Cultural Identity and Cultural Difference in Zuozhuan
There is no fixed categorical term for barbarians in Chinese. Specific groups are identified as “aliens” or “cultural others” through words like Man 蠻, Yi 夷, Rong 戎, and Di 狄, but all four terms can be specific or categorical. It is often said that the us-versus-them formula in Zuozhuan (and early Chinese texts in general) is cultural rather than ethnic, but precise definitions of cultural difference can be elusive. This article begins with a discussion of the historical basis for defining possible differences in socioeconomic and cultural practice and moves to the question of representation. It focuses on three issues: (1) Who is the barbarian? Using Lu’s dealings with the eastern Yi domains as case studies, the author explores how representation of cultural others is inseparable from cultural self-definition. Similarities and shared roots seem to have generated the impetus for emphasizing distinctions. (2) Arguments on cultural connections or lack thereof are often built on historical retrospection. Embracing historical ties with barbarians can be a way to resist Zhou dynasty demands, even as using the ancient past to disclaim the status of cultural other can function to assert hegemonic ambition. The author examines the uses of history to manipulate notions of shared roots and radical difference. (3) Since the negative qualities attributed to barbarians come up in speeches, we need to consider the rhetorical context of moralizing otherness. Whether the issue is debates on military strategy, the choice of war or peace, or the etiquette of presenting the spoils of victory, we see how attention to particular motives and circumstances driving historical developments results in a complex and nuanced picture that resists simplistic and moralized formulations of cultural identity and cultural difference.
Zuozhuan, barbarians, cultural identity, cultural difference, history
The English word barbarian and its cognates in many European languages (e.g., barbare in French; barbar in Czech, Swedish, and German; barbaro in Italian; [End Page 7] bárbaro in Spanish; barbarzyn,ca in Polish), derived from barbaros in Greek and barbarus in Latin (meaning foreign, strange, ignorant), with the proto Indo-European root “*barbar-echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners,”1 have no categorical equivalent in Chinese. Specific groups are identified as “aliens” or “cultural others” through names like Man 蠻, Yi 夷, Rong 戎, and Di 狄, but all four terms can be specific or categorical, and there is no category that encompasses all these groups and consistently conveys general meanings of “foreign” and “uncivilized.” Starting from about the third century BCE onward, Man, Yi, Rong, and Di are linked respectively to the southern, eastern, western, and northern peripheries, but no such systematic associations obtain in Zuozhuan 左傳 (Zuo Tradition). (Man and Yi seem less specific than Rong and Di.) Zuozhuan, a year-by-year history of China covering the period 722 to 468 BCE, has been attached, perhaps since first century BCE, to Chunqiu 春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals), whose terse entries gained great authority because the text supposedly passed through the hands of Confucius himself. Readers have typically seen Zuozhuan as the most prestigious commentarial expansion of Chunqiu and as the definitive history of the period it covers. Its canonical status raises the stake for questions of cultural identity and cultural difference: How do conceptions of insiders and outsiders function in early China? To what extent are they foundational for the Chinese tradition? How are they transformed in later iterations?
Refuting the connection of these names to the four peripheries, the Qing scholar Cui Shu 崔述 (1740–1816) argued that, while the Rong and the Di are specific groups, Man and Yi are general terms encompassing peripheral groups in all directions. Yi, homophonous and synonymous with yi 裔, just means “edges” or “margins.” However, Cui Shu subscribed to the model of center and margins, as evinced by his assertion that the Man is less civilized than the Yi or that the two should be distinguished by their relative distances from the central domains (i.e., the Man being farther away). A closer look at Zuozhuan yields a much less tidy picture. It is true that the term Man Yi 蠻 夷 sometimes has general applications while the Rong and the Di (often with place names attached as modifiers) appear more often as political entities and historical agents involved in conflicts or alliances, but the same is true, though to a lesser extent, of the Yi and the Man. As Tong Shuye has observed, all four terms can be specific or categorical. Instead of operating at the margins, these non-Sinitic groups exist in close proximity to the central domains (variously called zhongguo 中國 [the domains in the center], zhuxia 諸夏 [the various Xia domains], zhuhua 諸華[the various Hua domains], and huaxia 華夏 [Hua and Xia domains]),2 a cluster that includes the states Lu 魯, Wei 衛, Song 宋, Zheng 鄭, Qi 齊, and Jin 晉, [End Page 8] among others. Geographically, the area covered the lower reaches of the Yellow River and the east-central regions of modern-day China.
The rulers of these central domains claim theoretical allegiance to the Zhou dynasty, harking back to a distant past when their ancestors were brothers of Zhou rulers or related to them by marriage. They often emphasize their filiation to a shared cultural and textual tradition. Chu 楚, Wu 吳, and Yue 越, while participating in covenants and apparently sharing traditions with the central domains, are sometimes decried as cultural others. Qin 秦 is vilified in some Warring States and Han texts as “a domain of tigers and wolves” (hu lang zhi guo 虎狼之國) with deep Rong ties, but in Zuozhuan it “gained dominance over the Western Rong” 霸西戎 (ZT Wen 3.4, 1:418–19, 624 BCE) without any implications that Qin itself is being steeped in Rong customs.3 If I use terms like Chinese or Sinitic in the following discussion, I do not mean to introduce anachronistic associations of ethnicity or the nation-state to the sense of belonging to a cultural tradition. Instead I use Chinese and barbarians loosely as categories to refer to the sense of cultural and historical difference (us vs. them) that periodically crops up in Zuozhuan.
Despite the intermittent disparagement of barbarians and arguments for the necessary differentiation between Chinese and barbarians, there are many instances when alliances between the barbarians and Sinitic states targeting other Sinitic states seem normalized. For example, when Jin, Wei, and Zheng are in league with the Rong and the Man to attack Song, Jin leaders debate the propriety of a surprise attack, but the alliance itself occasions no comments (ZT Cheng 6.4, 2:756–57, 585 BCE). Intermarriage between the ruling lineages of Sinitic and non-Sinitic domains was also quite common. King Xiang of Zhou 周襄王 (r. 651–619 BCE) had a Di queen (ZT Xi 24.2c, 1:382–83, 636 BCE), the Jin ruler Lord Jing’s 晉景公 (r. 599–581 BCE) sister married a leader of the Red Di 赤狄 (ZT Xuan 15.3, 1:678–81, 594 BCE), Lord Xian of Jin 晉獻公 (r. 677– 651 BCE) had four consorts of Rong origins (ZT Zhuang 28.2, 1:212–13, 666 BCE), and Chong’er 重耳 (Lord Wen of Jin 晉文公) (r. 636–628 BCE) and his adviser Zhao Cui 趙衰 (d. 622 BCE) both married Di women while in exile (ZT Xi 23.6a, 1:364–65, 637 BCE). How, then, should we treat assertions of cultural difference between Chinese and barbarians in Zuozhuan? What functions did they serve? What are the formal and ideological implications of representing cultural identity and cultural difference?
Who Is the Barbarian?
It is often said that the us-versus-them formula in Zuozhuan (and early Chinese texts in general) is cultural rather than ethnic, despite presumed ancestral ties or marital connections between domains referring to each other as “brothers” [End Page 9] (xiongdi 兄弟) or “maternal nephews and uncles” (shengjiu 甥舅). But precise definitions of cultural differences can be elusive. References to how “they [referring to the Rong and the Di on two different occasions] are on foot, while we are in chariots” 彼徒我車 (ZT Yin 9.6, 1:54–55, 714 BCE; Zhao 1.10, 3:1322– 23, 541 BCE) shape strategic calculations and may imply different modes of warfare, but there is evidence from bronze inscriptions that the Rong and the Di deployed chariots, and the central domains also used a combination of infantry troops and chariots. The Jin minister Wei Jiang 魏 絳 (active 572–559 BCE) claims that “the Rong and the Di live off grasslands, they value goods and disdain land” 戎狄荐居，貴貨易土 (ZT Xiang 4.7b, 2:918–19, 569 BCE). This conforms to our understanding of nomadic peoples beyond the northern frontier over long periods of Chinese history, but one Rong leader recounts Rong history in terms of taming wilderness that suggests agriculture (see below). In another example, Jin helps Chu gain control over the Man by enticing Man leaders with the promise of land and a fortified city. The Chu supervisor of the military then builds a settlement and an ancestral temple to lure the Man people there before rounding them up (ZT Ai 4.2, 3:1856–57, 491 BCE): this suggests that fortifications and ancestral temples, which imply a sedentary lifestyle, belong to the Man cultural landscape.4
Wu is an especially interesting case, especially if we measure culture according to the adoption or loss of ritual standards. According to legend, its founding ruler, Wu Taibo 吳 太 伯 (ca. thirteenth century BCE), was the eldest son of the Grand King (Taiwang 太王), a predynastic Zhou leader. Wu Taibo and his younger brother Zhongyong 仲 雍 are said to have fled the realm and settled in Wu to make way for his youngest brother, Jili 季 歷, father of the future King Wen 周文王 (d. ca. 1056 BCE) (SJ 31).5 In Zuozhuan, Wu Taibo is remembered as an example of honorable exile (ZT Min 1.6, 1:232–33, 661 BCE). Despite having the same clan name as Zhou kings (Ji 姬), Wu is criticized for its “barbarization” through the adoption of local customs: “Taibo implemented the Zhou rituals with robes and caps, but when Zhongyong succeeded him, he cut his hair and tattooed his body, regarding nakedness as his adornment: was that ritual propriety? There is a reason for the way things are” 大伯端委以治周禮，仲雍嗣之，斷髮文身，臝以為飾，豈禮也哉?有由然也 (ZT Ai 7.4a, 3:1874–75, 488 BCE). At the same time, Jizha 季 札 of Wu (active 559–515 BCE), who combines political disinterestedness (he yields the throne to his brothers and then his nephew) with ritual and textual knowledge, is one of the most idealized characters in Zuozhuan. But if cultural otherness is hard to pin down, effacing differences and “being transformed by aliens” 變於夷 bodes ill. Lord Xiang of Lu 魯襄公 (r. 573–542 BCE) was infatuated with Chu architecture and died in the Chu-style palace he built in Lu (ZT Xiang 31.2, 2:1274–75, 542 BCE); the Ousted Lord of [End Page 10] Wei 衛出公 (r. 492–481, 476–470 BCE) learned the local language when he was in exile in Wu and earned the prediction that he would “die among the barbarians” 死 於 夷 because he imitated “the barbaric way of speaking” 夷 言 (Ai 12.4, 3:1910–11, 483 BCE; Ai 26.1, 1982–83, 469 BCE).
