Three Kingdoms

by Luo Guanzhong (Moss Roberts trans. )

  Between the TS and the Mao edition the portrait of Kongming varies more significantly than does the portrait of Liu Xuande. Broadly put, the TS moves Kongming away from the magic-working immortal of the PH and the Yuan plays and back toward the historical figure of the SGZ, who, though virtuous, resembles at moments Machiavelli or Clausewitz (and has a touch of da Vinci's engineering genius). The Mao edition portrays Kongming the worthy and able minister (xianxiang) by accenting his humane values (ren and yi), values most closely associated with Xuande. Mao removes from Kongming's portrait most traces of the amoral calculation usually associated with Cao Cao.

  Kongming's life is the heart of both editions. Of the TS's twenty-four sections covering one hundred and thirteen years, fourteen are devoted to the last twenty-seven years of Kongming's life (a. d. 207-34); the other eighty-five years flanking this period take up the remaining ten sections of the TS. The novel's portrait of Kongming is well-founded in the sources, above all in Chen Shou's SGZ and Pei Songzhi's accompanying notes. Among the highlights in the early records are the intellectual powers of the young Kongming; his political aspirations and models; his life in seclusion before Liu Xuande's visit; his analysis of the state of the empire for Xuande; his arranging an alliance with the Southland to defeat Cao Cao; his role in guiding Xuande to the occupation of Jingzhou, the conquest of Shu, and the creation there of the kingdom of Shu-Han (the Riverlands); his regency over Liu Shan after Xuande's death; and his campaigns against the Southern Man and the northern kingdom of Wei. These historical and biographical essentials are preserved in the novel. Kongming's domination of the novel reflects his importance in the SGZ.

  The virtues the novel ascribes to Kongming also have ample historical basis: his loyalty to his lieges; his untiring dedication to the cause of the Han; his ability in civil and military administration; his strategic insight; his receptivity to the views of subordinates; his personal humility and willingness to accept responsibility for failure; his fairness in applying the law and assigning reward and punishment; his skill as an inventor; and his honorable refusal to use his position to enrich himself. Chen Shou had the highest regard for Kongming the statesman and prime minister of Shu-Han, though he mentions that field tactics were not his forte. And Chen Shou records the high esteem in which the populace of Shu-Han held the prime minister after his death. Kongming consummated the classical Confucian ideal of the conjunction of great virtue (de) and talent (cai).

  Evaluations of Kongming have usually transcended the vicissitudes of the Wei-Shu legitimacy debates. In his own time, key advisers to Cao Cao, Jia Xu, and Liu Ye praised Kongming for his skill in administering Shu. In later times, Kongming was honored even by those who did not advocate the cause of Shu-Han against Wei. Li Shimin, the second Tang emperor, spoke of Kongming's excellence as a prime minister despite having to serve under a weak ruler. And the Northern Song reformer, Wang Anshi, dedicated a poem of praise to him. Nevertheless, the historical Kongming was not without his faults and limits, as we shall see.

  When we leave the realm of history to turn to the PH, we find a superhuman Kongming, a "godlike immortal" (shen xian) with magic powers. At the time of his first meeting with Liu Xuande, he is introduced as a controller of winds and rain, a conjurer of illusions, and a transformer of phenomena, a man who can change beans into soldiers and create a river with a wave of his sword. Perhaps these fictions served to offset the suspicion that he was somewhat wanting as a military tactician. The PH as well as Yuan drama develop the image of a leader no less capable in military tactics than in political and diplomatic strategy. Luo Guanzhong drew mainly on the historical record for his portrait of Kongming; but he also drew on the PH, carrying enough of the PH magician over into the TS to justify the twentieth-century writer Lu Xun's remark that Luo Guanzhong's Kongming is a man of "much wisdom though verging on wizardry."76 The trait that the Mao edition accents is "much virtue." In the dufa, Mao Zonggang says, "In the long annals of our history, worthy and able ministers stand thick as trees, but the name Kongming towers over all throughout the ages."

  Mao Zonggang had a special problem with the character of Kongming. The edition of the TS that he worked on had been annotated by an editor explicitly hostile to Kongming. As Mao says in the sixth of his fanli or explanations: "The su edition, erroneously attributed to Li Zhuowu but actually from hands unknown, contains many insults against Zhao Lie [i. e., Liu Bei] and condemns the Martial Lord Kongming. We have removed all such remarks and replaced them with new, corrected commentary." What negative aspects of Kongming's portrait did Mao revise?

