I gratefully acknowledge the insightful and helpful comments made by William G. Boltz, Kai Vogelsang and Nicolas Zufferey on a pre-publication version of this paper.
- 1 For Chinese characters of transcribed expressions, name, titles, and quotations from the sources, r (...)
1The role of father in Chinese society is one of paramount importance, being the commanding position in the fundamental dyadic relationship of father and son. This position ranks supreme – even in rather awkward and discrediting situations as the one described in the following passage from the Hánfēiz:1
- 2 HFZ 49.09. Cf. Watson (1967): 105-106.
E 1 Among those of [the principality of] Chŭ, there was “Upright Gōng”. When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities. The magistrate said, “Put him to death!” He thought the man was being honest towards the ruler but dishonest towards the father. So he revenged this and sentenced him to death. From this is to be seen that the honest subject of a ruler is the beastly son of a father.2
2The enormous prestige and great structural importance of the role of the father in ancient Chinese society also show up in the doubling of the character fù as the written form for, on the one hand, the word ‘father’ (noun), on the other hand, the word ‘to behave as a father’ (verb):
- 3 Lùn Yŭ 12.11. Cf. Legge (1960a): 256.
E 2 The ruler should behave like a ruler, and the ministerial like a ministerial; the father should behave like a father, and the son like a son.3
- 4 By following the traditional conventions for transcribing names I hope to give consideration to the (...)
3In many essential situations and for many important social events, fathers were clearly the ultimate point of reference. When Duke Dìng of Téng died, his son and successor, Duke Wén, sent Rán Yŏu to consult Mencius about how to properly discharge the funeral duties. Mencius informed him of the various ceremonies to be observed, and Rán Yŏu returned to Téng to report to the new ruler, who determined that three years’ mourning should be observed.4 The received text then tells us how certain groups of mourners reacted to these measures:
- 5 Mèng 3A.2. Translation (with adaptations) according to Legge (1960b): 237.
E 3 His aged relatives, and the body of the officers, did not wish that it should be so, and said, “The former Patriarchs of Lŭ, that kingdom which we honour, have, none of them, observed this practice, neither have any of our own former Patriarchs observed it. For you to act contrary to their example is not proper. […]”5
- 6 For the reading fŭ instead of fù, cf. below and note 8.
4The expression translated by Legge as “aged relatives” has the following form in the original: “father(s) and elder brother(s)” (fŭ6 xiōng). Given the context, this expression must strike the non-Chinese reader as quite unusual: The father of Duke Wén had just died, so the first term could definitely not refer to him. Who, then, does it refer to? Furthermore, given the generally observed rules of primogeniture, it is to be assumed that Duke Wén became his successor because he was the eldest son, so why should elder brothers be mentioned?
5In the text quoted above, the two elements of the composite term fŭ xiōng seem to belong to the realm of kinship. This could be based on the following observation: the larger expression “aged relatives (fŭ xiōng) and the body of officers (băi guān)” appears later on in the text in the modified form “all the officers (băi guān) and his relatives (zú rén)”. The latter part contains the word zú meaning “branch of a lineage”. So, the expression fù xiōng in this case obviously refers to members of the kinship group. As it cannot refer to the father and elder brothers of the new ruler, i.e., in genealogical terms, of ego, it therefore suggests an interpretation within a generational framework: the term “father(s)” would be referring to relatives belonging to the same generation as the biological father; the term “brother(s)” would be referring to relatives belonging to the same generation as ego. This normally implies that the persons thus designated would be older than ego (but not necessarily all “aged”). The following graph serves to illustrate this kind of constellation within a lineage:
Illustration 1: A multi-generational lineage (zōng) with three branches (zú)
|
X-gōng
|
Duke X (grandfather)
|
zú 2
|
zú 3
|
|
|
Y-gōng
|
Duke Y (father)
|
son of X; brother
|
son of X; brother
|
|
|
|
|
of Y; uncle of Z
|
of Y; uncle of Z
|
|
|
Z-gōng
|
Duke Z (son)
|
son/cousin
|
son/cousin
|
|
|
zú 1
|
|
|
|
|
- 7 I therefore suggest that the character concerned should be read fù when the word refers to the biol (...)
- 8 The two terms could possibly also include maternal uncles or maternal cousins, as certain commentar (...)
