戰國與希臘：中西方文明根性之比較

China in the Warring States Period VS Ancient Greece: A Comparison between the Fundamental Natures of Chinese and Western Civilizations

中央社會(huì )主義學(xué)院黨組書(shū)記、第一副院長(cháng)潘岳

Pan Yue

Secretary of Leading Party Members' Group and First Deputy Dean, Central Institute of Socialism of China

導讀

百年未有之大變局下，中國和西方又一次站在了解彼此的十字路口。在文明層面，雙方的了解卻遠遠不夠，甚至存在誤解。那么，中西文明的“根性”究竟有何不同？

中央社會(huì )主義學(xué)院黨組書(shū)記、第一副院長(cháng)潘岳認為，戰國和古希臘在同時(shí)期相似的歷史條件下，出現了不同的歷史結果。二者都面臨紛爭戰亂，而后也都出現了由軍事強大的邊緣國家所主導的統一運動(dòng)，但希臘終未真正統一，而戰國卻走向了大一統的秦漢時(shí)代，且整整延續兩千余年。他認為，希臘古典文明和中華古典文明各成體系、互有分殊，最重要的就是統與分的不同根性，以及由此塑造的兩種不同道路：西方走向分，其間雖有統一努力（如羅馬、基督教)，但以分為主，最終歸于個(gè)人主義和自由主義。中國走向合，其間也有分離時(shí)期（如王朝更替、游牧民族沖擊)，但以合為主，造就了集體主義。

這種不同，演變?yōu)楫斀駮r(shí)代的突出矛盾：是“自由優(yōu)先”還是“秩序優(yōu)先”？潘岳認為，問(wèn) 題不是在自由和秩序中二選一，而是在哪個(gè)環(huán)節加強自由，在哪個(gè)環(huán)節加強秩序，從而既防止瓦解、又激活創(chuàng )新。

今天，中國和西方又一次站在理解彼此的十字路口。

現代文明中蘊含著(zhù)古典文明的精神基因。歐美和古希臘古羅馬文明；伊斯蘭世界和阿拉伯文明；伊朗與波斯文明；俄羅斯和東正教文明；以色列和猶太文明。種種關(guān)系連著(zhù)種種基因演化成種種道路。

現代歐美文明認為自己的政治秩序，是融合古希臘文明、古羅馬文明、基督教文明和工業(yè)文明的精髓為一體。其中，古希臘文明是源中之源。現代中國的道路，建立在中華文明的遺產(chǎn)之上。中華文明的穩固形態(tài)確立于秦漢，演變之關(guān)鍵處在戰國。

從公元前五世紀到三世紀，戰國與古希臘面臨著(zhù)相似的歷史境地。都陷入了內部極度戰亂；戰亂中都出現了統一運動(dòng)；統一運動(dòng)的積極力量都不是核心圈國家，而是軍事強大的邊緣國家；大批知識分子為統一運動(dòng)上下奔走，提出了大量哲學(xué)、政治、道德命題。

而統一運動(dòng)的結果不同。希臘形成了亞歷山大帝國，僅7年即分裂，其后三大繼承者王國內斗100年，被羅馬逐一兼并。戰國形成了大一統秦王朝，雖14年后崩潰，但很快就再次興起了大一統漢王朝。秦漢制度被歷代王朝所繼承，整整延續2000余年。

相似的歷史條件下出現的不同結果，這因為不同的文明根性。

Introduction

In the great transformation unseen in the past century, China and the West are again standing at the crossroads to get to know each other. But the two sides have known so little about each other’s civilization, of which they even have misunderstandings. So what exactly is the difference between the “fundamental natures” of Chinese and Western civilizations?

The author believes that China’s Warring States and Ancient Greece had different historical outcomes under similar historical conditions in the same period. They both experienced the chaos of disputes and wars and subsequently campaigns for unification dominated by a geographically peripheral military power. Greece never achieved real unification, while the Warring States in China managed to enter the Qin and Han dynasties, which achieved the Grand Unification that lasted for over two thousand years. According to the author, the ancient Greek and ancient Chinese civilizations formed independent systems different from each other, with the most important difference lying in their fundamental natures oriented to unification versus fragmentation and the two divergent paths hence developed: the West tends to head for fragmentation, albeit its efforts to unite (such as in Ancient Rome and Christianity), and ends up in individualism and liberalism, whereas China tends to head for unification, despite periods of fragmentation (such as the dynastic changes and the impact from the nomads), and ends up in collectivism.

This difference, however, has evolved into a prominent contradiction today, which is whether we should opt for “freedom first” or “order first”. The author believes that the question is not how to choose between freedom and order, but where to have more freedom and where else to have more order, in order to prevent fragmentation while spurring innovation.

Today, China and the West are again standing at the crossroads of mutual understanding.

Modern civilizations have the DNA of classical civilizations. For example, the DNA of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations can be found in Europe and the US, the Arab civilization in the Islamic world, the Persian civilization in Iran, the Orthodox civilization in Russia, and the Jewish civilization in Israel. These relations, entangled with civilization DNA, have evolved into a variety of paths.

Modern civilizations in the US and Europe believe that their political order encompasses the best of the ancient Greek and Roman, Christian and industrial civilizations, of which the ancient Greek civilization is the source. The path of modern China is built on the legacies of the Chinese civilization that was established in the Qin and Han dynasties and went through a key evolution in the Warring States period.

From 5th to 3th century BC, China in the Warring States period was in the same historical context as ancient Greece: both descended into acute civil conflicts where unification movements appeared and were fueled by militarily powerful peripheral countries rather than those in the core circles, and large numbers of intellectuals proposed a myriad of philosophical, political, and moral ideas for the movements.

But the unification movements had different outcomes. Greece saw the empire of Alexander the Great, which, however, survived for only seven years before it fragmented, and the ensuing three kingdoms fought with one another for a hundred years before being annexed by Rome. But in China, the warring states were unified as one state in the Qin dynasty. Although it collapsed after only 14 years, the unified Han dynasty quickly emerged, whose systems, coupled with those of the Qin dynasty, have been passed on from one dynasty to another for over 2,000 years.

It is the different fundamental natures of civilization that led to different outcomes under similar historical conditions.

戰國：從分立到大一統

(一）被誤讀的“百家爭鳴”

1975年12月，湖北云夢(mèng)出土了書(shū)滿(mǎn)秦法的“睡虎地秦簡(jiǎn)”。在一堆法家書(shū)簡(jiǎn)中竟發(fā)現一篇充滿(mǎn)儒家精神的官吏培訓教材《為吏之道》：“寬俗忠信，悔過(guò)勿重，和平勿怨，慈下勿陵，敬上勿犯，聽(tīng)諫勿塞”。這并非孤例。王家臺秦簡(jiǎn)、岳麓秦簡(jiǎn)、北大秦簡(jiǎn)也有類(lèi)似文字，說(shuō)明秦朝后期 己不完全排斥儒家。

不僅秦國，其他六國也一樣。通常認為專(zhuān)屬秦國的法家制度和精耕農業(yè)，實(shí)際是魏國發(fā)明的；通常認為自由散漫的楚國，實(shí)行“縣制”比秦國還早；通常認為商業(yè)發(fā)達的齊國，其《管子》中也含有與秦相似的“保甲連坐”元素。

可見(jiàn)，儒法交織，刑德同用，是戰國晚期的整體潮流。各國政治觀(guān)念的底線(xiàn)就是“一天下”。

誰(shuí)也不甘于小區域的分治，都要去爭奪完整的天下。不是爭要不要統一，而是爭由誰(shuí)來(lái)統一。對整體“天下”的執著(zhù)，是歷代中國政治家群體最為獨特之處。

