Introduction
The story of Shun's 舜 ascension to the throne is one of the two most celebrated political narratives in China, the other being that of King Wen 文王 and King Wu 武王, the founders of the Zhou 周 dynasty.Footnote 1 The Shu jing 書經 (The Book of Documents) tells the story of how Shun, a man of humble origin, became a king.Footnote 2 Upon achieving peace during his reign, Yao 堯 began to look for his successor. His ministers recommended several candidates, one of whom was his eldest son, Dan Zhu 丹朱. However, Dan Zhu was disqualified due to his incompetence. The final candidate was Shun, recommended by Yao's minister, Si Yue 四岳. In Si Yue's description:
瞽子，父頑，母嚚，象傲，克諧以孝， 烝烝乂，不格姦。
[Shun] is a son of a blind man. His father was wicked, his stepmother was deceitful, and his stepbrother, Xiang 象, was arrogant. But he was able to live in harmony with them through his filial piety and gradually transformed them so that they did not return to wickedness.Footnote 3
Shun was the epitome of filiality, and this virtue was taken to be a qualification for ruling. However, Yao did not immediately pass on the throne to Shun. First, Yao married his two daughters to Shun in order to see whether Shun could manage an amicable relationship with his wives. Second, Yao spent three years observing Shun's administration of governmental affairs. Following twenty-eight years of regency, upon the death of Yao, Shun finally ascended to the throne and took the position of Son of Heaven (tianzi 天子).
The primary focus of this story is political succession: a virtuous ruler yields his power to a virtuous person. This so-called abdication (shanrang 禪讓) doctrine is at odds with the norms of the hereditary transfer of power (father–son succession). The non-hereditary succession by abdication places moral excellence as the standard for political authority. Hence, Shun was able to ascend the throne from a humble origin owing to his virtue.Footnote 4 This principle of rule by virtue, along with the doctrine of Mandate of Heaven (tianming 天命), a belief that Heaven gives the sanction to rule the world to a virtuous person, became the centerpiece of Confucian political theory and the cornerstone of subsequent dynastic changes in China.Footnote 5
Another way to understand this political narrative is to trace its curious development. According to Michael Nylan, the early chapters of the Shu jing, in which we find the story of Yao and Shun, were probably written later than most chapters on the Zhou period.Footnote 6 If so, the story of the Yao–Shun transition may have been introduced later and then subsumed under the dominant doctrine of Heaven's Mandate of the Zhou dynasty. In this scheme, it appears likely that this ancient legend of Yao–Shun was presented as an ideal form of royal succession. Accordingly, early Confucians such as Mengzi and Xunzi tried to incorporate this ideal vision into their political theory of succession in one way or another. On the other hand, recent studies of excavated/discovered texts suggest that the story around the Yao–Shun transmission of power was not merely envisioned as an ideal form.Footnote 7 According to Yuri Pines and Sarah Allan, during the middle Warring States period, the abdication of power by a virtuous ruler to a virtuous minister came to be seen as a viable alternative to hereditary rule.Footnote 8 In contrast, for thinkers like Han Feizi 韓非子, Shun's story was regarded as a ministerial usurpation of the throne.
In addition to the dynamic development and interesting political discourse surrounding the event of Shun's ascension, the story has other fascinating elements of its own. The first is the unlikelihood and exceptionality of the story's main event. It is hardly probable that an ordinary, or perhaps less than ordinary man in social strata, would rise up to assume the highest possible position of power in the human world.Footnote 9 Second, like any other success story, this story perhaps gives us hope and the lesson: “if you work hard, you can succeed.” Third, this can be read as the story of justice delivered: good people flourish in the end. Interestingly, however, various early texts, both transmitted and excavated, give interrelated but different accounts of Shun's ascension.
The texts under consideration are two excavated and two transmitted: Qiongda yi shi 窮達以時 (Failure and Success Depend on Times), Tang Yu zhi dao 唐虞之道 (The Way of Yao and Shun), Mengzi 5A5, and the chapter “Zheng lun” 正論 (Correct Judgments) of the Xunzi.Footnote 10 Instead of setting them in a political framework of rule by virtue (abdication) versus rule by heredity, I will examine the way that these four texts deal with the particular event of Shun's ascension in light of the issue of contingency: whether or not Shun's ascension to the throne is a necessary event.Footnote 11 At one extreme, Qiongda yi shi, highlights that Shun became a king by pure chance. At the other extreme, Xunzi interprets the event as a necessary one, emphasizing that Shun cannot but succeed Yao. The other two texts fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
In what follows, I will analyze each text separately, focusing on the questions of what their interpretations of the event are, why they offer different interpretations, and what are the important ethical and political implications of their differing views. My claim is that these four texts offer different accounts of Shun's ascension because they see the event from different perspectives: that is, from a perspective of the chosen, from a perspective of the chooser, from a mise-en-scène, and from a perspective of not of this world, respectively. I argue that their different perspectives entail different interpretations of the issues of the degree of human control over the event, the important features of the event, and the content of the moral and political lesson that we draw from the event. A close analysis and comparison of various interpretations of the same event showcase the ways that early Chinese thinkers conceived of areas over which humans are believed to lack control.
Qiongda yi shi: Perspective of the Chosen
Qiongda yi shi (Failure and Success Depend on Times) was found in tomb no.1 of the Guodian Chu tombs 郭店楚墓 (roughly dating to 300 b.c.e). The text is short and well-preserved, written on fifteen bamboo slips, of which only two are slightly damaged.Footnote 12 The content and thesis of this text is clear and straightforward. It argues that because there are things in the world that humans cannot control, we should focus on what we can control.Footnote 13 Let's first turn to the text. In what follows, I have selected and rearranged the text in a way that elucidates the main thesis of the text focusing on the relevant case of Shun's ascension. The text begins:
Slip 1) 有天有人，天人有分。察天人之分，而知所行矣。
There is Heaven and there is man. Heaven and man have their own allotments. [Only] by investigating the [respective] allotments of Heaven and man, will one know what to act upon.
