论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： The “Huang–Lao doctrines” quoted in the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian， refers apparently to the discourses of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， but actually to the Legalist doctrines popular from the Warring States period down to the Qin and Han dynasties， and in particular， to the Huang–Lao thought prevalent during the reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing of the Han， which theoretically comes from the Laozi and advocates passive inaction and conformity in conducting oneself and governing the country. The new teachings of Laozi in the early Han dynasty were an extended interpretation of the Laozi. It can be divided into three forms： under the name of Laozi， under the name of the Yellow Emperor， and an anonymous version. Since the early Han political philosophy was carried out in the names of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， it should be no wonder that it has conventionally been called the “Huang–Lao doctrines.”
Keywords： Sima Qian， Yellow Emperor， Laozi， teachings， political philosophy
There is a consensus among academic circles that in the early Han dynasty （206 BCE–220 CE）， the state governance strategy of recuperation was practiced and the teachings of the Yellow Emperor （Huangdi） and Laozi were advocated in both governance and philosophy. But there remains controversy on what these teachings refer to. Some scholars hold that they came from the Jixia Academy; others believe they derived from “purposive Daoism” in the Qin era （221–206 BCE） and the Han dynasty; and others yet regard them as the Huang–Lao thought in the early Han. To better study this subject， it is necessary to understand and eliminate the discrepancies. This paper will examine Sima Qian’s 司馬迁 （145–90 BCE） motive in recording the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines” in his writings.
The ‘Huang–Lao Doctrines’ in the Records of the Grand Historian
[Refer to page 45 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]
References to the “Huang–Lao doctrines” are visible throughout the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian. Here are some excerpts from it：
Empress Dowager Dou was very fond of the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， and as a result Emperor Wen （r. 179–157 BCE）， the heir apparent， and all the Dou family were obliged to read the works of Yellow Emperor and Laozi and honored their teachings. The empress dowager outlived her son Emperor Jing （r. 156–141 BCE） by six years， passing away in 135 BCE. She was buried with her husband Emperor Wen at Baling. In the first year of his reign （194 BCE）， Emperor Hui changed the title of the post of prime minister in the various feudal kingdoms and renamed it the post of chancellor. He ordered Cao Shen 曹參 （d. 190 BCE） to resume his position as chancellor to Qi. . . . When he heard that in the region of Jiaoxi there was a Master Ge 盖公 （fl. 194 BCE） who was versed in the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， Cao sent someone with generous gifts to invite Master Ge to court. Master Ge responded and in an interview with Cao Shen， advised him the way to govern was through purity and stillness， so that the people of themselves would find peace， He elaborated this theory with arguments and examples， and Cao Shen was so impressed that he relinquished his own place of authority in the main hall to Master Ge. In governing the state of Qi， Cao Shen on the whole followed the Huang–Lao thought， and as a result the state enjoyed peace and stability during his nine years as prime minister and Cao Shen gained a reputation as a worthy minister. . . . Cao Shen replaced Xiao He 萧何 （d. 193 BCE） as chancellor of Han， but he made no changes whatsoever in the management of affairs， conducting everything exactly in accordance with the former rules. . . . The common people composed a song that went： “Xiao He made us laws， / As plain as the figure ‘one.’ / Cao Shen took his place / And upheld them without fault. / He governed with purity and stillness， / And the people were at peace.”
Shen Buhai 申不害 （ca. 385–337 BCE） was from Jing and used to be an official in the Zheng State. He was so accomplished in the Huang–Lao thought that he was appointed as minister by Marquis Zhao of the Han State. Over a course of fifteen years， he contributed to domestic governance and education and dealt with state affairs. During his life， he saw the state well governed and military strength improved. There was no invasions made on the state. His learning came from the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and covered the Legalist doctrines. He wrote two volumes named the Shenzi [申子]. Han Fei 韩非 （ca. 280–233 BCE）， an aristocrat of the Han State， favored the Legalist doctrines， with his learning based on the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.
During the reigns of Emperor Hui （r. 194–188 BCE） and Empress Lü （r. 187–180 BCE） in the Han dynasty， the high officials were all military men who had won their distinction in battle. With the accession of Emperor Wen， Confucian scholars began little by little to be summoned and employed in the government， although Emperor Wen himself rather favored the Legalist teachings. Emperor Jing made no effort to employ Confucian scholars， and his mother， Empress Dowager Dou， was an advocate of the Huang–Lao thought. Thus， various scholars were appointed to fill the posts of court erudite and to answer questions， but they had no prospects of advancement. . . . After Empress Dowager Dou passed away， Tian Fen 田蚡， the marquisate of Wu’an， became chancellor. He rejected the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， the Legalists， and other philosophical schools， and invited several hundred Confucian scholars and literary men to take service in the government. . . . Scholars throughout the empire saw which way the wind was blowing and did all they could to follow his example. Empress Dowager Dou was fond of the writings of Laozi， and she once summoned Master Yuan Gu 辕固 and asked him what he thought of Laozi’s book. Yuan replied， “The sayings of a menial， nothing more！” the empress dowager became furious， saying， “Of course， it cannot be compared with Confucian classics， which have restrictions on prisoners.” She then had Yuan Gu thrown into the pigsty to fight the pigs.
