The History of Chinese Feudal Society 9781138330597, 9780429447808

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Introduction
1 The Formation of Feudalism
2 The Completion of Feudalism
3 Land System of Feudalism
4 Patriarchal Clan System of Feudalism
5 Feudal Classes I
6 Feudal Classes II
7 Feudal Politics
8 Collapse of Feudalism
Conclusion
Academic Chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)
Index

Citation preview

The History of Chinese Feudal Society

Feudalism is one of the most studied topics in the field of history, but without a consensus on its central characteristics, it remains a slippery concept. The History of Chinese Feudal Society provides a comprehensive analysis on the rise and fall of feudalism in China. Drawing on a vast library of archival materials, it is the first study to investigate feudalism in China from the perspective of sociology and to compare feudalism in China to feudalism in the West. The author proposes that landownership and the relationship between landowners and farmers are the two determining factors of feudalism, with the Yin Dynasty marking a transitional stage to feudalism and the Zhou Dynasty witnessing the establishment of feudalism as a political system and central institution. This book was written by one of the best-known Chinese historians and has been a classic best-seller for decades. Students and scholars of Chinese history, especially Chinese feudalism, will find it to be an essential reference in their study and research. Tung-tsu Chu was member of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and research fellow at Columbia University and Harvard University. His research interests included sociology and history. His most important publications included Law and Society in Traditional China, Local Government in China Under the Ching and Han Social Structure and The History of Chinese Feudal Society.

China Perspectives

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and Chinarelated themes. It covers Humanities & Social Sciences, Education, Media and Psychology, as well as many interdisciplinary themes. This is the first time any of these books have been published in English for international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective, give insights into cutting-edge academic thinking in China, and inspire researchers globally. Titles in history currently include: Merchants and Society in Modern China Rise of Merchant Groups Tang Lixing Merchants and Society in Modern China From Guild to Chamber of Commerce Tang Lixing The History of Sino-Japanese Cultural Exchange TENG Jun Chinese Buddhism and Traditional Culture FANG Litian The Hidden Land The Garrison System and the Ming Dynasty Gu Cheng The History of Chinese Feudal Society Tung-tsu Chu For more information, please visit https://www.routledge.com/series/CPH

The History of Chinese Feudal Society

Tung-tsu Chu

TRANSLATED BY WANG QINGYONG AND DENG WEITIAN

First published in English 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Tung-tsu Chu Translated by Wang Qingyong and Deng Weitian The right of Tung-tsu Chu to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. English Version by permission of The Commercial Press. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-33059-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-44780-8 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of figures

vii

Introduction

1

1

The formation of feudalism

7

2

The completion of feudalism

27

3

Land system of feudalism

90

4

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

110

5

Feudal classes I

139

6

Feudal classes II

171

7

Feudal politics

210

8

Collapse of feudalism

236

Conclusion

263

Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖) Index

265 273

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylora ndfra ncis.com

Figures

1.1 1.2 4.1

Migration Route of Xia Clan (夏族) 12 Migration Route of Shang Clan (商族) 13 Senior Zong and Junior Zong 124

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylora ndfra ncis.com

Introduction

This study, as its name suggests, looks into the history of Chinese feudal society. Before discussing the subject, I would like to remind my readers that this study is not confined to history alone; therefore, it does not aim to present a historical account of incidents in a chronological order. Instead, a series of facts are illustrated as testimony to the social phenomena at the time. Additionally, this study not only examines specific issues, such as economic and political systems, but also aims to shed light on all of the social affairs in a feudal society. More importantly, this study does not merely see feudalism as something static; it conducts an analysis of feudalism from its birth to its collapse, covering the functions of its social organisations and their relations, aiming to provide a comprehensive picture of Chinese feudal society. What is feudalism? First, a general definition is needed as “feudalism” itself is a slippery concept. In English, the word means “fief,”; this is similar to how we define it in China, where feudal nobles were granted feoffment. But the exact meaning of the term still remains elusive. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “feudalism” is only used for convenience; there is no standard, and its usage varies according to where and how it is being used.1 However, common ground can always be found, despite complexities, once relentless efforts have been made to analyse a social phenomenon. The same is true of the study of feudalism. Although different feudal states had different conditions, we will be able to find their common features if we study them separately and then comprehensively. The more insightful and accurate the methodology, the better the results will be. Henry Sumner Maine focussed on the inequity of landownership. He concluded that feudalism was characterised by the double proprietorship, that is, the superior ownership of the lords of fiefs in contrast to the inferior property or estate of tenants.2 Given the significance of landownership, Maine put forward the idea of territorial sovereignty. He held that landownership was the deciding factor in owners’ ruling power and rights as well as commoners’ obligations.3 Paul Vinogradoff stressed the importance of social inequity. According to him, feudalism was founded on deals or contracts designating reciprocal

2 Introduction rights and obligations.4 Like Maine, Vinogradoff also examined landownership and divided it into superior owners and inferior owners. The former had actual ownership of the land, while the latter had the right to use it. Land determined social status, political rights and obligations.5 G. B. Adams listed five principles in Encyclopedia Britannica: (1) Submission to owners; (2) The commoners farmed without owning land; (3) Those who farmed were obliged to serve landowners (economically, politically and morally); (4) All classes were tied by loyalty, services and protection between them; and (5) Contracts between landowners and farmers designated every right.6 A. E. Levett, in Encyclopedia Britannica, defined manor as a system of rulers and ruled. The power of rulers was entirely based on landownership.7 In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Rudolf Kötzsehke concluded that the manorial system was an economic, social and administrative institution based on landownership. It connected the two classes of those who owned lands and those who farmed lands, and thus paved the way for their interactions.8 Marc Bloch contended that the striking features of feudalism were land grants (i.e. fiefs) and the system of vassalage.9 These scholars did not agree on everything, but they had two points in common: (1) Landownership and (2) Relationship between landowners and farmers. The first concerns the fundamental feature and pillar of feudalism; the second concerns the outgrowth of a feudal society. Those who had land were owners, while those who did not have land and farmed others’ land were farmers. Their relations shaped their identities as the privileged and the non-privileged as well as their respective obligations and rights. In other words, all the obligations and rights of the privileged were rooted in their land. It was compulsory for those privileged people to be vassals to their lords and accordingly provide various services, especially in terms of military.10 On the other hand, they enjoyed the right to rule their inferiors and receive services from them. The non-privileged, on the other hand, since they did not own lands, were compelled to loyally serve their landowners. To put it more precisely, feudalism was a system of stratified society, and land was the basis on which people’s obligations and rights were defined. Now, we shall try to define the time at which feudalism occurred in China, which is probably a more difficult task than defining feudalism itself. Chinese feudalism dates back to ancient times, with limited historical accounts to determine the exact period. In an attempt to avoid controversy, some scholars believe that legends of feudalism arose before the Zhou (周) Dynasty, but legends are not tenable at all. Therefore it is fairer to say that feudalism started during the Zhou Dynasty. O. Franke is supportive of this idea.11 Some other scholars, however, argue that China has a longer history of feudalism. They think that although historical accounts are dubious, truth can be found by sifting through available information. They have

Introduction  3 found that such titles as “Marquis(侯)” and “Count(伯)” appeared even when oracle bones (甲骨文) were used in history; therefore they have concluded that the Yin (殷) Dynasty had a feudal system. Their opponents challenge this notion and cast doubt on the exact meaning of these two terms at this time. Both sides have supporting evidence, but neither is convincing enough. The meaning of the same terms can vary according to when they are being used. What “marquis” and “count” referred to in the Yin Dynasty can be very different from that in the Zhou Dynasty, just as what they meant in the Zhou Dynasty is different from what they meant in the Han (汉) Dynasty. These differences must be taken into account. As Tao Xisheng (陶希圣, a historian, 1899–1988) put it, China was home to many feudal nobles before the Spring and Autumn Period, but feudalism had not really existed before the Zhou Dynasty. At the time, regional officials served as clan chiefs, but many of them had the title of ‘lords’, or the title was probably a mere assumption made by later generations. In a unified China ruled by the Zhou Dynasty, the king conferred power upon their sons and brothers as well as those who had helped found the kingdom. For instance, when Jiang Shangfu (姜尚 父, also called Jiang Ziya, Jiang Taigong, Jiang shang) founded the State of Qi (齐), he immediately killed the count of Lai (莱) and the count of Ju (莒), who were the then clan chiefs in the place of Qi…12 These remarks seem to confirm that “count” did have a different meaning in different times. However, Tao Xisheng’s opinions are mostly assumptive without solid supporting facts; a historical event cited only by him cannot be seen as decisive. As far as I am concerned, there is no denying that words on oracle bones point to the existence of “marquis” and “count” in the Yin Dynasty. But this discovery alone is certainly not proof of the existence of feudalism at this time. Few would be convinced by a couple of words and partial facts; therefore, further discussion is needed. The key is to take a comprehensive approach to a spectrum of social institutions rather than using just a few lines of text as evidence. In so doing, we can make fewer mistakes and come to a more trustworthy conclusion. Only when we look into the economic, political and social institutions to see whether they meet the conditions of feudalism can we reach an impartial definition. No form of society comes into being overnight; it always comes as a result of evolution over time. The same is true of feudalism. Vinogradoff solemnly stated that feudalism could not merely be defined as a product of a certain period of time. It rose and fell in stages. As necessary, the 11th and 12th century, the prime period of feudalism, shall be referred to as the feudal era in Western Europe.13 Vinogradoff’s prudent and accurate approach is a precious lesson for Chinese scholars.

4 Introduction My study suggests that the Yin Dynasty was a clan society, and its mainstream occupation revolved around livestock. In the late Yin Dynasty, however, great changes took place, paving the way for a new society. Although the Yin Dynasty is said to have been a non-feudal society, it did show signs of feudalism. However, at this point, feudalism was not its pillar institution. Therefore, the Yin Dynasty marked a time of transition and growth. It was not until the Zhou Dynasty that feudalism was established as a political system and a central institution. The Zhou Dynasty officially marked the emergence of feudalism as we understand it today. England had shown signs of feudalism before the Norman Conquest, but it was after the conquest that farmers began to submit to landowners, and feoffment was set up to officially define superior-inferior relations.14 Similarly, there had been signs of feudalism before the Zhou Dynasty, but it was not until the reign of King Wu (武), who implemented feudalism across the kingdom of Zhou, that the system took shape. Like the rise of feudalism, its collapse was incremental. During the Spring and Autumn Period, feudalism was down but not out. Technically speaking, this period did not signal the end of the system. Feudalism officially came to an end when Qin (秦) unified China and overthrew all the former institutions. In the last section, I will provide a list of references on which this study is based: oracle bones in the Yin and Shang dynasties; reports on the excavation of the Yin ruins; bronze inscriptions from the Zhou Dynasty; The Book of Changes, a Confucian classic; The Book of History; Mao Poetry; The Spring and Autumn Annals by Confucius; Zuo’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals; Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals; Discourses on the Governance of the States; Guanzi; Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals; The Analects, a Confucian classic recording the words and deeds of Confucius and his dialogues with his disciples; Mencius; The Records of the Historian by Sima Qian (司马迁) Historical records of the Xia (夏) Dynasty are scarce; the available accounts of Xia can only be found in The Book of History, Bamboo Annals and The Records of the Historian. However, The Book of History is a book of both truths and untruths. “Yu Gong,” the only essay in The Book of History to discuss the territory of the Xia Dynasty, is even more dubious than The Book of History as a whole. For instance, “Yu Gong” claimed that during the Xia Dynasty China’s territory was so large that it included Jiu Zhou (九州), but the sovereignty of China in the Zhou Dynasty only reached the Yellow River basin; the rest belonged to “barbarians.” Obviously, the statement in “Yu Gong” about the territory of the Xia Dynasty is wrong. Gu Jiegang (顾颉刚, a modern historian, 1893–1980) did not manage to prove that “Yu Gong” was penned during the Warring States Period, but he was right in saying that “Yu Gong” was incorrect about the territory of the Xia Dynasty.15 Therefore, it

Introduction  5 can be concluded that “Yu Gong” was actually falsified by later generations. As regards Bamboo Annals, when it was written remains questionable. As the existing accounts about the Xia and the Yin Dynasties were certainly recorded by later generations, their credibility is doubtful. Since historical literature on the Xia Dynasty is quite limited and ambiguous, this study quotes the relevant information as mere legends and stories for reference. Literature on the Yin-Shang Dynasty used to be nothing but legends. However, since the 15th year of Emperor Guangxu’s reign (i.e., 1899) of the Qing Dynasty, scholars like Wang Yirong (王懿荣),16 Liu E (刘鹗),17 Sun Yirang (孙诒让),18 Luo Zhenyu (罗振玉),19 Wang Guowei (王国维),20 Guo Moruo (郭沫若)21 and Rong Geng (容庚)22 have been conducting random excavations, research, checking and interpretation, and have recorded their findings. The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica has carried out a series of archaeological excavations since 1928.23 As a result, hopes are high for a more in-depth study on the Yin Dynasty via unearthed oracle bones and vessels like pottery. This study focusses on those discoveries in its examination of the Yin society. The central part of this study is an analysis of the Zhou Dynasty. The bronze inscriptions of the Zhou Dynasty, The Book of Changes, The Book of History and Mao Poetry contribute to the knowledge of the early Zhou Dynasty. All of them are precious pieces of historical literature, in which the bronze inscriptions from the Zhou Dynasty were never tampered with. The Book of Songs is another credible source that features a collection of poetry written by scholar-officials and commoners. When, exactly, The Rites of Zhou (《周礼》), The Book of Rites and Rituals (《仪礼》) and The Book of Rites (《礼记》) (these three books altogether were called “San Li” 三礼, meaning three books on rites) were written is another complicated matter. However, it is certain that they were finished by the fall of the Zhou Dynasty and did not become known until the Han Dynasty, so they have no shortage of far-fetched narratives and untruths. If The Rites of Zhou and The Book of Rites were adopted as the sole source in a study of the society of the Zhou Dynasty, there would be plenty of available information, but this approach would also make the book a flawed study. Therefore, to be on the safe side, this study only quotes the three books when their claims can be double-checked by other references. The Spring and Autumn Period, on the other hand, boasted bountiful and trustworthy historical literature. The Spring and Autumn Annals, Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Discourses on the Governance of the States, The Analects, Guanzi and Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals are all ancient and verifiable texts. As regards Guanzi and Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals, the appearance of some false information does not mean the books are entirely unreliable.24 Mencius and The Records of the Historian are considered credible sources for studying the Warring States Period and the Qin Dynasty.

6 Introduction

Notes













1

The formation of feudalism

A society’s social organisations and functions tend to change drastically as that society changes. If this were not the case, an old society would see no change at all, and no new societies would come into being. Accordingly, if one decides to study a particular society, they need to properly understand the preceding society in terms of social fabric, collapse and transformation into a new social structure. Before we study a society, it is appropriate to first research the one that predated it, which helps us to avoid mistakes in our investigation. This is especially true when we study ancient social history. Due to fuzzy details in literature and inadequate historical data, we can never truly understand the development and collapse of a society if we are merely focussing on a single period and considering neither the former nor the later dynasties. History progresses in a causal chain, with one dynasty closely following another. One can definitely examine a specific period from that long chain, but it would be imprudent to ignore both the previous and the subsequent periods of history. This methodology also applies to the study of ancient Chinese feudal society. Therefore, close attention should be paid to the whole process of its development, completion and collapse. In this way, we can avoid quite a few mistakes and make our conclusions solid and convincing. In Chapter 1, before looking at the social organisations and functions, as well as all the feudal relations, in ancient China, let us first discuss how feudalism came into being here. This chapter will answer the following three questions: What type of society did China have before the feudal one? How was it different from the feudal society? How did this old society develop into a feudal one?

Animal husbandry and agricultural economy A feudal society with a land system at its core determined the rights and obligations of different social classes. It would be impossible for a land system to be established without the popularisation of crop planting, nor could a feudal society have existed before this land system’s foundation.

8  The formation of feudalism Studying the literature of ancient Chinese history, one may be convinced that agriculture before the Zhou (周) Dynasty (1046 B.C.–249 B.C.) had not developed fully enough to become the major mode of production. However, the Shang (商) Dynasty (also called the Yin (殷) Dynasty or the Yin-Shang Dynasty, about 1600 B.C.–1046 B.C.) witnessed a transformation of production from animal husbandry to the initial stage of agriculture. During the Shang Dynasty, people would breed large herds of cattle and sheep. According to Characters from Yin Ruins (《殷墟书契》), the number of cattle and sheep used for sacrifices reached up to three hundred.1 In addition, many oxen and ram horns, as well as pottery pieces featuring designs of ox heads, were found among the oracle bones unearthed in Henan (河南) Province2; this adequately proves that livestock were bred during the Yin Dynasty. In an age when animal husbandry was the main mode of production, beef and mutton were the most important foods, while food taken from other animals and plants functioned as supplements. Most people were engaged in livestock breeding, with some fishing and hunting on the side. The word “fishing” was repeated plenty of times in Characters from Yin Ruins,3 in which numerous words resemble animals. For example, the modern Chinese character “彘” (zhì, pig) used to take the forms of , , and so on in oracle bones, which resemble an arrow shooting a pig. The simplified character “罗” (luó, net), with forms such as , , acter

and , looks like a bird being caught with a net. The char, written as “罘” (fú, net) in modern Chinese, has its ancient

forms in and , which resembles an elk’s head trapped in a net. The traditional Chinese character of “羅” (luó, net), with its hieroglyphs as , , and , looks like a pig covered with a net. “罟” (gǔ, fishing net) in oracle bones is , , and , which looks like a rabbit caught in a net. “率” (shuài, net) has forms such as , which also looks like a bird caught in a net. “阱” (jǐng, trap) with forms like , , , , , , and , resembles a beast in a trap.4 In addition, in the divination found on oracle bones, hunters are mentioned 186 times, while fishers are mentioned 11 times.5 Clearly, hunting and fishing were practiced at this time, even if not to the same extent as livestock breeding. Attention should be paid to the fact that the division of economic development stages is not always clear-cut. In an era which had animal husbandry as the main production mode, fishing and hunting remained part of the economy, and a primitive form of agriculture was also gradually developing. Hence, one should not simply view the Shang Dynasty as a period of animal husbandry. In truth, people in the Shang Dynasty were learning basic skills of planting crops. Agriculture had almost developed into its initial

The formation of feudalism  9 stage by the end of the Yin Dynasty. Such Chinese words as “农” (nóng, farming),6 “禾” (hé, millet), “黍” (shǔ, broom corn millet), “米” (mǐ, rice) and “麦” (mài, wheat or barley)7 in Characters from Yin Ruins prove that these crops had been widely cultivated by that time. Farmers only had access to simple farming tools, such as hoes. The Chinese character “以” (yǐ, to use), written in oracle bones as , , and so on, is in the shape of these primitive hoes.8 “男” (nán, male), written as , and , is like a man working with a hoe on the farm. “劦” (xié, cooperation) originates from hieroglyphs such as , , , , , , and , as if three farmers are hoeing together.9 The hoe they used at this time was a very primitive stick with a sharp, curved head. Farmers at the time had no knowledge of fertilisation or irrigation for their farming was completely dependent on rainwater. Thus, climate conditions played a crucial role in their cultivation, and rainfall was closely associated with harvests. In the divination found on oracle bones, there are 34 references to bumper harvest years and 102 to weather conditions,10 indicating that people placed much emphasis on the power of nature. They could not control nature, nor could they foresee changes in it, so they relied upon divination through tortoise shells. Guo Moruo (郭沫若, 1892–1978), an archaeologist and expert in palaeography, stated with certainty, “The end of the Yin Dynasty saw the prosperity of animal husbandry and the birth of agriculture.” He cited evidence that: (1) “Pan Geng (盘庚, the king of the Yin Dynasty) who seldom settled down had moved his capital for five times up to now,” and (2) Historical texts like History of the Northern Zhou Dynasty and The Book of Songs offered an account of nomadic pastoralism as the beginning of agriculture.11 Guo’s conclusion is basically consistent with the above-mentioned analysis. It is therefore fair to conclude that primitive agriculture started in the late Yin Dynasty. As farmers gained more and more experience, their ability to adapt to the natural environment increased little by little. They gradually became dissatisfied with the old mode of production and soon replaced it with a new and more efficient one. At first, nomadic people relied on herding for a living. Over time, however, they came to know more about cultivation, which had yet to become their main mode of production. More often than not, they sent women and slaves to grow crops. Eventually, they found animal husbandry economy far inferior to agriculture, which proved to bring more benefits. The same piece of land used for planting crops would produce more food and support more people than it would when used for herding. More importantly, the land could be tilled for many generations to come. Great changes thus began to take place in the economic arena. As a result, agriculture, once considered a secondary business, gained more attention, and farming became a primary occupation. Gradually, men

10  The formation of feudalism gave up their nomadic lives, settled down and set their minds to toiling on land. The importance of cattle and sheep herding dwindled, with only a small part of the working population willing to do it. The establishment of the Zhou Dynasty marked the beginning of agriculture as an economic pillar. King Wu (武) of Zhou exhorted people living in the area that had once been under the control of the Shang Dynasty, “My people, you should be loyal to your homeland, make every effort to grow your crops, and support your parents and elder brothers with great diligence.”12 Duke Dan of Zhou (周公旦) said: Alas, a noble had better not seek leisure or pleasure. Only after he knows the hardship in farming can he understand his people. Thus he realises what his people live on. Those evil men were different. They never really appreciate the difficulties in cultivating land while their parents are busy working on the farm. Those youngsters indulge in pleasure and leisure, behave crudely and wantonly, and show no respect for their parents, shouting, ‘You poor old dogs know nothing!’… Since King Zujia (祖甲) of the Yin Dynasty reigned, those who succeeded to the throne were in pursuit of pleasure and leisure. They had no idea about the hardships in farming, nor did they care about the common people’s sufferings and difficulties. What they sought was indulgence in pleasure. After King Zujia (祖甲) died, no successors of the Yin Dynasty lived a long life. Some of them enjoyed the throne for ten years, some seven or eight years, some five or six years, and some only three or four years. Duke Dan of Zhou also said, Ah! Our King Tai (太) of Zhou and Wang Ji (王季, the youngest son of King Tai of Zhou) both behaved with modesty and morality and revered Heaven. Our King Wen (文) of Zhou helped his people settle down and cultivate their land.13 It can be inferred here that none of the kings of the Yin Dynasty put much emphasis on agriculture. (When talking about the kings of Yin Gaozong (高宗) and Zujia (祖甲), Duke Dan of Zhou said, “Gaozong dared not neglect his duties to indulge in pleasure and leisure,” and “Zujia showed kindness and generosity to his people and never looked down upon the disadvantaged,” but he never stated they knew the hardships involved in farming.) The work of farmers did not attract much attention from the top until the reign of King Wen, who encouraged commoners to plant crops. The examples above are only a few cases selected from the available texts. Readers of The Book of Songs can find depictions of the improvement in farming tools, the maturity of the land system, the relationship between

The formation of feudalism  11 nobles and farmers based on land or cultivation, and the daily life of farmers. All of these depictions point to farming as an economic mainstay during the Zhou Dynasty. More details on these can be found in the following chapters. In the early Zhou Dynasty, agriculture was the backbone of the feudal economy; the entire empire depended on crops, so much so that the king, the nobles and the common people would be reduced to a panic by crop failure. For example, Duke Dan of Zhou (周公旦) was discredited by rumours that he would threaten the authority of King Cheng (成), so he took refuge in the east for two years. In the autumn of his second year there, all crops ripened, promising a fairly good harvest. However, just before harvesting, thunder, lightning and high winds suddenly came and destroyed everything. The king and his subjects were so frightened, believing that Heaven had punished them for their persecution of Duke Dan of Zhou. In the end, King Cheng went in person to embrace and bring him back.14

Nomadic life and settled life In nomadic culture, herds of cattle and sheep were of vital importance. Likewise, water and grass were of vital importance to cattle and sheep. Once water and grass had been consumed, the nomadic people had to find new grassland for grazing. Their unique nomadic lifestyle involved constant migration. People during the Xia (夏) and Shang (商) Dynasties were living such a nomadic life. Xia Clan (夏族) used to live in today’s Hebei (河北) Province, Henan (河 南) Province and Shandong (山东) Province but kept migrating as can be seen through their eleven times of relocation of capitals in the following order: Ji (冀, namely, Jinyang 晋阳, today’s Taiyuan 太原, Shanxi 山西 Province)→Yangcheng (阳城, today’s Jincheng 晋城, Shanxi Province) → Ji → Zhenxun (斟鄩, today’s Gongyi 巩义, Zhengzhou 郑州, Henan Province) → Diqiu (帝邱, today in the southeast of Puyang 濮阳, Henan Province) → Zhenguan (斟灌, today in Shouguang 寿光, Shandong Province) → Shangqiu (商邱, today in the east of Henan Province) → Yuan (原, today’s Jiyuan 济源, Henan Province) → Laoqiu (老邱, today in Puyang, Henan Province) → Xihe (西河, today on the west bank of Yellow River, near today’s Hancheng 韩城 of Shaanxi 陕西 Province) → Zhenxun → the city of Henan (namely, Xiayi 夏邑, today in the upstream of the Tuo 沱 River, in Shangqiu, Henan Province) (Figure 1.1).15 Shang Clan (商族) also underwent frequent migrations. From King Qi (契) to King Pan Geng (盘庚), the clan moved twenty times in total, four of which cannot be verified now. Historically, the Shang Dynasty moved its capital to these cities: Bo (亳, today’s Cao 曹 County, in Shandong Province)

12  The formation of feudalism

r ve

Ji

e

Fen

Riv er

th

Ri

5

the Y ing R

Yangcheng

iver

Henan

the

the Shang River

iver Ru R

Cutline

(namely,Xiayi)

Provincial Boundary of Modern China

9

River

1 Yuan

Zhenguan

th

Diqiu

4 6 8 Laoqiu r 7 ive Ju o R Zhenxun Shangqiu Lu

10 the

2

Ri

Migration Route

the Wei River

w lo el eY

Arabic Numerals = Migration in Chronological Order

Xihe

r ve

3

the

the Yellow River

g

n He

Figure 1.1 Migration Route of Xia Clan (夏族).

→ Fan (蕃, today in the east of Anyang 安阳, Henan Province) → Dishi (砥 石, today near the west of Luoyang 洛阳, Henan Province) → Shang (商, namely Shangqiu商邱) → at the foot of Mount Tai (泰) → Shangqiu (商邱) → Yin (殷, today’s Anyang 安阳) → Shangqiu (商邱) → Bo (亳) → Xiao (嚣, today in the northwest of Zhengzhou 郑州) → Xiang (相, today near the north of Zhengzhou) → Geng (耿, today’s Hejin 河津, Shanxi Province) → Bi (庇, today’s Yuncheng 运城, Heze 菏泽, Shandong Province) → Yan (奄, today’s Qufu 曲阜, Shandong Province) →○→○→○→○→ Yin → Bo → Hebei (namely Yin 殷, today’s Anyang) (Figure 1.2).16 Both the Xia and Shang Dynasties moved their capitals to the downstream and upstream areas, respectively, of the Yellow River in Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan and Shandong Provinces, which were covered with loess. The south-east of Hebei, also known as the Youyan (幽燕) Plain and characterised by a harsh climate with coldness and meagre rainfall, was unfit for livestock breeding due to its barren land. While people during the Xia Dynasty had once roved around this place as nomads, those in the Shang Dynasty never moved there. Shandong was a fairly rich plain, with the

The formation of feudalism  13

the Ye llow R iver

r ve

ive r

ng

e

He

the

Fe nR

th

Ri

r ve

Yin 11

Geng

Xiao r ve

Ri

Xiang 1

5

9 7

ive

iver

r

Shangqiu

the Ru River

Bi

Cutline

the Shang River

Provincial Boundary of Modern China

Ju R

the Y ing R

River

13 Bo

Migration Route

the

Mount Tai Yan 4

20 6

3 12

e eY

th

Ri

Arabic Numerals = Migration in Chronological Order

the

Fan

10

Dishi

o Lu

2

8

w llo

Figure 1.2 Migration Route of Shang Clan (商族).

Yellow River obliquely flowing across it, but Henan Province was even better. It featured mountainous areas to the north-west, but its land north of the Yellow River was part of the Youyan Plain (幽燕平原). In addition, Henan Province’s east area had rivers like the Ru (汝) River (a tributary of the Huai 淮 River); the Ying (颍) River (the longest tributary of the Huai River); and the Ju (沮) River, which belonged to the Huai River basin. This area, which included a vast plain and many streams, was most fit for grazing. The mountainous Shanxi Province, on the other hand, which had once sunk into the oceans during the primitive Carboniferous period, did not provide a favourable condition for grazing at all; only the southern part of Shanxi, which was close to the Yellow River in the north part of Henan Province, was visited during the Yin Dynasty. The northern part of Shaanxi Province was also mountainous; only its Central

14  The formation of feudalism Shaanxi Plain (along the Wei (渭) River) and the Hanzhong (汉中) basin in the south were suitable for livestock breeding. King Qi (契) and his subjects were the first to settle in that place, which from then on became the cradle of Shang Clan. From a thorough analysis of all these places, it is fair to conclude that Shandong and Henan, rich in plains, waters and grass, were the best places for animal husbandry, causing the nomads of Xia and Shang to move along the plains near the rivers around the Yellow River basin. After people learned that they could use land to promote agriculture, their lives became more stable. There was no need to seek new land here and there in order to earn a living for they could produce enough food on the same piece of land for generations to come. The change from a nomadic to a settled life was very slow, just like any other historical progress. Indeed, people tended to stay longer in a place when they could live on agriculture than during the nomadic period. However, they had to move to a new region after a few years due to the degeneration of soil fertility. Later, after people learned how to maintain the productivity of soil, their residences became permanent, and they migrated infrequently. They decided to settle down when their farming and planting skills had improved enough for them to work continuously on the same land, year after year. Therefore, during the Xia and Shang Dynasties, migration took place on a regular basis, whereas no historical records of migration can be found after the reign of King Pan Geng (盘 庚). Lines from The Book of History prove that agriculture was a pillar during the reign of King Pan Geng. The most quoted lines are “Farmers work hard on land; harvests come after sweat” and “If farmers are too lazy to work but indulge in leisure and pleasure, how can they harvest anything?” During the Shang Dynasty people began to live a settled life, thanks to the progress of agricultural techniques, which is clearly demonstrated by quotes such as “People don’t like to move to Yin” and Pan Geng’s remarks “We will be blessed to sustain the fortune of our nation in the new capital,” “Today I would try to migrate along with you for the stability of our nation,” “Now I will lead you to move to a new place where you will establish your permanent home” and “We build our new homeland in Yin (today’s Anyang).”17 As can be seen, people were content with their current living places and reluctant to move any farther. King Pan Geng also regarded Yin (today’s Anyang) as his and his people’s permanent homeland. During the Zhou Dynasty (1046 B.C.–249 B.C.), especially after King Wu (武) designated Hao (镐, today in the northwest of Xi’an 西安) as his capital, there was not much movement; only King Yi (懿) and King Ping (平) moved their capitals during the eight hundred years that followed King Wu’s reign. These two instances of migration were attempts to escape the invasion of the “barbarian” groups of Rong (戎) and Di (狄) rather than for food.18 Conversely, people under the rule

The formation of feudalism  15 of King Pan Geng and those who preceded him were often forced to move for the sake of survival, “neither to settle down nor to choose a new place as their permanent capital.” Previous kings usually “decided to move their capitals for the people’s benefits and this was the only reason why they chose another site as capital.”19 Their migration was based on their peoples’ livelihoods. The change from nomadic to settled was of great significance. Only after the people settled in a fixed place could the population grow stronger, villages and cities come into being, and people have more time to nurture their cultural and social life apart from their economy.

Public ownership and private ownership Based on their study of the clan society in which animal husbandry was the major occupation, almost all scholars, both at home and abroad, agree that all livestock belonged to the clan rather than to any individual clansman.20 According to Henry S. Maine, ancient laws aimed at regulating families and groups rather than individuals. This was true of ancient property law at its early stage. Laws at this time legalised not separate ownership but the joint ownership of families or groups of kin.21 F. Seebohm’s study of the tribal system in Wales demonstrated that a public property system was the outcome of animal husbandry. In a society that practised animal husbandry, all people belonged to certain kin groups, so it was possible to allocate public property equally to them, according to the law. As soon as a male child reached the age of fourteen, he could be allocated livestock from the tribal chief. After he died, his allocated livestock would be given back to the chief because it was not his private property but the public property of the whole tribe. Since the farm animals also belonged to the whole tribe, it was not any father or family but the chief that had the authority to distribute them on behalf of the community.22 Similarly, P. Vinogradoff claimed that kin groups or enlarged households owned land both during the period of animal husbandry and during the early stage of agricultural development, though individuals only had the right to use it.23 Thus, it seems to be a credible idea that cattle and sheep, as well as land, belonged to a tribe as a whole during the period of the Shang Dynasty, which was both a clan society and an animal husbandry society, though no evidence of property ownership of that time is available now. In the animal husbandry clan society, people worked together to herd cattle and sheep, not bothering about the property right, since they knew that the animals belonged not to the chief or to any other individuals but to the whole clan. The chief was just a representative of the tribe and had

16  The formation of feudalism no special economic privilege. Agriculture prospered during the Zhou Dynasty, which was no longer a clan society. From the Zhou Dynasty on, things changed: The private ownership system came into existence. On the one hand, the land within a state would be divided into smaller pieces and distributed to commoners so that they were able to live and work on separate farmlands; on the other hand, much larger tracts of land (often called fiefs), covering several counties or cities, would be granted by the king to different nobles who could govern them for the king and the royal family, respectively. Hence, the private ownership. However, it would be incorrect to say that the private ownership system of the Zhou Dynasty is the same as it is in modern society. At that time, the private ownership of land was limited to nobles; commoners did not have any private properties. In a feudal society, the upper class had the private ownership of land, whereas farmers were only allowed to receive a piece of this land from their landlords, to whom they usually paid high land taxes or services. Such an unequal relationship of rights and obligations was the foundation of a feudal society. Just as Maine claimed in his Ancient Law the main feature of feudalism lies in the privilege of landowners and the inferior double proprietary of farmers.24 The first chapter of this book only aims to provide an outline; more details can be found in the chapters on land system and feudal classes.

Equal inheritance and patrilineal primogeniture Since the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty, the throne succession system had changed greatly, as compared with the previous dynasties of Xia and Shang. The most striking difference was that all the sons of a king were equal in terms of throne succession during the Xia Dynasty and the Yin-Shang Dynasty. Whether the son was born of the queen or of the king’s concubines, he could be anointed as an heir. Moreover, the king did not have to pass the throne to his eldest son. That is to say, one of the king’s younger brothers could qualify for the crown. King Qi (启) of the Xia Dynasty died, and his throne was inherited by his eldest son, Tai Kang (太康). After Tai Kang died, the throne was handed down to his younger brother, Zhong Kang (中康). Zhong Kang passed his throne to his offspring in the same way. After Bu Jiang (不降, Zhong Kang’s descendant) died, he was succeeded by his younger brother Jiong (扃), who passed it on to his son Jin (廑). After Jin’s death, his throne was passed to Bu Jiang’s son Kong Jia (孔甲).25 The way of inheritance in the Yin Dynasty was similar to that in the Xia Dynasty. More often, a younger brother of a king would succeed to the throne after the king’s death. Throughout the Yin-Shang period, fourteen successors to the throne were the younger brothers of their predecessors.26

The formation of feudalism  17

(Tang 汤；Tai Ding 太丁; Wai Bing 外丙; Zhong Ren 中壬; Tai Jia 太甲; Wo Ding 沃丁; Tai Geng 太庚; Xiao Jia 小甲; Yong Ji 雍己; Tai Wu 太戊; Zhong Ding 仲丁; Wai Ren 外壬; He Dan Jia 河亶甲; Zu Yi 祖乙; Xu Xin 祖辛; Wo Jia 沃甲; Zu Ding 祖丁; Nan Geng 南庚; Yang Jia 阳甲; Pan Geng 盘庚; Xiao Xin 小辛; Xiao Yi 小乙; Wu Ding 武丁; Zu Geng 祖庚; Zu Jia 祖甲; Lin Xin 廪辛; Geng Ding 庚丁; Wu Yi 武乙; Tai Ding 太丁; Di Yi 帝乙; Di Xin 帝辛; numbers in this graph indicate the sequence of succession. Each arrow indicates that the king died, and his younger brother succeeded.) Since all the sons were of an equal status, each male member of the same generation had the right to succeed to the throne. The eldest brother

18  The formation of feudalism was allowed to pass his power on to the second-eldest and then on to the third-eldest and so on. After the youngest brother of the king died, it would be the next generation’s turn to succeed to the throne. In the same way the younger generation would pass their power on to their younger brothers, who were equal in terms of inheritance right. For instance, Tai Ding (太丁) was the eldest son of King Tang (汤), the founder of the Shang Dynasty. Tai Ding died before he ascended the throne. His son did not become the successor, but his younger brother Wai Bing (外丙) did. Three years later, Wai Bing died, and his younger brother Zhong Ren (中壬), the youngest son of King Tang, became the new king. It was after Zhong Ren’s death that Tai Ding’s eldest son Tai Jia (太甲) succeeded to the throne. King Zu Xin (祖辛) passed his throne on to his younger brother Wo Jia (沃甲), who then passed his on to Zu Xin’s son, Zu Ding (祖丁). Zu Ding passed his throne on to Wo Jia’s son Nan Geng (南庚), who later passed his ruling power on to Zu Ding’s son Yang Jia (阳甲).27 It was not until the Zhou Dynasty that the difference between sons of the queen and sons of the king’s concubines was clearly defined. It was also during this period that the succession rule was established, according to which only the eldest son of the queen had first claim to succession. This issue will be discussed in detail in the fifth chapter, concerning the patriarchal clan system. Wang Guowei (王国维)’s study shed light on the difference between the succession system of the Yin Dynasty and that of the Zhou Dynasty. He noted: The Shang Dynasty usually operated a system of passing the throne from the eldest brother to the younger one, and then to their younger generation if there were no younger brothers to inherit. During the Yin Dynasty, from King Tang to the last king Di Xin (帝辛, often called King Zhou 纣 of Shang), there were twenty-nine kings in total, fourteen of whom were succeeded by their younger brothers (the number was fourteen according to The Records of the Historian, and fifteen according to The Records of the Historian and The Book of Han). When the throne was passed down from the old generation to the young generation, the youngest brother’s son rather than the eldest brother’s son often became the successor. The reason was that the Zhou Dynasty divided descendants of the royal family into high and low status according to their generation, age and whether they were born of a queen or a concubine. As a rule, the older generation was of a higher rank, so was the sons born of lineal descent. However, the Yin-Shang Dynasty did not carry out such divisions. Therefore, in the Yin-Shang Dynasty those brothers who died before succeeding to the throne would enjoy the same rites of worship with those who were actually crowned.28

The formation of feudalism  19 Guo Moruo (郭沫若) also pointed out that the succeeding sequence of brother first and son second was inseparable from a clan society like that of the Shang Dynasty. To prove his point, he cited evidence from the oracle bones of the Shang Dynasty – among the thirty-one kings of seventeen generations, only around twelve passed their thrones onto their own sons.29

Equal and free society versus stratified society In a clan society, everyone was related by blood – at least they believed so. In their minds, each and every one of them originated from the same ancestor, and they were all brothers and sisters of equal status. That was true for the clan society in China and elsewhere in the world. Maine argued that freedom was the essence of a clan society, and he sought to find out how a free clan society changed into a feudal one.30 Seebohm, who studied the history of the British economy, drew the same conclusion, claiming that every clansman was free and equal in a clan society where blood was regarded as the basic organising principle.31 Since all members of a clan society were free and equal, they shared their public interests and lived together. They were related to the chief by blood. The chief was just a representative of all his clansmen, so there was no class difference between them. However, the situation was quite different as far as people from other clans were concerned. They were regarded as enemies and treated differently because they were associated with killing and invasion. When people of different clans encountered one another, they fought. Victors did not always kill their captives, but they never showed them any mercy, never set them free and never took them as friends. On the contrary, they treated the captives as slaves, forcing them to sweat and toil like animals. It is well known that slaves were of little use in a society completely based on animal husbandry. Therefore, clans sought to kill one another’s members without a second thought. Not until the early stage of the growth of agriculture did people come to recognise the value of slaves. It is also well known that nomadic people were born active; they lived their lives on the backs of horses and camels, moving around to fight beasts as well as other clans with arrows and spears. They took pride in their own bravery, tactics and ambition. The thought of toiling on land with their bodies bent over and hoes in their hands humiliated them for such a settled life seemed boring and unadventurous. Only women and slaves who were not brave enough to challenge adversities and face death were willing to do such uninteresting work. Hence, with agricultural development came the need for more and more slaves. In Chinese characters found in the Yin ruins, there appeared words like “captive(俘)” and “slave(奴).”32 The number of captives recorded in the bronze inscriptions of the Zhou Dynasty stands at up to ten thousand,33 indicating an increasing demand for slaves at the early stage of agriculture.

20  The formation of feudalism The Yin people were not related to those of the Zhou Dynasty by blood. They belonged to different clans. Therefore, the Zhou people reduced all the survivors of the Yin Dynasty to slaves and forced them to labour on their land. King Wu (武) of Zhou granted his younger brother Kangshu (康叔) the land that had once been managed by the Yin Dynasty and gave him the right to govern and enslave the remaining Yin residents there.34 At the same time, King Wu required the Yin people to be grateful and obedient subjects of Zhou; anyone plotting to rebel would be severely punished.35 The introduction of slavery was only one of the many significant changes to take place among the royal family of Zhou. For example, the tribal chief became the king, the Son of Heaven. His family members and clansmen became nobles and feudal lords, or at least freemen with their own land to claim. As mentioned above, the nomadic people were aggressive and looked down on farming at this time. Although they had already realised its significance, they were reluctant to do it themselves. When they made conquered people from other clans work for them they made themselves masters. Thus, they could afford to ride and hunt all day. When they returned, tired, their servants would wait on them, providing food and drinks. Gradually, the masters would indulge in more pleasures. As time went by, some nomadic people grew increasingly reluctant to migrate from their comfortable living conditions. After settling down in a certain place for a period of time, they began to take delight in pleasures and bid farewell to their previous nomadic life; they turned themselves into freemen with landownership. These people, however, were different from the nobles who had close ties with the king, ministers and bureaucrats; thus, they did not have the opportunity or the privilege to own slaves. Feudal classes thus began to take shape. The rights and obligations of an individual were determined by their class. In conclusion, kin groups changed into groups of diverse clans, and a free society became one in which the free class coexisted with the non-free class. These two changes were crucial for the transformation of a clan society into a feudal society. This chapter serves as a brief introduction to that process; the following chapters will explore these issues one by one.

Notes 1 Luo Zhenyu says: The number of the animals for sacrificial rites was not fixed, for it was decided by divination, in which the fortune would be judged through the cracks on burnt oracle bones. The animals might be sacrificial oxen or sacrificial sheep and pigs. Other animals like dogs might also be included. The ox could also be replaced by a bull or a heifer. A bull was usually called Mu, while a heifer was called Pin. Some others might be called Xin or Zhi. The number of the ox should be one. In Oracle Inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty, one sacrificial ox would be called Qie Yi (Yi, 乙, the second of the ten Heavenly Stems (十天干), Qie Xin (Xin, 辛, the eighth of the ten Heavenly Stems), Qie Ding, Small Yi, Qie Jia (Jia, 甲, the first of the ten Heavenly Stems), Bi Ji (foremothers), Tang, Yi (乙, the second of

The formation of feudalism  21 the ten Heavenly Stems), or Ding (丁, the fourth of the Ten Heavenly Stems). The sacrificial bull would be called Mu Geng (Geng, 庚, the seventh of the Ten Heavenly Stems), Fu Jia, Fu Geng, or Fu Xin. The sacrificial sheep and pigs would be named after Great Geng to Medium Ding, namely, Qie Xin. The sacrificial animals might be two in number: Then these two oxen would be called Qie Xin, Fu Yi, or Mu Geng. Two sacrificial bulls would be called Bi Ji. If the two animals were of the same kind, they would be called Qie Geng or Bi Geng. If one was ox and the other sheep, they together would be called Bi Ji. Two sacrificial dogs would be called Wang Shi (an arrow). The sacrificial animals might be three: These three oxen would be named Great Jia, Qie Yi, or Fa. If the three oxen were white, they would be called Wang Hai (Hai, 亥, the last of the Twelve Earthly Branches). Three huge or medium sacrificial animals would be called Great Wu (Wu, 戊, the fifth of the ten Heavenly Stems), Small Xin, Wu Ding, or Ding. If the three animals were small, such as sheep, pigs, or dogs, they would be called Mu Ji. If there were two sheep among them, they would be called Qie Yi. The sacrificial animals might be five: These five oxen would be called Great Jia, Great Wu, Qie Yi, Bi Geng. The sacrificial animals might be six: Five sheep plus one ox would be called Jia. Three small sacrificial animals plus three average animals would be called Gao (lambs). The sacrificial animals might be nine: These nine animals would be called Tang. The sacrificial animals might be ten: These ten animals would be called Xian (all). If they were ten white pigs, they would be called Qie Xin. If they were ten oxen, they would be called Great Jia, Qie Yi, Qie Xin, or Fu Yi. Nine oxen plus one sheep were named Jia. The sacrificial animals might be fifteen: These fifteen oxen were named Ding. Fifteen sheep might be named Jia. The sacrificial animals might be twenty: Ten oxen plus ten sheep were named Ding. The sacrificial animals might be thirty: Thirty sacrificial oxen were Ding. Thirty sacrificial animals including oxen, sheep, or others were Great Jia or Bi Geng. The sacrificial animals might be thirty-three: Three sheep plus thirty other sacrificial animals were Bi Geng. The sacrificial animals might be thirty-seven: Thirty-seven sacrificial animals were Ding. The sacrificial animals might be forty: These forty oxen would be Wang Hai.

22  The formation of feudalism

The formation of feudalism  23

bureaucrat of Wei) remarked, “…invaded Dongdu, a capital of Xiang Tu the

24  The formation of feudalism The Book of History is questionable. If Yin and Bo were the same place, how was it possible that Wu Ding moved the capital from west to east: namely from He (the Mid-Yellow River) to Bo and that Wu Yi moved it back to Yin? More details will be provided later.) So, there were five migrations in total (on this point, The Preface to The Book of History and Bamboo Annals share a common view, but the former did not mention that Zu Yi once moved to Geng). In truth, there were more than five migrations. Before Pan Geng moved to Yin, there had already been five, as explained in “Pan Geng I,” which includes sentences like “Our former kings who seldom settled down had ever moved his capital five times up to now.” The Preface to The Book of History says, “Pan Geng moved his capital five times.” The History of the Yin Dynasty, the third volume of The Records of the Historian, also notes, “Pan Geng moved five times but rarely settled down.” However, historical records of the five migrations have not yet been found, except his migration to Yin. Hence, Pan Geng’s five migrations plus Zhong Ding’s, He Dan Jia’s, Zu Yi’s and Nan Geng’s constitute nine in total, five of which can be verified through historical records. Was the capital moved again after Pan Geng? According to Bamboo Annals, the answer is no. Ding Shan said, in Discourses on the Governance of the States·Chu Yu, “King Wu Ding ruled by virtue and Heaven was moved by him. Before he became king, he escaped to his teacher’s fief of He and then he went to Bo by way of the Yellow River and became king.” As recorded in The Records of the Historian·Yin, “King Wu Yi came to power and moved to Bo again and then to the north bank of the Yellow River,” and “Bo was located to the south of the Yellow River and Yin to the north; as Chu Yu put it: ‘Wu Ding escaped to the fief of He, and then moved the capital to Bo, which was another move of capital in the Yin Dynasty since Pan Geng moved to Yin. Wu Ding chose Bo as his capital in the south of the Yellow River, and the capital of the Yin Dynasty was in the north of the Yellow River when it was overthrown. Thus, since Pan Geng’s move, the capital of the Yin Dynasty must have been moved again…Wu Yi moved the capital from Bo again to the north of the Yellow River, thus returning to Pan Geng’s old home. This was another move after Pan Geng’s.’” (“A Study of National Culture Based on the Location of Capitals of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties,” Collected Papers of Research Institute of History and Language of the Central Academy, book five, Part One.) These viewpoints are credible. In conclusion, there were eight migrations between the periods of King Xie and King Cheng Tang. Between the periods of King Cheng Tang and King Pan Geng there were nine migrations, five of which have been verified by historical texts. After Pan Geng’s move, another two followed. In total there were twentyone migrations, four of which have not yet been verified. As for the specific location of each capital, please refer to Lei Xueqi’s Migration Map of Kings in the Xia Dynasty. 17 The Book of History·Shang; The Book of History·Pan Geng I; The Book of History·Pan Geng II; The Book of History·Pan Geng III. 18 According to The Records of the Historian·Four·Zhou, only King Ping moved eastward to Luoyi: All the scholars claim that after conquering King Zhou of the Shang Dynasty, the first king of the Zhou Dynasty based his capital in Luoyi. That was not true. King Wu of the Zhou built Luoyi; then King Cheng of the Zhou sent Shao Gong (a title of administrative official, or an official with such a title) to stay in Luoyi and declared jiu ding, a bronze vessel as symbol of supreme political power, and moved back to its old capital of Fenghao (丰镐). The capital of the Zhou Dynasty was not moved to Luoyi until the minority group called Quanrong defeated King You of the Zhou Dynasty.

The formation of feudalism  25















26  The formation of feudalism we came to take over your land not because we regard you the common people as our enemies but because we oppose your king…Hence, we have moved you to the west, which does not mean we want social instability. It is the mandate of Heaven. We cannot disobey Heaven. We cannot be slow to enforce the order of Heaven, so please don’t bear any grudge against me…we were called on by Heaven to conquer you and now I have asked you to migrate here from your distant homeland to be close to us and to be my subjects. Recently, you have been obedient and dutiful while serving and submitting to us.’ King Cheng of Zhou added, ‘To be honest, you the subjects of the late Yin-Shang Dynasty, we want to restate this order: now we won’t kill you. Today we build a big capital city here in Luo so that all the feudal lords, dukes, or princes, can pay tribute to me more conveniently and so that you can obey and serve me better. Still, you may keep your own land after settling down here. If you are respectful, prudent and modest, Heaven will show mercy on you. If you are not, then I will deprive you of your land and punish you on behalf of Heaven’” (The Book of History·Zhou·To All the Officials).

2

The completion of feudalism

In the introduction and the previous chapter I explained that feudalism was in its infancy and gradually took shape during the late Yin (殷) Dynasty when social organisations had not yet thoroughly feudalised. It was not until after the Zhou (周) Dynasty overthrew the Yin Dynasty that feudalism was completed, for the former implemented the feudal system with its political power and carried out feudalism at the core of social organisations. This section discusses the social conditions during that period. The king of Zhou claimed everything, including the people and the lands, after he defeated the king of Yin.1 However, as he had too large an area of land to manage and too large a population to govern, he decided to enfeoff these possessions to his princes. Undoubtedly, the king had to keep some land for himself before granting lands to his subordinates. Thus, he would set aside a piece of land for himself, much as a modern person might reserve funds as pension before dividing property among his children. The piece of land set aside by the king for himself was called Wang Ji (王 畿), stretching for one thousand li2 in total around the capital city. (Before the Qin 秦 Dynasty, li 里 referred to a residential area, and each li consisted of twenty-five households. In this sense, li was a unit of size. In addition, it served as a unit of length.) This land exclusively belonged to the king and was managed by his ministers and bureaucrats. All corvée and taxes collected from Wang Ji would be used by and for the royal court. The land outside Wang Ji were enfeoffed both to princes with the same surname as the king of Zhou and to other princes with different surnames. At the same time the king gave each of his princes the authority to govern their own fiefs.

Feoffment The first step was to delimit an area for feoffment. Next, the fields within that area would be demarcated, and the boundary line would be designated accordingly.3 The mu (亩, one mu was around 666.667 m2) of each fief was accurately measured, and the fiefs’ boundary lines were officially delimited, which was

28  The completion of feudalism of great significance. On the one hand, the size of each feudal territory was decided in accordance with the demarcation. On the other hand, more importantly, records, including the measurements of fields, the assessments of soil quality and the sizes of the population in the royal archives, would determine how to levy taxes and require military service in each feudal territory.4 After the border of each territory was established, the king would designate some specific fiefs for each prince. Then the king would order craftsmen to build palaces to accommodate princes as well as temples in which to practise ancestral worship.5 The residents of each feudal territory once ruled by the Yin Dynasty naturally became the subjects of new princes and were not allowed to migrate. The people living in those territories would be considered during the measurement of fields. Bronze inscriptions on title conferment indicated the population of some territories.6 Even when the population of a certain territory was not recorded, and its ownership was not clearly stated, all the people living in that territory still belonged to its enfeoffed prince. Therefore, there are lines in bronze inscriptions like “to enfeoff the territory and the people.”7 That is to say, while granting land to princes, the king granted them commoners as well.8 In addition, servants and slaves were granted to princes on a regular basis, and such gifts were recorded on bronze inscriptions as well.9 The resettlement of residents followed the border demarcation and establishment of palaces and temples in the same way that modern people purchase a piece of land for building houses and then settle down on it. Before the owner of the fiefs moved in, his servants and slaves, including those given to him by the king and those he already owned, would travel there to make preparations for the owner’s arrival.10 Once the fief was ready, the servants and slaves would wait for their owners or princes to arrive. Before these owners began their glorious journeys, the king would give them many ore gifts. These gifts were as follows: Sheng (乘, chariot drawn by four horses), oxen and horses, bows and arrows, weapons,11 gui zan (圭瓒, a drinking utensil made of jade, like a spoon, with gui as its handle, used for sacrificial ceremony; gui, a kind of jadeware with a round top and a square end, held by a king or prince in a ceremony in ancient China), ju chang (秬鬯, wine made from black millet), musical instruments like zhong (钟, bronze bells) and drum, clothes and ornaments, flags and so on. While gui zan and ju chang, and musical instruments like zhong and drum were intended for use in sacrificial ceremonies, weapons like bows and arrows meant that the king bestowed upon the receiver the privilege to wage war on other princes. Thus, such gifts were far more significant than many other ordinary rewards, like clothes, ornaments, gold and silver (more information on this in “Relationship between princes and the king”).

The completion of feudalism  29 Before the princes’ inauguration, imperial edicts had to be made to clarify in detail the numbers of enfeoffed land pieces, capital cities, commoners, servants, chariots, horses and soldiers. These edicts, equal to certificates of appointment, were the foundation of enfeoffment. The enfeoffed princes would show their gratitude to the king by kowtowing. In order to pay a perpetual tribute to the king and mark the holy day of their enfeoffment, as well as to inform descendants of their own meritorious services, the princes tended to engrave every word of the edicts on sacrificial vessels, which would be regarded as national treasures for generations to come. The loss of such a national treasure was almost tantamount to the collapse of a state. When the imperial edicts were issued, and the fiefs conferred, the king would come in person to give an admonitory talk. In his talk, he would outline the traditional official responsibilities of worshipping ancestors12 and the governing of a state and its subjects.13 However, he would focus on telling the princes to assist him in governing the whole empire.14 As enfeoffment was a means to solidify and defend the empire politically, the king would emphasise the political purpose of enfeoffment. The instructions given by the kings of different generations can still be found in historical documents. The final step was for a prince to go to his state to take office. The king would hold farewell banquets for him before his departure.15

Princes with the same surname and different surnames When one clan invaded another, it acquired the defeated clan’s land and people. All members of the victorious clan, from the chief to any other clansman, were entitled to many privileges, the most important of which was enfeoffment. On the one hand, clansmen could be enfeoffed because they had the same ancestors as their king/chief. Only through enfeoffment could the king feel that he had done justice to the people related to him by blood. On the other hand, people of any other clan could not be enfeoffed, for the king/chief would never feel secure if the territories and people obtained through battles were given to outsiders. They (the king or the chief) were convinced that only people in the same clan could share weal and woe, and would avoid causing riots. After King Wu (武) of Zhou (周) conquered the Yin (殷) Dynasty, a large number of princes with the same surname as King Wu were enfeoffed. More princes with the same surname were enfeoffed at this point than ever before, especially after Guan Shuxian (管叔鲜, Prince of Guan) and Cai Shudu (蔡叔 度, Prince of Cai) rebelled against King Cheng of Zhou.16 Xunzi (荀子) said that the Zhou Dynasty founded seventy-one states after unifying ancient China.17 Chengzhuan (成鱄, a bureaucrat of Jin) said that fifteen brothers18 of the king ran their own states, and forty princes with the same surname as the king of Zhou were enfeoffed19; according to Xunzi, fifty-three princes

30  The completion of feudalism with the same surname were enfeoffed20; Sima Qian (司马迁) said the number was fifty-five.21 These numbers, though different, are fairly close. That is to say, the princes sharing the surname of Ji (姬, the surname of the ruling family of the Zhou Dynasty) were between forty and fifty. While the historians mentioned above did not list the names of those states, Fuchen (富辰, a bureaucrat under King Xiang 襄 of Zhou) offered a detailed explanation: Sixteen sons of King Wen (文) were enfeoffed; they ruled the states of Guan (管), Cai (蔡), Cheng (郕), Huo (霍), Lu (鲁), Wei (卫), Mao (毛), Dan (聃), Gao (郜), Yong (雍), Cao (曹), Teng (滕), Bi (毕), Yuan (原), Feng (酆) and Xun (郇). Four sons of King Wu (武), namely, Yu (邘), Jin (晋), Ying (应) and Han (韩), were granted their respective states. Six descendants of Duke Dan of Zhou (周公旦, King Wen’s fourth son) were enfeoffed, including Fan (凡), Jiang (蒋), Xing (邢), Mao (茅), Zuo (胙) and Zhai (祭).22 Fuchen’s conclusion about the number of King Wu’s brothers to receive enfeoffment was only one less than Chengzhuan’s. The two numbers were roughly the same and could either corroborate or confirm one another, which indicates that they were both reliable. Since Fuchen was able to draw up a list of the names of all sixteen states, I believe his source is more credible. In contrast, a list of the names of those forty or fifty states under the rule of princes that shared the surname “Ji (姬)” has not been found in any documents. Having a surname different from the king’s did not necessarily mean a prince was of a different clan. We should keep in mind that encounters between different clans invariably led to hostility. Only under certain circumstances or with exceptions made were princes with different surnames enfeoffed. Usually it was impossible for a king to grant a man with a different surname a fief or allow him to retain his original land as a prince. At that time, the king would call some of the princes with the same surname his “elder uncles” (his father’s elder brothers), “younger uncles” (his father’s younger brothers) or “brothers,” while princes with different surnames were called “maternal elder uncles” (his mother’s elder brothers) or “maternal younger uncles” (his mother’s younger brothers). This suffices to show that, whether they had the same surname or different surnames, enfeoffed princes were all relatives of the king; more details on this will be provided in the following passages. More clues about this become evident when efforts are made to see which princes were called what, as stated in the previous paragraph: Those who were called “elder uncles”23 were Duke Ding (定) of Jin (晋) and the Viscount of Wu (吴)；those who were called “younger uncles”24 were the Marquis of Lu (鲁) and Duke Wen (文) of Jin; those who were called “brothers”25 were the princes with the same surname such as the heads of the states of Jin and Zheng (郑); those who were called “maternal elder brothers”26 were the heads of the State of Qi (齐). Those who were called “maternal younger brothers”, however, cannot be found in historical records.

The completion of feudalism  31 While the Duke of Jin was a descendant of King Cheng’s younger brother, Tang Shuyu (唐叔虞), the Viscount of Wu, was the descendant of King Wen’s elder uncle, Taibo (太伯). The Marquis of Lu (鲁) was the descendant of King Wu’s (武) younger brother, Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou, and Zheng (郑) was the descendant of King Xuan’s younger brother. These princes not only shared a surname with the king of Zhou but also had ties of kinship with him. Despite the fact that the prince of Qi (齐), the descendant of Jiang Shangfu, had a different surname from the king, he was related to the royal family through Jiang Shangfu’s daughter’s marriage with King Wu and thus became King Cheng’s maternal elder uncle.27 (More information on this in Chapter 6; Jiang Shangfu 姜尚父, who assisted King Wu in defeating the Shang Dynasty, became the earliest ancestor of the State of Qi 齐.) Therefore, there was no doubt that princes with the same surname were called “elder uncles,” “younger uncles” and “brothers,” and those with different surnames were called “maternal elder uncles” and “maternal younger uncles.” However, if one wants to conclude otherwise, it would be wrong to quote from The Book of Rites and Rituals (《仪礼》): If a prince with the same surname governed a big state, he would be called ‘elder uncle’; if he governed a small one, he would be called ‘younger uncle’. If a prince with a different surname governed a big state, he would be called ‘maternal elder uncle’; if he governed a small state, he would be called ‘maternal younger uncle.’ Presumably both elder uncles and maternal elder uncles referred to princes who were older than the king, and younger uncles and maternal younger uncles referred to those who were younger than the king; this is similar to how terms referring to relatives are used in China today. We can see from such historical texts that the use of appellations such as “elder uncle” and “younger uncle” was not as strict or consistent as some scholars claimed. For instance, the Viscount of Wu (吴) governed a small state but was called “elder uncle,” while the head of Jin (晋), who had a big state, was called “younger uncle.” Thus, it is clear that such appellations had nothing to do with the size of a state. In my view, these appellations served as general terms. Sometimes they referred to relatives with the same surname as the king, and at other times they referred to relatives with different surnames. Such appellations as “elder uncles” and “younger uncles” were used by the king for the sake of politeness. No princes, except Chao (朝, the son of King Jing 景 of Zhou), were called “brothers” by the king. The politeness principle was especially true when the king was younger, and the prince was older. Similarly, only “maternal elder uncles” and “maternal younger uncles” were used to address princes with different surnames; no princes would be called “nephew” by the king.

32  The completion of feudalism Those princes with different surnames can be divided into three types: 1

2

3

The descendants of the ruler of the previous dynasty: King Wu (武) of Zhou enfeoffed the descendants of Shennongshi (神农氏, namely the Yan Emperor 炎帝), the Yellow Emperor, Emperor Yao (尧), Emperor Shun (舜) and Yu the Great (大禹). King Cheng (成) of Zhou enfeoffed the offspring of Emperor Cheng Tang (成汤).28 Heroes: The rise of a new dynasty would not have been possible without outstanding services from its supporters. So, after a dynasty’s establishment, its king needed to reward and encourage major contributors through enfeoffment. In other words, people earned their enfeoffment through their accomplishments in wars. For example, at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty, Jiang Shangfu (姜尚父), who had made the greatest contribution to the new empire, was enfeoffed the land where Jiang Shangfu had established his State of Qi (齐).29 The pre-existing local tribes: To discuss this issue, the following questions had to be answered first. Were all those princes with different surnames enfeoffed by the king in the Zhou Dynasty? As there did exist some tribes which had created their own states and not yet been destroyed by the new dynasty, did the king allow them to continue as such? These questions deserve our attention. According to The Records of the Historian, the process of the founding of each state in the Zhou Dynasty can be listed as follows (those pre-existing states or those that were not enfeoffed by the king are underlined below): a b

c

d

The State of Qi (齐): At this time, having overthrown the Shang (商) Dynasty and ruled the world as king, King Wu (武) enfeoffed Jiang Shangfu the State of Qi with Yingqiu (营丘) as its capital.30 The State of Yin (殷): King Wu enfeoffed Wugeng Lufu (武庚禄父), the son of King Zhou (纣) of the Shang Dynasty, and ordered ­ Guanshu (管叔, namely, Guan Shuxian 管叔鲜, the younger brother of King Wu) and Cai Shu (蔡叔, namely, Cai Shudu 蔡叔度, the younger brother of King Wu) to supervise Wugeng Lufu and assist him in worshipping his own ancestors.31 Also, after King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty toppled King Zhou of the Shang Dynasty, King Wu made Wugeng Lufu a prince, had him govern the residents of the Shang Dynasty and allowed him to continue worshipping his own ancestors.32 The State of Chen (陈): After King Wu toppled King Zhou of the Shang Dynasty, he granted Gui Man (妫满, a descendant of Emperor Shun) the State of Chen so that the previous emperor would be worshipped.33 The State of Qi (杞): After King Wu toppled King Zhou of the Shang Dynasty, he managed to find Duke Donglou (东楼), a descendant of

The completion of feudalism  33

e

f

Yu the Great (大禹). Then King Wu granted Donglou the State of Qi (杞) so that Yu the Great would be worshipped.34 The State of Song (宋): King Wu of Zhou launched a punitive attack against King Zhou and toppled the Shang Dynasty. Viscount Wei (i.e., Weizi 微子) held up the sacrificial vessels of the Shang Dynasty and advanced upon the gate of King Wu’s military camp. He laid bare the upper part of his body to indicate that he was ready to receive punishment, such as whipping upon his back. He also had his hands tied behind him to show that he had come to surrender. A man on his left carried a goat, while another on his right held citronella (茅/香茅) grass. (Goats were used as sacrifices, and citronella grass was used to make wine for sacrificial ceremonies. Viscount Wei had his men carry a goat and citronella grass to show that he was ready to be King Wu’s subject.) After this, Viscount Wei went onto his knees, asking King Wu to pardon him. Thus, the king pardoned him and restored his position.35 The State of Song (楚): The ancestors of Chu came from Emperor Zhuan Xu (颛顼), also called Gaoyang (高阳), who was a grandson of the Yellow Emperor and a son of Changyi (昌意).Some of his descendants were living in central China; some were living among the “barbarian groups”. Xiongyi (熊绎, one of the descendants of Zhuan Xu and the great-grandson of Yu Xiong 鬻熊, who was a close aide to King Wen of Zhou 周文王) lived in the reign of King Cheng (成) of Zhou, who intended to promote those previous contributors in the times of King Wen (文) and King Wu (武), and therefore enfeoffed Xiongyi the land of Chu, populated by the then so-called “barbarian” groups. He also granted Xiongyi the title “Viscount” and the surname “Mi (芈).” Xiongyi then resided in Danyang (丹阳). Xiongqu (熊渠, a great-great-grandson of Xiongyi) said, “I was born in the barbarian land, so the titles and posthumous titles used in central China do not apply to me.” He then established his elder son Kang (康) as King Gou Dan (句亶), his second son Hong (红) as King E (鄂) and his youngest son Zhi Ci (执疵) as King Yue Zhang (越章), all of whom ruled the “barbarian” regions along the Yangtze River. The head of Chu said to the king of Zhou: I rule the land populated by barbarians. Now that the feudal princes all engage in rebellion, invading and killing each other, I intend to deploy my own army to be involved in the political ruling in central China, and I would like the ruling family of Zhou to honour me as king. Much to his chagrin, his request was turned down, so he proclaimed himself to be the king of Chu. In the first year of his reign, King Cheng (成) of Chu, named Yun (恽), promoted the well-being of his

34  The completion of feudalism

g

h

i

people and sought to improve his relationship with other princes. He made tribute to the king of Zhou (周), who granted him sacrificial meat and said to him, “Quell the rebellion of people from Yi Yue (夷越, a region populated by minority groups along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River). Do not invade central China.” Thereafter, through the annexation of neighbouring clans and bribes, the State of Chu continued to expand its territory and soon covered one thousand square li.36 The State of Song (越): Gou Jian (勾践), the head of Yue and a descendant of Yu the Great (大禹), was the son of Emperor Shaokang (少康) of the Xiahou family (夏后) and his concubine. Gou Jian was enfeoffed Kuaiji (会稽), where he was able to offer sacrifices to Yu the Great. Descendants of Yu the Great tattooed their bodies and had their hair cut short; they worked together to root out the wild grasses to build cities.37 The State of Jiao (焦), the State of Zhu (祝) and the State of Ji (蓟): To commemorate the previous sage kings, King Wu (武) granted the descendant of Shennongshi (神农氏) the land of Jiao (焦), the descendant of the Yellow Emperor the land of Zhu (祝), the descendant of Emperor Yao (尧) the land of Ji (蓟) and the descendant of Emperor Shun (舜) the land of Chen (陈).38 The State of Song (秦): Feizi (非子, a descendant of Emperor Zhuan Xu 颛顼) lived in Quanqiu (犬邱). He loved horses and animals, and was good at rearing and breeding them. The people of Quanqiu told King Xiao (孝) of the Zhou Dynasty of this. The king thus summoned Feizi and put him in charge of horses between the Qian (汧) and Wei (渭) rivers. His horses multiplied. Thus, King Xiao said: In the past, Bo Yi (柏翳, an ancestor of Feizi) used to take charge of domestic animals for Emperor Shun (舜). He excelled at his job and therefore was granted the surname of Ying (嬴). Now his descendant also breeds horses for me, so I shall reward him with an area of land and make it a vassal state. Thus, the king granted Feizi the land of Qin (秦) and asked him to worship the ancestors of the Ying family, and called him Qin Ying (秦嬴). Qin’s ancestor was a remote descendant of Emperor Zhuan Xu. King You (幽) of the Zhou Dynasty abandoned his original heir because of Bao Si (褒姒), his favourite concubine, and made Bao Si’s son an heir instead. In order to please Bao Si, the king also played practical jokes, sending smoke signals from beacon towers to summon all his princes to defend his Wang Ji and protect him when, in fact, there were no invaders at all. After being tricked repeatedly, his princes, humiliated and infuriated, started to lose respect for the king and finally even rebelled against him. Xi Rong (西戎), Quan

The completion of feudalism  35 Rong (犬戎) and the Marquis of Shen (申) launched an attack against Zhou and killed him at the foot of Mount Li (郦). However, Duke Xiang (襄) of Qin led his troops to help Zhou. He fought strenuously and gained merit. The Zhou court then moved eastward to Luoyi (雒邑). Duke Xiang escorted King Ping (平) of Zhou there with his army. In return, the king made Duke Xiang a prince and bestowed on him the land to the west of Mount Qi (岐), saying, “The attackers of Xi Rong are so unreasonable. They have invaded and seized our lands of Qi and Feng (丰). If your army can help drive them out, you may have their lands and be enfeoffed.” Duke Xiang thus started his state and took part in the rites of exchanging envoys and tributes with other states. Later Duke Wen (文) of Qin sent troops and defeated Xi Rong. Thus, Duke Wen gathered under him the remaining Zhou people living in the area previously owned by Xi Rong and expanded his territory to Mount Qi. He then contributed the land to the east of Mount Qi to the king of Zhou.39 The above quotes demonstrate that a number of states headed by princes with different surnames existed before the founding of the Zhou Dynasty. Such states were not enfeoffed by kings of the Zhou Dynasty, while those relatives of kings, descendants of the previous kings and contributors and favoured ministers were granted land to establish new states. Viscount Wei (微子) from the State of Song (宋) held his sacrificial vessels and humbly apologized to King Wu (武), so the king restored his position to what it had been. The State of Yue (越) had already been founded and was located in Kuaiji (会稽) during the reign of Shaokang (少康) of the Xia Dynasty. That is to say, the state had existed for quite a long time and was not enfeoffed by the king of the Zhou Dynasty. However, the State of Song was ratified and allowed to continue by the imperial court of the Zhou Dynasty. By contrast, the State of Yue continued to exist without going through the ratification process and without being officially acknowledged. But then the king of the Zhou Dynasty was too busy to take any action to protest, and it acquiesced in the continued presence of the State of Yue. Qin had not existed as a state at all, but following the order of King Ping (平) of the Zhou Dynasty, Qin defeated Xi Rong (西戎), took over its land and founded the State of Qin. The situation of Chu (楚) was much more complicated. According to The Records of the Historian, during the reign of King Cheng (成) of the Zhou Dynasty, the head of Chu was granted the title “Viscount.” Later, Chu became stronger and stronger, to the point that its leader even dared to proclaim himself King of Chu. However, I have some doubts about the founding of Chu: The royal court of the Zhou Dynasty considered Chu to be a barbarian tribal group, so how could the king of the Zhou Dynasty grant it title and land? “None of Zhu Rong’s (Zhu Rong, 祝融, the title of an official in charge of fire) descendants, who were divided into eight branches according to their

36  The completion of feudalism surnames, was appointed as prince by the court of Zhou.”40 This is evidence enough that Chu was never granted any title or land by Zhou. As recorded in history, “King Zhao (昭) of the Zhou Dynasty died during his southward military action.”41 So, does that mean he failed to conquer Chu? If Chu had been enfeoffed by the royal court of Zhou, King Zhao would not have had to start his expedition in the first place. The Records of the Historian stated that Xiongyi (熊绎) was enfeoffed the land of Chu. If that was true, why did Xiongqu (熊渠, a descendant of Xiongyi) say, “I was born in the barbarian land, so the titles and posthumous titles used in central China do not apply to me” and then established his own three sons as kings? Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the State of Song (宋) was still recognised as a state because Viscount Wei (微) was a descendant of the previous kings of the Yin Dynasty, and King Wu (武) of Zhou appreciated Viscount Wei’s wisdom, kindness and pledge of allegiance. However, the king of Zhou’s acceptance of a situation in which Yue (越), Qin (秦) and Chu (楚) elevated themselves to the level of states was more or less due to the fact that at that time the king of the Zhou Dynasty was no longer in control of his empire. There are no historical records regarding the negotiation between Zhou and Yue, most probably because Yue was located in the remote south, beyond Zhou’s reach, and therefore there was no war between them. In contrast, the relationship between the Zhou Dynasty and Chu was much more complicated. First, King Zhao (昭) of Zhou led his army to attack Chu. Three times King Zhao went south in person and succeeded in conquering Chu and some other tribes, but three times his enemies took their land back shortly after King Zhao and his army had left. The third time, on his way back to his capital, King Zhao fell into a river and drowned. Later, when Xiongtong (熊通) became the head of Chu, he asked the king of Zhou to grant him the title of “Duke” and recognise his status as a prince; his request was flatly refused by the king of Zhou. Then Xiongtong (熊通) honoured himself with the title “King.” The court of Zhou was angry, but it neither condemned Xiongtong nor waged a war against the State of Chu, and just wished that Chu would be satisfied with ruling the areas populated by what the Zhou called barbarians and that they would never tread on central China. Qin’s case is similar. After Duke Xiang (襄) of Qin helped restore King Ping (平) of the Zhou Dynasty, the latter came to the realization that the territory seized by Xi Rong (西戎) could not be recovered. Hence Ping promised that “if Qin can drive away the tribe of Xi Rong (西戎), Qin may have its land and be enfeoffed.” These examples suffice to indicate that the establishment of the State of Chu was not through enfeoffment by the king of Zhou, while the enfeoffment of the State of Qin was the king’s design. In the previous paragraphs I pointed out that not all the princes with different surnames were of the same clan; there were a few from other clans as well. Some of those from different clans had to be granted land to establish states or allowed to stay because the king had no other options. The founding of the states of Song, Yue,

The completion of feudalism  37 Qin and Chu were of this type. The same was true of many other clans and tribes, such as Yi (夷) and Di (狄). The dialogue between Shi Bo (史伯), a historian of the Zhou Dynasty, and Duke Huan (桓) of Zheng (郑) shows that as regards the states of Jing Man (荆蛮), Shen (申), Lv (吕), Deng (邓), Chen (陈) in the south of the capital city of Chengzhou (成周), the states of Di (狄), Lu (潞), Luoquan (洛泉), Xu (徐) and Pu (蒲) in the north, and the states of Song (宋), Xue (薛), Zou (邹) and Ju (莒) in the east, their heads share the same surname with the king of Zhou. They were either related to the king through marriage or belonged to the minority groups of Man (蛮), Yi (夷), Rong (戎) and Di (狄). The descendants of Zhu Rong (祝融, an official in charge of fire) were divided into eight branches with their respective surnames as follows: The surname “Ji (己)” was the first branch, which included the five clans of Kunwu (昆吾), Su (苏), Gu (顾), Wen (温) and Dong (董). The surname “Dong (董)” was the second branch, which included the two clans of Zongyi (鬷夷) and Huanlong (豢龙). (The two clans were later conquered by the Xia Dynasty.) The surname “Peng (彭)” was the third branch, which included the four clans of Pengzu (彭 祖), Shi (豕), Wei (韦) and Zhuji (诸稽). (The four clans were later conquered by the Shang (商) Dynasty.) The surname “Tu (秃)” was the fourth branch, and the surname “Zhen (斟)” was the fifth branch; both branches were later conquered by the Zhou Dynasty. The surname “Yun (妘)” was the sixth branch, which included the four clans of Wu (邬), Kuai (郐), Lu (路) and Biyang (偪阳). The surname “Cao (曹)” was the seventh branch, which included the two clans of Zou (邹) and Ju (莒). (The two clans lived in areas of Cai Fu (采服) and Wei Fu (卫服), one near the residence of the royal family and the other in the “barbarian” regions of Yi (夷) and Di (狄).) The surname “Mi (芈)” was the eighth branch, which included quite a few clans, among which Jingmi (荆芈) was certainly the strongest and was seldom bullied.42 It was quite obvious that different tribes and groups with different surnames either were conquered by the powerful dynasties of Xia, Shang and Zhou successively or managed to survive. Naturally the weak groups were conquered, while the strong groups survived. That explains why Chu (楚) remained a power after surviving attacks launched by King Zhao of Zhou and the dirty tricks of Duke Huan (桓) of Zheng (郑).43 Great powers and weak states were two opposing forces at the time. While the court of Zhou was mighty and prosperous, other tribes/clans around it were in danger of being conquered. But later, as the Zhou Dynasty was gradually declining, its ability to conquer those tribes diminished; what was worse, the danger of Zhou’s being invaded loomed large. Shi Bo (史 伯, a historian of the Zhou Dynasty) revealed the truth when talking to Duke Huan (桓) of Zheng (郑) about the future and what to do: “The Zhou Dynasty is to disintegrate while the tribes of Rong (戎) and Di (狄) are to thrive. We shall stay away from them.”44 “Those minority groups such as Man (蛮), Yi (夷), Rong (戎) and Di (狄) have long been recalcitrant and the Zhou Dynasty in central China is not able to tame them.”45

38  The completion of feudalism To conclude, the princes with different surnames who were not directly enfeoffed by the royal court can be divided into three categories: 1 2 3

Those who had already existed before the Zhou Dynasty and were accordingly granted their original territory, such as the State of Song (宋). Those who had already existed before Zhou but were beyond the reach of Zhou due to their remoteness or mightiness, such as the states of Yue (越) and Chu (楚). Those who were authorised to expand their territories and after expansion were acknowledged as independent states, such as the State of Qin (秦).