When the terms Man Yi or Yi are not proper names, they are used disparagingly to refer to Wu, Yue, and small domains in the east like Qi 杞, Tan 郯, Zhu 邾, Ju 莒, or Lai 萊. The term Yi Di 夷狄 can also have general application and is sometimes used to describe Chu in the Gongyang 公羊 and Guliang 穀梁 commentary traditions (ca. third to second century BCE), but it does not appear in that capacity in Zuozhuan.6 For Wu and Yue, the label barbarian comes up in the speeches of their adversaries, casting them as intemperate, aggressive, or insatiable (ZT Ding 4.3f, 3:1760–61, 506 BCE; Ai 1.2, 3:1834–35, 494 BCE; Ai 13.4a, 3:1914–15, 482 BCE). It is with the small Yi domains in the east, however, that the question of cultural boundaries becomes most intriguing.
The small domain of Tan to the north of Lu is a good example. During a visit to the Lu court, the Tan ruler offers an excursus on the history of administrative systems and earns praise from Confucius (ZT Zhao 17.3, 3:1544–45, 525 BCE). The Lu minister Shusun Chuo 叔孫婼 (d. 517 BCE) asks him, “The lineage of Shaohao named its offices for birds. Why is that?” 少皞氏鳥名官，何故 也 ? The Tan leader, claiming descent from the Shaohao lineage, which has been identified with the Shang ancestor Qi 契,7 is able to explain how legendary sage-kings (Huangdi 黃帝, Yandi 炎帝, Gonggong 共工, Taihao 大皞, Shaohao 少皞) took various creatures or natural elements as guides in regulating affairs. His distant ancestor Shaohao Zhi 少皞摯, marking the appearance of a phoenix at the moment when he ascended to power, created offices with names of birds. Further, the Tan ruler expounds the meanings and linguistic associations of some of those names. Snipes (zhujiu 祝鳩), ospreys (jujiu 雎鳩), cuckoos (shijiu 鳲 鳩 ), falcons (shuangjiu 爽 鳩 ), and turtledoves (gujiu 鶻 鳩 ), “all of the jiu variety, were for gathering (jiu) the people” 五鳩，鳩民者也.8 “Nine birds, all of the hu variety, were leaders of the nine agricultural activities, and they stopped (hu) the people from committing any excesses” 九扈為九農正，扈民無淫者也. In other words, he mastered not only ancient lore but also its rationalization.9 After his audience with the Tan ruler, Confucius remarks, “I have heard that when the Son of Heaven has lost his officials [i.e., when they have forgotten how to properly execute their duties], knowledge about the officials remains among the aliens of the four quarters” 吾聞之:天子失官，官學在四夷 (ZT Zhao 17.3, 3:1544–45, 525 BCE).10
As one of the “eastern Yi” (dong Yi 東 夷 ), Tan predates Shang and was likely under Shang rule, a link also borne out in their shared elevation of birds as originary symbols. As told in a Shang hymn in Shijing 詩 經 (Classic of Odes), [End Page 11] “Heaven commanded the dark bird / To descend and give birth to Shang” 天 命玄鳥，降而生商.11 According to Sima Qian 司馬遷 (ca. 135–ca. 86 BCE), Tan rulers have the clan name Ying 嬴 (SJ 5.221),12 the same as that of Qin rulers who share the Shang myth of an ancestress who gave birth to the dynastic founder after swallowing a bird egg (SJ 5.173). Would Lu consider Tan “alien” because of its Shang heritage and Lu’s role as the repository of Zhou traditions? (The Jin minister Han Qi 韓起 [d. 514 BCE], during an official visit to the Lu court, declares after viewing Changes, Images, and Lu Annals at the offices of the grand scribe, “The rituals of Zhou are all here in Lu” 周 禮 盡 在 魯 矣 [ZT Zhao 2.1b, 3:1336–37, 540 BCE].) But Lu itself is deeply connected to Shang. Boqin 伯禽 (eleventh century BCE), son of Zhou duke Dan 周 公 旦 (eleventh century BCE) and the founding ruler of Lu, was allotted “six houses of Yin people” 殷 民六族 and was put in power at “the Mound of Shaohao” 少暤之虛 (ZT Ding 4.1d, 3:1748–49, 506 BCE). Sima Qian identifies the Lu capital Qufu 曲 阜 with the Mound of Shaohao (SJ 33.1515).13 Perhaps similarities and shared roots generate the impetus for emphasizing distinctions. In that sense, representation of cultural others is inseparable from cultural self-definition.14 In other words, the designation of Tan as Yi may be rooted in the recognition of intertwined Shang and Zhou elements in Lu heritage and the attempt to repress the former and emphasize the latter.15 The same logic may lie behind the critique of Zang Wenzhong’s 臧 文 仲 (d. 617 BCE) sacrifice to a seabird (Guoyu, “Lu yu” 1, 4.164–70; ZT Wen 2.5, 1:474–75, 625 BCE) and of Ji Pingzi’s 季 平 子 (d. 505 BCE) act of offering Ju 莒 prisoners as human sacrifice at the Bo altar 亳 社 (ZT Zhao 10.3, 3:1456–57, 532 BCE), which Du Yu 杜 預 (222–85) described as the altar for the vanquished Shang (ZZ 45.483). Both the bird sacrifice and the human sacrifice are remnants of Shang practice at odds with Zhou notions of ritual propriety.
There were marriage ties between Tan and Lu.16 Although it was not until 566 BCE that the Tan ruler paid an official visit to the Lu court (ZT Xiang 7.1, 2:932–33, 566 BCE), there are earlier indications of close ties. Lamenting how none came to Tan’s defense during the Wu incursion into Tan, which resulted in Tan suing for peace, the Lu minister Ji Wenzi 季文子 (d. 568 BCE) implies Tan’s affinities with Lu: “The central domains are not putting their forces in order. Barbarians enter and attack, and none has any concern for the domain in plight” 中國不振旅，蠻夷入伐，而莫之或恤 (ZT Cheng 7.1, 2:762–63, 584 BCE). When Jin pressures its allies (including Lu) to attack Tan to punish it for succumbing to Wu, Lu tries to ameliorate Tan’s plight to no avail (ZT Cheng 8.10, 2:774–75, 583 BCE). The concept of the barbarian is thus fluid and relational. As a victim of Wu, sometimes decried for its barbarian mores, Tan is almost [End Page 12] considered one of the central domains. When Lu needs to emphasize its own Zhou standards, then Tan’s Yi status comes to the fore.
Assertion of cultural difference sometimes involves a deliberate recalibration of boundaries, as in this characterization of Zhu, a small domain to the east of Lu:17
The domains of Ren, Su, Xuqu, and Zhuangyu all had the clan name Feng. They were the ones that were in charge of the sacrifices to Taihao and the Ji River, and thereby submitted to and served the central domains. The men of Zhu destroyed Xuqu. The Master of Xuqu came in flight, relying upon the support of Cheng Feng. Cheng Feng spoke to our lord on his behalf: “To honor the bright sacrifices and to protect the small and the weak is the ritual principle of the Zhou. For barbarians to bring disorder to the central domains is a calamity for Zhou. If we put Xuqu back in power, we would thus venerate Taihao and the spirits of the Ji River, and through cultivating the former sacrifices, we could avert calamity.”
