Creating Confucian Authority: The Field of Ritual Learning in Early China to 9 CE 9004461914, 9789004461918

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
1 Introduction
2 The Golden Age of Ritual: The World of the Zuo zhuan, and the Analects (Lun yu) on Confucius
3 The Ritual Culture of the Ru – Ritual Learning in the Warring States and Early Han
4 The “Victory” of Ritual Learning – Western Han
5 Conclusion and Final Arguments
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Creating Confucian Authority

Sinica Leidensia Edited by Barend J. ter Haar Maghiel van Crevel In co-operation with P. K. Bol, D. R. Knechtges, E. S. Rawski, W. L. Idema, H. T. Zurndorfer

VOLUME 152

Publications of the Research Centre for East Asian Cultures, St Anne’s College, University of Oxford

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sinl

Creating Confucian Authority The Field of Ritual Learning in Early China to 9 CE By

Robert L. Chard

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Bronze Chinese altar set, (late 11th century BC). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chard, Robert Lawrence, author. Title: Creating Confucian authority : the field of ritual learning in early  China to 9 CE / by Robert L. Chard. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2021] | Series: Sinica Leidensia,  0169-9563 ; volume 152 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021019196 (print) | LCCN 2021019197 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004461918 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004465312 (adobe pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Confucianism—Rituals—History—To 1500. | Rites and  ceremonies—China—History—To 1500. | Confucianism and  state—China—History—To 1500. | China—Civilization—221 B.C.–960 A.D. Classification: LCC BL1858 .C43 2021 (print) | LCC BL1858 (ebook) | DDC  299.5/1238—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021019196 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021019197

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-9563 ISBN 978-90-04-46191-8 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-46531-2 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Robert L. Chard. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii 1 Introduction 1 1 A Prologue – The Case of Shusun Tong 叔孫通  1 2 Ritual and Ritual Learning 4 2.1 Aspects of Ritual, and the Word Li 5 2.2 “Ritual Learning” in Confucian Culture 9 2 The Golden Age of Ritual: The World of the Zuo zhuan, and the Analects (Lun yu) on Confucius 17 1 The Western Zhou 21 2 The Spring and Autumn Period and the World of the Zuo zhuan 25 2.1 Ritual Learning and Visible Display 33 2.2 Ritual Learning and the Hegemons 44 2.3 The Zhou Ritual Order and Its Legacy – The Duke of Zhou and the State of Lu 54 2.4 Individual Li – From Status Marker to Personal Cultivation 57 2.5 Written Sources of Authority – Ritual Precedents, Regulations, and Texts 59 2.6 Fields of Study, Ancestors of Texts 69 3 Ritual Learning in the Lun yu (Analects) 72 3 The Ritual Culture of the Ru – Ritual Learning in the Warring States and Early Han 84 1 The Ru (“Confucians”) 85 2 Pre-Han Precursors of the Ritual Canon Li 禮  102 3 Pre-Han Antecedents of the Li ji 禮記  110 4 Non-textual Masters of Li – Shusun Tong 叔孫通 and His Successors in the Early Han Court 113 4 The “Victory” of Ritual Learning – Western Han 131 1 Early Western Han – Emperors Wen and Jing (180–141 BCE) 131 2 Emperor Wu (141–87 BCE) 139 3 Texts on Ritual Learning 147

vi

Contents

4

Old vs New – Ritual Learning in Late Western Han 153 4.1 The Imperial Ancestral Shrines 157 4.2 The Suburban Jiao Sacrifices 176 4.3 Wang Mang and the “Yuanshi Precedents” 190

5 Conclusion and Final Arguments 206 Bibliography 209 Index 217

Preface This book on what I call “Ritual Learning” is a story of the culture and practice of the tradition we call “Confucianism” in Early China. This story covers more than nine hundred years, and inevitably traverses many periods at the risk of being master of none. My hope is that it will bring to life one particular aspect of “Confucianism” as it evolved, its living practice rather than its philosophy. This “Ritual Learning” is defined as the field of knowledge related to li 禮 (variously translated as “ritual”, “ritual order”, or “ritual propriety”). “Li” is a core concept in Confucianism throughout the ages, central to practice in the tradition, both individual and institutional. The narrative offered here will be more empirical than analytical, in an effort to address Ritual Learning as much as possible on its own terms, as far as we can detect from the words and actions of people proficient in it, during the time that “Confucianism” came into being and eventually came to dominate the central discourse at the end of Western Han in 9 CE. I will suggest that Ritual Learning itself may have been the wedge that made this dominance possible. By claiming knowledge of the correct forms of the religious cults of the sovereigns of antiquity, officials trained in scholarship on the canons (or “classics”) of Confucianism successfully persuaded late Western Han emperors that correct ritual forms would allow the dynasty to assert its legitimacy as successors of the sage kings of the ancient Zhou kingdom, rather than of the failed Qin regime that preceded the Han. The story ends with the redesign of the imperial ancestral cults and the establishment of the emperor’s personal sacrifices to Heaven and Earth near the end of the Western Han in 5 CE. Future volumes are planned to carry the story forward in time through Eastern Han, Six Dynasties, and the Tang. This book is intended as the first in a new publication series from the Research Centre for East Asian Cultures in St Anne’s College, University of Oxford. The Centre began in 2013 as a way of bringing together the scholars working on pre-modern East Asia housed in scattered units at the University of Oxford, and has now expanded to include participants from elsewhere in the world. An important mission of the Centre is to promote research on the traditional cultures of East Asia within a world history framework, and to promote that research within and beyond academia in order to improve international understanding. The coronavirus pandemic has exposed tensions between world regions that make this mission all the more urgent. The current volume, despite its focus on China, addresses aspects of Confucianism that are relevant to the wider East Asia region. The spread of Confucianism to Korea,

viii

Preface

Japan, and Vietnam cannot be explained without reference to its culture of textual learning and visible ritual forms, including schools, temples, and religious observance. The coronavirus pandemic has inevitably cast a shadow over the writing of this book, while also giving it added urgency – worsening international tensions make improved understanding of the East Asia region all the more important. I am grateful to the University of Oxford for a year’s sabbatical to complete this project, and to the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo, for hosting me during part of this time. The pandemic meant that neither opportunity went quite as planned, but nonetheless they made this book possible. Further thanks are due to the many friends, colleagues, and students over the years, from whom I have learned so much. In particular, for substantial help on the current volume I wish to thank Barend ter Haar and Paul Kratoska. For many decades of friendship, intellectual inspiration, and the shared project of the Research Centre for East Asian Cultures, I would like to mention James McMullen and Jay Lewis. Also for long friendship and inspiration I thank Kuroda Akinobu, Chen Suzhen, Liu Yucai, Hashimoto Hidemi, and Ye Chunfang. I am deeply grateful to the two anonymous readers for their careful reading and substantial advice, which allowed me to fill in many embarrassing gaps. At Brill, I owe special thanks to Patricia Radder and Irene Jager for invaluable professional help and guidance. A personal family debt is owed to others I will not name, but they know who they are. Translations All translations are my own, except when specified that I am quoting, modifying, or have consulted previous translations.

Chapter 1

Introduction 1 A Prologue – The Case of Shusun Tong 叔孫通 To introduce the topic of this book, we begin midway through the time frame under consideration, with the story of Shusun Tong, a well-known ritual specialist of the late third and early second centuries BCE. He was what we would call a “Confucian”, or a “Ru” 儒 in the Chinese language of the time, and also a shrewd politician. His career epitomizes the themes to be covered below: the nature of Confucian Ritual Learning as it developed over several centuries before him, how he and his successors deployed their expertise at the centres of political power to guide the creation of imperial ritual institutions, and how their activities eventually drove the rise to dominance of “Confucianism” during the course of the Western Han dynasty (206 BCE–9 CE).1 Traditional histories of the Han dynasty, particularly the Shi ji 史記 (“Records of the Historian,” approximately 100 BCE) and Han shu 漢書 (“History of Han,” late first century CE), identify Shusun Tong as the first ritual specialist to leave his mark on the Han dynasty court. They credit him with being one of the few most effective among the Ru “Confucians” who told the Han founder Liu Bang 劉邦 (Emperor Gaozu, ?–195 BCE, r. 202–195 BCE) that an empire won by military force could only be maintained through Confucian governance, and in particular by setting up Confucian ritual institutions. Liu Bang initially had scant interest in such arguments. He habitually treated Confucians with open contempt, to the extent of snatching off their caps and urinating into them. But in 202 BCE, when the empire had been won, his immediate followers – now all high imperial officials – continued their rude behaviour of the campaign trail, engaging in drunken arguments at banquets 1 The Chinese word “Ru” has gained some currency among Western scholars of Confucianism, who point out, correctly, that the word “Confucianism” never existed in Chinese. Some refuse to use “Confucianism” and “Confucian” at all, and employ terms such as “Ruism” and “Ruist”; see the justification for this in Robert Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven (1990), pp. 6–7. See also the discussion of the problematical nature of “Confucianism” in Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics (2001), pp. 3–5; she uses “classicist” for Ru. In this book we will retain “Confucian” and “Confucianism” because of its wide currency in English, especially when using it to designate the wider tradition as we understand it now. We will also often use “Ru” here to refer to people, the class of “Confucians” as they existed in early China, to highlight their self-conscious identity as people dedicated to a particular culture and teachings.

© Robert L. Chard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004465312_002

2

Chapter 1

over who had achieved the most on the battlefield, and hacking at the pillars of the palace with their swords. Shusun Tong suggested that ritual was the key to improving this bad behaviour, and offered to design and conduct a large-scale New Year audience ceremony in 200 BCE. Liu Bang agreed, on condition that the emperor’s role in it not be too complicated for him to follow. Shusun Tong recruited thirty or so Ru Confucian scholars from the region of the ancient state of Lu, a traditional heartland of ritual expertise believed to have been handed down intact from the Western Zhou royal court since the eleventh century BCE. They assisted him in designing a minutelychoreographed, thoroughly rehearsed, grand ceremony in which all officials and feudal title holders came forward in order of rank and seniority to present themselves before the emperor. The ritual demanded strict discipline from the participants: all were required to play their role to perfection and maintain their assigned positions throughout. Any who fell out of step were summarily ejected from the hall. The rank and seniority of each person in relation to everyone else at court determined their position in the ceremonial procession. This was designed to impart a clear awareness of their subordinate status relative to the emperor and senior officials. The event came off perfectly. Liu, the story goes, exclaimed that for the first time he understood the dignity of being emperor, and from that time his chief subordinates learned to behave with greater decorum.2 Around 100 BCE the historian Sima Qian (?145–?86) in his Shi ji described Shusun Tong as the “forefather of the Confucians” (Ru zong 儒宗) in the Han dynasty, the one who initiated the path toward the eventual dominant position of Confucianism. The triumph of Confucianism was traditionally said to have occurred a few decades later, early in the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE). In fact, the primary sources make clear that the influence of the Ru and Confucianism was limited until after Wu’s reign. Nor was its ultimate dominance as inevitable as conventional accounts portray; during the first century BCE the Confucian agenda advanced in fits and starts according to the predilections of individual Western Han emperors. The slow rise of Confucian influence is revealed with particular clarity when we trace the history of Ritual Learning. During the latter half of the first 2 The main source for Shusun Tong’s life is his biography in Shi ji 99.2720–2727, reproduced with minor textual variants in Han shu 43.2124–2131. The Shi ji biography is translated in Nienhauser, ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records vol. 8.1 (2008), pp. 287–302. See also Michael Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary (2000), pp. 482–483. As will be apparent in the more detailed account further below, this biography is quite sketchy, suggesting that the Shi ji compiler Sima Qian had relatively few sources to draw on, many of them anecdotal in nature.

Introduction

3

century CE, Confucian-minded officials took advantage of receptive emperors to advocate substantial changes to the imperial ritual system, changes they based on the authority of the Confucian canonical texts. These changes, implemented and then revoked four times, were finally fixed for the fifth and final time in 5 CE. The story of Shusun Tong and its many implications will be explored in more detail in Chapter 3. Important to note here is that he was an expert in a field of Confucian lore related to “ritual”, “ritual order”, or “ritual propriety” (li 禮), a field we will designate as “Ritual Learning”. This book will trace the early formation and evolution of Ritual Learning from before the time of Confucius to the end of the Western Han dynasty in 9 CE: what it was in different periods, who mastered it, how it was deployed, and what it reveals about the interactions between Confucian Ru and political power. The culmination of the story is how Ritual Learning helped “Confucianism” and “Confucians” dominate the discourse in court debates on the correct forms of imperial ritual institutions. These forms as ultimately adopted in 5 CE laid the foundation for imperial ritual over most of the subsequent history of imperial China, and this helped Confucianism become the dominant tradition in education and political discourse more widely. The rise of Confucianism and Confucian ritual was gradual, and Shusun Tong’s career falls at a key midpoint of the story, when a reasonably reliable historical source from approximately a century later (Sima Qian’s Shi ji) records him as the earliest example of a Confucian master of Ritual Learning emerging into prominence at the centre of political power, before the dominance of Confucianism. Who he was, and what tradition of learning he came from, can only be explained by looking back at much earlier developments, from the time li emerged as a preeminent moral value and code of behaviour a century or so before Confucius, afterwards becoming the special preserve of the Confucian Ru following in the tradition of Confucius, of whom Shusun Tong was one. The story continues after Shusun Tong, when we can trace how his project of driving Ritual Learning into the political sphere was later revived and gradually gained momentum. We do this by looking at brief biographical accounts of later ritual adepts and scholars serving as officials at the Han court, who suffered many reversals – including under the supposed champion of Confucianism, Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE). These sources show that the Confucian agenda only began to have a real impact during the second half of the first century BCE, culminating in the imperial ritual system fixed in 5 CE, replacing once and for all the long-dominant cults designed by esoteric specialists in the time of Emperor Wu.

4

Chapter 1

A key figure in the establishment of this canonical ritual system of 5 CE was the (in)famous Wang Mang 王莽 (45 BCE–23 CE), who soon afterwards took the imperial throne for himself from 9 to 23 CE, and was branded a traitorous usurper ever after. In the narrative of this book we present him as someone widely learned in ritual and ritual texts, and the author of a retrospective narrative on the development of imperial rites through the ages that reflects much about how Ritual Learning and its function were perceived in his time. It was his ritual system that was reconstructed and implemented by the Eastern Han (25–220 CE), though his name was never mentioned. 2

Ritual and Ritual Learning

To tell the story of how all this came about, we will trace the field of knowledge relating to li – “ritual” – in the Chinese world in early times, from around the seventh century BCE through to the end of the Western Han dynasty (9 CE). The approach used is something akin to cultural history, seeking to explicate how Ritual Learning, as deployed by scholars and adepts proficient in it, operated at particular times and in specific contexts, especially in politics and government, through close examination of the available primary sources. In the words of Peter Burke, “The cultural historian gets to parts of the past that other historians cannot reach,” and speaks of an emphasis on “whole ‘cultures’” rather than the subdivisions of them treated by the various other disciplinary types of history (social, political, economic, etc.).3 Ritual Learning is here considered as a cultural phenomenon, rather than an intellectual one. The theoretical and analytical side of the discourse it generated are still of interest in the ways it manifested in practical action, above all in imperial court debates on the reform of rituals. The account here depends heavily on close presentation of textual sources, but of course we must acknowledge that these sources cannot give us anything like a full, unbiased picture of the way things actually were. Each text represents voices, voices presenting a particular version or piece of the story in their own way. But even with the severely limited sources we can string together the story of how one significant dimension of Confucianism led it to become the dominant form of officially-sponsored learning during the course of the late Western Han. Ritual was an essential component of the symbolic authority and legitimacy of the Chinese imperial state. Over the course of the Western Han 3 Peter Burke, What is Cultural History? (2nd ed. 2008), p. 1 (“Introduction”).

Introduction

5

dynasty, from 202 BCE to 9 CE, after long and at first usually ineffectual pressure, officials trained in Confucian scholarship were eventually able to exert increasing influence through their command of Ritual Learning, and by the start of the first century CE had shaped the state ritual system into forms aligned with their reconstructions of the ancient rites of the founding sage rulers of the Zhou dynasty a millennium earlier. Arguably, the scholastic, ideological, and political tradition of Confucianism would not have been able to achieve the dominance it maintained throughout the history of imperial China without its sub-discipline of Ritual Learning, and the political power that it held by its very nature, to lead the way. 2.1 Aspects of Ritual, and the Word Li Ritual Learning is defined in this book as the study and practice of li, but what is li? We are here primarily concerned with the field of learning related to li, rather than a comprehensive account of li itself, which has been widely studied in previous scholarship.4 What follows is a general summary of the range of meanings the term covers. 4 For some of the best known discussions of li in English language scholarship, see Herbert Fingarette, Confucius: The Secular as Sacred (1972); Benjamin Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China (1985), pp. 62–63, 67–73; Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li” (2000) and Foundations of Confucian Thought (2002), pp. 89–104; Robert Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven: Philosophy and the Defense of Ritual Mastery (1990), especially pp. 8–11, 30–63, Roger Ames, “Observing Ritual ‘Propriety (li 禮)’ as Focusing the ‘Familiar’ in the Affairs of the Day” (2002). Martin Kern’s edited book Text and Ritual in Early China (2006) contains a series of studies on the ritual use of texts, and how texts and ritual shape each other, see his “Introduction: The Ritual Texture of Early China,” on pp. VII–XXVII. For a discussion which includes the complexities of li as “ritual” as part of a study which employs a theoretical Ritual Studies framework to study li, see Michael Ing, The Dysfunction of Ritual (2012), especially pp. 8, 18–37. Another important study informing the current book, not focused on li but which provides a comprehensive account of the Ru “Confucians” including from a cultural perspective is Nicolas Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism: The Ru in Pre-Qin Times and during the Early Han Dynasty (2003). There is an enormous body of scholarship on li in Chinese, with thousands of individual articles on specialized topics. Worth particular mention are two substantial multi-volume historical surveys: Wu Liyu 吳麗娛, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui 禮與中國古代社會 vol. 1, Xian Qin juan 先秦卷; vol. 2, Qin Han Wei Jin Nanbeichao juan 秦漢魏晉南北朝卷; vol. 3, Sui Tang Wudai Song Yuan juan 隋唐五代宋元卷; vol. 4, Ming Qing juan 明清卷 (2016); and Chen Shuguo 陈戍国, Zhongguo lizhishi 中国礼制史, Xian Qin juan 先秦卷; Qin Han juan 秦汉卷; Wei Jin Nanbeichao juan 魏晋南北朝卷; Sui Tang juan 隋唐卷; Song Liao Jin Xia juan 宋辽金夏卷; Yuan Ming Qing juan 元明清卷 (2002). Major studies in Japanese include the study of imperial ritual from the Han through Tang dynasties in Kaneko Shūichi 金子修一, Chūgoku kodai kōtei saishi no kenkyū 中国古代皇帝 祭祀の研究 (2006); the classic study of Han-dynasty ritual scholarship and imperial ritual

6

Chapter 1

Most commonly translated as “ritual”, li has been throughout history a significant Confucian term and concept in the Chinese world, one which later also exerted influence elsewhere in East Asia. In fact, the term in many of its senses is not well encapsulated by “ritual”, though it includes much that we would describe as ritual in English. It covers many other aspects of individual behaviour and social institutions that we would be likely to describe in different terms. Our word “ritual” itself is also problematical. This book hews as closely as possible to an empirical approach, based on close reading of primary sources in an attempt to understand Chinese li on its own terms, but inevitably it impinges on a powerful magnet of theoretical interest in modern academic scholarship, namely ritual. No attempt will be made here to account for the complex concept of ritual as an analytical field in modern scholarship; the literature is vast, varied, and not often helpful to the current project. Only one key point needs to be touched upon: the warning of several modern scholars that the concept of ritual as applied in the academic world is often a modern “Western” construct, and risks imposing alien categories and distorting the understanding of ritual in cultures elsewhere around the world, and even in pre-modern Europe.5 This is most certainly evident in the case of China. For several centuries European observers have put forth the idea that ritual in China is a civilizationdefining feature, going back to early Jesuit encounters, and given particular prominence by the Rites Controversy over whether the Catholic church should

in Fujikawa Masakazu 藤川正数, Kandai ni okeru reigaku no kenkyū 漢代における礼学の 研究 (1968, rev. ed. 1985); two edited volumes with various chapters on ancient ritual institutions, Kominami Ichirō 小南一郎, ed., Chūgoku no reisei to reigaku 中國の禮制と禮學 (2001) and Kominami, ed., Chūgoku kodai reisei kenkyū 中国古代礼制研究 (1995). See also the concise survey by Kojima Tsuyoshi 小島毅, Higashi Ajia no jukyō to rei 東アジアの儒教 と礼 (2004), a slender volume directed more at a popular rather than academic readership, but nonetheless a remarkably useful account. 5 For a useful and balanced account of the history of ritual studies in the West from someone with familiarity with China, see the influential studies by Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (1992, 2009), and Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (1997, 2009). A challenge to ritual studies in medieval European history, with particular emphasis on the unconscious intellectual biases inherent in modern social science and its intellectual ancestors, that were strongly influenced by theology even when ostensibly having evolved beyond it, is Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual (2001); his conclusion that “rite” and “ritual” meant something quite different to medieval ritualists and modern theoreticians is in a general way similar to the problems inherent in understanding ancient Chinese li as “ritual” from a similar perspective.

Introduction

7

allow Chinese Christians to observe rituals such as ancestor worship.6 Recent academic analysis of ritual in China inevitably focuses on the Chinese category of li, and of course the modern concept of “ritual” can be useful in understanding certain aspects of li. And, as a convenient shorthand, we often use “ritual” when discussing li in this book. However, it is important to bear in mind that we are studying li, not “ritual”. Li and “ritual” overlap to some extent, like a Venn diagram, but we must take care that our theoretically-loaded concept of “ritual” does not overwhelm our understanding of li. Li includes ranges of meaning outside ritual, which need to be understood on their own terms, to avoid distortion in the lens of modern theoretical ritual studies. Conversely, there can be ritual that is not li. To give one example, one important characteristic of li is its positive moral value, expressed in the translation “ritual propriety”, which we will sometimes use here. It is possible for us to speak of “meaningless ritual” in English, in the sense of ritual that is pointless and worthless, but in one ancient Chinese formulation rites performed without sincere commitment are explicitly not li, however easily they might be mistaken for it, but rather merely yi 儀, the outer appearance or expression of ceremony devoid of moral content. The category of li includes a range of meaning extending well beyond rituals and ceremonies. To generalise, li in ancient China was a complex and highly developed concept, most fundamentally signifying what was culturally appropriate and morally correct, ritual and manners tied to an individual’s position in family and society, often as applied in a particular context or situation. Li encompasses various wider fields, including: 1) A system of socio-cultural order based on ritual institutions instituted by governments (sometimes designated in Chinese sources as “ritual order”, lizhi 禮制); 2) The visible, technical procedures of particular rites (referred to variously as “ritual deportment”/“ritual performance”, liyi 禮儀; or “ritual aspect/ display”, lirong 禮容); 3) A wider code of civilized ethical behaviour (“ritual propriety and right”, liyi 禮義); 4) Through the observance and practice of the three previous aspects, a regimen of personal cultivation and education to effect the moral transformation of individuals and through them society as a whole (individual

6 Philippe Buc has a useful summary of the Rites Controversy from the Western standpoint, along with European understandings of Chinese civilization as being a rites-based order in The Dangers of Ritual, pp. 179–188.

8

Chapter 1

cultivation is usually described as “cultivate one’s conduct”, xiu xing 修行, or “cultivate one’s person”, xiu shen 修身, but among the early Ru the personal observance of li was central to this). Li was identified as an important part of what marks culture and civilization: the presence or absence of li was used to distinguish what it meant to be human rather than animal, or civilized rather than “barbarian”.7 Another issue to mention in the contrast between li and “ritual” is the role of religion. Modern theoretical discussions of “ritual” are often concerned with religion, or its absence, perhaps since historically so much ritual in the West is religious in nature. In China, Confucian Ritual Learning determined the forms of correct ritual sacrifice, undeniably a religious observance. However, the categorization of different kinds of imperial ritual as defined by li in ritual texts does not contain a fundamental distinction between religious and secular; rather, it reflects the primary assumption that imperial ritual institutions reinforce and display political legitimacy. This is not to deny that many Chinese imperial rituals were perceived to have religious potency. Rather, within the Confucian framework, sacrificial rituals and what we might view as secular rituals were all performed as a social and political duty, with any religious power being a part of the rationale for instituting them. The concept of li in early China was complex, understood on a multiplicity of levels: technical, educational, cultural, political, theoretical, practical, and moral. This complexity is in itself important: it tells us that li was highly ramified, sophisticated, a concept embracing a wide range of meaning, subject to a great deal of attention and analysis from political and social actors. It reached a level of sophistication in the ancient period that arguably had no counterpart in the West that would correspond to “ritual”, though comparisons might be made with the much later post-Reformation Catholic practice of ritual and the elaborate theological scholarship on it. As such, li can be viewed conceptually as a cultural, civilisational paradigm that we must get to grips with on its own terms to understand what China was, with continued relevance right up to modern times. To do so from an intellectual history standpoint is a project that is reasonably well advanced, hence the effort in this book to investigate the field of knowledge related to li through the less well explored standpoint of cultural history. 7 Some of the best-known canonical expositions of this idea appear in the Li ji 禮記. For a study of this idea and presentation of the source texts see Yuri Pines, “Beasts or Humans” (2005). In a wider discussion of the implications of li, Martin Kern characterizes it as “ritual order”, which he says “defines and shapes” the other canonical texts, see Text and Ritual (2006), p. x.

Introduction

9

2.2 “Ritual Learning” in Confucian Culture “Ritual Learning”, for purposes of this book, is defined as all knowledge related to the various aspects of li in Early China. It must be stressed at the outset that “Ritual Learning” is my own term, with no real counterpart in the language of early China during the period covered here. However, as argued in Chapter 2, the characteristics of “Ritual Learning” may be discerned by examining the discourse related to the category of li itself. It will be apparent throughout the narrative below that knowledge about li made itself felt in society, culture, and politics, in ways that changed as it evolved over time. Integral to the perspective on Ritual Learning in this book is the idea that “Confucianism” in Early China was a cultural phenomenon, not purely an intellectual one. Understanding Confucianism through a cultural history approach supplements the deficiencies of the conventional classification of the intellectual world of ancient China, particularly pre-Han China, according to “thinkers” and “schools of thought”. Many modern accounts of early Confucianism have emphasized its philosophical or doctrinal side, looking at ideas and values in the abstract, seeking primarily to define what “Confucians” thought and what they believed in. While not denying that this has been a rewarding enterprise in many ways, it does encourage us to the view that Confucianism is primarily a philosophy. Another strand of scholarship has come to grips with the more elusive cultural dimension of the “Confucians” – the Ru – in the society of early China, and pointed out that they created for themselves a distinct visible identity, displayed through their clothing, knowledge, practical skills, as well as their teachings. Robert Eno was a pioneer in this regard. As he put it, modern understandings of Confucianism are based on “uncritical assumptions”, and, “The most fundamental of these is the assumption that Ruism [Confucianism] was first and foremost an ideology, or set of ideas.” He argues that their physical training in ritual was an essential part of who they were, and must be taken into account when analysing their ideas and arguments.8 This book agrees with this view. We should understand the early Ru not just as “thinkers”, but as people in the round, agents and commentators, advocates and politicians, individuals who fulfilled a range of visible roles in society, many of these roles not necessarily “Confucian” according to later understandings of the term. We miss a great deal if we define them chiefly by their 8 Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven, p. 43; this is part of the wider discussion of this aspect of the Ru on pp. 8–11 and 30–63; see also his etymological analysis of the word “Ru” in Appendix B (pp. 190–197), which proposes an origin as dancing masters. For another useful study of the Ru and who they were, see Nicolas Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism.

10

Chapter 1

“thought”. They, and groups they were frequently in debate with (such as the Mohists), were driven by a whole range of practical concerns beyond the realm of abstract ideas. At the highest levels of society, the Ru Confucians worked to transform government and society as teacher-politicians and, they hoped, to influence rulers and high officials at the centres of power. In this context, we can call attention to the fact that the evolution of Confucianism in China in later times to the end of the imperial period, and its spread elsewhere in East Asia, demonstrates a persistence not easy to explain in terms of “philosophy” alone. Its visible, cultural dimension was the engine which drove this. People claimed for themselves a Ru “Confucian” identity, through schools where students engaged in the intense memorisation of canonical texts, through observances in temples to Confucius, and through Confucian-defined rituals maintained by the state and in local communities. In late imperial times, Western observers in China were not so far wrong to perceive Confucianism as a religion, at a time when so many of the religious and other cultural trappings associated with it were still a part of daily life, especially at the elite levels of society. Barend ter Haar, in a study tracing the appearance of the term and concept of “Confucianism” among missionaries in China in the nineteenth century, characterises the Ru tradition at that time as a “religious culture”, perceived as such by foreign visitors.9 This would in my view be a fair characterisation also of its ancient forerunner, however much it had changed and evolved over two millennia. This aspect of Confucianism is also conspicuous in its spread beyond China. In early Edo-period Japan, for example, visible manifestations of Confucianism – such as Confucius temples, images of Confucius as a deity, and particular clothing worn to display a Confucian identity – were consciously deployed as religious symbols to attract attention and drive acceptance for Confucian teachings.10 In early China, nowhere is this cultural, visible aspect of Confucianism more evident than in mastery of li, particularly as practical ritual performance. The early Ru Confucians, the scholars and ritual masters of the pre-Qin period, 9 See Barend ter Haar, “From Field to Text in the Study of Chinese Religion,” in Kiri Paramore, ed., Religion and Orientalism in Asian Studies (2016), pp. 85–105. The discussion of Confucianism as a religious culture is on pp. 92–100. The earlier Western observers, mostly missionaries but later on also the Dutch Sinologist J. J. M. de Groot, witnessed this religious culture first hand, unlike later sinologists during the twentieth century who mainly studied texts and helped drive the transition to understanding Confucianism as a philosophy. For a summation of de Groot’s views, he cites the one-volume The Religion of the Chinese (1910). 10 For one of the most conspicuous examples of a Japanese domain lord (Taku Shigefumi) consciously deploying the Confucius temple as a religious symbol, described in his own words, see Robert Chard, “Visual Power and Moral Influence,” (2016), pp. 1–29.

Introduction

11

were forerunners of the literati gentry who later dominated officialdom and local society in imperial China. Throughout Chinese history they were a small group that exerted disproportionate political and cultural influence. Mastery of “ritual” and other aspects of li (such as manners, etiquette, and diplomatic protocol) was an important part of how this small group defined their identity and displayed themselves to society. This aspect of their activities must be included if we are to understand what this enduring tradition of “Confucianism” was. The visible, cultural aspects of Confucianism will be particularly emphasized in this book, as we document what Ritual Learning was, how specialists in it presented themselves to the world, and how they deployed their expertise in the field of political power. It will be the contention here that the rise of “Confucianism” during the Han owed much to Ritual Learning. Its inherent political importance made it a useful wedge deployed by Confucian-educated officials to gain influence at court. Specialists in Ritual Learning gravitated to political authority, and political authority itself became ever more dependant on Ritual Learning. The Han emperors needed these specialists to shape the material trappings of the imperial regime according to the models of antiquity, particularly those attributed to the early Western Zhou court, as conferring a greater degree of legitimacy than those they had inherited from the Qin. This was the dynamic that drove the increasing influence of Ritual Learning, and of “Confucianism” overall. The term “Ritual Learning” may be my own, but I do not claim to be the first to have studied it. To give a few notable examples of previous scholarship, Eno’s discussion of the ritual-driven practice and culture of the ancient Ru includes the assertion that the most fundamental component of their training was in li: “The varied syllabus of the Ruist school revolved around the theory and practice of li, and the end goal of self-cultivation was the complete ritualization of personal conduct.”11 Martin Kern has a number of individual studies and collaborations which address aspects of text and ritual in pre-Han and Han times.12 Michael Nylan’s studies of the Confucian canonical texts (“classics”) include much about the nature of Ritual Learning as one distinct area of

11 The Confucian Creation of Heaven, p. 31. 12 As in the previously cited edited book Text and Ritual in Early China. Also Kern, “Ritual, Text, and the Formation of the Canon” (2001), particularly relevant to the current volume in its discussion of ritual texts and other canons in the reform of imperial sacrificial ritual in the latter part of Western Han. Another important work is a volume jointly edited with Benjamin Elman on the Zhou li, Elman and Kern, eds., Statecraft and Classical Learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History (2010).

12

Chapter 1

canonical study more widely.13 Fujikawa Masakazu has one of the more sophisticated treatments of Ritual Learning in a substantial book on Han dynasty ritual and ritual studies (“reigaku 礼学” in Japanese), with detailed coverage of Han ritual institutions covered in the latter part of the current volume.14 Fukui Shigemasa has provided important background to the current study with his influential accounts of how Confucian classical learning gained influence in the centre of political power in the mid to late first century BCE (and not under Emperor Wu in the second century).15 Marianne Bujard and Timothy Baker have studies of the “Suburban” ( jiao 郊) sacrifices to Heaven and the imperial ancestral shrines respectively in Western Han, including detailed presentation of the ritual scholarship deployed in the reforms to both in the latter part of the first century BCE, which overlap with the latter part of the current book.16 We should also mention two studies with extensive treatments of ritual scholarship and its practical application in later times, David McMullen on the Tang Dynasty, and Kai-Wing Chow on the Qing.17

13 Most comprehensively in Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, especially Chapter 4, “The Three Rites Canons”. Another study which overlaps conceptually with the theme of the visible display of ritual discussed the current book is Nylan, “Toward an Archeology of Writing: Text, Ritual, and the Culture of Public Display in the Classical Period (475 B.C.E.–220 C.E.),” in Kern, ed., Text and Ritual in Early China (2006), pp. 3–49. 14 Fujikawa Masakazu 藤川正数, Kandai ni okeru reigaku no kenkyū 漢代における礼学 の研究 (1968, rev. ed. 1985). A succinct summary of his understanding of “ritual studies” (reigaku 礼学) as it evolved during the Han, revealed through the memorials and other documents relating to the formulation of ritual, is in the conclusion of the book, pp. 352–353. Also useful is his discussion on p. 138 of the contrasting ritual principles of duty (kōgishugi 公義主義) and human feelings (shijōshugi 私情主義) as expressed in different balance in different Han imperial ancestral shrines, similar to the current volume’s discussion of two fundamental principles of Ritual Learning, with “duty” corresponding to close adherence to the canonical forms of antiquity, and “feelings” to the often-countervailing imperative to reflect human emotions in the present. 15 Fukui Shigemasa 福井重雅, Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū: Jukyō no kangakuka o meguru teisetsu no saikentō 漢代儒教の史的研究: 儒教の官學化をめぐる定說の再 檢討 (2005), and his earlier articles cited therein. 16 Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne (2000), and Timothy Baker, “The Imperial Ancestral Temple in China’s Western Han Dynasty: Institutional Tradition and Personal Belief” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006). 17 David McMullen, State and Scholars in T’ang China (1988), especially Chapter 4, “State Ritual”, on the state-supported scholars who designed imperial ritual and compiled ritual codes; Kai-wing Chow, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism in Late Imperial China (1994), especially Chapter 5, “Ritual and the Classics in the Early Ch’ing,” which includes a useful overview of the enormous body of commentarial scholarship on li produced during this time, much of it still useful in studying earlier periods.

13

Introduction

Scholarship in Chinese on li is extensive, and often makes reference to “Ritual Studies” (lixue 禮學).18 Much of this is on quite narrowly-defined topics, and lixue itself is not discussed. Some studies deal with the implementation of particular institutions such as the imperial ancestral shrines and the “Suburban” sacrifices, and will be cited when they bear on specific points covered below. The previously cited comprehensive surveys by Wu Liyu et al. and Chen Shuguo contain much detail on ritual institutions, and bear on Ritual Learning as deployed to justify them.19 However, despite frequent use of the word lixue 禮學 we find relatively little discussion about what it means, beyond the study of li itself, usually in the context of canonical studies.

…

We can distinguish three major stages of Ritual Learning during the period covered by this book. In the first, we see li as a major topic of discussion and debate in documentary sources relating to the Spring and Autumn period (722–468 BCE), before and during the time of Confucius. It was one of the principal components in the education and training of the aristocracy, and one of the four main subjects taught by Confucius together with the Songs (Shi jing 詩經), Documents (Shang shu 尚書), and Music (yue 樂). In the second stage, the Warring States period (453–221 BCE) and the early Han dynasty, Ritual Learning was the preserve of the people known as “Confucians”, or Ru in Chinese. In this time Ritual Learning was in considerable part practical expertise in how to conduct specific rites of all sorts, such as coming-of-age capping or hair-pinning ceremonies, weddings, funerals, archery contests, and religious sacrifices, which involved music and often dances as well as technical ritual actions. In the third stage, starting from the mid-second century BCE, the Confucian canons, or “classics”, were emerging as the core of textual learning.20 18

A subject search of the CNKI database (accessed 10 January 2021) revealed 18,651 journal articles on li, and 1126 on lixue. 19 Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui, Chen Shuguo, Zhongguo lizhishi. Wu in particular includes citation of much earlier scholarship in Chinese, and includes some in Western languages and Japanese. A recent state-of-the-field article including “ritual studies” is Yang Ying 杨英, “Gaige kaifang sishinian lixue yu lizhi yanjiu 改革开放四 十年礼学与礼制研究,” Kongxue tang 孔学堂 5.3 (2018), pp. 110–127, with a separately paginated abridged English version, pp. 92–98. This includes also some publications in English and in Japanese. 20 The word “canon” for the Confucian jing 經 is used here in preference to “classic”, which I feel does not adequately capture the nature of these texts as sources of institutional authority. Admittedly this “canon” is not much of an improvement, beyond signalling dissatisfaction with “classic”. Another alternative, “scripture”, does capture the authoritative

14

Chapter 1

As part of this, Ritual Learning became a clearly-defined field of study associated with the canonical text Li (or Li jing 禮經). The study of the Li canon was a subdivision of Jing xue 經學, “Canonical Studies”, the name given to the field of study of the Confucian canonical texts more widely. In all these times “Ritual Learning” is admittedly an external category. A term approximately equivalent to it does appear in textual sources soon after the Han, in the term Lixue 禮學, “Ritual Studies”, a term which probably already existed during the Han dynasty, since the field of learning defined by the Li canon was already well established, alongside the study of the four other Confucian canons (or “classics”), known collectively as “Canonical Studies” ( Jing xue). However, during the Han the volume of textual scholarship associated with the Li was smaller than that of the rest of Canonical Studies.21 After the Han, up to the end of the imperial period at the start of the twentieth century, Ritual Learning grew into the largest branch of Confucian Canonical Studies, judging by the volume of texts in major imperial compendia (such as the Qing dynasty Si ku quan shu 四庫全書) relating to li compared to the other Confucian canons. Ritual authority derived not just from the ritual canons and their commentarial traditions, but also from other canonical texts, particularly the Songs (Shi jing 詩經), Documents (Shang shu 尚書), Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun qiu 春秋), and the Zuo Tradition (Zuo zhuan 左傳), the last attached to the Chun qiu as a commentary. During the imperial period, from the latter half of the first century BCE, the importance of the text-based form of Ritual Learning stems from its strong political dimension. Even more than other branches of Canonical Studies, it operated in service to the imperial court, providing the canon-based knowledge to formulate the ritual institutions needed by the state as emblems of its authority and legitimacy. In its earlier stages, Ritual Learning as a field was less clearly delineated, though even then it held similar political significance. From approximately the seventh century BCE through the early Han dynasty, no single recognized or standardized canonical text on li seems to have existed. A variety of texts on ritual circulated, including precursors of the ritual canon titled Li in the Han (corresponding to the later Yi li 儀禮, “Ceremonial Ritual”), but these were likely a fluid corpus of texts, not yet fixed as an immutable canon.

21

sanctity of these texts, but has connotations associated with other quite different religious traditions. As pointed out in Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics (2001), p. 177. She attributes this smaller volume of scholarship to the sensitive nature of imperial ritual, which was bound up with the authority of the emperor and dynastic legitimacy, and hence risky to meddle with.

Introduction

15

Yet it is quite clear that li more broadly before the Han dynasty had for a long time been a clearly recognized and important area of knowledge, entailing both technical expertise and wider guiding principles. It was a principal component of the education and training of the Spring and Autumn period aristocracy, and one of the four major areas of learning taught by Confucius. It is given considerable prominence in the Analects (Lun yu) alongside the Songs, Documents, and Music. Like Music, and unlike the Songs and Documents, references to li in the Lun yu do not mention any text. Ritual texts of various sorts may have existed since before the time of Confucius, as will be discussed in Chapter 2, but what little that can be seen of them does not align with the later Yi li. The Li text emerges as a canon at some point during the Western Han, perhaps no later than the purported recognition of the Five Canons by Emperor Wu in 136 BCE, of which the Li was one. This text, probably corresponding to the received Yi li, seems to have been transmitted from teacher to student from as early as the start of the Han and acquired commentarial scholarship. The preHan existence of this text is murky – it was believed in the Han to have derived directly from the teachings of Confucius, with substantial parts of it supposedly lost in the Qin dynasty book ban, a narrative to be examined in Chapter 2. Important to stress is that even in the first few decades of the Han dynasty the Li canon did not function as the defining core of Ritual Learning in the political sphere. The ritual specialists who achieved high positions at the early Han court did so in the same way as Shusun Tong did, through their practical knowledge of how to perform ceremonies, and some were explicitly described (by Sima Qian) as being not very proficient in the textual study of the Li itself. Not long after this, sometime during the latter part of the second century BCE, textual command of the Li canon had become essential to what qualified as ritual mastery, as the authority of the five Confucian canons received official sanction and grew in importance, and this canonical authority became ever more essential to the establishment of imperial ritual. Ritual Learning developed specific methods of reasoning and argumentation, and of textual commentary, using analogy and deduction to fill in the many gaps in the precedents of the Li canon on how rituals were to be performed. These scholarly methods informed practical application through the compilation of detailed ritual guides, and buttressed the argumentation deployed in the discourse to sway court debates. In general, it was the Ritual Learning of Confucian-educated officials, more than any other dimension of their expertise, that during the course of the late Western Han enabled them to establish increasing influence over the government and the emperor. This influence was never certain; the emperor’s final

16

Chapter 1

authority to define ritual meant that Ritual Learning operated within strict limits in a complex dynamic of scholastic skills and political tensions as it shaped the politically sensitive sacrifices, funeral observances, and other rituals carried out by the emperor. Nonetheless, after a period of uncertainty in the final decades of the Western Han when the imperial sacrificial cults vacillated back and forth between the formulations of esoteric specialists on the one hand and Confucian ritual scholars on the other, the latter finally achieved dominance in the final years of Western Han under the influence of Wang Mang.

Chapter 2

The Golden Age of Ritual: The World of the Zuo zhuan, and the Analects (Lun yu) on Confucius In this chapter we examine in greater detail what Ritual Learning was in early China, tracing what can be discovered about the field of knowledge about “ritual”, or li, from approximately the seventh century down to the fifth century BCE. Something perhaps first should be said about what is meant here by “field of knowledge”, which is potentially complex territory. The methodology employed in this book stresses what the sources have to tell us, and we mostly avoid abstract discussion and sharp definitions, in the interest of allowing the understandings and practices of the time to become apparent with a minimum of distortion from our own external categories. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that, much like “ritual” itself, the nature and structures of knowledge are a subject of wide theoretical interest in modern scholarship.1 Without delving into the technicalities of this, and without trying to define Ritual Learning too rigidly, it will at least be useful to sketch out in general terms what a “field of knowledge” is in relation to li, by identifying a few basic characteristics that are useful in identifying and describing what we are dealing with: 1) First, most simply, we can say that a field of knowledge is defined by its content, what it is that is known, which in this case is li. How li is defined and discussed in the sources is a window on how it existed as an area of knowledge. Because of the cultural history approach of the current study, we will emphasize practice over theory, and so will not attempt conceptual analysis of li theory from an intellectual history perspective, and so will have relatively little to say about such theory as expounded for example in the Xunzi, many of the texts in the Li ji, and Han dynasty cosmological analysis. At the same time, theories of li do of course become a matter of interest when they are deployed in political debates on the practical implementation of state ritual. 1 For a general survey of the evolution of knowledge theories in academic scholarship from a cultural history perspective see Peter Burke, “Sociologies and Histories of Knowledge: An Introduction,” in A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot (2000), pp. 1–17. The book as a whole deals with early modern Europe.

© Robert L. Chard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004465312_003

18

Chapter 2

2) A second characteristic is specialist knowledge, or expert knowledge, about li, knowledge that is more extensive than the common knowledge that people in general would have. For example, there is a difference between Ritual Learning acquired through systematic teaching and study (which we could think of as equivalent to lixue 禮學, “Ritual Studies” in modern Chinese), and the wider, common-sense understanding of what constitutes correct manners and usages that most people in a given culture would have (equivalent to lisu 禮俗, “customary etiquette”). 3) Following on from that, a third characteristic is that there are specialists, or experts, in the subject, people who have acquired the specialist knowledge about li and know more about it than others around them, and are able to provide advice or technical assistance. The sources may give us a sense of who these people were, what social groups they came from, what they did with their expertise, and what sorts of people they advised and helped. 4) Yet another characteristic is the transmission, or teaching, of this specialist knowledge by its experts. How was it taught, were there structures and institutions (such as schools) within which teaching took place, were there texts or standard curricula to be studied, and how was it determined, formally or informally, that the learner was now an expert? 5) Following on from all of the above is the sources of authority for Ritual Learning above and beyond the simple pronouncements of an expert, for example historical precedents, written institutional codes, technical guides to ritual practice, and, by Han times, canonical texts ( jing), all of which could be interpreted and invoked in debates on correct ritual practice or institutions. 6) Finally, how did Ritual Learning fit into wider understandings of structures or classifications of knowledge in the times under discussion, and to what extent did it resemble what we would recognize as an academic subject in education, or a branch of knowledge? Starting with 6, we have already mentioned that a discrete Ritual Learning associated with the Li ritual canon emerged during the Western Han dynasty. This tradition of scholarship defined by a canonical text is a form of Ritual Learning that was recognized as a distinct field of study, part of the wider “Canonical Studies” ( jingxue). Initially this was the study of the single text known as the Li 禮, or Shi li 士禮 (“Gentry Ritual”), or sometimes Li jing 禮經 (“Canon of Ritual”), corresponding to the extant Yi li 儀禮.2 2 “Gentry” is used as a translation for shi in this book for convenience, but this is for want of any other satisfactory English equivalent. More precisely, it referred originally to members

Golden Age of Ritual

19

By contrast, in the much earlier Spring and Autumn period covered in this chapter, and even through the Warring States period and into the early years of the Han, we do not find a field of “Ritual Learning” defined by a canonical text or texts, and it becomes more difficult to discern the existence of a branch of study. For example, in the story of Shusun Tong and his early Han court rituals at the start of this book, we see a Confucian Ru master of Ritual Learning without mention of any ritual canon. This suggests that there was no defined, standard ritual canon at that time, and that textual learning was not essential for ritual specialists, even though the later ritual texts themselves, or at least some of them, already existed in one form or other. Traditional accounts of the main Li canon (the Yi li) trace it back to Confucius, but in fact it is not known from other sources before the Han, or as excavated texts before the start of the first century CE. The language of the base text seems old, and it may well have circulated before the Han as parts of a fluid textual corpus of ritual instructions and accompanying explanatory notes. Such material may have carried some degree of authority (a text called Li is quoted twice in the Mencius), but there is no evidence of a standardised canonical text constituting the main core of Ritual Learning. However, there are many discussions and pronouncements in pre-Han sources about li itself, many of them in the Zuo zhuan, purporting to be from before and during the time of Confucius. It will be argued here that it is possible to detect a distinct area of knowledge about li during this time, which was a subject of considerable attention and detailed expertise, and that it is legitimate to describe it as a field of knowledge that people of the time would have recognized as such. As will be explained in more detail below, li seems to have formed a prominent element of the culture of the Spring and Autumn period aristocracy, probably at least from the seventh century BCE, and it is quite likely that training in it was imparted in a structured way. It was certainly an important part of what Confucius taught his disciples in the late sixth and early fifth centuries, late in the Spring and Autumn period, when Ritual Learning had begun to spread beyond the aristocracy to other segments of society. After Confucius it was a preserve of knowledge associated particularly with the Ru “Confucians”, of the base level of aristocracy in the Spring and Autumn period and earlier, who could hold office and possessed warrior skills, hence one translation as “knight”. This is closest to the shi of the Li ritual canon, the extant Yi li. From later Warring States times it can mean simply “man”, often with unusual qualities or talents. In imperial times it referred to the class of people qualified to hold office, who were literate, hence the translation “scholar”, but this carries connotations quite misleading in all the time periods covered here.

20

Chapter 2

whether or not they regarded themselves as direct inheritors of one or another of the scholastic traditions deriving from Confucius through his disciples. Our account of the early stages of Ritual Learning in this chapter will be based on the discourse related to li as preserved in the Zuo zhuan, Guo yu (“Sayings of the States”), and Lun yu (Analects), to discover what people understood about it, and how they used their knowledge of li in their activities. While these texts must be used with caution as direct historical records, the extensive discourse on li in them makes clear that it was an important area of knowledge. This knowledge included technical expertise on how to conduct specific ceremonies such as funerals or weddings step by step, or what the correct social response might be if someone offered a gift or sent a greeting, or the protocols to follow during a diplomatic visit. It might also determine the morally appropriate response if an enemy pursued a particular strategy during a battle. Many people appear in the above texts as experts on li, very often vassals or ministers to feudal lords who were generally well-informed and able to advise on aspects of li alongside governing policy more widely. There were also specialists not in any official post but who defined themselves to a considerable extent by their mastery of li, for example Confucius, and later on the Ru who regarded themselves as followers of his tradition. Ritual Learning, designated as li, was one of the four main subjects of study taught by Confucius (Songs, Documents, Ritual, and Music), and the Zuo zhuan suggests that this pattern was well established before him. Confucius and the Ru did not invent li and its related teachings, but rather adapted and expanded knowledge of a ritual-moral system or code that was already pervasive and highly developed. They regarded this system as having reached its most perfect form in the Western Zhou period (?1045–771 BCE). Some form of training in li among the Spring and Autumn period aristocracy must have existed before the time of Confucius, judging from the important place it occupied as an overall code of behaviour in the sources which deal with that time. There was a later tradition that li was first among the “Six Skills” or “Six Arts” (liu yi 六藝) of antiquity, followed by music, archery, charioteering, writing, and arithmetic, before the term liu yi became an alternate way of referring to the Confucian canons in the Han, the usual five canons (including the Li) plus music.3 3 The earlier meaning of term “Six Skills” needs to be treated with caution, as its earliest occurrence and listed components occur only in the Zhou li, which cannot be taken as a reliable description of actual practice in the pre-Han, or at any time. Liu yi does not appear in preHan texts, though it is certainly plausible as a structure for the education and training of

Golden Age of Ritual

21

Methodologically, the approach used in this and the succeeding chapters will be an empirical one, to reconstruct as much as possible from close reading of the relevant primary sources what Ritual Learning actually was, not so much intellectually as culturally, how it functioned in real life. These documentary sources will be presented directly, through translations of the originals, in hopes of conveying a vivid sense of what people in particular times and places were thinking and saying. Inevitably, the story will be patchy, in that the full reality of any time or place in history is lost to us, and can only be viewed through the limited textual and material sources available. This is particularly true of the Spring and Autumn period and earlier, when the reliability of the sources describing this time is uncertain, and yet this period is one of the most lively and interesting stages in the history of Ritual Learning. The aim here is to explore a perspective somewhat different from what has been done in previous scholarship, and highlight important cultural aspects in the history of early Confucianism. 1

The Western Zhou

Our story really begins in or just before the seventh century BCE, but in the background is an earlier age that must be mentioned, that of the Western Zhou (?1045–771 BCE). There are in a sense two of them, one the historical Western Zhou imperfectly known to us through the material record, inscriptions, and a few transmitted documents; and the other the imagined Western Zhou as conceived and constructed in later times, especially within the Confucian tradition, as having achieved an ideal political order created by the early Zhou kings and the Duke of Zhou, in which the institutions of ritual and music were paramount. Both versions of the Western Zhou are relevant to our story in different ways, the second arguably rather more than the first, in that it was the political and ritual order enshrined in the ritual canons, and it stood as the authoritative model that imperial courts ever after sought to emulate.4

aristocrats in the Spring and Autumn period in which li was prominent. This question will be addressed in greater detail below. 4 The Western Zhou is a major area of study, changing and expanding in the light of a steady flow of archaeological discoveries. For a general treatment of the period see the chapters by Edward Shaughnessy and Jessica Rawson in Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy, eds., The Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999), and also the sections dealing with the Western Zhou in the more detailed survey of archaeology in Lothar von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (2006).

22

Chapter 2

Archaeology reveals the historical early Western Zhou to be a regime in which ritual was indeed central to the political order, but this ritual was not called li, nor did it come to resemble the pattern of institutions described in later texts until the later part of the period. Rather, it seems to have been largely inherited from the Shang regime that the Zhou overthrew. Scholars in China and elsewhere have long noted that the graph li 禮 occurs infrequently in early oracle bone and bronze inscriptions from Shang and Western Zhou, and the few instances of it signify only a religious offering. It does not seem to have been a significant concept in any way, and its wider senses of ritual institutions and an entire code of behaviour arose only later, during the Spring and Autumn period.5 There is no direct evidence for any form of Ritual Learning in the Western Zhou, but given that ritual was so important in the historical pre-li Western Zhou order, there must have been some form of specialist knowledge associated with it, at the very least the technical expertise required for performing the ceremonies and displaying the appropriate regalia. Archaeological evidence for the ritual order of ranked aristocracy beneath the Zhou king, and the hierarchical rules stipulating the ritual usages applying to each, particularly the number of ritual vessels to be used during ancestral sacrifices and for burials, does not appear in the early Western Zhou. This contradicts the traditional narrative in the ritual canons and other sources, that the Zhou ritual order was created at the founding of the Zhou by Ji Dan 姬旦, the so-called “Duke of Zhou”, brother of King Wu and regent to King Cheng. The material evidence shows that a distinctive Zhou order came rather later, introduced during the “Ritual Revolution” (or the “Middle Western Zhou Ritual Reform”) from the first half of the ninth century BCE onwards, first described by Jessica Rawson and now widely accepted by scholars in China and the West. At this time, sweeping changes in bronze vessels show that a new, standardized, and distinctly Zhou ritual system replaced the Shang-based system that had preceded it.6 The idealized descriptions of the hierarchical ritual order in 5 See the accounts of the evolution of the word li in Wu Liyu 吳麗娛, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui 禮與中國古代社會 (2016) vol. 1, p. 247 (in the section on the Spring and Autumn period authored by Shao Bei 邵蓓); Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” p. 9; and Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, pp. 197–198. 6 See Jessica Rawson’s account in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, pp. 433–440; she notes the standardization and deliberate archaism in the style of the new form of ritual vessels which became predominant in a very short period, suggesting a substantial change in the ceremonies in which these much larger vessels must have been used, hence her term “Ritual Revolution”. See also Edward Shaughnessy’s account of this in the same volume on pp. 331– 338, citing Bernhard Karlgren’s view that there was a wholesale rejection of Shang elements at this time. The archeological evidence for the revolution, or reform, is presented in greater detail in von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, Chapter 1 (pp. 29–73). In

Golden Age of Ritual

23

the ritual and other Confucian canons do seem to have an approximate basis in the historical reality of the late Western Zhou. Though the use of li in the wider sense had not yet appeared in the Western Zhou, other terms covered some of the same ranges of meaning in texts of the period. Perhaps most significant is another word used in connection with ritual, yi 儀. Yi can mean ritual, or a ritual, especially in its visible, performative aspects – applied to a person’s bearing, posture, deportment, movements, also vestments, regalia, and insignia, “ceremonial comportment” or “ceremonial decorum”. In imperial times, it was often used in technical instructions, or a script, for the stages of a ritual, compiled by ritual scholars. On occasion it is contrasted unfavourably with li: in one Zuo zhuan account discussed below, the empty external formalism of ritual is termed yi, as opposed to the genuine, morally committed practice of li. However, in bronze inscriptions and the Shi jing there are examples of proper, precise yi being praised as an expression of “virtue” (de 德).7 And, as many modern Chinese scholars have argued, de is another early term that covered aspects of the range of meaning that would later have been included in li.8 All of this is derived from the glimpses we have of the historical Western Zhou, as best as can be known from the limited evidence available. But the second Western Zhou, the imagined ideal order found in the ritual canons and other sources, is linked to the very earliest years of the regime. As Lothar von Falkenshausen puts it, this was “in large part a historical fiction – a projection of latter-day philosophical fantasy into a dimly and selectively remembered past.”9 Texts such as the Zuo zhuan and Lun yu show that this narrative had Chinese, the ritual system of Western Zhou as seen from material and inscriptional evidence, with presentation of many of the original sources, and how this differed from later accounts in the ritual canons and other sources, is covered in considerable detail in the section on Western Zhou, written by Liu Yuan 劉源, in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui (2016) vol. 1, pp. 92–133. See also Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 5–6, and Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, trans., Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan (2016), p. xxix. 7 Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 9–10, gives examples from Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, the Shi jing, and Zuo zhuan; the translation “ceremonial decorum” is his, which brings out both the visual and ritual dimensions of the word. See also his Foundations of Confucian Thought (2002), pp. 90–94 for another version of this account, and Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, p. 241, which presents and analyzes some of the same original sources. 8 See the discussion of this, with summary of previous scholarship by Guo Moruo 郭沫若 and Yang Xiangkui 楊向奎, with further argument and examples, in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 246–249. The main argument is that de is not purely an internal “virtue”, but entails also externally-displayed emblems and behaviour that in later times would have been described in terms of li. 9 Von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, p. 2.

24

Chapter 2

taken shape by the Spring and Autumn period, and it was the one prevailing during most of the period of time covered in this book. Certainly by the time of Confucius, and probably before, people projected back onto the Western Zhou an ideal political and moral order based on rites and music, believed to have been devised and instituted primarily by the Duke of Zhou, in which the golden age of the preceding sage kings reached its culmination. This vision of an idealized ritual-institutional order, later enshrined in the Confucian canons, served as the authoritative model for the imperial dynastic courts to follow. The inscriptional and material evidence from the historical Western Zhou makes quite clear that the order described in the ritual canons did not exist in the early and middle periods of the regime, which carried over the ritual order largely unchanged from the Shang. The inscriptional evidence suggests that this order continued to be administered by Shang ritual specialists themselves, “scribes” or “diviners” (shi 史) who had transferred their allegiance to the Zhou, and their role was carried on by their descendants.10 Only with the “ritual revolution” of the early ninth century BCE did Zhou cultural elements assert themselves as described by Jessica Rawson, and even these align only partially with the idealized accounts of the later ritual canons. However, for purposes of the current study, the historicity of the traditional narrative is of little relevance. What matters is that people of later times, and particularly the Ru “Confucian” officials of the Han dynasty, held this vision of the Western Zhou and the role of the Duke of Zhou as the principal designer of the Zhou ritual institutions, and looked to it as the authoritative model for the restoration of the perfect ritual order of antiquity. For them, the authority of the Confucian canonical texts derived from the fact that they described the exemplary institutions of the sage kings established at the founding of the Western Zhou. In imperial times Confucian scholars widely assumed that the Duke of Zhou had composed the ritual texts Zhou li (“Rites of Zhou”) and even the Yi li, and the trope that he established the Zhou order of ritual and music (Zhou Gong zhi li yue 周公制禮樂) appears in texts as early as the Zuo zhuan, and is still often cited as routine fact in China today.11 A degree of truth underlies the legend, in that the historical Duke of Zhou seems to have wielded considerable influence over the institutions of Zhou at its founding, but, as mentioned 10

11

A Western Zhou bronze inscription produced by one former Shang diviner-scribe (shi 史) family responsible for ritual recounts their ancestor transferring allegiance from Shang to the Zhou at the time of the conquest, and their continuing service to the Zhou through the generations; this text is presented in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 101–102, 110–113. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, ed., Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (1981) vol. 2, Wen 18 (609 BCE), p. 633.

Golden Age of Ritual

25

above, the archaeological evidence shows that these were a continuation of the Shang order, not new forms of ritual and music as later understood. One wonders if some form of the Duke of Zhou narrative might not even go back to legends and propaganda deployed during the Ritual Revolution itself. Details of how the ideal Western Zhou ritual order was conceived at different points in time will become apparent at different stages of the narrative below. In sources as early as the Zuo zhuan and the Lun yu the idea of ritual order founded by the Duke of Zhou is already stated as unquestioned fact, and is fundamental to Confucius’s understanding of how the institutions of li evolved. In the Han, and all later dynasties, the Western Zhou models in the Confucian canons loomed large in the formulation of imperial ritual institutions, and this canonical authority enhanced dynastic legitimacy overall. 2

The Spring and Autumn Period and the World of the Zuo zhuan

By the Spring and Autumn period (722–468 BCE), probably from the early seventh century BCE, the word li had emerged as a wider designation for correct ritual practice, extending to the whole hierarchical ritual order in its many manifestations, a code of conduct governing formal behaviour of all sorts. This coincides with what Lothar von Falkenhausen terms the “Middle Springs and Autumns Ritual Restructuring” reflected in the archaeological record from around 600 BCE, a second period of transformation after the ritual reform of the ninth century. In this later restructuring, the status of the highest levels of the elite were set apart from those below them through conscious ritual archaism in tomb artifacts, which reflects a movement designed to defend a weakening order under threat from sociopolitical change.12 It is tempting to see in these changes an approximate alignment with the period before Confucius as depicted in the textual record, a time dominated by li as a primary value, expanded from a little-used word for religious ritual to encompass the whole of ritual and ritual institutions and their moral correctness. In the documentary record of the Spring and Autumn period, the entire institutional order of the Zhou was defined in terms of li, to the point where even its very dynastic existence was represented by the phrase “Zhou li” 周禮, the “ritual order of Zhou”. As Benjamin Schwartz describes it, “The order that the li ought to bind together is not merely a ceremonial order – it is a

12

Von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 2 and 326–369 (Chapter 8).

26

Chapter 2

sociopolitical order in the full sense of the term, involving hierarchies, authority, and power.”13 At the same time, the essence of the “Zhou li” order in this earlier period was still intimately tied to its display of ceremonial ritual, and this ritual was the cultural preserve of the aristocracy. Correct, precise observance of its ceremonies and rules was the visible sign of conformity with it, which people of appropriate wisdom could recognize and read. Later in the Spring and Autumn period it became more abstract and theoretical, extending beyond the aristocracy to become accessible to other levels of society, and taking on wider principles of governance and political order. To this, Confucius and his followers added constant and precise personal observance of li as the fundamental form of training for individual moral cultivation, which seems to have remained part of the ritual mastery maintained by the Ru in the Warring States period (453–221 BCE) and imperial times. The current study is concerned primarily with the development of Ritual Learning rather than li itself, which has been well covered in previous scholarship. Obviously, this requires an understanding of the evolution in the meaning of li during this time, and the historical background against which this evolution occurred. We will briefly introduce the most important documentary source for the Spring and Autumn period, the Zuo zhuan 左傳, a text of multiple origins whose value as a historical record of the period it covers is not easy to assess. We then move on to traces of Ritual Learning itself in this time: accounts of people who seemed more knowledgeable about li than others, and how their expertise was deployed in giving advice on the correct course of action or making judgements on people’s behaviour. Particular attention will be paid to sources of authority – specific precedents from the past, particular rules or codes of ritual institutions, or mention of texts on li, all of which would suggest the existence of a formal body of Ritual Learning. Traditionally, the Spring and Autumn period is lumped together with the Warring States period (453–221 BCE) as an age of disunion and disorder between the Western Zhou and the Qin. However, historically the greatest demographic, social, and political changes took place toward the end of the Spring and Autumn and into the early Warring States. In many respects the

13 Schwartz, World of Thought in Ancient China (1985), p. 68. See also the discussion of li as sociopolitical order in the later Spring and Autumn period in Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 94–103.

Golden Age of Ritual

27

Spring and Autumn period was more similar to the order that preceded it than it was to that of the Warring States and imperial China thereafter.14 According to the traditional narrative, the Western Zhou institutions of ritual and music broke down in the Spring and Autumn period, now often encapsulated in the conventional Chinese phrase, “ritual collapsed and music was ruined” (li beng yue huai 禮崩樂壞).15 Statesmen of the period, and then Confucius and his intellectual successors, sought to counter this breakdown by preserving and transmitting ancient institutions. In fact what was happening was less a breakdown of the ritual forms themselves, but rather disruption to the old ruling hierarchy, so that first feudal lords usurped the powers and rituals of the Zhou king, and then later sub-fief families in some of the larger states similarly pre-empted the prerogatives of the feudal lords. The newly-emerging concept of li during these times is regarded as the ideological underpinning of a conservative response in defense of the traditional hierarchical order under threat from these upheavals.16 Much of what is known about the Chinese world during the Spring and Autumn period comes from the accounts preserved in the Zuo zhuan, and in other sources such as the similar Guo yu 國語 and the later Shi ji, now enriched by constantly-emerging new archaeological and inscriptional evidence. These sources, though overwhelmingly representing only the perspective of the ruling elite, reveal a world substantially different from that of the Warring 14

See the chapters by Lothar von Falkenhausen and Cho-yun Hsu in Loewe and Shaughnessy, eds., The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Mark Lewis, Sanctioned Violence in Early China (1989), in the first chapter “The Warrior Aristocracy,” also has a particularly vivid account of the Spring and Autumn age. 15 See the discussion of this phrase in Li Ling 李零, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji 郭店楚簡 校讀記, preface (qianyan) p. 1, where he makes a point of using instead the formulation li huai yue beng 禮壞樂崩, and explains the background of the phrase in a footnote. In traditional times li huai yue beng referred to the breakdown of ritual institutions more generally in any period, as in its earliest known appearance in a memorial of 124 BCE by Emperor Wu of the Han, quoted in Wu’s imperial annals in Han shu 6.171–172 and elsewhere, in reference to the situation in his own day. The wider context is Emperor Wu decreeing the establishment of education in schools to promote li. The phrases li bi huai 禮必壞 and yue bi beng 樂必崩 appear in Lun yu 17.21, spoken by Confucius’s disciple Zai Wo 宰我, but this is in a rather different context, reference to the deterioration of a superior person’s ( junzi) command of ritual and music during the three-year mourning for one’s parents, as a justification for reducing this long observance, but Confucius rejects this reasoning. Li Ling observes that the formulation li beng yue huai has now become a “conventional phrase” (su yu 俗語). 16 For a listing and summary of Chinese scholarship on the breakdown of the Western Zhou hierarchy see Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 135–137. Confucius mentions this in Lun yu 16.2. See also the discussion in Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 89–90.

