Intrigues: Studies of the Chan-kuo tsʻe

Citation preview

INTRIGUES Studies of the Chan-kuo Ts’e

f

t

g) * INTRIGUES Studies o f the Chan-kuo Ts'e

J. I. Crump, Jr.

Ann Arbor

The University o f Michigan-4Tress

Copyright © by The University of Michigan 1964 All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 64-17440 Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press and simultaneously in Toronto, Canada, by Ambassador Books Limited Manufactured in the United States of America

Bbdk -dkign by Quentin Fiore

To my father and mother

Introduction

These studies translate a limited number of pieces from the Intrigues of the Warring States (Chan-kuo Ts’e) in the hope that they may be seen clearly for what they are— examples of superior Chinese prose. The selections are compared and examined for internal evidence of their writers9habits of mind. Imaginative writing of any period can be viewed simply as an allusive and indirect way to say much of what histories of the same period would put directly and without allusion. So the Intrigues can be used, with caution, to evoke a shadowy image of the times which pro­ duced it. Indeed, anyone trying to summarize the history of the War­ ring States has, in effect, used the Intrigues in this fashion. It is an exercise similar to drawing dot-and-number pictures. A t any given time you are tolerably sure of starting point and terminus; the shape of the line between them, though not exact, is controlled. Much is known about the eras which immediately precede the Warring States (the Later Chou dynasty and the CWun-ch’iu periods, 770-484 b .c .) and about the tendencies which probably remained in force; we also have well-substantiated facts about the unification of China under the Ch’in (221 b .c .). The line drawn between these two historical points (using the Intrigues as a guide) may waver a good deal, but its general shape should be acceptable. By the time (770 b .c .) the Chou dynasty settled in its eastern capital at Lo-yi (having been driven from its early center, west of Han-ku pass beside the Wei River, by a coalition of discontented barons and “barbarians”) tt hçtd developed all the characteristics which were to make it the most honored of Chinese ruling houses. A literature had grown up along certain philosophical and political lines which, though it was probably misinterpreted in part by the Chinese of three and four centuries later, was revered and looked upon as outlining the institu­ tions of a Golden Age. The social organization of the Chou dynasty— a complex quasifeudal system of relationships and honors among the aristocracy, rest­ ing on a rather supine peasant base— was probably fully developed by vii

INTRIGUES

770 b.c. and subsequent centuries were only to refine and finally stul­ tify it completely. But the behavior suitable to men of rank during the flourishing years of the Chou was to become the subject of much study and emulation in later centuries; political-philosophical speculations were adduced to explain the elaborate and ceremonial actions which were not well understood by all of what was to become China but which were clearly recognized as somehow being proper to the Chinese as opposed to “barbarians.” Figures in Chou history (or legend) were well known and speculated about. A s generations passed they were worn smooth by much handling, and with the sharpness of their indi­ vidual features erased they became symbols whose very names kindled complex ethical or regional feelings. Perhaps the most important fea­ ture of the Chou, however, which persisted long after 770 and the move to Lo-yi, was its aura of success, of vast accomplishment, of sanctity. Deserved or not, it loomed in the minds of men from the fifth to the second century b.c. whether they were conservative or radical in their tastes: if conservative, they were sustained by this aura and sought the reasons for such past greatness; if radical, they spent time discounting it and explaining it away or rendering it nugatory in one fashion or another. So, much of the writing which has come down to us from CKun-cKiu and Warring States times dwells on the grandeur that was Chou and the wonders that were her citizens. Among the tendencies which must have remained in force, we know that the means for the decline of Chou central control were well established before the eastward move. The figure of the hegemon (po) — dominant feature of the CKun-cKiu political landscape— is certainly already inherent in the very old Chou viceroy or prime min­ ister, the ch’ing-shih; and the very nature of feudal control implies a set of powerful barons who can be expected to assert claims in perpetuum over fiefs which theoretically they hold only at the hand of their liege. From there it is but a step to the incorporation of neighboring fiefs into something indistinguishable from a state. There is little doubt that this is exactly what happened during the era that is limited so sharply and artificially in the Spring and Autumn Annals, and continued throughout the period of the Warring States until one of these states subdued all the rest. The hegemon's history as a political goal is not clear: during the CKun-cKiu period he seems to be possible only as an extension of the Chou monarch— the hegemon by force of arms and persuasion draws upon what is left of feudal ideals to control the other barons. By the fifth century b.c., hegemony is often the professed goal of one or another of the seven remaining states, but outright territorial conquest viii

Introduction and subjugation is what is actually involved. No doubt the tradition of the hegemon and the continued shadowy existence of one and some­ times two “rulers of Chou” gave shape and handy excuse for the actions of what were, in fact as well as in name, the Warring States. Documentation and writing which had begun during the Chou proceeded to flourish as Chou central control declined. The larger, if not all, of the rapidly developing “states” kept their own records. The Ch’un-ch’iu (Spring and Autumn Annals) itself is doubtless a portion of the Lu records, and the so-called Bamboo Annals were probably court records from the state of Wei. In addition to these arid chronicles a remarkable “history,” now known as the Tso-chuan, seems somehow to have reached modern times. The teachings of Con­ fucius and other contemporary thinkers and their disciples fill out gaps in our knowledge of the CKun-cKiu era. However, for the period beginning roughly 440 b .c . and lasting until 200 b .c . we have an astonishingly small amount of documentary literature which comes unquestionably from this age. The CKin annals (as they are incorporated in the Shih-chi) cover it with a thin chronology and their genuine nature has never been seriously impugned. All other state records are thought to have been destroyed as a delib­ erate part of CKin policy. It is only sensible to assume that Ssu-ma CKien (d.ca. 90 b .c .) did his best to acquire and sift all the information on the past available to him when he wrote the Shih-chi. With this in mind it is perfectly clear that the period of history generally known as the Era of the Warring States (traditionally 453-221 B.c.) yields, for Ssu-ma CKien the historian, a very unsatisfactory amount and kind of historical raw material: “For the forces and changes of the Warring States, there are texts which can be put together— but how is one to be sure that they are of any antiquity?”x It seems reasonable to suppose that the pinch of short chronological rations felt by Ssu-ma CKien in his day (and which we still feel today) is attributable to wholesale destruction or loss of state records during the end of the Warring States era. It is almost a certainty that fhe source which allowed Ssu-ma CKien to write eleven separate biographies of prominent men of the Warring States, rich in details of speech and deed, was the Intrigues of the Warring States: more precisely, the existence of a mass of written material which was to be edited by Liu Hsiang (no later than 8 b .c .) and named by him the Chan-kuo Ts’e or Intrigues of the Warring States. 1 See E. Chavannes, Les Mémoires historiques de Se-ma Ts’ien (Paris, 18951905), 5/3 and 3/27.

ix

INTRIGUES

The present work treats selections from the contents of the Chan-kuo Ts’e to show the following: Indications of the transition from an age of feudal order to the relative freedom of opportunity provided by multiple and competitive states (Chapter I), the decay of supernatural restraints as this transition progressed (Chapter II), and attempts to apply rudimentary theories of chance and change to political careers (Chapter III). Chapter IV is a summary of Chinese attitudes toward the Chan-kuo Ts’e, showing their condemnation of its ethics and their praise of its prose. Chapter V deals with some of the forms which this prose took, Chapter V I with the relationship be­ tween the Intrigues’ rhetorical fiction and historical fact, Chapter V II with the manner in which its rhetoric was related to the genesis of Chinese literature. Finally, I have undertaken a theory to account for peculiarities of the Intrigues, using Western analogies (Chapter VIII), and I have discussed one Chinese account of the book's origins (Chapter IX). Since the Intrigues has played such a large role in written histories of early China, a decent respect for the opinions of historians is re­ quired of anyone who studies the work— whatever his tastes may be. The present studies were done with a shrewd awareness that rashly to remove a work from the realm of history and give it to fiction can cause almost as much mischief as the reverse. The studies are also an attempt to analyze, compare, and criticize the “antique prose” (ku-wen) of the Intrigues— but let me reassure the reader that the author as a critic always keeps in mind the sobering fact that he is neither antique (at this writing) nor Chinese, and labors hard to prevent his admiration for the Intrigues from degenerating into effusiveness. I wish to thank the publishing firm of Brill and the editors of T’oung-Pao for permission to reproduce my Finding List. I must also express here my gratitude to colleagues from Clas­ sical Studies who have kept me from exhibiting the poverty of my knowledge in their field. They are not pientioned by name only be­ cause they might feel uncomfortable in a place so distant from Helicon. Funds for the publication of this book were granted by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies of the University of Michigan. J. I. Crump, Jr.

x

Contents

I II III IV V VI V II V III IX

The shih in the Intrigues The Intrigues and the Unseen World Inevitable Change as a Basis for Persuasion Chinese Views of the Intrigues Allegories and Fables in the Service of Rhetoric The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts Other Literary Phenomena The Persuader’s Tradition Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry

1 10 18 29 47 58 76 88 110

Supplement Appendix I Appendix II Notes to Translations Bibliography Finding List Index

123 137 147 151 165 175 205

I The shih in the Intrigues T here is little reason to doubt that much of the Intrigues reflects groping toward an administrative apparatus which was to become a true bureaucracy by Han times.1 Kings and nobles kept “retainers”— it is characteristic of the age— and used their talents. Soon these retain­ ers supplanted the nobles in the administration of government, and much later they even found ways to circumvent the king. There had been a long tradition of advisers to the king, of course, but in the past these were properly the king’s conscience. Their virtue was to remind him where the older paths of rectitude lay. Since the older paths lay in the general direction of feudal fealties, the late Chou and early Ch’un-ch’iu adviser generally was in favor of keeping power in the court and among the noble families of the state. So the heritage of the Warring States period was such that courts of the age were filled with people in influential positions who held them not because of their abil­ ity but because of connections with the king, the royal family, or rela­ tionship to lesser nobility. But the tensions of the Warring States doomed a state relying on entrenched courtiers to do its work to fall behind its competitors. The constant cry throughout the period is to “use men” and the king who “used men” is described as a “virtuous” ruler (hsién-chü ). This phenomenon is scarcely comprehensible unless we postulate the existence of a number of articulate and “learned” men who sought service with centers of political power and found their way blocked by functionaries who held positions because of their relation­ ship to the court. The recurring theme in the Intrigues is an old one, East and West: The great physician Pien-ch’iao visited King Wu of Ch’in and the king showed him a carbuncle on his face. Pien-ch’iao offered to remove it. 1 See Walker p. 60 ff. for the decreasing importance of feudal families in the face of growing administrative complexity during the Ch’un-ch’iu period, and Masubuchi Tatsuo, “Sengoku kanryösei no ichi seikaku: rôkan to shajin” (,Shakai Keizaishi Gaku vol. 21, no. 3 (1955) 195-226) for the rise in impor­ tance of minor functionaries during the end of the Warring States era and the early Han. See Bibliography for full citations.

1

INTRIGUES

“Your majesty’s carbuncle* is forward of the ear and below the eye,” cried the king’s attendants. “If the physician should not cease soon enough while removing it he might cause your majesty to lose his hearing or the sight of an eye.” The king told Pien-ch’iao. Pien-ch’iao was furious and threw down his flint lancet. “Your majesty planned this by consulting with one who had knowledge but now he revokes it on advice of those who know nothing! If the government of Ch’in were run in the same fashion, the country would perish with your first action.” ( Intrigues 15,5) This anecdote is quite clearly part of a “persuasion” and did not actually happen. Pien-ch’iao, the physician, is supposed to have existed at least 200 years prior to the implied date of this story.2 The writer knew it, I believe, and was using a legendary figure in an anecdote demonstrating what was most important for the age: one gets a cobbler when he wants shoes and a cooper when he wants barrels; why should a ruler use men for administration simply because they are members of his court? The implication behind the story is that he should in fact secure men who are specialists in governing, shih. In the Intrigues as in most writings of the era it is difficult to know how to translate shih, but the term is used in the Intrigues to distinguish men who were not court favorites or attendants. For the Confucians it had a flavor which makes the translation “gentleman” appropriate (except in the case of the military shih which must be translated “officer” ), but we are sel­ dom dealing with the Confucian shih in the Intrigues. The shih is certainly a man who has “learning,” he is certainly offering his service because he believes himself skilled in one way or another, and he can certainly be independent of court coteries. He is a man of integrity— that is, a man who is expected to offer his advice or services whether they please the king or not. For lack of a better term I have called him in the next translation a “man of honor.” This reflects (perhaps too much) the knightly origins of the word. But it is also meant to indicate his comparative rarity and desirability in the Service of a king, as in the following: The Master, Wang Tou, came to King Hsiian’s court to seek audience. The king had given his chamberlain instructions to delay his admittance. “I have hastened here to Ch’i because its king longs for 2 SC 43/18. Hsin-hsü, tsa-shih II/ 16b, shows plainly the chronological con­ fusion connected with this personality as does HSWC p. 328-29.

2

The shih in the Intrigues power,” said Wang Tou to the chamberlain. “Now if Ch’i’s king hastens to me it will mean he seeks men of honor (shih)*— see what your master says to that.” The chamberlain returned and reported, “My king asks the Master to tarry a little for he wishes to welcome him.” The king then hastened to the gates and welcomed Wang Tou in. “Since I inherited the temples and altars of my forebears,” said the king, “I have often heard that the Master is most forth­ right in his admonitions and does not scruple to speak on any matter.” “Then the king is misinformed. I am born in a debauched age and serve intemperate kings— how can I be forthright with reproof?” The king flushed in anger. After a moment Wang Tou spoke: “In the past, your ancester, Duke Huan— who assembled the Feudal Lords nine times, put the empire in order, received his appointment from the Son of Heaven, and became Grand Hegemon— loved five things, and of them you also love four.” “I?” cried the king happily, “I who merely hold the country of Ch’i with rustic stupidity— fearing only that I may lose it entirely— what four loves could I share with him?” “He loved horses and your majesty loves horses, he loved hounds and your majesty loves hounds, he loved wine as does your majesty and women as does your majesty, he loved men of honor, but your majesty does not.” “How can I love them since there are no men of honor in this age?” asked King Hsiian. “This age also lacks the fabled unicorn and the swift Lu-erh, yet your majesty is well supplied with chariot teams. We lack both Tung-tu Chiin, the wiliest hare, and the hound of Lu to chase him, but your majesty’s kennels show no lack of harriers. This age claims no beauties like Mao Ch’iang and Hsi-shih but your majes­ ty’s pavilions are, not without women. “However, your majesty cares nothing for men of honor so why should it trouble him that there are none?” “But I am concerned for my country and care for my peo­ ple,” replied the king, “I would gladly find men of honor to govern for me.” * A play on words; hào-shlh means both “loves power” and “loves men of honor.”

3

NTRIGUES

“Your majesty’s concert and care for his country and peo­ ple,” said Wang Tou, “is somewhat less than his concern for a length of good silk.” “What do you mean?” “When the king wishes a hat made he does not order it done by his most favored attendant but by one skilled in the work. And why? Because he is certain of getting it made. Yet govern­ ing Ch’i is either done by favored attendants or is not done at all. Therefore I say you have more concern for a piece of good silk.” “I have offended against my own country,” admitted King Hsiian, and straightway raised five men of honor to official posts. And Ch’i was well governed. (Intrigues 29,6)3 For the time being let us refer to this entire class of new men as the shih, and note that they were to be right arms for their kings; their virtue lay only in the success of their plans. The king’s virtue already lay only in “using” his advisers to the fullest extent. Little imagination is needed to conceive of the competition which must have accompanied this stage in the evolution of a bureaucracy. No longer could a ruler depend on a limited group of the old nobility for his needs. For their part, the more forward looking among the nobility were enhancing their own value by gathering about them men of talent but no pedigree, who were called shih-k'è, “retainers.” The Intrigues makes it quite clear that even those “from the meanest alleys of poverty” could hope to rise rapidly if they were skilled enough and if they could gain the ear of someone in power— and this last con­ sideration was crucial. However, before going into the ramifications of this it is important to make some distinctions among the men we are calling shih. It is obvious that men of any tradition or school, if they sought preferment as advisers to a court, had to be concerned with rhetoric. If they could not present their advice or theories with fluency and in a fashion that would get them a hearing, they were soon out­ distanced. In this respect all shih were persuaders. However, though all shih persuaded, there were men of several differing traditions among them, and we must distinguish some of their attitudes toward rhetoric. The best-known tradition is probably that of the Confucian. When Mencius first sees King Hui of Liang, the king assumes he is there to “profit his kingdom.” The reason for the king’s assumption is 3 See Supplement 47,13, and 43,16, for two more versions of this attitude. All three stories share the same trope.

4

The shih in the Intrigues perfectly clear-—all other shih to whom he had given audience offered actions or plans devoted to just that end. But the term U, “profit,” was a technical term with the Confucians and an anathema to boot, which is why Mencius takes exception to it. To men of other traditions ß simply meant “what is beneficial.”4 Again, when Mencius has audi­ ence with King Hsiian of Ch’i the king asks to hear about his own ancestor, Huan-kung, the Hegemon from Ch’i. Mencius replies that disciples of Confucius did not speak of the Hegemons and so he, Mencius, has never heard of him.5 He meant that shih of his tradition did not use these famous successes of the past as shining examples for the present. As with his refusal to speak of “profit,” this position put Mencius in a unique tradition, for all the other persuaders did use the name of Huan-kung as a standard the present could hope to live up to— witness Master Wang Tou’s conversation with the same King Hsiian of Ch’i above. The Confucian shih was distinguishable from other persuaders because of his theory of morality. The Confucians had early discerned a great danger in arguments based upon selfinterest. As they saw it, such action could only lead to further anarchy, in which event self-interest would become more unbridled, and so on in an ever-increasing spiral of savagery. Their theory of benevolence and duty, which had its political expression in a patriarchal state in­ formed by ritual behavior, was patterned after what they supposed the early Chou feudal society to have been. The stability of early Chou control was probably based on tribal and clan relationships which required, for their observance, recognition of precedence and rank. Whether the Confucians knew that the apparent orderliness of early Chou was more a function of societal restraints than it was ob­ servance of a moral system is beside the point. They saw a moral order as the only long-range “profit” and sought to persuade the rulers of the day to act on the basis of moral considerations rather than profit. Their goals differed from other “persuaders,” but the techniques of argument were similar. Because Mencius* tradition wished to modify or encourage the intent behind any action on the part of another, he theoretically forswore any method of persuasion which brought about an act regardless of the actor’s reason for doing it. In this respect he was a teacher and moralist, not simply a politician and persuader. To 4 Waley, Three Ways p. 135. 5 He has, of course, and mentions him as well; see Legge II pp. 91-92 and p. 313.

5

INTRIGUES

such men a compromise position, which is the essence of political activity, is not possible: Tai Ying-chih (of Sung) said, “We cannot do away with our entry and market taxes and manage on a tithe tax alone, but we will lessen them (all) and next year they, will cease. Will this be acceptable?” “Suppose there were a man who was stealing his neighbor’s chickens,” replied Mencius, “and another said to him, ‘This is not the action of a superior man.’ And he replied, T will only steal one a month henceforth, and next year I will cease.’ If you know a thing is unjust, bring it to an end immediately, why wait until next year?” The analogy has a stinging pertinence, but it is after all, inexact. Political change, even administrative reform, seldom involves only one conscience. However that may be, Mencius’ rhetoric here is impeccable and he understood that to convince others of what seemed self-evident to him he had to use it. When his disciple Kung-tu asked about the charge (by persons not of the Confucian persuasion) that Mencius is fond of argument (pièn), Mencius pontificates over a lengthy reply which takes in the Confucian heroes (Yao, Shun, and the duke of Chou), quotes from the Book of Odes— another standard piece of Confucian rhetoric— and characterizes two other “schools,” which because of their “per­ nicious doctrines” have forced him to be a debater.“ Mencius’ answer in itself is proof that he is a persuader and is fully equipped with his tradition’s own brand of rhetoric to help him persuade. Elsewhere he speaks of overzealous Confucians who, “de­ bating” with new converts to the Confucian tradition, act like men “who, having got the pig into the sty, also want to tie its legs.” The allusion leaves little doubt that the art of disputation and persuasion was part of the Confucian’s equipment. The Mohists, though not known for disputation* or persuasion in their early days, made up for it in the persons of Sung K’eng (Jung?) and Kung-sun Lung of later days. Even Mo-tzu, who may have been only a defensive strategist by choice* appears (72,2) in the Intrigues with a telling piece of rhetoric. The Taoist had little but contempt for persuasion: “If schemers * I am aware that disputation is somewhat different from persuasion, but the difference resides mostly in how much your opponent is allowed to say. See Watson III p. 175 for a possibly Mohist opinion on rhetoric.6 6 Legge II pp. 154-60. 6

The shih in the Intrigues (chih-shih) have nothing to give them anxiety they are not happy. If dialecticians (pièn-shih) have not their premises and conclusions they are not happy.”7 But the Taoist knows the effect of a persuader when he succeeded at his rhetoric: “There was a man with a goitre as big as a jar who had the ear of (shùi) Huan-kung, and the duke then thought normally-formed men had necks which were too skinny.”8 The legalist was most keenly aware of the uses (and abuses) of rhetoric, for his systems depended upon the existing head of state, and not on what an ideal king should be— hence Waley’s term “realist.” Accepting the status quo, the legalist could therefore not wrap himself in a cloak of purity and retire to obscurity as could the Confucian, nor could he simply contemplate the mystery of the individual soul, nor be a Yang Chu who “would not pull out a hair” even if it gained him the empire,9 nor could he form a small, closed, stable society inside “real” society as the Mohists did. If the legalist could not gain the ear of a ruler he and, perhaps more important, his system were patently failures. Rhetoric was his tool and indispensable to his goal. This ex­ plains the attention he paid to it: in Han-fei Tzu, for example, we find not only a chapter known as shiti-nân, “Difficulties in the way of Persuasion,” but also shùi-l'm shàng and hsià, “The Forest of Persua­ sions, A and B,” which have so many anecdotes in common with the Intrigues. To sum up, it appears that all “learned” or skilled men of the Warring States era—the shih who offered their services as specialists in government and who were valuable because they were not simply members of a court— recognized the need for skill in the art of per­ suasion. It was, perhaps, part of their basic education, just as training in rhetoric was for the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers at very nearly the same period of history. As with Greek thinkers, rhetoric in China was supposed to be a tool, a skill with which to display one’s knowledge and philosophy to the best advantage. Let us remember that there was both a shift and a split among Greek thinkers toward the end of the fifth century b .c . when certain traveling teachers became well known. The term sophistës, which had meant “wise” and, to some extent, “clever,” began to denote disap­ proval. The most distinguished of these peripatetic teachers or Soph­ ists, Protagoras, was severely taken to task by Plato, who “brought 7 SPTK 8 /28b; Giles p. 318. 8 SPTK 2 /4 lb; Giles p. 65. 9 Graham p. 229.

7

INTRIGUES

out clearly the quarrel between rhetoric or the art of persuasion, which was their principle subject of instruction, and philosophy, which aimed at discovery of truth by means of discussion based on sound method and not at verbal victory.”10 From Plato on “Sophist” is most often a term of abuse. Something of the sort happened in China as well. To be a shih was, on the whole, to be an honored person. Of course, shih of differing traditions indulged in name-calling from time to time, but writers of the past who have been preserved for us agree that the shih was prefer­ able to the courtier. However, certain of the shih began to be known more for their rhetoric than for their philosophy, though all still sought and accepted positions in government rather than in teaching the young as in Greece. The governmental positions were of an advisory nature most of the time, but, if we are to believe the evidence of the Intrigues, an advisory post could easily be transformed into a fulcrum of power behind the throne. Often, however, the shih was used in his peripatetic role; he was constantly an envoy and always using the talent for which he was first employed— persuasion. In the course of his employment in this latter fashion the shih of few convictions and little loyalty could sell out to the highest bidder. It is in this connection that he received a name as uncomplimentary as Sophist became in the West. A qualification in the comparison must be made here, however. The persuader we are distinguishing from the other shih made a some­ what less lasting contribution to philosophy than the Sophist did, but his art was preserved and admired much longer in China. When Con­ fucianism was securely established as the state cult, the persuader’s lack of a “proper” ethical system was thrown up to him in retrospect time and again, but that did not greatly diminish Chinese admiration for him either as a politician, or an artist with words. The Chinese in general looked upon the men in the Intrigues as historical figures and assumed that the Intrigues was a record of their words and deeds. Individual characters in the book became eponymous for resourceful­ ness and the inclusion of so much of the material of the Intrigues in Ssü-ma Ch’ien’s Shih-chi spread knowledge df their persuasions and their rhetoric further and over a longer period of time. The image of the Sophist in the West was never as appreciated as the persuader’s was in China. With these distinctions made, we can now give the type of shih whose exploits and words the Intrigues purports to deal with a more specific title— persuader. Though English contains a perfectly good 10 Freeman p. 342.

8

The shih in the Intrigues term for him, “rhetor,” it is seldom used, for now it has become an archaism. The persuader of the Intrigues should not be called sophist, nor is he a legalist as is sometimes claimed, for though the Han-fei legalists are called simply “realists” by Waley, they did advo­ cate orderly systems of control. To them, even oppressive order was preferable to anarchy, but the persuader who speaks through the Intrigues asks only opportunity, not order. Though these politicians à la Machiavelli are highly romanticized in the Intrigues, few of us doubt they had real counterparts— the era was certain to call them forth. The speaker in the next selection is one of the most obviously fictional characters in the Intrigues, yet what he says is a clear state­ ment of the persuader’s real value to the ruler. “What we can least abide,” said the King of Yen to Su Tai, “is the ‘glib deceiver’!” “In the land of Chou,” replied Tai, “the go-between is held in lowest esteem, for he praises both parties equally: to the groom’s family he says ‘the girl is fair’ and to the bride’s, ‘the boy is wealthy.’ “But it happens that by Chou custom a man may not choose a wife himself. Thus if one dispensed with the go-between to marry off his daughter she would grow old and remain unwed; were he to disregard the matchmaker and show off the girl him­ self she would become cheapened and remain unbought. “The one person who can readily bring the thing to pass— who can market without cheapening— is still the go-between. “It is the same with ruling: there must be authority or noth­ ing can be begun; power, or nothing can be achieved. But it is only your ‘glib deceiver’ who can produce the desired results for the holder of power and authority.” (Intrigues 69,14) They were to be midwives to the new political age, these men. They were to keep the king hedged about with the divinity expected by tra­ dition and accomplish things he wished but could not stoop to do. The persuader, as he appears in the Intrigues, is directly con­ cerned with political action, he has special skills and is willing to put them at the service of anyone in power. Further on, when the per­ suader’s tradition is discussed, a more extensive comparison is made with the Greek Sophists. For the present, however, it would be useful to isolate one thing they both have in common— the persuader is an agnostic, as was his Western counterpart. 9

II The Intrigues and the Unseen World

T here are, to be sure, traces of very old beliefs to be found among the stories in the Intrigues, but they are of so little importance to per­ suasions in which they are found that they only serve to point up the basic assumption of the work: men, not gods, make the world what it is. If we are to believe the Han-shu1 and its notes, special attention was paid to songs of the people as a means of diagnosing the political health of a state during Chou times. This would explain, in part, the inclusion of so many love, courtship, and marriage songs in the Book of Odes. The Tso-chuan and the Kuo-yii both mention children’s songs (t’ung-yâo) which were considered prophetic even before Han times. During and after the Han dynasty, children’s songs are part of the mystique surrounding the transfer of the “mandate of heaven.” The only story from the Intrigues using a children’s song concerns T’ien Tan after he had saved the state of Ch’i from the invading troops of Yen. Only one place in Ch’i, the town of Chi-mo, held out against the invaders. T’ien Tan inspired its garrison and eventually recon­ quered the entire country. This is referred to in the selection below. When T ’ien Tan was about to go against the Ti he visited Lu Chung-tzu.* “If the general attacks the Ti they will not fall,” said Lu Chung-tzu. “It was I who started from a five li city wall and a seven li suburb which was broken and reduced to .nothing,” retorted Tan, “and smashed the great state of Yen and rebuilt Ch’i from rub­ ble. How then will the Ti not fall if I attack!” He mounted his chariot and left Lu Chung-lien without ceremony. Straightway he attacked the Ti for three months but could not reduce them, and soon a children’s song was heard in Ch’i: * I.e., Lu Chung-lien. 1 K.M. 0435.4.

10

The Intrigues and the Unseen World Helmets as big as winnowing-bins, Swords so long they come to their chins. Struck at the Ti who would not fall And there they stayed at Wu Hill wall. T ’ien Tan was frightened by this and questioned Lu Chung-tzu: “The master said I would not reduce the Ti and now I would hear this persuasion.” “When the general was at Chi-mo,” replied Lu Chung-tzu, “you and your men had need to plait mats when you rested and hold shovels when you stood. You led your troops and then you exhorted them: ‘Our days are done, our temples gone! We must go forward, we have no home!’ In those days the general had a heart for dying and his troops had none for living. When they heard you speak thus, not one but brushed away his tears, shook his fists, and lusted for battle. And in this manner was Yen broken. Today the general has income from Yeh-yi in the east, and takes his pleasure on the banks of the Tzu to the west. Be­ tween the Sheng and the Tzu he hunts and rides, splendid in his gold-buckled belt. He is full of the love of life and has no heart for death— that is why he does not conquer.” “I have the heart; let the master be its conscience,” replied T ’ien Tan, and the following day he rampaged about the walls; standing where thickest fell the slings and arrows, he took the mallets in his own hands, drummed his troops forward, and the Ti fell. {Intrigues 31,6) The song here only serves to make T’ien Tan stop and listen to the advice of Lu Chung-lien; there is nothing like ineluctable fate involved. The situation is redeemed by a very ordinary measure— T ’ien Tan risks his own life by again leading instead of directing his troops. Divination and diviners are found throughout the work, but die Intrigues regards them with tongue in cheek and looks upon them too as susceptible to persuasion: Chao seized #the sacred precincts of Chou and the ruler of Chou, upset by this, spoke to Cheng Ch’ao. “Do not be disturbed, your highness,” said Cheng Ch’ao. “Let me have only thirty pieces of gold and the precincts will be returned.” The ruler gave him the gold and Cheng Ch’ao presented it to the Grand Seer of Chao, telling him the affair of the sacred precincts. When next the king of Chao became ill he summoned the Grand Seer for a prediction. The Seer reprimanded him: “The 11

INTRIGUES

sacred precincts of Chou have; caused this malignant influence,” he said. ( Intrigues 8,22)* On another occasion, though the writers who speak through the Intrigues show no tendency to believe in the efficacy of divination, they take advantage of the fact that unofficial divination was still common enough at the plebeian level to work out a good Machiavellian plot: Tsou Chi was minister of Ch’i and T ’ien Chi was its gen­ eral. Neither liked the other. Kung-sun Han said to Tsou Chi, “Sir, why don’t you plan an attack on Wei for your king? If it succeeds, the plan will have been yours and you will win merit for it. If the attack fails, General T ’ien Chi will never be advanced. But if he does not fall in battle we will twist things around so he is punished for it.” Tsou Chi thought it good and persuaded the king to send T ’ien Chi against Wei. Thrice T’ien Chi fought and three times was victorious. Tsou Chi told this to Kung-sun Han and Kungsun Han sent a man off with ten pieces of gold to seek a diviner in the market place. There the man (with the gold) called out: “I am T ’ien Chi’s man; thrice we have fought and three times been vic­ torious, our fame sways the empire. Now we wish to ‘do the great deed’f and must know tfie omens.” The diviner came forth and had men seize the seeker of omens. Then, before the king, they told what he had said. T ’ien Chi fled the country. ( Intrigues 25,8) There is another use of the unseen world which appears in the Intrigues but it is not clear what belief (if any) it may refer to. When Ts’ai Tse (see chapter III) announces the fact that he will supplant Fan Sui after a single audience with the king of Ch’in, it is obviously only a gambit to gain audience with Fan Sui himself so that he can use his eloquence on the man he plans to supplant. In the Shih-chi (SC 79/36) Fan Sui, having heard the boast, i§ tnade to say, “I already know all the events of the Five Emperors and the period of the three (kings), and all the theories of the hundred schools. I have refuted the arguments of innumerable debaters. . .” This passage does not * Watson III p. 82 notes a similar story in Tso-chuan but comments: “This may be merely a projection back [ward] in time of the later [i.e., CKT] cyni­ cism. + Attempt a coup d’état.

12

The Intrigues and the Unseen World appear in the Intrigues but if the likes of Ts’ai Tse ever existed they must have constantly faced the problem of the minister or king who had already been approached by too many other persuaders. A new, or different, more titivating approach would be of utmost importance. There are signs of such devices2 all through the Intrigues: one per­ suader seeks admittance by promising the ruler if he says more than three words he can be boiled in oil (24,3), Feng Hsiian’s sword tap­ ping to attract the attention of Meng-ch’ang Chiin (28,1), Sable P’o’s direct attack against the very man he wishes to see (35,1), and Wang Tou’s play on words (29,6) all are contrivances to bring about a meeting between the persuader and the person to be convinced. I assume the “affairs of spirits” (kuei-shih) referred to in the next trans­ lation are of the same class. Meng-ch’ang Chiin was going to the country of Ch’in, and though hundreds tried to stop him he would listen to none. Su Ch’in hoped to prevent him (also) but Meng-ch’ang Chiin said: “I know all there is to know of the affairs of men, the only things 1 have not heard about are the affairs of spirits.” “Your servant would not dare come to you to speak on matters human,” replied Su Ch’in, “but in fact I came to ask audience about an affair of spirits.” Meng-ch’ang Chiin granted him audience and Su Ch’in said: “As I came here and crossed the river Tzu, there was an image of clay speaking to one made of peachwood. The peachwood one said to the earthen image, ‘You are but the earth of the west bank from which someone has raised you in the image of a man. When the eighth month of the year arrives and the falling rains pour down, the river Tzu will reach you, wash you away, and you will be destroyed.* “ ‘Not so,’ replied the earthen one. T am earth of the west bank and this earth will return to the west bank. But you are only a knot of peachwood from the eastern kingdoms which someone has cut and shaved in the image of man. When the heavy rains fall the waters of tfye Tzu will reach you and wash you away and then who may say to what place you will float?’ “Now, Ch’in is a country secure on all sides and like the mouth of a tiger. If you enter it, my lord, your servant knows not if you will come out.” Meng-ch’ang Chiin abandoned the idea. (Intrigues 28,3) 2 See Watson III p. 80 and note.

13

INTRIGUES

It would appear that to know* everything except “the affairs of spirits” was a cliché meaning “to have heard everything.” It is used in precisely the same fashion in Chuang-tzu after Brigand Chih has fin­ ished a lively summary of the examples of the past which Confucius would have used— had Chih allowed him: “. . . and of faithful ministers none were as good as Pi Kan and Wu Tzu-hsii— Tzu-hsii who drowned in the Yangtze and Pi Kan whose heart was cut open— these the present accounts ‘faith­ ful ministers,’ but actually the world laughs at them. From the very first down to these two, not one is worth admiring. These are the things you would persuade me with, Ch’iu. Now if you could tell me about the affairs of spirits— of these I know noth­ ing. . My theory is that some clever fellow took the phrase in its literal sense and perhaps made it a device for getting audience. The third use of the küei-shih expression is peculiar because the parable of the wooden and earthen images is used in yet another Su Ch’in persuasion (39,8)34 where it is expanded and integrated into a narrative that is doubtless part of the “Romance of Su Ch’in.” Unhap­ pily, in its fuller form the apologue of the images is no longer apposite, which it certainly is in the persuasion of Meng-ch’ang Chiin. If I am right, and the term kuei-shih is merely part of a conven­ tional hyperbole, it argues that the men who used it as a rhetorical device were quite skeptical about spirits of the dead; in another per­ suasion (16,16) it is assumed that there is no life after death. There is a brilliant little apologue (see Chapter V ) in which an ad hoc spirit serves Fan Sui in a fable for a very mundane purpose, but it may also be disregarded as an indication of concern among the per­ suaders about the “other world.” Only one item in the Intrigues seriously clashes with the overall tone of indifference to or skepticism about superhuman concerns.5 This one is so nearly unique in the Intrigues, and resembles so strongly 3 SPTK 9/39b; Giles p. 395; Waley, Three Ways p.*25. 4 See Supplement. 5 I disregard 72,8 (see Supplement), and the two other items in the Intrigues which refer to it, for it is certainly no more than a recollection of beliefs and evil deeds which properly belonged to Sung K’ang-wang’s wicked ancestors of the Shang Dynasty. Waley’s theory for the appearance of these stories in the Intrigues ( Three Ways pp. 101-3) treats them as the verbal justification of a “righteous” war against Sung. In my experience with the Intrigues no justifica­ tion was ever needed for the liquidation of weaker states.

14

The Intrigues and the Unseen World ideas that were current later, in the Han dynasty, that I must conclude it is substantially later in date than the majority of the Intrigues' passages: Hu Hsiian who dwelt beyond the city wall of Ch’i was an upright man. When King Min had him beheaded in the sandal­ wood market, all the commoners became disaffected and Ch’en Chii, who was related to the royal family, declared outright that he would assassinate the king at the eastern gate. The royal clan was not with him in this and Szu-ma Jang-chü, who held the reins of government, had Ch’en executed. After this the great ministers were estranged from the king. As a result, Yen mustered her troops and sent Yiieh Yi, Prince Ch’ang-kuo, to strike Ch’i. Against him Ch’i sent Hsiangtzu but his army was smashed and Hsiang-tzu escaped in a single chariot. Ta-tzu reformed the scattered troops to fight against Yen and asked bounties for the men. King Min refused him, the army broke up and the king fled to Chii. Here Nao Ch’ih told of the crimes of the king: “For hun­ dreds of miles about your districts of Ch’ien-ch’eng and Poch’ang, garments have been wet with blood which rained from the skies. Did the king know this?” “I did not.” “In the Ying-Po areas, hard by Mt. T ’ai, the earth cracked asunder down to the very springs of the underworld. Did the king know this?” “I did not.” “Near the gate tower a weeping of men was heard: when they were sought none could be found, but when the searchers left the sound could be heard again. Did the king know this?” “I did not.” “Garments soaked by bloody rain was a sign from heaven, ground cracked open to the springs of the underworld was a sign from earth, the sound of weeping beside the gates was a sign from man— yet the king takes no warning from them. Can such a person remain unpunished?” cried Nao Ch’ih and executed King Min in the drum-square at Chii. The heir apparent cast off his robes of royalty and fled to the house of the king’s chronicler where he worked as gardener. Chiin-wang, the chronicler’s daughter, knew that he was (des­ tined to be) honored and treated him well. When T ’ien Tan had used his beaten troops and the solitary city of Chi-mo to smash Yen’s armies and snare her general, 15

INTRIGUES

Ch’i-chieh, he resurrected the'state of Ch’i and went to Chii to acknowledge the heir apparent who was then established as King Hsiang. When King Hsiang took the throne, Chiin-wang became his queen and later gave birth to King Chien of Ch’i. (Intrigues 30,1b) The concept of the “three talents,” heaven, earth, and man, mani­ festing themselves in anomalies in response to the actions of the king is so characteristic of Han Confucianism of the dynastic period it would be very strange if it were not written then. It is interesting to note that one of the so-called “lost quotations” (yi-wén) from the Intrigues found in the T ’ai-p’ing Yii-lan is also strongly flavored by the same strain of the supernatural and is also written about the figure of the Ch’u general Nao Ch’ih (see Appendix I). The foregoing is a rather complete inventory of the unseen world in the Intrigues— and a small stock it is. If we are to believe its cre­ dentials, the incidents in the Intrigues were roughly concurrent with the transcendental speculations of Chuang-tzu. No two works could be less alike. It is interesting that Chuang-tzu knew and spoke of the persuaders—he lumps Confucius and thus the Confucians together with them—but the Intrigues has almost nothing to say about Taoist views. Yet there is nothing contradictory in the simultaneous growth of the Intrigues* forthright materialism and Chuang-tzu’s sublime image of man’s spirit co-equal with the “creator of things.” A great Chinese scholar explains it: “Immortals” (hsiên-jén) did not exist in ancient times. The ancients thought when a man died he became a spirit and all spirits dwelt with Shang-ti; those who had been kings, officials or fathers in life remained so when they were spirits with Shangti. . . . The power of spirits was a grade lower than that of Shang-ti, but among spirits themselves they simply kept the rank they had had as men. The strict social stratification of antiquity . . . made it difficult for men even to conceive of fighting for liberty and therefore they never çreated the mental image of a “free” spirit . . . moving, roaming beyond the world of men. . . . During the period of the W aning Kingdoms, earlier restrictions and beliefs crumbled . . . a Tao, antecedent even to Shang-ti, was found and thereupon the class structure of heaven fell apart as it did among men. (Ku Chieh-kang pp. 10-12) Chuang-tzu is, in a unique way, the herald for a new kingdom of heaven, and the Intrigues is a composite, impressionistic picture of the new world of men. The limits of freedom for men’s “souls” and 16

The Intrigues and the Unseen World for their earthly activities must have been tested continually if only because of the goads of anarchy and despair. The transcendental limits were sounded by the alchemical Taoists, the fäng-shih of late Warring Kingdom times, and the materialist boundaries were pressed by the men pictured in the Intrigues. Though the persuader has no religious side to him, nor does he contribute substantially to formal philosophical systems, his very lack of introspection and speculation turns up an interesting attempt at practical application for one of the oldest concepts in Taoism— change.

Ill Inevitable Change as a Basis for Persuasion

T he subtlety of thought found in Taoist writers when they con­ cern themselves with the nature of the universe was not something to which all men of the times could or would attain. Attempts by the intellectual (rather than poetic) advocates of the Way to seek out abstract laws of change in the affairs of men (if they are understood correctly by us) involve a degree of sophistication which argues evo­ lution from simpler and more direct efforts to make the observed ways of nature in its constant waxing and waning throw light on or predict the destinies of men. It is the literate and unusual individual of the age who speaks to us through the Taoist influenced texts we possess today. Less gifted folk, still holding to the germinal concept of waxing and waning in man’s life, wrote and thought in less transcendental terms, as in the following: General Chao Yang of Ch’u had attacked Wei, overthrown its army, killed its general, and taken eight cities. He then moved his troops out to attack Ch’i. Ch’en Chen, acting for the king of Ch’i, gained audience with Chao Yang. After he had made obei­ sance and congratulated the general on his victories he arose and asked: “According to the usages of Ch’u what would be the rank and position of one who overturned an army and killed its com­ mander?” “His position would be Pillar of the State,” replied Chao Yang, “and his rank that of Jade Baton.” “Is there any higher estate than that?” asked Ch’en Chen. “None but the Prime Minister.” “Ah, the Prime Minister is high indeed!” returned Ch’en Chen, “and no king is likely to appoint two of them. With your permission, excellency, I would like to draw a comparison: “There was once a man of Ch’u who made sacrifice; having done so he gave his companions a flagon of the libation wine. ‘This is enough and more for one man,’ said they, ‘but not 18

Inevitable Change enough for several. Let us each draw a serpent on the ground and he who finishes first shall drink the flagon down.’ “One of them finished his snake first and took the flagon in his left hand— being about to drink it down— but with his right hand he commenced to draw again saying: ‘I can even give mine legs!» “Before he had finished, another had completed his snake, took the flagon and drank it. 'A snake has no legs so you could not have drawn one,’ said he— the one who had put legs on a snake lost his wine. “At present, my lord minister of Ch’u, you have crushed Wei’s army, killed her general, and taken eight of her cities with your own forces still intact— you threaten Ch’i and Ch’i fears you greatly. Here is fame enough! Your estate is so high that it cannot be increased. He who has fought only victorious battles but does not know when to cease will finally perish and have his honor revert to a successor— this would be like putting the legs on a snake.” Chao Yang knew that Ch’en Chen was right, drew off his troops and left. {Intrigues 26,4) This, if it stood alone, would seem to be nothing more than a delightfully ingenious persuasion. Ssu-ma Ch’ien incorporates it in his history of the state of Ch’u {SC 4 0/52) and the implied date would be 323 b .c . Supposing that such a conversation ever took place, the force of the admonition which makes Chao Yang withdraw his troops simply stated is: after a certain degree of success has been reached, failure must ensue. A two-line paraphrase of this admonition can be found also in Intrigues 4,2.1 This has, of course, echoes of “reversal is the movement of Tao” applied to human affairs.2 The story is not an iso­ lated instance of this mode of thought in the Intrigues but one of a rather large group. In the preceding persuasion of Chao Yang the reader is left in a neutral position— he neither contests nor accepts the likelihood that Chao Yang withdrew his troops as a result of Ch’en Chen’s words. In the following selection, however, such is not the case: Meng-Ch’ang Chiin had been driven from Ch’i but returned again. T ’an Shih-tzu met him at the border and asked him: 1 See Supplement. 4,2, is corrupt to some extent, and the fact that yet an­ other Ch’u general, Ching Ts'ui, is warned in the same fashion indicates that Intrigues 4,2, may be derivative. See also Supplement 10,6. 2 See Waley, The Way p. 192; and Lau p. 353.

19

INTRIGUES

“My lord, are there among the officials of Ch’i some whom you hate?” “There are.” “Would my lord be pleased to kill them?” “I would!” “Does my lord know the one event which must transpire and the one principle which always pertains?” “No, I do not,” replied Meng Ch’ang-Chün. “The event which must always come to pass is death,” said T’an Shih-tzu, “and the ever-present principle is that wealth and honor will attract while poverty and lowliness will repel. (. . .) If I may use the market place as an example, my lord— in the morning it is crowded and in the evening it is empty. This is not because man favors it in the morning and dislikes it in the eve­ ning; they seek it out for that which sustains them and when it is gone, they leave. I beg my lord not to harbor hatred.” Meng-ch’ang Chiin then had the five hundred names of those he hated scraped off the bamboo tablets and dared not mention them again. ( Intrigues 29,4) The reader’s reaction to this is likely to be that Meng-ch’ang Chiin is much too easily dissuaded from vengeful homicide. Ssu-ma Ch’ien has a somewhat different version (SC 75/24) in which Mengch’ang Chiin merely sighs over the inconstancy of his retainers, and Feng Hsiian (not T ’an Shih-tzu) offers this same parallel as a means of philosophical consolation. In either case, however, rise and fall of fortune is given careful attention; the inevitability of change is looked upon as an important fact and to understand it is accounted wisdom. Probably the clearest account of the wise man who takes action before the tide of fortune changes and the adviser who suggests it is found in Ts’ai Tse’s eloquent speeches to Fan Sui (known as Yinghou). Maspero suspected that Fan Sui was the hero of a “roman”;8 judging by the consistent and connected nature of the narrative of his adventures—found in the Shih-chi, not the Intrigues— I am certain he is correct. Fan Sui’s story up to the time Ts’ai Tse seeks him out should be sketched briefly to make the next excerpt clear. At the beginning of Fan Sui’s biography (SC 7 9 /3 ) we learn that he was suspected of treason to his native country of Wei. The chief3 3 Maspero p. 405 n. 2, where he romanized the name “Fan Tsiu.” We are both referring to the same man. Index prints it with an “eye“ radical as does Kanbun Taikei and K ’an-yen, but SC does not.

