[wuTao]

Mark Edward Lewis, in his book "Sanctioned Violence in Early China", gives an interesting analysis of what he believes is Sima Qian's assessment of the origins of the Chinese and what it reveals about Chinese political thought at that time. First, Lewis gives his translation of the mythology of the Yellow Emperor from the first chapter of "Shi ji":

Quote

The Yellow Emperor was the son of Shao Dian. His surname was Gongsun and his personal name was Xianyuan. At birth his spirit was magically efficacious, in infancy he could speak, when young he was wise and equable, when he grew up he was quick-witted, and when he reached maturity his perceptions were supremely acute. At that time the lineage of the Divine Husbandman had been in decline for generations. The nobles attacked one another and violently persecuted the common people, and the lineage of the Divine Husbandman could not send punitive expeditions against them. So Xianyuan practiced the use of weapons in order to punish all those who did not attend the ruler's court, and the nobles all served him as retainers.

But Chi You was the most savage of them all, and none could attack him. The Fiery Emperor sought to invade and bully the nobles by force, so they all took refuge with Xianyuan. Xianyuan cultivated his spiritual potency and arrayed his troops. He channelled the five qi, planted the five grains, consoled the myriad people, measured the four quarters, and instructed the bears, leopards, and tigers, and with them he battled the Fiery Emperor on the plain of Ban Springs. He fought three battles and finally achieved his goals. Chi You rose up in rebellion, and rejected the Yellow Emperor's charge ["command" or "appointment"]. So the Yellow Emperor levied the armies of the nobles, did battle with Chi You at Zhuolu, and killed Chi You. Then the nobles reverenced Xianyuan as the Son of Heaven, replaced the lineage of the Divine Husbandman with him, and he became the Yellow Emperor.

If any under Heaven did not obey, then the Yellow Emperor led an expedition against them, and when they submitted he departed. He broke through the mountains to open up roads, and never came to rest or dwelt in one place. In the east he reached the sea, and ascended Mt. Fan and Mt. Tai. In the west he reached Kongtong and ascended Cockshead Peak. In the south he reached the Yangzi and ascended Bear Peak and Mt. Xiang. In the north he drove off the Hunzhou people [putative ancestors of the Xiong-nu], matched the tallies at Ax Mountain [The commentators disagree as to whether this refers to assembling the nobles at court or receiving a divine sign in confirmation of his rule.], and built a city at the base of Zhuolu. He was always moving without any fixed residence, using only his army as an escort. The titles of his officials were all taken from clouds, so they became a cloud army. He appointed Grand Observers of the Left and Right to oversee the myriad states. The myriad states were in harmony, and there were numerous offerings to the ghosts, spirits, mountains, rivers, and the feng and shan. He obtained the precious tripods [symbols of sovereignty]. He manipulated the spirit yarrow to lay out the calendar. He raised up the Wind Monarch, the Mighty Shpeherd, the Constant Vanguard, and the Great Vastness to direct the people. He followed the divisions of Heaven and Earth [yin and yang and the four seasons], the divinations of the hidden and the clear, the sayings about life and death [methods of immortality], and those about preservation and destruction [military theories]. In their proper seasons he planted the hundred grains, grasses, and trees; through his simple purity he civilized the birds, beasts, reptiles, and insects. On all sides he spread out the sun, moon, stars, water, soil, rocks, metal, and jade. He toiled with mind, body, eyes and ears. He was sparing in the use of water, fire and materials. He received the auspicious signs of the virtue of the phase of Earth, so he was called the Yellow Emperor.

Lewis then gives this introductory summary of his analysis of Sima Qian's version of the Yellow Emperor myth:

Quote

Sima Qian intended his work to be an account of the entire history of China, and his first chapter relates the "genesis of the Chinese culture and nation." In his opinion, the history of Chinese civilization began with the career of the Yellow Emperor. But that career did not mark the beginning of all history, for the Chinese of the second century B.C. knew of wonder-working inventors of culture who preceded the Yellow Emperor. Sima Qian's references to the Divine Husbandman above, as well as references to the Husbandman and Fu Xi in his "Monograph on the Feng and Shan Sacrifices," show that he shared this knowledge and regarded it as reliable. But the inventions of these earlier sages, like the division of Heaven and Earth, were prior to the Chinese state or civilization. The historical Chinese culture and polity began with the "invention" or cultural innovation made by the Yellow Emperor, and that innovation was the use of correct violence to establish political authority.