28

Chapter 2

States era which followed it. The Spring and Autumn period was very much a continuation of the earlier order ruled by a strongly lineage-based warrior aristocracy. It is mainly the doings and concerns of this aristocracy that the Zuo zhuan records, and their tombs that furnish the bulk of the archaeological evidence from that time. The central dominance of the Zhou kings had faded, and the Zhou political and ritual order was eroding. Political and military power shifted to the feudal lords, the zhuhou 諸侯, and the strongest of them emerged as the “hegemon” (ba 霸 or bo 伯), presiding over alliances of states to maintain, rather than overthrow, the Zhou order and defend the Zhou king from rebellions and external threats. The frequency of the word li in the Zuo zhuan more or less parallels the rise and fall of the hegemon dominance.17 Later in the Spring and Autumn period sub-fief families, the “Great Officers” (dafu 大夫), in turn supplanted the feudal lords in many states, as the older lineage-based pattern of rule gave way to increasingly centralized and bureaucratic systems of governance. Archaeological remains have greatly enhanced our understanding of this time, but the Zuo zhuan remains the most important source, showing us, however imperfectly, a world of constant inter-state strife where the practices, values, and concepts represented by li seem to have predominated, and were then taken up and transformed amid the profound social, political, and intellectual changes of the late Spring and Autumn period, the time when Confucius lived. A key question in any discussion of Spring and Autumn history is the historical accuracy of the Zuo zhuan, and of other historical records of this time, especially its cousin text, the Guo yu, which has similar content. The Zuo zhuan, the largest single text surviving from the pre-Han period, was pieced together from sources of different sorts and from different times with no overall authorial voice.18 The chief concern of the text as a whole is clearly not to record historical events as such. It is often difficult to be sure how much the actual personalities and events of the Spring and Autumn were modified to accommodate the concerns of those who transmitted the textual material subsequently, in stages down to the Zuo’s final compilation, which scholarly consensus puts late in the fourth century BCE, though this may have been

17 See Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, p. 229, where it is argued that the emphasis on li was an important characteristic of the hegemons’ order. 18 See the classification of the different sorts of material in the Zuo zhuan on pp. 257–259 of Christoph Harbsmeier, “On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan” (Review Article of Durrant, Li, and Schaberg), Journal of Chinese Studies 67 (2018), pp. 253–279.

Golden Age of Ritual

29

based on an earlier compilation in the fifth century.19 There is a wide literature on the origins and nature of the Zuo, conveniently summarised in the introduction to the monumental translation of the text by Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, in which they aptly observe, “Most scholars of early China would agree that it might be as dangerous to reject the historical reliability of all of Zuo zhuan as it is to accept it all uncritically.”20 In general, the text of the Zuo zhuan is made up of terse annalistic narratives often leading into speeches, some quite long and elaborate. Another textual component is explanatory or appraising comments, very often a simple “this was in accord with (or because of) li” (li ye 禮也) or “this was not in accord with li” ( fei li ye 非禮也), which appear 122 times in the text. More elaborate evaluations also appear, some quite long, and which also frequently make judgements on the basis of li, attributed to a “superior person” ( junzi yue 君子曰) or to Confucius (usually Zhongni yue 仲尼曰), 89 and 46 times respectively. These appraising comments are conventionally thought to derive from later transmitters of the text, or the final compilers, though some, including Yuri Pines and Eric Henry, have disagreed with this, on the grounds that the junzi yue comments clearly do not reflect a single consistent interpretive viewpoint. Henry concludes that the junzi yue passages are well integrated with the original material they are appended to, and may derive from an earlier stage of compilation prior to the fourth century; the Confucius statements, by contrast, he suggests may derive from a final fourth-century compilation, an attempt to put a “Confucian” spin on earlier material with quite different concerns.21 19

Yuri Pines suggests the possibility that the text was largely compiled in the fifth century BCE, with “a more-or-less fixed version” finalized in the fourth century; Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, p. 34. Eric Henry also suggests an earlier compiler, whether or not this was the historical Zuo Qiuming 左丘明 whose name is associated with the work; see the conclusion in Henry, “‘Junzi Yue’ versus ‘Zhongni Yue’ in Zuozhuan,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 59:1 (1999), pp. 147–149. 20 Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, trans., Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan (2016), p. XXXI. 21 In the case of the pronouncements on being in accord or not with li, Yuri Pines argues that these come from the sources themselves, citing a conference paper from 1999 by Carine Defoort, in which she noted that only one of these comments occurs during the last fifty years covered by the Zuo zhuan; Pines, Foundations, p. 23, note 38. With regard to the junzi and Confucius statements, Pines references Eric Henry, “‘Junzi Yue’ versus ‘Zhongni Yue’ in Zuozhuan,” pp. 125–161. Henry notes (p. 131) that junzi statements occur 83 times between the years 722 and 530, and only six times between 529 and 464; this is a pattern essentially the same as that noted by Defoort and Pines for the li judgements. The Zhongni statements are complicated by the fact that Confucius himself is sometimes an actor in events, but in general seem to represent a later component of the text than the

30

Chapter 2

The narrative material in the Zuo is the most likely to come directly from written records close in time to the events described, and a sign of this are similarities of language and content with Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn period bronze inscriptions.22 The speeches are less clear-cut, with differing views among scholars regarding their origin and authenticity.23 Barry Blakely comes to the discouraging conclusion that “… every segment, even utterance, in the text must be judged independently.”24 Yuri Pines in particular makes a case for much of the text of the Zuo zhuan – including many speeches – as being directly derived from early written materials. With the exclusion of a certain number of anachronistic interpolations, which he identifies and lists, he argues that the language and content of the original sources has not been significantly modified. The sheer wealth of precise detail in the narrative passages, such as the accuracy of dates given according to the different Zhou and Xia calendars used in different states, and the variations in language and content relating to different times and different places, makes it clear that the compilers of the Zuo zhuan were for the most part directly incorporating or following a disparate range of earlier documents, most likely records compiled close in time to the events themselves. Many of the passages seemingly most tedious in content, largely neglected by modern scholars, are those especially likely to be genuinely early. These carried considerable ritual significance at the time they were created, for example junzi statements. Henry argues that the junzi statements are more closely integrated with the content of the associated narratives, and help sharpen and clarify them. He offers the tentative conclusion that the Zhongni statements represent the efforts of the final compilers to reconcile content that was “not particularly Confucian in spirit” with their own teachings, and the junzi statements derive from an earlier compiler, whether or not this is the Zuo Qiuming whose name is attached to the work. Henry believes this pattern suggests that the final compilers were incorporating earlier material directly without editorial changes, an observation broadly in line with Pines’s views. See Henry’s conclusions on pp. 147–149. 22 See, for example, bronze inscriptions presented in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 146–147 and the similar Zuo zhuan text in note 1. The modern Zuo zhuan commentator Yang Bojun sometimes references bronzes for one or another Zuo usage; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. XXXLV, note 49 cites some examples of this in Yang’s commentaries, and also the specific example of “Zifan’s Bell” inscription, which gives details on the battle of Chengpu coinciding precisely with those in the Zuo zhuan. 23 Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. XVIII–XIX, XXX–XXXII, and a more detailed account of the different types of material in the Zuo, their likely origin, and purposes on pp. XXXVIII–LIX. 24 Blakeley, “‘On the Authenticity and Nature of the Zuo zhuan’ Revisited,” Early China 29 (2004), p. 264; his conclusions are summarised in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. XXXI.

Golden Age of Ritual

31

formal declarations delivered by rulers at the shrines to their ancestors. Durrant, Li, and Schaberg also note the multiplicity of often “divergent perspectives” in the text, reflecting the many different sources that went into it.25 The origins of the many speeches in the Zuo are less certain, but Pines finds it unlikely that they would have been invented by the final compilers of the Zuo, or transmitted orally, but would more probably have derived from older written traditions, many of them possibly recorded at the time they were spoken, and reflecting the concerns and understandings of those times.26 On this premise, he has produced an intellectual history of the Spring and Autumn period, in which li is the predominant concept, which changed and evolved to become more general and abstract over time.27 David Schaberg takes a different view of the speeches, laying stress on their orality. He argues that much of the material in the Zuo was originally transmitted orally, used as training for effective speech-making, and only written down at a relatively late stage.28 Durrant, Li, and Schaberg argue that there are no descriptions of speeches being regularly recorded, as there are for annals and other sorts of records and documents.29 Whether or not we accept this argument, the idea that the speeches in the Zuo zhuan were used for education in persuasive oratory is convincing, and this is relevant when we search for signs of Ritual Learning being deployed in these speeches. In what follows, we will refer to “the world of the Zuo zhuan” rather than “the Spring and Autumn period” to sidestep any attempt to pronounce on the historicity of the text. Other works, especially the Guo yu, which contains material similar to the Zuo zhuan, especially in its speeches, add to our knowledge of this world, for example in citations of various purported Spring and Autumn texts relating to ritual. The Guo yu contains more material of later origin than the Zuo zhuan, was probably compiled after it, and is regarded as rather less

25 Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. LXIII–LXIV. 26 Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 14–26, 35–39. 27 For his account of the evolution of li in particular see Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 1–41, and the discussion of li as part of his wider account of the intellectual world of the Spring and Autumn period in Chapter 3 of his Foundations of Confucian Thought. His survey of anachronistic material appears on pp. 221–231. In Chinese scholarship, the Spring and Autumn chapter (authored by Shao Bei 邵蓓) in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 134–251 also charts the conceptual evolution of li in this period alongside developments in ritual institutions, based on primary textual and material evidence, and cites a wide range of previous scholarship in Chinese. 28 Schaberg, A Patterned Past (2001), also summarised and compared with Pines in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. XXX. 29 Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. XLI, XLIX–LI.

32

Chapter 2

reliable in its preservation of early historical textual material.30 It does, however, contain accounts that relate to Ritual Learning, for example quotes from texts dealing with li, or with ritual institutions, that will be covered below. However uncertain we may be of the Zuo zhuan as a historical record of the Spring and Autumn period, and even more of the Guo yu, they both reveal something of the reality of a very different world from that of the Warring States and later, a society dominated by a lineage-oriented warrior aristocracy among whom a highly developed sense of li was a conspicuous cultural characteristic and predominant value. Pines is convincing when he argues that the “pan-li-ism of the Zuo” is not a reflection of the preoccupation of an “author” at the time the text was compiled, but rather conveys a “plurality” of views deriving from the different times and places the source materials of the Zuo were produced.31 Li was through much of the Spring and Autumn period a central part of the cultural heritage of the different levels of the aristocracy, a marker of their special status as distinct from the rest of society below them. Wide knowledge of ritual usages, and how to act in accordance with li in a range of different situations, as we see reflected in the Zuo zhuan, was necessary to display and maintain this status, which is often described in the discourse as a visible expression of virtue. This in turn implies the existence of Ritual Learning in some form, at the very least as a body of knowledge to be transmitted through acculturation and probably also mastered in a comprehensive, systematic way. Later on, in the latter part of the time period covered by the Zuo zhuan, the aristocratic order weakened and eventually faded away. Statesmen, and teachers like Confucius, sought to extend li to more levels of society, but it never entirely lost the requirement for visible, precise ritual observance in accordance with established rules, as well as the dignity and distinction of its aristocratic origins. In what follows, we will first give a survey of examples from the Zuo zhuan, divided up by different themes detectable from the text. In these examples, people refer to li in a variety of contexts, for example when giving advice on a correct course of action, or in appraisals of situations in which li has been followed, or more often violated. This survey is not meant to be exhaustive, given the enormous volume of material relating to li in the Zuo, and will focus on a selection of examples which seem to reveal the existence of Ritual Learning and its characteristics, as culturally-acquired expertise if not a formal branch 30

See the appraisal of the Guo yu, and of the excavated text scholars have named the Chun qiu shi yu 春秋事語, in Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 39–46. 31 Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, p. 91, as part of an account of the evolution of li from ritual into an entire sociopolitical order on pp. 90–104.

Golden Age of Ritual

33

of learning, which allowed people with the necessary knowledge to give political or tactical advice, or form conclusions about people’s future success or failure based on how they observed li. In particular, we will be looking for how people with knowledge of li cited sources of authority, for example specific precedents from earlier times, or fixed codes or sets of regulations on ritual institutions, which would imply some sort of specialist lore, oral or written. This will include evidence in the Zuo zhuan and especially Guo yu for the existence of actual writings on li or on ritual regulations (such as “records”, zhi 志, “writings”, shu 書, or “authoritative codes”, dian 典), which in turn suggest the existence of written texts associated with Ritual Learning. This discussion of Ritual Learning in the world of the Zuo zhuan will then form the background for how it was carried on by Confucius, and the Ru ritual specialists after him. 2.1 Ritual Learning and Visible Display First we look at examples in which people observe visible acts by rulers or others in positions of authority, and form moral judgements on them according to principles of li. This visible display is found in two similar speeches from the very earliest years covered by the Zuo zhuan, attributed to Zang Xibo 臧僖伯 in 718 BCE and his son Zang Aibo 臧哀伯 in 710. These reveal a concern with the visible, correct, and exemplary observance of ritual on the part of the ruler. Both Xibo and Aibo were statesmen in Lu (Xibo the son of Lord Xiao 孝 of Lu, r. 806–769 BCE) who urged their respective rulers (Lord Yin 隱公, r. 722–711, and Lord Huan 桓公, r. 711–694) to desist from acts violating established ritual order. Both speeches reflect a vision of the ruler’s actions in terms of correct ritual display as a model for their officials; improper actions constitute disorder (luan 亂) in governance and will lead to ruin or defeat (bai 敗). Strikingly, neither speech uses the word li, though the areas of behaviour they discuss encompass ritual forms and the hierarchical sociopolitical order that would usually come under that heading elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan. The later speech by Zang Aibo in particular has attracted scholarly attention as an example of what is thought to be a vestige of the pre-li era of the early Spring and Autumn period, when external ritual perfection, often described as yi 儀, “ceremonial comportment”, or wei yi 威儀, “imposing ceremonial comportment”, was seen as an expression of the ruler’s “virtue” (de 德), much like discourse found in some Shi jing songs and in bronze inscriptions.32 De, 32

See the discussion in Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li” (2000), pp. 9–11, with citations of Shi jing songs and bronze inscriptions on p. 9, notes 20 and 21. Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 92–94 has a similar account with a full translation of Zang Aibo’s speech, and also translated lines from the Shi jing song “Panshui” 泮水 (Mao 299) from the Lu hymns

34

Chapter 2

conventionally but misleadingly translated as “virtue”, is a complex term and concept in ancient China, not only an inner goodness but a sort of charisma entailing external expressions that influence the world around, and – especially in Confucian (and pre-Confucian) discourse – makes the person who possesses it fit to be a ruler over others. The background to the later speech by Zang Aibo was a gift (or bribe, lu 賂) of a cauldron from the state of Song 宋. A Song vassal Huafu Du 華父督 had assassinated one ruler and installed another in his stead, and hoped to win support for this, or acquiescence, from the other states. Lord Huan of Lu placed the cauldron in his ancestral shrine (tai miao 太廟), which the Zuo narrative labels a violation of li ( fei li ye), prompting Zang Aibo’s remonstration.33 The speech is noteworthy for its emphasis on the visible display of “virtue” through very specific ritual forms. The ruler presides over his officials like the sun shining down from on high (lin zhao baiguan 臨照百官). The verb zhao 昭, “to make manifest, to display”, is used repeatedly. The ruler “displays his virtue”, or his “excellent virtue” (zhao de 昭德, zhao ling de 昭令德) to his subordinates and to his descendants. There then follows a list of precise ritual forms, through which the ruler displays certain qualities. Following is the translation of the passage by Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, which gives a good sense of the level of technical detail Aibo cites: … The Pellucid Temple has a thatched roof, the grand chariot has rush mats, the grand broth is unseasoned, and the grains are unrefined: these manifest [the ruler’s] frugality (zhao qi jian ye 昭其儉也). The robes, ceremonial cap, leathern apron, and jade tablet; the belt, skirt, gaiters, and wooden-soled footwear; the hat pin, ear-plug cords, hat string, and cap board: these manifest his adherence to proper standards (zhao qi du ye 昭其度也). The jade-offering box, sash, sheath, and sheath decorations; the leathern belt, belt tassels, pennant streamers, and bridle: these manifest his distinctions of rank (zhao qi shu ye 昭其數也). The weaves of fire, (Lu song 魯頌), which celebrate the Marquis of Lu: “He reverently displays his virtue” ( jing ming qi de 敬明其德) and “Reverently he is cautious with his imposing ceremonial comportment” ( jing shen wei yi 敬慎威儀). See also Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui (2016) vol. 1, pp. 247–248 for a discussion of Zang Aibo’s speech, citing a range of earlier scholarship in Chinese, much of which concentrates on the overlap in meaning between li and de. 33 The text is in Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, ed., Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (1981) vol. 1, pp. 86–89; text and translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 76–79; another full translation in Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 92–93; discussion and partial translation in Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 10–11.

Golden Age of Ritual

35

of dragons, of black and white axes, and of blue and black undulations: these manifest his proper patterning (zhao qi wen ye 昭其文也). The five colors matched with the images: these manifest his proper use of things (zhao qi wu ye 昭其物也). The bells on the horses’ foreheads, on the chariot, on the carriage shaft, and on the flags: these manifest his proper use of sounds (zhao qi sheng ye 昭其聲也). The flags decorated with the three heavenly bodies: these manifest his proper resplendence (zhao qi ming ye 昭其明也).34 This precise display of “virtue” through ritual forms inspires awe and obedience from his officials. But, in contrast with what Aibo characterizes as the ruler’s proper role to “display virtue and prevent transgression” (zhao de sai wei 昭德塞違), Lord Huan has done the exact opposite, “obliterated virtue and set an [example of] transgression” (mie de li wei 滅德立違). This display of wrongdoing will result in a loss of virtue among officials, impossible to contain through punishment, to the ultimate ruin (bai 敗) of the state. The cauldron is a “bribe vessel that displays disorder and transgression” (zhao luan wei zhi lu qi 昭違亂之賂器). Whether one can say that this speech is an example of Ritual Learning specifically, as distinct from superior wisdom about the correct order of things more generally, is impossible to prove. Nonetheless Zang Aibo is represented as having a detailed understanding of technical ritual forms and their ultimate purpose in governance, and deploys this understanding in an attempt to correct a violation of ritual on the part of his ruler. Lord Huan did not heed his advice, but the Zuo zhuan praises Aibo’s efforts through the voice of an unnamed Royal Secretary (nei shi 內史) of the Zhou court, who predicts, correctly, that Aibo’s descendants will thrive in Lu, and says that when his ruler went astray “he did not forget his duty to remonstrate with him on the basis of virtue” (bu wang jian zhi yi de 不忘諫之以德). An earlier speech by Aibo’s father Zang Xibo recorded for the year 718 BCE is generally similar in intent, if less detailed and dramatic, and likewise expounds on the ruler’s correct ritual usages in terms of external display. Here again the word li does not appear in the speech itself, though there is mention of imposing ceremonial comportment (wei yi).35 Lord Yin of Lu planned to go 34 35

Translation from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 77 (Chinese text inserted). Yang Bojun, ed., Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu vol. 1, pp. 41–44; text and translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 34–35. See also the discussion of this passage on pp. 261–214 of Christoph Harbsmeier, “On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan” (review article of Durrant, Li, and Schaberg), pp. 253–279.

36

Chapter 2

out to view fishermen (or perhaps fish-farming) at a place called Tang 棠 on the border between Lu and Song. Xibo remonstrates against this journey, on the grounds that it is a violation of the ruler’s correct ritual performance of the Great Services to the State (guo zhi da shi 國之大事), a phrase found elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan designating both the state sacrifices and military training and battle.36 Though the word li does not appear in the speech, the Zuo comments afterwards that the phrasing of the Chun qiu record of Lord Yin’s visit signifies that it was in violation of li. Such comments on the Chun qiu text, prefaced by the formula “That [the Chun qiu] writes …” (shu yue 書曰), are likely to be a relatively late addition to the text, from when it was matched to the Chun qiu as a commentary. Zang Xibo objects to Lord Yin’s visit on two grounds, first that the ruler should not travel except for appropriate ritual activities involving hunting and war, and second, he should not be involved in obtaining natural animal products unless they are intended for use in state sacrificial ritual.37 “Virtue” is not mentioned, but he uses the word gui 軌, “rule” or “correct path”. The ruler must induce the people to conform to gui through the visible example set by his proper ritual observances. In the case of travel, the ruler should go out only on certain prescribed occasions with martial intent, the four seasonal hunts (the springtime chun sou 春蒐, summer xia miao 夏苗, autumn qiu mi 秋獮, and winter dong shou 冬狩), which themselves constitute military training; and major military training (zhi bing 治兵) every three years, concluding with the rituals performed on return from campaign – the ceremonial report to the ancestral shrine, presentation there of any spoils of battle, and recognition of merit.38 The purpose of these rituals is to: “Display the patterned insignia (zhao wen zhang 昭文章), clarify noble and base (ming gui jian 明貴賤), distinguish levels and ranks (bian deng lie 辨等列), put young and old in the correct order (shun shao zhang 順少長), and perform imposing ceremonial comportment (xi wei yi

36 See the discussion on the significance of the Great Services and the interconnections between sacrifice, hunting, and war in Mark Lewis, Sanctioned Violence in Early China, pp. 17–28, which includes a partial translation of Zang Xibo’s speech on pp. 17–18. 37 Based on the Chun qiu text itself, which says Gong shi yu yu Tang 公矢魚于棠. Harbsmeier suggests that Lord Yin may actually have speared the fish himself; see Harbsmeier, “On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan,” p. 263. 38 Elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan “military training” (zhi bing) can be a way of referring to actual battle (for example Zuo zhuan Xi 23.6, Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 409), which might be a plausible reading here, given that it is immediately followed by the rituals performed on return from battle. It would be odd to make war precisely at three-year intervals, however.

Golden Age of Ritual

37

習威儀).”39 Here we find the same verb “display” (zhao) as was used by his son

Zang Aibo, as well as wei yi, the visible, impressive display of correct ritual forms and practices. This emphasis on correct visible ritual expression according to the established order, and the importance of ritually-enforced hierarchy, are all characteristics elsewhere associated with li. Zang Xibo’s second objection is to the fish, a lowly food product not used in the Great Services to the state. Xibo states that the ruler should not be involved in the procurement of any creature that does not supply the needs of the Great Services, whether for sacrificial meat or products such as leather, ivory, or horn for ritual artefacts. This, Xibo says, is the “regulation of antiquity” (gu zhi zhi ye 古之制也). This is the closest we see to an external source of authority in either of the two speeches, a non-specific reference to ancient regulations. Otherwise, the only source of authority evident in either speech is the pronouncements of the two speakers themselves, which we understand implicitly to be based on their superior knowledge of the ruler’s proper ritual usages. This superior knowledge relates to a hierarchical social and political order in which the duties and usages of each rank are precisely defined. The ruler maintains a visible, imposing authority above, and yet his activities are strictly circumscribed by the ritual regulations his authority depends on. Xibo’s speech, like Aibo’s, makes it clear that the ruler sets a model through his visible display of correct ritual, and warns that the consequence of ritual violation is disordered government (luan zheng 亂政), which in turn leads to ruin and defeat (bai). Lord Yin ignored Zang Xibo’s advice, saying, “I intend an inspection of the territory there” (wu jiang lüe di yan 吾將略地焉), which presumably he thought would constitute a ritually correct act of military significance over an area bordering on the neighbouring state of Song. When he went, Xibo refused to accompany him, pleading illness. The historical authenticity of these purportedly early speeches is difficult to assess, but the fact that both describe characteristics later commonly associated with li – especially precise observance of ritual and emphasis on hierarchical order – without describing this as li is worth considering. In this respect they resemble examples of early pre-li discourse in the Songs and bronze inscriptions. The Zuo zhuan commentarial narrative labels both rulers’ actions as violations of li, which one could argue is a later layer of the text, representing the interpretive viewpoint of a different stage in the compilation

39

Modified slightly from the translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 35. They take the final phrase xi wei yi as resulting from the previous four, which is certainly a plausible reading, but I take all five equally to be the aim of the rituals.

38

Chapter 2

of the text, when li would have been the obvious standard against which to judge such actions. The early part of the Zuo zhuan also contains passages on ritual lapses specifically criticized in terms of li. In one brief example from the year 715, a prince from the state of Zheng went to the state of Chen to fetch back his new bride, the lady Gui 媯, and the two consummated their marriage before making the ritual report of it to the Zheng ancestral shrine. The Chen official Qianzi 鍼子, who had also accompanied the bride, is quoted as denouncing this as a violation of ritual ( fei li ye), and correctly predicting that the union will produce no children.40 In another example recorded for the year 671, Lord Zhuang (Zhuang Gong 莊公) of Lu travelled to the state of Qi 齊 to view the ceremony to the soil altar (she 社). His wise official Cao Gui 曹劌 remonstrated against this, in terms rather similar to those invoked by Zang Xibo in 718, except that his case is built explicitly on an analysis of li. Li is what maintains order among the people, enforces correct hierarchy between young and old, and teaches frugality, and it stipulates that the ruler should not travel except to pay court to the king, accompany the king on royal progressions, or lead hunts or military actions. Travel not in accord with proper models (bu fa 不法) will be recorded in the state annals, to be viewed by the ruler’s successors, and in fact this particular trip is recorded in the extant Chun qiu text.41 Another related phenomenon involving visible manifestations of li is close observation of an individual’s physical movements in a ritual situation, usually those of a ruler or someone else of high status, and reading slight imperfections in attitude or manner to form a judgement on that person’s moral rectitude and subsequent success or failure. One example is recorded for the year 649 BCE, relating to the second hegemon Lord Wen of Jin’s unworthy predecessor, and half-brother, Lord Hui (Hui Gong 惠公, r. 650–637 BCE). The Zuo zhuan is replete with examples of Hui’s failings, and one of these is a ritual violation. When he received his mandate of investiture as Marquis of Jin from the Zhou king, delivered via two royal messengers, Duke Wu of Shao (Shao Wu Gong 召武公) and the Royal Secretary Guo (Neishi Guo 內史過), he is said to have been “indolent” (instead of politely brisk) when receiving the jade token for this (duo yu shou rui 惰於受瑞). Royal Secretary Guo is quoted as reporting back to the king that Hui is destined to have no successors, and offers the 40 Zuo zhuan Yin 8.4, Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 58–59, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 48–49. 41 Zuo zhuan Zhuang 23.1, Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 225–226, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 198–199.

Golden Age of Ritual

39

following analysis: “Li is the pillar of the state (guo zhi gan ye 國之幹也), and respect ( jing 敬) is the vehicle of li. If one is disrespectful, then li does not progress. If li does not progress, the [hierarchy of] superior and inferior will become confused. How can his line extend long through the generations?”42 Noteworthy in this example is Guo’s ritual knowledge, which links precise observance of li as an expression of respect through correct ritual etiquette with li in a much wider sense, the central governing principle by which order is maintained in the state. Failure in the small things entails wider failure, because both boil down to the same concept of li. In this case no specific authority is cited beyond the pronouncements of principle by the speaker, though the way they are expressed does suggest standard, formulaic sayings of some sort. According to the Zhou li account of the bureaucracy, the “Royal Secretary” (neishi 內史) is one of the officials in charge of ritual, in charge of conferring titles and ranks on feudal lords and others. This in itself must have required deep familiarity with the Zhou ritual order. The title suggests that he was an exalted version of the scribes or diviners (shi 史) who had been specialists in ritual at court since the Shang period.43 His pronouncement on Lord Hui’s ritual violation was thus authoritative. Two further examples where visible signs of “disrespect” (bu jing) are identified as failures of li and lead to predictions of failure appear in the year 578. In this case they involve the level of hereditary high officials below the level of the feudal lords, and also concentrate on the success or failure of individuals rather than the governance of an entire state. The first of these is not particularly informative: a high official Xi Yi 郤錡 sent from the state of Jin to Lu to request troops is said to have been “disrespectful” in the conduct of his mission, but it is not stated what he did to incur this judgment. The prediction is made that his line will perish.44 The second example, from the same year, occurs in the aftermath of a campaign against Qin led by Jin, in which Lu participated. One of the Lu officials, Lord Su of Cheng (Cheng Su Gong 成肅公), is recorded as having been 42 Xi 11.2 (649 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 337–338, consulting Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 304–305. See the mention of this phenomenon in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. XIX, which includes this example. 43 The Zhou li description of the Neishi’s duties includes: “For investitures of feudal lords, Assistant Lords of State, and Grand Officers, [the Neishi] confers the tablet of investiture” 凡命諸侯及孤卿、大夫，則策命之. Zhou li zhushu 6.46b–47b (“Chun guan 春官”, Neishi). 44 Zuo zhuan Cheng 13.1, Yang Bojun vol. 2, p. 860, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 801. This passage also contains a statement of how li relates to individual conduct, which will be explored further below.

40

Chapter 2

disrespectful in the ritual sharing of the raw sacrificial meat (shou shen 受脤) at the soil altar (she). This provokes a long critical analysis from a fellow Lu official who had also participated in the campaign, Lord Kang of Liu (Liu Kang Gong 劉康公), which is worth presenting in full: I have heard that humans are born between heaven and earth, and this is what is called their charge (ming 命). That is why there are models (ze 則) for action and movement (dong zuo 動作), ritual propriety and duty (li yi 禮義), imposing ceremonial comportment (wei yi 威儀) for securing this charge. The able ones nurture this charge and find their way to good fortune; the feckless ones ruin this charge and incur disaster. That is why superior men ( junzi) are assiduous in fulfilling ritual propriety (qin li 勤禮), while common men (xiao ren 小人) exert themselves in physical labor. In being assiduous in fulfilling ritual propriety, there is nothing equal to offering reverence ( jing). In exerting oneself in physical labor, there is nothing equal to steady dedication. Reverence lies in nurturing the spirits (yang shen 養神); dedication lies in keeping to one’s vocation. The great affairs of the state (guo zhi da shi 國之大事) lie with sacrifice and warfare. With sacrifices, there is the ritual of distributing roasted sacrificial meat; with warfare, there is the ritual of receiving raw sacrificial meat. These are the great ritual regulations (da jie 大節) in [serving] the spirits. In the present case, Master Cheng was indolent; he has cast aside his charge. Surely he will not return!45 Notable here is the elaborate nature of the argument, which suggests an analytical framework attached to li which encompasses the destiny of the individual in an almost cosmological way. Adherence to the rules of li brings about good fortune, and violation of them leads to disaster. This seems to reflect a more theoretical strand of Ritual Learning, though it continues to stress practical behaviour and visible ritual decorum, and is aimed at ensuring close adherence to the rules of li in formal rituals. Also worth noting is the opening phrase, “I have heard it  …” (wu wen zhi 吾聞之), often employed in the Zuo zhuan and other early texts, which signals a source of knowledge external to the speaker without actually specifying what it was. This adds to the semblance of 45 Translation slightly modified from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 803. Zuo zhuan Cheng 13.1, Yang Bojun vol. 2, p. 860–861 (Chinese terms added). See also the discussion and translation in Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 98–99, where he argues that this represents the conservative trend of the late Spring and Autumn period.

Golden Age of Ritual

41

reliability, and persuasiveness, of the speech as a whole. More specific formulations of this sort might mention the name of someone, or a text, as the source of the saying; examples of this will be discussed below. There are two further passages to consider. The first never actually mentions li itself, nor is it clear that it relates to a ritual setting, but it does present a detailed analysis of visible “imposing ceremonial comportment”, wei yi, exploring its various functions using discourse typically associated with Ritual Learning. The background is a visit by the Marquis of Wei 衛 to the state of Chu in the year 542 BCE, accompanied by his official Beigong Wenzi 北宮文子.46 Wenzi observes the deportment of Wei 圍, the Chu Chief Minister (lingyin 令尹) and also a prince, the uncle of the king whom he would murder and supplant the following year. The Chief Minister Wei resembles a ruler, Wenzi tells the marquis, and has “other ambitions” (ta zhi 他志) – i.e. to take over as king of Chu – that would be successful but not lasting. The marquis asks how he knows this, and Wenzi replies, “The Songs says, ‘He is respectfully cautious with his majestic deportment, to be a model to the people.’ The Chief Minister lacks imposing comportment, and the people will have no model in him.” Impressed, the marquis asks for an explanation of “imposing comportment”. Wenzi gives him a detailed analysis of the term, which makes the same general points as other examples above, that the visible display of correct ritual deportment sets a moral example and ensures good order among a ruler’s subjects, but he adds additional detail. He starts off by defining wei and yi separately: “If one has majesty that can inspire awe, we call that ‘majesty’ (wei er ke wei wei zhi wei 有威而可畏謂之威); if one has comportment that can be emulated, we call that ‘comportment’ (yi er ke xiang wei zhi yi 有儀而可象謂之儀).” The visuality of the yi component is particularly evident in the verb xiang, which suggests something to be emulated in a way that can be seen. If a ruler has the appropriate wei yi, his ministers will fear and love him, and guide themselves by emulating his example in a visible way (ze er xiang zhi 則而象之), such that the ruler will maintain control over the state. Ministers likewise have their wei yi, to inspire and maintain control over their subordinates in a similar way, and the same pattern followed throughout the whole of society ensures a secure hierarchical order. Wenzi cites lines from two of the Songs praising wei yi and its characteristics, and two further quotes from the Songs and Documents relating to King Wen of the Zhou. The Songs and Documents are here cited as sources of authority 46 Zuo zhuan Xiang 31.13, Yang Bojun vol. 3, pp. 1193–1195, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 1289–1293. Beigong Wenzi’s speech is also translated and analyzed as an example of rhetoric in Schaberg, A Patterned Past, pp. 30–34.

42

Chapter 2

to give further weight to his argument, which is that the Chief Minister Wei has the wrong deportment for his position. Though li is not mentioned in this speech, the principles invoked, and the use of canonical textual authority, are typical of what we will call “ritual reasoning” further below, aspects of the analytical and rhetorical characteristics of Ritual Learning. The final example of observing anomalies in ritual behaviour is recorded for the year 495 BCE, in the context of a visit from Lord Yin of Zhu (Zhu Yin Gong 邾隱公) to the court of Lord Ding of Lu. Yin “held the jade high with his face turned upward” while Ding “received the jade low with his face turned downward”. Observing this ritual breach on the part of both parties, Confucius’s disciple Zi Gong 子貢 predicts, correctly, that both rulers will soon die. His analysis is cast entirely in terms of li: Observed from the perspective of ritual propriety [li], both rulers have death or exile in store for them. Ritual propriety is the structure of death and life, survival and failure. Anyone who moves left or right, interacts, advances or withdraws, or looks down or up draws on this;47 when anyone pays court, sacrifices, mourns, or goes to war, we observe this in it. Now in the first month they shared a court visit, yet both fell short of standards: in their hearts they had already failed. When in a celebratory affair they do not adhere to this structure we call ritual, how can they last long? One raised it high and looked upward: this is arrogance. One kept it low and looked downward: this means he is in decline. The arrogance is close to rebellion, and the decline is close to an affliction. Our ruler is the host: he will be the first to die.48 Cast directly in terms of li, this analysis once more links the minute, observable detail of physical ritual practice to wider patterns of order, in this case to the fates of individuals, quite similar to the inappropriate indolence of Lord Hui when receiving the jade token of investiture from the Zhou king, and the disrespect shown by Lord Su of Cheng in receiving the sacrificial meat. Implicit in Zi Gong’s argument is the requirement for precise, correct ritual behaviour appropriate to a specific occasion. Such precise ritual conformity as practiced by Confucius is described in considerable detail in the Lun yu, as we will see 47

The phrases “moves left or right, interacts, advances or withdraws, looks down or up” (zuo you zhou xuan jin tui fu yang 左右周旋進退俯仰) designate physical movements in ritual interactions between people, which fits well with the ritual events listed immediately afterwards. 48 Translation modified from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1823; Zuo zhuan Ding 15.1, Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1600–1601.

Golden Age of Ritual

43

below. Interpretations of this sort depend upon specialist knowledge, which we may classify as a form of Ritual Learning. The story of visible observance of precise ritual forms in the Zuo zhuan would not be complete without mentioning instances where such expression is explicitly decoupled from li as a universal system of order. These cases reflect the evolution of li to a more abstract, theoretical concept, and a shift away from precise physical observance.49 In two of these cases external ritual observance is said to be yi 儀, and not li. The first of these is recorded for the year 537 BCE, when the Marquis of Lu visits Jin, and the Marquis of Jin, impressed with his visitor’s perfect performance of ritual at every stage, is moved to comment, “Is not the Marquis of Lu adept at li?” His official Ru Shuqi 女叔齊 contradicts this, saying, “This is ritual comportment, it cannot be said to be li” (shi yi ye, bu ke wei li 是儀也，不可謂 禮). Ru goes on to explain that li is the foundation of order in a state, yet the lord of Lu has lost power to his vassal great families, and is behaving inappropriately both at home and abroad.50 Another example is recorded for the year 517, when Lord Jian of Zhao (Zhao Jianzi 趙簡子) from the state of Jin asks Zi Taishu 子太叔 of Zheng state about “the rituals for saluting, yielding, and [ceremonial] turning” (yi rang zhou xuan zhi li 揖讓周旋之禮).51 Zi Taishu replies, “This is ceremony, not li” (shi yi ye, fei li ye 是儀也，非禮也). He then launches into an extended quote from a speech by the then-deceased statesman Zi Chan 子產, describing li as universal order. The passage includes what appear to be anachronistic metaphysical theories related to the Five Phases, and Yuri Pines makes a good case for this speech being a later interpolation. However, the contrast between yi and li itself is worth mentioning as a further indication of li being disassociated from precise visible ceremonial observance.52

49

For discussions of this conceptual evolution of li, including translations of the speech by Ru Shuqi mentioned immediately below, see Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 15–17, and Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 99–103. 50 Zuo zhuan Zhao 5.3, Yang Bojun vol. 4, p. 1266, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1391. 51 Zhou xuan can also refer to mannerly interchange more generally, but the context suggests that correct physical movement is being referred to here. 52 See Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 242–244 for a discussion of why this passage seems to be an interpolation, particularly as it is a poor narrative fit with the passages before and after. The passage itself is at Zuo zhuan Zhao 25.3, Yang Bojun vol. 4, p. 1457–1459, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 1637–1639.

44

Chapter 2

2.2 Ritual Learning and the Hegemons We turn now to a small selection of examples of Ritual Learning in the Zuo zhuan linked to the “hegemons” (ba 霸, bo 伯) of the Spring and Autumn period. Li was prominent in the discourse of the time. The hegemons had to be incorporated into the underlying Zhou ritual-based institutional order as a new centre of power separate from the king, and li helped justify them as being morally right. More widely, during this time li served as a central principle guiding behaviour and decisions of all sorts, frequently invoked as the main justification for a particular argument, for example as a rationale for strategic advice in war. As in the cases involving visible ritual behaviour presented in the previous section, certain people are represented as knowing more about li than others around them. Such people sometimes invoke particular precedents or principles, in which some form of Ritual Learning is apparent. The historical background of this is the period of the so-called hegemons. These were one or another of the strongest of the feudal lords who dominated other lords, and bound together unequal alliances sealed through blood covenants (meng 盟). Sheer power and domination were not enough. The hegemons had to rely also on moral suasion to win the support of other lords, which they did by defending the Zhou king and the order of which he was the nominal head. On the evidence of the Zuo zhuan, it is clear that li was prominent in the ideology associated with the hegemons and their defense of the old order: the number of occurrences of li in the text more or less parallels the rise and eventual disappearance of the hegemons.53 The initiator of the hegemonic order was Lord Huan of Qi (Qi Huan Gong 齊桓公, r. 685–643 BCE), credited by Confucius for his successful defense against “barbarian” incursions.54 One line in the Zuo zhuan from 659 BCE identifies li as the fundamental principle underlying the activities of Huan as hegemon: “In all cases when the chief of the feudal lords (hou bo 侯伯) rescues others from trouble, shares the burden of their disasters, and wages campaigns to punish crime, this is ritual propriety.”55 53 For an account of the emergence and evolution of the concept of li in this period see Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 7–17, and Chapter 3 of his Foundations of Confucian Thought; for a summary of the extensive scholarship in Chinese on li and the hegemonic order see Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 137–138. 54 More precisely, Confucius is crediting Lord Huan’s chief minister Guan Zhong 管仲 with this achievement; Lun yu 14.17. 55 Zuo zhuan Xi 1.3 (659 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 278; translation modified from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 254–255. See also the detailed discussion of the portrayal of Huan’s hegemony in the Zuo zhuan in Wai-yee Li, The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography (2007), pp. 275–288.

Golden Age of Ritual

45

Here we will focus on the second hegemon, Lord Wen of Jin (Jin Wen Gong

晉文公, r. 636–628 BCE). Though he did not rule for very long, he shaped many

of the basic characteristics of the later hegemons, in particular through the moral justification for his position. The Zuo zhuan narrative of Lord Wen is far from impartial. Deriving from the state of Jin itself, it appears to include political propaganda associated with his rise. In the discourse of this propaganda, certain key concepts are invoked, including Heaven (tian 天), which is represented as supporting him; the “virtue” (de) he manifested, a term also employed in support of the Zhou kings’ right to rule; and li. The Zuo zhuan overall devotes considerable space to the state of Jin, more than it does to any other state up to the year 488 BCE. It is clear that much of this material comes from actual Jin documentary sources, judging by such usages as dates given according to the Xia calendar used in Jin, which was different from the Zhou calendar used by Lu; the practice of listing the names of all top military commanders in an army, not found in records of other states; and by correspondences between the Zhou text and Jin bronze inscriptions.56 A few points in the extensive narrative on Lord Wen are worth highlighting. The story of the man himself, earlier identified in the Zuo zhuan by his personal name Chong’er 重耳, is famous, and dramatic – the prince who escapes his father’s persecution and goes into exile among his mother’s nomadic Di people for twelve years with a group of loyal supporters, including his maternal uncle Hu Yan 狐偃 (Zi Fan 子犯) and Zhao Cui 趙衰. Then, as his half-brother Lord Hui’s disastrous rule breaks down in Jin, Chong’er and his followers embark on a grand tour of several feudal states – treated well by some, rudely by others – eventually for him to return in triumph as Marquis of Jin, and then, in the process of establishing himself as the second hegemon, dealing out just desserts to the various states he visited.57 The dramatic nature of his story, and the highly positive descriptions of his rise, with mention of Heaven’s support 56 For a tabulation of the number of entries for each state in the Zuo see Yuri Pines, Foundations, p. 33; if the last twenty years from 488 to 468 are included, the largest number of entries relate to Lu, but Pines points out that the Zuo coverage in this last section shrinks mostly to Lu and its immediate neighbours, with Jin, Chu, Zheng, Zhou, and Qin almost completely disappearing from the text (p. 32). On Jin-origin records identifiable by the Xia calendar, and by the practice of listing all commanders of an army, see Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. LXII; they also note the fact that the largest number of personal names in the Zuo are from Jin, p. XXXIII. For the correspondences with bronze inscriptions see the reference to the bell inscription of Zi Fan 子犯, also named Hu Yan 狐偃, Lord Wen’s maternal uncle and one of his principal advisors, in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, pp. XXXLV, note 49. 57 For a detailed study of the Zuo zhuan’s account of Lord Wen, see Wai-yee Li, The Readability of the Past, pp. 254–275.

46

Chapter 2

and the “virtue” of his cause, all of which has the ring of propaganda, lead us to doubt the impartiality of the Zuo zhuan account, but elements of it reveal traces of Ritual Learning. Chong’er’s final stop in his tour of other states in 637 BCE was Jin’s western neighbour Qin, where he received a warm welcome from the powerful Lord Mu (Qin Mu Gong 秦穆公, r. 659–621). Relations between Lord Mu and Lord Hui of Jin had become hostile, culminating in the famous Battle of Han 韓 in 645 BCE, which the Zuo zhuan attributes to Hui’s moral failings and unrighteousness behaviour. When Hui died in 637, Mu planned to assist Chong’er in wresting Jin away from Lord Huai, Hui’s son, who had succeeded as Marquis of Jin.58 Lord Mu gave Chong’er five of his daughters in marriage, including the Huai Lady Ying 懷嬴, Lord Huai’s erstwhile wife during his time as diplomatic hostage in Qin. Huai had surreptitiously fled Qin, and Huai Lady Ying was now remarried as subsidiary concubine to Chong’er. In a famous episode, Chong’er splashed water on Huai Lady Ying as the latter poured for him in a washing ritual. When she chided him for this, reminding him that Jin and Qin were states of equal status, he abased himself in atonement, assuming the attitude of a surrendered prisoner.59 The Zuo zhuan account of the episode ends here, the point being Chong’er’s typical behaviour of making mistakes but being quick to accept guidance and correction. In the Guo yu version of the story, however, the gift of five daughters occasioned extended discussion among his followers on whether it was correct usage for him to accept Huai Lady Ying, given that she was the wife of his nephew, Lord Huai. Other followers argued that it was acceptable, including his maternal uncle Hu Yan’s acid observance, “You are going to seize the state [of Jin] away from him, so what does [seizing] his wife matter?” Zhao Cui 趙衰 disagreed with the others, taking a different perspective, beginning with a quote from what appears to be a text on ritual: The Records of Li has it (Li zhi you zhi yue 禮志有之曰), “If you are going to ask someone for something, you must first give them something. If you wish others to treat you with loving care, you must first treat them with 58

The events relating to the Battle of Han are described at some length in Zuo zhuan Xi 15.4, Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 351–366, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, pp. 317–329. 59 Xi 23.6 (637 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 410; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 371. Yang suggests the possibility that this may have been the wedding ceremony itself, with Lady Huai Ying performing the role of bridesmaid (ying 媵) for her sister, the future Lady Wen Ying 文嬴, Chong’er’s principal wife. Lady Huai Ying in the end became a subordinate wife under the different title Lady Chen Ying 辰嬴.

Golden Age of Ritual

47

loving care. If you wish others to accord with you, then you must first accord with them. If you have done no kindness for others (wu de yu ren 無德于人) and yet wish to use them, this is a crime.”60 Whether such a text actually could have existed in this time is an issue to be discussed below, but here it is presented as a source of authority for reciprocity as an essential principle of li, which we see frequently in later sources. According to this principle, Zhao argues that Chong’er must decline the gift of the women in preparation for a formal marriage later, when he is in a position to ensure proper reciprocity. This is not the only instance where Zhao Cui demonstrates a level of learning superior to that of his comrades. Later, prior to a formal meeting between Mu and Chong’er, Hu Yan declines to accompany him, and defers to Zhao Cui, saying, “I am not as cultured as Cui” (wu bu ru Cui zhi wen ye 吾不如衰之文也). This word wen, here used as a stative verb, encompasses a range of accomplishments; Wai-yee Li once translated the single word as “ritual, tradition, texts, and rhetoric”, all of which were characteristic of cultural refinement as understood in that time.61 In the ensuing encounter between Lord Mu and Chong’er, the range of skills and learning required by the occasion becomes apparent. Chong’er initiates an exchange of Songs with encoded meanings, which the modern Zuo commentator Yang Bojun points out is the earliest depiction of such communication in the Zuo zhuan. His song describes rivers flowing to the sea, seemingly comparing himself to the rivers, and Qin to the sea, implying that he is paying court to a superior. Mu responded with a song mentioning service to the Son of Heaven. Zhao Cui then intervenes: “Chong’er bows down to receive this gift!” (Chong’er bai ci 重耳拜賜). Chong’er descended, bowed, and touched his forehead to the ground. The Lord descended one step and declined this. Cui said, “Your lordship has declared that the mandate for how the Son of Heaven will be assisted lies with Chong’er. Would Chong’er dare not bow down?”62 Zhao Cui, addressing Lord Mu as if with Chong’er’s own voice, using the personal name as humble first person, is simultaneously informing Chong’er of

60 Guo yu jijie 4, pp. 333–338. 61 Li, The Readability of the Past, p. 256. 62 Xi 23.6 (637 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 410–411; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 371. See also the discussion in Li, The Readability of the Past, p. 256.

48

Chapter 2

the significance of what is happening, and instructing the ritually appropriate response, which Chong’er is incapable of recognizing for himself. This episode reveals that Zhao Cui possessed learning in the Songs (predecessors of the later Shi jing) and in li, two of the four areas of knowledge – together with the Documents and music – mentioned together elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan, and also taught by Confucius. Of course Zhao Cui’s overall learning, characterized as wen, included but was not confined just to li, so it does not prove the existence of pure Ritual Learning separate from other areas of study in the world of the Zuo zhuan. Rather it shows that li is likely to have been one subject in a broader curriculum of training acquired by members of the aristocracy. Chong’er was then installed as Marquis of Jin, from this point on referred to in the Zuo zhuan as Lord Wen (Wen Gong 文公) or the Marquis of Jin (Jin Hou 晉侯). Once he had consolidated his control over the state, he and his followers set their sights on becoming the new chief among the feudal lords, the hegemon (ba). The first opportunity for advancing this came in 635 BCE with the rebellion in Zhou of Prince Dai 帶 against his brother, King Xiang of Zhou (Zhou Xiang Wang 周襄王, r. 651–619). Dai drove the king from the capital and was cohabiting with the king’s consort, a woman of the culturally different, “barbarian” Di people. Jin responded to the king’s plea for assistance from the feudal lords, intervening militarily to kill Dai and restore the king. After this had been completed, Lord Wen paid court to the king, was entertained with wine, and asked the king for a sui 隧, usually understood as a tunnel for a deceased king to be conveyed to his tomb for burial, instead of the open ramp prescribed for feudal lords. This request was based on the hierarchical ritual order of the Zhou, the “sui” being a ritual form reserved for the king. The king refused this request, saying, “This is the regulation (or possibly “emblem” or “insignia”) of a king (wang zhang ye 王章也). For there to be two kings before you have the virtue to replace [Zhou], is something that you too, Uncle, would loathe.” The word zhang could signify formal ritual codes, a topic to be discussed below, or also a visible display.63 In any event, Lord Wen here is asking for something that would be above his rank in the ritual order. Such encroachment was not unusual in those times, but it was at odds with his claim to be a loyal defender of the king. Precisely such violations at different

63 Xi 25.2 (635 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 431–433; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 389–391. Yang glosses zhang as dianzhang zhidu 典章制度, signifying codified regulations and institutions; Durrant et al. translate as “distinctive mark (of a king)”. Either would be consistent with the different senses of zhang.

Golden Age of Ritual

49

levels are identified by modern scholars as the reason for the emergence of li as a defense of the traditional Zhou order.64 The opportunity for Lord Wen to establish himself as hegemon came two years later. The southern state of Chu had for a long time been expanding its influence northward, extinguishing and annexing some small states outright, and compelling others to join in unequal alliance for military campaigns against other states. The Chu power bloc at that time included Cao 曹, Wei 衛, Lu 魯, and Song 宋, all around the Zhou heartland in the North. In 634, the year after Jin put down the rebellion of Prince Dai, Song switched allegiance to Jin. The Zuo zhuan explains that this was because of the friendly relations with Lord Wen following Song’s generous hospitality toward Chong’er during his exile. Chu attacked Song to force it back into submission, and at the same time the Marquis of Lu led a force of Chu troops against Qi, where they occupied a place called Gu 穀 and left a garrison there.65 In 633 Chu and its allies laid siege to the capital of Song, and Song appealed to Jin for help. In the words of the Jin official Xian Zhen 先軫, “To repay generosity, rescue [others] from trouble, win authority, and establish the hegemony – the time is now!”66 From this point on the Zuo zhuan narrative on Jin’s military victory over Chu and achieving the hegemony reveals a striking tension between the high moral discourse used to describe the enterprise, including mentions of “virtue” (de) and adherence to li, and the low tricks and deception deployed to outmanoeuvre and defeat Chu. Confucius in the Lun yu is quoted as saying: “Lord Wen of Jin was deceptive and not upright ( jue er bu zheng 譎而不正). Lord Huan of Qi was upright and not deceptive (zheng er bu jue 正而不譎).”67 The full story of Jin’s victory over Chu is beyond the scope of this study, but we will mention a few points relevant to Ritual Learning. One is the parallel narrative on events in Chu, in which the Chief Minister (Lingyin 令尹) Zi Yu 子玉 (name Cheng Dechen 成得臣) is the one blamed for the defeat, in contrast to the Chu King Cheng 成 (r. 671–626 BCE), portrayed as possessing the superior wisdom to perceive that Lord Wen had Heaven’s support and could not be opposed. He warned Zi Yu to stop, but Zi Yu refused. An earlier prediction by a perceptive young statesman in Chu observed that Zi Yu was “obdurate and 64

See, for example, the parallel discussions in Yuri Pines, Foundations of Confucian Thought, pp. 97–103, and “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 11–14. 65 Xi 26.6 (634 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 441–442; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 399. 66 Xi 27.4 (633 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 445; and the slightly different translation by Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 403. 67 Lun yu 14.15.

50

Chapter 2

lacking in ritual propriety” (gang er wu li 剛而無禮), and not able to “control the people” (zhi min 治民, which the context makes clear means commanding soldiers in battle), and was destined for defeat.68 This judgement is similar to some of the examples discussed in the previous section, where ritual violations were equated with failure in governance. Also lying behind this story is the original prince Chong’er’s visit to Chu, where he received hospitable treatment from King Cheng, and made him a promise that if ever the two of them met in battle, the Jin side would retreat three day’s march before fighting. At this point Zi Yu had urged the king to kill Chong’er, but the king refused, saying he would not go against a man who clearly had Heaven’s support.69 On the Jin side, the Zuo zhuan records that Lord Wen’s advisors came up with the idea of attacking Cao and Wei, two states recently brought into the Chu alliance (and, not coincidentally, states where Chong’er had been poorly treated when visiting in exile), thus relieving pressure on Song and Qi. A hunt (sou 蒐) was held in Jin for military training, which is specifically described as an exercise intended to reinforce hierarchical order as defined by li. They then conferred on who to appoint as overall military commander for the campaign. Zhao Cui, earlier portrayed as a person of superior knowledge and refinement, said: Xi Hu 郤縠 will do. I have repeatedly heard his words. He takes pleasure in ritual propriety and music, and esteems the Songs and Documents. The Songs and Documents are repositories of duty (or justice, yi zhi fu 義之府); ritual and music are the norms of virtue (de zhi ze 德之則). Virtue and duty are the foundations of advantage [in battle] (li zhi ben 利之本).70 Xi Hu died in 632, soon after the start of the campaign, with no explicit record of his having achieved any military success at all. The point of the narrative is obviously to stress the dedication to moral values prevailing among Lord Wen’s regime, as reflected in the criteria used for Xi Hu’s selection. Here again Zhao Cui is represented as someone more accomplished in learning than those around him, praising a man proficient in the same four fields of study that were later taught by Confucius, including li. We can doubt the historical accuracy of 68 Xi 27.4 (633 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 444–445; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 401. 69 Xi 23.6 (637 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 408–409; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 369–371. 70 Xi 27.4 (633 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 445; adapted from the translation by Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 403.

Golden Age of Ritual

51

this account, given that the narrative was most likely produced later during the long dominance of Jin later on, with a view to recasting the morally dubious tactics of Lord Wen’s rise in a virtuous light. In particular, we need to be cautious about assuming that the Songs and Documents referred to here were written texts. Important to clarify here is that we use “texts” to include oral as well as written manifestations, and in the Zuo zhuan we see both deployed only orally. Forerunners of the Songs and Documents probably existed in the seventh century BCE, but not in their later transmitted forms, particularly in the case of the Documents. Even before the discovery of excavated manuscripts of previously unknown Documents-type texts, it was already clear that that it was a fluid corpus which would continue to change for a great many centuries thereafter.71 More plausible is fields of study organized around shared corpi mostly expressed and performed orally. Anachronistic elements there may well be in this account of Zhao Cui’s judgement, but it nonetheless stands as an example of the world of the Zuo zhuan in which Ritual Learning played a part. At the time just preceding the battle itself, Lord Wen’s followers debated on strategy by invoking principles of li. When the Chu Chief Minister Zi Yu 子玉 sent a messenger offering to lift the siege of Song if Jin will in return restore the rulers of Cao and Wei: Zi Fan (Hu Yan) said, “Zi Yu is lacking in ritual propriety (wu li)! A lord gets one [benefit], and a vassal gets two. We must not lose this chance [to do battle]!” Xian Zhen said, “Let him have it! Giving stability to people is how we define ritual propriety. If with one word Chu gives stability to three states, and with one word we destroy it, then it is we who are lacking in ritual propriety. How can we then do battle?”72 Here we see a pattern typical of debates on Ritual Learning, which is part of what we will call “ritual reasoning”, where one party invokes a particular ritual principle, in this case the primacy in rank of a feudal lord over a vassal, only to 71 In the case of the Shang shu, see the studies included in Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer, eds., Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy (2017). David Schaberg (citing Chen Mengjia) points out that more than half the quotes attributed to the Documents in the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu do not appear in the received versions of the Shangshu, see A Patterned Past, p. 78 and note 86. The nature of the Songs and Documents as fields of study will be discussed further below. 72 Xi 28.3 (632 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 457; adapted from the translation by Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 415.

52

Chapter 2

have another party offer a different principle of li for a deeper and more correct analysis. The Zuo zhuan adds a separate narrative at the end of the year 633 entry summing up how Lord Wen established moral order in Jin from the time of his accession to his defeat of Chu and becoming hegemon, the latter in the next year 632. This appears to be a separate account from a different textual source; a generally similar extract is also preserved in the Guo yu.73 According to this account, the chief advisor Hu Yan (Zi Fan) advised Lord Wen to teach the Jin “people” (min 民, in Zuo zhuan usage referring not to the complete population but people of sufficient status to participate in battle) in stages, with Wen asking at the end of each stage if they were ready to be used in war, only for Hu Yan to tell him that there was yet another stage to be achieved. The first was teaching them duty (yi), then trustworthiness (xin 信), and finally ritual propriety, li – the last instilled through the sou hunt we also saw mentioned in the speech by Zang Xibo above – to awaken their “respect” (gong 恭), the last being an essential step before they were fit to be used in war.74 In the main account of the battle itself in 632, Lord Wen looked down on his forces from a mound, and said, “Young and old are observing ritual propriety” (shao zhang you li 少長有禮), and knows from this that they were ready for battle.75 In the end, the battle itself is described in a few short lines of text, and it was won through trickery – dragging firewood through the dust, feigned retreats, ambush, and tiger skins draped over horses to terrify the enemy horses. Zi Yu was able to keep his personal troops in good order, but the rest of the Chu army broke, and suffered a crushing defeat. As Zi Yu returned to Chu, the Chu king sent him a message of rebuke, and he committed suicide.76 The final li-related element in Lord Wen’s story is when the Zhou king formally appointed him as hegemon, when we see him coming into contact with the full ritual institutions and regalia of the Zhou court. This takes a form similar to the investiture of a feudal lord, with bestowal of a red lacquer bow and one hundred arrows, and ten black lacquer bows with 1000 arrows, and aromatic wine used in sacrificial ceremonies ( ju chang 秬鬯), all royal gifts 73 Guo yu jijie 4, pp. 363–364. 74 Xi 27.4 (633 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 445; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 403. 75 Xi 28.3 (632 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 460–461; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 417. 76 Xi 28.3 (632 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 461–462; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 419; Zi Yu’s death is at Yang, p. 468, Durrant et al., p. 423. Some records, such as the Chun qiu itself, say that Chu executed him; see the discussion in Durrant et al., p. 422 n. 440.

Golden Age of Ritual

53

to feudal lords frequently recorded in bronze inscriptions, which had also been given to Lord Wen’s ancestor, Marquis Wen of Jin (Jin Wen Hou 晉文侯, r. 780–746), who had intervened to install King Ping safely in the eastern capital after the fall of Western Zhou.77 Additional gifts not seen elsewhere included the full regalia of a royal chariot (da lu zhi fu 大輅之服) and of a royal war chariot (rong lu zhi fu 戎輅 之服), normally reserved for the king, and three hundred “tiger dashing” warriors (hu ben 虎賁). These seem designed to accord Wen some measure of royal privilege, which the king had previously denied him when he had requested a burial tunnel for his tomb. The written investiture (ce ming 策命), presented by a royal prince and two officials, one of them the Royal Secretary (neishi 內史) Shuxing Fu 叔興父, named Lord Wen “Chief of the Feudal Lords” (hou bo 侯伯), i.e. the hegemon, and commanded him, “The king says to his uncle [Lord Wen], ‘Respectfully obey the king’s commands, to pacify the four quarters, to investigate and drive off evils threatening the king.’”78 This investiture made Lord Wen the senior among the feudal lords, with royal authority to summon other feudal lords to preside over blood covenants (meng 盟) and lead them into battle. In this ceremony we see how the hegemonic order, which entailed the addition of a second, more powerful centre of military and political authority separate from the king, is incorporated into the original Zhou ritual order in terms of li, and is legitimized by it. In terms of Ritual Learning, this account affords a glimpse of the royal Zhou ritual order, based on the lingering authority of the king. We see court officials (especially the Royal Secretary, nei shi) in charge of the relevant forms and protocols, people who must have had thorough technical knowledge to fulfil their roles, but we get no sense of how that knowledge was preserved and transmitted. The Zhou court had all but lost practical power, and yet the aura of sanctity it retained in the world of the Zuo zhuan, particularly in ritual and in music, was to continue long after the regime itself had disappeared, and stood as the primary authoritative model for the ritual institutions designed by scholars of Ritual Learning in the imperial period. The Zhou ritual legacy is frequently said to have been preserved more in the state of Lu than elsewhere, a tradition already recorded in the Zuo zhuan, as we will trace in the next section.

77

The gifts and command to Marquis Wen are preserved in a brief document, “Wen hou zhi ming 文侯之命,” in the Shang shu (Shang shu jinguwen zhushu 28.543–549). Lord Wen seems to have wished a reenactment of the ceremony for his earlier predecessor. 78 Xi 28.3 (632 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 463–465; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 421.

54

Chapter 2

The Zhou Ritual Order and Its Legacy – The Duke of Zhou and the State of Lu Particularly revealing in the Zuo zhuan is the phrase “Rites of Zhou” (Zhou li 周禮) as a designation for the entire Zhou order. In one instance, it signifies the Zhou’s very existence as a legitimate regime. This is in the account of Lord Wen’s suppressing the rebellion of Prince Dai in 635 BCE, before he becomes hegemon. Before he starts the campaign, Wen asks for divination on the success of the undertaking. The diviner reports the turtle shell result: “We have hit upon the oracular cracks signifying ‘the Yellow Emperor does battle at Banquan’”, in reference to the Yellow Emperor’s victory over his enemy, either the Red Emperor (Chi Di 赤帝) or his vassal Chi You 蚩尤, to win control of the world.79 Lord Wen objects that this result cannot refer to him, apparently assuming it means that he is the one corresponding to the Yellow Emperor, the supreme legitimate ruler of his time. The diviner explains that this is not so: “The Rites of Zhou have not changed (Zhou li wei gai 周禮未改), the ‘king’ of modern times is the ‘emperor’ of antiquity.”80 Here “Zhou li” signifies the existence of the Zhou order within which Lord Wen is a subordinate to the king; the diviner assures him that no threat of supplanting Zhou is implied by this result. Another explanation of “Rites of Zhou” in the Zuo zhuan comes from a brief speech by the Lady Cheng Feng 成風, the mother of Lord Xi of Lu, recorded in the year 639 BCE. She says, “To honour the spirit sacrifices and protect the small and the few; this is the Rites of Zhou. For the [uncivilized] Man and Yi peoples to disrupt the realm of the [“Chinese”] Xia is a calamity for Zhou (Zhou huo ye 周禍也).”81 This associates the “Rites of Zhou” with maintaining its dynastic sacrificial cults and protecting the small and weak, and also with the civilized order (the Xia), in opposition to uncivilized “barbarians”. “Rites of Zhou” is parallel with “calamity for Zhou” (Zhou huo, not a phrase found elsewhere), which would seem to imply the destruction of the Zhou civilized order. We should bear in mind that this example occurs in the very specific context of Lady Feng’s efforts to persuade her son, the lord of Lu, to protect several small states ruled by her relatives, partly on the grounds that they had always maintained particular sacrifices in conformity with Xia “Chinese” culture, but her invoking broad principles of the Zhou order presumably would have carried weight because they were generally recognized. 2.3

79

Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 390, note 353 list the sources describing this mythical battle. 80 Xi 25.2 (635 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 431; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 391. 81 Xi 21.4 (639 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 392; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 351.

Golden Age of Ritual

55

Other mentions of the “Rites of Zhou” also relate to the state of Lu. In one passage from 661 BCE, Lord Huan of Qi asks if Lu can be conquered, given that it is suffering from internal disorder. His official Zhongsun Jiao 仲孫湫, just returned from an inspection of Lu, says: It cannot. It still upholds the Rites of Zhou (you bing Zhou li 猶秉周禮). The Rites of Zhou is what [Lu] takes as its root. I have heard it said, ‘When a state is about to perish, the root will inevitably be upended first. Only then will the branches and leaves follow.’ If Lu does not abandon Zhou ritual, it cannot be disturbed.82 The perspective here is that of the first hegemon Lord Huan. Zhongsun Jiao is reminding him that his success will depend on upholding the Zhou order, which is alive and well in Lu. This passage also clearly reflects the viewpoint of Lu itself, the longstanding tradition that Zhou ritual was more perfectly preserved there than elsewhere, mentioned in the Zuo zhuan and continuing into the Han dynasty. One example of this occurs in the year 609. A prince named Pu 僕 in the state of Ju 莒 brought about the assassination of the lord of Ju, his own father, then fled to take refuge in Lu, bringing with him precious jades which he presented to Lord Xuan, the new Lu ruler. Lord Xuan ordered that he immediately be given a fief, but was overruled by the Lu official Ji Wenzi 季文子, who had Pu summarily expelled. The Zuo zhuan records Ji Wenzi’s speech explaining to Xuan why he had done this. In general, his reasons boil down to the familiar message that adherence to li sets a model (ze) for the people and leads to good order, and violations of li are bad models which incur disorder. Ji Wenzi cites two sources of authority, one being the earlier Lu official Zang Wenzhong 臧文仲, a name we will see come up again in the context of state sacrificial cults. Ji Wenzi quotes Zang Wenzhong as telling him: “When you see people who observe li toward the ruler, serve them like a filial child nourishes parents. When you see people who are lacking in li toward the ruler, punish them, like a sparrowhawk pursuing small birds.” The second source of authority he quotes is the “Duke of Zhou” (Zhou Gong 周公):

82 Min 1.5 (661 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 257; modified from the translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 231.

