu i^lf- , "Shunjüjidai no kunshinronri" ##cH#ft<9f!"Eifí«ra, in: Nihon - Chügokugakkaihõ EHÍ tlH^'É'lg 34 (1982), pp. 1-16; "Sengokujidai no kunshinronri juka o shu toshite"Kg|B#>ft *> SEfÄrä- fliSC* ± ¿ ^ t: , in: NihonChügoku gakkaihõ 35 (1983), pp. 84-98; "Sengokujidai no kunshinkankei - höka,yükyo, jüöka no baai" ttll|B#ft ofïElîSfé-ÎÎSL á»í*> «Ê«^o»â, in: TõhõgakuJR^¥ 68 (1984), pp. 1-15; see also NingKe í nj - JiangFuya HIS55, "Zhongguolishi shangde huangquan he zhongjunguan- nian" + SE£±WÄ«*n&SE&, in: Lishiyanjiu M.Í$'% 2 (1994), pp. 79-95; Liu Bao- cai giJW^, "Chunqiushidai lunli sixiangjianlun" #&B$ftffcSSÍiffif¿, in: Xibei daxue xuebao H:lk;MMÊIR 1 (1988), pp. 9-15; Liu Zehua Sdii*, Zhongguochuantong zhengzhi siwei + ia#MKfèS&t (Changchun1991), pp. 252-283; Ge Quan «£, Zhengde zhi igt«,* (Shanghai1998), pp. 193-221; Wang Zijin ï? 4% Zhongguannian yanjiu «,■£»WL1&M% (Jilin1999). AmongWestern scholars the mostimportant discussion is thatby Mark Edward Lewis in Writingand Authorityin Early China(Albany 1999), pp. 63-73. AlthoughLewis does Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 37
Fortunately,recent archeological discoveries may spur renewedinterest in earlyChinese political ethics. In 1993, Chinesearcheologists excavated a tombat the site of GuodianUS UÈ, in Hubei province.The tomb,identified as thatof a mid-Zhanguohigh-ranking official from the stateof Chu J|, yieldeda cache of textswritten on 730 bambooslips. Most of thesephilosophical, ethical, and po- liticaltexts were previously unknown; others, like threeportions of theLaozi ^ -p, differsignificantly from the received version. This epochaldiscovery has led to heatedacademic discussions, which will surelycontinue for years to come. Understandably,most discussants concentrated on thosetexts which seem to be of pivotalimportance in pre-imperialdiscourse, such as theLaozi and several"Con- fucian"manuscripts. Less attentionwas givento thosebundles of bamboo slips thatcontain miscellaneous statements and sayings,the so-called Collected Sayings {Yu cong IpÄ).d Some of thesesayings, however, are highlyinteresting. Particu- larly,the radical pro-ministerial assessments of ruler-ministerrelations expressed in the Yu cong are unparalleledin receivedpre-Qin texts. They are not onlyin- dicativeof the Weltanschauungof thetomb's occupant, but may also help us to betterunderstand the intellectualatmosphere among members of theshi dr stra- tumin thelast centuries prior to imperialunification.
notdeal directlywith the questionof ministerialloyalty, his discussioncontains plenty on in- sightfulremarks on Zhanguoscholars' attitudes to the stateand to politicalauthority. Another relevantdiscussion is by CharlesWing-Hoi Chan, "Confuciusand PoliticalLoyalism: The Di- lemma,"Monumenta Serica 44 (1996), pp. 25-99. It worthreminding that in contrastto West- ernscholars, Chinese intellectuals' preoccupation with the issue of loyaltyderives not only from pureacademic interest, but is of highcontemporary relevance (see, forinstance, Liu Binyan'sA HigherKind ofLoyalty. A Memoirby China's ForemostJournalist, trans, by Zhu Hong [New York 1990]). 6 It is virtuallyimpossible to surveyhere all the studies,which deal withthe Guodianmanu- scripts.Many importantarticles were collected in the20th and the21st issues of theZhongguo zhexue +B §¥ under the respectivetitles Guodian Chujian yanjiu $ ß/S JÉfij íff % and Guodianjian yu ruxueyanjiu ÍEiSffiKÍI^W^L (Shenyang1999 and 2000); otherconvenient collectionsare The GuodianLaozi. Proceedingsof the InternationalConference, Dartmouth CollegeMay 1998, editedby Sarah Allan and CrispinWilliams (Berkeley, Calif. 2000), Kaku- tenSokan shisö shitekikenkyü lBJ£fëfBBffi£ÉKjfiff?ï (Tõkyõ 1999-2000,vols. 1-3) and Wu- han daxue Zhongguowenhua yanjiuyuan Í&MX^^WiJCÍkffifL&í, Guodian Chujianguoji xueshuyantaohui lunwenji ÍPJE¿ffiül^*Wj?fflí#5^ÍA (Wuhan 2000, hereafterGuoji hui). The ideologicalimportance of the Yu cong slips was noticedby Pang Pu Mith in his "Chu du GuodianChujian" ftUlîP/SïÊffi,in: Lishi yanjiu W^ffîfL 4 (1998), pp. 7-8, and Ding Sixin THff, Guodian Chumuzhujian sixiang yanjiu fBJ£fëï1tf6SSHff9ï (Beijing2000; hereafterGuodian sixiang), pp. 214-241; it was also mentionedin passimby RobinYates (The GuodianLaozi, p. 179). Most discussionsof the Yu cong, exceptthat by Ding Sixin, concen- tratedon the Yu cong4 slips,which significantly differ in theircontent and naturefrom the rest of theYu cong "chapters"(see articlesin Guoji hui,pp. 389-405). 38 Yuri Pines
The Yu cong statementsand otherrelevant passages fromthe Guodiantexts servein thispaper as startingpoint for discussing the pre-imperialevolution of the notionof loyalty.I shall tryto analyze conflictingviews of loyaltyin the broadcontext of changesin ruler-ministerrelations throughout the five centuries priorto imperialunification of 221. My assumptionis thatthe different ways in whichloyalty was conceptualizedby successivegenerations of thinkersreflect a changingstanding of ministersversus the rulers.Chunqiu ministers and their Zhanguosuccessors pursued contradictory goals of bothmaintaining their emi- nentstatus and preservingthe paramount position of a ruleras the singlesource of politicalauthority. This conflictbetween private and publicgoals of members of theministerial stratum imbued the pre-imperial discourse of loyalty,of ruler- ministerrelations, and of theministers' obligation toward the ruler with immense tension.The dramaof loyaltyand itsconflicts has been re-enactedthroughout the imperialperiod, continuing well intomodern times. Its roots,I suggest,should be soughtin thecomplex legacy of thepre-imperial period.
1. "When you dislike[the ruler], you may leave him": The Guodian credo Fromthe first publication of theGuodian slips manyscholars have discussedthe datingof thetomb and thepossible identity of its occupant.While no consensus was reached,the mainstream view identifiesthe occupant as a high-rankingshi or a low-rankingnoble (dafu ~X3i) fromthe late fourthcentury B.C.E.7 The un- precedentedamount of philosophicaland politicalwritings buried in the tomb leads one to assumethe occupant's deep involvementin theintellectual controver- sies of his time.How thendid thisChu intellectualview ruler-ministerrelations? Even a briefglimpse at theGuodian slips suggeststhat the tomb occupant was preoccupiedwith the issue of loyaltyand propernorms of ruler-ministerinter- course. The termzhong is mentionedin nearlyall of the Guodiantexts,8 while
7 For thediscussions about the identityof thetomb occupant, see Hubeisheng Jingmenshi bowuguaniSSJb^MHTpttl^leS, "Jingmen Guodian yi hao Chumu" MFIIBJE-^SS, in: WenwuXty] 1 (1997),pp. 35-48;Cui RenyiStft, ChujianLaozi yanjiu Îlffi^iiff5ï (Bei- jing 1998),pp. 12-16.Li Xueqin$^ÏÎJ was apparentlythe first to assertthat the tomb occu- pantmight have been a tutorof theheir-apparent of the state of Chu(see his "XianQin rujia zhuzuode zhongdafaxian" ^t^fft^ï^WM^fSiS [repr.Guodian Chujian, pp. 13-17]); thisview was initially adopted by many other scholars (see, for instance, Luo YunhuanWMM, "LunGuodian yi hao Chumu suo chu qi erbeiwen ji muzhuhe zhujiande mandai"ifoMíS^ !ÄiiÄ^f*^5#ÄÄıfPtiffiW¥^, in: Kaogu#* 1 [2000],pp. 68-71).More at- tenuatedstudies, however, called this assumption into question, pointing at severalinaccuracies inLi Xueqin'sinterpretations (see, for instance, Zhou Jianzhong MIIÈA, "JingmenGuodian yi hao Chumu muzhu kaolun - jian lunQu Yuanshengping yanjiu" ^HH$J£- SSÎËÎIÎiÎ^ Sft-Jfclírffllg^ffift,in:Lishi yanjiu JEiíffft 5 [2000],pp. 12-23). 8 HereafterI discuss only the so-called "Confucian" Guodian texts, i.e., all thetexts except the Laoziand the adjacent text "Tai yi shengshui" ;fc- ~47K. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 39 two of them,named by the editorialteam Lu Mugongwen Zisi H-iS^fnîTS and Zhongxinzhi Dao AfiTèiË, are dedicatedexclusively to ministerialvirtues. The lattertext's statement that "loyalty is theessence of benevolence,"is indica- tiveof thepivotal position of zhongin Guodianmaterials.9 We mayassume, therefore, that the issue of ministerialloyalty was highlyim- portantto theoccupant of theGuodian tomb. But how did he view thisvirtue? A possibleanswer to thisquestion may be foundin thescattered sayings, named by theeditorial team Yu cong. These sayingsdo not seem to be extractsfrom a lost text;rather they resemble personal notes jotted down while reading other texts, or 10 perhapsthey are raw materialfor a futurecompilation. The succinctaphorisms of the Yu cong lack thephilosophical depth of othertexts, but in certaincases re- veal withunusual frankness what may be consideredas thetomb occupant's Welt- anschauung.The Yu congcontain several surprising remarks on ruler-ministerre- lations.First, they unequivocally state that ruler-minister relations are secondary to familyties: Fatheris botha relativeand is revered.Elder and younger brother are [connected] by theway of relatives.Friends (you), and ruler and ministers are notrelatives. Althoughrevered they are not relatives.11 The statementfavoring familial ties over politicalobligations is notnovel in pre- imperialConfucian thought; it was impliedalready by Confucius?Li (551-479), 12 and echoed by Menciusãí-p (ca. 379-304). These thinkers,however, usually preferredto emphasizethe similarity rather than distinction between familial and
9 J&, t¿
politicalhierarchies, while the Guodian manuscripts do nottry to concealthe ba- sic differencesbetween the son's and theminister's obligations. On thecontrary, theyclearly indicate that a rulercannot rely on a minister'sloyalty to the same extentthat a fathercan trusthis son. A textnamed Liu de /''iM (Six virtues)or Tian chang^% (Heaven's constants)further clarifies: Benevolenceis internal;propriety /righteousness is external;ritual and music are common.Internal positions are father,son, and husband;external positions are ruler,minister, and thewife. To wear three-yearmourning clothes and sack-cloth head band,to use walkingstick [at theobsequies] - thisis done forthe father, and also forthe ruler. To wearflax mourning clothes and hempenheadband is done for brothers,and also fora wife. To bare one's armand to loosen one's hair is done forkin, and also forfriends. Sever [mourningfor] the ruler for the sake of thefa- ther;never sever father's [mourning] for the ruler's sake. Sever [mourningfor] a wifefor the sake of brothers;never sever brothers' [mourning] for a wife's sake. Stop [mourning]friends for the sake of kin; neverstop [mourning] kin for friends' sake. Peoplehave six virtues,but three family [ties] should never be cut.13 Authorsof theLiu de evidentlyconsidered blood ties superiorto any otherkind of humanrelations: ruler, wife, and friendwere external and henceinferior to fa- ther,brother, or consanguineouskin. In thiscontext, the mentionof mourning riteswas aimedto reinforcehierarchy of obligationselsewhere. The phraseweifu jue jun MltMWi ("sever [mourningfor] the rulerfor the sake of the father") mightnot onlyhave impliedthe priority of mourningobligations toward the fa- therover thatowed to the ruler,but also legitimizedsevering relations with the sovereignfor the father's sake.14 This passage seemsto reinforceHan Feizi's H #-? (d. 233) accusationthat Confucius' encouragement of filialityproduced "treacheroussubjects."15 Significantly, both the Liu de and Yu cong place ruler-
13 t, rttì; », *htó; mm, Ätfe. ftfëX, T. *tì; *hfö&, E*»tì. Äff** [=m> 3t[=tt], ÄXtii, w^o ats»j[Ä[=tt]«*[=iS], &[&? us, %mfr
ÍB[g? ]%¡ &%m [S?]flBÄ. ^Äfl!Ä[S?] ^°AfA«, HÜ^BJr (Guodian,"Liu de" /nÍa, p. 188,following the editors' glosses). For a betterrearrangement of the relevant slipsinto a textnamed Tian chang ;^it, see ChenWei ßt{$, "GuanyuGuodian Chujian Liu de zhupianbianlian de tiaozheng"BSfôlíiSSffi «/nÍÉ» ãt^^ilWHS, in: Guojihui, pp. 67- 68. 14 Fora narrowritual interpretation ofthis passage, see PengLin s2#, "Zai lunGuodian jian Liu de 'wei fujue jun' ji xiangguanwenti" SãÔÍB/Êffi «TnÍÍ» 4AXÍgS'ÃffiUS^S (http://www.bamboosilk.org/Wssf/Penglin4-01.htm).This interpretation insufficiently addres- ses thetext's complexity, since Tian chang (Liu de) in generaldeals with proper modes of po- liticaland family relations and not with mourning rituals, and its explicit preference ofthe pa- rentalauthority over that of the ruler is highlysignificant beyond the immediate ritual context. See alsoDing Sixin, Guodian sixiang, pp. 347ff. 15 "Judgingfrom this [Confucius' statements], a father's filial son is a ruler'streacherous subject" (tU*«;t, *5¿:t#T, fôfËÈ. WangXianshen Ï5fe«, Han Feizijijie mmTMM [Beijing1998], "Wu du" i£* 49:449). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 41 ministerrelations in the same categoryas thatof friends.The friends'simile is notincidental: the Guodian authors evidently preferred to emphasizethe recipro- cal ratherthan the hierarchic nature of ruler-ministerties. Elsewhere,the Yu cong states:"Ruler and ministerare [like]friends; [they] select [each other]".16 This sayingadds anotherdimension to thetrend outlined above of minimizing differencesbetween minister and ruler.What is novelhere is notmerely the defi- nitionof ruler-ministerrelations as thatof friends( you ;£). This termwas ap- plied to ruler-ministerrelations already in WesternZhou (1046-771) texts,17and in the Zhanguoperiod it was mentionedamong others in such an authoritative sourceas theMencius. Yet, in theMencius and otherZhanguo sources, surveyed below,ruler-minister friendship was usuallyinterpreted as a manifestationof "re- spectingthe worthy" (zun xian IÍH).18 The Yu cong uses thisconcept for a dif- ferentpurpose: it emphasizesthe reciprocal nature of ruler-ministerties. Indeed, if rulerand ministerchoose one another,then their ties may be severedwith fas- cinatingease. This is, indeed,the recommendation of anotherYu cong statement, whichsummarizes the points raised above: A fatheris nothated. The ruleris likea father:he is nothated. He is likea flag forthe three armies - he [represents]correctness. Yet, he differsfrom the father: whenruler and minister are unable to staytogether, you can sever [these relations]; whenyou dislike [the ruler], you mayleave him; when he actsimproperly /un- righteouslytowards you, you should not accept it.19 This sayingsynthesizes two major ideas expressedin theearlier passages, namely thatthe minister's obligations to a rulerare inferiorto kinshipduties, and, second, thatthe ruler-ministerrelations resemble those of friends.A ministershould be freein his choice whetherto servethe ruleror to leave him: wheneverhe feels thatthe ruler mistreats him, whenever the ruler'sattitude violates the minister's
16 SE, ffltii ÄJi#ife ("Yu cong 1," slip 87, p. 197). See also "Yu cong 3": "Friendshipis theway of rulerand minister"(£ , M Eálilife o Slip 6, p. 209). 17 See, forinstance, Zheng Xuan's %~£ glosseson the "Jiale" fx^k and "Yi" #flodes (Mao 249 and 256, Shisanjingzhushu +HM£E¿& [Beijing 1991], 17.3:541; 18.1:555). In the Western Zhou discoursethe termyou referredprimarily if not exclusivelyto relatives,particularly brothers,and notfriends; hence, it impliedhierarchy rather than equality (see Zhu Fenghan?fc AUtt,Shang Zhoujiazu xingtaiyanjiu MW'Ut^MWM% [Tianjin 1990], pp. 306-311; Zha ChangguoSUS, "You yu liangZhou junchenguanxi de yanbian"Ä^Si^SEBS^ÖtJiS^, in: Lishiyanjiu 5 [1998], pp. 94-99; Maria Khayutina"Friendship in EarlyChina," paperpre- sentedat the 13thWSW conference[1999]). In theZhanguo period, however, you M acquired its currentmeaning as "friends,"persons who sharecommon desires, that is equals (see Zha, "You yu liangZhou," pp. 99-102). The above citationfrom the "Liu de" textsuggests that by themid-Zhanguo period friends and relativeswere clearly distinguished. 18 See Mengzi,"Wan Zhangxia" S*T, 10.3:237.