6This lets us assume that the paternal uncles of Z/ego belonging to the generation of his father might have been collectively referred to as “fathers”.7 The paternal cousins of Z/ego, correspondingly, were collectively referred to as “elder brothers” if they were born before him, and as “younger brothers” if born after him.8
7Fortunately, the sources furnish us with instances which bear out the above assumptions. In the Zuŏ Zhuàn we find the following text accompanying an entry in the Chūn Qiū:
- 9 Yīn 8.10 ; Legge (1960c) : 26b, Par. 10.
E 4 Wú-hài had died. Yŭ-fŭ requested [for him from the Duke] a canonical epithetas well as a name for a branch lineage.9
- 10 On the occasion of the death of a further brother of Yŭ-fŭ in Yīn 5.8, the Yĭn-Patriarch refers to (...)
8The name Wú-hài refers to the grandson of gōng-zĭ Zhăn (Ducal Son Zhăn), who was a son of Duke Xiào of Lŭ (Lŭ Xiào-gōng). The elder brother of Zhăn, Duke Huì, was the father of the current ruler, Duke Yŭn. Yŭ-fŭ was another son of Duke Xiào, i.e. younger brother of Duke Huì, and therefore a paternal uncle of Duke Yĭn.10
Illustration 2: Excerpt from the lineage (zōng) of the rulers of Lŭ
Xiào-gōng
|
(grandfather)
|
|
|
Huì-gōng
|
(father)
|
gōng-zĭ Huī (= Yŭ-fŭ);
|
gōng-zĭ Zhăn;
|
|
|
uncle of Yĭn-gōng
|
uncle of Yĭn-gōng
|
Yĭn-gōng
|
(ego)
|
gōng-sūn; son/cousin
|
gōng-sūn; son/cousin
|
|
|
|
Wú hài
|
- 11 Cf. the corresponding chapters in Gassmann (2006a) and Gassmann (2006b): 791-806.
9This table shows that the bearer of this suffixed name form belonged to the generation preceding that of the current chief of a lineage (zōng), i.e. to the generation of Duke Huì, the father of Duke Yĭn. As the sources mentioned above only transmit a suffixed name form for Yŭ-fŭ and not for any of his brothers, the table also raises the question whether all the members of the elder generation, i.e. all (paternal) uncles, were entitled to this form or not. The situation in the genealogical context of the so-called sān Huán, i.e. the three branch lineages issuing from the Huán-Patriarch of Lŭ, seems to suggest an answer:11
Illustration 3: Descendants of the Huán-Patriarch of Lŭ
Huán-gōng
|
r. 711-694
|
|
|
Zhuāng-gōng
|
gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ
|
gōng-zĭ shū-Yá
|
gōng-zĭ jì-Yŏu
|
Mĭn-gōng
|
|
|
|
- 12 Of this ruler we have the precise date of birth: CQ Huán 6.5, i.e. on October 5, 705. He dies on A (...)
- 13 “Chéng-jì-Yŏu (the Chéng-junior Yŏu) […] received Bì and became the Supreme Qīng.” Cf. Zhao 32.6; 7 (...)
- 14 Zhuāng 32.3 (661); Legge (1960c): 120b-121b, Par. 3.
10The youngest of the three brothers (not counting Duke Zhuāng12), the gōng-zĭ jì-Yŏu (Ducal Son junior-Yŏu), was probably the most famous of them, as he occupied the position of chief minister during the reign periods of his brother and of two of his sons, Duke Mĭn and Duke Xī.13As a member of the generation of the father of Duke Mĭn and Duke Xī, we would expect there to be some trace of this in a corresponding name form with the suffix fŭ. The search is negative; there is no evidence for the form Yŏu-fŭ. The same applies to his elder brother, the gōng-zĭ shū-Yá (Ducal Son minor-Yá), who due to his seniority would presumably have had even more right to the honorific. This brother died before jì-Yŏu, who had forced him to commit suicide after trying to disrupt the arrangements for succession of Duke Zhuāng.14 This suggests the following narrowing of our interpretation: the honorific, in this case, is restricted to the eldest living brother or paternal uncle. Younger uncles may be granted this suffix after the death of an elder brother thus named.
