Thoughts (History of Qin and Han Dynasty 01)

sequence

You may not know that the Qin and Han dynasties in Chinese history are a very unique period. In world history, many people divide some major civilizations into time periods, and this time period often refers to the most prominent characteristics of this period. For example, the history of ancient Egypt was divided into the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, and the New Kingdom. The periods between each period are called the First Intermediate Period and the Second Intermediate Period, so there was also the Pre-Kingdom period before the Old Kingdom.

In fact, the basis for this division is that the Old Kingdom period includes several dynasties, but relatively speaking, during this period of Egyptian history, the unified empire existed for a longer period of time, or it was the norm.

Although there were dynasties in the First Intermediate Period and the Second Intermediate Period, they were like the Five Barbarians and Sixteen Kingdoms in China. They were short-lived and chaotic, and no stable empire was formed. In fact, other civilizations were also like this, including the descriptions of Mayan civilization and European civilization. Now people often say that Greece and Rome belong to the classical period or ancient times. In the Middle Ages, the Middle Ages was a relatively chaotic era. At least many people think so, a unique era between ancient Greece and Rome and later modern democratic countries.

After the Enlightenment, some people say that it was after the Renaissance that the whole of Europe entered a new era, and a complete set of modern civilization gradually emerged.

Many people refer to the so-called First Empire, Second Empire, First Republic and Second Republic.

This kind of name has even been used by some people in Chinese history.

The Republic of China was founded in 1911 and this time point was called the First Republic, and the People's Republic of China was called the Second Republic. In short, if we adopt this point of view to look at Chinese history, we all know that the analysis of Chinese history is a very complicated issue.

Many people have noticed that the Qin and Han dynasties were a very important era in Chinese history. The importance of this era lies in the fact that it was the period when China's history changed from the three dynasties of many princes to a great empire. Moreover, this great empire was relatively stable during this period, which laid the foundation for all aspects of the later Chinese Empire.

But after the end of the Han Dynasty, specifically after the Yellow Turban Rebellion, the empire entered a long period of chaos. Before that was the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, which was a relatively chaotic period. The Yellow Turban Rebellion basically ended the history of the Qin and Han Empires as a stable empire. After the Yellow Turban Rebellion, everyone knew that the empire had actually entered a period of unity and division. At first, the princes divided and formed the Three Kingdoms. After the Three Kingdoms, the Three Kingdoms returned to the Jin Dynasty. The Jin Dynasty unified but it was short-lived, only a few decades, and then the Five Barbarians Invaded China and the Eight Kings Rebellion broke out.

Until 581 AD, Emperor Wen of Sui Dynasty reunified China. Some people say that this period of time was the second period of the development of the Chinese Empire, a relatively stable stage. Then came the Five Dynasties at the end of the Tang Dynasty, which actually started after the An-Shi Rebellion. After the An-Shi Rebellion, the unified Tang Dynasty was basically in name only.

In fact, the various regions were divided into feudal lords, which later developed into the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms.

Although the Northern Song Dynasty unified China later, the unification was incomplete. It was the so-called Song, Liao, Xia, Jin, Yuan, and Dali. These countries coexisted during this period. So some people say that this is also China's intermediate period, until the Yuan Dynasty unified China. During the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, the empire revived again. And it should be said that the scope of the empire in the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties was larger than the previous two, and it was also a process of expansion. Therefore, in this sense, we regard the Qin and Han dynasties as the first imperial era in Chinese history, which has its basis.

That is the perspective usually used when studying the history of a civilization today.

As for the First Empire itself,

It is a process of construction. From the pre-empire era, that is, from the three dynasties of Xia, Shang and Zhou (let's not argue whether it was the Xia Dynasty), when there were many princes, it gradually evolved through a chaotic era and gradually formed such an empire. Then of course, this empire had a complete set of institutional arrangements that could last for hundreds of years. This institutional arrangement later caused many problems. So that these problems finally accumulated and led to its final collapse. Here I would like to mention that there were many dynasties in Chinese history, and wars broke out after the collapse of the dynasty. Therefore, many people believe that Chinese history is a cycle of order and chaos with the replacement of dynasties as the basic content, which is different from the general trend of the world described in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is that after a long period of unity, there will be division, and after a long period of division, there will be unity. Now there is this person who says that after chaos, there will be order, and after order, there will be chaos. They believe that each dynasty is a cycle, but in fact, if you look at it from a macro perspective, there are actually some changes over a longer period of time in addition to this cycle.

