Liu Zongyuan (773–819) was an important writer and intellectual of the later part of the Tang period. He is listed as one of the “eight great prose writers of the Tang and Song.” He was also active politically, especially during the problems that followed the An Lushan Rebellion in the middle of the eighth century. Here the interest is in his celebrated essay on the feudal (fengjian 封建) system. Gu himself refers to Liu—for example, in the essay “The Governing of Townships (Xiang 鄉) and Neighborhoods (Ting 亭)” (RZL 8.5)—while Thomas Bartlett makes the point that the nine-part SWJ essay “Junxian Lun” should be read with Liu’s essay in mind (“Gu Yanwu,” in ECP, 273). Ku Wei-ying writes, “In his provocative essay on the fengjian system, Liu dealt a seemingly fatal blow to the myth which had upheld the fengjian system—that it had been the ingenious design of the ancient sage rulers—and declared that, on the contrary, the system had been the result of an historical necessity forced upon them by social developments” (“The Political Theories of Ku Yen-wu and the Manchu Conquest” [PhD diss., University of British Columbia, 1983], 4). The essay is translated here in full.
Did heaven and earth really have no beginning? I have no way of knowing this. Did mankind really have a beginning? I have no way of knowing this. In that case, then, what is closer to reality? I say that having a beginning is closer. How am I clear about this? Through the feudal system I am clear about it. The feudal system was something that continued through the time of the ancient sage-kings—Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu—and they were never able to do away with it. Now, this was not because they didn’t want to do away with it; it was because the circumstances didn’t allow them to do so. Was the coming of such circumstances the beginning of mankind? Without such a beginning, there would have been no way for feudalism to exist. The feudal system was not a concept of the sage-kings.
Now, there was that beginning [of mankind], and the ten thousand things all arose with them. All the grasses and trees grew wild, and deer and pigs went around in groups, but people were unable to seize and bite; moreover, they had no fur or feathers to preserve and protect them. It was as Xun Qing said—they had to avail themselves of things and regard them as being of use.1 Now, those who avail themselves of things inevitably contend, and when their contention finds no resolution, there must be someone who is able to decide what is right and wrong, and they must listen to his decree. Those who have wisdom and clarity must overawe the multitudes and inform them in a straightforward way without vacillating, and they must inflict pain on them so they are afraid. Because of this, rulers and leaders created a punitive administration. Therefore, those who lived gathered close together stayed close together to become a large group. When large groups are split into smaller groups, contention inevitably becomes very great. When it becomes very great, the options are military force and moral persuasion. Also, when it becomes very great, there must be leaders of the multitude, and they must be listened to such that they pacify those they are leading. This is why the class of feudal lords arose. But then contention between them also became very great. In the case of moral authority being great, the class of feudal lords listened to the command and in this way pacified their fiefdoms. As a result, there were the classes of regional earls and commandery governors, and then the contention again became very great. If there was someone whose moral authority was great, the regional earls and commandery governors listened to their commands and in this way pacified their people. Subsequently, the world could be unified under one person. For this reason, there were first village chiefs, then there were district leaders; first there were district leaders, then there were feudal lords; first there were feudal lords, then there were regional earls and commandery governors; first there were regional earls and commandery governors, then there was the Son of Heaven. From the Son of the Heaven down to the village chiefs, when one who was virtuous among the people died, they would seek out his descendants as leaders. Therefore, the feudal system was not a concept developed by the sages. It arose out of circumstances.
