Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:15:50.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Recipe to Qubilai Qa’an on Governance: the Case of Chang Te-hui and Li Chih

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Hok-Lam Chan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been well established in modern scholarship that the Mongol successors to Chinggis Qan (1162–1227), who launched the campaign against the Chin state in 1213 that led to its extinction in 1234, were heavily indebted to the counsel and support of the Chinese grandees of Jurchen rule in their consolidation of north China. This passed through different stages, beginning with Ögödei Qa’an (r. 1229–41) and continued by Möngke (r. 1251–9), through trial and error amid factional strifes and political bickering among different Mongol rulers and their supporters and dissenters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 1997 , pp. 257 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A shorter version of this paper was read at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference held at Szeged, Hungary, June 16–21, 1996. Acknowledgement is due to the Chinese University of Hong Kong for awarding a conference grant.

References

1 For an overview of the Mongol rulers’ adoption of the Chinese methods of government from Ögödei through Möngke Qa’an, see, among others, Yao Ts’ung-wu, Yüan-ch’ao shih , in YTWHSCC, iv, chaps. 4, 5; Li Ts’e-fen , Yüan shih hsin-chiang (Taipei, 1978), i, chap. 3Google Scholar; Ch’a-ch’i-ssu-ch’in (Jagchid Sechin), Meng-ku shih lun-ts’ung (Taipei, 1980), i, pp. 217–32Google Scholar, and Ju-lin, Han , et al., Yüan-ch’ao shih (Peking, 1986), i, chap. 3Google Scholar. On Yeh-lü ch’u-ts’ai, see his biographies in KCMCSL, v, pp. 57–67 Google Scholar; YS, 146:3455–64Google Scholar. See also de Rachewiltz, Igor, “Yeh-lü Ch’ü-tsai (1189–1243): Buddhist idealist and Confucian statesman”, in Arthur Wright, F. and Twitchett, Denis D. eds, Confucian Personalities (Stanford, 1965), pp. 185–205 Google Scholar, and ISK, pp. 136–75. On Chang Jou, Yen Shih, and Shih T’ien-tse, see KCMCSL, vi, pp. 71–7, 75–9, vii, pp. 90–8Google Scholar; YS, 147:3471–6Google Scholar; 148:3505–7; 155:3657–63, and ISK, pp. 27–45, 60–74, 46–59 Google Scholar.

2 On Qubilai's rise to power and his pro-Chinese policies, see, among others, Ts’ung-wu, Yao, “Hu-pi-lieh tui-yü Han-hua t’ai-tu ti fen-hsi” , rpt. in TPSLT, ii, pp. 376–401 Google Scholar; K’e-k’uan, Sun , Yüan-tai Han wen-hua chih huo-t’ung (Taipei, 1968), pp. 155–72Google Scholar; Wm. Theodore de Bary, “The rise of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy in Yüan China”, in id., Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York, 1981), Pt. 1Google Scholar; Rossabi, Morris, Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times (Berkeley, 1988), chaps. 7, 8Google Scholar; Hsiao Ch’i-ch’ing . “Hu-pi-lieh ‘ch’ien-ti chiu-lü’ k’ao” , in id., Yüan-tai shih hsin-t’an (Taipei, 1983), pp. 263–301 Google Scholar; Chou Liang-hsiao , Hu-pi-lieh (Ch’ang-ch’un, 1986), chaps. 3–5, and the relevant Yuan biographies in ISK.

3 On the biographies of the monk Hai-yün, see Nien-ch’ang , Fo-tsu li-tai t’ung-tsai , in Taishō shinshū daizōkyō (Tokyo, 1924–1932 ed.) 21:701–2Google Scholar, and Hsing-t’ung , Hsü-teng chengt’ung , in Dai Nihon zokuzokyo (Tokyo, 1912 ed.) 8:293a. See also Yün-hua, Jan, “Chinese Buddhism in Ta-tu: the new situation and new problems”, in Chan, Hok-lam and Theodore de Bary, Wm., eds, Yuan Thought: Chinese Thought and Religion under the Mongols (New York, 1982), pp. 384–90Google Scholar, and ISK, pp. 224–42. For Liu Ping-chung's biographies, see KCMCSL, vii, pp. 87–9Google Scholar; YS, 157:3687–95Google Scholar. See also Chan, Hok-lam, “Liu Ping-chung (1216–74): A Buddhist-Taoist statesman at the court of Khubilai Khan”, T’oung Pao, LIII:1–3 (1967), pp. 98–146 Google Scholar; Yüan Chi , Ts’ang-ch’un san-jen Liu Ping-chung p’ing-shu (T’ai-wan Shangwu yin-shu kuan, 1974), and ISK, pp. 245–69.

