History is inherently political. Politics is about making decisions within the group that affect the group, and history is the guide/model/mirror by which such decisions are made.
Luckily enough, however, history is rather long, meaning that if you are well read enough, there is a decent chance you will be able to find a precedent from some point in time to argue almost any position. Therefore, if it should appear that someone is using a historical precedent incorrectly, perhaps it is not that they are using the precedent incorrectly, but that they are actually using an entirely different precedent.
The Names Wén and Wǔ
Ancient Chinese History is modeled by the “Three Dynasties,” or alternatively “Three Ages,” that of Xià, Shāng, and Zhōu. The conquest of Shāng by Zhōu, dated to around 1046 BC, became a standard model for the concept of “Heaven’s Mandate,” of the right to rule being transmissible from one regime to another. In the traditional narrative of the Shāng-Zhōu transition, the final rulers of Shāng were wicked and lost the support of the people, who gradually turned to support the rising power of Zhōu, a vassal state of Shāng established to manage the western lands.
On the eve of the transition, the head of the Zhōu state, known as Xī Bó “the Earl of the West,” was said to have held control of two thirds of the realm. After Xī Bó died, he was known posthumously as King Wén 文王, “the Cultured King.” His son then led the final military campaign that conquered all the realm and replaced Shāng with Zhōu as the ruling house. That son was known posthumously as King Wǔ 武王, “the Warrior King.”1
In the Zhōu model, it could be said that Wén gained legitimacy and the rightful Mandate to rule through civilizing influence, which was then enacted by Wǔ through military action.
Side-bar on Philosophies of Complementarity
I won’t pretend to be an expert on philosophy, let alone Chinese philosophy, or even any particular era of Chinese philosophy (obviously, Bronze Age Zhōu era “Hundred Schools” philosophy was radically different from, say, Sòng era “Neo-Confucian” philosophy), but from my meager readings, it seems to me that the concept of complementary dual concepts was a very widespread and influential idea. The most obvious example is, of course, yīn-yáng, but the duality perhaps also extended to other concepts, including political concepts, such as Wén “Civil” and Wǔ “Martial.” It perhaps also extended into the concept of Temple Names: “For the ancients, Zǔ had achievements and Zōng had virtues, those seen as Zǔ and Zōng, their Temples were all not demolished.”2
The Wén and Wǔ of Wèi and Jìn
As posthumous names, we see Wén and Wǔ not only in Zhōu, but also in Wèi and Jìn.
For Wèi, Cáo Cāo was Wǔ 武, Cáo Pī was Wén 文.3
For Jìn, at first Sīmǎ Yì was Wén 文 and Sīmǎ Shī was Wǔ 武. During the tenure of Sīmǎ Zhāo, these posthumous names were changed, Sīmǎ Yì’s posthumous name changing from Wén 文 to Xuān-Wén 宣文 to Xuān 宣, Sīmǎ Shī’s posthumous name changing from Wǔ 武 to Zhōng-Wǔ 忠武 to Jǐng 景. Later, Sīmǎ Zhāo himself gained the posthumous name Wén 文 and Sīmǎ Yán gained the posthumous name Wǔ 武.4
The intended implication of the Jìn naming system is probably obvious: like with the Zhōu model, legitimacy was gained through the civilizing influence of the father (Wén) and then formally completed by the martial achievement of the son (Wǔ). So originally Sīmǎ Yì was supposed to be Wén and Sīmǎ Shī was supposed to be Wǔ, but due to various setbacks, the establishment of Jìn could not be achieved in the lifetime of Sīmǎ Shī. The transition had to be delayed to Sīmǎ Zhāo and his own son Sīmǎ Yán, and Sīmǎ Zhāo had to have the posthumous names of his father and elder brother revised, so that Zhāo could be Wén and Yán could be Wǔ instead.
With Wèi, however, the order of Wén and Wǔ has been reversed. In Wèi, it is the father Cáo Cāo who was Wǔ and the son Cáo Pī who was Wén, an apparent contradiction of the Zhōu model.