  The "Li" edition's gravest charge against Kongming is that he plotted to usurp the Shu-Han kingdom and thus acted the part of a traitor, like Cao Cao, rather than that of a loyal minister to Liu Bei. The "Li" edition's commentary in chapter 80 says, "Underneath, Cao Cao and Kongming are one of a kind if different in style, with Kongming, it seems, always a move ahead." The cause of this harsh comment is Kongming's active role in the killing of Liu Feng, the only potential rival to Liu Shan as Liu Bei's heir. "Liu Feng was a loyal servant and a filial son," the "Li" edition argues in its annotation to chapter 79. "Liu Bei had him killed unwittingly, so his crime may be forgiven. But Kongming acted knowingly, so no punishment is harsh enough for him."

  The story of Liu Feng's downfall reveals differences in the way Kongming appears in different texts. Shortly before his first meeting with Kongming, Liu Bei arrived in Jingzhou and adopted Feng from the Kou family (Feng's natural father was the lord of Luo; see chapter 36). According to the SGZ, Liu Bei had no children at the time of the adoption. Nevertheless, the TS and the Mao edition both place the adoption of Liu Feng after the birth of Ah Dou (Liu Shan) to Lady Gan.77 The importance of which brother is elder will shortly be evident.

  Eclipsed by Ah Dou, Liu Feng plays little part in the novel until Liu Bei establishes Shu-Han. By that time Feng is in his thirties and distinguishing himself as a field commander. The succession question remains unsettled until near the end of Liu Bei's life.

  The story of Liu Feng's downfall (chapter 79) begins when Liu Bei becomes king of Hanzhong and, as a king must, names his heir apparent: Liu Shan (chapter 73). Kongming's anxieties about a challenge to this decision are recorded in Liu Feng's biography. "Kongming feared that Liu Feng would prove stubborn and assertive [gang meng} and difficult to control in the next reign, so he convinced Liu Bei to get rid of him."78 This information about Kongming, a consistent supporter of Liu Shan, is not to be found in either edition of the novel, which connects Liu Feng's downfall to Lord Guan's plight in Jingzhou and Liu Feng's doom to Lord Guan's death (chapter 77).

  Here is the novel's version of the circumstances: during the time when Lord Guan is hunted down, captured, and finally executed by Sun Quan, Liu Feng and Meng Da are the only ones in a position to send a rescue mission to try and save Lord Guan. Liu Feng and Meng Da have been posted as commanders to the eastern reaches of the Shu-Han kingdom and thus are close to Jingzhou, Lord Guan's sphere. But Liu Feng is either unwilling or unable to send help. Perhaps he refuses because he knows Lord Guan spoke for Liu Shan as Liu Bei's heir. Whatever Liu Feng's motives, when Liu Bei receives a report blaming Liu Feng and Meng Da for the death of Lord Guan, he and Kongming are too angry to forgive, and they have Liu Feng executed when he returns to Chengdu; Meng Da defects to Wei soon after Lord Guan is killed.

  When he defects, Meng Da writes a letter to Liu Bei explaining his change of masters. The letter is preserved in both editions of the novel. Meng Da also writes to Liu Feng urging him to defect, but Liu Feng hotly rejects the proposal, exclaiming, "This villain would break the bond between nephew and uncle and sunder the love of father and son, making me disloyal and unfilial." So saying, Liu Feng destroys the letter, executes the courier, and goes forth to challenge Meng Da to battle. His stand, however honorable, fails to save him when he returns to Chengdu.79

  Both editions of the novel have the basic story, but only the TS has Meng Da's letter urging Liu Feng to f
ollow him and defect. The contents of the letter suggest Mao Zong-gang's motive for not including it. Meng Da appeals to Liu Feng by criticizing Liu Bei's choice of successor: "The selection of Ah Dou [Liu Shan] as heir apparent bitterly disappointed men of discernment.... Turmoil and ruin have ever sprung from the changing of the heir apparent." The letter moves on from the Shu-Han succession question to argue the superiority of natural to adopted parenthood: "Now, for one to abandon his [natural] parents to become another's heir violates tradition.... If someone of your ability were to give up his status and come east to resume the place of heir to the lord of Luo [Feng's natural father], it could not be a betrayal of a parent."80

  Even allowing for Meng Da's special pleading, this letter's argument fits the official record: Liu Bei and Kongming decided to get rid of Liu Feng in order to clear the way for the chosen heir, Liu Shan, to succeed Liu Bei as emperor of Shu-Han without a challenge from the only credible rival. And the result of Liu Shan's accession as Second Emperor was that "every governmental matter in Shu-Han, great or small, was decided by Kongming."81 Thus, the question of Liu Bei's succession, which the Mao edition suppresses, is openly handled in the TS, even if some relevant material in the SGZ is omitted. Once again the 1522 TS proves to be closer to the original record, while the Mao edition tends to develop its own moralizing fictions on certain points.