It is worth noting that while the first and third categories are applicable to other clans/tribes, they also occurred among the relatives of the king of Zhou. Not all enfeoffment necessarily took place in this way: The royal family conquered all the land, then the king directly distributed it to his princes. This can be proven by the following examples: After King Wu (武) of Zhou toppled the previous dynasty, he looked for the descendants of Taibo (泰伯, the eldest son of King Tai of Zhou 周太王) and Zhongyong (仲雍, the second son of King Tai of Zhou). He found Zhou Zhang (周章), the descendant, who was already the head of the State of Wu (吴) and bore the title of “Prince” as well. Therefore the king still granted him the State of Wu.46 You (友), the later Duke Huan (桓) of Zheng (郑), was the son of the concubine of King Xuan’s (宣) father and a younger brother of King Xuan (宣). He was first granted the land of Zheng, then he expanded his territory and built ten more cities, including Guo (虢) and Zeng (鄫). He asked the king to give permission for his people to move and establish a state there.”47 The discussion between Zhu Xi (朱熹) and his disciples about enfeoffment is very insightful, so it is quoted here as further evidence: Our ancient Confucianist scholars insisted that ‘Five Ranks of Nobility’ put forward by Mencius was an old system implemented in the dynasties of Xia and Shang. They also held the view that the system recorded in The Rites of Zhou was practised under the reign of King Cheng (成) of Zhou. There is nothing wrong with such views. But those Confucianist scholars also argued that the kings of Zhou expanded the size of pieces of land and then grant them to princes; this idea is questionable. If that were true, then every state would have owned a larger area of land and their temples would have been moved a lot to make room for each other’s extension; such a situation would have been unthinkable. As a matter of fact, many states started to annex their neighbours ever since the dynasties of Xia and Shang; therefore their territories were already considerably large when the Zhou Dynasty was established. The king of Zhou annexed land too during his establishment of the Zhou Dynasty and before he granted enfeoffment. However, he did not directly give his own land to princes, but granted them the land they had previously possessed.

The completion of feudalism  39 As Liu Zongyuan (柳宗元, a writer and philosopher in the Tang Dynasty) had remarked, the king of Zhou issued decrees officially acknowledging princedom or the status of those already existing states and honoured their princes with titles and ranks. The king of Zhou hoped that his empire would be peaceful ever after that. However, his many states were later at odds with each other and more annexation took place, resulting in less states with even larger size. As to the actual enfeoffment and the political purpose, Mencius offered some really insightful observations: Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou was enfeoffed the State of Lu (鲁) but his fief was reduced to less than one hundred li (里). Jiang Shangfu (姜尚父) was enfeoffed the State of Qi (齐) and his fief was also cut down to less than one hundred li. This was not because the king had too many royal relatives and qualified ministers to enfeoff, but that the king at that time intended to have his princes held in check to strengthen his ruling. The king of Zhou owned a vast area of land but only granted a small part to his princes and made sure small states co-existed with those large states – This does not sound reasonable. According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, ‘The territory of the State of Qi reached the Bohai (渤海) Sea and the Yellow Sea in the east, the Yellow River in the west, Muling (穆陵) in the south, and Wudi (无棣) in the north.’ According to The Book of Songs, ‘The head of Lu recovered the original territory of Zhou,’ which actually meant that the State of Lu was taking over more and more land. The cases of Qi and Lu indicated the trend of history that states expanded their territories by annexation.48 Here is a list of all the princes in the Zhou Dynasty, based on historical records: According to Fuchen (富辰),49 there were twenty-eight states headed by princes with the same surname as the king. These states are listed below (the information on the first heads of some of the states are also provided): Lu (鲁) – Shudan (叔旦, the first head of Lu); Guan (管) – Shuxian (叔鲜, the first head of Guan); Cai (蔡) – Shudu (叔度, the first head of Cai); Yan (燕) – Zhao Junshi (召君奭, the first head of Yan); Wei (卫) – Kangshu (康叔, the first head of Wei); Cao (曹) – Shu Zhenduo (叔振铎, the first head of Cao); Teng (滕); Cheng (郕, which, in The Records of the Historian, was written as 成) – Shu Wu (叔武, the first head of Cheng); Huo (霍) – Shuchu (叔处, the first head of Huo); Mao (毛); Dan (聃, which, in The Records of the Historian, was written as 冉) – Jizai (季载, the first head of Dan); Gao (郜); Yong (雍); Bi (毕); Yuan (原); Feng (酆); Xun (郇, also written as 荀)50 According to Fuchen (富辰),51 Hou Nou (侯獳, a subordinate to the head of Cao),52 Ziyu (子鱼, a military marshal of Song),53 Xi Fuji (僖负羁, a bureaucrat of Cao)54 and The Records of the Historian, the above-mentioned princes were all sons of King Wen (文) of the Zhou Dynasty.55 Yu (邘) Jin (晋) – Tang Shuyu (唐叔虞, the first head of Jin)

40  The completion of feudalism Ying (应) Han (韩) According to Fuchen,56 Hou Nou,57 Ziyu,58 Xi Fuji59 and The Records of the Historian, these above-mentioned four princes were all sons of King Wu (武) of the Zhou Dynasty.60 The following six princes were all the descendants of Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou: Fan (凡); Jiang (蒋); Xing (邢); Mao (茅); Zuo (胙); Zhai (祭).61 Another example was Wu (吴) – Taibo (泰伯, the first head of Wu): Taibo was the eldest son of King Tai (太) of Zhou; he was the elder brother of Ji Li (季历) and King Wen’s uncle.62 The aforementioned twenty-eight states were recorded by Fuchen. As he identified the origin of each state, his record is the most reliable source of all historical documents. According to Ma Duanlin’s calculation, based on Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals, there were another twenty-six states granted to princes who shared a surname with Ji (姬).63 Those states are listed below, with some followed by information on their first heads. Zheng (郑) – Duke Huan (桓) [He was the youngest son of King Li (King Li of Zhou, 周厉王, father of King Xuan of Zhou) and his concubine, and was a younger brother of King Xuan (周宣王) of the Zhou Dynasty]64; Dong Guo (东虢) – Guo Zhong (虢仲) [He was the son of Wangji (Wangji, 王季, who was the youngest son of King Tai 太 of Zhou) and a younger brother of King Wen (文)]; Xi Guo (西虢) – Guo Shu (虢叔) [He was also the son of Wangji (Wangji, 王季, who was the youngest son of King Tai 太 of Zhou) and a younger brother of King Wen (文)]65; Sui (随); Rui (芮); Jia (贾); Shan (单); Xi (息); Hua (滑); Yu (虞) – descendant of Yu Zhong (Yu Zhong, 虞仲, the second son of King Tai of Zhou)66; Zhou (周); Gan (甘); Dun (顿); Ba (巴); Tang (唐); Zhao (召); Yin (尹)；Bei Yan (北燕)；Hu (胡)；Liu (刘)；Geng (耿)；Wei (魏)；Wen (温)；Jiao (焦)；Yu (邘)67; Yang (扬). In total there were fifty-four princes bearing the king’s surname, “Ji(姬).” According to Shi Ben, states like Rui (芮), Xi (息), Wei (魏), Sui (随) and Jia (贾) had the surname Ji (姬). This statement corresponds to records in Comprehensive Textual Research of Historical Documents (《通考》 by Ma Duanlin 马端临), but the latter believed the surname of the head of the State of Hu (胡) was Gui (归); such a claim is yet to be proven true. According to Ma Duanlin,68 states headed by princes with different surnames were as follows (some are followed by information about their first heads): Song (宋) – Its princes bore the surname Zi (子), and its people were the descendants of Viscount Wei (微), who was named Qi (启)69; Ji (箕) – Its princes also bore the surname Zi (子); Qi (齐) – Its princes bore the surname Jiang (姜) as they were the descendants of Jiang Shangfu (姜尚父)70; Xu (许) – also with the surname Jiang (姜), the descendants of Dayue (大岳)71; Ji (纪) – ibid; Zhou (州) – ibid72; Shen (申) – ibid; Qin (秦) – with the surname of Ying (嬴), the descendants of Emperor Zhuan Xu (颛顼)73; Gu (谷) – ibid; Ge

The completion of feudalism  41 74

(葛) – ibid; Xu (徐) – ibid ; Liang (梁) – ibid; Mi (麋) – ibid; Tan (郯) – ibid; Yun (䢵) – ibid; Huang (黄) – ibid75; Chen (陈) – with the surname Gui (妫); the descendants of Emperor Shun (舜)76; Qi (杞) – with the surname Si (姒); the descendants of Emperor Yu (禹)77; Yue (越) – ibid; Zeng (鄫) – ibid; Shen (沈) – ibid; Chu (楚) – with the surname Mi (芈), the descendants of Xiongyi (熊绎)78; Jing (荆) – ibid; Kui (夔) – ibid; Xue (薛) – with the surname Ren (任)79; Zhu (邾) – with the surname Cao (曹)80; Xiao Zhu (小邾) – ibid81; Ni (郳) – ibid; Su (宿) – with the surname of Zhou (周); Xu Ju (须句) – ibid; Ren (任) – ibid; Zhuan Xu (颛顼) – ibid; Ju (莒) – with the surname Ji (己), which originated from Shao Hao (少皞, a legendary Chinese sovereign)82; Nan Yan (南燕) – with the surname Shi (始)83; Deng (邓) – with the surname Man (曼)84; Shu (舒) – with the surname Yan (偃)85; Shujiu (舒鸠) – ibid86; Liao (蓼) – ibid87; Liu (六) – ibid; Bi Yang (偪阳) – with the surname Shan (嬗), the descendants of Qiu Yan (求言), the fourth son of Zhu Rong’s (祝融) grandson Lu Zhong (陆终)88; Yu (鄅) – ibid89; Yi (夷) – ibid90; Luo (罗) – with the surname Xiong (熊)91; Ruo (鄀) – with the surname Wen (文). The above-mentioned states add up to forty-four. According to Shi Ben·Shixingpian, there was another state recorded in Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals called Xiang (向) with the surname Jiang (姜). So, the number of states with different surnames was forty-five in total. In addition, as Ma Duanlin (马端临) put it,92 there were states whose heads were granted noble titles but were without surnames themselves (their surnames remain unknown to us as records and information on their surnames are somehow missing). Such states are listed as follows: Tan (谭); Xian (弦); Zong (宗); Lai (莱); Du (杜); Lai (赖); Zhong Wu (钟吾); Su (苏). According to Ma Duanlin, there were also those states whose noble titles and surnames were both unknown. These include: Dai (戴); Yun (郧); Er (贰); Zhen (轸); Jiao (绞); Mu (牟); Sui (遂); Quan (权); Yang (阳); Gong (共); Ji (冀); Dao (道); Bai (栢); Li (厉); Xiang (项); Ying Shi (英氏); Jiang (江); Chao (巢); Yong (庸); Chong (崇); Shu Yong (舒庸); Shi (邿); Zhu (铸); Bo (亳); Fang (房); Tong (桐) To sum up, there were fifty-four princes with the same surname as the king and forty-five with different surnames. In addition, there were thirtyfour princes whose surnames were unknown. The states that existed during the Spring and Autumn Period totalled one hundred and thirty-two, including those with the same surname and those with different surnames. Xunzi (荀子) observed that fifty-three princes with the same surname were enfeoffed during this time,93 and Sima Qian (司马迁) said there were fifty-five.94 Their conclusions only differ slightly from the number of states listed above. Xunzi said, “After the founding of the Zhou Dynasty, the king enfeoffed seventy-one states/fiefs, fifty-three of which shared the same surname of Ji (姬) as the royal family.”95 It can be seen that princes with the same surname far outnumbered those with different surnames. Theoretically, this difference was reasonable, but it cannot in fact be verified by the list of states

42  The completion of feudalism mentioned above as there was an insignificant difference of nine: Princes with the same surname were fifty-four, while those with different surnames were forty-five. It is likely that many of those princes with unknown surnames actually had the same surname as the king. It is also likely that Xunzi and Sima Qian only referred to enfeoffment in the early Zhou Dynasty or that their calculations were only based on the partial information available to them. Although there was seemingly no significant difference in the number of princes, there did exist a vast difference as far as the locations of their fiefs were concerned. Evidence concerning princes with different surnames in the early Zhou period remains patchy, but we can reveal the vast difference by examining the location96 of each state in the Spring and Autumn Period: The State of Zheng (郑) was originally located in southwestern Shaanxi (陕西) Province (in Huazhou 华州) and later moved to central Henan (河 南) Province (in Xinzheng 新郑, Xingyang 荥阳, etc.). The State of Jin (晋) sat in central Shanxi (山西) Province (in Taiyuan 太原, Pingyang 平阳, etc.). The State of Wei (卫) was located in northern Henan Province (in Weihui 卫辉, etc.). The State of Cai (蔡) was located in southern Henan Province (in Runan 汝南, etc.). The State of Lu (鲁) was located in central Shandong (山东) Province (in Mount Tai 泰, Qufu 曲阜, etc.). The State of Teng (滕) was located in north-western Shandong Province (in Jinan 济南, etc.). The State of Cao (曹) was located in south-western Shandong Province (in Caozhou 曹 州, Dingtao 定陶, etc.). In a word, apart from the State of Wu (吴), located in southern Jiangsu (江苏) Province, i.e., in Gusu (姑苏), in the Yangtze River Basin, all the states whose heads had the same surname as the king were situated close to the location of the imperial court: Namely, along the upper and lower reaches of the Yellow River, where flowing water and rich and fertile soil provided ideal conditions for irrigation and agriculture. In contrast, those states run by princes with different surnames from the king were located as follows: the State of Xu (许) in central Henan (河南) Province (in Xuchang 许昌); the State of Song (宋) in eastern Henan Province (in Shangqiu 商丘, Xiayi 夏邑, etc.); the State of Chen (陈) in north- eastern Henan Province (in Wanqiu 宛丘, etc.); the State of Qi (杞) in eastern Shandong (山东) Province (in 高密); the State of Xiao Zhu (小邾) in southern Shandong Province (in Teng 滕 County); the State of Zhu (邾) in western Shandong Province (in Yanzhou 兖州 and Zou 邹 County); the State of Ju (莒) in south-eastern Shandong Province (in Yizhou 沂州, etc.); the State of Qi (齐, one of the major powers at this time) in northern Shandong Province (in Linzi 临淄, etc.); the State of Qin (秦), another major state, in central Shaanxi (陕西) Province (between the Qian 汧 River Basin and the Wei 渭 River Basin); the State of Chu (楚), also a powerful state, in northern Hubei (湖北) Province (in Xiangyang 襄阳, Jingshan 荆山, Jingmen 荆门, etc.); the State of Xue (薛) in north-western Jiangsu (江苏) Province (in Xuzhou 徐州); and the State of Yue (越) in northern Zhejiang (浙江) Province (in Kuaiji 会稽).

The completion of feudalism  43 Only a handful of small states – Song (宋), Chen (陈), Xu (许), Qi (杞) and Zhu (邾) – were located in central China near the imperial court; as for big states, the two states of Qi (齐) and Qin (秦) sat within the Yellow River Basin. People from the State of Qi were descendants of Jiang Shangfu (姜尚父), who was first enfeoffed for his remarkable contribution to the founding of Zhou. The State of Qin bordered the so-called “barbarian” tribes of Rong (戎) and Di (狄) (two of the most aggressive tribes), and therefore was often threatened with invasion. The State of Chu (楚) was in the remote south, which remained a wild and savage area. Pieces of land like these would never have been granted to princes with the same surname as the king because he would never want them to trudge to a remote area to build a state against all odds and face the dangers of tribal aggression. The differences in locations point to the king’s concern with putting his own clansmen’s interests and safety first. Differences in treatment were indicated in many other aspects as well. For instance, the head of Chu (i.e., Viscount Xiongyi 熊绎), together with the heads of Lu (鲁), Wei (卫), Qi (齐) and Jin (晋), served under King Kang (康) of Zhou. Both the head of Lu (i.e., Bo Qin 伯禽) and the head of Wei (i.e., Count Kang of Wei 卫康伯) were paternal uncles of King Kang. The head of Qi (i.e., Duke Ding of Qi 齐丁公) was King Kang’s maternal great uncle. The head of Jin (i.e., the Marquis Xie of Jin 晋侯燮) was the cousin of King Kang. Each of them was granted a ding (鼎, a tripod ritual vessel for cooking and receiving meat offerings) that symbolized political power. Xiongyi (熊绎), i.e., the head of Chu, who had a different surname than the king’s, was not related to him at all, so he was the only one who did not receive a ding. Many years later, the head of Chu (“King” Ling of Chu), the descendant of Xiongyi (熊绎), still bore a grudge against the Zhou Dynasty because of the unfair treatment that Xiongyi, the ancestor of Chu, had received; finally “King” Ling of Chu decided to request the vessel from the king.97

Ranks of princes The ranks of these princes is probably their most complicated aspect. Although the Warring States Period that came not long after the early Zhou Dynasty still saw the existence of princes, disorder and chaos already prevailed in this period. Neither the common people nor Beigong Qi (北宫琦), a disciple of Mencius, knew how to clarify the ranks of princes. Nor could Mencius himself, one of the most prestigious Confucianist scholars of all, fully grasp it; he only gave a general answer in this respect.98 An attempt to look into all the historical records and legends about the ranks of princes would be so confusing and contradictory that our dear readers would be exposed to nothing but overwhelming perplexity. The best approach is to discard those unreliable texts and groundless stories and make a thorough study of the reliable materials only.

44  The completion of feudalism How many ranks were there among princes? We should ignore any conflicting and dubious claims, and make every effort to list the titles of all princes that appeared in the records of Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals. We should then put them into hierarchical order as the basis for further discussion because these records are the most credible. Records of the use of the title “duke” include: Duke of Zhou (周): The 9th year of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁); Duke of Song (宋): The 3rd，4th, and 8th year of Duke Yin (隐) of Lu; the 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th and 16th year of Duke Huan (桓) of Lu; the 2nd, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 27th and 32nd year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 2nd, 7th and 14th year of Duke Wen (文) of Lu; the 1st, 7th and 9th year of Duke Xuan (宣) of Lu; the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 28th year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu; the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang (襄) of Lu; the 10th, 13th, 19th and 25th year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu; the 4th, 11th and 14th year of Duke Ding (定) of Lu; the 8th year of Duke Ai (哀) of Lu. Records of the use of the title “marquis” include: Marquis of Qi (齐): The 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 2nd, 3rd, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th and 18th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 4th, 7th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 23rd, 27th, 30th and 32nd year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 1st year of Duke Min (闵) of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 27th, 28th and 33rd year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 16th and 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 6th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 27th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 13th, 21st, 25th, 26th and 29th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 1st, 5th and 10th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Marquis of Jin (晋): The 9th, 15th, 24th, 28th and 32nd year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 13th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 7th, 9th, 11th, 17th and 18th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th and 26th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 2nd, 10th, 13th, 16th, 21st, 30th and 31st year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 13th and 15th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Marquis of Wei (卫): The 8th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 12th, 13th, 15th and 16th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 6th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 25th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th, 22nd, 25th, 28th and 30th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 4th, 13th and 14th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 1st, 7th, 9th and 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th and

The completion of feudalism  45 29th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 7th and 13th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th and 15th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 12th and 16th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Marquis of Cai (蔡): The 8th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 2nd, 16th and 17th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 10th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 14th, 21st, 27th and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 10th year of Duke Wen (文) of Lu; the 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 24th and 26th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 11th, 13th, 20th, 21st and 23rd year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Marquis of Chen (陈): The 4th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 2nd, 11th, 12th, 15th and 16th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 1st, 4th, 15th, 16th and 27th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 27th and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 2nd, 13th, and 14th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 1st and 11th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 26th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 8th and 13th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 8th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 1st year of Duke Ai of Lu; Marquis of Teng (滕): The 7th and 11th year of Duke Yin of Lu; Marquis of Xue (薛): The 11th year of Duke Yin of Lu; Marquis of Qi (杞): The 2nd, 3rd and 12th year of Duke Huan of Lu; Marquis of Ji (纪): The 6th, 13th and 17th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; Marquis of Deng (邓): The 7th year of Duke Huan of Lu; Marquis of Xing (邢): The 16th year of Duke Xi of Lu; Marquis of Sui (隋): The 1st year of Duke Ai of Lu. Records of the use of the title “count” include: Count of Cao (曹): The 9th and 10th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 21st and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 9th, 11th, 14th and 15th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 1st, 7th, 9th, 14th and 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 13th, 14th, 18th and 27th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 8th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 8th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Count of Zheng (郑): The 1st, 3rd, 8th, 10th and 11th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 4th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 21st and 27th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 32nd year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 2nd, 13th and 14th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 3rd, 7th, 9th and 11th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 4th, 12th, 13th and 28th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 15th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Count of Qin (秦): The 15th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 12th and 18th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 14th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 1st, 5th and 9th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 3rd year of Duke Ai of Lu; Count of Gu (谷): The 7th year of Duke Huan of Lu; Count of Hua (滑): The 16th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; Count of Qi (杞): The 27th year of Duke

46  The completion of feudalism Zhuang of Lu; the 12th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 5th, 7th and 9th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 6th, 13th, 24th and 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 8th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Count of Xue (薛): The 31st year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 12th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 10th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Count of Bei Yan (北燕): The 3rd year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Count of Fan (凡): The 7th year of Duke Yin of Lu; Count of Zhai (祭): The 1st year of Duke Yin of Lu; Count of Shan (单): The 14th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 14th and 15th year of Duke Wen of Lu; Count of Mao (毛): The 9th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 15th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Count of Zhao (召): The 15th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Count of Cheng (郕): The 12th year of Duke Wen of Lu. Records of the use of the title “viscount” include: Viscount of Chu (楚): The 21st year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 9th, 10th and 11th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th and 18th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 16th and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 11th, 13th, 24th, 26th, 28th and 30th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 1st, 4th, 5th, 11th, 12th, 16th and 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 15th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 1st and 6th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Viscount of Ju (莒): The 2nd year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 26th and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 8th, 9th, and 14th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th and 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 13th, 14th, 23th and 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; Viscount of Zhu (邾): The 16th year of the Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 1st and 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 5th, 6th and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th and 28th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 1st, 11th, 13th and 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 3rd, 4th, 14th and 15th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 7th, 8th and 10th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Viscount of Xiao Zhu (小邾): The 7th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 25th of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 17th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Viscount of Wu (吴): The 12th and 29th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 15th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Viscount of Teng (滕): The 2nd year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 16th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 22nd year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 12th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 16th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 18th, 20th, 24th, 25th and 31st year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 28th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 15th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 2nd, 4th, and 11th year of Duke Ai of Lu; Viscount of Tan (谭): The 10th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; Viscount of Zeng (鄫): The 14th and 19th year of Duke Xi of

The completion of feudalism  47 Lu; Viscount of Shan (单): The 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 3rd year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 22nd year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Viscount of Song (宋): The 9th year of Duke Xi of Lu; Viscount of Gao (郜): The 20th year of Duke Xi of Lu; Viscount of Wei (卫): The 25th and 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; Viscount of Chen (陈): The 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; Viscount of Qi (杞): The 23rd and 27th year of Duke Xi of Lu; Viscount of Lu (潞): The 15th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; Viscount of Yin (尹): The 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; Viscount of Tan (郯): The 7th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 17th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Viscount of Xu (徐): The 4th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; Viscount of Dun (顿): The 4th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; Viscount of Hu (胡): The 4th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; Viscount of Shen (沈): The 4th and 5th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; Viscount of Liu (刘): The 13th and 22nd year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu. Records of the use of the title “baron” include: Baron of Xu (许): The 16th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 22nd and 27th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 5th and 14th year Duke Wen of Lu; the 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 24th and 26th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 4th and 5th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 28th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 1st and 13th year of Duke Ai of Lu. The following facts stand out from the long list above: First, there were five ranks of nobility, composed of duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron. Second, the most crucial part of the noble hierarchy was to standardise the ranking of states. For example, the princes of the State of Song (宋) were invariably granted the title of duke; the princes of Qi (齐), Lu (鲁), Wei (卫), etc. were granted the title of marquis; the princes of Zheng (郑), Cao (曹), Qin (秦), etc. were granted the title of count; the princes of Chu (楚), Wu (吴), etc. were granted the title of viscount (the later princes of Chu and Wu proclaimed themselves king, which ran contrary to convention and etiquette); the prince of Xu (许) was granted the title of baron. Third, however, there were two exceptions that merit special attention: a

Examples of demotion of ranking are as follows: Qi (杞): The prince of Qi was originally a marquis, but he was demoted to the ranking of count in the 27th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu. He was even demoted to the ranking of viscount during the reign of Duke Xi of Lu and soon regained his title of count (see Lin Yaosou 林尧叟’s annotations); Xue (薛): The prince of Xue was originally a marquis, but he was demoted to a count in the 27th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; Teng (滕): The prince of Teng was originally a marquis, but he was demoted to a viscount in the 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu (see Du Yu 杜预’s annotations); Shan (单): The prince of Shan was originally a count, but he was demoted to a viscount in the 17th year of Duke Cheng of Lu (see Du Yu’s annotations); Qi (杞): The prince of Qi was originally a marquis, but he was

48  The completion of feudalism

b

demoted to a count in the 20th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu. In the 23rd year of Duke Xi of Lu he was further demoted to a viscount (see Du Yu’s annotations); Once demoted, the princes were permanently condemned to a lower ranking. There was no case in which a prince was called count at one time, marquis at another time and then count again. This clearly indicates that the demotion of noble titles was a serious matter. Duke Xiang (襄) of Song (宋) was once called “viscount.” Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) explained: Duke Huan of Song (宋桓公, father of Duke Xiang of Song) passed away and was not yet buried, but Duke Xiang the son had met the other princes and therefore had to be addressed as ‘Viscount’. During the mourning period of the previous head, the new king was called “Xiao Tong” (小童), and new princes were called viscounts.99 There are many such cases: Song (宋): The 9th year of Duke Xi of Lu in Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: Wei (卫): The 25th and the 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu (see Du Yu’s annotations); Chen (陈): The 28th year of Duke Xi of Lu and the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu 定 (see Du Yu’s annotations)

These constituted cases in which princes were called “viscounts” while mourning their fathers but before their fathers were buried. There were two exceptions: One was Duke Cheng of Wei (卫成公), who insisted on being called a viscount rather than a marquis after his father Duke Wen’s burial, just to show that he still remembered and was determined to fulfill his deceased father’s wish to mediate between the State of Lu (鲁国) and the State of Ju (莒国). That is why Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals called him a viscount to laud his filial piety.100 The other example was Shu Wu (叔武), the brother of Duke Cheng of Wei (卫成公). According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Duke Cheng of Wei feared the State of Jin’s attack, so he escaped to the State of Chu (楚) to take refuge. He agreed that during his absence his brother Shu Wu would temporarily rule the State of Wei and attend the rally in Jiantu (践土) to enter into an alliance with other states. Since Shu Wu only acted as a regent, he also observed the rites that were applied to any new head of state who did not officially ascend the throne. Shu Wu was thus recorded as a viscount in historical texts.101 The details, as documented in the history concerning these two examples, are not exactly the same, but they followed the same rule that the new head

The completion of feudalism  49 of a state was called “Viscount” before he was officially acknowledged. Outside of the exceptions, princes were addressed as viscounts when their fathers’ funeral had not yet been held, and after the funerals they regained their original titles. So, Zuo’s conclusion is proven correct. From the above facts the following conclusion can be drawn: Princes had five ranks of nobility, composed of “duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron”; once granted, their titles could not be changed unless the king issued a promotion or a demotion. Another example: Duke Mu (穆) of Xu (许), originally a baron, was promoted to a marquis because of his sacrifice in the war and was buried with the funeral rites reserved for a marquis, a title two levels higher than that of a baron.102 This case confirms the existence of five levels of nobility as well as the idea that a marquis was two notches above a baron. But the question remains: If there were five ranks for princes, with duke at the top, why were princes generally called “Zhu Hou” (诸侯, which literally means “all marquises” in Chinese and “all feudal lords” in English) instead of “Zhu Gong” (诸公, which literally means “all dukes” in Chinese) in Chinese? The answer lies in the fact that the title of “duke” was reserved for “the king’s three dukes and descendants of previous emperors or kings; the heads of all the other big states were marquises; those of small states were either counts, viscounts or barons.”103 Therefore, Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou was granted the title “duke” for being one of the three great aides of the king; Zai Kong (宰孔, a descendant of Duke Dan) was called Duke Zai of Zhou.104 On the other hand, the leaders of Song (宋) were descendants of the previous emperor in the Yin (殷) Dynasty, so they were also called dukes. Apart from them, no one was addressed as duke in Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals. However, the title “duke” was also used as a general term to refer to certain princes, regardless of their respective titles of duke, marquise, count, viscount and baron, when the names of their states were not mentioned. For instance, in Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals, all the marquises of Lu (鲁) were referred to as dukes; princes were also called dukes after death as a posthumous title. Records from Zuo’s Spring and Autumn Annals of the title “duke” used as a general term are as follows: Song 宋): The 3rd year of Duke Yin (隐) of Lu; the 3rd year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu; the 3rd and 15th year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu; the 11th and 26th year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu. Lu (鲁): The 18th year of Duke Huan (桓) of Lu; the 1st year of Duke Min (闵) of Lu; the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 18th year of Duke Wen (文) of Lu; the 1st and 18th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 31st year of Duke Xiang (襄) of Lu; the 9th year of Ding (定) of Lu. Qi (齐): The 15th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 18th and 27th year of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 19th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 5th and 10th year of Duke Ai (哀) of Lu. Jin (晋): The 33rd year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 6th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 16th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 10th, 16th and 30th year of Duke Zhao of

50  The completion of feudalism Lu. Wei (卫): The 5th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 25th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 3rd and 15th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 7th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 2nd year of Duke Ai of Lu. Cai (蔡): The 8th year of Duke Yin of Lu; the 17th year of Duke Xuan (宣) of Lu; the 30th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 13th and 21st year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Chen (陈): The 2nd year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 12th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 8th and 24th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 8th year of Duke Ding of Lu. Qi (杞): The 6th and 23rd year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 6th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Xue (薛): The 31st year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 12th year of Duke Ding of Lu; the 10th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Cao (曹): The 10th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 24th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 7th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 14th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 19th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 14th, 18th and 28th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 8th year of Duke Ding of Lu. Zheng (郑): The 11th year of Duke Huan of Lu; the 21st year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; the 3rd year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Cheng of Lu; the 8th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 12th and 28th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 9th year of Duke Ding of Lu. Qin (秦): The 6th and 9th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Liu (刘): The 4th year of Duke Ding of Lu. Teng (滕): The 3rd and 28th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 4th and 11th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Zhu (邾): The 1st year of Duke Zhao of Lu. Xu (许): The 4th year of Duke Xi of Lu; the 6th year of Duke Wen of Lu; the 17th year of Duke Xuan of Lu; the 26th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; the 19th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; the 13th year of Duke Ai of Lu. The examples listed above show that princes maintained their ranks of nobility throughout their lifetimes but were granted the posthumous title “duke” at their funerals. For example, “On the day of ji mao (己卯, the 9th day of a month in the Zhou calendar) in December, Chong’er (重耳), the Marquis of Jin (晋) passed away…On the day of gui si (癸巳, the 25th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), Duke Wen (文) of Jin was buried.”105 “On the day of geng shen (庚申, the 6th day of a month in the Zhou calendar) in January, the Count of Cao (曹) passed away… On a summer day in May, Duke Huan (桓) of Cao was buried.”106 “On the day of ding si (丁巳, the 9th day of a month in the Zhou calendar) in June, Hua (华), the Viscount of Zhu (邾), passed away…Duke Dao (悼) of Zhu was buried.”107 “Cheng (成), the Baron of Xu (许) passed away in summer…Duke Yuan (元) of Xu was buried.”108 Examples of this kind abound. The general use of “duke” as a posthumous title was definitely different from the title of duke in the five rankings of nobility. Generally, “duke” was used either to address specific princes without naming their states or to signify their posthumous titles, along with the names of their respective states, such as Duke Wen of Jin, Duke Dao of Zhu and Duke Yuan of Xu in the previous quotes. It was unacceptable to

The completion of feudalism  51 directly refer to them as “Duke of Jin,” “Duke of Cao,” “Duke of Zhu” and “Duke of Xu.” The general use of “duke,” as explained in Er Ya (《尔雅》, the earliest dictionary in ancient China), was “to use the name of duke to refer to the head of a state” instead of a noble title. This definition is of great significance. Without it, one would make the same mistakes as Guo Moruo (郭沫若, 1892–1978) and Fu Sinian (傅斯年, 1896–1950). The former held that the titles of king, duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron were all general appellations for heads of states,109 while the latter insisted that “duke” was a general term for those who possessed land instead of a title, only pointing to the ranking of nobility.110 Now that the theory of five ranks has been proven, it is time to elaborate on the issue of Five Fu (五服; “Fu” literally means to serve the king). This is one of the most controversial issues in history. Contradictory conclusions have been reached in various sources, but none of them is convincing enough. Schools of theories concerning this issue have fallen into two categories. First, the Theory of Five Fu goes like this: Dian Fu (甸服) – five hundred li (里) away from the land in the middle; Hou Fu (侯服) – five hundred li away from Dian Fu; Sui Fu (绥服)/Bin Fu (宾服) – five hundred li away from Hou Fu; Yao Fu (要服) – five hundred li away from Sui Fu/Bin Fu; Huang Fu (荒 服) – five hundred li away from Yao Fu. The Theory of Five Fu was based on The Book of History and Discourses on the Governance of the States.111 These two books are consistent when it comes to this theory, except that “Sui Fu” (绥服) was written as “Bin Fu” (宾服) in Discourses on the Governance of the States. Second, the Theory of Nine Fu (九服) goes like this: Hou Fu (侯服) – five hundred li away from the land in the middle; Dian Fu (甸服) – five hundred li away from Hou Fu; Nan Fu (男服) – five hundred li away from Dian Fu; Cai Fu (采服) – five hundred li away from Nan Fu; Wei Fu (卫服) – five hundred li away from Cai Fu; Man Fu (蛮服) – five hundred li away from Wei Fu; Yi Fu (夷服) – five hundred li away from Man Fu; Zhen Fu (镇 服) – five hundred li away from Yi Fu; Fan Fu (蕃服) – five hundred li away from Zhen Fu. The Theory of Nine Fu was based on The Rites of Zhou and Yi Zhou Shu (《佚周书》, a book containing the ancient documents that were omitted by Confucius when he was compiling The Book of History). The views recorded in these two books are exactly the same.112 As regards these two theories, there was such a jumble of historical records, in which the names, levels and numbers of “Fu” were different. No common ground can be possibly found between the two conflicting theories. So, how can we discuss in detail the name of each Fu, the distance between them and the duties and services expected from each one, assuming that there is no definite answer to exactly how many Fu there were? According to these two theories, each piece of land was shaped like a square. There was a square region in the centre, covering one thousand

52  The completion of feudalism square li. Five hundred li away from the centre, another square region was designated as a Fu, and yet another square region that was five hundred li away from the previous Fu was designated as a second Fu. In keeping with this logic, Five Fu and Nine Fu were thus arranged. First of all, such a fixed arrangement is not feasible in reality, given the diverse geological conditions of different places. In history, there has never been such a thing as land planning with one smaller square inside another bigger square. Such an idea could only come from those ancient people who held to the belief that heaven was round, and the earth was square. Furthermore, how was it likely to achieve such accurate measurement and division when land surveying and engineering were not available at this time? Thus, it is clear that the two theories of “Fu” are nothing but imaginations.

However, this does not mean that the system of “Fu” did not exist at all. It is just that reliable sources are needed to ascertain the truth about it. In the bronze inscriptions of the Zhou Dynasty, “Fu” was recorded as follows: Ling Yi (令彝, an alcohol vessel): “All officials were appointed, including senior officials, junior officials, household officials and artisans; as for princes, Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were designated as feoffment.”113

The completion of feudalism  53 This record is of great importance for the same can be found in The Book of History. On the day of ding wei (丁未, the 17th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), King Wu (武) of Zhou (周) was hosting worship rituals in the Zhou Temple. Princes with designated Dian Fu, Hou Fu and Wei Fu were active in assisting the king preparing bian and dou (bian 笾 and dou 豆 were two ancient food containers used for sacrifices: one is made of bamboo and the other wood). The Book of History Princes with designated Dian Fu, Hou Fu and Nan Fu, officials with designated Cai Fu and Wei Fu as well as the remaining residents of the previous Yin (殷) Dynasty came to serve the king of Zhou. The Book of History Princes with designated Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu; officials of all levels that served the imperial court; members of the royal family and retired officials. The Book of History On the day of jia zi (甲子, the 21st day of a month in the Zhou calendar), Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou issued the imperial mandate to build the capital “Luoyi” (also shortened as “Luo”) while addressing the residents from the Yin Dynasty as well as princes and Bang Bo (邦伯) with designated Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu. The Book of History The junior courtiers and princes with designated Hou Fu and Dian Fu came to assist the king. The Book of History The king stated: ‘Every prince with Hou Fu, Dian Fu, Nan Fu and Wei Fu.’ The Book of History Each of the above records made similar claims. “Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were designated as princes’ fiefs” and “princes and Bang Bo (邦伯) with designated Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu” indicate that Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were designated to princes or Bang Bo (heads of states, the same as princes). Only three Fu were written in bronze inscriptions, which proves that the theories of Five Fu and Nine Fu are groundless. The inscriptions mentioned above also indicate that Fu consisted of two parts: Inner Fu and Outer Fu. Inner Fu was reserved for those officers and subjects within Wang Ji (王畿), the king’s own fiefs, while Outer Fu was for

54  The completion of feudalism those princes residing outside of Wang Ji, including Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu. While it is quite difficult to clearly define Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu, a general idea about Fu can be grasped based on available historical texts. First of all, duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron indicated ranking of nobility, but Fu did not. Perhaps Fu was just an indication of how far a prince’s fief was from Wang Ji. Although the idea of “five hundred li away from the previous Fu” mentioned in The Book of History, Yi Zhou Shu and Discourses on the Governance of the States is unreliable, as that idea was obviously an imaginary one, it remains unreasonable to totally dismiss the concept of Fu itself. On the basis of available information, we can infer that “Fu” must have existed as a system, and different Fu implied different distances from the king’s own fief. Over time, however, the system fell out of favour, so distorted and far-fetched ideas about Fu arose when people merely heard the system mentioned without fully understanding it. “Hou Fu” was arguably the closest to Wang Ji (王畿); “Dian Fu” was farther from it, and “Nan Fu” was farthest. According to The Book of History and Yi Ce Shu (《佚册书》), Hou Fu was located five hundred li from Wang Ji, Dian Fu was located five hundred li from Hou Fu and Nan Fu was located five hundred li from Dian Fu. As has been discussed before, the idea of “five hundred li for each Fu” is rather absurd, but the idea of “the order” in which Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were arranged is plausible. Still, the task of learning the exact place of each Fu and the distance between two neighbouring Fu remains daunting until new archaeological evidence is discovered. To conclude, duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron were the five rankings of princes, while Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were the three levels of Fu that indicated how far away the territory of princes was from Wang Ji. As hierarchies, the former pointed to the ranking of princes, while the latter did not carry such implications and had nothing to do with noble rankings. Princes could own lands either in the area of Nan Fu, in the area of Hou Fu or in the area of Dian Fu; Fu merely referred to location of their states, not their noble titles. These two systems, i.e., Five Ranks of Nobility and Fu, were not at odds with one another. Therefore, the Marquis of Jin (晋) residing in Dian Fu and was called “Marquis of Dian”114; the Count of Cao (曹) based in Dian Fu was referred to as “Count of Dian”115; and the Count of Zheng (郑) who founded his state in Nan Fu was named “Count of Nan.”116 One final consideration must be made before I close this section. Unlike the bronze inscriptions quoted above, The Book of History·Zhou added Wei Fu to the system of Fu along with Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu. In my opinion, the word “Wei (卫)” here indicates “vassal.” According to Mencius, a vassal referred to a state that was directly controlled not by the king but by a prince.117 Mencius’s claim is convincing; its credibility can be testified by similar claims found in other historical texts. The Book of History clearly stated that Hou Fu, Dian Fu and Nan Fu were all granted to Bang Bo: Namely, princes. Wei Fu, on the other hand, was

The completion of feudalism  55 an additional term beyond the other three Fu. In the bronze inscriptions of the Zhou Dynasty, possessors of “Hou,” “Dian,” and “Nan” were described as princes, but “Wei (卫)” was not mentioned (see previous quotes), which demonstrated that Wei was a mere vassal controlled by some other state. Since vassals were not enfeoffed by the king himself, heads of vassals were not honoured with any title and could not be addressed in the same way as princes. Only after they were granted titles of nobility by the king could they be called “Viscount.”118

Sizes of feudal territories Even referring to the bronze inscriptions which recorded the enfeoffment of the San (散) family, the exact sizes of feudal territories cannot be determined. But from them we can determine that the number of land pieces involved was very large, and the scale of fiefs was immense. At several points, the bronze inscription mentions “the demarcation line that ranged from one place to another for the first enfeoffment and then started over from one place to yet another place for the second enfeoffment.”119 Many records have been found in bronze inscriptions of the number of land pieces and the number of households enfeoffed to princes; these offer a more detailed account of enfeoffment than those records on the San Family Plate. To make a specific comparison, related historical documents are provided in the following: 1

2

Records of enfeoffed land measured in the unit of “tian” (田, a piece of cropland or a field of a fixed size) are as follows: Four pieces of tian – Mao Gui (卯簋, gui was a food vessel)120; Five pieces of tian – Yao Ding (舀 鼎)121; Seven pieces of tian – Da Ke Ding (大克鼎)122; Ten pieces of tian – Bu Qi Gui (不期簋)123; One hundred pieces of tian – Yu Gui (敔簋).124 Records of enfeoffed land measured in the unit of “fief” (邑) are as follows: Two hundred and ninety-nine fiefs – Zizhongjiang Bo (子仲姜镈, bo was a musical instrument)125; (3) Records of enfeoffed land measured in the unit of “county”; Three hundred counties – Shu Yi Zhong (叔夷钟).126

There were various names, such as tian, fief and county, found in bronze inscriptions; they covered different numbers of li (里) or mu (亩). Therefore they must be analysed separately and together in order to make our conclusion more convincing. According to The Rites of Zhou, four jing are a fief ( jing, a unit of measurement of land; in measurement system of ancient China, jing’s Chinese character ‘井’ literally means a piece of land consisting of 9 squares; each square is 100 steps long and 100 steps wide, covering an area of land (called Tian) an adult labourer/ man was supposed to till. The word ‘fief’ is used here as a measurement unit and in fact so far in this translated version it is generally used to

56  The completion of feudalism mean “land granted by the king”.); four fiefs a qiu (邱); four qiu a dian (甸); four dian a county; four counties a capital.” Some scholars quoted from The Rites of Zhou·Xiaositu and argued that its ideas are dependable, thereby attempting to prove that the term “tian” referred to dian in ancient classic texts. Wang Guowei (王国维, 1877–1927) is the main spokesman of this theory. According to him, the terms of tian, dian and sheng (乘, chariot) were pronounced the same in ancient times, hence, the same meaning of tian and dian. He also quoted the passage “four qiu are a dian; sixty-four jing a dian; a dian has to provide the military service of one sheng of chariot (sheng is a chariot driven by four horses)” in Sima’s Art of War to further support his idea, concluding that the owner of ten pieces of tian/forty qiu/one hundred and sixty fiefs had to pledge a military service of ten chariots.127 To calculate how many li a dian and a fief covered, some scholars quoted the above documents as well as The History of the Han Dynasty (《汉书·食货志》), which stated that six chi (尺) represented one step, and one jing (井) covered one square li. This school of thought clung to The Rites of Zhou as its basis and then managed to find relevant but dubious evidence herein. However, this approach is biased, exclusive and even dangerous for a systemic study. If its advocates had taken into consideration the fundamental difference between “tian” and “fief,” they would not have provided far-fetched ideas by blindly following The Rites of Zhou. Regardless, they quoted from The Rites of Zhou and The History of the Han Dynasty to elaborate on the difference between fief, dian and county as well as how many square li a fief and a county covered. In so doing, they made their claims more convincing. However, their source of information was unreliable and thus misleading their readers all along. There is no denying the fact that The Rites of Zhou is a falsified book compiled by people that lived after the Zhou Dynasty. In this falsified book, Ban Gu (班固, a historian in the Han Dynasty) explained that the measurement system dated back to the Zhou Dynasty, but he used a situation in the Han Dynasty for reference, which makes his conclusion dubious and questionable. Therefore, it is particularly irrational to quote The Rites of Zhou as one’s single source of proof in an attempt to shed light on the system of land measurement during the Zhou Dynasty. If we compare Ban Gu’s statement with other historical documents, we will find that his theory was neither reliable nor evidential. As he put it, “six chi (尺) was a step long; one hundred mu belonged to one man; three men had one house; three houses constituted a jing (井); one jing covered one square li.” In this theory, one mu included one hundred steps, one hundred mu included ten thousand steps, one house included thirty thousand steps and one jing included ninety thousand steps. But, according to Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, which was written earlier than The Rites of Zhou, there were only three hundred steps in one li.128 These two theories only conflict each other.

The completion of feudalism  57 After the discussion about the statements made by the proponents of The Rites of Zhou, we will go further by using related information from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: Xi Zhi (郤至, the bureaucrat of the State of Jin (晋)) competed for a piece of land called Hou (鄇) with the royal family of Zhou as Hou was located in the fief of Wen (温), which had been granted to Xi Zhi. The king of Zhou sent Duke Kang of Liu (刘康公) and Duke Xiang of Shan (单襄公) to argue with Xi Zhi in front of other princes about the ownership of Hou. The two dukes argued that the fief of Wen had been ruled by the Hu (狐狸) and Yang (阳) families long before it was granted to Xi Zhi; in addition, the fief of Wen was originally “a fief of the royal family.” So, they condemned Xi Zhi for grabbing Hou, saying, “How could you claim the land as your own?”129 The army of the State of Chu (楚国) besieged the capital city of the State of Song (宋国) and finally succeeded in forcing it to sign an agreement with Chu. When the army of Chu was returning home, Zizhong (子重, the prime minister of Chu) asked the head of Chu to take one piece of tian (田) from the fiefs of Shen (申) and Lv (吕), and grant it to him as a reward for Zizhong’s outstanding contribution to the battle against the State of Song. The head of Chu agreed, but Shengong Wuchen (申公巫臣), the bureaucrat, disapproved and dissuaded the head of Chu from following this course of action. He argued that it would deprive the fief “Shen” and the fief “Lv” of “what makes them fiefs.”130 Gongsun Duan (公孙段, a minister of the State of Zheng 郑) was awarded one piece of tian in the county of Zhou (州) by the State of Jin (晋国) for his courtesy. The county of Zhou had once been a fief of Luan Bao (栾豹, an official and the head of an important family in the State of Jin). The three ministers of Viscount Fanxuan (范宣子), Viscount Zhaowen (赵文子) and Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣子) all attempted to claim this fief upon Luan Bao’s death. Viscount Zhaowen said, “The county of Wen is mine. The county of Zhou is also mine as it was formerly part of the county of Wen.” Viscount Fanxuan and Viscount Hanxuan responded, “Now in the State of Jin, the county of Zhou is one of the many that have been separated from their previous regions. Who can still rule such places as before since they have already been separated?” As a result, Viscount Zhaowen was persuaded to drop his request.131 Moreover, there are a large number of historical documents on “tian” and “fief.” Some examples include: The king of Zhou (周) granted the State of Zheng (郑) twelve pieces of tian that had previously belonged to Su Fensheng (苏忿生, a member of the royal family of Zhou), Wen (温), Yuan (原), Chi (絺), Fan (樊), Xicheng (隰郕), Cuanmao (欑茅), Xiang (向), Meng (盟), Zhou (州), Xing (陉), Kui (聩) and Huai (怀), and took away the four pieces of tian that had belonged to Wu (邬), Liu (刘), Wei (蒍) and Han (邗) from the State of Zheng.132 The State of Zheng asked to be allowed to offer sacrifices to Duke Dan of Zhou (周公旦) and exchange all pieces of tian in Beng (祊) of Zheng with all pieces of tian in Xu (许) of the State of Lu (鲁).133 Duke Ai

58  The completion of feudalism of Jin (晋哀侯) invaded pieces of tian in Quwo (曲沃) and Xingting (陉庭).134 A tutor of Duke Min (闵) of Lu took some pieces of tian from a bureaucrat called Buyi (卜齮).135 The State of Jin (晋) defeated the State of Cao (曹) and awarded pieces of tian in Cao to other princes. The State of Lu took the pieces of tian to the west of the Ji (济) River, which ranged from the south of Tao (洮) to Ji (济).136 Shusun Qiaoru (叔孙侨如, a bureaucrat of the State of Lu) attacked Ji (棘) and took pieces of tian in Wenyang (汶阳).137 The Count of Zheng assaulted the State of Xu and took its pieces of tian in Churen (鉏任) and Lingdun (泠敦).138 Xi Qi (郤锜, a bureaucrat of Jin) took away lands that belonged to Yiyangwu (夷阳五, a favoured courtier of Jin), while Xi Chou (郤犨, a bureaucrat of Jin) took away pieces of tian that had belonged to Changyujiao (长鱼矫, a favoured courtier of Jin).139 After conquering the State of Lu, the State of Qi (齐) gave some pieces of tian located to the west of the Ji (济) River back to the State of Lu.140 Cheng (成), the son of the head of Chu (楚), was sent by his father on a mission to use some pieces of tian in Ruyin (汝阴) as a bargaining chip to ask the State of Zheng for an alliance.141 All of the above are historical texts on “tian.” Those on “fief” are as follows: In the State of Zheng, Gongshu Duan (共叔段, the younger brother of Duke Zhuang 庄 of Zheng) asked Duke Zhuang to grant him Zhi (制) as his fief. Zhuang turned down his request by saying, “Zhi (制) is a crucial place…You can take any place except Zhi (制).” As a result, Gongshu Duan was given the fief of Jing (京) instead. Later, he took the western and northern parts in the state as his fiefs too.142 The State of Wei (卫) “awarded fiefs” to Zhongshu Yuxi (仲叔于奚), a resident from Xinzhu (新筑), in return for his saving Viscount Sunhuan (孙桓, a minister of Wei).143 The Count of Zheng granted awards to his courtiers, including eight fiefs to Zizhan (子展) and six fiefs to Zichan (子产) for their contribution during the State of Zheng’s attack on the State of Chen (陈). Zichan declined at first, but then he accepted three at the count’s insistence.144 In the State of Song (宋), Huantui (桓魋, the general of Song) asked Duke Jing of Song (宋景公) to exchange his fief of An (鞍) for the fief of Bo (薄); Duke Jing of Song refused, telling Huantui that Bo was the fief where the ancestral temples lay, and instead gave him seven other fiefs, to be included in his fief of An (鞍). Later, Huantui fled after a vain attempt to rebel; his younger brother Sima Niu (司马牛) gave their elder brother Xiangchao’s fiefs and jade tablet back to Duke Jing of Song after Xiangchao also fled.145 Due to the civil unrest in the State of Ju (莒), the State of Zeng (鄫) betrayed the State of Ju and then volunteered to become the vassal of the State of Lu (鲁). The Spring and Autumn Annals referred to this as “acquiring Zeng,” meaning that the place was taken over without the use of military force. Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) further explained the event in this way: “In The Spring and Autumn Annals it was called ‘acquiring’ on the condition that the concerned fief was taken without the use of force.”146

The completion of feudalism  59 According to these facts, conclusions can be drawn: 1 2

“Tian” and “fief” were different. “Tian” was a part of a “fief.” A fief would be non-existent without “Tian.”

For instance, the fief of Wen (温) belonged to Xi Zhi (郤至), and the tian of Hou (鄇) belonged to the fief of Wen; this is why Xi Zhi fought for ownership of the tian with the royal family, claiming, “the fief of Wen is mine.” On the other hand, Duke Kang of Liu (刘康公) and Duke Xiang of Shan (单襄公) argued that the fief of Wen had historically belonged to the royal family. If the tian of Hou had not been part of the fief of Wen, what would they base their arguments on? The county of Zhou (州) also belonged to the fief of Wen. Evidence of this was most clear when Zizhong (子重) asked the head of Chu for some tian from the fiefs of Shen (申) and Lv (吕); in addition, Shengong Wuchen’s disapproval tellingly showed that tian was part of a fief, and without tian, the fief would not exist. Apart from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, bronze inscriptions can also provide proof in this respect: Li Cong Xu (鬲从盨, a cooking vessel) says: “The Zhang (章) family’s tian was separated; its fiefs were three. Besides, The Zhang family should return the neighbouring tian of the Li (鬲) family and return its two fiefs too. An officer was sent to return the rest of lands to the Li family, including five fiefs. At last, there were thirteen fiefs in the Li family, including returned and additional fiefs.”147 These lines do not state the exact difference between tian and fief, but it is useful to note that one sentence mentions tian, while the following sentence immediately says, “its fief.” The relations between the two are obvious: “tian” is an indispensable part of “fief.” 3

Undoubtedly, a piece of tian (a piece of tillable land of fixed size) was smaller than a fief. The Rites of Zhou, however, mistakenly stated that tian was of the same size as dian and that a fief was smaller than dian (甸) as it says, “four fiefs are a qiu (邱); four qiu are a dian.”

Now that the relationship between tian and fief has been ascertained, further elaboration should be given in order to define dian and fief. According to Gongyang (公羊) from the State of Lu (鲁), the difference between tian and fief lay in their nature rather than their size. He noted that “when a place has a larger area of tian than fief, it is called tian; when a place has a larger area of fief than tian it is called fief.”148 The definition of “tian” does not need further explanation. But what exactly is a “fief”? According to Zuo Qiuming (左丘明), “a fief is not called a

60  The completion of feudalism fief, but called a capital when temples for worshipping ancestors and previous kings were located there.”149 To sum up, a tian was located in suburban areas and cultivated by farmers/labourers, while “fief” referred to a place that did not cover many pieces of tian; a “fief” was certainly a place where nobles and officials resided. Therefore, those fiefs that were also home to ancestral temples were designated as the capitals of states. Tian was the fundamental element of military service, so there was no fief without tian. Shenggong Wuchen (申公巫臣) refused to give tian in the fiefs of Shen (申) and Lv (吕) to Zizhong (子重) on the grounds that tian there made those two places fiefs, and thus their military service depended on the tian. To take those tian away would deprive Shen and Lv of their roles as fiefs. The same is true of the sentence “bureaucrats relied on fiefs and scholars relied on tian.”150 Bureaucrats relied on fiefs because fiefs were where their residences were placed. So, now that the concepts of “tian” and “fief” have been thoroughly explained, we will discuss the meaning of “county,” as mentioned in bronze inscriptions. Since The Rites of Zhou is unreliable on the concept of “tian” and “fief,” what it says about county cannot be convincing either, so we will refer to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals instead: The county of Zhou (州) was formerly a fief of Luan Bao (栾豹)…Viscount Zhaowen (赵文子) said: “The county of Wen is mine. The county of Zhou is also mine as it was formerly part of the county of Wen.” Viscount Fanxuan (范宣子) and Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣子) responded: “Now in the State of Jin, the county of Zhou (州) is one of the many that have been separated from their previous regions. Who can still rule such places as before since they have already been separated?” This seems to indicate that “county” was equal to “fief.” However, the following examples suggest that they were quite different. The head of Chu (楚) overthrew the State of Chen (陈), made it a county of Chu and re-named it “County of Chen.” All courtiers but Shen Shu (申叔) congratulated the head of Chu, who then criticized Shen Shu: “everyone has expressed their congratulations except you. Why don’t you do it?” Shen Shu explained that the attack itself had been just, like taking away cattle to punish an owner who has allowed them to trample crops. But, he argued, it was unjust for the State of Chu to annex the State of Chen and call it “County of Chen” as this annexation told everyone that Chu had coveted Chen’s wealth. After hearing what Shen Shu said, the head of Chu changed his mind and restored Chen as a state.151 Viscount Zhaojian (赵简, one of the six ministers of Jin 晋) addressed his troops in a rally before attacking the State of Chen, informing them that whoever fought off enemies would be awarded prizes: “if you are higher bureaucrats, you will be awarded counties; if you are lower bureaucrats, you

The completion of feudalism  61 will be awarded prefectures; if you are scholar-officials, you will be awarded one hundred thousand pieces of tian.”152 “Wei Qijiang (薳启疆, a senior officer of the State of Chu楚国) said: ‘…all seven fiefs of the Han (韩) family were big counties…These ten families had nine counties with nine hundred chariots; while the rest (forty counties) had four thousand chariots.’”153 As indicated above, “fief” and “county” were definitely different. From historical documents, we can guess that the size of a county was much larger than that of a piece of tian or a fief. The distinction between the awards to be given to higher bureaucrats (counties) and the awards to be given to scholar-officials (one hundred thousand pieces of tian) is telling enough. Moreover, Chen, as a state itself, was annexed by Chu to be a county; this is particularly convincing in indicating how big a county could be. We will explain the historical records concerning “tian,” “fief” and “county,” according to the above: First, tian and fief were different in nature. A tian was smaller than a fief, but it is not clear exactly how many pieces of tian a fief covered. Second, a county was the biggest of the three. But how big was a county, and how many fiefs constituted a county? According to Wei Qijiang (薳启疆), nine counties were home to nine hundred chariots, and forty counties were home to four thousand chariots; it seems logical to say that one county should provide a pledged military service of one hundred chariots. Du Yu (杜预)’s annotations also noted, “a county had to provide one hundred chariots as taxes to its government.” Clearly, trying to find out how many pieces of tian constituted a fief and how many fiefs formed a county is neither practical nor necessary. Such a mathematical approach is not in line with the conditions of the time. When the bronze inscriptions said, “Awarding somebody five pieces of tian,” “Awarding somebody 290 fiefs” or “Awarding somebody ten counties,” they meant what they said. But as to questions like “How many pieces of tian constituted a fief?”, “How many fiefs formed a county?” and “Is there any difference concerning the actual sizes of a piece of tian, a fief, and a county between different regions?”, we cannot answer. The bronze inscriptions do not help. Moving on from tian, fief and county, the next part will touch upon the subject of this chapter: the sizes of feudal territories. It had been a tradition to calculate the sizes of states by li (里). As Guanzi (管子) put it, kings ruled land of one thousand square li, princes one hundred square li, viscounts seventy square li and barons fifty square li.154 Mencius (孟子) said: There were five levels of king, duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron; the last two belonged to the same level…There were four levels of land sizes: kings ruled land of one thousand square li, dukes and marquises one hundred square li, counts seventy square li, and both viscounts and barons fifty square li.

62  The completion of feudalism He added, “A big state covered one hundred square li…A lesser state seventy square li…A small state fifty square li.”155 It can be concluded that there were three levels of states. Dukes and marquises ruled big states, counts ruled secondary states and viscounts and barons ruled small states. The contents of the essay “King’s System” from The Rites of Zhou corresponded to Mencius’s theory. According to Guanzi (管子), there were three levels: First, princes, which included dukes, marquises and counts who owned land of one hundred square li; second, viscounts; and third, barons. Meanwhile, the three levels proposed by Mencius put dukes and marquises at the same level, then counts in the second level and viscounts and barons in the third. It is noteworthy that although Guanzi and Mencius differed on the details, they agreed on the three-level classification and their respective numbers of li, that is, one hundred, seventy and fifty; the lands of dukes, marquises and barons were also the same. Their disputes lay in the sizes of lands owned by counts and viscounts. Judging from the idea put forward in The Book of History that there were “five ranks of nobility and three levels of land division,”156 the three-level classification is tenable. But who was correct, Guanzi or Mencius? Based on the following evidence, it seems Mencius was. The states of Lu (鲁) and Jin (晋) were both marquise states. The head of the State of Wu (吴) decided to bring Duke Ai (哀) of Lu (鲁) to visit Marquis Ding (定) of Jin. Zifu Jingbo (子服景伯, a bureaucrat of Lu) told the head of Wu that this would indicate Wu’s recognition of Jin’s leadership and the relegation of Lu to a viscount/baron state. He warned that this would also mean that Lu would not only become the vassal of Jin but also be of the same level as Zhu (邾), a vassal of Jin; in this case, Lu’s tribute to Wu would have to be reduced from the present tribute of eight hundred chariots to as little as half of Zhu’s tribute to Wu.157 This story shows that viscounts and barons were of the same level. What has been discussed above presents only a general picture of the sizes of feudal territories. The greatest challenge in studying Chinese ancient history is handling records of numbers, not to mention dealing with the numbers in historical documents of the early Zhou Dynasty. The sizes of feudal territories underwent tremendous changes and even changed beyond recognition in the Spring and Autumn Period, when states were constantly annexing and invading each other. It is impossible to base the exact sizes of territories on historical conditions which were ever-changing. Some other historical materials, useful as they might be, were destroyed by princes for their own benefits; those historical texts were no longer available in Mencius’s time, so he only outlined a general picture of the land sizes, making it even more difficult for us to study them today. It is well-known that numbers in ancient books are not necessarily credible. But it would be wrong to ignore all of them because they can at least serve as a reference. For instance, it is not wise to blindly follow ancient

The completion of feudalism  63 texts and then conclude that the above-mentioned numbers of one hundred, seventy and fifty li are correct. However, such information at least shows the difference between the sizes of big, secondary and small states, and helps draw the conclusion that the sizes of states differed according to the ranks of nobility of their heads.

Relationship between princes and the king Upon capturing land from other tribes, the king first awarded himself a fief called Wang Ji (王畿), then granted the rest of land to his many samesurname relatives and a couple of courtiers with different surnames who had made significant contributions. These princes then ruled their respective lands and subjects, along with their families and relatives. This was a system of divide-and-rule without the interference of the king, but the ties between the ruling king and princes remained close and should be given due attention in our study. 1 Pledged services, like paying tribute, taxes and military services, reflected the most crucial relationship, without which the feudal system would not have been what it was. The king awarded land outside his Wang Ji (王畿) to princes, more due to his self-interests than his generosity for he was physically unable to govern all the land. Princes were given benefits, but at the same time they were made into land agents and military recruiters. They paid the king with taxes, tribute and services, which included compulsory military service. The Rites of Zhou’s discussion of how princes paid tribute once every few years and about the details of their tributes158 was not true but an idealised account by Confucianists of later generations. According to Zhaigong Moufu (祭公谋父, a courtier of the king of Zhou 周) in Discourses on the Governance of the States, Princes in Dian Fu (甸服) paid the same tribute to the king as they paid to their fathers and grandfathers; princes in Hou Fu (侯服) paid to the king the same tribute as they paid to their great-grandfathers or great-great grandfathers; princes in Bin Fu (宾服) paid to the king the same tribute as they paid to their ancestors; princes in Yao Fu (要服) paid to the king the same as they paid to gods; princes in Huang Fu (荒服) had to present themselves before the king. The first category of princes paid tribute everyday; the second once a month; the third once a season; the fourth once a year; and the last once a lifetime.159 These statements are not true either. Zhaigong Moufu himself admitted that the system as recorded was merely based on the teachings of former kings, which indicates that such a system was a tale rather than a practice in his time.

64  The completion of feudalism Regardless, there is no doubt that princes did pay tribute to their king. During the reign of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁), the Marquise of Qi (齐) dispatched troops from a united group of states to attack the State of Chu (楚). Chu asked the State of Qi to explain the reason for this action. Guanzi (管子, the prime minister of Qi) deftly responded that the king was unable to make alcohol for worshipping ancestors because Chu had failed to contribute the citronella grass used for alcohol-making. Hearing that, the representatives of the State of Chu realised that Chu had neglected its duty and responded, “Our state didn’t pay tribute in time to the king, so we accept our responsibility for that. We dare not avoid giving tribute to the king.”160 Evidently it was absolutely obligatory for princes to pay tribute to the king. So, is it safe to conclude that tributes to the king were only aimed at worshipping? Not necessarily. Citronella grass grew in the State of Chu and was chosen as a source of tribute, which shows that tributes were limited to local products. This can be proven true by what Guliang (谷梁) observed: “In the past, princes contributed to the king what their states produced.”161 This demonstrates that it was not only purely idealistic but also absolutely impossible for princes of different Fu to pay certain tributes, in turn, and only on a yearly basis, as stated in The Book of Rites and Discourses on the Governance of the States. Princes did, however, pay tribute according to their ranks. Dukes and marquises owned the largest plots of land and naturally contributed more to the king. The head of Jin (晋) met with other princes to form an alliance when Zichan (子产, also called Gongsun Qiao 公孙侨, the prime minister of Zheng) expressed his disapproval of the practice of tribute paying: The king used to ask for tribute according to princes’ ranks. In the Zhou Dynasty, the higher the ranks, the more the tribute. Those princes who owned Dian Fu (甸服, which was close to Wang Ji 王畿) should contribute more to the king, although their rank was lower. The head of Zheng has been granted the title of baron and allowed to own Nan Fu (男服), so it is unreasonable to ask us to pay the same amount of tribute as dukes and marquises do.162

The completion of feudalism  65 pay the same amount of tribute. Thus, we see that Zichan and Mencius confirmed each other’s theories. A conclusion can be drawn that the amount of princes’ tributes to the king differed according to their ranks and land sizes; dukes and marquises belonged to one rank, counts to another rank and viscounts and barons to a third. According to Zichan, “those princes who owned Dian Fu (甸服, which was close to Wang Ji 王畿) should contribute more to the king, although their rank was lower.” This is confusing as dian (甸) only referred to the area closer to the land owned by the king and hardly had anything to do with ranks and tributes. As Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) put it, “princes didn’t contribute chariots and costumes to the king as tribute; the king should never seek to accumulate personal assets by asking for tribute.”163 Treasures like gold, silver and chariots were not considered tribute to the king. Princes were obliged to pay tribute, but it was a norm for the king not to ask for anything from them. This is why Confucius documented in a sarcastic tone the request for chariots and gold by the king of Zhou: As recorded by Confucius, King Huan (桓) of Zhou sent its minister, Jia Fu (家父), to the State of Lu to ask for chariots and sent another minister, Mao Bo (毛伯), to the State of Lu to ask for gold, but neither of the two requests was in line with the rites of the Zhou Dynasty. Zuo Qiuming (左丘明), Gongyang (公羊) and Guliang (谷梁) all interpreted the two requests in the same way as Confucius because such requests ran contrary to the norm: The king ought not to make such requests or any other requests at all.164 2 Tribute was paid on a regular basis. It was incumbent upon princes to help, especially after disasters. The king would inform all princes in the aftermath of natural disasters. He would not state exactly what was needed, but all princes had to duly heed the call and come to the king’s rescue. During the reign of Duke Yin (隐) of Lu (鲁), the representative of the Zhou Dynasty came to the State of Lu to ask for food as the Zhou was suffering from a famine. Duke Yin of Lu thus informed the states of Song (宋), Wei (卫), Qi (齐) and Zheng (郑) about the Zhou’s request, and asked them to help the Zhou. Zuo Qiuming called what Duke Yin did an act of decorum,165 implying that he did the right thing. 3 Services a

Labour The most important component of providing labour was building city walls for the king. During the reign of King Cheng (成) of Zhou, the city walls of the Capital “Dongdu” (东都) (this Capital city was also known as Chengzhou (成周) in history) were jointly built by labourers from various states.166 During the reign of King Jing (敬) of Zhou, he sent courtiers named Fuxin (富辛) and Shi Zhang (石张) to the State of Jin (晋), asking its head to call on other

66  The completion of feudalism

b

princes to help build the city wall for the king was suffering from a power decline and had to depend on princes’ long-term military service to protect him. The State of Jin agreed after careful consideration. Viscount Wei Xian (魏献子, a minister of the State of Jin) sent Bo Yin (伯音) to reply, “Your Majesty, we must obey your order and inform other princes about it. The schedule for construction and the plan for assignments of city wall building will be submitted to you for approval.”167 This precious historical document illustrates how city walls were built at this time. The State of Jin sent Wei Shu (魏舒, a minister of Jin) and Han Buxin (韩不信, a minister of Jin) to the capital of Dongdu (东都) to meet bureaucrats from other states. Shi Mimou (士弥牟, a bureaucrat of Jin) had calculated the height, length and width of the city walls and the depth of waterways before he sent labourers to fetch soil from the place close to the city walls. In addition, he calculated the time, number of labourers, funds and food that would be needed in order to divide work between states. Shi Mimou (士弥牟) then notified the bureaucrats of all the concerned states about everything in written form.168 It took all of them thirty days to finish the building project.169 If princes failed to follow the king’s order to provide money and workers, they defied the royal family and thus committed the serious crime of indolence. For instance, Zhong Ji (仲几) the bureaucrat of Song (宋) refused to contribute to building the wall and thus infuriated Shi Mimou (士弥牟); as a result, Zhong Ji (仲几) was sent to the Zhou’s capital for trial.170 His punishment corresponded to what was implied in Jin’s answer: “Your Majesty, we must obey your order and inform other princes about it.” From this we can see that princes were indeed duty-bound to provide labour to the king. Military Service Labour, however, was not the most significant service: Military service was. The king’s armed forces alone were too weak to fight against invaders; therefore the assistance of princes was a must. What a king most expected and depended on was military service provided by his princes. Military services, as provided by states to the king of Zhou, fell into two categories: 1

To quell unrest for the king and his royal family:

The first task within this category was to station troops to defend Wang Ji (王畿). When Wang Ji was threatened by enemies and in great need of soldiers to defend it, the king would notify the princes of different states, asking for reinforcements to the capital city.171 The service term was not fixed; troops would withdraw as peace was restored.

