Introduction
The principle of “elevating the worthy” can be justly regarded as one of the most influential ideas in China of the late Spring and Autumn (chunqiu 春秋) and Warring States (zhanguo 戰國) periods. Following deep social changes resulting from the gradual demise of old aristocratic families,Footnote 1 this principle was promoted in philosophical writings and implemented in many political reforms of the day.Footnote 2 As some transmitted texts, such as the “Yao dian” 堯典 chapter of the Shang shu 尚書, and, especially a bulk of newly discovered manuscripts, show, “elevating the worthy” was also applied to the issue of power transfer as an ostensive governance practice of the ancient times when the rulers established the most able men as their successors, regardless of the latter's provenance and social status.Footnote 3
The recently published manuscript Zhou xun 周馴(訓) or Instructions of the Zhou––part of the Peking University collection (Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu 北京大學藏西漢竹書), copied during the last years of Han Wudi 漢武帝 (r. 140–87 b.c.e.)Footnote 4––also discusses the idea of elevating the worthy. Yet, unlike most other related texts, the Zhou xun does not strive to undermine hereditary power transfer, but, on the contrary, seeks to make it more efficient and stable. In this paper, I aim to discuss the introduction of this particular interpretation of elevating the worthies. To this end, I first examine the protagonists, formal aspects, and main notions of the Zhou xun. I argue that the formal aspects of the manuscript, such as its rhyme patterns and some rhetoric strategies, suggest that it could not have been a conversation record from the fourth century b.c.e., as it purports, but was created some time later. Thus, I contend that the protagonists have been deliberately chosen to highlight the main notion of the text, “worthiness” (xian 賢). Further, I investigate how the Zhou xun’s particular interpretation of elevating the worthy influenced its view of classical accounts of throne abdication by Yao 堯 in favor of Shun 舜, and by Shun in favor of Yu 禹. Following that, I explore the main characteristics of “worthiness” as present in the Zhou xun. I claim that this concept shows eclectic features combining elements associated with different schools of thought. Taking into consideration this eclecticism as well as the Zhou xun’s concern for the survival of a state in interstate conflicts, I determine the probable date of its composition as the late Warring States period. Subsequently, I account for the elaboration of the Zhou xun’s doctrine by contextualizing the political and historical settings in which it emerged. While primarily broadening the circle of potential throne candidates, it is also conceivable, I argue, that this doctrine was created to justify the overturn of the Zhou by the Qin 秦. Finally, I claim that, given the state of research, no definitive answer can be given to the question whether the excavated Zhou xun was identical with the long-lost text bearing the same title and listed under Daoist lineage (dao jia 道家) in the bibliographical chapter of the Han shu 漢書.
The Nature and Protagonists of the Zhou xun
The Zhou xun was published in September 2015 and contains a little fewer than five thousand characters.Footnote 5 This is about one thousand characters fewer than indicated on one of the bamboo strips belonging to this manuscript: “Roughly six thousand (characters)” (da fan liu qian 大凡六千).Footnote 6 It thus stands to reason that about one sixth of the manuscript that once entered the Han grave has been lost. The text has the literary form of “instruction” (xun 訓), one of the six traditional types of shu 書.Footnote 7 As such, it purports to be a contemporaneous record of a formal speech by a monarch or a high minister.Footnote 8 In the Zhou xun, Lord Zhaowen of Zhou 周昭文公 (r. c. 328–? b.c.e.) delivers instructions to Prince Gong 𪚔(共)太子, identified there as his son and heir apparent,Footnote 9 who comes into audience at the lord's court on the first day (geng dan 更旦) of every month of the year.Footnote 10
In available historical sources, Lord Zhaowen of ZhouFootnote 11 is called ruler of the East Zhou 東周國, while Prince Gong is linked to either the East Zhou (Zhanguo ce 戰國策)Footnote 12 or the West Zhou 西周國 (Shi ji 史記).Footnote 13 Thus, at first glance, Prince Gong's association with the East Zhou as presented in the Zhanguo ce appears to be correct. However, the Zhou xun clearly places Lord Zhaowen in Chengzhou 成周, associated with the East Zhou,Footnote 14 whereas Prince Gong is reported to dwell in Jia Ru 郟鄏, the capital of the West Zhou.Footnote 15 This immediately calls into question the Zhou xun’s identification of Lord Zhaowen and Prince Gong as a ruler and his heir, given that the separation of the two Zhou kingdoms predates their lifetimes by several decades.Footnote 16
While this idiosyncrasy alone might raise doubts about the historicity of Lord Zhaowen's instructions, most of the scholars dealing with the Zhou xun so far believe that the content of the work goes back to the series of actual instructions that took place in the manner reported in the text.Footnote 17 I argue that the linguistic features of the work and its philosophical content offer little evidence for such historicity claims. As for the former, I would like to mention the three following characteristic traits.
