Abstract
Beginning in the Yin-Zhou and Qin-Han periods, development of the Chinese imperial system revolved around the dialectical tension between the “enfeoffmental system of fiefdom” (fengjian zhi, or the fengjian system) and the bureaucratic prefectural system (junxian zhi, or the junxian system). In Fei Xiaotong’s words, this was a dual-track politics of the “power of the monarch” and the “power of the gentry”. Under the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, the relationship between the monarch and his kinsfolk was governed by the Confucian hierarchical principle of “favoring the intimate” (qin-qin) and “respecting the superior” (zun-zun), and ritualized by the patriarchal order of clan, mourning rites, and ancestral worship. In addition, the “mandate of Heaven” solidified an organic relationship between the emperor and his subjects and became the foundation for monarchical rule. The bureaucratic prefectural system highlighted the historical change since the Warring States period, which had abolished the enfeoffmental fiefdom system and given birth to the concept of “all-under-Heaven” (gong tianxia). Thinkers like Wang Fuzhi and Gu Yanwu placed emphasis on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom as a counterpart of to the bureaucratic prefectural system which helped break up the centralization of power and renew the debate on the dialectic between “public” and “private”. In sum, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in China still needs to be clarified through re-examining the Classics.
Keywords
Introduction
No one would deny the fact that sociology in modern China was borrowed from abroad; and that a foreign discipline in itself cannot thoroughly explain China. However, the introduction of learning from abroad has its historical context and reasons. For example, Buddhism, which was introduced from the Western world to China, injected new incentives to the declining period of the late Han dynasty in the medieval period, a time of national fusion and political volatility. The mercifulness and equality declared in Buddhism not only consoled the people in turbulent days, “holding the power to educate the social masses”, but also entered scholardom through a kind of speculative spirit of “introspection”. Talented and outstanding youngsters born to commoner families who aspired to learning could resort to the temples, getting away from warfare and robbery and “gaining the pleasure of learning from mentors and friends and having access to books”. The reason was that, in China at that time, people adopted a “new purely truth-seeking and intellectually enquiring attitude” toward Buddhism. Buddhist teaching “emphasized the study of principles and deemphasized faith”, turning religion into edification, Buddhist principles into philosophical principles, and “non-self” (anatta or wuwo) into “heavenly principles” (tianlun). In this way, “Mahayana” became popular and some new sects were created, such as the Tiantai sect, the Huayan sect, and even the Chan sect, which were unique to China. Thus Qian Mu draws the following conclusion: During the Wei-Jin and Southern and Northern dynasties, the fusion of new nationalities only gave rise to the new adjustment in the order of the Chinese society, while the introduction of the new religious faith expanded the boundaries of the ideological sphere in China. In the history of Chinese culture, there was only “absorption, integration and expansion”, without “separatism, struggling and elimination”. (Qian, 1994: 138–152)
Qian Mu (2001: 192) once stated in one of his articles, “A Brief Discussion on Chinese Sociology”, There was no concept of society in China at first. The family and state altogether was a society. There was to be affection and respect within a family. For a clan, there was also to be affection and respect. For a state, there was also to be affection and respect. The most respectable within a state was called the emperor, and at present we call him a king or an emperor. A king is the person who is respected by the whole kingdom. An emperor is the person who governs the people and is honored by the people. People honor the emperor like honoring the heaven, so the emperor is honored by people all over the world.
Qian Mu’s assessment, regardless of its appositeness, may surely cause discomfort among modern sociologists, since it doesn’t match the concepts for analysis which they are used to. However, after careful consideration, although we have made great efforts in investigating the principles of modern social life, is there any discomfort in incomplete expression? It occurs when the so-called non-institutionalized social phenomena cannot be thoroughly explained by current knowledge systems; when we have to add prefixes before existing concepts, such as “non-”, “quasi-”, “post-”, “de-”, “sub-”, and “semi-”, to express them in a vague and elusive way. The reason for neglecting the richness of social life and its endogenously complicated context is that we are unfamiliar with our past civilizational traditions, and have become disconnected from our history. The absence of sentiment undermines our ability to recognize and imagine our own life.
Decades ago, the older generations of sociologists in China made their efforts. Pan Guangdan (2000a: 181) made similar remarks: [T]here was previously no word for “society” in China, however, this by no means suggests that there were no social phenomena. There was no subject of sociology in the past, but it cannot be stated that we didn't have any organized concepts and principles to deal with social life and social relations. The “five kinds of human relations” [wulun] is one of these concepts.
However, the so-called “integration of family and state” (jia guo yiti) and “family and state as all-under-Heaven” (jia guo tianxia) are just general concepts, and Wang Guowei had a thorough discussion on the system initiated by the Duke of Zhou (Wang, 2001). Nevertheless, the academic circle has provoked much criticism of this view (Du, 1992: 406; Fu, 2012; Ogata, 2010; Wang, 1998). The huge variation of Chinese history cannot be fully illustrated through general principles. The variation of human relationships is usually associated with the variation of circumstances and system; therefore, it is necessary to analyze the issue from the perspective of structural history. In discussing the traditional human relationships in China, Fei Xiaotong also provided a special explanation of the historical process of social transition in China, which discusses the governance structure and its specific mechanism from the perspective of “double-track politics” (shuanggui zhengzhi) (Fei, 1999c). Discussions in academic circles generally reflect a solidification of understandings and value judgments on this topic, although different opinions should not be overlooked (Gong, 2001; Yu, 2003). However, some scholars have also mentioned that the hypothetical discussion introduced by Fei’s Reconstructing Rural China is in essence a theoretical projection of the social transition in modern China, insofar as the emergence of the gentry is closely associated with the imperial power of grand unification (Yang, 2010: 142–144, 148–149).
In Fei Xiaotong’s (1999b) “Imperial power and gentry power” it is stated at the beginning that the emergence of the gentry was caused by the structural conditions established by the autocratic imperial power of “the emperor as the state”. The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom (fengjian zhi, or the fengjian system) was disintegrated, the patriarchal system and ritual order collapsed. Xiang Yu said, “the emperor can be defeated and replaced”, and Chen Sheng asked, “Is there anyone born as a king, duke, general, or minister?”—reflecting the rise of various powers beyond the system of enfeoffment during the Qin and Han dynasties. This was in co-occurrence with the formation of the centralized power (zhongyang jiquan) system. However, the stern governance upheld by legalism in the Qin dynasty collapsed in an instant, showing that regardless of the supremacy of imperial power, “it could not master and manage the entirety of Heaven with one hand”; rather, it was to be supplemented with another way of governance, namely the Confucian orthodoxy of scholar officials. In other words, that “emperors are not born emperors” is the fundamental premise of the “double-track governance” system implemented since the Qin and Han dynasties (Fei, 1999b: 466–467). The transition from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system (junxian zhi, or the junxian system) laid the foundations for the mutually complementary and mutually restrictive dual-governance system.
First, the Zhou dynasty’s effective governance under the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom evolved into the early-Han governance method of the “Huang-Lao school”; later, the “encounter between heaven and human” (tian ren zhi ji), proposed by Dong Zhongshu, established the pattern of dominance of Confucianism, and the dual system of “governing through learning Confucianism” and “the emperor is the state”. Since “government affairs are solved through politics, while the heavenly principles are solved through Confucian orthodoxy”, the emperor becomes the core of realistic politics, while Confucius functions as the uncrowned king; the intellectual power of Confucian scholars is harnessed to help the emperor serve the mandate of Heaven, and natural disasters (including that “education is not established” [jiaohua buli] and “the people do not live correctly” [wanmin buzheng]) create restraints on imperial power. However, in the realities of political wrangling, the separation of Confucian orthodoxy and the political system was not easy to maintain. The so-called “studying of legal instruments and political affairs, and learning Confucianism as literal decoration” was intended to mean that the Confucian orthodoxy could not control the political system; on the contrary, with the process of including Confucianism learners into the centralized bureaucratic system so too came the forming of cliques, grasping for fame, and slander. When the scholar-officials were “reduced to bureaucrats”, “they became the clique who presented a false appearance of peace and prosperity” (Fei, 1999b: 499). The viewpoints above were written in 1948. It can be assumed that Fei Xiaotong might believe that history has since repeated itself.
In forming an orthodoxy separate from the political system, Confucianism situated Confucius in an intellectual lineage originating with the Duke of Zhou. However, since Confucian orthodoxy was not transformed into a transcendental religious creed—that is, religious orthodoxy in a Western sense—so it was at risk of being absorbed by the bureaucratic system. Therefore, Confucian scholars tended to hold an extremely negative attitude, some of them retreated to the shanlin, and some others wandered in the countryside; the separation of political system and Confucian orthodoxy evolved into the hierarchical governing pattern of the imperial power and gentry power, and rural society became the political test field for Confucianism learners to go into society and serve the heavenly principles through retiring from the world. Fei Xiaotong (1999a: 364, 368) put special emphasis on the binding and regulating function of the gentry in rural China, and frequently invoked topics like “wuwei politics” and “governing by elders” to emphasize that local society beyond the reaches of imperial power was a place in which the gentry was able to realize Confucian education and put in practice a benevolent government.