思想家們也是如此。人們只注重百家爭鳴的“爭”，卻往往忽視了它的“融”。幾十年來(lái)陸續出土的戰國簡(jiǎn)帛印證了“諸家雜糅”的現實(shí)。郭店簡(jiǎn)中，可以看到儒家與道家混同；上博簡(jiǎn)中，可以看到儒家與墨家混同；馬王堆帛書(shū)中，可以看到道家與法家混同。“德”不為孔孟獨享，“道” 不為老莊專(zhuān)有，“法”不由商韓把持。諸子百家思想融合的宗旨就是建立“統一秩序”。儒家強調 “定于一”的禮樂(lè )道德秩序，法家強調“車(chē)同軌、書(shū)同文”的權力法律秩序，墨家強調“尚同” 與“執一”的社會(huì )層級秩序。極端強調自由的道家也如此，老子的“小國寡民”之上還有“天下” 與“天下王”莊子也強調“萬(wàn)物雖多，其治一也”。

戰國成為思想制度的熔爐。秦國的法家貢獻了大一統的基層政權；魯國的儒家貢獻了大一統 的道德秩序；楚國的道家貢獻了自由精神；齊國將道家與法家結合，產(chǎn)生了無(wú)為而治的“黃老之術(shù)”和以市場(chǎng)調節財富的“管子之學(xué)”魏韓貢獻了縱橫外交的戰略學(xué)，趙燕貢獻了騎兵步兵合體的軍事制度，如此等等。最后的結果，就是漢朝。

大一統，不是秦并了天下，而是天下消化了秦。

Warring States: from fragmentation to unification

1. The misinterpreted Hundred Schools of Thought

In December 1975, the “Qin slips in Shuihudi” were unearthed in Yunmeng, Hubei Province, China. Among the bamboo writing slips filled with inscriptions about the laws of the Qin dynasty, which reflected the legalist thoughts, there was unexpectedly a text entitled “How to Serve as an Official” for training officials at that time, which contained many Confucian thoughts, such as telling people to be magnanimous, loyal, faithful, peaceful and kind to underlings, respect superiors, take good advice and not to regret too much. Examples like this are many. The Qin slips excavated in Wangjiatai and those collected by Yuelu Academy and Peking University also bear similar writings, indicating that Confucianism was not completely banned in the late Qin dynasty.

In addition to Qin, Confucianism was applied in other six states as well. The legal system and intensive farming that are generally believed to be created in the Qin state were actually invented in the Wei state; the Chu state that is generally believed to be liberal and lax turned out to apply the system of counties earlier than the Qin state; and the Qi state that is generally belived to have a booming business society turned out to have the neighbourhood administration and family penalty systems similar to Qin as described in the book Guanzi.

Hence, it can be seen that combining Confucianism with Legalism and punishment with virtue was prevalent in the late stages of the Warring States period. All the states had the same bottom line in their respective governance, which was to unite the states. 

All the states refused to accept a portion of territory and scrambled for the whole. They were not fighting on whether to unite, but on who to unite China. This persistent pursuit of a unified territory is the most unique feature of the Chinese statesmen of every dynasty.

This is also true of thinkers. People often focus only on the debate part of the Hundred Schools of Thought and overlook their integration. Bamboo and silk manuscripts of the Warring States period excavated in recent decades have validated the integration of various schools of thought. For example, the bamboo writings of Guodian reveal the blend of Confucianism with Taoism; those of Shangbo expose an integration of Confucianism and Mohism; and the silk manuscripts of Mawangdui disclose a combination between Taoism and Legalism. Virtue was not unique to Confucius and Mencius; Taoism was not unique to Laozi and Zhuangzi; and Legalism was not unique to Shang Yang and Han Fei. The objective of integrating various schools of thought was to establish a unified order. Confucianism highlights “all in one” for the orders of rites, music and morality; Legalism highlights “same tracks for vehicles and same writings for books” for the orders of law and power; and Mohism highlights “harmony” and “specificity” for the social hierarchy. The same applies to Taoism as well, though it lays much emphasis on freedom. The concept of a small state with a small population as preached by Laozi is built on “the land under heaven” and “the emperor ruling the land under heaven”, and Zhuangzi also said, everything can be governed by the same approach despite their diversity.

The warring states provided fertile land for various ideas and systems. Legalism of the Qin state contributed the regime at the grassroots level for the grand unification; Confucianism of the Lu state contributed the morality order for the grand unification; Taoism of the Chu state contributed its spirit of freedom; the Qi state integrated Taoism with Legalism to produce the School of Emperor Huang and Laozi that proposes governing by doing nothing that goes against nature and the School of Guanzi that proposes market regulation of wealth; the Han and Wei states contributed their strategic diplomacy; and the Zhao and Yan states contributed their military system of combining cavalry with infantry, etc. All of these led to the Han dynasty.

The grand unification was not the occupation of China by the Qin state, but the acceptance of Qin by China.

(二）秦的崛起與荀子之辯

戰國最后50年。志士謀臣們分成兩大派。函谷關(guān)內的秦國，活躍著(zhù)法家與縱橫家；函谷關(guān)外的六國，活躍著(zhù)儒家、道家、兵家、陰陽(yáng)家、刑名家。齊國的稷下學(xué)宮是東方六國知識分子的聚集地，是與秦國對峙的另一個(gè)精神世界。這個(gè)精神世界的領(lǐng)袖，就是戰國最后一位儒家大師、三任稷下學(xué)宮祭酒的荀子。

前269至262年之間，60多歲的荀子竟然入秦考察。他并沒(méi)有如傳統儒家那樣罵秦政是暴政，反而贊揚了秦的法家治理制度：秦的基層小吏忠誠勤儉，辦事盡心，像古代的官吏；秦的高級官員，不搞朋黨，賢明而有公心，像古代的士大夫；秦的朝廷，處理政事速度極快，沒(méi)有積存的事務(wù)，像古代的朝廷。在儒家的話(huà)語(yǔ)體系中，“古之治”就是古代圣王的治理。對秦政如此高的評價(jià)竟出自儒家大師之口。

不過(guò)，荀子還說(shuō)了一句更重要的話(huà)。他認為，秦國雖有此優(yōu)勢，但依然沒(méi)能達到“王者”的 境界，原因是缺“儒”，“殆無(wú)儒邪”。怎樣才算是“有儒”呢？荀子建議“節威反文”，用君子治天下。這是后世“王權與士大夫共治天下”的雛形。

荀子認識到，儒家雖然有著(zhù)統一的道德秩序，但沒(méi)有建立統一的治理體系。法家雖然能建立統一的治理體系，卻在精神道義上有著(zhù)極大缺陷。如果秦國的法家制度，加上儒家的賢能政治與信義仁愛(ài)，才能成為未來(lái)天下正道。

對這番話(huà)，秦王沒(méi)有理會(huì )。

幾年之后的長(cháng)平之戰，印證了荀子的話(huà)。秦國在趙軍投降之后，背信坑殺了40萬(wàn)趙軍。即便在血流成河的戰國，這也突破了道義的底線(xiàn)。秦國從來(lái)靠現實(shí)主義與功利主義取天下，又豈會(huì )用仁義道德自縛手腳。

沒(méi)有力量的道義和沒(méi)有道義的力量，都不能回答眼前的現實(shí)。

2. The rise of the Qin state and Xunzi’s argument

In the last 50 years of the Warring States period, scholars broke into two factions. The Qin state, located to the west of Hangu Pass, had people of Legalism and political strategists, while the other six states to the east of Hangu Pass had people of Confucianism, Taoism, the Yin-Yang School and the Logician School. The Jixia Academy in the Qi state was where intellectuals gathered from six states, a spiritual world in stark contrast to the Qin state. And the leader of this spiritual world was Xunzi, the last Confucian in the Warring States period and head of the Academy for three terms.

