Is Kuai Tung responsible for Han Hsin's disaffection with Gao Zu?

On p202 (last paragraph) SQ writes that “the plotting of Kuai Tung filled Han Hsin with overbearing ambition and destroyed both him and Tien Heng. Leaving Tien Heng aside, is this claim aligned with SQ’s earlier chapter about Han Hsin? First, SQ has a whole section called the “Disaffected” about prominent figures who rebelled against Gao Zu. Moreover. on p104b-105t par. begins with “The king of Han”, SQ writes “It was due to the efforts of three men: Ch’ing Pu, P’eng Yueh, and Han Hsin that Gao Zu destroyed Hsiang Yu”. SQ tells us in “The Disaffected” that they and many others ended up executed by Gao Zu’s regime. We see that, one, several people revolted or were disaffected with Gao Zu, and two, that Kuai Tung had nothing to do with their executions. Now, on p 202 SQ blames Kuai Tung for Han Hsin’s end in a different chapter than that on Han Hsin. If we look at the chapter dedicated to him, at the time that Hsiang Yu and Gao Zu were still fighting for supremacy, and after Kuai Tung advised Han Hsin to maintain power in Qi for himself and serve neither of them, SQ writes on 179 that “Han Hsin hesitated to turn against Han”. After this, Kuai Tung “desisted and, feigning madness” parted with Han Hsin. On 181-183 SQ describes Han Hsin’s later “disaffection” with Gao Zu, based not on Kuai Tung's rhetoric, but on Gao Zu’s later actions, who took away from him the rule of Qi, and later Chu, and whose behavior triggered all the revolts of the other prominent figures treated in “The Disaffected” chapters. Thus, SQ’s making Kuai Tung responsible for Han Hsin’s destruction on p 202 is not supported by his chapter on Han Hsin. If one implies that Kuai Tung’s early advice planted thoughts of later rebellion, this is also not holding up, since so many other people who were not advised by Kuai Tung ended up revolting or executed in “The Disaffected” chapters. Placing fault with Kuai Tung in a chapter with little data on him, while the chapter on Han Hsin brings up different nuances to the story, makes this claim less credible. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Final 1

    1. What caused the feudal lords to believe that the Lord of the West received the mandate? (58mb) After the Lord of the West was released by Chow, he continued secretly carrying out good deeds (58mt). Since he was imprisoned by Chow, in the first place, because the latter believed his accumulating virtue to be a threat (57b-58t), his discretion made sense. But regardless, the feudal lords took notice and came to him for unbiased insights (58mt). When the Yu and Jui journeyed to Chou for help, they gained insight regarding their legal dispute without even needing to see the Lord of the West (58m). As they witnessed the farmers yielding on the boundary path, the people yielding to their elders, they felt something: ashamed (58m). The issue they were coming forth with was itself considered shameful by the Chou people, and as they had no interest in humiliating themselves, they turned back (58mb). This shame they felt led them to their solution: they followed the example of t...
Read more

Week 7

Tuesday, 10/10  In re-reading The Five Emperors this week, I was struck by the closing remarks, where Sima Qian describes the uncertainty surrounding the history of The Huang-Ti, stating that other scholars’ “words are not appropriate” and that “even civil officials or old masters would have trouble explaining” the history of The Huang-Ti (N17 2nd p.). His resulting account includes the “words which are the most appropriate” (N17 2nd p,b). What might Sima Qian mean by “appropriate”?  Perhaps an “appropriate” account is one that emphasizes virtue. Sima Qian’s account of The Five Emperors provides clear examples of the actions and characteristics of virtuous rulers. Sima Qian also remarks that his intent is that The Five Emperors be the first chapter of his “basic annals” (N17b). By making virtue the starting point, Sima Qian is showing us that virtuous government is in our nature, we only need to retrieve the virtuous nature shown in The Five Emperors. Sima Qian’s virtuous begi...
Read more

Conclusion

Nienhauser: Why can’t King Wu sleep? King Wu can’t sleep (63m) because he hasn’t “secured Heaven’s protection.” (63mb) At least according to Sima, it seems that he has done nothing but good works to the benefit of many. There is a hint on 62m that the area had been “pacified and the situation was not yet settled,” and so he sets to settling. He “cleared the roads and repaired…altars”, (62t) had his RectifierScribe read Chow’s crimes to Heaven (62mt), and claims he has been charged to, among other things, “receive the great mandate of heaven”. (62m) There are many more things he does on 62b-63t: He feeds the poor, honors the dead, makes records on behalf of the government, and rewarded the meritorious. These deeds are not enough, as nearing his own death, Sima relates that “the world was not yet settled.” (64m) Yin had failed as “heaven didn’t enjoy the Yin offerings” (63m): this left them vulnerable and led to King Wu’s “success.” (ibid.) Is Heaven hard to please, or is Wu missing so...
Read more