Competing Systems 7

 The Ba System

Let me here test the Dzwo Jwan against the Chun/Chyou as a history of the Spring and Autumn period. The chief point I wish to examine is the ba or hegemon system, which is supposed to have existed in that period.

It is widely assumed that during the Spring and Autumn there was an institution of the ba or hegemon, who, with the approval of the Jou King, enforced order within the Jou realm. The usual view, which we find in many Warring States texts of the late 04c and early 03c is that there was a succession of exactly five ba, though in fact no two Warring States texts agree on who the five were. The agreement on number, together with the lack of agreement on names, suggests that we have here a theory in search of historical data; that is, a theory which has been imposed on history rather than being extracted from it. This situation should raise doubts, at the outset, concerning the reality of the ba system.

The ba system is known to us only from the Dzwo Jwan. It is never mentioned or alluded to in the Chun/Chyou, or in any text with a claim to be earlier than the final compositional date of the Dzwo Jwan (by our calculations, c0312).

If the system were described in the Dzwo Jwan and were absent from the Chun/Chyou, it would always be possible to argue that for some ritual or other reason the Chun/Chyou happens not to mention it, and the Dzwo Jwan gives us a true and detailed picture of those centuries. What makes this untenable is that the Dzwo Jwan does not merely describe the institution, it describes it in three different ways, not separated in time but overlapping in the text. Each version of the theory is associated with a different primary term, and they seem to be three different versions of a theory, each probably associated with a compositional layer of the Dzwo Jwan, and all together representing a continuing engagement of the text with the theoretical problem of sovereignty in a period of admittedly weak sovereigns.

Here are the three versions of the Dzwo Jwan theory.

First Stage

Seemingly the oldest of the three stages calls the hegemon "mvng-ju" or Guarantor of Covenants. This term varies in its function from early to late DJ passages. The mvng-ju was seen as gaining the position in the first place by his virtuous conduct and his assistance to the needy. Early within these passages, he is seen as "not throwing away the lives of the people" (Wvn 6:3) and as returning lands taken from another state if that state becomes friendly (Wvn 7:8), and as exerting a tranquilizing influence over the states (Syang 26:7 and 31.6) with little or no use of armed force (Syang 26:14). Later passages are less friendly to the weak states, and more punitive toward the offending states (Jau 13:9 and 23.2). The only tenant of the Guarantor of Covenants position, according to these passages, was Jin, and though that state weakened in its ability to fulfil that role, the role itself did not pass to the ruler of any other state.

Second Stage

Apparently next oldest is a set of passages which use the term hou-bwo, or Chief Among the Lords. This term is defined in one early passage (Syi 1:2) in which it occurs. By that definition, the Chief's position has the possibility of being filled by leaders of different states, although no candidate from a state other than Jin actually succeeds in obtaining it. The function of the hou-bwo does not change within the passages which use that term. He is described as superintending relief measures and also as punishing offending states. His role in carrying out the Jou King's commands, rather than his independent action, is emphasized. This close link to the Jou King, from whom he obtained his authority in the first place (Syi 28:4) is a major difference from the description of the mvng-ju. The first ruler to be given the hou-bwo position by the Jou King was Chung-ar (or Jin Wvn-gung), at a ceremony held shortly after Chung-ar assumed the leadership of Jin. As in the previous form of the theory, his successors in Jin then continue to hold the position until the end of the period; the ruler of Wu at one point aspiring to the position (Ai 1:2) but not obtaining it. The chief change from the previous version is in the degree of formality attaching to the conferring of the Chief function by the Jou King, and the reduced emphasis on protecting the weak.

Third Stage

Finally we have the familiar term ba, in English conventionally Hegemon. This term, like the preceding one, is defined in a relatively early passage (Min 1:5) in which it occurs. These early-passage definitions give the impression of trying to establish the term in question against those previously used, and suggest the lateness of both the hou-bwo and the ba strata. Of the two, the content of the ba group of passages shows further evolution from the hou-bwo position, and suggests that it is the later.

