A beacon illuminating Chinese history: for the reputation of Song Xiang Gong.

Li Yousheng (Community Newspaper, January/February 2015)

The story of Duke Xiang of Song’s defeat by Chu, as recorded in the *Zuo Zhuan*, is widely known, but it is often concluded that Duke Xiang was foolish and stubborn. Even the renowned scholar Qian Zhongshu, in his *Guanzhui Bian*, vehemently criticized Duke Xiang’s stubbornness and arrogance, following the traditional view in Chinese history. However, this conclusion may not reflect the actual situation at the time, nor is it appropriate or comprehensive. For example, the historian Sima Qian, known for his integrity and rigor, quoted this story in the *Records of the Grand Historian*, specifically in the chapter on the Hereditary House of Song and Wei Zi, saying, “This is a lament for the decline of etiquette in China, and it is a commendable act of Duke Xiang’s courtesy and deference.” Sima Qian believed that Duke Xiang set a shining example of defeat and death for the sake of courtesy, something that China, lacking in etiquette at the time, desperately needed.

In 638 BC, the states of Song and Chu fought a battle at Hong, with Chu being stronger than Song. Duke Xiang of Song, possessing keen political acumen, immediately recognized that Song was no match for Chu in terms of military might, and that only through tact and diplomacy could they prevail. Therefore, when his deputy, Ziyu, suggested attacking the Chu army while they were crossing the Hong River, Duke Xiang refused. Ziyu then suggested attacking before the Chu army had formed ranks after landing, which Duke Xiang again rejected. Once both sides had formed ranks, the battle began, and the Song army suffered a crushing defeat. Duke Xiang was wounded in the leg by an arrow and died from the wound the following year. However, this, like Emperor Gaozu of Han (Liu Bang) dying from an arrow wound while surrounded by the Xiongnu, did not diminish their image as a nation renowned for its etiquette.

Faced with the complaints of his people after the battle, Duke Xiang of Song said, “A virtuous gentleman does not kill wounded enemies, nor capture those with gray hair. Ancient commanders did not rely on strategic terrain. Although I am a descendant of the fallen Shang Dynasty, I know the principle of not attacking an enemy who is not in formation.” (Original text: A gentleman does not repeat the wounds, nor capture the gray-haired. Ancient armies did not rely on difficult terrain. Although I am a descendant of a fallen state, I will not attack an enemy who is not in formation.)

Duke Xiang of Song’s forbearance and sacrifice not only earned Song a higher standing among the feudal states but also brought the peace that the people of that time longed for. The eagerness to win in war is like driving recklessly on an urgent mission; it’s the easiest time to disregard wartime or traffic rules. Every violation of the rules, like running a red light, yields immense benefits, which is why following the rules is paramount. The former leads to the continuous demoralization and cruelty of war, escalating conflict; the latter dramatically increases the risk of accidents. If war is a means of resolving disputes, the social cost of resolving the same dispute rises dramatically, from no deaths to ten, a hundred, or even ten thousand. Duke Xiang of Song’s shining example of preferring defeat and death to violating the rules of war at the time undoubtedly served as a remedy for the demoralization and cruelty of warfare. However, historians have not studied the extent to which Duke Xiang’s brilliant example at the Battle of Hongshui contributed to the humanization and humanitarianization of warfare at that time. The social impact of the Battle of Hongshui under Duke Xiang of Song, and the subsequent decrease in war mortality rates, saving countless families from destruction, remains a mystery to Chinese scholars even two thousand years later. The author firmly believes that such a figure is achievable, a scientifically sound and universally understandable number—a figure even an illiterate peasant would grasp.

For more than two thousand years, Chinese history textbooks have listed Duke Xiang of Song as one of the Five Hegemons of the Spring and Autumn Period, while the powerful State of Chu had to wait until the reign of King Zhuang of Chu several decades later to become one of the Five Hegemons. [4] Among these Five Hegemons, only Duke Xiang of Song did not use force to dominate but used benevolence and righteousness to dominate. This is truly a source of pride for the Chinese people and deserves to be written about by Chinese literati. Duke Huan of Qi, the first hegemon of the Spring and Autumn Period, was a person who combined force and benevolence. The three hegemons after Duke Xiang of Song had a greater emphasis on force. Duke Xiang of Song quoted the ancients to explain his practice of not attacking without forming ranks. Was this the case for the ancients, but not for the people of Duke Xiang of Song’s time? We can see from ancient documents that Duke Xiang of Song was not the only one who held this attitude towards war. About a century later, Confucius said, “Rise up the extinct states, continue the broken lineages, and raise up the reclusive people.” Confucius’s attitude was exactly the opposite of the social trend of later conquest through war. Instead, he wanted to help those who were in a disadvantaged position. In the sixth year of Duke Huan’s reign (705 BC), when recording how the state of Sui resisted the powerful state of Chu, Ji Liang said to the ruler of Sui, “I have heard that a small state can defeat a large one, because a small state follows moral principles while a large state relies on tyranny.” This means that a small state can defeat a large state because it adheres to moral principles, while a large state relies on tyranny. The *Records of the Grand Historian*, in the chapter on Assassins, records that the state of Qi seized a lot of land from the state of Lu. Lu was weak, and General Cao Mo of Lu forced Duke Huan of Qi to return the land with a dagger in hand. Afterwards, Duke Huan of Qi wanted to renege on his promise made under threat, but Guan Zhong said, “No, it is not advisable. To be greedy for small gains and to abandon one’s faith with the feudal lords and lose the support of the world is worse than giving in.” The *Discourses of the States*, in the chapter on Yue, says, “One who does not assist Heaven in its tyranny is inauspicious.” “Assisting Heaven in its tyranny” has become a derogatory idiom in Chinese. Not assisting Heaven in its tyranny has the same meaning as the saying of Duke Xiang of Song not capturing an old man or relying on terrain. So what was the purpose of war in China at that time? The *Discourses of the States*… The *Yueyu* (越语) also says, “In ancient times, those who conquered a country only sought its submission. Now that it has submitted, what more is there to ask for?”