Born into a world where men preyed on each other, and the ruler lacked the means to control them, he learned how to bring order to the world through the use of weapons and the instruction of "warrior" beasts. he ruled as a master of force, striking out wherever disorder appeared and having no capital save his army. The significance of his career lay in his military accomplishments, and the understanding of that significance hinges on recognizing the natures of his defeated adversaries. Sima Qian's account names three opponents: the Divine Husbandman, the Fiery Emperor, and Chi You.

Lewis then discusses how the Yellow Emperor differs from each of his opponents. Whereas the Divine Husbandman represented "a model to condemn those who ruled through sacrifice, blood oaths, and warfare", the Yellow Emperor introduces rule through violence. Whereas the Fiery Emperor was a bringer of drought, the Yellow Emperor was the master of storms. The case of Chi You, instead of being a direct opposite, as in the case of the Yellow Emperor's two previous adversaries, he was a strange doubling. Both were regarded as gods of war and storms, but whereas Chi You was a warrior whose power stemmed from his strength, the Yellow Emperor was a sage, whose power stemmed from his intellect.

Thus, the mythology, which was altered during the Warring States to the form above, justified the rule of the authoritarian governments of the period. Warring States rulers, like the Yellow Emperor, ruled through their power of violence and held the life and death of the masses in their hands. This was not a martial government, though, as shown by the comparison of rulers to sages who commanded warriors, but were not warriors themselves.

Would you agree with Lewis on this interpretation of Sima Qian? Would you agree that Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization only truly began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of rule through violence? Would you agree with this intepretation of Chinese civilization? And do you think Lewis' analysis of the Yellow Emperor and his adversaries are correct?

[fcharton]

wuTao, on Dec 30 2005, 11:51 AM, said:

Would you agree with Lewis on this interpretation of Sima Qian? Would you agree that Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization only truly began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of rule through violence? Would you agree with this intepretation of Chinese civilization? And do you think Lewis' analysis of the Yellow Emperor and his adversaries are correct?

Warning : long post…

Although Lewis has a point that the Yellow Emperor, benevolent as he might have been, used violence to conquer his title, I do not quite buy the idea that it was an innovation, nor agree with his interpretation of Sima Qian's account of his enemies.


Here is the beginning of the chapter (which Lewis translates)

軒 轅 之 時 ， 神 農 氏 世 衰 。 諸 侯相 侵 伐 ， 暴 虐 百 姓 ， 而 神 農 氏 弗 能 征 。

At the time of the Yellow Emperor, the dynasty (I think 世 here means dynasty or lineage) of the family of Shennong had become weak. Feudal princes fought with each other, and persecuted the hundred clans, but the family of Shennong was unable to punish them.


Note the use of 諸 侯 (feudal princes) and 百 姓 which in my opinion does not mean the common people (as Lewis says): Sima Qian uses “Min”for this, but rather the noble families (patricians) which held various cities.

This description seems pretty common to all dynastic successions in China : the dynasty of Shennong had declined, and could not assert its rule over the princes, just like the Zhou at a later stage, and the Yellow Emperor conquered the Mandate of Heaven by restoring order. As such, I believe Sima Qian suggests more a typical transition from one dynasty to the next, than a drastic innovation.

The next sentence is even more illuminating:

於 是 軒 轅 乃 習 用 干 戈 ， 以 征 不 享 ， 諸 侯 咸 來 賓從 。

Then, the Yellow Emperor practiced the use of weapons, and led punitive expeditions against those who did not conduct sacrifices (享), and all feudal princes submitted to him and followed him.

Commentators disagree on the meaning of 享, here is the corresponding note

索 隱 謂 用 干 戈 以 征 諸 侯 之 不 朝 享者 。 本 或 作 「 亭 」 ， 亭 訓 直 ， 以 征 諸 侯 之 不 直 者 。

It is said that he used weapons to lead campaigns against the feudal princes which did not attend the imperial audiences and sacrifices. Other editions use the character 亭, which means « right », he led a campaign to punish those who were not righteous.

Again, Sima Qian hints at a succession war, with the Yellow Emperor rallying the princes around him.



As for the enemies of the Yellow Emperor, I am not sure they were three, here is the next sentence…

而 蚩 尤 最 為 暴 ， 莫 能 伐 。 炎 帝 欲 侵 陵 諸 侯 ， 諸 侯 咸 歸 軒 轅 。

Chiyou was the most violent of them, no one could fight him. When the Fiery Emperor wanted to invade and dominate the feudal princes, they all rallied to the Yellow Emperor.