First, the cycle itself is not the same. In the several intermediate periods of Chinese history that I mentioned before, the stability of these empires is often poor, these dynasties are relatively short, and the territory is relatively small. The internal situation is not stable enough.

The three historical periods I just mentioned are the Qin and Han Dynasties, the Sui and Tang Dynasties, and the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties. Compared with other periods, it is relatively stable and different from other dynasties. What is more important is the institutional arrangements on which each period of this great empire was established and the basis for its cohesion.

In the case of inheritance, it also has some different characteristics. Therefore, the Qin and Han dynasties are different from the Sui and Tang dynasties in many aspects, and the Sui and Tang dynasties are also different from the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties in many aspects.

Therefore, I think it is very important for us to understand this period of history. It is to explore how these most basic institutional arrangements, which are the basis of the first empire of Qin and Han, were formed and what are the main contents of it.

What problems arose during its operation? How did the accumulation of these problems lead to the disintegration of the First Empire? Therefore, this actually determines that we should focus this research and discussion on two ends, the change from Zhou to Qin and the change from Han to Wei.

In fact, we want to explore the rise and fall of this first empire. How was this stable and powerful empire established and how did it collapse later? As for the system and operation of this empire itself, I think both its rationality and its drawbacks can be most clearly seen from these two ends . Its rationality is the reason why the change from Zhou to Qin was completed. Its inherent drawbacks are, of course, the reason why the change from Han to Wei occurred later.

During the Qin and Han Dynasties, the Records of the Grand Historian, the Book of Han, the Book of the Later Han, and the Records of the Three Kingdoms are the basic documents for studying this period of history, because there was basically no so-called unofficial history during this period. Or it is not that there was no unofficial history, but that it was not preserved. We cannot see local chronicles, and there is basically no collection of poets' works that we can see. In fact, there are fragments. If you mention it, it is the "Complete Ancient Three Dynasties, Qin, Han, Three Kingdoms, and Six Dynasties" of the Qing Dynasty.

In fact, most of them are pieced together from official history passages, and are not really collections of essays in the true sense of the word.

There were basically no collections of poets' works during the Qin and Han dynasties.

The kind of archival materials that we attach great importance to in the study of Ming and Qing history

There are many archives of the Ming and Qing dynasties preserved in the Palace Museum, of course, mainly Qing archives. There are very few Ming archives, so it is impossible to have Qin and Han archives. The archival materials are the wooden slips and Han bamboo slips discovered by archaeologists that I will talk about later. Some of these things can be considered to have archival properties. Of course, it is too random, so from the perspective of literature alone, the researchable materials of Qing history are far better than those of Qin and Han history.

01

We point out that our first empire of the Qin and Han dynasties was created in the process of the transition from Zhou to Qin. The starting point of the transition from Zhou to Qin was the so-called Zhou system. What are the characteristics of the Zhou system? We have already mentioned that many people have given it many names in the discussion of social forms.

The end of the clan society, the slave society, the feudal system , and so on. But we put aside all of these. Our Zhou system is often understood by later generations as a more ethical society. Mencius once said this. The ideal he talked about is actually what he believed in the Zhou system, that is, everyone loves his own relatives and respects his elders, then the world will be peaceful. In other words, everyone respects their own parents and loves their own relatives, then the world will be a warm and ethical world. There is a sentence in Zuo Zhuan, of course, this sentence is derogatory, saying what is the country of our time? Lead the clans, organize the tribes, and unite the ugly. This is a country, the country talked about at that time, of course there was no such word as country at that time.

