Confucius Among the Lawgivers – The Fourth Way on the Supreme Court Wall 侧影与法典：孔子与汉谟拉比、摩西同列

孔子与汉谟拉比、摩西同列 – 美国最高法院法庭内的立法者群像
Confucius Among the Lawgivers — The South Wall Frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court

美国最高法院法庭内的文明对话 · A Dialogue on Law and Order Carved in Stone

事实说明：美国最高法院大楼内有两组包含孔子形象的浮雕。法庭内部南墙横浮雕（South Wall Frieze）由雕塑家阿道夫·A·温曼（Adolph A. Weinman, 1870–1952）于1931至1932年间创作，南墙共9位前基督教时代立法者，孔子位列其中（从左到右第8位，位于德拉古和屋大维之间）。大楼东墙三角楣（East Pediment）由雕塑家赫蒙·A·麦克尼尔（Hermon A. MacNeil, 1866–1947）于1932至1934年间创作，中央三人组为摩西、孔子、梭伦。孔子是唯一同时出现在两组浮雕中的非西方人物。

Fact Note: Two sculptural groups at the U.S. Supreme Court Building feature Confucius. The South Wall Frieze inside the courtroom, by Adolph A. Weinman (1870–1952), depicts nine pre-Christian lawgivers, with Confucius as the eighth figure (between Draco and Octavian). The East Pediment of the building, by Hermon A. MacNeil (1866–1947), features Moses, Confucius, and Solon as the central trio. Confucius is the only non-Western figure who appears in both groups.

English

Inside the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court, two ivory-colored Spanish marble friezes hang high above the justices’ bench. On the South Wall Frieze, nine lawgivers from the pre-Christian era are arranged in procession. From left to right: Menes — the first pharaoh of Egypt, the personification of the state; Hammurabi — king of Babylon, who carved the first complete written legal code; Moses — holding tablets, symbolizing divine law; Solomon — the embodiment of wise judgment; Lycurgus — founder of the Spartan system; Solon — the Athenian reformer who abolished debt-slavery; Draco — the Athenian lawgiver known for severity; Confucius — holding a scroll, the voice of Eastern moral order; and Octavian — architect of the Roman Empire.

What makes Confucius’s presence particularly noteworthy is that he is the only non-Western figure who appears in both the South Wall Frieze and the East Pediment — where, by sculptor Hermon MacNeil’s design, he stands alongside Moses and Solon as one of the three central figures. This double appearance itself is a statement about Confucius’s place in the Western legal imagination.

The sculptor of the South Wall Frieze, Adolph A. Weinman, chose these figures not because they drafted any single written code, but because they represented different civilizational sources of law. The choice itself is a statement about where law comes from.

中文

在美国最高法院的法庭内，两组象牙色西班牙大理石横浮雕高悬于法官席上方。南墙横浮雕上，九位前基督教时代的立法者依次排列。从左到右：美尼斯 – 埃及第一位法老，国家概念的化身；汉谟拉比 – 巴比伦之王，刻下人类第一部完整成文法典；摩西 – 手持石板，象征神圣律法；所罗门 – 智慧审判的化身；利库古斯 – 斯巴达制度的奠基者；梭伦 – 废除债务奴隶制的雅典改革家；德拉古 – 以严酷著称的雅典立法者；孔子 – 手持书卷，东方道德秩序的代言人；屋大维 – 罗马帝国的缔造者。

孔子出现在这面墙上之所以特别值得关注，是因为他是唯一同时出现在最高法院两组主要浮雕中的非西方人物 – 在南墙横浮雕中位列九位立法者之一，在东墙三角楣中与摩西、梭伦并列中央三人组。这个双重出现本身，就是一个关于孔子在西方法律想象中位置的陈述。

南墙横浮雕的雕塑家阿道夫·A·温曼选择这些人物，并非因为他们制定了某一部具体的成文法典，而是因为他们代表了不同的法律文明渊源。这个选择本身，就是一个关于“法律从何而来”的陈述。

Four Answers to One Question

一个问题的四种回答

English
If we expand our view from the South Wall Frieze to the broader history of civilization, we can identify four fundamentally different answers to the question “Where does just order come from?” These four answers are not mutually exclusive; they are different explorations of the same question under different historical conditions:

Hammurabi: Written Code. The law is legitimate because it is publicly inscribed, knowable in advance, and enforced by the state. “An eye for an eye” is not cruelty but proportionality — the same punishment for the same offense. This is the answer of the rule of law: clarity, predictability, equal application.