1) Rhymed Tetrasyllables. Large portions of Lord Zhaowen's speech are composed using rhymed four-syllable sentences. Examine, for example, the following passage in which the text describes the succession struggles that broke out in the state of Jin 晉 after Duke Xian of Jin's 晉獻公 (r. 676–651 b.c.e.) death and preceding the establishment of Duke Wen of Jin 晉文公 (r. 636–628 b.c.e.):
Xiqi was established first, but he was not able to regulate himself, being of shallow wisdom, he was foolish, and the masses did not support his installation.
Zhuozi succeeded him, but raised doubts due to his unworthiness, his subordinates did not cling to him and none among the commoners wanted to have him above themselves.
After these two sons were abandoned, Yiwu stepped in. He discarded virtue and opposed conferring it. Lacking benevolence, he was skillful at betrayal. He entered Qin as a prisoner, experiencing a great disgrace. Soon after returning [to Jin], he passed away.
When Yuzi was in charge of the affairs, neither virtue nor benevolence were carried out. He did not extend kindness frequently. None of the ministers ministered to him, unwilling to be in his service. And so he lost his position and put the state to ruin, and was replaced immediately.Footnote 19
This is only an excerpt from a much longer rhymed passage. Even though there is evidence of rhyme use in historical documents and bronze inscriptions,Footnote 20 passages of rhymed tetrasyllables of such length were indeed rare.Footnote 21 Moreover, we often find this particular text arrangement in conversations of highly dubitable historicity attributed either to illustrious figures from the Chinese past, such as the ministers of the Yellow Emperor 黃帝, Guan Zhong 管仲, Fan Li 范蠡 and so on, or to clearly fictional characters such as various fanciful protagonists of the Zhuangzi.Footnote 22 This should make us cautious about regarding the content of the text as Lord Zhaowen's actual speech.
2) Antithesis. The Zhou xun demonstrates a high degree of organization by using the rhetorical figure of antithesis. In it, the argument is put forth in a positive and a negative strand that, as it were, mirror each other. Here is one small example of this figure as employed in the Zhou xun:
[if] one attaches importance to it, he will certainly put effort into establishing order. If he can order his person, his country will be ordered as well. [This way] the person in the superior position, will freely exercise his will.
If one’s person is disordered his country will be disordered too. If both country and person are disordered, then, even if one is a ruler, how can he attain what he wishes?Footnote 23
Juxtaposing extended portions of speech in this way is rather difficult in a spoken interaction and speaks to the careful and deliberate arrangement of a text. In fact, the parallel mode of reasoning, of which antithesis is an example, can be “considered the ‘default mode’ of classical Chinese expository prose.”Footnote 24 Besides, the frequency and scope in which the Zhou xun uses antithesis is reminiscent of such a prime example of skillful argument as the Xunzi 荀子.Footnote 25
3) Chain Argument. Lastly, the Zhou xun also frequently employs the rhetorical device called “chain argument” or anadiplosis, as in the example below:
為人君者,不可以信讒,信讒則苛民。苛民則正(政)乳(亂)。正(政)乳(亂)則民移,民移則國空虛,國空虛而城不守。主欲毋危,其得已乎?
A ruler cannot trust slanderers. If he trusts slanderers, he will be harsh to the people. If he is harsh to the people, his rule will be chaotic. If his rule is chaotic, the people will move away. If the people move away, the country will be empty and weak. If the country is empty and weak and cities unprotected, though the ruler wishes to avoid peril, can he achieve it?Footnote 26
In a chain argument, the last part of a sentence is repeated in the subsequent sentence. This figure belongs among the most common tools of persuasion in ancient Chinese rhetoric.Footnote 27 While such chain arrangement of the argument has the advantage of establishing causal relationships between its single members, it is also evident that free conversing hardly develops in this fashion.
With the above features in mind, it seems evident that, far from a simple conversation record, the Zhou xun represents a thoughtfully crafted literary composition. And even though the genre of shu, to which the Zhou xun belongs, was, in fact, an instance of the “earliest literary compositions” in China, intended for “oral performance” but written down in advance,Footnote 28 the scope and variety of argumentation techniques employed in the Zhou xun makes it closely resemble masters-texts from the late Warring States period.