After Zou Yan 邹衍 and scholars from the Jixia Academy in Qi， such as Chunyu Kun 淳于髡， Shen Dao 慎到， Huan Yuan 环渊， Jiezi 接子， Tian Pian 田骈， and Zou Shi 邹奭， began to write books on governance to advise the rulers， many scholars followed suit. Shen Dao was from the state of Zhao， Tian Pian and Jiezi from Qi， and Huan Yuan from Chu. They all studied the Huang–Lao doctrines of dao 道 （the Way） and de 德 （morality） and propounded their own ideas accordingly. Shen Dao wrote twelve essays， Huan Yuan left two books of writing， and Tian Pian and Jiezi both wrote essays too.
Sima Qian made comments as follows： When reading Yue Yi’s 樂毅 letter to the King of Yan， Kuai Tong 蒯通 and Zhufu Yan 主父偃 would put it down and shed tears. Yuechengong 乐臣公 studied the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. The founder of his school had the alias of Master Heshang 河上公， but nobody knew where he had come from. Master Heshang instructed Anqisheng 安期生; An instructed Maoxigong 毛翕公; Maoxigong instructed Yuexiagong 乐暇公; Yuexiagong instructed Yuechengong; Yuechengong instructed Master Ge， who taught in the Gaomi and Jiaoxi areas of Qi and became the instructor of chancellor Cao Shen.
Ji An 汲黯 （d. 112 BCE） studied the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and his administration took a laissez-faire approach. He entrusted affairs to specially selected assistants， concerning himself with the main issues only and not troubling with trifles. He was often ill and confined to his room. Yet after only a year or so， his prefecture Donghai was so well governed that he won the acclaim of the people. The emperor， after hearing this， summoned him to court to be Commandant of the Nobles， one of the nine chief ministers. Again， he pursued a laissez-faire policy， dealing only with great matters and disregarding the letter of the law.
Sima Jizhu 司马季主 was a native of Chu who practiced divination in the eastern market of Chang’an. He had a good knowledge of the Book of Changes and practiced the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. When talking with Song Zhong 宋忠 and Jia Yi 贾谊 （200–168 BCE）， he quoted from the wisdom of the ancient kings and sages， showing he was a learned man. At that time， there was more than one grand diviner who made a name for himself. Four Interpretations of Sima’s Quotations of ‘Huang–Lao’ [46]
From the above nine excerpts， we can conclude the following meanings of Sima Qian’s quotations of the “Huang–Lao （doctrines）.”
（1） Sima Qian mentions the “study，” “practice，” “pursue，” “reading，” and “being fond” of Huang–Lao in different chapters. The first three are about practicing the Huang–Lao thought， that is， dealing with affairs in accordance with the principles， strategies， and approaches of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi; while the last two are about identifying the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and turning them into a guiding principle for people’s actions， guaranteeing the effect of action and practice. Such a unity between principle and approach is， in essence， a shift of ideas into action. It is a unity between learning and practice. When referring to the early Han political philosophy as following the Huang–Lao doctrines， Sima Qian refers specifically to the “words” of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， he is approaching it from the level of ideas. When he talks about following the Huang–Lao thought， it is from the level of putting these ideas into practice. He distinguishes between these two meanings by his choice of wording， amongst which “reading” and “fond of” aim to identify and establish the Huang–Lao doctrines; and once this identification develops into an approach， to the “use，” “practice，” and “pursue” of the Huang–Lao thought， learning is shifted into practice.
（2） In Sima Qian’s writings， “use，” “practice，” and “pursue” all refer to imitating the Huang–Lao thought of dao and de. Here， “Huang–Lao” is a modifier of “dao and de，” which is used to modify “thought.” The Huang–Lao thought of dao and de do not mean the Confucian way which values moral cultivation， but the way of moral practice advocated in the Laozi. The first part of the Laozi is about dao and the second about de， so the book was also called the Daodejing when Daoism was developed into a religion. Why then did Sima Qian record the way of practice advocated in the Laozi as the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi？
From the aforementioned first excerpt from the chapter “The Hereditary Houses of the Families Related to the Emperors by Marriage” [外戚世家] of the Records of the Grand Historian， it can be concluded that during Sima Qian’s time， under the reign of Emperor Wu （r. 140–87 BCE） of the Han dynasty， there may have been books named after the Yellow Emperor. However， there is no historical record as evidence of the popularity of books written by the Yellow Emperor himself in the early Han period. Even if there had been books whose author was supposed to be the Yellow Emperor at that time， such as the Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor [黃帝四经] and the “Forty Chapters of the Yellow Emperor’s Speech” [黄帝说四十篇] in the “Records of Arts and Literature” [艺文志] chapter of the History of the Former Han Dynasty [汉书]， they could not have been written by the Yellow Emperor himself and dealt with the dao and de as discussed in the Laozi in content or form. In view of this， the present author argues that， in this excerpt， it should be “reading books by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi” rather than “reading the Huangdi and the Laozi.” Similarly， as is recorded in “The Biographies of Confucian Scholars” [儒林列传]， “Empress Dowager Dou was very fond of the Laozi” and “asked Master Yuan Gu about it.” Here， “the Laozi” should also be changed to “Laozi.” In Sima Qian’s writings， the fondness of books by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi actually means fondness of Laozi’s book. Empress Dowager Dou was actually fond of Laozi’s book， which had nothing to do with the Yellow Emperor， for there was no book written by the Yellow Emperor himself in the early Han. It can be concluded that the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines or books” refers to only Laozi’s doctrines and book. In the “Annals of the Five Emperors” [五帝本紀]， Sima Qian praised that “[the Yellow Emperor was able to] conform to natural laws， predict the change of yin and yang， make clear what was life and death， and illustrate the cause of life and death.” It is clear that in Sima’s view， the Yellow Emperor’s following of natural laws is the same as Laozi’s both in mentality and effect. He was simply following the early Han convention in recording the Yellow Emperor and Laozi as Huang–Lao in his writings.