From 269 BC to 262 BC, Xunzi, aged over 60, surprisingly paid a visit to the Qin state. But he didn’t criticized the Qin regime as tyranny as traditional Confucianists had done, and instead praised its Legalist governing system: petty officials at the grassroots level were loyal, diligent, thrifty and hardworking, just like those in past dynasties; high officials were sagacious and devoted to public interests, just like the shidafu scholar-bureaucrats in past dynasties; and its court was efficient in handling administrative affairs, just like those in past dynasties. In the discourse of Confucianism, doing something just like what was done before is regarded as a sage’s best practice. Such a high commendation for the Qin regime was unexpectedly offered by a Confucian master.

But Xunzi also said something more important: the Qin state still failed to reach the highest level in spite of its advantages, because there was no Confucianism. So what can be considered Confucian? He proposed to govern the state with those whose humane conduct makes them moral exemplars, which laid the very foundation for joint governance by the royalty and the shidafu scholar-bureaucrat class in generations that followed.

According to Xunzi, Confucianism did have a unified moral order, but lacked a unified governance system, while Legalism managed to establish a unified governance system but had great flaws in moral principles. If the Legalism of the Qin state could be integrated with the political meritocracy and the basic principles of Confucianism, he believed, a correct way of governance would prevail in future generations.

But the king of Qin turned a blind eye to the remarks.

The Battle of Changping a few years later validated what Xunzi had said. After Zhao’s troops surrendered, the Qin state broke the promise and killed 400,000 soldiers by burying them alive, which was a breach of moral principles even in the Warring State period when slaughter was much common. The Qin state never ceased to win with realism and utilitarianism, so it was not strange to see they wouldn’t restrain itself with morality.

Neither morality without power nor power without morality could possibly explain what happened.

(三）法家與儒家都不能少

長(cháng)平之戰后，荀子放棄了政治，著(zhù)書(shū)立說(shuō)、教學(xué)授徒。

他的思想體系與孟子的純粹儒學(xué)不同。孟子的“天”是懲惡揚善的義理之天，而荀子的“天” 是天行有常，不為堯存不為桀亡，因此要“制天命而用之”，這是中國最早的唯物主義。孟子崇尚王道鄙視霸道，而荀子認為應該王霸兼用。孟子只談義不談利，荀子卻要義利兼顧。孟子崇尚 法先王，而荀子認為應該法后王。

他教出了兩個(gè)大有名氣的學(xué)生，一個(gè)是韓非，一個(gè)是李斯。他們學(xué)成后雙雙入秦大展宏圖，荀子卻為此悲而不食。因為他們不但沒(méi)有融合儒法，反而將法家發(fā)展到了極致。韓非的法家理論囊括了法、術(shù)、勢等三大流派；李斯則設計了法家的全部政策體系，“焚書(shū)坑儒”就是他建議的。他們都忘記了，老師荀子雖然肯定法家手段，卻始終堅持著(zhù)儒家價(jià)值觀(guān)一一比如忠義孝悌的倫理; 比如從道不從君、從義不從父的士大夫精神；比如政治以王道為根本，用兵以仁義為優(yōu)先。法家和儒家，是對立統一的關(guān)系，哪一個(gè)都不能少。如果沒(méi)有法家，儒家不能完成結構化和組織化，無(wú)法實(shí)現對基層社會(huì )的動(dòng)員，無(wú)法在大爭之世自我強化。但如果沒(méi)有儒家，法家將變成不受約束的力量，其威權體系只是完全標準化、垂直化、同質(zhì)化的執行體系。

何況荀學(xué)并非只有儒法。《史記》言荀子之思想乃是總結儒、墨、道家的成功失敗匯聚而成 一一 “推儒、墨、道德之行事興壞，序列著(zhù)數萬(wàn)言以卒”。

荀學(xué)最好地體現了中華文明在面臨巨大困境和矛盾時(shí)的包容精神。因為它遵循“中道”。中道的標準只在有益于事理，不必遵從于某種特定教條。用今天的話(huà)來(lái)說(shuō)，就是“實(shí)事求是”。“凡事行，有益于理者立之，無(wú)益于理者廢之，夫是之為中事。凡知說(shuō)，有益于理者為之，無(wú)益于理者舍之，為中說(shuō)。事行失中謂之奸道。”建立于實(shí)事求是基礎上的中道精神，使中華文明最善于包容完全相反的矛盾體，最善于結合看似不可能的矛盾體，最善于使一切“非此即彼”的事物和諧共生。

3. Both Legalism and Confucianism are Necessary

After the Battle of Changping, Xunzi abandoned politics and started to write and teach.

His system of thought was different from the pure Confucianism of Mencius. Mencius proposed to praise virtue and punish vice, whereas Xunzi believed that Nature is the true law and hence people shall understand and take advantage of it, which is China’s earliest form of materialism. Mencius upheld rule by morality and despised rule by dictatorship, while Xunzi proposed the integration of the two. Mencius accepted morality and rejected interests, while Xunzi argued for both. The former proposed to uphold the moral code of ancient emperors, as opposed to emperors of future generations suggested by the latter.

He had two students who later gained fame: Han Fei and Li Si. But the two both went to the Qin state to achieve their ambitions. Xunzi was very much disappointed in them as they not only didn’t integrate Confucianism into Legalism but applied Legalism to the very extreme. Han’s Legalist theory encompassed three factions, namely law, technique, and force, while Li Si devised the overall policy system for Legalism and recommended to burn books and bury the literati in pits. Both of them forgot that Xunzi did recognize Legalism but he always upheld Confucian values, such as the ethics of loyalty, morality, filial piety and fraternal duty, the scholar-bureaucrats’ spirit of following justice rather than monarchs and righteousness rather than fathers, as well as morality-based governance and benevolence-based use of military force. The unity of opposites applies to Legalism and Confucianism. Without Legalism, Confucianism wouldn’t be able to deliver institutionalization or systematization, mobilize the grassroots or reinforce itself in a world of many disputes. Also, without Confucianism, Legalism would be unrestrained, whose authoritarian system would be nothing more than a completely standardized, vertical and homogenous executive system.

Moreover, the School of Xunzi covers more than Confucianism and Legalism. According to the Historical Records, Xunzi’s thought is built on the successes and failures of Confucianism, Mohism, and Taoism: “(Xunzi) studied the successes and failures of Confucianism, Mohism and Taoism and wrote tens of thousands of words before his death”.

The School of Xunzi best reveals the inclusiveness of the Chinese civilization in the face of tremendous predicament and contradiction, as it complies with the “middle path” theory, which is based not on a particular dogma but on truth. In other words, the “middle path” theory is about seeking truths from facts. “Follow anything that is truth for all and abandon anything that is untrue. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a proper way forward.” The “middle path” spirit built on truth-seeking has made the Chinese civilization very much inclusive to any contradictions and able to integrate them to deliver harmony for coexistence.