Most commentaries consider that the Fiery Emperor is either a descendent of Shennong, or Shennong himself. This seems logical from the theory of five elements : the Fiery Emperor (Yandi) reigns through the virtue of fire, and is replaced by the Yellow Emperor, who reigns through the virtue of Earth. Commentators also dispute that the Yellow Emperor actually fought Shennong/Yandi, here is the note :

集 解 皇 甫 謐 曰 ： 「 易 稱 庖 犧 氏 沒， 神 農 氏 作 ， 是 為 炎 帝 。 」 班 固 曰 ： 「 教 民 耕 農 ， 故 號 曰 神 農 。 」 　 索 隱 世 衰 ， 謂 神 農 氏 後代 子 孫 道 德 衰 薄 ， 非 指 炎 帝 之 身 ， 即 班 固 所 謂 「 參 盧 」 ， 皇 甫 謐 所 云 「 帝 榆 罔 」 是 也 。

(Jijie) According to Huangfu Mi, the Yijing says that when the clan of Fuxi became weak, it was replaced by the clan of Shennong, who assumed the titled of Fiery Emperor. According to Ban Gu, he taught men to cultivate the land, and was therefore called Shennong (the divine farmer).

(Suoyin) 世 衰 means that the virtue of the descendents of Shennong has grown weak and feeble. This does not refer to the Fiery Emperor (note that Shennnong and Yandi are assumed to be just one person), but to the emperor which Ban Gu calls Canwu (參 盧) and Huangfu Mi Emperor Yuwang (帝 榆 罔).


As for Chiyou, although he was different from Shennong, commentators disagree on who he exactly was, here are some excerpts of the commentaries :

集 解 應 劭 曰 ： 「 蚩 尤 ， 古 天 子 。」 瓚 曰 ： 「 孔 子 三 朝 紀 曰『 蚩 尤 ， 庶 人 之 貪 者 』 。 」 　
(jijie) According to Ying Shao, Chiyou was an emperor of old (in which case the three opponents might be only one). According to Zan, the 'three audiences of Confucius' say : Chiyou was an ambitious commoner.

索 隱 案 ： 此 紀 云 「 諸 侯 相 侵 伐 ， 蚩 尤 最 為 暴 」， 則 蚩 尤 非 為 天 子 也 。 又 管 子 曰 「 蚩 尤 受 盧 山 之 金 而 作 五 兵 」 ， 明 非 庶 人 ， 蓋 諸 侯 號 也 。
(…) 孔 安 國 曰 「 九 黎 君 號 蚩尤 」 是 也 。
(suoyin) The text says 「 諸 侯 相 侵 伐 ， 蚩 尤 最 為 暴 」，this proves Chiyou was not an emperor (note the different punctuation in this version, which would read : the feudal princes fought each other, and Chiyou was the most violent of them). The Guanzi also says : « Chiyou collected gold/metal from Mount Lu and made five weapons of it » , which proves that he was not a commoner either. It is probably the title of a feudal prince. (…) According to Kong Anguo, Chiyou was the lord of Jiuli.

Although it does not contradict it completely, this is a bit at odds with Lewis interpretation: we are presented with a typical end of rule situation… The last sovereigns of the dynasty are decadent and let feudal princes rebel. The Yellow Emperor therefore fights the last Emperor (Shennong, Yandi or one of his descendents), and Chiyou, who could well have been another contender for the imperial throne (like Liu Bang and Xiang Yu).

As such, I believe Sima Qian is much more closer to the traditional confucean vision of the Mandate of Heaven being transferred to a new dynasty, than with the violent innovation Lewis suggests.


As for Sima Qian's opinion on the Yellow Emperor, he gives a lot of insight on his position in his commentary of the chapter. Here is the first sentence, which shows he is fully aware of the lack of sources.

學 者 多 稱 五 帝 ， 尚矣 。 然 尚 書 獨 載 堯 以 來 ；

Scholars often speak of the Five Emperors, which belong to ancient times. Yet, the Shangshu begins its reckoning with Yao.

And the end of the passage (warning: the translation is probably much lacking : I am at work and don't have my dictionaries at hand…)

書 缺 有 閒 矣 ， 其 軼 乃 時 時 見 於 他 說 。非 好 學 深 思 ， 心 知 其 意 ， 固 難 為 淺 見 寡 聞 道 也 。 余 并 論 次 ， 擇 其 言 尤 雅 者 ， 故 著 為本 紀 書 首 。

The Shangshu has errors and lacunes, some of them can be corrected through the use of other works. If one does not study hard and ponder these works, and would rather try to guess their meaning, chances are that his reading will be superficial and based upon a small number of legends. I have put some order into this, I chose what was most true in these tales, and wrote them in the first chapter of my book.