56

Chapter 2

When the former lord, the Duke of Zhou, created the rites of Zhou (zhi Zhou li 制周禮),83 he said, “Through models (ze 則), one observes virtue. Through virtue, one deals with affairs. Through affairs, one measures achievements. Through achievements, one is nourished by the people.” He composed the Harangues and Commands (shi ming 誓命),84 which say, “He who destroys models (ze) is a rebel. He who hides a rebel is a conspirer. He who plunders goods is a robber. He who steals ceremonial vessels is a usurper. To gain a reputation for conspiracy and to profit from usurpation is to show “malevolent virtue” (xiong de 凶德). There are unvarying [punishments] for this, with no clemency. The punishments in the ‘Nine Punishments’ should not be forgotten.”85 There are several noteworthy points in this passage. The first is that it invokes the authority of the original Duke of Zhou, and names him as the designer of the Zhou ritual order, in line with the standard narrative of later times. Also, he is identified as “former lord” (xian jun 先君), which is consistent with the tradition that he founded the state of Lu, with his son Bo Qin 伯禽 as its first lord. Implicit in this is a special Lu connection with the Zhou ritual order, which we see repeated many times elsewhere. Also significant are the precise quotes attributed to the Duke of Zhou, the second of which, and perhaps both, seem to have a textual origin. The word li does not appear in either quote, but the first is explicitly tied to the Duke of Zhou’s founding of the Zhou ritual order. We see here the possibility of early texts related to li, or at least which include content on li. Also striking in this passage is the emphasis on punishment. This makes sense in the context of the passage, the reasoning behind expelling a malefactor, but would not be typical of li discourse in later sources, especially

83

Others have read “Zhou li” here as the name of an actual text, and the quote following as coming from that text. Yang Bojun punctuates “Zhou li” as a text, though in his notes says it cannot be the transmitted work of that name, see Yang vol. 2, pp. 633. Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 571 also translate it in this way. I prefer to read it as the ritual order of the Zhou, in line with how “Zhou li” is used elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan. 84 “Harangues and Commands” is here quoted as if it were a specific text title, but neither the title or the quoted text exists in the extant Shang shu versions, or in any excavated texts that I was able to find. Both Shi and Ming are categories of Documents-type texts, so I translate shi ming as a general reference to such documents thought to derive from the Duke of Zhou. 85 Wen 18.7 (609 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 2, pp. 633–636; modified from the translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 571. The expression “Nine Punishments” ( jiu xing 九刑) is not a standard one, and has attracted much commentary, which Yang and Durrant et al. discuss.

Golden Age of Ritual

57

“Confucian” ones, where li is said to constitute a form of order superior to laws and punishments. Our final example is attached to the record of a diplomatic visit by Han Xuanzi 韓宣子 to Lu in 540 BCE, sent by the Marquis of Jin to report that Xuanzi was now in charge of administering the state of Jin. The Zuo says this report to Lu was in accordance with li. Famously, during his visit Xuanzi viewed various texts kept by the Grand Scribe (Da shi shi 大史氏) of Lu, which are listed as the Changes (Yi 易), Images (Xiang 象), and the Spring and Autumn Annals of Lu (Lu Chun qiu 魯春秋). There is some disagreement over what the Images was, but the Changes and Spring and Autumn Annals are thought to be early counterparts of the transmitted texts we have now.86 None of these are ritual texts, but the Zuo zhuan records that Han Xuanzi exclaimed, “The Rites of Zhou are all in Lu! Only now do I comprehend the virtue of the Duke of Zhou and the reasons why Zhou achieved the [true] kingship.”87 Lu was Confucius’s native state, and as we will see below, even in the Han dynasty Ru “Confucian” specialists of Ritual Learning were often natives of the region where Lu had originally been, including Shusun Tong, introduced at the start of this book as the person who formulated imperial ritual at the beginning of the Han dynasty. 2.4 Individual Li – From Status Marker to Personal Cultivation Many of the speeches in the Zuo zhuan link the ruler’s visible observance of li with the maintenance of good order among the population of a state, as seen in examples above. This we can surmise may be a characteristic of Ritual Learning and the discourse related to it. In some cases, by contrast, mastery of li is explained as an attribute of the individual, that is of the “self” (shen 身) instead of the state (guo). Parallel to the statement “Li is the pillar of the state” (li guo zhi gan ye 禮國之幹也) discussed above, from the Royal Secretary Guo of Zhou in relation to Lord Hui of Jin’s disrespectful indolence when receiving the jade token of his investiture, we find the phrase “Li is the pillar of the self” 86 See the discussion in Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1226–1227. Yang argues that mention of other texts titled Xiang suggests that this was a record of governmental acts in Lu, and thus unconnected to the Xiang in the transmitted Changes. He also argues that the Lu Spring and Autumn Annals must have been a longer version than the extant one, going back to the founding of Lu, since Han Xuanzi’s admiring response mentions the Duke of Zhou. He includes “Lu” as part of the title in his punctuation, but it could just as well be Lu’s Spring and Autumn Annals, as Durrant et al. have it (pp. 1336 and 1337, also note 118). 87 Zuo zhuan Zhao 2.1, Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1226–1227, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1337.

58

Chapter 2

(li shen zhi gan ye 禮身之幹也). This is in reference to the disrespectful behaviour of the high official Xi Yi 郤錡 sent from Jin to Lu in 578 BCE to request troops, which is interpreted as a failure to discharge his duty to his ruler and to his state, a sign that his family line will perish. This line of reasoning is explained by the speaker, the Lu official Meng Xianzi 孟獻子: “Li is the pillar of the self, respect is the foundation of the self ( jing shen zhi ji ye 敬身之基也), Master Xi has no foundation.”88 This is much like other examples presented above in reading success or failure according to proper adherence to li, except that the emphasis is on li as an individual attribute, rather than as a ruler or high official with behaviour having consequences for a state. In another example relating to the state of Chu from the year 576, the commander Zi Fan 子反 plans an assault on Jin, despite Chu and Jin only recently swearing a blood covenant (meng 盟), on the grounds that an opportunity for military advantage over an enemy outweighs the sanctity of a covenant. One Shenshu Shi 申叔時, an elder statesman, predicts, “Zi Fan will certainly not escape! Trust is the means to maintain ritual propriety; ritual propriety is the means to protect one’s person (li yi bi shen 禮以庇身). When trust and ritual propriety are lost, even if one wants to escape [disaster], how can one do so?”89 On the face of it, we could see this in a purely practical light, in that a person who breaks faith will lose trust and come to a bad end. But the fact that it is framed in terms of li, and what appears to be an aphorism that li protects the individual, resonates with the above statement that li is the “pillar” or “trunk” of the individual self. In the society of the time, correct observance of li was important to establishing and maintaining one’s position and status. Perhaps the clearest example of all, and one which also reflects li as a body of knowledge to be studied and mastered, comes in the year 535, with the story of the Lu official Meng Xizi 孟僖子. Xizi accompanies his ruler, Lord Zhao, on a diplomatic visit to Chu. In his role as assistant ( jie 介) to Lord Zhao, Xizi is unable to perform the correct ritual response on two occasions.90 On his return to Lu, ashamed of his failure, he sets about studying li in detail ( jiang xue zhi 講學之), and anyone who knew anything about li he added to his entourage. At the time of his death in 518, he is quoted as saying: “Li is the pillar of a person. If one lacks li, one has no means to establish oneself [in society] (wu yi li 88 Zuo zhuan Cheng 13.1, Yang Bojun vol. 2, p. 860, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 801. 89 Zuo zhuan Cheng 15.3, Yang Bojun vol. 2, p. 873, translation modified from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 819. 90 Zuo zhuan Zhao 7.3, Yang Bojun vol. 4, p. 1287, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1419.

Golden Age of Ritual

59

無以立).” He then predicts the rise of Confucius as a sage (at this time the his-

torical Confucius would have been a young man), explained by an elaborate analysis of Confucius’s ancestry in the state of Song. Xizi then says that his two sons must study li from Confucius: “If I should succeed in dying a natural death, you must entrust my sons Yue 說 and Heji 何忌 to this gentleman. Make them serve him and study li with him so as to establish their positions (ding qi wei 定其位).” The Zuo zhuan then quotes Confucius as saying that Meng Xizi was a superior person ( junzi), in that he was one able to make good his faults (neng bu guo zhe 能補過者).91 Noteworthy in this passage is the clear sense that li is something to be studied and mastered, and some people are more accomplished in it than others. We are not told why someone of Meng Xizi’s aristocratic rank would not have had this knowledge as part of his cultural background, but this lack was something conspicuous that distressed him. He is portrayed as being keen to make up this deficiency, and to ensure that his two sons learned li from Confucius, a master of it. The statement attributed to Xizi at his death once again identifies li as the “pillar” or “trunk” of a person, and makes us of words like “be established” (li 立) and “position”, “rank” (wei), which imply the importance of li 禮 (as ritual and social manners more generally) as knowledge essential to establishing oneself in society. In the world of the Zuo zhuan, such knowledge seems to have been mainly an aristocratic preserve, part of the cultural knowledge marking elite status. The mention of Confucius here suggests the start of a shift to a different stage, when li becomes a badge of moral worth, a form of personal cultivation accessible in principle to anyone, and which became the special preserve of the Ru (“Confucians”). As will be discussed below, knowledge of li – Ritual Learning – in the Lun yu was a primary means of personal cultivation leading to “humaneness” (ren 仁), and as such it remained a marker of distinction for superior status of a different sort, still using vocabulary such as “being established” (li 立) in society. Written Sources of Authority – Ritual Precedents, Regulations, and Texts In the examples given above, we have seen various appeals to authority external to the speaker. These could be as vague as “I have heard that …” (wu wen 吾聞 or wu wen zhi 吾聞之), suggesting that the statements originated in some 2.5

91 Zuo zhuan Zhao 7.12, Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1294–1296, mostly following the translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 1429–1431.

60

Chapter 2

already-circulating discourse, or were unattributed statements of principle that bore at least the semblance of recognized aphorisms, like “li is the pillar of the state” or “respect is the vehicle of li”. We have seen appeals to authority from the past, such as the “regulations of antiquity” (gu zhi zhi 古之制), and others more specific, such as pronouncements attributed to the Duke of Zhou, the latter seemingly including a written source. The most specific we have seen so far is the one example of an apparently authoritative text on li in the Guo yu, titled “Records of Li” (Li zhi 禮志), supposedly quoted by Zhao Cui in the seventh century BCE. Could such a text actually have existed? Were there early texts on li which served as precursors to the “canons” ( jing) on li identified and established during the Han dynasty, which at the time were believed to have originated in antiquity, with Confucius or even in the Western Zhou? Modern scholars in China have speculated that technical manuals or notes on how to conduct ceremonies might have existed during the time of Confucius or even much earlier, compiled by ritual specialists as aides memoires for the details of rites they performed (some scholars call these tiaowen 條文, something like “articles” or “protocols”).92 This surmise is plausible, if impossible to prove on the evidence currently available. There may have been written codes of hierarchical regulations of the ritual usages allowed at different levels of society; some of the texts associated with ritual regulations in the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu might have been of this kind, as will be discussed below. On the other hand, more general li-based knowledge relating to appropriate manners, which must have been an important facet of ritual education, would be something conferred through cultural transmission within the family, and not consigned to texts. Modern scholars have identified one text-based source of authority related to li – and to much else – known to have existed in the world of the Zuo zhuan, which is records of specific precedents, for example decisions or actions on ritual matters by past rulers or other people in authority, and recorded in the official annals of the various states. One of the examples given above – that of the high official Cao Gui advising Lord Zhuang of Lu in 670 BCE not to travel to the state of Qi to observe the soil altar sacrifices there – illustrates the important status accorded to the records of a ruler’s actions kept by official scribes. Part of Cao’s argument is that this ritually incorrect act will be recorded in the

92

For a summary of scholarship in Chinese on this question, see Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 230–231. This includes the conclusions of Yang Xiangkui 楊向奎 and Yang Tianyu 楊天宇, who surmise that such materials might have existed from very early times, and eventually formed a basis for the Han ritual canon, the extant Yi li.

Golden Age of Ritual

61

state annals: “The ruler’s actions are inevitably written down” ( jun ju bi shu 君舉必書). This is of course refers to a negative example to be avoided, but the records kept by scribes in the various states would have included authoritative precedents on ritual usage. The process of how precedents were determined is tellingly illustrated by an exchange between Lord Zhuang of Lu (r. 693–662) and his official in charge of ritual, Xiafu Zhan 夏父展. The occasion is the ritual welcome accorded to Ai Lady Jiang 哀姜, Lord Zhuang’s new bride from the state of Qi. Zhuang orders his great officers and their wives to come forth together to welcome Lady Ai Jiang bearing various gifts of silk, which the Zuo zhuan record of the event labels a ritual violation ( fei li ye), in that this is not a gift ritually appropriate for women to present.93 The Guo yu account of this says: The Ancestral Shrine Officer Xiafu Zhan said, “This is not in accordance with precedent ( fei gu ye 非故也).” The lord said, “The ruler creates [his own] precedents ( jun zuo gu 君作故).” Xiafu replied, “If a ruler’s acts are in compliance, then it is made a precedent (shun ze gu zhi 順則故之). If a ruler’s acts are in violation (ni 逆), then instead it will be recorded (shu 書) that he committed a violation. I serve you as an official, and fear that a violation will be recorded for posterity. Thus I dare not fail to report this to you.”94 Here again we see the key verb shu, used of the act of recording by the official scribes keeping the annals. The judgement of the scribes, in this case that the gifts from the women is a violation of li, will be reflected in the annals. The transmitted Chun qiu text does in fact record that the women presented gifts of silk, which in the commentarial interpretation of subtle wording in that text signifies criticism.95 Decisions on what form a ritual should take are in some cases in the Zuo zhuan made on the basis of precedent, though not grounded in particular texts. One of these is worth brief mention for the sheer range of possible precedents on offer. This concerns King Ling of Chu, the same Chief Minister Wei who had previously attracted a prediction of failure based on observation of 93 Zuo zhuan Zhuang 24.2, Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 229–230, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 203. 94 Guo yu jijie 4, p. 147, see also the slightly different translation in Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 202–203, note 167. 95 Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 228.

62

Chapter 2

his “imposing ceremonial comportment” (wei yi), and who had now seized the throne after strangling the previous king, his nephew. In 538 BCE he had achieved sufficient influence to summon a convocation of feudal lords and claim the position of hegemon. His minster Jiao Ju 椒舉 impressed upon the king the importance of proper li in winning the allegiance of the other lords, especially since he had only just established his primacy. Command of the correct li could be demonstrated by the ritual used at the convocation, for which Jiao Ju offered eight possible precedents, from kings going all the way back to Qi 啟, the second king of Xia; then Tang 湯, the founder of Shang; four kings of Zhou (Wu 武, Cheng 成, Kang 康, and Mu 穆), and finally the first two hegemons, Lord Huan of Qi and Lord Wen of Jin. Each precedent is associated with the place name where the various sorts of events and meetings are supposed to have taken place, but no actual details on the ceremonies themselves are given. King Ling chose the precedent of Lord Huan, and consulted the statesmen Xiang Xu 向戌 from the state of Song and Zi Chan 子產 of Zheng for advice on how to conduct the rituals. A “superior person” ( junzi yue) comment in the Zuo zhuan explains Xiang Xu’s ritual expertise by saying that he was “good at preserving [the ways of] former generations” (shan shou xian dai 善守先代).96 Records of specific historical precedents aside, it is difficult to discover much about early texts on ritual. There are a few mentions of actual ritual texts in the Zuo zhuan. One occurs in an account of a fire which broke out in the palace compound of the state of Lu in 492 BCE. Various officials arrived on the scene and issued orders on what to rescue first from the flames. One Zifu Jingbo 子服景伯 ordered the Steward (Zai ren 宰人) to “bring out the ritual writings (li shu 禮書) and await orders”.97 Nothing is known of these writings or what they might have contained, but given that they were in the official archives, they might have been of a technical nature, perhaps kept by specialists relating to state rituals. The Zuo zhuan and Guo yu both preserve numerous citations of texts of different kinds, some of which are quoted. In addition to known text corpi such as the Songs (Shi [ jing]) and Documents ([Shang] Shu), or specific songs or documents contained within these collections, a number of other writings appear which no longer exist. These might actually have been in circulation during the Spring and Autumn period. The quote from one such text, the “Records of 96 Zuo zhuan Zhao 4.3, Yang Bojun vol. 4, p. 1250, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1371. 97 Zuo zhuan Ai 3.2, Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1620–1622, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1851.

Golden Age of Ritual

63

Li” (Li zhi 禮志) in the Guo yu, has appeared in the narrative of the rise of Lord Wen of Jin above, but could the Li zhi have been an actual text? Quotations from a category of writings called zhi do appear many times in the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu. Some of these are unspecified: “The zhi say”, zhi yue 志曰 or zhi you zhi [yue] 志有之[曰]; or “The former zhi have the following”, qian zhi you zhi yue 前志有之曰.98 In all these cases text editors (like Yang Bojun) punctuate these as text titles, though we should be careful of assuming that these are discrete works like those of later times, or that they necessarily circulated in written form. The short aphorisms contained in them are suggestive of oral sayings. Other zhi are specified more precisely, for example associated with the names of particular people (“the Zhi of Scribe Yi has it that …”, Shi Yi zhi zhi you zhi yue 史佚之志有之曰, the Zhi of Zhong Hui says …”, Zhong Hui zhi zhi yun 仲虺之志云).99 In one case a Zhou zhi is quoted (Zhou zhi you zhi 周志有之), which could be taken either as a generic “Records from Zhou” or the title of a specific text Records of Zhou.100 Most specific of all is the Army Records (Jun zhi 軍志), quoted in three places in the Zuo zhuan, which looks most likely to be a discrete text, or at least a well-defined category of oral zhi specifically dealing with military tactics. In two of these cases Durrant et al. translate as “Maxims of the Military”, which well captures the uncertain boundary between oral and written, and the mnemonic nature of the examples we have.101 98

For examples of quotes from zhi alone see Yang Bojun Xiang 4.4 (569 BCE), vol. 3, p. 935; Xiang 25.10 (548 BCE), vol. 3, p. 935 (inside a quote from Confucius); Zhao 1.12 (541 BCE), vol. 4, p. 1220; Zhao 3.8 (539 BCE), vol. 4, p. 1242; Zhao 1211 (530 BCE), vol. 4, p. 1341 (inside another quote from Confucius). Examples of quotes from “Former Zhi” (xian zhi) appear at Wen 6.8 (621 BCE), vol. 2, pp. 552–553; and Cheng 15.1 (576 BCE), vol. 2, p. 873. 99 “Shi Yi’s Zhi” appears at Cheng 4.4 (587 BCE), vol. 2, p. 818; Shi Yi without his zhi is quoted five times elsewhere in the Zuo zhuan. “Zhong Hui’s Zhi” appears at Xiang 30.10 (543 BCE), vol. 3, p. 1175; Zhong Hui also has two other quotes elsewhere, and in another mention is identified as a minister under Tang, the founder of the Shang; Zuo zhuan Ding 1.1 (509 BCE), vol. 4, p. 1524. 100 Zuo zhuan Wen 2.1 (625 BCE), vol. 2, p. 520. 101 Before the battle of Chengpu, the King of Chu attempted to persuade his chief minister Zi Yu to abandon his attack on Jin, using three quotes from the “Army Records” pertaining to a strategic withdrawal in the face of a foe who is in a superior position militarily or morally. The separate quotes are described as “these three records” (ci san zhi zhe 此三 志者), which suggests that zhi is plural, the whole work being a collection of discrete components; Zuo zhuan Xi 28.3 (632 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 456, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 413. Another two similar quotes on whether it is advisable to make a swift attack against an enemy appear at Zuo zhuan Xuan 12.2 (597 BCE) and Zhao 21.6 (521 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 2, p. 739 and vol. 4, p. 1427, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 657 and 1599. In the first quote from the King of Chu, Durrant et al. translate

64

Chapter 2

In all of the examples of Zhi in the Zuo zhuan, the quotes are self-contained aphorisms stating general principles, included in speeches or commentarial judgements to reinforce a specific point, in the same way as the “Records of Li” is cited in the Guo yu. Two of the examples in the Zuo zhuan from simple zhi relate to li, one a statement that repeated behaviour in violation of li will rebound on the malefactor, a negative counterpart to the statement that acts of kindness should be reciprocal.102 The other is the famous statement by Confucius about “overcoming oneself and returning to li” (ke ji fu li 克己復禮) leading to humaneness (ren 仁) also found in the Lun yu, which is presented in the Zuo zhuan as being a non-specific zhi of antiquity (gu ye you zhi 古也 有志).103 The title Li zhi in the Guo yu could be generic, “a Record (or “Maxims”) pertaining to li”, but even so would suggest the existence of a specific category of lore, possibly written as well as oral, pertaining to the nature of li. Of course we cannot claim with any certainty that the quotation given under this title actually existed in the seventh century BCE. These zhi survived into the early to mid-Warring States period, either independently or at least excerpted in the materials from which the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu were compiled. Another class of text reflected in the world of the Zuo zhuan was concerned not with wider principles of ritual propriety but rather with ritual institutions and regulations, written codes defining social hierarchy and the ritual usages appropriate to each level, perhaps a version of the codes of law that are thought to have begun appearing in the late Spring and Autumn period. These are much more likely to have been mainly written rather than oral. One such text is quoted in the Guo yu, in a speech from an unspecified time in the mid-sixth century BCE in the state of Chu, said to derive from a “Ji dian” 祭典, “Sacrificial Canons”. Though “Li” does not appear in this title, the content of the quote, pertaining to the sacrificial offerings prescribed for people of different status according to hierarchical regulations, is something which has approximate counterparts in the ritual texts compiled in the Han, particularly the Li ji. The title “ji dian” looks like a generic designation for a class of regulations – “the [relevant] sacrificial canon regulation says” – rather than “jun zhi” as a descriptive “military records”; in the second and third cases they translate “Maxims for the Military”. Yang Bojun in all three cases punctuates it as a text title. 102 This is in a “superior person says” (junzi yue) comment: “This is what the Records describe as, ‘If one performs many things not in accord with ritual propriety, then these will inevitably be incurred on oneself’” 志所謂多行無禮，必自及也, Zuo zhuan Xiang 25.10 (548 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 3, p. 935, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 913. 103 This quote from Confucius (under his name Zhongni 仲尼) is at Zuo zhuan Zhao 12.11 (530 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 4, p. 1341, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 1485.

Golden Age of Ritual

65

necessarily the title of one particular text, perhaps similar to the parallel term “si dian” 祀典 (“sacrificial canons”) which were regulations defining which sacrifices were legitimate. The Guo yu passage in question pertains to one Qu Dao 屈到, a high official in Chu who was fond of eating an aquatic root ji 芰 (similar to a water chestnut). At the end of his life when he fell seriously ill, he asked that these be offered to him in sacrifice after his death. When it came time for the first sacrifice to be made, his son Qu Jian 屈建 demanded the removal of the ji, saying that despite Qu Dao’s extraordinary achievements in life, the rules of ritual usage did not allow a non-canonical offering of this nature: The relevant sacrificial canon has it (qi ji dian you zhi yue 其祭典有之曰), “The ruler of a state offers a feast of beef as sacrifice, high officials (dafu 大夫) offer a gift of mutton, the gentry (shi 士) make offering of mutton or dog, and commoners offer a presentation of roasted fish. The ritual food basket and stemmed bowl, and the use of dried and pickled meats, is shared by superiors and inferiors alike. One does not prepare rare and exotic foods, or lay out a profusion of luxurious items.” The [deceased] gentleman would not wish to violate the state canons for his own private desires.104 This particular formulation does not occur in surviving ritual texts, though its hierarchical scheme governing the nature of sacrifices is generally similar to later rules specifying a tai lao 太牢 (a cow, sheep, and pig) for kings, shao lao 少牢 (sheep and pig) for feudal lords, and so on down to the common people found in the “Wang zhi” 王制 text of the Li ji.105 It is impossible to prove that this passage preserves a clause from actual written ritual regulations of the state of Chu in the sixth century BCE, or later, but it does generally align with regulations of a similar sort found in the later ritual canons. Also worth mentioning is a category of text in the “Zhou yu” 周語 section of the Guo yu describing the system of court officials and their functions. These appear to be a sort of precursor to the Zhou li 周禮. The Zhou li was classified as one of the three main ritual canons at the end of the Han, though in fact it was not primarily a ritual text at the time it was compiled. Earlier titled Zhou guan 周官, “Officials of Zhou”, it was a list of the entire bureaucracy of the Zhou court and its workings, in which ritual was not the main content, though of course it did figure prominently as an important duty of many officials. 104 Guo yu jijie 17, p. 488. 105 Li ji zhushu 12.23b.

66

Chapter 2

The Zhou li covers a wide range of government functions, including land management and the military, and includes law and punishments which seem more Legalist than Confucian in nature. The Guo yu includes quotes attributed to two titles, the “Institutions/ Regulations of Zhou” (Zhou zhi 周制) and the “Ranked Officials of Zhou” (Zhou zhi zhi guan 周之秩官), which are represented as been texts describing Zhou officials and their duties. The fact that they are quoted in the section of the text devoted to Zhou could well mean that these texts were from materials attributed to Zhou itself. Both texts are cited in one very specific context, the visible breakdown of order observed by an emissary from King Ding 定王 of Zhou (r. 606–586) as he was passing through the state of Chen on a diplomatic mission in 601. The roads were choked with weeds, border marshals were not at their posts, the pathways had no trees planted along them, rivers had no bridges, crops were patchy, food supplies were not delivered, and facilities to accommodate visitors were not provided. Worst of all, the royal emissary was not personally entertained by Lord Ling of Chen (r. 613–599), who had chosen instead to go off with two of his top officials to pursue joint inappropriate liaisons with the noted beauty Lady Xia (Xia shi 夏氏 or Xia Ji 夏姬) of the state of Zheng. In his report to King Ding, the emissary cites specific officials and their duties in a long passage (70 characters in length) from the Zhou zhi, all of whom had failed in their tasks in Chen. From the Zhi guan he quotes an even longer description (133 characters) of normal protocol to be observed by a long list of officials who should receive diplomatic visitors of various ranks when they arrive, all of which Chen had neglected. The emissary finally quotes from the “Ordinances of the Former King(s)” (Xian wang zhi ling you zhi yue 先王之令有之曰, perhaps attributed to one of the early kings of Zhou): “The Way of Heaven rewards the virtuous and punishes the licentious. Thus, whenever I create a state, [I command], ‘Do not engage in what is improper, do not pursue pleasure and licentiousness. Each of you observe your regulations, to receive the good fortune of Heaven.’” The lord of Chen had violated the teachings and regulations of Zhou, the emissary said, and would in the end lose his state. This prediction was realised when Lady Xia’s son murdered him in 599, two years later.106 106 Guo yu jijie 2, pp. 61–69. In addition to the two bureaucratic texts, the passage contains quotations from other sources of authority, such as a text called the Ordinances of Xia (Xia ling 夏令), which commentators speculate was a collection of seasonal regulations similar to the “Monthly Ordinances” (Yue ling 月令) in the Li ji, and also the “Teachings of the Former King(s)” (Xian wang zhi jiao 先王之教) and “Orders of the Former King(s)” (Xian wang zhi ling 先王之令), quoted verbatim in a way suggesting written sources.

Golden Age of Ritual

67

If we take the above texts quoted in the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu at face value, we see possible precursors to the content of the ritual canons as established by the end of the Han dynasty. Much content is similar: general principles of li such as reciprocity, regulations on hierarchical usages, and lists of officials and their duties. We will now look at one further example from the Guo yu, in this case an extended speech corresponding closely to text in the “Ji fa” 祭法 (“Sacrificial Models”) in the Li ji. The “Ji fa” was later particularly influential as a model for the system of official sacrificial cults throughout the imperial period, and we will see it cited several times below as authority for ritual reforms in the late Western Han. There is one key difference in the two versions of the text. In the Guo yu, it is set in a specific historical context, whereas in the Li ji the context is gone, leaving only the general principles. Chinese scholars see in this an evolution away from authoritative precedents tied to a particular time and place typical of the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu, toward the general pronouncements in the canons ( jing) of the Han period.107 This is not to say that the “Ji fa” text was necessarily lifted directly from the Guo yu; more likely in a filiation now untraceable the Li ji version represents a later stage in the text’s development. The overall point of the passage is to address a significant problem for Ritual Learning in the Han as Ru “Confucians” established control over imperial ritual: which sacrificial cults are canonical and proper, and which are irregular or “licentious” (yin 淫) cults that should be abolished. The Guo yu passage relates to Zang Wenzhong 臧文仲 (or Zang Sun 臧孫, d. 617 BCE), a prominent statesman in the state of Lu, and though undated probably took place during the 620s. According to this account, Zang instituted sacrifices to a sea bird after it had perched outside the east gate for three days and spoke in human speech. The new observance was criticised by one Zhan Qin 展禽 on the grounds that the sacrificial canons of a state were a solemn matter and should not be added to without good reason. He offers an analysis of why the sage kings had instituted sacrifices, which were to a limited list of ancient monarchs worshipped as deities up to King Wu of the Zhou, and also the altars of soil and grain (she ji 社稷), mountains, and rivers, some of which are explained in considerable historical detail. All of these were worthy of sacrifice because of achievements benefiting the people. The sun, moon, stars,

107 See the discussion and citations in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 232–234.

68

Chapter 2

rivers, marshes, and mountains should also be included because the people admired them or derived useful materials from them.108 The “Ji fa” incorporates this survey of deities and their associated sacrifices, with the historical frame concerning the talking sea bird and Zang Wenzhong removed. The parts it does incorporate are almost identical to the Guo yu text, though its two main segments are in reverse order. It appears that the Guo yu incorporates a fuller version of a shared base text, with the “Ji fa” passage adapted and abstracted as the concluding section after the numerically-based sacrificial regulations presented in the earlier part of the text, which are not in the Guo yu. Both versions finish with the statement that observances not in the listed categories are not in the sacrificial canons (bu zai sidian 不在祀典).109 In the “Ji fa”, the Guo yu passage enumerating the various sacrifices offered by ancient rulers to the earlier rulers who preceded them is extracted and put at the very beginning of the text with some minor adjustments to details, though for narrative continuity this fits less well than it does in the Guo yu.110 At the end of the Guo yu passage, Zhan Qin speculates that a disaster had taken place out at sea, and that the bird, like all wild creatures, had the good sense to escape from it. This is subsequently borne out: there had indeed been violent winds and warm winter weather over the ocean during that year, thus proving the truth of Zhan Qin’s analysis. Zang Wenzhong acknowledged his mistake, halted the new sacrifices, and ordered that Zhan Qin’s words be recorded on bamboo slips in three copies and kept for posterity. The overlap between the Guo yu and “Ji fa” texts is extensive, and suggests that the former preserves a more complete version of textual material arguing for strict canonical regulations on orthodox sacrificial ritual, material that was later compiled into the “Ji fa” to buttress the hierarchical system of sacrifices presented therein. The Guo yu account concludes by stating that Zang Wenzhong ordered that Zhan Qin’s speech be recorded, which is a rare example of any mention of recording speeches at the time they were made – and not one that suggests this was common practice – but of course we have no way of establishing that the speech as quoted was actually derived from records originating in the seventh century, and even if so how much it was edited and embellished during the intervening centuries. The main theme of the “Ji fa” is defining the orthodox cults appropriate for different levels of the socio-political order (king/Son of Heaven at the top, then feudal lord, grand officer, ordinary gentry, and commoner), and this text 108 Guo yu jijie 4, pp. 154–162. 109 Guo yu jijie 4, pp. 154–155; Li ji zhushu 64.16b–17a. 110 Li ji zhushu 64.1a–b.

Golden Age of Ritual

69

became one of the main canonical authorities for imperial ritual, for example in determining the number of imperial ancestors worshipped in shrines (seven), and the range of other sacrifices to be observed by the emperor or his subordinates. The numerical scheme comes from a different source, but in the Guo yu text we can already see the application of precisely-defined sacrificial regulations (called “si dian”) governing sacrificial ritual, generally similar to the hierarchical rules governing sacrificial offerings in the “sacrificial regulations” ( ji dian) in the state of Chu described above. These actual regulations, and the discussions which mention them, give us a glimpse of earlier textual traditions which fed into the Confucian ritual canons of Han times. 2.6 Fields of Study, Ancestors of Texts From examples we have seen in the Zuo zhuan, it seems that members of the warrior aristocracy were accomplished in four fields of non-martial study and learning, the Songs, Documents, Li, and Music. We have seen such accomplishments in the depiction of the high official Zhao Cui under Lord Wen of Jin, where the four fields of study are mentioned together in Zhao’s recommendation of Xi Hu 郤縠 as supreme commander of the Jin state armies in 633 BCE.111 Another example is when Zhao is described as wen 文, used as a stative verb to mean culturally accomplished, in the specific context of Lord Wen’s formal banquet meeting with Lord Mu of Qin, where it refers to mastery in performing the Songs and in correct ritual usage.112 The four fields of learning were also said to have been taught by Confucius, as will be discussed below. Of these, the first two fields are linked to distinct corpi of texts, and the other two not. As already noted above, “text” needs to be considered in a broad sense as being partly if not entirely oral: Zuo zhuan depictions of the Songs and Documents in action are invariably oral, either quotes in speeches or recitations of songs to express coded meanings on formal social and diplomatic occasions. Mastering the two corpi might also have been primarily an oral process, through which people memorised sets of “texts”, especially the Songs. When deployed in speeches they were subject to a degree of improvisation, but must have sufficiently standardised to be recognised and accepted by others. Quotations in received texts, and excavated texts from the Warring States 111 Xi 27.4 (633 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 445, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 403. 112 Xi 23.6 (637 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, pp. 410–411, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 371. For a wide-ranging account of wen in specific contexts from early times into the Han, see Martin Kern, “Ritual, Text, and the Formation of the Canon: Historical Transitions of ‘Wen’ in Early China” (2001), where he shows how a basic meaning of “cultural accomplishment” changes over time, and in the earlier periods under discussion here did not entail writing or written texts.

70

Chapter 2

period, show how fluid the Documents were, and even the Songs seem to have been subject to change and adaptation.113 There may have been texts relating to li in the world of the Zuo zhuan, and the Guo yu records a quotation by Zhao Cui from a Records of Li (Li zhi 禮志), but the study of li (like music) was not defined in terms of a body of texts in the same way as was the study of the Songs and Documents. This does not necessarily mean that no written materials were involved in the study of li, but we have no clear evidence that they were. We do not consider the fourth field of study – music – in this volume, except to note that the performance of music, song, and dance was an essential component of rituals in all periods. However, the nature of music as an area of knowledge in the Spring and Autumn period does give us clues as to the nature of Ritual Learning. As in the case of li, music required specialists with a high level of technical skill, as well as more general familiarity with its significance on the part of members of the aristocracy. Like li, music was defined by hierarchical regulations stipulating numbers and types of instruments allowed to people of different ranks. Like li, music had moral value and political application, and deviation from proper music was a sign of impending breakdown of proper order. And, as the old lineage-based aristocracy gave way to the large centralised territorial states, the field of music underwent changes approximately parallel to developments in li: large-scale ceremonial music was replaced by new forms of music, and new theoretical accounts of music appeared in texts of the Warring States period, giving it new political and cosmological significance.114 113 See the studies of the Shang shu in Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer, eds., Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy, including David Schaberg’s analysis of Documents quotes in Warring States texts (pp. 320–359), also his discussion of Songs and Documents quotes in A Patterned Past, pp. 72–80. With regard to the Songs, see also Martin Kern, “Xi Shuai” 蟋蟀 (“Cricket”) and its Consequences” (2019), “Excavated Manuscripts and their Socratic Pleasures: Newly Discovered Challenges in Reading the ‘Airs of the States’” (2007), and “The Odes in Excavated Manuscripts” (Kern, ed., Text and Ritual); in these he shows that even the more stable Songs and how they were interpreted was subject to adaptation and fluidity in excavated manuscripts. 114 See Lothar von Falkenhausen, Suspended Music: Chime-bells in the Culture of Bronze Age China (1993), especially pp. 25–31 (bells in ancestral rites and banquets), 32–38 (hierarchical regulations), 310–324 (“Tone Theory and Its Political Ramifications”), 1–5 (standard Warring States theoretical accounts), and 320–323 (“The Demise of Chime-Bell Music in Eastern Zhou”). The wealth of detail presented in von Falkenhausen’s study generally is a good reflection of the high level of technical knowledge required for all aspects of music in the Spring and Autumn period and earlier, in the manufacture of instruments, the skills required to play them in different performance contexts, and the elaborate structure of the music itself. For a study of the cosmological understanding of music from 400–100

Golden Age of Ritual

71

We can surmise that li was an essential part of the education and training of the Spring and Autumn period aristocracy, though it is difficult to know whether it was taught in a formalised or structured way. There was a later tradition that there had been a sort of syllabus of standard teaching in a list of subjects known as the “Six Skills” or “Six Arts” (liu yi 六藝). In the Han period “Six Skills” was generally used to refer to the Five Canons (or “Classics”, wu jing 五經) plus music, but commentators noted that in ancient times the list was different: Ritual (li), Music (yue), Archery (she 射), Charioteering (yu 御 or 馭), Writing (shu 書), and Numbers (shu 數, presumably arithmetical or other numerical arts). This combination of cultured and martial skills seems plausible enough in the context of what we know of aristocratic culture of this period, but the earliest source to mention and list the “Six Arts” is the Zhou li (“Rites of Zhou”), and we do not find them in any other pre-Han text. Scholarly opinion is divided on whether the Zhou li dates from the Warring States or Western Han, with the former seeming more likely. In any case the bureaucratic order it describes, despite the intriguing snatches of genuine Western Zhou lore, is overall highly idealized within the intellectual matrix of much later times, and not a reliable record of actual practices and institutions in any period. The number six in itself is also suspect, in that numerical groupings of six are common in the Zhou li.115 Another variant of a curriculum with nine subjects (nine being another early symbolic number) appears in the Guo yu, associated with the state of Chu. It is idiosyncratic, with some elements unattested elsewhere, but is worth at least brief mention here because it includes li. The context is King Zhuang of Chu (r. 613–591 BCE) charging his official Shi Wei 士亹 with the education of his heir apparent. Shi Wei in turn consults the senior statesman Shenshu Shi 申叔時 for advice, who gives him the list of nine subjects for study. Some quite obviously could have had textual expressions, others could have been entirely oral. The list: Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun qiu 春秋, which commentators say must be the annals of Chu rather than Lu), which will teach the heir about encouraging good and suppressing evil; Generations (Shi 世), thought to be a history of previous rulers to illustrate the display of virtue and destruction of BCE, as reflected in both transmitted and excavated texts, see Erica Brindley, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China (2012). 115 The list appears twice in the Zhou li, first under the educational responsibilities of the “Minister over the Masses” (Situ 司徒), Zhou li zhushu 10.28a, the second under the Situ’s subordinate “Protector” (Bao shi 保氏), responsible for remonstrating with the king when he has gone wrong, and for the education of the sons of high officials; Zhou li zhushu 14.5b–6a. The second list is more complex: each of the arts is preceded by a number indicating subdivisions, usually five (ritual) or six (music), but nine in the case of “Numbers”.

72

Chapter 2

benightedness; the Songs (Shi) to reveal virtue and clarify his ambition; ritual (li), to impart understanding of the models of hierarchy (shang xia zhi ze 上下之則); music (yue), to clear away filth and suppress frivolity; “Ordinances” (ling 令), explained by traditional commentators as the commands of earlier rulers; “Speeches” or “Sayings” (yu 語), said to be words relating to previous kings’ virtuous rule over the people; “Old Records” (gu zhi 故志), records of the past which convey examples of success and failure by way of warning; and “explications of canonical rules” (xun dian 訓典), which commentators say relates to the “Five Emperors” and imparts knowledge of duties to one’s lineage. Like much material in the Guo yu, this gives an intriguing glimpse of lore not found elsewhere, with its actual historicity difficult to attest, though even some of its more obscure branches resonate with forms of discourse found elsewhere.116 In any event, although it is complex and ramified beyond anything seen elsewhere, this is at least one more possible context of structured teaching in which training in li occurs. 3

Ritual Learning in the Lun yu (Analects)

The late Spring and Autumn period is the age of Confucius, who inevitably looms large in the history of “Confucianism”, the tradition named after him in Western languages. Though his name appears in many pre-Han texts, with many quotes attributed to him, much of the biographical detail we have about him comes from sources long after his own time, starting with Sima Qian’s Shi ji from around 100 BCE. The Lun yu (Analects), a collection of quotations and 116 Guo yu jijie 17, pp. 485–487. This list is certainly worth further investigation. The modern scholar Chen Lai, in his discussion of texts quoted in the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu, has argued that all nine of these subjects were text-based, and all were used in all the states of Spring and Autumn to Warring States times, though both these assertions are impossible to prove, especially given the oral nature in that time of material we now think of as texts; see Chen Lai 陈来, Gudai sixiang wenhua de shijie: Chunqiu shidai de zongjiao, lunli yu shehui sixiang 古代思想文化的世界一一春秋时代的宗教、伦理与社会思 想 (2009), p. 186. The nine subjects are also discussed in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, pp. 239–240. My own feeling is that a specifically Chu tradition is just as likely, with many of them not textual in nature. The “Records” (zhi) and “Canons” (dian) are reminiscent of types of ritual-related documents quoted in the Guo yu and Zuo zhuan, as discussed above. One of the anonymous reviewers of this volume pointed out that the Generations (Shi 世) suggests originally oral lists of kings, of the sort preserved in the sequence of Shang kings in the Shi ji, and that the Yu 語 are something on the order of the “Sayings” or “didactic stories” of the sort banned in the Qin, studied in Jens Østergård Petersen, “Which Books Did the First Emperor of Ch’in Burn?” (1995).

Golden Age of Ritual

73

other brief writings attributed to Confucius and his followers, has traditionally been a basic text for Confucian education since the Han. Modern scholarship on the Lun yu is extensive, far more than can be considered in this volume, but in general many philosophers and intellectual historians have concentrated their efforts on it, on the grounds that it was supposedly compiled not long after his death and is the source closest to his original teachings and thought. More recent scholarship has challenged this assumption, on the grounds that no evidence of the Lun yu as a text, and very little of its content, appears in pre-Han sources. Much about its time of appearance and subject matter suggests a Western Han origin. In the words of Michael Hunter and Martin Kern, “The Lunyu as a book came into existence under the intellectual, political, and social conditions of a unified imperial state governed by members of a dynastic lineage.”117 Much of this argument is convincing, but, more controversially, Hunter goes on to argue that the text itself may also have been composed at this time, on the grounds of similarities between Lun yu descriptions of people’s character and Western Han discourse on evaluating candidates for office.118 This view seems to have attracted less support. One objection, advanced by Paul Goldin in his contribution to Hunter and Kern’s volume, is that that the evolution of key philosophical concepts characteristic of the Warring States period, such as human nature (xing 性) and feelings (qing 情), are not reflected in the Lun yu at all.119 This would be difficult to explain if someone were composing the text from scratch in the Western Han. A more likely scenario is selection and redaction of materials (perhaps oral as well as written) deriving from the early Warring States period. This could have begun during the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han, a time when older texts were being discovered and 117 See the introduction to Michael Hunter and Martin Kern, eds., Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship (Leiden: Brill, 2018), p. 5. The pioneering study proposing the Han compilation of the Lun yu is John Makeham, “The Formation of Lunyu as a Book,” Monumenta Serica 44 (1996), pp. 1–24. 118 The most detailed case for this, including the contention that the text was actually composed in the Western Han, is Michael Hunter, Confucius Beyond the Analects (Leiden: Brill, 2017), and his chapter “The Lunyu as a Western Han Text,” in Michael Hunter and Martin Kern, eds., Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 67–91. 119 Paul Goldin, “Confucius and His Disciples in the Lunyu: The Basis for the Traditional View,” in Hunter and Kern, eds., Confucius and the Analects Revisited, pp. 92–115. See also the similar points by Edward Slingerland, review of Michael Hunter, Confucius Beyond the Analects, Early China 41 (2018), pp. 465–475. The contributions in Confucius and the Analects Revisited represent a remarkable diversity of views far beyond the scope of this volume to summarise, which in itself demonstrates the impossibility of definitive conclusions about the origins of the text on the basis of the materials now available to us.

74

Chapter 2

collected, and would explain how a compilation could reflect the priorities of the Western Han, but still preserve earlier material. Similar observations can be made of other texts, such as the main Li canon (the modern Yi li), another supposedly ancient text not directly corroborated in pre-Han sources, as will be discussed below. In terms of how Han-period concerns may have shaped the content of the Lun yu, we can mention also a study by Mark Csikzentmihalyi on the quite different images of Confucius current at the time, and what these reveal about the Confucius of the Lun yu. In particular, he points out the depiction of Confucius as prophetic sage associated with scholarship on the Spring and Autumn Annals differs markedly from the Lun yu emphasis on education and ritual. He associates the latter with the tutors of the heir apparent in the Han, who were part of what Michael Loewe calls the “reformist agenda” for social and economic policy in general, and especially for the reforms of imperial ritual examined in the latter part of this book.120 This argument does make sense, and is of concern because it is precisely the content dealing with ritual in the Lun yu that we will consider here. However, Csikzentmihalyi’s argument implies selection rather than fabrication of the material in the text. As will be apparent below, the perspective of Ritual Learning would seem to bear this out, in that the stress on li in the Lun yu shows certain points of similarity with the Zuo zhuan. For our purposes here, we will adopt a similar approach as we did for the Zuo zhuan. Given the absence of a definitive answer on the origins of the Lun yu, but a clear consensus that there is no evidence of its authoritative status until mid to late Western Han, we will not claim to describe the Ritual Learning of the historical Confucius, but rather Ritual Learning as represented in that text, on the assumption that it preserves earlier material conveying a picture of the time of Confucius, however imperfect. This shows certain parallels with the world of the Zuo zhuan, for example in the emphasis on visible, precise adherence to li, with certain key innovations that have traditionally been ascribed to Confucius. From the perspective of Ritual Learning at least, it does appear that at least parts of the Lun yu are relevant to the historical Confucius as perceived not long after his lifetime. The Lun yu gives considerable prominence to Confucius as a master of Ritual Learning, within a wider picture that – in our terms – shows him as a teacher rather than as a philosopher. He made li a central part of how he trained his students, in particular as the main practice in the system of moral 120 Mark Csikzentmihalyi, “Confucius and the Analects in the Han” (2002), especially the summary on pp. 148–149.

Golden Age of Ritual

75

cultivation he transmitted to them. His teachings, and his understanding of li, have been well covered in previous scholarship. Here we will offer only a few highlights to help explain the story of Ritual Learning, to establish that in some respects he demonstrates aspects of li very similar to those we have seen in the world of the Zuo zhuan, and at the same time he seems to have introduced changes, leading to the knowledge and culture of the Ru who carried on the tradition of ritual expertise after him, through the Warring States and into the imperial period. First, in line with the tradition of visible ritual display in the Zuo zhuan as discussed above, are the descriptions of Confucius’s own precise physical observance of li in the Lun yu (Analects). These appear in Chapter 10, titled “Xiang dang” 鄉黨, “In the Village”. Unlike the other chapters of the Lun yu, the “Xiang dang” contains no quotes of speech aside from one entry at the end, but consists almost entirely of third-person descriptions of Confucius’s precise bodily movements and posture in a variety of both formal and everyday situations. The Japanese Confucian scholar Itō Jinsai 伊藤仁斎 (1627–1705) noted that “Xiang dang” caps the first ten chapters of the Lun yu, marking them off as a discrete earlier layer of the text.121 To give one typical example from “Xiang dang”: When he entered the palace gate, he seemed to bend his body, as if it were not sufficient to admit him. When he was standing, he did not occupy the middle of the gateway; when he passed in or out, he did not tread upon the threshold. When he was passing the vacant place of the prince, his countenance appeared to change, and his legs to bend under him, and his words came as if he hardly had breath to utter them. He ascended the reception hall, holding up his robe with both his hands, and his body bent; holding in his breath also, as if he dared not breathe. When he came out from the audience, as soon as he had descended one step, he began to relax his countenance, and had a satisfied look. When he had got to the bottom of the steps, he advanced rapidly to his place, with his

121 Itō Jinsai, Rongo kogi 論語古義 (1712), preface p. 2b. This is included in the wider discussion by Robert Eno, “The Lunyu as an Accretion Text,” Confucius and the Analects Revisited, pp. 39–66. Also worth mentioning is E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks, The Original Analects (1998), taken by Eno as the starting point of his narrative; the Brooks seem to have been the first to call attention to Jinsai’s comment in modern Western sinological scholarship.

76

Chapter 2

arms like wings, and on occupying it, his manner still showed respectful uneasiness.122 This description fits well with the emphasis on correct ritual display in the Zuo zhuan. Just as precise ritual observance is a reflection of “virtue” in a ruler, it is clear that these descriptions of Confucius’s posture and movements in the Lun yu are intended as evidence of his superior moral character. His every move seems the very opposite of the word “indolent” (duo 惰) we saw used in the Zuo zhuan to describe a lack of seriousness in performing a ritual act. At no point in the “Xiang dang” are these descriptions explicitly identified as observance of li, or of “ceremonial decorum/deportment” (yi 儀), though it is quite obvious in the wider context of the Lun yu that that is exactly what it is. In one case, “When he entered the Grand Ancestral Shrine (tai miao 太廟), he asked about everything,” the same sentence in the “Ba yi” 八佾 section of the Lun yu is explained by Confucius as “This is in conformity with li” (shi li ye 是禮也).123 Elsewhere he also says, “When one observes li to the full when serving one’s lord, other people take this as flattery,” which suggests that Confucius’s observance of li was perceived as being more punctilious, or even exaggerated, than that of others around him.124 The main subjects taught by Confucius according to the Lun yu likewise align with the Zuo zhuan: the Songs, Documents, Ritual (li), and Music. Of these, the Songs and Documents are texts, occasionally quoted from, though as in the Zuo zhuan the expression of these “texts” is always oral, and we do not see anything in the Lun yu about them being used in written form at all.125 Music is the least specific; the Lun yu reveals nothing of what any actual training in it might have entailed, though it is often mentioned in tandem with li. Here again we can call attention to the sophisticated system of ceremonial music and musical theory in the Spring and Autumn period as reflected in the bells and chimes in the tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng, as a reflection of music as a field of knowledge in this time, both from a technical and cultural standpoint.126

122 Lun yu 10.4. James Legge translates this passage with particular vividness, and so I have quoted his version, with slight modifications. 123 Lun yu 3.15. 124 Lun yu 3.18. 125 In this context see the extensive analysis of the Songs (Odes) in the Lun yu in Steven Van Zoeren, Poetry and Personality (1991), pp. 17–51. He starts this off by observing that “the historical Confucius probably lived and worked in a largely oral, pretextual, doctrinal culture” (p. 18). 126 As studied in von Falkenhausen, Suspended Music.

Golden Age of Ritual

77

One example relating to li and music contains a use of wen 文 rather similar to its sense of “being culturally accomplished” as a stative verb in the Zuo zhuan: it is used in a causative sense, to signify imparting cultural attainment. Confucius is asked about what would constitute a perfectly accomplished person (cheng ren 成人). He imagines someone who combines the best qualities of several of his disciples – wisdom, or perceptiveness (zhi 知, in this meaning later written with an additional radical: 智), lacking in desires (bu yu 不欲), courage (yong 勇), and skill (yi 藝) – if one imparts cultural attainment to such a one with li and music (wen zhi yi li yue 文之以禮樂), they will become a perfectly accomplished person. Of the various qualities listed, all except “skill” could be regarded as innate qualities, but “skill” is likely, as elsewhere, to be acquired through study, which would include the recitation of (probably mainly oral) texts, including the Songs and Documents. In any event, “wen” here clearly refers to something other than writing, to refinement and cultural accomplishment generally. Elsewhere we see a different explanation of the different functions of textual learning and li: “The superior person ( junzi) studies widely the cultural arts (bo xue yu wen 博學於文) and restricts it [or him] by means of li (yue zhi yi li 約之以禮), he will surely be able not to commit violations,” suggesting that mastery of li has the specific function of introducing discipline and restraint as part of the wider acquisition of cultural arts.127 Other subsets of the four occur, for example: “What the Master spoke of in ‘elegant’ (ya 雅) fashion, was the Songs, Documents, and maintaining li, all of these were in ‘elegant’ speech (ya yan 雅言)”. There are different interpretations of what “elegant” (ya) means. Traditional commentators read ya as “orthodox” (zheng 正), which they explain as having to do with how Confucius spoke, not avoiding tabooed sounds but reading directly because of the important nature of what he was saying. This suggests some sort of different oral register, a classical mode, conceivably something akin to the “Ya” songs in the Shi jing, with special ritual significance. Traditional commentators also point out the use of the verb “maintain” (zhi 執) used with li but not the other two, because the Songs and Documents were “intoned” (song 誦), or memorized and recited out loud, in contrast to li, which was not a text and therefore consisted of movements to be practiced.128 This is one example of a point noted by modern scholars tracing the origins of the Han dynasty ritual canon, as will be discussed below: in the Lun yu at least, the li taught by Confucius was not a

127 Lun yu 6.27. 128 Lun yu 7.18; traditional commentaries at Lun yu zhushu 2.8a.

78

Chapter 2

text, either written or oral, nor did he ever quote or mention an authoritative text on li. The next question is, what was Confucius’s purpose in teaching li? In considerable part, it seems that he viewed cultural attainment as a social asset, essential to serving in office, and uses the word “be established” (li 立) in connection with li as we find in the Zuo zhuan, for example when he says, “Without knowledge of li, one has no means to become established,” or “One is stimulated/aroused by the Songs, becomes established through li, and is perfected by Music.”129 But there is more to this, in that he links constant observance of li to moral cultivation, specifically to the attainment of ren 仁, a central tenet of his teachings much discussed by scholars, here rendered simply as “humaneness”. The most famous example of this is: Yan Yuan asked about humaneness. The Master said, “To subdue oneself and return to li, this is humaneness (ke ji fu li wei ren 克己復禮為仁). If someone can for one day subdue oneself and return to li, all under heaven will ascribe humaneness to that one. Is the practice of humaneness in oneself, or is it from others?” Yan Yuan said, “I beg to ask the individual parts of this.” The Master replied, “Don’t look at anything contrary to li; don’t listen to anything contrary to li; don’t speak anything contrary to li; make no movement contrary to li.”130 Without delving into the many implications of this passage, which has been examined by other scholars in a philosophical light, it is important to note the central role of li ascribed by Confucius to individual cultivation.131 As reflected in the narrative of later times at least, Confucius no longer views li as a purely aristocratic preserve, but is now something to be practiced by a much larger range of people in society. Looked at from a cultural point of view, the prestige of aristocratic distinction has shifted to moral superiority, a shift also reflected in Confucius’s use of the word junzi 君子, no longer an elite lordling but a morally superior person. 129 Lun yu 20.3, 8.8. 130 Lun yu 12.1. Here it is worth mentioning a passage quite similar to this in a Shanghai Museum Chu manuscript segment given the title “The Superior Person’s Practice of Li” (Junzi wei li 君子為禮), lacking the first section on ke ji fu li, and with Confucius enjoining Yan Hui not to do anything not in accordance with “right” (yi 義) rather than li, though the overall context of the passage is about the practice of li. Shanghai Bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書 vol. 5 (2005), pp. 254–255. 131 See especially Roger Ames, “Observing Ritual ‘Propriety (li 禮)’ as Focusing the Familiar in the Affairs of the Day” (2002).

Golden Age of Ritual

79

Whether or not this universalisation of li does derive from the historical Confucius, I argue that we also find evidence that the visible, cultural characteristics of the originally aristocratic distinction attached to li were carefully preserved by Confucius, and later maintained by the Ru “Confucians” who regarded themselves as following in his tradition. Confucius and the Ru displayed their distinct identity through their dress and manners, in no small part because they aspired to hold office and wield political influence. In one Lun yu passage, the disciple Zi Zhang 子張 asks how a person should be in order to participate in governing. Confucius gives him a list of five positive traits, most of which are moral in nature (being thrifty, not arrogant, and the like), but one of them is to be “awe-inspiring but not fierce” (wei er bu meng 威而 不猛). Asked to elaborate, Confucius explains this in terms of visible presentation: “The superior person ( junzi) keeps his clothes and cap straight (zheng qi yi guan 正其衣冠), and makes his expression dignified (zun qi zhan shi 尊其 瞻視), so that, in solemnity, people look upon him with awe – is this not to be awe-inspiring but not fierce?”132 A final point to be discussed here in relation to the Lun yu is early signs of what we call “Ritual Reasoning”, the ways in which the correct forms of ritual were debated and decided. We have seen in the Zuo zhuan that individuals’ observance of li was subject to close scrutiny, with negative judgements made on the basis of failings, often seemingly quite minor ones. We have also seen instances of discussions among people (such as the followers of Lord Wen of Jin) on the correct course of action in specific situations where principles of li were invoked. In the Lun yu, Confucius is represented as making pronouncements on correct li where he disagrees with his disciples, or others, often when they perform, or propose, a simplification of a ritual or a reduction in rigour, which he opposes, and sometimes he gives a particular justification for his position. In this we see signs of the process of “deliberation” (yi 議), akin to the way groups of officials, often many dozens, joined in discussion on the correct forms of state ritual in the Han dynasty. In this, one key issue is often the balance between the authoritative models of antiquity and the needs of the present. Confucius in the Lun yu is represented as being quite conservative in this regard, with his frequent insistence on maintaining old ritual forms, such as observing the three-year mourning period after the death of a parent. At the same time, he had a sense of history in his perception of change in the ritual order from one age to the next, in his 132 Lun yu 20.2. Michael Nylan has also called attention to this characteristic of the Ru, saying that “the pre-Qin Ru mimicked the nobility” in their study and practices; see “Classics without Canonization” (2009), p. 736.

80

Chapter 2

famous statement that what each age added to or reduced could be known.133 He regarded the Zhou ritual order as the most perfect, in that it had the examples of the previous two eras to draw on, and its models were still sufficiently preserved to be accessible.134 However, in his view it had degraded in his time, as the hierarchical order was progressively usurped from below. When the world “had the Way” (you dao 有道), then ritual, music, and military campaigns derived from the Son of Heaven (the Zhou king); when the world “lacked the Way” (wu dao 無道) these things derived from the feudal lords, and after that from the Great Officers (dafu 大夫) and the subordinates below them, with the achievements of each level being less enduring than the one above it.135 One simple example demonstrates Confucius’s conservatism in matters of ritual: when his disciple Zi Gong 子貢 wanted to abolish the sacrifice of a sheep at the monthly report to the ancestral temple, Confucius said, “Ci (Zi Gong’s personal name), you begrudge the sheep (ai qi yang 愛其羊). I begrudge the ritual (wo ai qi li 我愛其禮).”136 Here Confucius is represented as defending a ritual precisely because it is a li, and therefore something to be prized in itself. In the case of the three-year mourning observance (actually twenty-six months, overlapping but not filling three years), he makes more of a reasoned case for retaining it. His disciple Zaiwo 宰我 objects that the three-year mourning period was so long that a superior person’s command of li and of music will degrade, and suggests that a single full year would be sufficient, corresponding to one cycle of grain crops and the annual renewal of fire. Confucius replies that the superior person can derive no pleasure from fine food, comfortable clothes, or living at ease while in mourning, but that if Zaiwo feels at ease with such pleasures after one year, he should observe one year. Later, to others, he says that Zaiwo lacks humanity (bu ren 不仁) in failing to realize that the three years, universally observed throughout the world, corresponds to the time that young children are carried by their parents, an expression of their love.137 In another case, Confucius compares two ritual usages, one in which he follows the common practice of everyone else (“follow the multitude”, cong zhong 133 Lun yu 2.23. 134 Lun yu 3.14, 3.9. In the latter passage, Confucius says that the states of Qi 杞 and Song, ruled by the descendants of the Xia and Shang kings respectively, were insufficient to provide evidence of what the royal ritual order had been in those two ages. The implication is that the Zhou ritual order was still accessible. 135 Lun yu 16.2. 136 Lun yu 3.17. The Marquis of Lu had ceased to attend this ritual in person several generations previously, so Zi Gong was perhaps not unreasonable in wanting to abolish the sacrifice. 137 Lun yu 17.21.

Golden Age of Ritual

81

從衆) in wearing a silk cap instead of the (more costly) linen one prescribed by li, saying that he does so because it reflects thrift and moderation ( jian 儉).

In contrast, he bows when entering the lower part of the hall as prescribed by li, going against everyone else (wei zhong 違衆), others all bowing only in the upper part of the hall, saying that the latter practice reflects grandiose arrogance (tai 泰). The principle of “thrift” in this case trumps the ritual regulation of li, as it did not in the case of the sacrificial sheep. However, “thrift” as a virtue, in the avoidance of extravagance by an enlightened ruler, was in itself a long-established principle.138 In another example of a pronouncement on ritual violations, Confucius is asked whether Guan Zhong, the chief minister of the first hegemon, Lord Huan of Qi, understood li. Confucius accuses Guan of usurping ritual usages in the hierarchical order: The lord of a state erects a screen shielding his gate; Master Guan also erected a screen shielding his gate. The lord of a state has a stand for placing inverted drinking cups (fan dian 反坫) in friendly meetings between lords; Master Guan also had a stand for placing inverted drinking cups. If Master Guan knows li, then who doesn’t?139 Yet elsewhere Confucius disagrees with the common criticism of Guan Zhong that he was originally a supporter of Lord Huan’s brother in their battle for the rulership of Qi, and thus morally obligated to commit suicide when Lord Huan was victorious, but instead chose to serve Huan. Confucius points to Guan’s achievement in guiding Huan to the hegemony, to the benefit of the people ever after. “But for Guan Zhong, we would surely have unbound hair and lapels on the left,” was his famous remark, crediting Guan with having saved the civilized order from “barbarian” conquest. Better that than committing suicide and lying unknown to anyone in a ditch.140 One final point to mention is sources of authority cited by Confucius in the Lun yu. We have already noted that he cites no authoritative li text, which suggest that there was no such text in his time equivalent in authority to the Songs and Documents, which he and his disciples occasionally do quote, though not usually in connection with ritual matters. One exception is a passage from the 138 As in the speech by Zang Aibo in the Zuo zhuan discussed above, where he says that a thatched roof, rush mats, unseasoned broth, and unrefined grains manifest a ruler’s frugality (zhao qi jian ye 昭其儉也); Zuo zhuan Huan 2.2 (710 BCE), Yang vol. 1, pp. 86–89; Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, p. 77. 139 Lun yu 3.22. 140 Lun yu 14.17.

82

Chapter 2

Documents mentioned by his disciple Zi Zhang 子張, stating that the Shang king Gaozong 高宗 (Wu Ding 武丁) did not speak for three years during the mourning for his predecessor, which leads Confucius to say that it was not only Gaozong who did this, but all people of antiquity (gu zhi ren 古之人).141 This is one of several instances where he speaks of “antiquity” in approving terms as being superior to the present. Another of these likely pertains to a ritual matter, the archery contest ceremony, where he says that it was “the way of antiquity” (gu zhi dao 古之道) not to emphasise piercing the target with the arrow, reflecting that the point was not to measure different levels of strength.142 As noted above, Confucius makes clear his admiration for the ritual order of Zhou, though he does not cite this as authority for any specific pronouncement of correct ritual. When he observes that Zhou had the benefit of observing the examples of two prior eras to achieve cultural perfection, he utters the famous phrase “I follow Zhou” (wu cong Zhou 吾從周).143 Also well known is his lament that he is in serious decline (shuai 衰) because he had not for a long time seen the Duke of Zhou in his dreams.144 In yet another passage he says that King Wen of the Zhou had control of two thirds of the realm, with which he served the Shang as vassal, evidence of the “perfect virtue” (zhi de 至德) of Zhou.145 His view of the early Zhou order, and the Duke of Zhou, was by no means unique to him, judging from the similar sentiments expressed in the Zuo zhuan, but his statements certainly enhanced the status of the Western Zhou as a model for government and ritual institutions in imperial times. It is fair to say that Confucius as represented in the Lun yu is a master of Ritual Learning, along with other fields of knowledge. He looks both ways, to the past and to the future. We do not know how he acquired his knowledge of li, though it seems to reflect considerable continuity with the learning of the warrior aristocracy in the world of the Zuo zhuan. In his pronouncements we see a conservative, punctilious observance of visible ritual, and defense of the hierarchical order of the earlier Zhou. At the same time, Confucius was, according to the narrative of later times at least, a pivotal figure in the shift of Ritual Learning from being a preserve of the aristocratic elite to a form of training available to others, reflected in the famous Lun yu statement that his teaching is for all, regardless of class (“there 141 142 143 144 145

Lun yu 14.40. Lun yu 3.16. Lun yu 3.14. Lun yu 7.5. Lun yu 8.20.

83

Golden Age of Ritual

is teaching but no lineage origin,” you jiao wu lei 有教無類), though of course this might still have been restricted to lower-level gentry, less universal than we would understand it.146 After Confucius, as the warrior aristocracy faded away, Ritual Learning became part of the special preserve of the Ru, the scholars and ritual masters we misleadingly call “Confucians”, who became a distinct cultural group in the subsequent Warring States and Han periods, and over four centuries after Confucius established their forms of learning as the dominant ideology and discourse at the imperial Han court. Confucius was a key figure venerated by the Ru, eventually established as the “Primordial Teacher” (xian shi 先師), who himself became the object of a state sacrificial cult after the Han, in China and later elsewhere in East Asia.

…

In this chapter we have covered the first of our three stages of Ritual Learning. We have traced the tradition of knowledge about li in the Spring and Autumn period (722–468), as much as is possible through the imperfect lens of the textual sources available, primarily the Zuo zhuan. We have the picture of an age when li, ritual and ritual propriety, was a predominant code of conduct among the aristocracy, at a time when their hierarchical order and its ritual underpinnings were being rapidly eroded. The most powerful of the feudal lords created the order of the hegemons, who dominated other lords in unequal alliances to protect the powerless Zhou king and the ritual order of which he was head. For individual members of the aristocracy, command of li was an important cultural asset. This command was a visible display of precise conformity to rules of behaviour, manners, and dress, observed and judged by others. Li was one branch of learning, alongside the Songs, Documents, and music. Those with superior command of this learning advised others, and through this we can see something of the nature of Ritual Learning in that time. Li also was a subject of conceptual analysis. People identified wider principles applying both to individual behaviour and to governing a state. Late in the Spring and Autumn period Confucius inherited the learning of the aristocracy, and seems to have made it available to a somewhat broader segment of society. Precise observance of li as visible display remained a high priority for Confucius, still linked to an individual’s standing in society, now also the fundamental physical practice underlying moral cultivation. After Confucius, the later Ru, or “Confucians”, like him were masters of ritual, preserving characteristics of the old aristocratic Ritual Learning even as the aristocracy faded away. 146 Lun yu 15.39.

