Week Six - Rebellion and Transmission

 

HI 420b. In class, we discussed in some detail Liu Pi’s motivations for rebellion, including the death of his son, the insult to his family, and the impingement upon his economic activities (404b, 406m). Why the other lords who do not share these specific grievances are willing to join the rebellion is not as clear, however. Some of them had been “roused to fear” by “the punishments and deprivations of territory” inflicted upon them and were “enraged against Chao Cuo” (409m), which certainly provides a motive; however, they do not cease to revolt once Chao Cuo is punished, given that they continue to siege Qi for three months (419b). Moreover, the King of Wu does not even listen to the messenger bearing news of Chao’s death, declaring himself “emperor of the east” (414b). General Han, who visits the King of Jiaoxi with the emperor’s edict, rejects the punishment of Chao Cuo as the “true intention” of the rebels as well, citing their failure to even attempt to rectify their dissatisfaction by submitting a report to the throne (420b). The king of Jiaoxi only replies that his sins are too weighty to be punished even by death, implicitly acknowledging his overreach (421t). Wu’s self-declaration as emperor and Jiaoxi’s willingness to ignore legitimate means of expressing grievance have in common a dearth of concern for the good of the state and a superfluity of concern for their own interests, despite their justifications. Perhaps Zhufu Yan’s ultimate solution of dividing the fiefs among all sons is so successful because it accounts for this human reality of self-interest while advancing the good of the state (HII 204t). It is a seizure of power which does not feel like a seizure of power, since bestowing one’s property on one’s own son can still feel like self-interested act. The internal, self-serving motivations of each lord do not need to be aligned with the needs of the empire since their motivations are instrumentalized to those purposes. Externally, everyone gets to have the appearance of acting with virtue: the emperor and the feudal lords because they have the chance to be generous, the sons because they can show filial gratitude (204t). It would be ideal, certainly, for all to be internally and externally united towards a common purpose, but the revolt and its solution illustrates that the most effective solutions are those which can account and correct for human frailty.

Postface 7b. When Hu Sui and Sima discuss Confucius’ Spring and Autumn Annals and Sima’s own Shi Ji, Sima denies that he “’made’ a work such as Confucius did,” instead claiming that he “’transmitted’ a record of past affairs.” He further claims that Hu “mistake[s] the true nature” of his writings when he compares them to Confucius’ (7b). To understand the difference between making and transmitting a record, it may be helpful to consider Hu Sui’s initial error. He questions what Sima is “trying to show” in his writings by comparing their time, a time in which an “enlightened” emperor rules and “all affairs are handled properly” with Confucius’, a time in which the world was in disarray (7t). Hu, then, values Confucius’ work insofar as it sought to rectify the government’s dysfunction, a project that is no longer necessary. Sima answers the objection first by pointing out that Confucius did not only “confine [his work] to criticism and ridicule” but also praised virtue, suggesting that he must similarly “publish throughout the land” the shining holiness of the current ruler (7m). Yet Sima here admits his project involves this formal similarity to Confucius’. He does not explain their difference. Confucius conceived of his own Annals as an attempt “’to set forth my theoretical judgments… illustrating them through the depth and clarity of actual events’” (6t)*. Comparing this purpose to Sima’s stated purpose of praising the virtue of the emperor, ministers, and worthy officials (as well as fulfilling his father’s final wish), it is once again difficult to see the difference between the projects (7b). Furthermore, the reader of the Shi Ji knows that Sima does in fact set forth his own theoretical judgments – including criticisms – at the end of each chapter. I can offer one conjecture as a solution: perhaps Sima is being modest. He may consider his history a transmission as opposed to a making because, although he shares his own moral evaluations, he recognizes that every historical event involves multiple characters, each with his own subjective grasp of the situation. He tells each event multiple times focusing on different personages in recognition of the fact that his subjective understanding is but one of many. In this way he does not make narrative with a definitive interpretation, but transmits as many interpretations as possible to present the whole (no specific citation; based on the structure of the Shi Ji as a whole).**

*Sima is reporting these words of Confucius in the same conversation with Hu Sui.
**If true, this is one of the humblest approaches to history I’ve ever encountered!

- Lauren Delucchi