The Strategic Landscape of the Spring and Autumn Period

The 6th century BCE witnessed a complex geopolitical dance among the warring states of ancient China, where alliances shifted like desert sands and loyalty often bowed to expediency. During this volatile Spring and Autumn Period, the northwestern states of Jin and Qin emerged as dominant powers whose relationship would shape regional politics for generations. Sharing borders and strategic interests, these two powers developed what modern historians might characterize as a “frenemy” relationship—alternately cooperating and conflicting as circumstances dictated.

Jin, controlling the fertile Yellow River basin, and Qin, positioned in the strategic Wei River valley, maintained a relationship built upon both mutual necessity and mutual suspicion. Their proximity created natural economic ties through trade routes connecting the Central Plains with western regions, while also generating constant border tensions. The aristocracy of both states intermarried, creating blood ties that complicated political rivalries. This period saw the gradual erosion of Zhou dynasty authority, creating a power vacuum that ambitious states sought to fill through territorial expansion and shifting coalitions.

The diplomatic conventions of this era followed elaborate rituals and formal protocols. States communicated through carefully worded messages delivered by specialized envoys called “xingren” . These diplomats were masters of rhetoric who could praise or condemn with equal elegance, their words carrying the weight of national policy. The most skilled among them could launch verbal attacks that were simultaneously devastating and artful, combining historical references, moral arguments, and strategic threats into powerful diplomatic instruments.

The Unraveling of an Alliance

The immediate events leading to the diplomatic rupture began in 578 BCE, during the eleventh year of Duke Cheng’s reign in Jin. Earlier that year, the rulers of Qin and Jin had arranged a summit at Linghu, intending to reaffirm their alliance through solemn oaths and rituals. Such meetings were crucial for maintaining stability between powerful states, serving both practical and symbolic purposes. The Jin ruler arrived first at the designated meeting place, fulfilling his commitment to the agreement. But in a stunning breach of diplomatic protocol, the Qin ruler never appeared—an intentional snub that constituted a grave insult in the elaborate etiquette of interstate relations.

This was not merely a personal affront but a calculated political move. Following this betrayal, Qin actively encouraged and supported military attacks against Jin by the Di tribes from the north and the Chu state from the south. These were not random acts of aggression but coordinated efforts to weaken Jin through multiple fronts. The Di were nomadic tribes known for their cavalry, while Chu represented the expanding southern power seeking dominance over the Central Plains. By orchestrating this pincer movement, Qin demonstrated sophisticated strategic thinking and a willingness to employ proxy forces to achieve its objectives.

The Jin leadership, under Duke Li, recognized these actions as a fundamental shift in Qin’s posture from competitor to active adversary. In response, they dispatched their master diplomat Lü Xiang to deliver what amounted to a formal declaration of diplomatic severance. This was no routine diplomatic communication but a carefully crafted indictment meant to justify Jin’s position to other states while systematically dismantling Qin’s credibility.

The Rhetorical Masterpiece of Lü Xiang

Lü Xiang’s address to the Qin court represents one of the most sophisticated diplomatic documents preserved from ancient China. The speech opens not with confrontation but with remembrance, strategically invoking the historical friendship between the two states. He specifically references the alliance between Duke Xian of Jin and Duke Mu of Qin, who had “joined forces with one heart, bound by covenant and strengthened by marriage.” This rhetorical choice established Jin as the wronged party appealing to better days, making the subsequent accusations more powerful by contrast.

The envoy then methodically chronicles what Jin perceived as a pattern of Qin betrayals spanning multiple generations. He recounts how after Duke Xian’s death, Duke Mu of Qin initially helped install Duke Hui on Jin’s throne—only to later attack Jin at the Battle of Han. When Duke Mu supposedly regretted this action and helped establish Duke Wen as ruler, this assistance came with expectations of subservience that Jin could not accept. The speech meticulously documents subsequent conflicts including the Battle of Yao, the tensions over Qin’s separate peace with Zheng during their joint campaign, and more recent clashes at Linghu and Hequ.

