Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Facets of Chinese Culture
Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
WAI-YEE LI
Abstract Zuozhuan (ca. fourth century BC) records many instances of statesmen who recite or
chant odes ( fushi), mostly from the extant Shijing, to convey their political vision, policy recommendation, or diplomatic finesse. This essay examines the implications of this confluence of
poetry and diplomacy. Scholars have focused on fushi as seamless political communication, the
celebration of a common cultural heritage, and the formalization of ritual judgment. I discuss
how the practice of fushi negotiates political and cultural differences. How does it bear on the
distinction of “Chinese” and “barbarians”? How does it define the struggle for supremacy, push
for political advantage, and cover up weakness? Does the manipulation of meanings and
interpretations indicate anxieties about the power of ritual propriety to correct political failures?
Keywords diplomacy, poetry, barbarians, struggle for power, negotiation
The Shijing (詩經 Classic of Odes, hereafter Odes, ca. 1000–ca. 600), comprising
305 poems, is a foundational text in the Chinese tradition not only because of its
antiquity and the range of human experience it encompasses but also because of
its significance for understanding early thought, history, rituals, and politics. In
imagining contexts of performance for poems that come to be collected in the
Odes, deliberations on the uses of poetry predate debates on authorial intention
or the process of poetic creation. Some of the earliest extant writings on Chinese
literary thought thus pertain to the political functions of poetry. Confucius famously
remarks, “If one does not study the Odes, one does not have the wherewithal for
proper speech” 不學詩, 無以言 (Analects, 16.13). “Speech” here refers to political
communication, as evident in this explanation: “If, having recited three hundred odes, a person cannot achieve his goals when given a position of political
responsibility, or if he cannot respond independently1 when being sent as envoy to
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture • 1:1–2 • November 2014
DOI 10.1215/23290048-2749431 • © 2014 by Duke University Press
241
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
242
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
domains in the four directions, then what purpose does it serve even if he knows
many odes?” 誦詩三百, 授之以政, 不達。 使於四方, 不能專對。 雖多, 亦奚以為 (Analects, 13.5). These sayings attributed to the sage likely appear after, or may be
inspired by, recorded instances of Eastern Zhou (770 BC–256 BC) aristocrats who
recited the odes to convey their political vision, policy recommendations, or diplomatic finesse. Most of these examples are found in the Zuozhuan (左傳 Zuo
Tradition), a vast repository of narratives and speeches related to events spanning
255 years (722 BC–468 BC) and traditionally understood as an exegetical tradition
of the Chunqiu (春秋 Spring and Autumn Annals).
This was a period when many different domains vied for power and influence
or struggled to survive, often through diplomatic rhetoric. Mastery of this language,
what Confucius calls the competence to “respond independently” (zhuandui 專對),
included using apposite quotations from the Odes, which are usually embedded in
longer speeches, as well as the ability to fushi 賦詩, variously translated as reciting,
chanting, or singing the odes.2 The accounts of such performances would include
the terse formula of “X (subject) chants ( fu 賦) Y (an ode),” a concise delineation of
the occasion and the context (usually a state visit, an interstate meeting, or a semiformal exchange between members of the elite), and the reaction of the addressee,
often in the form of reciprocal fushi. On rare occasions, fu can mean “composition,”
but in most cases it refers to the appropriation of existing pieces. Many of these
are found in the received text of the Odes, and the few that are not are traditionally classified as “lost odes” or “uncollected odes” (yishi 逸詩、軼詩). With rare
exceptions, the actors in these stories are men.3 In most cases, the poem is just
mentioned by name rather than cited. This is “cultural shorthand”; the reader has to
already know the Odes in order to understand the import of the exchange.
Fushi in a diplomatic context is first mentioned in Zuozhuan, Xi 僖 23.6 (637
BC, 1:410–11) and last noted in Zuozhuan, Ding 定4.3 (506 BC, 4:1548), and most
of the examples are concentrated in the sixth century BC, especially the reigns of
Lord Xiang of Lu 魯襄公 (r. 572 BC–542 BC) and Lord Zhao of Lu 魯昭公 (r. 541
BC–510 BC). We will never know for sure whether statesmen actually recited odes
in diplomatic gatherings in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, but what seems
certain is how the competence to articulate aspirations and negotiate differences
through common allegiance to shared textual knowledge is enshrined as a cultural
ideal by the time of the Zuozhuan’s compilation (ca. fourth century BC).
The Han historian Ban Gu 班固 (32–92) describes the practice of fushi as the
ideal synthesis of poetry and politics: “In ancient times, when princes, ministers,
and high officers had dealings with neighboring domains, they used subtle words to
sway each other. At the moment of bowing and politesse, they invariably cited the
Odes to convey their intent. For this was also the means whereby one could distinguish the worthy from the unworthy and observe rise and decline” 古者諸侯卿大
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
夫交接鄰國, 以微言相感。 當揖讓之時, 必稱詩以諭其志, 蓋以別賢不肖而觀盛衰焉.4
Proper fushi thus emphasizes effective communication through “subtle words”
(weiyan 微言), whose political function is a far cry from the usual associations of the
phrase with indirectly though pointedly conveyed moral intent (weiyan dayi 微言大
義), often linked to Confucius’s putative authorship of Chunqiu. By “subtle words”
Ban Gu seems to imply a language with an intrinsically flexible range of associations
—something akin to what we would call symbolic or evocative language. Such
finesse and polyvalence give a veneer of civility and ritual propriety to diplomatic
transactions and mask (or ideally transform) raw power relations.
By invoking ancient exemplars and the affective contexts of the odes, the
practitioner of fushi can indirectly articulate hopes, fears, and intent.5 It is also the
venue of judgment—through it the speaker expresses his judgment of political
situations, and his competence or lack thereof in fushi also determines how others
(including the implied reader) judge him. Failure to grasp the import of chanted
odes addressed to them indicates a faulty education as well as moral blemish and
often presages downfall (e.g., Zuozhuan, Xiang 襄 27.2 [546 BC], 3:1127; Xiang 28.9
[545 BC], 3:1149). Chanting an ode inappropriate to the occasion in terms of the
speaker’s status and situation (bulei 不類) invites criticism and punishment (e.g.,
Zuozhuan, Xiang 16.1 [557 BC], 3:1026–27). Ritual prescriptions define the propriety of the odes chanted; wise ministers decline to acknowledge odes implying
honors beyond their due and thereby demonstrate their virtue (e.g., Zuozhuan,
Wen 文 4.7 [623 BC], 2:535–36; Xiang 4.3 [569 BC], 3:933–34). All these judgments
imply a degree of formalization or even institutionalization in the practice of fushi.
Success or failure in fushi is measured against shared ritual norms in diplomatic
protocol.
At the same time, fushi can be tied to the crucible of judgment precisely
because ritual prescriptions are not absolutely stable and inflexible, for if they were
there would be no room for statesmen to “independently respond.” A felicitous
response has little regard for what might have been the “original” meaning of the
ode; success depends on “cutting the section” (duanzhang 斷章) that can be tailored
to the speaker’s intent and context.6 Yet if the ideal of fushi is seamless communication, the most interesting instances of the practice involve negotiating differences and debating interpretations, as the following examples will show.