Although the articles mentioned above are not long, they depict some important two-track concepts in traditional political society in China—the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system; Confucian orthodoxy and the political system; rituals and law; affairs and principles; the bureaucrats and the gentry; concentration of power and separation of power; and rule by force and benevolent governance—which altogether present a multifaceted, complicated governance structure and mechanism. However, the analysis of Fei Xiaotong focused on meaning rather than historical reasoning; it is an informal discussion rather than rigorous academic research. Additionally, the view itself has some hint of criticism and anthropological implications, and intends to elevate the historical function of the gentry from the perspective of civil rights and autonomy, therefore, it doesn’t pay full attention to some basic problems in Confucian Classics studies and historiography. In this article, I try to further discuss the double-track governance system, and study some subtle historical and logical questions from the perspectives of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system: the interior and the borderlands, indoctrination and politics, officialdom and the gentry, as well as the various characters of traditional scholars.
The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom compared to the bureaucratic prefectural system
It is particularly notable that the premise for Fei Xiaotong’s hypothetical discussion on dual-track governance is the transition from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system. However, according to Fei Xiaotong, history after the Qin and Han dynasties evolved from the fixed framework of the bureaucratic prefectural system as the division of imperial power and the gentry power emerged, showing that the whole governance structure was established according to the hierarchical governing pattern of imperial power and gentry power. However, this judgment doesn’t fully accord with historical reality. First, although the bureaucratic prefectural system had yet to come into being in the feudal-patriarchal era of the western Zhou dynasty, after it moved eastward, “several new military states with centralized power formed, and thus the bureaucratic prefectural system emerged”, and “it is possible that the bureaucratic prefectural system was popularized before the early period of sixth century BC” (Yan, 2007: 1, 3). Gu (2013) stated, “In the Spring and Autumn Period, counties were formed via the annexing of other [independent] states” (“On Prefectures and Counties”, Daily Accumulation of Knowledge). Therefore, the so-called transition from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system was actually the absorption of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom by the bureaucratic prefectural system, a very different connotation. Second, in terms of system, although the Han dynasty followed the system of the Qin dynasty, elements of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom didn’t disappear, but experienced the change from a double-track system to a single-track system. “All systems of the Han dynasty followed that of the Qin with almost no reforms, the only change was the local governance policy, which recovered the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom that had been abandoned by the Qin dynasty. It was conditioned by the situation at that time, and there was no other choice” (Yan, 2007: 14). In early Han dynasty, the enfeoffmental system was practiced among different surnames then according to the same surname, “but enfeoffment was not restricted to immediate family members, therefore, collateral relatives were enfeoffed; in this way, prefectures and counties of the same surname became more distant, having the same disadvantages as the enfeoffment from different surnames” (Yan, 2007: 19). Later, turmoil occurred and Emperor Wu of Han cut the vassal states. Therefore, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in the Han dynasty remained in name only, and the double-track system of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system didn’t produce substantial effects in terms of a dual pattern of governance.
The reflections above go to show that although the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and bureaucratic prefectural system are different forms of power distribution, their substantive meanings went beyond pure power politics. In fact, there were constant disputes between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system in China, mingled with the topics of origin tracing, institutional examination, and text annotation, which were integrated with each other in the design of the real political system, becoming the grandest topic at each historical moment of reform triggered by prevalent abuses. The fundamental reason is that the conflict between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and bureaucratic prefectural system was not only about the power structure in the sense of the political system and its conflicts of interest, but also about issues of mores transformation and even ethnic integration; but it is crucial that the concept of “the kingdom, the state, the family” be solidified and become resourceful, and become sustainable in adapting to new historical situations.
The thinkers who praised the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in the past had made it very clear. Jia Yi criticized the system of Qin dynasty, “One person revolted, the whole dynasty collapsed and the emperor was killed by others. This was laughed at by the whole world. What is the reason? Benevolence and righteousness were not practiced and the status of offense and defense changed” (Jia, 1976, Ten Crimes of Qin). Lu Ji (Shiheng) directly pointed out that the source of corrupted politics since the late Han dynasty was “abandoning benevolent governance and adopting rule by force”, wherein “the emperor would be deceived by cutting local force; when the emperor ascended the throne, the officials just paid attention to private interests rather than handling disasters for the emperor”. In a word, the Qin brought troubles on itself and isolated itself by abandoning the “five-rank” enfeoffment system, and then “did the great deed of perishing”; in the Han dynasty, although “the Han corrected the mistakes of the Qin dynasty, and set up vassal states to enlarge the territory”, it “didn’t abide by old principles”, so “Jia Yi was worried about the danger to the Han and Chao Cuo felt sorry for its chaos” (Lu, 1977). Later, an official in the Tang dynasty named Zhu Jingze believed that the enfeoffment in the Zhou dynasty was actually a “world as one community” jointly governed by the emperor and the dukes. This method of conferring territories could let the dukes surround and protect the imperial power and keep the state in prosperity; while for the bureaucratic prefectural system, “the whole state was governed by one person”. Since autocracy “is absolutely not the way of a community” noted, “the emperor became suspicious, the people felt scared, the legacy of the father could not be maintained by his sons, and the emperor could not get what he wanted from his officials”; as a result, the Qin dynasty perished only after two generations. So, as one of “the ten prose masters of the Tang and Song dynasties”, Sun Qiao (Kezhi), lamented: Alas! The prefectures and counties are really courier stations? When new officials replaced old ones, the cunning officials took this advantage to do evil deeds to deceive the prefectures and counties! In this way, it was difficult to realize the ideal situation in which people were not living in poverty and the state had sufficient financial resources and abundant cultivated land. (Sun, 2013)
It is stated at the beginning of “The lessons of six dynasties” that, I heard that the ancient kings established national surnames to identify clan relatives and appointed people of different surnames to reward persons of virtue. Therefore, The Commentary of Zuo had the following statement, “reward the meritorious people, be close to courtiers, respect able men”. The Classic of History said, “He made the able and virtuous distinguished, and thence proceeded to the love of the nine classes of his kindred”. It is stated in The Book of Poetry, “The cherishing of virtue secures repose; the circle of the king’s relatives is a fortified wall”. From this point of view, no achievements can be made without able men, and governance cannot be accomplished without relatives. However, if too much emphasis is put on kindred, its impact would become weaker; if talents are given too much trust, then the power would be taken away. The former sages knew the truth well, so they employed many relatives: in a near sense, the emperor assembles dukes to safeguard the state; in a far sense, the emperor is assisted by men of virtue; in prosperity, they govern the state together; in decline, they defend their territory; in safety, they live in ease and comfort; at risk, they face the misfortune together. In such a case, the state can be preserved and can last for hundreds of generations. (Cao, 1977) Therefore, when wise kings govern the world, they put before them the most extensive love, and center on benevolence and righteousness, practice the four principles [politeness, decorum, integrity, and sense of shame], respect the five excellent things [when the person in authority is beneficent without great expenditure; when he lays tasks on the people without their repining; when he pursues what he desires without being covetous; when he maintains a dignified ease without being proud; when he is majestic without being fierce], value rituals, music, and social norms. Then they would carry out policies of benevolence to benefit their people, and get rid of harmful and evil practices through reform. And finally they would make all the people under Heaven feel satisfied. In pursuit of loyalty, it is just like this word is in front of them; in meeting the emperor, they always keep in line with the rituals of the Zhou dynasty. The enfeoffmental ethics and rites were performed well and people observed them as they did the operation of the sun and the moon and never abandoned them in spite of winds and rains. The customs put forward by sages would gradually influence people, showing the benevolent government. As a result, merits and achievements will be awarded to deserving persons. The state would be strongly fortified in defense and battles. Good relationships among all people can be found everywhere in the whole kingdom. (Zhu, 1983)
From this perspective, enfeoffmental governance has the following distinctive characteristics: First, the hierarchy determined by the principle of respecting the superior is not only a hierarchical system of power division and obedience, rather, it is a way of relative assembly within a patriarchal clan based on relative affection. The statement “the way of patriarchal clan is the way of brotherhood” (Cheng, 2008) shows that, “When a son other than (the eldest) became the ancestor (of a branch of the same line), his successor was its Honored Head, and he who followed him (in the line) was its lesser Honored Head. After five generations there was a change again of the Honored Head”. Such a system propagates a clan: “all the clansman of Zhou respect their present Honored Head for their respect for the past ancestors, then the effect of clan assembly can be achieved”, meanwhile, the unity of the state and relatives can be connected, the hierarchy in the patriarchal system and enfeoffment system can be integrated, “there will always be sons other than the eldest son, independent states and feoffs, and there will always be the (great) Honored Head whose tablet was not removed for a hundred generations in the states and feoffs” (Du, 1992: 406–408). The logic of relative affection and the principle of respecting the superior not only determined the position of the emperor as the Honored Head, but also determined the position of dukes as sons other than the eldest son; this not only determined the principle that the successor—whose tablet was not removed for a hundred generations—could last forever, but also determined the principle that the smaller Honored Heads—whose tablets were removed after five generations—should surround and protect the patriarch, to make people respect their ancestors and assemble within the state and the feoff; in such cases, chaos in a state would not disturb the whole world.