(四）荀子的正名與大一統中國的“秘密”

荀子終年90余歲。

他的思想太矛盾，以致他死后的境遇更為曲折。與孟子并稱(chēng)的他，卻在儒家成為正統后的1800年里，從未被儒家各派推崇。900年后，韓愈為荀子辯解了幾句，也連帶著(zhù)被宋明理學(xué)又批判了900年。

一直到清乾隆時(shí)，專(zhuān)攻考據的清代大儒們才發(fā)現，那些漢初儒學(xué)從灰燼中翻出來(lái)的根本大典，不論今文經(jīng)學(xué)和古文經(jīng)學(xué)，竟然全是荀子傳下來(lái)的。如《春秋左傳》《春秋谷梁傳》，如《毛詩(shī)》《魯詩(shī)》《韓詩(shī)》，如《大戴禮記》和《小戴禮記》。梁?jiǎn)⒊u價(jià)說(shuō)，“漢代經(jīng)師，不問(wèn)今文家、古文家，皆出荀卿。二千年間，宗派屢變，一皆盤(pán)旋于荀子肘下”。

原來(lái)，在七國戰火熊熊燃燒的最后30年，他一只手教出了法家奇才李斯與韓非，另一只手卻默默書(shū)寫(xiě)傳授著(zhù)儒學(xué)。焚書(shū)坑儒后，只有他通過(guò)“私學(xué)”悄悄傳下來(lái)的這批經(jīng)典留存下來(lái)，而被漢儒復述重寫(xiě)。“蓋自七十子之徒既歿，漢諸儒未興，中更戰國暴秦之亂，六藝之傳賴(lài)以不絕者，荀卿也。”

一心改革經(jīng)典的異端，卻是最忠誠于經(jīng)典之人。

行純粹者易，行中道者難。隨時(shí)要準備被兩個(gè)極端所拋棄所夾擊。即便如此，歷史最終會(huì )沿著(zhù)中道前進(jìn)。漢武帝與漢宣帝接受了荀子思想，“禮法合一”、“儒法合治”，“漢家自有制度，以王霸道雜之”。接著(zhù)，歷代王朝也按照他的思想繼續前行。只是因為他的“不純粹”，所有王朝都 只用其實(shí)而不用其名。好在荀子只唯實(shí)不唯名。儒法由此真正合流。法家創(chuàng )造了中央集權郡縣制和基層官僚系統，儒家則創(chuàng )造了士大夫精神和家國天下的集體主義倫理，在魏晉唐宋又融合了道家和佛家，創(chuàng )造了儒釋道合一的精神世界。

這種超級穩定的大一統國家結構發(fā)散到整個(gè)東亞，成為中華文明強而不霸、弱而不分、延綿不斷的秘密。之所以還稱(chēng)為“秘密”，是因為大多數西方學(xué)者至今仍未想了解。

4. Reemergence of Xunzi and the “secret” of the grand unification of China

Xunzi died at the age of 90 or so.

His thoughts were so contradictory that he was never revered by any Confucian factions throughout the 1,800 years after Confucianism became the orthodox in China. Although Han Yu defended him with a few words 900 years later, the two were criticized by the Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties for another 900 years.

It was not until the reign of Emperor Qianlong in Qing dynasty that scholars discovered that the great literature about Confucianism in early Han dynasty, be it current or ancient classics, were all passed down by Xunzi, such as Zuo’s Commentary, Guliang’s Commentary, Poetry of Mao, Poetry of Lu, Poetry of Han, Records of Ritual Matters by Dai the Elder and Records of Ritual Matters by Dai the Younger. As philosopher Liang Qichao said, all the current and ancient classics of the Han dynasty were passed down by Xunzi, and all was covered by Xunzi despite numerous changes in the past 2,000 years.

It turned out that Xunzi made Li Si and Han Fei two prodigies of Legalism while quietly passing down Confucianism in the last 30 years of bitter wars among the seven states. After the incident of burning books and burying literati, only he privately and discreetly passed down the classics, which were rewritten by Confucian scholars of the Han dynasty. “At the time when seventy-two disciples of Confucius were dead, Confucian scholars of the Han dynasty were yet to emerge, warring states fought one another, and the Qin state was imposing tyranny, it was Xunzi that managed to pass down the Confucian classics.”

The heretic that was devoted to rewriting the classics turned out to be most faithful to the classics.

It was easy to go to extremes but hard to seek for the middle path, as one had to brace for any abandonment or attack by the two extremes. Even so, history eventually advanced towards the middle path. Both Emperor Wu and Emperor Xuan of the Western Han dynasty accepted Xunzi’s thought, integrating morality with the law and Confucianism with Legalism, and governing the state with virtue and force combined. Dynasties that followed applied his thought as well. But due to his unorthodox nature, all the ensuing dynasties didn’t mention his name. But his thought was widely applied not for his name but for his essence, which promoted the integration of Confucianism and Legalism. Legalism invented the centralized system of prefectures and counties and the grassroots bureaucratic system, while Confucianism created the spirit of shidafu scholar-bureaucrats and the collectivism of governing one’s family, then a region and finally the state. And in the Wei, Jin, Tang and Song dynasties, Confucianism was blended with Taoism and Buddhism, to usher in a spiritual world that combined Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Such an exceedingly stable state structure of grand unification extended across the entire East Asia, which explains why the Chinese civilization didn’t seek for hegemony when it was strong or fragment when it was weak and survived till today. This is still considered a secret today because most Western scholars still refuse to know about it.

希臘：成也城邦，敗也城邦

(一）“大希臘主義”

公元前325年，亞歷山大率領(lǐng)著(zhù)征服了埃及和波斯的希臘雄師萬(wàn)里迢迢來(lái)到印度旁遮普邦比亞斯河畔。跨過(guò)河就是全印度乃至中國。他激情澎湃地鼓勵將士們繼續前進(jìn)。而馱滿(mǎn)沉甸甸戰利品的戰士們再也不想東進(jìn)半步。亞歷山大只好順著(zhù)河邊的斜陽(yáng)痛哭而返，兩年后病死。

亞歷山大的東征，來(lái)自希臘世界的統一運動(dòng)。希臘統一運動(dòng)來(lái)源于城邦危機。今天，西方深刻緬懷的希臘古典文明，其實(shí)只是雅典歷史上的一小段，即伯利克里執政的黃金時(shí)期，代表著(zhù)民主制度的最偉大成就。而這短短幾十年黃金期后，希臘城邦世界就陷入無(wú)休止的惡性?xún)榷贰Ｑ诺浜退拱瓦_競相稱(chēng)霸，雙方都曾血腥屠城。戰亂之中，土地逐漸集中到富人手里，失去土地的貧民為了外邦的金錢(qián)變成了雇傭兵，轉頭攻打自己的城邦。

這種亂局持續了100年。亂局中誕生了一種呼聲：各城邦不要再爭搶彼此有限資源，應團結向外征服殖民波斯，如此希臘才會(huì )獲得永久和平。

呼聲最響亮的，一個(gè)是雅典頭號雄辯家伊索克拉底，一個(gè)是希臘頭號哲學(xué)家亞里士多德。

在發(fā)表于公元前380年的《泛希臘集會(huì )詞》中，伊索克拉底說(shuō)，“在我們從同一源泉獲得利益、和同一敵人進(jìn)行戰斗之前，希臘人不可能和睦相處。” “為此，我們必須竭力使戰爭盡快從這里轉入亞洲大陸（小亞細亞）。”

這個(gè)思路，近代歷史學(xué)家稱(chēng)為“泛希臘主義”或“大希臘主義”。其根本動(dòng)力，是解決土地缺乏、人口過(guò)剩的問(wèn)題。傳播希臘文明，只是附帶產(chǎn)物。這成為后世西方殖民帝國主義的思想雛形。伊索克拉底是第一個(gè)提出殖民帝國主義的人。

但他呼吁了40年，雅典卻因為內戰派掌權而一直置若罔聞。繼續打斯巴達，打底比斯，打馬其頓，就是不愿意團結一起對外打波斯。

他最終放棄了雅典，公開(kāi)呼吁希臘城邦世界的邊緣國家馬其頓國王腓力來(lái)統一希臘。他向腓力建議了一個(gè)著(zhù)名的戰略，“你要勸說(shuō)其他的波斯總督擺脫波斯國王的束縛，前提就是你將給與他們‘自由’，并且還要將這種‘自由’惠及到亞細亞地區。因為‘自由’這個(gè)詞一來(lái)到希臘世界，就導致了我們（雅典）的帝國和拉西第夢(mèng)人（斯巴達）的帝國的瓦解。”（《致腓力辭》）

這些話(huà)，和后人對雅典自由民主的印象太不一樣了。20年以后，腓力的兒子亞歷山大正是按照伊索克拉底的戰略思路，征服了埃及和波斯，建立了大希臘殖民帝國。但亞歷山大的老師不是伊索克拉底，而是亞里士多德。亞里士多德在“大希臘”的道路上，比伊索克拉底走的更遠。

Ancient Greece: the success or failure is all due to city-states

1. The Greater Hellenism

In 325 BC, Alexander the Great led the Greek legion that had conquered Egypt and Persia to the Beas River of Punjab in India, on the other side of which were India and China. He enthusiastically encouraged soldiers to march on, but fully loaded with spoils of war, the soldiers didn’t want to inch eastward any more. Alexander had to return home after wailing in the setting sun alongside the River and died of illness two years later.

