Week 3

How does Chen Yu’s letter (26t-b) to Zhang Han convince him to defect? First, Chen Yu narrates the gruesome end of two successful Qin generals, Bao Qi and Meng Tian. Rhetorically he wonders, “Why was this?” His answer is that since “Qin could not reward them sufficiently,” they created a legal loophole, condemning them both to death. Next, after establishing historical president, Chen Yu, another character acting as historian, identifies Zhang Han as another general of the same type, a successful Qin general soon-to-be-killed by misuse of the law. But Chen Yu also notes that he knows Zhang Han has performed poorly on the battlefield and is facing pressures from the Second Emperor and his puppet-master, Zhao Gao. The reader, like Zhang Han, feels the truth behind the words, since Sima Qian just juxtaposed (25b) Zhang Han’s experience of the political turmoil evoked in the letter. Third, Chen Yu provides a dilemma of inevitable death, similar to Chen She’s (2t). “Regardless of whether you win glory or not, you are sure to be executed.” The inevitability of the outcome is then endorsed by appeals to Heaven and the certainty of defeat, as part of a “doomed nation.” Just when it seems Chen Yu leaves Zhang Han hopeless, “alone and friendless,” he creates opportunity: join our alliance, attack Qin, the source of your troubles, and become, “call ourselves,” sovereign. While the heights of the honor may be appealing, it still requires a defection, a changing of allegiance and loyalty. To ensure the point is well made, Chen Yu returns to the essence of the historical anecdotes he began with, just remember you will die if you stay with Qin. “Would this not be better than bowing your body beneath the executioner’s axe,” he wonders, articulating the shame, “bowing,” and physicality “your body beneath” inevitable death. And if that lethality is not enough, he reminds Zhang Han of his family who will also suffer. It is not just that Zhang Han will die, but that he would see his “wife and children slaughtered.” Chen Yu sets up a solution to the double dilemma of death. Zhang Han persuaded chooses life and ends up king of Yong (34t).

What is the point of the detail about fingernail pairings in Meng Tian’s story about the Duke of Zhou and King Cheng of the Zhou dynasty (212t)? Meng Tian recounts the anecdote in response to the Second Emperor’s accusation of error and familial guilt. After noting his position, familial loyalty, and potential power to revolt, Meng Tian turns to obliquely admonish the Emperor. King Cheng is a stand-in for the Second Emperor and the Duke of Zhou is a stand-in for Meng Tian. The Duke of Zhou acts as regent for King Cheng because he is too young, creating peace. But one day the King falls ill. In response the Duke of Zhou does five things. First, he “pairs his fingernails,” and second, he “throws the pairings into the Yellow river.” Third, he narrates why he is acting as regent and accepts responsibility for his actions. Fourth, he writes down this action, and fifth, places the document in the archives. The last three actions are most understandable. He makes an oath-like offering to the river that he documents in a memorandum, stored away for further reference. This reference is found later by King Cheng after the Duke fled, leading to their reconciliation. But why does the Duke pair his fingernails and throw them into the river while speaking about his actions? This is a strange act. Why does he do it? And why does Sima Qian include that detail in Meng Tian’s account? Perhaps the Duke of Zhou needs to show that he has some skin-in-the-game, if he is to be believed when he says “If there is some fault, I alone should suffer the ill effects.” But fingernails grow back quickly. It is not like cutting one’s hair in grief, which is an outward sign that takes much longer to grow back. Perhaps it is a way of gesturing to his handiwork in the governing of Zhou, “The king as yet has no understanding of state affairs; I alone am handling them.” He throws in a part of his hands. But how does that entail faithfulness or loyalty? Perhaps they are an offering of the changeable self, indicating that the Duke was there in the moment. That he marked it with body, speech-acts, and reflective words is the best way to show trustworthiness, that he is a part of his words.