Yet, the clearest evidence that the Zhou xun was not an audience record but a later composition follows from its eclectic content, which combines several distinct (and often inconsistent) ideas about the nature of ideal rule. While I am going to address these ideas a little later, it seems that the characters “Lord Zhaowen of Zhou” and “Prince Gong” belong to the plot of the text and were chosen by the author to provide a special framework for the promulgation of his ideas. What factors may have prompted their appearance in a text such as the Zhou xun?
As for Prince Gong, it is not easy to find a rationale behind his appearance in the Zhou xun, given that no information about him is transmitted except that he, as the main contender to the throne, predeceased his father.Footnote 29 I will attempt to deliver an explanation for his appearance when concluding this paper. Lord Zhaowen, on the other hand, is mentioned in the Han shu “Gujin ren biao” 古今人表, early China's most prominent source for assessing the historical significance of people, only as a person with middling to low abilities.Footnote 30 However, Ban Gu's 班固 (32–92 c.e.) judgement was based on considerations that differed from the standards of the pre-Qin period. As for the early depictions of Lord Zhaowen, the most comprehensive source appears to be the Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, which mentions him as a ruler who became famous in the world through his deep respect and support of the worthies (xian 賢).Footnote 31 Lord Zhaowen's preoccupation with the worthies as recorded in the Lüshi chunqiu is clearly reflected in the content of the Zhou xun, where “worthiness” appears as the most frequently used term (see Table 1).
In view of this, it may be argued that, for the author of the text, the historical Lord Zhaowen epitomized a person respecting worthies and concerned with obtaining excellence. It is my contention that the whole text might be regarded as an instruction on how to be a “worthy” ruler. Accordingly, even those instructions of Lord Zhaowen that do not mention this term directly are still intended to illustrate this content—to be a worthy ruler.
The Zhou xun and the Abdication Discourse
There are a number of passages in the Zhou xun that seem to demonstrate an unequivocal support of the “worthies,” going so far as to promulgate the ceding of political power to the most capable men, even if they do not belong to one's family:
In the past, Yao cautioned Shun, saying: “In installing one’s successor no method is appropriate, [other than making] worthiness your standard. In establishing one’s heir no way is orthodox, [other than making] worthiness your imperative.”Footnote 32
However, a closer look reveals that the text does not find this model applicable to contemporary times. While in antiquity, ministers, like Shun, were worthy to be entrusted with the throne, nowadays, so goes the sad conclusion, the time of such ministers has passed:
夫賢之臣不賢,久矣,剴(豈)乃今哉?
Now, long has it been the case that that ministers of worthy [rulers] are not themselves worthy. Why should it be different today?Footnote 33
When reading these lines, the reader might have felt reminded of the abundant examples of minsters supplanting the rulers of the state.Footnote 34 One of the most scandalous among them was King Kuai of Yan's 燕王噲 (r. 320–314 b.c.e.) abdication of the throne to his cunning minister Zi Zhi 子之, which had most dramatic consequences for the state of Yan.Footnote 35
Being aware of these dangers, Lord Zhaowen does not get tired of admonishing Prince Gong of the great difference between the positions of a ruler and a minister:
夫天之與地相去遠矣,而為人君與為人臣之相遠也,有(又)遠與天之去地也。
Now, heaven and earth are far away from each other, but the distance between ruler and minister is even farther than that between heaven and earth.Footnote 36
How can ruler and minister change their positions if they are farther away from each other than heaven and earth? As can be seen already, the Zhou xun promulgates the principle of the elevation of worthies only if it relates to the appointment of the heir apparent from among the sons of the ruler. And it also addresses the most common factors causing rulers to neglect this standard. The most severe among these factors is the rulers’ “love” (ai 愛) for one (or several) of their sons, blinding them to the abilities of their other offspring.