20

Inevitable Change minister had him beaten until “his ribs were cracked and his teeth broken.” Sui feigned death, was wrapped in a mat used for the dead and stuffed into the privy where the minister’s guests “in their drunk­ enness soaked him with their urine.” By a simple ruse-he escapes and changes his name. With the help of Cheng An-p’ing, whom he later recommends to a high military post in Ch’in, Fan Sui (alias Chang Lu) is smuggled out of Wei into Ch’in. The dependable history we have of this era tells us clearly that at this time King Chao of Ch’in was plagued by a court faction headed by his uncle, Wei Jan, and much abetted by the queen mother. After some time “Fan Sui was granted an audience at the Solitary Palace. He feigned not to know he was in the women’s quarters and entered. When the king approached, a eunuch angrily drove Fan Sui away crying, ‘The king approaches!’ Fan Sui pretended surprise: ‘Where did Ch’in get a king? I had only heard of the Queen Mother and her son Wei Jan!’ ” (SC 7 9 /1 0 ). Fan Sui subsequently offers advice on neutraliz­ ing the queen mother and obtains high position under King Chao whose country then flourishes mightily. Fan Sui (now enfeoffed as Ying-hou) recommends his countryman, Cheng An-p’ing, to a military post. Cheng fails in one battle so Fan Sui offers himself to the king of Ch’in for punishment. “It was the rule in Ch’in,” comments Ssu-ma Ch’ien (SC 7 9 /3 3 ), “that if a man you recommended did not do well you must suffer the same punishment as he.” The king of Ch’in does not intend to have his minister punished, however, and “treated him more considerately every day.” It is at this point that Ts’ai Tse and his eloquence arrive to con­ vince Fan Sui that the handwriting is already on the wall: Ts’ai Tse had been driven out of Chao into Han and Wei where on the high road he was robbed of his (last) bronze vessel. He heard that Ying-hou was held doubly culpable for his advo­ cacy of Cheng An-p’ing and Wang Chi and was in disrepute with Ch’in. So westward he went to Ch’in; but before he had audience with its King Chao, he sent out a man to carry word to Ying-hou which would mislead and anger him: “Ts’ai Tse, visitor from Yen,” said this man, “the most eminent practitioner of high policy disputation, will have one audience with the king of Ch’in and be made forthwith chief minister in place of your excellency.” When Ying-hou had heard this he summoned Ts’ai Tse. Ts’ai Tse made a perfunctory entrance bow to Ying-hou who was displeased. When he was presented to Ying-hou, Ts’ai Tse was equally arrogant and Ying-hou upbraided him: “You, sir, spread word that you would succeed me as min­ ister of Ch’in— can this be true?” 21

INTRIGUES

“It is SO.” “I should be pleased to hear the explanation,” said Yinghou. “What! Can your excellency be so slow to see? ‘The four seasons to one another yield; he who succeeds must quit the field.’ Tell me, excellency, the agile hand, firm foot, keen ear, clear eye and sage intelligence— are these not things which a man desires?” “They are.” “To embody kindness, to mete out justice, to practice the Way and act with virtue toward all so that the world rejoices, respects and loves one and wishes him to be its ruler— are these not the final goals of discrimination and knowledge?” asked Ts’ai Tse. “They are.” “To bring wealth and honor to the highest luster, to manage all things so each is in its appointed place, so that all living things may fill out their years without let or wound, so that all the world may follow its proper calling: to conserve what is already in existence that it may pass on and not perish— and to do so in such a way that one’s name is unblemished, that the mention of it nourishes a thousand generations and it is spoken as long as the world shall last— are these not the very talismans of the Way? The Happy Auguries which sages speak of?” “They are,” replied Ying-hou. “Now, could a man wish to perish as did Lord Shang of Ch’in?” asked Tse, “or Wu Ch’i of Ch’u? or Tai-fu Chung of Yiieh?” “And why not?” retorted Ying-hou, who knew Ts’ai wished to trap him by his persuasion. “Did not Lord Shang serve Hsiaokung and no other to the end of his days? Did he not exhaust himself for public rather than private gain? Did he not rely on reward and punishment only to bring about order? Did he not weary his intelligence only to prove himself guileless? Did he not brave both curse and contumely by using friendship to capture Kung-tzu Ang of Wei? He died pursuing enemy commanders and crushing enemy forces for Ch’in, having extended her hold­ ings by a thousand //. “And Wu Ch’i?” continued Ying-hou. “He served King Tao of Ch’u so that private gain never harmed public good, slander never hid fidelity. His words never encouraged illicit compromise nor did his actions brook collusion. He practiced justice without 22

Inevitable Change regard to damaged fame for he wished his state mighty and his ruler to be Hegemon no matter what calamity might betide. “And Tai-fu Chung? The king of Yiieh shamed him but he remained faithful and did not depart, his ruler perished but he used all his abilities and went not away. His merit was great but he was without hauteur, his wealth was enormous but he was devoid of arrogance. So these three men were the epitome of right action and the very measure of fealty. Their rulers killed them and are known to this day for doing it; but when a name for righteous action remains, one’s body may perish without regret. How can you say one would not wish to perish as they did?” Ts’ai Tse replied, “When a ruler is a saint and his minister a sage the world benefits; when a king is intelligent and his officer faithful the country benefits; when a father is kindly, a son filial, a husband trustworthy and a wife chaste the family benefits. But Pi Kan’s fidelity could not preserve the Yin dynasty nor Tzu-hsii’s wisdom the state of Wu; Shen Sheng was filial but the country of Chin was disordered. Thus there may be faithful ministers and filial sons while the country perishes. Why? Because there may exist neither intelligent rulers nor wise fathers to heed them. The world sorrows for the son or minister who is murdered or shamed by his father or ruler. But to wait upon death to establish yourself as faithful— this was even beyond the humanity of Wei-tzu, the saintliness of Confucius, and the stature of Kuantzu!” “It is true,” said Ying-hou at last. After a moment Ts’ai Tse spoke again. “One might wish to be a Lord Shang, a Wu Ch’i or a Tai-fu Chung because they conducted themselves as officers with com­ plete fidelity and merit. But Hung Yao served Wen-wang, the Duke of Chou helped Ch’eng-wang and were they not faithful? If we speak of relationships between ruler and minister would one rather be a Loçd Shang, Wu Ch’i or Tai-fu Chung; or Hung Yao and the Duke of Chou?” “Lord Shang, Wu Ch’i and Tai-fu Chung were not the equal of the others,” admitted Ying-hou. “But then is your excellency’s present ruler more gentle and humane, more eager for loyalty or less likely to deceive his friends than were Hsiao of Ch’in, Tao of Ch’u or the king of Yiieh?” “I cannot know which was the more so,” said Ying-hou. 23

I N T R I G U ES

“Your present ruler is no more determined to hold close loyal ministers than were Hsiao of Ch’in, Tao of Ch’u or the king of Yiieh,” answered Ts’ai Tse. “Your excellency’s desire to order confusion for his king, to ward off trouble, to turn back diffi­ culties for him, to broaden his lands and make them yield, to bring his country prosperity and his house contentment, to strengthen your lord’s authority till it encompasses the world and to make his merit manifest ten thousand li away— your desire to do this is no greater than was that of Lord Shang, Wu Ch’i or Tai-fu Chung. But your excellency’s income, his position, his honor and prosperity and the wealth of his own family are greater than those three men, yet you have not yet retired from office. I presume to be concerned for your excellency on this score. T h e sun must sink when it reaches noon, the moon that is full is a waning moon,’ it is said. All things flourish only to wither, for this is ordained by heaven. To advance and retire, to wax and wane, to change with the (times), is but the common way of the sage. “Of old, Huan-kung of Ch’i met nine times with the feudal lords to settle the empire once,” continued Ts’ai Tse. “Yet when he made covenant with them at Sunflower Hill their humor was restive and arrogant and nine states rebelled. Fu-ch’ai, king of Wu, had no match in all the world but he made light of the other lords, scorned Ch’i and Ch’in and thereby lost his life and coun­ try. Hsia Yü and T’ai-shih Ch’i could frighten armies by their angry shouts but they died at the hands of common men. These events all came about because none of them understood how to retreat when his apogee was reached. “Lord Shang, under Hsiao-kung, made equal the beams of the steel-yard, corrected their measures, adjusted their weights, tore down the dykes of the paddy fields and taught his subjects only war and farming. So when weapons were wielded territory increased and when they were still the country prospered. Where­ fore Ch’in was without match ahd heç position overawed the Lords. Lord Shang’s accomplishment was complete and he was torn asunder between chariots. “In Ch’u where pikemen numbered hundreds of thousands, Po Ch’i commanding a few thousand, fought Ch’u once and took Yen and Ying again, and burned Yi-ling. To the south he an­ nexed Shu-Han, leapt across Han and Wei to attack mighty Chao. In the north he buried Ma Fu and slaughtered his host of four hundred thousand— blood ran in rivers and the sound of sobbing 24

Inevitable Change echoed like thunder. He founded the empire for Ch’in; from that time forth Chao and Ch’u submitted, faint of heart, and dared not do battle again with Ch’in— such was the power of Po Ch’i. Of himself he had subdued three score and ten cities. His ac­ complishment was complete when he was allowed to fall upon his sword at Tu-yu. “For King Tao of Ch’u, Wu Ch’i made an end to the incom­ petent, cast off the useless and decreased the slothful among his officers. He stopped the portals of private privilege and made it the same throughout Ch’u. To the south he took the Yiieh of Yang (-chou), to the north both Ch’en and Ts’ai. He scattered alliances and smashed leagues, silenced the mouths of eloquent persuaders, and when his accomplishment was complete they killed and quartered him. “For the king of Yiieh, Tai-fu Chung opened the prairies to tilling and settled cities on them; he widened the lands and sowed them to grain, led officers from everywhere and shouldered the burden of power to capture a stubborn Wu and establish hegemony for Kou-chien— who turned his back on Tai-fu Chung and killed him. “These four men reached the peak of their merit and did not retreat, and calamity found them because of it. Therefore, it is said they ‘could reach out but could not stoop, could advance but not retreat.’ Fan Li knew how, though— he fled from the state and grew old as Chu-chiin of T ’ao. “Has your excellency never seen men gambling who will at one time go for all the winnings in a single cast and at another try for smaller gain? These are things your excellency must un­ derstand clearly. “For today your excellency is minister to Ch’in; his plans do not include either leaving his mat or departing from the cap­ ital’s palaces and temples. He would control the Lords from where he sits, would direct wealth from the Land of Three Rivers so that it bears fruit in Yi-yang, would seal off the way through Sheepgut Canyons, garrison the mouth of the Great Highroad, cut off Fan and Chung-hang’s trail and build a trestled roadway to Shu-Han so that all the world may fear Ch’in. “But Ch’in already has what it wishes! Your excellency has already reached the peak of his accomplishments! This is the time when Ch’in must ‘try for smaller gain’; if retreat is not now timely made, the fate of Lord Shang, Duke Po, Wu Ch’i and Tai-fu Chung will be yours. Would it not be better if your excel25

N T RIGU E S

Iency chose this time to hand-over his seal of ministry and yield it to another man of virtue? This action would resemble the probity of Po Yi himself. To grow old as Ying-hou, hearing gen­ erations speak of you as unique; to reach the longevity of Ch’iao and Sung— would not this be better than ]to perish by calamity? Since this is the choice, I wonder that your excellency can hesitate.” “It is good,” replied Ying-hou and invited the other to be his guest of honor. Several days later he entered the court and spoke to King Chao of Ch’in. “Among my guests is one Ts’ai Tse, lately come from east of the mountains. As a debater I have never seen his like, though I have seen many. Indeed, even I am not his match.” King Chao summoned Ts’ai, gave him audience, spoke to him and was delighted. He appointed him visiting minister. Yinghou, claiming illness, asked to turn in his seal of ministry. King Chao would have advanced him greatly, but Ying-hou insisted his health was worsening and thus avoided appointment. King Chao had been recently delighted by the schemes of Ts’ai Tse and so raised him to minister of Ch’in. [When Ch’in took the House of Chou he was still minister to the King of Ch’in. Several months afterward he was accused by another and fearing punishment Ts’ai Tse pleaded his illness and turned in his seal of office. He was titled Kang-ch’eng Chiin and lived in Ch’in for more than ten years, serving under Kings Chao, Hsiao-wen, Chuanghsiang, finally dying in the service of Shih-huang-ti as Ch’in’s emissary to Yen, where he had been for three years when Yen sent Tan, the heir apparent, as hostage to Ch’in.]* (Intrigues 19,19) The entire selection is devoted to convincing the incumbent that great men of the past came to grief because they did not know when the change in their fortunes began. Beside the fact that the story con­ cerns itself with change in the form of reversals of fortune, Ts’ai Tse three times uses proverbial expressions which refer to waxing and waning of fortune. Expressions such as these are used very frequently in the Intrigues and are readily distinguished; often because they are preceded by “it is said,” “they say,” or “I have heard it said.” They are invariably epigrammatic because they balancé or parallel protasis with * The bracketed section is probably a later addition.

26

Inevitable Change apodosis and often the last character of each rhymes or has a high degree of consonance. While it is true that one can construct at will epigrams which have the ring and pattern of older proverbial expres­ sions, one of the cogent reasons for using a proverb is that it sums up old lore and is the common possession of all— if it is known to your audience already it carries more weight of conviction. I suspect, then, that “four seasons to one another yield, etc.” is respectably old. The apothegm which begins “the sun must sink when it reaches noon,” is an exact parallel with an expression found in the Book of Changes4 though its rhymes are different. This attests to, but does not prove, a considerable age for the saying. Since we lack dependable historical context for these dialogues involving change, a generous opinion may find them odd and a critical opinion, inconsequential. Certainly evaluations by orthodox Chinese of later eras found them trifling or—r-and this is more often the case— pernicious. One need not accept their judgment, however. Plato, also oriented to absolutes, gave the name “Sophist” an evil odor be­ cause of his dislike for similar propositions. Protagoras, the Sophist, observed that material objects are everchanging and a man’s perception of them changes continually as well. With this as a basis, Critias (480403 b .c .) derives the observation—which was important to relativism — that “for a man, once he is born, nothing but death is sure; while he lives it is certain that he cannot move out of the way of ruin. . . .”r> This is a statement which sounds remarkably like T ’an Shih-tzu’s “event which must transpire and principle which always pertains.” Leaving aside the germs of philosophical concept— for they are rudimentary— it is clear that the author of the Ts’ai Tse and Fan Sui colloquy has gone beyond the ambit of an early historian who, left with a record of persons and their deeds but without the words spoken by them, “puts into the mouth of each speaker sentiments proper to the occasion” as Thucydides phrased it. Our author is intent on the rhetoric of his work. He has an attitude toward history very unlike Thucydides’ and resembling greatly that of Cicero for whom history was a handmaid to oratory: “Do you see what an asset history is to the public speaker? I think its greatest benefit lies in its flow of prose and variety”6 is certainly very close to the mark for our writer who carefully points out four famous men of the past and how they came See under hexagram no. 55, where they are “k” rhymes. 5 Nahm p. 264. « Michael Grant, Roman Literature (Pelican ed. 1958) p. 80.

27

INTRIGUES

to grief because they did not understand the principle of change. Ts’ai Tse is introduced to us (modestly, thfough the words of a third party) as “the most eminent practitioner of high policy disputation” and goes on to prove it. The author, whoever he may be, is not a historian seeking words proper to the historical occasion; lie consciously uses the occasion (which may or may not be historical) for a dazzling show of argument and knowledge about the past, including proverbial wisdom. The concept of waxing and waning on the historical level, the rise and fall of royal houses and the increase or decrease of “virtue” (té) in the world, is so well known to early Chinese that they seldom ask the reasons for the peaks and troughs.78 Such change is relatively mechanistic, however, and does not imply that individuals are at the mercy of predestination. This is, at least, the case in the Intrigues* for men and theif opinions were more important to the persuader than anything else.

7 Cf. Watson I p. 6. 8 The exception to this seems to be Intrigues 38,11 (see Chapter V ), where Han Ming implies that he has been under a malign influence which could not be removed except by an agency other than his own.

28

IV Chinese Views of the Intrigues

I n 1925 H e n r i M a s pe r o 1 demonstrated— to the satisfaction of West­ ern scholars, at least— that a large portion of the Intrigues was fic­ tional. He confronted the dates of the so-called Vertical Alliance of the Chinese states of Han, Wei, Chao, Ch’i, and Yen against Ch’in, the barbarian state in the Wei River Valley, with the probable dates of events which transpired (according to the Intrigues) during the existence of the Vertical Alliance, and showed that this alliance against Ch’in must have been dissolved one year earlier than it was founded! If the Vertical Alliance is fictional, so also is its counterpart, the Horizontal Alliance which Ch’in was supposed to have arranged to nullify the league of the Chinese states. So also is Chang Yi, the clever minion of this powerful state and organizer of the counteralliance, and so also is Su Ch’in, the brilliant rags-to-riches leader of the Chinese states who held the barbarian at bay for fifteen years, according to the Intrigues and the Shih-chi. The loss of a Su Ch’in to Chinese history “whose political genius and discourses were already highly esteemed by Ssu-ma Ch’ien . .. and which were admired by twenty centuries of Chinese literati” was not lightly to be borne by the Chinese, yet a number of the more thought­ ful among them had long before faced up to the fact that the Intrigues and its personalities are essentially fictional. A nineteenth-century scholar, Liang Yii-sheng (quoted by Maspero himself), even accused Ssu-ma Ch’ien of having fabricated the character of Su Ch’in person­ ally— an extreme view. Ch’ao Kung-wu, a celebrated bibliographer, writing in the middle of^ the twelfth century, disposes of the Intrigues by saying: For ages it has been assumed that it records the events of several states and so has been listed under Histories. For my part, since it does not contain “veritable records” (Shih-lu) and 1 “Le Roman de Soil Ts’in,” Etudes asiatiques 2 (1925) 127-41, and “Le Ro­ man historique dans la littérature chinoise de l’antiquité” (1929), Mélanges posthumes 3 (1950) 52-62.

29

INTRIGUES

is difficult to take seriously at all, I believe it to be the product of students of the Vertical-Horizontal school of writers . . . and list it in that category.2 What is more interesting than Ch’ao’s opinion is the fact that Ma Kuo-han (1794-1857) anticipated Maspero by almost a century when he reconstructed a lost book called Su~tzus by piecing together the numerous Su Ch’in stories as they are found in the Intrigues, and adding such items from the Shih-chi biography of Su Ch’in as contrast with or supplement them. This is precisely what Maspero suggests should be done. Both men were in effect seeking to excuse the char­ acter and activities of Su Ch’in from the strictures of history (as well as the slings and arrows of historians) and give them over to the field of fiction— or rather, to the area of Chinese literature which most closely approximated our concept of fiction. However, doubts raised by Chinese scholarship concerning the historical reliability of the Intrigues and its cast of characters had little or no effect on the bulk of Chinese readers who for two thousand years took the legendary exploits of Su Ch’in (and many others found in the Intrigues) quite thoroughly to heart, arid, if they pondered the matter at all, considered them history. There is reason to think, more­ over, that the hundreds of anecdotes, situations, handsome rhetorical passages, and ingenious schemes of the Intrigues, when taken in their entirety, soon became a kind of chanson de geste which lacked official sanction but enjoyed wide popularity.4 To the early Han dynasty Chinese, raw history (and perhaps the testimony of their own eyes) made it abundantly clear that Ch’in, a state neither of the Chinese heartland (chung-yiian) nor sharing greatly in its traditions, had crushed all five “native” Chinese states while they still wrangled pettishly with one another over what to do about the menacing outlander. Any figure supposed to have arrested this conquest by an outsider— even if only for a little while— was bound to emerge greater than life size from folk memory. It is quite clear that such a figure had been created in the form of Su Ch’in and 2 Chiin-chai Tu-shu-chih Chapter 11, 22a, ed. of 1884. 3 See his Yii-hsien Shan-fang Chi Yi-shu vol. 80 in the Hsiang-yiian T’ang, ed. of 1884. 4 During and after the Han, when expressed conformity to the view of the past held by state cult Confucians was a political or economic necessity, the Shih-chi (through which most of these stories were known) was under ban because it contained “opportunist and deceitful stratagems . . . of the Warring States,” Ch*i Ssu-ho p. 260.

30

Chinese Views of the Intrigues was already cloaked in numerous legends by the end of the first century b .c .— we have Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s statement to this effect (SC 69/62). Furthermore, feelings about Su Ch’in ran high even at this early date. Conservatives of the time must have objected that his actions were not those of a “gentleman” for Ssu-ma Ch’ien took pains to defend him on grounds his critics would understand: Su Ch’in came from the humblest of origins and united six kingdoms in the amity of an alliance— this (alone) is enough to prove his wisdom greater than that of most men. . . . Ssu-ma Ch’ien is partisan and means to influence the judgment of posterity: . . . because of this I have set down his actions and arranged them chronologically so that there will not be only negative voices speaking against him. And Ssu-ma Ch’ien carried the day. He had on his side not only the amour propre of the Chinese and their still fresh hatred of Ch’in Shih Huang-ti and his works, but also a remarkably vivid legend of Su Ch’in embodying elements to which the Chinese of early and mid­ dle Han times were highly susceptible: a meteoric rise to fame after humble beginnings and degrading defeat, fierce attention to studies (of a secret book, at that), and an outright defense of wealth, ability, and power as opposed to deference for traditional values and status. In addition— and this may be extremely important— these elements, it seems, were already in Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s time set forth in an arresting and vigorous prose style. Indeed, the literary value of the Su Ch’in legend and other parts of the Intrigues has won this work its fame for centuries in the face of a continuing odium theologicum, as we shall see later. The Su Ch’in story, as Maspero notes, is quite the clearest ex­ ample of an early romance incorporated into the Intrigues. Not all of it is preserved; the Shih-chïs indication that Su Ch’in “studied under Master Kuei-ku” was probably once a part of the story,6 but this is no longer to be found in the Intrigues. The following is important not only because it is p ah of the earliest historical romance in China, but also for what it can tell about the focus of the romance and the art of persuasion in general: When Su Ch’in first devised the Horizontal strategy he spoke to King Hui of Ch’in. ’»Ch’ien Mu p. 310. He believes the book Kuei-ku-tzu does not antedate the latter Han. The tradition of Su Ch’in as his disciple is much earlier than that, however.

31

INTRIGUES

“Your Majesty’s state has the wealth of Pa, Shu and the upper Han on its west, the steeds of Tai and the stallions of Hu in the north. To the south it is bounded by Mt. Wu and the lands of Ch’ien-chung and to the east it is sealed by the peaks of Yao and the canyon of Han-ku. Fat fields, flourishing people, ten thousand chariots and a million mettlesome troops; a thousand miles of rich fallow land and an abundance laid by within de­ fensible borders— truly an arsenal of nature, the most awesome state in the land! “Your Majesty’s genius, his peoples’ multitude, the skill of his riders and chariots and the training of his troops could regu­ late the Lords and swallow up the world. I beg your Majesty hold this thought in mind for the moment while his servant sets forth how this shall be fulfilled.” “We have heard it said,” replied the king, “ ‘first fledge pinions then fly aloft, first gentle your nature then punish crime, first deepen virtue then bid your people act, first be conversant with good rule then importune great ministers.’ You, sir, have come to my court with stern purpose— reckoning the great dis­ tance as nothing— and I would hear your instructions on another day.” “I have misgivings that your Majesty can use them,” said Su Ch’in. “Yet Shen-nung did attack the Pu-sui, Huang-ti fought at Chuo-lu and seized Ch’ih-yu, Yao fought Huan Tou, and Shun attacked the Three Miao, Yii fought Kung-kung, T ’ang went against the Hsia, Wen-wang against Ch’ung, Wu-wang against Chou and Huan-kung of Ch’i took up arms to become Hegemon of the world! Indeed, who has not gone to war? “The envoys of old drove their chariots shaft against shaft* and their word was binding and the empire was one. Then began alliances north and south, treaties east and west, while arms and armor were never put aside. Soon the learned pedants embellished their words and the Lords fell into confusion— a myriad pretexts came to hand, more than any could understand. Statute bred ordinance and the people learned deceit; edicts multiplied and became murky till the populace knew not what they stood by. Graceful phrases and elegant words kept troops in armor, hands on swords; arguments grew more specious, robes more impres­ sive, and wars more frequent. More clever became the sayings and less controlled the land. Tongues were worn off, ears deafSo frequent was their intercourse.

32

Chinese Views of the Intrigues ened, yet all remained undone. They preached righteousness, prated fidelity, but the empire belonged to none. “Finally rulers rejected the literate and cosseted the war­ rior who lashed together his breastplate by day, honed his blade by night, and knew nothing but the battleground. Then gain came unbidden where they stood and their lands broadened while they sat at ease. The Five Emperors, Three Kings, and Five Hege­ mons, brilliant ruler or sage prince— one and all wished to achieve dominion while sitting at court. Yet when their authority brought it not, then they did battle to extend their land. For much land they plied their armies, for a little they smote with halberds and when this was done great success attended them. Therefore, let your arms be victorious abroad, let fidelity be strong at home, let those above be awesome and those below submissive! “Today, if you would be preeminent among great states, overset enemy nations, control all within the four seas, bring man to good and make vassals of the Lords, you must do it by force of arms. Today’s rulers, heritors of the past, are heedless of the supreme way; they were schooled in confusion, rule in disorder, are bemused by words, besotted with verbiage, sunk in disputation, smothered with speech . . . and from your majesty’s comments I conclude that he too will never reach hegemony!” Ten times Su Ch’in sent up his Persuasions to the king of Ch’in who acted on none. His sable cloak worn bare, his coffer emptied and his purse exhausted, Su Ch’in turned homeward with bandaged feet in grass sandals. With his memorials in a tattered sack, with visage worn and black, with his frame gaunt and ugly he reached home. Nor did his wife rise from spinning, nor did his sister fan up the hearth, nor did his mother speak to him. Su Ch’in choked and sighed: “No husband to my wife, no brother to my sister, no child to my mother—these insults all spring from the country of Ch’in.” That night he brought forth his books, some two score boxes of them in all, and found within the Secret Talisman of T ’ai-kung. Bowed over it he recited the schemes therein, thumbed and pored to fit and fathom them. If ever he dozed while at study he drew forth a gimlet and stabbed his thigh till the blood ran off at his heel. And he asked himself, “Where stands the man who persuades a ruler and will not put forth whatever wealth he has for honor and ministry!” When a year was passed and his study was complete he said, “Here are Persuasions meet for the rulers of our time!” There33

INTRIGUES

upon he passed through the Ijtook and Swallow Gates and got audience in the Palace of Splendor to persuade the King of Chao. He spoke to the rhythm of his practised gestures and greatly pleased the King of Chao who thereafter titled him Prince Wu-an and gave him the seal of chief minister. One hundred armored chariots had he, a thousand bolts of brocade silk; of white jade pieces a hundred pair and ten thou­ sand ounces of yellow gold to follow in his retinue. He aligned the Vertical states and deranged the Horizontal to bring mighty Ch’in to its knees. While Su Ch’in held power in Chao, all passes were closed to Ch’in. And in these times the vastness of the empire, the multitude of its people, the authority of powers and princes and the skill of its advisers all were devoted to the plans of Su Ch’in. Not a dipper of grain was wasted nor a weapon raised. Nor did one soldier fight, one bowstring part, nor broke one dart; and the Lords cherished one another. Closer were they than brother is to brother. Thus it was that “a sage was present and the empire submitted, one man was used and all men followed him.” As it is said, “if a man be diligent in ruling he need never be tested in war; if he serves in his own court he need never serve outside his own marches.” In the days of Ch’in’s eminence a daily tribute of yellow gold kept the highroads all agleam with chariots’ brazen hubs and lines of mounted men. And soon all China east of Yao* knew the fame and magnified the state of Chao. Su Ch’in came from the alleys of poverty where homes are holes in courtyard walls, and doors swing on insubstantial hingepins; whose dwellers cringed to cart-shafts and bowed to bits and halters. Yet now he traveled throughout all China speaking at length before princes of men, confounding their courtiers, out­ witting all others. Being on embassy to the King of Ch’u, Su Ch’in’s road once took him through Lo-yang. His family hçàrd the news, swept the path and lintel, and went forth thirty If to greet him in greatest reverence and made apology. “How now is my sister so humble who was once so haughty?” he asked. “My brother’s estate is lofty and his wealth great,” she replied. * The mountain marking Ch’in’s eastern boundary.

34

Chinese Views of the Intrigues “Alas,” said Su Ch-in, “in poverty even my parents would not own me a son, in wealth my whole family stands in awe and fear. Then can any man born on earth neglect power and despise wealth?” (Intrigues 11,2) The most conspicuous feature of the Su Ch’in story is its inclusion of mechanisms more related to storytelling than to rhetoric. The narra­ tive sequence of events at the beginning is far more pronounced than in any other item from the Intrigues. In the examples so far given the reader can see that the briefest possible frame for the rhetoric which follows is generally given immediately and persuasive speech begins forthwith. The same happens here, but after Su Ch’in has failed in Ch’in, there is a transition passage consisting of actions, events, and a description of China under Su Ch’in’s rule. This and the gathering up of threads at the end (which contrasts the actions of his family before and after his success) are articulations not to be found in most other units of the Intrigues. More important than the comparative rarity of this kind of third-person narrative is the fact that in this legend it is even given particular attention. The section relating Su Ch’in’s return home in defeat is long enough to reestablish the four-beat rhythm which is easily spotted in the “persuasion,” and it also contains deliber­ ate rhyme, as I have indicated in the translation. Close consonance or rhyme in the “persuasion” passage of the legend is quite frequent, as it is in some other parts of the Intrigues, but finding the phenomenon in a narrative section as well as in the “persuasion” argues in favor of self-conscious authorship of something more than just a long speech. I should be inclined to agree with Ma Kuo-han and put this legend somewhere near the beginning of a Su-tzu, or a Romance of Su Ch’in to take Maspero’s implied title. I have been using the terms “narrative” and “persuasion” to con­ trast with each other, and the distinction is quite properly made simply on the basis of content; but the time has come to remove the quotation marks from “persuasion” for I intend to use it as a technical term meaning the type of rhetorical display which constitutes most of the translated passages in this book. More specifically, in the translation just given, the persuasion is that section which begins “Your Majesty’s state . . .” and ends with “I conclude that he too will never reach hegemony.” The persuasion is the kernel of almost all units from the Intrigues whether they were pieces from romances or complete units in them­ selves. The persuasion form is, of course, a development of the earliest form of literature— the oral tradition of handing on words of a former 35

INTRIGUES

speaker in the first person. This earliest form is well known in archaic Chinese literature from the “Counsels” and “Orders” in the Shu-ching straight through the Analects and the Meng-tzu, where it has become more intimate and brief statements from the protagonist from time to time give it the shape of didactic conversation.. This was indeed the preferred style for philosophical teaching in Chinese literature as it was for a long time in Greek writing. Speaking in the broadest terms, the form of a persuasion is almost identical to one we know in the West as oratory. Since we know of no early oratorical tradition in China—that is, one which involves exhorting groups of people to certain actions or attitudes— but have almost numberless examples of the adviser exhorting a single person (a ruler) to undertake actions, to revise or adopt certain attitudes, the term persuasion is used instead of oratory. Let it be kept in mind, however, that the basic devices of diction and style are the same for Western oratory and the Chinese persuasion. The reader will have noticed that in the persuasion which is part of the Su Ch’in legend, the king is allowed to interrupt6 with rather a lengthy (and obviously smug) speech. This is rather the exception than the rule in units from the Intrigues. It is common to limit the protagonist to a single ejaculation of assent at the end of a persuasion — “shan” (“good!” or “so be it” ). In my opinion the longer speech by the king of Ch’in in reply to Su Çh’in is an indicator of a style more advanced, more developed, and more “literary” than is found in the majority of other Intrigues persuasions. In most of the others, even those which feature Su Ch’in, attempts to reproduce anything which sounds like the give and take of a conversation are very limited.7 In the translation given below as one of the best examples of the persua­ sion form, the rhetoric itself is interrupted only twice by a response from the ruler— and these are remarks called forth by rhetorical questions: There was one who would discredit Su Ch’in, before the King of Yen. “Prince Wu-an* is the most'faithless man in the empire,” * Le., Su Ch’in. 6 This also happens in Ts’ai Tse’s persuasion of Fan Sui (Chapter III) which also is from a romance. 7 Theoretically, there should be persuasions in the Intrigues consisting of nothing but monologue. Actually, they are quite rare; Intrigues 18,12 (see Chapter V) is one, but since it is attributed to Fan Sui (who is another hero of a romance) we must suspect that it was once surrounded by more narrative detail, including, perhaps, dialogue.

36

Chinese Views of the Intrigues said he. “My lord now puts ten thousand chariots under him and honors him in his own castle. This tells the world that my lord consorts with inferior men.” When Su Ch’in returned from Ch’i the king would not give him lodging. “Your minister was a simple man of Eastern Chou when first I saw you, my lord,” said Su Ch’in. “There was about my person not the least measure of merit and yet my lord did wel­ come me at the outskirts and have me seen in his chambers. Now that your minister has been on mission for my lord, has profited him by ten cities, and has the merit of sustaining an imperiled Yen, he will not be heard— surely someone has called me unfaithful and injured me to my king. My faithlessness is my king’s fortune. Would it be possible for me to serve my lord if I were as faithful as Wei-sheng, as pure as Po Yi, as filial as Tseng Shen?” “It would,” replied the king. “If there were such a minister he would not serve you,” said Su Ch’in. “For look, the filial Tseng Shen’s virtue was never to leave his parents to spend one night abroad— how then would my lord dispatch him to Ch’i? Or suppose he were as pure as Po Yi, who would not eat the bread of idleness, who looked black even upon the integrity of Wu-wang and would not be minister to him, who took his leave of Ku-chu and starved him­ self to death in the mountains of Shou-yang. Would a person of such purity toil a thousand miles afoot to serve the imperiled ruler of a weakened Yen? And the faithful Wei-sheng who waited for her who came not, who clasped the pilings and drowned rather than move? Would such faithfulness allow him to vaunt the power of Yen in Ch’i and gain great merit from it! “These acts of faithfulness are ever done for oneself and never done for others. In these lie the art of sheltering one’s own name, but not the way of advance and advantage. The successive rise of the Three,Kings, the repeated thriving of the Five Hege­ mons were not brought about by brooding a clutch of virtues. Had they felt nurturing a reputation was important, then Ch’i’s hegemony would not have increased beyond Ying-ch’iu (the tiny fief of T’ai-kung), and you, my lord, would never cross your own marches nor peer beyond your border walls. “Your servant has an aged mother in Chou. Leaving her to serve my lord meant casting aside the art of sheltering my name and devising ways of advance and advantage. Your minister’s 37

INTRIGUES

inclination is not, then, in accorçl with his lord's—you are a ruler who would prefer a reputation, I a minister who prefers advan­ tage. This is what they mean by ‘loyalty and faith will offend your ruler.’ ” “What offence can there be in loyalty and faith?” “Does my lord not know? A neighbor of mine who had been long absent on a mission had a wife who was being unfaithful. When the husband was on the point of returning the lover became worried. “ ‘Good sir, fear nothing,' said she, T have already poisoned the wine to be served him on his return.’ “Two days later the husband returned, and his wife sent a concubine in to him bearing the cup of wine. The concubine knew the wine was poisoned— if she presented it she killed her master, if she spoke, her mistress would be driven from the house. She feigned clumsiness, spilled the wine, preserved the life of her master and the safety of her mistress; but the loyalty that prompted the act also earned her a whipping. This is the ‘loyalty and faith which offends the ruler.’ “My services, my lord, are unhappily much like those of the concubine spilling the wine. I sought ever to heighten my king’s honor, strengthen his state— and now have offended him by doing so. “I fear, my lord, that whosoever serves you hence will not take such pains over these things. When I persuaded Ch’i I cheated her not at all; whoever is sent next to Ch’i and he speaks not mine own words, he may have the knowledge of Yao and Shun but Ch’i will still reject him!” (Intrigues 68,5) This contains a full complement of typical persuasion approaches: demonstration of considerable knowledge of the past, appeal to selfinterest, a piquantly obscure quotation (“loyalty offends” ) which gives motivation for the swift, compact narration of an extremely apposite anecdote. All are handled with greaj dexterity. Beyond its stylistic perfection it transmits— even to the rêader of today— a good deal of conviction; that is, with the momentary suspension of disbelief required by all fiction, the reader’s sense of plausibility is not offended to assume the king of Yen might well have been persuaded to keep Su Ch’in on because his fortune indeed still lay in the “faithlessness” of his minister. A number of other persuasions though stylistically sound lack this ability to convince; either the ruler agrees with the 38

Chinese Views of the Intrigues persuader too readily,8 or the anecdote is too ill-suited to the occasion to lend force to the speech,9 or the thread of future probabilities is spun so fine that it becomes unbelievable contrivance10— all of these weaknesses appear elsewhere in the Intrigues, but are happily avoided in the persuasion above. The writer who gave this story its final form knew his craft thoroughly. It is obvious that Ssu-ma Ch’ien appreciated this for he quotes the entire piece in his biography of Su Ch’in with only the slightest verbal rearrangements (SC 69/39-42). Possibly, as further proof of the high regard in which this persua­ sion was held, it is repeated in full again in the Intrigues (69,13), where it is attributed to Su Tai, younger brother of Su Ch’in. This may have been done by the unknown author of a sequel to the Romance of Su Ch*in. As Maspero points out, the legendary Su Ch’in was such a success that he was given not one but two brothers, Su Tai and Su Li, to carry on after he died. But the writer of Su Tai’s version of the persuasion did not have the sense of form evident in the “original” translated above. For though Su Tai uses almost the same words as his brother, Tai’s persuasion has a hole in the middle of it through which both persuader and ruler fall into digression. At the end there is an orotund generality by Su Tai rather unrelated to the business at hand— persuading the king to continue using him. These destroy the headlong speed one feels in the Su Ch’in version which transmits to the reader the sense of urgency in persuading a king. It is more likely, however, that the repetition is but one example of what I call a persuader’s trope. This is a broad term for anecdotal or didactic material used in two or more persuasions of the Intrigues. The phenomenon is another indicator of the essentially fictional nature of the work, but more important, the existence of such tropes shows how popular certain persuasion elements became. As an example of a complete trope, below is a story which must be compared with In­ trigues 29,6, translated in Chapter I: “My lord does not truly long to find men of honor (shift) ” said Lu Chung-lien to Meng-ch’ang Chiin. “Think of Yung-men Tzu, patron o f Cl)iao Yi, and Yang-te Tzu, patron of (* ). Food and drink they gave them, summer garments and winter furs they «E.g., 29,4; 16,16. '•»See 39,8; 4,2. 10 9,2; 51,24; 15,7; 27,1, for example. * A name is obviously missing here.

39

INTRIGUES

shared with them— and each patron had a man who would gladly die for him. “Today my lord’s household owns more wealth than ever belonged to those two famed patrons, yet does my lord have a single worthy who would make the supreme sacrifice for him?” “It is only because I have yet to find two such men as they to offer my patronage,” replied Meng-ch’ang Chün. “Were I ever to find such a pair then certainly they would die for me as well.” “The hundred mounts in your stable all wear ornamental saddle cloths and eat the most succulent millet— yet they are neither fabulous unicorns nor King Mu’s charger, Lu-erh,” re­ plied Lu Chung-lien. “The ten ladies of your inner courts wear bright embroidered gowns and eat the choicest grain and meat— yet none is Mao Ch’iang nor Hsi-shih. “It seems my lord is content to find his mounts and maidens in his age but must apply to more ancient times for men of honor! This is why I say you do not greatly desire such men.” ( Intrigues 29,3) In this there is no doubt that the two are different persuasions, they concern different characters, both make the same analogy to put across the same point, and each is apposite to its own situation: we need not worry that one of them suffers from textual corruption. A less complete trope is that of the “affairs of spirits.” The same anec­ dote is used twice, but in 28,3, it is apposite while in 39,8, there is some doubt that the beginning of the persuasion actually goes with the ending. I would not say that the last paragraph of 34,19, for example, shares a trope with 29,6 and 29,3, above, for the persuader in 34,19,11 though having the same goal in view, selects or creates a different analogy from “history” for his rhetorical clincher. It has the same effect, but it is not the same trope. The preceding dissections performed by a Westerner on the corpus of Intrigues (and those to be undertaken in subsequent chap­ ters) will have as little effect on the status of the Intrigues in China as did the critical opinions of Chinese scholar in the past. As a case in point, the Intrigues is presently in the warm (if somewhat suffo­ cating) embrace of dialectical materialism: Its contents consist basically of opinions on government and strategies of struggle which are brought to light in discussions between persuaders and rulers— or sometimes persuader and per­ suader. . . . But these theories and strategies are not narrations 11 See Supplement.

40

Chinese Views of the Intrigues of abstract concepts, they are concrete descriptions of the rela­ tions between persons and events . . . and deeply and with truth reflect concretely the complex and contradictory struggles of the ‘Seven Great States.’12 Since it is currently proper in a book to “reflect conflicts concretely” the prose of the Intrigues has again won itself a place in proper society. The Chinese can be grateful to the man who discovered that the In­ trigues did not, indeed, indulge in “narrations of abstract concepts”— currently a poor thing for a book to do— for they can now indulge in accredited, rather than illicit, enjoyment of just those features of the Intrigues which they have always enjoyed. Gratitude toward this un­ known political theologist should be tempered, however, by the realiza­ tion that the book would have won its way back into polite society anyway because “it exposes the darkness and the evils of the feudal ruling classes.”13 Anyone who has dealt with Chinese literature is aware that the Chinese have been traditionally disinclined to divorce philosophical and ethical requirements from purely artistic considerations in criticism of their own literature to a degree unmatched in the West. This is true not only of the past: the so-called “literary revolution” of 1918-36 replaced, for the most part, the demands of an older system of values with a newer set of social-political expectations and the latest regime has simply intensified and specialized these to such a degree that evaluation of literature as personal expression without reference to its social and political effect is impossible. This attitude of the Chinese toward their literature has had a direct bearing on the history of the Intrigues and, of course, is manifest in Chinese criticism of it, even in its first preface by Liu Hsiang: Does it not seem ironically proper that the virtue of rulers during the era of the Warring States was so shallow that these men who advised them were obliged to consider nothing but power in their plans? . . . the result was that all their schemes concerned the exigency of now or the demand of tomorrow . . . The implication here' is that the book contains nothing of lasting worth. But Liu Hsiang was far better able to see other values in the book than were many critics of later centuries. He continues: . . . But they were officials of great talent. They estimated the capabilities of rulers of the age, put forward the most amazing plans and manifested uncommon intelligence. They turned peril 12 Hsiian-chiang p. 2. 13 Ibid. p. 19.

41

INTRIGUES

into security and loss into salvation in a manner which delights: it is well worth reading. When Tseng Kung (1019-85) reconstructed the text in Sung times, though it was probably just a part of his job as editor in the historical library, he felt it incumbent upon himself to justify the resto­ ration of a work which so transgressed official morality: . . . If a ruler wishes to suppress a pernicious doctrine he will first cause such a doctrine to be made clear to the empire so that men of his time may understand why it cannot be used— then suppression will be achieved properly. He will also cause men of future generations to understand that it could not be used— then avoidance of it will be done with understanding. And if the lurid details of pernicious doctrine in action were more interesting than hypothetical plans for suppressing it, the blame can hardly be laid at the door of Tseng Kung. Judging the men in the text who advanced such doctrine he says: They argued only the convenience of treachery and con­ cealed its perils, they spoke only of the goodness of warfare and hid its grief so that all who did as they bade and followed them profited from it—but the profit never exceeded the harm . . However,. . the history of these two hundred and forty-five years cannot simply be discarded. Wang Chiieh (fl. 1065), who wrote a preface to the Intrigues only a short time after Tseng Kung, echoes something of Liu Hsiang’s atti­ tude: The coarse outlines of success and failure for the two hun­ dred years between Ch’un-ch’iu times and Ch’in can be glimpsed in the book, and though it is not a repository of proper morality, the elegance of its debates— even over rash doctrines— make it a paragon of letters. It would not be proper for scholars simply to discard it. Pao Piao justified the Intrigues as the work of an historian who “must write down all that happens in his time— the good, the bad, he does not choose between them.” In the Yiian dynasty Wu Shih-tao reverts to the “dreadful example” justification: The gentleman . . . will dwell on the disturbances and per­ ceive the falsity of the times. He will thereby become more firm in what he holds to be right and more clear on what he knows to be good. The man of few principles . . . will see herein that what begins as profit results in harm and small gains later turn into great losses; he will thus gain insight by which to take warning. 42

Chinese Views of the Intrigues Li Ko-fei (fl. ca. 1090), savant and author of the Sung dynasty, in a comment (t’i) on one edition of the Intrigues, also argues that: . . . those who read the book should admire the effectiveness of the Persuasions and overlook the baseness of subject matter that they may be moved only by the rhetoric itself. Most of the quotations above show signs of that elliptical atten­ tion Chinese critics pay to the artistic worth of a piece of prose. Focus for literary criticism of prose was traditionally on the ethical content of a work; how near to or distant from the “proper” attitude the text came. Since the proper preoccupation of prose was to “give expression to the Way,” philosophical and ethical considerations were the first order of business with a critic. Next in importance was style, and lastly (when it occurred at all), the success with which the author might have conveyed nuances of his own personality and niceties of indi­ vidual insight in his writing. In the selection of quotations14 given above, the fact that praise for the literary values of the Intrigues is still loud enough to be heard over the general uproar of ethical dam­ nation is a strong indication of its high literary quality. But perhaps the best index to the total impression on Chinese letters left by the prose of the Intrigues is the number of times selections from it have been incorporated into anthologies of the type of prose which we now call kü-wén. It is heavily represented in every important collection that covers the era in which the Intrigues was supposed to have been written; this despite the bad reputation it had among the orthodox. (See Appendix II.) It is popularly believed that Su Hsün (1009-66), one of the “Eight Great Prose Masters,” was greatly influenced by the style of the Intrigues. Margouliès15 says that “his style was firm and vigorous hav­ ing in it much of the Chan-kuo Ts’e which he studied most often and for which he made a ‘linguistic commentary’ (yln-yil)— a fact which was kept secret while he lived.” Hé does not give his source for this, but it is much like several other stories which link Su Hsün’s name with the Intrigues. Probably best known is the one which appears in an “eyebrow note” ovèr the first selection from his pen in the Ku-wen Yüan-chien (ch. 47/37a) : Yeh Shih of Shui-hsin (fl. 1174-90) says: “Su Hsün com­ pared himself with Chia Yi. Tseng Kung and Wang An-shih both feared his pen— even to the point of overrating (its power). Ou14 All of which may be found in the prefatory material appended to the SPTK edition of the Intrigues. 15 Margouliès I p. 263.

43

NTRIGUES

yang Hsiu compared him to Hsiin-tzu and at the end of the Chia-yu period (1060) he especially recommended his name from the ranks* . . . It was told of Su Hsün that he constantly had with him one book which he would reread and recite. His two sons never could get a look at it, but onç day they did manage to peek, and it was the Intrigues. Su Hsün sighed with regret (that they had seen it). This story is probably apocryphal, but when you read his words you can see there was (something to) it.” This story is repeated today but without the admission that it was probably apocryphal.10 It is easy to see how it came to be believed, for the elder Su was a sober, blunt man and his prose has a classical sparseness and rhythm matching his personality and is certainly more akin to that of the Intrigues than it is to the prose of the Sung. Whether or not he did admire the Intrigues, a Ming dynasty literatus, Mao K’un (1512-1601), acclaims the justice of a statement that “. . . the very pulse of (Su Hsün’s) meaning comes from the Chan-kuo Ts’e” in yet another “eyebrow note” to the Yiian-chien (47/54b). The Intrigues was appreciated by a whole generation of literary historians during the 1920’s and 1930’s even though most of them were in revolt against “old-style” literature. Its lack of cant, the frank cynicism of many of its characters, and, doubtless, its bad reputation among older guardians of public morality appealed to them. Cheng Chen-to can speak for most of them: The Intrigue's influence in literature is in no way inferior to that of the Kuo-yii and the Tso-chuan; moreover, the era of the In­ trigues was a new age, the old world had been completely over­ turned and destroyed. Its arguments are unprecedented, nimble of wit, full of a wonderful cunning and daring. Action is coura­ geous, radical, and done with dispatch. . . . So the Intrigues itself gives the reader a whole new context. . . . It is like a medieval European romance or an historical novel such as . . . the R o­ mance of the Three Kingdoms and will ever be a delight to its readers.17 ‘ h, More recent expression of subjective opinion on the Intrigues (not dictated by revolt or doctrine) is difficult to come by. An edition of selections from the Intrigues for use in middle schools and colleges, * That is, without having sat for the examinations. 16 See Ts’ang Li-ho’s preface to Intrigues VI p. 5. 17 Ch'd-fu Pen I pp. 79-80.

44

Chinese Views of the Intrigues published in 1928 and reprinted, in 1962,18 has prefatory material which for the most part is content to summarize the quotations already given here and adds nothing to them. But the Kuo-ts'e K ’an~yen of Chung Feng-nien, though it represents itself as a scholarly inquiry only, sheds very interesting light on the attitudes held toward the Intrigues by a gentleman of the older school as late as 1936. Scattered throughout this important publication are places where Chung’s schol­ arly objectivity is momentarily overcome by his more deeply held emotional convictions about characters and incidents in the Intrigues. None of his lapses from objectivity involves the literary quality of the Intrigues as such, but all indicate sharply the areas where Chinese reaction to the work is totally different from that of a foreigner. Be­ cause he knows it almost by heart, Chung is quite aware that Intrigues 29,3 (translated above), contains a persuader’s trope (though he would not identify it as such) which occurs elsewhere several times in the Intrigues. He seems to perceive as well that such recurrent pas­ sages are often attached to well-known personalities, such as Mengch’ang Chiin, even when the attribution offends common sense. He says as much in the first part of his note on 29,3 : In his Shih-chi biography Meng-ch’ang Chiin says to T’ien Ying: “You serve Ch’i as minister yet no worthy lives in your palace . . . women dance in elegant silks in the rear chambers but your knights lack even sackcloth. . . . ” I fear that the story (from the Intrigues) is merely an elaboration of a traditional (reproach) . . . For Chung recognizes that Meng-ch’ang Chiin is elsewhere noted precisely for his proper use of “worthies” and “knights” and in his own biography is made to level at his relative, T ’ien Ying, substantially the same charge that is made against himself in 29,3. The appearance of a trope and the unlikelihood of its being addressed to Meng-ch’ang Chiin are not what make Chung question the “historicity” of the story, however. The really damaging evidence, as far as he is concerned, he gives last. And it is his last statement which surprises a Westerner: . . . the story is certainly wrong because it gives the name of Lu Chung-lien as the adviser—Lu Chung-lien was one of the most honorable men of his era and would not this rashly have stig­ matized Meng-ch’ang Chiin. Since Chung Feng-nien in 1936 takes the character of Lu Chung18 Ninety-seven items with copious, but not very helpful, annotations. See Bibliography under Intrigues VI.

45

INTRIGUES

lien19 seriously as a base line for making his judgment, it lends color to my contention that most Chinese readers consider characters and incidents in the Intrigues as part of their “history” and that this atti­ tude must be kept in mind in any evaluation of it. As literature it has neither the unity of view nor the internal organization which are the positive assets in a piece of creative writing by a single author; it has instead the ageless and universal appeal to its inheritors which always singles out a superior piece of literature and assures its survival. Dur­ ing the early (Sung-Yiian) period of Chinese vernacular literature, the Intrigues' stories, heroes, and villains were reworked and retold in the same fashion that European literature has reworked and retold its legacy of great Greek and Roman history and letters. And Chinese literature will continue to draw upon the Intrigues in the future.

10 There is no reason to believe Lu Chung-lien is less fictional than other characters from the Intrigues. See Chapter VIII.

46

V Allegories and Fables in the Service of Rhetoric G eorges M a r g o ulies said of the fable, “It is one of the oldest ele­

ments in literature and . . . the one which loses least in transmission.” All forms of fable are used as elements of persuasions. The undatable antiquity of Aesop implies that personified animals certainly figured among the earliest of apologues. The Intrigues has a representative of this group. There are a series of persuasions and other kinds of units devoted to Chao Hsi-hsii, minister to the king of Ch’u, and his impla­ cable enemy, Chiang Yi. The entire series consists of Chiang Yi’s attempts to denigrate Chao Hsi-hsii, and one of these takes the form of a masterfully terse animal fable: “I hear that the north fears Chao Hsi-hsii,” said the king. “What say you to this?” None of the ministers replied, except Chiang Yi, who said, “The tiger hunts all the animals of the forest and devours them, but once when he caught a fox, the fox said, ‘You dare not eat me. The Lord of Heaven ordained me chief among beasts; if now you kill me you will be disobeying the will of Heaven. If you doubt it, follow behind me through the forest and watch the ani­ mals flee when they see me.’ The tiger did indeed doubt the fox and therefore followed him. Animals saw them and fled, but the tiger did not know the animals ran because they feared him— he thought they were afraid of the fox. “Now your majesty’s country is five thousand miles square and in it are a million first-class troops, all of whom are under Chao Hsi-hsii. Therefore when the north fears Hsi-hsii, in reality it fears your majesty’s arms, just as the animals of the forest feared the tiger.” (Intrigues 32,3) In the same set of persuasions Chiang Yi uses another apologue involving, but not personifying, an animal. This one is to subtly warn the king that his powerful minister, Chao Hsi-hsii, may frighten away men who come to tell the king the truth: 47

INTRIGUES

“There was once a man who took great care of his dog and loved it well. One day the dog made water into its master’s well and a neighbor saw him doing it. The neighbor wanted to go in and tell the dog’s owner but it hated him and had once bitten him for coming in die gate. The man still feared it and in the end did not go in to tell the owner.” “During the batde of Han-tan, Ch’u sent its troops (north) and took Ta-liang. Chao Hsi-hsii seized the state treasures. It is because I lived there then and know this that Chao Hsi-hsii hates to see me hold audience with your majesty.” ( Intrigues 33,7) Animals are used widely in the Intrigues, not only in allegories but in a type of imaginative reference to legend which displays genius. There is little doubt that a fabulous stallion Chi was known before the Warring States era, but it is probably the penultimate paragraph in the following story that turned Chi into a much used literary allusion1 instead of allowing him to slip into the limbo of half-remembered folkbeasts: Han Ming wanted to see Ch’un-shen Chiin but had to wait three months before he received an audience. When he had finished speaking Ch’un-shen Chiin was delighted with him. Han Ming wished to speak further but Ch’un-shen Chiin said, “I know you already, sir, you must now rest yourself.” Han Ming was taken aback by this (dismissal). “I did have one question to ask of my lord, but I do not want to seem insis­ tent; I wished to ask whether my lord’s saintliness was not greater than that of Yao?” “You go too far sir!” exclaimed Ch’un-shen Chiin. “How could I be the equal of Yao?” “Then how would my lord judge me in comparison with Shun?” “Why you, sir, are a Shun,” replied Ch’un-shen Chiin. “It is not so,” said Han Ming, “please allow me to explain it fully: It is true my lord’s virtue is nop the equal of Yao’s, nor is my ability as great as Shun’s. But when die virtuous Shun served the saintiy Yao it was three years before they really knew one another. However, today my lord has learned to ‘know me’ in no time at all. This must mean that my lord is a greater saint than Yao and I am more virtuous than Shun!” “Well said,” replied Ch’un-shen Chiin, and ordered the i H S W C p. 229 n. 16.

48

Allegories and Fables usher to record Han Ming’s name on the audience list to be granted entrance every five days. “My lord has heard of the great stallion Chi, has he not?” asked Han Ming. “When Chi was very old he was harnessed to a salt cart to pull it up Mount T ’ai-hsing. His hooves grew weak and his haunches trembled, his tail was soaked and his flanks drenched till sweat dripped to the ground and mingled with lather from his withers. Midway he came to a halt. He heaved on the shafts but could no longer climb. Po Lo* came upon him there and leaping from his chariot he cradled (the horse’s head) in his arms and wept. He took off his cape and covered the beast with it. Then Chi lowered his head and snorted, raised it and neighed with a sound that carried to the heavens— a sound as pure as chiming stones. And why? Because he saw that Po Lo truly knew him as he was. “Now I have for many years been forced to live in the hin­ terlands among the hovels of the meanest alleys and am much soiled by the sordidness of my lot. Yet today my lord has inad­ vertently cleansed me of my stains and exorcized my ill fortune. Won’t I also crow aloud because of you, my lord, when I (think back) on my trials in Liang?” ( Intrigues 38,11) The Han-lu hound, the wiliest hare, and King Mu’s charger have all been introduced earlier, and to these— which were not used alle­ gorically— must be added the tiger in the next story which if not allegorical is, however, one form of a persuader’s tropef— indicating how common animal analogies were with the persuaders: When P’ang Ts’ung was to accompany the heir, who was to be hostage in Han-tan, he spoke to the king of Wei before he left. “If a man were to tell you there was a tiger in the market­ place, would you believe him, my lord?” “No.” “If two people told you there was a tiger in the market, would you believe them?” “I should suspect something,” replied the king. “If three people should tell you there was a tiger would you believe it?” “I would.” * The legendary horse expert. + See 15,6, Chapter VI.