- 15 Yīn 5.8 ; Legge (1960c) : 20b, Par. 7.
- 16 This name form appears for the first time in the Zuŏ Zhuàn appended to Yīn 4.5; Legge (1960c): 16b, (...)
11This seems to be the case with the gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ (Ducal Son Qìng-fŭ), who only for a very short time (presumably during his exile) was not mentioned with the honorific but with the form Gŏng-zhòng (Zhuāng 32–Mīn 2; Wén 15). His youngest brother, the gōng-zĭ jì-Yŏu, died in 643 (Xī 16.2), presumably between fifty and sixty years of age. We do not know for certain, but it seems quite a safe guess to assume that Qìng-fŭ must have died after him, thus preventing that the honorific was transferred to his youngest brother. Clear traces of such a transferal of the honorific can be made out in the case of Yŭ-fŭ, the younger brother of Duke Huì mentioned above: On the occasion of the death of the eldest brother of Yŭ-fŭ, i.e. Zāng Xī-bó (the Xī-major from the lineage of the Zāng; note the bó ‘major’ denoting a first born), DukeYĭn refers to this person as shū-fŭ ‘uncle-fŭ’.15 As long as this brother was alive, he apparently was the legitimate bearer of the honorific; it was transferred to Yŭ-fŭ, evidently as the next in line, after his death.16 This interpretation would also explain the, at first sight unnecessary, existence of two forms designating a paternal uncle: the simple form shū ‘uncle’ and the suffixed form shū fŭ ‘uncle-fŭ’. The first form refers to an uncle without the honorific (because an elder brother is still alive), the second to the eldest surviving uncle and bearer of the honorific.
- 17 This fact flatly contradicts the somewhat hasty explanation I favoured earlier, namely that age and (...)
12Interestingly, the gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ is bearer of the honorific not only during the life-time of his ruling brother, the Zhuāng-Patriarch, but also already at a very early date in his reign (Zhuāng 2.2; 691), i.e. shortly after his brother assumed the position of ruler in 692.17 This seems to indicate that the honorific is due, or granted to a person, as soon as there are members of the next generation, i.e. as soon as the ruling Duke has a son and potential successor. This was the case: the son zĭ-Bān, presumably born somewhere round 690 and therefore about thirty years of age, was installed as successor, but was killed before he gained the position of a ruler with ancestral status, i.e. his own first calendrical year of reign. It is therefore not unreasonable to believe that the closeness of the dates is simply coincidental. That the gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ is registered as bearer of the honorific in 691, and that zĭ-Bān must have been born in the vicinity of the year 690 therefore allows for the following hypothesis: with the birth of a son, the eldest living brother of the father, i.e. a paternal uncle, is designated with the honorific fŭ in relation to the potential successor.
- 18 This condition, i.e. being the eldest living brother of the head of a lineage (here of the ruler of (...)
- 19 It is not unusual for a language to have related words for this function, e.g. Italian (padre - ‘fa (...)
13Let us sum up the observations and their tentative interpretation: the honorific fŭ seems to have been granted to the eldest living brother of the head of a lineage (zōng).18 The first grant could have been on the occasion of the birth of a successor for the position of head. The honorific was transferred to the next born living uncle upon death of the first supplementary “father”, thus ensuring that this function was always fulfilled. The act of naming and the triggering occasion of a birth brings to mind a ritual or custom which is well known in our cultural sphere: that of a godfather.19 The function of the godfather was clearly to keep his nephew on the path of good conduct, to remonstrate with him when he departed from it, and to be one of his prime counsels. Commenting on the death of his (first) godfather, Zāng Xī-bó, Duke Yĭn mentions that despite his uncle-godfather’s dissatisfaction with his conduct of affairs he would in no way be tempted to forget him.
14Based on these finding, we suggest to emend the translation of E 3 above in the following way:
E 3 His godfather, elder cousins, and the body of the officers, did not wish that it should be so, and said, […].
15So far, the cases discussed covered situations within a kinship group, i.e. within one and the same lineage. What about the situation in non-related lineages? The impression that the terms fù/fŭ (“fathers”) and xiōng (“elder brothers”) must, in certain contexts, have been implicitly collective correlates with the existence of the explicitly collective term zhū fŭ (“all the fathers”) and zhū xiōng (“all the elder brothers/cousins”). In a conversation between Tāng and his minister, Yī Yĭn, the latter says:
- 20 Shuō Yuăn (1992): 2.2.