The completion of feudalism  67

During the reign of King Xiang (襄) of Zhou, princes had to send soldiers to protect the king from invaders on two occasions.172 King Xiang also asked princes to send troops to help address the civil strife caused by Chao (朝, the son of King Jing 景, the former king).173 Soldiers served under the leadership of bureaucrats from different states. For instance, Zhongsun Qiu (仲孙湫) from the State of Qi (齐) and Yan Mei (阎没) from the State of Jin (晋) both led troops to guard the capital of Zhou; Wei Shu (魏舒, i.e., Viscount Wei Xian 魏献子) and Shi Mimou (士弥 牟) from the State of Jin helped build the city walls of Zhou, while Zhong Ji (仲几) from the State of Song (宋) refused to do so (see previous paragraphs). Princes themselves did not travel with their troops, not only because they could not afford to leave their own posts as heads of states for long but also because the work involved was too intricate and often brought too many changes for princes to handle. “Changes” refers to the fact that when troops were deployed, they served as a deterrent to the enemy; once they withdrew, however, invaders would seek to attack again. So, comparatively speaking, building city walls was a better option when attempting to achieve enduring peace. In the thirteenth reigning year of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁), princes sent troops to guard Zhou; three years later, troops were deployed for the second time. In addition, the term of such a service was not fixed. For instance, such services were required in five out of King Jing’s ten reigning years.174 Frequent services caused serious follow-up problems concerning the employment of people, their food and wages. This was why King Jing of Zhou sent Fuxin (富辛) and Shi Zhang (石张) to the State of Jin to ask princes to help build city walls instead of sending military guards: “In so doing, soldiers will toil no more, princes can be spared this task and invaders will cease causing troubles.” Viscount Fanxian (范献, a bureaucrat of Jin 晋) also noted, “It is better to build strong city walls than to simply send guards.”175 Weapons in ancient times were far from advanced; therefore as long as city walls were solid enough, a small group of guards could stand firm against any enemies. The second task within this first category was to quell unrest for the ruling family. This constituted a step-by-step process to guard the king, but swift action had to be taken once there was a crisis like invasion or civil strife. The military headed by the king was too weak to protect the royal family, so the only way to ensure their safety was through the aid of the princes’ troops.

68  The completion of feudalism

2

The king would inform princes when troubles hit. In the first reigning year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu (鲁), the king of Zhou sent messengers to inform the State of Lu and other states of his defeat.176 In the twenty-fourth reigning year of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁), the king of Zhou notified the states of Lu, Jin (晋), Qin (秦) and others about his flight to Sidi (汜地, located in the State of Zheng郑) as a result of the insurgence of his younger brother Dai (带).177 When the king was in trouble, it was the duty of princes to provide assistance. After King Xiang’s escape to Zheng, the Count of Qin (秦) stationed his troops by the Yellow River in order to escort King Xiang back. Hu Yan (狐偃, a minister of Jin 晋) persuaded the Marquis of Jin to seize this opportunity, shouldering the duty of helping the king and calling for solidarity among princes. The head of Jin acted immediately and sent two groups of soldiers to the king’s aid. One group intended to hunt down the culprit, while the other went to Sidi (汜地) to help King Xiang return.178 Although he helped the king with his own interests in mind, his actions clearly indicate that aiding the king was an ingrained idea among princes. By the end of the Spring and Autumn Period, amid the decline of the royal family, princes did not need to follow every order, but to assist the king when necessary was still considered an obligation. For instance, King Jing (敬) of Zhou escaped to Diquan (狄泉) due to civil strife headed by Chao (朝, the son of the former king). The head of Jin (晋) then met with other princes to discuss the matter. The next year, bureaucrats from Jin (晋), Song (宋), Wei (卫), Zheng (郑), Cao (曹), Zhu (邾), Xue (薛) and Xiao Zhu (小邾) gathered in Huang Fu (黄父). During their meeting, Viscount Zhaojian (赵简, the minister of Jin) asked them to prepare food and soldiers for the following year. In the twenty-sixth reigning year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu (鲁), the troops of the State of Jin succeeded in conquering the city of Gong (巩), and Ying (盈, the Count of the State of Zhao 召) drove away Chao (朝). At last, King Jing (敬) of Zhou returned safely.179 To keep unruly princes in check for the king In addition to protecting the king from aggression, there was another form of service, that is, to safeguard the authority of the king and the order and unification of the empire when other princes failed to follow its order or even plotted rebellion against the king. The simplest form of this service arose when the king appointed his loyal princes to attack unruly princes. For instance, when the head of Song refused to assist the king, the

The completion of feudalism  69

Count of Zheng (郑), who also served as a courtier of the king, delivered the king’s order to attack Song.180 In another example, when a revolution struck Quwo (曲沃), the king of Zhou sent the head of Guo (虢) to Quwo and anointed Aihou (哀侯) as the head of Jin (晋) in the place of Yi (翼).181 When one state alone was unable to defeat a wayward prince, it would unite other states. For instance, when the Count of Zheng (郑) failed to beat the State of Song, he informed the princes of other states about it in order to win their support. Troops from the states of Lu (鲁), Qi (齐) and Zheng finally united, and achieved an overwhelming victory over the State of Song (宋).182 The states of Cai (蔡), Wei and Cheng (郕), however, did not obey the king’s order to attack the State of Song; consequently one of them, i.e., the State of Cheng (郕), was besieged by the army of Qi and Zheng as a punishment.183 Occasionally, the king would send his own troops and ask princes’ troops to join them. For instance, to punish the Count of Zheng for failing to present himself before the king, King Huan (桓) of Zhou led his forces, along with troops from the states of Guo, Cai, Chen (陈) and Wei, to attack the State of Zheng.184 In another instance, Chao (朝) fled to the State of Chu (楚) after his rebellion was defeated. The king of Zhou thus ordered Duke Wen of Liu (刘文公) to ask eighteen states, such as Jin, Song, Cai, Wei, Chen, Zheng, Xu (许), Cao, Ju (莒), Zhu, Dun (顿), Hu (胡), Teng (滕), Xue, Qi (杞), Xiao Zhu and Qi (齐) to jointly attack the State of Chu. The State of Shen (沈), however, refused to join and was consequently captured by the State of Cai as a punishment. However, Duke Wen of Liu (刘文公) passed away soon after, and the plan to attack Chu was thus abandoned.185 It was an unpardonable offence for princes to fail to fulfil their obligations, let alone to attempt to subvert the royal empire. It was also a serious crime for them to invade each other’s states; any military operations without the king’s approval were not only a sign of disrespect to the royal power but also caused disruption. However, during the Spring and Autumn Period, princes attacked each other at will on a regular basis, while the king was rendered powerless. When the military of Chu besieged the State of Jiang (江), the head of Jin informed the king of Zhou, and he ordered Duke Huan (桓) of the State of Wangshu to come to the rescue of the State of Jiang, along with Yang Chufu (阳处父, a bureaucrat of Jin).186 The king’s coming to the rescue of a state, however, was rare during this period.

70  The completion of feudalism

The completion of feudalism  71 the king selected fiefs located in suburban areas for their food and accommodation.”199 This idea was echoed by a full account in the essay “King’s System,” which discussed princes’ enjoyment of accommodation, food and bath services in fiefs within Wang Ji (王畿) during their visit to the king.200 In addition, according to Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, a fief owned by a grand scholarofficial appointed by the king was less than fifty square li; this idea is yet to be proven. Princes were responsible for safeguarding the king and his power; they were required to be on duty regularly and to be deeply supportive of the king. They were also required to send representatives to meet the king each year on behalf of them when they were occupied or did not have to visit the king in person. The main job of these representatives was to pay tributes and taxes. For instance, Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣子) was sent to visit the king of Zhou and asked by the king’s delegate why he had paid such a visit; he replied, “The State of Jin (晋) has sent me to pay tribute, and that is why I am here.”201 According to Du Yu’s annotations, tributes referred to tributes of four seasons altogether. 6 Some ministers and bureaucrats were installed directly by the king. In this way, on the one hand, the king was able to use them to keep track of the political conditions of different states. On the other hand, they could also help the king supervise princes. For instance, in the first reigning year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁), Shan Bo (单伯, a minister of Zhou) welcomed the daughter of the king. According to Gongyang (公羊), “Shan Bo was a minister appointed by the king.”202 A similar situation was recorded in “King’s System”: In a big state, all three ministers were appointed by the king; in a secondary state, two of them were appointed by the king and the third one by the head of the state; in a small state, there were only two ministers both of whom were appointed by the head of the state. 7 To worship with the king. “When the king went to worship gods, princes must be present to receive orders.”203 When the king went to worship on Mount Tai (泰山), princes went with him. At the foot of Mount Tai, each of the princes was granted a fief that would provide him with accommodation, food and bath. For instance, Bing (邴) was such a fief for the head of Zheng (郑).204 a

After the king finished his seasonal worship rituals, he would award worship meat to the princes. For instance, in the fourteenth reigning year of Duke Ding (定) of Lu (鲁), the king sent Shi Shang (石尚, a scholar-official) to award princes worship meat called shen (脤) and fan (膰).205 During the reign of Duke Huan (桓) of Qi (齐), the

72  The completion of feudalism

b

c

king asked Zai Kong (宰孔) to award princes worship meat called zuo (胙).206 This indicates that the award of worship meat was not only given to princes with the same surname as the king but also to those who had different surnames. Rewards related to death. This included two categories: feng (赗), namely rewards to the family of the deceased, and a jade tablet to put in the deceased’s mouth. For instance, the king of Zhou (周) sent Xuan (咺, a minister) to bring feng 207 (namely carriages and horses) to the late Duke Hui (惠)’s wife, Zhongzi (仲子). This example falls into the first category. The king of Zhou sent Rongshu (荣叔, the head of the State of Rong) to bring a piece of jade to put into the mouth of Chengfeng (成风), the deceased wife of the Duke of Lu.208 This falls into the second category. According to He Xiu’s annotations, different classes were entitled to different jewels, put in their mouths after they passed away. “Kings had pearls in their mouths; princes had jades; bureaucrats had jasper; scholars had shells.”209 Princes were rewarded for their diligence or contribution to the king. 1

To award costumes and implements.

Such awards were documented in bulk in bronze inscriptions on Mao Gong Ding (毛公鼎), Xiao Chen Dan Zhi (小臣单觯, zhi was a vessel for containing alcohol), Ling Gui (令簋), Qin Gui (禽簋), Xiao Chen Zhai Gui (小臣宅簋), Lv Gui (旅鼎), Lv Ding (吕鼎), Ci Ding (刺鼎), Lu Gui (录簋), Lu Bo Dong Gui (录伯冬簋), Xian Ji Gui (县妀簋), Wu Yi (吴彝), Shi Tang Fu Ding (师汤父鼎), Mu Gui (牧簋), Dou Bi Gui (豆闭簋), Shi Kui Fu Ding (师奎父鼎), Li Ding (利鼎), Shi Ju Ding (师遽鼎), Yao Ding (舀鼎), Mao Gui (卯簋) and so on. Rewards in this category usually included ju chang (秬鬯), plates and bowls, gui (圭), gold, carriages, horses, bows and arrows, battle axes, robes, ornaments and flags. According to The Spring and Autumn Annals, the king of Zhou awarded the queen’s belt, decorated with bronze mirrors, to the Count of Zheng (郑) and a bronze wine bottle to the Count of Guo (虢). Such awards were honours to those who received them.210 There was also a form of reward associated not only with honour but also with special meanings. For example: King Xiang (襄) of Zhou awarded the following to Duke Wen (文) of Jin (晋): Large carriages, chariots and wellmatched clothing and guards, a red bow and a hundred red arrows, ten black bows and ten thousand arrows, a jar of wine made from black rice and vanilla, three hundred warriors, battle axes and the land of Nanyang (南阳).211 It is noteworthy that bows, arrows and battle axes had significant implications because when princes received such

The completion of feudalism  73

2

awards they were granted the right to crusade against other princes, i.e., to conquer and kill them. Bronze inscriptions mentioned a great number of awards of costumes and implements, but they seldom mentioned weapons: Little is known about the weapons awarded to Mao Gong, but in inscriptions on the tripod of Mao Gong Ding, we have found lines like “To award soldiers to you.” (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on Mao Gong Ding (毛公鼎).) Shu Yi (叔夷) was awarded “chariots, horses and soldiers.” (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on Shu Yi Zhong (叔夷钟).) Shi Hui (师毁) was awarded “spears with carvings on, leather handles and hat tassels.” (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on Shi Hui Gui (师毁簋).) Bo Chen (伯辰) was awarded “five brigades, red bows and arrows, brigade bows and arrows, spears and armours.” (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on the tripod of Bo Chen Ding (伯辰鼎).) Shi Tangfu (师汤父) was awarded bows and arrows. (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on Shi Tang Fu Ding (师汤父鼎).) Shi Kuifu (师奎父) was awarded “spears with carvings on.” (For more information, please refer to inscriptions on the tripod of Shi Kui Fu Ding (师奎父鼎).) The inscriptions on Mao Gong Ding stated it most clearly: “To award troops to you for deployment,” which means that the prince (i.e., “you”) was granted the right to use military force. As regards the significance of these words from inscriptions, they are similar to what King Xiang (襄) of Zhou said to Duke Wen (文) of Jin (晋) when he appointed him: “To obey the king’s order, befriend other states and punish traitors.”212 Further evidence was provided by “King’s System”: “Princes were allowed to attack their counterparts if granted bows and arrows and to kill their counterparts if they were granted axes.” To award land. For instance, the king of Zhou awarded the land of Bin (邠) and the land of Qi (岐) to the states of Qin (秦) and Jin (晋).213 Upon the establishment of feudalism in the early Zhou Dynasty, all land had already been divided among princes, and there were only two ways to award land to princes: First, to take land from within the king’s own fief as awards. For instance, King Hui (惠) of Zhou gave the land

74  The completion of feudalism

3

of Jiuquan (酒泉), within his own fief, to the Duke of Guo (虢) and the land to the east of Hulao (虎牢) to the Count of Zheng (郑).214 Second, to take land that had been confiscated from the convicted as awards for others. For instance, the fief of Wen (温) once belonged to the great judge Su Fensheng (苏忿生) and his successors, but eventually, a successor rebelled against the king, along with Tui (颓, the son of the former king). Of course, the rebellion failed, and the rebels fled to Di (狄) and Wei (卫). Thus, King Xiang (襄) of Zhou gave the fief of Wen to the Duke of Jin.215 It was often difficult for the king to find land to grant as an award, for land had already been exhausted in the early Zhou period when the king of Zhou enfeoffed his princes. Therefore such awarding rarely happened. Land was awarded only to those who had made tremendous contributions to the Zhou Dynasty. For instance, the Duke of Guo and the Count of Zheng fought valiantly against Tui, and ultimately killed him. Duke Wen (文) of Jin managed to quell the unrest plotted by Tui Shu (颓叔, a bureaucrat of Zhou), Taozi (桃子, a bureaucrat of Zhou) and Da Shu (大叔, namely, Dai 带, the son of King Hui 惠 of Zhou). In these two events, the dukes helped restore the power of King Xiang of Zhou and King Hui of Zhou, respectively,216 so, they were granted extra land as awards. These examples illustrate the extreme conditions under which additional land was awarded to princes. The king could still take away a prince’s land, even if the prince was innocent, but as such doings of the king were not justified, they often led to disasters, like riot or rebellion. For instance, King Huan (桓) of Zhou captured twelve pieces of land from Su Zi, one descendant of Su Fensheng (苏忿生), and King Hui of Zhou took land that had been owned by bureaucrats of Zi Qin (子禽), Zhu Gui (祝跪) and Zhai Fu (祭 父). What the two kings did inevitably incurred discontent. Hence the unrest of Tui.217 To award titles. This award fell into two categories: Titles conferred upon princes when they were still alive and titles conferred posthumously. For instance, the king sent Mao Bowei (毛伯卫, the head of Mao) to confer a title upon Duke Wen (文) of Lu (鲁) during Wen’s reign.218 The king sent Rongshu (荣叔) to award a posthumous title to the late Duke Huan (桓) of Lu.219

The completion of feudalism  75

According to Gongyang (公羊), this award gave additional Fu (服) to princes.220 However, “Fu” referred to the distance between princes’ land and the land owned by the king, including Hou Fu (侯服), Dian Fu (甸服) and Nan Fu (男服); it had nothing to do with the noble ranks of princes. So, why was it given as an award? The fact was that when the dukes of Huan and Wen were awarded titles, their ranks remained the same. This demonstrates that such awards had nothing to do with ranks. According to “King’s System”: The king’s Three Dukes could each have nine titles at most; if they were to have more titles, they would only be awarded those titles by the king in person. In a secondary state, the head could have seven titles at most; in a small state, five titles at most.

Although this notion is not completely convincing, it works as a reference for us to use in examining the awarding of titles. Such awarding of titles did not promote princes, but it is my belief that they did benefit princes in terms of how they could be treated and how sophisticated their costumes could become. As Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) pointed out, when princes passed away during their meeting with the king, the level of their funeral would be elevated by one notch; when they sacrificed themselves fighting for the king, the level of their funeral would be elevated by two notches and they were allowed to use the burial shroud reserved only for the king.221

For instance, Duke Mu (穆) of Xu (许) had been a baron; he died while fighting at war for the king and was honoured with a marquis’ funeral, two levels higher than that which a baron necessitated. Therefore, it can be concluded that he was only treated as a marquis at his funeral but was never granted an official promotion from baron to marquis. 9 To report and attend celebrations and funerals (or any other important events). All princes had to be notified when the king died. When King Ling (灵) of Zhou passed away, royal messengers were sent to inform all states about it, and jia yin (甲寅, the 16th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), the date of his death, was also made known to all.222 This example shows that it was the norm to notify princes of the king’s death and the exact date. Regrettably, when King Qing (顷) died, Duke Yue (阅) of Zhou (周), who was also serving as a minister of the Zhou Dynasty, was competing with Wangsun Su (王孙苏, a minister of the Zhou Dynasty)

76  The completion of feudalism for leadership in the royal court and so did not bring news of the king’s death to any princes. As a result, the event of King Qing’s death was not recorded in The Spring and Autumn Annals. So, Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) observed: If the royal family failed to inform all states of the king’s death or if princes failed to report their celebrations and disasters to the king, then no information about such history would be recorded in The Spring and Autumn Annals.223 We can see that it was completely disrespectful to fail to inform princes of the king’s death, and The Spring and Autumn Annals’ not recording/ ignoring a certain historical event means condemnation of what happened or serves as a punishment for the concerned parties. Upon hearing the news of a king’s death, princes had to donate money. That is why when King Ping (平) of Zhou passed away, and the State of Lu (鲁) failed to give money, Wushizi (武氏子, a bureaucrat of the king) was sent by the royal family to demand money. Concerning this, Zuo Qiuming noted, “The king was not buried yet,” and Du Yu’s annotations added that “the head of Lu refused to give money, so the royal family demanded it and accused the State of Lu of being disrespectful.”224 According to Guliang (谷梁), it was a norm for princes to donate money to the royal family upon the king’s death but it was no norm at all for the royal family to demand the donation of money after the king died. Even if the royal family of Zhou hadn’t made a request for money, the State of Lu was still obliged to offer it; but on the other hand, it was also wrong for the court of Zhou to make the request even though the State of Lu was reluctant to do so. So The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded this event simply by using the words ‘asked for money’ in a sarcastic tone to mock both sides, as such diction indicated both the royal family and the State of Lu went against the norm and became disrespectful.225 All the princes should be present at the king’s funeral. Unfortunately, when King Ling (灵) of Zhou was buried, the State of Chu (楚) was preparing for the funeral of its own head, King Kang (康). (By then the State of Chu already called its head “king.”) The Count of Zheng (郑), the Marquis of Lu (鲁) and the Baron of Xu (许) were in Chu attending King Kang’s funeral, and thus did not have time to go to the funeral of King Ling of Zhou. As a result, the Marquis of Lu did not appear at the funeral of King Ling of Zhou. (Du Yu’s annotations: The Spring and Autumn Annals did not mention the State of Lu when recording this event because its head failed to respond to the king’s death.) The State of Zheng intended to send Yin Duan (印段), the bureaucrat, to Zhou to attend King Ling’s funeral. Boyou (伯有, a bureaucrat of Zheng) said

The completion of feudalism  77 that Yin Duan was too young and too lowly for this. In truth, Zizhan (子展, a minister of Zheng) was qualified as a representative at King Ling’s funeral, but he was occupied at the moment and could not attend it. For this reason, Zizhan said that it did not matter as long as someone was sent to pay respect. He added that more attention had to be paid to uniting and assisting the states of Jin (晋) and Chu (楚) in order to safeguard the empire since the royal family always had too many tasks, big or small, for princes to fulfil. Zizhan held that in such circumstances the State of Zheng did not have to follow routines, and Yin Duan was as qualified as anybody else to show respect to the king. As a result, Yin Duan was sent to attend King Ling’s funeral.226 These historical records indicate that princes were obliged to attend the king’s funeral. So, why did the princes of Zheng, Lu and other states go to the funeral of the head of Chu instead? Judging from Zizhan’s remarks, the State of Jin and the State of Chu were great powers at the time, so, smaller and weaker states had to succumb to them and gain their favour, even at the expense of the king of Zhou. If the opposite had been true, that is, if princes were not expected to attend the king’s funeral at all, then they need not have attended the funeral of the head of Chu either since the head of Chu, as a prince, was certainly supposed to enjoy less privileges than the king of Zhou. The king would have to send officials to express his condolences when his princes passed away, so it can be inferred that much more was expected of princes when the king died. Boyou (伯有) thought that his State of Zheng should at least send a more qualified official than Yin Duan to express condolences since the Count of Zheng could not attend King Ling’s funeral in person as expected. In contrast to Boyou, who stuck to established principles, Zizhan was trying to justify his own ideas; in fact he was reluctant to follow routines simply because he feared powers like the State of Chu and had contempt for the declining Zhou. If a prince passed away, the king would be informed. According to Gongyang (公羊), The Spring and Autumn Annals always mentioned a prince’s name when recording his death but never mentioned a prince’s name when recording his funeral. Some examples of this are: “In June, on the date of ji hai (己亥, the 12th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), Kaofu (考父), the Marquis of Cai (蔡) passed away,” and “In August, the funeral of Duke Xuan (宣) of Cai was held.” This was because death was dealt with according to the rites of Zhou, while funeral according to the rites of the states concerned…The king must be told about princes’ deaths but not their funerals. (He Xiu’s annotations: The king must be told about the sad news of his princes’ deaths because the king was always concerned about them. In addition, the illnesses and deaths of the king’s ministers and bureaucrats should also be reported.) 227

78  The completion of feudalism The king would send officials to express condolences and grant jewels, carriages and horses at the same time (see above). Ministers and bureaucrats were sent by the king to attend princes’ funerals. For instance, when the funeral of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁) was held, the king sent Shu Fu (叔服, a law official). Gongyang (公羊), the historian, thought the king did the right thing for he followed the rites of the Zhou Dynasty. Guliang (谷梁), the historian, noted, “Historical documents recorded this event to highlight the king’s good deeds.”228 The above discussion (from (1) – (9)) presents a general picture of the relationship between the king and his princes. There is another special relationship, that is, between the king and a small number of specific princes, which will be discussed next. 10 Princes serving as important courtiers of the king. Duke Wu (武) of Zheng (郑), Duke Zhuang (庄) of Zheng (郑) and Jifu (忌父, the Duke of Guo (虢)) all doubled as courtiers of the king’s court.229 They had considerable political influence throughout the empire of the Zhou Dynasty. For instance, under the name of the king’s important courtier, Duke Zhuang (庄) of Zheng (郑) launched a war against the State of Song (宋) and requested other states’ assistance in fighting the State of Song (see above). If Duke Zhuang of Zheng’s political power had not been granted by the king, then he would not have complained about the king’s decision when the king planned to appoint Jifu (忌父, the Duke of Guo) as important courtier to replace him.230 11 Marriage between the royal family and princes’ family. The marriage between the king and the daughter of a prince or between a prince and the daughter of the king (see details in Chapter 6) strengthened the bonds between the king and his princes, and helped enhance their mutual trust.

Notes 1 “All the land under the heaven is the king’s; all people on this land are his subjects” (The Book of Songs·Xiaoya·Beishanzhishi·Beishan). 2 “People live in the land of one thousand square li owned by the king” (The Book of Songs·Shangsong·Xuanniao). “The previous king designated one thousand square li of land as Dian Fu to worship gods and mountains, to provide our people with residence and to protect the ruling power from any rebellion and disasters. The rest of the land were divided among dukes, marquises, counts, viscounts and barons for their settlement” (Discourses on the Governance of the States·Zhou Yu). Zichan said, “The land owned by the previous king covered one qi, namely one thousand square li” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-five). “King’s land that covered one thousand square li was called qi” (Yizhoushu·Zhifang). 3 “Shen Bo was diligent so that the king assigned him to manage Nanjiang and gave him fiefs to set him as an example of southern states…The king of Zhou asked Zhaobo to re-demarcate Shen Bo’s land…The king of Zhou

The completion of feudalism  79

4 5

6

7 8

9

10 11

ordered Zhaobo to demarcate the land owned by Shen Bo…” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). “By the Yangtze River and the Han River, the king gave an order to Zhaohu: ‘To conquer new land and demarcate borders’” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Jianghan). See the section titled “Relationship between princes and the king” for further information. “The king of Zhou asked Zhaobo to measure the new house of Shen Bo…Shen Bo was carrying out a huge project; Zhaobo was also working hard. City walls were thick and strong and temples were well built and magnificent…” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). Da Yu Ding: “The king said: ‘Yu…You shall assist me in ruling the people and this land…You are awarded four officials, six hundred and fifty-nine people including servants and commoners, thirteen courtiers of different surnames and one thousand and fifty from other tribes’” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 33). Ibid. “The king of Zhou ordered Shen Bo to set an example for southern states and build new fiefs and cities with the help of people from Xie” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). Ziyu said, “To award the six families of Tiao, Xu, Xiao, Suo, Changshao and Weishao from the previous Yin Dynasty to the head of Lu…To award seven families of Tao, Shi, Fan, Qi, Fan, Ji and Zhongkui from the previous Yin Dynasty to Kangshu…Danji was awarded land; Taoshu was awarded subjects” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Four). Zizhong Jiang Bo: “The head of Qi awarded to Tao Shu two hundred and ninety-nine fiefs and those living there that used to belong to Qi” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 249). Ling Gui: “King Zhao attacked the State of Chu. Bomaofu was assigned to Yan. Chu was under attack in September. An officer paid food as tribute to the king’s wife, who then gave the officer fifty shells, ten slaves and their families and one hundred slaves who used to be prisoners of war to the officer” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, pp. 4–5). Da Yu Ding: “You are awarded four officials, six hundred and fifty-nine people including servants and commoners, thirteen courtiers of different surnames and one thousand and fifty from other tribes” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 33). Ling Ding: “To award thirty servants to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 25). Bu Ying Gui: “To award five servants to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 103). Da Ke Ding: “To award fiefs by the mountain as well as servants…workers, instrument players to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, pp. 124–131). Shi Hui Gui: “servants, workers and craftsmen” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 111). Shu Yi Zhong: “To award carriages, horses, soldiers and three hundred and fifty servants to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 245). Fu Gui: “To award ten foreign courtiers to you” (see On Ancient Bronze Inscriptions by Guo Moruo, pp. 15–16). “The king ordered Fu Yu (a title for administrative officer; an officer with such a title) to move there” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). Da Yu Ding: “The king said: Yu…To award land, a container of wine, ornamented costumes, carriages, horses and hunting flags owned by Nangong to you…” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, pp. 32–33).

80  The completion of feudalism Bu Ying Gui: “To award a bow and a bunch of arrows to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 103). Da Ke Ding: “To award worship costumes with belts to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, pp. 124–125). Shu Yi Zhong: “To award carriages, horses and soldiers to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 245). Mao Gong Ding: “To award a jar of wine, wine bottles for worship, red knee pads, belts, jade rings and tablets, a bronze carriage, ornamented carriage wood, leather handles of carriage, a carriage case, horse harnesses, front handles of carriage with carvings on, bronze reins, ornamented frames of carriage, bronze costumes, fish-leather arrow bags, four horses, snaffles, bronze horse caps, bronze ropes and two flags to you for worship and deployment of troops” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 151). Mao Gui: “To award ten horses and cows to you” (see Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 92). “The king of Zhou awarded carriages and horses to Shen Bo…A jade tablet was also awarded” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). “To award jade and wine to you” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Jianghan). 12 “The king went to worship under the dragon flag, six reins in his hands. There were two seasons of worship of spring and autumn; he paid tribute to the ancestor wholeheartedly. The glorious gods granted prosperity to the people; whole cows were provided on the altar for the gods to feast on. Bliss descended on the earth; and the great king of Zhou was the source of the well-being of all” (The Book of Songs·Lusong·Bigong). “To prepare for the worship in autumn, ox horns were already fixed in summertime. Red and white bulls are in order; ox-shaped wine bottles clink. Roast pigs and fresh broth fill huge containers. A grand dancing show is going on. Offspring revel in prosperity and bliss. May the reign of Xi, the head of Lu be ever-lasting! May you live a long and happy life! You own this vast and rich land and ruled a state of peace and fortune. The order is maintained and mountains stand still; the earth is firm and seas are calm. Long live the head of state just as the magnificent mountains!” (The Book of Songs·Lusong·Bigong). “You shall be cautious and respectful to do your filial duty well, and at the same time respect gods and people” (The Book of History·Zhou·Viscount Wei).

“Do not bully those who have no relatives…To learn from the previous kings about the way to nurture your people…Gods helps those who help themselves. If you fail to do that, the people will riot. You must do your utmost. You must not seek pleasure and comfort to manage your people well…You must protect your people as if they were your own children…You must respect the law to nurture your people…In this way, the people can settle…Therefore our ancestors will not blame or abandon you…You must heed my call and know your duties to rule your people” (The Book of History·Zhou· Kang Gao). “The king is fair and only assist those with morality. The people don’t follow you unless you are kind and loving. Kindness comes in different forms with the same outcome of peace and security. Evil comes in different forms with the same outcome of riots. You must keep this in mind. Do something cautiously at the beginning so that the end goes well too. Otherwise, the prospects will be grim. You must try your best to befriend your neighbours and

The completion of feudalism  81

14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

23

24

states and protect the king of Zhou and provide your people with prosperity. Be moderate instead of tampering with the tradition. Be cautious with what you hear and see. Do not waver because of others’ opinions. If you can achieve all that, I will praise you” (The Book of History·Zhou·Cai Zhong). “You shall expand land to strengthen the reign of the king of Zhou” (The Book of Songs·Lusong·Bigong). “To guard the king” (The Book of History·Zhou·Viscount Wei). “These uncles of yours hope you can care for each other and protect the king just as your ancestors. Although you do not need to deal with political matters, you must care about and assist the king. Otherwise, the shame is on me. Remember this” (The Book of History·Zhou·Kang Gao). “The former king of Zhou ordered the ancestors of our two states: ‘I must have your full support. I award land to you. You shall pay tribute to worship ancestors and bring enduring peace to your offspring’” (Discourses on the Governance of the States·Lu Yu I). “Shen Bo was to leave; the king of Zhou saw him off in Mei” (The Book of Songs·Daya·Dangzhishi·Songgao). “Fuchen said: ‘Previously, the king lamented that Guanshu and Cai Shu didn’t obey; so their lands were confiscated and then given to the king’s other relatives’” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-four). Xunzi·Ruxiao. Cheng Juan replied, “…Previously, King Wu of Zhou overthrew the Shang Dynasty and gained the ruling power. Fifteen of his brothers were awarded states; forty people of the same surname of Ji were awarded states.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-eight). Ibid. Xunzi·Ruxiao. The Records of the Historian·Seventeen·Chronology of Princes Since the Founding of the Han Dynasty. “Fuchen said: ‘Previously, the king lamented that Guanshu and Cai Shu didn’t obey; so their land was confiscated and then given to the king’s other relatives. The heads of the states of Guan, Cai, Cheng, Huo, Lu, Wei, Mao, Dan, Gao, Yong, Cao, Teng, Bi, Yuan, Feng and Xun were the Zhao sons of Wen the former king; those of Xing, Jin, Ying and Han were the Mu sons of Wu the former king; those of Fan, Jiang, Xing, Mao, Zuo and Zhai were the sons of Duke Dan of Zhou’” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-four). “The king said that Heaven had cursed the Zhou Dynasty, for my brothers had betrayed the Zhou Dynasty. My uncle, this is worrying for you and me; the states of my close relatives were also unsettled” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirty-two). “Fuchai the head of Wu returned from a meeting in Huangchi and sent Wangsun Gou to report his contributions to the king of Zhou…The king said to Wangsun Gou: “My uncle (referring to the head of Wu) has sent you here to show his support to me…My uncle has promised he would work hand in hand with me; if he is to do so, that will be my blessing. He has great virtues. I wish him health and longevity” (Discourses on the Governance of the States·Wu Yu). The king said to Duke Dan of Zhou, “My uncle, I now appoint your eldest son as the head of Lu; he shall go there to expand his land to defend the royal family.” (The Book of Songs·Lusong·Bigong). “The head of Jin asked to be buried in a tunnel grave after his death; the king declined his request and said: ‘My uncle, you know the rule is that only the king can be buried that way after death. If I agreed, it would be as if there were two kings. I think you would not approve of going against the rule’” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-five).

82  The completion of feudalism

The completion of feudalism  83

84  The completion of feudalism



















The completion of feudalism  85

112

113 114 115 116 117

one hundred li in this case, there were fiefs owned by bureaucrats; within two hundred li, small state; within three hundred li, fiefs owned by princes. Within the distance of five hundred li from Hou Fu, there was Sui Fu, where the king promoted mass education. On land within the distance of three hundred li from Hou Fu, the king practised rites, music and education; within four to five hundred li, defence was enhanced to protect the king. Within the distance of five hundred li from Sui Fu, there was Yao Fu, where princes must follow the king’s orders. On land within the distance of three hundred li in this case, people co-existed peacefully; on land within four to five hundred li, people respected the order of the king. Within the distance of five hundred li from Yao Fu, there was Huang Fu, where guards were deployed. On land within the distance of three hundred li in this case, things were desolate and underdeveloped. People came and went there with no constraints. On land within the distance of four to five hundred li in this case, people could reside in any place to their own accord” (The Book of History·Xia Shu·Yu Gong). “Princes in Dian Fu paid tributes to the king the same as they paid to their fathers and grandfathers; princes in Hou Fu paid to the king the same as they paid to their great-grandfathers or great-great grandfathers; princes in Bin Fu paid to the king the same as they paid to their ancestors; princes in Yao Fu paid to the king the same as they paid to gods; princes in Huang Fu must present themselves before the king. The first category of princes paid tributes everyday; the second once a month; the third once a season; the fourth once a year; and the last once a lifetime” (Discourses on the Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I). “Areas covering one thousand square li were Wang Ji, namely land directly controlled by the king. Land within the distance of five hundred li from the king’s land was Hou Ji, namely land owned by princes. Land within the distance of five hundred li from princes’ land was called Dian Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Dian Ji was called Nan Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Nan Ji was called Cai Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Cai Ji was called Wei Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Wei Ji was called Man Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Man Ji was called Yi Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Yi Ji was called Zhen Ji. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Zhen Ji was called Fan Ji” (The Rites of Zhou·Sima the Official from Xia). “Areas covering one thousand square li were Wang Qi, namely land owned by the king. Land within the distance of five hundred li from the king’s land was Hou Fu, land owned by princes. Land within the distance of five hundred li from princes’ lands was called Dian Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Dian Fu was called Nan Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Nan Fu was called Cai Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Cai Fu was called Wei Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Wei Fu was called Man Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Man Fu was called Yi Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Yi Fu was called Zhen Fu. Land within the distance of five hundred li from Zhen Fu was called Fan Fu” (Yi Zhou Shu·Zhi Fang). Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 6. Shifu said: “The head of Jin is the Marquis of Dian” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Two). Ziyu said: “The head of Cao is the Count of Dian” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Four). Zichan said: “The head of Zheng is the Baron of Dian” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirteen). Mencius·Wan Zhang II.

86  The completion of feudalism





































The completion of feudalism  87 1 39 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Seventeen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Ten. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Sixteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Four. Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, pp. 130–131. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-eight. Discourses on the Governance of the States·Jin Yu IV. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Eleven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Five. Guanzi·Twenty-two·Shi Yu. Mencius·Wan Zhang II. The Book of History·Zhou Shu·Wu Cheng. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Eleven. “…which was called Hou Fu that contributed worship costumes every year to the king…which was called Dian Fu that contributed what was needed for hosting guests every two years…which was called Nan Fu that contributed implements every three years…which was called Cai Fu that contributed costumes every four years; Wei Fu contributed treasures every five years…which was called Yao Fu that contributed goods every six years” (The Rites of Zhou·Qiu Guan). Discourses on the Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Fifteen. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Fifteen. Huan·Fifteen and Wen·Nine in Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, and Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Six. “Fuxin quoted what the king said: ‘Cheng the former king, along with his princes, built the city walls of Chengzhou and then used this city as his capital in the east’” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirty-two). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirty-two. Ibid. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·One; “What is the crime of Zhongji? He failed to cover the city walls with straws” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals). “When he needed reinforcements, the king told the State of Qi about it; Qi thus asked other princes to jointly guard Zhou” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Sixteen). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirteen and Sixteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirty-two. Ibid. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-four.

88  The completion of feudalism 78 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-five. 1 179 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-two to Twenty-six. 180 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Nine. 181 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. 182 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Ten. 183 Ibid. 184 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Five. 185 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Four. 186 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Three. 187 “Duke Jing of Qi Asked Yanzi About How to Follow the Example of His Predecessor Who Had Conducted Inspection; Yanzi Replied That the King Should Instead Focus on Helping Those Who Had No Land to Support Themselves” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Four; Mencius·King Hui of Liang II). 188 “The king had an inspection around the country every five years. In February of the year, he would go to the eastern part and Mount Tai, burning firewood to worship ancestors and mountains. He would receive princes from the eastern states and go to see the elderly who were one hundred years old. He ordered officers of various states to sing their folk songs for him to get to know their local customs. He asked officers in charge of local markets to report local commodity prices so as to understand what the locals liked and disliked. He ordered rites officers to regulate and correct the local dates of seasons and months as well as music tones, rites and costumes. Heads of states must worship mountains and other ancestors; otherwise, they committed a crime of being disrespectful. As a result of their rudeness, the sizes of their fiefs would be cut. Princes had to carry out worship at temples in a fixed order to show their filial spirit; otherwise, their ranks would be relegated. Any change to music and rites was a defiance of the king; princes would be banished because of it. Any change to institutions and costumes was also a defiance of the king; princes’ states would be attacked as a result. Princes revered by their people should be awarded fiefs and promotion. In May, the king would go to Mount Heng(衡山) in the southern part; the rest was exactly the same as his tour in the eastern part. In August, the king would visit the western part and Mount Hua just the way he toured the southern part. In November, the king would go to the northern part and visit Mount Heng (恒 山) the way he visited the western part” (The Rites of Zhou·King’s System). 189 Mencius·Gao Zi II. 190 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-eight. 191 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-four. 192 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirteen. 193 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six. 194 Discourses on the Governance of the States·Zhou Yu II. 195 Discourses on the Governance of the States·Zhou Yu III. 196 “The princes met with the king to report on how they had fulfilled their duties.” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals); “Duke Jing of Qi Asked Yanzi About How to Follow the Example of His Predecessor Who Had Conducted Inspection; Yanzi Replied That the King Should Instead Focus on Helping Those Who Had No Land to Support Themselves.” 197 “For those who reported on how they had fulfilled their duties, they told the king about what exactly they had done as heads of states” (Mencius·King Hui of Liang II). 198 Mencius·Gao Zi II. 199 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·One. 200 “Princes went to meet the king; they were granted fiefs with accommodation, food and bath located in counties owned by the king. Their fiefs were as

The completion of feudalism  89

201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230

large as those owned by scholar-officials appointed by the king.” (The Rites of Zhou·King’s System). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·One. Discourses on the Governance of the States·Lu Yu I. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Eight. “What is ‘Mai’(脉)? Worship meat or food for worship. It is called “Mai” when raw and called “Fan” when cooked” (Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Fourteen). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Nine. “What is feng? It is horses and silk used for funerals; funeral treasures are called fu; clothing and quilts are called sui” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One). Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Five. He Xiu’s annotations to Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-one. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-eight; Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-eight. Bamboo Annals·Jin. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-one. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Eleven, Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Nineteen and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Ten. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Nineteen to Twenty- one and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Eleven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Eleven and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Nineteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·One. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·One. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-eight. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three and Du Yu’s annotations to the Spring and Autumn Annals. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-nine. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Eight. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Eight; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three and Eight. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three.

3

Land system of feudalism

Allodium of fief owners The previous chapter explained that nobles owned vast fiefs after enfeoffment. This section will be devoted to analysing the allodium of fief owners. It is necessary to examine allodium from the following perspectives: 1

The owners of big fiefs would grant their land to their relatives and subordinates, thus turning them into owners of smaller fiefs. Such reenfeoffment became an important element in the practice of enfeoffment in the feudal system. Meanwhile, it can be seen that once a fief was granted by the king to a noble, it became the allodium of the fief owner. That is to say, a fief once granted to someone would be at the disposal of the owner, and the king would not attend to it any more.

For instance, Duke Zhuang (庄) of Zheng (郑) granted his first younger brother, Gongshu Duan (共叔段), the fief of Jingcheng (京城).1 After rising to power, the Marquis Zhao (昭) of Jin (晋) enfeoffed Quwo (曲沃) to his uncle Huan (桓) and granted him the title of “Count.”2 Although these two instances could serve as evidence of enfeoffment, they were actually unusual and unconventional. According to the principles of feudalism, there should be certain standards3: “power should be concentrated on the elite and a lesser degree of authority should be devolved upon the subordinates.”4 Otherwise, the king’s leadership would be rendered ineffectual by recalcitrant subordinates, and his rule would disintegrate. Therefore, both Zhai Zhong (祭仲) and Lv (吕, uncle of Duke Zhuang of Zheng) told Duke Zhuang that a state was put at risk when two masters enjoyed the same authority and suggested that Duke Zhuang send troops to topple his brother, Gongshu Duan.5 According to the law in the feudal society, the right to establish a state through the enfeoffment of land was exclusive to the king. Princes with the titles of duke, marquis, count, viscount or baron were able to grant fiefs to their relatives and subordinates, but they could only “found a family” and never “build up a state.” Huan was granted the title of Count in Quwo, marking the division of Jin into two states and thus resulting in a violation

Land system of feudalism  91 of the common law of feudalism. Hence, faced with such violations, Shifu (师服) made his remarks, advocating principles like “Power should be concentrated on the elite and a lesser degree of authority should be devolved upon the subordinates” and “The order should have been maintained; the king is responsible for founding and running a state and princes for building and running their families.”6 However, princes could grant fiefs to their family members as long as they conformed to the feudal principles and rules. There were a great many cases in which princes granted land or titles to their subordinates. Xi Zhi (郤至), a senior official of Jin, fought for Hou (鄇), a fief in Wen (温, today’s Wuzhi 武陟 County in Henan 河南 Province), against the royal family of Zhou (周), claiming, “Wen has been my old fief!”7 Jisun Si (季孙斯, a minister of Lu 鲁) granted to the State of Qi (杞) the fief of Cheng (成), which had originally been the possession of Mengsun (孟孙, a minister of Lu).8 Huantui (桓魋), a military officer from the State of Song (宋), asked to swap the fief of An (鞍) for the fief of Bo (薄).9 All of the above is evidence that bureaucrats were granted fiefs. More historical records about granting land and cities can be found below: When Viscount Zhaojian (赵简子) attacked the State of Zheng (郑), he announced in an oath-taking rally: “Those higher bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted counties, those lower bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted prefectures, and those scholarofficials who defeat the enemies will be granted land of 100,000 mu.”10 The Count of Zheng granted rewards to those who had contributed to his victory over the State of Chen (陈). He gave eight fiefs to his minister Zizhan (子展) and six to his minister Zichan (子产).11 After the State of Chu (楚) besieged the State of Song (宋) and returned in triumph, Zizhong (子重, a minister of Chu) asked the head of Chu for the land of Shen (申) and the land of Lv (吕) as his rewards.12 Duke Xi (僖) of Lu (鲁) granted Ji You (季友, a minister of Lu) the land of Wenyang (汶阳) (in the north of the Wen 汶 River) and Fei (费, in the southwest of today’s Yutai County, Shandong Province).13 Yanzi (晏子), a senior advisor to Duke Zhuang (庄) of Qi (齐), was highly regarded for his expertise, so he was granted a higher title and more fiefs every time he went to the imperial court.14 With the Qing (庆) family in flight, their fiefs were redistributed. Beidian (邶殿, today’s Changyi 昌邑 City in Shandong Province), together with its sixty smaller surrounding fiefs, was assigned to Yanzi (who ultimately declined this prize).15 Duke Jing (景) of Qi granted Pingyin (平阴) and Gao (橐) to Yanzi.16 Zhongshu Yuxi (仲叔于奚), a resident from Xinzhu (新筑), saved Viscount Sunhuan (孙桓) of Wei (卫) from danger, so the latter decided to grant a small fief to Zhongshu Yuxi in return.17

92  Land system of feudalism In this instance, Zhongshu Yuxi was given a fief, even though he was merely a resident from Xinzhu without any official title, demonstrating that bureaucrats were not the only ones who could be enfeoffed. In Lin Yaosou (林尧叟)’s annotations, he claimed that “Zhongshu Yuxi was a bureaucrat who guarded Xinzhu.” This claim seems to be untenable. The amount of fief that bureaucrats were granted depended on their respective official positions and salaries. This can be proven by what Viscount Zhaojian (赵简子) said when encouraging his men to attack the State of Zheng: “Those higher bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted counties, those lower bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted prefectures, and those scholar-officials who defeat the enemies will be granted land of 100,000 mu.” The Count of Zheng (郑) gave eight fiefs to Zizhan (子展) and six to Zichan (子产). Zichan refused to accept them, saying, “From top to bottom of social classes the hierarchy of honour decreases by two; that is the social custom. My social status is in the fourth rank…so I cannot accept the fiefs.” The Count of Zheng insisted on giving him four fiefs, but he accepted only three.18 This suffices to prove that the amount of fiefs was associated with social status at this time. We might as well figure out the exact numbers of fiefs granted to ministers and bureaucrats. The sizes of feudal territories differed in accordance with the princes’ ranks and titles. First, ministers and bureaucrats themselves differed in their status as there were prime ministers and assistant ministers, and higher bureaucrats, mid-bureaucrats and lower bureaucrats (more details in Chapter 5). Second, ministers and bureaucrats in bigger states enjoyed a higher authority than those in smaller states. Shu Sun (叔孙, a minister of Lu 鲁) stated, “Ministers in each big state are counterparts of the heads of smaller states; that is the system of the Zhou Dynasty.”19 “King’s System” also explained: The higher minister in a lesser state is equal to a mid-minister in a big state. A mid-minister in a lesser state is equal to a lower minister in a big state. A lower minister in a lesser state is equal to a higher bureaucrat in a big state. A higher minister in a small state is equal to a lower minister in a big state. A lower minister in a small state is equal to a higher bureaucrat in a big state. A lower minister in a small state is equal to a lower bureaucrat in a big state. These two quotes indicate that feudal bureaucrats did have hierarchical differences within themselves. The same was true for ministers. Now that feudal ministers and bureaucrats had hierarchical differences among themselves, the sizes of their fief would be different. Mencius said: Prime ministers of a king would be granted fiefs equivalent to those granted to marquises. Bureaucrats would be granted fiefs equivalent

Land system of feudalism  93 to those granted to counts. Higher scholars who served in government would be granted fiefs equivalent to those granted to viscounts or barons. In a big state that covered a hundred square li (里), the head had ten times as much salary as his prime ministers; a prime minister four times as much as a bureaucrat; a bureaucrat twice as much as a higher scholar-official; a higher scholar-official twice as much as a midscholar-official; a mid-scholar-official twice as much as a lower scholarofficial; a lower scholar-official earned the same as a commoner who was employed in government offices and who thus had enough income to spare themselves from farming. In a lesser state with a territory of seventy square li, the head had ten times as much salary as his prime ministers; a prime minister three times as much as a bureaucrat; a bureaucrat twice as much as a higher scholar-official working for government; a higher scholar-official twice as much as a mid-scholar-official; a mid-scholar-official twice as much as a lower scholar-official; a lower scholar-official earned the same as a commoner who was employed in government offices and who thus had enough income to spare themselves from farming. In a small state with a territory of fifty square li, the head had ten times as much salary as his prime ministers; a prime minister twice as much as a bureaucrat; a bureaucrat twice as much as a higher scholar-official working for government; a higher scholarofficial twice as much as a mid-scholar-official; a mid-scholar-official twice as much as a lower scholar-official; a lower scholar-official earned the same as a commoner who was employed in government offices and who thus had enough income to spare themselves from farming.20 Mencius’s view is similar to that from “King’s System”: Lower scholar-officials were of the same status with the highest level of farmers, receiving as much salary as what they would be able to earn by doing farm work. Mid-scholar-officials earned twice as much income as lower scholar-officials; and higher scholar-officials earned twice as much income as mid-scholar-officials. Lower bureaucrats earned twice as much income as higher scholar-officials. Prime ministers earned four times as much income as bureaucrats. The head earned ten times as much income as his prime ministers. Prime ministers in a lesser state had three times as much income as bureaucrats in the same state; the head of a lesser state also had ten times as much income as his prime ministers. Prime ministers in a small state had twice as much income as bureaucrats in the same state; the head of a small state also had ten times as much income as his prime ministers. So, according to Mencius, we have the following information: Ministers appointed by the king received land of 100 li; Bureaucrats appointed by the king received land of 70 li; Grand scholar-officials appointed by the king received land of 50 li.

94  Land system of feudalism Regarding the situation of those ministers, bureaucrats and other officials appointed by princes, we have been provided by Mencius with the following information: Lower scholar-officials in this category received land of 100 mu (According to Mencius, Lower scholar-officials earned the same as a commoner who was employed in government offices and who thus had enough income to spare themselves from farming. Here was what farmers could earn: each farmer received land of 100 mu to till and fertilise. Higher farmers [who were so defined most probably because they farmed the fertile land and worked harder, and were thus able to produce more] were able to support nine individuals, and those who ranked next to higher farmers supported eight. Mid-farmers supported seven individuals, and those ranking next to mid-farmers supported six; while lower farmers [they were so called most probably because they farmed the poor land and put in less effort, and thus produced less than other farmers] only supported five. The salaries of commoners who were employed in government offices also differed in line with the differences of farming returns of their one hundred-mu land, although they were actually spared from any farming ever since their employment.) Mid-scholar-officials received land of 200 mu. Higher scholar-officials received land of 400 mu. Bureaucrats received land of 800 mu. Prime ministers in small states received land of 1,600 mu. Prime ministers in lesser states received land of 2,400 mu. Prime ministers in big states received land of 3,200 mu. In addition, according to Shu Xiang (叔向, a bureaucrat of Jin 晋), Prime ministers in big states had access to land that was able to provide one brigade, while higher bureaucrats had access to land that was able to provide one zu (卒, a unit of an army of about 200 soldiers).21 In this case, the amount of fief was measured by brigade and zu. In ancient China, the unit of the measurement of a fief was either li, mu, zu or sheng (乘, chariot). If the land was vast, more residents would live there, and upon demand the owner of this land would have to recruit and dispatch more soldiers (zu) and chariots (sheng). If the land was small, the number of zu and sheng will be accordingly smaller. The two were positively correlated. So, how many people, exactly, were involved in one zu and one sheng? As Guanzi (管子) put it, fifty people living on the area of one li (One li consisted of 300 steps in width and 300 steps in length) constituted one xiao rong (小戎) with Yousi (有司, an official title) as its commander. Four li accounted for a

Land system of feudalism  95 lian (连) and so the head of lian was in charge of two hundred people who formed a unit of zu. Ten lian was one village and one brigade was made up of 2,000 soldiers.22 Those fiefs which could provide 2,000 soldiers were of a fairly large size, while zu consisted of 200, only one-tenth of a brigade. This is clear evidence of the significant disparity between fiefs granted to prime ministers and fiefs granted to bureaucrats. The maximum quantity of granted land was one hundred fiefs. Duke Xian (献) of Wei (卫) granted sixty fiefs to Gongsun Mianyu (公孙免余, a bureaucrat of Wei), who declined and said: Only the prime ministers can have one hundred fiefs and I have already had sixty. If I accept them, I will have 120 fiefs in total, much more than my rank permits. As the law provides, those in a lower rank are not supposed to get what those of a higher rank should receive.23 Ministers and bureaucrats could be granted at most sixty fiefs. That is why a minister from the State of Song (宋) asked for a reward and was granted sixty fiefs.24 Similarly, Duke Zhuang of Qi (齐) granted Beidian (邶殿) and its sixty smaller surrounding fiefs to Yanzi (晏子).25 Gongsun Mianyu (公孙 免余) also owned sixty. He already had sixty fiefs, if he was given another sixty, it would break common practice because “those in a lower rank are not supposed to get what those of a higher rank should receive.” However, since Duke Xian of Wei insisted on giving Gongsun Mianyu those fiefs, “he thus accepted half, namely, thirty ones, so that the total number of his fiefs was equal to what a Shaoshi (少师, a title for the assistant of a head of state) was entitled to have.”26 That is to say, he had ninety fiefs after he was appointed by Duke Xian of Wei as Shaoshi and was thus entitled to such a sum. Could feudal officials keep their fiefs for life? In my opinion, fiefs could be passed on from generation to generation on the condition that their officials managed to be law-abiding. For instance, when Yanzi (晏子) got old, he wanted to return his fiefs to Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐). But the Duke said: Since the reign of our Duke Ding (定) of Qi, many years have gone by. Bureaucrats in the State of Qi never return their fiefs to their head when they get old. You are the only one to do that; this is disrupting the order of our state and abandoning me, so I won’t approve.27 He added: In the past, our Duke Huan (桓) of Qi granted Guanzhong (管仲, also called Guanzi管子) two fiefs of Hu (狐) and Gu (谷), including seventeen counties in total. At the same time he had this event recorded in

96  Land system of feudalism silk manuscripts and set it as a model for the later generations. He also made it known to all the princes that those fiefs were rewards for the descendants of Guanzhong. I have to follow Duke Huan’s example. Now I am granting you some fiefs and your future generations are entitled to them.28 Therefore, fiefs could be handed down from generation to generation. In other words, one’s fiefs did not have to be returned after his death and his descendants could be in charge after he died. Gongsun Heigong (公孙 黑肱) from the State of Zheng (郑) became ill and decided to give his fiefs back to the Duke of Zheng. He gathered his family managers and some of his important clansmen, announcing that his son Duan (段) would be his successor. Moreover, he asked his son to reduce the number of family managers (who had been in charge of his family affairs and helped him with political affairs, and therefore had been provided for by him) and simplify his process of worship. He told his son to keep only enough land for worshiping and then return the rest to the head of state. Gongsun Heigong said, “I’ve heard that in troubled times a noble man will be the last to be defeated if he remains content in poverty and therefore no man intends to take anything from him.” After learning what he had said, wise men of that time all praised his prudence and discipline.29 This indicates that his return of fiefs to his state was motivated by his own virtues. If ministers and bureaucrats at the time were required to return their fiefs by law, they would have to return all of them to their head. How could they give some back and still be able to keep some to themselves? Here, the inheritance of fiefs is just one representation of the hereditary system in feudal China. However, if one was not appreciated by the king, or if he committed crimes, it would be a different story. A case in point is that upon their flight to avoid punishment, the Qing (庆) family’s fiefs were confiscated and then granted by Duke Jing (景) of Qi to Yanzi (晏子) (this event has already been discussed above). While Yanzi found favour with the head of Qi, he received more fiefs and higher titles every time he went to the imperial court. However, after he lost the trust of his ruler, he lost some of his fiefs and was reduced to a lower rank every time he went to the imperial court; “finally he lost all his fiefs and titles.”30 2

Owners of big fiefs had the power to distribute their land.

This exemplifies their absolute private ownership. In general, fiefs would be divided into three parts: a

Public Land The phrase “public land” was only mentioned once in The Book of Songs: Rain, please fall on my public land, and also moisten my private land.31

Land system of feudalism  97

b

c

3

Guanzi: “In January in the lunar calender, farmers are asked to begin working on the public land…”32 Public land was a plot of land designated by a fief owner himself. When a piece of land was arranged as public, it belonged to a specific fief owner. This practice is similar to the Lord’s demesne in feudal England. Private Land Private land was assigned to farmers for tilling. Lines in The Book of Songs, such as “…moisten my private land…”33 and “…agricultural officials, push your farm tools in private land…,”34 point to the existence of private land. When a piece of land was arranged as private, it belonged to farmers, who were responsible for cultivating it. Wasteland and areas with mountains, forests, rivers and swamps. The arable land was defined as either public or private. The rest would be classified into barren land, including wasteland or areas that had mountains, forests, rivers and swamps.

Fief owners had the exclusive right to decide how to use their land.

From these quotes from The Book of Songs, one can see that ordinary people at this time were obliged not only to perform the duty of labouring on public land but also to observe the rule of working on public land first and private land second. More explanations can be found in the following chapter. It is noted here that fief owners received the services of commoners’ working on public land. That is to say, they could reap what they had not sown. So, how could that possibly happen if fief owners had had no absolute private ownership of their land? Fief owners also enjoyed exclusive rights to barren land, wasteland or areas covered with mountains, forests, rivers and swamps located within their fiefs; this once again indicates that all the land within their own fiefs was their possession. According to Yanzi (晏子), “the products from mountains, forests, rivers, swamps, and oceans are in the charge of respective officials.”35 Commoners, however, were forbidden to fell trees or catch fish. This is made clear by Yanzi’s attempt to persuade Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐), in which he said, “The fief owners should not enjoy the exclusive right over mountains, forests, rivers, swamps, and oceans…The commoners should not be forbidden to reap benefits from them.”36 Yanzi would not have given such advice if the princes had no exclusive right over those natural resources. It was because those princes were interest-oriented that Mencius exhorted them to do what was right and just.

Land-allotting system and “Nine Squares” system When it comes to public and private land, it is necessary to touch upon the controversial issue of the “Nine Squares” system. The scholars who

98  Land system of feudalism advocate the existence of the “Nine Squares” system have based their argument entirely on what Mencius once said about it. We can look at the basis of Mencius’s ideas. He said: In the Xia (夏) Dynasty, every household was allotted land of fifty mu (亩) and the gong (贡) taxation was implemented; in the Shang (商) Dynasty, every household was allotted land of 70 mu and the zhu (助) taxation was implemented; and in the Zhou (周) Dynasty, every household was allotted land 100 mu and the che (彻) taxation was implemented. The tax rates of them all were one tenth. Mencius then quoted Longzi (龙子): “In terms of collecting land taxes, there is no better way than zhu (助), and no worse way than gong (贡).” He also quoted from The Book of Songs, “Rain, please fall on my public land, and also moisten my private land,” and continued: Please consider collecting taxes in the way of zhu (with a tax rate of one ninth) in the countryside and collecting taxes with a rate of one tenth in capital cities…One square li (里) is defined as one piece of ‘nine-square’ land that covers 900 mu. A piece of public land is located right there. Eight households have their respective land of one hundred mu. All of them should first work together to attend to their public land before moving on to their respective private land.37 After Mencius, the arguments on the “Nine Squares” land system began to develop and become more elaborate. The Anecdotes of Han Ying’s Collection of Poetry (《韩诗外传》) not only defined the exact length and width of one piece of “nine-square” land but also marked off the land needed for building farm houses: There used to be eight households in one piece of ‘nine-square’ land in the past. The length and width of the land was one li (里) each, that was, three hundred steps. In an area covering one square li, there were 900 mu (亩) of land; each mu was one step both in length and width, and 100 steps in length and width accounted for 100 mu. Eight households lived side by side and each household with five members was allotted 100 mu of land. Apart from the five members (The law specified that only five members in a household were statutory recipients of the land of 100 mu), all the other members of the household were allotted an extra piece of land of 25 mu. Every household was responsible for 10 mu of public land; the rest of land (20 mu) was designated for building farmhouses and each household was allotted two and half mu of that. All the eight households worked in solidarity in both good and hard times. They took care of each other for illness and faced risks together. In lean years, they lent crops and money to those in need and treated each other

Land system of feudalism  99 with food and drinks. They informed each other about marriage and shared what they got from fishing and hunting. Virtues were cherished so that all the households got along with each other. That is why the line of ‘Farmhouses stand in the fields of private land, and melons lie around the border between fields’ can be found in The Book of Songs. The essay titled “Officers Responsible for Farming” in The Rites of Zhou gave a more detailed explanation than the above. It even elaborated on the specific regulations for land survey and population census, which were two essential parts of the “Nine Squares” land system. The author of the essay took both the quality of the farmland and the population of each household into account. Duties of Dasitu (大司徒 a title for officers in charge of land): All the construction with a fief should be done after the fief had been demarcated. The boundaries should be clearly marked by ditches or dams. The size of a piece of “nine-square” land should be decided by the number of the households it accommodated. Each household had 100 mu of land which never lay fallow, 200 mu of land which needed to lie fallow every two years, and 300 mu of land which needed to lie fallow for two years after one year of cultivation. Duties of Xiaositu (小司徒, a title for officers who assisted Dasitu): The land was divided in the way of “Nine Squares” system. Nine farmers were given one piece of “nine-square” land. Four pieces of “ninesquare” land would be one fief; four fiefs would be called one qiu (丘, a community in ancient China); four qiu would become one dian (甸, a bigger community than qiu); four dian would be a county; and four counties would be one city. Thus, commoners were forced to labour on land and pay taxes and tribute to the landlords. Duties of Suiren (遂人, a title for officers who assisted both Dasitu and Xiaositu): The wild land would be classified into three categories, best land, average land, and low-quality land. Based on such classification, land was further assigned two different purposes: “land for farm” and “land for residence”. As for the best land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 50 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients. As for the average land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 100 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients. As for the low-quality land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 200 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients…

100  Land system of feudalism Quotes about the “Nine Squares” system can also be found in The History of the Han Dynasty (《汉书·食货志》)38: One bu (步, step) was an equivalent of six chi (尺, 1/3 metre). One mu (亩) was an equivalent of 100 bu. One fu (夫, adult man) was an equivalent of 100 mu. One wu (屋, household) was an equivalent of three fu. One piece of “nine-square” land was an equivalent of three wu. One piece of “ninesquare” land covered as much as one square li that accommodated nine fu and was shared by eight households. Each household would get 100 mu of private land and 10 mu of public land. So, this would be 880 mu in total. The rest of land (twenty mu) would be used for residence…When land was distributed to commoners, each farmer would get 100 mu of the best land, or 200 mu of average land, or 300 mu of low-quality land… After the master of one household was already allotted land, then the other male members of the household would be also allotted land but in a different way. They were called Yufu (余夫), namely, male family members who were not statutory recipients of land. But Yufu would also get their share per head. As far as scholar-commoners, craftsmen and businessmen were concerned, the policy on land-allotting was that five members of their household would be allotted the same amount of land as what one farmer could receive. These quotes and those from other scholars seem plausible as they appear to be made up of exhaustive research. However, they prove to be dubious upon examination of their origins and facts. For instance, Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200), one of the greatest ancient Confucian scholars, once expressed his scepticism about the practice of the “Nine Squares” system. He argued: How could there have existed a place that covered one thousand li of rich land to help put into practice the ‘Nine Squares’ system proposed by Zheng Xuan (郑玄) of the Han Dynasty? Here are the geographical conditions back then: the capital cities of Feng (丰) and Hao (镐) both sat between valleys; Luoyi (洛邑) and Yique (伊阙) were dotted with streams and mountains. So, considering such geographical features of the empire of Zhou, how could the standardised system of ‘Nine Squares’ be possibly implemented at the time?39 Hu Shi (胡适, 1891–1962), a modern Chinese scholar, also observed: Neither was it possible for the feudal system to be cut into thousands of pieces like tofu, nor was it possible to practise the “Nine Squares” system in which the land was divided into thousands of pieces like tofu. The system of equal distribution of labour in the “Nine Squares” system was but a Utopian idea of later generations about the Warring States Period. Before that period, the “Nine Squares” system had never been

Land system of feudalism  101 mentioned. Even Mencius could only say that ‘All the princes detested the system because it was detrimental to their interest. Therefore, they destroyed all the ancient books and records on the system.’ This is just one old trick of ‘reforming the present institution by referring to the old practice’. Hanfei (韩非) said, ‘[It was ridiculous to] affirm something without any factual basis.’”40 To sum up, from a geographical perspective, the notion of the “Nine Squares” system is thus proven false. The falsehood of the system can also be reaffirmed by ancient literature. It is suspected that Mencius based his idea of the system on a line of The Book of Songs: “Rain, please fall on my public land, and also moisten my private land.” Scholars after him again based their arguments on his unreliable conclusion. As Hu Shi (胡适) also remarked, “It suffices to say that Mencius was utterly ignorant of the land system in the Zhou (周) Dynasty, for he inferred the existence of a system from a single line in a poem. Such evidence is flimsy at best.”41 Hu Shi (胡适) understood that if the “Nine Squares” system had indeed been implemented in the time of Mencius, then it would have been unnecessary for Duke Wen (文) of Teng (滕) to make extra efforts to seek advice from Mencius. If the “Nine Squares” system had indeed been practised at the beginning of the Zhou (周) Dynasty, how could it have been abolished by the Warring States Period, only a few centuries later? It is unlikely that a system would change so abruptly. If the “Nine Squares” system had already been implemented for such a long time, then at least some evidence of its practice would still be found in historical texts, and Mencius would have had more to quote than Longzi (龙子)’s remarks and a single line of a poem from The Book of Songs. If we refer to the specific measures explained by Mencius, we will find that they began with the word “please.” Might that not indicate that the description represents an ideal of his rather than a reality? Additionally, ideas concerning the “Nine Squares” system presented by Han Ying (韩婴), Ban Gu (班固) and The Rites of Zhou were contradictory to one another. Even in the same book, explanations about Dasitu and Suiren prove to be conflicting and inconsistent. All of these based their arguments on Mencius’s questionable idea, so the more they try to make a point, the less they are able to justify it. Scholars such as Hu Hanmin (胡汉民),42 Liao Zhongkai (廖仲恺)43 and Lv Zhenyu (吕振羽)44 acknowledged the existence of the “Nine Squares” system, regarding it as an ancient form of communism. Such a communist system of land production was a common practice in primitive societies. Studies by Western scholars on this subject abound, providing sufficient information for our reference.45 However, it would be too casual to draw an analogy between land communism and the “Nine Squares” system. The belief in the presence of land communism does not vindicate the existence of the “Nine Squares” system or remarks by Mencius and similar records in

102  Land system of feudalism other historical texts, such as The Rites of Zhou. Accepting the existence of the communist land system is one thing, but affirming the existence of the “Nine Squares” system is another, for it was very difficult to agree on whatever ancient Confucianists said about the “Nine Squares” system. Therefore, since we have not proved the very existence of the “Nine Squares” system, it would not make sense to argue about the specific measurement of the “Nine-square” land. An argument between Mr Hu Shi (胡适) and Mr Zhu Zhixin (朱执信) on this subject46 only makes the matter more confusing. The numbers documented in ancient Chinese texts are usually not reliable, nor are their records of the exact units of bu (步) and mu (亩) when it comes to the “Nine Squares” system. One way of measurement was provided by the “King’s System,” while a completely different method was detailed in The History of the Han Dynasty, rendering the matter a moot point. The myth of the “Nine Squares” system has been reviewed as above. We cannot blindly agree with the ideas put forward by Confucianist scholars like Mencius, nor can we completely deny everything they said just because of factual errors. Nevertheless, a system including public land and private land was undoubtedly carried out. In Hu Shi’s opinion, public land belonged to the state, while private land was a possession of nobles, namely the source of revenue for ministers and bureaucrats, instead of farmers’ public property. He also noted that the farmers who tilled the farmland remained tenant farmers instead of landowners.47 His observations, however, are problematic. First, was there any land owned by a state in the feudal society? At that time there were no clear boundaries between the possessions of princes and the possessions of states. That is to say, what belonged to a state was automatically the property of its prince. The quote “All the land under the heaven is the king’s” clearly explains that the king owned everything. Only in the sphere of modern politics is a monarch distinguished from a state. Using a contemporary concept to explain an ancient society is obviously unreasonable. Furthermore, if private land had been regarded as a source of income for ministers and bureaucrats, how is it possible that the poetic line from The Book of Songs said “…and also moisten my private land”? Additionally, on the one hand, private land was definitely not the public property of farmers. It was only in a clan society that the idea of public property prevailed. In a feudal society, fief owners were in possession of land; commoners were granted the right only to use or till this land, not to own it. On the other hand, private land was not owned by ministers and bureaucrats as a source of their revenue either. Now it is time to move on to another topic: Land-allotting. Since the existence of private land has been confirmed, further discussion is now needed on its nature. We will figure out whether private land was owned by commoners or granted by nobles to farmers who only cultivated it without owning it.

Land system of feudalism  103 The answer is definite. Private land was by no means the property of farmers. First, the previous section already elaborated on the exclusive right over their land enjoyed by fief owners. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that commoners possessed any land themselves. Second, historical records have reaffirmed this point: The king and princes lived on the tributes from their subjects; ministers and bureaucrats lived on the taxes from their own fiefs; scholar-officials lived on farmers who tilled the tenant land; commoners made a living by selling their labour; craftsmen and businessmen earned their living by serving the bureaucrats; and administrative staff eked out an existence by providing services to the local authorities.48 It is clear that those who were lower in social status than scholar-officials had no land to themselves and just made a living by selling their labour and services. As Viscount Zhaojian (赵简子) stated in an oath-taking rally, those higher bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted counties, those lower bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted prefectures, and those scholar-officials who defeat the enemies will be granted land of 100,000 mu. The common people, craftsmen and businessmen would be guaranteed a pleasant opportunity for living and transaction after they defeat the enemies. Those who are slaves and servants will be set free if they make a contribution to the victory.49 This shows that even when the common people made an outstanding contribution, they never acquired land of their own; they were only exempted from military service, labour or taxes. Based on the above it is clear that private land tilled by common people belonged to certain landowners. These landowners forced farmers to take responsibility for working on public land before they were able to attend to private land, from which they managed to earn a meagre living. As for the specific taxes and services asked of the common people, they will be fully dealt with in another chapter. What was the system of land-allotting like in a feudal society? This question must be answered when we examine public land and private land in a feudal era. To start with, farmers would be granted land to till in their adult years and return the land in their dotage. As Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals put it, “a rite of passage (i.e., a coming-of-age ceremony) was held for a man at the age of twenty. After that he would be considered as an adult man. At the age of thirty, he was supposed to get married.”50 Mozi (墨子) said, “When a man was twenty years old, he had better get married and have his own family.”51 It seems that twenty years was the threshold of

104  Land system of feudalism a man’s adulthood, at which age he was expected to pay taxes, do military service and provide labour on farmland. That is probably why the historian Ban Gu drew the following conclusion from the above: “Men are allotted land at the age of twenty.”52 However, some scholars think men were not allotted land until the age of thirty. They base their thoughts on the following historical records. The Book of Rites says, “At the age of thirty a man would have his own family” because at that age “a man’s body already developed to the fullest and he could start and support his own family,” and “At the age of thirty a man built his house and began to do farm work, pay taxes and fulfill services.”53 According to Wei Zhao’s annotations to Discourses on Governance of the States, “at the age of thirty a man was allotted land of one hundred mu, and at the age of twenty land of fifty mu.”54 It is difficult to determine whether twenty or thirty was the age at which land was allotted. According to the physical development process of men, they are strong enough to do labour and services at the age of twenty. It would seem to be too late if one’s land-allotting was delayed until he was thirty. As for the question of when a man should return his land to the head of state, both the historian Ban Gu and the scholar Wei Zhao thought the answer was “at the age of sixty.”55 All in all, we are convinced that a man would be allotted land to till when he was strong and return it when he was old. The second question concerns the exact amount of land to be allotted to a man. The mainstream idea is one hundred mu. When answering the question of Duke Huan (桓) of Qi, Guanzi said: One farmer is only capable of tilling 100 mu of land…If you ask a farmer to provide services, then his 100 mu of land will have no one to attend to. If you ask 10 farmers to provide services, then 1,000 mu of land will have no one to attend to. If you ask 100 farmers to provide services, then 10,000 mu of land will have no one to attend to. If you ask 1,000 farmers to provide services, then 100,000 mu of land will have no one to attend to.56 Xunzi (荀子) also observed, “If one is given 100 mu to manage, then he will be exhausted and has no one to share his burden,”57 and “Each household gets five mu for housing and 100 mu for tilling.”58 Mencius stated, “In the Zhou (周) Dynasty, taxes in the name of che (彻) would be collected on every one hundred mu,”59 Residence covering an area of five mu will be surrounded by mulberries… The season for tilling a piece of land of 100 mu should not be used for other purposes. This is to insure that a household with eight people will never suffer from hunger,60

Land system of feudalism  105 “Those eight households each have their own private land of 100 mu and they have to work together on the public land,”61 “What a farmer gets after tilling comes from the private land of 100 mu”62 and “The residence of five mu is surrounded with mulberries and housewives breed silkworms…Men work on the land of 100 mu. Then even if there are eight people in a family, they will not suffer from hunger anymore.”63 According to The Rites of Zhou, however, the amount of land allotted to one farmer was more than 100 mu. The specific amount also varied in line with the quality of the land and the population of the household.64 Therefore, a uniform and Utopian land-allotting system was highly unlikely. According to Mencius, in addition to 100 mu of farmland, there was also five mu for housing. Mulberries were planted in the open space so that women could raise silkworms as another means of supporting their families. The poetic line “farmhouses stand in the center of the field”65 from The Book of Song was misunderstood by scholars such as Han Ying66 (韩婴) and Zhuzi67 (朱子) for they mistook “fields” as “public land,” twenty mu of which was used for the residences of eight households. In fact, “field” here referred not to public land but to private. Zheng Xuan (郑玄) pointed out that “in the center of the field” meant “in the center of the farmland” rather than “in the center of the public land.”68 In addition, public land apparently belonged to fief owners. How could these fief owners allow eight households to build houses right there in the center? Based on both The Book of Songs and Mencius’s argument, it is fair to say that the houses had to be on private land.