Alexander’s invasion into the East was triggered by the unification movement in the Greek world that originated from the city-state crisis. The ancient Greek civilization that the West cherishes so dearly today is just a tiny fraction of the Athenian history, which is the golden age when Pericles was in power in Athens, representing the greatest achievement of the democratic system. But it lasted only several decades before the Greek city-states descended into prolonged fierce civil strife, where Athens and Sparta jostled for hegemony with massacre in cities. In the wars, land was gradually concentrated in the hands of the rich, and the poor who lost their land were hired as mercenaries by foreign city-states to fight against their own ones.

This turbulence lasted for 100 years, during which some people called for uniting to conquer and colonize Persia instead of scrambling for limited resources in a bid to have lasting peace for Greece.

The most vocal were Isocrates, the best rhetorician in Athens, and Aristotle, the best philosopher in Greece.

Isocrates said in Panegyrics released in 380 BC, “before we obtain interests from the same origin and fight the same enemies, the Greeks cannot live in harmony... That’s why we have to do our utmost to transfer the war here to the Asian continent (Asia Minor).”

This was named by contemporary historians “Panhellenism” or “Greater Hellenism”, which was fundamentally driven by the effort to meet the challenges of land shortage and overpopulation, laying a foundation for the ensuing colonial imperialism in the West. Isocrates was the first to come up with the idea of colonial imperialism.

He advocated it for 40 years, but Athenians turned a blind eye to it because those in favor of civil war were in power. They continued to fight Sparta, Thebes and Macedonia and refused to work together with other city-states against Persia.

He finally gave up on Athens, and instead publicly appealed to Philip, who was the King of Macedonia, a peripheral country in the city-state world of Greece, to unify Greece. He proposed a famous strategy to Philip, “you will also induce many of the other satraps to throw off the King’s power if you promise them “freedom” and scatter broadcast over Asia that word which, when sown among the Hellenes, has broken up both our empire and that of the Lacedaemonians.” (To Philip)

These words were quite different from what impressions later generations had on freedom and democracy. 20 years later, the son of Philip, Alexander the Great, applied his strategy, conquered Egypt and Persia and established the greater colonial empire of Greece. But Alexander was the disciple of Aristotle rather than Isocrates, and Aristotle went even further on the path of the Great Hellenism than Isocrates.

(二）“希臘帝國”的兩副面孔

亞里士多德生于馬其頓轄下的色雷斯小城邦，是雅典人眼里的蠻族地區。

亞里士多德雖然身在蠻族，卻心在雅典。17歲的他獨身一人投奔雅典柏拉圖學(xué)院。他是柏拉圖最優(yōu)秀的弟子，一度有望成為接班人。但柏拉圖逝世時(shí)，卻將學(xué)院交給了親侄子而不是他。最重要的原因是，亞里士多德是個(gè)外邦人。他在雅典不能擁有合法財產(chǎn)（土地），更不能參與政治，因為他沒(méi)有“公民權”。按照法律，擁有雅典公民權的必須父母都是雅典人。法律把希臘最偉大的智者和雅典分開(kāi)了；把所有不產(chǎn)于雅典卻愿意忠于雅典之士和雅典分開(kāi)了。有意思的是，這條法律正是民主政治楷模伯利克里頒布的。

亞里士多德離開(kāi)了雅典，投奔了馬其頓，擔任亞歷山大的老師。他按照希臘文明的最高標準塑造著(zhù)亞歷山大。他讓14歲的少年喜愛(ài)上了希臘文學(xué)與荷馬史詩(shī)，并對生物學(xué)、植物學(xué)、動(dòng)物學(xué)等廣闊的知識產(chǎn)生熱情。更重要的還是政治思想。亞里士多德為教育亞歷山大專(zhuān)門(mén)寫(xiě)了《論君主》和《論殖民地》。黑格爾說(shuō)，亞歷山大的精神和事業(yè)的偉大正是來(lái)自亞里士多德深刻的形而上學(xué)。

亞歷山大一邊殘酷征服，一邊傳播希臘文明。他在非洲、西亞、中亞和南亞建立了大量擁有競技場(chǎng)和神廟的希臘化城市，用博物院和圖書(shū)館建造科學(xué)文化、哲學(xué)藝術(shù)的殿堂。他甚至還把亞洲的動(dòng)植物標本源源不斷送回給正在雅典辦學(xué)的亞里士多德做研究。之后的拿破侖遠征埃及時(shí)也帶上了大量考古學(xué)家，最終發(fā)現了羅塞塔石碑，開(kāi)啟了埃及學(xué)。西方帝國主義暴力征服+文明傳播的方式，是亞里士多德發(fā)明的。

亞里士多德對亞歷山大提出要求，“做亞洲人的主人，做希臘人的領(lǐng)袖。”伊索克拉底也曾對腓力說(shuō)，“說(shuō)服可用于希臘人，強迫可用于蠻族人”。這正是“希臘帝國”的精髓一一內部是民主， 外部是殖民；上面是公民，下面是奴隸。這種雙重標準的希臘式帝國，是日后歐洲帝國的精神原型與政治模板。

2. The dual character of the Greek empire

Aristotle was born in Thrace, a small town under the rule of Macedonia, which was the land of barbarians in the eyes of the Athenians.

Despite his origin, he was devoted to Greece. At the age of 17, he went to Plato’s Academy alone. He was Plato’s best disciple and was expected to succeed him. But before he died, Plato handed the Academy to his nephew rather than Aristotle, which can be largely explained by the fact that Aristotle was an outsider who could not own legal property (land) or participate in politics because he had no citizenship. According to the law, those having the citizenship of Athens must have Athenian parents. The law separated from Athens the greatest Greek sage and all those who were not born in Athens but devoted to it. Interestingly, the law was enacted by Pericles, the model of democratic politics.

Aristotle left Athens and headed for Macedonia, where he served as the tutor of Alexander the Great and shaped him with the highest standard of the ancient Greek civilization. He made the 14-year-old boy fall in love with the ancient Greek literature and Homeric epics and interested in a vast array of knowledge including biology, botany and zoology. More importantly, he taught him political thoughts. He even wrote On Monarch and On Colony to teach Alexander. As Hegel said, the greatness of Alexander’s spirit and cause originated from Aristotle’s profound metaphysics.

Alexander was cruelly making inroads while spreading the ancient Greek civilization. Across Africa, East Asia, Central Asia and South Asia he built hellenistic cities with many arenas, temples, where museums and libraries were set up for science, culture, philosophy and art. He even sent animal and plant specimens in Asia back to Athens for Aristotle’s research. On the expedition to Egypt, Napoleon also brought with him a large number of archaeologists who helped him find Rosetta Stone that cracked the code of hieroglyphics. It was Aristotle that invented the pattern of conquest by force plus civilization spread for the Western imperialism.

Aristotle asked Alexander to “be the master of Asians and the leader of the Greeks”. Isocrates also told Philip that “persuasion could be used to the Greeks and force to the barbarians”. This is the essence of the Greek empire: democracy on the inside and colony on the outside, citizens at the top and slaves at the bottom. The Hellenistic empire with such double standard provided a source of inspiration and political template for European empires in the years that followed.