任，宿，須句，顓臾，風姓也，實司大皞與有濟之祀，以服事諸夏。 邾人滅須句。 須句子來奔，因成風也。 成風為之言於公曰:「崇明祀，保小寡，周禮也;蠻夷猾夏，周禍也。 若封須句，是崇皞、濟而修祀、紓禍也。 」
(ZT Xi 21.4, 1:350–51, 658 BCE)
Cheng Feng 成風, a native of Xuqu 須句, had been a concubine of Lord Zhuang of Lu 魯莊公 (r. 693–662 BCE) and was the mother of the reigning Lord Xi 魯僖公 (r. 659–627 BCE). Her plea to her son to restore her natal domain is couched as the defense of Zhou order. For its aggression against “the small and the weak,” Zhu is demoted to the status of barbarian (Man Yi).18 But Xuqu itself, like the other domains with the clan name Feng 風, has been classified as eastern Yi 東夷.19 Cheng Feng upholds sacrifices to Taihao 大皞 and the Ji 濟 River (which has no connection to Zhou) as a Zhou ritual principle by linking them to “bright sacrifices” in general and succor for the beleaguered. Her speech demonstrates how the designation of “otherness” can be rhetorically manipulated. Lord Xi ends up following his mother’s recommendation to restore the Xuqu ruler. In this case, “restoration” is also reassertion of control: Xuqu seems to have been Lu’s subsidiary domain and is annexed by Lu nineteen years later (ZT Wen 7.2, 1:498–99, 620 BCE).
According to Du Yu and Kong Yingda 孔 穎 達 (574–648), Zhu had the clan name Cao 曹 and was put in power in Zhu by King Wu of Zhou 周 武 王(eleventh century BCE) (ZZ 1.31, 14.242). Du Yu explained Zhu’s “barbarization”: “Being close to the various Rong tribes, it had adopted barbarian rituals” 迫近諸戎，雜用夷禮 (ZZ 14.242). Zhu’s Yi ties and Zhou moral-ritual aspirations are reflected in the multifaceted depiction of the Zhu ruler, Lord Wen 邾文公 (d. 614 BCE). Two years before the Xuqu invasion, he carried out the order of [End Page 13] Lord Xiang of Song 宋襄公 (r. 650–37 BCE) to sacrifice the Zeng 鄫 ruler at the Cisui altar 次睢之社 (ZT Xi 19.3, 1:342–43, 641 BCE)—Lord Xiang’s goal was to use the human sacrifice at the Cisui altar to intimidate the eastern Yi groups into submission (shu dong Yi 屬東夷).20 Yet twenty-seven years later Lord Wen of Zhu moves the Zhu capital and in doing so places the people’s welfare above his own, for the divination results state: “It will benefit the people but will not benefit the ruler” 利於民不利於君 (ZT Wen 13.3, 1:532–33, 614 BCE). Upon his death shortly thereafter, the noble man, the hypothetical embodiment of unerring moral judgment in Zuozhuan, commends him for “understanding his charge” 知命.
Situated to the east of Lu, Zhu was so close that, in the words of one Zhu minister, “when a watchman’s rattle is struck in Lu, it is heard in Zhu” 魯擊柝聞於邾 (ZTAi 7.4b, 3:1874–75, 488 BCE). It was smaller and less powerful than Lu but could prove a formidable foe,21 and Zhu was often in alliance with Qi against Lu. The Lu-Zhu battle that follows the Lu restoration of Xuqu results in Lu defeat, emblematized by the Lu ruler’s helmet hung on a Zhu city gate (ZT Xi 22.7, 1:354–57, 638 BCE). Another humiliating defeat of Lu by Zhu provokes the inhabitants of the capital to chant a song mocking the diminutive Lu commander Zang Wuzhong 臧 武 仲 (active 587–550 BCE) (ZT Xiang 4.8, 2:920–21, 569 BCE). Perhaps Zhu’s proximity and menace prompts Lu leaders to emphasize its inferior status as Yi. In other words, there is the anxiety of sameness behind the call for differentiation.
When Zhu and Ju (another small Yi domain) complain about Lu aggression to Jin and Jin decides to punish Lu, the Lu minister Zifu Huibo 子服惠伯(active 550–529 BCE) protests: “If your ruler will believe an accusation from barbarians and cut off relations with a brother domain, casting aside descendants of the Zhou Duke, that is entirely up to your ruler. Our unworthy ruler has heard your command” 君信蠻夷之訴，以絕兄弟之國，棄周公之後，亦唯君。 寡君聞命矣 (ZT Zhao 13.3e, 3:1506–7, 529 BCE). Instead of relenting, the Jin leader Shuxiang 叔向 (active 562–527 BCE) responds with uncharacteristic harshness and detains the Lu chief minister. Although Jin is eventually swayed by the Lu argument that it serves Jin with greater assiduity than “the small Yi domains” 夷 之 小 國 (ZT Zhao 13.9, 3:1512–13), its attitude does seem to indicate that the “kin versus barbarian” argument can yield to other pragmatic calculations. When Jin arbitrates another Lu-Zhu conflict (again with Zhu complaining about Lu aggression) ten years later, the Lu representative Shusun Chuo refuses to be placed on the same par with the Zhu representative, citing rules of precedence whereby the values of rank depend on the size and power of the domain (ZT Cheng 3.7, 2:742–43, 588 BCE): “That is the long-standing Zhou rule. What is more, Zhu is but a Yi domain” 固周制也，邾又夷也 [End Page 14] (ZT Zhao 23.2b, 3:1616–17, 519 BCE). Initially unmoved by Shusun Chuo’s grandstanding, Jin leaders almost hand him over to his Zhu enemies and ultimately desist only because they fear the escalation of the conflict; one of them also hopes to thereby extract bribes from Shusun. Again, Zhu’s Yi status belongs to the rhetoric rather than the substantive issues of diplomatic negotiations.
Another eastern Yi domain that figures in the self-definition of Lu is Lai. Zuozhuan chronicles several Qi attacks against Lai,22 culminating in Qi annexation of Lai in 567 BCE (ZT Xiang 6.7, 2:930–31). In the Qi-Lu meeting at Jiagu 夾谷, the Qi officer Wang Meng 王猛 (sixth to fifth century BCE) suggests to Lord Jing of Qi 齊景公 (r. 547–490 BCE): “Confucius understands ritual but lacks valor. If we have Lai men threaten the Prince of Lu with their weapons, we are certain to achieve our aims” 孔丘知禮而無勇，若使萊人以兵劫魯侯，必得志焉 (ZT Ding 10.2a, 3:1796–97, 500 BCE). The plan is carried out but cleverly thwarted by Confucius, who shows valor, resolution, and ritual expertise in his response:
Men, use your weapons! The two rulers have come together with good cheer, yet captive barbarians from the margins are using their weapons to disrupt the meeting. This is not how the Prince of Qi should command the princes. Those from the margins should not plot against the central domains; barbarians should not wreak havoc among us; captives should not intervene with covenants, and weapons should not strain good cheer. These things are inauspicious with regard to the spirits, they are failures of duty with regard to virtue, and they are violations of ritual propriety with regard to other men. You, my lord, must not act in this way.
士兵之!兩君合好，而裔夷之俘，以兵亂之，非齊君所以命諸侯也。 裔不謀夏，夷不亂華，俘不干盟， 兵不偪好——於神為不祥，於德為愆義，於人為失禮，君必不然。
(ZT Ding 10.2a, 3:1796–97)
Lai’s proximity to Qi and Lu notwithstanding, Confucius relegates it to the distant margins. The Lai men are likely captives taken upon Qi conquest of Lai: they constitute the visible emblem of Qi military strength and successful expansion. Why use Lai men to threaten the Lu ruler? Perhaps Qi men bearing arms would provoke Lu delegates to do the same, while the Lai men as a marginal group would not invite similar vigilance;23 perhaps Lai Yi 萊 夷 as “barbarians” are supposed to inhabit a ritual gray zone where the rules are not spelled out and would thus give Qi the opening for maneuvering. Confucius’s strategy is to preemptively attack Qi for ritual violation. Qi and Lu are sometimes juxtaposed in Warring States and Han texts (e.g., Huainanzi, 11.346; Han Shi waizhuan, 10.438; SJ 33.1524) as examples of pragmatic, even opportunistic [End Page 15] adaptability versus strict, sometimes outmoded adherence to ritual norms. Qi representatives also mock Lu ritual specialists for their insistence on protocol in one of the last recorded covenant meetings in Zuozhuan (ZT Ai 21.2, 3:1968–71, 474 BCE). The image of Confucius here may be used to respond to the perspectives generating such arguments: he advocates ritual propriety that is also diplomatic aplomb and effective political action. Ritual becomes a way to defend Lu demands and political interests. By targeting the Lai men as barbarians and captives of war who have no place at the meeting, Confucius claims Lu ritual superiority to Qi,24 even while reaffirming the supposed solidarity of Qi and Lu as central domains and equal covenant partners.
The Uses of History
Tan, Zhu, Ju, and Lai were eastern Yi groups that predate Shang rule but also came under Shang control, hence the references to Shang conquest of and loss of control over the eastern Yi (ZT Zhao 4.3c, 3:1372–73, 538 BCE; Zhao 11.2c, 3:1462–63, 531 BCE). Qĭ 杞, described as “Yi” or “using Yi rituals” 用 夷 禮 (ZT Xi 23.5, 1:362–63, 637 BCE; Xi 27.1, 1:400–401, 633 BCE), is challenged for being merely a “remnant of Xia” 夏餘 (ZT Xiang 29.11, 2:1240–41, 544 BCE).25 A non-Zhou genealogy, even if it predates Zhou, often means classification as “Yi.” The role of covenant leader often depends on rehearsing the us-versusthem argument in speeches emphasizing shared historical origins and roots in the Zhou tradition. But there are exceptions. Disclaiming close ties with Zhou can be a way to assert independence. When the Jin high officer Ji Tan 籍談 (sixth century BCE) visits the Zhou court after the funeral of the Zhou queen in 527 BCE, he justifies Jin’s failure to offer ritual gifts by implicitly questioning ZhouJin ties:
When the princes were put in power, they all received illustrious vessels with which to secure the altars of their domains, and for this reason they were able to present sacrificial vessels to the king. Jin was located deep in the mountains, a neighbor to the Rong and the Di, and was far from the royal house. The king’s numinous power did not reach us, and our efforts to subdue the Rong left us no leisure. How could we present vessels to you?
