Meritocracy: Preached and Practiced in Three Kingdoms
by Mary Palmer
Franklin College of Arts and Sciences
The classic Chinese novel Three Kingdoms is rich in cultural history, political strategy, and unique literary devices. This paper analyzes the proclaimed meritocratic society of the Han Dynasty as presented in the narrative by following the perspective of a central character, Xuande. The motivation and reception of Xuande’s heroic achievements, as well as those of his comrades, are compared between the traditional text and a Ming Dynasty adaptation of the narrative in theatrical form. This comparison demonstrates the political manipulation of the classic text to promote imperial deference during the Ming period. This paper also draws upon traditional Mencian teachings to explore the divergence from the ideal Meritocracy with the actual conduct of both Han and Ming political rulers. Characters within the novel, such as Xuande’s advisor, Kongming, demonstrate a strong understanding of this ideal system and aid Xuande in governing with such ideologies. Xuande’s evolving understanding of and adherence to political and social meritocracies in Three Kingdoms offers insights into traditional Chinese teachings that have provided a foundation for cultural development over the centuries.
Three Kingdoms, Meritocracy, Chinese Literature
In the opening chapters of the classic Chinese narrative Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao, then a ranking leader in Yuan Shao’s war confederacy, cautions Yuan Shu regarding his social conduct with the wise words “the meritorious must be rewarded without regard to status.” The worthy individual he was referring to was Guan Yu, and by extent, each of Guan Yu’s brothers, who, despite having little to no official rank, had proven their merits through honest triumphs. Cao Cao’s statement encapsulates a fundamental Chinese value with unbiased simplicity.
This intrinsic principle of heroic behavior being acknowledged and rewarded by authority is found throughout Three Kingdoms as courageous individuals are recognized and talented men rise in status. Chinese political tradition reflects this ideology in the civil service examinations which limit the bestowal of political status to those who have demonstrated exceptional talent. After Zhu Yuanzhang declared himself the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty in 1368 and reinstituted the examinations, he declared simply, “Those who are able to aid me in helping the people will be properly appointed to administrative offices.” Although his later actions against educated and dedicated civil servants reflect hypocrisy in his words, the declaration echoes centuries of Chinese tradition in honoring true talents within the government. Rewarding meritorious actions is how noble individuals fill the ranks of government, and without adherence to this order there would be chaos. In the Three Kingdoms narrative, which was published in the early fourteenth century following the cruel reign of Zhu Yuanzhang, Xuande’s understanding of this principle is deepened through his interactions with hierarchical authority and his own eventual attainment of such authority. The author of Three Kingdoms observes the fundamental ideology of a meritocracy by illustrating that when governments fail to recognize worthy individuals, the authority to do so returns to heaven, and heaven will always reward the heroes.
The belief that the government is responsible for the recognition of meritorious behavior is established early in Three Kingdoms along with signs of the breakdown of this system in the Han dynasty. Xuande consistently vocalizes his trust that the government will act in accordance with its responsibilities, but as the narrative progresses, his actions reflect a subconscious knowledge that the political meritocracy of the Han dynasty is failing. These conflicting beliefs are best illustrated by the events that occurred during and after the defeat of the Yellow Scarves rebellion. After the unethical disposition of Lu Zhi from his military office, Xuande states that “The court will see to it that justice is done.” Again, when the achievements of the three brothers are disrespected by the arrogant commander Dong Zhuo, Xuande’s words express faith in the Han system as they rebuke Zhang Fei’s anger, saying, “He holds the court’s mandate. You cannot take the law into your own hands.” While Lu Zhi is later restored to office by the emperor, Dong Zhou’s power is not checked until too late, illustrating the government’s deteriorating ability to align merit with status in the latter years of the Han dynasty.