Barbarians and Cultural Ideals
In a meeting summoned by the northern state of Jin to mobilize support for an
attack against the southern state of Chu, a barbarian chief questions the boundaries
separating the central domains from barbarian territories and the very definition of
the barbarian as a “cultural other” by reciting “Blue Flies” from the Odes (Qingying
青蠅, Mao 219).7 The incident is dated to 559 BC in the Zuozhuan.8 The Jin
Published by Duke University Press
243
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
244
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
minister Fan Xuanzi 范宣子, who presides over the meeting, accuses Juzhi 駒支, the
leader of the Rong barbarians, of leaking Jin’s secrets and passing on rumors that
undermine the princes’ allegiance to Jin. Appealing to history, Fan claims that Jin
saved the Rong from Qin aggression:
Formerly, the men of Qin pressed your ancestor Wuli hard and drove him from
Guazhou. Your ancestor Wuli, draped in a white rush cape and wearing a headdress
made from brambles,9 came to our former ruler for protection. Though our former
ruler, Lord Hui [r. 651 BC–637 BC], had but meager lands, he divided them with you to
provide you with sustenance. Now the reason why the princes no longer serve our
ruler in the same way as before is because words of our negotiations leaked out, and
this could have happened only on account of you. You are not to take part in the event
of the next morning. If you do, we will arrest you.
昔秦人迫逐乃祖吾離于瓜州, 乃祖吾離被苫蓋、蒙荊寒來歸我先君, 我先君惠公有不
腆之田, 與女剖分而食之。 今諸侯之事我寡君不如昔者, 蓋言語漏洩, 則職女之由。 詰
朝之事, 爾無與焉。 與, 將執女。 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1005–6)
Juzhi in response proclaims Rong allegiance to Jin but also stakes out its
independence from Jin. Juzhi also takes exception to the notion that the Rong is
indebted to Jin, claiming that the land Jin ceded to Rong was inhospitable wilderness tamed only through Rong’s efforts:
He bestowed on us the lands of Jin’s southern march, where foxes and wild cats
dwelled, 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.
賜 我 南 鄙 之 田 , 狐貍所居, 豺狼所嗥。 我諸戎除翦其荊棘, 驅其狐貍豺狼, 以為先君不
侵不叛之臣, 至于今不貳。 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1006)
This is one of the rare occasions when the barbarian is given a voice. Far from being
the “wild people,” the Rong are presented as the agents of civilization. As such, the
Rong may boost their claim to assert semi-independence and respectful distance
from Jin. Juzhi thus characterizes Rong’s relationship with Jin as being “neither
aggressive nor rebellious” (buqin bupan 不侵不叛).
Instead of acknowledging Jin protection of Rong against Qin, Juzhi emphasizes the contributions of Rong as Jin’s ally in Qin-Jin conflicts, which are
chronicled elsewhere in the Zuozhuan (Xi 30.3 [630 BC], 1:479–82; Xi 33.1, 33.3
[627 BC], 1:494–501): “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
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
ground” 譬如捕鹿, 晉人角之, 諸戎掎之, 與晉踣之 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1006).
Beyond past grudges or obligations, Juzhi probes the factors determining amity or
confrontation between the central domains and the barbarian realms. His approach
is two-pronged. On the one hand, he emphasizes radical difference. Rong culture
(food, clothing, language) is so different that the Rong are not capable of meddling
in affairs of the central domains: “We do not exchange gifts with them, and our
language and theirs do not allow communication. What harm can we possibly do?”
贄幣不通, 言語不達, 何惡之能為 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1007). Also, Rong distinctiveness is such that isolation is no punishment, and it would not be moved by
Jin’s threat of removing it from the covenant meeting: “‘Not to participate in the
meeting will be no cause for grief.’ He chanted ‘Blue Flies’ and withdrew” 不與於會,
亦無瞢焉。 」賦〈青蠅〉而退 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1007). On the other hand,
Juzhi avers common roots with the central domains. Juzhi claims that, by helping
the Rong, Lord Hui implicitly recognized them as “descendants of the lords of the
Four Peaks” 四嶽之裔冑, identified in various early texts as ancient rulers in the four
corners of the land. This means that the Rong deserve to be treated as Jin’s equal.
Most ironic of all, having emphasized cultural differences and obstacles to communication, Juzhi shows his mastery of shared textual knowledge implying cultural
ties by chanting “Blue Flies,” an ode that laments the perniciousness of slander:
2
4
6
8
Blue Flies
青蠅
Buzzing blue flies
營營青蠅
Gather on the fence.
止于樊
Joyous and civil is the noble man:
豈弟君子
He does not believe in words of slander.
無信讒言
Buzzing blue flies
營營青蠅
Gather at the brambles.
止于棘
The slander-mongers know no limit,
讒人罔極
And wreak havoc in domains on four sides.
交亂四國
Buzzing blue flies
營營青蠅
10 Gather at the thickets.
The slander-mongers know no limit,
12 And sow discord between you and me.
止于榛
讒人罔極
構我二人
[Maoshi zhushu 毛詩注疏,
14C. 489–90]
Commentators (Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 [127–200], Kong Yingda 孔穎達 [574–
648], 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
Published by Duke University Press
245
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
246
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
a more direct metaphorical connection with “slander-mongers.” By chanting “Blue
Flies,” Juzhi displaces the burden of “cultural otherness” onto the instigators of
discord. One may say that he erases Rong’s status as “cultural other” by reciting an
ode and by redefining amity and political alliance in terms of historical ties.10 At the
same time, the explanatory context for the ode is the radical difference between Jin
and the Rong: communication between them is so difficult that the Rong cannot
possibly instigate discord, as “slanderers” claim. Juzhi (and by implication the
author or compiler of the Zuozhuan) seems to want it both ways: the Rong are
barbarians yet not really barbarians, and this duality is used to justify peaceful
coexistence.11 Juzhi’s recitation apparently clinches the case for Fan Xuanzi, who
“acknowledged his error and made Juzhi take part in affairs at the meeting, thus
realizing the attributes of being ‘joyous and civil’” 宣子辭焉, 使即事於會, 成愷悌也
(Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1, 3:1007). The Zuozhuan passage ends thus: “From then on
the leaders of Jin reduced the obligatory contributions of Lu and treated its envoys
with even greater respect” 自是晉人輕魯幣而益敬其使 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 14.1,
3:1007). Fan Xuanzi might have been prompted to scale back demands on other
subordinate domains because of Juzhi’s speech. In this sense, Juzhi’s chanting of
“Blue Flies” is also effective remonstrance.
The Struggle for Supremacy
Juzhi recites “Blue Flies” to imply cultural common ground and also to assert the
rights of the “cultural other.” Behind the recitation there is a complex negotiation of
demands and rebuttals, of self-definition and attempts to define the other, between
the speaker and the addressee. Often such negotiations depend on “creative misunderstanding,” the deliberate manipulation of meanings and interpretations to
further political gains or gloss over failures. The context of these “poetic negotiations” is defined by power struggles among various domains, for the period of fushi
also coincides with the intense vying for the status of overlord (ba 霸) or leader of
the covenant (mengzhu 盟主).
The first instance of fushi takes place in the context of the quest of Chong’er
重耳 (later Lord Wen of Jin 晉文公, r. 636 BC–628 BC) to become Jin ruler and then
overlord. In the course of his peregrinations upon being driven away from Jin,
Chong’er comes to Qin in 637 BC where the Qin ruler, Lord Mu 秦穆公, treats him
with courtesy and generosity. Ceremonial toasts to Chong’er become the occasion
to articulate ambitions and manipulate expectations.