4 See YS 157:3688–93Google Scholar; cf.Chan, , “Liu Ping-chung”, pp. 118–22Google Scholar; ISK, pp. 249–50Google Scholar.

5 On the reform proposals submitted by Yao Shu, Tou Mo, Hsü Heng, Hao Ching and others in their audience with Qubilai, see their biographies in KCMCSL, viii, pp. 121–4, 24–32, 132–45, xv, pp. 243–7Google Scholar; YS, 157:3698–9Google Scholar, 158:3711–12, 3718–26, 3731–2, and ISK, pp. 354–6, 390–1, 408–9, 423–5Google Scholar.

6 On the biographies of Chang Te-hui and Li Chih, see nn. 7, 22 below. For Yüan Hao-wen, see CS, 126:2742–3Google Scholar; see also Miao Yüeh “Yüan I-shan nien-p’u hui-tsuan” Kuo-feng (Nanking) 7, nos. 3, 5 (Oct., Dec., 1948). There are several modern studies of his life and work, see, among others, K’un, Hsü , Yüan I-shan yen-chiu (Taipei, 1974)Google Scholar; Wixted, J. Timothy, Poems and Poetry: Literary Criticisms by Yuan Hao-wen (1190–1257). (Wiesbaden, 1982)Google Scholar; Hao Shu-hou and Yang Kuoyung , Yüan Hao-wen chuan (T’ai-yüan, 1990), and Chiang Ta-jen , Yüan I-shan hsinlün (T’ai-yüan, 1988), On the gathering of the “Three Elders from Mt Feng-lung”, see note 22 below.

7 On Chang Te-hui's biographies, see KCMCSL, x, pp. 167–73Google Scholar; YS, 163:3823–6Google Scholar. For additional biographical information, see Te-i, Wang , et al., eds, Yüan-jen chuan-chi tzu-liao so-yin (Taipei, 1979), ii, pp. 1167–8Google Scholar; de Rachewiltz, Igor et al. , eds, Repertory of Proper Names in Yuan Literary Sources (Taipei, Materials Center, 1988), i, p. 131 Google Scholar. See also nn. 10, 14 below. On Chao Ping-wen, Lei Yuan and Po Hua, see CS, 110:2426–8, 2434–5Google Scholar; 114:2503–13. Yüan Hao-wen's letter to Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai is preserved in ISHSWC, 39:1a–3a. For a detailed study of this episode, see Yao, ‘Yüan Hao-wen kuei-ssu shang Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai shu ti li-shih i-i yü shu-chung wu-shih-ssu jen hsing-shih k’ao” . rpt. in YTWHSCC, vi, pp. 155–217 Google Scholar.

8 KCMCSL, x, p. 168 Google Scholar; YS, 163:3823 Google Scholar.

9 On Chang Wen-ch’ien and Li Te-hui, see KCMCSL, vii, pp. 115–20Google Scholar; xi, pp. 175–9; YS. 157:3695–8Google Scholar; 163:3815–19. For Kao Ming, see YS, 160:3758–9Google Scholar; on Li P’an, see YS, 126:3086 Google Scholar. The others mentioned here lack biographical information.

10 KCMCSL, x, pp. 167–73Google Scholar; YS. 163:3823–4Google Scholar; CCHSWC, 100:5b–9a. Wang Yün gives the title as “Chi-hsing” , and writes the author's name as Chang ts’an-i Yao-ch’ing . For an annotated text and bibliographical study, see Ts’ung-wu, Yao, “Chang Te-hui Ling-pei chi-hsing chu-pen chiaochu” , rpt. in YTWHSCC, vii, pp. 85–374 Google Scholar

11 KCMCSL, x, pp. 168–9Google Scholar; YS, 163:3823–4Google Scholar.

The term hsing is customarily translated as “nature” in English but it reads better if it is rendered as “spirit” in this context. See Chan, Wing-tsit, tr., Neo-Confucian Terms Explained (The Pei-hsi tzu-i) by Ch’en Ch’un, 1159–1223 (New York, 1986), pp. 46–56 Google Scholar.