We are not entirely sure what Heaven and man refer to in this text, nor what their respective allotments or tasks are. Nevertheless, we are sure that the main aim of this text is to provide a lesson on how we should act and live our lives, which will be clarified at the end of the text.Footnote 14 The text continues:
Slip 1) … 有其人，無其 Slip 2) 世，雖賢弗行矣。苟有其世，何難之有哉？ 舜耕於歷山，陶拍 Slip 3) 於河滸，立而為天子，遇堯也。 … Slip 11) … 遇不遇，天也。
There might be the right man but not the right age. [In this case,] even if he might be a worthy [man], he cannot act out his worthiness. However, if there were indeed the right age, what difficulties could there be [for him]? Shun ploughed at the Mountain Li and he made pottery at the banks of the Yellow River. The reason he was established and became Son of Heaven was his encounter with Yao. … To encounter or not, this lies with Heaven.
Here, the right man refers to a man of worth. As long as a man of worth is born in the right age, he can fully exercise his talent and ability. Shun's ascension to the throne is presented as the first of seven historical examples to support this proposition.Footnote 15 A virtuous man, such as Shun, was able to become a king because he happened to meet Yao, a virtuous ruler. Had Shun not met Yao, he would have remained in a remote place plowing and making pottery. Just as the title of this text says, both success and failure depend on time (shi 時).Footnote 16 This means that in order to succeed, one must live in the right age (shi 世); and the right age is an age governed by the right ruler.Footnote 17 However, whether or not one will meet with the right age (yubuyu 遇不遇) is ultimately up to Heaven, an entity that is not explained in the text. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: because we do not understand how Heaven decides on this matter, at least from the perspective of humans, the kind of world we are born into is felt to be beyond our understanding and control.
We can conjecture what is meant by “man” mentioned in the introductory statement. If Heaven's task is what we cannot understand and control, then man's task is presumed to be what we can understand and control. The text presents the main concern of man's task as one's own virtue and worth. Hence, the final lesson we should heed is the cultivation of the self:
Slip 14) … 窮達以時，德行一也。 … Slip 15) … 窮達以時，幽明不再，故君子敦於反己。
Failure and success depend on the times, [and yet] virtuous conducts remain the same. … Failure and success depend on the times, [and yet] dark and bright do not alternate. It is for this reason that the gentleman does his best to reflect on himself.
One who understands the respective allotments of Heaven and man focuses on his own virtue and worth. This is because even though success and failure may alternate according to the times, one's virtue does not fluctuate and remains within one's control. The text elaborates on this point with two analogies: fragrant flowers in a remote valley and precious gems hidden in a mountain. Flowers are fragrant whether or not people are present to smell them, and precious gems are beautiful whether or not people are present to appreciate them.Footnote 18 Like flowers and gems, one's virtues are intact, complete, and pleasurable in themselves. Unlike success and failure, one's virtues are invulnerable to external conditions. Therefore, the gentleman concerns himself with his own virtue rather than with the pursuit of success. Even if nobody recognizes his virtue, he will have no resentment or regrets.Footnote 19 This is what is called the “inward turn”: the shift of interest from concern for successes and failures to self-cultivation.Footnote 20
So one should turn inward because this is what one can control, whereas the task of Heaven is not. For the author of Qiongda yi shi, there seems to be no necessary correlation between the task of Heaven and the task of man. In other words, Shun's success was the outcome of concurrence of the two conditions, the virtuous Shun and the right ruler Yao. In this light, Qiongda yi shi presents Shun's ascension as an utterly contingent event.Footnote 21 In relation to this, another point to be noted is that the intended audience of the text is prospective candidates for employment. The moral advice offered in Qiongda yi shi is not applicable to rulers, but exclusive to potential candidates to be chosen by the ruler. From the perspective of the chosen, one cannot but turn inward to cultivate one's virtue, awaiting the right ruler in a world of contingency.Footnote 22
Tang Yu zhi dao: Perspective of the Chooser
Tang Yu zhi dao (The Way of Yao and Shun), also excavated at Guodian, consists of twenty-nine bamboo slips with partial damage and consists of 709 characters in total, which makes it about twice as long as Qiongda yi shi.Footnote 23 Despite some disagreement on certain characters and slip order, scholars agree on the main message of this text: the advocacy of abdication. A ruler should yield his throne to a virtuous person. In contrast to Qiongda yi shi, this text seems to be specifically written for the ruler, particularly with regard to how the ruler should act during and at the end of his reign.Footnote 24 Accordingly, its focus is not so much on Shun's ascension, but on Yao's abdication to Shun. In order to facilitate comparison of this text with Qiongda yi shi, I have selected and rearranged the text focusing on the following questions: what is abdication? what are reasons for abdication? to whom should one abdicate? and, most importantly, what is the relationship between abdication and contingency?
The main topic of this text is defined as follows: “Abdication means that possessors of the highest virtue give the rule to the worthy.”Footnote 25 The first question that comes to mind is why a ruler should abdicate. One immediate cause is the deterioration of physical strength of the ruler. The text says:
Slip 25) … 古者聖人二十而 Slip 26) 冠，三十而有家，五十而治天下，七十而致政，四肢倦惰，耳目聰明衰，禪天下而 Slip 27) 授賢，退而養其生。此以知其弗利了。
In antiquity, the sages were capped at the age of twenty; at thirty they married; at fifty they orderly ruled all under Heaven; and at seventy they handed over the rule. As their limbs were exhausted, sharpness of hearing and clarity of sight weakened, they abdicated the world and delivered it to a worthy and retired to nurture their lives. Therefore, we know that they did not benefit from all under Heaven
During their prime, sage kings benefited the world by ruling it well. This is the primary task of the ruler. However, as the physical condition of their body deteriorates, they reach a point at which they are no longer able to benefit the world. At this point, the task of the ruler was to appoint a successor and step down. Otherwise, the world would fall back into turmoil, as warned in the Record of Shun, “If the great brightness does not come out, the myriad things will be in darkness. If the sage is not at the top, all under Heaven will inevitably collapse.”Footnote 26 Accordingly, the task of ruler is to ensure the order of the world not only during his reign, but also after his reign ends.Footnote 27 Therefore, abdication is necessary for the continuation of the good order and harmony.Footnote 28
To whom, then, should sage rulers abdicate their rule? Exactly what qualities constitute a worthy person? According to this text, the qualities are filiality (xiao 孝) and loyalty (zhong 忠). The worthies are those who love their parents (and family) and those who respect other worthies. The text demonstrates why these are important qualities:
Slip 6) … 堯舜之行，愛親尊賢。愛 Slip 7) 親故孝，尊賢故禪。孝之方，愛天下之民。禪之傳，世亡隱德。孝，仁之冕也。 Slip 8) 禪，義之至也。六帝興於古，咸由此也。愛親忘賢，仁而未義也。尊賢 Slip 9) 遺親，義而未仁也。古者虞舜篤事瞽叟，乃戴其孝；忠事帝堯，乃戴其臣。 Slip 10) 愛親尊賢，虞舜其人也。
The conduct of Yao and Shun was to love relatives and respect worthies. They loved relatives, and so they were filial. They respected worthies, and so they abdicated. The implementation of filiality is to love all the people under Heaven. When transmission is done through abdication, no virtue remains hidden in the world. Filiality is the crown of benevolence; abdication is the utmost of righteousness. In antiquity, all the six thearchs who rose to power acted in this way.Footnote 29 If in loving relatives, one forgets men of worth, one is benevolent but not quite righteous. If in respecting men of worth, one omits relatives, one is righteous but not quite benevolent. Hence, Shun earnestly served his father Gusou, thereby bearing his filiality; he loyally served Yao, thereby bearing his ministerial obligations. Loving the relatives and respecting the worthy, Shun is this kind of person.