Chapter 3

The Ritual Culture of the Ru – Ritual Learning in the Warring States and Early Han The Zuo zhuan ends with the year 468, leaving a substantial gap in the historical record about the period following it, the earlier part of the Warring States (approx. mid-5th century to 221 BCE). The mid to late Warring States is somewhat better known, thanks to the corpus of transmitted writings from the so-called “philosophers”, or “masters” (zi 子), of the period, augmented by excavated texts and other archaeological discoveries, all of which give a sense of the rich political and intellectual life of the time. It is not surprising that intellectual history is the best researched aspect of the Warring States in modern scholarship. However, in terms of tracing the cultural history of Ritual Learning, what sorts of people possessed it, and what they were doing with it in real life, we still have relatively little by way of specific information until the start of the Han dynasty. To fill the gap as much as possible, we will trace two threads relating to what Ritual Learning was during the first century of the Western Han, up to around the year 100 when the Shi ji of Sima Qian was compiled. From this it is possible to extrapolate what seems to have happened between the time of Confucius and the early Han. The first of these threads is the Ru, conventionally translated as “Confucians”, a category of people who seem to have included professional specialists in li, as well as scholars who produced theoretical writings on li, of the sort found in the Xunzi 荀子, Li ji 禮記, and a few excavated texts. The second thread is the origins of the first canonical text on li that became the focus of Ritual Learning in the Han, known as the “Rites” (Li 禮), “Gentry Rites” (Shi li 士禮), or sometimes “Canon of Ritual” (Li jing 禮經), corresponding to the extant Yi li 儀禮. It was taken for granted in the Han that this text originated in the time of Confucius or even before, and derived from his knowledge of li, but in fact there is no direct evidence that it existed before the Han. By contrast, texts in the transmitted Li ji compilation, which was assembled from materials considered as ancillary to the main Li but was elevated to the status of a canon in its own right late in the Han, are now known from excavated text discoveries to have derived from the Warring States period. It is possible that the Li (Yi li) in the Han was also packaged together with earlier material dating to pre-Han times, though so far none has come to light.

© Robert L. Chard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004465312_004

Ritual Culture of the Ru

1

85

The Ru (“Confucians”)

Who the Ru were in pre-Han times, and where they came from, is a question much studied by modern scholars in China, and to some extent in the West. Worth particular mention in English-language scholarship is the useful book on the early Ru by Nicolas Zufferey, who includes a comprehensive summary of the disparate conclusions reached by Chinese scholars on the origins and nature of the Ru in the first part of his study.1 The etymology of the word “Ru” suggests connotations of weakness, and there is a range of theories on how the Ru may have evolved from the religious specialists of the Shang and Western Zhou, including a suggestion by Robert Eno that the word may once have meant masters of dance.2 On a more practical level, Michael Nylan translates “Ru” as “classicist”, and it does seem that in the pre-Han period they possessed forms of classical learning, broadly defined as knowledge relating to the traditional past, both textual (texts being oral as well as written) and practice-based.3 This was more or less in line with the same four fields of study we see in the Zuo zhuan and Lun yu, Songs, Documents, li, and music. These people are recognizably the forerunners of those designated as Ru in the Han, when they came to be primarily scholars of the “classics”, or the canons we conventionally designate as “Confucian”, once these texts became established from the late second century BCE onwards. The Ru are usually described as “Confucians”, but this is not always an accurate designation, especially before the Han. Zufferey presents instances of experts in other forms of learning in the Qin period and earlier being classed among the Ru, including specialists in esoteric arts and cosmological theories at the court of the Qin First Emperor. He argues that the 460-odd scholars famously executed by the First Emperor of Qin in 212 BCE were mainly such esoteric specialists, pointing out that the investigations leading to the executions were triggered by the desertion of two experts in immortality techniques. There is no specific evidence that any of those killed were “Confucian” Ru at all, contrary to the conventional narrative of Qin tyranny in later times.4 Nonetheless, the stereotype of what a Ru was during the Warring States, particularly as depicted in Mohist, Legalist, and other critical writings, does seem to have been associated with Confucius and his disciples, the study of the 1 Nicolas Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism: The Ru in Pre-Qin Times and during the Early Han Dynasty (2003), especially pp. 21–161. 2 Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven, pp. 190–197. 3 As for example in Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics (explained in a footnote on p. 2), and the more extensive discussion in her “Classics without Canonization” (2009), pp. 735–741. 4 Zufferey, pp. 227–240.

86

Chapter 3

Songs and Documents, attachment to the ways of antiquity, ritual mastery, and “Confucian” values such as “humanity” and “right” (ren yi 仁義). This suggests that the core understanding of the meaning of Ru was in fact “Confucian”, even if it could also be applied to experts in other forms of learning. The word “Ru” does not seem to have been common in the Spring and Autumn period, if in fact it ever occurred at all. It occurs only once late in the Zuo zhuan, and in one Lun yu passage. In the Zuo zhuan, we find the phrase “writings of the Ru” (Ru shu 儒書), in a satirical rhyme sung by the men of the state of Qi in 474 BCE, who were annoyed by the longstanding refusal of the Lu delegation to bow with their foreheads touching the ground at interstate meetings. The relevant lines say, “It’s just because of their Ru writings, that they bring grief to both states”, which is explained by commentators as provoked by Lu’s insistence upon following the ancient ritual protocol that feudal lords touch their foreheads only to the king, never to each other. This regulation is ascribed to the authority of “Ru writings”, which appears from context to refer to texts of ritual regulations, possibly meant pejoratively.5 However, the very fact that this is the only occurrence of the word Ru in the entire Zuo zhuan suggests that it was at the very least not yet a recognized term for a class of people up until the fifth century BCE, and quite possible was a later interpolation. In the Lun yu, the term likewise appears only in one brief passage, where Confucius tells his disciple Zi Xia 子夏, “You should be a superior-person Ru ( junzi Ru 君子儒), do not be a petty-person Ru (xiaoren Ru 小人儒).”6 It is hard to know exactly what Confucius meant by “Ru”, but it seems to be a general designation for a scholar, perhaps connected to the fact that Zi Xia was particularly good at cultural learning (wen xue 文學).7 One thing is clear: in this statement the word “Ru” has no positive connotations, and is explicitly disassociated from the moral attainment of the junzi. A Ru can just as well be a “petty person”. It is hence not a designation Confucius used to represent someone accomplished by the standards of his own teachings, or in fact a term of any special significance for him at all. In the Warring States period the word Ru entered more common usage. Very often it designated adherents to a discrete and familiar tradition of teaching, what we might now describe as a school of thought, or something more akin to a political affiliation, frequently specifically contrasted with the traditions of Mozi and others. 5 Zuo zhuan Ai 21.2, Yang Bojun vol. 4, pp. 1717–1718, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, pp. 1969–1971. 6 Lun yu 6.13. 7 Lun yu 11.3.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

87

It is used this way in the Mencius, where the word appears twice: Mencius is quoted as saying, “Those who flee the Mo [tradition] go over to Yang [Zhu] 楊[朱]; those who flee Yang go over to the Ru.” He means by this a natural process that should simply be allowed to happen, yet “those who dispute with the Mo and the Yang”, by which he seems to mean the Ru, go after their opponents as if they were chasing down and capturing a stray pig, which seems to refer to over-aggressive attempts to win converts.8 This passage, whether it actually dates from the time of Mencius or somewhat later (the Mencius being another text reaching its final form in the Han), suggests a world in which the Ru had a specific affiliation, and were in contention with people from other teaching traditions. The Mozi contains a section devoted to criticism of the Ru, which uses the repeated formula “The Ru person says” (Ru zhe yue 儒者曰) followed by a statement recognisably “Confucian”, followed by criticism on the basis of Mohist teachings.9 The Zhuangzi “Qi wu lun” 齊物論 text mentions conflict between the two, “There is the right and wrong of the Ru and the Mo, by which they affirm what the other denies, and deny what the other affirms.”10 The Legalist Han Feizi criticizes the Ru at various points, often in conjunction with Mohists. According to him, the Ru and the Mohists are both wedded to the past, unable to provide solutions appropriate to the needs of the current world, and yet they attract admiration and generous treatment from misguided rulers. He explicitly identifies the Ru with Confucius and his followers, offering an analysis of how the Ru after Confucius degenerated, splitting into eight traditions deriving from one or another of his disciples or later followers, listed by name, in the same way that he says the post-Mozi Mohists split into three. He contrasts the Ru advocacy of costly, elaborate funerals and three years’ mourning (though does not use the word li to describe this) with the Mohist doctrine of simple funerals and three months’ mourning, and wonders why rulers honour them both indiscriminately. He also links the Ru with the “chivalrous swordsmen” (xia 俠) as two categories of people who do not contribute to the primary occupations of agriculture and war, and disrupt systems of order ( fa 法). Esoteric specialists (literally “spirit mediums and invocators”, wu zhu 巫祝) are also compared with Ru; they entice rulers with false promises

8 Mencius 7b.26. 9 “Criticizing the Ru” section (“Fei Ru” 非儒), Mozi 9.286–307; more on Mohist characterisations of the Ru will be presented below. 10 Zhuangzi jishi 2.63.

88

Chapter 3

of immortality in the same way that the Ru dangle the prospect of becoming “hegemon king” (ba wang 霸王).11 It is clear from these Warring States texts that the Ru were a recognized group, one which was identified by themselves and others according to their teachings in that time, and that they were associated with Confucius and his followers, textual learning, and expertise on li, both in terms of practical performance and on the theory of how it should be applied to individual cultivation and to governing. However, defining the Ru by their teachings and ideology is only part of the story. From the cultural history perspective adopted in this book, we face the equally difficult problem of who the Ru were historically in the Warring States period, how they acted in actual situations, and in particular whether they sought to use their Ritual Learning to enter the centres of political power, as they were later to do in the Han dynasty. The comprehensive historical text Shi ji (“Records of the Historian”) of Sima Qian (c. 145–c. 86 BCE) offers one starting point to investigate this. The text itself was compiled before and after 100 BCE, but we cannot assume that the accounts in it are anachronistic, since Sima Qian incorporated a great many early sources available to him, so that we find overlaps with texts such as the Zuo zhuan and Lun yu. On the other hand, Sima Qian is known to have modified the text of his sources to make it more transparent to people of his own day, and other parts of the text are known to be interpolations from later times. The category “Ru” he uses is certainly coloured by the preconceptions of his own time, and his own enthusiastically positive narrative of Confucius and “Confucians”. Whenever possible we need to look for corroboration in documentary sources actually from the Warring States period. The Shi ji paints a picture of brief prominence with Confucius and his disciples, followed by a long period of eclipse when their teachings were carried on by the Ru, but very little detail about them is given. Few of them are named, and none of them is recorded as having gained influence at the courts of Warring States kings on the basis of their Ritual Learning, as Shusun Tong was to do at the start of the Han.12 Confucius himself is given a “generational annals” biography in the Shi ji, the “Kongzi shi jia” 孔子世家 (“Generational Annals of Kongzi”), elevating him to the status of a feudal lord. There is also a “Biography of Confucius’s Disciples” 11 See Han Feizi, “Xian xue” 顯學 section, most of which is devoted to the shortcomings of the Ru and Mohists; Han Feizi jijie 19.456–464. 12 See also the sections “The Missing History of the Ru” and “The Textual Imperative of Withdrawal” in Robert Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven, pp. 45–50, where he discusses the ideological basis for the non-participation of Ru in politics during the Warring States.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

89

(“Zhong Ni dizi lie zhuan” 仲尼弟子列傳), which gives additional information and quotes by and about his students overlapping to some extent with the Lun yu. Also significant is the misleadingly-titled “Biography of Mengzi and Xun Qing” (“Mengzi Xun Qing lie zhuan” 孟子荀卿列傳), which does include a few brief lines on Mencius at the beginning and on Xunzi near the end, but mainly covers politically ambitious figures of various stripes, not in the category of Ru or “Confucians” at all, mostly portrayed in an unfavourable light. Finally, there is the “Biography of the Many Ru” (lit. “Forest of Ru”, “Ru lin lie zhuan” 儒林列傳), which begins with a brief outline of Confucius’s disciples and their waning influence, but is mainly devoted to the variable fortunes of the Ru during the Han. The Shi ji biography of Confucius has been extensively studied, and there is little need to discuss it here, except to note his affinity with li.13 As a child, he is said to have played with ritual vessels, and arranged them to perform ceremonies (she li rong 設禮容). The Shi ji also recounts his visit to the royal Zhou court in early adulthood to ask about li, where he is said to have consulted Laozi, but the historicity of this visit, let alone the existence of Laozi himself, is impossible to verify.14 There are further descriptions of his teaching ritual in the biography, which we will return to in the context of the origins of the ritual canon. The “Biography of the Many Ru” summarises the period between Confucius and the Qin unification as follows: After Confucius passed away, his seventy [principal] disciples scattered and wandered among the various feudal lords. The great among them served as Mentors (shi fu 師傅) and high ministers, the lesser befriended and taught gentry and Great Officers, still others went into seclusion and disappeared. In this way Zi Lu 子路 resided in Wei 衛, Zi Zhang 子張 resided in Chen, Tantai Zi Yu 澹臺子羽 resided in Chu, Zi Xia 子夏 resided in Xihe 西河 (which became part of the state of Wei 魏), and Zi Gong 子貢 ended his days in Qi. People such as Tian Zi Fang 田子方, Duan Ganmu 段干木, Wu Qi 吳起, and Qin Guxi 禽滑釐 were of a group who studied with Zi Xia, and became teachers to kings. In this time, Marquis Wen of Wei (Wei Wen hou 魏文侯) was the only [ruler] fond of learning. After that, things went into decline until the time of the First Emperor, as the entire world went into the conflicts of the Warring States, and the 13

See Michael Nylan and Thomas A. Wilson, Lives of Confucius (2010), especially Chapter 1, “Kongzi, in Sima Qian’s Shiji and the Analects” (pp. 1–28). 14 Shi ji 47.1906, 1909.

90

Chapter 3

arts of the Ru were rejected. Only in the area of Qi and Lu did scholars (xue zhe 學者) not fall into decline and disappear. In the time of [Kings] Wei 威 and Xuan 宣 [of Qi], Mencius and Xun Qing 荀卿 (Xunzi) both followed the legacy of the Master [Confucius] and enhanced it, achieving great prominence for their learning in their times.15 This account suggests a line of transmission from Confucius’s disciple Zi Xia to four prominent figures of the state of Wei, patronised by Marquis Wen (r. 445–396 BCE), the Wei ruler the Shi ji records was formally recognized as a feudal lord by the Zhou king in 424 BCE, along with the heads of Zhao 趙 and Han 韓. In fact, of the four listed as enjoying Wen’s patronage, Wu Qi is known as a military strategist, Qin Guxi became one of Mozi’s prominent followers, and Tian Zi Fang is expropriated in the Zhuangzi as a Daoist sage in the eponymous “Tian Zi Fang” of the Outer Chapters, which could of course be entirely fictitious. The “Generational Annals of Wei” (“Wei shi jia” 魏世家) does say that Marquis Wen studied “canons” ( jing yi 經藝) from Zi Xia, and also from Zi Xia’s student Tian Zi Fang. Wen supported Duan Guan Mu as a patron, showing him extraordinary courtesy. The state of Qin is said to have planned an attack on Wei, but “someone” (huo 或) advised the ruler against it: “The Lord of Wei makes a point of treating wise people with the most ritual courtesy (xian ren shi li 賢人是禮), and the people of the capital praise him for being humane (ren). Superiors and subordinates are in harmony there, you can make no plans against them.” From that point on Wen “received praise from the [other] feudal lords”.16 One longer anecdote concerns Wen’s ability to give responsibility to the right people, but the emphasis is more on his minister Li Ke 李克, less on Wen himself.17 The account of Wen’s ideal rule is no doubt coloured by the fact that he was cast as a “good first” ruler, after having carved up the state of Jin with Zhao and Han. The “Wei Generational Annals” is otherwise a sparse account of a few natural disasters and military conflicts with other states, and there is no further record of a community of Ru there, though Wen’s grandson King Hui did also invite wise people to his court, which resulted in the famous, though ultimately fruitless, visit from Mencius.

15 Shi ji 121.3116. 16 Shi ji 44.1839. The brief account of Zi Xia in the biographies of Confucius’s disciples also says that he taught Wen, Shi ji 67.2202. 17 Shi ji 44.1840.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

91

Mencius and Xunzi are identified in the “Biography of the Many Ru” as the only figures of note between the disciples of Confucius and the Qin unification, but the Shi ji biographies of both are extremely brief, sharing a single chapter with a whole list of other scholars of non-Ru traditions based in Qi and neighbouring states. Regarding Mencius, it says that he had studied from a student of Confucius’s disciple Zi Si 子思, and describes his unsuccessful efforts to persuade the kings of Qi and Wei 魏 to govern according to his teachings. It was an age when Qi was in the ascendancy, and all the states were interested only in forming alliances and following the teachings of Legalists and military specialists, yet: Meng Ke instead recounted the virtue of Tang 唐 (sage king Yao 堯), Yu 虞 (sage king Shun 舜), and the Three Ages [of Xia, Shang, and Zhou], which did not find accord with [the rulers] he went to. He then withdrew, and together with disciples like Wan Zhang 萬章 he discoursed on the Songs and Documents and explained the doctrines of Confucius.18 After this brief account of Mencius at the beginning of the chapter, the narrative moves on to a lineage of scholars associated with the state of Qi who became influential at court there and in other states. None of them are described as “Ru”, nor do they seem to have had anything to do with the teaching tradition of Confucius. Most prominent among them are the cosmological theorist Zou Yan 鄒衍, and a few others described as masters of “the arts of Huang Lao and of the Way and Virtue” (Huang Lao dao de zhi shu 黃老道德之 術), including Shen Dao 慎到. The unifying theme seems to be people of learning who were successful in adapting to what the rulers of the age wanted and achieved political influence, and who had texts associated with them, many of which would likely have been extant in Sima Qian’s time. Most of these scholars are described in quite negative terms, in contrast to Mencius, depicted as a scholar of integrity whose teachings were not heeded. The kings of Qi provided accommodation for many of these people, who were described as the “Masters of Jixia” ( Jixia xiansheng 稷下先生, of the so-called “Jixia Academy”), attracting them from all over the Chinese world of the time, and Sima Qian says there were too many such people to mention.19 Near the end of the chapter comes Xunzi’s biography, again brief with few details. He is said to have been a native of the northern state of Zhao, who only came to study in Qi at the age of fifty (though there are grounds for suspecting 18 Shi ji 74.2343. 19 Shi ji 74.2344–2348.

92

Chapter 3

that “fifty”, wu shi 五十, is a textual error for “fifteen”, shi wu 十五, also remarkable), and soon became the senior master there.20 He was appointed to office in Qi three times, was eventually slandered and left to take office in Chu. He lost this post when his patron in Chu, the Lord of Shenchun 申春君, died, and remained thereafter in Chu, where one of his students was Li Si 李斯, the future Legalist chief minister to the First Emperor of Qin. Sima Qian describes Xunzi as a man who disliked the degenerate and chaotic political situation of his day, the abandonment of the Great Way (da dao 大道) in favour of esoteric and magical traditions, the petty ways of “parochial Ru” (bi Ru 鄙儒), and the convention-corrupting satire of people like Zhuang Zhou 莊周 (Zhuangzi). The Shi ji says he set forth his analysis of all this in his writings.21 Prominent Ru may have been few and far between in the Warring States period, but the story of Shusun Tong, the man introduced at the start of this book, who emerges into the record as a prominent figure under the Qin and beginning of the Han, suggests that the Ru were more numerous and widespread in the period before him than the Shi ji record would suggest. As we will see from the more detailed discussion of Shusun Tong below, he is said to have had a hundred followers with him, and also went to the region of Lu to recruit thirty Ru to help him formulate imperial ritual for the first Han emperor. Extrapolating back from this account, and examining depictions of the Ru in pre-Qin sources, allows us to identify some of their important cultural – as opposed to intellectual – characteristics, among which Ritual Learning, especially technical expertise on how to perform rituals, is conspicuous. First to mention is what appears to be a concentration of Ru in the region of the state of Lu. This was Shusun Tong’s native area, and the place he recruited the thirty Ru to help him with imperial ritual. This suggests continuity with the world of the Zuo zhuan – and with the Lu native Confucius – centuries earlier, when Lu was described as a state where ancient Zhou rituals and ritual institutions were better preserved than anywhere else, including special dispensation to perform sacrifices otherwise reserved to the king. The Shi ji records the existence of Ru consulted by the First Emperor of Qin, and says that he summoned seventy “Ru masters and Academicians” (Ru sheng bo shi 儒生博士) from Qi and Lu during his grand progression through his new empire in 219 BCE, to consult them on the ritual usages for the Feng and Shan

20 For the case that he was fifteen when he went to Qi, see John Knoblock, Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works vol. 1 (1988), p. 4 and note 4. 21 Shi ji 74.2348.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

93

sacrifices to Heaven and Earth.22 The “Tian Zi Fang” chapter of the Zhuangzi includes an account of an (obviously fictitious) encounter between Zhuangzi and Lord Ai of Lu (r. 494–476 BCE), in which Lord Ai says that his state has a great many Ru, as evidenced by the fact that the state is full of people in Ru clothing (Ru fu 儒服). Zhuangzi then tells him to issue an edict that all those wearing Ru clothing who do not possess the appropriate Way (dao) will be put to death, and all the Ru-clad people disappeared except for one, who was a sage.23 The “Biography of the Many Ru” in the Shi ji states that after the Qin’s burning of the Songs and Documents and execution of scholars, and Chen She’s 陳涉 uprising against Qin in 209 BCE, “The various Ru from Lu went to give their allegiance to King Chen, bringing with them the ritual vessels of the Kong family [descendants of Confucius]. Kong Jia 孔甲 (the eighth generation descendant of Confucius) became Academician (bo shi) to Chen She, and died with him.”24 In 202 when the Han emperor Liu Bang laid siege to Lu after the defeat of his rival Xiang Yu 項羽, the Shi ji describes the sounds of unceasing practice of ritual and ceremonial music from within the city walls, and the text exclaims that this was due to the lingering cultural influence of the Sage (sheng ren 聖人), Confucius.25 As we will see below, many ritual specialists at the court were identified as natives of Lu through most of the Han. This does not mean that Ru did not exist elsewhere – the nearby region of Qi is the origin of many Ru; Xunzi came from the state of Zhao, and the Shi ji says he lived there until he was fifty; and we also have what seem to be Ru texts among the manuscripts discovered at Guodian from Chu, which is also the origin of the Shanghai Museum corpus. However, it does appear that people identified as Ru were particularly numerous in the Lu region, and that they likely constituted a class of people with a critical mass of Ru cultural transmission through much of the Warring States period. Collectively they emphasized mastery of ancient learning and ritual, but produced few individuals of sufficient prominence or political influence to be recorded in the historical record. They possessed a characteristic identity, both cultural and intellectual, that attracted favourable, and hostile, attention in a range of Warring States sources.

22 Shi ji 28.1366; the imperial annals of the First Emperor says only “Ru masters from Lu” (Lu zhu Ru sheng 魯諸儒生) without Qi or the bo shi, Shi ji 6.242. For a detailed discussion of how the Ru related to the official post of bo shi see Nicolas Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism, pp. 167–223. 23 Zhuangzi jishi 21.717. This story derives from the late Warring States or later. 24 Shi ji 121.3116. 25 Shi ji 121.3117, also in the “Biography of the Many Ru”.

94

Chapter 3

From a cultural perspective, it is important to emphasise that the Ru’s identity was a distinct, visible one. It is worth reproducing a line from one of the more vivid accounts of this in modern scholarship, by Robert Eno, one of the few to focus on the culture and practice of the Ru in early times: To contemporaries, the Ru were most likely not so much distinguished by their ideas as by their obsession with li: their archaic dress and scrupulous bearing, their precise speech, their tendency to gather and bring out their zithers, chant poetry, and practice ceremonial dance.26 Eno’s point here is that the picture of the Ru we get from “Confucian” texts is skewed toward their teachings and political aspirations, but reflects little of their practices, their cultural presence in daily life. His argument has very much informed the approach used in this book. His description accords with the emphasis on precise, visible practice of li that we saw in the world of the Zuo zhuan, and in the descriptions of Confucius’s punctilious conduct in the Lun yu. We begin to see more of this cultural display, and the practical side of their Ritual Learning in the first few decades of the Han, when (as will be discussed below) Ru masters of ritual who achieved prominence at court, like Shusun Tong, were not scholars of the Li ritual canon, as their counterparts in the later decades of the second century BCE would have been. Eno’s account of the Warring States Ru is quite plausible for understanding what they were in that period: a thriving class of people – he calls them a “community” – that carried on leaving few traces in the documentary record. He attributes their culture to li, as their primary physical discipline for learning and self-cultivation, and also their expertise in how to conduct a range of everyday rituals and ceremonies. This expertise, their Ritual Learning, earned them a livelihood, in different ways at different levels of society. We have no way of estimating how many Ru there were, or how widely they were dispersed outside the area of Lu and Qi, but does seems that they actively sought to attract new members, and, if Mencius’s critical comparison to catching and tying up a pig has any basis in reality, they did so quite proactively, in a field of debate where followers of Mozi, Yang Zhu, and the Ru competed to win converts, which Mencius seems to have thought was excessive. At least some of them also consistently aspired to attach themselves to the centres of political power and play a role in government, as both Confucius and Mencius attempted to do, and Xunzi succeeded in doing. 26 Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven, p. 43.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

95

Eno’s account of Ru culture owes much to the Mozi, where Ru ritual expertise, veneration of antiquity, distinctive clothing, and practice of music and dancing are described in a negative light. The “Criticising the Ru” (“Fei Ru” 非 儒) chapter depicts the Ru as lazy, gluttonous, and arrogant, refusing to support themselves through productive labour, resorting to begging for grains in summer, then, after the harvest, obtaining food by performing funerals for payment. A few funerals are enough for substantial profit: “When there is a death in a wealthy family, [the Ru] rejoice, saying in delight, ‘Here is a source of food and clothing!’” A particular line worth noting states that the Ru rely on other people’s families for wealth, and other people’s lands for venerable status (zun 尊), which corroborates references to their seeking patronage from rulers and other powerful people in other texts, particularly the Xunzi.27 The Mozi criticizes the Ru for following ancient speech and dress, and for claiming that people cannot be humane (ren) without this.28 The text quotes the late sixth-century statesman Yanzi 晏子 (Yan Ying 晏嬰) as saying that the Ru wear eccentric clothes and put great effort into their appearance, and thus cannot be trusted to lead the people. Yanzi criticizes Confucius: Kong Qiu (Confucius) displays an elaborate appearance and decorates himself with adornments to bewitch the world. He strums, sings, drums, and dances to gather followers, observes complex rituals of ascending and descending (deng jiang zhi li 登降之禮) to display ceremonial comportment (shi yi 示儀), and puts great effort into the minutiae of scurrying and soaring (qu xiang zhi jie 趨翔之節) so that all can observe.29 The Mozi depicts characteristics of the Ru in a chapter called “Gong Meng” 公孟, from Gong Mengzi 公孟子, one of several Ru who engaged in dialogue and debate with Mozi. Gong Meng is said to have visited Mozi wearing a zhang fu 章甫 cap of ancient design.30 Elsewhere Gong Mengzi states that superior people ( junzi) “must make their speech and clothing ancient” (gu yan fu 古言 服), which Mozi says is unnecessary.31 Mozi also frequently takes exception to the long periods of mourning mandated by Ru teachings. On one occasion,

27 Mozi 9.291–293. The statement about wealth and land is corrupted, but its overall sense is unmistakable (因人之家翠，以為[text missing]，恃人之野以為尊). 28 Mozi 9.293. 29 Mozi 9.300. “Scurrying and soaring” (qu xiang) is reminiscent of the Lun yu, where Confucius is described as scurrying forward “like wings” (qu jin yi ru ye 趨進翼如也). 30 Mozi 12.451. 31 Mozi 12.454.

96

Chapter 3

seemingly in reply to something Gong Mengzi previously told him, he gives a list of the stipulated mourning periods prescribed by li, then says: And sometimes, in the intervals when one is not in mourning, one chants the three hundred Songs (song Shi san bai 誦詩三百), strums [the music of] the three hundred Songs (xian Shi san bai 弦詩三百), sings the three hundred Songs (ge Shi san bai 歌詩三百), and dances the three hundred Songs (wu Shi san bai 舞詩三百). If we follow your words, then on what days will the superior person practice their administrative duties? On what days will common people fulfil their occupations?32 Mozi also proclaims that there are four aspects of the Way of the Ru (Ru zhi dao 儒之道) that will result in the destruction of the world, one of them being practicing music, through “strumming, singing, drumming, and dancing” (xuan ge gu wu 弦歌鼓舞).33 The many references to music in the Mozi are linked to Mozi’s doctrine that music should be banned, but also depicts a key characteristic of the Ru. This is reminiscent of the Shi ji record that when the armies of Han came to lay siege to Lu, they heard from within the sounds of ritual and [ceremonial] music.34 In all of these descriptions, it is important to bear in mind that the Mohists were ideologically opposed to elaborate, costly funerals, and also to music. There is likely to be a measure of exaggeration and satire that might at times stray into outright fiction, as in the Zhuangzi account of Zhuangzi’s meeting with Lord Ai of Lu, and another story of Ru robbing a grave by night, said to be acting in accord with the Songs and with ritual propriety.35 Nonetheless these caricatures capture external perceptions of the Ru, and can be linked to characteristics they are known to have had, their music, clothing, dedication to antiquity, and in particular their Ritual Learning, the expertise to earn a living through performing funerals. The very fact that the Mozi goes to such lengths to denigrate the Ru is in itself an indication that they were a serious rival, a force to be reckoned with in terms of the appeal of their teachings and way of life, and possibly were quite numerous, certainly not just a few insignificant eccentrics. The Han Feizi gives further corroboration for this, describing the Ru and “wandering swordsmen” as two conspicuous elements in society 32 Mozi 12.456. 33 Mozi 12.459. 34 Shi ji 121.3117, also cited above in the context of Lu as a centre of Ru and their ritual traditions. 35 Zhuangzi jishi 26.931. It is possible that “li” here is intended as the title of a text, parallel to the Songs.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

97

detrimental to order, and saying that “there are a great many who wear Ru clothing or carry swords.”36 These sources leave little doubt that the Ru were a significant social presence, certainly by the last century or so of the Warring States period. Texts classified as “Confucian” likewise reveal something of the Ru’s cultural characteristics. Not so much in the Mencius, where “Ru” appears infrequently, as a way of contrasting them with followers of other schools. Worth mentioning at this point, from the perspective of Ritual Learning, is that li in the Mencius is not prominent as a core concept, though it is mentioned as a positive quality. It is hard to know whether this has any correlation with the low incidence of “Ru”. Another issue is the origin of the Mencius text itself; as with the Lun yu, we do not know how close the text as we have it is to the latter part of the fourth century BCE when the historical Mencius is thought to have lived.37 In the Xunzi, a text probably deriving at least in part from the historical Xunzi and his followers in the third century BCE, “Ru” appears far more frequently. We might surmise from this that the Ru had become a more numerous and pervasive presence by the third century BCE than previously, or at least that the term itself had become more commonly used. The Xunzi makes clear that the Ru were by no means one homogeneous group, but quite diverse, both intellectually and culturally. This is evident in the different modifiers attached to “Ru”, in gradations from positive to quite negative. There are “Great Ru” (da Ru 大儒), and below them “Elegant Ru” (ya Ru 雅儒), and still lower “Vulgar Ru” (su Ru 俗儒). Elsewhere he mentions “Coarse Ru” (lou Ru 陋儒), “Base Ru” ( jian Ru 賤儒), “Undisciplined Ru” (san Ru 散儒), and “Benighted Ru” (mao Ru 瞀儒). His descriptions of some of these include both the nature of their learning (or its lack) and their appearance (their rong 容), which encompassed dress, comportment, and sometimes the nature of their ritual performance. One passage, reminiscent of the Han Feizi observation that the Ru after Confucius split into eight traditions, offers a comparison between different types of Ru from the starting point of their dress and appearance. The ideal, represented by the “gentry superior person” (shi junzi 士君子; not characterized as “Ru”), is dressed in a high cap, full garments, and has a dignified demeanour, in contrast to their inferiors. The language used in the relevant passage is obscure and difficult, making extensive use of descriptive binoms, 36 Han Feizi jijie 19.461. 37 For the case that our transmitted version took shape only in late Western Han see Michael Hunter, “Did Mencius Know the Analects?” T’oung Pao 100 (2014), pp. 33–79, especially the section “Did Mengzi know the Mengzi?” on pp. 58–74. He does not go so far as to suggest that the contents of the Mencius were composed in the Han, however.

98

Chapter 3

but Knoblock’s translation captures something of the vivid depiction of the deviant Ru: Let me now discuss the conceited manner of your students. Their caps are bent low over their foreheads. Their cap strings are loose and slack. Their manner is insolent and rude. They seem smug and pretentious as they amble about, but their eyes dart nervously around…. In the midst of official banquets or musical and dance performances, they sit blankly, unaware and unconscious, as though asleep or befuddled. In the execution of ritual ceremonies (li jie zhi zhong 禮節之中), they are overeager and anxious, unrestrained and wanton. The continuation of the passage describes different branches of the Ru, reminiscent of the Han Feizi observation that the Ru after Confucius split into eight sects. The Xunzi identifies the traditions deriving from Zi Zhang 子張, Zi Xia 子夏, and Zi You 子游 (all disciples of Confucius) as deviant, and classifies their followers as “Base Ru” ( jian Ru 賤儒): Their caps bent and twisted, their robes billowing and flowing, they move to and fro as though they were a Yu or a Shun (Yu xing er Shun qu 禹行而舜趨)38 – such are the base Ru of Zizhang’s school. Wearing their caps in perfectly correct form, maintaining their expression in perfect equanimity, they sit there all day long as though they were about to gag on a bit, but say nothing – such are the base Ru of the school of Zixia. Evasive and timorous, disliking work, lacking integrity, shameless, interested only in food and drink, they insist that “a gentleman naturally would not engage in manual labor” – such are the base Ru of the school of Ziyou.39 The Xunzi’s description of the “vulgar Ru” (su Ru) is another typical example, and sheds light on how Ru attached themselves to centres of political power at a low level in the late Warring States period: 38 This is understood by commentators as empty imitation of the external bearing of ancient sage kings, but the “walking like Yu” is reminiscent of the “Pace of Yu” (Yu bu 禹步) as a movement of spiritual potency employed by specialists in esoteric techniques. If so, it would mean that Xunzi is accusing Zi Zhang followers of studying such lore, which he opposed, or professional ritual specialists more broadly. 39 Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 1, pp. 228–229; original text in Xunzi jijie 6.102–105 (“Fei shi’er zi” 非十二子).

Ritual Culture of the Ru

99

[The vulgar Ru] wear large-sleeved robes with a narrow sash and a crabsnail cap.40 They follow the model of the Ancient Kings only in a general way, though enough to bring disorder to the age. Having erroneous methods and mixed learning, they do not realize that they should model themselves on the Later Kings in order to unify the rules and regulations and are unaware that they should exalt ritual and moral principles (li yi 禮義) and give less importance to the Odes and Documents. Their robes, caps, conduct, and conscious exertions are the same as those of current vulgar fashion; nonetheless they do not have the sense to regard these as contemptible. Their discourses, deliberations, doctrines, and theories have no points of difference with those of Mozi, and they do not have the intelligence to distinguish them.41 They invoke the Ancient Kings to cheat the stupid and seek a living from them. If they accumulate stores sufficient to keep their mouths filled, they are elated. They follow along after their leading masters (sui qi zhang zi 隨其長子),42 serve those who fawn over and toady after the ruler, and attach themselves to the senior retainers. They are quite content to be as captives to the end of their days, never daring to hold an alternative purpose. Such are the vulgar Ru.43 According to the wider scheme presented in this passage, the “vulgar Ru” are third on a scale of four, with “vulgar people” (su ren 俗人) below them, who, not being Ru at all, are even worse, and cannot be entrusted with official posts. Above the “vulgar Ru” are the “elegant Ru”, who are closer to Xunzi’s ideal in 40

The translation of this passage is slightly modified from Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 2, pp. 79–80. Knoblock’s “crab-snail cap”, for the obscure jie guo qi guan 解果其冠, is based on one of a number of explanations from traditional commentators. There is no convincing explanation of what it might have looked like, but the context makes clear that Xunzi regards it as improper. 41 Knoblock adds Laozi, on the basis of a similar passage in the Han shi wai zhuan, so that the Vulgar Ru cannot distinguish between their teachings and those of Laozi; see Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 2, p. 288 n. 86. Laozi is mentioned once elsewhere in the Xunzi, but, following the text as it stands, I prefer to read this as the vulgar Ru have been contaminated by the teachings of Mozi, to the extent that they can no longer distinguish any difference between their own Ru tradition and Mozi’s. 42 Knoblock translates zhang zi as “leaders and masters”, correctly eschewing the Tang-dynasty commentator Yang Liang’s reading this as referring to the oldest sons of rulers. The late Qing scholar Yu Yue 俞樾 argues that zhangzi is a Ru counterpart to juzi 鉅子, the Grand Master of the Mohists; see his commentary in Xunzi jijie 8.139–140 (“Ru xiao” 儒效). 43 Xunzi jijie 8.138–139 (“Ru xiao”); translation slightly modified from Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 2, pp. 79–80.

100

Chapter 3

understanding the importance of li and right (li yi 禮義) and recognizing the limits of their knowledge. At the top are the “Great Ru”, like Confucius and Zi Gong 子弓 (whose scholastic lineage Xunzi himself followed), who can guide a ruler to unify the world under ideal rule. Xunzi objects to inferior Ru for not measuring up to the standards of his own teachings, which emphasize “ritual propriety and right” both in personal cultivation and as the foundation of systems of social order. But in addition to this we sense a cultural clash, that he reacts negatively to the clothing, bearing, and manners of these inferior Ru, as visible signs of their deficiencies. This tells us that in that time there was no single, homogeneous community of Ru, but rather a multiplicity of traditions which had evolved in separate paths, like dialects in a language. The Xunzi suggests that these variant Ru all regarded themselves as followers of Confucius and one or another of his disciples, though he also mentions influence from Mohism and possibly even esoteric specialists. The latter might be linked to the word “Ru” applied to esoteric specialists at the court of the First Emperor of Qin, as noted by Nicolas Zufferey. Xunzi spent many years in the state of Qi, a magnet for scholars and experts of all sorts seeking patronage at the Jixia “Academy”, and also a region noted for its esoteric specialists, many of whom were appointed to posts in the First Emperor’s court. While there, Xunzi would have come into contact with a considerable variety of scholarly traditions, and he is well known for his criticism of esoteric traditions. Even though Xunzi himself came from the Ru tradition, and was a strong advocate of li in all its aspects, and also music, his criticisms in many ways corroborate the critical depictions of Ru in the Mozi, for example in characterizing deviant Ru as lazy and quick to attach themselves to the wealthy and powerful. Even their depictions of Ru clothing coincide to some extent, though Xunzi does so from the perspective that there is a proper way for Ru to dress, and that many deviate from it. By the late Warring States period, it certainly appears that people calling themselves Ru were a substantial presence in some if not all parts of the Chinese world, that they were specialists in Ritual Learning, and that they sought to attach themselves to the centres of political power. Robert Eno argues that Ru did in fact serve Warring States courts, not as administrative officials but “as court tutors, as special emissaries, as ritual masters, or as occasional advisors, invited to impart their teachings to rulers anxious to enhance their own reputations for wisdom.”44 44 Eno, The Confucian Creation of Heaven, p. 47.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

101

The Mozi and Xunzi portray many of the Ru in a negative light, with the Xunzi in particular describing many of the Ru as degenerate and debased, intellectually, morally, and – importantly – culturally, including their physical appearance. But, these negative depictions cannot be representative of the general view. From a different perspective, the testimony of these texts suggests that there were a great many Ru around. For some people, taking on a Ru identity must have been an attractive prospect. It is evident that Ru seem to have earned respect from many quarters, especially rulers and powerful patrons. One might draw parallels with the career benefits of becoming a Buddhist monk in medieval and late imperial times, or joining the clergy in the Christian world. Here it is worth mentioning a suggestion by Nicolas Zufferey that there is a parallel between the meanings of “Ru” and “clerk”, the latter word cognate with “cleric” and “clergy”, with religious forerunners of the Ru perhaps crossing over quite naturally into the functions of what later became secular clerks.45 If we match the depictions of the Ru in Warring States texts to the story of Shusun Tong, we find definite points of continuity. No one like him emerges into the record as having achieved such a level of political influence at the courts of Warring States kings, or under the First Emperor of Qin, but this was not through lack of trying. We do have records of the First Emperor consulting “Ru masters” from Qi and Lu on how to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices to Heaven and Earth in 219 BCE, showing an early tentative link between Ritual Learning and political power.46 Shusun Tong was successful with his Ritual Learning like no one else before him, but this may have been as much due to opportunity as it was to his own personal characteristics and strategies. He was hardly the first Ru to pursue political influence, first securing appointment as a court scholar under the second Qin emperor, then going over to Xiang Liang 項梁 and Xiang Yu 項羽, and finally joining Liu Bang, which fits the pattern of seeking patronage criticized by Mozi and Xunzi. Even more striking is the statement by Xunzi that “base Ru” followed their “leading masters” (zhang zi 長子) in attaching themselves to patrons; Shusun Tong may have been just such a leader, in that he came to join Liu Bang with more than a hundred followers. It is safe to say that the Ru in the Warring States period were a large, varied, and influential segment of society, and that Ritual Learning was a near universal characteristic defining the Ru. This community of Ru, still associated with the region of Lu, remains conspicuous in the Han period. 45 See the discussion in Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism, pp. 157–161, where he is careful to stress the tentative nature of this comparison. 46 Shi ji 6.242, 28.1366.

102 2

Chapter 3

Pre-Han Precursors of the Ritual Canon Li 禮

Ritual Learning in the Han was defined by mastery of one main canonical text and its associated scholarship, the Li 禮, Shi li 士禮, or Li jing 禮經, the text later known as the Yi li 儀禮. It was at that time taken for granted that the Li, as one of the Five Canons, or “Classics” ( jing 經), had existed in antiquity, deriving from Confucius. However, unlike the Songs and versions of the Documents which clearly were already authoritative, frequently quoted textual corpi (oral and written) before the Han, there are few reliable signs of a Li text of similar status. The field of li, of Ritual Learning, was certainly an important and active branch of knowledge, but seems not to have depended on the authority of an established text. The Shi ji contains the earliest accounts we have of the origin of the Li. In the “Generational Annals of Confucius” we find the following on the origins of the Li and the Documents: In the time of Confucius, as the house of Zhou weakened, the Rites and Music fell into disuse and the Songs and Documents were incomplete. He traced the rites of the Three Ages, and arranged the Documents and its Tradition Commentary (Shu zhuan 書傳), so that it recounted in order the affairs from the times of the Tang and Yu (Yao and Shun) at the beginning down to Lord Mu of Qin at the end. He said, “The Rites of the Xia I am able to speak of, but the state of Qi 杞 is not sufficient to give proof of them, the Rites of the Yin (Shang) I am able to speak of, but the state of Song is not sufficient to give proof of them. If they were sufficient, I would be able to speak of them.” Observing what the Yin and Xia added to and removed from [their rituals], he said, “In the future, even after one hundred generations [the rituals] can be known, because every writing has its corresponding reality. Zhou observed the two ages [before it], how refined its culture is! I follow Zhou.” Thus the Documents and its Tradition Commentary (Shu zhuan 書傳), and the Rites and its Records (Li ji 禮記), derive from Master Kong (Confucius).47 This is part of Sima Qian’s account of how Confucius edited the Five Canons, trimming three thousand Songs down to three hundred, wrote commentaries to the Yi jing, and composed the Chun qiu on the basis of “scribal records” (shi ji 史記). The “Li ji” here is obviously not the later text of that name, as the 47 Shi ji 47.1935–1936. The feudal lords of Qi and Song were supposedly descended from the kings of Xia and Shang respectively.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

103

parallel with the Documents and its zhuan commentary makes clear, and in fact the received Yi li is made up of a base text of ritual instructions, and additional text attached to most sections labelled ji with additional detail and explanations, probably added later. Sima Qian’s use of quotations from the Lun yu here, which are close if not always identical to the version we have now, is also a feature of his biographies of Confucius and of his disciples. In this case it appears to be the only source he has to explain Confucius’s role in creating the Li canon. His account sheds no light on the structure or content of the Li itself, unlike the Documents, which in the extant version does begin with the “Canon of Yao” (“Yao dian” 堯典) and end with the “Speech of Qin” (“Qin shi” 秦誓). In the “Biography of the Many Ru”, explaining Master Gaotang (Gaotang Sheng 高堂生), the first recorded teacher and transmitter of the Li canon in the Han, Sima Qian says: It is certain that the Li derived from the time of Confucius, but the canon for it was incomplete (qi jing bu ju 其經不具). Later when it reached the Qin burning of the books, the text became even more scattered and lost, so that now only the rites for the gentry (or “office-holders”, shi li 士禮) exist.48 Here again, Sima Qian gives little detail on what this text was in its earliest form, but seems to say that it was already incomplete before being further damaged by the Qin book ban. The first-century CE Han shu (“Han History”) version of the “Biography of the Many Ru”, which gives a narrative similar but not identical to its Shi ji counterpart, makes no mention of Confucius playing any role in creating or editing a Li text, though it does describe his work on the Songs, Documents, Chun qiu annals, and the Zhuan commentary to the Yi jing.49 The Han shu “Treatise on Bibliography” (“Yi wen zhi”) attributes the incomplete state of the Li in the time of Confucius to the destruction of even earlier texts associated with the Zhou ritual order: When the Zhou went into decline, the feudal lords, intending to transgress against the regulations, disliked the fact that the [ritual order] obstructed them, so they destroyed all the relevant documents (mie qu qi ji 滅去其籍), so that from the time of Confucius they were incomplete 48 Shi ji 121.3126. 49 Han shu 88.3589. The relevant passage does mention that he “joined together the Rites of the Zhou” (zhui Zhou zhi li 綴周之禮), but this was part of what he drew on to compile the Chun qiu. No Li canon is mentioned.

104

Chapter 3

(bu ju). Then they encountered the great destruction of the Qin. With the rise of the Han, Master Gaotang (Gaotang Sheng 高堂生) transmitted the Shi li 士禮 (“Ritual of the Gentry”) in seventeen sections (pian 篇).50 Shi li was one of the most common titles for the main ritual canon in the Han, and seems to correspond to the extant Yi li, which still has seventeen sections. The idea that this was only part of a larger text prior to the Qin, with the rituals for feudal lords and the king also included, also informs the claimed discovery of an old-character Antique Li Canon (Li gu jing 禮古經) in 56 chapters during the Han. The extra 39 chapters were sometimes referred to as the “Lost Li” (Yi li 逸禮), one among several texts championed by Liu Xin in 7 or 6 BCE in an angry letter to the other Academicians at court, along with the old-character Shang shu, Zuo zhuan, and the Mao Songs.51 This larger Li seems never to have gained acceptance, or circulated widely. The received Yi li, likely much the same as the Li canon known to Sima Qian, was formed in the Han, but the content and the language seem older, consistent with the idea that much if not all of the material in it derived from before the Han. No modern scholars have argued for its composition in the Han. Yet there is little evidence of any part of the Yi li existing before Han, for example quotes of it in other early texts, though there are examples of similar text not identified as a quote. Our earliest direct evidence for the text comes with the Wuwei excavated version, seven sections of the text deriving from the late Western Han, early first century CE, which correspond closely to the relevant parts of the Yi li.52 As discussed earlier, the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu suggest the possible existence of various texts related to li in the late Spring and Autumn period: compilations of technical instructions on ritual, hierarchical ritual regulations, as well as texts which explained wider principles of li. The later stages of the Warring States period witnessed a theoretical turn in discussions of li, preserved in texts such as the Xunzi, and also in the Li ji; excavated manuscripts have shown 50 Han shu 30.1710. The Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” (“Li yue zhi”) recounts the destruction of the ritual texts with slightly different wording: “When [the Zhou] went into decline, the feudal lords, transgressing against the regulations, disliked the fact that the ritual order (li zhi 禮制) obstructed them, so they got rid of all the relevant documents (qu qi pian ji 去其篇籍)”, Han shu 22.1029. 51 The Li gu jing is listed in the bibliographic treatise of the Han shu 30.1709; the “Lost Li” is mentioned in Liu Xin’s biography, Han shu 36.1967 and 1968. 52 See the useful entry on the Yi li (“I li”) – including its Wuwei version – by William Boltz in Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts, pp. 234–243. A good summary of the text content with discussion is in Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, pp. 178–181.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

105

that many of the texts in the Li ji originated in pre-Han writings. The excavated manuscripts and the Li ji will be discussed further later in this section.53 A common view among scholars in China, concurring with the analysis of Shen Wenzhuo 沈文倬, dates the early Li canon sometime between the mid5th and mid-4th century BCE. His argument is that Confucius is portrayed as a master of li, which was one of the four main subjects he taught, but there is no hint anywhere in the Lun yu that this was associated with a text. However, in the Mencius there are two clear quotes from a Li which seems to be an authoritative text, and a possible third.54 Yang Tianyu 杨天宇 suggests that the Li text forerunner of the Yi li began as collections of notes made by the disciples of Confucius on the basis of what he taught them, notes that might have differed between disciples, and been subsequently handed down, collated and corrected, with no idea that the words of the sage were sacred and could not be changed.55 Such a pattern was certainly the norm for many pre-Qin texts, before standard versions were established in the late Western Han. Of course the date of the Lun yu itself has been called into question, as discussed above, but we can be sure that no quotes from a Li appear in any other text earlier than the Mencius. In any event, the Mencius does suggest the existence of some sort of authoritative, generally recognized corpus of ritual writings, or at least sayings. Twice in the Mencius quotes appear, prefaced by “The Li says” (Li yue 禮曰), clearly referring to some sort of text or at least a recognized category of lore. Neither of these quotes aligns with anything in the received Yi li, though one of them does find an approximate parallel in a text of the Li ji. Both quotes are deployed in the course of argument to reinforce a point, much as the Songs and Documents are cited in the Mencius, though far less frequently: the Songs is quoted 32 times (Shi yue 詩曰 5 times, Shi yun 詩云 27 times), Documents are quoted ten times (Shu yue 書曰). One of the Li-text quotes is by an interlocutor, not Mencius himself. Taken together, the two quotes do reveal the existence of some sort of text or class of texts in the genre of li, and that it was of sufficient 53 54

55

For the theoretical turn in Warring States discussions of li within the Ru tradition, including Li ji texts, the Guodian corpus, and the Xunzi, see Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 26–40. Shen Wenzhuo 沈文倬, “Lüe lun lidian de shixing he Yi li shuben de zhuanzuo 略論禮典 的實行和《儀禮》書本的撰作,” in Shen Wenzhuo, Zong Zhou li yue wenming kaolun 宗周禮樂文明考論 (2001), pp. 1–51. For other Chinese scholarship engaging with this view see the summary in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 1, p. 266. Yang Tianyu 杨天宇, “Yi li de laiyuan, bianzuan jiqi zai Handai de liuchuan 《仪礼》的 来源、编纂及其在汉代的流传,” Shixue yuekan 史学月刊 1998.6, pp. 28–33, relevant discussion on pp. 30–31.

106

Chapter 3

authority and well enough known to be worth quoting in a manner similar to the Shi and Shu. There is also one further text passage where knowledge of the li is linked to a formulaic ritual admonition given to a bride upon marriage, but the context does not make clear whether “li” is actually written, or an unwritten body of lore. The first Mencius quote is used by an interlocutor Jing Chou 景丑 (or Jingzi 景子) when challenging his friend Mencius’s discourteous behaviour in evading a summons to attend the court of King Xuan of Qi (r. 319–301 BCE): The Li says, “[Just as] when a father summons, do not say ‘All right!’, so when the command of the ruler summons, one does not wait for one’s carriage to be hitched up.” You had originally been intending to attend court, and when you heard the king’s command you didn’t go through with it. This would seem to be at odds with this ritual [precept].56 The quoted passage as a whole does not occur in any of the extant ritual canons, but the one phrase, “When a father summons, do not say ‘All right!’” ( fu zhao wu nuo 父召無諾) is found also in the “Qu li” 曲禮 section of the Li ji, in the context of the respectful manners students should observe toward their teachers: When sitting in attendance upon the master, and the master asks about something, the student only answers when [the master] has finished [the question]. When asking for teaching [the student] rises [to his feet]; when asking for further elaboration [the student] also rises. [Just as] when a father summons, do not say ‘All right!’, so when the master summons, do not say “All right!”, but say “Yes” and rise (wei er qi 唯而起). In both cases the common element of the correct response to a father’s summons functions grammatically as a subordinate, introducing a parallel, making clear that the same ritual precept applying to sons was an appropriate model, which suggests it was a well-known rule of behaviour. The paired statement about the ruler’s summons does not seem to occur in the Li ji or any other transmitted ritual text. The quote attributed to Jing Chou in the Mencius is brief enough to have been something easily remembered, conceivably even a purely oral saying, but that seems rather less likely with the second example. The second quote is represented as being cited by Mencius himself. He is not commenting on any ritual point, but answering a question from his pupil 56 Mencius 4b.11.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

107

Zhou Xiao 周霄 about “superior people” ( junzi 君子) in antiquity holding office. Mencius quotes one Gongming Yi 公明儀 as saying that people of antiquity would offer condolences to someone no longer in office for three months. The student Zhou Xiao wonders if this is not extreme. Mencius replies: A gentry person’s loss of an official position is analogous to a feudal lord losing a state. The Li says, “A feudal lord performs the ritual ploughing to supply the sacrificial grain; his consort raises silkworms and unreels cocoons to supply the clothing [worn at the sacrifice]. If the sacrificial victims are not perfect, the sacrificial grain not pure, and the clothing not complete, then they dare not make sacrifice.” But a member of the low aristocracy (shi), having no fields [because not in office], also will not perform any sacrifices. With the sacrificial victims, ritual vessels, and [ritual] clothing not complete – if one dares not offer sacrifices under such circumstances, then they will not dare to feel at ease. Is this not sufficient [reason] for offering condolences?57 Here there seems little doubt that he is quoting a text, rather than oral lore. Though Mencius is not in general conspicuous for emphasis on li, he here engages in a form of “ritual reasoning”, a strategy of argument typical of Ritual Learning, citing an authoritative source that offers some sort of parallel to the situation being discussed. The passage quoted by Mencius finds no counterpart in any of the extant ritual canons, though the ritual of personally ploughing and cultivating silkworms by the king or feudal lords and their consorts is mentioned in texts of the Li ji.58 In Mencius’s understanding of antiquity, the position of a state ruler was different in rank but not in kind to the posts held by members of the gentry, entailing a landholding which produced the means to support sacrificial offerings, the loss of which was a tragedy for the person concerned, equivalent to a bereavement worthy of formal condolences. Mencius’s reasoning may seem to us to be somewhat farfetched, but there can be no doubt that he is citing a specific textual source designated as “Li”, probably the closest that he could find, and one that could plausibly be cited as authority in debate, which suggests a written corpus sufficiently fixed as to be recognizable by all parties, approximating the Shi and Shu. One further possible example is where Mencius brings up the ritual admonitions given by the father to a son at the capping ceremony and by a mother to a daughter at marriage. The wider point is his rebuttal of his student Jing 57 Mencius 6b.8. 58 For example Li ji zhushu 49.4a (“Ji tong” 祭統).

108

Chapter 3

Chun’s 景春 admiration for two powerful and fearsome men, Gongsun Yan 公孫衍 and Zhang Yi 張儀. Mencius says: How can such as these be great men (da zhangfu 大丈夫)? Have you not studied the li (Li)? At the capping of a man, the father issues him a command ( fu ming zhi 父命之). When a woman is given in marriage, the mother issues her a command (mu ming zhi 母命之). The mother sees her to the gate, and admonishes her, “You go to your home, you must be respectful, you must be cautious. Do not disobey your husband!”59 The point is that the two men lack the necessary obedience, and cannot lead the people. The context makes it impossible to determine whether the li to be studied is a text, or an unwritten code of etiquette. The extant Yi li mentions the charges given to sons at capping and women at marriage. The one to women is given in the “Records” ( ji) commentary on the “Gentry Wedding Ceremony” (“Shi hun li” 士昬禮) section, and resembles Mencius’s quote, though is more elaborate: When the father escorts the daughter, he issues her a command: “Be cautious, be reverent, night and day never disobey commands.” When the mother gives the woman her bridal sash and ties on the handkerchief, she says, “Be diligent, be reverent, night and day never disobey your duties to the house.”60 The general alignment with the Mencius is clear, but in the end, it is impossible to know whether Mencius’s “Don’t you know your li?” referred to an authoritative text, or a more disparate body of lore. For Xunzi, in contrast to Mencius, li was a central focus of his teaching. One might expect to find in the Xunzi quotes and references to an authoritative Li text if there were one, but in fact these are few and far between, and in most cases ambiguous as to whether “li” refers to a set written or oral corpus at all, rather than a branch of learning not necessarily linked to a text. The single possible exception is a quote from a “Records on Diplomatic Visit Rituals” (“Pin li zhi” 聘禮志) in the “Great Summary” (“Da lüe” 大略) section, whose date and authorship are uncertain, but unlikely to be from Xunzi himself. This quote says, “If gifts are too lavish, it damages virtue; if wealth is over-extravagant,

59 Mencius 6b.7. 60 Yi li zhushu 2.42b–43a, consulting Steele trans., I-li vol. 1, p. 39.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

109

then it destroys li”. The context is a general statement that ritual artefacts and gifts are not the true point of li, and detract from it.61 The Tang Dynasty commentator Yang Liang 楊倞 notes that “zhi” is the same as “ji 記”, and in fact this quote finds a near parallel in the received Yi li, in the ji commentary to the section with the same title “Pin li” 聘禮 on the rituals and protocols of diplomatic visits between states, though the order of the wording is different: “If one has too many [gift] goods, it damages virtue; if the gifts are too fine, then li is lost”.62 It is clear that the same ritual principle is being invoked, though in a more specific context. The same “Da lüe” section also contains mention of an apparent Li jing 禮經, “Canon of Ritual”, which one modern typeset edition of the Xunzi punctuates as a text title, and Knoblock also translates as “Classic of Ritual”.63 My own reading is different: “li jing” means the same as the phrase “li zhi jing 禮之經”, “norms of li” or “regulations of li”, a phrase used once elsewhere in the Xunzi, and in other texts such as the Zuo zhuan where it is parallel to de zhi ze 德之則, “principles of virtue”.64 Jing could by Xunzi’s time refer to a canonical text, but this was not yet a common usage. There is one “Canon of the Dao” (Dao jing 道經) mentioned in Xunzi 21, but the brief quote from it is found in the Documents (not the Dao jing in the Laozi), causing commentators some confusion.65 No other specific title with jing appears in the Xunzi, through in one instance reciting unnamed jing seems to refer to the Songs and Documents. I would therefore read the passage: “Most fundamental in li is to accord with the hearts of others. Thus, if one accords with the hearts of others while losing the [specific] rules of li (wang yu li jing 亡於禮經), it is all [still] in conformity with li.”66 There is one other passage where li quite possibly refers to writings. The text says, “With regard to the techniques [of study], one begins by reciting the canons (song jing 誦經, which commentators say refers to the Songs and Documents), and ends with reading out the Li (du li 讀禮),” where the verb du, normally meaning to read out loud, suggests that learning li was a matter of reading written materials. The text goes on to mention li, Music, Songs, Documents, and the Spring and Autumn Annals in that order. Modern annotated editions of the text punctuate li (and also yue for Music) as titles, and Knoblock’s translation renders them as such. Michael Nylan’s translation of 61 62 63 64 65 66

Xunzi jijie 27.488 (“Da lüe”); consulting Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 3, p. 209. Yi li zhushu 8.99a–b, consulting Steele, trans., I-li vol. 1, p. 236. Xunzi jijie 27.490 (“Da lüe”); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 3, p. 211. Yin 11.5 (712 BCE), Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 77, Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition, p. 65. Xunzi jijie 21.400 (“Jie bi” 解蔽); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 3, pp. 106–107. Xunzi jijie 27.490 (“Da lüe”); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 3, p. 211.

110

Chapter 3

this passage renders du li as “reading of ritual” without italics (while tentatively italicising both “Rites” and “Music Classic”), and in a footnote suggests that they are more likely to be performance traditions not written down until the Han. Taking the Xunzi passage as a whole, one could make a fair case that Li entailing written texts of some sort is intended, though the same is less certain in the case of Music.67 Li elsewhere in the Xunzi appears in conjunction with the Songs, Documents, Music, and occasionally the Spring and Autumn Annals, but in no case is there any clear indication that a text on li is meant.68 Overall, even if we accept that a text or corpus of writings on li is reflected in the Xunzi, it is clear that it had a relatively low profile, especially in comparison to the many quotes from the Songs and Documents scattered through the text. 3

Pre-Han Antecedents of the Li ji 禮記

The Han-dynasty Li canon, later the Yi li, clearly a text purely about ritual, was not a canonical text during the Warring States period, if it (or any forerunner of it) existed at all. Like many other texts assembled in the Han, it may well have contained pre-Han material, but so far we have no external evidence to prove this. In this context we should also bring up the case of the Li ji, a compilation of texts which (at least as individual texts) began to gain importance for ritual authority near the end of the Western Han, and eventually became a part of the ritual canon in its own right. Excavated Chu-state manuscripts from Guodian, and the Shanghai Museum manuscript corpus, prove beyond doubt that at least some of the Li ji texts originated before 300 BCE in the Warring States period. However, the received Li ji compilation includes many well-known texts which are not really ritual texts at all, though they now form part of the ritual canon. These texts are broadly “Confucian”, or products of Ru scholarship. The excavated manuscripts which align extensively with Li ji counterparts are all of this category: the nearly identical Guodian and Shanghai Museum versions of the “Zi yi” 緇衣 (“Black Robes”), and also the Shanghai Museum text assigned the title Min zhi fu mu 民之父母 (“Father and Mother of the People”), which corresponds to approximately half of the Li ji text “Kong zi xian ju” 孔子閒居 (“When Confucius Sat at Leisure”).69 67 Xunzi jijie 1.11–12 (“Quan xue” 勸學); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 1, p. 139. Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, p. 11. 68 Xunzi jijie 1.14, 8.133–134 (“Quan xue”, “Ru xiao”); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 1, p. 140, vol. 2, pp. 76–77. 69 The scholarship on these texts is extensive. Most useful here have been the detailed comparison and examination in Martin Kern, “Quotation and the Confucian Canon in

Ritual Culture of the Ru

111

It is of course an enormous breakthrough for sinology to discover that at least some of the Li ji texts are undeniably of Warring States origin, but for our purposes, unfortunately, none of the manuscripts uncovered so far are actually ritual texts, or expressions of the cultural, practical side of Ritual Learning, though they do make statements of principle about li in passing. The texts now found in the Li ji only take on real importance in our narrative when we reach the ritual reforms of the late Western Han, when they increasingly came to be quoted as authority for the correct forms of sacrifices in antiquity. Is there any evidence that the Li ji texts cited at that time, which do deal directly with sacrificial ritual, might also derive from the Warring States? We have already mentioned one possible example, revealed by the textual overlap between the Guo yu story of Zang Wenzhong’s ritually incorrect sacrifice to the sea bird and the “Ji fa” (“Models of Sacrifice”) in the Li ji, which might suggest (but does not prove) that the more systematised content of the latter also derives from the Warring States. We might also take the view that Ru materials of Warring States origin were transmitted into Han times as a recognized category of text, designated as “ji”, “records”, or Li ji “ritual-related records”, of the sort recorded in the Han shu “Treatise on Bibliography” (“Yi wen zhi”), said to number 131.70 If this was anything like a homogeneous group of texts, it might indicate that most if not all of the texts in the Li ji originated at approximately the same time as the Ru excavated manuscripts.

70

Early Chinese Manuscripts: The Case of ‘Zi yi’ (Black Robes)” (2005), which focuses on the extensive use of Songs quotes in the “Zi yi” and “Min zhi fu mu”; Xing Wen, “New Light on the Li ji 禮記: The Li ji and the Related Warring States Period Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts” (2014); and Li Ling 李零, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji (zengdingben) 郭店楚 簡校讀記[增訂本]. (2007), which includes easy-to-follow transcriptions of the Guodian corpus with annotation and analysis. For a useful early survey of scholarship in Chinese on the corpus see Wang Yongping 王永平, “Guodian Chujian yanjiu zongshu 郭店楚简 研究综述” (2005). Xing Wen argues something along these lines, with particular emphasis on Han records of the old-character Li gu jing 禮古經, “Ancient Li Canon” and Li gu ji 禮古記, “Ancient Li Records”, or just “Records”, which would be an apt description of the Guodian manuscripts written in Chu characters, as the source of the transmitted Li ji. See Xing Wen, “New Light on the Li ji 禮記,” pp. 522–523, 532, 538–541. The almost identical view was earlier proposed by Peng Lin 彭林 in 2000, that the Guodian corpus was something like the 204 “ancient script Records” (guwen Ji 古文《记》). I have not been able to access this article: Peng Lin, “Guodian Chujian yu Li ji de niandai 郭店楚简与〈礼记〉的年代, Zhongguo zhexue 21 (2000); see the reference to it in Wang Yongping, “Guodian Chujian yanjiu zongshu,” p. 257, citation in note 64 on p. 261, in Wang’s summary of a scholarly debate on whether the Guodian corpus should be identified as a version of the Li ji. Wang argues that it should not, on the grounds that it does not contain any concrete discussions of ritual institutions (lizhi 禮制), which are prominent in the Li ji, and are precisely the sort of content deployed in the deliberations on imperial ritual in the late Western Han.