Ju is rendered here as “Confucian scholars” rather than “Confucianism” because the question refers to individuals, not to a system of thought or ideas. Cf.Tao, Jing-shen, Thejurchen in Twelfth-century China, a Study of Sinidzation (Seattle, 1976), pp. 93, 146, n. 27Google Scholar.

Chi-tsai, rendered here as “executive ministers”, refers to the senior officials in the Presidential Council (Shang-shu sheng ) with executive prerogatives. See CS, 55:1217–18Google Scholar. Cf. YTWHSCC, vii, p. 329, n. 63Google Scholar.

Wei Fan is mentioned in YS, 164:3856–7Google Scholar, the biography of his grand nephew, Wei Ch’u . He was one of the scores of leading Chin literati and grandees recommended by Yüan Hao-wen to Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai for government employment in 1233, shortly after the fall of the Chin Southern Capital, Pien (Kaifeng, Honan). See note 7 above.

12 KCMCSL, x, pp. 169–70Google Scholar; YS, 163:3824 Google Scholar.

According to the ancient rites, spring and autumn sacrifices were performed annually during the second and eighth lunar months at Confucius's temple. It is obvious that a temple in honour of Confucius was erected at Qara Qorum much earlier, but there is no specific information. The YS text shows that Qubilai was asking “why” rather than “where”, but here we follow the KCMCSL text as elucidated by Yao Ts’ung-wu. See YTWHSCC, vii, p. 334, nn. 75, 76Google Scholar.

This is a clear statement of Qubilai's support of the Confucian cult and the worship of the Sage, and it encouraged Chang Te-hui to return to Qara Qorum the following year with Yüan Hao-wen to present the Prince with the title “The Great Patriarch of Confucianism”. Cf. YTWHSCC, vii, p. 334, n. 77Google Scholar.

Quaqua-buqa was the second son of Bälgätai, a half brother of Chinggis Qan. He distinguished himself as a military commander in several decisive campaigns against the Chin and Sung in Hopei and Honon in 1232–7. See YS, 2:36 Google Scholar; 107:2714; 115:2887; 117:2906. Cf.Hambis, Louis, Le Chapitre CVII du Yuan Che (T’oung Pao, Supplément au vol. XXXVIII) (Leiden, 1948), p. 48, n. 2Google Scholar; YTWHSCC, vii, p. 334, n. 79Google Scholar.

Sigi Qutuqu was a prominent civil administrator and grand judge under Ögödei and Möngke Qa’an. He was credited with implementing Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai's administrative and fiscal reforms, but was also criticized for utilizing oppressive measures to achieve his ends. See The Secret History of the Mongols, §135, 138, 202, 203, tr. by de Rachewiltz, Igor, in Papers in Far Eastern History, X (09. 1974), pp. 60–2, 75–7Google Scholar; XXI (Mar. 1980), pp. 28–32; 47–50; YS, 146:3459–61Google Scholar, and other Chinese and Persian sources. For details, see Yao, “Hei-ta shih-lüeh chung so shuo Wo-k’uo-t’ai han shih-tai Hu ch’eng-hsiang shih-chi k’ao” , rpt in TPSLT, ii, pp. 339–63Google Scholar, and IKS, pp. 75–94.

13 Cf. YTWHSCC, vii, p. 33, n. 65Google Scholar.

14 On Qubilai's patronage of the Confucian cult and the repercussions to his administration, see Yao, “Yüan Shihtsu ch’ung-hsing K’ung-hsueh ti ch’eng-kung yü so tsao-yü ti k’un-nan” rpt. in YTWHSCC, vi, pp. 417–48Google Scholar. See also de Bary, “The rise of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy in Yüan China”, passim.

15 Other late Chin scholars, such as Liu Ch’i (1203–50) and Wang E, also attributed the demise of the Chin state to the Jurchen rulers’ failure to utilize the Chinese literati and assimilate the Han culture. See Liu Ch’i , Kuei-ch’ien chih (Chin-pu-tsu chai ts’ung-shu ed., 1921) 12:6a–8a; Wang E, Ju-nan i-shih (Chi-ju ts’ung-shu ed., 1879) 4:9a–12a. Cf.Chan, Hok-lam, The Historiography of the Chin Dynasty (1115–1234): Three Studies (Wiesbaden, 1970), pp. 157–63Google Scholar; FJC, pp. 113–19.

