Paul R. Goldin highlighted a passage from the Zuozhuan in his article. He presents a tale between a “harsh and thoughtless ruler” and his more benevolent and moral cousin. This passage from the Zuozhuan emphasises the didactic function of speeches and anecdotes typical in the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu), particularly in this commentary.1
David Schaberg’s chapter of ‘The Rhetoric of Good Order’ in his book A Patterned Past emphasises the role of speeches as a form of historiographical work in the Eastern Zhou period and Warring States period. He argues that speeches reveal a didactic objective and a persuasive function, and it opens a philosophical debate. Moreover, he argues that speeches have a morphable quality to them as one can extract them from the narrative to highlight a moral debate.
In the tale Goldin presents between the Marquis of Jin (the “immoral” one) and Lord Mu of Qin (the “moral” one), the dialogue and speech from each speaker emphasises its persuasive function and reveals a broader “truth” between the social situation and history of the states of Jin and Qin. The “rhetoric of good order” in this passage – meaning the order of the prose reveals a more extensive truth about the history of the era – emphasises a conflicting relationship between the two states and its personified between the two rulers.2
Qing Zheng said, “In ancient times, one would always use [horses] produced by one’s own country in great matters. They are native to the waters and lands and know their people’s minds; they are easily instructed and are accustomed to the roads… Now you use [horses] produced by a different country to carry out warlike affairs; once they become frightened, they will be changeable and will defy their drivers.…They will not be able to advance, retreat, or turn around. Lord, you will certainly regret this.” [The ruler of Jin] did not heed him.3
This speech in this narrative tells us of advice given to the ruler of Jin regarding warfare planning. This speech is important because it emphasises the arrogance of the Marquis of Jin, who dismissed this vital warning. Later in the narrative, we see that his arrogant nature becomes his downfall as Qin forces then capture him. Furthermore, this speech (and the larger narrative) acts as a persuasive tool to the reader because it has clearly stated judgements and principles, repetition of essential structures and concepts such as the validity of using the State horses, in comparison to using another State’s horses, as well as the arrangement of diction. All these persuasive tools are vital for good rhetoric, Schaberg argues.4 Moreover, this speech could perhaps also have a portable quality to them as this advice explains warfare strategy, possibly applicable to any ruler, as well as highlighting that rulers should heed the warnings from their advisors and be less arrogant.
Thus, speeches provide a didactic and persuasive function to the reader as the structure of the prose ultimately reveals a moral objective and judgement. The judgement and principles in the example above illuminate an arrogant leader, which proved to be his downfall, and therefore explains to the reader that the victorious leader and ruler is one of benevolence and justice. This passage is just one example of how the Zuozhuan can act as a moral compass for rulers and others reading the commentary.
- Paul R. Goldin, ‘The World of the Zuozhuan’, in Victor H. Mair, Nancy S. Steinhardt and Paul R. Goldin (eds.), Hawaii Reader in Traditional Chinese Culture (Honolulu, 2005), p. 72. [↩]
- David Schaberg, ‘The Rhetoric of Good Order’, A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography (Massachusetts, 2001), p.26. [↩]
- Goldin, ‘Zuozhuan’, p. 74. [↩]
- Schaberg, A Patterned Past, pp. 43-48. [↩]