Spirit and Self in Medieval China: The Shih-shuo hsin-yu and Its Legacy

4. Between Order and Disorder: The Shih-shuo Taxonomy of Human Nature

∫ Chapter 4 Between Order and Disorder: The Shih-shuo Taxonomy of Human Nature The Problem of Reading the Shih-shuo Classification The most distinctive formula of the Shih-shuo genre is its classification, a “system of elements”1 composed of both its perceptible components, including the anecdotes and the chapter titles, and an abstract syntax that links all the elements. How did the author structure this system? Why did he choose to order human nature in this particular way? What problems did he face in creating this system with language—after all, any order is ultimately a linguistic rearrangement of reality—and how did these problems affect the expression of his ideas? The Shih-shuo hsin-yü offers no explicit statement about its principles of classification, so we are left to speculate. Some scholars consider the Shih-shuo to be an exemplification of Confucian doctrines, since the first four chapter titles, Te-hsing (Te conduct), Yen-yü (Speech and conversation ), Cheng-shih (Affairs of government), and Wen-hsüeh (Literature and scholarship) are also known as the “four divisions of Confucius’ disciples” (K’ung-men ssu-k’o). The groupings are as follows in the Analects of Confucius : “Te conduct: Yen Yüan, Min Tzu-ch’ien, Jen Po-niu and Chungkung ; speech and conversation: Tsai Wo and Tzu-kung; affairs of government : Jan Yu and Chi-lu; writing and scholarship: Tzu-yu and Tzu-hsia.”2 This classification highlights certain spheres of attainment, but it does not exemplify any specific moral principle; and, as we shall see, Wei-Chin scholars did not think of these four chapters in terms of moral categories. But for later readers, especially those of modern times, te signified “virtue,”3 and the first four chapters set a decidedly Confucian tone. Jao Tsung-i writes, for instance: “The Shih-shuo hsin-yü starts with the four divisions [of Confucius’ disciples]; it originates from Confucianism. Its second chüan, including chapters from ‘Fang-cheng’ [The square and the proper] to ‘Hao-shuang’ [Virility and vigor] [chapters 5–13], grasps jade and embraces a virtuous tone. The first half of its last chüan [chapters 14–24] seems to indicate eccentric or radical people; and the second half of the last chüan [chapters 25–36] presents vicious and petty behavior samples. The pure and the muddy each have their allotments, and the good and the bad are clearly divided, just as grass and trees are differentiated.”4 In a similar vein, Liu Chao-yün postulates a moral hierarchy within the Shih-shuo system: The earlier a chapter title appears in the sequence, the higher moral value it connotes; the later, the lower.5 Problems of inconsistency, however, obstruct such a moralistic reading of the Shih-shuo. For one thing, the characters often freely cross the border between the “good” and the “bad.” We see major heroes such as Juan Chi and Hsi K’ang appearing in chapter 1, “Te-hsing” (Te conduct), but they also occupy prominent positions in chapters 23, “Jen-tan” (Uninhibitedness and eccentricity), 25, “P’ai-t’iao” (Taunting and teasing), and 26, “Ch’ing-ti” (Contempt and insults). Wang Jung, the notorious pennypincher whose stories form the major part of chapter 29, “Chien-se” (Stinginess and meanness), is also a genuinely filial son and an incorrupt official in chapter 1, “Te-hsing,” as well as a sentimental father in chapter 17, “Shang-shih” (Grieving for the departed). Wang Tun, the treacherous and ruthless rebel whose episodes occur throughout chapters 25 to 36 and whose activities in the eyes of Jao Tsung-i present “vicious and petty behavior samples,” takes up half of the episodes in chapter 13, “Hao-shuang” (Virility and vigor), which, also according to Jao, “grasps jade and embraces a virtuous tone.” Moreover, in the chapter “Te-hsing,” which Jao assumes is full of Confucian content, only about half of the episodes conform with Han Confucian moral codes (filial piety, fraternal love, righteousness, benevolence, propriety, integrity, incorruptibility, and so forth). The rest celebrate other values. Thus, for example, as I discussed in chapter 1, the author seems 1 0 4 Pa r t 2 to prefer Huang Hsien’s unfathomable profundity over Yüan Lang’s perceivable purity (1/3); and Ch’en Ch’en interprets his father Ch’en Shih’s te as a capacity endowed by nature...