16 KCMCSL, x, pp. 169–70Google Scholar; YS, 163:3824–5Google Scholar. According to the three poems Yüan Hao-wen wrote for Chang Te-hui, Chang had consulted Yüan about Qubilai's invitation before the start of the journey to Qara Qorum. See ISHSWC, 14:3b–4a. It is natural, therefore, that Chang took Yüan along on the return visit to Qubilai presenting the Prince with the honorific as patron of Confucianism. See Yao, , “Chin Yüan chih chi Yüan Hao-wen tui-yü pao-ch’üan chung-yiian chuan-t’ung wen-hua ti kung-hsien” , rpt. in YTWHSCC, vi, pp. 234–43Google Scholar. For an account of Chang Te-hui's renovation of the temple-school in Chen-ting Prefecture, see ISHSWC, 32:1a–4a.

17 KCMCSL, x, pp. 170–1Google Scholar; YS, 163:3825 Google Scholar. Chang Te-hui's appearance at the “branch” Central Secretariat in K’ai-p’ing fu between May and August 1261 is mentioned in Wang Yün's reminiscences “Chung-t’ang shihch’ing” . His appointment as adviser of the “branch” Central Secretariat is reported on the date ping-shen of the seventh moon. See CCHSWC, 81:3a, 13b, 18b; 82:7b (the latter mentions the appointment).

18 KCMCSL, x, pp. 171–2Google Scholar; YS, 163:3825 Google Scholar.

19 KCMCSL, x, pp. 172–3Google Scholar; YS, 163:3826 Google Scholar. This time Chang Te-hui's appointment was an adviser of the Central Secretariat established in the capital Ta-tu, which differed from the “branch” Central Secretariat located in K’ai-p’ing fu.

20 KCMCSL, x, pp. 172 Google Scholar; YS, 163:3826 Google Scholar. Of these individuals, only Chang Fang, Wang Yün, Hu Chih-yü, Li Ch’ien, and Wei Ch’u have biographies in the YS. See YS, 170:3997–4000 Google Scholar; 167:3932–5; 170:3992–3; 160:3767–8; 164:3856–8. For the biographical information of other individuals, see YTWHSCC, vii, p. 345, n. 104Google Scholar.

21 KCMCSL, x, pp. 168 Google Scholar; YS, 163:3826 Google Scholar. Wang Yün had written an eulogy detailing his life, see CCHSWC, 41:15a–15b.

22 For Li Chih's biographies, see KCMCSL, xiii, pp. 214–18Google Scholar; YS, 160:3759–61Google Scholar. See also Li Chih, Ching-chai ku-chin t’ou (Ou-hsiang ling-shih ed., 1912), fu-lu ; ISK, pp. 316–35Google Scholar. An account of the family history is provided by Yüan Hao-wen in the tomb epitaph of Li's father Li Yü in ISHSWC, 17:12b–17b. For additional biographical information, see Wang, , Yüan-jen chuan-chi tzu-liao so-yin, i, pp. 464–5Google Scholar; de Rachewiltz, , Repertory of Proper Names in Yüan Literary Sources, i, 1133, 1220 Google Scholar. An important study of his life and career is Yao, “Yüan-ch’u Feng-lung shan san-lao chih i Li Chih yü kuan-yü t’a ti jo-kan wen-t’i” , rpt. in YTWHSCC, vii, pp. 87–131 Google Scholar. For other studies on his life and scholarship, see nn. 24, 38 below.

23 For Li Yü's biography, see note 22. See also Yüan Hao-wen, Chung-chou chi (Ssu-pu ts’ung-k’an ed.), 5:13b–14a; Liu Ch’i, Kuei-ch’ien chih, 4:10b Google Scholar.

24 See Pao-tsung, Ch’ien, Chung-kuo su-hsüeh shih (Peking, 1964), pp. 168–79Google Scholar; Yüeh, Miao, “Li Chih Li Yeh shih-i”, Tung-fang tsa-chih XXXIX:16 (10 1943), pp. 41–2Google Scholar; Shut’ao, Ch’en, “Li Chih Li Yeh pien”, Shih-hsüeh yeh-l’an , III (04 1937), pp. 155–64Google Scholar; YTWHSCC, vii, pp. 114, 117, 118–30Google Scholar.

