20 Law and Morality Abroad (to ca. ad 1550)Diplomatic practice was an area that received a great deal of attention
from Chinese writers, largely contained in a collection of “three ritual texts”:
Th e Book of Rites (or Li- chi), which was one of the fi ve Confucian classics,
plus two lesser works. Th ey set out what has been described as “an elaborate
system of administration, ceremonies, ranks of offi cials, methods of inter-
course, and behavior standards” of the period— although, in reality, these
works consisted chiefl y of later fabrications, projecting backward onto the
Chou period the practices of the later, imperial era. A large amount of this
literature concerned the formalities and rituals associated with diplomatic
intercourse, such as the appropriate ceremonies for the receiving of emissar-
ies from other states. In this period, there were no permanent diplomatic
missions stationed in the various states, but ad hoc diplomatic contacts were
so common as to amount to practically the same thing.
Th e mistreatment of envoys was sometimes, at least, taken very seriously
indeed. We know of a case in 636 bc in which the Prince of Cheng captured
an ambassador from the Chou ruler. In response, Chou sent a militar y expe-
dition to free the envoy and punish the prince. But there were also a num-
ber of instances of fl agrant mistreatment of ambassadors and other foreign
offi cials, including rulers, that went unpunished simply because of the mili-
tary weakness of the victim state. Th e state of Chin appears to have been the
chief off ender on this score. In 582 bc, the earl of Cheng was put to death in
that state. Two years later, the ruler of Chin detained the ruler of Lu (Confu-
cius’s home state) at his court as a virtual prisoner. In 519 bc, another prince
of Chin similarly seized an ambassador from Lu and held him as a captive.
It is hardly surprising that, in the Warring States period, armed confl ict
was a not infrequent occurrence. But there was a general belief that war
should be waged only in pursuit of some valid cause— as refl ected in a com-
mon maxim, that “[f]or war you must have a cause that may be named.”
Regarding the conduct of war, there is evidence of a certain system of re-
straints. For example, the general practice was to spare noncombatants from
attack. In actions against the enemy, there are signs of an impressively chiv-
alrous ethos. Th ere was a custom, for example, of refraining from invading
a state in the year in which its leader died or in a year in which the state
suff ered an insurrection. Surprise attacks were frowned on. It was urged,
for example, that prior to an attack, the attacker should beat a drum to give
the enemy a fair warning of the battle to come. It was customary, too, to