PIE; ^1ft, nJite; ^aMÌPl£B, ^Stó (Guodian, "Yu cong 3," slips 1-5, p. 209). See also a briefdiscussion of thispassage in Ding Sixin,Guodian sixiang, p. 233. 42 Yuri Pines
notionof propriety(yi H), whenevera ministeris notsatisfied with his position and "cannotstay together" with the ruler, he mayabandon the sovereign. All this amountsto a notionof nearequality, or at leasta veryradically conceived recip- rocityin ruler-ministerrelations. These viewsare notentirely unprecedented in pre-imperialdiscourse, but their bluntnessis revealing.Indeed, most of theknown Zhanguo thinkers served more thanone ruler,and thiswas notconsidered illegitimate. In thefollowing discus- sion we shall see that Confuciusand Mencius, among others,justified such changesof ministerialallegiance. Both thinkers, however, placed ethico-political calculations,namely, the ruler's adherenceto Dao, as the primaryreason for theirchanging loyalty. The Guodiantext is different.With unprecedented candor it places personalrelations with a ruleras theprimary determinant of a minister's decisions.If thistext reflects the political atmosphere of themid- to late Zhanguo courts,we maypity the position of contemporaryrulers who could not takethe allegianceof theiraides forgranted unless the latter were attached to theruler by somekind of personalbonds. Is thisministerial freedom of choicecommensurate withZhanguo patterns of loyalty?Should the Guodian texts be consideredas ex- treme,perhaps even marginalmanifestation of ministerialself-confidence, or do theyrepresent widely shared views of late Zhanguostatesmen and thinkers?To answerthese questions we mustfirst survey the changing views of loyaltyand of ruler-ministerrelations generally throughout the Chunqiu-Zhanguo periods.
2. Ruler's Companionsand Personal Servantsof the Chunqiu Period The issuesof ruler-ministerrelations in generaland of loyaltyin particulardo not figureprominently in pre-Chunqiudiscourse. Although Edward L. Shaughnessy suggestedthat already some of theearliest chapters of theShujing UM, namely, the "JunShi" MM and "Shao gao" Sfa, deal withthe ruler-ministercontro- versy,this topic does notseem to preoccupyauthors of mostother Western Zhou texts.20None of thesetexts ever mention,for instance, the term zhong; the term is absentalso fromWestern Zhou bronzeinscriptions. What are the reasonsfor thissilence? Several Chinesescholars suggested that since in the WesternZhou statesmost ministers were the ruler'sagnates, their obligations to the sovereign were regulatedby normsof familyethics, such as xiao # (filiality)and you 1x (fraternalrelations); hence, there was no need fora separatediscussion of minis- terialloyalty.21 While it is difficultto eitherprove or refutea hypothesisbased on
20 For Shaughnessy'sdiscussion of thesetwo chapters, see his "The Duke of Zhou's Retirementin the East and the Beginningsof the Ministerial-MonarchDebate in Chinese PoliticalPhiloso- phy,"in: Early China 18 (1993), pp. 41-72. David S. Nivisondoubted Shaughnessy's interpre- tation(see "An Interpretationof the 'Shao gao'," in: Early China20 [1995], pp. 177-193);per- sonally,I findShaughnessy's analysis more convincing. 21 See, forinstance, Ning and Jiang,"Huang quan he zhongjunguannian," p. 79. For theearly meaningof you, see note17 above. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 43 argumentumex silentio,the suggestion that political virtues in theWestern Zhou period were embeddedin familyethics seems convincing.Indeed, in the age whenmost states were akin to a high-orderedlineage, familial harmony may very well have sufficedto ensuresmooth relations between a rulerand his ministers.22 This situationchanged radically in theChunqiu period, as thepolitical and to lesser extentthe ritualcenter of gravityshifted from the high-ordered"trunk" lineage(zong ^), characteristicof theWestern Zhou age, to rival "branch"lin- eages (shi ft). Rules of intra-lineagehierarchy could no longerensure a ruler's superiority,as independentministerial lineages began contestingthe overlords' {zhuhouÜHii:) power. By thelate seventhcentury these lineages had consolidated theirposition in most Chunqiustates; their heads succeededeach otherin the highestpositions at courts,while ever-growing hereditary allotments ensured the lineage'swell being.Relying on theirindependent power base, arrogantministers openlydefied the ruler's orders; by thelate Chunqiuperiod most overlords of the CentralPlain statesretained only ritualsupremacy, while political,economical, and militarypower lay withtheir courtiers. The rulerswho triedto regaintheir positionwere often expelled or assassinatedby theirnominal aides.23 These new conditionsrequired a reconceptualizationof ruler-ministerrelations. Old familialvalues were of littlerelevance in the world fragmentedinto rival branchlineages; new ruleshad to defineministerial obligations towards the ruler. Yet, Chunqiustatesmen, to whomit fellto formulatethese new rules,were in a delicateposition. On the one hand,the thinkerswhose voices we hear fromthe Zuo zhuan¿Eflï, our majorrepository of Chunqiuhistory and thought,24belonged
22 See a detaileddiscussion about the early Zhou statein Tian Changwuffl H £ and Zang Zhifei Ä£P#, Zhou Qin shehuijiegou yanjiuJn]^tt1l'fê}tiff5ï (Xi'an 1998), pp. 1-38. 23 Chunqiusocial conditionsare discussedin Zhu Fenghan,Shang Zhou, pp. 450-594; Yuri Pines, Foundationsof ConfucianThought. Intellectual Life in the ChunqiuPeriod, 722-453 B.C. E (Honolulu2002), pp. 136-137; 191-192; see also He Huaihongfrff^, Shixishehui j i qi jieti tttÄitU'&ÄÜSfö (Beijing 1996). The rulinghouses became puppetsof the powerfularisto- craticlineages in the CentralPlain statesof Lu H (since 601), JinS (since 573), Zheng % (since569), Wei fër(since 559), and Qi if (since 546). Powerfulministers assassinated the lord of Jinin 607, and anotherone in 573; of Zheng,in 566; of Qi, in 548; and expelledthe lords of Wei, Yan M, and Lu in 559, 539, and 517 respectively,to mentiononly a fewcases. The situa- tionwas somewhatdifferent in the statesof Qin and Chu, forwhich see Melvin P. Thatcher, "CentralGovernment of the Stateof Ch'in in the Springand AutumnPeriod," in: Journalof OrientalStudies 23 (1985) 1, pp. 29-53; Abe MichikoSfêilí , "GuanyuChunqiu shidai de Chu wangquan"ifôffftWftWÎlïff, in: Hubei shengChushi yanjiuhui ÎSJtiïÎËÎfiJfA #, Chushiyanjiu zhuanji gAíff^#íl (Wuhan 1983), pp. 244-263; BarryB. Blakeley, "King,Clan, and Courtierin AncientCh'u," in: Asia Major (ThirdSeries) 5 (1992) 2, pp. 1-39. 24 For thereliability of thespeeches in theZuo zhuanas sourcesfor Chunqiu intellectual history, see Pines, "IntellectualChange in the ChunqiuPeriod: The Reliabilityof the Speeches in the Zuo zhuanas Sourcesof ChunqiuIntellectual History," in: Early China22 (1997), pp. 77-132, and themodified discussion in id., Foundations,pp. 14-39.To recapitulate,I argue that most of thespeeches were incorporated into the Zuo zhuanfrom its primary sources - narrativehistories producedby theChunqiu scribes. Although some of the speecheswere heavilyedited or even 44 Yuri Pines
withfew exceptions to thehighest ministerial stratum. Their explicit goal was to restorepolitical stability, which required strengthening the ruler'sposition. On theother hand, the ministers headed precisely those lineages which contested the ruler'spower, and werenot interested in ethicalor institutionalarrangements that would significantlycurb theirinfluence. These conflictingaims, publicand pri- vate,added immense tension to Chunqiudiscussions of ministerialobligations. This tensionresulted in a complicatednotion of ministerialduties, which com- binedinsistence on obedienceand fidelityto theruler with an understandingthat theminister's highest goal was to servethe "altarsof soil and grain"(sheji ítü), thatis the stateor thepopulace in general.25Thus, whena ministercould claim thathis actionswere in accordwith what he believedto be thestate's interests, he had theright to defythe ruler's orders, and even to act againsta ruler.This no- tionof loyaltyto thealtars allowed, as we shall see, considerablefreedom of ac- tionto theministers - largelyat theexpense of therulers. We shouldnot assume, of course,that Chunqiu statesmen-thinkers openly ad- vocateddefiance of the ruler'sorders. To the contrary,they often proclaimed theiradherence to the principleof trustworthiness/faithfulness(xin {tí), which meantin thecontext of ruler-ministerrelations truthfully and unequivocallyobey- ingthe ruler's commands, and "holdingno duplicity"(bu er ^Flt), thatis being 26 faithfulto the ruler and not connivingwith his enemies. The concept of unconditionalobedience existed in theChunqiu period, but it was notthe highest priorityof self-confidentChunqiu ministers. To retaintheir freedom of action, theministers preferred adherence to a moreflexible virtue (zhong &). Although,as mentionedabove, zhongwas a new termin Chunqiudiscourse, withinfew generations it becamethe pivotal ministerial virtue.27 In theZuo zhuan,
inventedby thescribes (like Chu Ni's monologuecited below), theevidence suggests that they reflectChunqiu intellectual milieu and thattheir content was not significantlydistorted by the author/compilerof the Zuo zhuan. 25 For thealtars as representativesof thecollective entity of thestate dwellers, see MasubuchiTa- tsuo if fflfl^, Chügokukodai no shakai to kokka43HÍ"ft
later Chunqiu discourse. The changingmeanings of the termzhong are discussed by Fu Wuguangii ÄÄ, "Shi zhong" M&, in: id., Zhongguosixiang shi lunwenjitfflSffiÜfti ft (Taibei 1990), pp. 1-13. The presentarticle, however, deals withthe broadly conceived no- tionof loyalty,and thediscussion will notbe confinedto thesingle term zhong. 28 For definingzhong as consideringlong-term interests of thestate, see Zuo, Min 2:272; Cheng 2:805; Xiang25:1098; Xiang28:1152. For unselfishness(wu si MM) as anotherimportant fea- tureof theloyal minister, see Zuo, Wen 6:553; Cheng 16:894; Zhao 10:1319-1320. 29 See Zuo, Cheng 9:844-845; Zhao 1:1205-1206; Zhao 2:1229; Zhao 12:1336; Zhao 16:1378- 1379. 30 Shi Wei assumedthat the sons of Lord Xian would rebel,and theirfortified cities would turn into"holdings of banditsand adversaries,"i.e., rebels. 31&mz: as«™«, s^it»; mismtâ,«tuffisi- mmzu, xfä«st? ^t**. ^®; Bttt«, *&. £&««, MW»©? (Zuo,Xi 5:304). 46 Yuri Pines that Shi Wei's predictionwas correct: the newly fortifiedcities became bases of the princes' insurrection.Thus, Shi Wei's view of loyalty inspired him to defy the ruler's orders. In 655, Lord Xian's cunningconcubine, Li Ji BP$E, removed the elder scions and established her son, Xiqi Jt^, as heir-apparent.Most officials objected to this violation of succession norms. On his sickbed, the dying Lord Xian sum- moned Xiqi's grand tutor,Xun Xi ïo JË»,and requestedhim to enthroneXiqi: [Xun Xi] kowtowed and answered: "I shall use to the utmost the power of my limbs and add to it loyaltyand faithfulness(zhen ñ). If [our plan] succeeds, then it is due to your luck; if not, I shall pursue it till my death." The lord asked: "What do you mean by loyaltyand faithfulness?" [Xun Xi] answered: "Doing whateverI know will benefitthe lord's house - this is loyalty; to follow the deceased and serve the living [ruler] withoutany hesitation- this is faithfulness."32 When Li Ke $.~$£intended to kill Xiqi he firstreported to Xun Xi saying: "Three resentful[groups] will act,33 Qin and [their supporters in] Jin will assist them. What will you do?" Xun Xi said: "I will die for [Xiqi]." Li Ke said: "It is useless." Xun Shu (Xun Xi) replied: "I gave a promise to the late ruler, and cannot be du- plicitous. Can I wish to violate my promise because I pity my life? Although it is useless, how can I avoid it? Yet, others want a good [ruler]just as I do. I want to escape duplicity,but how can I tell othersto stop [pursuingtheir plans]?"34 Xun Xi encountereda similar dilemma between loyaltyand obedience as Shi Wei. His promise to the formerlord demanded acting on behalf of the illegitimateheir; his sense of benefitingthe lord's house apparentlysuggested establishingone of the elder scions. Unable to resolve this contradiction,Xun Xi was paralyzed. Af- ter Li Ke murderedXiqi, Xun Xi tried to establish Xiqi's younger half-brother, Zizhuo Tie; afterZizhuo was also murdered,Xun Xi committedsuicide. The firstimpression is that Xun Xi kept his promise to the late lord, but a deeper analysis suggestsotherwise. Twice he did nothingto preventLi Ke fromfulfilling his plans and he definitelyrefrained from stopping the plotters. In committing suicide, Xun Xi found the only way out of his dilemma - unable wholeheartedly
32 I.e., to followthe will of Lord Xian. 33 Li Ke - a highofficial of Jinwho opposedthe establishment of an illegitimateheir. "Threere- sentful"refers to thefollowers of thethree elder sons of Lord Xian: Shensheng^ 4 (who was forcedto commitsuicide), Chonger, and Yiwu (bothin exile at thetime of theirfather's death). All threefell victim to theintrigues of Li Ji- themother of Xiqi. AfterLord Xian's deaththeir followersintended to overthrowLi Ji's son and establishone of theelder scions.