One of Chong’er’s main advisors, Hu Yan 狐偃, excuses himself from
attending the meeting: “I am not as cultured as Zhao Cui. Please have Zhao Cui
accompany you” 吾不如衰之文也, 請使衰從 (Zuozhuan, Xi 23.6, 1:410). During the
gathering, Chong’er recites “The Yellow River” (Heshui 河水). The Qin ruler recites
“The Sixth Month” (Liuyue 六月, Mao 177). Zhao Cui 趙衰, true to his reputation of
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
being “cultured,” makes the most of this exchange. He says, “Chong’er bows in
gratitude for the bestowed gift” 重耳拜賜. Chong’er then descends and respectfully
bows, touching his forehead to the ground. The Qin ruler descends one step and
declines the honor. Zhao Cui explains, “You, my lord, have issued orders to
Chong’er, claiming that he is one with the means to assist the Son of Heaven. Would
Chong’er presume not to bow?” 君稱所以佐天子者命重耳, 重耳敢不拜 (Zuozhuan,
Xi 23.6, 1:410–11).
Hu Yan is one of Chong’er’s most resourceful advisors, but here he defers to
Zhao Cui, whose greater “cultivation” (wen 文) or fuller mastery of ritual and textual
traditions better equips him for diplomatic exchange. According to the Zuozhuan
scholar Du Yu 杜預 (222–85), “The Yellow River” (Heshui 河水) is a lost poem that
in this context implies comparison of Jin to the Yellow River and of Qin to the sea.12
In the parallel account of this anecdote in Guoyu (國語, Discourses of the States),
Wei Zhao 韋昭 (204–273) suggests in his annotation that “River Mian” (Mian Shui
沔水, Mao 183) includes appropriate lines on the river and the sea, and might
actually be the poem Chong’er recited. The fact that “The Yellow River” is also
mentioned in a discussion of the Odes in an excavated text, however, seems to rule
out Wei Zhao’s speculation.13 In any case, the recitation is meant to honor the Qin
ruler, Chong’er’s host.
The Qin ruler recites “The Sixth Month,” which praises the successful
northern expeditions of the Zhou leader Yin Jifu 尹吉甫 against the Xianyun 玁狁
people during the reign of King Xuan of Zhou 周宣王 (r. 827 BC–782 BC).
2
4
6
8
Disquiet and tumult in the sixth month:
六月棲棲
The chariots of war are already in order.
戎車既飭
Our four steeds are strong and stalwart
四牡騤騤
Our carts bear the customary gear of war.
載是常服
The might of the Xianyun is ablaze,
獫狁孔熾
That is why we feel the urgency.
我是用急
By royal command we are going to battle
王于出征
To save the king’s realm.
以匡王國
[Maoshi zhushu, 10B.357–58]
This is the first of six stanzas in the received text. As is often the case with battle
poems in the Odes, there is extensive description of the preparation for war, and
references to the outcome of the conflict and the postwar celebration, but the
fighting itself is passed over quickly or in silence.14 The Xianyun are traditionally
identified as barbarians,15 although the ode contains no denigrating references: it
compares their might to a blazing fire and sounds the alarm for an urgent military
response to their incursions deep into the central domains. The glory of the
Published by Duke University Press
247
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
248
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
campaign seems to depend on the depiction of worthy enemies. The rest of the ode
praises the dignity and martial prowess of the Zhou counterattack, although some
details suggest a much more precarious and embattled situation for Zhou.
Majestic and careful,
有嚴有翼
22 We respect martial endeavor,
共武之服
Respect martial endeavor
共武之服
24 That brings order to the king’s realm.
以定王國
Various place names in the ode suggest that the Xianyun’s incursions penetrate
deeply into the Zhou domain. Instead of acknowledging this as a defensive campaign, however, the ode celebrates Zhou power, evident in its very insignia:
Patterns of birds are emblazoned on banners,
織文鳥章
30 Silken streamers brightly shone.
白旆央央
Ten charging war chariots:
元戎十乘
32 A spearhead prying open the enemy’s ranks.
以先啟行
[Maoshi zhushu, 10B.357–58]
Despite the implied violence, the emphasis is on exemplary and orderly
display based on perfect training. The hero of this ode is the Zhou leader Yin Jifu:
“Cultured and martial is Jifu, / The exemplar for myriad domains” 文武吉甫, 萬邦爲
憲 (Maoshi zhushu, 10B.357–58).16
When the Qin ruler recites “The Sixth Month,” he is apparently invoking a
vision of the princes rallying to defend Zhou against barbarian invasion. The ode
ends with a feast, when Yin Jinfu celebrates his victory with the lords, including the
“filial and fraternal” Zhang Zhong 張仲孝友. Zhang Zhong is sometimes identified
as Nan Zhong 南仲, the military commander mentioned in “Send out the Chariot”
(Chuju 出車, Mao 168) and “Abiding Martial Power” (Changwu 長武, Mao 263).
Lord Mu of Qin may be implying analogies between himself and Yin Jifu, and
between Chong’er and the virtuous Zhang Zhong. Zhao Cui, however, seizes the
opportunity to redefine the meaning of “The Sixth Month” as Lord Mu’s “gift” to
Chong’er, his recognition of Chong’er as the leader who can “assist the Son of
Heaven” 佐天子. He is referring to the end of the second stanza: “By royal command
we are going to battle / To assist the Son of Heaven” 王于出征, 以佐天子. At this
point Chong’er is but an itinerant prince seeking Qin support for his claim to the Jin
throne; by bowing to accept the “gift” he hopes to formalize Qin assistance and
recognition. The “cultured” Zhao Cui is adept at fashioning symbols: he turns the
Qin ruler’s general exhortation for common endeavor (or even self-praise) into an
omen of Chong’er’s greatness.
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
The omen is fulfilled two years later. One year after the fushi episode, the
Zhou king is driven from the Zhou capital (Zuozhuan, Xi 24.2 [636 BC], 1:419–26)
by his younger brother Dai 王子帶, who has adulterous relations with the queen (a
Di woman) and whose rebellion is fueled by Di troops. (Di is traditionally identified
as one of the barbarian groups.) In the same year, Chong’er enters Jin and becomes
the Jin ruler, posthumously honored as Lord Wen. After consolidating his position
in Jin, Lord Wen comes to the assistance of the beleaguered Zhou king, defeats the
Di forces, kills Dai, and reinstates the king in the Zhou capital (Zuozhuan, Xi 25.2
[635 BC], 1:431–34). This lays the foundation of his claim to become overlord.
These developments seem to warrant the comparison of Lord Wen to Yin Jifu in
“Sixth Month”—both are defending Zhou against barbarian incursions. (This may
in fact be the reason why the anecdote about this poetic exchange is told in the first
place.)
Closer inspection reveals a more complex and tangled scenario. Qin and Jin
are vying for the role of the king’s defender. Qin forces are stationed at the Yellow
River, ready to assist the king, when the Jin ruler “declined the support of Qin
troops and went down the river” 辭秦師而下 (Zuozhuan, Xi 25.2, 1:432). According
to Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (ca. 145 BC–86 BC) Shiji 史記 (Records of the Historian,
5.190), Lord Mu of Qin and Lord Wen of Jin join forces to defend the Zhou king,
but the Zuozhuan account points to their implicit competition. In some ways, QinJin competition is already encoded in the fushi episode two years earlier.