49

INTRIGUES

“Now the market is clearly without a tiger yet let three men speak of one and he appears,” said P’ang Ts’ung. “Han-tan is further away than the market, my lord, and my detractors num­ ber more than three— will you remember this my lord?” “But I understand that,” replied the Jring. P’ang Ts’ung took his leave and departed, but slander reached its destination sooner than he. In consequence, when the heir had served his time, P ’ang Ts’ung was not again given audience. ( Intrigues 53,16) One of the best known persuasions containing animal allegories is Chuang Hsin and the king of Ch’u. Because the first half of the piece is inferior in literary quality and the second half is able to stand by itself, ordinarily only part of it appears in anthologies. It is given below in its entirety because partial translations make it very difficult for students of the Intrigues to compare the Chinese text with the translation, and when one makes excerpts he runs the risk of leaving out text which might prove to be of value to someone else. In addition to its general interest as an animal allegory the piece is a classic example of one type of Chinese rhetoric, the progressive analogy. This is not peculiar to the persuaders; it is but a specialized form of reasoning by analogy2 which is to be found in the literature of all pre-Ch’in philosophical traditions. The progression is from the far away and inconsequential toward the important and near at hand until, at the end, the persuader applies the whole set of analogies, which then has the force of a sorites or chain-syllogism, to the case at hand— as in the following: “Your majesty, my ruler,” said Chuang Hsin to King Hsiang of Ch’u, “since you keep Chou-hou on your left side and Hsiahou on your right and when you go forth in your carriage Prince Yen-ling and Prince Shou-ling ride in attendance, and since they lust after power and revel in excess, heedless of government, your capital will be in great peril.” “Are you becoming senile and perverse,” asked the king, “or are you putting a curse upon the state of Ch’u?” “I am only being honest about what I see will happen,” replied Chuang Hsin. “I do not presume to curse the state. But if your majesty, my ruler, continues favoring four men as hç has, Ch’u is lost. I beg leave to go to Chao, to stay there and watch.” Chuang Hsin went to Chao and when he had been there five 2

See Bodde pp. 231-32.

50

Allegories and Fables months Ch’in did take the capitals of Ch’u and the areas of Wu, Shang-ts’ai and Ch’en as well. King Hsiang fled, secured the town of Ch’eng-yang and sent out riders to seek Chuang Hsin in Chao. Chuang Hsin obeyed the call, and when he arrived King Hsiang said to him, “It was because I could not put to use the Master’s advice that things have reached this state. What can be done?” “I have heard peasants say, ‘It’s not too late to hail the hound when the hare’s started; nor to repair the pen when the sheep has bolted,’ ” replied Chuang Hsin. “I have also heard that of old, ‘T ’ang and Wu with a hundred li flourished well; Chieh and Chôu held the empire, yet they fell.’ Now Ch’u is not a large state, but if one give a little here and take a little there it still amounts to several thousand li— and that is a great deal more than a hundred! “Has the king never noticed the dragonfly? With its six legs and four wings it darts and soars between heaven and earth, here it swoops and seizes little insects for food, there it gets the dew of heaven for its drink, and it knows no fear, it has no quarrel with man. Neither does it know a boy, scarce three feet tall, is dipping a filament of silk in sticky sweet which will bring it down from a height of thirty feet to become food for ants. Still, the dragon-fly is but a small thing. “So let us take the rice sparrow. With white grains below for him to peck, and the security of the leafy trees above him, he ruffles his feathers and flutters his wings and knows no fear, he has no quarrel with man. Neither does he know the young nobles holding bird-bows in their left hands and pellets in their right can bring him down from a height of fifty feet. Nor does he know they fly decoys of his own race for him, nor that flying in the leafy trees this day he will be a dainty dish this night; till suddenly he falls into the hands of the young men. Still, a ricesparrow is but a small thing. “So let us take the yellow crane. It roams freely over rivers and the sea and stays long in the great swamps; below him are eels and fishes to catch and elsewhere water chestnuts and tender plants. He drives his six pinions against the cold, pure wind and it floats him soaring on high; he knows no fear, he has no quarrel with man. Neither does he know the archer who sharpens his arrow-heads, prepares his bow and lashes a retrieving string to the shaft which can reach him at the height of five hundred feet— till the pain of the arrow.and strain of the string snatch 51

INTRIGUES

him from the pure air and dash him to earth. Roaming the rivers and lakes this day he will be in the stew kettle this night. Still, the yellow crane is but a small thing. “So let us take the affairs of Ling-hou of Ts’ai. In the south he wandered over Kao-p’o, in the north he climbed Mt. Wu. He drank from the springs of Ju-hsi and ate of fish from the Hsiang. Here he embraced young maidens, there he lay with his favorites, or he galloped with them in Kao-ts’ai and knew of no troubles for his kingdom. Neither did he know that Tzu-fa received an order from king Ling of Ch’u to bring him bound with red cord to the court. Still, the affairs of Ling-hou are but small. “So let us take the affairs of your majesty, my ruler. He kept Chou-hou on his left and Hsia-hou on his right and when he went forth in his carriage Prince Yen-ling and Prince Shou-ling rode attendance. They fed well from the taxes of their fiefs, they rode well from gold in the treasury. The king galloped with them in YUn-meng and knew of no trouble for the empire nor for his kingdom. Neither did he know that Jang-hou received an order from the king of Ch’in to seal the pass at Mien and harry the king of Ch’u in his own land.” King Hsiang’s color changed as he listened and his body trembled. He presented the jade baton to (Chuang H sin), gave him the land of Huai-pei in. fief, and titled him Prince Yang-ling. ( Intrigues 37,4) As with so many pieces in the Intrigues it is somewhat difficult to see why the king should react as he does to the persuasion. Nothing has been told him which was not already manifest. The important thing to remember, however, is that the persuasions were created by men who had an immense respect for rhetoric and were preserved by others who had very nearly as much. It is natural, certainly, that if the per­ suasive speech itself was not followed by information about the effect it had on the conduct or attitude of the person persuaded, it was less satisfactory than it might be. Either the writers themselves or later admirers might have felt a strong compulsion, to round off the rhetoric by adding details of its effects. It is quite* obvious that many of the pieces are so treated. It is also plain in others that persons interested not so much in the persuasiveness of a certain piece as in its moral, or the fact that it demonstrates certain historical forces in action, felt constrained to make these explicit. The latter class of additions are relatively easy to spot and I have bracketed them in every case of which I am tolerably certain, for these are truly impertinent to the persuader’s attitude. The translation below (25,12) is a case in point. 52

Allegories and Fables The preceding examples have all been persuasions which were recognizable as such. Their internal order was rhetorical and the alle­ gorical material in them was harnessed to persuade a ruler. The next, though it is given here because it has an allegorical quality, takes the form of narration of incidents. Sequences of incidents like those in the next translation are more often found in the Intrigues prefaced by some device (often merely, “Certainly your majesty has heard of Tsou Chi who was tall . . . ,” etc.) which inserts the narrative into the frame of persuasion. But it is true that there is also a class of stories in the Intrigues which cannot .be subsumed under our term persuasion and must be regarded simply as historical anecdotes.3 Tsou Chi was tall and fair of face and figure. He put on his court robes and cap and looked in the mirror. “Am I more handsome than Mr. Tardy of Northwall?” he asked of his wife. “You are much more so,” replied his wife. “How can Mr. Tardy even be compared to you?” Now, Mr. Tardy was a man known in Ch’i for his beauty, and Tsou Chi was not content, so he asked his concubine: “Am I more handsome than Mr. Tardy?” “How can there be any comparison?” she replied. Next morning when guests, not members of his family, came and he sat with them and talked, he asked them: “Who is the more handsome, Mr. Tardy or I?” “Mr. Tardy is not as handsome as you are, sir,” they replied. The day after that Mr. Tardy himself came. Tsou Chi exam­ ined him closely and decided he was not as handsome as Mr. Tardy. Then he looked in the mirror at himself and decided he was much less well-favored than was Mr. Tardy. When he went to bed that night he thought about it: “My wife thinks me handsome for she is close to me, my concubine because she fears me, and my guests because they want something of me.” He then went ta the court, had audience with King Wei and said: “Your servant knows he is really not as handsome as Mr. Tardy. My wife is close to me, my concubine fears me and my guests want something of me, so they all say I am more handsome than he. Now in the thousand square li of our country and in its two hundred cities there is no woman of the king nor attendant 3 Intrigues 39,11, is a prime example.

53

INTRIGUES

who is not close to him. In the court there is no minister who does not fear him, and within the borders of the land there is no one but he seeks something of the king. If one looks at it this way, the king has been monstrously hoodwinked!” “It is so,” said the king and he sent down an order: “To all ministers, officers and citizens who will criticize the king’s faults before him will go the highest reward. Those who will remonstrate with the king in writing will be given the next highest reward, and to those who overhear criticism of the king and convey it to his ears will go the least reward.” As soon as the order had been given, ministers came in with remonstrations; the doorway to the chamber looked like a marketplace. In a few months there were occasional petitioners, and after a year all those who spoke to the king had no petitions to make. [When Yen, Chao, Han and Wei heard of this they all came to court at Ch’i. This is what is meant by “winning a battle from the throne room.” ] ( Intrigues 25,12) As a general rule, since I am concerned with internal evidence of the Intrigues* origins, evidence from other works is not used to demonstrate anything in the Intrigues. In the case of Tsou Chi and his admonitions, something is served by looking outside. Pao Piao in his notes on this story (SPTK 4 /5 b ) feels he knows Tsou Chi as a historical character and finds this story incompatible with that char­ acter. Wu Shih-tao suggests that the person who looks in the mirror and finds the evidence of his eyes in conflict with the statements of others should be T’ien Pa and cites a story from the Hsin-hsü as evi­ dence.4 The T ’ien Pa version and its mate from the L5CCr‘ are suffi­ ciently different from the Intrigues* to indicate that Intrigues 25,12, is one form of a persuader’s trope— if the definition is temporarily enlarged to admit other works. I give the other two forms so that the three stories standing together will make a family portrait: There was in Ch’i one Master T ien Pa whose actions were correct in his own home and whose intelligence was manifest abroad. The king heard of his worth and appointed him to con­ sult with him on government. 4 Hsin-hsü vol. 2, Yi-wen 2a and 2b. This is not found in modern editions of the Hsin-hsü but in the collected yi-wen, which is why it is not cited in K’an-yen. LSCC 2 0 /19a.

54

Allegories and Fables Master T ’ien Pa had new garments made and brushed up his cap and girdle. He turned to his wife and asked her (how he looked). “Splendid,” she replied. As he left the gate he asked his attendant who also replied, “Splendid.” But when he crossed over the Tzu river he looked at his reflection and saw from it that he was uncommonly ugly. He went to his audience with the king and the king asked him about governing. To this he replied: “Governing is to make one’s self upright.* The basis for making himself upright lies in the many ministers of the king. When you summoned me, your majesty, I changed my clothes and adjusted my ornaments and asked my wife how I looked. My wife is partial to me so she flattered me by saying, ‘Splendid.’ But I took the opportunity, being near the water, to look at my image in the Tzu— only then did I know I was ugly. “The ministers, women, and attendants in Ch’i today who flatter the king (?) are more than two in number. If your majesty should go near the Tzu river to see his faults, and then correct them himself, Ch’i would be well governed indeed.” (Hsin-hsü) Lieh-ching Tzu-kao became known to Min-wang of Ch’i and, dressed in court clothes, he . . . walked to the reception hall and asked his servant, “How do I look?” “Wonderful, my lord, splendid,” replied the servant. But Lieh-ching Tzu-kao went and looked at his reflection in the well and saw clearly that he looked like a homely oaf. “Because I have become known to the king of Ch’i,” said he with a sigh, “I must bear deception. How much more deception must be practiced on the king himself. Unless he has a mirror he will perish soon!” (LSCC) As a final example o f thp persuader and his allegories— an example contrasting strongly with the narrative sample above— there is the brilliant monologue spoken by Fan Sui prefaced by reference to a totally fictional country and its equally fictional spirit. “And your Majesty has doubtless heard about the Spirit of the Grove in the country of Hanker?” Ying-hou asked King * This is a fanciful etymology; chèng “government” and chèng “upright” are homophones and probably distantly related.

55

NTRIGUES

Chao of Ch’in. “There lived on Hanker then an extremely rash youth who got the Sacred Grove to gamble with him. Tf I beat you,’ said the boy, ‘you must lend me your genie for three days. If I lose to you, you may do as you please with me.’ So saying, he cast the dice for the Grove with his left hand and for himself with his right. The Grove lost and lent the boy his genie for three days. But when the Grove went to get back his Spirit, he was turned away. Five days later the Grove began to rot and in seven it had died. “The country of Ch’in is your majesty’s Grove and Power is its genie: is lending it to others not fraught with dangers? Now I have never heard of a finger greater than an arm nor an arm being greater than a leg, but if such should exist it could only indicate a serious disease! “A hundred men scrambling to fetch a gourd by cart will accomplish less than one man holding it in his hand and walking purposefully. For if the hundred actually managed to get it aboard their wagon you may be quite sure that the gourd would be split asunder when it arrived. Today the country of Ch’in is used by Lord Hua-yang, is used by Jang-hou, by the Queen Mother and by your majesty. Even if it is not to become a gourd with which any may dip his water this should stop. For you may be quite sure that when a country does become a gourd for all to dip with, it too will be split asunder. “I have heard it said, ‘when the fruit is heavy the bough is strained, when the bough is strained the trunk is harmed; when a capital is great it endangers the state, when a minister is strong he menaces his king.’ Yet in your city today every man worth more than a peck of grain is the minister’s man— and this in­ cludes your majesty’s lieutenants, chancellors, and even his per­ sonal attendants. Even in times of peace this should not happen, but should there be trouble, then I would certainly witness a king standing all alone in his own coqrt. “I have the temerity to feel fear for your majesty. And what I fear is that in the country of Ch’in, many generations hence, the rulers will no longer be descendants of your majesty. “Your servant has heard that the awesome presence of great rulers in the past held their ministers in check at home and spread abroad their control over the land. Their government was neither troubled nor seditious and their deputies trod a straight path, fearing to do otherwise. But today the deputies of Jang-hou split the Lords among themselves, and tallies given by his hand 56

Allegories and Fables are recognized all over the land. He arrogates the power of a great state to muster troops and attack the Lords, but the profits from his victories and gains all return to his own fief of T ao, the spoils enter the treasuries of the Queen Mother, while rev­ enues from within your borders find their way to Hua-yang. Surely what used to be called ‘the road to danger and destruction for state and ruler* begins here. “If three honored persons can drain the state to secure themselves, then can the king’s power be absolute and do com­ mands originate with him? In truth, your majesty, only one in every three does.” {Intrigues 18,12) The preceding selection of allegorical and fabulous persuasions not only shows the persuasion in some of its best forms, but it should also indicate how certain rhetorical units like these, being well known and well loved, could break loose from their moorings to an indi­ vidual and in the course of their transmission either be ascribed to other persons, or, when their connections to individuals and incidents had been forgotten, later writers who transcribed them could have given historical (and in some instances, literary) body to the loose pieces in retrospect. In my opinion this helps to account for some of the phenomena in the Intrigues, where are collected literally hundreds of separate items— some being extremely fine pieces of prose— focused on the act of persuasion. Not only must there have been much interest in those who persuaded and what their methods were, but also there must have been a tendency on the part of literate Chinese to ascribe any gem from the past to certain famous names and certain important incidents which were known to all. There can be no doubt that the reverse was also true: certain historical incidents attracted rhetorical treatment and, as will be seen in the next chapter, there are widely known persuasions which must have been written after the fact and then become incorporated into the “historical” information about the incident.

57

VI The Intrigues’ Rhetoric and Historical Facts

So much o f th e Intrigues is devoted to rhetorical— and in this sense, fictional— treatment of events that it is very nearly impossible to be convinced a given incident ever transpired. But there are four of which we can be certain: (1) the taking of Han-tan by Liang Hui-wang in 354-353 b.c., (2) Ch’in’s attacks on Yi-yang (335? b.c.), (3) the Yen wars against Ch’i (285-279? b.c.), and (4) the siege of Han-tan by Ch’in (259-257? b.c.). Fortunately, there are quite a number of pieces in the Intrigues the contents of which were unquestionably inspired by these events, so the manner in which the Intrigues' rhetoric concerned itself with actual historic events can be quite clearly made out. 1 Shortly after the Ch’un-ch’iu period the state of Chin had split into the three smaller states of Han, Chao, and Wei. The last named began to show a belligerent spirit which, as Henri Maspero says, was out of proportion to its location and size. Spreading across the Yellow River into Ho-hsi and the Shang area, it threatened the north flank of Ch’in, and later (sometime after Wei moved its capital from An-yi to Taliang) the vigorous King Hui made Wei’s second attempt to take Chao’s greatest city, Han-tan. Such an action, if successful, would simultaneously threaten the security of both Ch’i and Chao and would not improve Han’s already precarious position. This much is fairly well-established history. What was to happen next is history derived from the Intrigues alone, but common sense also demands it. Neither Ch’u to the south nor Ch’in in the west cared to see a great central force established again. Ch’i and Chao were, of course, intimately affected by the siege of Han-tan. Troops from all of these countries were sent to raise the siege (by attacking the areas of Wei nearest their borders, no doubt), not once but several times. However, Wei 58

The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts took Han-tan and held on to it for two years before being forced to give it up. We have here an unambiguous set of facts; how does the Intrigues treat them? First, Ch’i’s decision to assist Chao as reported by the Intrigues: During the siege of Han-tan by Wei, Chao begged the help of Chi. Duke T ’ien* summoned his great ministers together to take counsel. “Should we succor Chao or should we not,” he asked. “It would be better not to rescue her,” said Tsou (Chi). “If we do not aid her,” returned Tuan-kan Lun, “no ad­ vantage will come from it.” “How so?” asked Duke T ’ien. “Will it profit us if Wei annexes Han-tan?” was the reply. “True,” said the Duke and mustered troops to be stationed on the outskirts of Han-tan. Tuan-kan Lun then addressed him. “When your servant spoke for profit it was not of this, for this yields none. Relieving Han-tan by camping on its borders will neither raze Chao’s cap­ ital nor impair Wei. We should rather attack south at Hsiang-ling to weaken Wei so that Han-tan will still fall but we will make capital of Wei’s exhaustion. This will leave Chao broken and Wei powerless.” “Good!” cried Duke T ’ien and mustered troops for the southward attack on Hsiang-ling. In seven months Han-tan was taken but Ch’i made good use of Wei’s weariness by crushing her at Kuei-ling. (Intrigues 24,6) There is nothing in the preceding which does violence to history. Indeed, it may be this piece alone that allowed SC to report a Ch’i attack on Hsiang-ling. But it must be asserted again that here as else­ where in the Intrigues the rhetoric is an imaginary re-creation of scenes and speeches, which would seldom by described in even the best historical documentation. State actions do not take this shape, state documents do not have this tone. The ultimate purpose in casting the historic event in the form of a seemingly clever correction of the ruler’s opinion we can only guess at. Two things are clear immediately, however. The writer had to face the fact that what Ch’i actually did in 353 b .c . was to attack Wei * I.e. King Wei of Ch’i.

59

INTRIGUES

at Hsiang-ling. To make this r e f u n d to the credit of an adviser (persuader, we would say), he then had to show the ruler favoring another action— direct intervention at Han-tan. It is interesting to see how it is phrased: “Station troops in the suburbs of Han-tan”— surely no more ridiculous tactics can be imagined. What the writer probably would have said was “attack the Wei troops at Han-tan,” if he were giving the alternative a fair hearing. It was undoubtedly simpler to attack the extended Wei outposts at a point nearest the Ch’i boundary, and this was what was actually done as far as we know. Tuan-kan Lun remains mute while preparations for troop movement to Han-tan are arranged and then pretends to see hidden benefits in an attack at Hsiang-ling. It is obvious that any attack on Wei would weaken her by that much. But it is also true that denying Han-tan to her would have had a more immediate effect—providing Ch’i could get troops to Han-tan without having to fight through miles of enemy-held countryside. The story does not really show the persuader more clever than the ruler, but it does picture the ruler as very dull-witted indeed. The most interesting facet of this piece is not that it is merely fiction-after-the-fact, but that the fictitious speech is put in the mouth of one Tuan-kan Lun. History (which is admittedly incomplete) knows no Tuan-kan Lun, but two other men of Tuan-kan, which was probably a town in the state of Wei, are said to have been connected with the court of Wei and one ijiore with the T ’ien court in Ch’i.1 Though the character may be fictitious he has a name which indicates the author knew his facts;12 though what he says was never actually said, yet the story describes what actually happened.

2 The reactions of the Ch’u court are much like those of Ch’i. The rhet­ oric is more complicated than in the first item, but the reader will find the result much die same. In the story below, the area Ch’u is said to have taken lies to the east and south of Ta-liang— precisely the section of Wei most readily reached by Ch’u troops: « During die siege of Han-tan, Chao Hsi-hsii spoke to the King of Ch’u: “It would be better if your majesty did not go to the aid of 1 Ch'ien Mu p. 130, 222, 366-67. 2 In the sense that someone enlarging on the stirring times of the Boston Tea Party would know enough to choose the surname Winthrop for a character rather than Jiménez.

60

The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts Chao but strengthened Wei instead. Wei being more strong will demand an even greater portion of Chao. Chao will not be able to comply and will therefore resist still more stubbornly until both countries are exhausted.” “This is not so!” said Ching She, “Chao Hsi-hsii does not understand! The thing Wei fears most is that we of Ch’u will strike at her back. If we do not go to Chao’s aid then Chao will be lost and Wei will have no fear of Ch’u at her back. This would be the same as Wei and Ch’u attacking Chao together, from which she would suffer greatly indeed. How then would both countries be exhausted by it? “On the other hand if Wei can consolidate her forces to cut deeply into Chao, Chao will see how great is her peril and know­ ing that we of Ch’u will not save her will certainly ally herself with Wei and scheme against us. “Therefore, your majesty, we should send out insufficient troops to help Chao. Chao, being stiffened by our help will put up a fight. Wei will be angered further by Chao’s stiffening and will observe that the Ch’u forces are not to be feared so she will not let up on Chao. Wei and Chao will then both be exhausted. Ch’i and Ch’in will follow our example and Wei will be destroyed.” Ch’u did dispatch Ching She who raised troops to aid Chao. Han-tan fell and Ch’u took (Wei’s) lands between the Sui and the Hui rivers. (Intrigues 32,5) About Chao Hsi-hsii and Ching She we know only what the Intrigues tells us. Just why Chao should be the unsuccessful persuader and Ching She the “winner” is not at all clear. Chao Hsi-hsii is treated very favorably in other pieces, and Ching is a well-known surname among Ch’u nobility. To be consistent with the general tone of the Intrigues, the roles should be reversed. This persuasion is one example of stretching the thread of proba­ bility too thin. The Machiavellian device of sending out too few troops to constitute a threat but enough to provoke action is an intriguing thought, but if one tries to imagine how that would be done it becomes clear the writer was simply dressing the historical fact— local and lim­ ited action against Wei— in complex rhetorical robes to make the per­ suader seem more sagacious. There is a curious footnote to this persuasion. Chiang Yi, whose implacable hatred for Chao Hsi-hsii is all we know of him, says (33,7): “During the battle of Han-tan, Ch’u sent its troops (north) 61

INTRIGUES

and took Ta-liang.”3 This would have had a spectacular effect on the history of the period if it were so. One commentator has assumed, and rightly, that “and took Ta-liang” is an interpolation. 3 With the Ch’in attack on Yi-yang we are supplied with abundant refer­ ence to the event, but the references are such that they cancel each other out. The Tzu-chih T’ung-chien has a single entry under the thirty-fourth year of Chou Hsien-wang: “Ch’in attacked Han and took Yi-yang.” Today even that statement is challenged.4 There is no doubt that the assault was launched and that the year was probably 335 b .c . Unfortunately, the crucial pieces in the Intrigues where spokesmen of Han refer to the battle are among the most confused in the book.5 It would not serve any purpose to present them. But the stories about Kan Mao, Ch’in’s general against Yi-yang show not only persuasion but also furnish an eyewitness anecdote which is totally different from the persuasion in form. It should be noticed in the persuasion that the desire to take the city and the battle itself are completely subordinated to the oppor­ tunity for rhetoric presented by a general who wants to secure his source of power before he risks attack. The situation is complex, so the framework for the persuasion is longer than usual and in one place the motivation for the story’s action is obscure: why is Hsiang Shou sent back to Ch’in? If there were more information about Kan Mao’s position at the Ch’in court we might find a reason, but as the Intrigues exists today the whole paragraph could be omitted with no loss to the argument. The reader will recognize the persuaders’ trope which is introduced by a set of historical parallels6: “If I could but drive my state carriage through Han’s land of Three Rivers,” said King Wu of Ch’in to Kan Mao, “and look upon the palaces of Chou then I might perish but my deed would survive me!” %• “Then I beg your majesty’s leave to make alliance with Wei 3 See Chapter V; see also Nakai Riken’s Chodai on this. 4 See Ch’ien Mu p. 284. 5 Particularly 66,10; 66,11; 66,12. 6 1.e. paragraphs 5 and 6 in 15,6. In SC 71/10 these paragraphs come after the Tseng Shen apologue. Takigawa thinks SC is in error because historical comparisons almost always come first in the Intrigued rhetoric. 62

The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts to attack Han,” replied Kan Mao. He was given permission and King Wu’s relative, Hsiang Shou, was sent as his aide. When they reached Wei, Kan Mao said to Hsiang Shou, “If you, sir, will return now to the king and tell him Wei is willing to do as we wish but caution him not to attack yet, then what­ ever success we have shall be to your credit.” Hsiang Shou did as he was asked and the king awaited Kan Mao’s return to Hsijang (on the very border of his land) to ask him his reasons for delaying attack. “Sire, Yi-yang is a great district. The wealth of Shang-tang and Nan-yang have long been concentrated there. It is called a district but it might better be named a commandery! Your majesty will have the craggy mountains at his back and must attack a thousand li from his base. Here will be difficulty indeed. “Your servant recalls that Chang Yi annexed Pa and Shu for Ch’in in the west, took the area beyond Hsi-ho in the north, and in the south seized Shang-yung. But the empire did not think more of Chang Yi; it praised the virtue of his ruler, your ancestor. “Once, Wen-hou of Wei ordered Yiieh Yang to command the attack against Chung-shan. After three years of battle he took it and returned to claim his honor. Wen-hou then showed Yiieh Yang a chest full of letters which defamed him and he bowed down with his head to the ground saying, ‘Your servant gains no honor in this victory, it was accomplished through the power of his master.’* “Now I am but an outlander serving your majesty. When Ch’u-li Chi and Kung-sun Yen, the hsi-shouf come and speak before your majesty on behalf of Han, you will listen to them and be tempted to cheat your ally, Wei, and I will be left to face the wrath of Kung-chung Ch’ih. “Once, when the sainted Tseng-tzu lived in the district of Pi, there was another of the same clan who also had the same given name. This one had killed a man, and a neighbor called out to Tseng-tzu’s mother: ‘Tseng Shen has killed a man.’ His mother did not leave off her weaving but said, ‘My son is no murderer.’ In a while another cried, ‘Tseng Shen killed a man,’ but she continued to weave as before. The third time someone cried out ‘Tseng Shen killed a man,’ she dropped her shuttle in fear, leaped her threshold and fled. Despite the virtue of Tseng * I.e. because the ruler had paid no attention to his detractors. + A military title used by the state of Wei.

63

NTRIGUES

Shen and his mother’s faith in faim, when three others had shaken her confidence she too misbelieved her son. “Your servant’s nobility being somewhat less than that of Tseng Shen, your majesty’s faith in me being less firm than Tseng’s mother’s and my detractors being more numerous than three, I fear your majesty will ‘drop the shuttle’ while I am gone.” “I will not listen to them,” replied the king. “I make cov­ enant with you now that this will be so.” They thereupon made covenant at Hsi-jang. Yi-yang was laid under siege for five months but would not fall; Ch’u-li Chi and Kung-sun Yen suggested treason before the king who believed them and recalled Kan Mao to accuse him. “Was there not a covenant at Hsi-jang?” asked Kan Mao. “There was,” replied the king after a little. Then he mus­ tered all his forces, ordered Kan Mao to lead them against Yiyang once more, and shortly thereafter the city fell.” ( Intrigues 15,6) When Kan Mao attacked Yi-yang, thrice he drummed his troops forward but they would not assault the walls. A lieu­ tenant under Ch’in’s General of the Right spoke to him: “Sir, no matter how strong our arms are, there will still be great casualties.” “I am an outlander,” replied Kan Mao. “I am minister of Ch’in because I held out Yi-yang as a bait for the king. If I now attack Yi-yang and fail to take it, Kung-sun Yen and Ch’u-li Chi will destroy me within Ch’in, Han Ch’ih will use his state to crush me outside Ch’in, and I will have seen my last day in battle any­ where! Come, tomorrow we will sound the attack again and if Yi-yang does not fall, its suburbs will be my tomb.” Kan Mao then distributed his own gold to be added to the prize money. Next day drums again sounded the advance and Yi-yang was taken. (Intrigues 15,8) 4 Concerning the bitter wars between the states of Yen and Ch’i we know a great deal more than we do about most sequences of events in the Warring States era. Origins of the enmity— other than those to be expected when two strong states share the same border— seem also to be clear from Mencius and other unimpeachable sources. Some time close to the year 319 b .c . King K’uai of Yen was persuaded by an adviser to hand on his throne not to his son and heir apparent but to 64

The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts the most virtuous man in the kingdom, after the fashion of the legen­ dary kings Yao and Shun. It surprises no one that the most virtuous man available turned out to be the very adviser who suggested the plan, Tzu-chih. The king of Ch’i saw in this and the subsequent unrest in Yen an excuse for invading the country— he even asks Mencius’ opinion on the propriety of such a move! Yen was reduced and felt the shame deeply. When the proper heir finally took the throne he became King Chao and was quite a change from the feckless K’uai— his first thoughts were for revenge against Ch’i. The Intrigues reports the general tone in the Yen court (one must make the usual allowance for anecdote and rhetoric) in the following: After King Chao had taken the throne of a shattered Yen he humbled his person and gave costly gifts seeking worthy men, for he wanted revenge. To this purpose, he went to see the Master, Kuo Wei. “Ch’i took advantage of my country’s troubles to attack and crush the solitary state of Yen,” he said. “I know all too well that Yen is small and weak and hardly suited for vengeance, but it is my desire to get worthy men (hsién-shïh) , share the govern­ ment of my state with them and avenge the dishonor my ancestors suffered. And so I dare ask you, sir, how must I use my state to win revenge?” “Who would be emperor,” replied Kuo Wei, “must live with a teacher, who would be king will dwell among friends, who would be hegemon with ministers, and he who would lose his state will dwell among servants. So fold your hands, sit facing north as a student of worthy men and soon men a hundred times your own worth will come to you. Let worthy men precede you, rest only when they have rested, let only questions come to your lips and silence thereafter, and soon men ten times your own worth will come to you. If you move as an equal with them, only men of your own worth will find you. If you sit your mat, hold your staff, narrow your eyes and summon men, only servants will come to you. If yoy are violent and strike, if you stamp and shout, none but slaves will obey. This was how ancients who respected the Way found their officers. “If the king in honesty seeks out men of worth in his own country and waits beside their gates, the empire will hear that the king holds court with worthy ministers and ‘officers of the empire’ will certainly find their way to Yen.” “Whom should I bring to court to accomplish this?” asked King Chao. “I have heard that an ancient ruler once offered a thousand 65

INTRIGUES

pieces of gold for a Thousand-league horse,” replied Kuo Wei. “Three years went by but no horse did he get. Then his page said to him, ‘Let me find you one.’ The ruler sent him off and in less than three months he had found a Thousand-league horse. But the horse was dead. The page bought its remains for five-hundred pieces of gold, returned and reported to the ruler. The ruler was furious. T wanted a live horse,’ he cried, ‘of what use is a dead horse— and I have lost five hundred in gold!’ Said the page, ‘If you will spend five hundred for a dead horse what might you not do for a live one? The empire is now convinced that the ruler is truly in the market for such a horse so the horse is as good as here!’ In less than a year three Thousand-league horses were brought to him. “If your majesty truly wants to attract officers, let him begin by appointing me. If you would appoint me what might you not do for worthier men than I? Distance will mean nothing to them!” Then King Chao built a great house for Kuo Wei and took him as his teacher. Yiieh Yi came from Wei, Tsou Yen came from Ch’i and Chli Hsin came from Chao— officers from every­ where gathered in Yen. The king of Yen buried his dead, consulted the living, and shared joy and grief alike with his citizens. Twenty-eight years passed while Yen became flourishing and waxed rich. Its soldiers were content and eager for battle. Then the king appointed Yiieh Yi commander of the armies, planned strategy with Ch’in, Ch’u, and the Three Chin, and fell upon Ch’i. Ch’i’s troops were de­ feated, King Min fled the land and the armies of Yen pursued him northward. They entered Lin-tzu, the capital city, sacked its treasure and burned its palaces and temples. All of Ch’i’s towns were reduced except Chli and Chi-mo. (Intrigues 69,11) It should be noted that this item from the Intrigues says specif­ ically there were only two towns in Cli’i which had not submitted to Yen— Chii and Chi-mo. Yet in the Shih-chi we find,7 only once, three towns mentioned. The third town is Liao-ch’eng. This is a very curious situation and probably reflects a double error of the type commonly brought about by fictionalized history. In the next selection it will be seen that “the Yen commander” is supposedly induced to surrender the town of Liao to Ch’i. This, of course, is supposed to have hap7 SC 34/19.

66

The Intrigues* Rhetoric and Historical Facts pened after the Yen troops had first been victorious and then thrown out of Ch’i. The story is quite obviously fictional (but very old), yet it convinced Ssu-ma Ch’ien of its veracity to the extent that he, at one point, seems to have confused the town of Liao with the two Ch’i towns which did not surrender to Yen. This complex lapsus is treated by Ch’ien Mu8 who reaches the conclusion that the persuasion by Lu Chung-lien in the item below originated in the Lu-lien-tzu which is cited in the Han-shu, yï-wén-chïh. Whether this is so or not is unim­ portant to the purpose here which is to show rhetoric dealing with historic fact. The facts are that Yen invaded Ch’i and Yen was even­ tually repulsed. With these affairs as a basis, our writer devises a situa­ tion in which he can confront a beleaguered general with a persuader who convinces him of the action he must take. The letter on an arrow shaft should not be taken seriously, of course. Yen attacked Ch’i and took seventy cities; only Chü and Chi-mo held out. From Chi-mo T ’ien Tan of Ch’i struck back at Yen and killed her general Ch’i-chieh. Earlier, the general who had taken Liao was accused by someone at the Yen court and fearing execution he settled down to hold Liao, for he dared not return to Yen. T’ien Tan assaulted Liao for over a year and suffered heavy losses, but the town still stood. Then Lu-lien wrote a letter, lashed it to an arrow shaft and had it shot into the city that it might be delivered to the Yen commander. I have heard it said (read the letter) that “a wise man does not go counter to the times and cast away profit, a valiant soldier does not retreat from death and destroy his good name, and a faithful minister does not put his own concerns first and his ruler second.” You, sir, now bear patiently the contumely of an entire court but are heedless of your king who lacks a minister. This is scarcely a faithful officer. You would seek your own death in the doomed town of Liao, but that would not give you a brave name outside of Ch’i. This is hardly a valiant soldier. To cast aside merit and destroy a good name so that later generations cannot speak of it is hardly the act of a wise man. However, to be wise you must not plan twice, to be valiant you may not retreat twice— all your fame or obscurity, honor or degradation, greatness or meaness, life or death will be fixed after this day. I pray, sir, think on this carefully.* * A short paragraph of recapitulation is removed from here and put with the notes, q.v. 8 Pp. 474-76.

67

NTRIGUES

Now that Ch’u and Wei have pulled back and your country of Yen has attacked and failed, Ch’i is relieved of attentions from the rest of the empire. She has gone through a full year’s exhaus­ tion over the town of Liao. As I see it, you will never succeed, sir: Ch’i intends to have Liao and you will have no chance for second thought! Yen is now in great confusion; schemes of prince and minis­ ter have gone awry, both the high and the low have been deceived. General Li Fu at the head of thousands has been five times defeated outside his own borders; your whole great country is surrounded by Chao; its lands are diminished, its ruler beset and disgraced by the empire. Had you heard these tidings? The king of Yen stands all alone with his blood running cold. The great ministers of Yen are not to be feared by you, however; the coun­ try has been beset with such trouble, so many calamities, that the heart of the people turns toward none. Now you have exhausted the people of Liao and staved of! the whole army of Ch’i for an entire year without relief— a feat worthy of Mo Ti! You have eaten fellow men and boiled their bones for marrow yet your soldiers do not wish to retreat north­ ward— troops fit for Sun Pin or Wu Ch’i! These acts alone are enough to make you known the breadth of the land. Therefore, were I to make your plans, sir, I should find nothing quite so good as withdrawing my troops, resting my officers, and report­ ing to the king of Yen with my transport and armor still intact. The king would certainly be delighted and the citizens of Yen would look upon you as they would upon their own parents; wherever friends met they would seize each other eagerly by the arms and discuss your exploits until what you had done was known throughout the world. At the highest level you would have sustained a beleaguered sovereign and helped him control his powerful officers; at a lower level you would have nurtured the people— thereby to aid the persuaders in rectifying and re­ forming the conventions of your'country. Your merit will be established in the empire. But perhaps your intention is to let Yen suffer what it must, abandon the pursuit of fame and come to live in Ch’i? Ch’i would cede land to you and settle such a fief on you that your wealth would equal Wei-jan or Lord Shang. Then men will re­ mark your unmatched riches for generation after generation as long as Ch’i shall exist. This then is yet another plan I might sug­ gest. By these two you stand to gain either fame or fortune and I 68

The Intrigues9 Rhetoric and Historical Facts should like you to consider thoroughly and judge shrewdly in favor of one of them. And yet— “he who is anxious over jots and tittles will never inspire awe; he who flinches at small shame will never achieve great fame,” \ have heard. Of old when Kuan Chung’s arrow struck Duke Huan’s buckle, that was treason; when he deserted Kung-tzu Chiu instead of dying with him, that was cowardice; when he was manacled hand and foot, that was disgrace. These three acts were enough to bar him from any village in the land or from any post under a king. If Kuan Chung had then passed the rest of his life in depression, had sequestered himself to go forth no more, or had refused to be seen for shame, then these acts would have remained till the end of his years and the last of his days the shameful acts of one from the common ruck! Instead, Kuan Chung, complete with his three transgressions, took the reins of Ch’i’s government, put the empire in order and nine times summoned the feudal lords together for the greatest of the Hegemons. His name stood highest in the empire and his fame shed luster even on neighboring states. When Ts’ao Mei was general to the ruler of Lu, thrice he engaged and thrice he retired northward, thereby losing a thou­ sand li of land. If Ts’ao-tzu’s foot had never left the battle line, if his plans took no account of final outcome, then he could only have been known as the captured general of a vanquished army. But Ts’ao-tzu knew that valor did not consist of being the cap­ tured general of a conquered army and that wisdom did not inhere in casting aside merit and destroying a name which later genera­ tions might honor, so he left behind the disgrace of three retreats, withdrew to plan with the ruler of Lu, and Ts’ao-tzu got his chance. When Duke Huan of Ch’i held the empire and summoned the feudal lords to him, Ts’ao-tzu, by the office of a single sword, plundered Duke Huan upon the very altar where he sat. Nor did his countenance change, nor were his words of departure uncivil, but all that had been lost in three battles was in one audience returned. The enipire was shaken by the act and the feudal lords were startled. His prestige reached to Wu and Ch’u and his name was handed down to later ages. It was not that these two worthies were unable to attend to niceties of behavior, nor were they incapable of dying to redress small insults. They believed that sacrificing themselves and end­ ing their days before they had achieved a name lacked wisdom. So they suppressed their sense of honor and attained lasting fame, 69

INTRIGUES

they put aside their sense of shame and gained enduring honor. Thus it is that they are the equals of the Three Kings and their names will last as long as the earth and the heavens. Think upon this, sir. “I respectfully attend your orders,” replied the Yen general. He disbanded his troops and they departed with their quivers slung upside down. [So did the persuasions of Lu Chung-lien lift a siege in Ch’i and save its people from death.] (Intrigues 30,3) This fictional persuasion, grafted as it is to sturdy historical stock, is very informative about the ways of pre-Han rhetoricians. Lu Chunglien’s long but interestingly done monologue was clearly the brainchild of someone who knew of the struggles between Yen and Ch’i, was moved by them and created a piece of imaginative rhetoric which thereafter was transmitted as part of the historical realities. It happens to contain a number of indications of its fictional origins and was early believed to be something other than a report of historical events. Wu Shih-tao, as early as the fourteenth century, pointed out the conflicts and scouted it as being “untrue.” The concept of “untrue,” however, has a long road to travel before it reaches “fiction.” The Chinese, be­ cause of their attitude toward history I should imagine, never really conceived of fiction. To them, such phenomena as the Lu Chung-lien persuasion above were “decorations by busybodies” or “spurious addi­ tions by later meddlers.” There are in fact two of these long fictional persuasions by Lu Chung-lien to be found in the Shih-chi and the Intrigues and together they constitute all the information that exists concerning him. The second, like the preceding, is grafted on an event of undoubted historicity— the first siege of Han-tan by the state of Ch’in. In this item the reader can see once again only the most primi­ tive device (“Lu Chung-lien, in his roving, came to Chao” ) used to bring the persuader into the presence of a commander who must make a historic decision. He must decide whether to cooperate with other states and exert every effort to hold off Ch’in and save “China” or to retreat and make what peace he can between his own country and Ch’in. The literary potential of the situation is-tremendous. Our writer can see them only through the medium of persuasion, however, so the fears and sensitivity of the Chou states, and the menace of Ch’in domi­ nation of China are all cast in the mold of rhetoric. These two per­ suasions contain several locutions which are almost unique in the Intrigues—the “officers of the empire” (t'ïen-hsià chih shih) concept seldom appears elsewhere, for instance. It will not do simply to cate­ gorize his declamations as Confucian (which Chinese scholars have 70

The Intrigues' Rhetoric and Historical Facts most often done) for the author is first and last simply a writer of persuasions; his tone is more self-consciously pan-China than most of the rest of the Intrigues, but this does not constitute Confucianism. These persuasions are certainly late and well developed in style as com­ pared to the bulk of the Intrigues. The second (given below) tends toward the narrative and toward the development of a character rather than his speeches. When Ch’in surrounded Chao’s capital of Han-tan, King An-li of Wei dispatched his general, Chin Pi, to the rescue of Chao. But he, fearful of Ch’in’s armies, halted at T ’ang-yin and would advance no further. The king of Wei then arranged to have his visiting general, Hsin-yiian Yen, slip into Han-tan. As a result [of the information he carried], Chao Sheng, general of the city, reported the following to the King of Chao: “The reason Ch’in presses its siege of Han-tan so savagely is that she had a contest of strength with King Min of Ch’i for the title of emperor of China, and because of Ch’i she lost. Now Ch’i is weaker than ever before and only one power, Ch’in, lords it over the world. So it is not as if she must have Han-tan, but rather Ch’in seeks the title “emperor of China.” If the country of Chao should make earnest representations which recognized Chao-wang of Ch’in as emperor, Ch’in would be happy to dismiss her troops and withdraw.” But Chao Sheng himself seemed still to be of two minds about the matter when Lu Chung-lien, in his roving, came to Chao. He saw that Ch’in had surrounded the city and heard that a general from Wei hoped to make Chao recognize Ch’in as emperor. He gained audience with Chao Sheng and asked, “What will be the issue of this affair?” “How can I speak of the outcome?” asked Chao Sheng. “They broke our force of a million men on our border lands, and now in our very midst they surround Han-tan and we cannot drive them off. The King of Wei sent his visiting general, Hsinyiian Yen, to bicj us recognize Ch’in as emperor— indeed, he is here this moment. How dare I speak of the outcome?” “Heretofore I had thought of you as a nobleman of virtue,” said Lu Chung-lien, “but from this time forward I shall be aware that you are not. Where is Hsin-yiian Yen, the visitor from Liang? I shall take it upon myself to rebuke him for you and send him back.” “Allow me to present you to him, sir,” said Chao Sheng and sought out Hsin-yiian Yen. “There is with us now a certain 71

INTRIGUES

Lu-lien from the east,” said CJiao Sheng to Hsin-yüan Yen. “I should like to present him to you and I ask you to receive him.” “I have heard of this Lu,” replied Hsin-yüan Yen. “He is a highly placed official in Ch’i. I, however, am minister to another state and am on a mission which has its own requirements. I am not willing to receive him.” “I have already divulged why you are here,” said Chao Sheng, and Hsin-yüan consented. When Lu-lien was presented he said nothing. Hsin-yüan said to him, “I have been watching the people in this beleaguered city and they all seek something of Chao Sheng. But now I look upon the jade countenance of the Master and see that you seek nothing from Chao Sheng. Wherefore then do you remain in the city and why do you not depart?” “Common folk have always thought that Pao Chiao could not have sought his own death with equanimity,” replied Lu-lien. “They have always been wrong. Today they do not understand what I do and so believe that it must be something for myself. “But the country of Ch’in has abandoned morality and places premium only on efficacy. It has managed its officers by power and its people by slavery. If that unscrupulous man should now be titled emperor of China so that his excesses shall become (standards) of right action throughout the world then I for one shall cast myself into the Tung-hai and die! I shall never be his subject. However, the reason I wished to see the general was that I hoped to aid Chao.” “What can the Master do about helping her?” “I shall cause Liang and Yen to aid her. Ch’i and Ch’u will certainly come to her aid,” Lu-lien replied. “As for Yen, I could ask an alliance— but Liang, I am from Liang myself—pray tell, sir, how can you cause Liang to assist?” asked the general. “I shall be able to because Liang has not yet perceived the damage it will do her should Ch’in be titled emperor. When she becomes aware of it she must come to thè aid of Chao.” “And what will be this damage coming from Ch’in’s title of emperor?” asked Hsin-yüan Yen. “In the past, King Wei of Ch’i was a righteous man. He led all the feudal lords in respectful submission to the court of Chou. But Chou was then weak and penurious, and none but Ch’i was willing to go to court. “There passed more than a year and King Lieh of Chou 72

The Intrigues9 Rhetoric and Historical Facts died. All the other lords set out for the ceremonies but Ch’i’s envoy started late. Chou was angered and sent word saying, ‘The skies have rent and the earth has crumbled, the son of heaven has left his mat; if the minister from our eastern marches, T’ien Ying of Ch’i, arrives late with his respects he shall be executed!’ The king of Ch’i went into a towering rage and cursed Chou as the whelp of a slave girl. The world laughed at the spectacle of him who had gone to court when Chou was alive, cursing him when he was dead. But in truth he could not suffer the demands of Chou. Now if the true son of heaven could be this unreasonable you need not expect any less from the other.” “But has my senior never seen serfs?” asked Hsin-yiian Yen, “where ten men do the bidding of one? Is it that their strength cannot overcome him, or their knowledge? No. They fear him.” “Then Liang’s relationship to Ch’in is that of a serf?” “It is.” “In that case I can cause the king of Ch’in to boil the king of Liang alive,” replied Lu Chung-lien. The general’s countenance fell and he was somber. “Alas, sir, surely you overstate it. How could the Master have the king boiled alive?” “If you will allow me I shall tell you,” replied Lu Chunglien. “Of old Kuei-hou, Ngo-hou and Wen-wang were dukes under King Chöu. Kuei had a child he much loved and sent her to the palace of Chöu. Chöu thought her ugly and had Kuei-hou boiled alive. Ngo-hou reproved the king sharply and argued with him heatedly, so Chöu had him chopped to pieces. When Wenwang heard of this he lamented aloud and Chöu had him con­ fined in the treasury at Yu-li for one hundred days, after which he would have executed him. Why then could not [Ch’in] hail any of the kings who call him emperor to his own boiling or flaying?” “When King Min of Ch’i went to Lu, his whipbearer, Yiwei-tzu, went with him and asked of the Lu people, ‘How do you intend to honor my ruler?’ Said they, ‘We shall give him the ten­ fold animal sacrifice of a lord.’ ‘What ritual is that to use for my ruler,’ cried Yi-wei-tzu, ‘He is the Son of Heaven and when the Son of Heaven goes on tour his feudal lords fling open their palace gates and surrender their latch bars and keys to him; they hold their mats and bench tables and wait in the lower hall for him to finish dining, and when the Son of Heaven has eaten they 73

INTRIGUES

retire to await his court.’ When 'they heard this, the people of Lu shot home their gate bolts and refused to receive him. “Having failed at Lu, King Min was about to journey to Hsiieh and had asked safe passage through Tsou. The ruler of Tsou had just died and King Min conceived a desire to attend his obsequies. Yi-wei-tzu told the bereaved of Tsou that the Son of Heaven would attend, and explained that their ruler would have to remove the coffin— toward which he must keep his back —to the north side of the area in order to face south. In this manner the Son of Heaven would mourn facing south. 'If this is how it must be,’ declared the assembled ministers of Tsou, ‘then we all would as leave fall upon our swords!’ King Min dared not enter the kingdom of Tsou. “Now the ministers of Tsou and Lu could hardly keep food in the mouths of their living or jade in the mouths of their dead, but when King Min tried to force the usages of an emperor upon them they refused him. Today, however, both Ch’in and Liang are countries of ten thousand chariots. Each can call on other powerful states and each calls the other ‘king’ in its dealings. But at the sight of Ch’in winning one battle, ministers of the Three Chin suddenly wish to see Ch’in emperor of China—they show less spine than did the lowest lackeys and slave girls of Tsou and Lu! “But Ch’in will be emperor willy-nilly! He will then begin replacing the ministers of the feudal lords by taking positions from those he calls ‘unworthy* and giving them to those he deems ‘virtuous,’ taking power from those he hates and giving it to those he favors. He will get his own daughters and even the least of his concubines into the palace of Liang—then let me see the king of Liang find a moment’s peace! And you, my good general, what will you do to gain favor then?” Hsin-yiian Yen arose, made a double obeisance to Lu Chung-lien and apologized. “Until today 1 had thought the Master to be a mere tool of others, but I now know that he is unique among ‘officers of the empire.’ I now beg to withdraw and I shall not dare, henceforth, to mention ‘Ch’in’ and ‘emperor’ in the same breath.” When the Ch’in generals heard of this they withdrew their troops fifty li from the city and came upon Wu-chi, duke of Wei, who had taken over command of Chin Pi’s force to attack Ch’in and save Chao. Ch’in then drew off her armies entirely. Chao Sheng would have granted Lu Chung-lien title to lands, 74

The Intrigues* Rhetoric and Historical Facts but Lu Chung-Lien refused him thrice and never did accept. While Chao Sheng was drinking wine with him he became some­ what tipsy and coming forward to Lu-lien he thrust a thousand pieces of gold upon him as a gift. Lu-lien laughed. “The thing most prized by an ‘officer of the empire’ is to have settled trou­ bles, solved problems, or brought an end to confusion without having accepted a thing for doing So. If he takes anything for his acts he is simply a merchant—this I am unwilling to be.” He bade farewell to Chao Sheng and left. Never again was he seen alive. ( Intrigues 43,13) It is quite clear, I think, that in China as elsewhere in the world attempts to re-create in words the great events of their past led the Chinese into that beguiling frame of mind where the writer asks him­ self not ‘is this true?’ but ‘is it well said?’

VII Other Literary Phenomena

I t seems relatively certain that the treatment of these four his­ torical events is consistently rhetorical and that this rhetoric encom­ passes much which is not historical. The conclusion to be drawn from this (and many other parts of the Intrigues) is that we are reading not history, nor even willfully distorted history, but fiction of a particular class which I have called “persuasion.” We have already seen the re­ mains of what are doubtless romances centered on persuaders and dealing primarily with their rhetoric. It appears sensible to me to conclude that there was, at a very early time, an area within prose writing where tradition allowed for imaginative flights of literary fancy —just as it was possible to use the license of poetic diction and the requirements of meter to write about what was imaginary rather than what was “true.” There is much controversy over the poetry which appears in the Intrigues (37,4),1 and whether it belongs in this book or in the Hsiin-tzu, but its appearance in the Intrigues plus the rhymed and rhythmical sections of some persuasions, taken in conjunction with the strong vein of imaginative writing throughout the work, all point toward the fact that rhetoric was a recognized outlet (akin to poetry) for artistry with words. It is certainly not by chance that the fù of late Warring States and early Han times have for their particular province much the same territory encompassed by the term rhetoric. Arthur Waley sees a close similarity between the word-magic of early fù and the prose of the Intrigues.12 Hellmut Wilhelm sees a connection between “persuasion by indirection” and the ^School of Politicians,”3 and concludes that the Han era fù “matured [persuasion] from a technique into an art.”4 It is part of my theory that this maturation 1 See HSWC p. 149; SPTK 18/16a; and J. J. L. Duyvendak, “The Chronology of Hsün tzuy TP 26 (1929) 86 ff. 2 The Temple p. 18. 3 Wilhelm I p. 313. * Ibid. p. 315.