Moses: Divine Command. The law is legitimate because God commands it. Its authority is transcendent, not dependent on human approval or legislative procedure. The foundation of law lies outside human society — which is both its strength and its challenge.

Solon: Civic Consent. The law is legitimate because free citizens have deliberated and agreed to it. Democracy, constitutions, and the social contract descend from this answer. The authority of law flows upward from the governed, not downward from a king or a god.

Confucius: Moral Internalization. In the Confucian understanding, the law is legitimate when it becomes unnecessary — when people do what is right not because they fear punishment but because they have made righteousness part of who they are. “Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with ritual propriety, and they will develop a sense of shame and correct themselves.” This is the answer of li (禮) over fa (法): order through cultivation, not compulsion. This is one understanding of order within the Confucian tradition, not a universal answer to the question of political organization.

中文
如果我们把视野从南墙横浮雕扩展到更广阔的文明史，可以发现四种对“正义秩序从何而来”的根本不同回答。这四种回答并非相互排斥，而是人类在不同历史条件下对同一问题的不同探索：

汉谟拉比：成文法典。法律的正当性在于它被公开铭刻、可事先知晓、并由国家强制执行。“以眼还眼”不是残忍而是对等 – 同样的罪行受同样的惩罚。这是法治的回答：清晰、可预期、平等适用。

摩西：神圣命令。法律的正当性在于上帝的命令。其权威是超越的，不依赖于人类认可或立法程序。法律的根基在人类社会之外 – 这既是其力量也是其挑战。

梭伦：公民同意。法律的正当性在于自由公民经过商议并同意它。民主、宪政与社会契约都源自这一回答。法律的权威从被统治者向上流动，而非从国王或神向下流动。

孔子：道德内化。在儒家的理解中，法律的正当性在于它变得不再必要 – 人们行义不是因为害怕惩罚，而是因为义已成为自身的一部分。“道之以政，齐之以刑，民免而无耻；道之以德，齐之以礼，有耻且格。”这是礼优于法的回答：通过教化而非强制达成的秩序。这是儒家对秩序的一种理解，而非对当代政治制度的普遍答案。

Li and Fa — The Debate Within Chinese Tradition

礼与法：中国传统的内部张力

English
Confucius’s presence on the Supreme Court’s frieze does not mean that China has always followed him. The most important legal debate in Chinese intellectual history is precisely the debate between Confucians and Legalists. Han Feizi (c. 280–233 BCE) argued that Confucian moral optimism is naive: people are self-interested; only clear written law, consistent punishment, and effective statecraft produce order. The Qin dynasty unified ancient China under Legalist principles — and collapsed quickly.

The Han dynasty then created a synthesis that would last two thousand years: Confucian ethics as the public language of legitimacy, Legalist institutions as the actual machinery of governance. Historians call it “Confucian surface, Legalist substrate” (阳儒阴法). This is a term of historical scholarship describing a characteristic of governance practice in ancient China since the Han dynasty, not a commentary on any contemporary political system. The tension between li and fa is not a settled opposition but a productive friction that has shaped every Chinese dynasty, every legal code, every discussion of how to govern.

中文
孔子出现在最高法院的浮雕上，并不意味着中国历史上只有儒家这一种声音。中国思想史上最重要的法律争论，恰恰是儒家与法家的争论。韩非子（约公元前280–前233年）认为，儒家的道德乐观主义是幼稚的：人是自利的；只有明确的成文法、一致的惩罚和有效的权术才能产生秩序。秦朝以法家原则统一了古代中国 – 却迅速崩溃。

汉朝随后创造了一个持续两千年的综合：儒家伦理作为合法性的公共语言，法家制度作为治理的实际机器。史家称之为“阳儒阴法” – 这是一个历史学术语，描述汉代以来古代中国治国实践的一种历史特征，而非对任何当代政治制度的评论。礼与法的张力不是一个已解决的二元对立，而是一种富有成效的摩擦，塑造了每一个中国朝代、每一部法典、每一次关于如何治理的讨论。

Why Confucius Belongs — A Possible Fourth Way

为何是孔子 – 一种可能的第四条道路

English
The Supreme Court’s decision to include Confucius on the South Wall Frieze is not an endorsement of any particular legal system. It is an acknowledgment that written law, divine command, and citizen consent do not exhaust the possibilities. There is a possible fourth way: the way of moral formation, of making citizens who want to be just, of building a culture in which compulsion becomes increasingly redundant.