In “The Sixth Month” as well as the Zuozhuan account, the restoration of
order is premised on driving out barbarian invaders. Again, the actual boundaries
and relations between central domains and barbarian domains are rather more
complicated. The Zhou king marries a Di woman out of gratitude for Di assistance
in a punitive campaign against Zheng, a “brother domain” sharing the same clan
name (Zuozhuan, Xi 24.2 [636 BC], 1:419–26). According to Guoyu, Lord Wen of
Jin succeeds in reinstating the Zhou king because of help from barbarians in the
east (Guoyu,“Jin yu 4.5,” 373). Indeed, the very model of central domains flanked by
barbarian domains on the periphery does not do justice to the extent of admixture
of peoples in this period. A year before the fushi episode, “Qin and Jin moved the
Rong of Luhun to River Yi” 秦、晉遷陸渾之戎于伊川 (Zuozhuan, Xi 22.4 [638 BC],
1:393–94)—the Rong were moved from the northwestern territories of Qin and Jin
to the environs of the Zhou capital, from “outside” to “inside.” The proximity of the
Rong then poses a great threat for Zhou. In other words, the fushi episode, retroactively cast as an omen of Chong’er’s greatness, proposes a vision of order based
on the purging of barbarians, but this is a proposition that glosses over or suppresses compromises and conflicts of interests.
Zhao Cui, hastening to define the meaning of “The Sixth Month,” dramatizes
how a message about worthy purpose can be accepted yet manipulated. The
Published by Duke University Press
249
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
250
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
opposite process, whereby one side articulates ambition through an ode only to be
thwarted by a “counter ode,” also appears in the Zuozhuan. One example is the
exchange between a Chu prince (Gongzi Wei 公子圍) and a Jin leader (Zhao Wu 趙
武) in a meeting at Guo 虢 (in Zheng) in 541 BC. During this gathering,“Gongzi Wei
offered Zhao Wu a ceremonial toast and recited the first stanza of ‘Great Brightness.’ Zhao Wu recited the second stanza of ‘Lesser’” 令尹享趙孟, 賦〈大明〉之首
章。 趙孟賦〈小宛〉之二章 (Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.3, 4:1207–8). “Great Brightness”
(Daming 大明, Mao 236) is one of six odes that tell of the rise of Zhou and of the
Zhou conquest of Shang (ca. eleventh century BC). Its first stanza, however,
describes the challenges of kingship and the decline of Shang:
Great brightness below,
明明在下
2
Blazing glory above.
赫赫在上
Hard it is to trust in heaven,
天難忱斯
4
It is not easy to be king.
不易維王
Heaven puts in place the heir of Yin,
天位殷適
6
And pries from him four sides of the realm.
使不挾四方
[Maoshi zhushu, 16B.540]
According to Du Yu, Gongzi Wei is presumptuously “glorifying himself ” 自光大 as
being comparable to King Wen of Zhou, whose majesty and glory are praised in the
first two lines. Since the stanza also refers to the unreliability of Heaven’s mandate
and the fall of the last Shang king, Gongzi Wei may also be hinting at his ambition to
usurp the Chu throne—his coup transpires a few months later (Zuozhuan, Zhao
1.13 [541 BC], 4:1223–24). Instead of acceding to Gongzi Wei’s use of Shang
decline to bask in the glory of the Zhou founding or to assert a bid for power, Zhao
Wu reworks and elaborates the theme of uncertain mandate in “Great Brightness”
and turns the perils of kingship into a warning for Gongzi Wei by reciting the
second stanza of “Lesser” (Xiaoyuan 小宛, Mao 196):
8
The wise and worthy among men
人之齊聖
Exercise restraint even as they drink.
飲酒溫克
The benighted ones know nothing,
彼昏不知
10 Become drunk, and take in ever more.
壹醉日富
Let each be vigilant about his bearing,
各敬爾儀
12 Heaven’s mandate does not come twice.
天命不又
[Maoshi zhushu, 12C.419]
The Mao commentary identifies this ode as a minister’s critique of the excesses of
King You (r. 781 BC–771 BC). Zhu Xi disagrees and characterizes this as “an ode
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
about officials who come upon the disorder of their times. Brothers caution each
other so as to escape disaster” 此大夫遭時之亂, 而兄弟相戒以免禍之詩.17 The actual
context of “brotherly admonition” may be open to debate, but there is little doubt
that “Lesser” is a response to political disorder. Images of disorder indeed dominate
this ode. The second stanza describes how drunkenness imperils the claim to
authority. Zhao Wu seems to be turning inebriation into a metaphor for all kinds of
heedless excesses, thereby cautioning Gongzi Wei against the hubristic vision of
emerging as the ultimate victor. Political ascendancy of one group must entail the
decline and fall of another—Zhao Wu is urging Gongzi Wei to switch from selfcongratulation to self-questioning, to ask whether he could be on the wrong side of
history if “heaven’s mandate is not constant” 天命靡常.“Lesser” is one of four odes
in the “Xiaoya” 小雅 section of the Odes that have the word xiao (little, lesser) in its
title. The other three are “Lesser Autumn” (Xiao min 小旻, Mao 195), “Lesser Joy”
(Xiao pan 小弁, Mao 197), and “Lesser Brightness” (Xiao ming 小明, Mao 207).
They all deal with the dislocation and sufferings of individuals in the context of
political decline or familial conflicts. “Lesser” concludes with these lines:
Vigilant and careful,
惴惴小心
34 As if coming to an abyss.
如臨于谷
Fearful and wary,
36 As if treading on thin ice.
戰戰兢兢
如履薄冰
[Maoshi zhushu, 12C.419]
If Gongzi Wei is asserting ambitions for himself and for Chu, Zhao Wu is cautioning him to curb them.
The broader context of this poetic exchange is the struggle for power between
Jin and Chu. Despite Zhao Wu’s adept response seeking to restrain Gongzi Wei’s
ambition, Jin is in fact powerless to counter Chu’s bid to become the leader of the
covenant in the mid-sixth century BC. After the meeting, Zhao Wu analyzes the
situation with another Jin minister, Shuxiang 叔向. Shuxiang predicts that the
overreaching Gongzi Wei will prevail in the short run and Chu will eclipse Jin, but
Gongzi Wei will eventually come to a disastrous end.“One who is unjust but strong
is sure to meet a speedy death. As it says in the Odes, ‘Gloriously blazing was the
ancestral Zhou: / Bao Si destroyed it’” 不義而彊，其斃必速，詩曰：赫赫宗周, 褒姒滅
之 (Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.3, 4:1207–8). Shuxiang is citing lines from “First Month”
(Zhengyue 正月, Mao 192) to explain the inevitable demise of miscreant rulers. The
evil queen Bao Si could bring down Zhou because she abetted King You 周幽王 (r.
782 BC–771 BC) in his excesses. King You was later forced to abdicate.19 (The
emotional focus of “First month” is the lamentation of the speaker who is maligned,
misunderstood, and unable to turn the tide of Zhou decline, but Shuxiang singles
Published by Duke University Press
251
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
252
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
out the lines that pronounce Zhou’s downfall from a more objective perspective.)
Shuxiang offers a morally compelling explanation, but it is also used to hide the fact
that Jin is powerless to intervene and has to let Gongzi Wei (later King Ling of Chu
楚靈王, r. 540 BC–529 BC) pave the way to his own downfall by the momentum of
“accumulating transgressions.” This is the first of many predictions of Gongzi Wei’s
demise, which will come about twelve years later (Zuozhuan, Zhao 13.2 [529 BC],
4:1344–53).