76

Other Literary Phenomena was already well advanced in the Intrigues, not along lines that finally led to the fù form, but rather in the general direction of utilizing creative imagination and verbal elegance for its own sake. As pointed out earlier, one must assume practical functions for the technique of rhetoric in the beginning, but one should not look upon the contents of the Intrigues as remains of “actual” persuasions. One hypothesis for the origins of most of the Intrigues' persuasions is given in the next chapter, but for the moment let the thesis be merely that there were persons in pre-Ch’in China who applied themselves to artistry with words in the form of persuasions. Further, these persua­ sions were often (perhaps always) written with actual historical events in mind. But within the vague category of “historical events” and even within the loose form I have called the persuasion there is considerable latitude for literary experimentation and development; the Intrigues is the source of choice for examples of them. As a sample of the per­ suasion which has reached an artistic peak of perfection—where it is far more conscious of its literary than of its historical concerns— I submit the translation below. It appears in all important Chinese an­ thologies of ku-wén and has long been admired for its excellence. The queen of Chao had just assumed authority when Ch’in suddenly attacked. Chao sought succor of Ch’i, which country sent word that the queen’s son, Prince Ch’ang-an, must be sent as hostage before the soldiers of Ch’i would come forth. The queen was unwilling, but her ministers so strongly importuned that she cried out to the courtiers: “Whosoever again urges Prince Ch’ang-an be a hostage, I will spit upon his face!” The elderly commander, Ch’u Che, asked audience of the queen. She contained her anger enough to greet him. When he entered he walked very slowly and having reached her he apolo­ gized for himself. “It is because your minister’s feet pain him that he cannot walk quickly,” he said, “and .because of this it has been long since I have had audience with your majesty. But while I was excusing my absence for this reason it occurred to me that per­ haps your majesty’s own comfort might be similarly impaired; which is why I asked audience.” “I go about only in the palanquin,” she replied. “The quality of your majesty’s meals has not diminished?” “I eat only to live.” “Your minister lately had a similar disinclination for food, so he forced himself to walk a short distance each day. This 77

NTRIGUES

slightly increased the appetite, rand— it is good for one’s health.” “I am not able to do it,” said the queen whose color had somewhat subsided. “Your Majesty,” said the commander after a moment, “I grow old and though my son Shu-ch’i is worthless and quite young I love him greatly and beseech your majesty to grant him the black uniform of the palace guards that he may win fame by risking his life for her.” “It is granted, of course,” replied the queen. “How old is the boy?” “Fifteen. But young as he is I want to put him in your majesty’s service before I fill my grave.” “Does a brave man love and cherish a young son then?” asked the queen. “More than a woman!” The queen laughed. “Ah, a woman is a different thing en­ tirely!” “Your Majesty,” said the commander, “in my ignorance I assumed you favored your daughter, the queen of Yen, over Prince Ch’ang-an.” “My minister is completely mistaken! Prince Ch’ang-an is dearer to me.” “But when a parent loves his offspring he is ever mindful of planning far in advance for the child,” replied the commander. “When your majesty parted from her daughter she clasped her daughter’s feet and wept— wept for the distance that would sepa­ rate them, and it saddened us. Nor did your majesty forget her when she had left, you thought of her at the time of sacrifice and prayed for her. Yet, this prayer was always, ‘let her not return’! Was this not because your majesty was thinking far in the future for her child?— praying that her sons and grandsons would suc­ ceed each other as kings?” “It was.” “But your majesty,” continùed ttye commander, “before the present three generations, and back*as far as the beginnings of the kingdom of Chao have there been many sons and grand­ sons succeeding a king to his throne?” “No, there have not,” replied the queen. “Has it been only Chao? Have any of the other lords been succeeded by their sons and grandsons?” “I have not heard so.” “This is why it is said, ‘an error of the present strikes the 78

Other Literary Phenomena living, an error for the future strikes sons and grandsons,’ ” said the commander. “Surely it is not that among rulers of men sons and grandsons must be bad! Is it not rather that high position is given where no merit exists, that favored treatment is gotten with no effort, and much wealth has come too easily to hand? “Your Majesty has raised Prince Ch’ang-an to high position, favored him with die richest lands and given him much wealth, but she does not order him in this present instance to show metde for his country. When a new royal tomb is raised, what reasons will Prince Ch’ang-an have had to devote himself to Chao? This, your Majesty, is why your minister assumed you favored your daughter, the queen of Yen, since your hopes for her were of longer range.” “Let it be done as my minister wishes,” said the queen. Ch’ang-an was given a retinue of one hundred carts and went into Ch’i as hostage. And the troops of Ch’i were sent forth. [Tzu-yi, upon hearing of this remarked: “Sons of rulers are but the flesh of the ruler’s flesh. If it be so that they must not be trusted with honor for no merit, served without labor given in exchange, and granted great wealth, is it not even more true of the less lofty in rank?” ] (Intrigues 48,18 )5 This is very near the literary limits to which the persuasion can be pushed. There may or may not have existed such a queen and such a counselor, but for the writer they are more interesting as human beings than persons of state. The gentle indirection by which the queen’s rage is allowed time to ebb, the implicit rather than explicit demonstra­ tion that one’s child needs duties as well as doting and the pseudoerror over which child was the queen’s favorite are all done with a light touch while the writer displays his skill in rhetoric. These make it closer to a literary episode than any other persuasion I know.6 The contents of the Intrigues is a very mixed bag, however. Per­ suasions predominate, persuader-romance fragments are (I think) frequent, but there is* another type of literature (quite different in style from the persuasion) dealing with devotion to honor. The type has an almost tragic concern over the inevitable consequences of a sense of honor. The best-known example of the last is the attempted 5 See Watson III p. 90. He omits (quite properly) the bracketed section.

6 Watson III: “We have here . . . a strikingly realistic description of a scene, with a subtle depiction of the psychological states of the characters suggestive of the modern novel.“ 79

INTRIGUES

assassination of Ch’in Shih-huang (Intrigues 71,5). Margouliès II con­ tains a rather good, unannotated translation of it.7 The story of Pi Yii-jang and his fanatic determination to avenge a patron—very rem­ iniscent of the Forty-Seven Rönin— is actually a better piece, however, because of its focus on a single individual.* The following translation provides a sample of the peculiarities of this limited class. The grandson of Pi Yang of Chin, one (Pi) Yii-jang, had once been in the service of Fan and Chung-hang, but being dis­ contented he left to join the Hegemon of Chin, Chih Po. The latter favored him greatly. When Chih Po was killed and the Three Chin divided his lands, Wu-hsii, ruler of Chao, hating the Hegemon more than all the rest, had his skull made into a drinking cup. Yii-jang fled to the mountains and there cried out: “Alas, the true warrior (shih) requites the lord who knew his worth by dying for him just as a woman makes herself beautiful for the man who delights in her. Let me, then, avenge the name of the Hegemon!” He changed his name and mutilated himself to be taken as a convict. Having got entrance to the palace by pretending to be a plasterer, he hid in the privy to murder Wu-hsii. When Wuhsii entered the privy he was suspicious of the plasterer and had him held while he was questioned. It was in truth Yu-jang who had sharpened his trowel to a knife-edge and sworn to avenge the Hegemon. His attendants would have killed him, but Wu-hsii inter­ vened: “He is a warrior of honor (yï-shïh) ,” said Wu-hsii, “I will henceforth simply be careful to avoid him. The Hegemon is dead and his family extirpated, yet here is his officer doing his utmost to avenge him. Truly a worthy of the realm!” He released Yii-jang. After this Yii-jang rubbed lacquer into his skin until it ulcerated like that of a leper. Hç destroyed his hair and eye­ brows, scarred his face and then went forth as a beggar. He went to his wife who did not recognize him but said: “How can this man whose face and form are not those of my husband yet have a voice ,that is the same as his?” After that he swallowed ashes till his voice became only a croak. * Cf. Watson III pp. 101-3 translated from the SC version. 7 Pp. 99-106.

80

Other Literary Phenomena His friends chided him: “Your way is most difficult and will be bootless. We must admit to your honor, but not to your intelligence. If one of your abilities were to serve Wu-hsii and serve him well, it would not be long before you were advanced and in his favor, and being there you could do that which you wish. This would be most easily done and certain of success.” Yii-jang laughed at them and replied: “And so I would abuse him who uses me now for him who used me first; betray a new lord for the sake of a former lord. Nothing could more confuse the principle of righteousness between Lord and servant! ln all I have done I have tried to make clear this principle; I have not tried to do what is easily done. To exchange pledges with a lord and serve him while also planning to assassinate him is fealty with two hearts. What I now do may be most difficult, but it will remain to shame those men in generations to come who would practice fealty with two hearts.” A little later, when Wu-hsii had need to travel, Yii-jang hid himself beneath a bridge over which the ruler must pass. Wuhsii’s horse shied as they reached the bridge and he knew that Yii-jang must be there. He sent his retainers to look and it was indeed Yii-jang. Then Wu-hsii held a reckoning face to face with Yii-jang. “Did you not once serve Fan and Chung-hang?” he asked. “Chih Po, the Hegemon, destroyed Fan and Chung-hang, but you, far from seeking revenge for them, indeed made pledge to serve Chih Po. The Hegemon is now dead. Why do you strive so mightily to avenge him?” “When I served Fan he treated me as a common man. When he was killed I treated his revenge as a common man would. When I served the Hegemon he treated me as a hero* and I treat his revenge as a hero should.” Wu-hsii wept. “Alas, Yii-jang, what you have already done for the Hegemon was enough to make your name. I pardoned you once, and'that too was enough. You must have known, Yiijang, that I could not spare you again.” He ordered his men to surround Yii-jang who then spoke. “I have heard that a true ruler does not hide the righteousness of a man, and that a faithful man is not chary of his life if he can gain honor. You, sir, have already graciously granted me my life and all men speak of your virtue because of it. For this deed *

kuô-shih.

81

INTRIGUES

today I do willingly submit to punishment. Would your grace but give me his cloak that I may strike it and I shall die without regret. I do but ask, not hope, that I may show my kidney!” Wu-hsii granted him his honor and sent an attendant to him with the cloak. Yii-jang drew his sword and leaped, shouting as he struck the cloak, “In this way alone can I avenge Chih Po.” Then he fell on his sword and died, and on the day he died the warriors in Chao all wept. ( Intrigues 38,4) Besides the persuasion and tales of high-strung honor there are ex­ tremely witty stories as well. Passed on through the Intrigues and thence, probably, to the Shih-chi, Hsin-hsii and Shuo Yuan, they have been among the most popular ever written. Being readily transmitted by other languages they were early and well received in the West. Seven of the best known are currently to be found in Kao, but there are quite a few of the same general type which are less well known. None can be usefully considered a persuasion; all are pleasing because of the wit displayed by their characters. One in particular deserves translation not because of its literary value but because it is probably the earliest tale of the precocious (or wise, if you wish) child— a theme which has beguiled Chinese of all periods.8 I do not believe such stories appeal to Western taste nearly as much. The prodigy featured below has a biography in SC and he ranks with Hsiang-t’o, whom he mentions, as the cleverest of boys and a model for youth. When Lii Pu-wei wanted to attack Chao to broaden Ch’in’s lands in Ho-chien he had sent Ts’ai Tse to serve in Yen. Three years later the heir of Yen was sent as hostage into Ch’in. Then Lii Pu-wei requested Chang T ’ang to go as minister to Yen for he wished to increase his grip on Ho-chien. “The road to Yen lies through Chao,” protested Chang T ’ang, “and in Chao there is a standing reward of a hundred li of land to the man who brings in my head.” Lii Pu-wei left discontented with Chang T ’ang and his page­ boy, Kan Lo, said to him, “Why is my lord so unhappy?” “I sent Ts’ai Tse to Yen three years ago and die heir of Yen is already hostage at our court. But I asked Chang to be minister of Yen and he refused to do it.” “Let your servant manage it,” said Kan Lo. “Be off with you!” cried Lii Pu-wei, “I approached him personally and he was unwilling, how could you succeed?” 8 See Waley’s Ballads and Stories from Tun-huang (New York, 1960) p. 89.

82

Other Literary Phenomena “When Hsiang-t’o was only seven he taught Confucius,” replied Kan Lo, “and I am twelve already! Please try me, my lord; surely it isn’t proper just to shout me away!” “Tell me, your honor,” said Kan Lo when he saw Chang T ’ang, “do you consider your merit to be greater than that of Po Ch’i, lord Wu-an?” “One can scarcely number the victories of Po Ch’i,” replied T’ang, “nor tell the cities he attacked or towns he brought low. No, my merit is not so great as Ch’i’s.” “Your honor is clearly aware that his merit is not so great as was Po Ch’i’s?” said Kan Lo. “ T M M . »» 1 am. “Do you think that Fan Sui’s control over Ch’in was as com­ plete as Lii Pu-wei’s?” “Fan Sui’s was not so complete as Lii Pu-wei’s.” “Your honor is clearly aware that it was not so complete as Lii Pu-wei’s?” asked Kan Lo. “ T A M I *» 1 am. “Fan Sui wished to attack Chao but Po Ch’i criticized him. Po Ch’i had gone but seven li from Hsien-yang when he was strangled,” said Kan Lo. “Today Lii Pu-wei personally requested you to be minister in Yen and you were not willing to go . . . it remains now only to discover the place where your honor will die!” “I depart for Yen because of a suckling child!” cried T ’ang. “Let the armory supply chariots, the stables, horses, and the treasuries wealth! For I leave on the morrow!” Kan Lo spoke to Lii Pu-wei: “Please lend me five chariots, my lord, that I may report Chang T’ang’s passage to Chao in advance of him.” He had audience with the king of Chao who met him in the suburbs. And he said to him, “Did your majesty hear that Tan, the heir of Yen, has come to Ch’in?” “I did,” replied the king. “Has your majesty heard that Chang T ’ang is going to be minister in Yen?” “I have,” replied the king. “When the heir of Yen came into Ch’in,” said Kan Lo, “it was to keep Yen from cheating us; Chang T ’ang’s ministry to Yen is to prevent Ch’in’s defrauding Yen. Now if either cheats the other then your country is in danger of attack— for indeed the one thing which prevents their cheating each other is nothing more than their joint plan to attack Chao and broaden their hold83

N T RIGU E S

ings in Ho-chien! If your majesty will give us tide to five of Chao’s cities in Ho-chien we will return Yen’s heir and will attack a weak Yen in alliance with a mighty Chao.” The king did immediately cede five cities to widen [Ch’in’s holdings in] Ho-chien. Yen’s heir was returned and Chao at­ tacked Yen, gaining thirty-six districts in Shang-ku of which she gave Ch’in a tithe. (Intrigues 21,6) Another example of the witty type plays the theme so often heard in Taoist literature: a peasant, a nobody, or someone who is in re­ ceived opinion a social pariah, is shown giving sound suggestions or wise counsel. This is a situation well liked by writers of the Intrigues, and in my opinion it is used for much the same reasons a child is— but of the mouths of babes and the scorned comes wisdom fit for a ruler. This is doubtless related to the assumption underlying so much of the Intrigues: talent can appear anywhere, and it behooves the highly placed to be prepared to find it and use ift Yen attacked Ch’i, Ch’i was defeated, the king fled to Chiiand was murdered by Nao Ch’ih. During the time T ’ien Tan was holding Chi-mo, defeating the soldiery of Yen and restoring the bastions of Ch’i, King Hsiang—even as heir apparent to Ch’i— had been of an ungenerous nature. When Ch’i had overcome Yen, Hsiang was suspicious that T ’ien Tan would take the throne himself. After Hsiang was raised to the throne, T ’ien Tan was his minister, and one day Tan came upon an old man who had become so cold while fording the Tzu river he could not walk after he left the stream. He was simply sitting in the sand. T ’ien Tan saw how chilled he was and asked one of his retinue to share a garment with the man. Since none had any to spare, T ’ien Tan undid his own fur cloak and wrapped it around the old man. When King Hsiang heard this he hated him for it and cried aloud: “Would T’ien Tan do a thing like that if he did not intend to take my kingdom from me? I must have a plan to use against him now or I will be too late!” He lookêd about for someone to advise him, but there was none save a man stringing beads below the balcony upon which the king stood. “Did you hear what I just said?” the king asked him. “I did.” “What do you think I should do about this?” asked the king again. “If I were your majesty I should use him to make me appear good.” “How?” 84

Other Literary Phenomena “You should praise the goodness of T ’ien Tan,” replied the other. “Issue a statement saying, ‘When we are troubled over famine among our people, Tan receives and feeds them; when we grieved that our citizens were cold, Tan took off his own cloak to clothe them. When we are troubled over our people, Tan is troubled. In gauging his ruler’s intentions, none is the equal of Tan, and I praise him.’ Thus will Tan’s virtues become the king’s.” “Good,” replied the king. He presented Tan beeves and wine and praised his actions. Several days later the bead-worker again saw the king: “When next you hold audience, summon T ’ien Tan, bow to him and praise him in the court. Then command all officers to seek out any among your people who may be cold or hungry, receive them and give them grain. After this the king may dispatch men to listen in every hamlet. They will hear each cottager say when he speaks to his neighbor: ‘Tien Tan’s love for his people is noth­ ing more than carrying out the king’s grace!* ” (Intrigues 31,4) Anecdotes such as these abound in the Intrigues and being couched in strong, simple prose they have been read by Chinese of all estates with delight and admiration for centuries. I believe the Chinese “gentleman’s” disdain for writing fiction grew stronger as the centuries passed and one’s writings became more and more the measure of status. His ancestors wére less stuffy about the matter and were quite as willing to create “plot,” so to speak, as they were style— even if they added or subtracted something which was not “true.” There may even be an example in the Intrigues of rhetoric elaborated for a con­ sciously humorous effect.9 Ch’en Chen is twice made to talk himself out of a tight position with such speed and intricacy that the king of Ch’in— whom he is convincing— is left dazed and unable to do much more than repeat, rather piteously, Ch’en’s own words. Ch’en Chen left Ch’u and returned to Ch’in. “When Ch’en, Chen was your majesty’s minister,” said Chang Yi to the king of Ch’in, “he constantly sent news of your country’s affairs to Ch’u. I will not work with him. I ask your majesty to send him away and if he goes to Ch’u, have him killed.” “He would not dare return to Ch’u,” said the king, but he » My hesitation here is not because the humor is questionable, but because the two halves of this item are to be found separated in the Intrigues of today. I follow K’an-yen by joining them again.

85

NTRIGUES

summoned Gh’en Chen. “Wercannot use your counsel, sir. Where would you like to go?— we should be pleased to furnish your carriage.” “Your servant would like to go to Ch’u.” “Yi said you would go to Ch’u and now I know you will go— indeed, you would hardly go elsewhere!” said the king bit­ terly. “Sire, your servant deliberately chose to go to Ch’u that he might be in accord with your majesty’s and Chang Yi’s prepara­ tions— and that he might make clear his heart had never gone to Ch’u,” replied Ch’en Chen. “There was once a man of Ch’u who had two wives, your majesty. Another man tried to seduce the older wife but she rebuked him. He tempted the younger and she was compliant. Not long after, the husband of the two died and a friend of the tempter asked him which one he would marry. ‘The older,’ he replied. ‘But the older repulsed you while the younger gave you her favors. Why would you wed the older?’ ‘When they lived in someone else’s house I wished them compliant; if one were to be my wife I would wish her to rebuke another such as I.’ “The present king of Ch’u is an enlightened ruler, your majesty, and his minister, Chao Yang, is virtuous. If I had been an official in another state and had sent news of its affairs to Ch’u then the king of Ch’u would not now take me as an officer and Chao Yang would refuse to work with me. This will make clear whether your servant’s heart has ever gone to Ch’u.” The king of Ch’in accepted this and treated him well. Again Chang Yi slandered Ch’en Chen before the king. “Ch’en Chen’s posting between Ch’in and Ch’u has brought him good treatment at the hands of Ch’u but has not caused Ch’in to be better treated by Ch’u. Does this not show that Chen acts for himself but not for our country?” “I have heard that you would leave Ch’in and go to Ch’u,” said the king to Ch’en Chen. “Am I to believe this?” “It is so,” replied Ch’en Chen. “Then these words of Yi may in truth be believed?” asked the king. “These are not only the words of Yi; the veriest man on the street knows it. Tzu-hsii of old was faithful to his lord and all under heaven would have him as minister. Hsiao-yi loved his family and all under heaven would have him as son. Thus it is that the servant or concubine who can be sold to a neighbor in 86

Other Literary Phenomena the same lane is a good servant indeed; the woman who can be married to one in her own hamlet is a good woman indeed. Had I not been faithful to you, my lord, what would Ch’u want of me now? Being faithful but cast out, where should I go if not to Ch’u?” “To be'sure,” said the king. “You should go.” Chen left and Chang Yi entered. “Where is Ch’en Chen going, then?” he asked the king. “Ch’en Chen is the world’s greatest debater,” replied the king. He looked us full in the eye and said, T must go to Ch’u,’ and thereafter we could do nothing. We asked him, ‘If you must go to Ch’u then Yi’s words may in truth be believed?’ ‘These are not only the words of Yi,’ said he, ‘the veriest man on the street knows it. Hsiao-yi loved his family and all under heaven would have him as son,’ said he. ‘Tzu-hsii was faithful to his ruler and all under heaven would have him as minister. Sell a concubine to someone in her own lane and she is a good one. Marry a woman to someone in her own village and she is a good woman. If I had not been faithful to your majesty,’ said he, ‘why should Ch’u think I would ever be faithful? And being faithful but cast out,’ said he, ‘where should I go if not to Ch’u?’ ” ( Intrigues 14,12)10 In all respects, then, the Intrigues is a mélange. The examples given only scratch the surface of the best among some four hundred items. They vary in quality as well as in tone. The finest persuasions rank with the queen of Chao and her counselor and the most feeble are well represented by 15.7. Despite diversity, however, I aqi convinced that most of the pieces share a common tradition. So far, I have only mentioned that common tradition in passing, and the time has come when it must be described as well as possible with the information available.

io But see K'an-yen's reconstitution of the original text (pien-wu 13-17) from which the above was actually translated. Few items in the Intrigues con­ tain humor divorced from persuasion; even 73,15 (see Watson III, p. 91), which seems to be the exception, may not have been. In LSCC 18/23 its coun­ terpart is connected with an historic person and is used didactically. It may once have been this way in the Intrigues as well.

87

VIII The Persuader’s Tradition.

1 With the possible exception of Lo Ken-tze’s recent and modified opinions,1 speculations by Chinese scholars on the origins and com­ ponents of the Intrigues, the men who wrote it, and the possible rea­ sons for its composition are uniformly unsatisfactory because of their unwillingness to treat consistently the bulk of the work as fiction. Un­ less this possibility be heeded at all times, speculation begins to take on a disquieting air of unreality— needlessly, it seems to me. If we take, for example, statements by three men who have seriously applied themselves to these questions in recent times this phenomenon will become clearer. Ch’ien Mu comes to grips with the problem of using the Intrigues as raw material for history numerous times and acquits himself with acumen and erudition. But treating the figure of Lu Chung-lien (whose long persuasions occupy a number of pages) he says, of one obvious inconsistency: “If Lu Chung-lien had then been twelve, [he would have been] speaking against [recognizing] Ch’in as emperor while still a child in rompers? This was done by some forger, anxious to add ornaments but ever careless of chronological details.” Ch’ien devas­ tates or throws the gravest doubts upon the historicity of everything we know of the man— and quite rightly, too— but then goes on to list (Ch’ien Mu page 620) the probable dates of Lu Chung-lien’s birth (300 b .c .) and death (250 b .c .). While there is no reason a man may not have existed though everything we now ‘know about him is a fig­ ment of someone else’s imagination, is not the important point being1

1 Lo Ken-tse p. 562. “What is pointed out in the preface of the forthcoming Selections from Pre-Ch’in Literature (Hsien-Ch’in San-wen Hsiian), edited by Ch’i Fa-jen and myself, is precisely the same as Mr. P’an’s statement that: ‘There are numerous literary pieces ( wén-chàng) from the pre-Ch’in period to be found in the Intrigues’ ” I have not yet seen Lo’s anthology. His replies to P’an Ch’en’s criticism were made in 1957.

88

The Persuader’s Tradition missed, perhaps, by looking at it this way? Is it not equally sensible to assume that the fictions themselves (one need not say forgeries) are all that ever existed of Lu Chung-lien. And would not this fact itself, if it be a fact, be significant to both intellectual and literary history? Ch’i Ssu-ho2 applied himself to the credentials and contents of the Intrigues for somewhat different* purposes— but with no less vigor of mind— than did Ch’ien Mu. His general conclusion is that it con­ tains precious little which he would classify as historical. He does, however, try to describe not only what the work isn’t, but also what it is: “However, the statements in the persuasions of the Six Kingdoms by Chang Yi and Su Ch’in abound in anachronisms; they are probably all the words of later tsung-heng imitators and not written by Chang Yi and Su Ch’in” (p. 263). Later, he devotes section IV of his article to pointing out the inconsistencies which lead him again to the con­ clusion that “the Chan-kuo Ts'e is far from being a book by a single author; most of the persuasions of the ‘wandering persuaders’ (yüshiii) come from imitations of tsung-heng men and are not the words of their purported speakers.” A natural reaction by someone seri­ ously interested in the Intrigues would be to ask how much “later” and why would someone ‘w ant to “imitate” the tsung-heng men. Finally, Yang K’uan, in a recent (1955) history of the Warring States era which bears all the publication earmarks of being well received on the China mainland, observes “that there was indeed a Su Ch’in and [he] did indeed form the Vertical Alliance and repel Ch’in.”3 The latter is something which both Ch’ien Mu and Ch’i Ssu-ho would emphatically deny. The author tempers this startling statement, however: “Of course, the so-called persuasions of Su Ch’in [in CKT] come from the grandiloquence of later tsung-heng men and cannot be believed.” One cannot help being left with an uncomfortable feeling that things are out of focus here. Since all information on the origins of the CK T are internal and inferential and almost all the internal evidence is of the most indirect sort, a student of the work is not only forced toward controlled speculation but should be encouraged in it. Judging by the statements of our last-mentioned Chinese scholars, however, he would do well to discover first of all what they implied by 2 Ch’i Ssu-ho p. 270. See also Crump p. 334-35. 3 Yang K ’uan p. 165 (last line). Yang’s theory (derived from Wu Shih-tao’s comments) was rejected by Maspero thirty years earlier. Yang accuses Ssu-ma Ch’ien of having been taken in by the Su Ch’in persuasions in the Intrigues, and of having assigned “Su Ch’in’s actual activities to Su Tai and Su Li” (op. cit. p. 166, last line).

89

INTRIGUES

the term tsung-heng chia and what connection the C K T has with it. In the earliest listing of the Intrigues the Han-shu has it classified with the Ch’un-ch’iu, its commentaries, the Shih-chi and the like. It is considered a history. In another part of the Han-shu's classification— some ten sections further on4— we find twelve items considered to­ gether under the rubric “tsung-heng chia ” Not one of these twelve has survived the passage of time, but some of the titles allow us to guess their contents. The two most important for our purposes are called the Su-tzu and Chang-tzu. It is a reasonable assumption— one that has been made time and again by the Chinese scholars— that these were works composed of the words and exploits of Su Ch’in and Chang Yi. The important part which Su Ch’in and Chang Yi play in the Intrigues is obvious to all, and it is natural to ask why the Intrigues should not be classified in the same category with Su-tzu and Chang-tzu. There can be many answers to the question, but all of them would be the better for knowing what the Han-shu understood “tsung-heng” to mean. We are not given much help: “The school of tsung-heng probably originated with officials who were emissaries,” says the monograph on literature, “and [the works] tell of their acting for the best at the moment, having been given a commission to perform but not the words to speak; this was what [these men] did best. When wicked persons did it they offered [only] deceitful tricks and thus lost their integrity [i.e. credibility?].”5 Paraphrased, the Han-shu seems to be saying: books in the class tsung-heng deal with or were by men who were agents plenipotentiary, who were at their best when arguing for a predetermined goal but using whatever words (and concessions?) seemed to them most fit for the occasion. The Han-shu’s brief scholium on the probable origins of this class of writing certainly suggests the common translations applied to the cast of characters in the Intrigues — school of politicians (Wilhelm), persuaders (Crum p), professeurs de diplomatique (Chavannes)— but the meaning of the term tsungheng itself has not contributed much tp these definitions. By the way the parts of the term behave in the C K T, i^is not hard to determine that tsung-heng should be a compound of two nounlike units. One does not read far in the Intrigues before he discovers that each part of the compound can be used by itself and has a particular verb to be 4 K.M. 0435.2. 5 For another translation of this passage see Wilhelm I p, 313, also see note 20, p. 400.

90

The Persuader’s Tradition used with it. States or men are said to ho tsung or to lien heng. Tsung is a member of a large word family in Late Archaic Chinese which includes *dz*yungf “to follow, to go with, in accord with,” *tsyüng, “footsteps, follower;” *tsyung, “the long way” (i.e. with the grain, not across). A family portrait— including some distant relatives— can be found in Word Families (p. 73).. Karlgren also notes that voicing and aspiration of initials generally go with the verblike uses, while voicelessness and inaspiration (often, but not always, coupled with oblique tones) are associated with nounlike uses. The outstanding feature of the era with which the Intrigues is concerned is the antagonism between the Chou states—most of which were in the heartland of the Yellow River east of Han-ku Pass— and the strong peripheral states of Ch’in and Ch’u. It would not matter whether the Intrigues were one-fifth or four-fifths fictional, this would remain the central political fact of the age. This fact—in conjunction with the political ferment and the evolution of states from the old Chou dominion— accounts for much of the Intrigues* contents. There must have been constant and chaotic alignments and realignments among the Chou states against each other and with each other against the continually threatening state of Ch’in. The Intrigues bears witness to this on nearly every page and through the Intrigues, it is believed, evidence eventually reaches the pages of the Shih-chi: . . . . And king Chao of Yen asked him about attacking Ch’i. “Ch’i,” replied Yiieh Yi, “is a country with a heritage of hegemony. Its lands are great and its people numerous— it is not a simple thing to attack [her] single-handed. If you would do it, it had best be done together with Chao, Ch’u and Wei.” . . . The feudal lords were sorely tried by Ch’i Min-wang’s arrogance and they rushed to join an accord (hô tsùng) with Yen to attack Ch’i. (SC 80/4) We can also be sure that Chou states also formed alliances (hô tsùng) against Ch’in more than once. Héng is a relatively compact term; its meaning of “across, crossgrained” is rather constant. Even in an oblique tone this basic meaning is present— hèng means “evil, wicked, contrary (to the norm ).” Examples of lién-héng used in a general sense— rather than in the specific sense which I wish to avoid discussing here— are rare indeed. The only occurrence I know of is somewhat unsatisfactory, for it is part of a set of double-meaning lines in the fù section of Hsiin-tzu.« *SPTK, ch. 18 [sec. 26] 14a-b.

91

INTRIGUES

This fù has traditionally been looked upon as a series of riddles7— the object alluded to in the stanza below is a needle: Here is a thing: Bom on a mountain ridge Lives in a mansion. Mindless and mute It makes the best garments. Nor robbing nor plundering It steals through holes. Day and night it brings together the parted And makes patterns. (wén) Able to mate the like (hô tsùng) It yet can assemble the contrary (lién héng) . . . Since each of these lines operates on two levels of meaning we must assume that lién héng here means not only “to sew (or attach) across the weave:, but also has a figurative meaning which went normally hô-tsùng when making paired phrases. Since the overt meaning of the “riddle” is a description of the use of a needle with material objects— tsimg-tsiing héng-héng modemly still means “criss-crossed” and tsùnghéng mi pù means “close-weave netting”— the covert meaning should refer the listener to a semantic area quite different from the material. We have seen that hô tsùng means (in the world of politics) “to as­ semble, in some fashion, like-minded people or powers” ; it seems only reasonable to assume that to be congruent, lién héng should mean (in the same world of political action) “to bring together persons or states who were not like-minded.” I can imagine three situations that might sensibly call for the use of such a phrase: (1) an alliance of persons or states through coercion, threat, or fear, or (2) a voluntary alliance of the same for limited purposes even though the parties to such an alliance might in the long run hold differing views, and (3) settling a disagreement among persons or states of unlike views. Whatever mental picture a Chinese of the period may have had, when he heard that someone hô tsùng he knew someone was making (or joining) an alliance, and when someone claimed he liénïhéng the audience prob­ ably assumed the speaker was settling a difference of some sort. There is an informative passage in the Chuang-tzu8 where the 7 Wilhelm, I argues that it is all a single unit, a disguised “frustration f ù ” *SPTK 8/21a; Giles 312-13. Giles’ rendering of this passage is curiously worded: Whenever I address him, it is either in a pacific [héng] sense, based on the Odes [etc.] . . . or in a belligerent [ts’üng] sense.

92

The Persuader’s Tradition term tsung—here probably read ts’ung because of its adverb-like func­ tion— and the term héng are juxtaposed with shiii, “to persuade.” The example is interesting for it assumes that it was possible to per­ suade someone in a ts'ung fashion ( “with his natural inclination” ) or in a héng manner (“against his normal bent” ): Hsii W u-kuei. . . [spoke to] . . . Wei Wu-hou . . . [who] was greatly pleased and smiled . . . Nii Shang asked, “What did you say to my ruler? I have persuaded him both against his nature using the Odes, the History, Rituals, and Music, and I have spoken to him in accord with his nature (ts'ung shiii chih) using military works . . . but he has never smiled!” The reader who wonders why such heavy going over a relatively straightforward exercise in philology has reckoned without the sub­ jective view Chinese have traditionally taken of their written language — “one character, one sound, one meaning (or one w ord).” Faced with a coordinate compound such as tsùng-héng and given the least provocation, the Chinese of the past could be relied upon to assign each part a separate meaning of its own instead of telling the reader the meaning they had when united. The quasi-historical alliance of the Chou states against Ch’in, pre­ sided over by Su Ch’in, made such an impression on the Chinese mind that it became known not simply as an alliance, but The Alliance. Its counterpart was known as The Syndicate— to be understood as having the same slightly sinister undertone which this word carries in the United States today. The Intrigues fosters such a view in all of the stories concerning Su Ch’in and Chang Yi and in several of the sec­ tions which have no connection with either. In these, ho tsùng invari­ ably means “to join The Alliance,” while lién héng invariably means “to go along with The Syndicate.” I think it is quite clear that the Han-shu's tsùng-héng chiä merely meant “politicians or diplomats” and the phrase hô tsùng lién héng or hô-lién tsùng-héng originally meant something like “to make alliances and compose differences,” yet it would be very difficult to arrive at this conclusion by consulting dictionaries. So müchjis this the case that Ch’ien Mu takes pains to point out that “. . . . in those [Warring States] times the term hô tsùng did not only mean [alliance] against Ch’in . . . ,” (p. 292), and he cites the section (SC 80.4) of the Shih-chi translated above. He also includes a comment by Chang Wen-hu (1808-85) which, if I Perhaps he thought the reader would take the bellicose personality of Wu-hou into account and realize that anything “pacific” would be against Wu-hou’s “natural bent.”

93

INTRIGUES

understand it, appears to point out that tsùng-héng had a general diplomatic meaning as well as the special one which is a part of the Intrigues. Chung Feng-nien9 makes it clear that the meaning of tsùnghéng was still moot in 1936 in his note to Intrigues 47,9: Under the fifty-ninth year of Nan-wang [SC 4/94] . . . the Chi-chieh quotes Wen-ch’ing as saying, “East of the [Han-ku] pass was tsung and west of the pass was heng” And cites Meng K’ang as saying “ [Union] north and south was tsung and east and west was h eng” Tsan10 says, “To imite for mutual benefit was called tsung, to use coercion to bring about agreement11 is called heng.” According to Han-fei Tsu’s “Five Termites,” “tsung is to unite many strong [states] to attack a weak12 [state] while heng is to serve a powerful state to attack many weak ones. . . . From this it can be seen that the two words tsung and heng long ago had a fixed meaning. Later persons simply ignored it, and everyone made up meanings which suited him. Tsan’s statement, I feel, is near the mark; Wen-ch’ing’s is badly forced. Now if one uses this item [i.e. Intrigues 47,9] and the biography of Yiieh Yi . . . he can see that the term ho-tsung is not brought up only in connection with Ch’in. . . If we assume that some of the underbrush has been cleared away by the preceding and that tsung-heng chia in the Han-shu were precisely politicians and diplomats and not necessarily connected with vertical and horizontal intrigues as they are described in the Intrigues, it becomes clear why some of the works listed in the Han-shu under tsung-heng chia concerned persons living after the collapse of Ch’in— K’uai T ’ung and Chu-fu Yen are examples. This fact used to be ex­ plained by asserting that these two men thought of themselves as students of Su Ch'in. This is not necessary— all of the men whose names appear in these twelve items were “politicians” in the Hon­ shu's judgment, and they are under the proper rubric. Most Chinese 9 K*an-yen p. 47. 10 More often known as Ch’én Tsàn, “the minister Tsan,” probably this is a personal name or pseudonym. He is cited eight times in the Shih-chi Chi-chieh. 11 Literally, “use coercion to bring about a threat (to others).” 12 Chung is here using the text which is traceable to the so-called Ch’ien-Tao (1165-74) edition of Han-fei Tzu, where “strong” and “weak” are the reverse of what one would expect. Wang Hsien-shen points out this curious situation in Han-fei Tzu II p. 355, and corrects the text. Liao translates it “. . . the per­ pendicular Union aiming to attack a single strong state by uniting all weak ones . . ,” so his text also had the corrected version.

94

The Persuader’s Tradition bibliographers since the twelfth century have agreed that the Intrigues would have been better classified had it appeared under the “politi­ cians and diplomats” rubric, though the Ssu-k’u editors claim a book without a known author or school should not appear in the “tzu” section. Having got this far are we any closer to understanding what our scholars meant by “later tsung-heng” men? In one respect we certainly are not because the image of “later” politicians or diplomats diligently composing the intricate and beautifully polished persuasions of Su Ch’in, the masterful threats and appeals to cupidity of Chang Yi, or even the long and somewhat overblown performances by Lu Chunglien, fails to ring true. It is more probable that what Yang and Ch’i mean is “later advocates of The Alliance and The Syndicate.” This interpretation also leaves one with an unpleasant feeling that some­ thing is awry; certainly when The Alliance had been bested by The Syndicate, politicians, diplomats— even persuaders— would not go on talking as though nothing had changed: and to whom would they speak? It begins to become clear that what these two scholars meant (and many others before them) by “later tsung-heng men” was some­ thing quite disreputable and nearly indistinguishable from Ch’ien Mu’s “forgers.” To attribute a large part of the CKT to “forgers” is at best a coun­ sel of despair, for not only would this (or these?) forgers have to have been uncommonly active and skilled, but also one has to discover a motive for him (them ). I do not doubt that forgeries can be had in great numbers if there is a lucrative and uncritical market for them.18 On the other hand I cannot imagine what this market could have been in China between, let us say, 331 b .c . (the implied date of The Alliance) and 209 b .c . by which time civil war had engulfed the Ch’in. Since the one thing we feel tolerably certain of is the fictitious nature of The Alliance, we can eliminate the fifteen years of its exist­ ence as being the time likely to produce a market for forgeries— no one would ask for records which would conflict cruelly with the testi­ mony of his own eyes. On the other end of this period one should exclude at least another twenty years while Ch’in subdues the last of the Warring Kingdoms and sets up its own court—Ch’in is known to have been singularly unimpressed by books, forged or otherwise, and the courts which survived until the final years of the Warring King­ doms epoch did not, I should imagine, have much revenue to put into collecting books. It is probable that by 209 parts of what we now call13 13 A burning faith can also produce them.

95

INTRIGUES

the CKT had already been incorporated into other works (e.g. Hanfei and Lü-shih Ch’un-ch’iu) } A From 200 until 140 b.c . there is no center I can think of which would attract forgeries. When Han Wuti’s court becomes a potent influence in the land a likely market for forgeries is in existence, but by that time it is'quite late for newly arrived forgeries to be accepted without much demur by Ssu-ma Ch’ien and later by Wang Ch’ung.1415 The operative difference between fiction and forgery is deliberate imposture; for the rest they are alike, for both tell what is not (or was not) so. It is not surprising that Chinese scholars and critics through the ages have thought of the contents of the Intrigues as history on the one hand and forgery on the other, for the Chinese language has always lacked a general, nonpejorative term for “fiction,” and the concept of “fiction” conflicts badly with Chinese concepts of history and the purpose of keeping records. But one need not adopt the habits of a culture simply because he is studying it and thereby throw away valuable clues to possible origins for much of the C K T. Two things should be kept firmly in mind while other considerations are taken up: Su Ch’in, Chang Yi, and the others are inextricably connected with “politicians and diplomats,” and the contents of the Intrigues is almost wholly devoted to the art of rhetoric and its practice.

2 The present generation of scholars who interest themselves in things Chinese has been wisely schooled against the kind of unconscious parochialism which often results when members of one civilization study phenomena of another. We now carefully make allowances for the occidental orientation of a great pioneer such as James Legge. I recall the first time I saw the date (1896-97) of A. Forke’s “The Chinese Sophists”1 that I was troubled not so much by the fifty years of scholarship accumulated since its writing as by the fact that I had been taught to fear the man bearing Greeks as gifts to the Orient. Forke’s instinct was sound, however. There is a close similarity 14 See Crump p. 331, n. 2. By 179 b.c. The Alliance was known to Chia Yi (SC 84; Han-shu ch. 48, K.M. 0473-0477; esp. 0467.3, where he uses the story of Yii-jang and Chih Po), because his “Kuo-Ch’in Lun” (Chia Tai-fu Hsinshu Ch. 9, SPTK 9, lb) refers to it unmistakably. 15 Lun-heng p. 464. 1 JRAS (North China Branch), 1896/97, pp. 1-60.

96

The Persuader’s Tradition between the exploration of terminology by the Chinese in the fourth and third centuries b.c. and a similar efflorescence in Greece during much the same period of time. The fragments we have left to us show the Chinese Sophists grappling with analogous (if not the same) phenomena and reacting to their discoveries about the nature of think­ ing and opinion in a similar fashion. So much is this the case that Maspero— a scholar known for his resistance to facile analogies from the West2— says, with regard to Hui-shih, Kung-sun Lung and their intellectual heirs: “Alors commença une lignée de Dialecticiens et de Sophistes, pien tchô, appartenant en principe à toutes les écoles, qui, discutant sur les noms, ming, plus que sur les idées, dissertant sur les definitions et les distinctions, sont commun comme V4École Nomi­ naliste/ ming-chia.”3 Maspero here uses the word Sophist as an accept­ ably accurate and handy term to designate a stage in the growth of Chinese intellectual life. Wilhelm,4 in 1947, discussing the probable order of appearance of various “schools of thought” also uses the term Sophist (citing Hu Shih) to refer to the same men. He also believes that “persons of the dialectical and rhetorical tradition” would have welcomed contact (he calls it “Schulung”) with this new breed, the logician. In 1953 the treatment of Sophists in Deux sophistes is not limited to the mere use of a known Western term to handily clas­ sify philosophical phenomena in China; the last section is devoted to an essay on “Comparative Sophistics.” Kou finds that the appearance of Sophists is “. . . in no way [due to] an exclusively Hellenic attitude, but is a fact of undoubted generality.” He also notes the conditions which favor the appearance of sophistic preoccupation are analogous in Greece, India, and China. They are “heterogeneity of the social milieu, political instability, repeated contacts with foreigners, and a change in morality which brings with it gradual neglect of the prevail­ ing religion or doctrine.”5 Father Kou describes the similarity of approach in all three geo­ graphic areas (pp. 131-35), but does not remark clearly enough on 2 See his very cautious ^observation on the similarity between the Kung-sun Lung fragments and Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 b.c.), Maspero p. 443, n.3, and also his criticism of Hu Shih for reading “Progress” into the properly Chinese concept of change as evidence of instability only. 3 Maspero p. 442. 4 Wilhelm II p. 56. 5 Deux sophistes p. 129.

97

NTRIGUES

the fact that (in the case of China and Greece at least) we have, after all, only fragments from these thinkers. If we had more information left to us we might find the similarity among them even more striking than it is. The similarity of sophistic philosophical approach is given much fuller expression by Father Kou than is the other strong point of the Sophists— their skill in speaking and persuading.6 He is, in fact, speaking of the Sophist in his most talked-of role— that of the disputer, indulging, as the Greeks would say, in eristic. But the reputation of Gorgias in classical times rested less on the “triple negation,” which Father Kou mentions (p. 131), than on his skill as an orator and teacher of rhetoric. “The alliance with Leontini [the city state Gorgias was representing] was accepted by Athens . . . and thereafter Gorgias was in great demand both as a public speaker and as a teacher of rhetoric,” says Freeman.1 And, “His public appearances included a demonstration in the Athenian theatre, when he invited his audience to ‘attack’ him with any questions they wished [on which he would discourse impromptu]; his courage evoked great admiration. He was invited to Delphi to give an oratorical display, and speaking from the altar roused such enthusiasm that his statue was set up in the temple in gold.”8 He was not only an ambassador, but a consummate speaker as well, besides his treatise On Being or On Nature (from which comes the “triple negation” ) he wrote one of the earliest textbooks of rhetoric and “there survive also large fragments of two of his speeches written as exercises, probably as models for his pupils, the Encomium on Helen and Defence of Palamedes/ ’9 Protagoras and Prodicus Father Kou mentions under his rubric “La distinction des termes” and points out that they insisted on preci­ sion of terms as well as balanced, antithetical phrases. Protagoras as­ serted there were two mutually contradictory stands which could be taken on anything, and he is said to have written a book, The A rt of Eristics, which puts him in the category of a pien-shlh. However, he thought little of what the men of his day called science and instead «Though he does say of Gorgias (Deux sophistes p. 130): “Sa réputation de rhéteur, déjà grande en Sicile, y trouva, dit-on, une éclatante et fructeuse con­ sécration.“ And on p. 131: “Ainsi, le sophiste est toujours un professeur de Vart de parler ou d'écrire, un maître de rhétorique 7 P. 357. 8 Freeman p. 357. ®Ibid. p. 359.

98

The Persuader’s Tradition taught his pupils about opinions “and the means of influencing opinions, the art of persuasion, or rhetoric.” He taught something he called “divi­ sions of time,” which seem to have been the divisions into which a speech was separated and these are probably related to his teaching the importance of knowing “the right time” to use certain persua­ sions.101He wrote orations on set themes for his students, and in Plato’s Protagoras he can be seen creating an elaborate myth or apologue in balanced prose, replete with allusions, after which Socrates says (with irony, of course, for Plato disliked all Sophists) : “Protagoras ended, and in my ear ‘So charming left his voice, that I the while thought him still speaking; still stood fixed to hear.’ ”11 It is plain that he, like the other Sophists, was a persuader and orator. Prodicus the precisian, the eristic, was also interested basically in the art of speaking: his Choice of Heracles was a display piece and an exercise in speaking on a set theme.12 Lycophron, though a metaphysician, politician, and student of the physical sciences, is known to have written eulogies in the Gorgian manner and was well known for his figures of diction. Thrasymachus, a true Sophist with the Sophists’ scorn for absolutes, was also a skilled orator who is said to have developed oratory by the appeals to human emotions which elocution is capable of. The talented Hippias of Elis was a brilliant contender in the oratorical competitions at Olympia. Obviously, I have been stressing the rhetorical, oratorical, and epideictic (display), speaking of the older Sophists not to gainsay the similarity between Greek Sophists and Chinese Sophists, but rather to point out that there are even more comparisons to be made. Kungsun Lung-tzu, Hui Shih, the neo-Mohists, and the members of the Academy at Chi-hsia gate13 resemble so greatly the “eristic” side of the Greek sophistic that one is tempted to look closely to see if there may be some counterpart for the “epideictic” Sophist or the Sophist as a speaker, as mover of emotions and opinions by words. The obvious objection to this is the lack of a tradition for oratory in China; this, however, is rather more formal than real: first, because many of the 10 Ibid. p. 351. 11 Authorized text, 3rd ed., Jowett translation. 12 It is interesting to note that Prodicus, like Gorgias, was an ambassador from Ceos to Athens. See W. C. Wright, A Short History of Greek Literature (London, 1907) p. 169. 13 Maspero p. 427, and Ch’ien Mu pp. 231-36.

99

INTRIGUES

pieces which we think of as Greek oratory were in fact written to be read and were not spoken before groups of people;14*second, because there is a vast amount of material from pre-Han times which demon­ strates quite clearly that the Chinese counterpart for Greek public speaking was Chinese “private-speaking” in the> form of advice to a patron, remonstration with a ruler, or persuasion of a prince. A more trenchant objection might be that we possess much of this Chinese “private-speaking” (i.e. persuasions) on the applied level— and ora­ tory with the Greeks was a practical tool also— but nothing of Chinese persuasion as an artistic medium—which oratory certainly was in Greece. But the Intrigues of the Warring States contains much to over­ come that objection— every conceivable stylistic device is employed in its stories, and the type of attention devoted to polished language found in it is so completely analogous to Greek rhetorical preoccupa­ tions that it makes one uncomfortable. Setting aside the obvious dif­ ferences in the geniuses of the two languages, the Intrigues' prose will be found to have very strong rhythm, a penchant for antithesis (or chiasm), parisosis (or symmetry of units), consonance verging on rhyme, and all the other devices peculiar to the orator’s self-conscious and somewhat fulsome use of language. No unit in the Intrigues is as sustained as even the shorter Greek orations, but the Chinese per­ suasion— in the Intrigues at least— is superior in invention to the oration. The greatest difficulty with the comparison I am suggesting lies in tracking down early persuaders and identifying the peculiarities of their tradition. Nowhere in early texts do we find a recognizable per­ suader asserting that someone was his teacher, nor do we discover any name connected with the teaching of rhetoric: this despite the fact that argumentation (pièn) and persuasion (shùi) are acknowl­ edged to be essential skills for a shih, or adviser to a ruler— and this is what the entire field of rhetoric was designed for in China. There are, of course, important treatises on rhetoric in three different 14 Jebb points out (Attic Orators, London, 1876, Intro, p. lxxi): “The relation between ancient oratory and ancient prose .. . will bfe more evident if it is stated thus: . . . That prose which was written with a view to being spoken stood in the closest relation with that prose which was written with a view to being read.” Cf. also Isocrates (trans. G. Norlin and L. Van Hook, 3 vol. Loeb, 1928-45, Intro, p. xxx): “He [Isocrates] called his writings orations, but they were such only in the sense that they are invested with the form and atmosphere of oratory. He himself never delivered a speech and few of his discourses were written for delivery.” Furthermore, Areopagiticus was cast in the form of an oration before the Athenian General Assembly, but only “for the sake of giving greater life and impressiveness to the pleading.” Jebb, op. cit. vol. II, 203. 100

The Persuader’s Tradition works,15 but none of them is a work on technique of presentation; all concentrate on the relation between the already accomplished per­ suader and the ruler. The “shui-nan” chapter in Han-fei Tzu briskly denies any concern with presentation: “The difficulties in persuasion have nothing to do with a lack of knowledge to use in persuading, or the skill in argument to make one?s meaning clear . . . all the difficulty lies in knowing the mind of the person persuaded. . . .” The “shunshui” of LSCC, while it briefly mentions the state of mind needed by a persuader, is actually concerned with examples of persuasions which “seized the inclination,” already present in the hearer. Probably the closest thing we have to information on the persuaders’ tradition is the Shih-chi’s (SC 9 6 /2 ) statement that Su Ch’in studied under a Master Kuei-ku. This is not mentioned in the Intrigues, but later traditions— including Yiian drama—have both Su Ch’in and Chang Yi as fellow disciples of Kuei-ku.10 As is ever the case with the Intrigues, in order to gather informa­ tion about the text, the men in it, and their activities, one must turn to internal evidence in the C K T itself. The useful thing about keeping a Western analogy in mind is that it directs the gaze toward phenomena which might otherwise be overlooked. It has been mentioned above that the older Sophists, Gorgias, Protagoras, and Prodicus, wrote “orations on set themes for their students” which were models to be memorized or emulated by them. Presumably, if we had today all the writings of Gorgias and his students we would find dozens of pieces which differed slightly from each other— even contradicted each other — all on the same subject. For example, Gorgias’ Helen we know to have been a favorite theme— even the primary prose stylist and first 15 “Chuan-tz’u” in Teng Hsi-tzu, ch. 2. See also Wilhelm, II p. 8 Iff. Forke’s “Chinese Sophists” p. 48ff. is superseded by the former. The “shui-nan” of Han-fei (see Liao I p. 106ff.) and the “shun-shui” in Lü-shih CKun-chiu (LSCC 15!31a). This last is particularly interesting for it tells the bare outlines of the persuaders' art in consonances which are almost rhymes.16 16 Chung Feng-nien* K an yen p. 7, feels the contents of the Intrigues do represent the tradition (or traditions) of a “school.” “. . . This is why those who knew nothing of the authors but simply trans­ mitted the [authors'] words, accordingly did not go carefully into the realities and wherever there was an inconsistency they passed even that on without change. Therefore, though it looks like [history], in the final analy­ sis it is not: to call it history is unacceptable. “Nonetheless the [book’s] topics and its phrases all conserve the dimen­ sions of the earlier [men] and none slips beyond a certain framework—so are not those who claim that ‘it is not the [work of] a school' only gazing at the temple but not penetrating to the sanctum?” 101

NTRIGUES

citizen of Athens, Isocrates, does a “Helen” though he despised the sophistic hacks. Suppose, now, that classical studies were a relatively new field, that heretofore none but native speakers of Greek had seri­ ously worked on the classical past, for instance. Now our scholars come upon this heterogeneous series of orations on Helen for the first time, knowing nothing about the sophistic and practices related to the teaching of rhetoric. Certainly “forgery” would not be the last thing to come into their minds. If the Intrigues was in part a collection of such exercises one could hope to find a heterogeneous series of persuasions on the same topic— clusters, in fact. Unfortunately, we have very specific informa­ tion that Liu Hsiang “after he had discarded duplications”17 compiled the Chan-kuo Ts'e in thirty pien. Nevertheless, there still remain in the text a number of interesting clusters: 18.11 Fan Sui persuades Ch’in Chao-wang and undermines Jang-hou. 18.12 Ditto; and the second half of the text almost duplicates 18,11. Chung Feng-nien remarks: “Having already succeeded in his first persuasion he should not do it again ; I suspect this occurs because the records did not come from the same hand.” 25.8 Tsou Chi and Kung-sun Han trump up a charge of at­ tempted sedition against T ’ien Chi who then flees the country. 25.9 Sun Pin tells T ’ien Chi how to succeed in sedition and drive out Kung-sun Han. T’ien Chi refuses and never reenters Ch’i. This prompts two comments by Chung Feng-nien: “Wu [shihtao] says here [25,8] that [T’ien] Chi fled Ch’i after the capture of P’ang Chüan because Wu mistakenly believes 25,9 . . .” And after 25,9 Chung says that Sun Pin himself would not dare return to Ch’i if he had counseled another in this manner, therefore: “It can be seen that the Intrigues in this matter is untrue (hsü).” 15.7 Feng Chang says Ch’in must placate Ch’u by ceding Han­ dlung. This is done and then Ch’in takes Yi-yang. 15.10 Ch’u has already broken with Ch’in and allied herself with Han. Kan Mao says, “no matter.” This 4s still before Yi-Yang is taken. 4,2 No mention of Ch’u’s alliance with Han, but the Ch’u general is persuaded to wait until Ch’in takes Yi-yang and then move in with his troops. About this series Chung says: “Here one can see that Intrigues has divergent versions of the same affairs even at this period.” 17 Crump p. 323.