  Mao Zonggang wanted to keep the focus off Liu Feng's status as Liu Bei's son and on his conflicts with Meng Da (whose defection was partly Feng's fault) as well as on his failure to rescue Lord Guan. Mao omitted any material about Liu Bei and Kongming that might have compromised their portraits as embodiments of traditional Confucian values such as virtue (de) and humanity (ren), the factors of legitimacy. It may be remembered at this point how often the novel makes an issue of the consequences of tampering with succession by the eldest son. Thus, Mao Zonggang's handling of the Liu Feng incident is in keeping with his advocacy of Liu-lineage legitimacy.

  Nevertheless, if there is measurable distance between the 1522 TS and the Mao edition on certain key questions, their common distance from the SGZ is greater. The SGZ treats the Cao-Wei dynasty as legitimate, while the two editions of the novel take the pro-Liu, anti-Cao position. Accordingly, both editions omit the express objections of Fei Shi, a leading Shu-Han courtier, to Liu Bei's assumption of the throne, a step Kongming had strenuously advocated.

  Mao Zonggang exercised great care in reworking the image of Kongming into an ideal; indeed, this transformation of Kongming may be considered the heart of the difference between the Mao edition and the TS. Their divergence is revealed again in the way they treat the case of the Shu commander Wei Yan. Although submerged in the novel, Wei Yan (see chapters 41 and 53) contributed as much to the cause of the historical Shu-Han as Lord Guan, Zhang Fei, or Zhao Zilong.

  When Kongming leaves Jingzhou to join Xuande in Shu-Han, he places Lord Guan in charge of the province. When Xuande declares himself king of Hanzhong and departs for Chengdu, he places Wei Yan in charge of the region. The Hanzhong region, a buffer between Shu-Han and the north (or more specifically the Chang'an region) is no less important to Xuande than Jingzhou is. Zhang Fei has privately been expecting to assume control over Hanzhong when Liu Bei leaves, but Bei appoints Wei Yan instead, to the army's amazement. This is noted in the SGZ but not in the novel.82

  Wei Yan is a member of Kongming's inner circle and plays a prominent role in the last series of campaigns against the north. His proposal before one of these campaigns is famous. Wei Yan urges Kongming to strike Chang'an directly, but Kongming chooses instead to maneuver around from Longyou in the west. Later, many think that Kongming might have taken Chang'an had he heeded Wei Yan's advice. Wei Yan comes to prominence after the old guard—Lord Guan, Zhang Fei, and Zhao Zilong—die. Most important, Wei Yan supports Kongming's war policy, which the emperor has some doubts about.

  Still and all, Kongming does not trust Wei Yan. "He has treason in his bones," is Kongming's judgment. (The only basis for this in the SGZ is a remark by Sun Quan that Wei Yan may prove unreliable after Kongming dies. ) And so Kongming attempts to get rid of Wei Yan in the course of his surprise attack on Sima Yi in the Shangfang Gorge. Kongming uses Wei Yan to draw Sima Yi into the gorge, where a fiery ambush has been set, but a sudden downpour quenches the flames and enables Sima Yi to escape. Wei Yan would have perished too but for the rains.83 Afterward, Wei Yan protests that Kongming tried to kill him, an accusation found in the TS but not in the Mao edition.84 Kongming then arranges to have Wei Yan executed after his death.

  At the time of Kongming's death, Wei Yan has the vanguard. He wants to send Kongming's body home and continue the campaign. He is ordered to turn the van into the rearguard, however, and protect a general retreat. Wei Yan refuses this order, and a leadership crisis erupts on the field. It may be that Kongming thought the army should rest after his death. It may be that Kongming feared his van leader might simply go over to the enemy. It may be that it suited the novelist's purpose to emphasize a crisis over Kongming's successor.

