No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2014
Works produced by Xu Xuan, a Chinese scholar-official of the tenth century, on either side of the Southern Tang–Song divide reveal the challenges on the issue of loyalty he faced in serving more than one state. Xu's works suggest that a personal transfer of service brought complications for any official seeking to write about the past, but these could be addressed according to context. Under the Song, the requirements of the new orthodoxy forced compromises and concessions in the sentiments he expressed, but he was still able to maintain reverence for the Southern Tang and its achievements.
1 Sources disagree on when the state was renamed Tang, varying from 937 to 939. See Ji, Zhuge, Nantang Xianzhu Li Bian nianpu (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1987)Google Scholar, 114.
2 The day on which Jinling finally fell to Song forces corresponds to 2 January 976. See Kurz, Johannes L., China's Southern Tang Dynasty, 937–976 (London: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar, 110.
3 For an outline of Xu's life, see Wenze, Li, “Xu Xuan xingnian shiji kao”, in Songdai wenhua yanjiu, ed. Sichuan Daxue guji zhengli yanjiusuo and Sichuan Daxue Songdai wenhua yanjiu ziliao zhongxin (Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1993)Google Scholar, 3:98–112.
4 Zhi, Wang, Mo ji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981)Google Scholar, 3.44.
5 Dudbridge, Glen, “The rhetoric of loyalty and disloyalty in Five Dynasties China”, Journal of Chinese Studies Special Issue: Institute of Chinese Studies Visiting Professor Lecture Series (II) (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2009)Google Scholar, 156, with reference to Standen, Naomi, Unbounded Loyalty: Frontier Crossing in Liao China (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2007)Google Scholar, 33.
6 Kazuo, Kobayashi, “Nantō kanryō Jo Gen to Sō Taisōchō: ‘Kōnanroku’ to seitōron o megutte”, Waseda Daigakuin Bungakukenkyūka kiyō 42/4, 1996, 101–02Google Scholar; Kurz, Johannes L., Das Kompilationsprojekt Song Taizongs (reg. 976–997) (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003)Google Scholar and “The politics of collecting knowledge: Song Taizong's compilations project”, T'oung Pao 87/4–5, 2001, 289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 In the front matter of Xu Xuan, Xu qisheng ji (Guoxue jiben congshu).
8 Dudbridge, “The rhetoric of loyalty and disloyalty”, 163, and A Portrait of Five Dynasties China: From the Memoirs of Wang Renyu (880–956) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar, 23.
9 These dialogues appear in Xiu, Ouyang, Xin Wudai shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974)Google Scholar, 62.779–80; Yi, Yang et al. , Yang wen gong tanyuan (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1993)Google Scholar, 23; Shidao, Chen, Houshan ji (Guangzhou: Cuiwen tang, 1885)Google Scholar, 23.1a.
10 Kurz, Johannes L., “Sources for the history of the Southern Tang (937–975)”, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 24, 1994, 221–2Google Scholar.
11 Diaoji litan (Congshu jicheng chubian), 18–9. On the authorship of this work, see Shangjun, Chen, “Diaoji litan zuozhe kao”, Wenshi 44, 1998, 182Google Scholar.
12 Su Che, Luancheng ji (Sibu beiyao), 22.12a–13a.
13 Guang, Sima, Tongjian kaoyi, in Zizhi tongjian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956)Google Scholar, 266.8697; Mai, Hong, Rongzhai suibi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005), 762–3Google Scholar.
14 Kobayashi, “Nantō kanryō Jo Gen to Sō Taisōchō”, 101–13.
15 Lü Zuqian (comp.), Huangchao wenjian (Sibu congkan), 93.1b–7b; Jun, Zhou, “Xu Xuan qiren yu Songchu erchen”, Lishi yanjiu 1989/4, 120–32Google Scholar.
16 Dudbridge, “The rhetoric of loyalty and disloyalty”, 158.
17 Xu Xuan, Xu qisheng ji, 19.187.
18 Song, Xu (comp.), Song huiyao jigao (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1957)Google Scholar, 53 ce, yunli 1.1a–1b (2128); Chan, Hok-lam, Legitimation in Imperial China: Discussions under the Jurchen-Chin Dynasty 1115–1234 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984), 37–8Google Scholar.
19 Juzheng, Xue, Jiu Wudai shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976)Google Scholar, 3.48, 3.50.
20 Precedents for nullifying the rule of a dynasty included the re-establishment of the Han after the rule of Wang Mang (r. 9–23) and the re-enthronement of Zhongzong (r. 684, 705–10) of the Tang following the Zhou dynasty of Empress Wu (r. 690–705).