The social standard of awaiting recognition from the proper authority was, unsurprisingly, avidly propagated by those holding power in government administrations. A Ming dynasty rendition of the Peach Orchard Oath from Three Kingdoms promoted this concept with calculated emphasis. The short, four-act play introduces the three brothers, Xuande, Guan Yu, and Zhang Fei, and depicts their dedication to the empire and their desire to prove their worth through military service. The play concludes with the three men swearing the oath of brotherhood and beginning their quest to defeat the Yellow Scarves rebellion in a dramatic show of patriotism and loyalty to the empire. It is interesting to note that as the characters are introduced in the play, a variation of the phrase “we must keep to our station as we bide our time” is repeated by each brother. Their unwavering respect for the authority of the government is rewarded in the end of the drama when an imperial edict announces their official recognition in the empire with the decree: “Because the Yellow Turbans have rebelled and there is no one to stop them, and because you three brothers have sworn brotherhood in the Peach Orchard and have excellent martial skills, the three of you are appointed as generals to defeat and annihilate the Yellow Turbans. Express your gratitude for Our Grace.” In this way, the brothers are promoted to the ranks of generals by the government, thereby bestowing state approval of their future actions.
The chronology of the play exhibits a strict meritocratic order that, while possibly an ideal, is not reflective of political policy in either the Ming or Han period. Neither government took actions to elevate talented men until those skills were demonstrated, and even in such cases, government corruption and prejudice often obstructed proper recognition, as seen in the reactions of both Dong Zhou and Yuan Shu when the lowly-ranked brothers acted heroically. Dong Zhou’s refusal to acknowledge their service upon learning that they were commoners without position foreshadows Yuan Shu’s offensive comment, “How dare this magistrate’s underling flaunt his powers before us!” Both remarks illustrate the contempt with which certain Han officials regarded the idea of recognizing lower-status individuals as meritorious.
While elements of the play’s dramatized depiction of loyalty to the sovereign are reflected in the novel, the desire to delay action for the sake of official sanction is virtually non-existent in the early chapters of Three Kingdoms. This absence of political approval highlights the purpose of the Ming period play while also casting light on the subtle conflict between propriety and assertiveness that spans the length of the novel. Xuande’s is often a voice of caution and respect for standards of appropriate behavior, while his actions reflect the knowledge that valor must be demonstrated before (and if ever) if will be rewarded.
Xuande’s struggle to defend the state’s righteous use of authority appears progressively more futile as the narrative illustrates the corrupt nature of the government at the close of the Han dynasty. In his article Sangou Yanyi [Three Kingdoms] and the Mencian View of Political Sovereignty, Ge Liangyan argues that the dishonorable treatment of talented individuals by corrupt officials in the novel closely paralleled their treatment in the early Ming years. This comparison between the tyrants of the Ming period and the officials of the Han court emphasizes the degraded state of an ideal system in corrupt hands. Ge Liangyan summarizes the nature of this crooked court when he describes the actions of Cao Cao with the following rebuke: “In general, Cao Cao’s treatment of the men of talent around him is blatantly utilitarian. He uses them to promote his cause, and he knows well that their service is indispensable. Yet, while he demands their absolute loyalty, he does not offer sincere friendship or camaraderie in return. Instead, he is more interested in Machiavellian manipulation and control.” Cao Cao’s recognition of talent and yet blatant disrespect for those who possessed it in the later chapters of the novel is one of the most obvious signs that the honorable political meritocracy Xuande clings to is unsalvageable without divine intercession.
In the latter chapters of Three Kingdoms, the author provides a glimpse of the correct order of merit-based promotion in the neat description given by Kongming as he reorganized the administration of the Riverlands legal codes following Xuande’s capture of the region. He explains the ideology of a meritocracy by stating, “Our new administration must win respect through legal authority; when the laws are carried out, then the people will appreciate our kindnesses. Moreover; we must use rank to limit ambition so that when rank is granted, the honor will be appreciated. Balanced bestowing of kindness and honor will restore proper relations between lord and vassal, and the principles of good governance will again be manifest.” Kongming’s declaration that status will only maintain its value if it is earned through true merit was a direct response to the corrupted conditions of the Riverland under the former rule of Liu Zhang, a man who “kept worthy and competent men from office.” Kongming’s declaration inspires the same hope that Zhang Jun expressed early in the novel when he warned the emperor that “sale of office and rank by the Ten Eunuchs [was] the fundamental cause of the recent uprisings” and that “for peace to prevail, it would behoove Your Majesty to execute the Ten … and proclaim to all the empire that hereafter merit will be well rewarded.” This idealistic order, under which Xuande sought to abide, seemed once again possible with Kongming’s words.