(三）統一與自由的悖論？

歷史的發(fā)展和他們的設想不一樣。

公元前338年爆發(fā)喀羅尼亞戰爭。雅典不服馬其頓，起兵挑釁，被馬其頓打得大敗。馬其頓乘勝組織科林斯同盟，并開(kāi)始進(jìn)軍波斯。得到這個(gè)消息的時(shí)候，伊索克拉底己經(jīng)98歲了。他看見(jiàn)運送回來(lái)的雅典士兵的尸體，絕食身亡。

他的“大希臘”設想，蘊含著(zhù)一個(gè)無(wú)法解決的矛盾一一馬其頓擁有強力，如何保證它對雅典只用“說(shuō)服”而不用殺戮？反過(guò)來(lái)，善于雄辯的雅典，又豈能甘心被馬其頓“說(shuō)服”？死于馬其頓陣前的雅典青年尸體，使他明白了日后仍會(huì )重復的悲劇。他既珍視自由，又渴望團結統一。統一帶來(lái)的暴力，會(huì )破壞自由。但自由產(chǎn)生的混亂，又會(huì )破壞統一。

伊索克拉底死后，希臘城邦再無(wú)團結。希臘大軍遠征前夜，腓力剛死于暗殺，底比斯就聞聲而叛；亞歷山大剛死于巴比倫，雅典就又揭竿而起；最后，當馬其頓與羅馬入侵者決戰時(shí)，希臘城邦竟給了該王國背后致命一擊。即便馬其頓將希臘的半島文明拓展成世界文明，但希臘城邦寧可同毀于外人也不買(mǎi)這個(gè)賬。

美國古史學(xué)家弗格森總結說(shuō)，希臘城邦不可能融合。“希臘城邦是一個(gè)有著(zhù)獨特內在構造的單細胞有機體，除非進(jìn)行再分割，否則無(wú)法發(fā)展，它們可以無(wú)限制地復制同類(lèi)。但這些細胞，無(wú)論新舊，都無(wú)法聯(lián)合起來(lái)，形成一個(gè)強大的民族國家。”

因為，希臘城邦政治的根基，不是民主，而是自治。城邦自身可以選擇任何政治制度，但絕不服從外來(lái)的權威。有權力決定政治制度的，只能是城邦內的世居者。“絕對自治”意味著(zhù)“絕對地方主義”，讓統一變得不可能。希臘城邦不只反對領(lǐng)土國家，連馬其頓組建聯(lián)邦也反對。到整個(gè)希臘世界被羅馬征服之前，他們都沒(méi)有演化出一套大小城邦都滿(mǎn)意的“聯(lián)邦制”。城邦的利益定要凌駕于共同體利益之上。

3. Paradox between unification and freedom?

The development of history was different from what they had envisioned.

In 338 BC, the Battle of Chaeronea broke out. Athens challenged Macedonia with troops but ended up with a crushing defeat. Macedonia then quickly organized the League of Corinth and started to invade Persia. Upon hearing the news, Isocrates was already 98 years old. He fasted to death after seeing the dead soldiers brought home.

His vision of Great Greece contained an unsolvable paradox: how to make sure that Macedonia, with its strong force, would only “persuade” Athens and not resort to force? Conversely, how could the eloquent Athens reconcile to Macedonia’s persuasion? The young Athenians who died from fighting against Macedonia made Isocrates realize the tragedy that would continue. He valued freedom but was avid for unity. But the force brought by unity would curtail freedom, and the chaos initiated by freedom would disrupt unity.

After Isocrates died, there was no more unity among the Greek city-states. On the eve of the Greek expedition, Philip was just assassinated, and Thebes immediately started to rebel; right after Alexander died in Babylon, Athens rose in revolt; and when Macedonia had a decisive battle with the invaders from Rome, the Greek city-states stabbed the King in the back. Even if Macedonia expanded the peninsula civilization of Greece to a global one, the Greek city-states would rather let themselves conquered by invaders than agree with Macedonia.

As US historian Ferguson said, the Greek city-states couldn’t integrate as one. “The city-states in Greece are like single-celled organisms with a unique organization inside themselves, which couldn’t develop further unless further segmented. They could replicate in unlimited amounts, but these cells, new or old, could not unite as a powerful nation-state.”

This is because the politics of the Greek city-states is built on autonomy rather than democracy. They could choose any political systems, but would never succumb to foreign powers. The natives in the city-states were the only ones that could decide which political system to adopt. “Absolute autonomy” means “absolute localism”, which makes unity impossible. The city-states were opposed to not only territorial states but the confederation of Macedonia. Before the entire Greek world was conquered by Rome, they didn’t have a federal system satisfying to all city-states, big or small. Their respective interests were above the common ones.

(四）戰國的“合”和希臘的“分”

對“分”與“合”，戰國與古希臘的政治觀(guān)念完全不同。

中國上古時(shí)代也曾經(jīng)有過(guò)萬(wàn)邦林立、一城一國的局面（執玉帛者萬(wàn)國）。到周初還剩一千八百個(gè)部落方國。但最終這些城邦沒(méi)有長(cháng)期分立，而是形成了地區性王國，進(jìn)而發(fā)展成統一王朝。表面上看，西亞北非的古老文明如蘇美爾、埃及和波斯也是如此。其實(shí)不一樣。亞非古國靠的是 “神權”，中國靠的是世俗倫理共識。

夏商周時(shí)的邦國世界中，始終存在一個(gè)名義上或實(shí)際上的共主。誰(shuí)能當共主，取決于誰(shuí)擁有唯一的天命。天命同時(shí)包括了武力和道德。誰(shuí)能既強大又保民，誰(shuí)才能擁有天命。否則，天命就會(huì )轉移。就會(huì )發(fā)生殷革夏命，周革殷命。即便在戰國時(shí)代，天命也是唯一的。戰國七雄和諸子百家不管怎樣爭斗，都認為只能有一個(gè)秩序，分治不應長(cháng)久。而同時(shí)代的希臘城邦世界不存在共主，只有不同的聯(lián)盟互相斗爭而從不認為存在一個(gè)“共同的秩序”。

從城邦之間的關(guān)系來(lái)看，周禮規定一國發(fā)生瘟疫災荒，其他國家要借糧賑災；一國有喜事喪事，各國要前往慶賀哀悼。這些責任是強制性的，由天子維持。霸主也要維持這套規矩才能稱(chēng)霸。這就強化了邦國之間同屬“華夏世界”的認同。而希臘城邦之間沒(méi)有建立責任關(guān)系。即便是從母邦殖民出去的新城邦，對母邦也沒(méi)有責任義務(wù)，甚至經(jīng)常反戈一擊。即便在希波戰爭時(shí)，希臘人共同身份也只起到微弱作用。

兩種文明根性塑造了兩種不同的道路。

西方不斷走向分。從地域上分，從民族上分，從語(yǔ)言上分。其間也有統一的努力，如羅馬的努力，基督教的努力。但分的趨勢占據主流，最終歸結到了個(gè)人主義和自由主義。

中國則不斷走向合。從地域上合，從民族上合，從語(yǔ)言上合，其間也有分離的時(shí)期，比如王朝更替，比如游牧民族沖擊，但合的趨勢占主流。造就了中華文明的集體主義。

中華文明并不是沒(méi)有“分”的概念，但并不是“分治”，而是“分工”。荀子說(shuō)，人體力弱小，何以能超越禽獸而生存？因為人能組織成集體。組成集體的關(guān)鍵在“分工”。即確定不同的社會(huì )角色，但要對彼此承擔起責任。只要分工符合“禮義”，就能整合社會(huì )。因此，分是為了和，和是為了統一，統一則多力，多力則強大，強大則能夠改造自然。

4. Unification of China’s warring states and fragmentation of Greece

The warring states and ancient Greece had completely different political perceptions of unification and fragmentation. 