112

Chapter 3

However, as far as we know the designation “Records”, or “Ritual Records” ( ji or li ji), is a retrospective Han-dynasty designation. There is no evidence of it in Warring States texts, nor is there any hint in the excavated manuscripts themselves that their compilers were aware of any such category. We have already noted above that the Li canon (Yi li) contains commentarial and ancillary material designated as ji, and similar material is also found in the Li ji itself. It may be that the category of commentary to the Han ritual canon expanded to absorb more general Ru texts studied in conjunction with li, on principles of governance and social order, and theories of human nature, to which more universal theories of li related. This is a quite different phenomenon from the Ritual Learning in any of its stages covered in this book. It was not directed at the practical implementation of ceremonial ritual, and was not of much interest in the centres of political power. Rather, it is part of a much wider set of theories on governance and personal cultivation, representing the whole of Ru “Confucian” learning, of which li was only a part. In this we do find glimmers of the theorisation of li during the Warring States period, an intellectual trend known to us not just through Li ji texts but also the Xunzi. The Xunzi, and its treatment of li, have been extensively covered in recent scholarship, so will not be covered here.71 Very simply, key characteristics of li in the Xunzi include: li as the most fundamental and universal principle of harmonious order established and followed by the sovereigns of antiquity, shaping a social system based on hierarchy determined by moral worth; it also governs individual behaviour, controlling human desires that lead to disorder, and (together with music) establishing acceptable patterns for channelling emotions. We have already seen an instance where the Xunzi states that the “hearts of others” (ren xin 人心) are an important principle governing li, to the point of outweighing formal ritual regulations. In all of this there are points of overlap with the Ru excavated manuscripts, which Paul Goldin finds strongly resemble the Xunzi in certain key respects, such as human nature (xing), not specifically said to be “bad” (e 惡) as in the Xunzi, but similarly as something that needs to be brought under control

71 The Xunzi’s systematic treatment of li is succinctly summarized as the end point in the evolution of discourse on li from the Spring and Autumn period in Yuri Pines, “Disputers of the Li,” pp. 34–40. Many more general treatments of the Xunzi also touch on li, for example Paul Goldin, Rituals of the Way: The Philosophy of Xunzi (1999); the reprinted collection of studies in Antonio Cua, Human Nature, Ritual, and History: Studies in Xunzi and Chinese Philosophy (2005), the contributions in T. C. Kline and Justin Tiwald, eds., Ritual and Religion in the Xunzi (2014); and the introduction in Knoblock, Xunzi vol. I, especially pp. 45–47 on the ritual texts.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

113

through study.72 Goldin cites the Guodian manuscript Xing zi ming chu 性自 命出 (“Inner Nature Derives from Original Endowment”), which lists the teachings of the four fields of study (Songs, Documents, Ritual, Music) as the regimen through which inner nature is controlled.73 Also in the Xing zi ming chu is the statement that ritual arises from human feeling (li zuo yu qing 禮作於情), and in the Yucong 語叢 (“Collections of Sayings”) the similar statements “Rituals are made in accordance with human feelings, and are that which regulates patterns” (li yin ren zhi qing er wei zhi, jie wen zhe ye 禮因人之情而為之，節文 者也) and “Feelings are born from inner nature, rituals are born from feelings” (qing sheng yu xing, li sheng yu qing 情生於性，禮生於情). Through several other text passages in the Guodian corpus (which do not mention li), Goldin establishes that human order derives from “Heaven” (or “nature”, tian), again in accord with the Xunzi.74 There are other instances of li in the excavated Ru manuscripts, but all that I have seen are along the lines of these presented here, definitions and statements of abstract principle. What we do not find is material related to practice, the culture of Ritual Learning, or to anything approximating the ritual instructions of the received Yi li, the main ritual canon in the Han. This does not prove that such writings did not exist during the Warring States, but it is consistent with the argument here that no particular ritual text had anything like the status of a canon, or “classic”, in this time. This situation persisted into the early Han dynasty, when the specialists of Ritual Learning were not masters of the textual canon. This was certainly true of Shusun Tong, to whom we now return. 4

Non-textual Masters of Li – Shusun Tong 叔孫通 and His Successors in the Early Han Court

The state of Ritual Learning gradually becomes clearer in the early Han. The Shi ji “Biography of the Many Ru” gives the conventional narrative of the 72

Paul Goldin, “Xunzi in the Light of the Guodian Manuscripts” (2000). Goldin notes that the usual assumption that the Guodian manuscripts come from the Zi Si 子思 tradition may need reconsideration, given the Xunzi’s antipathy to Zi Si. 73 Text and translation in Goldin, pp. 121–122. As in the Xunzi, I differ with Goldin in reading Rituals and Music as fields of study, not the titles of texts. Text transcription from Guodian Chumu zhujian (1998), p. 179; see also the transcription in Li Ling, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji, pp. 136–137. 74 Goldin, pp. 125–126; Guodian Chumu zhujian, pp. 179, 194, 203; Li Ling, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji, pp. 207, 220. Li Ling does not follow the “Yucong” title, and reorders them with new titles based on phrases appearing at the beginning.

114

Chapter 3

resurgence of Ru culture after the fall of the repressive Qin: “When the Han rose, the Ru of the Lu and Qi region were at last able to perfect their canonical learning (xiu qi jing yi 修其經藝) and practice their Grand Archery and local drinking rituals.”75 But the best window on Ritual Learning at the start of the Han is Shusun Tong, whose story was summarized at the start of this book. His ritual mastery was practical in nature, not described as being linked to scholarship on a Li canon, yet he is credited in both traditional sources and modern scholarship as playing a crucial role in the ultimate triumph of Confucianism in the Han. His breakthrough lay in persuading the Han dynasty founder Liu Bang, or Emperor Gao, of the necessity for state ritual. He designed the initial ritual forms for the court, which combined the previous rites of Qin with Confucian-based rituals of Ru lore. The earliest surviving account of Shusun Tong appears in the Shi ji, nearly a century after he lived, and is cast within the larger narrative of the “Confucianization” of the Han as understood by Sima Qian. The biography itself is sketchy, suggesting that Sima Qian had little material to work with in piecing together an account rich in anecdotal colour but lacking fundamental details. No dates are given for his birth or death, or even his approximate age at any point in his career. We know nothing about his life before he was appointed to office at the Qin court at an unknown time several years before its fall, other than that he was a native of the Lu area. Likewise, nothing at all is said about his death, even though he had been a prominent figure at court under the founding Emperor Gao and his successor Emperor Hui. For purposes of the current study, the biography does at least reveal that Shusun Tong was an inheritor of the Ru culture and learning of the Warring States period associated with Lu, and a master of Ritual Learning. He was in addition an adept politician, who over nearly three decades demonstrated an unerring instinct for gravitating to the centre of political power, which explains why he enters the historical record at all. The sparse account of his life in the Shi ji is worth examining in detail, both for the light it sheds on the periods preceding, as already discussed above, and on the first few generations of Ru ritual specialists who followed him at the Han court, who likewise were distinguished less by textual scholarship than their practical expertise at ritual performance. There is a great deal we do not know about Shusun Tong, but his Shi ji biography contains six points of interest worth highlighting, summarised as follows.76 75 Shi ji 121.3117. 76 Shi ji 99.2720–2727, and the nearly identical text in Han shu 43.2124–2131. Complete translation with extensive annotation by Christian Meyer in William H. Nienhauser,

Ritual Culture of the Ru

115

1) The first point is Tong’s origin, and his appointment as court scholar under the Qin. He was a Ru from the area of the old state of Lu, a native of Xue 薛 in the south of that region (in modern-day southern Shandong). As discussed above, Lu had from the Spring and Autumn period been described as a place where the ancient forms of Ru learning and ritual derived from the Western Zhou were most perfectly preserved, and it was also Confucius’s native state. Shusun Tong’s position at the Qin court is significant, but unfortunately the Shi ji tells us almost nothing about his time there. He had the title of Academician in Reserve (Dai zhao boshi 待詔博士) in the time of the Qin First Emperor, on the strength of his “civil/literary learning” (wen xue 文學), from which we can surmise that he excelled at the Ru “Confucian” learning of his native area, in texts (broadly understood) and ritual, to the extent that he came to the attention of the Qin imperial court and was summoned for appointment. Martin Kern, in his study of the Qin stone inscriptions, discusses Shusun Tong and his presence at court as evidence of Qin traditionalism and support for Ru and other forms of learning, countering the Han-dynasty narrative of the Qin as cultural destroyers. Kern suggests that Shusun Tong was working as a ritual specialist under Qin, on the basis of his later career with the Han.77 The Shi ji makes no mention of his Ritual Learning being a specific qualification, though the Qin First Emperor is elsewhere recorded as having consulted “Ru masters and Academicians” (Ru sheng bo shi 儒生博士) on the forms of the Feng and Shan sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, an indication that this was an area of expertise that the Qin court required from its court scholars.78 2) The second point to stress is Shusun Tong’s political skills. He was adept at pleasing his masters, and changing allegiance to attach himself to likely ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records vol. 8 (2008), pp. 287–302. Shusun Tong is briefly mentioned elsewhere in the Shi ji at 23.1159–1160 (“Treatise on Rites”, “Li shu” 禮書) and 121.3117 (“Biography of the Many Ru”, “Ru lin lie zhuan”), and in the Han shu at 22.1030 (“Monograph On Rites and Music”, “Li yue zhi” 禮樂志 B). See also the summary and analysis of Shusun Tong’s career in Martin Kern, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang (2000), pp. 172–173, 176–177, 184–186; the discussion of Li Yiji, Shusun Tong, and Lu Jia in Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism, pp. 270–275; the entry on Shusun Tong in Michael Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin periods, 221 B.C.–A.D. 24 (2000), pp. 482–483; and the good overview in Hua Yougen 华友根, “Shusun Tong wei Han ding liyue zhidu jiqi yiyi 叔孙通为汉定礼乐制度及其意义” (1995). 77 He does say that this is “retrospective speculation,” see The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang, p. 186. For his wider argument for the depth of learning under the Qin, see section 5.2, “The continuity of traditional thought and ritual practice,” pp. 164–182 and section 5.3, “Scholarship and authority in the early empire” (pp. 183–196). 78 Shi ji 6.242, 28.1366.

116

Chapter 3

winners, which attracted criticism from his peers at court and Ru in Lu. We have only one anecdote from his time at the Qin court, “several years” after his initial appointment, at the very end of his time there, which reveals his ability to escape a dangerous political environment by deploying well-targeted flattery. At the news of Chen She’s uprisings in 209 BCE, the Second Emperor summoned his court scholars and Ru masters (boshi zhu Rusheng 博士諸儒 生), said to number more than thirty, to consult them on what should be done. The scholars proposed that an army be sent to crush the rebels, which annoyed the emperor. Shusun Tong, reading the sovereign’s mood, declared that the other scholars were all wrong, that the world was happy and at peace under an enlightened sovereign, fortification walls had been torn down and all weapons destroyed. Minor bandits were like dogs and rats, easily dealt with by the local authorities according to established laws and procedures. Genuine rebellion was impossible; no special measures were necessary. The emperor was pleased, and rewarded Tong with silk and clothing, and formal appointment as Academician (Boshi). The other scholars received harsh treatment: those who had used the word “rebel” ( fan 反) were sent for criminal prosecution; those who called them “bandits” (dao 盜) were discharged from office. The other scholars afterwards berated Tong for his flattery, to which he responded that they had “only just escaped from the tiger’s mouth”. He then fled the capital and returned to his native Xue. His strategy through the chaotic times between Qin and Han was one of attaching himself to whichever power was dominant. Xue was at that time under the control of Xiang Liang 項梁, and Shusun Tong attached himself first to Xiang Liang, and when Liang was killed joined King Huai 懷王 of Chu (later titled Emperor Yi 義帝), and when Emperor Yi was sent into effective exile by Xiang Liang’s nephew Xiang Yu, Tong remained with the latter. In 205 BCE, after approximately four years following the Chu rulers, he went over to Liu Bang. His initial meeting with Liu Bang was not a success. Liu Bang, who disliked Ru generally, took exception to Tong’s Ru dress. Tong immediately adopted “short garb” (duan yi 短衣) after the Chu fashion, and Liu, a native of Chu, was pleased.79 Tong deftly accommodated himself to aiding Liu’s military campaign against Xiang Yu. When his followers grumbled that he only ever recommended the promotion of former bandits and powerful fighters for roles 79

Martin Kern points out that Shusun Tong’s native district of Xue was only thirty kilometres north of Liu Bang’s native Pei 沛 in Chu, which meant he was likely familiar with Chu customs (and ritual music, Kern’s main point). The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang, p. 179.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

117

in the campaign, and never any of his own people, he explained: “The King of Han is now fighting for control of the empire, suffering arrows and stones. Are any of you scholars capable of doing battle? This is why I recommend men who behead [enemy] commanders and capture [their] standards. All of you wait for me, I won’t forget you.” 3) A third point to stress is Shusun Tong’s Ru identity. He seems to have enjoyed considerable standing among the Ru of his time, attributable to more than just his ability to insinuate himself into centres of political power. He was not operating as a single individual, but had gathered a substantial following – when he surrendered to Liu Bang, he brought with him more than a hundred Ru scholars and disciples (Ru sheng di zi 儒生弟子). We also see his Ru clothing (Ru fu 儒服), only mentioned in the biography when it provokes a negative reaction by Liu Bang, but it was presumably his normal mode of dress. Liu Bang’s hostility to the Ru and Ru dress is conspicuous, and in itself reveals something of Ru culture and how it was viewed by other elements of society. The Shi ji biography of another of Liu Bang’s Ru followers, Li Yiqi 酈食其, depicts Liu Bang’s aversion to Ru in graphic detail. A cavalryman warns Yiqi to be careful when meeting Liu: “The Lord of Pei (Pei Gong 沛公, Liu Bang’s title at the time) is not fond of Ru. Whenever visitors come wearing a Ru cap, the Lord of Pei will remove this cap and urinate into it. When he speaks with people he regularly insults them loudly. It has never been possible for a Ru scholar to persuade him.” When Liu meets Yiqi, he in fact starts out by cursing him as a “Lackey Ru” shu Ru 豎儒.80 This behaviour seems more than simple thuggishness on Liu’s part, and must be attributable also to the nature of the Ru themselves. We have seen negative descriptions of the Ru by their Mohist and Daoist detractors, and also Xunzi, which emphasize their contemptible characteristics, avoiding labour, begging for food, eagerness to perform funerals for money, toadying and flattering the rich and powerful for comfortable patronage. Nicolas Zufferey addresses this question, noting that the civil teachings of the Ru were at odds with the martial values of the “men of action” who fought for Liu Bang.81 Seen in a more positive light, the Ru consciously set themselves apart by their dignified manners and dress, advocated by Confucius in the Lun yu, and even more in the Xunzi. We argue in this study that this has its origins in the punctilious practice of li by the old aristocracy of the Spring and Autumn period. The Ru are likely to have preserved characteristics of this early elite that must have come across to many people as affected and pompous. We can speculate that Shusun Tong in 80 Shi ji 97.2692. 81 See the section “Mistrusted ru” in Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism, pp. 276–284.

118

Chapter 3

his career up to then had found displaying his Ru identity through dress to be an asset, but was quick to change when it became a liability. Shusun Tong’s standing among the Ru of the Lu region is also evident when Liu Bang allowed him to devise a New Year ritual to enhance the dignity of the new Han court and display the order and ranks of officials in it. Tong travelled to Lu and successfully recruited thirty Ru for this purpose. 4) The fourth point is Shusun Tong’s approach to the formulation of ritual, which attracted criticism from later commentators for allowing too much flexibility in adapting to the times, rather than conforming strongly to the past. As he explained to Liu Bang: The Five Emperors each had different music; the Three Kings (founders of Xia, Shang, and Zhou) did not share the same rituals. Ritual is patterned regulations made in accordance with the human feelings (ren qing 人情) in the world at a particular time.82 Thus where the rituals of Xia, Yin (Shang), and Zhou were added to or deleted from when adopting it [from its predecessor] can be known,83 which means that they did not repeat each other. It is my wish to create [new ritual for you] by selecting a certain amount from ancient ritual, and combining it with elements from the rites of Qin.84 Liu Bang agreed, on condition that the ritual be made simple to understand and at a level Liu could perform. When Tong travelled to the area of Lu to recruit Ru masters for this project, two of them refused the summons, accusing him of using flattery with nearly ten different rulers to gain intimacy and status, and, more importantly, objecting to his approach to ritual: “The empire is only just won, the dead are unburied, the wounded have not risen [from their beds]. With regards to the origins of rites and music, these are something that can only be accomplished after accumulating virtue for a hundred years. We cannot bear to do what you are doing.

82 This is a principle of Ritual Learning, mentioned for example in the Xunzi cited once above. using the parallel term ren xin 人心, which takes precedence over the normal rules of ritual (li jing 禮經), Xunzi jijie 27.490 (“Da lüe”); Knoblock, Xunzi vol. 3, p. 211 (where “li jing” is translated, I believe incorrectly, as “Classic of Ritual”), as argued above. 83 This closely resembles Confucius’s statement in Lun yu 3.23, which suggests Shusun Tong knew some version of that text, or lore parallel to it. 84 Shi ji 99.2722.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

119

What you are doing is not in accord with antiquity. We shall not go, be off with you! Do not sully us.” Tong laughed and said, “You are truly parochial scholars (bi Ru 鄙儒), knowing nothing of the changing of the times!”85 This disagreement represents a point of tension throughout the history of Ritual Learning – the needs and human feelings of current times were a legitimate principle guiding ritual scholars in the formulation of ritual, even as they constantly harked back to antiquity to reconstruct the genuine ritual forms of the early Western Zhou. The balance between the two was generally accepted; where it should fall was not. As we saw above, Confucius is described in the Lun yu as looking back on the rites of the Xia and Shang, and seeing how each regime added to or removed from the rites of the one before it, and Shusun Tong invoked this statement in persuading Liu Bang. The two purist Ru rejected Tong’s flexibility, but it was that very flexibility that allowed Tong to design rituals of a sort that Liu Bang could accept. His characterisation of them as “parochial scholars” is reminiscent of Xunzi’s disparaging categories of “vulgar” and other types of Ru, as discussed above. 5) The fifth point is what we can learn from Shusun Tong’s biography of the actual rituals he designed and implemented. In 202 BCE, after Liu Bang had won his final battle against Xiang Yu and taken control of the empire, his allies gathered to honour him as emperor. At this time Shusun Tong was the one to “complete all the rites/insignia and titles” for this event ( jiu qi yi hao 就其 儀號), but we are not given any details on what this entailed. At the same time, the new emperor abolished all of the Qin regime’s stringent ritual regulations (yi fa 儀法). The result of this was a lack of discipline among his officials. They indulged in drunken and rowdy behaviour at court, to the new emperor’s worry and mounting disgust. Tong chose that moment to persuade him of the value of ritual, saying that the Ru were not much use for attack and conquest, but could help him in consolidating Han rule. He offered to formulate court ritual (chao yi 朝儀) together with his followers and masters recruited from Lu, and Liu Bang agreed. This led to the New Year court ceremony held in 201 BCE, a grand, carefully choreographed event with hundreds of court officials participating. In narrative terms, it is set in contrast to the description of the drunken rowdiness earlier, ending with Liu Bang exclaiming, “Only on this day have I understood the exalted status of being emperor!” The description of the ritual itself is sufficiently detailed to show that it contained certain standard elements of 85 Shi ji 99.2722–2723.

120

Chapter 3

Confucian-based state ritual of later times, possibly based on an actual written protocol for the ceremony available to Sima Qian. A number of useful points emerge from the account of the ceremony. First is the long and careful preparation in advance. As mentioned above, Shusun Tong travelled to the region of Lu to recruit thirty Ru to help him design and execute the ritual. This accords with later practice in the ritual reforms of the late Western Han, when decisions on imperial ritual were based on joint consultation and debate among many officials expert in ritual learning, often numbering many tens, rather than by one person alone. Tong seems to have followed a similar principle rather than devising the ceremony by himself. Once back in the capital, these thirty specialists joined the “scholarly” officials among the emperor’s entourage and Tong’s own followers, more than one hundred people in all, in “rehearsing” the rite (xi zhi 習之) on an open field marked off with ropes and reeds, a process which lasted more than a month. This long practice was in preparation for a trial run for Liu Bang to view, which had to be at once impressive enough to appeal to him while also demonstrating that the emperor’s own role in the ceremony was simple for him to master. The long period of rehearsal in itself reveals the high degree of physical coordination and precision required of the participants. This is a skill characteristic of Confucian-based state ritual throughout Chinese history, and we find in later times mentions of the ritual performance by Ru expressed in terms of many years required to achieve mastery. The Shi ji then includes a description of the New Year court rite as it supposedly was performed, listing in general terms the many hundreds of participants and their positions during the ceremony: enfeoffed kings, marquises, and military officials on the west facing east, civil officials on the east facing west, Palace Gentlemen (Lang zhong 郎中) lined up in guard positions. Positions of participants are typically described in this way in ritual texts such as the Yi li, with the those on the west outranking those on the east. Only the emperor faced south. The Shi ji continues to the stages of the ceremony, and the serious and even cowed attitude of the participants. The description is prefaced with the word yi 儀, “ritual”, and includes enough technical detail typical of later imperial ritual to suggest that it may have derived from a textual record of the event available to Sima Qian, or to the person who compiled the record used by him. Christian Meyer proposes that this could have been the actual set of prescriptive instructions compiled by Shusun Tong for the ceremony, of the sort later called yi zhu 儀注, and translates accordingly.86 I would argue that parts of 86

Nienhauser, ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records vol. 8, p. 293 n. 91.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

121

the account are more likely to be narrative, especially the descriptions of participants’ fear and awe, and the mention that anyone not complying with the ritual was immediately escorted away by the censors. However, certain technical language does coincide with prescriptive instructions in later texts, in particular the presence of people directing the ceremony and “conducting” (yin 引) people to their places (in this case an “Internuncio”, ye zhe 謁者, similar to those known in later times as zan 贊 or zan yin 贊引, though these actual terms are not used here), and calling out oral instructions (also zan 贊). Only two such instructions are actually quoted, the command to “scurry” (qu 趨, taking quick steps in a hunched posture as a sign of humility) at the beginning when everyone is commanded to take their places, and the final command to “end the banquet” (ba jiu 罷酒), but it seems likely that similar commands would have been called out to initiate each stage of the ceremony. This oral dimension of the ceremony reminds us that the expertise for such rituals could not have depended entirely on a written script for transmission, and in this case there may not have been a script at all. The way the instructions were called out, and the physical movements of the participants, could only have been conveyed through actual example and practice. The ritual also took into account the rank of participants, which determined where they stood and the order in which they were led before the emperor. In this, Tong and his associates were clearly using the fundamentally hierarchical principles of li to impose order on the court, such that each person knew their place. The sense of discipline is emphasized in the account: “From enfeoffed marquises and kings on down, every single person was shocked into fear and grave reverence” (zhen kong su jing 振恐肅敬). The emperor was accorded the highest status, carried out from the inner apartments in a sedan chair preceded by cries to attention, and all participants instructed to file before him in designated order to offer congratulatory obeisance. Then nine toasts were drunk to the emperor’s longevity, and the ceremony ended. Despite the alcohol consumed, the narrative tells us, there was no shouting or loss of decorum. From Liu Bang’s point of view, the ceremony was an enormous success, and Shusun Tong was appointed Chief Ritual Officer (Feng chang 奉常) and given substantial monetary rewards. Shusun Tong took advantage of the moment to remind the emperor that the many students and Ru scholars who had followed Tong for many years had contributed much to the ceremony, and requested appointments for them. The emperor made them all Gentlemen (Lang 郎). Tong gave five hundred jin 斤 of copper to each of his followers – a generous sum – and they are reported to have said, “Master Shusun is truly a sage; he understands the most important tasks of the current age.”

122

Chapter 3

In 198 BCE Shusun Tong was named Grand Tutor to the Heir Apparent (Taizi Taifu 太子太傅), in service to the future Emperor Hui, and on Liu Bang’s death in 195, Hui once more made him Chief Ritual Officer. Shusun then formulated the ritual forms (yi fa 儀法) for the deceased monarch’s tomb mound and ancestral shrine. The Shi ji also says that these and the Han ritual forms (yi fa) that he devised over time “were all explained and recorded (lun zhu 論箸[著]) by Master Shusun while he was Ritual Officer”.87 This latter phrase is significant, in that it clearly refers to written texts, a point to be discussed further below. 6) The sixth and final point to mention about the Shi ji biography of Shusun Tong is the obvious power and influence he wielded at court during his later years. Both Liu Bang and his successor Emperor Hui would give way when he remonstrated against one or another of their decisions. A conspicuous example of this is his forthright opposition to Liu Bang’s desire to remove his designated successor, Liu Ying 劉盈 (the future Emperor Hui, and son of Empress Lü), and replace him with Liu Ruyi 如意, his younger third son by his favourite concubine, Lady Qi 戚夫人. When the emperor proposed this in 195 BCE, Tong’s criticism was blunt: Shusun Tong remonstrated with the emperor, saying, “In the past, Lord Xian 獻 of Jin [r. 676–651 BCE] deposed his heir apparent for the sake of [his concubine] Li Ji 驪姬, and appointed [her son] Xiqi 奚齊 instead; the state of Jin fell into chaos for several decades and [Xian] became a laughingstock for all the world. Qin did not establish Fusu 扶蘇 [as heir apparent] early on, allowing Zhao Gao 趙高 to appoint Huhai 胡亥 [the Second Emperor] by deception, and thus brought about the destruction of its dynastic sacrifices. This your majesty has personally seen. In the current circumstances, the heir apparent is kind and filial; the whole world has heard of this. Empress Lü and your majesty have shared hardship and eaten bland food [together], how can you betray her? If your majesty is determined to depose a legitimate son and install a young one, then it is my wish to submit to execution and stain the ground with the blood from my throat!” Emperor Gao said, “Stop! I was only jesting.” Shusun Tong said, “The heir apparent is the root of the empire. If the root wobbles the whole empire will be shaken. How can you make a jest of the empire?” Emperor Gao said, “I will heed your words.”

87 Shi ji 99.2725.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

123

The Shi ji account continues by saying that Liu Bang subsequently observed that his counsellor Zhang Liang’s 張良 respected senior guests all accompanied the heir apparent Liu Ying into the emperor’s presence, and it was this that finally persuaded him to give up on making Liu Ruyi his successor.88 Ruyi was poisoned by Empress Lü in 194, the year after Liu Bang died. Given Tong’s deft political skills, we have to wonder whether he sensed that Empress Lü would be the next dominant power, and was manoeuvring to ensure her good graces, though this is not explicitly mentioned. Another story reflecting Shusun Tong’s influence relates to Emperor Hui, Liu Bang’s successor. Hui constructed an elevated walkway so that he could visit the Changle Palace (Changle gong 長樂宮, “Palace of Everlasting Joy”), where his mother Empress Lü resided without always having to use the roads, which necessitated having everyone cleared out of his way, as was standard practice whenever the emperor departed the palace. Shusun Tong pointed out that his new walkway cut across the passageway for the monthly ritual procession of Liu Bang’s cap and clothing from his ancestral rest chamber (qin 寢) to the ancestral shrine (miao 廟). How could he allow a situation where the Han founder’s descendants walked at a level higher than the founder’s ancestral shrine?89 Emperor Hui was alarmed, and declared that he would immediately demolish the walkway, but Tong told him: A ruler can have no faults in his actions. Now that you have created it, the people all know. If you were to destroy it, this would show that you have had a fault in your actions. It is my wish that your majesty establish an Original Shrine (yuan miao 原廟) north of the Wei River, and the monthly procession of [Liu Bang’s] cap and clothing can go there. To have more numerous ancestral shrines is the foundation of filial piety. The text tells us that the Original Shrine came to be established on account of this walkway.90 There eventually came to be many Original Shrines in all the administrative districts of Han, but the Shi ji suggests that the one suggested by Tong was the original. Later, at the end of the Western Han, the location north 88 Shi ji 99.2724–2725. 89 The details of what was happening here are not straightforward, but it seems that the Han followed the Qin practice of having a temple at the mausoleum, and the deceased emperor’s clothing was brought from the palace ancestral shrine to this temple for monthly offerings. See the discussion by Christian Meyer in Nienhauser, ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records vol. 8, pp. 298–299 n. 122, and the wider discussion in Michael Loewe, “The Imperial Tombs of the Former Han Dynasty and Their Shrines.” 90 Shi ji 99.2725–2726.

124

Chapter 3

of the river was judged to be ritually “improper” or “incorrect” ( fei zheng ye 非正也).91 The Shi ji biography of Shusun Tong ends with an account of Emperor Hui on a springtime outing, and Shusun Tong suggesting to him that he offer cherries at the ancestral shrine, in line with the ancient practice of the spring Chang sacrifice (chun chang 春嘗), which Hui did. The practice of fruit offerings at the shrine began with this.92 Both this and the preceding account of Emperor Hui’s elevated walkway are undated, and the biography ends at this point, with no mention of Tong’s death. One later source, the Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” (“Li yue zhi” 禮樂志), says that Tong died before completing the task of devising the Han ritual system.93 Given that there is no record of him interacting with Empress Lü, who ruled from 187 to 180, we might deduce from this that he died in 188 or before. Overall, Shusun Tong’s biography makes clear that he came to wield considerable influence at court during the early years of the Han dynasty. His specialist Ritual Learning was an asset at precisely the time when the newly-enthroned Han founder came to accept the need for imperial ritual to display the traditional trappings of legitimate rule. Having gained trusted status at court, Tong was in a position to shape and at times curb the absolute power of the monarch. This is a characteristic of Ritual Learning, and of Ru teachings more generally, one that would become ever more conspicuous during the course of the Han and thereafter, as Confucianism grew more influential in government, and Ru-educated officials successfully imposed their discourse and values on court debate. Confucians like Shusun Tong used their practical expertise in ritual to gain political authority and advance their policies more generally, as when Tong helped prevent Liu Bang from replacing his heir apparent. Sima Qian’s interpretive evaluation at the end of the biography accords Tong a key place in Han Confucianism, saying, “Shusun Tong adapted himself to the age to calculate his undertakings, designed what was appropriate in ritual, and in doing so made changes according to the times. In the end he became the forefather of the Ru (Ruzong 儒宗) under the House of Han.”94 The “Biography of the Many Ru” (“Ru lin lie zhuan”) in the Shi ji also mentions that 91

This is in the “Treatise on the Five Phases” (“Wu Xing zhi” 五行志) in Han shu 27a.1338. A fire destroyed the gate of the temple hall in 12 BCE, and the text makes this observation that the location was “incorrect”. The fire itself is interpreted as an omen of its future demolition by Wang Mang in preparation for taking the throne for himself. 92 Shi ji 99.2726. 93 Han shu 22.1030. 94 Shi ji 99.2726.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

125

Shusun Tong was the chief ritual officer in the early Han court, and credits him, together with his students and followers, with designing Han dynasty imperial ritual and advancing Confucian learning more generally.95 The Shi ji “Treatise on Ritual” (“Li shu” 禮書) emphasizes Shusun Tong’s role in the Han’s continuity with the Qin ritual order: When Qin took possession of the world, they adopted the rites of the six [other] states, selecting the best of them. These did not accord with the regulations of the Sage (Confucius). However, in their exaltation of the sovereign and suppression of ministers, and enhancing the grandeur of the court, they did conform to the ways of antiquity and afterward. Later in the time of Emperor Gao, who took possession of all within the four seas, Shusun Tong augmented and removed much, but overall it inherited the precedents of Qin. From the titles of the emperor, down to the high officials and names of palace functionaries, very little was changed.96 Further information on Shusun Tong appears in later sources, such as the aforementioned Han shu record that he died before he could complete the project of defining the entire system of state ritual. One important area of imperial ritual that we do not see mentioned in connection with Shusun Tong is sacrificial ritual beyond that associated with the tomb and ancestral shrine to Emperor Gao. In particular, the “Suburban” (Jiao 郊) sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and to other subordinate deities, which later Ru argued were the main offerings made by the sovereigns of antiquity, do not appear at all. Defining and implementing the imperial Jiao sacrificial observances would become a major preoccupation for Ru scholars of Ritual Learning. It was not until the end of the Western Han under Wang Mang that the sacrificial system with the Jiao at the centre finally displaced the previous institutions once and for all. Yet there is no indication in any source that Shusun Tong ever advocated this. Liu Bang seems to have moved quickly to establish imperial sacrificial cults early during his rise to power, as a symbol of his claim to imperial legitimacy in place of Qin. In 205 BCE, the year after he became King of Han but had not yet consolidated the empire, he instituted various sacrifices, including those to the Four Emperors (or “Gods”, si di 四帝, White, Green, Red, and Yellow) at the Zhi 畤 altars at the sacred site at Yong 雍 continued from Qin, and adding a new one, the Black Emperor (Hei di 黑帝), which Liu Bang decided represented 95 Shi ji 121.3117. 96 Shi ji 23.1159–1160. The “Li shu” is likely to be a later interpolation, not from the hand of Sima Qian himself, but the continuity from Qin is unquestioned.

126

Chapter 3

himself, not unreasonable given the god-like connotations of the imperial title “huangdi” he had taken over from the imperial Qin.97 The Shi ji “Treatise on the Feng and Shan” (“Feng Shan shu” 封禪書) says that he summoned the Qin sacrificial officials back to their original posts at this time, and then in 201 he instituted a system of sacrifices to a variety of deities from the various regions of the empire, many of them conducted by female spirit mediums, or shamanesses (nü wu 女巫) as well as sacrificial officials. This account makes no mention of Shusun Tong, and the system seems in large part to have derived from Qin and from the living religion of the time. The Second Emperor of Qin as an object of sacrifice was also included among the Han cults inside the Qin heartlands, which later commentators say was because he had died by violence, and his ghost was therefore dangerous enough to need placating.98 No influence from the Ritual Learning of the Ru is mentioned at this stage, and there is no direct mention of Shusun Tong having a hand in defining or reforming any of these other cults, though they may have been included in “all the Han ceremonial institutions” (Han zhu yi fa 漢 諸儀法) that he is said to have worked to define. In the case of Emperor Gao’s ancestral shrine and tomb, Tong certainly followed Qin practice. In the case of the music used in the relevant ancestral ceremonies, the Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” says explicitly that he relied on the Qin ceremonial musicians to compose this.99 Later sources also mention ritual writings by Shusun Tong that were transmitted at least into the Eastern Han. The Shi ji says that he “explained and recorded” Han ritual institutions, but gives no indication of a title or what later happened to these records. The Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music”, in a section of text describing the lack of universal ritual institutions at the start of the reign of Emperor Ming (r. 57–75 CE) in the Eastern Han, says that “the Rites (li yi 禮儀) compiled by Shusun Tong” were recorded together with the law codes (lü ling 律令) and “archived in the legal offices” (cang yu li guan 臧於理官). The Han ritual canons were therefore unknown to officials or the people.100 One post-Han source, the “Treatise on Law” (“Xing fa zhi” 刑法志) in the Jin shu 晉書 (“History of the Jin [Dynasty]”), in a list of the law codes from Han and before assembled at the court of Emperor Wen of Wei (r. 220–226),

97

These Qin sacrifices and their early Han successors under Emperor Gao are described in Mu-chou Poo, In Search of Personal Welfare (1998), pp. 104–109. 98 Shi ji 28.1378–1380. 99 Han shu 22.1043. 100 Han shu 22.1035.

Ritual Culture of the Ru

127

says: “Shusun Tong added to the areas the Statutes (lü 律) did not cover, supplementary articles (bang zhang 傍章) in eighteen chapters.101 The Hou Han shu biography of the Eastern Han ritual specialist and official Cao Bao 曹褒 (1st century CE) records that in 87 CE Emperor Zhang 章 (r. 76–88) ordered Cao to work up proposals for the reform of the imperial ritual system, and had a document called Han yi 漢儀 compiled by Shusun Tong brought out for him to consult. This text in twelve pian is said to have been presented to the throne by Ban Gu (32–92 CE).102 The bibliographic treatise (“Yi wen zhi”) in the Han shu compiled by Ban Gu does not list any work by Shusun Tong. Wang Chong 王充 (27–c. 97) mentions a text by Shusun Tong in his Lun heng 論衡, if only to cast doubt on its very existence, in one of a series of sceptical questions directed at Li scholars: “[Emperor] Gaozu ordered Shusun Tong to compile the [text] Yi pin 儀品 in sixteen pian, but where is it?” In the same passage he also casts doubt on the existence of another text immediately recognisable as the Zhou li, and it appears his account of both texts is based on a similar sort of hearsay, which he questions because he has not seen either of them.103 Overall, it appears likely that even if some sort of compilation of ritual writings by Shusun Tong existed, it remained obscure and neglected through much of the Western Han, or alternatively was a later creation retrospectively attributed to him. Shusun Tong’s prestige and influence during the latter part of his lifetime seems clear enough, as far as we can tell from the patchy account in his Shi ji biography and mentions in later sources. His reputation afterwards was generally positive, despite the criticism from his peers that he was insufficiently faithful to the models of antiquity, and that he erred in moving Emperor Gao’s “original shrine” to a new location outside the capital. Yang Xiong 楊雄 (53 BCE–18 CE) describes Tong’s approach as precisely right for his times.104 The written documents he left behind may have languished in obscurity, but Emperor Zhang’s command to Cao Bao in 87 CE to reform the imperial ritual system seems to have been predicated on the idea that Shusun Tong’s ritual system was still the one followed. But by that time the nature of Ritual Learning had changed substantially, now dominated entirely by the study of 101 Jin shu 30.922. 102 Hou Han shu 35.1203. 103 Lun heng jiaoshi 12.561. The modern commentators (Huang Hui 黃暉 and Liu Pansui 劉盼遂) argue that the Hou Han shu record of twelve sections is the correct number, sixteen being a copy error caused by the “sixteen” that Wang Chong attributed to the Li canon equivalent to the received Yi li, which has seventeen sections. 104 Han shu 87b.3572.

128

Chapter 3

the Canons ( jing), especially the Li canon and compilations of associated Ji 記 writings. Thus Emperor Zhang’s order to Cao Bao said, “The regulations (zhi 制) are loose and incomplete, and much is not in conformity with the Canons (duo bu he jing 多不合經)”.105 When the Li canon first emerged and became the core of Ritual Learning is not entirely clear, though it must have been well enough established by 136 BCE to have been included among the Five Canons (or “Classics”) for whom court Academicians (bo shi) were appointed by Emperor Wu. The emergence of the Li text is traced back to one Master Gaotang (Gaotang Sheng 高堂生). Almost nothing about him is recorded, beyond his name, origins in the region of Lu, and association with the Li text. His dates are unknown. The “Biography of the Many Ru” in the Shi ji lists him as the original expert in the Li among the scholars founding the various branches of Confucian canonical learning in the narrative relating to the time of Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE), but it is clear that all these figures had lived earlier than that.106 The Han shu says, “When the Han arose (Han xing 漢興), Master Gaotang of Lu transmitted the ‘Rites of the Gentry’ in seventeen pian,” which would suggest that he was active at the start of the dynasty, fitting in with the standard narrative of Ru scholars resurrecting the canonical texts after the Qin book ban was lifted.107 There is no record of Gaotang achieving any official status through his Ritual Learning, and those who did serve as ritual officials at court after Shusun Tong were not scholars of the Li text. One such was Master Xu (Xu Sheng 徐生), introduced in the Shi ji “Biography of the Many Confucians” immediately after the first Li text teacher, Master Gaotang, which suggests that the two were approximate contemporaries. Sima Qian’s narrative explicitly contrasts Master Gaotang’s textual mastery with Master Xu’s practical knowledge of visible ritual performance: “Master Xu of Lu, by contrast, was skilled at ritual performance (rong 容). In the time of Emperor Wen (r. 180–157), he became Grand Officer for Ritual (Li guan dafu 禮官大夫) for the Han on the basis of his [ritual] performance (rong 容).” Like Shusun Tong, he seems to have come out of the community of Ru in the region of Lu, but nothing else is known of him. The Shi ji text continues:

105 Hou Han shu 35.1193. 106 Shi ji 121.3118, which is a list of the original teachers of the Five Canons, saying that “discoursing on” (yan 言) the relevant Canon “came from” (zi 自) the relevant scholar. 107 The same statement on Master Gaotang appears twice in the Han shu, in the bibliographical treatise “Yi wen zhi” 藝文志 and in the “Biography of the Many Ru”, Han shu 30.1710 and 88.3614 respectively.

129

Ritual Culture of the Ru

[Master Xu] transmitted [his ritual expertise] to his son, and from there to his grandsons Xu Yan 延 and Xu Xiang 襄. Xu Xiang was by his inborn talents skilled at performing ritual (wei rong 為容), but not able to master the Canon of Ritual (Li jing 禮經). Yan was able [to master the Canon] to some extent, but not to the level of any real proficiency. Xiang became Grand Officer for Ritual (Li guan dafu) on the basis of his ritual performance, and was eventually promoted to Minister of Guangling (Guangling Nei shi 廣陵內史). Yan and the Xu family students Gonghu Manyi 公戶滿意, Master Huan (Huan Sheng 桓生), and Shan Ci 單次 all served as Grand Officer for Ritual (Li guan dafu) for the Han at one time or other, and Xiao Fen 蕭奮 of Xia Qiu 瑕丘 on account of his Li learning became Governor of Huaiyang 淮陽 [Commandery]. From that time on, [all] those who were able to discourse on the Li and perform ritual derived from the Xu family.108 This sketchy account illustrates the evolution of Ritual Learning away from an earlier stage of the non-textual expertise of Shusun Tong, Master Xu, and Xu Xiang, as the Xu family and their students adapted to the rising influence of scholarship on the Li canon. This process would already have been well advanced by Sima Qian’s time, when the Xu family’s lack of canonical learning would already have seemed unusual, something worth commenting on. Another point worth stressing is that members of the Xu family and their successors followed in Shusun Tong’s footsteps in utilising their Ritual Learning for gaining entry to the centres of political power, not just as officials in charge of ritual, but eventually higher administrative posts unconnected with ritual. This is in contrast to Master Gaotang, the man credited with being the founder of Li canon scholarship in the Han, who in the historical sources is an obscure figure with no recognition from the Han court.

…

In this chapter on the second stage of Ritual Learning, we focused on two strands. The first was the Ru “Confucians” and their distinct culture in the 108 Shi ji 121.3126, and the nearly identical text in Han shu 88.3614. The Han shu commentary of Yan Shigu 顏師古 has a quote from the third century commentator Su Lin 蘇林 from the lost text Han jiu yi 漢舊儀, noting that there were two palace Gentlemen (lang 郎) assigned to ritual performance, one of them being Master Xu, and after him a Master Zhang (Zhang Sheng 張生). Both “knew nothing of the [Li] Canon, and were only able to perform the turning and retreating motions of ritual performance”; Han shu 88.3615, note 1.

130

Chapter 3

Warring States period (453–221 BCE), and on into the middle of the second century BCE in the early Han. The Ru were distinguished by an attachment to the classical past in their study, and in their visible (and audible, through music) mastery of ritual. The second strand was the Li ritual canon, plausibly a text containing pre-Han material, but which cannot be proven to have existed before the Han. If it did exist in the pre-Han period, it did not have anything like the status of a canonical text, as the Songs and Documents already did. Not much is known about the characteristics of the early Ru, but from the example of Shusun Tong in the Qin and start of the Han we can surmise that his predecessors likewise sought to use their ritual expertise to achieve patronage at the courts of Warring States kings and their powerful relatives. For all his practical mastery of ritual and ritual institutions, Shusun Tong is never mentioned in connection with scholarship on the Li canon. The members of the Xu family who came after him as ritual officials at court in the first half of the second century BCE likewise emphasised technical mastery, but Sima Qian calls attention to their poor command of the Li canon, signalling the approach of a period when Ritual Learning came to be defined by knowledge of the Li and the other “Confucian” canons.

Chapter 4

The “Victory” of Ritual Learning – Western Han 1

Early Western Han – Emperors Wen and Jing (180–141 BCE)

The Han dynasty historical texts Shi ji and Han shu, the latter in particular from the perspective of an age when Ru “Confucian” canonical learning was predominant, depict the early Western Han after Shusun Tong as a period when the Ru presented their ritual agenda to rulers but failed to win influence, as a result of unfavourable political or ideological circumstances. The conventional narrative of later times was that this situation ended in the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE), who elevated the Ru teachings into the dominant ideology of government from that time forward. The reality as reflected in the Shi ji and Han shu, especially when viewed from the standpoint of Ritual Learning, suggests that the Ru’s failure to influence imperial sacrificial ritual continued for many decades after Emperor Wu’s death. Substantially larger numbers of people identified as Ru did enter office after Wu’s death, but it was not until the reign of Emperor Yuan (r. 49–33 BCE) that Ru ritual scholars began to mount serious challenges to the imperial sacrifices established by Emperor Wu. The Jiao suburban sacrifices did not finally supplant the cults of the esoteric specialists until the very end of the Western Han, during the domination of Wang Mang at the start of the first century CE. Tracing the exercise of Ritual Learning in politics, especially as deployed in reforming the institution of imperial sacrificial cults, helps throw the rise of Ru-educated officials during the last fifty years of the Han into sharper focus. After Shusun Tong died, the reign of Emperor Hui soon gave way to that of his mother Empress Lü (r. 187–180 BCE) as de facto ruler. This is described in the Shi ji “Biography of the Many Ru” as a period dominated by officials who achieved prominence through their military achievements, when the Ru failed to achieve any influence.1 The following reign of Emperor Wen (r. 180–157 BCE) is worth attention. The Shi ji “Annals” and other accounts relating to his time briefly describe a number of developments more often associated the time of Emperor Wu. Cosmological theory, contemporary religion, and esoteric arts attracted Wen’s interest, but so did the Ru and their textual and ritual scholarship, and both had influence on imperial sacrificial ritual. According to the Shi ji “Biography of the Many Ru” 1 Shi ji 121.3117.

© Robert L. Chard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004465312_005

132

Chapter 4

narrative, “A fair number [of Ru] were summoned for appointment in Wen’s time, though he himself favoured Legalistic and statecraft teachings.”2 From the standpoint of Ritual Learning there are a few points worth highlighting. The Shi ji “Treatise on Ritual” states that Wen was opposed to elaborate ritual: When Filial Emperor Wen ascended the throne, the officials proposed that [new] rituals be determined (ding li yi 定禮儀). But Emperor Wen favoured the learning of the Dao school (Dao jia zhi xue 道家之學). He believed that elaborate ritual and visible display were of no benefit to governing, and what use could they be to [the emperor’s] setting a moral example? The emperor dismissed them all.3 As described above, there was a Ru ritual official in Emperor Wen’s court, Master Xu (Xu Sheng) from the region of Lu, and he and his descendants established a line of transmission in Ritual Learning that would lead to influential scholars and statesmen several generations later. Aside from Xu’s practical knowledge of ritual, nothing is known of him, or what his role was at court. There is no record of his wielding influence in the way Shusun Tong did, or that he had any hand in the unsuccessful proposals to modify the ritual institutions of Han. Despite his supposed aversion to elaborate ritual, Emperor Wen, like Emperor Wu years later, for a time took considerable interest in the imperial sacrifices. The Shi ji “Treatise on the Feng and Shan” records that he personally attended, or possibly performed, the sacrifices to the Five Emperors at the Zhi 畤 altars at the ancient Qin centre of Yong 雍 in 165 BCE after an auspicious portent, the reported sighting of a yellow dragon. He is quoted as saying he would attend the sacrifice in person on the advice of his “ritual officials” (li guan 禮官), and the account records that he did so for the first time in the fourth month, in early summer. The phrase used of his participation is jiao jian (or jiao xian, 郊見), which could be interpreted as “visit” or “present himself” to the shrines on the outskirts of the sacred precincts at Yong, leaving it unclear as to whether he personally presented the offerings. He is said to have worn special clothing that was mainly red for the occasion, matching the Red Emperor associated with summer. Striking here is the use of the word jiao, signifying the outer boundary or periphery of a city or town, conventionally translated as “suburb”, also the name of a sacrifice or the verb signifying the performance of this sacrifice. The jiao would later become the focus of the ritual reformers of the late Western Han, 2 Shi ji 121.3117. 3 Shi ji 23.1160.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

133

who advocated the worship of Heaven, Earth, and a host of other deities in the suburbs of the capital Chang’an, supposedly on the model of Western Zhou practice. Marianne Bujard’s study of the jiao demonstrates that no evidence exists for any such ritual in the Western Zhou, that in pre-Han texts it is difficult to see more in it than a general designation for sacrifice, and that the sacrifice as implemented in the late Western Han was according to a scheme devised by Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (c. 179–c. 104) during the reign of Emperor Wu.4 The reign of Emperor Wu and Dong Zhongshu will be discussed further below. Emperor Wen is also not the first in the Shi ji to perform a sacrifice called jiao: such records include early Qin rulers’ sacrifices to the celestial Emperor(s) in the eighth and seventh centuries, and of a sacrifice at Yong by King Zhaoxiang 昭襄 of Qin in 253 BCE.5 The Qin First Emperor is also recorded as performing a jiao at the start of every Qin new year in the tenth month, dressed in white, making obeisance beside the capital Xianyang (bai yu Xianyang zhi pang 拜於咸陽之旁).6 In any event, if the Shi ji account of Emperor Wen’s reign is to be trusted, it gives an idea of the conceptions behind the later design of the Suburban sacrifice in early Han scholarly Ru circles. One significant feature of the Suburban sacrifices of later times was that the emperor performed the rite himself. In this case, Emperor Wen is quoted as saying that his ritual officials advised him to sacrifice in person, and his “officials” (you si 有司) said: “In antiquity the Son of Heaven personally performed the Suburban [sacrifice] in summer. He made offerings to God(s) on High at the suburb (si Shang Di yu jiao 祀上帝於郊), hence [the ritual] is called ‘Jiao’ (Suburban [Sacrifice]).”7 The word “Di” means both a deity, especially the supreme deity in “God on High” (shang di), and also the ancient sovereigns on earth. The “Five Emperors” worshipped at the sacred sites at Yong seem to have had dual identities as both sovereigns and celestial deities, and Wen’s scholars here clearly equate shang di as being “above”, in the context of the five emperors, though in the Shi ji and elsewhere they are also linked to specific ancient 4 See Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne (2000), especially pp. 79–123 for a survey of jiao in the “classics” (Shi jing, Chun qiu and its three zhuan commentaries, and the Li ji). She shows that these texts do unmistakably contain mention of a jiao sacrifice, but that the nature and object of the sacrifice are never described. In particular, the interpretations of these texts by Dong Zhongshu and the late Western Han ritual reformers were not justified. 5 The early Qin sacrifices are recorded in the “Treatise on Feng and Shan,” Shi ji 28.1358; King Zhaoxiang is in the “Annals of Qin” (”Qin ben ji” 秦本紀), Shi ji 5.218. These are also presented and discussed in Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel, pp. 133–134. 6 Shi ji 28.1377; discussed in Bujard, p. 135. 7 Shi ji 28.1381–1382.

134

Chapter 4

sovereigns.8 These “officials” are not identified as court-appointed scholars, or as Ru, but their advice does suggest that the jiao was at that time associated with observances to celestial deities by the emperor. What we do not see is specific worship of Heaven (tian), or that the relevant altars should be located on the boundaries of the capital. Also, as noted by Michael Loewe, this use of “jiao” appears relatively rarely, only for Emperors Wen, Jing, and Wu.9 Like Emperor Wu after him, Emperor Wen took advice on imperial sacrifices not just from the Ru but also from a specialist in reading portent manifestations, one Xinyuan Ping 新垣平 from the northern region of Zhao 趙, a person whose skills resembled those of similar people who later advised Emperor Wu, often designated as “men of techniques/recipes” ( fang shi 方士). Sima Qian is particularly unsympathetic toward such people, and maintains a narrative of emperors deceived by them with the prospect of extended life and immortality, to the detriment of good government and orthodox ritual. The main examples of this narrative are the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of the Han, but Xinyuan Ping also seems to have had a similar message when he arranged the discovery of a jade cup with the inscription “the ruler extends longevity” (ren zhu yan shou 人主延壽), which impressed Emperor Wen.10 In response to portents reported and interpreted by Xinyuan Ping, Wen in 164 established a new second shrine to the Five Gods/Emperors at Weiyang 渭陽 north of the Wei River, with all five at the same location in a single building, in separate halls accessed through gates of the colour associated with the particular Emperor. Wen personally presented himself according to the Suburban offering ( jiao jian), following the same ritual as was used at Yong.11 One source, a memorial by Wang Mang 王莽 in 5 CE, states that Wen’s shrines at Weiyang included also the celestial deity Grand Unity (Tai Yi 太一, or 泰一), in contrast to the Shi ji and Han shu, which say that this deity was first established in or soon after 135, and first personally worshipped by Emperor Wu in 114. Wang says,

8

For example earlier in the “Treatise on the Feng and Shan,” which records that the earliest cult was created to the White Emperor by the first enfeoffed earl of Qin, Lord Xiang 襄 (r. 777–766 BCE), associated with the ancient (mythical) sovereign Shao Hao 少暤. 9 Loewe, Dong Zhongshu, a “Confucian” Heritage and the Chunqiu Fanlu (2011), p. 274. 10 Shi ji 28.1383. The Shi ji “Treatise on the Feng and Shan” starts the theme of rulers’ excessive belief in deities far back in history, and links it to the fall of regimes. Michael Puett traces this narrative, and argues that it was intended as a warning to Emperor Wu, see Puett, To Become a God (2002), pp. 300–307. 11 Shi ji 28.1382.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

135

In year 16 of Filial Emperor Wen (164 BCE), following the advice of Xinyuan Ping, the shrine to the Five Emperors at Weiyang was first established, where offerings were made to Tai Yi and the deity of Earth (di qi 地祇), with the founding Emperor Gao as correlate. At the winter solstice, offerings were made to Tai Yi, and at the summer solstice to the deity of Earth, in both cases combined with offerings to the Five Emperors. One sacrificial victim was offered [for each], and the emperor personally offered the Suburban obeisance.12 This memorial, which contains much accurate historical detail, will be discussed at greater length below in the context of the Yuanshi period ritual reforms of 5 CE. In this case it is suspect on a number of grounds, for example the mention of Emperor Gao as correlate, and the winter solstice, which is at odds with Sima Qian’s record that Wen made personal observances in the fourth month, and corresponds rather to features of the Suburban rite as enacted by Wang Mang in 5 CE. Still, it is worth noting the possibility: Tai Yi is likely to have been a part of the religious world in that time, and Wang Mang may have had access to records now lost.13 Wen also took an interest in the ritual imperial progression (xun shou 巡狩) through the empire and, like the First Emperor of Qin before him and Wu after, he aspired to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices to Heaven and Earth. In preparation for these rituals, he ordered his “Academicians and various masters” (boshi zhusheng 博士諸生) to select passages from the “Six Canons” (liu jing 六經) to compile a “Wang zhi” 王制 (“Institutions of the [True] King”).14 These court scholars are not specifically identified as Ru, but at the very least must have been familiar with Ru textual learning. As Hans Bielenstein notes, relatively large numbers of Academicians (“Erudits”) were appointed during the early reigns of Western Han, continuing Qin practice, and numbering more than seventy under Emperor Wen. They were specialists in a range of texts, under the jurisdiction of the Grand Master of Ceremonies (at that time feng chang 奉常, the post earlier occupied by Shusun Tong), suggesting that at least some of them were experts in Ritual Learning.15

12 Han shu 25b.1265. 13 See Li Ling (Donald Harper, trans.), “An Archaeological Study of Taiyi 太一 (Grand One) Worship” (1995), which includes a survey of the documentary record on Tai Yi in the Han imperial cults, and archaeological evidence for Tai Yi as an exorcistic and astral deity in pre-Han through Tang times. 14 Shi ji 28.1382. 15 Hans Bielenstein, The Bureaucracy of Han Times (1980), p. 138.

136

Chapter 4

It is not clear what this “Wang zhi” was. The most likely candidate among extant texts with that title is in the Li ji, a description of an idealized institutional and ritual order centred around a Son of Heaven, with royal officials at court and feudal lords in the outer territories subordinate to him. Primarily it purports to represent the Zhou order but also mentions earlier sage kings, broadly similar in content to the Zhou li but far less detailed and elaborate. It gives a sequence of simple descriptions of different aspects of the ancient institutional order, including rituals observed by the sovereign such as the ritual progression (xun shou) and regional sacrifices at the five sacred peaks, though not specifically the Feng and Shan. The Xunzi likewise includes a section called “Wang zhi” with different text, dealing more with general principles and referring less to specific institutions – and no mention of the imperial progression and associated sacrifices – but still based on a similar vision of a distributed feudal order. Scholarly opinion is divided on whether the “Wang zhi” compiled for Emperor Wen could be the text preserved in the Li ji, with many arguing that the Li ji text originates earlier, during the Warring States period.16 If so, “wang zhi” may not just have been one or another specific text, but a concept, a category of lore on the government and institutions of antiquity. Emperor Wen’s court scholars assembled their version by trawling through the canonical texts available to them. The result might well have been the one preserved in the Li ji, though we cannot discount the possibility that it was their own version unconnected with either of the transmitted texts. What matters here is that Emperor Wen consulted court scholars, probably Ru, on imperial ritual in what appear to be versions of the Confucian canons, the six corresponding to the standard five and Music. Unlike the sacrificial rituals of the Han founder Emperor Gao, this suggests an abortive attempt to reconstruct, or in effect reinvent, rituals of antiquity from the canonical texts of the Ru. Two years later in 162, an unidentified person submitted a memorial reporting that Xinyuan Ping’s statements about cosmological matters and deities (“ethers and spirits”, qi shen 氣神) was fraudulent. After a penal investigation he was executed with his entire family. Wen is said to have lost interest in the project of imperial ritual from that time.17 The famous writer and statesman Jia Yi 賈誼 (201–169 BCE) was also a figure at Emperor Wen’s court. He proposed a complete overhaul of the Han institutional and ritual order, so as to make a clean break with its Qin antecedents. 16

See the survey of scholarship in Chinese on Emperor Wen’s Wang zhi and discussion in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui, pp. 342–344. 17 Shi ji 28.1383.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

137

Jia, a precocious young native of Luoyang appointed as Academician early in Emperor Wen’s reign, is not described in any of the sources as a Ru; his Shi ji biography says that he was comprehensively learned in the writings of “the Hundred Schools of all the Masters” (zhu zi bai jia 諸子百家), and his patron, identified only as a Lord Wu (Wu Gong 吳公), had once studied with the Legalist Li Si, chief minister to the First Emperor of Qin.18 Jia is noted for his position that the Qin had failed because of its tyranny, and that the Han (which had in fact continued much of the institutional and ritual order of the Qin) needed to establish itself as being entirely different. The Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” (“Li yue zhi”) gives text purporting to be from Jia’s memorial on his proposals, where he says: “The Han has continued the degenerate customs of Qin. [Qin] destroyed ritual propriety and right (li yi 禮義), and abandoned all shame.” According to him, matters had deteriorated to the point where people were now murdering their fathers and brothers, and stealing [ritual] vessels from ancestral shrines, while bureaucratic officials did nothing to stop it, merely going about their routine tasks. Jia Yi drew up complete plans for an overhaul of Han institutions, a new calendar, new official titles, the colour yellow instead of black for court clothing and other regalia, all to set the Han apart from the Qin. Though the ritual order was not the exclusive focus of these proposed reforms, it was an important part of it: he advocated new rites and music, and the overall plans he submitted are described as a draft of the “ceremonial regulations” (yi fa 儀法), a term which encompasses the entire institutional order, including its rituals. It is fair to say that his Ritual Learning must have been considerable, but most likely covered the institutional aspects of ritual acquired through scholarly study, and not the practical performative skills of the Ru from Lu.19 His proposals came to naught. Senior officials accused him of attempting to acquire power and influence for himself, and dissuaded Emperor Wen from appointing him to high office. The ritual order of Han in the main continued to follow the patterns established by the Qin, some of them with the modifications of Shusun Tong. The overall statement of appraisal by Ban Gu at the end of the Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” (“Li yue zhi”) quotes Confucius’s statement that each regime in history modified the institutions of ritual and ceremonial music of its predecessors, and notes the Han’s long failure to do this, choosing instead to continue the institutions of the Qin. Four Han figures are highlighted in the 18 According to his biography in Shi ji 84.2491. See the discussion of Jia’s comprehensive scholarship in Zufferey, To the Origins of Confucianism, pp. 185–186. 19 Han shu 22.1030.

138

Chapter 4

“Treatise”, people who presented proposals to remedy this, but in vain. The first was Jia Yi, followed by Dong Zhongshu under Emperor Wu, one Wang Ji 王吉 under Emperor Xuan (r. 74–49 BCE), and finally Liu Xiang 劉向 under Emperors Yuan and Cheng (r. 49–33 and 33–7 respectively). Ban Gu, writing in the Eastern Han when the new ritual system based on that of Wang Mang was in force, says that the futile efforts of these four caused him to “feel moved and sigh”.20 Another important development affecting Ritual Learning learning associated with Emperor Wen was his deathbed edict strictly limiting the extent of mourning to be observed for him by officials, in particular stipulating fortythree days observance rather than the traditional three years. This edict was in keeping with his preference for simplicity in ritual, and clearly refers only to his own case, but some modern scholars have identified this as the precedent for an overall ban on the three-year mourning period during the Western Han, when for a fact relatively few officials are recorded as having observed this, in marked contrast to its widespread observance in Eastern Han. We have seen that the three-year period of mourning was strongly defended by Confucius, according to the Lun yu, but this tenet of early ritual learning seems not to have carried much weight in the Western Han.21 Emperor Wen was succeeded by Emperor Jing (r. 157–141) when, according to the Shi ji “Biography of the Many Ru”, the Ru at court had no influence at all, owing to the Empress Dowager Dou’s fondness for Huang Lao teachings.22 However, we should note that this narrative is exaggerated: the Ru scholar Dong Zhongshu was appointed as Academician (bo shi) as a specialist on the Spring and Autumn Annals during this time, which suggests that scholarship of all kinds, including that of the Ru, continued at court as it had before. Both the Shi ji and Han shu record that Emperor Jing travelled to Yong to perform the jiao to the Five Altars in 144 BCE.23 Overall, we can say that the Shi ji and Han shu records of the reign of Emperors Wen and Jing suggest that Ritual Learning was active in different forms: specialists in the practical detail of rituals such as Master Xu and his successors, and scholars who used texts to advise on ritual. We see also the 20 Han shu 22.1075. Dong Zhongshu and Liu Xiang will be discussed below. Wang Ji was a much less prominent figure, who presented a generally-worded appeal to follow the principles of li and promote education. 21 See the translation of Emperor Wen’s edict and discussion of its significance in Miranda Brown, The Politics of Mourning in Ancient China (2007), pp. 25–26. 22 Shi ji 121.3117. 23 Shi ji 11.446; Han shu 5.148. The former uses the collocation “present [himself] at the suburb” ( jiao jian 郊見, or xian), the latter uses only “jiao” itself as a verb.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

139

influence of one specialist in portents, Xinyuan Ping, not described as one of the fang shi (“man of techniques”) esoteric specialists who appeared during the reign of the Qin First Emperor and later under Emperor Wu, but who seems quite similar, and his advice led to the establishment of new imperial sacrifices to the Five Emperors. All of this points to a fair degree of continuity from the Qin on the one hand, and the reign of Emperor Wu on the other. 2

Emperor Wu (141–87 BCE)

The reign of Emperor Wu is traditionally seen as a significant turning point in the Western Han. From the perspective of Ritual Learning, the Ru and their teachings are supposed to have achieved a preeminent position as the main state-supported ideology, and the system of imperial sacrifices underwent significant change with new cults to the universal (as opposed to local or regional) deities Tai Yi 太[泰]一 (“Grand Unity”) and Hou Tu 后 土 (“Lord of Earth”). In fact, both of these narratives need to be taken with a grain of salt. Ru “Confucians” had relatively little influence at court under Emperor Wu, especially in determining ritual institutions. Sacrifices to the new deities were instituted, but those inherited from Qin and the early Han continued unchanged. Succeeding Emperor Jing in 141, the young Emperor Wu is described as taking an early interest in the Ru and their rituals, up to a point. The Shi ji “Biography of the Many Ru” and the Han shu “Annals of Emperor Wu” (“Wu Di ji” 武帝紀) record that he promoted Ru and their teachings from the beginning of his reign, though it is hard to know how much this was due to his own initiative rather than that of his first Chancellor Wei Wan 衛綰, given that he was seventeen sui (probably sixteen) at the time. Wu and Wei Wan are credited with starting the system of recommending worthy candidates for office from all over the empire in 140 BCE, and in the same year Wu consulted Ru on establishing the Bright Hall (Ming tang 明堂), a ritual centre for ancestral sacrifices and formal imperial proclamations, which ritual texts recorded as having existed in antiquity, and which he and later Han sovereigns were keen to resurrect. He is said to have summoned the Ru canonical scholar Lord Shen (Shen Gong 申公) for this purpose.24 He is also recorded as having appointed 24 Shi ji 121.3118 says that Emperor Wu “inclined toward” (xiang 鄉 [嚮]) Confucian teaching at the start of his reign. Han shu 6.155–156 records the establishment of the recommendation system in 140, and the proposal by the Chancellor Wei Wan 衛綰 that all officials who followed the teachings of statecraft and Legalist advocates such as Shen Buhai 申不害,

140

Chapter 4

court Academicians for the Five Canons in 136, the move most commonly cited as initiating the ultimate dominance of Confucianism, though there is some doubt as to the reliability of this record.25 Gongsun Hong 公孫弘 (201–121) was a prominent Ru statesman associated with this period, rising to the post of Chancellor. Another Ru associated with Wu’s reign was Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (?198/179–?104 BCE), not prominent in his own time but more influential later. The traditional narrative credits Emperor Wu with bringing about the triumph of Confucianism, which dominated ever after, though this has been convincingly refuted by modern scholars.26 Looking at Wu’s reign from the standpoint of Ritual Learning, we find little evidence that the political influence of Ru ritual specialists was much greater than it had been in previous reigns. If anything, the state of affairs under Emperor Wu seems closer to Emperor Wen in this respect than it does to Wu’s successors later in the Western Han. This was in no small part a consequence of the shortcomings of Ritual Learning itself: years of work by Ru specialists was unable to satisfy Wu’s demands for guidance in designing the main imperial sacrificial rituals, leading him to reject them entirely for this, and rely on the advice of esoteric specialists instead. Emperor Wu’s reign saw the establishment of new cults with characteristics prefiguring the Suburban sacrifices to Heaven and Earth from the end of the Western Han onward. One of these was to the celestial deity Tai Yi, “Grand Unity”.27 According to the Shi ji “Treatise on Feng and Shan,” this began with Shang Yang 商鞅, Han Fei 韓非, Su Qin 蘇秦, and Zhang Yi 張儀 should be discharged, because they caused disruption to orderly government. The emperor approved this. The Bright Hall consultation and summons of Lord Shen is recorded at Han shu 6.157. 25 Han shu 6.159, 19a.726. Fukui Shigemasa casts doubt on the validity of this record of the five canons, which contains no detail, such as a precise date or the names of those appointed. The “Five Canons” as a term does not appear more reliably until the mid first century BCE. See his detailed analysis in his Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū: Jukyō no kangakuka o meguru teisetsu no saikentō 漢代儒教の史的研究: 儒教の官學化をめぐる定 説の再檢討 (2005), pp. 111–120. 26 In Western-language scholarship, Homer Dubs as early as 1938 said that the “victory of Confucianism” came a century and a half after Emperor Wu; Dubs, “The Victory of Han Confucianism” (1938). Particularly detailed and influential has been the work of Fukui Shigemasa, brought together in his Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū (2005), where he challenges the traditional accounts of Ru dominance in officialdom and the preeminence of training in the Five Canons under Emperor Wu, and says it came later. Many Western scholars have also addressed this issue, see the overview in Michael Nylan, “Classics without Canonization” (2009). Dong Zhongshu will be discussed below. 27 This was probably a new cult, if we discount Wang Mang’s statement that Emperor Wen had also made sacrifices to Tai Yi, as discussed above. See the more detailed accounts of Wu’s implementation of the Tai Yi cult in Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel dans

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

141

the advice of one Miu Ji 謬忌. At some point subsequent to 133 BCE, Miu is quoted as telling the emperor that Tai Yi was the most exalted of celestial deities, with the Five Emperors subordinated to it, and that the Son of Heaven in antiquity sacrificed to it in spring and autumn at the southeastern suburb (dong nan jiao 東南郊). Emperor Wu was sufficiently moved to establish a shrine on the outskirts of the capital on the southeast, with observances as Miu advised, though he did not perform these himself, in contrast to his trips every third year to Yong to sacrifice in person to the Five Emperors.28 In 113, Wu noted the imbalance of his observances to the celestial gods at Yong, but nothing to Hou Tu, “Lord (or “Queen”) of Earth”. His officials recommended sacrifices consisting of burying young bulls at a “Round Mound” (yuan qiu 圜丘) in a marsh (or “wilds”, ze 澤) with five altars. Unlike Tai Yi, Hou Tu appears in early texts, and this advice is in fact not so far removed from the eventual Suburban sacrifices late in the Western Han, though the “Round Mound” is for sacrifices to Heaven, and a “Square Mound” ( fang qiu 方丘) is for Earth, derived from the authority of the Zhou li. The Shi ji, in identifying his officials as the source of this advice, signals that it was more reputable than the lore adduced in support of Tai Yi. The cult to Hou Tu was established at Fenyin 汾陰, approximately 140 kilometres east-northeast from the capital (Yong was approximately 150 kilometres to the west).29 In 112, Wu received advice to perform sacrifices in person to Tai Yi at Yong, with the Five Emperors subordinate to it. This advice was based on lore of a different sort, invoking the precedent of the Yellow Emperor and his transformation into an immortal, which the Shi ji says was shunned by one of Wu’s officials as “non-canonical” (bu jing 不經), from one Gongsun Qing 公孫卿, not identified as a fang shi but a native of Qi where esoteric traditions seem to have thrived. Two altars to Tai Yi were founded, one at Yong and another at Ganquan 甘泉, the latter being Wu’s separate palace seventy or so kilometres northwest of the capital, where he performed the offerings in person. As far as the record shows, Ru specialists in Ritual Learning had no input into these sacrifices. Elsewhere in the Shi ji we find two mentions of Emperor Wu seeking practical advice from Ru ritual specialists, which they failed to provide. la Chine ancienne, pp. 142–149, and Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 2, pp. 15–27. 28 Shi ji 28.1386. 29 Shi ji 28.1389; see also the account of Hou Tu with translations of the Shi ji passages in Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne, pp. 149–152, and also Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 2, pp. 27–28.