In his paper on the Wèi-Jìn transition, “The Accession of Sima Yan, AD 265: Legitimation by Ritual Replication,” Carl Leban makes special note of this discrepancy of the Wén and Wǔ reversal, suggesting that the Zhōu model was better understood by the Jìn founders than the Wèi founders.5
Cáo Pī’s Real Model
Here I propose that it was not that Cáo Pī and his supporters did not understand the Zhōu model, but that Pī was trying to emulate a different model: the Hàn model.
The political model of Hàn is not as easily seen, for in terms of actual posthumous names, the Wǔ of Hàn also appeared after the Wén of Hàn, albeit in a different way: Liú Chè, Hàn Emperor Wǔ, was the grandson of Liú Héng, Hàn Emperor Wén, and neither were the founders of Hàn.6 The trick is to look beyond posthumous names, and also consider temple names and what they were probably intended to signify.
The founder of Hàn, Liú Bāng, commonly known as Gāozǔ, in fact had the temple name Tàizǔ 太祖 and the posthumous name Gāo, the unorthodox name Gāo “High” possibly intended to refer to his exceptionally high achievements in rising from commoner to Emperor through military conquest in the collapse Qín.7 After Gāozǔ died, he was nominally succeeded by his son Liú Yíng, but real power was held by Yíng’s mother and Bāng’s widow, the powerful Dowager Empress Lǚ and her Lǚ clan. After the Dowager died, a group of senior ministers and cadets of the Liú family led a successful coup that destroyed the overly powerful Lǚ clan, inviting Liú Héng, another son of Liú Bāng (by a different consort), to become the next Emperor.8 Liú Héng’s reign brought much needed peace and stability to the empire after the years of military conflict, first under Gāozǔ and then in the Lǚ clan disturbance, and after his death, Liú Héng was given the posthumous name Wén and the temple name Tàizōng 太宗.
The temple names of Liú Bāng as Tàizǔ 太祖 and Liú Héng as Tàizōng 太宗 is meaningful. As the aforementioned old saying goes, “Zǔ have achievements and Zōng have virtues.” Liú Bāng as Tàizǔ was to be considered as having the greatest achievements of the Emperors of Hàn; Liú Héng as Tàizōng was to be considered as having the greatest virtues of the Emperors of Hàn. The Hàn model was in effect a reversal of the Zhōu model: legitimacy was gained by the high military achievements of the father, and then solidified by the civilizing virtuous influence of the son.
Cáo Pī appears to have been an admirer of Liú Héng, and even wrote an essay Tàizōng Lùn “Discussion on the Grand Exemplar [Liú Héng].”9 Based on this, we might speculate that the model in Cáo Pī’s mind was not that he and his father should be like the Wén and Wǔ of Zhōu, but like the Tàizǔ and Tàizōng of Hàn. Cáo Cāo should be another Liú Bāng, a Tàizǔ who gained the greatest achievements through military conquest. Cáo Pī wanted to be another Liú Héng, a Tàizōng of cultural refinement and grace, who would bring peace and stability through virtuous influence.
This wish perhaps influenced Cáo Pī’s approaches to diplomacy with Sūn Quán in Wú, for Cáo Pī attempted to offer very generous terms in exchange for Sūn Quán’s submission, including title as King of Wú and the Nine Bestowments.10 Even after the return of open war between the two sides, negotiations continued with Cáo Pī and Sūn Quán exchanging envoys for over a year before Sūn Quán finally broke off talks completely,11 and we are told that when the war resumed Cáo Pī had his Tàizōng Lùn circulated across the Empire, reportedly to make it clear that he had not wanted war.
The Failed Dreams of Fathers and Sons
Interestingly enough, Cáo Pī’s model was probably not the model that his father Cáo Cāo would have actually liked, given an alleged statement of Cáo Cāo that: “if the Mandate is on me, then I am Zhōu King Wén.”12
Perhaps even more interesting, the Hàn model was probably not the model his son Cáo Ruì sought to emulate either, for after Cáo Pī’s death, the temple name given to Cáo Pī was not Tàizōng, but Gāozǔ.13 But as with the later case of Sīmǎ Yì and Sīmǎ Shī having their posthumous names changed by Sīmǎ Zhāo, perhaps this was a necessity due to Cáo Pī’s unexpected death and consequent failure to achieve peace through civil virtue in his own lifetime.
