The Poetics of Sovereignty
Page 59
ings of the wise sages not to have been in vain. In recent years, the harvests of
grains and crops have been high, and illnesses and ailments do not arise. I sin-
cerely consider it appropriate to perform the rite at the famous mountain so as to
thank Heaven and Earth. However, following death and disorder, the people and
things of the world are withered and ruined. I worry about the toil and expense;
this is why We cannot spare the time [to undertake the ritual performance].
非朕專自矜伐，欲明聖人之教不徒然也。比年穀稼頻登，疾疚不作。
誠宜展禮名山，以謝天地。但以喪亂之後，民物凋殘。憚於勞費，所
未遑也。47
Taizong believes himself indeed deserving of the honor of the Feng and
Shan sacrifices, but thinks that he must temporarily refrain because of the
still-vulnerable state of the empire. Taizong does not argue that a return
to ritual sovereignty is a necessary condition for the performance of the
Feng and Shan. Rather, he discusses how he acts in accordance to the rit-
ual ideals of the sage-kings throughout the speech, and only introduces
the more pragmatic problems of the sacrifice at the end of the speech. He
even says, “I sincerely consider it appropriate to perform the rite at the
famous mountain so as to thank Heaven and Earth.” That is, Taizong is
no longer awaiting the restoration of the sagely ritual order for the per-
formance of the Feng and Shan; he is now arguing that he must await the
complete restoration of the country’s economic and social health. The
former condition is idealistic (and unlikely), while the latter condition is
pragmatic, merely a matter of timing. Within these two statements, we
begin to see the tension that arises in Taizong’s thinking on the Feng and
Shan and what the enactment of this ritual would mean for his concep-
tion of sovereignty.
—————
47. Cefu yuangui, 35.385a; and Tang huiyao, 7.79–80.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
Once again Taizong omits any mention of filial piety among the claims
that he is martial ( wu) and civilized ( wen), and benevolent ( ren) and sincere ( dun 敦), as well as one who honors trustworthiness ( xin 信). Yet for the orthodox imperial model of sovereignty, it is xiao 孝, or filiality, that is the root of all other sovereign virtues. For this reason, the absence of
any mention of xiao is surprising, especially when Taizong takes evident
pride in cataloguing his other virtues. What is even more surprising, how-
ever, is that in the one place where kinship is mentioned, Taizong treats it
as a problem that requires rectification. He states, “We have severed fam-
ily preferences and eliminated old grudges in order to strengthen the sur-
viving traces of true equality.” What I translate here as “family prefer-
ences” is literally “kinship love” ( qin’ai 親愛). Within the context of the
statement, we may assume that Taizong is primarily referring to nepotism
and the elite insularity of the great medieval family clans.48 At the same
time, though, the term is broad enough to be viewed as a general criticism
of kinship-based morality, especially when it leads to the promotion of
one’s own kin above all others without regard to merit.
By arguing against the priority of kinship, Taizong is seeking to revalu-
ate the moral code of the sovereign from one that emphasizes the essen-
tially private relationship between parent and child to one that empha-
sizes the public relationship between sovereign and subject. He is
contrasting the corrupting effects of kinship preference with “absolute
public-mindedness” ( zhi gong 至公). The idea that the sovereign ought to
be impartial in his exercise of rulership has an important precedent in the
story of Yao’s decision to appoint the common-born Shun as his heir, in-
stead of Yao’s own son. Not only does the Yao-Shun story represent the
argument that moral worthiness has priority over blood relationships or
noble birth, it also advances the idea that the sovereign ought to be uni-
versalistic and public-minded.
It is not surprising that Yao should serve as an important model for
Taizong, since Yao was connected to the ancient state of Tang, making
him a symbolic ancestral figure for the Li clan. It should, however, also be
noted that by choosing the role of Yao, Taizong is dividing up the Shun
narrative, which should have begun with Shun’s unwavering filiality to his
—————
48. On the problem of clans in medieval China, see Johnson, Medieval Chinese Oligarchy; and Ebrey, Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
337
father despite his father’s attempts to kill him. Taizong insightfully sees
that these two segments of the Shun story are concerned with separate is-
sues: the Shun-filiality segment is concerned with the duties of the child
to the parent while the Yao-Shun segment is concerned with the duties of
the parent to the child. By taking the Yao-Shun segment, Taizong opts
for the easier solution, since the discourse of filiality is rather less defined
on the subject of the father’s responsibilities to the son—and much more
strict on the duties of the son to the father.
