by Chen Jack W
86. Wei Shang was a general during the reign of Han Wendi 漢文帝 (r. 180–157 bc), who
was famed for his successes against the Xiongnu. See Shi ji, 102.2758–59. Li Mu was a gen-This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90
On Sovereignty and Representation
problems faraway, but out of sympathy and love [for them], one cannot bear to
do so; yet if one feels pity and does not send forth men, then the branches and
leaves will fall and not be preserved. Of the two proper courses, upon which
should the sovereign set his mind? Therefore, he may flourish at dawn but be
fearful by dark—I cannot forget this fact. If it is like this for the ruler above, how much more so would it be for his subjects below!
四海之內，莫非王土。要荒為枝葉，畿內乃根本。古人云：皮之不
存，毛將安傅？當使本固根深，委之內相，而伊尹、傅說，人所希
逢。至如鎮積冰之塞，守飛雪之邊，而魏尚、李牧，當今罕遇。遣人
遠撫，則眷戀而不忍，愍而不遣，則枝葉落而不存。二宜之閒，致心
何所？是用晨興夕惕，無忘斯事。為上猶然，何況臣下！
Taizong asserts through an allusion to the Classic of Poetry that while all
lands are the sovereign’s lands, the central domains must take priority
over the distant frontier lands. When a crisis arises, impelling the sover-
eign to dispatch troops to pacify the far reaches, he might stay his hand,
feeling pity for the men he would have to send to their deaths. Yet if he
stays his hand, then the distant lands will fall. From the historical circum-
stances of Taizong’s reign, we know that the problem of the Eastern
Turks was much on his mind at this point. To pursue a military solution
would mean more warfare for a populace that had recently lived through
the Tang pacification campaigns under Gaozu’s reign, and yet to ignore
the threat posed by the Turks would ensure even greater instability for
the empire.
The image of anxiety and worry that Taizong summons here is how he
desires his audience to think of him, weighted down with the cares of the
empire, rather than exultant with the power at his command. It is an im-
age of sovereignty that stands in direct contrast to the reckless abuse of
power by the First Emperor of Qin and Han Wudi. This essay is, of
course, a mirror ( jing 鏡)—a “moral speculum” that allows the sovereign
to examine himself through past examples.87 It is important to realize,
however, that the sovereign’s mirror is not just an instrument of moral
self-reflection. As the sovereign “gazes” into the mirror, he is the object of
—————
eral in the state of Zhao 趙 who defeated various Turkish tribes and Xiongnu. See Shi ji, 81.2449–51.
87. The figure of the moral speculum is found commonly also in Western literature. See Melchior-Bonnet, Mirror, pp. 114–15. Denis Twitchett discusses the sources for the metaphor of the mirror in Chinese political thought, in “How to Be an Emperor,” p. 8, n5.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On Sovereignty and Representation
91
his court’s gaze, which watches him reflecting upon himself. There is al-
ways an audience for the imperial speculum, and the act of self-reflection
is always a public act. In this way, moral reflection becomes a recasting of
the sovereign’s image, a claiming of sagely virtue that must be confirmed
by the sovereign’s subjects, by the court that witnesses this staged per-
formance. This relationship between private reflection and public display
is born out in the concluding sentences of the essay:
The Classic of Changes states: “Writing does not exhaust the words; the words do not exhaust the thoughts.”88 At present We have roughly conveyed this synopsis
in order to display what is lodged within Our heart. An ancient adage says, “La-
borers must sing about their work.” It is not in order to busy Ourself with brush
and ink that We display literary floriage; it is only to study for Ourself and for the moment to write down what We hold inside. We long for it to reach and be seen
by the throngs of worthies, and not be sneered at by them.
易云：“書不盡言，言不盡意。”今略陳梗概，以示心之所存耳。古
語云：“勞者必歌其事。”朕非故煩翰墨以見文藻，但學以為己，聊
書所懷。想達見群賢，不以為嗤也。
Though Taizong speaks throughout the essay as if in self-address—the
sovereign ruminating upon his own virtues and flaws—his audience is the
court and empire. His mirror reflects himself, but in such a way that oth-
ers may see the perfected image within the text and identify the image
with the one who has authored it. The mirror’s reflection is more than
simply the passive imaginary object that the viewer beholds in the pol-
ished metal surface; it is now the viewer itself, the reflection imbued with
life through the audience’s recognition and recast as the viewer. What
Taizong achieves with this essay is not merely the imitation of sagely vir-
tue, but the public performance of virtue, a representation that presents
its subject anew to—and by means of—the witnessing court and empire.