With both fushi episodes (the poetic exchange between Lord Mu of Qin and
Zhao Cui, and that between Gongzi Wei and Zhao Wu), contending political
visions articulated through the recited odes determine the contours of power
struggles. Whereas many fushi episodes in Zuozhuan emphasize shared goals and
mutual understanding, our examples here derive their momentum from “creative
misinterpretation.” Both Zhao Cui and Zhao Wu impose limits on their respective
counterparts through their deliberate misreading of their partners’ intentions.20
For both Jin statesmen, fushi is also a kind of rhetorical compensation for actual
weakness. Zhao Cui seizes the moment for his master Chong’er, turning “Sixth
Month” into an omen of Chong’er’s eventual greatness despite his uncertain
prospects at the moment of recitation. Zhao Wu for his part issues a moral warning
to the overreaching Gongzi Wei by reciting “Lesser.” In doing so he seems to be
making up for Jin weakness with his cultural competence, the political implications
of which will be further explored in the next section.
Ritual Propriety and Political Efficacy
In the above examples, cultural competence in reciting the Odes is instrumental for
asserting or resisting hegemonic ambitions. It is possible, however, to have a scenario whereby apparently seamless communication through skills in reciting or
interpreting the Odes masks betrayal or political failure, as when the aforementioned Zhao Wu meets the Lu minister Shusun Bao 叔孫豹 and the Zheng minister
Han Hu 罕虎 shortly after his exchange with Gongzi Wei. In this gathering hosted
by Zheng, Zhao Wu indicates his wish for a simple reception by reciting “Gourd
Leaves” (Hu ye 瓠葉, Mao 231), and the ministers of Lu and Zheng comply. Later,
these ministers negotiate expectations with Zhao Wu through the exchanges of
odes:
Shusun Bao recited “Magpie’s Nest.” Zhao Wu said, “I am not worthy.” Shusun Bao
then recited “Gathering Artemisia,” saying, “The small domain is the artemisia. The
great domain cherishes it and uses it sparingly. Can we fail to receive what you issued
as anything but a command?” Han Hu recited the last stanza of “There is a Dead Roe
in the Wilds,” and Zhao Wu recited “Plum Tree,” saying, “If we brothers join together
for peace, then we can keep the dog from howling.” Shusun Bao, Han Hu, and the Cao
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
high officer rose, bowed, raised their buffalo-horn goblets, and said,“The small domains
rely upon you and know that they will be delivered from violence.” They drank and
made merry. When Zhao Wu exited, he said, “Never again will I take such pleasure.”
穆叔賦〈鵲巢〉, 趙孟曰:「武不堪也。」又賦〈采蘩〉, 曰:「小國為蘩, 大國省穡而用
之, 其何實非命?」子皮賦〈野有死麕〉之卒章, 趙孟賦〈常棣〉, 且曰:「吾兄弟比
以安, 尨也可使無吠。 」穆叔、子皮及曹大夫興, 拜, 舉兕爵, 曰:「小國賴子, 知免於戾
矣。 」飲酒樂, 趙孟出曰:「吾不復此矣。 」(Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.4 [541 BC], 4:1208–10)
“Gourd Leaves” describes a simple feast. It begins with the image of picking
and boiling gourd leaves. A rabbit is roasted, and the “noble men” (junzi 君子) drink
in amity. The rhythm of pouring and tasting wine and of how host and guest honor
each other suggests a single toast. Commentators discuss regulations for the
number of toasts appropriate in entertaining guests of different ranks as stated in
ritual texts. According to Du Yu, five is the correct number for the minister of a
great domain and thus would be appropriate for Zhao Wu. Zhao Wu’s request for a
single toast can be interpreted as exemplary modesty. In political terms, however,
this may mean that Jin is making less onerous demands on the smaller and weaker
domains, as is indeed Zhao Wu’s policy (Zuozhuan, Xiang 25.7 [547 BC], 4:1103).
Yet even as the smaller domains like Zheng and Lu fear an overbearing Jin, they also
dread Jin weakness and consequent failure to protect them from other aggressors,
in this case Chu. To his audience, Zhao Wu’s recitation of “Gourd Leaves” may thus
seem to be a disquieting retreat from Jin responsibility.
In this context, the Lu minister Shusun Bao’s recitation of “Magpie’s Nest”
(Que chao 鵲巢, Mao 12) seems to be an appeal to Jin to live up to its role as
protector.21 Most modern commentators consider this ode an epithalamium.
2
4
6
8
Magpie’s Nest
鵲巢
The magpie has a nest,
維鵲有巢
But the cuckoo stays in it.
維鳩居之
This girl is going to her mate’s home,
之子于歸
A hundred carriages welcome her.
百兩御之
The magpie has a nest,
維鵲有巢
But the cuckoo owns it.
維鳩方之
This girl is going to her mate’s home,
之子于歸
A hundred carriages escort her.
百兩將之
The magpie has a nest,
維鵲有巢
10 But the cuckoo fills it.
This girl is going to her mate’s home,
12 A hundred carriages complete the ceremony.
維鳩盈之
之子于歸
百兩成之
[Maoshi zhushu, 1C.46]
Published by Duke University Press
253
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
254
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
Later idiomatic usage turns the image of “the cuckoo taking over the magpie’s nest”
(que chao jiu zhan 鵲巢鳩佔) as a metaphor for usurpation or intrusion, but there is
little doubt that in its locus classicus this is an affective image that invokes associations with the bride entering her new home; it has no negative meanings. Shusun
Bao is comparing himself and Lu to the cuckoo that needs a refuge, Zhao Wu and
Jin to the magpie extending hospitality. Zhao Wu claims that he “is not worthy”
because the implicit reference to marriage would place Jin in the superior position
of a husband providing a home. As we shall see, the use of metaphors from
courtship and marriage to negotiate power relations dominate this diplomatic
occasion.22 As if to press the point, Shusun Bao recites “Picking Artemesia” (Cai fan
采蘩, Mao 13) and provides his own exegesis.
Picking Artemesia
采蘩
Where does she pick artemesia?
于以采蘩
2
At the pool, at the pond.
于沼于沚
For what will it be used?
于以用之
4
For the affairs of lords and princes.
公侯之事
Where does she pick artemesia?
于以采蘩
6
In the middle of the stream.
于澗之中
Where will it be used?
于以用之
8
At the temple of lords and princes.
公侯之宮
With her hairpiece piled high,
被之僮僮
10 Day and night she is at the lord’s hall.
夙夜在公
With her hairpiece resplendent,
被之祁祁
12 She makes her way back.
薄言還歸
[Maoshi zhushu, 1C.47]
Most commentators agree that the “affairs” in line four refer to sacrifices—the
lady in the ode gathers humble plants to prepare for an august ritual that will take
place in the ancestral hall or temple, and she does so with dignity and assiduity.
How might this have been understood? Following the gender analogy of “Magpie’s
Nest,” this could have been interpreted as the dedication of a lesser domain (Lu) in
serving a greater one (Jin) with ritual propriety. Shusun Bao, however, supplies his
particular, corrective reading: “The small domain is the artemisia. The great domain
cherishes it and uses it sparingly.” Instead of being a simple profession of loyalty, it is
another injunction that Jin should treat smaller domains with extreme care,“using”
it sparingly and only for ritually proper purpose. If this condition is fulfilled, then
Jin’s allies will be willing to heed its every command. Yang Bojun notes that this is
the only instance of someone “reciting an ode and supplying his own interpretation” (zifu zijie自賦自解) in the Zuozhuan (4:1209). Shusun Bao does so precisely
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
because the other plausible reading would simply draw a parallel between Lu and
the girl picking artemesia and flatter Jin with unconditional allegiance.
The Zheng minister Han Hu continues the feminine role or perspective
developed in “Magpie’s Nest” and “Picking Artemesia” by reciting the last stanza of
“There Is a Dead Roe in the Wilds” (Ye you sijun 野有死麕, Mao 23).