H: miss, a? SR: &mzm.*n*s*£. stU; m^mm,«ä*«. jhü. &s £i»fäji». îfci&ï5.&Fi:nisi»«;, m*nmz. =?m®wfis: mnz. se R: .«Millo Ï5AR: fíf|5fcSW£,^nmiRo fê«fcíMWffiff*¥?«&£tì. SWS» ¿? RAZ&Ì&. »**I«? agí:««, MSBAABÍ? (Zmo,Xi 9:328-329). Ruler-Minister Relations and the Notion of Loyalty 47 to preservethe will of thelate Lord Xian, he actedfinally in whathe believedto be "theinterests of thelord's house." Anotherfamous example of thecontradiction between xin and zhongis thean- ecdoteabout Chu Ni IB JR.In 607, thevicious Lord Ling of Jinif II 4* (r. 620- 607) dispatchedChu Ni to murderthe upright head of government,Zhao Dun il Jjf. WhenChu Ni arrivedat Zhao's residencehe was impressedby Zhao's out- look. Embarrassed,Chu Ni uttered: "He who does not forgetrespect and reverenceis the masterof the people. To murderthe people's masteris to be disloyal,to disregardthe ruler's order is to be untrustworthy.Being one of these- is it notbetter to die?" - He dashedhis head againsta locusttree and died.35 These threeexamples reflect the complicated nature of ministerialethics. Ideally, trustworthinessand loyaltyshould complementeach other,as reflectedin the termzhongxin. In fact,however, on some occasionsthe minister'sconcern for theinterests of thestate contradicted the principle of obedienceto theruler. Such a conflictwas not easily resolved;in two of the threecases the unluckyminis- ter/servantcommitted suicide. Yet, importantly,none of theseministers submit- ted wholeheartedlyto the ruler's order. The outcomesof theiraction corre- spondedto thedemands of loyaltyand notof faithfulness. Many otherexamples suggest that the Chunqiuconcepts of the loyal minister differedgreatly from the subsequent Zhanguo age. Whena ministerbelieved that his actionsbenefited the altars, he had theright not only to remonstrate,but even to use forceagainst the ruler.36 The moststriking example of sucha "loyal minis- ter"is theaforementioned Zhao Dun, who preserveda good namedespite his le- 37 gal responsibilityfor the assassinationof Lord Ling in 607. Thus, even a de
35>R6*«, s^itìo mRZì., *&; #^zifo,wfo w-fôiifc.^ïm&o - m #IW?E(Zuo, Xuan 2:658). 36 Remonstrancewas of coursethe most common instance of "loyal disobedience"in Chinesehis- tory(see Liu ZehuaS'JS¥, Zhongguochuantong zhengzhi sixiang fansi + 19Ä^ Kin AffiS S [Beijing1987], pp. 154-169;cf. David Schaberg,"Remonstrance in EasternZhou Historio- graphy,"Early China22 [1997], pp. 133-179).The Chunqiuinstances of "loyaldisobedience," however,frequently exceeded the normsof kindadmonition. For instance,Yu Quan ?§# of Chu was considereda paragonof loyaltydespite his odd behavior:he threatenedKing Wen ÎÈ Ü (r. 689-675) withweapons and preventedthe kingfrom entering the royal capital to en- couragethe ruler to conquermore lands {Zuo, Zhuang9:211). Anotherodd paragonof loyalty is Qing ZhengM.% of Jin,who in 645 deliberatelycaused theJin army defeat at thehands of Qin and effectedLord Hui's ffíR£ (r. 650-637) imprisonment;by thismeans Qing Zheng wantedto persuadeLord Hui to improvehis rule. Both the Zuo zhuan and the Guoyu ü!g leave no doubtthat Qing Zheng was continuouslyrevered as a loyal minister(see Zuo, Xi 14:348, Xi 15:354-356; Xi 15:367; see also Guoyu [Hie [Shanghai1990], "Jinyu If fg 3" 9.8:333). 37 For Zhao Dun's story,see theZuo, Xuan 2:655-663. LaterJin statesmen lauded his loyalty(see Zuo, Cheng8:839; Guoyu,"Jin yu 6" 12.1:411). 48 Yuri Pines jure murdererof his rulercould claim loyaltyinsofar as his actionsseemed to correspondto stateinterests! Whatis behindthese unique interpretationsof loyalty?Perhaps, due to their unusuallyhigh status, Chunqiu ministers considered themselves more as a ruler's companionsthan his subjects.Consequently, they regarded their primary duty to be towardthe state and thealtars whereas serving the lord was a secondarytask. The trulyloyal ministerneed not necessarilybe obedient,provided his behavior was unselfishand was aimedat profitingthe long-terminterests of the stateand theruling house. The convictionthat a ministershould serve a ruleronly insofar as the ruler's actions are beneficentto the state interestspermeates Chunqiu thought.This beliefis best representedin the followingstory about a leading Chunqiuthinker, Yan Ying US (Yanzi üí) fromthe stateof Qi 5^. In 548, theQi strongmanCui Zhu Wñ assassinatedLord Zhuang^$f^ (r. 553-548), massacredthe lord's supportersand forbademourning the deceased ruler.Yan Ying disobeyedCui Zhu's ordersand refusedto leave thesite of thecrime: Yanzistood at thegate of theCui lineage[mansions]. His followersasked: "Are yougoing to die?" [Yanzi]said: "Was he onlymy ruler, the one for whom I shoulddie?" Theyasked: "So, willyou go intoexile?" [Yanzi]said: "Have I committedany crime that I shouldflee?" Theyasked: "Will you then return [to your house]?" [Yanzi]said: "The ruleris dead- whereshall I returnto? To rulethe people - doesit mean to abusethe people? [The ruler] should preside over the altars of soil andgrain. To servethe ruler - does it meanto thinkof one's emoluments?[The minister]should nourish the altars of soil and grain. Therefore, ifthe ruler dies for thesake of the altars of soiland grain, then [the minister] should die withhim. If he fleesfor the sake of the altars of soiland grain, then [the minister] should flee withhim. But if he diesor fleesfor personal reasons, then unless one is amonghis personalfavorites, who will dare to be responsiblefor this?"38 Yan Ying clearlydistinguished between the ruler as a privateperson and theruler as a politicalinstitution. The ministerought to servethe ruler only in publicmat- ters,but he had no mandatedresponsibilities toward the ruler as a privateperson. Moreover,the ruler could notcount on theobedience and loyaltyof his ministers unlesshe performedhis dutiesand upheld"the altarsof soil and grain."39Per- sonal conflictsbetween the rulerand his entouragewere of no relevanceto the
38 #TAL^*K¿P^h, ÄA0: ?E¥? B: »SSiE^Ä, S^Etì? S: ÍTÍ? 0: 5P ifeìMK.Strife? H: »¥? S: W&í, $M§? m&Z, SW^K? tt«Ä±o es#, SMP»? tts^#o tkmi&iïMn, w'nzx £*t«tr, »jtr¿. eäb?e, m^b tr, #Jt?ABI>ISS&ft^? (Zwo,Xiang 25:1098). Lord Zhuang previously seduced Cui Zhu's wife;hence, Yan Ying claimed that he died "for personal reasons." 39 In a similarspeech in 559, MasterKuang Sp^t of Jinclaimed that the task of a good ministeris notonly to reprimandhis ruler,but if necessaryto expel himas well, providedthe ruler failed to fulfillhis obligationstowards "the people" (Zuo, Xiang 14:1016-1018;for a detailedanalysis of thisspeech, see Pines,Foundations, pp. 139-141). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 49 ministers,whose major task was to "nourishthe altars." Ministers owed theirul- timateallegiance to thealtars, not personally to theruler. Yan Ying's speechsynthesizes Chunqiu views on ruler-ministerrelations. He- reditaryministers, frequently designated as "mastersof thepeople" (minzhi zhu K¡¿±),40 feltresponsible for the destiny of theirstate, and treatedthe rulers as merelyprimus inter pares. Theirfidelity to thelord was on conditionthat he per- formshis functionsproperly and ensuresstate interests. Otherwise, a rulercould not take for grantedministerial support. Loyalty to the altars definitelyout- weighedfidelity to the sovereign.In actualpolitical conditions of the middleto late Chunqiuperiod, this concept of loyaltyled to the furtherloss of the over- lords'power, as almostevery insubordinate minister could openlydefy the ruler's ordersin thename of "thealtars." This legacyof ministerialresponsibility, self-confidence, and a feelingof be- ing the ruler'scompanions had a profoundimpact on Zhanguothought, and it mighthave influencedthe authors of theGuodian texts. However, self-confident ministerswere not the only playerson the Chunqiupolitical scene. The lower segmentof the hereditaryaristocracy, the shi, developeda differentconcept of loyalty,a loyaltyto themaster, and notto thestate. This notionof personalloy- altywas of similarlyprofound consequences for Zhanguo political ethics. In thepyramid-like Chunqiu society, high nobles (qing dafu5BP^C^) occupied a dual position.They were ministerswith regard to theoverlords but also virtu- ally omnipotentrulers of theirallotments (caiyi 35 b).41 To rulethese allotments the nobles establishedmini-courts staffed by personalretainers, the so-called "householdservants" (jia chen IKE). These retainerswere usually,though not necessarily,recruited from the minorsiblings of the master'slineage; most of thembelonged to the shi stratum.Their positions often were not hereditarybut contractual.42The retainersdid not enjoy hereditaryland-holdings, and their
40 See Zwo,Xuan 2:658, and Yang Bojun's gloss on p. 658. 41 On the dual positionof the highnobles, see Wang LanzhongiESfHI1, "Chunqiu shidai qing dafu fengjianlingzhu xingzhi jianlun" #|fcH#ft!W:fc^Ííft^±14ff ffilft,in: Nankaidaxue lishixiZhongguo gudaishi jiaoyanshi S^^^Mi^ + Síí^üfeWa (ed.), Zhongguogu- dai dizhujieji yanjiulunji 4*áAftiA±fêaKW&MI! (Tianjin 1984), pp. 104-111; cf. Qian Zongfan££^t§, "Xi Zhou Chunqiushidai de shilushiguan zhidu ji qi pohuai" MM^^MiX Wtä*!tät#JäA£?RJi, in: Zhongguoshiyanjiu tÈS&ffîft 3 (1989), pp. 22-26. On the systemof allotments,see Lü Wenyu SÄÜ, "Zhoudai de caiyi zhidu" ^^Êfà^eiífrJffi, in: WenxianJtJjR 4 (1990), pp. 74-82. 42 The appointmentof a retainerwas confirmedby presentinggifts to themaster and recordingthe retainer'sname on bambootablets, concluding thereby a contract.Fu Qian (ISA, fi. late sec- ond centuryC.E.) assumedthat contracts were life-long(his gloss on theZuo zhuan is citedin Shijisuoyin Í IS^S [Shiji Ü2 (Beijing1997), 67:2191]). However,this was notnecessarily thecase: forinstance, a leadingQi ^ aristocratBao Guo fifi[8 servedas retainerof theShi Sfi lineagein thestate of Lu # beforereturning to his positionas a Qi dafu(Zuo, Cheng 17:898- 899). It is notclear, furthermore,whether or notcontractual relations involved those retainers who weremaster's siblings. 50 Yuri Pines
prosperitydepended entirely on theemoluments granted by theirmaster. There- fore,their dependence on themaster was nearlyabsolute, and so was theiralle- gianceto theirlord.43 This dependenceencouraged retainers to conceiveof loyaltyin entirelydiffer- entterms than the ministers. Unlike their masters, who caredfor the altars of soil and grain,retainers cared only for the master's person. A GuoyuH9§5 story illus- tratesthis concept.44 In 527, Xun Wu ^^ of Jinconquered the cityof Gu sfc ruledby theDi $( tribesmenand imprisonedits rulerYuanzhi #£;£. The Guoyu tells: SushaxiMí^JS, theservant of theGu ruler,gathered his familyand followed[the imprisonedruler]. The militaryofficial wanted to stophim, but [Sushaxi]refused, saying:"I serve the ruler,not the land. Am I called the ruler'sservant, or the land's servant?Now the ruleris transferred[to anotherplace], whyshould I de- pendon Gu?" Muzi (Xun Wu) summonedhim saying: "Gu has a [new]ruler. If you will whole- " heartedlyserve the [new] ruler, I shallassure you emolumentand rank. [Sushaxi]answered: "I presentedgifts [of initiatingmy service]to theDi rulerof Gu, notto theJin ruler of Gu. I heard,that after one presentsgifts as a servant,he shouldnot be of two minds. Presentinggifts [at the beginningof service]and [keepingthe servants'name] on the bamboo tablets[until] death is an ancient law.45[In thiscase] the rulerhas a prominentname, while servantsdo not rebel [againstthe master]. How dare I pursueprivate profits thus causing troubles to the sikou46and bringfurther confusion into ancientlaws? Will this not cause unex- pected[troubles]?" Muzi sighedand said to his attendants:"How shouldI devotemyself to virtueto gainsuch a servant!"47 The last phrase of Xun Wu may well be a moralizing appendix of the Guoyu compilers. In fact, there are no signs that Sushaxi's devotion to his master re-
43 See Suzuki "Shunju,"pp. 9-11. For moreabout retainers, see Zhu Fenghan(Shang Zhou, pp. 531-540); Zhao Boxiongátfõít, Zhoudaiguojia xingtaiyanjiu miXSW^J&iÊMfí (Changsha 1990), pp. 245-251; Shao WeiguoSfrüBI, "Zhoudaijiachen zhi shulun"fflft^Eífêl&ift, in: Zhongguoshiyanjiu *¥^%M% 3 (1999), pp. 39-50. 44 The Guoyu("Discourses of theStates") was apparentlycompiled during the fourth-third centu- riesB.C.E., and manyof itsmaterials were heavily edited by Zhanguocompilers. Nonetheless, someportions of thistreatise, particularly parts of thebooks of Lu, Jin,and probablyChu, may be representativeof Chunqiuthought. For a detaileddiscussion, see Pines,Foundations, pp. 39- 45. 45 See note41 above and Hu Tu' s speechbelow. 46 SikouWJtS, an officialin chargeof capturingcriminals.
