Excursions in Sinology

Citation preview

Excursions in Sinology

HARVARD-YENCHING

INSTITUTE

STUDIES

by L I E N- S HE NG Y A N G

H A R V A R D U N I V E R S I T Y PRES S CAMBRIDGE-MASSACHUSETTS

XXIV

© Copyright 1969 by the H arvard-Yenching Institute Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Library o f Congress Catalog Card Number 68-25621 Printed in the United States o f America

To the memory of C.\i a r i.k s Si d n k v G ar n nkr ( 1 9 0 0 - 1 966)

gentleman, scholar. friend who introduced me to Western sinologs a nd V A.

M a r g a r e t B ill G a r d n e r ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 6 7 )

gracious, ir/V/v, «m/ virtuous lads ?£' •&' ^ are also found in the Analects, where such people are labeled “ small men” by Con­ fucius, although he did give them a grade of “ fair” following what may be called the “ excellent” and the “ good . ” 47 Here we note a sig­ nificant difference between the ethical code of the knight-errant and that of Confucius. The difference comes from the objection raised by Confucianists to the word “ always” in the description. Mencius makes this clear when he says, “ The great man does not insist that his words should always be sincere and trustworthy, or that his action always be quick and decisive. He only speaks and acts according to what is right . ” 48 The word for “ what is right” is i, i.e., righteousness or the right decision after deliberation. Compare the character i, “ to discuss, to deliber­ ate,” in which i, “ righteousness,” is a phonetic but probably also a signific component. Commenting on the Mencius passage, the Han Confucianist Chao Ch’i says: “ The great man sticks to what is right, which may not always require sincere words or decisive action. An example for the former is that a son may lie to conceal his father’s stealing . 49 One for the latter is that one should not promise his own life to a friend while his own parents are alive . ” 50 These examples are excellent illustra­ tions of filial piety put above sincerity, and universalism modified by particularism. In the ethical code of the knight-errant, the principle of response is universalistic. He is determined to repay every meal served with kindness and to return every angry glance from the eyes of another person, irrespective of whether the latter is a gentleman or a small man, a relative or a stranger. The Confucian gentleman, however, refuses to fight against an unreasonable person, whom he compares with a mere brute. That is why Confucianists in ancient China were known as “ weaklings,” which was the original meaning of the word ju .bl Among leading Confucianists in ancient China, Mencius is espe­ cially famous for his advocacy of the principle of i, the desirability of doing what is exactly right. He applied the principle in a very deliber­ ate and delicate manner, as is illustrated in the following example: A prince who w^as serving as the guardian of a neighboring state, and I 18 ]

a minister of another state, independently sent presents to Mencius, who accepted both blit in neither case returned the courtesy. Later, when Mencius went to the respective neighboring states, he paid a visit to the prince but not to the minister. This difference in response puzzled a disciple, who asked Mencius whether it was because the minister was merely a minister. Mencius said, “ No,” and hinted that the minister’s presents had not been accompanied with sufficient re­ spect. The disciple then realized that, as the guardian of a state, the prince could not leave it to pay a visit in another. There was no rea­ son, however, why the minister should not have paid his respects to Mencius in person.52 This kind of deliberate and delicate response was obviously in­ tended to provoke the thought not only of the disciples but also of the person involved. Because no response is also a kind of response, one who expected a response from a gentleman but received none should begin to reflect upon himself. In this light we may interpret the remark of Mencius that his refusal to teach somebody was also a way of teaching him .53 Such a deliberate and delicate way of response is not characteristic of the realist Hstin-tzu. On the other hand, Hsiin-tzu’s teaching was rather close to universalism in his emphasis on the institutional as­ pects of life, such as the observation of mourning periods and the making of sacrificial offerings. It was not accidental that among his pupils we find the Legalist Han Fei-tzu, who advocated a uniform law for the whole empire. There is a sharp contrast between this universalistic concept of fa, or law, and the Confucianist concept of li, propriety or the way of life of the gentleman (for the gentlemen only ) , 54 or the concept of i, i.e., what is right after deliberation, or as one might say, particularistic righteousness. This difference in ethical codes of course had its social background. If we remember that in Chou times the term chun-tzu referred to nobles as well as to gentlemen, and hsiao-jen to commoners as well as to small people, we can easily reach the conclusion that the dual standard of ethics arose from a two-class society. In early Chou times, the person who had a noble status and the person who had gentlemanly virtue were believed to be normally if not invariably identical. The same identification was applied to the commoner and the small man. The gentleman and the small man each had his own moral standard. With the decline of the Chou feudal order, the social classes and their respective ways of fife, including their moral stand­ ards, ceased to correspond. This became noticeable by the time of