There Is a Dead Roe in the Wilds
野有死麕
There is a dead roe in the wilds,
野有死麕
2
White rushes wrap it.
白茅包之
There is a girl longing for spring,
有女懷春
4
A fine man shows her the way.
吉士誘之
There are oak and elm branches in the wood,
林有樸樕
6
There is a dead deer in the wilds.
野有死鹿
White rushes bound and wrap it,
白茅純束
8
There is a girl just like jade.
有女如玉
Slowly! Gently!
舒而脫脫兮
10 Do not ruffle my kerchief!
Do not make the dog howl!
無感我帨兮
無使尨也吠
[Maoshi zhushu, 1E.65]
The probable context for this ode has been construed variously as successful or
failed seduction, courtship, or marriage proposal. Depending on this context, the
dead roe or deer wrapped in white rushes can be a gift of courtship or betrothal, or
it can be a metaphor for the “covering up” of lost innocence. All agree, however, that
the speaker of the last stanza is the girl. Is her admonition serious, forbidding,
playful, timid, or anxious? Du Yu interprets Han Hu’s intent thus: “This takes up the
meaning that the noble man should approach slowly, abiding by ritual propriety. Do
not make me lose integrity (or chastity) or startle the dog into barking: this is an
analogy meaning that Zhao Wu should soothe the allies with a sense of proper duty.
He is not to resort to ritual impropriety to impose on them” 義取君子徐以禮來, 無使
我失節而使狗驚吠, 喻趙孟以義撫諸侯無以非禮相加陵 (Zuozhuan zhengyi, 41.701).
However, it is likely that the metaphor of “proper courtship” applies not only to Jin
but also to Chu. (Throughout most of the period covered by the Zuozhuan, Zheng
was hard pressed by both Jin and Chu and often became the proxy whereby Jin and
Chu fought for supremacy.)
That seems to be the way Zhao Wu understands this as well. He recites “Plum
Tree” (Tang di 常棣, Mao 164), which celebrates brotherhood. The ode dwells on
how danger and crisis draw brothers together: “The fear of death and mourning, /
Makes brothers long for each other” 死喪之威, 兄弟孔懷; “The waterfowl is on the
plain: / Brothers relieve the plight of each other” 脊令在原, 兄弟急難; “Brothers may
Published by Duke University Press
255
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
256
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
quarrel within the walls, / But outside they fend off insults” 兄弟鬩于牆, 外御其務.
The bond between brothers is also celebrated through a feast in the ode: “Set forth
your food stands, / Drink wine to your fill” 儐爾籩豆, 飲酒之飫 (Maoshi zhushu
9B.321).23 The emphasis here is on how the “brother domains” (Jin, Lu, Zheng, and
Cao share the clan name Ji 姬 and are related to the Zhou house by kinship ties)
should join together to fend off outside threats. “If we brothers join together for
peace, then we can keep the dog from howling” 吾兄弟比以安, 尨也可使無吠
(Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.4 [541 BC], 4:1208–10). If Jin confirms its alliance with the
smaller domains, then it can keep Chu—the howling dog—at bay.
The feast apparently concludes with mutual understanding and perfect
accord. Yet the account also ends on a note of foreboding. Zhao Wu declares that he
will not experience such a pleasurable gathering again. This is one of several clues of
his impending death—he dies eight months after the meeting with the Lu and
Zheng ministers (Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.15, 4:1225). In the passages pertaining to Zhao
Wu in the Zuozhuan, ritual expertise and political weakness are intertwined. As
chief minister in Jin from 548 BC to 541 BC, Zhao Wu’s main goal is to achieve
peace between Jin and Chu, yet this process, given a veneer of diplomatic finesse by
Zhao Wu’s skillful fushi, coincides with Jin’s decline and inability to protect its
allies. Zhao Wu has an excellent command of textual and ritual traditions—perhaps
that is why his posthumous honorific is “Wenzi” 文子. As mentioned above, wen
means “culture” and implies mastery of ritual and textual traditions.
Besides the aforementioned episodes, Zhao Wu’s competence in fushi is also
evident in his meeting with seven Zheng ministers, whom he asks to recite odes so
that “he can observe the seven fine men’s aspirations” 觀七子之志 (Zuozhuan,
Xiang 27.5 [546 BC], 3:1134–35). His perceptive decoding of their political ambitions and his accurate predictions are borne out by later events. This exchange took
place during the Covenant of Song (546 BC), an attempt to negotiate cessation of
the conflicts between Jin and Chu. Zhao Wu’s quest for peace is inseparable from
his belief in the power of words to embody cultural and ritual knowledge: “If we
respectfully fulfill ritual propriety, and open the way with fine words of cultivation,
thereby calming the princes, then military conflicts can be made to abate” 若敬行其
禮, 道之以文辭, 以靖諸侯, 兵可以弭 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 25.7 [548 BC], 3:1103). Yet
from the beginning the peace process is marred by the self-interest and mutual
suspicions of the parties involved. Chu assertiveness means that the laudable goal
of halting conflict merely provides cover for Jin’s decline. Jin yields to Chu the
position of de facto covenant chief, a status that will become evident in the gathering of princes at Guo in 541 BC (Zhao 1), one of the occasions for fushi discussed
above. Confucius is said to consider the Covenant of Song an occasion “replete with
many fine words of cultivation” 多文辭 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 27.4 [546 BC], 3:1129–
34). He notes the wealth of elaborate phrases in the diplomatic ritual, but its
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
narrative context is the mutual suspicion of Jin and Chu. Commentators differ as to
whether Confucius is expressing praise or criticism. Considering the fact that the
covenant does not lead to lasting peace and brings no tangible benefits, Confucius
may indeed be voicing implicit criticism. The Covenant of Song only heightened the
burden of court visits and offerings for the smaller domains, which were then
required to send ministers to attend the courts not only of their protectors but also
of their protectors’ respective rivals. Song, the domain hosting the covenant,
obtained no relief in the wake of its disastrous fire, despite empty pledges (Zuozhuan, Xiang 30.12 [543 BC], 3:1179). Jin decline finds a palpable symbol in its chief
minister Zhao Wu: for all his cultural competence, his words are said to be “torpid”
偷 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 31.1 [542 BC], 3:1183). The self-exegesis and negotiation of
meanings in the fushi episode cited above may thus betray awareness of the tension
between ritual propriety and political efficacy or, more precisely, the suspicion that
ritual propriety unsupported by political efficacy may be ultimately futile.
Conclusion
According to Ban Gu, the end of fushi marks the beginning of a new kind of poetry:
After the Spring and Autumn Era, the way of Zhou gradually broke down. Singing or
reciting odes during diplomatic visits was no longer practiced among the various
domains. Scholars learned in the Odes sank into obscurity among commoners, and
poetic expositions were created by worthy men whose will was thwarted. There were
the great Confucian thinker Xun Qing (Xunzi) and the Chu minister Qu Yuan who
encountered sorrow and felt anguish about his domain—both composed poetry to
convey criticism. Their works all encompass the spirit of empathy like the poetry of
ancient times.