Here I want to say that the country in ancient Chinese does not mean territory, but a settlement. To put it simply, the so-called country is a city, or in today's terms, it actually means the capital. People living in the country are called country people. The so-called country people do not mean nationals, but people living in the capital. These people are often organized in a relatively small ethnic group, and they themselves are a ruling ethnic group.

According to the general saying, after the Western Zhou Dynasty established its position, it then granted fiefs to its own sons and daughters. The fiefs led their clansmen to a place and established a stronghold, which is what we call a country in ancient Chinese. Then the people around them became dependent on him and needed to pay tribute to him. This formed a system. For today's academic circles, when it comes to the construction of this kind of country, one obvious thing is that it has a strong blood color .

Another thing is that the social radius of the Chinese is relatively small. To put it simply, it is a small community. There are relatively many interpersonal interactions in this group of Chinese. Of course, the Chinese themselves also have levels. The Zhou emperor and the princes formed a family. The Zhou emperor was the head of the family, and the princes were the family members. Then the princes, together with the ministers and the ministers below them, also formed a family. The princes were the head of the family, so the ministers were the family members. Then the ministers and the scholars below them, who were the people at the lower level, formed another family.

This system may be based on blood, or pseudo-blood. The so-called pseudo-blood means that there is no real blood, if not brothers, then cousins, if not father and son, then foster father and son. It is organized according to the principle of blood and clan. So here, the clan family affection and the patriarchy related to family affection form that kind of ethical relationship, which plays a very important role. So at that time, the Zhou emperor, the princes, the ministers, and the scholars were actually equivalent to the blood connection of the seniority, the legitimate and the illegitimate in a big family.

The emperor is respected by all the people of the world, but this respect for him is mainly an ethical respect ; he does not have a bureaucratic administrative power.

How to explain this? That is to say, in fact, the emperor is equivalent to a parent, and the princes are equivalent to family members. Of course, on the one hand, the family members must listen to the parent, but on the other hand, the parent has an inseparable relationship with the family members. To put it simply, they cannot be appointed or dismissed at will. This is the biggest difference between the aristocracy and the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is my employee. If you have read Han Feizi, you will know that Han Feizi compared the relationship between the monarch and the bureaucracy to the relationship between the master and his farmhand. That is, a farmhand works for the master. If he does a good job, the master will reward him more, and if he does not do a good job, the master will reward him less.

This is a kind of relationship, and he made it very clear that the minister and the monarch are not blood relatives.

It is very clear that there is no blood relationship here, but it is not the case between father and son. Everyone knows that in Confucianism, the father is higher than the son, but his relationship with the boss and the worker is different. The father cannot fire the son. He cannot get rid of this kind of relationship. In this case, the same is true for the next level. Therefore, there is no such thing as the emperor can appoint and dismiss bureaucrats and form a bureaucratic administrative system in later generations. So there was no such power structure at that time. Today, some people always say that the unification of Qin is not the earliest unification, saying that it was unified by Xia or even Huangdi. (I will not elaborate on the ancient times here)

The emperor in the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, even if I recognize you as the emperor, is the leader of the world, this leader is fundamentally different from the emperor of Qin Shihuang. The Zhou Dynasty's organizational form is definitely very ethical. Children must respect their fathers and cannot get rid of their fathers' constraints. In other words, the modern concept of equality was impossible at that time, but the father must also take responsibility and cannot appoint or dismiss his children. In other words, although the children have a dependent relationship with their fathers, they are not employees, let alone slaves.

We all know that it is natural for an acquaintance society, especially a family society, to develop ethical relationships. Some people say that the emphasis on ethical kinship is a characteristic of Orientals, and that Westerners are not like this. I have always doubted this statement. I often say that even Westerners who value self-discipline will not implement the Western administrative system in their families. No Westerner has ever advocated the democratic election of parents at home, so no one has advocated the separation of powers for fathers at home.

