Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century

Home > Other > Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century > Page 26
Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century Page 26

by Ying-shih Yü


  122. Li Qiaoping

  , Zhongguo huaxue shi

  , 2nd ed. (Taipei: Shangwu, 1955),

  200.

  123. Duan Yucai

  , commentator, Shuowen jiezi zhu

  (Taipei: Yiwen yinshu

  guan, 1955), 234.

  124. Ôsamu Shinoda, Chûgoku Tabemono shi, 54.

  125. Berthold Laufer, Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty (Leiden: Brill, 1909), 15–35.

  126. Luoyang qu, Luoyang Shaogou Hanmu, 206, pl. 62.

  127. Duan Yucai, Shuowen jiezi zhu, 234.

  128. Qi Sihe, “Mao Shi gu ming kao,” 294–295.

  129. Liu Xi, Shiming (Shanghai: Shangwu, 1939), 62.

  130. Zeng Zhaoyu

  , Jiang Baogeng

  , and Li Zhongyi

  , Fajue baogao; Jiayu

  Guan shi, “Jiayu Guan . . . zhuan mu,” 40, fi g. 31.

  131. Cui Shi, Simin yueling, 44–45.

  132. Shang Binghe, Shiwu kao, 105.

  133. QSW, 1962–1963.

  6. The Seating Order at the Hong Men Banquet

  In “Xiang Yu benji” (The Basic Annals of Xiang Yu) in the Shiji (Rec ords of

  the Grand Historian), Sima Qian writes:

  Xiang Yu on the same day asked the Lord of Pei [Liu Bang] to stay and join

  in feasting. Xiang Yu and Xiang Bo sat facing east. Uncle sat facing south.

  Uncle was Fan Zeng, whom Xiang Yu treated as if he were a younger

  brother of his father. The Lord of Pei sat facing north, with Zhang Liang in

  attendance facing west. Fan Zeng several times eyed Xiang Yu, and thrice

  lifted the jade girdle that he wore as a signal. But Xiang Yu remained

  silent and did not respond.

  This is the Grand Historian’s description of a most exciting and impor tant

  scene during the Hong Men Banquet (Hong Men Yan

  ). The “Chen

  Sheng Xiang Ji zhuan” (“Biography of Xiang Yu”” in the Hanshu (History of the

  Former Han Dynasty) contains nothing about this incident, however, and the

  “Gao Di benji” (“Basic Annals of Gao Di [Liu Bang]”) in recording the Hong

  Men Banquet, makes no mention of its seating arrangements. As a matter of

  fact, the Grand Historian’s detailed account of the seating order was certainly

  not a casual one. Concealed between the lines is a message of grave conse-

  quences. Scholars before us, in their reading of Rec ords of the Grand Historian,

  have paid attention to some extent to the question of seating. The Shiki kaichû

  t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t 123

  kôshô

  of Kametaro Takigawa

  may be cited as a basis

  for discussion. Under the entry “Fan Zeng as Ya Fu” (Xiang Yu’s Veritable

  Paternal Uncle), Takigawa has the following commentary:

  Huang Chunyao

  says:

  “The ancients esteemed the right side. So ritual regulations regarding

  the direction of the ancestral temple all provided that it faced south,

  whereas the occupant of the temple faced east. The etiquette concerning

  the seating of the host and guests was governed by the same princi ple.”

  The “Xiang yinjiu” (Rites of the District Symposium)

  section

  in the Yili

  (Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial) states: “When the

  guests resume their places, they should be in the local school’s western

  apartments facing east.”

  In the “Huaiyinhou liezhuan” (“Biography of Han Xin”), in the Rec ords

  of the Grand Historian it is stated that the Lord of Guangwu sat on the east

  side and that Han Xin faced him from the west and treated him like a

  tutor.

  Upon capturing Wang Ling’s mother, Xiang Yu incarcerated her in an

  armed camp. When Wang Ling’s emissary arrived, Xiang Yu placed her

  in a seat facing east in an attempt to beckon Wang Ling to surrender.