“Model for the Emperor”
At the very end of Taizong’s reign and life, he would revisit many of the
statements that he had made as a young ruler for the purpose of providing
instructions on rulership to his heir, the future Emperor Gaozong. This
—————
88. A comment attributed to Confucius in the “Commentary on Appended Phrases.” See
Zhou yi zhengyi, 7.70c, in Shisanjing zhushu, p. 82.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92
On Sovereignty and Representation
work would be known as the “Model for the Emperor,” and it was divided
into twelve paired sections, with a preface and a postface.89 In the preface,
Taizong begins by stating how the power of the sovereign is invested in
him by Heaven and is not self-authorized—alluding perhaps to the First
Emperor who had thought otherwise. Taizong notes how heavenly por-
tents inaugurated the reigns of Yao and Yu, as well as the dynasties of
Zhou and Han, and then says, “To observe, on the basis of this, the
achievement of emperors and kings, it is not what wisdom can strive for,
and not what might can contest” 由此觀之，帝王之業，非可以智
競，非可以力爭者矣.90 Taizong then goes on to discuss the fall of the
Sui and the founding of the Tang, recontextualizing the rebellion of the
Li clan as a transfer of the Heavenly Mandate. He ends the preface by ad-
dressing the heir apparent, expressing his personal worry over the prince’s
inexperience and explaining the purpose of “Model for the Emperor,”
which is to provide the prince with a last set of admonitions drawn from
the texts of the past.
The first section is entitled “The Sovereign’s Body” 君體篇, an echo
&nbs
p; and transformation of the “The Way of the Sovereign” 君道篇 chapter
from the Xunzi, as well as of the “Way of the Ruler” 主道 and “Grand
—————
89. The textual transmission of “Model for the Emperor” is complex. I summarize Denis Twitchett’s account here, which points out that while it was still being read at the imperial court in the Northern Song, only the second half of the text was still in circulation by the Southern Song. When the Yuan dynasty conquered the Dali kingdom in Yunnan, a complete copy of the text was discovered. This was incorporated into an early edition of the Ming dynasty Yongle dadian 永樂大典 ( Great Canon of the Yongle Reign), and through this, copied into the Siku quanshu 四庫全書 ( Complete Books of the Four Treasuries). The preface survived separately through its inclusion in the Wenyuan yinghua, 735.3824b–25a.
Twitchett further notes that a separate Japanese and Korean tradition existed, and that the Japanese text is perhaps closest to the original Tang text. See Twitchett, “How To Be an Emperor,” pp. 38–50. Following Twitchett, my discussion is based on the Japanese text as it was collated by Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉 (1866–1940) and printed as Riben Kuanwen ben Di fan zhu erjuan Chengui zhu erjuan jiaoji erjuan 日本寬文本帝範注二卷臣軌注二卷
校記二卷 (hereafter abbreviated as Di fan zhu). I have also consulted the notes in Tang Taizong quanji jiaozhu, pp. 591–622.
90. Di fan zhu, 1.1a; Wenyuan yinghua, 735.3824b; and Tang Taizong quanji jiaozhu, p. 591.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On Sovereignty and Representation
93
Compendium [Corpus]” 大體 chapters of the Han Feizi.91 It is here that
he lays out the general principles of rulership. The text reads:
The people are the fount of the state, and the state is the trunk of the sovereign.
The ruler’s body can be compared to the sacred peaks, which are lofty and un-
yielding; and it can be compared to the sun and moon, whose “constant illumina-
tion” shines upon all in common.92 It is to him that the multitudes look up and
crane their necks; and it is towards him that the empire turns. He should make
broad his will, so that he will be able to enfold all equally. He should make fair
and just his heart, so that he will be able to dictate judgments. If he is not awe-
some in his power, he will have no means to reach the distant; if he is not mag-
nanimous in his mercy, he will have no means to cherish the people. He should
comfort the nine grades of kin with benevolence and receive the high ministers
with ceremony. In serving the ancestors, he must keep filiality in mind; in dealing
with inferiors, he must keep respect in mind. He must devote himself and assidu-
ously labor, in order to practice virtue and righteousness. This constitutes the
sovereign’s body.
夫民者國之先，國者君之本。人主之體，如山岳焉，高峻而不動，如
日月焉，貞明而普照。億兆之所瞻仰，天下之所歸往。寬大其志，足
以兼苞，平正其心，足以制斷。非威德無以致遠，非慈厚無以懷民。
撫九族以仁，接大臣以禮。奉先思孝，處後思恭，傾己勤勞，以行德
義。此為君之體也。93
The sense of the term ti 體 can be both corporeal (“body”) and abstract
(“principles” or “substance”), and here, Taizong intends both meanings.
He begins by describing the relationships of the sovereign ( jun 君) to the
people ( min 民) and the state ( guo 國), figuring the people as the “fount”
( xian 先) of the state and the state as the trunk ( ben 本) of the sovereign.
This passage recalls the Zizhi tongjian speech about the locusts, in which
Taizong also enumerated the relationships among sovereign, state, and
people in a similar manner. However, Taizong here goes on to liken the
body ( ti 體) of the sovereign to the sacred peaks and to the sun and moon,
—————
91. For the “Way of the Sovereign” chapter, see Xunzi jijie, 8.12.230–46. For the “Way of the Ruler” and “Grand Compendium [or Corpus]” chapters, see Zengding Han Feizi
jiaoshi, 7.685–95, 715–17.
