MOURNING RITUALS IN ARCHAIC & CLASSICAL GREECE AND PRE-QIN CHINA Xiaoqun Wu Mourning Rituals in Archaic & Classical Greece and Pre-Qin China Xiaoqun Wu Mourning Rituals in Archaic & Classical Greece and Pre-Qin China Xiaoqun Wu Fudan University Shanghai, China ISBN 978-981-13-0631-0 ISBN 978-981-13-0632-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0632-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018943296 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore In Memory of my parents, Yuanjie Wu and Benzhen Zhang P reface In this research, there are two major themes: one is ritual, and the other is comparison. Ritual research can be described as the classic theme of anthropology, and many of the foremost anthropologists have dedicated themselves to this area. It is also one of the areas examined by sociologists. Classical sociology is the study of individuals or groups: it is not primarily con- cerned with ritual itself, but with how ritual reveals the nature, structure, and organization of a society. In history, however, ritual is not a traditional research topic. It cannot be denied that modern historical scholars devote a considerable amount of time to studying rites in the ancient world, but the connection between the study of ritual and the subject of history is not universally acknowledged, and comparative studies are rare. Some histori- ans do pay attention to the role of key rituals in political life and group activities within the context that they are studying, but they typically focus is on how elites use rituals to consolidate their authority or achieve some specific purpose. In other words, historians rarely treat ritual as if it plays a crucial role in daily life, and usually overlook the possibility that rituals might have an impact on people’s thinking. In this book, our goal is to break through the fixed patterns of differ- ent disciplines with respect to both research methods and research sub- jects, and to construct an overarching theory. We do not attempt to distinguish, in doing so, between ‘advanced’ and ‘low-grade’ disciplines or methods: we recognize that each method has its own particular ideo- logical structure. The primary difference is that in the study of rituals, the work of anthropologists and sociologists is to study the performance of vii viii PREFACE rituals in the field without the need for a diachronic analysis. It is the work of historians, therefore, to track the evolution of rituals over a long period of time and to analyze how and why rites have changed. In contrast to anthropologists and sociologists, who are able to collect primary data, historians’ understanding of rituals largely depends on texts. The main challenge facing historians is to determine the extent to which ritual hab- its are, or were, actually guided by those texts. Historical research has always been characterized by a great openness in regard to methodology. Historians have devoted considerable attention to absorbing methods from other disciplines in order to supplement and complement their own research tools, with the choice and application of methods dependent on specific issues and suitability for the material. In particular, for Chinese historians, a saying that ‘There is no specific method of historical research’ (史无定法) has been widely adopted. It is typically understood that methods should be selected according to the subject, the specific problem and the available material, and that their applicability and limitations should be emphasized, amended, or adjusted as appropriate. In short, methods themselves are not inherently superior or inferior: the issues are mainly whether they are a good fit for the problem and the mate- rial, and whether the use is appropriate. Historians must try to understand phenomena and theories according to the specific historical conditions, and there is no theoretical dogma for historians: rather, open and compre- hensive studies should be conducted. In this study, I examine the mourning rituals of ancient Greece and China during the Pre-Qin period. The first element of this work is an examination of who participated in the respective ritual. Who made the ritual? What was the purpose of this ritual? What results did it have? The next question that I address will move beyond ‘what’ and ‘how’ to address the deeper question of ‘why is it so?’. Therefore, a specific analysis that incorporates cultural characteristics is particularly important. In this pro- cess, I will draw on a number of established theories and methods within ritual research, but I do not deliberately distinguish between the respec- tive theories and methods of anthropology, sociology or psychology, and historiography: I am mainly concerned with the extent to which particular theories or methods best explain the problem. I believe that, in this way, this study can contribute greatly to an understanding of traditional Chinese and ancient Greek families and social structures. Comparative study is a research method with great potential but many challenges, especially in relation to comparisons between China and the PREFAC E ix West. Until now, however, there has been no clear and comprehensive analysis of the feasibility and methodology of comparative study, and there are no commonly accepted standards for it in academic circles. In modern academia, ancient societies are studied in isolation by sepa- rate groups of scholars. There are reasons for this, some of which can be described as ‘objective’ and others as ‘subjective’. The objective reasons are twofold. First, the