  Zhou Bo disliked lit er a ture. Each time he summoned disputatious

  scholars to his Grand Marshal’s offi

  ce for mediation, he sat facing east to

  upbraid them.

  The above all indicates that east was the honorable side.

  By this token, the order of seating at the Hong Men Banquet was as

  follows: “First Xiang Yu and Xiang Po, next Fan Zeng, then the Lord of Pei.”

  Sekitoku Nakai

  says: “At a court of offi

  ce where upper seat

  and lower seat faced each other, the direction facing south was deemed

  honorable. Other wise, the direction facing east was deemed honorable;

  no longer was the south side esteemed.”

  Although the explanations of Huang and Nakai diff er, they both agree that

  eastward is the esteemed direction. And Mr. Huang’s discussion of the order of

  pre ce dence especially tallies with the actual conditions then existing. From an-

  tiquity to the Han dynasty, the sitting mats facing east were deemed honorable.

  In his essay entitled “Sit Facing East” in juan 28 in the Rizhi lu

  (Rec ord

  of Daily Knowledge), Gu Yanwu

  quoted profusely from the classics and

  histories, and reached a most closely reasoned conclusion. Unfortunately, this

  essay has not been incorporated into the Shiki kaichû kôshô. Two recent schol-

  ars, Yang Shuda

  1 and Shang Binghe

  ,2 have also come to the same

  conclusion. This, then, is a nearly settled question.

  However, the “Quli”

  (Summary of the Rules of Propriety) chapter in

  the Liji (Classic of Rites) asks, and answers: “In giving a feast, how should the

  124 t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t

  guests be seated? . . . When the mats face north and south, the west is the superior

  side. When the mats face east and west, the south is the superior side.” According

  to this passage, then, there are two diff er ent kinds of seating arrangements. It

  comes closer to Nakai’s description, and yet there is a variance.

  What deserves attention is that there is a distinction between fang

  (side)

  and xiang

  (direction). If we say, “when the mats face north and south, the

  west is the superior side,” then that which faces east should be the most hon-

  ored. But in saying “when the mats face east and west, the south is the superior

  side,” are we to understand that facing north is the most honored? It seems that

  there is a considerable prob lem there. So as far as this point is concerned, we

  must leave the question open. From here on, we had better confi ne ourselves to

  discussing the signifi cance of the seating order at the Hong Men Banquet on

  the basis of historical examples.

  In reporting the polite declination of the imperial throne by Emperor (Xiao)

  Wen (then Prince of Dai), the “Basic Annals of Emperor Xiao Wen” in Rec ords

  of the Grand Historian states, “The Prince of Dai faced west and declined thrice;

  then (he) faced south and declined twice” (same in the HS) . Pei Yin’s

  Jijie

  (Collected Interpretations) on the Rec ords of the Grand Historian quotes

  Ruchun

  as saying:

  [Emperor Wen was] declining the courtiers’ urging. Some say: the seats

  of the guest and the host faced east and west, respectively; the seats of the

  sovereign and ministers faced south and north, respectively. So the Prince

  of Dai sat facing we
st thrice, declining the off er of the throne. However,

  when all the ministers pres ent still insisted that he was the appropriate

  choice, then the Prince of Dai shifted his seat to face south, indicating his

  change of mind and a gradual readiness to ascend the throne.

  This is to say that at the very beginning, when receiving the courtiers, Emperor

  Wen (as Prince of Dai) insisted on the prescribed rite of a host facing west.

