Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century
Page 26
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