Since the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is consolidated on the patriarchal system, relative affection of the same surname should be taken as the foundation, and persons of virtue of different surnames should be appointed as assistance, thus the foundation of its political system is naturally not based on governance by able men. For governance in the Zhou dynasty, governance and its efficiency is not the foremost thing; hierarchy in human relations is the most important. Possibly, the differential mode of association put forward by Fei Xiaotong refers to the same meaning (Zhou, 2015: 26–48). However, the hierarchy of love in human relations is not only based on a kind of social emotion in natural meaning. Kong Yingda once stated “the origin of ritual is human emotion” (Kong, 2008: 1), but the statement also has some hint of “piety” of divine norms. There is a statement in The Book of Rites, They are the rules of propriety, that furnish the means of determining [the observances toward] relatives, as near and remote; of settling points which may cause suspicion or doubt; of distinguishing where there should be agreement, and where difference; and of making clear what is right and what is wrong.
The essence of exercising governance by the people of Zhou lies more in the utilization of the instrument of morality. Mencius stated that “wherein the superior man is distinguished from other men is by what he preserves in his heart—namely, benevolence and propriety. The benevolent man loves others. The man of propriety shows respect to others” (“Li Lou II”, The Works of Mencius). Therefore, rewarding the person of virtue should be based on favoring the intimate and respecting the superior, subduing one's self and returning to propriety, to realize the ideal of practicing a benevolent government of the superior man. It can be said that: The course [of duty], virtue, benevolence, and righteousness cannot be fully carried out without the rules of propriety; nor are training and oral lessons for the rectification of manners complete; nor can the clearing up of quarrels and discriminating in disputes be accomplished; nor can [the duties between] ruler and minister, high and low, father and son, elder brother and younger, be determined; nor can students for office and [other] learners, in serving their masters, have an attachment for them; nor can majesty and dignity be shown in assigning the different places at court, in the government of armies, and in discharging the duties of office so as to secure the operation of laws; nor can there be [proper] sincerity and gravity in presenting the offerings to spiritual beings on occasions of supplication, thanksgiving, and the various sacrifices. (“Qu Li”, The Book of Rites)
The patriarchal system and the mandate of Heaven: father and son, emperor and the people
Today, when people talk about the system of Zhou dynasty, they comment on it as “a private system for one family with one surname”. This should not be the case. When Confucius talked about Heaven and the mandate of Heaven, he referred to the fact that the royal family of Zhou accepted the mandate of Heaven. There are many similar statements in the Analects of Confucius. For example, “Does Heaven speak? The four seasons pursue their courses, and all things are continually being produced, but does Heaven say anything?” (“Yang Huo”, Analects of Confucius); “How majestic was he! It is only Heaven that is grand” (“Tai Bo”, Analects of Confucius); “He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray” (“Ba Yi”, Analects of Confucius). Such statements mean that the system established by the Duke of Zhou was an act of obeying the law of Heaven, and an integration of consistency. The mandate of Heaven is so brilliant, although it evolves in an uncertain way. It did not start from the Zhou dynasty, but since the Zhou dynasty it has followed the rule of human relations and established the great cause of state founding. Although in later generations, there were succession and change of political power, the state followed this inner spirit in order to maintain the brilliant civilizational tradition of China for three thousand years. Compared with the patriarchal system, the order of descent in the Zhou dynasty has a different logic. The Duke of Zhou established the ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and honored Houji as its ancestor, believing that only men of virtue could inherit the mandate of heaven and the law of “unity of heaven and man”. It was stated in the Doctrine of the Mean that, By the ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth they served God, and by the ceremonies of the ancestral temple they sacrificed to their ancestors. He who understands the ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and the meaning of the several sacrifices to ancestors, will find the governing of a kingdom as easy as looking into his palm! The first birth of our people was from Jiang Yuan. How did she give birth to our people? She presented a pure offering and made sacrifices, so that her childlessness might be taken away. She then trod on a toe-print of the God. God blessed her, and she was pregnant; she gave birth to, and nourished a son, who was Houji.
The natural meaning of the character sheng in shengmin (living people) is as the seat of the mandate of Heaven. It is stated in The Book of Poetry, “Heaven, in producing mankind, gave them their various faculties and relations with their specific laws” (“Zheng Min, Greater Odes of The Kingdom”, The Book of Poetry). Producing mankind means the cultivation and breeding by nature, also the origin of the law of creation. Mencius quotes the Classic of History in his “King Hui of Liang, Part II”: “Heaven, having produced the inferior people, made them rulers and teachers, with the purpose that they should be assisting Shangdi, and therefore distinguished them throughout the four quarters of the land”. Mencius also stated, “Therefore, to gain the peasantry is the way to become sovereign; to gain the sovereign is the way to become a prince of a state; to gain the princedom of a state is the way to become a great man” (“Jin Xin II”, The Works of Mencius). What is interesting here is that in the logic of inheriting Heaven, people are “Heaven”, while the emperor is “the Son of Heaven”, and “Heaven” became the medium between the emperor and the people; in another dimension, it controls the identity hierarchy of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, which is the sacred order mandated by Heaven. In the sense of creating life, “Heaven” means the origin of living people, and the people is just like the “father”, defining the subordination of the Son of Heaven to the people, while in real order of the ritual system, the Son of Heaven and the people are principal and subordinate in the sense of the patriarchal system, just like a dialectical logical cycle. The concepts of “minister of Heaven” and “nobility of Heaven” proposed by Mencius should also be comprehended in this sense. “Those who accord with Heaven are preserved, and those who rebel against Heaven perish”, implies the meaning that “they who accord with the people are preserved, and they who rebel against the people perish”. Kong Anguo once made the following annotation to the relationship between “Heaven sees” and “the people see”, and “Heaven hears” and “the people hear”: 2 “Heaven sees and hears for the people, and heaven punishes those who are disliked by the people”, showing that relying on the people is an act of inheriting the mandate of Heaven by the emperor. Thus, “virtue” (ren) developed from father-and-son in the sense of a patriarchal system to common emotion that takes “Heaven” as the medium, demonstrating the prospect of “Grand Union” (datong) described in the “Liyun” section of The Book of Rites: “Thus men did not love their parents only, nor treat as children only their own sons”. Eventually, the ascribed hierarchical order was eliminated, and came to the ultimate goal, “When the ‘Great Way’ [dadao] was pursued, a public and common spirit ruled all-under-Heaven”.
Therefore, the political meaning of the character sheng in shengmin (living people) is practicing a benevolent government. It is stated in the “Ziyi” section of The Book of Rites that, “the ruler is preserved by the people, and perishes also through the people”. The Book of Rites also stated that, “a prince loves what the people love, and hates what the people hate”, meaning that when the emperor adapts to the will of people he is adapting to the mandate of Heaven. Mencius said, “If your Majesty now will take pleasure in a thing common to the people and yourself, the royal sway awaits you”; “A sympathy of joy will pervade the kingdom, a sympathy of sorrow will do the same—in such a state of things, it cannot be but that the ruler attains royal dignity” (“King Hui of Liang, Part II”, The Works of Mencius). In real political practice, “living people” has the meaning of “people’s livelihood”: “The people are the root of a country; The root firm, the country is tranquil” (“Songs of the Five Sons”, Classic of History). This is the final resort and goal of state governance. Although the ritual system stresses hierarchical love for the Son of Heaven, he should do his duty, and it seems that there is a universal dimension in the emotion between the emperor and the people. Mencius said, “In regard to inferior creatures, the superior man is kind to them, but not loving. In regard to people generally, he is loving to them, but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents, and lovingly disposed to people generally. He is lovingly disposed to people generally, and kind to creatures” (“Jin Xin I”, The Works of Mencius). A gentle man knows well that he loves all creatures in nature, but doesn't have to show benevolence; in loving people, he doesn't have to show relative affection, therefore, the logic of a policy of benevolence is that an emperor should consolidate his virtuous rule of the patriarchal system, abide by the mandate of Heaven and hold benevolence for their people, and then integrate all creatures in nature into a unified order, and realize the transcendental spirit of the unity of Heaven and man.
Kong Yingda (2008) once said, “Heaven will surely comply with what the people desire”. This is the best explanation of the mandate of Heaven as the relation between Heaven and man. However, it is a metaphysical setting, in actual political practice; how to govern the people with a policy of benevolence, how to adapt to human nature, and let the law of man serve the law of Heaven are the key points in the governance system. The Zhou government placed cultural education and moralization foremost. Wang Guowei (2001: 302) pointed out that, The systems and rituals in the Zhou dynasty were the instrument of morality, which is an integration of favoring the intimate and respecting the superior, valuing virtue and treating males and females differently. This is called human relations. Any systems that don’t abide by such laws are unconventional.
The basis for human relations is transformation of social traditions; the basis for protecting people lies in certain livelihood and a kind heart. Therefore, in addition to the patriarchal and ritual system, the land system is naturally the fundamental enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. Mencius stated, “They are only men of education, who, without a certain livelihood, are able to maintain a kind heart. As to the people, if they have not a certain livelihood, it follows that they will not have a kind heart” (“King Hui of Liang, Part II”, The Works of Mencius). This is the best interpretation of the “important guidelines for governance”, as emphasized by Confucius. What are the “important guidelines for governance”? As was stated by Confucius, “Rituals are used to practice morality, morality is used to generate interests, and interests are used to make ordinary people peaceful” (“The second year of Duke Cheng”, The Commentary of Zuo); that is to say, let social customs follow rituals, handle well the relationship between justice and profit, and promote simultaneously human relations and people’s livelihoods, so as to form the basic policy of governing the people. The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom means land enfeoffment to people, and people here belong to different hierarchies based on five ranks.