Yao's Love for Dan Zhu 丹朱
The juxtaposition of the ruler's love and the successor's abilities is also at the heart of the interpretation given in the Zhou xun to the legend about the abdication of power by Yao and Shun. Here is the first of the two legends:
昔堯之所愛子曰丹朱,不好茲(慈)孝,(繁)樂以惀(淪)。堯欲其賢,而弗能教海(誨)乃廢弗立,而吳(虞)舜受是置。於是為篇曰:子而能茲(慈)仁,則以代
In the past, the son whom Yao loved was Dan Zhu, who was fond nieither of kindness nor filial piety and embellished music with excessive emotions. Yao wanted him to become worthy, but was unable to instruct him. Therefore, he dismissed [Dan Zhu], not establishing him. Instead, Yu Shun was installed in this position. Thereupon, [Yao] composed a script that said: “If a son is able to be kind and benevolent, then replacing …”Footnote 37
The Zhou xun is the first among the excavated texts with abdication accounts to ever mention Dan Zhu. By calling the latter Yao's favorite son, the manuscript also diverges from the transmitted sources, in which we can hardly find any signs of fatherly affection toward him.Footnote 38 The list of Dan Zhu's flaws presented above is quite lengthy, including not liking kindness and filial piety, as well as embellishing music (fan yue 繁樂).Footnote 39 However, this judgment, as severe as it appears at first glance, is much more lenient than in the transmitted sources, where he is routinely accused of being “arrogant” (ao 傲) and “cruel” (n ü e 虐)Footnote 40 and even the worst human being of his time,Footnote 41 reminding the reader of the last depraved rulers of the Xia and Shang dynasties, the infamous Zhou 紂 and Jie 桀.Footnote 42 The reason for this idiosyncratic lenience seems to be inter alia the result of calling Dan Zhu the favorite son of his illustrious father, for such a paragon of wisdom and morality as Yao could not possibly be portrayed as bestowing love upon an utterly evil and depraved person. This has the interesting consequence that the text can no longer blame Dan Zhu's utter badness for his inability to reform, as it was often done in the received literature.Footnote 43 In fact, the Zhou xun is unusually outspoken about Yao's inability (fu neng 弗能) to reform his favorite son, coming closely to the position vigorously criticized by Xunzi (c. 300–c. 230 b.c.e.).Footnote 44 While such bluntness is unlikely to signal a critic of Yao, given his overall positive image in the Zhou xun, it can be interpreted in many different ways, including that behind the favorite sons there often were beloved consorts and concubines with their families subjecting the ruler to undue influence. Such a person, representing an entire hostile clan, could not be reformed by definition. The point here, however, was rather that Yao, despite all the efforts undertaken to transform his beloved son, was eventually able to put aside his emotions and to make a “rational” decision in favor of Shun. As the paragon of worthiness, filial piety, and kindness, as well as the regulator of music,Footnote 45 Shun embodies exactly the qualities Dan Zhu is lacking. However, he is mentioned here only in passing, and none of the complex details of his family background and ascension to power, as recorded in other sources, is mentioned in the Zhou xun.Footnote 46 His marginality shows, once again, that the focus of the Zhou xun is on the relation between a father-ruler and a son-heir. Had Dan Zhu been able to change his ways, there is no doubt that Shun would have never been invested with power. The script in which Yao explained his decision to Dan Zhu is incomplete, but it appears to be apologetic in nature.
Characteristically, other sons of Yao, of which he ostensibly had a great number, are not mentioned in the Zhou xun.Footnote 47 Their omission seems to have been deliberate, for otherwise the question would arise as to why Yao did not make any attempts to educate (any of) his remaining sons, preferring instead to hand the rule over to a man not belonging to his kin. Obviously, the author of the Zhou xun was attempting to create a version of the legend that would be consistent with his own agenda.
Shun's Love for Shang Jun 商均
Confirming Sarah Allan's observation, that authors in ancient China tended to adopt one particular view towards all traditional abdication legends,Footnote 48 Shun's account in the Zhou xun bears a close resemblance to that of Yao. Fortunately, it is much better preserved than the latter:
The son whom Shun loved was Shang Jun. Shun instructed and guided him, wanting to enable him to become worthy. But it was impossible to instruct him, and so (Shun) banished him, not letting him be king over the people.
Therefore, [Shun] composed a script that said: “You are the beloved son of your father, how can I begrudge ennobling you (making you king)? I think that by giving you the country I will imperil it.”
Now, one who destroys a country, does he really destroy just the country? He will certainly lose his life [as well].”Footnote 49
Like Yao, Shun too is reported to have tried his best to make his beloved son, and the only wished-for successor, worthy of the throne. Yu's complete absence from this account only underscores Shun's desire to establish his son as successor. However, Shun too failed to transform his son, who, in contrast to the received literature often depicting him (together with Dan Zhu) as the embodiment of evil,Footnote 50 is not given here any characterization. Just as it was the case with Dan Zhu, the reason for this less negative treatment in the Zhou xun seems, once again, to lie in the ostensible love of the virtuous father. As Shun reveals in his apologetic script, his love for Shang Jun was also at play when he sent the latter into exile. Not mentioned elsewhere, this particular event appears to be an appropriation of the motif of Shun banishing different people, such as his father, Gu Sou 瞽瞍,Footnote 51 his younger brother, Xiang 象,Footnote 52 and his former ruler, Yao.Footnote 53 The motivation behind sending his heir into exile was benign, for Shun is adamant that an incapable ruler will lead the country and himself to destruction.