Nevertheless, Cáo Pī did still receive the posthumous name Wén, possibly because Cáo Ruì might have had his own designs on the Zhōu model with his father as Wén and himself as some sort of Wǔ-equivalent (or else perhaps Cáo Ruì might have envisioned his grandfather’s posthumous name being revised, though that seems less likely). For instance, the establishment of the Wèi Temple system was said to specifically follow the precedent of the Zhōu Temple for Hòujì, Wén, and Wǔ,14 Hòujì being the distant ancestor of Kings Wén and Wǔ considered the first founder of the Zhōu House. In such a case, Cáo Cāo would have been matched to Zhōu's Hòujì, Cáo Pī to Zhōu's Wén, and Cáo Ruì himself would be Zhōu's Wǔ. But even this hypothetical model was thwarted by Cáo Ruì’s own death.
Of course, this is all idle speculation, for we cannot know precisely what Cáo Cāo, Cáo Pī, and the rest were thinking, and they probably changed their minds on things over time anyways. Yet guessing at what these figures of the past might have wanted is a fascinating exercise in empathy and imagination, and, if they indeed had wishes similar to these speculations, it is perhaps a valuable message that even Emperors cannot get everything they want.
See Shǐjì (SJ) 史記 4, Zhōu Běnjì 周本紀.
《孔子家語·廟制》:古者,祖有功而宗有德,諸見祖宗者,其廟皆不毀。
See Sān Guó zhì (SGZ) 1, SGZ 2.
See Jìn zhū (JS) 1, JS 2, JS 3.
Leban, Carl, Albert Dien, ed. “The Accession of Sima Yan, AD 265: Legitimation by Ritual Replication,” Early Medieval China 16, 2010, pp. 1-50
See Hàn shū (HS) 4, HS 5, HS 6.
Commentary to HS 1 and SJ 8: 張晏曰:「禮諡法無『高』,以為功最高而為漢帝之太祖,故特起名焉。」
See SJ 9, HS 2, HS 3.
Annotation to SGZ 2: 魏書曰:帝初在東宮,疫癘大起,時人彫傷,帝深感歎,與素所敬者大理王朗書曰:「生有七尺之形,死唯一棺之土,唯立德揚名,可以不朽,其次莫如著篇籍。疫癘數起,士人彫落,余獨何人,能全其壽?」故論撰所著典論、詩賦,蓋百餘篇,集諸儒於肅城門內,講論大義,侃侃無倦。常嘉漢文帝之為君,寬仁玄默,務欲以德化民,有賢聖之風。時文學諸儒,或以為孝文雖賢,其於聰明,通達國體,不如賈誼。帝由是著太宗論曰:「昔有苗不賓,重華舞以干戚,尉佗稱帝,孝文撫以恩德,吳王不朝,錫之几杖以撫其意,而天下賴安;乃弘三章之教,愷悌之化,欲使曩時累息之民,得闊步高談,無危懼之心。若賈誼之才敏,籌畫國政,特賢臣之器,管、晏之姿,豈若孝文大人之量哉?」三年之中,以孫權不服,復頒太宗論于天下,明示不願征伐也。他日又從容言曰:「顧我亦有所不取于漢文帝者三:殺薄昭;幸鄧通;慎夫人衣不曳地,集上書囊為帳帷。以為漢文儉而無法,舅后之家,但當養育以恩而不當假借以權,既觸罪法,又不得不害矣。」其欲秉持中道,以為帝王儀表者如此。
See SGZ 47.
SGZ 47: 然猶與魏文帝相往來,至後年乃絕。
Annotated to SGZ 1: 」王曰:「『施于有政,是亦為政』。若天命在吾,吾為周文王矣。」
SGZ 3: 文皇帝應天受命,為魏高祖,樂用咸熙之舞。
SGZ 3: 三祖之廟,萬世不毀。其餘四廟,親盡迭毀,如周后稷、文、武廟祧之制。