closed nature of ancient societies led to the unique- ness of different civilizations, with different languages and different empirical knowledges, which has made scholars more inclined to adopt different methods to study them. Second, there are different interpreta- tional traditions of Classics in civilizations, making it is difficult to study them with the same theories and methods. Similarly, there may be two subjective aspects. First, traditions of regionalism or nationalism may lead scholars to focus only on the history of their own particular region or country. Second, the modern inclination and demand for professionalism generally incentivizes scholars to become specialists in single, clearly defined areas of research rather than engaging in comparative study. However, the benefits of comparative research are obvious, as it can help us to overcome the limitations imposed by narrow specialization. While the tendency to specialize has the advantage of bringing a certain familiarity with materials, problems, and research methods, it can also result in a lack of sensitivity to certain problems, as well as to new ideas for solving those problems. Conversely, when problems are examined in dif- ferent historical and cultural contexts, challenges may arise that would not ordinarily be encountered within the default academic context. This may prompt us to think further and may draw out fresh insights, which can deepen our understanding of a familiar subject. I will discuss the above issues in more detail in the introduction. This small book uses the comparison between mourning rituals in Archaic & Classical Greece and Pre-Qin China as an example to illustrate some of the principles and methods used in comparative studies. It focuses on three main aspects of mourning of the dead before burial—lamentation, mourn- ers’ gestures and behaviors, and mourning apparel—to demonstrate the cultural function, purpose, and social influence of mourning. We find that although the rites of mourning share some basic similari- ties in terms of both procedures and functions, there are differences between these two ancient societies. In Greece, mourning remained mainly on the level of external forms and procedures, but was not used to facilitate the expression of philosophical thoughts. Therefore, the ritual of x PREFACE mourning in ancient Greece was viewed as a divinely regulated procedure: richly ritualized actions as a cultural phenomenon have been retained in Greek folk tradition and remained at the level of ritual behavior, without involving the social order. Some of these rituals have survived even to the present day. In contrast, in the Chinese case the Confucian philosophers of the Pre-Qin period used rituals as a tool to explain their thoughts about how to organize a community (the clan society). For them, the ritualized procedures were certainly important, but there was something more pro- found underlying the ritual. Confucians have integrated funeral with the Confucian values of filial piety and the concept of kinship, which have had a profound impact on subsequent Chinese civilization. K. C. Chang once pointed out that the development of Western civili- zation is fractured and jumpy, while the development of Chinese civiliza- tion is integrated and continuous.1 It is worth exploring, then, whether this difference in the development path of the two civilizations might find a certain basis in their respective ritual features, especially in the sense of funeral rites. This idea is potentially significant both in terms of methodol- ogy and the development of problem consciousness. Shanghai, China Xiaoqun Wu Note 1. Cf. K. C. Chang, Art, Myth, and Rituals: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China, Harvard University Press, 1983, pp. 107–130. refereNce Chang, K. C. 1983. Art, Myth, and Rituals: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China. Harvard University Press. a ckNowledgmeNts The idea for this study first arose in 2009, at the Center for Hellenic Studies at Harvard University, where I was a Fellow from 2009–2010. From the very beginning, Professor Gregory Nagy suggested that I should do comparative research, as comparative studies were nearly always led by Western scholars and there were few Chinese scholars engaged in this type of research. He felt that as a Chinese scholar, I had not only received pro- fessional training in Western Classical studies but also possessed the knowl- edge and ideological background of Chinese traditional civilizations, and recommended that I should use these advantages to make a difference in comparative studies, in the hope that I might contribute to the develop- ment of this field. This book would not have been written without his ceaseless encouragement. In the initial phase of writing, Professor Douglas Frame and Professor Jan. N. Bremmer helped me with specific aspects. I would also like to express my appreciation to my colleagues at CHS, Dr. Andromache Karanika, Dr. Sarah B. Ferrario, Dr. Gunnar Seelentag, Dr. Dominic T. J. Bailey, Dr. Tarik Wareh, Dr. Andrej Petrovic, Dr. Joshua Reynolds, Dr. Emily Baragwanath, Dr. Miguel Herrero de Jauregui, Dr. Ivana Petrovic, and Dr. Sabine Gey for their helpful and valuable com- ments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the study. Thanks are due to the peer reviewers for their helpful recommendations and suggestions for amendments. I am especially grateful to Dr. Xiaoli Ouyang, my young colleague, for her constant encouragement and practical assistance in the completion of this book. xi