SAfôíUiJS,*m«ì&nzik&o &mz: *«^e, ftw^<&.mnmmt, ^z&
H: 5fat8¿j&TOWAEtfa? (Guoyu,"Jin yu 9" 15.2:485-486). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 5 1
suitedfrom Yuanzhi's extraordinary virtue. Personal qualities of themaster were not relevant;the servantshould simply serve his superioraccording to the life- longcontract. The homestate and its altarswere of littleconcern to Sushaxi;his fatewas connectedonly to thatof themaster. Personal loyalty prevailed over po- liticaland moralconsiderations. Whathappened when this personal loyalty came in conflictwith state interests? Whathappened when the retainer's master rebelled against the legitimate ruler of his state?The evidencepresented in the Zuo zhuan suggeststhat retainers un- equivocallypreferred the interests of theirmasters on whomthey were dependent. This maybe demonstratedby thestory about the followers of PrinceChonger of Jin.In 637, at thebeginning of his abruptrule, Lord Huai of JinWWà (d. 636) issuedan orderthat forbade Jin nobles to followthe fugitive Chonger. A leading noble,Hu Tu Ä^, refusedto recallhis sons Mao í: and Yan fi fromChong- er's service.Lord Huai orderedthe arrestof Hu Tu, but the lattercontinued to defythe ruler's orders: Sons are able to hold officewhen a fatherteaches them loyalty: this is an ancient regulation.When the name is writtenon thebamboo tablet [to confirmthe grant of an office]and officialgifts are presented[at thebeginning of a retainer'scareer], to be duplicitousis a crime.Now, my sons formany years are namedas Chong- er's [retainers].If I recallthem, that means teaching duplicity. If a fatherteaches sonsduplicity, how is it possibleto servethe ruler?48 Hu Tu did nottry to justifyhis sons' behaviorin termsof stateinterests. Chong- er's retainersshould have been consideredrebels since theyplotted against the legitimaterulers of Jin,lords Hui fflJ^ (r. 650-637) and Huai. However,they owed personalallegiance to thefugitive scion, and thesebonds, in thecase of the retainers,were more binding than state interests. Thus, a retainerwas obligedto followhis mastereven if the latter rebelled against the legitimate ruler. Some overlordsalso recognizedthe right of a retainerto keep allegianceto a rebelliousmaster, effectively ceding thereby part of theirsovereignty to the no- bles.49In 530, Nan Kuai inolii,a retainerof theJi ^ lineage,intended to over- throwhis masterand restorethe power of Lord Zhao of Lu # HS^ (r. 541-510). His plotfailed and he fledto Qi. At thebanquet, Lord Jingof Qi ^M^ (r. 547- 490) called hima rebel. "I onlywanted to strengthenthe lord's house," replied
48=?zm±, x%iz&, izm&o »£. mvt,^nm&« ^e¿í«ss?, w¥» £o «XBál. «¿«tì. #«?«, MW*g? {Zuo,Xi 23:402-403). 49 In 552, LordPing of Jin #T£ (r. 557-532)pardoned Xin Yu *ifu, a retainerof therebel- liousLuan Ying ^S, acceptingXin Yu's claimthat his sole ruler was LuanYing and not the lordof Jin.Not surprisingly,two years later the retainers of theLuan lineagejoined Luan Ying'srebellion in Quwo ftÄ (see Guoyu,"Jin yu 8" 14.2:451-452;Zuo, Xiang23:1073- 1074). 52 Yuri Pines
Nan Kuai. Then a Qi noble,Zi Hanzan íít®, stated:"When a householdser- vantintends to strengthenthe lord's house - thisis thegreatest crime."50 Acknowledgingthat the bonds of personalloyalty between the retainer and his masterwere of greaterimportance than allegiance to theoverlord is astonishing. This attitudefurther contributed to the declineof the lord's power. Duringthe late Chunqiupolitical troubles, retainers unequivocally sided withtheir masters, notwith the overlords.51 In 517, Zong Li Üík, thesima ^M of theShusun ¿R ì% lineage,who decidedto side withthe rebellious Ji lineage against the forces of Lord Zhao of Lu, plainlystated: "I am a householdservant and dare notinterfere in statematters. What is morebeneficent for us: existenceor eliminationof theJi lineage?"52 The ideas of legitimacyand benefitof thealtars were of no concernto Zong Li, or to otherretainers. They had to do theirutmost to benefittheir masters, fol- lowingthem in all cases, and refrainingfrom involvement in highmatters of the stateand overlord.The retainers'fidelity to theirmasters should be limitless;a mastercould be rightor wrong,but he was themaster.53 The above discussionsuggests that two differentconcepts of loyaltycoexisted in the Chunqiuperiod: the intelligentand selflessloyalty of the ministers,di- rectedto thestate, and thepersonal fidelity of theretainers, directed to themaster. The differencesbasically corresponded to thesocial distinctionsin thearistocratic societyof theChunqiu age. Understandably,therefore, the erosion of theheredi- tarysocial orderduring the fifthto the fourthcenturies B.C.E. broughtabout a reappraisalof traditionalpolitical ethics, and particularlyof theconcept of loyalty.
50 Ä0: ft*! SEI: Ë«^iiÈo íttgEJ: ^EMÄäSÄS, W%*M ! (Zuo,Zhao 14:1364). It is a bitterirony that such a conversationoccurred at thecourt of thelord of Qi. Af- terthe death of Lord Jing(490) his heirswere exterminated by powerfulministers, and thestate of Qi became since 480 the possessionof the Tian lineage. Lord Jing's compliancewith the dominationof thearistocrats over theirretainers at theexpense of the rulingfamily may well have contributedto thebad end of his descendants. 51 The clearestevidence of thisdevelopment was thebehavior of theretainers of Cui Zhu Äff, thestrongman of Qi. In 548, as mentionedabove, Cui Zhu plottedto assassinateLord Zhuang. The lordwas capturedin Cui Zhu's house,where he intendedto have illicitrelations with Cui' s wife. He triedto negotiatehis freedomwith Cui Zhu's retainers,but theyresponded: "Your servant,Cui Zhu, is seriouslyill, and unableto hearyour orders. Here, nearthe lord's palace, we, thehousehold servants, are patrollingto findan adulterer,and we knowof no otherorder." - The lord triedto climb the wall, but they shot him twice and killed him (Zuo, Xiang 25:1097). 52 Si^Ë-Èo ^»£q[So /tW^RUM, fôaîAfiJ? (Zuo, Zhao 25:1464). The replyof the Shusunelders that "without the Ji lineage, our lineagewill cease to exist"determined Zong Li's choiceto side withthe rebels. 53 Confucius'disciple, Zi Lu T S&, underlinedthis principle, explaining his willingnessto die for his masters:"I benefitedfrom their emoluments, I musthelp themin theirtroubles" (Zuo, Ai 16:1696). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 53
3. FollowingDao or Befriendingthe Ruler: Zhanguo Views of Loyalty Profoundsocial changesfrom the late sixthcentury B.C.E. on began to under- mine the kin-basedsocial orderof the Chunqiuperiod. Hereditaryaristocrats, once proudmasters of theirstates, lost their positions at thesummit of statehier- archy.Former retainers, the members of theshi stratum,replaced their masters at theoverlords' courts. By themid-Zhanguo period, social boundariesformerly separatinghigh-ranking nobles from the lowest segment of theranked aristocracy all but disappeared.Although many shi still servedas retainers- the so-called "guests"(binke ħ) - of the powerfulmagnates, no impassablebarriers pre- ventedthem from ascending to the top of the governmentapparatus. A humble, "plain-clothed"(buyi ^^c) shi makinga brilliantcareer became common in Zhan- guo states.54 Naturally,these changes generated a reappraisalof the shi self-image.55The servilityof formerretainers who dared not thinkof anythingbut the master's benefitgave place to theself-confidence of thosewho consideredthemselves the truemasters of theirstates, possessors of theTrue Way - theDao. New patterns of behaviorof the shi consciouslyimitated those of theirformer superiors, the daß. Yet, Zhanguoshi did not merelyemulate their predecessors' concept of loyalty,but developedand modifiedit to fittheir new conditionand the new modeof theirrelations with the overlords. Earlierwe saw thatChunqiu ministerial loyalty reflected a uniquelyhigh sta- tus of Chunqiuaristocrats, whose hereditaryranks encouraged them to conceive of thestate as theirpossession. Zhanguo ministers, however, were in a different position.With few exceptions, they neither enjoyed hereditary positions at court, nor could theyeven expectlife-long tenure. Most Zhanguostatesmen routinely crossedborders in searchof betterappointments. In theChunqiu period, the phe- nomenonof "peripateticstatesmen" was an anomaly,but by earlyZhanguo it be- came a norm.A ministercould easily findhimself at the courtof a rival state servingthe adversariesof his formermasters. Under these conditions claiming loyaltyto the altarswas perhapstoo hypocriticaleven forthe cynicalZhanguo statesmen.
54 These changesare surveyedby Cho-yunHsu, AncientChina in Transition.An Analysisof So- cial Mobility,722-222 B.C. (Stanford,Calif. 1965), pp. 35-42; Yang Kuan ÜÄ, Zhanguoshi KÜÄ (Shanghai1998), pp. 213-277et passim. 55 An interestingexample of theclash betweenold and new values appearsin theLunyu. Confu- cius' disciples,Zi Lu and Zi Gong "PA, criticizedthe famous Qi statesman,Guan Zhong ÍH41 (d. 645) forbeing unwilling to die forhis earliermaster, Prince Jiu Ä'-fl&l (d. 686). Confucius in responsepraised Guan Zhong's politicalachievements during his long servicefor the erst- whileadversary, Lord Huan ^S^ (r. 685-643). Confucius'answer, thus, represented a new outlookof the shi, whose interestswere in effectno longerbound to those of theirmasters (Lunyu,"Xian wen" M?3 14.16-17:151-152). 54 Yuri Pines
To whomthen should a Zhanguominister owe his loyalty?What entity would allow himto defythe ruler's orders, while preserving a semblanceof loyalty?In an age of shiftingallegiances, this defiance was no longerpossible in thename of thealtars. As in manyother instances, it was thespiritual leader of theZhanguo shi, Confucius,who suggestedan alternative,by proposingthe following defini- tionfor a "greatminister": Whatis called"a greatminister" is one whoserves the ruler according to Dao, andwhen it is impossible,stops [serving him].56 Confuciusfound a new focusof loyaltyfor the shi, thatis Dao it, the Way, namely,the normativeideal of behavior.Elsewhere he reiteratedthat a person oughtnot acceptriches and highposition when not in accord withDao, and he frequentlycriticized his discipleswhose desireto achievehigh-ranking positions oftenled to compromiseswith the moral and ethicalvalues advocated by theMas- ter.57Moreover, Confticius evidently set a personalexample to his disciplesby resigningwhenever service to a rulercontradicted his principles.He succinctly explained:"A bird can choose the tree, is it possible thata tree chooses the bird?"58 Confucius'followers eagerly adopted the Master's interpretation of loyalty as devotionto Dao. This interpretationpreserved the minister's feeling that he is not a ruler'stool, but an intelligentand responsiblepolitical actor. Concomitantly, the declaredadherence to Dao could convenientlyjustify crossing borders in searchof a betterappointment, since benefiting the altars was no longerthe pri- mary criterionof ministerialloyalty. Mencius, perhaps the most articulate spokesmanof themid-Zhanguo shi, suggestedthe following gradation of loyalties: Someare the ruler's servants. They feel pleased with serving a certainruler. Some areministers of the altars of soiland grain. They feel pleased with bringing peace tothe altars. Some are Heaven's subjects. They practice only whatever can be im- plementedin All underHeaven. There is a GreatMan. He rectifieshimself and thingsare rectified.59 Menciusdistinguished between four kinds of politicallyinvolved shi, accordingto theirfocus of interests/loyalty.He placed personal fidelity to theruler in thelow- est rank,followed by loyaltyto thealtars. Those whoseaspirations were to pacify All underHeaven rankedhigher, and the highestposition was thatof the Great
56 0fli*E#: immWi, ^pTM"J±(Lii«yii,aXianjin"5feit11.24:117). 57 "Richesand nobility is whateverybody wants, but if youcannot obtain them in accordwith Dao, youshould not dwell in them" (SHA, SA¿WS*:ife; ^WAití#¿, ^JÄtfeoLun- yu,"Li ren"fit 4.5:36). ForConfucius' criticism of his career-seeking disciples, Zhong You #È (542-480)and Ran Qiu #* (b. 522), see Lunyu,"Xian jin" 11.17:115;"Ji shi" ^R 16.1:172. 58 Afluí?*. *eÍ3ÊÍ¥A? (Zwo,Ai 11:1667).See alsoChan, "Confucius," pp. 49-70.