102

The Persuader’s Tradition It could be argued that these “clusters”18 all concern historical events of some magnitude and thus differ from encomia on Helen. While this is true, it should be pointed out that not only are there encomia in the Intrigues (e.g. the introductions to the six persuasions of Su Ch’in) but during the so-called “Second Sophistic” in Greek and Roman rhetoric it was common practice with rhetoricians to give their pupils historic or legendary events upon which they were re­ quired to give advice or persuade to a course of action as though they were actually there. Such school exercises later became very popular as a form of public speaking in which the rhetorician showed his skill in devising new and ingenious persuasions and advice to fit historical situations long past. These exercises were called suasoriae.19 One of the best known was posed thus: “The Athenians deliberate whether they should remove the trophies of their victory over the Persians, since Xerxes threatens that he will return if they are not removed.” Various approaches are recorded. Cestius Pius: “I shall invade, says Xerxes; he is only promising me more trophies.” Argentarius: “Are you not ashamed? Xerxes sets a higher value on your trophies than on you.” Gallio chose the opposite side: “We shall be exhausted with victories before they are exhausted with defeats.”20 Suppose a Chinese rhetorical tradition included some such device as the suasoria for training men in the art of persuasion; would that not explain much of what is most baffling about the Intrigues? If exer­ cises by the masters or the disciples of such a “school” were part of 18 There are two other interesting clusters to be noted: 24,6; 32,5; 15,6, which deal with the same historical incident from the viewpoint of three different courts, and the three items which constitute section III of this chapter. 19 See The Suasoriae of Seneca, W. A. Edwards, trans. (Cambridge, 1928). Philostratus* Lives of the Sophists gives a number of others. This is not the only device known to Greek and Roman rhetoric which could lead to phe­ nomena such as I believe to be present in the Intrigues. See the Progymnasmata of Hermogenes (trans. by C. S. Baldwin in Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, 1959) under “characterization**: “. . . (The exercise is called) prosopopoeia when we put the person into the &ene . . . we invent words for a person really there . . . and . . . we invent also a person who was not there.’’ Quintillian says of the exercise (trans. by C. S. Baldwin in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic, New York, 1924, p. 72): “Therefore the prosopopoeiae seem to me far the most difficult, since they add to the other tasks of deliberative (suasoria) the difficulty of characterization.” 20 Compare this sententia with the following from the Intrigues (25,17): “Ch’i and Lu once fought three battles. Lu was victorious and perished from its victories.” The suasoriae were quite long; I have only given the sententia from them as did Seneca Rhetor.

103

INTRIGUES

the “school’s” heritage it would not only explain many of the contra­ dictions in the Intrigues, but it would account for many other facets of this delightful work. Why, for example, do so many persuaders so often speak their entire piece with no interruption from the ruler, who simply says “so be it” when the persuader is finished? Why are the pieces in the Intrigues so beautifully polished? And how did the men in the Intrigues invariably think of just the right thing to say for the occasion? These become understandable if the training a man underwent to pur­ sue the career he hoped for (political adviser, emissary,21 and the like) included model advice which would or should have been offered at certain historic occasions, and somehow found its way into what we now call the Intrigues of the Warring States. Most important, perhaps, it would take away some of the stigma attached to the book by Chinese critics with their accusations that some or all of the work is the product of “later tsung-heng men” or “imitators of tsung-heng men.” It would also explain why so much superb rhetorical prose was written which dramatizes22 the alarms and excursions of the Warring Kingdoms era. Nevertheless, neither the reader nor I will feel quite comfortable if all of the evidence educed is comparative and indirect. Is there anything in the Intrigues which gives fairly direct evidence of rhetorical exercises having been used in China before the Han? To my knowl­ edge, only one item does, and to that we must turn, for comparisons may be right or wrong, well taken or far-fetched, but a piece of text remains for all to see and judge for themselves. 3 The translation below is exactly as it stands in the Intrigues. It has not been rearranged in any way. I have added only the numbers for the 21 It must be remembered that the Han-shu spoke of its class of tsung-heng men as having originated with hsing-jen and it should be noted that elsewhere (K.M. 0436.3) it is said that “the ministers and great officials of the feudal lords in ancient times tried to exert influence with subtle words (wei yen) when they dealt with a neighboring country.” See Wilhelm Ip . 312. I think it likely that rhetoric had its greatest influence with men wljb were emissaries to other states—with tsung-heng men in the sense of “diplomats and politicians.” 22 It may be superfluous to point out the close connection between the phe­ nomenon we know as “the sophistic” and the earliest groping toward “romance” in the sense that Maspero uses the term in “Le Roman de Sou Ts’in,” Mélanges posthumes, vol. 3 (1950), 52-62. However, let me cite W. C. Wright {op. cit. p. 499) for evidence from Greece: “The domination of sophistic is plain to see in a literary genre . . . the romance. The Greek novel began with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, and this sort of biography, half history, half romance, was to the last a favorite type.”

104

The Persuader’s Tradition units; the brackets simply set off comments of the student (?) doing the exercise (?) from the “stories” themselves. It looks as though this student with the first story as a basis, jots down the ten elaborations he can bring to the theme and then composes the persuasions which go with them. As each elaboration is completed he notes that he had predicted it in the “table of contents” by his remark that [“This is why it was said,” etc.] Notice that the promised tenth “story” is missing. The king of Ch’u had died and his heir apparent was still hostage in Ch’i. “Why does my lord not confine the heir of Ch’u and use him to bargain for the eastern section of his country?” Su Ch’in asked the duke of Hsiieh. “It would not do,” replied the duke, “for if I held the heir they would enthrone another in Ying and then not only would I be left embracing a useless hostage but I would have got an evil name in the realm for my troubles.” “Not so, my lord,” replied Su Ch’in, “if they name a king at Ying you need only say to the new ruler, ‘give me the eastern portion of your country and I will assassinate the former heir for you. If you don’t, together with my two allies, I shall proclaim the former heir to be king of Ch’u.’ Then you would surely be given the eastern portion of Ch’u.” [Su Ch’in can (1.) make (the duke of Hsiieh) ask him to go. He can (2.) cause the king of Ch’u to quickly hand over his eastern territories, and then, (3.) make him cede even more lands. He can (4.) make the heir faithful to Ch’i and get even more land from Ch’u. He can (5.) send the heir off in haste for the king of Ch’u, he can (6.) make the heir faithful and cause him to leave in haste. He can (7.) blacken himself in the eyes of the duke of Hsiieh. He can (8.) have another get him a title in Ch’u. He can (9.) have another persuade the duke of Hsiieh to treat him well. He can (?) go himself to the duke and explain his actions.] *1 1. “I have heard,” said Su Ch’in, “whose plans leak out does not succeed; praise comes not to them irresolute to do the deed.’ Now if my lord detains the heir in Ch’i to bargain for the eastern parts of Ch’u and if Ch’u should not immediately hand over this area, she might change her plans and this would leave you em­ bracing a useless hostage and shouldering an evil name in the realm.” 105

INTRIGUES

“That is so,” said the dukp, “what can be done to prevent it?” “I beg your leave to go to Ch’u for you and manage things so that she immediately hands over the territory. Once Ch’u has done this then there can be no defeating my fo rd ’s plans.” “True,” said the duke and sent him off. [This is why it was said, “he will be asked to go.” ] 2. Said he to the king [j /c] of Ch’u,* “Ch’i wishes to support the heir apparent so that he will be put on the throne, but in my view, the duke of Hslieh is detaining the heir only to bargain for Ch’u’s eastern lands. If you do not immediately give Ch’i your eastern lands, then the heir will offer double the amount of land to Ch’i to keep Ch’i’s support.” “I respectfully hear your command,” said the king, and he ceded the eastern lands. [This is why it was said “he could cause Ch’u to surrender the land immediately.” ] 3. Said he to the duke of Hsiieh, “Ch’u is now inclined to cede even more territory.” “How can this be accomplished?” asked the duke. “Tell the heir that you intend to ask for more and have him tell his ruler he wants this done to prove he will be faithful to you. Make sure Ch’u hears of this and she will cede you more land.” [This is why it was said “he could get even more land from Ch’u.” ] 4. To the heir he said, “Ch’i has supported you and would like you to take the throne of Ch’u. Your country has already offered to cede an amount of territory to Ch’i if Ch’i will hold you here indefinitely. But Ch’i thinks the amount of land is too little. Why do you not offer to give Ch’k twice the amount and then rely on Ch’i’s support? She is bound to back you.” “I shall,” replied the heir and he doubled the offer of ter­ ritory and remained in Ch’i. The king of Ch’u heard this and doubled the amount of land he had offered— still fearing the affair might not work out. * If the former king was dead and the heir was in Ch’i we have an extra king here!

106

The Persuader’s Tradition [This is why it was said, “he could cause Ch’u to cede even more land.” ] 5. He then said to the king of Ch’u, “The only reason Ch’i dared ask for -more land was because she had the heir under her thumb. Now she has gotten her land, but her demands continue for she weighs the heir as heavily as she does the king himself. Therefore, if I can drive the heir away, he will leave and Ch’i will not have a word to say about doubling the amount of land. Then your majesty must ride post haste to mighty Ch’i and fix your relations with her so that her words will accord with your majesty’s wishes. In this fashion you will have got rid of an enemy and established relations with Ch’i.” The king of Ch’u was delighted. “Please let me put my coun­ try at your command,” he said. [This is why it was said that “he would make the heir leave in haste.” ] 6. He said to the heir: “Now, he who actually rules Ch’u is the king, while he who bargains with only an empty title is the heir. Ch’i does not necessarily put stock in the words of the heir, but the real value of Ch’u is plain to see.” “I accept your commands,” replied the heir, and he had his carriage harnessed and left in the night. [This is why it was said that “he would make the heir leave in haste.” ] * 7. Su Ch’in then sent another to speak to the duke of Hsiieh: “Su Ch’in it was who urged you to detain the heir. He did not truly do this for the duke’s sake, but only to make things more convenient for Ch’u. Su Ch’in feared my lord might find him out so he got more land for you from Ch’u to cover his tracks. “It was Su Ch’in who urged the heir to leave and since my lord did not know this I took it upon myself to be suspicious on my lord’s behalft” The duke of Hsiieh was furious with Su Ch’in. [This is why it was said “he could cause a man to blacken Su Ch’in’s name before the duke of Hsiieh.” ] 8. He also sent another to speak to the king of Ch’u. “Su Ch’in it was who urged the duke of Hsiieh to detain the heir. Su Ch’in * It was also said “can make the heir faithful” but this has dropped out.

107

NTRIGUES

supported the king and was against raising the heir. Su Ch’in arranged for the cession of land and made the treaty firm. Su Ch’in remained loyal to the king and made the heir leave Ch’i. “And now there is a man accusing Su Ch’in before the duke of Hsiieh saying he slighted Ch’i in favor of Ch’u and I thought your majesty should know it.” “I have heard your command,” replied the king, and gave Su Ch’in the title of Prince Wu-chen. [This is why it was said “he could get Su Ch’in a title in Ch’u.” ] 9. He further sent Ching Li, a minister of Ch’u, to speak to the duke of Hsiieh. “Your lordship is admired in the realm by reason of his ability to attract to himself the capable men of the land and be­ cause he holds the power of Ch’i. “Presently Su Ch’in is one of the greatest sophists (pienshih)—few in the world can compare— and my lord being on bad terms with him is sealing himself off from the rest of the capable men in the empire, thus depriving himself of the advan­ tages of persuasion (shui t’u). “Those who are disaffected with my lord will support Su Ch’in, and this will result in hindering my lord’s affairs. Presently Su Ch’in is favored by the king of Ch’u, and if my lord does not early make his peace with Su Ch’in then he will personally be an enemy of Ch’u. It were better if my lord were friendly with Su Ch’in; yes, esteemed and honored him, for then my lord would have Ch’u on his side.” Thereafter the duke treated Su Ch’in well. [This is why it was said “he could have the duke of Hsiieh persuaded to treat Su Ch’in well.” ] 10. 71

(Intrigues 27,1) *• There is no indication that this section‘of the Intrigues is any earlier or later than the rest of the work. The Shih-chP text incor­ porates only the first part of 27,1— i.e. the section up to the beginning 1 According to the coming attractions, no. 10 should tell us how Su Ch’in “went to the duke and explained his actions.” Perhaps the writer’s imagination boggled in the face of such a task. 2 SC 40/66-67.

108

The Persuader’s Tradition of the student’s “stories.” This is no argument for or against the gen­ uineness of the rest of 27,1 because the SC text also ignores Intrigues 35,8 and 37,7, which deal with the heir’s stay in Ch’i. These three items— 27,1; 35,8; and 37,7— form yet another cluster which may be all we have left of many suasoria-like exercises on what must always have been a dramatic and satisfactory theme for rhetorical ingenuity— the capture of Ch’u’s king and the detention of her heir.8

3 See Supplement for 35,8 and 37,7.

109

IX Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry

1 When L iu H siang gathered together and edited the work we now call the Chan-kuo Ts’e ( “Intrigues of the Warring States”), he found that in addition to the copy he worked from, there were in the Library of the Palace Secretariat other fragments of substantially the same contents which went under different titles. There was one called Kuoshih ( “Affairs of the States”), another called Kuo-ts’e ( “Schemes of the States”) and also one called Tuan-ch’ang ( “short and long,” or “advantages and disadvantages” ) .1 Concerning the meaning of this last title there has been, throughout the centuries, strictly limited in­ formation but a great deal of speculation. Though I personally feel the phrase is so vague that very little knowledge about the Intrigues can be elicited by investigating it, a sense of duty obliges me to present at least an outline of what is known and what has been said about the “art of long and short.” The second section of this chapter is reserved for an inquiry into a phenomenon to be found in the Intrigues which, while it may be in some way related to ch’ang-tuan, is limited to inter­ nal evidence in the extant Intrigues and is, therefore, more informative about actual rhetorical and literary habits of the work than further lucubrations by me on the meaning of ch’ang-tuan. All references to the term tuan-ch’ang in relation to the Warring States or the Intrigues prior to Liu Hsiang can be given very suc­ cinctly. They are three and occur in the Shih-chi: 1. SC 94/12 (Biography of T ’ién Tàn) “ . . . K’uai T ’ung2 ex­ celled in ch’ang-tuan persuasions (shùi? shuö), and arranged (lùn, wrote?) the “adaptations” (ch’üân-pièn) of the Chankuo (period) in eighty-one headings (shSu).” 1 Crump p. 323. 2 Sec K.M. 0469.1 for K’uai T’ung’s biography.

no

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry 2. SC 112/11 (Biography of Chu-fu Yen) “He (Chu-fu Yen) studied the arts of ch'ang-tuan and tsung-heng." 3. SC 122/23 (Biography of “cruel officials” ) “Pien T ung8 studied ch'ang-tuan . . As can be seen, there is very little to go on if one wishes to find out more about the implications of the term ch'ang-tuan (or tuan-ch'ang) and how it was related to the Intrigues. There can be no doubt that it was in some fashion connected with the Intrigues just as the term tsung-heng was. The first step in pursuit of this connection is to inves­ tigate the three persons who “studied” ch'ang-tuan. Pien T ’ung is easily eliminated; neither SC nor the Han-shu jays any more about him than “he was a hard and violent man.” Chu-fu Yen’s biography4 yields little that helps. He wrote memorials to the Emperor Wu; one of them on campaigns against the Hsiung-nu is given in extenso, and he advised the emperor to halt the custom of primogeniture which perpetuated the size of areas controlled by great families. He may have studied the Intrigues, but there is nothing in his writings to indicate it. K’uai T ’ung, on the contrary, is not only spoken of by Han Kaotsu as “that sophist (pièn-shih) from Ch’i” but delivers several per­ suasions very much in the Intrigues' tradition. Since the activities of K’uai T ’ung are widely scattered5 through the Shih-chit but nicely con­ fined in a biography devoted to him in the Han-shu, it is convenient to treat him by means of the latter. “At the beginning of the Ch’u-Han period,” says the Han-shu, “Wu Ch’en had all but established himself in Chao territory, and was called Wu Hsin-chiin.” At this time there was a Ch'in magistrate called Hsii-kung still in the city of Fan-yang which was K’uai T’ung’s home. K’uai went to him and persuaded (shui) him as follows: “Your servant is a commander of Fan-yang called K’uai T ’ung, and having heard that your excellency is about to die I have come to mourn him. Nonetheless, I must also congratulate your excellency on having gotten me and saved his own life.” “What do you mean, mourn me?” asked Hsii-kung after he had made a double obeisance. 3 See also K.M. 0506.3 where the term is given as tuan-ch’ang. Pien T’ung has no known connection with K’uai Tung. 4 See also K.M. 0518.1 and Watson II vol. 2, 225, ff. 5 Chao Yi (1727-1814) in Nien-erh Shih Cha-chi remarks on the fact that Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s “appreciation” of K’uai T'ung, for example, is attached to the biography of T ien Tan: “What has Tien Tan to do with K’uài Tung that his ’appreciation’ should be appended here? I suspect this is a later addition.” Takigawa cites Chao and explains it (SC 94/13). Il

Ill

INTRIGUES

“Your excellency has been magistrate here for over ten years now. The fathers of those you have killed and the sons you have orphaned number quite a few— as do those whose feet you have cut off and whose faces you have branded. The only thing that has kept fathers and sons who feel pity .and piety from run­ ning their knives through your belly is fear of Ch’in’s law. But now the empire is in rebellion and Ch’in’s law is not in effect. The fathers and sons who feel pity and piety will now scramble to be the first to get a knife through your excellency’s belly— to vent their feelings and gain a good name doing it. That is why I am here to mourn you.” “Then why do you congratulate me on having gotten you and saved my life?” “Wu Hsin-chiin of Chao does not know that I am worth­ less, so send someone to him to ask about life or death6 and I will persuade him saying, ‘To have to give battle first and then control territory, to have to attack cities to make them fall ap­ pears dangerous to your servant. By my plan there would be no battle for land and no attacks for cities— you need only send around a notice and the country will be settled for a thousand li. Would you like to?’ He will then say, ‘What are you talking about?’ and I will reply, ‘The magistrate of Fan-yang who even now disposes his troops to resist your attack, is timid and in fear of death, avaricious and anxious for wealth and position. This is why he wants to surrender his city to you. But if he surrenders first and you do not reward him, others in the vicinity will say to themselves, “Fan-yang’s magistrate surrendered and lost his life,” and each will close his town for defense. You will find walls of metal and moats of boiling water* which you can not attack. The best thing for this plan would be to meet the magistrate of Fan-yang with “a yellow carriage and red wheels” and escort him along the borders of Yen and Chao so that neighboring towns will say to themselves, “Fan-yang’s magistrate surrendered before he was attacked and now is rich and honored.” You will find each surrenders as easily as a ball rolls down a slope. This is what your servant meant by sending around a notice to settle the country for a thousand li.’ ” Hsii-kung bowed twice, sent T ’ung off with his own horse and carriage and T ’ung persuaded Wu Ch’en in the fashion (de* A literary cliché for determined resistance. 6 I am not certain of hôu wèn ch’î ssu-shêng.

112

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry scribed.) Wu Ch’en received Hsü-kung with a retinue of a hun­ dred chariots and two hundred riders. Yen and Chao both heard of it and thirty cities surrenderd, as T u n g ’s scheme (predicted) they would. (K.M. 0469) If there were a scholium added to the above which went, “So Fanyang was spared a siege and Wu Ch’en gained Chao,” it would be almost indistinguishable from a half-dozen persuasions in the Intrigues. To the information thus far collected on ch’ang-tuan and its rela­ tion to the Intrigues, one must now add the fact that there is a curious note from the So-yin (SC 9 2/34) occurring after K’uai T ’ung has tried to persuade Han Hsin, which says, “The Han-shu and the Chankuo Ts’e both contain this text.” Chang Chao (1691-1745), in his Kuan-pen Shih-chi K ’ao-cheng,7 comments: “Where is there anything about Han Hsin and K’uai T ’ung in the Intrigues*? The So-yin is mis­ taken.” The three primary sources listed above (i.e. the quotations from Shih-chi), the nature of K’uai T’ung’s persuasions in Han-shu and Shih-chi, and the fact that one of the titles for the proto-Intrigues was Tuan-ch’ang were taken together in 1929-33 by Lo Ken-tse as evi­ dence that the Intrigues was “made” (written? edited?) by none other than K’uai T ’ung.8 Lo maintained that the Intrigues used to contain the persuasions of K’uai T ’ung but that these were lost or discarded before Tseng Kung reconstructed our present day text. (See Appen­ dix I.) The weakness of the entire argument lies precisely in the fact that the primary sources are so meager. Those very brief statements from the Shih-chi which link the “art of long and short” to the Intrigues are not only inadequate evidence on which to base a theory of authorship, they are inadequate even for a suggestion of what the “art of long and short” might have been. In order to learn anything more one must acknowledge secondary sources— that is, early annotation of the state­ ments. They are almost as sparse as the primary sources; what is worse they are contradictory: 7. The earliest annotation is attributed to Ying Shao who flourished some time after 189 a.d. The Shih-chi Chi-chieh claims the following came from Ying Shao’s Han-shu Yin-yi: The art of ch’ang-tuan arose during the period of the Six Kingdoms [i.e. the period of alliance between the six states 7 Takigawa includes Chang's comment. 8 The reader may see Lo's theory in Ku-shih Pien No. 4 and several restate­ ments and additions in Lo Ken-tse pp. 543-46. Objections to the theory are quite adequately stated in Wei-shu pp. 535-44.

113

NTRIGUES

against Ch’in]. Actions were far-reaching (hs'ing ch’âng) but of little penetration (jù twin) (?). Their speeches concealed or ex­ aggerated and were used to excite or anger (others).9 2. From substantially the same period comes this gloss by Fu Ch’ien: The arts of ch’ang-tuan and tsung-heng [mean] that Su Ch’in was the pattern (fä ) for persuasions in the books of mis­ cellaneous10 authors (päi-chiä shü) .n 3. Chang Yen, whose comments appear often in Yen Shih-ku’s anno­ tated Han-shuf probably lived during the Wei dynasty.12 This would place him next in order of antiquity. His comment runs: In the schemes of Su Ch’in and Chang Yi they take advan­ tage of another’s shortcomings (cKü ts’ù? p ï wéi tuan) and turn it [in]to their own strengths (kuëi tz’u wéi ch’âng). In the Chan-kuo Ts’e this is called the art of ch’ang-tuan.13 Translating these annotations, which are, after all, isolated state­ ments bearing on an unknown quantity, one can at best be only toler­ ably certain he has gotten the author’s meaning. It is of interest to note that as early as Later Han times the term “art of ch’ang-tuan” needed glossing. In T’ang times it still needed a gloss: The So-yin (SC 94/12) says of K’uai T ’ung’s skill in the art of ch’ang-tuan, “If one wishes an affair to seem good (ch’ang) he speaks of its strong points; if he wishes it to seem bad (tuan) he speaks of its shortcomings, which is why the Chan-kuo Ts’e was [once] called the Book of Ch’ang-tuan.” Takigawa cites all the comments above except no. 2 and invariably adds his own: “ch’ang-tuan is another way of saying tsung-heng.” He also notes14 Nakai Riken’s comments on the term from his Shiki Chôdai: “ (to be 9 See SC 122/23. See also K.M. 0506.3, where hs'ing ch’âng jù tu&n is missing. 10 Here meaning “unorthodox” as Wei-shu p. 538 points out. This may also be translated “patterned his persuasions after various works.” 11 See K.M. 0518.1. 12 Yen Shih-ku’s introduction to Han-shu does not give him a date, but a note by Yin Meng-lun in Han, Wei Liu-ch’ao Pai-san-chiq Chi Ti-tz’u Chu (Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1961) p. 15 n.2, calculates, by elimination, that he must have lived during Wei times.

13SC 112/11 and K.M. 0506.3. The excellent new (June 1962) 8-volume edi­ tion of Han-shu, collated and punctuated by members of the Department of History, Hsi-pei University, and published by Chung-hua is very useful. The notes are not interlinear but collected in groups which makes them stand out well. U SC 122/23.

114

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry able to) speak favorably or unfavorably about the (same) thing and so display (ch’eng) one’s art.” In 1939 Chang Hsin-ch’eng, in his objections to Lo Ken-tse’s theory, observed that Ssu-ma Ch’ien might very well have understood the contradiction inherent in calling K’uai T ’ung a student of tsungheng (for, after all, no state of Ch’in existed in the era of Han Kaotsu) and so used the “more general term for the art of the persuader, ch’a n g - t u a n He then continues: When it (the art of the persuader) was called ch’ang-tuan it referred to praising [someone’s] strong points while counting the weaknesses of others as a way to flatter him; or, exposing someone’s [supposed] strong points and dwelling on his weak­ nesses in order to frighten him; or, pointing out the shortcomings and strong points of several people to either drive them apart or bring them together— depending on what was called for.16 While I think it probable that Chang’s explanation is as good a description of what “the art of ch’ang-tuan” implied as any given so far, it may be that something more specific was alluded to by the phrase. Ssu-ma Ch’ien may have known what it was,16 but certainly commentators from Later Han times on were venturing opinions. In what follows I am, in a sense, joining their ranks, though I am not so much interested in the connotations of “long and short” as applied to the Intrigues as I am in the fact that all of the early comments do imply that there were arts (shù) to be seen in the persuasions of the Intrigues.

2 There is a particular rhetorical phenomenon in the Intrigues which is interesting both in itself and for the relationship it may have to the “art of ch’ang-tuan.” It is a form of argument which, though it can be found elsewhere in Chinese literature, is nowhere so apparent as it is here: There was once a person who wished to present the king of -----------------t 15 Wei-shu p. 539. in his own language, however, he uses ch’ang and tuan much the way they are used today. A paraphrase of SC 92/19: [All in the empire are cowed and enjoying today for they do not expect to live long. This is your strong point (,ch’ang) . . . but your troops are weary and if a relatively weak Yen does not fall, Ch’i will join it and the power of your opponents will not be divided— this is your shortcoming {tuan) . . . A good general does not. use the “short” to attack the “long” but rather the “long” to attack the “short.”] Han-shu does not use any ch’ang or tuan here. See K.M. 0445.3. 16

115

INTRIGUES

Ch’u an elixir of eternal life. The chamberlain was conducting him in when an attendant of the king asked if the medicine could safely be taken. “It can be taken,” was the reply. The king’s attendant immediately snatched the medicine and consumed it. The king was furious and dispatched a man to execute his guilty attendant, but the attendant in turn sent someone to per­ suade the king as follows: “Your servant asked the chamberlain if the medicine could be taken. The chamberlain replied that it could, so your servant took it. In this the guilt lies not with your attendant but with the chamberlain. “Further, the medicine was being offered the king as the elixir of eternal life. If now you kill your guiltless attendant who took this medicine, it will be clear that the medicine was a fraud and the king was gulled.” The king did not have him executed. ( Intrigues 37,8) It is doubtful that anyone ever took the preceding seriously and by itself it is merely an engaging jeu d’ésprit, but it is only one of many persuasions of the same genus and examining its forms may tell us something about the rhetorician’s goals. As is obvious, the author of this story was prepared from the beginning to give the king ( 1 ) an argument for sparing the culprit, and (2) an argument against not sparing him.17 In this example, reason no. 1 is merely verbal agility, but I believe it was supposed to be just as telling as reason no. 2. The ideal form of an argument of this class was: “Give choices A and B; persuade by showing both that A is the only desirable choice and that B is undesirable.” There could be other explanations for the phenome­ non, but I tend to believe that the persuader is here showing familiarity with a logical situation akin to what we call the dilemma, and 37,8 is one of his more successful efforts. Whereas it is difficult to find valid “real” situations where two and only two alternatives exist, both of which are equally repugnant, the dialectician, by presenting only cer­ tain choices to which assent or dissent are asked can reduce the com­ plexities of “reality” and come more readily upon a dilemma. When the persuader in the Intrigues speaks and presents only the alternatives he wishes (and only the situations which can create the alternatives 17 Intrigues 16,16 (see Supplement) is identical in form.

116

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry he wishes), the number of times a dilemma-like situation can appear increases greatly. If one were a working, as it were, persuader, he would know what action or inclination he wished to bring about in his hearer. If he could then phrase his goal in such a fashion that any alternative to it seemed thoroughly repugnant, his job would be done. But how much more theatrical— and thus more satisfying—if he can set up a dilemma and then remove both horns in the same flourish! Ssu-ma Hsi had thrice been chief minister of Chung-shan, but the ruler’s favorite concubine, Yin Chien, was his enemy. T ien Chien finally said to him, “Could you not, when the ambassador from the country of Chao arrives, fill his ear with nothing but the beauties of Yin Chien? The king of Chao would then surely ask for her. If your ruler gives her to Chao you will have settled your internal troubles. If he refuses to give her to Chao then you should urge your ruler to take Yin Chien as his queen. In this way you would gain boundless favor with Yin Chien.” And so it did happen that he caused Chao to ask for Yin Chien, and the ruler of Chung-shan refused to give her to Chao. Ssu-ma Hsi then told his ruler, “Sire, if you refuse, the king of Chao will be greatly angered, and you will be in danger. But, if you were to take her as your legal wife . . . Surely there has never been a time when a man asked for another’s wife and was then angered when he was refused!” [ (Thus it was that) T ’ien Chien’s scheme for the ambassa­ dor from Chao did favor Ssu-ma Hsi, was advantageous to Yin Chien, and made Chao powerless to request her.] (Intrigues 74,5) The situation above is related to the “Elixir of Life” by virtue of its scholium (probably a later addition) which brings attention to bear on what is the important part of so many persuasions—the fact that a scheme or persuasion did not merely bring about the desired effect but simultaneously reduced or eliminated an undesirable effect. I am not holding any brief for the historicity of this persuasion by pointing out that Chung-shan was little more than an appendage of Chao and any thorn it managed to thrust into the side of the larger country, no matter how slight, was an achievement. I assume the com­ poser of the persuasion above had this in mind; the writer of the final comment certainly did. The following excerpt is perhaps one which began with the one above, but it is worked out with much more 117

INTRIGUES

affective prose. It is possible, of cqurse, that both versions were in­ spired by the same historical incident, or, if the hypothesis that there are rhetorical exercises in the Intrigues be allowed, they could be the efforts of two different rhetoricians at work on approximately the same (school?) problem. Whatever the case, notice that in the following there is an attempt to achieve the dilemma, lop off its horns, and simultaneously present a solution which is prepared to rebut either of the two alternatives it leaves for the king of Chao: The concubines Yin and Chiang were both striving to be­ come queen. Ssu-ma Hsi spoke to Yin’s father. “If your daughter succeeds in this matter, you will become honored and titled. If, however, she fails, I fear you will lose your life. Why not leave it to me?” “If things turn out [as you imply] sir,” replied Yin’s father, bowing, “who can say what [I may do for you]?” Ssu-ma Hsi immediately wrote to the ruler of Chung-shan saying, “I know how to weaken Chao and strengthen Chungshan.” The king of Chung-shan was delighted, gave him an audi­ ence and said, “I would hear how Chao can be weakened and Chung-shan strengthened?” “I must first go to Chao,” said Ssu-ma Hsi, “to judge the terrain of the country, the wealth of the people and the virtue or unworthiness of the ruler and his ministers. All of this must be the basis for our discussion of the enemy. I cannot reveal more to you till this is done.” The king of Chung-shan sent him off. Ssu-ma Hsi go( audi­ ence with the king of Chao and said: “I had always heard that the country of Chao was the place from which came all the talented beauties of the world. But now I have come here, trav­ eled from boundary to boundary through all its cities and towns, heard songs and customs of the people, seen all their faces, and found not a single real beauty among them. I have traveled almost everywhere but never have 1 beheld oge creature so lovely as Yin of Chung-shan. Those who do not know who she is have mistaken her for a goddess. Indeed, her face and air so far sur­ pass others that she cannot be described in words. Her eyes and brows, the bridge of her nose, her cheeks and jaw; the shape of her temples and brow are made for the consort of an emperor— not for the concubine of a feudal lord!” The king was greatly moved and cried joyfully, “I shall re­ quest her. Can you arrange this?” 118

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry “Having seen her beauty,” replied Ssu-ma Hsi, “I could not help speaking as I just did. But if you wish to request her, this is something I dare not discuss— I beg you, moreover, not to reveal what I have said.” Ssu-ma Hsi took his leave soon thereafter and returning to Chung-shan reported to the ruler. “The king of Chao is without virtue,” said he. “Instead of loving the way of virtue he loves frivolity and is lost. Instead of humanity and justice he loves force. I even heard he wishes to request the woman called Yin.” The king colored and was saddened. “Chao is a powerful state,” continued Ssu-ma Hsi. “What it requests must be given. If you, sire, do not yield, your state will be in danger. If you do yield, you will be the laughing stock among the other lords.” “What can be done?” asked the king. “You must elevate her as your queen and forestall Chao’s request,” replied Ssu-ma Hsi. “No one has ever asked for an­ other’s queen; and even if he should wish to, the neighboring states would never allow it.” The king of Chung-shan thereupon raised her to be queen and Chao never made his request. ( Intrigues 74,7) To attempt to diagram the logic of the above would be hopeless, but it is an admirable sophistic flight of fancy which, though it suffers badly for want of credibility, has been given the kind of care that an artist is expected to show toward his creation. What was merely sug­ gested in Intrigues 74,5 has been elaborated here. Further, artifices of the storyteller are everywhere evident: a point of tension is imme­ diately established— the woman risks winning all or losing all; the per­ suader’s curious actions leave the reader in doubt of their purpose until almost the end— even then he only insinuates that the king of Chao will request the woman; and finally, the dilemma and its imme­ diate solution in thé form that shows: (1) Chao will not ask for the woman and (2) if Chao did request her other states would intervene. At the other end of the spectrum, differing completely in tone from the embellished and unlikely situation devised in 74,7, lies the following which is so stripped-down that its compactness becomes a positive feature: When Ch’i and Ch’u were at war, Sung begged to remain neutral. Ch’i, however, put pressure upon her and Sung acceded. Tzu-hsiang spoke to the king of Sung on Ch’u’s behalf: 119

INTRIGUES

“If we of Ch’u now lose Sung*s (neutrality) by our temper­ ate action, then we will follow Ch’i’s example [and use force]. Having gotten Sung’s aid by pressure once, Chi will use coercion often in the future. Thus, submitting to Ch’i and attacking Ch’u will not certainly result in profit. If Ch’i ,should be victorious against Ch’u, her very impetus will be a threat to Sung; if she should lose, then a weakened Sung will have offended a very powerful Ch’u. In this case you will have encouraged two mighty states to use force to gain their demands against your country and jeopardy will truly be upon you!” ( Intrigues 32,1) There can be little doubt that such a situation occurred not once but many times in the period of the Warring Kingdoms. But what is inter­ esting at this juncture is the framing of Tzu-hsiang’s warning: if neu­ trality is abandoned two eventualities arise, each as distasteful as the other. The only way out of this dilemma, as the persuader suggests, is not to get into it. To the persuader it was as necessary to be able to conceive of the opposite of a dilemma as it was to understand how to present the dilemma itself. How to phrase a plan so that it appeared, no matter what the outcome, desirable? To make the following brief example intelligible it should be understood that the attack on Yi-yang is spoken of throughout the Intrigues as the pet scheme of Kan Mao. It is on the strength of this that Kan Mao becomes important in Ch’in and is the object of much jealousy. The persuader below assumes that to his audience anything is preferable to Kan Mao’s success: During the battle for Yi-yang, Yang Ta spoke to Kung-sun Hsien, a minister of Ch’in. “Sir, give me five thousand troops and let me attack West Chou. The Nine Brazen Cauldrons will be yours to curb Kan Mao if I take it: if not, then Ch’in will have attacked Imperial Chou and the world will hate her for that. All will come swiftly to the aid of Han and Kan Mao’s undertaking will fail.” * (Intrigues 60,14) This is a rather weak attempt and shows little ingenuity, but the next is extremely ingenious and is informed by the same desire to create the reverse of a dilemma—the situation where there can be only two outcomes (the persuader tells us), each in its own way being as desirable as the other: Ch’in attacked Han and surrounded the city of Hsing. Fan Sui spoke to the king of Ch’in : “There are those who attack territories and those who at120

Ch’ang-tuan and Rhetorical Symmetry tack men. When Jang-hou assaulted Wei ten times and failed to harm her, it was not that Ch’in was weak and Wei was strong, but rather that he was attacking territories and they are dear to the hearts of rulers. Now, for a ruler, officers and men will gladly die; when one assails what is beloved by a ruler he is pit­ ting himself against men happy to sacrifice their lives, and so the ten attacks brought no victory. “Your majesty should announce that he invades Han and invests Hsing (only) because of Chang Yi. If Chang Yi’s power is great in Han, he will cede you territory to buy himself off— but how many times can Han cede its land and survive? If Chang Yi’s power is little, the king of Han will cast him out and replace him with another not the equal of Chang Yi at driving a bargain; in which case your majesty will still get all he demands of Han.” ( Intrigues 18,13) In general, however, the “art of the persuader” seems to be to devise a plan or persuasion which will somehow be compelling in a “double” sense. Some persuasions carefully take into account the natural advantage of the situation while simultaneously minimizing or canceling disadvantages. This kind, of course, can readily be sub­ sumed under the heading of ch’ang-tuan. There are numerous situa­ tions, however, in which the persuader plied his art to seek this double effect which cannot—without distorting the sense badly—be described as ch’ang-tuan. Any straightforward political accommoda­ tion implies some gain by both parties. K’uai T ’ung’s performance as seen in the Han-shu is a good example. It would be difficult to think of this type of persuasion under the heading of ch’ang-tuan, but many persuasions of this class in the Intrigues are careful to point out the “double” quality of the arrangement wherever possible. Some per­ suasions argue for a client’s case while also giving reasons against not finding for the client. Others urge action which will be advantageous if taken, and care is used to spell out the disadvantages of not taking the proposed action. Many persuasions have goals which are explained in terms of “double” desiderata: in a single item, Intrigues 32,5, the goal of exhausting two countries simultaneously and by a single piece of strategy is mentioned no less than three times. The persuasions singled out in this chapter18 are all noteworthy for their “double” preoccupation. Whatever connection this characteristic may have with the art of ch’ang-tuan, one thing seems quite clear; the rhetorical desire for 18 See also Supplement, 16,16, 5,5, and 35.8; chapter II, 25,8. 121

INTRIGUES

balance and symmetry, for thesis aqd antithesis has carried over into the contents and goals of persuasions, and is visible I believe, in the “double” nature of so many arguments. The limitations of rhetorical logic are being tested all through the Intrigues. The fascinations of the dilemma, of killing two birds with one stope, of simultaneously arguing for something and against its opposite, are a part of the same spirit producing the “21 paradoxes of Hui Shih and Kung-sun Lung,” but applied to the persuaders’ special province— opinion and persuasion.

Supplement

When Ch’in attacked Yi-yang the ruler of Chou asked Chao Lei, “What do you think will happen?” “Yi-yang will certainly fall.” “But the walls of Yi-yang enclose an eight li square. There are a hundred thousand first-rank troops within them and grain sufficient for several years. Kung-chung’s army numbers two hundred thousand and General Ching Ts’ui with the hordes of Ch’u is approaching the mountains to come to the city’s relief— Ch’in will be unsuccessful,” said the ruler of Chou. “Kan Mao is a sojourner in Ch’in,” replied Chao Lei, “if he attacks Yi-yang and succeeds he will become what the duke of Chou (was to Wen-wang), if he fails even his footprints will disappear from Ch’in. The king of Ch’in disregarded the advice of his close ministers when he had Yi-yang attacked and if the city should not be taken he will be shamed— I assure you the city will fall.” “What would you advise me to do, then?” asked the king. “You should remind Ching Ts’ui (the Ch’u general) his rank is that of the Jade Baton, his post is Pillar of the State, that victory can add nothing to what he has while defeat can only mean death, and that nothing would be better (for him) than to turn his back pn Ch’in to save Yi-yang. (Say to him) ‘If you move your troops forward Ch’in will fear you are going to seize upon her exhaustion (and attack). She will ply you with gifts. Kung-chung will think you are advancing on his behalf and will empty his treasury.’ ” Ch’in took Yi-yang and Ching Ts’ui did advance his troops. Ch’in, in fear, ceded him the town of Chu-tsao and Han did in­ deed give him great gifts. Ching Ts’ui received à city from Ch’in, treasure from Han, and put (the country of) Chou in his debt. 123

INTRIGUES

5,5 East Chou wished to sow its land to rice but West Chou would not open the sluices. Chou of the East was troubled over this, but Su-tzu spoke to its ruler and begged permission to treat with West Chou for water. He arrived in Chou of the West and spoke to its ruler: “My lord’s plans are faulty; by withholding water from East Chou now he is making her wealthy. Its citizens have all sown to dry grain and no other! If my lord would really do them harm he should open the sluices immediately and injure their seeds. With the sluices opened East Chou must replant rice. Then when you deny them the waters they must come to West Chou as sup­ pliants and take their orders from your majesty! The king assented and released the waters. Su-tzu was paid in the gold of two countries. 10,6 (Cf. SC 4/90) Su Li said to the ruler of Chou: “He who defeated Han and Wei, who killed Hsi Wu, at­ tacked Chao and took Lin, Li-shih, and Ch’i was Po Ch’i. He is in truth gifted in warfare and possessed of heaven’s command. At present he goes to attack (Ta-) Hang and it is certain to fall. When it does Chou will be in peril. Your majesty had best stop him and tell him the following: ‘There was once in Ch’u a most excellent archer named Yang Yu-chi who stepped off one hundred paces from a willow leaf and in one hundred shots he hit one hundred times. All attending cried “splendid!” One man, however, walked over to him saying, “Splendid archery, but I can teach you how to shoot!” “Everyone else says it was splendid, but you, sir, only you can teach me to shoot. Why did you not take my place and do the shooting?” asked Yang Yu-chi. “Oh, I couldn’t teach you to straighten your right arm, so, or crook your left arm, thus,” replied the other. “But you are a man who let fly one hundred times at the wiUow leaf, hitting it each time, yet you do not rest your own skill. In a short time, when your spirit or strength wanes a bit, the bow will buck or an arrow will be crooked and you will miss once— wiping out all of your previous merit.” ‘Your accomplishment, Po Ch’i, is great,’ you must say, ‘But now you again move Ch’in’s troops from their garrisons to bypass the twin countries of Chou, and march over Han to attack 124

Supplement Liang. If in this one assault you should be unsuccessful you will destroy all your past merit. You should rather, sir, plead illness and not go forth.’ ” 16,16 The widowed queen of Çh’in had had one Wei Ch’ou as her lover. Ill and on her deathbed, she issued an order that he was to be buried with her when she died. On Wei Ch’ou’s behalf, a certain Yung Jui went to the queen to dissuade her from her plan. “Does your highness believe that there is sentience after death?” he asked. “No, I do not,” replied the queen. “Ah! Your highness’ godlike intelligence clearly understands that the dead feel nothing. Why then would you have one whom you loved alive buried with the dead who feel nothing? If the dead were sentient, your highness, then your husband, the de­ ceased king, will have been harboring his anger against you for a long time and you will scarce have time to make amends to him and certainly no time left for further dalliance with Wei Ch’ou.” The queen desisted. 34,19 “From the era of my ancestor, Wen, until my unfortunate person, have there been other men who concerned themselves for their country without the goad of rank or the spur of wealth?” King Wei asked Tzu-hua, the moao of Ch’u. “I am inadequate to instruct you,” Tzu-hua replied. “If not from my minister then from whom may I hear of it?” asked the king. “But of which ones does my lord ask?” said the moao. “There have been those who held their rank with purity and im­ poverished their bodies for the sake of our country. There have also been those who elevated their rank and enriched themselves while concerned for our country; some who have had their throats . or bellies pierced to perish in the dreamless sleep— never know­ ing if what they did was of service— they too were concerned for our country. Others there were also who taxed their strength and humbled their pride for the country. There have been, then, (many) men who concerned themselves for the state without the goad of rank or the spur of wealth.” “To whom are you referring when you say this?” asked the king. 125

INTRIGUES

“Of old there was Tzu-wen, a chief minister,” replied the moao, “a man who wore coarse cloth at court and a deerhide coat in his house. He stood in the throne room before the earliest light to return home and eat only when dusk had come. Never at his morning meal did he concern himself with the evening’s fare, nor had he ever a day’s provender at hand. Tzu-wen must be reckoned as one who held his rank with purity and impover­ ished his person out of concern for our country. “Tzu-kao, the duke of She, though once poor in his prov­ ince, was (later) thought wealthy even in the capital. He settled the rebellion of Po Kung, ordered the affairs of Ch’u and re­ stored the dignity of our ancestral kings until it was felt north of Fang-ch’eng (Mountain). No one molested our borders nor bandied our name among the feudal lords. “Yet at this time when none dared move a soldier south­ ward, Tzu-kao held title to six hundred estates. The duke of Shè was thus one who elevated his rank and increased his wealth while concerning himself for our country. “Of old, when Ch’u fought Wu between Cedar Mountain and Lake Chii, the chariots were face to face, with foot troops battling between. Ta-hsin, the moao, turned to his charioteer and pressed his hand: “ ‘Alas, my son,’ he sighed, ‘the moon of Ch’u’s passing has come. We go now deep into Wu’s armies. But if you can smite a man or dash one down for me, perhaps our country’s gods will not yet perish.’ “So Ta-hsin, the moao, must be counted among those who were slain for their country and perished in the dreamless sleep never knowing if what they did was of service. “Again, after three engagements by Lake Chii, our troops were forced back into the capital city. The king fled, his ministers followed, and the people scattered everywhere. Fenmei Posu, however, said: “ ‘If I go out against this stroitg foe glad in armor and wield­ ing a weapon, then I die with no more effect than a foot-soldier — rather I flee to another state than this.’ “Whereupon he made off in stealth with such supplies as he had across jagged peaks and deep ravines until his sandals were cut through to the soles of his feet. Seven days, and he reached the court of Ch’in where he stood like a crane never once lying down. Seven days he cried aloud to the daylight and wept in the dark but was heeded not. Neither food nor drink entered his mouth. He sickened and his breath went from him; he fainted and knew 126

Supplement no man. The king of Ch’in heard and came to him unattended. In his left hand he supported Posu’s head and with his right moistened his mouth until Posu revived. The king of Ch’in in person then asked who he was. “ ‘None other than Fenmei Posu, emissary of Ch’u, who of late has offended (your majesty). Wu has entered our capital after three battles by Lake Chii. Our ruler fled, the ministers fol­ lowed and our people are scattered everywhere. This low func­ tionary has been sent to report our loss and beg succor.’ “The king of Ch’in ordered Posu not to arise in respect, but said: “ T now know what is meant when men say, “let the king of a powerful country wrong one noble knight and his altars are in danger.” ’ “Thereafter he sent forth a thousand armored chariots and ten thousand foot soldiers from their garrisons eastward under the command of Tzu-man and Tzu-hu. They crushed the Wu troops at Cho River and fought them again in Sui-p’u. “Therefore I say that Fenmei Posu numbers among those who exhausted their persons and humbled their pride on behalf of our country. “Also, after the battles at Lake Chii ( . . . ) Meng-ku en­ gaged the enemy on Kung T ’ang Mountain but left the fight to hurry to Ying. “ ‘If the heir lives,’ said he, ‘there may yet be altars to Ch’u’s gods.’ “He entered the palace, bore off the altars (?), and made his way by river to escape in the fens of Ytin-meng. When King Chao reentered Ying his officials were disorderly and its populace was in confusion. Meng-ku presented the altars (?) and all was put in order— his merit was as great as the minister who preserves a kingdom. The king presented him a badge of office and six hundred estates. “ T am no minister to man,’ cried Meng-ku angrily, ‘but a servant of the gods. So long as the altars drink their blood what care I for rulers.’ “With that he fled to the Mo Mountains and to this day he is without descendant. Thus, Meng-ku must be counted among those who needed neither the spur of rank nor the goad of wealth to trouble himself for our land.” “Ah, but these were the men of o ld /’ sighed the king; “how are such to be found among us today?” “Your ancestor, King Ling, was said to prefer slender fig127

INTRIGUES

ures,” replied Tzu-hua, “and the knights of Ch’u moderated their meals so much that they had the need of props to stand and braces to rise. Now if these men could bear hunger in the pres­ ence of delicacies they could face death with knowledge of its loathsomeness. “ ‘If the ruler loves archery his ministers will wear thumbrings and arm-guards’ goes the old saying,” continued Tzu-hua. “If my lord truly loved men of honor— and he does not presently do so— he could bring those five great men to his court.”