The ba does not assist weak states in general, but only those already strong enough to be viable. His authority is derived essentially from his military strength (Syi 27:4, Wvn 3:4, Sywaen 12:2). And most important, there is a shift in the occupancy of the position, which is not limited to rulers of Jin, but is said to have been previously held by Hwan-gung of Chi (Syi 19:3, Jau 10:2). This two-ba theory is what is reflected in the phrase "Hwan and Wvn" which occurs in Mencius 1A7 as spoken by the King of Chi. It seems possible to suggest that this layer of the DJ may have been composed in Chi. That suggestion is supported by the fact that passages seemingly in the same layer of the DJ contain examples of cosmological ideas usually associated with Chi, and make predictions of the future greatness of the Chvn family (who later became, by usurpation, the Tyen rulers of Chi), and of Chi itself as a state in competition with the other states. These predictions, and the inclusion of Hwan of Chi as ba before that role passed to Jin, seem designed to flatter the Chi ruler, whereas the oldest of the three DJ layers, the mvng-ju layer, has more in view the interest of weaker states such as Lu. It would then seem that the earliest of these three layers was composed in Lu, a natural assumption since the DJ as a whole is a commentary on the state chronicle of Lu. On the other hand, the last of these three layers seems more likely to have been composed in Chi, and to include a theoretical framework and apologia for Chi in the context of the Warring States competition for the leadership, and eventually the absorption, of the rival states.

I have already mentioned the still later development of the ba theory by other Warring States theoreticians, who reshaped it as a Group of Five, in variants of which the only constant figures are the two mentioned in the final DJ stage, namely Hwan and Wvn.

Summary

The ba theory, even the earliest of its Dzwo Jwan forms, seems to have been merely a historical construct. The Chun/Chyou, as earlier noted, not only gives no direct hint of it, but does not at any point tacitly assume that such a person, or such a system, existed. It records the conference at which the Jou King is later supposed to have conferred the office of ba upon Jin Wvn-gung, but it does not mention the crucial event of the publicly conferred hegemonic charge. Nor does it later mention Jin Wvn-gung in a way which would amount to acknowledging that he had such a function. We must, I think, infer that there was no such charge, and no formal institution of the ba. The only fact with which we have to deal, as far as the Chun/Chyou evidence goes, is the pre-eminence of Jin throughout much of the period which it covers. All later schemes and rationalizations are based on this fact, but go beyond it conceptually. I believe that the question motivating the Dzwo Jwan compilers to frame such an answer was this: in the post-Jou period, beginning in 0771, how was sovereignty exercised among the states?

The likely answer is that sovereignty simply was not exercised in other than a token and ceremonial sense, and that in practical matters the states managed among themselves as best they could. Such an idea may well have been unacceptable to the mind of the 04c. In the the late 04c, we can observe the emergence of a linearizing view of previous history, and the corollary that the civilized world or tyen-sya cannot at any given moment be without a ruler. Given that preoccupation, it is likely that the power vacuum of the Spring and Autumn centuries would have been a serious theoretical embarrassment. I believe that the ba theory, or the ba interpretation of recent history, arose in response to such theoretical embarrassment. Its origins need not be sought in the Spring and Autumn period proper. It is a Warring States invention, or more precisely, as far as the Dzwo Jwan is concerned, a series of three Warring States inventions.

The ba system, then, is a construct system; it represents not the Spring and Autumn as it was, but the Spring and Autumn as viewed through Warring States theoretical preoccupations. That vierw merely obscures our understanding of the period.

I will mention one more such problem with the conventional understanding, and then conclude by summarizing what I believe the actual systems of these two periods to have been.

The Leadership Question

It is widely held that ministers in the Spring and Autumn usurped the power of rulers. And no doubt the collateral clans did become more powerful in Lu and in some other states, during that period. But the usual understanding does not quite hold true at all points. A test of it is provided by the exile of Lu Jau-gung between 0517 and his death in 0510. On the usual understanding, it would be expected that the dominant Ji family, having forced the withdrawal of the ruler to neighboring states, would proceed to exercise all his functions, including the leadership of the military force of the state. This is not what happens. During the entire period of Jau-gung's exile, the Lu chariot force was never once called out for military purposes. The command of that force, or the right to delegate it, must then still, as of the end of the 06c, have rested exclusively with the ruler. No one else, not merely in theory but in practice, could exercise it.

This startling fact would seem to require a reconsideration of the degree to which late Spring and Autumn rulers had lost their most basic traditional prerogatives.

All lectures and abstracts posted on this site are Copyright © by their authors.

 

24 Sept 2000 / Contact The Project / Exit to Lectures Page