A Divided Court and the Rise of a Conservative Icon
When Sima Guang (1019–1086) returned to power as vice grand councilor in the fifth month of 1085, the Song dynasty stood at a crossroads. The recent death of Emperor Shenzong had left his 9-year-old son Zhezong on the throne under the regency of Grand Empress Dowager Gao—a devout Confucian who shared Sima Guang’s disdain for the radical New Policies of the departed Wang Anshi. To reformers, this was a moment of peril; to conservatives like Sima Guang, an opportunity to undo decades of what they saw as harmful experimentation.
Yet as Su Shi’s hagiographic “Account of Sima Guang’s Conduct” would later romanticize, the reality proved far more constrained. The Yuanyou era (1085–1094) began not with sweeping reversals but with institutional gridlock. The central bureaucracy remained dominated by Shenzong’s appointees: Grand Councilors Cai Que and Han Zhen, along with Military Commissioner Zhang Dun, formed an entrenched old guard. Against them stood Sima Guang and his ally Lü Gongzhu—voices crying in a wilderness of procedural inertia.
The Shackles of the Yuanfeng Reforms
The structural obstacles stemmed from Emperor Shenzong’s 1082 administrative overhaul. His “Yuanfeng Reforms” had fragmented executive power among Three Departments (Zhongshu, Menxia, and Shangshu Sheng), requiring policies to pass sequentially through each. Crucially, only the Zhongshu chancellor held regular policy-discussion privileges with the emperor—a position occupied by Han Zhen, while Sima Guang served as deputy in Menxia Sheng.
This Byzantine system, designed for an experienced ruler like Shenzong, proved disastrous under a child emperor and his hesitant regent. As Lü Gongzhu observed, it reduced chancellors to glorified secretaries while paralyzing decision-making. When Sima Guang demanded the abolition of the hated Baojia mutual surveillance system in July 1085, he discovered the Military Commission had preemptively secured the dowager’s approval for a watered-down revision—exploiting the very division between civil and military channels that the reforms had created.
Grassroots Grievances and Judicial Reform
Sima Guang’s early achievements were modest yet revealing. After petitioning the dowager to solicit public complaints, he spent August 1085 personally cataloging 150 petitions from peasants—tagging each with yellow slips recommending action. His accompanying memorial laid bare the human cost of Wang Anshi’s policies: “Of all subjects, farmers suffer most… burdened by the Green Sprouts, militia, and corvée exemption taxes.”
In the judicial realm, Sima Guang secured a rare victory by upholding strict sentencing guidelines against armed robbery—overriding precedent-based leniency advocated by Justice Ministry officials. Contemporary accounts diverge sharply on outcomes, with some claiming executions doubled while others insisted they halved. What remains undisputed is Sima Guang’s philosophical stance: statutory law must supersede judicial discretion, especially for crimes threatening social order.
The Accidental Revolution in Governance
The bureaucratic logjam broke unexpectedly in September 1085 through a scandal involving Han Zhen. After the Zhongshu chancellor arranged suspicious promotions for his nephews during a routine recusal process, censor Huang Lü exposed the nepotism. Behind the scenes, Menxia chancellor Cai Que—eager to curb Han’s influence—orchestrated the investigation. The fallout forced Grand Empress Dowager Gao to mandate joint policy discussions among all Three Departments.
This procedural shift, born from factional maneuvering, finally gave Sima Guang and Lü Gongzhu a platform. Yet as Lü’s proposed “Three Departments Joint Council” took shape, old guard resistance persisted. Cai Que, now controlling the agenda as senior chancellor, limited meetings to every 3-5 days while retaining daily decision-making authority.
The Paradox of “Autocratic” Pleas
Frustrated by November 1085, Sima Guang made a striking appeal to the dowager:
“Your Majesty entrusts all affairs to ministers, aspiring to sage-kings’ effortless governance. But when opinions deadlock, You must personally decide… Lest the power of appointments and rewards fall entirely to councilors, ceasing to be the sovereign’s prerogative.”
Modern critics often cite this as proof of Sima Guang’s “autocratic” leanings. Yet contextualized, it reveals a reformer trapped by design: lacking institutional leverage, his only recourse was appealing to a regent woefully unprepared for such intervention. The memorial’s desperation echoes between its classical allusions—a recognition that procedural paralysis could only be overcome by extra-constitutional means he fundamentally distrusted.
Legacy of Constrained Conservatism
The early Yuanyou period presents a paradox: Sima Guang’s towering reputation as the era’s moral compass contrasted sharply with his limited practical impact before 1086. His eventual abolition of the New Policies would come only after Cai Que’s faction lost power—and at the cost of reigniting factional strife that would haunt Northern Song to its collapse.
Historically, this episode illuminates the Song system’s resilience against rapid change, even when backed by imperial favor. The Yuanfeng administrative architecture, intended to prevent another Wang Anshi-style domination, succeeded all too well—creating veto points that stymied even modest reforms. Sima Guang’s tragedy was inheriting machinery designed to resist exactly the kind of decisive action he deemed morally imperative.
For modern observers, it offers a cautionary tale about institutional path dependence: how well-intentioned systems, once entrenched, can outlive their purposes to obstruct even their architects’ goals. The “untouchable” Lord Sima’s struggle reminds us that in governance, as in history, good intentions rarely suffice to overcome structural inertia.
No comments yet.