（3） “Huang–Lao” mentioned together with the Legalist. In Sima Qian’s writings， sections involving the Legalist doctrines， were referred to directly as the Huang–Lao doctrines or thought， or indirectly as coming from or being based on the Huang–Lao thought. For instance， when mentioning that Shen Buhai advocated Legalist doctrines， Sima wrote that “his learning came from the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.” As for Han Fei’s favor of the Legalist doctrines， Sima wrote that “his learning was based on the thought of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.” Is there any difference between “coming from” and “based on” the Huang–Lao thought？ In my opinion， the difference lies not in the diction but in the understanding. That is to say， Sima Qian wished to express different meanings with different expressions： Shen Buhai had studied the Huang–Lao doctrines， and his advocation of the Legalist doctrines was an inevitable choice of his study; while Han Fei based his Leagalist ideas theoretically on the Huang–Lao doctrines. Hence， the learning of Shen Buhai and Han Fei was differentiated. We induce from Sima Qian’s records that the Huang–Lao doctrines or thought were intended in a broad sense in the early Han dynasty. It covered the ideas and teachings from Laozi， those from the Yellow Emperor， as well as the Legalist doctrines. In this sense， the “Huang–Lao” doctrines by Sima Qian apparently refers to the discourses by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， but actually refers to the Legalist doctrines prevalent from the Warring States period down to the Qin and Han dynasties， and in particular， to the political philosophy under the names of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， popular during the reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing， which was theoretically from the Laozi and advocated passive inaction and conformity in conducting oneself and governing the country， The political philosophy prevalent in the early Han dynasty was actually from Laozi rather than the Yellow Emperor. It was a practice of Laozi’s teachings in politics. In other words， it interpreted the general philosophy of the Laozi into the general or even specific principles and methods for political governance. In essence， the Huang–Lao thought were a development of Laozi’s ideas to meet the social and political needs in that period， so it could be called the new teachings of Laozi. Some scholars hold that the Huang–Lao thought can be called purposive Daoism， and this new form of Daoism did not originate in the early Han dynasty but in the Eastern Han （25–220）. The present author argues that the Huang–Lao thought could not have originated in the Eastern Han， as the political philosophy of passive inaction was something meeting the social need of recuperation already in the early Han. Neither could it have originated in the Western Han （206 BCE–25 CE） after Emperor Wu’s rejection of other schools of thought when there was only respect for Confucianism.
（4） The early Han Huang–Lao doctrines were brought to attention by Master Ge， whose learning could be traced back to Master Heshang. According to the chapter “The Hereditary House of Cao Shen” [曹参世家]， Master Ge’s political philosophy was centered on the ruler’s passive inaction， so theoretically it came from the Laozi. It is easy to generalize Master Heshang’s doctrines because of the existing Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang [老子道德经河上公章句]. Master Heshang did not annotate the Laozi in the biographical way popular at that time but in an inter-textual format. This indicates that he did not intend to focus on dry explanations of names， decrees， and regulations， but on the extended interpretation of Laozi’s ideas. First of all， he interpreted the Laozi from the political perspective， explaining the philosophical theory from the book as a political philosophy， or in some sense， into politics， which can be seen from the titles he added to the eighty-one chapters of the book. Those titles themselves manifested a political sense. Some titles， such as “Embodying the Way” [體道]， “Assistance from the Fathomless” [赞玄]， “Image and Origin” [象元]， “Return to the Origin” [归元]， and “Mysterious Signs” [玄符]， which seem philosophical， are of a political sense when they are studied together with the content of chapters in the Laozi.
Second， the sense of political philosophy is suggested by his avoiding mystical interpretations and sticking to the facts， showing that he tried to clear up the philosophical speculation in the Laozi， and intended to make his interpretation meet the political need of the early Han. Take his explanation of “sage” as an example. In the Laozi， a sage refers to one who conforms to natural laws， including a virtuous ruler， but not limited to the ruler—the supreme leader with political power. In his annotations， on one hand， Master Heshang followed the idea that a sage was one behaving in accordance with nature and dao. He said， “the sage follows dao” and “the sage adheres to the great dao.” On the other hand， he took the “sage” as a special reference， stressing that a sage was the “leading figure of officials，” that is， the ruler （the supreme leader）. Because of that， the illustration in the Laozi that a sage takes no action but conforms to natural laws was interpreted into the statement that “a ruler is not expected to take any action to govern himself or the state.” That a sage governs himself and his state through dao was interpreted into the statement that “a sage （ruler） controls his state through the great dao without hurting anyone， and discipline himself by controlling his desire through great dao without spoiling the spirit.” Such extended interpretations can be seen here and there in Master Heshang’s annotations on the Laozi， which fully proves that he used his pre-established political perspective in his interpretation of the Laozi. The Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor Can Better Reflect
the Real Huang–Lao Doctrines in the Early Han [49]
Master Heshang’s interpretation of the Laozi from a political perspective was undoubtedly an example of the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines” in the early Han dynasty. In the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang， he even used the wording “as Laozi said” for his own summary of the book. For instance， he interpreted “Dao is believed to be too great to be resembled by anything” in chapter sixty-seven of the Laozi into “As Laozi said， de is believed to be too great to be resembled by anything since it pretends to be humble.” Such an interpretation is far away from what Laozi meant. It has to be noted that the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines referred to not only Master Heshang’s interpretation of the Laozi from the political perspective， but also to the political doctrines or philosophy based on the Laozi and those under the name of the Yellow Emperor. The latter two can be revealed through the silk manuscript Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor. These were found placed between the two versions of the Laozi when excavated， indicating it was related to the Laozi though not a direct annotation to it. The four classics in the book are independent from each other， but they are connected on some level. Some have the Yellow Emperor as the author， while others are based on the Laozi but are not presented under the names of either Laozi or the Yellow Emperor. In this sense， this book， in comparison with the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang， can better reflect the genuine， early Han Huang–Lao doctrines.
Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor contains four chapters： “Constant Laws” [經法]， “The Ten Great Classics” [十大经]， “Aphorisms” [称]， and “On Dao the Fundamental” [道原]. The latter two are not divided into sections， but the former two are. The four parts have similar themes： （1） Passive inaction and conformity from the Laozi are taken as the approach of ruling the state and its people， and the meta-philosophy in the book is shifted into political philosophy; （2） Dao in Laozi’s doctrines is taken as the supreme category of his political philosophy， emphasizing not only that “dao generates laws，” but also that “the same dao generates the same things and different daos generates different things，” and “the ruler’s forgetting himself and the people’s serenity generate orthodox dao”; and （3） A sage is recognized as the one who knows， upholds， and follows dao and such a sage is referred to as a ruler or a sagely ruler. The four sections are of different genres. “The Ten Great Classics” was written under the name of the Yellow Emperor， containing dialogues between him and his ministers， while the other three， written under the name of neither the Yellow Emperor nor Laozi， did not contain any dialogue at all. Major Characteristics of the Early Han Huang–Lao Doctrines [50]
According to the foregoing analysis， the Huang–Lao doctrines （thought） in the early Han dynasty had the following characteristics： （1） It is a kind of political philosophy or politics with dao from Laozi’s philosophy as the supreme category， with passive inaction and conformity as the fundamental principle; （2） It covers the extended interpretation of the Laozi， illustrating the idea of state and governance in accordance with the book or Daoism and political statements on the basis of the Laozi but under the name of the Yellow Emperor; （3） It combines all schools of thought with Daoism as the thread running through; and （4） It stresses positive inaction in the political sense and rejects negative inaction as illustrated in the Zhuangzi， so it comes from the Laozi rather than the Zhuangzi. Therefore， it is the result of the shift of original Daoism into political philosophy， so it can be called a kind of “new teachings of Laozi，” or it can be called “purposive Daoism” since it takes dao as the supreme category of its theoretical structure. It has to be stressed that when we generally call the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines （thought） “purposive Daoism，” we have to avoid mixing Laozi’s ideas with Zhuangzi’s， and realize that this new form of Daoism was not an extended interpretation of Laozi and Zhuangzi’s ideas from the political perspective but that of the former only.
Apparently， the new teachings of Laozi was the extended interpretation of the Laozi. The interpretation was represented by the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang; the result of the extension was represented by the Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor， from which it can be concluded that some of the new teachings were presented under the name of the Yellow Emperor and some were presented anonymously. The new teachings of Laozi prevalent in the early Han dynasty can overall be categorized into three forms： those under the name of Laozi， those under the name of the Yellow Emperor， and those anonymous. The difference in form essentially lies in whether they were under the name of Laozi or under the name of the Yellow Emperor. That is why the Han scholars simplified the three forms under the general term， the “Huang–Lao doctrines.”
There are twenty classics under the Yellow Emperor’s name， which are not his work at all， in the “Records of Arts and Literature” of the History of the Former Han Dynasty. Among them， four are categorized as Daoism， one as the Yin–Yang School， one as the Minor Theorists School， one as the Yin–Yang sect of Military Strategists， one as divination astronomy， one as a divination calendar， two as the Five-Element school of divination， one as another miscellaneous divination， one as a medicine classic， one as medical prescription， one as sexual therapy， and four as the legends of immortals. It is obvious that， like the new teachings of Laozi， the doctrines of other schools were expounded under the name of the Yellow Emperor. Hence the teachings of the Yellow Emperor， which occurred in the Warring States period， was a combination of Daoist ideas， yin–yang， Five Elements， health maintenance， and legends of immortals. From the complete absence of any works under the name of the Yellow Emperor in the categories of Confucianism， Legalism， or Mohism in the “Records of Arts and Literature，” we find that the Yellow Emperor’s teachings in the Warring States period seemed not to include Confucian， Legalist， and Mohist ideas. If this inference is reasonable， we can further conclude that there was a big difference between the Yellow Emperor’s teachings prevalent in the Warring States period and the early Han teachings manifested in “The Ten Great Classics.” The former put a strong emphasis on the integration of Daoist ideas （of Laozi and Zhuangzi） with the doctrines of other schools excluding Confucianism， Legalism， and Mohism， while the latter focused on the integration of the Daoist ideas （of Laozi） with Confucian， Legalist， and Mohist ideas. As said in “The Ten Great Classics，” “When the civil and military principles are carried out in a cautious way， people will behave properly”; “It is the natural law that everything starts with civility and ends with military action.” From its stress on the combination of civil and military governance， we can discover why the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines （purposive Daoism） were a combination of Laozi’s teachings with those of Confucianism， Legalism， and Mohism.
Bibliography of Cited Translations
Watson， Burton， trans. Records of the Grand Historian： Han Dynasty. 2 vols. Rev. ed. Hong Kong and New York： Columbia University Press， 1993.