諸侯之封也，皆受明器於王室，以鎮撫其社稷，故能薦彝器於王。 晉居深山，戎狄之與鄰，而遠於王室。 王靈不及，拜戎不暇，其何以獻器?
Ji Tan harks back to the moment of Jin being put in power and suggests that Jin did not then receive “illustrious vessels” from the king. Cast in such transactional light, Jin’s failure to present tributary vessels on this occasion merely echoes royal negligence at the moment of its founding. The lack of affinities is [End Page 16] confirmed by geographical distance—Jin is “deep in the mountains,” where its main concern is to deal with the Rong and the Di. Indeed, the fact that Jin nobles and ministers in political troubles often “fled to the Di” 奔 狄 suggests their proximity (ZT Xi 6.1, 1:280–81, 654 BCE; Xi 23.6a, 1:364–65, 637 BCE; Wen 6.8, 1:494–95, 621 BCE; Cheng 17.10, 2:862–63, 574 BCE). On another occasion, a Wei envoy, while retracing the origins of various domains to back up their respective claims, describes the Jin founder as being put in power in the Mound of Xia 夏虛, where “he led his people by means of Xia regulations and set boundaries with Rong methods” 啓以夏政，疆以戎索 (ZT Ding 4.1e, 3:1748– 49, 506 BCE). While Zhou also refers to itself as “Xia” in some early texts,26 the periodic references to Jin’s “Xia” roots seem to emphasize pre-Zhou elements. Close engagement with the Rong and the Di further augments Jin’s separation from Zhou.
King Jing of Zhou 周景王 (r. 545–520 BCE) reproaches Ji Tan for forgetfulness, enumerates the ritual gifts Jin received from Zhou over its history, and maintains that Jin territories encompassing the Rong and the Di are legitimized by Zhou gifts of investiture. Ji Tan’s use of barbarians to construct an alternative history is countered by the Zhou king’s claim that the barbarians too can be considered part of Zhou’s gift to Jin. The underlying dispute is about Jin obligations toward Zhou, and self-interest clearly informs the different versions of history presented by both sides. That is why both sides are criticized: the king criticizes Ji Tan for “forgetting his own ancestors” 忘其祖—Ji’s ancestor was supervisor of Jin’s records, hence Ji’s name, which means “records” 籍—but the Jin minister Shuxiang has the last word as he judges the king’s indignation negatively. Hankering after ritual gifts at a time of mourning (the king’s heir apparent and wife had just died) is the height of ritual impropriety. Shuxiang predicts, “The king will come to no good end” 王 其 不 終 乎 (ZT Zhao 15.7c, 3:1528–29, 527 BCE), and King Jing of Zhou dies of a suspicious “acute ailment of the heart” 心疾 in the middle of a succession struggle seven years later (520 BCE).
The mirror image of Jin’s focus on its proximity with barbarians is Chu’s claim to have had ties with early Zhou. Whereas Jin as covenant leader is supposed to represent the central domains, Chu is sometimes decried as the cultural other. In one oft-cited example, the Lu minister Ji Wenzi opposes the Lu ruler’s plan to seek an accord with Chu and to turn against Jin in 587 BCE. Even while acknowledging that Jin “goes against the proper way” 無道, Ji Wenzi considers it preferable to Chu. “As it says in Scribe Yi’s Records,27 ‘Those not of the same kith and kin, / Their hearts and minds must be different.’ Although Chu is powerful, its people are not our kin. Will it be willing to care for us?” 「《史佚之志》有之曰:『非我族類，其心必異。 』楚雖大，非吾族也。 其肯字我乎?」(ZT Cheng [End Page 17] 4.4, 2:746–47, 587 BCE). Note that the term zulei 族 類, construed by some scholars to indicate ethnic consciousness,28 has nothing to do with the modern concept of race but refers to lineage and kinship.
When the hubristic King Ling of Chu 楚靈王 (r. 541–529 BCE) indulges in fantasies of expanding power fifty-seven years later (530 BCE), he has to reshape that narrative of difference and posit early Zhou-Chu connection. He asks his minister Ran Dan 然 丹 (active 554–526 BCE): “In times past our former king Xiongyi served King Kang of Zhou, together with Lü Ji of Qi, Wangsun Mou of Wei, Xiefu of Jin, and Boqin of Lu. The other four domains all got their portions of reward. We alone did not. If we now send someone to Zhou to ask for a cauldron as our portion, will the king give it to us?” 昔我先王熊繹，與呂伋，王孫牟，燮父，禽父，並事康王，四國皆有分，我獨無有，今吾使人於周，求鼎以為分，王其與我乎?(ZT Zhao 12.1a, 3:1482–83, 530 BCE). Why does King Ling focus on King Kang of Zhou 周 康 王 (r. ca. 1021–ca. 996 BCE) instead of his father King Cheng 周 成 王 (d. ca. 1021 BCE) or grandfather King Wu, who are more often named in references to the lords being put in power (fengjian 封 建 ) in various places in early Zhou? Why is the Chu ancestor Xiongyi 熊 繹 (tenth to eleventh century BCE) put on a par not with the founding rulers of Qi, Wei, and Lu but with their sons?29 The focus on this later, less often invoked moment seems to give King Ling more room to fabricate an alternative history. His goal is to demand the ritual status equal to that of the domains closest to the Zhou house. As part of an elaborate exercise in indirect remonstrance (or remonstrance through seduction), Ran Dan subtly undercuts King Ling by concurring with him: “He [the Zhou king] will give it to you, Your Highness! In times past our former King Xiongyi dwelt far off in the wilds of Mount Jing. Riding in a rugged wooden cart and clad in tattered hemp, he lived in the grasses of the plain. He trod over mountains and forests to serve the Son of Heaven, and all he had was a bow of peach wood and arrows of thorn to present as tribute to the royal court” 與君王哉!昔我先王熊繹，辟在荊山。 篳路藍縷，以處草莽。 跋涉山林，以事天子。 唯是桃弧棘矢，以共禦王事 (ZT Zhao 12.1a., 3:1482–83, 530 BCE).30 Xiongyi’s primitive garb and rustic gifts confirm his dedication to the Zhou court and supposedly justify the reward of the cauldron that King Ling is demanding; at the same time, they are markers of backwardness that undermine King Ling’s claims.
King Ling’s version of Zhou-Chu ties is repeated in Shiji, but the latter also contains Chu assertions of its cultural difference. The Chu ruler Xiongqu 熊渠(d. 877 BCE) establishes his sons as kings in defiance of Zhou norms: “We are barbarians. We are not party to the titles and honorifics of the central domains” 我蠻夷也，不與中國之號諡 (SJ 40.1692). Later, King Wu of Chu 楚武王 (r. 741– 690 BCE), in the midst of campaigns annexing smaller domains, repeats the [End Page 18] self-designation while requesting that the Zhou court honor Chu kingship (SJ 40.1695). In Shiji, claiming to be the cultural other is a way for Chu to assert power and claim privileges. In Zuozhuan, by contrast, Chu’s quest for recognition is more often based on claiming historical ties with the central domains. Such ties facilitate the portrayal of Chu’s mediatory role, as described, for example, by the Chu minister Zinang 子 囊 (d. 559 BCE) as he tries to justify a positive posthumous honorific for King Gong of Chu 楚 共 王 (r. 590–560 BCE): “He came to oversee the great glorious domain of Chu, he soothed and gained sway over the Man and Yi barbarians, canvassing far and wide in his expeditions to the South Sea and bringing them to submit to the central domains” 赫 赫 楚國，而君臨之，撫有蠻夷，奄征南海，以屬諸夏 (ZT Xiang 13.4, 2:1002–3, 560 BCE). Zinang’s rhetoric indicates that Chu sees itself as mediating relations between the barbarians beyond the pale and the central domains. If anything, Chu adopts the voice of the central domain in dealing with the barbarians.
With both Ji Tan and King Ling, the definition of historical ties with Zhou, the central domains, or “barbarians” is mainly strategic. There are circumstantial advantages to claiming or disclaiming different kinds of cultural connections, and the key is to guard the fluidity and maneuver for maximum advantage. In another notable example, the barbarian claims shared roots with and ultimate difference from central domains. The context is a diplomatic meeting Jin convenes to reassert its leadership. The Jin leader Fan Gai 范 匄 (d. 548 BCE) reprimands the Rong leader Juzhi 駒 支 for leaking information that undermines Jin. Citing past Rong dependence on Jin, Fan excoriates Rong ingratitude and threatens to cancel Rong participation in the meeting.
Juzhi responds with a masterful speech challenging Fan’s version of Rong history.