Du (1979: 48) pointed out in Feudal States in the Zhou Dynasty that, in the process of armed conquering, the so-called primary geographical units in enfeoffment were the towns with military and political functions. This was called the “state” in ancient books; the vast field outside the state was called the “wild”, and the small settlement communities in the wild were called “cities” or “communes”. What was often referred to as “feudatory” refers to these basic units. According to The Commentary of Zuo, when Kangshu went to Wei, “the boundary of feoff was south of Wufu and north of Putian, the Youyan clan obtained land there to execute the missions from the emperor” (“The Fourth Year of Duke Ding”, The Commentary of Zuo), showing that the boundaries of cities were clear, and that was called the “border region” by ancient people. The main basis for land distribution and enhancement was people's land production and operation within the border region, as well as community life like primitive settlements.
Mencius pointed out that, “The first step towards a benevolent government must be to lay down the boundaries”. Why are boundaries so important? The reason is that, “If boundaries are not defined correctly, division of the land into squares will not be equal, and the produce available for salaries will not be evenly distributed. For this reason oppressive rulers and corrupt ministers are sure to neglect this defining of boundaries” (“Teng Wen Gong I”, The Works of Mencius). As such, boundaries in the land distribution system are not only rules for land distribution, but also key to the organization of society. The basic land unit in the Zhou dynasty as described by Mencius is also the basic social unit. The equal distribution of land would result in orderly cohabitation and taxation in administration, and land distribution and enhancement. According to the statement of Du Zhengsheng (1979: 74) in annotating The Commentary of Zuo, he believed that the well-field system had the following four functions: first, it drew a clear borderline between states, which was called “distinguishing the cities from the wild”; second, it drew a clear borderline between those who are governed and those who govern others, which was called “people of upper and lower ranks undertake their own duties”; third, it was beneficial to regulate settlements, so families share one well-field, which was called “the house and the cultivated land could adapt to each other”; fourth, by building furrows and irrigation systems in the fields, the fields became orderly and neat, which was called “furrows in fields” (“The Thirtieth Year of Duke Xiang”, The Commentary of Zuo). However, there are differing opinions on the existence of the well-field system (Guo, 2011; Hu, 1930). There is also analysis of the “fallow-field system” and the “field-change system” (Lin, 1979; Ma, 1997). There are also different opinions on the three taxation methods: the sovereign of the Xia dynasty enacted the fifty-mu allotment, and the payment of a tax. The founder of the Yin enacted the seventy-mu allotment, and the system of mutual aid. The founder of the Zhou enacted the hundred-mu allotment, and the share system (Cen, 1955: 81–92; Qi, 2000b: 169–183); however, verification on the existence and form of the well-field system by archaeological and historical documents cannot cover all aspects of this issue. Mencius upheld the essence of the well-field system for the purpose of reiterating the ideal of practicing a benevolent government by the Zhou people.
The design of the well-field system lies first in the purpose of drawing clear borderlines, making land and salary distribution equitable, and achieving a result in land distribution and enhancement. Second, it intended to construct a kind of orderly social structure by avoiding conflicts of interest among people and forming a kind of primitive farming community for mutual assistance and safeguarding, just like the cohabitation prospect described by Mencius: “In the fields of a district, those who belong to the same nine squares render all friendly offices to one another in their going out and coming in, aid one another in keeping watch and ward, and sustain one another in sickness” (“Teng Wen Gong I”, The Works of Mencius). However, some scholars further pointed out that the function of the well-field system in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom lies not only in the daily arrangement of economic and social life, but also the collection and distribution of production, taxation, and servitude, and the implementation of the ritual order in the process of moral education. The public field in the well-field system embodies in fact the element of a ritual system. After the beginning of spring, the emperor chose the day of the first conjunction of the sun and moon for the plowing ceremony, which was intended to announce the calendar and the farming season to people. It not only implies the symbol of “stimulating agriculture”, but also an action of “leading people to carry out the ceremony” by ritual officers. By working together, they could harvest grains and offer sacrifice to the Altar of Land and Grain, to implement a series of administrative and ritual processes that supervise farming. In the same way, the “Dasou ritual”, a ritual for military inspection and hunting practice, is also a practice of “morality education”, which embodies the governance concept of “farming for three seasons and practicing military power in the winter”. Such “public affairs” demonstrate the truth that, “if people don’t know rituals, they will not have reverence”, and the statement of Mencius, “Not till the public works are finished, may they presume to attend to their private affairs”, also refers to the elevation of sacred experience of “cohabitation” by people in the ritual system (Ling, 2014).
From this perspective, the so-called enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is a unified system of “integrating family and state” and “emperor, people, and state”. The patriarchal system and principles of mourning dress based on relative affection and the principle of respecting superiors were generated from the “hereditary system” by the Zhou people, and established its basis for state foundation and people education with its ritual system and morality education. Starting from the principle of natural cultivation, the subordination of living people to the Son of Heaven was established through the concepts of the mandate of Heaven or nobility of Heaven. On the one hand, it distributed land based on five ranks of people, and on the other hand, it practiced governing human relations and people’s livelihoods through the well-field system, and formed the governance pattern that, “If you want to hold the upper position, you must make your subordinate happy. If you think for yourself, you must first benefit others”. Just like the statement in the Five Ranks of Nobility by Lu Shiheng (1977): A ruler distributes his land to the whole world to enhance the happiness of his people and grieve at the sorrow of his people; the ruler who shares interests with the whole world can bear disaster with his people. The interests are vast, the kindness is profound, happiness lasts for a long time and sorrow is deep. Therefore, the dukes enjoy the enfeoffed land and pass on the land to their descendants … as soon as dukes own land, they would treat their people well, and propriety and trustworthiness may be generated among people. The whole of society may become peaceful and resist any disasters.
Opposing the bureaucratic prefectural system to the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom
In the eyes of its advocates, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was a great and balanced system. This was fully believed and had far-reaching influence, but was it really the case in history? Perhaps not. While in modern times, no matter whether it be the “doubting in antiquity school” (yigu pai) or positivistic historians, textual research or archaeological research, all have raised doubts, and from various aspects (Feng, 2006; Hou, 1987; Lü, 1985). Even in the times of Confucius when rites collapsed and music disappeared, could the actual version of Confucius’ system of “following Zhou” be verified based on enough epics (shishi)? This question is also difficult to answer. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be different interpretations of the three commentaries on The Spring and Autumn Annals, and the long-standing disputes between classical learning based on earlier texts and New Text Confucianism. In the same way, when western peoples inferred the Athenian political system, they could not rely on the template of the so-called ideal city-state constructed by Plato; however, the latter’s fundamental position in the history of civilization is absolutely unshakable. Therefore, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is an important subject and field in historiographic studies and it highlights the origin of Confucian Classics studies, with a civilization gene of universal historical destination. It can be said to be a past historical form, but for future generations, it seems to be an innately bestowed ideal value to civilization. The patriarchal system, principles of mourning dress, the temple system, and even the well-field system in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, all possess a kind of spiritual essence, which infuses liveliness to the thousands of years of history that followed until today. We should understand the present by referring to the ancient times, while Confucian Classics studies and the principles of the Zhou system should be the top priority for re-approaching traditional and modern China.
“History” should be based on the “Classics”, but its principles should be tested by a detailed review of the evolutionary process. The “Classics” may be its source, but the essence of history lies in its evolution. Disagreements and disputes on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom by later generations began from this point. The representative text on judging the Classics by “history” and discussing “history” according to “historical trends” is On the Enfeoffmental System of Fiefdom by Liu Zongyuan. Liu Zongyuan once offered the sharp comment, “the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was not generated by the sages, it was a historical trend”—which pointed out that the formation of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was not an ideal political picture that once existed, but an institutional arrangement born out of historical evolution, and will be replaced by the bureaucratic prefectural system also through historical evolution. The mandate of Heaven is unknown, and historical trends cannot be changed: “Is there really no original stage in nature? I can't know. Do humans really have an original stage? I can't know either”. Liu Zongyuan quoted Xunzi, who states that in a “world of falseness” all we can really know is that “those who are close together form a group, and when the group splits, the competition must be great; out of this will be born virtuous soldiers”. “If you fight forever, you will definitely find someone who can judge right and wrong and obey his orders.” In Liu Zongyuan's view, the generation of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom as a result of following the mandate of Heaven might be just a judgment. In real history, the winners who won out could make people yield and accept their subordination, and thus the dukes came about. Among the dukes, the ones who had great virtue, such as Fangbo and Lianshuai, were supported by other dukes, who were content with their enfeoffed land. At last the Son of Heaven emerged, the hearts of the people turned towards him and lived peacefully, “then the world was united as a whole” (Liu, 1974).