As such, Sima Qian acknowledges that historical records begin with Yao and Shun, but adds in three emperors. He seems to be aware of the semi-mythical character of Huangdi, and notes the existence of previous emperors before him. As such, I am not sure he implies a change or foundation of chinese civilisation at that time. Note also that later historians would dispute the the Yellow Emperor belonged to the five emperors (they made him one of the three augusts, with Fuxi and Shennong). As for why he added the three emperors, I think it has to do with the number 5: 5 elements, 5 emperors, followed by 5 dynasties...

Francois

This post has been edited by fcharton: 30 December 2005 - 09:44 AM

[Bao Pu]

Quote

Thus, the mythology, which was altered during the Warring States to the form above, justified the rule of the authoritarian governments of the period. Warring States rulers, like the Yellow Emperor, ruled through their power of violence and held the life and death of the masses in their hands. This was not a martial government, though, as shown by the comparison of rulers to sages who commanded warriors, but were not warriors themselves.

Would you agree with Lewis on this interpretation of Sima Qian? Would you agree that Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization only truly began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of rule through violence? Would you agree with this intepretation of Chinese civilization? And do you think Lewis' analysis of the Yellow Emperor and his adversaries are correct?

Hi Wutao

François seems to be correct in his assessment, but I would add that lewis is trying to draw out certain things from Sima Qian's account to show the role that violence had in Chinese culture of the time. I don't think Lewis is arguing that "Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization only truly began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of rule through violence." Additionally, I would add that the statement: "the mythology, which was altered during the Warring States to the form above," is misleading, as there are no accounts of this myth before late Warring States period, so we are in no position to say that it was altered.

[fcharton]

Bao Pu, on Dec 30 2005, 03:52 PM, said:

Additionally, I would add that the statement: "the mythology, which was altered during the Warring States to the form above," is misleading, as there are no accounts of this myth before late Warring States period, so we are in no position to say that it was altered.

Bao Pu,

I remember that Granet (and maybe Maspero) did describe some older (and very mythological) versions of the stories of Shennong, Huangdi and Chiyou. Their thesis was that at some point (during the Warring States or later) the characters of old mythologies, which still could be studied in neighbouring cultures, had been stripped of their original mythical content, and incorporated as historical heroes. This could be what Lewis is saying here.

Francois

[Bao Pu]

Hi François

If you could find me the names of the books where Granet and Maspero put forth their views on this I would appreciate it My own research has come up with nothing prior to late 4th century (state of Qi), which, I must admit, is not really "late" Warring States. But that doesn't mean there isn't any. Thanks.

[wuTao]

fcharton, on Dec 30 2005, 05:36 AM, said:

Again, Sima Qian hints at a succession war, with the Yellow Emperor rallying the princes around him.
As for the enemies of the Yellow Emperor, I am not sure they were three, here is the next sentence…

而 蚩 尤 最 為 暴 ， 莫 能 伐 。 炎 帝 欲 侵 陵 諸 侯 ， 諸 侯 咸 歸 軒 轅 。

Chiyou was the most violent of them, no one could fight him. When the Fiery Emperor wanted to invade and dominate the feudal princes, they all rallied to the Yellow Emperor.

Most commentaries consider that the Fiery Emperor is either a descendent of Shennong, or Shennong himself. This seems logical from the theory of five elements : the Fiery Emperor (Yandi) reigns through the virtue of fire, and is replaced by the Yellow Emperor, who reigns through the virtue of Earth. Commentators also dispute that the Yellow Emperor actually fought Shennong/Yandi, here is the note :

集 解 皇 甫 謐 曰 ： 「 易 稱 庖 犧 氏 沒， 神 農 氏 作 ， 是 為 炎 帝 。 」 班 固 曰 ： 「 教 民 耕 農 ， 故 號 曰 神 農 。 」 　 索 隱 世 衰 ， 謂 神 農 氏 後代 子 孫 道 德 衰 薄 ， 非 指 炎 帝 之 身 ， 即 班 固 所 謂 「 參 盧 」 ， 皇 甫 謐 所 云 「 帝 榆 罔 」 是 也 。

(Jijie) According to Huangfu Mi, the Yijing says that when the clan of Fuxi became weak, it was replaced by the clan of Shennong, who assumed the titled of Fiery Emperor. According to Ban Gu, he taught men to cultivate the land, and was therefore called Shennong (the divine farmer).