  Whatever the problem, the editor of the "Li" edition of the TS uses the incident to attack Kongming: "Kongming is no follower of the kingly way, if only because he contrived to murder Wei Yan.... If Wei Yan had committed a crime, why did he not make it public, why did he treat Wei Yan like a Sima?"85 Mao Zonggang drops the paragraph in which Wei Yan accuses Kongming of trying to kill him. Moreover, Mao assumes that Wei Yan is a potential traitor: "Kongming anticipated Wei Yan's rebellion and got rid of him before he could act; this shows wisdom.... Once Wei Yan rebelled, Shu-Han would have a foe in Wei Yan as great as Sima Yi. When Wei Yan burned the cliffside walkway, when he attacked Nanjun, had the northerners found out and turned back, the fate of Shu-Han would have been sealed."86

  Readers of historical conscience may feel that Wei Yan has been wronged when they turn to the biography that follows Wei Yan's in the SGZ, that of Yang Yi, Wei Yan's rival.87 Yang Yi had expected to succeed Kongming as the prime minister of Shu-Han, but Jiang Wan was chosen instead. Indignantly, Yang Yi said he should have defected to Wei when Kongming died. Since Yang Yi is the source of the accusation of treason against Wei Yan, the charge becomes suspect.

  To clarify the difference between the portrayal of Kongming is the TS and in the Mao edition has required taking up some of the minor figures of the last sixteen chapters, the chapters after Kongming's death. The temptation to ignore these chapters as anticlimactic should be resisted. The fate of the epigones of the brilliant circle of leaders around Liu Xuande—the sons of Lord Guan and Zhang Fei, Wei Yan, Jiang Wan, and so on— is a part of the novel's aesthetic effect. After Kongming dies, the landscape flattens out: glorious heroes are replaced by lesser figures, and the epic drama subsides into a largely historical account, though military heroics are still part of the story. But in the last chapter, chapter 120, we find the final twist on heroic militarism: the Jin conquest of the Southland is carried out by commanders who have little interest in their campaign and continually think up excuses to defer it, while the southern forces are so weak that the feeblest push by the northern army suffices to consummate the conquest.

  There is a third variation worth noting in the two editions of the novel. The Shu-Han campaigns against the Wei dynasty—Kongming's "six offensives from the Qishan hills," followed by Jiang Wei's "nine offensives against the heartland" —are treated a little more critically in the TS than in the Mao edition. The SGZ records no full-scale debate in the Riverlands on the pros and cons of waging war against the Wei dynasty, only traces of discontent with the policy. The TS retains more of these traces, whereas the Mao edition removes almost all of them. The notes to the translation indicate some of the differing passages. By contrast, the novel does contain the full-scale debate on the pros and cons of war that raged in the Southland when Cao Cao's grand army stood at the Yangzi some two decades earlier; for this debate, the novelist was able to draw on the more ample account in the SGZ.

  In conclusion, the conse
nsus of scholars (with which the translator agrees) is that the TS is more comprehensive and perhaps franker in presenting political facts and historical material than the Mao edition, but the Mao edition is the superior literary work, even if an occasional scene in the TS is more effective. Undoubtedly, it is mainly for reasons of artistic excellence that the Mao edition eclipsed the older TS and remains today the unquestioned favorite, even after the TS was republished in a popular edition in 1975. The Mao edition, with most of the Mao notes, was republished in paperback in 1981 by the Inner Mongolia People's Press (Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe). Thus there is continuing contemporary interest in Mao's critical commentary. Some readers, of course, will prefer the TS for its more contradictory portraits, its rougher narrative style, and its abundance of documentary material. Most seem to prefer the more streamlined writing and more smoothly drawn characters of the Mao edition.88

  NOTES TO "ABOUT THREE KINGDOMS"

  1. Guo is conventionally translated "kingdom" in the phrase Sanguo (three kingdoms). The same word is an adjective in the phrase guojia, where it means "ruling" ; jia means "family." Guojia referred to the ruling house or more often to its head, the emperor. His realm was called tianxia, "all under Heaven," i. e., "the empire." The English word "dynasty" refers primarily to the ruling line but may also suggest the territorial dimension (i. e., guojia plus tianxia).

  2. The dubious hypothesis of a Song date is refuted in an article by Zhang Guoguang, who argues for a mid-Ming date. See his "Sanguozhi tongsu yanyi chengshu yu Ming zhongye bian," in YJJ, pp. 266-79. Arguments for a mid-Ming date may also be found in Andrew Plaks, Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 361-495.