What Liu Zongyuan insisted on seemed to be a kind of inductive logic, which is based on what is visible, and different from the deductive rule of the patriarchal system. The principle of respecting the superior is not a kind of natural relation generated from relative affection, but a kind of virtue out of authority based on adapting to the situation, or relying on military power or virtue. The ritual system and the five ranks of people set up by the Duke of Zhou truly went with the historical trend, and as such there were enfeoffed states everywhere; however, when they were passed to the reign of King Yi of Zhou and his successors, the rituals and the dignity were destroyed, and the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom began to collapse. Therefore, state governance should be guided by historical trends. After Qin united the whole country, “it set up prefectures and counties, abolished dukes and appointed officers of prefectures and counties. Qin was strategically located and established its capital at the center to control the whole state”—an action following the historical trend. Thus, abolishing the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and adopting the bureaucratic prefectural system was the result of historical evolution. The bureaucratic prefectural system got rid of the source of chaos in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, that land was owned privately, and on the contrary it created “a public world”: The measure of abolishing the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom by Qin can be stated as the triumph of public ownership. It was meant to be private and consolidate the emperor’s authority and let people of the whole world to yield to him. However, the public and common system started from Qin dynasty. (Liu, 1974)
Liu Zongyuan’s judgment came from a fundamental source. In the ever-changing historical situation, the ones who are most outstanding in judging the situation and advancing with the times are the sages and the able men. Therefore, in judging the merits and defects of a system, it is necessary to see whether such a system contributes to talent selection. What the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom stuck to was a fixed patriarchal order. The land and people were regarded as private properties. Government orders were issued within the territory. Rewards and punishments were unclear, and talents were suppressed by the system, “Even if the sages were born at the time, and could not show their talents and assist the development of the state”. But under the bureaucratic prefectural system, “rewards or punishments could be carried out fairly” in state governance; moreover, the emperor as the highest commander could exert the greatest efficiency in governance. A principle like “If an official appointed in the morning has no virtue he should be dismissed at night; if an official appointed at night violates the law he should be removed the next morning” shows that the bureaucratic prefectural system could ensure smooth issuing of government orders and let “people of virtue stay at a superior rank, and the people of inferior character stay at a lower rank”. In this way, people would live in peace and the whole state would be in harmony. Therefore, talented people could make achievements and feel the historical situation and realize the purpose of governance to the utmost extent.
Following such a logic, the standard for talent selection was also to be changed. Liu Zongyuan (1974) pointed out in “On the nobility of Heaven” that “Benevolence, righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity were considered noble characters, but they were not clearly interpreted”. The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom advocated benevolence, righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity; in fact, it intended to govern “talented people” by “lineage”, then govern the whole state according to the principles of the patriarchal system. The talent-selection standards in the bureaucratic prefectural system were “brilliance” and “will”. Men with strong will had a “vigorous spirit”, which was “grand and everlasting”, stable and balanced; while men with brilliance had a kind of “pure spirit”, which was “foresighted and promising”, with clear mind and much knowledge. Benevolence, righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity were just like the four seasons, while “brilliance” and “will” were like the transformation of yin and yang, which is really the driving force for the cycle of the four seasons. Therefore, the true meaning of the “nobility of Heaven” was that “brilliance [was] used by Heaven, which [was] eternal”; “by making use of brilliance and will” the mandate of Heaven could be changed according to the situation. Thus Liu Zongyuan (1974) drew the following conclusion: “So those who possess the nobility of Heaven don’t have to possess self-consecration and fidelity, only brilliance and will suffice”. The “diligent pursuit” and “pursuit without satiety” described by Confucius also demonstrate the essence of these two points.
Similar to the resolute supporters in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, there were many advocates of Liu Zongyuan’s arguments for the bureaucratic prefectural system. Su Shi was one of these representatives. According to Su Shi (1981), the reason for Qin overturning the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was obvious, namely, in the late period of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, there were common cases of “officials committing regicide, sons killing fathers, and internecine conflict among brothers, between parents and sons”. At the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, many descendants of Zhou were given the same surname and the emperor was unable to look into their disputes. Li Si had the following explicit comment, “The emperor could not prohibit conflict among the dukes”. According to Su Shi, although the system of the Zhou dynasty was good, it could not be utilized for governance of all ages: Since the three generations of sages instructed the whole world with rituals and music, and waived punishments, however, they could not avoid disasters of usurpation and killing. Since the Han dynasty, the ruler and his ministers, fathers and sons who were involved in killing were the descendants of the dukes, and there were no such cases among the ministers who did not inherit land. In recent times, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was abolished, and thus such disasters almost disappeared. (Su, 1981)
The remarks by Su Shi illustrated the source of internal disintegration of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and were also approved by some later ideologues. From Wang Fuzhi to the scholars in late Qing dynasty, there were many who held this view. Wang Fuzhi started from the debate about the public and the private, and pointed out that the bureaucratic prefectural system was an utterly public system. The Qin and Han dynasties knew well the advantages of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, however, the implementation of the bureaucratic prefectural system was a measure that adapted to the historical trend, and even more, it can be stated that it was an unprecedented measure that created public righteousness of the whole state. As Wang Fuzhi (2013) stated [T]he bureaucratic prefectural system is against the interests of the emperor, and cannot keep the long-term peace and order of the state. However, for the benefit of the whole state, its disadvantages are not as great as those of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. Alas! Qin abolished the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom for private interests, while it was a measure utilized by Heaven to implement the bureaucratic prefectural system. It is pushed by Heaven.
It should be said that Wang Fuzhi’s above-mentioned views have greatly pushed forward the rationale of the existence of the bureaucratic prefectural system. But it depends on how to define the basic problem of “public righteousness in the world”. The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was established based on the patriarchal system, demonstrating the principle of maintaining governance for all ages by one surname. But in the eyes of Wang Fuzhi this was not the case: “Heaven will let people have an emperor, even if no one intends to be the emperor”. So, at first, “people recommended prestigious and meritorious men as leaders, and selected one of them as the emperor”. Therefore, the reason for fairness of people is “there should be someone to be respected”, rather than an Honored Head whose tablet was not removed for a hundred generations. Why? The reason is that the so-called “emperor” was chosen by “Heaven”, and there should be an emperor among people, and the emperor is the man at the call of the mandate of the Heaven. But what is Heaven? Wang Fuzhi had the answer: “In face of changing situations, principles may also change. That might be the will of heaven!” (Wang, 2013). To adapt to the mandate of Heaven, we must first understand the relationship between “principle” and “situation”. “Principle” refers to the law that since Heaven doesn't change, it would not change either, with the meaning of natural transformation; and the so-called “situation” emphasizes the fortune or trend of the actual change, which is the driving force that could transform history to reality. The dialectic relationship between principle and situation demonstrates the truth: the principle changes with the situation and the situation comes out according to principle; “the activities of people formed the history, and the principle was embodied in the historical activities of people”. Here, Wang Fuzhi's view on the history after the Warring States period paid much more attention to the priority of situational change, with some hint of holistic judgment. He believed that, from the Warring States period to the Qin and Han dynasties, the concept of the “Son of heaven” experienced great changes. The two powers in the transformation from Yin and Zhou and when Qi unified the six countries were different; the bases for one family dominating the whole country and governance by all people were different. Thus the public’s understanding of the instrument is also totally different.
First, the bureaucratic prefectural system started from the Warring States period, which was before the Qin dynasty: “What Qin overturned were the six states, it didn't annihilate the states enfeoffed in Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties”. This means that the six states overturned by Qin didn’t follow the political enfeoffmental system of fiefdom of the Zhou dynasty. Wang Fuzhi stated that the system whereby the dukes inherited the state, implemented at the beginning of the Zhou, changed a lot during the Warring States period, and “it was changed by the situation”. The reason for the termination of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was the rigorous hierarchy: An officer's son is always an officer, a farmer's son is always a farmer. But people are born with different talents, there are stubborn people among officers, and there are also outstanding people among farmers. The outstanding people would not always be subordinate to the stubborn people; that change would be brought about by the situation. (Wang, 2013)
Wang Fuzhi pointed out, when elections were implemented in each state, that the prefecture chiefs and county magistrates had long held the power of dukes. Prefectual governors Mu and Du also seized the duties of Fangbo. So talented were they, they could not abide by the principle of the hereditary system. Once they did so, the principles of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom would be destroyed and the incompetent descendants of the magistrates and governors would become the source of maladministration. Thus, there was a huge contradiction between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the actual bureaucratic system. The latter has become a trend that cannot be reversed. Until the enfeoffment at the beginning of the Han dynasty, a period not far from the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, “what people saw and talked of was that of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom”, so people regarded the abolishment of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom by the Emperor of Qin and Li Si as “a crime of generations”. Jia Yi (1976) proposed to “distribute land to all descendants of dukes equally and weaken the power of the dukes”, which was a view not in line with the historical situation, and thus fundamentally different from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. In short, there were profound historical factors informing the Qin and Han dynasties’ choice of the bureaucratic prefectural system rather than the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom: “The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom should not be adopted in later generations, since people could not bear it and reform was the inevitable trend”.