25 ISHSWC, 17:14a–14b. On Ho-shih-lieh Chi-chung (Hu-sha-hu), see CS, 132:2832–9Google Scholar.

26 ISHSWC, 17:14b–15a. On Ho-shih-lieh's slaying of the Chin emperor Prince Wei-shao and the installation of Hsüan-tsung, see CS, 13:296–7Google Scholar; 132:2835–6. For the biographies of Li Hsien-neng, Li Fen, Chi Yü-hsi, Wang T’ing-yün and Li Ch’un-fu, see CS, 126:736–7, 2741 Google Scholar; Yüan, Chung-chou chi, 6:27b–28a; CS, 126:2730–2, 2734–5Google Scholar.

27 KCMCSL, xiii, p. 214 Google Scholar; YS, 160:3759 Google Scholar. For Yang Yün-i's biography, see CS, 110:2421–5Google Scholar. Li Ch’un-fu's poem praising Li Chih's literary talent is cited in Yüan, Chung-chou chi, 5:14a; Liu, , Kuei-ch’ien chih, 4:10b Google Scholar.

28 On this episode, see note 7 above.

29 KCMCSL, xiii, p. 217 Google Scholar; YS, 160:3760 Google Scholar.

30 Ibid. On Chang Te-hui's recommendation of Li Chih to Qubilai, see note 12 above. For an evaluation of the Ts’e-yüan hai-ching (hsi-ts’ao), see note 38 below.

31 KCMCSL, xiii, pp. 215–16Google Scholar; YS, 160:3759–60Google Scholar. For an analysis of the record, see YTWHSCC, vii, pp. 99–107 Google Scholar; ISK, pp. 320–2.

32 Wan-yen Chung-te, a ts’e-lun chin-shih graduate, was a distinguished scholar-official of the late Chin court of Emperor Ai-tsung. As the right executive of the Presidential Council and vice military affairs commissioner, he was the architect of the defence of the last capital at Ts’ai-chou against the Mongol invasion in January 1234. He committed suicide at the fall of the city. For his biography, see CS, 123:1224 Google Scholar, based on Wang E's Ju-nan i-shih. Cf. FJC, Index, p. 179.

A ts’e-lun chin-shih is a graduate of the special chin-shih degree examinations established for the Jurchen clansmen in 1173 under Emperor Shih-tsung. Its requirement was submission of a 500 character ts’e-lun, an essay written in Chinese in response to a certain question on state affairs. See CS, 51:1140 Google Scholar.

Wan-yen Ho-ta, a Jurchen general known for his knowledge of the enemy and familiarity with stratagem, was entrusted by Ai-tsung in defending Honan against the Mongol invasion in January, 1232. He lost the battle guarding Chün-chou and died in the mêlée. For his biography, see CS, 112:2463–70Google Scholar.

I-la P’u-a, a Jurchen general of Khitan origin, was Wan-yen Ho-ta's deputy when they were charged with defending Chün-chou against the Mongol invasion in early 1232. He was brave but lacked leadership and lost the cause. He was captured by the enemy and was executed later. For his biography, see CS, 112: 2470–4Google Scholar.

Ai-tsung, the last Chin emperor, committed suicide at the fall of the last capital Ts’ai-chou in January 1234. See CS, 18:403 Google Scholar; FJC, pp. 113ff.

Wei Cheng, an erudite scholar and campaigner from Northern Ch’i, served the T’ang emperors Kaotsu (r.618–26) and T’ai-tsung (r.627–49) as confidant and military strategist; he was later admitted to the Council of State and ennobled as Marquis. He was acclaimed as a loyal and dedicated adviser and an ingenious and exemplary official. For his biographies, see Hsü, Liu , et al., eds, Chiu T’ang shu (Peking, 1975), 71:2545–63Google Scholar; Hsiu, Ou-yang , Hsin T’ang-shu (Peking, 1975), 97:3867–81Google Scholar. For modem studies, see Wechsler, Howard J., Mirror to the Son of Heaven: Wei Cheng at the Court of T’ang T’ai-tsung (New Haven, 1974)Google Scholar, and Chien-luo, Shen , ed., Lun Wei Cheng (Peking, 1994)Google Scholar.