China back to the very early times was tremendously fragmented, in which each town was run like a state. (“Representatives from ten thousand states held jade and silk (to assemble at Tu Mountain)” as described in classics.) The number of tribal states, by the time when the Zhou dynasty was just founded, was still 1,800 or around. They did not distinguishably stand long, however. Instead, those tiny states previously in blooming clusters became regional kingdoms and later evolved even into a unified country. The same story seemingly took place in ancient civilizations, like Sumer, Egypt and Persia, over the West Asia and North Africa, yet the point is the latter were shaped all by “divine rights”, while in ancient China people were united with an ethical consensus.

China as a united being of town-states was always under the sovereignty of one person, either in name or having a final say, over the lengthy period spanning from the Xia to Zhou dynasty. He was the chosen one bearing a supreme and divine destiny, which covered both force and morality. A person so destined must be strong and kind enough to his subjects, or the destiny would turn around. It did happen that Jie, the notorious tyrant of Xia dynasty, was killed by Tang who later founded the Shang dynasty. The demise of his dynasty, however, finally arrived with the successors’ brutality and ferocity. The practice has remained even in the Warring States period. However the seven kingdoms engaged in armed conflicts with one another, they all believed in one central authority. The same voice came also from the ideological sphere that a fragmented regime could not live long. By contrast, the contemporary Greek city-states never held such an idea. They made allies and fought constantly against each other.

All states were on ethical grounds connected in the Zhou dynasty. Others must give a hand whenever a state was suffering plagues or famine, or send a congratulatory or condolence message to wherever good or bad news came from. They were moral obligations the then emperor had to honour, and there was even no exception for a kingdom wielding power over the rest. This did help secure a consensus among all states that they were actually a united nation. Things were different among Greek city-states, however. A new city-state had no duty or obligation to the mother city-state it grew from and even oftentimes waged a war against the latter. The Greek identity almost went nowhere even during the Greco-Persian Wars.

Thus come different ways for the two worlds. We see a fragmenting west in territory, nation and language. Once in a while they sought to unify the continents with swords (Roman Empire) and hymns (the Church), yet the efforts all failed and led ultimately to what we know as the individualism and liberalism. We Chinese, however, love to see a country with unified nations and languages. China, once being forcibly fractured because of regime changes or nomadic attacks, never failed to become a reunited country. This is also where the Chinese collectivism comes from. Instead of “separation”, the Chinese people emphasize a “division” of roles. Xunzi left a comment that it was the habit of living together that enabled mankind to survive the wildness. He believed the key was to divide roles, in which everyone should fulfil a job but, in the meantime, take care of each other. In his view, an ethical and righteous division of roles could bind all people together. Role division, therefore, brings joint efforts that make a unified society possible. The unity, behind which stand a wider range of social resources, means greater human power to reshape the nature.

(五）為什么亞氏思想塑造了后世西方文明，卻無(wú)法征服雅典？

亞里士多德比伊索克拉底多活了十五年。

亞歷山大輝煌遠征時(shí)，師以徒貴，亞里士多德榮歸雅典，開(kāi)辦了“呂克昂學(xué)院”專(zhuān)門(mén)收羅和自己一樣外邦出身的思想家并很快壓過(guò)了柏拉圖學(xué)院。雅典人罵亞里士多德是文化侵略的急先鋒。

亞里士多德在此建立了人類(lèi)歷史上最廣博、最統一的知識體系，寫(xiě)下了被西方政治學(xué)奉為圭臬的名著(zhù)《政治學(xué)》，其中有大量對城邦政治的反思。他嚴厲批評了其中的暴民政體是不以法律為依歸的另一種專(zhuān)制。類(lèi)似于極端民粹主義。

他還提出了“絕對王權”的概念。即“由君主一人代表整個(gè)氏族或整個(gè)城市，全權統治全體人民的公務(wù)，猶如家長(cháng)對于家庭的管理。” 他認為，“整體總是超過(guò)部分，這樣卓絕的人物，本身恰恰是一個(gè)整體，而其他的人們便類(lèi)于他的部分，惟一可行的辦法就是大家服從他的統治，不同他人輪番，讓他無(wú)限期地執掌治權。” 批評亞里士多德的人說(shuō)，“絕對王權”是為了亞歷山大量身定做的政治理論，說(shuō)明他熱愛(ài)權力甚于真理。

亞歷山大死后，亞里士多德立即遭到反攻倒算。要面臨雅典公民大會(huì )的審判，借口是他“褻瀆神靈”。上次這樣被審判而喝下毒芹汁的，是他的師祖蘇格拉底。

亞里士多德不愿重蹈覆轍。他逃匿到馬其頓的維亞島上，一年后怏怏去世。他的逃跑遭到滿(mǎn)雅典的嘲笑。

5. Why did Aristotle’s thought shape future Western civilizations but fail to conquer Athens?

Aristotle outlived Isocrates by 15 years. When Alexander was on the expedition, Aristotle was well received to return to Athens, where he opened the Lyceum (Peripatec School) to recruit philosophers who were born in other city-states just as him, which quickly surpassed the Platonic Academy. The Athenians condemned him as the vanguard of cultural aggression.

In the Academy, Aristotle established the most sweeping and unified knowledge system in the human history, and wrote Politics, the Bible in Western political studies, in which he had many reflections on the politics of city-states and vehemently criticized the mob rule as another autocracy above the law, similar to the extreme populism.

He also introduced the concept of absolute monarchy: a sovereign represents the entire clan or city and rules the matters of all the people, just as a parent manages domestic affairs. He said, “the whole is greater than its parts. Such an extraordinary person is like a whole, and others are his parts. The only feasible way is to make everyone subject to his rule and let him stay in power infinitely.” According to those that criticized Aristotle, “absolute monarchy” was a political theory customized for Alexander, exposing his lust for power more than truth.

After Alexander’s death, Aristotle was immediately attacked, to be trialed at the ecclesia of Athens for his “blasphemy”. The one before him that was forced to drink poison hemlock after the trial was his master Socrates.

But Aristotle wouldn’t like to repeat it. So he fled to the island of Euboea, where he died a year later. His escape was mocked by the entire city-state of Athens.

(六）希臘帝國的堙滅及其教訓

亞里士多德死后，亞歷山大帝國內部分裂，三大繼承者王國相互征伐，不斷再分裂再獨立。這不是因為亞歷山大死得早。在他沒(méi)死時(shí)，除了推動(dòng)了一部分歐亞上層通婚外，沒(méi)有對征占的龐大帝國進(jìn)行過(guò)內部政治整合，更沒(méi)有進(jìn)行過(guò)基層政權建構。

馬其頓帝國的擴張方式，是在所到之處創(chuàng )建希臘式的自治城市。這種“自治”是對留居該城市的希臘殖民者而言，不包括被征服的土著(zhù)社會(huì )。在每個(gè)新征服的亞洲城市，亞歷山大都把自己的“王友”派駐到該城市當總督，只管軍事和稅收，不管民政。

中國戰國的基層政權組織方式則完全不同。出土秦簡(jiǎn)顯示，秦國每擴張一處，都要建立從縣到鄉的基層政權組織。其縣鄉官吏要處理所有的民政，組織墾荒、統計戶(hù)口、征收稅賦，記錄物產(chǎn)，再把這些信息輸送到秦都咸陽(yáng)編冊保存。秦吏也不在一地久留，而是數年一輪換。

如果只要金錢(qián)與稅收，不服就派軍隊鎮壓。一時(shí)可以最小的行政成本獲取最大的財富，但也放棄了對當地社會(huì )的長(cháng)遠整合。中央強大時(shí)尚可，一旦中央權力衰弱，離心力就產(chǎn)生了，城市紛紛脫離控制。亞歷山大帝國的分崩離析是必然的。

這不能怪亞歷山大。因為即便是他的導師亞里士多德，也從未設想過(guò)超大規模政治體的理論制度。他的“絕對王權”概念，只是從一個(gè)城邦的角度。在那個(gè)時(shí)代，并不是沒(méi)有超大政治體可供研宄，如埃及和波斯。但亞里士多德認為它們都是“非政治”的，是不先進(jìn)的，只有希臘城邦政治才能叫做“政治”。