What's the reason? Of course, you may say that the family is too small, and it seems that there are not enough voters for the election, but I think the most important reason is not this. The most important reason is the father. Even if you don't restrict him, he will generally love his children. So to be honest, this is not just the case for humans, it's the same for animals as well, so it's said that even a tiger won't eat its own cubs.

Of course, there are some parents who treat their children like their own goods and throw them around at will. He said that generally speaking, there are not many such parents. Therefore, I think that ethics is something that everyone has . The earliest source of ethics is family affection. Perhaps the ultimate source of all democratic ethics is family affection. He said that many different things are derived from family affection.

In addition to family affection, there is a kind of affection similar to family affection, which occurs in an acquaintance society. Therefore, especially in those long-term, inextricable dependent relationships, I want to say here that modern people certainly have a bad impression of medieval serfdom, because this serfdom is dependent, so people have no freedom, so they can't run around, so there are many bad things, so people who believe in freedom and equality cannot tolerate this thing.

But if you look at many modern people, they all mentioned that the Middle Ages had a characteristic, which was that it was a kind of warm and affectionate family veil covering this kind of relationship. So Marx had a famous saying in the Communist Manifesto, saying that capitalism has immersed this warm and affectionate family veil in the icy water of selfishness, and so on. That means that people used to have this kind of ethical relationship, but now it is difficult to maintain it. Why is it possible to have this kind of ethical relationship in the end? Some people say that it is because Confucius said something,

It is said that ethics is very important, ethics is the life of human beings, the difference between human beings and animals is very small, and so on. In fact, I think you can think of these things more simply. So I think there are two sayings in economics. One saying is information symmetry. To put it simply, acquaintances, especially those with deep relationships who have dealt with each other for a lifetime, or even acquaintances whose ancestors have been dealing with each other, know each other well and are more likely to trust each other.

It is easier to generate trust among acquaintances than strangers. Secondly, repetition and innovation are the keys to success. To put it simply, this is not a one-time deal. As Aqing Sao in Sha Jia Bang said, everyone who comes is a guest and they all smile at each other without any regrets afterwards. It is difficult to generate a so-called ethical relationship. Although some people say that business also requires integrity, that is more difficult. However, if our ancestors have been together for generations, this game is a long-term one. We can't just do it once and for all, so you rarely say, "I like to stay with an enemy, a foe, a person I hate for my whole life. How can I feel at ease if the person next to me hates and detests me?" So if this kind of relationship is long-term, generally speaking, people are willing to regard this game process, this interactive process as a process that can be repeated many times. If it is repeated many times, it must be considered that the return must be considered. So what needs to be considered is that I can't be too bad to you, and you can't be too bad to me. Otherwise, it will be difficult for this relationship to last long. Therefore, a society based on a small common level like this generally has a strong ethical color. I won't say whether it is like a home or not. I will talk about it from the perspective of information symmetry and repeated learning. Now many people talk about the effectiveness of family businesses from the perspective of economics, and they also talk about it from these two perspectives. But in a society of strangers, this is more troublesome. To establish such a credit relationship, it is also a saying of ours later, called the sky is high and the emperor is far away, the people are few and the officials are many, and if you hit me three times a day, how can you not fight back?

I didn't know this emperor, which was a bit troublesome. But the small lords at that time and their vassals generally knew each other directly, so there was the kind of "a gentleman will die for his friend", and there was the situation where Feng Xuan and Mengchangjun said, "Have you returned with your long sword? There is no fish to eat, and I will die in return."

So something like this is produced,

Well, such a society has a very important characteristic, that is, people attach great importance to the ethical component of direct dependence relationship, which is what I just said, if everyone respects their relatives and respects their elders, then the world will be peaceful. Therefore, the society in this era has a certain degree of integration. That is to say, the princes must respect the emperor, the ministers must respect the princes, the scholars must respect the ministers, and so on, all the way down to every commoner, they must respect their direct lords. This sentence sounds like a famous saying in medieval Europe, that is, everyone has a master.