First, it is assumed that those who love their parents and family can extend their love to other people: “The implementation of filiality is to love all the people under Heaven.” Therefore, filiality is an essential quality for being a good ruler, because it enables a ruler to benefit the world during his reign. Those who achieve filiality attain the utmost form of benevolence (ren 仁). However, filiality is not enough to qualify someone as the successor. For a ruler must secure the wellbeing of the people even after his reign. Therefore, loyalty is demanded. It is assumed that those who respect the worthy will abdicate to another worthy when they are no longer able to ensure the order of the world. Those who achieve this task attain the ultimate form of righteousness (yi 義). The author of Tang Yu zhi dao emphasizes that to be an eligible successor, neither of these qualities can be missing.Footnote 30 In this, Shun is the perfect example: because he was devoted to his vicious family, Yao knew that the world would benefit from him, and because he was loyal to his ruler, Yao knew that Shun would yield his throne to a virtuous person when the time comes. As the story goes, Shun was successful in his administration and he abdicated his throne to another worthy, Yu 禹.
If the ultimate aim of rulership is to secure the wellbeing of the people and maintain the order of the world, then abdication to a virtuous person seems to be a logical conclusion. During his reign, a ruler should benefit the world, but when the time comes that he is no longer able to do so, he must find a replacement.Footnote 31 This replacement must be a man of filiality and loyalty. Unlike Qiongda yi shi, which advises worthies to cultivate their own virtues, the author of Tang Yu zhi dao asserts that rulers should actively engage with the world, thereby benefiting the world and looking for a worthy successor. Importantly, the text also points out that only when a ruler has successfully handed over his rule to a worthy, has the ruler's virtue been perfected. In other words, a ruler obtains his sagehood in completing this final task of abdication. Hence, the text applauds abdication as the full realization of sagehood.Footnote 32
Qiongda yi shi and Tang Yu zhi dao both deal with Shun's ascension, but they seem to give different advice to different audiences.Footnote 33 The moral lesson of Qiongda yi shi—that one should cultivate one's virtue, awaiting the right ruler—is intended for the worthy in a position to be chosen. The moral lesson, or even moral imperative, of Tang Yu zhi dao—that one should rule the world well and transmit this good rule to a worthy successor—is intended for the ruler, who is in a position to choose. These two texts combined together make a perfect, ideal case of the Yao–Shun transition, comprehensively describing how Yao, the chooser, and Shun, the chosen, fulfilled their respective tasks.Footnote 34 Depending on which perspective the text adopts, however, the same event is rendered quite differently. From the perspective of Shun, success is contingent upon his encounter with Yao, an occurrence that he cannot control. From the perspective of Yao, however, the abdication of kingship to Shun is an event that he could control once he had the opportunity to meet Shun.
One result of these different perspectives is that each text highlights different attributes of Shun. For example, in Qiongda yi shi, Shun's humble background comes to the forefront. His initial low status is contrasted with his ensuing kingship, highlighting the unlikelihood of his ascension. This huge leap in social status underscores the extent to which the event depends entirely on Yao's recognition and selection of Shun.Footnote 35 On the contrary, Tang Yu zhi dao highlights Shun's filiality and loyalty over his obscure background. As Yuri Pines rightly points out, abdication is presented as a “desirable and immediately applicable mode of political conduct” to incumbent kings.Footnote 36 The goal of this text is to persuade and convince rulers of the necessity of selecting a worthy successor. In this respect, the Yao–Shun transition cannot be depicted as a fortunate event or simply as an ideal past. Yao is obligated to appoint Shun, a man of filiality and loyalty, as his successor. This is his moral requirement.Footnote 37
This moral requirement is not invulnerable to contingency, however. For Yao can choose a worthy successor only insofar as there is one to be chosen. Perhaps this helps us discern the meaning of the somewhat cryptic and ill-suited slips 14 and 15:
Slip 14) 古者堯生為天子而有天下，聖以遇命，仁以逢時，未嘗遇 [賢。雖] Slip 15) 及於大時，神明將從，天地佑之。縱仁聖可與，時弗可及矣。
In ancient times, Yao was born to be the Son of Heaven and possessed all under Heaven. By being sagely, he encounters ming, and by being benevolent, he meets with the time. Though he has not yet encountered [the worthy], when the great moment arrives, the ghosts and spirits all obey, and the sky and earth assist him. Even though one's benevolence and sagehood can be given, as for the appropriate time, it cannot be made to arrive.