142

Chapter 4

The first of these appears in the Shi ji “Treatise on Ritual” (“Li shu” 禮書), which we should note is among the ten lost chapters later restored from other materials, and not from the hand of Sima Qian himself.30 This relates to a planned renewal of the entire ritual order: “When the current emperor [Wu] ascended the throne, he summoned men of the arts of the Ru (Ru shu zhi shi 儒術之士), and commanded them to work jointly to determine ceremonies (ding yi 定儀), but after ten and more years this was not complete (bu jiu 不就).”31 The “ceremonies” here are not specified, but the result of the exercise suggests that this yi is the same as yi fa 儀法, referring to the entire range of imperial ritual institutions, a comprehensive revamping of the sort proposed several decades earlier by Jia Yi during the reign of Emperor Wen. No date is given for the start of the project, but we are told that the Ru assigned to the task could not complete it after more than ten years, and the final implementation of dynastic reforms appears to be that enacted thirty-seven years into Wu’s reign, in 104 BCE. The new dynastic institutions seem not to have owed much, if anything, to the efforts of the Ru specialists. The same text continues: Someone said that in antiquity [the world] was in a state of great peace, the myriad people were harmonious and joyful, and auspicious tokens appeared everywhere. [Sovereigns] chose from popular customs to create institutions. Emperor [Wu] issued instructions to the Censorate: “In receiving the Mandate and becoming universal sovereign, each [regime] arises in its own way, coming to the same outcome by different paths. We say that they arise through the people, and create their institutions from [the people’s] customs. All those now making proposals [for ritual] praise high antiquity, but what is there for the people to look up to [in that]? The Han is also the enterprise of one single family, and if [I] do not transmit canonical models, how will [I] explain this to my descendants? Great moral transformation is broad and expansive, shallow governance is narrow and constrained. Can I do less than my utmost?” He then took the beginning of the Tai chu 太初 (“Grand Beginning”) era (104–101 BCE) to promulgate a new calendar, change the colour of [official] clothing, perform the Feng sacrifice [to Heaven] at Mount Tai, and set [new] ritual procedures for the [imperial] ancestral shrine and all officials, in order to establish canonical norms to pass on to posterity.32 30

The missing chapters are mentioned by Ban Gu in his biography of Sima Qian, and listed by the third century commentator Zhang Yan 張晏, Han shu 62.2724. 31 Shi ji 23.1160. 32 Shi ji 23.1160–1161.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

143

Here Emperor Wu explicitly rejected a fundamental source of authority in the Ritual Learning of the Ru, the primacy of models from antiquity, and instead chose the opposite principle, which was to accord with the needs of the people in the current age. This of course is also a principle of Ritual Learning, as we have seen from the example of Shusun Tong, but Wu seems to have taken it further, to the complete rejection of ancient models. Ru specialists were also called upon to advise the emperor on the ritual forms for the Emperor’s personal Feng and Shan sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and fared no better. According to the Shi ji “Treatise on the Feng and Shan”, Emperor Wu began consultations with officials and court scholars on how to perform these rituals after the discovery of a “precious cauldron” (bao ding 寶鼎), most likely that recorded in the Han shu as occurring in 116 BCE.33 The Shi ji text says, On account of the rarity of the Feng and Shan, the performance of them had been interrupted, and none knew the rituals. The assembled Ru selected [accounts of] shooting oxen (she niu 射牛) for the territorial sacrifices (wang si 望祀) in the Feng and Shan from the Shang shu, Zhou guan 周官, and Wang zhi 王制.34 “Shooting oxen” refers to the way the victims were killed for sacrifice, variously explained by commentators either as a symbolic act of emphasising that the sacrificer is personally performing all aspects of the rite, or else that shooting the arrow was a way of dispelling inauspicious influences, the latter being a common exorcistic technique.35 We cannot be certain which texts the Zhou guan and Wang zhi were. The former title was the text later known as the Zhou li 周禮, though this text did not emerge into prominence until much later. The “Wang zhi” might have been that preserved in the Li ji, perhaps the same as that compiled at Emperor Wen’s behest in preparation for the same Feng and Shan many decades earlier. In any case, both would be texts on the administrative and ritual order of antiquity, thought to contain indirect clues on how to perform the Feng and Shan. The “Feng and Shan” treatise then says, “The emperor thereupon commanded all the Ru to rehearse the ox-shooting, and prepare draft [instructions] for the rituals of the Feng and Shan. After a few years, the time came when [the 33 Han shu 6.182. 34 Shi ji 28.1397. There is no mention of the Feng and Shan, or to shooting oxen, in the extant Shang shu, Zhou li, or the “Wang zhi” text in the Li ji. 35 Shi ji 12.474, commentary note 2.

144

Chapter 4

rituals] were to be performed.” By then esoteric specialists had told Wu that the Yellow Emperor and earlier sovereigns had summoned miraculous beings through the Feng and Shan and established communion with them: [Wu] desired to emulate the Yellow Emperor’s communion with the divine transcendents (shen xian ren 神僊人) and men of [the immortal isle of] Penglai 蓬萊, to demonstrate virtue comparable to that of the Nine August Sovereigns of high antiquity, and to select a considerable amount from the arts of the Ru (Ru shu) to give pattern to [the ceremonies] (wen zhi 文之). However, this intended input from the Ru came to naught: The Ru were on the one hand unable to clarify the Feng and Shan, and on the other were tied and constrained by the ancient texts of the Songs and Documents, and unable to expand from them. The emperor had ritual vessels made for the Feng and Shan and showed them to the Ru, who said, “These are not the same as in antiquity.” [The Ru official] Xu Yan 徐偃 also said, “The various scholars in the Office of Ritual (Tai chang 太常) are not as proficient at enacting ritual (xing li 行禮) as [the specialists] from Lu.” [The Ru official] Zhou Ba 周霸 assembled diagrams for the Feng. The emperor discharged Yan and Ba, and dismissed all the Ru, making no [further] use of them.36 The accounts above make possible certain conclusions and conjectures about the nature of Ritual Learning in the latter part of the second century BCE. As he did for the wide-ranging reform to ritual and other dynastic institutions in 104 BCE, Emperor Wu sought input from Ru specialists at court on the Feng and Shan, presumably because Ru were already in charge of aspects of imperial ritual such as the ancestral shrines and related observances originally formulated by Shusun Tong, and these rituals carried a certain authority and prestige. In both cases it seems that his Ru ritual specialists spent years working on the two tasks, but failed to come up with the practical rituals that the emperor wanted, and the emperor gave up on them. This failure reveals the limitations of the Ru’s Ritual Learning itself at this time.37

36 37

The same text appears at Shi ji 12.473, 28.1397, and Han shu 25a.1233. Earlier pointed out by Fukui Shigemasa, Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū, p. 64.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

145

One point mentioned explicitly in the Shi ji is that the Ru ritual specialists advising Emperor Wu were constrained by their emphasis on the models of antiquity and the authority of canonical texts. This calls to mind the rather different flexibility of Shusun Tong in adapting his rituals to the needs of the present at the start of the Han, which incurred criticism from two of the Ru he sought to recruit in Lu, who accused him of departing from antiquity. It is apparent that Ritual Learning itself had changed in the meantime, becoming dependent on (and limited by) canonical texts in a way that it had not been earlier, a part of the wider establishment of the “Confucian” canons and scholarship on them in that time. The description in the Shi ji of the Ru’s response to Emperor Wu’s consultations seems quite critical: Sima Qian says they were “tied and constrained” (qian ju 牽拘) by the ancient texts of the Songs and Documents, unable to “expand” or work more freely (cheng 騁) from them. This implies that they were seeking a close canonical basis for their ritual formulations. They seem to have put considerable effort into this, purportedly over many years, but in the end reached the limits of their methods of scholarship. The descriptions of rituals in the Li ritual and other canonical texts were very often too terse to use as a basis for performing actual rites, and in particular did not include the rituals applicable to the emperor, such as the Feng and Shan, which were now a primary focus. The Ritual Learning of the time had not learned to bridge the gap between canonical text (a corpus not yet well established) and the practical needs of the present, and the Ru’s insistence on ancient models eventually led Emperor Wu to reject them entirely in the formulation of the imperial cults, and follow instead the advice of the esoteric specialists and the religious practices of the time. The Shi ji accounts also reveal something of the Ru themselves. As discussed above, there seems to have been cultural transmission of Ritual Learning among the Ru in the region of the state of Lu from the late Spring and Autumn period into the Han, when Shusun Tong and the Xu family ritual officials under Emperor Wen all came from this tradition. In the passages on the Feng and Shan above, we find Lu mentioned again, by the official Xu Yan 偃. Xu is identified as having studied the Songs, not ritual, but he is quoted as saying that the court ritualists were not as proficient as those from the region of Lu. The phrase used, “perform” or “enact” ritual (xing li) suggests that it was physical skill at ritual performance that he was referring to, much like the visible ritual (rong 容) of Master Xu of Lu (Xu sheng) and his descendants at the court of Emperor Wen. Xu Yan’s place of birth is not identified, but his teacher in the Songs, Lord Shen (Shen Gong 申公) was from Lu and spent much of his life there, after meeting Emperor Gao in his youth and studying in Chang’an.

146

Chapter 4

Xu Yan’s colleague Zhou Ba, whose attempts to supply documents on the Feng were rejected by the emperor, is identified in the Shi ji as a native of Lu, though as a scholar of the Changes (Yi 易) rather than ritual.38 There seems to have been a divide between the more text-based Ritual Learning of the court Ru and the traditions maintained in Lu, which included both canonical study and physical skill in ritual performance. In this connection it is worth mentioning Sima Qian’s account of his own visit to Lu, which would have been approximately at the same time: I read the books of Master Kong, and I wished to see what he had been like as a person. I went to Lu and viewed the chariots, clothing and regalia, and ritual vessels at the shrine to Zhong Ni 仲尼 (Confucius). The scholars there practice rituals at his home at the appointed seasons. I could only linger there, unable to leave.39 This leads us to another point, which is that the Ru at that time were by no means a single, homogeneous group united by a common ideology, any more than they had been in Warring States times. Their scholarship was more political than ideological, and they came into conflict with each other, as we see with the example of Xu Yan’s criticism of the court ritualists. The only real difference from earlier times is that the study of classical texts was widening beyond the Songs and Documents with the establishment of the Five Canons, which introduced new divisions and tensions between rival teaching traditions.40 One final point to bear in mind: the explicit statements of Emperor Wu’s rejection of Ru ritual specialists’ input into imperial ritual, and the lack of other descriptions of their role in imperial ritual, does not prove that they had no influence on these rituals at all. Given that there were Ru ritual specialists at court from Shusun Tong onward, it is perfectly plausible that they conducted or assisted at imperial sacrifices, since they knew what to do in a practical sense when it came to the steps of a particular ceremony. There is no denying 38

Zhou Ba is identified as being from Lu in Shi ji 121.3127 and Han shu 88.3597, in connection with his study of the Changes. 39 Shi ji 47.1947. 40 There are discussions in recent scholarship on the lack of a homogeneous ideology and identity the early Han dynasty Ru, for example in Zufferey, To the Origin of Confucianism, pp. 205–208, and the comments on the misleading nature of “schools of thought” applied to Confucianism and other traditions in the Han by Michael Loewe in Dong Zhongshu, “Introduction,” pp. 1–4. The definitive survey of the rise of the Five Canons overall and the fields of scholarship devoted to them is Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics (2001).

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

147

that Emperor Wu started from the assumption that his sacrificial rituals would be informed by Confucian Ritual Learning, and we can speculate that in his mind such ritual forms carried prestige and authority as symbols of his legitimate sovereignty. In the end, though, this largely gave way to his conviction that the rituals must appeal to the people at large, and to his personal quest for contact with spirit beings and becoming a transcendent himself, as taught by the esoteric specialists who became the primary architects of the new rituals. 3

Texts on Ritual Learning

Traces of Ritual Learning during the second century BCE, and the rest of the Western Han, can also be seen in the expanding corpus of texts on li.41 In terms of dating, we are at the mercy of the sources which mention such texts, such as the Shi ji and Han shu – these sources are often vague, appear to contain unreliable interpolations, or present anachronistic views from later times. For example, we find accounts of texts of the second century BCE that align suspiciously well with circumstances in the first century, particularly from the time of the reforms to imperial ritual at the end of Western Han. At the very least, we can be reasonably certain that texts on ritual emerged (or were compiled) and transmitted during the course of the second century. They gained in importance and eventually came to define what Ritual Learning was. Chief among these was of course the seventeen-pian Li canon corresponding to the received Yi li, the main text itself and a body of commentary and ancillary scholarship associated with it, often designated as ji 記, “records”. The Li was included among the Five Canons, and we have seen that the Han shu records the appointment of specialist Academicians to the five under Emperor Wu in 136 BCE, reliably or not. Retrospectively, at least, this was accorded great significance. In fact, as we have seen, there was a continuity of court-supported canonical scholarship going back to the time of Emperor Wen, and very likely to the Qin before that, as argued by Martin Kern.42 Some version of the Li may have been among the “Six Canons” consulted by Emperor Wen’s court Academicians to compile the “Wang zhi” (“Institutions of the King”). 41

42

This is the early part of the story of the establishment of the ritual canon (three canons by the late Eastern Han), see the comprehensive account in Michael Nylan, “The Three Rites Canons,” in The Five “Confucian” Classics, pp. 168–201, and also Michael Puett, “Combining the Ghosts and Spirits, Centering the Realm” (2009). As argued in Kern, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang, pp. 183–196.

148

Chapter 4

Sima Qian’s account of the Li has been covered above: he describes the text transmitted in the Han as a remnant of a larger work, much reduced as a consequence of the Qin destruction of proscribed texts, so that only those sections dealing with the rites of the “gentry” (shi 士) were preserved. Even the putative larger pre-Qin text is described as “incomplete” (qi jing bu ju 其經不具), which he does not explain, though the Han shu attributes this to the deliberate destruction of Zhou ritual documents by feudal lords bent on transgressing the hierarchical regulations contained in them.43 Both the Shi ji and the Han shu say that the Han version of the Li, containing only the ritual of the “gentry” (shi 士), was first transmitted by Master Gaotang from Lu, as described above. Nothing is known about Gaotang, except that he was active early in the Han, and taught the seventeen-chapter text that circulated subsequently as the authoritative canon on li. We have seen that Sima Qian also records that the “Wang zhi” – very possibly Emperor Wen’s text – was consulted by Ru during the preparations for Emperor Wu’s performance of the Feng and Shan. They also consulted the Zhou guan (later the Zhou li) and the Shang shu. The mention of the Shang shu is not surprising, as the descendant of the Documents corpus known since much earlier times, but the mention of the Zhou guan is unusual. The text would probably have been discovered by 116 BCE when the Feng and Shan consultations took place, and may have been known to Sima Qian, but did not become prominent until nearly a century later. There is only one other reference to the Zhou guan in the Shi ji, in the same “Treatise on the Feng and Shan”, in its account of sacrificial ritual in the early Zhou. In what appears to be a quote, it says: “At the winter solstice, offerings are made to Heaven at the Southern Suburban Altar (si tian yu nan jiao 祀天於南郊), to welcome the arrival of lengthening days. At the summer solstice, offerings are made to the deities of Earth. For both of these, music and dances are employed, and the deities can be attracted and ritual service paid to them (shen nai ke de er li ye 神乃可得而禮也).”44 This does not find a precise counterpart in the extant Zhou li, and in particular there is no mention of the Southern Suburban Altar. There is some alignment with the Zhou li account of winter solstice music and dances performed at the Round Mound (yuan qiu 圜丘) and summer solstice performances at the Square Mound ( fang qiu 方丘), which attract the deities of Heaven (tian shen 天神) and Earth (di qi 地示), with the similar phrase about ritual service to them (ke de er li yi

43 Shi ji 121.3126, Han shu 22.1027, 30.1710. 44 Shi ji 28.1357.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

149

可得而禮矣).45 There are two possibilities: one that the Shi ji is quoting from

(or paraphrasing) a passage subsequently lost; the second that the supposed quote is a later interpolation. The only mentions of the Zhou guan are in this one treatise in the Shi ji, and it is striking that the Southern Suburban Altar was the venue proposed by Kuang Heng and his successors for the emperor’s personal offerings to Heaven, as described below, and that they claimed that this was a restoration of the ancient practice of Zhou. The Han shu records other texts on li as existing in the second century. Already mentioned above are writings left by Shusun Tong, hidden away along with other legal and institutional documents in the Han archives by clerical staff, such that “… the canonical institutions of the Han (Han dian 漢典) were gradually put aside and lost prominence, so that none among officials or the people spoke of them.”46 An important figure is the bibliophile prince Liu De 劉德, younger halfbrother of Emperor Wu, enfeoffed as King Xian of Hejian (Hejian Xian Wang 河間獻王, 170–130 BCE). He is mentioned briefly in the Shi ji as someone committed to Confucian learning and a patron of the Ru,47 but the Han shu gives a fuller account of him, in particular his efforts to collect ancient texts. He offered rewards to anyone who brought him old texts, made good copies to return to them, and kept the originals. He is said to have collected many oldcharacter texts from before the Qin, including the Zhou guan 周官, Shang shu, the Li, the Li ji 禮記 (not the later compilations with that title), the Mencius, and the Laozi.48 The Han shu “Treatise on Ritual and Music” (“Li yue zhi”) also mentions that he assembled a compendium of ritual texts, subsequently lost: Also, subsequent to the death of [Shusun] Tong, King Xian of Hejian gathered materials from antiquity on ritual and music, gradually augmenting a compilation until it reached over 500 sections (pian). But at present scholars are unable to examine these, and only extrapolate from the Gentry Ritual to apply to the emperor, and their explication of it contains many errors. Thus the Way of interaction between lord and subject, old and young has become progressively less manifest.49

45 Zhou li zhushu 22.13b–14a. 46 Han shu 22.1035, also the mention of legal texts associated with Shusun Tong in Jin shu 30.922. 47 Shi ji 59.2093. 48 Han shu 53.2410. 49 Han shu 22.1035.

150

Chapter 4

Finally, the Han shu “Treatise on Bibliography” (“Yi wen zhi” 藝文志) lists thirteen ritual texts, which also includes items likely to have emerged in the second century BCE. One of these is the first entry in the list, two versions of the main ritual canon, the first titled 禮古經 in 56 pian (sections), then the [Li] jing [禮] 經 in 17.50 The Li gu jing, said to have been discovered in the wall of Confucius’s house, purports to be the more complete original Li jing, containing the seventeen sections of the standard version plus thirty-nine others. In fact it seems never to have gained general acceptance or circulated widely. The second entry in the list is Ji 記, “Records” or “Notes”, in 131 pian, is said to have derived from the seventy disciples of Confucius and their successors. We can speculate that some if not all of these were known in the second century BCE, and it is from this body of material that much of the Li ji and Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記 compilations were likely drawn. According to some later accounts these two compilations would already have existed in Ban Gu’s time, but he did not list them. This would be explained by another date proposed for the two Li ji compilations of around 100 CE.51 Also listed is the Zhou guan, under the title Zhou guan jing 周官經 in six sections, and a zhuan commentary to it (Zhou guan zhuan 周官傳) in four sections. The Zhou guan is said to have been collected by Liu De, King of Hejian, though there is no mention of a zhuan commentary in the accounts of its discovery. The text is called a “canon”, perhaps because a specialist Academician on the text was appointed in the time of Wang Mang early in the first century CE, but it would not have been a “canon” in the second century BCE. Finally, the Han shu lists three texts relating to the Feng and Shan, the Gu Feng Shan qun si 古封禪羣祀, Feng Shan yi dui 封禪議對, and Han Feng Shan qun si 漢封禪羣祀. The second of these three is identified as being from the time of Emperor Wu, and the title suggests that it contains Wu’s consultations with ritual specialists on the Feng and Shan. The likelihood is that the 50 Han shu 30.1709. The text as it stands actually says that the Jing has “seventy” (qi shi 七十) sections, but commentators agree that this is a copy error for “seventeen” (shi qi 十七). 51 See the discussion in Jeffrey Riegel’s entry on the Li ji in Michael Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts, pp. 293–297, where he argues that the traditional attribution of the two Li ji versions to Dai De 戴德 and Dai Sheng 戴聖 is unreliable, not attested until the bibliographical treatise in the Sui shu of the seventh century. The Sui shu account also says that the 131 ji were collected by Liu De, King of Hejian, which the Han shu does not. As will be seen below, texts identified as being in a “Li ji”, largely corresponding to the extant text, appear in memorials on the ritual reforms in late Western Han. Martin Kern describes the Li ji texts as being in a state of “fluidity” in late Western Han, but nonetheless already authoritative; see Kern, “Ritual, Text, and the Formation of the Canon” (2001), pp. 64–66. See also the discussion in Timothy Baker, “The Imperial Ancestral Temple in China’s Western Han Dynasty” (2006), pp. 164–165.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

151

other two texts are connected with this period as well, but it is impossible to say more. One further set of texts linked to the reign of Emperor Wu is the sections on the Suburban sacrifices in the Chun qiu fan lu 春秋繁露, attributed to Dong Zhongshu. Marianne Bujard regards the scholarly case contained in these chapters as the origin of the late Western Han Jiao sacrifice to Heaven, and attributes to him the contention that the rite was practiced in the early Zhou.52 We will not consider the Chun qiu fan lu descriptions of the Jiao here, since they have been translated and thoroughly analysed elsewhere. Bujard gives a succinct list of the main characteristics of the Jiao in this text, which is worth paraphrasing: the Jiao sacrifice is performed to Heaven by the sovereign; it takes place in the suburb of the capital on the first day associated with the cyclical character xin 辛 in the first month, and comes before any other sacrifice, and is also performed when the sovereign sets out on a military campaign; the victim is an ox, sometimes a young bull, or a foal; and divination is performed beforehand.53 A key question in this is the authorship of the sections dealing with the Jiao in the Chun qiu fan lu, on which there are different views. The text as a whole seems to be an assembly of writings associated with him, some of which are clearly of later origin. Dong Zhongshu himself is depicted as a major figure in Han Confucianism, but the revisionist view is that his influence in his own time was limited, and the Chun qiu fan lu is not necessarily a reliable guide to his teachings.54 In regard to the writings on the Jiao, we should first note that none of his writings excerpted in the Han shu mention the rite. Nor is he mentioned in any of the memorials proposing the establishment of the Jiao in the late Western Han. Bujard does believe the Chu qiu fan lu exposition of the Jiao comes from Dong himself, and Sarah Queen argues that internal evidence in one of the documents, “Jiao shi dui” 郊事對 (“Replies on Jiao Matters”), shows that it derives from a consultation with Dong through the intermediary of the official Zhang Tang 張湯 around 123 BCE, and that most of the other sections were composed before this.55 52

See her extensive analysis and translations from the Chun qiu fan lu in Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne, pp. 27–75. 53 Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel, pp. 74–75. 54 See the survey of scholarship on Dong Zhongshu and the Chun qiu fan lu in Michael Loewe, Dong Zhongshu, a “Confucian” Heritage and the Chunqiu (2011), pp. 6–18. 55 Sarah Queen, From Chronicle to Canon: The Hermeneutics of the Spring and Autumn Annals according to Tung Chung-shu (1996), pp. 31–36, and Dong Zhongshu, Sarah Queen and John Major, trans., Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn (2015), pp. 502–506, part of the introduction and complete translation of these sections on pp. 491–534.

152

Chapter 4

Michael Loewe gives an alternate view, observing that the documents are a defense in opposition to the abolition of the Jiao, which would not fit the circumstances of 123 BCE and earlier. He suggests that the sections relevant sections in the Chun qiu fan lu might all derive from a single essay composed on one of the occasions that the Jiao was abolished, in 14 BCE.56 We will not take a view on this question here, and say only that, regardless of their date, these documents represent Ritual Learning based on the Spring and Autumn Annals and its Gongyang zhuan commentary, and that the picture of the Jiao rite to Heaven is quite similar to the system introduced at the end of the Western Han. Bujard and Queen may be correct that Dong Zhongshu was advocating the personal worship of Heaven at the suburbs of the capital by the emperor, but if so his views had no impact on the imperial sacrifices in his own time. Michael Loewe may also be correct in pointing out the possible influence of later arguments on the text as transmitted, much like the doubt we expressed above on the Shi ji “Treatise on Feng and Shan” quote of the Zhou guan on the “southern Suburban Altar” above. The case for the ritual reforms was hardfought, and there might have been considerable pressure to find additional sources of authority for the new sacrifices. Overall, the Ritual Learning of the Ru may have had limited influence in the reign of Emperor Wu, especially in the formulation of the main imperial sacrifices (exclusive of the ancestral cults), but the evidence suggests that it was becoming more and more focused around texts, the Li and other canons, and was developing greater range and flexibility. This would eventually lead to a stage where officials trained in these texts were able to produce more practical instructions for the performance of imperial rites. This was part of the rise of the Confucian canons in general, as scholarship on them gained in sophistication and prestige, such that during the first century BCE mastery of one or another canon became a common component of qualification for high office. It is noteworthy that canonical Ritual Learning seems to have lagged behind in this respect, at least in the Western Han. Relatively few higher officials who achieved career success are said to have studied primarily the Li canon.57 56 Loewe, Dong Zhongshu, pp. 111–115, 251–252, 254. Queen and Major argue that the defense of the Jiao was a reaction to Emperor Wu not performing it from 133 to 123, see Luxuriant Gems, pp. 503–506. This presumably refers to a period of time when the Shi ji and Han shu do not record sacrifices to the Five Emperors at Yong, though the use of jiao as a verb for performing these, as discussed above, does not mean they were called “Jiao”. 57 See Michael Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, pp. 177–178, where she notes the relatively low number of specialists in the Li canon during the Eastern Han, in comparison to the other four Ru canons. She suggests that this may be due to the serious implications of ritual for dynastic legitimacy. As will be seen below, the only Ru officials in the final

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

153

For example, Xu Yan 偃 and Zhou Ba, the abovementioned Ru officials who attempted unsuccessfully to advise Emperor Wu on the forms of the Feng and Shan sacrifices, are identified in historical sources as scholars of the Songs and Changes respectively. In part this weakness of scholarship on the Li during this period is due to the limitations of the text itself, which defined the rites of the shi gentry and could only be an indirect and imperfect guide to imperial ritual. Of course, Ritual Learning was not based entirely on the Li. Other canons, especially the Songs, Documents, and the commentaries to the Spring and Autumn Annals also provided authoritative clues to the nature of the sovereign’s rituals in antiquity, but in the time of Emperor Wu the overall scholarly apparatus of Ritual Learning had not yet developed the ability to guide practical implementation to the extent required. A few decades later, by the time the more receptive Emperor Yuan ascended the throne in 49 BCE, this situation had changed. 4

Old vs New – Ritual Learning in Late Western Han

We have seen that the perspective of Ritual Learning aligns with the current understanding of the Ru in Emperor Wu’s reign, that they had less political influence than traditional accounts would suggest. This situation began to change in the first century BCE, when people identified as Ru and their scholarship become increasingly more prominent in political activity at court. Here we must reiterate the proviso that the current volume presents a thin slice of what was happening against a complex political, social, and intellectual background, and a simple account of this sort will inevitably skip or miss a great deal. One general underlying point is a significant change in what the “Ru” were. No longer were they the distinct “community” of pre-Han and early Han; more and more the category is a diffuse one, generally associated with the study of the canons, or “classics”, though there were still people said to have worn Ru clothing, like Wang Mang in his youth. Study of the canons was on the increase from the latter part of the second century, and people with such background were entering office in ever larger numbers, a process possibly

decades of the Western Han said to have studied the Li were Kuang Heng, who primarily studied the Songs, and Wang Mang. However, this is a different matter from the numbers of people appointed to positions in charge of ritual scholarship and practice at court: Fukui notes that in 51 BCE there were eleven such, as opposed to one teaching the Changes; Fukui, Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū, p. 225.

154

Chapter 4

subject to spurts, accelerated (but not caused) by large-scale events of one sort or another.58 While acknowledging problems with the narrative of a “victory” of Confucianism at the end of the Western Han, we do propose a “victory” for the Ru of sorts, in that Ritual Learning formed a wedge for them to change imperial sacrificial ritual, a sensitive area related to the legitimacy of the Han, leading the way to a wider redefinition of what the Han was as a regime. The “victory” spearheaded by Ritual Learning in this one crucial area helped establish the dominance of discourse based on the canonical texts in wider court debates, and provided one key plank in Wang Mang’s fashioning of a new dynastic order. The overall increase in Ru learning may have been a gradual process, but from the perspective of Ritual Learning there is a clear shift at the start of Emperor Yuan’s reign (r. 49–33). Under Yuan and his successors we see the scholarship of Ru Ritual Learning emerging into court debate, exerting substantial influence on the reform of the imperial sacrifices. At the same time that officials with training and familiarity in the canonical texts were becoming more numerous and influential, they were also becoming more versed in Ritual Learning than they had been previously, able to deploy a wider range of authoritative textual sources to pronounce on the forms of imperial sacrificial ritual in antiquity as models for their own time. Emperor Yuan’s father Emperor Xuan 宣帝 (r. 74–49), though credited by the Han shu “Biography of the Many Ru” with doubling the number of Ru in office late in his reign, is also depicted as being sceptical of them, even hostile.59 In particular, he is said to have been unsupportive of the Confucian agenda for imperial ritual, and to have added many new cults associated with popular religion and immortality beliefs. This was in response to frequent miraculous manifestations such as the appearance of dragons, phoenixes, cauldrons, and a white tiger, and he took advice from people described as fang shi esoteric specialists.60 58 For example, Michael Loewe describes the growth of “classical learning” from 135 BCE, and major events triggering the recruitment of large numbers of officials, such as the need for many new officials after the abolition of 106 marquisates in 112, see Loewe, “Officials of Western Han and their Background” (2014), a quite critical review article of Liang Cai, Witchcraft and the Rise of the First Confucian Empire (2014), which itself argues that the witchcraft persecutions of 91 to 90 BCE led to an influx of new Ru officials at that time. 59 The “doubling” of the number of Ru in office is recorded in Han shu 88.3596. 60 These manifestations and the new sacrificial cults are listed in the “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” (“Jiao si zhi” 郊祀志) in Han shu 27b.1248–1253.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

155

However, during Emperor Xuan’s reign there was one important Ru scholar of Ritual Learning, Hou Cang 后倉 (or 蒼) who in 72 BCE was appointed to the high office of Superintendent of the Lesser Treasury (Shao fu 少府). Hou Cang had studied the Li, the Spring and Autumn Annals, and the Songs. He received the Li in a line of transmission through his teacher Meng Qing 孟卿, and Meng Qing’s teacher Xiao Fen 蕭奮, who had learned from the Xu family ritual officials serving at court during and after the time of Emperor Wen. Hou Cang’s name was attached to one version of the Li canon, and he was the author of a substantial text of ritual scholarship, titled Hou Shi qu tai ji 后氏曲臺記, said to have been several tens of thousands of characters long. Among his students were prominent textual scholars in li, such as Dai De 戴德, Dai Sheng 戴聖, and Qing Pu 慶普, whose names were later attached to major lines of ritual scholarly transmission. Hou Cang also taught a number of the Ru officials later involved with the reform of the imperial sacrifices, in particular Kuang Heng 匡衡, as detailed below.61 Hou Cang’s extensive text on li, and the two ritual compendia attributed to his students Dai De and Dai Sheng, the Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記 and the Li ji respectively, also attest to the ongoing work of bibliography and compilation of materials relating to li, many of which were known as ji 記, “records” or “notes”, as discussed above. During the ritual reform efforts of the last half-century of the Western Han, these materials were increasingly quoted as sources of authority in the relevant official memorials submitted to the emperor, in some cases explicitly identified with the title “Li ji”, and matching text found in the received Li ji, though sometimes attributed to a different document in it, suggesting that the compilation was still fluid. By the time of Wang Mang’s ritual reforms in the last years of Western Han, even more texts are cited, most notably the Zhou guan 周官, later known as the Zhou li 周禮, which has detail on ritual relating to the Zhou king not available in other sources, and also the Zuo zhuan and Guo yu. The widening of the li textual canon was one important way that Ritual Learning adapted to the need for specific guidance on the practical application of imperial sacrificial ritual. A significant change in the fortunes of the Ru came under Emperor Yuan, who favoured them and their scholarship more than any emperor before him. This is dramatically illustrated by a comment from Emperor Xuan, Yuan’s father. Yuan is described as being “gentle, kind, and fond of Ru” (rou ren hao Ru 柔仁好儒), to the point where he spoke out against what he regarded as his father’s excessive use of harsh punishments, and advised him to make more 61 Han shu 88.3599 for Hou Cang’s study of the Li and Chun qiu with Meng Qing, and 88.3613, 3615 for the students he taught and the text associated with his name.

156

Chapter 4

use of Confucian masters. Xuan’s angry response illustrates the sharp contrast between the two in their attitude toward the Ru: Emperor Xuan’s countenance changed, and he said, “The Han dynasty has its own institutions, and from the start the methods of the autocrat-kings (ba wang 霸王) were intermingled with them. How could we possibly rely solely on teachings of virtue, and employ the governance of the Zhou [dynasty]? Furthermore, vulgar Ru (su Ru 俗儒) do not perceive the contingent nature of the times. They are fond of taking the past as right and current times as wrong, causing people’s heads to spin, to become confused about names and reality, with no idea what to believe. They are not worthy of responsibility!” He then sighed and said, “The one who will bring disorder to our house is the heir apparent!” Xuan seemed to have held views similar to those of Emperor Wu, in giving precedent to the needs of the present over the models of antiquity. He is said to have considered replacing his heir apparent, but desisted out of regard for the murdered Empress Xu, Yuan’s mother.62 Yuan’s accession marked a significant turning point for the fortunes of the Ru in government, and a shift toward the implementation of imperial ritual according to Confucian canonical descriptions. He appointed many Confucians as high officials, including several who were to play major roles in promoting the ritual reforms: Gong Yu 貢禹 (d. c. 44 BCE), Wei Xuancheng 韋玄成, and Kuang Heng 匡衡, the latter two both serving as Chancellor, all students of Hou Cang. Also worth mentioning is another of Hou’s students, Yi Feng 翼奉, who did not seek high office, but was summoned to court by Emperor Yuan as advisor. The Han shu credits Yi Feng as being the first to advocate ritual reform of both ancestral shrines and the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, blazing a trail for the others to follow. Starting in 46 BCE, these officials began submitting memorials advocating reform of the imperial sacrificial rituals to bring them more into line with those they believed to have existed in the Western Zhou period, rather than continuing to follow the precedent of the earlier reigns of the Han. After a positive reception by Emperor Yuan and a majority of high officials, the proposals 62 Han shu 9.277. The biography of Wei Xuancheng also makes reference to this, worded slightly differently, putting the emphasis more on the prince than his mother, saying that Xuan could not bear to depose him because Yuan’s mother, the empress, had died (she was poisoned in 71 BCE) when the boy was very young, and they were all living in obscurity; Han shu 73.3112–3113.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

157

achieved enough momentum to be enacted, then revoked four times, before their fifth and final implementation in 5 CE. The system of sacrificial ritual from the reign of Emperor Wu and earlier underwent substantial change, and by the end of the Western Han had been mainly replaced by, or integrated into, the new system. The Confucian-minded officials who advocated the changes were not specifically masters of Ritual Learning only, but had studied the Li in conjunction with other texts of the Confucian canon. Many were also expert in the cosmological and portent theories earlier propounded by Dong Zhongshu and others, and these too were deployed to determine the proper forms of imperial ritual. In what follows, we examine the deployment of Ritual Learning in the drive for reform in two important areas of imperial sacrificial ritual, the ancestral shrines and the Suburban offerings to Heaven and Earth. 4.1 The Imperial Ancestral Shrines The reform of the imperial sacrifices was a slow process, and subject to numerous setbacks. This is particularly evident in the ongoing court debates on the shrines to the imperial ancestors from the reign of Emperor Yuan onward, debates in which Ritual Learning featured prominently.63 The Han shu account of sacrificial ritual, the “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” (“Jiao si zhi”), summarizes the situation as follows: Emperor Yuan was fond of Ru. [The Ru] Gong Yu, Wei Xuancheng, and Kuang Heng all served as high ministers of state, one after the other. [Gong] Yu advised that the sacrifices to the ancestral shrines of the Han house were in many aspects not in accord with ancient ritual. The emperor agreed with this. Subsequently Wei Xuancheng became Chancellor, and proposed that the [imperial] ancestral shrines in the commanderies and kingdoms be abolished. The rest chamber shrines and parklands to all the emperors from the Supreme High Emperor (Taishang huang 太上皇, Emperor Gao/Liu Bang’s father) and Emperor Hui on down were also abolished. Subsequently Emperor Yuan lay ill in bed, and dreamed that the spirits [of the deceased emperors] castigated him for the abolition of the shrines. He then restored them. After this, 63 Important earlier scholarship on the imperial ancestors includes Fujikawa Masakazu, Kandai ni okeru reigaku no kenkyū (1968, rev. 1985), pp. 91–196; Michael Loewe, “The Imperial Tombs of the Former Han Dynasty and Their Shrines” (1992); and the PhD dissertation of Timothy Baker, “The Imperial Ancestral Temple in China’s Western Han Dynasty: Institutional Tradition and Personal Belief” (2006).

158

Chapter 4

they were at some times abolished and other times restored, the situation remaining undecided until the reigns of Emperors Ai and Ping (r. 7–1 BCE and 1 BCE–5 CE respectively). The account of this is in the “Biography of Wei Xuancheng”.64 The Han shu biography of Wei Xuancheng (joined to that of his father Wei Xian 韋賢) has appended to it an extensive account of the history of these ancestral shrines from the start of the dynasty, and the debates on how to reform them from Emperor Yuan’s reign down to the time of Wang Mang.65 Michael Loewe also has a useful study of the Han ancestral tombs and shrines which includes this account.66 The Wei Xuancheng biography account of the ancestral shrines and sacrifices begins at the start of the Han, and gives precise data on the numbers of shrines, offerings made in them, and the people involved in maintaining them. The founding emperor Gao ordered that all feudal kings establish shrines to his father, the Supreme High Emperor (Taishang Huang) in the capital cities of their kingdoms. Subsequent emperors also elevated their fathers to temple name status, meaning that the shrines to them would be maintained in perpetuity rather than demolished after five generations, as was normal practice. There were Grand Progenitor shrines (Taizu miao 太祖廟) to Emperor Gao, Grand Ancestor shrines (Taizong miao 太宗廟) to Emperor Wen, and Generational Ancestor shrines (Shizong miao 世宗廟) to Emperor Wu. Each of these had shrines established in every commandery and kingdom for a total of 68, and still more shrines were created in all places the relevant emperor had ever visited on imperial progression, bringing the number to 167. Shrines were also kept at the tombs of all the Han emperors and to Emperor Zhao’s natural father near the capital, bringing the overall number to 176. These tomb shrines were in fact complexes consisting of the tomb mound, park grounds, main shrine (miao), a rest chamber (qin 寢), and side building (bian dian 便殿). 64 Han shu 25b.1253. 65 See also the annotated translation of this text in Timothy Baker, “The Imperial Ancestral Temple,” Appendix 1, pp. 207–275. He argues that the biography was composed by Ban Biao rather than Ban Gu, since the appraising statement at the end is by him. Wei Xian and Wei Xuancheng are also noted for having composed rare examples of shi poetry in the Western Han; see Zeb Raft, “The Beginning of Literati Poetry: Four Poems from First-Century BCE China” (2010), which includes biographical detail and the scholastic cultural background from which the two rose. 66 Han shu 73.3115–3130; Michael Loewe, “The Imperial Tombs” includes much useful background on the overall political situation of the time and relevant personalities not included here.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

159

In all these shrines, a complex round of 24,455 daily, monthly, seasonal, and annual observances took place, requiring 45,129 guardsmen, 12,147 invocators, cooks, and musicians, and a further unknown number of people involved in raising the sacrificial animals not included in these statistics.67 The arguments for reform were made in terms of principles of Ritual Learning as reflected in the institutions of antiquity, but another important consideration was the enormous expense involved in maintaining these cults. Reducing this was part of the wider political agenda pursued by the mostly Ru officials Michael Loewe characterises as “reformist”, who advocated less state intervention, territorial retrenchment, and reducing expenditure. The Han shu credits one Yi Feng 翼奉 with being the first to suggest to Emperor Yuan that the ancestral shrines, and the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, should be reformed. Yi was a Ru scholar from Donghai in the northeast, in the territory corresponding to the old state of Qi, who studied the Qi version of the Songs under Hou Cang together with Kuang Heng and other future high officials. Given that Hou Cang was also an important transmitter of the Li text, we can assume that, like Kuang Heng, Yi was also familiar with this text and with Ritual Learning more widely. His ideas for reforming the imperial cults were likely influenced by Hou Cang, and were certainly shared with his fellow students. Yi Feng’s biography in the Han shu records that he mentioned reforming the imperial cults in a memorial submitted in 46 BCE, after a fire in one of the buildings at Emperor Wu’s tomb, a baleful event Yi Feng had successively predicted through prognosticatory calculation. The cults are mentioned only briefly in passing, among wide-ranging recommendations with detailed analysis based on cosmological theory and ancient precedent. It stresses the need to curb extravagance, and makes the startling recommendation that the capital be moved from Chang’an to Cheng Zhou 成周, or Luoyang, to emulate the new capitals founded by the ancient Shang king Pangeng 盤庚 and the Duke of Zhou, and effect a dynastic renewal. In all this, reform of the cults occupies one brief sentence: “The rites (li) of the sacrifices at the Han house’s Suburban Altars, ancestral Rest Chambers, and ancestral shrines are for the most part not in accord with antiquity.” The emperor immediately fixed on the ancestral shrines: “I ask you, Feng, there are 67 Han shu 73.3115–3116. See also the account in Loewe, “Imperial Tombs,” especially pp. 319– 320 for the layout of the complex, 320–322 for a list and discussion of the offerings, 322–323 for the temple names and their significance, and 323–324 for the statistics on the proliferation of shrines outside the capital. Loewe notes that the precision of these numbers shows they come from official records, and are probably reliable.

160

Chapter 4

now seven shrines with parklands. If [the capital] is moved east, what form should these take?” Yi Feng refused to answer the question, saying only that the emperor should determine this from his own sagely wisdom. However, Emperor Yuan’s question is itself revealing, in that it shows he was already aware of the idea that there should be seven ancestral shrines, at a time earlier than any of the official memorials on this matter preserved in the Han shu. Yi Feng’s biography then says, “Subsequently, Gong Yu also said that the ritual regulations governing the demolition of shrines needed to be settled, and the emperor then heeded this advice. Later when Kuang Heng became Chancellor, he proposed moving [the observances to Heaven and Earth] to the southern and northern suburbs. Both of these proposals originated from Yi Feng.”68 This appears only in Yi Feng’s biography; Yi is not mentioned in Wei Xuancheng’s biography, or the “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices”. Court discussion of the imperial ancestral shrines and associated rituals had long been prohibited by a ban imposed in the time of Empress Lü, on pain of death, reflecting extreme sensitivity to any challenge to this important symbolic expression of dynastic legitimacy. This ban was now revoked by Emperor Yuan, allowing Gong Yu’s proposal to reform them, probably submitted in 44 BCE.69 The Han shu Wei Xuancheng biography records his proposals as follows: Gong Yu submitted a memorial which said, “In antiquity the Son of Heaven had seven ancestral shrines. At present, the shrines of the Filial Emperor Hui and Filial Emperor Jing have passed the limit of kinship, and should be demolished. Along with them, all the ancestral shrines in the commanderies and kingdoms are not in accord with antiquity, and this should be rectified.” The emperor agreed to this proposal, but before it could be implemented, [Gong] Yu died.70 In 40 BCE, the emperor ordered a widespread consultation on whether the ancestral shrines in the commanderies and kingdoms should be abolished. All high officials, enfeoffed marquises, Academicians, and imperial advisors were to take part. In his order, the emperor cited practical considerations. These regional shrines had displayed the imperial presence in the regions at a time when the Han was newly established, but that this function was no 68 See the text of Yi Feng’s memorial in Han shu 75.3175–3177, and the emperor’s question and credit to Yi Feng for these proposals on p. 3178. 69 Empress Lü’s ban, and Emperor Yuan’s rescinding it, are described in Han shu 73.3125. 70 Han shu 73.3116.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

161

longer needed, now that the dynasty was stable and secure. He also mentioned a principle of Ritual Learning, using a line contained in the Lun yu (without identifying the source): “If I do not participate in the sacrifice, it is as if I did not perform the sacrifice.”71 Having so many low-ranking sacrifices to the imperial ancestors in remote locations without the participation of the emperor violated this principle. In response to this rather clear indication of the expected result from the emperor, seventy officials led by the Chancellor Wei Xuancheng submitted their recommendation. The regional shrines should be abandoned and cease to be maintained, with only a reduced number of guards left to protect them. They endorsed the principle that sacrifice proceeded from within the heart of the sacrificer, and that only the shrines in the capital allowed the emperor to do this in person. They asserted that all ancient sovereigns located ancestral shrines in their capitals, so that they could perform personal sacrifice assisted by many officials coming from far and wide; this had been an unvarying principle since the Five Emperors and Three Kings of antiquity. They quoted as authority lines from the Shi jing song “Yong” 雝 (Mao 282), a Zhou hymn associated with the king’s ancestral sacrifice at which the feudal lords came to assist. They also cited the Spring and Autumn Annals, saying “A father does not sacrifice in the residences of concubines; a Lord does not sacrifice in the homes of vassals and servants; the King does not sacrifice among the feudal lords of outlying territories.” This latter is likely to be a statement of principle based on Spring and Autumn Annals scholarship rather than a quote, or at least this wording does not appear in any of the received three Zhuan commentaries to the Annals. The emperor approved this recommendation. The regional ancestral shrines were abandoned, and never subsequently restored.72 More contentious was Gong Yu’s recommendation that the shrines at the capital be limited to seven. Emperor Yuan called for a consultation on this in 40 BCE, a month or so after the abandonment of the regional shrines. In his order he says, “We have heard that when enlightened kings instituted their rites, they established four ancestral shrines to their kin, and [another] to the founding ancestor, which was not destroyed through ten thousand generations, as a way of making clear that they venerated their progenitor and honoured their ancestors, thus displaying their treatment of kin as kin.” He expresses his unease that the great rituals were not yet complete (da li wei bei 大禮未備), and again calls for advice from all his officials. This time forty-four officials responded, a smaller number than previously, again led by Wei Xuancheng. 71 Lun yu 3.12. 72 Han shu 73.3116–3117; Loewe, “Imperial Tombs,” pp. 326–327.

162

Chapter 4

Their statement is worth presenting in full because the argumentation used is based in considerable part upon principles of Ritual Learning, and for being the earliest in this account to quote from an extant ritual text as authority: According to li,73 a King who first receives the Mandate, or a feudal lord who is newly enfeoffed, in all cases becomes the Grand Progenitor (Taizu). Below [the Grand Progenitor], the Five Shrines are demolished in turn, with the tablet from the demolished shrine stored in the [shrine of] the Grand Progenitor. Every five years two grand sacrifices are performed to them, which is to say one Di 禘 sacrifice and one Xia 祫 sacrifice. In the Xia sacrifice, the tablets from shrines both demolished and not yet demolished are feasted collectively in the Grand Progenitor’s [shrine], with the father on the Zhao 昭 side, the son on the Mu 穆 side, and the grandson once again on the Zhao side. This is the correct ritual of antiquity (gu zhi zheng li 古之正禮). The Ji yi 祭義 (“Meaning of Sacrifice”) says, “The King performs the Di sacrifice to the one from whom his progenitor sprang, with his progenitor as correlate, and establishes four [more] ancestral shrines.” This means that when a person first receives the Mandate and becomes King, he sacrifices to Heaven with his own progenitor as correlate. When a shrine is not established it is because the degree of kinship [through the generations] has reached its limit.74 That four shrines are founded to [ancestral] kin, is to show proper treatment of kin as kin. To demolish [each shrine] in turn when the degree of kinship has reached its limit is due to diminishment in the degree of kinship, to show that there is a conclusion. The reason why the Zhou had seven ancestral shrines is because [their ancestor] Hou Ji 后稷 was the one first enfeoffed, and Kings Wen and Wu [jointly] received the Mandate and became King, thus their three shrines were not demolished, and together with the four to ancestral kin the number was seven. With the exception of Hou Ji who was first enfeoffed, and Wen and Wu with the merit of receiving the Mandate, all the rest were demolished when the degree of kinship reached its limit. King Cheng completed the undertakings of the two sages [Wen and Wu], established the Rites and created the music. His accomplishments and 73 74

The editors of the modern typeset edition punctuate “li” as a book title, so that it would read “According to the Li,” but I prefer to read it as general principles of li. The extant ritual canons do not contain this wording. The text here seems incomplete, as this sentence seems no longer to be referring to the founding sovereign. Loewe also notes that the text “may be corrupt”, “Imperial Tombs,” p. 328.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

163

virtue were consummate, yet his shrine did not perpetuate through the generations, and his deeds were only made into his posthumous title (Cheng, “Accomplished”). According to li, the ancestral shrine is located inside the main gate, to show that [the sovereign] dares not place his kin at a distance. In our foolish opinion, Emperor Gao received the Mandate and took control of the empire, and thus should be accorded the shrine of the Grand Progenitor of all the emperors, not to be demolished through the generations. For all those who succeeded him, if they have reached the limit they should be demolished. Currently, the ancestral shrines are all in different places, with the Zhao and Mu sides not in their proper sequence. They should be brought close to or inside the Grand Progenitor shrine and be arranged according to the Zhao and Mu sequence so as to conform to li. The shrines to the Grand Supreme Progenitor (Emperor Gao’s father), Filial [Emperor] Hui, Filial [Emperor] Wen, and Filial [Emperor] Jing have reached the limit of kinship and should be demolished. The shrine to the August Father (Emperor Xuan’s natural father) has not reached the limit of kinship and should remain as is.75 This memorial makes repeated appeal to principles linked to the concept of li, and contains one actual quote from a ritual text associated with the Li ji, though the designation “Li ji” does not appear. The “Meaning of Sacrifice” is the title of a section of the extant Li ji, though it does not contain the text quoted here. The identical text does appear in another extant section of the Li ji, the “Sangfu xiao ji” 喪服小記 (“Lesser Record of Mourning Dress”).76 This is consistent with the idea that the texts of the Li ji were forming into an authoritative corpus at the time, as discussed above, but were not yet fixed in their final form. At the very least, these texts would have been among the 131 “Records” mentioned in the bibliographic treatise of the Han shu (based on Liu Xiang and Liu Xin’s catalogue from a few decades later). The fact that the quote itself appears in a different section of the Li ji from that named is not the only case where this occurs. The Li ji compiler, whether Dai Sheng or someone else, likely edited the “Records”, perhaps because the quoted sentence appeared in more than one Record and was deleted from one, or because he deemed that the relevant passage more properly belonged in a Record relating to funerary rather than sacrificial ritual.

75 Han shu 73.3118. 76 Li ji zhushu 32.7b–8a.

164

Chapter 4

In this memorial, Wei Xuancheng and his supporters use the “Ji yi” Record to argue that the seven shrines earlier identified by Gong Yu as being the practice of antiquity were anomalous, due to the special circumstances of the Zhou, and that the correct number was five, the founding ruler and four most recent ancestors. Even though this number was that specified in the wording of the emperor’s question as put to them, as well as corresponding to the number of ancestral tablets actively worshipped at different levels of society, and had the textual precedent they cited, their argument would make no headway. It was the system of seven that would predominate ever after, primarily on the authority of the “Ji fa” 祭法 (“Models of Sacrifice”) section of the Li ji, with its numerical system of seven for the king, five for feudal lords, three for landed grand officers, and one for gentry, applied not just to ancestral shrines, but also to other sacrificial cults, numbers of ritual vessels, and the number of months between coffining and burial. Wei Xuancheng had led a group of seventy officials for the proposal to abolish the regional shrines, but this number had now fallen to forty-four. This suggests that the new proposal had attracted less political support, perhaps because the emperor’s own intent was less clear, and it would have led to the demolition of shrines in the capital. And, in this case opposing proposals are recorded. One of these was presented by a group of twenty-nine officials led by Xu Jia 許嘉, an uncle of Emperor Yuan’s mother and hence the equivalent of a grandfather to him. This argued that Emperor Wen’s exceptional achievements in abolishing mutilation punishments, ridding the court of slander, and shunning extravagance earned him the right to retain the position of Grand Ancestor (Taizong). Another memorial from Commandant Yin Zhong 尹忠 made a case for Emperor Wu, on the grounds that his reform of the calendar, renewal of dynastic institutions, and expulsion of barbarians meant he deserved to retain his status as Generational Ancestor (Shizong). Finally, a group of eighteen argued that the shrine to Emperor Xuan’s natural father contravened proper ritual ( fei zheng li 非正禮) and should be demolished.77 The emperor was undecided for a year, which again suggests that the issue was more controversial than the earlier abolition of regional shrines. Finally in 39 BCE he proclaimed that Emperor Wen would retain his status as Grand Ancestor, and that Emperor Jing and Emperor Xuan’s natural father would both be deemed to have reached their limit and their shrines demolished. Wei Xuancheng then submitted another memorial accepting Emperor Wen as Grand Ancestor; clearly the emperor’s word on this could not be opposed. This meant, they said, that five shrines would be subject to demolition in their 77 Han shu 73.3118–3119.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

165

turn (not the four of the Zhou), thus tacitly accepting that the principle of seven also applied to the Han, with two permanent shrines rather than the Zhou’s three. With five non-permanent shrines, they suggested that Emperor Jing retain his, and that Emperor Zhao’s natural father had also not reached the kinship limit and should remain. Emperor Gao’s father’s shrine should be demolished and his spirit tablet moved to a park and tomb (presumably Emperor Gao’s, or possibly his own, the text does not specify). Emperor Hui’s shrine should also be demolished and his tablet moved to the Grand Progenitor’s shrine, and his rest chamber and park should be abandoned.78 The emperor approved this proposal, and the measures were implemented in 39 BCE (actually January of 38). The next target for reform was the practice of processing with the deceased emperor’s cap and clothes. This practice went back to the time of Shusun Tong, mentioned above when he admonished Emperor Hui for building a private elevated walkway that cut across the road used for the procession of Emperor Gao’s imperial clothing. It is not clear whether it was only Emperor Gao’s cap and clothing that were paraded, or whether subsequent emperors were also included. The initial proposal to abolish this rite, attributed only to “proposers” or “advisors” (yi zhe 議者) with no mention of the Chancellor Wei Xuancheng, seems to have been put forward in the same year as the earlier proposal, 39. The memorial quotes from a Zhou hymn in the Songs titled “Qing miao” 清廟 (“Pure Shrine”, Mao 266) to emphasise that ancestral observances required cleanliness and purity, and that the procession exposed the imperial clothing, and the participants, to the wind and rain, and therefore violated this canonical principle. A ritual principle is also invoked, without naming the source: “In sacrifices, it is not desirable for them to be too numerous ( ji bu yu shu 祭不欲 數). If they are too numerous, it profanes, and if it profanes it is disrespectful.” The Tang commentator Yan Shigu 顏師古 identifies this as a quote from the “Ji fa” text of the Li ji. It does not appear in the extant “Ji fa”, but almost the identical wording does occur in the Li ji “Ji yi” 祭義, except that the word “profane” (du 瀆) becomes fan 繁, “troublesome” or “unnecessarily complicated”.79 The Han shu text does not identify this as a quote, but it seems safe to conclude that it was a known principle of ritual familiar through study of the body of “Records” ( ji) available to scholars of Ritual Learning at the time. The unnamed proposers conclude that the ancient ritual practice of four seasonal sacrifices 78 Han shu 73.3120. 79 Li ji zhushu 47.1a. The passage goes on to state that sacrifices made too infrequently are equally undesirable, because it leads to them being forgotten.

166

Chapter 4

in the shrines should be restored, and that the daily and monthly offerings at the rest chambers in the parklands should be abandoned. The emperor did not accept this advice.80 In the next year, 38, Wei Xuancheng proposed that the mothers of Emperors Wen and Zhao should not receive offerings in their rest chambers in parklands. This violated ritual principles, because neither had held the title of Empress in life: In the following year, Xuancheng further said, “When the rites were designed (zhi li 制禮) in antiquity, the exalted and lowly, and the noble and base were distinguished. The mother of the sovereign of a state could not receive offerings as a correlate unless she had been the principal wife (di 適, same as 嫡), otherwise she would have offerings in the rest chamber merely as someone who had died as an individual. Your Majesty, personally of utmost filial piety and following the will of Heaven, has established the Progenitor and Ancestor shrines, decided those shrines that should be demolished in turn, and set the Zhao and Mu [sides] in their proper sequence. Now that these major rituals have been determined, the rest chambers, shrines, and parklands of the Empress Dowager Filial Wen and Empress Dowager Filial Zhao should cease to be maintained, in accordance with li.” The emperor approved this memorial.81 From these latest two examples, one accepted, the other not, it appears that Ru officials were nibbling away at practices not in accord with their Ritual Learning, effecting change wherever they could in matters large and small. Political tensions and rivalries often lay behind debates over such proposals, but it is difficult to escape the impression that the primary consideration was dedication to the ritual principles themselves. The Ru officials were bent on reforming the imperial rites in conformity with these principles, as having been established in antiquity, and discoverable from the growing body of canonical and ritual texts that were being found, assembled, and edited at the time. The textualisation of Ritual Learning begun in the mid to late second century BCE was continuing apace and increasing its range. Wei Xuancheng died in 36 BCE, and was replaced as Chancellor by another of Hou Cang’s pupils in the Li and the Songs, Kuang Heng 匡衡 (d. 30/ 29 BCE). Like his colleagues, Kuang was not exclusively a ritual specialist but an all-round scholar of the Confucian canons who held high office under 80 Han shu 73.3120. 81 Han shu 73.3120–3121.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

167

emperors Yuan and Cheng. Unlike Wei Xuancheng, who achieved office through his father’s high rank and enfeoffed title, Kuang Heng is said to have been appointed mainly on account of his consummate command of canonical learning, mastered through arduous study in youth despite his farming family’s (alleged) poverty. He now became a major driving figure behind ritual reform. He was the most significant early driver of the Suburban sacrifices to Heaven and Earth; more about his background and career, and his Ritual Learning, will be covered in the next section. At this time Emperor Yuan fell ill and dreamed that his ancestors came to berate him for abolishing the ancestral shrines in the regions. His younger brother, the King of Chu, had similar dreams. Yuan suggested reinstating the regional shrines, but Kuang Heng argued vigorously that he must not. Then, when the emperor’s illness grew prolonged, Kuang Heng grew afraid, and went to pray at the shrines of Emperors Gao, Wen, and Wu.82 The Han shu reproduces the long text of his prayer, as presented to all three shrines. In it, he defends the earnest attitude of Emperor Yuan in continuing the glorious legacy of his ancestors, and justifies the abandonment of the regional shrines in terms of the ritual principle that all imperial ancestral observances should be performed by the emperor in person. He invoked ancient precedent, saying that all human contact with the spirits must accord with the unvarying rules of the sages of antiquity (gu sheng zhi jing 古聖之經). He explains the rationale earlier cited by Wei Xuancheng, that the regional shrines had at one time served to bind the empire together, but now that the empire was secure ancestral shrines should now be located only in the capital. The emperor was sacrificing to them with all solemnity and reverence in accordance with old li, but was now frightened by his dreams, and had commanded Kuang Heng to reinstate the regional sacrifices. Kuang Heng then explains to the past emperors that reinstating the regional shrines was undesirable for two reasons: it would mean lowly functionaries performing the rituals on their own, instead of the emperor in person, and that the people would be unable to endure the cost of reinstating them after several years of poor crops. If Kuang Heng were wrong about this, and really was violating li and right, and disobeying the will of the imperial ancestors, he begged that the supernatural retribution of illness be visited upon him, and not Emperor Yuan.83 He also submitted an invocation of apology to the imperial ancestors of all the shrines which had been demolished, also quoted in the Han shu, following 82 Han shu 73.3121. 83 Han shu 73.3121–3122.

168

Chapter 4

the same pattern of an explanation of the principles of li which justified the measure, and imploring that any supernatural guilt be attributed to him, not to the emperor. His claims to authority take on something of a cosmological bent, something not seen in the debates on the ancestral shrines previously. He attributes the origins of ritual institutions to the patterns of Heaven and Earth, and states that patterns of five are evident in the Five Phases of nature and the five degrees of kinship among people. The emperor receives his authority from Heaven, which is the foundation of his institutions, hence the Di 禘 and Chang 嘗 sacrifices to the ancestors should never number more than five. The dynastic founder who received the Mandate has a personal connection to Heaven, thus his shrine is never demolished. His successors beyond five are subject to being moved to the Grand Progenitor’s shrine, to receive collective offerings every other year in accordance with Heaven, and from this they will enjoy the attendant blessings in perpetuity. Kuang Heng noted that Emperor Yuan, despite the reluctance arising from personal feelings of grief and fear of his ancestors, knew that Emperor Gao desired this as a long-term strategy for the perpetuation of his line, and so made the decision to shift the tablets. But now the emperor was ill, and was minded to restore the shrines and their observances, which Kuang Heng and his colleagues opposed as being impermissible according to li. He also says it is inappropriate in light of the Six Arts (liu yi 六藝), meaning the Confucian canons.84 The emperor’s illness continued for many years, and eventually he reinstated the abolished shrine and parkland for Emperor Gao’s father. In this he seems to have been moved by the advice of the official Ping Dang 平當, described in his Han shu biography as a man with deep understanding of portents, but also holding beliefs similar to Kuang Heng. Ping presented a memorial containing quotes from the Lun yu, Canon of Filial Piety (Xiao jing), and Shang shu arguing that Emperor Gao’s elevation of his father was an act of virtue comparable to King Wen of the Zhou’s honouring Hou Ji, both men refusing to allow themselves to be the primary object of ancestral worship despite securing the Mandate of Heaven. In view of this he recommended that the shrine to Gao’s father be restored.85 In 34 BCE Yuan also elevated Emperor Wu’s temple status to Generational Ancestor (Shizong), saying that this was the original command of his father Emperor Xuan. Only the regional shrines were not restored.86

84 Han shu 73.3122–3123. 85 Han shu 71.3048–3049. 86 Han shu 73.3123.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

169

When Emperor Yuan died in 33 BCE, the Chancellor Kuang Heng immediately proposed abolishing the various shrines once more, on the grounds that their reinstatement had not restored the emperor’s health, and the new Emperor Cheng (r. 33–7 BCE) approved this. The account of Cheng’s reign after this is extremely brief, but later on there was a setback for the Ru ritual specialists. In 28 BCE, after the emperor remained childless, the shrine and parklands for Emperor Gao’s father were restored, and several ancestral imperial consorts were returned to the Grand Progenitor’s shrine. The ban on unauthorised discussion of the imperial shrines, revoked by Emperor Yuan, was also reinstated.87 The narrative then moves to a longer account of developments in the reign of Emperor Ai (r. 7–1 BCE). In contrast to Emperor Yuan’s time, the officials involved in the debates are not explicitly identified as Ru, though some of them are said to have studied one or another of the Canons. Presumably by this time most officials had credentials in Confucian learning of one sort or another. Rather, the emphasis in the wider historical sources (primarily the Han shu) is on the intense political conflict and factional rivalries during the last years of the Western Han. Nonetheless the memorials on the disposition of the imperial shrines come across as debates over scholarship, grounding their arguments in terms of the Canons and principles of li. These memorials reveal further advances in Ritual Learning and the growth of its textual corpus. A proposal to go back to the practice of demolishing shrines after the kinship limit of five generations, and to strip Emperor Wu of his temple-name Ancestor status, was initiated in 7 BCE by two men, the newly-appointed Chancellor Kong Guang 孔光 (64 BCE–5 CE) and another official He Wu 何武 (d. 3 CE). Kong Guang came from a high-ranking family descended from Confucius who had a long, mostly successful career in high office, with several setbacks due to political strife, and is described as being earnest and generally respected. He Wu is depicted as precocious, kind, and impartial, and began his official career through achieving the top grade ( jia ke 甲科) in testing based on his study of the Changes. In particular, he is said to have exonerated the prominent Li scholar Dai Sheng, to whom the standard Li ji compilation is ascribed, when Dai’s son was condemned for banditry committed by his own followers, which normally would have meant execution for Dai Sheng as well.88 At the beginning of Emperor Ai’s reign, He Wu was appointed Grand Minister of Works (Da Sikong 大司空), one of the new Three Ministers of State (“Three Lords”, san gong 三公), the three highest ranking officials replacing the erstwhile single 87 Han shu 73.3125. 88 Han shu 86.3482. See the biographies of Kong Guang and He Wu in Michael Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary, pp. 207–209 and 154–156 respectively.

