In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 3 The Search for the Ideal Ruler In Chapter 2 I noted several times the potential contradiction between the flattering image of an ideal ruler in Zhanguo texts and the negative assessments of current rulers by many thinkers. It is time now to investigate more thoroughly the impact of this implicit contradiction on Zhanguo views of rulership. We can outline two main ways in which thinkers of theWarring States tried to resolve the contradiction between the ideal and the reality:that of the optimists, who hoped to ensure that the throne would be occupied by a truly worthy person , and that of the more sober thinkers, who sought to adapt political system for an average sovereign. While neither solution was entirely satisfactory, the second proved to have more lasting appeal for imperial thinkers and statesmen. This chapter focuses on the optimistic thinkers. I shall first briefly address their attitudes toward the possibilities of improving the monarch through educational means and then discuss in greater detail various ideas regarding the possibility of placing a worthy monarch on the throne—even if this meant violation of dynastic principles of rule. I shall try to assess why opponents of hereditary succession failed to advance their cause and why mainstream thinkers ultimately agreed to the situation of a less-than-perfect ruler occupying the throne. Conventional Ways of Improving the Monarch The idealized image of the True Monarch was a double-edged sword for acting sovereigns. On the one hand, it strengthened the ruler-centered order and monarchistic mindset;on the other hand,it was frequently employed as a means to criticize acting sovereigns who fell short of the ideal of impeccable morality and divine sagacity.The thinkers’ unanimous awareness of the gap between the ideal and the real eventually became a source of immense tension, which is present in most, if not all, political texts of the Zhanguo period. I shall illustrate this point with a single citation from the Mengzi: Mengzi had an audience with King Xiang of Liang [i.e. of Wei, 魏襄王, r. 318–296]. Leaving the audience, he told [his entourage]: “When I observed 54 him,he did not look like a ruler;when I approached him,there was nothing awesome to be seen.Abruptly he asked me: ‘How can All under Heaven be stabilized?’ I answered:‘Stability is in unity.’—‘Who is able to unify it?’ I answered :‘He,who has no proclivity toward killing,is able to unify it.’—‘Who will be able to follow him?’ I answered:‘Nobody under Heaven will not follow him. [ . . . ]Today among the shepherds of the people there is none who has no proclivity toward killing.If there is one who has no proclivity toward killing, then the people of All under Heaven will crane their necks to look at him. If this really happens, the people will go over to him like water runs downwards: who will be able to stop this torrent?’”1 This brief passage contains the most important elements of Mengzi’s views of rulership. Mengzi considers the ruler as the single person who is able to stabilize the world, and, of course, this task can be performed exclusively by a benevolent ruler “who has no proclivity toward killing.” But Mengzi emphatically denies King Xiang the right to be considered a proper candidate for this position. Not only does he openly observe that “today among the shepherds of the people there is none who has no proclivity toward killing,” but he also informs his unidentified interlocutors that King Xiang lacks the awe a ruler should generate, implying that he is unfit even to his current position of a ruler of a regional state.Eventually,Mengzi’s high expectations of a ruler lead him to question the legitimacy of acting sovereigns! For Mengzi the contradiction between the desired and the actual ruler is evident, and perhaps it is also evident to his audience. But how to resolve the disparity? It is here that Zhanguo thinkers faced one of the most sensitive issues —the issue of the ruler’s qualification for his office. In discussing the ways of improving the quality of the ruler, we should distinguish between the widely acceptable, even if not necessarily efficient means and the more efficient, but politically dangerous means.The former, on which we shall focus first, included a broad range of remonstrance, instruction, and correction of the erring rulers by their loyal ministers. Both the theory and practice of remonstrance had flourished since...

Share