At one point, the Zhou xun mentions Dan Zhu and Shang Jun together, but again, in a way remarkably different from the received sources:
【•】禹謂啟曰:「丹朱,商均,行羛(義)弗好,寡德少禮,是以不得為堯舜嗣。」
Yu said to Qi: “Dan Zhu and Shang Jun were not fond of practicing righteousness, they possessed little virtue and scarce propriety. Thus, they did not get to be successors to Yao and Shun.”Footnote 54
Accordingly, Dan Zhu and Shang Jun were not fond of righteousness and possessed virtue and propriety to a very limited extent, but they were not embodiments of evil. Consequently, in the Zhou xun, the two father–son pairs of Yao–Dan Zhu and Shun–Shang Jun do not seem to represent miniature models of “dynastic cycles” as is the case in some received works.Footnote 55
Apart from the above examples, the narrative of the Zhou xun is such that, when facing a decision between a favorite successor and a worthy one, a ruler is always concerned with choosing among his sons. Characteristically, even such well-known instances of yielding power to worthies outside of the family, as Yu's abdication to his minister Yi 益,Footnote 56 are absent from the Zhou xun, which treats Yu's son, Qi 啟, as his natural heir apparent.Footnote 57 Therefore, we can characterize the Zhou xun as a text that, while recognizing the historical fact of meritocracy-based transfer of power to worthy ministers, regarded it as a last resort measure and not as a laudable practice to be implemented broadly (at least, in the political setting of the time).Footnote 58
Preeminence of Worthiness
While calling Dan Zhu and Shang Jun the favorite sons of their fathers, the Zhou xun remains silent about the important fact that they were also lawful successors based on the rule of primogeniture, the very cornerstone of the political and social order in pre-imperial and imperial China.Footnote 59 Thus, while rejecting other motivations for establishing an heir, the absolute majority of ancient Chinese thinkers supporting the hereditary paradigm of succession would unanimously emphasize the importance of primogeniture as the only way to avoid chaos resulting from succession struggles. The Zhou xun, however, seems to reject even this fundamental rule, by presenting a set of stories in which a worthy younger brother would eventually consolidate power in his hands.Footnote 60 Together with the contender's seniority (zhang 長), the text also rejects the nobility of his maternal lineage (gui 貴) as a criterion worthy of consideration.Footnote 61 With the preeminence of worthiness thus coming to light, we must address the question of what constitutes its nature for “Lord Zhaowen.”
The Nature of Worthiness
From the above stories about Dan Zhu and Shang Jun, it became apparent that the Zhou xun identified such qualities as “filial piety” (xiao 孝), “virtue” (de 德), “righteousness” (yi 義), and “propriety” (li 禮) as instantiations of worthiness. This list can be completed with such frequently used terms as “trustworthiness” (xin 信), “kindness” (hui 惠), “benevolence” (ren 仁), and “compassion” (ci 慈) (as listed in Table 1). The obviously moral interpretation of this initially purely administrative notion,Footnote 62 was common to most excavated manuscripts addressing the topic of abdication, and its goal seems to have been “to enhance the legitimacy of abdication among the ‘Confucian-minded’ part of their audience, namely those statesmen and thinkers who believed in the priority of moral values over purely political considerations.”Footnote 63 However, the Zhou xun offers the by far most comprehensive list of moral values, which might be interpreted as a (relatively late) attempt to combine the most relevant standpoints.Footnote 64
By possessing these qualities, the Zhou xun claims, a ruler or a claimant to the throne will necessarily win support of his “people” (described interchangeably by terms min 民, ren 人 and zhong 眾).Footnote 65 Moreover, the text purports that the people are directly involved in the royal transfer of power. The passage below, arranged in a positive and a negative strand of argumentation, substantiates this claim:
Now, if you are able to be kind and filial, to honor benevolence and value trustworthiness, then, even if I have not yet established you, you will enforce your establishment by yourself. So when I am near my end, reaching my final years, the crowd will establish you (as certainly) as the sun must rise (treating you) as Heaven above them.