“Formerly, the men of Qin, relying on their numbers and covetous of territory, expelled us, the various Rong tribes. Lord Hui [of Jin], making manifest his great virtue, said that we, the various Rong tribes, were the descendants of the chief of the Four Peaks, and that we were not to be cut off and abandoned. He bestowed on us the lands of Jin’s southern marches, where foxes and wild cats made their lairs, and where jackals and wolves howled. We, the various Rong, removed and cut down their brambles and drove away their foxes and wild cats, jackals and wolves, and became subjects of the former lord. Neither aggressive nor rebellious, we have been unwavering in our allegiance until now Jin [under Lord Wen] resisted Qin from above, and the Rong withstood it from below. That the Qin army did not come back is due to us, the various Rong, and none other. Just as in the pursuit of a deer, the men of Jin seized its antlers, and the various Rong tribes caught its legs, and with Jin brought it to the ground. How have the Rong failed to absolve themselves from your charges of [End Page 19] betrayal? From that time until the present, in the hundred campaigns of Jin, we, the various Rong tribes, have taken part unremittingly Our drink, our food, our clothing, our regalia are all different from those of the central domains. We do not exchange gifts with them, and our language and theirs do not allow communication. How can we possibly harm you? Not to participate in the meeting will be no cause for grief.” He chanted “Blue Flies” and withdrew. Fan Gai acknowledged his error and allowed Juzhi to take part in the affairs of the meeting, thus realizing the attributes of being “joyous and civil.” At this time Shu Lao served as Ji Wuzi’s assistant to attend the meeting. From then on, the leaders of Jin reduced the obligatory contributions of Lu and treated its envoys with even greater respect.
「昔秦人負恃其眾，貪于土地，逐我諸戎。 惠公蠲其大德，謂我諸戎，是四獄之裔冑也，毋是翦棄。 賜我南鄙之田，狐狸所居，豺狼所嗥。 我諸戎除翦其荊棘，驅其狐狸豺狼，以為先君不侵不叛之臣，至于今不貳 …… 晉禦其上，戎亢其下，秦師不復，我諸戎實然。 譬如捕鹿，晉人角之，諸戎掎之，與晉踣之。 戎何以不免?自是以來，晉之百役，與我諸戎，相繼于時 …… 我諸戎飲食衣服，不與華同，贄幣不通，言語不達， 何惡之能為?不與於會，亦無瞢焉。 」賦〈青蠅〉而退。 宣子辭焉，使即事於會，成愷悌也。 於是子叔齊子為季武子介以會，自是晉人輕魯幣而益敬其使。
(ZT Xiang 14.1, 2:1008–11, 539 BCE)
Part of Juzhi’s speech purports to set the record straight about Jin-Rong relations. Instead of a clear hierarchy whereby Jin confers favors on Rong, there has been mutual dependence: Juzhi argues that Rong was Jin’s equal partner and was instrumental in Jin victory over Qin at the battle of Yao 殽 (627 BCE) eighty-eight years earlier.31 The Rong and the central domains share the same ancestry: like Qi, Xu 許, Shen 申, and Lü 呂, the Jiang Rong 姜戎 are descendants of the chiefs of the Four Peaks 四 嶽 (or Grand Peaks 大 岳) and have the clan name Jiang.32 We have here a glimmer of the idea of common ancestors for different ethnic groups, which came to be systematically developed in Shiji.
At the same time, Juzhi stakes out Rong distinctiveness. Differences in food, clothing, language, and customs mean that the Rong is not in a position to foment discord among the central domains. Juzhi does not thereby simply brush off Jin accusations of collusion and interference; he upholds the Rong position of independence and freedom from entanglements in the central domains’ political maneuverings. It also renders the Jin threat hollow: it would be no big loss to the Rong not to participate in the covenant. Most important of all, Juzhi redefines the boundaries between civilization and barbarity. Fan Gai claims that Jin grants territories to the Rong, but Juzhi implicitly disputes the magnanimity of the gift, since what is “given” is wilderness that becomes habitable only through the efforts of the Rong as civilizing agents. By chanting “Blue Flies” 青蠅 (Qingying) [End Page 20] from Shijing, Juzhi demonstrates his mastery of Zhou cultural and textual traditions. “Blue Flies” laments the perniciousness of slander.33 Zheng Xuan 鄭玄(127–200) and Zhu Xi 朱 熹 (1130–1200) characterize “blue flies” as an “affective, arousing image” (xing 興) that prompts the poet to versify about the scourge of slander. Loathed for their propensity to “invert black and white,” the blue flies may also bear a more direct metaphorical connection with “slandermongers” 讒 人 . Here Juzhi pointedly cautions Fan Gai not to be swayed by “slander-mongers” who “sow discord between the two of us” 構我二人. Juzhi thus displaces the burden of cultural otherness onto the instigators of discord. When Fan Gai relents, he is said to have become the “joyous and civil” 愷悌 man impervious to slander celebrated in “Blue Flies.” At that time (559 BCE) two Lu ministers are attending the covenant meeting when in earlier meetings one would have sufficed. Their very presence testifies to the increasingly onerous demands Jin is making on its allies. Juzhi’s speech is effective remonstrance that benefits other central domains: Jin is moved to reduce the obligatory contributions of Lu and other domains. Juzhi (and by implication the author or compiler of Zuozhuan) seems to have wanted it both ways: the Rong are barbarians yet civilized; they are different from, yet share roots with, the central domains; they are aloof from the political maneuverings of the central domains yet are capable of effective intervention. This duality is used to justify peaceful coexistence. As the only barbarian given a voice on the question of cultural boundaries in Zuozhuan, Juzhi deftly uses historical retrospection to manipulate notions of shared roots and radical difference to achieve maximum political advantage.
Rhetorical Contexts of Moralizing Otherness
Juzhi implicitly realigns cultural difference and moral judgment: slanderers are shown to be the true culprit in interstate tensions. More often, however, we see negative qualities attributed to barbarians. Since these judgments invariably come up in speeches, we would do well to examine their rhetorical contexts. Disparaging remarks can be part of a strategic recommendation, as when Gongzi Tu 公子突 (later Lord Li 厲公) of Zheng (r. 700–697, 680–673 BCE) urges a quick probe followed by ambushes to fend off northern Rong invaders. “The Rong are lax and disorganized; they are greedy and know nothing of kith and kin. In victory, they will not defer to one another; and in defeat, they do not save one another” 戎輕而不整，貪而無親;勝不相讓，敗不相救 (ZT Yin 9.6, 1:54–55, 714 BCE).34 Zheng chariots are fighting Rong foot soldiers, but Gongzi Tu argues that the potential difficulty of maneuvering such a confrontation would be obviated by Rong failings.35 [End Page 21]
In some cases, denigration of barbarians predictably justifies military confrontation. When Di troops attack Xing 邢, Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 643 BCE) urges Lord Huan of Qi 齊桓公 (r. 636–567 BCE) to come to Xing’s rescue: “The Rong and the Di are jackals and wolves and cannot be satisfied. The central domains are close intimates and cannot be abandoned. Ease and repose are poisonous and cannot be embraced” 戎狄豺狼，不可厭也。 諸夏親暱，不可棄也。 宴安酖毒，不可懷也 (ZT Min 1.2, 1:228–29, 661 BCE). The founding ruler of Xing was the fourth son of the Zhou Duke, and Qi was related to the Zhou house by marriage. The polarity of Xing and Di seems obvious, and the only reason for inaction would be the reprehensible preference for “ease and repose” 宴安. As it turns out, coming to Xing’s rescue and subsequently resettling it is one of the centerpieces of Lord Huan’s accomplishments as overlord (ba 霸). The “kin versus barbarian” argument, however, is by no means consistent. Nineteen years later, Xing joined with Di to attack Wei, Xing’s brother state (both have the clan name Ji 姬) (ZT Xi 18.4, 1:338–39, 642 BCE). Wei retaliated (ZT Xi 19.4, 1:342–43, 641 BCE), and Qi and the Di swore a covenant at Xing in anticipation of Wei hostility (ZT Xi 20.3, 1:346–47, 640 BCE). A few years later Wei extinguished Xing (ZT Xi 25.1, 1:388–89, 635 BCE).