Yang， Xianyi 楊宪益 and Gladys Yang 戴乃迭， trans. Selections from Records of the Historian [史记选]. 3 vols. Library of Chinese Classics [大中华文库]. Beijing： Foreign Languages Press， 2008.
Translated by Peng Ping
Keywords： Sima Qian， Yellow Emperor， Laozi， teachings， political philosophy
There is a consensus among academic circles that in the early Han dynasty （206 BCE–220 CE）， the state governance strategy of recuperation was practiced and the teachings of the Yellow Emperor （Huangdi） and Laozi were advocated in both governance and philosophy. But there remains controversy on what these teachings refer to. Some scholars hold that they came from the Jixia Academy; others believe they derived from “purposive Daoism” in the Qin era （221–206 BCE） and the Han dynasty; and others yet regard them as the Huang–Lao thought in the early Han. To better study this subject， it is necessary to understand and eliminate the discrepancies. This paper will examine Sima Qian’s 司馬迁 （145–90 BCE） motive in recording the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines” in his writings.
The ‘Huang–Lao Doctrines’ in the Records of the Grand Historian
[Refer to page 45 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]
References to the “Huang–Lao doctrines” are visible throughout the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian. Here are some excerpts from it：
Empress Dowager Dou was very fond of the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， and as a result Emperor Wen （r. 179–157 BCE）， the heir apparent， and all the Dou family were obliged to read the works of Yellow Emperor and Laozi and honored their teachings. The empress dowager outlived her son Emperor Jing （r. 156–141 BCE） by six years， passing away in 135 BCE. She was buried with her husband Emperor Wen at Baling. In the first year of his reign （194 BCE）， Emperor Hui changed the title of the post of prime minister in the various feudal kingdoms and renamed it the post of chancellor. He ordered Cao Shen 曹參 （d. 190 BCE） to resume his position as chancellor to Qi. . . . When he heard that in the region of Jiaoxi there was a Master Ge 盖公 （fl. 194 BCE） who was versed in the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， Cao sent someone with generous gifts to invite Master Ge to court. Master Ge responded and in an interview with Cao Shen， advised him the way to govern was through purity and stillness， so that the people of themselves would find peace， He elaborated this theory with arguments and examples， and Cao Shen was so impressed that he relinquished his own place of authority in the main hall to Master Ge. In governing the state of Qi， Cao Shen on the whole followed the Huang–Lao thought， and as a result the state enjoyed peace and stability during his nine years as prime minister and Cao Shen gained a reputation as a worthy minister. . . . Cao Shen replaced Xiao He 萧何 （d. 193 BCE） as chancellor of Han， but he made no changes whatsoever in the management of affairs， conducting everything exactly in accordance with the former rules. . . . The common people composed a song that went： “Xiao He made us laws， / As plain as the figure ‘one.’ / Cao Shen took his place / And upheld them without fault. / He governed with purity and stillness， / And the people were at peace.”
Shen Buhai 申不害 （ca. 385–337 BCE） was from Jing and used to be an official in the Zheng State. He was so accomplished in the Huang–Lao thought that he was appointed as minister by Marquis Zhao of the Han State. Over a course of fifteen years， he contributed to domestic governance and education and dealt with state affairs. During his life， he saw the state well governed and military strength improved. There was no invasions made on the state. His learning came from the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and covered the Legalist doctrines. He wrote two volumes named the Shenzi [申子]. Han Fei 韩非 （ca. 280–233 BCE）， an aristocrat of the Han State， favored the Legalist doctrines， with his learning based on the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.
During the reigns of Emperor Hui （r. 194–188 BCE） and Empress Lü （r. 187–180 BCE） in the Han dynasty， the high officials were all military men who had won their distinction in battle. With the accession of Emperor Wen， Confucian scholars began little by little to be summoned and employed in the government， although Emperor Wen himself rather favored the Legalist teachings. Emperor Jing made no effort to employ Confucian scholars， and his mother， Empress Dowager Dou， was an advocate of the Huang–Lao thought. Thus， various scholars were appointed to fill the posts of court erudite and to answer questions， but they had no prospects of advancement. . . . After Empress Dowager Dou passed away， Tian Fen 田蚡， the marquisate of Wu’an， became chancellor. He rejected the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， the Legalists， and other philosophical schools， and invited several hundred Confucian scholars and literary men to take service in the government. . . . Scholars throughout the empire saw which way the wind was blowing and did all they could to follow his example. Empress Dowager Dou was fond of the writings of Laozi， and she once summoned Master Yuan Gu 辕固 and asked him what he thought of Laozi’s book. Yuan replied， “The sayings of a menial， nothing more！” the empress dowager became furious， saying， “Of course， it cannot be compared with Confucian classics， which have restrictions on prisoners.” She then had Yuan Gu thrown into the pigsty to fight the pigs.
After Zou Yan 邹衍 and scholars from the Jixia Academy in Qi， such as Chunyu Kun 淳于髡， Shen Dao 慎到， Huan Yuan 环渊， Jiezi 接子， Tian Pian 田骈， and Zou Shi 邹奭， began to write books on governance to advise the rulers， many scholars followed suit. Shen Dao was from the state of Zhao， Tian Pian and Jiezi from Qi， and Huan Yuan from Chu. They all studied the Huang–Lao doctrines of dao 道 （the Way） and de 德 （morality） and propounded their own ideas accordingly. Shen Dao wrote twelve essays， Huan Yuan left two books of writing， and Tian Pian and Jiezi both wrote essays too.