后人辯解說(shuō)，雖然作為政治實(shí)體的希臘統一國家消失了，但作為文化精神的希臘，在羅馬的軀體上得以永存，成為歐洲精神的母體。國家滅亡無(wú)所謂，文化永存己足夠。

這要聽(tīng)聽(tīng)當時(shí)的希臘人民怎么說(shuō)。希臘邦國滅亡過(guò)程中，一大批希臘高級知識分子作為人質(zhì)被送入羅馬貴族家庭當老師。其中就有著(zhù)名歷史學(xué)家波利比烏斯。他在名著(zhù)《歷史》中問(wèn)道，“為什么希臘不斷瓦解，羅馬卻能一直強大”？他那時(shí)心中想要的，恐怕不是僅存精神的希臘，而是一個(gè)實(shí)體與精神共存的希臘。

“自由優(yōu)先”還是“秩序優(yōu)先”

這幾位思想家的命運，說(shuō)明每一個(gè)文明內部，每一種精神追求，都蘊含著(zhù)巨大矛盾。在人類(lèi)社會(huì )進(jìn)程中，不存在某種能解釋一切的理論，不存在某種普世的絕對原則。每一個(gè)致力于改變真實(shí)世界、而不是構建烏托邦的思想家，終有一刻，都會(huì )面臨著(zhù)不可自洽、相反相成的痛苦。但這痛苦和矛盾中，也孕育著(zhù)相輔相成的未來(lái)之路。要敢于不向任何一種絕對性低頭，要敢于在不可能處創(chuàng )造可能。

當今東西方文明觀(guān)念的最大糾結，是“自由優(yōu)先”還是“秩序優(yōu)先”。這分別是希臘文明和中華文明的核心價(jià)值觀(guān)。

希臘人對自由的熱愛(ài)，讓“希臘人”從種族的名字變成了“智慧”的代名詞。中國人對秩序的熱愛(ài)，則讓中華文明成為了唯一同根同文并以國家形態(tài)持續至今的文明。

秩序優(yōu)先帶來(lái)的穩定，自由優(yōu)先帶來(lái)的創(chuàng )新，哪個(gè)更值得追求？這涵蓋了哲學(xué)、政治學(xué)、宗教學(xué)、倫理學(xué)的無(wú)窮爭論。我們不需要定論。保留這些不同的本身，恰好為文明日后的互鑒互融留下可能。多元與矛盾并存，會(huì )為人類(lèi)文明基因庫留下更多種子。對自由優(yōu)先與秩序優(yōu)先的分歧，不但不應成為中西文明交流的障礙，反應成為中西文明交流對話(huà)的基礎。一方面，技術(shù)發(fā)展進(jìn)入爆炸式創(chuàng )新的前夜，讓我們深刻認識到自由帶來(lái)的創(chuàng )造力；另一方面，非傳統安全危機頻繁爆發(fā)，也讓我們重新認識到秩序的寶貴。對于自由來(lái)說(shuō)，要探討如何加強秩序，以防止瓦解；對于秩序來(lái)說(shuō)，要探討如何加強自由，以激發(fā)創(chuàng )新。問(wèn)題不是在自由和秩序中二選一，而是在哪個(gè)環(huán)節加強自由，在哪個(gè)環(huán)節加強秩序。

過(guò)去，驗證一個(gè)理念，甚至需要數百年時(shí)間，數代人去重復錯誤。而今天，在技術(shù)革命下，幾年之間就能看清來(lái)龍去脈。唯有懂得反省反思、不斷包容、和諧共生、互鑒互融的文明，才是真正可持續發(fā)展的文明。為此，中國與歐洲真應該坐下來(lái)好好談?wù)勑摹?/p>

6. The demise of the Greek empire and its lessons

After Alexander’s death, his empire disintegrated, with three kingdoms fighting one another, leading to further disintegration and independence. This was not because Alexander died too early. When in power, he didn’t initiate an internal political integration of the gigantic empire, much less the establishment of the grassroots authorities, except for an effort made to promote marriage among some members of the upper class in Eurasia. 

Building Hellenistic autonomous cities in places they invaded was the way the empire of Macedonia expanded. Such autonomy was imposed to the Greek colonists who settled in colonized cities, and not to the conquered indigenous communities. Alexander would dispatch a satrap to each newly-conquered Asian city to manage the military and taxation except civil affairs.

China’s grassroots authorities in the Warring States period were very much different. As indicated in the excavated bamboo writing slips of the Qin state, the Qin state would establish a grassroots authority organization at the county and village levels in every place it extended to, and the officials of every county and village would manage all the civil affairs, reclaim land, carry out census, collect taxes, document property and transfer all this information to the capital city Xianyang for record. And the officials would be replaced every few years.

If they only wanted money and taxes and would suppress any revolts with troops, they might acquire the greatest wealth with the minimum administrative cost, but in the meantime they lost the opportunity to integrate local societies in the longer term. When the central government was strong enough, this might work. But when it was weak, cities might stay away from its control. In this sense, the fragmentation of Alexander’s empire was inevitable.

Alexander was not to blame, as even his tutor Aristotle hadn’t thought about a system for a super large polity. His concept of absolute monarchy was confined to a city-state only. There were super large polities for research at that time, such as Egypt and Persia, but Aristotle considered them to be apolitical and unadvanced and believed politics only applied to the Greek city-states.

According to later generations, Greece as a political entity has disappeared, but its culture and spirit lived on in Rome forever as the birthplace for the spirit of Europe. It is not a big deal for a country to collapse, so long as its culture stays forever.

Take a look at the reaction of the Greeks. As Greece went to demise, a large number of senior intellectuals in Greece were taken hostage to serve as teachers for the Roman aristocratic families, one of whom was Polybius, a well-known historian, who wrote in his masterpiece Histories, “why did Greece keep disintegrating while Rome keep so strong?” What he wanted back then was probably not a Greece with spirit only, but the one with both entity and spirit.

Freedom comes first, or order first?

The destiny of these philosophers indicates that every civilization or every spiritual pursuit has immense contradictions. In the evolution of human societies, there was no theory that could explain everything nor any absolute principle that could be universally applied. Every philosopher devoted to changing the real world rather than building a utopia would eventually feel the pain of inconsistency. But in the pain and contradictions lies a path to the future for mutual reinforcement. One has to create possibilities out of the impossible and never concede to anything absolute.

What the Eastern and Western civilizations are perplexed about is to put freedom first or order first, which is respectively the core value of the Greek and Chinese civilizations.

The passion of the Greeks for freedom has turned “Greek” from a name of a particular race to the emblem of wisdom, while the passion of the Chinese people for order has made the Chinese civilization the only one that has survived till this day in the form of a country with the same roots and culture.

As order brings stability and freedom encourages innovation, which one is better? This involves a debate about philosophy, politics, religion, and ethics that would go on forever, which doesn’t require a conclusion. These differences would make it possible for civilizations to interact with one another. Diversity and contradiction would contribute to enriching the gene pool of human civilizations. The debate on choosing freedom first or order first should not impede the interactions between Chinese and Western civilizations, but should drive them to interact. On one hand, we have been keenly aware of the creativity brought by freedom as technological advances head for disruptive innovation. On the other, frequent outbreaks of non-traditional security crises have given us fresh perspectives on the importance of order. We have to think about how to enhance order to prevent it from being disrupted and how to encourage freedom to spur innovation. The question is not about choosing from freedom and order but about where to encourage freedom and where to enhance order.

In the old days, it might take hundreds of years and several generations to do the trial and error to validate a theory. But today, with the technological revolution, we can have a clear picture within just a few years. A civilization could have sustainable development only if it learns to reflect, accommodate, live in harmony and interact with one another. To this end, China and Europe should sit down together and talk about it.