oIÍTJ^ATMÍSíf¿#ti2o WAÀ#, EBMt/IE#tì (Mengzi,"Jin xin shang" 13.19:308). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 55
Man, who rectifiedothers by rectifyinghimself. The ministersof the Chunqiu period,loyal servants of thealtars, were placed just above personalretainers, and at a significantdistance from the Great Man.60 We cannotdiscuss here at lengththe Mencian concept of theGreat Man. For thepurposes of thepresent discussion what is mostimportant is thatMencius evi- dentlyviewed those ministers who preservedloyalty to the rulerand the stateas not sufficientlyhighly aspiring shi. True loyaltyshould be only to one's moral and ethicalprinciples, to Dao.61 On anotheroccasion Mencius clarifiedthat whethera ministerremained loyal to a singleruler or not,did notmatter much, as long as he followedthe path of benevolence(ren ÍZ).62 ElsewhereMencius emphaticallyexplained who deservedthe name of theGreat Man: He dwellsin the broadest place under Heaven, he occupiesthe correct place under Heaven,he goesalong the Great Way of All underHeaven. When he fulfillshis will,he proceedstogether with the people; when he cannotfulfill his will, he fol- lowshis Wayalone. Riches and honors cannot entice him; poverty and humility cannotmove him; awe and militarypower cannot bend him. This is calledthe GreatMan.63 This GreatMan, confidentin his Way, is, of course,the model minister in Men- cius' eyes. Understandably,this Great Minister should serve the ruler only if this serviceconforms to theminister's moral credo. Menciusdid notconceal his deep contemptfor those who benefitedthe ruler when the latter did notfollow the Way of benevolence.64A trueminister had theright not only to reprimandhis lord,as manydid long beforeConfucius and Mencius,but also to leave him, whenever theservice violated the minister's principles.65
60 Menciuswas consistentin his orderof priorities.Elsewhere he statedthat "the people" (min K:) were themost precious in the state(and, accordingly,the ultimate source of concern/loyalty), followedby thealtars and theruler (Mengzi, "Jin xin xia" ü'l>T 14.14:328). 61 Of course,many Zhanguo thinkers conceived of Dao as the universallyapplicable True Way ratherthan personal criteria of moralbehavior. Yet as theprecise meaning of Dao was continu- ouslycontested, politically following Dao amountedto followingpersonal principles of proper conduct. 62 See Mengzi,"Gaozi xia" íq -PT 12.6:284. Amongbenevolent ministers, Mencius mentioned Yi Yin #"P' who "fivetimes approached Tang [yf§,the founderof the Shang M (ca. 1570- 1046) dynasty],five times approached Jie [^È, the vicious last rulerof the Xia dynasty,and Tang's victim]."Thus, even servingmortal adversaries was legitimateinsofar as thiscould be justifiedby adherenceto moralprinciples. 63mxyzmm, ¿lutzìegl, im~rz±m; um, m&&z, *n&, »ítaü; s ñ^ffcñ, W&A^ÌM, J^Ä^Ä&S - itkiãi^í* (Mengzi,"Teng Wen Gong xia" B1C &T 6.2:140-141). 64 See Mengzi,"Gaozi xia" 12.9:293. 65 In extremecases Mencius approved even of theminister's right to overthrowthe unrighteous ruler(Mengzi, "Liang Hui Wang xia" ^SïT 2.8:42). Thisradical case oflegitimate insub- ordination,however, deserves separate discussion. 56 Yuri Pines
Menciusclearly stated that the Great Man shouldbe loyal to Dao alone. This view, whichfarther developed the ideas of Confucius,was quitepopular among manyshi of the Zhanguoera. Not only Confuciusand Mencius declaredtheir resoluteunwillingness to compromisemoral principles for the sake of appoint- ments;similar views evidentlyprevailed among adherentsof otherintellectual currentsas well. WhereasMozi üT (ca. 460-390) neveropenly advocated defy- ingthe ruler's orders in thename oi Dao, thistopos is presentin accountsof his lifecirculated by his disciples.66Daoist recluses,whose understanding of Dao dif- feredfrom that of Confuciusand Mencius,shared, nevertheless, their belief in Dao as theprimary focus of personalloyalty. Many Zhanguo shi highlyesteemed thealleged paragons of puremorality, Bo Yi 'W% and Shu Qi Ml^, who aban- doned even the righteousKing Wu of Zhou jS)Ä:£ when the king's behavior contradictedtheir moral principles. The anonymoustradition, later cited by Xunzi ^T, (ca. 310-218), "followDao, do not followthe ruler,"might have ex- pressedthe wide-shared belief of Zhanguoshi.61 A conceptof "followingDao, notthe ruler" was morallylaudable, and it en- hancedthe shi self-esteem.Nevertheless, its practicalimplications in Zhanguo politicallife remainedlimited. It mighthave been applicableto a personof the moralstature of Confuciusor Mozi, buthow could it be appliedto an averageshil Dao was after all an elusive concept, disputedby dozens of contending "schools,"and it could notserve as a guidelineof theelite's behavior.Thus, ca- reer-orientedmembers of the rulingstratum often conceived of the actionsof theirhigh-minded colleagues as not very prudent.Mozi plainlyadmitted that righteousresignation from the office could be regardedas a manifestationof in- sanity(kuang £E).68 Understandably,therefore, prevalent Zhanguo views of loyaltystressed per- sonal fidelityto theruler rather than following the Dao. This notionof personal loyaltywas genericallylinked to theearlier retainers' legacy, but it differedsig- nificantlyfrom Chunqiu antecedents.Chunqiu master-retainerrelations, while possessingcertain reciprocal (contractual) features were, nevertheless,markedly
66 See Wu Yujiang lMÂft (annot.),Mozi jiaozhu ü? fèí± (Beijing 1994), "Geng Zhu" Ätt 46:659; "Lu Wen" ^ 49:737-739; "Gongshu"£lft 50:764-765. I adoptWu Yujiang's opin- ion, accordingto whichthe so-called "second group" of theMozi' s chapters(chapters 8 to 37) generallyrepresents Mozi' s authenticviews, whilethe "fourthgroup" (chapters 46 to 50) was preparedby his disciplesafter the master's death (see his "Mozi gepianzhenwei kao" Hï^H M:W-%in: Mozi, pp. 1025-1055). 67 For Bo Yi and Shu Qi as paragonsof morality,see Chen Qiyou l$írÍSK, Liishi chunqiu jiaoshi SR##Cfêfë (Shanghai1990), "Chenglian" MM 12.4:633-634;for the conflicting views of theirbehavior, see VitalyRubin, "A ChineseDon Quixote: ChangingAttitudes to Po-i's Im- age," in: Irene Eber (ed.), Confucianism:The Dynamicsof Tradition(New York - London 1986), pp. 155-184,203-211. For Xunzi's citation,see Wang Xianqiani5fctìl, Xunzijijie ^ rf^%$ (Beijing1992), "Chen Dao" Ëit 13:250, and thediscussion below. 68 See Mozi, "GengZhu" 46:659. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 57
hierarchicalin nature.More oftenthan not, a retainerwas supposedto engagein life-longservice to his master,and his fidelitywas expectedto be nearlyabsolute. By thelate Chunqiu,however, these life-long bonds of retainersto theirmasters were gone, givingplace to more flexiblepatron-client ties. Contractscould no longerensure the retainers' attachment to theirmasters, and some nobleshad to resortto thereligiously significant ceremony of alliance(meng jg) to preservethe fidelityof theirservants.69 These means, however,apparently failed as well. Most Zhanguostories about retainers (binke) emphasize the ease withwhich they abandonedtheir masters and shiftedallegiance to anotherpowerful figure.70 This flexibilitybrought about a profoundreappraisal of thenature of personalbonds. The new visionof personalloyalty emphasized reciprocity rather than hierar- chybetween a ruler/masterand his ministers/retainers.71To ensure continuous fi- delity,a rulerhad to takeinto consideration his ministers'dignity and bewareof insultingthem. Zhanguo shi, inspiredby the meteoricrise of theirstratum, de- veloped an extraordinarilyhigh sense of self-esteem,which encouragedmany contemporaryministers to view themselvesas equal - if not superior- to their rulers. At the least, shi priderequired polite treatment by superiors.Confucius re- portedlyexplained to Lord Ding #^^ (r. 509-495) the law of ruler-minister relations:"A rulershould employ a ministeraccording to ritual(// íH); theminis- tershould serve the ruler loyally (zhong Ä)."72L/ in thisphrase refers primarily to thepolite treatment of theminister.73 Confucius implied that ministerial loyalty is notunconditional, but is tradedin exchangefor the ruler's respect. Confucius'view apparentlyreflected the prevalentmood of membersof his stratum.The preoccupationwith polite treatment of shi by theirsuperiors became
69 An exampleof suchmeng between a masterand his retainersare theearly fifth-century B.C.E. Houma ßj§ alliances(see Zhu Fenghan'sdiscussion in Shang Zhou, p. 539; formore about the Houma alliances,see Susan R. Weld, "The CovenantTexts at Houma and Wenxian,"in: EdwardL. Shaughnessy(ed.), New Sourcesof Early ChineseHistory: An Introductionto Read- ing Inscriptionsand Manuscripts[Berkeley 1997], pp. 125-160). The increasingimportance of mengin Zhanguosociety is discussedin Mark E. Lewis, SanctionedViolence in AncientChina (Albany1990), pp. 48-50. 70 Many anecdotesabout Zhanguo binke were convenientlycollected by Sima Qian wJSiS (ca. 145-90 B.C.E.) in severalbiographies of Zhanguopersonalities (Shiji, 75-78:2351-2399). 71 The ensuingreconceptualization of personalloyalty applied both to binkeand to theirmore suc- cessfulcolleagues who ascended to the top of the governmentapparatus and became high- rankingministers. For theease withwhich binke could becomehigh ministers, see Masubuchi, Chugokukodai no shakai,pp. 207-211et passim. 72 SffiEWffi,Ë«^XÊ (LwW "Bayi" Afà 3.19:30). 73 This interpretationis suggested, for instance, by Mencius(Mengzi, "Gongsun Chou xia" '¿:1% IT 4.2:88-89; "Wan Zhang xia" 10.7:247-248); cf. similarinvocations of li in the Lüshi chunqiu("Xia xian" 15.3:878; "Jinting" ÜÜ 13.5:704; "Jiaozi" Ü¿& 20.7:1404). 58 Yuri Pines
one of themajor topoi in theZhanguo shi ethos.Mencius refused to meetrulers ifthey summoned him disrespectfully. Elsewhere he stated: Whenthe rulerregards his ministersas his limbs,they regard him as theirheart and belly;when the ruler regards his ministersas dogs or horses,they regard him as one of thecommon folk, when the ruler regards his ministersas theground or thegrass, they regard him as an enemy.74 This unequivocalstatement leaves no doubtthat ruler-minister relations are based on quid pro quo: a rulershould expect no more thanthe same attitudehe dis- playedtoward his ministers.Thus, to ensureministerial loyalty, the ruler should treathis subordinateswith the utmostrespect. Numerous anecdotes scattered throughoutlate Zhanguotexts repeatedly tell of powerfulleaders who treatedshi as theirequals, if not superiors,in orderto obtainthe latter's fidelity. The mes- sage of theseanecdotes is succinctlysummarized in a sayingattributed to a fa- mous assassin-retainer,Yu Rang WE, who sparedno effortsto avengehis late master,Zhi Bo kïïiù (d. 453). Whenasked whyhe did notprofess a similarloy- altytoward his previousmasters, the Fan ?& and the Zhonghang^Hf lineages, Yu Rangreportedly answered: When I servedthe Fan and the Zhonghanglineages, they treated me as a com- moner,and I repaidthem as a commoner.Zhi Bo treatedme as theshi of thestate, and I repaidhim as theshi of thestate.75 Yu Rang made it clear thatthe servant'sloyalty was not an obviousobligation towardshis master,but rather a bonusgiven in exchangefor respectful and polite treatment.Only he who recognizedthe worth of his retainers/ministerscould ex- pectdevotion in return,or as Yu Rang statedelsewhere: "A shi dies forthe sake of the one who profoundlyunderstands him."76 This emphasison profoundun- derstanding(zhi ji £nB, lit., "to understandthe otheras you understandyour- self) is indicativeof theincreasing demand for reciprocity in ruler-ministerrela- tions.77Mere respectwas notenough; the shi expecteda sortof spiritualaffinity fromtheir masters. This expectationmay explain the appearance of thenotion of ruler-ministerfriendship, which became stronglypronounced in late Zhanguo texts. In theZhanguo discourse friendship acquired its modernmeaning as "sharing commondesires," namely, spiritual affinity among equals. Recently,Zha Chang-
74 g;t«Ein^£, m&nmiuM'ù;mZMS-taitm, JWe«SínHÀ5 MZMmv± ÎN Wl&U%tnfëm(Mengzi, "Li Lou xia" ¡tïT 8.3:186).