But if you distance yourself from trustworthiness and benevolence and are not able to be kind and filial, if you despise learning, loathe goodness, and do not heed teaching and counsels, then, even if I personally install you, the people will replace you and none of them will like you.Footnote 66
The importance of subjects’ support for a ruler was a common topic in ancient China. However, such strong emphasis on the role of the people in establishing a ruler, which is also absent in the relevant excavated materials, has strong similarities with the Mengzi 孟子, in which “the people's acceptance of [a successor] as a true leader” was at the heart of the abdication doctrine.Footnote 67 In the Mengzi, however, this topic was embedded in the overarching “Heaven's Mandate” theory, according to which the allegiance of the people does signal the acceptance of a particular ruler by Heaven.Footnote 68 Without attempting to determine the exact relation between the Mengzi and Zhou xun, it is evident that the authors of the two texts recognized the importance of the low strata of society for successful governance.
Another characteristic point of the Zhou xun’s idea of “worthy” is that it includes the ruler's ability to protect and assert his position against the subversive activities of his ministers (chen 臣). Such admonitions are especially abundant in the beginning of the text, like, for example, here:
為人君者,喜怒不可還(旋)發之於前。有所唯,未可以還(旋)唯之。有所非,未可以還(旋)非之。穆穆乎!賢主之心,如臨深淵,其誰能極之?
A ruler cannot make an immediate display of joy and anger. If he approves of something, he cannot express his approval immediately. If he disapproves of something, he cannot express his disapproval immediately. So profound! The heart of a worthy ruler! Like (approaching) a deep chasm, who can fathom it?Footnote 69
Not only should the ruler keep his ministers ignorant in regard to his own thoughts, he should also take measures to prevent them from knowing each other's respective opinions, as proposed below:
為人君者,不可以通其群臣之言,通其群臣之【言】,則臣相智(知)情,臣相智(知)情則不和,不和則乳(亂)主,乳(亂)主則主危。
A ruler cannot communicate the words of his minsters to one another. If he communicates the words of his ministers to one another, they will all know what each other truly feels. If the ministers all know what each other truly feels, they will not be in harmony. If they are not in harmony, they will plunge the ruler into chaos. If they plunge the ruler into chaos, the ruler will be in danger.Footnote 70
In some of his advice, Lord Zhaowen even encourages the ruler to use deception techniques with his subordinates, as below:
A ruler cannot but be fond of listening. If he is not fond of listening, he will not know the sentiments of his subordinates.
And so, it is imperative (for him) to listen but not be heard; to know but remain silent. This is what a proverb expresses in saying: “If you are not mad and deaf, you cannot become the duke of people.”
And so, when the Documents say: “Great wisdom resembles madness,” is it not talking about this?Footnote 71
The Zhou xun’s overall setting of a father-ruler directly instructing his son can also be viewed as the expression of distrust in ministers, who were usually in charge of the upcoming ruler's education. In any case, Lord Zhaowen sees himself as the only person fit to instruct the heir apparent:
If not for me talking to you, telling you the way things are, would other people dare to utter these words? Ah well! Be cautious! Devote yourself to receiving instructions and pay attention to not getting sluggish!Footnote 72
In some of this, the Zhou xun resembles Han Feizi 韓非子. Han Fei (280–233 b.c.e.) developed his highly characteristic strategies for power consolidation in correspondence with his cosmology, in which the impenetrable, obscure Dao 道, the Way, played a pivotal role.Footnote 73 The Zhou xun, in turn, shows no interest for cosmological speculations whatsoever and does not operate with the cosmological notion of Dao. While this and other differences speak against a direct connection between the two texts,Footnote 74 the above quoted passages underline the complex and eclectic character of the Zhou xun’s notion of “worthy.”
Equipped with the support of his people and enjoying a secure and uncontested position within his state, a worthy ruler is not only able to continue his own ancestral sacrifices, one of the main concerns in the Zhou xun, but also to be successful in his external politics, conquering other countries:
The worthy ruler conquers other states, whereas the unworthy one lacks wisdom and loses his territory, which of them will have a constant place to dwell?Footnote 75
It follows from the above that the Zhou xun’s idea of “worthy” mainly includes the abilities of an aspiring ruler to win the support of the population, to protect his position against the encroachments of ministers, and to extend his influence into other countries. That is, a worthy would successfully deal with the major challenges presented to a ruler of the late Warring States period. Besides, the Zhou xun’s focus on the education of the ruler's sons seems to have been designed to provide a solution to the central problem of abdication discourse, namely, the conflict between the principles of “respecting worthies” (zun xian 尊賢) and “loving kin” (ai qin 愛親).Footnote 76 Indeed, transferring the rule to a worthy son is the only effective means to resolve this conflict. Yet, the ideal of worthiness as proposed in the Zhou xun is anything but easy to fulfill. For even if we assume that a ruler really existed, who, while being a worthy himself, was also wise enough to recognize an able successor among his sons and educate him the right way,Footnote 77 the problem would still remain as to how cultivation of lofty moral virtues could be combined with the deception techniques the text teaches. After all, how genuine can the “benevolence” or “kindness” of a ruler be, who, in his interactions with his subordinates, is advised to resort to subterfuge?