Ban on land division, transaction and transfer A clear understanding of the feudal land-allotting system certainly helps us examine the following two features of the land system in feudal China. Land was forbidden from division One farmer was allotted 100 mu of land. The amount of land he received determined how much was required of him as taxes, labour and military services. The amount of taxes or services each man had to pay was clearly based on certain regulations and rules. For example, suppose one farmer was allowed to further divide his land among his family members; it would have been very difficult for the fief owners to figure out the accurate amount of taxes or services. Therefore, a ban on land division was imposed. Land was forbidden from transaction and transfer This ban spoke for itself. Fief owners were in possession of land. They allotted it to farmers and exploited them to cultivate it, also levying taxes

106  Land system of feudalism and services from them. Farmers and serfs were not allowed to buy, sell or transfer land according to conventions and the law. That is why the “King’s System” rightly noted that “There are no buying land or selling land.” Farmers were breaking the law if they dared to sell the land of their fief owners. In fact, doing land business was completely unthinkable for farmers at this time because they had no ownership of land whatsoever; instead, they were utterly preoccupied with working hard on farmland and serving their fief owners. Never would any farmer attempt to profit from land transaction. The practice of land transaction was non-existent until after the Shangyang (商鞅) Reform (more on this in Chapter 8).

Notes 1 2 3 4

Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Two. Shifu’s quote from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One: Zhai Zhong said that it would be a disaster if the guarding wall of the capital city of a fief is more than three hundred square zhang. (1 zhang = 2.31 metre). Our former kings have made it a rule that the guarding wall of the capital city of the largest fief in our state cannot be bigger than one third of that of our state’s capital city; the guarding wall of the capital city of a medium-sized fief cannot be bigger than one fifth of that of our state’s capital city; the guarding wall of the capital city of a small fief cannot be bigger than one ninth of that of our state’s capital city. Now the guarding wall of the capital city of Fief Jing, however, is not in accordance with the rule. So the rule made by our former kings has been broken. If it goes on like this, everything will be out of your control.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19

Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Eleven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Seven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Seven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·One. “Two: Duke Zhuang of Qi did not assign any position to Yanzi and took back his fiefs and then was assassinated by Cui Zhu” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Five). “Fifteen: Ziwei questioned why Yanzi refused the fiefs granted to him after the flight of the Qing Family; Yanzi said Qing was defeated due to the fact that his desire was more than satisfied by his fiefs” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Six). “Sixteen: Duke Jing would award two fiefs of Pingyin and Gao to Yanzi; but he refused and asked Jing to do as he required in three sentences” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Six). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-three.

Land system of feudalism  107 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43

44

Mencius·Wan Zhang II. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Eight. Guanzi·Eight·Zhong Kuang·Ninteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-seven. Ibid. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-eight; “Fifteen: Ziwei questioned why Yanzi refused the fiefs granted to him after the flight of the Qing family; Yanzi Said Qing was defeated due to the fact that his desire was more than satisfied by his fiefs” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Six). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-seven. “Twenty-eight: When he was old Yanzi wanted to return the fiefs but Jing disagreed; several days later he insisted on returning his fiefs and a Chariot and then this matter came to an end” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Six). “Twenty-four: Duke Jing of Qi was to award Yanzi in the way Duke Huan of Qi granted extra fiefs to Guanzhong but Yanzi refused” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Six). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-two. “Two: Duke Zhuang of Qi did not assign any position to Yanzi and took back his fiefs and then was assassinated by Cui Zhu” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Five). The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Fu Tian Zhi Shi·Da Tian. Guanzi·One·Scholars, Farmers, Craftsmen and Businessmen. The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Fu Tian Zhi Shi·Da Tian. The Book of Songs·Zhou·Chen Gong Zhi Shi·Yi Xi. “Seven: Duke Jing of Qi suffered from Malaria and Liang Qiuju and Yi Kuan advised Him to kill officers responsible for sacrificial ceremony, so Yanzi came to give advice on this matter” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Seven; Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty). “Twenty-six: Duke Jing of Qi asked about how to get on well with his subjects; Yanzi said honesty, respect, thriftiness, and integrity were crucial” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Two). Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I. The History of the Han Dynasty·Food and Commodities. A Collection of Zhu Xi’s Dialogues with His Disciples·Eighty-six. “Hu Shi’s Letter to Liao Zhongkai” in A Collection of Hu Shi’s Essays, Shanghai Yadong, 1925, p. 249 (first publishd in Construction). “Hu Shi’s reply to Liao Zhongkai and Hu Hanmin” in A Collection of Hu Shi’s Essays, Shanghai Yadong, 1925, p. 265 (first published in Construction). “The ‘Nine Squares’ system was a communist land system that had existed before the development of private land ownership in ancient China – This was different from the equal distribution of labour after the formation of private land ownership system.” – “Hu Hanmin’s reply to Hu Shi” in A Research on Whether the “Nine Squares” System Existed or Not by Hu Hanmin, Hu Shi, etc., published by Shanghai Huatong, 1930, p. 45 (first published in Construction). “In my opinion, the ‘Nine Squares’ system was a transitional system from public ownership to private ownership in the period when the ancient peoples developed from nomadism to farming. According to the process of social evolution, such a ‘Nine Sqaures’ system was not only possible but also a natural product ‘in the semi-tribal and semi-national era’, to quote from you, Mr. Hu Shi…”－“Liao Zhongkai’s reply to Hu Shi” in A Collection of Hu Shi’s Essays, published by Shanghai Yadong, p. 257 (first published in Construction). “If the communist land system did exist, then the later manor system similar to the ‘Nine Squares’ system was highly likely.” – “The Chinese Society in the

108  Land system of feudalism

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Western Zhou Dynasty” by Lv Zhenyu, Zhongshan Culture and Education Centre Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1st edition. Examples can be found in H. S. Maine, Village Communities in the East and West, 1876; Ancient Law, 1906; F. Seebohm, The English Village Community, 1883; Vinogradoff, Villainage in England, 1892; The Growth of Manor, 1905. “Hu Shi’s second reply to Hu Hanmin and Liao Zhongkai,” On the Existence of the “Nine Squares System,” p. 47–52 (first published in Construction); “Zhu Zhixin’s letter to Hu Shi,” pp. 52–61 (first published in Construction). “Hu Shi’s reply to Liao Zhongkai and Hu Hanmin,” A Collection of Hu Shi’s Essays, p. 267. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Two. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Twelve. “Twelve: Thriftiness” (Mozi·Six). The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-four I·Food and Commodities I. The Book of Rites·Family Rules·Etiquette I. Wei Zhao’s annotations to Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu II. The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-four I·Food and Commodities; Wei Zhao’s annotations to Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu II. “Sixty-eight: Financial Management” (Guanzi·Twenty-one). “Eleven: The King’s politics” (Xunzi II). “Twenty-seven: Great strategies” (Xunzi III). Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I. Mencius·King Hui of Liang I. Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I. Mencius·Wan Zhang II. Mencius·Jin Xin I. “Situ: Officers responsible for land management” (The Rites of Zhou). “Duties of Suiren (a title for officers who assisted both Dasitu and Xiaositu): The wild land would be classified into three categories, best land, average land, and low-quality land. Based on such classification, lands were further assigned two different purposes: either used for farming or used for residence. As for the best land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 50 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients. As for the average land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 100 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients. As for the low-quality land, one farmer, the statutory recipient of allotted land within one household, would be given one piece of land for residence, 100 mu of farmland and 200 mu of fallow land. So it was with other male members within the same household who were not statutory recipients…” “Each household had 100 mu of land which never lay fallow, 200 mu of land which needed to lie fallow every two years, and 300 mu of land which needed to lie fallow for two years after one year of cultivation.” These two quotes are about how to differentiate quality of land. The land that did not lie fallow was considered to be the best land. According to Zheng Xuan’s notes, “if the land could be tilled and produce every year, then it would be called good land and each household would get 100 mu.” The land which needed to lie fallow every two years was average land. Land which needed to lie fallow for two years after one year of cultivation was the worst land. When the land was fertile, the area to be allotted to husbandmen would be smaller; when the land was infertile, the area to be allotted to husbandmen was smaller. This practice was aimed at striking a balance between quality and quantity.

Land system of feudalism  109

65 66 67

68

Duties of Xiaositu: “He should regulate the land sensibly and check household members, and then he would know the specific population in each piece of land. The best land would be given to a household of more than seven people…The average land would be given to a household of six people…The worst land would be given to a household of five people…” Therefore, number of family members also affected the amount of land to be allotted to each household. The bigger the family, the better the land they would receive; meanwhile, smaller families would get land of poorer quality. Zheng Xuan explained in his notes, “If a family’s members were more than seven, it would be assigned the fertile land. If a family’s members were less than five, they would be assigned the infertile land. This was because the fertile land could produce more crops to support more people while the infertile land could produce less crops to support fewer people.” The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Gu Feng Zhi Shi·Mountain Xinnan. “Ten mu of land was designated as public land, and the rest of land (i.e., twenty mu) was for housing eight families, and each of them had two and a half mu.” –The Anecdotes of Han Ying’s Collection of Poetry. “A piece of ‘nine-square’ land had 100 mu of public land, twenty mu of which was distributed to eight households to build houses, thus making their farming more convenient and efficient.” In Zhu Xi’s annotations to The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Gu Feng Zhi Shi·Mountain Xinnan. “‘In the center of the field’ means ‘in the center of the farmland’. Farmers built their houses on farmland for the convenience of farming,” in Zheng Xuan’s annotations to The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Gu Feng Zhi Shi·Mountain Xinnan.

4

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

Patriarchal clan system and feudalism To people today, a patriarchal clan system may seem to have little to do with feudalism as Chinese society has shown more signs of patriarchy than it has of feudalism since the founding of the Qin (秦) empire. But a careful study will reveal that these two systems actually went hand in hand; we may even say that they came into existence simultaneously. Feudalism depended on the patriarchal clan system to achieve stability and develop. If we examine the society of the early Zhou (周) Dynasty, we will understand the correlation between these systems. As people moved from an unstable nomadic economy to a developed and stable agricultural economy, not only would the main production mode and economic structure change dramatically, but the political and social organisation would also differ. Chapter 1 already touched upon such a transformation: Before the Zhou Dynasty, China was a nomadic clan society, and all properties were shared by clansmen. As for the right of inheritance, there was no preference between the brothers in a family, regardless of their age and status. Such a situation, however, changed markedly after the arrival of the feudal society. Upon the establishment of the feudal political system, the kingdom and its fiefs had to maintain their integrity and therefore could be governed by one ruler only. To meet the demand for unity, the “close descent” system came into being as the core of the patriarchal clan system. It established the right of the eldest son of the principal wife to inherit the state territory or fiefs. This “close descent” system was initiated by ancient sages such as Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou for the benefit of later generations, intended to suppress unrest and prevent future disputes. Without the introduction of such a system, difficulty would have arisen when it came to the ownership of fiefs, the governance of the people, the levy of taxes and corvée. As a result, the whole feudal institution would have been damaged. This is why sages at the time made every effort to advocate patriarchy and why such a system was a common practice among the ruling class, such as the king, princes, ministers and bureaucrats, though it was rarely carried out by the common

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  111 people. These common people owned no fiefs and therefore did not need to bother with the issue of inheritance. Just as The Book of Rites says, “Rites do not apply to the common people.”1 “Rites” here refer to a series of social institutions based on patriarchal clan system, including sacrifices, weddings and funerals. Commoners, however, were not much concerned about those “rites,” which were designed to sustain the feudal system instead of their livelihoods. All in all, it has to be noted that the patriarchal clan system with the “close descent” design at its core was a method of maintaining feudalism. Maine, through his study of Western European feudal society, arrived at a similar conclusion in terms of inheritance. His study and my study support each other. In his opinion, the feudal land system required that properties be continuously handed down to chosen descendants. This mode of inheritance varied in different places. In some places the eldest son would be chosen as the successor, while in others this would fall to the youngest. In short, a feudal lord preferred the one-person succession system to sharing rights among all his sons to ensure that military service was available on demand. Maine used India to illustrate his point: Although it implemented the system of equal inheritance in general, the inheritance of political power in governmental institutions remained exclusive to the eldest son. Maine concluded that when the practice of patriarchy not only decided the management of a family but also affected the governance of a country or a political institution, the right of inheritance would not be shared equally among brothers but given to the eldest son as his birthright.2 The inheritance system in feudal China differed from that in other countries in that it had a more complicated approach. It did not take age as the standard nor simply regard the eldest son as the inheritor but took into consideration the matter of their being born to a principal wife or a concubine. This was a common issue of the patriarchal clan system in ancient China.

Marriage and inheritance system Although a man was not forbidden to have more than one wife in a clan society, it should be noted that this was different from polygamy in a feudal society. In a clan society, all the wives of a man were of equal status, referred to with the same appellation: “qi (妻, wife).” The boys they gave birth to would also have equal status and the same rights. By contrast, there was a different but clear ranking between a man’s wife and his concubines in a feudal society. What mattered most was not the pecking order of the wives but that of their sons. This was not only the core of a feudal family but also the backbone of the patriarchal clan system. More importantly, the whole political relationship in a feudal society – the grip of political power – was dependent on this differentiation between male descendants. Each of a man’s sons had a different status. First, their status was decided by their mother’s. If a boy’s mother was the principal/first/official wife of a

112  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism man, the boy would be Dizi (嫡子, the son of the principal/first/official wife). If a boy’s mother was a concubine, the boy would be Shuzi (庶子, a concubine’s son). The status of Shuzi was very much inferior to that of Dizi, just as Shuzi’s mother was inferior to Dizi’s mother. The first son of the principal/first/official wife was called “Zongzi” (宗子, i.e., 嫡长子).3 There were many records of “Zongzi” in the inscriptions on the tripod of Shan Ding (善鼎), The Book of Songs and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals.4 The wife of Zongzi was called “Zongfu” (宗妇). Such an appellation appeared in the following documents: (1) The inscriptions on the tripod of Zongfu Ding (宗妇鼎), (2) The inscriptions about the State of Jin (晋) on the vessel of Zheng (㽀, an earthenware vessel, like a jar or urn), (3) Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, (4) The Book of Rites and Rituals and (5) The Book of Rites.5 Zongzi (宗子；嫡子) was of the supreme status among all the sons, and he was the successor to the throne or the ownership of state territories (more details on this can be found in the section on the law of inheritance). Zongzi was also the successor to the head of the ancestral temple (more details can be found on this in the section on sacrificial rituals). His status was far superior to that of the other sons of the first wife. Meanwhile, among wives and concubines, Zongfu (宗妇) also enjoyed supreme status, due to the fact that she was the principal/first/official wife of her husband. As such, the inscriptions on the tripod of Shan Ding (善鼎) say, “I will pass on the vessels granted to me by the king of Zhou to my Zongzi and benefit the common people.” The Book of Rites says, “Dizi and Shuzi should respect Zongzi and Zongfu.”6 Cheng Yaotian (程瑶田, a scholar from the Qing 清 Dynasty) also argued that “the morality in a patriarchal clan society was based on the hierarchy of brothers”: “elder brothers disciplined younger ones,” “younger brothers served the elder ones” and so on.7 Due to the fact that there was a significant difference between Dizi (嫡子) and Zongzi (宗子) in their positions and rights of inheritance, the sons of the principal/first/official wife played different roles: Zongzi would establish his branch as Senior Zong representing the whole family, and Dizi would establish his branch as Junior Zong, representing his own branch and serving Senior Zong. In the bronze inscriptions of the Zhou (周) Dynasties (the Western Zhou Dynasty and the Eastern Zhou Dynasty) there were many records which mentioned Senior Zongzi.8 Only the first son of a king’s principal/first/official wife could succeed to the throne, so he was entitled to the position of Senior Zong of the whole family after this succession. The other sons of the principal/first/official wife, however, could only be enfeoffed, so they were called “other sons.” (The word “other” here had two meanings. On the one hand, it meant being different from Zongzi; on the other hand, it meant that “other son” would be able to establish his own branch and his own descendants would only worship him as their ancestors.) Compared with Senior Zongzi, who enjoyed the position of Senior Zong after succession, an “other son” was entitled to the

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  113 position of Junior Zong after he was enfeoffed and was obliged to serve the former. However, he would be the only one worshipped by his own descendants as ancestors, for he was the first to be enfeoffed in his own family. He would go on to pass his leadership and fiefs to his first wife’s first son, i.e., Zongzi, thus establishing himself as the progenitor of his offspring. The “other sons” of his principal/first/official wife would be called Junior Zongzi and be obliged to help Senior Zongzi, his first wife’s first son, to rule the family or the state. The same practice continued from generation to generation, with the enfeoffed land granted to each Junior Zongzi in a generation. The same idea can be found in The Book of Rites: Other Son was the ancestor; Zongzi (the first wife’s first son) of Other Son succeeded him and was entitled to the position of Senior Zong while Other Son’s other sons, Junior Zongzi, was enfeoffed and entitled to the position of Junior Zong.9 Cheng Yaotian (程瑶田, 1725–1814), a scholar of the Qing Dynasty, offered a clear and detailed explanation on this subject: Other Son is the ancestor and respected by all his offspring who regard him as the progenitor and root of the whole family. The branch that succeeds Other Son will be established as Senior Zong, i.e., the only line that represents the whole family. Zongzi is the only person that can succeed to the position of Other Son and accordingly serve as the head of his own younger brothers and the whole family. After death, the head of the whole family (Zongzi previously) and his younger brothers will be Mi (祢, fathers who died and were honoured with a memorial tablet in the ancestral temple) to their own respective sons. Among those sons of Zongzi (now the head of the whole family), the one with the position of Shi (适, which is similar to Di and refers to the status of being the eldest son of the first wife) will succeed his father’s branch and is thereafter entitled to the position of Senior Zong for the whole family. Among those sons of his younger brothers, the ones with the position of Shi (适) will succeed their fathers and are entitled to the position of Junior Zong representing only their respective families and heading their own brothers. So they also have their own Junior Zong represented by the branches of their own brothers. The representative of Senior Zong that derives from Other Son is recognised as the head of the representatives of all the Junior Zongs for generations to come. Therefore, the status of the line of Senior Zong deriving from Other Son will remain unchanged all the way through one hundred generations. As for the offspring of Junior Zongs, the way they trace back to their ancestors goes like this: the eldest son born of his father and the father’s first wife is the successor to Mi (祢, the father’s tablet) and head of this family branch; this eldest son is also the successor to his grandfather’s tablet no matter

114  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism how many grandsons his grandfather has. Similarly, this eldest son is also the successor to his great-grandfather’s tablet and to the tablet of his great-great-grandfather. One’s great-great-grandfather bears the same surname as him. But the great-great-grandfather does not bear the same surname as the generations above him. The point is that, either from one’s great-great-grandfather to him or from him to his greatgreat-grandsons, there are five generations. For those kinsmen either above or beneath those five generation, they have different Junior Zong. Therefore, the status of Junior Zong was only recognised within five consecutive generations, while Senior Zong remained unchanged for one hundred generations since the representative of the line after Other Son in each generation will be entitled to the position of Senior Zong and be respected as the head of the whole family.10 On the whole, there was only one branch that remained the Senior Zong, whose representative in each generation acted as a suzerain, and representatives of all Junior Zongs, whether big or small in terms of population, had to be under the leadership of the representative of Senior Zong. The many representatives of Junior Zong under the Senior Zong would in time become entitled to the position of Senior Zong and had more Junior Zongs within their own branches. The same process continued forever, and in this way an intricate but systematic organisation was formed. An example might help to clarify this issue. In the Zhou (周) Dynasty, kings acted as representatives of the Senior Zong in the same family line: Wen (文), Wu (武), Cheng (成), Kang (康), Zhao (昭), Mu (穆), Gong (共), Yi (懿), Xiao (孝), Yi (夷), Li (厉), Xuan (宣), You (幽), Ping (平), Huan (桓), Zhuang (庄), Xi (僖), Hui (惠), Xiang (襄), Qing (顷), Kuang (匡), Ding (定), Jian (简), Ling (灵), Jing (景), Jing (敬), Yuan (元), Zhending (贞定), Kao (考), Weilie (威烈), Anlie (安烈), Xian (显), Shenjing (慎靓) and Nan (赧). In contrast, Duke Dan (旦) of Zhou (周), Guanshu (管叔), Cai Shu (蔡叔), Kangshu (康叔), Caoshu (曹叔) and Tangshu (唐叔) were Other Sons. They were either sons of King Wen (文) of Zhou or of King Wu (武) of Zhou. None of them was Zongzi, so they could not succeed to the throne. After enfeoffment, Duke Dan of Zhou became the ancestor of the State of Lu (鲁), Guanshu the ancestor of the State of Guan (管), Cai Shu the ancestor of the State of Cai (蔡), Kangshu the ancestor of the State of Wei (卫), Caoshu the ancestor of the State of Cao (曹) and Tangshu the ancestor of the State of Jin (晋). These princes remained the representatives of Junior Zong for the royal family, but in their own families, they were representatives of Senior Zong and were succeeded by their own Zongzi. Take the State of Lu, for example. Dukes like Yin (隐), Huan (桓), Zhuang (庄), Min (闵), Xi (僖), Wen (文), Xuan (宣), Cheng (成), Xiang (襄), Zhao (昭), Ding (定) and Ai (哀) were Zongzi in the same family lineage.11 Those Other Sons would be representatives of Junior Zong, who would be enfeoffed, and then become representatives of Senior Zong in their own families. For example, Zhuang (庄), the

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  115 first son of Duke Wu (武) of Zheng (郑) and his principal/first/official wife, was the successor to the throne of Zheng. Duke Wu’s younger son Duan (段) was his “Other Son” and was granted a fief in the place of Jing (京). Marquis Zhao (昭) of Jin (晋) was the successor to the throne of Jin, while Chengshi (成师), as an Other Son, was granted a fief called Quwo (曲沃). To the State of Zheng, Duan merely represented Junior Zong, but to the fief of Jing, he was entitled to the position of Senior Zong. The same applied to Chengshi (成师): To the State of Jin, Chengshi merely represented Junior Zong, but to the fief of Quwo, he was entitled to the position of Senior Zong. The place where Zongshi (宗室, the temple of an imperial clan or that of the Senior Zong) was located was the capital city of that state. Therefore, the imperial court of Zhou (周) was also called “Zong Zhou” (宗周),12 and that of Lu (鲁) was also called “Zong Lu” (宗鲁).13

Inheritance laws In the feudal society inheritance laws were based on the above-mentioned system of Zongzi (宗子). That is to say, in the feudal society, it was not allowed or permitted to divide properties equally among all sons. Only one son was chosen as a legitimate heir or successor. The inequality of this practice might draw criticism. How could only one son be entitled to inherit when all the sons in the family had the same father? The answer lies in different interpretations of the concept of inheritance between feudal and modern times. In a feudal society only Zongzi had the right to inherit from generation to generation. This superiority was a birthright instead of a given right: 1 2

Zongzi was not necessarily the eldest son. His brothers and uncles did not have the right to succeed, whether their mothers were their father’s principal/first/official wives or concubines. Even if the eldest son of the first wife was not his father’s favourite, the father could not deprive him of his inheritance and give it to other sons instead. For instance, as Duke Jing (景) of Qi favoured his younger son Tu (荼) over others, he wanted to deprive his Dizi Yangsheng (阳生) of succession and give it to Tu. Yanzi (晏子) disagreed with him, giving him the following advice: Your Majesty, if you treat both the inferior and the superior on the same footing, the whole state will be at stake. If you depose the elder and establish the younger instead, riots will follow…Positions must follow hierarchical difference so that the inferior would not domineer over the superior. When such rites prevail, evils cannot disturb the system of Zongzi…To deprive the position of the elder son and establish the younger as an heir will set a terrible example for the subjects to follow. To ignore the system of Zongzi (宗子)

116  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism will bring no benefit to the favourite son. If you impose no order among the sons and disregard the rites, Your Majesty’s land will be thronged with thieves and traitors.14 3

4

5

6

Even when the eldest Dizi was inadequate, and a son of a concubine (Shuzi) was more competent, the right of inheritance still had to be granted to the former because to “deprive the position of Dizi and give it to Shuzi instead” was a violation of the law. For example, after the death of the self-proclaimed King Ping of Chu (i.e., Duke Ping of Chu), the prime minister of Chu, Zichang (子常), thought the crown prince, Ren (壬), was too weak to succeed his father. Ren’s mother had originally been intended as a concubine of a prince named Jian (建, a son of Duke Ping of Chu) before she was snatched by Jian’s father, Duke Ping of Chu. As a result, she became the concubine of Duke Ping of Chu instead. Zichang used this as an excuse and declared Ren an unqualified Dizi. He even decided to make Zixi (子西, the eldest Shuzi of Duke Ping) a successor, for he was the eldest and most worthy son. After hearing his advice, Zixi burst out in anger: “Your advice is a conspiracy against the state that discredits the king…Since the king has Dizi as his successor, we cannot interrupt the order…It is ominous to interrupt the order and I will be blamed for that…” Zixi threatened to kill Zichang for his heinous advice, and he was so frightened that he agreed to establish Ren (壬) as the successor to the throne; Ren later became the self-proclaimed King Zhao (昭) of Chu.15 It is clear that, at this time, to oust Dizi from his rightful position was to corrupt politics. Zixi’s threat to kill Zichang indicates how dire the situation would have been if Zichang’s advice had been taken. If the eldest Dizi passed away, then the eldest son of the eldest Dizi would be next in line to succeed to the throne. If the eldest son of the eldest Dizi also died, the eldest grandson of Dizi would be Zongzi to succeed to the throne. Only when both the eldest Dizi and his eldest son or grandson died or when he had no heir would other Dizi have the chance to succeed to the throne. Since all the other Dizi had equal status, they would become the successor, in turn, according to their ages. This explains why Gongyang (公羊) noted that “to establish a Dizi as a successor to the throne according to his age rather than his virtue.”16 If a king had no Dizi, he had to handpick a successor to the throne from among his Shuzi (sons of concubines), which would be quite troublesome because the choice was not decided by age. For instance, Jiang (姜), the wife of Duke Xiang (襄) of Wei (卫), was childless. Xiang’s favourite concubine, Zhou’e (婤姶), gave birth to two sons: Mengzhi (孟絷), the elder, and Yuan (元), the younger. Mengzhi had something wrong with his feet and could barely walk. Interestingly, both Kong Chengzi (孔成子, a bureaucrat of Wei) and Shi Chao (史朝, a bureaucrat

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  117 of Wei) dreamed of Kangshu (the founding father of Wei) enjoining them to help establish Yuan as a successor to the throne. Kong Chengzi then practised divination for Mengzhi by following the instructions from The Book of Changes and as a result obtained the word “Yuan” as a reply from gods. Kong Chengzi hereby arrived at the conclusion that “Yuan can become the successor and govern the state.” But Shi Chao and Kong Chengzi understood the result of the divination differently. Shi Chao thought the word “Yuan” referred to the name of the younger son, while Kong Chengzi noted that “Yuan,” meaning “first” and “beginning” in Chinese, might refer to the eldest son. Later, however, due to Mengzhi’s disability and for the benefit of the whole clan, Yuan, the younger son, was chosen as the successor (and was later given the posthumous title of Duke Ling (灵)).17 If the choice of a Shuzi as the successor had been based on age, it would have been unnecessary to practice divination, and there would have been scepticism about its result. Moreover, the younger Shuzi would not have been anointed as a successor just because the eldest Shuzi was disabled. The situation of the State of Jin is another example. After Shensheng (申生), the crown prince of Jin (晋), committed suicide, Duke Xian (献) of Jin had four living sons, all of whom had been born of his concubines. Chong’er (重 耳) was the eldest, Yiwu (夷吾) the second eldest, Xiqi (奚齐) the third eldest and Zhuozi (卓子) the youngest. Xiqi’s mother was Duke Xian’s favourite concubine, Liji (骊姬), so he was Duke Xian’s favourite. When Duke Xian was dying, he entrusted Xunxi (荀息, a bureaucrat of Jin) with the task of taking good care of Xiqi. After Duke Xian’s death, Xiqi ascended the throne with Xunxi’s help, but shortly afterwards he was assassinated by Li Ke (里克). Zhuozi then ascended the throne with Xunxi’s help, but he was also killed by Li Ke. Then, a courtier named Xi Rui (郤芮), a close advisor to Yiwu (夷吾), asked Yiwu to bribe the State of Qin (秦) to help him rise to power. The plan was successful, and Yiwu became Duke Hui (惠) of Jin. Shortly after the death of Duke Hui of Jin, Chong’er ascended the throne and became Duke Wen (文) of Jin.18 This also demonstrates that the establishment of a Shuzi as the successor was not based on age. The fact that Duke Xian entrusted Xunxi with the establishment of Xiqi indicated that Xiqi was not necessarily the only choice. Xunxi later said to Li Ke, “I have promised our former duke that I will help Xiqi ascend the throne, so I must keep my word.” However, Xunxi was criticised by wise men for being unable to live up to the duke’s expectation and his own promise. These men remarked that “there is no possibility to withdraw what one has promised, even though one has found it wrong.” By saying so, they implied that Xunxi should not have made such a promise, especially when it proved so difficult to keep. Therefore, in this instance, all four sons had an equal chance to succeed to the throne – this explained why Xunxi helped Zhuozi after Xiqi was assassinated and why Li Ke dared to kill

118  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism two dukes in a row. Hence, after Zhuozi was murdered again, Yiwu and Chong’er each sent their followers to bribe the State of Qin with the intention of rising to power. One may argue that since Chong’er and Yiwu had committed some crimes they certainly could not be established as successors until much later. However, their mothers (Darong 大戎 and Xiaorong 小戎) were both concubines of equal status. Even though Chong’er was older than Yiwu, he was not the first to rise to power; Yiwu was. Therefore, it is fair to say that the establishment of a Shuzi as successor to the throne had nothing to do with age. Many scholars think that the establishment of a Shuzi as successor was closely related to the status of his mother, having nothing to do with the age of Shuzi-candidates. For example, Mengzi (孟子), the first wife of Duke Hui (惠) of Lu (鲁), was childless. Shengzi (声子), his second wife, who did not enjoy high status, gave birth to Xi Gu (息姑), who later became Duke Yin (隐) of Lu. Another wife, Zhongzi (仲子), who enjoyed the official title of Madam, gave birth to Yun (允), who later became Duke Huan (桓) of Lu. Yun was younger, but Xi Gu was older and more virtuous. Duke Hui passed away when Yun was born; Xi Gu thought that Yun was too young to rule and thus ran the state in his place. Regarding this event, Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that “Xi Gu established Yun as the successor to the throne and respected and served him.”19 Xi Gu himself said, “Since my brother is still too young to govern the state, so I am taking charge in his place for now.”20 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals also noted that Xi Gu wanted to manage the state well before he returned the throne to Yun. Why should he return it to Yun? Because Yun was of a superior status despite a younger age, while Xi Gu was older but of an inferior status to his brother. Their status difference, however, was limited and the common people knew little about such a difference. Xi Gu was older and more virtuous, so all the ministers assisted him in ascending the throne. Under such circumstances, if Xi Gu declined their assistance, then it would be unlikely for Yun to successfully rise to power, because the ministers would be reluctant to serve the younger weak son to govern the state. Therefore, Xi Gu ascended the throne to pave the way for Yun’s future as a ruler. Now that Xi Gu was elder and more adequate, why was he not the one to be the official candidate as the head of state? Because the choice of a successor from Dizi was in accordance with age rather than virtue, while the choice of a successor from Shuzi was dependent on his mother’s status instead of his age. Yun was considered superior because his mother had a title of Madam and enjoyed a higher status. Why was a son superior when his mother had a higher status?

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  119 Because he could get higher status with his mother’s help and his mother could also enjoy higher status with his birth.21 In my opinion, this quote is not necessarily reliable. First of all, would not the common people be able to understand the difference between the two brothers if Xi Gu made this public? If yes, why did he have to worry about Yun’s ascension to the throne later? Moreover, if what Gongyang said about Yun’s advantage over Xi Gu was true, then if Xi Gu had refused to give back the throne in time, Yun would have had good reason to punish him for usurping it. So, why did Yun have Xi Gu assassinated in the house of a minister named Wei (蒍) and make Wei a scapegoat for the murder, sentencing him to death? Nevertheless, Guliang was right in saying that Xi Gu definitely should not return the throne to Yun: “Was it right to give the throne back to Yun? No, it was not…A dutiful son carries forward his father’s virtue rather than vice. The former king Duke Hui had intended to hand over his power to Yun, which was an immoral thing to do. Nonetheless, he overcame his evil desire and made Xi Gu successor instead. Even though Xi Gu had figured that dangers might occur any time if Yun became the head of Lu as Xi Gu thought Yun was young to control his country, he still gave up the throne to Yun, which undoubtedly damaged his father’s reputation. Brothers were naturally bound to each other. Sons inherited everything from their fathers, just as the feudal princes received everything from their kings. Xi Gu failed to follow rites as he had no respect for seniority based on age, and this damaged his father’s reputation; Xi Gu only paid attention to lesser deeds and virtues. Therefore, he failed to do justice to the prestige of governing a state.”22 So, what should be taken as the standard for the choice of a competent successor? a

b

It depended on the father’s preference. Duke Xian of Jin’s preference for Xiqi and Duke Hui of Lu’s preference for Yun are cases in point. In another example, the wife of Duke Huan of Qi (齐) was childless. His six concubines gave birth to six sons: Wumeng (武孟), Yuan (元, the later Duke Hui 惠 of Qi), Zhao (昭, the later Duke Xiao 孝), Pan (潘, the later Duke Zhao 昭), Shangren (商人, the later Duke Yi 懿) and Yong (雍). At first Duke Huan of Qi and Guanzi (管仲) decided to establish Pan as the crown prince, but later a courtier called Yi Ya (易牙) convinced Duke Huan to change his mind and promise the throne to Wumeng.23 If the father does not have any particular preference, then divination would be practised to find a solution to the succession problem: Duke Xian (献) of Jin (晋) said, “If one cannot decide his preference, then he needs to resort to the practice of divination.”24

120  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

7

King Gong of Chu (楚共王, i.e., the head of the State of Chu who proclaimed himself king) had no Dizi, and he loved all five of his Shuzi, so he had no idea how he would choose his successor. He held a ceremony to offer sacrifices to the gods of mountains, rivers and stars. He prayed for an answer to the question of which of his sons should be appointed as crown prince, and he received the following divine message: A piece of jade with a hole in its center would be regarded as a token, and the son who happened to touch this when kneeling to worship the ancestors would be chosen. Together with Baji (巴姬), his concubine, King Gong of Chu secretly buried one piece of jade in the lobby of the ancestral temple. He then asked his five sons to fast there and take turns to kowtow. Zhao (招) strode over the jade, Wei (围)’s elbow was close to the jade while kowtowing, and both Zi Gan (子干) and Zixi (子皙) kowtowed far away from the jade. When Qiji (弃疾), the youngest son, was brought in, however, his knees pressed several times against the exact place where the jade was buried. So, Qiji (弃疾) was chosen as the successor to the throne. Later, though, King Gong of Chu changed his mind and made Zhao (招) his successor. Dou Weigui (斗韦龟), a bureaucrat of the State of Chu, entrusted his son Chengran (成然) to Qiji (弃疾), saying, “The rites of establishing the successor have been abandoned. That would spell trouble for the State of Chu.”25 Here, the rites refer to the rites of practicing divination when necessary and the mandate of Heaven meant the decision by destiny. There was a similar event recorded in The Book of Rites. Shi Taizhong (石骀仲), a bureaucrat of Wei (卫), died, leaving no Dizi and six Shuzi. Again, divination was practised to determine his successor. The result of the divination predicted that “An omen will appear when all sons take a bath each wearing a jade pendant.” Five of Shi Taizhong’s six sons went to take a bath with a jade pendant, but one of them, Shi Qizi (石祁子), refused as he thought it was inappropriate when he was mourning the loss of his father. He explained that to wear a jade pendant and take a bath during the mourning period was not a sign of sadness but of delight. As a result, he was chosen as the successor to his father, according to the omen.26 However, if there was neither Dizi nor Shuzi to choose from, the successor had to be handpicked. a

A relative’s son would be adopted as the successor to carry on the family line. Only one example can be found in this regard: Duke Jing (景) of Song (宋) was childless and had to adopt his nephew Gongsun Zhou (公孙周)’s two sons, De (得) and Qi (启), who were then brought up in the royal family of Song. The decision about which one would be successor had not yet been made when Duke Jing passed away. His prime minister decided to establish Qi as the successor, but the other six ministers disagreed, even intending to

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  121 depose the prime minister. He had no choice but to flee, along with Qi (启), to the State of Chu (楚) to seek asylum. As a result, the other ministers of Song placed De (得) on the throne.27 Adopting a relative’s son was a last resort. When one had no Dizi but did have Shuzi, he could handpick a successor from Shuzi who at least was his biological child. When one had neither Dizi nor Shuzi, he had to select an heir from another family. In this way, the traditional system of inheritance within a family was nominally maintained from generation to generation, though, in fact, the lineage was interrupted. There are two points that merit attention. First, although the heir was adopted, he was of the same clan and the closest kinship. For instance, Duke Jing (景) of Song adopted the sons of his nephew Gongsun Zhou (公孙周).28 Second, the method of adoption was very seldom practised. The example of Duke Jing’s adoption of Gongsun Zhou’s sons was the only one of its kind recorded in the Spring and Autumn Period. A more common approach would be as follows: b

One’s younger brother would be chosen as successor. Gan Jian (甘简), the Duke of the State of Gan (甘) was childless, so he installed his younger brother Ganguo (甘过) as his successor.29 Jisun Si (季孙斯, also known as Viscount Jihuan 季桓, one of the three senior ministers in the State of Lu 鲁) fell seriously ill and told Zhengchang (正常), one of his subordinates, that if his wife Nan Ruzi (南孺子) gave birth to a boy then the boy would be the successor, but if the child turned out to be a girl, then his younger brother Kangzi (康子) would be the successor. Soon, Jisun died, and Kangzi became the master of the family, assuming Jisun’s political role in the State of Lu. Later, Nan Ruzi gave birth to a boy. When Zhengchang announced this news in the imperial court, Kangzi offered to vacate his position and establish the boy as the rightful successor.30 These two examples were cases in which a man had no child and so made his younger brother successor. (Translator’s note: The author of the book is wrong in using the second example, that is, Jisun Si’s arrangement of succession after his death. One the one hand, Kangzi was later proven to be Jisun Si’s son born of a concubine, rather than his younger brother. On the other hand, as Jisun Si was the head of the Jisun family, this example only concerns the succession of a family, not that of a state. So, actually it does not fit here since the paragraph discusses the succession of state.)

The above is a broad outline of the inheritance of the throne and fiefs. As regards the situation of enfeoffing sons and younger brothers who were not in the category of Senior Zong, please refer to the section on the status of Dizi and Shuzi.

122  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

Sacrificial rituals As is known to all, sacrificial rituals were closely related to the patriarchal clan system and classes. This section will focus on the relationship between sacrificial rituals and the patriarchal clan system. First, the sole purpose of sacrificial rituals was to pay respect to and show gratitude for one’s ancestors, and to advocate filial piety. However, not all sons were officially included in the system of worship. There were differences between Junior Zong and Senior Zong in this respect. Those who inherited the memorial tablet of the deceased father were included in the system of worship for the father, those who inherited the memorial tablet of the deceased grandfather were included in the system of worship for the grandfather, those who inherited the memorial tablet of the deceased great-grandfather were included in the system of worship for the great-grandfather and those who inherited the memorial tablet of the deceased great-great-grandfather were included in the system of worship for the great-great-grandfather. These four inheritors were representatives of the four Junior Zong. Each had the memorial tablet of his own ancestor to inherit and was thus included in the system of worship. One was excluded from worshipping any ancestor whom one did not inherit. For example, those who inherited the great-grandfather’s tablet and those who inherited the father’s tablet were excluded from worshipping the great-great-grandfather. Those who inherited the grandfather’s tablet and those who inherited the father’s tablet were excluded from worshipping the great-grandfather. Those who inherited the father’s tablet were excluded from worshipping the grandfather. The secondeldest son, who did not inherit his father’s tablet, was therefore excluded from the system of worshipping the father. These ancestors were worshipped by their Junior Zong, who inherited tablets from them and enjoyed their sacrifices accordingly. Only those who inherited the earliest ancestors’ tablets were Senior Zong, and only Zongzi were included in the system of worship for the earliest ancestors. Neither Junior Zong nor Shuzi were qualified for this. Therefore, the eldest Dizi was called Zongzi, and he would later inherit the position of head of the grand unified ancestral temple, whose temple would be named Zongshi (宗室).31 Politically, one state could not have two rulers. In terms of the patriarchal clan system, a temple could not have two hosts for sacrificial rituals. Senior Zong unified the clan at the top hierarchy, and Junior Zong unified it at the bottom. In this way, the whole system was rigidly stratified and strictly organised. The earliest ancestor was the only progenitor of all the following generations, so he could enjoy sacrifices forever, and his eldest son, born of his principal/first/official wife, would be a Senior Zong; his status would stay unchanged for one hundred generations.32 By contrast, the situation of a Junior Zong was different. Some inherited the memorial tablets from their great-great-grandfather, some from their great-grandfather, some from their grandfather and some from their father. The ancestors they succeeded

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  123 were obviously not the same, so they were excluded from the system of worship for whoever they did not succeed. In this sense, their ancestors would be worshipped according to the specific heirs of each generation. “For the generation of my sons, my great-great-grandfather would be their ancestor. When my next generation appeared, as my great-great-grandfather’s memorial tablet would be moved up by one level, my status as Junior Zong would be inherited by my sons. The status of Junior Zong was only recognised by descendants in five generations,”33 and one’s offspring would not be included in the worship for one’s great-great-grandfather, whose memorial tablet would be moved to Temple Tiao (祧庙, a temple for worshipping ancestors).34 For a much clearer understanding, one can refer to Figure 4.1. For convenience and simplicity only two brothers of each generation are illustrated in the figure, and only seven generations are taken into consideration. The sixth generation, as well as its elders, is marked with full lines to indicate four Junior Zong in five generations: Namely, those that succeed the father, the grandfather, the great-grandfather or the great-great-grandfather. Roman numerals appear under the full lines to indicate the five generations. The seventh generation is indicated by dotted lines. From the third generation on, both dotted lines and Arabic numerals are used to indicate the change of ancestors and successors from generation to generation. A system called “Zhao-Mu” (昭穆), which details how to arrange temples, tombs and memorial tablets according to seniority in a clan over generations was set up to better organise the patriarchal clan system. The name of Zhao was always put in the left, and the name of Mu was always put in the right, one after the other in a family line. For example, the father was Zhao, and the son was Mu; after that, the grandson was Zhao again. The two names would repeat in order. Therefore, King Wen (文) of Zhou (周) was Mu, and all his sons were Zhao. Fuchen (富辰, a bureaucrat of Zhou) thus observed, “Guan (管), Cai (蔡), Cheng (郕), Huo (霍), Lu (鲁), Wei (卫), Mao (毛), Dan (聃), Gao (郜), Yong (雍), Cao (曹), Teng (滕), Bi (毕), Yuan (原), Feng (酆), and Xun (郇) were all named Zhao of King Wen.”35 Hou Nou (侯 獳, a subordinate to the head of Cao) stated, “Caoshu (曹叔, also known as Zhenduo 振铎) was Zhao of King Wen.”36 Ziyu (子鱼, a bureaucrat of Song) also said, “King Wu (武)’s mother gave birth to him and his eight younger brothers…Caoshu was Zhao of King Wen.”37 King Wu was Zhao, and his sons were Mu. As Fuchen put it, “Yu (邘), Jin (晋), Ying (应), and Han (韩) were all Mu of King Wu.”38 Hou Nou said, “The late prince Tangshu (唐 叔) was Mu of King Wu.”39 Ziyu (子鱼) said, “All the three were King Wu’s sons…Jin was Mu of King Wu.”40 The establishment of ancestral temples should strictly follow the order of Zhao and Mu. Any disorder was not allowed. Take the king, for example. He was entitled to establish seven temples in total, including three for Zhao, three for Mu and one for the earliest ancestor.41 They would be arranged in the following order:

124  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism The First Generation

The Earliest Ancestor

The Second Generation

the eldest son

I

the second eldest son

1 ……………………………. II The Third Generation

The eldest son

The eldest son

The 2nd eldest son

The 2nd eldest son

(who succeeded father) 2 …………………….. III

The Fourth Generation

The eldest son

The 2nd The eldest eldest son son

The eldest son

The 2nd eldest son

The eldest son

The 2nd The eldest eldest son son

The 2nd eldest son

(ibid)

The 2nd eldest son

The 2nd eldest son

The eldest son

(who succeeded father and great-grandfather)

The The 2nd eldest eldest son son

The eldest son

(ibid)

(ibid) The Seventh Generation

The 2nd eldest son

The eldest son

(ibid)

4 ………….….. V

The Sixth Generation

The 2nd eldest son

The eldest son

The eldest son

(who succeeded father and grandfather)

(ibid)

3 ……………. IV

The Fifth Generation

The 2nd eldest son

The The 2nd eldest eldest son son

(ibid)

5 ………………. VI The eldest son

The 2nd The eldest eldest son son

The 2nd eldest son

(ibid) Senior Zong Unchanged Forever

Figure 4.1 Senior Zong and Junior Zong.

Zhao – the sixth ancestor. Zhao – the fourth ancestor. Zhao – the second ancestor. the first ancestor. Mu – the third ancestor.

The The 2nd eldest eldest son son

The eldest son

(ibid)

(ibid)

Four Junior Zong In Five Generations

The 2nd eldest son

(who succeeded father and great-greatgrandfather)

The The 2nd eldest eldest son son (ibid)

The 2nd eldest son

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  125 Mu – the fifth ancestor. Mu – the seventh ancestor Not only did the establishment of temples follow this rule; the memorial tablets also had to be placed in the order of Zhao-Mu when a grand memorial ceremony for all ancestors was held in the imperial ancestral temple. We should note that the system of Zhao-Mu indicated the sequence of succession to the throne, but it did not necessarily refer to a father-son relationship. If an elder brother passed away, then his younger brother would rise to power; if the deceased king had neither Dizi nor brother, then his half-brother, who had the same father but not the same mother (i.e., a son of his father’s concubine), could ascend the throne. In that case, the order of Zhao-Mu had to also be observed in the sequence of their succession to the throne. Duke Wen (文) of Lu (鲁) was the son of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu, who was the half-brother of Duke Min (闵) of Lu. Duke Min of Lu was childless, so Duke Xi succeeded the throne after Min’s death. In terms of seniority, Duke Xi was older than Duke Min, but in terms of the sequence of their succession to the throne, Duke Min was placed before Duke Xi since Duke Xi ascended the throne right after Duke Min. While Duke Min was in the position of Zhao, Duke Xi was in the position of Mu. This order of Zhao-Mu, which resembled the father-son relationship, was observed strictly. Once such an order was established, it could never be overturned. Xiafu Fuji (夏父弗忌), the minister of the State of Lu, was in charge of enforcing these rites at this time. In a winter sacrificial ritual, he stated an intention to place the memorial tablet of Duke Xi in front of that of Duke Min. However, one of his assistants strongly advised him not to do this, saying to him: The order of Zhao-Mu in temples has been arranged according to the sequence in genealogy, thus making the family line clear to the offspring. The sacrificial ritual is an expression of our filial piety. Each one shall express his respect and love for the ancestor and the heaven, which is the most crucial etiquette for us to live up to. Therefore, historians should record the sequence of succession to the throne, while the minister responsible for the enforcement of rites and the officer responsible for the sacrificial rituals have to record the order of Zhao-Mu. However, even if they do their best, they still worry that they might make a mistake and feel guilty ever after. Now you want to put Duke Xi ahead of Duke Min because of the virtues Duke Xi possesses, although you are fully aware that Duke Min ascended the throne earlier. But do you remember that no kings from King Xuan (玄, the earliest ancestor of the Shang 商 Dynasty) to King Gui (癸, the father of King Tang 汤) in the Shang Dynasty were more virtuous than King Tang and no kings from King Houji (后稷, the earliest ancestor of the Zhou 周 Dynasty) to King Ji (季, the father of King Wen 文) were better than King Wen and King Wu (武) in the Zhou

126  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism Dynasty? In the winter sacrifice, however, neither the Shang nor Zhou people placed King Tang, King Wen and King Wu in the front simply because of their merits. People never felt at ease until they did their best to follow the convention and etiquette. We people in the State of Lu, however, are reluctant to follow the example of the Shang and Zhou people and are going to defy the convention. What a wrong thing to do!42 Unfortunately, Xiafu Fuji did not follow this advice and still placed Duke Xi’s tablet in front of Duke Min’s. Scholars at that time thus ranted against Xiafu Fuji for doing so. Zhanqin (展禽, a bureaucrat of Lu 鲁) even prophesied that Xiafu Fuji would suffer disasters for his disregard of convention in a sacrificial ritual. When Zhanqin’s servant asked exactly what disasters would come to Xiafu Fuji, Zhanqin answered, “I don’t know yet. If he has a strong body, then he will die naturally. But even if he dies naturally, still some disaster will befall him.” Later, when Xiafu Fuji passed away, a fire broke out in his coffin at the funeral, as predicted.43 For the same reason, Guliang criticised Duke Wen, even more severely than Zhanqin did Xiafu Fuji. These two instances indicated that people at this time very strictly adhered to the order of Zhao-Mu. As Guliang observed, Duke Wen of Lu agreed to place his father Duke Xi’s tablet before Duke Min’s, which broke the order of ancestor worship. Such a memorial ceremony did not conform to the order of Zhao-Mu. In so doing, he showed contempt for the ancestors and the natural law. That is to say, he dismissed the will of Heaven. A virtuous man should always consider the political order first and his love for his own family members second as this concerned the very important idea of ‘righteousness’ that was always been advocated in the Spring and Autumn Period.44 The above paragraphs have been devoted to the differences in sacrificial rituals between Senior Zong and Junior Zong, the superiority of Zongzi in sacrificial rituals and the observance of the order of Zhao-Mu. It is evident that feudalism depended on the patriarchal clan system that was reinforced by the convention of sacrificial rituals. The correlation between feudalism and the patriarchal clan system was significant. In this sense, sacrificial rituals naturally assumed considerable importance in a feudal society. This importance is unmistakable in the following cases: First, the expenditure of sacrificial rituals made up a large part of national expenditure. According to the “King’s System”: “Sacrificial rituals cost le (仂) of the national expenditures.” According to Zheng Xuan (郑玄, a prestigious scholar in the Han Dynasty), le here referred to one-tenth. Obviously, ten percent of the national expenditure was a large sum. Second, both the king and his princes took part in hunting three times each year. A small portion of the captured game would be

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  127 contributed to feasts hosted by the king and princes, but the majority was used as a sacrifice.45Third, princes provided the king with sacrifices according to the season (more details in Chapter 3). Fourth, the king and princes themselves would kill animals46 and till land for sacrifices,47 while their wives would keep silkworms, make clothes to be worn at sacrificial rituals48 and even husk rice with mortar and pestle to be used for sacrifices.49 Such pious actions point to the great significance of sacrificial rituals at this time. Therefore, Guanshefu (观射父, a bureaucrat of the State of Chu) said, “From the duke to the common people, all offer sacrifices to deities with great respect, thus strengthening the unity of our state and consolidating the political power.”50

Marriage This section will not describe wedding ceremonies in feudal China for this topic does not fit into this book. A detailed discussion on marriage in the Zhou (周) Dynasty could make a whole book in itself; this book, however, takes the feudal society as its research subject, so it will only examine marriage from the two perspectives of the institution of feudalism: The relationship between marriage and the patriarchal clan system, and the relationship between marriage and classes. The former will be discussed in this chapter, and the latter will be dealt with in Chapter 6. In so doing, we can achieve a better understanding of the feudal implication of marriage and the correlation between marriage and other feudal systems. In terms of inheritance, a father made his son his successor. This son later made his father’s grandson his successor. The grandson made the father’s great-grandson his successor. The great-grandson then made the father’s great-great-grandson his successor. The order of inheritance took place in this kind of paternal line for hundreds of generations. Women never enjoyed the right of inheritance, even when no Dizi or Shuzi was available. In terms of treatment, A bride who still lived in her parents’ home was called ‘a girl’; when on the way to her husband’s home she would be called ‘a woman’; and when she arrived at her husband’s home she would be called ‘a madam.’51 A female who was not yet married would not be regarded as an adult in her parents’ home. If she died before marriage, a funeral would be held but not the type reserved for adult deaths. For example, Shuji (叔姬, a woman who was to marry the head of the State of Qi 杞) died, and Gongyang (公羊) said: She has not officially got married. Why is her death recorded? Because she has already been engaged to be married. A woman engaged to a certain man through a formal engagement ceremony would be treated with a funeral after her death that an adult was entitled to.52

128  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism Once a female was engaged, if she died, she would be entitled to a funeral ceremony for an adult. However, even though she would be treated as an adult, her memorial tablet would not be placed in the temple of her fiancé’s family to enjoy sacrifices because she would not officially be regarded as a member of her fiancé’s family. When it comes to status, a man’s family background had significant value. Whether he was Senior Zong, Junior Zong, Dizi or Shuzi directly defined his position and rights. His fortune and status were all decided the moment he was born. This was the rule of the patriarchal clan system, which by no means could be broken. However, according to this system, a woman had no status at all in her parents’ family. For example, if a man’s mother was a concubine, his status would be considered low. The family background of a female, however, could not decide her future. Even if her mother was a concubine, she would likely become a madam of a noble man and enjoy this status for hundreds of generations. When King Ling (灵) of Zhou (周) decided to marry a woman from the State of Qi (齐) and make her his queen, Duke Ling of Qi tried to get some advice from his bureaucrat Viscount Yanhuan (晏桓子) about how to respond. Viscount Yanhuan told Duke Ling of Qi: Here is our former kings’ prescriptions to follow: If a king asked his princes for a woman to be his queen, the princes should answer: ‘My madames gave birth to some girls; my concubines gave birth to some girls.’ If princes didn’t have daughters and only had sisters and aunts, they should say: ‘The previous princes had several daughters.’53 The reply “my concubines gave birth to some girls” indicates that a girl’s family background would not make a difference in terms of her status, and she could still be chosen as the future queen. Only when she was married as the first wife or as a concubine in her husband’s home would her fate take shape. In feudal China, a system called Ying (媵, dowry servants) was established. Ancient Chinese people valued the order of seniority which was the essence of the patriarchal clan system. The elder were superior to the younger, and Zhao (昭) was superior to Mu (穆). The positions in a family hierarchy were not to be disarranged. In terms of marriage, a duke could choose a princess to be his first wife, and under the Ying (媵) system the dowry servants of his wife would also come over and were likely to marry the duke. The dowry servants “who accompanied a bride to her husband’s home were usually the daughters of the bride’s elder brother and/or her own younger sisters. The former were usually called Zhi (侄, nieces), while the latter were called Di (娣, younger sisters).”54 If a girl accompanying the bride was the bride’s younger sister, it would be understandable for them to enjoy the same seniority as they were of the same generation. But if she was the bride’s niece, wouldn’t that break the seniority rule? As a matter of fact, it would not. This

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  129 demonstrates that before leaving her parents’ home to marry, a woman had no rightful positions in the patriarchal clan system of her family. If a male and a female had the same family name, they could not be married to each other so as to avoid the possible negative physical influence of a close blood relationship as well as to conform to the patriarchal clan system. As mentioned above, although a female had no status in her parents’ home in terms of the patriarchal clan system, her identity would be taken into account when she was arranged a marriage. Suppose a woman and a man shared the same family name: This might mean they had the same remote ancestor, and if so, their marriage would break the seniority rule as they might be descendants of different generations in the same family line. Thus, their marriage would not be allowed. Because “they would not reproduce any offspring” or “could not give birth to healthy offspring”55 , a female and a male with close blood relationship were forbidden to marry each other. Those who came from the same family but were already five generations away from each other still could not get married. At that time the prohibition against females and males with the same family name marrying each other was so strict that “the former king had to marry a woman with a different family name,”56 and “the wife of a head of state was not supposed to have the same surname with him”;57 moreover, a man was not allowed to buy any woman with the same family name to be his concubine, so, “If a man wanted a woman to be his concubine without knowing her family name, then he would resort to the practice of divination to find that out.”58 This proves that marriage had something to do with both the blood relationship and the patriarchal clan system. Wedding ceremonies told the same story. A wedding ceremony had to be held at the husband’s home to indicate that the wife had officially become a member of this household. For instance, Duke Wen (文) of Lu (鲁) himself went to the State of Qi (齐) to escort the bride “Jiang (姜),” and their wedding ceremony was held in the State of Qi, which was against convention. Guliang (谷梁) thus commented: She was called ‘Madame Jiang’ instead of ‘Wen Jiang’ because the wedding ceremony was held in the State of Qi, not in the State of Lu…The head of Lu was not mentioned because his wedding ceremony that was not held in Lu violated the convention.59 All the above supporting details in historical texts prove that a woman had no status at her parents’ home under the patriarchal clan system. After marriage she would take her husbands’ family name and follow the patriarchal rule at her husband’s home. Therefore, in the ancient times a woman’s marriage was also called “gui” (归, which literally means going home); as Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals put it: “Boji (伯姬, the eldest daughter of Duke Hui 惠 of Lu) went to the home of Ji (纪, the family name of the man she was arranged to marry).” – the 2nd year of Duke Yin (隐) of

130  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism Lu; “Boji (伯姬, the eldest daughter of Duke Zhuang 庄 of Lu) went to the home of Qi (杞, the family name of the man she was arranged to marry).” – the 25th year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; “Shuji (叔姬, the younger sister of the first Boji) went to the home of Ji (纪, the family name of the man she was arranged to marry).” – the 7th year of Duke Yin; “Jiji (季姬, the youngest daughter of Duke Xi 僖 of Lu) went to the home of Zeng (鄫, the family name of the man she was arranged to marry).” – the 15th year of Duke Xi; “Boji (伯姬, the daughter of Duke Xuan 宣 of Lu) went to the home of Song (宋, the family name of the man she was arranged to marry).” – the 9th year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu. These examples showed that “gui” meant that “a female officially married a man and thus took his family name.” According to Words and Expressions (《说文》), “gui refers to a female’s marriage to a man and her husband’s home would be her home thereafter.” Guliang also noted: According to the rites, a woman’s marriage to her husband was called ‘gui’ and her visit to her own parents’ home was called ‘lai gui’ (来归 literally means returning), which meant she was already married and belonged to another family.60 It is thus clear that a woman’s marriage meant her arriving at her permanent home and living where she was meant to live. Before marriage she stayed temporarily in her parents’ home, which was not her permanent residence at all. “A woman was subordinate to her father when living at her parents’ home, after marriage she was subordinate to her husband, and after her husband’s death she was subordinate to her eldest son.”61 That is to say, a woman’s subordination to her father was only temporary. A married woman not only took her husband’s family name but also his seniority within the clan. Her status in the family was completely decided by his. If her husband was of the generation of father, then she would be of the generation of mother; if her husband was of the generation of son, then she would be of the generation of daughter-in-law. If she was in the generation of mother, then she would, after death, enjoy the sacrifices offered by her sons. If she was just a daughter-in-law, she would have to attend sacrificial rituals prudently with her husband. This explains why The Book of Rites observed that “A woman whose husband was in the generation of father would enjoy the rights of a mother, and a woman whose husband was in the generation of son would just be entitled to the right as a daughter-in-law.”62 Such rules could not be broken. As a woman had no patriarchal status at her parents’ home before marriage, both her niece and younger sister – who would accompany her to her marriage and permanent home – would become her husband’s Ying (媵), which was a type of concubine. At this time this was a common practice and was not regarded as unethical. After marriage, the woman and these concubines would share the same seniority in the family as the husband, so there would be no conflict among them in terms of seniority.

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  131 Another grand ceremony would be observed the morning after the wedding ceremony: Shortly after dawn, the bride would take a bath and then wait to greet her parents-in-law.63 When this ceremony closed, the bride’s status as daughter-in-law would be officially established. Otherwise, she  would be only a wife without being recognised by her parents-in-law. The ceremony would not yet have come to an end, even after the bride met her parents-in-law. Later the bride needed to go to the temple to worship the ancestors of her husband and meet her husband’s clansmen. Only after this worship in the temple would she be thought to have duly greeted her husband’s ancestors and be accepted as a daughter-in-law. Only after visiting Zongfu64 would she be thought to have already met the clansmen of her husband’s family (Zongfu means the wife of a certain clansman who enjoyed a high political status). Ever since the ceremony the bride had to respect those who were higher in seniority, while those who were lower than her had to respect her. Hence, she would have her official appellation in her lifetime, and after death she would be able to enter the ancestral temple, following the order of Zhao-Mu. In this way she would gain her status in the patriarchal clan system and be able to attend sacrificial rituals and enjoy sacrifices after death. This ceremony was considered crucial at the time; as Confucius put it, “three months after marriage, the bride went to the ancestral temple, and this was called ‘the coming of a new wife’, and she was expected to choose an auspicious day to worship the one her husband succeeded, marking the completion of a wedding ceremony.”65 If such a ceremony was not observed properly, a woman would not be officially accepted as a member of her husband’s family under the patriarchal system, whether in her lifetime or after death. Therefore, when Zengzi (曾子) asked Confucius what to do with a woman who died before visiting her husband’s ancestral temple, Confucius replied: If so, then when a funeral procession is held, her coffin can not be carried to her husband’s ancestral temple. Her memorial tablet will not be placed after the tablet of her husband’s mother. Her husband does not need to hold a funeral stick for her or wear a pair of funeral shoes. Nor does her husband need to observe a mourning period for her. She will be buried in the graveyard of her parents’ family, thus indicating she has not yet officially become a member of her husband’s family because she has not finished the final important steps of her wedding ceremony.66 Even though she would be buried in the graveyard of her parents’ family, her parents would not place a memorial tablet for her in their own ancestral temple. Whether or not her memorial tablet was placed in the ancestral temple of her husband’s family, her parents’ family would never host a sacrificial ritual for her, nor would she be listed among ancestors of her parents’ family.

132  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

Funerals Like marriage, funerals can be examined from the perspective of their relationship to the patriarchal clan system and from the perspective of their relationship with classes. This section looks into the former. First, in terms of the funeral system, “a child cannot leave parents’ arms and walk by himself until he is three years old. Mourning for one’s deceased parent for three years is a rite followed by everybody under the heaven.”67 This three-year mourning period devoted to one’s parents was the most solemn mourning practice. On the other hand, the eldest son was the most important child, who would succeed his father and ancestors, and would bequeath what he had to his successor. Thus he had a significant position in both the system of inheritance and the system of the patriarchal clan. Therefore, his parents were required to mourn his death for three years if he died earlier than them. “According to Mourning, a father should be in mourning for his eldest son for three years as the eldest son was a member of the ancestors for the future generations to worship and he was a successor to his deceased father, thus being a very important figure in their family. The reason why a mother should be in mourning for her eldest son for three years was that since her husband dare not pay less respect to the eldest son, she dare not either.”68 Shuzi, a boy whose mother was a concubine could not be a successor to his deceased father and grandfather. Accordingly, Shuzi was excluded from worshipping and offering sacrifices to his own father as well as his grandfather. Because the first son of the father’s principal/first/official wife was a successor to his father and grandfather, and represented Senior Zong, Shuzi was also excluded from worshipping and offering sacrifices to him after the first son’s death and was not even allowed to observe the three-year mourning period. That is why The Book of Rites observed: Shuzi was excluded from worshipping and offering sacrifices to his ancestors because that was the privilege as well as the duty of the representative of Senior Zong; The reason why a Shuzi should not mourn the death of Dizi (the first son of the father’s first wife) was that Shuzi was not permitted to inherit the tablets of his father and grandfather.69 Shuzi was excluded from worshipping and offering sacrifices to his deceased father; only Zongzi (the first son of the father’s first wife), now the representative of Senior Zong, was entitled to do that.70 Shuzi was excluded from worshipping and offering sacrifices to his ancestors; only the representative of Senior Zong was qualified to do that. Shuzi was not permitted to practise the three-year mourning for Dizi, for Shuzi was not a successor to his ancestors.71 Shuzi was not permitted to practise the three-year mourning for Dizi, for Shuzi was not a successor to Senior Zong.72

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  133 As stated in the previous section on inheritance laws, Dizi – namely, the eldest son whose mother was a principal/first/official wife – had the right of inheritance; in addition, after his death, his own eldest son’s right of inheritance came before that of his brother(s) because his brother(s) did not belong to the family line of Zongzi. The eldest grandson was bound to be a successor to the ancestors, so the mourning for the eldest grandson, if he died prematurely, would also last for a certain period of time. As The Book of Rites put it, why did a grandfather observe a one-year period of mourning for the death of his eldest grandson? Because a grandfather dared not pay less respect considering the status of his eldest grandson. When a Dizi was still alive, the eldest grandson’s position of being a successor could not be established. Likewise, when a Dizi’s wife was still alive, the eldest grandson’s wife would not be recognised as the wife of a successor.73 Therefore, the respect for Di (嫡, lineal descent) was demonstrated by the three-year mourning for the death of Dizi and the one-year mourning for the death of the eldest grandson. The respect for Di was a symbol of the respect for ancestors and their clan system. The mourning was in fact not intended for certain sons or grandsons but for the ancestors. As a result, the mourning for the death of the eldest son and the eldest grandson who were to be successors was different from that for the rest of the sons and grandsons. The mourning for an eldest son who died prematurely was the same as that for his father. Through the system of mourning, one can also see the relation between funerals and the patriarchal clan system was based on the fact that only the memorial tablets of Zongzi and his wife could be placed in the ancestral temple. Only Zongzi, who was a successor to his deceased father and grandfather, was able to have his memorial tablets placed in the ancestral temple after death. Three years after his death the funeral ceremony closed completely; his memorial tablet could only enter the ancestral temple in the order of Zhao-Mu through a grand ritual in summer. As Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals put it, the tablet of any dead king would be placed beside his ancestors in the ancestral temple after his burial was eventually finished and ten days of wailing at the funeral stopped. When his memorial tablet was placed in the temple, then a sacrificial ritual would be held for the newly dead king. However, his memorial tablet together with other ancestors’ would be worshipped simultaneously during the three great sacrificial rituals of each year, including Zheng Ji (蒸祭, a sacrificial ritual in winter), Chang Ji (尝祭, a sacrificial ritual in autumn), and Di Ji (禘祭, a sacrificial ritual in summer).74

134  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism Zongfu, the wife of Zongzi, had to have her memorial tablet placed beside her mother-in-law’s and then entered into the ancestral temple; otherwise, she would not gain the formal title of “Zongfu.” Therefore, regarding the death of Shengzi (声子), the second wife of Duke Hui (惠) of Lu (鲁), The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded, “In summer, Junshi (君氏, referring to Shengzi) died.” Zuo Qiuming, the author of Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals added: As no obituary notice was sent to dukes of other states, nobody wailed for her any more in the ancestral temple after her burial, and no memorial tablet of hers was placed beside that of her mother-in-law. That was why her death was not named as “hōng” (薨, a Chinese word which was used to address the death of dukes and their wives in the Spring and Autumn Period) and she was not called “Madame” (夫人, which was used to address the formal wife of a duke). Thus, her death was recorded but her burial was not mentioned.75 Obviously, it was only when a woman had the identity of “madame” that she could enjoy such rights as having an obituary notice sent out upon her death, having people wail for her in the ancestral temple after her burial and her memorial tablet placed beside that of her mother-in-law, and having her death called “hōng (薨)” and her burial mentioned in important historical documents like The Spring and Autumn Annals and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals. Only when a woman was Zongfu could her memorial tablet be placed in the ancestral temple. This served as a guiding principle when a tricky or difficult situation occurred and needed to be dealt with. For example, when Mengzi (孟子), the first wife of Duke Hui of Lu, died, the Duke made Zhongzi (仲子) his Madam, and their son Yun (允) was later a successor to the throne of Lu. However, a feudal prince was not allowed to have two legal wives; therefore as Mengzi’s memorial tablet had been placed in the ancestral temple, the tablet of Zhongzi could not enter the temple any more. As a result, Duke Yin (隐, the then regent of Lu) had no choice but to fulfil his father’s will and establish another temple to worship Zhongzi.76 There were two additional restrictions in this situation. First, according to the rites, if a Shuzi like Duke Huan of Lu ascended the throne and had a temple established for his natural mother, he was not supposed to host her sacrificial ceremonies because he had to worship the ancestral temple where the tablet of Mengzi, his father’s principal wife, was placed.77 Second, the sacrifice for a Shuzi’s mother had a time limit. “She would only be worshipped for two generations – from her son’s generation to her grandson’s generation, and no more after that.”78 That is to say, for a Shuzi’s mother, such a convention of sacrifice only lasted two generations.

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  135

Notes

136  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism

9 10 11 12

13 14

These four quotes were cited by The Society of Ancient China (《中国古代社 会》) (Vol. 1) written by Zeng Jian and published by Shanghai New Life, 1935. pp. 113–117. The Book of Rites·Mourning·Da Zhuan Cheng Yaotian, “A Chart of the Patriarchal Clan System.” After going through certain procedures, Xigu (the later Duke Yin of Lu) and Yun (the later Duke Huan of Lu) succeeded their father and became Senior Zong, though their mothers were both concubines. “King Cheng was in the capital city of Zongzhou and held ceremony to cleanse his state of filthy and evil things” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Marquise Xian Ding” from Explanation to the Inscriptions on Bronze Vessels in the Western and Eastern Zhou Dynasties, p. 27. Luo Zhenyu, “Marquis Xian’s writing on the Tripod of Marquis Xian Ding” from A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song (Vol. 3, p. 17). “The king was holding the summer sacrificial ritual in Zongzhou, the capital city.” – “Inscriptions on the Vessel of Chenchen He” from A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song. Chenchen He, a wine container, appeared in Vol. 8 of the same collection in the name of Chenchen Father He (pp. 33–34). “The bell of Zongzhou Zhong was made in Zongzhou.” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Zongzhou Ding” from A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song. p. 46. It was called “Zhou Bao Ding” both in Liang Shizheng’s A Record of Ancient Bronze Inscriptions Collected in the Qing Dynasty (Vol. 36, p. 4) and in Ruan Yuan’s A Collection of Ancient Inscriptions (Vol. 3, p. 8). “King in Zongzhou” – “Inscriptions on the Vessel of Shi Song Gui” from A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song. p. 63. “King in Zongzhou” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Da Ke Ding from A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song. pp. 123–124; it was called “Ke Ding” in Liu Xinyuan’s An Explanation to the Bronze Inscriptions of Qihu Room” (Vol. 2, pp. 28–34); it was also called “Shan Fu Ke Ding” in Wu Dawei’s An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Ke (Vol. 5, pp. 1–5); “King in Zongzhou” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Xiao Ke Ding” from An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Ke, pp. 128–129. It was written as “Ke Ding” in An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Tao by Duan Fang and A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song and A Collection of the Bronze Inscriptions of the Western and Eastern Zhou Dynasties by Zou An. (An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Tao, Vol. 1, pp. 34–39; An Explanation to the Archeological Map, Vol. 1, p. 25; A Collection of Ancient Essays of Room Zhen Song, Vol. 3, p. 34; A Collection of the Bronze Inscriptions of the Western and Eastern Zhou Dynasties, Vol. 2, pp. 14–17). It was written as “Shan Fu Ke Ding” in An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Tao (Vol. 5, p. 516). “King in Zongzhou” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Weiluan Ding” from An Analysis of Ancient Records of Room Tao, pp. 129–130. It was written as “Zong Ding” in An Explanation to the Archeological Map (Vol. 4, p. 19). “Duke Zhi of Yan paid his first official visit to the capital of the Zhou Dynasty to pay respect to the king.” – “Inscriptions on the Tripod of Duke Zhi of Yan Ding” from An Explanation to the Archeological Map. p. 264. “King Cheng of Zhou arrived in Zongzhou from Yan, a vassal state.” –The History of Zhou Dynasty·To All Dukes and Ministers. “In August, the Duke was in the State of Lu.” – “Inscriptions on the Vessel of Zonglu Yi,” Excerpts from the Inscriptions on Ancient Bronze Objects, Vol. 2, p. 42. “Eleven: Yanzi’s advice as Duke Jing of Qi intended to deprive Dizi (Yangsheng) of his rights of succession to the throne and give it to Tu.” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·One).