(Suoyin) 世 衰 means that the virtue of the descendents of Shennong has grown weak and feeble. This does not refer to the Fiery Emperor (note that Shennnong and Yandi are assumed to be just one person), but to the emperor which Ban Gu calls Canwu (參 盧) and Huangfu Mi Emperor Yuwang (帝 榆 罔).

Hey Francois,

Hmmm... Interesting. Lewis does explain the controversy over the identity over the Fiery Emperor and commentators attempts to link the Firey Emperor and either Shennong or Chi You. According to Lewis, subsequent studies have shown that the link is not satifactory (he gives the studies, which I can provide if you would like), and therefore he spends much time developing his own interpretation.

First, Lewis explains the etymological origin of the character 炎 represents a human figure standing in flames and that it referred to a rainmaking ceremony known in Zhou texts as "exposing the shaman" or "burning the shaman". It was a ritual where, if a shaman could not end a drought, he was ritually burned as an offering. Thus the Fiery Emperor was a character linked to drought.

Lewis then claims the Fiery Emperor and the Yellow Emperor were ritually and mythically tied to the Yellow Emperor from an early date. One of the literary instances is in the "Monograph on the Feng and Shan Sacrifices" in the Shi ji, which states the state of Qin in the last quarter of the fifth century B.C. established an upper alter at Wuyang where they sacrificed to the Yellow Emperor, and a lower one where they sacrificed to the Fiery Emperor. Emperor Wu did the same during the Han. Lewis also says that in the Warring States period and the Western Han there was a widespread tradition that the two were brothers (he lists many sources, just let me know if you would like to check them out). Finally, he says in the Lu Shi chun qiu that the Fiery and Yellow Emperors are said to be the users of weapons of fire and water, respectively, and this is not an isolated instance because several texts mention the "calamities of fire" caused by the Fiery Emperor.

This is part of his argument that the Fiery Emperor was different from Shennong because the Fiery Emperor was a deity of drought and fire, as opposed to Shennong, who was linked with agriculture and water, as well as being the brother of the Yellow Emperor in some traditions. This is also part of his argument for the dichotomy of the Yellow Emperor and the Fiery Emperor. I probably did not put it as gracefully as he, but would you agree with this or are there flaws in his logic?

Lewis also gives an explanation on his opinion on who Chi You is, which I'll try to summarize another time, but he does not think that Chi You was an emperor.

fcharton, on Dec 30 2005, 05:36 AM, said:

As such, I believe Sima Qian is much more closer to the traditional confucean vision of the Mandate of Heaven being transferred to a new dynasty, than with the violent innovation Lewis suggests.
As for Sima Qian's opinion on the Yellow Emperor, he gives a lot of insight on his position in his commentary of the chapter. Here is the first sentence, which shows he is fully aware of the lack of sources.

學 者 多 稱 五 帝 ， 尚矣 。 然 尚 書 獨 載 堯 以 來 ；

Scholars often speak of the Five Emperors, which belong to ancient times. Yet, the Shangshu begins its reckoning with Yao.

And the end of the passage (warning: the translation is probably much lacking : I am at work and don't have my dictionaries at hand…)

書 缺 有 閒 矣 ， 其 軼 乃 時 時 見 於 他 說 。非 好 學 深 思 ， 心 知 其 意 ， 固 難 為 淺 見 寡 聞 道 也 。 余 并 論 次 ， 擇 其 言 尤 雅 者 ， 故 著 為本 紀 書 首 。

The Shangshu has errors and lacunes, some of them can be corrected through the use of other works. If one does not study hard and ponder these works, and would rather try to guess their meaning, chances are that his reading will be superficial and based upon a small number of legends. I have put some order into this, I chose what was most true in these tales, and wrote them in the first chapter of my book.

As such, Sima Qian acknowledges that historical records begin with Yao and Shun, but adds in three emperors. He seems to be aware of the semi-mythical character of Huangdi, and notes the existence of previous emperors before him. As such, I am not sure he implies a change or foundation of chinese civilisation at that time. Note also that later historians would dispute the the Yellow Emperor belonged to the five emperors (they made him one of the three augusts, with Fuxi and Shennong). As for why he added the three emperors, I think it has to do with the number 5: 5 elements, 5 emperors, followed by 5 dynasties...

