Su Shi, also known as Su Dongpo (Su of the East Slope), was the most creative writer of his generation, a master of both poetry and prose. He first demonstrated his literary talents by passing the jinshi examinations of 1057 at the age of 19, and the special decree examinations of 1061 at the age of 23. However, his outspokenness and strong dislike of dogmatism caused him to fall afoul of the dominant reformist faction at the Song imperial court after 1069. Between 1079 and his death in 1101, he spent most of his time in exile in remote parts of south China, including Hainan island. Sympathetic to the Daoist and Buddhist worldviews, the free-spirited Su was a sharp critic of both the reformists and the conservative, anti-reform Neo-Confucian Cheng Yi (see source 3.5) for insisting on ideological conformity and uniformity.

“Lun Han Yu” (On Han Yu) was one of the essays that Su Shi composed for the jinshi examinations in 1057, and consisted of a series of bold criticisms of various essays by Han Yu. “Wangzhe buzhi Yi-Di lun” (On “The True King Does not Seek to Govern the Barbarians”) was an essay composed on a set topic (a quote from He Xiu’s Gongyang subcommentary) during the decree examinations in 1061. Both essays were meant as displays of literary skill and intellectual creativity, rather than serious expositions of philosophy. However, they reflect their young author’s mastery of two distinct modes of speaking about barbarians and barbarism: the dehumanizing mode in “Lun Han Yu,” and the ethnocentric moralist mode in “Wangzhe buzhi Yi-Di lun.”

~~~~~

From “Lun Han Yu” (On Han Yu)

When it comes to the Way of the Sages, there are some who run after and love its name, and there are some who find contentment and pleasure in its substance…. Han Yu, too, knew how to love the name of the Way of the Sages, but could not find pleasure in its substance. Why do I say so? His arguments were highly original, he greatly exalted Confucius and Mencius, and he was extremely harsh in rejecting Yang Zhu, Mozi, the Buddha, and Laozi. This was how he exerted himself, and one cannot say he did not do his utmost. But his arguments were also logically unsophisticated, incoherent, and undisciplined, often contradicting themselves without him realizing it….

Han Yu’s “Yuanren” (Tracing Humanity to Its Source) says, “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 Sages are different from the followers of Mozi in recognizing distinctions. Now, when Han Yu says “regard with the same humaneness,” he means to treat barbarians using the way for treating human beings, and to treat animals using the way for treating barbarians. Is that acceptable? Giving them skills by teaching them, and giving them understanding by transforming them: that is how to treat human beings humanely. Not scorning their inadequate ritual propriety but reciprocating their friendly sentiments, and not rebuking them when they depart but commending them when they come [to submit]: that is how to treat barbarians humanely. Slaughtering them in the right season and using them in moderation: that is how to treat animals humanely. That being so, how can we treat them equally?

From “Wangzhe buzhi Yi-Di lun” (On “The True King Does not Seek to Govern the Barbarians”)

Barbarians (Yi-Di) cannot be governed as the Central Lands are governed. They are like birds and beasts: if one seeks to bring great order to them, it will surely lead to great chaos. The sage-kings knew this and therefore governed them through non-governance, for governing them through non-governance is the profoundest way to govern them. The Annals records, “Our lord (Lord Yin) had a conference with the Rong at Qian,” and He Xiu said, “A true king does not seek to govern the barbarians, but the Rong are named here to show that when the barbarians come [to submit], we do not refuse them, and when they leave, we do not pursue them.”²

There is no [text] in the world more perfectly rigorous and detailed in its way of using [language] than the Annals. When the Annals speaks of dukes and princes or records names, such that rulers are acknowledged as lords and subjects are acknowledged as ministers, these are always references to Qi or Jin or, if not, to states allied with Qi or Jin. When it speaks only of provinces, states, clan names, or “men,” so that rulers are not acknowledged as lords and subjects are not acknowledged as ministers, these are always references to Qin or Chu or, if not, to states allied with Qin or Chu. Now, when the rulers of Qi or Jin governed their states, supported and defended the Son of Heaven, and loved and nurtured the people, how can they possibly have conformed fully to ancient mores? They must have employed deception and force mixed with humaneness and moral duty. Thus they were unable to be purely of the Central Lands. Qin and Chu, too, were not merely avaricious and shameless, acting recklessly without regard for [the consequences]. They must also have had rulers who upheld the Way and did their moral duty. Thus Qin and Chu did not go to the extent of being pure barbarians.

The rulers of Qi and Jin were unable to be purely of the Central Lands, yet the Annals frequently directs approval at them. When they do something good, it is anxious to record this, fearing only that it will not be known to later generations; when they do wrong, it finds many ways to make excuses for this, fearing only that they will not become superior men. The ruler of Qin and Chu did not go to the extent of being pure barbarians, yet the Annals frequently shows disapproval of them. When they do something good, it promotes them only after [the good deeds] have accumulated; when they do something abhorrent, it omits this and does not record it, regarding it as unworthy of record. In matters of right and wrong, it is biased in favor of Qi and Jin and inclined toward detesting Qin and Chu, in order to show that one should not turn away from the Central Lands and toward the barbarians for even one day. If even those who are not purely [of the Central Lands or of the barbarians] are sufficient for expressing the praise and deprecation [of the Annals], then one can know that it is even more so in the case of those who are purely [of the Central Lands or of the barbarians]. That is why I say there is no [text] in the world more perfectly rigorous and detailed in its way of using [language] than the Annals.

As for the Rong, how could they be only [as bad] as Qin or Chu, who descended into [a state of] barbarism (Rong-Di)?³ Yet the Annals records it as “our lord had a conference with the Rong at Qian”; it does not blame Lord [Yin] and implies that the Rong were capable of attending conferences. Why is this so? It is clear that the Rong were unable to have a conference with Lord [Yin] using the proper ritual protocol for a conference. Scholars have had serious doubts [about this line] and sought an explanation for it.  Hence it was said, “A true king does not seek to govern the barbarians, but the Rong are named here to show that when the barbarians come [to submit], we do not refuse them, and when they leave, we do not pursue them.” The Rong could not be drawn into [a ruler’s] embrace and subdued through transformative teaching; it would be fortunate enough if they did not come ferociously, bearing arms, and engage us [in battle] on the frontier. How much more [fortunate] would it be that they knew that there was such a thing as a conference and wanted to conduct one? Would this intent not be worthy of high praise? Otherwise, if one should rebuke them strongly for [not abiding by the proper] ritual protocol, then they would be embarrassed and fly into a rage, and a great calamity would ensue. Confucius was deeply worried about this and therefore responded to their coming by recording it as “a conference,” as if to say, “That is good enough.” He thus governed them in the profoundest way through non-governance. From this we can see that when the Annals expresses detestation toward barbarians, it is not detestation toward pure barbarians but rather, detestation toward those from the Central Lands who descend into [a state of] barbarism.

---

1. See source 3.1. ↩︎
2. See source 1.5. ↩︎
3. On the perception of Qin and Chu as Chinese states that became barbarized due to their frontier locations, see source 1.1, note 2 and source 1.5, note 12. ↩︎