While King [Ch’ing] Hsiang of Ch’u was still heir apparent he was hostage in Ch’i. When his father, King Huai, died the heir paid his respects to the king of Ch’i and departed for Ch’u, but the king restrained him: “If we are given five hundred li of your eastern lands,” said he, “you will be returned, if you do not yield it to us you will not return.” “I have an adviser, and I beg your leave to withdraw and consult him,” replied the heir. “Yield it,” said his adviser, Shen-tzu; “land is used to sup­ port one’s life. To be so chary of your land that you miss your father’s obsequies would be wrong; therefore, I say that to sac­ rifice it is proper.” The heir reentered [court] and gave his decision to the king of Ch’i: “I promise to yield the five hundred li,” he said, and the king of Ch’i returned the heir to Ch’u. When the heir had returned and been seated as king, Ch’i sent an envoy with fifty chariots to receive the eastern lands from Ch’u. “What shall I do now that Ch’i comes requesting the land?” the [new] king of Ch’u asked Shpn-tzu. “Tomorrow summon your ministers to court, each to pre­ sent his plan,” replied Shen-tzu. Tzu-liang, Pillar of the State, was [first] to have audience. The king said, “Because I wished to see [my father] the king, in his tomb, return to my country and face my ministers, I prom­ ised Ch’i five hundred li of our eastern lands. Now Ch’i’s envoy is here to demand the land— what shall I do?” “The king has no recourse but to give the land,” replied Tzu-liang. “From a king must come only the sound of truth. To have promised something to mighty Ch’i and failed to give it 128

Supplement would be bad faith. Never thereafter could you make a binding agreement with the [other] lords. I submit that you should give [the land] and then fight for it. To give the land would be acting in good faith, to attack Ch’i to get it back would show valor. Therefore I would give the land.” Tzu-liang retired and Chao Ch’ang came in for audience. “Ch’i’s envoy is here seeking five hundred li of our eastern lands— what should I do?” asked the king. “You cannot give it,” replied Chao Ch’ang. “What makes a country powerful is its land. To cede five hundred li of our eastern lands would be to give away half of our country. We would still be called a country of ten thousand chariots but would scarce have the means to support one thousand. This cannot be. This is why I say you cannot give it. I ask to be allowed to defend it.” Chao Ch’ang retired and Ching Li entered for audience. “Ch’i’s envoy is here seeking five hundred li of our eastern lands,” said the king. “What shall I do?” “You cannot give them it,” replied Ching Li, “nevertheless Ch’u cannot protect the lands by itself. . . . I beg to go westward and seek aid from Ch’in.” Ching Li left and Shen-tzu entered. The king reported the advice he had from the three ministers: “Liang said I must give the land and having given it should fight Ch’i for it. Ch’ang said I could not give it; he wished to defend the area. Li said I could not give it; however, Ch’u could not defend the land alone and he wished to go west to Ch’in and seek aid. Of the three whose plan should I use?” “Use them all,” replied Shen-tzu. “What are you saying!” exclaimed the king angrily. “I ask the king to let each implement his own advice and we shall see how sincere each was. Let the king send the Pillar of State, Tzu-liang, north with fifty chariots to surrender five hun­ dred li to Ch’i. The next day appoint Chao Ch’ang as chief com­ mander with orders to go and defend the eastern lands. The day after that send Ching Li with fifty chariots westward to seek aid from Ch’in.” “I will,” said the king, and he sent Tzu-liang north to give the land. The next day he commissioned Chao Ch’ang com­ mander to defend the eastern lands and dispatched Ching Li to Ch’in to ask aid. When Tzu-liang reached Ch’i, Ch’i sent armored troops to receive the eastern lands. Chao Ch’ang met their envoy and said, 129

N T RIGU E S

“I am commissioned to (Jefend our eastern lands and shall stand or fall with them. I have mustered every person between sixteen and sixty— and they amount to some thirty thousand— clad them in broken armor and armed them with cast-off weap­ ons. We stand willing to accept our disadvantage.” “You have come to surrender the lands,” said the king of Ch’i to Tzu-liang, “but Ch’ang is defending them— how can this be?” “I was personally instructed by my humble prince,” replied Tzu-liang. “Ch’ang is feigning authority; he should be attacked.” So Ch’i assembled all its troops to attack the eastern lands and kill Chao Ch’ang. But before they had set foot beyond their border Ch’in appeared on their right flank with fifty thousand troops saying: “To have detained the heir of Ch’u was wicked and to rob him of five hundred li of his eastern lands is unjust. If you wish to withdraw your troops you may. If you do not, you fight us.” The king of Ch’i was frightened by this. He sent Tzu-liang south to speak to Ch’u and an envoy west to Ch’in. They relieved Ch’i’s plight, the troops were never used, and the eastern lands remained intact. During the difficulties at Ch’ang-sha, Ch’u’s heir apparent, Heng, was sent to Ch’i as hostage. When the king of Ch’u died the duke of Hsiieh returned Ch’u’s heir and then—with the armies of Han and Wei following him— he began to attack Ch’u’s eastern lands. The heir was afraid. “It would be best,” said Chao Kai, “if Ch’ii Shu used the most recently acquired eastern lands to negotiate peace with Ch’i and disturb Ch’in. Ch’in will fear that Ch’i is about to conquer the eastern lands and will warn the other states that they must come to our aid.” The heir agreed and ordered Ch’ii Shu to use the new eastern lands to negotiate with Ch’i. The king of Ch’in heard of it and was afraid. He senf Mi Jung to Ch’u to say, “Do not give the eastern lands to Ch’i and I will send out troops to aid you.” [When] Su Ch’in persuaded Li Tui he spoke thus: “Su Ch’in from the village of Ch’eng-hsiian in Lo-yang, whose family is poor and whose parents are aged, had neither spent ox nor jaded nag, nor even a [barrow] with wheel of mul130

Supplement berry wood and body of wicker. So with feet bound in (rags) and shouldering his book sack he made his way through dust, dews, and frost across the Chang River; with his feet hurt with many callouses he calls at the outer gate and asks audience to speak on affairs of the empire.” “You may have it if you speak the words of spirits,” said Li Tui, “for I know all there is to know of the affairs of man.” “Your servant will use the words of spirits in his audience, and not the words of men,” replied Su Ch’in. Li Tui gave him audience. “This day when your servant was traveling here, he found himself at evening (still) outside the gates to the suburbs and could not get him a mat to sleep on. So he spent the night in a farm field,” said Su Ch’in. “To one side there was a dense thicket and midway through the night an earthen figure began to argue with a wooden one: ‘You are not my equal’ (it said), ‘for I am made of earth and should there befall a sharp wind or a drenching rain I would be destroyed but would return to the earth. While you are not even the roots of a tree, but only a branch. And should a sharp wind or drenching rain come you would be washed into the Chang River and float thence to the sea. Nor in all the vast waters would there be a place for you to stay.’ “Now it is the ignorant opinion of your servant that the earthen figure got the better of the wooden one. My Lord has killed his ruler [Chao Chu-fu], extirpated his kin, and finds his position in the empire as perilous as though he were [perched] atop a pile of eggs. If you heed my plans you will live; if you heed them not you will die.” “If the Master will go to his quarters now,” said Li Tui, “he will be given audience again tomorrow.” When Su Ch’in had left, one of Li Tui’s attendants said to him: “In my humble opinion, my lord, Su Chin’s arguments and their scope are beyond you. Will you be able to do as he advises?” < “I will not,” replied Li Tui. “Since you cannot,” said his attendant, “I suggest you stop up your ears so you cannot hear him speak.*’ On the following day Su Ch’in received audience and spoke the entire day before he left. When the attendant escorted him out, Su Ch’in said to him: “A day ago I spoke only crudely and your ruler was moved. Today I spoke in detail and he was not. Why?” 131

INTRIGUES

“The Master’s plans are great and their scope is lofty,” re­ plied the attendant. “My lord cannot use them so I asked him to firmly stop both his ears so he would not heed what was said. However, come again on the morrow and I will ask that the Mas­ ter be well rewarded.” He came the next day and pressing his palms together he spoke. Li Tui sent him a moon pearl, the Jade of Ho, a black sable coat, and a hundred pieces of pure gold. So Su Ch’in got what he needed to go westward into Ch’in. 43,16 Chien-hsin Chiin was Chao’s favorite. When Wei Mou passed through Chao, the king went forth to meet him but returned immediately to his seat. In front of him was a foot of stuff he had told his tailor to make into a cap. The tailor retired when he saw the guest arrive. “You will be driving a tardy carriage because of this visit, sir,” said the king, “but I am happy you came to me for I wish to hear from you how the empire should be ruled.” “If your majesty held his country in as much esteem as he does this foot of cloth, it would be well governed indeed,” replied Wei Mou. The king was hurt and it showed on his face: “My ancestors could not have known how unworthy I was when they left the state in my care, but I certainly do not regard it that lightly!” “Do not be angry [at my words], your majesty,” said Wei Mou, “allow me to persuade (shùi) you of their truth. Let me say: ‘The king has here a foot of stuff. Why does he not order that attendant to make a cap of it?’ ‘The attendant does not know how to make caps,’ the king will reply. And I will say, ‘Though he spoiled a cap while making it, would this harm the king’s state? Yet the king waits for one with the skill to do the job be­ fore he employs him. But in matters of the state it is perhaps not so— for his altars are crumbling and ^deserted, his ancestors drink no blood, yet the king entrusts [the state] not to the skilled but to the pretty. “The king’s ancestor with his hsi-shou* harnessed and Ma * This would be Kung-sun Yen whose title was hsi-shou. The image is better with only his title given because it leaves the vision of a rhinoceros (h si) and a horse (M a ) together in harness. Ma Fu was a soubriquet for Chao K’uo or Chao Shè. 132

Supplement Fu in span once drove against the Ch’in but Ch’in bore the shock. Now your majesty timidly trots Chien-hsin toward a clash with Ch’in and I fear Ch’in will shatter his sideboards.” 47,13 A guest, to whom the king of Chao was giving audience, said, “I have heard that your majesty is sending a man out to seek a horse, is that so?” “It is,” said the king. “Why has he not yet been sent?” “I have found no one with the skill to judge horses.” “Why not send Chien-hsin Chiin?” inquired the guest. “Chien-hsin Chiin is busy with state affairs,” said the king. “Furthermore, he does not know how to judge horses.” “Then why does your majesty not send his concubine?” “She is a woman and knows nothing of horses,” said the king. “If the horse is well-bought will it have a good effect on the state?” asked the other. “It will not.” “If the horse is ill-bought will it be a danger to the state?” “It will not,” said the king. “So whether the horse is well or ill-bought has no effect on the country,” said the other, “yet when the king buys a horse he must wait for someone with the skill to do it. But the direction of his state is already ill conceived, his country is falling into ruin, its altars receive no sacrifice. The king did not wait for a skilled person in this instance but gave it over to Chien-hsin *Chiin. Why?” The king did not reply so his guest spoke: “Does your majesty know what is called ‘mulberry gall’ in the Regimen öf Yten Kuo?” “I have not heard of it,” replied the king. “ ‘Mulberry gall’ is the presence of close attendants, women, and young favorites. These are all able to take advantage of the king’s infatuation to gain what they wish of him. When this is ac­ complished on the inside, great ministers will warp regulations to favor favorites on the outside. Thus, even the sun and moon, though brilliant externally, carry their own weakness within 133

INTRIGUES

them.* Men are fully armed against those they hate and brought to calamity by those they love.” 72,8 In the days of King K’ang of Sung a hawk was hatched in a tit’s nest on the city wall. The astrologer was ordered to explain the omen and said, “the small has borne the great; (Sung) will rule the empire.” The king was overjoyed. He destroyed the country of T ’eng, attacked Hsiieh and took the lands of Huai-pei. Because of these (successes) he became more puffed up. Desiring to hasten his hegemony over all, he shot heaven and cudgeled earth, chopped down his country’s altars, and burned them saying, “Even the gods of heaven and the spirits of earth shall submit to me.” He cursed the country’s elder ministers (?) as so many faceless headdresses (?); to show his fearlessness he cut open the de­ formities of the hunchbacked, hamstrung men who forded the river and his people were terrified. Ch’i heard of it and attacked him. His people fled and the cities were not defended. The king escaped to the hostel of Ni-hou where he sickened and died. [If an auspicious omen be seen and not acted (on?) it will turn into calamity.] yi-wen 32 Ch’u had just dismissed Nao Ch’ih from the rank of Pillar of the State. Yu T ’eng spoke to the king of Ch’u:. “There was an unusual wü (?) in Ch’in whose specialty was [prophecy on] armed combat and he told the king of Ch’in that he should not seek battle with Ch’u. “ ‘Why?’ asked the king. “ ‘Because the southern quarter is (under the influence of) fire and the West is (under the influence) of metal. It is obvious that metal cannot prevail over fire* If the king of Ch’in does not heed this he will be defeated.’ * “Today the wu would ask his king to make war on Ch’u. The South is fire and the West is metal, but Ch’u is demoting a Pillar of the State in midsummer of the middle year (?). This is called ‘internal destruction.’ ” Ch’u was frightened and returned Nao Ch’ih to his rank. * Referring to the belief that the “crow” in the sun and the “rabbit” in the moon bring about eclipses. 134

Supplement T uan Ch’ang item 3 Someone asked King Hui of Wei: “If your wine were drugged would your majesty drink it?” “I would not.” “Would the king use a courtier, fair of face and sound of privy parts, as harem guard?” “What nonsense you speak!” “Of course; then you would fear drugged wine for it is poison. You would shun courtiers as harem guards for they would be provocation to lust. But the poison of Chang Yi is stronger than drugs in wine and he is a greater provocation to debauchery than a courtier in the rear palaces— why then does my lord use him and trust his country to him?”

135

Appendix I

Summary and notes on Chu Tsu-keng’s 65 yi-wen from the Intrigues and comments on the Tuan Ch'ang Shuo as a source of yi-wen.

137

“ C han-kuo T s’e Yi-wen K ’ao” (Summary) Relationship

L ocus

1

2

3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Wen H siian Yii-lan, 741 Yii-lan , 68 Yii-lan, 363 S o-yin ref. Yii-lan, 4? K uang-yiin K uang-yiin W en-hsiian Wen-hsiian H . H an , chu S o-yin ref. S o-yin ref. (3) W en-hsiian

C om m ents

4

(Also L ei-chii, 60)

(Also P e i-fa n g , 151)

(SC 92/27-34) Hwai-yin

Yao K’uan S o-yin ref. 450

(?) (SC Wei,

San -kuo Chih S o-yin ref. Y ii-lan , 322 Y ii-lan , 282

Kuan-tzUy H S W C p. 95 (SC T’ien Ching-chung shih-chia) CIntrigues 25, 9?) (Intrigues 25, 9?) (SC 65/10-11) Sun Pin biography

W-foi, 294

N o. o f C haracters

Shih-chia )

9 12 8 15 15 3 8 11 10 20 1230 12 16 18 13 50 56 2 26 102 233

Also found in Yiieh Chiieh Shu ; semi-alchemical in tone Tsou Yang’s letter to king of Liang Tsou Yang’s biography Tsou Yang’s biography (?) Ch'ou must be an error for chiin Su Ch’in Chang Yi Lien P’o, Po Ch’i (See note 1, below) See SC under Ma Fan Lü Pu-wei Su Ch’in “Low art of mathematics’’ ? Tsou Chi and T’ien Chi Sun Pin2 All there

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Yü-lany 282 Kuang-yün Kuang-yün Yü-lany 188

and 694 Yü-lany 292 . Yü-lany 292. Yü-lany 282 Yü-lany 282 CKu-hsüeh Yü-lany 460 L ei-ch üy 60 Yü-lany 460 Lei-chüy 60 Han-shu (Yen Shih-ku) Kuang-yün Kuang-yün Kuang-yün Yüan-ho Wen H süan S o-yin ref. H ou-yü So-yin ref. C heng-yi and Yü-lany 161

K uan-tzu H sin-lun

? (S C (S C (S C

82/4) 82/5) 82/5-6)

?

(Yü-lan, 347?)

(From Feng-su T'ung) 23/2b; /fa/i-/« //, 169 (SC 86/12) LSCC

65 11 3 24 36 120 19 116 19 102 21 27 57 4 6 4 6 5 11 14 11 9 14

Sun Pin ? The two citations differ3 See note4 Takigawa: Yü-lan 192 Takigawa: Yü-lan 182 The fire-oxen Nao Ch’ih and “ Wu-hsing ” (translated, see Supplement)5 Su Ch’in and the multiple crossbow Ch’en Chen

Miraculous

L ocu s Y ä-lan,

282

R elationship (S C

N o. o f C haracters

73 /6-7) Po Ch’i’s biography

242 56 45 44 69 272 251 109

47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Y ü-lan , 292 Yä-lan Yü-lan, 331 Yü-lan, 292 Yü-lan, 212 Yü-lan, 294 Yü-lan, 281

(SC 81 /14) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 81 /14) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 81 /15) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 81/16) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 81/17) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 81 /19) Lien P’o’s biography (SC 65/15) Wu Ch’i’s biography

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Yü-lan, 322 Yü-lan, 311 Yü-lan, 295 Yü-lan, 331 S o-yin ref.* S o -yin ref S o-yin ref. S o -yin ref.

W u-tzu, W u-tzu, W u-tzu,

rc-/ari, 460 Yü-lan, 292 S o-yin ref.

65

Kuang-yün

Not in

“Chih-ping P’ien” “Lun-Chiang” “Ying-pien” W u-tzu

Mentions Han-fei (SC 63 /25) Han-fei’s biography (SC 83/22) Tsou Yang’s biography

94 92 66 92 3 3 2 4 52 70 25 6

C om m ents

Takigawa doesn’t cite; text arrangement differs

Minor text difference Many text variants but one or another SC ed. has them. Takigawa does not cite Text difference Concerns Wu Ch’i

So-yin says also in LSCC6

Appendix I N otes 1.

The S o -y in says, ‘The H an -sh u and the C h a n -k u o T s'e both have this (story).” Presumably it refers to the long persuasion of Han Hsin by Ku’ai T’ung. Since one, if not both, of these men are historical and lived during the Han Kao-tsu’s battle for supremacy over Ch’u, the incident would have occurred between 206 and 201 b .c . during which period Han Kaotsu was calling himself merely the king of Han. This would fall outside the implied dates in Liu Hsiang’s memorial on the In trig u es (q.v.). Ch’i Ssu-ho uses this fact to demonstrate that material was added to the In ­ trig u es after Liu Hsiang’s editing. Chang Chao (1691-1745) says merely that the S o -yin must be mistaken. The author of “Yi-wen K’ao” uses the S o -yin statement as part of his thesis that the In trigu es always did include the persuasions of men from the Ch'u-Han era such as K’uai T’ung and Chu-fu Yen. Unfortunately for scholarly peace of mind, any one of the three could be right. All the considerations treated in “Yi-wen K’ao” were similarly covered by Lo Ken-tse in 1929 (see W ei-sh u pp. 535-37), but Lo concluded that K’uai T’ung was actually the author of the In trigu es. This has not been proved, at least to my satisfaction. 2.

Items 20-23, 27-30, and 46-57 not only represent the largest amount of text (1800 characters) which might once have been a part of the In trigues, they also reveal the great weakness in textual criticism which anyone studying the In trig u es must face. The T ’a i-p ’ing Y ii-lan was compiled be­ tween 977 (?) and 983; by the latter date it was complete. There are a number of grave difficulties in Y ii-lan , some of which are pointed out by Kuo Po-kung.* Kuo gives short biographies of all the men responsible for the edition of Y ii-lan (pp. 11-16) and discovers that only four could have devoted much time and effort to the project because the rest were deeply involved in other official duties more important to their careers (p. 17). The problem of sources he treats at length (pp. 25-30) and finds much evidence of inferior workmanship and edition. There are, in the general list of sources, such solecisms as listing Y en -tzu and Y en -tzu C h ’u n -ch ’iu as two separate books. This sort of error runs to hundreds of items. Kuo says (p. 30) K . . . . the scholarship of the scribes was so inferior that they would even get the paragraph heading, section rubric, and the name of the encyclopaedia they copied it from all mixed together [and make a book title out of it]. . . . One should not blame the scribes; the really strange thing is that the scholars who were editors did not strike out such things! * Sung Ssu-ta-shu.

141

N T R I G U ES

Kuo then gives examples of two çitations from the same place in the same text but with different wording. Another curious item is an Y ü -lan citation of H sin-h sü which contains a howling anachronism (p. 30). And he concludes: Such conditions are too numerous to mention . . . sometimes it hap­ pened . . . because old books always have variant forms. . . . One should never conclude that Y ü -lan is absolutely correct and hasten to emend a text (on its account). Furthermore, the T ’ai-p'in g Y ü -lan was presented to the Emperor T’aitsung barely ten years after (for instance) the dissolution of the kingdom of Nan-Tang and represented a kind of jubilee acknowledgment of the rebirth of a unified China. It is not, therefore, to be held useless; on the contrary, it is in some ways quite the most important document we have. But since we find Tseng Kung (an editor in the Department of Historical Documents) less than a century later searching for missing sections of the In trigu es while working with a large library of 3445 titles, we can wonder how well known the exact contents of the In trig u es could have been before 983 at which time scribes were copying excerpts for the T a i-p 'in g Y ü -lan . Why would Tseng not have looked through the Y ü -lan himself to find missing passages? These questions cannot be answered. We must accept the possibility* that the S h ih -ch i may once have included more of the In trig u es than would seem the case when one compares the present-day texts with each other. 3. Here are two differing citations in two different chapters of the Y ü -lan which are presumably of the same lines in the In trig u es ; from Chapter 188 we have: Someone said to Meng-ch’ang Chiin: “As the rafters of the ancestral temple are not made from the branch of a single tree, so the way of former kings was not fashioned by the intelligence of a single officer.” and from Chapter 694: Someone said to Meng-ch’ang Chiin: “As the rafters of the temple are not constructed from the branch of a single tree, so a fur cape worth a thousand in gold is not made from the pelt of a single fox.” Neither of these appears in either the Sh ih -ch i or the In trig u es of today. ( Su ng Ssu-ta-sh u gives an identical situation, »pp. 31-32.) 4. Items 27 and 28 repeat each other in part. The first half of item 27 (Y ü -la n 292) is identical with S C 82/3. The second half of item 28 ( Y ü -lan * K ierm an p. 17, is too ready to equate the appearance of something in Yü-lan with its existence in pre-Sung texts. I am more inclined to suppose that Tseng Kung got into his reconstruction of the Intrigues all the items he felt justified in including.

142

Appendix I 182, not 292) is all but identical with S C 82/4. It would not be unusual for the In trig u e s of today to repeat itself—as shown elsewhere, it does this often. But to imply that the Y ü -lan copyists had access to the In trigu es in the form it took at the hands of Liu Hsiang (Chu Tsu-keng, p. 28, last line) is contradicted by items 27 and 28 as well as by the history of the Y ü -la n .

5. It is interesting that the only story from the In trig u es of today which em­ bodies a distinctly Han period preoccupation (anomalies and catastro­ phes) is written around the character of Nao Ch’ih. Item 32, here, is the only clear example among the collected y i-w e n of argument based on the theory of the Five Elements or Agents ( w u -h sin g ), and it too involves Nao Ch’ih (see Supplement). H S W C (pp. 7-10) on the y i-w e n in that text: “Over 200 citations in T’ang encyclopaedias and excerpts [e.g. Y i-w e n L ei-ch ü , 28 times; Ch'Un-shu C h ih -ya o , 19 times; C h ’u-hsüeh c h i , 15 times, etc.] of which n ea rly ten p e r c en t are n o t fo u n d in th e p re se n t tex t. [Italics mine.] Sung Bibliographers . . . quoted H S W C 157 times in Y ü -lan of which twentythree quotations are not in the present text.” In rough measure this approx­ imates the figures for the In trigu es; H S W C has 23 y i-w e n from the Y ü lan for its 310 items and C K T has 31 y i-w e n from the Y ü-lan for its 490 plus items. In the case of the In trig u es and its y i-w e n found in Y ü-lan, it is somewhat better off than H S W C , for the texts of In trig u es ’ items aver­ age almost twice the length of items from H S W C . 6.

In this context S o -yin seems to be speaking of the two different historical analogies—Su Ch’in in the first and Po Kuei in the second—as existing in two different books. It is also perfectly reasonable to assume it meant that Su Ch’in acting as “a Wei-sheng” is in the In trig u es and Po Kuei’s taking of Chung Shan is in L S C C . Though one can find Su Ch’in acting a “Wei-sheng” in the In trig u es, an exhaustive search of L S C C does not produce Po Kuei in any situation faintly resembling that found in Tsou Yen’s biography. Tuan C h’ang Shuo. Another source of potential y i-w e n from the In trig u es is the Tuan C h ’ang S h u o —a work about which there is little information and what little there is is confusing. K ’a n -yen (p. 3) merely notes that the work is commented on in the S su -k ’u S h u -m u . The T su n g-m u T ’i-ya o actually lists it as T so-yi, y i-c h ü a n ; T uan C h ’ang, yi-ch ü an , and it is only this title which can be found in the four-corner index. The comments of the S su -k ’u editors are as follows: In this work there are three items ( ts é ) o f y i-w e n from the T soch u an and three from the C h a n -k u o T s’e. Each has a small intro143

INTRIGUES

duction, the first says: [here t£ey copy the introduction to the T so they copy the introduction to the these (books) was arranged by a Mr. Chiang [or Chiang Ch’in?] of Yen-ling and edited by a (cer­ tain) Shih-fang. . . . Is it probable that lacquer writing on wooden strips could remain legible after two thousand years? There seems no reason to question their spuriousness. (C.P. ed. 1933, p. 1141.) The Tuan C h'an g S h u o may be found today appended to the 1869 Shüraikan edition of Z o te i S h ik i H y o r in ( T sen g-tin g S h ih -ch i P 'in g-lin ) of P’ei Yin (fl. ca 438), where it is punctuated. It appears that the first person to include it in a printed work was Wang Shih-chen (d. 1590 at age 65 s u i) . The third and fourth works of the seven collected in the sh u o section of his Y en -ch o u S h an-jen Ssu -pu K a o are these same T so -y i and Tuan C h'an g (chapter 142 of the Shih-ching T’ang edition.) It is in relation to this collection of Wang Shih-chen’s that the T su n g-m u editors create considerably more confusion by their remarks about him: No one ever imitated Ch’in and Han style so meticulously, (no one) ever had such control over historical records as (Wang) had . . . he was brilliant and brash and wished to gain a name too quickly; the Empire had detractors and worshippers of (Wang) scattered throughout its extent. . . This is certainly an equivocal observation to make about a collection which purports to contain Han and Ch’in books “found in a tomb by some one”! The implication that Wang is responsible for these two works is not easily evaded—I hope I do him no injustice by pointing it out. In Wang’s edition, the “small introduction” to the T uan C h 'an g S h u o is given and to it is added the following: Someone plowing in the uncultivated fields of the Ch’i area got a book done in “great-seal” characters called T uan C h'an g. In Liu Hsiang’s preface to the C h a n -k u o T s'e , (it says) one of them was called K u o Shih, one was called T uan C h 'an g , and one was called H siu Shu. Could this so-called T uan C h 'an g be remains from C han -kuo? Howbeit, it deals mostly with Ch’in and early Han times and opinion has it that it is a spurious work from the era of Han Wen-ti and Han Ching-ti (163-149 B.c.) [Here Wang’s own comments, begin] I myself, being bothered by its recurrent statement “Ying and H$ang were deficient in the element fire,” consider it extravagant and lacking sense. When I read the gratuitous embellishments about the Four Ancients ( S su -h a o ) and the [Han heir] Chien-ch’eng Hou and the seditious memorial of Huai-yin Hou’s mother (?) I concluded that it was indeed (spuri­ ous). I have set it forth here as something for the Upai-ku an " (col­ lectors of tales) to use. Forty items in all. Wang’s edition is divided into two parts; the first contains twenty-three items, and they deal with events having implied dates up to Ch’in Shihy i] and the second reads: [here Tuan C h 'an g S h u o ]. The first of

144

Appendix I huang; the second part, seventeen items, covers the period from Shihhuang to sometime after Han Kao-tsu's success. Of the total, I find that those which I can understand well enough to give a fair appraisal of are curiously dull—they simply do not have the verve of the Intrigues. Most of the same personalities appear and fully half the items are examples of rhetoric in the manner of the Intrigues, using themes implied in the “original.” One short sample (item 3) I have translated, and it is to be found in the Supplement. I have no idea what the Ssu-k'u editors meant by “three items of yi-wen from the Chan-kuo Ts*e"\ how they arrive at this calculation, and what items they might be referring to I have not yet discovered.

145

Appendix II

Table of items from the Intrigues incorporated in important Chinese anthologies and in French and English translations.

A

Ku-wen Tz'u Lei-tsuan Yao Nai, editor tsou-yi, I 34,19 *12,7 30,1a 42,10 20,4 54,8

shu-shui, I 26.4 14.1 25.15 67.1 40,1a 59.5 49.10 25.16 68.5 28,3 30.10 69,12

B Ch. IV 11,2 *12,7

70,1 39,9 10,6 shu-shui, II 49,11 34,17 59,6 28,10 54,6 28,11 20,9 17,8 18,9 18,11 *71,9 Qetter only)

54,3 54,5 shu-shui. III 43,13 31,6 30,4 48,18 42,8 19,19 37,10 38,11

4 vol. Ku-wen Kuan-chih S’hai, Ta-wen 1926 (punctuated. Hushang-yu-yin notes, Fan Shu-han, editor) 37,4 (Excerpt) 48,18

Indicates items common to almost all anthologies. 147

INTRIGUES

18,9 25,12 29,5 28,1 28,7

43,13 53,17 58,28 58,27 *71,9

C Ku-wen Yiian-chien 30,1a *12,7 31,6 15,11 37,4 20,9 40,1a 18,12 48,18 74,10 43,13 25,12 53,17 28,1 69,11 D

Ku-wen Hsi-yi, by Lin Yün-ming. (T.) fl. 1673. Sao-yeh Shan-fang, editor (Shanghai, 1930) In an anthology which begins with Tso-chuan (33 items), includes Kuo-yu (12 items), Kung-yang (3 items), and allots 19 items to a figure like Han Yii, the Intrigues is represented by 171 items as follows: 37,4 (excerpt) 38.4 63,22 25,12 29.5 54.8 29,7 17.8 (SC version) 18.9 (SCversion) 48,18 *71,9 Getter only) 29.9 *12,7 11,2 53,17 43,13 58,27 Selections M ade Post 1949 E Chan-kuo Ts’e Hsiian Chiang, Liu Yi hsiian (Peking 1958). 159 pp. 11,2.. ............................. p. 23 48,18........................... . p. 98 25,12. ............................. p. 39 59,27............................ . p. 106 28,1.. ............................. p. 45 63,22........................... . p. 113 29,7.. ............................. p. 58 *71*D lAw-i-Hi - ^ 4 wo vè •

“deputies of Jang-hou”— This is T ’ai-hou Jp in the text; Jang-hou and the queen acted on each other’s behalf, of course, and I felt that the text in English would be made sufficiently clearer to justify using Jang-hou for the seditious group instead of the queen. “fief of T ’ao”— T ’ao was one of Wei Jan’s holdings in Shan-tung; he also held a town called Jang (in Ch’u) which was the basis for his title “Jang-hou.” (N ote that the last half of this item is almost the same as 18,11.) 18,13 Chung Feng-nien says: “Pao Piao puts this in the 23rd year of King Chao and remarks, \ . . Yi had died forty-four years before the ministry of Fan Sui; this must be a mistake.’ According to {Shih-chi) in the ‘Liu-hou* biographies, it says, ‘Chang Liang was from a Han fam­ ily. . . His father, P’ing, was minister to Li-wang (H uan-hui), and in the twenty-third year of Huan-hui P’ing died.’ Ch’in attacked Hsing during P ’ing’s ministry. Chang Yi in the C K T is probably a mistake for Chang P’ing.” Yasui: “A careful reading of [17,3] seems also to show that Yi was in Han. Though he was guileful and tricky, his name was known throughout the age . . . it is probably Chang Yi who was meant in the story (above).” 19,19 “final goals of discrim ination,” etc.— Yokota suggests “limit” for ch’i n which I accept. “name is unblemished”— SPTK, “perfect in name and actuality.” “as long as the world shall last”— I follow Y okota’s text. “trap him by his persuasion”— Literally, put him in difficulty in order to persuade him. “to prove himself guileless”— Or, if it is completely parallel with the preceding sentence it should read, “Exhaust his ingenuity in order that ingenuousness should appear (in C h’in ).” “both curse and contumely”— See SC 6 8 /1 2 for details. I assume the gods punished those who broke an oath of friendship; I follow Yokota. SP TK separates the two parts of the sentence: “He risked obloquy (because he had had the heir’s tutor maimed) (for this see 11,1). He broke friendship by capturing Kung-tzu Ang.” “The king of Yiieh shamed him but,” etc.— Yokota says li $ j t should probably be sui $j£. and I have so translated it.

153

INTRIGUES

“after a moment Ts’ai Tse,” etc.— SPrT K says “seizing this opening.“ “Hung Yao”— See Sh u -ch in g no. 36, “Chiin Shou & ^ “met nine times“— I follow Yokota. “how to retreat,” etc.— I am uncertain of this; Yokota has c h i before ta o -li i t * 1 but suggests it should be fan as in S C . S P T K has chin ijr_ ? fa n ? “pikemen”— Halberdiers makes awkward English though it would be more nearly correct. “to the south“— Of Ch’in’s capital, that is. “fall on his sword”— I interpolate, but he was sent a blade with which to do away with himself; see S C 73/13. “turned his back on“— S P T K has ch ieh , “to pursue.“ Yokota has Pou “club” but suggests it should be p e i “to turn the back on.“ I accept Yokota. “could reach out“— I accept Yokota’s gloss. “not now timely made”— I follow S P T K . “recently delighted”— Perhaps “delighted anew”? as he had once been with Fan Sui?

21,6 “Lii Pu-wei”— Le. Wen-hsin H ou and similarly with other titles. “he wished to increase his grip,” etc.— I follow Yokota. “page-boy”— This is h ap a x for the In trigu es; see C h 'i-k u o K ’ao, p. 13. I personally believe it was a male favorite. C h u n g sh u -tzu , a C h’in king’s favorite. Cf. a homophone, sh u -tzu ^ 5“ » M a th e w s 5877a. “thirty-six districts”— From the Shàng-ku area, present-day N.W .Hopei. 24,6 “should we succor Chao . . .“ etc.— Literally, is it better to save Chao or not? “said Tsou (C h i)“— Both texts agree that this should be Tsou Chi. 25,8 Kung-sun H an is also given as Kung-sun Hung and Kung-sun Yiieh. In d ex only gives Kung-sun Han. “twist things around”— Literally (accuse him of) not advancing his troops. I follow Y okota’s punctuation here. P ai-h u a yi-ch ieh * i f 1ty- , vol. I, p. 94, makes it “If he does not win (it will be because) he did not advance and (\hiat was why) he did not die (in b attle).” 25,12 “Mr. Tardy” V — One of the few names I have had the courage to translate as a generic, though I am relatively certain there are many others. 26,4 “revert to a successor”— S P T K notes the rank will “revert to the country.”

154

Notes to Translations 28.3 This was originally Su Tai but the circumstances are approximated in SC biography of Su C h’in. “what place you may float”— chiang ju-ho erh fyjf t o W \ is not clear. 29.3 S P T K notes that both a Yung-men Tzu Ch’iu f J 5* and a Yung-men Tzu Chou f 1 *5" are m ent‘one(l in the Shuo Yiian. “would gladly die for him”— Certainly this must be the meaning despite SP TK 's uncertainty. See notes to 29,6. 29,4 I have left out the repeated “this is the event which must transpire and the principle which always pertains.” 29,6 “cham berlain”— Literally, usher. “delay his admittance”— SP T K and Yokota gloss yen as yin , lead in. “received his appointm ent”— SP T K glosses, registers of lands and peoples. Y okota has fou § from one of his editions and supplies it in the text. SP T K does not have it and is certainly correct. “erh wang pu hao shih” $p £ 3 ' ^ 3 “ ^ — Yokota does not have erh . I follow SP TK . “the king is misinformed”— Cf. LSC C 2 3 / lb, speech by Neng-yi £|r “unicorn”— Yokota conjectures it was the name of a famous horse. I accept Yokota. . ^ “Tung-tu Chiin”— or Tung-kuo Chün J L f p ljL as it is in 28,11 where he is described as the wiliest hare. Perhaps a soubriquet, as Reynard is the fox. ^ . “H ound of Lu”— Also known (28,11) as H an Tzu-lu r f 3"® . “M ao C h’iang”— SP TK , a favorite of the king of Yiieh. Chuang-tzu, Kuan-tzu, Sung Yii’s “Goddess,” and Shuo-yiian all pair her with Hsi-shih and give no other information. 30,lb

H u Hsiian, LSC C 2 3 / lb , has H u Yuan, j k • Wei gives a note from the Tso-chuan stating that Tung-lü meant East G ate. I believe it meant outside that gate but have nothing to sub­ stantiate this. v. ^ K anbun Taikei has ch’i for sha i a misprint. “The royal clan”— C h’en p|L and T ie n were probably dialect vari­ ants of the same surname. ^ . Chiin-wang fa i. — SP T K has Chiin-wang H ou Jo M • The

155

N T RIGU E S

Yao edition and Yokota do not^have hou . Yasui and W u Shihtao point out that elsewhere in C K T it is not used; h ou is excrescent. “General C h’i-chieh”— Often in C K T names of persons (e.g. Ch’i-chieh $J) “mounted plunder” ) äfe difficult to take seriously. Liang Yii-sheng (see L S C C 2 3 / lb ) has pointed out a number of them which appear straight-faced in S C . He rem arks merely that Neng-yi ^7 is “an out-of-the*way surname.” It is possible that we miss a strong strain of satire by taking them at face value. 30,3 “earlier, the g en eral. . . accused by someone at the Yen court”— Pao Piao says that the San T u n g C hi(?) ( S P T K has San K uo Chi) does not have these eleven characters but S C has. I do not know what the San T u n g (K uo?) Chi was. S P T K , Yokota both include the text which I translate. “does not go counter to the times”— In trigu es often uses p e i in the sense of “turn the back on.” The following was omitted from the translation for little sense can be made of it without reference to the Chinese characters: “F urther­ more, when C h’u attacked her in the south of N an Yang j& and Wei attacked at P’ing Lu -f, C h’i was not of a mind to turn southward; the loss of N an Yang was deemed less serious than the gain to be had from holding the Chi-pei 3 b area, including the town of Liao. So Ch’i fixed her plans to hold it in strength. A t present Ch’in has sent down its troops so that Wei dare not move eastward on C h'i and Ch’i has aligned herself with C h’in so that Ch’u itself is perilously situated. So in the past Ch’i abandoned N an Yang and Shih Jang ^ [P ’ing Lu] to save Chi-pei, for her plans demanded it.” For these place names and their im portance I follow Yokota. “relieved of attentions”— S P T K says, because C h’in had come to her de­ fense, “C h’i is not an object of the planning of C h’u and W ei.” “disgraced by the empire”— S C has,“made a laughing stock.” See S P T K ' s complex note on Li Fu and the contradictions in 30,3. “would look upon you as . . . their own parents”— K a n b u n T a ik e i has misprinted ch ih for ju -fcu . ^ “thereby to aid the ‘persuaders’ . . .”— S o -yin (S C 83,15) has, “Liu says to read persuaders as ‘crack troops.’ This would be more convenient for the meaning, but it is best to adhere to the text.” “equal of Wei Jan or Lord Shang”— S P T K and Yokota both prefer these identifications to the other pair given in the notes. I translate their preferences. “with their quivers slung upside down”— I follow Y okota’s emendations, which are certainly correct.

156

Notes to Translations 31,4 “the bastions of C h’i”— Literally, the cities, or the ruins. “of an ungenerous nature”— Conjectural. C h en g is probably an error for w e i as Tozaki says. S P T K explains it should be ch en g as in ch en g-h sin , because King Hsiang h a d been suspicious of T ie n Tan when he was only heir but now had evidence that T ie n T an would not take his throne: There is no doubt that the text is corrupt here. “suspicious that T ie n T an,” etc.— I follow Yokota including his suggestion that the next twelve characters are an inclusion of what used to be notes. “below the balcony”— Literally, gallery. See W illiam W atson , p. 125, Fig. 30. “stringing beads”— N ot a proper name, though still listed in In dex. “w h a t. . . should I do about this?”— I follow Yokota. “when he speaks to his neighbor: T ie n ,” etc.— With S P T K and Yokota, ch u is dittographic. 31,6 One line is made to rhyme in the song which does not do so in the original. It is almost certain that all of them had a regular (four character) measure and highly probable they did rhyme— the text is corrupt as we have it. I use the version of the last line noted by both Yokota and W u Shih-tao which has w u instead of k fu £ £ and have taken it to be a place name. The level of consonance which the Chinese shows in T ie n T an’s exhortation is approximated by done, gone, and home in English. 32,1 “put pressure on”— I follow Yokota. 32,3

32,5 “Chao Hsi-hsii does not understand”— Literally, is not wise. “W ei can consolidate her forces”— I follow Seki Kunshö, for lin g ^ read h o . 33,7 “and took Ta-liang”— Yokota says it means “Ta-liang could have been taken,” which is very doubtful. N akai Riken— in the eyebrow note— thinks ch*u-yi is interpolated. W hether it is or not, historically it is un­ likely C h’u took Ta-liang while Wei was laying siege to Han-tan. 34,19 “m o a o ”— This is probably a transliterated C h’u term for “chief minister.”

157

N T RIGU ES

See V a riétés sin o lo g iq u es no. 2^, p. 380, and H uai-nan T zu , S P T K 19,9 note. “a day’s provender”— Text originally had “a month’s provender.” I accept the emendation. “though once poor in his province,” etc.— N ot clear. Shen Chu-liang served in the far north at Fang-ch’eng, an d 'cam e to the capital to save the day after the revolt. For this he was greatly honored, but S C does not speak of wealth. “the moon of Ch’u’s passing”— Also a case where the original was “m onth.” Here I do not accept the emendation. “Fenmei Posu”— In all probability a Ch’u name but he is known to S C as Shen Pao-hsii “and he reached the court of C h’in”— A seldom seen but regular use of pao

“stopd like a crane”— I accept Yokota’s emendation; it is also found in H w a i-n a n T zu .

“who of late offended your majesty”— The phrase is not, of course, an official title. My translation is based on S P T K note, but I am not certain of it. “and fought them again in Sui-p’u”— Yasui suggests w en ßy should be to u .1 accept Yasui. “at Lake Chii” (. . . ) ”— I omit the repetition here. “bore off the altars”— This is very curious. Only K o k u y a k u K a n b u n T aisei, p. 232, has a note on it and it merely says, “k e iji no den , laws of C h’u.” Surely ch i-tz'u >£_ refers in some way to sacrifice; but I have nothing to substantiate it. “what care I for rulers”— With S P T K , should be . 35,8 “if you do not yield it to us”— I disregard Y okota’s pause m arker before • “promised C h’i five hundred li of our eastern lands. Now . . .”— Follow­ ing Yasui. “cannot protect the lands by itself. . — Most commentators, and I agree, feel there is at least a fifteen character repetition here which is a copyist’s error. “willing to accept our disadvantage.”— The Yokota and S P T K notes are certainly wrong here, but I am not certain my version is right. 37,4 “continues favoring four men”— Literally, completely favors without diminution. “secured the town”— Y okota gives Seki Kunchö’s citation of Cheng Hsiian which is hardly necessary. Y en certainly means “to se­ cure” as the ch ö -d a i (eyebrow note) has it. “dipping a filament”— The text originally had “preparing lead.” Wu Shih-

158

Notes to Translations tao amends it to read “preparing birdlime.'* Yasui objects, saying lead balls are meant. These secured to the two ends of a silk thread which, tossed in the air, acts as a bolas. I am skeptical. “is but a small thing*’— I follow Yokota passim . “who sharpens his arrow-heads”— With Yokota, ch ian g is excrescent. “fed well from taxes,*’ etc.— I follow S P T K note.

37.7 “C h’u’s eastern lands.”— As the S h ih -ch i C h e n g -y i notes (S C 40/67), the “eastern lands” (because of their position downstream of the capi­ tal?) refer to the Huai-pei region. This area is also referred to as the T' ■ “the most recently acquired”— I follow Yokota who thinks jfjf means the latest acquisitions of land in the Huai-pei area. Other commen­ tators say the character is excrescent.

37.8 or

“attendant”— ch u n g -yeh for the king.

xt

. Here, a kind of guard

38,4 “Fan and Chung-hang”— For the reading I follow Chavannes (V.5, p. 33). “Wu-hsii”— I.e., Chao Wu-hsii or Chao Hsiang-tzu. The Chao clan and family names are a complex riddle. “of a leper”— A fter S o -yin (S C 8 6 /9 ). “admit to your honor”— I.e. your single-minded intent. This is a play on words; intelligence and honor are homophones. “over which the ruler must pass”— I follow Yokota. “Alas, Yü-jang”— With Yokota I do not take the second tzu -J- to be superfluous, though this cannot be shown in the translation. “I do but ask”— I interpolate the S P T K gloss here.

38,11 “had to wait”— Yokota has

*a

hsien Jgj

and Wu Shih-tao says one version has hsien; I read hsien. “taken aback”:—The character is a hapax legomenon. Wu Shih-tao suggests ts'u J f t (M a th e w s 6842), Yokota suggests a homophone (M a th e w s 577). ‘ “hooves grew weak,” etc.— Literally, his hooves stretched out (from weakness? effort?) and his knees bent (from weariness? effort?). I follow S P T K with “tail soaked and flanks drenched;” but Yokota makes a good argument for “tail heavy and breast in turmoil (from the effort).” “midway he came,” etc.— I follow Yokota. “heaved on the shafts”— fu tsao ft jfe or fu ch i ^ $|JL , S o-yin changes to fu yiia n , which is w h a f l translate. But a case is made in 159

INTRIGUES

Yokota’s notes for the text as ^ sta n d s, namely, “with back rubbed sore (as though there were brambles on it.) ” ^ “as pure as chiming stones”— The second sh en g fff is pleonastic. Wu Shih-tao conjectures the last line refers to his having had troubles in Liang. This being the only In trigu es item in which he appears, no more can be said. 39,8 “Su Ch’in”— As it was originally, S P T K and Yokota have it Su-tzu. Chung Feng-nien says: “The facts of this item are probably spurious ( hsii ) ; only the black sable coat and the gold accord with his troubles in Ch’in.” The text is corrupt in several places. I choose the lesser of two evils only. As pointed out elsewhere the lack of motivation within the text and the inappropriate use of the “words of spirits” theme convince me that it is derivative. “village of Ch’eng-hsiian”— I choose the version noted, but not used by S P T K and Yokota. Wu Shih-tao obviously prefers “village” also, “spent ox nor jaded nag”— I accept Tozaki’s emendation. “got the better of the wooden one”— I cannot accept Y okota’s interpre­ tation of a connection between the parable and the rest of the text, “extirpated his kin”— Yokota, still hoping for sense, suggests “killed m o st of his line.” “a moon pearl”— This is mentioned in conjunction with the Night-shining Stone (S C 83/29) and may be the same thing. 43,13 “halted at T ’ang-yin”— Reading follows S h ih -ch i C h en g-yi. “Chao Sheng”— Titles not used wherever it is not useful to have them, “because of Ch'i she lost”— Literally, and after that she returned (the title of) Emperor because of C h’i. I am not clear about this. I sup­ pose “returned” to be in the sense of “give up.” “now Ch’i. is weaker than ever”— Actually, “Ch’in Min-wang is weaker, etc.” The chronology of this entire piece is fantastic. See C hapter VIII. “nobleman of virtue”— Literally, “a good noble of the empire.” This is analogous to Lu Chung-lien’s t'ien-hsia chih shih ^ “Jl iL -ir “Pao Chiao”— See H S W C , p. 35, n. 1; p.' 36, nA8 . “places a premium on efficacy”— Literally “promotes (people) for the (num ber of) heads (they tak e ).” “so that his excesses shall become,” etc.— Wu Shih-tao notes SC’s com­ mentaries and says: “This sentence is difficult to make out.” I agree with him, but I think my version has justification. See, however, Wang Nien-sun’s interpretation given by Takigawa, S C 83/6 . “I could ask for an alliance”— Perhaps “have already asked for an alli­ ance” will account better for the final particle, but it would make less sense with the rest of the passage.

160

Notes to Translations “after which he would have executed him ”— I follow Yokota. “and asked of the Lu people”— The use of tzu for a plural “you” is rare but the context demands it. “retire to await”— I follow Yokota. “toward which he myst keep his back— to the north,” etc.— The Chinese text is probably a good deal clearer than I am on this. “jade in the mouths of their dead”— Yokota has “fill the mouth of the corpse with jade” and this is certainly what is meant by such charac­ ters as han and probably what was implied by terms such as han-lien ^ . But is it possible that earlier custom (or straitened circumstances) called for the mouth to be filled simply with (cooked) rice, as our phrase here seems to suggest? SC 83/10 has simply “shrouds and offerings.” “taking positions from ”— Possibly, “he will give to those he considers worthy and take from those who are disrespectful, . . . .” 43,16 “my ancestors could not have known,” etc.— SP T K text originally had “the M aster could not have known,” etc. 47,13 “the skill to judge horses”— I follow Yokota. ^ “regimen of K uo Yen”— Also known as Yen Kuo , Ku Yen IS . K uo Yen Jj} 1 ft • Han-fei mentions him as does Kuoyü ( Chin-yü) where he is called Pu Yen (■* 1ft. of Chin, “mulberry gall”— SP T K , “the worm in a mulberry tree which causes fluids to ooze outside the bark like an abcess when it ruptures.” Yasui: “one edition has ‘soft tum or’; this is correct for it alludes to the (cancer) of favorites.”

48,18

>

“spit upon his face”— In Ch'un-ch’iu Hou-yii ^ tJL (Shuo-fu ch. 5) there is a curiously truncated version of this story where instead of “spit upon,” the character is ssu U ■ “elderly com m ander”— All annotations say it was a Chao title meaning, simply, “minister.” I give him the military title because of his per­ sonality. “C h’u C he”— Index givés the surname the reading Chu. SC 43,81 has him as C h’u Lung. “I eat only to live”— Literally, “only congee, rice gruel.” “the queen laughed”— I follow Yokota. “a different thing entirely”— I have purposely left this ambiguous as it is in the Chinese. 53,16

161

INTRIGUES

60,14 “to curb’’ or “to coerce.”— I follow Yokota. Note that this appears twice, SP TK 3/23b and 8 / 14a. 68,5 “Wei-sheng”— In 69,13 he is called Wei Sheng-kao. He is known to Chuang-tzu (SP TK 19/39z) and his story can be seen in H SW C p. 8 , n. 2. See also Crum p, p. 314, n. 1. . “vaunt the power of Yen in C h’i”— SP T K , Ch’in here is dittographic. “had they felt”— Yokota has no Ch’u. I follow Yokota. “C h’i will still reject him ”— I supply Ch’i to make better sense. 69,11 “stamp and shout”— I follow Wu Shih-tao’s suggestion. The text is proba­ bly corrupt here. “that ancient ruler”— chiin & and jen are probably inverted here, “then his page said to him ”— SP TK and Yokota both have “usher” ; it could also be “eunuch.” Index treats it as though it were a proper name which it certainly is not. Pao Piao wonders why Ssu-ma Ch’ien left out the anecdote of the Thousand-league horse. Guessing from Ssu-ma C h’ien’s love of anecdote I would say that it wasn’t a part of this item when he read it. But judging from the fact that the popularizations, C h’i-kuo Chfun~ch’iu P'ing-hua (1955 typeset ed., p. 20) and the Tung-Chou Lieh-kuo Chih, both have the anecdote and are usually directly based on the Shih-chi rather than C K T, the question is more complicated. 69,14 “glib deceiver”— Read shih it means “loquacious,”— read t’a, t’o, Chi-yiin gives “deceptive, self-praising.” “produce the desired results”— tso-shou by analogy with tso-chih *È U L » "to cause to arrive without effort.” 72,8 “a hawk was hatched”— Or a goose? “his country’s elder ministers”— The character is probably ch'en, not yiieh, but it leaves the king making something, as Waley notes ( Three Ways, pp. 101-3). The text here is hopelessly corrupt. “to show his fearlessness”— Since the text is unclear, perhaps my division of it is also faulty. “men who forded the river”— This traditional interpretation has always seemed nonsense to me. I wonder if the phrase might not have been ch’ao-pu meaning “club-footed” (? ), i.e., soles of the feet facing each other? “an auspicious omen be seen,” etc.— A sententious addition having little meaning as it stands. It would seem the king “acted” a good deal more than was called for. “where he sickened”— Supplied from Hsin-hsii.