21 Jiu Wudai shi, 35.490–91.
22 Jiu Wudai shi, 110.1460–61.
23 For the phases of all five dynasties, see Qinruo, Wang (comp.), Cefu yuangui (Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju, 1960)Google Scholar, 1.4b.
24 By coincidence, the Tang, ruled by Earth, could claim the succession from either the Han or the Sui (581–617) since both were associated with Fire.
25 Song huiyao jigao, 53 ce, yunli 1.1a–1b (2128); Taizong huangdi shilu (Sibu congkan), 29.14a–15b; Tao, Li, Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1979–95)Google Scholar, 25.577–8; Tuotuo, Song shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974)Google ScholarPubMed, 70.1597; Zongyi, Rao, Zhongguo shixueshang zhi zhengtong lun (Hong Kong: Longmen shudian, 1977)Google Scholar, 28, 279. The events of the Tang referred to in this debate are recorded for the year 750, with the idea attributed to the thought of Wang Bo 王勃 (650–76). See Pu, Wang (comp.), Tang hui yao (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2006)Google Scholar, 24.540; Cefu yuangui, 4.12b–14a; Juzheng, Xue, Jiu Tang shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976)Google Scholar, 20.916; Xiu, Ouyang, Xin Tang shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975)Google Scholar, 201.5740; Zizhi tongjian, 215.6899–900, 216.6918.
26 This is implied with the phrase “the restoration of the phase of Earth” in Long Gun, Jiangnan yeshi, 1.5156, in Xuanzong, Fu et al. (eds), Wudai shishu huibian (Hangzhou: Hangzhou chubanshe, 2004)Google Scholar.
27 Zizhi tongjian, 282.9198.
28 Noting this contradiction, Kobayashi Kazuo argues that Xu's decision was prompted not by a fundamental change of heart but rather by a desire to fulfil his role within the administration he served. See Kobayashi, “Nantō kanryō Jo Gen to Sō Taisōchō”, 106–10.
29 Xu qisheng ji, 29.279–82.
30 Jay, Jennifer W., A Change in Dynasties: Loyalism in Thirteenth-Century China (Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University, 1991)Google Scholar, 138, 165–6, 184.
31 Mark Strange, “The construction of the Zi zhi tong jian's imperial vision: Sima Guang on the Southern and Northern Dynasties”, DPhil thesis, Oxford University, 2008, 29–41.
32 Jingde, Li (ed.), Zhuzi yulei (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986)Google Scholar, 105.2636–7.
33 In Jiu Wudai shi, juan 3–10 use Later Liang reign periods while juan 27–9 use the Tianyou reign period to refer to the same years.
34 Hon Tze-ki, “Military governance versus civil governance: a comparison of the old history and the new history of the Five Dynasties”, in Chow, Kai-wing, Ng, On-cho and Henderson, John B. (eds), Imagining Boundaries: Changing Confucian Doctrines, Texts, and Hermeneutics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999)Google Scholar, 90.
35 Ma Yongqing, Lanzhenzi (Congshu jicheng jianbian), 1.1; Rong, Yong (comp.), Siku quanshu zongmu (Bejiing: Zhonghua shuju, 1965)Google Scholar, 142.1211b.
36 An inscription for Benye Temple 本業寺 by the monk Qifu (n.d.) is dated “the fifth year of the Qiande reign period of the Tang” 唐乾德五年, i.e. 967, Qiande being a Song reign period. The inscription also refers to reign periods of Wu and the Southern Tang. The temple was located east of Jinling. See Hao, Dong (comp.), Quan Tang wen (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1990)Google Scholar, 921.4257a–b; Song, Xu, Jiankang shilu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986)Google Scholar, 17.676. A rubbing of the inscription appears in Beijing tushuguan jinshizu, (ed.), Beijing tushuguan cang Zhongguo lidai shike taben huibian (Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1989)Google Scholar, 36:193.
37 Ouyang Xiu, Jigu lu bawei, 10.8a, in juan 134–43 of Ouyang Xiu, Ouyang wenzhong quanji (Sibu beiyao).
38 This futile gesture of resistance appears to have been last followed by Lu You, who himself reverts from using Kaibao to the jiazi system in his account of the Southern Tang written over two centuries later. From the start of Li Yu's reign until 973, Lu You uses Song reign titles, but for the years 974 and 975 he uses jiaxu 甲戌 and yihai 乙亥 respectively. In contrast, Ma Ling continues to use Song reign titles. See Lu You, Nantang shu (Congshu jicheng chubian), 3.59–77; Ma Ling, Nantang shu (Congshu jicheng chubian), 5.34–35.
