The Origins and Evolution of Posthumous Titles

China’s ancient practice of awarding posthumous titles (谥号, shì hào) traces its roots to the mid-Western Zhou dynasty (c. 1046–771 BCE). Initially, rulers like King Wen and King Wu of Zhou bore honorific titles during their lifetimes rather than posthumous evaluations. The system crystallized as a formal institution during the Zhou dynasty, where deceased monarchs, nobles, and high-ranking officials received carefully chosen epithets summarizing their virtues or faults.

Qin Shi Huang, the First Emperor of Qin, famously abolished the practice in 221 BCE, declaring it improper for “subjects to judge rulers or sons to evaluate fathers.” However, after the Qin dynasty’s collapse, the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) reinstated the tradition, which endured until the fall of imperial China in 1912. Intriguingly, the last recorded conferral went to scholar Wang Guowei in 1927, when the deposed Emperor Puyi granted him the title “Zhong Que” (忠悫, “Loyal and Prudent”) following his suicide—a poignant epilogue to a 3,000-year tradition.

The Mechanics of Bestowing a Posthumous Title

By the Song dynasty (960–1279), the shi system had developed into a meticulous bureaucratic process reserved for officials of the third rank or higher. The procedure unfolded in stages:

1. Submission of Deeds: The deceased’s family compiled a detailed account (行状, xíng zhuàng) of their life and submitted it to the Ministry of Personnel.
2. Deliberation: The Court of Imperial Sacrifices (太常礼院) analyzed the deeds, with academicians drafting proposed titles.
3. Review: The Ministry of Personnel scrutinized the proposals before convening officials for debate.
4. Approval: After prime ministerial endorsement, the emperor issued the final decree.

Notably, the system allowed for “rebuttals” (驳议) if officials disagreed with proposals, and families could appeal unfavorable titles (论枉). This multi-layered process aimed to balance familial sentiment with historical objectivity—a remarkable early experiment in institutionalized legacy management.

The Cultural Battleground of Reputation

The case of Xia Song (夏竦) in 1051 exemplifies how posthumous titles became ideological battlegrounds. When Emperor Renzong proposed granting Xia—a controversial politician—the prestigious “Wenzheng” (文正) title, officials revolted. Historian Sima Guang penned fiery memorials arguing that Xia’s moral failings (including framing a rival and attempting to desecrate his grave) disqualified him from what scholars considered the ultimate honorific.

“Wenzheng” represented more than words—it was the Confucian ideal incarnate, reserved for paragons like Fan Zhongyan. Only three Northern Song statesmen received it, making Renzong’s attempt to bestow it upon his former tutor a scandal. After intense debate, the emperor compromised with “Wenzhuang” (文庄), a neutral alternative. This clash revealed how posthumous titles functioned as:
– Moral compasses: Reinforcing Confucian values
– Political tools: Curbing imperial overreach
– Historical verdicts: Cementing reputations beyond death

The System’s Legacy and Modern Parallels

The shi system’s decline mirrored imperial China’s fragmentation. By the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties, titles became ceremonial rather than critical, with emperors avoiding negative epithets altogether. Yet its philosophical underpinnings endure.

Modern equivalents might include:
– State funerals recognizing public service
– Biographical memorialization in official histories
– Posthumous honors like the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom

As Sima Guang noted, when societies stop caring about posthumous judgment, “the virtuous lose motivation, the wicked shed fear”—a warning about accountability that transcends dynasties. In an age of digital footprints and cancel culture, China’s ancient art of posthumous evaluation offers unexpected insights into humanity’s timeless struggle to balance mercy with truth in legacy-making.