Contemporary scholar Yang Kuan stated that during the Spring and Autumn Period, armies were primarily composed of commoners (the lower classes of the nobility), fighting in chariots. Their numbers were relatively small, and battles were often decided within one or two days, commanded by the ruler or high-ranking officials who sounded drums. Historian Huang Renyu, however, said that battles typically lasted no more than a day, which does not contradict Yang Kuan’s statement, although their concepts and standards differ slightly. Huang further stated that chariot warfare in the Spring and Autumn Period was a form of aristocratic warfare, sometimes viewed as a competition. There were established procedures for battle formations, and the points of intersection followed generally accepted principles, meaning that the constraints of etiquette remained. Self-interest was the general trend at the time. In short, their warfare was still constrained by human nature. The conclusion is that the wars waged by large states and the moral and etiquette demonstrations conducted by smaller states were both aimed at winning over others, a phenomenon similar to the animal kingdom. Strong male chimpanzees often risked danger to obtain rare food to share with the whole group, while bulls and deer defeated each other through strength.

Zoologists have discovered that violent struggles among animals of the same species generally follow fixed rituals; intimidation and posturing are often enough to resolve disputes. Haven’t you ever seen images of two male deer or buffalo fighting to determine the sex of the animal? That is to say, when they actually fight, they adhere to the rules, without sneak attacks or subsequent revenge. Our human ancestors also treated their internal conflicts in this way, and maintained this practice very late in life, as confirmed by the research of many anthropologists and supported by ancient Chinese texts. This practice at least lingered during the time of Duke Xiang of Song, which is why he was able to succeed.

Although Confucius and others shared the same views and attitudes as Duke Xiang of Song, only Duke Xiang, as the commander of a war, left such a tragic yet glorious image in Chinese history, like an ever-burning lamp illuminating the ages, still burning today, offering its own enlightenment. As a great figure in Chinese history, Mao Zedong had his tragic side: if he had learned more from Duke Xiang, he wouldn’t have allowed his wife to commit suicide in prison. Mao Zedong described Duke Xiang as having “a pig-like sense of benevolence and morality,” and the Cultural Revolution was a result of Mao Zedong completely disregarding his own established rules. According to memoirs by Ms. Zhang Rong and those who worked closely with Mao Zedong, the Lin Biao incident in 1971, involving his close comrade-in-arms, was a fatal blow to Mao, one he never recovered from. The first five years of the Cultural Revolution were vigorous and impactful, while the latter five years were lukewarm and ineffective, with the nationwide criticism of Lin Biao and Confucius, and the reversal of verdicts against Deng Xiaoping, all proceeding listlessly. In his later years, Mao considered himself a failure, like Chiang Kai-shek who retreated to Taiwan and Nixon who was impeached and removed from office, so he felt a particular sympathy for them. Years earlier, he wrote a poem, “Birds’ Dialogue,” the last line of which was: “Please fill my empty belly.” Before his death, Mao changed it to: “Let’s see the world turn upside down.” The situation indeed unfolded as he predicted: the world turned upside down. Imagine what it must have been like for such a powerful figure to spend the last five years of his life enjoying his utter defeat and accomplishing nothing. Those around him said he often wept silently alone. Undoubtedly, Mao broke the rules and ran a red light, resulting in a five-year paralysis on the political stage during the blood-soaked Cultural Revolution.