E 5 Ministerials whom the ruler does not address with the personal name are of four [types]: the (god)fathers (zhū fŭ) he uses as ministerials but does not address with the personal name; the elder brothers/cousins (zhū xiōng) he uses as ministerials but does not address with the personal name; the ministerials of predecessor (ancestral) kings he uses as ministerials but does not address with the personal name; officers whom he is fully obliged to he uses as ministerials but does not address with the personal name.20
- 21 Cf. the remarks at note 27.
16These collective terms, especially zhū fŭ, cause one to wonder whether all the threads of the story surrounding the suffix have already been unravelled. It seems natural to assume that one and the same person could only have one godfather at a time; a collective term would then only be plausible if deceased godfathers were counted. But the above excerpt E 5 is unmistakeably talking about more than one godfather of the ruler. Within the kinship group, we seem to have already encountered the working of a mechanism which transfers the honorific from a deceased godfather to the next paternal uncle, one at a time. This clearly implies that the term zhū fŭ must include further “godfathers”, i.e. “godfathers” originating from other, unrelated kinship groups. The “original” godfather in the stricter sense of the word could, of course, be a member of this group.21
17Do we have evidence for such “non-kindred godfathers”? Let us look at the following revealing excerpt from the Hánfēizĭ:
- 22 This is my translation of zĭ, the term of address for ministerials.
- 23 Hánfēizĭ 33.12. Liao II:69-70. The name form ‘midborn godfather’ (zhòng fŭ) is met with quite frequ (...)
E 6 Duke Huán of Qí intended to install Guăn zhòng (the midborn of the lineage of the Guăn) [as godfather]. He called together the group of ministerials and said: “I, the solitary Rén, intend to install Guăn zhòng as ‘midborn godfather’ (zhòng fŭ). Whoever finds this commendable, turns left after entering the door; whoever finds this not commendable, turns right after entering the door.” Dōng-guō Yá placed himself in the middle of the door. The Duke said: “I, the solitary Rén, am installing Guăn zhòng as ‘midborn godfather’, and I ordered those in favour to the left, those against it to the right. Now, Squire,22 why are you standing in the middle of the door?” Yá said: “Is Guăn zhòng, because of his knowledge, going to be made [someone] capable of making plans for the Empire?” The Duke said: “[He will] be capable.” [Yá said:] “Is he, by [this] decision, going to be made [someone] daring to undertake great operations?” The Duke said: “[He will] dare to.” Yá said: “If he knows how to make plans for the Empire and is [also] enabled [to do so], and if he takes decisions and [also] dares to undertake great operations, then you, Sire, are subsequently exclusively charging him with the [power] grips of the principality. If someone with the capabilities of a Guăn zhòng rides in the position of the Duke and thereby creates order in the principality of Qí, will you succeed in making the danger [for you] disappear?” The Duke said: “I think [this analysis] excellent.” He then commanded Xí Péng to look after the inner [affairs], and Guăn zhòng to look after the foreign affairs. With [these] chancellors he formed a triad.23
- 24 In this case it can also not be verified whether the appointment took place on the occasion of the (...)
18This excerpt, on the one hand, shows the range of power that could accompany the function of a godfather. On the other, it illustrates that men from a different kinship group could be appointed godfathers.24 Guăn Yí-wú, better known by the name form Guăn zhòng (midborn of the lineage of the Guăn), was the outstanding ministerial of Duke Huán of Qí (r. 684 to 642), who, with his expert help, managed to become a hegemonial leader. The lineage of Duke Huán of Qí belonged to the Jiāng clan, the lineage of the Guăn to the royal Jī clan. Another example: Xún Lín-fŭ was an important ministerial of five of the Dukes of Jìn (cf. Illustration 5 below). The lineage of the Dukes of Jìn belonged to the royal Jī clan, the lineage of the Xún to the Zĭ clan. These two cases are clear evidence that personages from non-related kinship groups were eligible for the function of godfather.
- 25 Some of them are, of course, also mentioned in other sources, but the passages quoted are difficult (...)
