Day 3
At the bottom of page 91, Gongsun Yang (Lord Shang) informs Duke Xiao that to become a "worthy ruler," he must embrace a new way of ruling. Gongsun Yang states, "If the sage should wish to strengthen the state, he must not pattern himself on the old ways; if he should wish to profit the people, he cannot abide by old rites" (91). Gongsun Yang's assertion brings to the foreground a reoccurring tension in Sima Qian's text: The role the past and tradition play in shaping a given historical epoch. Gongsun Yang's overt rejection of the past in favor of a legalist worldview is somewhat revolutionary. For Gongsun Yang, the State of Qi's reliance on tradition inherently limits Duke Xiao's ability to rule and, by extension, the state of Qin's power. Gongsun Yang's position is that for the state of Qin to grow in power, it needs to liberate itself from tradition and establish new ways of thinking and governing. Gongsun Yang informs Duke Xiao that he needs to transcend the limitations of ritual, the old laws, and his subjects; Gongsun argues, "If you are going to act the part of a great man, you must expect the censure of the age. When one is unique in the wisdom of his thought, he is bound to rouse the animosity of the people…but the wise can spy what had yet to put out sprouts" (91). Given the perpetual violence and stagnation of the Waring States period, Gongsun Yang's critique of tradition and past ways of thinking appears, at face value, practical. Gongsun Yang views Qin’s old laws as inherently limited and unable to establish the internal order required for Duke Xiao to maximize Qin's power over neighboring states/rulers. Gangsun Yang's position is that if Qin's old laws and traditions are inadequate, the ruler must replace them with new laws that will empower the ruler and order the state. Gongsun Yang's rejection of the "old ways" addresses Duke Xiao's pragmatic desire to strengthen the state and win fame. Gan Long immediately rejects Gongsun Yang's radical position. Gan Long asserts a conservative position, stating: "The wise man does not change the laws, he makes them work" (91). Gan Long views the leader as a virtuous educator beholden to the past. Gongsun Yang rejects Gan Long's position, arguing that tradition and the past provide no coherent framework for governing. Gongsun Yang notes, "The Three Dynasties were not alike in their rites, yet their rulers were all kings. The five hegemons did not observe the same laws, yet all were ba" (92). Gongsum Yang's argument appears relatively straightforward: If the past was under no obligation to the past, why should the present?
The underlying difficulty in assessing this specific moment in the Record of the Grand Historian is that Sima Qian provides little context for the conversation. Sima Qian does not meaningfully frame Gondsun Yang's worldview. Is Gongsun Yang a strict Legalist school adherent or a pragmatic administrator concerned with personal power? Furthermore, Sima Qian does not introduce Gongsun Yang's interlocuters, Gan Long and Du Chi. Thus, it is rather difficult to appraise the ideas their observations bring to light. Ultimately, the reader is left questioning Sima Qian's position regarding tradition, the law, and rites. However, given Sima Qian's assertion at the end of Shi Ji 68: The Biography of Lord Shang, "That he (Lord Shang/Gongsum Yang) ended in such ill repute is the state of Qin is not without reason!", the reader may feel justified in concluding that Sima Qian’s Confucian leanings align the historian with the old rites and traditional ways of governance. (99)
Day 4
In the middle of page 81, the Confucian scholar Jia Yi notes the First Emperor's outlawing of books and writings. I want to explore the arguments for the First Emperor's censoring of the past (burning texts) and its effect on Sima Qian's text. In his essay, The Faults of Qin, Jia Yi frames the First Emperor's burning of the texts of antiquity primarily in terms of the common people. Jai Yi notes, "Thereupon he discarded the ways of the former kings and burned all of the hundred schools of philosophy in order to make the blacked-haired people ignorant" (79). It is important to note that the First Emperor did not merely burn the text of antiquity; he also cast aside the ways of former kings. By severing the past from the present, the First Emperor dramatically transformed the rules governing society and the life of the common people. Jai Yi notes that the burning of the books was undertaken to make the common people "ignorant" and, by extension, unquestioning and obedient. Although Sima Qian provides no commentary regarding Qin's burring of books—he does acknowledge the black-haired people in relation to the First Emperor's decree to censor the teachings of the past. In Shi Ji 6: The Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin, Li Si maintains, "But nowadays scholars, instead of looking to the present, study antiquity in order to criticize their own age, misleading and confusing the black-haired people" (54). Here, Sima Qian, via Li Si, frames the burning of books in relation to the black-haired people. Although Li Si maintains that the burning of books should be undertaken to save the common people from scholars, the outcome of burning the texts of the hundred schools of philosophy was the inadvertent censoring of discourse throughout the empire. The censoring of discourse resulted in an unwillingness of meritorious officials to inform the rulers as to the reality of the kingdom. This silencing of discourse culminated with the Second Emperor, moments before his death, asking an advisor: "Why didn't you warn me earlier, before things came to this!" (72).
I find it somewhat interesting that Sima Qian does not bring forth any interlocutor to defend the teachings of the past and push back against Qin’s burning of the books. In other sections of the Record of the Grand Historian, Sima Qian often presents both sides of a debate when lords and administrators discuss significant political issues. However, the silence surrounding the burning of the books demonstrates the suppression of discourse under the First Emperor. And thus, the reader may conclude that under Qin rule, the voices of the past and present were silenced. Jai Yi notes of the First Emperor's reign:
He cast aside the kingly Way and relied on private procedures, outlawing books and writings, making the laws and penalties much harsher, putting deceit and force foremost and humanity and righteousness last, leading the world in violence and cruelty. (81)
Given the political and historical implications of the burning of the texts of antiquity by the Qin Dynasty, I find Sima Qian's failure to address this episode in a meaningful manner to be a significant flaw in Sima Qian's account of the Qin Dynasty.
The burning of texts during the early years of the Qin Dynasty not only oppressed individuals living under Qin rule, it also limited Sima Qain's account of Pre-Han history. The First Emperor's banning of books not only destroyed important philosophical and political texts it also wreaked havoc on the historical record. The emperor's decree states, "I therefore request that all records of the historians other than those of the state of Qin be burned" (55). Consequently, countless important Pre-Qin historical documents were destroyed, thereby limiting Sima Qian's understanding of the past. In Shi Ji 15: Reflection on the Rise of the Qin, Sima Qian briefly reflects on Qin's destruction of the text of antiquity. Sima Qian notes:
After the Qin had achieved its goal of unification, it burned all the copies of the Odes and Documents in the empire, along with the historical records of various feudal rulers, numerous as they were, because they contained sharp criticism of the Qin… But the historical records were stored only in the Zhou archives, and hence were all destroyed. How regrettable! How regrettable! (87)
Comments
Post a Comment