The change from enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system
Some scholars have commented that Wang Fuzhi plays down the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and praises the bureaucratic prefectural system. Actually this view is superficial to some extent. Wang Fuzhi never believed that the bureaucratic prefectural system was an ideal traditional governance system, but that it was one “in which the emperor was isolated without any assistance, so the regime could not last longer than the Shang and Zhou dynasties”. Governance based on concentration of power could not facilitate long-lasting power, and the way of handling the relationship between the higher and lower ranks of the people was one of the greatest difficulties. Wang Fuzhi never mentioned that the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom itself was an inappropriate system. Instead, he believed that except for the standard single-track bureaucratic prefectural system and the centralized system implemented by Qin (Yan, 2007), 3 generations after Han integrated some elements of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to differing degrees, rather than copying the system blindly.
For example, for the Han dynasty, enfeoffment had different meanings at different times. “Emperor Gaozu of Han enfeoffed land to a great number of his descendants, and this action was in the aftermath of the Zhou dynasty. While Emperor Wu of Han downplayed the dukes, that was a harbinger for the Tang and Song dynasties”. This means that it was not until the reign of Emperor Wu of Han that the views of the pre-imperial period were corrected. Governance according to the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom could only make achievement by delegating political power to lower levels. Wang Fuzhi (2013) pointed out explicitly that, “the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, education, local recommendation and examination should supplement one another. Any one of them should not be neglected”. Dong Zhongshu suggested recommending two able officers among dukes and governors every year, and this suggestion was in line with the way of local recommendation and examination. But this doesn’t mean elections were implemented in the bureaucratic prefectural system. Only by integrating local recommendations and examinations with building schools and promoting the imperial college could governance be rectified under the bureaucratic prefectural system. “Local recommendation and examination serves as a supplementary to the imperial college. The talents recommended from towns were educated in country schools. After school education had been implemented for dozens of years, local recommendation and examination were carried out”. According to Wang Fuzhi (2013), only Dong Zhongshu understood the idea that the “variation of changes is according to the requirements of the time”, while the views intended to restore dividing five ranks of people in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom were merely “feeling content when knowing the achievements made by ancient people”; they “didn't look into the meaning and intentions of ancient people and didn’t take into account the real situation”, resulting in disorder in law and the breeding of malpractices. Finally, the “principles applied in ancient times finally died out”. Therefore, when discussing the issue of the existence of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom under the conditions of the bureaucratic prefectural system, we should realize the importance of education in the selection of talents. The key point of the so-called situation in which “all who are selected are not worthy” doesn't lie in “not knowing people”, but in the crime of “failing in teaching them”.
From this perspective, there is actually a significant premise to Wang Fuzhi's (2013) understanding in Thought and Question, Comments on “History as a Mirror”, namely that the gap between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system was very big. However, this conclusion is not the core point in the analysis. The key to the question is the historical conditions and turning point in the change from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system, as well as the changes of evidence in political civilization.
In conclusion, from the end of the spring and autumn period to the Warring States period, there were several important structural changes. First, the traditional feudal states were characterized by small city-states with small populations. This is the benefit of feudalism. However, the pattern of small states with small populations gradually evolved into the game of great-power politics. The hegemonic war turned the original meaning of fiefdom into a military relationship among countries. At that time, the concept of the state had already surpassed the patriarchal state under the enfeoffmental system, and held the meaning of a political state. According to Du Zhengsheng’s study, the form of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in the Zhou dynasty was that of a military and political castle, around which were border regions of controlled farms. The so-called “state” was only a small area within the inner city and its outer suburbs. “The city had an inner wall of 3 li in circumference, and an outer wall of 7 li”—the smaller is the city-state—and it is not difficult to imagine a societal form based on clan cohabitation or clan communism (Du, 1979: 123). However, in the late spring and autumn period, the Jin kindom took the lead in reforming the military system, taxes, and corvée, establishing military power on the basis of a prefecture with 500 households, and based on the field-change system, supplemented by the qiujia and qiufu military taxation systems; the enfeoffmental system of the Zhou dynasty was changed, and farming and military power were expanded to suburbs and wilder regions, thus a new phenomenon emerged of “armed forces formed of rustics” (Yang, 2003: 247–251). This is the origin of the so-called “institutional reform of the county” (Liu, 2006: 275–280). Du Zhengsheng (1979) wrote, “according to enfeoffmental rites, serving in the army is a right rather than a duty”. However, when the right of serving in the army expanded from the state to the outskirts of the state, people living there were greatly liberated, and the differences between public and private interests in the enfeoffmental system or well-field system were confused; the “county” became a private fief on a much larger scale, so the county could afford the heavy taxation, the farmers gradually went away from farmland to exploit new means of livelihood in the restricted area, and the nobility could not forbid this trend (Qian, 1991: 91). In the political system, the position of political officer was set up in each county, which was taken up by people of non-noble identity, who had great advantages in aspects of soldier recruitment and duty deduction. They rose and became aristocratic families and seized fiefs and central powers. Therefore, Du Zhengsheng came to the following conclusion: “[S]ociety after the middle Spring and Autumn Period developed in the ‘private’ direction, big aristocrats expanded their family power and destroyed traditional rituals and eradicated the little bit of ‘freedom’ and protection for the citizens in the era of city-states” (Du, 1979: 147).
Second, with the concentration and migration of populations and the expansion of private sectors, the city-states became territory states, so warfare among them was inevitable. In order for a country to achieve prosperity and a powerful army, first it should accumulate wealth, then it should expand its army, and the most urgent need is talented individuals. Traditional scholars were merely retainers or stewards for great officers. They “studied ceremonies and music”, “exercised archery and charioteering”, or “practiced calligraphy and mathematics”. However, in the times when rites collapsed and music disappeared, the image of the new scholar was established by Confucius: “A great minister is one who serves his prince according to what is right, and when he finds he cannot do so, retires”, making a breakthrough in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom; it was elevated to a higher stage by Mencius in the Warring States period (see Tao, 1929). No matter which sect the scholars belonged to, no matter where they were born, as long as they were people of talent, the aristocratic class would treat them with great kindness. According to Yan Gengwang (2006a: 27), Civilian education achieved unprecedented development among the people; scholars had freedom in pursuing officerships. Some emperors were fond of knowledge, some were fond of fame. They would employ talented individuals and involve them in political affairs, scholars could live in big mansions and were highly paid.
Yan Gengwang believed that the customs of Western Qin best represented the trend in the Warring States period: “Qin was located to the northwest, had the customs of wild tribes and advocated military force … So its folk custom was simple and plain, not upholding rituals” (Yan, 2006b: 88). Lao Gan believed that the royal clans in the Qin were people of the kingdoms of Xu and Zhao. There were also many survivors of the Western Zhou dynasty, who had intermarried with the Jin people for generations. Therefore, it is not right to regard the political reform of Qin from the perspective of the customs of northwest wild tribes. On the contrary, reforms in the Qin were representative of the historical trend at that time, and the development possessed universal significance. In particular, Shang Yang introduced the legalist thought of the kingdoms of Zhao, Wei, and Han into the Qin, showing a basic concept of governance: His political principle was strengthening public government and weakening private interests; he advocated production rather than distribution in economic principle; then organized the people under the leadership of the state for agriculture and warfare for the state, and then established objective law to support his policy. These conditions made Qin an organized and efficient state that made it invincible in the world. (Lao, 2006: 26) Similar to the bureaucratic prefectural system and the state system was not well established … [and] the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom existed in name only, a citizen or a square meter of the land belonged to the central government, the dukes only had to live on taxation in their fiefs. (Qian, 1991)
In conclusion, it can be seen that there should be historical premises for the views of Liu Zongyuan and Wang Fuzhi that “the bureaucratic prefectural system would last for two thousand years without alternation”. These conditions can be summarized in the following points: First, along with population growth and mobility, the strengthening of productive competition, and the opening of new roads, the trend for abolishing the public field system emerged, resulting in land annexation and wealth concentration. Second, the recruitment of rustics undermined the privilege of the nobility in warfare, and a military merit system gradually replaced the title system. At the same time, the enfeoffed states annexed each other and transformed them into territorial states. The fighting among dukes became wars among states to some extent. Third, with the implementation of the bureaucratic prefectural system, political participation on the part of the nobility declined, and the trend of pursuing officerships was on the rise. Fourth, two major political and ideological trends emerged: the first was so-called nationalistic politics taking the “public world” as the core ideology; the second was the idea of removing the theory of ascribed hierarchy. And this is the essence of thought of the legalist school.
If we say the advocates of the bureaucratic prefectural system started from historical situations to rebut the lofty views of the advocates of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, then even if we study from the perspective of specific history, it can be easily found that although the Qin, as a representative of the single-track bureaucratic prefectural system and rule by legalism, established a unified pattern of civilization, it soon collapsed. In the words of Yan Yuan (2000), “The bureaucratic prefectural system is an instrument of emperor’s selfish purposes … and brought endless disasters to the people. The First Emperor of Qin committed the most heinous crimes!” (Yan, 2000). Based on the full explication of history, we cannot draw the conclusion that the bureaucratic prefectural system can recreate the whole world for endless generations. In fact, the argument between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system is not only one of concepts or institutions, or between “reality” and “trend” in history, rather it is an argument about the composition of Chinese civilization and its spiritual core. By inferring from the reality of history, it is better to say that this kind of argument itself constitutes the civilizational history that “lasted for two thousand years and cannot be changed”. In other words, the argument between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system has never been undertaken in isolation, no matter from the aspects of standpoint, institution, realistic experience, or material and spirit. The wane and wax, conflict and compromise between them constituted the real reflection of each historical period.