Ensuring the order of the world during his reign and abdicating to a worthy upon his retirement are things within Yao's control, as well as things that Yao actually did.Footnote 38 In this way, Yao perfected his sagehood. And yet, in order to succeed in this, he had to have encountered an opportune time: the presence of a worthy in his time.Footnote 39 Had he not met a virtuous person like Shun, Yao would not have been able to yield his throne to a worthy successor. And without completing this mission, Yao would not have perfected his sagehood.Footnote 40 In this sense, Yao's sagehood is just as contingent as Shun's ascension.Footnote 41 One significant difference, however, is that unlike Shun, whose ascension was completely contingent upon his encounter with Yao, Yao was in a position to make a choice when he encountered Shun. Based on this line of thinking, it may be said that from the perspective of Yao, his abdication was partially contingent, whereas from the perspective of Shun, his ascension was utterly contingent. A comparison of the two texts shows that, depending on which perspective the text takes, either the chooser or the chosen, the same event is interpreted differently in many respects including the degree of human control over the event, which features of the event are highlighted as important, and the lesson we learn from the event.Footnote 42 The following text, the Mengzi, takes yet another perspective.
The Mengzi: Mise-en-scène
When his disciple, Wan Zhang 萬章, asked whether Yao actually yielded his throne to Shun, Mengzi responded with a flat-out denial: “No. The Son of Heaven cannot give the world to another person” (Mengzi 5A5).Footnote 43 His answer did not hit the mark, however (probably intentionally). Wan Zhang's question seems to deal with the factuality of the historical event, but Mengzi's answer is a normative claim: the world is not an object of transfer between individuals, regardless of how virtuous rulers and successors are. At any rate, Mengzi appears to be denying the abdication of Yao to Shun, at least on the surface. Accordingly, some scholars argue that Mengzi opposed royal succession by abdication, and instead, was inclined to support hereditary rule, which was the norm in his time.Footnote 44 This scheme of hereditary rule versus abdication to a worthy person is important in understanding political theories and political realities of early China. However, as mentioned, the event of Shun's ascension is also important in understanding how different thinkers understand the issue of contingency. In what follows, I focus on the question of how Mengzi interpreted Shun's ascension: was it a necessary event or a contingent event for him?
In a way similar to Qiongda yi shi (and to a certain extent, Tang Yu zhi dao), Mengzi declared that it was Heaven that transferred the rule to Shun.Footnote 45 Both texts, therefore, rely on the notion of Heaven in explaining Shun's ascension. In addition, just as Qiongda yi shi features Heaven in contrast to man, Mengzi takes the same approach in explaining Heaven. He says, “Things that could not be brought about by human beings are owing to Heaven” (Mengzi 5A5).Footnote 46 In fact, the demarcation between Heaven and man is a prevalent theme in early Chinese thought. In Qiongda yi shi, however, the line that divides Heaven and man is clear-cut and impermeable: what Heaven does and what humans do have not much to do with each another. On the other hand, in the Mengzi, the distinction between Heaven and man is much more complex, even porous and dynamic. Mengzi's account of Shun's ascension helps us understand his complicated conception of the relationship between Heaven and man.
According to Mengzi, even though Heaven transfers the rule from the reigning king to a successor, Heaven does not do so through a direct command in words. Rather, Heaven's intention is indirectly revealed in particular affairs:
[萬章曰]，“然則舜有天下也，孰與之
[孟子]曰，“ 天與之。”
[萬章曰]，“天與之者，諄諄然命之乎?”
[孟子]曰，“否，天不言，以行與事示之而已矣。”
[萬章]曰，“以行與事示之者，如之何?”
[孟子]曰，“ … … 昔者，堯薦舜於天，而天受之，暴之於民，而民受之，故曰，天不言，以行與事示之而已矣。”
[萬章]曰，“敢問薦之於天，而天受之，暴之於民，而民受之，如何?” [孟子]曰，“使之主祭，而白神享之，是天受之。使之主事，而事治，百姓安之，是民受之也。天與之，人與之，故曰，天子不能以天下與人。
[Wan Zhang asked,] “In that case, when Shun possessed all under Heaven, who gave it to him?”
[Mengzi] said, “Heaven gave it to him.”
[Wan Zhang asked,] “When Heaven gave it to him, did it ordain this through repeated instructions?”
[Mengzi] said, “No. Heaven does not speak. This was manifested simply through actions and affairs.”
[Wan Zhang] asked, “In what way was this manifested through actions and affairs?”
[Mengzi] said, “… In ancient times, Yao recommended Shun to Heaven, and Heaven accepted him. He presented him to the people, and the people accepted him. Therefore, it is said that Heaven does not speak but just shows its intention through action and events.”
[Wan Zhang] asked, “What do you mean by that Yao recommended Shun to Heaven and Heaven accepted him, and Yao presented Shun to the people and the people accepted him?”
[Mengzi] said, “Yao ordered Shun to officiate the sacrifice, and hundreds of spirits enjoyed it. This shows that Heaven accepted him. Yao ordered Shun to manage affairs, and affairs were well-managed, and the people felt relieved. This shows that the people accepted him. This is that Heaven and the people gave him the world. Therefore, it is said that the Son of Heaven cannot give the world to another person.” (Mengzi 5A5)
The particular affairs wherein we can confirm the intention of Heaven are ritual sacrifices and governmental administration, which are the two pillars of state governance in early China. Shun's acceptance by Heaven and the people signals his success in these grave tasks.Footnote 47 Shun was indeed a worthy, capable man. We must remember, however, that Shun only got this chance to prove himself owing to Yao's recognition. As described in Qiongda yi shi, Shun's way to the throne began with his very encounter with the right ruler, who, due to virtues of his own, was able to discern the worth of Shun.Footnote 48 Moreover, unlike Heaven and the people, who came to accept Shun after his effective service during, so to speak, governmental internship, Yao recognized the worth of Shun without this process. Yao expected Shun's excellence in governance by observing his filiality in the private realm. As Sarah Allan points out, this special ability of Yao is one of the qualities that legitimate his political authority.Footnote 49
If the ability to recognize the worthy is an important component of the virtuous ruler, what are the virtues of the successor? What kind of qualities actually enabled Shun to become a king? The answer lies in his excellence in governance. This is contrasted with the kind of virtue, described in Qiongda yi shi, which can be summarized as inward virtues. Inward virtues are something like a person's good character, which is invulnerable to external conditions. For example, Shun was filial even when his family tried to kill him, and he remained filial after he became a king. Shun was filial under any circumstances, like flowers are fragrant whether they grow in a remote valley or on the edge of a sidewalk. Of course, Shun's filiality is what enabled him to be recognized by Yao.Footnote 50 However, for Mengzi, Shun's familial virtues are not the principal cause of the approval by Heaven and the people. Shun earned approval through his active engagement with the people and the world, fulfilling the important tasks of ritual sacrifice and administration. As Mengzi explicitly states, “Shun conferred rich benefits upon the people” (Mengzi 5A6).Footnote 51 Shun did not keep his virtues to himself nor confine them to the private realm. He actively exercised and demonstrated his virtues. Thus, his outward virtues—that is, his actual service to the people and the world—were that which enabled him to become a king.Footnote 52