The Zhou xun in the Context of the Late Warring States Period
The above analysis suggests that the Zhou xun’s understanding of “worthy” was shaped by ideas associated with different texts and schools of thought. While such eclecticism possibly speaks to its rather late date of composition, the mention of interstate conflicts still reflects the political realities of the Warring States period. Thus, assuming that the Zhou xun was elaborated in a single creative effort,Footnote 78 I would like to place its doctrine in the context of the late Warring States period and see whether it can be explained through the political circumstances of the time. To this end, I would like to first contrast the Zhou xun with the Bao xun 保訓 (Cherished Instructions) of the Tsinghua University collection.Footnote 79 In the latter, King Wen of Zhou 周文王 (d. c. 1047 b.c.e.) is instructing his son, Fa 發, the future King Wu 武王 (d. c. 1043 b.c.e.), in order to transmit to him the Mandate of Heaven. The possession of this mandate, expressed in the Bao xun by means of “center” (zhong 中),Footnote 80 is the main prerequisite for the latter to become an equal to his father and illustrious rulers of the past, such as Shun, King Tang of Shang 商湯, etc. Lord Zhaowen also instructs his heir with the goal of making him a successful ruler, but he does not operate with the notion of the mandate anymore.Footnote 81 While placing great emphasis on filial piety, he does not treat the founders of the Zhou dynasty and his own ancestors, Kings Wen and Wu of Zhou, differently from Duke Wen of Jin or even Marquis Wen of Wei 魏文侯 (?–396 b.c.e.), whose recognition as zhuhou 諸侯, alongside the leaders of Han 韓 and Zhao 趙, shook the very foundation of Zhou power.Footnote 82 To him, all of these persons, regardless of their ties to the ruling house of Zhou and their standing in the Zhou system of titles, did, to the same extent, represent examples of being “worthy.”Footnote 83
Lord Zhaowen's refusal to attach himself to the paradigm of his ancestors, is in accord with his neglect of the Zhou ethics of zongfa 宗法 kinship relations, noted above. What are the reasons for his outspoken anti-traditionalism? A possible answer could run along the lines that the doctrine was created to support political aspirations of those members of royal families who were traditionally at a disadvantage regarding succession to the throne, such as, for example, sons by concubines. Does not the setting of the Zhou xun, in which Lord Zhaowen treats Prince Gong, probably his first cousin once removed,Footnote 84 as his successor, speak to the same point? In this case, the Zhou xun was created by or on behalf of the representatives of this social stratum.
However, I believe that the interpretation of the Zhou xun that takes into consideration Lord Zhaowen's reputation and the premature death of Prince Gong is also plausible. According to the Lüshi chunqiu, Lord Zhaowen was a ruler who, although possessing only a small country, earned great and long-lasting respect from mighty rulers of his time, especially in the state of Qin 秦.Footnote 85 Thus, while not being the Zhou “Son of Heaven” (tian zi 天子), Lord Zhaowen was perhaps the last representative of this ruling house with the reputation of a worthy and virtuous ruler. The premature death of Prince Gong, whom Lord Zhaowen aimed to educate, could be then interpreted to the effect that, with his death, the Zhou were left without a worthy successor, which, given the doctrine of the text, should with necessity lead to its demise. The behavior the Zhou rulers exhibited in the final years of the dynasty does indeed not show any signs of the lofty moral virtues Lord Zhaowen promulgated.Footnote 86 The Qin, on the other hand, are depicted much more favorably. King Zhuangxiang of Qin 秦莊襄王 (r. 250–247 b.c.e.), for instance, who extinguished the East Zhou in the year 248 b.c.e., is lauded in the Shi ji to have “spread favor with generosity among his kin, and extended good deeds to the people” (施德厚骨肉而布惠於民).Footnote 87 This could easily be a description of ideal behavior in the Zhou xun. But could it be really the case that the Zhou xun promoted the hidden agenda of legitimizing Qin's replacement of Zhou, after all that we have learned about it so far, and especially given the text's great emphasis on the continuation of ancestral sacrifices? As regards the latter point, it is worth mentioning that, after conquering Zhou, Qin did not cut off the latter's ancestral sacrifices, providing them with territory specifically for that purpose.Footnote 88 Besides, some fragments of the Shi ji, alongside some excavated material, suggest that, historically, the alliance between Zhou and Qin had been very close, speaking even of their “unity.”Footnote 89 Claims to inherit Zhou do indeed seem possible under these circumstances. Furthermore, the narrative of the Zhou xun speaks to this possibility as well. At one point in his instructions, Lord Zhaowen advises Prince Gong on how to win the allegiance of the people of Chengzhou (East Zhou), which was not the domain of the prince who resided in Jia Ru (West Zhou):
爾有蓐(鄏)邑,而成周之人不為女(汝)民,其何以守國?