春秋之後, 周道壞。 騁問歌詠不行於列國, 學詩之士逸在布衣, 而賢人失志之賦作矣。
大儒荀卿及楚臣屈原離讒憂國, 皆作賦以諷, 咸有惻隱古詩之意。24
Political engagement by way of expressing discontent and lamentation is followed
by excessive rhetoric: from late Warring States to Han, court poets “vied to create
extravagant, ornate, grandiose, and overflowing phrases, losing the purpose of
critique and instruction” 競爲侈麗閎衍之詞, 沒其風諭之義.25 Irrespective of the
historical accuracy of Ban Gu’s account, it posits a compelling paradigm. Fushi is
the seamless conflation of poetry and politics; perhaps the conflation is made
possible by the way function displaces intention as the prime focus. Once this real
or imagined optimal moment recedes, however, poetry and politics may become
too close or too far apart. We either regard disempowerment and alienation as the
genesis of poetry (by far the more influential model) or consider poetry as being so
Published by Duke University Press
257
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
258
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
embedded in the power structure that any articulation of critique or frustration is
bound to be muted and indirect.
WAI-YEE LI 李惠儀
Harvard University
[email protected]
Acknowledgment
I am deeply grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their excellent suggestions. All
translations in this essay are mine.
Notes
1.
He Yan 何晏 (195–249), Huang Kan 皇侃 (sixth cent.), and Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107) all
gloss zhuan 專 as du 獨 (on one’s own). Yan Ruoqu 閻若璩 (1636–1704) equates it with
shan 擅 (acting on one’s own authority); see Huang, Lunyu huijiao jishi, 2:1167–68.
2.
Illuminating studies of the fushi phenomenon include Van Zoeren, Poetry and Personality;
Schaberg, Patterned Past; Zhang, Zuozhuan chengshi yanjiu 左傳稱詩研究; Mao, Zuozhuan fushi yanjiu 左傳賦詩研究; and Fu, Shi keyi guan 詩可以觀. For a list of fushi
instances in the Zuozhuan, see Gu, Chunqiu dashi biao 春秋大事表, 3:2555–61.
3.
The exceptions are Lady Mu of Xu 許穆夫人 and Mu Jiang 穆姜, wife of Lord Xuan of Lu 魯
宣公. See Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhu 春秋左傳注, Min 閔 2.5 (661 BC),
1:267; Cheng 成 9.5 (582 BC), 2:843. While Lady Mu of Xu is said to have composed
“Gallop” (Zai chi 載馳, Mao 54), Mu Jiang recites “Green Coat” (Lüyi 綠衣, Mao 27) from
the received text. The extant Zuozhuan is arranged chronologically, year by year, according
to the reigns of twelve rulers of Lu. Citation in this essay follows Yang, Chunqiu Zuozhuan
zhu. Thus “Min 2.5, 1:267” means the fifth entry in the second year of Lord Min of Lu 魯閔
公 (661 BC), vol. 1, p. 1548 in the Yang edition. On the issue of fushi by women, see Zhou
Yiqun, “Ode 27.”
4.
Ban, Hanshu 漢書, 30.1755–56.
5.
This version of “articulating intent” (yanzhi 言志) is thus not about realizing intent
through creating a poem but about using a poem by others for the purpose of selfrevelation or communication.
6.
A Qi retainer, Lupu Gui 盧浦癸, justifies his violation of the taboo against marrying
someone with the same clan name: “Just as one breaks off stanzas when reciting the odes, I
take what I seek. What do I know about common ancestors?” 賦詩斷章, 余取所求焉, 惡識
宗 (Zuozhuan, Xiang 28.9 [545 BC], 3:1145). Self-interest that overrides taboos is compared to the practice of breaking off stanzas to create meanings that fit the occasion during
the recitation of odes. This indicates an awareness of how an ode can be used in different
ways and an understanding of the gap between the performed and “originally intended”
meanings of the odes during the time of the Zuozhuan’s compilation.
7.
We are giving the numbering according to the Maoshi zhuan (毛詩傳 Mao Tradition of the
Odes), the received version of the anthology. The version of the text cited in this article is
Maoshi zhushu, with commentaries by Zheng Xuan and Kong Yingda.
8.
See Yang, Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhu, Xiang 14.1 (559 BC), 3:1005–7.
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
The uncouth garb suggests backwardness or self-abnegation.
For other examples of the barbarian’s mastery of ritual tradition and esoteric knowledge,
see Zuozhuan, Xi 29.4 (631 BC), 1:477; Zhao 17.3 (525 BC), 4:1386–89.
On this issue of ethnic difference and conflation, see Pines, “Beasts or Humans”; Wang,
Yingxiong zuxian 英雄祖先與兄弟民族; W. Li, “Hua yi zhi bian” 華夷之辨與異族通婚. For
comparative perspectives, see Gruen, Rethinking the Other.
Du Yu collated Chunqiu and Zuozhuan and is one of the key figures establishing the
exegetical affiliation of Zuozhuan to Chunqiu. See Shen and Liu, Chunqiu Zuozhuan xue
shigao 春秋左傳學史稿; W. Li, Readability of the Past, 33–36.
“The Yellow River” is mentioned in what has come to be titled “Kongzi shilun” 孔子詩論 in
the Shanghai Museum Bamboo-Strip manuscript. See Li L., Shang bo chujian 上博楚簡三
篇校讀記, 21, 148.
On this phenomenon, see Keightley, “Clean Hands.”
Sima Qian identifies the Xianyun as one of the ancestors of the Xiongnu (Shiji, 110.2879).
Liu Xin also claims the Xianyun and the Xiongnu shared the same lineage (cited in Ban
Gu, Hanshu, 73.3125). See also Wang G., “Guifang Kunyi Xianyun kao” 鬼方昆夷玁狁考
(An Investigation of the Guifang, Kunyi, and Xianyun), in Guantang jilin 觀堂集林,
2:583–616.
Jifu is further identified as the “author” of four other odes in the Mao Commentary: “Lofty”
(Songgao 崧高, Mao 259), “The Multitudes” (Zhengmin 蒸民, Mao 260), “The Lofty Han”
(Han yi 韓奕, Mao 261), and “Rivers Jiang and Han” (Jiang Han 江漢, Mao 262); see Maoshi
zhushu, 18C.669, 18C.674, 18D.679, and 18D.684, respectively. The modern editors Cheng
Junying and Jiang Jianyuan agree with the attribution in the cases of Mao 259 and Mao 260
(Shijing zhuxi 詩經注析, 2:889, 895).
Zhu, Shi ji zhuan 詩集傳, 160.
The final lines of “Xiao min” are very similar.
Their story is told in Guoyu, “Zheng yu,” 519; Sima Qian, Shiji 4.147–49.
Zhao Cui was Zhao Wu’s great-grandfather.
Shortly before this meeting, Zhao Wu interceded with Chu and secured the release of
Shusun Bao, whom Chu leaders had arrested because they disapproved of Lu aggression
against the small domain Ju (Zuozhuan, Zhao 1.2 [541 BC], 4:1204–7). Shusun Bao may be
reciting this ode in gratitude. In his mediatory efforts, however, Zhao Wu appeals to Chu
as the leader of the covenant. Despite his success, Jin comes out as the weaker partner.