92. I follow a suggestion from David Knechtges that zhenming 真明 be emended to zhenming 貞明, which would echo the “Commentary on Appended Phrases”: “The Way of the sun and moon lies in their constant illumination” 日月之道，貞明者也. See Zhouyi
zhengyi, 8.74a, in Shisanjing zhushu, p. 86.
93. Di fan zhu, 1.2a–2b; and Tang Taizong quanji jiaozhu, pp. 595–96.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94
On Sovereignty and Representation
which, like the pole-star of Confucius’ analogy, creates a center around
which the empire can be ordered. The rest of the passage is then made up
of a series of prescriptions for the crown prince, which Taizong defines as
constituting “the sovereign’s body” 君之體.
There is a shift in rhetorical style from the organismic relationships de-
scribed in the opening statement to the comparison of the sovereign to
the sun and moon. It is not coincidental that this is precisely the point at
which Taizong begins to paraphrase the “Techniques of the Ruler” 主術
chapter in the Han dynasty philosophical compendium, the Huainanzi
淮南子. Here is the relevant passage from the Huainanzi chapter:
The place of the ruler is as bright as the sun and the moon. He is the one to
whom the people all turn their eyes to look and turn their ears to listen, stretch-
ing their necks and lifting up their heels to gaze [at him]. Therefore, if he is not tranquil and simple, he will have no way to let his virtue shine. If he is not broad and expansive, he will have no way to shelter all equally. If he is not merciful and magnanimous, he will have no way to embrace the crowds. If he is not fair and
just, then he will have no way to dictate his judgments.
人主之居也，如日月之明也，天下之所同側目而視，側耳而聽，延頸
舉踵而望也。是故非澹薄無以明德，非寬大無以兼覆，非慈厚無以懷
眾，非平正無以制斷。94
The first sentence of this section depends upon a synecdochal logic, one
also found within the Zizhi tongjian quotation. However, once Taizong
begins to paraphrase the “Techniques of the Ruler” chapter, he also takes
up its rhetorical mode, one that relies more heavily upon metaphor and
simile in its figuration of the sovereign.95 Where synecdoche constructs an
organic vision of the world (the relation of parts to the whole), metaphor
—————
94. See Huainan honglie jijie, 9.291. I have consulted the translation in Ames, Art of Rulership, pp. 187–88.
95. Of course, the Huainanzi also uses synecdoche, as in the following passage: “Food is the basis of the people. The people are the basis of the state. The state is the basis of the sovereign” 食者，民之本也。民者，國之本也。國者，君之本也. See Huainan
honglie jijie, 9.308. On a side note, I am treating metaphor and simile as genetically similar tropes. On this, I follow the classical rhetorician Demetrius, who wrote: “When a metaphor seems risky, turn it into a simile ( eikasia). Then it will be safer. A simile is an extended metaphor.” See Demetrius, On Style, p. 189.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 o
n Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On Sovereignty and Representation
95
instead claims identity across ontologically distinct terms.96 If the meta-
phor is successful, the identification of one thing with another will seem
natural and self-explanatory. Thus, the comparison of the sovereign’s
body to the sacred mountains gives physical correlation to the abstraction
of the ruler’s authority and power, just as the comparison to the sun and
moon provides an image for imperial grace, which is supposed to be shed
impartially on all.
Taizong only follows the Huainanzi’s argument up to a point, as the
Han text is concerned with techniques and calculations of power, rather
than with the cultivation of imperial virtue. And indeed, following the
statement about making judgments, Taizong introduces the necessity of
benevolence ( ren), ritual ( li 禮), filiality ( xiao 孝), and respect ( gong 恭)—virtues that have a clear Confucian provenance and embed the sovereign in a network of normative sociopolitical relations, rather than pre-
senting him as a more abstract power on high. Here, we return to Tai-
zong’s opening statement: insofar as the people are conceived as the
“ancestor” of the state, and the state is conceived as the “root” of the sov-
ereign, then the sovereign is neither detached from those he governs, nor
is he a transcendent figure. On the contrary, Taizong says that he will
“overturn the self and diligently labor.” The phrase “overturning the self”
( qingji 傾己), which may also be translated as “emptying the self” or
“pouring out the self,” describes an act of askēsis, a self-humbling of the
sovereign. Indeed, it is through this ascetic negation that “the body of the
sovereign” is truly constituted.97
—————
96. For the distinction between metonymy, synecdoche, and metaphor, see Fontanier, Les Figures du discours, pp. 77–104. For a useful discussion of Fontanier’s tropology, see Ricoeur, Rule of Metaphor, pp. 55–59. Also see the entries on metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche in Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, pp. 250–62. Lausberg identifies synecdoche as a species of metonymy.