The aim of To Rule All Under Heaven, as Andrew Meyer states it, is to fill a long-standing gap in the English-speaking world by providing an introduction to Warring States history for nonspecialist readers. In this respect, the book succeeds admirably. It offers an engaging account of the period between the early fifth century BCE and the late third century BCE, from the death of Confucius to the Qin unification: the major political events and social transformations within which China’s earliest philosophers, often significant social actors deeply embedded in the politics, developed their intellectual concerns and theoretical proposals. When reading the conversations between Mencius and rulers such as King Hui of Wei and King Xuan of Qi, for example, it is difficult to fully grasp the force of their arguments without some understanding of the historical context to which they refer. Although several excellent general histories of early China are currently available, they often treat the Warring States period concisely, providing only a broad panoramic overview. Meyer’s book offers more details. It is suitable not only for general readers but also as a companion textbook for introductory courses on early China.
Meyer’s work, however, is not intended as a comprehensive history covering every aspect of Warring States society. Rather, the narrative is structured around two main threads: major political events and the activities of the various masters in relation to those events. In his acknowledgments, Meyer notes his debt to the works of Yang Kuan and Qian Mu (Ch’ien Mu), and the book may indeed be seen, to some extent, as a synthesis of Yang Kuan’s A History of the Warring States (Zhanguo shi) and Qian Mu’s Chronological Studies of the Pre-Qin Masters (Xian-Qin zhuzi xinian), which remain the standard works on Warring States history and zixue or “the study of the masters” in the Chinese-speaking world.
Compared with the somewhat annalistic narrative style of Yang’s work and the relatively fragmented evidential discussions found in Qian’s, Meyer’s presentation is more coherent and considerably more accessible to beginning readers. He skillfully employs analogies with contemporary culture to help Western readers understand the social phenomena and values of this distant past, while also incorporating imaginative details that vivify historical figures. To cautious historians, such additions may seem to fictionalize, but in an introductory work they are, on the whole, beneficial and pedagogically effective.
The book consists of 15 chapters, together with an introduction and a conclusion. The first four chapters cover the major political and intellectual transformations of the fifth century BCE: in the north, the partition of Jin by the Three Houses and the Tian clan’s usurpation of Qi; in the south, the prolonged conflicts among Chu, Wu, and Yue that eventually led to the destruction of Wu; and the rise of the shi class (translated by Meyer as “knights”), represented above all by the Confucians and Mohists. Together, these developments marked the beginning of what later came to be known as the Warring States period. Chapter 5 examines the rise of Wei under the reforms of Marquis Wen (r. 445–396 BCE), paying particular attention to how his talent-recruitment policies secured the support of knights such as Li Kui and Zixia. Chapter 6 uses figures such as Wu Qi (440–381 BCE), a military commander and prime minister who served many states, to explore the increasing social mobility of the shi during this time, both vertically across social ranks and laterally across state boundaries.
Chapters 7 and 8 move into the middle Warring States period (361–295 BCE), when the rapid rise of Qin transformed the geopolitical structure of the broader realm from a north–south conflict between Jin and Chu into an east–west conflict between Qin and the eastern states. These chapters, therefore, focus respectively on the establishment of the Jixia Academy in Qi and the reforms of Shang Yang (d. 338 BCE) in Qin. Chapters 9–11 center on the series of “kingly” claims initiated by King Hui of Wei and the emergence of the diplomatic strategies known as the Vertical and Horizontal Alliances, which sought either to unite the eastern states against Qin or to assist Qin in breaking those alliances. Meyer pays particular attention to the diplomatic and espionage activities of itinerant ministers such as Zhang Yi (d. 310 BCE), Gongsun Yan (ca. 360–300 BCE), and Tian Wen (also known as Lord Mengchang, fl. ca. 300 BCE) while also discussing the persuasive efforts of thinkers such as Mencius (ca. 390–305 BCE), Xunzi (ca. 340–245 BCE), and Zou Yan (ca. 305–240 BCE), who are commonly associated with the creation of a grand system of correlative cosmology.
Chapter 12 turns to the late Warring States period (294–221 BCE) and recounts the mutually destructive struggle between Yan and Qi in the north, highlighting the role played by Su Qin (d. 284 BCE) as a spy for Yan within Qi. Chapter 13 focuses on the final contest between the last two major powers of the age, Qin and Zhao, culminating in Zhao’s catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Changping (262–260 BCE). Chapter 14 examines the “great patrons”—Zhao Sheng (Lord Pingyuan of Zhao, d. 252 BCE), Wei Wuji (Lord Xinling of Wei, d. 243 BCE), and Huang Xie (Lord Chunshen of Chu, d. 238 BCE)—and the efforts of their retainers to preserve the eastern states in their final struggle against Qin. Chapter 15 concludes with an account of Qin’s unification of the empire.