Patriarchal clan system of feudalism  137



























138  Patriarchal clan system of feudalism























5

Feudal classes I

Hierarchy was the foundation of a feudal society, a fact of which both bureaucrats and ministers were fully aware; therefore they did everything in their power to promote and uphold the system. Any theory that threatened to erode that hierarchy was roundly denounced by them to drill what they deemed right into the public, silence the unorthodox voices and oppose excessive actions and absurd opinions. That is why Mozi (墨子)’s belief in love of all mankind and Xu Xing (许行)’s argument that the king should farm lands along with farmers were considered corrosive by the ruling class. Mencius, for example, called Mozi an animal, condemning him for showing no respect for fathers and rulers.1 Mencius also debated some issues with Chen Xiang (陈相, a disciple of Xu Xing), ranging from Emperor Yao (尧) and Emperor Shun (舜) to Confucius, then moving on to the division of work between the powerful and common people, and concluded that hierarchy was the rule to follow.2 Confucianist scholars such as Confucius and Mencius highlighted in their books the differences between the upper and the lower,3 highbrows and lowbrows,4 brain workers and manual workers, those who took contribution of food and those who contributed food, and those who ruled and those who were ruled5: Namely the differences between the privileged and the underprivileged, the ruler and the ruled, and the oppressors and the oppressed. The ruling class always equivocated when it came to the yawning social gap; they justified the social system in the name of feudal etiquette and custom, and therefore formed a school of thought from that. Generally speaking, there were two opposing forces in the hierarchical system in feudal China. Under the two general categories were many social subcategories. The most widely adopted division was the five levels of king, princes, bureaucrats, scholars and commoners. Filial Piety devoted five chapters to the five levels, respectively. Such a division was certainly crucial. The Book of Rites, for example, elaborated on the separate rituals and manners in those five social classes. Even Mozi (墨子), a critic of Confucianism, noted that hierarchy is never a bottom-up approach but a top-down approach. Commoners work hard under the supervision of scholars; scholars

140  Feudal classes I under the supervision of generals and bureaucrats; generals and bureaucrats under the supervision of Three Dukes; Three Dukes under the supervision of the king, who acts according to the mandate of Heaven.6 Under the supernatural force of Heaven there were five social classes: the king was at the pinnacle level, while the commoners were at the bottom. Scholars were one level above commoners. Generals and bureaucrats were equivalent to ministers and bureaucrats, who also served as military officers (see the section on ministers and bureaucrats). The king’s Three Dukes were in fact princes themselves: Sons of former kings were also dukes. The rest of the princes were called marquises, counts, viscounts and barons. Dukes and marquises were of the same level and granted plots of land of the same size (see Chapter 2). Some may argue that slaves should be added as a sixth class, but it is noteworthy that the five classes were free men of the same group, or from the inside, while slaves were outsiders (from other groups or from the outside) who had been deprived of their freedom. (It is notable that very few people from within the same group were condemned to be slaves.) Farmers were bound by land and therefore were under landowners’ control. Their services, contributions and obligations defined the relation between them and landowners; such a relationship, as an inevitable outcome of feudalism, was based on landowners’ ownership of fiefs and farmers’ rights to till. They did enjoy freedom, albeit to a limited extent; slaves, on the other hand, were chattels of their owners and never had any freedom or rights.7 This is why commoners and slaves are treated as separate groups in this book.

Nobles and commoners The king The king was at the very top of the feudal hierarchy. Only the force of heaven reigned over him. People at this time were completely in awe of heaven, which was thought to create people, choose the king8 and reign over everything under it. The king’s claim of everything under heaven was endowed by heaven itself,9 and his very existence came as a result of its divine mandate: “No blessings from the mandate of heaven.”10 “The mandate of heaven endows people with morality.”11 “The mandate of heaven cannot be defied.”12 “To take the mandate of heaven as the principle.”13 “The mandate of heaven doesn’t change.”14 “The mandate of heaven is constant.”15 “The blessings from the mandate of heaven never come twice.”16 “The mandate of heaven perpetuates.”17 “Only the king takes orders from heaven.”18 These quotes demonstrate people’s faith in the mandate of heaven. Taking orders from heaven, the king cannot act on his impulse.

Feudal classes I  141 He must rule his people in this way and thus be blessed by heaven: “Those who are helped by heaven benefit from that.”19 “Heaven defines karma for the good and the evil.”20 “Heaven helps and orders Cheng Tang (成汤).”21 “The king is blessed by heaven and our small state of Zhou (周) thus benefits from that.”22 “Heaven blesses us.”23 “You are blessed with peace by heaven.”24 “Those blessed by heaven…”25 “He is chosen as the king by the mandate of heaven.”26 “Heaven blesses those with integrity.”27 “… be blessed by heaven.”28 If the king was tyrannical, he would be punished by heaven, and adversity would take place: “Heaven punishes criminals.”29 “Heaven punishes Yin (殷) by thrusting a disaster upon us.”30 “Heaven punishes us.”31 “Heaven punishes Yin by thrusting chaos.”32 “The punishment of heaven is severe.”33 “Heaven punishes him.”34 “Heaven doesn’t bless Zhou (周).”35 “Heaven brings disasters to Zhou.”36 “Heaven causes… to be plagued.”37 When the king was cruel and brutal, he could not be redeemed. Heaven ordained chaos and gave up on the king by putting an end to his life or his ruling: “Heaven despises the prosperity of Zhou (周).”38 “Heaven gives up on it.”39 “Heaven kills him.”40 “Heaven takes his life.”41 “Heaven’s blessings come to an end.”42 “Heaven wants the collapse of Yin (殷).”43 The paramount prestige of heaven was never accessible to ordinary people. The king took orders from heaven to rule and therefore called himself the Son of Heaven.44 He was considered as great as heaven and earth, and his level of morality was thought to be as grand as heaven and earth.45 The king was unrivalled among his fellow human beings. He was the most esteemed man of all,46 so he called himself “the Only One”: “You shall be aides of me, the Only One.”47 “You shall obey me… If I, the only one, am found guilty, no one else shall be held accountable; if anyone else is found guilty, then I, the Only One, shall be held accountable.”48 “You don’t pay respect to me, the Only one…You shall follow the Only One’s plan for our state…It is the fault of the Only One.”49 “… to shake the faith of the Only One…to stand in solidarity with the Only One.”50 “You collaborate to slander me, the Only One.”51 “You shall assist me, the Only One.”52 “The Only One shall be blamed for his people’s wrongdoings.”53 “You shall follow the Only One and carry out the punishment ordained by heaven.”54 “…to assist me, the Only One.”55 “… to the delight of the Only One.”56 “… the Only One does not pity and pardon criminals.”57 “Peace persists when the Only One is virtuous… he must be a noble man.”58 “… then you will be awarded by me, the Only One.”59 “… to be assistants of the Only One.”60 “The Only One is blessed.”61 “The Only One feels secure.”62 “There is still a long way to go for me, the Only One, to acquire great virtues.”63 “You must heed the mandate of heaven and help me, the Only One.”64 “They assist me, the Only One…”65 “I, the Only One, never forget that…That is my biggest wish… So I am not criticised by the people.”66 “The king said: ‘It is no one else but my uncle who came to see me. I must award him for that. Let him in. I, the Only One, will host him…’ The servant said: ‘The Only One will host

142  Feudal classes I you.’”67 “The ruler was called the Son of Heaven. He received princes, bestowed titles on them and appointed them according to their contributions. The king called himself ‘the Only One.’”68 “When referring to himself, the king used ‘the Only One.’”69 For those quotes containing “the One”, they refer to the king as well: “Peace reigns supreme in all his states as the One is virtuous.”70 “The One is virtuous and wins the hearts of millions of his people.”71 “All his states” and “millions of people” in the quotes indicate that “the One” was doubtless the king. There was no match for the superiority and the utmost power of the king. That is why he was “the One.” Princes The king was ordained by the mandate of heaven, while princes were installed by the king to help him rule his people. Princes served the king just as the king served the divine mandate. Apart from heaven, the king was the most powerful; princes were the second-most powerful, above all the rest. Princes themselves fell into the five levels of “duke, marquis, count, viscount and baron.” More details on this can be found in the section on feoffment (Chapter 2). Ministers and bureaucrats Those who were one level below and served princes were ministers and bureaucrats. Generally speaking, the two belonged to the same level, but there were still some difference between them. Ministers were of a higher status than bureaucrats. This is why the former’s title was always placed before the latter. Ministers were granted more fiefs than bureaucrats. Ministers had 100 fiefs, while bureaucrats had sixty (see Chapter 3). The king’s ministers had fiefs covering an area of 100 li (里), while the king’s bureaucrats had fiefs covering an area of seventy li. For small states, the princes’ ministers had fiefs of 1,600 mu (亩); for secondary states, the princes’ ministers had fiefs of 2,400 mu; for large states, the princes’ ministers had fiefs of 3,200 mu. But the princes’ bureaucrats, whether in small states, secondary states or large states, had fiefs of only 800 mu (see Chapter 3). Ministers were entitled to army leadership while bureaucrats served as their assistants. According to Shusun Muzi (叔孙穆子, a bureaucrat of Lu), “The king owns six armies and ministers lead them to attack those corrupt states. Princes of large states own three armies and ministers lead them to assist the king in wartime.”72 As Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals put it, “who leads the three armies? Three ministers.”73 The Rites of Zhou also observed, “Generals are ministers.”74 Mozi (墨子) put generals and bureaucrats into the same category of the hierarchy.75 Ministers led armies and thus were called generals. Shensheng (申生), the son of Duke Xian of Jin (晋), led the lower army; Shi Wei (士蒍, a bureaucrat of

Feudal classes I  143 Jin) thus said that the son assumed the position of minister.76 Zishi (訾祏, a bureaucrat of Jin) also noted that the ministers helped Duke Cheng (成) of Qi and Duke Jing (景) of Qi to discipline the armies.77 These examples all illustrate the leadership of ministers in armies. Xun Linfu (荀林父) led the central army with Xianhu (先觳) as his aide. Shihui (士会) led the higher army with Xi Ke (郤克) as his aide. Zhao Shuo (赵朔) led the lower army with Luan Shu (栾书) as his aide. Zhao Kuo (赵括) and Ying Qi (婴齐) served as the bureaucrats in the central army while Gong Shuo (巩朔) and Han Chuan (韩穿) the bureaucrats in the higher army, Xun Shou (荀首) and Zhao Tong (赵同) the bureaucrats in the lower army and Han Jue (韩厥) as the marshal.78 This shows that every division of the army had two generals – namely, two ministers – with bureaucrats to serve under them. A single division of the army had two generals or ministers, while the number of ministers of all divisions of army was determined by the size of the state armies. For instance, the State of Jin (晋) formed an extra army beyond its three armies; as a result, Jin had eight ministers in total. That is why Zizhan (子展, a bureaucrat of Jin) said, “Harmony among the four armies and eight ministers is needed.”79 Large states owned three armies and six ministers. When the six ministers of Xun Linfu (荀林父), Shihui (士会), Zhao Shuo (赵朔), Xianhu (先觳), Xi Ke (郤克) and Luan Shu (栾书) in the State of Jin led three armies to rescue the State of Zheng (郑), Xun Linfu (荀林父) prepared to withdraw as the army of the State of Chu (楚) returned. Xianhu (先觳) disagreed and sent the central army forward instead. Han Jue (韩厥) asked Xun Linfu to send all three armies: “All six of us shall bear the responsibilities instead of making only one be held accountable. Isn’t that the right thing to do?”80 Those six ministers were the generals of their armies, whereas bureaucrats did not play a role in leading the armies. Thus, Du Yu (杜预) noted, “All six ministers must be found guilty upon the defeat of the three armies.” In this example, more people, such as Zhao Kuo (赵括), Zhao Yingqi (赵婴齐), Gong Shuo (巩朔), Han Chuan (韩穿), Xun Shou (荀首), Zhao Tong (赵同) and Han Jue (韩厥), were held responsible for the defeat. In addition, secondary states had four ministers, and small states had two ministers (the number of army divisions differed according to the size of states; see Chapter 7). Ministers also served as commanders-in-chief in some cases, especially when the number of army divisions matched the number of their ministers. For instance, the State of Jin (晋) had six armies, with Han Jue (韩厥), Zhao Kuo (赵括), Gong Shuo (巩朔), Han Chuan (韩穿), Xun Zhui (荀骓) and Zhao Zhan (赵旃) acting as the six ministers who were also chief commanders.81 Likewise, three armies had three ministers. This is why Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals argued, “Who led the three armies? Three ministers.”82

144  Feudal classes I Ministers were in charge of administrative matters, with bureaucrats as their assistants. They were responsible not only for leading armies but also for managing state affairs. They were commanders and administrators combined into one. States had at least two ministers, regardless of their size. So, who had the final say? The management of military and state affairs was inseparable in a feudal society. Therefore, the commander-in-chief of the army was also the prime minister of state affairs. This is why Zhao Dun (赵盾) was referred to as the prime minister as he led the central army.83 According to Discourses on Governance of the States, “The State of Jin (晋) had three armies and Xi Hu (郤觳) was the commanderin-chief of its central army and the prime minister of domestic affairs.”84 Prime ministers made the decisions regarding state affairs. As Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals put it, “Viscount Fanxuan (范宣, the then prime minister of Jin) was in charge of state affairs.” Zichan (子产, the prime minister of Zheng) asked his brother Zixi (子西) to bring a letter to Viscount Fanxuan (范宣); the letter read, “You are managing the affairs of Jin (晋).”85 “Zipi (子皮) of the State of Zheng (郑) devolved his authority to Zichan… Zichan therefore was in charge of state affairs.”86 “The six ministers of the State of Zheng bid farewell to Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣, a minister of Jin) in the countryside…Zichan bowed to Viscount Hanxuan and asked the other five to do the same.”87 These quotes indicate that Zichan was the highest of the six ministers of the State of Zheng. Ministers enjoyed a higher status than bureaucrats when sent on a diplomatic mission. For example, Youji (游吉), a minister from the State of Zheng (郑), was sent to mourn the death of Duke Qing (顷) of Jin (晋) and attend his funeral. Viscount Wei Xian (魏献, a minister of Jin) sent Shi Jingbo (士景伯, a bureaucrat of Jin) to question Youji since he thought Youji was not qualified enough. Youji responded, “According to the system set up by the previous kings, scholars should mourn princes’ death and bureaucrats should attend their funerals. Ministers are sent on the occasions of appointment, state banquet, military action or going to the court.”88 This is how the system worked, according to the previous kings. When Duke Wen (文) of Jin and Duke Xiang (襄) of Jin died, however, “bureaucrats mourned their death and ministers attended their funerals.” Such a practice defied the rule made by the previous kings. Later, when the favourite concubine of the head of state passed away, the mourning rule was again violated. Therefore Youji lamented that he had no choice but to follow previous examples.89 The following section deals with official rankings of ministers and bureaucrats: There were prime ministers and assistant ministers. As discussed above, the former served as the commanders-in-chief and administrators of state affairs. According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, Zhao Dun (赵盾), Zhao Meng (赵孟) and Jisun Si (季孙斯) were all

Feudal classes I  145 90

prime ministers. Assistant ministers, on the other hand, worked under prime ministers, who were also called senior ministers.91 “Senior” referred to an older age. Duke Xian (献) of Wei (卫) did not take off his hat to talk to his minister Viscount Sunwen (孙文). Sunwen felt insulted by this and rebelled, and as a consequence the duke had to escape to the State of Qi (齐). When the duke reached the border, he sent a Zhu Zong (祝宗, a feudal title for officials who hosted worship rites) to report to his ancestors on his exile and declare that he was innocent. The duke’s mother, Dingjiang (定姜) asked him: Why do you believe yourself to be innocent when you are indeed guilty?…You are left by your father with a senior minister, Viscount Sunwen (孙文), to help you rule the state, but you show contempt for him instead of respect.92 Prime ministers were also occasionally called state ministers. For example, Zizhan (子展, a minister of Zheng 郑) pointed out that “state ministers are second only to their head of state.”93 Under prime ministers were assistant ministers; they were also called secondary ministers94 or minor ministers.95 According to a different standard, ministers fell into two categories of higher and lower ministers. Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣) of the State of Jin (晋) escorted the daughter of the head of Jin to the State of Chu (楚) with Shu Xiang (叔向) assisting him. The head of Chu (楚) said, “Jin has sent their higher minister and higher bureaucrat here.”96 According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: Duke Ping of Jin (晋平公) sent Viscount Hanxuan to the State of Lu for a visit. Before his arrival in Lu, Viscount Hanxuan sent a messenger to inform Lu that he was now in charge of Jin’s state affairs and would pay a visit to learn about how to appoint officials. What he did was in accordance with the rites.97 Viscount Hanxuan served as the prime minister at the time. This quote confirms that prime ministers were also higher ministers. What about lower ministers?98 Wei Jiang (魏绛) and Luan Ying (栾盈) led the lower army of Jin (晋) and conquered the place of Shi (邿) in the attack on the State of Qi (齐).99 Luan Ying served as an assistant of Wei and was thus called “a lower minister.”100 There were higher and lower bureaucrats as well. For instance, Confucius showed different attitudes when talking to higher and lower bureaucrats.101 Viscount Zhaojian (赵简, the prime minister of Jin 晋) promised his army, “Those higher bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted counties; those lower bureaucrats who defeat the enemies will be granted prefectures.”102 Duke Li (厉) of Zheng (郑) sent a message to Yuanfan (原繁,

146  Feudal classes I a bureaucrat of Zheng), which read, “Those who are loyal to me will be appointed as higher bureaucrats.”103 Zixi (子皙), in the State of Zheng (郑), had the title of higher minister104; Qu Bojiu (渠伯纠), the grand chancellor, had the title of lower minister.105 In conclusion, ministers were superior to bureaucrats. Prime ministers, as the most esteemed of all ministers, were superior to assistant ministers; they were one level below princes and were responsible for military and state affairs. Bureaucrats worked under ministers to help manage state affairs; they fell into two categories: Higher and lower bureaucrats. The gap between ministers from states of different sizes was conspicuous. Shu Sun (叔孙, a minister of Lu 鲁) pointed out, “The ministers of those major states are equivalents of the heads of small states.”106 The “King’s System” also said that “higher, secondary and lower ministers in secondary states are respectively equivalents of lower ministers, higher bureaucrats and lower bureaucrats in large states.” The different sizes of the fiefs granted to ministers from various states serve as another example. Shu Xiang (叔向, a bureaucrat of Jin 晋) noted, “Ministers in large states were granted fiefs equivalent to a brigade and higher bureaucrats fiefs equivalent to a zu (卒).”107 Therefore, fiefs owned by ministers and bureaucrats from small states were less than fiefs owned by ministers and bureaucrats from large states. Mencius thus argued: the king’s ministers owned fiefs equal to land owned by princes; his bureaucrats owned fiefs equal to land owned by counts…In large states… ministers earned four times as much as bureaucrats…In secondary states…ministers earned three times as much as bureaucrats…In small states…ministers earned twice as much as bureaucrats.108 The “King’s System” also concluded as follows: The king’s Three Dukes owned fiefs equal to land owned by princes; his ministers owned fiefs equal to land owned by counts; his bureaucrats owned fiefs equal to land owned by viscounts or barons…Princes’ lower bureaucrats earned twice as much as higher scholars; ministers four times as much as bureaucrats…In secondary states, ministers earned three times as much as bureaucrats…In small states, ministers earned twice as much as bureaucrats. To conclude, the king’s ministers and bureaucrats were superior to the princes’ ministers and bureaucrats. When it comes to the status of the latter, those in large states were higher in ranking than those in secondary states, who, in turn, were higher than those in small states.109 Finally, we discuss the qualifications of ministers and bureaucrats: King Xuan (宣) of Qi (齐) asked Mencius about ministers. Mencius replied, “Which kind of minister do you want to learn about?” The king said,

Feudal classes I  147 “Do ministers vary?” and Mencius observed, “Yes, they do. There are ministers from esteemed families of the same surname with the royal family and ministers from families of different surnames.”110 From this we can see that ministers and bureaucrats, like princes, either shared the same surname with the king and thus became members of the royal family or had different surnames and worked under the king and princes. When the king repeatedly refused to take advice to mend his ways (such as indulging himself in pleasure and being capricious), his ministers and bureaucrats of the same surname were entitled to replace him. In contrast, his ministers and bureaucrats with different surnames had no choice but to resign themselves to the circumstances.111 For example, Gongzhiqi (宫之奇) tried to persuade the duke of Yu (虞) not to allow the Jin (晋) army to attack Guo (虢) by way of Yu (虞), but the duke of Yu did not listen. Then, Gongzhiqi (宫之奇), together with his clansmen and his family, left the State of Yu for the State of Cao (曹国).112 In my view, not all members of the king’s ruling family were appointed as princes; some served as ministers and bureaucrats instead. As for those who were already princes, it was not feasible to grant them double titles; the king therefore bestowed royal membership on such princes and then appointed them as his ministers and bureaucrats because otherwise it would be difficult to give them other proper positions. After Zang Xibo (臧僖伯, a minister from the State of Lu 鲁) passed away, Duke Yin (隐) of Lu said, “My younger uncle Zang Xibo (臧僖伯) had unfulfilled wishes. I shall never forget.”113 Zang Xibo was the younger uncle of the ruling family. But Du Yu (杜预) was wrong in pointing out that “younger uncle” was used to address all those bureaucrats who were related to princes by blood and shared their surnames. However, Gu Tinglin (顾亭林, i.e., 顾炎武, 1613–1682, historian and scholar) shared Du Yu’s observation. He said: Zang Xibo (臧僖伯) is the son of Duke Xiao (孝) of Lu and the younger brother of Duke Hui (惠) of Lu; hence he was addressed as “younger uncle.” Du Yu held the view that younger uncles and elder uncles were general titles for those bureaucrats who were related to princes by blood and bore the same surname with princes. In the 13th reigning year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu, Duke Li (厉) of Zheng said that he was to appoint those as higher bureaucrats who were willing to help him, and then he discussed some issue with his elder uncle.114 In fact, the event took place in the 14th reigning year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu: Duke Li (厉) of Zheng (郑) said to Yuanfan (原繁), “My elder uncle, I would like to discuss some issue with you. You didn’t inform me of domestic situations when I was taking political refuge outside our State of Zheng.”115 This example definitively shows that uncles of a prince who were older than his father were called elder uncles. The same was true of those bureaucrats who were older than their princes and had the same surname.

148  Feudal classes I Likewise, younger bureaucrats who had the same surname as their princes were called younger uncles. What is stated above in the sections on the king and princes also confirms this view. Whether they were of the same surnames or not, ministers and bureaucrats were invariably nobles. The internal affairs of the State of Jin (晋) were closely intertwined with the families of Han (韩), Zhao (赵) and Wei (魏), and the State of Lu (鲁) heavily depended on the families of Mengsun (孟孙), Jisun (季孙) and Shusun (叔孙). Those were among the most powerful noble families. Those princes who shared the same surname with the king far outnumbered those who had different surnames. Likewise, ministers and bureaucrats sharing the same surnames with their princes far outnumbered those bearing different surnames. In the State of Song (宋), during the reign of Duke Ping (平) of Song (宋), Hua Yuan (华元) served as the chief administrator, Yu Shi (鱼石) the secondary administrator, Dang Ze (荡泽) the military marshal, Hua Xi (华喜) the official in charge of land and population, Gongsun Shi (公孙师) the official in charge of engineering and construction, Xiang Weiren (向为人) the supreme court justice, Lin Zhu (鳞朱) the minor court justice, Xiang Dai (向带) the supreme chancellor and Yu Fu (鱼府) the junior chancellor. All nine officials had the same surname as their prince. Hua Yuan (华元) and Hua Xi (华喜) were members of Duke Dai(戴)’s ruling family, while Gongsun Shi (公孙师) was a member of Duke Zhuang(庄)’s ruling family; the rest were related to Duke Huan (桓).116 As for the assignment of officials, Discourses on Governance of the States concluded, families of Ji (箕), Luan (栾), Xi (郄), Bai (柏), Xian (先), Yangshe (羊舌), Dong (董) and Han (韩) served at the court; those eligible in the family of Ji (姬) were interior officials; those eligible with different surnames were sent out to manage remote areas.117 Scholars Scholars belonged to the class between commoners and ministers and bureaucrats. Placed between the ruled and the ruler, scholars assumed a role that has invited many questions: Were they the ruled or the ruler? Did they contribute or receive contributions? Did they have their own occupations, services, obligations and official benefits? These questions must be answered in order to fully grasp their status and function. There were two kinds of scholars. The first was minor officers with salaries granted by the ruler. They served under ministers and bureaucrats to help manage political matters and were categorized as grand scholars, higher scholars, mid-scholars and lower scholars. The second kind was called “scholar commoners”; they did not have official salaries and were ranked the same as farmers, craftsmen and businessmen in the category of

Feudal classes I  149 “four commoners” (see the section on commoners below). Zhu Xi (朱熹), a Confucianist scholar in the Song (宋) Dynasty, pointed out a difference between “scholars with imperial appointment” and “scholars without imperial appointment.”118 The former served the ruler, while the latter were of the same level with commoners. This section will only elaborate on scholars with an imperial appointment; no further discussion will be provided on scholar commoners (scholars without imperial appointment). The titles of higher, mid- and lower scholars can be found in the following historical documents: “Higher and lower scholars…” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals)119 “There was one higher scholar, one mid-scholar and one lower scholar.” (Mencius)120 “Bureaucrats earned twice as much as higher scholars, who earned twice as much as mid-scholars, who earned twice as much as lower scholars, who earned the same as those commoners working in government offices. Lower scholars earned enough so that they did not need to farm to provide for their family.” (Mencius)121 More examples can be found in The Rites of Zhou and The Book of Rites. No further quotes will be provided here.122 The official benefits of higher, mid- and lower scholars varied too. According to Mencius and the essay “King’s System,” higher scholars earned twice as much as mid-scholars, who earned twice as much as lower scholars; lower scholars earned enough that they did not need to farm to provide for their family. Mencius pointed out that “lower scholars earned the same as those commoners working in government offices, who earned enough so that they did not need to farm to provide for their family.” “King’s System” also observed that farmers who farmed the top level of fiefs could feed a family of nine; those who farmed the second level could feed a family of eight; the next level, a family of six; and the lowest level, a family of five. This standard of benefits applied to those commoners serving as officers. To be more specific, commoners serving as officers earned the same as farmers who farmed the top level of fiefs. Lower scholars, at the bottom level of the hierarchy, earned about the same as those commoners who were appointed to be government officers. As indicated in the “King’s System,” “every household was allotted land of 100 mu (亩)” (see Chapter 3). The harvests of 100 mu of land were an equivalent of the annual salary of a lower scholar, the harvests of 200 mu were an equivalent of the annual salary of a mid-scholar and the harvests of 400 mu were an equivalent of the annual salary of a higher scholar. Officials directly appointed by the king held more eminent positions, as did those scholars selected by the king. They were thus called grand scholars (元士)123 and were entitled to fiefs. Mencius demonstrated that grand scholars were granted a piece of land of fifty li (里), which was equal to that

150  Feudal classes I owned by viscounts and barons.124 According to the “King’s System,” however, they only owned affiliated land of less than fifty li in size. These scholars lived on their official benefits without having to farm. The next section will touch on their promotion and positions. As Zixia (子夏, a disciple of Confucius) put it, “the brightest of scholars strove to further their study; those who excelled in their study strove to be officials.”125 These words point to the fact that scholars in general were engaged in their study, and most of them were striving to become officials, but only those who excelled as scholars would be selected. Guanzi (管子, also 管仲, the prime minister of the State of Qi 齐) noted, “Only those scholars worthy of officialdom are appointed so that those not qualified wouldn’t be emboldened to take vacant positions.”126 Yanzi (晏子) also said, “scholars commit no dereliction of duty.”127 It was unlikely that inadequate scholars would have other officers vouching for them to fill vacancies because that might have done a disservice to the ruler. When no dereliction of duty could be found in the scholars’ management, they were deemed capable of fulfilling their job responsibilities. What about the promotion of scholars? They were elevated in two ways. First, by local officers. As Guanzi (管子) explicitly put it, for those scholars from other states recommended by county officials to the State of Qi (齐), their abilities will be assessed and corresponding prizes will be granted to those who endorse and recommend them. But, local officials will not be punished if they happen to introduce some unqualified scholars, although this will surely damage the reference’s reputation and leave a bad record. For instance, Bao Shu (鲍叔, a bureaucrat of Qi) is such a figure in charge of selecting and appointing bureaucrats. He sets the standard as follows: Those who contributed to managing state affairs without wrongdoings are promoted to a higher level. Those who make small political contributions but manage their land well and handle legal cases with impartiality are promoted to a secondary level. Those who only have a mediocre political performance, own land but leave it unattended and fail to carefully judge legal cases belong to a third level, or the lower level of bureaucrats. When Yanzi (晏子) is responsible for the promotion of the sons of the king’s concubines, he helps set the following standard: Those sons who (1) lead a simple and frugal life, (2)  befriend fellow youngsters and (3) respect their elders are promoted to a higher level; those who meet two of those three requirements are promoted to a secondary level; those who meet one of those three requirements are included in the lowest level. When scholars (1) advocate courtesy, (2) respect the elderly and officials and (3) deal with people with decorum, they are eligible for being promoted to the highest level; those who meet two of the three requirements, the second level; those who meet one of the three requirements, the lowest level.128

Feudal classes I  151 The second way of receiving promotion was through “recruitment by ministers and bureaucrats.” Jisun Si (季孙斯) sent a man to ask Min Ziqian (闵子骞) to be the governor of Fei (费). Min Ziqian replied, “Decline the offer for me, please. If anyone comes again to me with a second invitation, I would rather go and live on the banks of the Wen (汶).”129 In this example, Jinsun Si, a minister, attempted to recruit Min Ziqian, a scholar, as an official, but Min Ziqian refused the recruitment politely. Scholars usually lived in obscurity. Only through the two methods of promotion could their names become known to the class of ministers and bureaucrats. Ministers and bureaucrats might also learn of eligible scholars via word of mouth. For example, Duke Ai (哀) asked Confucius which of his disciples was the most ardent. Viscount Jikang (季康) also asked Confucius whether Zhongyou (仲由), Duanmu Ci (端木赐) and Ranqiu (冉求) were fit for official positions.130 They did not ask unthinkingly; as a result of these conversations, Zhongyou and Ranqiu were appointed as fief governors. Rising from a scholar to a government officer under ministers and bureaucrats, Zhongyou (仲由) served as a governor in the Jisun (季) family. He then selected Zigao (子羔, also a disciple of Confucius) as governor of the city of Fei (费). The examples of Zhongyou (仲由), Zigao (子羔) and Min Ziqian (闵子骞) further elucidate the ranking of scholars as officials. More examples of Confucius disciples serving as officials are listed here: “governor” (Yuansi, 原思, a disciple of Confucius)131; “He was asked to be the governor of Fei (费) but refused.” (Min Ziqian, 闵子骞; see the previous quote); “governor of the city of Wu (武)” (Zi You, 子游, a disciple of Confucius)132; “governor in the Jisun (季孙) family” (Ranqiu, 冉求, a disciple of Confucius)133; “governor of Fei (费) first and then governor in the Kong (孔) family from the State of Wei (卫)” (Zigao, 子羔, a disciple of Confucius)134; “governor in the Jisun (季孙) family first and then governor in the Kong (孔) family from the State of Wei (卫)” (Zhonggong, 仲弓, a disciple of Confucius)135; “governor of Jufu (莒父)” (Zixia, 子夏, a disciple of Confucius)136; “governor in the Jisun (季) family” (Zhongyou, 仲由, a disciple of Confucius)137; “as Ranqiu (冉求)’s assistant” (Fanchi, 樊迟, a disciple of Confucius)138; “a courtier in the State of Wei (卫)” (Zi Gong, 子贡, a disciple of Confucius)139. They either served as governors under ministers and bureaucrats or as fief governors. In conclusion, scholars were only assigned as minor officers, without any prospects of being promoted to higher positions, since they were not members of the ruling family or nobles. Commoners At the bottom rung of the feudal hierarchy were commoners, who had the lowest social status and contributed their services to the upper class. They comprised the vast majority of the population; the term “commoners” indicates that there was a large number of them. Commoners were classified into four categories in order to determine their respective contributions of services.

152  Feudal classes I The ranking of these four categories indicates their respective significances. Scholar commoners were likely to be promoted and therefore were the most esteemed of the four. Farmers (in feudal China, “farmer” simply refers to a labourer who was assigned a piece of land to farm but did not own it) made up the greatest number of commoners and were providers of food and military service. As sufficient food and military service were the two most crucial elements of state policies, farmers were considered the pillars of a state. They were given the third place, right after businessmen, in Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals.140 All other historical documents, however, ranked farmers second only to scholar commoners and before craftsmen and businessmen: “scholar commoners, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen” (Guanzi)141 “commoners, craftsmen and businessmen” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals)142 “farmers, craftsmen and businessmen” (Six Strategies)143 Businessmen were considered the lowest of all commoners, while craftsmen were one notch and farmers two notches above them. The word “commoners” in the second quote above, from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, included farmers because farmers constituted the majority of commoners. 1

2

Scholar commoners The previous section stated that there were two kinds of scholars: Those who were promoted to officialdom and those who remained commoners. Scholar officers were ranked as grand, higher, mid- and lower scholars. They were granted official benefits to manage their people and thus belonged to the ruling class. Scholar commoners,144 however, ranked the same as farmers, craftsmen and businessmen in the category of the “four commoners” who belonged to the ruled. All “four commoners” had duties to fulfil in order to serve their superiors. Scholar commoners were mostly academics who did not farm or provide services. So, how did they contribute to the upper class? Princes, ministers and bureaucrats were usually accomplished warriors, but they often did not fully grasp the art of ruling. Apart from the major activities of worship and warfare, they did not directly manage fiefs and commoners. The assistance of scholars as local officials was thus necessary, and scholar commoners were considered to be the reserves for scholar officers. They specialised in politics and were likely to be promoted by the upper classes as domestic or fief governors. In short, they used their minds to serve the ruling class. As promoted scholars, they were able to move up the hierarchy to the ruling class; if they were not qualified enough and could not be promoted, they remained commoners. Farmers Farmers not only accounted for the vast majority of the “four commoners” but also made up the largest single class in China and formed the overwhelming majority of its population.

Feudal classes I  153 Every household was allotted 100 mu (亩) of land (see Chapter 3). They farmed to feed everyone from the king, princes, ministers and bureaucrats to other commoners. This is why agriculture was the mainstay of the feudal economy. Military service was not allowed to interrupt the farming and harvest seasons; farmers were also forbidden to change their careers. Guanzi (管子) summed up the crucial role of farmers: “People will be left hungry when even one farmer quits.”145 Farmers fell into the three categories of higher, mid- and lower levels as well. As Guanzi put it, “one higher-level farmer is able to feed five people; mid-level, four people and lower-level, three people.”146 Mencius gave farmers more thorough classifications: higher-level, lesser-higherlevel, mid-level, lesser-mid-level and lower-level.147 Why are there differences among farmers, given the fact that every farmer tilled the same area of land of one hundred mu? During the Zhou (周) Dynasty, farming tools were still fairly primitive, including spades, hoes, sickles, weeders, hammers and machetes.148 Farming techniques remained under-developed; therefore the difference in levels was surely decided not by the use of distinct types of farming techniques but by the quality of the land that the farmers tilled. Fecund land naturally fed a greater number of people. Mencius observed: Revenues of farmers are as follows: one hundred mu for each farmer and every inch is carefully tilled. The higher level of farmers can feed nine people; lesser-higher level, eight people; mid-level, seven people; lesser-mid-level, six people and lower level, five people.149 What has been stated above is a general picture of farmers in a feudal society. More details can be found in the next chapter on their rights and obligations concerning farming, services and lifestyle. 3 4

Craftsmen Businessmen The feudal society was a self-sufficient society. Farmers supported themselves with their harvests; they raised silkworms for textiles and clothing; they cut trees and made tools out of them. Self-sufficiency loomed large in everything from clothes and food to tool-making. As a result, craftsmen and businessmen played a minor role in production. Only nobles who led an extravagant lifestyle and had enough leisure time to spend demanded more sophisticated tools and precious goods. Therefore they had craftsmen and businessmen working for and contributing to them directly.150 Businessmen lived outside cities because they travelled a lot, while craftsmen lived in groups in official residences151; only in this way could they provide officials with what was required.152 A chief was selected from a group of craftsmen in order to manage the rest of them.153 The State of Jin (晋) forced Duke Ling (灵) of Wei (卫) to surrender his son and his bureaucrats’ sons to the State of Jin as hostages. Before Duke Ling left for Jin, however, his bureaucrat Wangsun Gu (王孙贾)

154  Feudal classes I told him, “My prince, if our state suffers an unrest during your absence, craftsmen and businessmen can be trouble makers. They must be sent away.” Duke Ling thought this was reasonable and told the other bureaucrats to do exactly as Wangsun had advised.154 If craftsmen and businessmen had not been affiliated with bureaucrats, why would they have been singled out in this example? In contrast, as farmers were not part of bureaucracy, Wangsun Gu and Duke Ling were never worried about their being left at home during Duke Ling’s absence. The State of Jin (晋) and the State of Qin (秦) conspired to attack the State of Zheng (郑). Xian Gao (弦高), a businessman of Zheng (郑), was on his way to do business in the city of Chengzhou (成周) when he learned that the Qin (秦) army was moving quietly towards his state. He immediately went to visit its generals and gave them four pieces of cowhide and twelve cows as gifts for their army. Then he said to them: Our head of state has heard that you are here and thus has sent me to give you these gifts. Our state is not rich, however, we are still willing to provide you with food and drink if you come and stay and guard you overnight before you leave. Meanwhile, Xian Gao (弦高) informed his prince of the Qin (秦) army’s arrival.155 This incident confirms that businessmen worked under the leadership of government officials. We will further illustrate this point from the following two perspectives. a

b

If businessmen did not work under the leadership of government officials, how could Xian Gao possibly have had the resources needed to visit the army of Qin immediately after being informed of their arrival and give them many gifts? If he worked for the public instead of the upper class, he would not have had to go so far to the capital city of Chengzhou. Businessmen travelled such distances in search of precious goods and treasures for nobles. If Xian Gao had not been sent on a mission to carry out an official task, he would not have had the temerity to give gifts to the Qin army on behalf of Zheng; if he had not been identified as a member or representative of the State of Zheng, he would not have been able to earn the trust of the Qin army.

In another example, Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣, a minister of Jin) wanted to buy a valuable jade ring from a businessman of the State of Zheng. However, after the bargain was made, the businessman said to Viscount Hanxuan, “I have to report to our prime minister Zichan on the deal before it is concluded.” When Viscount Hanxuan asked Zichan (子产, the prime minister of Zheng) why the businessman had to do so, Zichan told him that the first duke of Zheng (i.e., Duke Huan of Zheng) and his businessmen had lived somewhere else in the Western Zhou (西周)

Feudal classes I  155 after being granted land to establish his State of Zheng, and then Duke Huan of Zheng, along with his businessmen, had moved his state to its current location after blazing a trail and cultivating the virgin land. At this point, the heads of the State of Zheng and their businessmen had made a vow as follows: “You shall pledge your loyalty to me and I shall never forcibly ask you to sell products to me.” Zichan continued, “This vow has been kept to nurture the relationship between officials and their businessmen. So I can not pressure the businessman to sell you the jade ring as you have intended me to do.” After hearing this, Hanxuan dropped the deal.156 The fact that Viscount Hanxuan failed to buy a jade ring from the businessman of the State of Zheng indicates that businessmen were part of the bureaucracy. Otherwise, that businessman of Zheng would not have had to report to the authorities and ask for permission to sell the valuable jade ring to Viscount Hanxuan. (Of course, from the fact that Viscount Hanxuan intended to have a private trade with Xian Gao, the businessman, we can also see that the special bond between businessmen and their governments had already started to weaken). In addition, the above examples show that businessmen enjoyed good social status as they were financially strong and mostly traded with nobles. Yanzi (晏子) pointed out that “the customs near the capital city levied exorbitant taxes.” Du Yu (杜预) also observed, “Customs was placed in between the capital city and other cities.”157 The capital city had customs that levied taxes on businessmen from other states, but local businessmen were exempt. Those two quotes also prove that businessmen were affiliated with the government.

Slaves Slaves were chattels of their owners and totally belonged to them – physically, financially and politically. Commoners were different from slaves in that they were indirectly affiliated with landowners through the land they were assigned to till. But they remained free men themselves, at least physically. There were five sources of slaves: 1

Prisoners of war

Examples of this type abounded. According to Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, “prisoners of war accounted for 13,811.”158 The Book of History claimed that “King Cheng (成) of Zhou (周) awarded the rest of residents from the conquered Yin (殷) to Kangshu (康叔, the younger paternal uncle of King Cheng).”159 According to Ziyu (子鱼, the son of Duke Huan 桓 of Song 宋), King Cheng granted six tribes from Yin to Lu (鲁),

156  Feudal classes I six tribes from Yin to Kangshu and nine families with the surname Huai (怀) to Tangshu (唐叔, the younger brother of King Cheng).160 Tribes from Yin and the Huai family were rendered prisoners of war after Zhou’s victory. Regardless of whether they were referred to as “the rest of residents,” “six tribes,” “seven tribes” or “nine families,” they were certainly large in number. Yi Zhou Shu (《逸周书》) recorded the war that King Wu (武) from Zhou (周) waged against King Zhou (纣) from Yin (殷) as well as the process of how King Wu conquered various tribes and claimed their entire territories. As a result, all the prisoners of war added up to the astonishingly large number of 300,000. King Zhou (纣王) of the Yin Dynasty (also called the Shang Dynasty or the Yin-Shang Dynasty) was killed and his one hundred or so corrupt officials were captured… Lv Ta (吕他) took King Wu’s order to attack Yue (越), Xi (戏) and Fang (方). On the day of ren shen (壬申, the 13th day in the Zhou calendar) in February, Lv Ta returned to report the number of people the Zhou army had killed and captured. Hou Lai (侯来) took King Wu’s (武) order to attack Mi (靡) and Chen (陈). On the day of xin si (辛巳, the 22nd day of a month in the Zhou calendar) in February, Hou Lai returned to report the number of people the Zhou army had killed and captured. Bai Yan (百弇) took order to lead an army of warriors to attack the State of Wei (卫). On the day of jia shen (甲申, the 25th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), he sent a messenger to report the number of people they had killed and captured…King Wu held a jade tablet and wore worship attire to pay tribute to the heaven and gods; he then went to the Zhou Temple without changing his clothes…On the day of gui chou (癸丑, the 24th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), 100 prisoners of war from the Yin Dynasty were contributed to the king. On the day of yi si (乙巳, the 26th day of a month in the Zhou calendar), Chen Ben (陈本) and Xin Huang (新荒) brought the heads of Shu (蜀) and Tu (屠) to King Wu; they told the king that they had managed to capture the heads of Huo (霍) and Ai (艾) as well as 46 fugitive affiliated officials of the princes from the Yin Dynasty. They acquired 830 chariots, and then reported the number of people that they had killed and captured. Bai Wei (百韦) told the king that he captured the head of Xuanfang (宣方), acquired 30 chariots, and then reported the number of people he had killed and captured. Later Bai Wei was sent to attack the State of Li (厉) and then he sent a messenger to report the number of people they had killed and captured… King Wu waged wars around. He toppled heads of 99 states, killed 10,7779 people and captured alive 300,320 people and conquered 652 states in total.161 That is how the Zhou Dynasty (周朝) was founded. A large number of people from tribes with different surnames were captured in the process. Such

Feudal classes I  157 stories of people being captured in war and turned into slaves continued until the Spring and Autumn Period. According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: “Count of Zheng (郑) attacked Chen (陈) and captured many.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Six); “Count of Zheng attacked Dai (戴) and took its three divisions of army.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Ten); “Hu (忽), the son of the king of Zheng led his army to rescue the State of Qi (齐). He defeated Beirong (北戎) army and captured its two generals and beheaded three hundreds of its armoured soldiers. A ceremony of contributing prisoners of war was observed in the State of Qi.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Six); “The ambassador of the State of Qi came to return treasures of the State of Wei (卫).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Six)162; “Jing (荆) Prefecture defeated the army of the State of Cai (蔡) and captured its marquis Cai Xianwu (蔡献舞).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten); “Duke Xian (献) of Jin (晋) attacked the tribe of Lirong (骊戎). The head of Lirong thus sent his daughter to Duke Xian as a gift.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-eight); “The State of Jin conquered the State of Yu (虞) and captured the head of Yu as well as his bureaucrat called Jingbo (井伯) who was later included in the dowry of Duke Xian(献)’s daughter when she was arranged to go to marry the head of Qin (秦).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Five); “Dukes of Jin and Zheng gave prisoners of war from the State of Chu (楚) to the king of Zhou along with one hundred chariots with armoured horses and an infantry regiment of one thousand men.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-eight); “The State of Chu attacked the State of Zheng and locked up Jian (坚) and Mang (尨), the sons of the head of Zheng along with Yue Er (乐耳, a general of Zheng).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Nine); “The State of Zheng attacked and defeated the State of Song (宋). Subsequently, Hua Yuan (华元, a bureaucrat of Song) was put into jail; Yue Lv (乐吕, an assistant general of Song) was killed and Kuang Jiao (狂狡, a bureaucrat of Song) was captured; 460 battle chariots were taken; 250 prisoners of war were captured and 100 ears of the dead enemies were cut.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Two); “The State of Chu restored the State of Chen (陈) and asked each township of Chen to send a person to the State of Chu to live together in a place called Xiazhou (夏州).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Eleven); “The State of Jin conquered the Lu (潞) family from the Chidi (赤狄) tribe and brought back an infant of the family.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Fifteen); “Zhao Tong (赵同, a bureaucrat of Jin) brought captives from the Chidi tribe to the king.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Fifteen); “The State of Chu attacked the State of Lu. Mengsun (孟孙) asked for an alliance by giving the State of Chu one hundred carpenters, one hundred tailors and one hundred weavers and by sending Gongheng (公衡, the son of the head

158  Feudal classes I of Lu) to Chu to serve as a hostage.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two); “The army of the State of Jin brought Zhongyi (钟仪, a musician) back and locked him up in a military warehouse.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Seven); “The Marquis of Jin brought the son of the head of Biyang (偪阳) as a captive from Yi (夷, a ‘barbarian’ tribe) and then gave the son to the martial arts division.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Ten); “The State of Zheng attacked the State of Chen. The Marquis of Chen asked the men and women who worked for him to stand in two separate lines in his court with their hands tied up. Zichan, the prime minister of Zheng, counted the number of them and left. The head of Zheng worshipped the earth god in Chen for blessings and then returned Chen’s people, military dispatch documents and land.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-five); “The State of Wu (吴) attacked the State of Yue (越) and sent captives to be doormen guarding boats and ships.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-nine); “The marquis of Jin sent Gong Shuo (巩朔, a general of Jin) to give to King Ding of Zhou the spoils they took after conquering the State of Qi.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two)163; “Viscount Jiping (季平, the prime minister of the State of Lu) attacked the State of Ju (莒) and claimed the place of Geng (郠). He offered the captives as sacrifices to the temple of Bo (亳社).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Ten); “Jin conquered Luhun (陆浑). Residents there escaped to Ganlu (甘鹿). Zhou captured many of them and gave them for sacrifice in Duke Wen Temple.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Seventeen); “The State of Zhu (邾) attacked the State of Yu (鄅)… and captured its residents. The head of Yu took his wife and children to Zhu. Duke Zhuang (庄) of Zhu sent the wife back and kept the daughter.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Eighteen); “The State of Song attacked the State of Zhu (邾) and surrounded the place of Chong (虫). Captives of the State of Yu (鄅) were all sent back to their state.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Nineteen); “The State of Wu (吴) surrounded the place of Chao (巢) and captured Fan (繁), the son of the head of Chu (楚).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Two); “The tribe of Xianyu (鲜虞) captured Guan Hu (观虎), a general of the State of Jin.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Three); “Viscount Jihuan (季桓, i.e., Jisun Si季孙斯) went to the State of Jin offering the captives his army took from Zheng.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Six); “The State of Jin summoned the tribesmen of Rong (戎) from Jiuzhou (九州). The head of the tribe and his five bureaucrats were captured. The State of Chu used tricks to capture all the tribesmen.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Four); “The State of Lu brought Zhu Ziyi (邾子益, the head of Zhu 邾), locked him up in Fuxia (负瑕) and then sacrificed him at the temple of Bo (亳社).” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Seven);

Feudal classes I  159 “The head of Wu (吴王夫差) locked up the head of Zhu in an attic and surrounded it with thistles and thorns.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Eight); “With the help of the State of Lu, the army of the State of Wu trounced the army of the State of Qi and captured Qi’s bureaucrats of Guoshu (国书), Gongsun Xia (公孙夏), Lv Qiuming (闾丘明), Chen Shu (陈书) and Dongguo Shu (东郭书), 800 battle chariots and 3,000 heads of soldiers and then give them all to Duke Ai (哀) of Lu.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Eleven); “The head of Wu (吴王夫差) attacked the State of Song and killed its men and imprisoned its women.” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Thirteen) 2

When two states forged an alliance, the heads of state gave their family members to one another as hostages, most of whom were later reduced to slaves. For instance, Duke Hui (惠) of Jin (晋) married Liang Ying (梁嬴), the daughter of the count of Liang (梁) when Duke Hui was living in the State of Liang. Liang Ying became pregnant but did not deliver until after her due date. Bu Zhaofu (卜招父, a minister of Liang) thus divined, “She’s going to give birth to a boy and a girl. The boy is going to be a slave and the girl a servant.” When Liang Ying actually did have two babies, a boy and a girl, they were named Yu (圉), meaning “enslaved,” and Qie (妾), meaning “concubine,” respectively. Yu was later selected as successor to the throne of the State of Jin. When the State of Jin was defeated by the State of Qin (秦) in the battle of Hanyuan (韩原, a place within the State of Jin where the battle had taken place), Yu was given to Qin as a hostage, and Qie was given to Qin as a servant.164

3

Criminals-turned-slaves

The families of Luan (栾), Xi (郤), Xu (胥), Yuan (原), Hu (狐), Xu (续), Qing (庆) and Bai (伯) were nobles in the State of Jin (晋) but were later reduced to servants.165 Things like this only happened when those people committed crimes. It is rare for such instances to be recorded in historical books, but there was presumably no shortage of commoners being condemned to slavery, given that even nobles were not exempt from such degradation. 4

Selling oneself into slavery

In the previous three categories, slaves were not born into this role. They were either captives who had been free people from “barbarian” tribes or nobles whose criminal acts had reduced them to slavery. The fourth category, however, included those who were too impoverished to earn a living and had to sell themselves into slavery. For instance, Yanzi (晏子) saw a man on the road; he asked the man what he did and was told that the man had been a servant for three years because he “did not want to suffer from hunger and cold weather any more.” Yanzi asked, “Is it possible to buy back your freedom?” The man replied, “Yes.” Yanzi thus sold the horse on the left

160  Feudal classes I of his chariot and paid for the man’s freedom.166 This example shows that one could sell oneself into slavery. It also tells us that one could buy his freedom back as long as someone offered to pay the money, and an agreement was reached between the seller and the buyer to allow the seller to ransom himself when the opportunity arrived. Clearly, buying and selling slaves was already at practice at this time. 5

Offspring of slaves

There were also people who were born into slavery as possessions of their owners. Generations of slaves’ offspring could not rise above their plight. Among the five sources of slaves, no further discussion is needed of the fifth category, born-to-be slaves, and the second, third and fourth categories only accounted for a minority. The vast majority worthy of our attention falls on the first category, the captives-turned-slaves. About this category, historical documents show that: First, prisoners of war from defeated states were large in number. For example, the State of Zhou and the State of Zheng “captured a great number of people.” Each time the number of captives was clearly recorded such as 200 and 300 and 1,000. Historical records show examples of a state’s entire army being captured, one man from each village being taken away or the entire population of a state being taken as prisoners. We can thus imagine how enormous the number of captives was! If these people were not turned into slaves, how could such a large population be properly managed after being captured? Second, there were captives from the previous dynasty of Yin (殷) as well as from the tribes of Yi (夷), Rong (戎) and Man (蛮). In another example, the Marquis of Jin (晋) sent Gong Shuo (巩朔) to give King Ding of Zhou the spoils they took after conquering the State of Qi (齐). The king refused to meet him and sent Duke Xiang (襄) of Shan (单) to express his gratitude: When barbarian tribes violate the king’s order and their corrupt and extravagant lifestyle defies the social conventions, the king himself will declare war on them; then according to the rites, the princes should contribute spoils to the king, and the king would accept the spoils in person, acknowledging their contribution in order to punish those insolent people and encourage those worthy and outstanding men. However, if the king declares war on states headed by his brothers, nephews or uncles, he only needs to be informed about the outcome. He asks for no contribution of captives taken in such wars that broke out between the states of the Zhou Dynasty, in order to prevent wrongdoings and promote kinship.167 This indicates that it was a violation of rites for princes to wage wars without the king’s consent, and it was even a greater violation of rites for princes to condemn the prisoners of such wars to slavery.

Feudal classes I  161 This explains the fact that only “barbarian” tribes with different surnames, such as the tribes of Rong (戎), Man (蛮), Yi (夷) and Di (狄), would be reduced to slavery after being captured. As discussed before, commoners still belonged to the same ethnic group/clan as the ruling class and thus were free people, despite their lower social status. Therefore, although they had to serve the upper class, commoners were still treated differently than slaves. They were asked to work regularly rather than continuously or at any time as the ruling class believed that this would demonstrate their love for their clansmen. Slaves, however, all came from tribes/clans with different surnames and were deprived of their freedom. They served the upper class the way cattle and horses serve their owners and could not possibly be ranked along with commoners. Ji Rongwu (季融五)’s studies on slaves and captives of the Spring and Autumn Period also demonstrate that servants and cattle and grooms were utterly robbed of freedom and were often given to others as prizes or bribes. He said, “They did not belong to the same ethnic group/clan of the upper class at all; they were members of barbarian groups.”168 Slaves served various purposes. Nobles used slaves to complete errands. For instance, the State of Wu (吴) attacked the State of Yue (越) and sent captives to act as doormen in guarding boats and ships.169 The head of Zhu (邾) punished his doorman with flogging.170 In the State of Lu (鲁), a cattle keeper tried to flirt with the daughter of Duke Zhuang (庄). Ziban (子般, the son of Zhuang) was furious and had the keeper whipped. Later, Duke Zhuang also had the keeper killed.171 Door keeping and cattle keeping were two of the lowest jobs to be assigned to domestic slaves. There were also “serfs,”172 who helped with farming but were definitely not farmers themselves. Slaves also worked in official residences. Zichan (子产) from the State of Zheng (郑) escorted his head to the State of Jin (晋), where they, together with other guests, were asked to live in a room that was supposed to accommodate slaves.173 Clearly, this room was spacious enough to house a large number of slaves. Slaves were important to productive labour in a feudal society. Both men and women slaves were captured by enemy states. Men were capable of heavy manual jobs, while women were skilled in such jobs as serving the wives or concubines of nobles and raising silkworms and producing textiles. However, the following story is notable: The assistants of Chong’er (重耳, the son of Duke Xian of Jin 晋) discussed their plan to escape from the State of Qi under a mulberry tree. A  female servant who raised silkworms around the tree happened to overhear them.174 Afraid that the servant might divulge their plan, Jiang (姜), the wife of Chong’er, immediately had her killed. Jiang could put her to death so easily mainly because she was a slave with a very low social position. Mozi (墨子) observed: When a state was being invaded and controlled, those who resisted would be killed by conquerors; those who did not would be tied up

162  Feudal classes I in ropes and brought back by conquerors. Then men served as slaves, doormen or construction workers and women as servants who pounded rice and brewed alcohol.175 This quote points to the fact that both men and women ended up as slaves after being captured. Women from tribes/clans with different surnames or from different ethnic groups were reduced to slavery or, if they were deemed physically attractive, trained as entertainers to amuse nobles. For instance, the State of Wu (吴) attacked the State of Song (宋), killing its men and imprisoning its women (see the previous quote). Duke Zhuang (庄) of Zhu (邾) kept the daughter of the head of Yu (鄅) (see the previous quote). The State of Zheng (郑) contributed to the State of Jin (晋) thirty female music players and sixteen female entertainers.176 Duke Xian (献) of Jin attacked the tribe of Lirong (骊戎), and the head of Lirong gave his daughter to Duke Xian (see the previous quote). Slaves had a further hierarchy unto themselves. Those higher in this class did easier jobs and helped their owner to manage other slaves. Shen Wuyu (申无宇), an official of the State of Chu, concluded, “Servants were subordinate to scholars; carriage drivers were subordinate to servants; labourers were subordinate to carriage drivers; drudges were subordinate to labourers; menials were subordinate to drudges.”177 Servants topped the hierarchy of slaves, while menials ranked lowest. How exactly they were differentiated remains unknown. In conclusion, the majority of slaves came from different clans or groups that did not share a surname with the upper class. In the eye of the people of the Zhou Dynasty, they were simply “aliens” from different ethnic groups. They were also considered the chattels of their owners and treated like animals. Whether they were guilty or not, they were often either killed or punished at will. We saw above that Ziban (子般) flogged a slave to death because he dared to flirt with a woman from the upper class. In some additional examples: The head of the State of Zhu (邾) punished his doorman because he asked for meat to eat; a female servant was killed by Jiang (姜) simply for overhearing an escape plan. When the favourite horse of Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐) died, he was so furious that he had the groom killed and dismembered178 – in this case, a man’s life was worth even less than that of a horse. In a feudal society, punishing and killing slaves was a common practice. Stories concerning slaves were seldom recorded in documents like Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals unless the mention of slaves (as in the story above) would help lead to telling stories about the upper class.

Notes 1 Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng II. 2 Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I. 3 “The upper and the lower are united as one” (The Book of Changes·Meng). “The lower obeys.” “The upper and the lower are united as one” (The Book of Changes·Bi).

Feudal classes I  163 “The upper and the lower communicate and agree with each other” (The Book of Changes·Tai). “The upper and the lower don’t communicate and the state will collapse” (The Book of Changes·Pi). “The upper and the lower should care about each other” (The Book of History·Zhou·Zhao Gao). “The upper and the lower deceive each other” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-four). “That is the official hierarchy” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Three). “The upper and the lower are in harmony” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Sixteen). “The upper and the lower both follow the principles” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-two; Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Thirteen). “The upper and the lower have their respective jobs to do” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty). “The upper and the lower despise and envy each other” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty). “There is no animosity between the upper and the lower” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty; Filial Piety·Opening Chapter). “The relations between the upper and the lower have been harmonious” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Nine). “The upper and the lower both want it” (Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Fifteen). “The upper and the lower both see that once” (Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Twelve). “There are different titles for the upper and the lower” (Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-three). “The upper and the lower don’t get along, resulting in terrible consequences” (Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-nine). “The upper and the lower both strive for their own interests” (Mencius·King Hui of Liang I). “Both the upper and the lower shall follow the tradition and manners of funeral” (The Book of Rites·Tan Gong I). “Goodwill between the upper and the lower is righteous” (The Book of Rites·Jing Jie). “There is a harmonious relationship between the upper and the lower” (The Book of Rites·Confucius at Home). “Confucius said: ‘If the upper are not demanding, the lower know the upper are benevolent…The lower serve the upper; they do not follow every order but see the concrete actions of the upper. They imitate every act of the upper. If the upper are fond of something, the lower can outdo them. Therefore, the upper must be cautious about what they like and do not like; because the lower follow their example…The upper are high-minded, then the lower are high-minded too…The lower serve the upper. If the lower do not uphold integrity and credit, then the upper will doubt their loyalty and their friends will not trust them.’” (The Book of Rites·Zi Yi). The above-cited examples show the upper as the ruler and the lower as commoners. That is why Confucius noted, “If the upper are fond of something, the lower can outdo them…because the lower follow their example” (The Book of Rites·Zi Yi). Confucius said, “If the ruler cannot tell the right from the wrong, his people will be confused and will not have an example to follow and a goal to pursue; if the lower are wicked, the ruler will have to deal with all kinds of troubles” (The Book of Rites·Zi Yi).

164  Feudal classes I Zengzi said, “The upper don’t follow the tradition and manners” (Analects·Zi Zhang). Shu Xiang said, “If the people know that the law is the ultimate judge, they will not respect the ruler any more” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Six). Zang Wuzhong said, “The people follow the example of the upper. When the people get punished for doing something, lessons will be learned. When they follow the example of the upper, which is the trend, who is able to impose a ban on that?” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-one). The people were called “the lower people”: “The lower people are sighing” (The Book of History·Yu·Yao). “The lower people are trapped in floods” (The Book of History·Yi Ji). “There is a harmonious relationship among the lower people” (The Book of History·Zhou·Weizi Zhi Ming) “The lower people are like grass” (The Book of History·Zhou·Jun Chen). “The lower people follow the ruler’s order” (The Book of History·Zhou·Tong Ming). 4 The term “gentlemen” (君子) can be found everywhere in historical records. The following are examples where “gentlemen” were mentioned along with the lowly or commoners (小人): “Gentlemen must be able to tolerate every person” (The Book of Changes·Shi). “Gentlemen cultivate themselves and stay away from lowlifes. When gentlemen are welcomed, lowlifes get alienated” (The Book of Changes·Tai). “Lowlifes reinforce their belief and stay away from gentlemen. When lowlifes are welcomed, gentlemen get alienated” (The Book of Changes·Pi). “Gentlemen help the people and cultivate their own virtues” (The Book of Changes·Gu). “Gentlemen stay away from lowlifes” (The Book of Changes·Dun). “Gentlemen shall encourage the people to work hard and help each other” (The Book of Changes·Jing). “The lowly ride on gentlemen’s carriages” (The Book of Changes·Xi Ci I). “Gentlemen will have a brighter future while lowlifes a dim one” (The Book of Changes·Za Gua). “Gentlemen stand beside chariots while the lowly hide behind chariots” (The Book of Songs·Lu Ming Zhi Shi·Cai Wei). “Gentlemen are open-minded with others while lowlifes are always suspicious” (The Book of Songs·Gu Feng Zhi Shi·Da Dong). “Gentlemen are capable of uniting people for public benefits while lowlifes are capable of ganging up for personal interests” (Analects·Art of Ruling). “Gentlemen are concerned about their virtues while lowlifes their housing; gentlemen are concerned about rules and manners while lowlifes their own interests” (Analects·Righteousness). “Gentlemen stress the importance of manners while lowlifes the importance of their own interests” (Ibid). “Gentlemen are open-minded and honest while lowlifes are often narrowminded and dishonest” (Analects·Shu Er). “Gentlemen’s virtues resemble wind while lowlifes grass” (Analects·Yanyuan; Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I). “Gentlemen always have doubts about things they do not understand. If the rules are not followed, then no fair remarks will be made; no things will be done; no manners and system of music and dance will be observed; no punishment will be executed. As a result, the people will be at a loss. Therefore gentlemen must be fully aware of, clarify and practise the rules. Gentlemen always take their own words and deeds seriously” (Analects·Zilu).

Feudal classes I  165 “Gentlemen aim at harmony, and not at uniformity while lowlifes aim at uniformity, and not at harmony” (Ibid). “Gentlemen are easy to serve but difficult to please…Lowlifes are difficult to serve but easy to please” (Ibid). “Gentlemen have a dignified ease without pride. Lowlifes have pride without a dignified ease” (Ibid). “Gentlemen seek for virtues; lowlifes seek for fame and fortune” (Analects·Xian Wen). “Gentlemen are able to endure want, but lowlifes, when they are in want, give way to unbridled license, trying every means to satisfy themselves” (Analects·Duke Ling of Wei). “What gentlemen seek are in themselves. What lowlifes seek are in others” (Ibid). “Gentlemen are not to be assigned small tasks; but they may be entrusted with missions. Lowlifes may not be entrusted with missions, but they may be assigned small tasks” (Ibid). “There are three things of which gentlemen stand in awe: the ordinances of the heaven, great men and the words of sages. Lowlifes do not know the ordinances of the heaven, and consequently do not stand in awe of them. They are disrespectful to great men. They make sport of the words of sages” (Analects·Ji Family). “When gentlemen are well instructed, they love men; when lowlifes are well instructed, they are easily ruled” (Analects·Yang Huo). “If gentlemen want to make their people work, they have to gain their confidence first” (Analects·Zizhang). “Lowlifes feel ashamed of losing their head of state and mourn deceased relatives…Gentlemen support their head of state, though aware of his wrongdoings” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Fifteen). “Lowlifes are afraid while gentlemen are not” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-six). “It has been the tradition of the previous kings to consider gentlemen as the brains and to consider lowlifes as the brawn” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Nine). “In time of peace, gentlemen advocate virtues and treat their inferiors nicely while lowlifes serve their superiors diligently; therefore both the upper and the lower stick to decorum… In time of chaos, gentlemen boast about their achievements to rise above lowlifes, who brag about their skills to rise above gentlemen; therefore both the upper and the lower lose courtesy” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirteen). “Lowlifes serve gentlemen…” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-six). “Gentlemen refrain from doing things that run contrary to decorum while lowlifes refrain from doing ominous things” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Three). “If they violate the order, gentlemen will be dismissed while lowlifes will be relegated” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Six). “Gentlemen are compassionate about others’ suffering while lowlifes derive pleasure from others’ misery” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Fifteen). “A state will have to depend on sheer luck to survive if its gentlemen defy etiquette and lowlifes defy the laws” (Mencius·Li Lou I). The term “great men” was the same as “gentlemen,” so Mencius said, “There are certain things for great men to do and lowlifes to do as well” (Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I).

166  Feudal classes I

Feudal classes I  167

168  Feudal classes I













Feudal classes I  169









































170  Feudal classes I 44 1 145 146 147 148

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·One. Guanzi·Twenty-three·Kui Du·Seventy-eight. Ibid. Mencius·Wan Zhang II. Guo Moruo quoted the contents about farming tools, as recorded in The Book of Songs, and wrongly concluded that there were only four kinds of tools, spades, weeders, picks and knives, during the Zhou (周) Dynasty (The Society of Ancient China (《中国古代社会》), pp. 12–13). The Book of Songs neither listed the tools in practice at this time nor stated that there were no other tools apart from what were included in it. Poems in the book were mainly expressive of the zeitgeist. When it comes to actual objects, only a few limited examples were given; they must not be taken too literally. Quotes from Guanzi prove Guo Moruo wrong: “In farming activities, farmers must adopt a spade, a hoe, a sickle, a weeder, a hammer and a machete” (Guanzi·Twenty-four·Qing Zhong·Eighty-one). Mencius·Wan Zhang II. “Craftsmen and businessmen contributed to officials” (Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Four). “Craftsmen lived in groups in official residences; Businessmen lived outside cities” (Discourses on Governance of the States·Qi). Yi Zhou Shu·Cheng Dian Jie·Twelve. “A chief was selected from craftsmen to manage the rest of them” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Ten). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Eight. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirty-three. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Eighteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty. Inscriptions on the Tripod of Xiao Yu Ding (Guo Moruo, Bronze Inscriptions of Western and Eastern Zhou, p. 35). The Book of History·Zhou·Kang Gao. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Four. Yi Zhou Shu·Four·Shi Fu Jie. The Spring and Autumn Annals and Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals. To contribute spoils means to contribute prisoners of war. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Seventeen. Shu Xiang’s remarks in Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Three. “Twenty-four: Returning from his business trip to the State of Jin, Yanzi saw grieved Yueshifu, a former resident of the State of Qi (齐) and thus sold the horse on the left of his chariot and pay for the man’s freedom” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Five). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two. Whether the System of “Nine Squares” Land Really Existed (《井田制度有无之研 究》) by Hu Hanmin (胡汉民), Hu Shi (胡适), etc. pp. 86–89. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Nineteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Thirty-two. “Similar to serfs” (Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·One). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty-one. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-three. Mozi·Seven·Tian Zhi II·Twenty-eight. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Seven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Seven. “Twenty-five: Duke Jing’s favourite horse died and he was to kill his groom as punishment while Yanzi advised against it” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·One).

6

Feudal classes II

Superiority of the nobles The previous chapters touched on how some fief owners acquired their status by attacking other tribes or ethnic groups (whom they called “outsiders”) in the outlands, capturing people of these tribes and giving those captives as gifts or labourers to the members of their own families. In such circumstances, nobles claimed a superior position in the feudal hierarchy. They enslaved and exploited their people and enjoyed the food and clothes they contributed without making any effort themselves. Their prestige was so immense that their people accepted their authority without any dissent. Simply put, the root of such obedience was associated with the social relationships in feudalism. To be more specific: First, nobles owned every inch of land in their fiefs. They were free to designate this land for any use: They either granted it to relatives and subordinates or built private housing, gardens and zoos, the sizes of which were entirely up to them. They could construct gardens and zoos that covered forty or even seventy square li (里).1 All the trees, mountains, rivers and wastelands located within their fiefs were at their disposal; no one else had the authority to interfere (see previous chapters). Second, farmers had to pay back landowners once they started farming to support themselves. They were obliged to cultivate the public land and pay rents . Their obligations will be discussed at length in the next section. Third, land belonged to landowners, while farmers belonged to land. This was the basis for an indirect ownership by landowners of farmers. Since landowners had the right to decide what their land was used for, they also had the right to decide the fate of their farmers, including the right to manage and request services and contributions from farmers, to settle disputes and to mete out punishment. More details on this will be provided in the next chapter, “Feudal politics.” Why is it possible to simply base farmers’ subordination to landowners on social relationships? Every relationship in feudal China derived from

172  Feudal classes II landownership, which gave landowners the right to manage land and its residents at will. On the other hand, farmers’ subordination to their landowners was what necessitated their obligation to obey and contribute. Obligations and rights, as reflected in such farmer-landowner relations, were completely defined by the land system in feudal China.

Obligations and rights of the commoners This section will touch upon what is considered the most thought-provoking fact in the full history of feudalism in China. Although relevant records are fragmented and scattered, we cannot afford to ignore them. It is fair to say that commoners’ obligations and duties were mostly about farmers’ obligations and duties. On the one hand, services like construction and conscription required a large number of people, but the number of craftsmen and businessmen was far from enough to meet the demands. On the other hand, craftsmen and businessmen worked in official residences (see the previous chapter) and did not have obligations and duties beyond their daily jobs. Farmers were the only source of labour that could be used for construction and conscription as they were large in number and available during the slack farming season. Obligations Farming replacement In the Zhou (周) Dynasty, some pieces of public land were allotted as private land to farmers, who made a living by farming replacement (i.e., farmers helped do landowners’ work and were given some farmland in return.) and attending to private land. When King Xuan (宣) of Zhou ascended the throne, he planned to scrap the traditional ritual that had been observed for ages on the one thousand mu (亩) of public land. However, Duke Wen (文) of Guo (虢) advised him, “Please don’t do that.”2 In another example, Viscount Jikang (季康, a bureaucrat from the State of Lu 鲁) intended to raise land taxes per unit of mu but first sent Ranyou (冉有, a disciple of Confucius) to ask Confucius’s opinion. Confucius did not respond directly but told Ranyou in private: Don’t you know this? The previous kings distributed land according to land quality; farmers were sent to till land according to their capabilities and landowners did not pay taxes and land policies were adjusted according to land location; business taxes were related to businessmen’s earnings and wealth; distribution of services was conducted based on the number of males in each family; males of tender ages as well as old ages were given due attention. Widows, widowers, orphans and sick people were treated differently; they were asked to provide service only

Feudal classes II  173 during wartime, and they were even exempt from any service in peacetime. During wartime, each piece of land of a certain size had to contribute one zong (稯, a unit of measurement) of crops, one bing (秉, a unit of measurement) of grass and one fou (缶, a unit of measurement) of rice – no less and no more, as the previous kings believed that those would suffice. If our Viscount Jikang (季康) is to follow the tradition, then he has all the previous rules to refer to. However, he has decided not to follow. Then he can levy taxes at his will. Why bother to ask me?3 The Zhou Dynasty assigned nobles’ public land to farmers as a means of farming replacement; farmers were required to toil on public land, and landowners, i.e., nobles, did not have to pay taxes. However, to earn a living, farmers had to till private land as well; the harvest from this land belonged to them. Only in wartime would they be asked to contribute crops from their private land. The system of public land or farming replacement was highlighted in quotes like “farmers were sent to till land according to their capabilities and landowners did not pay taxes” and “the king’s public land.” However, Viscount Jikang’s effort to levy more taxes challenged the existent system, as clearly explained by Confucius. The system of public land was related to a tricky issue: The system of Che (彻). Mencius observed: In the Xia (夏) Dynasty, every household was given fifty mu of land and the system of Gong (贡) was implemented. In the Shang (商) Dynasty, every household was given seventy mu of land and the system of Zhu (助) was implemented. In the current Zhou (周) Dynasty, every household is given one hundred mu of land and the system of Che is implemented. All of the three systems are the equivalent of a one-tenth of tax rate. Che means Che, and Zhu is the same as the system of public land…Only by implementing the system of Zhu can public land come into shape. Therefore, it is fair to say that Zhou implements Zhu as well.4 Mencius’s words are confusing. Gong meant “to contribute”: Public land was attended to as a means of farming replacement. Meanwhile, Che referred to a one-tenth tax rate (more details on this in the following section). That is to say, Gong and Che were different by definition. So, how could they both mean the one-tenth tax rate, as claimed by Mencius? Why did Longzi (龙子, an ancient Chinese thinker) note that “no land system is better than Zhu and worse than Gong” if they were actually the same? These quotes are obviously at odds with one another. Efforts must be paid to patiently untangle the conflicting claims found in historical documents in order to find some clues. First of all, Che must be defined. Mencius’s notion that “Che means Che” is baffling at best. However, an answer can be found in another quote. Duke Ai (哀) of Lu asked Youruo (有若, a disciple of Confucius), “What to do in

174  Feudal classes II famine without enough harvest?” Youruo replied, “What about introducing the system of Che?” Duke Ai said, “A two-tenth rate does not even suffice. How can I possibly use a one-tenth rate instead?”5 This dialogue explicitly shows that Che referred to a one-tenth tax rate. Given the difference between the quotes above, Mencius’s claim to equate all three taxation policies with one another must have been mistaken. Some scholars, however, still tried to prove that Mencius’s statement was true. The more they tried, the more confusing their conclusions were. For instance, Gongyang (公羊) said, “The one-tenth rate of tax is the same as the system of public land.”6 Guliang (谷梁) also said, “The one-tenth rate of tax is the same as the system of public land, which did not levy taxes on landowners in practice.”7 Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200) later pointed out that Mencius did not have first-hand knowledge of the different practices of taxation; therefore the conclusion he drew was hardly convincing.8 However, either out of ignorance or simply lying, Zhu Xi went on at length to explain exactly what a one-tenth rate was in the system of Gong, in the system of Zhu and in the system of Che.9 When commenting on and criticizing the new taxation method practised by Duke Xuan (宣) of Lu, both Gongyang and Guliang claimed that a one-tenth rate was traditionally practised under the system of public land, whereas Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) only concluded that “the collection of crops by the government must not violate the rules set by the system of public land; that is the way of accumulating wealth and goods.”10 Clearly, there was no mention of a “one-tenth rate” in Zuo Qiuming’s record. Compared with Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, both Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals and Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals are less reliable sources of information on the issue of the land system, especially its various services. Actually the mode of production in feudal China was characterised by farming replacement, which required “commoners to labour and contribute to serve the upper class.” This mode of production helped form the feudal hierarchy, in which people of different classes were entirely bound by land. Later, in the aftermath of the abolition of public land, taxation was imposed instead of services, the previous relationship of production perished, the difference between private and public land no longer existed, and an economy based on services and contributions gave way to a monetary economy. People were free from paying the services of labouring and only had to pay taxes. From the early Zhou (周) to the mid-Spring and Autumn Period, the system of public land persisted. Later, however, King Xuan (宣) of Zhou stopped observing the king and his princes’ traditional ritual of initiating farming on land at the very beginning of springtime and decided to tax according to the population. Duke Xuan of Lu (鲁) pioneered the policy of “Taxation on Farmland According to Its Number of Mu”; Viscount Jikang (季康) also planned to levy farmland taxes according to the farmland’s size in order to provide for the army of Lu. These moves were preludes to the ultimate

Feudal classes II  175 repeal of the system of public land and the subsequent establishment of land taxes. Confucius said that “the previous kings distributed land according to its quality; farmers were assigned land of different sizes to till according to their capabilities and were thus taxed differently. Those previous kings have already set up corresponding rules for us to follow.” Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) said that “to levy taxes on land ran contrary to the tradition, and collection of crops by the government must not violate the rules set by the system of public land.” Both of them actually approved of the system of public land adopted by the previous kings of the Zhou Dynasty and disapproved of the land taxation policy that Viscount Jikang planned to introduce. As the Zhou Dynasty and the State of Lu gradually rescinded the system of public land and replaced it with land taxation, other states followed suit. As a result, tax rates started to soar. For instance: The tax rate increased from one-tenth to three-tenths: The Zhou Dynasty and the State of Lu initially adopted a one-tenth rate.11 During the reign of Duke Ai (哀) of Lu, a two-tenth rate was conducted. The duke said, “A two-tenth rate does not even suffice. How can I possibly implement a one-tenth rate instead?” His words imply that he wished to further raise the tax rate.12 Since the 19th reigning year of Duke Huan’s (桓) of Qi (齐)…Taxes were levied once every two years by units of crops according to land quality. A three-tenth tax rate was imposed in bumper years; a two-tenth rate in years with moderate harvests and a one-tenth rate in lean years.13 The tax rate increased to two-thirds: In the State of Qi (齐), “The harvests of the people are divided into three parts, two of which must be devoted to their state and the rest to their own food and clothing.”14 Gradually, the one-tenth rate was not the standard anymore. That explains why Duke Ai (哀) of Lu responded impatiently when asked by Youruo (有若) to practise the taxation system of Che (see the example above). In another example, Mencius told Duke Wen (文) of Teng (腾), “Your Majesty, you can impose a one-ninth rate in the countryside and one-tenth in the capital city.”15 On another occasion, Mencius mocked Dai Yingzhi (戴盈之, a bureaucrat of Song 宋) when he suggested, “It is unlikely to levy a one-tenth tax and remove customs and market taxes. We may reduce the taxes first and fully enforce the related measures next year.”16 From the above, we can conclude that public land was a solid foundation for mobilising farmers for production in a feudal society, and the emergence of taxation began to erode the established feudal system. The following section will be devoted to the system of public land. A line in The Book of Songs (《诗经》) says, “Raindrops fall on public land as well as on private land.”17 Farmers were obliged to attend to landowners’ public land first before working on their own private land.