39 “Jin Xu qisheng wenji biao” and “Gu sanqi changshi Donghai Xu gong wen ji xu”, in front matter of Xu Xuan, Xu qisheng ji (Guoxue jiben congshu); Wenze, Li, “‘Xu Xuan xingzhuang’ zhuanren kao”, Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 2, 1990, 16–7Google Scholar.
40 Compare the contents of the two sections of Xu's collected works Xu qisheng ji: juan 1–20 contain works written under the Southern Tang; juan 21–30 contain his works produced under the Song.
41 The reference in a tomb epitaph to the bingyin year of the Baoda reign period 保大丙寅, which would refer to 960, is most likely an error of transmission, since the Southern Tang formally adopted other reign titles in 958, even if they were short-lived. See Xu qisheng ji, 16.168.
42 The other reference appears in a lament for Han Xizai dated to the year of his death, 970. See Xu qisheng ji, 10.109, 20.203.
43 In a text for a Daoist temple in Xingzhou 邢州, Xu wrote that a Daoist arrived at the temple after the founding of the Song in the yihai 乙亥 year, denoting 975. The inscription itself is dated the second day of the twelfth month, but does not have a year. See Xu qisheng ji, 270–71.
44 Xu qisheng ji, 28.273–4.
45 On the historical value of such works, see Glen Dudbridge, “Tang sources for the study of religious culture: problems and procedures”, Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie 12, 141–54.
46 Three accounts refer to the Later Zhou invasion of 956, while others have jiazi years which may refer to 960 and 961. See Xuan, Xu, Jishen lu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1996)Google Scholar, 1.6, 1.8–9, 3.50–51, 5.75–76, buyi 132, buyi 136.
47 For example, see Jishen lu, 2.32, buyi 122.
48 Accounts titled Lu Ji and Liu Wei, from the figures who make an appearance in the accounts, are clearly dated to 905 (yichou 乙丑) and 907 (dingmao 丁卯). Furthermore, an account set in Panyu is dated to gengshen 庚申 while two accounts set in Jinjingshan and Nankang are dated to xinyou 辛酉, placing them respectively in the years 900 and 901 or 960 and 961. Unfortunately, the content of these tales do not aid in their dating, but the omission of reign titles may suggest the later dates. The latest clear date in the work is 958, and that with a Later Zhou reign period. See Jishen lu, 1.6–7 (Panyu), 1.8–9 (Nankang), 1.17–8 (Lu Ji ), 4.74 (Liu Wei), 5.75–6 (Jinjingshan).
49 See for example Jishen lu, 1.5, 2.35, buyi 136. Only once is there a possible reference to a reign title of Wu, but the text is unclear. See ibid., 5.76.
50 See Jishen lu, 2.36, 5.76, and Xu qisheng qi, 13.134, 15.146.
51 Jishen lu, 3.51, buyi 132.
52 Jishen lu, 4.70.
53 Jishen lu, 5.91–2.
54 The year 955 is referred to as “yimao year of the Xiande reign period of the Zhou” 周顯得乙卯 in Jishen lu, buyi 132. This contrasts with accounts that refer to the same year as simply yimao in ibid., 1.5, buyi 136.
55 Chao Gongwu, Junzhai dushu zhi (Sibu congkan), 3xia.6a–6b.
56 Siku quanshu zongmu, 142.1211.
57 Jishen lu, 1.6; Zao, Zeng (comp.), Lei shuo (Beijing: Wenxue guji kanxingshe, 1955)Google Scholar, 12.18a.
58 The Dahe reign period of the Tang proper (827–35) did not include a gengyin year.
59 In an account of a Daoist site, the phrase shunyi dao zhong 順義道中 may have originally read simply “during the Shunyi reign period” (shunyi zhong), with the character dao perhaps erroneously copied from the following line. Shunyi is a reign period of Wu, 921–28. See Jishen lu, 5.75–6.
60 See Jishen lu, 1.1, 1.5, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, 1.19, 2.26, 2.34, 2.36, 4.59, 4.65, 4.68, 5.87, 6.96, buyi 124, buyi 126, buyi 131. The term Jiangzuo appears in ibid., 6.108.