162

N o te s to T r a n s l a ti o n s

“fill his car”— shu-erh implies imparting secrets, according to Yokota. I follow SP TK . Chodai I$jlt note suggests Yin Chien should be “the concubine Yin” as in 74,7, but became Yin Chien by dittography because of T ie n Chien in the text. “scheme for the ambassador”— Wu Shih-tao says ch’ii JJ5L used in this manner most often means “to act well towards someone and get his confidence.” 74,7 “I know how to weaken,” etc.— All Yokota notes in agreement that wen is an error. “talented beauties”— i.e., “musically talented.”

163

Bibliography

BM FEA Bulletin o f the M useum o f Far Eastern Antiquities. Stockholm. BODDE China's First Unifier. By Dirk Bodde. Leiden, 1938. BSOAS Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies. University of London. C H ’A-T’U PEN C h’a-t’u Pen Chung-kuo Wen-hsiieh Shih. ^ jC. . By Cheng Chen-to . 1936,4 vols.; 1957 with some new material and greatly improved edition. Chan-kuo Ts’e. (See under IN TR IG U ES.) CH A N G C H ’I ^ Chan-kuo Ts’e Shih-ti. . By Chang C h’i (1764-1833). Ts’ung-shu Chi-cheng, ed. (1936) is punctuated.

'S) H f ?

C H ’IEN MU By H sien-Ch’in Chu-tzu Hsi-nien. C h’ien Mu . Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1936. Revised and enlarged, published as Chronological Studies o f the Pre-Ch’in Philosophers. Hong Kong University Press, 1956. 2 vols., pp. 1-624, indices. An extremely valuable work. C H ’I-KUO K ’AO , * C h’i-kuo K ’ao. X IgfcJ . By Tung Yüeh Y (fl. 1644). Chung-hua, 1956. 10 chapters. W hat amounts to a study of official titles and other related affairs— including anomalies and catas­ trophes— during the Chan-kuo period. Many are simply cited with the text they occur in, a few are described. Useful. “Chan-kuo Ts’e Chu-tso Shih-tai K ’ao.” * « * . * • < ) • By Ch'i Ssu-ho. %, %a . Yenching Hsiieh-pao, No. 34 (1948), 256-78.

165

INTRIGUES

CHINESE SOPHISTS “The Chinese Sophists.” By A. Forke, JN C B R A S, xxxlv (1901-2), 1-100, including Chinese text. Translations faulty in places; super­ seded. Chung Feng-nien. (See under K ’A N-Y EN .) CKT. (See under IN TRIG U ES.) CRUM P “The Chan-kuo Ts’e and its Fiction.” By J. I. Crump. T'oung Pao, xlvii, 4-5 (1960), 305-75. D EU X SOPHISTES Deux sophistes chinois. By (Ignace) K ou Pao-koh. Bibliothèque de VInstitut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises. Paris, 1953, vol. viii. Essay on comparative sophistics, pp. 130-41. DUBBS History o f the Former Han Dynasty. Trans, by H. H. Dubbs. Lon­ don, 1938-54. 3 vols. FIFT Y CHINESE STORIES F ifty Chinese Stories. Edited by Y. C. Liu. London, 1960. Contains text and pai-hua renditions of the following items from C K T : 5,5 p. 8 6 ; 15,6 p. 20; 26,4 (fable only) p. 36; 32,3 (fable only) p. 44; 35,2 p. 70; 70,3 p. 60. FREEM A N The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Companion to Diels* Fragment der Vorsokratiker. By Kathleen Freem an. Oxford, 1953. Especially section C, “The Older Sophists.” GILES Chuang-tzu: M ystic, Moralist and Social Philosopher. By H. A. Giles. Shanghai, 1926. GRAHAM “The Dialogue Between Yang Ju and Chyntzyy.” By A. C. G raham . Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and A frican Studies, Univ. of London, vol. X XII, 2 (1 959), 291-99. HAN-FEI-TZU I (See also LIA O.) . Han-fei-tzu Chiao-shih. ^ 4* $$ By C h’en C h’i-t’ien. P |L $ L A 1938, and Hong Kong, 1958. Excellent supplements of ancient and modern scholars’ comments on the work. H AN -FEI-TZU II Han-fei-tzu Chi-chieh.

ch’eng | | Chung-hua. 166

. %%

4 (Chu-tzu Chi. vol- 5). By Wang Hsien-shen £ ^ j*A

Bibliography H A N -FEI-TZU III H a n -fe i-tzu

C hi-sh ih.

Ch’i-yu.

p$_-f-

, Shanghai, 1958. 2 vols.

HSIN-HSÜ H sin -h sü C h ia o -ch u

(fu

H sin-h sü, Y i-w en C h ia o -c h i).

J ftâ i

.

Ü • Ed;, by. Chang Kup-ch’üan. 3 £ jf § C h’eng-tu, Ju-ku Shu-chü *fp i a p % , 1944. 2 vols. N o punctuation but copious annotation. The y i-w e n and its notes are especially important. H U M M EL E m in en t C h in ese o f th e C h 'in g P erio d . Edited by A rthur Hummel.

W ashington, 1944. 2 vols. H SÜA N-CH IA NG . (S e e IN TR IG U ES V II.) IN D EX jfÇ l?5j . Université de Paris, Centre d ’Etudes Sinologiques de Pekin. Peking, 1948.

In d ex d u T ch a n -k o u o T s’ö.

IN T R IG U ES (The order in which the editions are numbered indicates approxi­ mately the amount of use made of them .) I. S e n k o k u sa k u S eikai. JL i By Yokota Ikö ^ ^ » first published in 1829. There is a wood-block edition of this, but since the copy from the K amada Collection at the University of Michigan is lack­ ing the first volume, I cannot tell whether it is the first edition or not. An excellent job of printing. Yokota draws upon earlier Japanese work— S e n k o k u sa k u T o k o iL % (1776) of Tosaki T an’en j* and the K o k u sa k u K o c h u H o sei % -Î (1796) of Seki Kunchô jty £ • He also uses notes and comments by Ch’ene En-tse J@,% i f from K u o -ts'e T i-m in g K 'a o Ï& j h * Mu Wenhsl’s notes from C h ’i-hsiung Ts'e-tsüan Æj&jfLi- ' an(* others. He knows both Huang P’ei-lieh’s “*T £ work and the Wu Shih-tao edition. II. S engoku sakU S e ik a i . (Eyebrow notes, ch ö d a i, by N akai Riken ^ •) In the K a n b u n T a ik e i series. Based on the above with addenda by Yasui K otaro ^ A' fß » who adds informa­ tion from the Wu Shih-tao edition. This edition is much more readily found, but it is m arred by a number of typographical errors. H uang’s ch a -ch i is appended. III. C h a n -k u o T sfe C h iao-ch u . >£ . The S P T K edition of the W u Shih-tao text.

167

INTRIGUES

IV.

Ch'ung-k'o Yen-ch’uan Ypo-shih Pen Chan-kuo Ts'e.

$ i'] $'J ") -WL K ^ tK Ü & ■

V.

VI.

Huang P ’i-lieh's woodblock edition of the Yao version. The best copy is found in Shih-li Chii Ts'ung-shu. dr Pai-hua Yi-chieh Chan-kuo Ts'e. "Ê7 l é Trans, by Yeh Yii-lin jfc- l> £ & . 1 vols., Shanghai, 1940. 225 pieces from the Intrigues ana pai-hua translations of them. Helpful, but sometimes in error. Reprint, Hong Kong, 196?. Reprint, T aipei 196? as % bJ?x jjL • Hsiieh-sheng Kuo-hsiieh Ts'ung-shu; Chan-kuo Ts'e.

•

Edited by Ts’ang Li-ho. Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1932, 1938; reprint, Hong Kong, 1962. 97 items with annotations— seldom where it helps. VII. Chan-kuo Ts'e Hsiian-chiang. i Ü Edited by Liu Yi-yi • Peking, 1958. Twelve items in simplified characters. The notes are for neophytes; “ex­ planations” very doctrinaire. VIII. Chan-kuo Ts'e Pu-chu. ^ Edited by Wang Tseng-ch’i and Chu Yiian-shan. i ^ f£ r and • Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1922. Four ts'e. Examined, seldom used. IX. Chan-kuo Ts'e Hsiang-chu. . Annotated by Kuo Hsi-fen J p fp Vi) , edited by Wang Mao i . Wen-ming, 1931. Used very little. K.M. Erh-shih-wu Shih. Z- f Î j£_ . Shanghai, 1935 (1962), K ’ai-ming Shu-tien. 9 vols. Pages serially numbered 1-7949. KAO Chinese Wit and H umor. Edited by George Kao. New York, 1946. K ’AN-YEN Kuo-ts'e K'an-yen. (§] iff . By Chung Feng-nien. $ |j . Yenching HsUeh-pao, M onograph, n. 11. Peking, 1936. Divided into three parts: ( 1 ) Notes on the^Yao edition— from which my code numbers are derived; (2) Notes on the Pao edition; (3) “Discussion of Errors.” A fourth section on the chronology of the Intrigues— which he mentions in the text— was never published for reasons painfully obvious to anyone who has worked with inferential dates in the Intrigues. K IERM AN Ssu-ma Ch'ien's Historiographical A ttitudes as Reflected in Four Late Warring States Biographies. Êy F. A. Kierm an. Wiesbaden,

168

Bibliography 1962. Biographies, with C K T variorum, of Yiieh Yi, Lien P ’o-Lin Hsiang-ju, T ’ien Tan, and Lu Chung-lien. Copious notation. KISAKU Kisaku Jüö Senkokusaku Monogatari. "g 9 . Edited by Okuno, Shintaro. Tokyo, 1962. -Ic ; iA .Trans, by Yamagata, Hatto. 152 items follow­ ing the Kam bun Taikei text. N o pretentions to scholarship, but done into easy, modern Japanese without paraphrasing. K U -TA I SAN-W EN HSÜAN K u-tai San-wen Hsüan. ' ê Hi “fefc. À- i3 f. . Edited by the Jen-min Chiao-yü C h’u-pan She’s board on Middle School Language Studies. Sept. 1962. 2 vols. Text in regular characters, notes and critiques in simplified characters. N umerous notes at the beginner’s level. KU-W EN HSI-YI i 3L # r l i By Lin Yiin-ming ^ 5 fang ed. Shanghai, 1930. KU-W EN P IN G C HU Ku-w en F in g Chu. o and Huang Yiieh

). Sao-yeh Shan-

. Edited by Kuo Hung . Preface, 1703.

K U A N -C H IH „ Ku-wen Kuan-chih. Edited by Wu Liuts’un • Preface, 1695. I have not had access to this early edition. Ku-wen Kuan-chih ( Yen-wen Tui-chao), f jc . ■ jj • Edited by Fan Shu-han ^ ^ and Hu-shang-yiiyin. 4 vols., Shanghai, 1936. Wen-ta. KU C H IEH -K A N G u ^ ,, Han-tai Hsiieh-shu Shih-liieh. • By Ku Chieh-kang, 1935; republished in 1955 as Ch'in-Han-te Fang-shih yii Ju-sheng. 4 M * iD I t * & ' \ % i ■ Citations are from the 1955 edition. KUO-TS’E T I-M IN G Kuo-ts'e Ti-ming K a o . I§] Jjt • By Ch’eng En-tse ® , preface, 1842; Yüeh-ya-t’ang Ts’ung-shu edition, , 17th chi. LAU “The Treatm ent of Opposites in Lao Tzu.” By D. C. Lau. BSOAS, XXL, 2 (1958), 344-60. LIAO The Complete Works o f Han Fei Tzu; A Classic o f Chinese Political

169

INTRIGUES

Science. By W. K. Liao. T rans.,rvol. I, London, 1939 (photo-reprint, 1959); vol. II, 1959. Indexed, but very poorly. LO KEN-TSE . £ Chu-tzu K ’ao-so. b'B f / ) . By Lo Ken-tse. fia. Peking, 1958. Most of these articles were published betöre 1948 in various periodicals. They are conveniently under one cover here, and modifications of Lo’s theory on the authorship of the Intrigues appear for the first time in this book, p. 416.

LU-shih C h’un-ch’iu Chi-shih. Com­ piled by Hsii Wei-yii. * . C h’ing-hua Univ., 1935. 6 vols. The best annotated edition of the work available. MA KUO-HAN L K AA* ± Yü-hsien shan-fang Chi Yi-shu. I* l i ) ^ /2T Jpr -gf . Compiled by M a Kuo-han. ^ • The Changsha edition of 1883 is good. The Hsiang-yiian T a n g ^0 edition of 1884 lacks division into chapters, making it necessary to refer to it by fascicle num ber only. M ARGOULIES I L e kou-wen chinois. By Georges Margouliès. Paris, 1926. Pages IS­ ST are translations from the Intrigues. M ARGOULIES II Anthologie raisonnée de la littérature chinoise. By Georges M ar­ gouliès. Paris, 1948. (Review, H JA S 12 (1 9 4 9 ), 1-2.) Some dupli­ cation of Margouliès I, but three translations from the Intrigues in­ cluding 71,5. M ARGOULIES III Histoire de la littérature chinoise (prose). By Georges Margouliès. Paris, 1949. Pages 12 and 18 comment on the Intrigues’ derivation and style. MASPERO La Chine antique. By H enri Maspero. Vek 4 of Histoire du M onde, Paris, 1927; revised edition, 1955 (includes characters), in which pagination of the 1927 edition is given in brackets on each page. MOROHASHI _ Tai Kanwa Jiten. 6$ . By M orohashi Tetsuji. %% » Tokyo, 1955-59. 12 vols., one vol. index. C har­ acters arranged by radical, compounds by onjun. Indexed by radical, jun, total strokes, and four corner. C haracters num bered serially from 1-48,902. A n excellent pirated edition (m arred only by care-

170

Bibliography less translation of Japanese introduction) appeared in Taiwan in 1961. NAHM Selections from Early Greek Philosophy. By M. C. Nahm. New York, 1947 (3rd ed .). Especially pages 236-64. PAI-SAN C H IA C H I Han, Wei, Liu-ch’ao Pai-san Chia Chi T ’i-tz’u chu. '3s 19 H • By Chang P ’u 3 ^ . :S by Yin Meng-lun . Hong Kong, 1961.

' ^ • Notes

SC The Shih-chi; specifically, Shikikaichü Köshö Ifj ^ i t % fj? " {Shih-chi Huei-chu K ’ao-cheng). Edited by Takigawa K ametaro. "J ^ ^ 'flß . Kyoto, 1936 and 1958. 1 0 vols. Photolith reprint by Wen-hsiieh Ku-chi, 1955. Also pirated edition in Taiwan, ca. 1959. Chapters of Shih-chi are numbered serially in this edition making reference to it very simple. SPTK The Ssu-pu Ts'ung-k’an. \P Commercial Press, 1920-22.

>p %.

editions. Shanghai:

Ssu-k'u C hfiian-shu Tsung-mu Ti-yao. . Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1933 (with four corner in­ dex), pages consecutively numbered. SSU-TA SHU x Sung Ssu-ta-shu K ’aô. A . -Jr / j .B y K uo Po-kung. 3 0 It) • Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1940; postface dated 1937. A most thorough account of the circumstances surrounding the compilation of the T a i-p fing Yii-lan, Kuang-chi, the Wen-yiian Yinghua and the Ts'e-fu Yiian-kuei. Includes lengthy criticism of the weaknesses of Yii-lan. TEN G -H SI TZU , , Teng-hsi Tzu. /^ ß 3“ . The Chiang-nan Library’s Ming dy­ nasty edition reproduced in SP TK . “Chuan-tz’u p’ien” begins p. 6 b and goes to the end. T H E TEM PLE. (See under W ALEY.) W ALEY, T H E T EM PLE The Temple and Other Poems. Translated by A rthur Waley. London, 1923.

171

NTRIGUES

WALEY, T H E WAY The Way and Its Power. A Study of the Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought. By A rthur Waley. London, 1934 (reprint 1949). W ALKER The Multi-State System o f A ncient China. By R. L. W alker. H am ­ den, Conn., 1953. WATSON I Ssu-ma Ch'ien, Grand Historian o f China. By Burton W atson. New York, 1958. WATSON II Records o f the Grand Historian o f China. By Burton W atson. New York, 1961. 2 vols. WATSON 111 Early Chinese Literature. By Burton Watson. New York, 1962. WEI-SHU * Wei-shu T'ung-k'ao. v h i? $ L n Edited by Chang Hsinch’eng /£> Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1939, (1954), 2 vols., 1144 pages. Supplemental pamphlet of four-corner index (not useful). Pages 534-44 collect a good deal of scholarly information on texts published by 1938. Chang himself adds useful notes. This supersedes the Ku-chin Wei-shu K 'ao "£ ^ 1f a % of Yao Chi-heng - i j t ■ W ILHELM I ‘T h e Scholar’s Frustration: Notes on a type of F u." By Hellmut Wilhelm. In Chinese Thought and Institutions, edited by John Fairbank. Chicago, 1957. Pp. 310-19. On the C K T t p. 314. W ILHELM II “Schriften und Fragm ente zur Entwicklung der Staatsrechtlichen Theorie in der Chou-zeit.” By Hellm ut Wilhelm. M onum enta Serica (1947), vol. 12, 41-96. W ORD FA M ILIES “Word Families in Chinese.“ By Bernhard^ Karlgren. B M F E A t vol. 5 (1933). WM. WATSON China Before the Han Dynasty. By William W atson. New York, 1961. YANG K ’UAN ^ Chan-kuo Shih.yfa i^ B y Yang K ’uan. fc o J lj Shanghai: Ren-min, 1955.28 pages of plates and drawings. Especially note 15, pp. 165-66.

172

Bibliography YAO N A I K u-w en-tz’u Lei-tsuan. "6 3 ^ . Edited by Yao Nai HfcJk £ • 7 5 chapters, compiled 1779, first printing 1820. (See Hummel, p. 900.) Hong Kong: Kuang Chih Shu Chii edition, 195?, 2 vols., 681 pages. Phonological and other annotation. Sung Ching-ju $ - A -feU and Chang Jung , annotators. The most re­ cent and useful edition I know öf. YI-W EN ^ “Chan-kuo Ts'e Yi-wen K ’ao.” 5p\c ® 1cL O .B y Chu Tsu-keng • Chang-shih Kuo-hsüeh Chiang-hsi-hui Hsiieh-pao , vol. 1 (1937), 1-28. This is actually nos. 37-38, combined issue, of Chih-yen ^'J % which has the longer title only for this particular number, April 1937. Y Ü A N -C H IEN K u-wen Yüan-chien. *£ ylrrJ f j j . . By Hsii Ch'ienhsüeh. et al. 64 chapters. Composed by imperial order, completed in 1685. One chapter of texts from C K T . Edition used: K ’ang-hsi 24, 1695, preface, 3-color edition with eyebrow notes and comments. YÜAN China in Western Literature. By T. L. Yiian. New Haven, 1958. Page 431 for citation of Yen Tan-tzu, Prince Dan o f Yann, by Cheng Lin. Shanghai, 1946. See also H. Franke’s opinions on the authen­ ticity and date of this long piece, “Die Geschichte des Prinzen Tan von Yen,” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 107:412-68.

173

Finding List

Alphabetical Alphabetical

K'an-yen

Index

An Yi chih yü shih ssu Chai Chang ts’ung Liang lai Chang Ch’ou chih ho Ch’i, Ch’u Chang Ch’ou wei chih yü Yen C h’ang-kuo Chün Yüeh Yi Chang Meng-t’an chi ku Chao C h’ang-p’ing chih yi P’ing-tu Chün Ch’ang-sha chih nan Ch’ang T ’a wang Hsi-Chou Chang Teng wei Fei Yeh yüeh Chang Tzu-yi yi Ch’in hsiang Chang Yi chih Ch’u p’in Chang Yi chih ts’an C h’u-li Chi Chang Yi chu Hui Shih yü Wei Chang Yi hsiang Ch’in Chang Yi shih Ch’in Hui-wang Chang Yi shui Ch’in-wang yüeh Chang Yi tsou chih Wei Chang Yi wei Ch’i-wang yüeh Chang Yi wei Ch’in lien heng Chang Yi wei Ch’in . . . shui Ch’i Chang Yi wei C h’in . *. . shui Han Chang Yi wei Ch’in . . . shui Wei Chang Yi wei C h’in p’o tsung Chang Yi wei Ch’in p’o tsung lien Chang Yi wu Ch’en Chen yü Wei (Chang Yi yu wu Ch’en Chen) Chang Yi yü chia Ch’in ping Chang Yi yü ch’iung Ch’en Chen Chang Yi yü ping hsiang Ch’in Chang Yi yü yi H an Chung yü

67,19 47,10

424 269 413 459 453 215 342 206

6 6 ,8

71,2 71,9 38,3 57,10 37,7 8,26 67,18 50,19 35,4 1 2 ,8

36,6 34,18 26,2 12,5 50,17 59,8 40,3 25,17 59,6 49,11 34,17 6 8 ,6

50,15 14,12 1 2 ,6

50,16 50,20 12,9

20 423 296 193 47 195 179

122 44 294 366 232

120 365 288 178 434 292 52 45 293 297 48

175

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical Chang Yi yü yi Wei ho yü Ch’in Chao ch’ieh fa Yen Chao Chien yü Tung-Chou ngo Chao ch’ü Chou chih chi ti Chao Hsi-hsü yü P’eng-cheng Chao-hsien tsai Yang-ti Chao Hui-wen-wang san shih nien Chao shih Chao Chuang ho tsung Chao shih Chi Ho chih Ch’in Chao shih Yao Chia yüeh Han Chao shou t’ien hsia ch’ieh Chao t’ai-hou hsin yung shih Chao-wang chi hsi min shan Chao-wang feng Meng-ch’ang Chiin Chao, Wei kung Hua-yang Chao Yang wei Ch’u fa Wei Chao, Yen hou H u fu Che Chang ts’ung (see Chai Chang) Ch’en Chen ch’ü Ch’u chih Ch’in Ch’en Chen kao Ch’u chih Wei Ch’en Chen wei Ch’in shih yü Ch’en Ts’ui ho Ch’i, Yen Cheng Chiang chih tsou Chang Yi Cheng Chiang tsai pa pai chin Ch’eng-hou Tsou Chi wei Ch’i Ch’eng H un ch’u Chou Cheng T ’ung pei chien Chao-wang Ch’eng-yang Chün yü yi H an, Wei Ch’i chiang feng T ’ien Ying yü Ch’i chiang kung Sung erh Ch’in Ch’i, Ch’in yüeh kung Ch’u Ch’i chu Ch’u kung Q i’in Ch’i Ch’u kou nan Ch’i fa Sung, Sung chi Ch’i fu kuo chih min Ch’i, Han, Wei, kung kung Yen Ch’i, H an wei yü kuo Ch’i Hsüan chih chiao Han-wang Ch’i Hsüan-wang chien Yen Ch’u Ch’i jen chien T ’ien P’ien Ch’i jen Li Po chien Chao Ch’i jen yu Feng Hsüan che Ch’i kung Sung, Feng-yang Chün Ch’i kung Sung, Sung shih Tsang Ch’i ling Chou Tsui shih Cheng

176

*

K'art-yen

Index

50,18 71,12 8,27 8,22 32,4 5,6 40,1b 47,9 41,2 48,15 39,9 48,18 74,10 40,16 66,15 26,4 40,6

456 21 16 164 5 237 268 238 274 221 277 486 228 420 124 235

14,12 36,8 50,14 70,6 59,13 59,12 25,8 33,12 43,15 57,15 23,2 46,3 34,2 14,1 32,1 69,12 30,1b 71,1 26,1 61,4 29,5 29,8 44,22 28,1 39,10 72,1 62,9

52 197 291 450 371 370 111 173 251 347 105 262 182 53 161 441 152 458 121 387 144 147 259 140 222 463 392

295

Finding List Alphabetical

K'an-yen

Index

C h'i Min-wang chih yü sha C h’i Ming shui Cho Hua C h’i Ming wei R ung Shu yüeh C h’i p ’o Yen, Chao yü ts’un Chi Se wang chih Ch’u Ch’i t’ing Chu Fu Ch’i-wang chiang chien Yen, Chao Ch’i-wang Chien ju ch’ao Ch’i-wang fu-jen ssu Ch’i-wang shih shih wen Chao Ch’i, Wei chan yü Ma-ling Ch’i, Wei cheng Yen C h’i, Wei yüeh erh fa Ch’u Ch’i yi Nao-chün chih luan C h’i yü fa Wei, Ch’un-yü K ’un Ch’i yü fa Wei, Wei shih jen Ch’i yü kung Sung, Ch’in ling Chiang Yi shui yü An-ling Chiin Chiang Yi wei Wei shih yü Ch’u Chiang Yi wu Chao Hsi-hsü Chiang Yi yü wu Chao Hsi-hsü Chiang Yin yü wu (see 33,8) Chien-hsin Chiin ch'ing H an Hsi Chien-hsin Chün kuei yü Chao Chih Po shuai Chao, Han, Wei Chih Po so ti yü Wei Chih Po ts’ung Han, Wei ping Chih Po yü fa Wei Chih Po yü hsi Wei Ch’in Chao chan yü Ch’ang-p’ing Ch’in chao Chou-chün C h’in chao Ch’u erh fa C h’i C h’in chao Ch’un-p’ing hou C h’in, Chao kou nan erh chan Ch’in Chao-wang wei tso-yu yüeh C h’in chao Wei hsiang Hsin-an C h’in chao Yen-wang Ch’in chia tai Han, Wei C h’in chia tao yü Chou yi fa Han Ch’in chiang fa Wei, Wei-wang wen Ch’in ch’ü Ch’u Han-chung Ch’in, Ch’u kung Wei wei Pi-shih Ch’in fa Wei, Ch’en Chen ho san C h’in fa Yi-yang, C h’u-wang wei Ch’in H an chan yü Chu-tse

31,8 37,5 62,12 41,3 63,17 7,17 51,25 31,9 27,2 29,7 53,10 71,13 49,12 31,10 28,11 54,6 44,2 33,9 33,10 33,7 33,8 32,6 67,21 43,16 38,2 48,1 38,1 72,9 72,10 43,12

158A 204 395 239 400 12B 303 159 130 146 316 457 289 160 139 328 261 170 171 168 169 167 426 252 214 279 213 470 471 248 32 421 276 341 89 319 444 116

1 0 ,1 0

66,16 48,17 57,9 20,4 53,14 70,1 25,13 5,7 54,7 19,1 53,15 25,15 36,9 60,17

6

329 86

320 118 198 375

177

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical Ch’in, Han wei Liang Ch’in hsing shih lin Chou Ch’in Hsiian t’ai-hou Ch’in Hui-wang ssu Ch’in Hui-wang wei H an Ch’üan-tzu Ch’in k’o ch’ing Tsao wei Jang Ch’in kung Chao, Ch’ang-p’ing Ch’in kung Chao, Chao ling Lou Ch’in kung Chao ku to chih yin Ch’in kung Chao, Lin Li-shih Ch’in kung Chao, P’ing-yiian Chlin Ch’in kung Chao, Su-tzu wei wei Ch’in kung Chao yü Ch’ang-p’ing Ch’in kung Han chih Kuan Ch’in kung Han-tan shih ch’i yüeh Ch’in kung Han wei Hsing Ch’in kung Hsing Ch’in kung Wei chi Ch’in kung Wei chiang Hsi Wu Ch’in kung Wei chih P’u Ch’in kung Wei ch’ü Ning-yi Ch’in kung Yi-yang Ch’in ling Ch’u-li Chi Ch’in pa Han-tan kung Wei Ch’in pa Ning-yi Ch’in pai Ch’u Han-chung Ch’in pai Tung-Chou yü Wei Ch’in pai Wei chiang Hsi Wu Ch’in pai Wei yü Hua, tsou Ch’in pai Wei yü Hua, Wei-wang Chin Pi Yang chih sun Yü Jang Ch'in ping Chao pei hsiang Ch’in shih Chao kung Wei Ch’in chih Wang Chien kung Chao Ch’in ta kuo yeh Ch’in-wang shih jen wei An-ling Ch’in-wang wei Kan Mao yüeh Ch’in-wang wei kung tzu T ’a Ch’in-wang yü chien Tun Jo Ch’in-wang yü Chung Ch’i cheng Ch’in wei Chao chih Han-tan Ch’in, Wei wei yü kuo Ch’in wei Yi-yang Yu T ’eng wei Ch’in Wu-wang wei Kan Mao yüeh Ch’in yü kung Chou

178

K'an-yen

Index

38,6 4,1 16,16 15,3 12,3 16,2 27,7 26,5 44,21 41,4 43,11 40,2 42,10 56,8 19,18 18,13 59,10 58,26 9,2 73,11 48,14 4,2 9,3 57,17 57,16 35,7 51,24 9,2 54,3 54,4 38,4 71,4 55,10 48,19 65,7 58,27 15,11 39,11

218

2 0 ,8 2 1 ,2

43,13 58,22 60,15 15,6 11,13

1 68

55 42 70 127 125 258 240 247 231 246 340 84 79 368 358 24 472 273 2

25 349 348 187 302 24 325 326 216 461 332 278 412 359 63 223 93 97 249 354 373 58 35

Finding List A lp h a b e t i c a l

Ch’in yüeh Chao erh fa Wei Ch’ing-hsiang-wang erh-shih Ching Hsüan-wang wen ch'ün C h’ing-kuo Chiin chiang ch’eng C h’ing-kuo Chün shan Ch’i MaoC h’ing-kuo Chün wei Ch’i-wang Chou-chün chih Ch’in Chou hsiang Lu Ts’ang Chou Hsiao wei Kung T ’o yüeh Chou Kung t ’ai-tzu ssu Chou Tsui ju Ch’i Chou Tsui shan Ch’i Chou Tsui wei Chin T ’ou yüeh Chou Tsui wei Lü Li yüeh Chou Wen-chiin mien kung shih Ch’u Chao Hsieh hsiang Han Ch’u chiang fa Ch’i, Lu ch’in Ch’u ch’ing tao Erh-Chou Ch’u chüeh Ch’i Chu Fu Yü fa Chung-shan C h’u Hsiang-wang wei t’ai-tzu Ch’u hsü Wei liu ch’eng C h’u Huai-wang chü Chang Yi C h’u K ’ao-lieh wang wu tzu C h’u kung Wei, Chang Yi wei Ch’u kung Yung-shih Ch’u ling Ching Li ju H an Ch’u ping tsai shan nan Ch’u shih ehe Ching Li tsai Ch’u Su Ch’in ti li C h’u Tu H o shui Ch’u-wang C h’u-wang chiang ch’u ChangCh’u-wang chu Chang Yi yü Wei C h’u-wang-hou ssu Ch’u-wang kung Liang nan Ch’u-wang ling Chao Gh’iao C h’u-wang shih Ching Li ju Ch’u-wang ssu, t’ai-tzu tsai C h’u-wang wen yü Fan Huan C h’u, Wei chan yü Hsing-shan C h’u Wei-wang chan sheng yü Ch’u wei Yung-shih, Han ling C h’u wei Yung-shih wu yüeh C h’üan chih nan, Ch’i, Yen Ch’üan chih nan, Yen tsai chan

I C a r t-y e n

54,1 20,9 32,3 24,3 24,5 24,4 10,5 6,10 57,19 8,24 58,21 57,20 6,14 6,9 6,11 59,9 25,14 10,8 15,2 74,6 35,8 51,22 35,5 38,12 12,10 5,8 63,19 10,7 20,6 68,10 33,14 35,6 35,3 37,3 52,4 36,5 20,7 27,1 33,15 20,5 22,1 61,2 61,1 26,6 67,3

In dex

323 94 163 106 108 107 27 9 351 18 353 352 11A 8 9A 367 117 30 54 483 188 299 185 211 49 7 402 29 91 438 175 186 192 202 310 194 92 129 176 90 104 385 384 126 431

179

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical Chuang Hsin wei Ch’u Hsiang-wang Ch’un-yü K ’un yi jih Chung-shan Chlin hsiang tu shih Chung-shan yü Yen, Chao wei Fan Sui chih Fan Sui yüeh, ch’en chü Fan-tzu yin Wang Chi ju Ch’in Feng Chi ch’ing chien Chao-wang Feng Chi wei Lu-ling Chün Feng-yang Chün shen pu ch’u yü Fu Chi wei shih erh chü Fu Ting yü yi Chao ho Ch’i Han, Chao hsiang nan H an hsiang Kung-chung Min shih Han jen kung Sung Han K ’uei hsiang Han H an Kung-chung hsiang Ch’i H an Kung-chung wei Hsiang H an Kung-shu yü Chi Se cheng Han Kung-shu . . . chung shu tzu Han Kung-shu yu Ch’i, Wei H an Min hsiang Ch'i H an Ming chien Ch’un-shen Chün H an shih chu Hsiang Chin yü Han-tan chih nan, Chao ch'iu Han-tan chih nan Chao Hsi-hsü Han, Wei yi ti H an Yang yi yü San-ch’uan Hsi Hsieh chien Chien-hsin Chün Hsi-men Pao wei Yeh ling Hsi Shou chien Liang-chün yüeh Hsi Shou fa Huang Hsi Shou li wu wang Hsi Shou T ’ien P’an yü te Ch’i Hsi Shou yi Liang wei Ch’i Hsi Wu pai Chou shih Chou Tsu Hsi Wu pai yü Yi Ch’üeh Hsiang Ling chih yi Pi Ch’ang Hsien sheng Ch’un-yü K ’un Hsien sheng Wang Tou Hsien shu Ch’in-wang yüeh Hsien Tse wei Kung-sun Hsiao Hsin-ling Chün sha Chin Pi Hsing-shan chih shih Hsü-chou chih yi

180

r

,

K'an~yen

Index

37,4 28,10 74,8 73,3 18,9 18,11 17,8 47,12 47,11 67,2 39,7 41,5 49,2 66,11 64,3 63,22 60,21 60,19 62,10 62,11 33,13 66,13 38,11 66,17 24,6 32,5 10,12 65,6 44,19 49,4 52,2 72,3 73,2 52,1 26,3 11,17 10,11 61,5 29,6 29,6 55,1 21,3 58,23 16,15 51,23

203 138 484 479 77 77A 76 271 270 430 219 241 279A 416 407 404 379 377 393 394 174 418 210 422 109 165 34 411 256 281 307 465 478 306 123 39 33 388 145 145 333 98 355 67 301

Finding List A lp h a b e tic a l

Hsiian (Hui)-wang wei Chiu Liu Hsiieh-kung ju Wei erh ch’u Ch’i Hsiieh-kung wei Wei wei Wei Jan Hsiieh-kung yi Ch’i Hu Yen chih ch’u Chi Se Hua-ÿang chih chan Wei pu Hua-yang Chiin yiieh Wei Hui Shih wei Han, Wei chiao Huo hsien shu Yen-wang Huo wei Ch’i-wang yiieh Chou Huo wei Chien-hsin Chiin yiieh Huo wei Chou Tsui wei Chin Huo wei Ch’u-wang yiieh Huo wei Han Kung-chung yiieh Huo wei Han-wang yiieh Huo wei Huang Ch’i yiieh Huo wei Kung-chung yiieh, chin Huo wei Kung Chung yiieh ting Huo wei liu kuo shui Ch’inHuo wei P’i Hsiang-kuo yiieh (Huo) wei Shang-yang Chiin yiieh Huo wei Wei-wang, wang ching Jang-hou kung Ta-liang Jen yu wu Su Ch’in yii YenJui Sung yii chiieh Ch’in, Chao Kan Mao hsiang Ch’in Kan Mao kung Yi-yang Kan Mao wang Ch’in ch’ih chih Kan Mao wei Ch’in yiieh Wei Kan Mao yiieh Ch’in, Wei K’o chien Chao-wang yiieh (K’o ch’ing) wei Han wei Ch’in (see 66,12) K’o shui Ch’un-shen Chiin yiieh K’o wei Ssu-ma Shih-ch’i yiieh K’o wei Yen-wang yiieh K’u Ch’eng-ch’ang wei ChienKuan Pi chih ling Chai Ch’iang Kuan Yang wei Ch’un-shen chiin Kuan Yen te tsui Ch’i-wang Kung-chung shih Han Min chih Kung-chung shu pu hsin yii chu Kung-chung wei Han, Wei yi ti Kung-chung yi Yi-yang chih ku Kung-shu chiang sha Chi Se Kung-shu ch’ieh sha Chi Se

K 'a n -y e n

In dex

59,7 19,2 16,1 9,1 62,16 54,5 54,9 53,11 71,10 27,8 43,17 6,13 36,1 64,1 65,4 37,6 64,2 60,20 20,10 39,15 66,14 61,22 56,6 68,5 57,12 16,13 15,8 16,12 39,13 16,14 47,13

365A 87 69 23 399 327 331 317 454 128 254 11 200 405 408 205 406 378 95 277 419 381 338 433 344 65 60 64 225 66 272

37,9 56,4 71,11 44,18 57,14 61,23 29,9 66,10 61,24 61,3 60,16 62,13 62,14

208 336 455 255 346 382 148 415 383 386 374 396 397 181

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical Kung-shu Pan wei Ch’u she chi Kung-shu shih Feng-chiin yii Kung-sun Yen wei Wei chiang Kung T’a wang Hsi Chou Kung T’a wei Chou-chün yüeh Kung T’a wei Yen shih Wei Kuo-tzu yüeh Ch’in p’o Ma Fu Leng Hsiang wei Ch’in-wang Leng Hsiang wei Han Chiu yüeh Liang-wang fa Han-tan Liang-wang, Wei Ying shang chu Lou Huan chiang shih Lou Wu yüeh Ch’in, Wei chiang Lou Wu yüeh Ch’in, Wei ; Wei Lu Chung-lien wei Meng-ch’ang Chün Mang Wan wei Ch’in-wang Meng-ch’ang Chün chiang ju Meng-ch’ang Chün ch’u hsing Meng-ch’ang Chün chu yü Ch’i Meng-ch’ang Chün feng Hsia-hou Meng-ch’ang Chün she-jen Meng-ch’ang Chün tsai Hsüeh Meng-ch’ang Chün wei ts’ung Meng-ch’ang Chün yen tso Meng-ch’ang Chün yu she-jen Nan-liang chih nan Nü-a wei Su-tzu yüeh Pa nien wei Wei-wang yüeh P’ang Ts’ung yü t’ai-tzu chih P’ing-yüan Oiün wei Feng Chi P’ing-yüan Chün wei P’ing-yang Po Kuei wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün P’u Shang chih shih P’u-yang jen Lü Pu-wei San-Chin yi p’o Chih-shih San kuo ai Ch’in San kuo kung Ch’in fan San kuo kung Ch’in, Chao kung San kuo kung Ch’in ju Han-ku Shen-tzu ch’ing shih ch’i Shih Chi wei Han shih Ch’u Shih Chü fei Hsi Shou Shih-hsing-ch’u (see 6,15) Shu Shih fa Ch’u Shui Chang Hsiang-kuo yüeh 182

K'an-yen

Index

72,2 62,6 52,27 8,26 11,14 68,7 28,12 12,4 63,18 72,4 - 53,17 47,5 57,11 21,4 29,3 54,2 28,3 28,9 29,4 28,5 28,7 28,4 29,2 28,6 28,8 25,7 35,9 55,2 53,16 42,8 42,9 56,7 31,7 21,5 58,1 8,25 11,16 47,8 19,3 59,4 63,21 52,3

464 389 305 20 36 435 139A 43 401 466 322 264 343 99 142 324 131 137 143 133 135 132 141 134 136 110 189 334 321 244 245 339 158 100 360 19 38 267 88 363 403 309 12 183 250

34,3 43,14

Finding List A lp h a b e tic a l

Su Ch’in chiang wei tsung pei . . . Yen Su Ch’in chih Ch’u Su Ch’in chii yii Wei Su Ch'in shih chiang lien Su Ch’in shui Ch’i Min-wang Su Ch’in shui Li Tui Su Ch’in ssu Su Ch’in ts’ung Yen chih Chao Su Ch’in tzu Yen chih Ch’i Su Ch’in wei Chao . . . Ch’i Su Ch’in wei Chao . . . Ch’u Su Ch’in wei Chao . . . Han Su Ch’in wei Chao-wang shih Su Ch’in wei Ch’i-wang yüeh (see 30,10) Su Li wei Chou-chün yüeh Su Li wei Chou Tsui Su Tai tzu Ch’i hsien shu yü Su Tai tzu Ch’i shih jen wei Su Tai wei Feng-yang Chün shui Su Tai wei Yen Chao-wang yüeh Su Tai wei Yen shui Ch’i Su-tzu tzu Yen chih Ch’i Su-tzu wei Chao ho tsung shui Su-tzu wei Ch’u-wang yüeh Sung K’ang-wang chih shih Sung yü Ch’u wei hsiung ti Ssu-k’ou Pu Ssu kuo fa Ch’u Ssu kuo wei yi Ssu-ma Hsi san hsiang ChungSsu-ma Hsi shih Chao wei chi Ssu-ma Ts’o yü Chang Yi (Ta) Ch’eng Wu ts’ung Chao lai T’ang Chü chien Ch’un-shen Tao Ti ch’ang wu T’ien Tan Tiao Po ch’ang wu T’ien Jan T’ien Chi wang Ch’i erh chih T’ien Chi wei Ch’i chiang T’ien-hsia chih shih T’ien-hsia ho tsung, Chao shih T’ien Hsin chih wei Ch’en Chen T’ien Hsü kuei yü Wei-wang T’ien Hsü ssu T’ien Tan chiang kung Ti T’sai Tse chien chu

K 'a n - y e n

67,1 35,2 50,13 11,2 30,1a 39,8 68,8 40,1a 30,10 25,16 34,16 59,5 39,12 10,6 7,18 70,5 70,4 70,2 69,13 ' 70,3 30,10 49,10 35,1 72,8 72,6 10,9 34,4 21,8 74,5 74,4 12,7 58,2 36,10 31,5 31,5 25,10 25,9 19,15 37,10 14,11 53,12 53,13 31,6 19,19

In d ex

429 191 290 41 151 220 436 230 149 119 177 364 224 150 28 13 449 448 445 442 447 149 287 190 469 468 31 184 103 481 480 46 361 199 156 156 113 112 81 209 50 318 318A 157 85 183

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical

*■

Tsou Chi hsiu pa chih yu yü Tsou Chi shih Hsiian-wang Tu Ho yü chung Ching Ts’ui Tuan Ch’an wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün Tuan-kan Yüeh-jen wei HsinTung-Chou yü Hsi-Chou chan Tung-Chou yü Hsi-Chou cheng Tung-Chou yü wei tao Wang li Chou Shao wei ch’uan Wang p’o Yüan Yang Wang-sun Chia nien shih wu Wei Chao-wang yüeh San-Chin ho Wei Cheng-wang yüeh Wei Ch’i hsien shu Chao-wang Wei Ch’i-wang yüeh Wei chiang yü Ch’in kung Han Wei chih wei Han-tan Wei, Ch’in fa Ch’u, Wei, wang Wei Ch’in-wang yüeh, ch’en Wei Chou Tsui wei Wei-wang Wei Chou Tsui yüeh Ch’ou Ho Wei Chou Tsui yüeh Wei-wang Wei Han Hsiang-kuo yüeh Wei Han wei Ch’in-wang Wei hsiang Ti Ch’iang ssu Wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün yüeh Wei Hsüeh-kung yüeh Wei Hui-wang ch’i ching nei Wei Hui-wang ssu Wei Jang-hou yüeh Wei jen ying hsin fu Wei K’uei wei Chien-hsin Chün Wei kung Kuan erh pu hsia Wei Kung-shu Yi ping Wei Kung-shu Yi wei Wei-chiang Wei Kung-shu yüeh ch’eng chou Wei Kung-shu yüeh, kung yü te We Ling-kung chin Yung-tan (see 43,16) Wei ling Kung-sun Yen ch’ing Wei pai Ch’u yü Hsing-shan Wei P’i Hsiang-kuo yüeh Wei shih jen yin P’ing-yüan Wei shih k’o shih Wei Wei Ssu-chün ping shih Wei Ssu-chün shih 184

K'an-yen 25,12 25,11 8,23 67,22 67,23 5,3 5,4 5,5 40,5 40,7 30,2 40,17 65,5 44,1 11,15 54,8 58,3 56,5 20,1 8,20 7,19 8,21 66,9 66,12 34,1 62,15 7,16 52,9 52,5 17,5 73,15 44,20 58,24 49,9 49,8 62,8 62,7 51,26 48,16 39,14 42,7 73,12 73,13 73,14

Index 115 114 17 427 428 3 3A 4 234 236 153 229 409 260 37 330 362 337 96 15 14 15A 414 417 181 398 12A 315 311 73 476 257 356 286 285 391 390 253 304 275 226 243 473 474 475

Finding List Alphabetical

K'an-yen

Index

Wei ta yin yüeh Wei t’ai-tzu tsai Ch’u Wei t’ai-tzu tzu chiang kuo Wei-wang chiang hsiang Chang Wei-wang ling Hui Shih chih Wei-wang wei Chiu-li chih meng Wei-wang wen Chang Mao Wei-wang wen yü Mao Tzu-hua Wei-wang yi Ch’u-wang mei jen Wei-wang yü kung Han-tan Wei-wang yü Lung-yang Chün Wei Wei Jan yüeh, Ch’u p’o Wei Wei Jan yüeh ho pu ch’eng Wei Wei wei Ch’u-wang yüeh Wei wei Wei Jan yüeh Wei Wen-hou chieh tao yü Chao Wei Wen-hou yü T’ien Tzu-fang Wei Wen-hou yü ts’an ChungWei Wen-tzu T’ien Hsü Chou Wei Wu-hou yü chu tai fu Wei Yang wang Wei ju Ch’in Wei yin Fu Ting Wei Ying-hou yüeh, chün ch’in Wen-hou yü yü jen ch’i lieh Wen-hsin-hou ch’u tsou Wen-hsin-hou yü kung Chao Wen jen chih Chou Wu kuo fa Ch’in, Wei, yü ho Wu kuo fa Ch’in wu kung erh Wu kuo fa Ch’in wu kung pa yü Wu kuo pa Ch’eng-kao Wu kuo yüeh Ch’in yi fa Ch’i Wu kuo yüeh erh kung Ch’in Wu-ling-wang p’ing chou hsien Yeh-yang chün (see 54,9) Yeh Chao-wang ch’ieh yü t’ien Yen Chao-wang shou p’o'Yen hou Yen chi Yen feng Sung jen Jung Fen Yen kung Ch’i, Ch’i p’o Yen kung Ch’i ch’ü ch’i shih Yen-shih wei tsei Yen Shuai chien Kung-chung Yen t’ai-tzu Tan chih yü Ch’in Yen-wang K’uai chi li

72,5 55,11 72,7 50,21 52,8 67,20 56,3 34,19 37,2 57,18 58,25 17,4 17,6 57,13 17,3 38,5 49,6 73,1 52,7 49,7 11,1 42,6 19,16 49,5 21,7 21,6 6,12 36,7 52,6 47,4 17,7 32,2 59,11 40,4

467 332A 468A 298 314 425 335 180 201 350 357 74 72 345 71 217 283 477 313 284 40 242 82 282 102 101 10 196 312 263 75 162 369 233 331 451 440 452 266 155 154 22 376 462 437

70,7 69,11 71,8 47,7 31,4 30,3 8,28 60,18 71,5 68,9

185

INTRIGUES

Alphabetical

r

K'an-yen

Index

71,3 69,14 68,4 •15,4 15,5 15,10 15,7 60,14 15,9 74,7 19,17 18,12 18,14 33,11 47,6 38,13 37,8 6,15 18,10 49,3 74,9 9,4

460 443 432 56 57 62 59 372 61 482 83 78 80 172 265 212 207 12 77 280 485 26

Yen-wang hsi shih Li-fu Yen-wang wei Su Tai yüeh Yen Wen-kung shih Yi-ch’ü Chiin chih Wei Yi P’ien-ch’iao chien Ch’in Yi-yang chih yi Ch’u pan Ch’in Yi-yang chih yi Feng Chang Yi-yang chih yi Yang Ta Yi-yang wei te Yin-chi yü Chiang-chi cheng Ying-hou shih Han chih Ju-nân Ying-hou wei Chao-wang yüeh Ying-hou yüeh Cheng jen Ying jen yu yü Yü-ch’ing wei Chao-wang Yü Ch’ing wei Ch’un-shen Chün Yu hsien pu-ssu chih yao Yu-hsing-ch’in Yüeh Ch’in, Han chih ti-hsing Yüeh Yang wei Wei chiang Yüeh Yang . . . kung Chung-shan Yung-shih chih yi

Numerical K ’anyen 4,1 4,2* 5,3 5,4 5,5* 5,6 5,7 5,8 6,9 6,10 6,11

Numerical

SPTK

Ch’in hsing shih lin Chou Ch’in kung Yi-yang Tung-Chou yü Hsi-Chou chan Tung-Chou yü Hsi-Chou cheng Tung-Chou yü wei tao Chao-hsien tsai Yang-ti Ch’in chia tao yü Chou yi fa Han Ch’u kung Yung-shih Chou Tsui wei Lü Li yüeh Chou hsiang Lü Ts’ang Chou Wen-chün mien kung shih Chi

21 lb 2/ 3a 2/ 4a 2/ 4a 2/ 4b 2M a

T. T. T. T. T. T.

Chou, Chou, Chou, Chou, Chou, Chou,

Hui, Hui, Hui, Hui, Hui, Hui,

1 2 3 4 5 6

2/ 5b 2/ 5b 2/10b 2/12a

T. T. T. T.

Chou, Chou, Chou, Chou,

Hui, Hui, Hui, Hui,

6 8 18 21

2/12b T. Chou, Hui,

22

’ Indicates items translated.

186

Pad's List

Finding List K'anyen 6,12 6,13 6,14 6,15 7,16 7,17 7,18 7,19 8,20 8,21 8,22* 8,23 8,24 8,25 8,26 8,27 8,28 9,1 9,2 9,2 9,3 9,4 10,5 10,6* 10,7 10,8 10,9 10,10 10,11 10,12 11,1 11,2* 11,13 11,14 11,15 11,16 11,17

Numerical Wen jen chih Chou Huo wei Chou Tsui wei Chin T’öu Chou Tsui wei Chin T’ou (see 6,13) Yu-hsing-ch’in (see Shihhsing-ch’u) Wei Hsüeh-kung yüeh Ch’i t’ing Chu Fu Su Li wei Chou Tsui Wei Chou Tsui yüeh Ch’ou Ho Wei Chou Tsui wei Wei-wang Wei Chou Tsui yüeh Wei-wang Chao chü Chou chih chi ti Tu Ho yü chung Ching Ts’ui Chou Kung-f ai-tzu ssu San Kuo ai Ch’in Ch’ang T a (Kung T’a) wang Hsi-Chou Chao Chien yü Tung-Chou ngo Yen-shih wei tsei Hsüeh-kung yi Ch’i Ch’in pai Wei chiang Hsi Wu Ch’in kung Wei chiang Hsi Wu Ch’in ling Ch’u-li Chi Yung-shih chih yi Chou-chün chih Ch'in Su Li wei Chou-chün yüeh Ch’u ping tsai shan nan Ch’u ch’ing tao Erh-Chou Ssu-k’ou Pu Ch’in chao Chou-chün Hsi Wu pai yü Yi Ch’üeh Han, Wei yi ti Wei Yang wang Wei ju Ch’in Su Ch’in shih chiang lien heng Ch’in yü kung Chou . Kung T’a wei Chou-chün yüeh Wei Ch’i-wang yüeh San kuo kung Ch’in fan Hsi Wu pai Chou shih Chou Tsu

SPTK

Pao's List

2/13a T. Chou, Hui,

23

2/13b T. Chou, Hui,

24

2/14a T. Chou, Hui,

25

2/14b 2/14b 2/15a 2/ 6a 2/ 6b 2/ 6b 2/ 7a 2/ 8a 2/ 8b 1/ 3b 2/ 9a

T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, H. Chou, Nan, T. Chou, Hui,

26 19

2/ 9b 2/10a 1/ 2a 1/ 6b 1/ 8b 1/ 8b 1/ 5a 1/ 5b 1/12b 1/1 la 1/lib l/12a 1/ 4a 1/12b 1/ 9b 1/ 8a 3/ la 3/ 2a 1/13a 1/13a 1/ 3b 1/ 7b

T. Chou, Hui, T. Chou, Hui, H. Chou, An, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, Ch’in, Hsiao, Ch’in, Hui-wen, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan, H. Chou, Nan,

1/10b H. Chou, Nan,

♦Indicates items translated.

