Dubious Facts: The Evidence of Early Chinese Historiography

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction THE EV IDENTI A RY R ELI A BILIT Y OF MEMOR I A LIZED UTTER A NCES AT COURT Of the many problems surrounding the study of early Chinese historiography , one of the most troubling is the conspicuous tension between the narrator ’s moralizing commentary and the description of events. The earliest works of historiography—such as the Book of Documents (Shangshu 尚書), the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu 春秋), and the seminal commentary to the Annals, Zuozhuan 左傳—cannot be securely ascribed to a single author.1 Perhaps because of this, scholars often attribute the tension to the complex accretion of commentarial intrusions and editorial changes. By contrast, with the Han histories, with the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji 史記) and the History of the Former Han (Hanshu 漢書), there is the presumption of a dominant authorial voice, and with this authorial voice attends the assigning of a unitary authorial intent. Nevertheless, as in the earlier works, there often remain frustrating contradictions between moralizing commentaries and the specifics of the narrative. Consequently, as with the earlier works, the reader is often left to wonder what their authors’ intentions actually were. Such concerns touch upon not only the ideological tensions between moral and narrative detail but also numerous tensions proceeding from various internal narrative contradictions, ironic voices, and complicated dramatic devices. Both the narrator and the historical characters at times appear to speak duplicitously, or at least disingenuously. Thus when interpreting the narratives, the discussions, the debates, and the references that comprise the material of the histories, we simply cannot take the speaker, whether narrator or character, at his word. This tendency toward vagueness and subtlety suffuses even some of the most outspokenly critical historical characters, particularly when their words are intended for 2 Dubious Facts submission to the court. Early Chinese historiography is a history frustratingly complicated by encoded speech. Of course, encoded speech was vital to the monarchical circumstance. An anecdote about Emperor Yuan 元帝 misunderstanding the meaning of his own orders illustrates its ubiquity: At this time the emperor had just come to the throne and he did not realize that the phrase “instruct the master of guests to summon them and turn them over to the commandant of justice” meant that they were to be taken to prison, and he therefore approved the recommendation . Later, when he asked to have Chou K’an and Liu Kengsheng called into his presence, he was told, “They are bound and in prison!” Astounded at this information, he said, “I thought they were only to be taken to the commandant of justice for questioning!” and he began to berate [the Chief of Palace Writers] Hung Kung and [his assistant] Shih Hsien. The two knocked their heads on the floor in apology, after which the emperor said, “See to it that they are released from prison and restored to their positions!” 時上初即位， 不省 「謁者 召致廷尉」 為下獄也， 可其奏． 後上召堪﹑ 更生， 曰繫獄． 上大驚曰： 「非但廷尉 問邪？ 」 以責恭﹑顯， 皆叩頭謝。 上曰： 「令出視事。 」 2 To interpret court speech successfully, the reader, like the monarch, is obliged to pay attention to the rhetorical undertones. Naturally, there can be unjustified and excessive interpretation of insinuation (as all too many traditional commentators of the Annals have engaged in), but a heightened awareness of insinuation is nevertheless important, particularly in the interpretation of the highly rhetoricized ministerial addresses. That ministers must rely upon muted insinuations is clearly reflected in the numerous recommendations by early Chinese thinkers about the need for extreme delicacy in the choice of language. Regarding the selection of illustrative examples, the Xunzi 荀子 proclaims: “Channel [examples] as if with canal ditches, force them as if with the press-frame, and accommodate them to the circumstances so that your audience will get hold of the idea under discussion, yet will not be given offense or be insulted.”3 In the selection of even small illustrative details, the minister must always be aware of the need to avoid risking offense.4 When directed toward political ends, court address had to be formulated carefully, both to avoid arousing the ire of the monarch and to address certain doubts that the speaker (or writer) presumes the monarch may have. On a general level, this study is driven by a concern with the factual reliability of memorialized utterance, but its central focus is actually somewhat narrower—to understand the logic of ministerial address through an analysis of its evidentiary conventions. The material for my investigations Introduction 3 are the “memorials” concerning the waging of military...