So or conversely, everyone has vassals, as if the original meaning of this sentence should be that there is no master without vassals. Then in the society before Qin, we can see that people have a strong identification with small communities, so their identification with large communities is often insufficient, as is their identification with the country and the emperor.

Mencius once said, "The emperor is as virtuous as the princes."

The princes should be loyal to the ministers, the ministers should be loyal to the princes, and finally the emperor should be loyal to the people. To put it simply, the princes should be loyal to the emperor, the ministers should be loyal to the princes, and finally the emperor should be loyal to whom?

Mencius said that the emperor should be loyal to the people because there is no higher level.

But the emperor was loyal to the people. To be honest, in that era, there was actually no such institutional arrangement. It was just talk.

So, however, the following statement can be said to be valid. What is the key point here? The key point is that he did not emphasize that the common people should be loyal to the emperor.

He did not even emphasize that scholars should be loyal to the emperor, but only they should be loyal to the officials. He also did not emphasize that officials should be loyal to the emperor, but only they should be loyal to the princes. Only the princes should be loyal to the emperor.

At that time, the whole nation was not loyal to the emperor. For the emperor, I could kill my father and sacrifice my relatives. There was no such concept at that time. And if someone did this, he would be looked down upon and regarded as a beast. This original saying should come from Confucius.

The society was in such a state at that time, so you can see that many of the values ​​at that time were such values.

During this period, many retainers often emphasized obedience to their masters. They would do anything for their masters, including killing the monarch. These were considered noble behaviors and were considered extraordinary. Therefore, there were many such stories at that time.

There was a great noble family in Jin called Luan. Luan had a retainer named Xin Yu. Then Luan lost power in Jin, so he fled.

Then the State of Jin issued a notice, saying that his family members could not follow him. The so-called family members did not refer to his relatives, but his retainers and his followers. Then Xin Yu wanted to leave, and he was arrested. The king asked him why he followed him, and he said that his master was his emperor. His original words were:

The third generation is the ruler of the family; the next generation and below is the master.

He said, "I don't understand who you are as a king. I only recognize my master. So now that my master is gone, I will follow him." This man was considered a righteous man.

There is another example that proves this point very well.

As you all know, there was a powerful official in the State of Qi named Cui Zhu. One time, he had a serious conflict with Duke Zhuang of Qi. It was said that Duke Zhuang of Qi had cheated on his wife. It seemed like that was the case. Then he sent his retainers to assassinate Duke Zhuang of Qi. Then several people covered their faces and jumped into the wall, holding knives to force Duke Zhuang of Qi into a corner. Duke Zhuang of Qi said how could you do this, saying that it was high treason. These people answered very confidently, saying that if Cui Zhu wanted to kill you, it would be high treason, because he was your retainer. You are a prince and he is a doctor. The doctor should be loyal to the prince. He said, but we are not your retainers. We are Cui Zhu's retainers, so we will do whatever Cui Zhu wants us to do. What do you think?

You can tell your retainer that your retainer is Cui Zhu, but unfortunately Cui Zhu is sick now and he cannot come.

In fact, we all know that Cui Zhu has hidden himself. Cui Zhu must listen to Duke Zhuang of Qi because he is a minister. Unfortunately, he is not here now. We, the guests, only know how to obey Cui Zhu and do not know how to obey his orders.

Therefore, in a structure like this, the emperor actually ruled over the princes, the princes ruled over the heads of the families, and finally the heads of the families managed their own families. Therefore, you can see the social concept of the people at that time. In fact, there was a saying in medieval Europe that my master's master is not my master, and vice versa, the vassal of the vassal is not my vassal, just like the examples I just gave. They only recognized their own masters and did not know what the emperor was.

Of course, it didn’t mean that there was no concept of loyalty to the emperor at that time.

At that time, the word "jun" did not refer to the emperor. As we all know, in the pre-Qin classics, the "jun" refers to the head of the family, so the head of the family and the retainers, the monarch and the ministers were actually just the relationship between the lord and the vassal, so if they were relatives, it goes without saying. Therefore, in the social concept at that time, it was very clear that filial piety was higher than monarchy.