Taizong’s statement on kinship cannot be separated from the event at
Xuanwu Gate; it may even be taken as a belated justification of those ac-
tions. The opening lines characterize Taizong as having unified the world
through wu and wen, through public virtues. His conflict with the crown prince is not mentioned, though it may be taken as one more example of
the problems of kinship-based morality, which can lead to factionalism.
Taizong’s dismissal of qin’ai when he is sovereign arises from his desire to rid the empire of partiality and favoritism. It is a model of universal sovereignty that Taizong seeks to effect, transforming the empire (at least on
the level of rhetoric and ideology) from the private property of one family
into the property of all who inhabit it. Filiality as expressed in such lim-
ited concepts as xiao is now marginalized in favor of a broader conception
of sovereign virtue—the idea of gong.49
The ascendancy of gong as a central concept of sovereignty indicates an
important change in the motivation of a ritual such as the Feng and Shan.
During the time of Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi, these sacrifices were a
purely personal act, a means to attain personal immortality or glory. For
Taizong, the Feng and Shan rites inhabit the discourse of the public good,
of the purely selfless sacrificial act. In this way, the ideal of gong carries within it an economic argument. We see this in both of the above passages, where Taizong deploys a ledger of material benefits and harms to
the populace to explain his refusals. In other words, the sovereign must re-
frain from any unnecessarily extravagant expenditures, since the private
desires of the sovereign may brin
g ruin to the empire. This attention to
the material consequences of sovereignty, combined with the perfect gov-
ernance of Yao and Shun, binds the economic and the ritual together in a
—————
49. Also see Wechsler, Offerings of Jade and Silk, pp. 225–26.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
particular way—especially in Taizong’s political thought, as we shall see
more clearly below.
In
632, Taizong was pressured once more to consider performing the
Feng and Shan. To this, Taizong responded:
Those who have submitted opinions take the Feng and Shan to be a great ritual
standard. However, Our basic intent is this: if only We can bring about the Great
Peace in the empire and adequate provision for people and their families, then
even if the Feng and Shan ritual is omitted, this still might be compared to the
virtue of Yao and Shun. If the common people lack adequate provisions, and the
Yi and Di tribes invade the country, then even if the Feng and Shan ritual is per-
formed, how would We be different from Jie and Zhou?”50
In the past, Qin Shihuang said of himself that his virtue would harmonize the
heart of Heaven, styling himself “August Thearch” and ascending Daizong to
offer the Feng rite—this was extravagant and arrogant. However, Han Wendi
did not ascend to perform the Feng, but personally practiced moderation and
frugality, setting aside penalties and not using them. The people all say that Qin
Shihuang was violent and cruel, but that Han Wendi was a ruler who possessed
virtue.
If one were to speak according to this, then there is no need to avail oneself of
the Feng and Shan. The Ritual says, “Perfect respect needs no altar: sweep the earth and then sacrifice.”51 If this was enough to display perfect sincerity, then why must one go far away to ascend the high mountain and pile up a few feet of earth?
議者以封禪為大典。如朕本心，但使天下太平，家給人足，雖闕封禪
之禮，亦可比德堯、舜；若百姓不足，夷狄內侵，縱修封禪之儀，亦
何異於桀、紂？
昔秦始皇自謂德洽天心，自稱皇帝，登封岱宗，奢侈自矜。漢文帝
竟不登封，而躬行儉約，刑措不用。今皆稱始皇為暴虐之主，漢文為
有德之君。
以此而言，無假封禪。《禮》云，“至敬不壇”，掃地而祭，足表
至誠，何必遠登高山，封數尺之土也！52
In this speech, Taizong responds to his officials’ request by weighing the
merits of the Feng and Shan performance against the more mundane con-
cerns of governance. He argues that the Feng and Shan may be overlooked
—————
50. Jie and Zhou were the respective bad, last rulers of the Xia and Shang dynasties.
51. This is quoted from the “Instruments of Ritual” 禮器 chapter of the Record of Ritual.
See Li ji xunzuan, 10.365.
52. Jiu Tang shu, 23.881–82; and Tang huiyao, 7.80. This is translated in French in Chavannes, Le T’ai-chan, p. 170.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
339
if his policies merely concern himself with “making households wealthy
and providing the people with adequate means.” He further points out
that if his policies neglect the welfare of the people and do not defend
against the incursions of the border tribes, then even the performance of
the Feng and Shan will not save him from history’s censure.