Guan Zhong uses a bestial metaphor to legitimize war. But the same image can be used to defend peaceful coexistence.36 When the Wuzhong 無終 (Rong) leader, Jiafu 嘉父, seeks an accord with Jin, Lord Dao of Jin 晉悼公 (r. 573–558 BCE) is initially skeptical: “The Rong and the Di, knowing nothing of kith and kin, are avaricious. It would be better to attack them” 戎狄無親而貪，不如伐之. His adviser Wei Jiang 魏絳 (active 573–548 BCE) offers a counterargument not by rehabilitating the barbarians but by confirming their inferiority. “The Rong tribes are birds and beasts. Would it not be unacceptable to win control over the Rong and to lose the allegiance of the central domains?” 戎，禽獸也。 獲戎失華，無乃不可乎? (ZT Xiang 4.7a, 2:914–15, 569 BCE). Conflict with the Rong would divert resources from what should be Jin’s prime goal at that point: the reassertion of its status as overlord by gaining sway over small domains (e.g., Chen 陳, Zheng) that would otherwise succumb to Chu aggression or acknowledge Chu leadership. As part of his remonstrance, Wei Jiang tells the legend of Archer Yi’s 后 羿 downfall due to his indulgence in hunting and misplaced trust in the traitor Han Zhuo 寒 浞, and of Han Zhuo’s subsequent campaigns against the Zhenguan 斟 灌 and Zhenxun 斟 尋 lineages that resulted in his own demise. He concludes with the “Remonstrance of the Overseer of Hunts” 虞 人 之 箴 (ZT Xi 4.7a, 2:916–19). The analogy is not obvious: is targeting the Rong a potential error of judgment comparable to Archer Yi’s mistake or Han Zhuo’s misguided campaigns?37 Does Archer Yi’s fate merely function as a cautionary tale on virtuous government and the proper [End Page 22] use of force? The author or compiler of this passage seems to sense the incongruity and suggests the rhetorical connection between wars with the Rong and hunting,38 inasmuch as the Rong are compared to “birds and beasts”: “At that time the Prince of Jin loved hunting; that was why Wei Jiang broached this topic” 於是晉侯好田，故魏絳及之 (ZT Xi 4.7a, 2:918–19). The analogy of aggression against the Rong with hunting confirms the notion that it is reckless indulgence. The realignment of Jin interests with the Rong led to new hostility toward the Zhou house. In the following year, a Zhou noble coming to Jin to seek help against Rong incursions into Zhou territories was arrested by Jin leaders on charges of being a double agent for the Rong. The sparse narrative offers no explanation as to whether there is any truth to the accusation (ZT Xiang 5.2, 2:922–23, 568 BCE).
The starkest contrast between “us and them” is drawn in the Zhou minister Fu Chen’s 富辰 (seventh century BCE) speech remonstrating with King Xiang against forming an alliance with the Di to attack Zheng. Fu Chen enunciates the principle of “drawing close to one’s kin” (qinqin 親 親 ), harking back to an idealized early Zhou political order wherein Zhou kinsmen acted as the screen or hedge protecting Zhou. Zheng’s “four virtues” (side 四德) (“to earn merit, to draw close to kinsmen, to trust close advisers, and to honor the worthy” 庸勳、 親親、暱近、尊賢) are contrasted with the Di’s “four iniquities” (“to ally oneself with the deaf, to follow the blind, to associate with the wayward, and to employ the perfidious” 即聾、從昧、與頑、用嚚). While Zheng merits are parsed in terms of historical references (its support of and kinship with earlier Zhou kings), Di iniquities are absolutized as the corruption of sensory and mental faculties: “When the ear does not hear the harmony of five sounds, it is deafness. When the eye does not distinguish the resplendence of the five colors, it is blindness. When the heart does not take as model the principles of virtue and duty, it is waywardness. When the mouth does not speak words of loyalty and good faith, it is perfidy. In all cases the Di take these as models. These four iniquities are all present in them!” 耳不聽五聲之和為聾，目不別五色之章為昧，心不則德義之經為頑，口不道忠信之言為嚚。 狄皆則之，四姦具矣! (ZT Xi 24.b, 1:382–83, 636 BCE). The fact that subsequent events vindicate Fu Chen seems to mark his speech as authoritative: the Zhou king did not heed Fu Chen’s advice and attacked Zheng with Di help. He then married a Di woman as queen, who colluded with her lover, Wangzi Dai 王子帶 (the king’s disaffected younger brother), and Di forces to drive the king out of the capital. However, the seeds of this crisis yield another instance of applying the principle of “drawing close to one’s kin”—it is because the king followed Fu Chen’s advice of reinstating the exiled Wangzi Dai (ZT Xi 22.6, 1:354–55, 638 BCE) in the name of fostering [End Page 23] amity with kinsmen that Wangzi Dai was in a position to hatch his plot with the Di queen in the first place. In any case, the principle of “drawing close to one’s kin” was not borne out by the relationship between the Zhou house and Zheng (or other central domains). The failure of this principle calls into question policy decisions based on the polarity between kinsman and barbarian.
We also find casual disparagement of barbarians. Precisely because a remark is incidental, it seems to reflect consensual opinions (i.e., there is no perceived need to support it)—as when King Ding of Zhou 周定王 (r. 606–586 BCE) chides the Jin envoy Shi Zhuangbo 士 莊 伯 (active 564–547 BCE) for offering spoils from a victory over Qi. King Ding draws the line between victory over barbarians and victory over brother domains:
When the Man, Yi, Rong, and Di tribes do not carry out royal commands, indulge in sensual excesses and wine, and flout the constants of order, and the king gives the command to attack them, then there is the presentation of captives and spoils of victory. The king will personally receive the offerings and honor the exertions of those who undertake the expedition, this being the means whereby he punishes the irreverent and encourages the meritorious. As for domains ruled by the brothers, nephews, and uncles of Zhou, when they encroach upon and undermine the king’s rules and regulations, the king gives the command to attack them. In such cases, there is only report of mission accomplished but no presentation of the fruits of victory. This is the means whereby he shows respect for kin and allies and proscribes excesses and iniquities.
蠻夷戎狄，不式王命，淫湎毀常，王命伐之，則有獻捷。 王親受而勞之，所以懲不敬，勸有功也。 兄弟甥舅，侵敗王略，王命伐之，告事而已，不獻其功，所以敬親暱，禁淫慝 也 。
(ZT Cheng 2.9, 2:734–35, 589 BCE)
The case for the different treatment of barbarians and central domains seems straightforward. Yet the real issue may be the relationship between Zhou and Jin: the king complains about ritual impropriety, but what irks him more is the fact that Jin has sent an envoy of insufficiently high rank. He entertains Shi Zhuangbo with slightly diminished ritual but privately gives him gifts. He sends his assistant to tell Shi Zhuangbo, “This is not in accordance with ritual propriety. Do not record it in the historical annals!” 非禮也，勿籍! (ZT Cheng 2.9, 2:736–37). The king’s reaction bespeaks the fear of a slight as well as the eagerness to placate. Distinguishing the rituals for presenting spoils on the basis of hierarchy between central domains and barbarians may ultimately be one way of negotiating the balance of expectations between the nominal ruler of the realm and the covenant leader. [End Page 24]
Conclusion
Stories about barbarians can be told to serve various ideological agenda, including arguments about cultural definition and sociopolitical transformation.39 One may moralize or normalize otherness to support a strategy or a policy, to negotiate differences, or to articulate self-definition: this is true not only of Zuozhuan but also of many other texts in the Chinese tradition. The situation may just be more fluid in Zuozhuan because it predates the age of unified empire, when a heightened sense of center and periphery could conflate cultural difference with threats from beyond the borders. At its grandest, the focus on difference projects a spatial order whereby varying distance from the center marks gradations of barbarity—a vision enunciated in Guoyu and Xunzi 荀 子 (Master Xun) and developed systematically in Liji 禮 記 (Book of Rites).40 In some cases, marginality is associated with venality (e.g., Guoyu, “Zhou yu” 周語 [Discourses of Zhou] 1.36). There are echoes of this argument already in Zuozhuan: as part of a long speech on how the legendary rulers of antiquity created and maintained order, the grand scribe Ke 大 史 克 (seventh century BCE) of Lu recounts how “the clans of the four evil ones” 四凶族—Hundun 渾敦, Qiongqi 窮 奇, Taowu 檮 杌, and Taotie 饕 餮 —“were thrown out into the wilds along the four borders to confront the beasts and demons” 投 諸 四 裔 ， 以禦 螭 魅 (ZT Wen 18.7c, 1:574–75, 609 BCE).41 Ke stops short of equating “the clans of the four evil ones” or “the beasts and demons” with barbarians. That association is made in Shiji (1.28):42
And so Shun returned and submitted to the Sovereign that Gonggong should be exiled to Youling, so as to transform the Northern Di; Huandou should be expelled to Mount Chong, so as to transform the Southern Man; the Three Miao should be moved to the Three Wei Mountains, so as to transform the Western Rong; Gun should be executed at Mount Yu, so as to transform the Eastern Yi. With the punishment of these four [miscreants] all under heaven submits.
於是舜歸而言於帝，請流共工於幽陵，以變北狄;放驩兜於崇山，以變南蠻;遷三苗於三危，以變西戎;殛鯀於羽山，以變東夷。 四辠而天下咸服。
The word bian 變 has been variously glossed as “to transform,” “to civilize,” or “be transformed by.” It has also been read as xie 燮, “to harmonize” or “to order.”43 Whether as civilizing or barbarizing process, this transformation confirms the order at the center by either assimilating or radicalizing difference.
“With virtue one placates the central domains; with punishments one intimidates the barbarians on the four margins” 德以柔中國，刑以威四夷 (ZT Xi 25.2, 1:390–91, 635 BCE):44 this idea has intermittent sway, but the connections tying together the barbarian, margins, danger, and transgression are not formalized or consistently pursued in Zuozhuan, especially compared with [End Page 25] the Gongyang and Guliang traditions, the other two extant commentary traditions on Chunqiu. Gongyang extols the overlord’s mission by focusing on barbarian foes: “The Yi in the south and the Di in the north intersect the realm. The central domains hang on by a mere thread. Lord Huan offers succor to the central domains and keeps the Yi and the Di at bay” 南夷與北狄交，中國不絕若綫。 桓公救中國而攘夷狄.45 Guliang identifies Chu as the barbarians in its account of the Wu-Chu struggle, although Wu is also sometimes described as alien: “Wu trusted in the central domains and kept the barbarians at bay. Wu has advanced” 吳信中國而攘夷狄，吳進矣.46 The advancement of Wu means that the definition of “Chinese” and “barbarians” is ritual and moral; it also depends on the nature of the confrontation (i.e., the alien attributes of the barbarian’s foe, even if it qualifies as barbarian, are diminished). This implicit cultural and ethical argument is what keeps the polarity of Chinese and barbarians more absolute as well as more flexible in both the Gongyang and Guliang traditions.