Francois

Yes, Lewis does know Sima Qian gave this version of the Yellow Emperor myth by choosing what he believed was most realistic and plausible. Lewis argues that Sima Qian partly this interpretation and chose this point to start his history partly because Lewis felt Sima Qian believed the beginnings of Chinese civilization began with the innovation of the rule of correct violence by the Yellow Emperor.

Bao Pu, on Dec 30 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

Hi Wutao

François seems to be correct in his assessment, but I would add that lewis is trying to draw out certain things from Sima Qian's account to show the role that violence had in Chinese culture of the time. I don't think Lewis is arguing that "Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization only truly began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of rule through violence." Additionally, I would add that the statement: "the mythology, which was altered during the Warring States to the form above," is misleading, as there are no accounts of this myth before late Warring States period, so we are in no position to say that it was altered.

Hi Bao Pu,

Actually, Lewis is arguing that Sima Qian believed Chinese culture and civilization began with the Yellow Emperor's innovation of the rule through violence. Lewis' exact words in his introduction to his thesis are:

Quote

Sima Qian intended his work to be an account of the entire history of China, and his first chapter relates the "genesis of the Chinese culture and nation." In his opinion, the history of Chinese civilization began with the career of the Yellow Emperor. But that career did not mark the beginning of all history, for the Chinese of the second century B.C. knew of wonder-working inventors of culture who preceded the Yellow Emperor. Sima Qian's references to the Divine Husbandman above, as well as references to the Husbandman and Fu Xi in his "Monograph on the Feng and Shan Sacrifices," show that he shared this knowledge and regarded it as reliable. But the inventions of these earlier sages, like the division of Heaven and Earth, were prior to the Chinese state or civilization. The historical Chinese culture and polity began with the "invention" or cultural innovation made by the Yellow Emperor, and that innovation was the use of correct violence to establish political authority.

Lewis' study is very detailed and interesting, and though you guys may not agree with it, I urge you both to check it out! It's a very fun read! And I don't really do justice to his thesis, as he lays it out very structurally and eloquently! Ok, I'll stop plugging his book now...

[fcharton]

wuTao, on Dec 30 2005, 11:43 PM, said:

Hmmm... Interesting. Lewis does explain the controversy over the identity over the Fiery Emperor and commentators attempts to link the Firey Emperor and either Shennong or Chi You. According to Lewis, subsequent studies have shown that the link is not satifactory (he gives the studies, which I can provide if you would like), and therefore he spends much time developing his own interpretation.

This seems logical. In fact, I am not sure that Sima Qian's version is the most "mainstream" of the stories on the Yellow Emperor, probably because he adapted it a lot to strip it of its mythical contents, and also because he took away the three augusts, which are an important part of the same story... In the Shiji, Shennong appears as a secondary character, just an opponent of the Yellow Emperor, whereas other myths put them on par.

wuTao, on Dec 30 2005, 11:43 PM, said:

This is part of his argument that the Fiery Emperor was different from Shennong because the Fiery Emperor was a deity of drought and fire, as opposed to Shennong, who was linked with agriculture and water, as well as being the brother of the Yellow Emperor in some traditions. This is also part of his argument for the dichotomy of the Yellow Emperor and the Fiery Emperor. I probably did not put it as gracefully as he, but would you agree with this or are there flaws in his logic?

This is complex. If I remember correctly, in another story, the Yellow Emperor is also said to have called the goddess of Drought, his daughter, to defeat Chiyou (I think I read that in Maspero, I can check if you wish). My impression is that these characters appear in a large number of stories, not all of them consistent with each other...

wuTao, on Dec 30 2005, 11:43 PM, said:

Yes, Lewis does know Sima Qian gave this version of the Yellow Emperor myth by choosing what he believed was most realistic and plausible. Lewis argues that Sima Qian partly this interpretation and chose this point to start his history partly because Lewis felt Sima Qian believed the beginnings of Chinese civilization began with the innovation of the rule of correct violence by the Yellow Emperor.

This is in fact my main criticism. Lewis interpretation of the story might be true, but I don't really see why he says this is Sima Qian's point of view.

First, I am not sure Sima Qian implies anything about this "correct violence" being an innovation. In fact, he hardly says anything about the previous emperors (except that they existed).

Second, the largest part of the first chapter of the Shi Ji is not devoted to the Yellow Emperor, but to Yao and Shun, which I see as much more peaceful. But I suppose Lewis make these fit into the pattern.

Oh well, I suppose I just need to get the book and read it...

Francois

[wuTao]

fcharton, on Dec 30 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

This is in fact my main criticism. Lewis interpretation of the story might be true, but I don't really see why he says this is Sima Qian's point of view.