61 Correspondence from the Southern Tang in 956 addressed to the “Emperor of the Great Zhou” from the “Emperor of the Tang” went unanswered. When the Zhou sent written correspondence two years later, it addressed Yuanzong as “ruler of the state of Jiangnan”. In later correspondence, during the Song's conquest of the south, the ruler of the Southern Tang used “ruler of Jiangnan” to refer to himself. See Ma, Nantang shu, 4.24–5; Lu, Nantang shu, 2.44, 2.50, 3.65–6; Cheng, Wang, Dongdu shilüe (Taibei: Guoli zhongyang tushuguan, 1991)Google Scholar, 23.5b, 23.6a; Jiu Wudai shi, 116.1542; Cefu yuangui, 118.18b; Song shi, 478.13855, 478.13858.
62 Kurz, Johannes, “A survey of historical sources for the Five Dynasties and Ten States in Song times”, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 33, 2003, 187–224Google Scholar.
63 Jishen lu, 1.13, 2.36, buyi 132. Xu's use of the term Jiangzuo under the Southern Tang appears to be a geographical reference rather than a euphemism for the Southern Tang. See Xu qisheng ji, 18.185.
64 Jishen lu, 1.1, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 2.21, 2.22, 5.85, shiyi 114.
65 One twelfth-century work uses the terms “illegitimate Wu” and “Southern Tang”, using the reign titles of both where available and Song dating for years after 960 when referring to the Southern Tang in this period. This text once uses “illegitimate Tang” to refer to the Southern Tang, the term appearing within the details of a temple that also includes a reference to the Later Tang. See Zhang Dunyi, Liuchao shiji bianlei (Congshu jicheng chubian), 2.34b, 2.36b, 2.39b, 2.43b, 2.54b.
66 References to the Liang occur in a total of five accounts, four with events taking place in Liang territory, and once for events in Quanzhou in modern Fujian. References to Zhou occur twice, both with reference to the Later Zhou's attack. A single reference to the Later Jin, occurring in reference to an omen predicting its founding also includes the title of its first emperor. Xu also used the term “King of Chu” to refer to Ma Xifan and the title Min for the state to the east. See Jishen lu, 1.14, 2.30, 3.51, 4.64, 4.70, 4.74, 5.77–78, 5.91–2, shiyi 114–6, buyi 132.
67 See for example a temple inscription by Jia Bin (fl. 942) in Quan Tang wen, 871.4040b.
68 Xu qisheng ji, 6.67, 10.104, 12.126, 13.134, 15.148, 16.164, 18.179.
69 Zizhi tongjian, 294.9577, 294.9579.
70 Kurz, China's Southern Tang Dynasty, 31–2, 48.
71 Xu qisheng ji, 19.187.
72 Xu qisheng ji, 14.141. Han Xizai also uses this term in an inscription preserved in Quan Tang wen, 877.4066b.
73 This is in reference to the abdication of the last emperor of Wu at Liezu's instigation. See Xu qisheng ji, 16.166.
74 In a spirit-path stele for an official who had served the Southern Tang, Xu refers to “the restoration of the Tang house”. See Xu qisheng ji, 27.264.
75 Xu qisheng ji, 25.251, 27.261, 28.274, 30.289, 30.291.
76 See for example Xu qisheng ji, 13.129.
77 Xu qisheng ji, 28.270, 28.275. Similarly, the first mention of a Tang reign title is prefaced by the title “Tang” in Xu qisheng ji, 26.259.
78 Xu qisheng ji, 26.256.
79 Quan Tang wen, 869.4034b.
80 In both Lu You's and Ma Ling's Nantang shu of the Southern Song, for periods prior to his accession to the throne, Li Bian is referred to by his earlier name, Xu Zhigao.
81 See for example Xu qisheng ji, 10.104, 12.119, 12.120, 12.124, 15.147–8.
82 See for example Xu qisheng ji, 10.108, 15.152, 16.166, 16.167.
83 Xu qisheng ji, 13.134.
84 Xu qisheng ji, 28.274, 30.289.
85 Xu qisheng ji, 28.274, 30.289, 30.290. These terms for the first two emperors are also adopted in Ma Ling's Nantang shu, in contrast to Lu You's work which uses Liezu and Yuanzong.
86 Kirkland, Russell, “A world in balance: holistic synthesis in the T'ai-p'ing kuang-chi”, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, 23, 1993, 49–65Google Scholar; Dudbridge, A Portrait of Five Dynasties China, 37–8.
87 Wu Shu refers to the length of the Li family's rule in Jiangnan and events after its “pacification”. See Wu Shu, Jianghuai yiren lu (Zhentong Daozang), 4a–4b, 10a.