In Zuozhuan, Lord Huan of Qi installs King Xiang of Zhou and Lord Wen of Jin comes to his rescue. On a couple of occasions, Qi and Jin rulers are said to “pacify the Rong on the king’s behalf” 平戎于王 (ZT Xi 12.4, 1:306–7, 648 BCE; Cheng 1.1, 2:706–7, 590 BCE). As we have seen, however, alliance with a barbarian domain against another central domain or the Zhou house is not uncommon and often takes place without inviting comments or criticism. By the same token, the Gongyang spatial order of “regarding the central domains as internal and the barbarians as external” 內諸夏而外夷狄 (Gongyang 1.7, 1.17, 13.171, 16.202, 18.231) does not seem to apply in Zuozhuan. In a territorial dispute between nobles from Jin and Zhou, Jin leaders led the Rong of Yin 陰戎to attack Zhou. To protest this, the Zhou king sends a representative to stake Zhou claims on the putative expansiveness of the early Zhou realm. He reproaches Jin for reversing the normative inside-outside relationship between Zhou domains and the barbarians by moving the Rong to Zhou environs:
The former kings settled Taowu among the four external lineages to confront the beasts and demons, and for this reason the miscreants of the Yun clan [i.e., the Yun lineage of the Rong] were settled in Guazhou.47 After our elder uncle, your Lord Hui, returned home from Qin, he lured them here,48 causing them to crowd in among the many members of the Ji clan, and even to enter the outskirts of our city, and that is how the Rong came to take these lands. Whose fault is it then that the Rong hold territory among the central domains? Is it not distressing that although Lord Millet cultivated the entire realm under heaven, the Rong now exercise control here?
先王居檮杌于四裔，以禦螭魅，故允姓之姦，居于瓜州。 伯父惠公歸自秦，而誘以來，使偪我諸姬，入我郊甸，則戎焉取之。 戎有中國，誰之咎也?后稷封殖天下，今戎制之，不亦難乎?
(ZT Zhao 9.3a, 3:1446–47, 533 BCE) [End Page 26]
The Zhou noble is referring to an event that happened more than a century earlier. In 638 BCE, Qin and Jin acted together to move the Rong of Luhun 陸渾之戎 to Yi River (Yichuan 伊川), which flowed past the Zhou capital from the south. That event is told as the fulfillment of an omen uttered a hundred years before, when the Zhou capital was moved east.49
Earlier, when King Ping had moved the capital to the east, Xin You had gone to Yichuan and, upon seeing someone with unbound hair offering a sacrifice in the countryside, had said, “Within one hundred years, this will likely be overtaken by the Rong! Ritual propriety has been lost already!” In autumn, Qin and Jin moved the Rong of Luhun to Yichuan.
初，平王之東遷也，辛有適伊川，見被髮而祭於野者，曰:「不及百年，此其戎乎!其 禮先亡矣。 」秋，秦晉遷陸渾之戎于伊川。
(ZT Xi 22.4, 1:352–53, 638 BCE)
The passage in some ways exemplifies the complexity of “the barbarian question” in Zuozhuan. The political reality is that Jin and Qin seek to expand their influence by relocating the Rong to the border of Zhou. Xin You’s 辛 有 prediction imposes a ritual explanation on developments driven by political calculations. Following Xin You, one can argue that it is the mastery or loss of ritual that determines the boundary between civilization and barbarity. But since Zuozhuan is at least as interested in the political reality behind the ritual argument, we are shown that such boundaries, rather than being an absolute criterion, represent only an attempt to impose order. In other words, attention to particular motives and circumstances driving historical developments results in a complex and nuanced picture that resists simplistic and moralized formulations of cultural identity and cultural difference.
wyli@fas.harvard.edu
WAI-YEE LI is professor of Chinese literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on Ming-Qing literature and culture as well as early Chinese thought and historical writings. She is the author of Women and National Trauma in Late Imperial Chinese literature (2014) and the co-translator of Zuo Tradition / Zuozhuan: Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals (2016). Her most recent publications include Plum Shadows and Plank Bridge: Two Memoirs about Courtesans (2020), Keywords in Chinese Culture (2020), and The Zuo Tradition / Zuozhuan Reader: Key Topics in China’s Oldest Narrative History (forthcoming, 2020).
Notes
1. Online Etymology Dictionary, www.etymonline.com/search?q=barbaroi+ (accessed October 11, 2019). “Greek barbaroi (plural noun) meant ‘all that are not Greek,’ but especially the Medes and Persians.” Ibid.
2. Tong, Tong Shuye lishi dili lunji, 169–76. The excerpt from Cui Shu on the topic is included as an appendix (176–77). On the term zhongguo, see Yu, “Shi zhongguo”; Wang, “Xia he zhongguo”; and Hu, Wei zai si ming.
3. Citations from Zuozhuan in this article are from Durrant, Li, and Schaberg, Zuo Tradition (cited as ZT in text and notes). In some cases I have introduced slight modifications.
4. On methods of warfare and land use as criteria for distinction between Chinese and barbarians, see Wei, Yi Xia guan yanjiu, 47–48, 57–61.
5. The “Hereditary Houses” section in Sima Qian’s 司 馬 遷 (ca. 135–ca. 86 BCE) Shiji (cited as SJ in text and notes) begins with “The Hereditary House of Wu Taibo” 吳太伯世家, and the common explanation is that Sima Qian “prizes the virtue of yielding” (guirang 貴 讓 ). Cf. Lunyu 8.1.
6. Chu is never referred to as Man, Yi, Man Yi, or Yi Di in Zuozhuan. In Guoyu, “Lu yu” 魯語 (Discourses of Lu) 2, 5.193, a Lu minister tries to dissuade the Lu ruler from seeking Chu’s help in attacking the powerful Ji lineage in Lu by referring to Chu as “Man Yi”—implying that it cannot be a reliable ally, especially as an alien agent in an internecine conflict.
8. On the meaning of jiu 鳩 as “gather,” “order,” “pacify,” or “to make secure,” see also ZT Yin 8.8, 1:50–51, 715 BCE; and Xiang 16.5, 2:1040–41, 557 BCE. All five jiu species are mentioned in Shijing.
9. Du Yu’s 杜 預 (222–85) expansive gloss of all the bird names, derived from Jia Kui 賈 逵 (174–228), follows the same principle: he linked their supposed characteristics to the duties of the offices named after them. For example, ospreys are said to be “fierce and discerning” (zhi er youbie 鷙而有別) and thus became the name for supervisor of the military (sima 司馬). See Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhengyi (hereafter cited as ZZ in text and notes), 48.836.
10. ZZ 48.838: “I have heard that when the Son of Heaven has lost his officials, knowledge remains among the alien of the four quarters” 吾聞之:天子失官，學在四夷. A slightly different version of the saying (“When ritual is lost, one seeks it in the wilderness” 禮 失 而求諸野) is attributed to Confucius in Ban Gu, Hanshu, 30.1746.
11. Maoshi zhengyi, 20.793. See also SJ 3.91.
12. According to Shuowen 說 文 (Explanation of Graphs and Characters), Ying is the clan name of the Shaohao lineage. See also Yan Shigu’s 顏 師 古 (581–645) gloss on Tan: “A former domain descended from Shaohao, Ying is the clan name” 故國，少昊後，盈(嬴)姓. Ban Gu, Hanshu, 28A.1588.
13. Du Yu followed Sima Qian on this point (ZZ 25.948). Tian Qiuzi 田俅子 (same as Tian Jiu 田 鳩 ?), identified as a Mohist from the Warring States, also claimed that the Lu capital, Qufu, was the capital of the Shaohao lineage. Taiping Yulan, 926.4224. See Ma, Yishi, 6.3b.
14. Cf. Pines, “Beasts or Humans”; di Cosmo, Ancient China and Its Enemies; Poo, Enemies of Civilization; and Li, “Hua Yi zhi bian.”
15. By Han, this evolved into a narrative of conscious reform of Shang customs. Boqin is said to have reported to the Zhou duke three years after being put in power in Lu. It took him that long to “change its customs and reform its rituals” 變其俗，革其禮 (SJ 33.1524).
16. A daughter of a Lu ruler was married to the Tan ruler. She was sent back to Lu in 593 BCE (ZT Xuan 16.3, 1:686–87).
17. Zhu was called Zou 鄒 during the Warring States; see Wang, Shiqi shi shangque, 234. In 487 BCE, Wu attacked Lu on behalf of Zhu (ZT Ai 8.2a, 3:1880–81). For analogous accounts in Shiji, Zhu appears as Zhu 邾 (SJ 14.675), Zou 鄒 (SJ 33.1545), and Zou 騶 (SJ 31.1471). “The scholars of Zou and Lu” 鄒 魯 之 士 are experts of ritual and textual traditions. See Zhuangzi jishi, 33.1067. “Zou Lu” 鄒 魯 is also mentioned as a unit—an area sharing cultural and political concerns—in SJ 40.1733, 46.1900, 66.2719. On the history of the areas associated with Zhu, see Wang, Chunqiu Zhu fen sanguo kao; and Pang, Dong Yi wenhua yanjiu.
