by Ying-shih Yü
other guests were just arriving. In the mural, there are altogether four servants,
each attending to his own business. One is pictured greeting guests. Moreover,
he is shown indicating to the guests with his hand as to where they should sit.
Of course, their seating directions cannot be found, but it can be seen at a glance
that the host had placed himself in an honored seat. According to research, the
tomb’s occupant appears to be Zhang De (styled Boya), the Prefect of Hongnong,
mentioned in a note on the Wei Shui (a small river in Henan) in Shuijing zhu
(Commentaries on the Water Classic). Zhang De’s precise dates remain
to be verifi ed, but, on the basis of the tomb’s construction and the subject matter
and content of the murals, archeologists have determined that its construction
belongs to the late Eastern Han dynasty. Since Zhang De was Prefect, the guests
must have been his subordinates.5 Thus, in the painting, he is pictured occupy-
ing the honored seat. This painting, then, adds yet another new and eff ective
piece of evidence for Lao Gan’s theory.
The literary and archaeological data cited above are enough to explain that
Xiang Yu’s eastward- facing seating at the Hong Men Banquet was a conscious
act of po liti cal signifi cance. He did not treat Liu Bang as a guest of equal stature;
128 t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t
rather, he regarded Liu Bang as his subordinate. There was a basis for Xiang Yu
acting in this way. When Liu Bang fi rst joined the uprising, he once came
under the banner of Xiang Yu’s uncle, Xiang Liang. After Xiang Liang died in
action, Xiang Yu naturally inherited his uncle’s power of leadership, and fur-
thermore, at the time of the Hong Men Banquet, Xiang Yu had earned the
perfectly justifi able title of “The Supreme General to Whom All Feudal Lords
Belong.”
In the seating arrangements at the Hong Men Banquet, however, the place-
ment of the Lord of Pei in a “seat facing north” deserves further attention. If,
according to Ruchun’s theory, “the seats of the sovereign and ministers face
south and north,” then Liu Bang obviously was formally signifying his inten-
tion to become subject to Xiang Yu. In the chapter on “The Way of Sovereigns”
in juan 1 of his Shuoyuan
(Garden of Stories), Liu Xiang rec ords Guo Wei
as having told Prince Zhao of Yan:
“Now if Your Majesty sits facing east and seeks the ser vices of statesmen
by giving orders in a haughty manner through expressions of the eyes
and countenance and not in words, then what will arrive are men with
the aptitude of menials. But if you seek the ser vices of statesmen by hold-
ing court when facing south and not neglecting due propriety, then men
of the caliber of ordinary ministers will arrive. If Your Majesty faces west
and treats others as equals, and greets them mildly and pleasantly, not
taking advantage of your authority to seek the ser vices of statesmen, then
men of the caliber of friends will arrive. If Your Majesty faces north and
seeks the ser vices of statesmen in a respectful and humble manner, then
men of the caliber of teachers and advisers will arrive. . . .” Thereupon,
the Prince of Yan invited Guo Wei to take a seat of honor facing south for
three years.
Although the story itself may not be believable, what it tells about the order of
pre ce dence of seating must have been the customary practice during the days
of the Warring States and the Qin and Han dynasties (481 b.c.e.– 220 c.e.)— of
that there can be no question. From this passage, we know for certain that
Ruchun’s theory that “the seats of the guest and the host face east and west and
the seats of the sovereign and ministers face south and north” was a general
rule at that time. The reason Liu Bang occupied a north- facing seat and not a
west- facing seat was because the north- facing seat was the lowest for a subject,
whereas west- facing seats were for friends who treated each other as equals.
Although Zhang Liang occupied a west- facing seat, Rec ords of the Grand Histo-
rian plainly states that he was “in attendance.” Thus, Sima Qian’s account of
the rank, sequence, and pre ce dence of seating is in strict order. Is this why the
brush of the Grand Historian has remained unexcelled thus far?
t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t 129
Rec ords of the Grand Historian narrates yet another incident that is similar to
the Hong Men Banquet. It is recorded in the “Account of Southern Yue,” and
the story provides us with a basis for comparison. During the reign of Emperor
Wu Di (140–87 b.c.e.) in the Former or Western Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.– 8
c.e.), the King of Southern Yue was a minor and the Empress Dowager ruled.
Southern Yue’s Prime Minister, Lü Jia, was an elder statesman and a popu lar
fi gure. Wishing to take advantage of the presence and prestige of the Han en-
voys, the Empress Dowager plotted to murder Lü Jia at a diplomatic banquet.
Rec ords of the Grand Historian states: “The Han ‘envoys all sat facing east, the
Empress Dowager sat facing south, the King sat facing north, Lü Jia, the Prime
Minister, and other ministers all faced west, attended, and then sat (on mats)
drinking.’ ” ( Note: HS merely says: “The envoys and ministers were all attended
upon and were seated drinking.”) The seating arrangements this time also con-
tained a delicate po liti cal meaning. Moreover, they fi tted in with the nature
of the entire banquet. The Empress Dowager strongly favored the pledging of
Southern Yue’s allegiance to the Han Court. For this reason, she invited the
Han envoys ( there were more than one) to take the honored seats facing east.
