Discourses on salt and iron : a debate on state control of commerce and industry in ancient China, chapter I-XXVIII / translated from the Chinese of Huan K'uan, with introduction and notes, by Esson M. Gale. |
 |
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. | CHAPTER VIII |
| IX. |
| X. |
| XI. |
| XII. |
| XIII. |
| XIV. |
| XV. |
| XVI. |
| XVII. |
| XVIII. |
| XIX. |
|
|
 | CHAPTER VIII Discourses on salt and iron : |  |
CHAPTER VIII
CH'AO TS'O[1]
a. The Lord Grand Secretary: This is the guiding principle of
the Spring and Autumn that there should be no designs[2]
made
against Prince or Parent and those guilty of such designs must be
punished by death.[3]
There is, therefore, no greater crime for a
minister than the assassination of his prince, and no greater crime
the princes of Huai Nan and Hêng Shan,[5] encouraging literary
studies, invited footloose scholars from the four corners of the Empire.
The Confucianists and Mihists from east of the mountains[6] all congregated
betwixt the Chiang and the Huai,[7] expounding, arguing,
compiling and epitomizing, producing books by the score. Yet finally
we saw these princes discarding loyalty, turning to rebellious ways,
planning sedition, and perishing the death of criminals together with
all their kith and kin. Thus Ch'ao Ts'o was led[8] to change the
laws and alter customs,[9] disregard precedent and rule, in his attempt
to curb the hereditary houses[10] and curtail the appanages of the
feudal lords, until outlying vassals refused allegiance and the royal
flesh and blood threw off the bond of consanguinity. Long did
Wu and Ch'u[11] nourish their grievances — beheaded was Ch'ao
Ts'o in the Eastern Market, sacrificed for the purpose of quieting
the soldiers of the army and placating the nobles. Now tell me,
pray, who was his real murderer?
b. The Literati: Confucius would not drink of the outflow at
"Robber's Spring"; Tsêng Tzŭ would not enter the hamlet of "Mother
Surpassed".[12]
These mere names they hated; how much more would
they shrink from doing anything disloyal or unfilial? Thus Confucius
and although Ch'ên Wên Tzŭ held a fief of ten chariots he abandoned
all and left the country.[14] The superior man, says the Chuan,[15] may
be exalted and may be humbled; he may undergo punishment and
be executed; but never can he be forced to become seditious. Now a
man may have polished manners and yet be empty in substance;
he may offer lip-service at the shrine of culture but in his conduct
never follow its paths. Let him, then, keep company with knaves,
for he is nothing short of that; he is not to be tolerated in the
precincts of gentlemen. The Spring and Autumn never countenanced
opposing the many in behalf of the few. The justice of extreme
penalties has its limitations; it should not involve the victimizing
of others. Thus when Shun was forced to resort to executions, he
executed but Kun, the chief criminal, just as when he made rewards
by promotion he chose Yü as the worthiest of all.[16] If all uncarved
precious stones were discarded because of some flaw found in the
crown jewels,[17] or all members of a group were implicated in the
guilt of one individual, there would remain in the whole world not
a single precious jewel and not a single trustworthy knight. Master
Ch'ao claimed that the feudal lords had waxed strong and rich on
their estates and had become so proud and extravagant that they
might in time of crisis unite their forces with sinister designs. So
for a fault of Wu[18] he decimated Kuei Chi,[19] for the crime of Ch'u[20]
he deprived of power Tung Hai[21] so that he might preserve the
balance of power and divide their authority; he planned for generations
with Chêng,[24] Master Ch'ao was faithful to Han and thus came to
be an enemy to the princes. Any man serving as minister must be
ready to die for his prince in the service of his state. It was thus
that Hsieh Yang[25] requited himself fully before Chin[26] by slighting
the barbarian power of Ching.[27]
[OMITTED], held to be an adherent of Shang Yang's school (Duyvendak, Book of
Lord Shang, 54). He brought on a grave rebellion of the feudatories against his Imperial
patron, Ching Ti (156—140 B.C.), through ill-conceived advice to reduce their power.
To satisfy the animosity of the nobles, he was made the scapegoat and was executed.
Cf. Shih-chi, chaps. XI, XXIII, (Chavannes, Mém. hist., II, 499, 509; III, 210—11),
and CI, where his biography appears. It would seem, though the argument is somewhat
obscure and must be largely inferred from the several historical allusions employed by
the disputants, that the Lord High Secretary lays the blame for Ch'ao Ts'o's death on
the Scholars; while the Literati accuse Ch'ao Ts'o of having been too sweeping in his
punishment of the feudal princes. Perhaps the fact that it was recent history (122 B.C.)
induced the Literati to express their opinion in a rather guarded manner.
[OMITTED]. Chang quotes Yen Shih-ku's explanation of [OMITTED] as "to have
designs upon", [OMITTED]. The exact quotation occurs in the Kung-yang Chuan,
Chao [OMITTED], I. Cf. Tz'ŭ-yüan, sub [OMITTED], and K'ang Hsi Tzŭ-tien, the latter assigning the
quotation to op. cit., Chuang [OMITTED], XXXII.
This dogmatic interpretation of the Ch'un-ch'iu [OMITTED], in a work of the first
half of the century before the Christian era, is of special interest. The critical school
of K'ang Yu-wei asserted that the great commentary on the Ch'un-ch'iu, the Tso-chuan
[OMITTED], was specially composed from earlier works by Liu Hsin [OMITTED] at the
beginning of the Christian era, to make manifest that the venerated chronicle, whose
entries contain numerous accounts of murders and usurpations in the feudal states, did
not necessarily reprobate regicide and usurpation. Liu Hsin's purpose, according to K'ang,
was to vindicate his patron, Wang Mang [OMITTED], who had obtained the throne through
such measures. Karlgren argues against such a theory (cf. On the Authenticity of the
Tso chuan, 1926). The Ch'un-ch'iu has been subjected to a renewed examination by Franke
in Studien zur Geschichte des Konfuzianischen Dogmas und der chinesischen Staats-religion:
Das Problem des Tsch'un-ts'iu und Tung Tschung-schu's Tsch'un-ts'iu-fan-lu (1920).
A possible reference to the Lun-yü, XI, xxiii, 6, where regicide and parricide are
under discussion. Cf. Soothill, Analects, 540, note.
[OMITTED], who is described as gathering about him a heterogeneous group of scholars.
With the Prince of Hêng Shan [OMITTED], he rebelled against the Han house, and ultimately
committed suicide (122 B.C.). Cf. Wieger, Textes historiques (ap. Ch'ien-han-shu), I,
468—9.
[OMITTED]. It was the activities of the seditious scholars that led Ch'ao Ts'o to adopt
his vigorous policy of centralization.
[OMITTED] should read [OMITTED]. The substitution crept in under the influence
of the preceding [OMITTED].
Cf. ch. XVI of the Shuo-yüan of Liu Hsiang (B.C. 80—9) where the same passage
indicates the fastidiousness of the two ancients regarding improper names.
[OMITTED]. To obtain vengeance for the murder of Duke Chien of Ch'i [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]. Lun-yü, XIV, xxii.
Shun [OMITTED] executed Kun [OMITTED], father of Yü [OMITTED], for failure to curb the waters
of the great flood, a task accomplished by Yü, as recorded in the Shu-ching.
| CHAPTER VIII Discourses on salt and iron : | |