19Having ascertained that the suffix fŭ is attached to the name of personages functioning as godfathers, and referring back to the lexicographical description of the meaning of fŭ (i.e. “honorific suffix attached to names of high-ranking men”), it seems surprising that not all high-ranking men happened to be bearers of this suffix. In fact, compared to the really large number of men in high ranks we know of in various principalities, for only comparatively few of them this name form is actually transmitted. In the following listings of such men from the principalities of Lŭ and Jìn distilled from the Chūn Qiū and the Zuŏ Zhuàn quite an unexpected pattern appears.25 The listings show the periods when a person was mentioned with the suffixed name form (capital letters refer to the person; numbers from left to right refer to the years in the reign periods of the Dukes of Lŭ; e.g. Zhòng-fŭ [A] was so named in the 1st year of the reign period of Duke Yĭn [1]; the gōng-sūn Guī-fŭ [G] was so named between the years 10 and 18 of Duke Xuān [7]):
Illustration 4: Godfathers in the Principality of Lŭ
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
A
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C
|
4-11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-18
|
|
|
|
|
|
(F)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
5
|
|
|
|
H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22–26
|
|
|
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7-12
|
|
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Rulers of Lŭ : 1 : Yĭn ; 2 : Huán ; 3 : Zhuāng ; 4 : Mĭn ; 5 : Xī ; 6 : Wén ; 7 : Xuān ; 8 : Chéng ; 9 : Xiāng ; 10 : Zhāo ; 11 : Dìng ; 12 : Āi.
Godfathers of Lŭ : A : Zhòng-fŭ ; B : Bì Qín-fŭ ; C : Yŭ-fŭ ; D : Shī-fŭ ; E : gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ ; F : Jì-sūn Hàng-fŭ ; G : gōng-sūn Guī-fŭ ; H : Céng Gŭ-fŭ ; I : Mĭn Mă-fŭ ; J : Gōng-liăn Chù-fŭ ; K : Guăn Zhōu-fŭ ; L : Kŏng Ní-fŭ ( = Confucius).
20There are two further men in Lŭ who have the suffix fŭ in a name form: Wáng-fŭ from the lineage of the Zhăn, and Jĭn-fŭ from the lineage of the Qín. In the source text, these are identified as family ministerials (jiā chén). Such ministerials were attached to families one level lower than the Duke, i.e. to families with the rank of a qīng. This implies that the system of godfathers existed on at least two levels: on the level of the counsels of the rules of a principality, and on the level of counsels of highest-ranking ministerials, i.e the qīng.
- 26 Cf. the remarks concerning the collective terms mentioned in E 5 above.
21At first sight, the illustration seems to suggest that there was only one bearer of the suffixed name at a time. However, it is not sufficiently clear whether this listing is to be interpreted in the sense that there could be no more than one bearer of the suffix at a time, i.e. only consecutive bearers, or whether there could be more than one “active” bearer at a time.26 The uncertainty rests, on the one hand, on Qín-fŭ from the lineage of the Bì [B]: we do not know how long he lived (he is only mentioned in one single entry), nor whether he was bearer of the suffix for a time extending into that of Yŭ-fŭ [C]. Furthermore, the interpretation of his status is uncertain for he could have been a family ministerial, and this would really exclude him from the listing. On the other hand, we observe that within the same year (Xuān 10), following a lengthy period (Wén 6 to Xuān 10) in which only Jì-sūn Hàng-fŭ is recorded as bearer of the suffix, the gōng-sūn Guī-fŭ is mentioned twice, in Xuān 10.11 and 15 CC, followed by a single reference to Hàng-fŭ in Xuān 10.17 CC, immediately followed again by a reference to Guī-fŭ in Xuān 10.18 CC. From then on until Xuān 18, Guī-fŭ exclusively dominates the entries, whereas Hàng-fŭ reappears in Chéng 2 to remain until Xiāng 5. The end of records mentioning Guī-fŭ coincides with the end of the reign of the Xuān-Patriarch.