Now, Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang belong to the distant past. By the time of Zhou, matters were much more complex. When the Zhou held sway over the world, the land was divided up, and five ranks were established.2 Feudal lords were enfeoffed with territories that were scattered all over the place like the stars in the sky. The four corners of the world were like the spokes of a wheel connected to the axle. The feudal lords came together to have an audience with the ruler. They separated again to be officers guarding their territories, like shields and city walls. Nevertheless, when it came to the time of King Yi of Zhou [869–858 B.C.E.], he did harm to li 禮 [ritual practice, propriety] and damaged honor by coming down from the hall to receive those seeking an audience. When it came to the time of King Xuan [827–782 B.C.E.], he relied on restoring the virtue of ancient times and the power of south-north contention but ultimately was unable to establish a successor to the Marquis of Lu.3 The decline continued until the time of You and Li, when the royal house moved east [from present-day Xi’an to Luoyang] and the ruler of Zhou himself became a feudal lord. From that time on, there were several notable events: [King Zhuang of Chu] asking about the weights of the tripods; the arrow of [Zhuang of Zheng] striking [Huan of Zhou] in the shoulder; the kidnapping of Fan Bo; and the killing of Chang Hong.4 Perversion spread throughout the world, and rulers were not treated as rulers. In my view, Zhou had long since lost its power and had only an empty title above that of duke and marquis. Isn’t this the fault of the burgeoning strength of the feudal lords—of the tail being too big [for the body]? Subsequently, there was division into twelve states, which were later merged into seven. The power was divided among the enfeoffed states [Han, Wei, Zhao, and Qi], and the state [of Zhou] was wiped out by the later-enfeoffed state of Qin. So then, the cause of the fall of the Zhou lay in this.
When Qin held sway over the world, the capital cities of the feudal lords were abolished and in their place commanderies [prefectures] and districts were established. The positions of feudal lords protecting the emperor were abolished, and in their place senior officials [governors and magistrates] protecting the land were appointed. Qin occupied an imposing position at the apex of the arrangement of the world, controlling the Six Directions and joining the whole country under its central control. This is what Qin is thought to have achieved, but it wasn’t long before the empire collapsed. The reasons for this were as follows: forced enlistment of large numbers of men, cruel and vicious punishments, exhaustion of its goods and wealth, and sending those who worked on the land to fight at the frontier. People looked at one another and joined forces to become a mob. At the time, then, there were rebellious peasants, but no rebellious officials. The people were resentful below while officials were timorous above. Throughout the land governors and magistrates were seized and killed one after the other. The fault lay with the people’s resentment, and not with the failure of the system of commanderies [prefectures] and districts.
When Han held sway over the world, it righted the wrongs of the Qin by following the system of Zhou, dividing the territories within the seas and establishing the sons of its own clan or enfeoffing meritorious officers. For many years there was a pressing need to recover from the damage, and yet there was not enough time to do so. [The emperor] suffered a series of setbacks: there was the difficulty at Pingcheng [in 200 B.C.E.],5 and he was hit by a flying arrow [in 195 B.C.E.]. There was a gradual decline, which the next three emperors6 could not reverse. Later, the emperor’s counselors offered suggestions about reducing the size of the fiefs of the feudal lords, and yet they only needed to protect their own territories. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the feudal system, half the empire was still commanderies and half states. At that time, there were only rebellious states but not rebellious commanderies. What advantage the Qin system achieved is also clear from this. The imperial system following Qin that continued from the Han can still be recognized, even though a hundred generations have passed.
When the Tang flourished there was a system of regions and districts and the establishment of territorial administrators. This was considered to be what was appropriate. Nevertheless, those who were vicious and cunning arose at the time and rampaged through the regions and districts. The failing did not lie with the regions; it lay with the armies [of the warlords]. At the time, then, there were rebellious generals, but not rebellious regions. The setting up of regions and districts certainly cannot be done away with.
Someone might say, “Those who are feudal lords will definitely regard their land as their own private land, will treat their vassals as their own children, adapt to their customs, cultivate their control, and facilitate transformation and change. If those who are territorial administrators devote their minds to thinking about advancing their own rank and that is all, how will they be able to administer?” I also think this is wrong.
The traces of the affairs of Zhou can definitely still be seen. The various dukes were proud and discontented; they were constantly greedy and warlike. In general, many states were in disorder; only a few were well ordered. Marquises and earls were unable to change their form of administration, and the Son of Heaven was unable to change his princes. On the matters of “private land” and “vassals as children,” there was not even one in a hundred who could achieve this. The failing lay in the system; it did not lie in the management of it. The affairs of Zhou were like this.
The traces of the affairs of Qin can also definitely still be seen. That there were policies for regulating people and that these were not delegated to commanderies and fiefs is right. That there were ministers for regulating the people and that these were not the creation of territorial administrators is right. Commanderies and fiefs were unable to rectify their policies; territorial administrators were unable to carry out their controls. There were cruel punishments and the sufferings of forced labor. The myriad people looked askance, but the failings lay in the administration and not in the policies. The Qin dynasty was like this.