Z (He JianzhangMA*, Zhanguoce zhushiRHAiÈS [Beijing1991], "Zhao ce ffiÄ 1" 18.4:618). 76 ±MH^%JÍ (Zhanguoce, "Zhaoce 1" 18.4:617). 77 For moreon the importanceof "understanding"shi, see Lüshichunqiu, "Zhi shi" £p± 9.3:490-491;"Bu qin" ^{f 12.5:640;Zhanguo ce, "Chuce &Ä 4" 17.11:589-590;Shiji 77:2378-2381. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 59 guo assertedthat the concept of ruler-ministerfriendship may be presentimplic- itlyalready in theLunyu.™ By themid-Zhanguo, this notion became prominent in numeroustexts. Mencius, for instance, lauded Yao H, who befriendedShun ff : "when superiorsrevere inferiors,this means 'respectingthe worthy'."79The Guodiantexts discussed above bestrepresent this trend. Some rulerstoo evidently recognizedthe need to befriendand to respectshi.so Impositionof friendship,the norm of relationsamong equals, on the suppos- edly hierarchicalruler-minister ties epitomizesthe assertiveattitude of Zhanguo shi. Yet, some proudministers were no longersatisfied even withthis presumed equalitywith the rulers. In theatmosphere of escalatingself-confidence of theshi, a moreradical view of ruler-ministerrelations emerged. Radical shi arguedthat theworthy members of theirstratum should be treatednot as theruler's friends, butas his teachers,that is defacto superiors.A passagefrom the Mencius states: Lord Mu wentseveral times to visitZi Si, askinghim: "In antiquity,how did [the rulers]of theone-thousand-chariot [i.e., small] statemanage to befriendshiV Zi Si did not like that,and answered:"Men of antiquityhad a saying:'talk of ser- vice,' did theysay: 'talkof friendship'?"As Zi Si did notlike [thelord's question], whydid he notanswer: "Judging by position,you are theruler, and I am themin- ister- how dare I befrienda ruler?Judging by virtue{de î§), you serveme - how can youbefriend me?"81 Thus,for "worthy shi99 befriending the ruler was humiliating;nothing short of the positionof theruler's teacher could satisfythem. Zi Si and his follower,Mencius, believedthat the rulershould serve (shi (£) the worthyminister, thus reversing theostensible hierarchy. Leaving aside thedangerous political implications of the assertionthat the minister'svirtue outweighed that of the ruler,we shouldask whatkind of loyaltycould be expectedof the ministerin such a case? Can we everspeak of themaster's loyalty towards his disciples? The notionof a shi beinga ruler'ssuperior became quite popular in late Zhan- guo discourse.The manifestoof the Zhanguoshi, the late-third-centuryB.C.E. compendium,Lilshi chunqiu § K;#$C, lauds outstandingshi: "a rulercannot ob-
78 Zha pointedout thatthe Lunyu discusses in almostidentical terms shi obligationstowards the rulerand thefriend, which apparently implies that Confucius envisioned both systems of rela- tionsas basicallythe same (Zha, "You yu Liang Zhou," pp. 102-104). 79 ffl±f!tT' li^^R (Mengzi,"Wan Zhangxia" 10.3:237). 80 Lord Mu of Lu ^Wà (r. 409-377) reportedlyasked Confucius'grandson, Zi Si =?S (483- 402) how to befriendshi of All underHeaven {Mengzi,"Wan Zhang xia" 10.7:248), while Lord Wen of Wei fÜJt^ (r. 445-396) was hailed in latergenerations for his alleged willing- ness to befriendand to respectworthy shi (Lüshichunqiu, "Ju nan" |l|ü 19.8:1320). 81 «&Ë6Jt.iH:S, B: '-&^mzmtt&±, fàW J T ©>RÄ,B: ííZX^mBi T«¿5^J , ñB&Z^^ J TSi^tOtì, S^Eh tVXÎÎL,fliJT, Stil, «, E tì, MÄKSÄiil? LU«, M'JT*S#tì,MöIW^ftÄ? J (Mengzi,"Wan Zhang xia" 10.7:248). 60 Yuri Pines
tainthem as friends,the Son of Heaven cannotobtain them as ministers."82The Lüshi chunqiurepeatedly emphasizes the importanceof shi to the destinyof the state,claiming that the political standing of "plain-clothed"shi may surpassthat of therulers. Rulers should never behave arrogantly towards shi, butmust toler- ate thehaughty behavior of theiradvisors; they should always remember that shi are theirteachers, and notmere servants.83 The late ZhanguoJingfa $?íí manu- script,excavated in 1973 in MawangduilizEifê, Hunan,further elaborates these arguments: TheEmperor's minister is namedminister, but in facthe is a teacher.The king's ministeris namedminister, but in facthe is a friend.The hegemon'sminister is namedminister, but in fact [he is a guest.The imperiled ruler's] minister is named minister,but in facthe is a servant.The due-to-perishruler's minister is named minister,but in fact he is a slave.84 The above passage impliesthat the ruler's destiny depends primarily on themode of his relationswith his ministers.The morethe ruler respects his aides, themore he can relyon theirgratitude and selflessservice. Otherwise, a shi can followthe advice of the Guodianauthors: "when ruler and ministerare unableto stayto- gether,you can sever [theserelations]; when you dislike [the ruler],you may leave him." The above sayingsrepresent the view of radicallyminded shi, buttheir impact was not limitedto the shi stratum.Some rulersalso adoptedthe views of their aides thatshi are the mostprecious state treasure. A strikingevidence for this compliancewith the shi ideal is again suppliedby archeologicaldiscovery. A tombof King Cuo of Zhongshan4*dJ, excavated in 1974-1978, yieldedamong othersa dingi?p| caldron with a long inscriptionof 462 characters.85The inscrip- tioncommemorates a successful military expedition carried out by theZhongshan ministernamed Zhou Ü againstthe state of Yan ^ in 316 or 315. In theinscrip-
82 ÍSS^ff MÄ. ?ep^íf ME (Lüshichunqiu, "Shi jie" ±W 12.2:622-623).A moreextreme passageclaims that as forthe great shi "Fiveemperors could not obtain them as friends,three kingscould not obtain them as teachers;only when they cast aside their emperors' and kings' airscould they approach and be ableto obtain[these shi ]" (i^lfcíiMX» HÍ^í#MÈÍ» ¿Ä^i^fe, M'JifioJíf¿o "Xia xian"TR 15.3:879).For similar views, see alsoSun Xi- danÜ#0. , LijijijieÎ8!e*#i (Beijing1996), "Ru xing" ffltfr 57:1407. 83 See Lüshichunqiu, "Zun shi" ^gfp4.3:204-206; "Jie li" ftal 12.3 627-628;"Bu qin" >Rf 12.5:640-641;"Xia xian" TR 15.3:878-880;"Shun shuo" mWL 15.5:905-906; "Jiao zi" Jgffö 20.7:1404-1405. 84 *#e, «e, A*»tìo £#e, «e, ä*ä&o r#e. «e, ä*[*&o ä#] E. £E» ÄÄÄ-Eo tr#E. £E» ÄtfÄtfe(Mawangdui Hanmu boshu zhengli xiaozu JSï*iïIÏÉS#SS'J'Îfl, JingfaÍSJÉ [Beijing 1976], "Cheng" fil, pp. 89-90).For a similar argument,see Zhanguo ce, "Yance i&jft1" 29.12:1110-1111. 85 Thestate of Zhongshan was established by the White Di Ö %ktribesmen innorthern Hebei and Shanxi.The following discussion is basedon GilbertL. Mattos,"Eastern Zhou Bronze Inscrip- tions,"in: Shaughnessy (ed.), New Sources, pp. 104-111. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 61 tionthe king hails Zhou's achievements;below we shall cite themost interesting portionof theroyal declaration: Heavensent down a graciousmandate to mystate, [therefore we] havethis loyal servant,Zhou, [who] is ableto be acquiescentand obedient, [so that]nothing does not accordwith humaneness. Reverently compliant with Heaven's virtue, he therebyassists me, the Lonely Man, on theleft and the right. He mademe under- standthe responsibility ofthe altars of soil and grain, and the proprieties ofservant andmaster. From dawn to dusk he doesnot slacken in leading and guiding me, the LonelyMan.86 The kingspared no superlativesin depictingZhou, and even statedthat Zhou's assistancewas tantamountto his receiptof Heaven's mandate(tian ming^pp). He seeminglyadopted the view thata righteousminister should be the ruler's teacher;hence, he emphasizedthat Zhou "led and guided" him. Whatelse can betterillustrate the ruler's compliance with the above-mentioned Jingfa idea that "theEmperor's minister is namedminister, but in facthe is a teacher"?Notewor- thy,the king's effusive panegyric of Zhou was not aimed onlyto propagatethe king's "respectto theworthy," but was placed in a royaltomb, apparently as a reportto theancestors.87 It may well reflect,therefore, the king's genuine belief in theoverall importance of his aide to thestate's prosperity. Even Menciuscould nothave possibly demanded more! Perhapsthe most radical manifestation of the atmosphereof diminishingdis- tinctionsbetween rulers and ministersis an abdicationlegend, which gained popularityin the Zhanguoage. The storyof the sage emperorYao yieldingthe throneto his worthyminister, Shun, later paralleled by a storyof Shun's abdica- tionin favorof his worthyaide, Yu H, is well knownand does not requirede- tailed discussionhere. What is noteworthyis thatabdication legend does not merelypromulgate the principleof "elevatingthe worthy"as noticedby many scholars,but, more precisely, advocates elevating a worthyminister. Indeed, if a ministercan be a ruler'sfriend or a teacher,why could nothe becomea ruler's heir?88
86 I slightlymodify Constance Cook's translationas it appears in Mattos, "EasternZhou", pp. 106-107.My majormodification is changingpast to thepresent tense, as thereis no reasonto suggestthat Zhou's positivequalities ended with the king'smaturity as assumedby Cook and Mattos. 87 For the functionof thebronze inscriptions as the meansof communicatingwith the ancestors and theirbeing a mediato expressthe donor's Weltanschauung,see Lotharvon Falkenhausen, "Issues in WesternZhou Studies:A ReviewArticle," in: Early China 18 (1993), pp. 145-171. 88 The abdicationlegend and itscontradicting versions are extensivelydiscussed by Sarah Allan in The Heir and theSage: DynasticLegend in Early China (San Francisco1981); see also Angus C. Graham,Disputers of the Tao. PhilosophicalArgument in AncientChina (La Salle, 111. 1989), pp. 292-299. This legendapparently did notexist prior to theZhanguo period (the only referenceto Yao's abdicationin theZuo zhuan [Wen 18:633-643]is definitelya laterinterpola- tion[see Pines, Foundations,pp. 234-238]). Its implicationswere not limitedto philosophical discourse:at leastin one case theimprudent ruler, King Kuai &#of Yan, was enticedin 318 to 62 Yuri Pines
The above examples,as well as otherZhanguo manifestations of nearequality betweenrulers and ministers,89suggest that far from being a marginalmanifesta- tionof ministerialself-confidence, the Guodiantexts are rathera tip of the ice- berg,and maywell be representativeof thewidespread mood of thelate Zhanguo period.In thisintellectual atmosphere ministerial loyalty was conditionedby the ruler'srespectful treatment of his aides, and theminister's obedience to thesov- ereign'scommands could not be takenfor granted.Understandably, ministers mighthave liked thissituation. But whatwas its impacton social and political stability?What were theimplications of theshi self-confidenceon ruler-minister relations?These issueswill be discussedbelow.
4. From Friendsto Foes - The Late Zhanguo Reappraisal of Loyalty Untilnow I have discussedthe conceptof loyaltyfrom the shi viewpoint.Self- confidentZhanguo ministers viewed the rulersas theirequals and owed thema loyaltydue to friends,not to superiors.This sense of equalitymay be puzzling. While Chunqiuministers really shared the ruler'spower due to theirhereditary positionat courtand kinshipties withthe overlord,this was not the case with theirZhanguo heirs. By the mid-fourth-centuryB.C.E. mostrulers of Zhanguo stateshad successfullyregained their power, eliminatingdangerous aristocratic lineages,diminishing hereditary service and hereditarylandholding and imposing close surveillanceon governmentapparatus. Many Zhanguooverlords were di- rectdescendants of the formerministerial lineages of the Chunqiuperiod, and theywere determined to preventa newusurpation by curbingministerial power.90 Whatmay explain then the self-confidence of Zhanguoministers? A possibleanswer to thisquestion may be the unique freedomof actionof Zhanguoministers. Zhanguo shi livedin a worldof transparentboundaries. Their
abdicatein favorof his "worthyminister," Zi Zhi -p¿, withgrave consequences for the state of Yan. Politicalsensitivity of theabdication issue justifies Graham's assertion that extant tex- tualreferences to it maybe merelya tipof theiceberg {Dispuîers, p. 293). 89 An importantindication of theextraordinary high position of Zhanguoministers versus the rul- ers are ritualregulations of thatage which,unlike in the imperialperiod, demanded explicitly respectfultreatment of theministers by theruler. See an excellentdiscussion by Du Jiajit±J^ H, "Zhongguogudai junchen zhi li yanbiankaolun" 4l^'S">Í^SE¿ÍÍÍA^%l8í, in: Zhang Guogang^RUS'J (ed.), Zhongguoshehui lishi pinglun 45Htt#]S£tiFtfò 1 (Tianjin1999), pp. 255-269. 90 Four out of sevenZhanguo superpowers (Qi, Zhao ffi,Wei $6, and Han %%)were established by descendantsof theministerial houses, which effectively eliminated the power of theirformer rulers.In theZhanguo period, a similarusurpation occurred in thestate of Song 5fe,and almost happenedin Yan M. To preventrecurrence of theseevents, Zhanguo overlords did theirbest to concentratepower in theirhands. See a detaileddiscussion by MarkE. Lewis, "WarringStates: PoliticalHistory," in: MichaelLoewe - EdwardL. Shaughnessy(eds.), The CambridgeHistory ofAncient China. From the Origins of Civilizationto 221 B.C. (Cambridge1999), pp. 597-603; Yang Kuan,Zhanguo shi, pp. 213-277. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 63 lives are comparableto thatof qualifiedpersonnel in a marketeconomy: shifting fromone companyto anotherin searchof betterconditions is neithercontempt- ible nordisgraceful.91 A high minister who felthis positiondeclining and thathis advicewas no longerheeded could easilycross theborder and servea new mas- ter. UnlikeChunqiu hereditary office-holders, the Zhanguo shi viewedtheir loy- altyas directedpersonally to theoverlord, and notto thealtars. Hence, thealtars' destinymattered little if the minister's ties with his rulerdeteriorated. Eventually, mostZhanguo ministers conceived a notionthat one can owe loyaltyto thealtars and notpersonally to theruler as characteristicof thebygone Chunqiu age, inap- plicableto themodern situation.92 A conflictwith the ruler severed then all obli- gationsto thepolity. This freedomof actionbolstered the shi standingversus the rulers,but also added increasingtension to ruler-ministerties. Shiftingallegiances of leading ministersgenerated an atmosphereof mistrustbetween the ruler and his aides. A moraljustification for shifting loyalties could rarelyconceal the privatemotives of the turncoats.It was all too clear thatmost shi soughtprimarily wealth and power,rather than Dao. To illustratethis point we maybriefly discuss a Zhanguo c^läiÄ anecdoteabout a famousdiplomat, Su Qin H # (d. 284), whichmay be representativeof thelate Zhanguo intellectual atmosphere. At thebeginning of his career,Su Qin reportedlyarrived at the stateof Qin, wherehe attemptedto persuadeKing Hui ItHüiE (r. 337-311) to adopta more assertivemilitary policy with the ultimate aim "to annexthe overlords' [states], to swallowthe world, to declareyou emperor,and to bringabout orderly rule." As the kingrejected the advice, and refusedto employSu Qin, the latterreturned hometo be treatedwith open contemptby his parents,wife, and sister-in-law.Su Qin pledgedto avengethis humiliation, for which Qin was responsible.Hence, he movedto the stateof Zhao ifi, wherehe became an architectof theanti-Qin ("vertical,"zong affi)alliance.