To sum up Mengzi's account of how Shun rose to power, the process owes first to Yao, the virtuous reigning king. With his great perceptive capability, Yao recognized Shun, appointing him as his successor. Secondly, Shun's ascension was due to the virtues of Shun himself, the successor. Shun gained the people's voluntary supports by acting upon his virtues in the world. These two main players and their respective virtues are the key to understanding Shun's ascension. In addition, Mengzi relies on two small details to make his account more accurate and comprehensive. One is the duration of Shun's regency, and the other is the existence of rival candidates for succession. Mengzi explains:
舜相堯二十有八載，非人之所能爲也，天也。堯崩，三年之喪畢， 舜避堯之子於南河之南，天下諸侯朝覲者，不之堯之子而之舜。訟獄者，不之堯之子而之舜。 謳歌者，不謳歌堯之子而謳歌舜。故曰，天也。夫然後之中國， 踐天子位焉。而居堯之宮，逼堯之子，是簒也。非天與也。太誓曰， ‘天視自我民視，天聽自我民聽。’ 此之謂也。
Shun assisted Yao for twenty-eight years. This is not something that could have been brought about by man; this is Heaven. After Yao died and his three-year mourning was completed, Shun withdrew to the south of the South River in deference to Yao's son. But the feudal lords of the realm came to pay homage to Shun, not to Yao's son. The people brought a suit to Shun, not to Yao's son. Singers sang the praise of Shun, not of Yao's son. Therefore, I said that it is Heaven. Only then did Shun go to the center of the state and ascend the throne. If he had just moved into Yao's palace and ousted Yao's son, this would have been usurpation, not receiving it from Heaven. The “Great Declaration” [of the Book of Documents] says, ‘Heaven sees with the eyes of its people; Heaven hears with the ears of its people.’ This describes well what I mean. (Mengzi 5A5)
Shun was given a chance to benefit the people for twenty-eight years. Even with his virtue and worth, he may not have succeeded from the beginning. Through trial and error, Shun may have overcome various challenges, improving himself in the process, and the twenty-eight years of regency is surely adequate for this purpose. Apparently, Shun had to go through this learning process to ensure that the world would benefit from his rule. However, this extended period of time is not something that Shun could have brought about. For this, Mengzi said that this is owing to Heaven, a force beyond human control.Footnote 53 While this small but important prop may not have been a decisive factor, it was definitely a contributing factor facilitating Shun's rise to power. Another factor to which Mengzi draws attention is Shun's rival for succession. To return to the beginning of the story, there were other candidates, one of which was Yao's own son, Dan Zhu. However, Dan Zhu was disqualified due to incompetence. Supposing instead that Dan Zhu was a worthy candidate, the story may have had a different outcome.Footnote 54 In this sense, the unworthiness of rival candidates serves as another contributing factor in Shun's ascension, working not in a positive way, but in a negative way, by removing a hindrance to his rise to power.
Consequently, Shun's ascension was the outcome of a complex interplay between multiple factors. Both major and minor, the reasons for Shun's ascension include: 1) Yao's recommendation (Yao's virtue), 2) Shun's excellence in governance (Shun's virtue), 3) the long duration of Shun's regency, and 4) the inadequacy of the rival candidate. Since Mengzi specifically ascribes the last two minor factors to Heaven, we understand Shun's ascension as resulting from a combination of man and Heaven: what humans can control and what humans cannot control. Accordingly, in Mengzi's view, Shun's ascension is a pretty contingent event, especially in comparison to Qiongda yi shi. In Qiongda yi shi, what Heaven does and what humans do seem to have no correlation: Shun meets Yao by pure chance. However, in the Mengzi, Yao's virtue and Shun's excellence are important factors in the final outcome, albeit not decisive. In the account of Mengzi, Shun's ascension is partly attributable to the virtues of Yao and Shun and partly to favorable external conditions.
In my view, the reason that Mengzi's interpretation differs from the other two texts is also a function of perspective. The author of Qiongda yi shi takes the perspective of Shun, a potential candidate for employment: for Shun, his success is utterly contingent upon his encounter with Yao. The author of Tang Yu zhi dao takes the perspective of Yao, a ruler who must select his successor: for Yao, his abdication to a worthy person is partially contingent upon his encounter with Shun. The Mengzi does not take either perspective. Instead, his account is relayed from the perspective of a third-person, who does not participate in the event. From the third-person perspective, Mengzi observes important elements affecting Shun's succession. I call this “mise-en-scène,” the terminology that is employed in a theater or film production, referring to everything that appears on the stage or before the camera. Mengzi's explanation of Shun's ascension seems to be doing this job: arranging the main players, their respective attributes, and the minor but essential props of the event.
What kind of moral lesson can we learn if we take the Mencian approach of mise-en-scène? Shun is advised in Qiongda yi shi to turn inward, cultivating his own virtue and awaiting the right ruler. Even if he is never to meet with the right ruler, this is not his fault and his virtues will remain intact, complete, and sufficient in themselves. Now, if Shun departs from his own limited perspective and takes the third-person point of view as suggested by Mengzi, the world is no longer a completely contingent place. There is a connection, sometimes loose and sometimes tight, between what Heaven does and what humans do. Shun's success during his regency, for example, is a case of this very combination. As a result, parts of the world become comprehensible, and thereby he can act and/or expect to exert control. Thus, the scope of his responsibility is no longer restricted to his inward virtues.Footnote 55
As for Yao, Tang Yu zhi dao exhorts that he must select a worthy person as his successor because the continuation of order of the world is his responsibility. Now if Yao takes the Mencian approach, looking at his situation from a distance, he will realize that despite the fact that the heaviest burden remains still on his shoulders, the world is not something that can be controlled by any one person. This may be a reason for the straightforward remark of Mengzi, “The Son of Heaven cannot give the world to another person.”Footnote 56 Acknowledging the complex operations of the world may teach Yao an important virtue—the virtue of humility. In the cases of both Yao and Shun, what they can do and what they should do are not so different from what is recommended in Qiongda yi shi and Tang Yu zhi dao. Yet, their attitudes toward the world certainly stand to be different if they take the Mencian approach.