18. The line “the barbarians bring disorder to the realm” 蠻夷猾夏 appears also in “Yao dian” 堯 典 (Yao’s Canon) in Shangshu zhengyi 3.44, where it conveys a sense of solemn injunction to instate order through proper punishments.
19. See Fu, “Yi Xia dong xi shuo”; and Xu, Zhongguo gushi de chuanshuo shidai. On the link between Taihao and Shaohao, see Cui, Kaoxin lu, 21–23. Gu Jiegang and Tong Shuye (among others) have pointed out the connection between the Feng 風 clan name of Taihao and the phoenix (feng 鳳) in the Shaohao story. See Tong, Chunqiu Zuozhuan yanjiu, 4; and Gu, “Niao Yi zu de tuteng chongbai.” See also Hu Houxuan, “Jiagu wen Shang zu niao tuteng de yiji.”
20. Five persons were buried as “grave attendants” when Lord Zhuang of Zhu 邾莊公 (d. 507 BCE) died (ZT Ding 3.1, 3:1740–41, 507 BCE). Such customs are also recorded for Jin (Xuan 15.6, 594 BCE; Cheng 10.4, 581 BCE), Qin (Wen 6.3, 621 BCE), Song (Cheng 2.4, 589 BCE), and Chu (Zhao 13.2, 529 BCE). The use of human victims in burial is never mentioned in relation to Lu, although Ji Pingzi did sacrifice human victims at the Bo altar, as mentioned above.
21. According to the Zhu minister Mao Yihong 茅夷鴻 (fifth century BCE), Zhu has a military allotment of six hundred chariots (compared to Lu’s eight hundred) toward the end of the Chunqiu period (ZT Ai 7.4b, 3:1876–77, 488 BCE).
22. Qi and Lu jointly attacked Lai in 602 BCE (ZT Xuan 7.2, 1:618–19). Chunqiu mentions another Qi attack two years later (ZT Annals 9.4, 1:624–25, 600 BCE), but that event is unmarked in Zuozhuan. In 571 BCE, Qi attacked Lai again but turned back because Lai bribed the Qi eunuch leading the campaign (ZT Xiang 2.1, 2:894–95). According to Shiji, Yan Ying hailed from Lai (SJ 62.2134)—perhaps another example of a wise man who came from supposedly backward areas.
23. This is Kong Yingda’s reading (ZZ 56.976).
24. Cf. Lunyu, 6.24: “Qi, with one change, can attain the level of Lu. Lu, with one change, can attain the Way” 齊一變，至於魯。 魯一變，至於道.
25. The mother of Lord Ping of Jin 晉平公 (r. 557–532 BCE) hailed from Qĭ, and Jin demanded that its allies contribute to the fortification of Qĭ. Lu was also asked to return Qĭ territories, much to the chagrin of Lu and some Jin leaders (ZT Xiang 29.8, 29.11, 2:1238– 41, 544 BCE).
26. See, e.g., Shangshu 尚書 (Book of Documents) 14, “Kang gao” 康誥 (Proclamation to Kang), 16, “Duoshi” 多士 (Numerous Officers), 18, “Jun shi” 君奭 (Prince Shi), and 21, “Lizheng” 立政 (Establishing Governance) (Shangshu zhengyi 11.201, 16.237, 16.247, 17.261); and Shijing, “Huang yi” 皇矣 (August Indeed), Mao 273, “Shi mai” 時邁 (Timely Journey), and Mao 275, “Si wen” 思文 (The Culture) (Maoshi zhengyi 16D.573, 19B.719, 19B.721). On the evolving meanings of Xia, see Chen, “Yi Xia xin bian.”
27. Scribe Yi is also quoted in ZT Xi 15.4e, 645 BCE; Wen 15.4, 612 BCE; Xuan 12.3, 597 BCE; Xiang 14.9, 559 BCE; and Zhao 1.13b, 541 BCE.
28. See, e.g., James Legge’s translation: “If he is not of our race, he is sure to have a different mind” (Chinese Classics, 354); and Frank Dikötter’s interpretation: “This sentence seems to support the allegation that at least some degree of ‘racial discrimination’ existed during the early stage of Chinese civilization” (Discourse of Race in Modern China, 3).
29. In Shiji, Xiongyi is said to serve King Cheng (SJ 40.1691–92).
31. The account of the Qin-Jin conflict in Zuozhuan (ZT Xi 32–33, 1:442–51, 628–627 BCE) does not mention Rong’s role in Qin defeat.
32. In Shangshu (“Yao dian” 堯 典 [Canon of Yao], “Shun dian” 舜 典 [Canon of Shun]), the chiefs of the Four Peaks counsel the legendary sage kings Yao and Shun on key appointments and policies. In Guoyu, they are said to be descendants of Gonggong, and the commentator Wei Zhao claims that they helped the sage king Yu in controlling the floods (Guoyu, “Zhou yu” 3, 3.104–5). Cf. Tong, Chunqiu Zuozhuan yanjiu, 28.
33. “Buzzing blue flies / gather on the fence. / Joyous and civil is the noble man: / He does not believe in words of slander. / Buzzing blue flies / gather at the brambles. / The slander-mongers know no limits, / and wreak havoc in domains on four sides. / Buzzing blue flies / gather at the thickets. / The slander-mongers know no limits, / and sow discord between the two of us.” 營營青蠅，止于樊。 豈弟君子，無信讒言。 營營青蠅，止于棘，讒人罔極，交亂四國。 營營青蠅，止于榛。 讒人罔極，構我二人. Maoshi zhengyi 14C.489–90. I discuss this example in Li, “Poetry and Diplomacy in Zuozhuan.”
34. Zhao leaders also castigated their Wu foes as barbarians whose lax and unstable (qing 輕) temperament meant that “they cannot bear to wait long” 不 忍 久 and were thus prone to act rashly (ZT Ai 13.4a, 3:1914–15, 482 BCE).
35. For another example of strategic reasoning based on the barbarian’s trait, see the Jin officer Liang Youmi’s 梁 由 靡 (mid-seventh century BCE) recommendation that Jin pursue the recently defeated Di because “the Di have no shame” 狄 無 恥 —that is, the shame of defeat would have no deterring effect on the Di (ZT Xi 8.2, 1:290–91, 652 BCE).
36. In Shiji, the “birds and beasts” analogy is also used to justify both wars and marriage diplomacy with the Xiongnu. See Li, “Historical Understanding.”
38. The analogous passage in Guoyu (“Jin yu” 晉語 [Discourses of Jin] 7.443) is much briefer and does not include the excursus on Xia history. Some scholars suggest that the passage on Xia history may be a later interpolation. Tong, Chunqiu Zuozhuan yanjiu, 22–24.
40. See Guoyu, “Zhou yu” 1, 1.3; Xunzi jianshi, “Zhenglun” 正 論 (Correcting Disquisitions), 18.244–45; and Liji, “Wang zhi” 王 制 (Royal Standards), in Liji zhushu 12.247–48.
41. The Lu minister Ji Wenzi, who instigated this speech, was justifying his decision to expel the Ju 莒 heir apparent, who had assassinated his ruler and sought shelter in Lu by offering Lord Xuan 魯宣公 (r. 608–591 BCE), the newly instated Lu ruler, a precious jade as bribe. Lord Xuan agreed to accommodate the Ju heir apparent but Ji Wenzi overturned the lord’s order.
42. There is a similar passage in Da Dai liji, “Wu di de” 五帝德 (The Virtue of the Five Sovereigns), 2:253.
43. See the annotations by Sima Zhen, Zhang Shoujie, and Xu Guang (SJ 1.29). Cf. Li, “Historical Understanding.”
44. With these lines Cangge 倉葛 protests Jin treatment of Yangfan 陽樊: Cangge argues that Yangfan should be treated as one of the central domains and not besieged and threatened as if it were of barbarian origins.
45. Gongyang, Xi 4, 10.126, 656 BCE. “The Yi in the south” refers to Chu aggression against Deng 鄧, Gu 穀, Cai 蔡, and Zheng. “The Di in the north” refers to the Di invasion of Xing and Wei and also evokes the Qi campaigns against the Shan Rong 山 戎 in the north. The idea that the overlord’s mission is to “honor the Zhou house and to keep the barbarians at bay” 尊周室，攘夷狄 becomes common in Han sources. See, e.g., Liu Xiang, Xinxu, “Shanmou” 善 謀 (Efficacious Strategems) 9.284; andBan Gu, Hanshu, 23.1084, 27B.1486.
47. See ZT 2:1008n368.
48. Lord Hui of Jin 晉惠公 (r. 650–37 BCE) was captured and taken captive to Qin when Jin was defeated at the battle of Han 韓. He was later repatriated to Jin (ZT Xi 15.4d, 1:320–23, 15.8, 1:328–29).
49. The traditional date for the eastward move of the Zhou capital is 770 BCE, but Xinian 繫年 contains a passage indicating that the relocation of the capital took place in 738 BCE. See ZT 1:352n264.