You have the City of Ru, but if the people of Chengzhou are not your people, how will you preserve the country?Footnote 90
By the end of the fourth century b.c.e., the East and West Zhou were two belligerent countries not unlike the other states of the late Warring States period.Footnote 91 Against this backdrop, advising a prince of the West Zhou how to win the support of the East Zhou capital was not much different from giving the same advice to a ruler of Qin (or any other state). Finally, there are multiple parallels between the Zhou xun and the Lüshi chunqiu in content and structure.Footnote 92 The latter's patron, Lü Buwei 呂不韋 (292–235 b.c.e.), not only led the concluding campaign against the East Zhou, but also attempted to create theoretical justification for the unifying rule of Qin.Footnote 93 These parallels suggest that the two works might stem from a similar background.
The Zhou xun and the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” 藝文志
Besides bearing direct testimony to the philosophical discourse of long-gone times, the Zhou xun has another intriguing side to it, namely, the fact that, in the bibliographical chapter of the Han shu, “Yiwenzhi,” there is a mention of a work with the same title. There, the Zhou xun is listed under the “Daoism” section, comprising fourteen chapters or pian 篇.Footnote 94 Since Liu Xiang 劉向 (77–76 b.c.e.) made an editorial comment on it that is preserved in a quotation by Yan Shigu 顏師古 (581–645 c.e.), we can conclude that the Zhou xun entered the imperial library already during the Western Han (206 b.c.e.–8 c.e.). However, Liu Xiang's comment was rather unflattering, stating: “A petty book from the people, its sayings are vulgar and trivial” (ren jian xiao shu, qi yan su bo 人間小書,其言俗薄).Footnote 95 The question of whether that “trivial” work of Daoist philosophy listed in the Han shu was identical to the Peking University manuscript carrying the same name has been answered variously in recent publications.Footnote 96 While I do agree with the argument that the coincidence of having two different texts with the same title and similar scope is rather unlikely, the content of the Zhou xun proved to be in no way specifically Daoist. The text does not operate with the cosmological notion of the Way (dao 道) and only once does it name “possession of the Way” (you dao 有道) as a quality of a worthy ruler.Footnote 97 However, the Daoism section of the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” also contains other works with less pronounced Daoist flavor,Footnote 98 and we cannot rule out the possibility that the Zhou xun was characterized as Daoist based on other considerations than its content.Footnote 99 Thus, in the end, the question of whether the Peking University Zhou xun and the work listed in the Daoist section of the Han shu “Yiwenzhi” are one and the same text cannot be answered definitively at this point.Footnote 100
Conclusion
The interpretation of history as offered in the Zhou xun was not destined to become influential in early China. Too paradoxical was the ostensible love of Yao and Shun toward their unworthy sons, too much shadow and suspicion did it cast on these paragons of virtue to be accepted as a conventional narrative. Nor could the Zhou xun’s challenges to the system of primogeniture be embraced in China, where it remained the main rule regulating the transition of power throughout its imperial history. Yet, the text is still a valuable document, providing us with new evidence on the variety of different standpoints in the abdication discourse of the late pre-Qin China. Likewise, the author(s) of the manuscript, I contend, appear to come from a different social group than is assumed to have been the case with other manuscripts on the topic.Footnote 101 And if the text was really composed to provide justification for the Qin's conquest of Zhou, as was suggested here, it would be a unique example of using the principle of “elevating the worthy” in political life. While I mainly focused on the Zhou xun’s system of thought in the present article, its parallels to the other texts, especially the Lüshi chunqiu, promise to shed further light on the circumstances of its creation.