187

20

9 10

11 12

13 14 1 15 16 17 1 6

9 9 4 5 16 12

13 14 3 15 10

8

1 1 17 18 2

7 11

INTRIGUES

K'anyen 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 12,10 14,1 14,11* 14,12* 15,2 15,3 15,4 15.5* 15,6* 15,7 15,8* 15,9 15,10 15,11 16,1 16,2 16,12 16,13 16,14 16,15

Numerical Ch’in Hui-wang wei Han Ch’iian-tzu yiieh Leng Hsiang wei Ch’in-wang yiieh Chang Yi shui Ch’in-wang yiieh Chang Yi yü chia Ch’in ping Ssu-ma Ts’o yü Chang Yi Chang Yi chih ts’an Ch’u-li Chi Chang Yi yii yi Han Chung yü Ch’u Ch’u kung Wei, Chang Yi wei Ch’in-wang Ch’i chu Ch’u kung Ch’in T’ien Hsin chih wei Ch’en Chen Ch’en Chen ch’U Ch’u chih Ch’in Ch’u chiieh Ch’i Ch’in Hui-wang ssu Yi-ch’ii Chiin chih Wei Yi P’ien-chiao chien Ch’in Wu-wang Ch’in Wu-wang wei Kan Mao yiieh Yi-yang chih yi Feng Chang wei Kan Mao kung Yi-yang Yi-yang wei te Yi-yang chih yi Ch’u pan Ch’in Ch’in-wang wei Kan Mao yiieh Hsiieh-kung wei Wei wei Wei Jan Ch’in k’o ch’ing Tsao (wei Jang-hou) Kan Mao wang Ch’in ch’ieh chih Ch’i Kan Mao hsiang Ch’in Kan Mao yiieh Ch’in, Wei Hsing-shan chih shih

♦Indicates items translated.

188

SPTK

Pad’s List

3/ 6b Ch’in, Hui-wang,

2

3/30b Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

5

3/64a Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/18b Ch’in, Wu-wang, 3/13a Ch’in, Hui-wang,

32 1 10

3/18b Ch’in, Wu-wang,

2

3/19a Ch’in, Wu-wang,

3

3/ 8b Ch’in, Hui-wang, 3/15a Ch’in, Hui-wang, 3/ 9a Ch’in, Hui-wang,

6 11 7

Ch’in, Hui-wang, Ch’in, Hui-wang, Ch’in, Hui-wang, Ch’in, Hui-wang,

8 12 13 9

3/20b Ch’in, Wu-wang,

5

3/20b Ch’in, Wu-wang,

6

3/22b Ch’in, Wu-wang, 3/22b Ch’in, Wu-wang, 3/23a Ch’in, Wu-wang,

7 8 9

3/23b Ch’in, Wu-wang,

10

3/24a Ch’in, Wu-wang,

12

3/291* Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

4

3/35b Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

13

3/27b 3/24b 3/24b 3/33b

1 13 13 12

3/10b 3/17a 3/18b 3/12a

Ch’in, Chao-hs., Ch’in, Wu-wang, Ch’in, Wu-wang, Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

Finding List K'anyen 16,16* 17,3 17,4 17,5 17,6 17,7 17,8 18,9 18,10 18,11 18,12* 18,13* 18,14 19,1 19,2 19,3 19,15 19,16 19,17 19,18 19,19* 20,1 20,4 20,5 20,6 20,7 20,8 20,9 20,10

Numerical

SPTK

Ch’in Hsiian t’ai-hou Wei wei Wei Jan yüeh Wei Wei Jan yüeh, Ch’u p’o Wei Jang-hou yüeh Wei Wei Jan yüeh ho pu ch’eng Wu kuo pa Ch’eng-kao Fan-tzu yin Wang Chi ju Ch’in Fan Sui chih Yüeh Ch’in, Han chih ti hsing Fan Sui yüeh, ch’en chü Shan-tung Ying-hou wei Chao-wang yüeh Ch’in kung Han wei Hsing Ying-hou yüeh Cheng jen Ch’in ch’ü Ch’u Han-chung Hsüeh-kung ju Wei erh ch’u Ch’i nü San kuo kung Ch’in ju Han-ku T’ien-hsia chih shih Wei Ying-hou yüeh, chün ch’in Ma Fu Ying-hou shih Han chih Ju-nan Ch’in kung Han-tan shih ch’i yüeh Ts’ai Tse chien chu Wei Ch’in-wang yüeh, ch’en ch’ieh huo Ch’in Chao-wang wei tso-yu yüeh Ch’u, Wei chan yü Hsing-shan Ch’u shih ehe Ching Li tsai Ch’in Ch’u-wang shfli Ching Li ju Ch’in Ch’in-wang yü chien Tun Jo Ch’ing-hsiang-wang erh-shih nien Huo wei liu kuo shui Ch’inwang yüeh

3/52b 3/19b 3/33b 3/30b

Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in,

Chao-hs., Wu-wang, Chao-hs., Chao-hs.,

23 4 7 6

3/31a 3/31b 3/42b 3/44a 3/44a

Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in,

Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs.,

11 8 17 18 18

3/48b 3/50a 3/52b 3/53a 3/32a

Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in, Ch’in,

Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs., Chao-hs.,

19 20 23 24 10

3/33a Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/29a Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/53b Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

10 3 25

3/54b Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

26

3/55a Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

27

3/59b Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/70b Ch’in, Chao-hs.,

30 32

3/25a Ch’in, Wu,

15

3/51a Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/ 7a Ch’in, Hui-wen,

21 3

3/ 7b Ch’in, Hui-wen,

4

3/ 8a Ch’in, Hui-wen, 3/79a Ch’in, Shih-huang,

5 2

Pad's List

3/36b Ch’in, Chao-hs., 3/80a Ch’in, Shih-huang,

’ Indicates item s translated.

189

14 3

INTRIGUES

K'anyen 21,2 21,3 21,4 21,5 21,6* 21,7 21,8 22,1 23,2 24,3 24,4 24,5 24,6* 25,7 25,8* 25,9 25,10 25,11 25,12* 25,13 25,14 25,15 25,16 25,17 26,1 26,2

Numerical Ch’in-wang yti Chung Ch’i cheng lun Hsien Tse wei Kung-sun Hsiao yüeh Lou Wu yüeh Ch’in, Wei, Wei t’ai-tzu P’u-yang jen LU Pu-wei Wen-hsin hou yü kung Chao Wen-hsin hou yü kung Chao Ssu kuo wei yi Ch’u Wei-wang chan sheng yü Hsü-chou Ch’i chiang feng T’ien Ying yü Hsüeh Ch’ing-kuo Chün chiang ch'eng Hsüeh Ch’ing-kuo Chün wei Ch’iwang yüeh Ch’ing-kuo Chün shan Ch’i Mao-pien Han-tan chih nan, Chao ch’iu chiu Nan-liang chih nan Ch’eng-hou Tsou Chi wei Ch’i hsiang T’ien Chi wei Ch’i chiang T’ien Chi wang Ch’i erh chih Ch’u Tsou Chi shih Hsüan-wang Tsou Chi hsiu pa chih yu yü Ch’in chia tao Han, Wei Ch’u chiang fa Ch’i, Lu ch’in chih Ch’in fa Wei, Ch’en Chen ho San-Chin Su Ch’in wei Chao he tsung shui Ch’i Chang Yi wei Ch’in lien heng shui Ch’i Ch’i, Han wei yü kuo Chang Yi shih Ch’in Hui-wang

^Indicates items translated.

190

SPTK

Poo's List

3/27a Ch’in, Wu, 3 /28b Ch’in, Chao-hs., 7/30b 3/75a 3/77b 6/81b 3/82a

16 2

Wei, Ai 20 Ch’in, Hsiao-wen, 1 Ch’in, Shih-huang, 1 1 Chao, Yu, Ch’in, Shih-huang, 4

4/ 7b Ch’i, Hsüan,

5

4/18b Ch’i, Min,

3

4/19a Ch’i, Min,

4

4/19b Ch’i, Min,

5

4/19b Ch’i, Min,

6

4/ lb Ch’i, Wei, 4/ 5b Ch’i, Hsüan,

2 1

4/ 3b Ch’i, Wei, 4/ 6b Ch’i, Hsüan,

5 2

4/ 4/ 4/ 4/

3 4 6 3

7a 7b 4b 2a

Ch’i, Hsüan, Ch’i, Hsüan, Ch’i, Wei, Ch’i, Wei,

4/ 3a Ch’i, Wei,

4

4/2tb Ch’i, Min,

7

4/ 8b Ch’i, Hsüan,

7

4/25a Ch’i, Min, 4/24a Ch’i, Min, 4/26b Ch’i, Min,

9 8 10

Finding List K'artyen 26,3 26,4* 26,5 26,6 27,1 27,2 27,7 27,8 28,1 28,3* 28,4 28,5 28,6 28,7 28,8 28,9 28,10 28,11 28,12 29,2 29,3* 29,4* 29,5 29,6* 29,6 29,7 29,8 29,9

Numerical Hsi Shou yi Liang wei Ch’i chan Chao Yang wei Ch’u fa Wei Ch’in kung Chao, Chao ling * Lou Han Ch’üan chih nan, Ch’i, Yen chan Ch’u-wang ssu, t’ai-tzu tsai Ch’i Ch’i-wang fu-jen ssu Ch’in kung Chao, Ch’angp’ing, Ch’i Huo wei Ch’i-wang yüeh Chou, Han Ch’i jen yu Feng Hsüan che Meng-ch’ang Chün chiang ju Ch’in Meng-ch’ang Chün tsai Hsüeh Meng-ch’ang Chün feng Hsia-hou Chang Meng-ch’ang Chün yen tso Meng-ch’ang Chün she-jen Meng-ch’ang Chün yu she-jen Meng-ch’ang Chün ch’u hsing kuo Shun Yü-k’un yi jih Ch’i yü fa Wei, Ch’un-yü K’un Kuo-tzu yüeh Ch’in p’o Ma Fu Meng-ch’ang-chün wei ts’ung Lu Chung-lien wei Mengch’ang-chün Meng-ch’ang-chün chu yü Ch’i Ch’i Hsüan-wang chien Yen Ch’u Hsien sheng Wang Tou Hsien sheng Ch’un-yü K’un Ch’i wang shih shih wen Chao Wei-hou Ch’i jen chien T’ien P’ien Kuan Yen te tsui Ch’i-wang

SPTK

Pad's List

4/27b Ch’i, Min, 4/17b Ch’i, Min,

11 1

4/18a Ch’i, Min,

2

4/ 8a Ch’i, Hsüan,

6

4/28a Ch’i, Min, 4/31b Ch’i, Min,

12 13

4/62b Ch’i, Chien,

!

4/63a Ch’i, Chien, 4/36b Ch’i, Min,

2 21

4/31b Ch’i, Min, 4/32b Ch’i, Min,

14 15

4/33a 4/33b 4/34a 4/35a

16 17 18 19

Ch’i, Ch’i, Ch’i, Ch’i,

Min, Min, Min, Min,

4/35b Ch’i, Min, 4/10b Ch'i, Hsüan, 4/1 la Ch’i, Hsüan,

20 8 9

7/63b Ch’i, Chien, 4/60b Ch’i, Hsiang,

3 5

4/61b Ch’i, Hsiang, 4/39b Ch’i, Min,

6 22

4/12a Ch’i, Hsüan, 4/15a Ch’i, Hsüan, 4/15a Ch’i, Hsüan,

11 12 12

4/64b Ch’i, Chien, 4/16b Ch’i, Hsüan, 4/17a Ch’i, Hsüan,

4 13 14

in d ic a te s item s translated.

191

INTRIGUES

K'artyen 30,1a 30,1b* 30,2 30,3* 31,4* 30,10 30,10 30,10 31,5 31,5 31,6* 31,7 31,8 31,9 31,10 32,1* 32,2 32,3* 32,4 32,5* 32,6 33,7* 33,8 33,9 33,10 33,11 33,12 33,13 33,14 33,15

Numerical Su Ch’in shui Ch’i Min-wang yüeh Ch’i fu kuo chih min Wang-sun Chia nien shih wu Yen kung Ch’i ch’ü ch’i shih yü ch’eng Yen kung Ch’i, Ch’i p’o Su-tzu tzu Yen chih Ch’i Su Ch’in tzu Yen chih Ch’i Su Ch’in wei Ch’i wang yüeh (Index only) Tiao Po ch’ang wu T’ien Tan Tao Ti Ch’ang wu T’ien Tan T’ien Tan chiang kung Ti P’u Shang chih shih Ch’i Min-wang chih yü sha Ch’i wang Chien ju ch’ao Ch’i yi Nao-chün chih luan ch’ou Ch’in Ch’i Ch’u kou nan Wu kuo yüeh Ch’in yi fa Chi Ching Hsüan-wang wen ch’ün ch’en yüeh Chao Hsi-hsü yü P’engch’eng Chiin Han-tan chih nan Chao Hsi-hsü Chiang Yin yü wu Chao Hsi-hsü (33,8) Chiang Yi wu Chao Hsi-hsü (Chiang Ch’i) Chiang Yi yü wu Chao Hsihsü (32,6) Chiang Yi shui yü An-ling Chün Chiang Yi wei Wei shih yü Ch’u Ying jen yu yü Ch’eng Hun ch’u Chou Han Kung-shu yu Ch’i, Wei Ch’u Tu Ho shui Ch’u wang Ch’u wang wen yü Fan Huan

’ Indicates items translated.

192

Pad's List

SPTK

4/41b Ch’i, Min, 4/50b Ch’i, Min, 4/51b Ch’i, Min,

25 26 27

4/52a 4/56a 4/40a 4/40b

Ch'i, Ch’i, Ch’i, Ch’i,

Hsiang, Hsiang, Min, Min,

1 2 23 23

4/40b 4/57a 4/57a 4/59a 4/ la 4/66a 4/67a

Ch’i, Min, Ch’i, Hsiang, Ch’i, Hsiang, Ch’i, Hsiang, Ch’i, Wei, Ch’i, Chien, Ch’i, Chien,

23 3 3 4 1 5 6

5/34a Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/ la Ch’u, Hsüan, 5/14a Ch’u, Huai,

5 1 3

5/ 2b Ch'u, Hsüan,

4

5/ 3a Ch’u, Hsüan,

5

5/ lb Ch’u, Hsüan,

2

5/ 3a Ch’u, Hsüan,

6

5/ 4a Ch’u, Hsüan,

8

5/ 3b Ch’u, Hsüan,

9

5f 4a Ch’u, Hsüan,

10

5/ 2a 5/ 6a 5/26a 5/27a 5/27b 5/27b

3 11 20 21 22 23

Ch’u, Hsüan, Ch’u, Hsüan, Ch’u, Huai, Ch’u, Huai, Ch’u, Huai, Ch’u, Huai,

Finding List K'anyen Hi 34,2 34,3 34,4 34,16 34,17 34,18 34,19* 35,1 35,2 35,3 35,4 35,5 35,6 35,7 35,8* 35,9 36,1 36,5 36,6 36,7 36,8 36,9 36,10 37,2 37,3 37,4* 37,5

Numerical Wei hsiang Ti Ch’iang ssu Ch’i, Ch’in yiieh kung Ch’u Shu Shih fa Gh’u Szu kuo fa Ch’u Su Ch’in wei Chao ho tsung shui Ch’u Chang Yi wei Ch’in p’o tsung lien Chang Yi hsiang Ch’in Wei wang wen yii Moao Tzu -hua yiieh Su-tzu wei Ch’u wang yiieh Su Ch’in chih Ch’u Ch’u wang chu Chang Yi yii Wei Chang Yi chih Ch’u p’in Ch’u Huai-wang chii Chang Yi Ch’u wang chiang ch’u Chang-tzu Ch’in pai Ch’u Han-chung Ch’u Hsiang-wang wei t’aitzu chih Nii-a wei Su-tzu yiieh Huo wei Ch’u wang yiieh Ch’u wang ling Chao Ch’iao chih Ch’in Chang Yi chu Hui Shih yii Wei Wu kuo fa Ch’in, Wei, yii ho Ch’en Chen kao Ch’u chih Wei Ch’in fa Yi-yang, Ch’u wang wei Ch’en T’ang Chii chien Ch’unshen Chiin Wei wang yi Ch’u wang mei jen Ch’u-wang-hou ssu Chuang Hsin wei Ch’u Hsiang-wang Ch’i Ming shui Cho Hua

SPTK 5/28b 5/29a 5/29b 5/25b

Pad's List Ch’u, Ch’u, Ch’u, Ch’u,

Huai, Huai, Huai, Huai,

24 25 26 19

5/ 6b Ch’u, Wei,

2

5/18a Ch’u, Huai, 5/21a Ch’u, Huai,

9 10

5/ 8b Ch’u, Wei, 5/12a Ch’u, Wei, 5/ 6a Ch’u, Wei,

3 4 1

5/13b Ch’u, Huai, 5/15b Ch’u, Huai,

2 6

5/16b Ch’u, Huai,

7

5/17b Ch’u, Huai, 5/30a Ch’u, Huai,

8 27

5/30a Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/32b Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/42b Ch’u, K’ao-lieh,

1 2 4

5/22a Ch’u, Huai,

1

5/23a Ch’u, Huai, 5/14b Ch’u, Huai,

12 4

5/23b Ch’u, Huai,

13

5/25b Ch’u, Huai,

18

5/38a Ch’u K’ao-lieh,

1

5/23b Ch’u, Huai, 5/24a Ch’u, Huai,

14 15

5/34b Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/24b Ch’u, Huai,

6 16

‘ Indicates items translated.

193

INTRIGUES

K'anyen 37,6 37,7* 37,8* 37,9 37,10 38,1 38,2 38,3 38,4* 38,5 38,6 38,11* 38,12 38,13 39,7 39,8* 39,9 39,10 39,11 39,12 39,13 39,14 39,15 40,1a 40,1b 40,2

Numerical Huo wei Huang Ch’i yiieh Ch’ang-sha chih nan Yu hsien pu-ssu chih yao K’o shui Ch’un-shen Chlin yiieh T’ien-hsia ho tsung, Chao shih Wei Chia Chih Po ts’ung Han, Wei ping Chih Po shuai Chao, Han, Wei Chang Meng-t’an chi ku Chao tsung Chin Pi Yang chih sun, Yüjang Wei Wen-hou chieh tao yü Chao Ch’in, Han wei Liang Han Ming chien Ch’un-shen Chiin Ch’u Kao-lieh wang wu tzu Yü Ch’ing wei Ch’un-shen Chün Fu Chi wei shih erh chü Su Ch’in shui Li Tui Chao shou t'ien-hsia ch’ieh yi fa Ch’i Ch’i kung Sung, Feng-yang Chün pu yü Ch’in-wang wei kung tzu T’a yüeh Su Ch’in wei Chao-wang shih yü Ch’in Kan Mao wei Ch’in yüeh Wei Wei P’i Hsiang-kuo yüeh (Huo) wei P’i Hsiang-kuo yüeh Su Ch’in ts’ung Yen chih Chao Chao Hui-wen-wang san shih nien Ch’in kung Chao, Su-tzu (wei) wei Ch’in

‘ Indicates items translated.

194

SPTK

Pao's List

5/29b Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/33a Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 5/33b Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs.,

7 3 4

5/38b Ch’u, K’ao-lieh,

2

5/43a Ch’u, K’ao-lieh, 6/ 4b Chao, Hsiang, 6/ la Chao, Hsiang,

5 2 1

6/ 5b Chao, Hsiang,

3

6/ 7a Chao, Hsiang,

4

6/ 9a Chao, Lieh, 7/ 6b Wei, Hui,

1 4

5/44a Ch’u, K’ao-lieh, 5/45a Ch’u, K’ao-lieh,

6 7

5/41a Ch’u, K’ao-lieh, 6/32a Chao, Hui-wen, 6/32b Chao, Hui-wen,

3 2 3

6/44b Chao, Hui-wen,

9

6/40a Chao, Hui-wen,

7

6/55b Chao, Hsiao,

2

6/13b Chao, Su, 6/16a Chao, Wu, 6/70b Chao, Hsiao,

2 3 9

6 / 71 a

Chao, Hsiao,

6/ 9b Chao, Su,

10 1

6/51a Chao, Hui-wen,

14

3/61a Ch’in, Chao,

30

Finding List K'artyen 40,3 40,4 40,5 40,6 40,7 41,2 41.3 41,4 41.5 42,6 42,7 42,8 42,9 42,10 43,11 43,12 43,13* 43,14 43,15 43,16* 43,16 43,17 44,1 44,2 44,18

Numerical Chang Yi wei Ch’in lien heng shui Chao Wu-ling-wang p’ing chou hsien Chii Wang li Chou Shao wei ch’uan Chao, Yen hou Hu fu Wang p’o Yüan Yang Chao shih Chi Ho chih Ch’in Ch’i p’o Yen, Chao yii ts’un chih Ch’in kung Chao, Lin Lishih Ch’i pa Fu Ting yü yi Chao ho Ch’i, Wei Wei yin Fu Ting Wei shih jen yin P’ing-yUan Chiin P’ing-yiian Chiin wei Feng Chi yüeh P’ing-yiian Chiin wei P’ingyang Chiin Ch’in kung Chao yii Ch’angp’ing Ch’in kung Chao, P’ingyiian Chiin shih Ch’in, Chao chan yii Ch’angp’ing Ch’in wei Chao chih Han-tan Shui Chang Hsiang-kuo yiieh Cheng T’ung pei chien Chaowang Chien-hsin Chiin kuei yii Chao Wei Ling-kung chin Yung-tan Huo wei Chierf-hsin Chiin Wei Ch’i hsien shu Chaowang yiieh Ch’i yii kung Sung, Ch’in ling Ch’i Chia K’u Ch’eng-ch’ang wei Chien-hsin Chiin

SPTK

Pad's List

6/14b Chao, Wu,

2

6/16b 6/23b 6/25b 6/26a 6/27b

Chao, Wu, Chao, Wu, Chao, Wu, Chao, Wu, Chao, Wu,

4 5 6 7 9

6/14a Chao, Wu,

1

6/47b Chao, Hui-wen,

10

6/30a Chao, Wu, 6/31a Chao, Wu,

11 12

6/72a Chao, Hsiao,

11

6/72b Chao, Hsiao,

12

6/73a Chao, Hsiao,

13

6/58b Chao, Hsiao,

4

6/67a Chao, Hsiao,

6

6/58a Chao, Hsiao, 6/62b Chao, Hsiao, 6/73b Chao, Hsiao,

3 5 14

6/48b Chao, Hui-wen,

15

6/74b Chao, Hsiao, 10/ 5b Chao, Hsiao, 6/75a Chao, Hsiao,

15 15 16

6/78a Chao, Hsiao,

22

6/34b Chao, Hui-wen,

5 17

6/76a Chao, Hsiao,

’ Indicates items translated.

195

INTRIGUES

K'anyen 44,19 44,20 44,21 44,22 46,3 47,4 47,5 47,6 47,7 47,8 47,9 47,10 47,11 47,12 47,13* 48,1 48,14 48,15 48,16 48,17 48,18* 48,19 49,2 49,3 49,4 49,5 49,6 49,7 49,8

Numerical Hsi Hsieh chien Chien-hsin Chiin Wei K’uei wei Chien-hsin Chün yüeh Ch’in kung Chao ku to chih yin Ch’i jen Li Po chien Chao Hsiao-ch’eng Ch’i chiang kung Sung erh Ch’in yin Wu kuo fa Ch’in wu kung pa yii Ch’engLou Huan chiang shih YU-ch’ing wei Chao-wang Yen feng Sung jen Jung Fen San kuo kung Ch’in, Chao kung Chung-shan Chao shih Chao Chuang ho tsung Chai Chang ts’ung Liang lai Feng Chi wei Lu-ling Chiin Feng Chi ch’ing chien Chaowang K’o chien Chao-wang yiieh Chih Po so ti yii Wei Ch’in kung Wei ch’U Ning-yi Chao shih Yao Chia yiieh Han, Wei Wei pai Ch’u yii Hsing-shan Ch’in chao Ch’un-p’ing-hou Chao t’ai-hou hsin yung shih Ch’in shih Wang Chien kung Chao Han, Chao hsiang nan Yiieh Yang wei Wei chiang Hsi-men Pao wei Yeh ling Wen-hou yii yii jen ch’i lieh Wei Wen-hou yii T’ien Tzufang Wei Wu-hou yii chu tai fu Wei kung-shu Yi1 wei Weichiang

‘Indicates items translated.

1 Index has ts'o. 196

Pad's List

SPTK

6/76b Chao, Hsiao,

18

6/77a Chao, Hsiao,

19

6/77a Chao, Hsiao,

20

6/77b Chao, Hsiao,

21

6/37b Chao, Hui-wen,

6

Chao, Hui-wen, Chao, Hui-wen, Wei, An-li, Chao, Hui-wen,

6 12 5 13

6/31 b Chao, Hui-wen,

1

6/41a 6/49b 7/51b 6/50a

6/79a Chao, Hsiao, 6/79a Chao, Hsiao, 6/79a Chao, Hsiao,

23 24 25

6/79b 6/80b 7/ la 6/68a

Chao, Hsiao, Chao, Hsiao, Wei, Huan, Chao, Hsiao,

26 27 1 7

6/70a 6/27b 6/81b 6/53a

Chao, Chao, Chao, Chao,

6/85a 7/ lb 7/ 2a 7/ 2b 7/ 3a

Chao, Yu, Wei, Wen, Wei, Wen, Wei, Wen, Wei, Wen,

3 1 2 3 4

7/ 3a Wei, Wen, 7/ 3b Wei, Wu,

5 1

7/ 5a Wei, Hui,

1

Hsiao, Wu-ling, Tao-hs., Hsiao,

8 8 1 1

Finding List K ’a n N u m e r ic a l

yen

49,9 49,10 49,11 49,12 50,13 50,14 50,15 50,16 50,17 50,18 50,19 50,20 50,21 51,22 51,23 51,24 51,25 51,26 52,1 52,2 52,3 52,4 52,5 52,6 52,7

Wei kung-shu Yi ping Su-tzu wei Chao ho tsung shui Wei Chang Yi wei Ch’in lien heng shui Wei Ch’i, Wei yüeh erh fa Ch’u Su Ch’in chii yii Wei Ch’en Chen wei Ch’in shih yü Ch’i Chang Yi wu Ch’en Chen yii Wei Chang Yi yii ch’iung Ch’en Chen Chang Yi tsou chih Wei Chang Yi yii yi Wei ho yii Ch’in, Han Chang Tzu-yi yi Ch’in hsiang Wei Chang Yi yii ping hsiang Ch’in, Wei Wei-wang chiang hsiang Chang Yi Ch’u hsii Wei liu ch’eng Hsii-chou chih yi Ch’in pai Tung-Chou yii Wei chan Ch’i-wang chiang chien Yen, Chao, Ch’u Wei ling Kung-sun Yen ch’ing ho yii Ch’in Hsi-shou T’ien P’an1yii te Ch’i Hsi-shou chien Liang chiin yiieh , Shih Chii fei Hsi-shou Ch’u-wang kung Liang nan Wei Hui-wang ssu Wu kuo fa Ch’in wu kung erh huan Wei Wen-tzu, T’ien Hsii Chou Hsiao

Pad's List

SPTK

7/ 6a Wei, Hui,

2

7/12a Wei, Hsiang,

3

7/23b Wei, Ai, 7/25b Wei, Ai, 7/37a Wei, Chao,

10 11 4

7/18b Wei, Ai,

2

7/16b Wei, Hsiang,

7

7/16b Wei, Hsiang, 7/26a Wei, Ai,

2 12

7/17a Wei, Hsiang,

9

7/17b Wei, Hsiang,

10

7/14b Wei, Ai,

4

7/14b Wei, Hsiang, 7/15a Wei, Hsiang, 7/12a Wei, Hsiang,

6 5 2

7/35a Wei, Chao,

1

7/20a Wei, Ai,

3

7/20b Wei, Ai, 7/21a Wei, Ai,

4 6

7/21 b 7/23a 7/23a 7/1 la

Wei, Wei, Wei, Wei,

7 8, 9 1

Ai, Ai, Ai, Hsiang,

5

7/37b Wei, Chao,

13

7/26a Wei, Ai,

1 Index has mien.

197

INTRIGUES

K'anyen 52,8 52,9 52,27 53,10 53,11 53,12 53,13 53,14 53,15 53,16* 53,17 54,1 54,2 . 54,3 54,4 54,5 54,6 54,7 54,8 54,9 55,1 55,2 55,10 55,11 56,3 56,4

Numerical Wei-wang ling Hui Shih chih Ch’u Wei Huo-wang ch’i ching nei chung Kung-sun Yen wei Wei chiang Ch’i, Wei chan yii Ma-ling Hui Shih wei Han, Wei chiao Tien Hsü kuei yü Wei-wang T’ien Hsü ssu Ch’in chao Wei hsiang Hsinan Chtin Ch’in, Ch’u kung Wei P’i-shih P’ang Ts’ung yü tai tzu chih yü Han-tan Liang-wang, Wei Ying shang chu hou yü Ch’in yüeh Chao erh fa Wei Mang Wan2 wei Ch’in-wang Ch’in pai Wei yü Hua, tsou Mang Wan Ch’in pai Wei yü Hua, wang ch’ieh ju Hua-yang3 chih chan Wei pu sheng Ch’i yü fa Wei, Wei-wang shih jen Ch’in chiang fa Wei, Weiwang wen chih Wei chiang yü Ch’in kung Han Hua-yang-chün yüeh Wei Hsien shu Ch’in-wang yüeh Pa nien wei Wei-wang yüeh Ch’in shih Chao kung Wei Wei Tai-tzu tsai Ch’u Wei-wang wen Chang Mao K’o wei Ssu-ma Shih-ch'i yüeh

SPTK

7/26b Wei, Ai,

14

7/ 8b 7/20b 7/ 9b 7/10b 7/26b 7/27a

7 5 7 10 15 16

Wei, Wei, Wei, Wei, Wei, Wei,

Hui, Ai, Hui, Hui, Ai, Ai,

7/29a Wei, Ai, 7/31a Wei, Ai,

19 21

7/ 6b Wei, Hui,

41

7/ 7a Wei, Hui, 7/35b Wei, Chao, 7/36a Wei, Chao,

5 2 3

7/45a Wei, An-li,

1

7/48a Wei, An-li,

2

7/50a Wei, An-li,

3

4/1 lb Ch’i Hsüan,

10

7/40b Wei, Chao,

8

7/52a 7/40a 7/33b 7/58b 7/40a 7/32^ 7/595

Wei, An-li, Wei, Chao, Wei, Ai, Wei, An-li, Wei, Chao, Wei, Ai, Wei, An-li,

6 6 23 10 6 22 11

7/60a Wei, An-li,

12

'Indicates items translated.

1 K'an-yen has it listed as 5. 2 Index has mao. 3 Kan Yen has Hua-chun but this is obviously an error. 198

Pad's List

Finding List K'anyen 56,5 56,6 56,7 56,8 57,9 57,10 57,11 57,12 57,13 57,14 57,15 57,16 57,17 57,18 57,19 57,20 58,1 58,2 58,3 58,21 58,22 58,23 58,24 58,25 58,26 58,27 59,4 59,5 59,6

Numerical

SPTK

Pad's List

Wei, Ch’in fa Ch’u, Wei, wang pu pen 7/34b Wei, Ai, Jang-hou kung Ta-liang 7/42a Wei, Chao, Po Kuei wei Hsin-ch’eng Chiin yiieh ' 7/42b Wei, Chao, Ch’in kung Han chih Kuan 7/43a Wei, Chao, Ch’in, Chao kou nan erh chan 7/57a Wei, An-li, Ch’ang-p’ing chih yi P’ingtu Chiin 7/57b Wei, An-li, Lou Wu yiieh Ch’in, Wei chiang ling Ch’in 7/58a Wei, An-li, Jui Sung yii chiieh Ch’in, Chao chih 7/44a Wei, Chao, Wei Wei wei Ch’u-wang yiieh 7/44a Wei, Chao, Kuan Pi chih ling Chai Ch’iang 7/44b Wei, Chao, Ch’eng-yang-chiin yii yi Han, Wei t’ing Ch’in 7/45a Wei, Chao, Ch’in pa Ning-yi 7/60a Wei, An-li, Ch’in pa Han-tan kung Wei 7/60b Wei, An-li, Wei-wang yii kung Han-tan 7/61a Wei, An-li, Chou Hsiao wei Kung T o 7/61 b Wei, An-li, yiieh 7/28a Wei, Ai, Chou Tsui shan Ch’i 8/ la Han, Kang, San-Chin yi p’o Chih-shih (Ta) Ch’eng Wu ts’ung Chao 8/ 5b Han, Chao, lai 8/ 6a Han, Chao, Wei chih wei Han-tan 7/28a Wei, Ai, Chou Tsui ju Ch’i 7/50b Wei, An-li, Ch’in, Wei wei yii kuo 7 /61b Wei, An-li, Hsin-ling-chiin sha Chin Pi 7/62a Wei, An-li, Wei kung Kuan erh pu hsia 7/63b Wei, An-li, Wei-wang yii Lung-yang Chiin 7/66a Wei, Ching-min, Ch’in kung Wei chi Ch’in-wang shih ren wei 7/67a Wei, Ching-min, An-ling Shen-tzu ch’ing shih ch’i 8/ 6a Han, Chao, tsung hsiung kuan Su Ch’in wei Chao ho tsung 8/ 6b Han, Chao, shui Han Chang Yi wei Ch’in lien 8/1 lb Han, Hsiang, heng shui Han 199

24 9 to 11

7 8

9 12

13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 1 1 2

18 4 17 18 19 1 2

3 4 1

INTRIGUES

K'anyen

Numerical Hsiian (Hui)-wang wei Chiu 1 Liu yüeh Chang Yi wei Ch’i-wang yüeh Ch’u Chao Hsien hsiang Han Ch’in kung Hsing Wu kuo yüeh erh kung Ch’in Cheng Chiang tsai pa pai chin ju Ch’in Cheng Chiang chih tsou Chang Yi

59,7 59,8 59,9 59,10 59,11 59,12 59,13 60,14*

Yi-yang chih yi Yang Ta

60,15

Ch’in wei Yi-yang Yu T’eng wei Kung Chung yi Yi-yang chih ku Ch’in, Han chan yü Chu-tse Yen Shuai chien Kung Chung Han Kung Chung (shih Su Tai) wei Hsiang Huo wei Kung Chung yüeh ting ehe Han Kung Chung hsiang Ch’i Ch’u wei Yung-shih wu yüeh Ch’u wei Yung-shih, Han ling Leng Hsiang Kung Chung wei Han, Wei yi ti C’hi Hsüan chih chiao Hanwang yüeh Hsiang Ling chih yi Pi Ch’ang wei Huo wei Wei-wang, wang ching ssu chiang Kuan Yang wei Ch’un-shen Chün yüeh Kung Chung shu pu hsin yü chu hou Kung-shu shih Feng-chün yü Ch’in

60,16 60,17 60,18 60,19 60,20 60,21 61,1 61,2 61,3 61,4 61,5 61,22 61,23 61,24 62,6

"Indicates items translated. 1 Index reads it liu.

200

SPTK

Pao's List

8/ 8b 7/18b 8/ 9a 8/ 9b 8/32a

Han, Hsüan-hui, Wei, Ai, Han, Hsüan-hui, Han, Hsüan-hui, Han, Li,

1 1 2 3 2

8/21b Han, Hsiang,

13

8/13b Han, Hsiang,

2

{« S a

Ch’in>Wu>

8/14a Han, Hsiang,

11 3

8/21b Han, Hsiang, 8/10a Han, Hsüan-hui, 8 /11 b Han, Hsüan-hui,

12 4 5

8/14b Han, Hsüan-hui,

4

8/18a Han, Hsüan-hui, 5/42a Ch’u, Huai, 8/27a Han, Hsiang,

6 1 29

8/28a Han, Hsiang,

30

8/22a Han, Hsiang,

14

8/22b Han, Hsiang,

15

8/23a Han, Hsiang,

16

7/64b Wei, An-li, « 7/65a Wei, An-li,

20 21

8/19a Han, Hsiang,

7

8/23b Han, Hsiang,

17

Finding List K'anyen 62,7 62,8 62,9 62,10 62,11 62,12 62,13 62,14 62,15 62,16 63,17 63,18 63,19 63,20 63,21 63,22 64,1 64,2 64,3 65,4 65,5 65,6 65,7 66,8 66,9 66,10 66,11 66,12 66,13

Numerical Wei Kung-shu yüeh, kung yü te Wu Sui Wei Kung-shu yüeh ch’eng chou Ch’i ling Chou Tsui shih Cheng Han Kung-shu yü Chi Se cheng kuo, Chen Han Kung-shu yü Chi Se cheng kuo chung Ch’i Ming wei Kung-shu yüeh Kung-shu chiang sha Chi Se yeh Kung-shu ch’ieh sha Chi Se yeh Wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün yüeh Hu Yen chih ch’u Chi Se Chi Se wang chih Ch’u Leng Hsiang wei Han Chiu yüeh Ch’u ling Ching Li ju Han Han Chiu li wei chün Shih Chi wei Han shih Ch’u Han K’uei hsiang Han Huo wei Han Kung-chung yüeh, chin yu yi Huo wei Kung-chung yüeh, chin yu yi chü Han jen kung Sung Huo wei Han-wang yüeh Wei Cheng-wang yüeh Han Yang yi yü San-ch’uan Ch’in ta kuo yeh Chang Ch’ou chih ho Ch’i, Ch’u Wei Han Hsiang-kuo yüeh Kung Chung shih Han Min chih Ch’in Han hsiang Kung Chung Min shih Han Ch’ih Wei Han wei Ch’in-wang Han Min hsiang Ch’i

SPTK

Pao's List

8/19b Han, Hsiang,

8

8/20a Han, Hsiang,

9

8/20a Han, Hsiang,

10

8/23b Han, Hsiang,

18

8/24a Han, Hsiang, 8/24b Han, Hsiang,

19 20

8/24b Han, Hsiang,

21

8/25a 8/25b 8/25b 8/26a

Han, Han, Han, Han,

22 23 24 25

8/26b 8/26b 8/31a 5/48a 8/ lb

Han, Hsiang, Han, Hsiang, Han, Li, Ch’u, K’ao-lieh, Han, Lieh,

Hsiang, Hsiang, Hsiang, Hsiang,

26 27 1 8 1

8/30a Han, Hsiang,

30

Han, Han, Han, Han, Han, Han,

31 3 4 5 6 7

8/30b 8/32b 8 /33b 8/34b 8/37a 8/37b

Hsiang, Li, Li, Li, Li, Li,

8 9

8/38a Han, Li, 8/38a Han, Li, 8/21a Han, Hsiang,

11

8/38b Han, Hsiang, 8/16a Han, Hsiang, 8/39a Han, Li,

10 5 11

201

TRIGUES K 'a n -

N u m e r ic a l

SPTK

P a d 's L is t

yen

66.14 66.15 66.16 66.17 67.1 67.2 67.3 67.18 67.19 67.20 67.21 67.22 67.23 68.4 68,5* 68,6

68.7 68.8

68.9 68.10

69,11* 69.12 69.13 69,14* 70.1 70.2

(Huo) wei Shan-yang-chün yüeh Chao, Wei kung Hua-yang Ch’in chao Ch’u erh fa Ch’i Han shih chu Hsiang Chin yii Chou Su Ch’in chiang wei tsung pei shui Yen Feng-yang Chün shen pu ch’u yü Su Ch’in Ch’iian chih nan. Yen tsai chan Chang Teng wei Fei Yeh yüeh An Yi chih yü shih ssu Wei-wang wei Chiu-li chih meng Chien-hsin Chün ch’ing Han Hsi Tuan Ch’an wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün yüeh Tuan-kan Yüeh-jen wei Hsin-ch’eng Chün Yen Wen-kung shih Jen yu wu Su Ch’in yü Yenwang ehe Chang Yi wei Ch’in p’o tsung lien heng Kung T’a wei Yen shih Wei Su Ch’in ssu Yen-wang K’uai chi li Ch’u Su Ch’in ti li Yen Chao-wang shou p’o Yen hou Ch’i fa Sung, Sung chi Su Tai wei Yen Chao-wang yüeh Yen-wang wei Su Tai yüeh Ch’in chao Yen-wang Su Tai wei Feng-yang Chün shui Yen yü

indicates items translated.

202

8/39b 8/39b 5/15a

Han, Li, Han, Li, Ch’u Huai,

12 13 5

8/40a

Han, Li,

14

9/ 2a

Yen, Wen,

2

9/ la

Yen, Wen,

1

9/ 3a

Yen, Wen,

3

8/40a 7/65b

Wei, An-li, Wei, An-li,

15 22

8/40b

Han, Li,

16

8/41b

Han, Huan-hui,

1

3/41b Ch’in, Chao,

15

3/42a Ch’in, Chao, 9/ 3b Yen, Yi,

16 1

9/ 4b

Yen, Yi,

2

9/14b 9/16a 9/ 8b 9/12a 9/13b

Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen,

Chao, Chao, K’uai, K’uai, Kuai,

1 2 1 5 6

9/16a Yen, Chao, 9/19a* Yen, Chao,

3 5

9/21 a Yen, Chao, 9/23a Yen, Chao, 9/29a Yen, Chao,

6 7 13

9/23b Yen, Chao,

8

Finding List K 'a n yen

70,3 70,4 70,5 70,6 70,7 71,1 71,2 71,3 71,4 71,5 71,8 71,9 71,10 71,11 71,12 71,13 72,1 72,2 72,3 72,4 72,5 72,6 72,7 72,8* 72,9 72,10 73,1 73,2 73,3 73,11 73,12 73,13

N u m e r ic a l

Su Tai wei Yen shui Ch’i Su Tai tzu Ch’i shih jen wei Yen Su Tai tzu Ch’i hsien shu yii Yen Ch’en Ts’ui ho Ch’i, Yen Yen Chao-wang ch'ieh yii t’ien-hsia fa Ch’i, Han, Wei, kung kung Yen Chang Ch’ou wei chih yii Yen Yen-wang Hsi shih Li-fu Ch’in ping Chao pei hsiang ying Yen Yen t’ai-tzu Tan chih yii Ch’in Yen chi Ch’ang-kuo Chiin, Yiieh Yi Huo hsien shu Yen-wang K’o wei Yen-wang yiieh Chao ch’ieh fa Yen Ch’i, Wei cheng Yen Ch’i kung Sung, Sung shih Tsang-tzu Kung-shu Pan wei Ch’u she chi Hsi-shou fa Huang Liang-wang fa Han-tan Wei ta yin yiieh Sung yu Ch’u wei hsiung ti Wei t’ai-tzu chiang kuo Sun Sung K’ang-wang chih shih Chih Po yii fa Wei Chih Po yii hsi Wei Wei Wen-hou yii ts’an Chung-shatf Hsi-shou li wu wang Chung-shan yii Yen, Chao wei wang Ch’in kung Wei chih P’u Wei shih k’o shih Wei Wei Ssu-chiin ping

Pad's List

SPTK

9/ 8b Yen, Kuai,

2

9/27a Yen, Chao,

11

9/28a Yen, Chao, 9/ 9a Yen, K’uai,

12 3

9/26b Yen, Chao,

9

5/37b Ch’u, Ch’ing-hs., 9/38a Yen, Hui, 9/38a Yen, Hsi,

7 2 1

9/40a Yen, Hsi,

2

9/40b 9/32b 9/34a 9/10a 9/18a 9/32b 9/26b

Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen, Yen,

Hsi, Chao, Hui, Hui, Chao, Chao, Chao,

3 14 1 4 3 15 10

10/ 4a Sung, T’i-ch’eng,

1

Sung, Ching, Wei, Tao, Sung, Ching, Sung, Ching, Sung, Ching, Wei, Hui, Sung, Yen Wei, Tao, Wei, Tao,

1 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3

10/10b Chung-shan, 10/12a Chung-shan,

2 4

10/ la 10/ 6a 10/ 2b 10/ 3b 10/ 3b 7/10a 10/ 4b 10/ 7a 10/ 7b

10/14a 10/ 7b 8/10b 9/10b

Chung-shan, Wei, Ssu-chiin, Wei, Ssu-chiin, Wei, Ssu-chiin,

‘Indicates items translated. 203

5 1 2 4

TRIGUES K 'a n yen

73.14 73.15 74,4 74,5* 74,6 74,7* 74.8 74.9 74.10

N u m e r ic a l

Wei Ssurchün shih Wei jen ying hsin fu Ssu-ma Hsi shih Chao wei chi ch’iu hsiang Ssu-ma Hsi san hsiang Chung-shan Chu Fu yü fa Chung-shan Yin-chi yü Chiang-chi cheng hou Chung-shan Chiin hsiang tu shih tai fu Yueh Yang wei Wei chiang kung Chung-shan Chao-wang chi hsi min shan ping

indicates items translated 204

SPTK

P a d 's L is t

10/ 9a Wei, Ssu-chün, 10/10a Wei, Ssu-chün,

3 5

10/15b Chung-shan,

6

10/16a Chung-shan, 10/17b Chung-shan,

7 9

10/16b Chung-shan,

8

Chung-shan,

1

10/12a Chung-shan,

3

3/56a Ch’in, Chao,

29

10/1 la

Index

affairs of spirits, see kuei-shih An-yi^-^ 58 Book of C hangesfylill Brigand Chih^{{il4 Cedar Mt., see Po-chii Chang R iv e ra i31 Ch’ang-an, Prince 77-79 Chang Chao J ^ l 13 Chang Hsin-chengj^'w&l 15 Ch’ang-kuo Chiin, see Yiieh Yi Chang Lujjifi&l Ch’ang-sha 30 Chang T’a n g jj^ 82-83 ch’ang-tuan-^g 110-11, 114-15, 121

Chang-tzu j£_Jr 90 Chang Wen-hui^Sy5j,93 Chang Y enj& £ll4 Chang Y i^ lf tll, 29, 63, 85-87, 89-90, 93, 95-96, 101, 114, 121, 135 Chao (king of Ch’in), see Ch’in Chao-wang Chao ( s t a t e 21, 24-25, 29, 34, 50-51, 54, 59-60, 66, 68, 71, 74, 77-79, 82-84,' 87, 111-13, 117-19, 124, 132-33 Chao Ch’ang 9* 129-30 Chao chu-fu^Si jc.131 Chao Hsiang-tzuliJ; 180-82 Chao Hsi-hsüilil& 47-48, 60-61 Chao Kai8|Jj£_130 Ch’ao Kung-wu4,'*’^ l29

Chao K’u o ü ü l 3 2 Chao L e l l l f 123 Chao ShèlS ^1 3 2 Chao Shengâj^-71-72, 74-75 Chao Yangs®|^18-19, 86 Chao Y i j j j l l l l Ch’en ( district )pjL25, 51 Ch’en ChenJ>|^-19, 85-87 Ch’en ChUfJ.*J5 Ch’en T sanj£^94 ch’eng ( display )j££l 15 cheng ( government )^t.55 cheng (upright) SL 55 Cheng An-p’ingj^p^-^ 21 Cheng Ch*aoJfe|$l 1 Cheng Chen-toj(lßJ0^44 Ch’eng-hsüan (village) 130 Ch’eng-yang^f|51 Chi (the sta llio n )^ 48-49 Ch’i (state) ^ 1 0 , 12, 16, 18-20, 24, 29, 38, 45, 53-55, 58-60, 65, 70, 72-73, 77, 79, 84, 91, 102-3, 105-9, 111, 115, 119-20, 128-30, 134 Ch’i ( town )%1f 124 Ch’i-chieh$j^l6, 67 Chi-chieh, see Shih-chi Chi-chieh Ch’i Chien-wang 16 Ch’i F a -je n ^ ^ f-8 8 Chi-hsia (g ate)|J^ 99 Ch’i Hsiang-wang & & X 16, 84 Ch’i Hsüan-wang*1r|?£ 2-5 Ch’i Min-wang 15, 55,66, 71, 73-74, 91 n Chi-mo I f!: 10-11, 15, 66-67, 84 205

INTRIGUES

Ch’i Ssu-ho ^51*30,89,95 Ch’i W e i-w a n g ^ S 53, 59, 72 Chia Tai-fu Hsm-shu 96 Chia Yi |Ü 4 3 , 96 Chia-yu (reign) $?£44 Chiang ( concubine)vXl 18 Chiang Ch’in (?)^!$ 1 4 4 Chiang YB»Zj 47, 61 Ch’iao see Wang-tzu Chin ^ Chiao Y i|M '3 9 Chieh (ruler) $ 51 Ch’ien-ch’eng \ 15 Chien-ch’eng H ou4l*\^144 Ch’ien-chung% | £ ÿ 15, 32 Chien-hsin Chiin 3^. 132-33 Ch’ien Mu $ $ 3 1 , 60, 62, 67, 88-89, 93, 95, 99 Ch’ien-Tao|£lj94 Chih Po§f{) 80-82, 96 chih-shih|'^ 7 Ch’ih Sung-tzu 26 Ch’ih -y u # £ 32 Chin (country)-^ 23, 58, 80 Ch’in (state)^vii-ix, 2, 13, 21-22, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35, 42, 51-52, 55, 58, 62-63, 70-71, 73-74, 77, 82-83, 85-86, 91, 93-95, 102, 112, 114-15, 120-21, 123-25, 127, 130, 132-34 Ch’in Chao-wang 4 ^ 2 1 21, 26, 56, 71, 102 Ch’in Chuang-hsiang-wang X Î 26 Ch’in Hsiao-wang i 23-24 Ch’in H ui-w angjC^.j.îl Ch’in Mu-wang A jlj^O , ^ Chin Pi£$p71, Ch’in Shih-nuang-ti f & 26, 31,80 Ching Li 29 Ching S h e f £ 60 ch’ing-shihÿgyi viii Ching Ts’u i^ ^ . 19, 123 Ch’iu (Confucius) i ^ l 4 Cho River iJ)?(jyJ]3, 20 Fenmei Posu Jfc&i 26-27 fùj$76, 91-92 Fu-ch’ai %%24 Fu Ch’ienJfcJ^lM “glib deceiver”! * ^ 9 Grand SeerJ^}* 11 Hân ( state)$i21, 24, 29, 54, 58, 62-63, 120-21, 124 Han Ch’ih, see Kung-chung Ch’ih Han-chungi|t 102 Han-feiJ^j&^9 Han-fei Tzufâfylr 7, 94, 96, 101 Han Hsinffy«113 Han Kao-tsu3|;|f.8.111,115 Han-ku (pass)^j;{^.vii, 32, 91, 94 Han-lu ( hound 49 Han Ming :âb827T48-49 Han Shui%% 10, 67, SjO, 93-94, 96, 104, 111, 113-15, 121 Han-shu Yin-yi >£$£!|£52

212

Yen Shih-ku?S[&p£ 114 Yen-ying jb|p24 Yi-ling jL j»j24 Yi-shihJ&-t 80 Yi-wei-tzu yi-wenj&5C_16 yi-wen-chih Ç-3C.& 67 Yi-yang £j>|58, 62-64, 102, 120,

123

.

Yin (concubine) Yin (dynasty)Jf£23 Yin Chienff j ä l l 7 Yin Mene-lun 1 5 ^ ^ 1 1 4 ym-yi-f-^43 Ying (capital of Ch’u ) | 6 105, 127 Ying|^144 Ying-ch'iu>^JL37 Ying-houfc£20, 23, 26, 55 Y in g - p o ^ l 5 Ying S hao^gÿll3 Yü (emperor) 32 Yii-hsien Shan-fang Chi Yi-shu jfrtàâ d* 3° YU-jang, see Pi Yii-jang Yu-li (town)ffj$’f7 3 yu-shuii||!^89 Y uT eng^34 Yiieh (state )j#22 Yiieh Yang %% 63 Yiieh Y i j f ^ , 6 6 , 91*, 94 Yiin-meng £ ^ 5 2 , 127 Yung JuiÆ Jgl25 Yung-men T z u ß f j £ 39 Zötei Shiki Hyörin, see Tseng-ting Shih-chi P’ing-lin