This renewal of faith in the governmental system occurs with Xuande’s acceptance of the new title, King of Hanzhong, providing hope to the people of a future under a benevolent ruler who rewards talent with equality. Initially, Xuande refused the title, stubbornly repeating that, as he was subject to the Han emperor, he did not have the authorization to assume such a role. His past actions of raising armies to quell rebellions and occupy cities had exhibited no hesitation to act in the name of the Han without state sanction, but when confronted with the opportunity to announce his acquisition of authority, he shrinks behind his assumed belief that status should only be rewarded by imperial authority. However, after their arrival in the Riverlands, Kongming argues that the power to reward Xuande’s merit no longer lies with the Emperor or the unjust government; instead, the voice of the people echoes the will of heaven in declaring him a worthy sovereign. Kongming lays out this persuasive argument with the words: “It might be well to accept the will of Heaven and follow the mood of the people – to assume the throne… If now, merely to deflect criticism, you cling to a narrow sense of honor, you will risk failing the expectations of the people.” Kongming’s words aid Xuande in seeing the transition of power from a political to a social meritocracy. Thus persuaded that the authority to reward merit had shifted from the Han government to the people, Xuande assumed the role of King of Hanzhong, and a new kingdom was established. The honorable achievements of Xuande and his company of generals, advisors, and brothers, though slighted time and time again by the corrupt officials in the Han court, eventually accrued recognition and reward through the voice of the people and the will of heaven.
This simple transfer of the authority to reward merit reflects the Mencian belief that, when the government is no longer worthy of the Mandate of Heaven, it will resonate with the voice of the people in selecting a new meritorious leader. This principle is explained concisely by Ge Liangyan as he states: “Mencius believed that human nature was innately good. From that premise, he went on to advocate that all people had the natural potential to realize their moral endowment. It was that sanguine estimate of average people’s moral nature that gave rise to the view that the mandate of heaven for a ruler was identical with the mandate from the people. As the people had the moral sense to tell the right from the wrong about a ruler, the will of the people and the will of heaven became consistent with each other. Mencius makes this clear by quoting the lines from Taishi: “Heaven sees with the eyes of its people. Heaven hears with the ears of its people.”” The incompetence of the government cannot obstruct the order of heaven in the elevation of those worthy of honor. The shift of power to the people in support of Xuande’s reign in Three Kingdoms reflects the Mencian belief that government administration ought to reflect the will of the civilians, and when it does not, the people will unite against it.
Tragically, the death of Guan Yu in the final chapters of the narrative catalyzed the downfall of this new kingdom by prompting Xuande to defy the will of the people in seeking personal revenge on the Southland. This act, while fulfilling his pledge of brotherhood in the peach orchard, lost him the support of the people and thus the aid of heaven. Xuande swiftly paid for his unmeritorious actions, and the authoritative support of heaven once again shifted to the surviving heroes of the dynasty. Xuande’s ultimate failure to maintain the rewards for his honorable actions is an instructive insight into his character as well as evidence that heaven is no respecter of persons, only meritorious deeds.
By studying the treatment Xuande receives for his meritorious actions in Three Kingdoms we are able to witness the shift in power from the imperial court to the commoners. By failing in their duty to award status and recognition to those who proved their merit, the Han government forfeited its right to rule over the people. The will of heaven is seen in this narrative through the recognition of new heroes such as Xuande and his brothers, supported in their rise to power by the voice of the common people. When the government fails to honor the meritorious, heaven intercedes to reward such heroes.
References
Anonymous. “The Tripartite Oath of Brotherhood in the Peach Orchard.” In Battles, Betrayals, and Brotherhood: Early Chinese Plays on the Three Kingdoms. Translated by Idema, W. L., and S. H. West, 1-39. Hackett Publishing Company, 2012.
Guanzhong, Luo. Three Kingdoms. Translated by Moss Roberts. University of California Press, 1999.
Liangyan, Ge. “Sanguo Yanyi and the Mencian View of Political Sovereignty.” Monumenta Serica 50, no. 1 (2015): 157-193, DOI: 10.1179/mon.2007.55.1.006
Citation Style: Chicago Style Citations