176  Feudal classes II In some countries, farming services were limited to certain periods of time, such as the weekly assignments utilized in Britain.18 This, however, was not the case in feudal China. Instead, farming replacement was introduced without limits to farming time. Public land was divided into smaller plots, which were then assigned to farmers. It was easy to implement this approach as it caused much less trouble than other systems and clearly defined individual farmers’ responsibilities. The services of farming replacement were all-inclusive: Weeding, plowing, sowing, harvesting, carrying crops to barns and cleaning and building ranches (mainly preparing for the vegetable gardens and threshing grounds, in turn) kept farmers busy around the clock, especially after harvests. Any harvested crops had to be protected from moisture and stored in barns to provide landowners with fresh food.19 The Book of Songs described farmers doing their best “to sow hundreds of crops,” “to harvest rice” and “to contribute millet, wheat, rice, cereal, barley, linen and beans” for landowners’ stores. The farmers were also required to “clean and build ranches” to prepare for the next farming season. Such poetic lines served as precious historical records of everything involved in farmers’ services on land. More details are scattered in The Book of Songs: Examples of weeding, plowing and sowing can be found in lines like “to plow and to sow”, and “seeds are selected and tools are prepared in advance” and “to sow hundreds of crops.” Lines like “No defective wheat or weeds. Not a single insect is spared.” referred to farmers’ efforts to cut weeds and kill pests while protecting seedlings. Also described are scenes in which landowners inspect farmers’ work. For example, Fu Tian (《甫田》) writes, “Zeng Sun (曾孙) came to inspect a field on public land; farmers’ wives and children brought food; the overseer was delighted by the coming harvest and beckoned farmers to enjoy the food.” Da Tian (《大田》) contains very similar contents: “Zeng Sun (曾孙) came to inspect a field on public land; farmers’ wives and children brought food; the overseer was delighted by the coming harvest.” Zeng Sun here referred to the landowner and the overseer helping him to make sure that all the farmers were doing their job and that farming activities were well organised. Seeing that the crops were growing very well, “Zeng Sun was in a good mood,” and “the overseer was delighted.” If the crops had not been as promising, Zeng Sun and the overseer would have been infuriated – if that occurred, farmers would not have been motivated or encouraged to “work hard” and “celebrate” but would have been plunged into worry and misery. “One thousand more barns and ten thousand more wagons are needed” in Fu Tian points to the fact that harvests were loaded onto wagons before being sent to barns. “To feed my people” shows how harvests supported the population of the Zhou empire. Obviously, depictions of farming replacement are patchy, even in The Book of Songs. Interestingly, Guanzi (管子) made the following observation: “In the first month of the Zhou calendar, farmers were sent to work on

Feudal classes II  177 public land. Farming started from the time when snow began to melt and continued till summertime when weeding would keep farmers busy.”20 In a word, farmers were kept busy working on public land almost year-round. Private land was tilled only after farmers had duly fulfilled their services on public land. Such poetic lines as “to sow hundreds of crops; land officials went to private land with farming tools” from The Book of Songs are descriptions of the traditional rituals marking the beginning of farming season, when the king of the Zhou Dynasty, together with his land officials and farmers, went to work on private land. Unfortunately, details about farming on private land are sparse. Payments in kind Like villeins in Britain, farmers in feudal China provided “payments in kind” beyond farming services to landowners or lords.21 According to The Book of Songs, there were various forms of “payments in kind”: CLOTHING

All commoners provided the upper class with their services, but men and women were assigned different jobs. Raising silkworms and textile-making were reserved for women. As described in the poem from The Book of Songs, Girls carry bamboo baskets and walk down the lane; they pick fresh mulberry leaves…Mulberry branches are trimmed in March. Sharp axes are used to cut high and long branches; fresh leaves on twigs are picked. Shrikes sing in July; linen is produced in August. Silk threads are spun and dyed in black or yellow; bright red silk is perfect for making clothes. Guanzi also pointed out, “Female workers make silk clothes.”22 It is evident that women were responsible for picking mulberry leaves and making clothes out of silk for the exclusive use of nobles. Only commoners in their fifties and older were allowed to dress in silk clothes.23 While garments made of silk were needed in spring, summer and autumn, thick fur was necessary in wintertime to protect its wearers from cold weather. So The Book of Songs says: “Leaves fall in October. Raccoons and foxes are hunted in November for their fur to make overcoats.” Before Great Cold, the last of China’s solar terms, farmers were obliged to hunt animals for their fur to make winter clothes for their landowners. FOOD

Farmers went fishing and hunting, contributing what they caught to their owners. According to The Book of Songs, “Hunters meet in December and

178  Feudal classes II begin to hunt. They keep small pigs to themselves and contribute bigger ones to nobles.” Hunters were obliged to contribute the big animals they caught to nobles and were only allowed to keep small ones. As The Book of Songs put it, you never go hunting, but why do you have pork hung in your yard?… Why do you have a pole in your yard to hang meat… Why do you have quails hung in your yard? You nobles cannot stand a meal without meat. This poem, while accusing nobles of exploiting the common people, clearly states that the upper class relied upon meat at this time. In another example, Cao Gui (曹刿, a strategist of Lu 鲁) asked to meet Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu to offer some advice on defending Lu against the army of Qi (齐). Cao Gui’s fellow-villager overheard this and said to him, “Those who eat meat are supposed to propose a plan. Why do you bother to give your advice since you are not one of them?” Cao Gui responded, “They are too short-sighted to make long-term plans.”24 In this instance, “Those who eat meat (肉食者)” was used as a byword for nobles by Cao Gui and his fellow-villager: This confirms that nobles were certainly not vegetarians. All the animal meat hung in the yards of the nobles, as described in the poem, was contributed by farmers (part-time hunters) – who else was going to feed those who ate meat? Contributions of seafood, such as fish and shrimp, were required of the people who lived near water. That explains why Yanzi (晏子) mentioned “to contribute fare deriving from the sea.”25 Farmers also contributed fresh food. According to The Book of Songs, plums and grapes are contributed in June; sunflower seeds and beans are prepared in July; dates are picked in August; rice is harvested in October. Nice wine is made for owners to wish them longevity. Melons are ripe in July; cucurbit was plucked in August; flower seeds are collected in September. Bitter herbs and firewood support the lives of farmers. Clearly, only the privileged were able to enjoy all kinds of fresh food and wine, while farmers had to feed themselves with bitter herbs. ICE

Commoners also had to contribute ice to nobles. As The Book of Songs says, “Ice was taken in December and then kept in storage in January.” In this way, it was made ready for later use. Upon request commoners would take it out. In conclusion, nobles enjoyed tremendous privileges, receiving access to a wide range of foods and clothes without making any effort. In contrast,

Feudal classes II  179 farmers were kept busy year-round to provide the privileged with an extravagant way of life. As The Book of Songs clearly pointed out, “you yourselves never sow and harvest, but you claim all the harvests! You yourselves never hunt, but you always have quails hung in your yard! You nobles cannot stand a meal without meat. ” Services Services were assigned in the wake of farming seasons. This began with a census, which was conducted for the purpose of these services. Apart from children, women, old and severely disabled people,26 all commoners were obliged to contribute services. Mencius thus observed, “Upon the call for services, commoners must immediately obey.”27 No resistance was allowed. There were two ways of contributing services: Construction service and military service. CONSTRUCTION SERVICE

Capitals and fiefs Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) concluded that “the fief with temples that worshipped ancestors, previous kings and gods was called the capital; the rest were regular fiefs. The building of fiefs was called construction; the building of the capital was called guarding.”28 The following are some examples of construction and guarding from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: “Mei (郿) was constructed in winter.” (Zhuang·Twenty-nine); “Wei (微) was constructed in winter.” (Zhuang·Twenty-nine); “the guarding of Zhongqiu (中丘) in summer” (Yin·Seven); “the guarding of Lang (郎) in summer” (Yin·Nine); “the guarding of Zhuqiu (祝丘) in summer” (Huan·Five); “the guarding of Xiang (向) in winter” (Huan·Sixteen); “the guarding of Zhu (诸) and Fang (防)” (Zhuang·Twenty-nine); “the guarding of Xiaogu (小谷) in spring” (Zhuang·Thirty-two); “the guarding of Xing (邢) in summer” (Xi·One); “the guarding of Chuqiu (楚丘) in spring” (Xi·Two); “the guarding of Yuanling (缘陵) in spring” (Xi·Fourteen); “the guarding of Wu (郚) in spring” (Wen·Seven); “the guarding of Zhu (诸) and Yun (郓) in winter” (Wen·Twelve); “the guarding of Pingyang (平阳) in winter” (Xuan·Eight); “the guarding of Yun (郓) in winter” (Cheng·Four); “the guarding of Zhongcheng (中城) in winter” (Cheng·Nine); “the guarding of Hulao (虎牢) in winter” (Xiang·Two); “the guarding of Fei (费) in summer” (Xiang·Seven); “the guarding of Fang (防) in winter” (Xiang·Thirteen); “the guarding of Chengfu (成郛) in summer” (Xiang·Fifteen); “the guarding of Xifu (西郛) in winter” (Xiang·Nineteen); “the guarding of Wucheng (武城) in winter” (Xiang·Nineteen); “the guarding of Qi (杞) in summer” (Xiang·Twenty-nine); “the guarding of Chengzhou (成周) in winter” (Zhao·Thirty-two); “the guarding of Zhongcheng (中城) in

180  Feudal classes II winter” (Ding·Six); “the guarding of Jufu (莒父) and Xiao (霄) in winter” (Ding·Fourteen); “the guarding of Qiyang (启阳) in summer” (Ai·Three); “the guarding of Pi (毗) in spring” (Ai·Five); “the guarding of Zhuxia (邾瑕) in spring” (Ai·Six). Palaces The Book of Songs depicted farmers working hard to build palaces: “Alas, those toiling farmers. They finish harvesting before going for constructing palaces. They cut straws during the day and make ropes at night. They have to hurry to build their own roofs.”29 Other examples include: “To paint red the front pillars and carve flowers on the rafters in Duke Huan’s (桓) temple,”30 “The building of Zhongzi (仲子) Temple was completed,”31 “To build a palace for King Ping (平) of Zhou’s granddaughter”32 and “King Jing (景) of Qi (齐) built a corridor and planned to decorate it while Yanzi (晏子) advised against this idea.”33 Gardens The following are some examples of construction of gardens from Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals: “to build a deer garden in autumn” (Cheng·Eighteen); “to build a garden in Lang (郎)” (Zhao·Nine); “to build the Sheyuan (蛇渊) Garden” (Ding·Thirteen). The garden of King Wen (文) of Zhou (周) covered seventy square li (里); that of King Xuan (宣) of Qi (齐) covered forty.34 Such a large area necessitated a considerable amount of work. Platforms According to The Book of Songs, “A platform was to be built; designs and arrangements were well made. The people worked together and finished the construction in a few days.”35 Mencius said, “King Wen (文) of Zhou mobilised his people to build a platform and a pond. His people were pleased to do that and called the platform ‘Blessed Platform (灵台)’ and the pond ‘Blessed Pond (灵沼).’”36 (Translator’s note: Kings and princes had a platform built before they had halls or palaces set upon it. The building of such a platform thus meant an enormous amount of construction work and constituted a heavy burden to working people.) Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁) built one platform in Lang (郎) in spring, one in Xue (薛) in summer and one in Qin (秦) in autumn.37 King Zhuang (庄) of Chu (楚) built Paoju Platform (匏居台),38 King Ling (灵) of Zhou built Zhanghua Platform (章华台)39 and Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐) built Grand Platform (大台) and Luqin Platform (路寝台).40 Roads Duke Jing of Qi used labourers to build a road to the State of Zou (邹).41 There were also other constructions, including gates,42 watchtowers,43 barns,44 carriages45 and zhongs (钟, bronze bells).46

Feudal classes II  181 MILITARY SERVICE

First, commoners were required to serve as city guards. According to The Book of Songs, The King of Zhou sent orders to General Nanzhong (南仲) to build guarding walls in Shuofang (朔方). Chariots charged ahead; fluttering bright flags were a magnificent view. The king sent orders to farmers, asking them to go to Shuofang immediately.47 Another poem portrayed a scene in which such farmers felt homesick: “My faraway beloved one; I am guarding Shen (申) without your company…I am guarding Fu (甫) without your company…I am guarding Xu (许) without your company. How much I miss you! When can I return home?”48 Second, commoners were required to act as soldiers in times of war. The following two poems show how they prepared weapons, were drafted and were asked to attack tribes/ethnic groups with different surnames (异族): The head of state sent us to battles; we prepared daggers and spears and joined hands in killing enemies…The head of state sent us to battles; we prepared spears and halberds and set off…The head of state sent us to battles; we prepared armour and were fully equipped to move forward to kill.49 Chariots were deployed…The state was in crisis; it was urgent to fight…The state was in crisis; not in the mood for any leisure…The prestigious general Nanzhong defeated the tribe of Xi Rong (西戎)… Captives were brought to trial and the army was pleased with the result and returned; The prestigious general Nanzhong drove back the tribe of Xianyun (玁狁).50 King Xuan (宣) of Zhou conducted a census in Taiyuan (太原)51 as a prelude to the military draft. Nobles had the right to conscription and to use it as they pleased. For instance, Feng Juan (丰卷) the bureaucrat prepared for worship and asked for hunting for offerings. However, Zichan (子产, the prime minister of Zheng 郑) refused. So, Feng Juan was furious and drafted men in his army and then mobilised soldiers to attack Zichan.52 In another example, Luan Ying (栾盈, a bureaucrat of Jin 晋) had been a fief owner in Quwo (曲沃) before his misconduct forced him to escape. Later, he managed to return to Quwo furtively. To support Luan Ying, Xu Wu (胥午, a bureaucrat of Jin) threw a banquet for residents of Quwo, and then asked them, “If Luan Ying is back now, what will you do?” All the people at the banquet replied, “We will die for him; to die for our fief owner is like a rebirth.” They sighed and cried. After a while, Xu Wu asked them the same question and received the same response. Then Luan Ying showed up to greet and thank everybody present. Eventually, he led the armed forces of Quwo to attack Jiang (绛), the capital city of Jin.53

182  Feudal classes II The above examples demonstrate the general policies of farmers’ services. When deciding on an exact time of service, the government or landowners often took advantage of the slack season, when there was not much farming to do. Apart from emergencies, chiefly wars, which called for urgent actions, services provided by commoners could not impede farming activities on the grounds that commoners would not have enough to feed themselves and nobles if farming activities were interrupted, and they did not have time to sow and reap. Guanzi (管子) thus commented on the possible consequences: When one man is mobilised for services, 100 mu (亩) of land will lie idle; when 10 men are mobilised, 1,000 mu of land will lie idle; when 100 men are mobilised, 10,000 mu of land will lie idle; when 1,000 men are mobilised, 100,000 mu of land will lie idle.54 Yanzi (晏子) also noted, “If both services and hunting are demanded in spring and summer, there will be no time for farming; that will deprive our state of enough crop reserves. We cannot afford to do that.”55 Wu Ju (伍举, a bureaucrat of Chu 楚) suggested, “The previous heads of state built platforms and pavilions…Services never stood in the way of farming activities…Farmers can be assembled for building platforms and pavilions during their spare time when farming seasons are over.”56 Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) concluded: In December…to guard Zhu (诸) and Fang (防)…The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that because December was the right time to guard capital cities. If the construction had been ill-timed, The Spring and Autumn Annals would not have recorded it at all…Any construction should be carried out at the time when the Blue Dragon star appeared, that was, at the end of farming seasons. Tools should be prepared when the Grand Fire star showed up. At dawn, as the Scope star showed itself, walls should be erected. No more construction work after the winter solstice.57 The guarding of Fang (防) in winter was recorded in The Spring and Autumn Annals because the timing of this work was right. If the construction had been ill-timed, The Spring and Autumn Annals would not have recorded it at all. The original plan was to do that earlier than winter, but Zang Wuzhong (臧武仲, a bureaucrat of Lu 鲁) asked to postpone construction until after farming seasons; that was in line with the convention or rituals.58 Not only construction services but also conscription was expected to take place outside of farming seasons. Military training and exercises both took place during the slack seasons of farming (see Military system in Chapter 7).

Feudal classes II  183 Examples of people keeping this kind of balance between services and farming can be found in all historical records. Guanzi (管子) gave the most detailed description of the timing: There are ten most crucial days in spring for sowing; ten most crucial days in summer for weeding; ten most crucial days in autumn for harvesting and twenty most crucial days in winter for preparing land. That is a timely and feasible plan for farming.59 So much for how farmers provided labouring, other services and farming replacement so as to contribute all kinds of products and to fulfil their obligations concerning construction as well as military. The next part will elaborate on the farmer’s way of life in a feudal society. Farmers toiled on the land so that nobles could enjoy the best crops, fresh fruit and vegetables, bird and animal meat, wine and clothes as well as the colourful silk and fur, duly contributing these without leaving any for themselves. They could only feed themselves with stale crops60 and bitter herbs,61 and wear shabby clothes made of coarse cloth. So deplored the poem, “We do not even have a single piece of clothes made of coarse cloth. How are we going to endure the rest of the year?”62 Despite poor conditions in terms of food and clothing, farmers were kept busy working on the land with hardly any break, year in and year out. Upon finishing farming replacement, they had to turn to private land to support their own families. Their work continued from weeding and sowing in spring up through the harvesting seasons; even in their spare time in winter, they never breathed freely as further services could be inflicted upon them at any time. In theory, workers who had to fulfil construction services followed a strict schedule, while people who had to fulfil military services did not (see previous quotes). In truth, however, the construction services were onerous, seriously hampering farming and putting farmers in travails. There were twenty-seven examples of guarding in the Spring and Autumn Period; fourteen of them, that is, more than half, were conducted during spring, summer and autumn, which were certainly all busy farming seasons (see previous quotes). Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐) sent his people to build a grand platform, but this had not yet been completed when winter arrived; thus, people suffered from hunger and cold weather. Yanzi (晏子) thought of a way to advise the duke against further construction. When he went to the site, together with Duke Jing, to supervise the construction, he started whipping those who did not work hard enough. He pretended to scold them: “We ordinary people even have places to live and to protect ourselves from heat and rain. The duke needs a platform to stay but it has not been finished on time. You are being lazy!” People thus mistakenly believed that Yanzi was cruel to labourers, just like Duke Jing of Qi.63 In truth, however, Yanzi was trying

184  Feudal classes II to remind Duke Jing in a roundabout way of his mistake of overburdening common people with services. Yanzi did not want to make a direct suggestion to Duke Jing as this might annoy him and make matters worse. Fortunately, Duke Jing understood Yanzi’s intention and halted further construction. In another example, Duke Jing of Qi had Luqin Platform (路寝台) built. He was unable to climb to the top of this and paused midway panting, complaining to his followers, “Why did they build the platform so high? I hate them!”64 This example indicates that the workers were instructed to make the platform lavish and grand enough. Indeed, it took a great number of labourers more than three years to finish building it.65 One construction always followed another; there was never even a day of rest for commoners. Noble’s appetite for revelry was insatiable. For example, Duke Jing followed the construction of Luqin Platform, which took over three years, with that of a corridor, which took two years, and a road leading to the State of Zou (邹), which took several more years.66 From this, we can see the excessive exploitation of commoners. But Duke Jing of Qi’s exploitation of his commoners was a much lighter case than that of King Ling of Chu (who was actually the head of Chu but proclaimed himself king). The head of Chu imposed services upon his people by making them spend over three years building the Qing (顷) Palace and over five years building the Zhanghua (章华) Platform, with eight additional years on Qianxi Platform (乾溪台).67 Construction services were usually called for during the slack farming season in wintertime so as not to keep commoners from farming activities. Military service, however, had no fixed timetable, rendering commoners displaced. As a result, they often had to struggle to survive. The Book of Songs contains numerous examples of heavy services: Atop the lush mountain, I look in the faraway direction of my father. I seem to have heard him saying: Son, you are too busy with your services around the clock. Take care of yourself and come back home as soon as possible. Atop the desolate mountain, I look in the faraway direction of my mother. I seem to have heard her saying: Son, you are too busy with your services and deprived of sleep. Take good care of yourself, do not forget your mother and come back home as soon as possible. Atop that mountain, I look in the faraway direction of my elder brother. I seem to have heard him saying: My brother, you are too busy with your services day and night. Do take care of yourself. I hope you won’t sacrifice your life there and can come back home as soon as possible.68 Bustards are fluttering and resting on oak trees. Services demanded by nobles are endless. I don’t have time to go back home for farming. Who will support my poor parents? Dear Heaven, when can I return home? Bustards are fluttering and resting on date trees. Services

Feudal classes II  185 demanded by nobles are endless. I don’t have time to go back home for farming. Without harvest, how can I support my poor parents? Dear Heaven, when can I have a break? Bustards are fluttering and resting on mulberry trees. Services demanded by nobles are endless. I don’t have time to go back home for farming. Who will help my poor parents out? Dear Heaven, when can I live a normal life?69 Four sturdy horses are galloping ahead along a long and winding road. How much I miss my home! But the services are not fulfilled yet. How sad I am! Four sturdy horses are galloping ahead; the white horse with black mane is panting. How much I miss my home! But the services are not fulfilled yet. I can’t afford to have a break. Turtledoves fly from afar, circling high and low before resting on those lush oak trees. My services are not fulfilled yet. I am unable to care for my old father. Turtledoves fly from afar, unfolding and folding their wings before resting on those lush medlar trees. My services are not fulfilled yet. I am unable to care for my old mother. I am driving on four white horses with black mane on the road. How much I miss my home! I have no choice but to write into these lines my homesickness.70 When I left home for military service, crops were growing vigorously. At long last I am on my way home when heavy snow surrounds me on the muddy road. The state is plagued by disasters with no prospects of peace in sight. How much we miss our home! But we must follow the king’s order.71 Swan geese are flying and fluttering. Those men leave for the front, struggling and fighting non-stop. Pity them. Their families live in pain. Swan geese are flying and fluttering before landing in the marsh. Those men are sent to build walls after walls, toiling and labouring non-stop. No place to settle.72 The sun is shining from the blue sky and the heaven sees everything under it. I am now being sent to the wild and desolate west on an auspicious date in February, going through the hot summer and harsh winter. Filled with sorrow and grief, I am tormented inside. Thinking of those diligent men, I can’t help but to cry. How much I miss my home! But I can’t violate the order. When I left for the front, the new year was ringing in. When can I return home? As this year draws to an end, still no date of return is in sight. I am all by myself, straining to finish numerous jobs. Filled with sorrow and grief, I am too tired to take care of myself. Thinking of those diligent men, I can’t help but to be homesick. How much I wish to go home! But I will be punished if I go. When I left for the front, the weather just began to turn warm. When can I return home? Services keep coming my way. This year is coming to an end; people are busy harvesting. Filled with sorrow and grief, I get what I deserve. Thinking of those diligent men, I can’t sleep. How much I wish to go home! But I dare not go home because punishment awaiting me is severe.73

186  Feudal classes II These heartrending lines serve as a poignant reminder of the commoner’s life under duress in a feudal society. Upon being drafted in springtime, he could not return home, not even at the end of the year, and he would have no time for farming and no way to support his parents, wife and children. Not a single day passed that he did not miss his family. His family members were pining for him – their son, husband or brother – wondering whether he was still alive. As frequent services wore commoners out, they became very homesick. However, draconian rules held them back; no one would ever dare to escape. Rights Farmers’ rights were almost negligible in a feudal society. First, their rights were limited to the fact that they were allotted one plot of land by their landowner. This piece of land was where they resided and what they used to acquire food to support their families, merely making ends meet. Second, for a farmer, all he could ask of his landowner was protection so that he and his family could live a peaceful life. When farmers were bullied, they could turn to landowners for justice. For instance, when a man from the county-level fief “Gengyang (梗阳)” was charged with a crime, the lawsuit was brought before Wei Wu (魏戊, a bureaucrat of the State of Jin, who was entitled to Gengyang), who, nevertheless, could not decide. The concerned parties went to Wei Wu’s superior, Viscount Wei Xian (魏献), for a final judgement of the case.74 Farmers enjoyed no further rights than those stated above. Commoners provided labour to serve their superiors; they only had obligations and hardly had any rights. Survival and freedom from bullying were the best they could hope for. By law they were not allowed to defy their owners, no matter how badly they were treated and how hard they had to toil in misery.

Occupations and permanent residences of the commoners Commoners were kept in their “rightful” place, serving the upper classes so that they might lead extravagant lives. Scholars, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen did their respective jobs; their descendants were asked to follow in their footsteps, generation after generation. The settlements of commoners were fixed; no migration was permitted. With this law, the ruling class ensured that scholars, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen would not mingle, and thus would not be tempted to change their jobs. They were managed in this way so that they could duly provide their obligations of farming replacement, “payments in kind” and labour as well as military service. This was the pillar of the long-standing co-existence between the ruler and the ruled, and the oppressor and the oppressed in feudal China.

Feudal classes II  187 If commoners had been allowed to migrate freely, they would have – theoretically – been able to escape from their obligations, depriving the upper class of their privileges and rendering nobles panicked. As a matter of fact, the law of this time specified that commoners were banned from migration. Through such a ban, the higher class was granted the right to exploit commoners, never fearing that they would seek refuge in other places. This served to perpetuate the irreconcilable and conflicting relationship between commoners and the upper class. Once this link was broken, and people were free to move as they wished, feudalism would cease to exist. Historical documents on this relationship abound: Laozi (老子) observed, “People in neighbouring states could see each other and hear the sounds of each other’s chicken and dogs; but they could never interact with each other.”75 Yi Zhou Shu (佚周书) stated, “Scholars and bureaucrats were not allowed to do business…Craftsmen must live in clusters to provide their services to local governments; the members of some prominent families must be organised locally to ensure their obedience.”76 “Farmers were asked to live only in the rural area…Craftsmen, businessmen, commoners and slaves were not permitted to live together.”77 Yanzi (晏子) concluded, “People didn’t migrate; farmers stayed where they were; craftsmen and businessmen didn’t change their jobs and scholars duly fulfilled their obligations.”78 Zinang (子囊, the prime minister of Chu 楚) said that in the State of Jin (晋), scholars shouldered their responsibilities of educating people; commoners were devoted to farming; and businessmen, craftsmen, labourers and slaves never wanted to change their jobs.79 Guanzi (管子) elaborated on the reasons why scholars, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen were forced to live separately: The four categories of scholars, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen are the pillars of our state. They must not live together since they do different jobs. Scholars usually live in quiet places; farmers near land; craftsmen near local government offices and businessmen near markets. When scholars live in clusters, fathers talk about righteousness with each other while sons talk about filial piety. In so doing, they will pay respect to the ruler, and brotherly love and filial piety bind the elderly and the young. The youth steep themselves in such an education since childhood without being tempted to do otherwise. Fathers do not have to be very strict when raising their children because children can learn how to do business easily through fathers. Therefore, the sons of scholars are scholars too. Farmers live together. Their farming tools and facilities such as digging rakes and sickles are organised by seasons. When the temperature is still low, land will be tilled and weeds will be pulled for ploughing so that soil can be deeply tilled, seeds evenly

188  Feudal classes II planted and earth swiftly covered. Weeding and tillage will be carried out before rainfall. When it rains, farmers carry tools and work all day in the fields; they must take off their daily clothing. They can tell good seedlings from bad ones and arrange the planting well. They wear straw hats and clothes with mud all over and skin exposed. They toil on their land. But that is what they have been doing since childhood; they do not seek to change what they do. Fathers do not have to be very strict when raising their children because they can learn farming skills easily through fathers. Therefore, the sons of farmers usually become farmers too. They are down-to-earth and kind and the best of them are qualified to be trustworthy scholars. When they farm, they produce more food; when they take office, they are good officers. That is why a wise king always values farmers. Craftsmen are asked to live together. They will inspect quality timber and come up with different products by seasons. They can tell good timber from bad timber and make tools out of it. They work on their products in terms of quality and specifics. They improve on themselves by consulting and competing with each other. They teach what they do to their children who then will not be tempted to do something else. Fathers do not have to be very strict when raising their children because they can pick up craftsmanship easily through fathers. Therefore, the sons of craftsmen will grow up to be craftsmen too. Businessmen live together; they pay attention to harvests of each year, internal conditions of their state and local goods by seasons to estimate commodity prices. They are responsible for loading cattle and horses with goods and then travel around; they calculate the amount of goods needed and set their prices. They trade what they have for what they have not; they buy low and sell high. Therefore, precious goods such as rare birds’ feathers found their way to businessmen easily and adequate supply can be guaranteed when bamboo arrows are needed. Rarely-seen and exotic goods are available to buyers on the market. Businessmen teach their children about what they have learned from market. They talk about profits, business opportunities and commodity prices. When their children are raised this way, they will not be tempted to do other jobs. Fathers do not have to be very strict when raising their sons because they can learn about business easily through their parents. Therefore, the sons of businessmen usually take up business as their career too.80

Formation of classes and their different customs It is commonly known that classes were strictly established in a feudal society. They defined everyone’s social statuses, rights and obligations. A lucky few were the rulers and suppressors; the rest were the ruled and suppressed. Classes were not attained through efforts but randomly attributed at birth.

Feudal classes II  189 To symbolise and sustain classes, strict systems of custom and clothing came into being. The differences in custom and clothing between classes are valuable in studying the disparities. Sacrificial rituals All men, from the king to commoners, had to worship their ancestors in order to pay filial piety and gratitude. But approaches to such worship differed depending on one’s class. The king had seven temples for worship: Kao (考) Temple (to worship the father), Wang Kao (王考) Temple (to worship the grandfather), Huang Kao (皇考) Temple (to worship the great-grandfather), Xian Kao (显考) Temple (to worship the great-great-grandfather), two temples of Er Tiao (二祧) (to worship the two other outstanding distant ancestors) and Zu Kao (祖考) Temple (to worship his great-great-great grandfather). The first six of these temples were categorised as three Zhaos (昭) and three Mus (穆). Princes had five temples: Kao (考) Temple, Wang Kao (王考) Temple, Huang Kao (皇考) Temple, Xian Kao (显考) Temple and Zu Kao (祖考) Temple. The first four of these temples were categorised as two Zhaos and two Mus. Bureaucrats had three temples: Kao (考) Temple, Wang Kao (王考) Temple (which were categorised, respectively, as Zhao and Mu) and Huang Kao (皇考) Temple. Scholar-officials had two temples: Kao (考) Temple and Wang Kao (王考) Temple. Commoners, however, did not have temples; they worshipped in their own accommodations.81 This demonstrates that the higher classes were entitled to worship ancestors farther along their family lines. According to Guliang (谷梁), “those with greater virtues pass their blessings on to their younger generations; while those with lesser virtues cannot.”82 The former had a higher social status, while the latter had a lower one. Their difference in level of virtues pointed to their place in the social hierarchy. The frequency of their practices of worship differed too. The higher a person’s class, the more often they were able to worship. The king worshipped his father and grandfather on a daily basis, his great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather on a monthly basis, his other ancestors on a seasonal basis and heaven on a yearly basis. Princes could only worship on a monthly basis. Ministers and bureaucrats were only allowed to worship once a season, while scholar-officials and commoners were only allowed to worship once a year.83 Apart from worshipping at temples, there were limits upon what could be worshipped in nature. One could not worship what he was not entitled to. To worship Heaven and Earth: As Zichan (子产, the prime minister of the State of Zheng) put it, “demons, evil spirits and karma are often connected or associated with either one’s counterparts in the same family or of the same social status.”84 Therefore, one was only allowed to worship one’s own peers in terms of family, category or class. The king was not in the same category as Heaven,

190  Feudal classes II but his ruling was ordained by Heaven, and he was ordained as Son of Heaven; Heaven was his father, and Earth was his mother. Such a status was peerless, so only the king was seen as an equal of Heaven, and thus only he could worship both Heaven and Earth. According to Cao Gui (曹刿, a strategist during the Spring and Autumn Period) and Zichan (子产), “the king worships Heaven.”85 The Book of Rites also stated, “The king worships Heaven and Earth.” The ceremony of worshipping Heaven and Earth, referred to as Jiao Ji (郊祭),86 was very impressive. Princes were not allowed to practise it. After the Spring and Autumn Period, however, they defied the privilege of the king and started to perform Jiao Ji anyway. That is why Gongyang (公羊) claimed: Jiao Ji practised by the State of Lu (鲁) went against the rites, because only the king of Zhou (周) could do that; princes were only qualified for worshipping land. The king worshipped everything from all kinds of gods (notably the god of rain and the god of wind) to the sun, the moon, the stars, and to mountains, rivers and oceans. Princes, however, were not allowed to worship mountains, rivers and oceans located outside the territory of their very own fiefs.87 In the act of Jiao Ji, the earliest ancestor was worshipped in the same way as Heaven. In people’s mind, Heaven was the source of all and reigned supreme; one’s earliest ancestor was the progenitor of one’s own existence and thus should be paid the greatest respect and treated as an equal of Heaven. According to Confucius, mankind is the most honourable of all creatures. The most crucial practice by mankind is filial piety; the most crucial practice of filial piety is the respect for the father; and the best way of doing that is to treat one’s earliest ancestor as Heaven.88 Everything originated from Heaven; mankind originated from their ancestors. Jiao Ji is a grand ceremony for people to pay respect and gratitude to Heaven and ancestors as well as to reflect on their origin. Therefore the worship of ancestors can match the worship of Heaven. When Heaven shows signs, sages learn from those signs. Jiao Ji is held to signify Heaven’s signs.89 Gongyang (公羊) said: Why did the king also worship his earliest ancestor? Rituals could not be performed when his ancestor did not meet God of Heaven (天帝, the highest god in Chinese mythology who rules over everything). When God of Heaven descended, he would not stop to enjoy sacrifices if no ancestors welcomed him.90

Feudal classes II  191 According to The Book of Rites: It was a rule that only the king could hold Di Ji (禘祭), one of the grandest worship ceremonies; Di Ji was aimed at celebrating the king’s earliest ancestor as an equal of God of Heaven. But in practice the king offered sacrifices to God of Heaven and invited his ancestor to accompany God of Heaven.91 Ji (稷) was considered the earliest ancestor by the king of Zhou (周); therefore Ji (稷) was worshipped the way Heaven was.92 The king worshipped mountains, rivers and oceans: The king owned everything under heaven. Mountains, rivers and oceans, even those not located within his lands, belonged to the king, so he was entitled to worship them. He did not have to travel to each specific place; instead, he could worship by looking in their directions. Such a method of worship was called Wang Ji (望祭). According to Gongyang, “the king worshipped everything from all kinds of gods (notably the god of rain and the god of wind) to the sun, the moon, the stars, and to mountains, rivers and oceans.”93 What was ‘San Wang (三望, the great sacrificial ceremony that involved looking at gods from afar in three directions and offering sacrifices to them one by one)’? To look in the directions of mountains, rivers and oceans. What exactly did the king mainly worship? Mount Tai, the Yellow River and oceans. Why was that? Because the king of Zhou worshipped in the order of mountains, rivers and oceans that nurtured their surroundings. Of all mountains only Mount Tai had moisture amassed from cracks of its rocks to form gentle rain in the morning. The Yellow River and oceans nourished thousands of miles of landscape and diverse lives, therefore they must be worshipped too.94 As for princes, since they could only call their fiefs their own lands, they were entitled to worship mountains, rivers and oceans located only within those fiefs. As Guanshefu (观射父, a learned bureaucrat of Chu 楚) put it, princes worshipped “mountains, rivers and oceans on their own land.”95 The “King’s System” also stated that a prince’s worship was confined to the landscape across his territory and never extended beyond the border of his state. When King Zhao (昭) of Chu was ill, he was told by a fortune teller that the god of the Yellow River was responsible for his suffering and that he should offer sacrifices to the god of the river to pray for its blessing. Zhao, however, refused to do so. When his bureaucrats tried to persuade him to follow the fortune teller’s advice, he said to them: The convention holds that we cannot worship mountains, rivers and oceans beyond our own land. The Yangtze River, the Han (汉) River,

192  Feudal classes II the Ju (雎) River and the Zhang (漳) River are all located in our State of Chu. All our blessings as well as curses only happen within our boundaries. No matter whether I am adequate or not, I certainly cannot afford to offend the god of the Yellow River.96 Still, princes did have a great number of mountains, rivers and oceans within their fiefs, and they were unable to go to each and every one of them. Therefore, they also practised rituals by facing these landmarks’ directions. Such practices were also limited to what was located in the prince’s own land. For instance, the Yangtze River, the Han River, the Ju River and the Zhang River were located in the State of Chu, so the head of Chu could worship them by looking at them from afar; the Yellow River was outside the territory of Chu and thus could not be worshipped in the same way by its head. The king and princes had their own land and therefore were naturally entitled to worship Heaven, Earth, mountains, rivers and oceans. Bureaucrats were granted fiefs, but they did not enjoy the right to such worship since they did not own states. Scholar-officials and commoners did not have fiefs at all, so they could worship “nothing but their fathers.”97 The rituals and implements related to this worship also differed depending on class. For instance, when a solar eclipse took place, the king worshipped in order to save heaven by presenting five flags, five weapons and five drums. Princes worshipped to save heaven with three flags, three weapons and three drums. Bureaucrats and scholars did not have the right to use any of these items while worshipping to save heaven; they could only worship by hitting doors, and scholars could only worship by hitting wood.98 Worship dancing differed too. Duke Yin (隐) of Lu (鲁) presented a sixrow dance in order to worship his mother. Zhongzhong (众仲, a bureaucrat of Lu) claimed that the king was entitled to an eight-row dance, princes a six-row dance, bureaucrats a four-row dance and scholar-officials a tworow dance99; according to Gongyang (公羊) and Guliang (谷梁), the king was supposed to have eight, dukes six and marquises four.100 Thus, it is debatable whether Duke Yin exceeded his power or not. But Jisun Si (季孙 斯), the prime minister of Lu, presumptuously used the dancing ritual reserved only for the king and arranged an eight-row dance in his courtyard. This action was deemed an arrogation of rituals as well as a challenge to the king. That is why Confucius lamented, “If this could be tolerated, what else could not?”101 Daily diet also differed, with limitations according to class. The food used for worship after one’s death was restricted by certain rules. Guanshefu (观射父) held that worship food could only be one level higher than daily meal. The king had Tai Lao (太牢, one ox, one lamb and one pig) for daily diet when alive and after his death enjoyed Hui (会, three oxen, three lambs and three pigs) for worship food. Princes had Te Niu (特牛, one ox) for daily

Feudal classes II  193 diet when alive, and after death enjoyed Tai Lao for worship food. Ministers had Shao Lao (少牢, one lamb) for daily diet when alive and after death enjoyed Te Niu for worship food. Bureaucrats had Te Sheng (特牲, one pig) for daily diet when alive and after death enjoyed Shao Lao for worship food. Scholar-officials had fish for daily diet when alive and after death enjoyed Te Sheng for worship food. Commoners had vegetables for daily diet when alive and after death enjoyed fish for worship food.102 Zimu (子木, a bureaucrat of the State of Chu) quoted from Records on Worship (《祭典》) as proof of this custom: “Beef was used for worshipping the heads of states; lamb for bureaucrats; pig and dog for scholar-officials and fish for commoners. Meat paste in bamboo containers and dried fruit could be used by all.”103 In this quote, “heads of states” referred to princes, and the use of beef was slightly different from Tai Lao (太牢), as mentioned by Guanshefu (观射父), but the rest of the food named above matches this claim. Also, as Records on Worship only discussed bureaucrats and did not mention ministers, we can infer that the quote seemed to imply that ministers, like bureaucrats, enjoyed lamb as well. Marriage Wives were addressed differently by different classes. As The Book of Rites put it, the king’s wife was called “queen,” the prince’s wife “madame,” the bureaucrat’s wife “lady,” the scholar-official’s wife “housewife” and the commoner’s wife “wife.”104 For instance, “Ling (灵), the king of Zhou, married his queen in the State of Qi (齐)…The king married his queen in princes’ states.”105 “Liu Xia (刘夏, a bureaucrat of Zhou) went to meet the queen in the State of Qi.”106 These quotes prove that the king’s wife was called “queen.” More quotes referring to how the prince’s wife was addressed are as follows: “Jiang (姜) was already in the state, but why was she not called ‘madame’?… Although Jiang was already a madame, her parents still called her ‘my daughter Jiang.’”107 “Madame Jiang arrived from the State of Qi.”108 “In winter, Qi Zhongnian (齐仲年, the younger brother of Duke Xi 僖 of Qi) went to meet Madame Jiang with betrothal gifts.”109 “On the day of ding chou (丁丑, the 2nd day of a month in the Zhou calendar), in August, Madame Jiang came to the State of Lu (鲁).”110 “Duke Xian (献) of the State of Jin (晋) wanted Li Ji (骊姬) to be his madame.”111 “When the sacrificial ceremony of Di Ji (禘祭) was being held, ‘Madame’ was ‘sent’ the sacrifices that matched an official wife or madame of a prince. In fact, Madame Aijiang (哀姜) originally had been the concubine of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁), but with the help of the State of Qi, she had herself established as the official wife. To offer a concubine

194  Feudal classes II like Aijiang sacrifices which only a first/principal/official wife was entitled to ran contrary to the rituals. Why was she addressed as ‘Madame’ instead of her surname ‘Jiang (姜)’ in this record? To deride her. Why was that? To condemn Duke Xi (僖) of Lu for taking a concubine as madame.”112 “Marquis of the State of Qi (齐) had three madames.”113 “Madame Jiang was brought from the State of Qi.”114 “Qiao Ru (侨如) took Madame Jiang from the State of Qi.”115 “Duke Ai (哀) of Lu so much favoured Jing (荆)’s mother (the concubine of Duke Ai of Lu) that he intended to make her his madame. When Xin Xia (衅夏) was asked to prepare gifts to proclaim this decision with great ceremony, he said to Duke Ai: ‘There is no ritual for that.’ Hearing this, Duke Ai was displeased and said to Xin Xia: ‘You are in charge of carrying out rituals. It is of national importance to have a madam. Why do you say there is no ritual for that?’ Xin Xia then replied: ‘I understand that you are going to make your concubine a madame, but there has never been a ritual to do so.’”116 As regards a commoner’s wife, Mencius wrote a story about a man from the State of Qi who had one wife and one concubine.117 A bureaucrat’s wife was addressed as “lady,” and a scholar’s wife was addressed as “housewife.” Although no examples of these two cases can be found in historical documents, the claim itself is fairly convincing. Moreover, marriage itself was subject to class differences; the subordination of one class to another was all the more evident in marriage. For example, Gou Jian (句践, the head of the State of Yue 越) sent Wen Zhong (文种), his bureaucrat, to ask the State of Wu (吴) for an alliance. Wen Zhong said to the delegate from the State of Wu, “I am sent to ask our head’s daughter to be married to the head of Wu, our bureaucrats’ daughters to be married to Wu’s bureaucrats and our scholar-officials’ daughters to be married to Wu’s scholar-officials.”118 From this we can see that even a defeated state like Yue never forgot the limitations of marriage, as defined by classes, not to mention those of marriages in general. But it would be incorrect to think that marriages in feudal China were always confined within the same class. If this was the case, the king would never have been able to find a spouse. In practice, the king usually married princes’ daughters. For example, King Ling (灵) of Zhou (周) asked the State of Qi (齐) for a woman to be his queen. The Marquis of Qi turned to his bureaucrat Viscount Yanhuan (晏桓子) for advice about what to do. Viscount Yanhuan said, Here is our former kings’ prescriptions to follow: If a king asked his princes for a woman to be his queen, the princes should answer: ‘My madames gave birth to some girls; my concubines gave birth to some

Feudal classes II  195 girls.’ If princes didn’t have daughters and only had sisters and aunts, they should say: ‘The previous princes had several daughters.’ The Marquis of Qi thus approved the request for engagement by the king of Zhou.119 Daughters of the king married princes too. For instance, a poem120 read: Why so glamorous?…The king’s granddaughter sits in a marriage carriage that is spectacular to behold…The granddaughter of the king is beautiful while the son of the Marquis of Qi (齐) is handsome…The son of the Marquis of Qi is handsome while the granddaughter of the king is beautiful. These lines portrayed the grand ceremony of the king’s granddaughter marrying a prince’s son. (Translator’s note: The author of the book was probably wrong in using the marriage between the king’s granddaughter and a prince’s son as an example as this does not help prove his idea that the daughters of the king married princes. This probably occurred due to different interpretations of a classical Chinese text that was written more than 2,000 years ago. When this book was being written, the figures involved in the examples were probably regarded as the king’s daughter and a prince. Now, however, it is generally agreed that they were the king’s granddaughter and a prince’s son.) In addition, according to The Book of Songs, the Marquis of Qi married the king’ daughter, and Count Shan (单) was sent to welcome her. Gongyang (公羊) said: What did ‘welcome’ mean? The king of Zhou asked the head of the State of Lu (鲁) to hold the ceremony. Why was that? The prince with the same surname as the king’s [Translator’s note: The head of Lu had the same surname as the king of Zhou.] was asked to hold the ceremony when the king’s daughter married a prince. When a prince’s daughter married a bureaucrat, another bureaucrat with the same surname was required to hold the ceremony.121 Princes married within their own class. As The Book of Songs put it, the daughter of the Marquis of Qi (齐) married the Marquis of Wei (卫). The son of the Marquis of Qi was her brother; the Marquis of Xing (刑) was her cousin and the Duke of Tan (谭) was her brother-in-law.122 Other examples in The Spring and Autumn Annals are as follows: Lu (鲁) – Song (宋) marriages: the 25th year of Duke Xi (僖) and the 9th year of Duke Cheng (成); Lu – Qi (齐) marriages: the 1st year of Duke Yin (隐), the 3rd year of Duke Huan (桓), the 2nd and 4th year of Duke Zhuang (庄), the 4th year of Duke Wen (文), the 1st year of Duke Xuan (宣), the 14th year of Duke

196  Feudal classes II Cheng and the 19th year of Duke Xiang (襄); Lu – Ji (纪) marriages: the 2nd and 7th year of Duke Yin; Lu – Qi (杞) marriages: the 25th year of Duke Zhuang and the 31st year of Duke Xi (僖); Lu – Xiao Zhu (小邾) marriage: the 25th year of Duke Zhao (昭); Jin (晋) – Qi (齐) marriages: the 5th year of Duke Cheng and the 3rd year of Duke Zhao; Jin – Chu (楚) marriage: the 5th year of Duke Zhao; Jin – Wu (吴) marriages: the 2nd and 3rd year of Duke Xiang; Jin – Jia (贾) marriage: the 28th year of Duke Zhuang; Qin (秦) – Jin marriages: the 15th and 24th year of Duke Xi; Qi (齐) – Wei (卫) marriage: the 3rd year of Duke Yin; Chen (陈) – Zheng (郑) marriage: the 8th year of Duke Zhao; Chu – Cai (蔡) marriage: the 30th year of Duke Xiang. These are typical examples of marriages among princes. Marriages also took place between princes and bureaucrats. For instance, Duke Dao (悼) of Qi (齐) married the sister of Viscount Jikang (季康, the prime minister of Lu 鲁),123 and Gaogu (高固), the bureaucrat from Qi, married the princess of Lu. According to The Spring and Autumn Annals, “Gaogu from Qi came to the State of Lu to take the princess of Lu and the prince of Lu received him and hosted the ceremony.” According to Guliang (谷梁), when a prince married his daughter to a bureaucrat from another state, the routine was that one of the prince’s own bureaucrats was supposed to receive the bridegroom and conduct the marriage ceremony. What Gaogu did went against the rites. Therefore, the couple (Gaogu and Shuji) were not officially acknowledged as ‘husband and wife’ though they were in fact married. That was why The Spring and Autumn Annals said ‘to take’ instead of ‘to marry.’124 Bureaucrats also married within their own class. For example, Yong Jiu (雍纠, a bureaucrat of Zheng 郑) married the daughter of Zhai Zhong (祭仲, a bureaucrat of Zheng),125 Viscount Luanhuan (栾桓, a bureaucrat of Jin 晋) married the daughter of Viscount Fanxuan (范宣, a bureaucrat of Jin)126 and the families of Liu (刘) and Fan (范) intermarried for generations.127 These are all examples of marriages of bureaucrats from the same states. Bureaucrats from different states married among themselves as well. For instance, Zheng Ziyou (郑子游, a bureaucrat of Zheng) married the daughter of a bureaucrat from Jin.128 Regrettably, texts concerning marriages between scholars and commoners have not been found at this point. Still, conclusions can be drawn that marriages were restricted by classes. The king could not marry within his own family but could marry between his royal family and his states. The other classes could either marry within their own classes or with a class that was one level higher or one level lower, though marriages between different classes were only seen among the privileged. Marriages between the privileged and the unprivileged never happened. This is why there were marriages between bureaucrats and princes but never between scholars/commoners and ministers/bureaucrats.

Feudal classes II  197 In feudal China, one’s social status, rights and obligations were shaped completely at birth as a result of one’s origin. The relations between classes had to be rigorously handled. Therefore two classes, with all their glaring differences, would never, ever marry into one another. Death and funerals Death was also addressed differently according to classes. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded: The king’s death was called ‘bēng’ (崩, which means ‘the collapse of the pillar of the empire’); princes’ death ‘hōng’ (薨, which means ‘passed away’); bureaucrats’ death ‘zú’ (卒, which means ‘expired’) and scholars’ death ‘bù lù’ (不禄, which means ‘stop taking salaries’).129 The Book of Rites said the same thing, adding, “Commoners’ death was called ‘sǐ’ (死, which means ‘death’).”130 In The Spring and Autumn Annals, every king’s death was recorded as “bēng,”131 but as far as the recording of princes’ deaths was concerned, only the death of the head of the State of Lu (鲁) was recorded as “hōng”132; the deaths of the heads of all the other states were recorded as “zú,”133 the same as bureaucrats’ deaths.134 This indicates that Confucius, the author of The Spring and Autumn Annals, intended to honour the State of Lu, his own country, and belittle the rest. In truth, the norm was to call every prince’s death “hōng.” These examples from The Spring and Autumn Annals confirm what is said in Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals and The Book of Rites regarding how the deaths of different classes were addressed. When it comes to the rituals of mourning, it was the practice for everyone, from the king to commoners, to observe three years of mourning.135 Beyond this, individual practices were quite different. For example, titles for the king, princes and so on during the mourning period were distinct; a king was referred to as “Xiao Tong” (小童), while princes were referred to as “viscounts.”136 These titles could not be interchanged. During mourning periods, ministers, bureaucrats, scholars and commoners were supposed to have their different titles as well; detailed historical documents, however, are lacking. As an example, Viscount Yanhuan (晏桓) from the State of Qi (齐) died. His son Yan Ying (晏婴) wore mourning clothes made of coarse fabric, with linen belts around his head and waist. He held a bamboo stick in his hand and wore straw shoes. He lived inside a straw shack and slept on a straw pillow and a straw mattress. His servant said to him, “This is not in line with the etiquette which a bureaucrat should follow.” Yan Ying replied, “I am not yet qualified as a bureaucrat, so during my mourning time I can not dress the way a bureaucrat does.”137 This displays how funeral clothing differed between classes as well.

198  Feudal classes II According to The Book of Rites, seven months after his “bēng,” the king would be buried; five months after his “hōng,” the prince would be buried; and three months after his “zú,” the bureaucrat would be buried.138 These different dates of burial were based on the social status of the deceased. In The Spring and Autumn Annals, the burial dates of the five kings of Ping (平), Huan (桓), Hui (惠), Ding (定) and Ling (灵) of Zhou were not recorded139; however, King Xiang (襄) died in August and was buried the following spring,140 King Kuang (匡) died in October and was buried the following spring141 and King Jian (简) died in September and was buried the following January in the Zhou calendar.142 So, we know that the intervals between death and burial varied. (Translator’s note: All the calculations of time here were based on the Zhou (周) Calendar, not the Lunar Calendar.) According to Gongyang, the king was the most respected man under heaven, so his burial date was fixed and stipulated. The rites provided that he had to be buried seven months after his “bēng.” There was thus no need to record the king’s burial date as it was easy to calculate this according to his death date and the prescribed interval. The burial of princes, though, could not be carried out on time as it was often subject to the king’s conditions; as a result their “hōng” and burial time had to be recorded, though that of the king did not. But there were exceptions, of course, running contrary to the rule.143 Therefore, a study should be made in the future into the princes’ burial dates in The Book of Rites, in order to determine whether they were in line with its claim in the above paragraph. According to Gongyang, “The normal burial ritual was to bury the princes in time after their ‘hōng’, with the burial date not recorded.”144 Examples of such normal burials are as follows: Burial that happened seven months after death: Duke Li (厉) of Zheng (郑) – died and buried in the 21st year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁). Burial that happened six months after death: (a) Duke Zhuang of Song (宋) – died in the 2nd and buried in the 3rd year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; (b) Duke Ling (灵) of Wei (卫) – died and buried in the 2nd year of Duke Ai (哀) of Lu. Burial that happened four months after death: (a) Duke Qing (顷) of Qi (齐) – died and buried in the 9th year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu; (b) Duke Xuan (宣) of Wei (卫) – died in the 12th and buried in the 13th year of Duke Huan (桓) of Lu; (c) Duke Ding (定) of Wei – died in the 14th and buried in the 15th year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu; (d) Duke Xian (献) of Wei – died and buried in the 29th year of Duke Xiang (襄) of Lu; (e) Duke Zhuang of Chen (陈) – died in the 1st and buried in the 2nd year of Duke Zhuang of Lu; (f) Duke Xuan (宣) of Chen – died in the 12th and buried in the 13th year of Duke Xi (僖) of Lu; (g) Duke Hui (惠) of Chen – died and buried in the 4th year of Duke Ding (定) of Lu. Burial that happened three months after death: Duke Ping (平) of Cai (蔡) – died in the 20th and buried in the 21st year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu. Burial two months after death: (a) Duke Yuan (元) of Song – died in the 25th year and buried in the 26th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; (b) Duke Dao (悼) of Jin (晋) – died in the 15th and buried in the 16th year of Duke Xiang of Lu; (c) Duke Zhao (昭) of Jin – died and buried in the 16th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; (d) Duke Qing

Feudal classes II  199 of Jin – died and buried in the 30th year of Duke Zhao of Lu; (e) Duke Huai (怀) of Chen – died and buried in the 8th year of Duke Ding of Lu; (f) Duke Xuan (宣) of Cai – died and buried in the 8th year of Duke Yin (隐) of Lu; (g) Duke Zhuang of Zheng (郑) – died and buried in the 11th year of Duke Huan (桓) of Lu; (h) Duke Ding of Zheng – died and buried in the 28th year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu; (i) Duke Xian (献) of Zheng – died and buried in the 9th year of Duke Ding (定) of Lu; (j) Duke Gong (共) of Cao (曹) – died and buried in the 9th year of Duke Wen (文) of Lu; (k) Duke Xi of Qi (杞) – died in the 8th and buried in the 9th year of Duke Ai of Lu. Burial that happened one month after death: Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐) – died and buried in the 5th year of Duke Ai of Lu. The time intervals between the deaths of princes and their burials varied from seven months to one month. This suggests that there was not a definitive rule as to when to hold the burial after such a death. It is clear that the sizes of the states listed above are different. Some intervals between a prince’s death and his burial could be as long as seven months, a length which matched that of only the king. In contrast, some intervals, such as those of two months or one month, were even shorter than what was supposed to be adopted for bureaucrats. The most noteworthy feature of the burial list in the above is that no burial for princes happened five months after a death. Examples of burials proved to be entirely different from what The Book of Rites claimed – the king’s burial had to be held seven months after his death, princes’ burials five months and bureaucrats’ burials three months. Therefore The Book of Rites’ claim about the king, princes and bureaucrats’ burial times is unconvincing, as is the claim in Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals about Premature Burial and Lowered-standard Burial (Premature Burial, 渴葬, burial that happened before it was due; Lowered-standard Burial, 慢葬, burial that was done hastily with lower standard than was normally required). Funerals themselves were also quite different. For instance, when Zang Xibo (臧僖伯, a minister from Lu 鲁) died, Duke Yin (隐) gave him a funeral one level higher than that which he was entitled to.145 Similarly, when Shu Sun (叔孙, a minister from Lu) passed away, Du Xie (杜泄, a subordinate to Shu Sun) intended to put carriages in Shu Sun’s tomb and carry out the death ritual reserved for ministers.146 Hearses mattered. According to The Book of Rites, the king’s hearse was adorned with eight ornaments (usually long-handled fans), princes’ hearses six and bureaucrats’ hearses four.147 After Duke Zhuang (庄) of Qi (齐) was assassinated, he was buried hastily. His funeral was arranged and conducted by Cui Zhu (崔杼, a bureaucrat of Qi), the instigator of the assassination. Only four ornaments were used, streets were not cleared and no guards of honour were arranged. Seven poor carriages were used to carry the coffin, and sacrificial objects like weapons and helmets and armour were not used. Clearly, such a practice did not suit a prince’s funeral ritual148 The record of this event justifies the claim in The Book of Rites that princes should enjoy six ornaments, the king eight and bureaucrats four.

200  Feudal classes II The king’s funeral was the grandest of all. His tomb, unlike all others, included tunnels. For example, Duke Wen (文) of Jin (晋) helped restore the throne of King Xiang (襄) of Zhou, and King Xiang decided to award Duke Wen with some land to thank him. Duke Wen declined the offer and instead asked King Xiang to grant him the right to have tunnels built in his tomb after death. King Xiang refused, saying, “Zhou has strict rules for that. If I approve of your request, it is the same as approving of having two kings at the same time. You certainly will not like it that way.” Then King Xiang added: My ancestor had only nine imperial concubines as officials to be in charge of his harem and nine ministers to be in charge of his state affairs. Everything has been set up in a way that only suffices to make contribution to Heaven, Earth and other gods. How can a king dare to break rules and laws just to meet the demands and desires of his aides? The only way to demonstrate the king’s prestige and tell the king from the rest is to have clothing of different colours and designs and to have access to implements and corresponding ornaments before and after his death. Otherwise, a king cannot be distinguished from others! Hearing this, Duke Wen of Jin did not insist any further. He took the land granted to him and returned to his State of Jin.149 King Xiang of Zhou was once attacked by the united forces of Tui Shu (颓叔, a bureaucrat of Zhou), Taozi (桃子, a bureaucrat of Zhou), Da Shu (大叔, the son of King Hui 惠 of Zhou) and soldiers from the tribe of Di (狄). As a result, King Xiang had to escape to the State of Zheng (郑). He could not have returned to power but for the assistance of Duke Wen of Jin. Obviously, Duke Wen was King Xiang’s benefactor and made great contributions to his empire. Moreover, the Zhou Dynasty was already declining at this time, while the State of Jin was rising rapidly. Emboldened by his contributions, Duke Wen made the request for tomb tunnels. However, he was turned down publicly and bluntly by King Xiang and had to give up this desire. This is strong evidence that tomb tunnels were a privilege reserved only for the king. Clothing and implements In regard to clothing and implements, strict rules were set for different classes. As Zang Xibo (臧僖伯) put it, colours must be bright; the identities of upper and lower classes must be demonstrated; different levels must be set; the elderly and the young must have a hierarchy. These are necessary rules to observe to ensure that brilliant feats can be achieved.150

Feudal classes II  201 According to Zang Aibo (臧哀伯, the son of Zang Xibo, also a minister from Lu), pieces of clothing and those items attached to clothing like robes, hats, knee covers, jade tablets, belts, inner gowns, leg wrappings, shoes, official hats, hairpins, upper ropes, ropes on two sides and fabrics all showcase classes and levels. Jade pads, cases of knives and swords, ornaments of sheaths, garment belts, ribbons, flag ornaments and saddles all illustrate the rituals of classes…The code of conduct is that one must scrimp and save and show restraint as to what to and not to have. Rules in this regard must be set and recorded and made public to regulate officials so that they would tread carefully and never violate the rules.151 According to Guanzi (管仲), access to clothing and implements is defined by hierarchy; and expenditure is defined by one’s salary. Proper standards are set for diet, clothes, accommodation, the number of domesticated animals and servants, carriages, ships and furniture. Their carriages, official hats, positions, salaries, land and houses are different when they are alive; different standards should also be set for the use of coffins, funeral clothing and tombs after their death. However noble one is, he is not entitled to dress like one from higher class; however rich one is, he is not entitled to spend his money like one with a higher salary.152 This quote fully illustrates that there were specific rules regarding the clothing and implements of higher and lower classes. Zhongshu Yuxi (仲叔于奚), a man from Xinzhu (新筑), saved the life of Viscount Sunhuan (孙桓, a minister of Wei 卫) in Xi (奚). The State of Wei thus granted fiefs to Zhongshu Yuxi, but he declined and asked instead for musical instruments (restricted only to princes) and horses’ tassels (limited only to princes and kings). The head of Wei agreed, nevertheless. Confucius heard of this and bemoaned: Alas! It would be better to grant Zhongshu Yuxi more fiefs. Implements and related titles cannot be granted casually. The head of a state must be strict about granting them. Titles are meant to win people’s trust; those who win people’s trust with the help of such titles can offer themselves access to certain implements; implements are meant to show rituals; rituals are meant to help people follow principles and rules; principles and rules are meant to bring about welfare; welfare is meant to help manage the people. So implements are a crucial part of political power. If implements and corresponding titles are granted to those who do not deserve them, it is the same as handing over political power to the wrong hands.

202  Feudal classes II The loss of political power is the failure of a state and nobody can help the situation change for any better after that occurs.153 Confucius’s remarks prove that the rules concerning the use of clothing and implements are very strict. This is why when Zichan (子产) ran the State of Zheng (郑), he practised rigorous rules in this respect and thus won acclaims.154 As mentioned, dances and musical instruments used for worship rites were also strictly confined to classes The colours and making of pillars and rafters were also diverse. The temples of the king and princes had light black pillars and white walls, while those of bureaucrats had cyan pillars, and those of scholars had yellow ones.155 The temples of the king had their rafters cut and polished carefully with fine stones; those of princes had their rafters cut and polished as well, but not with stones; and those of bureaucrats had their rafters cut but not polished and only had the stumps removed.156 The king’s carriage was called Da Lu (大路), according to what Gongyang (公羊) quoted from Zi Jiaju (子家驹, the great-great-grandson of Duke Zhuang 庄 of Lu 鲁).157 Princes’ carriages were called Lu Che (路车). As The Book of Songs says, “here came Fang Shu (方叔), our general…His Lu Che was painted red.”158 “Fang Shu” in this quote must refer to a prince. Another quote says, “princes came to visit the king. What did the king give in return? Lu Che and four horses.”159 Prefaces to Songs (《诗序》) further described how princes came riding in their Lu Che, only to be slighted by King You of Zhou (周幽王). The Book of Songs also mentioned Lu Che: “The king awarded Shen Bo (申伯, the head of the State of Shen 申) Lu Che and horses.”160 Such records indicate that the king did grant princes Lu Che. Bureaucrats’ carriages were called Xuan Wei (轩卫). It is recorded that Duke Yi (懿) of Wei (卫) put his favourite birds cranes on Xuan Wei, which, according to Du Yu (杜预), referred to the carriage of bureaucrats.161 It is not clear what the scholar-officials’ carriages were called. As for commoners, they probably owned carriages, as can be inferred from what was said in Chu Che (《出车》): “I sent my carriage.” Servants were of the lowest class and thus did not qualify to have their own carriages. According to Guanzi (管子), “those who served sentences in prison and those who are serving their sentences in prison cannot wear clothes made of silk or sit on a carriage,”162 suggesting that members of the lowest class were either unable to afford a carriage or not entitled to the use of carriages. Red shields and axes with a jade handle were ornaments worn by the king, according to Zi Jiaju (子家驹).163 For example, Ling (灵), the head of Chu (楚), asked his official in charge of craftsmen to use jade pieces to adorn the handle of his axe; the official asked Ling for further guidance before he came for inspection.164 If Ling’s request had been appropriate, his official would

Feudal classes II  203 not have needed to ask for his guidance, and Ling would not have to make an inspection. The use of jade was certainly not appropriate for everyone. When Viscount Jiping (季平, the prime minister of Lu 鲁 and the head of the Jisun family 季孙家族) died, Yanghu (阳虎, the domestic manager of the Jisun family) wanted to have jade placed in his tomb, but Zhong Lianghuai (仲 梁怀, a domestic officer of the Jisun family) objected to this idea. Zhong Lianghuai argued that Jiping acted on Zhao’s behalf to rule the country while Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu lived in exile in the State of Qi (齐)and thus was enabled to wear jade pieces, but when Zhao’s brother, Song (宋), succeeded Zhao after Zhao’s death and became the head of Lu, Jiping was no longer the regent and was thus not qualified to wear jade ornaments anymore. Zhong Lianghuai’s objection made Yanghu so angry that he decided to banish Zhong Lianghuai. Gongshan Buniu (公山不狃, a domestic officer of the Jisun family) responded to Yanghu: “Zhong Lianghuai objected to your idea for the sake of the head of our state. Why are you angry with him?”165 Official clothing for the king, princes and bureaucrats was not documented in detail, but there is no denying the fact that patterns which made use of elements or pictures of fire, dragons and bows were found in the king’s adornments.166 According to Guanzi, scholars could only adorn the hems of their clothing, and commoners dared not wear any clothing with patterns; craftsmen and businessmen were not allowed to wear clothes made of lamb fur; and those who served sentences in prison and those who were still serving their sentences in prison could not wear clothing made of silk.167 Food also differed according to class. Guanshefu (观射父) noted that the king had beef, mutton and pork; princes beef; ministers mutton; bureaucrats pork; scholar-officials fish; and commoners vegetables.168 As a line in The Book of Songs observed, farmers had to “collect bitter herbs and Chinese toon sprouts to prepare for their food.” This is convincing evidence that commoners had bitter herbs for their meals.

Notes 1 “The hunting ground of Prince Xuan of Qi was forty square li while Prince Wen seventy square li.” (Mencius·Prince Hui of Liang II). 2 Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I. 3 Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu II; Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Eleven. 4 Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I. 5 Analects·Yanyuan. 6 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Sixteen. 7 Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Sixteen. 8 “I was skeptical about what Mencius had to say about the taxation policies of the three dynasties of Xia, Yin and Zhou. Mencius argued the Gong tax was levied on every fifty mu in the Xia Dynasty; the Zhu tax was levied on every seventy mu in the Yin Dynasty and the Che tax was levied on every one hundred mu in the Zhou Dynasty. Mencius was wrong. When the previous kings

204  Feudal classes II

9

10 11

12 13

managed their empire and land, ditches and demarcation must be made, which was no mean feat. If the taxation policies changed from fifty mu to seventy mu and to one hundred mu, then land would be re-managed all over again, which was absolutely not feasible. Mencius probably did not witness the actual implementation of the taxation he described; he simply wrote down the stories he had heard. Therefore his theory is not convincing.” “Mencius argued the Gong tax was levied on every fifty mu in the Xia Dynasty; the Zhu tax was levied on every seventy mu in the Yin Dynasty and the Che tax was levied on every one hundred mu in the Zhou Dynasty. In my opinion, this approach is unbelievable. Interpretation of The Book of Rites ( 《礼记正义》) compiled by Kong Yingda (孔颖达, a scholar of the Tang Dynasty) quoted implausible theories proposed by Liu and Huang. To build ditches and farmhouses on one piece of land would be a difficult task to fulfill, not to mention to re-manage land from fifty mu to seventy mu and then to one hundred mu. The fast pace of this change was both unjustifiable and disruptive. Therefore, the taxation policies described above cannot be for real, but a theory based on Wang Mang’s reform in the Western Han Dynasty.” “Mencius’ idea of Gong, Zhu and Che in three dynasties is highly questionable. If fifty mu was well designated as the unit of Gong taxation in Xia, then how could land be re-divided and re-managed after Xia? If that had been true, then wouldn’t that have disrupted social order. No wise man would ever do that.” “Mencius stubbornly argued the Gong tax was levied on every fifty mu in the Xia Dynasty; Zhu was levied on every seventy mu in the Yin Dynasty and Che was levied on every one hundred mu in the Zhou Dynasty. Fifty was changed into seventy and then seventy into one hundred. A wise man would never do that to disrupt social order.” The above four quotes all come from Zhu Zi Remarks·Fifty-five. “In the Xia Dynasty, a farmer was allotted fifty mu of land, five mu of which was all used to meet Gong taxation. In the Yin Dynasty, the ‘Nine Squares’ land system was adopted: six hundred and thirty mu was divided into nine zones with each zone covering an area of seventy mu. Public land was located in the centre; the other eight pieces of land were tilled by eight households, who also farmed the public land in the centre and enjoyed tax exemption of their private land. In the Zhou Dynasty, a man was allotted 100 mu of land; ten households worked together on that piece of public land and divided the harvests from it by unit of mu. This approach was called Che. The tax rate of all the three dynasties was one-tenth. In the Zhou Dynasty, Gong was one-tenth and Zhu was one-ninth; the taxation in the Yin-Shang Dynasty is unknown. In the Zhou Dynasty, one hundred mu was a piece of public land, twenty of which was for building farmhouses. One farmer tilled ten mu of public land; a one-eleventh tax rate was levied on every one hundred mu of private land, that is, less than one-tenth. I think the taxation policy in the Yin-Shang Dynasty was the same as that, namely, fourteen mu of land was used to build farmhouses and a farmer tilled seven mu of public land and the tax rate was also one-tenth” (Zhu Xi’s notes to Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Sixteen. According to Mencius, those who owned land of an area larger than 100 mu had it levied on by the system of Che with a one-tenth tax rate. Youruo asked Duke Ai to implement Che and imposed a one-tenth tax rate. The duke responded that even a two-tenth rate would not be enough. His response confirmed that the one-tenth rate was indeed enforced in the Zhou Dynasty. Analects·Yanyuan. Guanzi·Seven; Da Kuang·Eighteen.

Feudal classes II  205

206  Feudal classes II

45 “As the king’s carriages were too lavish and platform to be built were too many, taxes became heavy… As a result, people would be disaffected with the ruler” (Guanzi·One; Guanzi·Xing Shi·Two).