She herself was Southern Yue’s supreme ruler, so she occupied the next high-
est seat facing south. The King of Southern Yue sat facing north so as to signify
his submission to Han. This also happened to be the way Liu Bang was seated
at the Hong Men Banquet. Prime Minister Lü Jia and other ministers then
“faced west, attended, [and then] sat drinking.” They were in a situation com-
pletely identical to that which faced Zhang Liang. Rec ords of the Grand Historian
continues: “ After the wine cups were passed around, the Empress Dowager
said to Lü Jia: ‘It is to Southern Yue’s advantage to submit to Han. But you as
Prime Minister have found this painfully incon ve nient. Why?’ She said this to
provoke the Han envoys.” It can be seen, therefore, that this banquet was single-
handedly arranged by the Empress Dowager. Her idea, then, was to put on an
appearance of submission to the Han Court. Hence, as soon as the passing
around of wine cups commenced, she readily and directly raised with Lü Jia the
question of “internal submission” that was most distressful to him, because Lü
Jia was the leader of the group who most resolutely opposed the policy of South-
ern Yue becoming a vassal state of the Han. Quite obviously, at this banqueting
scene where “internal submission” was the main theme and where a blood-
thirsty spirit lurked, the order of seating had the eff ect of deciding the basic at-
mosphere of the e
ntire occasion.
By comparison with this Southern Yue court banquet, we have further rea-
son to believe that the seating at the Hong Men Banquet was specially arranged
to meet the po liti cal requirements at that time. In that case, who arranged the
seating? Since Rec ords of the Grand Historian is silent on this point, we cannot
but readily emulate Hu Sanxing and apply a bit of historical imagination.
Among the fi ve people seated at the Hong Men Banquet, Liu Bang and Zhang
130 t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t
Liang were guests. As such, they could not have taken the initiative to arrange
their own seating. Fan Zeng was invited to keep the visitors com pany; more-
over, he was the one who most vigorously advocated the slaying of the Lord of
Pei. So it was also not pos si ble for him to arrange a seat that proved to be so
advantageous to Liu Bang. There remained only Xiang Yu and Hsiang Bo. Ac-
cording to reason, Xiang Yu in his capacity as host was the most likely determi-
nant of the order of seating. A previous writer had suspected this point. In his
punctuated commentary on the “Biography of Xiang Yu,” Wu Jiansi
of
the early Qing dynasty said the following regarding the passage “Xiang Yu,
Hsiang Bo sat facing east”: “At the time, the seat facing east was the most hon-
ored. This refl ected Xiang Yu’s arrogance.” 6 This places the responsibility for
arranging the seating on Xiang Yu himself. Although Xiang Yu was a rough
and ready blusterer, after all, he did begin life as a member of the aristocratic
class. His style could not have been like that of Liu Bang, who was haughty and
impolite. Han Xin had once analyzed Xiang Yu’s personality. In the “Biography
of the Marquis of Huaiyin” in juan 92 of Rec ords of the Grand Historian, Han
Xin said to Liu Bang:
When meeting people, Xiang Yu was polite and kind. His words were
cordial and consoling. When others had serious ailments, he wept silently
and shared (with them) his food and drink. When people had performed
meritorious ser vices and deserved to be raised to the nobility, he toyed
with the seal of investiture with his hands until its corners were rounded
off . So his benevolence may be compared to that of a woman.
It is evident, then, that Xiang Yu’s greatest fault was that, po liti cally, he was too
narrow- minded, but decidedly he was not conceited to the degree of disregard-
ing etiquette. Deducing from Han Xin’s observation that “when meeting
people, Xiang Yu was polite and kind,” there was certainly no reason he should
himself have occupied the most honored seat facing east and, si mul ta neously,
placed Liu Bang in the lowest seat facing north. Therefore, viewing the back-
ground and the entire course of developments at the Hong Men Banquet, we
must recognize that much of the credit for the fi nal seating arrangements
should go to Xiang Bo for his intercession and mediation beforehand. And
behind Xiang Yu’s back, Liu Bang’s cunning patience and Zhang Liang’s clever
strategy prob ably also produced an impor tant eff ect. Even if we go so far as to
say that Xiang Bo, Liu Bang, and Zhang Liang had had a tacit understanding
beforehand about the seating arrangements, such a possibility is within reason.
In light of Xiang Yu’s straightforward and self- conceited nature, this was an
ingenious chess move to dispel his doubt and appease his anger. In the end,
Xiang Yu agreed that he himself should “sit facing east” and that Liu Bang
should “sit facing north.” This showed that Xiang Yu had considered Liu
t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t 131
Bang as his subordinate and had formally accepted Liu Bang’s expression of
submission. Therefore, when the host and guests were seated, Xiang Yu no
longer cherished the idea of killing Liu Bang.