When Han flourished, the administration of the Son of Heaven was carried out in the commanderies and not in the states. The policies were those of territorial administrators and not those of marquises and kings. Even if marquises and kings were disorderly, they could not change things. Even if the people of the states were in distress, this could not be eliminated. Now, when it came to the stage of large-scale rebellion, they were secretly seized and moved away or the army was sent to exterminate them. While a great rebellion was not yet manifest, they gained illicit benefits, extorted money, abused power, and were intimidating, treating the people harshly, and nothing could be done about it. When it came to the commanderies and districts, it could be said there was regulation as well as peace. How can I say this? Because Han knew of Meng Shu through Tian Shu, found Wei Shang through Feng Tang, heard about King [Huang] Ba’s enlightened examination of things, and saw Ji An’s simple pacification.7 This is how they could be honored and restored to their positions and Han could be content in delegating to them the stabilization of one region.
Those at fault could be identified and dismissed; those who were able could be identified and rewarded. If the court appointed them in the morning but they did not carry out their duties, it could dismiss them in the evening. If they were appointed in the evening but did not comply with the laws, it could dismiss them in the morning. If all the cities and districts of the Han house were under the control of marquises and kings, and they were allowed to bring disorder to the people, all they could do was grieve over it. The methods of Meng Shu and Wei Shang would never have been discovered and implemented; the transformation of Huang Ba and Ji An would never have been discovered and put into practice. When the marquises and kings were clearly reprimanded, they would be compliant, but once the audience was over and they withdrew, they immediately disobeyed. If they were ordered to reduce their fiefdoms, they would plan to form a close alliance with others of the same class, and then they would turn to one another with angry looks and suddenly fly into a rage. If, by good fortune, they did not rise up, then their fiefs were reduced by half. If their fiefs were reduced by half, then the people would still suffer. Why not abolish the fiefdoms altogether and protect the ordinary people? The affairs of Han were like this.
At the present time the country has gone over completely to the system of commanderies [prefectures] and districts, appointing one territorial administrator after another. It is certainly impossible to change this. If there is skillful control and careful selection of officers, there is a peaceful administration.
Someone might also say, “Xia, Shang, Zhou, and Han implemented the feudal system and were long lasting. Qin implemented the system of commanderies and districts and was short-lived.” This particularly can be described as not knowing about administrative order. Wei succeeded Han, and the feudal system was further established. Jin continued on from Wei and followed the same system without change. And yet the two clans8 were ruined, and no one heard of a long-enduring series of emperors. Now this has been reformed and changed, and there has been continuity for two hundred years, so the great foundation is increasingly secure. How has this any connection to feudal lords?
Someone might also suppose that Yin and Zhou had sage-kings and yet they didn’t change their system, so further discussion is pointless. This is absolutely not the case. Now Yin and Zhou not changing just affirms that they had no alternative. In fact, there were three thousand feudal lords subject to Yin, and Yin relied on them to get rid of Xia. Tang did not succeed and was destroyed. There were eight hundred feudal lords subject to Zhou, and Zhou relied on them to overcome Yin. King Wu was not able to make a change. He complied with the system to preserve peace and stability. Conforming with this was considered to be the custom, and Tang and Wu had no alternative. Now, the reason they had no alternative was not because the public interest was most important but because private interests were strong, and private interests offered the best protection for their descendants. Why the Qin made a change was because they thought their system was in the best interests of the people generally. With regard to their feelings of self-interest, then privately the power was vested in one person—the emperor himself—and everyone was subject to him. Nevertheless, the beginnings of a general concern with the world started with Qin.
Now, the way of the world is that a good and stable administration gains the support of the people. If worthy people occupy leading positions and the lesser people occupy lower positions, there can subsequently be a good and stable administration. Now, when there is a feudal system, one generation succeeds another in governing. If this is the case, are those in the higher positions certainly worthy? Are those in the lower positions certainly unworthy? So then, whether there is going to be good order or disorder cannot be known. If the wish is going to be to bring benefit to the altars of soil and grain [the kingdom] as a way of bringing unity to the experience of the people, there should also be those who possess the hereditary fiefdoms and completely use what is within the boundaries. But if sages and worthies lived in this time, they, too, would have no way of establishing themselves in the world because the feudal system would have had no use for them. Did the system of the sages come to this point! I certainly say power is not the purpose of the sage.