China Review International

The book under review here is the published version of a Ph.D. dissertation submitted at the University of Münster in 2019. It is the first book-length study of the institution of remonstration in early imperial China, and it deserves attention because of the thorough research it provides. After a brief introduction, Fahr begins with a chapter on the theory and concept of institutions both in Western social sciences and in ancient Chinese terminology. As far as the latter is concerned, he discusses such terms as fadu 法度, zhidu 制度, guoti 國體, or jiuzhang 舊章 in order to show that ancient China had, indeed, several concepts at its disposal that are similar to the modern Western [End Page 10] term “institution.” Fahr also understand the famous compound yi jia 一家 as an institutional term, following Gan Huaizhen’s idea that guojia actually means “the family that rules the state.” I have to confess that in this case I remain somewhat skeptical. To me, it still makes more sense to understand this compound as “the families (or family) of the capital,” because first there are also guoren 國人 who certainly do not belong to just one family, and second, branches of the ruling family usually had their bases in other cities. In this chapter, Fahr also shows that we should not understand documents (which he calls “Inserate” = insertions) contained in Chinese standard histories as direct quotations from original texts. In this he follows observations that have been made by two other young German scholars recently, namely, Kathrin Messing in her dissertation on the Sanguo zhi and Sebastian Eicher in his work on the Hou Han shu.

The third chapter of Remonstration as an Institution is devoted to the word “to remonstrate” (jian 諫), and to the practice of remonstration as a sign of a close bond that existed between ruler and minister. Fahr shows that the office of remonstration officials was, indeed, already established in early Han times. Chapter 4 deals with official historiography as a historiography of institutions. It starts with “precedents” (gushi 故事) in pre-Han times and proceeds then to a discussion of the major historians of Han times in a chronological sequence, beginning with Sima Tan and Sima Qian and ending with Xun Yue. Fahr understands Shiji and Hanshu as compilations of precedents for the future, an idea that, of course, can be traced back to the Gongyang zhuan and that is somewhat related to the Latin concept of historia magistra vitae. Fahr agrees with what this reviewer said in the introduction to his work on Shiji and Hanshu, namely, that the title of Hanshu is an expression of Ban Gu’s hope to continue the tradition of the Shang shu.

Chapter 5 focuses on institutions and their preservation through remonstration. Here, Fahr gives examples of remonstrations from three different periods, namely, the Qin dynasty (Li Si is quoted), the reign of Han Wendi, and finally the famous episode when Liu He, the King of Changyi whose tomb has been opened recently (the Haihun hou tomb), was removed from the throne after only twenty-seven days. Fahr also shows in this chapter how important the role was that remonstration played in the education of the young heirs to the throne. The sixth and last chapter before the conclusion somehow looks like what could have been the starting point of the dissertation. Here, Fahr uses the example of chapter 36 of the Hanshu to demonstrate how remonstration was actually practiced by Liu Xiang. Somewhat similar to Sebastian Eicher’s work on the Hou Han shu, he explains that the “traditions” (zhuan 傳) of the five different persons dealt with in Hanshu 36 should actually better be understood as episodes, not as “biographies” as the term...