In recounting the seating order at the Hong Men Banquet, Rec ords of the
Grand Historian follows closely with this passage: “Fan Zeng several times eyed
Xiang Yu. He thrice lifted the jade girdle that he wore as a signal. But Xiang Yu
remained silent and did not respond.” The foregoing discussion of the seating
arrangements provides the most plausible explanation of the action described
here. Needless to say, Fan Zeng’s private signal had been arranged with Xiang
Yu beforehand. However, Fan Zeng could not for the life of him have guessed
that his murder plot was already foiled so unobtrusively by the other side.
The Hong Men Banquet was one of the most impor tant and, at the same
time, most dramatic incidents in Chinese history.7 Since Liu Bang managed to
escape this confrontation unharmed, from then on, he was, so to speak, like a
dragon returning to the high seas. Xiang Yu would never again have an oppor-
tunity to exterminate him. After a short period of four years (202 b.c.e.), Liu
Bang fi nally gained Xiang Yu’s empire. In looking back, we may say that the
success and failure of Liu Bang and Xiang Yu was not deci ded on the battlefi eld
but at the time of the seating at the Hong Men Banquet, where the outcome was
determined. Liu Bang said to Xiang Yu, “I would rather engage in a battle of
wits; I cannot engage in a test of strength.” And Xiang Yu, when he was about
to die, declared, “It is Heaven that destroys me; it is not the fault of combat.” In
so saying, each in his own way had supplied the key to the rise and fall of Han
and Chu. However, there was this diff erence: Liu Bang was smiling when he
made his remark, and when he did so, the seating scene at the Hong Men Ban-
quet prob ably fl oated through his mind. As for Xiang Yu, his mind remained
muddled up to his death. Consequently, he could only lay the blame on Heaven.
If not for Sima Qian’s absolutely admirable historiographical brush, we our-
selves today at the most could only see the “ woman’s benevolence” that was re-
vealed by Xiang Yu at the Hong Men Banquet; we would have no way of know-
ing how Liu Bang and Zhang Liang ingeniously capitalized on the limitations
of Xiang Yu’s aristocratic outlook in politics and actually dealt Xiang Yu a fatal
blow even as they were exchanging toasts at the Hong Men Banquet. (Trans-
lated by T. C. Tang)
not e s
1.
Yang Shuda, “Qin- Han zuoci zunbei kao”
, in Jiwei ju xiaoxue shulin
(Beijing: Kexue, 1954), 247–249.
2. Shang
Binghe,
Lidai shehui fengsu shiwu kao
, 2nd ed. (Taipei:
Shangwu, 1967), 283–284.
132 t h e s e at ing or der at t h e hong m e n b a n q ue t
3.
SJ, 8, “The Basic Annals of Gaozu,” states: “Emperor Gao Di (Gaozu) had eight sons:
The eldest, born of a concubine, was Liu Fei, Prince Daohui of Qi. The second was Xiao
Hui, who became Emperor Hui Di).”
4. Lao
Gan , “Lun Luxi huaxiang sanshi— Zhu Wei shishi, Xiaotang Shan, Wushi ci”
—
,
,
, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philol-
ogy, Academia Sinica 8, no. 1 (October 1939): 100. Professor Lao is in error quoting this
dictum; he obviously did so from memory w
ithout checking the original text. See above
for the correct wording of the passage from “Quli”
in the Liji.
5. An
Jinhuai
and Wang Yugang
, “Mixian Dahu Ting Handai huaxiang
shimu he bihua mu”
, WW 10 (1972): 49–62.
6.
Wu Jiansi’s punctuated and annotated Shiji lunwen
, (Taiwan: Zhonghua, 1967
photo- off set edition), 1:58b. His punctuated annotation on the same page also states:
Then Hsiang Yu occupied the place of honor, the Lord of Pei as guest was seated to his
right, Fan Zeng as an associate guest was seated to his left. At that time, the right side
was esteemed. Zhang Liang as attendant faced the superior side. As Liu Bang’s atten-
dant, he was also seated. This can be seen by the fact that Fan Kuai, Liu Bang’s carriage
attendant, was seated next to Zhang Liang. The description of their seating on four
sides was as clear and distinct as a picture.
However, it looks as if Wu Jiansi was not informed on a point of con temporary
ritual. He was obviously wrong when he thought that the Lord of Pei, placed to the
right, was seated above Fan Zeng. All that is needed to establish this point is to compare
it with the description in the “Account of Southern Yue” about “the Empress Dowager
facing south and the King facing north.” Wu Jiansi’s comment about Zhang Liang, “as
attendant, he was also seated,” and his subsequent reference to Fan Kuai sitting next to
Zhang Liang as proof, may also not be entirely correct. Judging from the statement in
the “Account of Southern Yue” that “Prime Minister Lü Jia and other ministers all faced
west, attended, then sat drinking” as an example, it was pos si ble that they had fi rst
stood in attendance and then sat down to drink. Although it is actually not easy to dif-
ferentiate between “sitting” and “attending,” at least there should be a diff erence in
posture. True, “attending” does not necessarily mean “standing.” In the section on
“The Ritual Governing the Meeting of Shi” in the Yili, there is an essay on “The Attend-
ing and Seating of Gentlemen.” The same section further states, “When sitting, ( zuo)
the eyes are trained on the knees.” If so, then zuo and gui (kneel) are close to each