Consequently, concerning issues of the degree of human control, the important features of the event, and the content of the moral and political lesson, Mengzi's comprehensive account gives us different answers. For Mengzi, Shun's ascension is a pretty contingent event. It is the outcome of the complex interplay between what humans can control and what humans cannot control. Thus, it is neither completely beyond nor within human control. Moreover, unlike Qiongda yi shi and Tang Yu zhi dao, which focus on the main players of the event, Mengzi takes into consideration several other relevant factors to elucidate Shun's ascension. Lastly, even though Mengzi's lesson does not completely depart from the lessons of the other two texts—that is, self-cultivation and the selection of the worthy—his account provides us with a more subtle approach to the world, revealing a fine balance between a belief in human agency and the virtue of humility. This rich and nuanced account of Shun's ascension that we find in the Mengzi, however, takes another turn in the Xunzi.
The Xunzi: Perspective of Not of this World
The story of the Yao–Shun abdication also appears in the Xunzi. Like Mengzi, Xunzi denied it. This has led some scholars to interpret Xunzi as opposing the abdication doctrine.Footnote 57 As we have seen, however, Mengzi did not deny that Shun succeeded Yao to the throne, nor did he believe that Shun usurped the rule of Yao. In this sense, we cannot simply assert that Mengzi objected to abdication per se. Rather, Mengzi's claim is that the throne, the position of Son of Heaven, cannot be transferred by the decision of an individual person, even if the person is a sage. The transfer of political authority is a complicated process involving many factors, and thus, to a certain extent, it is beyond human control. Likewise, Xunzi's denial of Yao's abdication to Shun is not about the historicity of the Yao–Shun transmission; his intention seems to lie elsewhere. If Mengzi's denial is to show the limits of human agency, then Xunzi's denial is, conversely, to show the insurmountable power of human agency. To put it more precisely, Xunzi intends to illuminate the capacity of a sage king's perfect rule. In the following, I will explain Xunzi's peculiar account of Shun's ascension, wherein Shun cannot but succeed Yao.
In the middle of the chapter “Zheng lun” 正論 (Correct Judgments), Xunzi brings up the popular claim that Yao abdicated the throne to Shun. Not only does Xunzi deny the claim, he vehemently criticizes it:
是虛言也，是淺者之傳，陋者之說也，不知逆順之理，小大、至不至之變者也，未可與及天下之大理者也。
This is empty talk. It is a rumor circulated by shallow people and a doctrine spoken by boorish people. They are people who do not understand the patterns of what is conflicting and what is agreeable, and do not understand what changes happen to greater and lesser entities, supreme and non-supreme ones. They are the people who have never been able to take part in attaining the great order of the world. (Xunzi 18.344–350)Footnote 58
For Xunzi, anyone who believes in the abdication story of Yao and Shun is foolishly mistaken, and they are incapable of understanding the workings of the world. For they cannot distinguish the changes of greater entities from those of lesser ones, or the changes of supreme ones from those of non-supreme ones. What does he mean by greater/lesser and supreme/non-supreme entities? We can discern these contrasts from a previous passage in the same chapter in which he discusses another political narrative, the revolutionary transfer of power as depicted in the story of the tyrant Jie 桀 and King Tang 湯王 and that of the tyrant Zhou and King Wu. Here, Xunzi explicitly explains what was meant by greater/lesser entities and also offers his conceptions of the “world” (tianxia 天下, literally “all under Heaven”) and “Son of Heaven” (tianzi 天子), and their relationship to the “sage” (shengren 聖人):
可以有奪人國，不可以有奪人天下，可以有竊國，不可以有竊天下也。 … 是何也? 曰，國，小具也，可以小人有也，可以小道得也，可以小力持也。天下者， 大具也，不可以小人有也，不可以小力得也，不可以小力持也。國者，小人可以有之， 然而未必不亡也，天下者，至大也，非聖人莫之能有也。
It is possible that someone might snatch away a state when it belongs to another, but it is not possible that someone might snatch away the world when it belongs to another. It is possible that someone might steal a state, but it is not possible that someone might steal the world. … Why is this? I say: the state is the lesser instrument. It can be possessed by a petty man. It can be obtained by petty ways. It can be maintained by petty strength. The world is the greater instrument. It cannot be possessed by a petty man. It cannot be obtained by petty ways. It cannot by maintained by petty strength. As for the state, a petty person can possess it, but he will not necessarily avoid perishing. As for the world, its size is supremely great. Nobody except a sage is able to possess it. (Xunzi 18.145–159)
Obviously, lesser/greater entities refer to regional states and the whole world, respectively. Xunzi draws a sharp demarcation between the two entities. Regional states can be possessed and governed by petty people, and the rulership of states can be a target of usurpation. On the contrary, the world is beyond the reach of petty people, and rulership of the world belongs to sages. Only sages can possess and govern the world. Why? This is because the task of the world is the weightiest, and the size of the world is vast, and the population of the world is immense:
天下者，至重也，非至彊莫之能任。至大也，非至辨莫之能分。至衆也， 非至明莫之能和。此三至者，非聖人莫之能盡，故非聖人莫之能王。
Responsibility for the world is supremely heavy. Nobody except one who possesses supreme strength can undertake it. Its size is supremely great. Nobody except one who possesses supreme ability in making distinctions can divide it up properly. Its people are supremely numerous. Nobody except one who possesses supreme brilliance can harmonize them. As for these three “supremes,” nobody except a sage can fulfill them fully. And so nobody except a sage is able to rule as a king. (Xunzi 18.113–120)
Thus, the world is the supreme/greater entity, for the world has the absolute superiority in its tasks, size, and populace. Therefore, it is natural for Xunzi to conceive of governance of this supreme entity as being entrusted to a person with supreme capacity: a person who is accountable for grave tasks, who is perspicacious in establishing order, and who is brilliant enough to harmonize people. Such a person would be a sage and so only sages can be in charge of the world.