In portraying this sweeping historical panorama, Meyer continually attempts to place the familiar thinkers of the Warring States within precise historical settings. These are all worthwhile efforts, but because the sources concerning these thinkers are often fragmentary and contradictory, reconstructing their lives and activities is an inherently difficult, and sometimes impossible, task. On questions of this kind, Meyer’s judgments are generally sound, though at times he draws connections that, in my view, rest on rather tenuous grounds. I will briefly mention two examples from Chapter 9, which deals with King Hui of Wei, to illustrate such tenuous connections.
The first example concerns Yang Zhu, a thinker known for his doctrine of “preserving life intact” and vehemently criticized by Mencius as an “egoist.” Meyer discusses a story in the Stratagems of the Warring States (Zhanguo ce) that describes a drinking party hosted by King Hui of Wei at Fan Pavilion in 356 BCE (pp. 225–26). During the gathering, the Duke of Lu raises a toast and warns the king that indulgence in wine, food, sex, and other pleasures will ultimately lead to the destruction of his state. I was quite surprised that Meyer interprets the Duke of Lu’s speech as an expression of Yangist thought. Nothing in the story suggests that such indulgences are harmful because they damage the ruler’s personal physical well-being. On the contrary, the message is identical to the sort of moral admonition commonly found in ancient didactic literature: excessive indulgence leads to political disaster. It is difficult to assign the passage to any specific intellectual lineage, but if one were to do so, it would seem far more Confucian than Yangist.
The second example concerns Zou Yan. According to several passages in the Stratagems of the Warring States, after proclaiming himself king at the conclave held at Welcome Pond, King Hui of Wei adopted a series of symbolic measures, including wearing “cinnabar robes,” using a “nine-tasseled” flag and a “seven-starred” banner, and referring to himself as the “King of Xia.” Meyer claims that these measures were influenced by theories of cosmic cycles and dynastic succession associated with Zou Yan (p. 234). This connection, however, raises at least two problems.
First, Zou Yan belonged not to the middle Warring States period but to the late Warring States period. The Shiji account describing Zou Yan’s meeting with King Hui of Wei is historically mistaken—a point that many historians have noted and of which Meyer himself is fully aware. Indeed, Meyer’s notes cite Qian Mu’s discussion of the issue (p. 490, n. 50). Yet shortly afterward, he adds that even if Zou Yan himself was active only in a later period, King Hui may nevertheless have been influenced by “forms of cosmological lore that antedated Zou Yan” (p. 491, n. 56). But, second, once the chronological inconsistency surrounding Zou Yan has been acknowledged, why continue to insist upon a connection between King Hui’s measures and cosmological theory?
I suspect the reason lies in the appearance of colors and numbers such as cinnabar, seven, and nine, which are characteristic elements of correlative cosmology. However, within a cosmological system, a regime was supposed to privilege a single number as its numerological principle. Qin, for example, identified itself with the virtue of water, and accordingly the dimensions of garments and ritual objects were all standardized around the number six. In fact, the numbers seven and nine employed by King Hui belong not to Zou Yan’s numerology of the Five Phases but rather to the more ancient numerical hierarchy of ritual status, the same system reflected in prescriptions such as “the Son of Heaven uses nine tripods, the feudal lords seven.” They have nothing to do with Five Phases cosmology, as the ritual texts make clear.Footnote 1
Apart from connections of this somewhat tenuous kind, Meyer also occasionally glosses over scholarly controversies in ways that produce an overly clean picture. One example appears in his discussion of Qu Yuan (traditionally dated to 339–278 BCE), where he states that “most historians today would agree that Qu Yuan was a legendary figure invented during the Han dynasty” (p. 392). I do not here dispute this interpretation itself. The problem is rather that while most historians doubt the account of Qu Yuan found in the Shiji, there is no clear scholarly consensus that Han-dynasty writers invented Qu Yuan. Even in an introductory work, a more cautious presentation of scholarly consensus would have been preferable.
The issues raised above are relatively minor and few in number, and they do not detract from the overall value of the book. Meyer has indeed succeeded in filling an important gap in English-language scholarship, and this work deserves to become essential reading in courses on early Chinese history and thought.
