Han Yu (768-824), one of the most creative and influential writers in premodern Chinese history, despised the florid and somewhat vacuous parallel prose style that had become fashionable in the centuries between the Han and Tang. In its place, he championed a revival of the simpler “ancient style” (guwen) seen in texts like the Zuozhuan and Shiji. In the cultural or intellectual sphere, he favored purging Chinese society of all Daoist and Buddhist influences and returning to a classical Confucian orthodoxy that he called the Way of the Sages and claimed had been obscured since the death of Mencius, to Chinese civilization’s moral detriment. These positions gained limited traction in the culturally eclectic elite society of the late Tang, but they came to exercise immense influence on the eleventh-century Song literati elite, including the first Neo-Confucian thinkers.

“Yuandao” (Tracing the Way to Its Source) is Han Yu’s most famous and influential essay, a radical reinterpretation of Chinese history since the Qin empire as a narrative of continuous civilizational decline, rather than a cycle of dynasties rising and falling. The essay’s main argument was that only the Confucian tradition, the “Way of the Sages,” was worthy to be called the Way (Dao), and that the Daoist and Buddhist “ways” were fundamentally incompatible with it. Han Yu focuses most of the essay’s polemic on Daoist philosophy. However, an anti-Buddhist line of argument in the essay came to be widely quoted as an elegant formulation of the Annals commentaries’ interpretation of promotion and demotion (see source 1.5). Borrowing the ritual-based interpretation of “barbarizing” demotion from the Zuozhuan (see source 1.2) and more recent Annals commentaries by Lu Chun (d. 805), Han Yu claimed that the practice of Buddhism would eventually turn all the Chinese into barbarians. This rhetorical strategy later inspired arguments that Confucianism was essential to Chinese identity and that both Daoism and Buddhism were barbaric, a discourse that I call “ethnicized orthodoxy” (see Chapter 7 for examples).

The shorter “Yuanren” (Tracing Humanity to Its Source) is not one of Han Yu’s more well-known or well-regarded works. It is noteworthy mainly in that it defines humanity in a manner that implies that only the Chinese are fully human, while arguing that the Chinese are entitled to supremacy over “barbarians” but should exercise it humanely.

~~~~~

From “Yuandao” (Tracing the Way to Its Source)

Extending love to people generously is called humaneness; doing the right thing is called moral duty. Practicing these is called the Way (dao 道); to rely on oneself [to be good] and not look to external aid is called moral power (de 德)…. Whenever I speak of the Way and moral power, I am speaking of what accords with humaneness (ren 仁) and moral duty (yi 義), and this is the opinion of the whole world. Whenever Laozi spoke of the Way and moral power, he was speaking of doing away with humaneness and moral duty, and that was just one man’s personal opinion.¹

The Zhou dynasty declined, Confucius died, and [the Way] suffered from the book-burning of the Qin, the Huang-Lao of the Han², and the Buddhism of the Jin, [Northern] Wei, Liang, and Sui dynasties. Whoever did not go to follow Yang Zhu would go to follow Mozi.³ Whoever did not go to follow Laozi would go to follow the Buddha. If one goes to follow [a new teaching], he will surely abandon the old one. The new teaching becomes his master and the old becomes his slave. Thus he submits to the new teaching and insults the old. Alas! When people of later ages wish to hear of humaneness, moral duty, and the Way and moral power, where can they go to hear it?

The Daoists say, “Confucius was our master’s disciple.” The Buddhists, too, say, “Confucius was our master’s disciple.” Those who follow Confucius, having grown accustomed to such claims, take pleasure in their absurdity and belittle themselves, agreeing: “Our master did once study under them.” They not only say this with their mouths but even write it in books. Alas! When people of later ages wish to hear of humaneness, moral duty, and the Way and moral virtue, where can they go to seek it? People’s love of strangeness and novelty is extreme indeed! Not inquiring into the beginnings and ends of things, all they want to hear is talk of strange things….

The sage-kings went by different titles and names, but their sageliness was based on the same principles. To wear hemp in the summer and fur in the winter, to drink when thirsty and eat when hungry—these are different activities but are based in the same common sense. But now [the Daoists] say: “Why not revert to the simple life of remote antiquity?” That is like criticizing a man wearing fur in winter: “Why not wear hemp, which is more comfortable?” Or like criticizing a hungry man while he eats: “Why not drink, which is easier?”

The commentary says: “In antiquity, those who wished to manifest their luminous moral power throughout the world would first bring good governance to their state. Wishing to bring good governance to their state, they would first set their families in order. Wishing to set their families in order, they would first cultivate themselves. Wishing to cultivate themselves, they would first rectify their minds. Wishing to rectify their minds, they would first make their intentions sincere.”⁴ In that case, the men of antiquity who rectified their minds and made their intentions sincere did so in order to contribute to the world. But now those who wish to regulate their minds [through Buddhism] do so by regarding the world, the state, and the family as foreign to themselves and by rejecting the natural norms of human relations: sons do not acknowledge their fathers, subjects do not acknowledge their ruler, and commoners do not engage in their proper occupations.⁵

When Confucius wrote the Annals, if any of the lords used barbarian rites, then he regarded him as a barbarian.⁶ [If barbarians] were promoted (jin) to the level of the Central Lands, then he regarded them as [people of] the Central Lands.⁷ The classics say, “The barbarians have rulers but are still not equal to Xia states that do not.”⁸ The Odes says, “He smote the Rong and Di; he punished Jing and Shu.”⁹ Now we are elevating a law of the barbarians (Buddhism) above the teachings of the former kings. How much longer can this go on before we all become barbarians?