Ts’ao Pin was a general of aristocratic origin from the Later Chou. He entered the service of the Sung and was despatched by the founding emperor, T’ai-tsu, to lead a pacification campaign against the kingdom of Southern T’ang. He had a rather mediocre military record, but was remembered for his humane and magnanimous treatment of the enemy and the surrendered population. It is alleged that he had not killed a single innocent individual! See T’o-t’o, et al. , eds, Sung shih (Peking, 1977), 258:8977–83Google Scholar. For a modem reappraisal, see Ch’i-fan, Chang , “Yung-chiang fu sheng-ming – lüeh-lun Ts’ao Pin” , in Kuang-ming, Teng . et al., eds, Sung-shih yen-chiu lun-wen chi (Chekiang, 1987), pp. 507–27Google Scholar. See also Li-yen, Liu ‘Sung ch’u i-k’uo wu-chiang chia-tsu ti hsing-ch’i – Chen-ting Ts’ao-shih’’ in Chung-kuo chin-shih she-hui wen-hua shih lun-wen chi , ed. Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Taipei, 1992), pp. 40–50 Google Scholar.

Fang-shu was a virtuous minister in the service of King Hsüan of the Chou Kingdom; he was remembered for his pacification campaign against the “barbarians” of the Ching region. See Shih-ching chu-shu . annotated by Cheng Hsüan , commentary by K’ung Ying-ta (1915 ed.), 10 (Hsiao Ya ) /2:8b–13a. Shao-fu was the grandson of the Duke of Shao of the Chou kingdom. He was remembered for leading his clansmen to chastise the tyrannical King Li , and for his pacification campaign against the “barbarians” in the Huai region. See Shih-ching chu-shu, 18 (Ta Ya ) /4:12b–19a.

Han refers to Han Hsin (?–196 B.C.), Wei to Wei Ch’ing (?–106 B.C.), and Huo to Huo Ch’uping (140–117 B.C.) of the Former Han. According to YTWHSCC, vii, p. 103 Google Scholar, the character Po in the existing editions should be a scribal error for P’eng , referring to P’eng Yüeh , since he was grouped together with Han Hsin in the Han-shu biographies. Han Hsin was a bravo from the Ch’u state who later joined the cause of Liu Pang (Han Kao-tsu , r. 202–195 B.C.) and played an important role in the defeat of Hsiang Yü in the dynastic founding. He was distinguished in civil administration and military contribution, but was executed by Kao-tsu on a trumped-up charge of treason because of jealousy. See Ku, Pan , Han-shu (Peking, 1962), 34:1861 Google Scholar. P’eng Yüeh (?p–196 B.C.?) was a warrior who entered Liu Pang's service and scored a major victory in the decisive battle against Hsiang Yü. A close associate of Han Hsin, he too came under suspicion by Kao-tsu because of his military distinction and was executed on the trumped-up charge of plotting rebellion. See Han-shu, 34:1478–80Google Scholar. Wei Ching, a brother of Empress Wei of the Han Emperor Wu (r.140–87 B.C.), was a distinguished general. He was in command of several victorious campaigns against the Hsiung-nu in the western region and was ennobled as Marquis. Huo Ch’u-ping was the son of Empress Wei's/Wei Ch’ing's sister and entered military service at an early age. He too was a distinguished general in campaigns against the Hsiung-nu for establishing Chinese control in the western region. For their biographies, see Han-shu, 55:2471–7, 2477–90Google Scholar.

For the biographies of Wang E, see KCMCSL, xii, pp. 195–8Google Scholar; YS, 160:3756–7Google Scholar. See also FJC, Pt. One; ISK, pp. 300–15Google Scholar. On Li Hsien-ch’ing, see ISHSWC, 25:1a. On Chao Fu, see YS, 189:4313–15Google Scholar. On Wang Po-wen, see Hsi Shih-ch’en , Yüanshih hsüan , kuei chi (Shao-yehshan-fang ed., 1888), ping , 5b.

33 See note 32 (d). The official Chin history stressed their unswerving loyalty and dedication and overlooked their military leadership which caused the loss of Chün-chou to the Mongol invasion. The Yüan historians accepted this verdict and Li Chih's criticism, which laid blame not only on the two leaders but also on the emperor who gave them the command, is thus particularly valuable.

34 In the opinion of modern scholars, Ts’ao Pin was historicized as a humane and magnanimous general by Sung historians, citing the example of his generous treatment of the defeated population in the pacification of the kingdom of Southern T’ang. In effect, he only followed Sung T’ai-tsung's orders to convert the subjects to the Sung cause and his record of military leadership was rather dismal. See note 32 (g).

35 On the significance of Li Chih's remarks on the Uighurs, see YTWHSCC, vii, p. 104 Google Scholar. For the role of the Uighurs in Mongol-Yüan political development and fiscal administration, see Allen, Thomas T., “The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th century”, in Rossabi, Morris, ed., China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and its Neighbors, 10th–13th centuries (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 243–80Google Scholar, and Chih-chiu, Yang , Yüan shih san-lun (Peking, 1985), pp. 245–82Google Scholar.

