Friends Or Foes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 the tomb'soccupant, but may also help us to betterunderstand the intellectualatmosphere among members of the shi 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