Zhūgě Liàng was the Cáo Cāo of Shǔ-Hàn
(An article that is actually about Year Names)
Oh, I’m sure such a claim will be infuriating quite a few people out there, yet I will stick to it. And I don’t just mean that they both held supreme power over their respective Hàn governments, both with title as Chancellor (丞相). There’s a parallelism in the Year Names (年號) too:
The main phase of Cáo Cāo’s career occurred during Jiàn'ān 建安, “to establish peace.” After his death, the year name was changed to Yánkāng 延康, “to prolong prosperity.”
The main phase of Zhūgě Liàng’s career occurred Jiànxīng 建興, “to establish restoration.” After his death, the year name was changed to Yánxī 延熙, “to prolong glory.”
Sure, one could just dismiss this as coincidence, but I would be hesitant to call this “only” coincidence. Year Names are a very serious thing, thought to have real power within the ancient belief system of the Imperial government as part of the natural order of the universe: remember that one formal title of the Emperor was “Heaven’s Son” 天子. Therefore, the choice of Year Name was probably never just “coincidence” in the mind of the scholars, experts, and technicians serving in the Imperial Court who debated and decided on them: the choice was intended to serve as a real symbol to coordinate the government and thus assert real influence of the current state of the world.
Both Chén Shòu and Péi Sōngzhī might have recognized and hinted at the possible meanings of the Year Names, albeit with different interpretations. In his appraisal at the end of Liú Shàn’s biography, Chén Shòu comments:
However, going through twelve years and yet the Year Name did not change, armies repeatedly mobilized and pardons not rashly sent down; was it not also outstanding?1
In his annotations, Péi Sōngzhī comments:
Your Servant Sōngzhī believes: “Pardons not rashly sent down” truly can be praised, but as for “Year Name did not change,” yet it is not eminent. Note the names of Jiànwǔ and Jiàn'ān: both were long and not changed, but one has not yet heard of previous historians believing it a beautiful example. “Going through twelve years,” overall how is it worth speaking of? Was it that there was another meaning, that was not expressed? After [Zhūgě] Liàng died, the name of Yánxī exceeded twenty [years].2
Perhaps the possible unexpressed meaning that Péi Sōngzhī guessed at is actually present in his own comment; namely, in his citation of the examples of Jiànwǔ and Jiàn'ān. Jiànwǔ 建武 “Establishing Warfare” was the the Year Name of the Hàn Emperor Guāng-Wǔ (Liú Xiù) in his establishment of Later Hàn. Meanwhile, Jiàn'ān 建安 “Establishing Peace” is, as mentioned, the Year Name for the final decades of Later Hàn, the time Cáo Cāo laid the future foundations of Wèi.
Chén Shòu’s praise of Jiànxīng 建興 “Establishing Restoration” might very well have been an indirect comparison of Zhūgě Liàng to Liú Xiù and Cáo Cāo, the former the founding Emperor of Later Hàn and the latter the posthumous founding Emperor of Wèi. If so, perhaps the technicians of the Court agreed with such a comparison and so chose the next name Yánxī very consciously. Just as the passing of Cáo Cāo was the end of an era that was followed up with a new “prolonging” Year Name (Yánkāng), so too was the passing of Zhūgě Liàng followed up with “prolonging glory” (Yánxī).
Speaking of names, Liú Xiù, Cáo Cāo, and Zhūgě Liàng also share a common character wǔ 武 “martial” in their respective posthumous names, Guāng-Wǔ 光武,3 Wǔ 武,4 and Zhōng-Wǔ 忠武.5
The comparisons could have been even stronger, for Lǐ Yán evidently once proposed that Zhūgě Liàng be honored with the Nine Distinctions and title as a King,6 special honors that had famously been bestowed on Cáo Cāo. However, Zhūgě Liàng, probably wisely, refused such proposals, and that is perhaps the key reason for the differences between the respective legacies of Liàng and Cāo.
SGZ 33: 然經載十二而年名不易,軍旅屢興而赦不妄下,不亦卓乎!
Annotated to SGZ 33: 臣松之以為「赦不妄下」,誠為可稱,至於「年名不易」,猶所未達。案建武、建安之號,皆久而不改,未聞前史以為美談。「經載十二」,蓋何足云?豈別有他意,求之未至乎!亮歿後,延熙之號,數盈二十。
HHS 1: 世祖光武皇帝諱秀,字文叔,南陽蔡陽人,高祖九世之孫也,出自景帝生長沙定王發。
SGZ 1: 謚曰武王。
SGZ 35: 詔策曰:「惟君體資文武,明叡篤誠,受遺託孤,匡輔朕躬,繼絕興微,志存靖亂;爰整六師,無歲不征,神武赫然,威鎮八荒,將建殊功於季漢,參伊、周之巨勳。如何不弔,事臨垂克,遘疾隕喪!朕用傷悼,肝心若裂。夫崇德序功,紀行命謚,所以光昭將來,刊載不朽。今使使持節左中郎將杜瓊,贈君丞相武鄉侯印綬,謚君為忠武侯。魂而有靈,嘉茲寵榮。嗚呼哀哉!嗚呼哀哉!」
Annotated to SGZ 40: 諸葛亮集有嚴與亮書,勸亮宜受九錫,進爵稱王。亮荅書曰:「吾與足下相知乆矣,可不復相解!足下方誨以光國,戒之以勿拘之道,是以未得默已。吾本東方下士,誤用於先帝,位極人臣,祿賜百億,今討賊未效,知己未荅,而方寵齊、晉,坐自貴大,非其義也。若滅魏斬叡,帝還故居,與諸子並升,雖十命可受,況於九邪!」
That's a pretty interesting parallel between Zhūgě Liàng and Cáo Cāo, regarding their positions serving their ruler, as well as the matter of era names. Also, didn't Cáo Cāo also refuse the Nine Distinctions at one point, or am I confusing him with Sīmǎ Zhāo?
I do wonder how we would perceive zhuge Liang if say zhuge zhan or some other descendant of his took the Han throne . I think the loyalty of Liang himself is quite clear but its worth considering how such a layer event could paint even a fully loyal character in retrospect, an interesting point to consider cao cao himself for sure.