The Poetics of Sovereignty
Page 6
Northern Qi royal house, he came to Li Shimin’s notice as the maternal uncle of Shimin’s consort, and because of his literary talent. Later, Gao compiled the Zhenguan shizu zhi 貞
觀氏族志 ( Record of Clans and Lineages of the Zhenguan Reign) and co-edited the encyclopedia, Wensi boyao 文思博要 ( Broad Essentials of Literary Thoughts). Neither are extant. For his biography, see Jiu Tang shu, 65.2441–45; and Xin Tang shu, 95.3839–44.
39. Here, I follow Hiraoka, Tōdai no kyomi.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
25
至，左右射元吉墜馬。世民馬逸入林下，為木枝所絓，墜不能起。元
吉遽至，奪弓將扼之，敬德躍馬叱之。元吉步欲趣武德殿，敬德追
射，殺之。
The fighting at the gate only ended when Yuchi Jingde displayed the sev-
ered heads of Jiancheng and Yuanji to their supporters. Shimin, the vic-
tor, then made sure that the emperor, his father, understood the reality of
the situation:
The emperor was boating upon the artificial lake, and Shimin ordered Yuchi
Jingde to enter [the palace grounds] and to watch over him. Jingde was in armor
and carrying his spear, and he proceeded directly to the emperor. The emperor
was greatly surprised and asked, “Who was the cause of the turmoil today? Why
do you come in this manner?” Jingde replied, “Because the crown prince and the
Prince of Qi fomented rebellion, the Prince of Qin raised troops and executed
them. Fearing that this would alarm Your Majesty, he sent your subject to watch
over you.” The emperor said to Pei Ji and the others, “I never imagined that I
would see such a thing as what has happened today—what ought I to do?” Xiao
Yu [蕭瑀 (575–648)] and Chen Shuda [陳叔達 (d.635)] said, “Jiancheng and
Yuanji originally played no role in planning the righteous [i.e., Tang] uprising,
and moreover, they have accomplished no meritorious deeds on behalf of the
empire. Instead, anxious that the Prince of Qin’s deeds were lofty and aspirations
noble, they together undertook a wicked plot. Now since the Prince of Qin has
executed them, and his merit covers the universe, all within the lands have turned
their hearts to him. If Your Majesty were to settle upon him the crown prince-
ship and entrust to him the affairs of the state, then there would be no further in-
cidents!” The emperor said, “Good! This is what I had previously intended.”
上方泛舟海池，世民使尉遲敬德入宿衛，敬德擐甲持矛，直至上所。
上大驚，問曰：“今日亂者誰邪？卿來此何為？”對曰：“秦王以太
子、齊王作亂，舉兵誅之，恐驚動陛下，遣臣宿衛。”上謂裴寂等
曰：“不圖今日乃見此事，當如之何？”蕭瑀、陳叔達曰：“建成、
元吉本不預義謀，又無功於天下，疾秦王功高望重，共為姦謀。今秦
王已討而誅之，秦王功蓋宇宙，率土歸心，陛下若處以元良，委之國
事，無復事矣！”上曰：“善！此吾之夙心也。”40
On the seventh day of the sixth month, Gaozu appointed Shimin as
crown prince, with an edict that praised Shimin’s abilities and wisdom
and declared Gaozu’s intention to leave all governmental and military
—————
40. Zizhi tongjian, 191.6010–11.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
affairs to the crown prince.41 Not long after this, Gaozu announced that
he should assume the title of “Retired Emperor” 太上皇.42 On the ninth
day of the eighth month, Gaozu abdicated the throne to Shimin, who
would be known to history as Taizong, the second emperor of the Tang.
Problems of Historiography
during Taizong’s Reign
There have long been questions about Taizong’s role over how the ac-
count of the Xuanwu Gate Incident was recorded in the guoshi 國史
(“state history”), which was the main body of materials used to compile
the imperial annals. The Zhenguan zhengyao 貞觀政要 ( Essentials of
Government in the Zhenguan Reign), a collection of anecdotes about Tai-
zong and his ministers compiled by the historian Wu Jing 吳兢 (670–
749), records two examples of Taizong’s interest in seeing the historical
records of his reign.43 The first one reads:
In the thirteenth year of the Zhenguan reign, Chu Suiliang served as Grand Min-
ister of Remonstrance and concurrently was Supervisor of the Imperial Diary.
Taizong asked, “You were recently Supervisor of the Imperial Diary—what kinds
of matters were transcribed? Generally speaking, in regards to the sovereign, is it
possible to get to peruse it or not? The reason We want to see these records is
that We would like to see what they take as our successes and failures in order to
caution Ourself—that’s all.” Suiliang said, “The imperial diarists of the present
are the ancient scribes of the left and right: they serve to record the words and actions of the sovereign. The good and the bad are all recorded with the hope that
—————
41. Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962–1025) et al., comps., Cefu yuangui, 259.3077. This is the 1642 Ming edition; the incompletely preserved Song edition ( Songben Cefu yuangui 宋本
冊府元龜) lacks this fascicle. References to the Cefu yuangui will be to the 1642 edition, though I will also note the Song edition whenever possible, or at least note when the Song edition is missing the fascicle in question.