Feudal classes II  207

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

would be the Tian family.” “People were uplifted; goods stayed in one place; craftsmen and businessmen didn’t change their jobs; scholars ernestly fulfilled their duty.” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·Seven). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Nine. Guanzi·Eight·Xiao Kuang·Twenty. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Fifteen; The Book of Rites· King’s System·Worship; Confucius Remarks·Eight·Temple System·Thirty-four. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Fifteen. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II·Guan She Fu. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Eight. Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu I; Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu II. “Why do we say that Jiao Ji (郊祭) to be carried out by the head of Lu is at odds with convention? Because only the king can worship Heaven” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirteen). Ibid. Stories of Filial Piety·The Rule of Sages. “On worshipping in suburban areas” (Confucius Remarks·Seven). Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Three. The Book of Rites·Da Zhuan. “The king of Zhou worshipped his ancestor Houji in suburban areas in the way he worshipped Heaven” (Stories of Filial Piety·The Rule of Sages). Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirty-one. Ibid. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Six. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. Analects·Ba Yi. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II. Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu I. The Book of Rites·Trivial Rites II. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twelve. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fifteen. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Three. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Three. Ibid. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annalsn·Xi·Four. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Eight. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Seventeen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Twenty-four. Mencius·Li Lou II. Discourses on Governance of the States·Yue Yu I. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twelve. “How beautiful!” in The Book of Songs·Guo Feng·Zhao Nan. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·One. The Book of Songs·Guo Feng·Wei Feng·Zhao Nan.

208  Feudal classes II 23 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Eight. 1 124 The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Five; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Five. 125 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Fifteen. 126 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-one. 127 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Three. 128 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Nineteen. 129 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One. 130 The Book of Rites·Trivial Rites II. 131 The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three; Huan·Fifteen;Xi·Eight; The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Eight; Xuan·Two; Cheng·Five; Xiang·One; Xiang·Twenty-eight. The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Eleven; Huan·Eighteen; Thirty-two; Min·Two; 132 Xi·Thirty-three; Wen·Eighteen; Xuan·Eighteen; Cheng·Eighteen; Xiang·Thirtyone; Zhao·Thirty-two; Ding·Fifteen. 133 Cai Dalong, “The nineteenth list of the death and funeral of princes” (Spring and Autumn Lists《春秋例表》), the 34th reigning year of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty. 134 The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One; Yin·Five; Yin·Eight; Yin·Nine; Zhuang·Twenty-seven; Zhuang·Thirty-two; Xi·Sixteen; Wen·Three; Wen·Ten; Wen·Fourteen; Xuan·Five; Xuan·Eight; Xuan·Seventeen; Cheng·Four; Cheng·Fifteen; Cheng·Seventeen; Xiang·Five; Xiang·Nineteen; Xiang·Twenty-two; Xiang·Twentythree; Xiang·Thirty-one; Zhao·Four; Zhao·Seven; Zhao·Twenty-one; Zhao·Twentythree; Zhao·Twenty-four; Zhao·Twenty-five; Zhao·Twenty-nine; Ding·Four; Ding·Five; Ai·Three. 135 “Confucius: ‘A child will not be able to leave his parents’ arms until the age of three; therefore the mourning period for one’s parents should be as long as three years, and this rule should be applied to everyone” (Analects·Yang Huo); “Mencius: ‘From Xia, Shang to Zhou dynasties, during the three years of mourning, everyone, be it the king or a commoner, must wear clothes made of coarse fabric and eat porridge’” (Mencius·Duke Wen of Teng I). 136 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Nine. 137 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Seventeen. 138 The Book of Rites·Ritual Implements. 139 The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three; Huan·Fifteen; Xi·Eight; Cheng·Five; Xiang·Twenty-eight. 140 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Eight; Wen·Nine. 141 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Two; Xuan·Thirteen. 142 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·One; Xiang·Twelve. 143 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Three. 144 Ibid. 145 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Four. 146 147 The Book of Rites·Ritual Implements. 148 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-five; Discourses 149 on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu II. 150 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. 151 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Two. 152 Guanzi·One·Rule of State IV·Clothing. 153 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two. 154 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty. 155 Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-three. 156 Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-four.

Feudal classes II  209 1 57 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-five. The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Nan You Jia Yu Zhi Shi·Cai Qi. The Book of Songs·Xiao Ya·Yu Zao Zhi Shi·Cai Shu. The Book of Songs·Da Ya·Dang Zhi Shi·Song Gao. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Min·Two. Guanzi·One·Rule of State IV·Clothing. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twelve. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Five. Zang Aibo’s remarks in Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Two;Guanzi·Rule of State IV·Clothing. 167 Guanzi·One·Rule of State IV·Clothing. 168 Discourses on Governance of the States·Chu Yu II.

7

Feudal politics

Characteristics Polarisation Feudalism was characterised by a policy of “divide and rule.” Despite the king’s ownership of all land and subjects, a centralised authority was not yet established. In other words, the king did not manage all land and subjects himself. Instead, he awarded land and subjects to those nobles with the same surname or different surnames. These nobles were thus granted roles as landowners, enjoying crops grown on their land and services offered by their people. They also enjoyed the freedom to do as they pleased with their land and subjects without consulting the king. If princes abused their power, violated laws or displayed irreverence towards the imperial court, the king reserved the right to attack them. So far no records have been found associating princes’ misdemeanours with their removal or the confiscation of their land, but it was often the case that they were attacked and then brought to justice. For instance, Duke Shang of Song (宋殇公) failed to meet the king at his court,1 Duke Zhuang of Zheng (郑庄公) did not go to the court either,2 the State of Chu (楚) accepted the recalcitrant Chao (朝, the son of King Jing of Zhou 周景王)3 and the army of the State of Chu (楚) attacked the State of Jiang (江).4 In these instances, “the king of Zhou accused them of committing crimes and even resorted to force to punish them.” Such practices are different from centralised feudal power. As The Records of the Historian put it,5 after the First Emperor of Qin (秦始皇, Qin Shihuang) conquered six states and unified China, he divided the country into different counties; at this time, there were no longer princes but satraps of counties. Each satrap would take order from the emperor and acted in line with the law he made. His sons and officials who made contributions to the founding of the empire were only entitled to the remuneration he awarded; they no longer owned land and subjects. After the reign of the First Emperor of Qin, China began to develop a uniform standard of clothing, units of measurement, carriages, horses and

Feudal politics  211 characters; no change to these was permitted unless it was decreed by the leader. All administrative orders were issued by him. The guards of counties served as administrators instead of the hereditary fief owners seen in previous dynasties; but these guards could also be dismissed when necessary. Such a centralised ruling system represented a clean break with the past. Marcel Granet, in his Chinese Civilization, observed that China became a unified country with centralized power during the reign of the First Emperor of Qin.6 Granet pointed out the difference between the king who devolved his power and the emperor who centralized his power when he said “The Spring and Autumn Period” referred to a feudal period when Son of Heaven was the overlord, but after Qin (秦) unified China, Son of Heaven referred to the emperor, and the term “empire” was used to refer to his country. This was representative of significant changes. During the Zhou (周) Dynasty, “King” was the title for that person at the pinnacle of power. After Qin unified China and standardised its laws, the political situation became entirely different from what it had been in previous dynasties, when princes and the king co-existed, and the king never practised standardisation. Therefore Qin’s officials, like Li Si (李斯), advised the head of Qin to change his title from “King” to “Emperor.”7 For Li Si, the First Emperor of Qin and many others, the title “Emperor” was certainly quite distinct from the previous title of “King.” Submission among classes Feudalism was also characterised by submission among classes, which was necessary for people to serve their superiors and remain in their rightful positions. Two opposite social classes needed to have a strict demarcation so that the lower one deferred to the higher one. Even within the same levels of the ruling class and the ruled, there were sub-classes, respectively. Separately, one social class was subordinate to another. Taken as a whole, the subordination of classes worked like a chain. Basically, the king, princes, ministers and bureaucrats, and scholarofficials were the rulers, who presided over slaves as well as “the four categories of commoners”: Namely, scholar-commoners, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen. After a thorough analysis of their relationships, Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) noted that “Ranks from high to low were the king, duke, marques, count, viscount, baron, dian (甸), cai (采), wei (卫) and bureaucrats.”8 This statement indicates the positions of different levels of hierarchy and their possessions as well. Shi Kuang (师旷, 572 B.C.–532 B.C., a famous blind musician of the State of Jin) pointed out, “The king had dukes; princes had ministers; ministers had aides. Bureaucrats had assistants; scholar-officials had friends. Commoners, craftsmen, businessmen, slaves as well as cow herders and grooms had people close to them when they needed help.”9 This confirms the existence of subordination in different classes. Although Shi Kuang did not go

212  Feudal politics into detail about the exact subordination under the level of ministers and bureaucrats, the hierarchy from the king to cow herders and grooms is evident in his remarks. Shen Wuyu (申无宇), an official of the State of Chu, made the clearest statement about the subordination: “Dukes were subordinated to the king; bureaucrats to dukes; scholar-officials to bureaucrats; grooms to scholarofficials; coachmen to grooms, to do their respective jobs.”10

Feudal officials The king owned everything under heaven; princes were anointed as heads of states by the king. The former was considered the master of the kingdom, the latter the master of a state, and both professed to be the parents of their people. In truth, however, they were the privileged few who led an extravagant life. Their schedules involved serious events, such as inspection, going to the imperial court, offering sacrifices and holding banquets (see Chapter 2). Detailed administrative work, though, was not on their agenda. This is why Zang Xibo (臧僖伯, a bureaucrat of the State of Lu) told Duke Yin (隐) of the State of Lu (鲁), “As for natural resources of mountains, forests and waters and materials of tools, they are the concerns of related officials, servants and slaves. Your Majesty, you don’t need to pay attention to all that.”11 That is to say, a head of state did not need to spare a thought for things which were thought to be managed by his officials. Feudal officials had to be appointed to govern the people. Therefore, both the king and his princes relied on their ministers and bureaucrats to deal with political matters. The king had Three Dukes to take full administrative responsibility of his territories; princes had ministers to take full responsibility of managing their fiefs.12 Under dukes and ministers, there were bureaucrats who served as assistants. But only Three Dukes and the most senior ministers were entitled to give administrative orders to other assistant ministers and bureaucrats. When Zichan (子产) served as the prime minister of Zheng (郑), he responded to the advice of Fu Zi (富子, a bureaucrat of Zheng) with the following: If an inappropriate order is issued, then people won’t have faith in me, punishment will be unfair and unjust, litigation chaotic and court in disorder. Consequently, no one will follow orders from the top; we will be bullied by other states. The people will be worn out and doomed without knowing themselves. If that should happen, it is my greatest shame.13 To issue orders for officials to manage the common people belong to governmental administration, and to make legal decisions in terms of criminal punishment belong to the judiciary. In feudal China, administrative and

Feudal politics  213 judicial powers were not separated; therefore officials from the local government to the central government all had the authority to put suspects on trials and issue judgments. For instance, a man from the county-level fief “Gengyang (梗阳)” faced a charge. Wei Wu (魏戊, a bureaucrat in charge of Gengyang) could not decide on the man’s punishment, so he reported to Viscount Wei Xian (魏 献), who was an official of a higher level.14 This example shows that local officials did have the power to reach a verdict; only when they could not decide would they report the case to higher-level officials. Officials were also appointed to specialise in litigation. For instance, Duke Jing (景) of the State of Qi (齐) told Yan Ying (晏婴), “The official in charge of litigation is of vital importance. I would like you to take this position.”15 According to Discourses on Governance of the States, when Shi Jingbo (士景伯, a bureaucrat of Jin) was in the State of Chu (楚), and Shu Yu (叔鱼) was acting as a judge in his place, Count Xing (刑) from the State of Jin (晋) and Yong Zi (雍子, a noble from Chu) had disputes over the ownership of a piece of land. Yong Zi sent his daughter as a gift to Shu Yu to bribe him; as a result, Shu Yu made a verdict in favour of Yong Zi. Count Xing was so infuriated that he killed Shu Yu and Yong Zi right there in court.16 As Wei Zhao (韦昭, a historian) explained, Shi Jingbo (士景伯) had once worked as a judge in the State of Jin. Wei Zhao’s explanation was confirmed by the statement in some historical records that Shu Yu was asked to issue verdicts in Shi Jingbo’s absence. Another piece of evidence that confirmed Wei Zhao’s explanation was that when Jin asked a bureaucrat from the State of Zhu (邾) to talk with Shu Sun (叔孙, a minister) from the State of Lu (鲁) to settle a dispute between them, Shi Jingbo served as the judge.17 But only ministers had the final say. After Count Xing killed Shu Yu and Yong Zi, Shu Xiang (叔向) suggested to Viscount Hanxuan (韩宣, the senior minister) that he kill Count Xing and parade the bodies of Shu Yu and Yong Zi to the public. Also, after Shi Jingbo (士景伯) learned about the dispute between Zhu (邾) and Shu Sun (叔孙), he reported it to Viscount Hanxuan for a final decision. A head of state returned verdicts too. For example, Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁) said, “Cases might not be investigated in every detail, but they must be handled in a reasonable way.”18 It must be noted that a verdict could be reached at the will of the ministers, with little reference to the law. This helps explain why the advice Viscount Hanxuan took in the above example came from Shu Xiang instead of what was enshrined in the law. When the State of Zheng (郑) drafted its penal code, Shu Xiang sent a letter to Zichan, which said: The previous wise kings used to judge and make decisions about cases of crimes according to specific situations or based on common law rather than written law, for fear that their people would no longer stood

214  Feudal politics in awe of their kings and lodge accusations against each other if they learned more about the written penal code and get to know its loopholes. In order to prevent people from committing crimes, in addition to common law, more measures were taken: a set of moral code was set up; political orders were issued; rituals were fostered; integrity was advocated; the idea of righteousness and love was instilled into people’s minds; official positions were given to those who obeyed to reward and encourage them; criminals were punished severely to bring about justice and warn people. Furthermore, people were taught to be loyal and were rewarded if they achieved any feats; people were asked to learn practical knowledge and skills and were treated in a loving as well as tough manner to discipline them and help them reflect on their wrongdoings. They were also encouraged and given the opportunity to turn to qualified ministers, officers, local leaders, and kind teachers and seniors for help. Only in this way can people become obedient and cause no trouble and riots. If written laws are to be introduced, then the people will take law instead of top leaders and final judges as their guidance. More and more disputes and prosecutions will follow in its wake, for people tend to show less and less respect to the authorities and expect to resort to law and take their chances to win in a lawsuit. Thus, your people can never be well managed. In the Xia (夏) Dynasty, the penal code named “Yu (禹)” was enacted; in the Shang (商) Dynasty, the penal code named “Tang (汤)” was enacted and in the Zhou (周) Dynasty, the penal code named “Jiu (九)” was enacted. All of those three penal codes took place near the demise of their respective dynasties. Now, as the prime minister of the State of Zheng you have had land demarcated and irrigation canals and ditches built (to reform the “Nine Squares” land system and promote privatization of land), common people’s complaints as well as suggestions heard and their dissatisfaction expressed, three sets of codes enacted and in particular the penal code cast on a tripod of Ding (鼎). Don’t you think this will prove a rather difficult way to manage your people?19 These remarks demonstrate that the disposition of lawsuits of “crime and punishment” in feudal times was based on common law instead of specific written laws; this was at least the case in the then State of Jin (晋) and in the State of Zheng (郑) before the enactment of its penal code. This explains why Zichan, as a reformer, neither denied nor contradicted what Shu Xiang suggested. Instead he replied that he was introducing written laws only to aim at immediately righting wrongs and making the State of Zheng strong, and how these laws would influence the future of Zheng was not his concern. Apart from administrative and judicial power, ministers and bureaucrats were also in charge of military action. As stated in Chapter 6, ministers and bureaucrats served as commanders and assistants of armies.

Feudal politics  215 To conclude, ministers and bureaucrats took responsibility for administrative work, criminal punishment, political orders and military action. They did not handle fiefs and commoners themselves. It was scholar-officials who dealt with fiefs and commoners directly. They managed fiefs and domestic affairs; they were appointed by and acted on behalf of ministers and bureaucrats (scholar-officials were subordinate to bureaucrats). As fief managers, their tasks included supervising farming, measuring harvests, taking contributions from the people and dispatching labourers and soldiers. Furthermore, when commoners had disputes, scholar-officials would mediate and help settle them, and mete out appropriate punishment. Yin Duo (尹铎) was appointed by Viscount Zhaojian (赵简) as the fief manager of Jinyang (晋阳). Yin Duo asked, “Do you want me to take advantage of people there or turn Jinyang into a place of wealth?” Viscount Zhaojian replied, “The latter.” As a result, Yin Duo well managed the population there and cut taxation.20 This example makes clear that fief managers took orders from ministers and bureaucrats to manage fiefs and levy taxes on their people. Additionally, the previous example, in which Wei Wu (魏戊) was unable to handle the case of the man from Gengyang (梗阳), proves that fief managers were entitled to make legal decisions. These managers did not rank highly in the hierarchy, but they were officers who dealt with the common people.

Commoners and politics Commoners were the ruled class who contributed their labour to their superiors. So, what political influence did they have on their state in a feudal society? Among the “four categories of commoners” – scholar-commoners, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen – only scholar-commoners were qualified to be promoted to officials, while farmers, craftsmen, businessmen and vendors were not. Although scholar-commoners were hopeful for officialdom, they were not allowed to deal with any political matters until they became officials. This is why Confucius observed, “Only those who had been granted official positions were able to take charge.”21 Were commoners completely sidelined in politics? As Confucius put it, “the common people shall be told how to do things instead of being informed of why they should do so.”22 So, political matters were completely under the ruler’s control. Commoners were not involved in decision-making; they did not even have the right to know, not to mention the right to advise or request. They had no choice but to follow the ruler’s orders and do the jobs assigned to them. Therefore the best they could do was make comments on politics. They extolled the virtues of the ruler when their well-being was nurtured and vented grievances when they suffered. Their expressions were made spontaneously;

216  Feudal politics there was no way to stop them. Numerous folk songs containing such expressions can be found in The Book of Songs. All of these songs were written in a satirical style to air the discontent of the common people. Preface to Songs (《诗序》) included an even larger number of poems of complaint than The Book of Songs. Examples abounded in historical records of commoners’ praising and criticising their ruler. When Duke Hui (惠) of Jin (晋) was in exile, he promised to repay those who helped him go through difficult times. After he returned to Jin and ascended the throne, however, he changed his mind and failed to keep his word. After hearing his betrayal people lampooned him thus: The flatterers are fooled by the flattered and are not given the land promised; the cunning men are deceived by the politician and are not given the benefit promised. The politician is awarded a state, but disaster will befall him soon; if the flatterers and cunning men do not take action to avenge themselves on the flattered politician, disasters will befall them even sooner.23 Duke Jing (景) of Qi (齐) asked Viscount Guo Hui (国惠) and Viscount Gao Zhao (高昭) to anoint Tu (荼) as his successor to the throne and put his other sons in Lai (莱)’s place. After Duke Jing passed away, three of his sons including Jia (嘉), Ju (驹) and Qian (黔) escaped to the State of Wei (卫), while his other two sons including Chu (鉏) and Yangsheng (阳生) went to the State of Lu (鲁). The people of Lai (莱) sang, “They didn’t attend the burial of their father and didn’t care about serious matters like military action. Where are they heading now?”24 The commoners would write songs and poems no matter whether their own well-being was involved or not. During the early days of Zichan’s (子产) administration, the people of the State of Zheng criticised him: “He calculates our possessions and levies possession taxes; he measures our land and levies land taxes. If you are going to kill Zichan, I will be there to help you.”25 The people of the State of Zheng (郑) used to gather in their local schools to talk about political issues.26 Three years after Zichan was appointed prime minister of Zheng, his people began to benefit from and appreciate his achievements. They started to sing a different song: “Our sons and brothers are taught by Zichan; our land is nurtured by Zichan. If Zichan is gone, where can we find one as capable to succeed him?”27 What was the purpose of such songs and comments? Would they be censored or even forbidden by the authorities? It all depended on the ruler in question. Duke Zhao (召) of Zhou (周) noted that a wise ruler should encourage his people to speak out instead of blocking their freedom of expression.28 People from the State of Zheng (郑) gathered in local schools to discuss political matters, then Ran Ming (然明) the bureaucrat advised

Feudal politics  217 Zichan to close local schools to stem the tide of public opinion. But Zichan replied: Why should I do that? People gather there after work to discuss what they like and don’t like about my policies. We are going to further advance what they like and avoid what they don’t. They are like our teachers. So why the need to shut down those schools? I’ve heard that one should do good instead of abusing his power so his people won’t complain. You think I don’t know it would be easier to crack down on them? But that would be like temporarily blocking rivers, only to suffer from a more severe flood when water bursts banks. Once that damage occurs, the situation would be irreversible. So I’d rather open a small outlet for my people to express their opinions, which I take as remedies for addressing political issues.29 Zichan’s view illustrates that whether public opinion was tolerated was entirely the ruler’s decision. A wise ruler like Zichan would embrace his people’s criticism instead of rejecting and resenting it. Shi Kuang (师旷) pointed out: The ruler was rewarded when he did good and corrected when he did wrong. Help would come his way when needed and his mistakes would be put right. The king’s father, brothers and sons would help him; historians kept a record; musicians wrote songs; officials read out suggestions; bureaucrats gave advice; scholar-officials sent messages and commoners criticised.30 Shen Yinshu (沈尹戍, a military marshal of the State of Chu 楚) said, “A wise ruler never kills to silence criticism;”31 Viscount Fanwen (范文, a bureaucrat of the State of Jin 晋) also observed, “The truly great kings in the past were virtuous and embraced public criticisms…They would ask the people about what they thought of their policies and make improvements accordingly. That was what they did to improve on their ruling.”32 This remark comes in the spirit of Zichan’s view that when the people disapproved of their ruler, their expression of opinions was to be encouraged rather than stifled. Officers like Ran Ming, however, attempted to clamp down on different voices. King Li (厉) of Zhou even killed disaffected commoners. As a result, his people were too frightened to say a word when they met to greet each other; all they could do was to look at each other.33 Examples like this are rare in history, but there is still no denying the fact that most rulers acted in their own way, seldom taking public opinion into consideration. Whether criticism would bear fruit was an open question since it was up to the ruler to decide how to respond to and make use of the criticism. For instance, though commoners began by cursing Zichan, they changed their attitudes three years later. Despite their initial disquiet, no one ever attempted to kill him: There were only words without action, which did not produce any meaningful change.

218  Feudal politics When the rulers were wise enough to be receptive to new ideas, public opinion mattered. They did not ignore their people’s well-being and instead believed that if they acted for the good of their subjects, they would prosper, and if not, they would fail. This is why The Book of History recorded: The ruler, King Zhou (纣) of the Shang Dynasty said he had the mandate of heaven to rule his people, and he was so sure of himself that he did not want to become less arrogant… But King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty said that heaven had mercy on his people; so heaven would like the will of the people to be fulfilled.34 The opinions of heaven come from the people’s opinions; heaven learns from the people.35 When Duke Li (厉) of Jin (晋) set out to kill the Xi (郤) family, Xi Qi (郤锜) planned to strike back, but his cousin Xi Zhi (郤至) said to him, “If we kill innocent people, our people will lose faith in us. In that case, is it possible for us to be safe and sound?”36 Likewise, when Viscount Luan Wu (栾武, a bureaucrat of Jin) planned to attack the State of Chu (楚), Viscount Hanxian (韩献, a bureaucrat of Jin) said to him, “As the head of Chu is becoming more and more wicked, his people will rebel against him. So we had better wait till he is down and out with nobody defending him!”37 When the State of Jin (晋) forged an alliance with the State of Zheng (郑) and demanded Zheng’s complete obedience, Viscount Zhiwu (知武) of Jin advised, “If our state doesn’t behave in a virtuous way, then our people will turn their back at us.”38 Finally, when Duke Jing of Qi decided to restore Duke Jian (简, who lived in exile in the State of Qi) by sending him back to his state of Bei Yan (北燕), Yanzi (晏子) said to Duke Jing, “Your Majesty, please don’t do that. The State of Bei Yan has got a new head, Duke Dao (悼公) and its people support him.”39 Wise ministers and bureaucrats stressed the importance of public opinion and often extended a listening ear to their people. For example, Zichan took his people’s criticism as guidance; unfortunately, concrete examples are scant in historical texts. In another example, Fei Wuji (费无极, a courtier of Chu 楚) and Yan Jiangshi (鄢将师, a courtier of Chu) spread rumours in the State of Chu to the point that the state’s highest-ranking minister, Zichang (子常), killed members of three prestigious families, including Xi Wan (郤宛), all of whom were pillars of the state. The people of the state were saddened by these deaths. Whenever they remembered the three families, they invariably denounced Zichang. Shen Yinshu (沈尹戍) thus advised Zichang to kill Fei Wuji and Yan Jiangshi and their families to quell public anger. As a result, the people ceased to criticise Zichang.40 This instance indicates that public opinion had an effect on official, who often took action in response. The State of Chen (陈) was once one of the vassal states of Chu (楚). After the State of Wu (吴) defeated the State of Chu, Wu asked the State of Chen, Chu’s vassal state, to be Wu’s vassal state instead. Subsequently, Duke Huai

Feudal politics  219 (怀) of Chen held a meeting to ask his people from the capital and the countryside to make a choice. He said to them, “Those who’d like to follow Chu, please stand on the right and those who’d like to follow Wu, please stand on the left.”41 Duke Huai’s solution demonstrates that not only did the head of state consider his people’s opinions, but also their opinions mattered.

Military system Census and land survey Census was the foundation of and the prerequisite to conscription. After King Xuan (宣) of Zhou (周) was defeated by the tribe of Jiang Rong (姜 戎) in battle, he conducted an official survey of the population in Taiyuan (太原).42 Many view this survey as the first census for the purpose of conscription in Chinese history. Zhong Shanfu (仲山甫, a minister of the Zhou Dynasty) thought censusing was not feasible and thus advised King Xuan: Previous kings knew how many people there were without carrying out a headcount. Civic officials counted the old, the sick and the dead. Tribal officials counted the newborn. Military officials counted soldiers whom they could dispatch. Judges counted criminals. The officials in charge of herdsmen counted those who did livestock farming; the officials in charge of handicrafts counted craftsmen; the officials in charge of agriculture counted harvested crops; the officials in charge of granaries counted resources. Therefore the information about the number, life and death, incomes and expenditure of the people was all recorded and was available on request. Besides, the king would monitor farming, weeding and harvesting, and go for hunting during spring breaks. Often after harvests in autumn and more often after farming activities in wintertime, large-scale hunting took place. All of those practices helped learn about the population. Then why the need to do a headcount now after all?43 His remarks show that changes in the number of people via births, deaths and migration were instantly recorded in detail by specific officials. A specific census was not needed for its own sake. This is why Zhong Shanfu disapproved of King Xuan’s efforts to conduct a headcount in order to recruit more men to fight against the tribe of Jiang Rong for a second time. But this does not mean that the previous kings hadn’t cared about censusing; if they had never cared, how could they possibly have known the details of their people, and on what would they have based their conscription? As Guanzi (管子) observed, in late autumn, a census was conducted to check households, land, population and the respective number of men, women, old people and

220  Feudal politics children. Those who were not qualified for labour were exempt from being drafted; those who were seriously ill were counted as patients to be treated; those who were less capable of labour were asked to do half as much as was required. A census was carried out to select those eligible to be combat soldiers.44 So, in Guanzi’s lifetime and at least in his state, a census was conducted more carefully than it had been before and on a yearly basis; the population was specifically categorised as old, young, disabled and weak for the convenience of conscription. After Guanzi became the prime minister of the State of Qi, he proposed a welfare system that would care for old people, children and orphans. He suggested the following rules: For anyone in his seventies, one of his sons was exempt from conscription; for anyone in his eighties, two of his sons were exempt from conscription. Any woman raising three children was not required to contribute her fabrics to the government; for any woman raising four children, all the women in her family were exempt from contribution of fabrics. For anyone raising one orphan, one of his sons was exempt from conscription; for anyone who raised two orphans, two of his sons were exempt from conscription; for anyone who raised three orphans, his entire family was exempt from conscription.45 Beyond the census, land was surveyed carefully to calculate the number of soldiers, armour, shields and chariots to be contributed to the government. In the State of Chu (楚), when Wei Yan (蒍掩) served as military official, Zimu (子木, the prime minister of Chu) asked him to manage military taxation and check the number of armour and weapons. Wei Yan (蒍掩) thus recorded in detail the sizes of land, timber, water products, highlands, saline lands, wetlands, reservoirs, farmland and harvests as a basis for taxation of chariots, horses, infantry’s weapons, shields and armour. He then reported these results to Zimu (子木).46 There was a difference between combat soldiers and infantry. The former served as professional fighters. “They are valiant fighters. They are the ruler’s shields and the guarding walls…They are what the ruler dreams to have…They are the closest aides to the ruler.”47 “They are heroic fighters… Fearless fighters.”48 Such poetic lines were full of praise for combat soldiers. Infantry, however, was poorly equipped and consisted of farmers living under great pressure, who had to prepare armour at their own expense and were also obliged to provide chariots and horses. Beyond those from Wei Yan’s time, other poems say: I was riding on a magnificent chariot to fight; the army was waiting there on the outskirts…I was riding on a magnificent chariot to fight; the army was waiting there beside the city gate. Flags were emblazoned with patterns of tortoise and snake; beautiful feathers were on top of

Feudal politics  221 flagpoles…All chariots thundered ahead with bright-coloured flags fluttering…We rushed to Shuofang (朔方) to build walls…We are back now after conquering the tribe of Xi Rong (西戎).49 “Chariots were moving. Those colorful flags were fluttering in the wind.”50 “To manage your chariots and horses, and repair your arrows and weapons. In so doing, when wars break out, you can conquer the barbarians.”51 “Our ruler is sending troops. To repair our spears and shields to kill our common enemies…To repair our weapons and spears to forge ahead with you…To repair our armour and knives to kill enemies along with you.”52 “During fierce fighting, our round axes as well as square axes are damaged… Our round axes as well as chisels are damaged…Our round axes as well as knives are damaged.”53 These quotes indicate how people prepared chariots, horses and weapons for themselves. As recorded in history, in the first year of Duke Cheng (成) of Lu (鲁), his people “produced armour.” As Guliang (谷梁) put it, “to produce is to make. The people are required to make armour themselves.” Gongyang (公羊) further annotated, “Duke Cheng began to ask his people to make armour for themselves.” When it came to the number of chariots, horses and items of battle clothing that common people were asked to provide, Guanzi noted that in an area of sheng (乘) that covered six square li, people were to provide one chariot with four horses for their government. Each horse had to be equipped with seven pieces of armour and five covers; four horses needed twenty-eight pieces of armour and twenty covers in total.54 Countryside and military organisation After the census was conducted, and the land was surveyed, the ruler’s next move was to divide a state into a number of administrative regions/units for the convenience of enlisting and mobilising chariots and troops. The first step would be to designate townships and bi (鄙) or, in other words, distinguish the city from the countryside. Craftsmen, businessmen and vendors who resided in bi were not subjected to conscription and thus were commanded not to mingle with those who were. The next step was to assign a head to manage each designated region/unit. According to Guanzi, the organisations of different regions/units were as follows:55 Organisations of bi (鄙) gui (轨) Fief (邑) shuai (率) Township shu (属)

6 gui (轨) 10 fiefs (邑) 10 shuai (率) 3 townships

5 households

head of gui

30 households 300 households 3,000 households 9,000 households

head of fief head of shuai head of township shuai (帅, head)

222  Feudal politics Organisations of township (乡) gui li (里) lian (连) township shuai (帅)

10 gui 4 li 10 lian 3 townships

5 households

head of gui

50 households 200 households 2,000 households 6,000 households

head of li head of lian head of township

The organisations of township and those of bi both had five households as a unit of wu (伍) and included a unit of township, despite the different numbers of households in their respective townships. There were twenty-one townships in total inside the state, including fifteen for scholar-commoners and farmers, and six for craftsmen and businessmen. Organisations of township and fief based on farmers would also constitute corresponding sections of the armed forces during wartime. Guanzi called this linking arrangement “aligning the organisation of the people with that of the army…The people would thus be well aware of how the troops worked.” Gui, li, lian, township and shuai (帅) were units of township and fief. Their heads acted as the heads of townships, in charge of daily work. During times of military drills and war, those units turned into the corresponding military sections of Wu (伍), Xiaorong (小戎), Zu (卒), Brigade and Division, and their heads became military officers. “Household” was the unit of township, while “person” was the unit of troops. One household sent one person to the troops, five households sent five people, ten households sent ten people and so on. Organisation of township gui Li (里) lian (连) Township shuai (帅)

10 gui 4 li 10 lian 3 townships

5 households

head of gui

50 households 200 households 2,000 households 6,000 households

head of li head of lian head of township shuai (帅, head)

5 persons 50 persons 200 persons 2,000 persons 10,000 persons

head of gui head of Li head of lian head of Township shuai (帅, head)

Organisation of military Wu (伍) Xiaorong (小戎) Zu (卒) Brigade Division (师, 5 townships)

According to the above, shuai (帅) was composed of three townships with six thousand households, while Division was composed of five townships with ten thousand persons. That does not make sense. It is my opinion that the first table should say, “shuai (帅) was composed of five townships with six thousand households.” Chinese characters for the two numbers “five (五)”

Feudal politics  223 and “three (三)” were confused. If we read Guanzi’s essay thoroughly, it is clear this is not an inference or a random guess but a firm conclusion. As stated above, a state had twenty-one townships, fifteen of which belonged to scholar-commoners and farmers. Five townships constituted a Division, so fifteen townships had three Divisions and thirty thousand people. Beyond Guanzi, the record concerning the number of military men can only be found in The Rites of Zhou. In comparing these books, we can see that the units of Wu (伍), Zu (卒), Brigade (旅), Division (师) and Army (军) were widely adopted during this time. As for Li (里, see the second line in the first table above) and Liang (两, see the second line of the first table below), if we read and compare the corresponding records in The Rites of Zhou and Guanzi, we will find that they must have been used interchangeably due to their similar pronunciation. Thus, it was highly likely that they both referred to the same unit. The difference is that the Zhou (周) Dynasty took five as the minimum unit of the above organisations, while the State of Qi (齐) took ten, except in the unit of “Army.” However, in practice, their respective numbers of members in their units had a difference of only 2,500 persons. (Please refer to the comparison of numbers within the armed forces between the Zhou Dynasty and the State of Qi in the two tables in the following section). It is therefore noteworthy that the numbers found in historical books were fairly untenable. They mostly served as a source of reference and comparison, and thus cannot be taken too literally. Number of armed forces in different kingdoms The king had six units of troops,56 with 10,000 members each and 60,000 soldiers in total. If an extra 2,500 in each unit was added, then the number totalled to 75,000. The Zhou (周) Dynasty 5 persons

Wu Liang (两) Zu Brigade Division Army

5 Wu 4 Liang 5 Zu 5 Brigades 5 Divisions

25 persons 100 persons 500 persons 2,500 persons 12,500 persons

The State of Qi (齐) 5 persons

Wu Li Zu Brigade Army /Division (军/师)

10 Wu 10 Li 10 Zu 5 Brigades

50 persons 200 persons 2000 persons 10,000 persons

224  Feudal politics The units of troops that princes were entitled to varied according to their ranks and the sizes of their states. The higher their ranks and the larger their territories, the greater the number of their units of troops. According to Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) and The Rites of Zhou, the units of troops owned by princes fell into three categories: Big states had three units, which was half the number of those owned by the king; lesser states had two; and small states had one.57 What defined large states, lesser states and small states? Chapter 2 already described in detail how princes had five ranks but only three levels of fiefs: Duke and marquis in one level, count in another level and viscount and baron in a third. The same applied to the units of troops which princes were entitled to have. If they had more land and subjects, they could have more units of troops. Dukes and marquises both owned large states; their units of troops were the same accordingly. Viscounts and barons both ruled small states; thus their units of troops were also the same. Proof of this can be found in historical records below: Duke Xiang (襄) of Song (宋) fought against the State of Chu (楚) in the place of Hong (泓). He insisted that on the battlefield his troops should neither strike wounded enemies nor capture old soldiers. As a result, the Song army was crushed in the battle. Ziyu (子鱼, the military marshal of Song) did not agree with Duke Xiang, and he argued, “Our three units of troops are supposed to take advantage of any opportunity…When our enemy troops are in unfavourable conditions, we should definitely catch such an opportunity to attack them.”58 This is convincing evidence that the State of Song indeed owned three units of troops. The head of Jin (晋) was a marquis and entitled to three units of troops of his own. However, he planned to swell the already existing ranks of his troops. He certainly would not dare to expand his troops to six units that only the king was entitled to, but he managed to expand to four. The existence of Jin’s four units of troops was proven by the remarks of Zizhan (子 展, a minister of Zheng 郑) concerning the domestic situation of the State of Jin: “In the State of Jin, four units of troops are well-equipped and eight ministers get along with each other.”59 In the fourteenth reigning year of Duke Xiang (襄) of Lu (鲁), the Jin army attacked Qin (秦) and returned; not long after this the Marquis of Jin disbanded the fourth unit of troops and kept the original three. Zuo Qiuming praised him for the change: “That is the right thing to do. Large states are only allowed to have half the number of the units of troops owned by the king. In the Zhou system, the most powerful princes have three units.”60 These examples show that dukes and marquises both had three units of troops. Jin’s pursuit of a fourth unit of troops shows that it was not uncommon during the Spring and Autumn Period for princes to expand their armies beyond the required standard and scale in order to attack other states. It also shows that established military organisation was not strictly followed.

Feudal politics  225 For instance, the State of Chu was a viscount state that was permitted to have only one unit of troops. In fact, Chu had two units called the left and the right divisions, respectively.61 Jin was supposed to have three; however, his number gradually expanded to four, five62 and even six.63 While some states expanded their armies, others were forced to reduce their troops, either because they were too weak to support too many or because their ministers and bureaucrats intended to diminish the power of their princes. For instance, the State of Jin was entitled to three units of troops, but for some time, Duke Xian (献) of Jin kept only two, called high army and low army, respectively.64 He attempted to reduce the size of his army when four of his generals died successively and weakened his state. The State of Lu (鲁) had also had three units, but Jisun Si (季孙斯, the prime minister of Lu) dissolved the central army and kept only the left and right in an attempt to weaken his prince’s power.65 These cases went against the norm of the time, often confusing scholars of later generations as to what the norm actually was. Fortunately, Zuo Qiuming the historian clarified the situation, pointing out that sticking to three units of troops was the norm. From him we have also learned exactly how many units of troops were held by large, lesser and small states, respectively. Otherwise, how can a conclusion be drawn on the de jure number? When we talk about the units of troops, we must base our arguments on the common practice instead of unusual or extreme circumstances in order to avoid confusion. Next we will discuss the leadership of the military. Small states had one unit of troops and thus one commander. Lesser states had two units and thus two commanders. So, who was the commander-inchief? When Duke Xian (献) of Jin (晋) had two units of troops, he himself led the high army, appointing his son Shensheng (申生) as chief of the low army.66 In the 25th year of Duke Xiang of Lu’s rule (548 B.C.), the State of Chu attacked its vassal state Shujiu (舒鸠) for a betrayal. As recorded in history, Zimu (子木), the prime minister, headed Chu’s right army, setting off earlier to arrive at the capital city of Shujiu. The left army of Chu, setting off later and led by Ziqiang (子强), Xihuan (息桓), Zijie (子捷), Zipian (子骈) and Zimeng (子孟), was supposed to arrive in time to meet the right army. However, on its way to the front, the left army encountered troops from the State of Wu coming to Shujiu’s rescue. Zimu (子木), the leader of the right army, ordered the left army to withdraw first.67 These facts show that the head of the high or the right army was the commander-in-chief, a superior officer to the head of the low or left army. Three units of troops had three separate commanders. So, who took the lead? When the State of Jin (晋) had three units, and a commander-in-chief was needed, the bureaucrat Zhao Shuai (赵衰) recommended Xi Hu (郤縠) as head of the central army.68 In another example, Xun Linfu (荀林父) led the central army of Jin to rescue the head of the State of Zheng (郑). Zhizi (彘子, a bureaucrat of Jin) went against Xun Linfu’s orders and took his contingent across the river. Han Jue (韩厥, a minister of Jin) thus warned

226  Feudal politics Xun Linfu (荀林父), “Zhizi (彘子) and his contingent crossed the river and are likely to be besieged by our enemy. You will be blamed for that! As the commander-in-chief, your order was not heeded. Who will be responsible for that?”69 In the An (鞌) battle, Xi Ke (郤克) led the central army of Jin to attack the State of Qi. Xie Zhang (谢张, a bureaucrat of Jin) said to him, “The morale of everyone in our three units of troops lies in your chariot.”70 Upon defeating the Qi (齐) army, Xi Ke (as the head of the central army) met with Duke Jing (景) of Jin. Duke Jing said to him, “You’ve made a great contribution!” Xi Ke replied, “I led the army under your order. The soldiers followed your orders and fought valiantly. I cannot take the contribution as mine!” Viscount Fanwen (范文, as the head of the high army) met with Duke Jing as well. Duke Jing praised him, “You’ve made a great contribution!” Viscount Fanwen replied, “I took orders from the chief of the central army to lead the high army who fought fearlessly. We have achieved the victory because of your leadership. I cannot take the contribution as mine!” In the end, Viscount Luan Wu (栾武, as the head of the low army) met with Duke Jing. Duke Jing told him, “You’ve made a great contribution!” Luan Wu replied, “I took orders from the commander of the high army to lead the low army; my soldiers fought bravely. I cannot take the contribution as mine!”71 This fully indicates that the head of the central army was the commanderin-chief of all three units of troops, but the high army took orders from the central army, and the low army took orders from the high army. Contrary to the rule, the State of Jin once held a fourth unit of troops for a period of time. In that case, the head of its central army remained the chief of all four; the fourth unit, which was named “New Army” by the State of Jin, acted under the leadership of the low army.72 The king had six units, of which the central army, the right army and the left army were well documented; details of the rest, however, were scant. The central army took the lead among the six. For instance, King Huan (桓) of Zhou (周), along with other princes, attacked the State of Zheng (郑), with Duke Linfu of Guo (虢公林父) leading the right army and Duke Heijian of Zhou (周公黑肩) heading the left army, and the king himself acting as the chief of the central army.73 The commander-in-chief enjoyed a prestigious status and usually served as the prime minister in charge of state affairs (see Chapter 6). He was responsible for mobilising all units of troops during wartime. “A commander in the armed forces and a minister in the imperial court” perfectly summed up such a role. So, he was a crucial figure during wartime. His chariot was considered the command centre or headquarters. He managed drums, gongs and flags that indicated signs of attack, withdrawal and the direction of left and right,74 respectively.75 In his chariot, there were two assistants: One was the driver sitting in the middle, and the other, standing on the right, was responsible for pushing the chariot whenever something was wrong with it. The commander-in-chief took the left side of the chariot.76 He beat gongs for the army to withdraw and drums for the army to move forward and

Feudal politics  227 attack. The faster he beat the drums, the faster his driver drove the chariot. In addition to listening to gongs and drums for instruction, the soldiers and chariot troops had to follow the directions that the flags on the chief’s chariot showed them. Horses, chariots and soldiers were constantly on the move. When the victory neared, drums were beat faster, and soldiers were charging ahead at an even faster pace. Troops were not to stop or pull out until gongs were heard.77 Military drills and parades Soldiers were usually farmers too. Therefore drills and inspections were carried out during breaks from farming so as not to affect agricultural production. The drills were called sou (蒐), miao (苗), xian (狝) and shou (狩), respectively; hunting was conducted to train soldiers to ride horses and use arrows to prepare themselves for war. Hunting took place at the same time as drilling and training. As Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals and Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded, four drills were carried out in four seasons, respectively, each with a different name. According to Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, they were sou (蒐) in spring, miao (苗) in summer, xian (狝) in autumn and shou (狩) in winter.78 According to Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, however, they were tian (田) in spring, miao (苗) in summer, sou (蒐) in autumn and shou (狩) in winter.79 Zhong Shanfu (仲山甫, a minister of Zhou) and Gongyang (公羊) both pointed out that there were only three drills each year, in spring, autumn and winter, respectively. Zhong Shanfu argued that they were sou (蒐) in spring, xian (狝) in autumn and shou (狩) in winter,80 which was in line with what Er Ya (《尔雅》) claimed,81 though Gongyang held that miao (苗) was for spring, sou (蒐) for autumn and shou (狩) for winter.82 There was also a theory that only two drills occurred each year. For instance, Guanzi (管子) said, “Sou (蒐) was conducted in spring to inspect the army; xian (狝) was conducted in autumn to train soldiers.”83 Different accounts of the times, exact dates and names of drilling can be found in historical texts. Some argued that sou (蒐) was held in spring; some said it was held in autumn. What is more confusing, historical records show different versions of drilling seasons: From all four seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter to the three seasons of spring, autumn and winter to only the two seasons of spring and autumn. It is extremely difficult to tell which of the above-mentioned accounts is correct. But more records are available in The Spring and Autumn Annals to help with the clarification of the situation: Spring In the first month of spring, Duke Huan (桓) had shou in the place of Lang (郎). (Huan·Four); Large scale of sou in the place of Chang (昌).

228  Feudal politics (Zhao·Twenty-two); In spring, during shou in the western region, a mystic beast called qi lin (麒麟) was captured. (Ai·Fourteen) Summer Large scale of sou in the place of Bipu (比蒲). (Zhao·Eleven); Large scale of sou in the place of Bipu (比蒲). (Ding·Thirteen) Autumn On the nineteenth day of August, a massive military review took place. (Huan·Six); In autumn, sou was held in the place of Hong (红). (Zhao·Eight); Large scale of sou in the place of Bipu (比蒲). (Ding·Fourteen) Winter In winter, Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu and Duke Xiang of Qi (齐) performed shou in the place of Gao (郜). (Zhuang·Four); The king performed shou in Heyang (河阳). (Xi·Twenty-eight) These quotes still differ in the exact names and dates of hunting (i.e., training and drilling); no definitive conclusion can be drawn because the following question still remains unanswered: Why was it that sou took place in spring, summer and winter, and shou took place in both spring and winter? It seems that there was no standard to differentiate between sou and shou. Hence the different accounts in The Spring and Autumn Annals and other historical documents. But these quotes have presented us with the indisputable fact that hunting (i.e., training and drilling) occurred in all four seasons, which coincides with what both Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals and Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals claim. Whenever hunting was held, the bottom line was that it should not impede farming. This is why Zang Xibo (臧僖伯) said, “Sou in spring, miao in summer, xian in autumn and shou in winter were conducted during farming intervals.”84 Spring and summer were busy seasons of farming; thus hunting periods were shorter. However, from the end of harvest in autumn through winter, there were few farming activities. Thus, this period was the ideal time for longer drilling and training. As Guanzi put it, the period of service spanned ten days in spring, summer and autumn, so as not to affect sowing, weeding and harvesting, and twenty days in winter so as not to affect land preparation for the coming year.85 Guliang also noted: It was the normality to hunt in the place of Hong (红). Hunting as a means for drilling and training was a crucial ritual. Flowers were planted around the drilling range. At the entrance of the range two

Feudal politics  229 masts were planted on each side with red flags flying at their top to form a gate. The wooden pegs of the gate were wrapped in grass so that they would not hurt horse hooves. The gate was just wide enough for a carriage to pass and on either side there was a distance of three cun (cun, a unit of length in China. One cun is about 3.33 centimetres) between the axles of the passing carriage and the gate. Axles of the carriage coming through the gate must not hit the gate. Otherwise, it would not be allowed in. Dust was swirling as horses ran; horses raised hooves as they rounded up preys. Drivers drove carriages at a steady pace so that archers could hit targets. Animals would be let go if they managed to get out of the flower wall before they were shot; any prey that is seriously injured beyond recognition during the hunting was not eligible for sacrifice; cubs were not suitable for sacrifices, either. No matter how many animals were hunted, the king only took thirty and gave the rest to others to be used for further shooting training in the Shooting Rituals Centre. The prey which were still alive were then released into the centre and those who succeeded in shooting these animals would have their share of prey. Those who hunted animals but failed to shoot them in the Shooting Rituals Centre ended up getting nothing. This showed that righteousness was advocated instead of violence.86 From this quote, we can see the significance of sou in autumn and shou in winter as well as the magnificent view of hunting and drilling at this time.

Fiscal system It is hard to find historical documents on the fiscal system in feudal China. We must base our discussion on only limited materials. The main source of state income was food, including the rice and millet contributed by farmers. Their contribution was abundant, but Guanzi was certainly exaggerating when he said one year of contribution could feed people for five to six years.87 Normally, after a farmer deducted the food for himself and his family members, he would still be able to save one year’s worth of rice and millet out of three-year harvests or three years’ worth of rice and millet out of nine-year harvests.88 As famines might follow in the wake of lean years and natural disasters, storage of crops was necessary for coping with unpleasant situations, especially in states located in mountainous areas or on low land. Mountainous regions kept one third of their harvests in storage; lowland regions, one third; plains, three tenths; areas suffering floods, two tenths; places with land erosion had to import food from other states and develop their own business of craftsmanship to make up for poor harvests.89

230  Feudal politics Every county and fief stored food too. As Guanzi put it, the key to the management of a state is the management of its crops. That is to say, no matter whether an area of land is large or small, its local authorities must have reserves to loan to farmers. In autumn when grain price drops by one third, the king should ask leaders of prefectures and counties and small fiefs to sell crops to the central authorities who would then purchase them at market price, i.e., low price. Then those crops go to the king. As a result, two thirds of harvests in the whole state will be in the hands of the top ruler.90 The king kept one-third of each yearly harvest in storage91 just in case. How much grain was a state supposed to store to sustain its people? Some people at this time argued that reserving less than nine years’ worth of crops would be “insufficient”; less than six years’ worth of crops would be “alarming”; and if a state stored less than three years’ worth of crops, “the state would likely lose its independence.” So, the minimum amount to reserve was three years’ worth of crops,92 which would be enough for a state to be self-sufficient in lean years and help feed its people, even in consecutive harsh times. Without adequate reserves of food, once hit by a disaster, a state would be vulnerable to famine. During the twenty-eighth reigning year of Duke Zhuang (庄) of Lu (鲁), his state suffered a severe famine and was in great need of crops. Zang Sunchen (臧孙辰, a minister of Lu) was sent to the State of Qi (齐) to ask for help. Officials of the State of Qi criticized the State of Lu for not having enough food stored in advance and even derided the head of Lu as foolish.93 The four periods of hunting (as discussed earlier) also provided states with game as food, which went to the king himself as well as to sacrificial rituals and banquets.94 The numerous feasts that were offered to the nobles, sacrificial ceremonies that were held year-round and sumptuous food that was provided to cater to the king and his royal family showed not only an abundance of meat coming from hunting but also the efforts to store food to supply upon demand. The central authorities of states had a monopoly on their natural resources; hence they had large national coffers. In the State of Qi (齐), woods were guarded by officials called “Heng Lu (衡路)”; reed and grass in wetlands were guarded by officials called “Zhou Jiao (舟鲛)”; firewood in shoal water were guarded by officials called “Yu Hou (虞侯),” and fish, salt and shells in the sea were guarded by officials called “Qi Wang (祈望).”95 In terms of salt, a daily necessity, Qi (齐) was particularly rich as it was a coastal state. Its government imposed a ban on gathering salt, stating that “residents who lived near the North Sea were not allowed to hire people to get salt from sea water.”96 As a result, the state authorities reaped great benefits from their monopoly. Mining resources were exclusive to the state authorities as well. The law of the State of Qi (齐) provided that areas that had gold, silver, copper, iron,

Feudal politics  231 lead, cinnabar and magnets were off-limits to the public; that those who violated the law would be sentenced to death; and that if anyone dared enter the restricted areas, his left foot would be cut off if he had stepped in with his left foot first, and his right foot would be cut off if he had stepped in with his right foot first.97 Obviously, such draconian laws and measures were introduced in order to monopolize mining resources. These minerals could be made into daily tools, particularly weapons like spears and knives, as well as currencies.98 They were the source of state strength – no wonder they were heavily protected and monopolized. Tariffs and market taxes were one of the main sources of state revenues. There was a literal difference between the two evident in the quote “markets provided places to store goods without charging fees; customs checked goods without imposing taxes.”99 In practice, however, the two were the same during the Zhou (周) Dynasty, when the authorities collected treasures for the privileged, and there was no market catering to the public at all; as a result, no market taxes existed. Within capital cities but close to the entrances customs would be set up to charge businessmen from other states. Therefore no difference can be found between customs and market. The money collected through customs and market shared one name – “taxation of customs and market”100 – as it was in fact the toll that businessmen paid to the government. What about the tax rate in customs and market? During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods, excessive taxes were common. Duke Huan (桓) of Qi (齐) relaxed the taxation to levy only one-fiftieth.101 So, what happened when the ruler did not relax taxation? Yanzi’s criticism of the State of Qi provided sharp insight into such a situation when he said, “The people who lived in remote areas are made labourers. Checkpoints close to the capital are used to exploit people’s possessions.”102 When commenting on the taxation of his time, Xunzi (荀子) also lamented, “it is different these days…Heavy taxes are levied, preventing the people from doing business.”103 That is why the wisest rulers advocated reducing tax burdens. For instance, Duke Wen (文) of Jin (晋) “cut tariffs and clamped down on robbers and managed traffic.”104 Some leaders even sought to thoroughly address tax issues. Yanzi asked Duke Jing (景) of Qi to “abolish tariffs and lift bans.”105 Mencius mocked Dai Yingzhi (戴盈之, a bureaucrat of Song 宋) for failing to “repeal tariffs and market taxation” in a timely manner.106 It is noteworthy that the number of customs houses was limited at this time since they were set only within the capital of a state. Confucius denounced the State of Lu’s practice of establishing six customs offices, calling it a gross violation of righteousness. The intolerability of the State of Lu’s six customs offices infers that the number of customs offices can tell whether a state is benevolent or not.107 In theory, given the limited number of customs offices in a state and the calls for cutting and even cancelling taxes, tariffs were supposed to be small in amount; in practice, however, excessive taxation was indeed inflicted.

232  Feudal politics

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Nine. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Three. The Records of the Historian·Six·The First Emperor of Qin. Chinese Civilization by Marcel Granet. Trans. by Kathleen E. Innes and Mabel R. Brailsford. London: Regan Paul, 1930. p. 104. The Records of the Historian·Six·The First Emperor of Qin. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Seven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Sixteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-eight. “Taxation is heavy and many were imprisoned while Yanzi advised against it” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·One). Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Nine. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-three. Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu I; Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Six. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Nine. Analects·Taibo. Ibid. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Three. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·Five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty-one. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty. Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I; The Records of the Historian·Four·Zhou. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Thirty-one. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fourteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty. Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Six. Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I; The Records of the Historian·Four·Zhou. The Book of History·Zhou·Qin Shi I. The Book of History·Zhou·Qin Shi II. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Seventeen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Nine. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-seven. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·One. Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I; The Records of the Historian·Four·Zhou. Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I. Guanzi·Eighteen·Du Di·Fifty-seven. Guanzi·Ru Guo·Fifty-four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Twenty-five.

Feudal politics  233

234  Feudal politics he spotted him running away from the battlefield. The official who was driving the chariot for Duke Qing (顷) of Qi said to him, “The man in the middle of the chariot chasing after us must be a noble (君子); we need shoot him as well.” Duke Qing of Qi disagreed: “It is wrong to shoot him if you think he is a noble.” Then the two men on both sides of Han Jue were shot and fell one after the other (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two). This instance shows that the man who controlled the horses stood in the middle of a battle chariot. The man standing on the right side of a battle chariot was referred to as the “Right Man.” In the An battle between the State of Qi and the State of Jin, Bing Xia, on the left, drove the chariot for Duke Qing (顷) of Qi, while Pang Choufu stood on Duke Qing’s right side; Xie Zhang drove the chariot for Xi Ke, while Zheng Qiuhuan stood on Xi Ke’s right. During the battle Zheng Qiuhuan had to get off to push the chariot whenever necessary. The Qi army was defeated and withdrawing, but Pang Choufu had been bitten on the arm by a snake the previous night and thus was unable to push Duke Qing’s chariot when it got stuck in the wood. Consequently, the Jin army caught up with Duke Qing of Qi (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two). This shows that the man standing on the right had the responsibility of getting down and pushing the chariot whenever necessary. 77 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Two; “Xi Ke beats drums to defeat the Qi army” (Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Five); “Duke Zhuang of Lu beat drums to defeat the Qi army in the battle of Chang Shao (长勺之战)” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten). 78 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. 79 Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Four. 80 Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu I. 81 The Book of Songs·Er Ya·Shi Tian. 82 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Four. 83 Guanzi·Xiao Kuang·Twenty. 84 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Five. 85 Guanzi·Two·Shan Guo Gui·Fourteen. 86 Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Eight. 87 Guanzi·Twenty-three·Kui Du·Seventy-eight. 88 The Book of Rites·King’s System. 89 Guanzi·Twenty-two·Shan Zhi Shu·Seventy-six. 90 Ibid. 91 Guanzi·Twenty-two·Shan Quan Shu·Seventy-five. 92 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twentyeight; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twentyeight; The Book of Rites·King’s System. 93 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-eight; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Twenty-eight. 94 Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Four; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Four. 95 “Seven: After Duke Jing of Qi was ill, Liang Qiuju and Yi Kuan suggested killing officials in charge of history recording and sacrificial rituals while Yanzi advised against their idea.” (Yanzi’s Spring and Autumn Annals·One); Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty. 96 Guanzi·Twenty-three·Di Shu·Seventy-seven. 97 Ibid. 98 “This is where weapons and currency originated from” (ibid) . 99 The Book of Rites·King’s System.

Feudal politics  235 100 “Duke Huan (桓) of Qi (齐) relaxed taxation of customs and market in the 19th year of his 42-year reign.” (Guanzi·Seven·Da Kuang·Eighteen); “Dai Yingzhi suggested a one-tenth tax rate and scrap all the taxation of customs and market…” (Mencius·Duke Teng of Wen II). “The prime minister…imposed nine kinds of taxation…The seventh was taxation on customs and market…” (The Rites of Zhou·Elite Officials and Ministers·Prime Minister; Customs and market were gradually separated and then market taxation was levied – This happened after commoners began to trade goods, commerce boomed, and businessmen were free from the restraints of the higher class and thus earned a living by free trade. Guanzi said, “Market tax rate was two-hundredths while customs tax rate was one-hundredth” (Guanzi·Three·You Guan·Eight). These words indicate the separation between taxation of customs and that of market (Du You, a historian in the Tang Dynasty, thus said, “Guanzi was dying at the time and could not note down those words, therefore it is likely that the part on the talk about taxation between Guanzi and Duke Huan of Qi in Guanzi was penned by another person.” Ye Zhengze (叶正则, a famous scholar in the South Song Dynasty) also noted, “The writing of Guanzi was finished by more than one author and spanned over a long period before its completion.” In his On Fabricated Historical Records, Yao Jiheng (姚际恒, a scholar in the Qing Dynasty) observed that “those who helped finish the remaining part of Guanzi were probably from the late days of the Warring States Period.”) Therefore, we need to be careful when quoting multiple historical documents. Da Kuang (《大 匡》) claimed that the tax rate of customs and market was one-fiftieth during Duke Huan of Qi’s reign, and this can serve as an important reference as it is strong evidence of the fact that the two taxes were not yet separated in the Spring and Autumn Period. Guanzi·Seven·Da Kuang·Eighteen. 101 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty. 102 Xunzi·Fu Guo. 103 104 Discourses on Governance of the States·Jin Yu·Four. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty. 105 106 Mencius·Duke Teng of Wen II. 107 In Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Two, the original words are “To Abolish Six Customs Houses (废六关).” The article “Fiscal Conditions in the Spring and Autumn Period” by Gao Yunhui from the magazine Shi Huo (Edition 6, Vol. 4) quoted from Confucius Remarks as proof that Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals mistook “to set (置)” for “to abolish (废).” What the article did is disputable, but “to abolish” does not make sense, given the fact that Zang Wenzhong was considered callous as he suggested setting up six customs houses; if Yanzi and Mencius had suggested scrapping customs taxation, then they would have been considered despicable.

8

Collapse of feudalism

This final chapter will elaborate on the demise of feudalism in China.

Disintegration of classes The existence of classes and the deference within them were the prerequisites to feudalism and so constitute a fundamental part of studies on feudal society. During the Spring and Autumn Period, classes were gradually crumbling and became unstable. Social mobility was possible as long as one worked hard to pursue a better life. A higher class could be blatantly belittled by a lower class, unable to take any countermeasures against them. At one point, the king was the Only One who owned all the land and people under heaven, and enjoyed an unmatched and prestigious status. However, with the power of the central authorities dwindling, the king was knocked off his pedestal; he had to rely on and even begged for his princes’ help. The conventional relationship between the king and princes began to shift. Traditionally, princes were obliged to contribute to the king. Even so, the State of Chu (楚) failed to provide the king with citronella grass used for wine-making,1 and the State of Lu (鲁) avoided making any contribution, so the king had to send someone to request it.2 Providing services was also the duty of princes. King Jing (敬) of Zhou (周) planned to build walls to guard the city of Chengzhou (成周); he sent people to the State of Jin (晋) and asked Jin to turn to other princes for help. Only when Jin agreed to help did the rest of the states follow suit.3 When the king was in exile due to internal unrest, princes were supposed to come to his rescue as soon as possible. However, when King Xiang (襄) escaped to the State of Zheng (郑) to take refuge, Qin (秦) and Jin dispatched their troops along the river mostly for show, never intending to take immediate action to restore the king to power. In the end the Marquis of Jin adopted his minister Hu Yan (狐偃)’s advice and escorted King Xiang back – but only because the Marquis thought this would help build his prestige, add to his political influence and help him gain the king’s favour and draw other

Collapse of feudalism  237 4

princes to his side. In another example, when King Jing of Zhou (周敬王) was forced to flee from his Wang Ji (王畿) to Diquan (狄泉), none of the states offered to help him. Eventually the State of Jin was motivated by Youji (游 吉, also called 子大叔), an official from Zheng, to call the princes to action. But further moves were postponed again and again. First, the prince of Jin asked other princes to send delegates in the following year for a discussion of the issues; after the second year’s discussion, all the concerned princes decided that they should send troops in the following year. In reality, these states would have been able to come to the king’s rescue immediately, but they took the rescue so lightly that the king had to remain in exile for four years before he was rescued and restored to his throne.5 Princes were also expected to come to the imperial court on a regular basis and report their jobs according to the rule of the Zhou Dynasty. In the third year of King Huan’s (桓) reign, the Marquis of Zheng went to the court to meet and show respect to the king, but the king failed to pay due respect back. One of the king’s officials reminded him that Our state managed to move to the east thanks to the State of Jin and the State of Zheng. Respect should be paid to Zheng as an encouragement gesture. Even doing that would not be enough to guarantee that Zheng would come to the imperial court, not to mention to do otherwise. I guess the head of Zheng is not coming in the future since he has not been paid due respect to this time.6 In the early Spring and Autumn Period (the sixth reigning year of Duke Yin of Lu), only the states of Jin and Zheng still came to the king’s court. Later, however, the State of Zheng did not come either. Dukes and marquises were entitled to three units of troops; counts, two; and viscounts and barons, only one. Only the king owned six units. But historical facts show that Jin, although permitted to have three, expanded its ranks/units to four7; five8; and, for a certain period of time, six.9 States during this period sought to equip themselves with more troops, especially those who hoped to become leading powers or leaders of an alliance. Consequently, after their race, the strong became stronger, and the weak became even weaker. Conflicts and wars,10 secret meetings and alliance-formation attempts among princes abounded,11 while the king became too weak to meet such challenges to his authority. There was never a shortage of cases in which princes dared to adopt customs and clothing exclusive to the king. The heads of Chu (楚), Wu (吴), Yue (越), Qi (齐) and Qin (秦) even proclaimed themselves kings12 and began acting as such: The head of Qin worshipped the previous kings and gods.13 The head of Lu worshipped Heaven and Earth,14 built two watchtowers outside his palace, rode on carriages made of jade, produced red shields and jade handles of axes, and put on dances featuring sixty-four performers.15 Heads of Qin and Jin acted as if they were the king, requiring small states to come

238  Collapse of feudalism to their “imperial courts”16 and asking them to accept assignments17 and pay tribute.18 The more princes expanded their spheres of influence, the less respect the king was treated with. Special envoys sent by the king were humiliated by princes19; the king’s fiefs were besieged by princes’ troops20; and the king’s fighters were challenged by princes’ fighters, his army was trounced, and the king himself was wounded.21 During the reign of King Nan of Zhou (周赧王), his kingdom, or rather Wang Ji, now the only place available to him, was further separated into the “Eastern Zhou” and the “Western Zhou”,22 leaving him in an even more discredited position. The State of Qin (秦) attacked the State of Han (韩), while the State of Chu came to Han’s rescue. The king of Zhou, out of fear of Han, Chu and Qin, sent troops as well. Chu believed the Zhou army was there to assist Qin and thus sought to attack it. Horrified, the king of Zhou immediately sent Su Dai (苏代, a strategist from the Zhou Dynasty) to tell Chu that it was them that the king planned to help.23 The State of Han requested military service and a contribution of food from the imperial court of the “Eastern Zhou”, whose king became frightened and sent Su Dai to the State of Han to ease the tension.24 When Qin decided to attack the Zhou Dynasty, Zhou Zui (周最, a strategist from Qin) persuaded the prince of Qin not to.25 Evidently, the kingdom of Zhou at this time was close to fully waning; it only managed to survive by constantly relying on strategists or lobbyists. The “Eastern Zhou” and the “Western Zhou” did not linger long as both were soon toppled by Qin.26 In the last days of feudalism, the king could hope for nothing but to be eviscerated by princes. In fact, the hierarchy was devastated even more than this. Ministers and bureaucrats, too, were extending themselves, hoping to rise above princes or even to challenge the king. The king’s two bureaucrats, Wangshu Chensheng (王叔陈生) and Boyu (伯舆), fought for power, and the king sided with the latter. Wangshu Chensheng was so infuriated that he abandoned the king and escaped to the Yellow River; the king tried to reinstate him, killing Shi Jiao (史狡) as a gesture, but to no avail. Thus the State of Jin sent Viscount Fanxuan (范宣子, also known as 士匄 Shigai) to help settle the dispute. Viscount Fanxuan heard the two bureaucrats’ accusations before making a decision.27 This incident indicates how bureaucrats became unruly, beyond the constraints of the king. Ministers and bureaucrats who served under princes had no scruples and became even more recalcitrant than the king’s bureaucrats. Their practice of adopting customs and clothing reserved only for the king was very common. Even Guanzi (管子), a worthy man, built screen walls and platforms that were supposed to be exclusive to the king,28 let alone ministers and bureaucrats. The measurement system in the State of Qi (齐) stipulated that four sheng (升) equalled a dou (豆), four dou equalled a qu (区), four qu equalled a fu (釜)

Collapse of feudalism  239 and ten fu equalled a zhong (钟). However, the Tian (田) family of Qi, whose fief was in Chen (陈), raised the measurement unit and made five sheng a dou, five dou a qu and five qu a fu; they measured grains to loan to others using this private measurement and bought grains by the state standard,29 despite state regulations. (Translator’s note: In so doing, the Tian family was losing grains but winning favour with the common people, paving its way towards more political influence and power, for what they truly coveted was the whole state.) Bureaucrats all acted on their own without bothering to follow orders from leadership. Those from different states would secretly forge alliances in order to have a say in political affairs; the extent of their authority thus spoke for itself. For instance, Zheng asked Zhu (邾) to send troops. The head of Zhu secretly went to meet Yu (豫), the son of the head of Lu, for help. Yu failed to get permission from his father, but Yu forged alliance with Zhu and Zheng in the place of Yi (翼). Zuo Qiuming (左丘明) noted that “This event was not recorded in the Annals because it was against the duke’s will.”30 In another example, Shusun Bao (叔孙豹, a bureaucrat from the State of Lu 鲁), along with bureaucrats of other states, aligned himself with Yuan Qiao (袁 侨, a bureaucrat from the State of Chen 陈). Guliang (谷梁) thus observed, “Bureaucrats became allies and thus expanded their power. Their gathering in Jize (鸡泽) marked the beginning of the end of princes’ power and the rise of bureaucrats.”31 When ministers and bureaucrats gained power, they began to act on behalf of their respective states. The meeting at Xiuliang (溴梁) brought together the marquises of Lu, Jin and Wei (卫); the duke of Song (宋); the counts of Zheng, Cao (曹), Xue (薛) and Qi (杞); and the viscounts of Ju (莒), Zhu Lou (邾娄) and Xiao Zhulou (小邾娄). But according to The Spring and Autumn Annals, bureaucrats began to call the shots at the meeting as they began forging alliances with one another. Gongyang (公羊) thus noted: Princes were still present. Then why did The Spring and Autumn Annals record that the bureaucrats forged an alliance? That meant bureaucrats were considered as the symbol of credibility of their states. Why did The Spring and Autumn Annals say that bureaucrats enjoyed more credit than princes? It was a way to criticise those bureaucrats. Why were they criticised? They arrogated to themselves the right to forge an alliance, thus dismissing their princes as worthless.32 In addition to presiding over political affairs, ministers and bureaucrats interfered in the dethroning and the choice of heads of state. For instance, upon the death of Duke Xian (献) of Jin, Li Ke (里克), the bureaucrat, killed Xiqi (奚齐) and Zhuozi (卓), the sons of the deceased duke.33 Pi Zheng (丕 郑, a bureaucrat from Jin) sent Tu Anyi (屠岸夷, a warrior from Jin) to Di (狄) to tell Chong’er (重耳, another son of the duke) to return to the State of Jin, while Lv Sheng (吕甥, a bureaucrat from Jin) and Xi Cheng (郤称, also a

240  Collapse of feudalism bureaucrat from Jin) sent Pu Chengwu (蒲城午) to Liang (梁) to find Yiwu (夷吾), another son of Duke Xian; Lv Sheng and Xi Cheng asked Yiwu to bribe Qin to help him return to Jin, while Lv Sheng and Xi Cheng, as insiders, assisted Yiwu in succeeding to the throne of Jin.34 In similar instances: Tian Qi (田乞, a bureaucrat from the State of Qi) staged a coup and appointed Dao (悼) as the duke of Qi (齐) in collaboration with other bureaucrats from Qi. Tian Chang (田常, a bureaucrat of Qi) killed Duke Jian (简) of Qi and installed Ping (平) instead. Tian Qi (田乞, a bureaucrat of Qi) killed Tu (荼) and established Yangsheng (阳生) as the new head of Qi.35 It was inevitable that ministers and bureaucrats would become too powerful for the rulers to contain. The Count of Zheng had to align himself with his bureaucrats to build mutual trust.36 Some heads of states even filed lawsuits against bureaucrats, though they ultimately failed. The Count of the State of Wei (卫), for example, brought a charge against Yuan Xuan (元 咺, a bureaucrat from Wei) before the court of Zhou. The court in question was a committee consisting of the king of Zhou and the heads of many important states, such as Duke Wen of Jin. Viscount Ningwu (宁武, a minister from the State of Wei) represented the count, Viscount Zhen Zhuang (鍼庄, a bureaucrat from the State of Wei) served as the count’s agent and Shi Rong (士荣, a bureaucrat from the State of Wei) served as the counsel. Eventually the Count of Wei lost in the lawsuit. The State of Jin, the leader of all the states, killed Shi Rong, cut Zhen Zhuang’s feet and set Viscount Ningwu free because of his loyalty. The Count of Wei was then arrested, sent to the capital and put behind bars. Viscount Ningwu brought him clothes and food. Yuan Xuan (元咺) returned to the State of Wei and appointed Xia (瑕), the son of the already imprisoned duke, as the head of Wei.37 Even more appalling, ministers and bureaucrats sent rulers into exile and even killed them. For instance, Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu failed to depose Jisun Si (季孙斯, a minister of Lu) and thus escaped to the State of Qi (齐). He remained in exile for seven years and was unable to return to Lu before he died in Qianhou (乾侯). The heads of Qi and Jin both tried to help Zhao return, but their own bureaucrats were bribed by Jisun Si and thwarted their heads’ plan. Viscount Fanxian (范献) of Jin even blatantly praised Jisun Si, saying that he was favoured by the gods and aided by the people, and thus was totally innocent.38 As a result, Jisun Si remained at large. Eleven additional cases of bureaucrats’ killing heads of states can be found in The Spring and Autumn Annals.39 Such cases were on the rise during the Warring States Period, especially after Tian Chang (田常), the bureaucrat, killed Duke Jian (简) and continued to be a bureaucrat (minister) with impunity. That is the political situation which The Records of the Historian commented on: “Confronted with such a situation, princes of states could do nothing.”40 When ministers and bureaucrats reached the height of their power, they used this to dismantle the authority of the top leadership. When Lu set up its central army, its three units of troops were in the hands of the families of Jisun (季孙), Mengsun (孟孙) and Shusun (叔孙), respectively. The Jisun

Collapse of feudalism  241 family asked the men of its army either to be soldiers or to pay taxes; the Shusun family made the strong members of its army labourers and slaves, and set the weak ones free; and the Mengsun family took half of the soldiers in its army as slaves. Later, during the fifth year of Duke Zhao (昭) of Lu, the central army was disbanded to weaken the ruler’s power. The armed forces were divided into four parts: Jisun took two, and Shusun and Mengsun each took one. After that, the three families practised conscription and taxation in order to pay tribute to the duke.41 In the State of Jin, six ministers plotted to debilitate their head and killed the entire ruling family, all in the name of the law. The ruler’s fief was separated into ten counties as a result. The six ministers chose candidates from their sons and appointed them as bureaucrats, thus making themselves mightier and their State of Jin weaker.42 The appetite of ministers and bureaucrats, however, was insatiable, no matter how rich and powerful they grew and how impotent their princes became. So, in the end they decided to supplant their princes. Princes themselves were aware of this fact, but most of them realised there was no point in fighting, so they simply resigned themselves to their inevitable doom. Quite a few princes refused to give in and still attempted to strike back. However, it was already too late, and they had been crippled for too long to compete with the dominant ministers and bureaucrats. They either died, completely failed or languished. In the State of Lu, the families of Jisun, Shusun and Mengsun had a tight grip on power. When Confucius assisted Duke Ding (定) of Lu, he planned to help the duke get rid of the three political giants. Zhongyou (仲由, a disciple of Confucius) was assigned the task of helping take down the city walls of the capitals of the three families’ fiefs and then taking their troops back to the top leadership. Shusun’s capital city of Hou (郈) fell first, then Jisun’s capital city of Fei (费), after much effort. Taking down the walls of Mengsun’s capital city, however, proved to be impossible when the Mengsun family changed its mind and did not want to cooperate any further.43 Despite his efforts, Confucius could not completely abolish the ministers’ control of power and was thus unable to practise his ideal of “the prince and his subjects, each knowing his own place, playing his own role and doing his own duty well.” In addition to Duke Ding of Lu, Duke Ai (哀) of Lu was also seriously threatened by the three families; he turned to the State of Yue (越) to fight them. However, the three families came to know his plan and launched a pre-emptive attack before the duke could get reinforcements. As a result, Duke Ai of Lu had to escape from his own state and took refuge first in the State of Wei, then in the State of Zou and then in the State of Yue. He died shortly after making it back to his own state.44 In the State of Jin, Duke Chu (出) asked the State of Qi (齐) and the State of Lu to help deal with the threats of the three families of Han (韩), Zhao (赵) and Wei (魏). The three parties united to fight back, driving the duke away to the State of Qi; the duke died on the road. Jiao, one of the male

242  Collapse of feudalism descendants of Jin, was chosen to succeed to the throne and became Duke Ai (哀), but he was a mere puppet as the three families of Han, Zhao and Wei (魏) were really in control.45 Armed forces also were under the command of ministers and bureaucrats. Therefore princes had to ask other states for help. However, at this time, the princes of all states were in the same situation and suffered the same problem, while ministers and bureaucrats of different states aligned with one another. Who would send their soldiers to help the princes of other states? Besides, ministers and bureaucrats had plenty of henchmen to inform them about princes’ plans in a timely manner. Before a prince could issue an order or send his envoy to ask for help, his palace would have been besieged by ministers and bureaucrats’ troops. Attempts were made to control disobedient ministers and bureaucrats, but most of them failed. This rendered princes intimidated and fearful of further troubles. In the face of crumbling ruling authorities, ministers and bureaucrats acted even more brazenly. The situation in which princes were on an irreversible decline, and ministers and bureaucrats were on the rise continued for a while before the balance was finally upset. Duke Dao (悼) of Lu (鲁) reigned during the peak of the three families of Jisun (季孙), Shusun (叔孙) and Mengsun (孟孙), who took charge of the internal affairs of Lu and issued orders for the duke to follow. The roles of a ruler and his courtiers were entirely reversed.46 Still, the duke of Lu managed to keep a ceremonial position as head of state. Compared with him, the dukes of Jin (晋) and Qi (齐) fared much worse. The families of Han (韩), Zhao (赵) and Wei (魏) killed Zhibo (智伯), and thus enjoyed even greater power in the State of Jin. During the reign of Duke You (幽), who succeeded Duke Ai of Jin, he only owned the place of Quwo (曲沃), while the rest of the land belonged to the three families. The duke even travelled to the courts of the three families, as if he were merely an official, and the heads of the families were the prince. Ultimately, in the second reigning year of Duke Jing of Jin (晋静公, the last prince of the State of Jin), the heads of the three families, including Marquis Wu (武) of Wei (魏), Marquis Ai (哀) of Han (韩) and Marquis Jing (敬) of Zhao, succeeded in putting an end to the State of Jin and dividing its land to found their own independent states, and proclaim themselves as kings.47 Tian He (田和), the great-grandson of Tian Chang (田常), from the powerful Tian family in the State of Qi (齐), managed to replace the duke of Qi as a prince. Far from content with that, he eventually banished Duke Kang (康) of Qi to coastal areas and established himself as King Wei of Qi (齐威王).48 The above are examples of ministers and bureaucrats who rose above princes to the point that their power was mighty enough to crush their rulers. However, as the saying goes, as a mantis is trying to catch a cicada, a bird is lurking behind and ready to pounce on the mantis. Similarly, while ministers and bureaucrats were expanding their power, their inferiors were biding their time. Once they had the chance, they would treat their

Collapse of feudalism  243 ministers and bureaucrats exactly as the ministers and bureaucrats had treated their princes. For instance, despite his supreme status in the State of Lu, Jisun Si (季孙斯) was almost killed by Yanghu (阳虎), Jisun’s domestic manager. Although he was a minor official, Yanghu stole national treasure 49 and occupied the ruler’s fief.50 The Jisun family was in charge of state affairs in the State of Lu, and Yanghu called the shots within the Jisun family, acting as a regent of the state.51 He even forced Jinsun Si (the young successor of the Jinsun family) and Mengsun Heji (孟孙何忌, the young successor of the Mengsun family) to take orders from him. So, when Jisun Si travelled to the State of Wei (卫), Yanghu ordered him to enter Wei’s capital city through the south gate and exit from the east gate. When Jinsun Si went to the State of Jin, Yanghu forced Viscount Mengsun Heji to take gifts to Jin’s madame.52 All he said was duly obeyed, indicating how domineering he had become. He also sought to form alliances in the Zhou Temple with the Duke of Lu (鲁) and the three big families from Lu, and form alliances in the Bo (亳) Temple with the people of Lu.53 In addition, Yanghu attempted to replace the sons born of the wives of the heads of the three families with the sons born of their concubines, simply because he was closer to the latter. He arrested and tried to kill Jisun Si, who was saved by Linnan (临南, a bureaucrat of Lu). At last, the three families united to attack Yanghu with their armed forces combined. Consequently, Yanghu escaped to the State of Qi (齐).54 Yanghu was just one example of a domestic manager rising above his superior to bully people and make decisions about dethronement, appointment and punishment. Princes placed themselves above the king, ministers and bureaucrats placed themselves above princes, and domestic managers places themselves above ministers and bureaucrats. So, faced with a worsening situation, Confucius complained that no etiquette was observed, and the roles of the king and his courtiers had been reversed. He said, Rituals, music and military action should all be managed by the king when the etiquette was followed and paid enough attention to. Those would be decided by princes instead when the etiquette was disrupted. When princes had the final say, leadership crumbled within ten generations to come. If ministers and bureaucrats were in control, leadership collapsed within five generations to come. When domestic managers took charge, the states would be doomed within three generations to come.55 It is not difficult to understand the process in which princes, ministers, bureaucrats and their domestic managers gradually ascended to the top. The king, as the top leader, did not deal with political matters himself; princes did. That is why princes gradually reigned supreme. But when it comes to specific political decision-making, it was ministers and bureaucrats who

244  Collapse of feudalism were responsible. Their domestic managers, on the other hand, had the most contact with ordinary people, managing taxation and conscription; therefore they were able to expand their power over ministers and bureaucrats during this process. Domestic managers only had limited authority, over one family or one fief, so they were unlikely to succeed in becoming heads of states. This kind of process was linear, judging from the periods during which princes, ministers, bureaucrats and domestic managers took power. In the beginning, only princes from large states, like Duke Huan (桓) of Qi (齐), Duke Xiang (襄) of Song (宋), Duke Wen (文) of Jin (晋), Duke Mu (穆) of Qin (秦) and Duke Zhuang (庄) of Chu (楚), sought to attack other states and forge alliances. Although they were considered very powerful states, they dared not defy traditional etiquette and still paid due respect to the king – at least, in appearance. For instance, Duke Huan of Qi was rewarded sacrificial meat by the king. He insisted on kneeling down to accept it to show gratitude, even though the king had made it clear that he did not have to do this due to his old age.56 Duke Wen of Jin, meanwhile, asked the king to grant him the right to build tunnels in his tomb; the king refused, and Duke Wen never requested it again.57 Small states certainly trod more carefully so as not to overtly challenge top leadership. Gradually, however, princes stopped taking orders from the king. Small states were subordinate to large states and paid tribute as well as services to them as if the heads of large states were also the king. After this period, ministers and bureaucrats grew more powerful than princes. As Mencius put it, The five superstates have disrupted the etiquette advocated by the three great kings of Xia (夏), Shang (商) and Zhou (周) and thus are culpable. Princes have disrupted the etiquette advocated by the five superstates and thus are culpable, and ministers and bureaucrats have disrupted the etiquette advocated by princes and thus are culpable.58 Confucius also noted, “The royal family of the State of Lu (鲁) has been rendered powerless for five successive generations, four of which witnessed ministers and bureaucrats’ control over state affairs.”59 From Confucius’s words, we can see that ministers and bureaucrats had a grip on power for four generations of Dukes of Lu during Confucius’s time. After that, their domestic managers took charge.

