Movatterモバイル変換

Deng Xi’s Exploits

The most concrete account we have of Deng Xi’s activities comesfrom Book 18 ofThe Annals of Lü Buwei. Since the textdates from more than 260 years after his death, however, it cannot beconsidered historically accurate. We should regard it not as a factualaccount, but as presenting the received image of Deng Xi circa 235B.C. in the eyes of scholar-officials writing for a ruling-classaudience. Deng Xi here is not a purveyor of idle doctrines andsophistries, but a glib lawyer whose rhetorical skills erase thedifference between right and wrong. He is depicted as disrupting therule of Zi Chan, chief minister of the state of Zheng from 543 to 522B.C., by repeatedly reinterpreting his edicts until there was nodifference between “admissible” (ke) and“inadmissible.”

In Zheng many people posted [political protest] writings for eachother to read. Zi Chan decreed there be no posting of writings. DengXi delivered them [to readers’ homes instead of publicly postingthem]. Zi Chan decreed there be no deliveries [of writings]. Deng Xienclosed them [with other deliveries]. If the decrees were endless,Deng Xi’s responses to them were also endless. This is therebeing no distinction between admissible and inadmissible.(Annals, 18.4/453)

The chapter that presents this anecdote argues that one should respecta speaker’s intent, whatever his actual words. The purpose ofusing language is to get the point of what someone is trying to say.

Expressions are the markers of thought. To examine the markers andabandon the thought is perverse. So the ancients, once they got thethought, set aside the speech. In listening to speech, use the speechto observe the thought. (18.4/455)

According to theAnnals, what is important is the intent orspirit of the law rather than the letter. Deng Xi devoted himself toperverting the intent that Zi Chan tried to express—heinterpreted the decrees so that actions Zi Chan intended to deemprohibited or inadmissible were classified as admissible. This themelinks the story to the complaints we cited earlier about how thedisputers twisted people’s intentions, rendering them unable toget their original point across. Contrary to the principle advocatedby theAnnals, Deng Xi ignores the intent and focuses only onthe wording (and in doing so touches on issues in legal interpretationthat remain relevant today). As theAnnals writers seethings, he uses his rhetorical skills to eliminate the distinctionbetween admissible and inadmissible, so that right (shi) andwrong (fei) become simply whatever he chooses to argue for oragainst.

Zi Chan governed Zheng. Deng Xi strove to cause difficulties for him.He made agreements with those of the people who had lawsuits. For abig case, one coat; for a small case, a jacket and trousers. Thepeople who presented coats, jackets, and trousers and studiedlitigation with him were too numerous to count. He turned wrong intoright and right into wrong. There was no standard of right and wrong,and what was admissible and inadmissible changed daily. Those hedesired to win would thereby win; those he desired to be found guiltywould thereby be found guilty. (18.4/454)

Deng Xi could go so far as to advise both sides in the same case,sometimes displaying a sense of humor while doing so.

The Wei river was extremely high. A person from the house of a richman of Zheng drowned. Someone found the body. The rich man asked tobuy it back. The man demanded very much money. The rich man told DengXi about it. Deng Xi said, “Calm down about it. There’scertainly no one else he can sell it to.” The one who found thebody was troubled by this and told Deng Xi about it. Deng Xi repliedto him too by saying, “Calm down about it. There’scertainly nowhere else they can buy it.” (18.4/453)

Arguing for both of two inconsistent contentions later became known asthe doctrine of treating “both sides as admissible”(liang ke). Deng Xi is depicted as taking both sides of theissue, one after the other, untroubled by any pragmatic contradictionin his position. (Strictly speaking, of course, in the anecdote thereis no contradiction, and both of his remarks are true.) Among ancientChinese writers with authoritarian sympathies, such conduct won him areputation for being unprincipled. Still, even readers concerned aboutexcessive or frivolous litigation should be dismayed by the accounttheAnnals gives of Deng Xi’s eventual fate:

The state of Zheng fell into great disorder, and the people clamored.Zi Chan was troubled by this and so executed Deng Xi and displayed hiscorpse. The people’s hearts then submitted, right and wrong weresettled, and laws and regulations were enforced. (18.4/454)

The more reliableZuo Commentary tells us that Deng Xi wasexecuted in 501 B.C., some 21 years after Zi Chan’s death, by SiChuan, a later ruler of Zheng. Si Chuan then adopted his penal code.Authorship of the penal code suggests that the historical Deng Xi mayin fact have been a well-intentioned legal reformer, rather thanmerely an unscrupulous lawyer.

Return to School of Names