Название: Multicultural China in the Early Middle Ages
Автор: Sanping Chen
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Историческая литература
Серия: Encounters with Asia
isbn: 9780812206289
isbn:
Let me further remark that the incoming emperor Gaozong turned out no less “scandalous” than his hapless elder brother Prince Chengqian in “imitating” the Steppe life-style by marrying his father's concubine. Not as well-known but probably more revealing was Gaozong's order that his own sons have Türk companions in their inner palace (Xin Tang shu 199.5661; ZZTJ 201.6363.). At the very least, we now know that the “mentally unbalanced” Prince Chengqian was certainly not the only Li clan member who liked to speak the Turkic language.
Finally, it is no accident that Prince Chengqian was eventually “rehabilitated” under the reign of Emperor Xuanzong (Xin Tang shu 80.3565), the last Turco-Xianbei monarch of the Tang in my view, who, incidentally and despite his ministers' opposition, also liked to have Türk companions during his outings. However, the presence of a Turkic language interpreter in Emperor Xuanzong's entourage (Tang huiyao 27.521) was a sure sign that the Turco-Xianbei period was gradually coming to an end.
To summarize, though his many traits were shared by other “normal” Li boys, Prince Chengqian fell victim to not only the vicious succession struggle but also the joint propaganda efforts by the Confucian historians and the imperial court, prompted by the former's sinocentric views and tendencies and the latter's overt concern, sometimes even obsession, with the historical image and legacy it would leave behind, not to mention the commanding issue of political legitimacy in the Central Kingdom at the time. Moreover, I extract several general observations about the succession struggles and the process of sinicization from this case and many of its precedents, to be elaborated in the following sections.
But before that, let me point to a case bearing a striking resemblance to Prince Chengqian's alleged plots of revolt: the case of the Northern Wei's Crown Prince Tuoba Xun (Wei shu, 22.558.). There is, however, a key difference: at that time the Northern Wei was not the only and all-dominating regime in China. It was thus unable to gloss the incident over as perhaps another “family scandal” caused by a “mentally unbalanced” crown prince. In short, it did not enjoy, as its Sui and Tang successors did, a monopoly on historiography: the incident was clearly recorded in Nan Qi shu (The History of the Southern Qi Dynasty 57.996), the official history of the rival Southern Qi state, as a backlash against the Tuoba emperor Xiaowen's wholesale sinification drive. That effort, according to many people, was motivated by the latter's ambition to end the North-South partition,36 a deed that was eventually accomplished by the Sui and Tang. In addition to preparing us to address the common threads in these cases, it may also help explain why the two Tuoba political as well as biological heirs were so anxious to claim their alleged Chinese ancestry.
The Succession to the Throne in the Early Tang
The case of Prince Chengqian was hardly an aberration in the imperial family as the official records would have us believe. As I demonstrate, one of many characteristics that set the Tang apart from other native Chinese dynasties was the persistent political struggle concerning the succession of the throne. During a period that covered nearly the first century and a half of the dynasty, not once did the succession follow the time-honored Hàn dizhang primogeniture principle. Nor was there a single time that the process ran smoothly, without strife (and indeed bloodshed). Even after that, as observed by Chen Yinke,37 the position of the official heir apparent (by the dizhang rule or not) was anything but firmly established.
It should be pointed out that exactly on this point the supposedly native Tang dynasty was strikingly akin to the Qing regime, a typical conquest dynasty in the conventional categorization. The latter, unburdened by the need to maintain a Hàn Chinese façade, simply (after a period of failed experimentation) abolished the institution of an heir apparent altogether.
This similarity points to the root of the incessant succession struggles of the Tang: the imperial house's Turco-Xianbei Steppe origin and heritage. The magnitude and duration of this entirely unique (among the so-called native dynasties) characteristic are far too great to be ascribed simply to some lingering Northern influences. It is the reflection of the true ethnic/cultural identity of an imperial house that had spared no efforts to present itself as a bona fide Hàn regime in all historical records.
One cannot help noticing the numerous succession struggles in the Western Jin and the Southern dynasties. However, in addition to the Northern influence38 and often direct involvement, exemplified by the case of Liu Yuan, the founding emperor of the Xiongnu Former Zhao dynasty (Jin shu 101.2648 and passim), these incidents all fall into the general feature of every new native dynasty that, largely as the ripple effect of the preceding military campaigns and difficulties in establishing a new imperial order, the first and sometimes the second succession were invariably problematic. In essence, none of the native dynasties mentioned here survived much beyond this bottleneck, whereas the only long-lived native house during the period, namely the Eastern Jin (317–420), was remarkably free of similar trouble. Furthermore, the struggles during the Southern dynasties all had extensive external involvement, while the Tang cases (and many of their precedents in the Northern Turco-Xianbei courts), as observed by Chen Yinke, were all confined to the capital area within the imperial clan.
The disruptive and often bloody succession process of the Turco-Mongol regimes on the Steppe characterized by fratricide and other forms of bloodshed within the ruling house has long been noted. However, the most methodical treatment of the subject appears to be that of the late Joseph Fletcher. He used the term “blood tanistry” for the general principle on the Steppe that the leadership of a tribe or other polity should be passed on to the best qualified member of the chiefly or ruling house.39 And the eventual choice of a new leader was usually the result of some form of contention. Fletcher discussed in detail how this Turco-Mongol tradition manifested itself in the Ottoman Empire.40
Peter Boodberg was among the first to ascribe this characteristic to Turco-Mongol traditions, including the not-unusual father-son enmity in particular, in discussing the Sui imperial succession.41 In an unpublished presentation on blood tanistry in Ottoman, Indian, and later Chinese (Jin, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties) regimes, Fletcher also mentioned briefly the Sui case and the case of Li Shimin.42 Nonetheless, as I demonstrate, this tradition was in fact much more than what Fletcher called “traces” in the history of the Tang, which would also reveal some interesting phenomena in what had been traditionally called the process of sinicization.
Let me briefly review the long history of succession struggles in the first two centuries of the Tang.
This uninterrupted stretch started with Li Shimin. The future Emperor Taizong's meticulously planned and impeccably executed maneuver to replace his elder brother Jiancheng as the heir apparent culminated in the famous Xuanwu Gate coup d'état in 626. Later I discuss other aspects reflected in this blatant challenge to the time-honored dizhang principle. But not as well known was the observation by the Qing historian Zhao Yi that this murderous fratricide extending to the execution of all male offspring of the two slain brothers almost developed into a case of patricide as well,43 as is generally believed regarding the Sui emperor Yangdi's accession to the throne.
A very similar drama would be staged under the reign of Taizong by his sons, though with somewhat different endings due to changed circumstances and personalities, whose implications will be discussed later. It is worth noting that in the aftermath of the alleged patricide/fratricide scheme of 643 plotted by Taizong's original heir apparent, Prince Chengqian, the choice of the new crown prince was partially prompted by the need to avoid future fratricide (ZZTJ 197.6197, 199.6280–81), which СКАЧАТЬ