What are the teachings of the former kings? Extending love to people generously is called humaneness; doing the right thing is called moral duty. Practicing these is called the Way; to rely on oneself [to be good] and not look to external aid is called moral power. The texts containing these teachings are the Odes, Documents, Changes, and Annals. Their methods are rites, music, laws, and institutions of government. Their classes of commoners are scholars, peasants, artisans, and merchants. Their proper hierarchies are those between rulers and subjects, fathers and sons, teachers and students, hosts and guests, elder and younger brothers, and husbands and wives. Their proper forms of clothing are made of hemp and silk. Their proper dwellings are houses. Their proper diet is millet, rice, fruit, vegetables, fish, and meat. Their Way is easy to understand and their teachings are easy to practice….

One might ask: “Which Way are you talking about?” I would say: “What I call the Way is not what others have called the way of Laozi or the way of the Buddha. Yao passed it on to Shun, Shun passed it on to Yu, Yu passed it on to Tang, and Tang passed it on to King Wen, King Wu, and the Duke of Zhou. King Wen, King Wu, and the Duke of Zhou passed it on to Confucius, who passed it on to Mencius. After Mencius died, it was not passed on intact. Xunzi and Yang Xiong chose parts of it, but not the best; they wrote about it, but not clearly. Before the Duke of Zhou, [the sages] were rulers, so their principles could spread widely; from the Duke of Zhou on, [the sages] were subjects, so their teachings could be transmitted through the ages.

What then can be done? I say: “Only by blocking and stopping [what is wrong] can [what is right] again flow and flourish. Laicize these people (the Daoist and Buddhist clergy) into [productive] subjects¹⁰, burn their books (scriptures), turn their monasteries into houses, and guide them by clarifying the Way of the former [sage-]kings. Then widowers, widows, orphans, childless men, the disabled, and the sick would all be cared for.¹¹ That would be close to a perfect solution!”

From “Yuanren” (Tracing Humanity to Its Source)

That which has form above is called Heaven, and that which has form below is called Earth. That which lives between them is called humanity (ren 人). The forms above include the sun, moon, and stars—these are all a part of Heaven. The forms below include grass, trees, mountains, and rivers—these are all a part of Earth. Those living between them include barbarians (Yi-Di) and animals—these are all a part of humanity.

One might ask: “In that case, is it acceptable to call animals human?” I would answer, “It is not. If I point at a mountain and ask, ‘Is this a mountain?’, you would say, ‘We can call it a mountain,’ because the grass, trees, and animals on the mountain are all encompassed within it. But if I point at a blade of grass on the mountain and ask, “Is this a mountain?’, you would say, ‘We can’t call it a mountain.’”

If the way of Heaven is thrown into disorder, then the sun, moon, and stars will not move in their proper courses. If the way of Earth is thrown into disorder, then the grass, trees, mountains, and rivers will lose their balance. If the way of humanity is thrown into disorder, then barbarians and animals will not live in their proper states. Heaven is the lord of the sun, moon, and stars; Earth is the lord of the grass, trees, mountains, and rivers; human beings are the lords of the barbarians and animals. A lord who abuses his subjects is not following the way of lordship. That is why a sage regards [human beings, barbarians, and animals] with the same humaneness, according equal treatment to both friends and strangers.

---

1. Han Yu targets Laozi specifically because of the title of the text attributed to him, Daodejing (The Classic of the Way and Moral Power). ↩︎
2. Huang-Lao was an eclectic intellectual tradition in the early Han, inspired by the Daodejing and espousing a small, non-interventionist government. Han Yu conflates it with the Daoist religious tradition, which emerged in the late Eastern Han and deified Laozi as a manifestation of the cosmic Way. ↩︎
3. On Yang Zhu and Mozi, see the introduction to source 1.4. ↩︎
4. This quotes the Liji chapter “Daxue” (Higher Learning), which actually prescribes one further step: “Wishing to make their intentions sincere, they first extended their knowledge. The way to extend knowledge is to investigate things.” ↩︎
5. Here, Han Yu is criticizing the Buddhist ideal of monasticism. ↩︎
6. See the case of Qǐ in source 1.2. ↩︎
7. See the cases of Chu and Wu in source 1.5. ↩︎
8. Quoting Analects 3.5; see source 1.3. ↩︎
9. This quotes the ode “Bigong” (see source 1.1) and is probably also inspired by Mencius’s use of the passage to attack Xu Xing’s teachings as barbaric (see source 1.4). ↩︎
10. The text reads ren qi ren, “humanize these humans,” which makes little sense. Some commentators believe that this is a relic of the Tang dynasty’s taboo on the word min (commoner), which was part of Tang Taizong’s given name. Typically, Tang writers like Han Yu would substitute ren (person, human being) for min, turning min qi ren (turn these people into subjects) into ren qi ren. A post-Tang editor would have reversed the tabooing in this essay by replacing ren with min where appropriate, but he presumably overlooked this instance. ↩︎
11. This alludes to the Liji chapter “Liyun” (The Evolution of the Rites), in which Confucius is depicted describing an ancient golden age of Great Unity (Datong) when “the great Way was practiced and the world belonged to all.” One of its features was that widows, orphans, childless men, the disabled, and the sick all received care. ↩︎