For comparable instances in the Zuozhuan, see Xiang 8.8, 3:959–60 (“Plop Fall the Plums”
[Piao you mei 摽有梅, Mao 20]); Xiang 14.3, 3:1008–9 (“The Gourd Has Bitter Leaves”
[Pao you kuye 匏有苦葉, Mao 34]); Xiang 26.7, 3:1116–17 (“Dark Clothes” [Ziyi 緇衣, Mao
75]; “Please, Zhongzi” [Qiang Zhongzi 將仲子, Mao 76]); Xiang 27.5, 3:1134–35 (“Cicada”
[Caochong 草蟲, Mao 14]; “Mulberries on Lowland” [Xisang 隰桑, Mao 228]; “Creepers in
the Wilds” [Ye you mancao 野有蔓草, Mao 94]); Zhao 2.1, 4:1228 (“Quince” [Mugua 木瓜,
Mao 64]); Zhao 16.3, 4:1380–81 (“Creeper in the Wilds”; “Hitch Your Skirt” [Qianchang 褰
裳, Mao 87]; “Wind and Rain” [Fengyu 風雨, Mao 90]; “Fallen Leaves” [Tuo xi 蘀兮, Mao
85]); Zhao 25.1, 4:1455 (“Chariot Wheel Axle” [Juxia 車舝, Mao 218]). Such transpositions
from the personal and romantic to the public and political resonate with exegetical traditions of the Odes as well as later examples of poets using the female voice or persona for
indirect remonstrance or other political purposes. On this issue, see Rouzer, Articulated
Ladies; Declercq, Writing against the State; Samei, Gendered Persona, ch. 1; W. Li,
Enchantment and Disenchantment, 3–46; and Li, Women and National Trauma, 12–99.
Published by Duke University Press
259
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
260
JOURNAL of CHINESE LITERATURE and CULTURE
23.
24.
25.
The Mao commentary reads yu 飫 as si 私, an informal feast where the guests would be
more at ease (Maoshi zhushu, 16.322). The word yu 飫 appears as yu 醧 in Hanshi
waizhuan 韓詩外傳.
Ban, Hanshu, 30.1756.
Ibid., 30.1756.
References
Ban Gu 班固, Xinjiao ben Hanshu jizhu 新校本漢書集註 (Newly Collated Edition of Han History
with Collected Commentaries), with commentary by Yan Shigu 顏師古. 5 vols. Taipei:
Dingwen shuju, 1986. (Cited in the article as Hanshu.)
Cheng Junying 程俊英, and Jiang Jianyuan 蔣見元. Shijing zhuxi 詩經注析 (The Classic of Odes,
with Annotations and Commentaries). 2 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991.
Declercq, Dominik. Writing against the State: Political Rhetoric in Third and Fourth Century
China. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Fu Daobin 傅道彬. Shi keyi guan: Liyue wenhua yu Zhoudai shixue jingshen 詩可以觀: 禮樂文化
與周代詩學精神 (The Odes Can Be Used to Observe Mores: The Culture of Ritual and
Music and the Spirit of Zhou Poetry). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010.
Gruen, Erich. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Gu Donggao 顧棟高 (1679–1759). Chunqiu dashi biao 春秋大事表 (Lists of Major Events and
Issues in the Spring and Autumn Annals and Its Commentaries). 3 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1993.
Guoyu 國語 (Discourses of the States). Edited by Shanghai Normal University Committee for
Editing Ancient Texts 上海師範大學古籍整理組. 2 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1978.
Huang Huaixin 黃懷信, comp. and ed. Lunyu huijiao jishi 論語彙校集釋 (Collated Annotations
and Commentaries on Lunyu). 2 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2008.
Keightley, David.“Clean Hands and Shining Helmets: Heroic Action in Early Chinese and Greek
Culture.” In Religion and the Authority of the Past, edited by Tobin Siebers, 13–51. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.
Li Ling 李零. Shang bo chujian sanpian jiaodu ji 上博楚簡三篇校讀記 (Essays on Collating and
Annotating Three Texts from the Shanghai Museum Chu Bamboo Strips). Beijing:
Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe, 2007.
Li, Wai-yee. Enchantment and Disenchantment: Love and Illusion in Chinese Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
———. “Hua yi zhi bian yu yizu tonghun” 華夷之辨與異族通婚 (Inter-ethnic Marriage and the
Distinction of Chinese and Barbarians). In Tanqing shuoyi 談情説異 (Talks on Emotion
and Difference), edited by Qian Jian 喬健, 45–63. Taipei: Center for the Study of Foreign
Cultures, Shih-hsin University, 2012.
———. The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Asia Center, 2007.
———. Women and National Trauma in Late Imperial Chinese Literature. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Asia Center, 2014.
Maoshi zhushu 毛詩注疏 (The Mao Text of the Classic of Odes, with Annotations), with commentaries and annotations by Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 and Kong Yingda 孔穎達, collected in
Chongkan Song ben Shisanjing zhushu fu jiaokan ji 重刊宋本十三經註疏附校勘記
(Reproduction of the Song Edition of Commentaries and Subcommentaries on the
Published by Duke University Press
Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture
Li • Poetry and Diplomacy in the Zuozhuan
Thirteen Classics with Editorial Notes). 8 vols., compiled by Ruan Yuan 阮元 (1764–1849).
Taipei: Yiwen yinshu guan, 1965.
Mao Zhenhua 毛振華. Zuozhuan fushi yanjiu 左傳賦詩研究 (A Study of the Recitation of Odes in
Zuozhuan). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2011.
Pines, Yuri. “Beasts or Humans: Pre-imperial Origins of the ‘Sino-Barbarian Dichotomy.’” In
Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by Reuven
Amital and Michal Biran, 59–102. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Rouzer, Paul. Articulated Ladies: Gender and the Male Community in Early Chinese Texts.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001.
Samei, Maija Bell. Gendered Persona and Poetic Voice: The Abandoned Woman in Early Chinese
Song Lyrics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004.
Schaberg, David. A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001.
Shen Yucheng 沈玉成, and Liu Ning 劉寧. Chunqiu Zuozhuan xue shigao 春秋左傳學史稿 (The
Formation and Development of the Scholarly Tradition of Zuozhuan). Nanjing: Jiangsu
guji chubanshe, 1992.
Shiji. See Sima Qian.
Sima Qian 司馬遷. Xinjiao ben Shiji sanjia zhu 新校本史記三家註 (Newly Collated Edition of
Records of the Historian with Three Commentaries), with commentaries by Pei Yin 裴駰,
Sima Zhen 司馬貞, Zhang Shoujie 張守節. 5 vols. Taipei: Dingwen shuju, 1981.
Van Zoeren, Stephen. Poetry and Personality: Reading, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics in Traditional China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Wang Guowei 王國維. Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (Collected Works of Wang Guowei). 4 vols.
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959.
Wang Mingke 王明珂. Yingxiong zuxian yu xiongdi minzu: Genji lishi de wenben yu qingjing 英雄
祖先與兄弟民族: 根基歷史的文本與情境 (Heroic Ancestors and Kinship among Peoples:
The Texts and Discourses of Histories of Origins). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2009.
Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, comp. Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (The Zuo Tradition of the Spring
and Autumn Annals). 4 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000 (1981).
Zhang Suqing 張素卿. Zuozhuan chengshi yanjiu 左傳稱詩研究 (A Study of the Uses of the Odes
in Zuozhuan). Taipei: Taiwan daxue chubanshe, 1991.
Zhou Yiqun. “Ode 27: Women, Fushi, and Virtue in Early China.” Nan nü: Men, Women, and
Gender in Early and Imperial China 5, no. 1 (2003): 1–42.
Zhu Xi 朱熹. Shi ji zhuan 詩集傳 (Collected Commentaries on the Odes). Edited by Wang Baohua
王寶華. Nanjing: Fenghuang chubanshe, 2007.
Zuozhuan zhengyi 左傳正義 (The Zuo Tradition of the Spring and Autumn Annals, with
Annotations), with commentaries and annotations by Du Yu 杜預 and Kong Yingda 孔穎
達, collected in Chongkan Songben shisanjing zhushu fu jiaokan ji.
Published by Duke University Press
261