This fourth way is the least tangible and the hardest to measure — but without it, the other three become brittle. A society that relies only on written law will drown in enforcement costs. A society that relies only on divine authority will fracture when faith fragments. A society that relies only on democratic consent can still produce tyranny of the majority — a classic discussion raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century, not a judgment on any contemporary political system.

In the Confucian understanding, Confucius reminds us that the ultimate anchor of a just order is the character of the people who inhabit it. This is not to say that Confucian ethics is the only correct answer, but that this is one understanding of order worth remembering. That is why he stands there, on the wall of the highest court in the United States.

中文
最高法院将孔子纳入南墙横浮雕，并不是对任何特定法律体系的背书。它承认的是：成文法、神圣命令和公民同意并没有穷尽所有可能性。还有一条可能的道路：道德教化的道路 – 培养希望成为正义者的公民，建设一种强制逐渐变得多余的文化。

这第四条道路是最不可捉摸、最难衡量的 – 但如果没有它，其他三条会变得脆弱。只依赖成文法的社会将被执法成本淹没。只依赖神圣权威的社会将在信仰碎片化时崩溃。只依赖民主同意的社会仍然可能产生多数人暴政 – 这是托克维尔在19世纪提出的经典讨论，而非对当代任何政治制度的评判。

在儒家的理解中，孔子提醒我们 – 正义秩序最终的锚点，是生活于其中的人的品格。这不是说儒家伦理是唯一正确的答案，而是说这是一种值得被记住的关于秩序的理解。这就是为什么他站在那里，在美国最高法院的墙上。

A Dialogue Carved in Stone

刻在石头上的对话

English
The nine figures on that wall do not agree with each other. Hammurabi’s lex talionis and Solon’s civic equality embody different intuitions of justice. Moses’s divine command and Confucius’s moral cultivation embody different visions of human nature. The frieze may not intend to reconcile them. Placing these figures together is a permanent reminder that civilization is not a single answer but a conversation — and that the most important questions have no final resolution, only continuing dialogue.

Perhaps we may read it this way: Confucius on the Supreme Court’s South Wall Frieze is neither a trophy of multicultural inclusion nor a verdict on any particular civilization. It is an invitation to think again about what law is for, where obedience comes from, and whether a society can call itself just if it has taught its citizens nothing about how to think about justice. Here, “justice” does not refer to the imposition of any specific set of values, but to the ongoing question of the importance of civic education.

中文
那面墙上的九位人物的治世之道彼此并不一致。汉谟拉比的同态复仇与梭伦的公民平等体现了不同的正义直觉。摩西的神圣命令与孔子的道德教化体现了不同的人性愿景。浮雕也许无意调和它们。将这些群像并置在一起，是一个永久的提醒：文明不是一个单一的回答，而是一场对话 – 最重要的问题没有最终解决，只有持续的对话。

或许我们可以这样解读：孔子在最高法院的南墙横浮雕上，不是多元文化包容的奖杯，也不是对任何特定文明的褒奖。它是一个邀请，让我们重新思考法律的目的是什么，服从从何而来，以及一个社会是否可以在不教导其公民如何思考正义的情况下称自己为正义。这里的“正义”不是指某种特定的价值观强加，而是指对公民教育重要性的持续追问。

Related Reading / 相关阅读

编者按：本文经独立核实后修正。原稿中“南墙”“东墙”“雕塑家”“人物数量”等事实信息已逐一查证，并补充了孔子双重出现的史料说明。所有事实以美国最高法院官方导览手册及建筑史文献为依据。
Editor’s Note: This article has been independently verified and corrected. Facts regarding the South Wall Frieze, East Pediment, sculptors, and figure counts have been cross-checked against the Supreme Court’s official visitor guide and architectural history sources. The note on Confucius’s dual appearance has been added.

Leave a Reply