This response emphasizes the superfluity of the Feng and Shan, or
more precisely, the peripheral importance of this ritual to the total sum of
sovereign concerns. Yet, unlike the first two refusals, Taizong does not
advance a pragmatic argument; he does not invoke the fragile economic
state of the empire, or the hardships of the people. Rather, Taizong is
making an argument about ritual sovereignty. The Feng and Shan rites do
not contribute in any meaningful way to the proper governance of empire,
since they do not address the material conditions of the people. Qin Shi-
huang’s selfishness in his vainglorious decision to hold the sacrifices is
mirrored by his hubristic claims to harmonize Heaven and Earth and his
arrogation of the title “August Thearch.” Since the First Emperor ruled
with excessive cruelty and arrogance, none of these acts could have trans-
formed his unjust reign into a just one. By contrast, Han Wendi “person-
ally practiced moderation and frugality” and did not depend on Legalist
tools such as the system of punishments. Here, Taizong draws upon the
debate between ritual sovereignty and the more “technological” Legalist
approach to sovereignty in his differentiation of Qin Shihuang and Han
Wendi. Because Wendi already embodied ritual, the Feng and Shan were
not necessary for posterity to recognize his reign as a virtuous one.
Taizong concludes his argument with a passage in the Record of Ritual:
“Perfect respect needs no altar: sweep the earth and then sacrifice” 至敬
不壇，掃地而祭. Here, Taizong argues that a felicitous ritual perfor-
mance consists of only two components: the sacrificer’s reverent inten-
tion and a prepared site where the act would take place. Compare this to
how Jonathan Z. Smith defines ritual as “first and foremost, a mode of
paying attention . . . a process for marking interest” and then goes on to
argue that “place directs attention.”53 Smith understands that the essential
aspect of ritual is not insignia or ornament (which are secondary to the
process), but the location or situation of proper attention. The Record of
Ritual passage, with its focus on creating a site on which ritual attention
—————
53. In Smith, To Take Place, p. 103.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
can be brought to bear, also builds upon, and subtly transforms, earlier ar-
guments on the contrast between circumstance and virtue. We might re-
call how the Analects described the sage-king Yu as “perfectly filial” 至孝,
“perfectly elegant” 至美, and “exhaustively diligent” 盡力, despite his
humble lifestyle. The underlying point is that content trumps form. Such
a ritual conception then stands in contrast to the extravagant procedures
entailed by the Feng and Shan sacrifices. By deploying the Record of Ritual
passage, Taizong refutes his courtiers who “take the Feng and Shan to be a
great ritual standard.” If the Record of Ritual understands proper ritual as based in correct intention, how much less proper then is a ritual that arises from dubious motives, has no canonical sanction, can be filiated to Qin
Shihuang, and requires great expenditures of time and resources?
Moreover, beyond the particular argument about the Feng and Shan,
we may see here the articulation of a more gene
ral principle that underlies
Taizong’s political position. Taizong returns to the intersection between
ritual and economic discourses by arguing for a ritual definition devoid of
extravagance. Earlier arguments about sovereignty and desire in the
Mengzi and the Laozi had also counseled the ruler to limit himself to that which was necessary for governance and to eschew indulgence in sensual
pleasures. This is the idea that sovereignty is founded upon askēsis, upon
the negation of sensual excess. Here, Taizong is paring ritual sacrifice
down to its most basic, skeletal form, and thereby arguing against the ra-
ther more extravagant Feng and Shan rites.
It is ironic that the 632 speech, the moment at which Taizong articu-
lates his most ideologically interesting refutation of the Feng and Shan sa-
crifice, is the very moment he begins to show real interest in performing
the sacrifice. In the court discussion following this third refusal, the min-
ister Wei Zheng approved of Taizong’s decision, further arguing that be-
cause of the economic and social disasters following the fall of the Sui, the
emperor should not commit to the vast expenditures and preparations
necessary for the performance of the Feng and Shan. The text notes that
Taizong was “greatly pleased with Wei Zheng’s words” 深嘉徵言; how-
ever, it then records that memorials from inside and outside the court
continued without cessation. Though there is nothing recorded that
shows Taizong clearly reversing himself, one may infer that Taizong de-
cided to prepare for a performance of the sacrifices when Assistant Secre-
tariat-Director Du Zhenglun 杜正倫, was sent to investigate the traces of
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On “The Imperial Capital Poems”
341
the seventy-two altars on Mount Tai.54 The Assistant Secretariat Direc-
tors were second only to the two Secretariat Directors; sending such a
high-ranking official to inspect the traces of former sacrifices would not
have been taken lightly.55 However, because the Yellow River and the
Yangtze flooded that year, “the matter was laid to rest” 其事乃寢.56 The