170

Chapter 4

Chancellor, part of the new system of official titles based on the old Zhou order implemented in 1 BCE. He Wu himself had been the one to propose the change to this new system at the top of the official bureaucracy. Kong Guang and He Wu asked permission to submit proposals on the imperial shrines, on the grounds that decisions on whether to grant Ancestor status or to demolish shrines should be determined according to the circumstances of the times, and discussion should therefore not be subject to prohibition. The emperor approved lifting the ban. A proposal then came forward from fifty-three officials, headed by three high officials with training in the Canons, Peng Xuan 彭宣 (Changes), Man Chang 滿昌 (Songs), and Zuo Xian 左咸 (Spring and Autumn Annals), to go back to the system of demolishing shrines when they reached the kinship limit, to revoke Emperor Wu’s status and title of Generational Ancestor, and prohibit any other emperors from receiving Ancestor status, no matter how wise they might be. The Han shu only summarizes this proposal, rather than presenting the text of a memorial, nor is there any specific justification mentioned, beyond the statement that the relevant spirits would not accept offerings made in violation of these ritual principles. It is likely that the ritual arguments were similar to those advanced by Wei Xuancheng and Kuang Heng several decades previously. Interestingly, Kong and He are not listed as being among the fifty-three, despite their high official rank, even though they had initiated the discussion to begin with.89 A long counter-memorial was submitted by two officials who would later support Wang Mang, Wang Shun 王舜 (d. 11 CE, from a powerful family related to Wang Mang) and Liu Xin 劉歆 (c. 46 BCE–23 CE), son of the famous bibliographer Liu Xiang 劉向 (79–8 BCE) who carried on his father’s work, and provided scholarly (and political) support for Wang Mang’s ritual and other initiatives. In contrast to the fifty-three they were opposing, no one else is mentioned as joining with them. As far as we can tell from the Han shu account, there does not seem to be any political dispute involved; the counter-argument, especially the substantial parts of it concerning Ritual Learning, was based on canonical scholarship which since the time of Wei Xuancheng and Kuang Heng had begun to supersede the earlier prevailing opinion. Particularly striking are quotes from the Li ji “Wang zhi” explicitly under that title, and from the Zuo zhuan, which Liu Xin had discovered and championed as a major work of Spring and Autumn Annals scholarship. The start of the memorial, which will not be presented in detail here, is a long justification of the achievements of Emperor Wu, his defense against 89 Han shu 73.3125.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

171

foreign incursions which are likened to those of successful Zhou kings celebrated in the Shi jing, and his renewal of dynastic institutions. Because of this, he deserved equal status with Emperors Gao and Wen with the title of “Martial Generational Ancestor” (Wu Shizong 武世宗). Michael Loewe argues that this reversal of the critical Reformist attitude to Emperor Wu’s military adventures and interventionist policies may have contributed to Wu’s high reputation in later times.90 The rest of the memorial is an excellent example of an analysis based on Ritual Learning, citing the Canons and other texts as sources of authority for the institutions of antiquity. It begins by citing the Li ji “Wang zhi” 王制 and the Guliang zhuan 穀梁傳 commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals as evidence that the Zhou Son of Heaven maintained seven ancestral shrines rather than five. Both quotes match the extant texts: According to the Li ji “Wang zhi” and the Guliang zhuan, the Son of Heaven has seven shrines, the feudal lords five, Grand Officers (da fu 大夫) three, and gentry (shi 士) two. The Son of Heaven is laid in the coffin after seven days, and buried after seven months; feudal lords are laid in the coffin after five days, and buried after five months; this is the order of different degrees of venerability expressed in funerals, and corresponds to the number of shrines. The text says, “The Son of Heaven has three Zhao and three Mu, together with the Grand Progenitor Shrine it makes seven. The feudal lords have two Zhao and two Mu, together with the Grand Progenitor Shrine it makes five.”91 Thus people of substantial virtue make manifest their glory, people of insubstantial virtue make manifest their ignominy. Mr Zuo’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun qiu Zuo shi zhuan 春秋左氏傳) says, “People have different status and rank; their rituals likewise are distinguished by different numbers.”92 From high to low, to reduce [in increments of] two is in accordance with li. Seven is the standard number, which may be taken as constant. The Ancestors (zong) are not included in this number. The Ancestors are a variation; if [a ruler] has merit and virtue, they are made an Ancestor. One cannot specify a fixed number of them in advance. Thus during the Yin 90 Loewe, Biographical Dictionary, p. 552 (entry on Wang Shun). 91 This quote is identical to the extant “Wang zhi”, as is the description of the lengths of time before confining and burial which appears in the passage immediately preceding; Li ji zhushu 12.15a and 11b. 92 This text is identical to the extant Zuo zhuan, Zhuang 18.1, Yang Bojun vol. 1, p. 207.

172

Chapter 4

(Shang) period, Tai Jia 太甲 was called the Great Ancestor (Taizong), Tai Wu 大戊 the Middle Ancestor (Zhongzong 中宗), and Wu Ding 武丁 the High Ancestor (Gaozong 高宗). When the Duke of Zhou composed the “Warning Against Idleness” (Wu yi zhi jie 毋逸之戒), he cited the three Ancestors of Yin to encourage King Cheng. In view of this, we may say that there is no fixed number of Ancestors, and in this way there is encouragement for emperors to achieve vast virtue and accomplishments. As far as the Seven Shrines are concerned, that of the Filial Emperor Wu should not be demolished; in terms of ones who are fitting to be made Ancestors, we cannot say that he is lacking in virtue and merit. The Li ji “Sacrificial Canons” (Li ji si dian 禮記祀典) say, “When the sage kings instituted sacrifices, those who extended their achievements to the people were made the recipients of sacrifice, those who toiled to bring stability to the state were made the recipients of sacrifice, those who were able to rescue the people from major disasters were made the recipients of sacrifice.”93 In our humble observation of the Filial Emperor Wu, he combines all these [manifestations of] virtue and achievement. Even in the case of people from outside the imperial family, special sacrifices are instituted, so of course this [principle] should apply to the [imperial] ancestors. The memorial goes on to state that other interpretations, for example that past rulers could be given Ancestor status but still be subject to shrine demolition, lacked any grounding in Canons or commentaries. They also say that Emperor Xuan had consulted his officials and taken advice from the “host of Ru” (zhong Ru 衆儒) before giving Emperor Wu the title of Generational Ancestor. Emperor Ai accepted the memorial and ordered the upgrading of Wu’s status.94 The Han shu then records a further opinion from Liu Xin, prefaced with “you yi wei 又以為”, “he further thought that” or “held that”, not identified as a memorial or proposal, nor is there any response from the emperor. In it he argues that to have allowed the abandonments of the rest chambers and parklands 93

“Si dian”, or “Sacrificial Canons”, is not a text in the extant Li ji, but is commonly used as a designation for what constitutes orthodox sacrificial ritual. The text presented as a quote is quite similar to the slightly more elaborate wording in the extant “Ji fa”, also in reference to the criteria by which meritorious human beings are deemed worthy of deification and receiving sacrificial offerings in the state cults. Li ji zhushu 46.16b. As we will see below, other officials use quotes from the “Li ji si dian” that are the same as or similar to the extant “Ji fa”, so it may be that Li ji “Si dian” was the actual title of the section during that time. 94 Han shu 73.3125–3127.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

173

at the tombs of Emperors Hui and Jing, and to Emperor Gao’s father, so that they became ruins (xu 虛), as had happened after Gong Yu’s initial proposal to demolish shrines past their limit, was in contravention of the “intent” of li (li yi 禮意). He argues this on two principles of li. The first is the principle of “diminishment” (shai 殺) according to distance. He cites as authority the Outer Commentary of the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun qiu wai zhuan 春秋外傳), i.e. the Guo yu, with a quote that corresponds exactly to the received text. This is a list of sacrifices performed each day, month, season, year, and at the end of each reign. The original text pertains to sacrifices offered by subordinate rulers within the geographical five zones of submission ( fu 服), who had different levels of obligation to the king diminishing with distance. Liu Xin argues that the same principle, and the same five kinds of sacrifice, apply to distance across time, and that those most seldom performed to the most distant ancestor are in fact the most solemn and momentous. The second principle he invokes is that li should accord with human feeling (qing 情). The system of arranging shrines In a Zhao and Mu left-right sequence means that a grandson normally follows and replaces the grandfather in the sequential demolition of shrines and moving the spirit tablets, according to the principle of diminishment, but the grandson still has natural feelings for this grandfather, which should be expressed. He says that because of human feelings a sage will not demolish the shrine. This is puzzling, because he is not arguing against the ritual demolition of shrines, but rather that the human feeling be expressed by maintaining the parklands and rest chambers at the tombs.95 The final passage in this document is a memorial from Wang Mang submitted during the Yuanshi 元始 reign period (1–5 CE), in which he addresses the ritual treatment of the natural father or mother of an emperor who was not themselves an emperor or empress. The main example of this was Emperor Xuan. Wang Mang notes that in 73 BCE Xuan’s natural father was given a parkland with the posthumous title Dao 悼, “Consolation”, then in 65 was given the title “Imperial Ancestor-Father” (Huang kao 皇考) with an ancestral shrine of his own, on the grounds that an emperor should not be offering sacrifices to someone in the gentry class. Wang Mang argues that the shrine to Xuan’s father should never have been founded, and that it was wrong for it to have received sacrifices ever since. The tombs and parklands for the mothers of Emperors Wen and Zhao, though abandoned and no longer maintained, also incorrectly retained their names as belonging to “empress dowagers”. Wang consulted 147 officials on this matter, including the Grand Minster of Education (Da Situ) Ping Yan 平晏, who observed that Emperor Xuan, 95 Han shu 73.3129.

174

Chapter 4

succeeding as the grandson of the older brother of his predecessor, was put in the position of having two fathers because of his natural father’s shrine, a violation of ritual regulations (li zhi 禮制). Wang notes that the initial posthumous title of “Dao” was in accordance with the canons (or major ritual regulations, jing 經), but the later imperial title was not. He also refutes what appears to be one of the arguments for the imperial status of a non-emperor father, the precedent of sage rulers and dynastic founders like Yao, Shun, Yu, Wen of Zhou, and Emperor Gao, all of whom honoured their fathers as imperial ancestors, saying that an emperor who inherited by succession was not in the same category. The boy-emperor Ping approved his request to demolish the relevant tomb, and change the administrative districts of the two empress tombs to ordinary counties.96 It is no coincidence that this memorial came during the Yuanshi reign period of 1–5 CE. This was the time when Wang Mang dominated the court but had not yet become emperor, and a time when the final determination of many ritual matters was made largely under Wang Mang’s direction, establishing what were ever after known as the “Yuanshi-era precedents” (Yuanshi gu shi 元始故事). Despite Wang’s powerful position, he followed the form we saw in other memorials in the preceding decades, citing the number of officials who supported the proposal. Perhaps not surprisingly, the number was larger than in any of the memorials discussed above. Natural fathers being elevated to the status of emperor was a recurring problem for Ritual Learning. The emperor as sovereign would perform sacrifices to his predecessor in the imperial ancestor cult, but as an individual he owed a filial duty to make offerings to his natural father. Because ritual hierarchy always gave precedence to an emperor over anyone else, he could not pay observances to someone lower in rank than himself. Posthumously awarding the natural father the title of Emperor was one solution, though like Wang Mang, scholars of Ritual Learning usually resisted this. Perhaps the most famous case in Chinese history was the Jiajing emperor in the late Ming (r. 1521–1567), who forced through his father’s elevation by force against the intense opposition of his officials.97 This Han shu Biography of Wei Xuancheng concludes with one of the few appraising comments by Ban Gu’s father Ban Biao 班彪 (3–54 CE), not on the 96 Han shu 73.3129–3130. 97 See the studies by Carney Fisher, The Chosen One: Succession and Adoption in the Court of Ming Shizong (1990) and The Great Ritual Controversy in Ming China (1978), also James Geiss, “The Chia-ching Reign, 1522–1566,” in The Cambridge History of China Volume 7 (1988), pp. 443–450.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

175

biography of Wei Xian and his son Wei Xuancheng, but specifically on the appended account of the imperial shrines. In particular he praised the scholarship of Liu Xin, despite the latter’s negative reputation for his close association with Wang Mang: After the Han succeeded the vanished Qin, who had obliterated learning, the institutions pertaining to the imperial ancestors were applied according to what was appropriate at any given time. From the reigns of Yuan and Cheng, the numbers of scholars (xue zhe 學者) multiplied. Gong Yu demolished the ancestral shrines, Kuang Heng reformed the Suburban altars, He Wu determined the Three Ministers of State. Subsequently these all reverted again and again, confused and not finally decided. Why was this? The ritual writings are incomplete and obscure, institutions ancient and modern differ, each school has its own interpretation, and it is not easy for any given school to determine [the ritual institutions] on its own. When we examine the proposals of all the various Ru, it is Liu Xin who has the greatest breadth and depth.98 Ban Biao here articulates the great challenge of Ritual Learning, that the ritual texts taken as authoritative are an incomplete and imperfect guide to the practical implementation of rites and ritual institutions. This was the problem back in the time of Emperor Wu, when he gave up on the Ru when they were unable to give him satisfactory practical advice on the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, including the Feng and Shan. The question of the imperial shrines arose as the number of imperial ancestors grew, at the very time that ritual scholarship was advocating the need to limit their number, in accordance with the wider push to adopt Zhou institutions as model rather than those of the Qin and early Han. From the example of the imperial ancestral shrines, it seems that the influence of the Ru at court became suddenly greater from the reign of Emperor Yuan, and reached a new height under Emperors Ai and Ping. The sophistication of Ritual Learning itself grew at the same time. Ban Biao is probably correct in attributing a high level of ritual scholarship to Liu Xin, whose bibliographic work with his father Liu Xiang gave him access to a wider range of authoritative texts, which we have seen that he deployed to good effect in his arguments. Using texts that we still have in the Li ji and other sources, he seems to have established once and for all that the emperor should maintain seven ancestral shrines, though exactly what this meant in practice was to remain 98 Han shu 73.3130–3131.

176

Chapter 4

a source of debate long after the Han. As we will see below, his bibliographic skills played an important part in the ritual order crafted during the reign of Emperor Ping by Wang Mang, no mean ritual scholar himself. The ancestral shrines were one main pillar of the imperial sacrifices, one which officials proficient in canon-based Ritual Learning were eventually able to solve. Far more difficult was the sacrifice to Heaven, the exclusive preserve of the sovereign, to which we turn next. 4.2 The Suburban Jiao Sacrifices In 33 BCE Ru officials began to press for reform of the ritual offerings associated with Heaven, Earth, and a host of other celestial and terrestrial deities to bring them into line with what they deemed to have been ancient Zhou practice.99 In their view, the system of sacrifices to the Five Emperors and the many other cults at Yong inherited from the Qin, and those to Tai Yi and Hou Tu instituted during the reign of Emperor Wu, were non-canonical, Tai Yi and Hou Tu in particular shaped in by the advice of fang shi esoteric specialists. Instead, they argued, the emperor should worship Heaven and Earth directly at altars on the outskirts of the capital. This reform proved to be more challenging than the ancestral shrines, partly because the canonical texts provided less clear grounding for the reforms, and partly because many believed the existing cults had genuine spiritual power and that it was dangerous to disturb them. We find here a pattern of proposals by Ru officials for replacing these cults, accepted and implemented by the emperor, only to be revoked when it seemed that their abolition resulted in misfortune. This happened four times over a period of just under forty years. In contrast with the ancestral shrines, canonical writings provided no concrete detail about the Suburban sacrifices, which we can see was in part because no such system actually seems to have existed in antiquity.100 The design of the altars and practical instructions for the rituals posed significant challenges to Ritual Learning. It required ingenuity on the part of scholars to widen the scope of their analysis, for example by identifying new authoritative texts, and extrapolating from cosmological 99 The Jiao sacrifices to Heaven and their implementation in late Western Han have been widely studied. A few examples: Fujikawa Masakazu, Kandai ni okeru reigaku no kenkyū (1968, rev. 1985), pp. 197–236; Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne and “State and local cults in Han religion” (Lagerwey and Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion); Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 2, pp. 32–63; Michael Loewe, “K’uang Heng and the reform of Religious Practices” in Crisis and Conflict in Han China, pp. 154–192; Michael Puett, To Become a God, pp. 307–315. 100 As argued by Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel, pp. 12–14. She notes that the word jiao in surviving early sources seems to be little more than a vague word for “sacrifice”.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

177

theories of Yin and Yang. A part of the process was convincing opponents that the reformed Suburban altars and rituals were designed to recover the orthodox forms of antiquity, and they found ways to incorporate many of the existing cults in remote locations into the new altars at the capital. The new canonical forms only replaced the old once and for all under Wang Mang, in the ritual system of 5 CE. The Suburban sacrifices were spearheaded by Kuang Heng, Chancellor from 36 to 30 BCE. We have seen that he was also closely involved in the reform of the imperial ancestral shrines. Similar wider concerns of his applied also to the Suburban sacrifices: to look to the ancient Zhou rather than Qin as the model for Han institutions, and to cut state expenditure, part of what Michael Loewe terms the Reformist agenda.101 It is worth mentioning a few details of Kuang Heng’s background here. According to the Han shu, Kuang Heng was unusual in achieving high official rank mainly on the strength of his canonical learning, without the benefit of family connections. He was a native of Donghai, which would have been in the ancient state of Qi in what is now eastern Shandong province. His father and ancestors were peasant farmers, and he was the first in his line to conceive a love of learning. He studied with diligence, and the fact that he was able to do so tells us that his family may not have been quite so rustic as the narrative suggests, nor so isolated as to be cut off from the cultural assets he needed to pursue the study of Ru canonical texts. In any event, the Han shu says that family’s poverty forced him to hire himself out as a manual labourer to meet his study expenses. His biography emphasises his superior concentration and strength ( jing li 精力), and later the depth of his canonical learning, particularly in the Songs, which surpassed others.102 He is elsewhere recorded as having studied from Hou Cang, specialist in both the Songs and the Li, under whom he was a fellow student of Yi Feng, discussed above as the early pioneer proposing ritual reform of the imperial sacrifices, and of Gong Yu and Wei Xuancheng, major proponents of the changes to the imperial ancestral shrines.103 On the strength of his top grade on the standard test ( jia ke 甲科) Kuang Heng was appointed to a succession of minor provincial posts, culminating in Instructor (Wen xue 文學) of Pingyuan commandery, in what is now the 101 See Michael Loewe, “K‘uang Heng and the Reform of Religious Practices,” in Crisis and Conflict in Han China, pp. 154–192, which provides a description of the wider political background of the reforms to the cults to Heaven than is given here. 102 Han shu 81.3331–3332. 103 In the “Biography of the Many Ru,” Han shu 88.3613.

178

Chapter 4

northwest of Shandong Province. Late in Emperor Xuan’s reign, other scholars reported to the throne that his talent and character were peerless, that he had attracted many followers in his provincial location, and that he deserved a position in the capital. Xiao Wangzhi 蕭望之, Senior Tutor to the Heir Apparent (Taizi Tai fu 太子太傅), and another colleague met Kuang Heng and were deeply impressed with his knowledge of the Songs. Xiao recommended him to the emperor, but “Emperor Xuan did not make much use of Ru,” and sent him back to his provincial post. The future Emperor Yuan, then heir apparent, also saw him and was secretly pleased. After he ascended the throne Kuang Heng was recommended to him, and he appointed him first Palace Gentleman, then Academician. Kuang Heng served in a succession of ever-higher posts, culminating in his appointment as Chancellor in 36 BCE. A series of lengthy memorials preserved in his Han shu biography give some clues as to the nature of his scholarship. The first of these reveals a mix of Ru moral principles and cosmological theory. After a solar eclipse and an earthquake in 42 and 41 BCE respectively, Emperor Yuan issued one of his many calls to officials to express their views on the failings in his government that might have triggered these negative portents. Kuang Heng’s memorial in response notes the poor state of civil order among the people, suggesting that Yuan’s repeated amnesties were having the wrong effect: “Amnesty today, and people commit a crime tomorrow.” He criticizes profit-seeking and the lack of ethical values in society, and the cliques and extravagant lifestyles of officials in the capital. The imperial court set the model for all to follow, so it was essential for the centre to lead the way in bringing about “ritual propriety and yielding” (li rang 禮讓) in governance as championed by Confucius. This would bring about an overall transformation of popular customs and the inculcation of virtues. Kuang deploys quotations from the Songs which attest to good and bad behaviour by rulers emulated by their underlings. He also includes pronouncements by Confucius which match the Lun yu, and also the Xiao jing (Canon of Filial Piety), though without identifying these texts explicitly by name. The memorial includes an analysis of the cosmological principles giving rise to portents, though he cites no authority for this. Heaven and the human world interact, such that imbalances in Yin and Yang in human action result in disturbances in nature. Anomalies in Yin will cause what ought to be still to move (earthquakes), and occluding Yang will cause brightness to go dim (eclipses). He seems to link this to heavy taxation compounding the misery of the people after repeated years of famine, with officials unable to deploy the funds to good effect.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

179

The emperor was pleased by this advice, and promoted Kuang to intimate imperial advisor (Guanglu Daifu 光祿大夫, “Grand Master for Splendid Happiness”) and Lesser Tutor to the Heir Apparent (Taizi shao fu 太子少傅).104 In another memorial, Kuang Heng refers directly to the Li canon and principles of li. This was in criticism of Emperor Yuan’s over-fondness for his concubine Fu Zhaoyi 傅昭儀 and her son, enfeoffed as King of Dingtao 定陶王. This exceeded the affection he expressed toward his empress and heir apparent, and he was considering changing his heir. The memorial was a wide-ranging, warning of an ongoing imbalance of Yin and Yang and of officials offering incorrect advice. It was necessary to hark back to the virtues of the early Zhou. In particular, Yuan’s proposal to change his heir went against a principle of li. In the normal hierarchical order, an empress always outranked other palace women, and the named heir took ritual precedence over all other sons. Any disruption to the established position of either was a threat to good order throughout the empire. This argument was essentially similar to that advanced by Shusun Tong to the Han dynasty founder Liu Bang when he was contemplating a similar change in his heir apparent. In the latter part of his memorial, Kuang deployed arguments based on principles of ritual reasoning, and wider Confucian teachings, to argue that proper family values were the foundation of an orderly society: Your vassal has heard that when the Way of the family is properly cultivated, the ordering of the empire is achieved. The Songs begins with the “Airs of the States” (Guo feng 國風); the Rites is rooted in capping and marriage. By beginning with the “Airs of the States,” [the Songs] traces human nature and feelings, and clarifies proper human relations.105 By beginning with capping and marriage, [the Rites] prepares a correct foundation to forestall [deviations] before they happen. The rise of good fortune in all cases is grounded in the family; its decline also inevitably begins inside one’s own threshold. Thus the sage kings always took great care over the relations between queen and [lesser] consorts, and set apart the rank of the eldest legitimate son. According to the ritual regulations pertaining to the inner family, the lower do not surpass the exalted, and the new do not take precedence over the old. This is the means by which 104 From Kuang Heng’s biography, Han shu 81.3333–3337, briefly summarised in Loewe, Crisis and Conflict, p. 159. 105 As the Han shu commentator points out, the first of the songs, “Guan ju” 關雎, was traditionally interpreted as praise for the virtue of the queen and lesser consorts of the Zhou king. The sections on capping and weddings come first and second in the extant Yi li.

180

Chapter 4

human feelings are ordered and the Yin energies (associated with the female) are kept under control. In order that legitimate sons are exalted and non-legitimate ones ranked lower, the capping of the legitimate heir is performed on the eastern steps (zuo 阼) [of the ancestral shrine], the rite employs sweet wine, and the group of [other] sons may not join in the same row; this is how proper forms are observed and all doubts clarified. This is not meaningless performance of ritual forms. It is about making distinctions from one’s inner heart, thus li reaches to one’s feelings and displays them externally.106 Emperor Yuan’s reaction is not recorded, but in the end he did not replace his heir apparent, the future Emperor Cheng. The references to the eastern steps, sweet wine, and the superior status of the legitimate wife’s son in the capping ritual echo content at various points in the extant Yi li text, which makes clear that he is referring to the Li text, the sole ritual canon at the time. One point to stress is how Kuang Heng was able to extrapolate principles from the Li, which described the rituals of the gentry and at most feudal lords, to pronounce on regulations applying to the emperor. The language he uses finds parallels in texts of the Li ji, deriving from the interpretive lore on the technical rituals in the Yi li. These say that “capping is the beginning of the rites” (li zhi shi ye 禮之始也) and “the wedding is the foundation of the rites” (li zhi ben ye 禮之本也).107 We have also seen since the world of the Zuo zhuan the long-standing principle that li should connect with and express human feelings, that merely going through the motions is not li, an idea further alluded to in the Xunzi and excavated texts, which link li to feelings (qing 情). The argument in this memorial is based on the Ritual Learning of his time. Kuang attained the office of Chancellor in 36 BCE, and continued to serve in that role when Emperor Yuan died in 33, and he encountered another sovereign sympathetic to Confucianism when Emperor Cheng took his place. One more memorial in his Han shu biography is addressed to the new emperor, offering thoroughgoing advice on how to ensure that his reign got off to a proper start. It includes an admonition on the importance of his empress and correct family relations, and the Six Canons (referred to once as the liu jing

106 Han shu 81.3340. 107 Li ji zhushu 61.1a (“Guan yi” 冠義, “Significance of Capping” section) and 61.6a (“Hun yi” 昏義, “Significance of the Wedding”).

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

181

六經, once as the liu yi 六藝), but nothing else pertaining directly to Kuang’s Ritual Learning.108 Shortly after this, Kuang submitted the first of his memorials on instituting new Suburban sacrifices to Heaven and Earth; his Han shu biography provides a cross-reference to this and subsequent memorials in the “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices”. The campaign to reform the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth began in 33 BCE. Kuang joined with his like-minded contemporary, the Imperial Councillor (Yushi dafu 御史大夫) Zhang Tan 張譚, in proposing discussion of the Suburban sacrifices. Their joint memorial pointed out flaws in the existing sacrifices to celestial and Earth deities, and proposed a restoration of the ancient Zhou system, in which Heaven was the primary deity. Neither Qin nor Han had worshipped Heaven and Earth directly, except for the rarely performed Feng and Shan, which were quite different in nature.109 The sacrifices to celestial deities included the Five Emperors (Wu Di 五帝) at Yong 150 kilometres west of the capital, continued and expanded from ancient Qin practice, which emperors since Wen had occasionally performed in person, using the word Jiao, or “Suburban”. There were also the Grand Unity (Tai Yi 泰一/太一) sacrifices at the Ganquan palace at Yunyang seventy kilometres north of the capital initiated by Emperor Wu in 112 BCE, to which the Five Emperors were subordinated, which he and some of his successors had sacrificed to in person. Emperor Wu had also instituted sacrifices to the Lord (or Queen) of Earth (Hou Tu 后土) at Fenyin beyond the Yellow River some 140 kilometres to the east, and again had performed the observances to this himself. Kuang and Zhang argued that these arrangements were incorrect:

Of the affairs of the sovereign, none is greater than accepting the order of Heaven; in accepting the order of Heaven nothing is of greater weight than the Suburban sacrifices. Thus the sage kings gave utmost attention and concern to establishing the institutions for them. They sacrificed to Heaven at the Southern Suburb, which was to signify their drawing near to Yang, and sacrificed to Earth at the Northern Suburb, which was to symbolise their drawing close to Yin. In Heaven’s relationship to the Son of Heaven, it accepts sacrificial offerings through the place where each [ruler] situates his capital. 108 Han shu 81.3341–3344. See the summary of this memorial in Loewe, Crisis and Conflict, pp. 162–163, which he notes critically “must have struck the new Emperor as being both self-satisfied and irritating”, though the Han shu says that Cheng “respectfully heeded his words”. 109 Michael Loewe notes that no Han sources record the emperor performing direct sacrifices to Heaven up to this time, see the discussion in Crisis and Conflict, pp. 182–186.

182

Chapter 4

Previously, the Filial Emperor Wu resided at his palace in Ganquan, and so founded the altar to Tai [Yi] at Yunyang, and sacrificed to it from south of his palace. Currently, the imperial presence constantly grants its fortune to Chang’an, yet for the Suburban observance to August Heaven, contrary [to the correct principle], [the emperor] moves to the position of Grand Yin (tai yin 泰陰) to the north, and for the offerings to the Lord of Earth, [contrary to the correct principle], he moves to the position of Lesser Yang (shao yang 少陽) to the east. This matter is at odds with the instituted regulations of antiquity. Furthermore, to go to Yunyang requires a journey of nearly one hundred li through valleys, ravines, and narrow declivities, to go to Fenyin requires crossing major rivers, subject to the perils of wind and rain, of boat and oar. Neither of these are journeys the Sage Lord should be undertaking repeatedly. Repairing the roads and providing supplies brings deprivation and misery to the people and minor officials in the commanderies and counties [where these processions pass through], and causes great trouble and expense for all of officialdom. Bringing toil to the people whom [the emperor] is meant to protect, and travelling through perilous territory, makes it difficult to serve the deities and pray for their fortune and aid. This does not seem to accord with the intent of accepting Heaven and treating the people as [the emperor’s own] children. In antiquity Kings Wen and Wu performed the Suburban sacrifice at Feng and Hao 豐鄗 (the Zhou western capitals), and [Wu’s successor] King Cheng performed it at Luo (the eastern capital). From this it is evident that Heaven accepts offerings according to where the king made his residence. It is fitting for the Tai [Yi] altar at Ganquan and the Lord of Earth shrine in Hedong to be moved and re-established at Chang’an in order to accord with the sovereigns of antiquity. It is our wish to deliberate and decide on this matter with all your ministers.110 When the new emperor gave permission to hold discussions on this, there were two responses, on in favour, one against. One of these, only briefly paraphrased in the Han shu account, was from eight officials led by Xu Jia, the same senior relative of Emperor Yuan’s mother who had successfully defended 110 Han shu 25b.1253–1254, consulting also the translation in Michael Loewe, Crisis and Conflict, pp. 171–172, which differs from mine on a few points, most significantly on the meaning of the Yin and Yang at the beginning, where I read this as saying that the current practice is the opposite of what the correspondences dictate. This is made clear also in the translation in Marianne Bujard, Le sacrifice au Ciel, pp. 190–191.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

183

Emperor Wen’s status as Grand Ancestor with a perpetual shrine when Wei Xuancheng had proposed demolition in 40 BCE. Xu was now also the father-inlaw of Emperor Cheng. These officials argued that the current sacrifices were of long standing, and should remain as they were. Fifty others, represented by the General of the Right Wang Shang 王商, the Academician Shi Dan 師丹, and the Court Counsellor Zhai Fangjin 翟方進 submitted a memorial supporting the reforms. The memorial from Wang and the others in support of the new system does not mention any involvement with Kuang and Zhang, but it is clearly in line with their views. It starts with a quote from a ritual text: “The Ritual Records (“Li ji”) say: ‘Burning [offerings] with firewood on the Grand Altar is to sacrifice to Heaven, burying [offerings] in a mound at the Grand Bend [Square Altar] (da zhe 大折) was to sacrifice to Earth.’” The identical text (with one insignificant orthographical variant) does in fact appear in the “Ji fa” section of the received Li ji; once again we are not sure whether this is an early version of the compilation we have now, or in reference to a wider corpus of ji writings on li, meaning “a ritual Record says …”, among which a version of the “Ji fa” was included. In any event, the memorial continues: Locating the altar in the southern suburb was to fix the position correlating to [Yang] Heaven. Sacrificing to Earth at the Grand Bend was in the northern suburb, to move toward the Yin position. The locations of these suburbs were to the south and north of the place where the sage kings situated their capitals. The Documents says, “Three days later, on the Ding si 丁巳 day, [the Duke of Zhou] sacrificed two bulls at the Suburb.”111 That the Duke of Zhou added two victims was to announce [to the spirits] the transfer to a new city, so he established the Suburban ritual in Luo. Enlightened kings and sage lords are clearsighted in their service to Heaven and examine carefully in their service to Earth. If [serving] Heaven and Earth is clearly observed, then the spirits will be manifest. Heaven and Earth take the King as primary, thus when the sage kings instituted the rituals for sacrificing to Heaven and Earth they inevitably did so in the suburbs of their capitals. Chang’an is the place where the sage lord resides, so it is the place August Heaven watches. Ganquan and 111 This line is in the “Shao gao” 召誥 (“Declaration of Shao”) in the Zhou section of the received Shang shu (Shang shu jinguwen zhushu 18.393). As Bujard and others point out, the jiao in this passage means simply the place where the Duke of Zhou performed the sacrifice, and not the name of the ritual.

184

Chapter 4

Hedong are not places where the deities accept sacrifices, so these altars should be moved to the positions of Principal Yang and Grand Yin [at the capital]. This will be to depart from vulgar practice and restore antiquity, to accord with the institutions of the sages and fit the circumstances of ritual.112 The reasoning employed here appeals to the authority of a ritual text and the Documents to establish that sovereigns in antiquity sacrificed to Heaven and Earth on the edges of their capital cities, and that the ritual venue could be moved from one place to another, as was done by the Duke of Zhou when founding the second eastern capital at Luo. However, no canonical basis is given for the north and south locations. In particular, the Zhou guan (Zhou li) is not cited, presumably because it had not yet emerged into prominence at this time. The new locations are justified purely on the grounds of Yin-Yang cosmological theory, based on a conception of Heaven and Earth that we know had not existed in historical antiquity. Such interpretations commonly appear in Han commentarial scholarship, and this stands as a good example of how Ritual Learning operated in this time, filling in the gaps in canonical sources by extrapolating from other sources of knowledge. Kuang and Zhang then submitted a memorial reporting on the result of the above deliberations. They start by stating the principle of wide consultation and following the advice of the majority, which will ensure accord with the intent of Heaven. They cite as authority for this a statement on divination in the Documents, which says that when three people divine, one should follow the result obtained by two of them. They continue: Those participating in the deliberation numbered fifty-eight. Of these, fifty said that the correctness of moving [the sacrifices] is clear in the canonical and commentarial texts ( jing zhuan 經傳), is the same as [the practice in] ancient ages, and is beneficial to officials and the people. Eight [of the discussants], without reference to the canonical texts, without investigating ancient institutions, held that [the move] is unsuitable. Such a position lacking all authority cannot be used to establish what is auspicious and what is not.

112 Han shu 25b.1254; consulting the translation in Bujard, pp. 191–193.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

185

They conclude, “The north and south Suburban altars should be established, providing a foundation for ten thousand generations.” The proposal was approved by the emperor.113 Kuang Heng then turned his attention to the design of the altars used for the celestial deities in the existing system, which he said did not conform to the precedents of antiquity: The Zhi shrine to the Grand Unity at Ganquan has a purple altar, and eight corners with openings symbolising the Eight Directions. The altar to the Five Emperors is round on the bottom, and there are altars to a host of [other] deities. The Shang shu Yin 禋 offerings to the Six Venerables (liu zong 六宗) and the Wang 望 territorial offerings to mountains and rivers signify the inclusion of all the host of deities.114 [Yet] the current purple altar is decorated with patterned and coloured engravings, and has jade, female musicians, stone altars, shrines to the Transcendents (or “Immortals”, xian ren 僊人), buried phoenix chariots, red colts, and spirit models of dragons and horses; we are unable to find any such images in antiquity. I have heard with regard to the firewood-burning ritual at the Suburban altar that one does no more than sweep clean the ground to make the sacrifice, which is because primacy is given to natural (undecorated) simplicity (zhi 質). [The participants] sing the “Da lü” 大呂 song and perform the “Yunmen” 雲門 dance to await the deity of Heaven; they sing the “Taicou” 太蔟 and perform the “Xianchi” 咸池 dance to await the deity of Earth. The sacrificial victim is a calf, the mats are of dry straw, the ritual vessels are pottery and gourds, all of which are to accord with the nature of Heaven and Earth, to value sincerity and give primacy to natural simplicity, which means that decoration is not added. They believe that the beneficence of the deities of Heaven and Earth is so great that even the finest and most comprehensive decoration is insufficient to repay this, only utmost sincerity can do so. They convey the primacy of natural simplicity without adornment to symbolize the beneficence of Heaven.

113 Han shu 25b.1254–1255; consulting the translation in Bujard, pp. 193–194. 114 This is in the “Shun dian” 舜典 (part of the New Text “Yao dian” 堯典) of the Shang shu. Commentaries give different interpretations on the meaning of the “liu zong”, some including Heaven, the sun moon and stars, and the seasons, which might suggest celestial deities, as contrasted with the territorial earth deities of mountains and rivers. Shang shu jinguwen zhushu 1b.39–41.

186

Chapter 4

A purple altar with meaningless embellishments like female musicians, phoenix chariots, red colts, dragons and horses, and stone altars: none of these should be practiced.115 It is clear that what Kuang Heng had in mind was not simply that the original cults would move to different locations, but rather that a whole new form of worship would be established, based on his understanding of the practices of antiquity. This passage affords glimpses of the original cults from Qin, early Han, and the time of Emperor Wu onward, and suggests that they incorporated elements of contemporary religion, such as transcendents, and figurines of dragons and horses, possibly akin to the clay models of people, animals, and buildings found in tombs, particularly from the Eastern Han. Kuang then further advised that the cults to the Five Emperors at Yong should be discontinued. He argued this on the grounds of the ritual principle that rulers of different eras had the authority to determine their own rites, and should not necessarily follow the practices of previous regimes. It may have made sense for the Han to continue ritual practices started by the feudal lords of Qin in its early years before it was securely established, but these were no longer appropriate, and not in accord with li in any case. Kuang said, “Now that we are turning back to antiquity to establish the grand rituals to Heaven and Earth, and pay observances to God(s) on High at the Suburban Altar, the Green, Red, White, Yellow, and Black Emperors to the five directions will all be arrayed there, with the offerings made at the position of each one, the sacrifices to them will be complete.” From this it is clear that the old sacrifices were not to be abolished, but rather subsumed into the new ones. In the year 32 (or early 31), on the very day that Emperor Cheng abolished the cults at Ganquan and Fenyin, a powerful wind uprooted large trees at the altar. In the first month of 31 he discontinued the five Zhi altars at Yong, and personally performed the sacrifice to Heaven at the southern Suburban altar for the first time, then proclaimed an imperial amnesty for criminals in the capital and in the counties involved in the ceremony. He performed the first sacrifice to Earth at the northern Suburban altar in the third month.116 That same year Kuang and Zhang submitted another memorial advocating the abolition of a wide range of miscellaneous cults maintained, and subsidized, by the state in the capital and provinces. They counted 683 such cults in total, of which only 208 were in accord with li (ying li 應禮) or were of 115 Han shu 25b.1256, consulting the translation in Bujard, pp. 194–195. 116 Han shu 10.304–305, 306; 25b.1257, for the latter consulting the translation in Bujard, pp. 195–196.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

187

uncertain status in the ritual regulations (yi wu ming wen 疑無明文) and could continue; the remaining 475 were either not in accord with ritual or unnecessarily duplicated other cults, and should be abolished. Of the 203 cults in the ritual complex at Yong, only those to mountains, rivers, and stars were deemed to accord with li.117 The regional cults based there founded by Emperor Gao at the start of the dynasty, and a long list of others elsewhere founded by Emperors Wen and Wu, were abolished. More than seventy esoteric specialists ( fang shi), their deputies, their designated successors, and those with medical or alchemical knowledge were dismissed.118 In 30 BCE (or early 29) BCE Kuang was implicated in wrongdoing and disgraced, stripped of his official post and feudal title, and he died the same year. Immediately following this, the Han shu treatise on sacrifices records that on the very day that the two Suburban altars were first constructed, a violent wind had destroyed the Bamboo Palace at Ganquan, at the location of the Grand Unity shrine, and uprooted more than a hundred large trees; this was the same event as recorded briefly in the imperial annals above.119 This disturbed the emperor, and he consulted the famous bibliographer Liu Xiang (79–8 BCE) about it. Liu spoke up for the genuine religious power of the cults, and told him it had been a mistake to abolish any of the imperial sacrifices: Even families of ordinary people are loath to relinquish any of their sacrifices, let alone the divine Treasure and longstanding Zhi sacrifices [of the emperor]. And, when the shrines at Ganquan, Fenyin, and the five Zhi altars at Yong were first established, it was in response to a manifestation from the deities of sky and earth. It was never done arbitrarily. In their reigns Emperors Wu and Xuan worshipped the cults with full ritual reverence, and the light of these deities shone with exceptional brightness. The long-standing sites established by the imperial ancestors should not be changed lightly. And in the case of the Chenbao 陳寶 shrine, since first [established by] Lord Wen of Qin (r. 765–716 BCE) it has been more than seven hundred years. After the rise of the Han, [the Chenbao deity] has come regularly generation after generation, with a red-yellow glow forty 117 The “Treatise on the Feng and Shan” in the Shi ji records that there were over one hundred shrines at Yong in the time of the First Emperor. Those it lists by name are the sun, moon, a great many stars (including the five planets), and also the deities of wind, thunder, and the four seas; Shi ji 28.1375. These seem mostly to fall within the group that Kuang and Zhang regarded as legitimate, while those added in the Han were not. 118 Han shu 25b.1257–1258; passage translated in Bujard, pp. 196–197. 119 Han shu 10.304, where it also says that this was on the same day the old cults at Ganquan and Fenyin were abolished.

188

Chapter 4

or fifty feet in extent and a booming roar, to land on the shrine, and all the pheasants around cry out. Each time it manifests the Grand Invocator at Yong sacrifices a Grand Lao (tai lao 太牢, bull, pig, sheep) to it and dispatches a prognosticator to bear swift news of this to the emperor, as an auspicious manifestation. It came five times in the time of Emperor Gao, twenty-six times under Emperor Wen, seventy-five times under Emperor Wu, twenty-five times under Emperor Xuan, and since year one of the Chuyuan era (48 BCE, the start of Emperor Yuan’s reign), it has come twenty times. This is an ancient shrine associated with Yang energies. The shrines to the Han imperial ancestors has been a matter forbidden for unauthorised discussion, always decided jointly by the rulers descended from those ancestors with their wisest ministers. The institutions of antiquity and the present are not the same, the Canons contain no clear accounts [of these things]. These are matters of the utmost venerability and gravity, one cannot explain what is orthodox on the basis of pure doubts and suspicions. Previously, after the advice of Gong Yu [to demolish the ancestral shrines] was first accepted, people afterwards continued it, causing great disruption. The “Great Commentary” to the Changes says, “Those who deceive the deities suffer disaster for three generations.” I fear that the guilt for this will not lie with [Gong] Yu alone. Hearing this, the emperor felt deep regret.120 The “Jiao si zhi” does not give a date for this consultation with Liu Xiang, but gives the impression that it was soon after the wind uprooted the trees. Worth mentioning is that Liu Xiang, a distant imperial relative descended from one of Liu Bang’s brothers, was by no means ideologically allied to the esoteric specialists, and did not oppose the wider project to implement institutions based on the early Zhou. The Han shu classes him with Jia Yi and Dong Zhongshu as visionaries distressed that the Han had never established proper ritual and music of its own despite being the Zhou’s true successors.121 Liu Xiang’s scholarly interests were wide ranging, and his case serves as a warning against ideological analysis of individual motivations according to distinct schools of thought in this time. What happened after that is not entirely clear. Emperor Cheng’s “Annals” records only his first observances to the north and south suburban altars in 31, the next they are mentioned is after the end of his reign in 7 BCE, when they 120 Han shu 25b.1258–1259, consulting the rather more elegant translations in Loewe, Crisis and Conflict, pp. 176–177 and Bujard, pp. 197–198. 121 See the memorial quoted in the “Treatise on Ritual and Music” in Han shu 22.1033– 1034, and the appraisal on 22.1075.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

189

were restored by the Empress Dowager Wang (Emperor Yuan’s consort) soon after his death. This makes clear that they had been abolished at some point in the intervening time, but there is no record of this happening. What we do find in Emperor Cheng’s “Annals” is that he travelled to Yong to sacrifice to the five Zhi altars in the eleventh month of 15, and then that they and the Chenbao cult were restored by the Empress Dowager Wang in 14, along with the Tai Yi sacrifices in Ganquan and the Hou Tu sacrifices in Fenyin, and approximately half of the many state-supported regional cults that had been abolished in 31. The Suburban altars might have been discontinued at this same time. The Han shu “Jiao si zhi” records that after Wang Shang 王商 (d. 12 BCE) was appointed Marshall of State (Da Sima) in 15, the Master of Records (Zhu bu 主簿) Du Ye 杜鄴 urged him to restore the Suburban altars at Chang’an, which also suggests that they had been abolished in 15 or earlier.122 The restoration of the old cults in 15 and 14 was prompted by the emperor’s continued failure to produce an heir. The abolition of the cults was suspected as a cause of this misfortune. When the emperor sacrificed to Tai Yi at Ganquan for the first time in the first month of 13, his “Annals” records that a “divine glow” (shen guang 神光) descended and settled on the Purple Basilica (zi dian 紫殿), an auspicious portent which prompted Cheng to proclaim a general amnesty.123 From 13 BCE until his death in 7, Emperor Cheng went in person to sacrifice to Tai Yi at Ganquan in the first month and to Hou Tu in Fenyin in the third month of alternate years, and from 12 in alternate years to Yong to sacrifice to the Five Emperors. He died in 7, shortly after his last trip to Fenyin. The Han shu “Jiao si zhi” says that Cheng became “quite fond of ghosts and spirits” in his later years, and many esoteric specialists came to advise him, and were retained at court for him to consult, resulting in yet more new cults at state expense. The imperial advisor Gu Yong 谷永, who had studied the Changes, made a vigorous attempt in a long memorial to persuade the emperor that these esoteric specialists were the latest in a long line of charlatans who had deceived emperors and other rulers since the Zhou, and he should not place trust in strange, non-canonical spirits and cults. The emperor is said to have been impressed by this, but made no change to his regular sacrifices at Yong, Ganquan, and Fenyin.124 The Empress Dowager’s restoration of the northern and southern Suburban altars so soon after Emperor Cheng’s death suggests substantial pressure from 122 Du Ye’s advice is recorded in Han shu 25b.1262–1263. 123 Han shu 10.323, 324; 25a.1259. 124 Han shu 25b.1260–1261.

190

Chapter 4

prevailing opinion at court to do so. She herself said it was Cheng’s own wish before his death: “When the emperor assumed the throne, he desired to accord with the intent of Heaven, and established the rites for the Suburban altar in accordance with the meaning of the Canons.” But then, out of fear at his failure to produce an heir, he restored the old cults in hopes of gaining their spiritual help, but regretted having done so.125 Matters underwent yet another reverse when Emperor Ai (r. 7–2 BCE) took the throne. He suffered much from illness, and he too summoned esoteric practitioners from far and wide in search of a cure. According to the “Jiao si zhi”, over 700 previously abolished cults to miscellaneous deities were restored, which then received a total of 37,000 sacrifices in a single year. As Ai’s health deteriorated, the cults at Ganquan and Fenyin were also restored yet again by order of Empress Dowager Wang, though Ai himself was too ill to travel and perform the sacrifices in person, and sent officials to substitute for him. Ai’s “Annals” records the restoration of the Ganquan and Fenyin cults in the eleventh month of 4 BCE, which seems also to have entailed the suspension of the Jiao.126 These cults continued past the death of Emperor Ai in 1 BCE, and almost to the end of the reign of his successor, Emperor Ping (1 BCE–5 CE), when they were abolished by Wang Mang and the Suburban altars at the capital restored for once and for all. 4.3 Wang Mang and the “Yuanshi Precedents” Wang Mang 王莽 (46 BCE–23 CE), maligned though he was through the ages as a villainous usurper, seems to have been an accomplished scholar of Ritual Learning in his own right. His political career as a whole is complex, and mostly beyond the scope of this volume. In the context of the current study and planned successor volumes, most important is his lasting legacy, seldom acknowledged in later periods, in shaping key elements of imperial sacrificial ritual ever after.127

125 Han shu 25b.1263. 126 Han shu 11.341, 25b.1264. 127 General accounts of Wang Mang may be found in the chapter by Hans Bielenstein, “Wang Mang, the Restoration of the Han Dynasty, and Later Han,” in Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe, eds., The Cambridge History of China Volume 1 (1986), pp. 223–290; Bielenstein, The restoration of the Han dynasty vol. I, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 26 (1954), pp. 82–165; the long entry in Michael Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary, pp. 536– 545; Michael Loewe, “Wang Mang and His Forbears” (1994); and the translation of Wang Mang’s Han shu biography in Homer Dubs, trans, The History of the Former Han Dynasty vol. 3 (1955).

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

191

Wang came from a powerful family, one which included his aunt the Empress Dowager Wang Zhengjun 王政君 (71 BCE–13 CE), consort of Emperor Yuan, but the early death of his father meant less wealth and no title in the first part of his life. The start of his lengthy Han shu biography describes him as diligent and wide in learning, and says that he studied the Li jing 禮經 from one Chen Can 陳參, a man not elsewhere mentioned. It does not say that he studied any of the other canons, though he certainly seems familiar with many of them in his writings. It could be that the Li text was his first main speciality, which would still have been unusual in this time; others who studied the Li, like Kuang Heng, studied it as secondary to other texts, particularly the Songs, and the Changes. Wang adopted a Ru identity: the Han shu says he was cautious about his personal conduct and widely learned, and wore the dress of a Ru scholar (Ru sheng zhi fu 儒生之服), at least in early life.128 During the time he was in power under the boy Emperor Ping, he oversaw the consolidation of the reforms to the state sacrificial rituals, and the design he promoted became the foundation for these rituals over the rest of imperial Chinese history. This ritual system was later associated with the Yuanshi reign era name (1–5 CE), often called the “Yuanshi Precedents” (Yuanshi gu shi 元始故事), thus obscuring the inconvenient fact that it was devised by Wang Mang. Wang Mang came under political pressure during the reign of Emperor Ai and withdrew from office, then was brought back when Emperor Ping took the throne in 1 BCE at the age of nine sui, probably eight years old. Wang, at the start of Ping’s reign appointed as Grand Marshall of State (Da Sima), acted as regent and controlled the court. It was he who once and for all consolidated all the Heaven and Earth sacrifices in the South and North Suburban altars along the lines Kuang Heng had first proposed, with further refinements. This was in 5 CE, before Ping died at fourteen sui (thirteen) in 5 CE, and Wang Mang took the throne in 9 CE as emperor of his own Xin 新 dynasty. Wang Mang’s writings reveal him as a competent scholar of Ritual Learning, though no doubt he had others working under him as assistants, in particular his supporter Liu Xin, whom Ban Gu’s father Ban Biao praised highly. The Han shu “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifice” gives the first of Wang’s detailed memorials of 5 CE proposing restoration of the Suburban altars. This contains a succinct historical survey of the imperial sacrifices to Heaven and Earth 128 Han shu 99a.4039. Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary, p. 536 says that he also studied the Zuo zhuan and the Changes, but these are not mentioned at the start of his Han shu biography. The statement about his Ru dress does not say when he wore it, but it appears in the opening section of the biography about his early life, and is not mentioned again.

192

Chapter 4

mentioned once above, in connection with its statement that Emperor Wen made sacrifices to Tai Yi. This is one of two significant deviations from the narratives of the Shi ji and Han shu: The sovereign serves Heaven as his father, thus his title is Son of Heaven. Confucius said, “In human conduct, nothing is greater than filial piety. In filial piety, nothing is greater than strict reverence to the father. In strict reverence to the father, nothing is greater than taking him as correlate to Heaven.”129 When the sovereign venerates his deceased father, he wishes to make him correlate to Heaven. Tracing back the meaning of a deceased father, one will wish to honour one’s grandfather [in the same way], and if one extends back from that, one eventually reaches as far as one’s founding progenitor. Therefore, “The Duke of Zhou performed the Suburban sacrifice to [the Zhou ancestor] Hou Ji as correlate to Heaven, and performed the ancestral sacrifice to King Wen as correlate to God on High.”130 According to the Li ji, the Son of Heaven sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and to the mountains and rivers, in a cycle throughout the year.131 According to the Guliang commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals, one divines on performing the Suburban sacrifice on the Xin 辛 day in the last third of the twelfth month, and performs the Suburban sacrifice itself on the Xin day in the first third of the first month.132 When Emperor Gao received the Mandate, he continued the four Zhi sacrifices at Yong and started a new one to the North, so that the Five Emperors were complete, but did not yet have sacrifices venerating Heaven and Earth. Filial Emperor Wen in his sixteenth year (164 BCE), on the advice of Xinyuan Ping, for the first time created the Shrine to the Five Emperors at Weiyang, and sacrificed there to the Grand Unity (Tai Yi) and the terrestrial deities (di qi 地祇), with the Grand Progenitor Emperor 129 Quoted from the Xiao jing 孝經 (Canon of Filial Piety). 130 The text in quotes also corresponds exactly to text in the extant Xiao jing, appearing soon after the quote above. 131 This is a recognisable version of wording in the “Qu li” 曲禮 of the received Li ji, though abbreviated. The relevant “Qu li” passage includes also sacrifices to the Four Directions (si fang 四方) and to the five household deities (wu si 五祀). Li ji zhushu 5.19a. 132 The received Guliang zhuan (Ai 1) contains an approximately similar passage on when to divine on performing the Jiao sacrifice, but the overall meaning of the passage is more elaborate, and somewhat different. There, the sacrifice can be performed in any of the first three months of the year, but no later. If the divination result in the twelfth month is unfavourable, another divination is performed in the last third of the first month for the rite in the second, and if necessary yet again in the second month for the third. If the third is still unfavourable, the rite is not performed. Guliang zhuan zhushu 20.2a.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

193

Gao as correlate. At the winter solstice he sacrificed to Tai Yi, at the summer solstice the terrestrial deities, and these were all combined with the sacrifices to the Five Emperors. One sacrificial victim was offered, and the emperor paid respects in person at the Suburb. Subsequently Ping was executed, and the emperor no longer went in person, sending officials to perform the task in his stead. Filial Emperor Wu sacrificed at Yong, and said: “Currently I perform the Suburban sacrifice to the God(s) [Emperors] on High, yet the Lord (or “Queen”) of Earth (Hou Tu) has no sacrifice. According to ritual propriety this is unsuitable.” Then on the jiazi 甲子 day of the eleventh month of the fourth year of Yuanding 元鼎 (113 BCE) he first established the shrine to Hou Tu at Fenyin. Someone said to him, “The Five Emperors are assistants to Tai Yi, it is fitting to establish [a shrine to] Tai Yi. “On the guiwei 癸未 day of the fifth year of Yuanding (112) he first established the shrine to Tai Yi at Ganquan, and performed one Suburban sacrifice to it every [three] years,133 alternating with the observance at Yong, also with Emperor Gao as correlate. He did not serve Heaven every year. None of these observances was in accord with the institutional regulations of antiquity. In the first year of Jianshi 建始 (32 BCE), the Tai Yi altar at Ganquan and the Hou Tu altar at Fenyin were transferred to the South and North Suburban altars of Chang’an. In the third month of the first year of Yongshi 永始 (16 BCE), because there was no imperial grandson,134 the sacrifices at Ganquan and Hedong were restored. In the second year of Suihe 綏和 (7 BCE), because no good fortune had ever been obtained, the South and North Suburban altars of Chang’an were reestablished. In the third year of Jianping 建平 (4 BCE), out of fear that the Filial Emperor Ai had not recovered from his illness, the Ganquan and Fenyin sacrifices were again restored, but no good fortune ever came of this. The memorial concludes by saying that Wang Mang is one of a group of sixtyseven officials, seven of them named (including Liu Xin), who recommend that the South and North Suburban sacrifices be restored according to Kuang Heng’s original memorial of 33 BCE.135 133 The text says “every two years”, but commentators identify this as a textual error for “three”. Two years would be inconsistent with the text following. 134 “Grandson” from the perspective of Empress Dowager Wang, who issued the edict to restore Emperor Wu’s sacrifices. 135 Han shu 25b.1264–1265, consulting Bujard, pp. 206–208.

194

Chapter 4

Striking in this narrative are the two points on which it deviates from the Shi ji and Han shu accounts presented above. First, as already discussed above, it says that sacrifices to Tai Yi, the “Grand Unity” deity, were begun by Emperor Wen in 164 BCE, over five decades before Emperor Wu’s first personal sacrifice to Tai Yi in 112. This is not impossible, given that Xinyuan Ping recommended other new imperial cults based on contemporary religious traditions and esoteric lore, which could have included elements not recorded by Sima Qian or Ban Gu, and Tai Yi as a celestial deity probably goes back to Warring States times.136 What motive Wang Mang might have had for falsifying this is not apparent. His narrative otherwise closely matches what is known from the other sources, and at many points is precise about dates and other details confirmed elsewhere. He may have had access to records now lost, whether reliable or not. He does not mention the earlier cult to Tai Yi established on the outskirts of the capital on the advice of Miu Ji at some point after 133 BCE. The second point not mentioned elsewhere is Wang’s statement that both Emperors Wen and Wu included Emperor Gao in their Tai Yi sacrifices as correlate. This has no basis in other accounts, as far as I am aware; the ancestral shrines and rest chambers at the tombs are the only venues mentioned elsewhere for offerings to imperial ancestors during the Han. Introducing the Han founder and his empress into the main sacrifices to Heaven and Earth as correlates for subsidiary offerings was an innovation Wang Mang was himself proposing. He might thus have had a motive for falsifying this part of his account. The Han shu “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” then says that Wang Mang made “considerable” changes to the relevant sacrificial rites, and reproduces the memorial in which he proposes this. It is not clear whether this memorial still represents the sixty-seven the officials mentioned in the previous one; nothing in the content suggests that anyone other than Wang Mang himself is behind it. Though it is in places quite technical, his analysis is worth presenting in detail, as an example of the scholastic methods he uses to make his case. From this we can form a picture of his Ritual Learning. Particularly noteworthy is his use of the Zhou guan, the later Zhou li, as a source of authority for the rituals pertaining to the sovereign, an area that the main Li canon does not cover. He begins his argument by quoting text from the Zhou guan description of the duties of the Grand Supervisor of Music (Da si yue 大司樂). This describes the nature of the music and dances used in the royal sacrifices, but also contains 136 Marianne Bujard cites a study of Huang-Lao religious philosophy by Wang Baoxuan 王葆玹, who suggests that Wang Mang could be correct. See Bujard, p. 206 n. 255. I have not been able to access the book in which this article appears.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

195

the most detailed list in that text of the astral and other deities worshipped in conjunction with Heaven and Earth. In particular, it is the only reference (in the transmitted Zhou li at least) to the Former Female Progenitor (xian bi 先妣), which Wang Mang will use as authority to include Empress Gao (Empress Lü) in the Suburban altar sacrifices. The precedent is in fact not exact, in that the Female Progenitor of the Zhou is identified in later commentarial scholarship as Jiang Yuan 姜源, the mother of Hou Ji 后稷, the latter being the Grand Progenitor in the Zhou ancestral cults.137 The other conspicuous aspect of Wang Mang’s argument is his cosmological analysis of Yin and Yang, which determines the timing, location, and function of the Suburban sacrifices, and in particular the addition of the female Yin component represented by the Female Progenitor. The passage begins with Wang’s technical analysis of the music and dances accompanying the sacrificial rituals, based on the relevant Zhou guan entry: In the Offices of Zhou (Zhou guan), both joined (he 合) and separate (bie 別) music are used in the sacrifices to Heaven and to Earth. In the case of the joined music, [the Zhou guan] says, “They use the Grand Joined Music (da he yue 大合樂) of the Six Pitches (liu lü 六律, the six Yang notes in the scale of twelve), the Six Bell [Pitches] (liu zhong 六鐘, the six Yin notes in the scale of twelve), the Five Notes (wu sheng 五聲), the Eight Sounds (ba yin 八音, of musical instruments made of different materials), and the Six Dances” (liu wu 六舞) to sacrifice to the deities of Heaven, make offerings to the deities of Earth, sacrifice to the Four Distants (si wang 四望), make offerings to the mountains and rivers, and make feast offerings to the Former Female Progenitor and the Former Male Progenitor.138 In general, when the six kinds of music are played and the six songs performed, all the entities of the spirits and deities of Heaven and Earth will come.139 The “Four Distants” is a general designation for the sun, moon, stars, and seas. The Three Lights (sun, moon, and stars) are high above and it is impossible to get close to them; the seas are vast and broad, with no limit or boundaries. Thus the music for them is the same. 137 Zhou li zhushu 6.4b–5a. The identification with Jiang Yuan here is plausible, in that she is listed before the “Former Ancestor” (xian zu 先祖), her son. 138 The text in quotes exactly matches the extant Zhou li. The Zhou li distinguishes between three different verbs for the rituals, translated here somewhat arbitrarily as “sacrifice” (si 祀), “make offerings” ( ji 祭), and “make feast offerings” (xiang 享). 139 This is an abbreviated paraphrase of the Zhou li text, which gives a list of the six different categories of entity summoned with the six “changes” (bian 變) in the music.

196

Chapter 4

When sacrifices are made to Heaven, the patterns in Heaven accord with it; when offerings are made to Earth, the structures of Earth accord with it. The sun, moon, and stars are the patterns in Heaven; mountains and rivers are the structures of Earth. When making joint sacrifice to Heaven and Earth, the Former Male Progenitor is correlate to Heaven, and the Former Female Progenitor is correlate to Earth; the significance of each is the same. Heaven and Earth combine their vital essences, and husband and wife join together. When sacrificing to Heaven at the Southern Suburban Altar, Earth is the correlate, which is to signify that they are one body. The [spirit tablet] positions of both Heaven and Earth face south, and they share a single mat with Earth on the east. They consume the same animal sacrifice. Emperor Gao and Empress Gao are correlates on the altar, facing east, with the Empress to the north; they also share one mat and a single animal sacrifice. The victim is a nubbin-horn calf, with dark wine and pottery vessels. The Li ji says, “The Son of Heaven has his sacred field ( ji tian 籍田) of one thousand mu 畝 … with which to serve Heaven and Earth.”140 From this, we can say that millet should be included. With regard to the use of a single animal victim, it means one victim for the burned sacrifice [to Heaven], one for the burial sacrifice [to Earth], and one for Emperor Gao and Empress Gao. The one offered to Heaven goes on the left, and together with the millet is burned at the southern Suburban Altar. The victim used for Earth goes on the right, and together with the millet is buried at the northern Suburban Altar. On the morning [of the sacrifice day], [the emperor] faces east and bows twice for the morning observance to the sun. In the evening, he faces west and bows twice for the evening observance to the moon. Only when [all this is done] is the Way of filial and fraternal devotion complete, the spirits come to enjoy the offerings, and a myriad blessings descend. In the case of the separate (bie) music, [the Zhou guan] says, “At the winter solstice, when they perform the music in six changes at the Round Mound (the altar to Heaven, yuan qiu) on Earth, then all the spirits of Heaven descend … At the summer solstice, when they perform the music in eight changes at the Square Mound (the altar to Earth, fang qiu) in the

140 This refers to the fields personally tilled by the emperor to grow the grain used in sacrifices. The quoted text corresponds to the received “Ji yi” 祭義 section of the Li ji, with the ellipsis indicating text omitted by Wang Mang, specifying that feudal lords have smaller sacred fields of one hundred mu. Li ji zhushu 48.1a–b.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

197

marsh, then all the spirits of Earth come forth.”141 Heaven and Earth have their constant [separate] positions, and cannot be constantly joined; this is why they each have their separate individual sacrifices. The separation of Yin and Yang comes at the winter and summer solstices; their conjoining comes in the beginning of spring, on the Xin 辛 or Ding 丁 day of the first third of the first month. [On the latter] the emperor personally sacrifices to Heaven and Earth jointly at the Southern Suburban Altar, with Emperor Gao and Empress Gao as correlates. Yin and Yang divide and come together; as the Changes says, “Divided Yin, divided Yang, Hard and Soft express their functions in turn.” At the winter solstice, [the emperor] sends officials to pay observances at the Southern Suburban Altar with Emperor Gao as correlate, and the Distance offerings made to the host of Yang [entities]. At the summer solstice, he sends officials to pay observances at the Northern Suburban Altar with Empress Gao as correlate, and the Distance offerings made to the host of Yin [entities]. In both cases this is to help summon the tenuous energies, to facilitate and guide the faint manifestations.142 On these occasions (the solstices) the lord does not go forth to inspect, therefore the emperor does not attend in person but sends officials. All of this is the way to serve Heaven and accord with Earth in the correct way, to restore the institutions of the Sage Kings, and bring glory to the achievements of the Grand Progenitor (Emperor Gao). The altars [to the Five Emperors] at Weiyang should no longer be maintained. The host of Distant sacrifices (wang) are not yet decided; once they are decided we will submit another memorial. The Han shu notes that this memorial was approved, resulting in the fifth relocation of these Heaven and Earth sacrifices in less than forty years.143 We can summarise the practical result of this complex proposal, which was broadly similar to Kuang Heng’s original plan but with additional ramifications, as follows. The Suburban Altar south of the capital became the venue for the main joint observance to Heaven and Earth performed personally by the emperor early in the first month of the year, when Yin and Yang were thought to come together. This altar, and a separate one north of the capital, were the 141 The quoted passage matches the received text, Zhou li zhushu 22.12a. The ellipsis marks text not in Wang Mang’s version. 142 I.e. support the faint manifestations of Yin in summer, and the faint manifestations of Yang in winter, so as to facilitate the natural cycle of waxing and waning between them. 143 Han shu 25b.1265–1266, consulting Bujard, pp. 208–210.