  Later, he changed direction and faced south. Orally, he was still politely declin-

  ing, but by facing south, he had already hinted at his readiness to accept the

  off er of the throne. From this example we can best see the ritual occasions that

  gave the places of honor to the sides that faced east and south. However, Hu

  Sanxing

  disagreed with Ruchun’s explanation. Under the entry of the

  eighth year of Empress Gao, in juan 13 of the Zizhi tongjian

  (Compre-

  hensive Mirror for Aid in Government), Hu’s commentary says:

  In my opinion, Ruchun’s theory that the Prince of Dai’s sitting southward

  was a sign of his gradual readiness to ascend the throne may not have

  caught the thought behind his repeated declination. Since the courtiers

  had arrived soon after the Prince of Dai entered his offi

  cial residence, he

  received them as their host. Therefore, he faced west. When the courtiers

  t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t 125

  urged him to accept the throne, he thrice declined. The courtiers then

  steered the Prince to a seat directly facing south. Again he thrice de-

  clined. And so it was not of his own accord that the Prince faced south;

  rather, it was the courtiers who steered him in that direction. How imper-

  missible it is to say that the Prince had suddenly shifted his seat to face

  south!

  Hu Sanxing’s commentary that the Prince of Dai’s southward- facing position

  was caused by the steering of the courtiers has no clear proof in history, but it

  is an excellent example of a commentary that is rich in historical imagination.

  With such an explanation, we can see the scene as if it were before our eyes.

  Compared with Ruchun’s assumption that the Prince of Dai had himself moved

  to face south and again declined the throne off er, this explanation is much

  more reasonable. Ruchun may have correctly stated what was on the mind of

  the Prince of Dai, but Hu Sanxing has accurately portrayed the actions of the

  sovereign and ministers of the Han Court at the time.

  The statement “the seats of the guest and the host face east and west, respec-

  tively; the seats of the sovereign and ministers face south and north, respectively,”

  as cited in Ruchun’s annotation, can very well be used to explain the order of

  seating at the Hong Men Banquet. Based on the princi ple that “the seats of the

  guest and the host face east and west, respectively,” why was it, then, that Xiang

  Yu contrarily took a seat facing east, since at the Hong Men feast, Liu Bang was

  the guest and Xiang Yu the host? This was because at that time (206 b.c.e.), the

  strug gle for the mastery of the empire was still undecided and neither Liu

  Bang nor Xiang Yu had yet proclaimed themselves sovereigns. The meeting at

  Hong Men was convoked precisely for the purpose of determining to whom

  the leadership should belong. Unavoidably, Liu Bang risked exceptional haz-

  ards to attend the meeting to show his willingness to accept Xiang Yu’s leader-

  ship and to indicate that he harbored no ulterior motive. On Xiang Yu’s part, he

  had wanted to avail himself of the opportunity to win Liu Bang’s fealty. Po liti cal

  considerations with regard to the relative status of the two men made the Hong

  Men Banquet something more than an ordinary social occasion. In the “Biog-

  raphies of the Marquis of Wu-an and the Marquis of Weiqi” in juan 107 of Rec-

  ords of the Grand Historian, there is the following description of how Tian Fen,

  the Marquis of Wu-an, entertained his guests: “He frequently summoned

  guests to drink with him. He placed his elder brother, the Prince of Gai, in a

  seat facing south, and he himself sat facing east. He considered that his dignity

  as a prime minister of the Han dynasty should not be undermined by personal

  consideration and by surrendering the seat of honor to his elder brother.”

  Takigawa’s Shiki kaichû kôshô says: “According to the History of the Former Han

  Dynasty, facing ‘south’ is recorded as facing ‘north.’ This is incorrect. The an-

  cients, in seating, considered facing east as the honored direction. So in sacri-

  fi ces at the ancestral temple, the tablet of the grand ancestor faced east. Even by

  126 t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t

  the etiquette of social intercourse, the guests also faced east, while the host

  faced west.” This concrete example enables us to know for sure that on a feast-

  ing occasion, the seat facing in the eastern direction was considered higher

  than that facing in the southern direction. According to the “Biography of

  Prince Daohui of Qi” in juan 38 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty, it is

  stated: “When Prince Daohui presented himself at Court in the second year of

  Emperor Hui Di’s reign (193 b.c.e.), the sovereign and the Prince of Qi imbibed

  in the presence of the Empress Dowager. Emperor Hui Di placed his elder

  brother, the Prince of Qi, in the seat of honor, observing family rules of

  etiquette.” A commentary of Yan Shigu

  notes: “ Brothers rank in their

  order of seniority. They do not follow the rites governing the sovereign and his

  ministers. This is why the text refers to it as family [rules of etiquette].” The