Confucius, when the words chun-tzu and hsiao-jen were used each in two distinct connotations. The knights-errant may have been nobles themselves. But, since they had lost their old status, the}' tended to identify themselves with the commoners, and their ethical code also blended with that of the commoners. 55 Another possible interpreta­ tion is that there may have been a difference between the ethical code of the knightly nobles and that of the gentlemanly nobles, which led subsequently to the different principles held by the knights-errant and by the Confucianists. But this could not have been much earlier than the time of Confucius, because this process of social differentia­ tion or specialization among the nobles had just begun in his time. In the early Chou period, the terms ‘‘knight” and “ gentleman” pointed to one and the same noble. In the twenty-one centuries after the fall of Chou and the unifica­ tion of China under the Ch’in dynasty in 221 b . c ., the imperial sys­ tem provided the superstructure of Chinese society, while the family system served as its basic unit. Duties to the emperor and to one’s parents therefore tended to receive increasing attention. Particular­ ism along these two lines became still more predominant, and the principle of reciprocity was further modified. Confucianism in this era was inclined to place one’s nominal status and role, ming-fen, above reality. The mere position of a ruler or a parent guaranteed his privilege to receive respect and service from his subject or son. In extreme cases, when a loyal official was punished for no reason, he might still say to his emperor, “ Your minister deserves his punish­ ment. Your majesty is sagacious and just . ” 56 To justify the absolute piety required from a son, Confucianists invented the sweeping gen­ eralization, “ There are no wrongdoing parents in the world . ” 57 The son or the subject was always the one to blame, no matter whether there was kindness from the parent or the ruler. The attitudes of early Confucianism toward the ruler and the par­ ent were different. For ill treatment from a ruler, Mencius approved retaliation with dissertion, disloyalty, or even rebellion.58 Tyranni­ cide was justified on the ground that in being tyrannical the ruler had reduced his own status to that of an isolated single individual.59 Mencius also permitted a filial son to murmur against his parent when the latter’s fault was great, the reason being that if the son responded to his father’s cruelty with indifference that would in­ crease the distance and alienation between them .60 Confucius also allowed a son to remonstrate wdth his parents, though he should do so only gently .61 The attitude of Confucius toward the ruler-subject re­ lationship could not have differed widely from that of Mencius .62 To

Confucius and Mencius the modifications made by later Confucianists would have seemed very strange. The imperial China which developed particularism and continued the dual standard of ethics was not a two-class society in any strict sense. Nevertheless, the term “ two-class society” may be applied to it in a loose sense, because the contrast between the literati-officials and the common people (or gentry and peasantry, as some writers would prefer) was quite striking. Still, we must remember, in any period of traditional China there were more small men than gentle­ men, because only a limited portion of the population could afford an education. For the not-so-well-educated small men, whose ethical code is preserved in proverbs and other forms of folklore, reciprocity was always the normal standard. Since it also served as a low but tol­ erable standard for the Confucianists, the principle provided a com­ mon ground for both gentlemen and small men— in other words, for the whole society. Here rests its real significance. In the last few decades, Chinese society has been undergoing a process of tremendous transformation or revolution, which has had far-reaching influence in many aspects of life. As yet, it is difficult to ascertain whether people will limit the wide application of the prin­ ciple of reciprocity or whether they will lose their high degree of con­ sciousness of the existence of the principle and, if so, to what extent. Under the influence of the ethical standards of the modem West, it is unlikely that the principle will continue to function in the same man­ ner, although it is also unlikely that the Chinese will wish entirely to abandon the principle as a basis for social relations.1 1. For a general discussion see Marcel Mauss, “Essai sur le don, forme archaique de r'u. Ilsia-pien 3.1a-2b. Also see “ The Origin of Twenty-eight Mansions in Astronomy ” by Coching C hu in Popular Astronomy 50 (1947). 1-17. 13 Also see R. S. B r it t o n , Fifty Shang Inscriptions (1940) 58.

S u m

(4) F ro m th e fa c t th a t in o th er in scrip tio n s th e tw e lfth m oon im m e d ia te ly p reced es th e first m o o n , w e co n clu d e th a t th is th ir ­ te e n th m oon w as in te rca la ted to a d ju st th e lu n ar to th e solar year. A cco rd in g to th e Yin-li p‘u, Hsia-pien 5 .9 a - l l a , th e th ir te e n th m oon had tw e n ty -n in e d a y s an d th e n e x t y e a r w a s th e fifty -first y ea r o f W u -tin g , or 1289 B. C . T h e o th e r p o ssib ility , t h a t th e th ir te e n th m oon h ad th ir ty d a y s an d th e first m o o n tw e n ty -n in e , d o es n o t fit in to a n y of th e fifty -n in e y ea r s in th e reign o f W u tin g . A n d th e n a m es o f th e d iv in ers on th is sh ell lim it its d a te to th e W u -tin g period . E x a m p le 7: L e ft p a rt of a p la stro n , N o . 4 .0 .2 7 8 (F o u rth e x c a v a ­ tio n ) , p u b lish ed in th e Yin-hsii wen-tzu chia-pien, PL 3 1 7 7 .

This specimen illustrates a six-column system of registering divination on ten-day periods. The portion preserved contains a column of nine inscriptions, each on a kuei-yu day. The whole shell may be reconstructed by adding to its right five columns on the other five kuei days. The inscriptions on the shell probably totaled fifty-four or sixty-six. Only the two inscriptions on the top are marked with months, the seventh and the fifth moon. This is not sufficient to deter­ mine the year because among the fifty-nine years under Wu-ting, twenty-four had a kuei-yu day in the seventh moon and also another in the fifth. But on the top corner there is an inscription asking whether Mei a wife of Wu-ting, will be lucky and give birth to a son. Probably the shell can be dated in the early part of Wu-ting’s reign. Example 8 : Obverse and reverse sides of the right half of a carapace, No. 1 3 .0 .1 4 0 4 8 . Carapaces were used only in halves.13 On the reverse, the five sections of words in reddish brown were written with a brush by an identified diviner of the Wu-ting period. These characters were 13 The use of carapaces was for a time not well known even among experts. Follow­ ing earlier authorities, Mr. Ts'ui Chi has made the incorrect assertion, “ The back shell was discarded and only the shell of the belly kept for divination ” (/I Short History oj Chinese Civilization [19431 23-24).

^ ^ 4JX

r

^

4* p £ &

^ T'

'-.N- *rf ' ct^kt 4'** iiV* £ > V * J 7 ' ^ ^ pM-; «2r> * r>V- vv* .7^ — *r.w 4 *2T c^T Q

^ -r- *-\Si, -wo M- J^, -77- ^ • ;-■ » ^jr / ^