In contrast, Xunzi claimed that if someone without such capacity occupies the position of Son of Heaven, he is not truly a Son of Heaven. Xunzi said, “If one thinks that, in terms of conventional procedure [by inheritance], Kings Jie and Zhou possessed the highest status in the world, then that is so. However, if one thinks, in terms of their own persons, they possessed the highest status in the world, then that is not so” (Xunzi 18.50–54).Footnote 59 According to Xunzi, Jie and Zhou may have inherited the throne from their forefathers, but they never truly possessed the world. Because of their lack of capacity, they were not able to govern the world. Without having been able to govern the world, they never qualified as the Son of Heaven.Footnote 60 In order to properly understand Xunzi's view, we need to make a conceptual distinction of the term, Son of Heaven: the Son of Heaven as an office and the Son of Heaven as a person who fills the office.Footnote 61 It is the office of Son of Heaven—the service of the supreme governance of the whole world—that is of crucial significance in Xunzi's political thought. The person who holds this office can be called the Son of Heaven only when he fulfills the demanding tasks of the office, but not the other way around.Footnote 62 For Xunzi, what makes a person a Son of Heaven is the person's capacity to rule the world, not his hereditary right.
The question that follows, then, is what sages do while in office? Xunzi says:
聖王在上，圖德而定次，量能而授官，皆使民載其事而各得其宜。
When a sage king rules above, he assigns rank by reckoning virtue, awards official positions by assessing ability, and in each case makes it so that the people undertake the right tasks and each gets what is proper for him. (Xunzi 18.271–274)
聖王在上故天子生，則天下一隆致順而治，論德而定次。死， 則能任天下者， 必有之矣。夫禮義之分盡矣，擅讓惡用矣哉?
While the Son of Heaven lives, the world exalts this one man, behaves with paramount compliance, and is ordered. He assigns rank by judging virtue, and when he dies, then whoever is able to assume responsibility for the world is sure to take possession of it. When the social divisions according to ritual and social norms are completely implemented, what use would be served by relinquishing the throne and yielding it to others? (Xunzi 18.289–295)Footnote 63
Sage kings establish the rules for society in a way that the more virtuous and the more worthy a person is, the higher are his rank and position.Footnote 64 In such a society, claimed Xunzi, the people are all transformed and “there are no hidden worthies and no unrecognized good deeds.”Footnote 65 Simply put, a society ruled by a sage king is a perfectly meritocratic society.Footnote 66 Therefore, upon the death of a reigning sage, a subsequent sage in rank and position will emerge to continue the rule. Similar to Mengzi, Xunzi seems to emphasize that political succession is not determined by the personal choice of a sage king. However, in contrast to Mengzi, Xunzi did not believe political succession to be the outcome of the interplay of diverse factors. For Xunzi, political succession was a part of a necessary process of the perfect rule instituted by sages. As Yuri Pines puts it, “the perfect mechanism based on ritual and propriety as envisioned by Xunzi requires no abdication and no transfer of power.”Footnote 67 For Xunzi, in the perfect world governed by the sage Yao, a second worthy person is next in line for succession. The following scenario explains precisely what happened between Yao and Shun:Footnote 68
聖不在後子而在三公, 則天下如歸, 猶復而振之矣, 天下厭然與鄕無以異也, 以堯繼堯, 夫又何變之有矣?
[When the sage king has died], if the sage is not among the king's descendants, and is instead among the three dukes, then the world goes and sides with him, as if returning and restoring a former ruler to the throne. The world remains calm, no different from before. One Yao succeeds another Yao, so what switch is there? (Xunzi 18.279–287)
When Yao passed away, the person most worthy and most capable of governing the world was not among his sons. Instead, his minister Shun was the person identified as having supreme capacity for the role. Therefore, the whole world aligned with him, and Shun maintained the rule of the former king with harmonious continuity.Footnote 69 In Xunzi's view, insofar as Shun was the highest sage, he would naturally have succeeded Yao to the throne because former sages established political institutions in such a way. Therefore, in the world of the sage Yao, Shun's ascension was very much expected.Footnote 70
If this is indeed Xunzi's view, how come his account differs so drastically from the other three texts?Footnote 71 As we have seen, Qiongda yi shi, Tang Yu zhi dao, and the Mengzi all admit the existence of contingency in the world, albeit to differing degrees. In these texts, the world is more or less beyond human control and comprehension. In Xunzi's perfect political world ruled by sages, however, there is no sign of contingency. In such a perfect world, Shun would not need to worry about whether or not he will be recognized by the right ruler, and Yao would not need to worry about finding a worthy successor. In addition, external conditions that may facilitate or hinder the succession process were of no concern for Xunzi. Insofar as Shun's virtue and worth surpass the virtue and worth of others, his succession to Yao is unquestionable.
In my view, Xunzi manages this unique understanding of the Yao–Shun transmission because his viewpoint is not of this world.Footnote 72 In contrast, the descriptions of Shun's ascension in the three previous texts are from this world, wherein various individuals with particular characteristics live together and interact with one another. However, in the world described in the Xunzi passages above, there are people, but these people are devoid of any distinctive characteristics. As Sungmoon Kim aptly observes, “Despite his occasional allusions to the sage-kings, Xunzi rarely described the heroic moral virtue of particular sage-kings. Instead, he explains the personal characteristics of the sage-kings or sage in highly abstract and general terms.”Footnote 73 This is why Xunzi was able to describe the succession of Shun to Yao as, “One Yao succeeds another Yao.” Yao and Shun are indistinguishable in the sense that they are the same sage kings, reigning and succeeding in sequence, implementing and protecting the same benevolent policies. They are the holders of perfect virtue and supreme capacity, who are apt to fill the most exalted position, Son of Heaven.
Even more surprising, these holders of supreme virtues are said not to age. Xunzi remarkably said, “There is such a thing as old age for the regional lords, but there is no such thing as old age for the Son of Heaven” (Xunzi 18.339–341).Footnote 74 One way to make sense of this puzzling and unscientific statement is that, as mentioned earlier, we need to separate the notion of Son of Heaven as an office from the person who occupies it.Footnote 75 In a simple sense, human beings grow old, but the political office does not. Therefore, when Xunzi claimed that the Son of Heaven does not get old, he may not mean the physical body of the ruler, but the nature of the office itself.Footnote 76 Prior to this puzzling remark, Xunzi enumerates in meticulous detail a variety of luxuries that the office of Son of Heaven provides in terms of garments, scents, foods, music, residence, transport, and attendants—material luxury in such abundance that this office does not allow ageing. Loubna El Amine points out that in Xunzi's vision, “The ruler has to be able to assume the removed aura of an overseer.”Footnote 77 I think that the office of Son of Heaven, furnished with unreachable opulence and splendor, serves to bestow the very removed aura upon the ruler.