22These observations lead to the following revisions of our current tentative explanation given in the summary above: (a) It seems that members of the same kinship group were preferred as godfathers. In the case discussed above, it was a paternal uncle (gōng-zĭ Qìng-fŭ), i.e. somebody from the lineage of the shared father. In the two cases just discussed (Jì-sūn Hàng-fŭ and the gōng-sūn Guī-fŭ), we would judge these persons as already quite distantly related, the degree of relatedness going beyond the generation of shared grandfathers. (b) Each Patriarch could grant the suffix to a personage of his choice. It seems that this did not imply that a godfather of an earlier Patriarch lost his suffix, but the records show that visibility was significantly reduced. So there could be more than one godfather, i.e. more than one bearer of the suffix at a time, but usually only one of them was “active”, i.e. actually serving in this function. (c) Excerpt E 5 above with the collective expression zhū fŭ, “the (god)fathers” confirms that there must have been periods with more than one bearer at a time, and in addition suggests that at times there could have been so many as to justify using the collective zhū “all the N”. As far as the sources reveal, the group must have been quite small, with possibly not more than two or three members at a time. (d) The relative scarcity of the name form clearly implies that the suffix fŭ marked a function, i.e. that it was not merely honorific but in actual fact a title. Both title and function seem to have been granted once, and for life, to high-ranking ministerials, as there are no instances showing that bearers of this title reverted to an earlier name form without the suffix.
- 27 I have also checked the situation in Qí which due to the information available is less impressive a (...)
23Was this situation restricted to the principality of Lŭ, or was this title also granted in other principalities and under similar conditions? That this was the case can be shown with the following listing for the bearers of this title in the principality of Jìn:27
Illustration 5: Godfathers in the Principality of Jìn
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
A
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
27-28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(D)
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(D)
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
(D)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-15
|
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4-21
|
|
|
|
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-14
|
|
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-20
|
A : Jiā-fŭ ; B : Pān-fŭ ; C : Pī Zhèng-fŭ ; D : Xún Lín-fŭ ; E : Yáng Chù-fŭ ; F : Jī Zhèng-fŭ ; G : Xū Jiă-fŭ ; H : Hé Zŭ-fŭ ; I : Jiā-fŭ, the baron of Wú-zhōng ; J : Hú-fŭ ; K : Jí-fŭ ; L : Liáng Yīng-fŭ ; M : Zhì-fŭ (from the lineage of the Zhào). Possible candidates as family ministerials (jiā chén) with the name-element fŭ: F, and K.
24The illustration confirms the same overall pattern: during the whole Chūn Qiū period there were comparatively few bearers of the title, and the records, in contrast to the solitary example in the principality of Lŭ, display absolutely no instances of two “active” bearers at the same time. The sequence D-E-D-F-D-G-D-H with the important ministerial Lín-fŭ from the lineage of the Xún [D] making several appearances over a long period of time interrupted by three other godfathers not only shows that several bearers could co-exist but also that the title, once granted, was not revoked, thus strengthening the explanation for the group designation zhū fŭ. It also illustrates that rulers not always accepted or were happy with the godfathers appointed by their predecessors, for changes in the activities of bearers are in many cases situated in the critical periods of succession from one ruler to the next. This can be demonstrated in the period of the above-mentioned sequence (D-E-D-F-D-G-D-H):
Illustration 6: Changes of godfathers related to periods of succession in the Principality of Jìn (excerpt)
Patriarchs
of Jìn
|
|
|
|
5 : Xī
|
6 : Wén
|
7 : Xuān
|
8 : Chéng
|
9 : Xiāng
|
Wén
|
632
|
D
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
Wén
|
631
|
D
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
Wén
|
627
|
|
E
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
Xiāng
|
625
|
|
E
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
Xiāng
|
620
|
|
E
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
Líng
|
619
|
D
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
Líng
|
617
|
|
F
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
Líng
|
614
|
D
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
Líng
|
609
|
D
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
Líng
|
607
|
|
G
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Chéng
|
605
|
D
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
Chéng
|
599
|
D
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
Jĭng
|
598
|
D
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
Jĭng
|
580
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Lì
|
579
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Lì
|
572
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Dào
|
571
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Dào
|
569
|
|
H
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Reign periods of the Dukes of Jìn: Wén: Xī 25 (634)-Xī 33 (626); Xiāng: Wén 1 (625)-Wén 6 (620); Líng: Wén 7 (619)-Xuān 2 (606); Chéng: Xuān 3 (605)-Xuān 9 (599); Jĭng: Xuān 10 (598)-Chéng 10 (580); Lì: Chéng 11 (579)-Chéng 18 (572); Dào: Xiāng 1 (571)-Xiāng 15 (557).