91 Han Feizi, arguablythe mostastute of Zhanguopolitical analysts, summarized this situation: "A ministerbrings to therulers' market [his ability]to exhausthis forceto thepoint of death;a rulerbrings to the ministers'market [his ability]to bestow ranks and emoluments.Ruler- ministerrelations are based noton theintimacy of fatherand child,but on calculation[of bene- fits]."(femyiijummitii mmmmm&ñ; %&zm, #i£=?zm&, tf-»¿wtn tìo Han Feizi, "Nan yi" $t^ 36:352). 92 This understandingis most explicit in one of theZhanguo ce anecdotes.King Wei of Chu íllE 3i (r. 339-329) askedhis minister,Zi Hua Tí, to tellhim about paragon ministers of his state who preferredthe interests of thealtars to theirown. Zi Hua toldseveral anecdotes about these modelministers, all of whomlived in theChunqiu period, but was embarrassedwhen the king remarked:"All theseare menof antiquity;are men of our days able to behave so?" ("Chu ce 1" 14.20:523-525). Significantly,almost all the paragonsof loyaltyto the altarsin Zhanguo textsare Chunqiuministers (see, for instance,Allyn W. Rickett[transi.], Guanzi: Political, Economic,and PhilosophicalEssays from Early China.A Study.Vol. I [Princeton,N.J. 1985], p. 290;Lijijijie, "Tan Gong xia" it ^T 11:279. 64 Yuri Pines
Su Qin madea brilliantcareer in thestate of Zhao, achievingthe highest posi- tion and acquiringfabulous riches. His parents,wife, and sister-in-lawtreated him thereafterwith utmost respect and awe. The anecdote'sauthors laud him: "Su Qin was afterall merelya shi frompoor environs,dwelling in a mud cave withmulberries instead of doors. Yet, leaningon thedashboard and holdingthe reins,he traveledacross the world, spoke to kingsand overlordsand confounded theiraides, and nobodyin the worldwas a matchfor him." The anecdoteends withSu Qin's exclamation:"Alas! Whenone is poor and humble,parents do not treathim as a son; whenone is richand noble,relatives are afraidof him.When a manlives in thisworld, how can he ignorethe power of his rankand theafflu- ence of his wealth?"93 The historicalveracity of thisanecdote need notconcern us here.What is im- portantis themoral lesson its authors convey. For Su Qin, thecontent of thepro- posed policymattered very little: hence, throughout most of his lifehe struggled againstthe statewhich he wantedto benefitat the dawn of his career. Su Qin concernedhimself with nothing but personalwelfare. He soughtfrom the over- lords neitherDao nor friendship,but power and riches,and his only objective was benefit.Whereas Mencius railed against profit-seeking,94 theZhanguo ce au- thorshail Su Qin and envyhis success. By no stretchof the imaginationcan we discernin the storya hintof criticism.Su Qin, ratherthan Mencius, was the modelfor Zhanguo shi. Behindthe façade of talksabout ruler-minister friendship and about"respecting the worthy," we findthe ugly cynicism of thelate Zhanguo age: loyaltywas givenprimarily if notexclusively in exchangefor personal bene- fits. This understandingsheds a differentlight on the loftyideals of the Zhanguo shi surveyedin theprevious section. While a ministercould claim ideologicalor personalreasons for his resignationfrom the office,the rulerusually suspected thathis aide was merelyseeking a bettercareer at therival court. Only few shi wouldprefer the life of a recluse,after their resignation.95 Most would normally shifttheir allegiance to a differentruler. An overlord,then, had to considerthe possibilitythat his closestaides mayone day be actingagainst the interests of the statewhich they previously served. To make thingsworse, some shrewdminis- terssucceeded in servingsimultaneously two or moremasters, thereby undermin-
93 Zhanguoce, "Qin ce #» 1" 3.2:74-76. 94 See Mengzi,"Liang Hui Wangshang" 1.1:1-2; "Gaozi xia" 12.4:280. 95 For therecluses of theZhanguo age, see Aat Vervoorn,Men of the Cliffsand Caves. The De- velopmentof the Chinese Eremitical Tradition to theEnd ofthe Han Dynasty(Hong Kong 1990), pp. 19-73. This option,however, was notparticularly attractive for most shi, who conceivedof theirpolitical career as botha respectableway to make a living,and as the best way of self- fulfillment.Mencius, for instance, stated that a shi losinghis positionwas like an overlordlos- inghis state;a shi soughtan officeafter crossing the boundaries just likea farmerhad to tillthe soil whereverhe was; remainingwithout an appointmentfor three months was a reasonto offer a shi condolences{Mengzi, "Teng Wen Gongxia" 6.3:142). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 65
ingthe very rationale of ruler-ministerrelations.96 Such people,like their paragon, Su Qin, wereadmired by manyshi of theirage. The worlddominated by Su Qin and his like was notan ideal place forruler- ministerfriendship and spiritualaffinity. On thecontrary, mutual distrust was the rule. Zhanguo textsrepeatedly tell about unfortunateministers who failed to provetheir fidelity to themasters, and encounteredsuspicion and slander.97Other storiestell aboutnaïve rulerswho reliedon treacherousaides, endangeringtheir statesor theirposition. Indeed, in a worldof deceitwhere noble sayings and high principlesoften disguised mean personal motives, the trusted aide of todaycould become the deceitfulsubject of tomorrow.98Amicable relationsin the higher echelonswere an exception,not a rule. The atmosphereof mutualmistrust invalidated the appeal of ruler-minister friendship.Zhanguo rulers needed neither companions, nor friends, nor teachers, butrather obedient servants. Certain members of theshi stratumresponded to this need of theoverlords, and suppliedthem with intellectual and practicalmeans to restrainministerial power and subdueministerial pride. These thinkers,usually identifiedas the so-called Legalists (fajia £eÜC)," dismissedtheir colleagues' pleas for ruler-ministerfriendship as eitherunrealistic, or deceitful.Legalists ridiculedthe ethicalapproach to institutionalproblems, characteristic of Confu- cius and Mencius,and paid littleattention to ministerialloyalty. Instead, they urgedthe ruler to applyappropriate techniques (shu |S(, or shu $j, "methods")to controlhis aides. Practicalaspects of theirrecommendations have been examined elsewhereand will not be dealt withhere.100 For the purposeof our discussion
96 For detailsabout these "servantsof severalmasters," see Lewis, "WarringStates," pp. 632- 634. 97 Legendsabout tragic heroes, outstanding ministers whose loyaltywas not recognizedby their superiors,and who were resultantlyvictimized, became wide-spreadamong Zhanguo shi. Amongthese heroes we maymention Wu Zixu ffiTff (d. 484), a ministerat thecourt of Wu ^; a militarystrategist, Wu Qi ^íã (d. 381); and thesemi-legendary poet, Qu Yuan Süí. Si- ma Qian, whosepersonal tragedy made himparticularly receptive to theirstories, collected an- ecdotesrelated to thesepersons in chapters65, 66 and 84 of theShiji; see also David Johnson, "Epic and Historyin EarlyChina: The Matterof Wu Tzu-hsii,"in: Journalof Asian Studies, 40 (1981) 2, pp. 255-271; Schneider,A Madmanof Chu. 98 The memoryof recentusurpations (see note90) increaseda ruler'ssuspicions against his pow- erfulaides, whosepositions therefore were particularly perilous (see, forinstance, Zhanguo ce, "Qin ce 3" 5.18:203-206). The deteriorationof ruler-ministerrelations is elucidatedin another Zhanguoce anecdote,which tells that only a bad and unpopularminister could be considered loyal,as he wouldnever usurp the ruler's power ("Dong Zhou ce" ^Jr]M 1.11:17). 99 DesignatingZhanguo thinkers as membersof a certain"school" may be bothmisleading and over-simplifyingthe complex picture of Zhanguothought, and I use it onlyas a scholarlycon- vention.Pace HerrleeG. Creel (ShenPw-hai, pp. 135-162)I define"Legalists" broadly, refer- ringto all thinkerswho soughtto enhancethe ruler's authority at theexpense of shi interests. 100 See, forinstance, Creel, ShenPu-hai; Lev S. Perelomov,Kniga PraviteliaOblasti Shan (Shang jun shu) (Moscow 1993), pp. 59-136; Yang Kuan,Zhanguo shi, pp. 188-212. 66 Yuri Pines moreimportant is theLegalists' réévaluation of therationale of ruler-ministerre- lations. Thinkerslike ShangYang fólfe(d. 338), Shen Buhai WS (d. 337), and to lesserextent Shen Dao tÄS'J(fl. late fourthcentury) repeatedly stated that a min- ister,driven by his personalinterest, must always be suspectedas a potentialtrai- toror a usurper.Shang Yang warnedthe ruler that many of his ministersmight secretlyconnive with the foreign powers.101 Shen Buhai, alternatively, focused his attentionon thepossibility of usurpationfrom within.102 Their views were effec- tivelysynthesized by the last of thegreat pre-imperial thinkers, Han Feizi, who viewedevery minister as a potentialenemy of the ruler.Han Feizi ridiculedthe hypocriticalcriticisms of a famouslate Chunqiutreacherous retainer, Confucius' contemporaryand antagonist,Yang Hu PÜJEÄ: Some people say: in a household of one thousand [jin] of gold, sons lack fraternal feelingsbecause theyare too anxious about benefit.Lord Huan [of Qi, r. 685-643] was the supreme of the five hegemons, but in strugglingfor his state he murdered an elder brother- this is because the benefitwas high. Between ruler and minister, there is no intimacyof relatives. If robbery and murder attain the rule of a one- thousand-chariotstate and the pleasure of a huge benefit,which of the multitudeof ministerswould differfrom Yang Hu? An affairis completed by subtle and skillful[action]; it is defeated by clumsy and foolish [action]. If the multitudesof ministersstill have not risen to make troubles, this is because they are still not prepared. ... The loyalty or deceitfulnessof the ministersdepend on the ruler's behavior. When the ruler is clear-sightedand stern, the ministersare loyal; when the ruler is cowardly and benighted,the ministersare deceitful.103 Han Feizi leaves no doubt:a ministeris potentiallya mortalenemy of theruler. A sovereignshould not rely on ministerialloyalty, nor should he condemnminis- terialdeceitftilness, since when the highestprize - statepower - is at stake, moralrules play no role. Everyminister is a potentialtraitor, each harborsYang Hu's heart;and it is onlystern surveillance by theruler that prevents his minis- ters fromcarrying out theirtreacherous plans. Han Feizi invertedthe idea of ruler-ministerfriendship: the court, he argued,harbors not friends but bitter foes of theruler.
101 Shang Yang warned:"The 'heroes' diligentlystudy Shi and Shu and thenfollow the foreign powers" (M&f%^î$iS> Wi&£b9$o JiangLihong ÄÜÄ, Shangj un shu zhuizhiìSifflfìf fé [Beijing1996], "Nongzhan" JftK3:22; cf. "Suan di" »Ä 6:45-47). 102 See epigraph.For ShenDao's views,see ShenziAT, "Zhi zhong"£PÄ, in: P.M. Thompson, TheShen tzu Fragments (Oxford 1979), pp. 258-263. tóogiteti, #a£¿jhe. »«¿tì, mnmm^xm,Hd#e&#»*&? »y«
HÜ» ES. S-«MIW»J»EIÍ {Han Feizi, "Nan si" MW 49:383). Ruler-Minister Relations and the Notion of Loyalty 67
Does thiscynical (or perhapsrealistic) appraisal of ruler-ministerties invali- datethe concept of loyalty?Not necessarily.Han Feizi afterall remaineda mem- ber of theministerial stratum; he was aware of his precariousposition at court, and wantedto be trustedand employed.Hence, he admittedthat loyal ministers mightexist, as theyhad in thepast, but he reinterpretedthe nature of theirloyalty. Amongparagons of loyalty,lauded by his contemporaries,Han Feizi hailedthose who actuallycontributed to thestate's well-being, and ridiculedthose who either soughta ruler'sfriendship, or servedtheir moral Dao at theexpense of theruler. The followingpassage epitomizes Han Feizi's historicallessons: Tang (M, the founderof the Shangdynasty) attained Yi Yin (i^^*), and relying on one hundred// (£) of land became Son of Heaven. Lord Huan of Qi attained Guan Zhong(fH^, d. 645) and establishedhimself as themaster of theFive He- gemons;he nine timesassembled the overlordsand unifiedAll underHeaven. Lord Xiao of Qin (##&, r. 361-338) attainedLord Shang (Shang Yang), and therebyexpanded his landsand strengthenedhis armies.Thus, one who has a loyal minister,has no worryof rivalstates abroad, has no anxietyof calamitousminis- tersat home;he enjoyslasting peace in All underHeaven and his nameis handed downto posterity.This is whatis called "a loyalminister." Afterdefining a truezhong, Han Feizi dismisses paragons of loyaltyhailed by his contemporaries: Now, if we takeYu Rang who was a ministerof Zhi Bo, above he failedto con- vince his masterto employthe principlesof clear laws, techniques,rules, and methodsto avoid theworries of troublesand misfortune;below, he failedto com- mandhis multitudesin orderto protect[Zhi Bo's] state.Yet, when[Zhao] Xiangzi killedZhi Bo, Yu Rang brandedhis face, cut his nose and deformedhis appear- ance in orderto kill Xiangziand avengeZhi Bo.104Although he therebymutilated and sacrificedhimself to attaina namefor his master,in realitythis was as useless forZhi Bo as a fringeof autumnhair. This [behavior]is whatI discard,but the rulersof our age considerthis loyalty and elevateit. In thepast, therewere Bo Yi and Shu Qi. King Wu [of Zhou] yieldedAll under Heaven [to them],but theyrefused to accept it; bothmen starvedthemselves to deathat the Shouyanghill.105 Ministers like theseneither fear heavy punishment, norare theymoved by handsomerewards; penalties cannot restrain them, rewards cannotencourage them: these are called useless servants.I [tryto] diminishand dismissthem, while the rulers of theage multiplythem and seek [theirservice].106
104 For Yu Rang's story,see Zhanguoce, "Zhao ce 1" 18.4:617-618;see also theabove discussion. 105 See note67 forfurther details about Bo Yi and Shu Qi's story.The putativedesire of King Wu to yieldAll underHeaven to righteousbrothers is in all likelihoodHan Feizi's exaggeration.