To summarize, what we find in Xunzi's account of the Yao–Shun transmission is a description that is not of the real world. In the world of Xunzi, there are no real people; people do not have distinct personalities and people are invulnerable to ageing. His world is a world of imagination, which perfectly embodies his political vision.Footnote 78 This perfect world runs by the perfect rule instituted by sage kings. Accordingly, there exist neither fortunate nor misfortunate events, and a virtuous person such as Shun is sure to ascend to the throne. Unfortunately however, there are no real people who can enjoy such perfection. Xunzi's perfect world turns out to be far removed from the ordinary lives of real people.Footnote 79
Conclusion
The story of Shun has drawn considerable attention throughout Chinese history because of its significance with regard to political succession. This article sheds light on a different dimension of the story by focusing on its relevance to the issue of contingency. Shun's ascension to the throne following Yao is one case in which notions such as Heaven (tian 天), timing (shi 時), and fate (ming 命) appear.Footnote 80 Accordingly, I used the four texts to showcase different ways of thinking about areas over which humans are believed to lack control, and examined why they offer different interpretations of the same event and what kinds of moral and political lesson they try to draw from this.
According to Qiongda yi shi, Shun's ascension was an utterly contingent event, because whether or not Shun was to meet the right ruler was beyond Shun's control. The author of this text thus advises Shun to cultivate his virtue and await the right ruler. Recalling that this text starts by mentioning a distinction between Heaven and man, we are told that the gentleman is a person with a clear understanding of the respective allotments of Heaven and man. What should be noted is that here “man” does not mean “human” in a generic sense, but instead “man” refers to a specific person in the narrative. In this text, the man is Shun, a prospective candidate for office. From Shun's point of view, it appears that the cultivation of his virtue is in his own hands; in contrast, whether or not a ruler in Shun's time has cultivated virtue enough to recognize another worthy is out of Shun's hands. As a result, in Qiongda yi shi, “what human[s] can control” is restricted to “what Shun himself can control,” and all other things are up to Heaven.
Along similar lines, Tang Yu zhi dao admonishes rulers to recognize a worthy and appoint him as his successor. This is the responsibility of a ruler and something that a ruler can control. However, whether or not there is a person worthy to be chosen is beyond the ruler's control. This is why Yao also had to meet with the opportune time during which to recognize a worthy successor. From Yao's point of view, the cultivation of his virtue and the selection of the worthy are in his hands, but the presence of worthy in his time is out of his hands. Consequently, in Tang Yu zhi dao, “what human[s] can control” is restricted to “what Yao can control,” and all other things are up to Heaven.
To sum up, Qiongda yi shi is written from the perspective of a person in a position to be chosen and Tang Yu zhi dao is written from the perspective of a person in a position to choose. Despite the fact that in both narratives the chooser and the chosen are limited by what they cannot control, the degree of limitation they confront is dissimilar. The ruler (chooser) has much more control over the flow of events than the chosen, because the ruler has a choice to make upon his encounter with the worthy. In contrast, the employment of the chosen completely depends upon the ruler's decision. That is to say, the ruler is an active agent, while the chosen is a passive recipient. In addition, sheer statistics also matter. It is much more probable for a ruler to meet a man of worth among all his people, whereas it is much less probable for a worthy candidate to meet the right ruler. Qiongda yi shi and Tang Yu zhi dao thus tell us that, depending on which perspective one takes, the areas which one can and cannot control are defined differently. Not only that, but the degree of human control that one possesses is measured differently as well.
If “man” in these two texts is confined to the perspectives of a particular individual, in the Mencian mise-en-scène approach, “man” (as opposed to Heaven) seems to refer to the generic notion of human beings. Yao's virtue and Shun's virtue are considered to be what humans can control, whereas the duration of Shun's regency and the existence of rival candidates are ascribed to Heaven. However, one may ask: if Yao's and Shun's virtues are what they can control, is not Dan Zhu's unworthiness also what Dan Zhu himself can control?Footnote 81 Logically, yes! In short, Dan Zhu's virtue should be within the area of his own control. Mengzi's ascription of his unworthiness to Heaven, however, suggests that “what man can control” is not attributed to the generic sense of human beings, either. The focus of the Mencian mise-en-scène approach still rests on the two main players of the narrative, Yao and Shun. Therefore, “what man can control” refers to “what Yao and Shun can control,” and all other things are up to Heaven. Consequently, the Mencian third-person perspective is not a completely objective one.
Only does the Xunzi evade any particular perspective of individuals so that finally “man” is taken in a purely generic sense. When Xunzi said “what man can control,” he indeed meant what humans in general can control. However, what humans in general can control does not seem to mean the cultivation of virtue of individual persons. Rather what humans in general control means a quite different thing for Xunzi: that is, the construction of human artifact. With ritual and rule, humans can impose a necessary order upon the world, turning a contingent place into a predictable place. With perfect political institutions established by sage kings, humans can remove contingent factors from the world. Paradoxically, the perfect world that Xunzi envisioned has no actual place in this world. No real people live in his perfect world. Conversely, this seems to give us an important insight that contingency must be a necessary part of the real human world.
This analysis and comparison of these four texts show that the areas over which humans have/do not have control is amorphous in nature, and that the concept of contingency depends very much on perspectives. Specified perspective and concrete context can give certainty of form to this vague and protean notion. Accordingly, in my appraisal, it is almost impossible to discuss the notion of contingency in general or abstract terms, and it is extremely difficult to garner and pin down the exact nature of contingency from multifaceted accounts. Nevertheless, it may be only through investigating these diverse accounts of contingency in human affairs that we come closer to grasping this tricky notion. The study of the four texts provided here is one such attempt, and going forward, we can add more accounts to this showcase to have a fuller understanding of the concept of contingency.
