Let us continue with our discussion of Pound's political views, with
reference to the interpretation of the Shoo KIng.

I maintained that

> > In ancient times, the Shoo King provided an ideological justification
>for
> > the Chinese version of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.[end
>quote].

You replied:

>A useful analogy, and one which underlines the fact that the king in this
>chapter is not claiming to possess all power in his own right.

You are correct.  His power comes from Heaven (or so the author of the
document says).

>He has just
>defeated the king of Hea who seems to have done just that--he "extinguished
>his virtue and played the tyrant, extending his oppression over you, the
>people ..... [Heaven] sent down calamities on the House of Hea, to make
>manifest its crimes".

Yes.  Let us recall that we are talking about a very ancient period.  The
Hea (Xia or Hsia) dynasty ended in 1700 BC.  The Xia dynasty was the first
dynasty, and the events of that time are quasi-mythological.   Primitive
peoples often believed that natural calamities were the result of personal
moral failures.

You go on to say,

Legge's (con)version continues:
>     "Therefore, I, the little child, charged with the decree of Heaven and
>      its bright terrors ..... making clear announcement to the spiritual
>Sovereign
>     of the high heavens, requested leave to deal with the ruler of Hea as
>a
>     criminal.

In other word, the new leader seeks ideological justification for the fact
that he overthrows the previous ruler. He claims the traditional "Divine
Mandate," as every ruler since did, until the imperial system was
overthrown.

>     Then I sought for the great sage [his principal adviser], with
>     whom I might unite my strength, to request the favour of Heaven on
>     behalf of you, my multitudes.

This is sheer propaganda.  It's a bit like Shakespeare's Richard the Third,
which justifies the usurpation by Henry Tudor, on the grounds that Richard
had contravened morality, and on the grounds that God ordained the Tudor
dynasty (as of course Shakespear had to say, otherwise what would Elizabeth
have done to him?). Modern historians know better, and a substantial number
argue that Richard was, in fact, quite a good king.  The truth is we really
don't know what happened in China in 1700 BC, or why; but whatever did
happen, it had to be justified on religious grounds.

>     High Heaven truly showed its favour to
>     the inferior people, and the criminal has been degraded and subjected.

Are you not troubled by the phrase "inferior people"?  Of course, in 1700
BC, all the masses were "inferior people", destined to be ruled.  How could
we expect it to be otherwise.  However, in China, these documents were used
to justify the rule of the nobility and the monarch over the people until
1911.  Does it not disturb you in the least that Pound is resurrecting these
documents at a time when the texts being ideologically deconstructed in
China?
[I discuss the textual problem in some detail, if you are interested, in the
second half of the essay at:

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin.cantos.html   ]

Does it not disturb you that Pound resurrects these documents in conjunction
with an enthusiastic support for Fascism and Nazism (political doctrines
which also believe in an "inferior people", namely all those who are
destined to be ruled.


>     Heaven's appointment is without error;--brilliantly now like the
>blossoming
>     of flowers and trees, the millions of the people show a true reviving.

Yes.  Heaven is without error.  But who is to say what Heaven's decree is?
It is not open to interpretation.  Like the decrees of El Duce.  [Note:
Pound, according to the record we have, never criticized a single act or
decision or statement of Mussolini during the whole war, privately or
publicly].

>         III.  "It is given to me, the one man, to give harmony and
>tranquillity
>     to your States and Families; and now I know not whether I may offend
>     the powers above and below.... "
>
>--and so on, making himself explicitly subject to powers above his own.
>[You conclude]

Not true.  The Emperor in the Chinese Imperial system was the "Son of
Heaven."  Only he, once installed, could interpret the will of Heaven.  He
may say, he is subject to Heaven, [and this was the fiction], but if only he
can interpret the will of Heaven, or even pray to Heaven [ordinary subjects
were not even permitted to pray to Heaven], then how can he be held
accountable?  In the above excerpt we have the phrase ONE MAN again.  This
indicates that all power is vested in that person.  What you might be
failing to recognize is the extent to which this account ---of the transfer
of power from one dynasty to another--- may be ideologically motivated,
politically motivated (and not necessarily morally or ethically motivated).

>A properly careful reading of that book of the Chou King would not
>represent
>it as justifying arbitrary one-man rule.  That would be a clear abuse of
>its
>ethic.
>
Isn't there possibly a difference between the ethic expressed and the
motivation for producing the text?
Does it not seem more possible to you that the purpose of this document is
to justify ONE MAN rule (arbitrary or not)? Could it not have been composed
to give the appearance to the subjects, to whom this document is addressed,
that such rule is divinely sanctioned?  Do your really believe that the
founder of the new dynasty was ordained by Heaven to take that role?  Is
divine sanction, in your view, a sufficient safeguard, which will make the
monarch accountable?

The story in this text has been rewritten over and over in Chinese history
and literature, and has taken many forms.  During the Ming dynasty (14th
century AD) one epic writer composed a work called "The Investiture of the
Gods" which put forward the myth that a beautiful goddess took the form of
lovely fox sprite to corrupt the Xia monarch, so that his dynasty could be
overthrown.  This remains one of China's most popular novels.  The narrative
contains all sorts of absurdly fantastical and fairy-tale-like beasts, who
guide the action, and commit ridiculously cosmic and strange magical acts.
The point is that by the beginning of early modern Chinese history no one
took stories of the fall of the Xia dynasty seriously.  It had become the
butt of literary satire, exageration, and was subjected to all sorts of
caricatures by the poets and creative men of letters.  Meanwhile, the
imperial Confucian scholars taught it as fact.  It is absurd that Pound or
any Westerner would take it seriously.  No one in China does anymore.


----Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com