198

Chapter 4

venues for observances made by officials at the solstices to assist Yin and Yang respectively at the weakest point in their seasonal cycles, to assist their increase again at the proper time. The Zhou guan (Zhou li) provides textual authority for this, in particular the precedent for introducing the Han founder and his empress as correlates in the observances to Heaven and Earth. The parallel in the Zhou li is not exact, in that the Zhou equivalents were the pre-dynastic ancestor Hou Ji and his mother Jiang Yuan rather than the actual founders, but this does not seem to have been an issue. As we have seen, Wang Mang states that Emperor and Empress Gao had been correlates in the Han before this, though this is not corroborated by any surviving accounts in the Shi ji or Han shu. Regardless, including these two correlates fits in well with maintaining the Yin and Yang balance that is a key function of these arrangements. This would not have been a feature of the historical Western Zhou observances to Heaven, but seems to be a part of the idealized scheme presented in the Zhou li, if not yet on a level of sophistication found in the late Western Han. In addition to the Zhou guan, Wang Mang also cites the authority of the Li ji for the inclusion of grain in the offerings. This matches the “Ji yi” section of the extant Li ji. It is worth noting that the “Ji yi” also mentions the Jiao offering to Heaven and Earth, and says that this is expressed to Heaven through the sun as main sacrifice to the east, and the moon as subsidiary sacrifice on the west.144 Neither specifies the time of day. Wang Mang mentions no authority for the sun and moon, in contrast to the grain, which suggests that the former was already well known, but the latter not. Wang’s final statement indicates that this was work in progress, that the issue of the “Distant” (wang 望) sacrifices was not yet decided. In his next memorial for the Yuanshi era reforms to imperial ritual, Wang Mang presented a case for integrating many other cults in scattered locations away from the capital, including the Zhi altars to the Five Emperors at Yong, into the Suburban altars at Chang’an. Three more Suburban altars would be added, for a total of five: new ones on the east and west, and another on the south-southeast, representing the middle position. A variety of minor cults from Yong would be distributed around these five altars. Wang Mang starts his memorial on this with a quote from the Shang shu on the ancient sovereign Shun’s lei 類 sacrifice to God on High (Shang Di) and the yin 禋 sacrifice to the Six Venerables (liu zong 六宗).145 Wang notes that the Six Venerables had been interpreted by commentators as being the six 144 Li ji zhushu 47.13a–14b. 145 Shangshu jinguwen zhushu 1.38–39.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

199

directions (four cardinal directions plus up and down), but Wang says this was incorrect – “The name and the reality are not in accord.” He offers a different analysis based on trigrams in the Changes, arguing that the Six Venerables were in fact the sun, moon, thunder, wind, mountains, and marshes. He also cites the Li ji “Sacrificial Canons” (“Si dian”), corresponding to the extant “Ji fa”, which mentions some of these (sun, moon, and mountains) as canonical objects of sacrifice because of the benefit they bring to the people.146 He states that the deities in this category are either combined with other observances and have no separate altars of their own, or receive no observances at all. As did others long before him, Wang Mang equates God on High (the “Emperor[s] Above”) in the Shang shu with the Five Emperors, and cites the Zhou guan as authority for worshipping them in the Suburban altars: “[The Lesser Minister of Rites (Xiao zong bo 小宗伯)] establishes the altars to the Five Emperors at the Four Suburbs (si jiao 四郊).”147 It is not at all clear in the extant Zhou li itself what this and the several other mentions of the Five Emperors actually refer to – the sovereigns of antiquity, celestial deities, or both combined into one. In any event, Wang states that the Zhi altars of the Five Emperors at Yong do not accord with ancient practice. He then says: Respectfully, I put this matter to deliberation with eighty-nine officials, including the Grand Tutor Kong Guang, the Overseer of Education Ma Gong, and the Astrologer (Xihe 羲和) Liu Xin. We all say: the Son of Heaven serves Heaven as his father and Earth as his mother. Currently, the deity of Heaven has the title “God on High of August Heaven” (Huang Tian Shang Di 皇天上帝), and the altar of Tai Yi is called the “Grand Zhi [Altar]” (Tai zhi 泰畤). Yet the deity of Earth has the title of “Lord of Earth” (Hou Tu), the same as the Yellow Numen of the Centre (Zhongyang Huang Ling 中央黃靈), and the altar at the Northern Suburb has no honourable title. It should be ordered that the deity of Earth be given the title of “Lord Deity of the August Earth” (Huang Di Hou Qi 皇墬后祇), and the altar called “Vast Zhi [Altar]” (Guang zhi 廣畤). The Changes says, “[Things] gather in

146 Li ji zhushu 46.16b–17a. Wang elides the text in the received “Ji fa” for brevity. The list of deities in the “Ji fa” overlaps only partly with his, and includes other objects of sacrifice like forests and hills, but not wind and thunder. In common with others in this time, he cites the “Sacrificial Canons” (“Si dian” 祀典) of the Li ji for text corresponding to the extant “Ji fa”. The final passage of the “Ji fa” does refer to legitimate sacrifices as being in the “sacrificial canons”, and we have speculated above that “Sacrificial Canons” might have been an alternative title for the text. 147 Zhou li zhushu 5.19b.

200

Chapter 4

their directions by kind, creatures divide themselves by group.”148 Groups of deities should be gathered together by kind into five divisions, and altars provided for the individual deities of Heaven and Earth. Wang Mang proposed that the five altars be laid out as listed below. The list is complex, but gives a sense of the elaborate and systematic nature of his ritual formulations, and the large number of earlier cults at Yong and elsewhere being integrated into his new sites, rather than abolished: The Central Palace in the Centre (defined as the position Wei 未, southsoutheast outside the Chang’an city wall): – The Zhi Altar of the Emperor of the Centre, the Yellow Divinity, Lord of Earth (Zhong yang Di Huang ling Hou Tu zhi 中央帝黃靈后 土畤); – The Shrine to the Sun; – The North Star; – The Northern Dipper; – The Suppressor Star (Saturn). The East Palace at the East Suburban altar: – The Zhi Altar of the Emperor of the East, the Green Divinity, Lord of Bright Heaven Goumang (Dong fang Di Tai Hao Qing ling Goumang zhi 東方帝太昊青靈勾芒畤); – The Shrine to the Lord of Thunder and Earl of Wind; – The Year Star (Jupiter). The South Palace at the South Suburban altar: – The Zhi Altar of the Emperor of the South, the Red Divinity, Emperor of Flames Zhurong (Nan fang Yan Di Chi ling Zhurong zhi 南方炎 帝赤靈祝融畤); – The Dazzling Confuser Star (Ying huo xing 熒惑星, Mars). The West Palace at the West Suburban altar: – The Zhi Altar of the Emperor of the West, the White Divinity, Shao Hao Rushou (Xi fang Di Shao Hao Bai ling Rushou zhi 西方帝少皞 白靈蓐收畤); – The Grand White Star (Venus). 148 This line appears in “Xi ci” 繫辭 1.1 of the extant Yi jing, Zhou yi zhushu 11.2a.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

201

The North Palace at the North Suburban altar: – The Zhi Altar of the Emperor of the North, the Black Divinity, Zhuan Xu Xuanming (Bei fang Di Shao Hao Hei ling Xuanming zhi 北方帝 顓頊黑靈玄冥畤), – The Shrine to the Moon; – The Shrine to the Master of Rain; – The Morning Star (Mercury). The Han shu says that the memorial was approved, and, “Thereupon the area around Chang’an had a profusion of various shrines, altars, and Zhi altars.” This observation was probably meant to be critical, but also brings home the complexity of integrating so many cults in five locations.149 The sacrificial observances at Yong were finally ended, some of them, according to the Shi ji “Treatise on the Feng and Shan”, having begun as far back as in the eighth century BCE in the early years of the Qin state. The Shi ji says there were over a hundred cults there after the Qin unification, and, according to Wang Mang, over two hundred were worshipped in his time.150 Even with the abolition of those deemed non-canonical by Wang Mang’s standards, the large number of new shrines and altars constructed around the city walls of Chang’an must have been striking. The last of Wang Mang’s Yuanshi period reforms listed in the Han shu “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” is the creation of an official Altar of Grain ( ji 稷), on the basis that the sovereigns of antiquity always maintained these in conjunction with the Altar of Soil (she 社). This does in fact seem to be true, in that the she and ji usually occur together in texts such as the Zuo zhuan, where they represented the very existence of a state: when one state “extinguished” another, it was always recorded that the conquering state destroyed the she and the ji of the other. The Han had only ever maintained the official Soil altar, and Wang argued that the corresponding Grain altar of antiquity should be restored. The source of authority Wang cites is from the “Li ji”, which corresponds closely to a passage in the “Wang zhi” 王制 of the extant Li ji. Wang’s quote says, “[The king when in mourning] sacrifices only to the shrines of the ancestors and to the altars of soil and grain, and is exempt from the restrictions of the 149 Han shu 25b.1267–1268, Bujard, pp. 210–213. 150 See Shi ji 28.1358–1360 for the early history of the Zhi cults established at Yong, 28.1375 for the astral and other cults observed there in the time of the First Emperor. See also the detailed survey and discussion of the early Han cults in Wu Liyu, ed., Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui vol. 2, pp. 5–15.

202

Chapter 4

bier rope (i.e. not subject to the usual mourning restrictions).”151 The extant Li ji text has Heaven and Earth instead of the shrines to the ancestors, but is otherwise identical.152 Wang Mang is arguing that the Grain altar ranks among the three state sacrifices so important that they override the prohibition on performing sacrifices while the sovereign is in mourning for his predecessor. His proposal is that an official Grain altar (guan ji 官稷) be established behind the official Soil altar (guan she 官社). The founding king of the Xia, Yu 禹, should receive offerings as correlate to the official Soil altar, and the Zhou primal ancestor Hou Ji should receive offerings as correlate to the official Grain altar. The Grain altar should be planted with “grain trees” (gu shu 榖樹), which the Tang-dynasty Han shu commentator Yan Shigu says are mulberry trees, because the fruit on them resembles grain on its stalk. This is the last of the reforms recorded in the Han shu treatise on sacrifices.153 The Wang Mang memorials, in comparison with the other memorials from the reign of Emperor Yuan onward in the Han shu “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices,” are clearly more wide-ranging and elaborate than the earlier memorials by others, suggesting the continued development in Ritual Learning. There are three points to note in this regard. First, the documents make elaborate, carefully-grounded arguments, but in fact we know from the circumstances of the time that there was no need to persuade the points against political opposition or a sceptical emperor. Wang Mang’s domination of the court was such that he was free to lay out his designs as he saw fit, with no danger that someone would induce the boy emperor to reject them. His punctilious deployment of Ritual Learning seems to have been motivated by a desire to make the institutions themselves proper and correct, aligned with the vision of the early Zhou order that prevailed at the time. A second point is his appeal to the Zhou guan, or Zhou li, as one of his most important sources of authority. We will not say much about the Zhou li itself here, but will save this for a future volume, as part of the emergence of that text as a principal authority for imperial ritual institutions in the third century, after the late Eastern Han scholar Zheng Xuan raised it to the status of a canon. However, the text did enjoy a brief period of favour under Wang Mang, when a court Academician was dedicated to it, before falling into obscurity again, probably precisely because of its association with Wang Mang. Michael Puett makes a case for why Wang Mang made so much use of the Zhou li, a case that he characterises as “speculative”, but that I find quite convincing. To summarise 151 Han shu 25b.1269, Bujard, pp. 213–214. 152 Li ji zhushu 12.9a–b. 153 Han shu 25b.1269, commentary note 6.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

203

a much more elaborate argument, Wang Mang took power at a time when the principle that the Han should reject its Qin antecedents and model itself on the Zhou was well established. The distributed order of the historical Zhou was very much at odds with the reality of the highly centralised Han order, and this distributed order was apparent in many early texts. The Zhou li offered something quite different, an elaborate design of a centralised order that was internally ahistorical, but nonetheless linked to the Zhou by its title. The Zhou li gave Wang Mang authority not just for ritual institutions, but also for the taxation system and a reorganisation of bureaucratic offices.154 The third point in Wang Mang’s designs is the integration of old cults from the regions into the new central altars. The principle was not new, given that (for example) the Five Emperors were combined into the Tai Yi altar as subordinate deities in Emperor Wu’s time. However, as is clear from the list of deities included in each of the five suburban altars, Wang Mang seems to have done this to an extent not seen before. Many of the older cults at Yong were transferred to the new locations rather than abolished, ensuring a form of continuity. The system seems to have been organized in accordance with Five Phases correspondences, aligning with theories gaining prominence at this time, though this is not stated explicitly. The Han shu account emphasises the sheer profusion of new altars, undoubtedly with critical intent, but also evidence that this was something not seen before. The Han shu “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” ends with brief mention of some of Wang Mang’s religious cults after he became emperor, providing a denouement. He is said to have turned to fang shi esoteric specialists and initiated cults of various sorts linked to immortality cultivation in the palace from the second year of his reign (10 CE), and the Han shu provides a cross-reference to the more detailed account of this in Wang’s biography. None of this is said to have had any impact on the Suburban altars themselves.155 There are two sides to this. One is the highly negative stance of the Han shu toward Wang Mang, and the longstanding theme of emperors turning to religious cults and esoteric techniques as a failure of rulership. The other is the sheer profusion of the living religious world of the Han outside the court, which inevitably existed in tension with the sacrificial rites of the emperor. This is an issue not considered in this book, though cults in general religion often were adopted into the state observances, as happened repeatedly under Emperor Wu in particular, and in other reigns. 154 See Michael Puett, “Centering the Realm: Wang Mang, the Zhouli, and Early Chinese Statecraft” (2010), in Elman and Kern, eds., Statecraft and Classical Learning, pp. 129–154. 155 Han shu 25b.1270.

204

Chapter 4

Wang Mang’s ritual forms of 5 CE became a precedent for later practice, afterwards conventionally referred to as the “Yuanshi precedents” (Yuanshi gu shi 元始故事). The Hou Han shu records the Eastern Han founder Liu Xiu’s 劉秀 (r. 25–57) announcement to Heaven and Earth of his enthronement at the ancient Western Zhou capital of Hao in 25 CE, delivered after he personally observed the Suburban rituals according to the Yuanshi precedents. The same is said of his more elaborate offerings at his new capital of Luoyang the following year, with a description of the altars and the many deities worshipped in them corresponding more or less to Wang Mang’s memorials above.156 The “Yuanshi precedents” designation had the merit of avoiding mention of Wang Mang, the very usurper that Liu Xiu proudly proclaimed he had overthrown to restore the Han.

…

In this chapter on the third stage of Ritual Learning we have seen the shift to a genuinely text-based field of study. This was organized around the Li canon, corresponding more or less to the extant Yi li, but increasingly apparent is also the use of what were to become the other two ritual canons by the end of the Eastern Han: texts of the Li ji, matching the extant text if not always in the same individual section in which they now appear, and the Zhou guan (Zhou li). When the shift to texts began is not clear, but the Li canon had likely emerged by the middle of the second century BCE if not earlier. Ru scholars familiar with ritual served at the court of Emperor Wu in the second half of the second century, but their Ritual Learning was not yet at a level to satisfy Wu’s demands for practical instructions on rites and ritual institutions, and he rejected their proposals in favour of forms derived from contemporary religion rather than models of antiquity. Canon-based Ritual Learning emerges as an influential force in the first century BCE with Hou Cang, an accomplished scholar of ritual (and of other branches of canonical learning), appointed to high office under Emperor Xuan in 72 BCE. His students Gong Yu, Wei Xuancheng, and Kuang Heng held key positions at court under Emperors Yuan and Cheng from 49 onward, and spearheaded a drive for major reforms to imperial ritual to bring it into line with the model of the ancient Zhou dynasty, based on the authority of canonical texts. This began with the shrines to the imperial ancestors, limiting their number to seven according to prescriptions in ritual texts of the Li ji. This reform 156 As recorded in the “Treatise on Sacrifices” (“Ji si zhi” 祭祀志), Hou Han shu, Zhi 7.3157, 3159–3160.

“ Victory ” of Ritual Learning

205

eventually succeeded, though partly by allowing the most successful emperors (such as Wen and Wu) to receive special status with permanent shrines not subject to demolition. These officials then moved to the more difficult reform of the emperor’s personal sacrifices to deities of Heaven and Earth, which they argued should be held exclusively at “Suburban” altars on the outskirts of the capital. After repeated setbacks, this was established under Wang Mang in 5 CE. It is argued here that the evolution of Ritual Learning itself was a major factor in these reforms. Ru-educated scholars penetrated to the centre of political power by calling attention to deficiencies in imperial rituals, securing them a prominent voice in deliberations on these key symbols of Han dynastic legitimacy. Their Ritual Learning became more effective by expanding the range of texts acknowledged as authoritative and interpreting them in ways aligned with their objective to make Han the successor of the Zhou rather than the Qin. We see signs of this deployment of Ritual Learning in the dominance of the reformist position in group debates at court, where canon-based discourse is represented as having attracted support from the majority of officials. The final designs for the Jiao set forth by Wang Mang in 5 CE, very likely with the assistance of Liu Xin, widened the use of authoritative texts still further, with more “Li ji” texts, the Zhou Guan, and the Zuo zhuan. Over the course of four decades, the scheme of the Suburban altars increased in complexity from the original two altars north and south based on Yin-Yang theories, to Wang Mang’s five altars, where the influence of Five Phases theory is evident. Wang Mang’s system allowed for the integration of old cults at Yong and elsewhere into the new system, rather than abolishing them.

Chapter 5

Conclusion and Final Arguments The account here is based on two broad claims. First is the concept of Ritual Learning itself, that there was in Early China a recognisable body of knowledge relating to li in its aspects of “ritual”, “ritual order”, and “ritual propriety”. Second is the argument that this Ritual Learning was a fundamental component of what we know of as “Confucianism”, especially when we consider Confucianism as practice, and a culture, rather than primarily a body of ideas. Following on this, we have shown how Ritual Learning functioned as an important wedge in the efforts by “Confucians”, the Ru and Ru-educated officials, to win influence in the sphere of political power, and establish a position of dominance in the discourse on debates on imperial ritual in government. Imperial rituals, especially the sacrifices to the imperial ancestors and to Heaven and Earth, were important symbolic expressions of the very legitimacy of the Han dynasty, and a sensitive topic. That the Ritual Learning of the Ru led to substantial changes in these rituals is a sign of how successful they were in gaining influence at the centre of political power. This account thus reveals a significant aspect of the rise of “Confucianism” during the Western Han. We have identified three broad stages in the evolution of Ritual Learning, corresponding to periods in history when the Chinese world underwent enormous change. In the first period, that we have called the “golden age” of li, associated with the Spring and Autumn period, was a time when Ritual Learning, as practical command of manners, protocols, and standards of correct behaviour, was the preserve of the warrior aristocracy. Practical knowledge of how to display one’s command of li in visible forms was a principal marker of their distinct culture and privilege. Visible display was an important aspect of practical li at that time, as rulers and their vassals were expected to observe precise rituals, manners, and social skills, and, according to the Zuo zhuan, observers around them made negative judgments on the basis of any lapses. Members of the aristocracy and their followers elaborated and theorized the concept of li to defend a hierarchical order threatened by social and political change. If the Lun yu contents are to be trusted, it seems that late in this early first stage of Ritual Learning, Confucius made li a pillar of his teachings, retaining the aristocratic emphasis on precise ritual observance, but

© Robert L. Chard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004465312_006

Conclusion

207

making it the basis of individual moral cultivation, open to people from social backgrounds below the highest levels of the aristocracy. In the second period, the Ru “Confucians” emerged as the main specialists in Ritual Learning. The limited nature of the sources from this period makes the story difficult to trace in detail, but accounts of the Ru in Warring States texts, especially hostile depictions in the Mozi and Xunzi, attest to the centrality of li in their learning and culture, as practical mastery of standard rituals and as a more generalised system of order. We know that people who identified themselves as Ru sought entry into the sphere of political power during this period, as Mencius tried and failed to do. Xunzi seems to have succeeded at this to some extent with his official career. What we do not see is Ru deploying Ritual Learning as a way to gain the attention of rulers and exert influence over them. For this we have to wait until Shusun Tong at the start of the Han, though we have speculated that Ru in the Warring States operated in a similar way, without ever emerging into the extant documentary record. Shusun Tong, and the ritual officials Master Xu and his grandsons after him, are examples of people who attained positions of political power in the early Han through their practical command of ritual performance. We argue here that Ritual Learning in this time was much like that of the Warring States period, as distinct from the mainly text-based tradition that came to dominate later in the Han. Ritual Learning in the third stage most resembles a branch of academic study as we would understand it. In the second half of the second century BCE, the emerging Confucian canons (or “classics”) became an integral part of Ritual Learning and defined what it was. Most central to this was the Li canon itself, and commentaries associated with it, but other canons, especially the Songs and Documents, also provided authoritative evidence of ancient ritual forms. During this third stage of mainly text-based Ritual Learning, the field itself gradually increased in influence, owing to two developments. One was the increase in numbers and influence of officials trained in the “Confucian” Ru canons in high-ranking posts, relatively limited under Emperor Wu, but increasing during the first century BCE, especially after the accession of Emperor Yuan in 49. The second factor was the evolution of Ritual Learning itself. The Ru under Emperor Wu had conspicuously failed to satisfy his demands for guidance on the forms of imperial ritual, leading him to reject them and their adherence to the models of antiquity in favour of institutions designed to resonate with contemporary religion. But by the last half-century

208

Chapter 5

of the Western Han, Ritual Learning had grown, able to draw on a larger corpus of authoritative texts on li, and also incorporating newer cosmological theory. The Ru were thus able to present more convincing arguments for their reconstructions of ancient ritual institutions, and their canon-based discourse was more widely accepted among the increasing numbers of like-minded officials. An important caveat in this narrative is that Ritual Learning was never a branch of knowledge in isolation from other subjects. This is true in all three of its stages. For the aristocracy of the “golden age”, and for Confucius, li was integrated with the Songs, Documents, and Music in a wider program of cultural attainment. In the second stage of the Ru, practical skill in ritual performance was still only part of what they studied. The Songs and Documents were an important component of their learning, and many of them seem to have been strongly dedicated to their moral doctrines. We can point to the two most famous Ru of the Warring States as examples. Mencius clearly regarded li in a positive light, but had relatively little to say about it. For Xunzi, li was a central pillar of his thought, but was integrated into a much larger framework for social and political order. For him, mere ritual mastery, and study of the Songs and Documents, produced only inferior Ru. In the third stage during the Han, study traditions in the Li canon certainly existed, but when we look at the backgrounds of Ru officials pressing for ritual reform, it is apparent that their Ritual Learning was part of their “Canonical Study” ( jing xue) in general, rather than a single main subject of study. It is ironic that the famous usurper Wang Mang was the one person in this account who studied mainly the Li canon at first, at least according to his biography in the Han shu, and also was the person who used his extensive Ritual Learning to devise a model of lasting influence for the imperial ritual system thereafter. A successor volume to this one will take up the story of Ritual Learning in the Eastern Han and after, starting with the difficult process of resurrecting Wang Mang’s ritual system of the Yuanshi era after the serious disruption following the fall of his brief dynasty and the restoration of the Han. Wang Mang was also a pioneer in using the Zhou li as authority for rituals applying to the emperor. As will be seen in the successor volume to this one, the Zhou li lost its status as authoritative ritual text for much of the Eastern Han, until it was eventually elevated to a canon in its own right by the late Han scholiast Zheng Xuan (127–200), and became a fundamental authority for imperial ritual after the Han.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注. Ed. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1990. Guliang zhuan zhushu 榖梁傳注疏. Wuyingdian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經 注疏. Guodian Chumu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡. Ed. Jingmenshi Bowuguan 荊門市博物館. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe, 1998. Guoyu jijie 國語集解. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 2002. Han Feizi jijie 韓非子集解. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1998. Han shu 漢書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1962. Hou Han shu 後漢書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1965. Jin shu 晉書. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1974. Li ji zhushu 禮記注疏. Wuyingdian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經注疏. Lun heng jiaoshi 論衡校釋. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1990. Lun yu zhushu 論語注疏. Wuying dian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經注疏. Mengzi zhushu 孟子注疏. Wuyingdian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經注疏. Mozi jiangu 墨子間詁. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001. Rongo kogi 論語古義. By Itō Jinsai 伊藤仁斎 (1627–1705). Kyoto: Keibunkan 奎文舘 woodblock printing in the Waseda University Library, preface dated 1712. Shanghai Bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書. Ed. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, vol. 5. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2005. Shang shu jinguwen zhushu 尚書今古文注疏. Ed. Sun Xingyan 孫星衍. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1986. Shi ji 史記. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1959. Xunzi jijie 荀子集解. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1988. Yi li zhushu 儀禮注疏. Wuyingdian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經注疏. Zhou li zhushu 周禮注疏. Sibu congkan. Zhou yi zhushu 周易注疏. Wuyingdian Shisanjing zhushu 武英殿十三經注疏. Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1961. Zuo zhuan, see Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu.

210

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Ames, Roger  T. “Observing Ritual ‘Propriety (li 禮)’ as Focusing the ‘Familiar’ in the Affairs of the Day.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 1.2 (2002), pp. 143–156. doi:10.1007/BF02857093. Baker, Timothy. “The Imperial Ancestral Temple in China’s Western Han Dynasty: Institutional Tradition and Personal Belief.” PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997; reprint with new preface by Reza Aslan, 2009. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; reprint with new preface by Diane Jonte-Pace, 2009. Bielenstein, Hans. The Bureaucracy of Han Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Bielenstein, Hans. The Restoration of the Han Dynasty. Vol. I, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 26 (1954). Blakeley, Barry. “‘On the Authenticity and Nature of the Zuo zhuan’ Revisited,” Early China 29 (2004), pp. 217–267. Brindley, Erica. Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012. Brooks, E. Bruce and A. Taeko Brooks. The Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Brown, Miranda. The Politics of Mourning in Ancient China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Buc, Philippe. The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Bujard, Marianne. “State and local cults in Han religion.” In John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC– 220 AD) vol. 2, pp. 777–811. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bujard, Marianne. Le sacrifice au Ciel dans la Chine ancienne: Théorie et pratique sous les Han occidentaux. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2000. Burke, Peter. What is Cultural History? 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008. Burke, Peter. A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. Cai, Liang. Witchcraft and the Rise of the First Confucian Empire. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014. Chard, Robert. “Visual Power and Moral Influence: The Taku Confucius Temple and its Chinese Counterparts.” Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo Kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 170 (December 2016), pp. 450–422 (1–29).

Bibliography

211

Chen Lai 陈来. Gudai sixiang wenhua de shijie: Chunqiu shidai de zongjiao, lunli yu shehui sixiang 古代思想文化的世界–春秋时代的宗教、伦理与社会思想. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe, 2009. Chen Shuguo 陈戍国. Zhongguo lizhishi: Xian Qin juan 中国礼制史–先秦卷; Qin Han juan 秦汉卷, Wei Jin Nanbeichao juan 魏晋南北朝卷; Sui Tang juan 隋唐卷; Song Liao Jin Xia juan 宋辽金夏卷; Yuan Ming Qing juan 元明清卷. Changsha: Hunan Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2002. Cheng, Anne. “What Did It Mean to Be a Ru in Han Times?” Asia Major 14 (2001), pp. 101–118. Chow, Kai-wing. The Rise of Confucian Ritualism in Late Imperial China: Ethics, Classics, and Lineage Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. Csikzentmihalyi, Mark. “Confucius and the Analects in the Han,” in Bryan Van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, pp. 134–162. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Cua, Antonio  S.  Human  Nature, Ritual, and History: Studies in Xunzi and Chinese Philosophy. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2005. De Groot, J. J. M. The Religion of the Chinese. New York: Macmillan, 1910. Dong Zhongshu. Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn, trans. Sarah A. Queen and John S. Major. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Dubs, Homer. “The Victory of Han Confucianism.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 58:3 (1938), pp. 435–449. Dubs, Homer, trans., with P’an Lo-chi. The History of the Former Han Dynasty vol. 3: Imperial Annals XI and XII, and the Memoir of Wang Mang. Baltimore: Waverley Press, 1955. Durrant, Stephen, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, trans. Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals.” 3 vols. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016. Elman, Benjamin and Martin Kern, eds. Statecraft and Classical Learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Eno, Robert. The Confucian Creation of Heaven: Philosophy and the Defense of Ritual Mastery. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Falkenhausen, Lothar von. Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2006. Falkenhausen, Lothar von. Suspended Music: Chime-bells in the Culture of Bronze Age China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Fingarette, Herbert. Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Fisher, Carney T. The Chosen One: Succession and Adoption in the Court of Ming Shizong. Sydney; London: Allen & Unwin, 1990.

212

Bibliography

Fisher, Carney T. The Great Ritual Controversy in Ming China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978. Fujikawa Masakazu 藤川正数. Kandai ni okeru reigaku no kenkyū 漢代における礼学 の研究. Rev. ed. Tokyo: Kazama Shobō, 1985. Fukui, Shigemasa 福井重雅. Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū: Jukyō no kangakuka o meguru teisetsu no saikentō 漢代儒教の史的研究: 儒教の官學化をめぐる定説の 再檢討. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin, 2005. Geiss, James. “The Chia-ching reign, 1522–1566.” In Frederick Mote and Denis Twitchett, eds., The Cambridge History of China Volume 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 1, pp. 440–510. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Goldin, Paul R. “Xunzi in the Light of the Guodian Manuscripts.” Early China 25 (2000), pp. 113–146. Goldin, Paul R. Rituals of the Way: The Philosophy of Xunzi. Chicago: Open Court, 1999. Harbsmeier, Christoph. “On the Scrutability of the Zuozhuan” (Review Article of Durrant, Li, and Schaberg). Journal of Chinese Studies 67 (2018), pp. 253–279. Henry, Eric. “‘Junzi Yue’ versus ‘Zhongni Yue’ in Zuozhuan.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 59:1 (1999), pp. 125–161. Hua Yougen 华友根. “Shusun Tong wei Han ding liyue zhidu jiqi yiyi 叔孙通为汉定礼 乐制度及其意义.” Xueshu yuekan 学术月刊 1995.2, pp. 51–55, 71. Hunter, Michael. “Did Mencius Know the Analects?” T’oung Pao 100 (2014), pp. 33–79. doi:10.1163/15685322-10013P02. Hunter, Michael. Confucius Beyond the Analects. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hunter, Michael and Martin Kern, eds. Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Ing, Michael David Kaulana. The Dysfunction of Ritual in Early Confucianism. Oxford Ritual Studies. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Kaneko Shūichi 金子修一. Chūgoku kodai kōtei saishi no kenkyū 中国古代皇帝祭祀の 研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006. Kaneko Shūichi 金子修一. Kotai Chūgoku to kōtei saishi 古代中国と皇帝祭祀. Tokyo: Kyūko Sho’in, 2001. Kern, Martin. “Xi Shuai” 蟋蟀 (‘Cricket’) and its Consequences: Issues in Early Chinese Poetry and Textual Studies.” Early China 42 (2019), pp. 39–74. doi:10.1017/eac.2019.1. Kern, Martin. “Tropes of Music and Poetry: From Wudi (r. 141–87 BCE) to ca 100 CE.” In Nylan, Michael and Michael Loewe, eds., China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal, pp. 180–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Kern, Martin. “Excavated Manuscripts and their Socratic Pleasures: Newly Discovered Challenges in Reading the ‘Airs of the States’.” Asiatische Studien 61.3 (2007), pp. 775– 793. doi:10.5169/seals-147757.

Bibliography

213

Kern, Martin. “Quotation and the Confucian Canon in Early Chinese Manuscripts: The Case of ‘Zi yi’ (Black Robes).” Asiatische Studien 59.1 (2005), pp. 293–332. doi:10.5169/ seals-147676. Kern, Martin. “The Odes in Excavated Manuscripts.” In Martin Kern, ed., Text and Ritual in Early China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006, pp. 149–193. Kern, Martin. “Ritual, Text, and the Formation of the Canon: Historical Transitions of ‘Wen’ in Early China.” T’oung Pao 87.1/3 (2001), pp. 43–91. Kern, Martin. The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000. Kern, Martin and Dirk Meyer, eds. Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents). Leiden: Brill, 2017. Kern, Martin, ed. Text and Ritual in Early China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. Kline, T.  C.  and  Justin Tiwald, eds. Ritual and Religion in the Xunzi. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014. Knoblock, John. Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works. 3 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988, 1990, 1994. Kojima Tsuyoshi 小島毅. Higashi Ajia no jukyō to rei 東アジアの儒教と礼. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2004. Kojima Tsuyoshi 小島毅. Chūgoku kinsei ni okeru rei no gensetsu 中国近世における礼 の言説. Tokyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1996. Kojima Tsuyoshi 小島毅. “Kōshi seido no hensen 郊祀制度の変遷.” Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo Kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 108 (February 1989), pp. 123–219. Kominami Ichirō 小南一郎, ed. Chūgoku no reisei to reigaku 中國の禮制と禮學. Kyoto: Hōyū Shoten, 2001. Kominami Ichirō 小南一郎, ed. Chūgoku kodai reisei kenkyū 中国古代礼制研究. Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo, 1995. Lagerwey, John and Marc Kalinowski, eds. Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD). Leiden: Brill, 2009. Legge, James, trans. Lî Kî: An Encyclopaedia of Ancient Ceremonial Usages, Religious Creeds, and Social Institutions, The Texts of Confucianism, Sacred Books of China, Sacred Books of the East vols. 3, 16, 27, 28. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1879–1885. Lewis, Mark Edward. Sanctioned Violence in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Li Ling 李零. Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji (zengdingben) 郭店楚簡校讀記[增訂本]. Beijing: Renmin Daxue Chubanshe, 2007. Li Ling, and Donald Harper, trans. “An Archaeological Study of Taiyi 太一 (Grand One) Worship.” Early Medieval China 2 (1995), pp. 1–39.

214

Bibliography

Li, Wai-yee. The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography. Harvard East Asian Monographs 253. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Loewe, Michael. “Officials of Western Han and their Background” (Review article of Cai, Liang Witchcraft and the Rise of the First Confucian Empire, 2014). Archiv Orientální 82:2 (2014), pp. 381–388, 410. Loewe, Michael. Dong Zhongshu, a “Confucian” Heritage and the Chunqiu Fanlu. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Loewe, Michael. A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin Periods (221 BC–AD 24). Handbook of Oriental Studies, 16. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Loewe, Michael. “Wang Mang and His Forbears: The Making of the Myth.” T’oung Pao 80.4/5 (1994), pp. 197–222. Loewe, Michael. “The Imperial Tombs of the Former Han Dynasty and Their Shrines.” T’oung Pao 78.4/5 (1992), pp. 302–340. Loewe, Michael. Crisis and Conflict in Han China, 104 BC to AD 9. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018, reprint of London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1974. Loewe, Michael, ed. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1994. Loewe, Michael and Edward Shaughnessy, eds. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. McMullen, David. State and Scholars in T’ang China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Meyer, Dirk. Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of Meaning in Early China. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Nienhauser, William  H., ed. The Grand Scribe’s Records vol. 8, The Memoirs of Han China, Part 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008. Nylan, Michael. “Classics without Canonization: Learning and Authority in Qin and Han.” In Lagerwey, John and Marc Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD) vol. 2, pp. 721–776. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Nylan, Michael. “Toward an Archeology of Writing: Text, Ritual, and the Culture of Public Display in the Classical Period (475 B.C.E.–220 C.E.),” in Martin Kern, ed., Text and Ritual in Early China, pp.  3–49. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. Nylan, Michael. The Five “Confucian” Classics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Nylan, Michael. “The ‘Chin wen/Ku wen’ Controversy in Han Times.” T’oung Pao 80:1.3 (1994), pp. 83–145. Nylan, Michael and Michael Loewe, eds. China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Bibliography

215

Nylan, Michael and Thomas A. Wilson. Lives of Confucius: Civilization’s Greatest Sage through the Ages. New York: Doubleday, 2010. Petersen, Jens Østergård. “Which Books Did the First Emperor of Ch’in Burn? On the Meaning of Pai Chia in Early Chinese Sources.” Monumenta Serica 43 (1995), pp. 1–52. Pines, Yuri. “Beasts or Humans: Pre-Imperial Origins of the ‘Sino-Barbarian’ Dichotomy,” in Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, pp. 59–102. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Pines, Yuri. Foundations of Confucian Thought: Intellectual Life in the Chunqiu Period. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002. Pines, Yuri. “Disputers of the Li: Breakthroughs in the Concept of Ritual in Preimperial China.” Asia Major, 3rd ser. 13.1 (2000), pp. 1–41. Pines, Yuri. “Intellectual Change in the Chunqiu Period: The Reliability of the Speeches in the Zuo zhuan as Sources of Chunqiu Intellectual History.” Early China 22 (1997), pp. 100–116. Poo, Mu-chou. In Search of Personal Welfare: A View of Ancient Chinese Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Puett, Michael. “Centering the Realm: Wang Mang, the Zhouli, and Early Chinese Statecraft.” In Benjamin Elman and Martin Kern, eds., Statecraft and Classical Learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History, pp. 129–154. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Puett, Michael. “Combining the Ghosts and Spirits, Centering the Realm: Mortuary Ritual and Political Organization in the Ritual Compendia of Early China.” in John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD) vol. 2, pp. 695–720. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Puett, Michael. To Become a God: Cosmology, Sacrifice, and Self-Divinization in Early China. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series 57. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Queen, Sarah A. From Chronicle to Canon: The Hermeneutics of the Spring and Autumn Annals according to Tung Chung-shu. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Queen, Sarah A., trans. See Dong Zhongshu. Raft, Zeb. “The Beginning of Literati Poetry: Four Poems from First-Century BCE China.” T’oung Pao 96.1/3 (2010), pp. 74–124. doi:10.1163/156853210X514568. Schaberg, David. A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography. Harvard East Asian Monographs  205. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001. Schwartz, Benjamin. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.

216

Bibliography

Shen Wenzhuo 沈文倬. “Lüe lun lidian de shixing he Yi li shuben de zhuanzuo 略論禮 典的實行和《儀禮》書本的撰作.” Zong Zhou li yue wenming kaolun 宗周禮樂文明 考論. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Daxue Chubanshe, 2001, pp. 1–54. Slingerland, Edward. Review of Michael Hunter. Confucius Beyond the Analects. Early China 41 (2018), pp. 465–475. doi:10.1017/eac.2018.12. Steele, John Clendinning, trans. The I-li, or Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial. Probsthain’s Oriental Series vols. 8, 9. London: Probsthain, 1917. Ter Haar, Barend. “From Field to Text in the Study of Chinese Religion.” In Kiri Paramore, ed., Religion and Orientalism in Asian Studies, pp. 85–105. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Twitchett, Denis and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China Volume 1: The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 BC–AD 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Van Zoeren, Steven. Poetry and Personality: Reading, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics in Traditional China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. Wang Yongping 王永平. “Guodian Chujian yanjiu zongshu 郭店楚简研究综述.” Shehui kexue zhanxian 社会科学战线 2005.3, pp. 252–261. Washio Yūko 鷲尾祐子. “Zen Kan kōshi seido kenkyū josetsu: Sei tei ji kōshi kaikaku izen ni tsuite 前漢郊祀制度序説 – 成帝時郊祀改革以前について.” Chūgoku kodaishi ronsō 中國古代史論叢. Ritsumeikan Tōyōshi Gakkai 立命館東洋史學會, 2004, pp. 1–32. Wu Liyu 吳麗娛, ed. Li yu Zhongguo gudai shehui 禮與中國古代社會 vol. 1, Xian Qin juan 先秦卷; vol. 2, Qin Han Wei Jin Nanbeichao juan 秦漢魏晉南北朝卷; vol. 3, Sui Tang Wudai Song Yuan juan 隋唐五代宋元卷; vol. 4, Ming Qing juan 明清卷. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 2016. Xing, Wen. “New Light on the Li ji 禮記: The Li ji and the Related Warring States Period Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts.” Early China 37 (2014), pp.  519–550. doi:10.1017/ eac.2014.8. Yang Tianyu 杨天宇. “Yi li de laiyuan, bianzuan jiqi zai Handai de liuchuan 《仪礼》的 来源、编纂及其在汉代的流传.” Shixue yuekan 史学月刊 1998.6, pp. 28–33. Yang Ying 杨英. “Gaige kaifang sishinian lixue yu lizhi yanjiu 改革开放四十年礼学与 礼制研究.” Kongxue tang 孔学堂 5.3 (2018), pp. 110–127. English translation by Wang Keyou, pp. 91–98. Zufferey, Nicolas. To the Origins of Confucianism: The Ru in Pre-Qin Times and during the Early Han Dynasty. Bern: Peter Lang, 2003.

Index Ai, Emperor (of the Han, Han Ai Di 漢哀帝) 158, 169, 172, 175, 190, 191, 193 Altars of Soil and Grain (she ji 社稷) 67 see also Soil Altar; Grain Altar Analects 15, 20, 72, 75 see also Lun yu Ancestral shrine (miao 廟) 31, 34, 36, 38, 61, 69, 76, 137, 180, 183, 202 Imperial 12, 13, 69, 122–124, 125, 126, 127, 142, 144, 156, 157–176, 177, 194, 204–205 Army Records (Jun zhi 軍志) 63 Ban Biao 班彪 (3–54 CE) 158n65, 174–175, 191 Battle of Chengpu 城濮 30n22, 51–52, 63n101 “Ba yi” 八佾 (section of the Lun yu) 76 bian dian 便殿 (tomb shrine side building)  158 “Bibliography, Treatise on” (in the Han shu, “Yi wen zhi” 藝文志) 103, 111, 128n107, 150 “Biography of the Many Ru” (Shi ji, “Ru lin lie zhuan” 儒林列傳, Han shu, “Ru lin zhuan” 儒林傳 ) 91, 93, 113, 115, 128, 131–132, 138, 139, 154 blood covenant (meng 盟) 44, 53, 58 Bright Hall (Ming Tang 明堂) 139, 140n24 Bronze inscriptions 23, 24n10, 33, 37 lacking the graph li 禮  22 correspondences with the Zuo zhuan 30, 37, 45, 53 canonical learning see Canonical Studies Canonical Studies (Jingxue 經學) 12, 13, 18, 114, 131, 146, 153, 157, 167, 170, 176, 191, 208 canonical texts see Canons Canon of Ritual (Li 禮, Li jing 禮經) 11n12, 12n13, 13–14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 60, 67, 74, 77, 84, 89, 94, 102–110, 112, 113, 127n103, 128–129, 130, 147–148, 150, 152–153, 155, 179–180, 194, 204 “Canon of Shun” (“Shun dian” 舜典, text in the Shang shu) 185n114

“Canon of Yao” (“Yao dian” 堯典, text in the Shang shu) 103, 185n114 canons (“classics”, jing 經) vii, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 42, 60, 71, 85, 90, 135, 145, 152, 153, 154, 157, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 188, 190, 191, 202, 205, 207, 208 Academicians for 128, 135, 138, 140, 147, 150, 202 see also Canon of Ritual; Canonical Studies Cao Bao 曹褒  127–128 Chang’an 長安  133, 159, 182, 183, 189, 193, 198, 200, 201 Changes (Yi 易) 57, 146, 153, 169, 188, 191, 197, 199 Chen 陳 (state) 38, 66, 89 Chenbao 陳寶 shrine 187 Chen Can 陳參 (Canon of Ritual teacher)  191 Cheng, Emperor (of the Han, Han Cheng Di 漢成帝) 138, 167, 169, 175, 180, 181, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 204 Cheng, King (of Zhou, Zhou Cheng Wang 周成王) 22, 62, 162–163, 172, 182 Chengpu, Battle see Battle of Chengpu Chen She 陳涉 93, 116 Chong’er 重耳  45–50 see also Wen, Lord, of Jin 晉文公 clothing Confucian see Ru, clothing of a deceased emperor, procession ceremony 123, 165 of a superior person ( junzi 君子) 79 worn at a sacrifice 107, 142 of a deceased emperor, procession ceremony 123, 165 Confucianism vii–viii, 1–3, 4–5, 21, 72, 114, 124, 140, 151, 154, 180, 206 as culture viii, 9–11, 21, 75, 79, 84–88, 92–101 as problematic term 1n1 see also Ru Confucians see Ru Confucius 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50, 57, 59, 60,

218 Confucius (cont.) 64, 69, 72–83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 115, 117, 118n83, 119, 125, 137, 138, 146, 150, 178, 192, 206, 208 as originator of the Li canon 102–104, 105 cultivation, personal, through li 7–9, 11, 26, 57–59, 74–76, 77, 78, 83, 88, 94, 100, 112, 206–207 cultural history 4, 8, 9, 17, 84, 88 Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記  150, 155 Dai De 戴德 155 Dai Sheng 戴聖 155, 163, 169 dance 9, 13, 70, 85, 94, 95, 96, 98, 148, 166, 185, 194, 195 da zhangfu 大丈夫 (“Great Man”) 108 De 德 (“virtue”) 23, 33, 34, 35, 45, 49, 50, 82, 109 malevolent (xiong de 凶德) 56 deliberation (yi 議) 79, 111, 184, 199, 205 Di qi 地祇 (terrestrial deities) 135, 192, 199, 200 Documents (Shu 書, Shang shu 尚書) 14, 15, 20, 41, 48, 50, 51, 56, 62, 69, 70, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 93, 99, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 113, 130, 144, 145, 153, 183, 184, 208 Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179–104 BCE) 133, 138, 140, 151, 152, 157, 188 dress see clothing; Ru, clothing Duke of Zhou (Zhou Gong 周公, Ji Dan 姬旦) 21, 22, 24, 25, 55–56, 57, 60, 82, 159, 172, 183, 184, 192 Eno, Robert 9, 11, 85, 94–95, 100 Fang qiu 方丘 see Square Mound fang shi 方士 (“men of techniques”, esoteric specialists) 134, 139, 154, 176, 187, 203 “Fei Ru” 非儒 (“Criticising the Ru,” chapter of the Mozi) 87, 95 Feng and Shan sacrifices ( feng shan 封禪) 92, 101, 115, 135, 136, 142, 143–144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 153, 175, 181

Index “Feng Shan shu” 封禪書 (“Treatise on the Feng and Shan” in the Shi ji) 126, 132, 133, 134n8, 134n10, 140, 152, 187n117, 201 Fenyin 汾陰 (place name) 141, 181, 182, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193 feudal lords (zhu hou 諸侯) 20, 27–28, 39, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 62, 65, 68, 80, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 102, 103, 104, 107, 136, 148, 161, 162, 164, 171, 180, 186, 196 First Emperor of Qin (Qin Shi Huangdi 秦始 皇帝) 89, 92–93, 100, 101, 134, 137, 139 Five Emperors (wu di 五帝) 72, 118, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 152, 161, 176, 181, 185, 186, 192–193, 197, 198, 199, 203 Former Female Progenitor see xian bi 先妣 Four Emperors (deities, si di 四帝) 125 Ganquan 甘泉  141, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193 Gao, Empress see Lü, Empress Gaotang Sheng 高堂生 (master of the Ritual canon) 103, 104, 128, 129, 148 Gaozong 高宗 (Shang king, also called Wu Ding 武丁) 82, 172 Generational Ancestor shrine  see Shizong 世宗 Gentry Ritual (Shi li 士禮, alternate title of the Li 禮 canon Yi li) 18, 84, 104, 108, 128, 148, 149, 153 God(s) on High see Shang Di 上帝 Gong Mengzi 公孟子  95–96 Gongsun Hong 公孫弘 (201–121) 140 Gong Yu 貢禹 (d. c. 44 BCE) 156, 157, 160, 161, 164, 173, 177 Grain Altar (ji 稷) 201–202 see also Altars of Soil and Grain Grand Ancestor shrines see Taizong (miao) Grand Ancestral Shrine (tai miao 太廟) 76 Grand Progenitor (shrines) (Taizu [miao] 太祖[廟]) 158, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 195, 197 Grand Supervisor of Music (section in the Zhou li) see Da si yue 大司樂 Grand Unity see Tai Yi Guliang zhuan 穀梁傳  171, 192 Guo feng 國風 (section of the Shi jing, “Airs of the States”) 179

219

Index Guo yu 國語 20, 28, 31, 32, 33, 46, 52, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 104, 111, 155 Han Feizi 韓非子 (text) 87–88, 96, 97, 98, 140n24 Han shu 漢書 (“History of Han”) 128, 149, 150, 158, 159, 160, 163, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 178, 180, 181, 182, 187, 189, 191, 192, 194, 197, 201, 204 see also “Bibliography, Treatise on”; “Biography of the Many Ru”; “Jiao si zhi” 郊祀志 Han Xuanzi 韓宣子  57 hegemon (ba 霸 or bo 伯) 28, 38, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 62, 81, 83, 88 Hejian, King of (Hejian Xian wang 河間 獻王, 170–130 BCE) 149–150 Henry, Eric 29, 30 He Wu 何武 (d. 3 CE) 170 Hou Cang 后倉 (蒼) 155, 156, 159, 166, 177, 204 Hou Ji 后稷  168, 195, 198 Hou Shi qu tai ji 后氏曲臺記  155 Hou Tu 后土 (“Lord of Earth”) 139, 141, 176, 181, 189, 193, 199, 200 Huan, Lord (of Lu, Lu Huan Gong 魯桓公) 33, 34, 35 Huan, Lord (of Qi, Qi Huan Gong 齊桓公) 44, 49, 55, 62, 81 Hui, Emperor (of the Han, Han Hui Di 漢惠帝, Liu Ying 劉盈) 114, 122, 123, 124, 131, 157, 160, 163, 165, 173 Hui, King (of Wei, Wei Hui Wang 魏惠王, r. 369–335) 90 Hui, Lord (of Jin, Jin Hui Gong 晉惠公, r. 650–637 BCE) 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 57 hunting 36, 38, 50, 52 Hunter, Michael 73 Hu Yan 狐偃 (Zi Fan 子犯) 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 imperial progression see xun shou Institutions/Regulations of Zhou (text title, Zhou zhi 周制) 66 Internuncio (ye zhe 謁者) 121 Itō, Jinsai 伊藤仁斎 75 Jiajing 嘉靖 emperor (Ming dynasty) 174

Jiang Yuan 姜源  195, 198 Jiao 郊 (Suburban altars and sacrifices) 12, 125, 131, 132–134, 138, 141, 148, 151–152, 176–190, 191–204, 205 “Jiao si zhi” 郊祀志 (Treatise on Suburban Sacrifices, Han shu) 154n60, 157, 160, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 202, 203 Jia Yi 賈誼 (201–169 BCE) 136–138, 188 Ji dian (“Sacrificial Canons”) 64-65 “Ji fa” 祭法 (“Sacrificial Models”, text in the Li ji) 67–69, 111, 164, 165, 172n93, 183, 199 Jing Chou 景丑 (or Jingzi 景子, friend of Mencius) 106 Jing Chun 景春 (student of Mencius)  107–108 Jing xue 經學  see Canonical Studies ji tian 籍田 (sacred field) 196 “Ji tong” 祭統 (“Essential Outline of Sacrifice”, text in the Li ji) 107n58 Jixia, Masters of (Jixia xiansheng 稷下先生)  91, 100 “Ji yi” 祭義 (Li ji text, “Meaning of Sacrifice”) 162, 164, 165, 196n140, 198 Jun zhi 軍志 see Army Records junzi 君子 (“superior person”) 29, 40, 59, 62, 64n102, 77, 78, 79, 86, 95, 97, 107 ke ji fu li 克己復禮 (overcoming oneself and returning to li) in the Zuo zhuan 64 in the Lun yu 78 Kern, Martin 5n4, 8, 11, 73, 115, 147, 150n51 Kong Guang 孔光 (64 BCE–5 CE) 169–170, 199 Kong Jia 孔甲 (eighth generation descendant of Confucius) 93 “Kongzi shi jia” 孔子世家 (“Generational Annals of Confucius”) 88 Kuang Heng 匡衡 149, 153n57, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 166–169, 170, 175, 177, 178–187, 191, 193, 197, 204 Laozi 89, 99n41, 109, 149 Lei 類 sacrifice 198 li 禮 in early inscriptions 22–23 significance of vii, 5–9

220 li 禮 (cont.) preserve of the aristocracy 28, 32, 59, 83, 117 Ru culture 94–100 Spring and Autumn Period 25–33 visible display of 33–43, 74, 75–76, 97–98, 117–118 Zhou order 54–57 see also ritual; cultivation, personal; Hegemons; Ritual Learning Li 禮 (text) see Canon of Ritual Li gu jing 禮古經 (Ancient Li Canon) 104, 111n70, 150 Li ji 禮記 17, 64, 65, 67, 84, 102, 104–105, 106, 107, 136, 143, 149, 150, 155, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 180, 183, 192, 196, 198, 199, 201–202, 204, 205 Warring States antecedents of 110–113 Li jing 禮經 (text) see Canon of Ritual norms/regulations of ritual 109, 118n82 Li shu 禮書 (writings on ritual) 62 “Li shu” 禮書 (“Treatise on Ritual” in the Shi ji) 125, 142 Li Si 李斯  92, 137 Li, Wai-yee 47 “Li yue zhi” 禮樂志 (“Treatise on Ritual and Music”, in the Han shu) 104n50, 124, 137, 149 li zhi 禮制 (ritual regulations, ritual institutions) 7, 104n50, 174 Li zhi 禮志  see Records of Li Ling, King (of Chu, Chu Ling Wang 楚靈王, also Prince Wei 圍, r. 540–529 BCE) 41, 61–62 Liu Bang (Emperor Gao[zu]) 1–2, 93, 101, 114, 116–123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 135, 136, 145, 157, 158, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 174, 179, 187, 188, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198 Liu De 劉德  see Hejian, King of Liu Ruyi 如意 (Han imperial prince)  122–123 Liu Xiang 劉向 (79–8 BCE) 138, 163, 170, 175, 187–188 Liu Xin 劉歆 (c. 46 BCE–23 CE) 104, 163, 170, 172–173, 175, 193, 199, 205

Index Liu Xiu 劉秀 (Emperor Guangwu, r. 25–57) 204 Liu jing 六經 (“Six Canons”) 135, 180–181 see also liu yi, Six Arts Liu yi 六藝 (“Six Arts”) 20, 71, 168, 181 Liu zong 六宗 (“Six Venerables”) 185, 198 Lord of Earth see Hou Tu Lü, Empress (of the Han, Lü Hou 呂后, also Empress Gao, Gao Hou 高后 241– 180 BCE) 122, 123, 124, 131, 160, 195, 196, 197, 198 Lu 魯, state of 2, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 86, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 101, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 128, 132, 137, 144, 145–146, 148 Lun heng 論衡  127 Lun yu 論語  20, 23, 25, 27, 42, 44n54, 49, 59, 64, 72, 73–83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95n29, 97, 103, 105, 117, 118n83, 119, 138, 161, 168, 178, 206 see also Analects Luo 雒 (eastern capital of Zhou) 182, 183, 184 Luoyang 洛陽  137, 159, 204 Mencius 19, 87, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 105, 106, 107, 108, 149, 207, 208 Meng 盟 see blood covenant Meng Qing 孟卿  155 Meng Xizi 孟僖子  58–59 Ming Tang 明堂 see Bright Hall Ming, Emperor (of the Eastern Han, Han Ming Di 漢明帝, r. 57–75 CE) 126 Miu Ji 謬忌  141, 194 Mozi 86, 87, 90, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 207 Mu, Lord (of Qin, Qin Mu Gong 秦穆公, r. 659–621 BCE) 46, 47, 69, 102 music 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 48, 50, 53, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 85, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116n79, 118, 126, 130, 136, 137, 148, 149, 159, 162, 188, 194, 195, 196, 208 Nei shi 內史 (“Royal Secretary”) 35, 53 Penglai 蓬萊  144 Pines, Yuri 29, 30

Index

221

Ping, Emperor (of the Han, Han Ping Di 漢平帝) 158, 174, 175, 176, 190, 191 “Pin li” 聘禮 (“Diplomatic Visit Rituals”, section of the Yi li) 108–109

Warring States 84–101 see also Confucianism Ru fu 儒服 (“Confucian” clothing) see Ru, clothing

Qi 杞, state of 102 Qi 齊, state of 38, 49, 50, 60, 61, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101, 106, 114, 141, 159, 177 qin 寢 (“ancestral rest chamber”) 123 Qin state 39, 46, 47, 133, 177, 181, 187, 201 dynasty 11, 15, 85, 92, 93, 100, 101, 103, 104, 114, 115–116, 119, 122, 125, 126, 128, 132, 133, 136, 137, 175, 186, 205 “Qing miao” 清廟 (song in the Shi jing) 165 Qing Pu 慶普  155 qu 趨 (“scurry”) 95, 121

sacred field see ji tian 籍田 sacrificial canons see si dian 祀典; Ji dian 祭典 “Sacrificial Models” see “Ji fa” “Sangfu xiao ji” 喪服小記 (Li ji text, “Lesser Record of Mourning Dress”) 163 Second Emperor of Qin 116, 122, 126 shai 殺 (ritual diminishment) 173 Shang Di 上帝 (“God[s] on High”) 133, 186, 192, 193, 198, 199 see also Five Emperors shao lao 少牢  73 she ji see Altars of Soil and Grain Shen Gong see Shen, Lord Shen, Lord (Shen Gong 申公) 139, 140, 145 she niu 射牛 (shooting oxen ceremony) 143 Shen Wenzhuo 沈文倬  105 shen (xian) ren 神(僊)人 (transcendents)  144, 147, 185, 186 “Shi hun li” 士昬禮 (“Gentry Wedding Ceremony”, section of the Yi li) 108 Shi ji 史記 (“Records of the Historian”) 1, 2, 3, 27, 72, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 102, 103, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 122, 123, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148–149, 152, 192, 194, 198, 201 Shi [jing] see Songs Shizong 世宗 (temple name, Emperor Wu of Han) 158, 164, 168, 171 shooting oxen ceremony see she niu “Shun dian” 舜典  see “Canon of Shun” Shusun Tong 1–3, 15, 19, 57, 88, 92, 94, 101, 113–130, 135, 137, 143, 145, 146, 149, 165, 179, 207 si dian 祀典 (“sacrificial canons”) 65, 69, 172, 199 Sima Qian 司馬遷 2, 3, 15, 72, 84, 88, 91, 92, 102, 103, 104, 114, 120, 124, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 142, 145, 146, 148, 194 Six Arts (liu yi 六藝) 20 see also liu yi Six Skills (liu yi 六藝) see Six Arts, liu yi

Ranked Officials of Zhou (text, Zhou zhi zhi guan 周之秩官) 66 Records of Li (Li zhi 禮志) 46, 60, 64 Rites of Zhou (Zhou li 周禮, ritual and institutional order of the Zhou) 25–26, 54–57, 80 see also Zhou li 周禮 (text); Zhou guan 周官 ritual (in modern academic scholarship)  6–7, 8 ritual canon(s) 60, 67, 107, 202 see also Canon of Ritual Ritual Learning (definition) 4–5, 9–16 ritual reasoning 42, 51, 79, 179, 184 Ritual Revolution (Middle Western Zhou Ritual Reform) 22, 24, 25 Round Mound see yuan qiu Ru (“Confucians”)  culture of see Confucianism, culture of clothing 9, 10, 79, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 116, 117–118, 153, 191 coarse (lou Ru 陋儒), vulgar (su Ru 俗 儒) 97 elegant (ya Ru 雅儒) 97, 99 great (da Ru 大儒) 97 lackey (shu Ru 豎儒) 117 parochial (bi Ru 鄙儒) 92 vulgar (su Ru 俗儒) 97

222 Soil altar (she 社) 38, 40, 60, 201, 202 see also Altars of Soil and Grain Songs (Shi 詩, Shi jing 詩經) 13, 14, 15, 20, 33, 41, 47, 48, 51, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 91, 93, 96, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 113, 130, 144, 145, 146, 153, 155, 159, 166, 177, 178, 179, 191, 207, 208 Spring and Autumn Period 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25–30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 62, 64, 70, 71, 72, 76, 83, 86, 104, 115, 117, 145, 206 Square Mound ( fang qiu 方丘) 141, 148, 196 Suburban sacrifices see jiao 郊 Suburban Sacrifices, Treatise on see “Jiao si zhi” 郊祀志 (Han shu) Supreme High Emperor see Taishang huang Tai Yi 太一, or 泰一 (“Grand Unity”) 134, 135, 139, 140–141, 176, 182, 189, 192, 193, 194, 199, 203 Taizong (miao) 太宗(廟) (Grand Ancestor [shrine]) Emperor Wen of Han 158, 164 King Tai Jia 太甲 of Shang 172 Taishang huang 太上皇 (Supreme High Emperor, Liu Bang’s father) 157, 158, 163 Taizu (miao) 太祖(廟) see Grand Progenitor [shrine] terrestrial deities see di qi 地祇 territorial sacrifices see wang 望 Tian Zi Fang 田子方  89, 90, 93 transcendents see shen xian ren 神僊人 “Treatise on Bibliography” see “Bibliography, Treatise on” “Treatise on Feng and Shan” see “Feng Shan shu” 封禪書 “Treatise on Ritual” see “Li shu” 禮書 “Treatise on Ritual and Music” see “Li yue zhi” 禮樂志 “Treatise on the Suburban Sacrifices” see “Jiao si zhi” virtue  see de Vulgar Ru (bi Ru 鄙儒, su Ru 俗儒) see Ru Wang Chong 王充 (27–c. 97 CE) see Lun heng

Index Wang Mang 王莽 (45 BCE–23 CE) 4, 16, 124, 125, 131, 134, 135, 138, 140, 150, 153, 154, 155, 158, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 190–205, 208 “Wang zhi” 王制 136, 143, 147, 148, 170, 171, 201 Wang 望 (or wang si 望祀, si wang 四望, “Distant” sacrifices) 143, 185 Warring States Period 13, 19, 26, 27, 32, 64, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 83, 84, 104, 110, 114, 130, 136, 146, 194, 207, 208 see also Ru, Warring States Wei Xuancheng 韋玄成  156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 174, 175, 177, 183, 204 wei yi 威儀 (“majestic ceremonial decorum”)  see yi 儀 Weiyang 渭陽 (sacrifices to the Five Emperors) 134, 135, 192, 197 wen 文 (refinement, culturally accomplished, patterns) 35, 36, 47, 48, 77, 86, 115, 144 Wen, Emperor (of the Han, Han Wen Di 漢文 帝, r. 180–157 BCE) 128, 131–138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 155, 158, 163, 164, 166, 167, 171, 173, 181, 183, 187, 188, 192, 194, 205 Wen, Lord (of Jin, Jin Wen Gong 晉文公)  38, 45, 49, 50–53, 54, 62, 63, 69, 79 see also Chong’er 重耳 Wen, Marquis (of Wei, Wei Wen hou 魏文侯) 89, 90 Western Zhou 2, 11, 20, 21–25, 26, 27, 30, 53, 60, 82, 85, 115, 119, 133, 156, 182, 198, 204 Wu, Emperor (of the Han, Han Wu Di 漢武 帝, r. 141–87 BCE) 2, 3, 12, 15, 27, 73, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139–147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 181, 182, 186, 188, 193, 194, 203, 204, 205, 207 Wuwei 武威 (excavated text of the Yi li)  104 Xian bi 先妣 (Former Female Progenitor)  195, 196 xian ren 僊人 (transcendents) see shen xian ren 神僊人

Index “Xiang dang” 鄉黨, “In the Village” (section of the Lun yu) 75–76 Xiao Fen 蕭奮  129, 155 Xiao jing 孝經  168, 178, 192 Xiao Wangzhi 蕭望之  178 Xing zi ming chu 性自命出 (excavated text from Guodian) 113 Xinyuan Ping 新垣平  134, 135, 136, 139, 192, 194 Xuan, Emperor (of the Han, Han Xuan Di 宣帝, r. 74–49 BCE) 138, 154, 155, 156, 163, 168, 172, 173, 178, 187, 188, 204 Xue 薛 (place name) 115, 116 Xu Jia 許嘉  164, 182–183 Xu, Master (Xu Sheng 徐生) 128–129, 130, 132, 138, 145, 155, 207 Xun shou 巡狩 (“imperial progression”) 38, 92, 135, 136, 158 Xunzi 17, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97–100, 101, 104, 108, 109–110, 112, 113, 117, 119, 136, 180, 207, 208 Xu Sheng 徐生  see Xu, Master Yan Yuan 顏淵 (disciple of Confucius) 78 Yanzi 晏子 (Yan Ying 晏嬰) 95 Yang Tianyu 杨天宇  60n92, 105 Yang Xiong 楊雄 (53 BCE–18 CE) 127 Yao 堯 (sage king) 91, 102, 103, 174 “Yao dian” 堯典 (text in the Shang shu)  see “Canon of Yao” see also “Canon of Shun” (“Shun dian” 舜典) yi 儀 (deportment, ceremonial decorum, ritual forms) 7, 23, 33, 34n32, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 62, 70, 76, 95, 119, 122, 126, 127, 132, 142 Yi Feng 翼奉  156, 159–160, 177 Yi [jing] see Changes Yi li 儀禮 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 74, 84, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 120, 147, 204 “Yi wen zhi” see “Bibliography, Treatise on” Yong 雍 (sacred site maintained by the state and empire of Qin, and Han) 125, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 176, 181, 186, 187, 188,

223 189, 192, 193, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205 Yuan, Emperor (of the Han, Han Yuan Di 漢元帝, r. 49–33 BCE) 131, 138, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159–160, 161, 164, 167–169, 175, 178, 179–180, 182, 188, 189, 191, 202, 207 Yuan miao 原廟 (“Original Shrine”)  123–124, 127 Yuan qiu 圜丘 (“Round Mound”) 141, 148, 196 Yuanshi-era precedents (Yuanshi gu shi 元始 故事) 135, 173, 174, 190–204, 208 Yunyang 雲陽  181, 182 Zang Aibo 臧哀伯 33–35, 37–38 Zang Wenzhong 臧文仲  55, 67, 68, 111 Zang Xibo 臧僖伯 33, 35–38 Zhao Cui 趙衰  45, 46–48, 50, 51, 60, 69, 70 Zhao, Emperor (of the Han, Han Zhao Di 漢昭帝, r. 87–74)  158, 165, 166, 173 Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200) 202, 208 zhi 志 (“records”) 33, 46, 60, 63–64, 70, 72, 109 Zhi altars 畤  125, 185, 186, 187, 189, 192, 198, 199, 200, 201 see also Yong 雍; Five Emperors Zhou guan 周官 (earlier title of the Zhou li)  143, 148, 149, 150, 152, 155, 184, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 202, 204, 205 see also Zhou li 周禮 Zhou li 周禮  24, 39, 65–66, 71, 127, 136, 141, 143, 148–149, 155, 184, 194, 195, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204, 208 see also Rites of Zhou; Zhou guan 周官 Zhuangzi (text) 87, 90, 92, 93, 96 Zi Yu 子玉 (Cheng Dechen 成得臣)  51, 63n101 Zufferey, Nicolas 85, 100, 101, 117 Zuo zhuan 左傳  14, 19–20, 23, 24, 25–33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45–46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 92, 94, 104, 109, 155, 170, 171, 201, 205, 206