Infusing the idea of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom into the bureaucratic prefectural system
Wang Fuzhi took the reign of Emperor Wu of Han as the boundary in discussing the governance of the Western Han dynasty. Before the Western Han dynasty, Emperor Gaozu of Han enfeoffed land to a great number of his descendants. This measure had some hint of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. However: After the rebellion of the seven kingdoms, the power of the dukes was extinguished, Yan [Zhufu Yan, a minister in the reign of Emperor Wu of Han] disclosed the proclivities of the king of Qi and this resulted in his suicide. The other kings had to remedy their faults, and felt content as descendants of the kings … therefore, it was clear that the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom should be reformed and not be restored. The trend was formed and waited for a sudden change. (Wang, 2013)
Here, we can clearly see that even if the factors of enfeoffment were incorporated into the bureaucratic prefectural system during the period of Emperor Wu, the method adopted was first to move the factors of this system downwards, and at the same time, it took the imperial college as another track for the system, for the purpose of supplementation, balance, and elevation. In other words, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom under the bureaucratic prefectural system was no longer enfeoffment under the original unified system; rather, it evolved into another concept or spiritual system, in which education or cultivation became its core spirit.
Fei Xiaotong paid special attention to the key changes in this period. He said that in the political sense of traditional scholar-officials, there were ideas of Confucian orthodoxy that are different from the political system. Even after the transition from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the imperial era, or the structure of imperial power was completely established, the Confucian orthodoxy became the most powerful ideological system, namely, Confucianism was the ideology most suitable for the political structure of the imperial power era. However, this statement of Fei Xiaotong does not mean that Confucian orthodoxy was the supplement to the imperial government. On the contrary, Confucian orthodoxy was a comparative and balanced system to the political system. Confucius was regarded as the “teacher for all ages” in the era in which the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was replaced by the bureaucratic prefectural system, so he really stands for the model of scholar-officials in the imperial power era. Although Confucian orthodoxy was not the mainstream of politics, it was the upholder and defender of a kind of political regulation. “The political system could burn books and bury alive Confucian scholars, launch literary inquisitions, interfere with Confucian orthodoxy”, and Confucian orthodoxy could also “choose to stay if it was not insulted, otherwise it could choose to depart” (Fei, 1999b: 494). However, Dong Zhongshu expected to take advantage of the omen theory on the relationship between Heaven and the people, as well as natural disasters to warn the imperial power. He reinterpreted the Spring and Autumn Annals: The starting point of kingship lies in uprightness. Uprightness goes after king, and king goes after the spring … It means that the king should follow the mandate of Heaven, and makes his actions upright. So uprightness is the starting point of kingship.
In Chinese history after Emperor Wu of Han, the argument on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system was no longer about the selection of and judgment on two kinds of governance systems. The two thousand years of the bureaucratic prefectural system still existed as a political form under the central power, taking the emperor as the supreme symbol of power; while the enfeoffment system as well as the mandate of Heaven and the virtues it represents became the spiritual basis for the scholar-officials to adhere to the Confucian orthodoxy and practice the idea of “cultivating themselves, regulating their families, governing their states well, and making the kingdom tranquil and happy” through going into or out of society. Confucius’ image as the “uncrowned king” was cherished by them. The true and concrete history is not only an institutional process, nor a process of ideas, but a result intertwined by the two realistic and spiritual forces. Therefore, this dual pattern of Chinese history shows that it is far from enough to rely solely on institution and the rule of law, and the adjustment of power and interests. Without the restriction of the Confucian orthodoxy on imperial power, without the learning and personality cultivation, without the guidance and exhortation of education, any political form can hardly survive. History shows that from the Qin and Han dynasties to the Wei and Jin, as well as Sui and Tang dynasties, all attempts to recreate the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom overnight were just a fantasy; however, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom was regenerated with a spirit beyond real politics, and was infused into the mind of scholars of every era. It was and is an indestructible power, the root of the continuation of civilization.
Therefore, reintegration of the bureaucratic prefectural system and the spirit of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom has become the most essential issue for generations of ideologues thereafter. It is no wonder that when Gu Yanwu re-clarified the dialectical relationship between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system in discussing the problems in his age he stated explicitly that the essence of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom lies in its archaic nature and its substantial spiritual connotation formed by the three pre-imperial dynasties. Therefore, to solve the governance problems brought about by the bureaucratic prefectural system today, it is necessary to “infuse the idea of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom into the bureaucratic prefectural system”. Here the key is “infusing”, which means that it is not a kind of system transplanting, rather, it is using the spiritual core of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to make up for the realistic defects of the bureaucratic prefectural system. Gu Yanwu stated, knowing the reason for change from the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the bureaucratic prefectural system means knowing the disadvantages of the bureaucratic prefectural system. Did this then mean a return to the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom? The answer was no. Some sages came out and infused the idea of enfeoffmental system of fiefdom into the bureaucratic prefectural system, then the empire was well governed. (Gu, 1983, On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System I) the emperor today is still not satisfied even if he owns all the land as prefectures and counties. He doubts all and controls all. He set up more and more regulations and established inspectors and governors, expecting that the prefecture chiefs would not harm their people. (Gu, 1983, On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System I)
The sages’ method doesn't mean getting rid of the private with the public, it means achieving the public with the private. Gu Yanwu pointed out explicitly that, it is human nature that all people cherish their own family and love their children. So their affection for the emperor and other people should not be as much as that for their own, this human nature was formed long before the three dynasties. The sages took advantage of human nature, and achieved good governance and public interest under one person by way of privateness of the world. (Gu, 1983, On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System VI)
A huge empire, with its stiff and inflexible governance system and concentrated power, creates a situation in which imperial power is suspended above the grassroots society and is not nurtured by intellectual ethos and human relations. The specific method proposed by Gu Yanwu is to incorporate the essence of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom into county-level governance. “Currently the bureaucratic prefectural system is not applied among officials but among petty officials.” This is Gu Yanwu’s (1983) judgment of the bureaucratic prefectural system. “The bureaucratic prefectural system is not applied among officials”, means that the magistrates were not people who knew the customs and human relations to within a thousand li, so they could not improve people’s livelihoods and mores, and as a result, “the officials would not stay at a place for long to implement stable policies among people, therefore, the disasters brought about by thieves, brigands, and western minorities frequently took place”. The so-called “staff feudalism” refers to those who have not cultivated a personality and only know how to do things according to the rules. These people successively succeeded in local politics, kidnapping the power of the state and county, and extracting people’s wealth, “Breeding numerous wolves and tigers among the people” (Gu, 1983, On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System VII). What is even more troublesome is that central government only pays attention to the state distribution. It often uses the name of “all-under-Heaven” to grab local rights by force. Therefore, “this is a disadvantage of law: using the payment to soldiers in the east to pay soldiers in the west; using the food of southern regions to feed the towns in the north”.
Therefore, with the essence of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, by restoring the selection and assessment mechanism for local officials, expanding the autonomy of local administration, and implementing a lifelong appointment system, just like Gu Yanwu wrote in the On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System I, “respect the rank of county leaders and offer them the power of developing the economy and governing people; dismiss the inspectors, set up the official position hereditary system and recruit talents”. Only by doing these things can local politics be revitalized (Qu, 1983: 2). At the same time, select officials through moral quality and public praise based on local recommendation and examination, and then use a series of procedures for the recruitment of the talent of the Tang dynasty, then the defects of the system can be eliminated and real talents can be selected. In the same way, the foundation of local governance lies in giving full play to the role of education and learning by scholars, and cultivating good morale and folk customs. For the use of scholars, there is no set form. For example, Gu Yanwu wrote in On the Bureaucratic Prefectural System IX, those with “talents of virtue who don't want to be officials can serve as teachers; talented people who are learned can serve as county magistrates. In recruiting these talents, we would not miss any capable talents”. It is thus clear that Gu Yanwu placed extremely high expectation on the “official position hereditary system” (Qu, 1983: 3).
Despite the controversy over the methods proposed by Gu Yanwu in later generations, the issue of official system and education has always been a great problem in the local governance of traditional society. To clarify and finely judge this issue, it will be necessary to explain in more detail in other studies. However, from the perspective of political logic, Gu Yanwu intended to implant another path into the governance structure of the bureaucratic prefectural system, which is quite similar to the logic of the contracting system that we are familiar with today. The bureaucratic prefectural system functions on interests, while the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom functions on righteousness. Both administration and education should be stressed. If there is no enough reasonable space for officials and the people, the delicately designed system is just water without a source. From the discussion of Gu Yanwu, we can clearly conclude two basic points. That is to say, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom here refers to the distinction between officials and staff in the personnel system on one hand, and the the upper and lower levels in the administrative system on the other hand. In a sense, the relationship between Confucianism and the law offers coordination in the official staff system, serves as an emphasis on the inner spirit of the scholar officials, and a balance between technical and professional bureaucrats. While the bureaucratic prefectural system intends to liberate the county administration and below from the huge bureaucratic system, and establish a governance tradition of “inactivity of imperial power; no cases in courts” in the local society under the centralization system (Fei, 1999c: 345).