Sima Qian made comments as follows： When reading Yue Yi’s 樂毅 letter to the King of Yan， Kuai Tong 蒯通 and Zhufu Yan 主父偃 would put it down and shed tears. Yuechengong 乐臣公 studied the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. The founder of his school had the alias of Master Heshang 河上公， but nobody knew where he had come from. Master Heshang instructed Anqisheng 安期生; An instructed Maoxigong 毛翕公; Maoxigong instructed Yuexiagong 乐暇公; Yuexiagong instructed Yuechengong; Yuechengong instructed Master Ge， who taught in the Gaomi and Jiaoxi areas of Qi and became the instructor of chancellor Cao Shen.
Ji An 汲黯 （d. 112 BCE） studied the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and his administration took a laissez-faire approach. He entrusted affairs to specially selected assistants， concerning himself with the main issues only and not troubling with trifles. He was often ill and confined to his room. Yet after only a year or so， his prefecture Donghai was so well governed that he won the acclaim of the people. The emperor， after hearing this， summoned him to court to be Commandant of the Nobles， one of the nine chief ministers. Again， he pursued a laissez-faire policy， dealing only with great matters and disregarding the letter of the law.
Sima Jizhu 司马季主 was a native of Chu who practiced divination in the eastern market of Chang’an. He had a good knowledge of the Book of Changes and practiced the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. When talking with Song Zhong 宋忠 and Jia Yi 贾谊 （200–168 BCE）， he quoted from the wisdom of the ancient kings and sages， showing he was a learned man. At that time， there was more than one grand diviner who made a name for himself. Four Interpretations of Sima’s Quotations of ‘Huang–Lao’ [46]
From the above nine excerpts， we can conclude the following meanings of Sima Qian’s quotations of the “Huang–Lao （doctrines）.”
（1） Sima Qian mentions the “study，” “practice，” “pursue，” “reading，” and “being fond” of Huang–Lao in different chapters. The first three are about practicing the Huang–Lao thought， that is， dealing with affairs in accordance with the principles， strategies， and approaches of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi; while the last two are about identifying the doctrines of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi and turning them into a guiding principle for people’s actions， guaranteeing the effect of action and practice. Such a unity between principle and approach is， in essence， a shift of ideas into action. It is a unity between learning and practice. When referring to the early Han political philosophy as following the Huang–Lao doctrines， Sima Qian refers specifically to the “words” of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， he is approaching it from the level of ideas. When he talks about following the Huang–Lao thought， it is from the level of putting these ideas into practice. He distinguishes between these two meanings by his choice of wording， amongst which “reading” and “fond of” aim to identify and establish the Huang–Lao doctrines; and once this identification develops into an approach， to the “use，” “practice，” and “pursue” of the Huang–Lao thought， learning is shifted into practice.
（2） In Sima Qian’s writings， “use，” “practice，” and “pursue” all refer to imitating the Huang–Lao thought of dao and de. Here， “Huang–Lao” is a modifier of “dao and de，” which is used to modify “thought.” The Huang–Lao thought of dao and de do not mean the Confucian way which values moral cultivation， but the way of moral practice advocated in the Laozi. The first part of the Laozi is about dao and the second about de， so the book was also called the Daodejing when Daoism was developed into a religion. Why then did Sima Qian record the way of practice advocated in the Laozi as the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi？
From the aforementioned first excerpt from the chapter “The Hereditary Houses of the Families Related to the Emperors by Marriage” [外戚世家] of the Records of the Grand Historian， it can be concluded that during Sima Qian’s time， under the reign of Emperor Wu （r. 140–87 BCE） of the Han dynasty， there may have been books named after the Yellow Emperor. However， there is no historical record as evidence of the popularity of books written by the Yellow Emperor himself in the early Han period. Even if there had been books whose author was supposed to be the Yellow Emperor at that time， such as the Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor [黃帝四经] and the “Forty Chapters of the Yellow Emperor’s Speech” [黄帝说四十篇] in the “Records of Arts and Literature” [艺文志] chapter of the History of the Former Han Dynasty [汉书]， they could not have been written by the Yellow Emperor himself and dealt with the dao and de as discussed in the Laozi in content or form. In view of this， the present author argues that， in this excerpt， it should be “reading books by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi” rather than “reading the Huangdi and the Laozi.” Similarly， as is recorded in “The Biographies of Confucian Scholars” [儒林列传]， “Empress Dowager Dou was very fond of the Laozi” and “asked Master Yuan Gu about it.” Here， “the Laozi” should also be changed to “Laozi.” In Sima Qian’s writings， the fondness of books by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi actually means fondness of Laozi’s book. Empress Dowager Dou was actually fond of Laozi’s book， which had nothing to do with the Yellow Emperor， for there was no book written by the Yellow Emperor himself in the early Han. It can be concluded that the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines or books” refers to only Laozi’s doctrines and book. In the “Annals of the Five Emperors” [五帝本紀]， Sima Qian praised that “[the Yellow Emperor was able to] conform to natural laws， predict the change of yin and yang， make clear what was life and death， and illustrate the cause of life and death.” It is clear that in Sima’s view， the Yellow Emperor’s following of natural laws is the same as Laozi’s both in mentality and effect. He was simply following the early Han convention in recording the Yellow Emperor and Laozi as Huang–Lao in his writings.