88 Jianghuai yiren lu, 3b, 4a, 5b, 16b, 17a, 18a, 18b, 21b.
89 Jianghuai yiren lu, 8a, 16b.
90 Jishen lu, 2.24.
91 Xu qisheng ji, 29.279.
92 Poo, Mu-chou, “The formation of the concept of antiquity in Early China”, in Kuhn, Dieter and Stahl, Helga (eds), Perceptions of Antiquity in Chinese Civilization (Heidelberg: Edition Forum, 2008)Google Scholar, 86.
93 Xu qisheng ji, 13.130.
94 Schafer, Edward, Mao Shan in T'ang Times, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Society for the Study of Chinese Religions, 1989), 34–6Google Scholar.
95 Xu qisheng ji, 4.37; Dingqiu, Peng (comp.), Quan Tang shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960)Google Scholar, 755.8584.
96 A Qing gazetteer records that the temple was built in the fourth year of the Baoda reign period, i.e. 946, whereas Xu used dingwei of the jiazi sexagenary cycle, denoting the following year. See Xu qisheng ji, 13.129–30; Zhijun, Huang, Jiangnan tongzhi (Taibei: Jinghua shuju, 1967)Google Scholar, 89.14a.
97 Xu qisheng ji, 13.129.
98 Xu qisheng ji, 12.126–7.
99 Xu Xuan's record of conduct (xingzhuang), 3, in front matter of Xu qisheng ji.
100 Wechsler, Howard J., “The Confucian teacher Wang T'ung 王通 (584?–617): one thousand years of controversy”, T'oung Pao 63/4–5, 1977, 269–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warner, Ding Xiang, “Wang Tong and the compilation of the Zhongshuo: a new evaluation of the source materials and points of controversy”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 121/3, 2001, 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
101 These texts are Yuanjing 元經 (the current edition of which is now believed to be a forgery from the Song dynasty) and Zhongshuo 中說, also known as Wenzhongzi 文中子. See Wechsler, “The Confucian teacher Wang T'ung”, 250–59.
102 The four ministers named by Xu are Fang Xuanling (578–648), Wei Zheng (580–643), Li Jing (571–649) and Du Yan (d. 628).
103 These four men are identified as Wang Tong's disciples in “Wenzhong zi shijia” 文中子世家 and in the body of Zhongshuo itself. But these men are unlikely to have truly had such a close association with Wang. Warner suggests that although “Wenzhong zi shijia” exaggerates Wang Tong's influence, it does appear to date to the early Tang, whereas the content of the Zhongshuo as a whole is more problematic. See Wang Tong, Zhongshuo (Sibu beiyao), 10.7b; Warner, “Wang Tong and the compilation of the Zhongshuo”, 372–4, 382–90.
104 Xu Xuan in his work also referred to the rites and music not flourishing. These are a major focus of Zhongshuo as it exists today and are named, for example, as the topic of juan 6. In addition, the rites and music and how they developed under the Tang are also the focus of a record, most likely apocryphal, attributed to Wang Tong's son Wang Fuzhi. In it, three followers of Wang Tong – Fang Xuanling, Wei Zheng and Du Yan – are questioned by Taizong about rites and music. After being repeatedly pressed on the matter, they privately lament the passing of their teacher and his better informed students. See Zhongshuo, 10.8a–10a, discussed in Wechsler, Howard J., Offerings of Jade and Silk: Ritual and Symbol in the Legitimation of the T'ang Dynasty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Warner, “Wang Tong and the compilation of the Zhongshuo”, 374–5.
105 Xu qisheng ji, 12.126.
106 Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian, 13.292. In Xu's Fengxiang inscription, undated in his collected works, he referred to Taizu by his temple name and Taizong by his ruling title. A rubbing of the inscription (as re-engraved) dates it to 980. See Beijing tushuguan jinshizu, Beijing tushuguan cang Zhongguo lidai shike taben huibian, 37:60.
107 Xu qisheng ji, 25.245–50.
108 Xu qisheng ji, 25.245.
109 Hajime, Otagi, “Sō Taiso satsugai setsu to jōshintaiheikyū”, Shirin 67/2, 1984, 51–79Google Scholar; Davis, Edward, Society and the Supernatural in Song China (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2001), 67–74Google Scholar.
110 Xu qisheng ji, 25.246.
111 Xu qisheng ji, 28.269.
112 The identity of the protagonist Xu is unclear, but his son Xu Zongmeng does appear with the position of Retainer in Hefei 合淝 as the recipient of a work by Wang Yucheng (954–1001), an associate of Xu Xuan. See Wang Yucheng, Xiaochu ji (Guoxue jiben congshu), 20.288.
113 Xu qisheng ji, 29.284.
114 Xu qisheng ji, 27.268.
115 Dudbridge, A Portrait of Five Dynasties China, 1–8.