36 The significance of Li Chih's comment on “law” in this context is noted in Langlois, John D. Jr, “Law, statecraft, and the Spring and Autumn Annals in Yüan political thought”, in Chan, and de Bary, (eds), Yüan Thought, p. 104 Google Scholar.

37 Cf. YTWHSCC, vii, pp. 105–6Google Scholar.

38 For an evaluation of these mathematical works, see Vanhée, Louis, “Li-Ye: mathematicien chinois du XIIIc siècle”, T’oung Pao, XIV (1913), pp. 537–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yen, Li , Chung suan shih lun-ts’ung (Peking, 1955), iv, pp. 32–237 Google Scholar; Pao-tsung, Ch’ien, Chung-kuo su-hsüeh shih (Peking, 1964), pp. 168–79Google Scholar; Jung-chao, Mei , “Li Yeh chi ch’i su-hsüeh chü-tso” , rpt. in Sung Yüan su-hsüeh shih lun-wen-chi , ed. Pao-tsung, Ch’ien et al. , (Peking, 1966), pp. 104–43Google Scholar; Needham, Joseph et al. , Science and Civilization in China iii (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 40–1, 44–5Google Scholar; ISK, pp. 323–35, and others.

39 On Shang T’ing's memorial to Qubilai for the compilation of the national history and the records of the Liao and Chin states, see YS, 159:3740 Google Scholar. See also Chan, Hok-lam, “Chinese official historiography at the Yüan court: the composition of the Liao, Chin, and Sung histories”, in Langlois, John D. Jr, ed., China under Mongol Rule (Princeton, 1981), p. 65, pp. 35, n. 59Google Scholar. For Hsü shih-lung's biographies, see KCMCSL, xii, pp. 206–10Google Scholar; YS, 160:3768–70Google Scholar.

40 KCMCSL, xiii, pp. 214, 216, 217 Google Scholar; YS, 160:3760–1Google Scholar. For a critical résumé of the Ching-chai ku-chin t’ou, see Ou-hsiang ling-shih ed. (1902), Appendix.

41 On this development in Qubilai's reign and its implication for Mongol rule in China, see note 14 above, and also note 43 below.

42 It is significant that several of Qubilai's Chinese advisers had remonstrated against indiscriminate killing in the Mongol campaigns against the Sung and the Ta-li kingdom in southwest China prior to his enthronement, and a few, such as Liu Ping-chung, Li Chih, Yao Shu, and Hsü shih-lung, cited the historicized precedent of Ts’ao Pin. See YS, 157:3693 Google Scholar; 160:3713, 3759, 3769; Hsiao, , Yüan-tai shih hsin-t’an, pp. 290–1Google Scholar. See also ISK, pp. 320, 392, 400. In 1274, when Qubilai directed General Bayan to lead the campaign against Lin-an for the conquest of Southern Sung, he allegedly quoted the story of Ts’ao Pin to admonish Bayan to avoid indiscriminate massacre during the campaign. See YS, 127:3100 Google Scholar, and ISK, pp. 589, 605, 600.

43 For an assessment of Qubilai's pro-Chinese policy during his reign, see, among others, Yao, , TPSLT, ii, 394–401 Google Scholar; Hsiao, , Yüan-tai shih hsin-t’an, pp. 285–95Google Scholar; Chan, , “Liu Ping-chung”, pp. 143–6Google Scholar. Rossabi, Khubilai Khan, chaps. 7, 8; Ch’a-ch’i-ssu-ch’in, , Meng-ku shih lun-ts’ung, i, pp. 226–32Google Scholar; Chou, Hu-pi-lieh, chaps, 10, 11.

44 For an instructive account of Qubilai's emulation of T’ang T’ai-tsung and its effect on politics and historiography of the Yüan dynasty, see Wataru, Yanai , “Gen Se-so to To Tai-so” Google Scholar, rpt. in id., Mōkoshi kenkyū (Tokyo, 1930), pp. 987–95. On the Chin rulers’ emulation of T’ang T’ai-tsung which set the precedent for Qubilai, see Franke, Herbert, “Wang Yün (1227–1304): a transmitter of Chinese values”, in Chan, and de Bary, (eds), Yüan Thought, pp. 177–82Google Scholar. This subject deserves further study.