- 28 Cf. at note 25.
- 29 Such texts could thus justifiably be termed as “historical” and be regarded as basically reliable s (...)
25Apart from confirming the observations (b) to (d) above, this illustration with the demonstrated pattern of change calls for the correction of a suggestion made earlier in this paper, i.e. that the act of naming could have been basically associated with the birth of a successor of the ruling Duke (i.e. the “classical” role of a godfather).28 On the contrary, the granting of the title to an elder statesman appears to have been for the benefit of the acting ruler, especially of new and maybe young and inexperienced rulers who had, in general, just followed in the position of their fathers. An interesting case, in this respect, is to be registered for the principality of Lŭ: On the occasion of the death of Confucius, the Zuŏ Zhuàn in Āi 16.4 quotes Duke Āi as referring to him in his sorrow as Ní-fŭ, Ní-godfather. This suggests that Confucius was presumably his elderly counsel and therefore casts new light on his social standing as well as on the several conversations about problems of government recorded between the two: not only in the Lùn Yŭ are there passages (2.19; 3.21; 6.03; 12.09; 14.21), but several other received texts transmit dialogues and even whole chapters, e.g. the Lĭ Jì (Chapter 27, Āi-gōng wèn), the Kŏng zĭ Jiā Yŭ (Chapter 17, Āi-gōng wèn zhèng).29
26The role of father in Chinese society is not only one of paramount importance, but also a model for a number of different social functions. In this paper, such traces of a high structural affinity have been found in the sources examined by following a prominent name form containing the suffixal element fŭ ‘godfather’. This name form designates a specialized function, i.e. that of the elder or more experienced statesman, of the personally appointed counsel acting, as it seems, in lieu of a father (and therefore here termed ‘godfather’). This function existed on two levels of society, i.e. on the level of the rulers (Kings and Patriarchs), and on the level just below them, the level of high-ranking ministerials (qīng). Although there could be more than one godfather at a time, only one godfather was active.
- 30 The (extended) binomial constructions fŭ xiōng and zhū fŭ zhū xiōng are a clear indication that the (...)
- 31 I owe, and gratefully acknowledge, the lead to the thoughts in this paragraph to an anonymous revie (...)
27The modeling of social functions with a high degree of intimacy and influence on patterns of (male) kinship, thus building a wider framework of quasi-kinship, is well attested in (later) Chinese culture and history (see how the terms of address mirror the organization of societies such as the Triads or guilds – or of groups of scholars who passed under the same examiner). Without entering further into these questions, this insight could also furnish a more precise and comprehensive (albeit tentative) explanation regarding the use of the terms xiōng (“elder brother”) and zhū xiōng (“all elder brothers”). If persons thus designated were – in a way similar to the “godfathers” – not necessarily akin in the narrow sense of the term, then we might suggest that they were chosen to perform certain functions of elder brothers and thereby “related to” as elder blood brothers.30 The establishment of quasi-kinship in the functions of “godfathers” and “elder blood brothers” could also offer a cogent explanation for the recurrent appearance – often listed in the vicinity of genuine kinship groups – of these two groups in many dedicatory texts in bronze inscriptions.31
28Based on these results, we suggest a final emendation of the translation of E 3 above:
E 3 Godfather(s), elder (blood) brothers, and the body of the officers, did not wish that it should be so, and said, […].
- 32 Schuessler (2007): 243.
- 33 Yáng Bójùn (1985): 153.
- 34 Another interesting field taking its cue from the role of a father is to be found in terms designat (...)
- 35 It could be promising to follow up on the question why some of the name forms have the suffix fŭ in (...)
29The current lexicographical explanation (“honorific suffix attached to names of high-ranking men”32 or simply “elderly man”33) is basically the weakest possible definition, but, as has been shown, it lacks fundamental defining elements and certainly fails to specify the conditions under which this special title was granted.34 As far as age is concerned, it is in many cases even demonstrably wrong. The suffix definitely has the character of a title and not of a mere honorific, i.e. the honorific effect is due to service in a high function and to professional merits, and not just a matter of (formal) respect. These results may now serve as a foundation for further research into the definition of the function of such personages.35