What makes this document extraordinary is its relentless use of the first-person perspective. Lü Xiang employs “we” and “our” over a dozen times, creating a powerful sense of collective grievance. Each accusation is framed not as abstract policy criticism but as personal betrayal: “you attacked our protected cities,” “you destroyed our Fei Hua,” “you scattered and divided our brothers.” This personalization transformed what could have been a dry diplomatic protest into an emotional appeal that reinforced Jin’s moral position.

Cultural Context of War and Words

To fully appreciate Lü Xiang’s address, we must understand the cultural framework within which it operated. Warfare in the Spring and Autumn Period followed certain conventions—what we might call a “ritualized” approach to conflict. Battles were typically fought between aristocrats according to established protocols, with clear declarations of war and carefully observed rules of engagement. States sought not total annihilation but rather acknowledgement of their superiority and specific concessions.

In this context, diplomatic communications served as crucial weapons. A well-crafted message could justify military action to other states, potentially isolating an adversary internationally. Skillful rhetoric could demoralize an opponent’s leadership or bolster the morale of one’s own side. The most talented diplomats were valued as highly as skilled generals because their words could achieve objectives that might otherwise require thousands of soldiers.

The speech also reflects the importance of historical precedent in Chinese political discourse. By grounding his arguments in specific past events, Lü Xiang established a pattern of behavior that made Qin’s actions appear not as isolated incidents but as manifestations of a fundamentally untrustworthy character. This appeal to history would become a enduring feature of Chinese statecraft, where contemporary claims often derived their legitimacy from historical analogies.

The literary quality of the address deserves particular attention. The text exhibits sophisticated parallel structure, rhythmic phrasing, and elegant variation in sentence patterns—all hallmarks of classical Chinese prose at its finest. The Tang dynasty historian Liu Zhiji would later praise it as “subtly tactful yet sharply pointed, flowing smoothly without excess,” recognizing its artistic merit alongside its diplomatic function.

Legacy and Enduring Influence

The Jin-Qin rupture and Lü Xiang’s masterful address left an indelible mark on Chinese diplomatic tradition. The document preserved in the Zuo Zhuan became a model for subsequent diplomatic communications, studied by generations of officials as the epitome of effective statecraft through rhetoric. Its influence extended far beyond its immediate historical context, shaping how Chinese statesmen conceptualized and conducted international relations for centuries.

Most significantly, this address is widely regarded as pioneering what would become the distinctive style of the Warring States Period纵横家 . These later diplomats would develop Lü Xiang’s techniques into a sophisticated art form, traveling between states to form alliances through persuasive speech. The speech’s combination of historical narrative, moral argumentation, and strategic threat-making established a template that would be refined by legendary figures like Su Qin and Zhang Yi in the following century.

The document also represents an important milestone in the development of Chinese political philosophy. Its sophisticated manipulation of moral rhetoric to serve state interests anticipates the Legalist school that would later dominate Qin thinking. At the same time, its appeal to historical precedent and proper conduct reflects Confucian values that would become central to Chinese political culture. In this sense, the address stands at a crossroads between different philosophical traditions that would shape Chinese civilization.

Modern readers can appreciate Lü Xiang’s address as both a historical document and a literary masterpiece. It offers fascinating insights into how pre-imperial Chinese states conducted their relations and managed conflicts. The sophisticated rhetoric demonstrates that ancient diplomacy involved not just military calculations but careful attention to narrative, persuasion, and public justification. In an era of great-power competition not entirely unlike our own, this ancient document reminds us that words have always been among the most powerful weapons in international relations.

The enduring relevance of this 2,500-year-old document lies in its demonstration that effective statecraft requires both strategic clarity and communicative skill. The Jin-Qin rupture illustrates how nations balance cooperation and competition, how they manage conflicts of interest, and how they justify their actions to others. Lü Xiang’s address remains a timeless case study in the art of diplomatic communication—a masterpiece of rhetoric that continues to resonate across the centuries.