  Prince of Qi was older than Emperor Hui Di,3 so the latter bade the former to

  take the seat of honor, which is understood to be the one facing east. Even as

  emperor, Hui Di observed the order of fraternal seniority, and yet Tian Fen ac-

  tually dared to pull his ministerial rank and cast aside the family etiquette gov-

  erning high and low. It can thus be seen that this seating arrangement is given

  special attention in Rec ords of the Grand Historian to underscore the overbear-

  ing nature of the Marquis of Wu-an. In recording in detail the seating order at

  the Hong Men Banquet, Sima Qian had a similar purpose in mind. By occupy-

  ing the seat of honor facing east without declining, Xiang Yu had behaved ex-

  actly like the Marquis of Wu-an. Both employed their higher po liti cal stations

  as the criterion, but Xiang Yu was even more strongly motivated by his desire to

  excel.

  During the Han dynasty when superiors entertained their subordinates,

  they themselves frequently occupied the seats of honor and did not follow the

  customary etiquette governing hosts and guests. This point is most clearly

  manifested on stone carvings. In discussing the murals of feasting at Wu

  Liang’s Shrine and Xiaotang Shan in Western Shandong Province, Lao Gan

  touches on the question of seating. He says:

  As to the seat of the host, whether it was on the left or right, the direction

  does not seem to have been fi xed. Since the position of the murals at the

  Wu (Liang) Shrine can no longer be ascertained, there is no way to
tell

  whether it was related in meaning to the dictum that in an east- west di-

  rection the west [i.e., facing east] was the superior and that in a north-

  south direction the south was the superior. What can still be discerned is

  that at the Wu (Liang) Shrine, the host’s seat, generally speaking, was on

  the left. As to Xiaotang Shan, the host’s seat, on the whole, was on the

  right. Could it be that the murals of Wu (Liang) Shrine show scenes of

  entertaining friends and thus the host took the lowest seat, whereas those

  of the Xiaotang Shan are of a diff er ent kind?

  t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t 127

  Since in the Han dynasty there was a distinction between a prefect and

  his subordinates as that between a prince and his ministers, the prefect’s

  offi

  ce, in like manner, could be styled a court. . . . Now as the three Wus

  served, respectively, only as Assistant to the Zhijinwu (“Superintendent

  of the Capital”), Chief Offi

  cer of The Western Regions (Xiyu zhangshi),

  and a Cir cuit Secretary (Zhou congshi), they were actually subordinates

  of others and could not have treated others as their subjects. So there

  ought not to be any doubt that at the banquet (at the shrine) they should

  have occupied the hosts’ seats. As for Xiaotang Shan, it decidedly was not

  the site of Guo Zhu’s Shrine. According to Lixu, it was prob ably the site of

  Zhu Fou’s Shrine, or perhaps the Zhong family’s. If it was Zhu Fou’s

  Shrine, then the description would fi t, for Zhu Fou had been a prefect for

  a long time. If it was the Zhong family’s shrine, then although we do not

  know now the particulars of that family’s offi

  cial career, we may assume

  that the Zhongs must have been prefects, for only in a prefectural post

  could the Zhongs assume the honored seat and receive many guests who

  came to pay tribute.4

  In 1959, two Han tombs rich with murals were discovered at Dahu Ting, Whip-

  ping Tiger Pavilion, in Mi xian, Henan Province. In Tomb No. 1, there was a

  side room with a mural depicting a banqueting scene on the west wall. It was

  1.53 meters long and 1.14 meters high. The host in this mural (who was also the

  tomb’s occupant) also had his seat on the right side, like that found at Xiaotang

  Shan. Three guests had already been seated on mats. They were seated on both

  sides of the host (one at a superior position and two in inferior positions). Two

 

‹ Prev