（3） “Huang–Lao” mentioned together with the Legalist. In Sima Qian’s writings， sections involving the Legalist doctrines， were referred to directly as the Huang–Lao doctrines or thought， or indirectly as coming from or being based on the Huang–Lao thought. For instance， when mentioning that Shen Buhai advocated Legalist doctrines， Sima wrote that “his learning came from the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.” As for Han Fei’s favor of the Legalist doctrines， Sima wrote that “his learning was based on the thought of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi.” Is there any difference between “coming from” and “based on” the Huang–Lao thought？ In my opinion， the difference lies not in the diction but in the understanding. That is to say， Sima Qian wished to express different meanings with different expressions： Shen Buhai had studied the Huang–Lao doctrines， and his advocation of the Legalist doctrines was an inevitable choice of his study; while Han Fei based his Leagalist ideas theoretically on the Huang–Lao doctrines. Hence， the learning of Shen Buhai and Han Fei was differentiated. We induce from Sima Qian’s records that the Huang–Lao doctrines or thought were intended in a broad sense in the early Han dynasty. It covered the ideas and teachings from Laozi， those from the Yellow Emperor， as well as the Legalist doctrines. In this sense， the “Huang–Lao” doctrines by Sima Qian apparently refers to the discourses by the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， but actually refers to the Legalist doctrines prevalent from the Warring States period down to the Qin and Han dynasties， and in particular， to the political philosophy under the names of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi， popular during the reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing， which was theoretically from the Laozi and advocated passive inaction and conformity in conducting oneself and governing the country， The political philosophy prevalent in the early Han dynasty was actually from Laozi rather than the Yellow Emperor. It was a practice of Laozi’s teachings in politics. In other words， it interpreted the general philosophy of the Laozi into the general or even specific principles and methods for political governance. In essence， the Huang–Lao thought were a development of Laozi’s ideas to meet the social and political needs in that period， so it could be called the new teachings of Laozi. Some scholars hold that the Huang–Lao thought can be called purposive Daoism， and this new form of Daoism did not originate in the early Han dynasty but in the Eastern Han （25–220）. The present author argues that the Huang–Lao thought could not have originated in the Eastern Han， as the political philosophy of passive inaction was something meeting the social need of recuperation already in the early Han. Neither could it have originated in the Western Han （206 BCE–25 CE） after Emperor Wu’s rejection of other schools of thought when there was only respect for Confucianism.
（4） The early Han Huang–Lao doctrines were brought to attention by Master Ge， whose learning could be traced back to Master Heshang. According to the chapter “The Hereditary House of Cao Shen” [曹参世家]， Master Ge’s political philosophy was centered on the ruler’s passive inaction， so theoretically it came from the Laozi. It is easy to generalize Master Heshang’s doctrines because of the existing Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang [老子道德经河上公章句]. Master Heshang did not annotate the Laozi in the biographical way popular at that time but in an inter-textual format. This indicates that he did not intend to focus on dry explanations of names， decrees， and regulations， but on the extended interpretation of Laozi’s ideas. First of all， he interpreted the Laozi from the political perspective， explaining the philosophical theory from the book as a political philosophy， or in some sense， into politics， which can be seen from the titles he added to the eighty-one chapters of the book. Those titles themselves manifested a political sense. Some titles， such as “Embodying the Way” [體道]， “Assistance from the Fathomless” [赞玄]， “Image and Origin” [象元]， “Return to the Origin” [归元]， and “Mysterious Signs” [玄符]， which seem philosophical， are of a political sense when they are studied together with the content of chapters in the Laozi.
Second， the sense of political philosophy is suggested by his avoiding mystical interpretations and sticking to the facts， showing that he tried to clear up the philosophical speculation in the Laozi， and intended to make his interpretation meet the political need of the early Han. Take his explanation of “sage” as an example. In the Laozi， a sage refers to one who conforms to natural laws， including a virtuous ruler， but not limited to the ruler—the supreme leader with political power. In his annotations， on one hand， Master Heshang followed the idea that a sage was one behaving in accordance with nature and dao. He said， “the sage follows dao” and “the sage adheres to the great dao.” On the other hand， he took the “sage” as a special reference， stressing that a sage was the “leading figure of officials，” that is， the ruler （the supreme leader）. Because of that， the illustration in the Laozi that a sage takes no action but conforms to natural laws was interpreted into the statement that “a ruler is not expected to take any action to govern himself or the state.” That a sage governs himself and his state through dao was interpreted into the statement that “a sage （ruler） controls his state through the great dao without hurting anyone， and discipline himself by controlling his desire through great dao without spoiling the spirit.” Such extended interpretations can be seen here and there in Master Heshang’s annotations on the Laozi， which fully proves that he used his pre-established political perspective in his interpretation of the Laozi. The Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor Can Better Reflect
the Real Huang–Lao Doctrines in the Early Han [49]
Master Heshang’s interpretation of the Laozi from a political perspective was undoubtedly an example of the so-called “Huang–Lao doctrines” in the early Han dynasty. In the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang， he even used the wording “as Laozi said” for his own summary of the book. For instance， he interpreted “Dao is believed to be too great to be resembled by anything” in chapter sixty-seven of the Laozi into “As Laozi said， de is believed to be too great to be resembled by anything since it pretends to be humble.” Such an interpretation is far away from what Laozi meant. It has to be noted that the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines referred to not only Master Heshang’s interpretation of the Laozi from the political perspective， but also to the political doctrines or philosophy based on the Laozi and those under the name of the Yellow Emperor. The latter two can be revealed through the silk manuscript Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor. These were found placed between the two versions of the Laozi when excavated， indicating it was related to the Laozi though not a direct annotation to it. The four classics in the book are independent from each other， but they are connected on some level. Some have the Yellow Emperor as the author， while others are based on the Laozi but are not presented under the names of either Laozi or the Yellow Emperor. In this sense， this book， in comparison with the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang， can better reflect the genuine， early Han Huang–Lao doctrines.
Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor contains four chapters： “Constant Laws” [經法]， “The Ten Great Classics” [十大经]， “Aphorisms” [称]， and “On Dao the Fundamental” [道原]. The latter two are not divided into sections， but the former two are. The four parts have similar themes： （1） Passive inaction and conformity from the Laozi are taken as the approach of ruling the state and its people， and the meta-philosophy in the book is shifted into political philosophy; （2） Dao in Laozi’s doctrines is taken as the supreme category of his political philosophy， emphasizing not only that “dao generates laws，” but also that “the same dao generates the same things and different daos generates different things，” and “the ruler’s forgetting himself and the people’s serenity generate orthodox dao”; and （3） A sage is recognized as the one who knows， upholds， and follows dao and such a sage is referred to as a ruler or a sagely ruler. The four sections are of different genres. “The Ten Great Classics” was written under the name of the Yellow Emperor， containing dialogues between him and his ministers， while the other three， written under the name of neither the Yellow Emperor nor Laozi， did not contain any dialogue at all. Major Characteristics of the Early Han Huang–Lao Doctrines [50]
According to the foregoing analysis， the Huang–Lao doctrines （thought） in the early Han dynasty had the following characteristics： （1） It is a kind of political philosophy or politics with dao from Laozi’s philosophy as the supreme category， with passive inaction and conformity as the fundamental principle; （2） It covers the extended interpretation of the Laozi， illustrating the idea of state and governance in accordance with the book or Daoism and political statements on the basis of the Laozi but under the name of the Yellow Emperor; （3） It combines all schools of thought with Daoism as the thread running through; and （4） It stresses positive inaction in the political sense and rejects negative inaction as illustrated in the Zhuangzi， so it comes from the Laozi rather than the Zhuangzi. Therefore， it is the result of the shift of original Daoism into political philosophy， so it can be called a kind of “new teachings of Laozi，” or it can be called “purposive Daoism” since it takes dao as the supreme category of its theoretical structure. It has to be stressed that when we generally call the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines （thought） “purposive Daoism，” we have to avoid mixing Laozi’s ideas with Zhuangzi’s， and realize that this new form of Daoism was not an extended interpretation of Laozi and Zhuangzi’s ideas from the political perspective but that of the former only.
Apparently， the new teachings of Laozi was the extended interpretation of the Laozi. The interpretation was represented by the Sections from the Laozi Annotated by Master Heshang; the result of the extension was represented by the Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor， from which it can be concluded that some of the new teachings were presented under the name of the Yellow Emperor and some were presented anonymously. The new teachings of Laozi prevalent in the early Han dynasty can overall be categorized into three forms： those under the name of Laozi， those under the name of the Yellow Emperor， and those anonymous. The difference in form essentially lies in whether they were under the name of Laozi or under the name of the Yellow Emperor. That is why the Han scholars simplified the three forms under the general term， the “Huang–Lao doctrines.”
There are twenty classics under the Yellow Emperor’s name， which are not his work at all， in the “Records of Arts and Literature” of the History of the Former Han Dynasty. Among them， four are categorized as Daoism， one as the Yin–Yang School， one as the Minor Theorists School， one as the Yin–Yang sect of Military Strategists， one as divination astronomy， one as a divination calendar， two as the Five-Element school of divination， one as another miscellaneous divination， one as a medicine classic， one as medical prescription， one as sexual therapy， and four as the legends of immortals. It is obvious that， like the new teachings of Laozi， the doctrines of other schools were expounded under the name of the Yellow Emperor. Hence the teachings of the Yellow Emperor， which occurred in the Warring States period， was a combination of Daoist ideas， yin–yang， Five Elements， health maintenance， and legends of immortals. From the complete absence of any works under the name of the Yellow Emperor in the categories of Confucianism， Legalism， or Mohism in the “Records of Arts and Literature，” we find that the Yellow Emperor’s teachings in the Warring States period seemed not to include Confucian， Legalist， and Mohist ideas. If this inference is reasonable， we can further conclude that there was a big difference between the Yellow Emperor’s teachings prevalent in the Warring States period and the early Han teachings manifested in “The Ten Great Classics.” The former put a strong emphasis on the integration of Daoist ideas （of Laozi and Zhuangzi） with the doctrines of other schools excluding Confucianism， Legalism， and Mohism， while the latter focused on the integration of the Daoist ideas （of Laozi） with Confucian， Legalist， and Mohist ideas. As said in “The Ten Great Classics，” “When the civil and military principles are carried out in a cautious way， people will behave properly”; “It is the natural law that everything starts with civility and ends with military action.” From its stress on the combination of civil and military governance， we can discover why the early Han Huang–Lao doctrines （purposive Daoism） were a combination of Laozi’s teachings with those of Confucianism， Legalism， and Mohism.
Bibliography of Cited Translations
Watson， Burton， trans. Records of the Grand Historian： Han Dynasty. 2 vols. Rev. ed. Hong Kong and New York： Columbia University Press， 1993.
Yang， Xianyi 楊宪益 and Gladys Yang 戴乃迭， trans. Selections from Records of the Historian [史记选]. 3 vols. Library of Chinese Classics [大中华文库]. Beijing： Foreign Languages Press， 2008.
Translated by Peng Ping