In empire politics, if we say Gu Yanwu noticed the problem of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in governing prefectures and counties, then Huang Zongxi discovered another major issue, namely the problem of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in frontier governance. There is an unpublished essay entitled “Enfeoffment” in Waiting for Dawn (Huang, 2011), which specifically discussed this issue. In the opening, it states, “After the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, it was the western barbarians who threw the country into disorder and brought disasters. However, I think the disasters were brought about by abolishing the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom”. From Yao and Shun to Qin, it seemed that China had no foreign aggression. In the Qin dynasty, after the implementation of the bureaucratic prefectural system, the country became rich and military force became efficient, but the troubles brought about by western barbarians were not less than those by Chen Sheng and Wu Guang (the leaders of the rebels): “What is the reason? Is it that the western barbarians were cowardly in the past and brave at present? The reason is the adoption of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom” (Huang, 2011). Huang Zongxi believes that the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system had fundamental differences in terms of the method of safeguarding the frontier. From Qin to Song dynasties, the standing army increased to more than one million. The emperor directly grasped army construction, maneuvers, and command of power, but the empire was finally conquered. Comparatively speaking, “In the times of the implementing of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, there was no boundary between soldiers and people, the emperor treated people like sons; people treated the emperor like a father. People did farming when there was no special business, and fought when there was a need for warfare. So labor requisition was carried out for both construction and warfare” (Huang, 2011). Governance in the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom could not only achieve the effect of making people respect their ancestors and assemble within the state and the fief, but could also unite the emperor and the people and give farmers military training to resist the invasion of foreign enemies.
Therefore, the law of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is totally different from that of the bureaucratic prefectural system “there was law before the three dynasties, and no law after the three dynasties. Actually, there was law after the three dynasties, but the law was improper” (Huang, 2011). The law of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom came from the patriarchal system, referring to the universal law by integrating the systems of affection and respect, which is “for the benefit of the whole world”, “the descendants take following their ancestors as filial piety”. The emperor has the responsibility of rearing people so that such a law is one that could prevent crises before they happen. On the contrary, The law of later ages was made to feather one person’s own nest; there was no interest distributed to common people, and all good fortune was collected by the emperor; the emperor would doubt his selfishness in employing one person, so employ another person to restrict the selfishness; the emperor would worry about being cheated in doing one business, so set up another business to avoid being cheated … therefore, the emperor had to set up a rigorous law, while the more rigorous the law is, the more chaotic the world would become. That is what I call the improper law. (Huang, 2011)
In the same way, the emperor who knows the law of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom will not monopolize and control local power in a centralized manner; especially in frontier governance, it is a good method to rule properly according to the principles of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. Huang Zongxi wrote, “The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is far from the present time, but we can restore it according to the circumstances” (Huang, 2011). He well knew that it was impossible to restore the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom completely at that time, but military governorship with the spirit of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom could be rebuilt. In the early Tang dynasty, Emperor Taizong of Tang sent envoys to the border areas. Although he only sent a few envoys and his troops were not strong, the chaos brought about by bandits was controlled. Later, the An-Shi Disturbances arose from military towns, so the disturbances were attributed to military governorship by later generations. Huang Zongxi intended to reverse the bias and pointed out that although An-Shi Disturbances arose from military towns, they were suppressed by the power of military governorship. The collapse of the Tang was caused by the weakness of military governorship rather than the strength of it. Therefore, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom would result in annexation among states and the absence of the emperor’s political education on common people, while the bureaucratic prefectural system would bring about warfare at the frontier. In order to get rid of the defects of the two systems and let them work in harmony, then military towns should be set in the frontiers. (Huang, 2011)
Huang Zongxi’s plan to rebuild military governorship is theoretically still an attempt to “infuse the idea of enfeoffmental system of fiefdom into the bureaucratic prefectural system”. 4 In reality, it is a criticism of the over-centralized political system since Emperor Taizu of Ming, and also a lesson drawn from the experiences of the Manchu conquest of Central China and the collapse of the Ming Dynasty. Restricted by the trend of the times, this is just an idea that cannot be tested by history. In the problem of the distinction between Yi and Xia, overemphasizing the harms of western minorities and war readiness is too narrow-minded. However, Huang Zongxi turned the issue of the relationship between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system from internal affairs to border politics, from the relationship between the central and local governments to the issue of relationships among ethnic groups. This is of great significance in re-examining the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom under the historical condition of the bureaucratic prefectural system.
Further discussion
The discussion above shows that advocates of the bureaucratic prefectural system had some fundamental reasons for talking about history on the basis of “trends”, however, as a form of regime it could not justify itself. Whether starting from the essence of civilizational development or from the internal mechanism of political governance, it is necessary to return to the Classics of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and reactivate the tradition through study of the Classics to solve the practical problems to be dealt with in historiography. In other words, although advocates of the bureaucratic prefectural system seem to have grasped the key points of history, they tend to use realistic logic to refute the ideas of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. However, such rebuttals do not constitute the main points of civilization, nor do they provide a complete explanation of history. Rather, it should be stated that only the argument between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system can constitute a true history incorporating the dual aspects of concept and experience. Moreover, the creativity generated by Chinese history through its own internal negation is precisely enhanced by constantly returning to the motive of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom. From the discussions on Wang Fuzhi, Gu Yanwu, and Huang Zongxi above, this essence can be seen as clearly comprehended.
This demands us to shift from the perspective of Classics studies on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom to the historical perspective of the bureaucratic prefectural system. And then through the analysis and integration of the two systems, the essence of Confucian Classics studies is refocused. However, this process of retrospection and refocusing is no longer a discussion on pure ideas and principles. We must examine the specific ideological system for the formation of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in the Zhou dynasty, and also examine the historical conditions in which the Zhou Dynasty became the foundational institution of Chinese civilization. Only by integrating Confucian Classics studies and historiography to explore the basic ideas of the origins of civilization and its formational principle can we find out more in the argument between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system. In modern Chinese studies, there has been a change from Confucian Classics studies to historiography. Nowadays, present research needs to be further elevated, that is to say, we should explore the essence of Chinese civilization by integrating the two systems.
In point of fact, no matter whether it is from interpretation of the Classics or from the achievements of present historical research, the investigation of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom of the Zhou Dynasty may yield more findings. For example, the enfeoffmental system as stated by the advocates of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom is just an overly idealized theoretical expression. As Xu Zhuoyun (2001) pointed out: “The enfeoffmental system of fiefdom of the Shang and Zhou dynasties is actually a continuation of the political power of local grassroots communities”. The founding of the Western Zhou dynasty was based partly on conquest by military force, partly on the voluntary allegiance of the original small community governors, and thus its power could not reach to inside the communities governed by the dukes (Xu, 2001). Du (1992: 349) also wrote, “There was conquest, so there was colonization. The Zhou people established a long-term colony in the new conquest area with the support of its mighty military power, and it is called ‘enfeoffment’, which could not be realized by merely staying in the palace and accomplishing nothing”. This means that the Zhou people never realized the ideal of enfeoffment to descendants of the same surname, nor did they implement the patriarchal relationship in all the kingdoms; moreover, they didn’t live a harmonious life as imagined by many people, rather, they were always in the process of fighting. The Zhou people could not occupy the whole world substantially, they had to resort to eastern clans in their eastward conquest and appointed them as commanders, “for those eastern clans who paid allegiance and tribute to Zhou dynasty, they tended to grant shell money or ritual antiques, or rewarded fiefs to them” (Du, 1992: 359).
As a matter of fact, enfeoffment to descendants of the same surname was not an absolute thing; there was a considerable proportion of enfeoffment to clans of different surnames. This shows that the patriarchal system and the five-rank system could not be thoroughly implemented across the whole state. Yao Nai even held the view that the fiefs that later became prefectures and counties were not distributed by the Zhou dynasty. In the Central Plain, the area outside the kingdom was submissive to Zhou and adopted the law of Zhou. The area near the barbarian nationalities adopted the law of western states. So the states of Qi, Lu, Wei, and Zheng followed the system of Zhou, while the system of the states of Jin, Qin, and Chu was different from that of Zhou, since they adopted the bureaucratic prefectural system. (Yao, 1991)
This shows that, in discussing the original problems of the political system in the Zhou dynasty and related Classics, the patriarchal system and principles of mourning dress, the ritual system, and the mandate of Heaven are the foundations of the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, and the analysis of the dual-governance structure of Confucian orthodoxy and the political system, kingship and hegemony, rule of man and rule of law, centralization and decentralization should also become an important field in traditional society sociology. However, meanwhile, the problem of the distinction between Yi and Xia as well as its function and impact on the relation between mainland China and border areas should be specified. The reason why the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom became key to exploring Chinese civilization does not only lie in its endogenous logic and mechanism, but also in the dialectical relationship between the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system, as well as their relationship in handling different civilizations and the establishment of the relation with surrounding areas, and the driving force to build the pattern of unity in diversity. The author will discuss this issue in another paper.