nmm,i&tu/Ä, ÄLU3EO *£w&e#, tmttímzB, rt&ii&t*, n^fô^r, w 68 Yuri Pines
Han Feizi wantedto reconcilethe concept of loyaltywith state interests. A pru- dentruler was notin need of ministerslike Bo Yi or Shu Qi who followedtheir Dao disregardingthe state; or of those,like Yu Rang,whose fidelity was directed to theruler's person rather than to thepolity. Such notionsof loyaltywere use- less or even harmfulto stateinterests. Han Feizi, therefore,wanted to restorean almostforgotten notion of politicalrather than personal loyalty.107 Unlike the case of Chunqiuministers, however, Han Feizi denied a loyal ministerthe rightto defythe ruler's orders in thename of thealtars. Even thegreatest ministers of the past weremerely the ruler's servants and notcompanions, and theyhad no right to disobey.Han Feizi was aware of thepossibility (encountered by himperson- ally at theend of his life)that a loyal ministercould fallvictim to a ruler'smis- trust,but these were only inevitable if regrettablelapses of thesystem. Under no conditionwas it permissibleto disobeythe sovereign.Being loyal was laudable, butgave a ministerno extrarights. The Legalists'emphasis on law and subordinationcould notbut impress rulers. Disillusionedwith manipulative shi who all too frequentlyused loftyprinciples to justifytheir petty personal interests, late Zhanguooverlords were increasingly at- tentiveto thedemonstrably effective ideas of ShangYang, Shen Buhai, and later Han Feizi. Xunzi,a greatConfucian scholar and politicalthinker of thethird cen- turyB.C.E. did not fail to apprehendthe change. In the late fourthcentury B.C.E., Menciusproudly encountered the rulersfrom the position of a teacher. Threequarters of a centurylater, Xunzi had to adopta markedlydefensive stance towardsa haughtyKing Zhao of Qin #HSï (r. 306-250), who blatantlyasked him "are Confucians(ru Ü) useless to the state?"108An astutethinker, Xunzi, soughtthe way to enhanceConfucians' (and othershi) value whilesimultaneous- ly preservingtheir sense of self-respect. Xunzihad to reconciletwo contradictory trends. First, he had to reconfirmthe usefulnessof high-mindedConfucian shi to therulers, and to absolvethem from thesuspicion of treachery.Second, to preservehis intellectualprestige among the membersof theshi stratum,Xunzi had to avoid degradingthem to the statusof obedienttools of rulers,as Legalists(including Xunzi' s disciple,Han Feizi) rec- ommended.Xunzi, arguablythe greatestZhanguo political thinker, managed to achievea compromisebetween the ruler'sdemands and the shi self-image.His effortsare presentedin the chapter"The Way of Minister"(Chen Dao gì it),
?E#re¿K;£jfce#. ^usa*, ^mrnn,*RmK*tì, >^pm»ffitìottzmm AtËtfe. S0f^MiiË. Mttt±¿0f^M*ife (HanFeizi, "Jian jie shichen" SSrâSE 14:105-106). 107 As thefollowing discussion shows, Han Feizi evidentlywas influencedby theconcept of loyalty promulgatedby his teacher,Xunzi. 108 SMMÌ&AZmi (Xunzi,"Ruxiao" «& 8:117). Ruler-Minister Relations and the Notion of Loyalty 69 which became a guideline for ministerialethics of later ages. The major passage in the chapterstates: He who obeysthe orders and benefitsthe ruler, is called compliant;he who obeys theorders and does notbenefit the ruler, is called servile;he who contradictsthe ordersand benefitsthe ruler is called loyal; he who contradictsthe orders and does notbenefit the ruler is called an usurper.He who cares notfor the ruler's glory or disgrace,cares not for the success or failureof thestate, blandishes and flattersthe rulerin orderto graspemoluments and nurtureties [withthe sovereign] and thatis all - is calledthe state's villain. Afterexplaining that loyaltydemands defiance of the ruler's orders, Xunzi sug- gests differentcourses of action for a loyal subject: Whenthe ruler mistakes in layinghis plans or in carryingout his affairs,and one fearsthat the statewill be endangeredand thealtars suffer a loss, he who is able amonggrand ministers and thepopulation elders, submits his viewsto theruler. If theruler makes use [of his opinion],he agrees; otherwise,he leaves him- thisis called remonstrating.He who is able, submitshis views to the ruler;if the ruler makesuse [of his opinion],he agrees; otherwise,he dies [forhis views] - thisis called contesting.He who is able, combineshis knowledge,concentrates his force and leads a multitudeof ministersand hundredsof officialsto jointlyurge and subduethe ruler; although the ruler is unhappy,he has no choicebut to heed them; thereby[the minister] relieves the state of graveworry, eliminates its greatharm, and attainsrespect to theruler and peace forthe state - thisis called beingsuppor- tive.He who is able to disobeythe ruler's command, to stealthe ruler's power, to oppose the ruler'sundertakings in orderto relievethe dangerof the stateand to eradicatethe ruler's disgrace, and his success sufficesto bringgreat benefit to the state- he is called assisting.Thus, remonstrating,contesting, supportive, and as- sistingministers are theministers of thealtars of soil and grain,the ruler's treas- ure. The enlightenedruler respects and treatsthem generously, while the benighted rulerand the suspiciousruler consider them personal enemies. Hence, he whom the enlightenedruler rewards, the benightedruler penalizes; he whom the be- nightedruler rewards, the enlightened ruler executes. Xunzi ends his discussion with a brief summaryof historicalparagons of loyalty fromthe remoteand the recentpast: Yi Yin and Jizimay be called remonstrating;Bi Gan and [Wu] Zixu can be called contesting;Lord Pingyuanof Zhao can be called supporting;Lord Xinlingof Wei can be called assisting.The traditionsays: "Follow Dao, do notfollow the ruler" - it is toldof thesecases.109
109®.ti¡mmmmzm, ^.^m^mmmzi^ m^mmmmz&, m^m^^mmzm-, * »mzsk%,^wmzm&, ir^^§wm*#$MB5, mzmm*m^»m»m, m fcmm^m±&zm&, *g> ää, wtêiiwfôg,mm, */b»j*.mzm-, wííê mtnwí,mm, *mm, mz&¡ Gm&tomti,*SËH5Mffl^asisg, m »*£, *SB*«,mmmzxfè, v&mzxm, /s^s^h. rnzm-,Gfâ&mz tir,mmzn, &mzm, u^mzfc, m^zrn, sj^«^í¿^j, rnzm*tk m,^> í§>mzA, ftmz&&, mmzn&, wmm#m&, i«±itöÄöi 70 Yuri Pines
Of theseexamples the mostinteresting is the last one, Lord Xinlingor Prince Wuji fcg, a royalsibling from the stateof Wei who defiedhis ruler'sorders, stolethe royal army and attackedthe powerful state of Qin - presumablyout of concernfor the state of Wei. Xunzihailed Wuji' s defianceof theroyal orders as a manifestationof true loyalty,the loyaltyto the altars. A true ministerin Xunzi's eyes was an "altars'minister" (sheji zhi chen ítS^LÊ). This concept, whichwas so prominentin the Chunqiuperiod, remained marginal in Zhanguo discourse,as Mencius' sayingcited earlier suggests. Xunzi revitalizedthis long neglectedconcept, and it was probablyhe who transmittedthe notion of loyaltyto thealtars to Han Feizi.110 Unlikehis Chunqiupredecessors, Xunzi avoideddistinguishing the ruler's in- terestsfrom that of thealtars; to benefitthe statewas to benefita rulerand vice versa. A virtualidentity between the ruler's person and thestate, which reflected thegreatly enhanced position of late Zhanguooverlords,111 allowed Xunzi to sur- pass the bonds of personalloyalty without endangering the ruler.Xunzi advo- catedinstitutional, rather than personal loyalty to the sovereign;the ruler had to be servedand protectedbecause he was a ruler,the pinnacle of politicaland so- cial order,and not because of his personalfeatures. This de-personalizationof loyaltyside-stepped the concept of ruler-ministerfriendship, so highlypraised by Zhanguoshi. Personalties withthe sovereign did notmatter much any longer;a ministerowed himallegiance due to thealtars. The de-personalizationand institutionalizationof loyalty did not mean thata ministerbecame a ruler's submissivetool. In sharpdistinction to the legalists, Xunzi's paragonsof loyaltywere those who defiedthe ruler's orders for the sake of stateinterests. To justifythis defiance, Xunzi quoted Confucius' notion of fol- lowingDao ratherthan the ruler.In Xunzi's interpretation,however, Dao was identicalto state'sinterests, a Way of properrule, which comprised, but was not
iHo WñmZffilli,WmiJ^Htì; l»g-¿Jr». WS-¿Jr«&. #F. «ípTüí*^
í£go J ¿kZM& (Xunzi,"Chen Dao" Eü 13:249-250).Jizi Aí and Bi Gan ttT served thevicious last rulerof theShang, Zhouxin j&íí (d. ca. 1046); Jiziremonstrated and beingun- heededfled the state; Bi Gan persistedand was executed(see Shiji, 3:107-108). For thecareers of Wu Zixu, Lord of Pingyuan^fWM, and Lord of XinlingfiBÉfï, see Shiji,65, 76, 77. 110 See also note92 forthe rarity of theconcept of loyaltyto thealtars in theZhanguo age. Xunzi's viewsof loyaltyresemble Chunqiu views of ministerial(but not retainers') loyalty, presented in theZuo zhuan. This is nota singleinstance of a possibleinfluence of Chunqiuintellectual mi- lieu, as presentedin theZuo zhuanon Xunzi's thought.This importantissue, however, deserves a separatediscussion. 111 For theenhanced position of theZhanguo rulers as comparedwith their Chunqiu predecessors, see Lewis, "WarringStates," pp. 597-603. For a comprehensivediscussion on elevationof the ruler'sposition in Zhanguothought, see Liu Zehua, Zhongguochuantong zhengzhi sixiangfansi and his modifieddiscussion in Zhongguode wangquanzhuyi^HWïtt^A (Shanghai2000). Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 7 1
tantamountto personalmorality.112 Thus, loyaltyto one's principles,to Dao, meantloyalty to the state,which by definitionmeant loyalty to the ruler.Xunzi succeededin a fewsentences to synthesizeprevious concepts of loyaltyin a way thatpreserved the minister'sdignity, did not endangerpolitical stability, and benefitedthe ruler personally. Finally,what was Xunzi's attitudetowards changing allegiances? The above passage did not clarifyhis views: if the remonstratingminister leaves a ruler, does it implyretirement, or movingto anotherstate? Elsewhere, Xunzi subtly expressedhis dislikeof "servingtwo rulers,"113but generallyhe remainedsilent on thisissue. In a worldwhere almost every statesman, including Xunzi himself, had to cross theborders to findan appointment,there was no place foradvocat- ingloyalty to a singlemaster. This notionremained alien to Zhanguopolitics, but it was to be revivedshortly after the imperial unification of 221 B.C.E.
Epilogue From Friendsto Wives: The ImperialNotion of Loyalty A detaileddiscussion of thechanging concepts of loyaltyduring the two imperial millenniais certainlybeyond the scope of the presentstudy.114 It is interesting, however,to checkwhich of thepre-imperial views of loyaltyremained valid after theQin unification,and whichwere abandoned.We maythen explain why radi- cal pro-ministerialsentiments expressed in the Guodiantexts remained virtually unnoticeduntil the bamboo slips suddenlyresurfaced twenty-three centuries after theywere buried. The imperialnotion of loyalty,as formedduring the Han M dynasty(206 B.C.E. - 220 C.E.), combinedthe views of pre-imperialthinkers. Imperial min- isters,like theirChunqiu predecessors, were supposedselflessly to servethe al- tars,presuming that the interest of thealtars (and of thedynastic ancestral temple) is basicallyidentical to thatof the ruler.They were furtherexpected, in accor- dance withConfucius' dictum, to be criticalsupporters of theruler: in thename of Dao, thatis thehighest interests of thepolitical order, the minister could rep- rimandthe ruler, disobey him, and even resignif necessary.This synthesisbasi- cally followedXunzi' s theory.Besides, imperialbureaucrats grudgingly recog- nized the validityof Legalistwarnings against treacherous servants, and estab- lishedan elaboratesystem of surveillanceand controlto preventministerial trea- son. Aside fromthese aspects, the imperialnotion of zhongadded a dimensionof unswervingpersonal loyalty, akin to thatof Chunqiuretainers. This changewas
112 "Dao is a principlethrough which proper rule is arranged"(iïiiî#, ?p¿feíltóo Xunzi, "Zhengming" jE£ 22.423). 113 See Xunzi,"Quan xue" fft^ 1:9. 114 See note4 fordiscussions on thistopic; see particularlyStanden, Frontier Crossing, pp. 262- 277; Ge Quan, Zhengde zhi, pp. 193-222. 72 Yuri Pines symbolizedby thechanging simile of ruler-ministerrelations: not ties of friend- ship, but bonds of matrimony.The new vision of loyaltyis epitomizedby the saying"A loyalminister does notserve two rulers, a faithfulwife does notmarry a secondhusband," which was oftenused since theearly Han.115 This sayingre- flectsnew politicalconditions after the unification. In theunified empire, shifting allegianceswas rarelyan optionfor a dissatisfiedminister. The imperialliterati's questionwas to serveor notto serve,but not whom to serve.The Zhanguomar- ketof talentswas closedand replacedby a soundstate monopoly, challenged only occasionallyat theages of dynasticturmoil. The idea of unswervingloyalty to a singlemaster, the major innovationof imperialpolitical ethics, invalidatedthe Zhanguo emphasison ruler-minister friendship.Being placed at theapex of thestate pyramid, emperors were in need of servants,not friendsor self-proclaimed"teachers." Gradually, by developing and perfectingthe systemof stateexaminations, the imperialestablishment ap- propriatedthe positionof a teacher;it was the rightof the emperorto instruct 116 literati,while the lattercould admonish,but not teach him. As for ruler- ministerfriendship, this notion also graduallyfaded away.117 Traits of theshi self- esteemwere preservedin such Zhanguocollectanea as Liishichunqiu and Zhan- guo ce, and, moreimportantly, in theMencius. Although the latter's blatant pro- ministerialrhetoric occasionally infuriated the rulers,118the admirationof these passages amongthe literatipreserved the Mencius' positionas the core of the
115 AËW^f, nit^'§L^%. (TheChinese University of HongKong, The ICS AncientChi- nese TextsConcordance Series, Shuoyuan suizi suoyin sft^&iÉ^^^I "Li jie" j£tfí4.21:30; cf. Shiji 82:2457). In theZhanguo texts the simile of a wifefor a ministeris extremelyrare (see a briefsummary in Lisa AnnRaphals, Sharing the Light: Representations of Womenand Virtuein EarlyChina [Albany 1998], p. 12). This simileis present,according to thedominant interpreta- tion,in some of theShi j ing |$M odes and in the Chu ci SU, butthere, unlike in theabove saying,it does notdirectly imply undisputable fidelity of theminister to theruler (see also the "Wenyan"jfjf commentaryon thehexagram "Kun" i# in Zhou ZhenfufflWHe, Zhouyi yizhu MBM& [Beijing1994], p. 16). 116 This aspectof thestate examination system is brilliantlydiscussed by BenjaminA. Elman,"The Formationof 'Dao Learning'as ImperialIdeology During the Early Ming Dynasty/'in: Theo- dore Huterset al. (eds.), Cultureand Statein ChineseHistory. Conventions, Accommodations and Critiques(Stanford, Calif. 1997), pp. 58-82. The conceptof a servantbeing an emperor's teachersurvived in theposition of imperialtutors. However, these tutors, although revered by theemperors, gradually lost theirritual privileges due to theteachers; definitely, their position was thatof theservants, not of themasters (see Du Jiaji,"Zhongguo gudai," p. 262). 117 Du Jiajishows how thetraits of pre-imperialrituals, which stressed a ruler'srespect to themin- isters,gave way duringthe imperialmillennia to increasinglyhierarchically oriented rites (see his "Zhongguogudai"). Independent-mindedliterati of the late imperialperiod stronglyla- mentedthis degradation of a minister'sposition throughout the centuries (see, forinstance, Gu Yanwu IMA, "Ren zhu hu renchenzi" À±&î ÀË?, in: id.yRi zhi lujishi HAlUIIS, ed. by HuangRucheng Aítltíc [Changsha1994], 28:827). 118 For Zhu Yuanzhang's^ijcM (1328-1398) attemptto editout Mencius' "subversive"passages, see Elman,"Formation," pp. 72-74. Ruler-MinisterRelations and the Notionof Loyalty 73
Zhanguolegacy, and eventuallyas an importantpart of thecanonical texts. Does thispopularity testify to thelatent longing of theeducated elite for the bygone age whenthe gap betweenrulers and ministerswas considerablynarrower, an age whenloyalty was morereciprocal? Perhapssuch longingreally existed. The mostpopular "textbook" of loyalty and politicalethics, "The Romanceof theThree Kingdoms" (Sanguo y any i HÉ $lfi) cites the sayingof the exemplaryloyal servant,Guan Yu M3R (d. 219 C.E.), who explainedhis unwaveringfidelity to Liu Bei S'Jflt(d. 223 C.E.): "I and Xuande("ICíÉS, Liu Bei) are friendsand brothers,brothers and also rulerand minister."119Indeed, Liu Bei's abilityto treathis advisorsas friends,not servants, ensuredtheir loyalty. Yet, the readersof the novel could not fail to realize that such intimacybetween the rulerand his ministerswas possible only in ages of turmoil,but never in an age of orderly,unified rule. The centralizedand bureaucratizedempire was in no need of personalization of politicalties. The Guodianstrips' motto: "When you dislike[the ruler], you mayleave him,"was inimicalto politicalstability, and endangeredthe hierarchi- cal order.Such sayings,and withthem the conceptof ruler-ministerfriendship, fellinto oblivion. The age of imperialunity demanded a differentkind of political ethics,leaving the proud shi theposition of a ruler'sspouses, not friends.
Yuri Pines XWl n+ffimmng-g, k ; nm%&j ; r©g**B£tè(iurte ; m nmn r&j mit^mm,mmmtmmm mm&M%&imm ° ì&mw t#7ãEÉi»fitíifô,m^jmm±m^mi±, m&Mcmm&mvç&i&m°
119 &mtm, ñffl%mR%, AlIXgetì (Luo GuanzhongÜÄ43, Mao Zonggang%% H, Sanguoyanyi E.mfê$S. [Shanghai 1996], 26:331). 74 Yuri Pines
ñm^mx, mûtr©e*@Ej mmitmmm^,&&fàm&n&±m%i