First, I am not sure Sima Qian implies anything about this "correct violence" being an innovation. In fact, he hardly says anything about the previous emperors (except that they existed).

Second, the largest part of the first chapter of the Shi Ji is not devoted to the Yellow Emperor, but to Yao and Shun, which I see as much more peaceful. But I suppose Lewis make these fit into the pattern.

Oh well, I suppose I just need to get the book and read it...

Francois

You have a very good point. From all that I can tell, Lewis' argument that this is Sima Qian's point of view is based only on the fact that the career of the Yellow Emperor is where Sima Qian chose to begin his history of China. Maybe there is more that I missed, but that seems to be the crux of his argument.

[wuTao]

Bao Pu, on Dec 30 2005, 09:05 AM, said:

Hi François

If you could find me the names of the books where Granet and Maspero put forth their views on this I would appreciate it My own research has come up with nothing prior to late 4th century (state of Qi), which, I must admit, is not really "late" Warring States. But that doesn't mean there isn't any. Thanks.

Hi Bao Pu,

There is also an article that Lewis references that discusses the evolution of these myths from hero cults devoted to the ancestors of various noble lineages. The article is:

"Legends and Cults in Ancient China." Karlgren, Bernhard. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 18 (1946): 199-365.

[fcharton]

Bao Pu, on Dec 30 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

If you could find me the names of the books where Granet and Maspero put forth their views on this I would appreciate it My own research has come up with nothing prior to late 4th century (state of Qi), which, I must admit, is not really "late" Warring States. But that doesn't mean there isn't any. Thanks.

Hi Bao Pu,

For Maspero, there are a series of articles in the Journal Asiatique (1924) called : Légendes mythologiques dans le Chou-King

it can be found on the internet (in French) at this (canadian) adress

www.uqac.ca/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/classiques/maspero_henri/C02_legendes_chou_king/legendes_chou_king.html

For Granet, although his views are scattered in most of his works, the most relevant one would be Danses et Légendes de la Chine Ancienne (1926, reedited by the Presses Universitaires de France in 1994)

again, there is an online version at
www.uqac.ca/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/classiques/granet_marcel/A10_danses_et_legendes/danses_et_legendes.html

Both of these are in French, and I am pretty sure they were never translated (warning : another book by granet with a similar title has been translated in english as "Danses and Festivals of Ancient China", or something approaching). Email me if you have problems with the language...

For more modern works, ou can look for anything by Remi Matthieu, and some works by Charles Le Blanc.

Hope this helps
François

[wuTao]

Hey fcharton and Bao Pu,

I've recently found a (relatively) new article that pertains to this discussion that both of you may be interested in hearing about. The article is entitled "Sages, Ministers, and Rebels: Narratives from Early China Concerning the Initial Creation of the State", in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp.425-479, by Michael Puett of Harvard University. Although I have not totally finished reading it, Puett's article acts as both a critique and an expansion of Mark Lewis' thesis that the mythology of the Yellow Emperor and his adversaries are an explanation of the creation of the state and the use of sanctioned violence.

Puett, like fcharton, finds fault in various scholar's (most notably, Lewis and Henri Maspero) attempts to find a single, consistent cycle and symbolism in the mythology of the Yellow Emperor. Puett suggests, as Bao Pu already pointed out, that the Yellow Emperor may have been a late invention, having only first appeared in texts during the Warring States era. However, Puett seems to agree that, indeed, the set of mythologies concerning the Yellow Emperor all pertain to state formation and use of sanctioned violence. The variations in the myths given by different authors in antiquity were, in a way, propaganda to spread their ideology of the nature of rulership. As an example of this, Puett starts by giving two recountings of the Yellow Emperor myth: one attributed to the Lord of Shang in Shangjunshu, the other in the Mawangdui text Shiliujing.

According to Puett, in the "Huace" chapter of the Shangjunshu, Lord Shang employs the myth of the Yellow Emperor to justify the creation of a state based on the use of laws, punishments and warfare by attributing these as the creations of the Yellow Emperor, Huangdi. As translated by Puett, Lord Shang begins by writing:

Quote

In the time of Shennong, the males plowed and the people were fed; the women weaved and the people were clothed. Punishments and administration were not used, but everything was kept in order. Armored soldiers were not raised, but Shennong reigned as king. After Shennong died, people used strength to overcome the weak, and used the many to oppress the few.