42. Zizhi tongjian, 191.6014. This is also reported in Jiu Tang shu, 1.17. For a study of the institution of “retired emperor” in the medieval period, see Eisenberg, Kingship in Early Medieval China.
43. The Zhenguan zhengyao was clearly not meant as a neutral or objective account of Taizong’s reign, but rather seems to have been an indirect attack on the reign of Wu Zetian.
What Wu Jing hoped was that the poisoned atmosphere of the post-Empress Wu court
would return to the esprit de corps that had characterized the Zhenguan reign and that righteous ministers would carry on the mantle of figures such as Wei Zheng. See Wu Feng,
“Ping Zhenguan zhengyao. ”
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
27
the ruler does not act contrary to the normative standard. I have never heard of
an emperor personally perusing the historical records.” Taizong said, “If We do
things that are not good, must you record them?” Suiliang said, “Your subject has
heard that ‘Keeping the principle [of the sovereign’s command] is not as good as
keeping the [regulations of the] office.’44 It is appropriate in your subject’s position to wield a pen, so why would I not record such matters?” Liu Ji, the Vice Di-
rector of the Chancellery, entered and said, “If the sovereign has faults, it is like an eclipse of the sun or moon—the people will all know it. If it is ordered that
Suiliang not record something, then the people of the empire will all remember
it.”
貞觀十三年，褚遂良為諫議�
��夫，兼知起居注。太宗問曰：“卿比知
起居，書何等事？大抵於人君得觀見否？朕欲見此注記者，將卻觀所
為得失，以自警戒耳。”遂良曰：“今之起居，古之左右史，以記人
君言行，善惡畢書，庶幾人主不為非法，不聞帝王躬自觀史。”太宗
曰：“朕有不善，卿必記耶？”遂良曰：“臣聞守道不如守官，臣職
當載筆，何不書之？”黃門侍郎劉洎進曰：“人君有過失，如日月之
蝕，人皆見之，設令遂良不記，天下之人皆記之矣。”
The second episode, which takes place one year later, follows directly af-
terwards and can be treated as part of the same narration. It reads:
In the fourteenth year of the Zhenguan reign, Taizong said to Fang Xuanling,
“Each time that We read how the historical texts of previous dynasties ‘celebrate
the good and calumniate the evil,’ it is sufficient to serve as a caution to return to proper behavior.45 We do not know what reason there was, since ancient times,
not to permit emperors to peruse in person the historical records of their con-
temporary age.” Xuanling replied, “Since the national histories must record both
good and bad in the hope that the ruler will not act contrary to the normative
standard, the historians thus fear that there will be a contrary directive [from the ruler], and therefore do not allow the ruler to read it.” Taizong said, “Our intention is quite different from the men of the past. Now there is a reason We desire
to see for Ourself the national history: if there are good deeds recorded, then in-
deed they need not be discussed, but if there are deeds that are not good, then We
desire to take what is recorded as a mirror of warning by which We will improve
Ourself—that’s all. You may now compile the records and submit them.” Xuan-
ling and others thereupon reduced the national history into annalistic form,
—————
44. See Zuo zhuan, Duke Zhao 昭公, 20th year / Yang Bojun, ed. and annot., Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu, p. 1418.
45. The phrase “celebrate the good and calumniate the evil” is a quotation from a speech by King Kang of Zhou 周康王 (r. 1005/1003–978 bc). See Shang shu zhengyi, 19.133b, in Shisanjing zhushu, p. 245.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
compiling The Veritable Records of Gaozu and Taizong, each numbering twenty
fascicles, and submitting them to the emperor.
Taizong saw that the wording of the event on the sixth month, fourth day,
contained much evasive language.46 Thus, he told Xuanling, “In the past, the
Duke of Zhou executed Guan [shu Xian] and Cai [shu Du] and the house of
Zhou was secure; Jiyou poisoned Shuya and the state of Lu was calmed.47 What
We did was of the same principle as these examples; it was the means by which
We made secure the Altars of Soil and Grain and brought benefit to Our myriad
subjects. When the historian-officials take up their pens, why must they obscure
their meanings? They ought to get rid of the verbiage and write about the event
in a straightforward manner.” Director of the Chancellery Wei Zheng memorial-
ized, writing, “Your subject has heard that the sovereign’s position is the utmost
in honor, and that there is no means by which he can feel envy or dread, with the
exception of the national history, which has the function of reprimanding against
evil and encouraging goodness. If what is recorded is not truthful, then what can
later generations peruse? Your Majesty now has ordered the historian-officials to
rectify their words; this is the way of elegant harmony and utter impartiality.