Merging among princes Warfare accelerated the collapse of feudalism in China. During the two hundred and forty-two years of the Spring and Autumn Period, princes attacked each other frequently –two hundred and ninetyseven times, in total.60 Conflicts raged even more wildly from the end of the

Collapse of feudalism  245 Spring and Autumn Period to Qin’s (秦) conquest of six states, hence the name “Warring States.” How did such warfare lead to the demise of feudal society? First, wars in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period were different. During the Spring and Autumn Period, wars fell into three categories: The first category consisted of wars that were waged to “move a state.” Gongyang (公羊) concluded that “‘to be moved’ meant ‘be conquered.’” He then explained, “What did ‘to move the State of Su (宿)’ mean? To cut its traffic and surround it by land. Zi Shenzi (子沈子) said: ‘To cut its traffic probably aimed at making it a vassal state.’”61 As Guliang (谷梁) put it, ‘to move it’ means ‘to conquer it’. The place where the State of Su was moved to was recorded simply because it no longer existed after ‘being moved’. The word ‘moved’ was used as if the state still persisted instead of being crushed. “Move” refers to a state’s being relocated to another place. Take the State of Xing (邢国), for example. After being moved, it was re-established, with the help of Qi as well as other states.”62 Although the State of Xing became a vassal of Qi after this, its people were relocated, and the state itself survived. The historical context of Xing’s “being moved” proceeded as such: The tribe of Di (狄) attacked the State of Xing (邢); the State of Qi came to rescue Xing and sent its people, together with their possessions, to Yiyi (夷仪), where the State of Qi and other states helped build a new capital in which Xing could settle.63 In another example, Duke Ling (灵) of Xu (许) was afraid of his neighbour, the State of Zheng (郑), and therefore asked to move to the State of Chu (楚). Chu thus moved Xu to the place of Ye (叶).64 Later, Qiji (弃疾), the son of the Duke of Chu, moved Xu to Yi (夷, also known as Chengfu 城 父). Land in Zhoulai (州来) and Huaibei (淮北) was also awarded to the head of Xu by Wu Ju (伍举, a bureaucrat of Chu). There are even more examples: Ran Dan (然丹, a bureaucrat of Chu) sent the people of Chengfu (城父) to the place of Chen (陈) and gave land in Pu (濮) and western Yi (夷) to Chen. Residents who lived outside Fangcheng (方城) were then relocated to Xu.65 These examples show that weak states at this time were often too weak to protect themselves. So, they sought refuge in stronger states by moving and settling there. Their original territories were lost, but their heads still kept their positions and were granted new land. Some states asked to move, while others were forced to do so. The people of the State of Song (宋) were forced to move to the place of Su (宿).66 Meanwhile, the State of Qi (齐) drove away residents who lived in the fiefs of Ping (郱), Zi (鄑) and Wu (郚) in the State of Ji (纪), then claimed those fiefs as its own.67 The people of Qi (齐) were forced to move to Yang (阳).68 Despite that, only several fiefs and a small number of people were involved in the displacement, and the states themselves still existed.

246  Collapse of feudalism The second category consisted of wars that were waged to take away fiefs. After conquering a state, the winning state would claim the land of the defeated. Examples of this abounded: The State of Wei (卫) defeated the State of Zheng (郑) and claimed Linyan (廪延).69 Duke Wen of Jin (晋) attacked the State of Cao (曹) and allocated the land to the west of the Ji (济) River to the State of Lu (鲁).70 The State of Qin (秦) defeated the State of Jin and captured the city of Wu (武).71 The State of Chu (楚) attacked the State of Zheng and occupied Cheng (成).72 The tribe of Di (狄) fought the State of Jin and captured the places of Huchu (狐厨), Shouduo (受铎), Shefen (涉汾) and Kundu (昆都).73 Duke Jing (景) of Qi occupied Yun (郓).74 The third category consisted of wars that were waged to occupy a state. In the examples above, losing states only gave away pieces of land, not their ruling power. However, this was not the case when their states were occupied by other powers: Qi (齐) occupied Tan (谭)75; Chu (楚) occupied Huang (黄)76; Wei (卫) occupied Xing (邢)77; and Chu occupied Kui (夔),78 Jiang (江) and Liu (六).79 Chu, Qin (秦) and Ba (巴) occupied Yong (庸),80 and Chu occupied Shuliao (舒蓼).81 Jin (晋) occupied Chidi (赤狄), Lushi (潞氏) and Jiashi (甲氏)82; Chu occupied Shuyong (舒庸)83; Ju (莒) occupied Zeng (鄫)84; Qi occupied Lai (莱)85; Chu occupied Shujiu (舒鸠)86; Chu, Cai (蔡), Chen (陈) and Xu (许) occupied Lai (赖)87; Chu occupied Chen88 and Cai89; Jin occupied Fei (肥)90; Wu (吴) occupied Zhoulai (州来)91; Jin defeated Rong (戎) in the place of Luhun (陆浑)92 and occupied Gu (鼓)93; Wu (吴) occupied Chen94 and Xu (徐)95; Jin let Cai occupy Shen (沈)96; Zheng occupied Xu (许)97; and Chu occupied Hu (胡).98 Once their lands were occupied, the heads of states were captured and then taken to the winner’s land or sent to other states; at this point, the vanquished states disappeared. After Chu occupied Kui, the Viscount of Kui was taken to Chu. After Jin occupied Chidi, the newborns of Luzi (潞 子, Chidi’s chief) were taken to Jin. When Chu occupied Lai, the Viscount of Lai surrendered himself to the head of Chu. In order for the head of Chu to pardon him, he put a jade tablet in his mouth and had his hands tied behind him, and even asked his scholar-officials to carry coffins bare-chested. The head of Chu spared his life, as he had hoped, but at the same time terminated his state. After Cai was occupied by Chu, the son of its head was offered to Chu as a sacrifice to Chu’s ancestors. After Jin occupied Fei, the Viscount of Fei was taken to Jin. Zheng occupied Xu (许), and the Baron of Xu was taken to Zheng. Chu occupied Hu, and the Baron of Hu was taken to Chu. Wu occupied Xu (徐), and the Viscount of Xu surrendered, was pardoned, and was sent to a third party, the State of Chu.99 In these examples, apart from the states of Chen, Cai and Xu (许), occupied states or places were often located in remote and “barbarian” areas. In other words, occupation of a prince state was still not permitted – a line that all states had to avoid crossing. This is why five years after Chu occupied Chen and Cai, Chen, a prince state, was restored, and two years after Chen’s restoration, Cai, a prince state, was restored. The successors of Chen and

Collapse of feudalism  247 Cai were also reinstated as marquises. Thus, junzi held that the restoration of the two states complied with the rites advocated by the king of Zhou.100 (Translator’s note: Junzi, 君子, a term used more frequently in ancient times, refers to “a man of noble character,” “a man of moral integrity” or “a man of honour.”) Qi, Lu and Zheng crushed Xu (许) and offered it to Zheng, whose marquis did not dare claim Xu as his own. Instead, he asked Xu’s bureaucrat to assist Xu Shu (许叔, the younger brother of Duke Zhuang 庄 of Xu) in residing in the eastern part, then Xu continued to exist as a state.101 Later Zheng occupied Xu for the second time, and the Baron of Xu was taken to Zheng, but Duke Yuan (元) of Xu succeeded as the new head of state.102 What followed the victors’ occupying some states and taking their fiefs? Those fiefs or occupied places were given as rewards either to other princes or to bureaucrats of the victor or other states. For instance, Duke Wen of Jin (晋) led other princes to occupy Cao (曹), then divided the occupied land among those princes and gave the prince of Lu (鲁) the land to the west of the Ji (济) River.103 Qi (齐), Zheng (郑) and Lu attacked Xu (许), and gave it to Lu. Lu refused the land and gave it to Zheng instead.104 Jin occupied Biyang (偪阳) and gave it to Xiang Rong (向戎), a bureaucrat from the State of Song (宋), who declined the offer. Then it was given to the duke of Song.105 Zimu (子木, the military marshal) from the State of Chu (楚) occupied Shujiu (舒鸠) and therefore was rewarded with it by his Viscount of Chu. Zimu declined and gave it to Wei Yan (蒍掩), the bureaucrat, who Zimu thought had played a more important role in conquering Shujiu.106 Duke Wu (武) of Jin occupied Xun (荀) and granted it to his bureaucrat, Yuanshi’an (原氏 黯).107 Fiefs were taken over; states were occupied; heads of conquered states were reinstated or reassigned to a lower position; and places taken over were given to bureaucrats – such were the major features indicating that feudalism still persisted in the Spring and Autumn Period, despite all the conflicts, invasion and fights. Although the ownership of land changed from one person to another, the feudal relationship of classes largely remained between fief owners and their people, and between fief owners and their superiors. Those fief owners still enjoyed the products reaped from their land and their people’s contribution of taxes and services; they were also obliged to provide military services to their superiors. Conflicts after the Warring States Period, however, were significantly different: First, annexations among princes were in full swing. Whether those princes shared a surname with the king of Zhou, held different surnames, were appointed by the king of Zhou or rose up as superpowers, they annexed other states in complete defiance of the king and attempted to occupy as many places as possible. They even coveted the king’s land and took over land from Wang Ji (王畿), the only exclusive fief of the king of Zhou. In addition, the reinstatement of former heads never happened again during this time period. For example: Duke Jing (景) of Song (宋) occupied Cao

248  Collapse of feudalism (曹) – the 33rd year of the reign of King Jing (敬) of Zhou (周); King Hui (惠) of Chu (楚) occupied Chen (陈) – the 41st year of the reign of King Jing of Zhou; “King” Gou Jian (勾践) of Yue (越) occupied Wu (吴) – the 3rd year of King Yuan (元) of Zhou; “King” Hui of Chu occupied Cai (蔡) – the 22nd year of the reign of King Zhending (贞定) of Zhou; “King” Hui of Chu occupied Qi (杞) – the 24th year of the reign of King Zhending of Zhou; “King” Jian (简) of Chu occupied Ju (莒) – the 10th year of the reign of King Kao (考) of Zhou; Tian He (田和) replaced the head of Qi (齐) – the 16th year of the reign of King An (安) of Zhou; Han (韩), Wei (魏) and Zhao (赵) replaced the head of Jin (晋) – the 26th year of the reign of King An of Zhou; Marquis Ai (哀) of Han (韩) occupied Zheng (郑) – the 1st year of the reign of King Lie (烈) of Zhou; “King” Wei (威) of Chu occupied Yue (越) – the 34th year of the reign of King Xian (显) of Zhou; “King” Hui (惠) of Qin (秦) occupied Wei (卫) – the 1st year of the reign of King Shenjing (慎靓) of Zhou; “King” Min (泯) of Qi (齐) along with Wei (魏) and Chu attacked Song and divided its land – the 29th year of the reign of King Nan (赧) of Zhou; “King” Zhao (昭) of Qin overthrew the “Western Zhou”; “King” Zhuangxiang (庄襄) of Qin overthrew the “Eastern Zhou”; “King” Weilie (威烈) of Chu occupied Lu (鲁)108. As a result, only the seven superstates of Qin (秦), Wei (魏), Han (韩), Zhao (赵), Chu (楚), Yan (燕) and Qi (齐) survived, co-existing in rivalry. Their appetite for power grew even stronger. Ultimately, Qin managed to conquer its six rivals and unify China: The conquest of Han – the 17th year of the reign of Qin Shihuang (秦始皇), the first emperor of Qin; The conquest of Zhao – the 19th year of Qin Shihuang’s reign; The conquest of Wei – the 22nd year of Qin Shihuang’s reign; The conquest of Chu – the 24th year of Qin Shihuang’s reign; The conquest of Yan – the 25th year of Qin Shihuang’s reign; The conquest of Qi – the 26th year of Qin Shihuang’s reign109. It goes without saying that states acted in defiance of the ban on mutual attacks under the rule of the king of Zhou. The six superstates were annihilated one by one by the State of Qin, and eventually Qin reigned supreme in China, marking the collapse of the entire feudal system of Zhou. This is how wars during the Warring States Period differed from those that came before. Furthermore, political power was used to directly put an end to feudalism. This is the second major difference – feoffment ceased to exist. During the Spring and Autumn Period, land was grabbed and then enfeoffed. However, the practice itself evolved, and changes took place. For instance, the State of Chu defeated the State of Chen and planned to make it a county110 instead of a fief. During the Warring States Period, deviation from the past loomed larger. The six ministers of Jin plotted to rise over their ruler and thus killed the family of Qi Hou (祁侯) and the family of Shu Xiang (叔向), both of which were related to the head of Jin; their fiefs were then divided into ten counties. The six ministers appointed their sons as the bureaucrats in charge of those counties111 instead of granting the land as fiefs to their sons.

Collapse of feudalism  249 In the 10th reigning year of Duke Wu (武) of Qin, the State of Qin attacked Gui (邽) and Jirong (冀戎) and made them into counties. In his 11th year of reign, Du (杜) and Zheng (郑) were designated as counties. In the 21st reigning year of Duke Li (厉) of Qin, Pinyang (频阳) became a county. In the 12th reigning year of Duke Xiao (孝) of Qin, small villages were arranged together as a single county, and thirty-one counties were newly established with respective chiefs.112 It can be concluded that officials appointed by the ruler started to govern counties. Hence, a system of prefectures and counties was formally established in Qin. After this, when a state was conquered, it assumed a status as a county or a prefecture. In the 10th reigning year of Duke Huiwen (惠文) of Qin, the State of Wei (魏) contributed to the State of Qin its fifteen counties in the prefecture of Shang (上). In his 11th year of reign, Yiqu (义渠) became a county. In the ninth year after Duke Huiwen of Qin proclaimed himself king, Shu (蜀) was conquered and established as a prefecture of Qin. In the 12th year after Duke Huiwen of Qin proclaimed himself king, Hanzhong (汉中) of Chu was taken and then designated as Hanzhong Prefecture. In the 21st reigning year of Zhaoxiang (昭襄) of Qin, the State of Qin attacked the State of Qi (齐), occupied its land to the east of the Yellow River and included it in Qin’s territory as nine counties. In the 29th year of his reign, Qin occupied Ying (郢) in Chu and designated it as Nan (南) Prefecture. In the 30th year of his reign, Qin occupied Chu’s Wu (巫) Prefecture and Jiangnan (江南), and combined them into Qianzhong (黔中) Prefecture. In his 34th year of reign, King Zhaoxiang of Qin granted Shangyong (上庸) as a prefecture to the State of Wei (魏) and the State of Han (韩). In the 35th year, Nanyang (南阳) Prefecture was established. In the 44th year, Qin occupied the State of Han’s Nan (南) Prefecture. In the first year of King Zhuangxiang (庄 襄) of Qin, the “Eastern Zhou” and “Western Zhou” were taken over by Qin and changed into Sanchuan (三川) Prefecture. In his fourth year of reign, Qin attacked Shangdang (上党) and established it as Taiyuan (太原) Prefecture. In the fifth year of Qin Shihuang (秦始皇), Qin conquered twenty cities of the State of Wei (魏) and combined them into Dong (东) Prefecture. In his 17th year of reign, Qin conquered the State of Han (韩) and established Yingchuan (颍川) Prefecture. In the 19th year, Qin conquered the State of Zhao (赵) and made it Handan (邯郸) Prefecture. In the 22nd year, Qin conquered the State of Wei (魏) and made it Julu (钜鹿) Prefecture. In the 24th year, Qin conquered the State of Chu and established it as Chu Prefecture. In the 25th year, the State of Yue (越) surrendered to Qin and was turned into Kuaiji (会稽) Prefecture. In the 27th year, the State of Qi was conquered and became Qin’s Langya (琅琊) Prefecture.113 These were just some of Qin’s prefectures and counties. Upon the first emperor of Qin’s unification of China, a total of thirty-six prefectures were founded114; each included several counties. Counties were headed by officials called “Ling (令),” and prefectures were headed by officials called “Shou Wei Jian (守尉监)”115 Designated by the emperor to govern either

250  Collapse of feudalism counties or prefectures, they had to take orders from the emperor. They were not enfeoffed any longer but had official ranks and corresponding income. Such a practice officially marked the end of feudalism and ushered in a new era, during which prefectures and counties were managed by laws.116 During the reign of Qin Shihuang, the first emperor of Qin, his aide Li Si (李斯) abolished enfeoffment and introduced centralised power on the grounds that princes since the Zhou Dynasty had acted in defiance of the king, who was rendered unable to respond in kind. Qin certainly did not want that history to repeat itself. Wang Wan (王绾), the minister, along with other courtiers, admonished the Qin emperor after the unification of China: Princes have been defeated. The former states of Yan (燕), Qi (齐) and Jing (荆) are distant. Without rulers supervising them, they tend to get out of control. Your Majesty, I suggest that you appoint princes to rule those places. The emperor asked his officials for consultations; they all agreed to this idea, except Li Si, who was serving as justice minister. Li Si explained: King Wen (文) and Wu (武) of Zhou had plenty of sons, brothers and relatives of the same surname. Their descendants, however, were gradually divided and attacked each other like enemies. The king of Zhou was unable to keep competing princes under check. Now you have unified China with your unprecedented power; prefectures and counties have been established. Your sons and those who made great contributions have been generously awarded by you as well. In so doing, you can easily govern them. That is the right thing for us to do to stem the tide of dissidents and maintain stability. No good things, however, will ever come out of appointing princes. The first emperor of Qin was ambitious enough to conquer all of China. But his success in unification came as a result of both feudal enfeoffment and the fact that the king of Zhou had been made a mere figurehead by powerful princes. How could Qin not learn from this historical lesson? The emperor heeded Li Si’s advice and said: Conflicts used to abound and people suffered due to princes’ fighting against each other. Thanks to our ancestors’ blessings, we have unified China and restored order and stability. If princes were to be appointed again, wouldn’t that be establishing rivals? In that case, it would be even harder to have peace.117 After a lot of debate with his ministers and bureaucrats, Qin Shihuang, the first emperor of Qin, decided to install prefectures and counties instead of continuing to have princes enfeoffed.

Collapse of feudalism  251

Rise of commercial economy Chapter 6 mentioned two events: (1) Xian Gao (弦高), a businessman, gave gifts to the troops of Qin (秦) and Jin (晋), and (2) Duke Huan (桓) of Zheng (郑) aligned himself with businessmen and promised that “businessmen shall not betray the state and the state shall not impose anything on their products.” These highlight the high social status which businessmen enjoyed during the Spring and Autumn Period. The power of businessmen grew as they amassed greater wealth. Zigong (子贡), one of Confucius’s disciples, did business in the states of Cao (曹) and Wei (卫). He rode in extravagant carriages with four horses and gave generous gifts, of fabrics and money, to princes. Wherever he visited, heads of states treated him not as an inferior but as a prestigious guest. Because of and through Zigong, a great number of people came to know about his teacher, Confucius.118 Those from higher classes welcomed businessmen as their friends; even disciples of Confucius, who were expected to focus on learning, did not shy away from business. Fan Li (范蠡), the bureaucrat of the State of Yue (越), was a business mogul himself in the Place of Tao (陶), and he became so prestigious there that common people addressed him as Duke Zhu (朱) of Tao.119 This further proves that nobles at this time did not look down upon businessmen; on the contrary, they felt proud if they happened to be businessmen. This was especially true after the Warring States Period. The illustrious Lv Buwei (吕不韦) was a successful businessman in Yangdi (阳翟). He financed Zichu (子楚) of Qin (秦) and assisted him in becoming an important prince and a successor to the throne. Lv Buwei himself was appointed as the prime minister of Qin and awarded the title “Marquis of Wenxin (文信 侯)”; the first emperor of Qin even addressed him as “my younger uncle.”120 In another example, Fan Li (范蠡) first served as a bureaucrat in the State of Yue (越) before he made himself a wealthy businessman. The head of Qi (齐) appreciated his talent and appointed him as prime minister.121 Fan Li’s rise was much attributed to the fact that he himself belonged to the class of bureaucrats; Lv Buwei, on the other hand, was a businessman first, then managed to become a minister and a marquis. If businessmen were not treated with respect, how could Lv Buwei have been promoted from a commoner to a minister? There used to be social constraints on businessmen – for example, “businessmen, craftsmen and slaves could not change their occupations”122 – but the booming development of business and the efforts of businessmen helped remove such social barriers and allowed them to rise increasingly higher. The examples above illustrate the interactions between businessmen and nobles. More importantly, they led to the emergence of monetary economy. When farmers served as labourers, they were exempt from taxes. This was the case in a self-sufficient economy, in which businessmen were mere agents of nobles to help them acquire exotic and precious products. The primitive method of trading, called bartering, was most prevalent at

252  Collapse of feudalism this time (e.g., Xian Gao 弦高 exchanged his twelve cows for products of the Royal Zhou 周); there was no real commerce going on. Businessmen at that time were unlikely to accumulate enough wealth of their own to rival princes. In the monetary economy, however, things worked quite differently. For example, Zigong (子贡) lavished gifts on princes when he visited them. During his business life of nineteen years, Fan Li (范蠡) made a fortune three times, each time earning tens of millions of copper coins, and three times Fan Li donated all his money to those in need.123 Lv Buwei (吕不韦) boasted wealth of tens of millions of copper coins. He donated half to Zichu (子楚, who later became King Zhuangxiang of Qin 秦庄襄王) to help him befriend the princes of several states; he spent the other half purchasing treasures and antiques, and then sent them to Huayang (华阳, the madam of the head of Qin (秦), a politically important figure) to pave the way for Zichu’s succession to the throne.124 These examples attested to the widespread use of currency. Aristocrats began to take businessmen seriously simply because they coveted their money and wealth. As the economy boomed, commercial cities appeared. As The Records of the Historian put it, “located in the centre, with roads leading to and from all states, the place of Tao (陶) was a commercial hub.”125 As I mentioned above, “Duke Zhu (朱) of Tao,” or Fan Li, reaped great benefits there. The next section will examine the influence of currency and commerce on other aspects of the social system in feudal China.

Land reform Farming replacement was a typical mode of production in a feudal society, so a distinction between private and public land must persist (see the sections on the land system in Chapter 4 and commoners’ obligations and duties in Chapter 7). Slowly but surely, however, the barter economy grew precarious and eventually perished, thanks to booming commerce and the use of currency. In the late Spring and Autumn Period, Duke Xuan (宣) of Lu (鲁) began to impose taxes per mu126 (亩) and Viscount Jikang (季康) levied farm taxes,127 signifying the beginning of the end of farming replacement. Taxes were imposed because nobles were short of money and intended to make it through taxation. Youruo (有若, a disciple of Confucius) asked Duke Ai (哀) of Lu to introduce che (彻), a taxation policy that would take one-tenth of farm taxes. Duke Ai replied, “Even two-tenths won’t be enough. What is the point?”128 The State of Lu was not alone in this issue. Li Kui (李悝, a reformer) noted that for a household of five people who farmed land of 100 mu, the annual harvest of one mu was one and a half shi (石), and that of 100 mu was 150 shi. After a one-tenth taxation (fifteen shi), another 135 shi remained: one and a half shi of food for each person each month and 90 for five people each year, leaving only 45 shi. Thirty shi of millet was worth 1,350 in currency. Fresh

Collapse of feudalism  253 millet worth three hundred currency was reserved for sacrificial rituals and local people, in particular, the landowners, to taste. Thus, only 1,050 of currency was left. Each person in a family needed three hundred for clothing, which amounted to 1,500 in total each year. With that sum deducted, the family only had less than four hundred and fifty currency to spend. The expenditures of funerals, medicine and other taxation were not even included yet. These families could barely make ends meet, so, it is no wonder that farmers were not motivated enough to do farming.129 As a result, states and commoners alike were short of money. For this reason, Li Kui aspired to carry out land reform. Unfortunately, details about his reform are unknown to us. Specific reforms did not take place until Shangyang (商鞅) was appointed by the State of Qin (秦) to set up reform policies and carry them out. His reforms were later legalised, as a result of the historical trend towards remedying the economic situation. Land reform was the first step of Shangyang’s reforms: Public land was abolished; private ownership of land by average people was encouraged. People were allowed to buy and sell land as commodities. The Records of the Historian and The History of the Han Dynasty both observed that the system of the previous kings had been rescinded, and the “Nine Squares” land system had been repealed as well. They also recorded the fact that the original land demarcation of qian (阡) and mo (陌) was not valid anymore, and the average people were able to freely buy and sell land.130 As a matter of fact, the very existence of the Nine-Square land system remains disputable. Still, there is no doubt that land used to be the possession of nobles and was not for sale. It was the reforms of Shangyang that ensured that public land was abolished, and land became privatized and commercialised. Ma Duanlin (马端临, 1254–1323, a historian) quoted Wu (吴) the scholar: “‘Nine Squares’ land system was practised by the previous kings and land shall not be traded. That is why the essay ‘King’s System’ put it, ‘Land was not for sale.’ Only after the State of Qin (秦) invalidated the old land demarcation were people allowed to buy and sell land.”131 What does “to reform the demarcation of qian (阡) and mo (陌)” mean? According to Notes on The Records of the Historian (《史记正义》), “Qian referred to south and north; mo referred to east and west.”132 However, A Guide to Customs (《风俗通》) said that “qian referred to east and west; mo referred to south and north.” These two accounts contradict each other. There might be different interpretations about the direction qian and mo indicated respectively. But there is no denying the fact that they were both lanes alongside lands. To reform the demarcation of the two was to narrow the boundaries between different pieces of land in order to make the most of space. Shangyang (商鞅) shared Li Kui’s idea that allowing one man to farm the land of 100 mu had its drawbacks. Shangyang observed: Now the State of Qin has vast stretches of land including five large areas, each of which covers even one thousand square li. Unfortunately in

254  Collapse of feudalism these five areas the arable land that can produce crops only account for less than one fifth, and the number of plots of land amounts to less than one million pieces.133 He also said, Each farmer is allotted 500 mu. State taxes from that 500 mu are not enough to support one soldier because the land itself reaps little. Land covering 100 square li can hardly be able to help provide and provide for 10,000 soldiers.134 These words were meant to criticise the situation in which farmland and its harvests were insufficient to support more soldiers. (Translator’s note: Shangyang’s analysis of the disadvantages of Qin’s farming and other related issues, as indicated in the above, was intended to persuade the head of Qin to follow his suggestion of land reform.) If all qian and mo were to be transformed into farmland, there would be a rapid increase in arable land areas and state revenues. Cai Ze (蔡泽, the prime minister of Qin) pointed out: To abolish the demarcation of qian and mo is to ensure people have more land to till and to help unify their local customs. The people should be encouraged to promote farming; one family should focus on nothing but farming to produce more. Soldiers should be mobilised effectively. When they are sent for action, they conquer new land for their state; when they are in a recess, a lot of expenses are reduced and their state becomes rich.135 Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200, a great Confucianist scholar in the Song Dynasty) commented on Shangyang’s reforms: Shangyang is too rash and myopic about land reform. He argues that farmers are constrained by the demarcation of public land and worries that labourers cannot be fully mobilised. On the other hand, he notes that the sprawling demarcation of public land is at odds with a large number of people who do not own land themselves and he worries that land cannot be fully tilled. If a state is in decline and its law is defied, procedural problems, fraud and corruption will inevitably occur, especially when farmers are supposed to return land to its owners. Shangyang thinks if public land is located near private land, some farmers may furtively claim some parts of public land as their private land, resulting in less tax returns to the state. Therefore, if the original demarcation of public land is repealed and land sale is allowed, farmers will be greatly motivated; they will be able to turn wasteland into tillable land so that no piece of land will lie idle. The people will have land as their

Collapse of feudalism  255 own property and do not have to return land in due course. Procedural problems, fraud or corruption will be avoided; all arable land will be cultivated and each piece of land will be levied a tax, therefore any attempt to evade taxes will be deterred.136 These explanations, although some of them were only Zhu Xi’s inferences, were close to the truth and revealed why Shangyang insisted on invalidating qian and mo. Shangyang’s reforms yielded two results: The first was the emergence of small farms. In the old days of public ownership of land, private land had accounted for one hundred mu per person, while public land owned by aristocrats had covered vast areas. As The Book of Songs (《诗经》) put it, “your farming had our support; tens of thousands of farmers did their job.”137 “Thousands of farmers were working.”138 These words drew a picture of how the king of Zhou, together with his aristocrats and farmers, worked on the public land, growing crops and encouraging agricultural officials and labourers to devote themselves to farming. However, after the State of Qin (秦) rescinded public ownership of land, public land was gradually transferred to the common people. Once they were demolished, qian and mo scattering in various places would be transformed into small pieces of farmland. According to the law of Qin, male adult family members were encouraged to live separately. Fathers, sons and brothers were not allowed to reside in the same household.139 “One household with more than two male adults faced double taxation.”140 In the days when one man was entitled to one hundred mu of private land, a household of five or eight members could only just survive. This was not the case when small farms were run. In addition, the state would not permit two male members to live together within one household, with the goal of increasing state revenues. The second result was the emergence of landlords and the proletariat. This came inevitably after people were officially allowed to buy and sell land freely. Those who lived in poverty could not subsist on their land, so they sold it to rich men and worked as tenant farmers. Dong Zhongshu (董仲 舒, 179 B.C.–104 B.C., thinker, educationist and Confucianist scholar in the Western Han 汉 Dynasty) thus observed that “Rich men’s land was farmed and five-tenths of the harvests must be paid as taxes to land owners. Therefore poor farmers were forced to wear what cows and horses wore and to eat what dogs and pigs ate.”141 This is a vivid depiction of farmers’ misery as a result of Shangyang’s reforms. As land became a commodity, the rich became richer, and the poor became poorer. Ban Gu (班固, a historian in the Eastern Han Dynasty) remarked, “The rich accumulated enormous amounts of wealth while the poor could only afford to eat chaff.”142 Dong Zhongshu also noted, “Land was for sale, leaving the rich in possession of land and qian and mo, but the poor didn’t even have a tiny piece of land to call their own.”143

256  Collapse of feudalism Along with land reform came tax reform. Farmers used to do farming without having to pay taxes when land was public. Later, they were required to submit one-tenth or even one-third of total harvests as taxes, which constituted a heavy burden on farmers. However, in a feudal society, those farmers were only obliged to serve landowners. As public ownership gave way to land taxation imposed by the authorities, things worked quite differently. Land was used for trading, so, the hard-working farmers who heavily relied on it had no choice but to be tenant farmers instead. The only concern of extravagant landlords was getting more land. Their appetite was insatiable, no matter how much wealth and land they had gained. Small landlords aspired to be big landlords, and big landlords sought to be even bigger ones. They never cared about the well-being of the farmers who worked for them; on the contrary, they exploited those poor farmers to the utmost so as to amass more wealth for themselves. They were disaffected with the tax policy of the top leadership and reluctant to pay a share of their own money to the authorities. Thus, they came up with the idea of putting pressure on the shoulders of farmers who had been tied down by the unprecedented shackles of taxes to their landlords as well as the authorities. As a result, farmers found themselves languishing in abject poverty. They were plagued by the five-tenth rate of the total harvests as they had to pay not only taxes to landlords as well as individual taxes to the top ruler. According to Dong Zhongshu, “land tax and individual tax and expenditure on salt and iron altogether were twenty times higher than before.”144 After the first emperor of the Han (汉) Dynasty conquered Qin and took over its land, he abolished Qin’s repressive policies, relaxed land taxes and levied a tax of one-fifteenth instead.145 This highlights the exorbitant taxes and suffering of farmers during the Qin Dynasty.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9

Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Huan·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Thirty-two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annalsn·Xi·Twenty-four to Twenty-five. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Twenty-two to Twenty-six. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·Six. During the eighth year of Duke Dao’s reign, Jin already had four armies (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Eight); during the 14th year of his reign, the new army was disbanded, and three armies remained (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Fourteen). During the eighth year of Duke Wen’s reign, Jin had five armies to fend off “barbarians” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirty-one); during the fifth year of Duke Xiang’s reign, two armies were disbanded, and three remained (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Wen·Six). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Three.

Collapse of feudalism  257

258  Collapse of feudalism

Collapse of feudalism  259

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Duke Li of Jin was killed by Cheng Hua, who had been instigated by bureaucrats of Luan Shu and Zhongxingyan to do so; Du Yu added through annotation that “when the ruler was corrupt, the men who killed the ruler were not named.” Du Yu’s claim is not convincing. In a previous case, Duke Ling of Jin had been a corrupt prince, but the murderer was named nevertheless (Cheng·Eighteen); Cui Zhu killed Duke Zhuang of Qi (Xiang·Twenty-five); Ningxi killed Duke Shang of Wei (Xiang·Twenty-six); Chen Qi killed the prince of Qi (齐) (Ai·Six). The Records of the Historian·Fifteen·Annals of Six States. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Five. The Records of the Historian·Thirty-nine·Family of Jin. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Twelve; The Records of the Historian·Thirty-three·Family of Duke Zhou of Lu; The Records of the Historian·Forty-seven·Family of Confucius. The Records of the Historian·Thirty-three·Family of Duke Zhou of Lu. The Records of the Historian·Thirty-nine·Family of Jin. The Records of the Historian·Thirty-three·Family of Duke Zhou of Lu. The Records of the Historian·Thirty-nine·Family of Jin; The Records of the Historian·Forty-three·Family of Zhao; The Records of the Historian·Forty-four·Family of Wei; The Records of the Historian·Forty-five·Family of Han. The Records of the Historian·Family of Taigong of Qi; The Records of the Historian·Family of Tianjingzhongwan. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Eight; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annal.s·Ding·Eight. “During the seventh reigning year of Duke Ding of Lu, the State of Qi (齐) returned the places of Yun and Yangguan, and Yanghu governed them thereafter” (Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals). “Yanghu was in charge of affairs within the Jisun family while Jisun was in charge of state affairs in Lu” (Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Eight). Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Six. ibid. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Eight; Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ding·Eight. Analects·Ji Family. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Nine. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Twenty-five; Discourses on Governance of the States·Zhou Yu II. Mencius·Gaozi II. Analects·Ji Family. Summary of the Spring and Autumn Period. Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·One; Gongyang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten. Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten; Guliang’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Cheng·Fifteen. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhao·Nine. Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·Ten. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Zhuang·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Min·Two. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Yin·One. Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xi·Thirty-one.

260  Collapse of feudalism





















Collapse of feudalism  261 113 The Records of the Historian·Qin; Six·First Emperor of Qin; Fourteen·Annals of Twelve Princes; Fifteen·Annals of Six States; Family of Duke Zhao of Yan; Family of Kangshu of Wei; Family of Chu; Family Zhao; Family of Wei; Family of Han; Family of Tianjingzhongwan; The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-eight I·Geography I; and Prefectures in Qin, Guantang Collection (Vol. 12, pp. 8–12) and Wang Zhongque Collection I by Wang Guowei; According to Wang Guowei, “during the ninth year of King Huiwen’s reign (i.e., during the ninth year after Duke Huiwen of Qin called himself king), Sima Cuo attacked and conquered the place of Shu, which was soon annexed by Qin as one of its prefectures.” The History of the Han Dynasty·Geography also described Shu as Qin’s prefecture. The Records of the Historian·Qin and The Records of the Historian·Annals of Six States recorded that Sima Cuo conquered Shu but did not mention that it became Qin’s prefecture. But, in fact, the State of Qin’s universal practice that any conquered state would be made its prefecture since Wei contributed fifteen counties in the prefecture of Shang to Qin, so Shu was no exception. Likewise, after Zhao was conquered by Qin, Zhao became Qin’s prefecture, even though The Records of the Historian did not say so. As The Records of the Historian·Fifteen·Family of Wei and The Records of the Historian·Family of Tianjingzhongwan put it, Wei and Qi were both acquired as prefectures by Qin; the exact names of the prefectures were not provided. According to The History of the Han Dynasty·Geography, they were three prefectures called Handan, Julu and Langya. This chapter only includes Qin’s prefectures, whose dates of establishment were recorded; there were also many whose establishment dates were not recorded (see Prefectures in Qin by Wang Guowei). 114 The Records of the Historian·Six·First Emperor of Qin. 115 Ibid. 116 “Remarks of Wang Wan, Feng Jie and Li Si” in The Records of the Historian·Six·First Emperor of Qin. 117 The Records of the Historian·Six·First Emperor of Qin. 118 The Records of the Historian·One hundred and twenty-nine·Business and Trade·Zigong. 119 The Records of the Historian·Business and Trade·Fan Li. 120 The Records of the Historian·Eighty-five·Lv Buwei. 121 The Records of the Historian·Forty-one·Family of Gou Jian, the Prince of Yue. 122 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xiang·Nine. 123 The Records of the Historian·Forty-one·Family of Gou Jian, the Prince of Yue; The Records of the Historian·One hundred and twenty-nine·Business and Trade·Fan Li; according to the former, Pei Yin, in his Analysis of History, quoted “hundreds of millions of copper coins were accumulated” by Xu Guang. 124 The Records of the Historian·Eighty-five·Lv Buwei. 125 The Records of the Historian·One hundred and twenty-nine·Business and Trade·Fan Li. 126 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Xuan·Fifteen. 127 Zuo’s Commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals·Ai·One; Discourses on Governance of the States·Lu Yu II. 128 Analects·Yanyuan. 129 The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-four I·Food and Commodities I. 130 The Records of the Historian·Qin; The Records of the Historian·Sixty-eight·Rulers in Shang; remarks of Ban Gu and Dong Zhongshu in The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-four I·History of Economy I. 131 General Analysis of Historical Documents·One·Land Taxes. 132 The Records of the Historian·Sixty-eight·Rulers in Shang; Justice by Zhang Shoujie.

262  Collapse of feudalism 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Shangzi·Four·Lai Min Fifteen. Shangzi·Two·Suan Di Six. The Records of the Historian·Seven·Fan Jv and Cai Ze·Cai Ze. On Qian and Mo by Zhu Xi. The Book of Songs·Zhou Song·Chen Gong Zhi Shi·Yi Xi. The Book of Songs·Zhou Song·Min Yu Xiao Zi Zhi Shi·Zai Shan. The Records of the Historian·Qin. The Records of the Historian·Sixty-eight·Rulers in Shang. The History of the Han Dynasty·Twenty-four I·Food and Commodities I. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Conclusion

Feudalism came into shape incrementally rather than abruptly. It was established as a result of sweeping changes at all levels, economic, political, and social. Anything short of that would have meant a mere inception of feudalism instead of its entrenchment. This book argues that the Zhou Dynasty marked the official arrival of feudalism in China, according to the theory stated above and available historical documents. Economically speaking, the agricultural economy reached its peak during the Zhou Dynasty; relationships tied to land were the pillar of all social organisations. Politically, feudalism was widely adopted from the early Zhou Dynasty onwards. Some of the previous tribes still existed, but others were conquered by the Zhou Dynasty and turned into its states. Under princes there were ministers and bureaucrats, who were entitled to fiefs awarded by those princes. This hierarchy of classes bound by the practice of feoffment defined the feudal political system. Socially, classes and the patriarchal system were of vital importance. The class of nobles ranged from the king to scholar-officials: Namely, the privileged who enjoyed services and contributions from commoners. Among the less privileged classes of scholar-commoners, farmers, craftsmen and businessmen, farmers shouldered the heaviest burden through fulfilling their obligations. They farmed the lands of their owners and contributed foods in all seasons. They had to be ready whenever their owners asked them to provide labour or military services. In return for these services their owners granted them a plot of land to live on which would help them with their basic necessities. What they earned, however, was never more than that piece of land and necessities from their owners. Classes were so deeply entrenched that even when nobles tightened their grip on their privileges, commoners would fulfil their obligations faithfully and wholeheartedly. As a result, slaves and commoners only continued to work at the nobles’ mercy. In order to sustain the hierarchical system, the privileged and unprivileged were kept on two different rungs of the social ladder; they never mingled. There were also ranks within the privileged themselves; each had their

264  Conclusion own rights and obligations as well as specific customs, clothing and ornament. No arrogation was permitted. The patriarchal clan system was designed to sustain the feudal system. Only “Zongzi” (宗子), the eldest son of the first wife, was able to succeed to the throne to maintain territorial integrity and complete the administrative power of fief owners and rulers. Only when there was no eldest son of a first wife could younger sons or sons of concubines rise to power. Fittingly, the collapse of feudalism was also incremental. The Spring and Autumn Period marked the beginning of the end of feudalism in China, but the system did not completely fall apart until Qin (秦) unified China. During the process of its demise, classes were disrupted, states were annexed, commercial economy emerged and the land system was reformed. From the Spring and Autumn Period through to the Warring States Period, feudalism faced its inevitable demise. Its days in China were already numbered, and Qin was the force that officially put an end to it. Even without Qin, another power would eventually have done the same, replacing feudalism with a centralised power.

Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)

1910 (the second reigning year of Emperor Xuantong (宣统) in the Qing (清) Dynasty) Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖) was born on 12 July 1910 in Changsha (长沙), Hunan (湖南) Province. He was born in the year referred to as “Geng Xu (庚戌)” in the Chinese lunar calendar. He was named Tung-tsu1 because his grandfather Qu Hongji (瞿鸿禨) had also been born in the year Geng Xu sixty years earlier. His father, Qu Xuanzhi (瞿宣治), later served as the Republic of China’s ambassador to Switzerland and the Netherlands.

1911 (the third reigning year of Emperor Xuantong in the Qing Dynasty) Tung-tsu Chu moved with his family to Shanghai and finished his primary schooling there.

1924 Tung-tsu Chu moved to Beijing with his uncle Qu Xuanying (瞿宣颖). He studied first at Yuying (育英) Middle School and then at Huiwen (汇文) Middle School. He was home-schooled in ancient Chinese and history.

1928 Qu Tongzu’s mother died in Shanghai, so he returned to Shanghai and taught himself at home for one year.

1930 Tung-tsu Chu graduated from middle school and was admitted without examinations to Department of Sociology at Yenching (燕京) University to study sociology and history. He also took courses in politics, philosophy, psychology, economics and law. His studies there were influenced by

266  Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖) famed professors such as Wu Wenzao (吴文藻), Yang Kaidao (杨开道), Deng Zhicheng (邓之诚) and Hong Ye (洪业).

1932 Tung-tsu Chu married Zhao Zengjiu (赵曾玖), who was studying Chinese at Yenching University.

1934 Tung-tsu Chu graduated from Yenching University. His thesis, entitled “Feudalism in the Zhou Dynasty,” was published in the eighth volume of Sociology. In the same year, he was enrolled in the newly established graduate school at Yenching University and studied social history under the supervision of Professors Wu Wenzao and Yang Kaidao. He steeped himself in books on history and law, like Ancient Law and On Early Law and Custom by Sir Henry Sumner Maine; Outline of Historical Jurisprudence by Paul Vinogradoff; Crime and Custom in Savage Society by Bronisław Malinowski; Civilization and the Growth of Law by W.A. Robson; and Primitive Law by E. S. Hartland. He admired the brilliance of these studies and aspired to conduct his own research on the history of law in China.

1936 Tung-tsu Chu finished his thesis, entitled “Feudalism in China,” based on his bachelor’s thesis, and earned a degree of Master of Arts.

1937 The History of Chinese Feudal Society was published by The Commercial Press and was recommended as a reference book for courses on the history of society in universities. The book was co-translated into Japanese by Tajima Taihei and Odake Takeo, and was published by Tokyo Seikatsusha Network in 1942.

1938 Upon the outbreak of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, Tung-tsu Chu moved to Chongqing (重庆) alone.

1939 During the summer, at the invitation of Professor Wu Wenzao, Tung-tsu Chu accepted a teaching position at Yunnan (云南) University. He was employed as a faculty member by three departments of sociology, politics and

Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)  267 economics and law, teaching three courses: “History of Society in China”, “History of Economics in China” and “History of Law in China”. He started as a lecturer, then worked as an associate professor and a professor. In 1944, he taught a class on “the History of Society in China” at Southwest United University in Yunnan Province. In preparing and teaching this course, he read volumes of books on legal codes, penal codes of past dynasties, “Ten Classics,” compendiums of ancient governments and social institutions, and ancient laws. He finished writing the book Law and Society in Traditional China during that period.

1944 At the invitation of K. A.Wittfogel and with the help of Fei Xiaotong (费 孝通), Tung-tsu Chu and his family visited America by way of India. In March 1945, he arrived at Columbia University and began his studies on the history of society in the Chinese history office co-founded by Columbia University and Washington University, where he finished research on the history of society in the Han (汉) Dynasty and took courses in the departments of sociology and anthropology, including R. M. Maciver’s Factor of Social Change, R. M. Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure, Theodore Abel’s Sociology in Europe, R. S. Lynd’s Authority in America, S. M. Lipset’s Class Stratification, Ralph Linton’s Anthropology, Ruth Benedict’s Culture and Personality and A. L. Kroeber’s Anthropology. He finished the English version of Law and Society in Traditional China with assistance from the library of Columbia University, fulfilling his ambition to use materials from Criminal Law in the Song Dynasty, which was not available to him during his writing of the original Chinese version in Kunming (昆明), Yunnan Province, China.

1947 Law and Society in Traditional China was included in A Collection of Sociology, edited by Professor Wu Wenzao and published by The Commercial Press.

1948 Tung-tsu Chu completed his “The Confucianisation of Law” in honour of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Peking University. He received a volume of Papers in Honour of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of Peking University (Peking University Press, 1948). In summer, he was invited by Washington University and gave a lecture on “Gentlemen in the Qing ( 清) Dynasty” at the Far Eastern Department; this lecture peaked Peking University experts’ interests in the issue of gentlemen in ancient China.

268  Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)

1953 The Chinese history office at Columbia University lost its funding, so Tungtsu Chu was forced to leave.

1954 Tung-tsu Chu attended seminars on “Chinese Thought and Political System,” organised by American sinologists, including J. K. Fairbank. He submitted a paper titled “Chinese Class Structure and Its Ideology,” which was included in Chinese Thought and Institution, edited by Fairbank (the University of Chicago Press, 1957), and later included in Sociology and History, compiled by two professors at Rutgers University.

1955 Tung-tsu Chu was invited to Harvard University as a researcher to research Chinese history at Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies (originally called The Centre for East Asian Research). He co-instructed students in the course of Chinese law with Professor Yang Liansheng (杨联陞) and Professor Arthur von Mehren from Harvard Law School. In order to further his study on the history of law in China, he attended courses on the sociology of religion by Talcott Parsons and the history of British law by Professor S. E. Throne from Harvard Law School.

1960 He finished translating into English a dozen Chinese essays from the Tang (唐) and Song (宋) dynasties; they were later included in Sources of Chinese Tradition, edited by William Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom (Columbia University Press).

1961 The English version of Law and Society in Traditional China was published by Maison d'édition Mouton-Duvernet (located both in Paris and Hague) as one volume of a series called Overseas World: Past and Present, compiled by École pratique des hautes études and Institute of Economic and Social Development Studies at Université de Paris. This book was highly acclaimed by three important journals: (1) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, Vol. 25, 1962; (2) American Historical Review, Edition 2, Vol. 68, 1963; and (3) Harvard Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 24, 1963.

1962 At the invitation of Professor William Holland, Tung-tsu Chu went to serve as an associate professor and taught General History of China and ancient Chinese in the Department of Asian Studies at University of British

Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)  269 Columbia in Canada. Local Government in China under the Ch’ing, which he finished at Harvard, was published by Harvard University Press. The book was lauded in 1963 by America’s Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, and The American Historical Review, Edition 2, Vol. 68.

1965 In autumn Tung-tsu Chu resigned from University of British Columbia and returned to China via Europe. In the summer of 1966, the Oversea Chinese Affairs Commission asked him to go to Hunan, his home province, to wait for assignment.

1971 Tung-tsu Chu was assigned to work as a staff member at the Research Institute of Culture and History in Hunan Province. Unfortunately, as China was experiencing its ten-year Cultural Revolution, he was asked to involve himself only in political study and therefore was unable to find time and freedom to do his own research.

1972 The English version of Han Social Structure was published by University of Washington Press. The book was acclaimed by Journal of Asian History in West Germany as “a model of the greatest academic achievement in contemporary China because it presented a remarkably thorough picture of a complex and important research field.”

1976 The Eden Memoirs (co-translated with his wife Zhao Zengjiu) was published by The Commercial Press. Tung-tsu Chu went to the Institute of Modern History Studies at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on secondment and compiled and translated The Stilwell Papers. His wife Zhao Zengjiu died of illness that year.

1978 Tung-tsu Chu became a regular employee at the Institute of Modern History Studies at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in order to research law of the Qing Dynasty. The Chinese version of The Stilwell Papers was published by Zhonghua (中华) Book Company.

1979 Tung-tsu Chu became a council member of Chinese Association of Sociology.

270  Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)

1980 As a delegate of a visiting group of Chinese historians (headed by Xia Nai 夏 鼐), Tung-tsu Chu attended the 15th Session of International Congress of Historical Sciences in Bucharest, Romania. He was invited to the 27th Session of European Association of Chinese Studies Congress in Zurich, Switzerland, which lasted from 1–5 September. He presented a paper titled “Qing Law: An Analysis of Continuity and Change.” His speech was published in the third volume of Social Sciences in China (English version) in 1980. Its Chinese version was published in the fourth volume in History Studies in 1980 and was included in A Collection of Law Studies on China (Law Press, 1984).

1981 A revised edition of Law and Society in Traditional China was published by Zhonghua Book Company and reprinted in 1996. Tung-tsu Chu began to serve as a member of and then as an advisor to a planning panel under the State Council of China, responsible for organising and publishing ancient classics.

1983 From October to November, the University of Hong Kong invited Tung-tsu Chu to give a lecture titled “The Role of Law in Chinese Society: A Historical Survey” as part of an event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Fung Ping Shan (冯平山) Library. The transcript of his lecture was published in 1988 in the fourth volume of Law in China and Abroad, a journal hosted by Law School of Peking University; it was awarded a special prize in December 1988 in the competition held upon the tenth anniversary of the journal Law in China and Abroad. He gave lectures for three weeks in the departments of Chinese and history at the University of Hong Kong and delivered a speech titled “Qing Judiciary” in English. He was selected as an advisor to Chinese Law History Society.

1984 Tung-tsu Chu was invited to write entries on “rites” and “mourning system” in Encyclopedia of China. He was appointed as an advisor to the Council of Marriage Law in China Law Society.

1985 From January to April, Tung-tsu Chu visited America for academic activities at the invitation of the United States’ senior scholar programme sponsored by “Committee on Scholarly Communications with the People’s

Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)  271 Republic of China.” He delivered a series of lectures titled “Confucianism and the Development of Chinese Law, the Role of Law in Chinese Society: A Historical Survey” and “The Mourning System in China” at Washington University, Chicago University and Harvard University. He also visited Columbia University and Princeton University to exchange academic ideas with his American counterparts. He was granted a lifelong tenure by the Chinese government.

1989 As seminar chairman, Tung-tsu Chu presided over the International Seminar on the History of Law in China, co-hosted by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Hua Xia (华夏) Institute.

1997 Tung-tsu Chu wrote an autobiographical article titled “Social History, Legal History and Me” at the invitation of Zhonghua Book Company; the article was included in Scholars and Their Studies（《学林春秋》）, published by Zhonghua Book Company. He was appointed as an advisor to A Collection of Law Studies in the 20th Century China, compiled by China University of Political Science and Law（中国政法大学）.

1998 Tung-tsu Chu was invited by the Department of Philosophy, Peking University, to write a preface to Law and Society in Traditional China, one of thirty books in the recommended list for undergraduates. A Collection of Law Studies by Tung-tsu Chu was published by Press of China University of Political Science and Law. It was revised and reprinted in 2004.

2004 The Chinese version of Local Government in China under the Ch’ing (translated by Fan Zhongxin 范忠信) was published by Law Press.

2006 Tung-tsu Chu was granted the title “Honourary Member of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.”

2007 The Chinese version of Tung-tsu Chu’s Han Social Structure (translated by Qiu Libo 邱立波) was published by Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

272  Academic chronology of Tung-tsu Chu (瞿同祖)

2008 Tung-tsu Chu died of illness in Beijing on 3 October.

Note 1 Translator’s note: The given name “Tung-tsu” literally means “the same year as grandpa according to the combination of Chinese ten Heavenly Stems and twelve Earthly Branches.” This academic chronology was supplied by Wang Jian, a scholar from China’s Northwest University of Political Science and Law.

Index

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Adams, G. B. 2 agricultural economy 7–11, 110, 263 animal husbandry 7–11, 15 appellations 31 armed forces 242 Ban Gu 56, 104 Bao Shu 150 “barbarian” tribes 159–160 “baron” title 47 bi organisation 221 birthright 111, 115 Bloch, Marc 2 Bo Chen 73 The Book of Rites 111–113, 120, 130, 133, 139, 191, 198–199 Boyu 238 bureaucrats 142–148, 196, 212, 215, 238, 239, 243; carriages 202 Characters from Yin Ruins 8 Cheng, King 11, 31, 33, 35, 38, 155 Cheng Yaotian 113 Chinese Civilization 211 civic officials 219 close descent system 110 commercial economy 251–252 commoners: businessmen 153–154, 187, 188; classification 151; craftsmen 153, 187, 188; farmers 152–153; feudal politics 215–219; labourers 187; obligations 172–186; rights 186; scholar commoners 152; selfsufficiency 153; settlements 186; slaves 187; State of Jin 153–154; weeding and tillage 188

completion: feoffment 27–29; feudal territories sizes (see feudal territories sizes); princes ranks 43–55; princes versus king (see princes versus king); princes with different surnames 38–43; princes with same surnames 29–37; Wang Ji 27 Confucianism 139–140 Confucianist scholar 38, 43, 102, 139, 149, 254, 255 Confucius 190, 192, 202, 215, 244 construction service 179–180 “count” title 45–46 crop planting 7 death 197–199 Dong Zhongshu 255 Duke Dan of Zhou 10, 11, 49, 110, 114 “duke” title 44 Duke Zhuang of Lu 47–48, 71 Duke Zhuang of Zheng 78, 90 Eastern Zhou 238, 248 economic development stages 8 Encyclopedia Britannica 1, 2 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 2 enfeoffment 23, 29, 32, 36, 38, 55, 90 equal and free society versus stratified society 19–20 equal inheritance 16–19 Fanwen, Viscount 217, 226 Fanxuan, Viscount 144 farmer-landowner relations 172 farmers’ rights 186 farmers’ services 182

274 Index farmers’ subordination 172 farming replacement 172–177, 183, 252 Feizi 34 Feng Juan 181 feoffment 1, 4, 27–29, 52, 248 feudal classes I: The Book of Rites 139; bureaucrats 142–148; commoners 151–155; Confucianism 139–140; Filial Piety 139; The king 140–142; landowners’ ownership 140; ministers 142–148; Mozi 139; princes 142; scholars 148–151; slaves (see slaves); social system 139 feudal classes II: clothing and implements 200–203; commoners (see commoners); death 197–199; farmers’ rights 186; feudal society 188; funerals 199–200; marriage 193–197; nobles superiority 171–172; sacrificial rituals 189–193; social relationships 171 feudalism 1; classes disintegration 236– 244; commercial economy 251–252; completion (see completion); features 2; fiefs 246, 247; formation (see social organisations and functions); land reform 252–256; land system (see land system); moral integrity 247; “move a state” 245; non-privileged people 2; obligations 2; occupy a state 246; patriarchal clan system (see patriarchal clan system); privileged people 2; reciprocal rights 1–2; Shou Wei Jian 249–250; unification 250; warfare acceleration, collapse 244; Warring States Period 247, 248 feudal politics 171; autumn 228; commoners 215–219; fiscal system 229–231; military system (see military system); officials 212–215; polarisation 210–211; spring 227–228; submission among classes 211–212; summer 228; winter 228–229 feudal society law 90 feudal territories sizes 92; bronze inscription 55, 59, 61; “fief,” enfeoffed land measurement 55, 58, 60; Han Dynasty 56; The Rites of Zhou 55–57, 59; San Family Plate 55; Spring and Autumn Period 62; “tian,” enfeoffed land measurement 55, 57–58, 60 fief owners: allodium 90; feudal officials 95; feudal society law 90; feudal territories sizes 92; higher scholarofficial 93; King’s System 92–93; land and cities grants 91; land usage 97;

leadership 90; lower scholar-official 93–94; mid-scholar-official 93, 94; private land 97; public land 96–97; social status 92; wasteland 97 fiefs 246, 247; enfeoffed land measurement 55, 58, 60 Filial Piety 139 fiscal system: food income 229; market taxes 231; mining resources 230–231; sacrificial rituals 230; tariffs 231 funerals 199–200 Gongsun Duan 57 Gongsun Mianyu 95 Gongyang 75, 77, 190, 198, 239, 245 Gou Jian 34 Granet, Marcel 211 Guanshefu 127, 191, 192, 203 Guan Shuxian 29 Guanzi 61, 62, 94, 150, 153, 182–183, 187, 201, 219–221, 229–230 Guliang 76, 196, 221, 245 Guo Moruo 5, 9, 19, 51 Gu Tinglin 147 Han Dynasty 3, 5, 56, 100 Hanxuan, Viscount 154, 155 Hebei Province 11 Henan Province 8, 11, 13 higher scholar-official 93 Huan, King 65, 69, 74, 226, 237 Hu Hanmin 101 Hui, King 73–74, 248 Hu Shi 100–102 imperial courts 238 inheritance: equal 111; laws 115–121, 133; and marriage 111–114; order 127 Jiang Shangfu 32, 39, 40, 43 Jiao Ji 190 Jing, King 67, 68, 236–237 Jikang, Viscount 151 Ji Rongwu 161 Jisun Si 144 Junior Zong 122–123, 124 King’s System 126–127, 146, 149–150, 191 Kötzsehke, Rudolf 2 land-allotting system 97–105 landownership 1, 2, 20, 107n42, 172, 210 land reform 252–256 land system: fief owners (see fief owners); forbidden from division

Index  275 105; forbidden from transaction and transfer 105–106; land-allotting system 97–105; “Nine Squares” system 97–105 Laozi 186 Levett, A. E. 2 Liao Zhongkai 101 Li, King 40, 217 Ling, King 43, 76, 77, 128, 184, 194 Ling Yi 52 Li Si 250 Liu E 5 Liu Zongyuan 39 livestock breeding 8 lower scholar-official 93–94 Luan Ying 145 Luo Zhenyu 5, 20n1 Luqin Platform 184 Lv Zhenyu 101 Ma Duanlin 40, 41 Maine, Henry S. 1–2, 15, 16, 19, 111 Mao Gong Ding 73 Marquis of Qi 194–195 “marquis” title 44–45 marriage: blood relations 129; The Book of Rites 130; family name 129–130; feudal classes II 193–197; feudal implication 127; inheritance order 127; and inheritance system 111–114; man’s family background 128; royal and princes’ family 78; Ying system 128–129; Zhao-Mu order 131 maternal elder uncles 31 maternal younger brothers 30 maternal younger uncles 31 Mencius 38, 39, 43, 54, 61, 62, 70, 92–94, 97, 98, 101, 139, 149 mid-scholar-official 93, 94 military service: The Book of Songs 181, 184; crops 185; draconian rules 186; farmers’ services 182; farming replacement 183; Luqin Platform 184; training and exercises 182; tribes/ ethnic groups 181 military system: armed forces 223–227; census and land survey 219–221; countryside 221–223; drills and parades 227; organisation 221–223 mining resources 230–231 ministers 142–148, 212, 215, 238, 243 monetary economy 251–252 Mourning 132, 133 Mozi 139, 161

“Nine Squares” system 97–105, 98, 101, 253 nomadic economy 110 nomadic life 11–14, 12, 13 obligations, commoners: construction service 179–180; farming replacement 172–177; military service 181–186; payments in kind 177–179 one-person succession system 111 Pan Geng, King 9, 11, 14, 15 patriarchal clan system 18, 264; agricultural economy 110; The Book of Rites says 111; close descent system 110; equal inheritance 111; feudal political system 110; funerals 132–134; inheritance laws 115–121; inheritance system 111–114; marriage 111–114, 127–131; nomadic economy 110; one-person succession system 111; sacrificial rituals 122–127, 124; Western European feudal society 111 patrilineal primogeniture 16–19 payments in kind: clothing 177; food 177–178; ice 178–179 Ping, King 14, 35, 36, 76, 116, 180 political decision-making 243 political power 201–202 princes ranks: baron 47, 49; count 45–46; demotion 47–48; duke 44, 49–50; Inner Fu 53; marquis 44–45; Outer Fu 53–54; Theory of Five Fu 51–52; Theory of Nine Fu 51–52; viscount 46–49; Wang Ji 53–54; Zhou Dynasty 55 princes versus king: celebrations and funerals 75–78; inspection 70; king courtiers 78; labour services 65–66; military service 66–69; paid tribute 65; pay homage 70–71; pledged services 63–65; political conditions 71; rewards 71–75; royal and princes’ family marriage 78; Wang Ji 63; worship 71 private land 97, 103 private ownership 16, 96 public land 96–97, 253 public ownership 15–16 Qi, King 11, 14, 16 Qin Dynasty 5 Qing, King 75–76

276 Index The Records of the Historian 32, 35 The Rites of Zhou 38, 55–57, 59, 63, 105, 223 Rong Geng 5 sacrificial rituals 133, 230, 253; feudal classes II 189–193; fiscal system 230; Junior Zong 122–123, 124; King’s System 126–127; Senior Zong 122–123, 124; Temple Tiao 123; Zhao-Mu system 123–125; Zongzi superiority 126 scholars 148–151 Seebohm, F. 15, 19 Senior Zong 122–123, 124 settled life 14–15 Shaanxi Province 13 Shandong Province 11 Shang Clan, migration route 11–12, 13 Shang Dynasty 4, 5, 8, 10–12, 15, 18, 19, 32, 33, 214 Shen Wuyu 162 Shi Ben 40 Shi Hui 73 Shi Kuifu 73 Shi Tangfu 73 Shi Wei 142–143 Shu Sun 146 Shusun Muzi 142 Shu Xiang 146 Shu Yi 73 Sima Qian 42 slaves 20; “barbarian” tribes 159–160; criminals 159; offspring 160–162; prisoners of war 155–159; sources 155; State of Jin 159 social affairs 1 social inequity 1 social mobility 236 social organisations and functions 1; agricultural economy 7–11; animal husbandry 7–11; equal and free society versus stratified society 19–20; equal inheritance 16–19; nomadic life 11–14, 12, 13; patrilineal primogeniture 16–19; private ownership 16; public ownership 15–16; settled life 14–15 soil fertility 14 State of Cai 42 State of Chen 32, 218 State of Chu 43, 57 State of Ji 34 State of Jiao 34

State of Jin 42, 117, 148, 159, 214, 226, 241 State of Lu 39, 42, 125 State of Qi 32–33, 128, 238–240 State of Qin 43, 118 State of Teng 42 State of Wei 42, 240 State of Wu 38, 42, 162 State of Xu 42 State of Xue 42 State of Yin 32 State of Yue 35, 42 State of Zheng 42, 155, 162, 214, 237 State of Zhu 34 Suiren duties 99, 108n64 Sunwen, Viscount 145 Sun Yirang 5 Tao Xisheng 3 Temple Tiao 123 territorial sovereignty 1 Theory of Five Fu 51–52 Theory of Nine Fu 51–52 “tian,” enfeoffed land measurement 55, 57–58, 60 township organisation 222 tribal system 15 Tung-tsu Chu 265–272 Vinogradoff, P. 1–3, 15 “viscount” title 46–47 Wang Guowei 5, 18, 56 Wang Ji 27, 34, 191 Wangshu Chensheng 238 Wang Yirong 5 Warring States Period 4, 5, 43, 101, 247, 248, 251 Wei Jiang 145 Wei Qijiang 61 Wei, Viscount 33, 35, 36, 40 Wei Xian, Viscount 144 Wei Zhao 104, 213 Wen, King 10, 30–31, 39, 40, 123, 125–126, 180, 250 Western European feudal society 111 Western Zhou 238, 248 Wu, King 4, 10, 14, 20, 29, 31–36, 32, 38, 123, 125–126, 156 Xia Clan, migration route 11, 12 Xia Dynasty 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 214 Xiafu Fuji 125–126 Xian Gao 153

Index  277 Xiang, King 30, 67–68, 72–74, 198, 200, 236 Xiaositu duties 99, 109n64 Xi Zhi 57, 59 Xuan, King 31, 38, 40, 146–147, 172, 174, 180, 219 Xunzi 41–42 Yanhuan, Viscount 128 Yanzi 97, 150, 155, 182–184, 187 Yi, King 14 Yin Dynasty 3–5, 8–10, 16, 20 Yin Gaozong 10 Ying system 128–129 Yi Zhou Shu 187 Youji 144 Zang Xibo 147, 200–201 Zhanqin 126

Zhao Dun 144 Zhaojian, Viscount 60, 91, 92, 103, 145 Zhao, King 36, 37, 116, 191 Zhao Meng 144 Zhao-Mu system 123–125, 131, 133 Zhong Shanfu 219 Zhou Dynasty 2–5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 32, 38–39, 114, 156, 263 Zhou, King 18, 32, 33, 156, 218 Zhu Xi 38, 100, 254–255 Zichan 64–65, 161, 189, 213, 216–217 Zi Jiaju 202 Zimu 225 Zinang 187 Zixia 150 Zizhan 77, 91, 143, 145, 155 Zujia, King 10 Zuo Qiuming 48, 59, 65, 75, 224, 225 Zu Xin, King 18