According to Lord Shang then, as times change, so does behavior, and at times disorder would simply emerge. Lord Shang then writes of Huangdi's response to this disorder:

Quote

Therefore, Huangdi created the rules of propriety for ruler and minister and for superior and inferior, the rites of father and son and of elder and younger brother, and the union between husband and wife. Within he put into practice knives and saws, and outside he used armored soldiers. This is because the times had changed. Looking at it from this perspective, it is not that Shennong is above Huangdi; the reason that his name is honored is that he fit the times.

Puett argues Lord Shang's above use of Huangdi was to justify the creation of a state with a hierachy, and which employed mutilating punishments to control the populace and a military force used to wage war. The paradox of a virtuous sage that uses violence to end violence is circumvented by Lord Shang on the grounds of necessity:

Quote

Therefore, if you use war to get rid of war, even war is acceptable; if you use killing to get rid of killing, even killing is acceptable; if you use punishments to get rid of (the need for punishments), even heavy punishments are acceptable.

As a counter point, Puett presents the use of the myth of the Yellow Emperor in the Mawangdui texts. Puett argues that in the Jingfa text, sages are described not as creators, but as organizers of the natural way of things. Among these natural occurences is the existence of violence:

Quote

Therefore, [everything] emerges together in darkness. Some thereby die, and some thereby live; some are thereby defeated, and some are thereby completed. Misfortune and fortune come from the same way, but no one knows from whence they were generated. The way to see and know is simply to be empty and have nothing... Therefore, the one who holds fast to the way observes all under Heaven without grasping, without being in a fixed position, without consciously acting, without being selfish.

The sages, being those who have attained the "way", organized the state as to be consistent with these events:

Quote

Heaven has seasons of death and life, the state has policies of death and life. According with the generation of Heaven and thereby nourishing life is called "civility." According with the killing of Heaven and thereby attacking and causing death is called "martialness." If civility and martialness are both put in practice, then all under Heaven will follow.

Puett then shows how this philosphy is justified by the authors of the Mawangdui texts by their version of the Yellow Emperor myth in the second Mawangdui text, the Shiliujing. In the Shiliujing, Huangdi is described as an orgnaizer who establishes positions of authority and institutes calendars according to the pattern of nature. In contrast to Lord Shang's version, punishments are not created; they occur naturally as a complement to virtue. Huangdi in this version creates nothing, only organizes the natural way of things.

Quote

I recieved the madate from Heaven, established positions on earth, and completed names among the people. I alone [graph missing] a counterpart to Heaven, instituted kings and the three ministers, established the state, and set up the rulers and the three counselors. I numbered the days, measured the months, and established the years so as to match the phases of the sun and moon.

Conflict is justified through another myth concerning the Yellow Emperor. In this narrative, the minister Yan Ran suggests to Huangdi that Huangdi must first rectify himself before he rectifies the world. Following this advice, Huangdi goes into self exile and isolation for three years to rest and meditate. When Huangdi returns, Yan Ran tells Huangdi that the time is right to enter into a conflict initiated about by Chi You:

Quote

The war was raging. Yan Ran thereupon aroused Huangdi, saying: "It is acceptable (to engage in the conflict). To create conflict is inauspicious, but not to conflict means that you cannot complete your tasks. How could it not be accetable (to engage in the conflict)?"

The battle between Chi You and Huangdi is then recounted:

Quote

Huangdi thereupon took out his axe and halberd, grasped his weapons of war, and himself raised the drum and beat it. He met Chi You and captured him. The thearch set forth a covenant, which read: "Whoever goes against propriety and acts contrary to the seasons, his punishment will be equal to that of Chi You. Whoever goes against propriety and opposes the ancestors, the law will be death and destruction to extinction."

Puett argues that the point of this version of the Yellow Emperor myth in the Shiliujing is to contend that conflict is not inherently wrong, if it is employed to set back the natural way of things. Rather, the inauspicious act is initiating conflict, described by the verb zuo, which emphasizes "the non-spontaneous, non-natural aspect of this act." Thus again the Yellow Emperor myth is linked to state formation and use of violence; however, this is a natural organization of things, rather than a creation.

Puett gives further examples of how various authors' versions of the myth expound their views on the state, although I have not finished reading his article. Once I do, I'll post any further interesting arguments. I have the article in a PDF version, so if either of you are interested in taking a look, PM me and I will attempt to forward it.

What do you think of Puett's arguments and interpretations of the Lord Shang and Mawangdui versions of the myth?

This post has been edited by wuTao: 08 November 2007 - 05:26 PM