貞觀十四年，太宗謂房玄齡曰：“朕每觀前代史書彰善癉惡，足為將
來規誡，不知自古當代國史，何因不令帝王親見之。”對曰：“國史
既善惡必書，庶幾人主不為非法，止應畏有忤旨，故不得見也。”太
宗曰：“朕意殊不同古人，今欲自看國史者，蓋有善事，固不須論，
若有不善，亦欲以為鑒誡，使得自修改耳。卿可撰錄進來。”玄齡等
遂刪略國史為編年體，撰《高祖》《太宗實錄》各二十卷，表上之。
太宗見六月四日事語多微文，乃謂玄齡曰：“昔周公誅管蔡而周室
安，季友鴆叔牙而魯國寧，朕之所為，義同此類，蓋所以安社稷，利
萬人耳。史官執筆，何須有隱？宜即改削浮詞，直書其事。”侍中魏
—————
46. “Evasive language” ( wei wen 微文) refers to the use of indirect or veiled criticisms in historiographic writing. See Ban Gu 班固 (32–92), “Canonical Norms Extended” 典引,
in Xiao Tong 蕭統 (501–31), comp., Wen xuan, 48.2158. This is not to be confused with wei yan 微言, the “subtle language” that was attributed to Confucius in the writing of the Chunqiu.
47. Xian and Du were sons of King Wen of Zhou 周文王(r. 1099/56–1050 bc). Suspect-
ing the Duke of Zhou 周公 (r. 1042–1036) of treachery, they staged a rebellion that the Duke of Zhou had to put down. The fighting led to Xian’s death and Du’s exile. See Shi ji, 35.1565. Both Jiyou and Shuya were younger brothers of Duke Zhuang of Lu. Duke
Zhuang lacked a proper heir and thus wished to install the son of his beloved concubine.
Shuya argued against this, supporting his older brother Qingfu 慶父 instead. Troubled, Duke Zhuang asked Jiyou for help, and Jiyou had Shuya poisoned. See Shi ji, 33.1532.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
29
徵奏曰：“臣聞人主位居尊極，無所忌憚，惟有國史，用為懲惡勸
善，書不以實，嗣後何觀？陛下今遣史官正其辭，雅合至公之道。”48
The argument against the emperor reading the historical records of his
own reign is clear: if historical writing is to provide moral judgments on
the words and deeds of the ruler, then it has to be kept free of political in-
terests, and in particular, of the ruler’s influence.
In the first episode, Taizong’s anxiety over history’s judgment can be
discerned through the language of his questions, which are equally hesi-
tant and defensive. The initial posture of casual interest reads almost com-
ically, with the emperor asking a question to which he already knows the
answer, and then practically tripping over himself in order to explain why
his “curiosity” should be indulged. After Chu Suiliang 褚遂良 (596–658
or 597–659) reminds Taizong that the keepers of the diary, much like the
ancient scribes of the left and right, serve to record all that the ruler says
and does, with the hope that the ruler will be mindful of his historical
reputation and not act rashly, Taizong asks whether his less praiseworthy
actions must be recorded. There is no longer any pretense at innocent
questioning; it is perfectly clear that Taizong would greatly prefer that his
faults not be included in the historical records. Chu Suiliang now appeals
to the sacred bond of his office and is supported by Liu Ji 劉洎 (d. 646),
who enters to remind Taizong that nothing he does escapes public notice
and tha
t any act of interference with the diary will itself be remembered.
It would seem that Chu Suiliang and Liu Ji were able to rebuff Taizong
for a time, but in the following year, he approaches Fang Xuanling. This
time, despite Fang’s demurring response (which is almost identical to
Chu Suiliang’s earlier caution), Taizong presses on to assert that he is dif-
ferent from those rulers of the past who might want to see the national
history in order to censor unflattering passages. He thereupon commands
that the “veritable records” ( shilu 實錄) of his father’s reign and of his
own reign be prepared for his inspection. It is no coincidence that his at-
tention is drawn to “the wording of the event on the sixth month, fourth
—————
48. See Zhenguan zhengyao, 7.28.346. There is some disagreement in the sources over the exact dating of the first episode. Wechsler points out that the Tang huiyao 唐會要 ( Gathered Essential Documents of the Tang) provides a date of 642; see Wechsler, Mirror to the Son of Heaven, pp. 23, n45. Wechsler also provides a partial translation of the first episode and a full translation of the second.
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30
Reading the Reign of Tang Taizong
day,” as this was the date of the Xuanwu Gate Incident. Taizong finds
that the historians have used “evasive language” ( wei wen 微文) to criti-
cize Taizong’s actions during the murderous coup d’état, which stood as
the foundational illegitimacy of Taizong’s sovereignty. Taizong is dis-
pleased by the insinuating manner and demands that the record be rewrit-
ten in a straightforward way, comparing his actions to those of the Duke
of Zhou and Jiyou of Lu. There is much ambiguity as to what Taizong
means here, since he makes his argument as if calling for an impartial re-
counting of the facts—which is how Wei Zheng seems to have under-
stood Taizong in his memorial to the throne. The larger context of the
two episodes taken together suggests, however, that Taizong would like
his actions at Xuanwu Gate to be written not as a bare recounting of facts,
but as following famous precedents of excusable fratricide (though it