Confucianism is renowned for its emphasis on benevolence and righteousness. When discussing history, we may speak of Confucian ministers, but not Confucian generals. Some have proposed the concept of Confucian chivalry, arguing that the martial arts trend that emerged in the late Qing Dynasty carried the Confucian spirit of prioritizing benevolence and righteousness. However, martial arts existed primarily among the common people, which aptly illustrates the tragic consequences in Chinese history where, under the guidance of political figures, Confucian benevolence and righteousness became detached from the brutality of war. War, in particular, necessitates the spirit of benevolence and righteousness to reduce social depletion. According to Chen Ping, at least ten instances of mass destruction resulting in the death of more than half the population occurred in China over two millennia, while Europe experienced only one. The population of the Western Han Dynasty, initially sixty million, dwindled to only two percent by the early Three Kingdoms period. All ten of these mass destructions occurred after the Qin and Han dynasties, and none occurred during the reign of Duke Xiang of Song or before him. This includes the Warring States period, which was not nearly as devastating as later periods. This is undoubtedly due to a lack of reverence for the teachings of Duke Xiang of Song in Chinese historical records, but it also underscores the greatness of Duke Xiang and Sima Qian. Without them, Chinese history might have witnessed twenty more instances of mass destruction resulting in the death of more than half the population. If Duke Xiang of Song were alive, he would say, “Besides benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, and humility, what else in the world is so precious that it’s worth half the Chinese dying?” Did such widespread destruction, resulting in the death of more than half the population, bring about social progress? Compared to Europe, the destruction only led to social regression and depression. What Chinese history desperately needs are social rules, and exemplary figures like Duke Xiang of Song and Socrates who were willing to sacrifice themselves for those rules. Europe reveres Socrates as a saint, while China dares to ridicule Duke Xiang of Song. Socrates was sentenced to death by a narrow majority of five hundred juries, but the execution was delayed, and his guard was lax. The authorities clearly encouraged Socrates to flee to other states, but he insisted on serving his sentence to demonstrate his loyalty to his state and the laws he had helped to establish.

Recently, Japanese scholar Kondo Noriyuki conducted a detailed textual research on the date of composition of the *Zuo Zhuan*, stating: “The Confucian school centered on the *Yijing* (Book of Changes) attempted to reconstruct the rites that acknowledged the emperor’s power. The *Zuo Zhuan*, however, was formed against the backdrop of feudal power under the emperor, with the aim of criticizing the practical theories of the *Yijing*. Therefore, the *Zuo Zhuan* can be presumed to have been written after the *Yijing* had reached a certain level of development, namely, after the Qin to Qin-Han transition.” The original text of the *Zuo Zhuan* contains a lengthy commentary by Ziyu on Duke Xiang of Song, criticizing Duke Xiang’s view that prioritized practical social effects, showcasing the ideology under imperial power that focused solely on victory in war. Ziyu no longer considered the interests of the opposing side in the war, the shared interests of both sides in the battlefield and society, or what would happen if one’s side were in the same situation as the enemy in the present. Only Qin Shi Huang, believing he had secured an eternal dynasty, dared to be so audacious, daring to bring about the deaths of all his descendants without regret.

After the death of Duke Xiang of Song, the State of Song convened two peace conferences in 579 BC and 546 BC, summoning various vassal states to discuss a ceasefire. Afterwards, no large-scale wars occurred in the north. In this peaceful environment, power shifted to varying degrees from the rulers to the ministers, leading to greater political clarity. Duke Xiang of Song was a man of outstanding achievements. He rallied a four-state coalition to support Duke Xiao of Qi, and greatly assisted Chong’er, who later became Duke Wen of Jin. Despite being a small state, he upheld benevolence and propriety, thus becoming the leader of the alliance after Duke Huan of Qi. While mainstream historians like Sima Qian acknowledge Duke Xiang’s status as one of the Five Hegemons, some disagree. These disagreements were influenced by later imperial power and the separation of propriety and war. Duke Xiang was the last statesman to successfully uphold the principles of propriety in warfare before this separation. His actions—being detained and later released by the Chu state (which he himself had declared kings) for not bringing troops to the conference, and his defeat at the Battle of Hongshui—only demonstrate the exceptional talent and brilliance of Duke Xiang when propriety and war were not separated. In an era where victory became the sole objective of war, Duke Xiang of Song became a laughingstock. After his death, the changing circumstances meant that at the two peace conferences mentioned above, Song no longer sought hegemony, but remained a faithful inheritor of Duke Xiang’s exemplary conduct: advocating benevolence, righteousness, and propriety to seek social security and peaceful coexistence with the other states. Therefore, Duke Xiang’s words and actions were consistent with Song’s traditions and status, while Ziyu’s words contradicted them. This suggests that Ziyu’s lengthy commentary may have been added by the author of the *Zuo Zhuan* to adapt to new imperial ideals, based on the original words and deeds of Duke Xiang, serving as evidence of cultural authoritarianism’s distortion of history. Many people are praised for not retaliating when punched; why is Duke Xiang, who adhered to the rules of war and became a hegemon, ridiculed? This can only be explained by the influence of cultural authoritarianism on people’s thinking.